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.

lundi, 26 janvier 2015

Thomas Cromwell was the Islamic State of his day


         
       

Thomas-Cromwell-1st-Earl--011.jpg

Hans Holbein’s portrait of Thomas Cromwell Photo: Alamy

On July 24, 2014, worshippers in Mosul were asked to leave one of the city’s most historic and famous buildings — an ancient Nestorian-Assyrian church that had long ago been converted into the Mosque of the Prophet Younis (biblical Jonah). The Islamic State then rigged the entire building with explosives, and blew it into oblivion. Tragically, it was a Shia mosque - one of many that have suffered the same fate.

The UK's current primetime TV fantasy blockbuster du jour is Wolf Hall. Everyone loves a costume drama, but there is a world of difference between fictional history and historical fiction. One dramatizes real people and events. The other is an entirely made-up story set in the past. The current tendency is to blur the two, which Wolf Hall does spectacularly.

Thomas Cromwell, whose life it chronicles, comes across as a plucky, self-made Englishman, whose quiet reserve suggests inner strength and personal nobility. Back in the real world, Cromwell was a “ruffian” (in his own words) turned sectarian extremist, whose religious vandalism bears striking comparison with the iconoclasm of Islamic State or the Afghani Taliban.

Thanks to Wolf Hall, more people have now heard of Thomas Cromwell, and this is a good thing. But underneath its fictionalized portrayal of Henry VIII’s chief enforcer, there is a historical man, and he is one whose record for murder, looting, and destruction ought to have us apoplectic with rage, not reaching for the popcorn.

Historians rarely agree on details, so a lot about Cromwell’s inner life is still up for debate. But it is a truly tough job finding anything heroic in the man’s legacy of brutality and naked ambition.

Against a backdrop of Henry VIII’s marital strife, the pathologically ambitious Cromwell single-handedly masterminded the break with Rome in order to hand Henry the Church, with its all-important control of divorce and marriage. There were, to be sure, small pockets of Protestantism in England at the time, but any attempt to cast Cromwell’s despotic actions as sincere theological reform are hopeless. Cromwell himself had minimal truck with religious belief. He loved politics, money, and power, and the reformers could give them to him.

Flushed with the success of engineering Henry’s divorce from Catherine of Aragon and his marriage to Anne Boleyn, Cromwell moved on to confiscating the Church’s money. Before long, he was dissolving monasteries as fast as he could, which meant seizing anything that was not nailed down and keeping it for himself, for Henry, and for their circle of friends. It was the biggest land-grab and asset-strip in English history, and Cromwell sat at the centre of the operation, at the heart of a widely-loathed, absolutist, and tyrannical regime. When Anne Boleyn pointed out that the money should be going to charity or good works, he fitted her up on charges of adultery, and watched as she was beheaded.

As an adviser to Henry, Cromwell could have attempted to guide the hot-headed king, to tame his wilder ambitions, counsel him in patience, uphold the many freedoms enjoyed by his subjects. But Cromwell had no interest in moderation. He made all Henry’s dreams come true, riding roughshod over the law of the land and whoever got in his way. For instance, we are hearing a lot about Magna Carta this year, but Cromwell had no time for tedious trials and judgement by peers. With lazy strokes of his pen, he condemned royalty, nobles, peasants, nuns, and monks to horrific summary executions. We are not talking half a dozen. He dispatched hundreds under his highly politicised “treason” laws. (When his own time came and the tables had turned, he pleaded to Henry: “Most gracyous prynce I crye for mercye mercye mercye.” But he was given all the mercy he had shown others.)

henru8.jpg

And then there is his impact on this country’s artistic and intellectual heritage. No one can be sure of the exact figure, but it is estimated that the destruction started and legalised by Cromwell amounted to 97% of the English art then in existence. Statues were hacked down. Frescoes were smashed to bits. Mosaics were pulverized. Illuminated manuscripts were shredded. Wooden carvings were burned. Precious metalwork was melted down. Shrines were reduced to rubble. This vandalism went way beyond a religious reform. It was a frenzy, obliterating the artistic patrimony of centuries of indigenous craftsmanship with an intensity of hatred for imagery and depicting the divine that has strong and resonant parallels today.

It can only be a good thing that people are again thinking about Cromwell. Because as we look to the east, to the fanaticism that is sacking the cultural and artistic heritage of other ancient societies, we can all draw the same, inevitable conclusions about religious extremism in any age, whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, or Buddhist. None of it is pretty. All of it is real. And we, in England, are not in some way removed from it. We only have to survey the smashed up medieval buildings the length and breadth of the country, or contemplate Cromwell’s record of public beheadings and other barbarous executions.

It is plain that extremists come in all shapes and sizes.

mercredi, 10 décembre 2014

El “no” a Inglaterra de Charles de Gaulle

Por Michael Neudecker

Ex: http://www.elespiadigital.com

En 2013 se cumplieron 50 años del primer “no” del general y presidente francés Charles De Gaulle a la entrada del Reino Unido a la Comunidad Económica Europea, el embrión de lo que hoy es la Unión Europea. Los británicos tuvieron que esperar justo una década, hasta 1973, para poder ingresar aunque nunca han sido unos europeístas demasiado convencidos. De hecho, el actual primer ministro, David Cameron, respalda la posibilidad de convocar un referéndum para consultar si el Reino Unido debe seguir siendo miembro de la UE. ¿La puerta para abandonar Europa?

El 14 de enero de 1963 Charles de Gaulle dijo no y el Reino Unido se quedó fuera de la Comunidad Económica Europea. Fundada poco antes, en 1957, la CEE ya era un éxito espectacular y representaba el núcleo de la recuperación económica europea. Unificaba la capacidad y el prestigio político de Francia y el llamado ‘milagro alemán’ y ya prometió convertirse en un actor internacional a tener en cuenta.

Sin embargo, en 1963 el mundo estaba claramente dividido entre las zonas de influencia de las dos superpotencias, los EEUU y la URSS. No había espacio para los antiguos imperios coloniales ni para las viejas potencias europeas, que salieron o bien derrotadas o bien arruinadas de la Segunda Guerra Mundial. Sin embargo, De Gaulle no lo veía así. Su política de la ‘Europa de las Patrias’ defendía la resurrección política del viejo continente y su independencia de la tutela de las dos superpotencias.

Francia era débil. Había sido derrotada por los alemanes en 1940 y solamente su prestigio y la insistencia de De Gaulle hicieron posible que se le mantuviera el status de potencia vencedora al finalizar la Segunda Guerra Mundial. Sin embargo, la derrota y pérdida de Indochina en 1954 y de Argelia en 1962, y la humillación en el Canal de Suez en 1956 –infringida por los EEUU- dejaron a Francia sin su imperio colonial y solamente con Europa.

Allí Francia tenía dos posibilidades: se resignaba a ser un socio protegido de los EEUU frente a la URSS, o trataba de conseguir la supremacía. De Gaulle optó por la segunda opción, siguiendo la tradición de Carlomagno, Luis XIV o Napoleón. Pero no lo podía hacer solo. No tenía fuerzas suficientes para ello y necesitaba un socio. Este sería la Alemania Federal de Konrad Adenauer.

Alemania, derrotada y en busca de amigos

Alemania era un país derrotado, dividido y sin soberanía. Pero con un potencial económico muy alto. Su industria seguía siendo la más poderosa de Europa y estaba claro que, una vez recuperada de la guerra y reconstruidas las ruinas, volvería a jugar un papel fundamental. La pregunta era ¿qué papel sería ese? Francia lo tenía claro: sería su socio. Ella pondría el prestigio y la política, y los alemanes pondrían la economía. Alemania, ansiosa por ser readmitida en la sociedad internacional y de integrarse en Occidente y protegerse así de la URSS aceptó encantada.

El acercamiento entre ambos países fue fulgurante, primero en 1951 con la fundación de la Comunidad Económica del Carbón y del Acero (CECA) –poniendo fin así al conflicto histórico por el control de los yacimientos de carbón entre ambas partes- y en 1952 con la firma del Tratado de la Comunidad Europea de Defensa, según el cual ambos unirían sus ejércitos en uno solo. Esta iniciativa resultó ser demasiado ambiciosa y los franceses –celosos de su independencia- no lo ratificaron. Pero sí se avanzó en el camino de la integración económica. Fue el nacimiento de la Comunidad Económica Europea en 1957.

El Reino Unido, por su parte, también había salido muy debilitado de la Segunda Guerra Mundial. Pero a diferencia de Francia, había sido una de las potencias fundamentales en la derrota de Hitler en 1945. Seguía siendo una potencia, pero sólo de prestigio. Arruinada por la guerra, tuvo que renunciar a su imperio en 1947 reconociendo la independencia de India y Pakistán, y pidiendo ayuda a los EEUU en la guerra civil griega entre monárquicos y comunistas. Londres entregó sus trastos a Washington y se conformó en ser el socio pequeño de los EEUU, eso sí, con una relación especial.

El perro faldero de los EEUU

Esa relación especial era lo que les hacía sospechosos a los ingleses a ojos de De Gaulle. Él aspiraba a liderar una Europa independiente de las superpotencias, y el Reino Unido parecía ser el perro faldero de los EEUU. De hecho, al principio los británicos no se tomaron en serio a la CEE y se opusieron a cualquier tipo de participación en ella. No querían renunciar a su Commonwealth ni querían participar en una organización que blindaba su comercio exterior con una rígida política proteccionista. La patria de Adam Smith seguía siendo el adalid del libre comercio y para contrarrestar a la CEE fundó en 1960 la Asociación Europea de Libre Comercio (EFTA en inglés) a la que también pertenecieron los países nórdicos de Europa, Austria, Suiza, Irlanda y Portugal. Pero fue un fracaso y pronto sus miembros aspiraban a entrar en la CEE.

Pero De Gaulle dijo ‘no’, no una sino dos veces, la segunda en 1967. No quería a los ingleses en ‘su’ Europa. No se podía fiar de ellos ni tampoco tenía sentido incluir a un tercer socio en su pareja con Alemania. Eso solamente podría o debilitar su plan de independencia al acercar más a los EEUU, o bien devaluar el papel de Francia al frente de Europa al sumar a Londres junto a Alemania. A De Gaulle no le interesaba la unión de Europa, le interesaba la hegemonía de Francia en Europa, y para ello no podía permitir la entrada del Reino Unido. Hubo que esperar a la dimisión de De Gaulle en 1969 para que se iniciaran los trámites de adhesión y, finalmente, en 1973, el Reino Unido se incorporó a la CEE.

Hoy, 40 años después de su entrada y 50 después de ser rechazados por primera vez, los británicos amenazan con abandonar la Unión Europea en la peor crisis de su historia. En estas cuatro décadas nunca jugaron un papel constructivo ni fueron el motor de la integración europea, más bien todo lo contrario. Por lo tanto no son pocos en ambas orillas del Canal de la Mancha los que opinan que a lo mejor no sería tan mala idea que Londres corte sus amarras y navegue por el Atlántico en brazos de su aliado los EEUU. ¿Había tenido razón De Gaulle?

jeudi, 27 novembre 2014

Wyndham Lewis

Wyndham Lewis

par Kerry Bolton 

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

English original here

Note du Rédacteur:

Cette version très enrichie d’un essai précédemment publié sur Wyndham Lewis est le chapitre 8 du livre de Kerry Bolton, Artists of the Right: Resisting Decadence, [Artistes de la Droite : Résister à la Décadence] qui devrait être publié prochainement par Counter-Currents.

wl10264-004-107AFCA6.jpgPercy Wyndham Lewis (1882-1957), est considéré comme le fondateur du seul mouvement culturel moderniste indigène en Grande-Bretagne. Cependant, on le met rarement sur le même plan que Ezra Pound, James Joyce, T. S. Eliot, et d’autres de sa génération [1]. Lewis était l’une de ces nombreuses figures culturelles qui rejetaient l’héritage du XIXe siècle – celui du  libéralisme bourgeois et de la démocratie, qui pesait sur le XXe.

Cependant, à la différence de nombreux autres auteurs qui rejetaient la démocratie, le libéralisme et « la gauche », Lewis rejetait aussi le contre-mouvement qui cherchait à revenir au passé et qui plaçait l’intuitif, l’émotionnel et l’instinctif au-dessus de l’intellectuel et du rationnel. Lewis dénonçait particulièrement D. H. Lawrence pour son placement de l’instinct au-dessus de la raison et pour ce qui semblait être une célébration de la doctrine du « noble sauvage », qui a servi de base au libéralisme à partir du XVIIIe siècle.

Lewis était un individualiste extrême, tout en rejetant l’individualisme du libéralisme du XIXe siècle. Son adoption d’une philosophie de la distance entre l’élite culturelle et les masses l’amena à Nietzsche, bien qu’il fût effrayé par la popularité de Nietzsche chez tout le monde [2], et au fascisme et à l’éloge d’Hitler, mais aussi au rejet de ceux-ci puisqu’ils faisaient appel aux masses.

Né en 1882 sur un yacht au large des rivages de la Nouvelle Ecosse, il était de mère anglaise, et son père était un officier de l’armée américaine, excentrique et sans revenus, qui déserta  bientôt sa famille. Wyndham et sa mère arrivèrent en Angleterre en 1888. Il suivit les cours des Ecoles des Arts de Rugby et de Slade [3], qui le mirent toutes deux à la porte. Il visita ensuite les capitales artistiques de l’Europe, et fut influencé par le cubisme et le futurisme.

En 1922, Lewis présenta son portfolio de dessins qui avait d’abord été conçu pour illustrer une édition du Timon d’Athènes de Shakespeare, où Timon est décrit comme une marionnette désarticulée. Cela illustrait l’idée de Lewis selon laquelle l’homme peut s’élever au-dessus de l’animal par le détachement et le contrôle de soi, mais que la majorité des hommes resteront toujours des marionnettes ou des automates. Ayant lu Nietzsche, Lewis avait l’intention de rester une figure du type Zarathoustra, solitaire sur sa montagne et bien au-dessus de la masse de l’humanité.

Vortex

Au début, Lewis fut associé au groupe de Bloomsbury, les intellectuels prétentieux et snobs d’un quartier bien précis de Londres, qui pouvaient lancer ou briser un artiste ou un auteur débutant. Il rejeta bientôt ces libéraux de gauche beaux-parleurs et les attaqua violemment dans The Apes of God [Les singes de Dieu] [4]. Cela entraîna un tournant – un tournant négatif – dans la carrière de Lewis : « Une bruyante controverse s’ensuivit ». Le manuscrit avait été rejeté par l’éditeur de Lewis, Chatto and Windus, et il avait publié le livre lui-même au nom de « The Arthur Press ». Les choses ne s’arrangèrent pas avec le livre de Lewis en 1932, Hitler. Son proche soutien Roy Campbell fut aussi entraîné dans sa chute [5], bien que Campbell se serait certainement heurté à la même opposition de Bloomsbury à cause de ses propres idées.

Un biographe a écrit : « Les triomphes de la fin des années 1920, des triomphes qui incluaient généralement une réponse critique favorable (…) furent temporairement oubliés dans le tintamarre littéraire/judiciaire/populaire… », et Lewis devint un « sale risque » pour les éditeurs [6]. Bloomsbury était une coterie puissante qui « pouvait aller jusqu’à excommunier et ostraciser » [7].

Résister à ce genre d’opposition n’était pas facile. Pourtant c’est précisément ce que fit Lewis, en dépit d’un manque de fonds et d’un refus de se mettre à la merci de gens ayant « des relations ». Pendant les années 1930, alors que c’était la mode en Grande-Bretagne d’avoir des opinions de gauche, Lewis n’en avait aucunement [8].

wl3743273.jpg

Concernant la révolte de Lewis contre la Gauche à la mode et son importance pour notre époque, Tomlinson remarque :

« Quand on pense aux sympathies politiques radicales manifestées par des hommes qui ont depuis rejoint l’Establishment, le refus de Lewis d’être estampillé, manœuvré ou manipulé dans une alliance avec l’intelligentsia de gauche montre sa fermeté de caractère et son indépendance d’esprit. Et maintenant qu’une Nouvelle Gauche est apparue, l’œuvre de Lewis possède une importance renouvelée particulièrement maintenant que le radicalisme d’aujourd’hui combine son assaut contre les ‘fondements’ de la société avec les plus pitoyables essais dans le scabreux. (…) Comme Lewis aurait écrasé tout cela… » [9]

Rompant avec l’Atelier Omega de Bloomsbury, Lewis fonda le Centre d’Art Rebelle d’où émergea le mouvement vorticiste et son magazine Blast: Review of the Great English Vortex [10], « balayant des idées mortes et des notions usées », comme le dit Lewis [11]. Parmi les signataires du Manifeste Vorticiste figuraient Ezra Pound, le sculpteur français Henri Gaudier-Brzeska, et le peintre Edward Wadsworth. T. S. Eliot fut aussi un adhérent,  écrivant des articles pour le deuxième numéro de Blast [12].

Pound, qui décrivit le vortex comme « le point d’énergie maximum », inventa le nom de Vorticisme. Alors que Lewis avait trouvé intéressants la stase du cubisme et le mouvement effréné du futurisme, il s’indigna quand Marinetti le décrivit comme un futuriste et voulut trouver un mouvement moderniste anglais indigène. Le but était de synthétiser le cubisme et le futurisme [13]. Le vorticisme décrirait le point statique dont l’énergie surgissait. Il était aussi très soucieux de refléter la vie contemporaine où la machine finissait par dominer, mais rejetait la glorification romantique de la machine par le futurisme [14].

Pound et Lewis étaient tous deux influencés par le classicisme du critique d’art et philosophe T.E. Hulme, un conservateur radical. Hulme rejetait l’humanisme et le romantisme du XIXe siècle dans les arts, les considérant comme des reflets de la croyance rousseauiste (et finalement communiste) en la bonté naturelle de l’homme non-corrompu par la civilisation, et à la malléabilité infinie de la nature humaine par un changement de l’environnement et du conditionnement social. Hulme écrit :

« …Des gens de toutes classes, des gens qui craignaient d’y perdre, étaient en effervescence concernant l’idée de liberté. Il devait y avoir quelque idée qui leur permettait de penser que quelque chose de positif pouvait sortir d’une chose aussi essentiellement négative. Il y en avait une, et ici j’ai ma définition du romantisme. On leur avait dit par Rousseau que l’homme était bon par nature, que c’étaient seulement les mauvaises lois et coutumes qui l’avaient opprimé. Enlevez tout cela et les possibilités infinies de l’homme auraient une chance. C’est ce qui leur faisait penser que quelque chose de positif pouvait sortir du désordre, c’est ce qui créait l’enthousiasme religieux. Voilà la racine de tout le romantisme : que l’homme, l’individu, est un réservoir infini de possibilités, et si vous pouvez réarranger la société ainsi en détruisant l’ordre oppressif alors ces possibilités auront une chance et vous aurez le Progrès.

On peut définir le classique très clairement comme l’opposé exact de cela. L’homme est un animal extraordinairement fixé et limité dont la nature est absolument constante. C’est seulement par la tradition et l’organisation que quelque chose de bon peut être obtenu de lui.

…Bref, ce sont les deux visions, donc. L’une, que l’homme est intrinsèquement bon, corrompu par les circonstances ; et l’autre qu’il est intrinsèquement limité, discipliné par l’ordre et la tradition pour l’orienter vers quelque chose de bon. Pour le premier parti la nature de l’homme est comme un puits, pour l’autre comme un seau. La vision qui voit l’homme comme un puits, un réservoir plein de possibilités, je l’appelle la vision romantique ; celle qui le voit comme une créature très finie et fixée, je l’appelle la classique. » [15]

wl564.jpg

Hulme dit clairement que le « romantisme » est le soubassement dogmatique du paradigme libéral dominant des sociétés occidentales.

Le classicisme de Lewis est construit autour d’une série de dichotomies : classicisme contre romantisme, raison contre émotion, intellect contre intuition et instinct, masculin contre féminin, aristocratie contre démocratie, l’individu contre la masse, et plus tard le fascisme contre le communisme. L’esthétique vorticiste se prêtait facilement à des interprétations proto-fascistes et conservatrices : des motifs « disciplinés, brusques, épais et brutaux », la clarté et la forme par opposition à l’art qui se dissout dans le « vague de l’espace », comme le décrivit Lewis [16].

Sur le plan artistique, le classicisme signifie aussi clarté du style et forme distincte. Pound était attiré par la manière dont, par exemple, l’idéogramme chinois décrivait les idées succinctement [17]. C’est pourquoi l’art et l’écriture devaient être basés sur la netteté et la clarté de l’image. Le sujet était vu extérieurement, d’une manière détachée. Pound et Hulme avaient fondé le mouvement imagiste selon des principes classicistes. A cela se superposait maintenant le vorticisme, décrivant les motifs géométriques complexes mais clairs de l’âge de la machine. Par opposition au futurisme italien, l’art vorticiste ne visait pas à décrire le déchaînement de l’énergie mais à le figer dans le temps. Tout en décrivant le tourbillon  d’énergie, le vorticisme se distinguait du futurisme par son axe central de stabilité. Le vorticisme fut cependant rejeté par Lewis durant la Première Guerre mondiale comme étant « morne et vide », comme quelque chose qui avait besoin d’être « rempli », alors qu’en littérature, les mots et la syntaxe ne devaient pas être des sujets d’abstraction [18].

Dans sa nouvelle Tarr, publiée comme un monument à lui-même pour le cas où il serait tué dans la guerre où il servit comme officier d’observation avancée pour l’artillerie, il critique sévèrement les artistes et auteurs bohêmes représentés en Angleterre par la coterie de Bloomsbury :

« …Votre potion insipide est un mélange des lies du libéralisme, la pauvre écume produite par les années 90 décadentes, les restes de la garde-robe d’une bohême vulgaire. (…) Vous êtes de la tisane d’orge concentrée et hautement organisée : il n’y a rien à dire en votre faveur dans l’univers : n’importe quel Etat efficace confisquerait vos biens, brûlerait votre garde-robe – ce vieux chapeau et tout le reste – comme infectieuse, et vous interdirait de la propager.

…Une variété de choux douçâtres et prolifiques a provoqué un pourrissement général et rampant en Occident (…) que n’importe quel pouvoir résolu pourra anéantir en un clin d’œil et les yeux fermés. Votre gentil interlude en fait indirectement une période de tribulation pour les choses vivantes qui restent dans votre voisinage. Vous systématisez la vulgarisation de l’individu : vous êtes la copie à l’avance du communisme, un faux communisme millénaire de la classe moyenne. Vous n’êtes pas un individu : vous n’avez, je le répète, aucun droit à ces cheveux et à ce chapeau : vous tentez d’avoir le beurre et l’argent du beurre. Vous devriez être en uniforme et au travail, pas uniformément hors de l’uniforme et calomniant l’Artiste par votre oisiveté. Etes-vous oisif ?

…La seule justification pour votre allure débraillée, c’est bien qu’elle est parfaitement emblématique. » [19]

En 1918, Lewis fut nommé artiste de guerre officiel pour le Bureau Canadien des Archives de Guerre. Ici certaines de ses peintures sont de style vorticiste, décrivant les soldats comme des machines de la même qualité que leur artillerie. A nouveau, l’homme est montré comme un automate. Cependant, la guerre détruisit le mouvement vorticiste, Hulme et Gaudier-Brzeska succombant tous les deux, et Blast n’alla pas plus loin que deux numéros.

Le Code d’un Berger

Le néo-nietzschéisme de Lewis est succinctement exprimé dans un essai publié dans The Little Review en 1917, « Le Code d’un Berger ». Parmi les 18 points [20] :

« En t’accusant toi-même, reste fidèle au Code de la Montagne. Mais le crime est étranger à la nature d’un Berger. Tu dois être ta propre Caste. »

« Chéris et développe côte à côte tes six plus constantes indications de personnalités différentes. Tu acquerras alors la potentialité de six hommes… Chaque tranchée doit en avoir une autre derrière elle. »

« Passe un peu de ton temps chaque jour à traquer les faiblesses que tu as contractées par ton commerce avec le troupeau, aussi méthodiquement, solennellement et énergiquement qu’un singe le fait avec ses puces. Tu découvriras que tu en es recouvert quand tu es entouré par l’humanité. Mais tu ne les emmèneras pas sur la montagne… »

« Ne joue pas avec les notions politiques, les aristocratismes ou l’inverse, car c’est un compromis avec le troupeau. Ne te laisse pas aller à imaginer un bon troupeau qui resterait un troupeau. Il n’y a pas de bon troupeau. Les bestiaux qui se font appeler ‘gentlemen’ t’apparaîtront un peu plus propres. C’est simplement une ruse et c’est l’œuvre d’un produit appelé savon… »

« Sois sur tes gardes avec le petit troupeau des gentlemen. Il y a des règles très strictes pour empêcher le troupeau de mettre les pieds sur les flancs de la montagne. En fait ta principale fonction est d’empêcher leur empiètement. Dans un moment d’ennui ou d’agressivité, certains sont capables de faire des incursions vers les régions plus hautes. Heureusement leur instinct les fait rester en masses ou en bandes, et leur transgression est bientôt remarquée. Contredis-toi. Pour vivre, tu dois rester fragmenté. »

« Au-dessus de ce triste commerce avec le troupeau, fais en sorte que quelque chose reste véritablement sur la montagne. Descends toujours avec des masques et d’épais vêtements dans la vallée où nous travaillons. Les gaz stagnants de ces troupeaux vulgaires et pourris sont plus dangereux que les cylindres errants qui les émettent. (…) Notre colline sacrée est un ciel volcanique. Mais le résultat de la violence est la paix. Même la malheureuse houle, au-dessous, a des moments de paix. »

Le « Code d’un Berger » rappelle beaucoup le texte de Nietzsche « Des mouches du marché », dans Ainsi parlait Zarathoustra [21]. Le credo indique aussi pourquoi Lewis ne pouvait pas rester longtemps un admirateur du fascisme ou du national-socialisme – « Ne te laisse pas aller à imaginer un bon troupeau qui resterait un troupeau. Il n’y a pas de bon troupeau » –, puisque le fascisme et le national-socialisme exaltent le « troupeau », culturellement, socialement, et économiquement.

Fascisme

La pauvreté suivit Lewis toute sa vie. Comme Pound, il était à la recherche d’une société qui honorerait les artistes. Comme Pound et D. H. Lawrence, il avait le sentiment que l’artiste est le gouvernant naturel de l’humanité, et il s’insurgeait contre la dégradation de l’art au niveau d’un article courant.

L’attitude politique et sociale de Lewis venait de son esthétique. Il était opposé à la primauté de la politique et de l’économie sur la vie culturelle. Son livre de 1926, The Art of Being Ruled [L’art d’être gouverné] expose en détail les idées de Lewis sur la politique, incluant un rejet de la démocratie et quelques références favorables au fascisme. Ici Lewis condamne la vulgarisation de la science comme une « religion populaire », favorable à un « état d’esprit révolutionnaire », et le mythe du « Progrès » [22] basé sur idolâtrie de l’« amélioration mécanique » [23]. L’idéal est l’« Homme de la Rue » comme « le nouveau Messie de la religion contemporaine », à qui l’on vend continuellement l’idée de changement, ou de « révolution-comme-habitude » [24]. En tant que révolutionnaire, Lewis aspirait au renversement des « valeurs désuètes », et était antithétique à la « révolution-comme-habitude » des intellectuels stéréotypés du type Bloomsbury [25].

wlrapheal.gif

Il propose aussi une analyse sceptique concernant les buts de la « démocratie » où le pouvoir est exercé derrière l’illusion d’élections libres, qui sont basées sur le conditionnement de la masse des votants par les possesseurs de la Presse ; c’est-à-dire, ceux qui ont l’argent :

« Le fonctionnement du système électoral ‘démocratique’ est bien sûr comme suit : Une personne est formée rigoureusement à certaines opinions ; puis on lui donne le droit de vote, et on dit qu’elle est ‘libre’ et pleinement affranchie ; puis elle vote (soumise, bien sûr, à de nouveaux et rigoureux ordres de la presse, où parfois son mentor lui commande de voter contrairement à ce qu’on lui a enseigné) strictement en accord avec sa formation. Son appui à tout ce qu’on lui a appris à soutenir peut être pratiquement garanti. C’est bien sûr pourquoi le vote du citoyen libre est une farce : il est annulé par l’éducation et la suggestion, l’imposition de la volonté du gouvernant au moyen de la presse et d’autres canaux des pouvoirs publics. Le gouvernement ‘démocratique’ est donc bien plus efficace que la subjugation par la conquête physique. » [26]

L’appui au fascisme était un produit de son classicisme – sa valorisation de la dureté, du masculin, de l’exactitude, et de la clarté – ainsi que de ses opinions de longue date concernant la démocratie et les masses. Ce classicisme le poussa à applaudir l’Etat fasciste « rigidement organisé », basé sur des lois immuables et absolues que Lewis appliquait aux arts, par opposition aux « fluctuations » ou aux changements du romantisme.

Lewis apporta son appui à l’Union des Fascistes Britanniques de Sir Oswald Mosley. Celui-ci raconte dans son autobiographie que Lewis lui donnait des rendez-vous secrets, craignant un assassinat [27]. Cependant, Lewis fut assez ouvert d’esprit pour écrire un essai sur le fascisme, intitulé « Left Wings » [« Gauches »], pour le British Union Quarterly. Ici Lewis écrit qu’une nation peut être subvertie et capturée par des groupes numériquement faibles. L’intelligentsia et la presse faisaient ce travail de subversion avec une orientation de gauche. Lewis était au courant de l’appui que le marxisme recevait des riches, incluant les bohêmes  millionnaires qui patronnaient les arts. La propagande marxiste en faveur de l’URSS bénéficiait d’un financement énorme. Le marxisme était une imposture, une mascarade dans son soutien aux pauvres contre les riches [28]. « Que le communisme russe ne soit pas une guerre au couteau des Riches contre les Pauvres n’est que trop bien démontré par le fait que sur le plan international tous les Riches sont de son coté. Tous les ‘magnats’ parmi les nations lui sont favorables ; toutes les communautés appauvries, tous les petits Etats paysans, le craignent et s’opposent à lui » [29].

Les observations de Lewis sur la nature du marxisme étaient corroborées par la position antibolchevique du Portugal et de l’Espagne, auxquels il pensait probablement en parlant d’opposition des ‘petits Etats paysans’ au communisme. Alors que le bolchevisme lui-même était financé par des milieux financiers à New York, en Suède, et en Allemagne (les Warburg, Schiff, et Olaf Aschberg – le dénommé « banquier bolchevik » [30]), d’où l’affirmation : « les ‘magnats’ parmi les nations lui sont favorables ».

wlcrw-nevinson-returning-to-the-trenches-1914-1339513432_b.jpg

Lewis conclut en déclarant que le fascisme est le mouvement qui est authentiquement pour les pauvres et contre les riches, pour la propriété alors que les ‘super-riches’ sont contre la propriété, « puisque l’argent s’est fondu dans le pouvoir, le concret dans l’abstrait… »

« En tant que fasciste, vous défendez le petit commerçant contre le grand magasin ; le paysan contre l’usurier ; la nation, grande ou petite, contre le super-Etat ; le commerce personnel contre le Big Business ; l’artisan contre la Machine ; le créateur contre l’intermédiaire ; tout ce qui prospère par l’effort individuel et le travail créatif, contre tout ce qui prospère dans l’air abstrait de la Haute Finance ou du jargon théorique de l’Internationalisme. » [31]

Comme on le voit par ses références à la « Haute Finance » et aux « magnats » soutenant la gauche, Lewis, comme Ezra Pound [32], était conscient de la pourriture complète du système financier fondé sur l’usure, écrivant : « …et la technique du Crédit est un instrument de destruction en comparaison duquel toute autre arme offensive connue tombe dans l’insignifiance » [33].

Cependant, Lewis avait des réserves concernant le fascisme, de même qu’il avait des réserves concernant l’engagement en faveur de n’importe quelle doctrine, non seulement à cause de la nature de masse – ou « troupeau » – du fascisme, mais aussi parce que le principe de l’action, de l’homme d’action, devient trop souvent une activité frénétique, alors que la stabilité dans le monde est nécessaire à l’épanouissement des arts. Il dit dans Time and Western Man [Le temps et l’homme occidental] que le fascisme en Italie était trop tourné vers le passé, mettant l’accent sur une résurgence de la splendeur impériale romaine et l’usage de son imagerie, au lieu de se consacrer à la réalisation du présent [34]. Dans ce « culte du Temps » étaient inclus le courant doctrinal de l’action, du progrès, de la violence, du combat, du changement constant dans le monde, qui incluent aussi le darwinisme et le nietzschéisme, en dépit de l’influence continue de ce dernier sur la philosophie de Lewis.

Pourtant, quand les lignes commencèrent à être tracées pour la future confrontation entre le fascisme et la démocratie, Lewis prit la défense de l’Italie fasciste dans son invasion de l’Abyssinie, condamnant les sanctions de la Société des Nations contre l’Italie, et déclarant : « si l’Italien industrieux et ingénieux, plutôt que l’Ethiopien paresseux, stupide et agressif,  devait finalement contrôler l’Abyssinie, ça ne serait sûrement pas une grande tragédie » [35].

Une première appréciation intitulée Hitler fut publiée en 1931, scellant le sort de Lewis en tant que génie marginalisé, en dépit de sa répudiation de l’antisémitisme dans The Jews, Are They Human? [Les Juifs, sont-ils humains ?] et du nazisme dans The Hitler Cult [Le culte de Hitler], tous deux publiés en 1939.

Temps et Espace

wl51FLambzJ1L._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpgUn environnement artistique sain requiert l’ordre et la discipline, pas le chaos et la fluctuation  continuelle. C’est le grand conflit entre le « romantique » et le « classique » dans les arts. Cette dichotomie entre « classique » et « romantique » est représentée en politique par la différence entre la philosophie du « Temps » et celle de l’« Espace », cette dernière étant illustrée par la philosophie de Spengler. A la différence de beaucoup d’autres représentants de la « Droite », Lewis était fermement opposé à l’approche historique de Spengler, critiquant son Déclin de l’Occident dans Time and Western Man. Pour Lewis, Spengler et d’autres « philosophes du Temps » reléguaient la culture dans la sphère politique. Les interprétations cycliques et organiques de l’histoire sont vues comme « fatalistes » et démoralisantes pour la survie de la race européenne. Lewis résumait la thèse de Spengler comme suit : « Vous les Blancs, êtes sur le point de vous éteindre. Tout est fini pour vous ; et je peux vous le prouver par le résultat de mes recherches, et par ma nouvelle science de l’histoire, qui est bâtie sur le grand système du temps… » [36].

Lewis affirmait que la « philosophie du Temps » est vouée à subir le changement et les fluctuations, alors que la philosophie de l’« Espace » est vouée à la forme et à la présence, les fondements du classicisme, que Spengler dénigrait en faveur du désir d’infini sans forme de l’homme « faustien » [37].

L’art véritable n’est pas révolutionnaire, mais est un « bastion permanent », qui n’est jamais en révolte sauf quand l’art cesse d’exister ou devient « faux et vulgaire ». Le dénommé « art révolutionnaire » que Lewis observait à son époque était « de l’art inférieur et stupide, ou bien  de l’art consciemment politique » [38]. Lewis écrit en outre : « Aucun artiste ne pourra jamais aimer la démocratie ou son parent doctrinaire et plus primitif, le communisme ».

« Les unités-de-masse émotionnellement excitées, en troupeau serré, lourdement standardisées, agissant dans une union aveugle et extatique, comme en réponse au rythme d’une musique invisible – de style… soviétique – seraient la pire chose souhaitable, selon moi, pour l’Occident démocratique libre, s’il était libre, et si sa démocratie était du genre intelligent… » [39]

Lewis voyait les mouvements « révolutionnaires » comme régressifs, bien qu’ils fussent qualifiés de « progressistes ». Le féminisme vise à revenir aux « conditions supposées du Matriarcat primitif ». Le communisme et tous les mouvements révolutionnaires de son époque, il les voyait comme visant à revenir au primitif [40]. D’après ce motif, on peut comprendre pourquoi il condamnait aussi D. H. Lawrence. La « Haute Bohême », incluant « le monde des milliardaires », particulièrement ceux qui se concentrent sur le féminisme et la révolte sexuelle, sont des symptômes du « Temps », tout comme les réussites techniques et le commerce – alors que l’art est « éternel » [41]. Ce qui était promu comme de l’art « osé » et « scandaleux » était selon Lewis « mièvre », « domestiqué » et « ridicule », « rien de cela ne pouvant accélérer le pouls d’un lapin » [42]. Apparenté à cette pseudo-révolution est le « culte de l’enfant », artistiquement exprimé dans « le culte du primitif et du sauvage » de Gauguin, par exemple [43].

Démocratie

L’antipathie de Lewis envers la démocratie est enracinée dans sa théorie du Temps. Dans Men Without Art [Hommes sans Art], il écrit que la Démocratie est hostile à l’excellence artistique et encourage « les standards de souscription du box office et des bibliothèques » [44]. L’art, au contraire, est éternel, classique. La démocratie hait l’intellectuel et le prend pour cible, parce que l’« esprit » est aristocratique et insultant pour les masses. C’est encore une fois la dichotomie du « romantique contre le classique ». Conjointe à la démocratie est l’industrialisation, toutes deux représentant les masses contre le génie solitaire. Le résultat est le « rassemblement des gens en énormes masses mécanisées ». L’« esprit de masse… doit nécessairement parvenir à une taille standard pour recevoir l’idée standard ».

wl-arge_MOEX5.jpg

La démocratie et la publicité font partie intégrante de cette dégradation, et derrière tout cela se trouve l’argent, incluant les « bohêmes millionnaires » qui contrôlent les arts. La fabrication d’une image romantique de la machine, qui commença à l’époque victorienne, est le produit de notre « Age de l’Argent ». Le vorticisme, dit Lewis, décrit la machine comme convenant à un art qui observe le Présent, mais à la différence du futurisme, ne l’idolâtre pas. C’est la technologie qui génère le changement et la révolution, mais l’art reste constant ; il n’est jamais en révolte, sauf quand la société promeut des conditions où l’art ne peut pas exister, comme dans la démocratie.

Quand Lewis fait la satire des gens de Bloomsbury, il écrit qu’un gouffre sépare l’élite et les masses, mais que cela n’est pas forcément malveillant envers ces masses :

« L’intellect est plus éloigné de la foule que toute autre chose : mais ce n’est pas un retrait snob, c’est une distanciation pour les besoins du travail, du travail sans son utilité pour la foule (…) ; Plus que le prophète ou l’enseignant religieux, (le chef) représente (…) le grand élément détaché de ce monde, et ceci est la garantie de son utilité. Et il devrait être déchargé de la compétition futile dans tous les domaines mineurs, pour que ses facultés les plus pures puissent être libres pour les tâches majeures de la création intelligente. »

Malheureusement, placer ses idéaux sur le plan de l’activité a pour conséquence la vulgarisation, un dilemme qui fut à l’origine des réserves de Lewis vis-à-vis de Nietzsche. Dans The Art of Being Ruled, Lewis écrit que toute chose contient son « ombre », « son singe et familier ». Lewis parlait encore de ce dilemme dans Rotting Hill [La colline pourrissante] durant les années 50 : « Tous les dilemmes du créatif cherchant à fonctionner socialement sont centrés sur la nature de l’action : sur la nécessité de l’action brutale, de faire appel au barbare pour bâtir une civilisation ».

Révolte du Primitif

Le livre de Lewis Paleface: The Philosophy of the Melting Pot, [Visage pâle : la philosophie du melting-pot], destiné à être une réplique à D. H. Lawrence, fut écrit pour répudier le culte du primitif – l’idéal rousseauiste du « retour à la nature » et du « noble sauvage » – très à la mode parmi les bohêmes millionnaires, comme il l’avait été parmi les intellectuels de salon du XVIIIe siècle. Alors que Lawrence disait que les tribus primitives pouvaient inspirer la race européenne décadente et l’aider à revenir à son propre être instinctuel, un tel « romantisme » était contraire au classicisme de Lewis, avec sa primauté de la raison. Contrairement à Lawrence, Lewis affirme : « Je préférerais avoir une once de conscience humaine plutôt qu’un univers entier rempli d’inspirations ‘abdominales’ subites et d’intenses palpitations mystiques, inconscientes et ‘étourdissantes’ ».

Dans Paleface, Lewis souhaite une caste dirigeante d’esthètes, assez semblablement à son ami Ezra Pound et à son adversaire philosophique Lawrence :

« Nous, [qui sommes] de naissance les dirigeants naturels de l’Européen blanc, ne sommes plus des gens ayant des visées politiques ou publiques (…). Nous, les dirigeants naturels du monde où nous vivons, sommes maintenant des citoyens privés au plein sens du terme, et ce monde est, en ce qui concerne l’administration de sa loi traditionnelle, sans direction. Dans ces circonstances, son âme, dans une génération environ, sera éteinte. » [45]

Lewis s’oppose au « melting-pot » où les différentes races et nationalités ne peuvent plus être distinguées. Une fois de plus, les objections de Lewis sont esthétiques dans leur fondement. Le cadeau du Nègre à l’homme blanc est le jazz, « le médium esthétique d’une sorte de subconscient prolétarien frénétique », dégradant, et poussant les masses à une agitation insensée, un « son massif et idiot » qui est « marxiste ». Nous pourrions comprendre maintenant que c’était le début du processus sur lequel l’industrie de la musique moderne est largement fondée, la musique « populaire » – la musique transitoire du marché de masse – étant centrée sur des rythmes frénétiques souvent accompagnés d’une danse pseudo-tribale effrénée, symptomatique du retour au « culte du primitif », au nom du « progrès ».

Liberté obligatoire

A l’époque où Lewis écrivait Time and Western Man, il croyait que les gens devaient être « contraints » à être libres et individualistes. Inversant certaines de ses idées exprimées dans The Art of Being Ruled, il ne croyait maintenant plus que le besoin des masses à être asservies devait être organisé, mais plutôt que les masses devraient être contraintes à être individualistes, écrivant : « Je crois qu’ils pourraient avantageusement être contraints à rester absolument seuls plusieurs heures chaque jour, et avec une semaine d’isolement complet dans des conditions agréables (disons dans un paysage montagneux), tous les deux mois, cela serait une  disposition excellente. Cela et d’autres mesures coercitives d’un genre similaire, je pense, en ferait des gens bien meilleurs » [46].

On pourrait dire qu’ici encore le processus d’industrialisation et le type de système économique qu’il implique, en même temps que l’urbanisation et la primauté de la City [= le pouvoir financier], sont nécessairement favorables à la création et au maintien d’une masse frénétique et pressée, enfermée dans une broyeuse. Chaque aspect de la vie est soumis au besoin de hâte, même sur le plan gastronomique, sous la forme du « fast food » comme cuisine de l’ère moderne. Le besoin d’heures de travail plus longues s’oppose aux premières attentes, selon lesquelles l’âge de la machine inaugurerait une ère de loisirs où la multitude aurait le temps de réfléchir sur l’art et la littérature, et même de les créer, comme pour les idéaux utopiques des premiers esthètes socialistes tels que William Morris et Oscar Wilde. L’espoir de Lewis que les individus pourraient être un jour contraints à se relaxer dans la solitude, pour qu’ils puissent devenir des individus réels, est plus éloigné que jamais.

Retour en Angleterre socialiste

En 1939, Lewis et sa femme se rendirent aux USA et ensuite au Canada où Lewis donna des cours à la Faculté d’Assumption, une situation qui ne lui causa pas de désagrément, car il avait depuis longtemps un grand respect pour le catholicisme, même s’il ne s’y était pas converti.

wl5042396293_6cac0c8ee7_z.jpg

Lewis, le polémiste impénitent, commença une campagne contre l’abstraction extrême dans l’art, attaquant Jackson Pollock et les expressionnistes abstraits.

