Ok

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

jeudi, 16 novembre 2017

Carnets d’outre-Rhin: l’Allemagne jamaïque entre coalitions, fusions et adoptions

AMJ3-T.jpg

Carnets d’outre-Rhin: l’Allemagne jamaïque entre coalitions, fusions et adoptions

Olivier Tisier
Correspondant de Métamag et Méridien Zéro en Allemagne

Ex: https://metamag.fr

L’automne splendide de Berlin a cette année les couleurs d’une coalition jamaïque, qualificatif ironique que l’on a donné aux prémisses de l’accord entre les différents partis de la future coalition qui gouvernera l’Allemagne. La CDU/CSU, le FDP et les Grûnen se sont rencontrés pour discuter de la constitution du prochain gouvernement. A la fin de la réunion, chacun des représentants à montré un visage enthousiaste et s’est félicité d’une atmosphère cordiale propice à la recherche de solution. Chacun éspérant naturellement figuré prochaînement à la tête du ministère de son choix.

« Entre l’Allemagne et la Jamaïque il y a environ 8500 km, je pense que nous avons fait les premiers pas, les premiers kilomètres du chemin », a déclaré le secrétaire générale du parti libéral FDP Nicola Beer. D’après lui, les chances que l’on obtienne une coalition jamaïque sont de 50-50. Il y a bien sûr dans ses propos, l’idée de vendre chèrement sa participation et d’annoncer qu’il ne s’alliera pas avant d’avoir obtenu ce qu’il recherche. Le secrétaire général de la CDU Peter Tauber parle lui d’un premier échange constructif. Le but final étant de former un bon gouvernement pour l’Allemagne, de ses propres mots. Et pour cela il faut une compréhension réciproque de chacun. Voila bien l’art de faire passer le marchandage d’influence pour une quête d’unité.

AMJ-1bis.jpeg

Pour la CSU, représenté par Andreas Scheuer le bilan est tout autant positif.

L’échange fût intéressant. Mais il admet que la coopération entre la CSU bavaroise et les verts sera difficile a construire. Il est vrai qu’on aurai du mal chez nous à imaginer l’ancienne droite populaire de PACA travailler de concert avec les Verts. Avec par exemple Eric Ciotti assis en conseil des ministres à côté de Cécile Duflot… Le dernier blade runner semble encore plus réaliste. Le FDP et les verts vont encore se rencontrer pour discuter de la possibilité de travailler ensemble. Enfin ils vont surtout aligner leurs prétentions face à la CDU pour ne pas se marcher sur les pieds. C’est vraiment le grand regga entre les 4 partis.

Le Schleswig-Holstein pour servir d’exemple

C’est la région la plus au nord de l’Allemagne à la frontière avec le Danemark. Elle est bien connue des amoureux de la révolution conservatrice allemande pour ses révoltes paysannes contre la banque pendant les années 20. Dans ce Land existe déja une coalition jamaïque. Aussi la chef des Grünen (les Verts) à l’assemblée du Land à incité ses partenaires au respect dans les échanges. Chacun doit, selon elle, s’entendre et prendre en considération le point de vue de l’autre même s’il est en contradiction avec le sien. On se croirait retourner à l’école. Le président du Land a lui même déclaré au Frankfurter Rundschau que la constellation de partis autrefois très antagonistes pouvaient tout à fait cohabiter dans le cadre d’une coalition. Après tout, c’est vrai, tant que tout le monde mange comme disait Mitterrand… Notons toutefois que le land à une position plus favorable encore aux réfugiés que la CDU puisqu’ils ont réduit le délai permettant le regroupement familial.

Seul, le SPD enfin, grand absent de cette coalition à plaider pour un nouveau vote au lieu de l’instauration de cette coalition jamaïquaine élargie qu’il accepte cependant en Basse-Saxe où il a remporté les dernières élections en raison du charisme du dirigeant local du parti.

AMJ2.jpg

La fusion Alstom / Siemens : un rachat déguisé

Si ce qui nous est présenté comme un mariage va bien accoucher du numéro 2 mondial de la construction ferroviaire, l’avenir d’Alstom et de ses salariés est désormais bien incertain. C’était pourtant plus que prévisible car le rachat de la branche énergie par General Electric avait déjà bien affaibli l’entreprise, ne lui permettant plus d’avoir la fameuse taille critique au niveau mondial. Aussi un rachat par un concurrent était à terme inévitable.

Si l’on nous présente la future joint venture comme un airbus du train, il est surtout en réalité la vente par Emmanuel Macron d’un joyaux français à la Reich chancelière Merkel. C’est d’ailleurs clair à qui veut voir la réalité en face, puisque Siemens détiendra de peu, mais quand même la majorité des parts du nouveau groupe. Ajoutons aussi que l’état français va aussi baisser sa participation de 20 à 7,5% et n’aura en conséquence plus de représentant au conseil d’entreprise dominé par Siemens. Si l’existence de l’ogre chinois CRRC est une réalité, il a dans les faits plus servi de prétexte car le marché européen lui est encore relativement peu accessible. Ce rapprochement est aussi propre à susciter des inquiétudes légitimes au niveau de l’emploi dans l’hexagone mais aussi en Allemagne. Que vont devenir les 8000 salariés d’Alstom en France ? Pour seules garanties, il est annoncé que le siège restera en France et le niveau d’emploi sera maintenu pendant les 4 prochaines années or 4 ans ne correspondent qu’à la durée de 2 appels d’offres gagnés. Aussi il est là aussi inévitable qu’au delà des 4 ans, les effectifs soient diminués en France de 10 à 20%.

AMJ-4.jpg

Enfin terminons ces carnets d’Outre-Rhin par une information sur l’évolution de la société allemande

En effet un couple homosexuel berlinois vient de se voir autoriser à adopter un enfant. C’est la première fois qu’un couple gay adopte en Allemagne. Cela fait suite à l’entrée en vigueur de la loi sur le mariage pour tous. Ainsi le juge pour la famille de Tempelhof-Kreutzberg en a accepté la validité. Michael et Kai ont le 2 Octobre 2017 enregistré leur vie commune auprès de l’administration du quartier de Marzahn. Les 2 hommes avaient déposé une demande devant la cour constitutionnelle pour obtenir l’adoption de l’enfant. « Nous sommes à présent très contents d’avoir pu obtenir cette reconnaissance » a déclaré Michael au Tagesspiegel. La loi sur le mariage pour tous est effective en Allemagne depuis le premier octobre, les homosexuels et les lesbiennes ont donc à présent les mêmes droits en Allemagne que les couples hétérosexuels. Et l’adoption en fait partie.

mercredi, 08 novembre 2017

»Im Innersten des bundesdeutschen Elends«

thorofon.jpg

»Im Innersten des bundesdeutschen Elends«

von Nils Wegner

Ex: http://www.sezession.de

Mit "Die entfesselte Freiheit" fordert Thor v. Waldstein nach "Metapolitik" erneut realpolitisches Denken und Handeln ein – wir sprachen über das Buch!

Sezession: Sehr geehrter Herr Dr. Dr. v. Waldstein, Ihr Sammelband Die entfesselte Freiheit ist ausweislich des Untertitels »wider die liberalistische Lagevergessenheit« gerichtet.

Die Berufung auf »die Lage« als Fundament politischen Denkens und Handelns findet sich bei Gottfried Benn, findet sich auch in der Arbeit des Politologen Hans-Joachim Arndt, der sich um eine Rückbesinnung der Deutschen auf ihre Eigeninteressen bemühte und dem Sie ein Porträt gewidmet haben, schlußendlich findet er sich ausdrücklich in Ihrem kaplaken-Band Metapolitik.

Worin unterscheidet sich diese »politische Lageanalyse« vom Pragmatismus, der Handeln und Ziele je nach Tagesform wechselt, um das Risiko eines Mißerfolgs zu minimieren?

v. Waldstein: Die Deutschen werden in der Sphäre des Politischen nur bestehen können, wenn es ihnen gelingt, ihre vielfach beschädigte Identität als Volk zurückzugewinnen.

Eine politische Lageanalyse, die nicht nur an den Symptomen herumdoktert, sondern Roß und Reiter benennen will, wird nicht umhin kommen, sich mit den tieferliegenden Ursachen der deutschen Tragimisere zu befassen. Umgekehrt kennzeichnet es die seit 1949 etablierten politischen Kräfte, daß sie das Wahlvolk ebenso planmäßig wie erfolgreich davon abgehalten haben, sich über die Lage der Nation im klaren zu werden.

Diese Verhältnisse scheinen aufgrund der historischen Umbrüche, deren Zeuge wir sind, derzeit ins Rutschen zu geraten, was man nur begrüßen kann. Gleichwohl stehen wir erst am Anfang einer ehrlichen Diagnose.

Wie es im Innersten des mit konsumistischem Flittergold nur mühsam bedeckten, bundesdeutschen Elends tatsächlich aussieht, entzieht sich nach wie vor dem Vorstellungsvermögen der meisten Akteure, leider auch vieler widerständiger Kräfte. Für diese nun anstehenden, wenig erbaulichen, aber unumgänglichen Detailanalysen versucht mein Buch einen ersten Orientierungsrahmen zu geben.

Daß in der Tagespolitik pragmatische Schachzüge vonnöten sein können, die entsprechend den wechselnden Gegebenheiten der Situation variieren (müssen), ist unstreitig. Über „die Kunst, aus Gelegenheiten Ereignisse zu machen“ (Politikdefinition von Helmuth Plessner), verfügt aber nur derjenige, der genau weiß, wohin er will.

Es gehört zu dem Schicksal Deutschlands, daß seit dem Abgang Bismarcks – mit wenigen Ausnahmen – Politiker die Szene bestimmen, denen solche Ziele fehlen, an denen sich der vorzitierte Pragmatismus ausrichten könnte.

Wer diese Dinge permanent durcheinander bringt, endet in dem Muddling-Through, von dem der BRD-Politikbetrieb, dem Treiben in einem Hühnerstall nicht unähnlich, unverändert gekennzeichnet ist.

Sezession: Die Lage der Parteipolitik hat sich in Deutschland mit der Wahl am 24. September von Grund auf geändert. Nicht nur haben wir jetzt das größte Parlament in der Nachkriegsgeschichte; mit der AfD hat auch eine neue, gerade einmal viereinhalb Jahre alte Partei das bundespolitische Parkett betreten, die ausdrücklich mit dem Anspruch angetreten ist, das Establishment durcheinanderzuwirbeln.

Nun haben Sie im Laufe Ihrer eigenen metapolitischen Arbeit viele neue, dissidente Parteien kommen und gehen sehen – wie schätzen Sie die neue Situation ein? Kann diese Partei ebenfalls ihr Scherflein zu einer Abkehr von der »liberalistischen Lagevergessenheit« beitragen?

angela-merkel-444-beweise-deutschland-ist-ihr-sch-egal.jpg

v. Waldstein: Die politischen Parteien, zu deren gesetzlichen Aufgaben es u.a. gehören würde, „für eine ständige lebendige Verbindung zwischen dem Volk und den Staatsorganen (zu) sorgen“ (§ 1 Abs. 2 Parteiengesetz), sind in den bleierner Jahrzehnten der BRD zu monolithischen Machtblöcken geronnen, die sich systematisch gegen frischen Wind von außen abgeschirmt haben und die es seit langem gewohnt sind, untereinander die Beute zu teilen.

Die Repräsentanten dieser Parteien sind nicht selten geprägt von Persönlichkeitsdeformationen und sonstigen oligarchischen Abschleifeffekten, die den schönen Charakterzügen des Menschengeschlechts eher abträglich sind.

Das Spinnen von Intrigen, das Ausleben von Geltungssucht und die Pflege der sattsamen Seilschaften bestimmen viel mehr den Politikeralltag als alles andere. Im Lichte dieser strukturellen Verkrustung und personellen Negativauslese ist das Bild einer „flüssigen Demokratie“, die durch einen (teilweisen) politischen Ölwechsel von innen heraus gereinigt werden könnte, wenig realitätsbezogen.

Die Leute, die solch‘ rührende Gemeinschaftskundelyrik unter’s Volk bringen, haben von den filigranen Machtstrukturen in der BRD keine Ahnung. Wie alle alteingesessenen Eliten wird sich auch das hiesige Amalgam aus strippenziehenden Politikern und machtverliebten Journalisten mit allen zu Gebote stehenden Mitteln der eigenen Verabschiedung entgegenstemmen.

Manches spricht indes für den erfreulichen Befund, daß diese Beharrungskräfte eines obszönen selbstreferentiellen Systems angesichts der schon beschriebenen historischen Umbruchsituation mehr und mehr schwinden.

In dieser Lage ist es m.E. nicht Aufgabe der AfD, ein abgewirtschaftetes und deutsche Interessen mit Füßen tretendes Parteiensystem zu erneuern; vornehmstes Ziel sollte es stattdessen sein, auf der Basis einer stolzen zweihundertjährigen deutschen Demokratietradition erst wieder die Voraussetzungen für eine echte Volksherrschaft auf deutschem Boden zu schaffen.

Die – im Vergleich zur FPÖ, die hoffentlich aus ihren Fehlern von 1999 gelernt hat – beneidenswerte Lage der AfD als Oppositionspartei erlaubt einen beinharten Konfrontationskurs gegen diejenigen, die danach trachten, den Ausverkauf Deutschlands auch nach der Bundestagswahl 2017 fortzusetzen.

Getreu dem römischen Motto fortiter in re, suaviter in modo (Bestimmt in der Sache, umgänglich im Ton) müssen die Überlebensfragen der deutschen Nation wieder und wieder in das Zentrum der politischen Debatte gelenkt werden. Will die AfD das Schicksal von DRP, NPD, Republikanern, Schill-Partei, Bund freier Bürger usw. usf. vermeiden, muß die Partei unbedingt ihren Glutkern bewahren.

Zu keinem Zeitpunkt dürfen die AfD-Mandatare vergessen, wer sie warum gewählt hat. Das schließt die weitere Verpflichtung ein, sich von den Verlockungen auf eine harmonieselige und finanziell schmackhaft gemachte „Teilhabe“ an den Trögen der Macht konsequent fernzuhalten.

schafe-410.jpg

Das ist und bleibt die Gretchen-Frage des politischen Dienstes an einem Volk, an dessen „grauenhafter Anpassungsfähigkeit“ (Ernst Kantorowicz) und lebensgefährlicher Konsenssehnsucht man gelegentlich verzweifeln könnte. Ist diese Gefahr eines parteipolitischen Wärmetods gebannt und scheut man sich auch nicht, da, wo nötig, mit der erforderlichen Unversöhnlichkeit dem ancien regime gegenüberzutreten, laufen die Dinge fast automatisch auf einen weiteren, womöglich sogar stürmischeren Stimmenzuwachs für die Partei zu.

Nachdem die AfD mit dem Lucke-Abtritt 2015 und der Petry-Selbstdemontage 2017 zwei wichtige positive Häutungen vollzogen hat, sollte jetzt die Zeit gekommen sein, auf den neugewonnenen parlamentarischen Bühnen den Deutschlandabschaffern auf allen Feldern in die Parade zu fahren.

Sezession: Sie widmen sowohl dem bereits genannten Hans-Joachim Arndt als auch dem Philosophen Bernard Willms, der einer Ihrer beiden Doktorväter war, jeweils ein Porträt.

Nimmt man noch den Erlanger Historiker Hellmut Diwald hinzu, so lassen sich diese Wissenschaftler als das Dreigestirn einer Ende der 1970er aufkeimenden und in den 1980ern für Furore sorgenden nationalen deutschen Geisteswissenschaft bezeichnen. Alle drei sind mittlerweile verstorben; an den Universitäten scheint niemand ihr Erbe angetreten zu haben.

Wie schätzen Sie – vom metapolitischen Standpunkt aus – den Stellenwert und die Chancen einer Renationalisierung der Academia ein? Kann von dort nochmals ein prägender Einfluß auf die Gesellschaft ausgehen, wie dies vor fünfzig Jahren der Fall war? Oder ist der universitäre Betrieb inzwischen selbst ganz den Marktgesetzen unterworfen?

v. Waldstein: Das nationale Renouveau Ende der 1970er Jahre war ein zartes Pflänzchen, das schon damals nur zum Teil auf universitärem Humus aufkeimte. Den von Ihnen genannten drei Personen würde ich gerne noch die Namen Hans-Dietrich Sander und Heinrich Jordis von Lohausen zurechnen.

Von diesen fünf Männern hatte allein Arndt ein vollwertiges C4-Ordinariat (in Heidelberg). Willms und Diwald hatten wackelige, Sander und von Lohausen überhaupt keine universitären Wirkungsmöglichkeiten (mehr).

venohrDEKBd2296741435.jpgDennoch gelang es diesen Patrioten, im Verein mit mutigen Publizisten bemerkenswerte Schneisen in ein damaliges Meinungsklima zu schlagen, in dem die deutsche Teilung als „Garant des Friedens in Europa“ abgefeiert wurde. Ich erinnere nur an den großartigen, von Wolfgang Venohr 1982 herausgegebenen Band Die deutsche Einheit kommt bestimmt, der im Establishment für einige Unruhe sorgte.

Die Lage der deutschen Universität des Jahres 2017 ist eine ganz andere: Von deren Vorlesungssälen und/oder Campusfeldern geht alles aus, nur nicht eine „Renationalisierung“. Nicht erst seit der Bologna-Reform findet dort – insbesondere an den sozialwissenschaftlichen Fakultäten – ein geistiger Niedergang statt, der historisch ohne Beispiel ist.

Allenfalls 40 Prozent der Erstsemester sind überhaupt studierfähig. Anstatt von Humboldtschen Idealen ist die heutige deutsche Universität erfüllt von konformistischen Turnübungen, Denunziantentum und einem wirklich unfaßbaren Gender-Gaga.

Gegen die Vorteilsverlogenheit, die dort tagtäglich unter dem Banner der angeblichen Freiheit der Wissenschaft zelebriert wird, erscheint Heinrich Manns Untertan noch als wahrer Wutbürger. Abgerundet wird dieses Bild durch „Junior-Professoren“, die vor lauter Drittmitteljagd kaum mehr Zeit für wissenschaftliches Arbeiten haben.

Angesichts dieser Zustände kommen einem als Steuerzahler die Tränen; als Bürger überkommt einen die Wut über den Verrat an den geistigen Potentialen der deutschen Jugend. Nein, Herr Wegner, ich bedaure: ein „nationales 1968“ an den deutschen Hochschulen halte ich leider für gänzlich ausgeschlossen.

Die Lebenslügen der BRD werden in den kommenden Jahren nicht in einem universitären, auf Gleichschaltung dressierten Binnenklima verabschiedet werden, sondern auf Straßen, Plätzen und anderen Orten, an denen das freie Wort nach Deutschland zurückkehrt.

SezessionZwei längere Texte in Ihrem Buch scheinen in unmittelbarer Beziehung zueinander zu stehen: »Seit wann wird Deutschland BRDigt?« und »Deutsche Entscheidungen im asiatischen Jahrhundert«.

Beide arbeiten die spezifisch deutsche Lagevergessenheit trennscharf heraus, sowohl im innen-, geschichts- und kulturpolitischen Bereich wie auch vor allem auf geopolitischer Ebene; ein enorm wichtiges Themenfeld, dem sich vielleicht einzig hierzulande allerdings aus einer historisch konnotierten Büßermentalität verweigert wird.

Nun scheinen seit einigen Jahren nationale bis nationalistische und insbesondere antiglobalistische Bewegungen und Parteien in der ganzen westlichen Welt im Aufwind zu sein; insbesondere die Wahl Donald Trumps zum 45. US-Präsidenten vollzog sich unter beinahe schon isolationistischer Rhetorik, die der Neocon-Politik einer Weltbeglückung durch Democracy Absage um Absage erteilte.

Bislang hat sich die Lage als solche gleichwohl nicht spürbar verschoben – wie ist Ihre Meinung dazu, gerade im Angesicht weltwirtschaftlicher Szenarien wie der Aufzehrung fossiler Brennstoffe, die das ganze Globalisierungsgefüge zusammenbrechen lassen könnten?

Die klassische und vielbeschworene Mittellage Deutschlands in einem sich zunehmend polarisierenden Europa in Rechnung gestellt – wie sähe ein Mittelweg zwischen Amerika und Rußland aus? Oder geht es nicht ohne eine von beiden Mächten? Oder doch China?

v. Waldstein: Voraussagen über konkrete politische Entwicklungen sind schon in nationalstaatlichen Rahmen schwierig; auf internationaler Ebene halte ich sie für schlicht unmöglich.

Eine seriöse Politikbeobachtung muß sich daher darauf beschränken, wichtige Tendenzen und entstehende neue Machtpotentiale so früh wie möglich zu erfassen und zu beschreiben.

Perspectives-demographiques.jpg

Nach meiner Überzeugung wird das Schicksal Europas und Deutschlands bis zur Mitte des 21. Jahrhunderts u.a. von zwei Faktoren wesentlich bestimmt werden: Von dem (weiteren) explosionsartigen Anstieg der afrikanischen Bevölkerung, die derzeit täglich (!) netto um ca. 110 000 Menschen wächst (1900: 200 Mio.; 2000: 1,2 Mrd.; und nach vorsichtigen Schätzungen: 2050: 2,5 Mrd.; 2100: 5 Mrd. = Wachstum um das 25fache in 200 Jahren).

Und außerdem von dem (weiter) wachsenden globalen Machtanspruch Asiens, insbesondere Chinas, und der damit verbundenen, allmählichen Auflösung der pax americana.

Hinsichtlich des ersten Themas haben die Europäer die Wahl, sich nach der ungarischen Blaupause vollständig gegen die in Gang befindliche und von den Feinden der europäischen Völker befeuerte Invasion aus Afrika abzuschotten oder unterzugehen. Ein Mittelweg ist nicht denkbar.

Bei dem zweiten Thema brauchen Sie nur einen Blick auf das Südchinesische Meer werfen, um zu sehen, wie sich die Chinesen dort nach und nach ihren geopolitischen Vorhof zurückholen. Manches spricht dafür, daß sich in diesen Jahren die Völkerrechtliche Großraumordnung mit Interventionsverbot für raumfremde Mächte herausbildet, die Carl Schmitt schon in seiner gleichnamigen Schrift im April 1939 skizziert hatte.

Eine solche Aufteilung des Globus in vier oder fünf solcher Großräume würde auch auf der Ebene der politischen Inhalte neuen, kleinteiligeren Konzepten jenseits von One-World-Ideologien den Weg bahnen.

Für Deutschland böte eine solche Neuordnung die Chance, sich des alten geopolitischen Widerlagers im Osten zurückzuerinnern und zusammen mit den Russen eine europäische Politik zu rekonstruieren, die sich von den transatlantischen Fesseln befreit hat und aus eigener Machtvollkommenheit für die Sicherheit des Kontinents Verantwortung trägt.

–––––

Thor v. Waldstein: Die entfesselte Freiheit. Vorträge und Aufsätze wider die liberalistische Lagevergessenheit, Schnellroda 2017. 287 S., 22 € – hier einsehen und bestellen!

mardi, 07 novembre 2017

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

EJ-livelde.jpg

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

Robert Steuckers

Ex: https://institutenr.org

Jünger saw in the figure of the Arbeiter the central category around which the modern world, subjected to the planetary domination of technology, was called to organize itself, in “total mobilization” though and in labor. More precisely, a response adapted to the rise of nihilism in the modern era could be deployed through the technological mobilization of the world. With it, he salutes the advent of a new figure of man, modeled on the Nietzschean superman.

Among the adepts of Marxist ideology, very few have analyzed the thought of those they call “pre-fascist”, or outright “fascist”, including Ernst Jünger, who would evidently be one of the figureheads. Armin Steil is one of the rare Marxist ideologues who has analyzed the paths of Georges Sorel, Carl Schmitt, and Ernst Jünger with pertinence, depth, and especially clarity in his work Die imaginäre Revolte : Untersuchungen zur faschistischen Ideologie und ihrer theoretischen Vorbereitung bei Georges Sorel, Carl Schmitt und Ernst Jünger (The Imaginary Revolt: Inquiries on Fascist Ideology and its Preparation with Georges Sorel, Carl Schmitt, and Ernst Jünger).

Focusing on Der Arbeiter, Steil notes that Jünger’s logic, starting from his “fascism” or more precisely his “revolutionary conservatism,” is not a theoretical logic, a constructed logic, based on the observation of causes and effects, but a metaphorical, poetic, imagistic logic and language. Facing a chaotic socio-economic and political reality, facing the crisis of German society and culture, Jünger wanted to master its perverse effects, its dysfunctions through aesthetics: so his “fascism,” his “revolutionary conservatism,” would essentially be aesthetic in nature, contrary to Marxism, which molds itself on material realities and resolves crises by operating on socio-economic matters themselves, without idealist recourse, without recourse to transcendence or to an aesthetic. Steil very justly concludes: “The book [Der Arbeiter] wants to teach [men] to have a sovereign attitude in the face of social attitudes.” Cold, dispassionate, microscopic observation thus forms the “magic key” that would permit an elite to master the crises, to put an end to chaos and the corrosive disparities that hinder the proper functioning of societies that are subject to them.

Blue-eyed-boy.jpg

To be Hyper-Perceptive Eyes

The willing spirits that thus desire “to take the bull by the horns,” to act on the political terrain, to fight against crises and their effects, should not bind themselves to building a mechanical system of ready made ideas that perfectly match and fit together, but should be hyper-perceptive “eyes,” capable of describing the phenomena of everyday life: what Jünger calls the “physiognomic method.” It allows one to see the essence of a thing in its simple appearance, grasping the unity of essence and appearance, which is the “form” (Gestalt), invisible to all inattentive, distracted observers, not used to wielding the “physiognomic method” with the desired dexterity. All valuable, fruitful phenomena thus bear in themselves a “form,” more or less hidden, a potential force that it captures and puts in the service of a political or historic project. On the other hand, every phenomenon that only appears as “normal” is consequently a phenomenon without further “form”, without “force.” Such a phenomenon would be an early warning sign of decadence, a sign indicating a reshuffling of the cards, forms die, thus obeying a hidden logic, which prepares the advent of new forms, of unbroken forces.

The observation of the phenomena of everyday life, of the details of our daily settings, gives a glimpse of where the fall and death of forms manifest themselves: neon, garish lights, loud and artificial modern cities, are a patent indication of this fading of forces, masked by colors and intensities without real life. Modern traffic in the big cities burdens the pedestrian, the only physical being in this universe of concrete, asphalt, and metal, on the barely tolerated margins are the sidewalks, tracks reserved for the “least speedy.”

arb60306.jpg

The “Arbeiter” uses the “Physiognomic Method”

So the “Arbeiter” is the figure that makes use of the “physiognomic method,” observes, deciphers, plunges into this universe of artifice to seek buried forces, in order to mobilize them for a purely imagined project, “Utopian” in the Marxian and Engelsian sense of the term, Steil explains. This recourse to the imaginary, as the Marxist Steil explains, proceeds from a logic of doubt, which aims to give meaning to that which does not have it, at any cost. It aims to convince us that behind the phenomena of decline, of de-vitalization, an “Order” and laws emerge, which are avatars of the one God refused by the advocates of historical materialism. This “Order”, this Gestalt, this “form”, integrates the infinite diversity of observations posed by people, but it is not, like in the case of historical materialism, a reflection of social relations, but rather a total vision, intuitive, going directly to the essence, that is to say the original form. It is not the objective and positive enumeration of causes and effects that allows one to decide and act, but, on the contrary, a piercing look what allows one to see and grasp the world as the theater where forms confront or cooperate with each other.

The “Arbeiter” is precisely the one who possesses such a “piercing look”, and who replaces the bourgeois, who reasons strictly in simple cause and effect. Steil notes the gap between this vision of the “Arbeiter” and the Marxist and empirical vision of the “Proletarian”: the figure forged by Jünger places himself high above socio-economic contingencies; while the proletarian conscious of his dereliction operates at the heart of these contingencies, without taking any distance, without detachment. The “high flight” of the Arbeiter, his aquiline perspective, gives him a mask: metallic or cosmetic, the gas mask of the combatant, the drivers helmet with the men, makeup with the women. Individual traits disappear behind these masks, as should individual human, all too human, imperfections disappear. The figures of the Arbeiter are certainly imaginary figures, excessively idealized, de-individualized and examined: they act like Prussian soldiers in the Frederician era of practice. Following their leaders, these lesser (but nevertheless necessary) avatars of the Arbeiter and the Prussian soldiers from the “war in lace” [Translator’s note: referring to the ornate uniforms worn by soldiers of the 17th and 18th century] certainly lose the imperfections of their individuality, but also abandon their doubts and disorientation: rules and Order are safety anchors offered by the new elite community of “Arbeiters,” virtuosi of the “physiognomic method.”

prole.jpg

The Apparent Independence of the Proletarian

Steil protests that Order, as an imaginary projection, and the “physiognomic method” are instruments against the empirical and Marxist notion of “class struggle,” before clearly giving Jünger’s version: to leave the laborer, the worker, in the grasp of socio-economic contingencies is to leave him in a world entirely determined by the bourgeoisie, arising from the bourgeoisie and ultimately controlled by the bourgeoisie. By occupying a designated place in the bourgeois order, the worker only enjoys an apparent independence, he has no autonomy. Every attack launched against the bourgeois order from this apparent position is also only apparent, destined to be recollected and reinforce the establishment. “Theoretically, every move takes place in the context of an outdated social and human utopia; practically, each brings to dominion, time and again, the figure of the clever business man, whose art consists in bargaining and mediating,” writes Jünger. For Steil, this definition radicalizes the Sorelian vision of socialism, which desires to transform politics into pure means, without a limiting objective, inscribed in contingencies.

Human Aura.jpg

To Restore “Auratic” Work

A Marxist will see, in this idealism and in this purification of politics as pure means, an eliminations of politics, a will to put an end to the destructive violence of politics, which is only, in the Marxist view, “class struggle.” But technology operates to sweep away the dead forms in order to establish new forms following a planetary confrontation of extant forms, still endowed with more or less intact forces. So technology destroys residual or obsolete forms, it makes the permanent war of forms planetary and gigantic, but the “Arbeiter,” by coldly instrumentalizing the “physiognomic method,” gives a final form to technology (a desire that is never realized!). This final form will be artistic and the beauty emerging from it will have a magic and “sacral” function, like in so-called “primitive” societies. The restoration of these forms, writes Steil, will be achieved through the restoration of “auratic” work, eclipsed by technological standardization. The Aura, the impalpable expression of form, of the essence of represented phenomenon, restores the sacred dimension, proclaims the return of the cult of beauty, by qualitative replacement of the dead religiosity from the bourgeois era.

“Heroic realism,” the foundation of the new socio-political Order, will be carried by a dominant caste simultaneously exercising three functions: that of retainer of knowledge, that of new warrior forged during the battles of material in the Great War, and that of producer of a new aesthetic, a medium integrating social differences.

Armin Steil, in his Marxist critique of the “pre-fascism” of Sorel, Jünger and Schmitt, clearly lays out the essence of a work as capital as Der Arbeiter, where the mania for fabricating systems is refused in favor of great idealist affirmations, disengaged from the overly heavy contingencies of bourgeois society and proletarian misery. The Jüngerian path, in this view, appears as a disengagement from the yoke of the concrete, as a haughty retreat ultimately leading to a total but external domination of this concreteness. But in the piercing look, demanded by the physiognomic method, is there not, on the contrary, an instrument to penetrate concreteness, much more subtle than simple surface considerations of phenomena?

Reference: : Armin STEIL, Die imaginäre Revolte. Untersuchungen zur faschistischen Ideologie und ihrer theoretischen Vorbereitung bei Georges Sorel, Carl Schmitt und Ernst Jünger, Verlag Arbeiterbewegung und Gesellschaftswissenschaft, Marburg, 1984

dimanche, 05 novembre 2017

Gert Polli: les services secrets américains dominent l’Europe

Polli_byIdealismPrevails_CC_BY_SA_4.0-1024x683.jpg

Gert Polli: les services secrets américains dominent l’Europe

par Rainer Schopf

Ex: http://www.zeit-fragen.ch/fr

gertpollibuchFRF.jpgLe livre de Gert Polli,1 ancien chef des services de renseignements autrichiens, a été déjà brièvement présenté dans «Horizons et débats» no 22/23 du 18 septembre 2017. Ici suit une évaluation de quelques aspects. Dans sa préface, Polli constate que l’UE se trouve dans une spirale descendante, qu’elle n’arrive plus à en sortir et qu’elle y est de sa propre faute. L’UE tient à l’alliance transatlantique sans aucun esprit critique et à tout prix. La National Security Agency (NSA) est le seul profiteur de cette évolution, ce que l’élite européenne ne veut jusqu’à présent pas admettre. En outre, la reprise des buts de politique étrangère des Etats-Unis, sans aucune réflexion critique, rapproche  l’UE dangereusement d’une confrontation politique et économique avec la Russie. Au niveau géopolitique, l’UE se laisse pousser dans une impasse de politique étrangère et économique, dans laquelle les Etats-Unis continuent à diaboliser la Russie. Comme exemple le plus frappant, Gert Polli désigne l’alignement factuel et le contrôle des services secrets européens sous la dominance des services américains. Sous le couvert de la lutte américaine contre le terrorisme, l’UE perd en dynamique et rejette de plus en plus ses propres valeurs: «L’Union européenne se trouve dans sa plus grande crise depuis son existence. Elle risque de se désintégrer». (p. 14)

Dans sa préface, Gert Polli résume parfaitement ce qu’il explique et justifie en détail et de manière compréhensible sur les pages suivantes. Certes Polli parle avant tout du rôle de l’UE, mais il analyse également les raisons pour lesquelles l’Allemagne a été prise entre les fronts. Cet ouvrage bien lisible et compréhensible est structuré en 17 chapitres et possède un appendice détaillé.
Par la suite, nous allons nous concentrer sur deux thèmes importants:
•    l’attaque des services secrets américains contre l’économie allemande et
•    la défaillance des services secrets allemands dans la défense.

L’espionnage industriel

Un certain nombre des toutes grandes entreprises allemandes, telles Siemens, VW, Deutsche Bank, ont été massivement affectées par des plaintes pénales de tribunaux américains au cours des dernières années. Par hasard? Polli n’est pas de cet avis. Pour lui, l’Allemagne est le pays cible préféré pour l’espionnage économique américain, parce que c’est la plus grande économie nationale de l’UE. Comme site de haute technologie, l’Allemagne dépose régulièrement le plus grand nombre de brevets – en comparaison avec les autres pays européens – auprès de l’Office européen des brevets (OEB). Suite au scandale de la NSA, il a été révélé que l’industrie allemande était et demeure sous un espionnage économique massif. La chancelière Merkel a réagi aux révélations de Snowden par la phrase connue «Organiser des écoutes téléphoniques entre amis n’est vraiment pas bien». En revanche, l’Union fédérale de l’industrie allemande (BDI) partage l’inquiétude d’être «exposé à de l’espionnage économique et industriel ciblé». (p. 58) Jusqu’à présent, toutes les enquêtes allemandes sur l’affaire de la NSA n’ont abouti à rien, parce qu’on nie l’existence de ce que l’on ne veut pas voir.


Pourquoi ces attaques américaines ont-elles été possibles? Le schéma est relativement simple. Les services secrets américains surveillent les activités internationales des entreprises allemandes dans le monde entier. Ils opèrent avec les avantages et les pots-de-vin usuels. Cela fut le cas chez Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, Lockheed et d’autres, sans quoi on ne peut plus guère réaliser de gros contrats. On peut bien sûr regretter cette corruption, mais personne ne la nie, pas non plus aux Etats-Unis. On concède ouvertement que seul à l’aide de paiements illégaux, des contrats à hauteur de plusieurs dizaines de millions peuvent être conclus. C’est à ce moment là que les services secrets américains entrent dans le jeu. Par des écoutes de téléphone et des interceptions de courriels, ils démasquent exclusivement les fautes des entreprises allemandes. Leurs découvertes sont transmises aux tribunaux américains, qui inculpent ces entreprises et les condamnent à des paiements d’amendes très élevées. Pour les mêmes crimes, les entreprises américaines restent impunies, parce que les services secrets allemands n’ont simplement pas les moyens réciproques, «pour prouver que les entreprises américaines utilisent les mêmes pratiques commerciales. C’est difficile à comprendre, pourquoi les services de renseignements allemands ne sont pas plus vigilants envers ce phénomène de l’espionnage économique d’une telle envergure.» (p. 69) Cependant, les dommages pour l’économie allemande sont beaucoup plus grands que les seules pénalités financières draconiennes. La totalité de la direction supérieure a été condamnée à de hautes peines de prison, pas seulement le département de la vente. Une telle hémorragie saigne les entreprises et cela prend souvent jusqu’à dix ans pour former et intégrer une nouvelle génération de dirigeants.

Services secrets

Pendant la guerre froide, l’Allemagne est devenue un Etat au front et un des plus importants sites pour les services secrets américains en Europe et elle l’est restée jusqu’aujourd’hui. Dans les premières années de l’après-guerre, les forces alliées sous le commandement des Etats-Unis avaient déjà édifié un réseau de surveillance du trafic postal et des communications téléphoniques dans toute l’Allemagne. Elles ont aussi parrainé la mise en place des autorités sécuritaires. Celles-ci poursuivaient les intérêts américains, non pas les intérêts allemands. Les Etats-Unis exigèrent la séparation des services secrets et des autorités policières. Elles voulaient empêcher la création d’une administration allemande trop efficace, contrôlée de manière centralisée. Cela fut déjà réglé en 1949. Actuellement encore, la sécurité allemande souffre de ces décisions structurelles:
•    Les services secrets n’ont aucune compétence policière,
•    la police n’a pas le droit de faire des recherches dans le domaine du renseignement,
•    personne n’a le droit de travailler en même temps dans les services secrets et dans la police.


Une telle séparation n’existe dans aucun autre pays au monde. C’est fatal. Pour Gert Polli, ce «défaut de naissance» est la cause de nombreuses pannes survenues en Allemagne, soit avec les groupes extrémistes RAF et NSU ou dans la lutte contre le terrorisme. Dans le domaine de la protection de l’Etat, la police n’a pas le droit de faire des investigations et les services secrets n’ont pas le droit de faire des arrestations. En outre, la police n’est pas organisée à l’échelle fédérale, mais selon la structure fédéraliste des länder. Cela a déjà produit de nombreuses pannes dans la transmission et la coordination des données. Il est trop tôt pour dire si la police fédérale nouvellement créée, issue du corps des gardes-frontière fédéraux, représente une symbiose entre les services secrets et la police.

Faire la lumière dans l’obscurité des camouflages

L’Allemagne se trouve entre les fronts, écrit Polli. Il n’est guère prévisible pour les citoyens, il est impossible de reconnaître de quelle manière les services secrets sont devenus le fer de lance des changements au niveau global. L’année 2017 est une année fatidique concernant la politique de sécurité. Les drones américains utilisés dans des guerres illicites en Afghanistan, en Irak, en Syrie etc. sont pilotés depuis la base de Ramstein. La surveillance incontrôlée des téléphones et d’Internet s’effectue en Allemagne depuis Bad Aibling. Les troupes américaines sont transportées dans les régions en guerre et vers la frontière russe depuis l’aéroport de Leipzig. «L’Allemagne se prépare à une période de troubles sociaux, un scénario possible pour le gouvernement.» (p. 259) Avec son impressionnant livre, Gert Polli fait de la lumière dans l’obscurité des camouflages.
C’est à nous, les citoyens, de ne pas nous faire manipuler pour ensuite se combattre au sein de la population. Ce qui est urgent c’est d’entrer dans un dialogue ouvert pour résoudre les problèmes auxquels nous sommes confrontés pacifiquement et d’un commun accord.    •

(Traduction Horizons et débats)

1    Polli, Gert R. Deutschland zwischen den Fronten: Wie Europa zum Spielball von Politik und Geheimdiensten wird, Munich 2017 [L’Allemagne entre les frontières: Comment l’Europe devient le jouet de la politique et des services secrets].

airbus-siemens-780x439.jpg

Airbus et Siemens

rs. Le récent scandale Airbus n’est pas encore mentionné dans le livre de Gert Polli. Si les tribunaux européens déclarent le groupe aéronautique européen coupable dans l’actuelle affaire de pots-de-vin, les dégâts financiers seront immenses. Entretemps, des indices précis existent selon lesquels la CIA aurait déjà informé les tribunaux américains et qu’une mise en accusation est en préparation. Si cela se passe ainsi, il est fort probable que Boeing pourra tirer profit de nombreux contrats lucratifs d’Airbus, ce dernier risquant de perdre sa position dominante sur le marché international.
Siemens a annoncé vouloir éliminer des milliers d´emplois dans le secteur des turbines et fermer plusieurs sites allemands. Il est prévu de les délocaliser en partie dans les usines américaines d’Orlando et de Charlotte en raison de frais moins élevés qu’en Allemagne et d’une inutilité à débourser les entraves tarifaires américaines. Apparemment, l´ancien géant allemand Siemens se plie sous la pression américaine.

