On The Biocentric Metaphysics of Ludwig Klages

On The Biocentric Metaphysics of Ludwig Klages

by John Claverley Cartney

Without a doubt, "The Spirit as Adversary of the Soul" by Klages is a great work of philosophy. -- Walter Benjamin


Out of Phlegethon!
Out of Phlegethon,
Gerhart
Art thou come forth out of Phlegethon?
with Buxtehude and Klages in your satchel… -- From Canto LXXV by Ezra Pound


Oliveira said, "Let’s keep on looking for the Yonder, there are plenty of Yonders that keep opening up one after the other. I’d start by saying that this technological reality that men of science and the readers of France-Soir accept today, this world of cortisone, gamma rays, and plutonium, has as little to do with reality as the world of the Roman de la Rose. If I mentioned it a while back to our friend Perico, it was in order to make him take note that his æsthetic criteria and his scale of values are pretty well liquidated and that man, after having expected everything from intelligence and from the spirit, feels that he’s been betrayed, is vaguely aware that his weapons have been turned against him, that culture and civiltà, have misled him into this blind alley where scientific barbarism is nothing but a very understandable reaction. Please excuse my vocabulary."
"Klages has already said all of that," said Gregorovius. -- From Chapter 99 of "Hopscotch" by Julio Cortázar


Ludwig Klages is primarily responsible for providing the philosophical foundations for the pan-Romantic conception of man that we now find among many thinkers in different scientific disciplines, for example, Edgar Dacqué, Leo Frobenius, C. G. Jung, Hans Prinzhorn, Theodor Lessing, and, to a certain extent, Oswald Spengler. -- From "Man’s Place in Nature" by Max Scheler


In the field of scientific psychology, Klages towers over all of his contemporaries, including even the academic world’s most renowned authorities. -- Oswald Spengler


"The Spirit as Adversary of the Soul" by Ludwig Klages ranks with Heidegger’s "Being and Time" and Hartmann’s "The Foundation of Ontology" as one of the three greatest philosophical achievements of the modern epoch. -- Erich Rothacker


Klages is a fascinating phenomenon, a scientist of the highest rank, whom I regard as the most important psychologist of our time. -- Alfred Kubin


Ludwig Klages is renowned as the brilliant creator of profound systems of expression-research and graphology, and his new book, entitled "Concerning the Cosmogonic Eros," possesses such depth of psychological insight and so rich and fructifying an atmosphere, that it moved me far more deeply than I have ever been moved by the writings of men like Spengler and Keyserling. In the pages of this book on the "Cosmogonic Eros," Klages almost seems to have found the very words with which to speak that which has hitherto been considered to be beyond the powers of speech. -- Hermann Hesse


When we survey the philosophical critiques of Nietzsche’s thought that have been published thus far, we conclude that the monograph written by Ludwig Klages, "The Psychological Achievements of Nietzsche," can only be described as the towering achievement. -- Karl Löwith

Prelude: The Intellectual Environment

DURING THE CLOSING YEARS of the 19^th century, the limitations and inadequacies of the superficial positivism that had dominated European thought for so many decades were becoming increasingly apparent to critical observers. The wholesale repudiation of metaphysics that Tyndall, Haeckel and Büchner had proclaimed as a liberation from the superstitions and false doctrines that had misled benighted investigators of earlier times, was now seen as having contributed significantly to the bankruptcy of positivism itself. Ironically, a critical examination of the unacknowledged epistemological assumptions of the positivists clearly revealed that not only had Haeckel and his ilk been unsuccessful in their attempt to free themselves from metaphysical presuppositions, but they had, in effect, merely switched their allegiance from the grand systems of speculative metaphysics that had been constructed in previous eras by the Platonists, medieval scholastics, and post-Kantian idealists whom they abominated, in order to adhere to a ludicrous, ersatz metaphysics of whose existence they were completely unaware. 

The alienation of younger thinkers from what they saw as the discredited dogmas of positivism and materialism found expression in the proliferation of a wide range of philosophical schools, whose adherents had little in common other than the will to revolt against outmoded dogma. "Back to Kant!" became the battle-cry of the neo-Kantians at Marburg. "Back to the things themselves!" proclaimed the "phenomenologist" Edmund Husserl; there were "neo-positivists," "empirio-critical" thinkers, and even the invertebrate American ochlocracy lent its cacaphonous warblings to the philosophical choir when William James proclaimed his soothing doctrine of "Pragmatism," with which salesmen, journalists, and other uncritical blockheads have stupefied themselves ever since.

A more substantial and significant revolt, however, emerged from another quarter altogether when several independent scholars began to re-examine the speculative metaphysical systems of the "philosophers of nature" who had flourished during the Romantic Period. Although the astonishing creativity of these men of genius had been forgotten whilst positivism and materialism ruled the roost, of course, men like Nietzsche, Burckhardt, and Bachofen had preserved elements of the Romantic heritage and had thereby, as it were, already prepared the soil in which younger men would sow the precious seed of a Romantic Revival. By the turn of the 20^th century the blossoms had emerged in the form of the philosophers of the "vitalist" school. In France, Henri Bergson became the leading proponent of philosophical vitalism, and his slogan of élan vital as well as his doctrine of évolution créatrice thrilled audiences in the salons as well as in the university lecture halls. In Hungary, the astonishingly gifted philosopher and physicist, Melchior Palágyi—a thinker of an altogether higher order than the superficial Bergson—conducted profound research into celestial mechanics, which clearly anticipated the theory of relativity; he developed the theory of "virtual" movement; and his critical powers enabled him to craft a definitive and withering refutation of Husserl’s pseudo-phenomenology, and his insights retain their validity even now in spite of the oblivion to which the disciples of Husserl have consigned them. 

In the German-speaking world the doctrines of Lebensphilosophie, or "philosophy of life," achieved academic respectability when Wilhelm Dilthey became their spokesman. Sadly, candor demands that we draw the reader’s attention to the troubling fact that it was Dilthey who inaugurated a disastrous trend that was to be maintained at German universities for the next hundred years by such able obfuscators and logomachs as Heidegger and his spawn, for, to put it as charitably as possible, Dilthey was the first significant German philosopher to achieve wide renown in spite of having nothing significant to say (that is why, perhaps, Dilthey and Heidegger furnish such mountains of grist for the philosophical proles who edit and annotate and comment and publish and—prosper).

Among these "philosophers of life," there were "amalgamists," among whom we find Hans Driesch, who sabotaged his own project by indulging in futile attempts to combine the irreconcilable doctrines of Kantian idealism and vitalism in his theory of the "entelechy," which, although he proclaimed it to be a uniquely vitalistic notion, is always analyzed mechanistically and atomistically in his expositions. The profound speculative metaphysics of Houston Stewart Chamberlain also succumbed to the Kantian infection, for even Chamberlain seems to have been blind to the ineluctable abyss that divides vitalism and Kantianism. 

Finally, and most significantly, we encounter the undisputed master-spirit of the "vitalist" school in the German world, the philosopher and polymath Ludwig Klages, whose system of "biocentric" metaphysics displays a speculative profundity and a logical rigor that no other vitalist on the planet could hope to equal. 

The Early Years

Ludwig Klages was born on December 10, 1872, in the northern German city of Hannover. He seems to have been a solitary child, but he developed one intense friendship with a class-mate named Theodor Lessing, who would himself go on to achieve fame as the theorist of "Jewish Self-Hatred," a concept whose origins Lessing would later trace back to passionate discussions that he had had with Klages during their boyhood rambles on the windswept moors and beaches of their Lower Saxon home.

In 1891 he received his "Abitur," and immediately journeyed to Leipzig to begin his university studies in Chemistry and Physics. In 1893, he moved to Munich, where he would live and work until the Great War forced him into Swiss exile in 1915.

Klages continued his undergraduate studies in Chemistry and Physics during the day, but at night he could usually be found in the cafés of Schwabing, then as now the Bohemian district of Munich. It was in Schwabing that he encountered the poet Stefan George and his "circle." George immediately recognized the young man’s brilliance, and the poet eagerly solicited contributions from Klages, both in prose and in verse, to his journal, the Blätter für die Kunst. 

Klages also encountered Alfred Schuler (1865-1923), the profoundly learned Classicist and authority on ancient Roman history, at this time. Schuler was also loosely associated with the George-circle, although he was already becoming impatient with the rigidly masculine, "patriarchalist" spirit that seemed to rule the poet and his minions. Klages eventually joined forces with Schuler and Karl Wolfskehl, an authority on Germanistics who taught at the University of Munich, to form the Kosmische Runde, or "Cosmic Circle," and the three young men, who had already come under the influence of the "matriarchalist" anthropology of the late Johann Jakob Bachofen, soon expressed their mounting discontent with George and his "patriarchal" spirit. Finally, in 1904, Klages and Schuler broke with the poet, and the aftermath was of bitterness and recrimination "all compact." Klages would in later years repudiate his association with George, but he would revere Schuler, both as a man and as a scholar, to the end of his life.

The other crucial experience that Klages had during this last decade of the old century was his overwhelming love affair with Countess Franziska zu Reventlow, the novelist and Bohemian, whose "Notebooks of Mr. Lady" provides what is, perhaps, the most revealing—and comical—rendition of the turbulent events that culminated in the break between the "Cosmic Circle" and the George-Kreis; Wolfskehl, who was himself an eyewitness to the fracas, held that, although Franziska had called the book a novel, it was, in fact, a work of historical fact. Likewise, the diaries of the Countess preserve records of her conversations with Klages (who is referred to as "Hallwig," the name of the Klages-surrogate in her "Mr. Lady": she records Klages telling her that "There is no ‘God’; there are many gods!" At times "Hallwig" even frightens her with oracular allusions to "my mystical side, the rotating Swastika" and with his prophecies of inevitable doom). When the Countess terminated the liaison, Klages, who suffered from serious bouts with major depression throughout his long life, experienced such distress that he briefly contemplated suicide. Fate, of course, would hardly have countenanced such a quietus, for, as Spengler said, there are certain destinies that are utterly inconceivable—Nietzsche won’t make a fortune at the gambling tables of Monte Carlo, and Goethe won’t break his back falling out of his coach, he remarks drily. 

And, we need hardly add, Klages will not die for love…

On the contrary: he will live for Eros.

Works of Maturity

After the epoch-making experiences of the Schwabing years, the philosopher’s life seems almost to assume a prosaic, even an anticlimactic, quality. The significant events would henceforth occur primarily in the thinker’s inner world and in the publications that communicated the discoveries that he had made therein. There were also continuing commitments on his part to particular institutions and learned societies. In 1903 Klages founded his "Psychodiagnostic Seminars" at the University of Munich, which swiftly became Europe's main center for biocentric psychology. In 1908, he delivered a series of addresses on the application of "Expression Theory" (Ausdruckskunde) to graphological analysis at one such seminar.

In 1910, in addition to the book on expression-theory, Klages published the first version of his treatise on psychology, entitled Prinzipien der Charakterologie. This treatise was based upon lectures that Klages had delivered during the previous decade, and in its pages he announced his discovery of the "Id," which has popularly, and hence erroneously, for so long been attributed to Freud. He came in personal contact with several members of rival psychological schools during this period, and he was even invited—in his capacity as Europe's leading exponent of graphology—to deliver a lecture on the "Psychology of Handwriting" to the Wednesday Night Meeting of the Freudian "Vienna Society" on the 25th of October in 1911. 

The philosopher also encountered the novelist Robert Musil, in whose masterpiece, Der Mann ohne Eigenschaften, Klages appears—in caricatured form, of course—as the eerie and portentous prophet Meingast, that "messenger from Zarathustra’s mountain." The novelist seems to have been most impressed by the philosopher’s speculations in Vom kosmogonischen Eros concerning the ecstatic nature of the "erotic rapture" and the Klagesian "other condition" (andere Zustand). Paradoxically, however, Musil’s novel presents Meingast [Klages] as a manic and domineering worshiper of power, which is quite strange when one considers that Klages consistently portrays the Nietzschean "Will to Power" as nothing but a modality of hysteria perfectly appropriate to our murderous age of militarism and capitalism. Anyone familiar with the withering onslaught against the will and its works which constitutes the section entitled Die Lehre der Wille in Klages’s Der Geist als Widersacher der Seele must, in addition, feel a certain amazement at Meingast’s ravings concerning the necessity for a "determined will"! Another familiar (and depressing) insight into the resistance mounted by even sympathetic writers to the biocentric philosophy can be derived from a perusal of Musil’s Tagebücher, with its dreary and philistine insistence that the Klagesian rapture must at all costs be constrained by Geist, by its pallid praise for a "daylight mysticism," and so on. Admittedly, Der Mann ohne Eigenschaften will remain an astonishing and beautifully-crafted masterpiece of 20th Century belles lettres, in spite of its author’s jejune "philosophical" preachments. 

During this same period, Klages rediscovered the late-Romantic philosopher Carl Gustav Carus, author of the pioneering Psyche: Zur Entwicklungsgeschichte der Seele ("Psyche: Towards a Developmental History of the Soul") in which the unconscious is moved to center-stage (sadly, the Jung-racket falsely credits their master with this discovery). The very first sentence of this work indicates the primacy attributed by Carus to the unconscious: "The key to the understanding of the conscious life of the soul lies in the realm of the unconscious." During the Romantic Revival that took place in the Germany of th 1920s, Klages would edit a new, abridged version of Psyche, in which Carus is purged of his logocentric and Christian errors. Klages, however, fully accepts Carus’s definition of the soul as synonymous with life, a formulation that he rates as epochally significant. He finds Carus’s statement to be as profound as the aphorism of Novalis in which he locates the soul at the point of contact between the inner and outer worlds. 

In 1913, Klages presented his Zur Theorie und Symptomatologie des Willens to the Vienna Congress of International Societies for Medical Psychology and Psychotherapy. In that same year, Klages delivered an address entitled Mensch und Erde to a gathering of members of the German Youth Movement. This seminal work has recently received its due as the "foundational" document of the "deep ecology" movement when a new edition was published in 1980 in coordination with the establishment of the German "Green" political party. 

In his Heidnische Feuerzeichen, which was completed in 1913, although it would not be published in book form until 1944, Klages has some very perceptive remarks on consciousness, which he regards as always effect and never cause. He cautions us to realize that, because our feelings are almost always conscious, we tend to attribute far too much importance to them. Reality is composed of images [Bilder] and not feelings, and the most important idea that Klages ever developed is his conception of the "actuality of the images" [Wirklichkeit der Bilder]. He also savages the insane asceticism of Christianity, arguing that a satisfied sexuality is essential for all genuine cosmic radiance. Christ is to be detested as the herald of the annihilation of earth and the mechanization of man. 

The pioneering treatise on "expression theory," the Ausdruckskunde und Gestaltungskraft, also appeared in 1913. The first part of his treatise on the interpretation of dreams (Vom Traumbewusstsein) appeared in 1914, but war soon erupted in Europe, swiftly interrupting all talk of dreams. Sickened by the militaristic insanity of the "Great War," Klages moved to neutral Switzerland. In 1920 he made his last move to Kilchberg, near Zurich, Switzerland, where he would spend the rest of his life. 

The first substantial excerpt from the treatise that would eventually become his Hauptwerk (Der Geist als Widersacher der Seele) was published as Geist und Seele in a 1916 number of the journal Deutsche Psychologie. He soon turned his attention to the more mundane matter of the contemporary world situation, and in 1918, concerned by the spread of "One World"-humanitarianism and other pernicious forms of "humanism," Klages published the classic Brief über Ethik, in which he re-emphasized his opposition to all ethical and individualistic attempts to improve the world. The modern world’s increasing miscegenation has hatched out a horde of mongrels, slaves, and criminals. The world is falling under the dominion of the enemies of life, and it matters not a bit whether the ethical fanatic dubs his hobbyhorse Wille, Tat, Logos, Nous, Idee, Gott, the "Supreme Being," reines Subjekt, or absolutes Ich: these phrases are merely fronts behind which spirit, the eternal adversary of life, conducts her nefarious operations. Only infra-human nature, wherein dwells a principle of hierarchical order in true accord with the laws of life, is able to furnish man with genuine values. The preachers of morality can only murder life with their prohibitive commands so stifling to the soul’s vitality. As Klages’s disciple Hans Prinzhorn cautions us, the vital order "must not be falsified, according to the Judæo-Christian outlook, into a principle of purposefulness, morality, or sentimentality." The "Letter on Ethics" urges us to avoid all such life-hostile values, and to prize instead those moments when we allow our souls to find warmth in the love which manifests itself as adoration, reverence, and admiration. The soul’s true symbol is the mother with her beloved child, and the soul’s true examples are the lives of poets, heroes, and gods. Klages concludes his sardonic "Letter" by informing the reader, in contemptuous and ironical tones, that if he refuses to respond to these exemplary heroes, he may then find it more congenial to sit himself down and listen, unharmed, to a lecture on ethics! 

In 1921, Klages published his Vom Wesen des Bewusstseins, an investigation into the nature of consciousness, in which the ego-concept is shown to be neither a phenomenon of pure spirit nor of pure life, but rather a mere epiphenomenal precipitate of the warfare between life and spirit. In this area, Klages’s presentation invites comparion with the Kantian exposition of "pure subjectivity," although, as one might expect, Klages assails the subjectivity of the ego as a hollow sham. The drive to maximize the realm of ego, regardless of whether this impulse clothes itself in such august titles as "The Will to Power" (Nietzsche), the "Will to Live" (Schopenhauer), or the naked obsession with the "Ego and its Own" (Stirner), is merely a manifestation of malevolent Geist. Klages also ridicules the superficiality of William James’s famous theory of "stream of consciousness," which is subjected to a withering critical onslaught. After James’s "stream" is conclusively demolished, Klages demonstrates that Melchior Palágyi’s theory more profoundly analyzes the processes whereby we receive the data of consciousness. Klages endorses Palágyi’s account of consciousness in order to establish the purely illusory status of the "stream" by proving conclusively that man receives the "images" as discrete, rhythmically pulsating "intermittencies." 

We should say a few words about the philosopher whose exposition of the doctrine of consciousness so impressed Klages. Melchior Palágyi [1859-1924] was the Hungarian-Jewish Naturphilosoph who was regarded as something of a mentor by the younger man, ever since 1908, when they first met at a learned conference. Like Klages, Palágyi was completely devoted to the thought-world of German Romantic Naturphilosophie. Klages relied heavily on this thinker’s expert advice, especially with regard to questions involving mechanics and physics, upon which the older man had published outstanding technical treatises. The two men had spent many blissful days together in endless metaphysical dialogue when Palagyi visited Klages at his Swiss home shortly before Palágyi’s death. They were delighted with each other’s company, and reveled even in the cut and thrust of intense exchanges upon matters about which they were in sharp disagreement. Although this great thinker is hardly recalled today even by compilers of "comprehensive" encyclopedias, Palagyi’s definitive and irrefutable demolition of Edmund Husserl’s spurious system of "phenomenology" remains one of the most lethal examples of philosophical adversaria to be found in the literature. Palágyi, who was a Jew, had such a high opinion of his anti-semitic colleague, that when Palágyi died in 1925, one of the provisions of his will stipulated that Ludwig Klages was to be appointed as executor and editor of Palágyi’s posthumous works, a task that Klages undertook scrupulously and reverently, in spite of the fact that the amount of labor that would be required of him before the manuscripts of his deceased colleague could be readied for publication would severely disrupt his own work upon several texts, most especially the final push to complete the three-volume Der Geist als Widersacher der Seele. One gets the impression that Klages felt the task that had been imposed upon him was also one of the highest honors, and Klages’s high regard for Palágyi’s thought can best be appreciated when we realize that among the numerous thinkers and scholars whose works are cited in his collected works, the contemporary philosopher who is cited most frequently, and at the greatest length, is none other than Melchior Palágyi. 

Klages published his influential anthropological-historical study, Vom kosmogonischen Eros, in 1922, and in the Selbstbericht which serves as an introduction to this work he details the points of agreement and the points of disagreement between his views and those of Friedrich Nietzsche. 

In 1923 Klages published his Vom Wesen des Rhythmus (a revised edition of which would be issued in 1934). Then in 1925, two fervent admirers of Klagesian biocentrism—one was Niels Kampmann who would go on to publish some of Klages’s works in book form—brought out the first issue of a scholarly journal, the brilliant Zeitschrift für Menschenkunde, which would continue to publish regularly until the rigors of war eventually forced the editors to suspend publication in 1943 (eight years after the end of the war, the journal began a new career in 1953.)

A revised and enlarged edition of the treatise on characterology appeared in 1926 with the new title Die Grundlagen der Charakterkunde. Klages also published Die psychologischen Errungenschaften Nietzsches in this same year, a work which, more than a quarter of a century after its initial appearance, the Princeton-based Nietzsche-scholar Walter Kaufmann—surely no friend to Klages!—would nevertheless admire greatly, even feeling compelled to describe Klages’s exegesis of Nietzsche’s psychology as "the best monograph" ever written on its subject.

A collection of brief essays entitled Zur Ausdruckslehre und Charakterkunde, was brought out by Kampmann in 1927; many of them date from the early days of the century and their sheer profundity and variety reinforce our conviction that Klages was a mature thinker even in his twenties.

The first two volumes of his magnum opus, the long-awaited and even-longer pondered, Der Geist als Widersacher der Seele, finally appeared in 1929. One year later the Graphologisches Lesebuch appeared, and the third and final volume of Der Geist hit the book-shops in 1932, a year that seems to have been a very busy one indeed for our polymathic philosopher, since he also found time to revamp his slender monograph entitled Goethe als Naturforscher, a short work that can only be compared to the Goethe-books of H. S. Chamberlain and Friedrich Gundolf for breadth of scholarship and insight into the creativity of a great seer and scientist (this study was a revised edition of a lecture that had originally been published in the Jahrbuch des Freien Deutschen Hochstifts in 1928). 

Hans Prinzhorn, the psychologist, translator of D. H. Lawrence and compiler of the landmark treatise on the artistry of the mentally-disturbed, had long been a friend and admirer of Klages, and in 1932 he organized the celebration for the sixtieth birthday of the philosopher. The tributes composed the various scholars who participated in this event were collected and edited by Prinzhorn for publication in book-form, with the title Festschrift zum 60. Geburtstag.

National Socialist Germany, World War II, and their Aftermath

Shortly after the NSDAP seized power at the beginning of 1933, one of Klages’s disciples established the Arbeitskreises für biozentrisches Forschung. At first the German disciples of Klages were tolerated as harmless philosophical eccentrics, but soon the Gestapo began keeping a close eye on members and contributors to the biocentric circle’s house organ Janus. By 1936 the authorities forcibly shut down the journal and from that time until the fall of the regime, the Gestapo would periodically arrest and question those who had been prominent members of the now-defunct "circle." From 1938 onwards, when Reichsleiter Dr. Alfred Rosenberg delivered a bitter attack on Klages and his school in his inaugural address to the summer semester at the University of Halle, the official party spokesmen explicitly and repeatedly condemned Klages and his friends as enemies of the National Socialist Weltanschauung.

Klages traveled widely during the 1930s, and he especially enjoyed his journeys to Greece and Scandinavia. In 1940 he published Alfred Schuler: Fragmente und Vorträge. Aus dem Nachlass, his edition of Alfred Schuler’s literary remains. The "Introduction" to the anthology is a voluminous critical memoir in which Klages rendered profound tribute to his late mentor. However, in the pages of that introduction, Klages introduced several statements critical of World-Jewry that were to dog his steps for the rest of his life, just as they have compromised his reputation after his death. Unlike so many ci-devant "anti-semites" who prudently saw the philo-semitic light in the aftermath of the war, however, Klages scorned to repudiate anything that he had said on this or any other topic. He even poured petrol on the fires by voicing his conviction that the only significant difference between the species of master-race nonsense that was espoused by the National Socialists and the variety adopted by their Jewish enemies was in the matter of results: Klages blandly proclaims that the Jews, after a two-thousand year long assault on the world for which they felt nothing but hatred, had actually won the definitive victory. There would be no re-match. He sneered at all the kow-towing to Jewry that had already become part of the game in the immediate post-war era, because, he reasoned, even as a tactical ploy such sycophantic behavior has always doomed itself to complete and abject failure. 

In December of 1942, the official daily newspaper of the NSDAP, the Völkischer Beobachter, published a vicious and ungracious attack on Klages in the edition that appeared on the philosopher’s 70^th birthday. During the war years, Klages began compiling notes for a projected full-dress autobiography that was, sadly, never completed. Still, the notes are fascinating in their own right, and are well worth consulting by the student of his life and thought.

In 1944, Barth of Leipzig published the Rhythmen und Runen, a self-edited anthology of Klages’s prose and verse writings stemming from the turn of the century (unfortunately, however, when Bouvier finally brought out their edition of his "Collected Works," which began to appear in the mid-1960s, Rhythmen und Runen, along with the Stefan George-monograph and such provocative pieces as the "Introduction" to Schuler’s writings, were omitted from the set, in spite of the fact that the original prospectus issued to subscribers announced that these works would, in fact, be included. The reasons for this behavior are—need we say?—quite obvious).

When the war ended, Klages began to face true financial hardship, for his market, as well as his publishers, had been devastated by the horrific saturation bombing campaign with which the democratic allies had turned Germany into a shattered and burnt-out wasteland. Klages also suffered dreadfully when he learned that his beloved sister, Helene, as well as her daughter Heidi, the philosopher’s niece, had perished in the agony of post-war Germany, that nightmare world wherein genocidal bestiality and sadistic cruelty were dealt out by occupying forces with a liberal hand in order most expeditiously to "re-educate" the survivors of the vanquished Reich. Although Klages had sought permission from the occupying authorities to visit his sister as she lay dying, his request was ignored (in fact, he was told that the only civilians who would be permitted to travel to Germany were the professional looters who were officially authorized to rob Germany of industrial patents and those valiant exiles who had spent the war years as literary traitors, who made a living writing scurrilous and mendacious anti-German pamphlets). This refusal, followed shortly by his receipt of the news of her miserable death, aroused an almost unendurable grief in his soul.

His spirits were raised somewhat by the Festschrift that was organized for his 75^th birthday, and his creative drive certainly seemed to be have remained undiminished by the ravages of advancing years. He was deeply immersed in the philological studies that prepared him to undertake his last great literary work, the Die Sprache als Quell der Seelenkunde, which was published in 1948. In this dazzling monument of 20^th century scholarship, Klages conducted a comprehensive investigation of the relationship between psychology and linguistics. During that same year he also directed a devastating broadside in which he refuted the fallacious doctrines of Jamesian "pragmatism" as well as the infantile sophistries of Watson’s "behaviorism." This brief but pregnant essay was entitled Wie Finden Wir die Seele des Nebenmenschen?

During the early 1950s, Klages’s health finally began to deteriorate, but he was at least heartened by the news that there were serious plans afoot among his admirers and disciples to get his classic treatises back into print as soon as possible. Death came at last to Ludwig Klages on July 29, 1956. The cause of death was determined to have been a heart attack. He is buried in the Kilchberg cemetery, which overlooks Lake Zurich. 

Understanding Klagesian Terms

A brief discussion of the philosopher’s technical terminology may provide the best preparation for an examination of his metaphysics. Strangely enough, the relationship between two familiar substantives, "spirit" [Geist] and "soul" [Seele], constitutes the main source of our terminological difficulties. Confusion regarding the meaning and function of these words, especially when they are employed as technical terms in philosophical discourse, is perhaps unavoidable at the outset. We must first recognize the major problems involved before we can hope to achieve the necessary measure of clarity. Now Klages regards the study of semantics, especially in its historical dimension, as our richest source of knowledge regarding the nature of the world (metaphysics, or philosophy) and an unrivalled tool with which to probe the mysteries of the human soul (psychology, or characterology [Charakterkunde]). We would be well advised, therefore, to adopt an extraordinary stringency in lexical affairs. We have seen that the first, and in many ways the greatest, difficulty that can impede our understanding of biocentric thought confronts us in our dealings with the German word Geist. Geist has often been translated as "spirit" or "mind," and, less often, as "intellect." As it happens, the translation of Hegel’s Phänomenologie des Geistes that most American students utilized in their course-work during the 1960s and 1970s was entitled "The Phenomenology of Mind" (which edition was translated with an Introduction and Notes by J. B. Bailey, and published by Harper Torchbooks, New York, 1967). 

Lest it be thought that we are perversely attributing to the word Geist an exaggeratedly polysemic status, we would draw the reader’s attention to the startling fact that Rudolf Hildebrandt’s entry on this word in the Grimm Wörterbuch comprises more than one hundred closely printed columns. Hildebrandt’s article has even been published separately as a book. Now in everyday English usage, spirit (along with its cognates) and soul (along with its cognates) are employed as synonyms. As a result of the lexical habits to which we have grown accustomed, our initial exposure to a philosopher who employs soul and spirit as antonyms can be a somewhat perplexing experience. It is important for us to realize that we are not entering any quixotic protest here against familiar lexical custom. We merely wish to advise the reader that whilst we are involved in the interpretation of Klagesian thought, soul and spirit are to be treated consistently as technical philosophical terms bearing the specific meanings that Klages has assigned to them. 

Our philosopher is not being needlessly obscure or perversely recherché in this matter, for although there are no unambiguous distinctions drawn between soul and spirit in English usage, the German language recognizes some very clear differences between the terms Seele and Geist, and Hildebrandt’s article amply documents the widely ramified implications of the distinctions in question. In fact, literary discourse in the German-speaking world is often characterized by a lively awareness of these very distinctions. Rudolf Kassner, for instance, tells us that his friend, the poet Rainer Maria Rilke, inhabited a world of soul [Seele], not one of spirit [Geist]. In speaking of Rilke’s world as that the soul, Kassner is proclaiming the indisputable truth that Rilke’s imagination inhabits an innocent, or pagan, world, a realm that is utterly devoid of such "spiritual" baggage as "sin" and "guilt." Likewise, for Kassner, as for Rilke, the world of spirit is the realm of labor and duty, which is ruled by abstractions and "ideals." I can hardly exaggerate the significance of the spirit-soul dichotomy upon which Kassner has shed so much light in these remarks on Rilke as the man of "soul." If the reader bears their substance in mind, he will find that the path to understanding shall have been appreciably cleared of irksome obstacles.

Therefore, these indispensable lexical distinctions are henceforth to function as our established linguistic protocol. Bearing that in mind, when the reader encounters the Klagesian thesis which holds that man is the battlefield on which soul and spirit wage a war to the death, even the novice will grasp some portion of the truth that is being enunciated. And the initiate who has immersed his whole being in the biocentric doctrine will swiftly discover that he is very well prepared indeed to perpend, for instance, the characterological claim that one can situate any individual at a particular point on an extensive typological continuum at one extreme of which we situate such enemies of sexuality and sensuous joy as the early Christian hermits or the technocrats and militarists of our own day, all of whom represent the complete dominance of spirit; and at the opposite extreme of which we locate the Dionysian maenads of antiquity and those rare modern individuals whose delight in the joys of the senses enables them to attain the loftiest imaginable pinnacle of ecstatic vitality: the members of this second group, of course, comprise the party of life, whose ultimate allegiance is rendered to soul. 

Before we conclude this brief digression into terminological affairs, we would advise those readers whose insuperable hostility to every form of metaphysical "idealism" compels them to resist all attempts to "place" spirit and soul as "transcendental" entities, that they may nevertheless employ our terms as heuristic expedients, much as Ampére employed the metaphor of the "swimmer" in the electric "current."

Biocentric Metaphysics in its Historical Context

Perhaps a brief summary will convey at least some notion of the sheer originality and the vast scope of the biocentric metaphysics. Let us begin by placing some aspects of this philosophical system in historical context. For thousands of years, western philosophers have been deeply influenced by the doctrine, first formulated by the Eleatic school and Plato, which holds that the images that fall upon our sensorium are merely deceitful phantoms. Even those philosophers who have rebelled against the schemes devised by Plato and his successors, and who consider themselves to be "materialists," "monists," "logical atomists," etc., reveal that have been infected by the disease even as they resist its onslaught, for in many of their expositions the properties of matter are presented as if they were independent entities floating in a void that suspiciously resembles the transcendent Platonic realm of the "forms." 

Ludwig Klages, on the other hand, demonstrates that it is precisely the images and their ceaseless transformations that constitute the only realities. In the unique phenomenology of Ludwig Klages, images constitute the souls of such phenomena as plants, animals, human beings, and even the cosmos itself. These images do not deceive: they express; these living images are not to be "grasped," not to be rigidified into concepts: they are to be experienced. The world of things, on the other hand, forms the proper subject of scientific explanatory schemes that seek to "fix" things in the "grasp" of concepts. Things are appropriated by men who owe their allegiance to the will and its projects. The agents of the will appropriate the substance of the living world in order to convert it into the dead world of things, which are reduced to the status of the material components required for purposeful activities such as the industrial production of high-tech weapons systems. This purposeful activity manifests the outward operations of an occult and dæmonic principle of destruction. 

Klages calls this destructive principle "spirit" (Geist), and he draws upon the teaching of Aristotle in attempting to account for its provenance, for it was Aristotle who first asserted that spirit (nous) invaded the substance of man from "outside." Klages’s interpretation of this Aristotelian doctrine leads him to conclude that spirit invaded the realm of life from outside the spatio-temporal world. Likewise, Klages draws on the thought of Duns Scotus, Occam and other late mediæval English thinkers when he situates the characteristic activity of spirit in the will rather than in the intellect. Completely original, however, is the Klagesian doctrine of the mortal hostility that exists between spirit and life (=soul). The very title of the philosopher’s major metaphysical treatise proclaims its subject to be "The Spirit as Adversary of the Soul" (Der Geist als Widersacher der Seele).

The indivisible body-soul unity that had constituted the living substance of man during the "primordial," or prehistoric, phase of his existence, in time becomes the focus of spirit’s war against life. Spirit severs the vital connection by thrusting itself, like the thin end of an invasive wedge, between the poles of body and soul. History is the tragic chronicle that recounts the ceaseless war that is waged by spirit against life and soul. When the ever-expanding breach between body and soul finally becomes an unbridgeable abyss, the living substance is no more, although no man can predict how long man may endure as a hollow shell or simulacrum. The ceaseless accumulation of destructive power by spirit is accompanied by the reduction of a now devitalized man to the status of a mere machine, or "robot," who soullessly regurgitates the hollow slogans about "progress," "democracy," and the delights of "the consumer society" that are the only values recognized in this world of death. The natural world itself becomes mere raw material to be converted into "goods" for the happy consumer. 

A Unified System of Thought: Graphology

Let us now turn to a more detailed survey of the elements that comprise the biocentric system of metaphysics. The thought of Ludwig Klages comprises several structural components, which form a series of interdependent and increasingly comprehensive fields of research. Although each component may be profitably examined as a discrete entity, we can only grasp the full grandeur of Klagesian thought when we study the various components in the context of their interrelationships within the comprehensive system that the philosopher has constructed, for it is only when we view his thought as a unified system that we can comprehend its truly unsurpassed metaphysical profundity. Thus, graphology constitutes one element of expression-research, which, in its turn, constitutes one element of characterology. Characterology, finally, is the indispensable element that enables us to formulate a coherent interpretation of the nature of the universe, viz. philosophy in the strict sense. 

Although graphology didn't initially interest the "natural science" psychologists, the investigations that were conducted by Klages eventually evoked the interest of psychiatrists and applied psychologists, who would eventually incorporate some of his teachings in the curriculum of German universities. Graphology was also utilized in such fields as child-guidance and clinical psychology. 

Klages was preceded in this field of research by a host of investigators, most of whom relied on intuitive guesses and inspired leaps of deduction in developing their own, occasionally quite profound, theories. Klages, in fact, pays explicit tribute to these pathfinders in numerous of his graphological publications. (Americans might be startled to learn that Edgar Allan Poe himself has an honorable place in the illustrious line of graphological prophets!) Nevertheless, it was only at the end of the 19^th century that the interpretation of written script was erected upon an enduring scientific foundation by the Frenchman J.-H. Michon and the German Wilhelm Preyer.

The most renowned of Klages’s contributions to graphology is his idea of the Formniwo, or "style-value." With the aid of this tool, the researcher can discriminate between various exemplars (handwritten samples) under examination, and can apply a general overall evaluation (negative, positive, or, even, ambiguous), without the guess-work and shoddy formulations of earlier students, who relied on "isolated signs" to guide them. Klages employs this concept of "style-value" to examine organic, or "holistic" entities, and his evaluation proceeds from a global perception of the personal expression through to a more detailed scrutiny. The procedure begins with an analytical inspection carried out on three levels: 1. the person’s driving-forces or motivations ("interests"); 2. the person’s creative impulses and level of intelligence; and 3. the person’s civic or political virtues. Klages tells us frankly that if we are aware of a person’s emotional makeup, the degree to which he or she is a productive and community-minded member of the polis, and how creative the person is, we know pretty much how that person will react to a life-situation.

We can best understand a person’s emotional life and the level of his intelligence through an analysis of the characteristic rhythm that his handwriting displays. Rhythm is manifested in the harmony of spaces and forms, as evidenced in the margins, the spaces between the lines, and between the letters and words. Here we find the most accurate indications as to the nature of the inner life of the person, and how rich or poor is his thought. The creative elements are best observed in the simplification and improvement that we find in the person’s handwriting. Just as mankind is dependent upon the creative genius for improvements in the cultural and technological fields, and upon the simplifications in technique that are brought about by the inventor, so too will these characteristics be evident in an individual’s handwriting. The creative person is always interested in improving his "tools," as it were. The degree to which the person will be a coöperative and responsible member of the community is reflected in the legibility and fluency of his handwriting. The legibility of a man’s exemplars is obviously going to indicate his ability to communicate successfully. The fluency will demonstrate the person’s level-headedness and sincerity.

The five keys to the evaluation of style are: 1) Rhythm. Klages tells us that there are inherent rhythmic patterns that govern the universe. We are able to recognize and gauge these rhythms in the spatial patterns of a person’s handwriting by examining whether the margins are contextually harmonious, viz., we must scrutinize a particular exemplar with an eye to determining the natural configurations (structural harmonies) formed by the gaps that intervene between the lines, between the words, and also between the individual letters. Because disharmonies are arresting—they "leap to the eye," as it were—we have no difficulty in establishing the grade of spatial rhythm in an exemplar. The rating of handwriting’s rhythm is more a matter of insight and intuition than of expert reasoning. 2) Symmetry. In a harmonious exemplar we find that the person does not overdevelop one zone at the expense of another zone; i.e., we do not find the bottom loop of a q to be exaggerated as against the upper zone stroke. In short, where we find such a deviation, or loss of proportion, we must assign the exemplar a low grade. An examination of the individual character’s height (as from the bottom of the q to its summit) cannot furnish us with a sufficient basis upon which to evaluate the overall symmetry of a person’s handwriting. Where we find excessive width, pressure, slant, loops, bars, dots, flourishes, or any other such deviation, we must recognize a disturbance of symmetry. The letters, whether they are capitals or minimum letters, must be well developed in a gradual fashion, avoiding a deflated narrowness as well as an inflated width. In short a character is to be judged both on its height as well as on the amount of space that it covers. Wide lower zone loops in an overall narrow handwriting or conjoined with deflated small letters, indicate a lack of symmetry; and unevenness of pressure or slant belong as well to the category of disproportions. 3) Creativeness. Although very few people exhibit a high degree of symmetry in their handwriting, it is a fact that even fewer display creativeness. Most people will not be grieved by this fact, as most people would rather belong to the bovine throng than to the creative elite—even in their handwriting! Only perhaps one in a thousand are willing to become heretics, to break away from the sweaty masses, to display the slightest signs of independence and boldness, to write an individual hand. In fact, only a genius is capable of inventing new and finer characters and connections, even though such creations might make for easier writing without impaired or compromised legibility. However, we must realize that an original hand and a creative hand can be two different things, for an original scribe is not always creative, but a creative person always will compose an original script. An original script must merely avoid the existing patterns; but an original script must add something to the already existing fund of patterns. A creative script must facilitate writing, and only he who writes a great deal, one who must confront and develop his ideas on the wing, as they come and go, will desire more easily written characters, and will experience the urge to create them. Such a person is ordinarily well educated, and will continue to improve his script throughout his life because he is demanding and discriminating. Klages emphatically asserts that eccentricity alone cannot indicate the creative scribe. All innovations in script will be simpler and easier to write—purpose is the rule for the creative scribe, and not merely unnaturalness. 4) Legibility. A letter is written in order to be read, obviously, and any letter that cannot be deciphered by the addressee has clearly failed of its purpose. We do not normally read from letter to letter, or from word to word. Instead, we read from cluster to cluster of words and only stumble when we come across an unfamiliar expression, or an illegible one. In consequence, the only method that we have to establish objectively the legibility of an exemplar is to remove words at random from their context and scrutinize them. Very often, the most intelligent writers will not pass this test. 5) Speed. The elementary law of creativeness is violated if the sample has not been written spontaneously, if it has required an inordinate amount of time in which to be produced. What is needed here is time saving simplicity. In fact, slowly produced writings often give evidence of criminal tendencies in the scribe. Although such scribes will attempt to furnish a genteel, legible, and conforming script, they often attempt to patch up their initially unworthy efforts by closings open letters, by straightening out faulty strokes, and by re-crossing their t-bars. The overall impression such exemplars give is one of uncleanness. A fluently produced sample, on the other hand, will show a right-slanted writing, with irregularly placed i-dots, with most dots placed ahead of the letter itself, with other letters and letter connections with garland shapes rather than angles or arcades, with the left margins tending to widen as the scribe reaches the bottom of the page, with smooth, light, and unbroken strokes.

Klages definitively refuted the doctrine of "fixed signs," which had so misled his predecessors, who erroneously ascribed "atomistic" character traits to discrete signs without perceiving the contextual matrix from which the signs are born. The biocentric investigator does not concern himself with expressive fragments: for life can only be found in organic wholes. To summarize: idiosyncratic traits are revealed in such formal elements as evenness, regularity, tempo, distribution, pressure, breadth, consistency, variety, connectedness, "angle of incidence," and initial stress of the handwritten sample, which is a permanent record of expressive gesture, a residue of living being, an examination of which can eventually enable us to embark upon ever more profound investigations of the inner life of man. (The major graphological texts published by Klages are: Die Probleme der Graphologie ["The Problems of Graphology"], published in 1910; the Handschrift und Charakter ["Handwriting and Character"], of 1912, which has gone through 26 editions; and the Einführung in die Psychologie der Handschrift ["Introduction to the Psychology of Handwriting"], which appeared in 1928.) 

A Unified System of Thought: Expression Analysis

From this brief glance at the narrow field of biocentric graphology, we now proceed to a more comprehensive division of the Klagesian system of thought, viz. the "analysis of expression" (Ausdruckskunde). According to Klages, the larger part of our knowledge of the inner life of those around us stems from our ability to comprehend the meanings inherent in each person’s gestures and facial expressions. This knowledge is not mediated by consciousness, for we must grasp the inner life of another directly, if we would grasp it at all. Every expressive movement is the precipitate of a lived impulse, and, unlike the viewpoint advanced by certain "behaviorists," these impulses are not reducible to the simple antithetic pair: pleasure or pain. Every expressive movement can be interpreted so as to reveal the form, duration, and sequence of the inner impulses. Klages subtly differentiates between several types of movements: the expressive movement, the mechanical movement, and the volitional movement. The expressive movement is regarded as one aspect of the impulse movement; the reflex movement is regarded as an element of the expressive movement; the mechanical movements earlier existed as impulse movements and are to be grouped under this head; volitional-movement is an impulse-movement controlled by the will. The types of movements are differentiated by their relationship to their aims. Volition movements are shaped by expectations of successful outcomes. Expressive movements are symbolic enactments; thus, the facial expression that embodies terror is the symbolic performance of the motions that represent the actions of one who would escape from a situation that evokes terror. 

Klages rejects the Darwinian theory of expression, which interprets all expressive movements as the rudimentary remains of actions that once were purposive. This view reflects Darwin’s insistence on rationalizing the "mechanisms" of nature, in spite of the obvious fact that expressive gestures have their origins in the subjectivity of the organism in which they arise. Pace Darwin, Klages insists that the living being never responds to the same stimulus with the same response: it responds to similar impressions with similar reactions. Instincts are similar only in species that are similar, and the process of individuation can only be consummated after the development of judgment and will. The will is not rooted in the affects, for its task is to bind, or repress, the affective life. The power of the will can be expressed as a quantum of driving force that is non-qualitative. It harnesses life in order to direct it to a goal, and the regulation of volition-movement is completely different from expressive movement. The expressive movement has no aim other than itself; the impulse-movement derives its aims from its environment; and for the volitional-movement, the conscious willing of the aim is of the essence. Actions (in contrast to pathic, dream-like states) are volitional movements (handwriting belongs under this head). Since the personality comprises a constellation of dynamic relationships, every movement expresses personality in its essential nature, for the character of an individual is revealed in every action. However, one must study aspects of expression that are outside the realm of volition, not subject to the control of consciousness, and beyond the governance of intention and learned skills. Volitional movement expresses the personality of the willing person; it does not originate in vitality, for it is chained to the causal nexus originating in the conscious mind. By itself, the volition is not expressive; the important thing is the individual course of the movement. There is present in all of an individual's expressive movements a unity of character, and any movement on the part of a person will assume that type or manner of movement which is characteristic of that individual. Klages asserts that the writing movement, for instance, is the manifestation of the will to express oneself with the aid of a certain writing system, the volition, which is the current state of some personality. Therefore, handwriting is a volitional movement and carries the idiosyncratic stamp of any personality.

Volitional movements cannot exist without impulse movements, but the impulse movement can exist without the volitional one. Every state of the body expresses an impulse system, and every attitude finds its appropriate expression. Every movement of the body is a vital movement that has two constituent parts, the impulse and the expressive. Therefore, an expressive movement is the visible manifestation of the impulses and affects that are symbolically represented in the vital movement of which it is a component part. The expression manifests the pattern of a psychic movement as to its strength, duration, and direction.

Now how is it possible for human beings to perceive, and to interpret, the expression of the soul? Klages answers this by explaining that the capacity for expression is coördinated with the human being's capacity for impression. Impression is split into two functions: a passive ("pathic") one, which receives the impression; and an active one, which makes it possible for one to become aware of one's own nature as well as that of others—only through this objectification can expression have meaning. It is the very foundation of all genuine research into the study of expressive gestures.

Klages cautions the student to avoid all vain quests after qualitative states of expressive movement; instead, we must examine vital "essences," because, in the end, isolated segments of expression must not be divorced from their organic matrix. This point of view recapitulates Klages’s criticisms of the graphological theory of "isolated signs," which can never reveal the global structure that embodies the elements of personality.

The study of expressive movement does not derive its findings from the analysis of purely "objective" states, for the entities examined by the biocentric researcher are experienced as living beings. Klages’s affirmation of the value of expression is in perfect harmony with his high evaluation of the pathic or ecstatic abandonment of the ego in a surrender to the actuality of the living images. We can locate an individual’s capacity for such self-abandonment on a continuum that is graduated according to the living content. According to the entity in which it occurs, each rhythmic pulsation gives birth to another and yet another vital content, whether it is manifested as a faint arousal of the soul or as pathic frenzy. Paradoxically, one person’s rage may be shallower and feebler than the mere breathing of another person. The man who able to observe this, and who is thereby enabled to understand the implications of his observations, so that he can distinguish authentic personality from the mere precipitate of its psychic activity, such as a handwritten exemplar, has perceived the agency through which each formal, or functional, element alternately expresses a ‘minus’ character or a ‘plus’ character. He is able to determine, as between one instance of expressive movement and another, whether he is witnessing the strength of a vital impulse or the weakness of an antagonistic inhibition, and can then correctly evaluate the character’s true traits.