Il revint en Angleterre en 1945, et bien que devenu complètement aveugle en 1951, il continua d’écrire. En 1948 son livre America and Cosmic Man [L’Amérique et l’homme cosmique] décrivit les USA comme le laboratoire d’un futur nouvel ordre mondial d’anonymat et d’utilitarisme. Il voyait les USA non comme un pays mais comme une « Cosmopolis » [47]. Il pensait que les Américains étaient voués non au patriotisme national mais à la « fraternité », parce que les Américains sont de « race mêlée », et pour Lewis « la fraternité est plutôt une bonne chose pour laquelle combattre » [48], une combinaison d’« éthique puritaine et de politique révolutionnaire », une leçon donnée au monde sur « la manière d’obliger le lion à se coucher à coté de l’agneau » [49].

wlblast.jpgComme nous l’avons vu, Lewis se moquait paradoxalement de la croyance de Pound au crédit social, mais il était très conscient du pouvoir de l’usure et des « Empereurs de la Dette ». Il examina cela une nouvelle fois en 1948 en écrivant :

« Les intérêts monopolistiques, avec tout le pouvoir dont de tels intérêts disposent, s’opposent à tout changement dans un système vieilli qui a si bien servi leurs buts, et qui a tant d’avantages de leur point de vue, par rapport à un nouveau modèle.

Le royaume de féérie du capital bancaire et de la grandiose usure universelle, d’où un épais brouillard d’irréalité se déverse continuellement dans la politique (…) est un Mystère, dont l’existence même est ignorée par l’homme éduqué moyen…

Tout ce qu’il suffit de dire, c’est que la grande artificialité de la politique, que dans ces pages j’ai tenté de décrire, est au moins égalée, sinon dépassée, par l’artificialité de l’économie. Cela est vrai de l’Angleterre tout autant que de l’Amérique, bien que les Etats-Unis soient maintenant le quartier-général de la finance mondiale. » [50]

Revenant en Angleterre, Lewis reçut une certaine reconnaissance « officielle » lorsqu’il fut chargé d’écrire deux drames pour la BBC et qu’il devint un chroniqueur régulier pour The Listener.

Un poème d’après-guerre, So the Man You Are [Voilà l’homme que tu es], continue sous une forme autobiographique à refléter certains des thèmes favoris de Lewis ; celui de l’individu créatif opposé à l’alliance du troupeau, de la « Haute Finance, et du Bolchevisme » :

 

L’homme que je suis pourrait vendre la sacrée mèche

Si on me donnait des tribunes ! A la racaille

On peut donner toutes les trompettes que l’on veut.

Mais pas à ceux qui ont une langue en or. Le rebord de la fenêtre

Est la seule chaire qu’ils peuvent espérer obtenir.

 

Quel vent un esprit honnête fait-il souffler ? Ne cherchez pas

Un vent de la faucille et du marteau, des cloches et du livre,

Ni le vent d’un parti quelconque, ou soufflant

Depuis une montagne quelconque pour nous parler

De la Haute Finance, ou depuis des contreforts du même genre.

L’homme que je suis ne joue pas le jeu ! [51]

 

Lewis avait le sentiment que « tout était en train de se dessécher » en Angleterre, que « l’extrémisme dévorait les arts et le pourrissement était général à tous les niveaux de la société ». Sur l’Angleterre d’après-guerre, il écrit : « C’est la capitale d’un empire mourant –  ne s’écroulant pas dans les flammes et la fumée mais expirant d’une manière particulière et silencieuse ».

C’est l’Angleterre qu’il dépeint dans sa nouvelle de 1951, Rotting Hill (le nom donné par Ezra Pound à Notting Hill), où vivaient Lewis et sa femme. L’Etat Providence symbolise un mauvais standard d’utilité dans la recherche du bonheur universel. Dans l’Angleterre socialiste, tout devient de qualité inférieure, incluant les boutons de chemise qui ne correspondent pas aux boutonnières, les lacets de chaussures trop courts pour être noués, les ciseaux qui ne coupent pas, et du pain et de la confiture immangeables. Lewis tente de décrire pleinement la grisaille socialiste de la Grande-Bretagne des années 40.

A la différence des littéraires qui se révoltèrent contre la domination de la gauche dans les arts, Lewis finit par soutenir l’idéal d’une culture mondiale surveillée par un Etat mondial central, et d’une humanité qui deviendrait l’« Homme Cosmique », voyant les USA comme le prototype d’une future société mondiale que le reste du monde rejoindrait [52]. Il écrivit sa dernière nouvelle The Red Priest [Le Prêtre Rouge] en 1956. Lewis mourut en 1957, salué par T. S. Eliot dans une nécrologie dans The Sunday Times : « Une grande intelligence a disparu ».

 

Notes

[1] Frederic Jameson, Fables of Aggression: Wyndham Lewis, the Fascist as Modernist (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981), p. 1.

[2] Dans sa préface à l’édition de 1918 de Tarr, Lewis déplore que le nietzschéisme a « transformé en Surhomme chaque épicier vulgairement énergique en Europe ».

[3] William H. Pritchard, Wyndham Lewis (London: Routledge and Keegan Paul, 1972), p. 2.

[4] Wyndham Lewis, The Apes of God (Publisher? 1932).

[5] Bradford Morrow, “A History of an Unapologetic Apologia: Roy Campbell’s Wyndham Lewis,” Blast 3 (Santa Barbara: Black Sparrow Press, 1984), p. 11.

[6] Morrow, p. 11.

[7] E. W. F. Tomlin, “Wyndham Lewis: The Emancipator,” Blast 3, p. 109.

[8] Tomlin, p. 110.

[9] Tomlin, p. 110.

[10] William C. Wees, “Wyndham Lewis and Vorticism,” Blast 3, p. 47.

[11] Wees, p. 49.

[12] Blast 2 (Santa Barbara: Black Sparrow Press, 1981).

[13] Wees, p. 48.

[14] Wees, p. 49.

[15] T. E. Hulme, Speculations (1911), “Romanticism and Classicism” (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World Inc., 1936), p. 114.

[16] Wees, p. 49.

[17] Voir par exemple les idéogrammes chinois illustrant les concepts de confusion et d’ordre social dans le livre de Pound, Jefferson and/or Mussolini (New York: Liveright, 1970), chapitre  XXIX : « Kung », qu’il identifie à l’ordre fasciste. Voir aussi les idéogrammes chinois utilisés dans les Cantos de Pound, LI et LIII.

[18] Wyndham Lewis, Rude Assignment: A narrative of my career up-to-date (London: Hutchinson, 1950), p. 129.

[19] Wyndham Lewis, Tarr (1918) (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1982), pp. 25–26.

[20] Le « Code d’un Berger » peut être trouvé (en anglais) sur : http://www.gingkopress.com/09-lit/code-of-herdsman.html

[21] Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, trans. R. J. Hollingdale (Harmondsworth: Penguin books, 1969), pp. 78–81.

[22] Roy Campbell, “Wyndham Lewis,” Blast 3, p. 15.

[23] Campbell, p. 23.

[24] Campbell, p. 16.

[25] Campbell, p. 18.

[26] Wyndham Lewis, The Art of Being Ruled (London: Chatto & Windus, 1926), p. 111.

[27] Oswald Mosley, My Life (London: Nelson, 1968), p. 225.

[28] Wyndham Lewis, “Left Wings,” British Union Quarterly, January–April, 1937, in Selections from BUF Quarterly (Marietta, Georgia: The Truth At Last, 1995), p. 137.

[29] “Left Wings,” British Union Quarterly, p. 137.

[30] K. R. Bolton, “November 1917: Wall Street & the November 1917 Bolshevik Revolution,” Ab Aeterno, No. 5, October–December 2010 (Academy of Social and Political Research).

[31] “Left Wings,”p. 137.

[32] Pourtant il rejetait le conseil insistant de Pound d’étudier le crédit social de C. H. Douglas, et parlait des « cinglés du crédit » – Lewis, The Hitler Cult (London: Dent, 1939), p. 26, apparemment sans proposer d’alternative pratique à ce qu’il appelait aussi les « Rois du Crédit » et les « Empereurs de la Dette » (Lewis, Doom of Youth [New York, 1932], p. 35).

[33] Doom of Youth, p. 35.

[34] Paradoxalement, Lewis, en dépit de son soutien à Hitler et à Mosley, n’avait jamais soutenu le fascisme italien, le considérant comme du « futurisme politique ». Bryant Knox, “Ezra Pound on Wyndham Lewis’s Rude Assignment,” Blast 3, p. 161.

[35] Lewis, Left Wings Over Europe (London: Jonathan Cape, 1936), p. 165.

[36] Lewis, Time and Western Man (London: Chatto & Windus, 1927), p. 262.

[37] Spengler ne « dédaignait » pas les autres cultures ; il cherchait à décrire leur essence interne comme un observateur détaché.

[38] Time and Western Man, pp. 39–40.

[39] Time and Western Man, p. 42.

[40] Time and Western Man, pp. 51–52.

[41] Time and Western Man, p. 53.

[42] Time and Western Man, p. 53.

[43] Time and Western Man, p. 69.

[44] Wyndham Lewis, Men Without Art (London: Cassell, 1934), p. 263.

[45] Wyndham Lewis, Pale Face: The Philosophy of the Melting-Pot (London: Chatto and Windus, 1929), p. 82.

[46] Time and Western Man, p. 138.

[47] Lewis, America and Cosmic Man (New York: Country Life Press, 1949), p. 18.

[48] America and Cosmic Man, p. 27.

[49] America and Cosmic Man, pp. 30–31.

[50] America and Cosmic Man, pp. 158–59.

[51] Lewis, “If So the Man You Are,” 1948, The Penguin Book of Contemporary Verse (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1965), pp. 73–74.

[52] America and Cosmic Man, “Cosmic Society and Cosmic Man.”

 


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

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/06/wyndham-lewis-2/

URLs in this post:

[1] here: http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/11/percy-wyndham-lewis/

[2] Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Wyndham-Lewis-portrait.jpg

mercredi, 19 novembre 2014

Edward Elgar

Sir_Edward_Elgar_1979.jpg

Edward Elgar

By Jonathan Bowden

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

Editor’s Note:

This is the transcript by L. and D.H. of Jonathan Bowden’s talk on Edward Elgar, which you can listen to with musical examples here [2]. Please post any corrections below as comments.   

We’re here today to talk about Edward Elgar, the great composer of the English renaissance in modern music – by which I mean 20th-century music. There’s an enormous gap in our island’s musicology between Elizabeth’s time when some major, largely Roman Catholic, polyphonic composers like Byrd and Tallis and the first John Taverner and Davenport and others came to the fore, and Henry Purcell. Purcell lived in and around the time of the Great Fire of London from the restoration of the Stuart monarchy after the interregnum of Cromwell and the Civil War until the turn of the 1700s. He died, like Keats, of tuberculosis, so it is essentially believed.

Now, Purcell was a great genius of structure and order and composition and is described somewhat loosely as the English Mozart. Byrd and Tallis looked back through what for them was the modern idiom of polyphony to medieval plainsong and chant and high Christian Catholic music. We factor forward across two centuries basically, from 1700 to 1900, and there is not really an English composer of universal – never mind European – significance.

People come and go, and there are academic composers like Parry and so on towards the end of the 19th century, with whom Elgar was initially compared. But in actual fact, apart maybe from Sullivan’s Irish Symphony in 1864, there is not too much to speak of. What fills the musical landscape of our society during those 200 years is largely French and Italianate musical theater and opera, which, paradoxically, had begun back under the culture of the Puritans in the English Civil War where a lot of theater, including Shakespeare, was banned. But musical performances which were non-liturgical and non-religious were allowed. Therefore, women with large sort of busts and bodices and so on would perform secular pieces on stage, completely at variance with many Puritan ideas, but as long as it wasn’t religious it was okay. And that type of musical dramaturgy dominated our musical life for 200 years. And the view grew up on the continent that during the great era of largely Germanic symphonies, defined principally by Mozart and by Beethoven, we reached a position in England where there really was no music that was at all interesting or of universal import to the European civilization. Certainly, any music that could be talked about was parochial.

Elgar completely redefines the nature of English music, English classical music, and high art music of a British character. He’s also not a lone genius because, partly opened up by his example, there come several generations of composers who contain individuals like John Ireland was heavily influenced by him and Bax and Bliss, who wrote a lot of ballet scores, and eventually Britten and Tippett, despite his Left-wing views, and Birtwistle and Mathias, a Welsh composer of largely choral works, many of them put on by the BBC Third programme as it was. Sir Peter Maxwell Davies at the present day, who looks to post-modernity, but also very early and even pre-Baroque musical styles to draw inspiration from, and then goes back up to the present day again to complete his cycle of eight symphonies and who lives up in the Orkney Islands is a continuation of a tradition that really began with Elgar.

Elgar moves English people in a way that no other composer–certainly none of those that I’ve just mentioned–really does. He speaks emotionally and from the heart and subjectively to the impressionism of the English. There is something slightly magical and indefinable about his musicology, whether people are listening to the sort of imperialist performances like “Land of Hope and Glory,” like “Rule Brittania” orchestrated by him, like Pomp and Circumstance, whether they’re listening to things to do with Victoria’s jubilee, or whether they go much deeper into works like the first two finished symphonies or the third symphony which would be finished from impressionistic notes long after his death by a contemporary, middling, and rather academic composer, or whether they’re listening to Cockaigne or whether they’re listening to The Kingdom or whether they’re listening to the mysticism related to his own personal Catholic faith of The Dream of Gerontius, his music draws English people in, in a way that really words cannot define.

There’s an interesting story that I’d like to share with you just for a moment that shows you the power of Elgar beyond all political and social affiliations as regards Englishness. Tony Banks is, in many ways, a very decadent and Left-wing politician who’s just left the House of Commons saying he despises most of his constituents who happen to live in a part of east London called Newham. Sixty percent of them are black, so I don’t know what that says about Banks’ particular take on all that. But he was a very Left-wing member of the GLC under Livingstone in the 1980s. When Thatcher shut that local authority down for internal political reasons within the British establishment – she didn’t like the way Livingstone was introducing taxes into London and so on, and was under business pressure to do so – the GLC on their final afternoon played Elgar throughout the three or four hours when the bailiffs were coming in to turf them out of what was then County Hall, which is now a private sector tower block.

And they played the Enigma Variations, and you had people like Banks who, in many ways, has been party to political and social programs and processes that have torn most of what this country once was down over the last 30, 40, 50 years – and he’s just one individual. But you have him in tears over the Enigma Variations, which represents the quintessence of Englishness. And you see the power even in the most unlikely places that this music has when it’s particularly manifest in relation to our nationality. There is something about the Worcestershire countryside; there is something about England, greenness and lushness and sweetness and harshness; there is something about the weather; there is something about the insularity both as a source of strength, of imaginativeness, of fairy tale lights, of romantic and imaginative introspection, but also sentimentality which is there in this man’s music and which, really, is in no-one else.

People like Purcell were great composers of the European type who happen to be English, but Elgar is a great English composer who is largely self-created because, unlike Vaughan Williams and unlike Bax who draw on a lot of Celtic folklore – but both of them went back to folk traditions that pre-exist higher or classical forms of white or Indo-European or Aryan music, Elgar created out of his own person; he created for himself in terms of his own deep emotional longing and desires. He also created in a very impressionistic way. After a day’s teaching, for example – because that’s what he did to survive for most of his adult life – he would play on the piano. He would play in an almost sort of stream of consciousness and free association way. He would note things down, how certain conjunctions of the diatonic register, certain forms of tonal composition, would work. He’d play them over to the wife again and note them all down. He’d go away and stick things to the backs of chairs in his study and so on and see that there would be an overlap between that piece over there and this bit over here, and, gradually, the texture of a larger work would be built up step-by-step organically, almost like pottering about your garden essentially in terms of his mental musicianship.

front.jpg

He was a very good violinist, a very good cello player when he was young. He didn’t really master any other instruments, but he became a major conductor of his own and other music, because British music was beginning to burgeon then, as I’ve already mentioned, towards the end of his life. He also hired many individual virtuosi and people who could actually play many of his pieces. It’s important to realize that there were several Elgars and that in many respects he was a very private man. His ultra-Tory politics and imperial manner and “blimpishness” together with figures like Conan Doyle, Kipling, and Rider Haggard and so on, many of whom in that Edwardian and Victorian era he was deeply, personally associated with and was friendly with, can give people the wrong impression about him.

There is a certain Leftist distaste for Elgar or for politics of imperialism with which he began Victoriana and with which he can be associated. But at the end of the day, he was a radical rather than a purely conservative, in the sense of restorationist, figure. He’s a man who wanted to bring forward a deep, romantic sensibility and articulate it through an individual vision of genius. Now “genius” is a concept itself which is unfashionable today, as is beauty, but Elgar believed in both. But true to a lot of English and British visual art, personhood and individual character – character above all – was supremely important. Elgar was, in many peoples’ minds, whether bohemian or otherwise, an eccentric. Amongst anglers, amongst people who like to row, amongst people who like to cycle in the countryside around where he lived, there’s a degree to which even amongst these rather more conventional and slightly staid, inartistic types he always stood out as a bit of an eccentric. Whereas amongst the artists he often brought to them the manner of the Victorian drawing-room and the Imperialist grand-uncle. So he existed as a “straight” amongst the bohemians and as an alternative person amongst people who were on a more conventional and bourgeois register.

Like all artists he existed between worlds, because the great point of an artistic sensibility is observation and analyzing life from without, because although his music is primarily about emotional sentiment, art is not a matter of sentiment. It’s not about emoting or sentimentality. Art is a hard, ultimately, rather than a soft discourse. Deep down it’s more objective than subjective. It’s the objectification which is what art is about, creating objects out of emotion. Science is about the objects of the natural world, of that which can be ratiocinated from the front of the brain, whereas all artistic matters are about emotion and lie deep in the recesses of the back brain in particular. But there’s a science of them, there’s a logic to them, there’s a knowledge of them and how the processes which connect with people’s emotions and are translated into form actually work. And music of all forms – which in some ways is why it’s always the most difficult to talk about in my view – is the form which is beyond all of the others because its language, its semiotic, is universal for all human beings within and beyond race. It’s almost the one art form that can impact on all minds and on all states of consciousness. Apart from the completely tone-deaf and deaf from birth there’s virtually nobody who can’t be moved by music. One pauses to think here that the greatest musician in the European classical tradition is Beethoven who was deaf for a significant proportion of his life and can hardly play properly towards the end, but the music was pure inside, and a lot of it was done by sight in terms of actual reading and close reading of the score. There are musicians to this day who actually relate more to the eye and the text, if you like – they’re textualists – rather than the ear, although for nearly everyone, of course, who works in the area it’s a combination of the two.

Now, Elgar epitomizes certain forms of Englishness which, for a long time, stood rejected at the heart of the continental culture. English music, even its revival, through Bax, through Bliss, through Vaughan Williams, through Ireland, through Tippett, through Britten, through Britten’s operas via Elgar, even looking back to people like Sullivan and Parry and so on, forward to modernists of a certain moment like Birtwistle and not Mathias but certainly Sir Maxwell Davies. Despite all of these and despite the recognition that continental musicology has given to them and large books by Germanic critics like Ernst Naumann have now been written about English music in the 20th century there is still this slight belittling of English musicology in continental sensibility, this sort of view that it’s all a bit Constance Lambert and a bit more, that it’s too saccharine, and it’s too sweet, that it lacks Germanic rigour and harshness, if you like, in these great architectural cathedrals of sound that someone like Bruckner creates, or pure concern with form or the expression of very lurid and over-the-top operatic emotion, that somehow there’s a certain quaintness to it, a certain shyness, a certain internal privacy, a certain softness and sweetness. This is, at times, a continental view of English music.

cover.jpgBut this music that is Elgar’s — which is, racially speaking, a combination of Germanic and Celtic strands musically, within one particular personality — creates a feeling that English people respond to with deep sonorousness in joy and in sadness. And there is certainly joy and power and pageantry in Elgar’s music. But there’s also sadness as well. Because reading the life closely and with an eye upon the text you can really sense that there’s a bit of a sine curve in Elgar’s personality, and there are deep troughs as well as great ecstasies. There is the fact that after a major period of creation like the Second Symphony, he needed to rest up and couldn’t do very much creating for quite long time. After his wife died, I think in 1920 or thereabouts, there’s a great falling away. And apart from occasional pieces – an unfinished opera I think based on King Henry VIII – until his death, there wasn’t too much done. Elgar also realised that after the Great War there had been a high point of what critics would call jingoistic patriotism with which he had become partly associated, let’s be frank. And there was a great falling away of interest in his music during the 1920s. Although no-one, even his detractors, would actually say that he wasn’t very, very significant.

One piece that I would like to talk about in particular is The Dream of Gerontius, which is based upon a personal impression of Elgar’s religious ideas. His Roman Catholicism has never really been pushed that much although no-one’s particularly shied away from it in relation to his own specific biography. But it was there, and in an artistic way it was reasonably central to his life. His Catholicism had very little to do – if not nothing to do – with sectarianism. But what it was, was a personal religious tradition of transcendence, of the belief that you go beyond the body completely, which can lead in that theology to a disrespect for the body.

Now, The Dream of Gerontius is based upon a poem by Cardinal Newman. He was an important convert from the high Anglican Church to the Roman Catholic Church in England in the middle of the Victorian period, indeed the high Victorian period. He led a movement out of the clerisy of Oxford University at the time called first the Oxford Movement and then the Tractarians. To many people this is rather dry and archival and archaeological material, so to speak. But in the Victorian period for somebody important or for a group of people led by Newman to convert from the Anglican dispensation, which has now largely collapsed in our culture. Let’s face it, who listens to Rowan Williams now? For them to go over from that to Rome was an earthquake. It was a decisive change and it set people wondering what was happening to English Protestantism, so to say, in the 19th century.

The most mystical poem of a high Gerard Manley Hopkins type that Newman wrote was The Dream of Gerontius, upon which Elgar bases his particular work. There’s an interesting metaphoricisation of this piece in the Elgar museum, which is a private sector museum based near Worcester. They’re very odd there, if you want to film about all this. You’ve got to pay quite a lot to go in there and so on and so forth. We went round the cottage where he was born which is turned into a museum. But an American contemporary sculptor, modern but traditional in casting, has done a metaphoric vision in stone but in three dimensions obviously of The Dream of Gerontius, and there’s a figure, which is the soul, leaving the corpse, leaving the body after death, and none of us knows what happens technically when a body dies but there’s a certain energy which is obviously in it goes. Because a cadaver is just an inanimate object whereas anything that has organic life in it is so qualitatively different to that which doesn’t, that something which was there is gone. The big question, of course, is where and what energy there was there has gone.

A003913.jpgBut in this particular relief the energy is going up out of the body and there are various sort of devilish, satanic creatures reminiscent of Hieronymus Bosch and so on clawing around the bottom or the pedestal of the sculpture, trying to drag the spirit down into matter, into present day, into the somatic, into the bodily. And there are angels, or angelic figures of some description – because it’s not an explicitly Christian sculpture actually – moving the spirit upwards and outwards and towards the light. And Elgar is always concerned with, if you like, certainly in this piece, a certain lightness and a certain delicacy of touch; strength with delicacy; music in some ways relating to the spirit of dance although he never really explicitly wrote for the dance the way Bliss did with pieces like Checkmate later on, now which have been revived towards the end of the 20th century by sir Vernon Handley and his influence at Liverpool Philharmonic, for example.

Now, I see Elgar as essentially as a deeply individuated and traditional artist who is subjective, emotional, sweet-tempered, slightly melancholic, very, very English, and concerned primarily with transcendence. But there are also great moments of joy and that martial patriotism that the English have and which is a sort of pageantry. I’ve always been struck by elements of English nationalism within the British context and how they differentiate it from the more Celtic parts of the British peoples, such as the Irish, the Scottish, and the Welsh, against their own national feeling. There is in the English a slight softening or understatement of a more radical position and the need emotionally to express a radical feeling of patriotism and self-regard by using perhaps slightly softer tones and terms.

And this is why, in comparison to very militant expressions of national feeling, English people can stand to attention to things with sort of tears in their eyes and tears streaming down their faces and with extreme emotion and, sometimes, with very held-in violence as well that relates to these types of emotional forms that touch them very, very deeply and very much at the heart. It is that sort of belief that you can do an extraordinary thing and you don’t really necessarily want to be praised too much for it, at least in public afterwards. It’s that slight diffidence in the expression of that which otherwise would be radical which characterises partly the depth of Elgar’s music, partly the fact that it’s a certain sense of English sensibility unmasked, and there are certain cultural criticisms of the English viewed outside in that see ourselves, see the English people, as in part wearing a mask. Elgar’s music is the emotional expressiveness of the English people unrepressed and without a mask, with deep sonority relating to private and yet personal experiences of a general, generic character. It is also expressive of the European civilisation in high art music, but it is totally concentrated in the sensibility of these islands.

You can also hear a voice – a musical voice and a musical personality – coming out of this music from first to last. And when BBC Radio 3 in alliance with the Proms at the Royal Albert Hall produced the Third Symphony which is made up from scraps – absolute scraps and notes chucked about his study basically and pasted together by essentially an academic musicologist – immediately people realised it was him living again almost a century later, certainly 70 years later. And that voice, that sensibility, that sureness of note and pitch and tone came through yet again. And although maybe the Third Symphony, in inverted commas, has had much less impact than the first two, never mind the Enigma Variations, never mind The Dream of Gerontius, never mind the personal and impressionistic motifs based upon his friends like Jaeger and, later on, the composer Richter who took him up, notice again the Germanic influence that, although understanding the difference between the English and the Germanic, nevertheless cleaved to the English voice which was new and original and put the music of England and, later, Britain in its entirety back upon the map of European civilisation 200 years after the death of Henry Purcell.

 

 


 

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

 

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/edward-elgar/

 

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Edward_Elgar_posing_for_the_camera_1931.jpg

[2] here: http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/01/jonathan-bowden-on-edward-elgar/

[3] Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/RouseDreamofGerontius.jpg

00:03 Publié dans Musique, Musique | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : jonathan bowden, edgar elgar, musique, angleterre | |  del.icio.us | | Digg! Digg |  Facebook

vendredi, 31 octobre 2014

Rencontre avec James McCearney sur Benjamin Disraeli

Rencontre avec James McCearney sur Benjamin Disraeli et l'impérialisme britannique

 
9782363710819FS.gifAuteur de la biographie : Benjamin Disraeli (Pierre-Guillaume de Roux, 2014)
 
C'est une véritable épopée humaine et politique que retrace James McCearney dans cette biographie consacrée à Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881), le Premier ministre préféré de la reine Victoria. La vie sourd à chaque ligne, les formules sont ramassées et éclatent comme autant de feux d'artifice. On dirait que l'auteur a vécu dans l'ombre même de son héros. Romancier sans scrupule, criblé de dettes, celui qu'on appelle d'abord Ben, puis Dizzy, est sauvé par la politique. Orateur de talent, pragmatique, manœuvrier de génie, il force le destin. Considéré comme un parvenu juif, et le sachant, il ne s'en impose pas moins comme la « voix » du parti conservateur auquel il dessine un nouveau visage, national et populaire. Mieux : il le hisse au sommet en lui redonnant le pouvoir. Jamais abattu, Disraeli a marqué son siècle et l'Histoire. Il revit ici merveilleusement, dans cet ouvrage à lire d'urgence. Surtout par une droite en quête d'elle-même. (P. Maxence, Le Figaro)
 

Rencontre organisée par le Cercle Aristote

Paris, lundi 3 novembre à 20:00 (PAF : 5 €)

Café François Coppée (1er étage) 1 bvd du Montparnasse (métro : Duroc)

 

 

mercredi, 29 octobre 2014

Yeats tra fascismo e aristocrazia

William_Butler_Yeats_by_George_Charles_Beresford.jpg

Yeats tra fascismo e aristocrazia

Lambert O'Manwel

Ex: http://nemicidelsistema.blogspot.com

« Che importa se le più grandi cose che gli uomini pensano di consacrare o esaltare, accolgono la nostra grandezza solo se unita alla nostra amarezza?». Così parlò William Butler Yeats nei suoi versi dedicati alle Case degli avi, nelle meditazioni in tempo di guerra civile. Alla sua amarezza composta, anzi alla sua «virile malinconia» dedicò un saggio giovanile Tomasi di Lampedusa, che anche nel suo Gattopardo subì il fascino di Yeats, quel gran cantore del Mitico Passato.

Sessant’anni fa, il ventotto gennaio del 1939, alla vigilia della seconda guerra mondiale, il poeta irlandese si spegneva all’età di 73 anni. Era nato in un decoroso sobborgo di Dublino da una rispettabile famiglia protestante anglo-irlandese, con le estati dell’infanzia trascorse all’ombra di croci celtiche e rovine di torri nel piccolo porto di Siligo, nella costa occidentale irlandese. Suo padre alternava le sue preoccupazioni «terrene» (era un agrario benestante) con i suoi sogni celesti di pittura. E il giovane Yeats, che a vent’anni aveva già acquisito una buona notorietà per le prime composizioni poetiche pubblicate sulla Dublin University Review, aveva ben presto rigettato lo spirito vittoriano del suo tempo per sposare la tradizione dell’antica Irlanda gaelica, cattolica e romantica.


Yeats può dirsi un tradizionalista lirico, un romantico che amava il mondo antico, un cultore della bellezza cresciuto sulle orme del neoplatonismo e della magia. Da giovane si dedicò in particolare all’occultismo. Fondò la Società Ermetica di Dublino, poi aderì alla società teosofica di Madame Blavatsky e infine fu ammesso all’Ordine del Golden Dawn. Due donne ebbero grande influenza su di lui: Maud Gonne e Lady Augusta Gregory. Ma dello Yeats poeta si conoscono già molte cose; decisamente meno si sa dell’impegno civile e culturale di Yeats in chiave nazionalista, protofascista e rivoluzionario-conservatrice. Un capitolo in ombra, che destò grande imbarazzo, anche perché Yeats era stato insignito del Premio Nobel per la letteratura. Era dunque sconveniente richiamare questa sua passione politica non-conformista.

Yeats sognava un’Irlanda affrancata dalla tutela britannica ed era diventato esponente del movimento radicale feniano della Irish Republican Brotherhood; sono gli anni della sua collaborazione a giornali cattolico-nazionalisti come The Irish Monthly e The Irish Fireside. Nel 1898, Yeats fu nominato presidente dell’associazione nata per celebrare il centesimo anniversario dell’insurrezione di Wolfe Tone. Successivamente Yeats noterà con preoccupazione l’ombra sempre più lunga del radicalismo religioso che si univa ad un nascente spirito cristiano-borghese. A quest’universo, Yeats opporrà una visione eroica, pagana e mitologica dell’Irlanda, un «delirio di valorosi».

La delusione per gli sviluppi del nazionalismo in Irlanda lo porterà a viaggiare, soprattutto in Italia. Fu un amore a prima vista per la civiltà rinascimentale, per Ferrara ed Urbino (due città che fecero innamorare anche Ezra Pound, che egli incontrò più volte in Italia). Da quel confronto con le città italiane, l’accusa agli inglesi e al mondo politico irlandese che aveva lasciato distruggere le grandi residenze di Aran e Galway, «simili ad ogni antica ed ammirata città italiana». Agli inglesi attribuiva la responsabilità di aver distrutto i tratti aristocratici del paesaggio di Connaught.

Yeats divenne successivamente senatore e sostenitore del governo legittimo dello Stato libero sud-irlandese, in seguito al trattato anglo-irlandese del 1921. In quegli anni Yeats teme una propagazione del comunismo in Irlanda, che egli vede come una conseguenza diretta della rivoluzione francese. E si avvicina alla lettura di un conservatore illuminato come Edmund Burke, un controrivoluzionario che era riuscito secondo Yeats a coniugare l’ordine con la libertà. Scrisse Yeats: «Il moto centrifugo che cominciò con gli enciclopedisti e che produsse la Rivoluzione francese e le vedute democratiche di uomini come Stuart Mill, è giunto alla fine... I movimenti che avevano come scopo la liberazione dell’individuo sono risultati alla fine produttori d’anarchia». Al timore di un’epoca di brutalità, massacri e regicidi nel segno della rivoluzione marxista, Yeats dedicò un breve poema, The Second Coming.


L’amore per la tradizione nazionale, la richiesta di ordine, comunità e anticomunismo, spinsero così Yeats sulle tracce del fascismo. Un secondo viaggio in Italia con un lungo soggiorno in Sicilia, lo rafforzò in questa convinzione. Era il 1925. Yeats, che aveva già avuto il premio Nobel, si avvicinò a Roma al pensiero di Giovanni Gentile, a cui si ispirarono molti suoi interventi nel Senato irlandese dedicati alla scuola e all’educazione nazionale. Tornò in Italia altre volte: a Rapallo nel 1928 (luogo nietzscheano e poundiano), a Roma nel 1928 e ancora a Rapallo e Roma nel ‘34.

Nel luglio del 1927 l’assassinio da parte dell’Ira di Kevin O’Higgins, ministro dell’Interno del governo conservatore di Cosgrave, rafforzerà Yeats nella convinzione di fronteggiare con ogni mezzo il bolscevismo e la sovversione. L’anno successivo Yeats lasciò il Senato, esprimendo disprezzo per la democrazia parlamentare. Successivamente espresse sostegno e simpatia per le Camicie azzurre del generale O’Duffy, nate per contrastare i repubblicani dell’Ira dopo la caduta del governo conservatore.


In particolare, Yeats sostenne la necessità di formulare una teoria sociale «da contrapporre al comunismo in Irlanda». Ma il movimento aveva un‘impronta impiegatizia, cattolica e piccolo borghese; mentre il poeta sognava un movimento aristocratico, antimoderno. L’unica vera riserva che Yeats avanzava verso Mussolini era del resto proprio quella: mancava al duce del fascismo un’ascendenza aristocratica. Troppo «popolano». Il suo ideale restava una specie di Repubblica di Venezia, con il governo del Doge e il consiglio dei Dieci.

Nell’ultima opera pubblicata tre mesi prima di morire, On the boiler, Yeats lancia un messaggio alla gioventù d’Irlanda all’insegna del libro e moschetto: educatevi con armi e lettere, esortava Yeats per «respingere dai nostri lidi le prone e ignoranti masse delle nazioni commerciali» (le «plutocrazie», avrebbero detto i fascisti). Poco prima, nella Introduzione generale alla sua opera, Yeats aveva scritto parole terribili di apologia dell’odio che a suo dire avrebbe prima o poi conquistato le menti più forti: «Un’odio indefinito che cova in Europa e che tra alcune generazioni spazzerà via il dominio attuale».

«Odiava la democrazia e amava l’aristocrazia. Per aristocrazia - scrisse di lui Lady Wellesley - egli intendeva la mente orgogliosa ed eroica. Ciò voleva dire anche una furiosa ostilità verso la meschinità, l’approssimazione e l’abbassamento dei valori. Egli si ribellava alla progressiva eliminazione della gente ben nata». Nelle sue idee si ravvisano tracce di Maurras ma anche suggestioni che sembrano appartenere ad Evola. Scriverà: «Io rimango attaccato alla tradizione irlandese... Le mie convinzioni hanno radici profonde e non si adeguano alle consuetudini». La crisi delle forme cerimoniali è per Yeats un segno dell’imminente distruzione del mondo. In questa sua concezione apocalittica prende corpo la sua visione eroica e bellica: «Amate la guerra per il suo orrore - scrive un personaggio delle Storie di Micbael Robartes - così che la fede possa mutarsi, la civiltà possa rinnovarsi». Qui il richiamo alla tradizione celtica, o a volte, sulla scorta di Renan, alla «razza celtica».

Nel cimitero degli antenati dove egli è sepolto, a Drumcliff, è riportata come epigrafe un celebre verso della sua ultima poesia: «Getta uno sguardo freddo su vita e morte. Cavaliere prosegui oltre!».

Alla sua morte, Auden gli intentò un processo sulla Partizan Review, per il suo filo-fascismo. Prese le sue difese George Orwell, nel 1943, che argomenta: «Yeats è sì tendenzialmente fascista ma in buona fede, perché non si rende conto degli esiti ultimi del totalitarismo». Più recentemente Connor Criuse O’Brian ha contestato la presunta ingenuità di Yeats, sostenendo che vi fosse una vera ispirazione fascista in Yeats, una consapevole adesione.

Yeats fu in realtà un viaggiatore onirico del nostro secolo. «Quanto a vivere, i nostri servi lo faranno per noi»

samedi, 04 octobre 2014

Stonehenge a été construit sur l'axe des solstices

 Stonehenge-we-still-dont--007.jpg

STONEHENGE A ÉTÉ CONSTRUIT SUR L'AXE DES SOLSTICES

Une découverte récente de Mike Parker Pearson
Jann Lassalle
Ex: http://metamag.fr

D'après les archéologues, l'ancien peuple qui a construit Stonehenge a choisi le site dans le Wiltshire moderne en raison de sa signification solaire.

Dans ce qui est décrit comme une "pièce manquante du puzzle" dans la compréhension du plus grand site préhistorique d'Angleterre, les fouilles confirment la théorie selon laquelle l'ancienne voie processionnelle a été construite le long d'un relief glaciaire qui était naturellement sur l'axe du solstice, selon le professeur Mike Parker Pearson, un des principaux experts sur Stonehenge: «Le but original du monument reste encore auréolé de mystère, mais c'est un indice très important».
 
 
La voie, connue sous le nom d'Avenue, fait 2.4km de long depuis le monument. Après la fermeture de la route A344, les archéologues ont pu y faire des fouilles pour la première fois. Le Professeur Parker Pearson a identifié des fissures d'origines naturelles qui se trouvaient entre les bords situés le long de la voie.

Le parcours s'étend sur 2.4km de l'entrée nord-est des menhirs à l'Ouest d'Amesbury. Il a été comparé à l'avenue londonienne The Mall menant à Buckingham Palace.

Après la fermeture de la route A344, qui traversait de la voie, les archéologues ont pu y faire des fouilles pour la première fois. Les fouilles ont été menées par le Wessex Archaeology pour l'English Heritage.

Juste en dessous de la surface de la route actuelle, ils ont mis au jour des fossés creusés par les bâtisseurs préhistoriques.

Le Professeur Parker Pearson a identifié des fissures d'origine naturelle qui se trouvaient entre les talus qui longent le tracé de l'Avenue.

Ces talus ont été créés par l'eau de fonte glaciaire et pointent naturellement, dans un sens, directement sur le coucher du soleil en plein hiver, et dans l'autre sens,  sur le lever du soleil au milieu de l'été.

Le Professeur Parker Pearson est enthousiasmé par cet indice, qu'il décrit comme «extrêmement important»: «cela nous en dit beaucoup sur les raisons pour lesquelles Stonehenge est situé où il est et pourquoi ils étaient si intéressés par les solstices. Cela n'a pas à voir avec l'adoration du soleil, une sorte de calendrier ou d'observatoire astronomique. Ce relief naturel se trouve être sur l'axe du solstice, ce qui relie le ciel et la terre en un tout».

Il a expliqué que Stonehenge à tout à voir avec le thème des solstices et nos ancêtres on pu le voir dans le paysage.
 
 
Dans la zone centrale du site, il y a les pierres bleues, avec à l'intérieur des pierres sarsen disposées en forme de fer à cheval. L'élément le plus éloigné du site est l'Avenue qui consiste en deux talus parallèles distants de 12m et des fossés internes. Les flèches rouges montrent comment le solstice s'aligne avec l'Avenue.

Le Dr Heather Sebire, conservateur de Stonehenge de l'English Heritage, a déclaré: «La partie de l'Avenue qui a été coupée par la route a évidemment été détruite pour toujours, mais nous avions bon espoir que l'archéologie en dessous de la route allait survivre. Et ici, nous l'avons: la pièce manquante du puzzle. Il est passionnant de trouver un élément de matériel qui fait officiellement la connexion que nous espérions».

Elle s'attend à ce que les dernières découvertes suscitent un débat académique important, et l'English Heritage n'a pas exprimé une opinion sur les talus formés naturellement, leur interprétation se confinant aux fossés.

La route originale A344 doit être gazonnée au cours de l'année prochaine dans le cadre d'une transformation de ce site du patrimoine mondial, qui attire plus d'un million de visiteurs annuels. Un nouveau centre d'accueil sera ouvert, à 2.4km, pour permettre à Stonehenge de renouer avec le paysage environnant. 

La dernière étude a également permis d'identifier trois trous où les pierres manquantes auraient résidé sur le cercle extérieur du sarsen; preuve, pense-t-on, que le cercle a bien été achevé à un moment donné.

C'est une découverte que même les études les plus sophistiquées n'avaient pas réussi à repérer jusqu'ici. Deux membres du personnel aux yeux d'aigle ont réussi à identifier des surfaces d'herbe sèche.

mercredi, 10 septembre 2014

Mißbrauch in England: Roger Scruton über Rotherham

rotherham-child-abuse.jpg

Mißbrauch in England: Roger Scruton über Rotherham

Posted By Martin Lichtmesz

Ex: http://www.sezession.de

[1]Nun ist die Katze endlich offiziell aus dem Sack, und sie ist so häßlich, daß hoffentlich niemand, der sie zu Gesicht bekommt, ihren Anblick jemals vergessen wird. Die Rede ist von der Tatsache, daß der tausendfache, systematische Mißbrauch von ausschließlich weißen englischen Minderjährigen durch eine Gang von Pakistanis jahrelang aus „politisch korrekten“ Gründen vertuscht wurde.

Ein nun veröffentlichter Report enthüllt: [2]Rund 1400 Kinder und Jugendliche, überwiegend Mädchen, wurden jahrelang verschleppt, vergewaltigt, mißhandelt, verkauft. Etwa 100 Babies gingen aus den Vergewaltigungen hervor, die nach der Geburt auf Nimmerwiedersehen gewaltsam „entfernt“ wurden.

Der Spiegel [3]berichtet:

Zum Teil seien elfjährige Mädchen von mehreren Tätern vergewaltigt, entführt, in andere Städte Englands geschleust, geschlagen und eingeschüchtert worden. Die Taten sollen größtenteils von einer Bande von Männern mit pakistanischen Wurzeln verübt worden sein. Sie vergingen sich dem Bericht zufolge meist an Mädchen – und vereinzelt auch an Jungen – aus sozial schwachen Verhältnissen. Kinder und Jugendliche seien mit Schnaps und billigen Geschenken gefügig gemacht worden, betrunkene Erwachsene seien dann über sie hergefallen.

Viele der Kinder seien auch nach den Übergriffen von den Tätern weiter verfolgt und eingeschüchtert worden. Ein Mädchen sei mit Benzin übergossen und bedroht worden, angezündet zu werden, wenn sie etwas verrate. Einige der Opfer sollen später versucht haben, sich das Leben zu nehmen. Komplette Familien hätten unter den Folgen der Taten gelitten; einige seien daran kaputtgegangen, andere in die Obdachlosigkeit gerutscht. Die Opfer selbst hätten später teils Probleme gehabt, ihre eigenen Kinder zu versorgen.

Wer in der Vergangenheit diesen (teilweise bereits seit 2010 verhandelten) und ähnliche Fälle [4] verfolgt hat, war schon lange über das haarsträubende Phänomen der Deckung muslimischer Sexualverbrechen aus politischen Gründen im Bilde. Ich bin erleichtert, daß die Wahrheit nun auch in sämtlichen Mainstreammedien verbereitet wird.  Hier die Fassung des Spiegels:

Dem britischen „Guardian“ zufolge verwendeten die Beamten viel Zeit darauf, die Aussagen der Kinder und Jugendlichen zu widerlegen, statt ihnen nachzugehen. So mussten die Täter offenbar kaum Verfahren gegen sie fürchten; in den vergangenen zweieinhalb Jahren kam es zu nicht einmal 20 Anklagen, obwohl allein 2013 17 Fälle von Verschleppungen dokumentiert wurden.

Wie ist das Verhalten der Beamten zu erklären? Einige Missbrauchsopfer hatten ihre Peiniger als „Asiaten“ beschrieben. Aus der Furcht heraus, als Rassisten zu gelten, seien die Ordnungskräfte diesen Hinweisen auf die ethnische Herkunft der Täter jedoch nicht oder nur zögerlich nachgegangen, heißt es in dem Bericht.