L´Autriche et la Suisse

rs. Attardons-nous un instant sur la neutralité garantie par la Constitution de l´Autriche et de la Suisse. Comme l´Allemagne, ces deux pays font depuis longtemps partie de l´infrastructure de surveillance américaine en Europe. Mais quel est le rôle exact des stations d’écoute en Autriche et en Suisse? Jusqu´à présent, les activités d’espionnage des services secrets américains dans ces pays neutres n´a guère provoqué de discussions publiques. En Autriche, la National Security Agency (NSA) américaine a instauré un centre de renseignement spatial dans le Burgenland très proche de Bratislava, nommé «Königswarte». En Suisse, il y a une station similaire sur le haut-plateau valaisan de Loèche. Fondée en 2012 par la Signalhorn SA, elle est gérée par Swisscom et a déjà plusieurs fois changé de nom. Selon Polli, l’existence de deux différentes stations est peu connue. La plus petite est gérée par les Suisses eux-mêmes de manière tout à fait légale et une station beaucoup plus grande est gérée par la NSA au service des Américains.

samedi, 04 novembre 2017

Metropolis at 90: You’ll Never See a Movie Like This Again

Metropolis-by-Fritz-Lang-Cinématheque-Française-3.jpg

Metropolis at 90: You’ll Never See a Movie Like This Again

A dystopia with utopian activism, inspired both socialists and Nazis

01:25 Publié dans Cinéma, Film | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : fritz lang, allemagne, cinéma, film, métropolis, années 20 | |  del.icio.us | | Digg! Digg |  Facebook

vendredi, 03 novembre 2017

Jede Kultur ist wertvoll, so lange es nicht die eigene ist

AnSch09ZL-4.jpg

Anabel Schunke

Jede Kultur ist wertvoll, so lange es nicht die eigene ist

Von Anabel Schunke

Ex: http://www.achgut.com

In meiner Heimatstadt Goslar gab es schon immer recht viele Menschen mit Migrationshintergrund. Mein Freundeskreis in der Jugend bestand zu einem Großteil aus der dritten Generation türkischer und kurdischer Einwanderer, also aus jenen in Deutschland lebenden Muslimen, die hier geboren und sozialisiert sind. Niemand von ihnen hätte sich je als Deutscher bezeichnet. Nicht einmal als Deutschtürke oder Deutschkurde. Sie waren Türken und Kurden. Nicht, weil wir sie nicht als Deutsche akzeptierten, sondern weil sie sich selbst nicht als Deutsche sahen. Deutsche waren nur wir. Die Kartoffeln.

Nicht wir zogen die Trennlinie, sondern sie. Nicht uns war es wichtig, zu unterscheiden, sondern ihnen. Mit 13 oder 14 Jahren ordnet man derlei Beobachtungen, die ein Großteil meiner Generation, wie ich aus Gesprächen weiß, so unterschreiben kann, nicht in einen politischen Kontext ein. Dennoch liefert genau die Frage nach dem ‚Warum‘ dieser selbstgewählten Abgrenzung eine der wichtigsten Antworten auf die Frage, weshalb Integration bei uns in Deutschland so oft scheitert und warum es mit den neuen Einwanderern trotz oder gerade aufgrund unserer neuerlichen emsigen Bestrebungen in Sachen Integration eher noch schlimmer als besser laufen wird.

Wer aufmerksamer Beobachter des medialen und politischen Treibens insbesondere der letzten zwei Jahre war, der wird sich an der ein oder anderen Stelle sicherlich die Frage gestellt haben, ob auf der Welt aktuell ein Volk existiert, das sich mehr demütigen lässt, als das Deutsche. Die Liste der Beispiele für diese Demütigungen ist jedenfalls lang. Das neueste Beispiel: Ein Projekt namens „Kitchen on the run“. Eine vom BAMF geförderte Integrationsmaßnahme des Vereins „Über den Tellerrand e.V.“, bei dem eine mobile Küche samt Team quer durch Deutschland reist und anerkannte „Geflüchtete“ und „Beheimatete“ zum gemeinsamen Kochen animieren soll. Für Empörung sorgte, Sie ahnen es vermutlich bereits, dabei nicht das kreative Projekt selbst, sondern die dem Begriff „Geflüchtete“ gegenübergestellte Bezeichnung „Beheimatete“ für jene, die „schon länger hier leben“. 

Auf Nachfrage heißt es von der Pressestelle vom Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge hierzu: „Wir haben in dem Kontext das Wort „Beheimatete“ gewählt, da bei dem von uns geförderten Projekt „Kitchen on the run“ auch Migranten teilgenommen haben, die schon länger in Deutschland leben, aber keine Geflüchteten mehr sind. Der Begriff sollte nicht als Synonym für Deutsche verstanden werden.“

Beliebigkeitsformeln, die zugleich jeden und keinen umfassen

Bei allem Verständnis für die ehrenwerte Absicht, ja niemanden sprachlich ausgrenzen zu wollen, zeigt sich hier einmal mehr ein grundlegendes Problem der One-World-Junta: Wer im Bestreben, auch noch jeden irgendwie inkludieren zu wollen, jedweden zuordneten Begriff vermeidet und stattdessen nur noch zu Beliebigkeitsformeln greift, die zugleich jeden und keinen umfassen können, der löst die für eine Gesellschaft so wichtigen Orientierungspunkte auf. Er zerstört damit nicht nur langfristig die gemeinsame Identifikation der einheimischen Bevölkerung als ein Volk der Deutschen, die Orientierung und Zusammenhalt schafft, er erschwert damit auch maßgeblich die Integration derer, die aus fremden Kulturen einwandern und auf derlei Bezugspunkte angewiesen sind, wenn Integration funktionieren soll.

Es ist dasselbe Prinzip der sprachlichen Auflösung von Nation und Volk hin zur multikulturellen Beliebigkeit, das sich auch in ungelenken Wortklaubereien wie „die, die schon länger hier leben“ oder auch der Erklärung der Kanzlerin, dass das Volk jeder sei, der in diesem Land lebt, wiederspiegeln. Während man heutzutage jede noch so kleine Minderheit innerhalb der Gesellschaft namentlich erwähnt, ihr Recht auf eigene Identität geltend macht und damit die größere  Einheit der Gesellschaft bewusst auflöst, indem man diese kleinen Gruppen durch Nennung etwaiger tatsächlicher oder auch nur herbeihalluzinierter Diskriminierungen, gegeneinander ausspielt, scheint eine gesellschaftliche Gruppe überhaupt keinen Wert mehr zu haben: Die heterosexuelle, „biodeutsche“ Mehrheit, die durch das Bestreben der Inklusion aller zur Identitätslosigkeit verdammt wird, da sie keiner kleineren Splittergruppe der Gesellschaft mit eigener Lobby angehört.

Der Syrer, der schon länger hier lebt, kann gleichzeitig Syrer und „Beheimateter“ sein.  Der Iraker, der erst kurz hier lebt, ist Iraker und gleichzeitig „Geflüchteter“. Der Türke, der schon ganz lange hier lebt, kann sogar qua Pass Deutscher und Türke und Deutschtürke sein. Nur die Mehrheit der schnöden, normalen Deutschen ohne Migrationshintergrund ist eben nichts mehr so richtig und das ist auch der Grund für die Wut. Nicht Fremdenfeindlichkeit macht aus „Beheimateten“ wütende Bürger, sondern die sprachliche Entziehung der eigenen Identität.

Denn niemand identifiziert sich mit dem Begriff „Beheimatete“. Weder Deutsche, noch Ausländer, die hier nach Aussage des BAMF schon länger leben als die „Geflüchteten“ und durch den Begriff sprachlich integriert werden sollen. Afghanen dürfen Afghanen sein. Syrer dürfen Syrer sein, Iraker dürfen Iraker sein, Eritreer dürfen Eritreer sein und Sudanesen Sudanesen. Selbst andere Europäer, die nicht zum sakrosankten Teil der Weltbevölkerung gehören wie Französen, Dänen, Polen, Engländer, Italiener und Spanier dürfen in unserem Sprachgebrauch auch als solche bezeichnet werden. Nur wir Deutschen – so mittlerweile die Wahrnehmung vieler – dürfen nicht Deutsch, müssen inklusive Verhandlungsmasse für jeden sein. Zugleich zeigt sich an solchen Fällen einmal mehr die Bigotterie des linken Spektrums, in dem jede Kultur und jeder Verweis auf Herkunft wertvoll ist, so lange es nicht die eigene ist.

petrodollar-saudi.jpg

Ein durchdringender One-World-Masochismus

Nun aber zurück zu meiner Jugend in einem deutsch-türkischen Freundeskreis. Denn allmählich sollte ersichtlich werden, weshalb sich meine türkischen und kurdischen Freunde von damals nicht als Deutsche sahen und weshalb ihnen die Abgrenzung zu uns so wichtig war: Niemand der selbst oder dessen Vorfahren aus einer traditionell stolzen Nation und Kultur kommt, identifiziert sich freiwillig als Deutscher und tauscht damit das verbriefte Recht auf nationalen, kulturellen Stolz und Würde gegen die Zugehörigkeit zu einem Volk ein, das sich auf Grundlage eines tief verankerten Schuldkomplexes und einen, die Gesellschaft bis ins Mark durchdringenden One-World-Masochismus, ihr eigenes Existenzrecht abspricht.

Deutscher, das ist nicht umsonst auf immer mehr Schulhöfen in den letzten Jahren zu einer Beleidigung verkommen. Und auch im Wort „Kartoffel“ von damals steckte bereits die durchaus intendierte Abwertung eines Volkes ohne Rückgrat, das sich von Migranten aller Herren Länder auf der Nase herumtanzen lässt. Dass die eigenen Werte verleugnet, keine Anpassung fordert und stattdessen jede noch so große kulturelle Unart aus anderen Ländern toleriert. Es ist jene nationale Selbstgeißelung, die darüber hinaus das Einfallstor zur Kompensation des eigenen kulturellen Kollektiversagens schlechthin für junge, vornehmlich muslimische Migranten bildet. Seht her, ihr habt vielleicht den Wohlstand, den Frieden und die technischen Innovationen in euren Ländern, aber wir haben etwas, was ihr nicht habt: Stolz und Ehre.

Wer Migrationshintergrund hat, genießt in diesem Land unter dem Deckmantel der Toleranz andere Rechte als jemand, der diesen nicht hat. 2010 drehte Güner Balci für den WDR die Dokumentation „Kampf im Klassenzimmer“ über eine 10. Klasse einer Hauptschule in Essen-Karnap und griff dabei das heikle Thema der Deutschenfeindlichkeit an Schulen mit hohem Migrantenanteil auf. Neben vielen anderen Ausschnitten blieb vor allem einer im Gedächtnis. Ein augenscheinlich türkischstämmiger Jugendlicher sprach über das Thema Sex vor der Ehe und erklärt hierbei gänzlich trocken: „Wenn man mit einem muslimischen Mädchen schläft und sie entjungfert, dann ist das so, dass die Eltern das als Schande ansehen und die Ehre ist befleckt und wir müssen das alles saubermachen. Entweder er heiratet sie und wenn nicht, dann zwingen wir ihn und wenn nicht, dann knallen wir ihn ab und dann ist die Ehre wieder sauber und wir knallen auch sie ab.“

Es sind genau diese Aussagen, die einen tiefen Einblick in die tatsächliche Integration vieler sogar hier geborener Muslime geben, die immer wieder in mir die Frage aufwerfen, wie ein Land Hunderte von Millionen Euro in einen angesichts der realen Bedrohung komplett unverhältnismäßigen Kampf gegen Rechts investieren kann, während solche Ansichten im Alltag keine weitere Beachtung finden und mehr oder weniger geduldet werden. Die Antwort liegt nahe: Wer Migrationshintergrund hat, erhält kulturellen Rabatt.

Was bei Einheimischen vorsichtig formuliert unter die politisch inkorrekten Aussagen fallen würde, wird hier unter kultureller Folklore verbucht. Ebenso verhält es sich mit der Tatsache, dass wir öffentliche Islamkritik hierzulande nur als politisch gerade noch korrekt ansehen, wenn sie von Menschen mit Migrationshintergrund kommt. Ein Volk, dass sich selbst das Recht auf Kritik an einer Kultur und Religion abspricht, die mit den eigenen Werten kaum zu vereinbaren ist, ein Volk, dass sich von Migranten dazu ermutigen lassen muss, auf die eigenen Errungenschaften Stolz zu sein, hat den Kampf um Anerkennung bereits verloren und liefert keine besonders gute Ausgangslage, um Menschen die Identifikation als Deutscher schmackhaft zu machen.

tracht218dd583759d83ea.jpg

Gilt der Untertitel hierunter wirklich ?

Es ist „cooler“, Ausländer zu sein als Deutscher

Sicherlich ist das nicht die einzige Antwort auf die Frage, warum Integration von insbesondere muslimischen Migranten so oft scheitert. Aber es eines der größeren Mosaiksteinchen in der Frage, was wir selbst leisten können, um die Integration von Menschen aus mehrheitlich autoritären, paternalistischen Kulturen zu verbessern. Wer hunderttausende Muslime aufnehmen will, muss sich vom eigenen Kultur-Nihilismus verabschieden. Entweder man will funktionierendes Einwanderungsland sein und schluckt dafür die „Kröte“ des Nationalstolzes oder man muss augenblicklich aufhören, Menschen aus anderen Kulturen hierzulande aufzunehmen.

Es geht nur eines: Die eigene One-World-Theorie aus sicherer Entfernung erhalten oder nationale und kulturelle Orientierungspunkte mit dem nötigen Selbstbewusstsein vorleben und einfordern. So lange es in Deutschland „cooler“ ist, Ausländer zu sein als Deutscher, wird Integration und vor allem Assimilation zu großen Teilen nicht stattfinden. So lange wir unter Integration verstehen, noch mehr bequeme Maßnahmen zu schaffen, die eher die Integrationshelfer in „kultursensibler“ Anpassung schulen als die Migranten, wird Integration noch weniger gelingen als es bei früheren Einwanderergenerationen der Fall war.

Darüber hinaus muß man sicherlich die Frage aufwerfen, bis zu welchem Grad islamische Einwanderer überhaupt in unser hiesiges Wertesystem zu integrieren sind und wie Integration dort funktionieren soll, wo die Mehrheitsverhältnisse längst gekippt sind. In Schulklassen, in denen kein einziges Kind mehr Deutsch spricht etwa oder in Stadtvierteln, in denen man problemlos in jedem Geschäft einkaufen gehen kann, ohne ein einziges Wort der Landessprache sprechen zu müssen.

Auch in stark patriotischen Gesellschaften wie den USA kommt es zunehmend zu kulturellen Spannungen zwischen Muslimen und „Amerikanern“. Dies liegt jedoch nicht nur an den kulturellen Differenzen, sondern auch hier an einem von linken Kultur-Nihilisten geschaffenen Einfallstor zur Nichtanpassung. Eine weitere Bestätigung dafür, dass Integration und Assimilation gerade nicht durch die linke Politik der bedingungslosen Toleranz und Selbstaufgabe forciert werden, sondern durch selbstbewusste Forderungen von stolzen Bürgern. Wer wie hier in Deutschland diesen Bürgern jegliches Recht auf nationale Identität und Stolz aberkennen will, sägt an den Grundlagen einer funktionierenden multikulturellen Gesellschaft, die man doch eigentlich so unbedingt haben will.

Anabel Schunke ist Autorin und freie Journalistin. Sie schreibt für verschiedene Portale, etwa EMMA Online oder die deutsche Huffington Post.

jeudi, 02 novembre 2017

Messianic Communism in the Protestant Reformation

static.evangelisch.de.jpg

Messianic Communism in the Protestant Reformation

[This article is excerpted from An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, vol. 1, Economic Thought Before Adam Smith.]

Communist Zealots: the Anabaptists

Sometimes Martin Luther must have felt that he had loosed the whirlwind, even opened the gates of Hell. Shortly after Luther launched the Reformation, various Anabaptist sects appeared and spread throughout Germany. The Anabaptists believed in predestination of the elect, but they also believed, in contrast to Luther, that they knew infallibly who the elect were: i.e., themselves. The sign of that election was in an emotional, mystical conversion process, that of being “born again,” baptized in the Holy Spirit. Such baptism must be adult and not among infants; more to the point, it meant that only the elect are to be sect members who obey the multifarious rules and creeds of the Church. The idea of the sect, in contrast to Catholicism, Lutheranism, or Calvinism, was not comprehensive Church membership in the society. The sect was to be distinctly separate, for the elect only.

Given that creed, there were two ways that Anabaptism could and did go. Most Anabaptists, like the Mennonites or Amish, became virtual anarchists. They tried to separate themselves as much as possible from a necessarily sinful state and society, and engaged in nonviolent resistance to the state’s decrees.

The other route, taken by another wing of Anabaptists, was to try to seize power in the state and to shape up the majority by extreme coercion: in short, ultratheocracy. As Monsignor Knox incisively points out, even when Calvin established a theocracy in Geneva, it had to pale beside one which might be established by a prophet enjoying continuous, new, mystical revelation.

As Knox points out, in his usual scintillating style: 

in Calvin’s Geneva … and in the Puritan colonies of America, the left wing of the Reformation signalized its ascendancy by enforcing the rigorism of its morals with every available machinery of discipline; by excommunication, or, if that failed, by secular punishment. Under such discipline sin became a crime, to be punished by the elect with an intolerable self-righteousness…

I have called this rigorist attitude a pale shadow of the theocratic principle, because a full-blooded theocracy demands the presence of a divinely inspired leader or leaders, to whom government belongs by right of mystical illumination. The great Reformers were not, it must be insisted, men of this calibre; they were pundits, men of the new learning…1

And so one of the crucial differences between the Anabaptists and the more conservative reformers was that the former claimed continuing mystical revelation to themselves, forcing men such as Luther and Calvin to fall back on the Bible alone as the first as well as the last revelation.

The first leader of the ultratheocrat wing of the Anabaptists was Thomas Müntzer (c. 1489–1525). Born into comfort in Stolberg in Thuringia, Müntzer studied at the Universities of Leipzig and Frankfurt, and became highly learned in the scriptures, the classics, theology, and in the writings of the German mystics. Becoming a follower almost as soon as Luther launched the Reformation in 1520, Müntzer was recommended by Luther for the pastorate in the city of Zwickau. Zwickau was near the Bohemian border, and there the restless Müntzer was converted by the weaver and adept Niklas Storch, who had been in Bohemia, to the old Taborite doctrine that had flourished in Bohemia a century earlier. This doctrine consisted essentially of a continuing mystical revelation and the necessity for the elect to seize power and impose a society of theocratic communism by brutal force of arms. Furthermore, marriage was to be prohibited, and each man was to be able to have any woman at his will.

The passive wing of Anabaptists were voluntary anarchocommunists, who wished to live peacefully by themselves; but Müntzer adopted the Storch vision of blood and coercion. Defecting very rapidly from Lutheranism, Müntzer felt himself to be the coming prophet, and his teachings now began to emphasize a war of blood and extermination to be waged by the elect against the sinners. Müntzer claimed that the “living Christ” had permanently entered his own soul; endowed thereby with perfect insight into the divine will, Müntzer asserted himself to be uniquely qualified to fulfil the divine mission. He even spoke of himself as “becoming God.” Abandoning the world of learning, Müntzer was now ready for action.

In 1521, only a year after his arrival, the town council of Zwickau took fright at these increasingly popular ravings and ordered Müntzer’s expulsion from the city. In protest, a large number of the populace, in particular the weavers, led by Niklas Storch, rose in revolt, but the rising was put down. At that point, Müntzer hied himself to Prague, searching for Taborite remnants in the capital of Bohemia. Speaking in peasant metaphors, he declared that harvest time is here, “so God himself has hired me for his harvest. I have sharpened my scythe, for my thoughts are most strongly fixed on the truth, and my lips, hands, skin, hair, soul, body, life curse the unbelievers.” Müntzer, however, found no Taborite remnants; it did not help the prophet’s popularity that he knew no Czech, and had to preach with the aid of an interpreter. And so he was duly expelled from Prague.

After wandering around central Germany in poverty for several years, signing himself “Christ’s messenger,” Müntzer in 1523 gained a ministerial position in the small Thuringian town of Allstedt. There he established a wide reputation as a preacher employing the vernacular, and began to attract a large following of uneducated miners, whom he formed into a revolutionary organization called “The League of the Elect.”

TMG_JHV 2016.jpg

A turning point in Müntzer’s stormy career came a year later, when Duke John, a prince of Saxony and a Lutheran, hearing alarming rumours about him, came to little Allstedt and asked Müntzer to preach him a sermon. This was Müntzer’s opportunity, and he seized it. He laid it on the line: he called upon the Saxon princes to make their choice and take their stand, either as servants of God or of the Devil. If the Saxon princes are to take their stand with God, then they “must lay on with the sword.” “Don’t let them live any longer,” counselled our prophet, “the evil-doers who turn us away from God. For a godless man has no right to live if he hinders the godly.” Müntzer’s definition of the “godless,” of course, was all-inclusive. “The sword is necessary to exterminate” priests, monks and godless rulers. But, Müntzer warned, if the princes of Saxony fail in this task, if they falter, “the sword shall be taken from them … If they resist, let them be slaughtered without mercy….” Müntzer then returned to his favorite harvest-time analogy: “At the harvest-time, one must pluck the weeds out of God’s vineyard … For the ungodly have no right to live, save what the Elect chooses to allow them…. “In this way the millennium, the thousand-year Kingdom of God on earth, would be ushered in. But one key requisite is necessary for the princes to perform that task successfully; they must have at their elbow a priest/prophet (guess who!) to inspire and guide their efforts.

Oddly enough for an era when no First Amendment restrained rulers from dealing sternly with heresy, Duke John seemed not to care about Müntzer’s frenetic ultimatum. Even after Müntzer proceeded to preach a sermon proclaiming the imminent overthrow of all tyrants and the beginning of the messianic kingdom, the duke did nothing. Finally, under the insistent prodding of Luther that Müntzer was becoming dangerous, Duke John told the prophet to refrain from any provocative preaching until his case was decided by his brother, the elector.

“The clergy, which constituted the ruling elite of the state, exempted themselves from taxation while imposing very heavy taxes on the rest of the populace.”

This mild reaction by the Saxon princes, however, was enough to set Thomas Müntzer on his final revolutionary road. The princes had proved themselves untrustworthy; the mass of the poor were now to make the revolution. The poor were the elect, and would establish a rule of compulsory egalitarian communism, a world where all things would be owned in common by all, where everyone would be equal in everything and each person would receive according to his need. But not yet. For even the poor must first be broken of worldly desires and frivolous enjoyments, and must recognize the leadership of a new “servant of God” who “must stand forth in the spirit of Elijah … and set things in motion.” (Again, guess who!)

Seeing Saxony as inhospitable, Müntzer climbed over the town wall of Allstedt and moved in 1524 to the Thuringian city of Muhlhausen. An expert in fishing in troubled waters, Müntzer found a friendly home in Muhlhausen, which had been in a state of political turmoil for over a year. Preaching the impending extermination of the ungodly, Müntzer paraded around the town at the head of an armed band, carrying in front of him a red crucifix and a naked sword. Expelled from Muhlhausen after a revolt by his allies was suppressed, Müntzer went to Nuremberg, which in turn expelled him after he published some revolutionary pamphlets. After wandering through southwestern Germany, Müntzer was invited back to Muhlhausen in February 1525, where a revolutionary group had taken over.

Thomas Müntzer and his allies proceeded to impose a communist regime on the city of Muhlhausen. The monasteries were seized, and all property was decreed to be in common, and the consequence, as a contemporary observer noted, was that “he so affected the folk that no one wanted to work.” The result was that the theory of communism and love quickly became in practice an alibi for systemic theft:

when anyone needed food or clothing he went to a rich man and demanded it of him in Christ’s name, for Christ had commanded that all should share with the needy. And what was not given freely was taken by force. Many acted thus … Thomas [Müntzer] instituted this brigandage and multiplied it every day.2

At that point, the great Peasants’ War erupted throughout Germany, a rebellion launched by the peasantry in favor of their local autonomy and in opposition to the new centralizing, high-tax, absolutist rule of the German princes. Throughout Germany, the princes crushed the feebly armed peasantry with great brutality, massacring about 100,000 peasants in the process. In Thuringia, the army of the princes confronted the peasants on May 15 with a great deal of artillery and 2,000 cavalry, luxuries denied to the peasantry. The landgrave of Hesse, commander of the princes’ army, offered amnesty to the peasants if they would hand over Müntzer and his immediate followers. The peasants were strongly tempted, but Müntzer, holding aloft his naked sword, gave his last flaming speech, declaring that God had personally promised him victory; that he would catch all the enemy cannon balls in the sleeves of his cloak; that God would protect them all. Just at the strategic moment of Müntzer’s speech, a rainbow appeared in the heavens, and Müntzer had previously adopted the rainbow as the symbol of his movement. To the credulous and confused peasantry, this seemed a veritable sign from Heaven. Unfortunately, the sign didn’t work, and the princes’ army crushed the peasants, killing 5,000 while losing only half a dozen men. Müntzer himself fled and hid, but was captured a few days later, tortured into confession, and then executed.

thomas-müntzer-military-art.jpg

Thomas Müntzer and his signs may have been defeated, and his body may have moldered in the grave, but his soul kept marching on. Not only was his spirit kept alive by followers in his own day, but also by Marxist historians from Engels to the present day, who saw in this deluded mystic an epitome of social revolution and the class struggle, and a forerunner of the chiliastic prophesies of the “communist stage” of the supposedly inevitable Marxian future.

The Müntzerian cause was soon picked up by a former disciple, the bookbinder Hans Hut. Hut claimed to be a prophet sent by God to announce that at Whitsuntide, 1528, Christ would return to earth and give the power to enforce justice to Hut and his following of rebaptized saints. The saints would then “take up double-edged swords” and wreak God’s vengeance on priests, pastors, kings and nobles. Hut and his followers would then “establish the rule of Hans Hut on earth,” with Muhlhausen as the favored capital. Christ was then to establish a millennium marked by communism and free love. Hut was captured in 1527 (before Jesus had had a chance to return), imprisoned at Augsburg, and killed trying to escape. For a year or two, Huttian followers kept emerging, at Augsburg, Nuremberg, and Esslingen, in southern Germany, threatening to set up their communist Kingdom of God by force of arms. But by 1530 they were smashed and suppressed by the alarmed authorities. Müntzerian-type Anabaptism was now to move to northwestern Germany.

KK2.jpg

Totalitarian Communism in Münster

Northwestern Germany in that era was dotted by a number of small ecclesiastical states, each run by a prince-bishop. The state was run by aristocratic clerics, who elected one of their own as bishop. Generally, these bishops were secular lords who were not ordained. By bargaining over taxes, the capital city of each of these states had usually wrested for itself a degree of autonomy. The clergy, which constituted the ruling elite of the state, exempted themselves from taxation while imposing very heavy taxes on the rest of the populace. Generally, the capital cities came to be run by their own power elite, an oligarchy of guilds, which used government power to cartellize their various professions and occupations.

The largest of these ecclesiastical states in northwest Germany was the bishopric of Münster, and its capital city of Münster, a town of some 10,000 people, was run by the town guilds. The Münster guilds were particularly exercised by the economic competition of the monks, who were not forced to obey guild restrictions and regulations.

During the Peasants’ War, the capital cities of several of these states, including Münster, took the opportunity to rise in revolt, and the bishop of Münster was forced to make numerous concessions. With the crushing of the rebellion, however, the bishop took back the concessions, and reestablished the old regime. By 1532, however, the guilds, supported by the people, were able to fight back and take over the town, soon forcing the bishop to recognize Münster officially as a Lutheran city.

It was not destined to remain so for long, however. From all over the northwest, hordes of Anabaptist enthusiasts flooded into Münster, seeking the onset of the New Jerusalem. From the northern Netherlands came hundreds of Melchiorites, followers of the itinerant visionary Melchior Hoffmann. Hoffmann, an uneducated furrier’s apprentice from Swabia in southern Germany, had for years wandered through Europe preaching the imminence of the Second Coming, which he had concluded from his researches would occur in 1533, the fifteenth centenary of the death of Jesus. Melchiorism had flourished in the northern Netherlands, and many adepts now poured into Münster, rapidly converting the poorer classes of the town.

Meanwhile, the Anabaptist cause in Münster received a shot in the arm, when the eloquent and popular young minister Bernt Rothmann, a highly educated son of a town blacksmith, converted to Anabaptism. Originally a Catholic priest, Rothmann had become a friend of Luther and the head of the Lutheran movement in Münster. Converted to Anabaptism, Rothmann lent his eloquent preaching to the cause of communism as it had supposedly existed in the primitive Christian Church, holding everything in common with no Mine and Thine and giving to each according to his “need.” In response to Rothmann’s reputation, thousands flocked to Münster, hundreds of the poor, the rootless, those hopelessly in debt, and “people who, having run through the fortunes of their parents, were earning nothing by their own industry….” People, in general, who were attracted by the idea of “plundering and robbing the clergy and the richer burghers.” The horrified burghers tried to drive out Rothmann and the Anabaptist preachers, but to no avail.

In 1533, Melchior Hoffmann, sure that the Second Coming would happen any day, returned to Strasbourg, where he had had great success, calling himself the Prophet Elias. He was promptly clapped into jail, and remained there until his death a decade later.

Hoffmann, for all the similarities with the others, was a peaceful man who counselled nonviolence to his followers; after all, if Jesus were imminently due to return, why commit against unbelievers? Hoffmann’s imprisonment, and of course the fact that 1533 came and went without a Second Coming, discredited Melchior, and so his Münster followers turned to far more violent, post-millennialist prophets who believed that they would have to establish the Kingdom by fire and sword.

The new leader of the coercive Anabaptists was a Dutch baker from Haarlem, one Jan Matthys (Matthyszoon). Reviving the spirit of Thomas Müntzer, Matthys sent out missionaries or “apostles” from Haarlem to rebaptize everyone they could, and to appoint “bishops” with the power to baptize. When the new apostles reached Münster in early 1534, they were greeted, as we might expect, with enormous enthusiasm. Caught up in the frenzy, even Rothmann was rebaptized once again, followed by many ex-nuns and a large part of the population. Within a week the apostles had rebaptized 1 400 people.

Swordrunners-RP-P-OB-78.508-e1425575483179.jpg

Another apostle soon arrived, a young man of 25 who had been converted and baptized by Matthys only a couple of months earlier. This was Jan Bockelson (Bockelszoon, Beukelsz), who was soon to become known in song and story as Johann of Leyden. Though handsome and eloquent, Bockelson was a troubled soul, having been born the illegitimate son of the mayor of a Dutch village by a woman serf from Westphalia. Bockelson began life as an apprentice tailor, married a rich widow, but then went bankrupt when he set himself up as a self-employed merchant.

In February 1534, Bockelson won the support of the wealthy cloth merchant Bernt Knipperdollinck, the powerful leader of the Münster guilds, and shrewdly married Knipperdollinck’s daughter. On February 8, son-in-law and father-in-law ran wildly through the streets together, calling upon everyone to repent. After much frenzy, mass writhing on the ground, and the seeing of apocalyptic visions, the Anabaptists rose up and seized the town hall, winning legal recognition for their movement.

In response to this successful uprising, many wealthy Lutherans left town, and the Anabaptists, feeling exuberant, sent messengers to surrounding areas summoning everyone to come to Münster. The rest of the world, they proclaimed, would be destroyed in a month or two; only Münster would be saved, to become the New Jerusalem. Thousands poured in from as far away as Flanders and Frisia in the northern Netherlands. As a result, the Anabaptists soon won a majority on the town council, and this success was followed three days later, on February 24, by an orgy of looting of books, statues and paintings from the churches and throughout the town. Soon Jan Matthys himself arrived, a tall, gaunt man with a long black beard. Matthys, aided by Bockelson, quickly became the virtual dictator of the town. The coercive Anabaptists had at last seized a city. The Great Communist Experiment could now begin.

The first mighty program of this rigid theocracy was, of course, to purge the New Jerusalem of the unclean and the ungodly, as a prelude to their ultimate extermination throughout the world. Matthys called therefore for the execution of all remaining Catholics and Lutherans, but Knipperdollinck’s cooler head prevailed, since he warned Matthys that slaughtering all other Christians than themselves might cause the rest of the world to become edgy, and they might all come and crush the New Jerusalem in its cradle. It was therefore decided to do the next best thing, and on February 27 the Catholic and Lutherans were driven out of the city, in the midst of a horrendous snowstorm. In a deed prefiguring communist Cambodia, all non-Anabaptists, including old people, invalids, babies and pregnant women were driven into the snowstorm, and all were forced to leave behind all their money, property, food and clothing. The remaining Lutherans and Catholics were compulsorily rebaptized, and all refusing this ministration were put to death.

The expulsion of all Lutherans and Catholics was enough for the bishop, who began a long military siege of the town the next day, on February 28. With every person drafted for siege work, Jan Matthys launched his totalitarian communist social revolution.

The first step was to confiscate the property of the expelled. All their worldly goods were placed in central depots, and the poor were encouraged to take “according to their needs,” the “needs” to be interpreted by seven appointed “deacons” chosen by Matthys. When a blacksmith protested at these measures imposed by Dutch foreigners, Matthys arrested the courageous smithy. Summoning the entire population of the town, Matthys personally stabbed, shot, and killed the “godless” blacksmith, as well as throwing into prison several eminent citizens who had protested against his treatment. The crowd was warned to profit by this public execution, and they obediently sang a hymn in honour of the killing.

muensterscape.jpg

A key part of the Anabaptist reign of terror in Münster was now unveiled. Unerringly, just as in the case of the Cambodian communists four-and-a-half centuries later, the new ruling elite realized that the abolition of the private ownership of money would reduce the population to total slavish dependence on the men of power. And so Matthys, Rothmann and others launched a propaganda campaign that it was unchristian to own money privately; that all money should be held in “common,” which in practice meant that all money whatsoever must be handed over to Matthys and his ruling clique. Several Anabaptists who kept or hid their money were arrested and then terrorized into crawling to Matthys on their knees, begging forgiveness and beseeching him to intercede with God on their behalf. Matthys then graciously “forgave” the sinners.

After two months of severe and unrelenting pressure, a combination of propaganda about the Christianity of abolishing private money, and threats and terror against those who failed to surrender, the private ownership of money was effectively abolished in Münster. The government seized all the money and used it to buy or hire goods from the outside world. Wages were doled out in kind by the only remaining employer: the theocratic Anabaptist state.

Food was confiscated from private homes, and rationed according to the will of the government deacons. Also, to accommodate the immigrants, all private homes were effectively communized, with everyone permitted to quarter themselves anywhere; it was now illegal to close, let alone lock, doors. Communal dining-halls were established, where people ate together to readings from the Old Testament.

This compulsory communism and reign of terror was carried out in the name of community and Christian “love.” All this communization was considered the first giant steps toward total egalitarian communism, where, as Rothmann put it, “all things were to be in common, there was to be no private property and nobody was to do any more work, but simply trust in God.” The workless part, of course, somehow never arrived.

A pamphlet sent in October 1534 to other Anabaptist communities hailed the new order of Christian love through terror:

For not only have we put all our belongings into a common pool under the care of deacons, and live from it according to our need; we praise God through Christ with one heart and mind and are eager to help one another with every kind of service.

And accordingly, everything which has served the purposes of selfseeking and private property, such as buying and selling, working for money, taking interest and practising usury … or eating and drinking the sweat of the poor … and indeed everything which offends against love – all such things are abolished amongst us by the power of love and community.

With high consistency, the Anabaptists of Münster made no pretence about preserving intellectual freedom while communizing all material property. For the Anabaptists boasted of their lack of education, and claimed that it was the unlearned and the unwashed who would be the elect of the world. The Anabaptist mob took particular delight in burning all the books and manuscripts in the cathedral library, and finally, in mid-March 1534, Matthys outlawed all books except the Good Book – the Bible. To symbolize a total break with the sinful past, all privately and publicly owned books were thrown upon a great communal bonfire. All this ensured, of course, that the only theology or interpretation of the scriptures open to the Münsterites was that of Matthys and the other Anabaptist preachers.

At the end of March, however, Matthys’s swollen hubris laid him low. Convinced at Eastertime that God had ordered him and a few of the faithful to lift the bishop’s siege and liberate the town, Matthys and a few others rushed out of the gates at the besieging army, and were literally hacked to pieces. In an age when the idea of full religious liberty was virtually unknown, one can imagine that any Anabaptists whom the more orthodox Christians might get hold of would not earn a very kindly reward.

The death of Matthys left Münster in the hands of young Bockelson. And if Matthys had chastised the people of Münster with whips, Bockelson would chastise them with scorpions. Bockelson wasted little time in mourning his mentor. He preached to the faithful: “God will give you another Prophet who will be more powerful.” How could this young enthusiast top his master? Early in May, Bockelson caught the attention of the town by running naked through the streets in a frenzy, falling then into a silent three-day ecstasy. When he rose again, he announced to the entire populace a new dispensation that God had revealed to him. With God at his elbow, Bockelson abolished the old functioning town offices of council and burgomasters, and installed a new ruling council of 12 elders, with himself, of course, as the eldest of the elders. The elders were now given total authority over the life and death, the property and the spirit, of every inhabitant of Münster. A strict system of forced labour was imposed, with all artisans not drafted into the military now public employees, working for the community for no monetary reward. This meant, of course, that the guilds were now abolished.

The totalitarianism in Münster was now complete. Death was now the punishment for virtually every independent act, good or bad. Capital punishment was decreed for the high crimes of murder, theft, lying, avarice, and quarreling! Also death was decreed for every conceivable kind of insubordination: the young against their parents, wives against their husbands and, of course, anyone at all against the chosen representatives of God on earth, the totalitarian government of Münster. Bernt Knipperdollinck was appointed high executioner to enforce the decrees.

The only aspect of life previously left untouched was sex, and this now came under the hammer of Bockelson’s total despotism. The only sexual relation permitted was marriage between two Anabaptists. Sex in any other form, including marriage with one of the “godless,” was a capital crime. But soon Bockelson went beyond this rather old-fashioned credo, and decided to establish compulsory polygamy in Münster. Since many of the expellees had left their wives and daughters behind, Münster now had three times as many marriageable women as men, so that polygamy had become technologically feasible. Bockelson converted the other rather startled preachers by citing polygamy among the patriarchs of Israel, as well as by threatening dissenters with death.

Compulsory polygamy was a bit too much for many of the Münsterites, who launched a rebellion in protest. The rebellion, however, was quickly crushed and most of the rebels put to death. Execution was also the fate of any further dissenters. And so by August 1534, polygamy was coercively established in Münster. As one might expect, young Bockelson took an instant liking to the new regime, and before long he had a harem of 15 wives, including Divara, the beautiful young widow of Jan Matthys. The rest of the male population also began to take to the new decree as ducks to water. Many of the women did not take as kindly to the new dispensation, and so the elders passed a law ordering compulsory marriage for every women under (and presumably also over) a certain age, which usually meant being a compulsory third or fourth wife.