The power of creativity, or formative ability [Gestaltungskraft], which is the measure of one’s capacity for enhanced intensity of expressive force, has its only source in nature. However, every vital impulse is impeded by certain binding forces, or inhibitions. This duality is referred to by Klages as the "dual significance of expression." Thus, if we witness an individual’s performance of a violent act, this act may be the result of the attractive force of the goal towards which he is aiming; or it may, on the other hand, indicate merely a lack of inhibition on the part of the person in question. The will to domination may indicate strength of will, of course; but it may also indicate an embittered affective life. Likewise, sensitivity may arise from emotional delicacy; but it may also be the result of emotional irritability. Such judgments can only be validated on the basis of a global examination of the individual under review. 

As we shall see shortly, Klages’s philosophy holds that the historical evolution of culture can only be interpreted as murderous record, a chronicle of ever-mounting horror in the course of which the vital power of expressive forces recedes before the soulless world ruled by the will, most perfectly embodied in the all-powerful state. But the enlightened biocentrist will turn from this dead Dingwelt (thing-world) to seek refreshment in the en-souled Ausdruckswelt (expression-world).

A Unified System of Thought: Characterology

From the study of expressive movement we proceed to characterology (Charakterkunde). Just as graphology led to the more comprehensive science of expression, the science of expression, in turn, provides the fund of empirical observations that supports the biocentric characterology. Klagesian characterology, in fact, constitutes the most comprehensive study of the human being that has ever been formulated. (Characterology, in its turn, constitutes the indispensible structural component of the biocentric scheme of metaphysics). 

The Grundlagen der Charakterkunde presents Klages’s system of psychology in great detail, and because his psychological exposition in that treatise is so intimately interrelated with the philosophical exposition contained in Der Geist and in his other philosophical publications, we will treat the characterology and the metaphysics as indivisible aspects of one vast symphony of thought. However, we will say a few words at this point about the most original feature of biocentric characterology, viz., the presentation of character as a dynamic structural system, comprising such elements as the material (Stoff), the structure (Gefüge), the specific type or idiosyncratic quality (Artung), the architectonics (Aufbau), and the constitutional disposition (Haltungsanlagen). 

The material comprises such innate capacities as recollection, cognition as it is embodied in conceptual thought, critical "penetration" (or acumen), intensity, sensibility, and many other capacities, all of which are innate, i.e., conditioned by the genetic endowment of the particular character. From the outset, Klages rejects with some contempt the inadequate "tabula rasa" tradition of British empiricism, which he correctly traces back to its source in Locke and his school. This innate material occurs in various combinations that vary from person to person, and although Klages ordinarily voices opposition to methodologies that are based upon quantitative "formalism," he agrees that the material is measurable in at least a metaphorical sense, for it constitutes our personal possession, the "capital," as it were, with which we are equipped. 

The structure comprises such differentiations as: temperamental or reserved, wandering or fixed, emotionally stable or unstable. Within each personality there is a unique tempo of affective excitability that can be analogized to an emotional wave, whose quantum of reactivity is functionally related to an individual’s internal organic processes. Unlike the purely innate capacities, the characteristics can be adequately expressed as a correlation between the magnitude of an impulse and the force of resistance to that impulse (we had occasion earlier to refer briefly to this relationship as it pertains to the analysis of expressive gestures). 

The quality relates to the formal aspects of volition and the tendencies of the affects, which unite to form the system of drving-forces or "interests." Specific driving-forces are by their nature directional, as we can see by examining the different goals toward which a greedy person or domineering person seem to be impelled. Architectonics constitutes the correlated interrelationships that weave all the other elements of the character together. 

Finally, the dispositions (or attitudes) comprise those traits that are obvious even to the cursory glance of an external observer, and among these traits we find courage, talkativeness, diffidence, and obnoxiousness. 

However, the most important of all the elements that make up the character is the qualitative estimation of an individual’s capacities of feeling and volition. Volition is a limited instantiation of the will, and the will is of the very essence of spirit; in fact the will is the darkest and most destructive of spirit’s manifestations, the demon of negation, the very essence of the void. 

The constellation of the driving-forces constitutes the personality, and these driving forces are as diverse and multiform as life. The drive is manifest as an urge that issues in a movement, and that movement is generated under the influence of the non-conceptual, vital experience of a power to which Klages has given the name symbol. The driving-forces are polarized, for a drive that has its source in an excess of energy (thus entailing an impulse to discharge energy) must be contrasted with the drive that arises out of a lack of energy (which will give rise to the attempt to recoup energy). There are drives that can be stirred without regard to time, as well as drives that manifest periodicity 

The instincts are opposed to the will. The will devises conscious, purposive projects that are in conflict with the immediate desire for gratification of the instincts. In opposition to the world as it is felt, the will erects conscious purposiveness and the life-hostile, moralistic codes of ethics. The authentic content of the personality is drawn from the living world, but the will ruthlessly imposes form upon that content by constricting, inhibiting, directing, or suppressing the instincts and affects. The will possesses no original, creative power of its own. The will is incarnated in man as the ego, which can be expressed metaphorically as the rudder on a vessel whose only function is controlling the vessel’s course. The will-as-ego is characterized by self-awareness and insistent activity. The instinctual drives, on the other hand, give birth to an unconscious, "pathic" surrender to the living cosmos. The instincts and affects are revealed in the love for knowledge, Eros, the quest for truth, and the admiration of beauty. The will reveals its nature in duty, conscience, ambition, greed, and egomania. The will seeks to repress or extirpate the vital impulses, and the destructive effects of the will in action can even be fatal to the organism, as we can see in the case of the political revolutionary who embarks on a fatal hunger-strike. The shattered health and twisted mind resulting from the obsessive asceticism of the religious zealot is too familiar to require further elaboration.

Philosophical Works

The strictly philosophical writings of Ludwig Klages comprise a wide range of materials. In length they range from pithy articles contributed to various lexicons and encyclopedias, through extended essays and revamped lectures, and culminate in his full-dress, formal treatises, the most comprehensive of which is the epochal Der Geist als Widersacher der Seele [3 volumes, 1929-32]. Der Geist contains an astonishing 1500 pages of text as well as an elaborate scholarly apparatus devoted to source notes and ancillary material, the closely-printed text of which would make a fair-sized book on its own! 

One of his shorter essays, the Brief Über Ethik, which was published shortly after the German defeat in 1918, is of exceptional interest to the student of race. Unlike many of his optimistic contemporaries, Klages viewed the catastrophic mongelization that was poisoning the Aryan race as an ineluctable doom, the fatal and irremediable dissolution of life under the savage assault of triumphant spirit. In the Brief, his intense study of the psychological aspects of man’s disastrous evolution, enabled him to trace the 20^th century’s accursed proliferation of "slave"-types and men without character to a single poisonous source, for the production of such wretched types, he proclaims, "has arisen, arises now, and will arise, always and everywhere, as the direct result of racial bastardization and pollution of the blood!" On similar grounds, he excoriates the modern world’s monstrous plague of moralistic fanaticism in the Brief, asserting that the rapidly increasing legions of ethical preachers constitute one more manifestation of the dysgenic breeding that is destroying our culture. The moral maniac’s twisted psyche within as well as his distorted physiognomy without clearly demonstrate that such a creature "is merely the spiritual expression of tainted blood!" Because the modern world regards the man of ethics, will, and reason as the sole proper vehicle of ego and spirit, no one should be surprised that traditional and healthy value must go to the wall. Race, breeding, nobility, depth of soul, beauty, courage, and blood, are one and all devoid of substance to the moralist and the egalitarian crusader. To them, man is his mind, his morals, and his ego, and the man who has given his sole allegiance to ego and spirit, has simultaneously surrendered all interest in the particular man. Henceforth he compulsively devotes his attentions to man as generality. Klages ridicules all respect for "humanity," that ghost of an abstraction, as a willful repudiation of every vital power of discrimination, and he who stubbornly refuses to immerse himself in the undiffentiated ochlocratic mob will always be assailed as an enemy of "mankind." This humanitarian insanity is, paradoxically, also the root of the murderous career of Christian and post-Christian civilization, for those who preach so incessantly of "love" and who babble so cretinously of "compassion," have but one response to those who do not endorse their "spiritual" values: that response is murder. The egalitarian can never face the obvious fact that wherever and whenever you order a man to love, you have guaranteed that he will respond with hate.

The racialist theoreticians whom Klages most admired and cited most pertinently in his collected works were Gobineau, Ludwig Woltmann, and L. F. Clauss. Klages’s analysis of the racial dimension of the science of expression is indebted to the analytical studies of race and expression published by Clauss, especially in the formulation by Klages of what we will call the racial continuum of expression and excitability. No objective observer would wish to deny the obvious fact that the Mediterranean division of the Aryan race is typically characterized by a greater ease of expression than is found in the Nordic Aryan. Klages enforces the validity of this truth quite vividly through the ingenious use of national stereotypes as illustrative heuristic expedients; thus, his typological extremes extend from the Italian, in whom we find the maximum ease of expressive gesture as well as the greatest degree of temperamental excitability, passes through the various intermediary increments, and arrives at the opposite extreme of the racial continuum of expression, where Klages situates the only possible candidate for title of least expressive and most temperamentally reserved of European Aryans, viz., the Englishman.

In his critical exposition of the doctrine of the "temperaments,"Klages extends his investigation of individual differences to encompass an analysis of the capacity for stimulation of the will that is peculiar to the different races. Several qualities that are falsely considered by many researchers to be permanently and deeply rooted in man, e.g., the tendency to seek for perfection and the adoption of an "idealistic" point of view, vanish almost completely in the course of a lifetime. On the other hand, the least variable property of a character is this "capacity for stimulation of the will," which Klages calls the "constant of temperament." The magnitude, or degree, of the capacity for such stimulation varies significantly between the races as well, and because it constitutes a temperamental "constant," it provides a permanent index of racial differences. The Oriental race, for instance, is characterized by a will that is far less excitable than the will of the Aryan, and Klages draws upon the great Count Gobineau for an illustration: "Consider…buying and selling as they are practiced in an Oriental bazaar. An Oriental will bargain for the same article with perfect equanimity for days on end, whereas the European loses patience after an hour, and often much sooner. Joseph Arthur de Gobineau makes a fine artistic use of these differences of character in his Nouvelles Asiatiques." 

Like Gobineau, Woltmann, and Clauss, Klages was a universal scholar who possessed the same wide-ranging vision and the treasures of living wisdom that all of these men shared. And we can be apodictically certain that every one of these scholars would have rejected with utter scorn the narrow-minded theory, endorsed even by many modern writers who consider themselves to be the true heirs of the great racialists of yore, which holds that the quality of a man can be reduced to a mathematical expression. Without a doubt, Klages would have felt that the egalitarian lunacy that now rules the world is only slightly more ludicrous than the attempts that are made by modern anti-egalitarians to reduce man to his IQ. And when certain writers attempt to place characterology on a "scientific" basis through the use of factor-analysis—in other words, by pouring even more formalistic mathematics into the sauce!—we can imagine his ironic smile as he whispers: sancta simplicitas! 

Klages traces the origins of the modern, mongrelized world’s moralistic fanaticism and criminality back to its source in another devastatingly ironic essay, Das Problem des SOKRATES, in which he dismantles the beloved figure of Socrates as if he were a defective toaster-oven. Because Socrates is regarded by Klages as the very antithesis of the true philosopher, we will examine in some detail this unconventional and irreverent analysis of Socrates and his thought. Without qualification or proviso, Klages launches his attack. He sees Socrates as an utter fraud, a dissembling hypocrite, a complete ignoramus in scientific matters whose arrogance and lack of curiosity are truly astonishing. Why did Socrates ignore the truly epochal cosmological discoveries that were being made by the Hylozoists? A true philosopher would have been enthralled by the discoveries of these great scholars, but Socrates could care less. Heraclitus, Protagoras, and the Hylozoists were the true philosophers, not this rachitic ghoul, this professional sponger and house-guest, this most sophistical of sophists who habitually sought to diminish the genuine achievements of his hated contemporaries, not by surpassing them, but by dismissing them instead as contemptible—sophists! 

No figure in the intellectual history of Greece had a more skilful touch when it came to lodging dust in his spectators’ eyes. We witness the Socratic gambit par excellence when this logomach employs the most childish word-games conceivable in order to transform his blatant lack of creative talent into that which he has successfully persuaded all subsequent generations was, in reality, the most dazzling array of talents ever united within one mortal frame. Socrates obviously couldn’t master science: therefore science is an unworthy avocation! A prominent Sophist has arrived in town, and the word is out that he has prepared his lectures with a scrupulous care for formal elegance and a proper observance of the canons of logic: therefore, says Socrates, he’s nothing but logic-chopping hustler with a fancy prose style and a yen for a fast buck! From the dawn of time this has been, is now, and ever will remain, the bitter complaint leveled by the work-shy parasite against the gainfully employed citizen.

In addition to his other dubious gifts, Socrates is also an unparalleled expert at forestalling criticism, for his hidden motivation seems almost childishly transparent when we find him assuring his audience, with all the candor and guilelessness of a Uriah Heep, that the only thing that he knows is that he knows nothing! And this pish posh and flummery is still luring philosophical yokels to the Socratic side-show 2,400 years later! 

In fact, the whole repertoire of Socratic methods is exactly what Hegel and Klages say that it is: a bare-faced and unworthy swindle. Furthermore, although hardly any commentator has drawn attention to the fact, Socrates was completely successful in one of his more sinister ploys, for his most subtle dialectical maneuvers can even be said to have ominous political implications in addition to their philosophical ones. We are alluding to the sly manipulation whereby Socrates assures his auditors that the truths that they seek are already within them, for his seemingly innocent claim conceals the fact that by this very means Socrates is engineering a monstrous and underhanded tyranny over naïve youths who can scarcely realize that, invariably, everything that they will "discover" within them has already been planted there by an autocratic and mendacious charlatan! 

But what of the great martyr to "free thought," the plaster bust whom endless generations have been taught to revere as a saint and genius? Nonsense, says Klages. Not for the first, and certainly not for the last time, Klages confounds our expectations by explicitly endorsing his predecessor Hegel’s view, for Hegel effortlessly proved that Socrates got just what what coming to him. Hegel found that the conduct of the court during the trial of Socrates was legally unimpeachable and he wholeheartedly endorsed the verdict of the court. Klages also draws on Hegel’s account when he directs our attention to this charlatan’s truly mortal offenses against Athens, for who among this sophist’s accusers could forget for one moment the brutal crimes that were committed against the citizenry of Athens by Kritias, who in addition to being one of the the dearest pupils of Socrates, was also the bloodiest of all the Thirty Tyrants? And was not another cherished apostle—and, perhaps, a bit more—of Socrates, i.e., the slimy Alcibiades, known by both court and citizenry as the conscienceless traitor who bore the ultimate responsibility for the defeat and downfall of Athens in the Peloponnesian War? This obvious truth was disputed by no sane Athenian. 

No Greek thinker known to history, in fact, has a flimsier claim to the august title of true philosopher than this mongrelized gargoyle whose moral mania and theatrically grandiose death anticipate both the ethical idiocy and the shabby demise of the founder of the Christian cult, and Klages explicitly speaks of Socrates as the ancient world’s first Christian martyr. In the end, the only genuine achievements that can be credited to Socrates, Klages insists, were in the fields of epistemology and philosophical linguistics. And in all candor, who would seek to challenge the view that Socrates had about as much capacity for meaningful metaphysical speculation as your average floor-polisher? The rest is smoke and mirrors, a petty swindler’s sleight of hand.

Another brief philosophical text by Klages has become his best-known and most controversial work. In 1913, publisher Eugen Diederichs and the organizers of the anniversary celebration of the "Battle of the Nations" (which had taken place at Leipzig during the Wars of Liberation against Napoleon) invited the philosopher to address the representatives of the German Youth Movement. He delivered his Mensch und Erde, a stunning and prophetic attack on the enemies of Mother Earth, which was later published in a commemorative volume featuring a striking piece of cover-art by the neo-pagan painter Fidus. This seminal work has only recently received its due as the first statement of the philosophy of "deep ecology" when a new edition was published in 1980 in coordination with the establishment of the German "Green" political party. In this "roll-call of the dead," Klages laments the destruction of wildlife and landscape by encroaching "civilization," and, in attacking the very idea of "Progess," Klages praises the chthonic gods who have been driven into the underworld. He deplores the extinction of animal species and their wild habitats, the loss of ancient forests, and the annihilation of aboriginal peoples. He condemns Capitalism, Christianity, and utilitarianism as weapons aimed at the destruction of the ecology. Even tourism is excoriated as just another agent of environmental destruction, and Klages laments the murder of the whales long before such a concern was widespread . 

"Without a doubt," Klages says, "we are living in the age of the waning of the Soul," and he insists that when Spirit has finally silenced the "primal song of the landscape," the earth will be converted into "one gigantic Chicago interspersed with agriculture." Our machines are attended by machine-men, whose noisy and glittering amusements are unable to conceal the fact that the world has been stripped of all life-enhancing symbols and ritual observances. Our hearts are barren, and "their inner rivulets can no longer water the blossoms of song and holy feasts; there remains only this bleak and grey workaday world," in this age of soul-destruction. 

"Progress" is simply an "unfettered lust for murder," and all of nature must perish "before its poisonous breath." Our age has lost all "knowledge of the world-creating, world-weaving force of all-unifying Eros." "Originating with Socrates and coming through Kant all the way down to the present age, the hoarse demand of the Will resonates in every one of the refractions, disguises, and transformations assumed by our ethical systems, that it is the duty of man to control himself, to subject his desires to the rule of reason, to moderate his feelings when he can’t manage to exterminate them entirely." Moralistic preachers, devoted to the "improvement" of man, are nothing but criminals against life, whose immunity to the lessons of experience is reflected in their oblivion to the data of our historical experience. The "inborn" conscience, as a matter of fact, is not at all an original fact of existence, for it cannot be found anywhere else in the animal kingdom; conscience is merely spirit’s poison at its work of destroying the soul of man. Under this influence, the soul can no longer dwell amid the pulsating flux of images, for a despotic rationality, in tandem with this moral mania, finally substitutes for the endless "becoming" of the actuality of the world of nature, the disconnected, dead world of "being." "Whatever falls under the ray of intellect is immediately turned into a mere thing, a numbered object of thought connected only mechanically with other objects. The paradox enunciated by the modern sage, ‘we perceive but what is dead’, is a lapidary formulation of a profound truth." Klages tells us that Life must soon perish, "for the hour of returning has been missed."

The philosopher’s meditations on the myths and mysteries of the ancient Mediterranean world form the substance of the treatise entitled Vom kosmogonischen Eros, which appeared in 1922. Paradoxically, perhaps, in view of the anti-Socratism that we’ve been discussing, Klages follows the classic Platonic exposition in the "Symposium" regarding the nature of Eros, which is held to be compounded of antitheses such as wealth and poverty, fullness and emptiness, possession and want. This insight accounts for the dual nature of all striving, for every impulse and every desire arises from a lack of something that we yearn to possess and perishes at the moment when that which we have yearned to possess falls into our hands.

The duality that constitutes the substance of man is also clarified in the Eros-book. In primordial ages, man’s nature comprised the connected poles of body and soul, whose vital bonds it is spirit’s mission to sever from the moment that man enters into the realm of recorded history. Klages also clarifies the unique status of the image in his course of his exposition of biocentric phenomenology: "Wherever we find a living body, there we also find a soul; wherever we find a soul, there also we find a living body. The soul is the meaning of the body, and the image of the body is the manifestation of the soul. Whatever appears has a meaning, and every meaning reveals itself as it is made manifest. Meaning is experienced inwardly, the manifestation outwardly. The first must become image if it is to communicate itself, and the image must be re-internalized so that it may take effect. Those are, in the most literal sense, the twin poles of actuality." (Klages’s exposition had, for once, been anticipated by Friedrich Paulsen, in whose textbook, "An Introduction to Philosophy," we find the following remark: "Either we must regard the entire body, including the nervous system, as a system of means external to the soul, or we must regard the entire body as the visible expression, or physical equivalent, of life" [emphasis added]). 

Life is not governed by spirit, for "the law of spirit" demands that spirit divorce itself utterly from the "rhythms of cosmic life." Only the living image possesses a truly vital autonomy, for the image alone is independent of spirit. The image remains totally unaffected by whether or not the receiver of the sensuous image recollects its visitation afterwards. The thing, on the other hand, is thought into the world of consciousness. It exists as a dimension of a person’s inwardness. Life is not directed towards the future, for the future is not a property of actual time. The great error of Promethean man was in his elevating that which was to come to the same stage of actuality as the past. The "man of ‘world-history’" is a man dedicated to voids. He has annihilated and is annihilating the actuality of what has been in order to devote himself more completely to the projects of a hallucination called the future. He insists on shattering the fruitful connection of the near and the far in order to erect in its place the present’s Wandering Jew-like fascination "with a distant phantasm of futurity." Actual time is a "stream coursing from the future into the past." 

This "cosmogonic Eros" of which Klages speaks is the life-creating son of the Mother Goddess of the prehistoric Ægean world, and must not be confused with the vapid cupids that can still be found on ancient Roman frescoes, whose pale plaster descendants so gaudily adorn the walls and ceilings of the palaces of rococo Europe. A more authentic incarnation is found in the Theogony of Hesiod, in which the poet calls Eros one of the first beings, born without father or mother. Likewise, in the Orphic hymns, Kronos is his father; Sappho calls him the offspring of Earth and Heaven; and Simonides traces the descent of Eros to the union of Aphrodite and Ares. Hesiod’s treatment, by far the most profound, portrays Eros as the force of attraction upon which the very existence of the material world depends. When Hesiod makes Eros the offspring of the rainbow and the westwind, he is indicating, by the use of metaphor, that spring, the season in which they prevail, is the time of love. For Hesiod, Eros is "the most beautiful of all the deathless gods." The historical aspect of Klages’s text is largely an apologia for the Weltanschauung of Bachofen, with its forthright celebration of the "world of woman" and the life of "primitive" peoples (his most elaborate presentation of the Magna Mater and her world will appear in the crucial chapter on the "Great Mother" in Der Geist, which bears the telling subtitle "Marginal Observations on Bachofen’s Discoveries"). 

Eros is to be distinguished from "love" and "sex," both of which are tied to that obnoxious entity the "self" (Selbst), which tends to become the center of gravity in the life of man as history progressively tears his soul from the earth, turning the richly-endowed individual into a hollow mask and robot, divorced from Eros and earth. All Eros is Eros of distance (Eros der Ferne), and a moment’s reflection will suffice to demonstrate that nothing is more characteristic of our modern planetary technology than its tendency toward the annihilation of distance. Likewise, the will-to-possesion, the impulse for domination, and the thoughtless addiction to "information" that characterizes modern man are all condemned by Klages as attempts to lift the veil of Isis, which he sees as the ultimate "offense against life." "The intellectual will to power is the crime against life itself, causing man to meet life’s vindictive retaliation." For behind the veil, there is "nothingness," which is to say spirit and the will to desubstantialize the cosmos. This "modern man" has traveled very far indeed from the Naturvölker, who prefer life to cogitation, and who experience the erotic bond without commingling their precious egos, whose desire is impersonal and not focused upon an insane idealization and apotheosis of the loved one. For Klages, the most vital manifestation of Eros is not the "love unto death" of sentimental "tragedy," but is, instead, a surrender of the will to the impersonal forces of the cosmos. There is an Eros of the home as well as of the homeland, an Eros of the implement that we have fashioned with our own hands as well as an Eros of the art work that we have created with the implement’s aid. Eros inhabits, in fact, any object of perception to which we feel intimately connected, and all such objects and events become living symbols of our joys or of our sorrows. The ego has nothing to do with these erotic bonds, anymore than it has anything to do with maternal love.

Soul and Spirit

The very title of Klages’s metaphysical treatise, Der Geist als Widersacher der Seele, "The Spirit as Adversary of the Soul," refers to the ceaseless and savage battle waged by spirit against the soul. The mounting onslaught of spirit against the living soul has constituted the innermost essence of the life of man. Whereas spirit once existed in a temporary and uneasy symbiosis with the soul, in the course of human history spirit’s destructive power waxes ever stronger, until spirit eventually abandons the symbiotic compromise that endured whilst the powers of life were still exalted, and erupts into the waning empire of the living soul as a savage and unyielding dæmon whose malevolent career reaches its grisly climax in our apocalyptic age of "virtual" reality, compassion-babble, hydrogen bombs, and racial chaos. 

But just what is this "soul"? In the first place, the soul is not something exclusively human, for all phenomena possess soul, viz., the sea, animals, mountains, the wind, and the stars. In fact, all phenomena are "en-souled." Now the soul possesses two poles, the archetypal soul and the substantial soul, or, to look upon these matters from a slightly different angle, a passive receptor pole and an active effector pole. The passive receptor pole is, in the thought of Klages, the truly characteristic aspect for the soul’s life. From its birth, the soul leads a pathic, or passive, dream-existence, in which its life is filled with visionary images. The soul only becomes released for activity in the phenomenal world when the bearer of that soul is confronted by the polarity of another soul, which forces each soul to reveal its nature to the other. The original characteristics of the soul are night, dreaming, rhythmic pulsation, infinite distance, and the realm of the unconscious.

The "elementary" substances that constitute the earth originated under the complex influence of telluric and cosmic forces, and the symbiotic interaction of all telluric phenomena was required in order to bring the animate world into being. According to the doctrine of the "actuality of the images," the plant represents the transitional stage between the element and the living creature. (The botanist Jagadis Bose performed experiments that he felt conclusively demonstrated the capacity of plants to experience pain). The plant experiences life in the form of growth and maturation, as well as in the creation of offspring through the processes familiar to natural science. Spontaneous movements of various kinds are characteristic of plant-life, viz., the turning of the leaves and buds to the light, the sending of the root-system into the soil in order to extract nourishment from the earth, the fixing of supportive tendrils to fixed surfaces, etc. Klages draws our attention to the fact that there are several varieties of plant that are indubitably capable of self-motility. There are, at this threshold of another realm of being, organisms such as sea squirts, mussels, oysters, sponges, and zoophytes, which become fixed in their habitat only after the early stages of the lives. (When Verworrn published his experiments on the psychical life of the protista in 1899, he attributed sensation to these organisms, a position that certainly has much to recommend it. But when he attempted to demonstrate that even the will is in evidence at this stage of life, one can only shake one’s head in disbelief, for that which this author adduces as evidence of volition in the protista is the simple phenomenon of reaction to stimuli! Thus, Verworrn equates the reactive responses in the protista to the action of the will in man, in whom the "volitional" processes are more highly developed. This is certainly a case of blindness to a difference of essence.) 

In the next developmental stage, i.e., that of the animal, the soul is now captured in a living body. The drives and instincts make their first appearance during this phase. The characteristic functions of the creature comprise physical sensation (as represented by the body-pole) and contemplation (the psychical pole). The living body is the phenomenon of the soul, and the soul is the meaning of the living body. However, in opposition to the realm of the lower animals, wherein sensation dominates contemplation, we find that in the higher animals, contemplation is strengthened at the expense of the physical sensations, as the result of spirit’s invasion of the life-cell, which occurs at this time. Now if one were to consider "the waking state" to be synonymous with consciousness itself, than one must consclude that consciousness is present in animal and man alike. According to Klages, however, it is only the capacity for conceptual thought that characterizes consciousness, so that we must attribute consciousness proper only to man. In the animal, the image cannot be divorced from the sensory impression. In man, on the other hand, the content of the visual image can be separated from the act of perception that receives that content throught the sensorium. Therefore, although the animal undoubtedly possesses instincts, only man is truly conscious.

The biological processes that constitute plant life and animal life are also operative in man, but with the intervention of spirit (at least during the initial phase of development, during which spirit and life maintain some kind of balance), he is capable of creating symbolic systems of communication and expression, viz., art and poetry, as well as myth and cult. The processes of life establish the polar connection between the actual images of the world (or, the "macrocosm") and the pathic soul that receives them (or, the "microcosm").

The human soul comprises the totality of the immediate experiences of man. It is the soul that receives its impressions of actuality in the shape of images. "The image that falls upon the senses: that, and nothing besides, is the meaning of the world," Klages insists, and one such immediate act of reception can be seen in the manner in which one comprehends the imagery employed by a great poet or the skillfully drawn portrait executed by a gifted artist. The actualities received by the "pathic" soul are experienced in the dimensions of space and time, but they have their coming-to-be and their passing-away solely within the temporal order. In sharp contrast to the traditional Christian insistence that virtue constitutes a valorization of the "spirit" at the expense of a denigrated body, Klages sees man’s highest potential in the state of ecstasy, i.e., the privileged state of rapture in which the connected poles of body and soul are liberated from the intrusive "spirit." What the Christian understands by the word soul is, in fact, actually spirit, and spirit—to simplify our scheme somewhat for the sake of expediency—is the mortal adversary of the soul. Another way to express this insight would be the formula: spirit is death, and soul is life.

Spirit manifests its characteristic essence in formalistic cognition and technological processes and in the hyper-rationalism that has pre-occupied western thought since the Renaissance. Both mathematical formalism and "high" technology have reared their conceptual skyscrapers upon a foundation formed by the accumulation of empirical data. Spirit directs its acolytes to the appropriation and rigidification of the world of things, especially those things that are exploitable by utilitarian technocrats. Spirit fulfils its project in the act, or event, that occurs within the spatio-temporal continuum, although spirit itself has its origin outside that continuum. Spirit is manifest in man’s compulsive need to seize and control the materials at hand, for only "things" will behave consistently enough for the spirit-driven utilitarian to be able to "utilize" them by means of the familiar processes of quantification and classification, which enable "science" to fix, or "grasp," the thing in its lethal conceptual stranglehold. 

We must draw a sharp distinction between the thing and its properties on one side, and the "essence" (Wesen) and its characteristics on the other. Only an essence, or nature, can be immediately experienced. One cannot describe, or "grasp," an essence by means of the conceptual analysis that is appropriate only when a scientist or technician analyzes a thing in order to reduce it to an "objective" fact that will submit to the grasp of the concept. The souls of all phenomena unite to comprise a world of sensuous images, and it is only as unmediated images that the essences appear to the pathic soul who receives their meaning-content. The world of essences (phenomena) is experienced by the pathic soul, which is the receptor of the fleeting images that constitute actuality [Wirklichkeit der Bilder]. These images wander eternally in the restless cosmic dance that is the Heraclitean flux. The image lives in intimate connection with the poles of space and time. 

The world of things, on the other hand, is rationally comprehended as a causally connected system of objects (noumena). In the course of historical time man’s ability to perceive the living images and their attendant qualities is progressively impoverished until finally spirit replaces the living world of expressive images with the dead world of mere things, whose only connections are adequately expressed in the causal nexus, or, to use the language of science, the "laws of nature." 

In the final act of the historical tragedy, when there is no longer any vital substance upon which the vampire spirit may feed, the parasitic invader from beyond time will be forced to devour itself. 

Paradise Lost

We see that the philosophy of Klages has both a metaphysical dimension as well as a historical one, for he sees the history of the world as the tragic aftermath to the disasters that ensued when man was expelled from the lost primordial paradise in which he once enjoyed the bliss of a "Golden Age." When man found himself expelled from the eternal flux of coming-to-be and passing-away of the lost pagan paradise, he received in exchange the poor substitute known as consciousness. Paradise was lost, in effect, when man allowed his temporally-incarnated life-cell to be invaded by the a-temporal force that we call spirit.

Klages is quite specific in putting forward a candidate for this "Golden Age" which prospered long before spirit had acquired its present, murderous potency, for it is within the pre-historic Ægean culture-sphere, which has often been referred to by scholars as the "Pelasgian" world, that Klages locates his vision of a peaceful, pagan paradise that was as yet resistant to the invasive wiles of spirit.

Now who are these "Pelasgians," and why does the Pelasgian "state of mind" loom so largely in Klages’s thought? According to the philosopher, the development of human consciousness, from life, to thought, to will, reveals itself in the three-stage evolution from pre-historic man (the Pelasgian), through the Promethean (down to the Renaissance), to the Heracleic man (the stage which we now occupy). For Klages, the Pelasgian is the human being as he existed in the pre-historic "Golden Age" of Minoan Crete, Mycenean Hellas, and the related cultures of the Aegean world. He is a passive, "pathic" dreamer, whose predominant mode of being is contemplation. He consorts directly with the living Cosmos and its symbols, but he is doomed. 

The "Pelasgians" occupy a strategic place in the mythos of Ludwig Klages, and this "Pelasgian Realm" of Klages closely resembles the mythic Golden Age of Atlantis that looms so large in the Weltanschauung of E. T. A. Hoffmann. But who, in fact, were these Pelasgians? According to the pre-historians and mythologists, the Pelasgians were an ancient people who inhabited the islands and seacoasts of the eastern Mediterranean during the Neolithic and Bronze Age periods. Homer, in a well-known passage in the Odyssey (XIX, 175 ff), places them on Crete, but another writer, Dionysius Halicarnassus, could only tell us that the Pelasgians were autokhthonoi, or "indigenous" throughout Hellas. Homer also refers to "Lord Zeus of Dodona, Pelasgian," in the Iliad (II, 750). Plutarch says of them that "they were like the oak among trees: the first of men at least in Akhaia," while Pliny believes that Peloponnesian Arkadia was originally called Pelasgis; that Pelasgos was an aristocratic title; and that the Pelasgians were descended from the daughters of Danaos. 

The most famous Pelasgian settlement was at Dodona, and Thucydides (we discover with relief) informs us that all Greece was Pelasgian before the Trojan war (approximately 1200 B. C.): "Before the Trojan War no united effort appears to be made by Hellas; and to my belief that name itself had not yet been extended to the entire Hellenic world. In fact, before the time of Hellen, son of Deucalion, the appelation was probably unknown, and the names of the different nationalities prevailed locally, the widest in range being ‘Pelasgians.’" (Book One of the "History of the Peloponnesian War," Oxford text, edited by H. Stuart-Jones; translated by Arnold J. Toynbee). Homer mentions them in the Iliad (ii, 840), and, in the Odyssey (xix, 172-7), the poet describes them as "divine." Racially, there seems to be no doubt that the Pelasgians were an Aryan people, and physical anthropologists inform us that the twenty skulls discovered at the Minoan sites of Palakaistro, Zakro, and Gournia turn out to be predominantly dolicocephalic, with the cranial indices averaging 73.5 for the males, and 74.9 for the women (Prehistoric Crete, by R. W. Hutchinson, London, 1962). The historian Herodotus, like Thucydides, groups all of the pre-classical peoples of the Hellenic world under the name Pelasgian: "Croesus made inquiries as to which were the greatest powers in Hellas, with a view to securing their friendly support, and, as a result of these inquiries, he found that the Lacedaemonians and the Athenians stood out among the people of the Dorian and Ionian race respectively. Of these people that had thus made their mark, the latter was originally a Pelasgian and the former a Hellenic nationality....As regards the language spoken by the Pelasgians, I have no exact information; but it is possible to argue by inference from the still-existing Pelasgians who occupy the city of Creston in the hinterland of the Tyrrhennians; from the other Pelasgians who have settled in Placia and Scylace on the Hellespont; and from the various other communities of Pelasgian race which have changed their national name. If inferences may be legitimately drawn from this evidence, then the original Pelasgians were speakers of a non-Greek language, and the Athenian nation must have learned a new language at the time when they changed from Pelasgians into Hellenes. At all events, the inhabitants of Creston and of Placia, who in neither case speak the same language as their present respective neighbors, do speak the same language as one another…In contrast to this, the Hellenic race has employed an identical language continuously, ever since it came into existence. After splitting off from the Pelasgian race, it found itself weak, but from these small beginnings it has increased until it now includes a number of nationalities, its principal recruits being Pelasgians It is my further opinion that the non-Hellenic origin of the Pelasgians accounts for the complete failure of even this nationality to grow to any considerable dimensions" (Herodotus, Book I, chapters 56 to 58; translated by Arnold J. Toynbee). The rest, as they say, is silence (at least in the Classical sources), and we can see why this obscure people should appeal to the mythologizing "Golden Age" bent of Klages. Modern authorities regard the Pelasgians as inhabitants of a purely Neolithic culture pertaining only to the area of Thessaly bounded by Sesklo in the east and the Peneios valley in the west (the area which is now known as Thessaliotis). 

Although the philosopher’s alluring portrait of the Pelasgians was formulated before modern archaeology had completed our image of Ægean prehistory, the picture which Klages paints, in the Eros-book and in the "Magna Mater" chapter of Der Geist als Widersacher der Seele, of a vibrant, healthy, and physically beautiful people, in touch with the gods and with Nature, requires little—if any—correction in the wake of the new researches. The figures who move so gracefully through the enchanted atmosphere of the Palace frescoes at Knossos, as they carry their brightly-colored gifts of vase, flowers, and pyxis, to the Goddess, are straight out of a poet’s dream. The young women walk barefoot, and wear hip-hugging, flared skirts to which flounces are attached at knee and hem; their long raven-tresses are worn in a chignon, adorned with red and white ribbons, and their jackets are brightly colored, usually pink or sky-blue. The gifts that they bring to the Mother Goddess are also brilliantly colored: a porphyry pyxis; poppies of red and white, and a bottle striped with silver, gold, and copper bands. They wear bracelets and necklaces dressed with strands of beads. They appear graceful and serene with their white breasts in profile in the tholos tombs as well. 

This Minoan, or "Pelasgian," world was characterized by a dialectical fusion of two strains of religiosity: on the one hand, we meet with the Ægean worship of the Mother Goddess, with all that that entails with regard to ritual and style of living; and, on the other, we confront the Indo-European sky-god, or Father God, and the two strains seem to co-exist in an uneasy, unstable—but certainly fruitful—truce. Mythologists tell us that this heritage is reflected in the tales that indicate the marriages between the Indo-European sky-god Zeus with various incarnations of the Ægean Mother-Goddess (in some of the myths, Zeus is, himself, born on Crete!). In time, of course, the Father God will achieve dominance in the Hellenic world, but Klages is more interested in traces of the religion of the Goddess as it survives from the Stone Age into the world of the second millennium B.C. Our philosopher, in effect, merges the misty Neolithic and Bronze Age cultures of the ancient Aegean into a single magical world-space, wherein an innocent race lives at one with Nature and the Goddess. Klages treats the Pelasgians as the primeval Hellenes, who worshiped the Goddess, as she was embodied in female idols in the form of figurines of the famous steatopygous Fertility-Goddess type, with huge belly and swollen buttocks (even though this iconographic image, represented most clearly in the "Venus of Willendorf," proceeds from a much-earlier cultural stratum, the Palaeolithic. The later Greeks celebrated Demeter, the Life-Mother, in the Eleusinian mysteries). The Palace Culture of Minoan Crete would exemplify the matriarchalist style of the (late) Pelasgian world, especially as prehistoric Knossos had a far more sophisticated attitude toward women than did, say, the later Periclean Athens. For instance, in the legend of Ariadne, the fact that her presence is indicated at the funeral games shows us that women were free to mingle with men at their will, and the version of the myth which shows Ariadne as in charge of the palace in her father’s absence shows the great value which the Cretans placed on women. This centrality of woman is indicated in all of Minoan art, which depicts her as beautifully-animated; in fact, one of the most elegant of the ebon-tressed, slim-waisted, and crimson-lipped women depicted on the frescoes on the Palace of Knossos, was nicknamed La Parisienne by a French visitor at the turn of the century! Klages is drawn more toward the "pacifist," thalassocratic (sea-ruling) aspect of the Minoans of the second millennium B.C., than toward the covetous Bronze Age Greeks of the mainland with their heavily-fortified cities and unending wars (the Bronze Age mainlanders seem to have loved war for its own sake; another troubling element in their civilization is their reliance on slavery, especially of women). These are the Mycenaeans, who would eventually sack, and destroy, the Minoan Culture. It is a notable fact that most of our evidence about the "Pelasgian" religious beliefs and practices stems from Minoan Crete: very little material survives from Mycenae and the other mainland sites. On Crete, however, we find the dove-goddess image and the snake-goddess image, the stepped altars and shrine models, in religious sanctuaries overflowing with such sacred items. Clearly, the Goddess ruled on Minoan Crete, and, in fact, the Goddess Potnia, whose name crops up repeatedly in the Linear B tablets, might indeed be the "Lady of the Labyrinth," which is to say, the Lady of the Place of the labrys, or the double ax—the Palace of Knossos itself. Another Knossos cult-figure was the anemo ijereja, of "Priestess of the Winds"; there is also qerasija, which could well mean "the Huntress." According to some historians, offerings to the Goddess were entirely bloodless, and were usually gifts of honey, oil, wine, and spices like coriander and fennel; sheep and their shepherds were associated with Potnia, but certainly not in the aspect of blood-sacrifices. On the mainland, however, we find the Mycenaeans slaughtering rams, horses, and other animals in their vaulted tombs. We also find the cult of the Goddess on the Cycladic islands (to which "Greek islands" American "millionaires" and other arch-vulgarians habitually cart their flatulent girths on "vacations"). The famous Cycladic figurines represent the Mother Goddess as well, under the aspects of "the divine nurse" or the "Goddess of Blessing." In these figurines the Goddess is almost invariably represented with the pubic delta and the stomach emphasized. I will have more to say about this religion of the "Mother Goddess" later on, in the section devoted to the ideas of Bachofen, but for now I’d like to note that in the early phase of Minoan religion, the relationship of ruler and deity was not that of father-and-son, but of mother-and-son. For Minoan Crete, the Mother Goddess was represented on earth by the priest-king. Some lovely manifestations of this reverence for the Goddess can be found in the faience statuettes of the bare-breasted Mother Goddess which were found by Sir Arthur Evans in the Palace of Knossos: one of them shows the Goddess holding up a serpent in each of her hands; the other statuette shows the snakes entwining themselves around her arms. These figures appear in both "peak sanctuaries" and in household shrines, and have been designated by pre-historians as the "Snake Goddess" or the "Household Goddess." The "Household Goddess" is often associated with the motif of the double-axe, the emblem of the Palace at Knossos, and also with the horns-of-consecration, which associate her with the sacred bull of the Palace of King Minos. 

One inhabitant of the Palace of King Minos was the princess Ariadne, to whom we alluded briefly above. After the loss of Theseus, the fate of Ariadne would be intimately intertwined with that of Dionysus, the problematical Greek divinity whose cult excited so much controversy and such fierce opposition among the Greeks of the Classical Age. Dionysus was the orgiastic god in whom Klages, following Nietzsche, locates the site of an untrammeled sensuous abandon. This Thraco-Grecian deity, whose nature was so brilliantly interpreted by Nietzsche in the latter half of the 19^th century, and by his worthy successor Walter F. Otto in the first half of the 20^th century, becomes in the Klagesian view the ultimate symbol of heathen life, the epiphany of that frenzied ecstasy that the god’s followers achieved by means of the drunkenness and wild dancing of the maenads, those female adherents of the god of the vine, who experienced genuine enthusiasm, i.e., "the god within,’ as they followed the progress of their far-wandering god, who gave to man the inestimable gift of wine. These maenads celebrated their secret Dionysian cultic rituals far from the accustomed haunts of man, and any man was slaughtered on the spot if he should be apprehended whilst illicitly witnessing the ceremonies reserved for the gods’ female followers. These maenads were alleged to be in the possession of magical powers that enabled the god’s worshipers to bring about magical effects at great distances. And "all Eros is Eros of distance!"

Philosophical Roots and Biological Consequences

Der Geist als Widersacher der Seele contains a comprehensive survey of the philosophical literature that relates to "biocentric" concerns, and in these pages Klages closely scrutinizes the troubled seas and fog-shrouded moorlands of philosophy, both ancient and modern, over which we, unfortunately, have only sufficient time to cast a superficial and fleeting glance. We will, however, spend a profitable moment or two on several issues that Klages examined in some detail, for various pivotal disputes that have preoccupied the minds of gifted thinkers from the pre-Socratics down to Nietzsche were also of pre-eminent significance for Klages. 

One of the pre-Socratic thinkers in particular, Heraclitus of Ephesus (c. 536-470 B.C.E.), the "dark one," was looked upon by Ludwig Klages as the founding father of "biocentric," or life-centered, philosophy. Klages and Heraclitus share the conviction that life is ceaseless change, chaos, "eternal flux" [panta rhei]. Both thinkers held that it is not matter that endures through the ceaseless patterns of world-transformation: it is this ceaseless transformation itself that is the enduring process, which alone constitutes this ever-shifting vibrancy, this soaring and fading of appearances, this becoming and passing away of phenomenal images upon which Klages bestowed the name life. Likewise, Klages and Heraclitus were in complete accord in their conviction that natural events transpire in a succession of rhythmical pulsations. For both thinkers, nothing abides without change in the human world, and in the cosmos at large, everything flows and changes in the rhythmical and kaleidoscopic dance that is the cosmic process. We cannot say of a thing: "it is"; we can only say that a thing "comes to be" and that it "passes away." The only element, in fact, in the metaphysics of Heraclitus that will be repudiated by Klages is the great pre-Socratic master’s positing of a "Logos," or indwelling principle of order, and this slight disagreement is ultimately a trivial matter, for the Logos is an item which, in any case, plays a role so exiguous in the Heraclitean scheme as to render the notion, for all practical and theoretical purposes, nugatory as far as the basic thrust of the philosophy of the eternal flux.

Another great Greek philosopher, Protagoras of Abdera (c. 480-410 B.C.E.), is fulsomely acclaimed by Klages as the "father of European psychology and history’s pioneer epistemologist." When Protagoras asserted that the content of perception from moment to moment is the result of the fusion of an external event (the world) with an inner event (the experiencing soul), he was, in effect, introducing the Heraclitean flux into the sphere of the soul. No subsequent psychologist has achieved a greater theoretical triumph. The key text upon which Klages bases this endorsement is Sext. Emp., Pyrrh. I (217): "…matter is in flux, and as it flows additions are made continuously in the place of the effluxions, and the senses are transformed and altered according to the times of life and to all the other conditions of the bodies." (218) "Men apprehend different things at different times owing to their differing dispositions; for he who is in a natural state apprehends those things subsisting in matter which are able to appear to those in a natural state, and those who are in a non-natural state the things which can appear to those in a non-natural state." Thus, the entire sphere of psychical life is a matter of perception, which comprises the act of perception (in the soul) and the content of perception (in the object). This Protagorean insight forms the basis for the distinction between noumenon and phenomenon that will exert such a fructifying influence on Western thought, especially during the period of German Romanticism.

Greek thought has a significant bearing on crucial discoveries that were made by Klages. We have learned that there are two forces that are primordially opposed to each other, spirit and life; in addition, we have seen these forces cannot be reduced to each other, nor can they be reduced to any third term; body and soul constitute the poles of unified life, and it is the mission of spirit to invade that unity, to function as a divisive wedge in order to tear the soul from the body and the body from the soul. Thus, spirit begins its career as the disrupter of life; only at the end of history will it become the destroyer of life. We find a piquant irony in the oft-expressed view that accuses Klages of inventing this "spirit" out of whole cloth, for those who have sneered at his account of the provenance of spirit as a force that enters life from outside the sphere of life, dismissing the very idea from serious consideration by reducing the concept to a caricature ("Klagesian devil," "Klages with his spirit-as-‘space-invader’," and so on), offer quite an irresistible opening for a controversialist’s unbuttoned foil, because such statements reveal, at one and the same time, an ignorance of the history of philosophy in our professors and commentators that should curdle the blood of the most trusting students, as well as an almost incomprehensible inability, or unwillingness, to understand a scrupulously exact and closely-argued text. This intellectual disability possesses, one must confess, a certain undeniable pathos. As it happens, the question as to the provenance of spirit has always enjoyed a prominent position in the history of philosophical speculation (especially in the narrow field of epistemology, i.e., the "theory of cognition"), and the Klagesian viewpoint that has been so ignorantly and persistently excoriated is explicitly drawn from the philosophy of—Aristotle! It was Aristotle, "the master of those who know," who, in discussing the divided substance of man, discovered that he could only account for the origin of one of the components, viz., spirit [Gk. nous], by concluding that spirit had entered man "from outside"! Likewise, the idea of a "tripartite" structure of man, which seems so bizarre to novice students of biocentrism, has quite a respectable pedigree, for, once again, it was Aristotle who viewed man as having three aspects, viz., Psyche-Soma-Nous (Soul-Body-Spirit).