Bedarf es noch eines krasseren Beleges, wie absurd und kriminell verlogen der in den westlichen Ländern grassierende Wahn der politischen Korrektheit inzwischen ist? Der „Rassist“ ist in der ethischen Skala der Joker, der alles andere sticht, den allseits verachteten Kinderschänder inklusive. Die Furcht davor, als „Rassist“ zu gelten, überbietet offenbar jedes andere Bedenken, bis zu dem Grade, daß die Vergewaltigung von Kindern (die etwa in den Romanen von Dostojewskij als Gipfel des Bösen genannt wird), von Kindern der eigenen ethnokulturellen Gruppe, als das kleinere Übel erscheint.

Wie der amerikanische Netz-Satiriker RamzPaul [5] treffend sagt: es handelt sich hier um eine Art Menschenopfer für den Moloch der „Diversity“.

Auch der bedeutende konservative Philosoph Roger Scruton [6] hat den Fall zornig kommentiert. [7] Die englische Polizei steht seit etwa zwei Jahrzehnten unter dem ständigen Druck des Vorwurfs des „institutionalisierten Rassismus“ [8], der von der Linken routinemäßíg erhoben wird, sobald Farbige in Straftaten verwickelt sind, ob als Täter oder Opfer. Da dies nicht gerade eine Seltenheit ist, ist die Arbeit der Polizei durch diesen politischen Druck erheblich erschwert worden.

Dahinter steht natürlich das Bestreben der Anhänger des Multikulturalismus, dessen Lebenslügen zu bemänteln und sein Versagen zu leugnen – und wie alle Lügen, ob aus guten oder schlechten Absichten, bringen auch diese nur noch mehr Lügen und noch mehr Böses hervor. Rotherham ist bislang der schockierende Tiefpunkt dieser Entwicklung.

Scruton schreibt:

Das Ergebnis all dessen (des politischen Drucks) ist, daß die Polizei zurückweicht, um dem Vorwurf des Rassismus zu entgehen, während die Sozialarbeiter jedesmal zögern, einzugreifen, wenn die Gefahr droht, daß sie eine ethnische Minderheit diskriminieren könnten. Die Lage wird durch den Aufstieg des militanten Islams noch verschlimmert, der das alte Verbrechen des Rassismus um das neue der „Islamophobie“ erweitert hat.

Kein Sozialarbeiter wagt es heute, sich diesem Vorwurf auszusetzen. In Rotherham muß ein solcher Sozialarbeiter verrückt sein, und ein Polizist nicht weniger, wenn er es wagen würde, einem Fall von mutmaßlichem sexuellem Mißbrauch nachzugehen, in dem die Täter orientalische Muslime sind und die Opfer ethnische Engländer. Dann lieber die Sache unter den Teppich kehren, und stattdessen Wege finden, die Opfer, ihre Eltern und ihre Kultur des institutionalisierten Rassismus zu bezichtigen, oder sich dringenderen Problemen zuzuwenden, wie den Unterkunftsbedürfnissen frisch eingetroffener Einwanderer oder den Verkehrsverstößen der rassistischen Mittelschicht.

Scrutons Resümee:

Unglücklicherweise bringt die politische Korrektheit die Leute nicht nur dazu, ihre Überzeugungen zu verschweigen, sondern auch noch gegen sie zu handeln. Stattdessen klagen sie andere an, die sie offen äußern, und unterwerfen sich im allgemeinen der Politik, die den Briten von aktivistischen Minderheiten aufgezwungen wurde.

Diese Aktivisten zielen darauf ab, die alten Formen der sozialen Ordnung zu demontieren. Sie glauben nicht nur, daß unsere Gesellschaft zu rassistisch ist, sondern auch, daß sie viel zu bequem ist, viel zu ungleich, viel zu sehr an alten, kleinkarierten Vorstellungen hängt, die von den untersten Schichten der Gesellschaft – der Arbeiterklasse, den Einwanderer, den Obdachlosen, den Illegalen – als unterdrückerisch und entwürdigend empfunden werden. Ihr enthusiastischer Einsatz für die Dogmen der politischen Korrektheit ist ihre Art, Rache an einer sozialen Ordnung zu nehmen, von der sie sich entfremdet fühlen.

Einfache Menschen werden davon derart eingeschüchtert, daß sie diese Dogmen wie religiöse Mantras nachbeten, in der Hoffnung, daß sie dadurch von Anfeindungen verschont bleiben. Auf diese Weise haben die Briten die gewaltigen Transformationen, die ihnen in den letzten dreißig Jahren – zum Großteil von Aktivisten in der Labour-Partei – aufgenötigt wurden, ohne Widerstand hingenommen.

Sie haben eine Einwanderungspolitik hingenommen, die unsere Schulen mit frustrierten Muslimen aufgefüllt hat, von denen nun viele in Syrien und im Irak gegen uns kämpfen. Sie haben die Ausbreitung islamischer Schulen hingenommen, in denen Kinder zum Dschihad gegen die herrschende soziale Ordnung erzogen werden. Sie haben die Herabsetzung ihres Landes, seiner Institutionen und seiner althergebrachten Religion hingenommen, die allein deswegen geschah, weil diese Dinge ihre eigenen und daher von verbotenen Loyalitäten befleckt sind.

Und wenn am Ende die Wahrheit herauskommt, wird niemand entlassen, niemand verhaftet. Der gewählte Polizei- und Gemeinschaftsbeauftrage für Rotherham weigert sich von seinem Posten zurückzutreten [9], obwohl er die Labour-Partei verlassen muß. Nach ein paar Wochen ist alles wieder unter den Teppich gekehrt, und das Werk derZerstörung kann weitergehen.

Schließlich sei noch angemerkt, daß die Herkunft der Täter wie der Opfer gewiß kein Zufall war und natürlich eine entscheidende Rolle gespielt hat. Daß nur weiße Mädchen ausgesucht wurden, hat wohl denselben Grund, wie wenn hiesige jugendliche Türken- oder Araberbanden bei Vergewaltigungen – ob einzeln, ob als Horde – in der Regel einen großen Bogen um Frauen und Mädchen aus der eigenen ethnischen Gruppe machen: sie würden nicht nur das soziale Gefüge verletzen, das sie trägt, sie müßten sich auch vor den Brüdern der Opfer und sonstigen männlichen Familienmitgliedern hüten, die ihnen mindestens die Eier abschneiden würden. Die Täter von Rotherham werden zudem ohne Zweifel gewußt haben, welche Macht die Rassismus-Keule hat; in der Tat scheinen sie sie gezielt eingesetzt zu haben, um die Mädchen einzuschüchtern und gefügig zu machen.

Der Spiegel berichtet:

Die Mitglieder der pakistanischen Gemeinde in Rotherham zeigten sich angesichts der wenig plausibel erscheinenden Begründung entsetzt: Herkunft, Religion oder politische Ausrichtung sollten niemals einen Mantel des Schweigens über solch groteske Taten legen, teilte ein Sprecher mit.

„Wenig plausibel erscheinende Begründung“! Der Spiegel hat wohl noch nicht mitbekommen, mit welch orwell-artigen Mitteln der „Antirassismus“-Wahn in Großbritannien [10] inzwischen durchgesetzt wird. Davon abgesehen ist es unwahrscheinlich, daß angesichts des Umfangs des Täternetzes niemand in der pakistanischen „Community“ von Rotherham etwas von den Vorgängen mitbekommen hat, geschweige denn unschuldig an der Vertuschung ist. Wahrscheinlicher ist, daß auch hier wieder einmal Blut dicker als Wasser war, wie es in orientalischen Gesellschaften ohnehin die Norm ist. Das Ausmaß der Mitwisserschaft war wahrscheinlich ziemlich groß.

In der Tat dürfte die den weißen Briten abhanden gekommene ethnische Gruppensolidarität keine geringe Rolle dabei gespielt haben, daß die Täter solange unbehelligt blieben, während ihre Opfer umso hilfloser und sozial isolierter da standen. Der Telegraph berichtet: [11]

Simon Danczuk, Parlamentarier der Labour-Partei (…)sagte, daß eine Kultur der Einschüchterung und der Klüngelei innerhalb der orientalischen (asian) Gemeinschaft seit Jahren die Politik in nordenglischen Städten korrumpiere.  Orientalische Stadträte stünden unter ständigem Konformitätsdruck seitens ihrer Gemeinschaften, während andere Politiker mit der Drohung, als „Rassisten“ abgestempelt zu werden, zum Schweigen gebracht werden, weshalb sie sich weigerten, die Beweise für den Mißbrauch zur Kenntnis zu nehmen.  (…)

Der Skandal von Rotherham und eine Serie von Fällen in anderen Städten wie Rochdale zeigen, wie Indizien, die auf den gezielten Mißbrauch weißer Mädchen durch pakistanische Männer hinwiesen, aus Angst vor Rassismusvorwürfen wiederholt unterdrückt wurden. (…)

Mr. Danczuk sagte, daß die Elemente der pakistanischen politischen Kultur selbst zum Teil für die Vertuschung verantwortlich waren. „Die Art, wie Politik innerhalb der orientalischen Gemeinschaft verhandelt wird, ist ein kulturelles Problem, das gelöst werden muß“, sagte er. Er selbst sei persönlich von orientalischen Stadträten und Mitgliedern der Gemeinschaft genötigt worden, zu schweigen. Zudem sei er von prominenten Vertretern seiner Partei gewarnt worden. (…)

„Politik wird in Pakistan anders verhandelt, und diesen kulturellen Unterschied haben wir zum Teil in diese Städte im Norden importiert. Ich denke, daß wir es uns nicht länger leisten können, davor die Augen zu verschließen.“ (…)

Die orientalische Gemeinschaft sei von einer Mentalität des „Schaut nach den eigenen Leuten“ geprägt, die von anderen Politikern hingenommen wird.

 Nicht nur dies, auch die Praxis der Vergewaltigung und der Frauenverachtung selbst scheint Teil dieser „pakistanischen Kultur“ [12]zu sein (siehe dazu auch diesen Kommentar mit vielen weiterführenden Links [13]).

Nun klopfen sich viele Linksliberale in England auf die Brust [14] und vergießen Krokodilstränen über ihre gutmenschliche Blindheit. Was wird sich nun ändern? Wird man Konsequenzen aus all dem ziehen? Werden die „Rechten“, die seit Jahren auf Sexualverbrechen durch muslimische Täter hinweisen, ab nun nicht mehr verfemt und angehört werden? Wird man endlich erkennen, daß man das Gewicht „kultureller Unterschiede“ und die Macht der Gruppensolidarität unterschätzt hat, und darum eine „multikulturelle Gesellschaft“ zum Scheitern verurteilt ist? Daß am Ende die Schwächsten als Kollateralschäden den Preis für eine verlogene, realitätsferne Ideologie und Utopie zahlen müssen? Daß die säuselnden Priester der „Vielfalt“ die Wölfe in ihre Länder gelassen haben? Daß sie mit Sprengstoff hantieren und mit Giften, deren Folgen sie nicht ausbaden müssen?

Wohl kaum. Es wird weiterhin Blut für „Buntheit“ und „Vielfalt“ fließen. Es wird weiterhin gelogen, unter den Tisch gekehrt, erpreßt und eingeschüchtert werden. Feigheit und Opportunismus werden erneut siegen, wie Roger Scruton vermutet. Die weißen Völker Europas sind heute so naiv, blind und wehrlos wie die „Eloi“ des H.G.Wells [15], einfache Beute und Futter für die Morlocks.

Apropos Ferguson [16] schrieb Michael Klonovsky [17]:

Mit seiner Rassismus- und Diskriminierungs-Selbstbezichtigung hat sich der Westen in Gott weiß wie nobler Absicht eine Schlinge um den Hals gelegt. Dass es auch um ihren eigenen Hals geht, werden diejenigen, die sie täglich enger ziehen, womöglich erst merken, wenn es zu spät ist.

(Literatur: Martin Lichtmesz – Die Verteidigung des Eigenen, 3. Auflage, soeben erschienen, hier einsehen [18])

Article printed from Sezession im Netz: http://www.sezession.de

URL to article: http://www.sezession.de/46164/missbrauch-in-england-roger-scruton-ueber-rotherham.html

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://www.sezession.de/46164/missbrauch-in-england-roger-scruton-ueber-rotherham.html/dieversityinaction

[2] Ein nun veröffentlichter Report enthüllt: : http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/downloads/file/1407/independent_inquiry_cse_in_rotherham

[3] Spiegel : http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/rotherham-missbrauchsskandal-erschuettert-englische-stadt-a-988887.html

[4] ähnliche Fälle: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10146369/Oxford-sex-grooming-gang-jailed-for-life.html

[5] RamzPaul: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFXP33Q3JsA&list=UUIibK0GTXCaQCAamJAepm1g

[6] Roger Scruton: http://www.sezession.de/44910/fuehle-lokal-denke-national.html

[7] zornig kommentiert.: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerscruton/2014/08/30/why-did-british-police-ignore-pakistani-gangs-raping-rotherham-children-political-correctness/

[8] „institutionalisierten Rassismus“: http://www.sezession.de/29704/stephen-lawrence-und-der-institutionelle-rassismus.html

[9] weigert sich von seinem Posten zurückzutreten: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/29/rotherham-pcc-ability-safeguard-children-questioned

[10] orwell-artigen Mitteln der „Antirassismus“-Wahn in Großbritannien: http://www.sezession.de/schlagwort/grossbritannien

[11] Der Telegraph berichtet:: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11066646/Rotherham-politics-imported-from-Pakistan-fuelled-sex-abuse-cover-up-MP.html

[12] „pakistanischen Kultur“ : http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/the-war-bangladesh-can-never-forget-8501636.html

[13] diesen Kommentar mit vielen weiterführenden Links: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2014/08/crock-of-shock-liberal-responses-to-vibrant-depravity/

[14] viele Linksliberale in England auf die Brust: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11059643/Denis-MacShane-I-was-too-much-of-a-liberal-leftie-and-should-have-done-more-to-investigate-child-abuse.html

[15] „Eloi“ des H.G.Wells: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Zeitmaschine

[16] Ferguson: http://www.sezession.de/46127/die-fergusoniade-der-ernstfall-und-die-medien.html

[17] Michael Klonovsky: http://www.michael-klonovsky.de/acta-diurna

[18] hier einsehen: http://antaios.de/gesamtverzeichnis-antaios/reihe-kaplaken/1110/die-verteidigung-des-eigenen.-fuenf-traktate

[19] : http://www.unesco.de/1121.html

[20] : http://derstandard.at/2000005030826/Skandal-von-Rotherham-weitet-sich-aus

[21] : http://www.fdp.de/Integration/402b146/index.html

[22] : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qTY6-xKHpM&list=RD4qTY6-xKHpM#t=2

[23] : http://www.welt.de/print/die_welt/politik/article131739980/Die-perverse-Kehrseite-des-Multikulti-Kults.html

[24] : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2326352/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-Peter-Mandelson-admits-Labour-brought-migrants-losing-working-class-votes.html

[25] : http://sterlingely.argentumstudio.com/files/2011/04/Time-Singularity-Curve.jpg

[26] : http://www.migrantsrights.org.uk/blog/2013/04/what-was-thatcher-s-legacy-immigration

[27] : http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthy-%C3%84ra

[28] : http://

[29] : http://www.blauenarzisse.de/index.php/anstoss/item/4865-barbaren-feiglinge-und-frauen

[30] : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wartime_sexual_violence

dimanche, 24 août 2014

Communism, Nihilism, Neoism, & Decadence

Stewart Home: Communism, Nihilism, Neoism, & Decadence

By Jonathan Bowden

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

Editor’s Note:

[1]The following text is a transcript by V.S. of one of Jonathan Bowden’s most entertaining lectures, which was delivered to the 25th New Right meeting in London on February 13, 2010. Although Stewart Home is the principal subject, Bowden romps through a wide field of politically correct theories, ultra-Left sects, and decadent forms of modern art.

In editing this transcription, I introduced punctuation and paragraph breaks. I also deleted a couple of false starts and added the first names of some figures.You can listen to the lecture at YouTube here [2]. Several bits were unintelligible and are marked as such. If you can understand these words, please post a comment below.

BowdenDemon.jpgI’d like to talk about Stewart Home: communism, nihilism, neoism, and decadence. I’ve given three talks on the extreme Left. One is called “Marxism and the Frankfurt School and the New Left [3].” Another was called “The Totalitarian Politics of Nineteen Eighty-Four [4].” And another one was about the concept of brain-washing and the use by the North Koreans and the Chinese of behaviorist techniques, particularly on prisoners in the Korean War—a totally forgotten struggle now—and a novel by an Italian-American called Francis Pollini [5] that was based on those events.

Stewart Home is an incredibly obscure figure who is on the margins of the cultural avant-garde, so I’m going to come to him towards the latter stages of the talk when I’ve dealt with some of the building blocks to begin with.

Most conservatives, with a small “c,” look around Western European countries like Britain today and wonder why they’re living in a mildly, but evidently Left-wing society. They wonder why they’re supposed to have won, but have actually lost. As they look around them, everything’s changed from what it was 40 to 50 years ago—every normative social value and experience—and they wonder why that has occurred.

There are many reasons for why it’s occurred, but one is the complete containment and taking over of the cultural space by what we’ll call cultural Marxism or Marxian ideas or soft Left ideas or post-communist ideas and their march through the institutions after the 1960s. But it didn’t just happen then. It had been prepared much earlier in the 20th century.

Marxism is a doctrine—before Lenin added the conspiratorial element of a vanguard party that seizes power with its paramilitary wing in a declining state—that originates from the middle of the 19th century and has a refutation of idealistic and utopian socialisms, some religious, some secular that preceded it. Marx believed that he had a science of history, that the thing was prior and determined, that history could be read like a runic pattern or the pattern of a Persian carpet, and he was the master of the dialectic that would determine humanity’s future. We now know that the nightmarish regimes that were created across the planet in the 20th century on the basis of some or all of his ideas failed, and most of them have been destroyed. But their legacy is still here.

Clare Short’s got a bit of the witness at the moment in the liberal press because of her appearance at the Chilcot Inquiry. She said something very interesting when the Soviet Union collapsed. She said, “Communism is over, but Marxism is not.” That’s a very prescient remark, because what’s happened in the Western world is that the idea that everything is economically predetermined in Marxian theory, that everything has a social dynamic which is structured and physical at the basis of economic life and it is materialistic, has been changed.

It was changed at the beginning of the 20th century by an Italian communist theorist in prison called Antonio Gramsci. He had the idea that the superstructure and the base—that which was beneath and economic and material, that which was above and philosophical and cultural—can be disjoined. They can be separated and teased apart. That’s actually a heresy in classical Marxism. But it enabled an enormous vista of struggle to be opened up right across academic, artistic, intellectual, and media-related life right across the West.

Part of the Left disengaged from the politics of vanguardism and engaged in what is now largely called cultural struggle. One of the great weaknesses of all forms of conservatism—whether Gaullism in France or Republicanism in the United States or Christian Democracy in Germany and Italy and elsewhere—is their refusal to fight cultural struggle, their refusal to believe that their enemies were in deadly earnest.

In the 1960s, persons who were regarded as “reactionary,” particularly in the academy, used to laugh at a lot of what was occurring. It was almost a joke. I’m sure most people are aware of that satire called Porterhouse Blue by Tom Sharpe which is based upon Peterhouse College, Cambridge of all these reactionary and ultra dons, people like Maurice Cowling, people like Roger Scruton who were associated with that college. They are metaphysical or deep blue conservatives, illiberal conservatives, people who were right on the edge of the conservative range of opinion before the far Right begins, as far as you can go within the mainstream, basically.

Those individuals—and I knew Cowling once (he’s dead now)—didn’t give in. But in a way they didn’t understand that in order to fight back against the tidal wave of Leftist ideas throughout the ‘’20s, ’30s, ’40s, ’50s, and thereafter you had to go further out ideologically, even if you weren’t prepared to make organizational commitments, even if it turned to fellow-traveling. You had to use Far Right ideas, even if you didn’t call them that, to fight against the Left in its militancy. Basically, conservative academics from Michael Oakeshott onwards refused to do so, absolutely refused to do so, and in doing so they basically put the noose around their own neck in relation to the forces that were coming.

Because their enemies were in deadly earnest. They wanted to transform the mindset of Western societies, and the way that they configured to do that wasn’t through vanguard parties, although they supported them, wasn’t through doctrines of social revolution, although they may have residually supported that. It was by changing the grammar that people used to think with at the advanced level.

Bowden-West-Cover-medium-e1397245147546.jpgStrangely for militant egalitarians, they used an extreme form of cultural elitism. You take the universities; you take the dons and the academics in the universities; you take the people who mark the PhDs that provide the methodology of attainment through which you get a don at the university. You then replicate that through all male and female students at the first, second, and third levels of tertiary education, never mind the people coming up from the secondary level.

As egalitarian education has been spread, we’re going to have a society where 30-50% go to university; there’s the University of Slough, which used to be the Poly in the Thames valley. You can do degrees in hair-dressing. You can do degrees in golf studies. You can do degrees in anything! You know, you send this away to a P. O. box number in Edinburgh, and in a couple of weeks it’s packaged, and you get a PhD in nuclear physics, then straight back in the post! This is the way it’s going!

There are a few upper-class people now who refuse to go to university. Princess Diana refused to go, partly because she wasn’t too bright, but also because it doesn’t have any social cache anymore, because if everyone goes it’s got no kudos. This is the idea! If everything is degraded, do you want to eat the bread that’s been in every other mouth?  This is the thing about egalitarian ideas.

The plan of Leftist subversion, which is a wave of academics in all sorts of areas, not necessarily networked, not necessarily doing it in relation to each other, but doing it in relation to the logic of their studies. They do it in discourse after discourse.

They do it in economic theory, which before John Maynard Keynes was classical liberal methodology, Alfred Marshall being the last of that particular school, revived by F. A. Hayek and Milton Friedman in the middle of the 20th century as a dissident current that would then come back. Keynes comes first, and Marxist economists like Professor Joan Robinson at Cambridge come later.

Then you go to anthropology. The first great textbook of anthropology is Arthur de Gobineau’s book, The Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races. This begins anthropology as a subject. This is a “racist” text. Anthropology is the science, or semi-science, that always has to deny its first text, because its first text is now so offensive in relation to all of the discourses that have come after. From the early part of the 20th century, you get the growing up of various discourses which are called social or socialized anthropology: the idea that race has nothing to do with anthropology, when race is the periodic table of anthropology and is the taxonomy of the human within that particular academic discipline. You reach a situation where by the 1970s if a don at, say, the University of Sussex, an ultra-Left institution on the south coast, said that there were cardinal racial differences in intelligence between people, there would have been an absolute riot on that campus, an absolute riot which would have had to have been controlled by the police and the authorities.

One thing the Left realized throughout the 20th century is that people who are very mental and people who are very abstracted in terms of their intellect can be physically intimidated very easily. The mind and the body are so split in Western life that all you have to do is have a small mob wave their fists at a couple of dons, and they’re prostrated, and they can’t do anything, and they’re in fear of their lives, and they will write in a different way afterwards. Trotsky said in a pamphlet called The Necessity of Red Terror, which was published in 1917, that you shoot a thousand to intimidate a million. But all you need to do at many universities is lob a brick through on Fresher’s day, and people are frightened to discuss and to write about and to theorize about whole sets of ideas.

Everyone knows that there is a spectrum since the French Revolution of far Left, moderate Left, center, moderate Right, radical Right views. Since about 1968, the radical Right chunk—which is to the Right of Oakeshott, Scruton, and Cowling—has been broken off and cannot be talked about other than as critique. You can talk about how you detest these ideas. You can talk about how evil and wrong they are. You can talk about how mistaken they are. But they can’t be adumbrated in and of themselves.

This is complicated because there are certain academies, such as the French one, where that’s not always true, and this is because in France there was a very powerful intellectual fascist tradition—essentially, that’s what it was—which goes right through to today and even to the New Right. There’s a degree to which in the Sorbonne in the ’70s you could see a poster saying, “Drieu La Rochelle: lecture this afternoon.” He committed suicide of course after the war because he was a collaborationist intellectual with Otto Abetz and other people in the German cultural ministry in Paris in occupied France at that time.

So, it’s not uniform. These things are process led and dynamic. It doesn’t just happen in economics and anthropology. It happens in psychology. It happens in sexology. It happens in English literature. It happens in the creation of new discourses such as cultural studies, which is the dissemination of ideas about mass culture. And it happens in critical theory.

Critical theory is a viewpoint that’s grown up across the arts and across the humanities and even into areas of law like criminology, which can also be considered to be one of these “ologies,” one of these subjects, and other areas of history of art, aesthetics, in philosophy courses, philosophy itself and so on.

The Anglo-American world, of course, had an empirical view of philosophy largely since Hobbes, but certainly since Russell in the 20th century, and a hostility to European philosophy which meant that there was less Marxist influence here. But the trouble with Bertrand Russell’s type of philosophizing is that it doesn’t believe that any of the big questions can be answered, and therefore philosophy itself becomes slightly pointless, and a cul-de-sac where you discuss the language you use to arrive at a concept to which there are multiple interpretations and of which you are forever unsure. In and of itself, that’s the preparation—this radical, tepid uncertainty—which leads from conservatism to liberalism and from liberalism to something that’s a bit more certain and lies to the Left of it.

Everything in Western societies has moved to the Left throughout the 20th century. I am not a Christian, but you could argue that after Vatican II many Catholics became Protestants; many Protestants became liberals; many secularist liberals who are ex-Protestant moved further to the Left and adopted views that they would have regarded as semi-extreme in the past as long as they were not connected to physical force, militant working class politics, vanguardism, and the absolute politics of communism.

You have many Left-wing liberals now who have views which are to the Left of hardcore communists in the ’20s and ’30s, and they don’t realize that and they’re horrified by the atrocities of Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot and all the others. But what they don’t realize is that they have imbibed a doctrine of totalitarian niceness and squeaky clean correctness about these concepts, which existed in the way that their minds were attuned to before they became conversant with it.

This march through the institutions has also been a march through the media, because when you have an intellectual clerisy it tends to control the conceptual ideas in the society and the way that society talks to itself in modernity is through the media, and also propaganda and ideas about how you talk to the media. Most polytechnics, or post-polytechnics now—because polytechnics were once vocational institutions, of course dominated by people who tended to support the Labour Party—have now been upgraded to new universities or universities have been downgraded to new universities which are polytechnics, because if all have a degree what does it mean?

PulpFacism-Bowden.jpgIn America, you can go to a university and, outside the Ivy League, you don’t necessarily have to have the qualifications to get in. So, you have a remedial course. There’s a considerable number of people from certain types of racial minorities in those remedial courses—taught to do English, taught to do math, and then they do sports science or sports psychology. They won’t be doing physics. They won’t be doing mathematics. They won’t be doing metaphysics. They won’t be doing Shakespeare.

There are certain colleges now that have votes about whether Shakespeare should be on the English course. But that’s a mistake, you see, because democracy is always a mistake! When hardline Marxists allow the students to vote, the students, even though they’re liberal, often come up with more conservative results than what the professors want! That’s the logic of vanguardism: you don’t allow them to decide. You say Shakespeare is a reactionary Elizabethan bigot with undue essentialist notions that you shouldn’t permit!

The notion of essentialism has come in in the last 30 to 40 years in relation to great fads in intellectual life. It has to be understood that for the last 100 years or so all mainstream, hardcore, Western intellectual developments have been atheistic. They’ve taken atheism as read, not as something to be debated. The first great ideology after the war was existentialism, which contained many elements including a dissentient far Right strand as well.

Existentialism was replaced by a new creed, fad, wave of history, whatever you want to call it, called structuralism, which relates to ideas at the beginning of the 20th century called formalism. Then people got bored with structuralism. Structuralism was around at the time of the student revolts in the late 1960s. Not totally a Left-wing idea, but in a way bent towards the Left by certain ideas. If the revolutionary Left on campus couldn’t take an idea as read they would turn it around. Hegel was not a Left-wing thinker, but Left-wing Hegelianism emerged. Marx was part of a group of Left Hegelians with Engels. They used to meet in a beer cellar prior to the German revolution in 1848 to discuss Left theory. Similarly, Left structuralism begins to emerge, particularly with Claude Lévi-Strauss in anthropology and with Ferdinand de Saussure in linguistics.[1] These ideas relate to certain currents in modernist art in particular in the late 19th and early 20th century. If we approach this subject area we get a bit closer to Home, who nominally is the hook that I’m hanging this particular talk on.

You can’t do English at a contemporary British university—certainly outside Oxbridge, where there’s just a received canon—and not come across critical theory. Critical theory is based upon a notion called deconstruction, and most people who are intellectually minded have heard the word deconstruction somewhere floating around, floating in the back pages of The Observer color supplement, that sort of thing. They’ve heard the word.

Deconstruction is another word for post-structuralism, which is the ideology or the new fad that replaced structuralism in the ’60s and ’70s. It’s most closely associated with a thinker called Jacques Derrida, who wrote a number of books basically saying that history doesn’t exist, that biology doesn’t exist, that the writer of a text does not exist. There is only the text. There is only the grammar of the text. A painting can be a text. A poster can be a text. A film can be a text. Only the text. Nothing but the text.

It’s the view that essentialism leads to the gates of Auschwitz, which is repeated again and again as a mantra within these particular courses. They believe that any prior identity—say the statement “men and women are different,” the John and Joan book, you know, a child says, “Men and women are different”—wrong on every account! Prior essentialist agenda, revolutionary, sub-genocidal reactionary ideologies in relation to the specification of male and female. Don’t you know men and women are interchangeable? Don’t you know that they are the same? If somebody says, “But don’t they have different brains?” “Lies put about by eugenicists linked to reactionary and essentialist ideas!” Again re-routed to the ovens. “Listen to your theory!”

Of course, in these areas, to think differently from the nature of this theory is impossible, because you will not finish the course. You will not even get a 2.1, which is the sort of median level for your average student, in that course if you don’t go along with this.

Some of this thinking relates to Western ideas that go very far back, because in medieval scholasticism there’s a doctrine of hermeneutics whereby you analyze the text of the text of the text. You look inside it to see the hint of the divine which is there. And some of these ideas actually do come out of that particular trajectory. So, in some ways it’s a very ancient thing that’s been repositioned and been reused for hostile purposes. Only the core theorists in this area, Deleuze, Guattari, Derrida, and others, would actually know that is the case.

When the Enlightenment and modern scientific rationalism began and they argued that the schoolmen were concerned about the number of angels that danced on the top of a pin and philosophy was about natural process and law of nature as the Greeks believed 2,000 years before, 1,500 years before their postulations of course, there was a degree to which they’d thought they had got rid of that type of thinking. But interestingly, that type of thinking, which in some ways is very “reactionary,” has come back through these New Left ideas.

The one thinker who is partly outside all of this and has a special status as a monster within the 20th century is Martin Heidegger. Now, Martin Heidegger was an extreme essentialist and was a religious thinker who was highly influenced by these ideas of extreme hermeneutics and the peeling away of the onion of the text. Heidegger has one book that is 400 pages saying, “What is thinking?” or “What is the nature of thinking?” Heidegger wrote 80 books, all 80! Most of which have never been released.[2]

Although Heidegger is one of the most radical thinkers of the 20th century, Heidegger’s political affiliation, if only for a year between 1933 and 1934, has meant that in a sense he has become an unperson. After the war, when he was allowed to write and continued to write he used to write in the Black Forest. He had a wooden cabin in the Black Forest, and he used to commune in this particular woodland fastness, this shed almost, with nature and by himself in pure theory.

A lot of these ideas are based upon pure theory. They are based upon the idea that the bourgeois—the enemy in Marxian terms—goes to life with common sense. The Marxist goes to life with his theory! Only if you see the veil of theory before reality, the pink prism through which reality is refracted, only then can you be in history; only then are you truly alive, because you’re interpreting the dialectic of future knowledge.

Now, the irony is that these communistic systems that statally imposed these ideas on people have all collapsed. People who lived in Poland during Gomułka and other regime leaders had to do Marxist-Leninism four times a week, just like the Catholic schools that these schools replaced, where we did religion four times a week. They did Marxist-Leninist theory four times a week.

There was a Far Left party in Britain called the Revolutionary Communist Party, which was a split from the Socialist Workers’ Party, a so-called Rightist deviation within Marxist-Leninism. In 1986, they set exams for their cadres. You had to do exams on Grundrisse and Groundwork and Kapital volume I, volume II, volume III to pass exams on this sort of material just like in Poland.

bowden7.jpgPeople imposed this on themselves internally within the West, and yet historically these ideas have lost. These ideas have come crashing down as statal and political and architectural structures. Yet in the minds of elite Western academics, the softer non-vanguard version of these ideas are alive and well and kicking and are in control.

It’s largely true that most artistic departments—used as a term for the humanities and the social sciences—across the board are in the hands of the West’s most ferocious ideological opponents inside the West, mentally. Not necessarily in terms of how people live their lives and so on, but in terms of what they accept.

The worst ideas in the world are some of the ideas in this room from the perspective of these sorts of people! And they know what they are against, although most of them are in a sense more coherently in favor of what they’re for. Most Left-wingers and liberals, like Tony Blair, begin with the first thing Blair ever did, which was to go on an anti-National Front march. The first moment was negative. He knew what he was against almost before what he knew what he was for. But many of these people actually know what they’re for as well, and what they’re for is a world without any prior signification.

Deconstruction is the idea that you have a text before you, and this text has a system of rhetoric which is related to the personality of an individual author, but the author doesn’t exist. It’s just a text. It’s just a signification. What you do is split the power of the rhetoric, the oratory, the nature of the language used, the control of the phrases used, the essentialist markers that delimit the promiscuity of linguistic and moral choice, and you deconstruct them. You open up the field of signification so that language can flow freely in its joy and in its meaningless splendor. This is called jouissance, the joy of deconstructing the text so that it reveals its anti-essentialist possibilities when the crypto-fascistic moments of identity in it have been removed, and this is what they do.

They will take an author like Céline, who is a French National Socialist essentially, if words have any meaning, and they will say, “This anti-Semitic statement shows the insecurity of a lower middle class background. He obviously wets his bed. He was beaten by his father.” They will deconstruct every particular notification. Actually, this is a philo-Semitic text, which loves foreigners, which loves homosexuals, and is egalitarian! The whole point of deconstruction is that you reverse the meaning of the text.

But these ideas have their dangers, because there are certain things that liberals believe are sacred, and there are certain things that they believe shouldn’t be deconstructed and are beyond deconstruction. One of the primary deconstructive figures, who wasn’t necessarily a Leftist, was a man called Paul de Man, who was head of English and Philosophy, head of the Yale school of deconstruction at this Ivy League college. Ivy League college, Yale, has a school of deconstruction![3] Yes, it does! Acting against the West in order to affirm the negation of its identity. This is the sort of thing it said.

Now, Paul de Man was head of philosophy there, but Paul de Man had a secret past far worse than beating his wife or something like that. Paul de Man was a collaborator in occupied Belgium and was a minor member of the Rexist movement with Léon Degrelle. It was all very serious. And he also wrote some articles for a magazine like Scorpion shall we say, but it was in occupied Belgium at the time, so it was a bit more serious.

When it was discovered that he had this past, the whole of the movement of deconstruction gathered at the University of Alabama in the Deep South of the United States to discuss this unfortunate recrudescence of essentialism in the life and time of their chief American guru. Derrida came up with a remarkable wheeze. He said that because there were articles on the one side of the page of these collaborationist journals that were more extreme than what de Man had written, de Man was actually protesting against the extremism of the rival and mirror-reflected text with his own understated fascism, therefore revealing that he was in internal critical protest at the nature of this foul language and this sort of thing. Foul language in another way.

Interestingly, deconstructionism and post-structuralism have never survived this particular revelation, and it’s not fallen off a cliff, but it’s much less fashionable now than it was. It’s also begun to be attacked by certain hard Leftists who are more materialistic, more pro-science and so on and don’t agree with this type of what they consider to be empty and rather vacuous theorizing. So, there’s been a certain revisionism.

Not all of these ideas have it their own way. There often outliers who are dissentient. They’re often critics within the system as well as without who are progressive. You can only criticize progress if you are yourself a progressive. This is part of the deal. So, there are progressive critiques of this sort of thing. Lévi-Strauss loathed elements of modern culture, loathed modernist art and so on. There’s a degree to which certain impermissible reactions or “fleets to the essence,” as it is sometimes called, are permitted by very radical theorists.

There’s also certain of the revisionists like Serge Thion, for example, who played with post-structuralist ideas, which makes them very dangerous. As soon as I heard about post-structuralism in the 1980s, I knew that certain revisionist types would make use of some of these methodological tricks, because it’s inevitable. You can apply deconstruction to deconstruction. You can get Céline’s text, you can get the deconstructive answer to the text, and then you can deconstruct the deconstructive answer to the text and you end with Céline again!

So, you think, “What’s the point of doing all that?” And the point of doing all that was to question the affirmations of Western society. That’s what the point of all that is. The people who flood into the humanist disciplines in sociology, in fine art and elsewhere, if you say, “Well, you know, Caravaggio is a homosexual,” people will say, “Oh, dangerous assumptions there. A bit too essentialist. Are you reading the author or the artist who wrote the text too much into his own work?” And so on. It creates a fog of uncertainty. It creates an irony of the absence of affirmation, the absence of pride, certainly the absence of the justification of hierarchy, which it’s all about.

Ken Livingstone is a populist libertarian Left-wing politician. When he was asked about political correctness and banning Black children in south London from saying nursery rhymes like “Ba-Ba-Black Sheep” and so on, he said, “That’s Evening Standard garbage.” He said, “Political correctness is an attempt to change people’s minds and language. It is concentrated on two egalitarian premises: absolute moral equality in questions of race and gender.” He’s a real Leftist.

That’s what it’s really about! It’s not about any of these epiphenomena. It’s about making elitist and inegalitarian assumptions morally and linguistically impermissible. And if they’re impermissible for a university professor, they’ll be impermissible for a struggling fourth level post-degree student, and they’ll be impermissible for a middle-class bloke who sort of half-believes what’s in the Daily Mail, and they’ll be impermissible for right the way down the society. And they will, in a garbled way, come out of every news channel you can speak of.

Many liberals now say, “We’re fighting for Western values in Iraq. But what are Western values? Do we have a right to fight for them? In any case, should we affirm ourselves? We’re attacking the essentialism of their own. We should deconstruct at home first before we go abroad imposing our signifiers upon these worthy foreigners.” And so on. You see, it begins small. It begins with a debate about language, but it becomes much more powerful. In the intellectual ideologies that operate outside the sciences now, these ideas are de rigueur. To be actually against them is to morally shock, far more than transgressive post-modern art in relation to the Turner Prize and that sort of thing.

Things like the Turner Prize bring me to Stewart Home. Now, the Turner Prize is attacked by Home, but from the Left. You can only criticize Left from Left. He’s to the Left of the Turner Prize. The sort of art that is exhibited in the Turner Prize, which is a sort of stitch-up by various dealers particularly in the 1990s in relation to a particular school of post-modern artists that came out of Goldsmith’s College of Art in the late ’80s, early ’90s. Damien Hirst and Tracey Emin and Gavin Turk were the most prominent of the three. They were picked up with a lot of big money and people wanted to make their own money as a result of it. However, it’s based on an ideology called anti-objectivist art which comes from the 1960s and was largely part of the hippie movement.

John Lennon was involved extensively in anti-objectivist art. Do you remember getting into a bag for peace? This is where a naked John Lennon, covered with hair, would get into a bag. A bag! Yoko Ono, who was a member of a group called Fluxus, would draw the zip on the bag, and Lennon would stay there for a day, because the idea was that if we were all naked and in bags and covered with hair, we wouldn’t fight, and there would be no more war! There would be a realm of peace on this earth for us all to enjoy!

Another Fluxus fad that Yoko was very keen on was the revelation of the buttocks. They would sit there naked before NBC and CBS and ABC and the BBC and all the big channels of that era revealing their naked buttocks. Because of course you won’t fight if you’ve revealed yourself in that way, and the point was to avoid struggle by not fighting.

These ideas had little currency and didn’t last too long, but anti-objectivist art begins there, and from it Stewart Home begins his particular intellectual career at this time.

Home’s is an anarchist, essentially, or a libertarian communist or an anarcho-communist. He’s written many books, but his one real claim to fame is a book called The Assault on Culture—the assault on culture!—From Lettrism to Class War. And he deals with an assembly of extreme Left avant-garde groups that come out of the major modernist tendencies as they end.

Modernism is a very complicated area that goes back to the middle of the 19th century. It’s a reaction, in part, against photography. It’s a desire to go inside the mind and fantasize. It was despised for much of the late 19th century, early part of the 20th century, then became the major aesthetic discourse of liberal humanism. There’s a complication there, because both fascism and communism flirted with modernism. Most of them then turned against it, although the Portuguese, Spanish, and Italian far Right regimes made use of moderate modernist tendencies.

Modernism has always had a devilish side from the perspective of Left humanism, because a lot of the early modernists were fascists, were anti-humanists, and were radical Rightists like Ezra Pound, like Wyndham Lewis, like Marinetti, like Gaudier-Brzeska, like Céline and so on. That’s because there was an anti-democratic element to it, because of course modernism was a bohemian attack upon the sensibility of the majority. It loathes what ordinary people think about art, so it will destroy what they want and impose what intellectuals want. It’s a sort of vanguard hostility to the boring majority. Bomb the suburbs! That’s the sort of view of modernism.

But that can tend to the Right as well as the Left in strange moments, because national cultures were still alive to the degree that there could be national modernisms. Expressionism was a largely Germanic form; futurism was an Italian form; surrealism was a French form. Surrealism was the only major modernist movement that linked formally with communism, through the radically state socialist ideas of its founder, André Breton. Basically, surrealism died with him, but as it died all sorts of shards came out of it, one of which was called situationism.

Situationism was a minor ideological current that’s achieved quite a bit of currency, particularly on the far Left, because a lot of the students in 1968 mouthed situationist slogans. The media was convulsed to find that, on one hand, there were these hippies throwing bricks at members of the CRS—the very tough central riot police in Paris and the other big cities—but they would paint these slogans on walls saying, “Seize the imagination” or “Release the factories” or “I want to play with myself” or something like that. Strong-hearted philosophical stuff like this. They would spray things on the walls. And most of these were situationist slogans taken from a book called Society of the Spectacle written by Guy Debord in the late 1960s. Debord later committed suicide in dubious circumstances. There was another intellectual associated with this tendency called Raoul Vaneigem who wrote The Book of Pleasures and The Revolution of Everyday Life.

Now, these books had a lot of impact in revolutionary artistic scenes. It’s very interesting to notice this combination of far Left art, anti-social practice, misanthropy, and extreme amounts of money, and their ability to attract each other in disassociated ways. Anti-objectivist art began as hostility to the art market. It began by producing artworks that no one would want to buy! That’s the whole point. You were rebelling against the market! They used to have marches on Sotheby’s saying, “Death to Sotheby’s! Death to Sotheby’s!” Now they’re all sold in Sotheby’s for enormous amounts of money!

The most classic example of this was an Italian conceptual artist in the 1970s called Piero Manzoni, and Manzoni used to sell blocks of his own ordure. He used to sell blocks of his own ordure in gold-tinted, beautifully framed sort of 18th-century gold-leafed tins. An Italian-American heiresses used to buy this for $7,000 a tin to say at their kinky and trendy parties that, “I bought one.”

Because artists always loathed the dealers. They always loathe the middlemen, a third of whom have always been of a certain ethnicity. Always. A third of art dealers are Jews, and a third of art dealers are homosexuals, and not always an overlapping category. But artists loathed the middlemen, and there’s a desire to revenge yourself on the middlemen by producing work that can’t be sold, that’s impossibilist, if you like.