Moreover, since marriage among the godless was not only invalid but also illegal, the wives of the expellees now became fair game, and were forced to “marry” good Anabaptists. Refusal to comply with the new law was punishable, of course, by death, and a number of women were actually executed as a result. Those “old” wives who resented the new wives coming into their household were also suppressed, and their quarreling was made a capital crime. Many women were executed for quarreling.

But the long arm of the state could reach only just so far and, in their first internal setback, Bockelson and his men had to relent, and permit divorce. Indeed, the ceremony of marriage was now outlawed totally, and divorce made very easy. As a result, Münster now fell under a regime of what amounted to compulsory free love. And so, within the space of only a few months, a rigid puritanism had been transmuted into a regime of compulsory promiscuity.

Meanwhile, Bockelson proved to be an excellent organizer of a besieged city. Compulsory labour, military and civilian, was strictly enforced. The bishop’s army consisted of poorly and irregularly paid mercenaries, and Bockelson was able to induce many of them to desert by offering them regular pay (pay for money, that is, in contrast to Bockelson’s rigid internal moneyless communism). Drunken ex-mercenaries were, however, shot immediately. When the bishop fired pamphlets into the town offering a general amnesty in return for surrender, Bockelson made reading such pamphlets a crime punishable by – of course – death.

At the end of August 1534, the bishop’s armies were in disarray and the siege temporarily lifted. Jan Bockelson seized this opportunity to carry his “egalitarian” communist revolution one step further: he had himself named king and Messiah of the Last Days.

Proclaiming himself king might have appeared tacky and perhaps even illegitimate. And so Bockelson had one Dusentschur, a goldsmith from a nearby town and a self-proclaimed prophet, do the job for him. At the beginning of September, Dusentschur announced to one and all a new revelation: Jan Bockelson was to be king of the whole world, the heir of King David, to keep that Throne until God himself reclaimed his Kingdom. Unsurprisingly, Bockelson confirmed that he himself had had the very same revelation. Dusentschur then presented a sword of justice to Bockelson, anointed him, and proclaimed him king of the world. Bockelson, of course, was momentarily modest; he prostrated himself and asked guidance from God. But he made sure to get that guidance swiftly. And it turned out, mirabile dictu, that Dusentschur was right. Bockelson proclaimed to the crowd that God had now given him “power over all nations of the earth’; anyone who might dare to resist the will of God “shall without delay be put to death with the sword.”

And so, despite a few mumbled protests, Jan Bockelson was declared king of the world and Messiah, and the Anabaptist preachers of Münster explained to their bemused flock that Bockelson was indeed the Messiah as foretold in the Old Testament. Bockelson was rightfully ruler of the entire world, both temporal and spiritual.

It often happens with “egalitarians” that a hole, a special escape hatch from the drab uniformity of life, is created – for themselves. And so it was with King Bockelson. It was, after all, important to emphasize in every way the importance of the Messiah’s advent. And so Bockelson wore the finest robes, metals and jewellery; he appointed courtiers and gentlemen-at-arms, who also appeared in splendid finery. King Bockelson’s chief wife, Divara, was proclaimed queen of the world, and she too was dressed in great finery and had a suite of courtiers and followers. This luxurious court of some two hundred people was housed in fine mansions requisitioned for the occasion. A throne draped with a cloth of gold was established in the public square, and King Bockelson would hold court there, wearing a crown and carrying a sceptre. A royal bodyguard protected the entire procession. All Bockelson’s loyal aides were suitably rewarded with high status and finery: Knipperdollinck was the chief minister, and Rothmann royal orator.

john-of-leiden-1509-1536-granger.jpg

If communism is the perfect society, somebody must be able to enjoy its fruits; and who better but the Messiah and his courtiers? Though private property in money was abolished, the confiscated gold and silver was now minted into ornamental coins for the glory of the new king. All horses were confiscated to build up the king’s armed squadron. Also, names in Münster were transformed; all the streets were renamed; Sundays and feastdays were abolished; and all new-born children were named personally by the king in accordance with a special pattern.

“Some of the main victims to be executed were women: women who were killed for denying their husbands their marital rights, for insulting a preacher, or for daring to practice bigamy — polygamy, of course, being solely a male privilege.”

In a starving slave society such as communist Münster, not all citizens could live in the luxury enjoyed by the king and his court; indeed, the new ruling class was now imposing a rigid class oligarchy seldom seen before. So that the king and his nobles might live in high luxury, rigorous austerity was imposed on everyone else in Münster. The subject population had already been robbed of their houses and much of their food; now all superfluous luxury among the masses was outlawed. Clothing and bedding were severely rationed, and all “surplus” turned over to King Bockelson under pain of death. Every house was searched thoroughly and 83 wagonloads of “surplus” clothing collected.

It is not surprising that the deluded masses of Münster began to grumble at being forced to live in abject poverty while the king and his courtiers lived in extreme luxury on the proceeds of their confiscated belongings. And so Bockelson had to beam them some propaganda to explain the new system. The explanation was this: it was all right for Bockelson to live in pomp and luxury because he was already completely dead to the world and the flesh. Since he was dead to the world, in a deep sense his luxury didn’t count. In the style of every guru who has ever lived in luxury among his credulous followers, he explained that for him material objects had no value. How such “logic” can ever fool anyone passes understanding. More important, Bockelson assured his subjects that he and his court were only the advance guard of the new order; soon, they too would be living in the same millennial luxury. Under their new order, the people of Münster would forge outward, armed with God’s will, and conquer the entire world, exterminating the unrighteous, after which Jesus would return and they would all live in luxury and perfection. Equal communism with great luxury for all would then be achieved.

Greater dissent meant, of course, greater terror, and King Bockelson’s reign of “love” intensified its intimidation and slaughter. As soon as he proclaimed the monarchy, the prophet Dusentschur announced a new divine revelation: all who persisted in disagreeing with or disobeying King Bockelson would be put to death, and their very memory blotted out. They would be extirpated forever. Some of the main victims to be executed were women: women who were killed for denying their husbands their marital rights, for insulting a preacher, or for daring to practice bigamy – polygamy, of course, being solely a male privilege.

Despite his continual preaching about marching forth to conquer the world, King Bockelson was not crazy enough to attempt that feat, especially since the bishop’s army was again besieging the town. Instead, he shrewdly used much of the expropriated gold and silver to send out apostles and pamphlets to surrounding areas of Europe, attempting to rouse the masses for Anabaptist revolution. The propaganda had considerable effect, and serious mass risings occurred throughout Holland and northwestern Germany during January 1535. A thousand armed Anabaptists gathered under the leadership of someone who called himself Christ, son of God; and serious Anabaptist rebellions took place in west Frisia, in the town of Minden, and even in the great city of Amsterdam, where the rebels managed to capture the town hall. All these risings were eventually suppressed, with the considerable help of betrayal to the various authorities of the names of the rebels and of the location of their munition dumps.

“At all times the king and his court ate and drank well, while famine and devastation raged throughout the town of Münster, and the masses ate literally everything, even inedible, they could lay their hands on.”

The princes of northwestern Europe by this time had had enough; and all the states of the Holy Roman Empire agreed to supply troops to crush the monstrous and hellish regime at Münster. For the first time, in January 1535, Münster was totally and successfully blockaded and cut off from the outside world. The Establishment then proceeded to starve the population of Münster into submission. Food shortages appeared immediately, and the crisis was met with characteristic vigour: all remaining food was confiscated, and all horses killed, for the benefit of feeding the king, his royal court and his armed guards. At all times the king and his court ate and drank well, while famine and devastation raged throughout the town of Münster, and the masses ate literally everything, even inedible, they could lay their hands on.

King Bockelson kept his rule by beaming continual propaganda and promises to the starving masses. God would definitely save them by Easter, or else he would have himself burnt in the public square. When Easter came and went, Bockelson craftily explained that he had meant only “spiritual” salvation. He promised that God would change cobblestones to bread, and of course that did not come to pass either. Finally, Bockelson, long fascinated with the theatre, ordered his starving subjects to engage in three days of dancing and athletics. Dramatic performances were held, as well as a Black Mass. Starvation, however, was now becoming all-pervasive.

divara_van_haarlem_large.jpgThe poor hapless people of Münster were now doomed totally. The bishop kept firing leaflets into the town promising a general amnesty if the people would only revolt and depose King Bockelson and his court and hand them over. To guard against such a threat, Bockelson stepped up his reign of terror still further. In early May, he divided the town into 12 sections, and placed a “duke” over each one with an armed force of 24 men. The dukes were foreigners like himself; as Dutch immigrants they were likely to be loyal to Bockelson. Each duke was strictly forbidden to leave his section, and the dukes, in turn, prohibited any meetings whatsoever of even a few people. No one was allowed to leave town, and any caught plotting to leave, helping anyone else to leave, or criticizing the king, was instantly beheaded, usually by King Bockelson himself. By mid-June such deeds were occurring daily, with the body often quartered and nailed up as a warning to the masses.

Bockelson would undoubtedly have let the entire population starve to death rather than surrender; but two escapees betrayed weak spots in the town’s defence, and on the night of June 24, 1535, the nightmare New Jerusalem at last came to a bloody end. The last several hundred Anabaptist fighters surrendered under an amnesty and were promptly massacred, and Queen Divara was beheaded. As for ex-King Bockelson, he was led about on a chain, and the following January, along with Knipperdollinck, was publicly tortured to death, and their bodies suspended in cages from a church tower.

The old Establishment of Münster was duly restored and the city became Catholic once more. The stars were once again in their courses, and the events of 1534–35 understandably led to an abiding distrust of mysticism and enthusiast movements throughout Protestant Europe.

This article is excerpted from An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, vol. 1, Economic Thought Before Adam Smith.

mardi, 31 octobre 2017

Quelle est la situation des gens en Allemagne?

Pauvreté-Allemagne.jpg

Quelle est la situation des gens en Allemagne?

par Elisabeth Koch, Allemagne

Ex: http://www.zeit-fragen.ch

Angela Merkel proclame «Nous allons bien en Allemagne». Cependant, maintenant, après les élections, les médias soulèvent la question de savoir pourquoi tant de gens sont mécontents de la situation en Allemagne, avec le gouvernement actuel. Les protestations lors des réunions électorales d’Angela Merkel étaient bien distinctes, pas seulement en Allemagne orientale. Depuis des années déjà, de nombreuses personnes expriment leur mécontentement. On ne les a pas pris au sérieux – tout au contraire. Les citoyens formulant leur désaccord sont considérées comme des personnes névrotiques: Mme Merkel utilise à tout moment les termes «craintes et inquiétudes», comme si elle était une psychiatre à la recherche d’une méthode de soins pour des patients refusant de coopérer. Rita Süssmuth, CDU, par exemple, a expliqué à la Radio suisse alémanique,1 que les gens n’avaient «pas compris» que nous avions besoin des réfugiés comme main-d’œuvre. «Nous n’étions pas assez bons dans l’écoute et dans nos explications», a-t-elle déclaré. «Nous», c’est elle et ses collègues, une élite planant comme un «vaisseau spatial» au-dessus du peuple. Cette élite sait tout, alors que nous, les citoyens, sommes des ignorants, auxquels il faut tout expliquer trois fois. Les politiciens promettent, de mieux «s’occuper» de nous, de nous «prendre avec eux».2 Ces gens ont oublié, qu’ils sont nos représentants, qu’ils doivent nous demander quels sont nos vœux et souhaits, comment nous voyons les choses. Au XXIe siècle, nous ne voulons plus, en tant que citoyens, tout accepter sans broncher ou croire que tout ce que «les puissants» nous présentent constitue la panacée. En tant que personnes éclairées, nous sommes tout à fait en mesure d’observer ce qui se passe, de nous informer, de reconnaître les liens entre les évènements et d’en tirer les conclusions nécessaires.

Sources de données: Organes statistiques fédéraux et des Länder ainsi que la Banque fédérale.

DIAGRAMM_1c530af6e3.jpg

«Qu’en est-il des Allemands de l’Est?»

L’interview accordée à un journal suisse par Petra Köpping, ministre d’Etat de la Saxe (SPD) représente une exception positive. Concernant les manifestations ayant eu lieu en Allemagne orientale lors de réunions électorales de Mme Merkel, on lui posa la question: «Qu’en est-il des Allemands de l’Est?» Et Mme Köpping de répondre: «Ceux qui crient, provoquent et sifflent sont une minorité. La majorité est tranquille – cela ne signifie pas pour autant qu’elle est satisfaite de sa situation.»3 Cela est déjà assez étonnant, car à la télévision, on ne nous montre d’ordinaire que ceux qui manifestent de manière bruyante et indignée. C’est rare d’entendre des prises de paroles raisonnables; on ne nous présente que des personnes s’exprimant de manière maladroite et souvent enragée. Mme Köpping a expliqué, que beaucoup d’Allemands de l’Est ont été trompés pour toute leur vie lors de la réunification, car malgré une bonne formation, leurs qualifications professionnelles ne valaient d’un jour à l’autre plus rien et ils ont perdu leur emploi et leur reconnaissance. En réalité, 75% des habitants en Allemagne de l’Est ont perdu leur place de travail. Nombreux sont ceux qui avaient auparavant une situation convenable et qui, soudainement, s’appauvrissaient, car leurs connaissances professionnelles n’étaient plus demandées. La formation scolaire en Allemagne de l’Est était excellente, notamment dans les domaines scientifiques et mathématiques. Mais jusqu’à aujourd’hui même des anciens professeurs diplômés doivent gagner leur pain avec des petits travaux ne correspondant nullement à leur niveau de formation. Mme Köpping déplore à juste titre que jusqu’à nos jours «les membres de 17 groupes professionnels reçoivent une rente beaucoup trop petite. Mais le gouvernement fédéral ne s’intéresse pas à ces personnes». A titre d’exemple: la rente moyenne en Allemagne se situe à 1176 euros par mois, en Allemagne orientale elle s’élevait en 2015 seulement à 984 euros en moyenne – donc de nombreuses personnes obtiennent encore moins de rente.4

Des problèmes sociaux aussi en Allemagne de l’Ouest

Dans certaines parties d’Allemagne occidentale, notamment la région de la Ruhr ou de la Sarre, le nombre de personnes ayant perdu leur emploi qualifié et prétendument garanti est également élevé. Le fait que le taux de chômage en Allemagne soit malgré tout assez bas, est probablement dû au fait que de plus en plus de personnes gagnent leur vie dans des emplois incertains à bas salaires. Ainsi, entre temps, presque la moitié de tous les contrats de travail conclus sont limités.5 Même une partie des enseignants, ayant auparavant toujours eu un emploi garanti en tant que fonctionnaire, se font licencier.6 Il n’est pas difficile de s’imaginer les incertitudes que cela signifie pour les pères et mères de famille: aurais-je encore mon emploi l’année prochaine, puis-je encore m’offrir une maison, m’installer dans un appartement. Dois-je déménager? Devons-nous nous séparer, pour trouver un emploi dans une autre partie du pays, afin de pouvoir subvenir aux frais de la famille? De nombreux chômeurs doivent accepter plusieurs jobs, travaillent dans des «jobs à 1 euro» et n’arrivent toujours pas à gagner assez. Même des retraités doivent se trouver un travail pour avoir assez à vivre. De telles situations de travail précaires mènent à une pauvreté accablante chez un nombre de personnes beaucoup trop élevé. L’infographie ci-dessus illustre comme depuis 2006, le taux de pauvreté en Allemagne grimpe en même temps que le PIB. Cela prouve que dans certains pans de la société, on gagne bien sa vie. Mais qui est-ce? Manifestement, il y a beaucoup de perdants.

Qui paye? Le «Mittelstand»!

Entre temps, on sait que bon nombre de personnes bien formées de la classe moyenne soutiennent le parti AfD (Alternative für Deutschland) par contestation. Les petites et moyenne entreprises, notamment dans les domaines de l’artisanat, du commerce de détail ou de la production – représentant le «Mittelstand» – génèrent la plus grande partie de l’argent en Allemagne. Ils garantissent notre prospérité, ils emploient la majorité des salariés, ils forment notre jeunesse. Mais on leur demande de plus en plus d’impôts. Prenons l’exemple des millions de nouveaux migrants ayant besoin de logements, de nourriture, de vêtements. C’est naïf de croire, que grâce à notre «culture d’accueil», le ciel nous offrira la manne. Les charges fiscales en découlant sont essentiellement assumées par les entreprises du «Mittelstand». Au niveau de l’UE, les transferts aux Etats membres en difficultés telles la Grèce, l’Espagne etc. sont couverts par les revenus étatiques réalisés par le «Mittelstand». En outre, celui-ci est inondé par de la main-d’œuvre et des produits bon marché arrivant de l’étranger. Les directives de l’UE obligent les entrepreneurs à pratiquer un effort bureaucratique croissant. Puis, il y a les sanctions contre la Russie affaiblissant notamment l’économie européenne. Récemment, le Handelsblatt a écrit qu’«entre temps plusieurs Länder, telles la Saxe, la Basse-Saxe et la Saxe-Anhalt, réclament des aides étatiques pour les entreprises affectées par les sanctions contre la Russie». Martin Wand­leben, directeur de la Chambre allemande de commerce et d’industrie (DIHK), exige, compte tenu des nouvelles sanctions prévues, «que l’Europe toute entière s’oppose aux plans américains».7 Jusqu’à présent, on n’entend peu ou rien concernant la prise en compte de cette demande.

L’agriculture sous pression

Concernant ces questions soulevées, les agriculteurs n’ont guère voix au chapitre. Car eux, ils ne souffrent pas seulement des intempéries, mais surtout de la bureaucratie bruxelloise et des marchés agricoles globalisés. Ils sont nombreux à lutter contre leur déchéance économique. La constante diminution du nombre d’exploitations illustre qu’il y a beaucoup de perdants. Les terres arables n’ont guère diminué en Allemagne depuis 1991. C’est-à-dire que les agriculteurs restant ont dû agrandir leur entreprise. Cela signifie qu’ils sont confrontés à une montagne de dettes suite à l’achat des terres et à de nouvelles machines agricoles. Ils en ont un grand besoin, puisque le nombre d’emplois dans le domaine de l’agriculture a également diminué.8 Que pensent les paysans en entendant la formule incantatoire «la situation de l’Allemagne n’a depuis longtemps plus été aussi bonne»?

kriminalitaet_in_deutschland_2015_n.jpg

Criminalité croissante

La situation critique de l’économie n’est certainement pas la seule raison du mécontentement régnant, d’autres domaines en politique et dans la société se trouvent également dans une situation critique. Toujours est-il qu’une discussion est mal vue, surtout quand il s’agit de la politique migratoire. La majorité des Allemands n’est pas hostile aux étrangers. L’Allemagne a toujours su intégrer des personnes venues d’ailleurs, tels les Polonais, les Italiens et les Turcs. Beaucoup d’entre eux se sont bien intégrés et font partie de la société et de l’Etat allemand.


Bien sûr, en tant que citoyens allemands, nous respectons le droit à l’asile: quiconque est en danger de vie est le bienvenu et on l’aidera. Aucun parti allemand n’a remis cela en question. Mais, il est inconcevable de provoquer partout dans le monde des guerres détruisant l’existence des gens puis de les inciter à s’enfuir en Europe. Que font le gouvernement allemand, les partis politiques établis, les médias etc. pour empêcher ces guerres scandaleuses? Plus ou moins tous soutiennent ces guerres entreprises en violant le droit international: pensons à la Yougoslavie, l’Afghanistan, la Libye ou la Syrie. On nourrit artificiellement des conflits et des émeutes dans une grande partie de l’Afrique. Des hommes politiques corrompus sont placés ou soutenus au pouvoir. Tout cela afin de pouvoir plus facilement exploiter les matières premières telles le coltan, les pierres précieuses etc. Car un peuple se trouvant sans cesse en guerre n’est pas capable d’établir un Etat de droit, d’installer des autorités judiciaires et des forces de police pour s’opposer aux pillards. Maltraité et martyrisé, le Congo (RDC) en est un parfait exemple.
Dans d’autres pays, comme en Libye, on a renversé un gouvernement stable et fonctionnant. Il y avait des structures garantissant du travail, un système de santé publique, l’éducation des jeunes et un système judiciaire plus ou moins opérationnel. Aujourd’hui, tout est détruit et la Libye est un «Etat en déliquescence». Il ne peut plus aider à résoudre la crise migratoire, puisque il en fait partie.


Ce n’est pas le moment de faire l’analyse de l’implication de l’Allemagne dans ces conflits et ces guerres. Il paraît pourtant clair que l’Europe ne peut pas accueillir tous ceux qui en souffrent. Sinon ce sera l’Allemagne qui finira par s’écrouler. D’abord sur le plan économique mais aussi en ce qui concerne l’intégration de toutes ces personnes. Actuellement, il est évident que seule une petite partie des réfugiés pourra être intégrée dans le marché du travail. Cependant, tout refugié reconnu a le droit à un logement pour lui et sa famille. La crise de logement existait déjà bien avant le flux migratoire.

Actuellement, on construit partout des logements. De nombreux Allemands réalisent que les refugiés obtiennent souvent des appartements qu’eux-mêmes ne pourraient pas se payer. Ils savent également que tout cela doit être payé par quelqu’un et que ce sont les citoyens allemands qui passent à la caisse par leurs impôts. Il est indéniable que cela mène au mécontentement.


Beaucoup de personnes arrivant chez nous pensent que nous roulons tous sur l’or. Cela crée une attitude exigeante que de nombreux citoyens réalisent et cela ne leur plaît pas non plus. Le taux de criminalité augmente, bien que ces méfaits soient commis par une minorité des étrangers, on ne peut plus le cacher et souvent les gens le vivent quotidiennement ou en sont même touchés personnellement. Parler avec condescendance d’«angoisses diffuses» de la part de la population suscite une indignation qui ne doit pas étonner. En plus, il faut savoir que la plupart des réfugiés dans notre pays n’ont pas la moindre idée, ni de notre démocratie, ni de notre Etat de droit. Pourtant, pour garantir la cohésion sociale, il est nécessaire que les habitants et les citoyens d’un pays en acceptent et soutiennent la législation. Tout cela prouve que les grands problèmes mondiaux demandent d’autres solutions que l’accueil en Europe de tous les déshérités.

Les enfants n’apprennent plus assez

Suite aux résultats de diverses élections régionales de cette année, il s’est avéré qu’un grand nombre de parents sont mécontents du fait que leurs enfants apprennent de moins en moins à l’école. En Rhénanie du Nord-Westphalie et au Bade-Wurtemberg, les électeurs viennent de passer un savon aux responsables gouvernementaux. Et cela bien que les habitants de l’Allemagne de l’Ouest soient déjà habitués depuis bien trop longtemps à des programmes scolaires farfelus. Après la Réunification, le nouveau système éducatif a provoqué un choc dans l’Est de l’Allemagne. Les habitants de l’ancienne RDA (appelés «Ossis») sont de bons observateurs et sont habitués à penser historiquement. Ils savent parfaitement que l’éducation en RDA – mise à part l’influence idéologique – était meilleure et plus solide, surtout dans les domaines des mathématiques et des sciences. Il n’est pas nécessaire d’avoir la nostalgie de la RDA pour s’en rendre compte.

famD.jpg

De nouveaux modèles familiaux?

Pour la plupart des habitants des nouveaux «Länder», la famille est centrale. C’était semblable à l’époque du communisme. Se retrouvant dans une liberté inconnue, ils se rendirent rapidement compte que l’Ouest propageait des modèles familiaux bizarres et qu’on leur demandait de les soutenir. Sinon, ils étaient marginalisés, exclus et insultés. D’ailleurs, beaucoup d’Allemands de l’Ouest ne sont pas non plus d’accord, mais ils n’osent plus le dire à haute voix.


Les familles dans les nouveaux «Länder» voient leurs jeunes partir à l’Ouest parce qu’il n’y a pas assez de travail chez eux. Même des pères de famille travaillent à l’Ouest pendant la semaine pour retourner chaque week-end chez leur famille en Saxe ou en Thuringe. En 2016, 327 000 pendulaires faisaient la navette entre leur domicile et leur lieu de travail.9 Est-ce vraiment ce qu’on entend par une meilleure vie? Les Allemands de l’Est réalisent pertinemment qu’il y a pour les Allemands de l’Ouest des non-dits, une dictature de l’opinion, des lignes rouges à ne pas franchir. Un jour, l’un d’eux m’a dit: «En RDA, on savait ce dont on avait le droit de parler et ce dont il ne fallait pas parler. On savait aussi qui tirait les ficelles. Tout était clair et transparent. Maintenant, après la Réunification, la dictature de l’opinion est beaucoup plus compliquée et opaque et il y a de multiples pièges. Tout se passe sous couvert et il est très difficile d’identifier les responsables.»
Ce ne sont que quelques sujets qu’il faut mettre sur la table. Il y a certainement encore davantage de problèmes à résoudre, et ce ne sont pas pour tous les citoyens les mêmes. Cependant, une chose est claire: il faut pouvoir en débattre ouvertement. Et en plus: les citoyens ne veulent pas seulement avoir le sentiment d’être pris au sérieux, il veulent réellement être pris au sérieux. Cela signifie: avoir son mot à dire. Il n’y pas d’alternative à la démocratie directe!     •

(Traduction Horizons et débats)

1    SRF, Echo der Zeit, Interview de Rita Süssmuth du 26/9/17
2    p. ex. Manuela Schwesig, SPD, dans une discussion télévisée le soir des élections, 24/9/17
3    «Luzerner Zeitung» du 20/9/17
4     www.focus.de/finanzen/altersvorsorge/rente/kontostand/dur...
5    cf. «Fast jeder zweite neue Arbeitsvertrag ist befristet» in: Zeit online du 12/9/17
6    cf. magazin.sofatutor.com/lehrer/2016/11/03/infografik-arbeit...
7    «Deutsche Industrie fürchtet Russlandsanktionen». Spiegel online du 4/8/17
8    cf. Données de base de l’agriculture allemande: www.veggiday.de/landwirtschaft/deutschland/220-landwirtsc...
9    cf. www.manager-magazin.de/politik/deutschland/pendler-fahren...

samedi, 28 octobre 2017

Ein Ex-Linksintellektueller wird konservativ

greiner109_v-contentgross.jpg

Ein Ex-Linksintellektueller wird konservativ

Intellektuelle wie Ulrich Greiner haben sich schon immer als kritisch verstanden. Daher waren sie links zu Zeiten, wo der Mainstream noch konservativ war. Heute ist es andersherum.

Wieder einmal: Ein ehemaliger Linksintellektueller wird konservativ. Ulrich Greiner, 1945 geboren, war Feuilletonchef der Zeit und schreibt bis heute als Autor für sie. Er stand nie so weit links wie andere, die später konservativ oder rechts wurden. Und davon gibt es viele. Dass jemand vom Konservativen zum Linken wird, geschieht vergleichsweise selten, dass jemand vom Linken zum Konservativen wird, dagegen häufig. Viele dieser bei Linken verächtlich „Konvertiten“ genannten, haben Bücher geschrieben, in denen es u.a. um die Gründe für ihren Wandel geht. Ich selbst stand in meiner Jugend sehr viel weiter links als Greiner und habe kürzlich ein Buch über meine Wandlung zum Nationalliberalen geschrieben –  schon deshalb hat mich das Thema des Buches sehr interessiert. Und ich habe viele Stellen gefunden, wo ich Ausrufezeichen gesetzt habe.

Gegen Political Correctness

greinerheimatlos.jpgIntellektuelle wie Greiner haben sich schon immer als kritisch verstanden. Daher waren sie links zu Zeiten, wo der Mainstream noch konservativ war. Heute ist es andersherum. Die Linken und die Grünen, die dominanten Akteure der Mehrheitsparteien, die „kommentierende Klasse in den Medien“: „Sie alle fürchten, die Hoheit über den sogenannten Diskurs zu verlieren und die bislang unangefochtene Macht, die moralischen Standards des Öffentlichen zu bestimmen. Käme es dahin, ich würde es begrüßen.“ (S.7) So leitet Greiner sein Buch ein. Der Autor wendet sich dagegen, „dass jede Abweichung von der Mitte nach rechts mit dem Nazi-Vorwurf mundtot gemacht“ werde (S.9).

Dabei gebe es eine deutliche Asymmetrie zwischen der öffentlichen und der veröffentlichten Meinung, wie das Beispiel der Kommentierung von Merkels „Flüchtlingspolitik” zeige. Statt diese Politik darzustellen und kritisch zu erörtern, was eigentlich Aufgabe der Medien gewesen wäre, sahen sie ihre Mission darin, die Politik der Grenzöffnung zu unterstützen, indem sie ihre humanitäre Unabwendbarkeit darstellten, um „die vom Ansturm der Ereignisse überrollte Öffentlichkeit moralisch auf den richtigen Weg zu bringen“. (S. 17)

Generell würden in der öffentlichen Debatte die Begriffe „rechts“ und „rechtsextrem“ gleichgesetzt; „links“ sei das Richtige und „rechts“ das Verdammenswerte. Was in Wahrheit seltsam sei, wenn man sich das vom Sozialismus hinterlassene Desaster vor Augen halte (S. 25). Kommunismus und Sozialismus würden noch immer für letztlich humanitäre Ideen gehalten, während alles politisch Konservative unverzüglich und erfolgreich in die Nähe des Rechtsextremismus gerückt werde (S. 37 f.).

Ein Schlüsselerlebnis

Zum guten Ton in Deutschland und generell im linksintellektuellen Diskurs gehört die Versicherung, man dürfe Nationalsozialismus und Kommunismus nicht „gleichsetzen“, ja, nicht einmal „vergleichen“. Greiner beschreibt eine Diskussion, die er im Alter von 44 Jahren mit einem Historiker, einem Überlebenden der nationalsozialistischen Konzentrationslager, führte. Dieses Gespräch war für ihn ein Schlüsselerlebnis auf dem Weg zur Abwendung vom linken Gedankengut. Greiner war einer der vielen, die sich große Mühe gaben, nachzuweisen, warum der Kommunismus doch irgendwie besser sei als der Nationalsozialismus.

Das Argument, das er seinerzeit ins Feld führte, lautete: „Der Terror Stalins und Hitlers seien unbestreitbar gleich schrecklich gewesen. Der Nationalsozialismus jedoch habe es nie zu einer konsistenten Theorie gebracht, er habe sich zusammengeklaubt, was ideologisch herumlag und brauchbar erschien, und er habe es auch nicht vermocht, Geistesgrößen und Intellektuelle dauerhaft in seinen Bann zu ziehen. Der Kommunismus hingegen blicke auf eine bedeutende philosophische Ahnengalerie zurück, die wichtigsten Intellektuellen des Jahrhunderts seien ihm wenigstens zeitweise gefolgt. Es liege daran, so etwa schloss ich in meinem jugendlichen Eifer, dass diese Idee in einem faszinierenden theoretischen System gipfelte.“ (S. 31) Nach seinen Ausführungen blickte Greiners Gesprächspartner ihn mit einem milden ironischen Lächeln an und sagte „jenen vernichtenden Satz (sagte), der mir nie wieder aus dem Kopf gegangen ist: ‚Das ist ja das Schlimme.’“ (Hier möchte ich anmerken, dass ich jedem ein anderes Buch zu diesem Thema empfehlen möchte, das ich in diesen Tagen gelesen habe.
„Man wird sich vor diesen Rettern retten müssen“

Greiners Kritik gilt vor allem dem messianischen Anspruch von Grünen, die sich als die einzig wahren Retter der Menschheit und unseres Planeten aufspielen. Und er sieht die Gefahr, wenn Menschen einer solchen eschatologischen Theorie folgen, die, „weil sie auf Äußerste zielt, äußerste Mittel anzuwenden sich gezwungen sieht. Wenn es um die Rettung der Menschheit geht, sind Rücksichten nicht mehr angebracht. Man wird sich vor diesen Rettern retten müssen.“ (S. 32)

Es handelt sich dabei ganz offensichtlich um eine pseudoreligiöse Schuldideologie, denn nach Meinung der linksgrün Bewegten seien die Bewohner der westlichen Zivilisation unweigerlich an nahezu allem schuldig: an Hunger und Elend, an der Klimakatastrophe, an den Bürgerkriegen der Dritten Welt usw. Und es gehöre dazu, dass man sich selbst permanent schuldig fühle: „Jede Plastiktüte, in die ich am Gemüsestand unbedacht meine Champignons einfülle, ist eine Gefahr für die Weltmeere; jedem Becher Milch, den ich sorglos trinke, sind die umweltschädlichen Verdauungsgase einer Kuh vorausgegangen; jeder Atemzug, den ich unbewusst tue, verschlechtert die Klimabilanz.“ (S. 61 f.)

… dass auch der Präsident schlechte Brötchen essen soll

Greiner kritisiert den allgegenwärtigen Egalitarismus, der meist mit einer kleinlichen Missgunst verbunden sei. Eine Haltung, „die dann aus der Tatsache, dass sich der seinerzeitige Bundespräsident Christian Wulff die Brötchen von seinem Lieblingsbäcker in Hannover nach Berlin fahren ließ (so geschehen 2010) gerne einen Skandal macht. So weit ist der Gleichheitsgedanke heruntergekommen: dass der Präsident die gleichen schlechten Brötchen verzehren muss wie jeder beliebige Berliner.“ (S. 140) Die Gleichheitsideologie sucht die Schuld für Mängel nicht beim Individuum, sondern stets im Sozialen (S. 117.) Dies sei auch die Quelle für die Ideologie des allumfassenden, fürsorglichen Staates, der damit christliche und menschliche Tugenden aushöhle. Wenn man akzeptieren könne, „dass Ungleichheit zu den fundamentalen menschlichen Existenzialien zählt, gewönne die Tugend der Barmherzigkeit ihr altes Gewicht zurück.“ (S. 129).

Ein Schuss Antikapitalismus bleibt

All dem bislang Zitierten kann ich zustimmen. Und auch das offensive Bekenntnis des Autors zum Christentum ist mir sympathisch. Aber mir ist bei der Lektüre aufgefallen, dass beim Autor – und dies ist typisch auch für viele konservative Intellektuelle – ein Schuss Antikapitalismus geblieben ist. Der Antikapitalismus ist als identitätsstiftende Kraft unter Intellektuellen so ungeheuer stark, dass er sogar die Wandlung vom Linken zum Konservativen übersteht. Man merkt das, wenn der Autor „Globalisierung“ mit der Vorstellung verbindet, sie sei „der Kampfplatz weltumspannender Konzerne, deren Produkte bis ins letzte Schaufenster der Provinz vorgedrungen sind“ (S. 8).

Das ist die ästhetische Kapitalismuskritik, die sich an der Gleichartigkeit der Konsumgüter stört und dabei vergisst, wie sehr sich viele Menschen auf der Welt genau danach sehnen. Und der bei solcher Kritik vergisst, dass die kapitalistische Globalisierung gerade in den vergangenen Jahrzehnten Hunderte Millionen – etwa in China oder Indien – aus Hunger und Armut befreit hat. In dem Ressentiment gegen jenen „global agierenden Kapitalismus… dem alles gleich gültig ist, sofern nur profitabel“ (S. 73) oder in der Klage über die „Macht der global agierenden Konzerne“ (S. 75) kommt der bei Intellektuellen tief verwurzelte antikapitalistische Affekt zum Ausdruck.

Und doch merkt man bei Greiner auch in dieser Hinsicht ein Stückchen selbstkritischer Reflexion, das sich in einem vorsichtigen „?“ ausdrückt, das der Autor in nachfolgendem Satz in Klammern gesetzt hat: „Denn (natürlich?) finde ich die Abgründe zwischen Arm und Reich gespenstisch, die Gehälter ganz oben schwindelerregend und die Zunahme von Unwissenheit und Verwahrlosung ganz unten bedrückend.“ (S. 123). Dabei zeigt das Beispiel Chinas, wie gerade die steigende Zahl von Millionären und Milliardären und die steigende Ungleichheit einhergingen mit dem Aufstieg Hunderter Millionen aus bitterer Armut in die Mittelschicht – beides ist ein Ergebnis der kapitalistischen Globalisierung.

Ulrich Greiner, Heimatlos. Bekenntnisse eines Konservativen, Rowohlt Verlag, Hamburg 2017, 157 Seiten.

vendredi, 27 octobre 2017

Armin Mohler und der unterschätzte Nationaljakobinismus

psQ3Fi4mh-dHw3HAnxolmQb1P9E.jpg

Armin Mohler und der unterschätzte Nationaljakobinismus

Ich bin auf diesen Begriff bei Armin Mohler gestoßen. Dieser arbeitete von 1953 bis 1961 in Frankreich als Auslandsberichterstatter und gehörte zu den besten deutschen Kennern der französischen Rechten. In einem Aufsatz über „Frankreichs Nationaljakobinismus“ (erstmals erschienen 1972 in Rekonstruktion des Konservatismus, herausgegeben von Gerd-Klaus Kaltenbrunner) setzt Mohler damit an, warum es Unsinn ist, von „französischen Konservativen“ zu sprechen.

Für das, was wir „die Konservativen“ nennen, gibt es in Frankreich nur eine unmißverständliche Bezeichnung: „la droite“, die Rechte. Schon „les ultras“, eine Entsprechung etwa zu den „diehards“ in England, verengt die Sicht. Und mit einer „droite modérée“, einer gemäßigten Rechten, oder mit „les modérés“ schlechthin, diesem ebenso beliebten wie verschwommenen Sammelnamen für alles „rechts von der Mitte“, ist man gleich wieder nach der linken Seite hin aus dem Rahmen geraten.

Mohler weist daraufhin, daß diese französische Rechte stets im Schatten des Nationaljakobinismus stand, deren wichtigste Vertreter Georges Clemenceau und Charles de Gaulle gewesen seien. Das Dilemma beginnt aber viel früher: Es läßt sich nicht von der Hand weisen, daß die Ideale der Französischen Revolution auf´s Engste mit der Idee des Nationalstaates verbunden sind, obwohl die Idee des Nationalismus im 19. Jahrhundert in ganz Europa langsam von der Linken zur Rechten hinüberwanderte, so Mohler. „Links“ und „Rechts“ wurden in der Französischen Revolution konstituiert und doch zugleich obsolet gemacht, indem sich mit dem Nationaljakobinismus eine Mischung aus beidem durchsetzte, die sowohl die Linke als auch die Rechte klein hielt.

17655184921.jpg

Die Alte Rechte entwickelte vor diese Herausforderung gestellt eine restaurative Strategie. Sie wollte die alte Ordnung vor der Französischen Revolution wiederherstellen, was selbstverständlich unmöglich war und ist. Die Neue Rechte, die 1789 stillschweigend anerkennt, um realpolitische Optionen denken zu können, unterschreibt damit jedoch ihr Schattendasein. Dieses Problem ist bis heute nicht gelöst. Brauchen wir also eine „Alternative Rechte“, die ganz anders an das Problem herangeht?

Dazu zunächst mit Mohler ein Gedanke über die Aktualität von „links“ und rechts“ nach 1945:

Und neuerdings hat die schon nicht mehr schleichende Selbstauflösung der westlich-liberalen Gesellschaft eine Situation geschaffen, in der die beiden politischen Grundhaltungen elementar und nackt zutage treten: der Rechte sucht Bindung und Halt, der Linke will Befreiung und Ungebundenheit; für den Linken sind der Mensch und die Welt im Prinzip vollkommene Gebilde, ihre reale Unvollkommenheit eine Schuld der Umstände, die deshalb verändert werden müssen – der Rechte glaubt nicht an diese Perfektibilität, für ihn geht durch Welt und Mensch ein tragischer Zwiespalt, der nicht aufgehoben werden kann, aber bestanden werden muß.