The speculations of the Greek philosophers who belonged to the Eleatic School provided the crucial insights that inspired Klages’s masterful formulation of the doctrine of the "actuality of the images." The specific problem that so exercised the Eleatics was the paradox of motion. The Eleatics insisted that motion was inconceivable, and they proceeded from that paradoxical belief to the conclusion that all change is impossible. One of the Eleatics, Zeno, is familiar to students of the history of philosophy as the designer of the renowned "Zeno’s Paradoxes," the most famous of which is the problem of Achilles and the Tortoise. Zeno provided four proofs against the possibility of motion: 1) a body must traverse in finite time an infinite number of spaces and, therefore, it can never ever begin its journey; 2) here we have Zeno’s application of his motion-theory to the "Achilles" problem that we’ve just mentioned—if Achilles grants a lead or "head start" (analogous to a "handicap") to the tortoise against whom he is competing in a foot-race, he will never be able to overtake the tortoise, because by the time Achilles has reached point A (the starting-point for the tortoise), his opponent has already reached point B. In fact, Achilles will never even reach point A, because before he can traverse the entire distance between his starting-point and point A, he must necessarily cover one-half of that distance, and then one-half of the remaining distance, and so on and so on ad infinitum, as it were! 3) the arrow that has just been launched by the archer is always resting, since it always occupies the same space; and 4) equivalent distances must, at equivalent velocity, be covered in the identical time. But a moving body will pass another body that is moving in the opposite direction (at the identical velocity) twice as quickly as when this body is resting, and this demonstrates that the observed facts contradict the laws of motion. Betraying a certain nervousness, historians of philosophy usually dismiss the Eleatics as superficial skeptics or confused souls, but they never condescend to provide a convincing refutation of their "obvious" or "superficial" errors.

Klages, on the other hand, finds both truth and error in the Eleatics’ position. From the standpoint of an analysis of things, the Eleatics’ are on firm ground in their insistence on the impossibility of change, but from the standpoint of an analysis of appearances, their position is utterly false. Their error arose from the fact that the Greeks of this period had already succumbed to the doctrine that the world of appearances is a world of deception, a reservoir of illusory images. This notion has governed almost every metaphysical system that has been devised by western philosophers down to our own time, and with every passing age, the emphasis upon the world of the things (Noumena) has increased at the expense of the world of appearances (Phenomena). Klages, on the other hand, will solve the "Problem of the Eleatics" by an emphatic demonstration that the phenomenal images are, in fact, the only realities. 

During the Renaissance, in fact, when ominous temblors were heralding the dawn of our "philosophy of the mechanistic apocalypse," there were independent scholars (among whom we find Giordano Bruno and Paracelsus) who speculated at length on the relationship that exists between the macrocosm and the microcosm, as well as on the three-fold nature of man and on the proto-characterological doctrine of the "Temperaments." 

But the key figure in the overturning of the triadic world-view is undoubtedly the French thinker and mathematician René Descartes (1596-1650), who is chiefly responsible for devising the influential schematic dualism of thinking substance and extended substance, which has dominated, in its various incarnations and permutations, the thinking of the vast majority of European thinkers ever since. Descartes explicitly insists that all of our perceptions as well as every "thing" that we encounter must be reduced to the status of a machine; in fact, he even suggests that the whole universe is merely a vast mechanism (terram totumque hunc mundum instar machinæ descripsi). It is no accident, then, that Cartesian thought is devoid of genuine psychology, for, as he says in the Discours de la méthode, man is a mere machine, and his every thought and every movement can be accounted for by means of a purely mechanical explanation. 

Nevertheless, there have been several revolts against Cartesian dualism. As recently as two centuries ago, the extraordinarily gifted group of "Nature Philosophers" who were active during the glory days of German Romanticism, pondered the question of the "three-fold" in publications that can be consulted with some profit even today. 

We have seen that the specifically Klagesian "triad" comprises body-soul-spirit, and the biocentric theory holds that life, which comprises the poles of body and soul, occurs as processes and events. Spirit is an intruder into the sphere of life, an invader seeking always to sever the poles, a dæmonic willfulness that is characterized by manic activity and purposeful deeds. "The body is the manifestation of the soul, and the soul is the meaning of the living body." We have seen that Klages was able to trace proleptic glimpses of this biocentric theory of the soul back to Greek antiquity, and he endeavored for many years to examine the residues of psychical life that survive in the language, poetry, and mythology of the ancient world, in order to interpret the true meanings of life as it had been expressed in the word, cult, and social life of the ancients. He brilliantly clarifies the symbolic language of myth, especially with reference to the cosmogonic Eros and the Orphic Mysteries. He also explores the sensual-imagistic thought of the ancients as the foundation upon which objective cognition is first erected, for it is among the Greeks, and only among the Greeks, that philosophy proper was discovered. During the peak years of the philosophical activity of the Greek thinkers, spirit still serves the interests of life, existing in an authentic relationship with an actuality that is sensuously and inwardly "en-souled" [beseelt]. The cosmological speculation of antiquity reveals a profound depth of feeling for the living cosmos, and likewise demonstrates the presence of the intimate bonds that connect man to the natural world; contemplation is still intimately bound-up with the primordial, elemental powers. Klages calls this "archaic" Greek view of the world, along with its later reincarnations in the history of western thought, the "biocentric" philosophy, and he situates this mode of contemplation as the enemy of the "logocentric" variety, i.e., the philosophy that is centered upon the Logos, or "mind," for mind is the manifestation of spirit as it enters western thought with the appearance of Socrates. From Plato himself, through his "neo-Platonic" disciples of the Hellenistic and Roman phases of antiquity, and down to the impoverished Socratic epigones among the shallow "rationalists" of 17^th and 18^th century Europe, all philosophers who attempt to restore or renew the project of a philosophical "enlightenment," are the heirs of Socrates, for it was Socrates who first made human reason the measure of all things. Socratic rationalism also gave rise to life-alien ethical schemes based upon a de-natured creature, viz., man-as-such. This pure spirit, this distilled ego, seeks to sever all natural and racial bonds, and as a result, "man" prides himself upon being utterly devoid of nobility, beauty, blood, and honor. In the course of time, he will attach his fortunes to the even more lethal spiritual plague known as Christianity, which hides its destructive force behind the hypocritical demand that we "love one’s neighbors." From 1789 onwards, a particularly noxious residue of this Christian injunction, the undifferentiating respect for the ghost known as "humanity," will be considered the hallmark of every moral being.

The heirs of the Socratic tradition have experienced numerous instances of factional strife and re-groupings in the course of time, although the allegiance to spirit has always remained unquestioned by all of the disputants. One faction may call itself "idealistic" because it considers concepts, ideas, and categories to be the only true realities; another faction may call itself "materialistic" because it views "things" as the ultimate constituents of reality; nevertheless, both philosophical factions give their allegiance, nolentes volentes, to the spirit and its demands. Logocentric thought, in fact, is the engine driving the development of the applied science that now rules the world. And by their gifts shall ye know them!

The bitterly antagonistic attitude of Klages towards one of the most illustrious heirs of Socrates, viz., Immanuel Kant, has disturbed many students of German thought who see something perverse and disingenuous in this opposition to the man whom they regard uncritically as the unsurpassed master of German thought. Alfred Rosenberg and the other offical spokesmen of the National Socialist movement were especially enraged by the ceaseless attacks on Kant by Klages and his disciple Werner Deubel. Nevertheless, Kant’s pre-eminence as an epistemologist was disputed as long ago as 1811, when Gottlob Ernst Schulze published his "Critique of Theoretical Philosophy," which was then, and remains today, the definitive savaging of Kant’s system. Klages endorses Schulze’s demonstration that Kant’s equation: actuality = being = concept = thing = appearance (or phenomenon) is utterly false, and is the main source of Kant’s inability to distinguish between perception and representation. Klages adds that he finds it astonishing that Kant should have been able to convince himself that he had found the ultimate ground of the faculty of cognition in—cognition! Klages cites with approval Nietzsche’s "Beyond Good and Evil," in which Kant is ridiculed for attempting to ground his epistemology in the "faculty of a faculty"! Klages shows that the foundation of the faculty of cognition lies not in cognition itself, but in experience, and that the actuality of space and time cannot have its origins in conceptual thought, but solely in the vital event. There can be no experienced colors or sounds without concomitant spatio-temporal characteristics, for there can be no divorce between actual space and actual time. We can have no experience of actual space without sensory input, just as we have no access to actual time without thereby participating in the ceaseless transformation of the phenomenal images. 

Formalistic science and its offspring, advanced technology, can gain access to only a small segment of the living world and its processes. Only the symbol has the power to penetrate all the levels of actuality, and of paramount importance to Klages in his elaborate expositions of the biocentric metaphysics is the distinction between conceptual and symbolic thought. We have previously drawn attention to the fact that drive-impulses are manifest in expressive movements that are, in turn, impelled by the influence of a non-conceptual power that Klages calls the symbol. Likewise, symbolic thinking is a tool that may profitably be utilized in the search for truth, and Klages contrasts symbolic contemplation with the logical, or "formalistic," cognition, but he is at pains to draw our attention to the errors into which an unwarranted, one-sided allegiance to either type of thought can plunge us. Although Klages has been repeatedly and bitterly accused by Marxists and other "progressives" as being a vitriolic enemy of reason, whose "irrationalism" provided the "fascists" with their heaviest ideological artillery, nothing could be further from the truth. On occasions too numerous to inventory, he ridicules people like Bergson and Keyserling who believe that "intuition" lights the royal road to truth. His demolition of the Bergsonian notion of the élan vital is definitive and shattering, and his insistence that such an entity is a mere pseudo-explanation is irrefutable and might have been published in a British philosophical journal. In the end, Klages says, "irrationalism" is the spawn of—spirit! 

Our ability to formulate and utilize concepts as well as our capacity to recognize conceptual identities is sharply opposed to the procedure involved in the symbolic recognition of identities. The recognition of such conceptual identities has, of course, a crucial bearing on the life of the mind, since it is this very ability that functions as the most important methodological tool employed by every researcher involved in the hard sciences. Symbolic identification, on the other hand, differs widely from its conceptual counterpart in that the symbolic type derives its meaning-content from the "elemental similarity of images." Thus, the process of substantive, or conceptual, identification confronts its opposite number in the "identity of essence" of symbolic thought. It is this "identity of essence," as it happens, which has given birth to language and its capacity to embody authentic meaning-content in words. Jean Paul was quite right, Klages tells us, in describing language as a "dictionary of faded metaphors," for every abstraction that is capable of verbal representation arose from the essentiality of the meaning-content of words.

He draws a sharp distinction between the true symbol (Gk. symbolon, i.e., token) and the mere sign whose significance is purely referential. The true meaning of an object resides in its presence, which Klages refers to as an aura, and this aura is directly communicated to a sensory apparatus that resists all purely linguistic attempts to establish formulas of equivalence or "correspondence." The sensual imagination participates in an unmediated actuality, and intuitive insight (Schauung) allows us to gain access to a realm of symbols, which rush into our souls as divine epiphanies. 

Life resists rules, for life is eternal flux. Life is not rigid being, and therefore life will always evade the man-traps of mind, the chains of the concept. Life, comprising the poles of body and soul, is the physical event as phenomenal expression of the soul. There can be no soul-less phenomena and there can be no souls without (phenomenal) appearances, just as there can be no word-less concepts and no words without meaning-content. The physical world is the image-laden appearance (phenomenon) that manifests a psychical substance. When the dæmonic object encounters the receptive, or "pathic," soul, the object becomes a symbol and acquires a "nimbus," which is a pulsating radiance surrounding the moment of becoming. This nimbus is referred to as an "aura" when applied to persons, and both nimbus and aura represent the contribution of the object to the act of perception. 

Non-symbolic, formalistic thought, on the other hand is irreverent, non- contemplative, and can best be characterized as an act that is enacted in the service of spirit, which imperiously and reductively ordains that the act of perception must also be an act of the will. Thus the will attains primacy even over the de-substantialized intellect, and Klages—who has persistently been dismissed as an obscurantist and irrationalist—never misses an opportunity to re-iterate his deep conviction that the essence of spirit is to be located in the will and not in the intellect.

As we’ve seen, Klages holds that the living soul is the antithesis of the spirit. The spirit seeks to rigidify the eternal flux of becoming, just as the soul, in yielding passively to the eternal flux, resists the raging Heracleic spirit and its murderous projects. Body and soul reach the peak of creative vitality when their poles are in equipoise or perfect balance, and the high point of life is reached in the experience of sensuous joy. Spirit’s assault upon the body is launched against this joy, and in waging war against the joy of the body, spirit also wages war against the soul, in order to expel the soul, to make it homeless, in order to annihilate all ecstasy and creativity. Every attempt that has been made by monistic thinkers to derive the assault on life from the sphere of life itself has misfired. Such troublesome anomalies as the supernatural visions and cases of dæmonic possession that transpired during the Middle Ages, as well the crippling cases of hysteria so familiar to psychologists in our own time, can never be satisfactorily explained unless we realize that the souls of these unfortunates were sundered by the acosmic force of spirit, whose very essence is the will, that enemy and murderer of life. The conceptual "Tower of Babylon" reared by monists in their ludicrous efforts to derive the force that wages war against life from life itself is no less absurd than would be the foredoomed attempt of a firefighter to extinguish a blaze by converting a portion of the fire into the water that will extinguish the fire!

There is, however, one privileged example of a manifestation of the will in the service of life, and this occurs when the will is enlisted for the purposes of artistic creation. The will, Klages insists, is incapable of creative force, but when the artist’s intuition has received an image of a god, the will functions "affirmatively" in the destructive assaults of the artist’s chisel upon the marble that is to embody the image of the divinity.

Actuality (the home of the soul) is experienced; being (the home of spirit) is thought. The soul is a passive surrender to the actuality of the appearances. Actuality is an ever-changing process of coming to be and passing away that is experienced as images. Spirit attempts to fix, to make rigid, the web of images that constitutes actuality by means of conceptual thought, whose concrete form is the apparatus of the scientist. Cognition represents identical, unfaltering, timeless being; life is the actuality of experience in time. When one says of time that it "is," as if it were something rigid and identical behind the eternal flux, then time is implicitly stripped of its very essence as that which is "temporal"; it is this temporal essence which is synonymous with becoming and transformation. When one speaks of a thing or a realm that is beyond, i.e., that "transcends," the unmediated, experienced actuality of the living world, one is merely misusing thought in order to introduce a conceptual, existential world in the place of the actual one, which has the inalienable character of transitoriness and temporality.

It is within the "pathic" soul that the categories of space and time originate. Acosmic spirit, on the other hand, invaded the sphere of life from outside the spatio-temporal cosmos. Klages scorns the schemes of philosophical "idealists" who attempt to ground the structures of space and time in some transcendental world. He also distinguishes a biocentric non-rational temporality from "objective" time. Biocentric thought, true to its immanentist ("this-worldly") status, recognizes that the images that pulsate in immanentist time are excluded by their very nature from any participation in objective time, for the images can only live within the instantaneous illumination of privileged moments. Klages savages the platitudes and errors of logocentric thinkers who adhere, with almost manic rigidity, to the conventional scheme of dual-axis temporality. In ordinary logic, time is viewed as radiating from the present (that extension-less hypostasis) backward into time-past and forward into time-to-come: but the whole scheme collapses in a heap as soon as we realize that the future, the "time-to-come," is nothing but a delirious void, a grotesque phantom, a piece of philosophical fiction. Only the past possesses true actuality; only the past is real. The future is merely a pale hallucination flitting about in deluded minds. True time is the relationship that binds the poles of past and present. This union occurs as a rhythmical pulsation that bears the moment’s content into the past, as a new moment is generated, as it were, out of the womb of eternity, that authentic depository of actual time. Time is an unending cycle of metamorphoses utterly unrelated to the processes of "objective" time. True time, cyclical time, is clocked by the moments that intervene between a segment of elapsed time and the time that is undergoing the process of elapsing. Time is the soul of space, just as space is the embodiment of time. Only within actual time can we apprehend the primordial images in their sensuous immediacy. Logic, on the other hand, can only falsify the exchange between living image and receptive soul. 

Let us examine the biological—or, more properly, ethological—implications of the doctrine of "primordial images" [Urbilder]. Bear in mind, of course, the crucial distinction that is drawn by Klages between the science of fact (Tatsachenwissenschaft) and the science of appearances (Erscheinungswissenschaft): factual science establishes laws of causality in order to explain, e.g., physiological processes or the laws of gravitation; thus, we say that factual science examines the causes of things. The science of appearances, on the other hand, investigates the actuality of the images, for images are the only enduring realities. 

The enduring nature of the image can be seen in the example of the generation of a beech-tree. Suppose a beech-tree sheds its seed upon the forest floor, in which it germinates. Can we say of the mother-tree that it lives within the child? Certainly not! We can chop down the mother tree and burn it to ashes, whilst the offspring continues to prosper. Can we say that the matter of which the old tree was composed survives intact within the younger tree? Again, no: for not an atom of the matter that made up the seed from which the young beech grew exists within it. Likewise, not an atom of the matter of which a man’s body is composed at the age of thirty survives from that same man’s body as it was on his tenth birthday. Now, if it is not the matter of which the organism is composed which endures through the ages, what then is it that so endures? "The one possible answer is: an image." Life and its processes occur outside the world of things. On the contrary: life comprises the events in the world of the images.

Thus, we see that the doctrine of the "actuality of the images" [Wirklichkeit der Bilder] holds that it is not things, but images, that are "en-souled" [beseelt], and this proposition, Klages tells us, forms the "key to his whole doctrine of life [Lebenslehre]." Things stand in a closed chain of causality, and there is no reciprocal action between the image and the thing, no parallelism, and no connection, and the attempts that have been undertaken by various philosophers to equate the thing and the image merely serve to rupture the chain of causality in its relevant sphere, i.e., the quantitative scientific method. The receptive soul is turned towards the actuality of the image, and when we say on one occasion that an object is "red," and on another that this same object is "warm," in the first case the reference is to the reality of things, whereas in the second case the reference is to the actuality of images. By using the name of a color, we indicate that we are differentiating between the superficial qualities, or surface attributes, of things; when we say that a colored object is "warm" or "cold," on the other hand, we are pointing to the phenomenal "presence" that has been received by the pathic soul. In fact, there are a whole host of common expressions in which this attribution of subjective, psychical states to visible phenomena occurs. We say, for instance, that red is "hot" and that blue is "cold." In the Vom Wesen des Bewusstseins (1921), a treatise on the nature of consciousness, Klages adduces an astonishingly vast inventory of words that are routinely utilized in descriptions of subjective as well as perceptual phenomena. Someone will speak of his a "bitter" feeling of resentment at some slight or injury. The expression that love is "sweet" occurs in almost every language. Likewise, joy is often described as "bright," just as grief or sorrow are often referred to as "dark." We also have "hot" anger (or the familiar variant, the "‘heat’ of the moment").

Images are the charged powers, or natures, that constitute the basis of all phenomena of cosmic and elemental life as well as of cellular, organic life. All that exists participates in the life of the images. Air, fire, earth, and water; rocks, clouds, planets and suns; plant, animal and man: all of these entities are alive and have souls that share in the life of the cosmos. It isn’t matter that constitutes the stuff of reality, for matter perishes; but the image, which remains alive as it wanders through the rhythmically pulsating cosmos, never dies. It changes through the processes of maturation and growth in the organism, and it transforms itself through the millennia in the species. The images alone have life; the images alone have meaning. The souls of those who now live are images that are temporarily wedded to matter, just as the souls of the dead are images that have been released from matter. The souls of the dead revisit us in their actual form in dreams (Wirklichkeitsform der Traumerscheinung), unconstrained by the limitations of material substance. The souls of the dead are not expelled from the world to live on as immortal "spirits" housed in some transcendent "beyond"; they are, instead, dæmonically vital presences, images that come to be, transform themselves, and vanish into the distance within the phenomenal world that is the only truly existing world.

The human soul recalls the material palpability of the archaic images by means of the faculty that Klages calls "recollection," and his view in this regard invites comparison with the Platonic process of "anamnesis." The recollection of which Klages speaks takes place, of course, without the intervention of the will or the projects of the conscious mind. Klages’s examination of "vital recollection" was greatly influenced by the thought of Wilhelm Jordan, a nineteenth century poet and pioneer Darwinist, whose works were first encountered by the young philosopher at the end of that century. In Jordan’s massive didactic poem Andachten, which was published in 1877, the poet espouses a doctrine of the "memory of corporeal matter." This work had such a fructifying influence on the thought of Klages, that we here give some excerpts: 
 

"It is recollection of her own cradle, when the red stinging fly glues grains of sand into a pointed arch as soon as she feels that her eggs have ripened to maturity. It is recollection of her own food during the maggot-state when the anxious mother straddles the caterpillar and drags it for long distances, lays her eggs in it, and locks it in that prison. The larva of the male stag-beetle feels and knows by recollection the length of his antlers, and in the old oak carves out in doubled dimensions the space in which he will undergo metamorphosis. What teaches the father of the air to weave the exact angles of her net by delicate law, and to suspend it from branch to branch with strings, as firm as they are light, according to her seat? Does she instruct her young in this art? No! She takes her motherly duties more lightly. The young are expelled uncared-for from the sac in which the eggs have been laid. But three or four days later the young spider spreads its little nest with equal skill on the fronds of a fern, although it never saw the net in which its mother caught flies. The caterpillar has no eye with which to see how others knit the silken coffins from which they shall rise again. From whence have they acquired all the skill with which they spin so? Wholly from inherited recollection. In man, what he learned during his life puts into the shade the harvest of his ancestors’ labors: this alone blinds him, stupefied by a learner’s pride, to his own wealth of inherited recollections. The recollection of that which has been done a thousand times before by all of his ancestors teaches a new-born child to suck aptly, though still blind. Recollection it is which allows man in his mother’s womb to fly, within the course of a few months, through all the phases of existence through which his ancestors rose long ago. Inherited recollection, and no brute compulsion, leads the habitual path to the goal that has many times been attained; it makes profoundest secrets plain and open, and worthy of admiration what was merely a miracle. Nature makes no free gifts. Her commandment is to gain strength to struggle, and the conqueror’s right is to pass this strength on to his descendants: her means by which the skill is handed down is the memory of corporeal matter."

The primordial images embody the memory of actual objects, which may re-emerge at any moment from the pole of the past to rise up in a rush of immediacy at the pole of the present. This living world of image-laden actuality is the "eternal flux" [panta rhei] of Heraclitus, and its cyclical transformations relate the present moment to the moments that have elapsed, and which will come around again, per sæcula sæculorum.

Thus we see that the cosmos communicates through the magical powers of the symbol, and when we incorporate symbolic imagery into our inmost being, a state of ecstasy supervenes, and the soul’s substance is magically revitalized (as we have already seen, genuine ecstasy reaches its peak when the poet’s "polar touch of a pathic soul" communicates his images in words that bear the meaning of the actual world within them).

When prehistoric man arrives on the stage, he is already experiencing the incipient stages of the fatal shift from sensation to contemplation. Spirit initiates the campaign of destruction: the receptor-activity is fractured into "impression" and "apperception," and it is at this very point that we witness, retrospectively, as it were, the creation of historical man. Before the dawn of historical man, in addition to the motor-processes that man possessed in common with the animal, his soul was turned towards wish-images. With the shift of the poles, i.e., when the sensory "receptor" processes yield power to the motor "effector" processes, we witness the hypertrophic development of the human ego. Klages is scornful of all egoism, and he repeatedly expressed bitter scorn towards all forms of "humanism," for he regards the humanist’s apotheosis of the precious "individual" as a debased kowtowing before a mere conceptual abstraction. The ego is not a man; it is merely a mask.) In the place of psychical wishes, we now have aims. In the ultimate stages of historical development man is exclusively devoted to the achievement of pre-conceived goals, and the vital impulses and wish-images are replaced by the driving forces, or interests. 

Man is now almost completely a creature of the will, and we recall that it is the will, and not the intellect, that is the characteristic function of spirit in the Klagesian system. However, we must emphasize that the will is not a creative, originating force. Its sole task is to act upon the bearer of spirit, if we may employ an analogy, in the manner of a rudder that purposively steers a craft in the direction desired by the navigator. In order to perform this regulative function, i.e., in order to transform a vital impulse into purposeful activity, the drive impulse must be inhibited and then directed towards the goal in view. 

Now spirit in man is dependent upon the sphere of life as long as it collaborates as an equal partner in the act of perception; but when the will achieves mastery in man, this is merely another expression for the triumph of spirit over the sphere of life. In the fatal shift from life to spirit, contemplative, unconscious feeling is diminished, and rational judgment and the projects of the regulative volition take command. The body’s ultimate divorce from the soul corresponds to the soullessness of modern man whose emotional life has diminished in creative power, just as the gigantic political state-systems have seized total control of the destiny of earth. Spirit is hostile to the demands of life. When consciousness, intellect, and the will to power achieve hegemony over the dæmonic forces of the cosmos, all psychical creativity and all vital expression must perish.

When man is exiled from the realm of passive contemplation, his world is transformed into the empire of will and its projects. Man now abandons the feminine unconscious mode of living and adheres to the masculine conscious mode, just as his affective life turns from bionomic rhythm to rationalized measure, from freedom to servitude, and from an ecstatic life in dreams to the harsh and pitiless glare of daylight wakefulness. No longer will he permit his soul to be absorbed into the elements, where the ego is dissolved and the soul merges itself with immensity in a world wherein the winds of the infinite cosmos rage and roar. He can no longer participate in that Selbsttödung, or self-dissolution, which Novalis once spoke of as the "truly philosophical act and the real beginning of all philosophy." Life, which had been soul and sleep, metamorphoses into the sick world of the fully conscious mind. To borrow another phrase from Novalis (who was one of Klages’s acknowledged masters), man now becomes "a disciple of the Philistine-religion that functions merely as an opiate." (That lapidary phrase, by the way, was crafted long before the birth of the "philosopher" Karl Marx, that minor player on the left-wing of the "Young Hegelians" of the 1840s; many reactionaries in our university philosophy departments still seem to be permanently bogged down in that stagnant morass—yet these old fogies of the spirit insist on accusing Fascists of being the political reactionaries!)

Man finally yields himself utterly to the blandishments of spirit in becoming a fully conscious being. Klages draws attention to the fact that there are in popular parlance two divergent conceptions of the nature of consciousness: the first refers to the inner experience itself; whilst the second refers to the observation of the experience. Klages only concerns himself with consciousness in the second sense of the word. Experiences are by their very nature unconscious and non-purposive. Spiritual activity takes place in a non-temporal moment, as does the act of conscious thought, which is an act of spirit. Experience must never be mistaken for the cognitive awareness of an experience, for as we have said, consciousness is not experience itself, but merely thought about experience. The "receptor" pole of experience is sharply opposed to the "effector" pole, in that the receptive soul receives sensory perceptions: the sense of touch receives the perception of "bodiliness"; the sense of sight receives the images, which are to be understood as pictures that are assimilated to the inner life. Sensation mediates the experience of (physical) closeness, whilst intuition receives the experience of distance. Sensation and intuition comprehend the images of the world. The senses of touch and vision collaborate in sensual experience. One or the other sense may predominate, i.e., an individual’s sense of sight may have a larger share than that of touch in one’s reception of the images (or vice versa), and one receptive process may be in the ascendant at certain times, whilst the other may come to the fore at other times. (In dreams the bodily component of the vital processes, i.e., sensation, sleeps, whilst the intuitive side remains wholly functional. These facts clearly indicate the incorporeality of dream-images as well as the nature of their actuality. Wakefulness is the condition of sensual processes, whilst the dream state is one of pure intuition.)

Pace William James, consciousness and its processes have nothing to do with any putative "stream of consciousness." That viewpoint ignores the fact that the processes that transpire in the conscious mind occur solely as interruptions of vital processes. The activities of consciousness can best be comprehended as momentary, abrupt assaults that are deeply disturbing in their effects on the vital substrata of the body-soul unity.These assaults of consciousness transpire as discrete, rhythmically pulsating "intermittencies" (the destructive nature of spirit’s operations can be readily demonstrated; recall, if you will, how conscious volition can interfere with various bodily states: an intensification of attention may, for instance, induce disturbances in the heart and the circulatory system; painful or onerous thought can easily disrupt the rhythm of one’s breathing; in fact, any number of automatic and semi-automatic somatic functions are vulnerable to spirit’s operations, but the most serious disturbances can be seen to take place, perhaps, when the activity of the will cancels out an ordinary, and necessary, human appetite in the interests of the will. Such "purposes" of the will are invariably hostile to the organism and, in the most extreme cases, an over-attention to the dictates of spirit can indeed eventuate in tragic fatalities such as occur in terminal sufferers from anorexia nervosa).

Whereas the unmolested soul could at one time "live" herself into the elements and images, experiencing their plenitudinous wealth of content in the simultaneous impressions that constitute the immediacy of the image, insurgent spirit now disrupts that immediacy by disabling the soul’s capacity to incorporate the images. In place of that ardent and erotic surrender to the living cosmos that is now lost to the soul, spirit places a satanic empire of willfulness and purposeful striving, a world of those who regard the world’s substance as nothing more than raw material to be devoured and destroyed. 

The image cannot be spoken, it must be lived. This is in sharp contradistinction to the status of the thing, which is, in fact, "speakable," as a result of its having been processed by the ministrations of spirit. All of our senses collaborate in the communication of the living images to the soul, and there are specific somatic sites, such as the eyes, mouth, and genitalia, that function as the gates, the "sacred" portals, as it were, through which the vital content of the images is transmitted to the inner life (these somatic sites, especially the genitalia, figure prominently in the cultic rituals that have been enacted by pagan worshipers in every historical period known to us). 

An Age of Chaos

In the biocentric phenomenology of Ludwig Klages, the triadic historical development of human consciousness, from the reign of life, through that of thought, to the ultimate empire of the raging will, is reflected in the mythic-symbolic physiognomy which finds expression in the three-stage, "triadic," evolution from "Pelasgian" man—of the upper Neolithic and Bronze Ages of pre-history; through the Promethean—down to the Renaissance; to the Heracleic man—the terminal phase that we now occupy, the age to which two brilliant 20^th century philosophers of history, Julius Evola and Savitri Devi, have given the name "Kali Yuga," which in Hinduism is the dark age of chaos and violence that precedes the inauguration of a new "Golden Age," when a fresh cycle of cosmic events dawns in bliss and beauty. 

And it is at this perilous juncture that courageous souls must stiffen their sinews and summon up their blood in order to endure the doom that is closing before us like a mailed fist. Readers may find some consolation, however, in our philosopher’s expressions of agnosticism regarding the ultimate destiny of man and earth. Those who confidently predict the end of all life and the ultimate doom of the cosmos are mere swindlers, Klages assures us. Those who cannot successfully predict such mundane trivialities as next season’s fashions in hemlines or the trends in popular music five years down the road can hardly expect to be taken seriously as prophets who can foretell the ultimate fate of the entire universe! 

In the end, Ludwig Klages insists that we must never underestimate the resilience of life, for we have no yardstick with which to measure the magnitude of life’s recuperative powers. "All things are in flux." That is all. 
 
 

*   *   *

 
 
 

A NOTE ON AUSTRIAN, OR "CLASSICAL," THEORY AS BIOCENTRIC ECONOMICS

ALTHOUGH Ludwig Klages was one of the most rigorous libertarian thinkers in the history of the West, he can scarcely be said to have developed anything like a full-fledged economic theory of a biocentric cast. Nevertheless, his marked and life-long hostility to state-worship of any kind, when conjoined with his withering attitude towards all attempts to interpret living processes by means of formalistic mathematics, are completely consistent with the doctrines of the Austrian Classical School, which was founded at the end of the 19^th Century by Carl Menger and Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk. The Austrian School subsequently flourished in America under the Austrian-born Ludwig von Mises and his most brilliant disciple, New York’s own Murray Rothbard, who, in addition to writing the dazzling formal treatise on economic theory entitled "Man, Economy, and State," was a brilliant essayist and gifted teacher.

The lecture entitled "Profit and Loss," which von Mises delivered to the Mont Pelerin Society in September, 1951, seems to proclaim the quintessentially biocentric version of economic theory: 
 

"The average man lacks the imagination to realize that the conditions of life and action are in a continual flux. As he sees it, there is no change in the external objects that constitute his well-being. His world-view is static and stationary. It mirrors a stagnating environment. He knows neither that the past differed from the present nor that there prevails uncertainty about future things...

"The imaginary construction of an evenly rotating economy is an indispensable tool of economic thinking. In order to conceive the function of profit and loss, the economist constructs the image of a hypothetical, although unrealizable, state of affairs in which nothing changes, in which tomorrow does not differ at all from today and in which no maladjustments can arise…The wheel turns spontaneously as it were. But the real world in which men live and have to work can never duplicate the hypothetical world of this mental makeshift.

"Now one of the main shortcomings of the mathematical economists is that they deal with this evenly rotating economy—they call it the static state—as if it were something really existing. Prepossessed by the fallacy that economics is to be treated with mathematical methods, they concentrate their efforts upon the anlysis of static states which, of course, allow a description in sets of simultaneous differential equations. But this mathematical treatment virtually avoids any reference to the real problems of economics. It indulges in quite useless mathematical play without adding anything to the comprehension of the problems of human acting and producing. It creates the misunderstanding as if the analysis of static states were the main concern of economics. It confuses a merely ancillary tool of thinking with reality."

 

Concerning Louis-Ferdinand Céline

Concerning Louis-Fredinand Celine

By Arno Breker  / http://meaus.com/

In the year 1940, I made the acquaintance of Louis-Ferdinand Celine in Paris at the German Institute. At that time he was considered among the most important writers of France. I knew his literary work; he, my sculptural work.

Celine was one of those who, notwithstanding existing differences between France and Germany, loved and understood my homeland. "The ultimate reconciliation and cooperation of our two countries--those are the things that matter most," he said to me during our first meeting.

The desire to do his portrait seized me at once. His facial features, strongly pronounced and enlivened, fascinated me. There was a physical peculiarity about him; this was the discrepancy between the volume of his head and the leanness of his neck, which was emanciated. A discrepancy which I wanted to make up for by means of a neck scarf, just as he always wore toward the end of his life.

Before the war I found Celine to be very elegant. And only afterward did he assume the behavior of a Bohemian of the 19th century. As everyone knows, he was surrounded by a number of cats and dogs and occupied in Meudon a large building that had already begun to decay a little. I visited him there one more time shortly before his death in 1961.

The atmosphere of his apartment was typically French. The furniture and objects that were around him, in their permanent appearance, had seemed for decades to be torpid and immovable. Dust and the patina of time began to cover them with a strange stillness.

On this afternoon Celine took a long look into my eyes, spoke very little, and really seemed to have said everything he had to say in his books. The few words he did say concerned human existence, its stay on earth, and eternity.

As I was leaving, Celine said to me, "This is not 'goodbye'! We shall remain." Taking his hand, I answered him full of emotion, "My dear, my great friend, so be it."

 

 Copyright 1999 Museum of European Art

Céline et l'homme européen

« Céline et l’homme européen »

[1964]

Reproduit dans le "Bulletin célinien", n°262, mars 2005

 

Que pensait un jeune nationaliste européen de Céline dans les années soixante ? On peut s’en faire une idée en lisant cet article publié en 1964 dans la revue de Jean Thiriart (1922-1992), L’Europe communautaire. Céline n’échappait alors pas à une lecture très politisée de son œuvre. Un document.

 

   On a voulu tuer Céline, on a voulu faire taire ce corps et cette âme qui clamaient à la face du monde le dégoût qu’ils avaient des hommes, on a voulu éteindre cet incendie de vérité qui s’est allumé en 1932. Ils ont échoué dans leur entreprise criminelle ; aujourd’hui, plus que jamais, Céline revit en nous. Des livres, des études ont été consacrés au prophète de la décadence occidentale. La Pléiade lui consacre un ouvrage... Céline occupe dans l’histoire de la littérature européenne, avec Drieu La Rochelle et Brasillach, une place incontestable.

 

   Dans son œuvre, quelle est la place de l’Europe ; de cette Europe qu’avec beaucoup d’écrivains et d’hommes politiques, il prévoyait et espérait ?

 

   Le problème ici n’est pas de découvrir subitement un Céline politique : il avoue lui-même, dans plusieurs ouvrages et interviews, que seule la médecine l’intéressait et que, par ce biais, il a débouché dans un monde en folie, dans une France décadente, dans une Europe avortée. Plus qu’une conception politique, Céline avait de l’homme européen une conception quasi médicale ; plus que le continent, c’était l’homme qu’il voulait réformer.

   Dans D’un château l’autre il fustige les Français : « La sensibilité européenne s’émeut que pour tout ce qu’est bien anti-elle ! ennemis avérés ! tout son cœur ! masochisse à mort ! » Il prouvait par cette phrase qu’avant comme après la guerre, sa volonté de réforme était demeurée intacte.

 

De Bardamu au surhomme

 

   La première qualité que nous, Européens, devons reconnaître à Céline, c’est d’avoir dépeint magnifiquement et réellement nos défauts, vices et manies. Dès le Voyage au bout de la nuit, la fresque est esquissée ; à travers Bardamu, c’est le fond le plus lâche, timoré et vicieux de l’homme européen qu’il dépeint ; il en fait son credo, sa raison même de vivre : « Quand on sera au bord du trou faudra pas faire les malins, nous autres, mais faudra pas oublier non plus, faudra raconter tout sans changer un mot de ce qu’on a vu de plus vicieux chez les hommes et puis poser sa chique, puis descendre. Ça suffit comme boulot pour une vie tout entière » (Voyage au bout de la nuit).

 

   Le Français y est malmené, secoué comme un fétu de paille, submergé sous un flot de reproches assénés par une plume au vitriol. Mais l’homme malmené du Voyage au bout de la nuit à Nord n’est pas seulement le Français, c’est l’Allemand, l’Anglais, l’Américain... En un mot, l’homme blanc. Et si Céline s’emporte à propos des vices proprement spécifiques aux Français (le vin, poison national), il n’en néglige pas pour autant les tares de tous les autres Blancs. C’est cet homme qu’il attaque à travers des pages mouillées de bave rageuse, cet homme décadent. Bardamu – car c’est lui – si faible et si timoré dont le seul courage – mais un courage héroïque, propre à celui qui, se souvenant de sa grandeur passée se sent retomber dans la fange –, est une lucidité effroyable et cynique de son état. Bardamu, mais un Bardamu sans courage, c’est l’homme européen d’aujourd’hui, timoré, exclusivement jouisseur, négrophile, ayant perdu la fierté de son passé et de sa race ; et Céline de vaticiner une apocalyptique humanité de bâtards négrifiés, tous « ahuris par les Juifs au saccage, hypnotisés, dépersonnalisés, dressés aux haines absurdes, fratricides... » (L’École des cadavres). Ces Français, ces Européens, le docteur Céline les a bien connus, tâtés, diagnostiqués : foies cirrhosés, estomacs dilatés, yeux glauques... C’étaient eux, la race des seigneurs. Plus qu’un autre, il a réveillé les Aryens de leur torpeur à grands coups de gifles, il secouait leur apathie, leur incroyable naïveté, leur instinct de lucre et de jouissance...

   Mais mieux qu’un Savonarole, Céline a tracé le chemin de la Réforme.

 

Le Procès de l’Humanité

 

   Ce n’est pas tout de ramener l’homme à ce qu’il est vraiment, encore faut-il comparer les hommes entre eux, faire le procès de l’humanité, des races. Le mérite de Céline est d’avoir été scrupuleusement objectif ; s’il tempête contre les juifs, il lance à l’Aryen des épithètes peu flatteuses. Mais si l’Aryen est décadent, à qui la faute ? À son insatiable appétit de jouissance et, écrit Céline, si l’Aryen est devenu tellement jouisseur, la faute en revient aux juifs qui, poussés par le démon de l’argent, feraient n’importe quoi pour amener les gentils à acheter leurs marchandises et leurs idées. Le juif pour Céline est l’obsession, la hantise. Rendus responsables de tous les maux de l’humanité, Céline les aurait inventés s’ils n’avaient pas existé, tant ils nous apparaissent comme de parfaits boucs émissaires,  trop  parfaits  même.  Le  mot « juif », à force d’être écrit et martelé dans toutes les phrases, finit par devenir le symbole même de la décadence occidentale... Il n’émeut plus, et ce mot, dépassant son sens étymologique, constitue en fin d’analyse les quatre lettres symboliques de décadence, sans pour autant  qu’il faille  conclure  que le  mot « juif » signifie encore israélite.

 

   C’est à travers ces diatribes anti-juives qu’il fouette les Français, les Européens... Peuples paresseux, lâches, ahuris par l’argent, l’envie, l’alcool. « La France est extrêmement vendue, foie, nerf, cerveau, rognons aux grands intérêts vinicoles ». Peuple gourmand aussi, qui règle ses conflits diplomatiques autour d’une table bien garnie et dont les ministres promènent à l’envi leurs grosses bedaines satisfaites. Peuple où tout est conçu pour les sens... peu pour l’esprit. Et par-dessus cet amas de vices, viennent se greffer la haine et la méfiance, tous les hommes se méfient les uns des autres, construisent leur petit monde personnel, écartent le voisin. « Faire confiance aux hommes, c’est déjà se tuer un peu » (Voyage au bout de la nuit). Voilà pour le juif, voilà pour l’Aryen.

 

   Le nègre ne hante pas Céline : les Noirs, il les a connus tout au long de ses périples africains, nus et sauvages ; il a décrit leur situation dans les colonies avec réalisme et sincérité... ce qu’il n’aimait pas chez eux, a-t-il écrit dans Bagatelles pour un massacre, c’était surtout le bruit du tam-tam.

 

   Il ne pouvait deviner avant la guerre, la décolonisation, la « civilisation » ultra-rapide des fils de l’anthropophage. Il ne les prend guère au sérieux... Il a décrit avec sincérité certains mauvais traitements auxquels ils étaient soumis sous le drapeau français, il a fort bien raconté la vie des coloniaux, ces hommes d’Occident qui se décomposaient corps et âme sous le soleil meurtrier d’Afrique et qui se défoulaient parfois sur le nègre. Céline néglige le Noir, ce dernier ne peut être à l’heure actuelle un facteur de décadence, du moins tant qu’il reste en Afrique.

   Reste le Jaune : « Le jaune a toutes les qualités pour devenir le roi de la terre ». Céline ne cache pas l’admiration qu’il porte aux Asiatiques, il admire leur ascétisme, leur calme, leur impassibilité stoïque ; mais il les craint. Avant sa mort, le Jaune était devenu son obsession ultime, il voyait les hordes asiatiques jaillir en Europe et trucider allègrement les Aryens. Ce devait être sa dernière hantise.

 

Vers une ascèse européenne

 

   « On a honte de ne pas être plus riche en cœur et en tout et aussi d’avoir jugé quand même l’humanité plus  basse qu’elle  n’est vraiment au fond ». Après  avoir fait un procès terrible de l’humanité, Céline s’apaise et accorde aux hommes des qualités et des élans qui existent, cachés certes, mais qui, découverts, peuvent conduire un être vers le sommet de ses réalisations.

 

   L’ascétisme, voilà un grand mot pour définir une doctrine célinienne des hommes, ne voyons pas dans ce mot, somme toute fort bizarre, une forme mystique, a fortiori métaphysique ; Céline ne rêve pas de l’Européen ascète comme un Chinois ni comme un moine contemplatif, mais plutôt comme un guerrier nordique qui sait affronter la vie dans les meilleures conditions physiques et morales. L’homme devrait être une espèce de chevalier celtique qui sur son cheval se dirige dans une plaine battue par les vents, tout droit, l’œil fixé sur son but et indifférent à la tempête.

 

   Il ne faut pas non plus croire que l’homme européen devrait être « la belle bête sauvage » de Nietzsche, ou un surhomme en puissance ; ce serait se tromper lourdement sur les buts réformateurs de Céline. Buts qui ne visent qu’à rendre à l’homme une place conforme à ce qu’il est en réalité. Il n’y a pas de dépassement de la nature humaine souhaité par L.-F. Céline.

 

   Car s’il est vrai que l’homme est descendu bien bas, que l’Européen est menacé dans son existence même, il ne peut être sauvé qu’en vivant en conformité avec sa nature de mortel ; seul, écrit Céline, un ascétisme bien compris (un ascétisme à la Labiche, pour l’imiter) permettra à l’homme de contrôler et son corps et son esprit. Écoutons Céline répondre à l’écrivain belge Marc Hanrez qui lui demandait si, selon lui, la race future de l’humanité serait une race d’ascètes. « Ah, uniquement une race d’ascètes ! Des ascètes qui feraient une cure effroyable pour éliminer toutes ces tendances vers la tripaille... Autrement, c’est un monstre. On essayerait d’élever des cochons comme on élève les hommes ; personne n’en voudrait ; des cochons alcooliques ! Nous sommes plus mal élevés que les cochons, beaucoup plus mal élevés que les chiens, les canards ou les poules... Aucune race vivante ne résisterait au régime que suivent les humains. »

 

   Les fondements de cette doctrine de l’ascétisme se retrouvent à partir des pamphlets dont le style si différent des romans est lui-même un instrument éducateur. Comparer Bagatelles pour un massacre à La France juive d’Edouard Drumont serait comparer un volcan à un verre d’eau bouillante. Par le style même, Céline arrache le lecteur de sa béatitude bourgeoise, il le force à suivre, bon gré mal gré, un flot impétueux, dont les remous sont autant de coups infligés aux consciences reposées.

   C’est d’ailleurs la grande révolution des lettres françaises de ce siècle que ce style dont l’originalité et la subtilité ne sont plus à décrire... Car s’il y eut de grands moralistes, de grands réformateurs, force nous est de constater que pas un seul n’a remué autant ses lecteurs que Céline, pas un seul ne put être lu à la fois par l’ouvrier et l’intellectuel, aucun n’a osé appeler les choses par leur nom. La conception de l’homme chez Martin Heidegger – toute considération métaphysique mise à part – et chez Louis-Ferdinand Céline se rejoignent. L’existence de Bardamu, à cette différence près que le docteur Bardamu refuse de réaliser toutes ses possibilités, est que son long voyage au bout de la nuit n’est éclairé par aucun éclair de puissance extrahumaine.

 

La fraternité européenne

 

   « Haïr les Allemands est un acte contre nature ». Cette phrase de Céline que de Gaulle serait normalement le dernier à désapprouver est significative de l’esprit européen de son auteur. Voyageur, l’écrivain a connu l’Europe, l’Amérique et la Russie, il a vécu en Allemagne, en Angleterre, en Scandinavie. Spécialiste des hommes, Céline a compris combien au sein d’un groupe déterminé, les Européens par exemple, les différences artificielles s’estompent. C’est au nom de sa connaissance profonde de l’Européen qu’il se refusera à une guerre voulue – selon lui – par les juifs et les francs- maçons. Sa réponse à Maurras qui préconisait : « Ni Berlin ni Moscou » est significative, elle aussi, de son esprit européen... « Ce n’est pas “Ni Berlin, ni Moscou”, c’est “Avec les juifs ou contre les juifs' » (L’École des cadavres).

 

   Ayant vécu la guerre de 1914, il se permet tout contre elle, lui crache à la figure, l’engueule comme un charretier. Pol Vandromme devait écrire que Céline parle de la guerre non pas avec son cœur, mais avec ses entrailles. « Les Aryens d’Europe n’ont plus trente-six cartes dans leur jeu, deux seulement. La “carte anglaise”, et ils cèdent une fois de plus à l’Intelligence Service, se jetant une fois de plus dans le massacre franco-allemand, dans la plus pharamineuse, fulgurante, exorbitante, folle boucherie qu’on aura jamais déclenchée dans le cours des siècles (peut-être pour la dernière fois : les jaunes sont aux portes !) » (L’École des cadavres). Pourtant, contrairement aux pacifistes de nos jours, qui se prostitueraient au premier envahisseur venu, Céline, après avoir été le chantre du pacifisme, ira s’engager comme volontaire en 1939, opposant ainsi un démenti formel à ceux qui l’accusaient de lâcheté.