But the market can sell anything. You can sell debt as an asset from which you can make more money. So, why not sell cars that are bolted together? There’s a famous case of one artist who was neo-conceptual and was an action artist who tried to sell his dead body after he’d committed suicide. There’s also a man called Rudolf Schwarzkogler, who’s Austrian, and he wound himself in mummification, and either did commit suicide or feigned to commit suicide. I hope not to ruin anyone’s appetite by some of this, but it’s all true. It’s all true, I assure you of this! There were several other ones who left bits of their bodies, including arms and legs, in various galleries and so on, and this was photographed in the 1970s. This was action art, wasn’t it? I mean, let’s face it! There’s something that’s going on here! Home’s book The Assault on Culture has Schwarzkogler’s pre-corpse mummified body on its front, so you know what you’re getting.

Now, the movements with which Home deals are situationism, which is a Left-wing critique, in other words a critique from the Left, within the Left; there’s lettrism, which is another idea which relates to certain formalist and linguistic ideas; and there’s the movement for the imagist Bauhaus, which is a splinter from Breton’s surrealism. They’re also slightly dangerous movements, because Home has an equivocal element, not in what he wants but in what will happen.

One of the dangers about the Cult of the New and the Cult of the Future is that there can be different futures that Left-wing people don’t like. There was a group in the 1970s called mail art, and this woman would do these traditional biographical pictures, very traditional academic art, the sort of thing [unintellible—sounds like Auckland] would have done at the turn of the 20th century and just in and around the Great War, and she would send them to people. She would send them to the Prime Minister. She would send them to the Pope. She would send them to the Chief Rabbi. And they were all pictures of Adolf Hitler. They opened them and were appalled. It was quite a scandal, and she said, “But I’m not a Nazi. I’m just being transgressive. I’m doing what is non-bourgeois. Hitler may have done evil things, but I’m not evil. I’m just painting a picture. It’s just a representation.”

So, you see, if you adopt the Cult of the New . . . And Home had this idea called neoism where he wants to create culture anew, which is largely based on Marinetti’s ideas that you can bomb everything and begin again, because we are the masters of the ruins. It’s the rhetoric of people who’ve never been to a real war, you see, and those who were just about to, because a lot of this stuff came out in 1912 and was just the quivering in the antennae of the Armageddon that was about to erupt. Although, to be frank, many of the Marinettists, the futurists, actually did fight in the war, because they believed in war. They glorified war. “We glorify men! We glorify war!” This is why they linked with Mussolini later, or some of them did.

Now, Home’s work is based upon the idea that you can go beyond the Left and push even that which is Left-wing further Left. He’s in this odd position, because the Left never thinks it has won. Even when it’s triumphant, even when many dons agreed with some of their assumptions, they think, “It’s not gone far enough. The revolution has been betrayed! You need to go further! More radicalism, more self-criticism, more anti-essentialism! It’s not enough! Turds in a box: not enough! Deconstructing classic opera: not enough!”

Turandot and other operas now, even in the West End, often have a urinal on the stage. Urinal? What’s that about? That’s Duchamp’s idea of the ready-made, you see. This plate is art! Who are you to say it’s not? I look at this work. I mediate it. I objectivize it as my view of life. The stained dregs of life in this coffee cup. Life ending in doom. Didn’t Beckett say they were born over a grave, there’s a cry, and then it’s all over? You see, art! I want 2,000 for this now, and you’ll give it to me! And that’s how that sort of thing starts.

I heard a bloke once at the English National Opera, and a critic said, slightly bemused, “Why do you put a toilet on the stage?” And he said, “We’re acting against the piece. We put the thing on, but we try to destroy it as we put it on. It’s deconstruction.”

And you know why these ideas have got a hold? Because they’re bored. Because they’re bored with Western culture. Since the Second World War, state funding of the arts has replaced bourgeois capitalist money. It’s replaced aristocratic patronage. And you can only do Shakespeare so many times. There’s a great tiredness to these state institutions, and this tiredness often breeds a kind of nihilism. “Why, let’s tear it all down, this fuddy-duddy stuff that we endlessly have to replicate with the tax-payers’ money!” These ideas course through even revived and classical theater.

Racing Shakespeare is the favorite one. At the beginning of the 20th century, Othello was always played by a white man blacked up: Olivier very famously in the ’50s and thereafter. Middle of the century, always played by a black actor, because you had to bring to the foreground the nature of race and the nature of oppression and the nature of Shakespeare’s unfortunate alienating and objectifying tendencies: odious. Now, usually, Othello is played by a white actor, because not to black up is to draw attention to the hideous racism of the piece so that guilt should be infused in the audience for the crime of Western civilization. Nine million dead. Farrakhan said in the United States, “Never mind the six, what about the nine!? The nine million who died in the Atlantic slave trade! What about us?”

There was a famous Richard Eyre version of The Merchant of Venice in the 1990s where the female lead apologizes for the Shoah on stage. She’s kneeling before the audience. Don’t remember that in the text, actually! Don’t remember that in the original play! This is ironic considering that some of these ideas have come out of this idea of extreme textual specificity. “But you can always change the text when you want! It’s only a text!” And this sort of thing.

There’s is a sort of comedic element to these ideas, but I assure you that it would be instructive for everyone here to go to the Institute of Contemporary Arts. The ICA’s in Pall Mall, near the Queen. Right in the center of all the establishment buildings, and it’s all very nice in there with mellow lighting and all this. You go in, and there’s a bookshop in there, and that is very interesting, because that bookshop is like a cathedral bookshop to this type of culture. Home’s books are all prominently displayed in that particular bookshop. All of these deconstructive, anti-identity, post-racial, non-class, non-gender specific, gender-neutral-language particularisms are all there. Volume after volume after volume.

Actually, Home did a book once that had sandpaper on the cover so it would cut up all the books next to it, you see? Revenge! Revenge on the books! And you’d also damage yourself when you touch it, you see? So, he’s attacking the reader! William S. Burroughs was once asked, “What do you want to do with the reader?” And he said, “Kill him. I want somebody to open the page and be so appalled that they virtually drop into it, you know?”

There was a famous moment with Nineteen Eighty-Four, the BBC one with Peter Cushing in the 1950s. There was a Mrs. Treddis of North Wales[4] who allegedly did drop dead during the rat scene, Room 101. She was watching this on a state subsidized channel on the BBC, and when O’Brien gets the rats out in the Chinese torture scene—“Do it to Julia!”—she just caved over, poor old Mrs. Treddis. The MP was straight on the thing. He was in the Commons saying, “It’s disgraceful that the state broadcaster is killing its own constituents with art!” You couldn’t make it up, could you really? There is a degree to which the desire to attack the audience is very much part of this art.

There’s actually a form of art called auto-destructive art by Gustav Metzger where the art actually blows up, or a tube of acid will turn over one of those sort of mechano-wheels—you know, one of those sort of amateur things—and the tin turns up and pours acid down the front. So, the art attacks you, you attack the art, the art attacks itself. And then you buy what’s left, even though it’s been completely destroyed.

These ideas actually entered into popular culture because a lot of rock bands and so on were made up of students who go to art colleges. The Who used to destroy their instruments on stage. Pete Townshend, when he wasn’t looking at dubious sites on the internet, was wrecking his guitar. And these guitars are expensive things. Keep it plugged in. And he’d smash it on the ground, and sparks would be going up. I think it’s totally counter to health and safety, personally. And he’d smash it, and it would blow up! It would blow across the room, and all the crowd would be chanting. This was based on auto-destructive art. But, of course, they were working class lads, and there were dangerous moments of essentialism in The Who because they always had the Union Flag behind them when they’d perform. Ah, the danger of those estates. More deconstruction, that’s what’s required.

Home criticized the situationists because it was always a Hegelian theory and therefore allowed certain religious notions in from the outside. There was a communist called Jean Barrot who wrote a critique of situationism. He was later a supporter of Pol Pot, but he’s not heard of too much these days. Certainly would have been heard of if he had been Cambodian.

Now, Home got into trouble a couple of years ago, and Larry O’Hara, who’s a sort of libertarian anti-Right wing critic who’s prepared to be at least reasonably factual up to a point, wrote an article called “Stewart Home: The Fascists’ Flunkey.” Because if you advocate for new areas of culture, total newness, you will attract people who don’t necessarily believe in equitable variables. And he attracted certain people, certainly Richard Lawson, who’s well known from the National Party and Scorpion and Perspectives and had his website called Fluxeuropa and was a Left European nationalist, I think it’s fair to say. He also struck up a bit of a relationship with Bill Hopkins, an old friend of mine, and there’s a film, six minutes of Stewart Home interviewing Bill Hopkins. It’s on YouTube [6].

Now, he’s been heavily vilified for this, because by an ideological detour into the concept of the new, he forgot progressive verities. He’s recovered. But it’s bad news to reach out to radicals before you know who they are. You can get into deep trouble doing that, and he has. Because people say, “Didn’t he have some friends who were . . .” That’s what’s remembered in this [unintelligible—sounds like “tap it in”] and Google your name sort of an age.

Home believes that everyone can create a culture just as there were certain classical music concerts in the 1970s where the orchestra would make it up as they went along. Xenakis was another one. You wouldn’t have a piece. You would deconstruct the music. Indeed, they would tear the music up before the performance and stamp on it! Stamp on it in a rage at the bourgeois class! Then they would sort of make some music. Home believes that everybody can do that. He calls it the universal proletarianization of culture: the universal proletarianization of culture. And he idolizes these slightly Rightist elements. He idolizes these skinhead novels in the 1970s. Does anyone remember these novels by Richard Allen called Skinhead and Suedehead and [unintelligible—sounds like truth my bitch]. and all these sorts of novels that used to be read under the table in schools, seized in reformatory schools because, you know, no reading in this [unintelligible]. They were written by this old drunk on the south coast called Richard Allen, and Home loves all this.

He’s written several books. Red London is one. He’s also written books that are just swear words, the C-word is the title, oh yes. And the S-word and the F-word. These are all in Smith’s. They’re all in Waterstones. He’s done it because he thinks, “Why not? And also I’ll push distribution to such a degree that are they going to go on Radio 4 and say ‘Well, we have books with all sorts of swear words in them, but we won’t allow them on the cover. The Royal Chamberlian lives in memory. We will not allow it on the cover.’” And Home is saying, “Why not? Why not? Are you some bourgeois slob, mate? I’m pushing this in front of you.”

He’s also a very extreme homosexual. You would have to have this. So, his works are these sort of cartographic fantasy of proletarianized homosexual blokes rampaging around London. This is on sale at any Waterstones, books called C— and S—  and F—. I’ve looked at the covers, and I’ve read the theories. But the theory’s important in a way, because at the end of The Assault on Culture he endorses Class War.

Now, Class War is a group that emerged in the early 1980s and is led by an anarchist called Ian Bone. And they do believe in Bakunin’s idea of total war on the state. When Bakunin was asked “What is anarchy?” he said, “Total revolution against God.” And that is what anarchism believes: total revolt against all ideas of transcendence, total revolt against all ideas of hierarchy. “Pull it down! Destroy it!”

There’s a famous story about Bakunin in E. H. Carr’s—a Soviet-philic writer—biography. Bakunin’s riding along, because he’s an aristocrat of course. He wanted to destroy everything, even the aristocrats first. And he sees some brigands robbing a house, and they’re smashing it to pieces with axes and so on. He says, “Stop!” in Russian, gets out, and joins the brigands, and he starts destroying and running out with the paintings and butting them and leaping up and down on them and hurling bricks through the windows and all this. When somebody said, “Mikhail Mikhalovich, why are you doing this?” He said, “Because it’s there.” Because it’s there.

And Home’s view is that destruction is a creative passion. First you destroy, then you create on the destruction. Even if you create and destroy, because you level the field for new forms: neoism! The cartography of inversion! And if you don’t like it, you can get a bit of this! It’s this sort of stuff. The interesting thing is that these ideas are not revered. They’re eccentric ideas even within the milieu of the cultural Left. But they’re there.

Scorpion’s not sold in the ICA bookshop. Alain de Benoist is not sold in the ICA bookshop. Books about Heidegger are sold in the ICA bookshop. Heidegger, Monster of Nazism: A Philosophy of Inhumanity Exposed! Heidegger and the Jewish Question. Unanswered questions, who was his mistress? We demand the facts! Heidegger! 400 pages of his Party membership between 1933 and 1934. Husserl: Did he Ban him from the Library? The Truth! Heidegger: Deconstructed. Pluto Press in three editions. That’s in the ICA library! But the authors of that which constitutes European identity are for the most part conspicuously absent from the ICA library.

Class War has, of course, died many years ago, and Bone is largely retired from active politics. He appeared on Jonathan Ross once, who I call Jonathan Dross, and he appeared wearing a wig screaming and ranting. Bone’s just treated as a freak show, you know. Just something to laugh at, really.

However, from our point of view, not altogether laughable because a group called Antifa emerged from Class War. Antifa would very much like to beat us all to death, I mean, they really would. But they’re very small and of little significance. The interesting thing is that he was drawn to Class War because they’re situational, because it’s not going to succeed, is it? But you create a happening space, you create action art in society. Do you remember the march on the rich? “Bash the rich!” Remember the marches in Henley? “Bash the rich! Bash the rich!” You know, this sort of thing. Bored policemen, drongos and hippies and white Rastafarians, people with purple mohicans and this sort of thing walking along surrounded by the special patrol group, screaming execration at the bourgeois class and that sort of thing. It was all good fun. Then they’d go back on the train up to [unintelligible] or [unintelligible] or wherever it was. Bone was there. The hard men were there.

There was a famous moment of anarchism in Chicago where all these very old bourgeois people are eating in an extremely rich restaurant, and the anarchists unfurl a banner in front of them saying, “Behold your future executioners!” And they love this sort of sport as play as action as theory. Anarchism, unlike communism—because of course anarchism is to the Left of communism—has a theory called direct action: direct action on the anger of the class, which of course is terrorism really. They don’t call it that, but that’s essentially what it is. These sorts of stunts, even that Class War stunt, “make the middle class afraid,” tossing and turning in their beds and only wondering if those mohican yobs are coming for them.

Those demos are very interesting. I once went on one of those demos and watched, and the hardcore anarchs, the hardcore activists, stand at the back and they throw forward the hippies and the drongos and the others. And they’re the ones who are beaten by the special patrol group or whatever the riot squad is called now. They’re on the ground, and they’re covered in blood, and the policemen step on them and kick them. This was the ’80s. I mean, I saw it with my own eyes. It wasn’t a travesty of British behavior. I saw it. But the hardcore activists with leather jackets are at the back, and when one goes down there’s another there, you know, because the masses are just fuel—fuel for anarchy.

The point of these doctrines is that you open a space in the society where you can create new forms, because when you open a space anything can happen. If you assassinate a politician, anything can happen. That’s why they used to assassinate them all the time in the 19th century.

These sorts of ideas of rage and deconstruction and alienation—particularly impinging on all forms of identity—have probably reached their high water mark. But the very fact that they can be canvassed, the very fact that they are in the ICA, they’re in the NO, they’re in the theoretical book branch of the National Theatre—all state-subsidized. There’s tens and tens of millions of pounds that are spent on these institutions every year through the art boards and so on. The fact that these ideas are in the Western academy is a testament to the fact that communistic doctrines of radical destruction and deconstruction have taken over the mindset in the society. People who speak against them are, well, they’re nowhere to be seen basically, because they’re terrified. They’re partly waiting for the next fad, really, in the hope that some of this stuff will wash away.

But the interesting thing is that they always know what they’re against. Home is certainly aware of the New Right. He used to edit a magazine called Smile—smile!—which was a nihilist, communist magazine. That’s what it said on the front. You can go to Smith’s, you know, “Would you like to buy a nihilist, communist magazine? Smile.” It would have an article about Lenin and an article about the Bombo Gang, and then you would have diseased genitals, because it would shock the bourgeois audience and scratch the hatred of the masses. And in that transgression you open up a moral space for more radicalism of the mind and of the spirit. It is psychologically subversive, and they know what they’re doing! They know what they’re doing. The shocked person goes, “Disgusting trash!” and throws it away. They’ve actually had an effect, the effect of rejection before the next strike.

My view has always been that that sort of militancy has to be stood up to. And you have to fight back. And you have to fight back as hard and as ruthlessly as they do. That’s why they are aware of us and fear us.

Stewart Home also has an interesting view of race, which is an original formulation. I’ve never heard it even from the Trotskyists, and he’s not a Trotskyist. He believes that race doesn’t exist, but the masses believe it does. Now, that’s an interesting formulation, because if you think about it you either have it as a foregrounded form of iterization, it’s being, Dasein, being in being as Heidegger would call it. It’s that which is there. It’s biological. It’s there. It’s foundational. It’s prior. It’s elemental. It’s essential.

Or you don’t believe that. Maoists and extreme communists believe that all humans are a white sheet of paper. Any sexuality, any ethnic specification, any culturalization, any level of intellect could be pre-programmed into you. As Mao’s people would say, you can torture a man into progressive ideas to the degree that they’re coming out of his ears.

Do you remember what O’Brien says to Winston Smith in Nineteen Eighty-Four? “First, we make you love Big Brother, then we kill you. Don’t you remember, Winston,” he says, “you’re just a cell in the body of the Party? Do you die if you cut your fingernail?” Do you remember that, and the great actors like Sir Richard Burton who played that part?

Now, Home’s idea is interesting in a way, because they believe in false consciousness. He’s basically saying race is the false consciousness of the masses, but if nothing is prior, then reality is in the consciousness of the masses. Therefore, if the masses think that race exists, it does exist, even in far Left terms, because only that which is thought moment by moment in the struggle exists! So, in a strange sort of way, he’s ended up with a Right-wing deviation within Marxist cultural logic. He’s actually got back to a position he says he refutes.

But it’s an interesting one, because if you notice, the dip in biological thinking in the middle of the 20th century as a reaction to the Second World War, is the high point for these type of new Left ideas. Now that biology has been re-emerging in the last 30 years. And it’s very interesting, for example, that the Anti-Defamation League in the United States opposed the creation of the Human Genome Project. And many gay libertarian groups opposed the Human Genome Project. They are radically opposed to the idea of the biological investigation of the building blocks of life, because it will lead to the possibility of acceptance by the masses of a prior essentialism.

There was an interesting incident last year when the Genome Project’s scientific review board wrote to the German Academy of Sciences and said that “In our opinion, life is 80% natural law and prior biological purpose.” Not 60%, not 70%, but 80%. Man is socialized by 20%, and I view the socialization as environment, and environment is ecology, and ecology is a species of biology. So, in a way, it’s all biological.

And the German Academy wrote back, “We cannot accept this thinking. We cannot accept this thinking, because we understand that your postulate is from good intentions, but it draws us perilously close to rejecting the methodology of the basic law upon which contemporary German governance, state, society, and academic learning is based.” So, the German government says that a particular scientific outcome is wrong, and as a citizen of the contemporary united German republic, founded under occupation by Adenauer in 1948, you have to repute it. We don’t care what science says! We repudiate science! This is a revolutionary development really, whereby the Left, the organ of progress, is rejecting science.

There’s a concept on the New Left of scientism. Scientism. Science is ugly, male, reactionary, authoritarian, phallocratic. All this sort of stuff. There’s a strong streak of feminism in all of these discourses. The Left has sort of given up on that. Many Leftists are now debating about how they deal with biology. Peter Singer, who wrote the book Animal Liberation, which founded that whole movement: “Liberate the animals, you filthy speciesists,” “Put down that ham sandwich,” that sort of thing. Singer, of course from a certain ethnicity, from Australia where he was in the Australian senate. He was a civil libertarian and radical green. He’s a utilitarian. He’s a very interesting thinker. Because he’s introducing a new hard liberalism.

Singer says maybe biological ordinance is true; maybe disability is inherited; maybe gender is inherited; maybe sexuality is due to brain function; maybe the Right is correct. But what you must do is pass every law and every methodology that lies behind the law, jurisprudence, to make sure that there is either equality of opportunity or equality of outcome or those who proselytize for inequality of outcome are not allowed to affect it by the nature of their discourse. So, what he’s saying is even if biology is unequal, you make the society so impervious to that logic, even though you’ve got a hierarchy, that it’s not aware of that.

That’s the most important and intelligent form of far Leftism. They can only sustain anti-science. They built their entire creed on science. They can’t repudiate it. That’s just a stunt for a couple of decades. They’re going to have to accept the Human Genome Project. They’re going to have to accept the biological and prior ordination of man.

Every time I go into an NHS clinic there’s a leaflet for transplants, and in the middle of that leaflet you’re asked about your race. It says, “Are you White Caucasian? Are you Asian? Are you Negroid or Diaspora African?” All these little boxes. And that’s because human internal tissues will not transplant or graft as well in relation to one race as another. Prior racial difference within the taxonomies of the human even at the physical level.

If a scientist at Oxford or Cambridge or the London School of Economics had said that openly in the 1960s or 1970s, there would have been rioting! There would be rioting in the canteen. There’d be rioting in the lecture hall. The special control group would have been on the campus. You would have been hounded out of that place of learning. It’s now in an NHS leaflet. Quietly, no fuss. It’s just intruded there as a fact. “Who can reject it? We’re helping people! We’re helping people!”

And talking about helping people, there are ultra-liberal groups in the United States who are campaigning against certain forms of medicine that affect individual ethnicities. There are certain diseases that Blacks and Africans suffer from, particularly sickle cell anemia, which is almost congruent to them, and certain drugs that have genetic potential and originate from some of the theory and experimentation of the Human Genome Project react primarily on their group. There are ultra-liberal groups who are campaigning to not allow the Food and Drug Agency to license these.

Why? Why? Because it undermines the idea that man is a white sheet of paper that you can do with what you want and there is no prior identity. They would rather blacks suffer than that these drugs were produced, because they admit the prior biological differentiation of the human. And when you begin there, when you begin with such a monstrous prior essentialism, the doors to you-know-what are swinging open. So, you must close down the thing before you even begin to agree with what you disagree with.

Thank you very much!

Notes

[1] Bowden misspoke here: Ferdinand de Saussure was the founder of Structuralism, not one of its later developers as he seems to imply here.—Ed.

[2] Heidegger’s Collected Edition (Gesamtausgabe) runs to nearly 100 volumes, most of which were published posthumously.—Ed.

[3] The Yale School of Deconstruction signifies an intellectual movement, not an academic department or college. De Man joined the faculty in French and Comparative Literature at Yale. At the time of his death in 1983, he was Sterling Professor of the Humanities and chairman of the Department of Comparative Literature at Yale.—Ed.

[4] Apparently, the woman was actually named Beryl Merfin of Herne Bay, Kent.—Ed.

 


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

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/08/stewart-home/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/b-stewart-home-jpg.jpg

[2] here: http://youtu.be/S8tjGJ4eUdA

[3] Marxism and the Frankfurt School and the New Left: http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/05/marxism-and-the-frankfurt-school/

[4] The Totalitarian Politics of Nineteen Eighty-Four: http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/08/george-orwells-nineteen-eighty-four-2/

[5] Francis Pollini: http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/08/francis-pollinis-night/

[6] YouTube: http://youtu.be/eNFVLU0pIWM

vendredi, 08 août 2014

HILAIRE BELLOC: THE SERVILE STATE AND THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF DISTRIBUTISM

HILAIRE BELLOC: THE SERVILE STATE AND THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF DISTRIBUTISM

 
July 27th is the birthday of Hilaire Belloc, one of the great radical traditionalists.


From the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century until the era of the Great Depression immediately preceding the commencement of the Second World War, the most enduring internal conflict within the nations of the West was rooted in what was then called the “social question.” The growth of industrialization and the dispossession of the agrarian peasant classes during the time of the enclosure movement had created within the industrializing nations a massive proletarian class of permanently pauperized laborers and the deplorable social conditions which accompanied the growth of this class.

Throughout the nineteenth century, numerous potential remedies to the condition of the working classes were proposed and the labor, socialist, communist, and anarchist movements developed into powerful political forces during this time. It was into this political and socioeconomic environment that Hilaire Belloc was born in 1870. Belloc was born in France to an English mother and French father and was raised in England. Throughout his eighty-two years of life, Belloc would exhibit many talents. He was an immensely prolific writer (it was once said that he “wrote a library” during his time), poet, and debater. He was an accomplished historian. Belloc was fond of racing yachts and wrote extensively on travel. He was also a politician at one point in his life and for a time held a seat in the English parliament. From his experience as a parliamentarian, Belloc came to regard the pretenses of the liberal democratic state as one rooted in the popular representation of the people as a sham. Parliamentary democracy, in Belloc’s view, was simply a mask for the rule of the plutocratic class. Perhaps above all, Belloc was a staunch defender of Catholic orthodoxy and produced many apologetic works on behalf of his own faith tradition and challenged the secularism of his intellectual contemporaries such as George Bernard Shaw and H. G. Wells. [1]

Though Belloc opposed the secular outlook of the Fabian intellectuals and the more radical Marxists, he shared their concern with solving the problems of labor and the social ills brought about by the industrial age. It was out of this concern that Belloc and his friend, fellow literary figure, and fellow Catholic apologist Gilbert Keith Chesterton formed a unique and always small but intellectually original movement known as “distributism.” The philosophical basis of distributism was outlined in two books, one by Chesterton and one by Belloc. Chesterton’s What’s Wrong with the World was published in 1910. Its thesis was that the paternalistic welfare state proposed by the progressive liberal and social democratic reformers of the era was not inconsistent with the continued rule of the plutocrats. Rather, a welfare state of the kind the Fabians suggested could be utilized by the ruling classes to pacify and further subordinate the working classes. Belloc continued with this theme in his 1912 book The Servile State. Belloc generally accepted the criticisms of capitalism offered by the socialists and Marxists, but argued that socialism would not have the effect of liberating the working classes. Instead, the welfare state would reduce the workers and the masses generally to the level of state dependents with the state continuing to be controlled by the capitalist plutocracy.
 

Medieval charity
As devout Catholic traditionalists, both Belloc and Chesterton naturally had the tendency to romanticize the social system of the medieval era, centered as it was in the Catholic Church. The guilds and agrarian peasant traditions of the Middle Ages became the model for Belloc’s and Chesterton’s and by extension the distributist movement’s theoretical foundations for social reform. The ambition of the distributists was not to nationalize the means of productions in the manner favored by the Marxists or to radically expand the level of state intervention into the economy and into society in the name of social welfare. Rather, the distributists preferred the opposite approach of redistributing the means of production into as many hands as possible, essentially making everyone into a capitalist. Distributist ideas continued to be outlined in Chesterton’s paper G. K.’s Weekly and the Distributist League was founded in 1926. Most of the core members of the league were either former socialists who had converted to Catholicism or devout Catholics who were simply concerned with the social question. The league was never a particularly large organization and never held more than two thousand actual members at any one time. Distributism was an intellectual movement rather than a political or activist one.

Distributism is a concept that is more interesting for its ideas than its influence. It was a tendency that offered an uncompromising critique of capitalism yet firmly rejected virtually all efforts or proposals to remedy the ills of capitalism through bureaucracy and statism. Not only the socialist parties but also the labor unions were criticized by the distributists on these grounds. Belloc, Chesterton, and the distributists shared the concern of classical liberals for the preservation of private property and the liberty of the individual against the state while simultaneously expressing concern for the conditions of labor and related social injustices. Capitalism in their view had the effect of a net reduction in liberty not only because the laboring masses were dependent on the capitalists for their subsistence, but also because capitalism was inherently unstable and therefore necessitated state intervention in order to address its social dislocations. Further, the capitalists and plutocrats themselves preferred state regulation of the kind granting monopoly privileges. Contrary to the supposed laissez faire ideal of capitalism, the actual practice of capitalism went hand in hand with the growth of statism.
 
 
The distributists’ criticisms of capitalism were not merely economic in nature. In their view, both capitalism and the proposed socialist alternatives were equally deficient in their neglect of the spiritual welfare of mankind and their limitation of social concerns to matters of material interests only. For the capitalists, greed and material acquisition had become the highest values. For the socialists, satisfying the material needs of the working classes was their only concern. Neither perspective satisfactorily addressed the dehumanizing nature of either proletarianism as it existed under capitalism or the proposed statist alternatives offered by the socialists. The distributists were concerned about the effect of capitalism on family, cultural, and communal life. By forcing the workmen to spend long hours laboring in factories, capitalism was essentially taking fathers and husbands away from their families and the distributists noted that the plutocratic classes would at times endorse women’s emancipation movements in order to make female labor more readily exploitable. The concerns of many traditionalists of the era regarding the impact of industrialization and commercial society on high culture were also shared by the distributists and the distributists likewise lamented the decline of small shops and independent craftsmen brought on by the rise of department stores and chain stores.

Emancipated women
Though they were critical of the dehumanizing effects of the machine age, the distributists were not advocates of a return to a pre-industrial state in the manner advocated by the Luddites. Rather, they thought that with a widespread distribution of ownership of productive property, the laboring classes would be able to achieve autonomy and independence through such arrangements as industrial guilds operated as cooperatives of small producers and the reestablishment and growth of small businesses and small farms. Indeed, the economic ideals of the distributists were very similar to those of the classical anarchists and both movements favored many similar economic arrangements such as worker cooperatives, mutual banks, and independent peasant communities. The American social reformer and devout Catholic Dorothy Day even attempted a synthesis of distributist and anarchist ideas with her Catholic Worker movement. Yet the Catholic traditionalists and romantic medievalists who comprised the distributist movement generally found themselves at odds with the anarchists and their anti-clericalism and Enlightenment rationalism. However, the differences were primarily philosophical, cultural, and religious rather than economic.[2]

Belloc advanced an interesting theory concerning the development of capitalism in England and by extension throughout the world during the Industrial Revolution. He argued that capitalism took the particular form that it assumed during its developmental era largely as a consequence of the dissolution of the monasteries by Henry VIII during the sixteenth century. The monasteries had previously been the basis of cultural, educational, and charitable life in England and their suppression had created a gap in the social fabric whose consequences were made manifest during the early industrial age. First, the disappearance of the monasteries had the effect of removing the social safety net and creating the conditions for state assumption of charitable responsibilities in the way first demonstrated by the Poor Laws and which later found their full fruition in the welfare state. Likewise, the decline in the power and influence of the Church that was the natural result of the closure of the monasteries undermined the ability of the Church to serve as a constraining force on the growing power of industrial capitalists. Lastly, the destruction of monastic life had the effect of creating a spiritual vacuum that would later be filled by the materialistic values of the growing commercial society. [3]

No longer challenging plutocracy.
George Orwell noted in 1946 that Belloc’s The Servile State had been quite prescient in its analysis of the likely consequences of state socialism when it was published thirty-four year earlier.[4] The legacy of state socialism has been the creation of the hard totalitarian regimes associated with Communism, Fascism, and Nazism, and the soft totalitarianism of the Western welfare states. Belloc has since been demonstrated to have been correct when he suggested that socialism would only have the effect of maintaining plutocratic rule while pacifying the population at large by making them into wards of the provider state. Though living standards have certainly risen in the West since Belloc’s time, all of the modern nations now face severe fiscal crises generated in large part by the prevalence of the provider state. The rise of the global economy has brought with it the advance of proletarianism in previously pre-industrial societies on the periphery and generated a process of re-proletarianization in the nations where industrialization is long established, particularly in the United States. The massive transnational capitalist enterprises and financial institutions are now eclipsing the power of even nation-states themselves. In some ways, it would seem that the problems that Belloc and his distributist colleagues sought to address are now as prevalent as ever.


NOTES:

[1] Jahn, Karl (2000). Distributism. Archived at http://karljahn.tripod.com/tan/distributism.htm. Acccessed on October 8, 2012
.
[2] Dorothy Day. Articles on Distributism-2. The Catholic Worker, July–August 1948, 1, 2, 6.

[3] Bradshaw, Brendan (1974). The Dissolution of the Religious Orders in Ireland under Henry VIII. London: Cambridge University Press.

[4] George Orwell. Second Thoughts on James Burnham in Polemic No 3 May 1946.


Originally published in Belloc: Thoughts & Perspectives, Volume Twelve (edited by Troy Southgate) published by Black Front Press.

Robert Stark interviews Keith Preston on Chesterton & Belloc

Robert Stark interviews Keith Preston on Chesterton & Belloc 1

Listen to the interview here.

bellocgk2

 

Robert Stark interviews Keith Preston of Attack the System

Topics include:

Keith’s interest in alternative economics that opposes both capitalism and socialism such as distributism

Why third way economics theories have limited influence but a large potential audience

NEITHER PROGRESSIVE NOR CONSERVATIVE: THE ANTI-MODERNISM OF G.K. CHESTERTON

HILAIRE BELLOC: THE SERVILE STATE AND THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF DISTRIBUTISM

A Traditionalist critique of Capitalism

Chesterton and Belloc’s views on Nationalism, Eugenics, and Imperialism

How Marxist viewed Distributism as a Petit Bourgeois movement

The Distributist critique of the welfare state versus the modern conservative view towards poverty

Taxation policies such as a Negative Income Tax and Asset Tax

vendredi, 13 juin 2014

The Anti-Modernism of G. K. Chesterton

Neither Progressive nor Conservative: The Anti-Modernism of G. K. Chesterton

By Keith Preston

AlternativeRight.Com & http://attackthesystem.com

 
 
Gilbert Keith Chesterton (1874-1936) bears the distinction of being a writer who resisted virtually all of the dominant trends of his era. He lived during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, precisely the time that modernity was fully consolidating itself within Western civilization more than a century after the apex of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution. Chesterton began his writing career as a young man and as the twentieth century was just beginning. As much as any other writer from his era, he predicted the horrors that century would entail.
 
A man of many talents and interests, Chesterton was a playwright, novelist, lecturer, journalist, poet, critic of literature and art, philosopher, and theologian. His work in many of these areas stands out as being among the very best of the era and continues to offer immense insight even in the present day. Among Chesterton’s circle of friends and intellectual sparring partners were such luminaries as H. G. Wells, Bertrand Russell, and George Bernard Shaw. His relationships with these men are themselves highly significant as each of them were among the leading “progressive” intellectuals of the era and fully committed to the modernist values of rationalism, secularism, and socialism. As these were all systems of thought that Chesterton adamantly opposed, it is striking that he could also count some of these figures as friends and engage them in amiable debate. It was during an era when the old liberal values of rational discourse and gentlemanly civility still prevailed, even among those who in many ways held polar opposite world views. It was before the time of the radical political polarization of modern intellectual life that began with the growth of the totalitarian movements of the early to middle twentieth century. The friendly exchanges between Chesterton and Shaw, for instance, even on topics of intense disagreement in many ways serve as a refreshing contrast to the rhetorical brutality that dominates much of today’s public discourse.

The dramatic changes that had occurred in Western society over the course of the nineteenth century had dramatically impacted the thinking of its leading intellects. The growth of industrial civilization has raised the general standards of living to levels that were hitherto not even dreamed of, and the rising incomes of the traditionally exploited industrial working class were finally allowing even the proletariat to share in at least some middle class comforts. The rise of new political ideologies such as liberalism and democracy had imparted to ordinary people political and legal rights that were previously reserved only for the nobility. Health standards also increased significantly as industrial civilization expanded and life expectancy began to grow longer. Scientific discovery and technological innovation exploded during the same era and human beings began to marvel at what they had accomplished and might be able to accomplish in the future. Religion-driven superstitions had begun to wane and the religious persecutions of the past had dwindled to near non-existence. Societies became ever more complex and out of this complexity came the need for an ever expanding class of specialists and more scientific approaches to social management. While only a hundred years had passed between the world as it was in 1800 and the world of 1900, the changes that had occurred in the previous century were so profound that the time difference might as well have been thousands of years.

The profundity of this civilization-wide change inspired the leading thinkers of the era to tremendous confidence and optimism regarding the future and human capabilities. If one surveys the literature of utopian writers of the era one immediately observes that many of these authors expressed a confidence in the future that now seems as quaint as it is absurd. The horrors of the twentieth century, with its genocides, total wars, atomic weaponry, and unprecedented levels of tyranny would subsequently shatter the naïve idealism of many who had previously viewed the advent of that century with great hopes that often approached the fantastic. The early twentieth century was a time of joyous naivete. Bertrand Russell would later insist that no one who was born after the beginning of the Great War which broke out in 1914 would ever know what it was like to be truly happy.

“Pick a star, any star” – the retro-futuristic optimism of the past

But G. K. Chesterton, while far from being a cynical or overly pessimistic figure, was not one who shared in this optimism. Indeed, he was one who understood the potential horrors that could be unleashed by the new society and new modes of thought as clearly as any other. To Chesterton, the progressives of his time were over confident to the point of arrogance and failed to recognize the dangers that might befall mankind as humanity boldly forged its way into the future. Perhaps one of Chesterton’s most prescient works of social criticism is Eugenics and Other Evils, published in 1917. [1] At the time the eugenics movement that was largely traceable to the thought of Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton, had become a popular one in the world’s most advanced nations such as England, America, and Germany. It was a movement that in its day was regarded as progressive, enlightened and as applying scientific principles to the betterment of human society and even the human species itself. Its supporters included many leading thinkers and public figures of the era including Winston Churchill, Sidney and Beatrice Webb, John Maynard Keynes, Anthony Ludovici, Madison Grant, and Chesterton’s friends Wells and Shaw. Yet Chesterton was one of the earliest critics of the eugenics movement and regarded it as representing dangerous presumptions on the part of its proponents that would likely lead to horrific abuses of liberty and violations of the individual person which it eventually did.

One of Chesterton’s most persistent targets was the growing secularism of his era, a trend which continues to the present time. That Chesterton was a man of profound faith even as religion was being dwarfed by science among thinking and educated people during his time solidifies Chesterton’s role as a true intellectual maverick. It is this aspect of Chesterton’s thought that as much as anything else continues to win him the admiration of those who remain believers even during the twenty-first century. Chesterton was always a man of spiritual interests and even as a young man toyed with occultism and ouija boards. The development of his spiritual thinking later led him to regard himself and an “orthodox” Christian and Chesterton formally converted to Catholicism in 1922 at the age of forty-six. His admirer C. S. Lewis considered Chesterton’s writings on Christian subjects to be among the very best works in Christian apologetics.

In the intellectual climate of the early twenty-first century, religious thinking has fallen into even greater disrepute than it possessed in the early twentieth century. In relatively recent times, popular culture has produced a number of writers whose open contempt for religious believers has earned them a great deal of prominence. While intelligent believers who can offer thoughtful defenses of their views certainly still exist, it is also that case that religious belief or practice is at its lowest point yet in terms of popular enthusiasm in the Western world. Less than five percent of the British population attends religious services regularly and even in the United States, with its comparatively large population of religious fundamentalists, secularism has become the fastest growing religious perspective. Chesterton would no doubt be regarded as a rather anachronistic figure in such a cultural climate.

Abandoned church

The contemporary liberal and left-wing stereotype of a religious believer is that of an ignorant or narrow-minded bigot who is incapable of flexibility in his thinking and reacts with intolerance to those holding different points of view. Certainly, there are plenty of religious people who fit such stereotypes just as overly rigid and dogmatic persons can be found among adherents of any system of thought. Yet, a survey of both Chesterton’s writings on religion and his correspondence with friends of a secular persuasion indicates that Chesterton was the polar opposite of a bigoted, intolerant, religious fanatic. In his Christian apologetic work Orthodoxy, Chesterton wrote,

“To hope for all souls is imperative, and it is quite tenable that their salvation is inevitable…In Christian morals, in short, it is wicked to call a man ‘damned’: but it is strictly religious and philosophic to call him damnable.” 

Of his friend Shaw, he said, “In a sweeter and more solid civilization he would have been a great saint.”

In his latter years when he knew he was dying, H. G. Wells wrote to Chesterton, “If after all my Atheology turns out wrong and your Theology right I feel I shall always be able to pass into Heaven (if I want to) as a friend of G.K.C.’s. Bless you.” Chesterton wrote in response:

“If I turn out to be right, you will triumph, not by being a friend of mine, but by being a friend of Man, by having done a thousand things for men like me in every way from imagination to criticism. The thought of the vast variety of that work, and how it ranges from towering visions to tiny pricks of humor, overwhelmed me suddenly in retrospect; and I felt we have none of us ever said enough…Yours always, G. K. Chesterton.” [2]

It was also during Chesterton’s era that the classical socialist movement was initially starting to become powerful through the trade unions and labor parties and virtually all leading intellectuals of the era professed fidelity to the ideals of socialism. Yet just as Chesterton was a prescient critic of eugenics, he likewise offered an equally prescient critique of the totalitarian implications of state socialism. Because of this, he was often labeled a reactionary or conservative apologist for the plutocratic overlords of industrial capitalism by the Marxists of his era. But Chesterton was no friend of those who would exploit the poor and workings classes and was in fact a staunch critic of the industrial system as it was in the England of his era. “Who except a devil from Hell ever defended it?” he was alleged to have said when asked about capitalism as it was practiced in his day. [3]

Indeed, Chesterton’s criticisms of both industrial capitalism and state socialism led to the development of one of the most well-known and interesting aspects of his thought, the unique economic philosophy of distributism. Along with his dear friend and fellow Catholic traditionalist Hilaire Belloc (Shaw coined the term “Chesterbelloc” to describe the pair as inseparable as they were), Chesterton suggested the creation of an economic system where productive property would be spread to as many owners of capital as possible thereby producing many “small capitalists” rather than having capital concentrated into the hands of a few plutocrats, trusts, or the state itself.

The prevailing trends of the twentieth century were towards ever greater concentrations of power in large scale, pyramid-like institutions and ever expanding bureaucratic profligacy. Chesterton’s and Belloc’s economic ideas were frequently dismissed as quaint and archaic. However, technological developments in the cyber age have once again opened the door for exciting new possibilities concerning the prospects for the decentralization of economic life. Far from being anachronistic reactionaries, perhaps Chesterton and his friend Belloc were instead futuristic visionaries far ahead of their time.

It is clear enough that Chesterton was in many ways a model for what a public intellectual should be. He was a fiercely and genuinely independent thinker and one who stuck to his convictions with courage. Chesterton never hesitated to buck the prevailing trends of his day and was not concerned about earning the opprobrium of the chattering classes by doing so. He was above all a man of character, committed to intellectual integrity, sincere in his convictions, tolerant in his religious faith, and charitable in his relations with others. In his intellectual life, he wisely and quixotically criticized the worst excesses of the intellectual culture of his time. The twentieth century might have been a happier time if the counsel of G. K. Chesterton had been heeded.

NOTES:

[1] Chesterton, Gilbert Keith. Eugenics and Other Evils. Reprinted by CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform; 1st edition (November 20, 2012). Originally published in 1917.

[2] Babinski, Edward T. Chesterton and Univeralism. Archived at http://www.tentmaker.org/biographies/chesterton.htm. Accessed on March 12, 2013.

[3] Friedman, David D. G. K. Chesterton-An Author Review, The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to Radical Capitalism. Second Edition. Archived at http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf. Accessed on March 12, 2013.

Originally published in Chesterton: Thoughts & Perspectives, Volume Thirteen (edited by Troy Southgate) published by Black Front Press.

vendredi, 16 mai 2014

Waren de Beatles Ierse nationalisten?

beatles.jpg

Waren de Beatles Ierse nationalisten?
 
Francis Van den Eynde
 
Ex: Deltapers - Nieuwsbrief - Nr. 83 - Mei 2014
 
Je hoeft geen fan van de popmuziek te zijn en ook niet zelf de beruchte ‘sixties’ meegemaakt te hebben om te weten dat de wispelturige en incidentrijke muziekgeschiedenis van de Beatles grosso modo in drie periodes kan worden opgedeeld.