Mit eben dieser skeptischen Haltung blicke ich auch auf den Nationalstaat. Dieser ist für mich wertlos, wenn er nicht in der Lage ist, Bindung und Halt zu bieten. Mohler stellt diese Frage nicht in dieser Deutlichkeit. Das liegt daran, daß er glaubt, das Phänomen Nationaljakobinismus lasse sich auf Frankreich beschränken. Ich vermute jedoch, daß er ein Grundmotiv der europäischen Geschichte der letzten gut 200 Jahre ist. Der unsichtbare Nationaljakobinismus ist es, der den (italienischen, real existierenden) Faschismus zu einer weder linken, noch rechten Ideologie machte, der den Nationalsozialismus in die Nähe der Linken trieb und der andersherum die DDR zu einem Staat werden ließ, der unbeabsichtigt vorbildlich die deutsche Volkssubstanz schützte.

Für die Rechte gilt der simple Satz, daß es sie nur dort in nennenswerter Form gibt, wo der Nationaljakobinismus durch eine äußere Zwangslage oder eine innere Schwäche in seiner Ausstrahlung behindert wird.

Das heißt also: Solange die Rechte den Nationaljakobinismus nicht als Gegner erkennt, bleibt sie wirkungslos. Dann gibt es die Rechte lediglich „als Kunstwerk“. Mohler nennt in diesem Zuge Joseph de Maistre, Charles Maurras, Drieu La Rochelle, Ferdinand Céline und Georges Sorel. Sie alle hatten mehr literarischen als politischen Einfluß. Das ist ein Umstand, der eben auch auf die deutsche Konservative Revolution zutrifft.

jeudi, 26 octobre 2017

Der blinde Seher: Ernst Niekisch revisited

niekisch.jpg

Der blinde Seher: Ernst Niekisch revisited

In einem Kommentar in Tichys Einblick stand neulich zu lesen, dass selbst ein Rücktritt der Kanzlerin an der Gesamtlage wenig ändern würde, da links-liberales Gedankengut immer noch zu tief in den maßgebenden Teilen der Gesellschaft verankert sei.

Erst eine Art „Langer Marsch“ durch die Köpfe und Herzen der Menschen könne nachhaltige Veränderung bringen oder aber, gleichsam als Abkürzung, Krieg und/oder Revolution. Warum letzteres unter jetzigen (west-)deutschen Verhältnissen eher unwahrscheinlich ist, hat Ernst Niekisch gegen Ende seines bewegten Lebens vorausgesehen.

Der schwer zu klassifizierende Publizist und Politiker, der heute im Zuge von Querfront-Strategien wieder herangezogen wird, war ein Enttäuschter der Geschichte, zumal der deutschen. Nirgendwo richtig zu Hause und von den Strapazen der NS-Haft gezeichnet, verlor er zum Schluss sein Augenlicht, was sein politisches Gespür allerdings umso schärfer werden ließ. Gleich einem prosaisch-preußischen Homer sah er statt Götter Ideen auf den Schlachtfeldern der Geschichte gegeneinander streiten. Die bürgerliche Ideologie in all ihren Verkleidungen und Verästelungen nahm für ihn die Rolle des Trojanischen Pferdes ein. Sie verhinderte immer wieder den ersehnten revolutionären Durchbruch – bis heute.

Auf der Suche nach der Revolution

Ernst Niekisch war geborener und stolzer Preuße, der die erste Zeit seines politischen Wirkens allerdings im „Feindesland“, nämlich in Bayern zubrachte. Er kommt am 23. Mai 1889 in kleinbürgerlichen Verhältnissen in Trebnitz/Schlesien zu Welt und bleibt zeitlebens ein erklärter Feind bürgerlicher Wertvorstellungen. 1908 als Einjährig-Freiwilliger eingezogen und im Ersten Weltkrieg in der Etappe eingesetzt, verabscheute er Militarismus und Pazifismus gleichermaßen.

Kein Rassist, aber vom Adel der preußischen Rasse überzeugt, wird er zum nationalen, nicht-marxistischen Sozialisten, der zeitweise von einem preußisch-russischen Agrarimperium schwärmt. Die Kriegseuphorie des Sommers 1914 lässt ihn vergleichsweise kalt, während ihn der Ausbruch der Oktoberrevolution 1917 in Russland mit Begeisterung erfüllt und in die Politik treibt. Es ist mehr Ehrgeiz und nicht wirkliche Überzeugung, die Niekisch 1917 in die SPD eintreten lässt, liebäugelt er doch bereits mit einem Einzug in eine künftige Regierung. „Ich meine, es müsste sich nun endlich meine Zeit erfüllen“, schreibt er, vor Sendungsbewusstsein strotzend, in sein Tagebuch.

Rätebewegung

In der Phase der Arbeiter- und Soldatenräte wird er in einer Augsburger Kaserne zum Vorsitzenden des dortigen Rates gewählt. Niekisch steht für eine Revolution ohne Kommunismus, obwohl er den Marxismus vor allem für seine soziale Diagnostik schätzt. Die Moskau-Hörigkeit der späteren KPD wird er hingegen ablehnen. Die Rätebewegung sieht er als Plattform, um das „nötige Gemeinschafts- und Brüderlichkeitsgefühl“ unter den Deutschen zu erwecken. Doch ist er in seiner Politik nicht konsequent genug, da er in einer vermittelnden Position gegenüber der bayerischen Landesregierung verharrt und die letzte Radikalität in der Praxis scheut.

Nach Ende der Münchener Räterepublik wird er verhaftet und zu einer Gefängnisstrafe verurteilt, die er u.a. zusammen mit dem Anarchisten Erich Mühsam verbüßt. Zuvor war Niekisch in die Redaktion der USPD-nahen Zeitung Umschau eingetreten, bevor er im Jahre 1926 die SPD ganz verlassen wird, um einem drohenden Rauswurf zuvorzukommen. Da hatte er sich unter dem Einfluss von Oswald Spengler schon zum sozialistischen Nationalisten gewandelt. Ähnlich Hitler, den er schon vor 1933 bekämpft, tritt er bald darauf in eine Splitterpartei ein, die er gemäß seinen Vorstellungen umzuwandeln gedenkt: der sogenannten Alten Sozialdemokratischen Partei, die sich als Alternative zu NSDAP und SPD positionieren will.

Ernst Niekisch, Versión 1955 1b.PNG

Im Widerstand zusammen mit den Gebrüdern Jünger

Ernst Niekisch nimmt in dieser Phase auch Fühlung zu den diversen paramilitärischen Bünden auf, wie dem Bund Oberland, dem Wehrwolf oder dem Jungdeutschen Orden, da er vor allem die Entfesselung aller revolutionären Energien auf nationaler Ebene vorantreiben will. Von manchen dieser Organisationen lässt er sogar die Parteiveranstaltungen bewachen, auf denen auch das Horst-Wessel-Lied erklingt. Aber anders als Hitler ist Niekisch bei seinen Projekten allenfalls mäßig erfolgreich. Bekannter wird er in dieser Zeit vor allem durch seine Zeitschrift Widerstand, für die er u.a. die Gebrüder Jünger als Autoren gewinnen kann.

Auch diesem Projekt, das gleichwohl wie nichts zuvor und danach mit seinem Namen verknüpft bleiben sollte, ist kein langes Leben beschieden. Die anhebende NS-Diktatur ist ihm nicht revolutionär genug und Hitler wird in den Augen des Preußen Niekisch stets ein überspannter österreichischer Kleinbürger bleiben, dessen dogmatischer Rassismus ihm letztlich fremd ist. Ernst Niekisch geht in die innere Emigration, kann aber einen Kreis ehemaliger politischer Gefährten bei der Stange halten.

1939 wird er wegen Verschwörungsabsichten vom Regime zu lebenslänglichem Zuchthaus verurteilt. Die Solidarität unter den kommunistischen Häftlingen wird ihn tief beeindrucken, so dass er sich nach seiner Befreiung dem neuen SED-Regime der beginnenden DDR zur Verfügung stellt. Es folgen Tätigkeiten als Dozent sowie als Volkskammerabgeordneter der herrschenden Einheitspartei. Obwohl eine Anbindung an Russland zu den Konstanten in Niekischs geopolitischen Ansichten zählt, protestiert er gegen die gewaltsame Niederschlagung des Aufstands vom 17. Juni 1953 und gilt in der SED fortan als eigenbrötlerischer Sektierer. 1963 zieht er nach Westberlin und muss von nun an in der ungeliebten Bundesrepublik auf demütigende Weise jahrelang für sich und seine Frau eine Rente einklagen.

Die Geschichte als Feind

Dass eine Revolution nach dem Geschmack Niekischs in Deutschland weitgehend ausblieb, versucht er immer wieder in seinen Schriften zu ergründen. Er ist fast so etwas wie ein permanent Ernüchterter, der sich nach dem Rausch sehnt. Diese Enttäuschung über den Gang der Dinge in Deutschland macht aus dem glücklosen Politiker den Publizisten Niekisch, der bald zu jedem Gebiet der Ideengeschichte etwas zu sagen weiß. Dabei stößt er immer wieder auf den spezifisch kleinbürgerlichen Geist, welcher in der deutschen Geschichte den großen Wurf, das tollkühne Wagnis der Freiheit bestenfalls in Ansätzen zugelassen hat. Ein Gedanke, der ihn nicht mehr loslassen sollte.

220px-Widerstand.jpg„Das preußische Schwert fand kein fruchtbares Verhältnis zum Geiste“, so verkündet der Autor der Deutschen Daseinsverfehlung sein Urteil gleich zu Beginn seiner Abhandlung. Das Bürgertum war die Quelle von Ideen, welche die althergebrachten und gottgewollt geglaubten Ordnungen ins Wanken bringen sollte – nur in den deutschen Territorien nicht. Jedenfalls nicht auf diese Länder und ihre Herren, die Landesfürsten, bezogen. Die Reformation als theologisch-politische Befreiung vom supranationalen Joch Roms übertrug sich nicht auf die deutschen Territorialfürsten.

Im Gegenteil, das erwachende Bürgertum trat in die Gefolgschaft der Höfe und sicherte somit den Erfolg der Reformation und erbte dafür einen Charakterzug, der bis heute, wenn auch in völlig anderer Gewandung, hervorsticht: den Gehorsam gegenüber der Obrigkeit. Man denke hier nur an Luthers Rolle in den Bauernkriegen. Für Ernst Niekisch hat das deutsche Bürgertum auf die Revolution verzichtet und die politische Macht dem Adel überlassen (mit Ausläufern bis 1848). Ideen hatten demzufolge in deutschen Gebieten nur die Chance, von der herrschenden Aristokratie zu eigen gemacht zu werden. Als Beispiel führt der Autor den Preußenkönig Friedrich II. an, der die Aufklärung mit dem Militarismus seines Vaters zu paaren versuchte.

Das Volk als kämpferische Klasse

Es ging also letztlich immer nur „von oben“ herab. Im erstarkenden Preußen kam hinzu, dass dort der Bürger immer auch Soldat war und die Gewalt bzw. die militärische Stärke die Rolle der Idee einnahm. Parallel dazu verlegte sich das aufstrebende Bürgertum, hier im Einklang mit dem Bürgertum anderer Länder, auf das Gebiet der Wirtschaft und nahm hier bald die Rolle des Adels an, „denn auch die bürgerliche Gesellschaft brauchte, wie die feudale Gesellschaft, Menschen, denen das Mark aus den Knochen gesogen werden konnte“, so Niekisch in sozialistischer Aufwallung. Ab diesem Punkt argumentiert er über weite Strecken entlang klassisch marxistischer Parameter. Der sich langsam etablierende bürgerliche Zuschnitt der Demokratie (fast) allerorten ist nach ihm nichts anderes, als ein subtiler Wechsel der Methodik.

Die wachsende Zahl der Proletarier bleibt wirksam ausgeschlossen, obwohl ihm formalpolitisch alle Rechte zugestanden werden. Schlimmer noch: Es bleibt im ideellen Einflussbereich des Bürgertums, dessen Wertvorstellungen es bewusst oder unbewusst übernimmt. Ein proletarisches Klassenbewusstsein, das die Stärke einer einheitlichen Masse in die Waagschale werfen könnte, kommt wenn überhaupt nur in Ansätzen zustande. Der kommunistische Internationalismus ist in Niekischs Augen zudem ein nutzloser ideeller Fremdkörper im deutschen (und nicht nur deutschen) Proletariat. Ernst Niekisch will das Volk als Klasse und zwar als eine kämpferische.

In späterer Zeit wird er auf die USA blicken, deren Marshall-Plan er als Bestechungsgeld an die Deutschen verachtet. Gleichzeitig erkennt er die Cleverness der USA an, sich die Arbeiterklasse gefügig zu machen und die kommunistische Bedrohung im Inland weitgehend auszuschalten. Das amerikanische Modell der von ihm so genannten Clerk-Demokratie lässt jede Widerstandsbewegung wie eine Welle sich totlaufen.

Die Clerk-Demokratie: eine totalitäre Phantasterei?

Die Niekisch-Biografin Birgit Rätsch-Langejürgen schreibt über Niekischs späte Weltsicht: „Es war keine Traumwelt, keine bessere Welt, vielmehr verstieg er sich wie ehedem zu totalitären Phantastereien“. Wer auf den heutigen Zuschnitt der westeuropäisch-amerikanischen Gesellschaft blickt, findet Niekischs Überlegungen weniger als Phantasterei denn als realitätsnahe Prognose. Mit dem englischen Begriff „Clerk“ fasst Niekisch die Gesamtheit aller sachbearbeitenden Dienstleistungen einer zunehmend technokratischen Welt zusammen, was ziemlich genau auf heutiges wie zukünftiges Wirtschaften zutrifft.

Bereits 1935 beschreibt er in der Manier eines H. G. Wells in Die Dritte Imperiale Figur die Fusion zwischen Geist und Funktion im Typus des Funktionärs, den er kurzerhand als „Barbaren modernen Zuschnitts“ bezeichnet. Die einzige Revolution, die hier noch stattfindet, ist die technologische. Ihr fügt sich alles. „Das Dasein muß präzis, im Sinne einer Maschine, funktionieren“, schreibt Niekisch und fügt hinzu, dass diese Revolution um die Welt gehen und den Menschen ganz neu konstituieren werde.

4675319070_eb28d2f3dd.jpg

Später wird Niekisch in seiner Schau präziser. Der innere Zusammenhalt der Clerk-Gesellschaften funktioniert fast wie autogenes Training. Entlang der Phasen Mechanisierung, Typisierung und Normierung entsteht ein Menschentypus, dem auf der einen Seite jede Behaglichkeit in Aussicht gestellt wird oder real zur Verfügung steht, von dem aber auf der anderen Seite totale Unterordnung unter die laufenden Wirtschaftsprozesse gefordert wird. Damit dies möglichst reibungslos vonstattengeht, muss jeder Widerstandswille gleichsam in Watte erstickt bzw. subjektiv als sinnlos und ungerechtfertigt erlebt werden. „Das Behagen am gehobenen Lebensstandard, das Wohlgefühl einer verhältnismäßigen Gesichertheit erstickt den Kampfgeist; man ahnt, daß man, wenn man ihn noch pflegte, vieles aufs Spiel setzen würde“, so Niekisch in einem Aufsatz über die Clerkisierung.

Das Sterben der Ideen

Revolutionen entstehen nach Niekisch fast immer aus Verzweiflung heraus. Wichtig sei, dass die eigentlichen Mächte, die über die Zustände wachen, im Hintergrund bleiben, denn diese Gleichschaltung soll auf freiwilliger Basis erfolgen und möglichst unbemerkt bleiben. Wer das erreichen will, muss bestrebt sein, den Menschen in seinen Schwächen zu packen, ihn auf breiter Front zu entpolitisieren, ihn zu entmündigen, ihn von Verantwortung zu entlasten oder besser noch ihn zum Komplizen seiner eigenen Entmenschlichung zu machen.

Letzteres geht am besten durch den Einsatz dessen, was das Bürgertum groß gemacht hat: einer Idee. Denn, so Niekisch, „der liberale Mensch steht unausgesetzt unter der Kontrolle eines Menschenbildes“. Wenn das Menschenbild politisch edel erscheint, ist man eher geneigt, die wirtschaftliche Ausbeutung für seine vermeintliche Realisierung hinzunehmen. Letztlich führen diese Ideen zum Sterben der Ideen als solchen, was den Machtverwaltern nur recht sein kann. Der Clerk ist eine Schattengestalt in einem Schattenreich unter künstlicher Beleuchtung. Will er zu sich selbst zurückkehren, will er im Willen zum Widerstand sein Menschsein zurückerlangen, möge er sich am Wort des französischen Revolutionärs Camille Desmoulins aufrichten, der einmal gesagt haben soll: „Die Dinge erscheinen uns nur riesig, weil wir auf unseren Knien sind; lasst uns aufstehen!“

In BN-Anstoß VIII mit dem Titel Aufstand des Geistes. Konservative Revolutionäre im Profil (2016 erschienen) finden sich zehn Portraits über Denker, die wir wiederentdecken müssen. Niekisch ist auch dabei. Hier bestellen!

mardi, 24 octobre 2017

Friedrich Schleiermacher: The Father of Modern Theology & a Prophet of German Nationalism

DSC_0395.png

Friedrich Schleiermacher:
The Father of Modern Theology & a Prophet of German Nationalism

Part 1

“I feel sure that Germany, the kernel of Europe, will arise once more in a new and beautiful state, but when this will happen, and whether the country will not first have to experience even greater difficulties […] God alone knows.” — Friedrich Schleiermacher, 1806[1] [3]

“. . . were you not mine, I should not have felt so conscious of how true is my patriotism and my courage. As it is, however, I know that I may place myself on a level with whomsoever it may be, that I am worthy of having a country I can call my own, and that I am worthy of being a husband and a father. […] Now, this is just my vocation – to represent more clearly that which dwells in all true human beings, and to bring it home to their consciences.” — Friedrich Schleiermacher, in a letter to his wife to be, Henriette von Willich, 1808[2] [4]

Friedrich Schleiermacher is generally recognized as the father of modern theology,[3] [5] and considered the most influential Protestant theologian since John Calvin. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, Schleiermacher redirected the course of Protestant theology by breaking the stalemate of rationalism and orthodoxy.[4] [6] The rise of neo-orthodoxy in the twentieth century, led by Karl Barth, was in many ways a reaction to the influence of Schleiermacher. After World War Two, Schleiermacher was treated with suspicion, since he was a Romantic, a German idealist, and an advocate of nationalism, culturally conditioned Protestantism, and the German Volksgeist.[5] [7] To him, the essence of religion was an inward disposition of piety, rather than outward practices or written dogmas.[6] [8]

Early Life

Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher was born in 1768 in the Silesian town of Breslau in Prussia (now Wroclaw in Poland). He was the son of a Reformed pastor who served as a chaplain in the Prussian army.[7] [9] At fourteen, Schleiermacher was placed in a school of the Moravian Brethren, or Herrnhuters, a Pietist congregation. The Moravians emphasized an intense devotion to Jesus and a vivid communion with him, resulting in the immediate presence of God, experienced within the self. This had a profound influence on Schleiermacher. At the Moravian school he also got a humanistic education based on the study of Latin and Greek.[8] [10] He enrolled in a Moravian seminary at sixteen to become a pastor. At the seminary, the students were forbidden from reading modern writers like Goethe, or the investigations of modern theologians and philosophers into the Christian system and the human mind. Schleiermacher asked his father for permission to enroll at the University of Halle instead, telling him that he no longer believed in Christ’s vicarious atonement. His father reluctantly agreed, believing that “pride, egotism, and intolerance” had taken possession of him.[9] [11] “Go then into the world whose approval you desire,” he told his son.[10] [12]

Schleiermacher matriculated at Halle in 1787. The leading philosopher at Halle then was Johann August Eberhard, who acquainted his students with a thorough knowledge of Kant’s philosophical system, and introduced them to the history of philosophy, and philosophers like Plato and Aristotle. For many years, Schleiermacher devoted himself to the study of Kant’s philosophy,[11] [13] and for a while he thought he’d lost all faith except in Kantian ethics.[12] [14]

In 1796, Schleiermacher moved to Berlin when he was appointed as a Reformed chaplain at Berlin’s main hospital, the Charité Hospital. There, he became acquainted with a circle of Romantics, who sought unity in their lives by completely devoting themselves to something they thought worthy of devotion. Their ideas centered around inward feeling, idealism and the growth of individuality. There, Schleiermacher met the poet Friedrich Schlegel who became his friend and had a significant influence on him.[13] [15] Schleiermacher understood individuality to be the designation of each individual in the order of things by divine providence: “Your obligation is to be what the consciousness of your being bids you to be and become.”[14] [16] His relationship with the Romantics was somewhat ambivalent. He noted that all people with artistic nature had “at least some stirrings of piety.” But ultimately, Schleiermacher wrote, “imaginative natures fail in penetrative spirit, in capacity for mastering the essential.” Wilhelm Dilthey wrote about Schleiermacher’s time with the Romantics: “Like every genius he was lonely in their midst and yet needed them. He lived among them as a sober man among dreamers.”[15] [17] Schleiermacher was repeatedly embarrassed and humiliated by their social impropriety and inability to function in the real world.[16] [18]

Together, Schleiermacher and Friedrich Schlegel decided to begin the monumental task of producing the first German translation of Plato’s works. But Schleiermacher could not count on Schlegel, and soon he had had to work on the translation alone. The work took many years and the volumes were published intermittently between 1804 and 1828, although not all dialogues were translated. Still today, Schleiermacher’s translations are the most sold paperback editions of Plato in Germany and are authoritative translations for scholars. Dilthey claimed that through them, “knowledge of Greek philosophy first became possible.”[17] [19] The work on the translation was to have a profound effect on the development of Schleiermacher’s philosophy.

The Speeches on Religion

Bothered by the Romantics’ hostility toward religion, Schleiermacher wrote his most famous work, On Religion: Speeches to Its Cultured Despisers (Über die Religion: Reden an die Gebildeten unter ihren Verächtern), in 1799, which made him instantly famous. In it, Schleiermacher attempted to discern the spirit or idea of pure religion, just as Kant had done for pure reason. In this early work his philosophical and theological ideas were still unformed and would evolve in the following years.

9780521357890-us-300.jpgSchleiermacher thought that the Romantics’ criticism of religion applied only to external factors such as dogmas, opinions, and practices, which determine the social and historical form of religions. Religion was about the source of the external factors. He noted that, “as the childhood images of God and immortality vanished before my doubting eyes, piety remained.”[18] [20] He distinguished religion from “vain mythology” that conceived God as an outside being who interfered in history or natural events, although he thought Christianity should retain its mythical aspects and language as long as it was recognized as myth. Beliefs or knowledge about the nature of reality were also to be separated from religion.[19] [21] After Kant, the old-world view with its metaphysical idea of God was no longer possible. Martin Redeker explains: “On the basis of critical transcendental philosophy God cannot be the object of human knowledge, since human knowledge is bound to space and time and the categories of reason, i.e., the finite world.”[20] [22]

True religion, according to Schleiermacher was the “immediate consciousness of the universal being of all finite things in and through the infinite, of all temporal things in and through the eternal.”[21] [23] Feeling was the essence of his idea of religion, feeling of the eternal in all that has life and being. Feeling was only religious though, if it imparted a revelation of the spirit of the whole. That was God, the highest unity, being felt.[22] [24] Schleiermacher defined feeling as the pre-conceptual organ of subjective receptivity that makes thought and experience possible. Feeling is self-consciousness itself, the unifying property of the self that pre-reflectively apprehends the world as a whole.[23] [25] It is the primal act of the spirit before reality is divided into subject and object. An existential experience of revelation is the basis of faith and the certainty of salvation, not correct doctrines or theological formulations.[24] [26]

In contrast to Romantic religious individualism, Schleiermacher claimed that religion was social or nothing at all, since it was “man’s nature to be social.” The more one is stirred by religious feelings, “the more strongly his drive toward sociality comes into play.” A religious person, therefore, must interact with other people and do his part in the Christian church, which is the social form of the idea of true religion. Although, corruption is to be expected when the eternal steps down into the sphere of the temporal and must adapt to historical and political realities.[25] [27]  What characterizes Christianity is the conflict of the infinite and finite in human history, and through Christ’s reconciliation this conflict is overcome. Thus, Christianity is by nature a polemical religion, critical of culture, of religion, and above all of itself.[26] [28]

Many readers, including Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, found Schleiermacher’s account of the essence of religion wonderful, but his attempt to justify church Christianity disappointing. Georg W. F. Hegel admired On Religion, but later the admiration would turn to hate. It has been suggested that it was partly because Hegel envied Schleiermacher’s work on Plato, Heraclitus, and the dialectic, although their later rivalry at the University of Berlin seems an adequate cause.[27] [29]

In this early work, Schleiermacher shows some prejudice toward his neighboring countries, when he asks who could fathom his testimony: “To whom should I turn if not to the sons of Germany? Where else is an audience for my speech? It is not blind predilection […] that makes me speak thus, but the deep conviction that you alone are capable, as well as worthy, of having awakened in you the sense for holy and divine things.”[28] [30] According to Schleiermacher, the English, “whom many unduly honor,” are incapable of attaining true religion, for they are driven by the pursuit of “gain and enjoyment.” He continues, “their zeal for knowledge is only a sham fight, their worldly wisdom a false jewel, […] and their sacred freedom itself too often and too easily serves self-interest. They are never in earnest with anything that goes beyond palpable utility.”[29] [31] The French are worse: “On them, one who honors religion can hardly endure to look, for in every act and almost in every word, they tread its holiest ordinances under foot.” The “barbarous indifference” of the French people and the “witty frivolity” of their intellectuals towards the historical events taking place in France at the time, (the French Revolutionary Wars) shows how little disposition they have for true religion. “What does religion abhor more than that unbridled arrogance by which the leaders of the French people defy the eternal laws of our world? What does religion more keenly instill than that humble, considerate moderation for which they do not seem to have even the faintest feeling?”[30] [32]

Professor at Halle and Christmas Eve

In 1804, the Prussian government called Schleiermacher to the University of Halle as professor and university preacher.[31] [33] The following year, he wrote Christmas Eve (Die Weihnachtsfeier), a work in the style of Plato’s dialogues. It is a conversation among a group of friends gathered on Christmas eve, discussing the meaning of the Christmas celebration and Christ’s birth.[32] [34]

10954134.jpgThe dialogue begins with the historical criticism of the Enlightenment, claiming that although the Christmas celebration is a powerful and vital present reality, it is hardly based on historical fact. The birth of Christ is only a legend. Schleiermacher rejects the historical empiricism of the Enlightenment since it results only in the discovery of insignificant causes for important events and the outcome of history becomes accidental. This is not good enough, “for history derives from epic and mythology, and these clearly lead to the identity of appearance and idea.” Therefore, he says, “it is precisely the task of history to make the particular immortal. Thus, the particular first gets its position and distinct existence in history by means of a higher treatment.”[33] [35]

Speculation and empiricism must be combined for historical understanding: “However weak the historical traces may be if viewed critically, the celebration does not depend on these but the necessary idea of a Redeemer.”[34] [36] Since men lack the unity and harmony of primordial nature and whose nature is the separation of spirit and flesh, they need redemption.[35] [37] The birth of Christ, “is founded more upon an eternal decree than upon definite, individual fact, and on this account cannot be spoken of in a definite moment but is rather elevated above temporal history and must be maintained mystically.” Festivals like Christmas simply create their own historical background.[36] [38] But the myth of Christmas is far from arbitrary: “Something inward must lie at its basis, otherwise it could never be effective nor endure. This inner something, however, can be nothing else than the ground of all joy itself.”[37] [39]

Schleiermacher understands Christmas as the event when eternal being enters the finite becoming of history, influenced by the Platonic ideas, the archetypes of pure being. The spirit thus reveals himself in history and brings mankind to self-consciousness.[38] [40] The celebration of the eternal is what sets Christmas apart from other festivals.

Some, to be sure have attempted to transfer the widespread joy that belongs to the Christmas season to the New Year, the day on which the changes and contrasts of time are pre-eminent. […] The New Year is devoted to the renewal of what is only transitory. Therefore, it is especially appropriate that those who, lacking stability of character, live only from year to year should make an especially joyful day of it. All human beings are subject to the shifts of time. That goes without saying. However, some of the rest of us do not desire to have our live in what is only transitory.[39] [41]

The joy of Christmas bespeaks an original undivided human nature where the antitheses between time and eternity, thought and being have been overcome, an eternal life in our temporal existence.[40] [42] The celebration of Christmas also brings to the fore the divine relationship of mother and child. Mary symbolizes every mother, and mother’s love for her child is the eternal element in every woman’s life, the essence of her being.[41] [43]

Schleiermacher’s life changed when Napoleon defeated the Prussian army in 1806. After battles in the streets, Halle was captured and occupied. Schleiermacher’s house was plundered and occupied by French soldiers.[42] [44] “Unlike Goethe and Hegel, who admired the French conqueror, Schleiermacher seethed with rage at the crushing of old Prussia.”[43] [45] When he was asked by a French official to witness Napoleon’s entry into the city, Schleiermacher asked to be excused. The students were expelled and the University dissolved. Yet Schleiermacher remained, convinced that greatness awaited Prussia and Germany. The destruction of Prussia was only a transition, the old and feeble had to fall for something stronger to emerge. He wrote: “The scourge must pass over everything that is German; only under this condition can something thoroughly beautiful later arise out of this. Bless those who will live to see it; but those who die, may they die in faith.”[44] [46] He was convinced that God had ordained that Germany, this glorious cultural entity, would also be realized politically.[45] [47]

Prussia’s defeat and Napoleon’s occupation brought Schleiermacher to consciousness of the spirit of nationalism. He joined the movement for reform in Prussia, based on the emerging Protestant ethics, and the values of Volk, state, and fatherland. Schleiermacher’s ethics had until then been based on individuality. The individual self now found its freedom by serving the nation and the state. Moreover, Providence was at work in history as peoples and states evolved into social individuals. The old idea of history as a process of continuous perfection, harmony, and peace, gave way to a history as a life of struggle, decisions, and sacrifice, but also catastrophe and destruction. This was the will of God for the realization of justice and truth.[46] [48] In the collapse of the Prussian state, Schleiermacher sensed the will of God leading his people through defeat to victory. Germans had to recognize God’s work in the ethos and spirit of the German nation and the historical state, and obey his will. God would protect those who wanted to preserve themselves, and their unique meaning and spirit. For the fatherland and its freedom, one must risk his life. A Christian cannot rely on others or only himself, but should trust in the power of God when standing up for his Fatherland.[47] [49]

Up until the defeat, Schleiermacher had seen Prussia as his Fatherland, but he now started to question its existence. He wondered whether God was using the defeat to awaken the Prussian people to their destiny in Germany. This humiliation could only have been prevented by a unified Germany.[48] [50] He felt that the struggle of nationalism had been made almost impossible by the Enlightenment, its ideas masked decay with a false sense of progress. “Every last moment is supposed to have been full of progress. Oh, how much I despise this generation, which adorns itself more shamelessly than any other ever did.”[49] [51]

Professor at the University of Berlin

The University of Berlin was founded in 1809 by Wilhelm von Humboldt. Schleiermacher played an important role in the founding of the university, working as one of Humboldt’s closest collaborators. Schleiermacher, like Fichte, opposed the idea of the university as a technical school of higher learning and special studies, based on those that had been established in France after the Revolution. Science was supposed to be universal and coherent, a unified and universal system of man’s total knowledge.[50] [52]

220px-Friedrich_Daniel_Ernst_Schleiermacher_2.jpgSchleiermacher and Fichte based their idea of university on the transcendental idealist philosophy and its new conception of science. A mere technical academy could not represent the totality of knowledge. According to Schleiermacher, “the totality of knowledge should be shown by perceiving the principles as well as the outline of all learning in such a way that one develops the ability to pursue each sphere of knowledge on his own.” All genuine and creative scholarly work must be rooted in the scientific spirit as expressed in philosophy.[51] [53] The philosophical faculty was to predominate over the other faculties in the university because, “there is no productive scientific capacity in the absence of the speculative spirit.”[52] [54] The students were to be captivated by the idea of knowledge, and all specialized learning was to be understood in accordance with the entire framework of knowledge. From this, the students would derive the impulse for their own research.[53] [55]

In 1810, Schleiermacher joined the Prussian Academy of Sciences and became permanent secretary of the philosophical division in 1814. There he worked to establish a new field, cultural-historical studies, in which he emphasized a new study of antiquity that combined philosophy with the history of philosophy, law, and art. A critical edition of Aristotle’s works was also prepared at his recommendation. Because of the importance of the new studies, Schleiermacher urged the appointment of Hegel to Berlin, but Hegel became isolated, and they had no personal relationship.[54] [56] Hegel soon took issue with Schleiermacher’s theology of feeling and blasted Schleiermacher in every lecture cycle.[55] [57] Schleiermacher, in turn made sure that Hegel was kept out of the Academy of Sciences, ostensibly on the grounds that Hegel’s speculative philosophy was no science.[56] [58]

Schleiermacher served as a pastor alongside his academic appointments his whole career. During the French occupation he used his pulpit in the Berlin Charité to raise the spirits of his congregation and instill in them the spirit of nationalism. The philosopher Henrik Steffens, a friend of Schleiermacher’s, described his sermons thus: “How he elevated and settled the mind of [Berlin’s] citizens […]; through him Berlin was as if transformed […]. His commanding, refreshing, always joyful spirit was like a courageous army in that most troubled time.”[57] [59] In 1808 he joined a secret group of agitators, who sought to prepare a popular uprising and a war against Napoleon. There he befriended prominent patriots like general Gerhard von Scharnhorst and field marshal August von Gneisenau, whose names were later given to famous German battleships. Political maneuvers of Russia and Austria ruined the work of the secret group and the possibility of war against Napoleon would have to wait a few years.[58] [60]

Then in 1813, Prussia prepared to fight Napoleon again. That year, Schleiermacher preached a sermon before young soldiers in Berlin who were going to fight the coming war. He told them that they should think only of the nation when fighting. That should be their inspiration for bravery. They were fighting for the Fatherland and not for personal liberties. If a soldier died fighting to preserve his personal liberties, his death was a total waste since one had to be alive to enjoy the liberty. To die fighting for the Fatherland, on the other hand, was only an “utterly insignificant casualty.” Schleiermacher, valued death from a mystical point of view, as it united the soul with God. He knew what tragedy the death of a soldier was, but he wanted them to know that the only meaningful death for a soldier would be for the sake of the Fatherland. He himself served in the Landsturm reserve unit for the defense of Berlin. The Landsturm was supposed to be a second line of defense behind the newly established Landwehr.[59] [61]

The struggle against France and the ineffective political organization in Prussia caused Schleiermacher to begin to question the rule by divine right, on which the monarchy was based. Germany was ruled by many monarchs who all claimed to rule by the will of God, but to Schleiermacher, God would only approve a unified Germany. A rule by a monarch was only justified by the will of the nation as expressed in its traditions. He also blamed the conceited aristocracy for Germany’s troubles, for they were more concerned with their own status than with the welfare of the Fatherland. [60] [62]

It was during a crisis period over the defense of Berlin that Schleiermacher also noted that one particular group was very unwilling to participate in the Landsturm reserve units. He had no sympathy for those who left Berlin only to avoid their obligations, and conspicuous among them were the Jews. In 1799, Schleiermacher had advocated full civil rights for the Jews. Now he saw no place for them in Prussia, nor could he foresee one in a unified Germany. Before 1813 he had also never criticized Jewish theology, traditions, or culture. That was to change too.[61] [63]

In the summer of 1813, Schleiermacher was appointed as a journalist and editor of a newspaper called The Prussian Correspondent, where he began to criticize the Prussian government for its handling of the war. He regarded a peace treaty with France as a betrayal since it would doom the chance to unify Germany. King Friedrich Wilhelm was furious with Schleiermacher and had him dismissed from the newspaper and expelled from Berlin. The order was later eased, and Schleiermacher got to stay and keep his position in the University and as pastor.[62] [64]

After the defeat of Napoleon in 1814, a period of reaction began in Prussia, and Schleiermacher found himself almost an enemy of the state. Despite official opposition and knowing that he would never live to see the unification of Germany, Schleiermacher still preached and taught the ideals of German nationalism in the church and in his lectures. He decided to be patient and prepare the groundwork for a unified German state, or as much as the Prussian government would tolerate.[63] [65] For fifteen years he had to live with the fear of persecution, and many friends and colleagues were forced to choose between him and the government.[64] [66] Yet he remained publicly committed to German nationalism, certain that those who frustrated the nationalist effort would ultimately have to answer to God for their crime.[65] [67] We now turn to Schleiermacher’s ideas as they appear in his mature writings.

Notes

[1] [68] Jerry F. Dawson, Friedrich Schleiermacher: The Evolution of a Nationalist, (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1966), p. 66.

[2] [69] Friedrich Schleiermacher, The Life of Schleiermacher, as Unfolded in His Autobiography and Letters, vol. II, trans. Frederica Rowan, (London: Smith, Elder and Co., 1860), p. 125.

[3] [70] Jacqueline Marina, “Introduction”, The Cambridge Companion to Friedrich Schleiermacher, ed. Jacqueline Marina, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), p. 1.

[4] [71] Richard R. Niebuhr, Schleiermacher on Christ and Religion, (London: SCM Press LTD, 1964), p. 6.

[5] [72] Niebuhr, p. 12.

[6] [73] Robert Merrihew Adams, “Faith and Religious Knowledge”, The Cambridge Companion to Friedrich Schleiermacher, ed. Jacqueline Marina, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), p. 37.

[7] [74] Robert P. Scharlemann, “Friedrich Schleiermacher”, Encyclopædia Britannica, (2006, September 22), retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/biography/Friedrich-Schleiermacher.

[8] [75] Martin Redeker, 9-10.

[9] [76] Gary Dorrien, Kantian Reason and Hegelian Spirit: The Idealistic Logic of Modern Theology, (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2015), p. 86.

[10] [77] Martin Redeker, Schleiermacher: Life and Thought, trans. John Wallhausser, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1973, p. 14.

[11] [78] Redeker, p. 15.

[12] [79] Dorrien, p. 87.

[13] [80] Dorrien, pp. 88-89.

[14] [81] Redeker, p. 22.

[15] [82] Redeker, pp. 62-63.

[16] [83] Dawson, p. 47.

[17] [84] Julia A. Lamm, “Schleiermacher as Plato Scholar, The Journal of Religion, Vol. 80, No. 2, (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000), pp. 206-207.

[18] [85] Dorrien, pp. 89-90.

[19] [86] Dorrien, p. 93.

[20] [87] Redeker, p. 38.

[21] [88] Dorrien, p. 92.

[22] [89] Dorrien, p. 93.

[23] [90] Dorrien p. 93.

[24] [91] Redker, p. 39-40.

[25] [92] Dorrien, pp. 93-94.

[26] [93] Redeker p. 48.

[27] [94] Michael Inwood, “German Philosophy”, The Oxford Companion to Phiosophy, ed. Ted Honderich, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), p. 336.

[28] [95] Friedrich Schleiermacher, On Religion: Speeches to its Cultured Despisers, trans. John Oman, (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co., 1893), p. 9.

[29] [96] Schleiermacher, On Religion, pp. 9-10.

[30] [97] Dorrien, p. 94.

[31] [98] Redeker, p. 76.

[32] [99] Redeker, p. 82.

[33] [100] Redeker, p. 83.

[34] [101] Redeker, p. 83.

[35] [102] Redeker, p. 83.

[36] [103] Niebuhr, pp. 60-61.

[37] [104] Niebuhr, pp. 62-63.

[38] [105] Redeker, p. 85.

[39] [106] Friedrich Schleiermacher, Christmas Eve Celebration: A Dialogue, trans. Terrence N. Tice, (Eugene: Cascade Books, 2010), pp. 75-76.

[40] [107] Niebuhr, p. 63.