 

   Il désire ardemment une Europe « des Aryens » comme il l’appelle, ce qui dénote quand même un sens européen quelque peu obsessionnel.

 

   Mais ce qu’il désire par-dessus tout, c’est la fraternité européenne ; cette fraternité sans cesse violée le long de l’histoire par les caprices et les désirs des « grands » de ce monde. « Nous sommes séparés de l’Allemagne depuis 1100 ans de merde, de conneries furieuses, 1100 ans de mensonges sans arrêt, de trémolos ignobles, de palliatifs vaseux, de rémissions louches, de revanches toujours plus infectes, de solutions pourries » (L’École des cadavres).

 

   Et le voilà à vaticiner sur une Europe future franco-allemande. « Ensemble on commandera l’Europe » (L’École des cadavres), une Europe où toutes les haines «européennes seront sublimées contre les allogènes. Il faut de la haine aux hommes pour vivre, soit ! c’est indispensable, c’est évident, c’est l eur  nature.  Ils  n’ont  qu’à l’avoir pour les juifs, cette haine, pas pour les Allemands » (L’École des cadavres).«La guerre franco-allemande est la condition même, l’industrie suprême de l’Angleterre. C’est la prospérité anglaise toute cuite » (L’École des cadavres).

 

   Non, Céline ne comprenait pas fort bien toute la complexité du problème européen en 1939, et ce n’est certes pas en 1964 que nous devrions appliquer les idées d’un homme de génie, mais dont le « canular » était une raison d’être... Qu’on s’entende bien, je ne conteste pas un certain sens politique à Céline, mais de par son esprit sectaire et exclusif, Céline a faussé, consciemment ou non, beaucoup de données.

 

    Il n’empêche que les pages consacrées à la réconciliation européenne restent des exemples d’une volonté prête à tout faire pour réaliser cette union tant attendue.

 

La morale de l’histoire

 

    Et maintenant que ce souffle prodigieux qui ébranla l’Europe est tombé, que devons-nous attendre de celui qui écrivait dans Les beaux draps : « Une société civilisée, ça ne demande qu’à retourner à rien, déglinguer, redevenir sauvage, c’est un effort perpétuel, un redressement infini... »

   Tout d’abord, une grande leçon.

 

   Les prédictions de Céline se sont réalisées : depuis 1945, l’Europe agonise ; battue, divisée, des soldats étrangers se partagent son territoire, son indépendance économique et politique a disparu. À quand ce qui lui reste d’indépendance culturelle ? Partout nous avons été humiliés, en Algérie où nos soldats quasi vainqueurs ont amené le drapeau sous les huées de la foule et pour la plus grande gloire du communisme et du capitalisme international ; au Congo où nos femmes, nos filles, nos hommes ont été violés ou massacrés, alors que nous ministres traînant leurs gros ventres bégayaient vaguement à l’ONU des paroles de pleutres, de masochistes, de sous-hommes. Partout nous avons été chassés comme de la vermine sans que nous ayons accompli un geste d’homme fort, nous avons quitté le monde, honteux de nous-mêmes et de notre passé... Nous avons laissé au communisme et à l’américanisme l’Indochine française, l’Algérie française, le Congo belge, le Goa portugais, demain peut-être nous leur donnerons l’Angola portugais, l’Afrique du Sud européenne... À moins qu’un ultime sursaut de défense ne vienne nous tirer de notre béate torpeur – de notre merde, dirait Céline.

 

   Nos pays eux-mêmes sont en décomposition : putrides, ils sombrent dans la fange d’un démocratisme honteux et dégradant et dont la démagogie est le plus bel appel à la jouissance matérialiste et concupiscente que nous ayons eu en 2000 ans de Gloire et d’Histoire !

 

   Et que dire alors du peuple européen ahuri par la course à l’argent, par la furie de la jouissance qui le pousse à toutes les prostitutions, à tous les marchandages, à toutes les hontes possibles ?

   Que reste-t-il d’une jeunesse dévirilisée, « yéyétisée », ivre de « vivre », croupissant dans le bourbier du matérialisme jouisseur et despote qui règne en maître actuellement ?

 

   Il faut que le message de Céline résonne à nouveau, tel un oracle à nos oreilles, il faut que se relève de son ignominie l’homme d’Occident déchu. Le message de Céline doit être pour nous un message d’espoir et non le glas de notre destin.

   Revenons à un style de vie plus naturel, adapté à notre tempérament et à nos espérances. Retrouvons l’exacte mesure des choses et des hommes…

   Sinon, le jour de notre décadence, l’énorme rire dionysiaque et prophétique de Louis-Ferdinand Céline nous poursuivra jusque dans notre tombeau.

 

Georges DOMINIQUE

(L’Europe communautaire, 1964)

CD - Ludwig Klages: Das Problem des Menschen

CD - Ludwig Klages: Das Problem des Menschen  

 

Bestellungen: http://www.bublies-verlag.de/

Ludwig Klages
Das Problem des Menschen
Originaltonaufnahmen 1949/1952

1. Das Problem des Menschen (1952) 15:35

2. Grundlagen der Charakterkunde (1949) 28:37

Herausgegeben von Thomas Knoefel und Richard Reschika
Audio-CD, 45 Minuten

Der Lebensphilosoph Ludwig Klages (1872-1956) gehört zu den leidenschaftlichsten und zugleich umstrittensten deutschen Denkern des 20. Jahrhunderts. Als philosophische Prophetenfigur, als konservativer Revolutionär, als radikaler Vordenker der ökologischen Bewegung, aber auch als innovativer Psychologe, welcher der Charakterologie und Ausdruckskunde, insbesondere der anrüchigen Graphologie, wissenschaftliche Geltung verschaffte, hat Klages jenseits des akademischen Mainstream ein Werk von beeindruckender Vielfalt und Spannweite hinterlassen. Dieses kulminiert in dem epochalen Opus magnum "Der Geist als Widersacher der Seele".
Seine rigorose Kultur- und Zivilisationskritik kreist um die Gefährdung des Menschen durch die zersetzende Übermacht des Geistes, das heißt vor allem des rationalen Zweckdenkens, das sich in lebensfeindlicher Wissenschaft und Technik, devotem Mammonsdienst, psychischer Selbstverstümmelung sowie weitreichender Umweltzerstörung äußert.
In den beiden Radioessays "Grundlagen der Charakterkunde" (1949) sowie "Das Problem des Menschen" (1952), den einzig überlieferten Originaltonaufnahmen von Klages, kommt der wissenschaftlich argumentierende Psychologe zu Wort, kommt aber auch jenes Pathos hörbar zum Ausdruck, das für dessen Persönlichkeit und Denken prägend war: ausgefeilte Essays, mit denen Klages gegen die mathematisierenden, die Seele gleichsam austreibenden Tendenzen der akademischen Psychologie seiner Zeit, zum Beispiel in Form der experimentellen Psychologie, der Psychoanalyse oder des Behaviorismus, anschrieb. Kurzum, ein zu Unrecht vergessenes, an originellen und fruchtbaren Denkanstößen überreiches Kapitel der Psychologiegeschichte.

"Klages erinnert an einen protestantischen Pastor mit dem Temperament eines Condottiere: herausragend, explosiv, redegewandt und prophetisch, geheimnisvoll und zugleich hochgebildet. Er ist der am meisten verwirklichte Mensch, dem ich bisher begegnet bin. Dieser Mann gleicht einem Magier, seinem Charme kann sich niemand entziehen." (E.M. Cioran)

Stimmen der Kritik:

"Welch schneidende, harte, barsche, kalte und trotzdem nicht dialektfreie Stimme... Gratulation zu dieser Produktion!" (Ulrich Holbein)

"Die Stimme ist die Überraschung. Gestehen wir es nur, daß sie zunächst fatal an die Lehrer aus der "Feuerzangenbowle" erinnert, mit einem wahrhaft unerhörten, elementarisch gerollten "r", mit einer liebenswürdigen Unkenntnis der englischen Aussprache - Klages, 1872 geboren, kam aus einer Welt, in der das Englische noch nicht selbstverständliche Weltsprache war -, und so vernehmen wir denn die Lehre vom Gegensatz zwischen "bösiness" und Seele. Man kann diese Stimme aber auch ganz anders hören: Dann wirkt sie als Zeichen einer großen inneren Sammlung des Denkers. Sie ist eigentümlich artikuliert, melodisch und dabei ganz offensichtlich das Ergebnis eines bewußten Stilwillens. Es handelt sich hier um zwei Radiovorträge: Zusammen geben sie einen guten Einblick in die Grundideen von Klages und die Ergebnisse seiner Forschungen. Diese gingen vom "Ausdruck" aus, um einer Psychologie Paroli bieten zu können, die sich, um 1900, als Klages seine Theorie zu entwerfen begann, immer stärker an den naturwissenschaftlichen Methoden orientieren wollte. Aber auch zur älteren Physiognomik Lavaters wollte Klages nicht einfach zurückkehren. Die Erforschung des Ausdrucks sollte sich weniger auf feststehende Merkmale richten und dafür ein dynamisches Moment gewinnen, indem sie dem Rhythmus der Ausdrucksbewegungen folgte. Hier war vor allem Charles Darwin sein Vorläufer, der den Ausdruck der Gemütsbewegungen beim Tier und beim Menschen als Forschungsthema entdeckt hatte. Für solche vorbewußten, aus dem vitalen Kern stammenden Ausdrucksgestalten muß Klages ein großartiges Sensorium gehabt haben; man hat den Beweis dafür in der vielfältigen Rezeption, die er gefunden hat, und bei der das überraschende Zeugnis jenes von Sergej Eisenstein darstellt, der sich in seiner Regiearbeit immer wieder, nicht unkritisch, mit Klages' Ausdruckskunde beschäftigte. Und natürlich wäre die gesamte neuere Graphologie undenkbar ohne die Begriffe, die Klages zur Deutung der Handschrift beisteuerte. Diese waren aber keine Zufallsfunde. Hinter ihnen stand begründend eine zivilisationskritische Metaphysik, ja eine heidnische Anschauung vom Wesen des Menschen, deren Formulierung sein Lebenswerk darstellte. Klages unterschied zwischen dem Bewußtsein, dem Geist und dem Willen einerseits und der Spontaneität des Lebens auf der anderen Seite. Wenn Nietzsche in der "priesterlichen Moral" das Grundproblem entdeckt hatte, so verschärfte Klages diesen Gedanken zu einer Schuldgeschichte des Christentums, der alle zerstörerischen Wirkungen der technischen Welt aufgebürdet wurden. In der konzentriertesten, abgeklärtesten Version kann man diese Gedanken nun von ihm selbst hören." (Lorenz Jäger, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung)

La contribution à Il Regime Fascista de Friedrich Everling

 

Archives de SYNERGIES EUROPEENNES - 1991

 

 

Robert Steuckers:

 

La contribution à Il Regime Fascista de Friedrich Everling

 

Ecrivain et théoricien monarchiste, Friedrich Everling, né en 1891 à Sankt-Goar et décédé en 1958 à Menton, est le fils du théologien protestant et homme politique Otto Everling. Juriste de formation, il embrasse d'abord la carrière diplomatique; mais fidèle à ses convictions monarchistes, il refuse de prêter serment à la République de Weimar et devient avocat. De 1924 à 1933, il est député deutschnationaler  au Reichstag et y défend les thèses légitimistes les plus tranchées. A la même époque, il édite la revue Konservative Monatsschrift. 

 

En 1933, sa carrière de député prend fin et il est nommé Conseiller supérieur au tribunal administratif de Berlin. Son œuvre comprend une définition de l'idéologie conservatrice, une prise de position dans la querelle des drapeaux (or-rouge-noir ou noir-blanc-rouge?), une défense du principe monarchique, des études sur les états (Stände)  dans l'Etat post-républicain, la structuration organique du «Troisième Reich» (non entendu, au départ, dans le sens national-socialiste, bien qu'Everling fera son aggiornamento)  qui prendra le relais du Second Reich défunt, etc.

 

La signature de Friedrich Everling apparaît le 18 avril 1934 dans Il regime fascista.  Son article, intitulé «I Capi» (= Les Chefs), part d'une réflexion de Heinrich von Treitschke sur les personnalités fortes qui font l'histoire: «Ce sont les personnalités et les hommes qui font l'histoire, des hommes comme Luther, comme Frédéric le Grand et Bismarck. Cette grande vérité héroïque restera toujours vraie. Comment se fait-il que de tels hommes apparaissent, chacun dans la forme adaptée à son temps, voilà qui, pour nous mortels, demeurera toujours une énigme».  Rappelant que cette phrase avait été écrite de la propre main de Mussolini sur un portrait du Duce offert à l'un de ses amis, Everling cherche à démontrer que ce ne sont pas les masses qui font l'histoire et forment les Etats, mais que l'idéal du Chef domine l'histoire. Se référant ensuite à Gustave Le Bon, auteur de La psychologie des foules, Everling rappelle que ces hommes qui font l'histoire sont des hommes de forte foi et de «long vouloir». Les Chefs ont pour moyens d'action l'affirmation, la répétition (l'unique mode rhétorique sérieux d'après Napoléon) et la volonté ou la capacité de transmettre quelque chose, une suggestion par exemple. A la base du pouvoir exercé par les Chefs, poursuit Everling dans son article d'Il Regime fascista,  toujours en se référant à Le Bon, se trouve le prestige, mode de domination naturel qui paralyse les facultés critiques d'autrui, stupéfie, suscite le respect. Everling prouve ensuite qu'il est lecteur d'Evola, en citant cette phrase d'Imperialismo pagano,  qui définit le Chef: «[Il est d'] une nature qui s'impose non par la violence, non par l'avidité ou par l'habilité à conduire des esclaves, mais en vertu du caractère irrésistible des formes qui transcendent la vie». Evoquant les études de Max Weber sur les figures charismatiques de la politique, Everling rejoint la critique du grand sociologue allemand qui parlait des «chefs par profession mais sans vocation»; Everling, lui, dit préférer parler des «chefs à salaire». En conclusion à cet article consacré à la nature et aux vertus du Chef, Everling écrit: «L'idéal du Chef ne peut être véritablement compris que par ceux qui, dans une certaine mesure, le portent déjà en eux. Reconnaître un tel idéal, pour un peuple, signifie un progrès pour le peuple entier. A la suite des nations qui marchent déjà dans ce sens  —l'Allemagne et l'Italie—  les autres embrayeront le pas».  

La contribution à Il Regime Fascista de Wilhelm Stapel

 

 

Archives de SYNERGIES EUROPEENNES - 1991

Robert Steuckers:

La contribution à Il Regime Fascista de Wilhelm Stapel

 

Wilhelm Stapel (1882-1954) est l'une des figures-clé de la Révolution Conservatrice allemande. Fils d'un horloger, assistant de librairie, Stapel termine en 1910/11 des études d'histoire de l'art. En 1911, il collabore au journal libéral de gauche Der Beobachter  (Stuttgart). En 1911, il adhère au Dürerbund  (Association Dürer). De 1912 à 1916, il est rédacteur à la revue Kunstwart.  En 1919, il fonde la revue Deutsches Volkstum  qu'il dirigera jusqu'en 1938. Pour Armin Mohler (in Die konservative Revolution in Deutschland 1918-1932,  Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt, 3ième éd., 1989, pp. 410-411), Stapel est «un mélange curieux de systématiste et de polémiste; sa plume était l'une des plus craintes de la droite». Ses rapports avec les autorités du IIIième Reich ont été tendus. En 1938, il est mis au ban de l'univers journalistique; sa revue Deutsches Volkstum  cesse de paraître. L'objectif de Stapel était de donner une ancrage théologique au conservatisme allemand. En témoigne son ouvrage principal: Der christliche Staatsmann. Eine Theologie des Nationalismus  (Hanseatische Verlagsanstalt, Hambourg, 1932). Après la disparition de Deutsches Volkstum,  Stapel, contraint et forcé, a dû adopter un profil bas et faire toutes les concessions d'usage à la langue de bois nationale-socialiste. Malgré cela, son ouvrage principal, après 1938, Die drei Stände. Versuch einer Morphologie des deutschen Volkes (Hanseatische Verlagsanstalt, Hambourg, 1941), fait montre d'une originalité profonde. Comme l'indique le titre, Stapel tente de dresser une typologie du peuple allemand, distinguant trois strates majeures: les paysans, les bourgeois et les ouvriers.

La contribution de Wilhelm Stapel à Il Regime fascista, intitulée «Nazione, Spirito, Impero» (16 mars 1934), est composée, presque dans sa totalité, d'extraits de Der christliche Staatsmann.  Ce qui laisse à penser que c'est Evola lui-même qui a choisi, peut-être sans autorisation, des extraits du livre et les a juxtaposés dans un ordre cohérent.

Ce qui intéressait Evola dans la théologie conservatrice de Stapel (baptisée «théologie du nationalisme» pour cadrer avec les circonstances), c'était sa condamnation du nationalisme bourgeois, de facture jacobine, étayé de références naturalistes. Ce qui ne signifie pas que Stapel rejette toutes les doctrines qui se donnent l'étiquette de «nationaliste». Dans son article d'Il regime fascista, Stapel admet l'existence des nationalités (nous dirions aujourd'hui des «ethnies»), dans la ligne de Herder et du jeune Goethe. Il admet également la distinction, opérée par Fichte, entre «peuples originaires» (les Germains et les Slaves), non mélangés, et «peuples mélangés», dont l'existentialité est un produit récent, impur, mal stabilisé (les peuples latins). Pour Stapel, Fichte, en soulignant ce caractère «originaire», respecte la création de Dieu, qui a créé les uns et les autres de façon telle et non autre, et introduit un motif conservateur, c'est-à-dire métaphysique, dans le nationalisme, le rendant de la sorte acceptable. En clair, cela signifie que les nationalismes slaves et germaniques, à base ethnique, sont acceptables, tandis que les autres, qui sont l'œuvre des hommes et non de Dieu, sont inacceptables. Le nationalisme allemand, tel qu'il procède de Fichte, «demeure étranger à la sécularisation vulgaire advenue dans le sillage du naturalisme et du rationalisme; ainsi, au lieu d'être la phase crépusculaire d'un cycle de pensée, ce nationalisme peut apparaître comme le principe d'une pensée nouvelle»  («Nazione, Spirito, Impero», art. cit.).

L'homme étant incapable de connaître tous les paramètres de l'univers, il doit s'orienter dans le monde par l'intermédiaire de «formes figurées». Le monde de l'inconnu, de l'incommensurable, est voisin du nôtre; le Chrétien, écrit Stapel, le désigne du terme de «Règne de Dieu»; ce règne est un ordre qui domine le monde: Dieu en est le Seigneur. Etre chrétien, dans cette théologie de Stapel, procède d'une «prise de position métaphysique», comme d'ailleurs toute acceptation ou toute récusation. Opter pour Dieu, c'est évidemment accomplir un acte métaphysique, qui revient à dire: «je veux appartenir à ce Règne». «Et qu'est-ce que cela veut dire? Cela signifie que l'homme se subordonne au Seigneur des Troupes célestes. Il entre comme un combattant dans une armée métaphysique (...)  [Dans ce choix], l'élément "humain" ne varie pas mais dans la substance, s'opère une mutation. Celui qui a juré par le Dieu des Chrétiens, doit Lui être obéissant. Il doit faire peu de cas de sa propre vie humaine et de sa propre personnalité. Il doit obéir à Dieu et diriger, risquer, sa vie pour son honneur. Et cela ne signifie pas fidélité dans la joie d'accèder à la "sainteté", qui peut déjà être momentanément goûtée, mais signifie plutôt obéissance et solidarité guerrière. Tout ce que Dieu, en tant que Seigneur, ordonne, il faut le faire. Cela transcende toute philosophie, toute convulsion sentimentale impure du «converti», toute préoccupation d'évolutionnisme moralisant. Le savoir  phraseur, le zèle moraliste, le sentimentalisme imbu de soi, tout cela est duperie à l'égard de soi-même. Décide-toi et laisse le reste à Dieu»  («Nazione, Spirito, Impero», art. cit.).

Cette théorisation radicale de l'engagement métaphysique pour le Règne de Dieu a séduit Evola, comme l'ont fasciné, sur le plan pratique, les mouvements du Roumain Codreanu, la Légion de l'Archange Michel et la Garde de Fer. La notion de «Milice de Dieu», également présente dans la Chevalerie médiévale et dans l'idée de Djihad en Islam, sont des éléments actifs et significatifs de la «Tradition Primordiale», selon Evola. Cette adhésion, cette milice, va toutefois au-delà des formes. De tradition luthérienne et prussienne, Stapel rejette le culte catholique des institutions et du formalisme; pour lui, la décision du sujet de devenir «milicien de Dieu», de Le servir dans l'obéissance, vient toute entière de l'intériorité; elle n'est en aucun cas une injonction dictée par un Etat ou un parti. Il est intéressant de noter que cette théologie de l'engagement total, qui séduit le traditionaliste Evola, vient en droite ligne d'une interprétation des écrits de Luther. Donc du protestantisme dans sa forme la plus pure et non d'un protestantisme de mouture anglo-saxonne, où l'éthique du service et de l'Etat est absente. Ceux qui, dans les pays latins, croient trouver en Evola une sorte de religiosité qui remplacerait leur catholicisme, ou qui ajoutent à leur catholicisme, caricatural ou ébranlé, des oripeaux évoliens, ne comprennent pas toute la pensée de leur maître: le protestantisme luthérien a sa place chez Evola. Le culte des institutions formelles est explicitement rejeté chez Stapel: «Il n'existe ni Etats chrétiens ni partis chrétiens. Mais il existe des Chrétiens.  [Les Chrétiens peuvent être citoyens ou membres de partis]. Ce qui les distingue des autres, n'est pas perceptible en tant que sagesse ou moralité ou douceur, etc., particulières mais réside dans l'imperceptible, dans la substance. Ils ont juré fidélité à leur Dieu. Ils sont sous les ordres du Seigneur des Troupes célestes. Pour cette raison, ils pensent et agissent dans un espace plus grand que les autres hommes. Pour eux, il n'existe pas seulement ce monde, mais un autre monde derrière celui-ci. Ils n'agissent pas seulement sur la terre mais toujours à la fois "dans le ciel et sur la terre". C'est pourquoi leurs décisions sont toujours déterminées autrement que les décisions des autres. Ils peuvent s'engager plus à fond, au-delà de tout ce qui est terrestre, également au-delà des moralités de ce monde, dans le sens où ils font ce que Dieu leur a donné mission de faire. Le Chrétien est mandaté par les faits de sa nature propre [Geschaffenheit,  dans le texte original; littéralement, cela signifie sa «créaturité»; Evola, ou le traducteur d'Il Regime fascista,  traduit parnatura propria]  et de sa vocation. S'il a été créé Allemand, alors il devra mettre toutes ses énergies au service de sa germanité et de son Reich allemand. S'il a été créé Anglais, alors il devra mettre ses énergies au service de son peuple et de son Etat. Comme tout cela peut-il se concilier? Il faut qu'il laisse à Dieu le soin d'y veiller».    

Quant au rôle de Luther, Stapel l'a définit dans un article de Deutsches Volkstum  (1933, p. 181; «Das Reich. Ein Schlußwort»): «Quand l'Eglise est devenue inféconde et quand Dieu est entré en colère en s'apercevant de l'absence de sérieux de ses serviteurs, il a fait s'éveiller parmi les Allemands, peuple sérieux, un combattant et un prophète: Martin Luther. C'est ainsi que le Pneuma et l'Eglise ont été mis entre les mains des Allemands. A partir de ce moment, le Reich et l'Eglise, comme jadis chez les Romains, se retrouvaient entre les mains d'un seul peuple. Le Reich s'étendait alors sur tout le globe: dans le Reich de Charles-Quint, le soleil ne se couchait jamais. Mais chez Charles-Quint, le sang allemand de Maximilien s'était estompé et l'esprit allemand s'était éteint. L'Empereur n'est pas resté fidèle au peuple de son père. A l'heure où sonnait le destin du monde, il a failli. Au lieu de protéger et de laisser se développer l'Eglise de l'esprit, au lieu d'ordonner le monde selon les principes du Reich, il s'est enlisé dans des querelles d'intérêts. C'est ainsi qu'il a perdu et sa couronne et le Reich; le dernier véritable empereur s'est retiré, fatigué, dans un monastère, après avoir abandonné sa fonction. Ce n'est pas la Réforme qui est la cause de l'interrègne, mais l'infidélité et la négligence de Charles-Quint. Il n'a pas reconnu la véritable Eglise et a oublié [ce que signifiait] le Reich».  Plusieurs analystes de la «Révolution Conservatrice» allemande, comme Martin Greiffenhagen (Das Dilemma des Konservatismus in Deutschland,  R. Piper Verlag, München, 1977), Kurt Sontheimer (Antidemokratisches Denken in der Weimarer Republik,  DTV, 3ième éd., 1978) ou Klaus Breuning (Die Vision des Reiches. Deutscher Katholizismus zwischen Demokratie und Diktatur. 1929-1934,  Hueber, München, 1969) ont mis en exergue l'importance capitale de l'œuvre et des articles polémiques de Stapel. Greiffenhagen, par exemple, montre qu'il n'y a aucune propension au «novisme» (à l'innovation pour l'innovation) chez Stapel, contrairement à tout ce qui est affirmé péremptoirement par le filon philosophique moderne; ce que les militants, ou les «miliciens de Dieu», doivent créer, parce que les circonstances l'exigent, n'est pas quelque chose de radicalement neuf, mais, au contraire, quelque chose d'original, de primordial, qu'il faut raviver, faire ré-advenir. Pour Stapel, c'est la notion de Reich qu'il faut rappeler à la vie. Dans Der christliche Staatsmann. Eine Theologie des Nationalismus,  il écrit (p. 7-8): «Le Reich n'est pas un rêve, un désir; ce n'est pas une fuite dans une quelconque illusion, mais c'est une réalité politique archétypale (uralt) de nature métaphysique, à laquelle nous sommes devenus infidèles [...]. Lorsqu'Israël s'est détourné de Yahvé, Dieu a puni Israël, comme nous pouvons le lire dans l'Ancien Testament. Et lorsque nous nous détournons du Reich, Dieu nous punit, comme nous le montre l'histoire allemande. C'est cela le Testament Allemand».  

Stapel et Evola se réfèrent donc tous deux à un archétype métaphysique, transcendant toute forme de «sécularité», et visent, comme l'écrit Stapel (Der christliche Staatsmann,  op. cit., p. 6), à forger un «front antiséculier». Front anti-séculier qui sera également porté par un anti-intellectualisme conséquent et radical: «La croissance de l'intellect s'est effectuée au détriment de la substance humaine, prise dans sa totalité. Le sentiment est devenu plus prosaïque et incolore (nüchtern); l'imagination terne et schématique; la passion a perdu son élan; l'instinct s'est amenuisé, n'est plus sûr de lui; la faculté de pressentir s'étiole. Mais, l'intellect croît et cherche, par le calcul, par la réflexion, par l'ébauche de belles idées, etc., à remplacer la source vive des sentiments, la fantaisie, l'instinct et le pressentiment. Tandis que l'homme croît et se développe toujours davantage dans l'orbite de l'intellect, les racines de son existentialité s'assèchent. A la place de réactions immédiates, inconscientes  —qui sont bonnes quand la substance est bonne, mauvaises quand la substance est mauvaise—  survient une éthique du cerveau» (Der Christliche Staatsmann,  op. cit., p. 195).

Comme chez Evola, Rohan et Everling, nous trouvons, chez Stapel, une définition du chef, en tant qu'homme d'Etat: «Le véritable homme d'Etat unit en lui la "paternalité" (Väterlichkeit), l'esprit guerrier et le charisme. Paternellement, il règne sur le peuple qui lui a été confié. Lorsque son peuple croît en nombre, il lui fournit de l'espace pour vivre, en rassemblant ses forces guerrières. Dieu le bénit, lui donne bonheur et gloire, si bien que le peuple l'honore et lui fait confiance. L'homme d'Etat pèse et soupèse la guerre et la paix tout en conversant avec Dieu. Ses réflexions humaines deviennent prières, deviennent décisions. Sa décision n'est pas le produit d'un calcul, d'une soustraction, effectué(e) dans son entendement mais reflète la plénitude totale des forces historiques. Ses victoires et ses défaites ne sont pas des hasards dus à des facteurs humains, mais des dispositions de la Providence. Le véritable homme d'Etat est à la fois souverain, guerrier et prêtre» (Der christliche..., op. cit., p. 190). Si Evola manie l'opposition tellurique/ouranien ou matrilinéaire/patrilinéaire, Stapel, penseur luthérien et prussien, nomme «Romains», ceux qui ont, dans l'histoire, le sens de l'Etat, sont imperméables à toute forme de libéralisme, en dépit des formes républicaines ou impériales qu'ils peuvent défendre. Les négateurs de l'idée d'Etat sont, pour Stapel, les misérables «Graeculi», qui ne pensent ni n'agissent jamais de manière politique et ne réagissent que sous la dictée et l'emprise d'affects privés. Pour Stapel, la dichotomie directrice distingue donc les «Romains» des «Graeculi». Le parallèle avec Steding, qui opposait les défenseurs du Reich aux «neutres», est évident.

Snapshots of the Continent Entre Deux Guerres: Keyserling's Europe (1928) and Spengler's Hour of Decision (1934)

Snapshots Of The Continent Entre Deux Guerres:

Keyserling’s Europe (1928)

And

Spengler’s Hour Of Decision (1934)

Thomas F. Bertonneau / http://www.brusselsjournal.com/

Swiftly on beginning my graduate-student career in 1984 I observed that people calling themselves intellectuals – the kind of people whom one met in those days as fellows in graduate humanities programs – tended to be obsessed with topicality and immediacy.  Some adhered explicitly to one or another ideology of the a-historical, identifying so strongly with a perceived avant-garde or “cutting edge” that yesterday struck them as contemptible, a thing to be denounced so as to make way for the reformation of existence.  But the majority were (and I suppose are) conformists looking for cues about what effective poses they might strike or words employ to signify their being “with it.”  To be “with it” in a comparative literature program in California in the mid-1980s meant to be conversant with “theory,” and “theory” in turn meant the latest oracular pronouncement by the Francophone philosophe du jour, as issued almost before the writer wrote it by the those beacons of scholastic responsibility, the university presses.  First it was Michel Foucault, then Jacques Derrida, and then Jean-Michel Lyotard.  As tomorrow swiftly became yesterday, one sensed a panic to keep up with the horizonless succession of “with-it” gurus in fear that one might appear to others, better informed, as clownishly derrière-garde.

Being reactionary by conviction, I decided on an opposite course: to ignore the avant-garde and to read backwards, as it were, into the archive of forgotten and marginal books that no one deemed respectable by the establishment was reading anymore, and sideways into the contemporarily unorthodox.  Part of the providential harvest of that eccentric project, which became a habit, is my acquaintance with two quirky tomes that, despite their oddness, seem to me to stand out as notable achievements of the European mind in the decade before World War Two.  One is Count Hermann Keyserling’s Europe (1928); the other is Oswald Spengler’s “other book,” The Hour of Decision (1934).   Both speak to us, in the God-forsaken present moment, with no small critical alacrity.

I. Spengler has proved a more durable figure than Keyserling, but the reading audience during the early years of the Weimar Republic would have known Keyserling better than Spengler.  People talked about Spengler, but they read Keyserling, whose style was the more accessible.  Of Baltic Junker descent, Graf Hermann Alexander Keyserling (1880 – 1946) fared badly in the aftermath of the Great War.  He lost title to Rayküll, the hereditary Keyserling estate in Junker-dominated Livonia, when the newly independent Estonian Republic, conspicuously failing to reverse erstwhile Bolshevik policy, expropriated (or rather re-expropriated) the fixed holdings of the German-speaking ex-aristocracy.  Keyserling found himself stateless, dispossessed, and in search of a career, his sole remaining asset consisting in his education (higher studies at Dorpat, Heidelberg, and Vienna).  Marriage to Otto von Bismarck’s granddaughter (1919) returned Keyserling to something like a station while the success of his first book, The Travel Diary of a Philosopher (1922), stabilized his finances.  The Travel Diary, immediately translated into a half-dozen languages including English, remains readable, even fascinating.  In 1914, before the outbreak of hostilities, Keyserling had undertaken a global circumnavigation, the lesson of which the Diary, a nation-by-nation account of the world at that moment, meditatively records.

 

The Diary bespeaks a cosmopolitan-liberal attitude, flavored by a pronounced mystical inclination.  Europe, or Das Spektrum Europas in the original German, will strike readers by contrast as an apology (highly qualified) both for nationalism and for individualism.  Keyserling’s “spectroscopic analyses” of the various European peoples, in their peculiar individualities as well as in their complex relation to one another, advances the argument that, if Europe ever were to forge administrative unity out of its querulous variety, it would only ever do so by granting full rights and legitimacy to the varieties.

Keyserling favors a modest pan-European government, whose chief function would be the mediation of disputes between the otherwise sovereign nation-states, but characteristically he supplies no details.  Keyserling’s notion of a pan-European administration differs in its modesty from many being advanced at the time by such as H. G. Wells, whose speculative utopias – as for example in Men Like Gods – uniformly foresee the dissolution of the nation-state, not just into a pan-European arrangement, but, rather, into a World Republic.  Of course, Wells assumes that English, not French or Mandarin, will be the singular unifying tongue of that Republic.  The elites will educate people so that anything like a national identity disappears completely in the first captive generation.  In the concluding chapter of Europe, in a discussion of national “style,” Keyserling insists on the contrast between his own sense of identity and the “international,” or specifically political type of identity, promulgated by the Communists and Socialists.  In the case of the specifically political identity, the subject yields his individuality to merge with the ideological construction.   Keyserling reacts to this as to a toxin.  “When I analyze my own self-consciousness,” Keyserling poses, “what do I find myself to be?”

Keyserling answers: “First and foremost, I am myself; second, an aristocrat; third, a Keyserling; fourth, a Westerner; fifth, a European; sixth, a Balt; seventh, a German; eighth, a Russian; ninth, a Frenchman – yes, a Frenchman, for the years during which France was my teacher influenced my ego deeply.”  We note that politics never enters into it.  Reading the autobiographical passages of Europe, especially those in the chapter on “The Baltic States,” one gets the impression, incidentally, that belonging to Baltdom ranks as rather more important for Keyserling’s self-assessment than its place in his explicit hierarchy of identities would suggest.

Europe deploys a well-thought-out dialectic of individual and national character, whose subtleties Keyserling presents in his “Introduction.”  In the same “Introduction,” the author also sets forth his case for the absolute legitimacy of judging nations and cultures against one another.  Keyserling fixes over the whole of Europe an epigraph drawn from Paul to the Romans: “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.”  His dialectic follows from his conviction of imperfectness both of the basic human nature and of human arrangements for the conduct of political existence.

Keyserling can note, by way of a widely applicable example, that the Latin subject’s sense of his status as “civis Romanus… awoke in him as an individual a profound sense of self-discipline and obligation”; Keyserling can also assert that, “The man who attempts to deduce his own worth from the fact that he is a member of a particular group is thinking askew, and, besides presenting an absurd spectacle, gets himself disliked.”  The two statements imply, for Keyserling, no contradiction.  In the spirit of Saint Paul, Keyserling indeed hazards the sweeping – and, to some, disturbing – rule that, “in not a single nation is the national element, as such, bound up with anything of worth” because “the gifts of every nation are balanced by complementary defects.” As Keyserling sees things, “the only value in the national spirit is that it may serve as the basic material, as the principle of form, for the individual.”  In the ironic consequence, as Keyserling closes out his syllogism, “it is for this very reason that every nation instinctively measures its standing by the number and quality of world-important figures which it has produced.”

Whereas on the one hand in Keyserling’s epigrammatic judgment, “the individual and the unique are more than the nation, be it one’s own or another,” on the other hand “value and mass have absolutely nothing to do with each other.”  Apropos of Keyserling’s disdain for the “mass,” he notes that, “Christ preached love of one’s neighbor just because he did not have in mind philanthropy and democracy.”

Invoking Hebrew theology and German music as examples, Keyserling argues that: “A nation can achieve significance for humanity only in certain respects; namely, those wherein its special aptitudes fit it to become the appointed organ for all humanity.” Thus to evoke “abstract considerations of justice” is for Keyserling a “useless” exercise flying in the face of a “cosmic truth.” Given the central role of the individual in Keyserling’s scheme, readers will register little surprise when, in Europe, the author insists that the individual not only possesses the right, but indeed lives under an ethical imperative, to render public judgment on collectivities, with reference to a metaphysical hierarchy of values.  “Strength and beauty are higher, in the absolute sense, than weakness and ugliness; superiority is higher, too, in the absolute sense, than inferiority, and the aristocratic is higher than the plebieian.”  Europe offers, among other pleasures, Keyserling’s giving himself “free rein” to articulate such judgments in a spirit of “inner liberation,” in which the cultured reader will surely participate, treating everyone with equal severity and irony.

Keyserling admits, “There are some who will have for this book nothing but resentment.”  He hopes indeed that “all Pharisees, all Philistines, all nitwits, the bourgeois, the humorless, the thick-witted, will be deeply, thoroughly hurt.”  These are words almost more apt – but certainly more apt, supremely apt – for Anno Domine 2009 than for 1928; but one nevertheless presupposes their legitimacy in context.  Keyserling reminds his readers in advance that he will have imposed the same criteria in assessing “my own people,” meaning the Balts, as in assessing others.

 

II. One can only sample the wares, so to speak, in a summary of Europe, keeping in mind Keyserling’s warning that he must necessarily offend the easily offended.  Readers will need to explore Europe on their own to discover what Keyserling has to say about Netherlanders, Hungarians, Romanians, Swedes, and Swiss.  What follows makes reference only to the chapters on England, France, and Germany.  Does the order of the chapters imply even the most modest of hierarchies, with the first chapter taking up the analysis of England?  Keyserling must have recognized the importance of his Anglophone audience to his popularity.  His treatment of the English, while unsparing in principle, does seem warmed somewhat by fondness.  For Keyserling, that odd phenomenon of “Anglomania” (nowadays one would say “Anglophilia”) tells us something, by way of indirection, about its object.  “One nation sees itself mirrored in the other, not as it is, but as it would like to be; just as, during the World War, every nation attributed to its enemy the worst features of its own unconscious.”

On England.  With characteristic nakedness of statement, Keyserling credits the Anglo-Saxon, not with “intelligence” but rather with “instinct.”  According to Keyserling, “the whole [English] nation… has an unconquerable prejudice against thinking, and, above all, against any insistence on intellectual problems.”  Being creatures of instinct, Englishmen act with certitude or at least with the appearance of certitude.  It is this certitude, translated pragmatically as the habit of taking bold action, which others so admire, even while misunderstanding it, in the Anglo-Saxon spirit.  “The Englishman… is an animal-man”; and “at the lowest end of the scale he is the horse-man, with corresponding equine features.”  The aversion to ratiocination explains the British Empire, which “simply grew up, with no intention on anybody’s part,” to be governed by the colonial-administrator type, who “rarely thinks of anything but food, drink, sport, and, if he is young, flirtations.”

More than God, whatever his sectarian dispensation, Keyserling’s Englishman worships “the rules of the game.”  Thus his “loyalty to one’s land, one’s party, one’s class, one’s prejudices… the first law” so that “the question of absolute value is beside the point.”  From these inclinations stem “British empiricism, so despised by the French, which enables the British successfully to anticipate the crises precipitated by the spirit of the times.”  Yet if the Englishman were ungifted intellectually, he would be, in Keyserling’s estimate, “all the more gifted psychologically,” with the consequence that the Briton possesses “skill in handling human material [that] is extraordinary.”  Nestling at the core of that gift is the principle, which Keyserling classifies as “primitive,” that one should “live and let live.”  The English sense of individuality and of rights is likewise primitive, in the positive sense of being a reversion, against the modern tide, to the atheling-egotism of the Beowulf heroes and King Alfred.  More than any other European nation, England has preserved medieval customs that might prove healthily anodyne to the deculturation inherent in modernity.  Yet Keyserling fears that the English will fail to preserve custom and will plunge into “the Mass Age” more thoroughly than other nations, just as the offshoot American nation, in his judgment, had already done.

On France.  Chortling Gallic readers need only to have turned the page to receive their own stinging dose of Keyserling’s patented forthrightness.  It starts out flatteringly enough.  Whereas the Englishman lives according to instinct, the Frenchman, taking him in the generality, behaves like a “universally intelligible life-form”; one sees in him a creature of “the conscious” and of “the intellect,” whose rationality has concocted, in the Gallic idiom, “a perfect language for itself.”  So it is that “all Occidental ideology, whenever it can be expressed at all in French, finds in the body of that language its most intelligible expression.”  Nevertheless, “however clear the intelligence of the Frenchman may be, his self-consciousness is emotional rather than intellectual,” being as such, “easily and violently aroused,” with the emotion itself its “own ultimate justification.”  From Parisian emotiveness, from the esteem in which others regard France, and using the intellectual precision of the French language, comes the least attractive of Gallic qualities: “The Frenchman… has always seen in his opponent the enemy of civilization.”  Just that inclination emerged in 1914, but the ferocity of the Jacobins showed its presence at the birth of the French Republic.

As Keyserling sees it, however, France is not a dynamic, but an essentially conservative, nation, which is what has enabled it to survive its endless cycle of revolutions.  The real role of France after 1918 should not have been, as the French took it on themselves to do through the League of Nations, to “restore” – that is, to transform – Europe after some rational pattern; it should have been to conserve the precious vestiges of pre-Revolutionary culture.  “The French are par excellence the culture nation of Europe.”

On Germany.  On the topic of Germany, Keyserling begins by quoting his old friend Count Benckendorff, the Czar’s ambassador in London: “Ne dites pas les allemands; il n’y a que des allemands.”  (“Speak not of the Germans; there are only Germans.”)  According to Keyserling, “The German exists only from the viewpoint of others”; yet not quite, as one can make applicable generalizations.  A German is an “object creature” whose “life-element lies, once and for all, in that which, externally, emerges most typically in the cult of the object.”  A German is by nature therefore an expert, dedicated to his own expertise and to expertise qua itself as the principle of orderly existence.  Keyserling avails himself of a standing joke: “If there were two gates, on the first of which was inscribed To Heaven, and on the other To Lectures about Heaven, all Germans would make for the second.”  German interest in objects and objectives gives rise to German technical prodigality – the German primacy in precision Engineering and the mechanical systematization of everyday life.  Despite its orientation to the objects, the German mentality suffers from “unreality.”  How so?

“The personal element in man,” Keyserling remarks, “declines in direct proportion as his consciousness becomes centered in detached, externalized ideas; and for those who have to deal with him it really becomes impossible to know what they can expect and what they can rely on.”  Keyserling does not foresee the collapse of the Weimar Republic and the catastrophe of the dictatorship, but he does, in the just-quoted sentence, see the cause of both.

The concluding chapter of Europe attempts a summing-up with a forecast.  Keyserling writes: “Europe is emerging as a unity because, faced at closer range by an overwhelming non-European humanity, the things which Europeans have in common are becoming more significant than those which divide them, and thus new factors are beginning to predominate over old ones in the common consciousness.”  But, in compliance with his dialectic, Keyserling issues a warning.  The unification of the European nations as they confront the non-European must avoid the result of producing “frantic Pan-Europeans” who, forgetting the specificity of the constituent nationalities, “understand each other not better, but worse than before.”  If that were to happen, Europe would have been effectively “Americanized.”  Keyserling concludes on an ominous note: “More than one culture has died out before reaching full blossom.  Atlantis, the Gondwana continent, went the way of death.  Infinite is human stupidity, human slothfulness.”

III. Keyserling and Oswald Spengler (1880 – 1936) never exactly knew each other; rather, they lived in standoffish awareness of each other, with Keyserling playing the more extroverted and Spengler the more introverted role.  In February 1922, Keyserling wrote to Spengler from Darmstadt, enclosing his review of The Decline of the West, and inviting Spengler to participate in a “School of Wisdom” seminar to be held at the Count’s Darmstadt house.  (The “School of Wisdom” was Keyserling’s lecture-foundation, which operated from 1920 until the Nazi regime shut it down in 1933.)  Spengler declined the invitation on the grounds that the audience was likely to be “young people stuffed with theoretical learning.”  Spengler remarked to Keyserling in his reply, that, “by wisdom I understand something that one obtains after decades of hard practical work, quite apart from learning.”  Spengler makes his adieu by promising to have his publisher send the new edition of The Decline to his correspondent.  The tone of Keyserling’s invitation perhaps abraded Spengler’s sense of propriety; Keyserling does presume a willingness to cooperate that, to Spengler, might have seemed a bit too peremptory. Keyserling nevertheless rightly presupposed that he shared many judgments with Spengler – just not the judgment concerning the obligatory status of a social invitation from Keyserling.

 

The Hour of Decision, like everything that Spengler authored, is a rich mine of observation and insight, difficult to summarize, mainly because it communicates so thoroughly with the monumental Decline, to which it forms an epilogue.  The core of The Hour is its diptych of concluding chapters on what Spengler calls “The White World-Revolution” and “The Coloured World-Revolution.”  As in the case of Keyserling’s ironic forthrightness, only more so, Spengler’s plain speaking makes him consummately politically incorrect.  The Hitlerian regime would suppress The Hour just as it suppressed Keyserling’s Darmstadt lecture-institute.  Both were unforgivably heterodox in the totalitarian context.  Spengler, writing in the onset of “die Nazizeit,” saw nothing particularly new in the dire developments of the day, only an intensification of the familiar Tendenz.  The West’s terminal crisis had been in progress already for a hundred chaotic years; the great spectacle of disintegration would only continue, not merely in the external world of institutions and forms, but also in the internal world of spiritual integrity.

Conjuring the image of the modern megalopolis and echoing Ortega’s alarm over the masses, Spengler writes, “A pile of atoms is no more alive than a single one.”  Crudely quantitative in its mental processes, the modern mass subject equates “the material product of economic activity” with “civilization and history.”  Spengler insists that economics is merely a sleight-of-hand discourse for disguising the real nature of the “catastrophe” that has overcome the West, which is a failure of cultural nerve.

In The Hour, Spengler builds on notions he had developed in The Decline, particularly the idea that the West has ceased to be a “Culture,” a healthy, vital thing, and has entered into the moribund phase of its life, or what Spengler calls “Civilization.” Into the megalopolis, “this world of stone and petrifaction,” writes Spengler, “flock ever-growing crowds of peasant folk uprooted from the land, the ‘masses’ in the terrifying sense, formless human sand from which artificial and therefore fleeting figures can be kneaded.”  Spengler stresses the formlessness of “Civilization,” in which “the instinct for the permanence of family and race” stands abolished.  Where “Culture is growth,” and “an abundance of children,” “Civilization” is “cold intelligence… the mere intelligence of the day, of the daily papers, ephemeral literature, and national assemblies,” with no urge to prolong itself as settled custom, well-bred offspring, or a posterity that honors tradition.  The “White World-Revolution” consists in the triumph of “the mob, the underworld in every sense.”

The mob, which sees everything from below, hates refinement and despises anything permanent.  The masses want “liberation from all… bonds [and] from every kind of form and custom, from all the people whose mode of life they feel in their dull fury to be superior.”  Hence the appeal of egalitarianism to the masses.  But, as Spengler argues, egalitarianism is really only a slogan, a euphemism.  The real trend is “Nihilism.”

The pattern of “Nihilism” emerged in the French Revolution, with its vocabulary of leveling, as in the radically politicizing etiquette of “citoyen” and in the supposedly universal demand for “Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity.”  “The central demand of political liberalism,” writes Spengler, consists in “the desire to be free from the ethical restrictions of the Old Culture.”  Yet as Spengler insists: “The demand was anything but universal; it was only called so by the ranters and writers who lived by it and sought to further private aims through this freedom.”  We see this identical pattern today in the various concocted emergencies and so-called universal demands that the current thoroughly liberal-nihilistic regime in the United States trots out serially to justify its consolidation of power, whereby it ceaselessly attacks what remains in the American body-politic of form and custom.  In Spengler’s aphorism: “Active liberalism progresses from Jacobinism to Bolshevism logically.”