Tijdens de eerste, die ongeveer duurde van 1960 tot 1965, werden ze formidabel populair op wereldniveau met het coveren van bekende Amerikaanse rock and roll en al even Amerikaanse rhythm and blues nummers: I Got a Woman van Ray Charles, That’s all Right Mama van Elvis Presley, Roll over Beethoven van Chuck Berry, enz. De eigen muziek die ze tijdens die jaren uitbrengen, is hierop volledig geïnspireerd: I Want to hold your Hand, I Saw Her Standing There … Vanaf 1965 wagen ze zich verder en beginnen ze te experimenteren. Eerst vrij schuchter, voor het nummer Norvegian Wood schakelen ze bijvoorbeeld een sitar in en het overbekende Yesterday laten ze door een strijkorkest begeleiden. Van af dan zullen ze op veel radicalere wijze het ingeslagen pad blijven volgen. In die mate dat wanneer ze in 1967 de LP Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band op de markt brengen, deze door de recensent van de oerdeftige Britse Times een mijlpaal in de popgeschiedenis wordt genoemd. Het zijn de jaren van Let it Be, Hey Jude, Penny Lane, Strawberry Fields for Ever, Eleanor Rugby (deze opsomming is niet chronologisch) en zo vele andere. Ze hebben op dat ogenblik met hun meer gesofisticeerde muziek definitief de Merseybeat (genoemd naar de rivier Mersey, die door hun geboortestad Liverpool stroomt) ver achter zich gelaten. Ook de teksten die ze zingen hebben een hele verandering ondergaan. Misschien spreken ze u niet aan, geachte lezer, maar u zult moeten toegeven dat de inhoud van pakweg Let it Be of Eleanor Rugby heel wat meer diepte heeft dan die van She Loves You of die van A Hard Day’s Night. Ze durven zich zelf aan politiek wagen. Ze hebben uiteraard een links pacifistische reputatie, maar dit weerhoudt er hen niet van, in het nummer Revolution de draak met Mei 68 te steken. Oordeel zelf:
 
 
You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You better free your mind instead
 
 
Liever de IRA dan het Brits leger
 
De derde fase van de muzikale evolutie van leden van deze popgroep wiens populariteit tot hiertoe door niemand werd geëvenaard, kan best het Post Beatle tijdperk worden genoemd. Ten gevolge van allerlei interne strubbelingen valt de ploeg in 1970 uiteen. Alhoewel ze af en toe nog eens  met een paar andere leden van de groep musiceren,  beginnen John Lennon en Paul McCartney met succes een eigen carrière uit te bouwen. Lennon gaat solo, denk aan het lied Imagine. Je kan het met de teneur van de tekst totaal oneens zijn maar niemand kan tegenspreken dat het een prachtig stuk is. McCartney van zijn kant sticht een nieuwe groep, The Wings, en brengt onder meer het prachtige en onvergetelijke Mull of Kintyre uit.

Ondertussen staat Noord-Ierland in rep en roer. De bewoners uit de zogenaamde katholieke wijken van dat stukje Ierland waren in 1969 een vreedzame campagne voor gelijke burgerrechten begonnen (het censitair kiesrecht was er nog altijd van toepassing). De campagne werd door de Britsgezinde protestanten met veel geweld beantwoord. In die mate zelfs dat de IRA er zich toe verplicht zag haar wapens boven te halen om een aantal wijken tegen ware pogroms te beschermen. De Britse troepen die de politie te hulp kwamen, gingen zich algauw als een brutaal bezettingsleger gedragen. De situatie werd met de dag erger. Op 13 augustus 1971 gingen de Engelsen over tot de arrestatie van honderden Ieren die allemaal zonder vorm van proces voor onbepaalde tijd in het pas gebouwde concentratiekamp van Long Kesh werden opgesloten. Het trieste hoogtepunt werd bereikt op 30 januari 1972 (Bloody Sunday) toen Britse soldaten In Derry (op dat moment nog Londonderry) 13 burgers die aan een vreedzame manifestatie deelnamen, doodschoten. Dit alles liet John noch Paul onberoerd. Ze kwamen immers uit Liverpool, een stad die ten gevolge van de massale immigratie in de negentiende eeuw qua bevolking eerder Iers dan Brits is. Beiden zijn ze trouwens van Ierse afkomst: Lennon is de verengelste vorm van de Ierse familienaam O Lionnain die veel voorkomt in het Noord-Ierse graafschap Fermanagh en de ongehuwde moeder van Paul droeg de typisch Ierse naam Mary Mohin McCartney. Beiden zullen dan ook fel reageren. McCartney schrijft het lied Give Ireland Back to the Irish, dat hij met de Wings op plaat uitbrengt. Het refrein luidt:
 
 
Give Ireland Back To the Irish
Don't Make Them Have To Take It Away
Give Ireland Back To the Irish
Make Ireland Irish Today
 
 
Lennon reageert nog feller met twee liederen die volledig in de Ierse rebelsongtraditie thuis horen, The Luck of the Irish en Sunday Bloody Sunday, dezelfde titel als het gekende nummer van Bono en U2, maar veel harder qua tekst. We kunnen er dan ook niet aan weerstaan, het u in extenso te laten lezen:
 
 
Sunday Bloody Sunday (Lennon-Ono)

Well it was Sunday bloody Sunday
When they shot the people there
The cries of thirteen martyrs
Filled the Free Derry air

Is there any one amongst you
Dare to blame it on the kids?
Not a soldier boy was bleeding
When they nailed the coffin lids!

Sunday bloody Sunday
Bloody Sunday's the day!

You claim to be majority
Well you know that it's a lie
You're really a minority
On this sweet emerald isle
When Stormont bans our marches

They've got a lot to learn
Internment is no answer
It's those mothers' turn to burn!

Sunday bloody Sunday
Bloody Sunday's the day!
Sunday bloody Sunday
Bloody Sunday's the day!

You anglo pigs and Scotties
Sent to colonize the North
You wave your bloody Union Jack
And you know what it's worth!
How dare you hold to ransom
A people proud and free
Keep Ireland for the Irish
Put the English back to sea!

Sunday bloody Sunday
Bloody Sunday's the day!

Well, it's always bloody Sunday
In the concentration camps
Keep Falls Road free forever
From the bloody English hands

Repatriate to Britain
All of you who call it home
Leave Ireland to the Irish
Not for London or for Rome!

Sunday bloody Sunday
Bloody Sunday's the day!


(bekijk en beluister op youtube)
 
 
Een toemaatje: zowel Lennon als McCartney werden meer dan eens in pro Ierse demonstaties opgemerkt en Lennon die ooit verklaarde dat hij de IRA boven het Britse leger verkoos, werd er door de FBI van verdacht het Iers geheim leger te financieren. Meent u ook niet dat de vraag die als titel voor dit stuk wordt gebruikt, positief mag worden beantwoord?
 
Francis Van den Eynde

mercredi, 30 avril 2014

Inglaterra apoya a Azerbaiyán contra Armenia

Inglaterra apoya a Azerbaiyán contra Armenia

 

alt

 

Ex: http://www.elespiadigital.com

El embajador británico solicitó a Armenia que "devuelva" a Azerbaiyán los territorios circundantes a Nagorno-Karabaj "tomados" durante la guerra.

El Reino Unido apoya firmemente los principios del arreglo pacífico del conflicto de Nagorno-Karabaj a través de la mediación del Grupo de Minsk de la OSCE . Así lo manifestó el embajador británico en Azerbaiyán Irfan Siddig en una entrevista con 1news.az.

"Los territorio de Azerbaiyán de Nagorno-Karabaj y la tierra circundante son reconocidos internacionalmente. Pero está claro que la situación de Nagorno-Karabaj la disputan Armenia y la población armenia de Nagorno-Karabaj. Así, en la práctica, esto significa que un acuerdo sobre el futuro estatus de Nagorno-Karabaj debe lograrse sobre la base de los principios de Helsinki -no uso de la fuerza, el respeto a la integridad territorial y la igualdad de los pueblos y su derecho a la libre determinación. Este es el elemento más difícil del conflicto, que debe ser acordado entre todas las partes", dijo el Embajador.

"Sin embargo, el estatuto de los territorios que rodean Nagorno-Karabaj, que las fuerzas armenias continúan manteniendo bajo ocupación como consecuencia del conflicto militar, no puede ser negado. Es Territorio de Azerbaiyán, y en cualquier solución pacífica las fuerzas armenias deben retirarse de estas tierras, ya que la continua ocupación de estos territorios es uno de los obstáculos para la paz, y el Reino Unido apoyó la pronta devolución de esas tierras a Azerbaiyán en el marco de un acuerdo de paz global", concluyó Siddig.

vendredi, 07 mars 2014

Les plus anciennes empreintes d’Europe

UK_Happisburgh_c._800000_BP_EN.svg.png

Les plus anciennes empreintes d’Europe
 
Il y a 800.000 ans

Joël Ignasse*
Ex: http://metamag.fr
Ce sont les premières traces de pas humains observées en dehors de l'Afrique. Elles ont été découvertes sur la côte anglaise. Jusqu'à cinq personnes, peut-être de la même famille, ont laissé, il y a plus de 800.000 ans, une série d’empreintes de pas sur la rive d'un ancien estuaire, à Happisburgh, dans le nord de l’Angleterre. Ces traces ont été mises à nu par l'érosion dans une couche de sédiments. Et leur découverte est le fruit d'un fabuleux hasard.

"Leur emplacement a été révélé juste au moment où les chercheurs étaient là pour le voir, lors d'un relevé topographique. Deux semaines plus tard la marée aurait érodé les empreintes" souligne le Dr Simon Lewis, un des découvreurs.

Des traces extrêmement rares

Les découvertes de ce type sont exceptionnelles. Et il faut des conditions bien particulières pour que des empreintes soient saisies lors de leur impression et conservées au fil du temps pour être découvertes des milliers d’années plus tard.

Seules trois lignes d’empreintes sont plus anciennes que celles de Happisburgh : celles de Laetoli en Tanzanie datées de 3,6 millions d’années environ et celles d’Ileret et de Koobi au Kenya (1,5 millions d’années).

Les traces de pas d’Happisburgh ont pu être identifiées grâce à des photographies 3D de la surface. Elles ont révélé des formes d’orteils, de voutes plantaires et de talons appartenant à des adultes mais aussi probablement à des enfants. Leur taille (estimée grâce à la dimension des empreintes) variant entre 93 cm et 1m73. À quel groupe humain appartiennent-ils ? Les scientifiques n’ont pas la réponse.

Le site d’Happisburgh marque le premier établissement humain connu en Europe du Nord. Il y a peu encore, les historiens du peuplement estimaient qu’à cette époque, le Pléistocène inférieur, l’extension humaine ne dépassait pas une zone limitée par le sud des Pyrénées et des Alpes. C’est la découverte à Happisburgh de plus de 70 outils en silex qui a remis en cause cette théorie. Selon les auteurs, qui publient leur découverte dans PLOS ONE, ces empreintes appartiennent à des Homo antecessor.

 

mercredi, 05 mars 2014

Document Britse versie NSA: Overheid infiltreert inderdaad blogs en websites

Document Britse versie NSA: Overheid infiltreert inderdaad blogs en websites

Letterlijke instructies hoe mensen moeten geworden gemanipuleerd om hun 'leiders' te 'vertrouwen' en te 'gehoorzamen', zodat ze 'volgzame' burgers blijven

 


Complex schema uit het document, waarin instructies worden gegeven hoe mensen online moeten worden gemanipuleerd, zodat ze een politiek correcte mening krijgen.

Door velen wordt het nog altijd afgedaan als een complottheorie, maar uit een voorheen vertrouwelijk document van de GCHQ, de Britse versie van de NSA, blijkt dat de overheid wel degelijk met zijn eigen 'trollen' websites, blogs en sociale netwerken infiltreert om de commentaren en discussies te manipuleren, verwarring te zaaien, en commentatoren en sites met een niet gewenste mening zwart en belachelijk te maken. In eigen land merken we dat bijvoorbeeld aangaande artikelen en sites die tegen de EU en de euro zijn, en de CO2/Global-Warming agenda ontmaskeren.

Overheidstrollen bestaan

Dankzij Edward Snowden en Glenn Greenwald hebben we nu zwart op wit, compleet met kleurige grafieken, dat de overheid de publieke opinie probeert te manipuleren en controleren door online discussies te infiltreren, en waar mogelijk sites en schrijvers die er een niet gewenste, politiek incorrecte mening op nahouden met nepcommentaren in diskrediet te brengen, en zo mogelijk kapot te maken. 'Hiermee bedreigen ze de integriteit van het hele internet,' aldus Greenwald.

De inmiddels niet langer geheime eenheid die dit uitvoert heet JTRIG (Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group). De namen in de EU en Nederland zullen anders zijn, maar vrijwel exact dezelfde taken uitvoeren. Zodra een artikel of een discussie op een website, blog of Facebook pagina de 'verkeerde kant' op gaat en het overheidsbeleid ten aanzien van bijvoorbeeld de EU, de redding van de euro, de klimaatagenda, de immigratie en dergelijke bekritiseert, proberen de overheidstrollen de lezers te doen twijfelen aan de gepresenteerde informatie, en daarmee aan de website of blog(schrijver) zelf.

'False flag operaties'

Uit het document blijkt dat ze daar extreme tactieken voor gebruiken die letterlijk 'false flag' operaties worden genoemd. Dat houdt onder andere in dat er artikelen en informatie op het internet worden gezet die aan anderen worden toegeschreven. Ook worden er valse berichten verspreid en 'slachtofferblogs' opgezet van mensen die beweren het slachtoffer te zijn van de schrijver of website die de overheid kapot wil maken. Daarnaast wordt er op diverse forums allerlei negatieve informatie over het doelwit geplaatst.

Soms wordt er rechtstreeks in sites en blogs 'ingebroken', worden foto's veranderd, en worden er valse emails en berichtjes aan collega's, buren, vrienden en familie van het doelwit gestuurd. In andere gevallen wordt er via blogs vertrouwelijke informatie aan de pers of bedrijven gelekt en wordt er belastende informatie op forums gezet, zodat bepaalde ongewenste 'zakenrelaties' worden gestopt of geruïneerd.

Cyber offensief

Deze verdeel-en-vernietig strategie gebruiken de overheidstrollen ook tegen andere landen en hun regeringsleiders, militaire instellingen en inlichtingendiensten. Tevens worden mensen die worden verdacht van gewone misdaden -maar niet zijn veroordeeld- op de korrel genomen. Er wordt gesproken van een waar 'Cyber Offensief', ook tegen mensen die helemaal niets te maken hebben met terrorisme of bedreigingen van de nationale veiligheid.

Grootste angsten bevestigd

Complotfanaten zien in het document hun grootste angsten bevestigd. 'Deze toezichtorganisaties hebben zichzelf de macht gegeven om doelbewust reputaties te vernietigen en de (politieke) online activiteiten van mensen te verstoren, zelfs als ze van geen enkel misdrijf worden beschuldigd,' vervolgt Greenwald.

Hij wijst daarbij op Obama's informatie'tsaar' Cass Sunstein, die al in 2008 voorstelde dat de Amerikaanse regering een team van cyberagenten zou inzetten om online groepen, blogs, websites, sociale netwerken en zelfs chatrooms te infiltreren, zodat de in zijn ogen valse 'complotten' over de regering en het overheidsbeleid zouden worden bestreden. Ironisch genoeg werd Sunstein onlangs door Obama benoemd tot een commissie die toezicht moet gaan houden op de activiteiten van... de NSA.

Mensen gemanipuleerd om hun leiders te 'gehoorzamen'

Nog verontrustender is wat onder het kopje 'Verborgen Online Acties' wordt geschreven. Behalve een groot aantal tactieken om informatie te beïnvloeden en verstoren, worden letterlijke instructies gegeven hoe mensen moeten worden gemanipuleerd om hun 'leiders' te 'vertrouwen' en te 'gehoorzamen', zodat ze 'gewillig' met de politiek correcte mening mee gaan. Er wordt uitvoerig beschreven hoe mensen online met elkaar omgaan, en hoe de overheidstrollen hen kunnen bespelen, zodat hun opvattingen en gedrag worden veranderd.

Complottheorie blijkt realiteit

'Beweringen dat de overheid deze tactieken gebruikt worden vaak afgedaan als complottheorieën, maar deze documenten laten er geen twijfel over bestaan dat de overheid precies dit doet... Wat rechtvaardigt de inzet van overheidsorganisaties om de reputaties van mensen die van geen enkel misdrijf worden beschuldigd te vernietigen, om onlinegroepen te infiltreren, en om technieken te ontwikkelen waarmee online discussies worden gemanipuleerd?'

Wie vertrouwt zo'n regering nog?

De GCHQ documenten bewijzen volgens Greenwald dat 'een grote Westerse regering gebruik maakt van de meest controversiële technieken om online misleiding te verspreiden, en de reputaties van doelwitten te beschadigen. Een van de tactieken die ze gebruiken is het verspreiden van leugens over deze doelwitten, inclusief wat door de GCHQ zelf 'false flag operaties' worden genoemd... Wie zou een regering die deze macht gebruikt, en dan nog wel in het geheim, met vrijwel geen enkele toezicht en buiten ieder legaal raamwerk, nog vertrouwen?'

U bent niet paranoïde

Dus als u de volgende keer op een forum, NUjij, een website of een blog als deze weer eens iemand tegenkomt die een beetje teveel klinkt als een door de overheid betaalde trol -of dat nu over informatie over de EU, de CO2/Global-Warminghoax, of juist een onderwerp als dit artikel gaat-, dan weet u nu zeker dat u niet paranoïde bent. (1)

Xander

(1) Zero Hedge

mardi, 11 février 2014

The Americanization of the World

 

La_fallera_de_l'oncle_Sam.JPG

The Americanization of the World

The Americanization of the World, by William Thomas Stead.

With this post, I will begin a review of the above titled book, written in 1902.  In order to provide context as to my purpose for and approach in this review, I will begin by re-introducing and expanding upon my working hypothesis under which I have been considering various events over the last century and more.

1) There is a group of elite that operate above politicians and national governments, working through think-tanks and other global foundations and institutions.

2) The elite are not all of one mind, although in many ways their interests are aligned and the tools through which they leverage control are equally beneficial to all.

3) Until the turn of the 20th century, much of this control was exercised through the British government and other British-based institutions.

4) Beginning as early as the late 19th century (and perhaps the mid-nineteenth century), two things were becoming clear to this group:

a.The ability of Great Britain to be an effective tool for global reach would soon reach its limits.

b.The potential reach through the United States was untapped and, relatively speaking, unlimited.

5) The commonality in philosophical heritage and language of the people in Great Britain and the United States made the US population susceptible to similar tools of control – tools already established and proven effective.

6) Actions were taken beginning in the late 19th century to effect the transition of this tool for global control from Great Britain to the United States.

7) These actions, through two World Wars, culminated in the United States moving to the position as the primary tool for control by the elite.

8) Winston Churchill – worshiped despite being the leading political figure during the entire span of the demise of the British Empire – played the key role in supporting this transition: both the decline of Great Britain and the ascendency of the United States as leader of this broader, English-speaking, elite controlled empire.

9) As opposed to looking elsewhere for world government, the United States has been the tool to implement world government – taking a leadership position in establishing the UN, IMF, World Bank, NATO, etc.

10) The good news?  Decentralization will win out: witness the break-up of the artificial conglomerations of the USSR, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia.  Witness similar events unfolding in Iraq, the inability to consolidate in Afghanistan.  Witness tiny Belgium, divided in two – yet somehow the entirety of Europe is going to meld into one?  Much more capable thinkers than I am write of the coming of the end of the nation-state (see especially the sections on Barzun and van Creveld).

Some of the visible actions taken to move the US into this leadership position include:

1) The creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913

2) The engagement of the US into the Great War, despite overwhelming public opinion against getting involved in this European conflict

3) The engagement of the US into the Second World War, again despite overwhelming public opinion against getting involved in this conflict.

4) Various purposeful actions taken by the British government to a) overcome the historical animosities between the two countries, and b) move the US toward the position of global primacy.

If you find this too tin-foil-hat for you, there is little reason to continue reading this post (if you haven’t stopped already).

While reading 1939 – The War That Had Many Fathers, I came across another event that seems to have helped move the US into a position to take the hand-off from Great Britain: the assassination of President McKinley in 1901.  As I explain here, this event helped to move the US from a negative or neutral posture toward Great Britain (and even somewhat favorable to Germany) toward a much more positive relationship with Great Britain through the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt.

This transition was but one step in what is known as the Great Rapprochement, the turning of US policy toward Great Britain in the period 1895 – 1915.

Also while reading the above-mentioned book I came across the name William Thomas Stead, and his book “The Americanization of the World.”  Given the title and description of the book, and that this book was initially published in 1902 (precisely at the beginning of this changing relationship), it seemed to me a worthwhile read given the hypothesis I identify above.

With that lengthy preamble out of the way, I offer an even lengthier introduction of Mr. Stead….

Who was Stead?  “William Thomas Stead (5 July 1849 – 15 April 1912) was an English newspaper editor….”

If his date of death seems familiar, it is because Stead died aboard the Titanic. Before this, he was a tremendously influential newspaper editor and author:

In 1880, Stead went to London to be assistant editor of the Liberal Pall Mall Gazette (a forerunner of the London Evening Standard), where he set about revolutionizing a traditionally conservative newspaper “written by gentlemen for gentlemen”.

Stead early on learned the power that the press could project over government action:

Stead’s first sensational campaign was based on a Nonconformist pamphlet, The Bitter Cry of Outcast London. His lurid stories of squalid life in the slums had a wholly beneficial effect on the capital. A Royal Commission recommended that the government should clear the slums and encourage low-cost housing in their place. It was Stead’s first success.

Despite being able to successfully move government to action, not every endeavor ended well; still, his reach and magnitude knew few limits:

In 1884, Stead pressured the government to send his friend General Gordon into Sudan to protect British interests in Khartoum. The eccentric Gordon disobeyed orders, and the siege of Khartoum, Gordon’s death, and the failure of the hugely expensive Gordon Relief Expedition was one of the great imperial disasters of the period.

 

gor.jpg

Gordon was sent to evacuate British citizens from a troubled region and to otherwise abandon Sudan.  Once Gordon arrived, he apparently pursued a different course: he decided it was best to crush the Muslim uprising for fear that it would eventually spread to Egypt as well.  Gordon, with 6,000 men, began a defense of Khartoum.

On March 18, 1884, the Mahdist army laid siege to the city. The rebels stopped river traffic and cut the telegraph line to Cairo. Khartoum was cut off from resupply, which led to food shortages, but could still communicate with the outside world by using messengers. Under pressure from the public, in August 1884, the British government decided to reverse its policy and send a relief force to Khartoum.

“Under pressure from the public” a relief expedition force was sent, but failed to arrive in time to save Gordon and his men:

On January 26, 1885, Khartoum fell to the Mahdist army of 50,000 men. At that time of year the Nile was shallow enough to cross by wading and the Mahdists were able to breach the city’s defenses by attacking the poorly-defended approaches from the river. The entire garrison was slaughtered, including General Gordon. His head was cut off and delivered to the Mahdi. Two days later the relief expedition entered the city to find that they were too late.

Lord Kitchener later reconquered Sudan.

Forgive my diversion into this tale of late nineteenth century British imperialism; however it serves to demonstrate the power and influence that Stead possessed.  As cited above, “In 1884, Stead pressured the government to send his friend General Gordon into Sudan….”  It seems reasonable that he also was the one to apply pressure to send aid to “his friend” Gordon.

More on Stead and his influence:

1885 saw him force the British government to supply an additional £5.5million to bolster weakening naval defenses, after which he published a series of articles.  Stead was no hawk however; instead he believed Britain’s strong navy was necessary to maintain world peace.

Stead saw peace through war.  He saw the British Navy as a global force for good.  Consider how the tools used by the elite have not had to change a bit over the 125 years since Stead’s time, as the same tools used by Stead to help usurp wealth from the British middle class remain completely effective in the propaganda campaigns designed to usurp wealth from the middle class of the US today.

…he is also credited as originating the modern journalistic technique of creating a news event rather than just reporting it, as his most famous “investigation”, the Eliza Armstrong case, was to demonstrate.

Stead had other passions, showing an ability to understand future global consolidation well before any generally visible steps:

Stead was a pacifist and a campaigner for peace, who favored a “United States of Europe” and a “High Court of Justice among the nations”….

Stead held court in high places:

[Stead] was an early imperialist dreamer, whose influence on Cecil Rhodes in South Africa remained of primary importance; and many politicians and statesmen, who on most subjects were completely at variance with his ideas, nevertheless owed something to them. Rhodes made him his confidant….

Rhodes, of course, cornered the South African diamond market with the help of rather influential friends – call them the elite of the elite.  Rhodes was also quite influential regarding British Imperial policy:

Historian Richard A. McFarlane has called Rhodes “as integral a participant in southern African and British imperial history as George Washington or Abraham Lincoln are in their respective eras in United States history…

And Rhodes was influenced by Stead.

Stead found his influence ever-growing:

The number of his publications gradually became very large, as he wrote with facility and sensational fervor on all sorts of subjects, from The Truth about Russia (1888) to If Christ Came to Chicago! (Laird & Lee, 1894), and from Mrs Booth (1900) to The Americanisation of the World (1902).

And finally, to show the well-rounded character of the man:

Stead claimed to be in receipt of messages from the spirit world, and, in 1892, to be able to produce automatic writing.  His spirit contact was alleged to be the departed Julia Ames, an American temperance reformer and journalist whom he met in 1890 shortly before her death.  In 1909 he established Julia’s Bureau where inquirers could obtain information about the spirit world from a group of resident mediums.

As mentioned, Stead died on the Titanic.  His reputation survived:

Following his death, Stead was widely hailed as the greatest newspaperman of his age…. Like many journalists, he was a curious mixture of conviction, opportunism and sheer humbug. According to his biographer W. Sydney Robinson, “He twisted facts, invented stories, lied, betrayed confidences, but always with a genuine desire to reform the world – and himself.”

Why all of this background on Stead?  Well, it seems he was a rather influential fellow within the British elite at precisely the time when the United States began its turn toward Great Britain: an empire which (to say nothing of the spat in 1776) less than a century before burned the White House and much of the capitol, and only a few decades before, while officially neutral, aided the South in their war for independence – guilty enough to ultimately pay restitution of $15.5 million for building war ships for the Confederacy.

Great Britain was officially neutral throughout the American Civil War, 1861–65. Elite opinion tended to favor the Confederacy, while public opinion tended to favor the United States.

I will suggest it is elite opinion that counts when it comes to matters of politics, for example:

Diplomatic observers were suspicious of British motives. The Russian Minister in Washington Eduard de Stoeckl noted, “The Cabinet of London is watching attentively the internal dissensions of the Union and awaits the result with an impatience which it has difficulty in disguising.” De Stoeckl advised his government that Britain would recognize the Confederate States at its earliest opportunity. Cassius Clay, the United States Minister in Russia, stated, “I saw at a glance where the feeling of England was. They hoped for our ruin! They are jealous of our power. They care neither for the South nor the North. They hate both.”

Yet as early as 1895 – only 30 years after the end of the war – the US and Britain began their courtship.  And in the background was William Thomas Stead.

Finally, on to his book and the first chapter:

As it was through the Christian Church that the monotheism of the Jew conquered the world, so it may be through the Americans that the English ideals expressed in the English language may make a tour of the planet. (Page 3)

Setting aside the exaggeration of the claim, given the religion of statolatry (to borrow a phrase from Charles Burris), the comparison seems quite appropriate.

Stead saw the inevitability of the United States taking the preeminent position among the English-speaking nations.  He looked at population growth over the preceding 100 years (including empire), but also at differentiating the white population from the non-white (a recurring theme in his writing); he felt strongly that it was the white population that was of importance.

We are comparing the English-speaking communities.  The right of leadership does not depend upon how many millions, more or less, of colored people we have compelled to pay us taxes. (Page 5)

Stead, not shy, makes plain one purpose of colonizing people of color – compelling tax payments.  Stead also discounts the millions of British subjects in, for example, India, Africa, and the West Indies when it comes to considering the trends of population and future supremacy.

Population should be weighed as well as counted.  In a census return a Hottentot counts for as much as a Cecil Rhodes; a mean white on a southern swamp is the census equivalent for a Mr. J.P. Morgan or Mr. Edison.

A nation which has no illiterates can hardly be counted off against the Russians, only three per cent of whom can read or write. (Page 9)

He also sees no hope for reversal of this trend in favor of the US and to the detriment of Great Britain – not only in population but also industrial production and therefore capability of global reach.

Having presented this case, he suggests Britain embraces this inevitable change, restoring old bonds:

The philosophy of common sense teaches us that, seeing we can never again be the first, standing alone, we should lose no time in uniting our fortunes with those who have passed us in the race. Has the time not come when we should make a resolute effort to realize the unity of the English-speaking race?  …while if we remain outside, nursing our Imperial insularity on monarchical lines, we are doomed to play second fiddle for the rest of our existence.  Why not finally recognize the truth and act upon it?  What sacrifices are there which can be regarded as too great to achieve the realization of the ideal of the unity of the English-speaking race? (Page 6)

Stead sees continuous contention between the United States and Great Britain for control of global trade, with Britain eventually and ultimately the loser.  Stead is writing during the very early phases of the Great Rapprochement.  As regarding great sacrifices, considering the tremendous work done by Great Britain behind the scenes to create the propaganda in the US necessary to drag the American people into two world wars (as I view these wars as key to formalizing the transition of power), it seems reasonable to conclude that Stead’s suggestion that no sacrifices should be considered too great was taken quite seriously.

Stead goes on to outline the power and control available through a united US and British front: population, land mass, control of the seas and most navigable rivers.  And gold: “With the exception of Siberia they have seized all the best goldmines of the world.” (Page 7) Not a barbarous relic, apparently.

Between the two, they have seized the dominions of Spain, despoiled the Portuguese, the French and the Dutch, and left nothing but scraps to Italy and the Germans. (Page 7)  The only statistic in which these non-English-speaking nations hold the lead is in the amount of national debt! (Page 11)

Stead is looking for a savior, someone to lead in bringing these two – the US and Britain – into one, with the US taking the leading position:

The question arises whether this gigantic aggregate can be pooled.  We live in the day of combinations.  Is there no Morgan who will undertake to bring about the greatest combination of all – a combination of the whole English Speaking race?

The same motive which has led to the building up of the Trust in the industrial world may bring about this great combination in the world of politics.  (Page 12)

Presumably he is writing here of the work done by Morgan in consolidating the US steel industry.  Of course, Morgan also had connections with the same elite family that assisted Rhodes with diamonds in South Africa:

In 1895, at the depths of the Panic of 1893, the Federal Treasury was nearly out of gold.  President Grover Cleveland accepted Morgan’s offer to join with the Rothschilds and supply the U.S. Treasury with 3.5 million ounces of gold to restore the treasury surplus in exchange for a 30-year bond issue.

It should also be kept in mind: McKinley was a Rockefeller man; Rockefeller had ties to Germany.  Teddy Roosevelt, beneficiary of McKinley’s assassination, was a Morgan man; Morgan was a strong friend of Britain.  It seems the “Morgan” that Stead was looking for in the political combination was the same “Morgan” that he was referring to in the industrial combination.

Stead sees the impossibility of the American people accepting a combination where those in America would accept being subservient again to the crown:

It is, of course, manifestly impossible, even if it were desirable, for the Americans to come back within the pale of the British Empire. (Page 15)

Instead, he suggests Britain should accept reunion “on whatever terms may be arrived at.” (Page 15)

While not an overt political reunion, it certainly seems that a reunion was accepted by the British – and ultimately the U.S.  If one visible actor can be placed at the center of this “success,” I will suggest it is Winston Churchill.  For much of the first half of the 20th century, Churchill played a leading role in British politics; even when not in an official position, he was communicating directly with Roosevelt behind the scenes in order to facilitate America’s entry into the Second World War – the final event in ensuring the transition.

During this time, Britain (or more precisely, the British population) certainly paid the price of reunion – “whatever terms necessary,” as Stead suggested in 1902: the terms for the British population can be seen in the blood of two world wars, inflation, a depression, a loss of manufacture and industry.  This price was paid over the next 50 years.  In the end, the United States clearly stood on top of the English-speaking world.

One politician, more than any other, stood in a position of leadership and influence while Britain was economically and physically bled: Winston Churchill.  Presiding (in various roles) over such a massive loss of Empire would normally result in the derision of the leader.  Yet Churchill is exalted.  Perhaps it has little to do with his role in the death of the British Empire, but because of his role in the birth of the larger, Anglo Empire.  For this reason, the gatekeepers of mainstream history frame Churchill in a praiseworthy manner.

And one writer, a man who traveled within and influenced the highest circles of the elite, wrote the book before the events even occurred: William Thomas Stead.

I will continue with further posts regarding this book as I find comments of import.  In the meantime, the examination of this one life and this first chapter has provided insights supportive of my working hypothesis regarding the transition of elite power and control from Great Britain to the United States.

dimanche, 26 janvier 2014

Kriegserklärung des britischen Königs George VI. älter als angenommen

Kriegserklärung des britischen Königs George VI. älter als angenommen

 
Bild: 
König George VI. bei seiner Rede zum Kriegseintritt Großbritanniens.

Bereiche 

Historisches

Die bekannte Rede des englischen Königs George VI., in der er seinem Volk am 3. September 1939 die Kriegserklärung an das Deutsche Reich bekanntgab (The King’s Speech“), wurde bereits mehrere Tage vor Ausbruch des Zweiten Weltkriegs geschrieben. Dies stellte sich erst kürzlich heraus, als der Entwurf der Rede für den König bei dem Londoner Auktionshaus Sotheby’s angeboten wurde.

Dieses Aktenstück stammt ursprünglich aus dem Besitz des Verfassers des Entwurfs, Harold Vale Rhodes, eines hohen Beamten. Rhodes spielte eine wichtige Rolle bei der Gründung des britischen „Informationsministeriums“ zu Beginn des Zweiten Weltkriegs, das für die Propaganda zuständig war.  Es wurde am 25. August 1939 geschrieben, zwei Tage nach der Veröffentlichung des Molotow-Ribbentrop-Pakts. Laut Nachforschungen der Londoner Tageszeitung Daily Mail sollen sogar noch ältere Entwürfe für die Kriegsrede des Königs existieren.

„Geschah nicht aus dem Blauen heraus“

Zwar versuchte der Historiker des Londoner „Imperial War Museum“, Nigel Steel, die Bedeutung des Fundes herunterzuspielen: „Als das passierte, geschah dies nicht aus dem Blauen heraus“. Dennoch dürfte die Tatsache, dass eine ausführliche Kriegsrede des Königs bereits über eine Woche vor den deutsch-polnischen Grenzzwischenfällen geschrieben wurde, für einiges Erstaunen sorgen. Galten doch diese Grenzzwischenfälle und der folgende Einmarsch der Deutschen in Polen als offizieller Grund für den Ausbruch des Zweiten Weltkriegs.

Für Überraschung wird dies insbesondere deshalb sorgen, weil Historiker gerade für die Zeit unmittelbar vor dem Kriegsausbruch bislang von sehr ernst zu nehmenden Friedensgesprächen und Initiativen ausgegangen waren. Das Schriftstück wurde am 10. Dezember in London verkauft.

mardi, 07 janvier 2014

William Joyce

William Joyce

By Kerry Bolton

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

William_Joyce_politician-426x625.jpgWilliam Joyce, more infamously known to history as “Lord Haw Haw,” the epitome of a British Traitor, was hanged on the basis of a passport technicality on January 3, 1946. Like the name “Quisling” (see Ralph Hewin’s excellent biography Quisling: Prophet Without Honour) much nonsense persists about Joyce. 

The following is redacted from my introduction to William Joyce’s Twilight Over England [2] (London: Black House Publishing, 2013). The second part of the introduction, not included here, examines the primary points of Joyce’s book, the continuing relevance of which is its cogent criticism of Free Trade liberalism and international finance.

***

Twenty-five years ago I was told a little anecdote by a work colleague, a middle aged Englishman. He said that as a small lad in England he and his friends were one Christmas eve singing carols to earn some pocket money. One household they came to was particularly memorable for him during those Depression years. A gentleman answered the door, invited the children inside and gave them each not only a cake but also a shilling. What struck my work colleague all those years later, still, was not only the generosity of the amount each child had been given, but more particularly, that someone from the ‘middle class’, invited a group of working class children in to the household where they received their cakes and coins. Such lack of social snobbery was a rarity that my work colleague had never forgotten. My English friend concluded by stating that the kind benefactor was named William Joyce.

My English friend was no Nazi; not even vaguely ‘right-wing’. His anecdote on this humanity of William Joyce, enduringly hated as a traitor, whose very name, as ‘Lord Haw-Haw’, as he was dubbed by the Allied propaganda machine, is Britain’s equivalent to Norway’s Quisling, and America’s Benedict Arnold. Joyce, as a British ‘Nazi’, is automatically regarded as a rogue, a lunatic, an apologist for mass murder and aggression, a fool, or any combination thereof. Yet the anecdote from my English friend’s childhood betrays a human side to the likes of William Joyce that just maybe indicates the he was none of those things, but a man of entirely different character. For in Twilight Over England, written while Joyce’s beloved Britain – yes, beloved Britain – was at war with Germany, and while Joyce had made the fateful decision that siding with those who were fighting Britain was the greatest manifestation of that love of Britain, we have the testament of a man deeply anguished at the level to which his people had been reduced by a rapacious system. That this system of international finance and Free Trade is more fully enthroned today and over more of the world than in Joyce’s time shows the relevance of this volume for the present and foreseeable future. In Twilight Over England we might discern – if we open our minds, and for a little while at least, leave behind the prejudgements and the victor’s hateful propaganda – the historical circumstances, centuries in the making, that brought this Briton to a martyr’s death.

Indeed, J A Cole, as objective a biographer that one could expect, described Joyce as ‘intelligent, well-educated, dedicated, hardworking, fluent and sharp-tongued’.[1] Although critical of Joyce, Cole also described him as ‘so unlike the stereotype which fear and prejudice had created’.[2] As a paid broadcaster for the Germans during the war, Joyce retained a character devoid of egotism and vanity, living frugally, refusing pay raises and perks other than cigarettes, and only being persuaded with some difficulty to buy himself a smartly-cut suit.[3] How far away the reality of Joyce was from the character depicted, apparently without a shred of good conscience, by Rebecca West, who gloated at Joyce’s trial, referring to him as opening ‘a vista into a mean life’, always speaking ‘as though he was better fed and better clothed than we were, and so, we now know, he was’,[4] going so far as to describe Joyce as ‘a tiny little creature’,[5] presumably confident that such was the hysteria that nothing she wrote against him would be challenged. It is as though West, and a gaggle of lesser slanderers, took all that Joyce truly was and turned it on its head. However, anyone with an eye to fame or money can still write whatever junk they can contrive on certain events related to the Second World War, and seldom are they called to account for their humbug. Indeed, to expose the lies can render one a jail sentence in many states and the destruction of one’s reputation and career.[6]

Joyce was a rare combination in history: an activist, a revolutionary, and a tough fighter, scarred with a Communist-welded razorblade. He was not some sallow intellectual whose only battle was fought within the brain and with verbosity at a safe distance from one’s targets. He had been the Director of Propaganda for a mass movement, Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists, which like Fascist movements across the world in the aftermath of the First World War, attracted individuals of many types and classes in solidarity. In Britain these included the American expatriate poet Ezra Pound, a founder of modern English literature;[7] Wyndham Lewis, novelist, painter, philosopher and co-founder with Pound of the Vorticist arts movement; the British nature writer and Hawthorne Prize Winner Henry Williamson, who never repudiated his belief in the heroic virtues of Mosley or Hitler, even after the war and who, like many who joined Mosley, was a First World War veteran haunted by the prospect of another war, but also reminded of the Europe that might still be when on Christmas Eve 1914 Germans and Britons greeted each other in no-man’s land to play football, returning to slaughter one another the following day; the military strategist, General J F C Fuller, father of modern tank warfare; and many others of the highest intellectual and cultural calibre.

William was born in New York on 24 April 1906, his father, Michael Francis Joyce, a Catholic, having migrated from Ireland in 1892, and marrying Gertrude Brooke, daughter of a Lancashire physician. In 1906 the family returned to Ireland, Michael having done well as a builder, and now becoming a publican and a property owner. William was educated at Catholic schools, and at an early age threw himself with gusto into whatever he did: When assisting at a service in the chapel he swung the censer with such force that the glowing incense flew down the aisle. He received his broken nose not through a fist fight with a Communist during the 1920s or 30s, but with a boy at school who had called him an ‘Orangeman’, because of the Joyce family’s avidly pro-British sentiments at the time of Ireland’s tribulations. His nose was not properly attended to, and hence William always had a distinctively nasal tone to his voice. During the Republican rebellion Michael’s properties endured arson. Young William saw the body of his neighbour, a policeman, on the road, with a bullet through his head. On another occasion he witnessed a Sinn Feiner cornered and shot by police.[8]

In 1920 the British Government reinforced the Royal Irish Constabulary with the Black & Tan paramilitaries. At fourteen, William served as a spy for the authorities, keeping his eyes and ears open for snippets of information that might be of use, and ran a squad of sub-agents. With the truce of 1921, and the departure of the British, the Joyce family moved to England. At 15, eager to continue serving King and Empire, he enlisted in the army at Worcester, giving his age as 18, but his real age was soon discovered and he was discharged. At 16 he joined the Officer Training Corps at the University of London, and after graduating from Battersea Polytechnic, enrolled at Birbeck College, part of the University.

Of Joyce’s intellectual gifts, his lifelong friend and comrade, John MacNab related to Cole:

‘He kept no files, diaries or notes of any kind, but he could recall the date, place and circumstances of remote events and meetings with people. He never forgot a face or a name, and could give a full account, unhesitatingly, of almost anything that had ever happened to him. At intervals of years he would repeat the same account without the least variation. He could quote – always exactly – any poem he had ever read with attention, and even notable pieces of prose. As a Latin scholar his technical qualifications were inferior to my own, yet he was the one who could quote Virgil or Horace etc., freely and always to the point, not I’.[9]

MacNab stated that Joyce was a multi-linguist, gifted in mathematics and his ability to teach it. ‘He read widely in history, philosophy, theology, psychology, theoretical physics and chemistry, economics law, medicine, anatomy and physiology. When he broke his collarbone in 1936 while skating, he was able to set it himself due to his knowledge of physiology. He was a talented pianist’.[10]

British Fascisti

While pursuing a BA in Latin, French, English and History, in 1923 he joined the British Fascisti, founded that year by Miss R L Linton-Orman, a member of a distinguished military family who had served with the Women’s Reserve Ambulance during the Frost World War and had twice been awarded the Croix de Charité for gallantry for heroic rescues in Salonica.[11]

The first such body to be established in Britain, inspired by the assumption to power by Mussolini in 1922, and the destruction of Communism in Italy, there was not much ideological substance to the British Fascisti (later ‘British Fascists’), other than loyalty to ‘King and Empire’, a determination to form a paramilitary force to stop Communism in the event of revolution or strikes, and to maintain order at Conservative Party meetings when Communists and Labourites threatened violence. The membership was drawn mainly from the middle and upper classes, and included a good number of retired officers. The first president of the British Fascists was Lord Garvagh, who was succeeded by Brigadier-General Blakeney, later associated with both Arnold Leese’s Imperial Fascist League, a small but persistent anti-Semitic group; and Mosley’s British Union.[12] The present of such personalities indicates the impression that Fascist Italy was making on important sections of Britain, and that it could never be dismissed as the collective delusions of a ‘lunatic fringe’.

Despite the lack of ideological substance, many stalwart Fascists got their start with the British Fascisti, including those who were to play a prominent role in the British Union of Fascists (BUF). It was as leader of the ‘I Squad’ of the British Fascisti that on 22 October 1924 Joyce stationed his men at Lambeth Baths Hall in South-East London, to protect the election meeting of Jack Lazarus, Conservative party Parliamentary candidate for Lambeth North, from Communist attack. These were times in which electoral meetings not approved by the Left were subjected to attack from Communist and Labour party thugs armed with razors, often put into potatoes for throwing, and spiked sticks. Hence, the British Fascisti emerged at a time of a very real threat of violence by the Left against the Conservative and Unionist parties, regardless of the other shortcomings of the organisation as a serious political alternative.