[41] [108] Redeker, p. 82.

[42] [109] Redeker, p. 86.

[43] [110] Dorrien, p. 96.

[44] [111] Redeker, p. 86.

[45] [112] Dorrien, pp. 96-97.

[46] [113] Redeker, p. 88.

[47] [114] Redeker, p. 89.

[48] [115] Dawson, pp. 63-64.

[49] [116] Dawson, p. 41.

[50] [117] Redeker, pp. 95-96.

[51] [118] Redeker, p. 96.

[52] [119] Redeker, p. 96.

[53] [120] Redeker, p. 97.

[54] [121] Redeker, p. 186.

[55] [122] Dorrien, p. 212.

[56] [123] Dorrien, p. 208.

[57] [124] Redeker, p. 91.

[58] [125] Redeker, p. 91.

[59] [126] Dawson, p. 104.

[60] [127] Dawson, pp. 108-110

[61] [128] Dawspon p. 115.

[62] [129] Dawspon pp. 118-120.

[63] [130] Dawspon pp. 123-124.

[64] [131] Dawspon p. 132.

[65] [132] Dawspon p. 98.

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

URL to article: https://www.counter-currents.com/2017/10/friedrich-schleiermacher-part-1/

friedrich_schleiermacher-750x330-1467070483.jpg

Friedrich Schleiermacher:
The Father of Modern Theology & a Prophet of German Nationalism

Part 2

Schleiermacher’s Philosophy of Mind

According to Schleiermacher, the task of philosophy is the “immersion of the Spirit into the innermost depths of itself and of things in order to fathom the relations of their [spirit and nature] being-together.”[1] [3] Schleiermacher’s philosophy, like German idealism in general, was very influenced by, and a reaction to, the critical transcendental philosophy of Immanuel Kant. His philosophy was also influenced by Plato, of whom Schleiermacher was the chief scholar in Germany in his time.[2] [4] In his major work, The Christian Faith (Der christliche Glaube), published in 1821–22, Schleiermacher put forth his philosophy of consciousness.

The experience of consciousness discloses that it has both an unchanging identity and is also changing and various in its different moments. The two constitutive elements of self-consciousness are, according to Schleiermacher, the self-caused element and the non-self-caused element, the ego and other. The self is constituted only in relation to an other, it cannot be thought of without an object.[3] [5] He says:

Now these two elements, as they exist together in the temporal self-consciousness, correspond in the subject [to] its receptivity and its activity. […] The common element in all those determinations of self-consciousness which predominantly express a receptivity affected from some outside quarter is the feeling of dependence. On the other hand, the common element in all those determinations which predominantly express spontaneous movement and activity is the feeling of freedom.[4] [6]

Self-consciousness, “which accompanies our whole existence, […] is itself precisely a consciousness of absolute dependence; for it is the consciousness that the whole of our spontaneous activity comes from a source outside of us in just the same sense in which anything towards which we should have a feeling of absolute freedom must have proceeded entirely from ourselves.”[5] [7] But a feeling of absolute freedom is impossible since it would require consciousness without an object.[6] [8] Schleiermacher adds that, “the whence of our receptive and active existence, as implied in this self-consciousness, is to be designated by the word ‘God’, and that is for us the really original signification of that word. […] To feel oneself absolutely dependent and to be conscious of being in relation with God are one and the same thing.”[7] [9]

It is therefore not an object which is the determinative element in the feeling of absolute dependence, but a transcendental eternal and absolute now, which can only be God. God is the absolute infinite unity, the decisive power which unifies the inherent contradictions in the world, e.g., thought and being, reason and sensibility, ego and other. God thus vitally permeates the world and creates and preserves life. Schleiermacher describes the feeling of absolute dependence as an “immediate existential relation.”[8] [10] According to him, self-consciousness has two levels, the sensible, dealing with objects, perceptions and ideas, and the immediate self-consciousness which grounds and unifies thinking and willing. Feeling is related to immediate self-consciousness, the pre-conceptual and undivided essence of the self, before there is an ego and other.[9] [11]

Theology and Philosophy of Religion

Schleiermacher defined theology as self-reflection of the church, or believers, on their own beliefs and practice. Church teaching, worship and polity is to be analyzed phenomenologically and pneumatically. Church life is to be unified with the scientific spirit. Faith and a critical spirit of inquiry are not contradictory, although church-mindedness is a precondition of theology.[10] [12]

517v45Um+vL.jpgSchleiermacher does away with the reliance on scriptural proof or the creeds as the basic structure of his theology. Faith is not awakened by obedience to doctrinal norms, but through a community of believers and their relation to the Redeemer. Scripture and creeds take on a special meaning only after one has been brought to faith.[11] [13] Availing himself of the new concept of science from German transcendental philosophy, Schleiermacher’s theology is determined by the differentiation between idea and appearance, and by the idea of an organic whole. Attempting to overcome the opposition between a historical-empirical approach on the one hand, and metaphysical speculation about God on the other, the idea, or the nature and truth of Christianity, becomes manifest in the present and historical life of Christianity.[12] [14]

For Schleiermacher, the omnipotence of God does not mean that God can do whatever he wills, but rather that he is the cause of everything. A scientific worldview based on critical transcendental philosophy should not necessarily end in pantheism or atheism, but be open to the reality of God as the Lord of nature and history. Schleiermacher wanted to make clear that religion is a necessary element of human life in history, that it alone provides the foundation for the unity of the human spirit with the ground of being, thus protecting human life from degeneration.[13] [15] God as the world’s unity and totality is the power that brings together the antithesis of matter and spirit, and is the source of all finite life.[14] [16]

Man is, however, unaware of God as the vital power and is unable to have a relationship with him. This, Schleiermacher calls unredeemed God-consciousness, or sin. Only through redemption in Christ, can the God-consciousness be restored, and God’s omnipotence and final purpose be comprehended. It is the experience of a living communion with Christ and the unity with God as the ground of being that is the new assurance of faith.[15] [17] In Christ was first formed the perfect and archetypal God-consciousness, and through the Christian community, preaching, and the Gospel stories, this God-consciousness is awakened in the believer and a relationship established.[16] [18]

Schleiermacher does not consider Christianity to be a continuation of Judaism. The essential element in the both religions is eternally constituted, meaning that if they did not exist or have a historical beginning, they would have to be created by necessity. But rather than being a religion, Judaism represents for Schleiermacher the absence of religion:

Judaism has long been a dead religion, and those who still wear its livery only sit lamenting at the imperishable mummy, bewailing its departure and the mournful state of being left behind. But I do not talk about it as were it in some way a predecessor of Christianity: I hate such historical connections in religion; its necessity is one that is far higher and eternal, and every beginning in it is original […] the whole thing [is] such a strange example of the corruption and total disappearance of religion.[17] [19]

He also held that among the early Christians, heathens had less to overcome than the Jews, which is why more heathens became Christians. Jews found it very difficult forsake their law and Abrahamic promises.[18] [20] Schleiermacher identified the New Testament exclusively as the Christian canon.[19] [21] His hermeneutical rule for Old Testament exegesis was: “Whatever is most definitely Jewish has least value.”[20] [22] He even found it hard to believe that Jesus had much in common with the people among whom he was born:

And where indeed was that narrowing and isolating race-prejudice keener than just where our Lord was born? The nation that regarded all other nations as unclean, and avoided intercourse with them; […] such a people could not of themselves have produced, nurtured and instructed Him who is the Fountain of universal love.[21] [23]

Schleiermacher’s Hermeneutics

Friedrich Schleiermacher has had a great influence on the field of hermeneutics. Richard E. Palmer, in his book Hermeneutics, states: “Schleiermacher […] is properly regarded as the father of modern hermeneutics as a general study.”[22] [24] According to Schleiermacher, hermeneutics is to be both creative and scientific, it is the imaginative reconstruction of the writer’s selfhood. It therefore ventures beyond the principles of philological science and becomes an art.[23] [25] Johann Gottfried Herder was a primary influence on the hermeneutical thinking of Schleiermacher.[24] [26]

Thinking has, according to Schleiermacher, a moral and historical character that involves an awareness of the relatedness of the individual consciousness to a community of other minds. Thinking also necessarily involves an awareness of conflict between the judgements of one’s own self and those of others. The self is then situated in a dialogical relation where it struggles to overcome conflict. Thought is a constant reproduction of the social matrix in which the self finds itself and from which the impulse to critical reflection stems. Thinking also involves the mediation of one’s thoughts and to deposit them in the public language and to respond to the thoughts of others. And since all men learn to speak within some given, historical language, their historical mold also impresses their thinking.[25] [27]

schleiermacher_hermeneutik_1838_0008_1600px.jpg

The interpreter, Schleiermacher claims, must master the grammar of the language of the author he is studying, as well as the history and physical conditions of the language. The author is to be considered as an expression of the language or an event in its life. The language is moreover an inheritance that qualifies the author’s spirit and demarcates the direction and progress of his thought. A thorough knowledge of the author’s language is therefore required to know the limits of his mind and to avoid anachronism in textual exegesis. Schleiermacher stated that the goal of hermeneutics is “to understand the text just as well and then better than the author himself understood it.” That is, the interpreter must be conscious of the history of the language and culture of the author, things that the author may have been unconscious of.[26] [28] In addition, the text of an author also arises from his own being and inner history, which is separate from the history of the language. Therefore, acquaintance with the author’s own personal history is required, helping the interpreter to fathom the author’s sense of identity and purpose.[27] [29]

What Schleiermacer called the psychological method deals with an author’s decision, or his freedom. Its goal is “the thorough understanding of the style.” He explains this further:

We are accustomed to understand by ‘style’ only the way in which the language is handled. But thoughts and language always inform each other, and the distinctive way in which the object is grasped informs the arrangement [of the elements of the composition] and thereby also the handling of the language.[28] [30]

The task of the psychological method is twofold. One part, which he calls the “technical” method, is to analyze the form in which the author organizes and presents his thoughts. The other part, the “pure psychological” part, is the attempt to fully grasp the significance of the author’s decision to make this particular writing and to communicate these ideas. They mean little if the interpreter can’t understand why and how a rational will chose them as his instruments.[29] [31]

Schleiermacher defined interpretation as an art, and therefore the interpreter must possess certain talents that only a few have in the requisite measure. He must not only have an extensive knowledge of the language, but also be able to grasp the language as a vital reality and to penetrate “into the core of the language in its relation to thought.” He must have the ability to gain a direct understanding of men and to grasp the “genuine meaning of a man and his distinctive characteristics in relation to the [essential] idea [Begriff] of the man.”[30] [32]

Schleiermacher extended the concept of the so called “hermeneutic circle,” the idea that the understanding of the whole text is gathered from the individual parts, and then each part is interpreted in light of the whole. It is not enough for Schleiermacher, to interpret the part in light of the whole text, but the whole text must also be interpreted in light of the author’s whole mind and being and his historical linguistic and cultural setting. The hermeneutic circle is in fact much more than a tool for interpretation. It is an essential part of the mind. “Every child comes to understand the meanings of words only through hermeneutics,” Schleiermacher wrote.[31] [33] Hermeneutics is how any understanding is possible at all through a dialogical process, it is the art of understanding. In conversation, we construct the meaning of a sentence by hearing a series of words that otherwise would have little meaning individually.[32] [34] Sometimes, we can know what our interlocutor wants to say and even construct the development of his thought before we have heard the whole speech.[33] [35] According to Hans-Georg Gadamer:

Schleiermacher’s grounding of understanding on dialogue and on interhuman understanding establishes a foundation for hermeneutics at a deeper level than before, and in a way that allows one to erect a system that is scientific and scholarly on a hermeneutical basis. Hermeneutics becomes the foundation not just for theology but for all historically based humanistic disciplines.[34] [36]

Philosophical Ethics, or Reason in History

Schleiermacher defined ethics thus: “Ethics, as the depiction of the way in which reason and nature coexist, is the science [of the principles of] history.”[35] [37] He does not conceive of ethics as a normative science that only deals with the “ought to be,” rather, it is to deal with the “is,” like the natural sciences. He has therefore little sympathy with Kant’s categorical imperative. Morality is not to obey any specific commands, it is a principle that permeates all of life.[36] [38] Ethics is the science of the organizing activity of the ideal principle in nature.[37] [39]

Schleiermacher divides science into two main branches, ethics and physics:

Ethics is, accordingly, the representation of being under the power of reason, that is from that side in which, in the co-inherence of the polarity, reason is the active term, and the real that which is acted upon; and physics is the representation of finite being under the power of nature, that is, as the real is the active term and the ideal that which is acted upon.[38] [40]

9780061300363-us-300.jpgSchleiermacher constructs his theory of ethics on the fundamental antithesis of ideal and real. All finite being never represents the pure unity of the ideal and real. Its actual existence cannot be inferred from its form and its form cannot be inferred from its existence. Both ideal and real fall outside of human experience, which is limited to that which is involved in becoming. The intellect can never grasp it and reduce it to a single term. Therefore, we cannot ascribe primacy to either form without matter or matter without form, since both transcend our experience. This is so because of our own existence in body and soul. Experience cannot be reduced to either pure reason or pure matter.[39] [41] Therefore, all real knowledge is only possible within the world and is delimited by human history.[40] [42]

Schleiermacher says: “The work which is the activity of the spiritual [ideal] within nature is always shape; the work of the material [real] in reason is always consciousness.”[41] [43] He continues:

Body and soul in man is the highest tension of the antithesis, a twofold interpenetration of the objective [real] and the spiritual [ideal]. We see it diminish in the animal and the vegetable world, but we never see it quite disappear. Where there is form, there is also consciousness corresponding to it, and vice versa. This antithesis, which was first found in our own being […] extends through the whole of reality.[42] [44]

In this world of human experience, the world of becoming, it is the real which predominates in everything over the ideal, except in human beings. Man alone express the proper nature of the ideal principle, he is the turning point. Man manifests the ideal principle through the knowledge process, as thought organizes experience into science. Thought, the work of reason in man, is what prevents total chaos in human conduct, a conflict of purposes. Reason thus manifests itself in advanced social life, the organization of the state, commerce and the exploitation of natural resources for its ends.[43] [45] Schleiermacher divides ethics into branches such as industry, agriculture, commerce, science, art, religion, and friendship, according to the impact of the ideal principle on nature.[44] [46]

Schleiermacher was influenced by the idea, or form, of the good in Plato’s Republic, a book he considered “the most glorious composition of antiquity.” Man, as a reflection of the divine world, with the ability to regulate himself, inwardly and outwardly, according to the pattern of eternal ideas, was the most important, yet undeveloped implication of the idea of the good in the history of ethics, Schleiermacher thought.[45] [47] But for him, it meant not conformity to a universal maxim of reason, but the concrete realization of the rational principle through man. Man is thus an organism of reason, and through him reason finds concrete expression in institutions, such as family, nation, university and state. He defines the good simply as the progressive organization of nature by reason. Everything which is produced in this process is good, and everyone who works toward its end partakes in the good itself.[46] [48]

According to Schleiermacher, reason is given to us only through our embodiment and natural constitution, which cannot be dismissed as mere accidents, but are essential to the life of the soul. The soul is then, always rooted in a particular man, his family, nation and race, and shares in his destiny. Man is therefore never an absolute agent but is defined by his historical, social and biological setting.[47] [49] Our existence is also ethically, always an expression and extension of the organizing wills of others. Primarily, of our parents through procreation, but of other members of the community and nation from which we come and exist. The individual begins his life already as an organized being, he is determined both by the soul-body existence, and by the character and destiny his community.[48] [50] Schleiermacher rejects the basis of the social contract theory, that the freedom of the natural man is inimical to social order. Society is rather an expression of freedom, not a limitation of it.[49] [51]

Man and State

For Schleiermacher, mankind is not an abstract universal idea about the human race or the essence of man. Mankind has a concrete being whose essence is expressed in three forms of community: in friendship, marriage, and Fatherland. Against the spirit of the Enlightenment, he did not think that the sole purpose of man was the progressive domination of nature, increased well-being and the advance of civilization. Martin Redeker explains:

The national state, for instance, is not a necessary evil, not an external community of the material world for the increase of property and protection against misfortune and calamity. The state is the finest work of human art by which man raises his being to the highest level. The state is for Schleiermacher the concretion of mankind as moral community and higher life.[50] [52]

According to Schleiermacher, a state is necessary if a society is to progress beyond a certain point. His idea of society and the state is very influenced by his reading of The Republic. When a state is established, the customs of the social organism are sanctioned and expressed in its laws. The state thus furthers the ends of the organism and expresses its individuality, it represents the completion of the good life.[51] [53] He wrote: “When such an institution is founded, it is one of the greatest steps forward possible for our race. […] It follows that patriotism is good, and those who think it is not for them are like guests or aliens.”[52] [54] The idea of a multi-ethnic state did not impress Schleiermacher:

Variation in political dignity is always a sign that several hordes have been fused together. […] Particularity in common is the basis of the state, partly to the extent that it is also a family bond and partly because only to that extent will every individual posit the totality of the external sphere of the state as his own moral, particular sphere (that is, as absolutely holy and inviolable), for on this alone does the defence of the state rest.[53] [55]

The state must be active in the life of the nation, otherwise the nation will degenerate: “To transform the state into a mere legal institution, […] would be to reverse the direction of the ethical process.”[54] [56] Schleiermacher also claims that: “Essentially people and soil belong together. […] State is the identity of people and soil. […] The determining power of the soil is an essential element in the character of the people…”[55] [57] War for living space is justified:

Every state needs a sufficiency of soil because it ought not to be dependent [on others] for its essential needs. These essential needs increase, however, if the community of peoples gains in size. The state strives to push back its frontiers, in order to acquire what is lacking; these are wars of need. Thus we can distinguish three different sorts of natural warfare: wars of unification which form the state, frontier wars, or wars which maintain a state of equilibrium, and wars of need which defend the state; the usual distinction, on the other hand, between offensive wars and defensive ones, is an entirely empty one.[56] [58]

Schleiermacher.jpgFolk traditions (Volkstümlichkeit) and race mark the boundaries for the possibility of a moral community according to Schleiermacher: “. . . people from different folk traditions, or who speak different languages, and to an even greater extent people of different races, find themselves separated in a way that is specifically different to any other. It is within these natural boundaries that moral relationships are determined . . .”[57] [59] It is history and geography that make a nation, they can never be brought about deliberately, “on the contrary, the fusing of different elements into a single people can only come about where it is physically predetermined, only ever, no doubt, within the confines of the race; for a people has never yet been formed from half-breeds.”[58] [60] The separation of the races is part of the divine order, “. . . for God has imparted to each its own nature, and has therefore marked out bounds and limits for the habitations of the different races of men on the face of the earth.”[59] [61] The idea of a state is inherent in the nature of a race and it is actualized by a powerful leader when the time is right:

Let us now suppose that some person for the first time combines a naturally cohesive group into a civil community (legend tells of such cases in plenty); what happens is that the idea of the state first comes to consciousness in him, and takes possession of his personality as its immediate dwelling place. Then he assumes the rest into the living fellowship of the idea. He does so by making them clearly conscious of the unsatisfactoriness of their present condition by effective speech. The power remains with the founder of forming in them the idea which is the innermost principle of his own life, and of assuming them into the fellowship of that life. The result is, not only that there arises among them a new corporate life, in complete contrast to the old, but also that each of them becomes in themselves new persons – that is to say, citizens. And everything resulting from this is the corporate life – developing variously with the process of time, yet remaining essentially the same – of this idea which emerged at that particular point of time, but was always predestined in the nature of that particular racial stock.[60] [62]

Schleiermacher’s ideal ruler is the philosopher king of The Republic, who is the source of all freedom and justice, who has no private interest above the state, and who personifies the spirit of the nation.[61] [63]

The End of Schleiermacher’s Life

A wave of revolutions went through Europe in 1830 and 1831. Schleiermacher was deeply hurt by the prospect of seeing the German people having to go through revolutions before a unified Germany could be realized. In September 1832, seventeen months before his death, he wrote in a letter to his wife Henriette: “It often makes me sad to think, that after all our bright hopes and good beginnings, I shall, when I depart this life, leave our German world in such a precarious state – for this will most probably be my lot.”[62] [64]

Although Schleiermacher never lived to see the unification of Germany himself, he used his sermons and classes to infuse his listeners with the ideals of German nationalism. Some of them would be influential in German politics in the following decades. It seems providential almost, that in Schleiermacher’s confirmation class of 1830 was one sixteen year old, Otto von Bismarck, who would later realize what Schleiermacher had long believed was God’s destiny for Germany.[63] [65] Many Prussians who knew little of Schleiermacher’s theology, recognized him as a national hero and patriot.[64] [66]

Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher died in February 1834 from pneumonia. On the day of his funeral around 30,000 Berliners joined the funeral procession, including the king, which was unparalleled at the time for an academic.[65] [67] His friend, Steffens reported of the funeral:

Never has a funeral similar to this taken place. It was not something arranged but a completely unconscious, natural outpouring of mourning love, an inner boundless feeling which gripped the entire city and gathered about his grave; these were hours of inward unity such as have never been seen in a metropolis of modern times.[66] [68]

Notes

[1] [69] Redeker, p. 185.

[2] [70] Redeker, p. 154.

[3] [71] Dorrien, p. 100.

[4] [72] Friedrich Schleiermacher, Friedrich Schleiermacher: Pioneer of Modern Theology, ed. Keith W. Clements (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), p. 100.

[5] [73] Schleiermacher, Friedrich Schleiermacher: Pioneer of Modern Theology, p. 103.

[6] [74] Schleiermacher, Friedrich Schleiermacher: Pioneer of Modern Theology, p. 102.

[7] [75] Schleiermacher, Friedrich Schleiermacher: Pioneer of Modern Theology, pp. 103-104.

[8] [76] Redeker, p. 114.

[9] [77] Dorrien, pp. 100-101.

[10] [78] Redeker, p. 105.

[11] [79] Redeker, p. 107.

[12] [80] Redeker p. 107.

[13] [81] Redeker, p. 111.

[14] [82] Redeker, p. 122.

[15] [83] Redeker, p. 123.

[16] [84] Redeker, p. 132.

[17] [85] Anders Gerdmar, The Roots of Theological Anti-Semitism: German Biblical Interpretation and the Jews, from Herder and Semler to Kittel and Bultmann (Leiden: Brill, 2009), p. 65.

[18] [86] Dorrien, p. 102.

[19] [87] Christine Helmer, “Exegetical Theology and the New Testament,” The Cambridge Companion to Schleiermacehr, ed. Jacqueline Marina (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), p. 236.

[20] [88] Dorrien, p. 102.

[21] [89] Friedrich Schleiermacher, Selected Sermons of Schleiermacher, trans. Mary F. Wilson (Eugene, Or.: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2004), p. 292.

[22] [90] Richard E. Palmer, Hermeneutics: Interpretation Theory in Schleiermacher, Dilthey, Heidegger and Gadamer (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1969), p. 97.

[23] [91] Niebuhr, p. 79.

[24] [92] Michael Forster, “Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (September 20, 2017), retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schleiermacher/ [93].

[25] [94] Niebuhr, p. 81.

[26] [95] Niebuhr, p. 83.

[27] [96] Niebuhr, p. 84.

[28] [97] Niebuhr, p. 84.

[29] [98] Niebuhr, p. 84.

[30] [99] Niebuhr, p. 85.

[31] [100] Friedrich Schleiermacher, Hermeneutics: The Handwritten Manuscripts, ed. Heinz Kimmerle, trans. James Duke and Jack Forstman (Missoula, Mt.: Scholars Press, 1977), p. 52.

[32] [101] Palmer, p. 86.

[33] [102] Niebuhr, p. 86.

[34] [103] Hans-Georg Gadamer, “Classical and Philosophical Hermeneutics,” Theory, Culture and Society, vol. 23, no. 1 (January 2006), p. 35.

[35] [104] Friedrich Schleiermacher, Lectures on Philosophical Ethics, p. 8.

[36] [105] Redeker, p. 159.

[37] [106] Richard B. Brandt, The Philosophy of Schleiermacher: The Development of His Theory of Scientific and Religious Knowledge (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1941), pp. 170-71.

[38] [107] Niebuhr, p. 105.

[39] [108] Niebuhr, p. 98.

[40] [109] Niebuhr, p. 102.

[41] [110] Friedrich Schleiermacher, Lectures on Philosophical Ethics, trans. Louise Adey Huish (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), p. 148.

[42] [111] Brandt, p. 254.

[43] [112] Brandt, pp. 255-56.

[44] [113] Brandt, p. 171.

[45] [114] Niebuhr, p. 95.

[46] [115] Brandt, p. 173.

[47] [116] Niebuhr, p. 104.

[48] [117] Niebuhr, pp. 114-15.

[49] [118] Niebuhr, p. 117.

[50] [119] Redeker, 57.

[51] [120] Theodore Vial, “Schleiermacher and the State,” The Cambridge Companion to Friedrich Schleiermacher, ed. Jacqueline Marina (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp. 272-73.

[52] [121] Theodore Vial, p. 277.

[53] [122] Friedrich Schleiermacher, Lectures on Philosophical Ethics, p. 72.

[54] [123] Friedrich Schleiermacher, Lectures on Philosophical Ethics, p. 74.

[55] [124] Friedrich Schleiermacher, Lectures on Philosophical Ethics, pp. 77-78.

[56] [125] Friedrich Schleiermacher, Lectures on Philosophical Ethics, p 79.

[57] [126] Friedrich Schleiermacher, Lectures on Philosophical Ethics, p. 201.

[58] [127] Friedrich Schleiermacher, Lectures on Philosophical Ethics, p. 202.

[59] [128] Friedrich Schleiermacher, Selected Sermons of Schleiermacher, p. 73.

[60] [129] Friedrich Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, eds. H. R. Mackintosh and J. S. Stewart (London: T&T Clark, 1928), p. 429.

[61] [130] Dawson, p. 151.

[62] [131] Dawson, p. 158.

[63] [132] Redeker, p. 205.

[64] [133] Dorrien, p. 206.

[65] [134] Dorrien, p. 206.

[66] [135] Redeker, p. 213.

 

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

URL to article: https://www.counter-currents.com/2017/10/friedrich-schleiermacher-part-2/

lundi, 23 octobre 2017

Le katechon selon Carl Schmitt: de Rome à la fin du monde

louvre-sainte-russie-1.jpg

Le katechon selon Carl Schmitt: de Rome à la fin du monde

Le retour du Christ sur Terre, la parousie, ne surviendra pas tant que le katechon​, cette figure « ​qui retient » le déchaînement du mal, agira efficacement. C’est ce qu’affirme l’apôtre Paul dans sa seconde épître aux Thessaloniciens. Si le texte biblique continue de faire débat chez les théologiens,​ ​certains​ ​pensent​ ​avoir​ ​identifié​ ​cette​ ​mystérieuse​ ​figure.

L’idée du katechon (κατέχων), que l’on pourrait traduire par « rétenteur » ou « retardateur », est largement ignorée des chrétiens eux-mêmes. Saint Paul s’adressant aux Thessaloniciens affirme pourtant, s’agissant de l’Antéchrist : « Maintenant vous savez ce qui le retient, de sorte qu’il ne se révélera qu’au temps fixé pour lui. Car le mystère d’iniquité est déjà à l’œuvre ; il suffit que soit écarté celui qui le retient à présent » (II Thessaloniciens 2, 6-7). Puissance qui empêche l’avènement du mal absolu et la fin du monde, le katechon atténue profondément l’eschatologie chrétienne dans son acception la plus fataliste, qui tend à considérer que le cours de l’histoire est tout entier entre les seules mains de la Providence.

Cette puissance qui retient semble devoir s’analyser en une entité théologico-politique. Vraisemblablement inspirée par Dieu pour la défense du bien chrétien, mais néanmoins libre des ses décisions comme l’est toute figure de la Création, elle réconcilie le déterminisme eschatologique avec une conception sphérique de l’histoire qui postule que l’homme, par l’action politique fondatrice de tout ordre, joue un rôle décisif dans le cours des événements et la lutte contre le règne du mal. C’est ce que notait Carl Schmitt, dernier grand penseur du katechon, lorsqu’il écrivait que « la foi en une force qui retient la fin du monde jette le seul pont qui mène de la paralysie eschatologique de tout devenir humain jusqu’à une puissance historique aussi imposante que celle de l’Empire chrétien des rois germaniques. » Cette conception schmittienne du katechon est issue du Nomos de la Terre, paru en 1950. Elle nous semble plus aboutie que celle utilisée en 1944 dans Terre et Mer, plus vague et générique, qui a pu conduire certains commentateurs à identifier le katechon à toute puissance étatique résistant à la marche forcée du monde vers une hypothétique anomie globale.

Le katechon est donc mû par une volonté propre et n’est pas la marionnette de Dieu sur terre. Il est une puissance décisive dont l’action concrète fonderait un ordre conforme à l’idée chrétienne du bien là où le désordre tendrait à s’insinuer. Chez Schmitt, le bien n’est pérenne que dans l’ordre, et la capacité à le conserver en décidant du cas d’exception est au souverain ce que le miracle est à Dieu. Cela suppose d’abord que la « vraie foi » soit établie et transmise, pour que l’idée chrétienne du bien contenue dans le décalogue et les « lois non écrites » puisse être poursuivie et défendue efficacement. L’institution de l’Église catholique romaine, vecteur et garante du dogme, est donc naturellement une composante du katechon selon Carl Schmitt, reprenant à son compte l’idée développée par nombre de théologiens et de Pères de l’Église. Mais parce que le katechon ne saurait se réduire à une autorité spirituelle, et suppose aussi la force d’action concrète du pouvoir politique, c’est plus précisément dans le Saint Empire romain germanique que le juriste en voyait une incarnation historique.

Jacob_Koebel_1545_Page_010.jpg

Une​ ​figure​ ​duale

L’Église latine est une institution indéfiniment ancrée dans le sol romain, comme une garantie de sa permanence, pour fonder un ordre à vocation universelle. Et l’association au sein de l’Empire d’Occident des deux ordres distincts de l’imperium et du sacerdotium, dévolus respectivement à l’Empereur et au Pape, formait une authentique communauté dans la Respublica Christiana. Ordre éternellement chrétien, puisque bâti sur la pierre angulaire de l’Église (le tombeau de Pierre) et sur lequel le mal, se propageant dans le monde, finirait toujours par buter.

C’est donc véritablement une figure duale, à la fois théologique et politique, que celle du katechon. Et si elle apparaît clairement dans la Respublica christiana, c’est justement par la distinction formelle de ces deux ordres d’imperium et de sacerdotium, qui renvoie à la distinction entre un pouvoir (potestas) et une autorité qui le légitime et le transcende (auctoritas), là où les sociétés traditionnelles réunissaient pouvoir temporel et autorité spirituelle sous la figure unique du roi-prêtre. Cet imperium avait d’ailleurs acquis une dimension proprement chrétienne, se définissait comme le commandement utile à maintenir l’ordre chrétien, et s’ajoutait aux prérogatives des rois chaque fois qu’il était nécessaire. Un évènement historique important est situé au XIe siècle, date de la réforme grégorienne au cours de laquelle l’Église s’affirme, avec force, indépendante et supérieure aux pouvoirs temporels. Mais cette distinction n’a pas immédiatement provoqué une opposition frontale, ni même l’exclusion mutuelle des deux domaines. Il y avait au contraire, initialement, la recherche d’une synergie, d’une conciliation, que Carl Schmitt résume dans l’expression de « lutte pour Rome ». 

Or cette conception de la « puissance qui retient » ne pouvait valoir que dans un monde où tous les chemins menaient à Rome, où toute l’Europe chrétienne regardait vers le tombeau de Pierre comme vers le centre du monde et espérait la bénédiction de ses décisions politiques par les autorités romaines. L’autorité spirituelle ressemblait alors à un rempart au pouvoir politique, objet des passions potentiellement destructrices et contraires à l’ordre chrétien établi d’après Rome. Or, de ce romanisme médiéval concentrique, où le pouvoir cherchait à s’adjoindre l’autorité de l’Église, l’Europe a basculé vers un romanisme excentrique. C’est désormais à l’Église romaine de gagner le monde par ses propres moyens résiduels, d’imposer son bien par le bas, dépourvue de son autorité politique depuis l’émergence de la conception moderne et exclusive de la souveraineté. L’imperium et le sacerdotium, jusqu’alors distingués mais néanmoins liés, sont désormais deux ordres qui tendent à s’exclure mutuellement. L’État s’est divinisé.

L’Église se voit ainsi exclue des affaires politiques, contrainte à se plier aux exigences d’un monde où les États comptent sans elle. Si l’on peut certes reconnaître aux papes contemporains un rôle politique certain, celui-ci ne semble plus que ponctuel et exceptionnel et relève de l’influence bien plus que de la décision. On pense notamment à l’anticommunisme de Jean-Paul II et au soutien qu’il apporta à Solidarnosc en Pologne, peu avant l’implosion du bloc soviétique.

Symboliquement, la métamorphose de l’Église est acquise depuis le Concile « Vatican II », au cours duquel fut adopté l’usage des langues vernaculaires au détriment du latin dans les célébrations. L’Église qui s’adressait au monde entier dans un même langage s’est comme dissoute dans les particularismes. Elle est devenue une institution mondaine parmi d’autres, et sa lutte ne peut plus guère être menée en association avec les pouvoirs politiques en qui Carl Schmitt voyait les pierres fondatrices et les garanties de tout ordre. Non seulement les dimensions théologique et politique du katechon tendent à s’exclure, mais l’ordre romain du sacerdotium semble considérablement affaibli face à un imperium hypertrophié et dépourvu de sa dimension chrétienne ancienne. Pour bien des dépositaires du pouvoir politique, la parole de l’Église semble compter autant que celle d’une quelconque organisation non gouvernementale.

rome-xlarge.jpg

Rome​ ​éternelle​ ​ou​ ​troisième​ ​Rome​ ​?

Certes, il convient de nuancer une approche trop européocentrique de la figure du katechon, le monde chrétien ne se limitant ni à Rome ni à l’Occident, et l’Église catholique latine n’étant pas la seule Église au monde. Cependant, sa forme historique sui generis lui a certainement confié une légitimité particulière. Et c’est l’Empire d’Occident qui conserva le lien géographique avec le tombeau de Pierre, assise tellurique déterminante aux yeux de Carl Schmitt et de nombreux théologiens occidentaux, car elle permettait un rayonnement universel puissant, une « juridiction universelle » partant d’un seul et unique centre de gravité. L’Église orthodoxe, en revanche, s’est développée dans une relation toute différente à la localité, témoignage d’un enracinement nécessairement moins imposant symboliquement, voyant le siège de Pierre en celui de chaque évêque.

L’idée que le katechon serait aujourd’hui incarné par la Russie orthodoxe fleurit pourtant ça et là depuis une dizaine d’années, notamment dans les courants eurasistes, comme une réminiscence de l’idéal d’une « troisième Rome » incarnée par Moscou. Le Patriarche Cyrille de Moscou, à la tête de l’Église orthodoxe russe, affirme régulièrement l’importance de la foi comme guide essentiel à la conduite des affaires politiques. Certes, il reproche aux sociétés d’Occident de s’estimer capables de fonder un ordre sain sur la négation de la chrétienté. De son côté, le gouvernement russe actuel manifeste ostensiblement son identité chrétienne. Il n’y a cependant là rien de comparable avec l’articulation historique de l’imperium et du sacerdotium, ni avec le rayonnement universel de l’Église romaine d’autrefois.

Ironie du sort, c’est peut-être aujourd’hui l’Organisation des Nations Unies qui constitue l’autorité la plus universelle et qui continue le mieux l’autorité autrefois dévolue au Pape ! Un exemple parmi tant d’autres : la colonisation des Amériques par l’Espagne était fondée juridiquement sur un mandat de mission pontificale, tout comme l’ONU délivre aujourd’hui des mandats fondant des opérations dites de « maintien de la paix ». L’arbitrage moral quant à l’emploi de la violence armée par les puissances dominantes se fait au sein de cette organisation, au nom de principes aussi généraux que généreux. On a longtemps justifié les conquêtes et les pillages par la nécessité de répandre le christianisme sur les terres inexplorées, puis par celle de « civiliser » les « sauvages ». Désormais, on apporte les Droits de l’Homme. Ce que l’on appelait le droit des gens, le droit international applicable aux étrangers non chrétiens, se retrouve aujourd’hui sous l’appellation pudique de « droit international humanitaire », autrement appelé droit de la guerre. Mais l’Évangile ne figurant pas parmi les références de l’Organisation, et l’ordre qu’elle fonde ne semblant pas inspiré par les exigences chrétiennes, elle ne serait qu’une sorte de katechon laïque, de toute façon dépendante des États souverains. Or, purement théologique, un katechon n’aurait pas le pouvoir de fonder un ordre social ; purement politique, il serait condamné à dévier.

stuttgart_psalter_fol23.jpg

Le katechon sous sa forme historique, tel que Carl Schmitt l’a conçu, est-il alors une figure morte ? Elle semble éteinte, et les métamorphoses juridiques et politiques l’ont certainement mené à prendre une forme nouvelle qui peine à se dévoiler. Mais une menace plane : ne le voyant plus, l’Occident ne semble plus croire au katechon, et donc ne plus se penser capable, et encore moins destiné, à l’incarner. Il faut dire que les prophéties hégéliennes modernes de la « fin de l’Histoire » et de l’avènement d’un « État universel et homogène » (Kojève) idyllique vont encore bon train, privant l’idée du katechon de sa raison d’être. C’est d’abord de son urgente nécessité qu’il faudra se convaincre pour pouvoir l’incarner à nouveau. Suivant l’intuition schmittienne, c’est certainement dans la redécouverte de la doctrine chrétienne véritable et ordonnée que se trouve la vitalité du katechon, ce qui conforte aujourd’hui les conservateurs dans l’Église face à un Pape controversé et souvent décrit comme progressiste. Mais se pose encore la question de la portée politique de cette doctrine dans le monde contemporain. Il n’y a plus guère de pieux monarque qui règne, et les souverainetés déjà diluées dans les foules démocratiques se partagent désormais entre une infinité de monstres bureaucratiques. Si le diable est celui qui divise, le katechon ne peut sans doute se retrouver que dans une convergence théologico-politique, une tendance à la réunification des deux ordres en équilibre.

jeudi, 19 octobre 2017

Presseschau Oktober 2017

mardi, 17 octobre 2017

Es gibt kein Menschenrecht auf Einwanderung – Staatsstreich von oben?

flc3bcchtling-1.png

Es gibt kein Menschenrecht auf Einwanderung – Staatsstreich von oben?

von Jörg Gebauer

Die Bundesregierung und die ihr nachgeordneten Behörden haben die verfassungsmäßige und verpflichtende Rechtsgebundenheit ihres Handelns verlassen. Jörg Gebauer zeigt auf, wie die Regierung sich ein neues Volk, mithin einen neuen Souverän schafft, was letztlich einem Staatsstreich gleichkommt.

I. Die Bundesregierung hat objektiv Rechts- und Verfassungsbrüche begangen

Der „Wissenschaftliche Dienst“ des Deutschen Bundestages hat im September 2017 ein höchst brisantes Gutachten erstellt, in welchem die Ereignisse Anfang September 2015 und in den Folgemonaten rechtlich gewürdigt wurden. Demnach hätte der Bundesinnenminister einen Erlass machen müssen, in welchem auf die humanitäre Ausnahmesituation hingewiesen worden wäre.

Dies wurde von mehreren Juristen, insbesondere Staatsrechtskollegen – an erster Stelle zu nennen wäre hier Joachim Nikolaus Steinhöfel – bereits 2015 und dann nochmals 2016 so reklamiert. Auch Ex-Verfassungsrichter Udo Di Fabio hatte hiernach in seinem Gutachten gefragt. Dieser Erlass – und das ist nun neu – wurde niemals geschrieben. Dabei hätte es dazu eine generelle Ermächtigung sogar im Gesetz gegeben. Hier liegt der objektive Rechts- und Verfassungsbruch.