In Spengler’s judgment, moreover, one would make a mistake in equating Bolshevism, as people would have done in the 1930s, uniquely with the Soviet Union.  “Actually [Bolshevism] was born in Western Europe, and born indeed of logical necessity as the last phase of the liberal democracy of 1770 – which is to say, of the presumptuous intention to control living history by paper systems and ideals.”

When Spengler remarks on the theme of tolerance (so-called) in liberalism-nihilism, one thinks again of the existing situation in Europe and North America the first decade of the Twenty-First Century.  Inherent to form is its rigorous exclusion of the formless.  In its aggressive demand for inclusion of the rightly excluded, which belongs to its destructive impetus, the liberal-nihilistic regime works actively to de-stigmatize anti-social behavior.  Thus under liberalism-nihilism “tolerance is extended,” by self-denominating representatives of the people, “to the destructive forces, not demanded by them.”  Of course, the “destructive forces” do not refuse the extension.  On historical analogy, Spengler refers to this as “the Gracchan method.”  When once, as had already happened in Europe in Spengler’s time, “the concept of the proletariat [had] been accepted by the middle classes,” then the formula for cultural suicide had at last all of its ingredients in place.  “I am aware,” writes Spengler, “that most people will refuse with horror to admit that this irrevocable crashing of everything that centuries have built up was intentional, the result of deliberate working to that end… But it is so.”

 

IV. Like another, later analyst of modernity in its agony, Eric Voegelin, Spengler sees at the root of Liberalism-Nihilism the perversion of a religious idea.  “All Communist systems in the West are in fact derived from Christian theological thought: More’s Utopia, the Sun-State of the Dominica Campanella, the doctrines of Luther’s disciples Karlstadt and Thomas Münzer, and Fichte’s state-socialism… Christian theology is the grandmother of Bolshevism.”  The materialism – which is again a type of nihilism – of Marxism and socialism never contradicts the case for liberalism-nihilism as a perversion of Gospel themes.  “As soon as one mixes up the concepts of poverty, hunger, distress, work, and wages (with the moral undertone of rich and poor, right and wrong) and is led thereby to join in the social and economic demands of the proletarian sort – that is, money demands – one is a materialist.”  But, this being Spengler’s point, one may have the belief-attitude with respect to one’s materialist doctrines that the fanatic of God has for his mental idol, with the concomitant fierceness and ruthlessness.  The end of real Christianity is “renunciation.”  With reference to the sentence of Adam, writes Spengler, the Gospel tells men, “do not regard this hard meaning of life as misery and seek to circumvent it by party politics.”

In a precise description of the modern, immigration-friendly, general-welfare state, Spengler remarks that “for proletarian election propaganda,” an opposite principle to the Gospel one is required: “The materialist prefers to eat the bread that others have earned in the sweat of their face.”  When the Gracchan rabble dominates from below so that the demagogues might manipulate from above, then it will come to pass that “the parasitic egoism of inferior minds, who regard the economic life of other people, and that of the whole, as an object from which to squeeze with the least possible exertion the greatest possible enjoyment” will seek its bestial end in “panem et circenses.”  Once the majority descends to vulgar consumption through extortion – and through a mere pretence of work under the welfare-umbrella of “the political wage” – then the society has doomed itself.  It can only lurch in the direction of its inevitable demise.  Even the keen-eyed will not want to confront reality.  They will, as Spengler writes, “refuse in horror” to believe what they see.  Spengler might have been thinking about a letter from his correspondent Roderich Schlubach dated 9 October 1931.  Schlubach writes: “I frankly admit that much of what you prophesied [in The Decline] has taken place.  The decline of the West seems to be at hand, and still I do not believe in an end of the world, only in an entire change in our circumstances.”

That is “The White World-Revolution” – the triumph of rabble-envy, the destruction of form, childlessness, and the childishness of mass entertainments.  Indeed, “an entire change in our circumstances,” as Schlubach says, not grasping that his words mean the opposite of what he intends.  What of “The Coloured World-Revolution”?  Keyserling had admonished, in the concluding chapter of Europe, that Europe in its chafing unity would come under threat from the nearby non-European world.  In Spengler’s historical theory, the threat of external barbarism always coincides with the passage of the “Culture” into its deliquescent rabble-stage – the stage that the Decline-author ironically calls “Civilization.”  Earlier, in the robustness of the culture-stage, the ascendant people inevitably imposes itself on neighboring and foreign peoples whose levels of social complexity and technical sophistication are lower and who cannot effectively resist encroachment.  Spengler emphasizes that it cannot be otherwise.  The people of the less-developed society gradually grow conscious of a difference, which the emergent demagogue-class of the more-developed society in its liberal paroxysm swiftly encourages them to see as an injustice.

Thus, Spengler asserts, “the White Revolution since 1770 has been preparing the soil for the Coloured one.”  The process has followed this course:

The literature of the English liberals like Mill and Spencer… supplied the “world outlook” to the higher schools of India.  And thence the way to Marx was easy for the young reformers themselves to find.  Sun Yat Sen, the leader of the Chinese Revolution, found it in America.  And out of it all there arose a revolutionary literature of which the Radicalism puts that of Marx and Borodin to shame.

Spengler, who was consciously and deliberately distancing himself from the National Socialists, reminds his readers that he is not “speaking of race… in the sense in which it is the fashion among anti-Semites in Europe and America today.”  He is simply comparing the attitude to life of existing peoples.  The Western nations compete for dominance with non-Western nations whether they want to do so or not.  The non-Western nations, like Japan, act in bold accord with ideologies that cast the West in a scapegoat role, and that are overtly racist.  The West has enemies.  It cannot choose not to be in enmity with them; they choose enmity peremptorily.  The West can either stand up to its assailants or succumb.  When Spengler turns to demography, to his tally of Western birth-replacement deficits and burgeoning populations elsewhere, his discourse strikes us, not as dated, but as entirely contemporary.  “The women’s emancipation of Ibsen’s time wanted, not freedom from the husband, but freedom from the child, from the burden of children, just as men’s emancipation in the same period signified freedom from the duties towards family, nation, and State.”

The attitude of the European middle class, judging by its failure to oppose the vulgarization of society and again by its unwillingness to perpetuate itself in offspring, is one of abdication before the forces of nothingness – this is true whether it is 1934 or 2009.  Like the proletariat, the bourgeoisie then and now hungers only for panem et circenses, or, as we so quaintly call it in present-day America, the consumer lifestyle.  Spengler predicts, in The Hour, that the non-Western world will grow increasingly hostile and predatory towards the West, seeing the decadent nations as easy pickings and seeking opportunities to assault and humiliate the bitterly resented other.  Spengler believes that the nihilistic tendency of Western revolutionaries will merge with the similar tendencies of their non-Western, colonial or ex-colonial counterparts and that the internal and external masses will cooperate in a common destructive project.  What else was the bizarre alliance between the Nazi regime in Berlin and the Bushidoregime in Tokyo?  Or between Heinrich Himmler and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem?  Just this intimate cooperation of homebred totalitarians with inassimilable fellah-collaborators seems today to be the case, for example, in Great Britain and Sweden – and to no little extent, not merely with respect to illegal Mexican immigration, in the United States as well.

The Hour of Decision remains a shocking book.  It will shock even conservatives because they cannot have avoided being assimilated in some degree to the prevailing dogma about what one may or may not say.  One can imagine the reaction of contemporary liberals to the book if only they knew anything about it: spitting, blood-shot indignation.  Contemporary liberals have already banned almost the entirety of Spengler’s vocabulary under the strictures of self-abasing multiculturalist dhimmi-mentality. The Hour is also a radical book, not least in its notion, also present in both volumes of The Decline that, the crisis of the West, which began already in the Eighteenth Century, would likely play itself out right through the end of the Twentieth Century and beyond.  The disquiet that comes across at the end of Keyserling’s Europe, which appeared as we recall in 1928, asserts itself as greatly heightened apprehension in the final chapter of The Hour, which appeared in German in 1934 and in English in 1936, after Goebbels had suppressed further publication of the German edition.  The National Socialists, like modern liberals, could not bear to be identified by a strong voice, as who and what they actually were.

Les contributions à Il Regime Fascista du Prince Karl Anton Rohan

 

Archives de SYNERGIES EUROPEENNES - 1991

Robert STEUCKERS:

Les contributions à Il Regime Fascista du Prince Karl Anton Rohan (1898-1975)

 

Le Prince Karl Anton Rohan, issu d'une très ancienne famille bretonne, émigrée à Vienne et devenue autrichienne, fonde en 1924 le Verband für kulturelle Zusammenarbeit  (= Association pour la Coopération Culturelle) et édite à Berlin, de 1925 à 1936, la célèbre Europäische Revue,  qui donne aux cercles conservateurs et conservateurs-révolutionnaires (dans l'optique jungkonservativ)  une dimension européenne, supra-nationale, impériale (dans le sens de Reich).  Huppés et mondains, les cercles regroupés autour de l'Europäische Revue  influençaient les milieux diplomatiques. Après que le Prince Rohan ait passé le flambeau de rédacteur-en-chef au Dr. Joachim Moras, l'importance du Conseiller d'Etat prussien, le Prof. Dr. Baron Axel von Freytagh-Loringhoven, n'a cessé de croître dans la revue.

Le Prince Rohan, dans son ouvrage Schicksalstunde Europas. Erkenntnisse und Bekenntnisse, Wirklichkeiten und Möglichkeiten  (Leykam-Verlag, Graz, 1937), a esquissé un bilan de l'histoire spirituelle et événémentielle de l'Europe, en abordant le problème central de la personnalité dans l'éthique qu'il qualifiait de «spécifiquement européenne», en amorçant une réflexion sur le matérialisme et le rationalisme, erreurs philosophiques et politiques du monde moderne, et en annonçant le retour à l'avant-plan d'idées et d'idéaux non révolutionnaires, voire contre-révolutionnaires, pour lesquels, croyait-il, le fascisme et le national-socialisme préparaient le terrain, parce qu'ils étaient des réactions radicalement anti-bourgeoises. Les aristocrates qui ont encore en eux les vieux réflexes constructeurs du politique reviendront tout naturellement au pouvoir; mais ceux qui sont épuisés dans leur vitalité et leur créativité devront se ressourcer dans le grand nombre: «les vieilles figures sont fissurées; elles devraient se replonger dans le nombre, de façon à ce que, au départ de cette immersion dans le nombre, de nouvelles figures puissent croître et remonter à la surface»  (p.383).

«Tout comme la caste supérieure déterminée par le sang et constituée par l'aristocratie n'a pas pu inclure dans les structures du pouvoir de l'ancien régime les forces montantes de la révolution bourgeoise, les autorités éphémères du monde bourgeois du XIXième siècle ont échoué dans leur tentative de capter et de diriger sur des voies d'ordre la "révolte des masses", la révolution de l'anti-bourgeois. Dans le vaste processus historique qu'est la révolution sociale, les anciennes autorités ont été broyées, étrillées, et aucune autorité nouvelle n'est encore apparue. Pour être plus précis: les signes avant-coureurs d'une nouvelle et véritable autorité ne sont présents sur la scène que depuis peu de temps; cette autorité nouvelle doit mûrir et s'affirmer. Ceux qui constituaient l'élite sont désormais fatigués. La vision du monde de nos relativistes d'esprit et de morale n'était vraiment pas appropriée pour servir de plate-forme à une domination sur les masses, au sein desquels même les plus arriérés savent désormais lire et écrire. Et les pédérastes et demi-puceaux  émanant de la "jeunesse dorée" des classes supérieures urbanisées ne pouvaient évidemment pas apparaître aux yeux de l'ouvrier comme l'élite de ses vœux, à laquelle il devrait se soumettre. Les classes supérieures et la masse se comportent dans l'histoire comme le conscient et l'inconscient dans l'homme. La santé, au sens social comme au sens psychologique, est cet état de choses, dans lequel le dessous et le dessus entretiennent un rapport d'échange constant et fructueux, où le dessus est reconnu par le dessous, où le dessous donne au dessus la direction (vox populi, vox dei), où le dessus comprend le dessous et où la répartition naturelle des rôles de l'un et de l'autre se maintient en harmonie. Ce qui signifie que le haut, et seul le haut, doit agir, toutefois en acceptant une responsabilité pour le tout; et ces strates supérieures doivent agir en concordance avec les aspirations de la masse et avec ses exigences qui sont évidemment générales et confuses. Si la masse veut agir immédiatement (sans intermédiaire), en révolte contre le haut, alors il arrive ce qui arrive à l'individu qui agit au moment où son subconscient oblitère sa conscience: il y a des pots cassés et notre homme obtient presque toujours le contraire de ce qu'il avait désiré. Car, de toute éternité, le rôle des classes supérieures, de la direction, ou, au niveau de l'individu, de la conscience, c'est d'adapter et de canaliser dans le réel les sombres émotions et pulsions de la masse ou de l'inconscient. Sans ce rôle de régulateur et de transformateur, surviennent immanquablement des catastrophes. Si cet équilibre normal et sain, cette oscillation entre le haut et le bas, sont interrompus, la conscience poursuit sa vie sans lien avec son socle fait d'inconscient, si elle plane dans les airs, alors nous voyons apparaître les premières manifestations de fatigue. Sont alors nécessaires le repos, la détente, la récréation, la distraction. Toute révolution n'est jamais autre chose, ne peut jamais être autre chose, que l'expulsion d'une élite dominante par une élite dominée qui aspire à exercer le pouvoir; or tout processus révolutionnaire commence au sein des élites. On y est fatigué, on ne croit plus à ses propres forces. On trouve que ceux d'en bas, que les adversaires, ont en fait raison dans ce qu'ils disent et revendiquent. On décide de ne pas résister et on est balayé. C'est ainsi qu'en 1918 les monarchies ont été abandonnées par les détenteurs du pouvoir, avant même qu'elles n'aient été réellement attaquées. Si l'élite fatiguée ne veut pas prendre connaissance de ses symptomes, elle vivra de sa propre substance; alors la masse inconsciente, qui a perdu toute relation normale avec l'élite, se fera plus critique et plus turbulente. On verra alors apparaître de véritables troubles qui iront en crescendo, jusqu'aux crises névrotiques, jusqu'aux dépressions nerveuses. Si l'élite, qui a perdu toute véritable autorité et donc toute légitimité, refuse de se retirer du pouvoir, elle s'en tiendra au droit positif contre le droit naturel et refusera de faire passer les réformes nécessaires; alors la révolution dégénère en guerre civile»  (pp. 381-383) . «La première démarche à accomplir, pour forger de nouvelles figures, une nouvelle élite qui entretient un contact sain avec la base, c'est de vivifier les hiérarchies que la révolution et la contre-révolution ont constituées. Il s'agit ici de construire une communauté de volonté. Discipline sévère, inclusion dans un ordre, mais aussi travail sans relâche aux postes qui ont été assignés, exécution précise des ordres reçus, voilà les premisses. Mais pour monter plus haut dans la nouvelle hiérarchie, il faut adhérer à un mythe politique, il faut être intérieurement emporté par l'esprit d'une Weltanschauung. Derrière les slogans que sont la "révolution mondiale", l'Italianità et la Romanità, le Volkstum et la race nordique, se profile toute une construction doctrinale avec ses fondements d'ordre historique, sociologique, économique, scientifique et aussi moral: il faut les accepter sans conditions car ils sont les présupposés qui fondent la confiance au sein de la communauté de volonté, qui sont nécessaires à l'exercice des plus hautes fonctions»  (pp. 383-384). A la lecture de ces extraits, on s'aperçoit que l'intérêt d'Evola pour Rohan (et vice-versa: Rohan cite Révolte contre le monde moderne  en page 25 de Schicksalsstunde Europas,  op. cit.) vient d'une volonté partagée entre les deux hommes de dépasser définitivement les limites étroites du bourgeoisisme, de reforger dans la «mobilisation totale» une nouvelle aristocratie européenne supra-nationale. Pour Rohan, le fascisme italien et le national-socialisme allemand sont des effervescences provisoires, brutales et violentes, qui s'avèrent nécessaires pendant le laps de temps où il n'y a plus de véritable autorité. Dès que la «domination des meilleurs» sera installée, «la crispation se détendra, la militarisation actuelle des peuples se relâchera. Car la violence ne doit s'exercer que là où manque une autorité véritable. Un pouvoir réel devra nécessairement octroyer davantage de liberté, sans pour autant craindre l'effondrement des peuples et des Etats ni une diminution de leur puissance de frappe en cas de guerre ou en temps de paix»  (p. 386). «Le nouveau type dominant, anti-bourgeois, a fait appel aux masses, il les a politisées, il les a fusionnées en unités disciplinées sous le signe de mythes nouveaux»  (p. 387).

Dans Il Regime fascista, Rohan aborde la problèmatique de l'«autre Europe», qui est, écrit-il, «notre Europe», c'est-à-dire celle de la nouvelle phalange anti-bourgeoise, regroupant des ressortissants des anciennes aristocraties (comme, par exemple, Evola et lui-même) et les élites nouvelles, fascistes ou nationales-socialistes, qui ont réussi la «mobilisation totale» des énergies populaires. Dans l'article intitulé «L'altra Europa, la "nostra" Europa» (16 février 1934), Rohan oppose sa conception de l'Europe à celle d'un autre aristocrate autrichien, le Comte Richard Nikolaus Coudenhove-Kalergi, auteur, en 1924, d'un projet de «Paneurope», regroupant tous les Etats du continent à l'exclusion de l'Angleterre et de la Russie. Cette Paneurope, qui a enthousiasmé Briand et Stresemann, devait s'inscrire dans la tradition libérale-démocratique et en étendre les principes à l'ensemble du continent. Rohan et Evola sont «paneuropéens», mais à l'enseigne de valeurs diamétralement opposées au libéralisme et au démocratisme, nés dans le sillage de 1789 ou imités des modes anglo-saxonnes.        

Thierry Maulnier: pour une philosophie économique

POUR UNE PHILOSOPHIE ÉCONOMIQUE

 

 

(Thierry Maulnier, Mythes socialistes, Paris : Gallimard, 1936, pp. 237-246.)

 

Il ne faut pas se lasser de le dire, le problème économique, n’est pas un problème séparé. On ne le résoudra pas, si l’on ne résout préalablement le problème politique dont il dépend. Toute réorganisation d’une société humaine suppose d’abord réglée la question du réorganisateur, c’est-à-dire la question du gouvernement. Et, de même qu’il est impossible d’éliminer du problème économique ses composantes politiques, de même il est impossible d’en éliminer les composantes sociales, intellectuelles, humaines. Le libéralisme du dix-neuvième siècle d’abord, le marxisme ensuite, sont nés d’une philosophie qui considérait la science économique comme la science des sciences, l’activité économique comme l’activité-mère de toutes les autres, comme un domaine intangible et sacré. Tout cela nous a coûté assez cher pour que nous ayons cessé de croire à la panacée de l’économie pure. Mais là n’est pas la question.

 

Les solutions économiques comportent des conditions politiques ; elles doivent se soumettre aux exigences de la justice, de l’ordre, de l’homme. Mais si l’on ne peut résoudre seul le problème économique, on peut affirmer, du seul point de vue de l’économie’ que certains régimes tendent naturellement à l’anarchie, à la misère et à la ruine ; que d’autres régimes peuvent créer l’harmonie et la prospérité. Ceux qui ont soumis la vie sociale tout entière aux exigences de l’économie pure nous ont fait beaucoup de mal. Mais ceux qui ont fait de l’économie avec les préjugés de partis ou de classes, le sentiment, la morale, nous en ont fait tout autant. N’en voit-on pas, aujourd’hui, engager jusqu’à leur religion dans les contestations sur la propriété et le travail, comme ils l’engagent dans les contestations sur la forme du gouvernement? Gardons-nous de donner à l’économie trop d’indépendance : gardons-nous aussi de lui ôter son autonomie. L’économie pas plus que la politique, n’a droit au gouvernement exclusif des hommes. Mais l’économie, comme la politique, est un domaine propre de l’activité humaine, et soumis à des lois qui ne se commandent point. Qu’on le veuille ou non, ces lois, comme celles de la biologie ou de la physique, ces lois sont pures, elles font l’objet d’une science pure, et toutes les confusions métaphysiques du monde n’y pourront rien changer.

 

Ceci posé, nous n’en sommes que plus à l’aise pour affirmer que le politique et l’économique, s’ils peuvent être séparés dans la méthode, ne peuvent l’être dans l’action. De même que la biologie et la psychologie, qui sont des sciences séparées, ne peuvent être pensées intégralement et dans toutes leurs composantes de façon séparée, puisqu’elles sont deux parties d’une même vie, de même en est-il de la politique et de l’économique. Vouloir restaurer l’ordre politique sans se soucier de l’ordre économique ou l’ordre économique sans l’ordre politique, est absurdité pure. L’ordre politique dans l’anarchie économique est tyrannie, puisqu’il met la force de l’État, la police, l’armée, au service d’un désordre où les faibles sont écrasés, où les abus et les spoliations restent possibles. L’ordre économique sans ordre politique est impossible, puisque lui manque la force impérative qui seule peut plier à l’intérêt commun les intérêts particuliers. La première de ces deux vérités a été trop oubliée par des conservateurs libéraux qui ont vu dans l’autorité politique le moyen de résister par la force aux revendications souvent légitimes des classes les moins favorisées ; la seconde, par les socialistes marxistes qui ont considéré l’État politique comme un instrument de lutte des classes au service de la classe dominante alors qu’il est la condition même de l’équilibre des forces sociales, et que l’harmonie sociale, loin de permettre sa disparition, exige au contraire son autorité. Le problème politique et le problème économique ne doivent pas être confondus à la légère (des erreurs comme l’économie dirigée ou le syndicalisme politique en sont la preuve), ils ne doivent pas être arbitrairement séparés.

 

Parlant de l’ordre économique, M. E. Bélime, dans une remarquable étude récemment parue, définit en termes clairs et ses limites et sa nécessité : « Posant tout entier sur le plan matériel, écrit-il, il ne promet pas à l’homme ce bien spirituel qu’est le bonheur. Les besoins et les désirs auxquels répond la production caractérisent son matérialisme, un matérialisme dont il connaît ainsi la relativité et les limites. Il sait que l’homme a d’autres besoins et d’autres désirs, mais il sait aussi son impuissance à les manifester librement, lorsque ses aspirations inférieures l’obsèdent. Dans l’espace étroit qu’il s’est tracé, il s’en tient aux humbles besognes qu’il s’est assignées et dont l’exact achèvement est la condition souvent nécessaire, sinon toujours suffisante, de l’accession de l’homme aux bien spirituels. »

 

Nous voilà prémunis en même temps contre les deux grandes causes du malaise social actuel : l’idéalisme libéral et le matérialisme collectiviste qui en a été la conséquence, méritée et fatale comme les punitions antiques. Le libéralisme du dernier siècle a consacré le divorce monstrueux, la séparation par consentement mutuel de l’esprit et du monde. Les intellectuels ont peu à peu accepté d’oublier l’étroite dépendance où l’esprit est tenu par les réalités physiques qui s’affolent, s’insurgent et l’écrasent dès qu’il cesse de les régir ; ils les ont considérées comme indignes de leur regard. Un des plus grands paradoxes de notre histoire, aux yeux de l’avenir, sera ce dédain des intellectuels pour le monde en une de ses phases de plus grave transformation, cette prétention de l’intellectuel à ne s’occuper que de soi. Qu’on le remarque bien : il ne s’agit pas ici de métaphysique. Il ne s’agit pas de faire le procès de l’idéalisme métaphysique, critique de la connaissance, doute à l’égard du monde extérieur ; mais il faut condamner sans pitié l’idéalisme pratique, la tour d’ivoire, la renonciation de l’esprit au monde des faits. Libre à chacun d’admettre que le monde physique ne soit qu’apparence : mais c’est dans cette apparence que se meut toute vie. Celui qui dédaigne les apparences, bon gré mal gré, se met au service de la mort. Marx a criblé de ses attaques cette position insensée de l’idéalisme moderne, ce superbe dédain de l’esprit, dépouillé de la direction du monde social, à l’égard de la guerre, de la misère et de l’anarchie. On ne se lassera pas de répéter que Marx et ses sarcasmes avaient raison.

 

Mais l’intellectuel, enfermant l’esprit en lui-même, abandonnait la direction de la société humaine au théoricien du monde matériel, à l’économiste. Pendant que l’intellectuel érigeait en principe le dédain de l’esprit à l’égard du monde social, l’économiste affirmait le dédain du monde social à l’égard de l’esprit. L’économie libérale, née au dix-huitième siècle, concevait la vie des sociétés comme celle des forces de production et des courants d’échange, attribuait aux marchands la puissance motrice de l’évolution humaine, et confondait l’histoire de l’homme et l’histoire des prix. La vie économique apparaissait peu à peu comme un monde sacré, intangible, soumis à des lois naturelles auxquelles l’homme ne pouvait prétendre imposer son autorité sans désastre. La politique, dans son ordre, gardait le droit de faire appel à l’organisation, à la prévision, à la raison ; dans le heurt des forces politiques, l’harmonie, on le reconnaissait, ne naissait pas d’elle-même. Mais, dans l’activité économique, — humaine elle aussi, pourtant, — toute intervention constructrice et régulatrice de la raison et de la volonté était sacrilège. L’ordre naissait du libre déchaînement des forces, des intérêts, des instincts. Dans l’économie, dans l’économie seule, le libre jeu de la nature n’avait nul besoin d’être corrigé par la civilisation et l’intelligence. Au progrès, à la prospérité, à l’harmonie des plus complexes sociétés humaines, l’économiste, seul souverain dans son domaine, a exigé qu’on appliquât les principes de la lutte pour la vie, de l’élimination des faibles, du laisser-faire ; les principes mêmes qu’en tous domaines la société des hommes a mission de combattre par le gouvernement, l’arbitrage et le droit ; les principes mêmes de la barbarie.

 

On sait les résultats présents de cette liberté forcenée donnée au producteur et au marchand par le libéralisme. Avant la réaction des faits, la réaction des hommes s’est produite, le socialisme marxiste a protesté violemment contre une pensée idéaliste, systématiquement impuissante en face des réalités humaines ; il a déclaré inadmissibles l’oppression et l’exploitation des faibles par les forts dans l’ordre de l’économie. La tentative philosophique de Marx est celle d’un nouveau réalisme, où l’esprit, détourné de la terre par l’abstraction idéaliste, se réconcilierait avec le monde physique pour reprendre son rôle puissance efficace et d’acteur dans le développement de l’histoire. Mais si, dans le principe, l’effort tenté par Marx pour atteindre, dans un monde dissocié, une nouvelle synthèse de la pensée humaine et de la réalité était parfaitement justifiable, les moyens qu’il a employés pour réaliser cette synthèse apparaissent infiniment incomplets et superficiels.

 

Le sociologue allemand n’a pas su se libérer du culte libéral de l’économie. Au moment où il parvient à ses conclusions principales, l’étrange cancer de l’économie libérale, abandonné à lui-même, alimenté par l’équipement technique et par la concurrence, s’accroît déjà de jour en jour sur le corps de la société humaine. Marx fonde toute sa philosophie sur cette déviation de l’histoire, au lieu de chercher et de retrouver la ligne directrice de l’histoire. II construit sur l’accident libéral comme sur un fait humain essentiel et permanent. Bien mieux, il analyse l’histoire tout entière en fonction, et à la lumière de la période libérale — ce qui le conduit, entre autres erreurs, à considérer la lutte des classes, fait propre à l’économie libérale, comme un phénomène constant, et à la retrouver dans les époques mêmes où, de toute évidence, elle n’existait pas. Ainsi, dès son principe, le réalisme marxiste entre dans le jeu des économistes libéraux dont il combat les formules ; il accepte d’eux la notion d’une Économie autonome, fait humain fondamental et n’obéissant qu’aux lois internes de son propre développement. Marx proclame que les principes du laisser-faire et de la concurrence, érigés en lois suprêmes par l’économie naturaliste, conduisent d’eux-mêmes à une autre forme de société, qui est collectiviste et donne le pouvoir au prolétariat ; mais, pas une seconde, il ne nie le principe même de l’économie naturaliste. Au contraire. Il ne fait qu’accroître l’importance et l’empire de l’économie dans la société.

 

Pour la pensée libérale, la vie économique se suffisait à elle-même, elle obéissait à ses propres lois, elle se comportait dans le monde humain comme un univers autonome. Mais elle n’envahissait pas les autres domaines, ceux de la politique, de la culture, des mœurs, des croyances. Marx sait que la pensée même d’une telle autonomie de l’économique, qu’une telle séparation de l’homme et de l’une de ses activités essentielles est inadmissible. Les actions et les réactions de l’économie, commerce, moyens d’échange, travail, niveau d’existence, habitat, sur toutes les formes de la vie et de la pensée sont évidentes, plus évidentes que jamais en un temps où l’essor économique semble modifier de fond en comble toutes les formes de la vie. Contre les économistes, Marx affirme donc le lien essentiel qui unit l’économie à toutes les formes de la vie sociale et individuelle. Mais, contre les idéalistes, il affirme en même temps la subordination des « superstructures » individuelles, intellectuelles, morales, de la politique, de la culture, des croyances, de la raison, de la personnalité, aux conditions collectives de la vie matérielle, c’est-à-dire à l’état économique de la société. Ainsi, par un paradoxe extraordinaire, Marx ne parvient à rendre à l’esprit sa puissance active et sa valeur créatrice qu’en le soumettant à ce qu’il y a de plus matériel dans le monde physique : il ne parvient à rétablir les rapports essentiels, niés par le libéralisme, entre la vie économique et les formes les plus complexes de la vie sociale et personnelle qu’en étendant au monde humain tout entier la royauté de l’économie jusque là bornée par les libéraux au monde proprement économique. C’est à l’économie elle-même que le marxisme demande d’affranchir l’homme des oppressions économiques. L’ordre économique était, pour les libéraux, autonome, dépendant de lui-même : il devient, pour les marxistes, souverain de toute la société humaine. Le marxisme consomme ce que le libéralisme avait commencé.

 

Pour rendre la pensée humaine et la réalité, la personnalité et la vie matérielle collective à leurs rapports naturels, c’est l’effort inverse qu’il convient de faire. L’indépendance monstrueuse acquise par les faits économiques dans la société moderne doit être non transformée en souveraineté absolue, mais réduite et maîtrisée. L’économie doit être considérée comme ce qu’elle est : c’est-à-dire une des formes de la vie sociale, une de ses formes les plus importantes, non son fondement et son principe. Nous devons non pas lui soumettre la vie sociale tout entière, mais au contraire la faire rentrer dans sa subordination naturelle à l’ensemble de la vie sociale. Les rapports économiques ne créent pas les rapports sociaux, ils en dérivent, l’échange des produits, la division des travaux supposant déjà par eux-mêmes l’instinct social existant et la vie sociale constituée. Toute critique valable du marxisme doit partir de ce fait essentiel que les faits économiques ne sont pas déterminants mais déterminés. Ils supposent l’existence de la personnalité humaine et de la solidarité humaine, de la vie sociale humaine dans toute sa complexité. Loin d’absorber en eux toute la vie sociale des êtres humains, ils doivent donc se soumettre aux lois naturelles de cette vie sociale, aux exigences, aux limitations, aux règlements, au gouvernement que suppose la vie des hommes en société. S’il y a un déterminisme historique, il est social au sens le plus complexe et le plus complet du terme, et non purement économique. Dans l’ordre de la pensée comme dans l’ordre pratique, le véritable recours contre le naturalisme libéral consiste à proclamer non la souveraineté mais la subordination de l’économie. La réconciliation demandée par Marx de l’homme et de la réalité, de la pensée et du monde n’est possible que si les lois du développement humain, ramenées illégitimement par l’auteur du Capital à une activité partielle de l’homme, sont découvertes et respectées dans leur complexité véritable : il est dans l’existence personnelle et dans l’existence sociale de l’homme des lois plus primitives, plus déterminantes encore que celles du régime du travail ou des échanges : celles de la vie humaine elle-même, — qui est plus que la vie économique — dans sa totalité : c’est sur le respect de celles-là que s’appuie l’ordre économique véritable, comme tout l’ordre civilisé.

Hommage à Knut Hamsun pour son 150ème anniversaire

 

 

Ellen KOSITZA:

 

 

 

Hommage à Knut Hamsun pour son 150ème anniversaire

 

 

 

Il y a cent cinquante ans, le 4 août 1859, naissait l’un des écrivains les plus chatoyants d’Europe. Il fut un homme fier, indocile, il cherchait la rébellion à tout prix mais demeure, malgré cela, un artiste aux sens très aiguisés.

 

Cette description ferait certes grommeler notre jubilaire: quoi, moi, un artiste? Pfff... les artistes, un ramassis qui n’a point besoin du monde! Chatoyant, moi? Fichtre, sous mes ongles, il y a de la terre sombre qui colle, alors, votre chatoyance, vos apparences... elles me laissent froid! Ecrivain, moi? Avec une rage contenue, cet homme de lettres si célèbre répondait à tous ses lecteurs qui lui écrivaient, en lui adressant leur courrier par un “A Monsieur l’Ecrivain Knut Hamsun”, qu’il était un paysan et rien de plus et que sans ses enfants, il “n’aurait même pas mérité une pierre tombale”.

 

Pour Hamsun, les hommages, qu’on lui rendait, n’avaient guère de sens. Il refusait très souvent les titres de docteur “honoris causa”, les décorations et les honneurs. Il n’avait pas l’habitude de lire les biographies qu’on lui consacrait, ni les recensions qu’on écrivait sur ses livres. Mais il s’insurgeait avec véhémence quand il voyait que la presse maltraitait un livre de sa femme Marie (en l’occurrence: “Les enfants de Langerud”, qui aujourd’hui encore reste un livre qui n’a pas pris une ride). Mieux: tout à la fin de sa carrière, il envoya la médaille du Prix Nobel, qu’il avait gagné en 1920, et qu’il jugeait “objet inutile”, à Joseph Goebbels, et, cerise sur le gâteau, rédigea une notice nécrologique pathétique à la mort d’Adolf Hitler, ce qui fit de lui, et définitivement, un personnage controversé.

 

Mais qui fut donc ce Knut Hamsun? Il était le fils d’un pauvre tailleur et d’une mère qui deviendra vite neurasthénique. Né Knud Petersen, il était le quatrième d’une famille de sept enfants, natifs du centre de la Norvège. Très jeune, il fut hébergé par un oncle, homme cultivé mais chrétien rigoriste et, par là même, incapable d’aimer, qui avait élu domicile très loin dans le Nord du pays. C’est là, parmi les animaux, les livres, en ne fréquentant qu’épisodiquement l’école, et sous des frimas qui duraient quasiment toute l’année, que Hamsun a grandi. L’adolescent était très soucieux de publier ses premiers écrits, qui n’ont pas été conservés; il en finançait l’impression et des colporteurs distribuaient ces courtes nouvelles pour quelques “öre” (quelques sous).

 

Hamsun ne s’est jamais fixé en un endroit précis: il travaillait ci et là comme instituteur, comme commis aux écritures dans l’administration ou comme ouvrier sur les chantiers des ponts et chaussées. Lorsqu’il émigra pour la première fois en Amérique en 1882 et y demeura plusieurs années, il avait déjà vécu quelques expériences à l’étranger. A vingt-neuf ans, et après de nombreuses tentatives opiniâtres, il perce enfin en littérature: un quotidien imprime son récit intitulé “La faim” (1890) en feuilleton. L’histoire se base sur les propres expériences de Hamsun à Christiana (l’actuel Oslo), où jeune artiste jeté dans les précarités de l’existence, il meurt presque de faim. Le récit attire lecteurs et critiques, qui en restent marqués à jamais.

 

Un an après, Hamsun publie un écrit polémique “Le vie intellectuelle dans l’Amérique moderne”, au ton acerbe, amer et virulent pour régler ses comptes avec l’esprit borné d’Outre-Atlantique, ressenti comme hostile à toute forme de culture. Hamsun avait demandé qu’on ne le réédite pas. Mais avec ces deux livres, son nom avait acquis célébrité. La bohème littéraire des grandes villes aimait se référer à ce poète rebelle, à ce coléreux exalté, qui, en plus,  ne mâchait pas ses mots quand il évoquait les grandes figures intellectuelles de son pays, surtout Ibsen et aussi, plus tard, son protecteur, l’écrivain national Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson. Hamsun suscitait l’intérêt parce qu’il ribouldinguait et s’avèrait un causeur spirituel de tout premier ordre.

 

Il était charmant et charmeur mais, s’il le fallait, il se montrait très combattif. Il y avait toutes sortes d’attitudes qu’il détestait: l’esprit du mouvement féministe, ensuite ceux de la réforme orthographique (“Il ne faut pas démocratiser la langue, il faut l’anoblir”), du culte des vieillards (devenu vieillard lui-même, il continuait à le mépriser: “on ne devient pas plus sage mais plus bête”), du tourisme qui était en train de se développer, de la vie urbaine (même si elle l’attirait toujours vers les métropoles), de la décadence des temps modernes et surtout l’esprit contemplatif de la bourgeoisie. Et avant toute chose, il abhorrait le monde anglo-saxon avec son “pragmatisme dépourvu d’esprit”. La Russie (parce qu’il aimait Dostoïevski), la France (parce qu’il vécut quelque temps à Paris) et surtout l’Allemagne (il y envoya sa fille Ellinor à l’école) suscitaient sa sympathie. C’est surtout la réception de ses oeuvres en Allemagne qui aida Hamsun à faire rayonner sa célébrité en dehors de la Scandinavie. Son éditeur, Albert Langen, devint l’un de ses meilleurs amis.

 

Pourtant, au départ, l’oeuvre de Hamsun a connu une réception ambigüe. Deux livres surtout ont déplu: l’énigmatique roman “Mystères” (1892), qui est considéré aujourd’hui comme un classique (récemment Helmut Krausser en a tiré une pièce de théâtre sous le titre de “Helle Nächte”/”Nuits claires”), et “Lynge, rédacteur en chef”, une critique mordante du journalisme de son époque. C’est donc avec ses romans “Pan” et “Victoria”, qui n’ont plus jamais cessé d’être édités et réédités, que Hamsun connut le succès.

 

Il eut une fille avec sa première femme en 1902, mais ce mariage fut très éphémère. S’ensuivirent des années fébriles et mélancholiques, ponctuées de crises de créativité. Hamsun en souffrit énormément. Il se soumit même à une psychothérapie de longue durée pour surmonter le syndrome de la page blanche. Son public ne s’en aperçut guère: Hamsun était un polygraphe génial; en bout de course, son oeuvre couvre trois douzaines de volumes, principalement des romans, bien sûr, mais aussi des récits, des poèmes, des drames et des souvenirs de voyage.

 

Vers 1906, plusieurs oeuvres se succèdent à un rythme rapide, comme “Sous l’étoile d’automne”, “Benoni”, “Rosa” et “Un vagabond joue en sourdine”. Une nouvelle phase dans l’oeuvre de Hamsun venait de commencer. En 1909, il épouse Marie, une actrice bien plus  jeune que lui. De ce mariage naîtront deux fils et deux filles. Amoureux de la Vie, qu’il croquait à belles dents, Hamsun savait, depuis sa plus tendre enfance, vivre et créer dans toutes les situations mais, il passait maître dans l’art de ne jamais trouver ni paix ni quiétude.

 

Dans la pauvreté, il fanchissait les obstacles; il avait l’habitude de transporter avec lui une planche qui lui servait de chevalet, son manteau lui servait d’oreiller. Quand il avait de l’argent, il le dépensait en des achats grandioses et distribuait le reste aux nécessiteux. Entouré de sa famille, il ne trouvait pas la quiétude pour écrire. Quand il se retirait, il souffrait de l’absence de sa femme et de ses enfants. Il aimait jouer avec ceux-ci. S’il vivait ici, il fallait qu’il se rende là-bas; s’il était absorbé par la rédaction d’un roman, le travail de la terre lui faisait cruellement défaut.

 

En 1911, Hamsun achète une ferme dans le Nord de la Norvège. En 1917, il retourne dans le Sud avec sa famille, où, avec l’argent que lui procurera l’attribution du Prix Nobel, il achètera une ferme parfaite selon ses voeux. Depuis des années déjà, Hamsun avait été pressenti comme candidat pour ce Prix Nobel. En 1920 aussi, les observateurs estimaient que le Nobel littéraire lui échapperait, à cause de Selma Lagerlöf, membre du jury (Hamsun se moquait d’elle, parce qu’elle était une femme célibataire et sans  enfants). Finalement, le roman de Hamsun, “L’éveil de la glèbe”, paru trois ans auparavant, fit l’unanimité. 

 

Dans ce roman, l’écrivain raconte la vie d’un paysan fruste, qui peine sur une terre ingrate, Isak: comment celui-ci se taille une place au soleil, au milieu d’une nature sauvage, comment il plante, travaille et produit; Isak est brave, fidèle et immunisé contre toute corruption de l’âme. Hamsun montre aussi comment le monde moderne, avec tout son cortège de séductions, s’approche de son héros et le frappe. Non, Hamsun n’a pas fait du romantisme à bon marché. Ne s’est pas posé comme un nostalgique qui regrette le bon vieux temps. Elle recèle chaleur et rudesse, fertilité et putréfaction: telle est la Terre sur laquelle croissent et dépérissent les créations d’Isak. De nos jours encore, “L’éveil de la glèbe” est considéré comme un jalon important dans l’histoire de la littérature mondiale.

 

Cependant, le discrédit tombera sur Hamsun. Jamais il n’avait dissimulé sa germanophilie inconditionnelle. Dans les années 30, il accumule les invectives de nature politique. En 1935, il salue le retour de la Sarre à l’Allemagne. En 1939, des semaines avant que n’éclate la guerre, il plaide pour la réintégration de Dantzig dans le Reich; et il écrit: “Les Polonais sont parfaits – en Pologne”.

 

Lorsque les Allemands occupent la Norvège en 1940 et ne précèdent les Anglais que de quelques heures, Hamsun publie plusieurs appels à son peuple, qui sympathisait avec les Anglais et l’exhortait à accepter l’occupation allemande. Hamsun n’a jamais pris position quant à l’idéologie nationale-socialiste; il n’était pas antisémite et considérait que les Juifs constituaient un peuple “très doué, formidablement musical”; pour l’antisémitisme nazi, il avait une explication toute prête: “Il y a de l’antisémitisme dans tous les pays.  L’antisémitisme succède au sémitisme comme l’effet succède à la cause”. En 1943, Hamsun rend une visite pesonnelle à Hitler, pour se plaindre de la gestion de Terboven, le Commissaire du Reich en Norvège. L’entretien se termine mal: Hamsun a failli se faire jeter dehors sans ménagement. Après cette confrontation tapageuse, Hitler aurait donné l’ordre de ne plus lui présenter des “gens pareils”.

 

A la fin de la guerre, Hamsun avait 86 ans. On le priva de liberté pendant deux ans pour “activités de trahison”: résidence surveillée à domicile, prison, asile psychiatrique. Son dernier livre, “Sur les sentiers où l’herbe repousse” (1949), raconte les péripéties de cette époque, sans aucune amertume, au contraire avec ironie et sérénité.

 

Hamsun meurt dans sa ferme à Nörholm en février 1952, réprouvé et ruiné. Contrairement à Hemingway (qui était l’un des auteurs préférés de Hamsun), notre écrivain norvégien n’a jamais tué personne; il s’est simplement agité dans le mauvais camp, celui des perdants. Voilà ce qui nous explique pourquoi des dizaines de cafés portent le nom de Hemingway. Et pourquoi, récemment encore en Norvège, une âpre polémique a éclaté pour savoir s’il fallait baptiser des rues ou des places du nom de Knut Hamsun.

 

“Je suis comme le saumon”, avait un jour écrit Hamsun, “je me sens  obligé de nager à contre-courant”.

 

Ellen KOSITZA.

(article paru dans “Junge Freiheit”, n°31-32/2009, trad. franç.: Robert Steuckers).

W. Furtwängler and Music in the Third Reich

Wilhelm Furtwängler and Music 

in the Third Reich

Antony Charles  - http://www.gnosticliberationfront.com/

Not only during his lifetime, but also in the decades since his death in 1954, Wilhelm Furtwängler has been globally recognized as one of the greatest musicians of this century, above all as the brilliant primary conductor of the Berlin Philharmonic orchestra, which he lead from 1922 to 1945, and again after 1950. On his death, the Encyclopaedia Britannica commented: "By temperament a Wagnerian, his restrained dynamism, superb control of his orchestra and mastery of sweeping rhythms also made him an outstanding exponent of Beethoven." Furtwängler was also a composer of merit

Underscoring his enduring greatness have been several recent in-depth biographies and a successful 1996 Broadway play, "Taking Sides," that portrays his postwar "denazification" purgatory, as well as steadily strong sales of CD recordings of his performances (some of them available only in recent years). Furtwängler societies are active in the United States, France, Britain, Germany and other countries. His overall reputation, however, especially in America, is still a controversial one.

Following the National Socialist seizure of power in 1933, some prominent musicians -- most notably such Jewish artists as Bruno Walter, Otto Klemperer and Arnold Schoenberg -- left Germany. Most of the nation's musicians, however, including the great majority of its most gifted musical talents, remained -- and even flourished. With the possible exception of the composer Richard Strauss, Furtwängler was the most prominent musician to stay and "collaborate."

Consequently, discussion of his life -- even today -- still provokes heated debate about the role of art and artists under Hitler and, on a more fundamental level, about the relationship of art and politics.

A Non-Political Patriot

Wilhelm Furtwängler drew great inspiration from his homeland's rich cultural heritage, and his world revolved around music, especially German music. Although essentially non-political, he was an ardent patriot, and leaving his fatherland was simply out of the question.

Ideologically he may perhaps be best characterized as a man of the "old" Germany -- a Wilhelmine conservative and an authoritarian elitist. Along with the great majority of his countrymen, he welcomed the demise of the ineffectual democratic regime of Germany's "Weimar republic" (1918-1933). Indeed, he was the conductor chosen to direct the gala performance of Wagner's "Die Meistersinger" for the "Day of Potsdam," a solemn state ceremony on March 21, 1933, at which President von Hindenburg, the youthful new Chancellor Adolf Hitler and the newly-elected Reichstag formally ushered in the new government of "national awakening." All the same, Furtwängler never joined the National Socialist Party (unlike his chief musical rival, fellow conductor Herbert von Karajan).

It wasn't long before Furtwängler came into conflict with the new authorities. In a public dispute in late 1934 with Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels over artistic direction and independence, he resigned his positions as director of the Berlin Philharmonic and as head of the Berlin State Opera. Soon, however, a compromise agreement was reached whereby he resumed his posts, along with a measure of artistic independence. He was also able to exploit both his prestigious position and the artistic and jurisdictional rivalries between Goebbels and Göring to play a greater and more independent role in the cultural life of Third Reich Germany.

From then on, until the Reich's defeat in the spring of 1945, he continued to conduct to much acclaim both at home and abroad (including, for example, a highly successful concert tour of Britain in 1935). He was also a guest conductor of the Vienna Philharmonic, 1939-1940, and at the Bayreuth Festival. On several occasions he led concerts in support of the German war effort. He also nominally served as a member of the Prussian State Council and as vice-president of the "Reich Music Chamber," the state-sponsored professional musicians' association.

Throughout the Third Reich era, Furtwängler's eminent influence on Europe's musical life never diminished.

Cultural Vitality

For Americans conditioned to believe that nothing of real cultural or artistic merit was produced in Germany during the Hitler era, the phrase "Nazi art" is an oxymoron -- a contradiction in terms. The reality, though, is not so simple, and it is gratifying to note that some progress is being made to set straight the historical record.

This is manifest, for example, in the publication in recent years of two studies that deal extensively with Furtwängler, and which generally defend his conduct during the Third Reich: The Devil's Music Master by Sam Shirakawa [reviewed in the Jan.-Feb. 1994 Journal, pp. 41-43] and Trial of Strength by Fred K. Prieberg. These revisionist works not only contest the widely accepted perception of the place of artists and arts in the Third Reich, they express a healthy striving for a more factual and objective understanding of the reality of National Socialist Germany.