The Communist assault on Lazarus’ election meeting was ‘vicious’.[13] A ‘Jewish Communist’, as Joyce described him, jumped on his back and tried to slash his throat with a razor, but only succeeded in cutting Joyce from mouth to ear, his neck protected by a thick woollen scarf. He did not realise he had been slashed until the crowd drew back aghast, and he attempted to stem the blood with a handkerchief given to him, then walked to the police station where he collapsed.

While active with the British Fascisti, Joyce was also president of the Conservative Society at Birbeck College, where he developed his oratory, seeing Conservatism as the upholder of ‘Anglo-Saxon tradition and supremacy’.[14] Meanwhile, 1926 proceeded with a General Strike that did not result in the threat of a Soviet Britain, and the British Fascisti went into decline. That year Joyce married Hazel Barr, while continuing to do well with his studies, and the following year obtained First Class Honours in English, but did not complete his MA. His attempts for several years to introduce the Conservative Party to ‘true Nationalism’ failed. Biding his time, as the several small Fascist groups that arose failed to impress him, Joyce taught at the Victoria Tutorial College, and then at King’s College.

The Red thuggery that the British Fascists had attempted to combat continued. A target was to be not a party from the Right but from the Left: the New Party, founded in 1931 by the Labour Party’s most promising young politician, Sir Oswald Mosley, after Labour Caucus refused to adopt Mosley’s bold plan for unemployment.[15] The New Party was regarded as traitorous by the Labour Party, and was subjected to violent attacks by Communists and Labourites. It was such violence that contributed to Mosley’s turning to Fascism and forming his Blackshirt squads to protect the meetings that he could not efficiently protect during the New Party electoral campaigns, although even then he had started forming a squad of stewards trained in boxing by Jewish boxing champion Ted ‘Kid’ Lewis. Mosley records that extreme Left reaction had been subdued until the promising results of the New Party vote came out in a by-election.[16] Mosley, referring to the General Election soon after, related: ‘All over the country we met a storm of organised violence. They were simply out to smother us, we were to be mobbed down by denying us our only resource: the spoken word; we were to be mobbed out of existence’.[17]

In 1932 Mosley visited Fascist Italy, and like many others was impressed by what he saw at a time when Britain continued to stagnate. Joyce read the news reports of Mosley’s visit with interest but, having long had an increasing animosity against Jewish influence in Britain, was more interested in the progress that the Hitler movement was making in Germany.[18] When Mosley re-established the New Party as the British Union of Fascists most of the adherents of other Fascist groups, particularly the British Fascists, joined him. Joyce joined the BUF in 1933,[19] and, fatefully, obtained a British passport by falsely claiming that he had been born a British subject, with the expectation that he might accompany Mosley on a visit to Hitler.

Joyce was soon noted in the BUF for his oratory skills, and he resigned his teaching post at Victoria Tutorial College and his studies at London University to become the BUF’s West London Area Administration Officer. He then became Propaganda Director, addressing hundreds of meetings. It was on hearing Joyce, then 28, speaking that ex-Labour MP John Beckett,[20] joined the BUF, and committed himself to National Socialism, having previously been impressed by what he had seen in Fascist Italy, declaring Joyce to be one of the greatest orators who had recruited thousands to Fascism.[21] Indeed, Joyce filled in for Mosley if the latter could not attend a function. Jeffrey Hamm, a young Mosleyite before the war, who became particularly active in Mosley’s post-war Union Movement, reminisced on Joyce’s oratory that ‘his wit and repartee were proverbial’. ‘On one occasion a buxom lady in the crowd was shouting abuse at him, culminating in an angry roar: “You bastard!” Quick as a flash Joyce gave her a cheerful wave, as he cried: “Hullo, Mother!”’[22]

Joyce divorced Hazel amicably in 1934. He had sired two daughters who were close to their father, despite his hectic life as a Fascist leader.

His BUF classes on Fascist ideology, held jointly with his closest colleague, John Angus Macnab, with whom he also established a private tutoring business, were used to propagate his own views on Fascism, and here he introduced the term National Socialism to the movement, which was renamed the British Union of Fascists and National Socialists in 1936.[23] Although Joyce believed that National Socialism was intrinsically based on the nation from which it arose, was more inclined to quote Thomas Carlyle than Hitler, and eschewed both the swastika and the fasces when creating his own movement, he saw Hitler as a closer example to consider than Mussolini, not least because Hitler dealt with the Jewish question head-on. It was Joyce who coined the BUF axiom: ‘If you love your country you are National. If you love your people, you are Socialist. Be a National Socialist’. The reader will find this phrase cogently explained in Twilight Over England.

Joyce met Christian Bauer, who represented Goebbels’ newspaper Der Angriff, in Britain, and at Bauer’s request, after his return to Germany, Joyce maintained contact with him,[24] although it transpired that Bauer was more important when in Britain than he was in Germany.

In 1937 Joyce married Margaret White, a Manchester BUF organiser, who had accepted his proposal at a party, even although the two hardly knew one another. It had been literally ‘love at first sight’ between the two, and a scholarly member of her branch remarked on the engagement that it ‘may be uncomfortable being married to a genius. And William is a genius, you know!’[25] On the first day of the year, the Public Order Act was introduced banning the wearing of uniforms at public political functions; i.e. the black shirt, prohibiting the effective stewarding of open-air meetings, and other measures designed to impinge on the BUF campaign. As previously stated, Mosley had adopted a black shirt uniform to establish a disciplined and recognisable formation to keep order at his meetings having experienced Red thuggery at New Party meetings, as had the Conservative Party many years. The banning of the uniform saw a considerable rise in disorder at BUF functions. Despite the great deal of nonsense that had been alleged about ‘Fascist violence,’ the Blackshirts always answered the razorblade and the cosh with fists when necessary. One of these great myths is that Lord Rothermere, proprietor of the Daily Mail, who had supported the BUF during the first few years, withdrew his support in 1934 because of such Fascist violence. In fact, as related by Randolf Churchill some thirty years later, it was due to ‘the pressure of Jewish advertisers’.[26]

By 1937, both Joyce and Beckett, editor of Action and The Blackshirt, had become increasingly critical of BUF administration. Matters were decided when Mosley was obliged through financial stringency to reduce the paid-staff by four-fifths. Among them were both Joyce and Beckett. Macnab, the editor of Fascist Quarterly, resigned in protest at Joyce’s dismissal. Macnab & Joyce, Private Tutors, was a now established to earn a modest income to offer tuition for university entrance and professional preliminary examinations, and to teach English to foreign pupils of sound character.

National Socialist League

Joyce’s concerns were directed towards forming a new political organisation that would more precisely reflect his view on British National Socialism. Joyce, Beckett, McNabb and a few others founded the National Socialist League. Despite Joyce’s admiration for Hitler, his organisation was based on British roots. That a front-group for the League was named the Carlyle Club after Thomas Carlyle, whom Joyce often cited as a precursor of British National Socialism, is indicative of the British character of his variation of National Socialism. After all the concept of the National and the Social synthesis is universal, and movements of such a type had been arising spontaneously and independently of one another since the immediate aftermath of the First World War. One might refer to the Legion of the Archangel Michael in Romania, the Hungarist movement in Hungary, National-Syndicalist Falangism in Spain, and many others throughout the world. The Israeli scholar Dr Zeev Sternhell provides a convincing argument for the emergence of proto-Fascism from a union of Left-wing syndicalist and Right-wing Monarchist theorists in France as early as the late 19th century.[27] Mosley’s ‘Fascism’ had been based on his Birmingham manifesto to cure unemployment through a massive public works programme that had been rejected as too radical by the Labour Government, not by reading Mein Kampf or Mussolini’s Doctrine of Fascism.

As for Joyce’s National Socialist League, it was surprisingly ‘democratic’ in structure, with leaders elected at branch level, and no fuehrer-complex being evident in either Beckett of Joyce. Nor was there a paramilitary complexion to the group.[28] The symbol was a ship’s steering wheel, the design of which is also suggestive of a Union Jack, below which was the motto: ‘Steer Straight’. A newspaper was published, The Helmsman. Funding came from Alec Scrimgeour, an elderly stockbroker, whom Joyce had known since the BUF, and who treated Joyce as a son. Cole mentions that one supporters ‘claimed to be the King of Poland’. This cannot be anyone other than the New Zealand poet Geoffrey Potocki de Montalk who, unlike his many contemporaries who were embracing to Communism, being a Monarchist, embraced the Right, then Fascism and National Socialism, and never recanted. Indeed, even in December 1945, Potocki printed an ‘Xmas card’, the ‘X’ in the shape of a swastika, with a poem that paid tribute to ‘our William Joyce’. As to his eccentric claim to the throne of Poland, it was as legitimate as any other, being descended from a Polish noble lineage. [29]

The primary ideological text of the League was National Socialism Now, published in September 1937. National Socialism Now is a cogent 57 pages defining the fundamentals of National Socialist ethos, method of statecraft, and type financial and economic systems. Joyce’s opening lines are that,

‘We deal with National Socialism for Britain; for we are British. Our League is entirely British; and to win the victory for National Socialism here, we must work hard enough to be excused the inspiring task of describing National Socialism elsewhere’.[30]

While National Socialism was forever linked with the name of Hitler, no matter where it arises it ‘must arise from the soil and people or not at all’.

‘It springs from no temporary grievance, but from the revolutionary yearning of the people to cast off the chains of gross, sordid, democratic materialism without having to put on the shackles of Marxian Materialism, which would be identical with the chains cast off’.[31]

Joyce returned to a theme that he had introduced to the BUF, that the synthesis of Nationalism and Socialism is a logical development; that ‘the people’ are identical with ‘the nation’, and anything else, whether called ‘nationalism’ or ‘socialism’, is a waste of time. It was Socialism that provided the foundation for class unity rather than class antagonism, which had been engendered by the dislocations caused by industrialism and usury. Such class division is aggravated rather than transcended by Marxism and other forms of materialistic socialism. Both Capitalism and Marxism are international. Indeed Marx pointed this out in The Communist Manifesto, and described anyone resisting this internationalising tendency of Capitalism as ‘reactionary’, because the historical process towards Communism is aided by Capitalist internationalisation, and what Marx called the ‘uniformity in the mode of production’ across the world.[32] Today we call this ‘globalisation’ and the process has been accelerating. What has emerged is not Communism, but a Capitalist ‘new world order’. Communism is not even anti-Capitalist, but an extension of it, and hence, as Joyce explains in Twilight, it is Nationalism, intrinsically based on Socialism, that not only opposes Capitalism, but transcends it. Equally, any Socialism that embraces internationalism is not only hopeless in combating Capitalism, but assists in its victory. We are now able with both hindsight and observing present-day events, to confirm that this indeed the case. Communism, and Social Democracy literally failed to ‘delver the goods’, and now Free Trade Capitalism runs rampant over the entire world, imposed by US weaponry where, where debt to international finance and the opiate of the shopping mall and MTV are insufficient. The Socialism of Joyce’s day, represented mainly by the Labour Party, did not oppose the system of international finance any more than the Conservative Party, that had long since forsaken its patriotic and rural origins, and both permitted a system of Liberal Free Trade that invested capital to build up cotton manufacturing in India for example, while allowing the mill workers of Lancashire to rot.[33] The same situation is visited upon us in recent years, with Tony Blair’s ‘New Labour’ in Britain, and in New Zealand, the Labour Party during the 1980s, being in the forefront of inaugurating ‘Free Trade’ in the name of ‘socialism’. Joyce saw it going on in his own day. We relive it today. The same old abandonment to Capitalism by Social Democracy, which had also obliged Mosley to resign from the Labour Party in disgust.

The weakness of Westminster parliamentary democracy allowed international finance to carry on unhindered. Joyce’s British National Socialism advocated the ‘leadership principle’, with authority to act, but in Britain’s case the symbol of unity within one personality had existed for centauries in the form of the Crown, and Joyce did not envisage a National Socialist Britain that need be under the dictatorship of a British ‘fuehrer’. Indeed, he advocated the corporatist or organic state that he had alluded to in his BUF pamphlet, Dictatorship. In NS Now Joyce pointed to the guilds of Medieval Britain, and outlined a corporate state based on the revival of the guilds as taking over many functions of the state. Both employers and employees would be represented in the same corporative organs, which was the method of successful industrial organisation that would be enacted in Germany in the Reich Economic Chamber. Parliament would hence be a corporative body with representatives elected from such guilds.

Joyce next turned his attention to the financial system. National Socialist banking reform is based the premise that money and credit should serve the people, and not master them. Hence, credit and currency should be issued by the state according to the production of the people, allowing the people to consume that production. Private financial interests should not issue credit and currency as a profit -making commodity. Currency and credit are only intended as a means of exchanging goods and services. That is the method that National Socialist Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan used and by which they flourished in the midst of the world Depression.[34] Again, there is nothing intrinsically ‘fascist’ or ‘nazi’ in such a banking system. The First New Zealand Labour Government had initiated the same type of policy, issuing 1% Reserve Bank state credit in 1935 for the construction of New Zealand’s iconic state housing project, which itself solved 75% of the unemployment rate.[35] Banking reformers around the world were demanding that the state assume its prerogative to issue the nation’s own credit and currency, without recourse to becoming indebted in perpetuity to international finance.[36] As Joyce was to emphasis in Twilight, it was this struggle between productive work and parasitism that led to the world war, the fact being that it was the Axis states that posed a deathly challenge to this parasitism the world over. New Zealand, despite the Labour Government measures in 1935, true to Social Democratic form, did not go beyond those limited measures, despite their success, and despite the promises the party had made in its 1934 election manifesto. Again, Social Democracy posed no real challenge to the system of world trade and banking that was – and remains – in the hands of a few parasites.

The League was ‘openly and unashamedly Imperialist.’ One of the primary aims of ‘Fascism’ was to create autarchic or self-sufficient economics states, or geo-political blocs. Of course, with Britain being the greatest imperial power, British Fascism or National Socialism sought to re-create the Empire as an autarchic bloc, where investments would be made only within the Empire, and not placed outside the Empire, only to undermine the manufacturing the agricultural sectors of the Empire peoples. Joyce pointed out that the system of international trade and finance was the enemy of both the British and the Colonial peoples; that both were equally exploited, and granting independence to India was not going to change that situation a jot. National Socialism would end usury and exploitation in India with the same methods as in Britain.[37] What Fascism was trying to address was the iniquitous system that is today called ‘globalisation’, whereby investments can be moved out of states and indeed entire industries shut-down and relocated to cheap labour pools, and currency speculators can make vast fortunes overnight by destroying entire economies. That is the system that won the Second World War against the Axis and that is the system that has driven the world to the present debt crisis, as it inevitably would. That is the system for which the Allied troops fought and died, just as the same plutocratic wire-pullers of ‘democracy’ declare war on states that are problematic to the ‘new world order’.

Finally, Joyce addressed the matter of foreign policy. Even then the war drums were being beaten against Germany, Italy and Japan. Joyce saw the keystone of world peace and order being an alliance between Britain and Germany with the assistance of Italy, which would form a bulwark against both international finance and Communism. From the 1920s, when Hitler wrote Mein Kampf, an alliance with Britain and Italy was envisaged as the cornerstone of Germany’s future foreign policy, Hitler definitively stating: ‘In the predictable future there can only be two allies for Germany in Europe: England and Italy’.[38] Was this mere cant, albeit dictated a decade before Hitler came to Office, while sitting in a jail following the abortive Munich putsch? Hitler in both public and private pronouncements always affirmed his admiration for the British Empire and the kinship that should have existed between the Third Reich and the Empire. Like Joyce, he believed that the two would be a great stabilising force in the world, and legitimate scholarship has only confirmed these views.

Captain A H M Ramsay, Conservative Member of Parliament for Midlothian and Peeblesshire from 1931 until his detention through 1940-1944, under Defence Regulation 18B along with Mosley and 1000 others, wrote after the war a volume much in the mode of Joyce’s Twilight and NS Now not only in regard to the war but also the takeover of Britain by international finance. Joyce had been a member of Ramsay’s Right Club that campaigned against war with Germany.[39] Like Joyce, Ramsay pointed to the Judaic character of the Puritan revolutionary zealots, whose armies ‘marched around Scotland, aided by their Geneva sympathisers, dispensing Judaic justice’.[40] Ramsay proceeds to consider the formation of the Bank of England with the encumbering of Britain with a National Debt; a matter that is dealt with in relative detail by Joyce in Twilight. Ramsay points out that the officialdom of ‘world Jewry’ had ‘declared war’ on Germany as soon as Hitler assumed Office. An ‘international economic boycott’ was declared by the World Jewish Economic Federation, headed by Samuel Untermeyer from the USA, who wrote in The New York Times of a ‘holy war’ against Germany, in which both Jew and Gentile must embark, while the Jews were the ‘aristocrats of the world’.[41] The Jewish leadership through its influence on politics, business and media the world over, hoped to economically strangle Germany. They could not ruin Germany through such means however, because the Hitler regime’s banking and trade reform not only withdrew Germany from the international finance system, but through barter proceeded to capture the markets of central Europe and South America. As Joyce was to emphasise in Twilight, this was the real cause of the world war; a conflict between two systems, one productive and creative, the other parasitic and exploitive.

It should be pointed out that Ramsay enjoyed the friendship and confidence of British Prime Minster Neville Chamberlain in the moths immediately preceding the World War. Ramsay alludes to Chamberlain’s guarantee to assist Poland in the event of invasion on the basis of a supposed Germany ultimatum that transpired to be fraudulent,[42] and that Germany had sought for months a negotiated solution for the return of Danzig and the ‘Polish Corridor’ to Germany, while Poland resorted to what today would be called ‘ethnic cleansing’ of the Germans within Poland; a matter which will be considered further.

Ramsay points out that Hitler had ‘again and again made it clear that he never intended to attack or harm the British Empire’. [43] Indeed, what is called the ‘Phoney War’ ensued, where no real fighting was taking place. The situation changed immediately Churchill became Prime Minister. Then the previous policy of only bombing military targets was reversed, and British Bomber Command was ordered to bomb civilian targets, a strategy that would eventually lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of German civilians by the end of the war, the fire-bombing of Dresden,[44] Hamburg, Berlin and other German cities going down in infamy as obliterating in deadly infernos more victims than the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Actions speak louder than words, as it is said, and Hitler on numerous occasions offered his hand of friendship, while still in a position of strength, indeed winning the war. One of the most notable occasions is that involving the British invasion of Dunkirk, around which much nonsense about British heroism continues to be spoken. Ramsay cites the pre-eminent official British military historian Captain Liddell Hart. This nonsense continues despite Hart’s book on World War II, The Other Side of the Hill, having been published in 1948, with chapter 10 entitled ‘How Hitler beat France and saved Britain’. Ramsay comments that the chapter would ‘astound all propaganda-blinded people… for the author therein proves that not only did Hitler save this country; but that this was not the result of some unforeseen factor, or indecision or folly, but was of set purpose, based on his long enunciated and faithfully maintained principle’. Hart details how Hitler halted the Panzer Corps on 22 May 1940, allowing the British troops to escape back to Britain. Hitler had cabled Von Kleist that the armoured divisions were not to advance or fire. Von Kleist ignored the order, and then came an ‘emphatic order’, according to Von Kleist, that he was to ‘withdraw behind the canal. My tanks were kept halted there for three days’.[45] Hart records a conversation between Hitler and Marshall Von Runstedt two days later (24 May):

‘He [Hitler] then astonished us by speaking with admiration of the British Empire, of the necessity for its existence, and of the civilisation that Britain had brought into the world… He compared the British Empire with the Catholic Church – saying they were both essential elements of stability in the world. He said that all he wanted from Britain was that she should acknowledge Germany’s position on the Continent. The return of Germany’s lost colonies would be desirable but not essential, and he would even offer to support Britain with troops, if she should be involved with any difficulties anywhere. He concluded by saying that his aim was to make peace with Britain, on a basis that she would regard compatible with her honour to accept’. [46]

Captain Hart comments on the above: ‘If the British army had been captured at Dunkirk, the British people might have felt that their honour had suffered a stain, which they must wipe out. By letting it escape, Hitler hoped to conciliate them’.[47] Hart alluded to the pro-British sentiments in Mein Kampf and the manner by which Hitler did not deviate from his desire for an alliance with Britain. As we now know, so far from the British people being cognisant of the equanimity of Hitler towards them, the propaganda machine merely used this to further inflame them toward war, and Dunkirk had ever since been portrayed as a great feat of British moral courage.

Even during the early 1920s, when Hitler was in jail dictating Mein Kampf he realised that any future goodwill between Germany and Britain relied on the question as to ‘whether the exiting influence of the Jews is not stronger than any understanding or good intentions and will this frustrate and nullify all plans’.[48] Mosley, Ramsay, Admiral Sir Barry Domvile and hundreds of others jailed under 18B, who sought peace with Germany, were aware of this also. However, there were still prominent people within Britain who were free, to whom Hitler might appeal for peace, and it is presumably with these in mind that Hitler kept open the prospect of a negotiated peace with honour.

However, eminent people who hoped for a negotiated peace with Germany were no match for the war party and its backers. Winston Churchill, whose drunken, opulent lifestyle had got him into debt, led the war party. He had personal reasons for assuring the destruction of Hitler, even if that also meant the destruction of the British Empire; which, of course, it did. By 1938 Churchill was bankrupt, and Chartwell House was about to be put on the market. A few days before however Sir Henry Strakosch, the South African Jewish mining magnate and financial adviser, came to the rescue and agreed to pay off Churchill’s debts.[49] Churchill had whored himself to international finance for the sake of £18,000, and in so doing doomed the lives of millions and the survival of the British Empire. Strakosch was financial adviser to General Smuts of South Africa, and in 1920 drafted the blueprint for the Reserve Bank of South Africa.[50] He has also served as adviser on setting up the Reserve Bank of India. Like the US Federal Reserve Bank and other central banks throughout the world, the reader should not be confused into thinking that these acted as state banks issuing state credit, even when they were, like the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, nationalised. These central banks were based on plans provided by individuals such as Strakosch, the Bank of England’s Sir Otto Niemeyer, and Warburg in the USA. The thraldom of most states to international finance, from which Germany, Italy and Japan had broken free, is the most significant cause of World War II, as explained by Joyce in Twilight.

Since the 1920s Churchill’s financial adviser for his stock market dealings had been Bernard Baruch, the international financier who had run the US War Industries Board during the First World War I, and had become the virtual dictator of the USA during the war years.[51] Nothing would or could divert Churchill from leading Britain into war with Germany.

To Germany

During the Munich crisis in 1938 Joyce foresaw the coming war, and the quandary that placed him as an avidly pro-British devotee of National Socialism and Anglo-German accord. He told Macnab that in the event of war, he could not fight against Germany in the service of international finance but neither could he be a conscientious objector and evade national service. He had already envisaged sending Margaret to Ireland with Macnab, while he would go to Germany, perhaps to fight the Russians[52].

Mosley’s answer was to immediately issue a call to his supporters to fully support the war effort once the war that he had vigorously campaigned against, had eventuated, while he and 800 of his followers were detained under Emergency Defence Regulation 18B. Mosley’s order stated that ‘Our members should do what the law requires of them; and, if they are members of the armed Forces or services of the Crown, they should obey their orders and, in every particular, obey the rules of the Service’. However, it was also a call to ‘stand-fast’ against the ‘corrupt Jewish money-power’ and ‘to take every opportunity within your power to awaken the people and to demand peace’.[53]

Among the first to die in the war were two Blackshirts, Kenneth Day and George Brocking, while on an RAF daylight bomber raid on Brűnsbuttel.[54]

While Joyce campaigned with his National Socialist League, and Mosley held meetings attracting the largest audiences ever seen in Britain to the very eve of war, Joyce also sought to widen his campaign. He was involved in an anti-war campaign with Lord Lymington, Conservative MP, and an early advocate of agricultural self-sufficiency and organic farming,[55] also a particular concern of both Joyce and the BUF.[56] Lord Lymington and Joyce created the British Council Against European Commitments. Lymington’s group joined with a similar organisation founded by Hastings William Sackville Russell, Lord Tavistock (later Duke of Bedford) and emerged as the British People’s Party (BPP), the policy of which not only included peace, but in particular advocacy of banking reform.[57] Joyce had confided in Beckett that he would probably go to Germany in the event of war, and Beckett left the League to become General secretary of the BPP. It is often commented that there was a fallen out between Joyce and Beckett, but, as will be seen, they remained steadfast friends.

As forebodings of war approached in 1939, one of the first to depart from Britain to Germany was Mrs Francis Dorothy Eckersley, a member of the BUF, whose son was at school there. Mrs Eckersley was to play a role in the Joyce’s settling in Berlin. Before Macnab visited Berlin, Joyce had asked him to take a message to Christian Bauer, asking whether Goebbels would arrange for the immediate naturalisation of Joyce and his wife, should they settle in Germany.[58] Defence Regulation 18B was about to be passed when Joyce received news from Macnab that naturalisation would be granted. He then received news from an MI5 agent to whom he given information on Communist activities, that it was likely he would be arrest under 18B within a matter of days.[59] The Joyce’s left for Germany on 26 August 1939, William convinced that imprisonment in Britain during the war would mean unbearable suffering for Margaret.

To the Joyce’s dismay, Christian Bauer did not have the influence in Berlin that had been assumed, and he had been ‘called up’. However, Mrs Eckersley did have connections with the Foreign Office, and Joyce was able to secure a part-time job as a translator of German scripts.[60] Within days, war had been declared by Britain against Germany, a declaration that was not met by the Germans with any more jubilation than it was met by the Joyces and many other Britons. In England, meanwhile Mosley was holding the largest rallies in British Union history, and just two months previously the biggest indoor hall in England had been filled with 20,000 people to hear Mosley.[61] Mosley was arrested under 18B on 23 May 1940, and his wife Diana on 29 June.[62] Captain Ramsay MP, and Admiral Sir Barry Domvile CB, founder of the Link, which had also campaigned for Anglo-German cooperation, were among the 1000 others.[63]

Mrs Eckersley’s friends had been at work to secure Joyce a position, and Dr Erich Hetzler, an official in the Foreign Office, who had studied economics in England, interviewed him. It is notable that during the interview Joyce explained he was a National Socialist and British, but that a National Socialist in Britain was not the same as in Germany.[64] Hetzler recommended Joyce to the English-speaking department of the Reich radio service. Norman Baillie-Stewart, a former Subaltern in the Seaforth Highlanders, headed the English news service, under the direction of Walter Kamm. Joyce’s first broadcast, reading a news bulletin, took place on 11 September 1939. He did well, but drew the immediately jealousy of Baillie-Stewart.[65]

The disparaging nick-name of ‘haw-haw’, which was to become synonymous with Joyce, first appeared in the Daily Express on 14 September 1939 where the columnist, the pseudonymous Jonah Barrington, commented on a broadcast from Germany: ‘A gent I’d like to meet is moaning periodically from Zeesen. He speaks English of the haw-haw, damit-get-out-of-my-way variety, and his strong suit is gentlemanly indignation’.[66] The name was picked up by British propaganda, and stuck, like the name of Quisling was to become synonymous with ‘traitor’.

Ironically, Barrington was describing Baillie-Stewart. Barrington and the media ran with the typically banal propaganda image, and ‘Lord Haw-Haw’ was introduced to the public as a figure of ridicule. Lord Haw-Haw soon became conflated with Joyce and stuck, since Joyce would become the leading British broadcaster, despite his own voice, affected by the broken nose he had since childhood, not being suggestive of the ‘Bertie Wooster’ type figure that Barrington was trying to portray.[67] Other half-witted attempts at satire by Barrington, with names such as The Whopper, Uncle Boo-Hoo and Mopey, fell by the way, while Lord Haw-Haw remained. It was Lord Donegal, writing for the Sunday Dispatch, who suggested that Lord Haw-Haw might be Joyce. However, the voice that he asked Macnab, then a volunteer ambulance driver, to hear, was Baillie-Stewart, and Macnab could reply honestly that it did not sound anything like Joyce.[68]

Joyce could now apply for naturalisation, and correctly recorded his birthplace as New York.[69] Margaret was employed writing women’s features for the radio network, and became known as Lady Haw-Haw. The broadcasts were widely listened to in Britain. The matter of the identities of Baillie-Stewart and William Joyce were soon resolved by the British, but ‘Lord Haw-Haw’ stuck with Joyce rather than with Baillie-Stewart,[70] another reflection of the puerility of British war propaganda. Comedians began to lampoon Lord Haw-Haw. The deaths of millions of Britons and Germans were such a whopping good laugh for those who could avoid service by larking about on the Home Front, while Mosleyites were among the first to enlist and die.

Interestingly, Cole discusses the insistence of ‘upper class’ origins for William Joyce by the British propaganda machine, and hence the maintenance of the ‘Lord Haw-Haw’ myth as an aristocratic ‘traitor’, perhaps also reminding audiences of Sir Oswald Mosley’s aristocratic birth, and the similar backgrounds of others who had sought conciliation with Germany and who had seen Fascism and National Socialism as a means of transcending class divisions. Cole writes: ‘The theme of the aristocratic traitor aroused such an immense public response that the jeering appeared to be directed as much at the traditional British upper classes as at an unknown traitor in Germany’.[71] The irony was that Joyce was the very antithesis of the character portrayed by British propaganda, as indicated by the opening anecdote of this introduction, and he lived simply and without thought of his material well-being.

A survey by the BBC concluded that Joyce was getting six million regular listeners daily, and 18,000,000 occasional listeners. The reasons for this included not only the mirth that had been directed at Lord Haw-Haw, but also that the broadcasts focused on ‘undeniable evils in this country… their news sense, their presentation’, making them ‘a familiar feature of the social landscape’.[72]

In early 1940 the Buro Concordia was formed under the direction of Dr Hetzler, which would focus on explaining National Socialism to English listeners. Joyce would lead the team and write the programmes. He refused insistent offers of a salary increase. The first programme was aired in February 1940, under the name of the New British Broadcasting Station, transmitting for half an hour from East Prussia, albeit under sparse conditions and resources.[73]

It was at this time, in February 1940, that Joyce was asked by the Foreign Office to write a book, Twilight Over England. While Joyce addressed a British audience, which would have few chances to read the book, the Foreign Office, had intended an English language testament for audiences in the USA and India. Twilight also went into German and Swedish editions, at least. The book as will be seen, is largely an indictment of the English system of Free Trade, the influence of Jews and the iniquity of international finance.

On hindsight, reading the volume today, one might be struck by its current relevance, as the world is plunged into what American strategists approvingly call ‘constant conflict’, in extending in the hallowed name of ‘Democracy’ the system of debt and exploitation which the Axis fought seventy years ago. As Joyce tried to explain, Westminster democracy and party government is a system that has not brought any meaningful benefits to the people who have lived under the ‘Mother of all Parliaments’ for centuries, let alone to tribesmen from the deserts of Afghanistan to the jungles of New Guinea, who are having this odd system born from the merchant class of England, imposed on them by force of arms. We still live under the same system that Joyce exposed, because international finance won the war.

By mid 1940 the British had ceased considering Lord Haw-Haw as a joke and were worried by what they thought was his inside knowledge of events in Britain. Other secret Anglophone broadcasting stations were planned under Buro Concordia.[74]. Meanwhile, Joyce’s commitment to Britain was indicated by his having defaced his British passport so that after it had expired it could not be used by German Intelligence, which was eager to obtain such passports.[75] So much for disloyalty.

In July 1940 Hitler made a peace offer to Britain, and Joyce was optimistic. On ‘Workers’ Challenge’, a broadcasting service pitched specifically to British workers, Joyce stated that British workers and German workers did not wish to fight each other. The British Communists had been saying that the war was between capitalist powers and was not a workers’ fight, until the party-line was reversed when Germany and the USSR came into conflict. ‘Workers’ Challenge’ called for a workers’ revolt against Churchill and a peace that would have nothing to do with the nazification of Britain. Of coursed, Churchill was committed to unconditional surrender, and the chance to save the Empire and Europe was rejected for the sake of Churchill’s ego, or perhaps mainly due to his £18,000 debt to Strakosch and his friendship with ‘Barney’ Baruch (?). As Joyce commented on his programme on 23 July, the rejection of peace would bring tragedy to England, and if Britons remained silent then it must be assumed that they consented to their own annihilation.[76] Joyce was prescient. Is there still doubt? While it might be a cliché to say that British won the war but lost the peace, that is beyond rational doubt. As for the impact of ‘Workers’ Challenge’, a BBC survey found that it had a ‘heavy following’, that ‘the following grows’, and that a lot of Joyce’s remarks ‘were true’.[77]

On 28 August the first air raid casualties in Berlin occurred. Both Joyce and the CBS foreign correspondent William Shirer, epitome of the anti-Nazi propagandist, were at the broadcasting house. Shirer, who had avoided meeting the ‘traitor’ for a year, noted in his diary that Lord Haw-Haw ‘in the air-raids has shown guts’.[78] Joyce went out to see the damage and was ‘profoundly moved’ by the devastation. Already there were comments on the civilian targets of the British, in contrast to the military objectives of the Luftwaffe, but could anyone in Germany have envisaged the criminal fire-bombing of defenceless German cities that was to become the speciality of Bomber Command?

Shirer, the inveterate anti-Nazi whose book The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich became a classic history,[79] nonetheless observed Joyce as ‘an amusing and even intelligent fellow’, ‘heavily built and of about five feet nine inches, with Irish eyes that twinkle’.[80] He noted that Joyce had a deep hatred of capitalism. ‘Strange as it may seem, he thinks the Nazi movement is a proletarian one which will free the world from the bonds of “plutocratic capitalists”. He sees himself primarily as a liberator of the working class’.[81]

Shirer’s quip about the ‘strangeness’ of Joyce’s view of National Socialism as a movement fighting capitalism is perhaps best explained by Shirer’s own ignorance as to the character of both National Socialism and the war.[82] The reader will see the anti-plutocratic character of National Socialism explained in Twilight, a copy of which Joyce gave to Shirer.

Twilight was published in September 1940, by Santoro, an elderly Italian who owned a Berlin publishing house, Internationaler Verlag, the English edition running to 100,000 copies.[83] They were distributed at POW camps, where there were efforts to recruit for a Legion of Saint George (also known as the British Free Corps) as a unit of the Waffen SS to fight on the Eastern Front (not against fellow Britons).[84]

After a year of delays, the Joyce’s were German citizens. In 1941 Joyce registered for military service and was put in a reserved category. Joyce was now permitted to reveal his identity and stated:

‘I, William Joyce, left England because I would not fight for Jewry against Adolf Hitler and National Socialism. I left England because I thought that victory which would preserve existing conditions would be more damaging to Britain than defeat’.[85]

On 11 May 1941 Deputy Fuhrer Rudolf Hess reached Scotland on his ill-fated peace mission. It was undertaken at a time when war between the USSR and Germany was approaching, and the German authorities were obliged to repudiate the Hess mission as the lone efforts of someone who had become mentally unhinged. Perhaps Hess was unbalanced if he thought he could overcome the war party led by Churchill, but there was still thought to be a prominent peace party within influential circles who aimed for a negotiated peace. Hess had flown to Scotland in the hope of talking with the Duke of Hamilton, who was thought to be among the peace party. It is known that Hess had long been discussing possibilities of a peace mission to Britain, with Hitler’s knowledge, and that Hess’ friend Albrecht Haushofer had been in contact with the Duke of Hamilton.[86] New evidence has come to light that Hess probably did fly to Britain with Hitler’s approval. British historian Peter Padfield states that Hess brought with him to Britain detailed peace proposals from Hitler. The proposals asked for Britain’s neutrality in a coming conflict with the USSR, in return for which Germany would withdraw from Western Europe and would have no claims on Britain or the Empire.[87] Of course, such proposals were perfectly in keeping with the foreign policy aims that Hitler had desired since the 1920s, as we have seen previously. The proposals from Hitler specified German aims in Russia and even stated the precise time of the German offensive. Padfield remarks: ‘This was not a renegade plot. Hitler had sent Hess and he brought over a fully developed peace treaty for Germany to evacuate all the occupied countries in the West’.[88] Padfield also remarks on a significant ‘negotiated peace’ faction in Britain, and the ruin that peace would have meant for Churchill’s career. There is also allusion to this peace faction including the Royal Family.

Joyce expected he would soon die, whether fighting the Russians, during an air-raid or hanged. Awarded the War Merit Cross 1st Class, a civilian medal, which meant little to him, he was called up to the home guard, the Volkssturm, and he started training with weapons.[89] During the course of an air-raid, confined in a shelter, he proceeded to teach a French journalist English songs, which drew the attention of an air-warden. When Joyce refused the order to quieten a scuffle ensued, Joyce received a cut lip, and the warden a black eye. The air-raid warden stated that Joyce would be reported. Bellowing with laughter at the absurdity of the situation, Joyce was duly notified that he was charged with ‘sub-treason’, and that the warden had been the personal chauffer of Freisler, president of the People’s Court. His employers warned him that the charge was more serious than he assumed. However, the court and all traces of the documentation as well as Freisler’s chauffeur were buried in rubble from an air-raid and so was the charge of ‘sub-treason’.[90]

At the suggestion that the Joyces obtain false papers with the view to escaping as the war drew to a conclusion, Joyce was furious and adamant that ‘soldiers cannot run away, so why should I?’[91] For Joyce, from boyhood to the end of his life, honour an integrity were paramount, courage an instinct.

With Berlin in ruins, the staff of Buro Concordia prepared to relocate. With the impending Russian occupation of the city, the staff of the English Language Services proceeded to Apen, a small town between Bremen and the Dutch border, although Joyce would have preferred the barricades with his Volkssturm colleagues.

Finale

On 30 April 1945 the staff were called together and told of Hitler’s death. Lord and Lady Haw-Haw made their final broadcasts that day. Joyce reiterated what he had always said:

‘Britain’s victories are barren. They leave her poor and they leave her people hungry. They leave her bereft of the markets and the wealth that she possessed six years ago. But above all, they leave her with an immensely greater problem than she had then. We are nearing the end of one phase of Europe’s history, but the next will be no happier. It will be grimmer, harder and perhaps bloodier. And now I ask you earnestly, can Britain survive? I am profoundly convinced that without German help she cannot’.

Is there any reader who is so ignorant or so naïve, other than the ideologically or ethnically biased, who can deny that Joyce has been proved correct? Britain lost her Empire, lost her markets, the Commonwealth and colonial peoples were detached from her and left to wallow in Third World poverty, or become colonies of a US led world order, and debt became more than ever the preferred method of economics.

Orders came from Goebbels, the first from the Reichsminister that had acknowledged them, that the Joyces were not to fall into Allied hands. However, attempts to get them to neutral Sweden via Denmark or to Eire, were abortive. They ended up in Flensburg, back in the crumbling and occupied Reich. Joyce, as was his habit, adopted a rascally attitude even now, and played what he called ‘Russian roulette’ by greeting British soldiers, to see if they would recognise his voice. On a stroll back from the woods he encountered two officers collecting firewood, and approached them offering some sticks. One of the officers, Lieutenant Perry,[92] a returning Jewish refugee serving as an interpreter, a type that was now swarming over Germany in the wake of the Allied occupation, recognised Joyce’s voice. They pursued Joyce in a vehicle, and Perry asked, ‘You wouldn’t happen to be William Joyce would you?’ Joyce reached for the less than convincing fake identity papers that had been given to him by the Germans and was shot by Perry, the bullet entering through Joyce’s right thigh and passing through the left.[93]

The_Capture_of_William_Joyce,_Germany,_1945_BU6910.jpg

The military authorities promptly called on Margaret Joyce at the lodging of an elderly widow, who was also detained, but quickly released, albeit not before her household food rations had been looted by the liberators.

Joyce’s first court appearance on treason charges was held at the Old Bailey on 17 September 1945. He entered a ‘not guilty’ plea. The main problem for the prosecution was in regard to whether Joyce was a British national under the protection of the Crown when he made his broadcasts in Germany. Joyce had never been a British citizen, and he had obtained a British passport for his move to Germany by making a false declaration. Two of the three charges could not be upheld. The case reached the House of Lords. However, Joyce was in no doubt that his hanging was required, and his defence team had even received death threats should he be acquitted. Joyce was hanged on the basis that because he had a British passport he was under the protection of the Crown when he started his broadcasts, and therefore committed high treason. The charge was dubious at best. He had never used his British status for protection at any time, and there is no reason to believe he would have in any circumstances. He moved to Germany with the intention of become a German citizen as promptly as possible, although German officialdom had been tardy in the process. Joyce was hanged on a passport technicality. Judgement was passed on 18 December 1945 to dismiss the appeal. Lord Porter dissented, stating that it was by no means clear that Joyce could have been considered to have owed allegiance to the Crown at the time of the broadcasts.[94]

Joyce on being told the decision wrote to Margaret that it was a relief the matter was over and that he found it undignified to have to plead for his life before his enemies, and to ‘observer their pretence at “fair play”’. Amidst the petty vengefulness of a befuddled and war-worn people, The Manchester Guardian nonetheless questioned the appropriateness of death sentences for Joyce and John Amery (whose trial had lasted eight minutes) for views that ‘were once shared by many who walk untouched among us’. Joyce appreciated the acknowledgment of his sincerity by the Guardian. His friends remained steadfast, and John Macnab was particularly active on Joyce behalf. Macnab, an avid Catholic, remarked on his last visits to Joyce that ‘being with him gave a sense of inward peace, like being in a quiet church’.[95] Some of his former teachers at Birbeck College, remembering the likeable and hardworking student, asked the prison Governor to relay their well-wishes to Joyce. He handed his brother Quentin his final message:

‘In death, as in this life, I defy the Jews who caused this last war: and I defy the power of Darkness which they represent. I warn the British people against the aggressive Imperialism of the Soviet Union.

‘May Britain be great once again; and, in the hour of the greatest danger to the West, may the standard of the Hakenkreuz be raised from the dust, crowned with the historic words “Ihr habt doch gesiegt”. I am proud to die for my ideals; and I am sorry for the sons of Britain who have died without knowing why’.

Joyce’s old friend, the one-timer Labour Party stalwart John Beckett, wrote to him in his final days: ‘Our children will grow up to think of you as an honest and courageous martyr in the fight against alien control of our country … That is how we shall remember you, and what we will tell our people’.[96] It has only recently been known that Beckett’s departure from the National Socialist League was for reasons other than a falling-out with Joyce. Beckett referred to this when writing to Joyce:

‘No one knows better than myself the sincerity of the beliefs which led to the course of action you chose. You remember we discussed the position in 1938, and the disagreement and respect I showed for your opinion then, remains’.[97]

Joyce replied in a letter that was intercepted and never given to Beckett:

‘Of course I remember, quite vividly, how we discussed the situation in 1938. I do not, in the most infinitesimal degree, regret what I have done. For me, there was nothing else to do. I am proud to die for what I have done’.[98]

Beckett in his farewell wrote to Joyce: ‘Goodbye, William, it’s been good to know you and there are few things in my life I am prouder of than our association. Yours always, John’.[99]

Joyce took holy communion, wrote to his wife and to Macnab, and at 9:00 am precisely he was taken from his cell by the hangman, Albert Pierrepoint and hanged.[100]

On the morning of 3 January 1946, the day of his execution, a crowd of 300 gathered outside Wandsworth prison; most to gloat but some to pay their final respects. Some of the crowd, on the notice of Joyce’s execution being posted up, set themselves apart from the crowd and gave the Fascist salute in Joyce’s honour.

Notes

[1] J A Cole, Lord Haw-Haw: The Full Story of William Joyce (London: Faber and Faber, 1987), 307

[2] Cole, 16.

[3] Cole, 212.

[4] Rebecca West, The Meaning of Treason (London: The Reprint Society, 1952), 3.

[5] Ibid., 4.

[6] One might recall the fates of Dr Robert Faurrison in France, Fred Leuchter in the USA, David Irving in England, Dr Joel Hayward in New Zealand, Ernst Zundel in Canada, et al.