Die Regierung und die ihr nachgeordneten Bundesbehörden haben demnach die verfassungsmäßige und verpflichtende Rechtsgebundenheit ihres Handelns verlassen. Prof. Dr. Di Fabio hielt rechtlich für denkbar, dass ein solcher Erlass vorübergehend nicht gemacht wird. Er kalkulierte dafür eine maximale Frist von ca. einem halben Jahr. Diese Frist war also im März 2016 abgelaufen.

II. Die Kanzlerin hat Probleme, Ein- und Ausreise auseinanderzuhalten

Der verfassungswidrigen Äußerung der Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkels, das Volk seien alle diejenigen, die hier leben, ging ein anderer staatsfeindlicher Tenor bei der Verwechslung der rechtlichen Stellung von Ein- und Ausreise voraus: Die Kanzlerin ist offensichtlich gespalten. Als ehemaliger Teil des FDJ-Kader denkt sie anscheinend, man könne Menschen – wie in der DDR – an der Ausreise hindern. Dies dokumentiert sich etwa in ihrer völkerrechtswidrigen Erwartungshaltung gegenüber der Türkei, wenn sie meint, diese dürfe Emigranten auf dem türkischen Staatsgebiet festsetzen und an der Ausreise hindern (sogenannter Türkei-EU-Deal).

Und übrigens: Warum es in diesem Punkte (dem Gefangennehmen von echten oder unechten „Flüchtlingen“, genauer von Menschen, die aus der Türkei emigrieren wollen) keinerlei Kritik von links gibt, demaskiert das gesamte links-liberale, bunte Establishment. Wohlbemerkt: Selbstverständlich soll es eine Eindämmung der Migration geben. Dies jedoch nicht durch Einsperren, sondern durch Aussperren der illegalen Zuwanderung (Immigration). Worin besteht nun aber die Gespaltenheit Merkels?

Im Gegensatz zu ihrer inneren Regimetreue als ehemalige hohe FDJ-Funktionärin steht ein anderes Moment – sagen wir besser: ein kurzer Moment ihrer Biographie. Denn als ehemalige Aktivistin beim Demokratischen Aufbruch (1989) hingegen denkt sie, ein jeder Mensch dürfe schließlich reisen, wohin er wolle, zum Beispiel nach Deutschland.

Merkel selber ist diejenige, die zwischen den beiden Komplexen a) hier Lebende (Bevölkerung) versus Staatsvolk sowie b) Einreise (Immigration) versus Ausreise (Emigration) die Verbindung herstellt. Dies wird in folgendem Ausspruch Merkels überdeutlich:

„Die Zeit der deutschen Einheit, die Zeit, als der Eiserne Vorhang fiel, die Zeit, als Europa zusammen gewachsen ist, war eine wunderbare Zeit. Und deshalb gibt es auch keinerlei Rechtfertigung, dass sich kleine Gruppen aus unserer Gesellschaft anmaßen zu definieren, wer das Volk ist. Das Volk ist jeder, der in diesem Lande lebt.“

Sie kann in ihrer Gespaltenheit (oder ihrem staatsrechtlichen Dilettantismus?) nicht unterscheiden zwischen einer Ausreise von deutschen Staatsbürgern und einer Einreise von Ausländern. Das Eine (Ausreise) ist das Recht eines jeden Menschen. Nicht nur im Jahre 1989. Das Andere (Einreise) kann hingegen vom jeweiligen Zielland, in welches ein Migrant einzureisen wünscht, souverän reglementiert werden.

Staats- und völkerrechtlich dürfen Ausreisen von Menschen (Emigration) niemals verhindert werden. Hingegen können Staaten sehr wohl immer die Einreise von Ausländern (Immigration) bis hin zum rigiden Verbot regeln. Dies nicht klar zu erkennen und zu befolgen, war seit September 2015 der Grundkonstruktionsfehler der deutschen Politik.

III. Es gibt kein Menschenrecht auf Einwanderung (Immigration)

Prof. Dr. Richard Schröder (Theologe und Philosoph) führt dazu aus: „Zwischen Auswanderung und Einwanderung besteht eine Asymmetrie, die namentlich aufgrund der deutsch-deutschen Erfahrungen leicht übersehen wird. Es ist ein Menschenrecht, dass jeder (straf- und schuldenfreie) Einwohner sein Heimatland verlassen darf. Es gibt aber kein Menschenrecht auf Einwanderung, schon gar nicht in das Land meiner Wahl. Das heißt, der Staat darf seinen Bürgern das Weggehen nicht prinzipiell verbieten. Aber kein Staat ist gezwungen, jeden, der kommen will, aufzunehmen …

Die Dinge liegen beim Staatsgebiet so ähnlich wie bei der Wohnung. Niemand darf mich in meiner Wohnung einschließen. Aber ohne meine Erlaubnis darf sich niemand in meiner Wohnung niederlassen, er darf sie nicht einmal ohne meine Zustimmung betreten – außer Polizei und Feuerwehr. Das wäre Hausfriedensbruch.

„Menschenrecht“ heißt hier: das Recht auszuwandern, ist sozusagen jedem Menschen angeboren. Das Recht einzuwandern, muß dagegen verliehen werden von den Vertretern der dortigen Staatsbürger. Wem es verliehen werden darf und wem es verliehen werden muss, ergibt sich aus dem nationalen Recht und aus dem Völkerrecht …

Dem allen widersprach nur scheinbar die Erfahrung im geteilten Deutschland. Alle DDR-Bürger konnten sich ohne staatliche Genehmigung in der Bundesrepublik dauerhaft niederlassen, wenn sie sie erreicht hatten. Sie konnten sogar in ausländischen bundesdeutschen Vertretungen einen bundesdeutschen Pass bekommen und mit dem als Bundesbürger ausreisen, wenn die betroffenen Staaten das erlaubten, was bei den sozialistischen Staaten außer Jugoslawien nicht der Fall war.

Der Grund war nicht ein besonders großzügiges Einwanderungsrecht, sondern die Definition der deutschen Staatsbürgerschaft im Grundgesetz (Art. 116). Demnach waren auch die DDR-Bürger Deutsche im Sinne des Grundgesetzes, wogegen die DDR Sturm gelaufen ist. DDR-Bürger waren für die Bundesrepublik keine Ausländer und deshalb auch keine Einwanderer, wenn sie kamen. Nachdem die innerdeutsche Grenze gefallen und vollkommen verschwunden ist, denken viele, so solle es auch weltweit sein. Sie übersehen: die Türen einer Gefängniszelle werden von außen verschlossen und hindern am Weggehen. Wohnungstüren dagegen werden von innen verschlossen und hindern am Eindringen. Entsprechend gibt es auch zwei Arten von Mauern und Zäunen.“

Soweit Prof. Dr. Richard Schröder.

IV. Natürliche und republikanische Freiheit

Es findet eine eklatante Fehlinterpretation des internationalen Rechts und des europäischen Staatsrechts statt. Diese resultiert aus purer Unkenntnis der westlichen Staatsphilosophie. Warum muss diese überhaupt berücksichtigt werden, nicht nur als Einwand sondern auch und gerade als Chance?

Von Seiten der staatsphilosophischen natürlichen Freiheit her betrachtet, ist jedem Menschen nämlich jederzeit die (endgültige oder vorübergehende) Ausreise zu gestatten. Dies darf kein internationaler Vertrag und erst recht nicht die UNO oder die EU verhindern. Hingegen gilt weiterhin unangefochten: Von Seiten der staatsphilosophischen republikanischen Freiheit (Rousseau) hat jeder Staat – und das ist international unbestritten – das Recht, die Einreise fremder Staatsbürger zu verhindern.

Nach traditioneller, klassisch-liberaler Staatstheorie braucht er hierfür keinerlei Begründung. Genau dies konstituiert einen Staat ja gerade, über sein Hoheitsgebiet souverän zu entscheiden. Daran ändert weder ein Staatenbund (oder ein Vertrag zwischen Staaten) noch Schengen und Dublin irgendetwas. Über eine Einreise nichtdeutscher Staatsbürger nach Deutschland (Immigration) entscheidet rechtlich nur Deutschland.

V. Merkel hat eine Herrschaft des Unrechts errichtet und schwere Schuld auf sich geladen

Deswegen trägt Merkel mit ihren verfassungswidrigen Handlungen und Äußerungen auch die Verantwortung für Terrorakte gegen Deutsche, wenn diese von illegal anwesenden Ausländern durchgeführt wurden. Das Verwischen der Unterschiede zwischen Einreise und Ausreise verletzt zudem den demokratischen Grundkonsens, weil solch Regierungshandeln die Maxime der klassisch liberalen Staatstheorie ignoriert. Diese Maxime stehen vor der Klammer unserer Verfassung. Dies hat der ursprüngliche Verfassungsgesetzgeber, der Parlamentarische Rat, 1949 ausdrücklich in seinen Beratungen protokolliert sowie in der Präambel des Grundgesetzes manifestiert mit der Formulierung: „Im Bewußtsein seiner Verantwortung vor den Menschen“.

Dieser verkürzte Term sollte bewusst die Staatsphilosophie von Hobbes über Montesquieu, John Locke und Rousseau bis Hegel als grundlegend, notwendig (jedoch nicht hinreichend) und unabdingbar zur Basis des modernen Verfassungsstaates machen. All dies scheint die Bundesregierung auszublenden oder schlichtweg nicht zu wissen.

Diese Unkenntnis und Ignoranz ist die Hauptursache für die aktuelle Staatskrise und die „Herrschaft des Unrechts“ (Wortlaut CSU-Vorstandsbeschluss): Die Bundeskanzlerin persönlich hat sich schuldig gemacht, indem sie uns und andere Menschen in Europa dieser Gefahr ausgesetzt hat. Ohne irgendeinen Grund lässt sie seit zwei Jahren zu, dass man in Deutschland einreisen (immigrieren) darf, ohne die gesetzlichen Kriterien zu erfüllen. So konnten Verbrecher hierhin gelangen und ihre Bombenanschläge vorbereiten sowie Terrorakte durchführen, damit aber dem eigenen Staatsvolk schweren Schaden zugefügt. Kein deutscher Kanzler hat seit 1949 solch eine Schuld auf sich geladen.

VI. Es handelt sich um einen Staatsstreich von oben

Zudem hat die aktuelle Bundeskanzlerin die seit Jahrzehnten konstruktive Außenpolitik Deutschlands und unsere gute Stellung in Europa erheblich beschädigt. Merkels Definition kreiert ein neues Volk, damit aber einen neuen Souverän. Da die Souveränität aber unteilbar ist und es denklogisch in einem Staatsgebiet nur einen Souverän geben kann, bedeutet das eine Auswechslung desselben. Die Regierung schafft sich demnach ein neues Volk.

Die Auswechslung des Souveräns ist die Beschreibung für einen Staatsstreich. Neben einer Revolution („von unten“) ist der Staatsstreich („von oben“) die fundamentalste Umwälzung der politischen Ordnung, die denkbar ist.

*

Zum Autor: Jörg Gebauer ist ausgebildeter Staatswissenschaftler (Magister in Politik, Jura und Soziologie). Daneben hat er Kriminologie, Volkswirtschaftslehre und Staatsphilosophie sowie Pädagogik studiert. Von 1979 bis 2014 war er Mitglied der SPD. Unter anderem gehörte er dem Juso-Bundesausschuss fünf Jahre lang an und war von Februar 1990 zuerst Mitglied der „Einsatzgruppe Deutsche Einheit“ und im direkten Anschluss daran Mitarbeiter des Deutschen Bundestages bis Juni 1992. Dort unter anderem tätig für den ehemaligen Staatsminister Hans-Jürgen Wischnewski („Ben Wisch“). Zuvor war er drei Jahre Angestellter der Johannes Gutenberg-Universität in Mainz. Seit 1992 ist Jörg Gebauer als Berater in der freien Wirtschaft tätig.

**

lundi, 16 octobre 2017

Unintended Consequences: How the Left Keeps Helping Us

LEF0.jpg

Unintended Consequences:
How the Left Keeps Helping Us

Jef Costello

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

Everything is going exactly according to plan. This is what super-villains always say, usually just before their plans are upset. (“Seize him, you fools! He’s getting away!”) So, I am may be tempting fate by saying such a thing, but actually I don’t think so. As of late it really does seem like something — Providence, the Invisible Hand, the Cunning of Reason, or what have you — has been at work behind the scenes, helping our cause. In truth, we don’t have a plan, but events are unfolding as if someone does, and as if that someone is smiling upon us (perhaps from atop his perch in Asgard). 

None of this should be particularly surprising. After all, we have the truth on our side. And the truth is reality. No individual and no civilization can exist for long in revolt against reality. Reality always finds a way to thwart our denial and our delusions, and to call attention to itself over and over again — until finally we are compelled to listen. Aristotle said that “truth seems to be like the proverbial door, which no one can fail to hit.” Actually, truth is like the proverbial Mack truck which cannot fail to hit us, if we try denying it for very long.

tolerant-liberal.jpg

Now, an important part of how this Providence/Cunning of Reason stuff works is that if there is a truth that needs to come out, or a major societal shift that needs to take place, whatever human actors do will tend to advance this. In other words, once we reach a certain set of conditions where the denial of truth is no longer viable, and the truth is just aching to get out, even those who oppose this process will wind up helping it along. Their actions, in short, have unintended consequences. We now see this playing out in a big way in how the Left is conducting itself, especially in its attempts to oppose us. Some of the ways this is happening are obvious, and have been commented on before; others are not so obvious.

The Left thinks it has scored some recent victories by “infiltrating” our private gatherings and reporting on them. This includes the London Forum and the Counter-Currents-sponsored Northwest Forum. As Greg Johnson has already pointed out, all these infiltrators succeeded in doing was proving that we say the same things in private that we do in public. (The claims of Leftists that we’ve been “exposed” are therefore especially comical.) Aside from this, what we are quoted as saying will probably attract more people than it will repulse. Of course, Leftists are constitutionally incapable of perceiving this. They think that our ideas are so self-evidently evil all they have to do is lay them bare. But to almost everyone who isn’t a committed Left-wing ideologue, at least some of our ideas seem . . . well . . . true.

LEF1.jpg

For example, Greg Johnson was secretly recorded at the London Forum quoting someone saying that “while the survivors [of the Manchester Islamic terrorist attack] were still picking bloody bits of children from their hair, Britain’s leaders were rushing toward the nearest camera to profess their undying commitment to diversity.” This is actually an extraordinarily powerful observation, which would stir many people at least to say “you know, he’s got a point.” But, of course, Leftists cannot see this: they broadcast the comment to all the world, thinking it would be summarily rejected by all right-thinking people. Umm, not quite. Thank you, Leftists! If you had but one face I would kiss it (and then get a shot of penicillin).

But this infiltration has the potential to birth an even more important, and less obvious, unintended consequence (and this one is real Cunning of Reason stuff). After the infiltration of the Northwest Forum, the organizers have now decided to make these events public. Our movement already has annual or semi-annual conferences, such as AmRen and NPI. However, the vast majority of events are private, invitation-only affairs which rely on secrecy: vetting (sometimes none-too-successful-vetting, it seems), announcing the location at the last minute, etc. These infiltrations teach us that the way forward may be to end this practice, and make many of our events open to the public. This would make us more visible — more of a regular part of the social and political landscape.

The unintended consequence of Leftist infiltration would therefore be one that Leftists desperately want to avoid: our “normalization.” Publicly-held, New Right events would simply become a “regular thing.” Going (more) public would also require many participants in our events to face a tough choice. They would have to ask themselves whether they are willing to take the risk of being seen at a public event, or forgo attending altogether. More and more of our hitherto reclusive comrades, I believe, have reached a point where they are willing to say “fuck it” and show up anyway, regardless of the consequences. And as more of these public events begin popping up, and more people show up (if only out of curiosity) it will be harder and harder to penalize attendees in some fashion or other. Again, thanks Leftists.

LEF2.jpg

To cite one specific case, Greg Johnson has hitherto been famously camera shy, due to his desire to follow the advice of Socrates and maintain as much as possible “a private life.” But Greg’s recent video exposure has forced him to confront the fact that maintaining a private life is now pretty much a lost cause — the Left (as well as some douchebags on “our side”) won’t allow it. And that’s very good for us. Greg has the best mind in the American New Right scene. Abandoning his former reclusiveness means that we will be seeing more of him: more public lectures and conference appearances, and possibly YouTube videos. Ironically, in “exposing” Greg the Left has . . . well . . . increased his exposure; it has freed him (or perhaps I should say “unleashed” him). This isn’t what the Left wanted — but, again, ideology has made them too stupid to see that they are cooperating in undermining themselves.

Then there are the growing number of “hit pieces” that have been published in recent months, targeting prominent members of our movement. These are stuffed to the gills with unintended consequences. As everyone knows by now, Mike Enoch was the subject of a recent exposé in The New Yorker. One gets the impression that the author probably tried hard to make Mike look bad — but, predictably, the article has the unintended consequence, to any unbiased reader, of making him look like rather a swell fellow. As one of my (very objective) correspondents put it: “One gets the impression that Enoch really is seeking for truth. There are also details like him taking care of his handicapped mischling brother, that make him look rather nice and caring. Also, he does not say anything bad about his (I assume soon-to-be-ex)-wife, which is usually the case with any divorce. In fact, his attachment to her comes through strongly. The overall picture is rather complex and a far cry from the usual villain caricatures.”

An even better example of the unintended consequences of Leftist exposés is the profile of the German Götz Kubitschek which appeared just before the Enoch piece in The New York Times. This is, without question, the most fair and objective article I think I have ever seen on a Right-wing figure. But I suspect that the (presumably Left-wing) reporter simply allows Kubitschek to speak for himself because he thinks that, again, our ideas are so self-evidently evil all one need do is report them accurately. This backfires in a very, very big way. Not only does Herr Kubitschek seem sweetly reasonable, we learn that he has seven children and a farm full of lovingly-tended goats and bunny rabbits. At one point, he absents himself from the interview to go and heal an ailing baby goat. The only way this could have been better for us is if Kubitschek had been depicted curing lepers or miracling bread into existence. Once again, the Left takes careful aim at its own foot and opens fire.

wie-es-die-urahnen-taten.jpg

Götz Kubitschek milks goat

Mention must also be made of the Left’s attempts to censor us, de-platform us, ruin our lives and careers, etc. (I have already written an essay about how to deal with these dangers on a day-to-day basis.) Every time this happens — if it gets some exposure — the Left comes off looking more and more desperate, hateful, and intolerant. A reversal is taking place very, very quickly: the Left is positioning itself as the defensive, tyrannical Establishment, and simultaneously positioning us as the rebels, the true “liberal” advocates of freedom of thought, and as the new counter-culture. Thanks! Sensible, average people cannot help but see the hateful, censorious behavior of the Left as the last gasp of a dying ideology. In other words, at some level of their awareness they see this behavior and think “What’s wrong with these people? What are they trying to hide? What are they trying to compensate for?” This is not the behavior of people confident in the truth of their views — it is the behavior of cornered rats; of criminal types who know the jig is up; of moochers who’ve realized the free lunch is over with.

Needless to say, this also applies to the violence of the Left, especially when it is perpetrated by Antifa and Black Lives Matter. Decent, average folks deeply disapprove of lawlessness, and of violence used as a tool of oppression, especially when it is directed at the underdog (this is very deeply set in the American character). Thus, Trump very wisely appealed, as did Nixon in 1968, to “law and order.” This is very probably a major part of why he won. Since the election, of course, the Left has continued to oblige us by amping up the violence. In general, as has been pointed out by many, the general bat-shit-crazy antics of the Left since the election of Donald Trump have only been helping us. More and more people are fed up with Leftism, and getting more bold about saying so.

LEF3.jpg

And we must add to this the fact that, in addition to violence and mischief of all sorts, the Left seems completely clueless about the fact that Americans in vast numbers have repudiated their policies — every one of which has been a disaster for the country, and for the electoral prospects of liberals. Just the other day the liberal-controlled Boy Scouts of America announced that it will accept girls, presumably including girls who think they are boys. But this is just an extension of the “gender madness” that seriously harmed Democrats in the last election. Now California seems poised to pass a law criminalizing the use of the wrong pronouns when dealing with “transgender” people (while simultaneously making it no longer a felony to deliberately infect someone with HIV).

It’s really like Leftists just can’t help themselves. And, indeed, they can’t. They are committed to a life-denying morality that, taken to its logical conclusion, destroys families, communities, and all the basic institutions of civilization. That includes liberal families, communities, and institutions. And the moral fanaticism of the Left requires them to carry their ideas to their logical conclusion — to the extreme. What we are seeing is the Left beginning to eat itself, in a dialectic that spells their doom. The Left cannot abandon the ideology in which it has invested so much — the ideology through which its overly-socialized adherents find their self-worth; the ideology through which its base of slave-types and defective oddballs seeks to revenge itself upon the strong and the healthy. The Left will only continue to double-down and become more insane, more extreme. And the result will be that it will destroy itself, and probably quicker than any of us think. It seems right on course to do this, and the signs are everywhere. We can help this along through our activities, but really the Left is doing all the heavy lifting for us.

Three cheers for unintended consequences!

This just in: An appearance by Martin Sellner and Martin Lichtmesz at the Frankfurt Book Fair made international news when they were accosted by Antifa. Result: 3,000 copies of Lichtmesz’s new book have sold! Thank you again, Leftists. We owe you so much!

Lichtmesz-Sommerfeld_Mit-Linken-leben.jpg

mercredi, 11 octobre 2017

Wagner, Nietzsche and the Birth of Music – from the Spirit of Tragedy

RWFN.png

Wagner, Nietzsche and the Birth of Music – from the Spirit of Tragedy

Alexander Jacob

Ex: https://manticorepress.net

One of the great misfortunes of modern aesthetic theory is the fact that, ever since Nietzsche introduced the concepts of ‘Dionysian’ music and ‘Apollonian’ art in his popular essay Die Geburt der Tragödie aus dem Geiste der Musik (The Birth of Tragedy from the Spirit of Music) (1872), it has become customary among scholars and critics to consider these as quasi-normative elements of tragic drama. We may recall that Nietzsche, following Schopenhauer’s dictum that ideas are the universalia post rem;[1] music, however, gives the universalia ante rem,[2] and reality the universalia in re,[3] contended that the primordial music that is universal in expression is to be identified as ‘Dionysian’ while all artistic and dramatic representations of this universal music were merely ‘Apollonian’ forms of individuation, or of merely illusory phenomena:

through Dionysian music the individual phenomenon becomes richer and widens into a world-picture. It was a powerful victory of the non-Dionysian spirit when, in the development of the newer dithyramb, it alienated music from itself and forced it down to be the slave of appearances.[4]

But Nietzsche’s conclusion is in fact a false one, for it is only through Apollonian art that the universal can be appreciated. And the value of the latter for man is not through an insensate immersion into the realm of the Unconscious but rather through a Supra-Conscious apprehension of man’s first Fall from God and a desire to be reintegrated into the divine – as Schopenhauer himself had revealed in his discussion of tragedy in his masterwork Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung (The World as Will and Imagination) (1818/59). Indeed, Schopenhauer’s theory of tragedy is, of all the philosophical theories of tragedy that have been propounded since antiquity, the one perhaps closest to the truth – which is hardly surprising considering the ‘pessimistic’ cast of his entire philosophical system. Schopenhauer’s view of the phenomenal world as the expression of a conflict-ridden Will to Life led him to consider tragedy as

the summit of poetical art, both on account of the greatness of its effect and the difficulty of its achievement. It is very significant for our whole system, and well worthy of observation, that the end of this highest poetical achievement is the representation of the terrible side of life. The unspeakable pain, the wail of humanity, the triumph of evil, the scornful mastery of chance, and the irretrievable fall of the just and innocent, is here presented to us; and in this lies a significant hint of the nature of the world and of existence.[5]

Therefore he concluded that

The true sense of tragedy is the deeper insight that it is not his own individual sins that the hero atones for, but original sin, the crime of existence itself.

The fall that is evoked in every tragic representation is, thus, also not a fall into morality, as the Hebrew reference to the ‘knowledge of good and evil’ in Genesis 3, and Nietzsche’s entire moral philosophy following it, would have us believe, but rather the original Fall (or ‘castration’) of the primordial macroanthrophomorphic form of Ouranos called Purusha (among the Indians) or Adam Kadmon (among the Hebrews) that generated the physical cosmos.[6]

Nietzsche indeed does not  seem to be aware of the original significance of the Greek gods Dionysus and Apollo, nor of their relation to the representations of tragic drama. The essential cosmic role of Dionysus is that of the solar force of Ouranos/Helios that descends into the underworld to be revived in our universe as the sun, Apollo. This descent is among the ancient Indo-Europeans understood as a ‘castration’ of the phallus of Ouranos by Time/Chronos that is remedied by the force of Chronos’ representative in the nascent universe, Zeus, or Dionysus.[7] The solar force that Dionysus represents in the underworld is naturally rather uncontrolled in its enormous energy and is therefore represented in the Dionysian cult by the wild abandon typical of Bacchanalian rites. The aim of these rites however, as in all Indo-European religions, would have been a serious soteriological one rather than a frivolous, as in Nietzsche’s account. The followers of Dionysus were ‘enthusiasts’, ‘filled with the god’, and imitated in their ritual worship the cosmic progress of the god.

It is true that the Dionysian mysteries, much like the Indian Tantric ones, are not imbued with a sense of ‘sin’, but they are nevertheless focussed on the need to transfigure human passions into divine ones – even if it be through indulgence. The Dionysian satyr-plays are therefore a hedonistic, quasi-Tantric counterpart of the higher sacerdotal sacrifices among the Indo-Europeans, and especially of such sacrifices as the Agnicayana of the Indian brāhmans which seeks to restore the divine phallus of the castrated, or ‘fallen’ Purusha to its original cosmic force.[8]

However, it must be noted that these orgiastic celebrations of the energy that the solar force contains in the underworld did not in themselves constitute ‘tragedies’ in any form. Their ritual repesentations merely served, historically, as the source of dramatisations of tragic stories in Greece. For we know from Aristotle’s Poetics 1449ª that tragedy gradually evolved from the spoken prelude to the Dionysian dithyrambs. The  dithyramb is a choral hymn sung and danced to Dionysus in a particularly ecstatic manner. It was  comprised of male choruses (perhaps dressed as satyrs) that included men and boys.

Later, in the 6th c. B.C., when the dithyrambic prelude had developed in its scope, Thespis took the part of a character and Phrynicus introduced dialogues. Bacchylides’ surviving fragment of a dithyramb (from the 5th c. B.C.) is in the form of a dialogue between a solo singer and a chorus. Thus there arose responsorial dialogues between  solo singers and a choir. Aeschylus in the 5th c. B.C. introduced a second actor too into the play. The chorus in a dithyramb sang narrations of actions, unlike the direct speeches of actors in a drama.[9]

Tragedy emerged in this way as a distinct artistic form mainly in ancient Greece. We know that Sanskrit dramas in India did not include tragedies. According to the 10th century treatise on drama called Dasharūpa by Dhanika, Bk.III,  for instance, actions not suited for representation on the stage include murder, fights, revolts, eating, bathing, intercourse, etc. The death of a hero too can never be represented. If tragedy is not favoured by the ancient Indian drama, it is not attested in the ancient Near East either, though liturgical laments were composed at the end of the Third Dynasty of Ur (ca.2000 B.C.) marking the losses of the temples of the major Sumerian cities. In Egypt, from the 12th dynasty of the Middle Kingdom (ca.1990 B.C.), there is evidence of dramatic representations of religious subjects in temples. Of these, the murder of Osiris by Seth, his dismemberment, and resuscitation may be considered the Egyptian counterpart of the Dionysian mysteries.

It is important to note that Greek tragic drama, which relied on solo speeches and choral commentaries on the action, did not include much action and certainly no violent action, which was considered too horrific to be enacted onstage and needed a Messenger to describe it to the actors. The dramatic action of a tragedy does not therefore rely on action itself, and often even shuns it. The drama unfolds only through the medium of the speeches of the various characters and choruses. That is why the power of Euripides’ monodic declamations detailing the actions as well as the reactions of the protagonists must be acknowledged as the acme of Greek tragedy rather than its nadir, as Nietzsche considered it. In Euripides (5th c. B.C.) the action was focussed on the feelings generated by the dramatic action, and even the choral commentaries receded in importance before the actor’s monody, a style of dramatic declamation that was perfected by the Roman Stoic philosopher and dramatist Seneca the Younger (1st c. A.D.), who relied mainly on Euripides’ example in the creation of his tragedies.

FNRW-li.jpgThe cause of this misunderstanding of Euripidean tragedy may be traced back to Richard Wagner’s analyses of Greek drama in his Oper und Drama (Opera and Drama)  (1851), Bk.III, Ch.3:[10]

In didactic uprightness, which was at the same time artistic dishonesty, lies the cause of the rapid decline of Greek tragedy, in which the people soon perceived that there was no intention of influencing their instinctive feeling, but merely their absolute understanding. Euripides had to suffer under the scourge of the taunts of Aristophanes for his outright disclosure of this falsehood. The fact that poetic art, by dint of adopting a more and more didactic aim, should first pass into political rhetoric, and at last become literary prose was, although an extreme consequence, the one to be naturally expected from the evolution of the intellectual out of the emotional; or, as applied to art, from the evolution of speech from melody.

Nietzsche too rails against Euripides in The Birth of Tragedy, which was in fact a paean to the music-drama of Richard Wagner. He considers Euripides a ‘democratic’ artist who propagated ‘middle-class mediocrity’ by representing tragic protagonists as ordinary rather than superheroic figures. But, as Schopenhauer had already clarified in his discussion of tragedy, it is the imperfection of human nature itself that informs the highest tragedies:

the [tragic] misfortune may be brought about by the mere position of the dramatis personæ with regard to each other, through their relations; so that there is no need either for a tremendous error or an unheard-of accident, nor yet for a character whose wickedness reaches the limits of human possibility; but characters of ordinary morality, under circumstances such as often occur, are so situated with regard to each other that their position compels them, knowingly and with their eyes open, to do each other the greatest injury, without any one of them being entirely in the wrong. This last kind of tragedy seems to me far to surpass the other two, for it shows us the greatest misfortune, not as an exception, not as something occasioned by rare circumstances or monstrous characters, but as arising easily and of itself out of the actions and characters of men, indeed almost as essential to them, and thus brings it terribly near to us. In the other two kinds we may look on the prodigious fate and the horrible wickedness as terrible powers which certainly threaten us, but only from afar, which we may very well escape without taking refuge in renunciation. But in the last kind of tragedy we see that those powers which destroy happiness and life are such that their path to us also is open at every moment; we see the greatest sufferings brought about by entanglements that our fate might also partake of, and through actions that perhaps we also are capable of performing, and so could not complain of injustice; then shuddering we feel ourselves already in the midst of hell.[11]

Although the tragic condition of man is common to every individual human being, Schopenhauer’s discussion suggests that it is only noble men whose lives are truly tragic:

Thus we see in tragedies the noblest men, after long conflict and suffering, at last renounce the ends they have so keenly followed, and all the pleasures of life for ever, or else freely and joyfully surrender life itself … they all die purified by suffering, i.e., after the will to live which was formerly in them is dead.

Nietzsche’s sustained attack on Euripidean tragedy also does not seem to have rightly understood Aristophanes’ criticism of Euripides in his play The Frogs, since Aristophanes’ denunciation of the ‘effeminate’ and ‘democratic’ style of Euripides was indeed directed at a Dionysian form of drama that contrasted with the stark ‘manly’ art of Aeschylus. The erotic aspects of Euripides’ drama were regarded by Aristophanes as a manifestation of the unbridled licentiousness of Dionysiac rituals, which exploited the androgynous character of Dionysus himself. In other words, Nietzsche’s criticism of Euripidean tragedy is in direct opposition to his admiration of what he believed to be the ‘Dionysian’ aspects of the earliest dramatic representations.

In his attack on Euripides for his ‘demotion’ of the Greek chorus below the individual speeches of the characters of the drama Nietzsche further identifies Dionysian music with the Unconscious, or the ‘dream-world’:

This demotion in the position of the chorus …. is the first step towards the destruction of the chorus, whose phases in Euripides, Agathon and the New Comedy followed with breakneck speed one after the other. Optimistic dialectic, with its syllogistic whip, drove music out of tragedy, that is, it destroyed the essence of tragedy, which can be interpreted only as a manifestation and imaginary presentation of Dionysian states, as a perceptible symbolising of music, as the dream-world of a Dionysian intoxication…

In fact there is no indication that drunken intoxication – representing Dionysian inspiration –  was the basis of tragic drama even though it may have formed part of the original ritual celebrations of the God from which dithyrambic drama arose.

Nietzsche considers Dionysian music as universal, and Apollonian art, pantomime, drama or opera, as individual, and expressive of the individual lives of the tragic personae:

In fact the relationship between music and drama is fundamentally the reverse [of the Apollonian] – the music is the essential idea of the word, and the drama is only a reflection of this idea, its isolated silhouette.

After this Apollonian presentation of the delusory ‘action’ of the drama, the Dionysian realm reasserts itself:

In the total action of the tragedy the Dionysian regains its superiority once more. Tragedy ends with a tone which never could resound from the realm of Apollonian art.

Nietzsche illustrates this section of his argument with the example of the music of Wagner’s Tristan, his fascination with which was clearly the ímpetus to the writing of The Birth of Tragedy.[12]

Primordial music is falsely interpreted by Nietzsche as being essentially rapturous, or ‘Dionysian’, and best expressed by instrumental, or ‘absolute’, music and then by choral song. Nietzsche is fundamentally averse to dramatic music – which is rather contradictory in one who claimed to be discussing the ‘birth of tragedy’. Indeed, tragedy did not arise from any Dionysian spirit of music, but rather tragic drama arose from the soteriological impulses of the Dionysiac mysteries. And tragic dramatic, or operatic, music itself arose from the sentiments incorporated within the texts of dramatic poems.

tannh.jpg

Nietzsche’s denunciation of critics too as being excessively intellectual and moralistic (‘Socratic’) and opposed to the authentically ‘aesthetic’ listener dodges the central issue of tragedy – that it is always a reminder of the imperfection of the tragic hero as well as of the viewer. This understanding is obtained through an ethical evaluation of the condition of human life in general, and not from an aesthetic judgement of the pleasure afforded to the ears or eyes by the spectacle on stage.

*

We should note here that Wagner’s conception of the genesis of the earliest forms of drama and music is rather more subtle than Nietzsche’s. We observe in Wagner’s writings that he identifies melody and music as the primal expression of what he calls ‘Feeling’, and words are said to have been later superimposed on these tunes in dramatic lyrics that gradually became increasingly intellectual and didactic in tone to the detriment of the expression of Feeling itself. In his Oper und Drama, Part III, Wagner detailed the manner in which the lyric developed from dance forms that impelled melodic creation:

We know, now, that the endless variety of Greek metre was produced by the inseparable and living co-operation of dance-gesture with articulate speech. (Ch.1)

And again,

The most remarkable feature of ancient lyric consists in its words and verse proceeding from tone and melody: like gestures of the body which became gradually shortened into the more measured and certain gestures of mimicry after having been, as movements of the dance, of merely general indication and only intelligible after many repetitions. (Ch.3)

Wagner understands the earliest representations of dramatic action too as those contained in folk-dances, as he declared in his essay, ‘La musique de l’avenir’ (1860):[13]

That ideal form of dance is in truth the dramatic action. It really bears precisely the same relation to the primitive dance as the symphony to the simple dance-tune. Even the primal folk-dance already expresses an action, for the most part the mutual wooing of a pair of lovers: this simple story – purely physical in its bearings – when ripened to an exposition of the inmost motives of the soul, becomes nothing other than the dramatic action.

However, the gradual intellectualisation of dramatic representation led to the decay of the emotional integrity of melodic invention:

The more the faculty of instinctive emotion became compressed into that of the arbitrary understanding and the more lyrical contents became accordingly changed from emotional to intellectual … the more evident became the removal from the literary poem of its original consistency with primitive articulate melody, which it now only continued to use, so to speak, as a mode of delivery and merely for the purpose of rendering its more callous, didactical contents as acceptable to the ancients habits of feeling as possible. (Ibid.)

While dance music was of principal importance in Greek drama, Wagner thinks that Christianity in particular sharply divorced soul from body and consequently killed the body of music (Oper und Drama, I, Ch.7). The Christian Church deprived music of its choreographic core so that music was forced to develop instead as harmony and counterpoint. In Italy, however, the Renaissance’s discovery of the operatic form of drama gave rise to an uncontrolled proliferation of melodic invention:

The downfall of this art in Italy and the contemporaneous rise of opera-melody among the Italians I can call nothing but a relapse into paganism.

Development of rhythmic melody upon the base of the other mediaeval Christian iinvention, harmony, occurred only in Germany, as notably in the works of Bach. The orchestra continued processes of polyphony that operatic song denied to the latter, for the orchestra in the opera was only a rhythmic harmonic accompaniment to song.

Wagner however does criticise even the chorales of the Reformation as lacking in rhythm, since they are dance music deprived of rhythm by ecclesiastical convention. Nietzsche, on the other hand, in his exaggerated Teutonism, confusedly identifies the choral music of the Reformation with the musical atmosphere of the Dionysiac rituals. He declares that the choral music of the Reformation recovered the

glorious, innerly healthy and age-old power which naturally only begins to stir into powerful motion at tremendous moments … Out of this abyss the German Reformation arose. In its choral music there rang out for the first time the future style of German music. Luther’s choral works sounded as profound, courageous, spiritual, as exuberantly good and tender as the first Dionysian call rising up out of the thickly growing bushes at the approach of spring.

But anyone familiar with German music of the Reformation will be aware of the musical naivety that marks the chorale hymns favoured by Luther. The rich choral writing of Bach was not derived from the melodies of the Lutheran chorales but from the general elaboration of harmony and counterpoint in the ‘Baroque’ musical forms encouraged by the Counter-Reformation.

tannhauser.jpg

The general preference of both Wagner and Nietzsche for polyphony as opposed to operatic monody and homophony reflects the particularly folkloric bent of German musical taste, since polyphony is originally a folk-musical tradition that grew out of communal round-songs. It was first introduced into serious church music in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance to the steadfast opposition of conservative popes like John XXII, who banished it from the liturgy in 1322 and lay bare its defects in his 1324 papal bull Docta sanctorum patrum (Teachings of the Holy Fathers):

Some [composers] break up their melodies with hockets or rob them of their virility with discant, three-voice music, and motets, with a dangerous element produced by certain parts sung on text in the vernacular; all these abuses have brought into disrepute the basic melodies of the Antiphonal and Gradual [the principal sections of Gregorian chant in the Mass]. These composers, knowing nothing of the true foundation upon which they must build, are ignorant of the church modes, incapable of distinguishing between them, and cause great confusion. The great number of notes in their compositions conceals from us the plainchant melody, with its simple well-regulated rises and falls that indicate the character of the church mode. These musicians run without pausing. They intoxicate the ear without satisfying it; they dramatize the text with gestures; and, instead of promoting devotion, they prevent it by creating a sensuous and indecent atmosphere. . . . Therefore, after consultation with these same brethren (the cardinals), we prohibit absolutely, for the future that anyone should do such things, or others of like nature, during the Divine Office or during the holy sacrifice of the Mass.[14]

The development of opera in Italy was due mainly to the rejection of polyphony and contrapuntal music in favor of a dramatic style of musical expression that declaimed  the  words of dramatic speeches and dialogues in recitatives that were almost sung but not fully melodic. What neither Wagner nor Nietzsche appreciated is the fact that this quasi-melodic recitative of the stile rapprensatitvo is in fact the dramatic foundation of the Italian opera of the Renaissance since it expresses all of the dramatic feelings directly, faithfully and forcefully. The ‘da capo’ arias that followed the recitatives for musical effect are not the bearers of the drama but merely the musical reflections and echoes of the dramatic recitatives.