Prieberg's Trial of Strength concentrates almost entirely on Furtwängler's intricate dealings with Goebbels, Göring, Hitler and various other figures in the cultural life of the Third Reich. In so doing, he demonstrates that in spite of official measures to "coordinate" the arts, the regime also permitted a surprising degree of artistic freedom. Even the anti-Jewish racial laws and regulations were not always applied with rigor, and exceptions were frequent. (Among many instances that could be cited, Leo Blech retained his conducting post until 1937, in spite of his Jewish ancestry.) Furtwängler exploited this situation to intervene successfully in a number of cases on behalf of artists, including Jews, who were out of favor with the regime. He also championed Paul Hindemith, a "modern" composer whose music was regarded as degenerate.

The artists and musicians who left the country (especially the Jewish ones) contended that without them, Germany's cultural life would collapse. High culture, they and other critics of Hitler and his regime arrogantly believed, would wither in an ardently nationalist and authoritarian state. As Prieberg notes: "The musicians who emigrated or were thrown out of Germany from 1933 onwards indeed felt they were irreplaceable and in consequence believed firmly that Hitler's Germany would, following their departure, become a dreary and empty cultural wasteland. This would inevitably cause the rapid collapse of the regime."

Time would prove the critics wrong. While it is true that the departure of such artists as Fritz Busch and Bruno Walter did hurt initially (and dealt a blow to German prestige), the nation's most renowned musicians -- including Richard Strauss, Carl Orff, Karl Böhm, Hans Pfitzner, Wilhelm Kempff, Elizabeth Schwarzkopf, Herbert von Karajan, Anton Webern, as well as Furtwängler -- remained to produce musical art of the highest standards. Regardless of the emigration of a number of Jewish and a few non-Jewish artists, as well as the promulgation of sweeping anti-Jewish restrictions, Germany's cultural life not only continued at a high level, it flourished.

The National Socialists regarded art, and especially music, as an expression of a society's soul, character and ideals. A widespread appreciation of Germany's cultural achievements, they believed, encouraged a joyful national pride and fostered a healthy sense of national unity and mission. Because they regarded themselves as guardians of their nation's cultural heritage, they opposed liberal, modernistic trends in music and the other arts, as degenerate assaults against the cultural-spiritual traditions of Germany and the West.

Acting swiftly to promote a broad revival of the nation's cultural life, the new National Socialist government made prodigious efforts to further the arts and, in particular, music. As detailed in two recent studies (Kater's The Twisted Muse and Levi's Music in the Third Reich), not only did the new leadership greatly increase state funding for such important cultural institutions as the Berlin Philharmonic and the Bayreuth Wagner Festival, it used radio, recordings and other means to make Germany's musical heritage as accessible as possible to all its citizens.

As part of its efforts to bring art to the people, it strove to erase classical music's snobbish and "class" image, and to make it widely familiar and enjoyable, especially to the working class. At the same time, the new regime's leaders were mindful of popular musical tastes. Thus, by far most of the music heard during the Third Reich era on the radio or in films was neither classical nor even traditional. Light music with catchy tunes -- similar to those popular with listeners elsewhere in Europe and in the United States -- predominated on radio and in motion pictures, especially during the war years.

The person primarily responsible for implementing the new cultural policies was Joseph Goebbels. In his positions as Propaganda Minister and head of the "Reich Culture Chamber," the umbrella association for professionals in cultural life, he promoted music, literature, painting and film in keeping with German values and traditions, while at the same time consistent with popular tastes.

Hitler's Attitude

No political leader had a keener interest in art, or was a more enthusiastic booster of his nation's musical heritage than Hitler, who regarded the compositions of Beethoven, Wagner, Bruckner and the other German masters as sublime expressions of the Germanic "soul."

Hitler's reputation as a bitter, second rate "failed artist" is undeserved. As John Lukacs acknowledges in his recently published work, The Hitler of History (pp. 70-72), the German leader was a man of real artistic talent and considerable artistic discernment.

We perhaps can never fully understand Hitler and the spirit behind his political movement without knowing that he drew great inspiration from, and identified with, the heroic figures of European legend who fought to liberate their peoples from tyranny, and whose stories are immortalized in the great musical dramas of Wagner and others.

This was vividly brought out by August Kubizek, Hitler's closest friend as a teenager and young man, in his postwar memoir (published in the US under the title The Young Hitler I Knew). Kubizek describes how, after the two young men together attended for the first time a performance in Linz of Wagner's opera "Rienzi," Hitler spoke passionately and at length about how this work's inspiring story of a popular Roman tribune had so deeply moved him. Years later, after he had become Chancellor, he related to Kubizek how that performance of "Rienzi" had radically changed his life. "In that hour it began," he confided.

Hitler of course recognized Furtwängler's greatness and understood his significance for Germany and German music. Thus, when other officials (including Himmler) complained of the conductor's nonconformity, Hitler overrode their objections. Until the end, Furtwängler remained his favorite conductor. He was similarly indulgent toward his favorite heldentenor, Max Lorenz, and Wagnerian soprano Frida Leider, each of whom was married to a Jew. Their cultural importance trumped racial or political considerations.

Postwar Humiliations

A year and a half after the end of the war in Europe, Furtwängler was brought before a humiliating "denazification" tribunal. Staged by American occupation authorities and headed by a Communist, it was a farce. So much vital information was withheld from both the tribunal and the defendant that, Shirakawa suggests, the occupation authorities may well have been determined to "get" the conductor.

In his closing remarks at the hearing, Furtwängler defiantly defended his record:

The fear of being misused for propaganda purposes was wiped out by the greater concern for preserving German music as far as was possible ... I could not leave Germany in her deepest misery. To get out would have been a shameful flight. After all, I am a German, whatever may be thought of that abroad, and I do not regret having done it for the German people.

Even with a prejudiced judge and serious gaps in the record, the tribunal was still unable to establish a credible case against the conductor, and he was, in effect, cleared.

A short time later, Furtwängler was invited to assume direction of the Chicago Symphony. (He was no stranger to the United States: in 1927-29 he had served as visiting conductor of the New York Philharmonic.)

On learning of the invitation, America's Jewish cultural establishment launched an intense campaign -- spearheaded by The New York Times, musicians Artur Rubinstein and Vladimir Horowitz, and New York critic Ira Hirschmann -- to scuttle Furtwängler's appointment. As described in detail by Shirakawa and writer Daniel Gillis (in Furtwängler and America) the campaigners used falsehoods, innuendos and even death threats.

Typical of its emotionally charged rhetoric was the bitter reproach of Chicago Rabbi Morton Berman:

Furtwängler preferred to swear fealty to Hitler. He accepted at Hitler's hands his reappointment as director of the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra. He was unfailing in his service to Goebbels' ministry of culture and propaganda ... The token saving of a few Jewish lives does not excuse Mr. Furtwängler from official, active participation in a regime which murdered six million Jews and millions of non-Jews. Furtwängler is a symbol of all those hateful things for the defeat of which the youth of our city and nation paid an ineffable price.

Among prominent Jews in classical music, only the famous violinist Yehudi Menuhin defended the German artist. After Furtwängler was finally obliged to withdrew his name from consideration for the Chicago post, a disillusioned Moshe Menuhin, Yehudi's father, scathingly denounced his co-religionists. Furtwängler, he declared,

was a victim of envious and jealous rivals who had to resort to publicity, to smear, to calumny, in order to keep him out of America so it could remain their private bailiwick. He was the victim of the small fry and puny souls among concert artists, who, in order to get a bit of national publicity, joined the bandwagon of professional idealists, the professional Jews and hired hands who irresponsibly assaulted an innocent and humane and broad-minded man ...

A Double Standard

Third Reich Germany is so routinely demonized in our society that any acknowledgment of its cultural achievements is regarded as tantamount to defending "fascism" and that most unpardonable of sins, anti-Semitism. But as Professor John London suggests (in an essay in The Jewish Quarterly, "Why Bother about Fascist Culture?," Autumn 1995), this simplistic attitude can present awkward problems:

Far from being a totally ugly, unpopular, destructive entity, culture under fascism was sometimes accomplished, indeed beautiful ... If you admit the presence, and in some instances the richness, of a culture produced under fascist regimes, then you are not defending their ethos. On the other hand, once you start dismissing elements, where do you stop?

In this regard, is it worth comparing the way that many media and cultural leaders treat artists of National Socialist Germany with their treatment of the artists of Soviet Russia. Whereas Furtwängler and other artists who performed in Germany during the Hitler era are castigated for their cooperation with the regime, Soviet-era musicians, such as composers Aram Khachaturian and Sergei Prokofiev, and conductors Evgeny Svetlanov and Evgeny Mravinsky -- all of whom toadied to the Communist regime in varying degrees -- are rarely, if ever, chastised for their "collaboration." The double standard that is clearly at work here is, of course, a reflection of our society's obligatory concern for Jewish sensitivities.

The artist and his work occupy a unique place in society and history. Although great art can never be entirely divorced from its political or social environment, it must be considered apart from that. In short, art transcends politics.

No reasonable person would denigrate the artists and sculptors of ancient Greece because they glorified a society that, by today's standards, was hardly democratic. Similarly, no one belittles the builders of medieval Europe's great cathedrals on the grounds that the social order of the Middle Ages was dogmatic and hierarchical. No cultured person would disparage William Shakespeare because he flourished during England's fervently nationalistic and anti-Jewish Elizabethan age. Nor does anyone chastise the magnificent composers of Russia's Tsarist era because they prospered under an autocratic regime. In truth, mankind's greatest cultural achievements have most often been the products not of liberal or egalitarian societies, but rather of quite un-democratic ones.

A close look at the life and career of Wilhelm Furtwängler reveals "politically incorrect" facts about the role of art and artists in Third Reich Germany, and reminds us that great artistic creativity and achievement are by no means the exclusive products of democratic societies.

Bibliography

Gillis, Daniel. Furtwängler and America. Palo Alto: Rampart Press, 1970

Kater, Michael H. The Twisted Muse: Musicians and Their Music in the Third Reich. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997

Levi, Erik. Music in the Third Reich. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1994

Prieberg, Fred K. Trial of Strength: Wilhelm Furtwängler in the Third Reich. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1994

Shirakawa, Sam H. The Devil's Music Master: The Controversial Life and Career of Wilhelm Furtwängler. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992

A Note on Wartime Recordings

Among the most historically fascinating and sought-after recordings of Wilhelm Furtwängler performances are his live wartime concerts with the Berlin and Vienna Philharmonic orchestras. Many were recorded by the Reich Broadcasting Company on magnetophonic tape with comparatively good sound quality. Music & Arts (Berkeley, California) and Tahra (France) have specialized in releasing good quality CD recordings of these performances. Among the most noteworthy are:

Beethoven, Third "Eroica" Symphony (1944) -- Tahra 1031 or Music & Arts CD 814

Beethoven, Fifth Symphony (1943) -- Tahra set 1032/33, which also includes Furtwängler's performances of this same symphony from 1937 and 1954.

Beethoven, Ninth "Choral" Symphony (1942) -- Music & Arts CD 653 or Tahra 1004/7.

Brahms, Four Symphonies -- Music & Arts set CD 941 (includes two January 1945 performances, Furtwängler's last during the war).

Bruckner, Fifth Symphony (1942) -- Music & Arts CD 538

Bruckner, Ninth Symphony (1944) -- Music & Arts CD 730 (also available in Europe on Deutsche Gramophon CD, and in the USA as an import item).

R. Strauss, "Don Juan" (1942), and Four Songs, with Peter Anders (1942), etc. -- Music & Arts CD 829.

Wagner, "Die Meistersinger:" Act I, Prelude (1943), and "Tristan und Isolde:" Prelude and Liebestod (1942), etc. -- Music & Arts CD 794.

Wagner, "Der Ring des Nibelungen," excerpts from "Die Walküre" and "Gotterdämmerung" -- Music & Arts set CD 1035 (although not from the war years, these 1937 Covent Garden performances are legendary)

"Great Conductors of the Third Reich: Art in the Service of Evil" is a worthwhile 53-minute VHS videocassette produced by the Bel Canto Society (New York). Released in 1997, it is distributed by Allegro (Portland, Oregon). It features footage of Furtwängler conducting Beethoven's Ninth Symphony for Hitler's birthday celebration in April 1942. He is also shown conducting at Bayreuth, and leading a concert for wounded soldiers and workers at an AEG factory during the war. Although the notes are highly tendentious, the rare film footage is fascinating.

About the author:

Antony Charles is the pen name of an educator and writer who holds both a master's and a doctoral degree in history. He has taught history and is the author of several books. A resident of North Carolina, he currently works for a government agency.

Reproduced From:  The Institute of Historical Review

 

Une étude néerlandaisesur Malraux, Drieu, Nizan et Brasillach

 

 

Souffrir de l’air du temps...

Une étude néerlandaise sur Malraux, Drieu, Nizan et Brasillach

 

Un livre vient de sortir de presse aux Pays-Bas: celui de Marleen Rensen, professeur de “lettres européennes modernes” à l’Université d’Amsterdam. Il est intitulé: “Lijden aan de tijd – Franse intellectuelen in het interbellum” (= “Souffrir de l’air du temps – les intellectuels français pendant l’entre-deux-guerres”). Ce livre se vendra-t-il? Je ne sais pas. Il est la version grand public d’une thèse de doctorat portant sur la façon dont quatre écrivains français, André Malraux, Pierre Drieu la Rochelle, Paul Nizan et Robert Brasillach, affrontent leur époque dans leur oeuvre, songent au temps qui passe et en sont obsédés. Indubitablement, c’est là un bon sujet. Mais, hélas, le public potentiel me semble bien réduit aujourd’hui, qui s’intéresse encore à la littérature engagée de cette époque-là et qui, de surcroît, serait prêt à se farcir des considérations d’ordre philologique, bien difficiles à ingurgiter. Et nous sommes les premiers à le déplorer. En tout cas, l’éditeur prêt à tout, aux Pays-Bas, “Aspekt” de Soesterberg, mérite nos applaudissements pour avoir publié une fois de plus un ouvrage difficile, peu commercialisable. Il faut oser le faire.

 

L’analyse que propose Marleen Rensen de quatre romans d’avant-guerre, représentatifs de ce qu’elle appelle la “génération anti-Proust”, est remarquable, mais je formulerais tout de même quelques critiques sur l’un ou l’autre détail de son travail. Je rassure: mes critiques ne portent pas sur le fond mais sur des détails, des points et des virgules, de petites inexactitudes que Marleen Rensen aurait pu éviter.  Il est inexact d’affirmer, par exemple, que l’écrivain communiste Nizan ait d’abord été membre du “Faisceau” de Georges Valois dans les années 20. Il est tout aussi inexact d’étiqueter ce mouvement de “fascistoïde”, comme le fait Marleen Rensen: c’est à coup sûr une exagération. Le terme “fascistoïde” est vague; il relève du langage pamphlétaire et non pas de la terminologie scientifique; raison pour laquelle j’éviterais de l’utiliser dans une thèse. Valois entendait, faut-il le rappeler, dissoudre son mouvement dans le front des gauches vers le milieu des années 30, donc, sa milice ne peut guère être qualifiée de “fascistoïde”. De surcroît, dans une thèse, elle aurait dû signaler, pour être exhaustive, le fait très révélateur que pendant l’occupation, le fondateur du “Faisceau” a été déporté par les Allemands à Bergen-Belsen à la suite de ses activités jugées subversives. Il y est décédé le 16 février 1945.

 

Encore une inexactitude de la même veine: le “Parti Social Français”, d’inspiration chrétienne et nationaliste, placé sous la houlette du Colonel François de la Rocque, est qualifié de “fasciste” en page 95 de l’ouvrage. François Mitterrand en était un sympathisant quand il était étudiant. Cette affirmation n’est guère scientifique. Le PSF de droite catholique était certes une formation antiparlementaire mais ne s’est jamais égaré dans les eaux de l’antisémitisme comme le PPF de Jacques Doriot. François de la Rocque a subi lui aussi la déportation pour faits de résistance, d’abord vers un camp annexe de Flossenburg, ensuite au château d’Itter qui dépendait du camp de Dachau. Je tiens à rectifier, dans les cas de Valois et de de la Rocque, car il faut veiller à ne pas coller partout, et sans discernement, l’étiquette de “fasciste”.

 

Mais, en dépit de mon pointillisme, je ne dénigre nullement l’ensemble du travail de Marleen Rensen, constitué d’analyses hors pair de quatre romans intemporels que l’on lit aussi dans bon nombre d’universités, y compris en Flandre: “L’espoir” du “fellow traveller” André Malraux, “Le cheval de Troie” du communiste Paul Nizan, “Gilles” du fasciste Drieu la Rochelle et “Les sept couleurs” de Robert Brasillach, rédacteur en chef du journal collaborationniste “Je suis partout”, fusillé en 1945. Ces quatre hommes se connaissaient avant la guerre. Drieu et Malraux étaient de bons amis et le restèrent en dépit de leurs divergences d’opinion fondamentales sur le plan idéologique. Drieu, tempérament narcissique, s’est suicidé en mars 1945. Malraux, personnalité mythomane, s’est converti au gaullisme et a réussi à se hisser au poste de ministre de la culture après 1958. Nizan et Brasillach avaient tous deux fréquenté la fameuse “Ecole Normale Supérieure”, comme Sartre, et écrivaient des recensions sur leurs ouvrages respectifs. Nizan est devenu communiste vers 1930 mais a quitté le parti après le pacte de non-agression germano-soviétique d’août 1939. Il est mort en combattant devant Dunkerque. Le parti l’a stigmatisé ensuite, lui a collé l’étiquette de “traître”.

 

Les modes d’engagement de ces hommes étaient différents, mais “Lijden aan tijd” nous montre de manière fort convaincante que les quatre écrivains se heurtaient, dans leurs oeuvres, au thème du temps, plus exactement tentaient de donner des recettes à leurs contemporains pour qu’ils sachent comment vivre (intensément) leur époque. On retrouve ce souci dans les multiples essais que nos quatre auteurs ont rédigés. Le point de départ de leurs réflexions est sans nul doute aucun la première guerre mondiale, qui apporte, explique Marleen Rensen, aux quatre écrivains une conception historique du temps, laquelle marque une différence fondamentale entre leur démarche engagée et celle, esthétique et individualiste, d’un auteur comme Marcel Proust, dont le monumental “A la recherche du temps perdu” constitue, in fine, une introspection personnelle, non chronologique, soustraite au temps social, politique et historique, bien éloigné de tout engagement social. Mais s’il peut paraître paradoxal que Proust ait été largement apprécié par les deux “fascistes” que furent Drieu et Brasillach.

 

Proust était déjà considéré comme “suranné” en son temps, où, effectivement, avec nos quatre auteurs, toute une génération s’est dressée: elle voulait que la littérature épouse les passions de l’histoire.

 

Mais Proust va gagner, conclut Rensen. “On remarquera que le roman postmoderne actuel semble revenir aux oeuvres de Proust, Mann, Gide, Joyce et Woolf, sur les plans du style et de la composition... Tandis que l’esthétique des écrivains modernistes reste de nos jours un modèle littéraire important, le style -et le style romanesque- de Brasillach, Drieu, Malraux et Nizan ne sont restés qu’un phénomène éphémère, lié à une période historique restreinte”. Pourtant, ajouterais-je, la postmodernité est, elle aussi, phénomène de mode. Le temps peut tout changer.

 

“Guitry”/’t Pallieterke.

(article paru dans ’t Pallieterke, Anvers, 10 juin 2009, trad. franç.: Robert Steuckers).

 

 

Knut Hamsun sauvé par Staline!

 

 

 

Knut Hamsun sauvé par Staline!

 

Cette année 2009 célèbre le 150ème anniversaire de Knut Hamsun (1859-1952). Le romancier norvégien, né Knut Pedersen, est, avec Hendrik Ibsen, l’écrivain norvégien le plus lu et le plus traduit dans le monde. En 1890, Knut Hamsun fait ses début avec son roman “La faim” qui innove quant à la manière d’écrire. Ce roman fut d’emblée un grand succès et amorça une carrière littéraire longue et productive. En 1920, Knut Hamsun obtient le Prix Nobel de littérature. Son influence sur la littérature européenne et américaine est énorme et d’une importance inestimable. Des écrivains comme Ernest Hemingway, Henry Miller, Louis-Ferdinand Céline, Hermann Hesse, Franz Kafka, Thomas Mann et I. B. Singer ont été inspirés par le talent de Knut Hamsun. Singer l’appelait le “père de la littérature moderne”. En Flandre, deux écrivains, Felix Timmermans et Gerard Walschap, ont reçu l’inspiration du Prix Nobel norvégien.

 

En Norvège, le 150ème anniversaire de la naissance de Knut Hamsun sera célébré par des expositions, des productions théâtrales et une conférence internationale. L’une des principales places d’Oslo, située juste à côté de l’Opéra national, portera dorénavant son nom. On érigera enfin un monument en son honneur. On dirait que les Norvégiens viennent de découvrir le nom de leur très célèbre compatriote. Ces derniers temps, un grand nombre de villes et de villages ont donné son nom à une place ou à une rue. A l’endroit où il résidait, à Hamaroy, on ouvrira officiellement un “Centre Knut Hamsun”, le 4 août, jour de son anniversaire. Ce jour-là, un timbre poste spécial sera émis. Pourtant, Knut Hamsun a été conspué et vilipendé pendant des décennies par l’établissement norvégien.

 

Goebbels

 

Hamsun a mené une vie de nomade pendant la majeure partie de son existence. Il est né fils d’un pauvre tailleur. Son père, démuni, le confia à un oncle riche. Le garçonnet devait travailler pour cet oncle afin de rembourser les dettes que ses parents avaient contractées auprès de ce dernier, âpre au gain. Au bout de quatre ans, le jeune garçon, alors âgé de quatorze ans, en a eu assez de cet oncle et s’en alla de par le vaste monde. Deux fois, la faim le poussa à émigrer aux Etats-Unis où il exerça trente-six mille petits métiers. Avec, toujours, un même objectif en tête: devenir écrivain. Son modèle était son compatriote Björnstjerne Björnson.

 

Après sa percée littéraire avec “La faim”, Hamsun devint incroyablement productif. Il devait une large part de son succès aux traductions allemandes de son oeuvre. Ses livres y connaissaient des tirages fantastiques. Grâce à son éditeur allemand, Hamsun a enfin pu connaître, après tant d’années de misère noire, la sécurité financière. Mais il y eut plus. L’écrivain norvégien n’a jamais dissimulé sa germanophilie. Qui, de surcroît, prenait davantage de relief au fur et à mesure que grandissait son anglophobie. L’arrogance britannique le révulsait. Il ne put plus la tolérer après la Guerre des Boers et les interventions musclées en Irlande. A ses yeux, les Britanniques ne méritaient plus aucune attention, rien que du mépris. A cette anglophobie s’ajouta bien vite son anti-communisme.

 

Pendant l’occupation allemande de la Norvège (1940-45), il aida certes l’occupant mais demeura avant tout un patriote norvégien intransigeant. Dans ses articles, Knut Hamsun exhortait ses compatriotes à s’engager comme volontaires pour aider les Allemands à combattre le bolchevisme. Le Président américain Roosevelt était, à ses yeux, un “juif de service”. Il fut reçu par Hitler et Goebbels avec tous les honneurs. La rencontre avec Hitler eut des effets sur le long terme. D’abord, Hamsun, atteint de surdité, foula les règles du protocole aux pieds et exigea du Führer le renvoi du gouverneur allemand Terboven, craint et haï. Personne n’avait jamais eu le toupet de parler sur ce ton à Hitler et ne l’avait à ce point brusqué. L’intervention de Hamsun eut toutefois des effets: après sa visite à Hitler, les exécutions arbitraires d’otages ont cessé.

 

La potence?

 

Le 26 mai 1945, Hamsun et son épouse, une national-socialiste convaincue, sont mis aux arrêts à domicile. Pour des raisons peu claires, Hamsun est déclaré “psychiquement dérangé” et enfermé pendant un certain dans une clinique psychiatrique d’Oslo. Le gouvernement de gauche voulait se débarrasser de lui mais, mise à part sa germanophilie, on ne pouvait rien lui reprocher. Il n’avait jamais été membre de quoi que ce soit. Bien au contraire! Grâce à lui, bon nombre de vies avaient été épargnées. Certes, il avait refusé de nier la sympathie qu’il éprouvait pour Hitler. Fin 1945, le ministre soviétique des affaires étrangères, Molotov, fait savoir à son collègue norvégien Trygve Lie qu’il “serait regrettable de voir la Norvège condamner son plus grand écrivain à la potence”. Molotov avait entamé cette démarche avec l’accord de Staline. C’est après cette intervention que le gouvernement norvégien renonça à faire le procès de Hamsun et se borna à lui infliger une solide amende qui le mena quasiment à la faillite. La question reste ouverte: la Norvège aurait-elle condamné le vieillard Hamsun à la peine de mort? Les collaborateurs norvégiens ont tous été condamnés à de lourdes peines. Mais l’Union Soviétique pouvait exercer une influence forte et redoutée en Scandinavie dans l’immédiat après-guerre.

 

Jusqu’à sa mort en février 1952, le gouvernement norvégien a traité Hamsun comme un délinquent de droit commun. Il a fallu attendre soixante ans pour qu’il soit réhabilité.

 

(texte issu de l’hebdomadaire anversois “ ’t Pallierterke”, 24 juin 2009; trad. franç.: Robert Steuckers).

Wann war das Dritte Reich?

Wann war das Dritte Reich?

Betrachtungen zu Beginn und Ende der Imperii auf deutschem Boden

von Richard G. Kerschhofer - http://www.ostpreussen.de/

Von wann bis wann existierte das Dritte Reich. Von 1933 bis 1945, werden viele sagen und vielleicht ergänzen, von der Machtergreifung am 30. Januar 1933 bis zur Kapitulation am 9. Mai 1945. Leider unrichtig, wie zu zeigen ist. Außerdem ist Hitlers Bestellung zum Reichskanzler nicht „die Machtergreifung“, denn die war ein Vorgang, der lange vor 1933 begonnen hatte und sich danach noch fortsetzte. Bis alle gleichgeschaltet oder ausgeschaltet waren.

Begonnen haben kann das Dritte Reich erst nach dem Ende des Zweiten Reiches – doch wann war das? Ebenfalls eine schwierige Frage. Der Anfang hingegen ist eindeutig: Das Zweite Reich, das „Wilhelminische Deutschland“, begann am 18. Januar 1871, als König Wilhelm I. von Preußen zum Deutschen Kaiser ausgerufen wurde.

Ebenso eindeutig sind die Eckdaten beim „Ersten Reich“, auch „Altes Reich“ genannt. Es begann am 2. Februar 962, als der zum deutschen König gewählte Sachsenherzog Otto I. von Papst Johannes XII. in Rom zum Kaiser gekrönt wurde. Dieses Reich ist später als „Sacrum Imperium“ belegt, dann als „Sacrum Romanum Imperium“ – Heiliges Römisches Reich – und am Beginn der Neuzeit wurde „deutscher Nation“ hinzugefügt. Es endete am 6. August 1806, als Kaiser Franz II. die Reichskrone niederlegte. Er hatte bereits 1804 das Erzherzogtum Österreich zum Kaisertum gemacht und war Kaiser Franz I. von Österreich geworden. Aber durfte der Kaiser das Reich beenden? Ob er durfte oder nicht – er mußte, auf Druck Napoleons.

Das Alte Reich war kein Nationalstaat, nicht einmal ein Staat im modernen Sinn – und schon lange vor Napoleon nur mehr eine Fiktion. Goethe läßt in Auerbachs Keller den einen Saufkumpan ein Spottlied auf dieses Reich anstimmen. Ein anderer bringt ihn zum Schweigen: „Ein garstig Lied! Pfui! Ein politisch Lied.“ Aber das wahrhaft Garstige war der dynastische Egoismus deutscher Fürsten, der das Reich in den Untergang trieb und die Anrainer zum Raub von Reichsgebiet einlud.

Das Erste Reich nannte sich nie „Erstes Reich“, denn kein Reich nimmt an, daß danach noch eines kommt. Auch das Zweite Reich nannte sich nicht „Zweites Reich“, denn für die allermeisten war es keine Wiedergeburt des Ersten Reiches. Es war ein weltliches Reich, keines „von Gottes Gnaden“, und es verkörperte nur die „kleindeutsche Lösung“, war also eher ein „großpreußisches Reich“.

Woher stammen dann die Ausdrücke „Erstes Reich“, „Zweites Reich“, „Drittes Reich“ und „Tausendjähriges Reich“? Sie kommen allesamt aus der Religion. Sie hängen zusammen mit dem „Millenarismus“ (lateinisch) oder „Chiliasmus“ (griechisch), mit dem Glauben an die Wiederkunft des Messias. Für „Drittes Reich“ steht auch „Tausendjähriges Reich“ – wobei „tausendjährig“ nach Ablauf des ersten Jahrtausends nicht mehr wörtlich genommen wurde, sondern soviel wie „ewig“ bedeuten sollte.

Erstmals in politischem Sinn verwendete diese Ausdrücke der deutsche Kulturhistoriker und Politiktheoretiker Arthur MOELLER VAN DEN BRUCK in seinem Buch „Das dritte Reich“ (1923). „Parteigenosse“ war er keiner und er starb schon 1925. Ob man ihn als „Wegbereiter“ bezeichnen kann, ist Geschmackssache, aber sicher erleichterte er die Arbeit nationalsozialistischer Ideologen. „Drittes Reich“ und „Tausendjähriges Reich“ paßten trefflich in das mythisch-mystische Gedankengebäude, das der religionsartigen Überhöhung einer durchaus weltlichen Politik diente. „Drittes Reich“ wird heute zwar pauschal für die NS-Zeit verwendet, war aber nicht mehr als ein Schlagwort der Propaganda. Es hatte nie ein Territorium und war nie ein Völkerrechtssubjekt.

Eines ist noch offen: Wann endete das Zweite Reich? Sicher nicht 1918, wie das die Nationalsozialisten sahen. Denn 1918 wie 1933/34 änderte sich jeweils nur die Regierungsform. 1938 entstand ein „Großdeutsches Reich“, das beinahe den großdeutschen Vorstellungen des 19. Jahrhunderts entsprach. Aber auch wenn im „Anschluß-Gesetz“ (RGBl Nr. 28 vom 18.3.1938) „Großdeutsches Volksreich“ steht – völkerrechtlich blieb es wie 1918 das „Deutsche Reich“.

Der Ausdruck „Drittes Reich“ war jetzt nicht mehr erwünscht und ab 10. Juli 1939 auf Weisung von Goebbels den Medien sogar untersagt. „Großdeutsches Reich“ findet sich im Gesetz zur Einverleibung der Rest-Tschechoslowakei (RGBl Nr. 47 vom 16.3.1939) und in anderen amtlichen Texten. Jener Erlaß der Reichskanzlei, der das Deutsche Reich auch formell in „Großdeutsches Reich“ umbenannte (RK 7669 E vom 26. Juni 1943), wurde aber nicht mehr publiziert. „Großdeutsches Reich“ stand nur auf den Briefmarken.

Anders als das Heilige Römische Reich Deutscher Nation wurde das Deutsche Reich nie durch irgendeinen Formalakt für beendet erklärt – nicht durch die Kapitulation, nicht durch die Besatzungsmächte, nicht durch Gründung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik, ja nicht einmal durch den „Zwei-Plus-Vier-Vertrag“. So wurde die Bundesrepublik zwar Rechtsnachfolgerin des nie für tot erklärten Reiches – mit allen daraus erwachsenen Nachteilen. Friedensvertrag gibt es aber keinen. Und auch Österreich hat nur einen „Staatsvertrag“ mit Einschränkungen der Souveränität, darunter das „Anschlußverbot“.

Petite bibliographie sur la Révolution Conservatrice allemande

 

 

Petite bibliographie sur la Révolution conservatrice allemande

GENERALITES

-Armin MOHLER : La Révolution Conservatrice allemande (1918-1932), Pardès, Puiseaux, 1993 (Première édition 1950).

-Dominique VENNER : Histoire d’un fascisme allemand, les corps-francs du Baltikum et la Révolution Conservatrice, Pygmalion/Gerard Watelet,Paris, 1996.

-Stefan BREUER : Anatomie de la Révolution conservatrice, Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme, Paris, 1996.

-Louis DUPEUX : Aspects du fondamentalisme national en Allemagne de 1890 à 1945 et essais complémentaires, Presses Universitaires de Strasbourg, 2001.

-Louis DUPEUX (sous la direction de) : La « Révolution Conservatrice » dans l’Allemagne de Weimar, Editions Kime, Paris, 1992.

-Barbara KOEHN (sous la direction de) : La Révolution conservatrice et ses élites intellectuelles, Presse Universitaires de Rennes, 2003.

-Paul LACOSTE : La Révolution Conservatrice allemande (1918-1932), Imperium, Epinay sur Orge, 1997.

-Edmond VERMEIL : Doctrinaires de la Révolution allemande 1918-1938, Nouvelles Editions Latines, Paris, 1948.

-Robert STEUCKERS (éditeur) : in Vouloir n°8 nouvelle série, Révolution Conservatrice, automne 1996.

-Robert STEUCKERS : La « Révolution Conservatrice » en Allemagne, 1918-1932 in Vouloir ancienne série n°59/60, novembre-décembre 1989, p : 11-16.

-Luc PAUWELS : Armin MOHLER et la « Révolution Conservatrice » in Vouloir ancienne série n°63/64, Printemps 1990, p : 13-19.

-Alain de BENOIST (entretien avec) : in Eléments n°70, printemps 1991, p : 24-37.

-Giorgio LOCCHI : Die Konservative Revolution in Deutschland 1918-1932 in Nouvelle Ecole n°23, automne 1973, p : 94-107.

-Erwin BUCHEL : Armin MOHLER, l’historien de la « Révolution Conservatrice » in Nouvelle Revue d’histoire n°8, septembre-octobre 2003, p : 22-23.

LES JEUNES CONSERVATEURS

-Oswald SPENGLER : Le déclin de l’Occident, 2 volumes, Gallimard, Paris, 1948.

-Oswald SPENGLER : Prussianisme et socialisme, Actes Sud/ Hubert Nyssen, Arles, 1986.

-Oswald SPENGLER : L’homme et la technique, Idées, Gallimard, Paris, 1969.

-Oswald SPENGLER : Années décisives, Copernic, Paris, 1980.

-Oswald SPENGLER : Écrits et pensées, Copernic, Paris, 1980.

-Robert STEUCKERS (éditeur) : Dossier Spengler in Orientations n°1, janvier 1982, p : 14-25.

-Thomas MANN : Considérations d’un apolitique, Grasset, Paris, 1975 (réédition 2002).

-Denis MAGNE : Thomas MANN ou la domination des contraires in Nouvelle Ecole n°41, Automne 1984, p : 11-44.

-Laurent SCHANG : La jeunesse « apolitique » de Thomas Mann in Nouvelles de Synergies Européennes n°33, mars-avril 1998, p : 21-22.

-Carl SCHMITT : La notion de politique/ théorie du partisan, Champs/Flammarion, Paris, 1992.

-Carl SCHMITT : Terre et mer. Un point de vue sur l’histoire mondiale, Labyrinthe, Paris, 1985.

-Carl SCHMITT : Du politique, « légalité et légitimité » et autres essais, Pardès, Puiseaux, 1990.

-Carl SCHMITT : Machiavel-Clausewitz, droit et politique face aux défis de l’histoire, Krisis, Paris, 2007.

-Carl SCHMITT : La dictature, Seuil, Paris, 2000.

-Carl SCHMITT : Théologie politique, Gallimard, Paris, 1988.

-Alain de BENOIST : Carl Schmitt actuel-« Guerre juste, terrorisme, état de guerre, Nomos de la terre », Krisis, Paris, 2007.

-Arthur MOELLER VAN DEN BRUCK : Le troisième Reich, Fernand Sorlot, Paris, 1981.

Arthur MOELLER VAN DEN BRUCK : La révolution des peuples jeunes, Pardès, Puiseaux, 1993.

-Alain DE BENOIST : Arthur MOELLER VAN DEN BRUCK, une « question à la destinée allemande » in Nouvelle Ecole n°35, Hiver 1979-1980, p : 40-73.

-Giselher WIRSING : L’âge d’Icare, de la loi et des frontières de notre temps, PanEuropa, Paris, 2003 (édition originale 1944).

LES NATIONAUX-REVOLUTIONNAIRES/NEO-NATIONALISTES

-Ernst JUNGER : Orages d’acier, Livre de poche, Paris, 1989.

-Ernst JUNGER : Le boqueteau 125, Christian Bourgois (nouvelle traduction), Paris, 1995

-Ernst JUNGER : La guerre comme expérience intérieure, Christian Bourgois, Paris, 1997 (nouvelle traduction de La guerre, notre mère).

-Ernst JUNGER : Feu et sang, Christian Bourgois, Paris, 1998.

-Ernst JUNGER : Lieutenant Sturm, Viviane Hamy, Paris, 1991.

-Ernst JUNGER : Le travailleur, Christian Bourgois, Paris, 1989.

-Ernst JUNGER : Sur les falaises de marbre, Gallimard, Paris, 1979.

-Alain de BENOIST : La figure du travailleur entre dieux et titans in Nouvelle Ecole, n°40, automne 1983, p :11-61.

-Alain de BENOIST (Editeur) : in Nouvelle Ecole, n°48, année 1996, Ernst JUNGER.

-Robert STEUCKERS (Editeur) : in Vouloir n°4 nouvelle série, printemps 1995, Ernst JUNGER 100 ans.

Robert STEUCKERS (Editeur) : in Nouvelles de Synergies Européennes, Hommage à Ernst JUNGER, n°33, mars-avril 1998, p : 2-10

-Isabelle GRAZIOLI-ROZET : JUNGER, Qui suis-je ?, Pardès, Grez-Sur-Loing, 2007.

-Isabelle GRAZIOLI-ROZET : Hommage à Ernst JUNGER in Eléments n°92, Juillet 1998, p : 4-8.

-Philippe BARTHELET (Sous la direction de) : Ernst JUNGER, Les Dossiers H, L’Âge d’Homme, Paris/ Lausanne, 2000.

-Ernst VON SALOMON : Les cadets, UGE/10-18, Paris, 1986.

-Ernst VON SALOMON : Les réprouvés, Christian Bartillat, Paris, 2007.

-Ernst VON SALOMON : Histoire proche, essai sur l’esprit corps-franc, Porte Glaive, Paris, 1987.

-Ernst VON SALOMON : Le questionnaire, Gallimard, Paris, 1982.

-Ernst NIEKISCH : « Hitler, une fatalité allemande » et autres écrits nationaux-bolcheviks, Pardès, Puiseaux, 1991.

-Thierry MUDRY : L’itinéraire d’Ernst NIEKISCH in Orientations n°7, septembre-octobre 1986, p : 34-37.

-Paul BAHN : L’itinéraire de Friedrich HIELSCHER, 1902-1990 in Nouvelle Ecole n°53-54 (Le Fascisme), année 2003, p : 170-182.

-Robert STEUCKERS : Friedrich-Georg JUNGER (1898-1977), la perfection de la technique, Synergies Européennes, Bruxelles, 1996.

-Robert STEUCKERS : L’itinéraire philosophique et poétique de Friedrich-Georg JUNGER in Vouloir n° 45/46 ancienne série, janvier-mars 1988, p : 10-12.

LES VOLKISCHEN/ FOLCISTES

-Ludwig FERDINAND CLAUSS : L’âme des races, L’homme Libre, Paris, 2001.

-Ludwig FERDINAND CLAUSS : David et Goliath in Etudes et Recherches nouvelle série, n°2, quatrième trimestre 1983, p :17-23.

-Hans F. K. GUNTHER : Platon, eugéniste et vitaliste, Pardès, Puiseaux, 1987.

-Hans F. K. GUNTHER Religiosité indo-européenne, Pardès, Puiseaux, 1987.

-Hans F. K. GUNTHER Mon témoignage sur Adolf Hitler, Pardès, Puiseaux, 1990.

-Hans F. K. GUNTHER Les peuples de l’Europe, Editions du Lore, 2006.

-Hans F. K. GUNTHER La race nordique chez les Indo-Européens d’Asie, L’Homme Libre, Paris, 2006.

-Otto RAHN : La cour de Lucifer, Pardès, Puiseaux, 1994.

-Robert STEUCKERS : L’œuvre de Hermann Wirth (1885-1981) in Vouloir n°101/102/103/104 ancienne série, avril-juin 1993, p : 53-55.

-Nicholas GOODRICK-CLARKE : Les racines occultistes du nazisme. Les Aryosophistes en Autriche et en Allemagne, 1890-1935, Pardès, Puiseaux, 1989.

LES BUNDISCHEN

-Karl HOFFKES : Wandervogel révolte contre l’esprit bourgeois, ACE, Saint-Etienne, 2001 (nouvelle édition augmentée).

-Alain THIEME : La jeunesse « Bundisch » en Allemagne au travers de Die Kommenden (janvier 1930-juillet 1931), ACE, Saint-Etienne, 2003.

-Walter FLEX : Le pèlerin entre deux mondes, Porte Glaive, Paris, 1996.

-Hans BLUHER : Wandervogel, histoire d’un mouvement de jeunesse, tome 1, Les Dioscures, Paris, 1994.

-Luc SAINT-ETIENNE : La sexologie politique de Hans BLUHER, GRECE, Paris, 1994.

LE LANDVOLKBEWEGUNG/ MOUVEMENT PAYSAN

-Ernst VON SALOMON : La ville, Gallimard, Paris, 1986.

-Michelle LE BARS : Le mouvement paysan dans le Schleswig Holstein 1928-1932, Peter Lang, Berne, 1986.

DIVERS

-Robert STEUCKERS : Conception de l’homme et Révolution Conservatrice, Heidegger et son temps in Nouvelle Ecole n°37, Printemps 1982, p : 55-75.

-Robert STEUCKERS : Le mouvement métapolitique d’Engelbert PERNERSTORFER à Vienne à la fin du XIXème siècle, précurseur de la « Révolution Conservatrice » in Nouvelles de Synergies Européennes n°55/56, avril-juillet 2002, p : 21-35.

-Stefan GEORGE : Dichtungen/Poèmes, édition bilingue, Aubier/Flammarion, Paris, 1969.

-Stefan GEORGE : L’étoile de l’alliance, Editions de la Différence, Paris, 2005.

-Jean-François THULL : Claus SCHENK Graf von Stauffenberg, un aristocrate dans la tourmente in Le Baucent, n° 19, mai-juin 2000, p : 25-30.

-Henri COURIVAUD : L’Allemagne secrète de Claus von Stauffenberg in Revue Catholica n°97, Automne 2007, p : 111-126.

-H.T. HANSEN : Julius EVOLA et la « Révolution Conservatrice » allemande, association les Deux Etendarts, Montreuil-sous-Bois, 2002.

-Werner SOMBART : Le bourgeois, Petite Bibliothèque Payot, Paris, 1966.

-Werner SOMBART : Le socialisme allemand, Pardès, Puiseaux, 1990.

-Alain de BENOIST : Le paradigme de la culture humaine in Les idées à l’endroit, Editions Libres/Hallier, Paris, 1979, p : 215-249.

-Ferdinand TONNIES : Communauté et société, Retz, Paris, 1977.

-Armin MOHLER : Le « style » fasciste in Nouvelle Ecole n° 42, Eté 1985, p : 59-86.

-Martin KIESSIG : Ludwig KLAGES et son temps in Vouloir ancienne série n°59/60, novembre-décembre 1989, p : 17-19.

-Thierry MUDRY : Le « socialisme allemand », analyse du télescopage entre nationalisme et socialisme de 1900 à 1933 en Allemagne in Orientations n°7, septembre-octobre 1986, p : 21-30.

-Thierry MUDRY : La figure du partisan, approche historique in Le Partisan Européen, n°7-8, Vendémiaire-Brumaire 1986, p :10-22.

-Thierry MUDRY : Le « socialisme allemand » de Werner Sombart in Orientations n°12, été 1990-hiver 1990-91, p : 22-27.

-Julien Freund : La décadence, Sirey, Paris, 1984.