[7] K R Bolton, Artists of the Right (San Francisco, Counter-Currents Publications, 2012), 97-119. Pound, stranded in Italy with his wife when the USA entered the war, broadcast for Italy on a programme called ‘Europe Calling’, analogous to Joyce’s broadcasts named ‘Germany Calling’. Handed over to US troops after the war by Italian partisans, Pound was confined in an animal cage under the scathing Pisan sun. The embarrassment of trying and hanging for treason one of the world’s greatest literary figures was avoided by declaring Pound unfit to stand trial, and he was confined to a mental asylum for thirteen years, after which, still undiagnosed or treated for any supposed ‘mental illness’, he was permitted to leave the USA and return to Italy.

[8] Cole, op. cit., 22-23.

[9] Ibid., 56.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Richard Thurlow, Fascism in Britain (London: Basil Blackwell, 1987), 51.

[12] Ibid., 53.

[13] Cole., op. cit., 30.

[14] Ibid.,  31.

[15] Oswald Mosley (1968) My Life (London: Black House Publishing, 2012), 294.

[16] Ibid, 295.

[17] Ibid., 297.

[18] Cole, op. cit., 39.

[19] Thurlow, op. cit., 98.

[20] In 1925 Beckett become the youngest Labour MP of his time, at the age of 30. Becoming increasingly radical, he was expelled from the Labour party and lost his seat in 1931, joining the BUF two years later.

[21] Cole, op. cit, 45.

[22] Jeffrey Hamm, Action Replay (London: Howard Baker, 1983), 151.

[23] Cole, op.cit., 57.

[24] Cole, op. cit., 59.

[25] Ibid., 65.

[26] Randolf Churchill in letter to The Spectator, 27 December 1963, cited by Mosley, My Life, op. cit., 363.

[27] Zeev Sternhell, Neither Left Nor Right: Fascist Ideology in France (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1986); The Birth of Fascist Ideology (Princeton, 1994).

[28] Cole, op. cit., 73.

[29] K R Bolton, ‘Geoffrey Potocki de Montalk: New Zealand Poet, “Polish King”, and “Good European”’, Counter-Currents Publishing, http://www.counter-currents.com/2010/08/count-potocki-de-montalk-part-iii/

[30] William Joyce, National Socialism Now, 1939, Chapter 1.

[31] Ibid.

[32] Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), 71-72.

[33] Joyce, NS Now, op. cit., Chapter 2.

[34] K R Bolton, The Banking Swindle (London: Black House Publishing, 2013), 103-120.

[35] Ibid., 96-100.

[36] Ibid, passim.

[37] W Joyce, NS Now, op. cit., Chapter 4.

[38] Adolf Hitler (1926), Mein Kampf (London: Hutchinson & Co., 1969), 570.

[39] Ramsay was one of the many veterans who had served in the First World War ‘with gallantry’ (Griffiths, 353) who were imprisoned under Regulation 18B. Members of the Right Club included Admiral Wilmot Nicholson (another First World War hero), Mrs Frances Eckersley, who was to assist the Joyce’s on their arrival to Germany; and the Duke of Wellington. Richard Griffiths, Fellow Travellers of the Right (London: Oxford University Press, 1983) 353-355.

[40] A H M Ramsay, The Nameless War (1952), 17.

[41] Ramsay, ibid., 54.

[42] Ramsay, ibid., 59-60.

[43] Ramsay, ibid., 62.

[44] David Irving (1966), The Destruction of Dresden (London: Futura Publications, 1980).

[45] Ramsay, op. cit., 67.

[46] Cited by Ramsay, ibid., 68.

[47] Ibid.

[48] Hitler, Mein Kampf, op. cit., 575.

[49] David Irving, Churchill’s War Vol. 1 (Western Australia: Veritas Publishing, 1987), 104.

[50] Stephen Mitford Goodson, Inside the Reserve Bank of South Africa (2013), 67-69.

[51] David Irving, op. cit., ., 14.

[52] Cole, op. cit., 77.

[53] Stephen Dorril, Black Shirt: Sir Oswald Mosley and British Fascism (London: Penguin Books, 2007), 466.

[54] Ibid.

[55] Griffiths, op. cit., 319.

[56] The BUF had its own notable agricultural expert, Jorian Jencks, author of BUF rural policies.

[57] Griffiths, op. cit., 352.

[58] Cole, op. cit., 82-83.

[59] Cole, ibid., 86.

[60] Cole, 103.

[61] Robert Skidelsky, Oswald Mosley, 440.

[62] Ibid., 449.

[63] Ibid., 455.

[64] Cole, op. cit., 108.

[65] Ibid., 113.

[66] Ibid., 115.

[67] Ibid.

[68] Ibid., 118.

[69] Ibid., 121.

[70] Ibid., 124.

[71] Ibid., 126.

[72] Ibid., 127.

[73] Ibid., 137.

[74] Cole, 159.

[75] Ibid. 161.

[76] Cole, 164.

[77] Cole, ibid., 182.

[78] Cited by Cole, ibid., 170.

[79] William L Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (Secker and Warburg, 1977).

[80] Recall the description of Joyce’s appearance by Shirer with that of Rebecca West.

[81] Cited by Cole, op. cit., 174-175.

[82] Shirer was listed as a Communist sympathiser in a 1950 US publication, Red Channels: The Report of Communist Influence in Radio and Television, based on FBI documents. Shirer had been a member of the Committee for the Prevention of World War III, founded in the USA in 1944, which lobbied for the elimination of Germany. Among its members were James P Warburg, ‘ideologue’ of the society and a scion of the influential Warburg banking dynasty. Did Shirer ever regard the alliance between plutocrats and Leftists against the Axis to be ‘strange’? For several years after the war the Committee’s aims were implemented under the so-called Morgenthau Plan, named after US Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau Jr., a supporter of the society. The Morgenthau Plan attempted to exterminate the German people through starvation, until being reversed by the Marshall Plan several years after the war, when it was realised that the Germans might be needed to fight the Russians, again.  See: James Bacque, Crimes and Mercies: The Fate of German Civilians Under Allied Occupation 1944-1950 (London: Little, Brown & Co., 1997).

[83] Adrian Weale, Renegades: Hitler’s Englishmen (London: Weidenfield and Nicolson, 1994), 36.

[84] Ibid., passim.

[85] Cole, op. cit., 190.

[86] Wolf Rudiger Hess, My Father Rudolf Hess (London: W H Allen, 1986), 66-67.

[87] Jasper Copping, ‘Nazis “offered to leave Western Europe for free hand to attack USSR”’, The Telegraph, 26 September 2013, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/10336126/Nazis-offered-to-leave-western-Europe-in-exchange-for-free-hand-to-attack-USSR.html

[88] Peter Padfield, Hess, Hitler and Churchill (Icon books Ltd., 2013), cited by Copping, ibid.

[89] Cole, 219.

[90] Cole, 221.

[91] Ibid., 222

[92] The large numbers of Jewish lawyers and interpreters who entered Germany with the Occupation forces were given false names. See Cole, op. cit., 247.

[93] Ibid., 246.

[94] Ibid., 287.

[95] Cole, 300.

[96] Cited by Beckett’s son, the author and journalist Francis Beckett, ‘My Father and Lord Haw-Haw’, The Guardian, 10 February 2005, http://www.theguardian.com/books/2005/feb/10/secondworldwar.world

[97] Ibid.

[98] Ibid.

[99] Ibid.

[100] Adrien Weal, op.cit., 195.

 


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

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/01/william-joyce/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/hawhaw.jpg

[2] Twilight Over England: http://www.blackhousepublishing.co.uk/product/product&path=65&product_id=106

mardi, 12 novembre 2013

Warum die UKIP täuscht

Nigel-Farage_2403832b.jpg

Warum die UKIP täuscht

von Johannes Konstantin Poensgen

Ex: http://www.blauenarzisse.de

Ein Rechter hierzulande muss, mangels ernstzunehmender Parteien, ins europäische Ausland blicken. Doch der Schein trügt: Eine Alternative wie die UKIP wird die Probleme nicht beseitigen.

Einen Großteil der deutschen konservativen Aufmerksamkeit hat in den letzten Jahren die britische „United Kingdoms Independence Party” (UKIP) auf sich gezogen. Dieser ist sowohl dank ihres charismatischen Führers Nigel Farage, als auch aufgrund der tiefen wirtschaftlichen Krise des Landes ein kometenhafter Aufstieg gelungen. Deshalb ist es wichtig, die Natur dieser Partei zu untersuchen ‒ und vor allem, was sie geleistet hat und was sie noch leisten kann.

Keine Ein-​Themen-​Partei

Die UKIP hat seit ihrer Gründung 1993 drei wichtige Etappenziele erreicht: 2004 gelang der Einzug ins Europäische Parlament. Die Partei gewann 16,8 Prozent der britischen Wählerstimmen und damit zwölf Sitze. Ironischerweise bot das Parlament in Straßburg der UKIP und insbesondere dem begnadeten Redner Farage eine gute Plattform. Es war ein Gütesiegel der Seriosität. Zweitens ist sie eine der wenigen Protestparteien, der es gelang, die Fixierung auf ein Thema zu überwinden und zu allen Politikbereichen ausgearbeitete Programme zu erstellen.

Hierbei verbindet UKIP ihre zentralen Forderungen nach einem Austritt aus der EU und einem Ende der Masseneinwanderung mit liberalen Positionen in Fragen der Wirtschaft wie der Gesellschaft. Drittens veränderte UKIP tatsächlich die politische Debatte in England. Mit dieser Leistung steht sie unter den Protestparteien Europas allein da. Selbst dem in Wahlen ebenfalls erfolgreichen Front National und und der FPÖ gelang es nie, dem Gegner die eigenen Themen und die eigene Debatte aufzuzwingen.

In Britannien müssen nun aber auch die alteingesessen Parteien zur Einwanderungs– wie zur Europafrage Farbe bekennen. Es zeichnet sich sogar ein, unter Umständen aber nur rhetorisches, Einschwenken auf UKIP-​Forderungen ab. Ein Beispiel dafür sind die jüngsten Forderungen von Premier David Cameron (Conservative Party) gegenüber der EU.

Das liberale Verhängnis der UKIP

Die UKIP stilisiert sich damit als Verteidigerin der britischen Demokratie. Liberales Gedankengut ist derart essenziell für die gesamte Programmatik dieser Partei, dass dieser Anspruch ernstzunehmen ist. Denn die Partei ist nur aus der liberal-​parlamentarischen Tradition Britanniens zu verstehen. Darin liegt das Geheimnis ihres Erfolgs und zugleich ihr Verhängnis.

Die UKIP braucht unter Briten niemanden von einer neuen Weltsicht zu überzeugen. Sie baut auf das auf, was auf der Insel eine lange Tradition hat. Nigel Farage will nichts umstürzen, sondern ein politisches System wieder in sein Recht setzen. Hinter dieser politischen Tradition steht die Geschichte und der Stolz des ganzen britischen Volkes. Unter Brüsseler Vormundschaft, ebenso wie unter dem Kartell seiner etablierten Parteien, droht es zu einer Karikatur herabzusinken.

An der ethnischen Krise ändert die UKIP nichts

Doch dadurch wird die UKIP trotz aller Erfolge zum Anachronismus. Es ist bezeichnend, dass die UKIP glaubt, der Einwanderungsproblematik sei allein mit einer Reduzierung der Migration beizukommen, als wenn zumindest die Großstädte Englands nicht bereits ethnisch zersplittert seien, als wenn es keine Unruhen in Tottenham gegeben hätte, als wenn nicht die großen Unterschiede in der Geburtenrate der einzelnen Gruppen diesen Prozess weiter treiben müssten, egal was an der Grenze geschieht.

Dem Erbe der Premiers Gladstones und Churchills, selbst dem Maggie Thatchers, wird zunehmend die Substanz entzogen. Eine liberale Partei wie die UKIP kann weder mit dieser noch gegen diese Entwicklung regieren. Wie will sie etwa die den Muslimen bereits eingeräumten Schariagerichte auflösen, ohne Widerstand in der muslimischen Bevölkerung auszulösen?

Farage: Der letzte britische Premier?

Es steht außer Zweifel: Die UKIP wird bei den Unterhauswahlen 2015 ins Parlament einziehen. Es ist sogar möglich, dass sie bald den Premierminister stellt. Das Mehrheitswahlrecht, welches sie bisher hinderte, muss sie fördern, sobald sie eine bestimmte Wählermasse erreicht. Es wäre ein demokratischer Traum. Die Bürger hätten tatsächlich eine ungeliebte Machtelite friedlich abgewählt, mit ihren Stimmen der Politik keine andere Fassade, sondern eine andere Richtung gegeben. Aus dieser Welt stammt die UKIP, darüber hinaus wird sie nicht aber nicht wachsen.

Nigel Farage könnte der letzte britische Premierminister werden. Dieser Ausdruck bleibt bewusst mehrdeutig: Er könnte der letzte Premierminister sein und bzw. oder der letzte Brite als Premierminister. Zumindest wird er wohl der letzte Premierminister, bei dessen Wahl britische Stimmen den Ausschlag gaben. Es wäre nicht das schlechteste Ende des britischen Parlamentarismus.

mercredi, 18 septembre 2013

D. H. Lawrence on the Metaphysics of Life

D.H.-Lawrence1.jpg

D. H. Lawrence on the Metaphysics of Life

By Derek Hawthorne

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

1. Life and the “Creative Mystery”

Lawrence believes that the chief thing modern science simply cannot explain is life itself. And he regards life as an irreducible, and ultimately inexplicable, primary. Further, he believes that there is no such thing as disembodied spirit, or immaterial existence. The only meaningful distinction is that between living and non-living matter.[1]

In addition, Lawrence believes that non-living matter is merely the dead remains of the living. (A position that will strike many as utterly bizarre.) Lawrence makes this claim many times, especially in Fantasia of the Unconscious, but also in his strange, Hermetic essay “The Two Principles.” He writes there, “Inanimate matter is released from the dead body of the world’s creatures. It is the static residue of the living conscious plasm, like feathers of birds.”[2] And: “death is not just shadow or mystery. It is the negative reality of life. It is what we call Matter and Force, among other things. . . . The cosmos is nothing but the aggregate of the dead bodies and dead energies of bygone individuals. The dead bodies decompose as we know into earth, air, and water, heat and radiant energy and free electricity and innumerable other scientific facts.”[3]

Obviously, if the non-living comes from the living and is its residue, then living things must have existed before there were any non-living things. But this seems to present a whole host of difficulties. Where did these living things reside, if not on the non-living rocks we call planets? If they were like the living things we know, then wouldn’t they have had to have breathed oxygen and consumed water? And oxygen and water can hardly be classed as “alive.” Lawrence finds a way around this problem, however, by postulating that in the beginning there were no living things; instead, life was “homogeneous,” and not divided into distinct creatures.

He puts this idea forward in his 1914 philosophical essay “A Study of Thomas Hardy”: “In the origin, life must have been uniform, a great unmoved, utterly homogeneous infinity, a great not-being, at once a positive and negative infinity: the whole universe, the whole infinity, one motionless homogeneity, a something, a nothing.”[4] (I will have reason to return to this quotation later for, as we shall shortly see, Lawrence qualifies this statement in an important way.)

Lawrence’s conception of an undifferentiated, homogeneous “life” is very close to Schopenhauer’s “will.” Recall that in The World as Will and Representation, Schopenhauer argues that the will is an impersonal, self-perpetuating force, and that it lies at the root of all that exists. Lawrence seems to have held some version of this theory for most of his life. In a letter from 1911 he writes: “There still remains a God, but not a personal God: a vast, shimmering impulse which waves onwards towards some end, I don’t know what—taking no regard for the little individual, but taking regard for humanity. When we die, like rain-drops falling back again into the sea, we fall back into the big, shimmering sea of unorganized life which we call God.”[5]

In Women in Love Birkin often expresses Schopenhauerian ideas: “Well, if mankind is destroyed, if our race is destroyed like Sodom, and there is this beautiful evening with the luminous land and trees, I am satisfied. That which informs it all is there, and can never be lost. After all, what is mankind but just one expression of the incomprehensible.”[6] And, later in the novel, Lawrence expresses Birkin’s thoughts after Gerald’s death:

If humanity ran into a cul-de-sac, and expended itself, the timeless creative mystery would bring forth some other being, finer, more wonderful, some new, more lovely race, to carry on the embodiment of creation. The game was never up. The mystery of creation was fathomless, infallible, inexhaustible, for ever. . . . The fountain-head was incorruptible and unsearchable. It had no limits. It could bring forth miracles, create utter new races and new species in its own hour, new forms of consciousness, new forms of body, new units of being. To be man was as nothing compared to the possibilities of the creative mystery.[7]

Lawrence also sometimes refers to “the pan mystery,” and at one point says “God is the flame-life in all the universe; multifarious, multifarious flames, all colours and beauties and pains and somberness. Whichever flame flames in your manhood, that is you, for the time being.”[8] Finally, in one of Lawrence’s last works of fiction, The Man Who Died, he writes,

And always the man who had died saw not the bird alone, but the short, sharp wave of life of which the bird was the crest. . . . And the man who had died watched the unsteady, rocking vibration of the bent bird, and it was not the bird he saw, but one wave-tip of life overlapping for a minute another, in the tide of the swaying ocean of life. And the destiny of life seemed more fierce and compulsive to him even than the destiny of death. The doom of death was a shadow compared to the raging destiny of life, the determined surge of life.[9]

Unlike Schopenhauer, Lawrence never settles on a single term for this “life force,” and so I have chosen to follow his language in Women In Love and to refer to it consistently here as the creative mystery. I take Lawrence’s discussion in “A Study of Thomas Hardy” of primordial life as a “great unmoved, utterly homogeneous infinity,” as yet another description of the creative mystery that lies at the root, and origin of all things.

It is easy to see that the creative mystery forms the basis for Lawrence’s ontology, his theory of Being.[10] If Lawrence merely followed Schopenhauer and identified the creative mystery with Being (as Schopenhauer himself never explicitly does), he would fall squarely within the tradition of what Heidegger calls “ontotheology.” Ontotheology is the error of identifying Being-as-such with the highest or most basic of all beings, or things that have being. The error is analogous to declaring that the characteristic of Tallness is just the same as a thing that happens to be tall (i.e., a thing that “has” tallness). To recognize what Heidegger calls the “ontological difference” is to recognize that Being is not simply another of the beings, no matter how special.

If the creative mystery is something that has Being, then it cannot be Being-as-such. Fortunately, however, Lawrence does not make this error. One of the few places where Lawrence explicitly refers to Being occurs in his essay “Reflections on the Death of a Porcupine”: “The clue to all existence is being. But you can’t have being without existence, any more than you can have the dandelion flower without the leaves and the long tap root.”[11] Essentially, for Lawrence Being is the emergence of individuals out of the creative mystery. The creative mystery itself is not Being, but what one might call the “ground of Being.”

This ontology comes very close to Heidegger’s understanding of the Pre-Socratic conception of Being as phusis. And surely this is no accident. Lawrence’s understanding of the creative mystery and what emerges from it was not formed solely through his encounter with Schopenhauer. His descriptions of it also reflect his encounter with pre-Socratic philosophy, which he also studied carefully. In particular, one can detect a strong hint of Anaximander’s “indefinite” (apeiron), out of which all things emerge and into which they return. I will return to Lawrence’s ontology later when I discuss his theory of the “Holy Ghost,” which “draws” individuals out of the creative mystery and into the flowering of Being. For now, however, we must continue to investigate Lawrence’s understanding of the creative mystery itself.

2. The Holy Ghost

Earlier I quoted Lawrence’s essay “A Study of Thomas Hardy” concerning the origin of life, when it was “uniform, a great unmoved, utterly homogeneous infinity.” However, he qualifies this statement in the next sentence: “And yet it can never have been utterly homogeneous: mathematically, yes; actually, no.”[12] Indeed, Lawrence makes it very clear elsewhere that he believes in the primacy of the individual.

In Fantasia of the Unconscious he writes, “Life is individual, always was individual and always will be. Life consists of living individuals, and always did so consist, in the beginning of everything.”[13] Later in the same text Lawrence remarks that living individuals are “the one, pure clue to our cosmos.” And then: “I only know there is but one origin, and that is the individual soul. The individual soul originated everything, and has itself no origin.”[14]Lawrence is here going a step further. Life is always individual life, but what accounts for individuality as such is “the soul,” or what he calls elsewhere the Holy Ghost. Lawrence has acquired these terms from his Christian upbringing, but he uses them in a highly unusual way, as we will see in the next section.

But here we must pause to raise a troubling, and obvious objection: doesn’t all of this completely contradict the idea Lawrence puts forward that in the beginning only life existed, but that it was an “utterly homogeneous infinity”? Yes and no. Lawrence frankly admits elsewhere that he does not believe there ever was a literal beginning to the universe. So what was the point, then, in telling us what happened “in the origin”? Is Lawrence simply spinning out myths? The answer is yes: Lawrence is consciously and deliberately expresses his ideas in mythic form.

When Lawrence speaks of a homogeneous life “in the origin” this is a mythic way of speaking of the creative mystery that is the source of all things. In a way, one can say that this is the “origin” of all things. However, the creative mystery has always existed in and through individuals. Because these individuals are all expressions of the creative mystery, they are all one; but the one creative mystery exists only within the many. As Lawrence says, “life” is homogeneous “mathematically,” but not “actually.”

Now, some might charge that the foregoing is merely a facile way of trying to resolve what is quite simply a glaring contradiction in Lawrence’s thought. But this is not the case. Lawrence makes it quite clear, in fact, that he means us to interpret him exactly as I have suggested. In his essay “The Two Principles” Lawrence writes: “When we postulate a beginning, we only do so to fix a starting point for our thought. There never was a beginning, and there never will be an end to the universe. The creative mystery, which is life itself, always was and always will be. It unfolds itself in pure living creatures.”[15]

For Lawrence, existence “begins” with an undifferentiated life force, which then progressively and infinitely individuates itself. Of course, we must remember that Lawrence does not believe in a literal beginning. When this is taken into account, his position comes extremely close to that of Schopenhauer: existence is, at root, an infinite will that never exists as such, purely by itself, but is continually “expressed” through individuals. Lawrence’s account of the course of creation then becomes, in effect, an alchemical ontology giving us the ultimate qualities and categories of being itself—the most fundamental of which are Fire and Water.

Lawrence develops his “creation myth” in Fantasia and in “The Two Principles.” It is complex and obscure, and best set aside for the moment. Instead, I will turn now to another issue, and an important one. We have seen that for Lawrence the purpose of existence itself is individuation: the coming-into-being of individuals of various forms, each unique and, to one degree or another, independent and self-sufficient. But how, in metaphysical terms, can we account of the arising of the individual? Lawrence answers this question with his idiosyncratic theory of the “Holy Ghost.”

Writing of the positive “sun-pole” and negative “moon-pole” in Fantasia, Lawrence states that “Existence is truly a matter of propagation between the two infinities. But it needs a third presence. . . . The hailstone needs a grain of dust for its core. So does the universe. Midway between the two cosmic infinities lies the third, which is more than infinite. This is the Holy Ghost Life, individual life.”[16] Lawrence also speaks of the ‘individual soul” as the “one clue to the universe.”[17] We shall see that the soul and the Holy Ghost are, in a way equivalent.

The Holy Ghost, Lawrence tells us, mediates between dualities. In the language of “The Two Principles” the Holy Ghost is that which “draws together” Fire and Water to produce a new individual. In his essay “The Crown,” Lawrence remarks that every new (living) individual is “a glimpse of the Holy Ghost.”[18] And in “Reflections on the Death of a Porcupine” he writes that “All existence is dual, and surging towards a consummation into being. In the seed of the dandelion, as it floats with its little umbrella of hairs, sits the Holy Ghost in tiny compass. The Holy Ghost is that which holds the light and the dark, the day and the night, the wet and the sunny, united in one little clue. There it sits, in the seed of the dandelion.”[19]

Lawrence’s concept of the Holy Ghost is not unlike Aristotelian entelecheia, or full or completed actuality. It is that for that for the sake of which each thing strives: its end, or, in Lawrence’s terms, its “fullness of being.” The entelecheia of a thing is just the fully-accomplished being or acting of the thing, yet it has the status of an ideality which is, in a sense, logically and ontologically prior to the existence of the thing. This comparison may seem a bit of stretch, so let us consider the following statements Lawrence makes in his essays. In “Reflections on the Death of a Porcupine” he writes,

Any creature that attains to its own fullness of being, its own living self, becomes unique, a nonpareil. It has its place in the fourth dimension, the heaven of existence, and there it is perfect, beyond comparison. . . . At the same time, every creature exists in time and space. And in time and space it exists relatively to all other existence, and can never be absolved. Its existence impinges on other existences, and is itself impinged upon. . . . The force which we call vitality, and which is the determining factor in the struggle for existence is, however, derived also from the fourth dimension. That is to say, the ultimate source of all vitality is in that other dimension, or region, where the dandelion blooms, and which men have called heaven, and which now they call the fourth dimension: which is only a way of saying that it is not to be reckoned in terms of space and time.[20]

dh-lawrence-women-in-love.jpgIn “Him with His Tail in His Mouth” (1925), Lawrence writes “Creation is a fourth dimension, and in it there are all sorts of things, gods and what-not. That brown hen, scratching with her hind leg in such common fashion, is a sort of goddess in the creative dimension.”[21] And in “Morality and the Novel” (1925), Lawrence tells us “By life, we mean something that gleams, that has the fourth-dimensional quality.”[22] Nothing in Lawrence is ever completely clear, but it seems clear enough in these passages that he thinks that living things exist in two ways. In space and time they exist alongside other creatures, and in large measure are what they are in contrast or opposition to those other creatures. In truth, however, their being is located in a realm beyond space and time.

So far, this seems Platonic. However, Lawrence tells us that any creature that attains its own “fullness of being” becomes unique, and “has its place in the fourth dimension.” In other words, being, for Lawrence, is an achievement. When creatures actualize themselves through becoming what they are, this actuality (what Lawrence calls “vitality”), achieved in space-time, partakes of the eternal.[23] Employing Aristotelian terminology to explain these ideas is almost irresistible—but I hope at this point that the reader sees that my use of this terminology is not misuse.

The Holy Ghost is the actuality of each individual living thing, existing “prior” to it, drawing it on to its achieved fullness of being. Lawrence’s statement that in the fourth dimension “there are all sorts of things, gods and what-not” is tantalizing. I take it to support my claims about the Holy Ghost (i.e., that it is a non-spatio-temporal ideality). But Lawrence’s remark about the hen shows very clearly that, as I shall argue more fully later on, each individual thing is itself God or a god insofar as it follows its Holy Ghost and achieves its fullness of being.

As we have seen, the universe for Lawrence tends toward individuation—or, to put it another way, the creative mystery realizes itself through the perpetual blossoming of myriad individuals. “While we live, we are balanced between the flux of life and the flux of death. But the real clue is the Holy Ghost, that moves us into the state of blossoming. And each year the blossoming is different: from the delicate blue speedwells of childhood to the equally delicate, frail farewell flowers of old age: through all the poppies and sunflowers: year after year of difference.”[24] The blossom is the “completed” individual, which is a wholly unique creation; an unrepeatable expression of the creative mystery.

Lawrence tells us that “Blossoming means the establishing of a pure, new relationship with all the cosmos.”[25] According to Lawrence’s fanciful cosmogony, “first” the creative mystery abides as the one existing individual. Yet, in this form, it is simply undifferentiated “life plasm”—and, in truth, it is no individual at all, for it has no other against which it marks itself off as a specific something. The creative mystery then comes to actualization as an individual, not through the introduction of a foreign other, but through “othering itself”: through expressing itself as an infinite plurality of individuals, whose identities mutually determine each other – who are drawn forth from the mystery in blossoming, abide for a while, then die. The residue they leave forms the material out of which other living things are grown, and on which they depend for shelter and sustenance.

That Lawrence is aware that he is formulating an ontology is clear from the language he uses. For example, to repeat a quotation from “Reflections on the Death of a Porcupine,” he states that “The clue to all existence is being. But you can’t have being without existence, any more than you can have the dandelion flower without the leaves and the long tap root.”[26] By “being” Lawrence means “blossoming,” which not only bears a strong similarity to the Aristotelian entelecheia, but also, more generally, to the Greek phusis, mentioned earlier. Existence, on the other hand, refers to the concrete forms through which blossoming takes place: individual flowers, animals, human beings, etc.

Lawrence is telling us that the clue to understanding beings is Being, but that there is no Being without beings. So long as one understands the specific sense Lawrence gives to Being—“blossoming”—these are not vacuous statements. Things exist only insofar as they are, in essential terms, the blossoming forth of an underlying, primal reality—and this underlying, primal reality only exists through the concrete forms of blossoming in terms of which it “specifies” itself.

Unsurprisingly, Lawrence goes on to identify his Holy Ghost with God. To Heideggereans, of course, this means that Lawrence’s ontology slides over into the fallacy of ontotheology, discussed earlier. Lawrence remarks that “The flower is the burning of God in the bush: the flame of the Holy Ghost: the actual Presence of accomplished oneness, accomplished out of twoness. The true God is created every time a pure relationship, or a consummation out of twoness into oneness takes place. So that the poppy flower is God come red out of the poppy-plant.”[27]

In truth, however, this is not ontotheology. Lawrence is in actual fact telling us that there is no separate being called God. If however, what we mean by “God” is simply the most fundamental fact or, we might say, the most fundamental act in the universe, then we may identify God with Being or blossoming as such. Lawrence’s imagery in the above quotation is a particularly brilliant example of both his skills as a writer, and as an interpreter of myth. God is the burning bush—but in truth every bush, every flower, every living thing is the fire of God: the fire of “accomplished oneness.” God, for Lawrence, just is individuation, and God comes into being, in the world, each time a new living individual blossoms forth.

So far I have spoken in general terms of the Holy Ghost as, in effect, an ideality all living things are striving, in Aristotelian fashion, to “realize.” But nothing has been said specifically about the Holy Ghost in us, and our experience of it. In his 1924 essay “On Being Religious,” Lawrence tells us that “Only the Holy Ghost within you can scent the new tracks of the Great God across the Cosmos of Creation. The Holy Ghost is the dark hound of heaven whose baying we ought to listen to, as he runs ahead into the unknown, tracking the mysterious everlasting departing of the Lord God, who is for ever departing from us.”[28]

The Holy Ghost is an “ideality,” in the sense that it is something being striven for, but in the human being it is not the intellect or a part of the intellect. In so far as Aristotle seems to identify the actualization of the human animal with the actualization of its intellect, this is definitely a point on which Lawrence parts company with Aristotle. As I have argued in other essays, for Lawrence the “true self” is not to be identified with the conscious, socially-constructed ego, nor is it to be identified with intellect. In fact, for Lawrence, the Holy Ghost in human beings is more or less the same thing that he calls the true unconscious (see my essay “D. H. Lawrence on the Unconscious [2]”). It is the primal self that knows without abstract concepts, and guides without words and rules. It is this primal self that draws us on to the realization of our “fullness of being.”

Our Holy Ghost is our being—and it is an expression of the ultimate being, the creative mystery. Thus, when Lawrence tells us that “Only the Holy Ghost within you can scent the new tracks of the Great God across the Cosmos of Creation” he means that if we are to identify ourselves with our primal self—if we are able to become, in a sense, just that—then through it we know all of life, all of the universe. Lawrence’s position is, again, structurally similar to that of Schopenhauer. In Schopenhauer’s philosophy, we come to know the will in nature through the will that manifests itself in our deepest self. Indeed, that is the only way in which we may become aware directly of the will as the source of all that is.

“We go in search of God,” Lawrence writes, “following the Holy Ghost, and depending on the Holy Ghost. There is no Way. There is no Word. There is no Light.”[29] Lawrence means that there is no way to God, to awareness of ultimate reality and ultimate goodness, except through following our own Holy Ghost and letting it draw us into blossoming, into fullness of being. In other words, because God just is Being or blossoming, there is no way to God except through each of us becoming what we are.

Words cannot get us there, nor can following a path marked out by others, or a light kindled by others. Each of us is alone before God, and each way to God is individual because God is individuation. Recall the passage quoted earlier: “Creation is a fourth dimension, and in it there are all sorts of things, gods and what-not. That brown hen, scratching with her hind leg in such common fashion, is a sort of goddess in the creative dimension.”[30] In a sense, each living thing is God insofar as it achieves its fullness of being.

Notes

[1] “There is no utterly immaterial existence, no spirit. The distinction is between living plasm and inanimate matter.” Phoenix II, 230 (“The Two Principles”).

[2] Phoenix II, 230 (“The Two Principles”).

[3] Fantasia, 150-51.

[4] Phoenix, 432 (“A Study of Thomas Hardy”).

[5] Selected Letters of D. H. Lawrence, ed. Diana Trilling (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Cudahy, 1958), 10. Note that Schopenhauer does not identity will with God. His is an atheistic philosophy. But Lawrence has already gone beyond Schopenhauer and given a religious dimension to the will doctrine. Also, there is no direct evidence that Lawrence read The World as Will and Representation. However, we do know that he read Schopenhauer’s essays, and that they made a major impact on him.

[6] D. H. Lawrence, Women in Love (New York: Viking Press, 1969), 52.

[7] Ibid., 470.

[8] Phoenix II, 426 (“The Novel”).

[9] D. H. Lawrence, The Man Who Died (New York: Ecco Press, 1994), 17-18.

[10] I capitalize the B in Being to distinguish it from a being, or thing which has Being. In other words, beings (things which are) have Being.

[11] Phoenix II, 470 (“Reflections on the Death of a Porcupine”).

[12] Phoenix, 432 (“A Study of Thomas Hardy”).

[13] Fantasia, 150.

[14] Fantasia, 160.

[15] Phoenix II, 227 (“The Two Principles”).

[16] Fantasia, 158.

[17] Fantasia, 150.

[18] Phoenix II, 396 (“The Crown”).

[19] Phoenix II, 470 (“Reflections on the Death of a Porcupine”).

[20] Phoenix II, 469 (“Reflections on the Death of a Porcupine”).

[21] Phoenix II, 431 (“Him With His Tail in His Mouth”).

[22] Phoenix I, 529 (“Morality and the Novel”).

[23] In “Reflections on the Death of a Porcupine,” Lawrence writes “Being is not ideal, as Plato would have it: nor spiritual. It is a transcendent form of existence, as much material as existence is. Only the matter suddenly enters the fourth dimension” (Phoenix II, 470). I take Lawrence to be expressing here (without realizing it) essentially the Aristotelian alternative to Platonism: the being of the thing is not another “thing” existing in another reality. Instead, in some sense a living thing becomes eternal—becomes fourth-dimensional—in its actualization. At the same time, we may speak of this “actualization” as something transcendent precisely because it is not a spatio-temporal “thing” at all, but something ontologically “prior” to things. Insofar as it is the actualization of some spatio-temporal living thing, however, in another way it is immanent.

[24] Phoenix II, 396 (“The Crown”).

[25] Phoenix II, 471 (“Reflections on the Death of a Porcupine”).

[26] Ibid., 470.

[27] Phoenix II, 412 (“The Crown”).

[28] Phoenix I, 728 (“On Being Religious”).

[29] Ibid., 729.

[30] Phoenix II, 431 (“Him With His Tail in His Mouth”).

 


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

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/09/d-h-lawrence-on-the-metaphysics-of-life/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/morpheus-iris-01.jpg

[2] D. H. Lawrence on the Unconscious: http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/08/d-h-lawrence-on-the-unconscious/

jeudi, 22 août 2013

U.S., Britain and New Big Game in Near East

hezbollah.jpg

U.S., Britain and New Big Game in Near East

Interview with Jeffrey Steinberg

Ex: http://www.geopolitca.ru

1. Please give us a brief review of the contemporary situation in Egypt with respect to the recent government change and the recent riots, in Syria with respect to the ongoing civil war and insurgency, and in Turkey with respect to the recent socio-political crisis encountered by the Erdogan government.

The three situations must be treated as distinct but clearly all part of the same mosaic of change in the region.  Regarding Egypt, more and more evidence is coming out publicly, indicating that the Morsi government was more interested in consolidating absolute Muslim Brotherhood control over the state apparatus than in governing on behalf of the entire Egyptian people.  When somewhere between 10 and 22 million Egyptians turned out on the street on June 30 in a peaceful protest, demanding Morsi’s resignation, the Egyptian generals acted on that popular mandate.  This is an old story in Egypt.  The Army comes out of the Nasser tradition and sees itself as the guardians of the nation.  They had evidence that the Muslim Brotherhood was planning a purge of the top generals, arrests of opposition leaders and a move to consolidate the “Ikhwanization” of the country.  The interaction between the top leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Army was intense prior to, during and after the ouster of Morsi.  This is an ongoing process.  Unless the Muslim Brotherhood decides to launch an all-out military campaign to take back power, they will be incorporated into the political process, including the upcoming elections.  Morsi and Khayrat al-Shatar, the power behind the scenes within the Muslim Brotherhood, made the mistake of presuming that the Obama Administration would assure that they remained in power by pressuring the Army to stay in the barracks, regardless of what happened on June 30.  Ultimately, the Muslim Brotherhood failed to live up to the mandate that they were given by the Egyptian people.  General Martin Dempsey, the wise Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff recently observed that modern history has seen very few successful revolutions.  He noted that in almost every instance, except for the American Revolution, the first generation got it wrong, the next generation in power overcompensated and also got it wrong, and the third generation managed to get it mostly right.  We are at the very early stages of the Egyptian revolution.  Economic well-being for the vast majority of Egyptians is the ultimate test.  Egypt has water, which is the most precious commodity in the region, and has the capacity to grow vast amounts of food.  Development projects have been on the drawing board for a long time.  This will be the measure of success of the future governments.

The Syria crisis is a tragedy in almost every respect.  No one involved in the Syria events of the past two-and-a-half years is immune from some responsibility for the bloodshed and the near-total destruction of a nation.  A country that was once a model of communal integration (Sunni, Shiite, Alawite, Kurd, Druze, Christian) and was a birthplace of Christianity has been thoroughly Balkanized into warring factions.  Outside powers played the Syrian situation to their own interests and advantages.  President Obama, declared that President Bashar al-Assad had to go almost two years ago, before receiving any intelligence or military assessments of the situation there.  Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey all jumped into the situation early on, promoting an armed Syrian opposition that was expected to oust President Assad in short order.  Now, Syria is the epicenter of a regional sectarian conflict between Sunni and Shiites/Alawites that has spread to Turkey, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan.  The British have been promoting just such a sectarian “Hundred Years War” within the Muslim world as part of a classic Malthusian population reduction campaign.  Saudi hatred for the Syrian Alawites has been exploited by London, assuring that arms and cash have been flowing into the hands of a global Sunni jihadist apparatus.  Now, the Obama Administration is weighing in with covert support for a more “moderate” anti-Assad Free Syrian Army, centered in Jordan.  Weapons that were confiscated after the execution of Muammar Qaddafi in Libya in late 2011 have been smuggled into the hands of Syrian rebels, including the Al Qaeda-linked Al Nusra Front since April 2012.  The program has been coordinated out of the Obama White House and managed by the CIA.  President Obama has his own “Iran-Contra” scandal brewing and is attempting to cover up for crimes that have been ongoing for over a year and which could lead to his impeachment.  At one point, the danger of the Syrian crisis triggering a global war prompted US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to attempt to convene a Geneva II peace conference, as a way to avoid the situation slipping totally out of anyone’s control.  That Geneva II option remains the last best hope that further destruction of the entire region, and a possible trigger for general war can be prevented. 

There are some significant parallels between the Erdogan government in Turkey and the recently deposed Morsi Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt.  Since coming into power, Prime Minister Erdogan had pursued a policy of economic and political cooperation with all of Turkey’s neighbors.  That policy served Turkey well for several years, building trade with Russia and Iran, settling Kurdish conflicts involving both Turkey and Syria, and building a strong economic bridge with the Kurdish Regional Government in Iraq, without damaging Ankara-Baghdad relations.  When the Syrian protests erupted in early 2011, President Obama urged Prime Minister Erdogan (one of the few foreign heads of state to have any kind of personal relationship with the US President) to “take the lead” in pressing for Assad’s rapid removal from power.  Erdogan presumed that Washington would make good on its demand for Assad’s removal from power.  Given the US role in the overthrow and execution of Qaddafi in Libya, and given the Obama Administration’s strong promotion of humanitarian interventionism and “R2P” (“Responsibility to Protect”), post-Westphalian dogmas permitting a full range of intervention into the internal affairs of formerly sovereign states, Erdogan was not totally foolish in his expectation that Washington would run a replay of Libya in the Eastern Mediterranean and Assad’s days were numbered.  That prospect never materialized, and as the result, the Turkish people are becoming disillusioned with the Erdogan AKP approach.  The Turkish Army, having been a target of Erdogan purges, is becoming restless.  The Turkey situation has become an important piece of the regional disintegration.  Economic and political agreements with Iran, Russia, Syria and even Iraq are now in doubt.  Turkey is facing a period of potential turmoil.  The European economic crisis, far from being solved, will add further fuel to the fire in Turkey.

2. What is nature of the Arab Spring, and how do you see the Arab Spring developing in the future?

There are two dimensions to the Arab Spring that are generally ignored.  First, a combination of economic depravations and political persecution created a “perfect storm” for popular dissatisfaction to spill over into mass action.  In Tunisia, as well as Egypt, a well-educated segment of youth revolted over the fact that they had no prospect for a future in their own country.  The initial impulse was that of a classic “mass strike” when a large percentage of the population concluded that they had nothing left to lose, and they seized upon a symbolic event and launched a public demand for change.  Second, once events on the ground reached a critical mass, external political forces intervened for self-serving reasons.  London wants a permanent war of “each against all” to reduce the population levels in the developing world.  Saudi Arabia and Qatar, two rival Wahhabi monarchies, began pouring money into contending factions of the Islamist opposition and the militaries.  The Obama Administration concluded that the Muslim Brotherhood were the safest representatives of “political Islam” and began backing them in both Egypt and Syria.  The fact that the United States has turned Qatar into a forward-based hub of Washington power projection in the region has, up until the recent change of power in Qatar, meant a combined Doha-Washington backing for the Muslim Brotherhood as the “pragmatic” Islamists.  There is a serious reassessment now underway in Washington.  The outside factors made it impossible for the internal dynamics of Egypt and Syria to come to an understanding about a way forward.  At no time was there adequate outside economic assistance to provide breathing room for a raw political process to evolve.  The standard IMF recipes for economic starvation and “shock therapy” privatization and de-subsidization made matters worse. 

3. What is the role of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria and in Egypt?

Historically, the Muslim Brotherhood was a creation of the Sykes-Picot colonial process and of British intelligence.  The organization evolved, spread, spawned a far more virulent network of more radical jihadists including Al Qaeda.  A long exile in Saudi Arabia, following the Nasser crackdown against the Brotherhood beginning in the 1950s, spawned a new neo-Salafist phenomenon.  When Hafez Assad launched his own harsh crackdown against the Syrian Muslim Brothers in the early 1980s, that led to a second wave migration and exile in Saudi Arabia.  Under the influence of Dr. Bernard Lewis, a British intelligence “Arabist” who is also a leading Zionist, successive American administrations adopted the “Islamic Card” as a tool to bring down the Soviet Union.  The Afghan War of the 1980s saw British and American intelligence deepen the alliance with the Muslim Brothers.  This spawned Al Qaeda and a large number of groups that were foreign fighters brought to Afghanistan as “muhahideen” trained and armed to fight the “Godless” Soviet Red Army.  The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), an arm of Al Qaeda created by Afghanzi fighters who returned to Libya after that Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, is exemplary of the spreading neo-Salafist problem that emerged out of the “Bernard Lewis Plan” to play Islam against Communism.  When Communism collapsed in the early 1990s, the West in general and the United States in particular became the “New Satan” to be targeted.  The Obama Administration’s belief that the Muslim Brotherhood was potential allies led to a string of policy blunders and mishaps that are still playing out.  In recent weeks, Washington’s love affair with the Muslim Brotherhood has fractured.  The ouster of the Emir and prime minister of Qatar has weakened the financial support for the Muslim Brotherhood.  It is too early to say what the next phase of the process will look like, but the naïve presumptions about the Muslim Brotherhood are being severely challenged right now.