In other words, the entire tragic action of drama rests on the narrations and emotional reactions of the characters to these narrations that are conveyed by the recitatives. The orchestra can always only be a vehicle of general feeling. While it can underscore what the verse depicts it cannot become a substitute for the latter. The first development of drama as mimetic dance and pantomime – such as the dithyramb in ancient Greece or folk-dance in most countries – is an improvement on solely orchestral music only insofar as it incorporates humans in its representations. Only theatrical plays with spoken dialogues and, more especially, operatic dramas with sung dialogues achieve the fullest expression of tragedy since they alone employ the incomparably expressive instrument of the human voice for the exposition of their tragic content. By contrast, a dramatic symphony can never approach the status of a tragic drama, even if it be interspersed, or concluded, with choral passages as, for example, in Berlioz’s Roméo et Juliette Symphony or Liszt’s Faust Symphony. For, the most sombre symphonic tone-poems cannot produce the full sympathy with the fate of a tragic human hero that alone leads to a recognition of the universal nature of the tragic condition of man and a subsequent desire for liberation from the phenomenal world. This recognition and this desire are indeed the essential constituents of tragedy, as they are of all true religion.

*

Since Italian church music was the basis of secular musical styles as well, we may briefly pause here to consider the nature of early Christian rituals. Among the Christians the sacraments themselves were considered to be ‘mysteries’, though the principal theological mysteries were those of the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation (or Virgin Conception of Jesus), and the Resurrection of Christ. Of these the incarnation itself is viewed as a divine fall for the purpose of the redemption of mankind, while the resurrection is the Christian counterpart of the ascent of Apollo from the Dionysiac solar force in the underworld. We must bear in mind that even the normal ‘mass’ of the Catholic Church is a dramatic sacrifical ritual since its climax is reached in the Eucharist, when the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of the Christ, the sacrificial Lamb of God.

TRISOLde.jpg

This death and resurrection of Christ were naturally, from the earliest times, the subject of various forms of sacred music. The Gregorian chants that flourished in central and western Europe from the ninth century were monophonic songs that were used in the masses of the Roman Rite of the western Catholic Church. Gregorian chant was used also in the Passion music of the Holy Week services. Responsorial Passion settings in which the narration is chanted by a small group of the choir and refrains are sung by the whole choir were another form of passion music, as also was the Tenebrae music of the Holy Week. Alongside these Passions, oratorios involving narration and dialogues between characters in sacred dramas originated in the early 17th century in Italy. These oratorios were doubtless influenced by the ‘new music’ propagated by Giulio Caccini in his monodic and operatic works and led to the well-known Baroque oratorio-Passions of the seventeeth and eighteenth centuries.

One of the first musicians to discover the importance of adhering to the text of songs or dramatic poems rather than developing melodic permutations and combinations independent of the text as in polyphony was Giulio Caccini (1551-1618), who developed the first operas in Italy within the learned circle of the Florentine Academy founded by the Byzantine philosopher Gemistus Pletho (ca.1355-1454) and the Florentine banker and patron of the arts, Cosimo de’ Medici (1389-1464), under the supervision of the Neoplatonist philosopher, Marsilio Ficino (1433-99). Caccini made it clear in the Preface to his Le nuouve musiche (1602) that polyphony was totally unsuited to musical expression of poetry and that the Greek song was essentially a solo song such as was praised by Plato. He declared that he had learnt from the members of the Florentine Academy

not to value the kind of music that prevents the words from being well understood and thus spoils the sense and the form of the poetry. I refer to the kind of music that elongates a syllable here and shortens one there to accommodate the counterpoint, turning the poetry to shreds. Instead, they urged me to adhere to the manner [of composition] praised by Plato and the other philosophers who affirm that music is nothing but speech, rhythm, and harmony. According to them, the purpose of music is to penetrate the minds of others and create the marvelous effects that writers admire. In modern music, these effects could not be achieved through counterpoint. Particularly in solo singing accompanied by string instruments, not a word could be understood in the pervasive vocalises, whether on short or long syllables. Furthermore, in every type of music, the common people would applaud and shout for serious singers only [if they produced] such vocalises.[15]

Given the vulgar neglect of the words of the musical performances, Caccini declares that

In both madrigals and arias [all in monodic style] I have always tried to imitate the ideas of the words, seeking more or less expressive notes to follow the sentiments of the words. I concealed the art of counterpoint as much as I could, to make the words as graceful as possible.

Indeed, Wagner too understands the importance of poetic diction in lyrical composition:

It was only the musician’s yearning to gaze into the poet’s eye which even rendered posible this appearance of melody upon the surface of the harmonic waters. And it was only the poet’s verse which could sustain the melody upon the surface of those waters, for otherwise though giving forth a fugitive utterance, it would in default of sustenance have only fallen back again into ocean depths. (Oper und Drama, Part III, Ch.3).

Particularly significant is Wagner’s oblique commendation of what is best developed in Italian opera as the ‘stile rappresentativo’, or quasi-melodic recitatives:

There proceeds from the pure faculty of speech such a fulness of the most manifold rhythmic assertive power … that all these riches, together with that fructification of the purely musical power of man which springs from them and which is exemplified in every art-creation brought forth by the inner poetical impulse, can only be properly described as absolutely immeasurable. (Part III, Ch.2)

The orchestral accompaniments themselves are merely highlights of the verse-melody:

The vivifying central point of dramatic expression is the actor’s articulate verse-melody, towards which absolute orchestral melody is drawn as a warning preparation and away from which the ‘thought’ of the orchestral motive leads as a remembrance Part III, Ch.6)

The orchestra can also substitute for the ‘gestures’ which formed essential parts of the mimetic dance-forms of folk-dance as well as of drama:

That which is offered to sight in the constant presence and motion of that exponent of articulate verse-melody – the actor – is dramatic gesture, that which makes this clear to the sense of hearing being the orchestra, the original and necessary effectiveness of which is confined to its being the harmonic bearer of the verse-melody … from the orchestra therefore, as from music’s richly emotional and maternal bosom, the unifying bond of expression proceeds. (Ibid.)

Wagner believed that the ultimate aim of musical development was the invention of a true melodic form that would, now that it has been filtered through the understanding, revive the original Feeling at the basis of all music in a much more faithful and concentrated form:

In the course of proceeding from articulate to tonal speech we arrived at the horizontal upper surface of harmony, playing upon the mirror of which the word-phrase of the poet was reflected back again as musical melody. Now … to the means of sinking into the fullest depths of that maternal element – of sinking therein that poetic intention which is as the productive agency, besides doing this so that every atom contained in the awful chaos of those depths shall be determined into a conscious and individual announcement though in no narrowing but in an ever-widening compass. Now, in short, for the artistic progress consisting of broadening out a definite and conscious intention into an emotional faculty which, notwithstanding that it is immeasurable, shall be of certain and precise manifestation.

This advanced form of melody will be a return of feeling developed through the intellect back to the primordial font of Feeling:

Real melody … stands in relation to the original maternal articulate melody as an absolute contrast, and one which … we may refer to as a progress from understanding to feeling, or as one out of speech to melody. This is in contradistinction to the former change from feeling to understanding and melody to speech. (Part III, Ch.3)

The final aim of Wagner’s innovation is indeed melody – not by itself, as in Italian operatic arias, but as ‘symphonic melody’. While this symphonic dimension of his melodies may be considered to be merely an orchestral addition to the melodic content of Italian arias, we cannot deny the extaordinary affective power of Wagner’s melodies as a successful fulfilment of his own musical aims.

Tristan and Isolde Frederick Leighton.jpg

It is also worth noting that, unlike Nietzsche, Wagner attributes the decay of tragedy not only to the intellectualisation of dramatic prosody but also to the social circumstances in which the high taste of the nobility was replaced by the commercial impresario who only seeks profits by propagating the puerile taste of a vulgar public. He reminds his readers that earlier works of art were brought to life by the nobility who formed the public for refined forms of art:

the excellent and specially refined productions of our art already existing … the incentive to the creation of such work proceeded from the taste of those before whom it had to be performed. What we find is that this public of higher feeling and taste in its condition of most active and definite sympathy with art-production first greets our view in the period of the Renaissance … passing its life gaily in palaces or bravely in war it had exercised both eye and ear in perception of the graceful, the beautiful and even of the characteristic and energetic, and it was at its command that the works of art arose which distinguish that period as the most fortunate for art since the decay of that of Greece. (Ch.VII)

Nowadays, however,

it is the man who pays the artist for that in respect of which nobility formerly rewarded him who is the ruler of public art-taste – the man who orders the art-work for his money – the man who wants his own favorite tune varied anew for novelty – but no new theme. This ruler and orderer is the Philistine, and this Philistine is … the most dastardly outcome of our whole civilisation … It is his will to be dastardly and vulgar, and art must accommodate itself thereto. Let us hasten to get him out of our sight.

In his essay, ‘Das Judenthum in der Musik’ (Jewry in Music) (1850) Wagner points particularly to the role that the Jews have played in the commercialisation of music:

What the heroes of the arts, with untold strain consuming lief and life, have wrested from the art-fiend of two millennia of misery, to-day the Jew converts into an artbazaar.

Wagner, on the other hand, sought to restore  ‘a system in which the relation of art to public life such as once obtained in Athens should be re-established on an if possible still nobler and at any rate more durable footing’. This was the purpose underlying the treatise he published in 1849 called Kunst und Revolution (Art and Revolution).

*

If we turn back to Nietzsche now, we note that the Wagnerian focus on the maternal font of ‘Feeling’ is turned by Nietzsche into the realm of the ‘Dionysian’ spirit. Nietzsche follows Wagner in considering melody as the original element of musical expression:

The melody is thus the primary and universal fact, for which reason it can in itself undergo many objectifications, in several texts. It is also far more important and more essential in the naive evaluations of the people. Melody gives birth to poetry from itself, over and over again. (Die Geburt der Tragödie)

However, while Wagner sought to achieve a rearticulated melody that surpassed melodic verse, Nietzsche in Der Fall Wagner (The Case of Wagner) (1888) finally shrank back in horror from beautiful melody:

let us slander melody! Nothing is more dangerous than a beautiful melody!

Nothing is more certain to ruin taste![16]

The reason for his fear of Wagner’s melodic achievement is that it might lead to the collapse of music under the burden of expressiveness – as indeed happened with the appearance of the atonal post-Romantic music of Schoenberg:

Richard Wagner wanted another kind of movement, — he overthrew the physiological first principle of all music before his time. It was no longer a matter of walking or dancing, — we must swim, we must hover. . . . This perhaps decides the whole matter. “Unending melody” really wants to break all the symmetry of time and strength; it actually scorns these things — Its wealth of invention resides precisely in what to an older ear sounds like rhythmic paradox and abuse. From the imitation or the prevalence of such a taste there would arise a danger for music — so great that we can imagine none greater — the complete degeneration of the feeling for rhythm, chaos in the place of rhythm. . . . The danger reaches its climax when such music cleaves ever more closely to naturalistic play-acting and pantomime, which governed by no laws of form, aim at effect and nothing more…. Expressiveness at all costs and music a servant, a slave to attitudes — this is the end. . . .

Nietzsche’s insistence on rhythm is related to his preference for dance music, which he understands in the spirit of Dionysian or Bacchanalian choreography. However, since he does not intuit the religious character of Dionysian ritual as well as of the original Greek tragedies, we  notice that Nietzsche’s understanding of the dance-forms of the Dionysiac mysteries is also rather deficient. While Wagner focussed on ‘gesture’ in early drama, and viewed the dance as the expression of simple dramatic actions, Nietzsche’s wild appeals to dance are more suggestive of modern ‘abstract’ dance. Thus it has been rightly maintained by Georges Liébert that Nietzsche spoke in his writings on tragedy and operatic music not about opera at all but about the ballet of composers like Ravel and Stravinsky.[17] In ‘Versuch einer Selbstkritik’ (An Attempt at Self-Criticism) (1886) – quoting from his own Also sprach Zarathustra (1883-85) and comically identifying Dionysus with Zarathustra – Nietzsche even exhorts the reader to

Lift up your hearts, my brothers, high, higher! And for my sake don’t forget your legs as well! Raise up your legs, you fine dancers, and better yet, stand on your heads!

Any writer who imagines the Iranian religious reformer Zoroaster as a ‘Dionysian’ priest proclaiming the above message to his listeners can hardly be considered an authority on either ancient religion or drama.

wagner_wide-49d7ac733bab8c54005fcbd064f017266b338cf4.jpg

The real aim of Nietzsche’s parody of Zoroastrianism, as well as of Dionysiac religion, is of course his urge to remove moralism and all discussion of ‘good and evil’ from public discourse. To this end Wagner’s rejection of intellectualism in Euripides is transformed by Nietzsche into a single-minded attack on ‘moralism’.and ‘morality’.itself. But tragedy, as we have noted above, is in the nature of things moral. And Sophocles, whom Nietzsche admires above Euripides, was not more mindless of the gods than the latter. Even a brief glance at the final Chorus in Sophocles’ ‘Antigone’ will make this clear:

Of happiness the chiefest part Is a wise heart: And to defraud the gods in aught with peril’s fraught. Swelling words of high-flown might mightily the gods do smite. Chastisement for errors past Wisdom brings to age at last.[18]

The ulterior motive behind Nietzsche’s rejection of moralism is obviously his larger goal of eliminating Christianity from Europe,

Christianity as the most excessively thorough elaboration of a moralistic theme which humanity up to this point has had available to listen to. To tell the truth, there is nothing which stands in greater opposition to the purely aesthetic interpretation and justification of the world, as it is taught in this book, than Christian doctrine, which is and wishes to be merely moralistic and which, with its absolute standards, beginning, for example, with its truthfulness of God, relegates art, every art, to the realm of lies — in other words, which denies art, condemns it, and passes sentence on it.

*

Nietzsche indeed ignores the fact that it was the Church that created the first examples of modern tragic music, based on the ‘mysteries’ of the Christ story, in the West during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. The Florentine opera that flourished during the Renaissance was also closer to the original Greek drama that both Wagner and Nietzsche wished to emulate than the German music of the time insofar as the focus on the musical quality of poetic declamation was perfected only in Renaissance Italy and in the Italian operatic tradition that followed from it. The monodic music that was championed by the first Italian operatic composers meant the rejection of polyphonic distractions for a concentrated attention on the texts of the dramas. For the intellectual understanding of the essentially tragic condition of man the text of the play is indeed indispensable, since it is the text of a tragic drama that – through its redevelopment of archetypal myths and histories – serves to remind us of the essential distress of the human condition. And a dramatic focus on the tragic condition of the hero as expressed in the text can be achieved only through poetic declamation, or its heightened musical counterparts – quasi-melodic recitatives and monodies.

Thus, while the maintenance of a more general mood of mourning, and of longing for wholeness, can be accomplished by both instrumental and vocal means, the painful conflicts of the drama can be expressed fully only by vocal recitatives and, occasionally, also by choral refrains. Indeed, it may even be said that only the vocal declamations of actors in a tragedy have the capacity of recalling to the listener the universal dimension of tragedy whereas purely instrumental, or ‘absolute’, music can arouse in him a heightened consciousness of  only his own personal losses.

rheingold.jpg

Tragedy, also, has not declined because of its moral content but through the democratic pandering to the vulgar tastes of the audiences. Opera seria, or tragic opera, which developed from the model of the Greek tragedies, did not decline through the Italian delight in melodious arias but through the lack of interest – among an increasingly vulgar public – in the intensely moving recititatives that constituted the declamatory core of these tragic music dramas. We see also from Nietzsche’s later criticisms of Wagner’s music that, despite the wondrous success of Wagner’s symphonic melodic elaboration of the Italian arias, the musical development that he represented was too easily capable of degeneration in the hands of lesser musicians than himself.

The tragic effects of opera seria are produced by reminders, necessarily ethical, and necessarily vocal, of the tragic condition of humanity in general. The latter is not located vaguely in a subconscious Dionysian spirit, as uncontrolled energy, but in the subjective perception of this condition by the individual viewer who sympathises with the tragic protagonists through what Aristotle called ‘pity and fear’.

The essential feeling of all tragic drama is indeed one of loss. This is not a sense of personal loss, but an awakening of the awareness of the first Fall of man, from God – as Schopenhauer had perceptively pointed out. And this fatal Fall can only be overcome through an intellectual as well as emotional apperception of it and a concomitant longing to regain the divine. These feelings are most effectively produced in the realm of art by tragic drama and opera. Whatever the course of Dionysiac or Bacchanalian rituals may have been, the tragic dramas and operas that evolved from them are thus necessarily infused with moral resonances. All tragedy – ancient Greek as well as modern – is in this sense fundamentally moral because it is fundamentally religious.

[1] universals after the fact

[2] universals before the fact

[3] universals in the fact

[4] The Birth of Tragedy out of the Spirit of Music, tr. Ian Johnston.

[5] Welt als Wille und Vorstellung (1818-59), III, 51, tr. K.B. Haldane and  J. Kemp..

[6] For a full discussion of the Purusha mythology, see A. Jacob, Ātman: A Reconstruction of the Solar Cosmology of the Indo-Europeans, Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 2005 and Brahman: A Study of the Solar Rituals of the Indo-Europeans, Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 2012.

[7] Dionysus, according to Nonnos, is the ‘second Zeus’ (see Nonnos, Dionysiaca, 10, 298). The ‘first Zeus’ is Zeus Aitherios, who is identical to Chronos (see Cicero, De Natura Deorum, III,21).

[8] See A. Jacob, ‘Reviving Adam: The Sacrificial Rituals of the Indo-Āryans and the Early Christians’, Manticore Press.

[9] See Plato, Laws, III, 700b-e, Republic, III, 394b-c.

[10] All citations from Richard Wagner’s works are from Richard Wagner’s Prose Works, tr. W.A. Ellis.

[11] A. Schopenhauer, ibid.

[12] In fact, Nietzsche himself was later so embarrassed of this essay that he wrote an appendix to it called ‘Versuch einer Selbstkritik’ (An Attempt at Self-Criticism) (1886).

[13] The German translation of this essay was published in 1861as Zukunftsmusik.

[14] See Corpus iuris canonici, 1879, Vol. I, pp. 1256–1257.

[15] ‘Extracts from Introduction to Le nuove musice (1602)’, tr. Zachariah Victor.

[16] ‘The Case of Wagner’, tr. A.M. Ludovici.

[17] See G. Liébert, Nietzsche and Music, (tr. D. Pellauer and G. Parkes), Chicago: The University of Chicago Press,  p.82.

[18] Antigone, tr. F. Storr.

mercredi, 04 octobre 2017

Qui décide de la politique en Allemagne?

DeutVSA.jpeg

Qui décide de la politique en Allemagne?

Réflexions sur les élections au Bundestag

Nouvelle analyse sur l’influence du «Council on Foreign Relations» américain

par Karl Müller

Ex: http://www.zeit-fragen.ch/fr

Quasiment pendant toute l’année pré-électorale, la chancelière allemande a rassassé que les Allemands «n’ont jamais vécu dans d’aussi bonnes conditions que maintenant». C’était la devise de ses apparitions publiques … et le fil rouge de ses réponses aux questions des citoyens. Les questionneurs invités par les chaînes de télévision étaient vite satisfaits, et y étaient probalement forcés … aucune question ne pouvait être discutée à fond lors de telles mises en scènes. Les émissions faisaient plus ou moins partie du spectacle manipulé de la «campagne électorale».

L’Allemagne orientale est plus consciente de la réalité

Lors des apparitions publiques sans présélection des questions, la situation était différente, en Allemagne orientale même très différente. Les Allemands vivant dans les Länder de Mecklembourg-Poméranie-Occidentale, Brandenbourg, Saxe-Anhalt, Saxe et Thuringe semblent plus conscients de la réalité que leurs concitoyens occidentaux – et il n’est pas juste de réduire leur protestation à un jet de tomates.
Beaucoup d’entre eux font partie de ceux qui ont des salaires bas et ils savent, par exemple, que les salaires des 40% du bas de l’échelle des revenus au cours des 25 dernières années sont restés nettement derrière la progression des salaires des 60% du haut de l’échelle. Ils savent également qu’ils doivent en partie accepter des baisses dans les salaires réels.1 Même le Deutschlandfunk a commenté une semaine avant les élections: «Chez cette clientèle, les messages programmatoires des partis ont probablement les mêmes effets que les paroles de la SED» … et d’ajouter, «la plupart des moyens publicitaires utilisés pour la campagne électorale dans la rue sont aussi vides de contenus que rarement auparavant».

La politique étrangère est un sujet tabou pour la «chancelière des alliés occidentaux»

Fait étonnant, la politique étrangère de l’Allemagne n’a – à l’exception du thème problématique concernant la Turquie – presque jamais été soulevée dans la campagne électorale. Maintien de la paix, entente entre les peuples, droit international public … presque nul. Au moins dans la campagne électorale publique. Est-ce un hasard? Un manque d’intérêt? Ou bien cela fait-il partie du spectacle?
Revenons à l’Allemagne de l’Est. Beaucoup de personnes y sont intéressées à maintenir une bonne relation avec la Russie, acceptent difficilement les sanctions contre la Russie, se réjouissent du gazoduc Nord-Stream 2, se réjouiraient probablement aussi de la «Nouvelle route de la soie» – si elles en étaient informées soigneusement. Peut-être se sont-elles également demandé si le déroulement de la campagne électorale allemande n’était pas planifié ainsi depuis belle lurette. Il fallait à tout prix que Merkel reste chancelière, c’était clair après la victoire de Donald Trump, c’était et c’est toujours dans l’intérêt de l’«Etat profond» americain. «Chancelière des alliés occidentaux!» – aujourd’hui ce serait probablement la dénomination la plus correcte.

Le rôle du CFR

Les véritables bureaux de planification ne se trouvent vraisemblablement pas en Allemagne. Beaucoup plus importante pour l’Allemagne est probablement une organisation américaine s’appelant Council on Foreign Relations, sigle: CFR. Début septembre une institution suisse très méritoire, nommée Swiss Propaganda Research, a publié une importante étude: «Die Propaganda-Matrix: Wie der CFR den geostrategischen Informationsfluss kontrolliert».2 [La matrice de la propagande: la manière de laquelle le CFR contrôle le fleuve géostratégique des informations]
Cette analyse doit absolument être étudiée par tout groupe de personnes (citoyens, écoles, séminaires etc.) ou tout individu désirant affiner leur sens de la réalité.
Ce qui est formulé en introduction est confirmé au cours de la lecture: «Qu’il s’agisse de la Russie, de la Syrie ou de Donald Trump: pour comprendre le récit géopolitique des médias occidentaux, il est obligatoire de connaître le rôle-clé du CFR américain. Par la suite, il est présenté pour la première fois comment le réseau du CFR a créé un cycle d’information transatlantique très fermé dans lequel presque toutes les sources et points de référence importants sont contrôlés par des membres du CFR et ses organisations de propagande.»

Jusqu’aujourd’hui: l’hégémonie mondiale américaine doit être garantie

L’analyse informe sur l’histoire du CFR et son but d’assurer l’hégémonie américaine mondiale. Depuis la fondation du CFR en 1921, on a créé une institution pour un «empire américain global, dont les positions-clé sont occupées depuis ce moment-là presque entièrement par les actuellement environ 5000 représentants du CFR».
L’étude démontre de manière bien documentée et claire par des graphiques bien lisibles comment non seulement les médias allemands sont intégrés dans le réseau du CFR mais aussi des organisations non gouvernementales, des soi-disants laboratoires d’idées et des experts, l’armée, les services secrets, des gouvernements, des agences de presse, des bureaux de relations publiques et certains journalistes – sans oublier un certain nombre d’acteurs connus.

Ce qui rend optimiste

Pourtant déjà le dernier paragraphe de l’introduction rend optimiste: Le CFR a bien créé une «matrice de l’information nettement supérieure à la propagande gouvernementale classique des Etats autoritaires». Mais «grâce au succès des médias indépendants [elle perd] de plus en plus en efficacité».
A la fin de l’étude on peut lire: «Grâce à Internet, […] on a la possibilité de diffuser des informations de manière décentralisée et bon marché et de contourner ainsi les «gardiens» du CFR. Entretemps, il existe aussi dans l’espace germanophone [et français, ndt.] un grand nombre de médias et de plates-formes financés par les lecteurs, interrogeant de manière critique les narratifs conventionnels et permettant ainsi de prendre connaissance de points de vue divergents». On y trouve également d’autres liens intéressants.

Tout dépend des citoyens

Donc: combien de temps encore le système Merkel fonctionnera-t-il? Il ne faut pas faire dépendre la réponse de Mme Merkel elle-même. Elle dépendra surtout de nous citoyens. Quiconque s’informe peut comprendre quel spectacle est mis en scène. Personne ne doit tout savoir pour comprendre: il est totalement aberrant d’affirmer que les Allemands «n’ont jamais vécu dans d’aussi bonnes conditions que maintenant». Le nombre et le poids des tâches sont énormes. Le mildiou que Madame Merkel a tenté de répandre sur le pays peut s’avérer être suicidaire.     •

1    cf. https://www.diw.de/de/diw_01.c.550957.de/themen_nachricht...
2    https://swprs.org/die-propaganda-matrix

Les mondialistes délocalisent les technologies de pointe de l’Allemagne

german-high-tech-community.jpg

Les mondialistes délocalisent les technologies de pointe de l’Allemagne

par Eberhard Hamer, professeur d’économie

Ex: http://www.zeit-fragen.ch/fr

L’économie des Petites et moyennes entreprises (PME) [«Mittelstandsökonomie»] a toujours rendu attentif au fait qu’en règle générale, les entreprises de taille moyennes sont fidèles au pays et à leur localisation. Cela est inhérent à l’existence des liens familiaux et du caractère familial d’une entreprise moyenne dans laquelle le patron connaît tous ses employés personnellement.


Les grandes sociétés de capitaux, au contraire, sont depuis longtemps des entités internationales. Non seulement elles produisent au niveau mondial, mais elles ont aussi des actionnaires dans le monde entier. Selon les estimations du Mittelstandsinstitut de la Basse-Saxe, plus de 70% de nos trusts faisant partie du DAX [=indice boursier des 30 plus importantes sociétés allemandes, cf. CAC 40 en France, ndt.] sont en majorité en main étrangère, la plupart américaine. Un grand groupe dominé par l’étranger n’a plus de liens nationaux, n’a plus de patrie, exige la globalisation et le libre-échange et avant tout la libre circulation du capital, complétée par des économies fiscales grâce aux paradis fiscaux.


C’est grâce à ce commerce international des multinationales que nous profitons de nos excédents d’exportation. Ces excédents sont réalisables uniquement dans les branches en expansion suite aux avancées technologiques – pour la plupart largement subventionnées par les pouvoirs publics –, dont nous avons pu profiter ou que nous possédons toujours. Si nous perdons ces avantages, nous ne perdons pas seulement notre capacité d’exportation, mais aussi une partie de notre prospérité.


Ces moteurs technologiques poussant nos multinationales à la croissance ne sont donc pas seulement extrêmement dangereux en raison de leurs structures de propriété, mais aussi en raison de la dépendance de grandes puissances telles que les Etats-Unis ou la Chine:

  • En Allemagne, comparé à d’autres pays, il est moins aisé de cacher et de garder secret une avancée technique, car les Américains ont, selon les réglementations du temps de l’occupation, toujours et encore le droit de contrôler tous les systèmes informatiques, y compris les lignes téléphoniques et les systèmes de téléphonie mobile, sur tout le territoire de l’Allemagne. Ils peuvent donc s’approprier chaque nouvelle technologie dès ses premiers balbutiements à l’aide de leurs systèmes d’espionnage pour ensuite les transmettre à leur propre industrie. Souvent, l’industrie concurrentielle américaine connait un nouveau développement de brevets, avant que le brevet ne soit connu chez nous.
  • Là, où l’espionnage total ne suffit pas, les nouveautés techniques sont volées suite à des combines financières et à la corruption comme, par exemple, avec la technologie anti-détection pour les sous-marins du chantier naval Howaldt. Avec l’accord du gouvernement fédéral allemand, le Conseil d’administration avait – suite à une prétendue offre de rachat américaine – remis par étapes tous les plans et les détails techniques internes aux Américains jusqu’à ce qu’ils eurent rassemblés toutes les informations et ne montrèrent plus aucun intérêt pour le chantier naval.
  • Les risques que comporte la délocalisation de la production allemande à l’étranger ont été subis par la branche de la photographie, il y a quelques décennies. Dans les années cinquante et soixante, l’Allemagne était à la pointe mondiale dans le domaine des appareils photo. Puis, la production a été délocalisée vers l’Asie «pour réduire le coût de la main-d’œuvre». Les appareils étaient principalement vendus en Allemagne, jusqu’au moment où les concurrents japonais placèrent les modèles allemands en meilleure qualité sur le marché mondial et devinrent ainsi le leader du marché. En Allemagne, nous achetons aujourd’hui des appareils photo japonais au lieu d’appareils allemands.
  • Après les Etats-Unis et le Japon, la Chine est actuellement devenu le grand «aspirateur» technologique. Les Chinois ont des avoirs de 3 billions de dollars, pour lesquels ils ne recevront bientôt plus grand-chose, s’ils n’investissent pas à temps dans des valeurs réelles. C’est pourquoi ils font leurs courses dans le monde entier en prenant tout ce qu’ils trouvent, notamment de la technologie à n’importe quel prix.
  • Ils ne peuvent faire leurs emplettes aux Etats-Unis, car ce pays a un droit de véto dans le domaine de la sécurité qu’ils n’arrêtent pas d’utiliser. En Allemagne, il existe également une clause de réserve concernant la sécurité nationale, mais elle n’est jamais utilisée, car le gouvernement fédéral – étant dépendant de la globalisation – y voit une «entrave au commerce international». donc les Chinois peuvent sans encombre acheter toute la technologie de pointe qu’ils désirent.
  • Un autre exemple de la braderie de technologie de pointe allemande est l’acquisition par la Chine de la majorité des actions de l’entreprise robotique de premier plan Kuka sise à Augsbourg. Elle est devenue leader mondial grâce à de nombreuses subventions allemandes. Maintenant qu’elle se trouve en propriété chinoise et que la technologie de production est perdue pour Allemagne, l’entreprise est systématiquement délocalisée vers la Chine. Dans quelques années, nous achèterons en Allemagne des robots chinois, ce qui ne nous apportera plus d’excédents d’exportation, mais davantage de déficits d’exportation.
  • Les entreprises automobiles allemandes ont également commencé par exporter vers la Chine, puis elles ont été obligées de construire des fabriques automobiles en Chine, ont donc apporté la technologie allemande dans des entreprises appartenant en majorité aux Chinois. Elles ne pourront donc dans quelques années de moins en moins exporter leurs produits nationaux, c’est-à-dire qu’elles perdront le marché d’exportation.
  • L’exemple d’Airbus est le pire. Ce consortium aéronautique européen, subventionné à l’extrême par nos pouvoirs publics – soi-disant pour prendre pied sur le marché chinois – a livré et construit aux Chinois une production pour les avions Airbus. Actuellement, les Chinois sont en état de construire leurs propres machines dans leurs propres entreprises avec la technologie d’Airbus afin de concurrencer les Airbus européens. Il ne faut pas beaucoup d’imagination pour prévoir que dans 10 ans, Airbus ne pourra plus exporter en Chine, parce que les entreprises de l’Airbus chinois domineront le marché.
  • Dernière nouvelle: Siemens voit son avenir numérique avant tout en Chine et délocalise son centre de recherche mondial pour les robots autonomes dans ce pays. D’une certaine manière, il est presque logique qu’après que la technique robotique de Kuka ait quitté le pays, Siemens ne puisse pas maintenir sa recherche en robotique. En effet celle-ci, se trouvant à la pointe mondiale, sans possibilités d’application dans le pays, doit être délocalisée dans la recherche de l’avenir en Chine puisque entre temps c’est elle qui possède la technique robotique de pointe.

Dans tous ces cas, le contribuable allemand a subventionné massivement par les impôts des petites et moyennes entreprises les technologies de l’avenir. Puis, les multinationales ont délocalisé, vendu ou même cédé gratuitement à des entreprises étrangères le résultat de ces subventions et la technologie de pointe allemande.


Le gouvernement fédéral voit cela comme un «processus d’internationalisation» normal et n’intervient pas. La recherche sur le Mittelstand cependant voit avec le départ de la technologie de pointe des multinationales, subventionnée par les impôts allemands, également l’exode de milliers de petites et moyennes entreprises travaillant pour le marché de la sous-traitance. La compétitivité internationale de l’économie allemande en général va en souffrir et risque de disparaître entièrement au cours des prochaines années.


Pourquoi le gouvernement fédéral laisse-t-il délocaliser la technologie de pointe allemande sans broncher?
Pourquoi n’oblige-t-on pas les multinationales à rembourser les subventions obtenues de la part des contribuables allemands pour le développement de ces technologies de pointe, si elles les bradent à l’étranger?


Pourquoi n’y a-t-il pas de levée de boucliers de la part de la politique, des organisations de PME et des syndicats, quand notre technologie de pointe est transférée aux Etats-Unis ou en Chine et qu’ainsi les places de travail high-tech diminuent dans notre pays?    •

(Traduction Horizons et débats)

Bibliographie: Hamer, Eberhard (Ed.). Visionen 2050, Rottenburg 2016

Elections parlementaires en Allemagne: le Bundesrat sans majorité

gebaeude-innen.jpg

Elections parlementaires en Allemagne: le Bundesrat sans majorité

par Thomas Ferrier

Ex: http://thomasferrier.hautetfort.com

Angela Merkel a gagné mais en version Pyrrhus. Avec 33% des voix (26,8% pour la CDU et 6,2% pour le CSU, sa variante bavaroise), obtenant 246 députés (sur 709), la démocratie chrétienne réalise son plus mauvais score de l’après-guerre. C’est dire si la chancelière est devenue impopulaire en quelques années, et une CDU plus courageuse aurait déjà changé de dirigeante, faisant avec elle ce que cette dernière avait fait avec Helmut Kohl.

Son seul motif de satisfaction est d’avoir amené la SPD, avec laquelle elle formait une grande coalition depuis plusieurs années, au plus bas à son tour. Avec 20,5% des voix et 153 députés, la SPD connaît l’un des résultats les plus médiocres de son histoire. Son candidat, l’ancien président du parlement européen Schulz, restera finalement à la tête du parti, au prix du refus de participer à une nouvelle coalition avec la CDU. Cette dernière doit donc se trouver de nouveaux alliés.

Le grand vainqueur de cette élection, par sa marge de progression (+ 7.9 points), est l’AfD dont la campagne fut menée sur un ton identitaire par le tandem gagnant Gauland/Weidel. Même si l’ancienne dirigeante Frauke Petry, à peine élue, claquait la porte du parti en emmenant son député européen de mari, l’AfD est renforcée, avec ses 12,6% des voix et ses 94, et donc désormais 93, sièges. L’extrême-droite classique est laminée, la NPD ne faisant que 0,4% des voix (- 0.9 points) et les REP étant simplement absents, la plupart de leurs adhérents ayant rejoint l’AfD.

Avec 10,7% des voix et 80 sièges, le FDP (libéraux) revient en fanfare au Bundestag. Son jeune dirigeant dynamique, Christian Lindner, qui revendique le ministère de l’économie, a su dynamiser son parti sur une ligne libérale et identitaire, limitant sans doute la marge de progression de l’AfD. Il est devenu faiseur de roi et allié indispensable de Merkel. Mais il va certainement négocier très chèrement sa place.

Les Verts (Grünen) avec 8.9% (+0.5 points) des voix et 67 sièges (+4) sortent également renforcés de ce scrutin, au détriment des sociaux-démocrates. Merkel souhaiterait sans doute les associer au pouvoir pour bâtir sa nouvelle coalition, mais les options très à gauche du parti rendent l’alliance avec la FDP et même avec la CSU très hypothétique. Si elle échoue à bâtir ce que la presse appelle une coalition « jamaïque », elle devra se tourner à nouveau vers les urnes, ce qui serait inédit en Allemagne depuis 1933.

Mais le regroupement de partis aux options antagonistes est très aléatoire et surtout sans stabilité. La CSU pourrait choisir de passer dans l’opposition afin de redorer son blason. De même la CDU pourrait être tentée en cours de mandature de faire tomber Merkel et de changer de dirigeant. Son résultat médiocre ne peut que les y inciter, surtout si l’AfD continue d’accroître son audience à droite.

La gauche radicale de « Die Linke » avec 69 sièges (+5) et 9.2% (+ 0.6 points) se maintient à un niveau élevé. Exclue depuis toujours du pouvoir, même à gauche, son rôle sera le même que celui de l’AfD, faire de la figuration. L’AfD néanmoins pourrait, en cas de coalition minoritaire CDU-CSU-FDP, peser sur la politique du gouvernement, comme le fait le DFP au Danemark.

Dans tous les cas, Angela Merkel a en même temps gagné et perdu les élections. Le désaveu est cuisant. Otage de ses alliés potentiels (Verts et FDP) auxquels elle devra beaucoup céder, au point d’irriter son propre parti, son destin ne lui appartient plus vraiment. Elle ne pourra pas non plus donner suite aux propositions de Macron de refonder l’Union Européenne, certes sur des bases pas plus satisfaisantes que les actuelles.

vendredi, 29 septembre 2017

Thor v. Waldstein – Macht und Öffentlichkeit

ThvW.jpg

Thor v. Waldstein – Macht und Öffentlichkeit

Vom 15. bis 17. September 2017 fand in Schnellroda die 18. Sommerakademie des Instituts für Staatspolitik statt. Thema war, passend zur unmittelbar bevorstehenden Bundestagswahl am 24. September, die »Parteienherrschaft«. Rechtsanwalt und Autor Dr. Dr. Thor v. Waldstein sprach über die Frage nach dem Verhältnis zwischen »Macht und Öffentlichkeit«. Beachten Sie auch Thor v. Waldsteins thematisch ergänzenden Vortrag über »Metapolitik und Parteipolitik«!
 
Hier entlang zum Mitschnitt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQSIT...
 
Weitere Informationen im Netz unter: http://staatspolitik.de
 

jeudi, 28 septembre 2017

A Perfeição da Técnica: Friedrich-Georg Jünger

FGJ-photo.jpg

A Perfeição da Técnica: Friedrich-Georg Jünger

por Robert Steuckers

Ex: http://legio-victrix.blogspot.com
 
Nascido em 1 de setembro de 1989 em Hannover, irmão do famoso escritor alemão Ernst Jünger, Friedrich-Georg Jünger se interessou pela poesia desde uma idade muito jovem, despertando nele um forte interesse pelo classicismo alemão em um itinerário que atravessa Klopstock , Goethe e Hölderin. Graças a esta imersão precoce no trabalho de Hölderin, Friedrich-Georg Jünger é fascinado pela antiguidade clássica e percebe a essência da helenidade e da romanidade antigas como uma aproximação à natureza, como uma glorificação da elementalidade, ao mesmo tempo que é dotada de uma visão do homem que permanecerá imutável, sobrevivendo ao longo dos séculos na psique européia, às vezes visível à luz do dia, às vezes escondida. A era da técnica separou os homens dessa proximidade vivificante, elevando-o perigosamente acima do elemental. Toda a obra poética de Friedrich-Georg Jünger é um protesto veemente contra a pretensão mortífera que constitui esse distanciamento. Nosso autor permanecerá profundamente marcado pelas paisagens idílicas de sua infância, uma marca que se refletirá em seu amor incondicional pela Terra, pela flora e pela fauna (especialmente insetos: foi Friedrich-Georg quem apresentou seu irmão Ernst ao mundo da entomologia), pelos seres mais elementares da vida no planeta, pelas raízes culturais.
 