Bibliographie réalisée par Pascal Lassalle Pour Novopress France

Ernst Jünger: The Resolute Life of an Anarch

 

Ernst Junger: The Resolute Life of an Anarch

by Keith Preston - http://attackthesystem.com/

Perhaps the most interesting, poignant and, possibly, threatening  type of writer and thinker is the one who not only defies conventional categorizations of thought but also offers a deeply penetrating critique of those illusions many hold to be the most sacred. Ernst Junger (1895-1998), who first came to literary prominence during Germany’s Weimar era as a diarist of the experiences of a front line stormtrooper during the Great War, is one such writer. Both the controversial nature of his writing and its staying power are demonstrated by the fact that he remains one of the most important yet widely disliked literary and cultural figures of twentieth century Germany. As recently as 1993, when Junger would have been ninety-eight years of age, he was the subject of an intensely hostile exchange in the “New York Review of Books” between an admirer and a detractor of his work.(1) On the occasion of his one hundreth birthday in 1995, Junger was the subject of a scathing, derisive musical performed in East Berlin. Yet Junger was also the recipient of Germany’s most prestigious literary awards, the Goethe Prize and the Schiller Memorial Prize. Junger, who converted to Catholicism at the age of 101, received a commendation from Pope John Paul II and was an honored guest of French President Francois Mitterand and German Chancellor Helmut Kohl at the Franco-German reconciliation ceremony at Verdun in 1984. Though he was an exceptional achiever during virtually every stage of his extraordinarily long life, it was his work during the Weimar period that not only secured for a Junger a presence in German cultural and political history, but also became the standard by which much of his later work was evaluated and by which his reputation was, and still is, debated. (2)

 

Ernst Junger was born on March 29, 1895 in Heidelberg, but was raised in Hanover. His father, also named Ernst, was an academically trained chemist who became wealthy as the owner of a pharmaceutical manufacturing business, finding himself successful enough to essentially retire while he was still in his forties. Though raised as an evangelical Protestant, Junger’s father did not believe in any formal religion, nor did his mother, Karoline, an educated middle class German woman whose interests included Germany’s rich literary tradition and the cause of women’s emancipation. His parents’ politics seem to have been liberal, though not radical, in the manner not uncommon to the rising bourgeoise of Germany’s upper middle class during the pre-war period. It was in this affluent, secure bourgeoise environment that Ernst Junger grew up. Indeed, many of Junger’s later activities and professed beliefs are easily understood as a revolt against the comfort and safety of his upbringing. As a child, he was an avid reader of the tales of adventurers and soldiers, but a poor academic student who did not adjust well to the regimented Prussian educational system. Junger’s instructors consistently complained of his inattentiveness. As an adolescent, he became involved with the Wandervogel, roughly the German equivalent of the Boy Scouts.(3)

 

          It was while attending a boarding school near his parents’ home in 1913, at the age of seventeen, that Junger first demonstrated his first propensity for what might be called an “adventurist” way of life. With only six months left before graduation, Junger left school, leaving no word to his family as to his destination. Using money given to him for school-related fees and expenses to buy a firearm and a railroad ticket to Verdun,  Junger subsequently enlisted in the French Foreign Legion, an elite military unit of the French armed forces that accepted enlistees of any nationality and had a reputation for attracting fugitives, criminals and career mercenaries. Junger had no intention of staying with the Legion. He only wanted to be posted to Africa, as he eventually was. Junger then deserted, only to be captured and sentenced to jail. Eventually his father found a capable lawyer for his wayward son and secured his release. Junger then returned to his studies and underwent a belated high school graduation. However, it was only a very short time later that Junger was back in uniform. (4)

 

Warrior and War Diarist

 

Ernst Junger immediately volunteered for military service when he heard the news that Germany was at war in the summer of 1914. After two months of training, Junger was assigned to a reserve unit stationed at Champagne. He was afraid the war would end before he had the opportunity to see any action. This attitude was not uncommon among many recruits or conscripts who fought in the war for their respective states. The question immediately arises at to why so many young people would wish to look into the face of death with such enthusiasm. Perhaps they really did not understand the horrors that awaited them. In Junger’s case, his rebellion against the security and luxury of his bourgeoise upbringing had already been ably demonstrated by his excursion with the French Foreign Legion. Because of his high school education, something that soldiers of more proletarian origins lacked, Junger was selected to train to become an officer. Shortly before beginning his officer’s training, Junger was exposed to combat for the first time. From the start, he carried pocket-sized notebooks with him and recorded his observations on the front lines. His writings while at the front exhibit a distinctive tone of detachment, as though he is simply an observer watching while the enemy fires at others. In the middle part of 1915, Junger suffered his first war wound, a bullet graze to the thigh that required only two weeks of recovery time. Afterwards, he was promoted to the rank of lieutenant.(5)

 

At age twenty-one, Junger was the leader of a reconnaissance team at the Somme whose purpose was to go out at night and search for British landmines. Early on, he acquired the reputation of a brave soldier who lacked the preoccupation with his own safety common to most of the fighting men. The introduction of steel artifacts into the war, tanks for the British side and steel helmets for the Germans, made a deep impression on Junger. Wounded three times at the Somme, Junger was awarded the Iron Medal First Class. Upon recovery, he returned to the front lines. A combat daredevil, he once held out against a much larger British force with only twenty men. After being transferred to fight the French at Flanders, he lost ten of his fourteen men and was wounded in the left hand by a blast from French shelling. After being harshly criticized by a superior officer for the number of men lost on that particular mission, Junger began to develop a contempt for the military hierarchy whom he regarded as having achieved their status as a result of their class position, frequently lacking combat experience of their own. In late 1917, having already experienced nearly three full years of combat, Junger was wounded for the fifth time during a surprise assault by the British. He was grazed in the head by a bullet, acquiring two holes in his helmet in the process. His performance in this battle won him the Knights Cross of the Hohenzollerns. In March 1918, Junger participated in another fierce battle with the British, losing 87 of his 150 men. (6)

 

            Nothing impressed Junger more than personal bravery and endurance on the part of soldiers. He once “fell to the ground in tears” at the sight of a young recruit who had only days earlier been unable to carry an ammunition case by himself suddenly being able to carry two cases of missles after surviving an attack of British shells. A recurring theme in Junger’s writings on his war experiences is the way in which war brings out the most savage human impulses. Essentially, human beings are given full license to engage in behavior that would be considered criminal during peacetime. He wrote casually about burning occupied towns during the course of retreat or a shift of position. However, Junger also demonstrated a capacity for merciful behavior during his combat efforts. He refrained from shooting a cornered British soldier after the foe displayed a portrait of his family to Junger. He was wounded yet again in August of 1918. Having been shot in the chest and directly through a lung, this was his most serious wound yet. After being hit, he still managed to shoot dead yet another British officer. As Junger was being carried off the battlefield on a stretcher, one of the stretcher carriers was killed by a British bullet. Another German soldier attempted to carry Junger on his back, but the soldier was shot dead himself and Junger fell to the ground. Finally, a medic recovered him and pulled him out of harm’s way. This episode would be the end of his battle experiences during the Great War.(7)

 

In Storms of Steel

 

Junger’s keeping of his wartime diaries paid off quite well in the long run. They were to become the basis of his first and most famous book, In Storms of Steel, published in 1920. The title was given to the book by Junger himself, having found the phrase in an old Icelandic saga. It was at the suggestion of his father that Junger first sought to have his wartime memoirs published. Initially, he found no takers, antiwar sentiment being extremely high in Germany at the time, until his father at last arranged to have the work published privately. In Storms of Steel differs considerably from similar works published by war veterans during the same era, such as Erich Maria Remarque’s All Quiet on the Western Front and John Dos Passos’ Three Soldiers. Junger’s book reflects none of the disillusionment with war by those experienced in its horrors of the kind found in these other works. Instead, Junger depicted warfare as an adventure in which the soldier faced the highest possible challenge, a battle to the death with a mortal enemy. Though Junger certainly considered himself to be a patriot and, under the influence of Maurice Barres (8), eventually became a strident German nationalist, his depiction of military combat as an idyllic setting where human wills face the supreme test rose far above ordinary nationalist sentiments. Junger’s warrior ideal was not merely the patriot fighting out of a profound sense of loyalty to his country  nor the stereotype of the dutiful soldier whose sense of honor and obedience compels him to follow the orders of his superiors in a headlong march towards death. Nor was the warrior prototype exalted by Junger necessarily an idealist fighting for some alleged greater good such as a political ideal or religious devotion. Instead, war itself is the ideal for Junger. On this question, he was profoundly influenced by Nietzsche, whose dictum “a good war justifies any cause”, provides an apt characterization of Junger’s depiction of the life (and death) of the combat soldier. (9)

 

This aspect of Junger’s outlook is illustrated quite well by the ending he chose to give to the first edition of In Storms of Steel. Although the second edition (published in 1926) ends with the nationalist rallying cry, “Germany lives and shall never go under!”, a sentiment that was deleted for the third edition published in 1934 at the onset of the Nazi era, the original edition ends simply with Junger in the hospital after being wounded for the final time and receiving word that he has received yet another commendation for his valor as a combat soldier. There is no mention of Germany’s defeat a few months later. Nationalism aside, the book is clearly about Junger, not about Germany, and Junger’s depiction of the war simultaneously displays an extraordinary level detachment for someone who lived in the face of death for four years and a highly personalized account of the war where battle is first and foremost about the assertion of one’s own “will to power” with cliched patriotic pieties being of secondary concern.

 

Indeed, Junger goes so far as to say there were winners and losers on both sides of the war. The true winners were not those who fought in a particular army or for a particular country, but who rose to the challenge placed before them and essentially achieved what Junger regarded as a higher state of enlightenment. He believed the war had revealed certain fundamental truths about the human condition. First, the illusions of the old bourgeoise order concerning peace, progress and prosperity had been inalterably shattered. This was not an uncommon sentiment during that time, but it is a revelation that Junger seems to revel in while others found it to be overwhelmingly devastating. Indeed, the lifelong champion of Enlightenment liberalism, Bertrand Russell, whose life was almost as long as Junger’s and who observed many of the same events from a much different philosophical perspective, once remarked that no one who had been born before 1914 knew what it was like to be truly happy.(10) A second observation advanced by Junger had to do with the role of technology in transforming the nature of war, not only in a purely mechanical sense, but on a much greater existential level. Before, man had commanded weaponry in the course of combat. Now weaponry of the kind made possible by modern technology and industrial civilization essentially commanded man. The machines did the fighting. Man simply resisted this external domination. Lastly, the supremacy of might and the ruthless nature of human existence had been demonstrated. Nietzsche was right. The tragic, Darwinian nature of the human condition had been revealed as an irrevocable law.

 

In Storms of Steel was only the first of several works based on his experiences as a combat officer that were produced by Junger during the 1920s. Copse 125 described a battle between two small groups of combatants. In this work, Junger continued to explore the philosophical themes present in his first work. The type of technologically driven warfare that emerged during the Great War is characterized as reducing men to automatons driven by airplanes, tanks and machine guns. Once again, jingoistic nationalism is downplayed as a contributing factor to the essence of combat soldier’s spirit. Another work of Junger’s from the early 1920s, Battle as Inner Experience, explored the psychology of war. Junger suggested that civilization itself was but a mere mask for the “primordial” nature of humanity that once again reveals itself during war. Indeed, war had the effect of elevating humanity to a higher level. The warrior becomes a kind of god-like animal, divine in his superhuman qualities, but animalistic in his bloodlust. The perpetual threat of imminent death is a kind of intoxicant. Life is at its finest when death is closest. Junger described war as a struggle for a cause that overshadows the respective political or cultural ideals of the combatants. This overarching cause is courage. The fighter is honor bound to respect the courage of his mortal enemy. Drawing on the philosophy of Nietzsche, Junger argued that the war had produced a “new race” that had replaced the old pieties, such as those drawn from religion, with a new recognition of the primacy of the “will to power”.(11)

 

Conservative Revolutionary

 

Junger’s writings about the war quickly earned him the status of a celebrity during the Weimar period. Battle as Inner Experience contained the prescient suggestion that the young men who had experienced the greatest war the world had yet to see at that point could never be successfully re-integrated into the old bougeoise order from which they came. For these fighters, the war had been a spiritual experience. Having endured so much only to see their side lose on such seemingly humiliating terms, the veterans of the war were aliens to the rationalistic, anti-militarist, liberal republic that emerged in 1918 at the close of the war. Junger was at his parents’ home recovering from war wounds during the time of the attempted coup by the leftist workers’ and soldiers’ councils and subsequent suppression of these by the Freikorps. He experimented with psychoactive drugs such as cocaine and opium during this time, something that he would continue to do much later in life. Upon recovery, he went back into active duty in the much diminished Germany army. Junger’s earliest works, such as In Storms of Steel, were published during this time and he also wrote for military journals on the more technical and specialized aspects of combat and military technology. Interestingly, Junger attributed Germany’s defeat in the war simply to poor leadership, both military and civilian, and rejected the “stab in the back” legend that consoled less keen veterans.

 

After leaving the army in 1923, Junger continued to write, producing a novella about a soldier during the war titled Sturm, and also began to study the philosophy of Oswald Spengler. His first work as a philosopher of nationalism appeared the Nazi paper Volkischer Beobachter in September, 1923.

Critiquing the failed Marxist revolution of 1918, Junger argued that the leftist coup failed because of its lacking of fresh ideas. It was simply a regurgitation of the egalitarian outllook of the French Revolution. The revolutionary left appealed only to the material wants of the Germany people in Junger’s views. A successful revolution would have to be much more than that. It would have to appeal to their spiritual or “folkish” instincts as well. Over the next few years Junger studied the natural sciences at the University of Leipzig and in 1925, at age thirty, he married nineteen-year-old Gretha von Jeinsen. Around this time, he also became a full-time political  writer. Junger was hostile to Weimar democracy and its commercial bourgeiose society. His emerging political ideal was one of an elite warrior caste that stood above petty partisan politics and the middle class obsession with material acquisition. Junger became involved with the the Stahlhelm, a right-wing veterans group, and was a contributer to its paper, Die Standardite. He associated himself with the younger, more militant members of the organization who favored an uncompromised nationalist revolution and eschewed the parliamentary system. Junger’s weekly column in Die Standardite disseminated his nationalist ideology to his less educated readers. Junger’s views at this point were a mixture of Spengler, Social Darwinism, the traditionalist philosophy of the French rightist Maurice Barres, opposition to the internationalism of the left that had seemingly been discredited by the events of 1914, irrationalism and anti-parliamentarianism. He took a favorable view of the working class and praised the Nazis’ efforts to win proletarian sympathies. Junger also argued that a nationalist outlook need not be attached to one particular form of government, even suggesting that a liberal monarchy would be inferior to a nationalist republic.(12)

 

In an essay for Die Standardite titled “The Machine”, Junger argued that the principal struggle was not between social classes or political parties but between man and technology. He was not anti-technological in a Luddite sense, but regarded the technological apparatus of modernity to have achieved a position of superiority over mankind which needed to be reversed. He was concerned that the mechanized efficiency of modern life produced a corrosive effect on the human spirit. Junger considered the Nazis’ glorification of peasant life to be antiquated. Ever the realist, he believed the world of the rural people to be in a state of irreversible decline. Instead, Junger espoused a “metropolitan nationalism” centered on the urban working class. Nationalism was the antidote to the anti-particularist materialism of the Marxists who, in Junger’s views, simply mirrored the liberals in their efforts to reduce the individual to a component of a mechanized mass society. The humanitarian rhetoric of the left Junger dismissed as the hypocritical cant of power-seekers feigning benevolence. He began to pin his hopes for a nationalist revolution on the younger veterans who comprised much of the urban working class.

 

In 1926, Junger became editor of Arminius, which also featured the writings of Nazi leaders like Alfred Rosenberg and Joseph Goebbels. In 1927, he contributed his final article to the Nazi paper, calling for a new definition of the “worker”, one not rooted in Marxist ideology but the idea of the worker as a civilian counterpart to the soldier who struggles fervently for the nationalist ideal. Junger and  Hitler had exchanged copies of their respective writings and a scheduled meeting between the two was canceled due to a change in Hitler’s itinerary. Junger respected Hitler’s abilities as an orator, but came to feel he lacked the ability to become a true leader. He also found Nazi ideology to be intellectually shallow, many of the Nazi movement’s leaders to be talentless and was displeased by the vulgarity,  crassly opportunistic and overly theatrical aspects of Nazi public rallies. Always an elitist, Junger considered the Nazis’ pandering the common people to be debased. As he became more skeptical of the Nazis, Junger began writing for a wider circle of readers beyond that of the militant nationalist right-wing. His works began to appear in the Jewish liberal Leopold Schwarzchild’s Das Tagebuch and the “national-bolshevik” Ernst Niekisch’s Widerstand.

 

Junger began to assemble around himself an elite corps of bohemian, eccentric intellectuals who would meet regularly on Friday evenings. This group included some of the most interesting personalities of the Weimar period. Among them were the Freikorps veteran Ernst von Salomon, Otto von Strasser, who with his brother Gregor led a leftist anti-Hitler faction of the Nazi movement, the national-bolshevik Niekisch, the Jewish anarchist Erich Muhsam who had figured prominently in the early phase of the failed leftist revolution of 1918, the American writer Thomas Wolfe and the expressionist writer Arnolt Bronnen. Many among this group espoused a type of revolutionary socialism based on nationalism rather than class, disdaining the Nazis’ opportunistic outreach efforts to the middle class. Some, like Niekisch, favored an alliance between Germany and Soviet Russia against the liberal-capitalist powers of the West. Occasionally, Joseph Goebbels would turn up at these meetings hoping to convert the group, particularly Junger himself, whose war writings he had admired, to the Nazi cause. These efforts by the Nazi propaganda master proved unsuccessful. Junger regarded Goebbels as a shallow ideologue who spoke in platitudes even in private conversation.(13)

 

The final break between Ernst Junger and the NSDAP occurred in September 1929. Junger published an article in Schwarzchild’s Tagebuch attacking and ridiculing the Nazis as sell outs for having reinvented themselves as a parliamentary party. He also dismissed their racism and anti-Semitism as ridiculous, stating that according to the Nazis a nationalist is simply someone who “eats three Jews for breakfast.” He condemned the Nazis for pandering to the liberal middle class and reactionary traditional conservatives “with lengthy tirades against the decline in morals, against abortion, strikes, lockouts, and the reduction of police and military forces.” Goebbels responded by attacking Junger in the Nazi press, accusing him being motivated by personal literary ambition, and insisting this had caused him “to vilify the national socialist movement, probably so as to make himself popular in his new kosher surroundings” and dismissing Junger’s attacks by proclaiming the Nazis did not “debate with renegades who abuse us in the smutty press of Jewish traitors.”(14)

 

Junger on the Jewish Question

 

Junger held complicated views on the question of German Jews. He considered anti-Semitism of the type espoused by Hitler to be crude and reactionary. Yet his own version of nationalism required a level of homogeneity that was difficult to reconcile with the subnational status of Germany Jewry. Junger suggested that Jews should assimilate and pledge their loyalty to Germany once and for all. Yet he expressed admiration for Orthodox Judaism and indifference to Zionism. Junger maintained personal friendships with Jews and wrote for a Jewish owned publication. During this time his Jewish publisher Schwarzchild published an article examining Junger’s views on the Jews of Germany. Schwarzchild insisted that Junger was nothing like his Nazi rivals on the far right. Junger’s nationalism was based on an aristocratic warrior ethos, while Hitler’s was more comparable to the criminal underworld. Hitler’s men were “plebian alley scum”. However, Schwarzchild also characterized Junger’s rendition of nationalism as motivated by little more than a fervent rejection of bourgeoise society and lacking in attention to political realities and serious economic questions.(15)

 

The Worker

 

Other than In Storms of Steel, Junger’s The Worker: Mastery and Form was his most influential work from the Weimar era. Junger would later distance himself from this work, published in 1932, and it was reprinted in the 1950s only after Junger was prompted to do so by Martin Heidegger.

In The Worker, Junger outlines his vision of a future state ordered as a technocracy based on workers and soldiers led by a warrior elite. Workers are no longer simply components of an industrial machine, whether capitalist or communist, but have become a kind of civilian-soldier operating as an economic warrior. Just as the soldier glories in his accomplishments in battle, so does the worker glory in the achievements expressed through his work. Junger predicted that continued technological advancements would render the worker/capitalist dichotomy obsolete. He also incorporated the political philosophy of his friend Carl Schmitt into his worldview. As Schmitt saw international relations as a Hobbesian battle between rival powers, Junger believed each state would eventually adopt a system not unlike what he described in The Worker. Each state would maintain its own technocratic order with the workers and soldiers of each country playing essentially the same role on behalf of their respective nations. International affairs would be a crucible where the will to power of the different nations would be tested.

Junger’s vision contains a certain amount prescience. The general trend in politics at the time was a movement towards the kind of technocratic state Junger described. These took on many varied forms including German National Socialism, Italian Fascism, Soviet Communism, the growing welfare states of Western Europe and America’s New Deal. Coming on the eve of World War Two, Junger’s prediction of a global Hobbesian struggle between national collectives possessing previously unimagined levels of technological sophistication also seems rather prophetic. Junger once again attacked the bourgeoise as anachronistic. Its values of material luxury and safety he regarded as unfit for the violent world of the future. (16)

 

The National Socialist Era

 

By the time Hitler took power in 1933, Junger’s war writings had become commonly used in high schools and universities as examples of wartime literature, and Junger enjoyed success within the context of German popular culture as well. Excerpts of Junger’s works were featured in military journals. The Nazis tried to coopt his semi-celebrity status, but he was uncooperative. Junger was appointed to the Nazified German Academcy of Poetry, but declined the position. When the Nazi Party’s paper published some of his work in 1934, Junger wrote a letter of protest. The Nazi regime, despite its best efforts to capitalize on his reputation, viewed Junger with suspicioun. His past association with the national-bolshevik Ersnt Niekisch, the Jewish anarchist Erich Muhsam and the anti-Hitler Nazi Otto von Strasser, all of whom were either eventually killed or exiled by the Third Reich, led the Nazis to regard Junger as a potential subversive. On several occasions, Junger received visits from the Gestapo in search of some of his former friends. During the early years of the Nazi regime, Junger was in the fortunate position of being able to economically afford travel outside of Germany. He journeyed to Norway, Brazil, Greece and Morocco during this time, and published several works based on his travels.(17)

 

Junger’s most significant work from the Nazi period is the novel On the Marble Cliffs. The book is an allegorical attack on the Hitler regime. It was written in 1939, the same year that Junger reentered the German army. The book describes a mysterious villian that threatens a community, a sinister warlord called the “Head Ranger”. This character is never featured in the plot of the novel, but maintains a forboding presence that is universal (much like “Big Brother” in George Orwell’s 1984). Another character in the novel, “Braquemart”, is described as having physical characteristics remarkably similar to those of Goebbels. The book sold fourteen thousand copies during its first two weeks in publication. Swiss reviewers immediately recognized the allegorical references to the Nazi state in the novel. The Nazi Party’s organ, Volkische Beobachter, stated that Ernst Jünger was flirting with a bullet to the head. Goebbels urged Hitler to ban the book, but Hitler refused, probably not wanting to show his hand. Indeed, Hitler gave orders that Junger not be harmed.(18)

         

Junger was stationed in France for most of the Second World War. Once again, he kept diaries of the experience. Once again, he expressed concern that he might not get to see any action before the war was over. While Junger did not have the opportunity to experience the level of danger and daredevil heroics he had during the Great War, he did receive yet another medal, the Iron Cross, for retrieving the body of a dead corporal while under heavy fire. Junger also published some of his war diaries during this time. However, the German government took a dim view of these, viewing them as too sympathetic to the occupied French. Junger’s duties included censorship of the mail coming into France from German civilians. He took a rather liberal approach to this responsibility and simply disposed of incriminating documents rather than turning them over for investigation. In doing so, he probably saved lives. He also encountered members of France’s literary and cultural elite, among them the actor Louis Ferdinand Celine, a raving anti-Semite and pro-Vichyite who suggested Hitler’s harsh measures against the Jews had not been heavy handed enough. As rumors of the Nazi extermination programs began to spread,  Junger wrote in his diary that the mechanization of the human spirit of the type he had written about in the past had apparently generated a higher level of human depravity. When he saw three young French-Jewish girls wearing the yellow stars required by the Nazis, he wrote that he felt embarrassed to be in the Nazi army. In July of 1942, Junger observed the mass arrest of French Jews, the beginning of implementation of the “Final Solution”. He described the scene as follows:

 

“Parents were first separated from their children, so there was wailing to be heard in the streets. At no moment may I forget that I am surrounded by the unfortunate, by those suffering to the very depths, else what sort of person, what sort of officer would I be? The uniform obliges one to grant protection wherever it goes. Of course one has the impression that one must also, like Don Quixote, take on millions.”(19)

         

An entry into Junger’s diary from October 16, 1943 suggests that an unnamed army officer had told  Junger about the use of crematoria and poison gas to murder Jews en masse. Rumors of plots against Hitler circulated among the officers with whom Junger maintained contact. His son, Ernstl, was arrested after an informant claimed he had spoken critically of Hitler. Ernstl Junger was imprisoned for three months, then placed in a penal battalion where he was killed in action in Italy. On July 20, 1944 an unsuccessful assassination attempt was carried out against Hitler. It is still disputed as to whether or not Junger knew of the plot or had a role in its planning. Among those arrested for their role in the attemt on Hitler’s life were members of Junger’s immediate circle of associates and superior officers within the German army. Junger was dishonorably discharged shortly afterward.(20)

 

Following the close of the Second World War, Junger came under suspicion from the Allied occupational authorities because of his far right-wing nationalist and militarist past. He refused to cooperate with the Allies De-Nazification programs and was barred from publishing for four years. He would go on to live another half century, producing many more literary works, becoming a close friend of Albert Hoffman, the inventor of the hallucinogen LSD, with which he experimented. In a 1977 novel, Eumeswil, he took his tendency towards viewing the world around him with detachment to a newer, more clearly articulated level with his invention of the concept of the “Anarch”. This idea, heavily influenced by the writings of the early nineteenth century German philosopher Max Stirner, championed the solitary individual who remains true to himself within the context of whatever external circumstances happen to be present. Some sample quotations from this work illustrate the philosophy and worldview of the elderly Junger quite well:

 

“For the anarch, if he remains free of being ruled, whether by sovereign or society, this does not mean he refuses to serve in any way. In general, he serves no worse than anyone else, and sometimes even better, if he likes the game. He only holds back from the pledge, the sacrifice, the ultimate devotion … I serve in the Casbah; if, while doing this, I die for the Condor, it would be an accident, perhaps even an obliging gesture, but nothing more.”

 

“The egalitarian mania of demagogues is even more dangerous than the brutality of men in gallooned coats. For the anarch, this remains theoretical, because he avoids both sides. Anyone who has been oppressed can get back on his feet if the oppression did not cost him his life. A man who has been equalized is physically and morally ruined. Anyone who is different is not equal; that is one of the reasons why the Jews are so often targeted.”

 

“The anarch, recognizing no government, but not indulging in paradisal dreams as the anarchist does, is, for that very reason, a neutral observer.”

 

“Opposition is collaboration.”

 

“A basic theme for the anarch is how man, left to his own devices, can defy superior force - whether state, society or the elements - by making use of their rules without submitting to them.”

 

“… malcontents… prowl through the institutions eternally dissatisfied, always disappointed. Connected with this is their love of cellars and rooftops, exile and prisons, and also banishment, on which they actually pride themselves. When the structure finally caves in they are the first to be killed in the collapse. Why do they not know that the world remains inalterable in change? Because they never find their way down to its real depth, their own. That is the sole place of essence, safety. And so they do themselves in.”

 

“The anarch may not be spared prisons - as one fluke of existence among others. He will then find the fault in himself.”

 

“We are touching one a … distinction between anarch and anarchist; the relation to authority, to legislative power. The anarchist is their mortal enemy, while the anarch refuses to acknowledge them. He seeks neither to gain hold of them, nor to topple them, nor to alter them - their impact bypasses him. He must resign himself only to the whirlwinds they generate.”

 

“The anarch is no individualist, either. He wishes to present himself neither as a Great Man nor as a Free Spirit. His own measure is enough for him; freedom is not his goal; it is his property. He does not come on as foe or reformer: one can get along nicely with him in shacks or in palaces. Life is too short and too beautiful to sacrifice for ideas, although contamination is not always avoidable. But hats off to the martyrs.”

 

“We can expect as little from society as from the state. Salvation lies in the individual.” (21)

 

Notes:

 

1. Ian Buruma, “The Anarch at Twilight”, New York Review of Books, Volume 40, No. 12, June 24, 1993. Hilary Barr, “An Exchange on Ernst Junger”, New York Review of Books, Volume 40, No. 21, December 16, 1993.

 

2. Nevin, Thomas. Ernst Junger and Germany: Into the Abyss, 1914-1945. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1996, pp. 1-7. Loose, Gerhard. Ernst Junger. New York: Twayne Publishers, 1974, preface.

 

3. Nevin, pp. 9-26. Loose, p. 21

 

4. Loose, p. 22. Nevin, pp. 27-37.

 

5. Nevin. p. 49.

 

6. Ibid., p. 57

 

7. Ibid., p. 61

 

8. Maurice Barrès (September 22, 1862 - December 4, 1923) was a French novelist, journalist, an anti-semite, nationalist politician and agitator. Leaning towards the far-left in his youth as a Boulangist deputy, he progressively developed a theory close to Romantic nationalism and shifted to the right during the Dreyfus Affair, leading the Anti-Dreyfusards alongside Charles Maurras. In 1906, he was elected both to the Académie française and as deputy of the Seine department, and until his death he sat with the conservative Entente républicaine démocratique. A strong supporter of the Union sacrée(Holy Union) during World War I, Barrès remained a major influence of generations of French writers, as well as of monarchists, although he was not a monarchist himself. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Barr%C3%A8s

 

9. Nevin, pp. 58, 71, 97.

 

10. Schilpp, P. A. “The Philosophy of Bertrand Russell”.  Reviewed Hermann Weyl, The American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 53, No. 4 (Apr., 1946), pp. 208-214.

 

11. Nevin, pp. 122, 125, 134, 136, 140, 173.

 

12. Ibid., pp. 75-91.

 

13. Ibid., p. 107.

 

14. Ibid., p. 108.

 

15. Ibid., pp. 109-111.

 

16. Ibid., pp. 114-140.

 

17. Ibid., p. 145.

 

18. Ibid., p. 162.

 

19. Ibid., p. 189.

 

20. Ibid., p. 209.

 

21. Junger, Ernst. Eumeswil. New York: Marion Publishers, 1980, 1993.

 

Bibliography

 

Barr, Hilary. “An Exchange on Ernst Junger”, New York Review of Books, Volume 40, No. 21, December 16, 1993.

 

Braun, Abdalbarr. “Warrior, Waldgaenger, Anarch: An Essay on Ernst Junger’s Concept of the Sovereign Individual”. Archived at http://www.fluxeuropa.com/juenger-anarch.htm

 

Buruma, Ian. “The Anarch at Twilight”, New York Review of Books, Volume 40, No. 12, June 24, 1993.

 

Hofmann, Albert. LSD: My Problem Child, Chapter Seven, “Radiance From Ernst Junger”. Archived at http://www.flashback.se/archive/my_problem_child/chapter7.html

 

Loose, Gerhard. Ernst Junger. New York: Twayne Publishers, 1974.

 

Hervier, Julien. The Details of Time: Conversations with Ernst Junger. New York: Marsilio Publishers, 1986.

 

Junger, Ernst. Eumeswil. New York: Marsilio Publishers, 1980, 1993.

 

Junger, Ernst. In Storms of Steel. New York: Penguin Books, 1920, 1963, 2003.

 

Junger, Ernst. On the Marble Cliffs. New York: Duenewald Printing Corporation, 1947.

 

Nevin, Thomas. Ernst Junger and Germnay: Into the Abyss, 1914-1945. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1996.

 

Schilpp, P. A. “The Philosophy of Bertrand Russell”.  Reviewed Hermann Weyl, The American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 53, No. 4 (Apr., 1946), pp. 208-214.

 

Stern, J. P. Ernst Junger. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953.

 

Zavrel, Consul B. John. “Ernst Junger is Still Working at 102″. Archived at http://www.meaus.com/Ernst%20Junger%20at%20102.html

 

La révolution conservatrice en Allemagne (1918-1932)

SYNERGIES EUROPÉENNES - Novembre 1989

 

La "Révolution Conservatrice" en Allemagne (1918-1932)

 

A propos de la réédition tant attendue du célèbre manuel d'Armin Mohler

 

par Robert STEUCKERS

 

L'ouvrage d'Armin Mohler sur la "Konservative Revolution" (KR) a été si souvent cité, qu'il est de-venu, dans l'espace linguistique francophone, chez ceux qui cultivent une sorte d'adhésion affective aux idées vitalistes allemandes déri-vées de Nietzsche, une sorte de mythe, de ré-férence mythique très mal connue mais souvent évoquée. Cette année, une réédition a enfin vu le jour, flanquée d'un volume complémen-taire où sont consignés les commentaires de l'auteur sur l'état actuel de la recherche, sur les nou-veaux ou-vrages d'approfondissement et surtout sur les re-cherches de Sternhell (1).

 

Comment se présente-t-il, finalement, cet ou-vrage de base, ce manuel si fondamental? Il se compose d'abord d'un texte d'initiation, com-mençant à la page 3 de l'ouvrage et s'achevant à la page 169; ensuite d'une bibliographie ex-haustive, recensant tous les ouvrages des au-teurs cités et tous les ouvrages pa-noramiques sur la KR: elle débute à la page 173 pour se ter-miner à la page 483. Suivent alors les annexes, avec la liste des abréviations utilisées pour les lieux d'édition et les maisons d'édition, puis les registres des personnes, des périodiques et des organisations.

 

Un ouvrage destiné à la recherche

 

L'ouvrage est donc de prime abord destiné à la re-cherche. Mais comme la thématique englobe des idées, des leitmotive, des affirmations poli-tiques qui ont enthousiasmé de larges strates de l'intelligentsia alle-mande voire une partie des masses, il est évident qu'aujourd'hui encore elle enregistrera des retentis-sements divers en de-hors des cénacles académiques. A Bruxelles, à Genève, à Paris ou à Québec, il n'y a pas que des professeurs qui lisent Ernst Jünger ou Tho-mas Mann... La recension qui suit s'adressera dès lors essentiellement à ce public extra-aca-démique et se con-centrera sur la première partie de l'ouvrage, le texte d'initiation, avec ses défini-tions de concepts, sa clas-sification des diverses strates du phénomène que fut la KR. Mohler, dans ces chapitres d'une densité inouïe, définit très méticuleusement des mouvements politico-idéologiques aussi marginaux que fascinants: les "trots-kystes du national-socialisme", la "Deutsche Be-wegung" (DB), le national-bolché-visme, le "Troi-sième Front" (Dritte Front,  en abrégé DF), les Völkischen,  les Jungkonser-vativen,  les nationaux-révolutionnaires, les Bündischen,  etc. ainsi que des concepts comme Weltanschauung, nihilisme, Umschlag,  "Grand Midi", réalisme héroïque, etc.

 

"Konservative Revolution" et national-socialisme

 

Le premier souci de Mohler, c'est de distinguer la KR du national-socialisme. Pour la tradition antifasciste, souvent imprégnée des démon-strations du marxisme vulgaire, le national-so-cialisme est la continuation politique de la KR. De fait, le national-socialisme a affirmé pour-suivre dans les faits ce que la KR (ou la "Deutsche Bewegung") avait esquissé en esprit. Mais nonobstant cette revendication nationale-socialiste, on est bien obligé de constater, avec Mohler, que la KR d'avant 1933 recelait bien d'autres possibles. Le national-socialisme a constitué un grand mouvement de masse, impres-sionnant dans ses dimensions et affublé de toutes les lourdeurs propres aux appareils de ce type. Face à lui, foisonnaient des petits cercles où l'esprit s'épanouissait indépendamment des vicis-situdes politiques du temps. Ces cénacles d'intel-lec-tuels n'eurent que peu d'influence sur les masses. Le grand parti, en revanche, écrit Mohler, "gardait les masses sous son égide par le biais des liens orga-ni-sationnels et d'une doctrine adaptée à la moyenne et limitée à des slogans; il n'offrait aux têtes supérieures que peu d'espace et seulement dans la mesure où elles voulaient bien participer au travail d'enré-gimentement des masses et limitaient l'exercice de leurs facultés intellectuelles à un quelconque petit domaine ésotérique" (p.4).

 

Peu d'intellectuels se satisferont de ce rôle de "garde-chiourme de luxe" et préfèreront rester dans cette cha-leur du nid qu'offraient leurs petits cénacles élitaires, où, pensaient-ils, l'"idée vraie" était conservée intacte, tandis que les partis de masse la caricaturaient et la tra-his-saient. Ce réflexe déclencha une cascade de rup-tures, de sécessions, d'excommunications, de conju-ra-tions avec des éléments exclus du parti, si bien que plus aucune équation entre la NSDAP et la KR ne peut honnêtement être posée. Bon nombre de figures de la KR de-vinrent ainsi les "trotskystes du national-so-cialisme", les hérétiques de la "Deutsche Be-wegung", qui seront poursuivis par le régime ou opteront pour l'"émigration intérieure" ou s'insinueront dans cer-taines instances de l'Etat car le degré de la mise au pas totalitaire fut nettement moindre en Allemagne qu'en Union Soviétique. Des représentants éminents de la KR, comme Hans Grimm, Oswald Spengler et Ernst Jünger purent compter sur l'appui de la Reichswehr, des cercles diplomatiques "vieux-conservateurs" ou de cénacles liés à l'industrie. Ne choisissent l'émi-gration que les figures de proue des groupes sociaux-révolutionnaires (Ot-to Strasser, Paetel, Ebeling) ou certains natio-naux-socialistes dissidents comme Rausch-ning. La plupart restent toutefois en Alle-magne, en es-pérant que surviendra une "seconde ré-volution" entièrement conforme à l'"Idée". D'autres se taisent définitivement (Blüher, Hielscher), se ré-fugient dans des préoccupations totalement a-politi-ques ou dans la poésie (Winnig) ou se tournent vers la phi-losophie religieuse (Esch-mann). Très rares seront ceux qui passeront carrément au national-socialisme comme Bäum-ler, spécialiste de Bachofen.

 

La thèse qui cherche à prouver la "culpabilité an-ticipative" de la KR ne tient pas. En effet, les idées de la KR se retrouvent, sous des formes chaque fois spé-cifiquement nationales, dans tous les pays d'Eu-rope depuis la moitié du XIXième siècle. Si l'on re-trouve des traces de ces idées dans le national-so-cia-lisme allemand, celui-ci, comme nous venons de le voir, n'est qu'une manifestation très partielle et in-com-plète de la KR, et n'a été qu'une tentative parmi des dizaines d'autres possibles. Raisonner en termes de causalité (diabolique) constitue donc, expli-que Moh-ler, un raccourci trop facile, occultant par exemple le fait patent que les conjurés du 20 juillet 1944 ou que Schulze-Boysen, agent so-viétique pendu en 1942, avaient été influencés par les idées de la KR.

 

L'origine du terme "Konservative Revolution"

 

Pour éviter toutes les confusions et les amalgames, Mohler pose au préalable quelques définitions: celle de la KR proprement dite, celle de la "Deutsche Be-wegung", celle de la "Weltanschauung" en tant que véhicule pédago-gique des idées nouvelles. Les termes "konser-vativ" et "revolutionär" apparaissent accolés l'un à l'autre pour la première fois dans le journal berlinois Die Volksstimme  du 24 mai 1848: le po-lémiste qui les unissait était mani-festement mu par l'intention de persifler, de se gausser de ceux qui agitaient les émotions du public en affirmant tout et le contraire de tout (le conservatisme et la révolution), l'esprit troublé par les excès de bière blanche. En 1851, le couple de vocables réapparait —cette fois dans un sens non polémique— dans un ouvrage sur la Russie attribué à Theobald Buddeus. En 1875, Youri Sa-marine donne pour titre "Re-volyoutsionnyi konser-vatizm" à une plaquette qu'il a rédigée avec F. Dmi-triev. Par la suite, Dostoïevski l'utilisera à son tour. En 1900, Charles Maurras l'emploie dans son Enquête sur la Monarchie.  En 1921, Thomas Mann l'utilise dans un article sur la Russie. En Allemagne, le terme "Konservative Revolution" acquiert une vaste no-to-riété quand Hugo von Hoffmannsthal le prononce dans l'un de ses célèbres discours (Das Schriftum als geistiger Raum der Nation  — La littérature comme espace spirituel de la nation; 1927). Von Hoff-manns-thal désigne un processus de maturation intellectuel caractérisé par la recherche de "liens", prenant le relais de la recherche de "liberté", et par la recherche de "totalité", d'"unité" pour échapper aux divi-sions et aux discordes, produits de l'ère libérale.

 

Chez Hoffmannsthal, le concept n'a pas encore d'im-plication politique directe. Mais dans les quelques ti-mi-des essais de politisation de ce concept, dans le con-texte de la République de Weimar agonisante, on per-çoit très nettement une volonté de mettre à l'avant-plan les ca-ractéristiques immuables de l'âme humaine, en réaction contre les idées de 1789 qui pariaient sur la perfectibilité infinie de l'homme. Mais tous les cou-rants qui s'opposèrent jadis à la Révolution Française ne débouchent pas sur la KR. Bon nombre d'entre eux restent simplement partisans de la Restauration, de la Réaction, sont des conservateurs de la vieille école (Altkonservativen).

 

"Konservative Revolution" et "Deutsche Bewegung"

 

Donc si la KR est un refus des idées de 1789, elle n'est pas nostalgie de l'Ancien Régime: elle opte con-fusément, parfois plus clairement, pour une "troisième voie", où seraient absentes l'anarchie, l'absence de valeurs, la fascination du laissez-faire propres au li-béralisme, l'immoralité fondamentale du règne de l'ar-gent, les rigidités de l'Ancien Régime et des abso-lutismes royaux, les platitudes des socialismes et com-munismes d'essence marxiste, les stratégies d'a-ra-sement du passé ("Du passé, faisons table rase..."). A l'aube du XIXième siècle, entre la Révolution et la Restauration, surgit, sur la scène philoso-phique euro-péenne, l'idéalisme allemand, réponse au rationalisme français et à l'empirisme anglais. Parallèlement à cet idéalisme, le roman-tisme secoue les âmes. Sur le ter-rain, comme dans le Tiers-Monde aujourd'hui, les Al-le-mands, exaltés par Fichte, Arndt, Jahn, etc., pren-nent les armes contre Napoléon, incarnation d'un co-lo-nialisme "occidental". Ce mélange de guerre de li-bé-ration, de révolution sociale et de retour sur soi-même, sur sa propre identité, constitue une sorte de préfiguration de la KR, laquelle serait alors le stade atteint par la "Deutsche Bewegung" dans les années 20.

 

Pour en résumer l'esprit, explique Mohler, il faut mé-diter une citation tirée du célébrissime roman de D.H. Lawrence, The plumed Serpent  (= Le serpent à plu-mes, 1926). Ecoutons-la: "Lorsque les Mexicains apprennent le nom de Quetzalcoatl, ils ne devraient le prononcer qu'avec la langue de leur propre sang. Je voudrais que le monde teutonique se mette à repenser dans l'esprit de Thor, de Wotan et d'Yggdrasil, le frêne qui est axe du monde, que les pays druidiques comprennent que leur mystère se trouve dans le gui, qu'ils sont eux-mêmes le Tuatha de Danaan, qu'ils sont ce peuple toujours en vie même s'il a un jour sombré. Les peuples méditerranéens devraient se réapproprier leur Hermès et Tunis son Astharoth; en Perse, c'est Mithra qui devrait ressusciter, en Inde Brahma et en Chine le plus vieux des dragons".

 

Avec Herder, les Allemands ont élaboré et conservé une philosophie qui cherche, elle aussi, à renouer avec les essences intimes des peuples; de cette philosophie sont issus les nationalismes germaniques et slaves. Dans le sens où elle recherche les essences (tout en les préservant et en en conservant les virtualités) et veut les poser comme socles d'un avenir radicalement neuf (donc révolutionnaire), la KR se rapproche du na-tionalisme allemand mais acquiert simultanément une valeur universelle (et non universaliste) dans le sens où la diversité des modes de vie, des pensées, des âmes et des corps, est un fait universel, tandis que l'univer-salisme, sous quelque forme qu'il se présente, cherche à biffer cette prolixité au profit d'un schéma équarisseur qui n'a rien d'universel mais tout de l'ab-straction.

 

La notion de "Weltanschauung"

 

La KR, à défaut d'être une philosophie rigoureuse de type universitaire, est un éventail de Weltan-schau-ungen.  Tandis que la philoso-phie fait partie intégrante de la pensée du vieil Occident, la Weltanschauung apparaît au moment où l'édifice occidental s'effondre. Jadis, les catégories étaient bien contingentées: la pensée, les sentiments, la volonté ne se mêlaient pas en des flux désordonnés comme aujour-d'hui. Mais désormais, dans notre "interrègne", qui succède à l'ef-fondrement du christianisme, les Weltan-schau-ungen  mêlent pensées, senti-ments et volontés au sein d'une tension perpé-tuelle et dynamisante. La pensée, soutenue par des Weltanschauungen,  détient désor-mais un caractère instrumental: on sollicite une mul-titu-de de disciplines pour illustrer des idées déjà pré-alablement conçues, acceptées, choisies. Et ces idées servent à atteindre des objectifs dans la réalité elle-même. La nature particulière (et non plus universelle) de toute pensée nous révèle un monde bigarré, un chaos dynamique, en mutation perpétuelle. Selon Mohler, les Weltanschauungen  ne sont plus véhicu-lées par de purs philosophes ou de purs poètes mais par des êtres hybrides, mi-penseurs, mi-poètes, qui savent conjuguer habilement  —et avec une cer-taine cohérence—   concepts et images. Les gestes de l'existence concrète jouent un rôle primordial chez ces penseurs-poètes: songeons à T.E. Lawrence (d'Ara-bie), Malraux et Ernst Jünger. Leurs existences enga-gées leur ont fait touché du doigt les nerfs de la vie, leur a communiqué une expérience des choses bien plus vive et forte que celle des philosophes et des théologiens, même les plus audacieux. 

 

L'opposition concept/image

 

Les mots et les concepts sont donc insuffisants pour cerner la réalité dans toute sa multiplicité. La parole du poète, l'image, leur sont de loin supérieures. L'ère nouvelle se reflète dès lors davantage dans les travaux des "intellectuels anti-intellectuels", de ceux qui peu-vent, avec génie, manier les images. Un passage du journal de Gerhard Nebel, daté du 19 novembre 1943, illustre parfaitement les positions de Mohler quand il sou-ligne l'importance de la Weltanschauung  par rap-port à la philosophie classique et surtout quand il en-tonne son plaidoyer pour l'intensité de l'existence contre la grisaille des théories, plaidoyer qu'il a ré-sumé dans le concept de "nominalisme" et qui a eu le reten-tissement que l'on sait dans la maturation intel-lectuelle de la "Nouvelle Droite" française (3).

 

Ecoutons donc les paroles de Gerhard Nebel: "Le rap-port entre les deux instruments méta-physiques de l'homme, le concept et l'image, livre à ceux qui veu-lent s'exercer à la com-paraison une matière inépui-sable. On peut dire, ainsi, que le concept est impro-ductif, dans la mesure où il ne fait qu'ordonner ce qui nous tombe sous le sens, ce que nous avons déjà dé-couvert, ce qui est à notre disposition, tandis que l'image génère de la réalité spirituelle et ramène à la surface des éléments jusqu'alors cachés de l'Etre. Le concept opère prudemment des distinctions et des re-groupements dans le cadre strict des faits sûrs; l'image saisit les choses, avec l'impétuosité de l'aventurier et son absence de tout scrupule, et les lance vers le large et l'infini. Le concept vit de peurs; l'image vit du faste triomphant de la découverte. Le concept doit tuer sa proie (s'il n'a pas déjà ramassé rien qu'un cadavre), tandis que l'image fait apparaître une vie toute pétil-lante. Le concept, en tant que concept, exclut tout mys-tère; l'image est une unité paradoxale de contraires, qui nous éclaire tout en honorant l'obscur. Le concept est vieillot; l'image est toujours fraîche et jeune. Le concept est la victime du temps et vieillit vite; l'image est toujours au-delà du temps. Le concept est subor-donné au progrès, tout comme les sciences, elles aussi, appartiennent à la caté-gorie du progrès, tandis que l'image relève de l'instant. Le concept est écono-mie; l'image est gaspillage. Le concept est ce qu'il est; l'image est toujours davantage que ce qu'elle semble être. Le concept sollicite le cerveau mais l'image solli-cite le cœur. Le concept ne meut qu'une périphérie de l'existen-ce; l'image, elle, agit sur l'ensemble de l'existence, sur son noyau. Le concept est fini; l'image, infinie. Le concept simplifie; l'image honore la diversité. Le concept prend parti; l'image s'abstient de juger. Le concept est gé-néral; l'image est avant tout individuelle et, même là où l'on peut faire de l'image une image générale et où l'on peut lui subordonner des phénomènes, cette action de subordonnance rap-pelle des chasses passionnantes; l'ennui que suscite l'inclusion, l'enfermement de faits de monde dans des concepts, reste étranger à l'image...".

 

Les idées véhiculées par les Weltanschauungen s'incarnent dans le réel arbitrairement, de façon impré-visible, discontinue. En effet, ces idées ne sont plus des idées pures, elles n'ont plus une place fixe et immuable dans une quelconque empyrée, au-delà de la réalité. Elles sont bien au contraire imbriquées, pri-sonnières des aléas du réel, soumises à ses mutations, aux conflits qui forment sa trame. Etudier l'impact des Weltan-schauungen,  dont celles de la KR, c'est poser une topographie de courants souterrains, qui ne sau-tent pas directement aux yeux de l'obser-vateur.

 

Une exigence de la KR: dépasser le wilhelminisme

 

Quand Arthur Moeller van den Bruck parle d'un "Troisième Reich" en 1923 (4), il ne songe évidem-ment pas à l'Etat hitlérien, dont rien ne laisse alors prévoir l'avènement, mais d'un système politique qui succéderait au IIième Reich bismarcko-wilhelminien et où les oppo-sitions entre le socialisme et le nationa-lisme, en-tre la gauche et la droite seraient sublimées en une synthèse nouvelle. De plus, cette idée d'un "troisième" Empire, ajoute Mohler, renoue avec toute une spéculation philosophique christiano-européenne très ancienne, qui parlait d'un troisième règne comme du règne de l'esprit (saint). Dès le IIième siècle, les montanistes, secte chrétienne, évoquent l'avènement d'un règne de l'esprit saint, successeur des règnes de Dieu le Père (ancien testament) et de Dieu le Fils (nouveau testament et incarnation), qui serait la syn-thèse parfaite des contraires. Dans le cadre de l'histoire allemande, on repère une longue aspiration à la syn-thèse, à la conciliation de l'inconciliable: par exemple, entre les Habs-bourg et les Hohenzollern. Après la Grande Guer-re, après la réconciliation nationale dans le sang et les tranchées, Moeller van den Bruck est l'un de ces hommes qui espèrent une synthèse entre la gauche et la droite par le truchement d'un "troisième parti". Evidemment, les hitlé-riens, en fondant leur "troisième Reich", prétendront transposer dans le réel toutes ses vieilles aspirations pour les asseoir définiti-ve-ment dans l'histoire. La KR et/ou la "Deutsche Be-wegung" se scinde alors en deux groupes: ceux qui estiment que le IIIième Reich de Hitler est une falsifi-cation et entrent en dissidence, et ceux qui pensent que c'est une première étape vers le but ultime et acceptent le fait accompli.