4. Is there a difference between the policy supported by General Dempsey and Defence Secretary Hagel on the one hand and the State Department and White House forces on the other? If yes, please explain these differences.

There are significant differences.  General Dempsey is a leading figure in a war-avoidance faction inside the governing institutions of the United States.  He has taken a courageous stand, opposing direct US military engagement in Syria.  He wants to bring home the American troops who have been engaged for over a decade in Afghanistan, and he wants to assure that there is never again a long war that drains the armed forces and the nation’s resources of the US.  He has the backing of Defense Secretary Hagel in this quest.  General Dempsey believes that it is a priority to deepen cooperation with Russia and China, the other two leading world military powers.  He judges all military options from a global overview.  The contrasting views inside the Obama Administration are centered at the White House with people like Dr. Susan Rice and the former Special Assistant to the President Samantha Power, now the President’s nominee to replace Rice at the UN.  They are extreme proponents of humanitarian interventionism.  In that respect the “liberal” humanitarian interventionists are soul mates of the neoconservatives of the Bush-Cheney era.  It is ironic but also not surprising that the leading war-avoidance forces in the United States are active duty and retired flag officers of the armed forces, who have lived through the hell of the post-911 long wars and want no more of it.  They are painfully aware that a conflict that pits the United States against Russia and/or China could lead to thermonuclear war and extinction of mankind.  They understand war as Dr. Rice and Samantha Power (and President Obama) do not.

5. What is the role of Israel and of the U.S. Israeli lobby in the contemporary upheaval in the Middle East and the Eastern Mediterranean in general? 

The Revisionist Zionist Movement, founded by Jabotinsky and now ruling Israel under Netanyahu, is a British colonial creation—part of the divide and conquer strategy that the British and French imposed on the Middle East from the end of World War I.  Israel and the Israeli Lobby, as such, are expendable pawns in the larger British game.  To the extent that Israel has any pretence of being a sovereign state, they have been pursuing a series of tragic self-destructive policies ever since the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995 after his historic Oslo Agreement with Yasser Arafat and the PLO.  Without a drastic change in policy, Israel is likely doomed.  The Israeli Lobby is a powerful force in Washington politics but is not all-powerful.  Right now, their focus is on Iran.  Their primary objective is to keep up pressure on President Obama to where he will eventually take military action for regime change in Iran.  That could be a trigger for all-out war, which is exactly what General Dempsey and the rest of the JCS want to avoid at all costs.  Israel was, ironically, sidelined as a minor player in the unfolding events in Egypt and Syria.  There is no good outcome of the Syrian mess from Israel’s standpoint.  They had a truce with the Assad governments in Syria and came close on several occasions to formalizing it in a Camp David-style treaty with Damascus.  Israel may appreciate the benefits of the Syrian Army being gutted, but they do not welcome a Jihadist state on their northern border.  The British will sell out Israel in a heart-beat to pursue their new game of permanent brutal sectarian war within Islam.

6. Which is the strategy of Netanyahu and the Zionist political forces in general in the fields of geopolitics and geoeconomics?

The Netanyahu Zionists want to maintain the status quo of gradual absorbtion of the entirety of the West Bank into a Jewish state.  They will exploit so-called peace negotiations with the Palestinians to stall, as new settlement expansion accelerates by the day.  As pawns of larger forces, including the British, they do not really have a strategic vision.  They have integrated their high-tech aerospace and electronics sector into the United States economy to such an extent that they are defacto the 51st state.  Most Israeli high-tech companies have their stock traded on the NASDAQ exchange in New York. A majority of Israeli Jews are so fed up with the madness dominating Israeli politics that they would prefer to live in the United States.

Interviewed by  Dr Nicolas Laos (member of the faculty of International Relations at the University of Indianapolis, Athens Campus (Greece) and a columnist of the Greek political daily newspaper "Ellada").

 

mercredi, 22 mai 2013

Pas d’orchidées pour Mrs Thatcher !

Pas d’orchidées pour Mrs Thatcher !

Le fossoyeur de l'Angleterre

Auran Derien
Ex: http://metamag.fr/

La spécialité de la finance anglo-saxonne est le mensonge et l’inversion des valeurs.  Au décès de Mrs Thatcher, les perroquets médiatiques autorisés ont voulu nous faire croire qu’elle était la miss Blandish de la politique. Des penseurs plus pénétrants et scrupuleux révèlent qu’elle fut plutôt la Mama Grisson. Revenons à la réalité de son action car nous comprenons mieux ainsi l’horreur de l’Occident contemporain.

La fondatrice du totalitarisme occidental 

 
L’école autrichienne, la pensée de Hayek, n’ont rien à voir avec ce que promeut la globalisation. Les agités du bocal qui donnaient les conseils ou les ordres à Mrs Thatcher n’ont jamais lu ces auteurs. D’ailleurs, ils ne lisent rien. A quoi bon? N’exhalent-ils pas la vérité révélée? Ils se sont contentés d’écouter et d’appliquer les prédications de Milton Friedman, lequel a ratiociné à partir du modèle d’équilibre général. Ça n’a rien de libéral...
 
  
 
La société du spectacle a mis en scène Mrs Thatcher, pour que le public vote en sa faveur. Derrière elle, s’activait en réalité tout un groupe de banquiers et autres fanatiques, à la recherche de politiciens aptes à prendre des mesures qui leur assureraient enfin le statut de gérant du monde pour mille ans. Parmi les créatures qui contrôlaient la pseudo dame de fer, citons le banquier Victor Rothschild (1910-1990) dont le Dr.Tarpley rappelle qu’il servit de spécialiste de la sécurité pour Royal Dutch Shell et qu’il avait formé un think tank dont le gouvernement britannique s’inspirait. Entre lui, Keith Joseph, le cerveau politique, et Alfred Sherman, ils géraient MrsThatcher. Sherman, communiste à l’origine, était allé en Espagne durant la guerre civile. Puis il avait conseillé le premier ministre israélien Ben-Gurion avant de fonder, en 1974, avec Joseph et Thatcher le Center for Policy Studies qui fut le centre de production des idées que prétendit ensuite mettre en œuvre Mme Thatcher, une fois premier ministre. 
 
On voit que l’emballage hayékien ne correspond en rien aux obsessions profondes des employeurs  de Mrs Thatcher. Elle fut mise en orbite pour détruire la société britannique et n’arrêta pas de tourner  en chantant une demi-douzaine de slogans très primitifs basés sur un darwinisme social des plus sordides. Il semble que ce soit  keith Joseph qui ait le plus contribué à une des mesures fondamentales : réduire les salaires des enseignants ;  car pour les trafiquants, la connaissance est inutile voire dangereuse. La population ne doit pas étudier, du moins rien de fondamental. Les enseignants ne doivent pas pouvoir constituer une profession où chacun vit dignement de son salaire. Sinon, la révolution en faveur du soviet de la finance ne serait pas possible. Il faut abattre la culture pour que le bétail de la ferme des animaux suive la caste des chargés de mission du bien en soi…
 
L’accession au pouvoir de cette fausse Miss Blandish ne fut possible qu’avec l’utilisation des méthodes de marketing, importées des USA par l’agence de publicité Saatchi & Saatchi. Elles innovaient dans un contexte de crise sociale déclenchée en 1973 (hausse du pétrole) alors que les prédicateurs économiques de Chicago parcouraient le monde avec l’appui de Kissinger afin de duper le plus de gouvernants possibles. 
 
Thatcher applique les insanités friedmaniennes
 
Pour les riches, l’inflation de l’époque paraissait indésirable car elle favorisait les classes moyennes dont elle amortissait les dettes automatiquement. Aussi, fut-il décidé de prendre au sérieux les élucubrations de Friedman, en bloquant l’offre de monnaie pour démarrer une récession qui créa un chômage massif. La restriction monétaire fit monter la livre et l’industrie commença à disparaître. Seuls les banquiers de la City profitèrent de la livre surévaluée pour s’offrir des actifs à travers le monde…
 

Milton Friedman et Ronald Reagen
 
La réforme fiscale fut aussi brutale. La TVA monta et, face aux critiques de cette politique de néantisation du peuple anglais, il lui fallut chercher une guerre capable de redorer son blason ; de faire naître temporairement autour d’elle un nationalisme factice, trompeur et niais.  Cela lui réussit. La guerre des Malouines, en 1982, fut son tremplin pour une nouvelle période  économique. Appliquant les mesures de Friedman, elle devint naturellement la grande amie du général chilien Pinochet, lui même fanatique partisan des mesures des impenseurs de l’Ecole de Chicago. Elle devait aussi promouvoir Gorbachev, qui fut transformé en coqueluche de l’Occident au fur et à mesure qu’il trahissait le peuple russe. On relira sur ce point l’excellent ouvrage de Alexandre Zinoviev : Perestroika et contre-Perestroika. O.Orban. 1991. “Gorbatchev est devenu le héros de l’occident, qui l’a couvert d’honneurs et de louanges pour ses mérites, non envers l’URSS, mais envers les occidentaux”.
 
L’obsession de “privatiser” en faveur des financiers, seule ligne de conduite permanente de la dame, correspondait-elle à des accords qui liaient la Grande-Bretagne? Fallait-il solder des dettes qui remontaient à la seconde guerre mondiale? Etait-ce une contrepartie aux aides du FMI signées en 1976?  Elle a finalement exercé le rôle de Mama Grisson, organisant le hold-up du siècle sur une contrée désormais victime de la tyrannie obscurantiste d’une bande de financiers parvenus. 
 
La véritable noblesse est morte
 
Mrs Thatcher a détruit un monde à base de solidarités professionnelles pour livrer le tout aux démons de la City. La justification à partir des penseurs autrichiens, notamment Hayek, est totalement erronée. Il n’y a pas et il n’y aura jamais d’ordre cattalactique quand la mafia financière règne. Le discours monétariste et l’obsession des privatisations sont destinés à justifier le vol en faveur de ceux qui se sont préparés pour la grande orgie de pillage. On ne saurait oublier qu’elle a couvert, en 1986, la destruction des règles financières qui assuraient encore un peu d’harmonie dans ces métiers de gangster. 
 
En échange, elle a terminé dans la nouvelle noblesse, celle d’une époque Orwellienne où les voyous s’achètent les titres puisque la dernière véritable noblesse européenne est morte en 1914-1918.

jeudi, 18 avril 2013

Margaret Thatcher, le devoir de haine

thatcher-la-dame-de-fer.jpg

Margaret Thatcher, le devoir de haine

par Claude BOURRINET

Pour le bonheur du monde, du moins son équilibre et sa beauté, il eût cent fois mieux valu que Margaret passât en 1979 dans l’autre monde, en enfer, comme dirait Mélenchon, qu’on ne croyait pas si croyant. Cette année 2013, si triste pourtant, puisqu’elle a vu Chavez disparaître, – une grande perte – est au fond généreuse, puisqu’elle vient de délivrer le royaume de Sa Gracieuse Majesté d’un être pestilentiel. On ne saurait trop s’en réjouir.

Las ! la « Dame » dite « de fer », du métal dont on fait les barreaux de prison, a eu le temps de sévir, et d’emprisonner, d’empoisonner la Grande-Bretagne, l’Europe, et une grande partie de l’univers.

Plusieurs ne sont pas sortis indemnes de cette contamination. La droite « dure », libérale, mondialiste, évidemment. De même l’extrême droite sécuritaire, anticommuniste, néoconservatrice, sioniste et atlantiste, qui se satisferait, en guise de programme, de greffer une paire de couilles à un cerveau reptilien. Mais aussi, de façon plus inquiétante, ceux des patriotes dont on aurait attendu plus de jugeote, et qui considèrent que la mégère décoincée présentait, avec sa morgue cassante et sa sauvagerie désinhibée, tout ce qu’il y avait de plus distingué en guise de patriotisme, « bien qu’ultralibérale ».

L’un des problèmes récurrents de tout ce qui se situe à droite de la droite est que, quoique arborant volontiers les signes éminents de la virilité la plus martiale, on mouille comme n’importe quelle femelle délurée, pourvu qu’en face on agite le gros bâton. Il suffit de démontrer qu’on fait fi de tous ces ridicules scrupules qui ne font qu’affaiblir les maîtres de ce monde pour recueillir tous les suffrages des candidats à la surhumanité.

En l’occurrence, avec Maggie, il ne s’agissait nullement de surhomme, mais de sur-épicier, comme son origine sociale l’y invitait, et une nature calculatrice, mesquine, matérialiste et singulièrement bilieuse.

Le thatchérisme s’est donc emparé des esprits politiques. Tout dirigeant, ou postulant à la direction des peuples, fait dorénavant du Margaret comme monsieur Jourdain faisait de la prose. Même la gauche. Blair l’a reconnu, et à sa suite les « socialistes » français. Avec sans doute un peu de cette tartuferie faux-cul, qui ne seyait pas, il faut le reconnaître, à la Dame de fer. Du thatchérisme flambeur au thatchérisme flamby, si l’on veut. Mais comme la défunte boutiquière l’affirmait, en lorgnant son tiroir-caisse, « il n’y a qu’une seule politique possible : le libéralisme ».

On connaît la chanson.

Pourtant, saisir son destin, n’est-ce cracher à la gueule de la méduse ?

Quelle est l’erreur des patriotes (car les autres, on tire la chasse d’eau sur eux) ?

Thatcher aurait mis au pas les syndicats, qui prenaient en otage les entreprises et ruinaient le pays. Les appareils syndicaux avaient dans beaucoup de secteurs le monopole de l’embauche, et exigeaient l’aide de l’État pour sauver des usines en faillite. Soit.

Replaçons l’enjeu à sa véritable place, qui est l’irrésistible et dévastatrice ascension du néocapitalisme. Les syndicats, les grèves… quelle aubaine pour faire sauter la marmite !

Mais quelle a été la politique d’une nation qui est la patrie d’origine du libéralisme, lequel est fondé sur la doctrine de la « main invisible et infaillible du marché », et sur celle de la nécessaire division du travail à l’échelle mondiale ? C’est de sacrifier tous les secteurs qui peuvent être pris en charge par d’autres régions de la planète. Ce fut d’abord l’agriculture, pour accroître les bagnes industriels, où s’entassèrent des miséreux, l’ancienne paysannerie libre. À l’époque actuelle, c’est l’industrie qu’on délocalise pour que la finance fructifie et que le banquier règne. L’un des principaux paradis fiscaux en Europe et dans le monde, c’est la City. Un nid de frelons. Thatcher a fait d’une partie de sa patrie une nation de rentiers, d’actionnaires et de propriétaires avaricieux, captivés par la bourse, et se souciant comme d’une guigne de l’avenir de la société. Une corruption massive.

La société ? Mais ça n’existe pas ! assurait sentencieusement Thatcher. Il n’est que des individus qui travaillent, accumulent, jouissent de leurs gains. Le retour aux sources libérales dans sa pureté suprême. L’antithèse absolue d’un autre Anglais, George Orwell, qui pensait qu’une existence ne pouvait se passer d’obligations sociales, de solidarité, de considération des autres, de générosité et d’un minimum de sacrifice pour que le Bien commun prévale sur l’égoïsme dévastateur.

Car c’est bien un champ de ruine qu’a laissé l’Attila des marchés après onze ans d’agressif délire libéral. Des millions de chômeurs, la misère, une dérégulation tous azimuts, un service public cassé, un enseignement dévalué, un gouffre entre le Nord et le Sud. Un chef d’État, un homme politique responsable doit-il considérer son propre peuple comme ennemi ? En fanatique qu’elle était, comme le sont d’ailleurs tout autant les oligarques européens qui mènent la politique économique actuelle en doctrinaires, Thatcher a préféré démolir que construire.

Comme elle a détruit la vie de partisans, héroïques, de républicains irlandais chers à notre cœur, dont la faute inexpiable était de lutter pour leur patrie : Bobby Sands (I.R.A.), 27 ans, meurt le 5 mai 1981 après 66 jours de grève de la faim, Francis Hughues (I.R.A.), 25 ans, meurt le 12 mai 1981 après 59 jours de grève de la faim, Raymond McCreesh (I.R.A.), 24 ans, meurt le 21 mai 1981 après 61 jours de grève de la faim, Patsy O’Hara (I.N.L.A.), 23 ans, meurt le 21 mai 1981 après 61 jours de grève de la faim, Joe McDonnell (I.R.A.), 30 ans, meurt le 8 juillet 1981 après 61 jours de grève de la faim, Martin Hurson (I.R.A.), 29 ans, meurt le 12 juillet 1981 après 46 jours de grève de la faim, Kevin Lynch (I.N.L.A.), 25 ans, meurt le 1er août 1981 après 71 jours de grève de la faim, Kieran Doherty (I.R.A.), 25 ans, meurt le 2 août 1981 après 73 jours grève de la faim, Thomas McElvee (I.R.A.), 23 ans, meurt le 8 août 1981 après 62 jours grève de la faim, Michael Devine (I.N.L.A.), 27 ans, meurt le 20 août 1981 après 60 jours de grève de la faim…

Paix à leur âme et leur souvenir sera à jamais gravé dans notre mémoire.

Quel oxymore plaisant, du reste, que l’expression « patriotisme libéral » ? Car, tout en étant disciple des néocons Hayek, Popper, Friedman, elle aurait défendu les intérêts de son pays. Quelle blague ! Son euroscepticisme ? En fait, du chantage, tout simplement, pour, finalement, à force de coups de boutoir, d’entrisme opportun, de vociférations vulgaires, de contournements perfides, et, il faut le dire, pas mal de complicités dans la place, parvenir à transformer l’Europe-Puissance en grand marché ouvert à quatre vents, ce que la Grande- Bretagne a toujours ambitionné qu’elle fût. Les Malouines ? Une stratégie cynique et criminelle pour récupérer quelque popularité après l’échec de sa politique économique. Le nationalisme british ? L’Angleterre est devenue, ou a achevé de l’être, une sous-colonie américaine, et les Anglais un chenil. Notre avenir, en quelque sorte.

En vérité, comme chacun sait, le libéralisme, même affublé (on se demande pourquoi) du préfixe « ultra », qui suggérerait qu’il existât deux espèces de libéralismes, n’est pas, ne peut être un patriotisme. Le seul attachement qu’un libéral puisse éprouver pour le territoire qui l’a vu éventuellement naître, et pour la nation dont il serait formellement un membre, est du même acabit que celui qui lie un cadre dynamique à son entreprise, ou au groupe international dont elle est une filiale. Pour le reste, l’argent n’a ni odeur, ni saveur, et ne connaît pas les frontières ni les identités.

Thatcher apparaît donc comme un marqueur idéologique. Haïr ce genre d’individu monstrueux, programmé pour abolir les peuples et faire triompher Mammon, promouvoir le culte du Veau d’Or et bousiller tout ce qui échappe au fric, est non seulement salubre – un signe de santé – mais terriblement nécessaire pour envisager un jour la victoire. Respecter cette putréfaction, voire l’admirer, c’est se considérer d’ores et déjà comme battus.

Claude Bourrinet

• D’abord mis en ligne sur Vox N.-R., le 10 avril 2013.


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

URL to article: http://www.europemaxima.com/?p=3058

 

jeudi, 11 avril 2013

Thomas Carlyle: Over helden en heldenverering

Thomas-Carlyle-9238527-1-402.jpg

Thomas Carlyle

(vertaling Bert Bultinck)

Over helden en heldenverering

| Vijfde Lezing – De Held als Literator.
Dinsdag, 19 mei 1840


Held-goden, Profeten, Poëten, Priesters. Het zijn allemaal vormen van Heroïsme die tot de oude tijden behoren, die al in de vroegste tijden verschijnen; sommige van die vormen lijken niet langer mogelijk, en kunnen zichzelf niet meer tonen in deze wereld. De Held als Literator, waarover we vandaag zullen spreken, is al bij al een product van onze nieuwe tijden; en zolang de wonderlijke kunst van het Schrift, of van het Paraat-Schrift dat we Drukwerk noemen, blijft bestaan, mag men veronderstellen dat hij één van de belangrijkste vormen van het Heroïsme zal blijven voor alle tijden die nog volgen. Hij is, in verschillende opzichten, een zeer bijzonder fenomeen.

Ik zeg dat hij nieuw is; hij is er amper langer dan een eeuw. Nooit, tot zo’n honderd jaar geleden, was er enig beeld van een Grote Ziel die op zo’n abnormale manier apart leefde, niemand die poogde de inspiratie die in hem was uit te spreken in Gedrukte Boeken en die plaats en levensonderhoud vond door middel van wat het de wereld behaagde hem daarvoor te geven. Er was al veel ver- en gekocht; en achtergelaten om de eigen prijs op de markt te vinden; maar de bezielde wijsheid van een Heroïsche Ziel nog nooit, op die naakte wijze. Hij, met zijn copy-rights en copy-wrongs, in zijn vieze zolderkamertje, in zijn versleten jas; die vanuit het graf hele naties en generaties regeert (want dat is wat hij doet) die hem tijdens zijn leven al dan niet brood wilden geven – hij is een curieus spektakel! Er zijn weinig vormen van Heroïsme die nog meer onverwacht zouden kunnen zijn.

Helaas, de Held uit de oude dagen heeft zich in vreemde vormen moeten wringen: de wereld weet bij tijden niet goed wat met hem aan te vangen, zo vreemd is zijn verschijning in deze wereld! Het leek ons absurd, dat mensen, in hun brute bewondering, één of andere wijze grote Odin als god namen en hem als zodanig vereerden; of een wijze grote Mohammed voor een door god bezielde, om diens Wet twaalf eeuwen religieus na te leven: maar dat een wijze grote Johnson, een Burns, een Rousseau als doelloze slampampers worden beschouwd, en af en toe een paar muntstukken toegeworpen krijgen om van te leven, als zouden die enkel bestaan om de leegheid te amuseren: dit zal misschien, zoals reeds eerder gesuggereerd, ooit nog wel een veel absurdere stand van zaken lijken! – Ondertussen moet, aangezien het spirituele altijd het materiële bepaalt, deze Literator-Held als onze belangrijkste moderne persoon worden beschouwd. Hij, hoe hij ook moge zijn, is de ziel van alles en iedereen. Wat hij verkondigt, zal de hele wereld doen en maken. Hoe de wereld hem behandelt is het meest significante kenmerk van de algehele staat van de wereld. Als we goed naar zijn leven kijken, kunnen we misschien een glimp opvangen, zo diep als ook maar mogelijk is voor ons, van het leven van die bijzondere eeuwen die hem hebben voortgebracht en waarin wij zelf leven en werken.
Er zijn authentieke Literatoren en inauthentieke; zoals bij elke soort zijn er authentieke en onechte. Als we Held als authentiek opvatten, dan zeg ik dat de Held als Literator voor ons een functie zal blijken te vervullen die voor altijd de meest eerbiedwaardige, de hoogste is. Hij spreekt, op zijn eigen manier, zijn eigen geïnspireerde ziel uit; alles wat een man, in elk geval, kan doen. Ik zeg geïnspireerd, dat wat we ‘originaliteit’, ‘oprechtheid’, ‘genie’ noemen, die heroïsche kwaliteit waar we geen goede naam voor hebben. De Held is hij die leeft in de innerlijke sfeer van de dingen, in het Ware, Goddelijke en Eeuwige, dat altijd, onopgemerkt voor de meesten, onder het Tijdelijke, Triviale leeft: daarin ligt zijn wezen; hij openbaart dat uitgebreid, door een handeling of een uitspraak, en door zichzelf uitgebreid te openbaren. Zijn leven, zoals we vroeger al zeiden, is een stuk van het eeuwige hart van de Natuur zelf: dat is het leven van iedereen, – maar de zwakke velen kennen dat feit niet, en zijn het meestal ontrouw; de sterke weinigen zijn sterk, heroïsch, standvastig, want het kan zich niet voor hen verstoppen. De Literator, net als elke Held, is er om dit uit te dragen, zoals hij dat kan. Intrinsiek is het dezelfde functie waarvoor de oude generaties een man Profeet, Priester of Godheid noemden; om die dingen te doen, door woord of daad, waarvoor alle soorten van Helden de wereld ingestuurd worden.

Zo’n veertig jaar geleden gaf de Duitse Filosoof Fichte een zeer opmerkelijke reeks lezingen over dit onderwerp in Erlangen: ‘Über das Wesen des Gelehrten, Over De Natuur van de Literaire Mens.’ In overeenstemming met de Transcendentale Filosofie waarvan hij een groot leermeester was, stelt Fichte eerst en vooral: Dat alle dingen die we zien of waarmee we werken op deze Aarde, in het bijzonder onszelf en alle mensen, als een soort overjas of zinnelijke Verschijning zijn: dat er onder dat alles, als hun essentie, datgene ligt wat hij de ‘Goddelijke Idee van de Wereld’ noemt; dit is de Realiteit die ‘aan de grond ligt van elke Verschijning’. Voor de massa is zo’n Goddelijke Idee niet te herkennen in de wereld; zij leven enkel, zegt Fichte, onder de oppervlakkigheden, de praktische probleempjes en de uiterlijkheden van de wereld, en dromen niet dat daaronder ook maar iets goddelijks is. Maar de Literator wordt speciaal hierheen gezonden om, voor zichzelf, dezelfde Goddelijke Idee te onderscheiden en om die, voor ons, duidelijk te maken: elke nieuwe generatie zal dit Idee aan zichzelf kenbaar maken in een nieuw dialect; en de Literator is er om dat te doen. In die bewoordingen drukt Fichte zich uit; en wij hoeven dat niet te betwisten. Wat hij op zijn manier benoemt is datgene wat ik hier, in andere woorden, op onvolmaakte wijze tracht te benoemen: dat waar momenteel geen naam voor is: De onuitsprekelijke Goddelijke Betekenis, vol van glans, van wonder en terreur, dat in het wezen van elke man ligt, van elk ding,– de Aanwezigheid van de God die elke mens en elk ding heeft gemaakt. Mohammed verkondigde dit in zijn dialect; Odin in het zijne: alle denkende harten zijn hier om dat, in één of ander dialect, aan te leren.

Daarom noemt Fichte de Literator een profeet, of zoals hij hem liever noemt, een Priester, die voortdurend het Goddelijke voor de mensen ontvouwt: van tijdperk tot tijdperk vormen Literatoren een eeuwig Priesterschap, dat alle mensen leert dat er nog steeds een God is in hun leven; dat elke ‘Verschijning’, wat we ook zien in de wereld, niet meer dan een overjas is voor de ‘Goddelijke Idee van de Wereld’, voor ‘dat wat op de bodem van de Verschijning ligt’. In de ware Literator is er dus altijd een, al dan niet door de wereld erkende, wijding: hij is het licht van de wereld, de Priester van de wereld: - hij leidt de wereld, als een heilige Vuurpilaar, in diens donkere pelgrimstocht door de woestijn van de Tijd. Fichte onderscheidt gepassioneerd de ware Literator, die we hier de Held als Literator noemen, van de massa valse onheldhaftigen. Wie niet volledig in deze Goddelijke Idee leeft, of voor wie er slechts gedeeltelijk in leeft en er niet naar streeft, als naar het enige goede, om er volledig in te leven, – hij is, waar hij ook leeft, in welke praal en voorspoed dan ook, geen Literator; hij is, zegt Fichte, een ‘zielige, een Stümper’. Of, hij kan, op zijn best, als hij van de prozaïsche streken is, een ‘loonslaaf’ zijn; Fichte noemt hem elders zelfs een nul, en heeft, om kort te gaan, geen genade voor hem, geen verlangen dat hij blijmoedig onder ons blijft! Dit is Fichtes opvatting van de Literator. In zijn eigen uitdrukkingsvorm zegt het precies wat we hier bedoelen.
Vanuit dit standpunt beschouw ik Fichtes landgenoot Goethe als de meest opmerkelijke Literator van de laatste honderd jaar. Wat we een leven in de Goddelijke Idee van de Wereld kunnen noemen was ook, op een vreemde manier, aan die man gegeven; een visioen van het innerlijke, goddelijke mysterie: en vreemd genoeg, rijst uit zijn boeken de wereld eens te meer op als goddelijk verbeeld, werk en tempel van een God. Geheel verlicht, niet in woeste onzuivere vuurglans als bij Mohammed, maar in milde, hemelse stralen; -waarlijk een Profetie in deze hoogst onprofetische tijden; mijns inziens, veruit het grootste, zij het één van de stilste, van alle dingen die in deze tijden gebeurd zijn. Als specimen van de Held als Literator zouden we deze Goethe verkiezen. En het zou me zeer aangenaam zijn om het hier over zijn heroïsme te hebben: want ik beschouw hem als een echte Held; heroïsch in wat hij zei en deed, en misschien nog heroïscher in wat hij niet zei en niet deed; wat mij betreft een nobel spektakel: een groot heroïsch man van vroeger, die sprak en zweeg als een Held van de oude tijd, in de verschijning van een uiterst moderne, welopgevoede, zeer gecultiveerde Literator! Wij hebben zo geen spektakel gehad; geen man die daartoe in staat was, de laatste honderdvijftig jaar.
Maar momenteel is de algemene kennis van Goethe zodanig dat het meer dan zinloos zou zijn om het in deze kwestie over hem te hebben. Hoe ik ook over hem zou spreken, Goethe zou voor de meesten onder jullie vaag en problematisch blijven; geen indruk behalve een valse zou ik kunnen meegeven. We moeten hem voor later bewaren. Johnson, Burns, Rousseau, drie grote figuren van een vorige tijd, uit een veel slechtere staat van omstandigheden, passen hier beter. Drie mannen van de Achttiende Eeuw; hun levensomstandigheden lijken veel meer op wat die van ons nog altijd zijn, dan op die van Goethe in Duitsland. Helaas, deze mannen overwonnen niet zoals hij; ze vochten moedig, en vielen. Ze waren geen heroïsche bezorgers van het licht, maar heroïsche zoekers ervan. Ze leefden in bittere omstandigheden; worstelden als onder bergen van obstakels, en konden zich niet ontvouwen in duidelijkheid, of in een zegevierende interpretatie van die ‘Goddelijke Idee’. Het zijn eerder de Graftombes van drie Literaire Helden die ik u wil tonen. Daar zijn de monumentale bergen, waaronder drie spirituele reuzen begraven liggen. Zeer somber, maar ook groots en vol belang voor ons. We blijven een tijdje bij hen.¹
In deze tijden wordt er vaak geklaagd over wat we de gedesorganiseerde staat van deze maatschappij noemen: hoe slecht veel geordende maatschappelijke krachten hun taak vervullen; men kan zien hoe zoveel machtige krachten op een spilzieke, chaotische, zeg maar ongeordende manier functioneren. De klacht is meer dan terecht, zoals we allemaal weten. Maar misschien, als we dit bekijken vanuit het standpunt van Boeken en van de Schrijvers van Boeken, zullen we er als het ware de samenvatting van elke andere desorganisatie vinden; – een soort van hart, van waaruit, en waar naar toe, alle andere verwarring in de wereld circuleert. Als ik kijk naar wat schrijvers in de wereld doen, en wat de wereld met schrijvers doet, dan zou ik zeggen dat dat het meest abnormale ding is wat de wereld vandaag laat zien. – We zouden in een onmetelijk diepe zee terechtkomen, als we hier verslag van zouden willen doen: maar omwille van ons onderwerp moeten we er even een blik op werpen. Het ergste onderdeel van het leven van deze drie Literaire Helden was dat ze hun zaken en maatschappelijke positie zo chaotisch vonden. Via de platgetreden paden kan men behoorlijk makkelijk reizen; maar het is hard labeur, en velen gaan eraan ten onder, als men een pad door het ondoordringbare moet creëren!

Onze devote Vaders, die goed aanvoelden hoe belangrijk het spreken van man tot menigte was, stichtten kerken, vonden fondsen en maakten reglementen; overal in de beschaafde wereld is er een Preekstoel, omringd door allerlei soorten van complexe, waardige accessoires en hulpmiddelen, zodat van op die preekstoel een welbespraakte man zijn naasten zo voordelig mogelijk kan toespreken. Ze vonden dat dit het belangrijkste was; dat er zonder dit niets goeds was. Dat werk van hen is waarlijk vroom; mooi om te aanschouwen! Maar nu, met de kunst van het Schrift, met de kunst van het Drukken, is die hele aangelegenheid totaal veranderd. De Schrijver van een Boek, is hij geen Predikant, die niet preekt voor deze of gindse parochie, op één of andere dag, maar voor alle mensen van alle tijden en plaatsen? Zeker, het is van het grootste belang dat hij zijn werk goed doet, wie anders het ook slecht moge doen; – dat het oog niet foutief rapporteert; want dan dwalen alle andere leden! Wel; hoe hij zijn werk doet, of hij het goed of slecht doet, of hij het überhaupt doet, is iets waarvoor geen mens in de wereld ooit de moeite heeft gedaan om over na te denken. Voor één of andere winkelier, die geld voor diens boeken probeert te verkrijgen, als hij geluk heeft, is hij nog van een zeker belang; maar voor elke andere man van geen enkel. Waar hij vandaan kwam, en waar hij naar toe trekt, via welke wegen hij hier aankwam, en via welke hij zijn tocht zou kunnen voortzetten, vraagt niemand. In de maatschappij is hij een accident. Hij zwerft rond als een wilde Ismaëliet, in een wereld waarvan hij als het ware het spirituele licht is, ofwel de juiste ofwel de verkeerde gids!
Van alle dingen die de mens ontworpen heeft, is de kunst van het schrift zeker het meest miraculeuze. Odins Runen waren de eerste vorm van het werk van een Held; Boeken, geschreven woorden, zijn nog altijd miraculeuze Runen, in hun meest recente vorm! In Boeken ligt de ziel van de hele Voorbije Tıjd; de heldere, hoorbare stem van het Verleden, wanneer het lichaam en de materie ervan volkomen verdwenen zijn als een droom. Machtige vloten en legers, havens en arsenalen, uitgestrekte steden, met hoge koepels en veel werktuigen,- ze zijn kostbaar, groot: maar wat wordt er van hen? Agamemnon, de vele Agamemnons, Periclessen, en hun Griekenland; alles is nu verworden tot enkele brokstukken, stomme, sombere wrakken en blokken: maar de Boeken van Griekenland! Daar leeft Griekenland – zeer letterlijk – nog steeds voor elke denker; en kan het terug tot leven geroepen worden. Geen magische Rune is vreemder dan een Boek. Alles wat de mensheid ooit heeft gedaan, gedacht, gewonnen of is geweest: het ligt als in magische bewaring in de bladzijden van een boek. Ze zijn het uitverkoren bezit van de mensen. Is het niet zo dat Boeken nog altijd de mirakels verrichten die volgens de legenden de Runen altijd deden? Ze overtuigen de mensen. Geen roman uit een leesgezelschap, beduimeld en verslonden door dwaze meiden in afgelegen dorpen, zo verschrikkelijk, of hij helpt de praktische kant van trouwerijen en huishoudens van deze dwaze meiden in goede banen leiden. Zoals ‘Celia’ zich voelde, zo handelde ‘Clifford’: het dwaze Theorema van het Leven, in deze jonge breinen gestampt, komt op een dag terug te voorschijn als vaste Werkwijze. Vraag u eens af of enige Rune, in de wildste verbeelding van de mytholoog ooit zulke wonders heeft verricht, als diegene die, op de feitelijke vaste aarde, sommige Boeken hebben gedaan! Wat heeft St. Paul’s Cathedral gebouwd? In essentie, was het dat goddelijke Hebreeuwse BOEK – gedeeltelijk de wereld van de man Mozes, een vogelvrij verklaarde die zijn Midianitische kudden hoedde, vierduizend jaar geleden, in de wildernissen van Sinaï! Het is uiterst vreemd, maar niets is meer waar dan dat. Met de kunst van het Schrift, waarvan de Boekdrukkunst een eenvoudig, onvermijdelijk en relatief onbetekenend uitvloeisel is, begon voor de mensen de ware heerschappij van mirakelen. Het Schrift verbond, met wonderlijke nieuwe raakpunten en eeuwige nabijheid, het Verleden en het Verre met het Heden in tijd en ruimte; alle tijden en alle plaatsen met ons feitelijk Hier en Nu. Alle dingen veranderden voor de mensen: leren, preken, regeren, en alle andere dingen.
Laten we eens naar het Leren kijken, bijvoorbeeld. Universiteiten zijn een opmerkelijk, respectabel product van de moderne tijden. Ook hun bestaan is wezenlijk aangepast door het bestaan van Boeken. Universiteiten ontstonden wanneer er nog geen boeken verkrijgbaar waren; wanneer een man, voor één enkel boek, een heel landgoed moest geven. In die omstandigheden was het noodzakelijk dat, wanneer een man enige kennis wou meedelen, hij dat deed door de mensen die wilden leren, van aangezicht tot aangezicht, rond zich te verzamelen. Als je wou weten wat Abélard wist, dan moest je naar Abélard gaan luisteren. Duizenden, wel dertigduizend, gingen naar Abélard en diens metafysische theologie luisteren. En nu kwam er voor elke andere leraar die iets van zichzelf had aan te leren een nieuw gemak: zoveel duizenden die gretig wilden leren, waren daar al verzameld; van alle plaatsen was dat de beste voor hem. Voor elke derde leraar was het nog beter; en werd het altijd maar beter, naarmate er meer leraars kwamen. De Koning moest nu alleen nog dit nieuwe verschijnsel opmerken; de verscheidene scholen doen fusioneren; het gebouwen, privileges en aanmoedigingen geven en het Universitas, of School van Alle Wetenschappen noemen: en de Universiteit van Parijs, in grote trekken, was er. Het model van alle volgende Universiteiten; die tot op vandaag, zes eeuwen lang al, doorgegaan zijn met zichzelf te stichten. Dat, stel ik mij voor, was de oorsprong van Universiteiten.

Het is niettemin duidelijk dat met deze eenvoudige omstandigheid, het gemak om Boeken te verkrijgen, alle voorwaarden van de zaak veranderden. Eens je de Boekdrukkunst uitvindt, verander je ook alle Universiteiten, of maak je ze overbodig! De Leraar moest nu niet langer alle mensen persoonlijk rond zich verzamelen, om zo hen te kunnen zeggen wat hij wist: druk het in een Boek, en alle leerlingen van heinde en verre, hadden het elk bij hun haardvuur, voor een kleinigheid, en konden het veel efficiënter studeren! – Zonder twijfel heeft het Spreken nog steeds een bijzondere kwaliteit; zelfs schrijvers van Boeken kunnen het, in sommige omstandigheden, passend vinden om ook te spreken, – getuige onze huidige bijeenkomst hier! Men zou kunnen zeggen – en dat moet zo blijven zolang de mens een tong heeft – dat er een apart domein voor het Spreken is, zowel als één voor Schrijven en Drukken. In alle opzichten moet dit zo blijven; zoals onder andere bij de Universiteiten. Maar de grenzen van beide zijn nog nooit aangetoond, vastgesteld; laat staan in praktijk gebracht. De Universiteit die zich volledig rekenschap zou geven van het grootse nieuwe feit van het bestaan van Gedrukte Boeken, en van eenzelfde niveau zou zijn voor de Negentiende Eeuw als die van Parijs was voor de Dertiende Eeuw, is nog niet tot stand gekomen. Als we er goed over nadenken, is alles wat een Universiteit, of een Hogeschool, kan doen, nog steeds slechts wat de eerste School begon te doen – ons leren lezen. We leren lezen, in verschillende talen, in verschillende wetenschappen; we leren het alfabet en de letters van allerlei Boeken. Maar de plaats waar we onze kennis gaan halen, zelfs theoretische kennis, is bij de Boeken zelf! Het hangt af van wat we lezen, nadat allerlei Professoren voor ons hun best hebben gedaan. De ware Universiteit van deze dagen is een Verzameling Boeken.

Maar door de introductie van Boeken is voor de Kerk zelf, zoals ik al suggereerde, alles veranderd, wat het preken betreft, wat haar werking betreft. De Kerk is de werkende erkende Vereniging van Onze Priesters of Profeten, van zij die door wijze lessen de zielen van de mensen leiden. Zolang er geen Schrift was, vooral waneer er geen Gemak-Schrift of Drukken was, was de preek van de stem de enige natuurlijke methode om dit te doen. Maar nu er Boeken zijn! – Hij die een Boek kan schrijven, om Engeland te overtuigen, is hij niet de Bisschop en de Aartsbisschop, de Primaat van Engeland en Heel Engeland? Ik zeg dikwijls dat de schrijvers van Kranten, Pamfletten, Gedichten, Boeken de echte werkende en wezenlijke Kerk van een modern land zijn. Nee, niet alleen onze preken, maar zelfs onze eredienst, worden zij ook niet verricht door middel van Gedrukte Boeken? Het nobele gevoel dat een getalenteerde ziel voor ons in melodieuze woorden heeft aangekleed, woorden die melodie in ons hart brengen,– is dit niet essentieel, als we het goed begrijpen, voor het wezen van de eredienst? Er zijn er velen, in alle landen, die, in deze verwarde tijd, geen andere manier van verering hebben. Hij die ons, op welke manier dan ook, op een betere wijze dan we ervoor kenden, toont dat een veldlelie mooi is, toont hij ons dat niet als een uitvloeisel van de Fontein van alle Schoonheid; als het handschrift, daarin zichtbaar gemaakt, van de grote Maker van het Universum? Hij heeft voor ons een klein vers van een heilige Psalm gezongen, hij heeft het ons met hem doen meezingen. Wezenlijk wel. Hoeveel te meer hij die de nobele handelingen, gevoelens, stoutmoedigheden en beproevingen van een man en een broeder bezingt, uitspreekt of op een andere manier naar ons hart brengt! Hij heeft werkelijk ons hart geraakt als was het met een gloeiende kool van het altaar. Wellicht bestaat er geen eredienst die authentieker is.
Literatuur, in zoverre het Literatuur is, is een ‘apocalyps van de Natuur’, een openbaring van het ‘open geheim’. Het zou best, in de stijl van Fichte, een ‘voortdurende revelatie’ van het Goddelijke op het Aardse en het Gewone genoemd kunnen worden. Het Goddelijke duurt daar werkelijk steeds voort; het komt te voorschijn, nu eens in dit dialect, dan in dat, met verschillende graden van helderheid: alle werkelijk getalenteerde Zangers en Sprekers doen dit, bewust of onbewust. De donkere stormachtige verontwaardiging van een Byron, zo wispelturig en pervers, kan er enkele trekken van hebben; of nee, de verdorde spot van een Frans scepticus,– zijn bespotting van het Valse, een liefde en verering van het Ware. Hoeveel meer nog de sferenharmonie van een Shakespeare, van een Goethe; de kathedraal-muziek van een Milton! Zij zijn ook iets, die nederige echte leeuwerikennoten van een Burns, – veldleeuwerik, die begint van de nederige voor, ver boven het hoofd in de blauwe diepten, en die ons daar zo authentiek toezingen! Want alle werkelijke zang is wezenlijk een verering; zoals men inderdaad kan zeggen dat alle ware arbeid dat is, – waarvan die zang voor ons slechts de neerslag, en passende melodieuze voorstelling is. Fragmenten van een echte ‘Kerkliturgie’ en ‘Preekbundels’, vreemd verborgen voor het gewone oog, vind je zwalkend op die enorme schuimoceaan van het Gedrukte Woord dat we vaag Literatuur noemen! Boeken zijn ook onze Kerk.

noot
¹ Dat doen we niet: deze tekst is een fragment van een lezing waarin Carlyle zijn ideeën over de Held als Literator illustreert aan de hand van drie grote voorbeelden: Samuel Johnson, Jean-Jacques Rousseau en Robert Burns. Hier worden enkel de meer algemene opvattingen van Carlyle gepubliceerd.


http://www.yangtijdschrift.be/editorhtml.asp?page=19993L5