A Primeira Guerra Mundial acabará com essa imersão jovem na natureza. Friedrich-Georg se alistará em 1916 como aspirante a oficial. Severamente ferido no pulmão, na frente do Somme, em 1917, passa o resto do conflito em um hospital de campo. Depois de sua convalescença, se matricula em Direito, obtendo o título de doutor em 1924. Mas ele nunca seguirá a carreira de jurista, logo descobriu sua vocação como escritor político dentro do movimento nacionalista de esquerda, entre os nacional-revolucionários e o nacional-bolcheviques, unindo-se mais tarde à figura de Ernst Niekisch, editor da revista "Widerstand" (Resistência). A partir desta publicação, bem como de "Arminios" ou "Die Kommenden", os irmãos Jünger inauguraram um novo estilo que poderíamos definir como do "soldado nacionalista", expressado pelos jovens oficiais que chegaram recentemente do front e incapazes de se adaptar à vida civil . A experiência das trincheiras e o fragor dos ataques mostraram-lhes, através do suor e do sangue, que a vida não é um jogo inventado pelo cerebralismo, mas um rebuliço orgânico elemental onde, de fato, os instintos reinam. A política, em sua própria esfera, deve compreender a temperatura dessa agitação, ouvir essas pulsões, navegar em seus meandros para forjar uma força sempre jovem, nova e vivificante. Para Friedrich-Georg Jünger, a política deve ser apreendida de um ângulo cósmico, fora de todos os miasmas "burgueses, cerebrais e intelectualizantes". Paralelamente a esta tarefa de escritor político e profeta desse nacionalismo radicalmente anti-burguês, Friedrich-Georg Jünger mergulha na obra de Dostoiévski, Kant e dos grandes romancistas americanos. Junto com seu irmão Ernst, ele realiza uma série de viagens pelos países mediterrâneos: Dalmácia, Nápoles, Baleares, Sicília e as ilhas do Mar Egeu.
 

Roter-Mohn.jpg

Quando Hitler sobe ao poder, o triunfante é um nacionalismo das massas, não aquele nacionalismo absoluto e cósmico que evocava a pequena falange (sic) "fortemente exaltada" que editou seus textos nas revistas nacional-revolucionárias. Em um poema, Der Mohn (A Papoula), Friedrich-Georg Jünger ironiza e descreve o nacional-socialismo como "a música infantil de uma embriaguez sem glória". Como resultado desses versículos sarcásticos, ele se vê envolto em uma série de problemas com a polícia, pelo que ele sai de Berlim e se instala, com Ernst, em Kirchhorst, na Baixa Saxônia.
 
Aposentado da política depois de ter publicado mais de uma centena de poemas na revista de Niekisch - que vê pouco a pouco o aumento das pressões da autoridade até que finalmente é preso em 1937 -, Friedrich-Georg Jünger consagra por inteiro à criação literária, publicando em 1936 um ensaio intitulado Über das Komische e terminando em 1939 a primeira versão de seu maior trabalho filosófico: Die Perfektion der Technik (A Perfeição da Técnica). Os primeiros rascunhos deste trabalho foram destruídos em 1942, durante um bombardeio aliado. Em 1944, uma primeira edição, feita a partir de uma série de novos ensaios, é novamente reduzida às cinzas devido a um ataque aéreo. Finalmente, o livro aparece em 1946, provocando um debate em torno da problemática da técnica e da natureza, prefigurando, apesar de sua orientação "conservadora", todas as reivindicações ambientais alemãs dos anos 60, 70 e 80. Durante a guerra, Friedrich-Georg Jünger publicou poemas e textos sobre a Grécia antiga e seus deuses. Com o surgimento de Die Perfektion der Technik, que verá várias edições sucessivas, os interesses de Friedrich-Georg se voltam aos temas da técnica, da natureza, do cálculo, da mecanização, da massificação e da propriedade. Recusando, em Die Perfektion der Technik, enunciar suas teses sob um esquema clássico, linear e sistemático; seus argumentos aparecem "em espiral", de maneira desordenada, esclarecendo volta após volta, capítulo aqui, capítulo lá, tal ou qual aspecto da tecnificação global. Como filigrana, percebe-se uma crítica às teses que seu irmão Ernst mantinha então em Der Arbeiter (O Trabalhador), que aceitou como inevitável a evolução da técnica moderna. Sua posição antitécnica aborda a tese de Ortega y Gasset em Meditações sobre a Técnica (1939) de Henry Miller e de Lewis Munford (que usa o termo "megamaquinismo"). Em 1949, Friedrich-Georg Jünger publicou uma obra de exegese sobre Nietzsche, onde es interrogava sobre o sentido da teoria cíclica do tempo enunciado pelo anacoreta de Sils-Maria. Friedrich-Georg Jünger contesta a utilidade de usar e problematizar uma concepção cíclica dos tempos, porque este uso e esta problematização acabarão por conferir ao tempo uma forma única e intangível que, para Nietzsche, é concebida como cíclica. O tempo cíclico, próprio da Grécia das origens e do pensamento pré-cristão, deve ser percebido a partir dos ângulos do imaginário e não da teoria, que obriga a conjugar a naturalidade a partir de um modelo único de eternidade e, assim, o instante e o fato desaparecem sob os cortes arbitrários estabelecidos pelo tempo mecânico, segmentarizados em visões lineares. A temporalidade cíclica de Nietzsche, por seus cortes em ciclos idênticos e repetitivos, preserva, pensou Friedrich-Georg Jünger, algo de mecânico, de newtoniano, pelo que, finalmente, não é uma temporalidade "grega". O tempo, para Nietzsche, é um tempo policial, sequestrado; carece de apoio, de suporte (Tragend und Haltend). Friedrich-Georg Jünger canta uma a-temporalidade que é identificada com a natureza mais elementar, o "Wildnis", a natureza de Pã, o fundo natural intacto do mundo, não manchado pela mão humana, que é, em última instância, um acesso ao divino, ao último segredo do mundo. O "Wildnis" - um conceito fundamental no poeta "pagão" que é Friedrich-Georg Jünger - é a matriz de toda a vida, o receptáculo aonde deve retornar toda vida.
 
Em 1970, Friedrich-Georg Jünger fundou, juntamente com Max Llimmelheber, a revista trimestral "Scheidwege", onde figuraram na lista de colaboradores os principais representantes de um pensamento ao mesmo tempo naturalista e conservador, céticos em relação a todas as formas de planificação técnico. Entre os pensadores desta inclinação conservadora-ecológica que apresentaram suas teses na publicação podemos lembrar os nomes de Jürgen Dahl, Hans Seldmayr, Friederich Wagner, Adolf Portmann, Erwin Chargaff, Walter Heiteler, Wolfgang Häedecke, etc.
 
Friedrich-Georg Jünger morreu em Überlingen, perto das margens do lago de Constança, em 20 de julho de 1977.
 
FGJ-PerfTech.jpgO germanista norte-americano Anton H. Richter, em seu trabalho sobre o pensamento de Friedrich-Georg Jünger, ressalta quatro temas essenciais em nosso autor: a antiguidade clássica, a essência cíclica da existência, a técnica e o poder de o irracional. Em seus escritos sobre antiguidade grega, Friedrich-Georg Jünger reflete sobre a dicotomia dionisíaca/titânica. Como dionisismo, abrange o apolíneo e o pânico, numa frente unida de forças organizacionais intactas contra as distorções, a fragmentação e a unidimensionalidade do titanismo e do mecanicismo de nossos tempos. A atenção de Friedrich-Georg Jünger centra-se essencialmente nos elementos ctônicos e orgânicos da antiguidade clássica. Desta perspectiva, os motivos recorrentes de seus poemas são a luz, o fogo e a água, forças elementares às quais ele homenageia profundamente. Friedrich-Georg Jünger zomba da razão calculadora, da sua ineficiência fundamental exaltando, em contraste, o poder do vinho, da exuberância do festivo, do sublime que se aninha na dança e nas forças carnavalescas. A verdadeira compreensão da realidade é alcançada pela intuição das forças, dos poderes da natureza, do ctônico, do biológico, do somático e do sangue, que são armas muito mais efetivas do que a razão, que o verbo plano e unidimensional, desmembrado, purgado, decapitado, despojado: de tudo o que torna o homem moderno um ser de esquemas incompletos. Apolo traz a ordem clara e a serenidade imutável; Dionísio traz as forças lúdicas do vinho e das frutas, entendidos como uma dádiva, um êxtase, uma embriaguez reveladora, mas nunca uma inconsciência; Pan, guardião da natureza, traz a fertilidade. Diante desses doadores generosos e desinteressados, os titãs são usurpadores, acumuladores de riqueza, guerreiros cruéis e antiéticos que enfrentam os deuses da profusão e da abundância que às vezes conseguem matá-los, lacerando seus corpos, devorando-os.
 
Pan é a figura central do panteão pessoal de Friedrich-Georg Jünger; Pan é o governante da "Wildnis", da natureza primordial que os titãs desejam arrasar. Friedrich-Georg Jünger se remete a Empédocles, que ensinava que ele forma um "contiuum epistemológico" com a natureza: toda a natureza está no homem e pode ser descoberta através do amor.
 
Simbolizado por rios e cobras, o princípio da recorrência, do retorno incessante, pelo qual todas as coisas alcançam a "Wildnis" original, é também o caminho para retornar a esse mesmo Wildnis. Friedrich-Georg Jünger canta o tempo cíclico, diferente do tempo linear-unidirecional judaico-cristão, segmentado em momentos únicos, irrepetíveeis, sobre um caminho também único que leva à Redenção. O homem moderno ocidental, alérgico aos esconderijos imponderáveis ​​onde a "Wildnis" se manifesta, optou pelo tempo contínuo e vetorial, tornando assim a sua existência um segmento entre duas eternidades atemporais (o antes do nascer e o depois da morte). Aqui se enfrentam dois tipos humanos: o homem moderno, impregnado com a visão judaico-cristã e linear do tempo, e o homem orgânico, que se reconhece inextricavelmente ligado ao cosmos e aos ritmos cósmicos.
 
A Perfeição da Técnica
 
Denúncia do titanismo mecanicista ocidental, este trabalho é a pedreira onde todos os pensadores ecológicos contemporâneos se nutriram para afinar suas críticas. Dividida em duas grandes partes e uma digressão, composta por uma multiplicidade de pequenos capítulos concisos, a obra começa com uma observação fundamental: a literatura utópica, responsável pela introdução do idealismo técnico no campo político, só provocou um desencanto da própria veia utópica. A técnica não resolve nenhum problema existencial do homem, não aumenta o gozo do tempo, não reduz o trabalho: ela tão somente desloca o manual em proveito do "organizativo". A técnica não cria novas riquezas; pelo contrário: condena a classe trabalhadora ao pauperismo físico e moral permanente. O desdobramento desenfreado da técnica é causado por uma falta geral da condição humana que a razão se esforça para sanar. Mas essa falta não desaparece com a invasão da técnica, que não é senão uma camuflagem grosseira, um remendo triste. A máquina é devoradora, aniquiladora da "substância": sua racionalidade é pura ilusão. O economista acredita, a partir de sua apreensão particular da realidade, que a técnica é uma fonte de riquezas, mas não parece observar que sua racionalidade quantitativista não é senão aparência pura e simples, que a técnica, em sua vontade de ser aperfeiçoada até o infinito, não segue senão sua própria lógica, uma lógica que não é econômica.
 
Uma das características do mundo moderno é o conflito tático entre o economista e o técnico: o último aspira a determinar processos de produção a favor da lucratividade, um fator que é puramente subjetivo. A técnica, quando atinge seu grau mais alto, leva a uma economia disfuncional. Essa oposição entre técnica e economia pode produzir estupor em mais de um crítico da unidimensionalidade contemporânea, acostumada a colocar hipertrofias técnicas e econômicas na mesma caixa de alfaiate. Mas Friedrich-Georg Jünger concebe a economia a partir de sua definição etimológica: como medida e norma dos "oikos", da habitação humana, bem circunscrita no tempo e no espaço. A forma atual adotada pelos "oikos" vem de uma mobilização exagerada dos recursos, assimilável ​​à economia da pilhagem e da rapina (Raubbau), de uma concepção mesquinha do lugar que se ocupa sobre a Terra, sem consideração pelas gerações passadas e futuras.
 

automatisme-machine_montage_fusible.jpg

A idéia central de Friedrich-Georg Jünger sobre a técnica é a de um automatismo dominado por sua própria lógica. A partir do momento em que essa lógica se põe em marcha, ela escapa aos seus criadores. O automatismo da técnica, então, se multiplica em função exponencial: as máquinas, por si só, impõem a criação de outras máquinas, até atingir o automatismo completo, mecanizado e dinâmico, em um tempo segmentado, um tempo que não é senão um tempo morto. Este tempo morto penetra no tecido orgânico do ser humano e sujeita o homem à sua lógica letal particular. O homem é, portanto, despojado do "seu" tempo interno e biológico, mergulhado em uma adaptação ao tempo inorgânico e morto da máquina. A vida é então imersa em um grande automatismo governado pela soberania absoluta da técnica, convertida senhora e dona de seus ciclos e ritmos, de sua percepção de si e do mundo exterior. O automatismo generalizado é "a perfeição da técnica", à qual Friedrich-Georg, um pensador organicista, opõe a "maturação" (die Reife) que só pode ser alcançada por seres naturais, sem coerção ou violência. A principal característica da gigantesca organização titânica da técnica, dominante na era contemporânea, é a dominação exclusiva exercida por determinações e deduções causais, características da mentalidade e da lógica técnica. O Estado, como entidade política, pode adquirir, pelo caminho da técnica, um poder ilimitado. Mas isso não é, para o Estado, senão uma espécie de pacto com o diabo, porque os princípios inerentes à técnica acabarão por remover sua substância orgânica, substituindo-a por puro e rígido automatismo técnico.
 
Quem diz automatização total diz organização total, no sentido de gestão. O trabalho, na era da multiplicação exponencial de autômatos, é organizado para a perfeição, isto é, para a rentabilidade total e imediata, deixando de lado ou sem considerar a mão-de-obra ou o útil. A técnica só é capaz de avaliar a si mesma, o que implica uma automação a todo custo, o que, por sua vez, implica troca a todo custo, o que leva à normalização a todo custo, cuja conseqüência é a padronização a todo custo. Friedrich-Georg Jünger acrescenta o conceito de "partição" (Stückelung), onde "partes" não são mais "partes", mas "peças" (Stücke), reduzidas a uma função de mero aparato, uma função inorgânica.
 

Friedrich-Georg-Jünger+Über-das-Komische.jpg

Friedrich-Georg Jünger cita Marx para denunciar a alienação desse processo, mas se distancia dele ao ver que este considera o processo técnico como um "fatum" necessário no processo de emancipação da classe proletária. O trabalhador (Arbeiter) é precisamente "trabalhador" porque está conectado, "volens nolens", ao aparato de produção técnica. A condição proletária não depende da modéstia econômica ou do rendimento, mas dessa conexão, independentemente do salário recebido. Esta conexão despersonaliza e faz desaparecer a condição de pessoa. O trabalhador é aquele que perdeu o benefício interno que o ligava à sua atividade, um benefício que evitava sua intercambiabilidade. A alienação não é um problema induzido pela economia, como Marx pensou, mas pela técnica. A progressão geral do automatismo desvaloriza todo o trabalho que possa ser interno e espontâneo no trabalhador, ao mesmo tempo que favorece inevitavelmente o processo de destruição da natureza, o processo de "devoração" (Verzehr) dos substratos (dos recursos oferecidos pela Mãe-Natureza, generosa e esbanjadora "donatrix"). Por causa dessa alienação técnica, o trabalhador é precipitado em um mundo de exploração onde ele não possui proteção. Para beneficiar-se de uma aparência de proteção, ela deve criar organizações - sindicatos - mas com o erro de que essas organizações também estejam conectadas ao aparato técnico. A organização protetora não emancipa, enjaula. O trabalhador se defende contra a alienação e a sua transformação em peça, mas, paradoxalmente, aceita o sistema de automação total. Marx, Engels e os primeiros socialistas perceberam a alienação econômica e política, mas eram cegos para a alienação técnica, incapazes de compreender o poder destrutivo da máquina. A dialética marxista, de fato, se torna um mecanicismo estéril ao serviço de um socialismo maquinista. O socialista permanece na mesma lógica que governa a automação total sob a égide do capitalismo. Mas o pior é que o seu triunfo não terminará (a menos que abandone o marxismo) com a alienação automatista, mas será um dos fatores do movimento de aceleração, simplificação e crescimento técnico. A criação de organizações é a causa da gênese da mobilização total, que transforma tudo em celulares e em todos os lugares em oficinas ou laboratórios cheios de agitação incessante e zumbidos. Toda área social que tende a aceitar essa mobilização total favorece, queira ou não, a repressão: é a porta aberta para campos de concentração, aglomerações, deportações em massa e massacres em massa. É o reinado do gestor impávido, uma figura sinistra que pode aparecer sob mil máscaras. A técnica nunca produz harmonia, a máquina não é uma deusa dispensadora de bondades. Pelo contrário, esteriliza os substratos naturais doados, organiza a pilhagem planejada contra a "Wildnis". A máquina é devoradora e antropófaga, deve ser alimentada sem cessar e, uma vez que acumula mais do que doa, acabará um dia com todas as riquezas da Terra. As enormes forças naturais elementares são desenraizadas pela gigantesca maquinaria e retém os prisioneiros por ela e nela, o que não conduz senão a catástrofes explosivas e à necessidade de uma sobrevivência constante: outra faceta da mobilização total.
 
As massas se entrelaçam voluntariamente nesta automação total, ao mesmo tempo que anulam as resistências isoladas de indivíduos conscientes. As massas são levadas pelo rápido movimento da automação, a tal ponto que, em caso de quebra ou paralisação momentânea do movimento linear para a automação, elas experimentam uma sensação de vida que acham insuportável.
 
A guerra, também, a partir de agora, será totalmente mecanizada. Os potenciais de destruição são amplificados ao extremo. A reivindicação de uniformes, o valor mobilizador dos símbolos, a glória, desaparecem na perfeição técnica. A guerra só pode ser suportada por soldados tremendamente endurecidos e tenazes, apenas os homens que possam exterminar a piedade em seus corações poderão suportá-la.
 
FGJ-livre0834605-00-00.jpgA mobilidade absoluta que inaugura a automação total se volta contra tudo tudo que pode significar duração e estabilidade, especificamente contra a propriedade (Eigentum). Friedrich-Georg Jünger, ao meditar sobre essa afirmação, define a propriedade de uma maneira original e particular. A existência de máquinas depende de uma concepção exclusivamente temporal, a existência da propriedade é devida a uma concepção espacial. A propriedade implica limites, definições, cercas, paredes e paredes, "clausuras" em suma. A eliminação dessas delimitações é uma razão de ser para o coletivismo técnico. A propriedade é sinônimo de um campo de ação limitado, circunscrito, fechado em um espaço específico e preciso. Para progredir de forma vetorial, a automação precisa pular os bloqueios da propriedade, um obstáculo para a instalação de seus onipresentes meios de controle, comunicação e conexão. Uma humanidade privada de todas as formas de propriedade não pode escapar da conexão total. O socialismo, na medida em que nega a propriedade, na medida em que rejeita o mundo das "zonas enclausuradas", facilita precisamente a conexão absoluta, que é sinônimo de manipulação absoluta. Segue-se que o proprietário de máquinas não é proprietário; o capitalismo mecanicista mina a ordem das propriedades, caracterizada por duração e estabilidade, em preferência de um dinamismo omnidisolvente. A independência da pessoa é uma impossibilidade nessa conexão aos fatos e ao modo de pensar próprio do instrumentalismo e do organizacionismo técnicos.
 
Entre suas reflexões críticas sobre a automatização e a tecnificação totais nos tempos modernos, Friedrich-Georg Jünger apela aos grandes filósofos da tradição europeia. Descartes inaugura um idealismo que estabelece uma separação insuperável entre o corpo e o espírito, eliminando o "sistema de influências psíquicas" que interligava ambos, para eventualmente substituí-lo por uma intervenção divina pontual que faz de Deus um simples demiurgo-relojoeiro. A "res extensa" de Descartes em um conjunto de coisas mortas, explicável como um conjunto de mecanismos em que o homem, instrumento do Deus-relojoeiro, pode intervir completamente impune em todos os momentos. A "res cogitans" é instituído como mestre absoluto dos processos mecânicos que governam o Universo. O homem pode se tornar um deus: um grande relojoeiro que pode manipular todas as coisas ao seu gosto e alvedrio, sem cuidado ou respeito. O cartesianismo dá o sinal de saída da exploração tecnicista ao extremo da Terra.

mercredi, 27 septembre 2017

Lionel Baland: «Les trois partis du gouvernement sont les perdants du scrutin»

merkellunettes.jpg

Allemagne

Lionel Baland: «Les trois partis du gouvernement sont les perdants du scrutin»

Entretien avec Lionel Baland
Ex: https://www.breizh-info.com

27/09/2017 – 07h15 Berlin (Breizh-info.com) – Lionel Baland, spécialiste des mouvements politiques identitaires et patriotes en Europe (voir son blog) fait le point avec nous sur les élections en Allemagne, qui ont vu un recul du parti d’Angela Merkel et du SPD et une percée de l’AFD (Alternative Für Deutschland).

Breizh-info.com : Pouvez vous, avec le recul, nous faire le bilan de ces élections en Allemagne ?

Lionel Baland : Les trois partis du gouvernement sont les perdants du scrutin. Le parti chrétien-démocrate CDU de la chancelière Angela Merkel et son allié bavarois le parti social-chrétien CSU ainsi que parti social-démocrate SPD reculent en nombre de voix et de sièges.

Les écologistes et les post-communistes se maintiennent. Les grands vainqueurs sont les patriotes de l’AfD et les libéraux-centristes du FDP. Ils entrent tous les deux à la Chambre des députés. L’AfD a fait campagne contre la politique migratoire du gouvernement alors que le FDP estime que les réfugiés doivent être renvoyés vers leur pays d’origine dès que la paix y est rétablie.

L’AfD arrive en troisième position derrière la CDU/CSU et le SPD. Cette formation politique dépasse donc les libéraux-centristes, les écologistes et les post-communistes.

L’AfD obtient 20 % des suffrages dans l’est de l’Allemagne qui a connu autrefois le communisme. Elle y joue désormais le rôle de première force d’opposition à la CDU d’Angela Merkel. En Saxe, l’AfD est le premier parti juste devant la CDU. De plus, l’AfD y obtient trois mandats directs (les électeurs émettent deux votes : un à la proportionnelle et un au scrutin majoritaire : au sein de trois circonscriptions, l’AfD gagne au scrutin majoritaire).

Si dans l’ouest du pays, l’AfD engrange des résultats nettement moins importants que dans l’est, c’est pourtant là que l’exploit a lieu car – à l’exception du sud du pays – le patriotisme y est inexistant et ce type d’idée y est de plus socialement inadmissible.

Breizh-info.com : Quelles vont être les conséquences immédiates de cette entrée de l’AfD au Bundestag ?

Lionel Baland : L’AfD disposera de moyens financiers et humains grâce à l’élection d’un peu moins de cent députés qui travailleront le terrain au sein de leur circonscription respective. L’AfD dispose désormais d’une stature au niveau national et son groupe parlementaire lui donnera plus de visibilité médiatique.

Breizh-info.com : Quel est le profil de l’électeur de l’AFD ?

Lionel Baland : Alors que certains médias ont tenté de faire apparaître les électeurs de ce parti comme étant plutôt des individus déclassés économiquement et disposant d’un faible niveau d’étude, des analyses plus approfondies ont montré l’inverse.

Le profil des électeurs de ce parti reste donc peu clair et varie selon les diverses régions du pays.

Breizh-info.com : 87% des électeurs allemands n’ont pas choisi l’AfD, seul parti à s’opposer à la vague migratoire en Allemagne. Le peuple allemand accepte-t-il la politique d’immigration de Merkel ?

Lionel Baland : L’AfD s’est opposée frontalement à la politique migratoire de la chancelière, le chef de file du parti libéral-centriste FDP a déclaré vouloir renvoyer les réfugiés et la candidate de tête du parti post-communiste die Linke Sahra Wagenknecht estime que l’Allemagne a un problème d’intégration des étrangers, y compris avec ceux de la troisième génération.

Elle a déclaré le vendredi 8 septembre 2017 à N-TV : « Nous voyons précisément que l’intégration, aussi même parmi les migrants de la deuxième et troisième génération, est un échec. » Elle estime que les frontières externes de l’Union européenne doivent être contrôlées avant d’ajouter que l’accord conclu avec la Turquie a rendu l’Allemagne dépendante de ce pays que des personnes fuient pour demander asile.

Les sociaux-chrétiens bavarois de la CSU désirent imposer une limitation à l’accueil des réfugiés. Les divers partis ne sont donc pas tous d’accord avec la politique migratoire en place.

De plus, les électeurs n’ont pas voté seulement par rapport à la question de l’immigration. La population doit affronter d’autres problèmes comme celui de l’explosion du prix de l’immobilier dans les grandes villes du pays.

L’Allemagne d’Angela Merkel est un pays prospère au taux de chômage bas, mais qui compte des travailleurs pauvres. Le bilan du gouvernement sortant est loin d’être négatif sur toute la ligne et il a obtenu de bons résultats dans divers domaines.

Le ministre-président CSU de Bavière Horst Seehofer a d’ailleurs déclaré qui si Angela Merkel n’avait pas ouvert les frontières, la CDU/CSU aurait peut-être pu viser la majorité absolue. La politique migratoire a donc fortement sapé le résultats électoraux du gouvernement.

Breizh-info.com : Comment expliquez-vous la mise en retrait immédiate de Madame Petry? N’est-ce pas un premier couac pour l’AfD ?

Lionel Baland : La figure de proue de l’AfD Frauke Petry a déclaré ce lundi 25 septembre 2017 ne pas vouloir siéger au sein du groupe parlementaire de l’AfD. Il est clair que cette prise de position résulte de fortes tensions au sein du parti. Madame Petry désire transformer rapidement celui-ci en force de gouvernement et est donc en lutte ouverte avec d’autres dirigeants de l’AfD qui tiennent parfois des discours peu compatibles avec ce choix stratégique. La lutte pour le leadership de l’AfD se poursuit et pourrait bien occasionner de graves dégâts.

gauland-pendant-la-n.jpg

Breizh-info.com :  Quelles sont les prochaines perspectives électorales ? L’AfD est-elle une structure politique cohérente et diverse ? Ses cadres sont-t-ils compétents politiquement (on a pu voir pas mal d’écueils au Front national …) ?

Lionel Baland : L’AfD est un parti jeune qui se construit et a pu recruter des cadres en siphonnant ceux des autres partis, notamment de la CDU. Au niveau local, l’AfD reste cependant faible car il est très difficile pour une formation apparue récemment de recruter des personnes disposant de compétences politiques. Ajoutons que les cadres de l’AfD font l’objet d’attaques physiques, que les façades de leur domicile sont badigeonnées à la peinture et qu’ils doivent faire face à des persécutions professionnelles et sociales.

La direction de l’AfD n’est pas monolithique : alors que certains veulent faire de ce parti d’abord une force d’opposition, d’autres veulent le voir entrer dans le gouvernement dès 2021. De graves tensions traversent la direction et de plus celle-ci est soumise aux désidératas de la base qui ne sont déterminés que lors de congrès. Si la percée de l’AfD résulte de l’exploit, sa survie sur le long terme n’est pas assurée. Le parti devra résister aux attaques en tous genres et aux conflits internes, tant idéologiques que stratégiques.

Propos recueillis par Yann Vallerie

Crédit photo : Wikipedia commons (cc)
[cc] Breizh-info.com, 2017, dépêches libres de copie et de diffusion sous réserve de mention et de lien vers la source d’origine

China beschouwt Umvolkung Europa als grote bedreiging voor eigen economie

umvolkung.jpg

China beschouwt Umvolkung Europa als grote bedreiging voor eigen economie
 
Ex: http://xandernieuws.punt.nl

Massa immigratie en islamisering grootse bedreigingen voor stabiele en welvarende toekomst Europa

Om sterke exportmarkt te behouden zou China kunnen gaan investeren in autochtone Europese gezinnen


China is gebaat bij grotere en welvarende autochtone Europese gezinnen, exact het tegenovergestelde van wat de linksgroene/liberale/progressieve elite met onder andere massa immigratie uit de islamitische wereld probeert te bereiken.

Het door de Europese Unie en zijn Westerse lidstaten gevoerde massa- of volksvervanging- immigratie beleid –door critici met een korte term ook wel Umvolkung genoemd- wordt in China als een kapitale blunder beschouwd die een grote bedreiging vormt voor de Chinese economie en welvaart. In Beijing beseft men namelijk dat Europa door het binnenhalen van miljoenen moslimmigranten dermate sterk zal verarmen, dat China hierdoor een van zijn grootse exportmarkten zal kwijtraken. China heeft er dan ook alle belang bij dat ‘populistisch’ genoemde partijen in Europa steeds sterker worden, en zou zelfs serieus kunnen overwegen om met financiële steun de autochtone Europeanen over te halen weer méér kinderen te krijgen – exact het omgekeerde van wat links/liberaal/progressief in ons werelddeel probeert te bewerkstelligen.

De heersende elite in Brussel, Berlijn, Parijs, Rome en Den Haag voert al geruime tijd een cultuurmarxistisch beleid waarin het stichten van gezinnen, en dus krijgen van kinderen, door de autochtone Europeanen zwaar ontmoedigd wordt. Tegelijkertijd wordt de migrantencrisis aangegrepen om met behulp van tal van ‘hulp’organisaties en NGO’s, die feitelijk fungeren als legale mensensmokkelaars, enorme aantallen moslimmigranten op zee te ‘redden’ en naar Europa te halen, en zo de al veel eerder in gang gezette ‘vervangingsmigratie’, oftewel Umvolkung, in extreem hoog tempo aan onze samenleving op te leggen.

Massa immigratie zal Europese economie doen instorten

Naïeve progressieve academici, waar zowel linksgroene en liberale als sociaaldemocratische en christendemocratische partijen mee doortrokken zijn, lijken in weerwil van alle feiten te geloven dat al die miljoenen nieuwkomers zich probleemloos aanpassen aan onze maatschappij, en al op korte termijn productieve burgers worden. Dat het leeuwendeel van al die moslimmigranten amper is opgeleid, en zoals de ervaring leert niet in staat is of niet gemotiveerd is om iets te leren of te gaan werken, wordt steevast genegeerd.

Weinigen realiseren zich dat Europa’s eigen-cultuurvernietigende beleid ook een grote bedreiging is voor de Chinese economie, welvaart en daarmee binnenlandse stabiliteit. China is bezig met het ontwikkelen van de nieuwe Zijdenroute, die het land via Kazachstan en Rusland met (Oost) Europa moet gaan verbinden, en die een deel van de groeiende export naar Europa moet gaan afhandelen. Maar als Europa straks dankzij de huidige massa immigratie geen sterke economie meer heeft, en honderden miljoenen consumenten fors verarmd zijn, heeft die honderden miljarden euro’s kostende nieuwe Zijdenroute geen zin meer.

Mentaliteit ‘nieuwe Europeanen’ vernietigend voor productiviteit en welvaart

Het is voor de Europese politiek inmiddels te politiek-incorrect om toe te geven, maar verreweg de meeste ‘nieuwe Europeanen’ die met name dankzij Merkel en de EU naar onze landen worden gehaald, hebben een mentaliteit die haaks staat op wat onze economie en samenleving nodig heeft om ook in de toekomst productief en welvarend te kunnen blijven. Velen blijken liever hun hele leven van de staat (uitkeringen, toeslagen) te blijven leven, en/of daarnaast op ‘minder legale’ manieren het nodige ‘bij te verdienen’. Bovendien blijken de weinigen die wel op normale wijze in hun eigen onderhoud willen voorzien, vrijwel uitsluitend geschikt voor de laagst betaalde banen.

umv2.jpg

En als de door ‘onze’ leiders gewilde nieuwe bewoners van Europa vervolgens dan toch wat geld hebben om onze economie te ondersteunen, blijken ze dat vooral in eigen kring te houden en uit te geven. Deze sociaal-economische gewoonten die moslimmigranten met zich meenemen zijn een grote bedreiging voor het Chinese Zijdenroute project, en zelfs voor de Chinese economie in zijn totaal, omdat die voor een aanzienlijk deel drijft op de export naar Europa.

China dreigt door Umvolkung EU grote klant kwijt te raken

Als er niet snel een halt toe wordt geroepen, zal de huidige Umvolkung-immigratie de Europese sociale systemen overbelasten en doen instorten. Daarmee zal het gedaan zijn met onze koopkracht en Europa’s economische macht, en raakt China niet alleen een van zijn grootste klanten kwijt, maar komt ook nog eens het doel van Beijing om door middel van het aangaan van vreedzame economische samenwerking een multipolaire wereld te creëren, één die niet langer wordt gecontroleerd en bepaald door enkel de Verenigde Staten, in groot gevaar.

De voorstellen van EC-president en globalist Jean-Claude Juncker –in Brussel samen met ‘onze’ eigen vicepresident Frans Timmermans een van de grootse voorstanders van Umvolkung en tegenstanders van het opkomende vrijheidspopulisme- om Europese bedrijven tegen buitenlandse overnames te beschermen, zijn vooral tegen China en Chinese ondernemingen gericht. Dat lijkt koren op de molen van de ‘populisten’, die immers uit zijn op het sluiten van de grenzen, al is dat voornamelijk gericht tegen de import en verspreiding van islam.

Chinese investeringen in Europese samenleving?

De oplossing voor dit dilemma –het stoppen van Umvolkung/islamisering van Europa, en tegelijkertijd het openhouden van de grenzen voor economische groei en samenwerking- kan wel eens gelegen zijn in het koppelen van economisch open grenzen aan Chinese investeringen in de autochtone Europese samenleving, die door haar eigen leiders juist stap voor stap steeds verder wordt uitgehold en uitgeknepen, waarmee het krijgen van kinderen financieel wordt ontmoedigd en zelfs onmogelijk wordt gemaakt.

Dat kan bijvoorbeeld betekenen dat China gaat investeren in onderwijs, scholen, opleidingen, de gezondheidszorg en mogelijk rechtstreeks in Europese gezinnen door bijvoorbeeld het promoten en subsidiëren van een ‘drie kinderen’ beleid. ‘Tenslotte weet China dat vervangende (autochtone Europese) geboorten betere consumenten voortbrengen dat vervangende migratie,’ schrijft Andrew Korybko voor Oriental Review. ‘Beijings Zijdenroute-strategie staat of valt met het behouden van het potentieel van de indrukwekkende consumentenmarkt in de EU.’ Omdat populisten eveneens tegen islamitische Umvolkung-migratie zijn, zou samenwerking tussen hen en China een win-win situatie voor beide partijen kunnen creëren.

merkel_cdu_fuer_deutschland.jpg

Cultuurmarxisten in Brussel en Berlijn bedreiging voor China

In Oost Europa, met name in Hongarije, Polen en  Tsjechië, is zowel de samenleving als de politiek in fel verzet gekomen tegen de door Brussel en Berlijn gewilde massa immigratie en islamisering. Mochten de EU en diens Westerse lidstaten –zoals Duitsland, Frankrijk, Italië en Nederland- hier desondanks toch onverkort aan vasthouden en daarmee de bom onder de stabiliteit en welvaart van hun eigen samenleving tot ontploffing brengen, dan zal het economische centrum zich definitief verplaatsen naar Oost Europa, waar de nieuwe Zijdenroute sowieso als eerste zal aankomen. West Europa zal dan zijn weggezonken naar Tweede- of zelfs Derde Wereldstatus.

‘Zolang China erin slaagt om de consumentenmarkt in de EU sterk te houden en zelfs te versterken, zal Beijing zich amper zorgen hoeven maken over zijn langetermijnstrategie voor West Eurazië. Maar als de culturele marxisten winnen, en hun vervangende migratie dit alles verpest, dan zal China zich geconfronteerd zien met een grote bedreiging voor zijn eigen plannen voor een leidinggevende rol in de wereld.’ (1)

VS wil Europa via immigratie en islam uit te schakelen

En daarmee hebben we ook meteen het antwoord waarom de VS er zo op gebrand is dat Europa miljoenen moslims binnenhaalt. Een geïslamiseerd, gedestabiliseerd en verarmd Europa zal én geen economische concurrent meer voor de Amerikanen zijn, én geen aantrekkelijke partner meer zijn voor China en Rusland om een nieuw, niet op militaire verovering gericht machtsblok te creëren, dat de islam definitief buiten de deur houdt en daarmee de welvaart voor al zijn onderdanen tot in lengte van generaties garandeert.

De echte vijanden voor onze toekomst en die van onze (klein)kinderen zetelen daarom niet in Beijing en Moskou (integendeel), zoals de Europese elite ons wil doen laten geloven, maar in Brussel, Berlijn, Parijs, Rome (Vaticaan) en Washington.

Xander

(1) (gebaseerd op) Zero Hedge

mardi, 19 septembre 2017

«Comment l’Europe devient le jouet de la politique et des services secrets»

deutschland_zwischen_den_fronten.jpg

«Comment l’Europe devient le jouet de la politique et des services secrets»

Analyse de livre

par Felix Meier*

Ex: http://www.zeit-fragen.ch/fr

Peu de personnes sont capables de présenter ouvertement et de manière critique le travail des services secrets. Initié, l’auteur et fondateur de l’Office fédéral autrichien de protection de la Constitution et de lutte contre le terrorisme nous révèle, pour la première fois, un aperçu raffiné des dessous du combat pour l’Europe. Gert R. Polli a collaboré avec tous les services secrets du monde. Il connaît les liens entre l’économie, la politique et les services de renseignements. Dans ce livre, il se penche sur la nouvelle et actuelle situation géopolitique de notre monde, entrainant pour l’Allemagne le fait d’être «prise entre deux feux». L’auteur décrit les limites diffuses entre renseignement et désinformation, défense et attaque cachée, action politique et agitation. Ce livre souhaite apporter une contribution à davantage de transparence au sein de la société démocratique et libérale.


L’Europe – et donc aussi l’UE – se trouve dans une situation sécuritaire des plus précaires. Selon l’auteur, l’Allemagne est devenu un facteur-clé pour l’existence de l’UE, telle que nous la connaissons. Pendant des décennies, un partenariat mal compris avec les Etats-Unis a mené à un contrôle et une surveillance généralisés de l’Europe et notamment de l’Allemagne. En première ligne se trouvent les services de renseignement américains et leurs informateurs. Active à l’arrière-plan, le BND [services de renseignement fédéraux allemands, ndt.], a joué un rôle très particulier. Ces informations et de nombreuses autres informations à caractère sensible ont été divulguées grâce au whistle-blower américain Edward Snowden. Les conclusions qu’il faut en tiré sont très inquiétantes pour la politique et l’économie allemande. Les analyses plutôt «amicales» faites au cours du travail de la Commission d’enquête du Bundestag au sujet de la NSA ne peuvent pas le cacher: l’Allemagne est aujourd’hui encore un pays occupé.


La politique, l’économie et les divers services secrets allemands sont, selon l’auteur, étroitement imbriqués et dépendants des services de renseignements étrangers.


Le terrorisme international, en faisant entrer la guerre au cœur de l’Europe, renforce la lutte globale pour les ressources naturelles. L’Union européenne se trouve dans la crise la plus sérieuse de son existence. Suite à l’avènement de nouveaux partis d’extrême droite, d’extrême gauche ou critiques à l’égard d’UE, on observe au sein de celle-ci, des transformations dans les structures démocratiques.


Selon Polli, il n’est plus guère possible pour les citoyens de reconnaître les acteurs se trouvant derrière ses transformations. Les services secrets sont au premier plan les forces responsables de ces transformations globales.    •

*    Felix Meier est colonel à la retraite, ancien officier supérieur du renseignement et ancien président de l’Association suisse des officiers de renseignements.

Polli, Gert R. Deutschland zwischen den Fronten. Wie Europa zum Spielball von Politik und Geheimdienst wird. Finanzbuchverlag 2017