 

Sous le IIième Reich historique, existait une "opposition de droite", mécontente du caractère libé-ral/darwiniste de la révolution industrielle allemande, du rôle de l'industrie et du grand capital, de l'étroitesse d'esprit bourgeoise, du façadisme pompeux, avec ses stucs et son tape-à-l'oeil. Le "conservatisme" officiel de l'époque n'est plus qu'un décor, que poses mata-mores-ques, tandis que l'économie devient le destin. Ce bourgeoisisme à colifichets militaires suscite des réactions. Les unes sont réformistes; les autres exigent une rupture radicale. Parmi les réfor-mistes, il faut compter le mouvement chrétien-social du Pasteur Adolf Stoecker, luttant pour un "Empire social", pour une "voie caritative" vers la justice sociale. Les élé-ments les plus dynami-ques du mouvement finiront par adhérer à la sociale-démocratie. Quant au "Mouvement Pan-Ger-maniste" (Alldeutscher Verband),  il sombre-ra dans un impérialisme utopique, sur fond de roman-tisme niais et de cliquetis de sabre. Les autres mouve-ments restent périphériques: les mouvements "artistiques" de masse, les mar-xistes qui veulent une voie nationale, les pre-miers "Völkischen",  etc.

 

A l'ombre de Nietzsche...

 

Face à ces réformateurs qui ne débouchent sur rien ou disparaissent parce que récupérés, se trouvent d'abord quelques isolés. Des isolés qui mûrissent et agissent à l'ombre de Nietzsche, ce penseur qui ne peut être classé parmi les prota-gonistes de la "Deutsche Bewe-gung" ni parmi les précurseurs de la KR, bien que, sans lui et sans son œuvre, cette dernière n'aurait pas été telle qu'elle fut. Mais comme les isolés qu'a-limente la pensée de Nietzsche sont nombreux, très différents les uns des autres, il s'en trouve quelques-uns qui amorcent véritablement le processus de maturation de la KR. Mohler en cite deux, très importants: Paul de Lagarde et Julius Langbehn. L'orientaliste Paul de La-garde voulait fonder une religion allemande, appelée à remplacer et à renforcer le message des christia-nismes protestants et catholiques en pariant sur la veine mys-tique, notamment celle de Meister Eckhart le Rhénan et de Ruusbroeck le Bra-bançon (5). Julius Langbehn est surtout l'homme d'un livre, Rembrandt als Erzieher (1890; = Rembrandt éducateur) (6). A partir de la person-nalité de Rembrandt, Langbehn chante la mysti-que profonde du Nord-Ouest européen et sug-gère une synthèse entre la rudesse froide mais vertueuse du Nord et l'enthousiasme du Sud.

 

Mouvement völkisch et mouvement de jeunesse

 

En marge de ses deux isolés, qui connurent un succès retentissant, deux courants sociaux contri-buent à briser les hypocrisies et le matérialisme de l'ère wilhelmi-nienne: le mouvement völkisch  et le mouvement de jeunesse (Jugendbewe-gung). Par völkisch,  nous ex-plique Mohler, l'on entend les groupes animés par une philosophie qui pose l'homme comme essentiellement dépen-dant de ses origines, que celles-ci proviennent d'une matière informelle, la race, ou du travail de l'histoire (le peuple ou la tribu étant, dans cette op-tique, forgé par une histoire longue et com-mune). Proches de l'idéologie völkische  sont les doctrines qui posent l'homme comme déterminé par un "paysage spirituel" ou par la langue qu'il parle. Dans les années 1880, le mouvement völkisch  se constitue en un front du refus assez catégorique: il est surtout antisémite et remplace l'ancien antisémitisme confessionnel par un antisémitisme "raciste" et déterministe, lequel prétend que le Juif reste juif en dépit de ses options person-nelles réelles ou affectées. Le mouvement völkisch  se divise en deux tendan-ces, l'une aristocratique, dirigée par Max Lieber-mann von Sonnenberg, qui cherche à rapprocher certaines catégories du peuple de l'aristocratie conservatrice; l'autre est radicale, démo-cratique et issue de la base. C'est en Hesse que cette pre-mière radicalité völkische se hissera au niveau d'un parti de masse, sous l'impulsion d'Otto Böckel, le "roi des paysans hessois", qui renoue avec les souvenirs de la grande guerre des paysans du XVIième siècle et rêve d'un soulève-ment généralisé contre les grands capitalistes (dont les Juifs) et les Junker,  alliés objectifs des premiers.

 

Le mouvement de jeunesse est une révolte des jeunes contre les pères, contre l'artificialité du wilhelminisme, contre les conventions qui étouf-fent les cœurs. Créé par Karl Fischer en 1896, devenu le "Wandervogel" (= "oiseau migra-teur") en 1901, le mouvement connait des dé-buts anarchisants et romantiques, avec des éco-liers et lycéens, coiffés de bérets fantaisistes et la gui-tare en bandoulière, qui partent en randon-née, pour quitter les villes et découvrir la beauté des paysages (7). A partir de 1910-1913, le mou-vement de jeunesse acquerra une forme plus stricte et plus disciplinée: la principale organisation porteuse de ce renouveau fut la Frei-deutsche Jugend  (8).

 

Le choc de 1914

 

Quand éclate la guerre de 1914, les peuples croient à une ultime épreuve purgative qui pulvérisera les bar-rières de partis, de classes, de confessions, etc. et conduira à la "totalité" espé-rée. Thomas Mann, dans les premières semaines de la guerre, parle de "purification", de grand nettoyage par le vide qui ba-laiera le bric-à-brac wilhelminien. Peu importaient la victoire, les motifs, les intérêts: seule comptait la guerre comme hygiène, aux yeux des peuples lassés par les artifices bourgeois. Mais les enthousiasmes du début s'enliseront, après la bataille de la Marne, dans la guerre des tranchées et dans l'implacable choc mé-canique des matériels. "Toute finesse a été broyée, piétinée", écrit Ernst Jünger. Le XIXième siècle périt dans ce maelstrom de fer et de feu, les façades rhéto-riques s'écroulent pulvérisées, les contingente-ments proprets perdent tout crédit et deviennent ridicules.

 

De cette tourmente, surgit, discrète, une nouvelle "totalité", une "totalité" spartiate, une "totalité" de souffrances, avec des alternances de joies et de morts. Une chose apparaît certai-ne, écrit encore Ernst Jünger, c'est "que la vie, dans son noyau le plus intime, est indestructi-ble". Un philosophe ami d'Ernst Jünger, Hugo Fischer, décrit cet avènement de la totalité nou-velle, dans un essai de guerre paru dans la revue "nationale-bolchévique" Widerstand (Janvier 1934; "Der deutsche Infanterist von 1917"): "Le culte des grands mots n'a plus de raison d'être aujourd'hui... La guerre mondiale a été le dai-mon qui a fracassé et pulvérisé le pathétisme. La guerre n'a plus de com-mencement ni de fin, le fantassin gris se trouve quelque part au mi-lieu des masses de terre boueuse qui s'étendent à perte de vue; il est dans son trou sale, prêt à bondir; il est un rien au sein d'une monotonie grise et désolée, qui a toujours été telle et sera toujours telle mais, en même temps, il est le point focal d'une nou-velle souveraineté. Là-bas, quelque part, il y avait ja-dis de beaux systèmes, scrupuleusement construits, des systèmes de tran--chées et d'abris; ces systèmes ne l'intéres-sent plus; il reste là, debout, ou s'accroupit, à moitié mort de soif, quelque part dans la campagne libre et ouverte; l'opposition entre la vie et la mort est repoussée à la lisière de ses souvenirs. Il n'est ni un individu ni une com-munauté, il est une particule d'une force élé-mentaire, planant au-dessus des champs rava-gés. Les concepts ont été bouleversés dans sa tête. Les vieux concepts. Les écailles lui tombent des yeux. Dans le brouillard infini, que scrutent les yeux de son esprit, l'aube semble se lever et il commence, sans sa-voir ce qu'il fait, à penser dans les catégories du siècle prochain. Les ca-nons balayent cette mer de saletés et de pourriture, qui avait été le domaine de son exis-tence, et les entonnoirs qu'ont creusés les obus sont sa demeure (...) Il a survécu à toutes les formes de guerre; le voilà, incorruptible et immortel, et il ne sait plus ce qui est beau, ce qui est laid. Son regard pénètre les choses avec la tranquillité d'un jet de flamme. Avec ou sans mérite, il est resté, a survécu (...) L'"intériorité" s'est projetée vers l'extérieur, s'est transformée de fond en comble, et cette extériorité est devenue totale; intériorité et extériorité fusion-nent; (...) On ne peut plus distinguer quand l'extériorité s'arrête et quand l'homme com-mence; celui-ci ne laisse plus rien derrière lui qui pourrait être réservée à une sphère privée".

 

La défaite de 1918: une nécessité

 

En novembre 1918, l'Etat allemand wilhelminien a cessé d'exister: la vieille droite parle du "coup de cou-teau dans le dos", œuvre des gau-ches qui ont trahi une armée sur le point de vaincre. Dans cette perspective, la défaite n'est qu'un hasard. Mais pour les tenants de la KR, la défaite est une nécessité et il convient main-tenant de déchiffrer le sens de cette défaite. Franz Schauwecker, figure de la mouvance na-tio-nale-révolu-tionnaire, écrit: "Nous devions perdre la guerre pour gagner la Nation".  Car une victoire de l'Allemagne wilhelminienne aurait été une défaite de l'"Allemagne secrète". L'écrivain Edwin Erich Dwin-ger, de père nord-allemand et de mère russe, engagé à 17 ans dans un régiment de dragons, prisonnier en Si-bérie, combattant enrôlé de force dans les armées rouge et blanche, revenu en Allemagne en 1920, met cette idée dans la bouche d'un pope russe, personnage de sa trilogie romanesque consacrée à la Russie (9): "Vous l'avez perdue la grande Guerre, c'est sûr... Mais qui sait, cela vaut peut-être mieux ainsi? Car si vous l'aviez gagnée, Dieu vous aurait quitté... L'orgueil et l'oppres-sion [du wilhelminisme, ndt] se seraient multi-pliées par cent; une jouissance vide de sens aurait tué toute étincelle divine en vous... Un pourrissement rapide vous aurait frappé; vous n'auriez pas connu de véritable ascension... Si vous aviez ga-gné, vous seriez en fin de course... Mais maintenant vous êtes face à une nouvelle aurore...".        

 

Après la guerre vient la République de Weimar, mal aimée parce qu'elle perpétue, sous des ori-peaux répu-blicains, le style de vie bourgeois, celui du parvenu. Cette situation est inaccepta-ble pour les guerriers reve-nus des tranchées: dans cette république bourgeoise, qui a troqué les uniformes chamarrés et les casques à pointe contre les fracs des notaires et des banquiers, ils "bivouaquent dans les appartements bourgeois, ne pouvant plus renoncer à la simplicité virile de la vie militaire", comme le disait l'un d'eux. Ils seront les recrues idéales des partis extrémistes, communiste ou national-socialiste. La Républi-que de Weimar se dé-ploiera en trois phases: une phase tumultueuse, s'étendant de novembre 1918, avec la proclamation de la République, à la fin de 1923, quand les Français quittent la Ruhr et que le putsch Hitler/Ludendorff est maté à Munich; une phase de calme, qui durera jus-qu'à la crise de 1929, où la République, sous l'impulsion de Stresemann, jugule l'inflation et où les passions semblent s'apaiser. A partir de la crise, l'édifice répu-blicain vole en éclats et les nationaux-socialistes sortent vainqueurs de l'arène.

 

Le débourgeoisement total

 

La République de Weimar a connu des débuts très dif-ficiles: elle a dû mater dix-huit coups de force de la gauche et trois coups de force de la droite, sans compter les manœuvres séparatistes en Rhénanie, fo-mentées par la France. Dans cette tourmente, on en est arrivé à une situation (apparemment) absurde: un gou-vernement en majorité socialiste appelle les ouvriers à la grève générale pour bloquer le putsch d'extrême-droite de Kapp; cette grève générale est l'étincelle qui déclenche l'insurrection communiste de la Ruhr et, pour étrangler celle-ci, le gouvernement ap-pel-le les sympathisants des putschistes de Kapp à la rescousse! La situation était telle que l'esprit public, secoué, pre-nait une cure sévère de dé-bourgeoisement.

 

Bien sûr, le débourgeoisement total n'affectaient qu'une infime minorité, mais cette minorité était quand même assez nombreuse pour que ses attitudes et son esprit déteignent quelque peu sur l'opinion publique et sur la mentalité générale de l'époque. La guerre avait arraché plusieurs clas-ses d'âge au confort bourgeois, lequel n'exerçait plus le moindre attrait sur elles. Pour ces hommes jeunes, la vie active du guerrier était qua-litativement supérieure à celle du bourgeois et ils haïs-saient l'idée de se morfondre dans des fauteuils mous, les pantoufles aux pieds. C'est pourquoi l'ardeur de la guerre, ils allaient la rechercher et la retrouver dans les "Corps Francs", ceux de l'intérieur et ceux de l'ex-térieur. Ceux de l'intérieur se moulaient dans les structures d'auto-défense locales (Einwohner-wehr)  et permettaient, en fin de compte, un retour progressif à la vie civile, assorti quand même d'une promptitude à reprendre l'assaut dans les rangs communistes ou, surtout, na-tionaux-socialistes. Ceux de l'extérieur, qui combattaient les Polonais en Haute-Silésie et avaient arraché l'Annaberg de haute lutte, ou affrontaient les armées bolchéviques dans le Baltikum, regroupaient des soldats perdus, de nouveaux lansquenets, des irré-cupérables pour la vie bourgeoise, des pélérins de l'absolu, des vagabonds spartiates en prise directe avec l'élé-mentaire. Dans leurs âmes sauvages, l'esprit de la KR s'incrustera dans sa plus pure quin-tessence.

 

Parallèlement aux Corps Francs, d'autres structures d'accueil existaient pour les jeunes et les soldats fa-rouches: les Bünde du mouvement de jeunesse, lequel, avec la guerre, avait perdu toutes ses fantaisies anar-chistes et abandonné toutes ses rêveries philoso-phiques et idéalistes. Ensuite les partis de toutes obé-diences recru-taient ces ensauvagés, ces inquiets, ces cheva-liers de l'élémentaire pour les engager dans leurs formations de combat, leurs services d'ordre. Avant le choc de la guerre, le révolutionnaire typique ne renon-çait par radicalement aux for-mes de l'existence bour-geoise: il contestait simplement le fait que ces formes, assorties de richesses et de positions sociales avanta-geuses, étaient réservées à une petite minorité. L'engage-ment du révolutionnaire d'avant 1914 visait à généraliser ces formes bourgeoises d'existence, à les étendre à l'ensemble de la société, classe ouvrière comprise. Le révolutionnaire de type nou-veau, en re-vanche, ne partage pas cet uto-pisme eudémoniste: il veut éradiquer toute référence à ces valeurs bour-geoises haïes, tout sentiment positif envers elles. Pour le bourgeois frileux, convaincu de détenir la vérité, la formule de toute civilisation, le révolutionnaire nouveau est un "nihiliste", un dangereux mar-ginal, un personnage inquiétant.

 

Les lansquenets modernes

 

Mais les partis bourgeois, battus en brèche, incapables de faire face aux aléas qu'étaient les exigences des Al-liés et les dérèglements de l'économie mondiale, la violence de la rue et la famine des classes défavori-sées, ont été obligés de recourir à la force pour se maintenir en selle et de faire appel à ces lansquenets modernes pour encadrer leurs militants. Ces cadres issus des Corps Francs se rendent alors incontour-nables au sein des partis qui les utilisent, mais conservent toujours une certaine distance, en marge du gros des militants.

 

Ce processus n'est pas seulement vrai pour le national-socialisme, avec ses turbulents SA. Chez les commu-nistes, des bandes de solides bagarreurs adhèrent au Roter Kampfbund. Cer-taines organisations restent in-dépendantes for-mellement, comme le Kampfbund Wi-king  du Capitaine Hermann Ehrhardt, le Bund Ober-land  du Capitaine Beppo Römer et du Dr. Friedrich Weber, le Wehrwolf  de Fritz Kloppe et la Reichs-flagge  du Capitaine Adolf Heiß. Le Stahl-helm, orga-nisation paramilitaire d'anciens com-battants, dirigée par Seldte et Duesterberg, est proche des Deutschna-tionalen (DNVP). Le Jungdeutscher Orde (Jungdo)  de Mahraun sert de service d'ordre à la Demokratische Partei. Quant aux sociaux-démocrates (SPD), leur or-ganisation paramilitaire s'appelait le Reichs-ban-ner Schwarz-Rot-Gold, dont les chefs étaient Hörsing et Höltermann.

 

La quasi similitude entre toutes ses formations faisait que l'on passait allègrement de l'une à l'autre, au gré des conflits personnels. Beppo Römer quittera ainsi l'Oberland  pour passer à la KPD communiste. Bodo Uhse (10) fera exacte-ment le même itinéraire, mais en passant par la NSDAP et le mouvement révolution-naire pay-san, la Landvolkbewegung. Giesecke passera de la KPD à la NSDAP. Contre les Français dans la Ruhr, les militants communistes sabotent instal-lations et voies ferrées sous la conduite d'of-ficiers prussiens; SA et Roter Kampfbund colla-borent contre le gouver-nement à Berlin en 1930-31.

 

Dans ce contexte, Mohler souligne surtout l'apparition et la maturation de deux mouve-ments d'idées, le fa-meux "national-bolché-visme" et le "Troisième Front" (Dritte Front).  Si l'on analyse de façon dualiste l'affrontement majeur de l'époque, entre nationaux-so-cialistes et communistes, l'on dira que l'idéologie des forces communistes dérive des idées de 1789, tan-dis que celles du national-socialisme de cel-les de 1813, de la Deutsche Bewegung.  Il n'em-pêche que, dans une plage d'intersection réduite, des contacts fructueux entre les deux mondes se sont produits. Dans quelques cerveaux perti-nents, un socialisme ra-dical fusionne avec un nationalisme tout aussi radical, afin de sceller l'alliance des deux nations "prolétariennes", l'Allemagne et la Russie, contre l'Occident capitaliste.

 

Trois vagues de national-bolchévisme

 

Trois vagues de "national-bolchévisme" se suc-céde-ront. La première date de 1919/1920. Elle est une ré-action directe contre Versailles et atteint son apogée lors de la guerre russo-polonaise de 1920. La section de Hambourg de la KPD, dirigée par Heinrich Lauf-fenberg et Fritz Wolffheim, appelle à la guerre popu-laire et nationale contre l'Occident (11). Rapidement, des contacts sont pris avec des nationalistes de pure eau comme le Comte Ernst zu Reventlow. Quand la cavalerie de Boudienny se rapproche du Corridor de Dantzig, un espoir fou germe: foncer vers l'Ouest avec l'Armée Rouge et réduire à néant le nouvel ordre de Versailles. Weygand, en réorganisant l'armée polo-naise en août 1920, brise l'élan russe et annihile les espoirs allemands. Lauffenberg et Wolffheim sont ex-communiés par le Komintern et leur nouvelle organi-sation, la KAPD (Kommunisti-sche Arbeiterpartei Deutschlands),  se mue en une secte insignifiante.

 

La seconde vague date de 1923, quand l'occupation de la Ruhr et l'inflation obligent une nouvelle fois natio-nalisme et communisme à fusionner. Radek, fonction-naire du Komintern, rend un vibrant hommage à Schlageter, fusillé par les Français. Moeller van den Bruck répond. Un dialogue voit le jour. Dans le jour-nal Die Rote Fahne, on peut lire les lignes suivantes, parfaitement à même de satisfaire et les natio-nalistes et les communistes: "La Nation s'effrite. L'héritage du prolétariat allemand, créé par les peines de générations d'ouvriers est menacé par la botte des militaristes fran-çais et par la faiblesse et la lâcheté de la bourgeoi-sie alle-mande, fébrile à l'idée de récolter ses petits pro-fits. Seule la classe ouvrière peut désormais sauver la Nation". Mais cette seconde vague natio-nale-bol-chéviste n'est restée qu'un symptôme de fièvre: d'un côté comme de l'autre, on s'est contenté de formuler de belles proclamations.

 

Plus sérieuse sera la troisième vague nationale-bolchéviste, explique Mohler. Elle s'amorce dès 1930. A la crise économique mondiale et à ses effets sociaux, s'ajoute le Plan de réparations de l'Américain Young qui réduit encore les maigres ressources des Alle-mands. Une fois de plus, les questions nationale et so-ciale se mêlent étroite-ment. Gregor Strasser, chef de l'aile gauche de la NSDAP, et Heinz Neumann, tacti-cien commu-niste du rapprochement avec les natio-naux, parlent abondamment de l'aspiration anti-capita-liste du peuple allemand. Des officiers natio-nalistes, aristocratiques voire nationaux-socia-listes, passent à la KPD comme le célèbre Lieutenant Scheringer, Ludwig Renn, le Comte Alexander Stenbock-Fermor, les chefs de la Landvolkbewegung  comme Bodo Uhse ou Bruno von Salomon, le Capitaine des Corps Francs Beppo Römer, héros de l'épisode de l'Annaberg. Dans la pratique, la KPD soutient l'initiative du Stahl-helm contre le gouvernement prussien en août 1931; communistes et natio-naux-socialistes organisent de concert la grève des transports en commun berlinois de novem-bre 1932. Toutes ces alliances demeurent ponc-tuel-les et strictement tactiques, donc sans lendemain.

 

La tendance anti-russe de la NSDAP munichoise (Hitler et Rosenberg) réduit à néant le tandem KPD/NSDAP, particulièrement bien rodé à Berlin. L'URSS signe des pactes de non-agression avec la Pologne (25.1.1932) et avec la France (29.11.1932). Au sein de la KPD, la tendance Thälmann, internatio-naliste et anti-fas-ciste, l'emporte sur la tendance Neu-mann, socia-liste et nationale.

 

Mais ce national-bolchévisme idéologique et militant, présent dans de larges couches de la population, du moins dans les plus turbulentes, a son pendant dans certains cercles très influents de la diplomatie, regrou-pés autour du "Comte rouge", Ulrich von Brockdorff-Rantzau, et du Baron von Maltzan. La position de Brockdorff-Rantzau était en fait plus nuancée qu'on ne l'a cru. Quoi qu'il en soit, leur optique était de se dé-gager des exigences françaises en jouant la carte russe, exactement dans le même esprit de la politique prussienne russophile de 1813 (les "Accords de Taurog-gen"), tout en voulant reconstituer un équilibre euro-péen à la Bis-marck.

 

Le "troisième front" (Dritte Front)

 

Pour distinguer clairement la KR du national-socia-lisme, il faut savoir, explique Mohler, qu'avant la "Nuit des Longs Couteaux" du 30 juin 1934, où Hit-ler élimine quelques adversai-res et concurrents, inté-rieurs et extérieurs, le national-socialisme est une idéologie floue, re-celant virtuellement plusieurs pos-sibles. Ce fut, selon les circonstances, à la fois sa force et sa faiblesse face à un communisme à la doc-trine claire, nette mais trop souvent rigide. Mohler énumère quelques types humains rassemblés sous la bannière hitlérienne: des ouvriers re-belles, des resca-pés de l'aventure des Corps Francs de la Baltique, des boutiquiers en colère qui veulent faire supprimer les magasins à rayons multiples, des entrepreneurs qui veulent la paix sociale et des débouchés extérieurs nouveaux. Sur le plan de la politique étrangère, les options sont également diverses: alliance avec l'Italie fasciste contre le bolchévisme; al-lian-ce de tous les pays germaniques avec mini-misation des rapports avec les peuples du Sud, décrétés "fellahisés"; alliance avec une Russie redevenue plus nationale et débarrassée de ses velléités communistes et internationalistes, afin de forger un pacte indéfectible des "have-nots"  con-tre les nations capitalistes. De plus, la NSDAP des premières années du pouvoir, compte dans ses rangs des fédéra-listes bavarois et des centralistes prussiens, des catho-liques et des protestants convaincus, et, enfin, des mi-litants farouchement hostiles à toutes les formes de christianisme.

 

Cette panade idéologique complexe est le propre des partis de masse et Hitler, pour des raisons pratiques et tactiques, tenait à ce que le flou soit conservé, afin de garder un maximum de militants et d'électeurs. Avant la prise du pou-voir, plusieurs tenants de la KR avaient constaté que cette démagogie contribuerait tôt ou tard à falsifier et à galvauder l'idée précise, tranchée et argu-mentée qu'ils se faisaient de la nation. Pour éviter l'avènement de la falsification nationale-socialiste et/ou communiste, il fallait à leurs yeux créer un "troisième front" (Dritte Front),  basé sur une synthèse cohérente et destiné à remplacer le système de Weimar. Entre le drapeau rouge de la KPD et les chemises brunes de la NSDAP, les dissidents optent pour le drapeau noir de la révolte paysanne, hissé par les révoltés du XVIième siècle et par les amis de Claus Heim (12). Le drapeau noir est "le dra-peau de la terre et de la misère, de la nuit allemande et de l'état d'alerte".

 

Le rôle de Hans Zehrer

 

L'un des partisans les plus chaleureux de ce "troisième front" fut Hans Zehrer, éditeur de la revue Die Tat d'octobre 1931 à 1933. Dans un article intitulé signifi-cativement Rechts oder Links? (Die Tat, 23. Jg., H.7, Okt. 1931), Zehrer explique que l'anti-libéralisme en Allemagne s'est scindé en deux ailes, une aile droite et une aile gauche. L'aile droite puise dans le réservoir des sentiments nationaux mais fait passer les questions sociales au second plan. L'aile gauche, elle, accorde le primat aux questions sociales et tente de gagner du ter-rain en matière de nationalisme. Le camp des anti-libéraux est donc partagé entre deux pôles: le national et le social. Cette opposition risque à moyen ou long terme d'épuiser les combattants, de lasser les masses et de n'aboutir à rien. En fin de course, les appareils dirigeants des partis communiste et national-socialiste ne défendent pas les intérêts fondamentaux de la po-pulation, mais exclusive-ment leurs propres intérêts. Les bases des deux partis devraient, écrit Zehrer, se détourner de leurs chefs et se regrouper en une "troisième communauté", qui serait la synthèse parfaite des pôles social et national, antagonisés à mau-vais escient.

 

Derrière Zehrer se profilait l'ombre du Général von Schleicher qui, lui, cherchait à sauver Weimar en atti-rant dans un "troisième front" les groupes socialisants internes à la NSDAP (Gre-gor Strasser), quelques syn-dicalistes sociaux-dé-mocrates, etc. Mais l'assem-bla-ge était trop hétéroclite: KPD et NSDAP ré-sistent à l'entre-prise de fractionnement. Le "troisième front" ne sera qu'un rassemblement de groupes situés "entre deux chaises", sans force motrice dé-cisive.

 

Robert STEUCKERS.

 

(La suite de cette recension, rendant compte d'un ouvrage abso-lument capital pour comprendre le mouvement des idées poli-tiques de notre siècle, paraîtra dans nos éditions ultérieures. Nous mettrons l'accent sur les fondements philosophiques de la KR et sur ses principaux groupes).

 

Armin MOHLER, Die Konservative Revolution in Deutschland 1918-1932. Ein Handbuch (Dritte, um einen Ergänzungsband erweiterte Auflage 1989), Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darm-stadt, 1989, I-XXX + 567 S., Ergänzungsband, I-VIII + 131 S., DM 89 (beide zusammen); DM 37 (Ergänzungsband einzeln). 

 

 

Oswald Mosley e l'Unione dei Fascisti inglesi

Cultura

Oswald Mosley e l’Unione dei Fascisti inglesi
Giovedì 28 Maggio 2009 – Alberto Bertotto - http://www.rinascita.info/

Tra il 1922 ed il 1934 Mussolini e il Fascismo vennero considerati dai conservatori e da buona parte dell’opinione pubblica britannica come il leader ed il partito capace di “far prevalere la legalità sull’anarchia”. I conservatori affermavano che il Fascismo era “per il patriottismo, per una vita nazionale solida e sana, per lo stimolo dell’efficienza e per l’economia” e consideravano la “rivoluzione” mussoliniana come una “ricostruzione politica e sociale” al fine di “unificare e coordinare tutte le classi al servizio della nazione”. Il Fascismo in Inghilterra riscuoteva “le simpatie di tutte le parti politiche” ad “eccezione dei comunisti”. I conservatori, come Winston Churchill, descrivevano l’Italia come un Paese che dava “l’impressione di disciplina e di ordine”. Mussolini era considerato uno statista che “pensava solo al bene duraturo del suo popolo” e il governo da lui presieduto veniva visto come un esecutivo “sostenuto dal consenso attivo e pratico delle masse”. Fu in questo contesto che, nell’ottobre del 1932, maturò la scelta da parte di Oswald Mosley (foto) (Londra, 16 novembre del 1896-Orsay, 3 dicembre del 1980) di fondare un nuovo movimento denominato British Union of Fascists (BUF). Alcuni politici di destra arrivarono ad ipotizzare un’alleanza tra i conservatori e le blackshirts (camicie nere) in funzione antilaburista.
I principi e le linee guida della BUF erano: 1) politica economica basata sull’organizzazione corporativa delle Stato; socializzazione delle aziende al di sopra di una certa dimensione strutturale attraverso un’amministrazione unica comprendente i capitalisti, gli operai ed i consumatori. In caso di discordie insanabili tra le diverse componenti sociali, sarebbe dovuto intervenire d’autorità lo Stato, proponendo una revisione del suffragio basato sul lavoro corporativo: la Camera dei Comuni non doveva più essere partitica, ma bensì corporativa (ogni lavoratore votava un rappresentante della sua corporazione); 2) patriottismo, devozione assoluta al Re e all’Impero e apertura alle istanze rivendicative degli ex combattenti; 3) amicizia tra le tutte le nazioni fasciste europee. La crisi del 1929 aggravò la già precaria situazione economica inglese ed i governi, laburista prima e conservatore poi, si mostrarono incapaci di guidare il paese fuori dalla “grande depressione”. La soluzione di Mosley alle contingenti difficoltà economiche prevedeva l’adozione di una politica protezionistica (ovvero sottrarre il mercato britannico alle incertezze del sistema capitalistico e garantire alla nazione una totale autosufficienza) e l’introduzione di tecniche moderne di produzione di massa (così da consentire, con la produzione di massa, l’aumento dei salari, senza tuttavia perdere in competitività imprenditoriale). Bisognava, inoltre, limitare gli scambi economici al canale preferenziale tra la madre patria e l’Impero coloniale.
Fondamentale era il potenziamento dell’agricoltura che avrebbe dovuto permettere di ottenere una produzione interna sufficiente a soddisfare il fabbisogno della popolazione inglese senza dover far ricorso alle importazioni dall’estero. Tale organizzazione della politica economica si era resa ancor più urgente dopo la crisi del 1929. Bisognava evitare il declino della nazione britannica perché essa doveva “continuare a vivere in un modo degno della sua grandezza”. La creazione di uno Stato corporativo sul modello italiano era il prioritario obiettivo che la BUF si proponeva di realizzare non appena avesse ottenuto il suo primo successo elettorale. Fu proprio l’unione tra tradizione e rivoluzione che attirò al movimento di Mosley i consensi di “alcuni autentici, ma patriottici, rivoluzionari”. Costoro erano per la maggior parte uomini che, come lo stesso Mosley e buona parte dei dirigenti del suo partito, avevano combattuto durante la prima guerra mondiale. Essi capivano che il Fascismo italiano era una rivolta dei giovani contro la vecchia e mediocre politica, una politica timorosa e insensibile a priori all’irrinunciabile cambiamento. Comunque la condanna senza appello del vecchio sistema dei partiti fu dovuta al fatto che la British Union of Fascists rifiutò sempre di essere la guardia pretoriana della destra tradizionale.
Nel 1930 Mosley propose all’esecutivo il celebre Memorandum Mosley in cui egli illustrava le sue idee riguardo l’economia: insieme ai laburisti più radicali, Mosley pensava ad una politica di programmazione, di controllo degli investimenti e di rafforzamento dell’esecutivo “sia per un controllo dell’alta finanza sia per un progressivo svuotamento degli influssi incontrollabili dell’economia mondiale attraverso tempestive misure protezionistiche, oppure attuando un autoisolamento dell’economia nazionale” (Ernst Nolte). Per il suo estremismo antisemita Mosley perse l’appoggio di numerosi uomini influenti tra cui Lord Rothermere (Harold Sidney Harmsworth) e i Tory non solo esclusero categoricamente ogni forma di alleanza con la BUF, ma fecero altresì approvare dal parlamento inglese una legge che poneva il movimento fascista britannico sotto il controllo della Polizia.
L’atteggiamento di Mosley verso Mussolini ed il Fascismo era ambivalente: da un lato egli negava categoricamente qualsiasi intenzione di emulare il corrispettivo mussoliniano ed insisteva sull’originalità del Fascismo inglese. Dall’altro molti erano gli elogi riservati al Duce ed alle sue mirabili realizzazioni nel campo sociale. Per quanto riguarda i rapporti con il capo del Fascismo littorio, Mosley incontrò Mussolini “circa una mezza dozzina di volte tra il 1932 ed il 1936”. A rovinare il clima favorevole per il suo partito ci pensò lo stesso Mosley: il 4 ottobre del 1936 i fascisti in camicia nera da lui guidati marciarono sull’East End di Londra per intimidire e ridurre al silenzio le organizzazioni sindacali e i gruppi ebraici che soggiornavano in quei quartieri. Il tentativo di scimmiottare la marcia su Roma (28 ottobre del 1922) si risolse in un autentico disastro: 300.000 uomini eressero barricate, si scontrarono con i sostenitori del Fascismo albionico e riuscirono a scacciarli. Questo episodio, noto come la “battaglia di Cable Street”, spezzò la schiena alla BUF. Rimasto vedovo nel frattempo (la prima moglie, Cinthya Curzon, figlia del viceré d’India George Curzon , era morta di peritonite nel 1933), Mosley si risposò nel 1936 con Diana Mitford, di 14 anni più giovane di lui. Le nozze vennero effettuate a casa di Joseph Goebbels (Ministro della Propaganda del Terzo Reich) e Adolf Hitler fu uno degli invitati.
Mosley, di Benito Mussolini, ammirava “l’ottima cultura, l’affabilità, l’umorismo schietto, l’ottimismo, il realismo, la perspicacia, il coraggio e l’impegno politico costante”. I maggiori successi ottenuti dal capo fascista di palazzo Venezia erano, agli occhi dell’omologo inglese, l’organizzazione dello Stato italiano su basi corporative, la centralità della famiglia e la politica demografica, aspetti ripresi in seguito e molto apprezzati dal Mosley stesso. Mussolini, secondo l’opinione della BUF, non aveva altra intenzione se non quella di procurare al suo popolo nuove terre da coltivare: il suolo della nostra penisola, infatti, non era più sufficiente al sostentamento della popolazione italiana in esponenziale crescita numerica. Era perciò necessario rivolgere lo sguardo oltre i confini nazionali (conquistare l’Etiopia per espandere le colonie). Il governo di Roma era disponibilissimo a trattare pacificamente con la Gran Bretagna che, invece, si dimostrava perennemente ostile e diffidente verso l’Italia fascista mussoliniana perché aveva osato “sfidare l’ordine coloniale, contestando lo sfruttamento dei territori africani da parte delle grandi nazioni capitalistiche e proponendo che tali territori diventassero un’area di libero insediamento delle popolazioni mediterranee”. L’Italia del Duce, ammoniva la BUF, non si sarebbe tirata indietro di fronte ad un’eventuale minaccia di guerra e sarebbe stata per l’Inghilterra un avversario pericoloso, anche perché avrebbe potuto contare sull’aiuto incondizionato della Germania nazista e su quello del Giappone del Tenno.
La BUF è stato probabilmente l’unico movimento fascista europeo che non ha mai ceduto alle seduzioni ed alle lusinghe nazionalsocialiste, ma che al contempo è sempre rimasto fedele all’originaria impostazione italiana, un’impostazione aliena da simpatie ideologiche per il tiranno nazista Adolf Hitler, il Fuhrer dei tedeschi. L’entrata in guerra dell’Italia nel giugno del 1940 costò cara ad Oswald Mosley e alla sua BUF. Dopo aver tentato in tutti i modi di ostacolarne l’ascesa (nel 1934 le adesioni al movimento fascista londinese raggiunsero approssimativamente le 40.000 unità, di cui 5-10.000 membri attivi), il governo di Sua Maestà Britannica, il 23 maggio del 1940, varò una legge fatta su misura per i fascisti inglesi, la legge 18 B. Il capo della BUF venne arrestato ed il partito di cui lui era l’antesignano fu sciolto d’autorità. Al termine del secondo conflitto mondiale, nel 1948, Mosley fondò l’Union Movement e con esso si candidò, nel 1959, a North Kensington e, nel 1966, nel collegio di Shoreditch e Finsbury, venendo sconfitto in entrambe le circoscrizioni elettorali inglesi. Nel 1951, Mosley, dopo essersi trasferito in Irlanda, traslocò a Parigi dove trascorse gli ultimi anni di vita. Nel 1968 scrisse un’autobiografia dal titolo “My life” e nel 1977 fu candidato alla carica di Rettore Magnifico dell’Università scozzese di Glasgow. Ottenne in questa occasione un centinaio di voti a favore. In sintesi, ecco quello che diceva il Mosley credendoci per davvero: “In realtà il Fascismo è il più grande, costruttivo e rivoluzionario credo esistente al mondo. Oggettivamente esso o è rivoluzionario o non lo è per niente”.
Il retaggio di civiche, nonché di militari virtù in perfetto stile “Old England”, così come la sana educazione ricevuta dal Mosley, il suo senso della disciplina, l’sua attitudine al comando non meno che all’obbedienza, la sua raffinatezza nel portamento, la sua giovanile irruenza contro il compromesso e la fedeltà dell’ufficiale inglese a un superiore codice d’onore si aggiunsero agli umori e ai malumori della generazione mosleyana e alla avversione verso l’impotenza manifesta, verso il dilettantismo dei comportamenti politici e verso la corruzione dilagante. Mosley scriverà nel suo “My life”: “Le idee che restano astratte non mi hanno mai attratto; l’azione deve seguire il pensiero perché la vita politica non resti priva di significato”. Era l’antipatia per il laissez-faire liberale: la famosa teoria del “ci pensa direttamente il mercato”.
(Brani scelti tratti, dopo parziali modifiche lessicali e brevi integrazioni, dall’articolo di Gino Salvi intitolato: Oswald Mosley e la British Union of Fascists. Storia Verità, gennaio-febbraio 2009, n. 55).

D. Venner: Editorial du n°42 de la "Nouvelle revue d'Histoire"

Editorial de la Nouvelle Revue d’Histoire

n°42 (mai-juin 2009)

Notre dossier décrit l’enchaînement ayant conduit l’Europe de la fausse paix de 1919 à la guerre de 1939. Guerre qui a sonné le glas de notre ancienne civilisation. Dans Le Siècle de 1914, on a montré que, si le « monde d’avant » a engendré la catastrophe de 1914, c’est qu’il était déjà malade. L’Europe d’avant 1914 était en proie au nationalisme de détestation. Elle avait également succombé aux fureurs du monde de la technique, à la voracité du « Progrès ». La violence faite à la Nature pour la piller et l’exploiter au-delà de toute raison en sera plus tard la conséquence. C’est une tragédie qui se confond avec l’histoire de l’Occident moderne. On a vu les effets de la démesure durant les deux guerres mondiales. On les voit maintenant dans la mise en danger de la planète, soumise à l’idéologie de la croissance.

Dans les temps anciens, fondateurs de notre civilisation, le génie des bâtisseurs, artistes, libres citoyens et hommes d’État inspirés par Homère, avait construit leur vie à l’image du cosmos ordonné de leurs mythes. Ils habitaient un monde dont ils respectaient les limites, vivant eux-mêmes pour la beauté, l’exploit et l’excellence. Il y eut des bouleversements tels que l’adoption du christianisme comme religion de l’Empire romain à la fin du Ive siècle, mais l’ancienne représentation avait continué d’être plus ou moins la norme vécue. La grande rupture est venue beaucoup plus tard d’événements immenses qui ont introduit une nouvelle façon de penser le monde.

La supériorité technique acquise par l’Occident européen à compter du XVIe siècle, associée à l’esprit d’aventure et à la cupidité, fit de lui pour longtemps le maître de l’univers. Les richesses affluant et le rôle du marchand s’imposant, un renversement intellectuel s’opéra dans la haute culture européenne, préparé par la révolution scientifique du XVIIe siècle. Galilée, Kepler, Newton, avaient doté les générations suivantes d’un savoir empirique indiscutable.(1). C’est là que se trouvaient les lois du monde réel. La philosophie empirique de Locke fut la contrepartie des lois empiriques de la gravitation. Des voies différentes restaient pourtant ouvertes. Hobbes et Bentham érigeaient l’utilitaire en vertu. Dans la même veine, Adam Smith désignait l’économie - jusque-là accessoire - comme l’instrument capable de changer la vie. Condorcet assurait que la science allait produire « la perfectibilité indéfinie de l’espèce humaine». Ainsi fut inventée l’idéologie du Progrès qui réduisait les hommes à leur matérialité et refusait leur diversité. Mais, au même moment, Buffon ou Herder s’insurgeaient contre la mécanisation du vivant et l’uniformisation humaine, postulant une autre philosophie de la vie.

Depuis, l’histoire a galopé. Les grands bouleversements du dernier siècle nous ont fait entrer dans une ère nouvelle bien analysée par un essai récent d’Hervé Juvin (1). Celle de la revanche des anciennes civilisations, jadis humiliées et soumises. Nous sommes entrés dans l’ère d’une guerre de civilisations. Toute guerre de civilisations, note pertinemment Juvin, commence avec la prétention de l’une ou l’autre à l’universel, ce que n’avait jamais prétendu la Grèce antique, qui ne parlait que pour les Grecs. « La guerre des civilisations […] prend racine au début du XVIIIe siècle, quand les philosophes de ce temps ont entrepris de justifier le désir humain illimité des biens matériels et de fonder la condition historique des hommes sur le progrès et sur le dépassement de toutes les limites. Elle s’est mise en mouvement quand les besoins des marchands européens ont ruiné les économies locales et les ont privées de leur autosuffisance, quand les fourneaux de la croissance européenne et américaine ont commencé de brûler à grands feux les ressources naturelles de la planète tout entière. Elle est devenue inéluctable quand la religion du développement a proclamé que la croissance économique et la consommation de masse étaient l’état juste et nécessaire de l’humanité, que l’un et l’autre allaient de pair avec le seul état politique légitime, la démocratie, et quand elle a mobilisé des institutions (ONG) pour universaliser [la] vérité de l’Occident. » Pour les « Occidentaux », la cause était entendue : « Le monde nous appartient. Il nous est donné pour croître, pour prospérer, pour nous enrichir, pour nourrir le progrès. […] Pour croître et nous multiplier, nous avons tous les droits »… jusqu’aux catastrophes qui se dessinent devant nous.

Il n’est pas possible ici de tout dire de la richesse de l’essai d’Hervé Juvin et des perspectives audacieuses de la deuxième partie de son essai. Perspectives qui impliquent le primat du collectif sur l’individuel et la soumission de l’économie au politique, autant dire une révolution intellectuelle majeure. Le but n’étant plus de percer les secrets de la Nature pour l’asservir, mais pour la sauver. Et nous avec.

Dominique VENNER

1. Hervé Juvin, Produire le monde. Pour une croissance écologique, Le Débat, Gallimard, 2008, 308 p., 20 €

Source : La NRH

La presse juive sous le III° Reich

SYNERGIES EUROPÉENNES - JUILLET 1988

La presse juive sous le IIIième Reich

Recension: Herbert FREEDEN, Die jüdische Presse im Dritten Reich,  Jüdischer Verlag bei athenäum, 1987, 203 S., 48 DM.

Le livre de Freeden lève le voile qui cachait jusqu'ici l'histoire de la presse juive sous le Troisième Reich et les débats que celle-ci a véhiculé. La presse juive dont il est question ici n'est pas la presse progressiste, non spécifiquement juive de l'époque de Weimar, que certains polémistes nationalistes avaient affublé du titre de Judenpresse.  Il s'agit d'une presse, propre à la communauté israëlite allemande, qui n'a cessé de paraître qu'à la fin de 1938. Cette presse comptait 65 journaux et revues dont le tirage global mensuel s'élevait à un million d'exemplaires. Elle dérivait de deux matrices bien distinctes:

1) une presse libérale ou socialiste cosmopolite, orchestrée par de jeunes intellectuels juifs, qui avaient trouvé dans le journalisme des postes que la société wilhelmienne n'avait pas voulu leur confier dans l'enseignement ou le fonctionnariat;

2) une presse traditionnelle, confessionnelle et homilétique, dirigée et contrôlée par le rabbinat. Sa fonction était de renforcer la conscience juive, de façon à accentuer une "ségrégation culturelle positive", et de transmettre des informations générales au public juif. Une question importante était débattue après la proclamation des "lois de Nuremberg": rester ou émigrer? Les sionistes ne réclamaient pas une émigration massive vers la Palestine et les non-sionistes n'excluaient par pour autant la possibilité de l'Aliyah  (retour à la "terre promise"). D'autres pariaient sur la Tchuva,  le retour à la religion. Beaucoup d'intellectuels et les anciens combattants, notamment ceux qui s'exprimaient dans Der Schild,  réaffirmaient haut et fort leur patriotisme allemand. Du côté des autorités, Ernst Krieck, recteur de l'université de Francfort, plaide pour la constitution d'une autonomie populaire (völkisch)  juive au sein du Reich, qui reprendrait à son compte le refus sioniste de l'émancipation-assimilation, destructrice d'identité. On s'aperçoit, grâce à la recherche de Freeden, quelle densité prenait le débat éternel sur la question juive à l'ombre du drapeau à croix gammée. A relire au moment où en France des polémistes simplificateurs cherchent à créer une histoire juive aseptisée et abstraite.

(Robert STEUCKERS).

 

H. J. Schoeps - Preussischer Patriot und bekennender Jude

Hans-Joachim Schoeps

Preußischer Patriot und bekennender Jude

Hans-Joachim Schoeps – geboren vor 100 Jahren

Ex: http://eisernekrone.blogspot.com/

„Mich bewegt sehr und richtet auf, daß es noch immer Konservative gibt, die die Tradition nicht abbrechen lassen, sondern die den Bogen schlagen wollen – von vorgestern nach übermorgen.“
„...stelle ich fest, (...) daß es füglich bei mir keine Entwicklung gegeben hat. Ich bin immer Konservativer, Preuße und Jude gewesen.“

Preußischer Patriot und bekennender Jude

Heute, am 30. Januar 2009, ist der 100. Geburtstag des deutsch-jüdischen Wissenschafters, Publizisten und Patrioten Hans-Joachim Schoeps. Ein bleibendes wissenschaftliches Vermächtnis, das die engeren Betätigungsfelder seiner Studien überschreitet und als Institution überdauert, ist die von ihm gegründete Gesellschaft für Kulturwissenschaft in Potsdam. Ein weiteres, die gemeinsam mit dem Religionswissenschafter Ernst Benz (siehe unsere Würdigung "Der Adel der menschlichen Seele" - von der deutschen Mystik bis zum Übermenschen) ins Leben gerufene „Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte“. Seine gesammelten wissenschaftlichen und publizistischen Werke sind in einer 16-bändigen Ausgabe im Olms-Verlag zwischen 1990 und 2005 als Nachdrucke erschienen. Schwerpunkt seiner Forschungen, insbesondere als Professor für Religionsgeschichte in Erlangen, war zum einen das Judentum, insbesondere auch im Verhältnis zum frühen Christentum, man kann sagen Randfragen der Judaistik, die aber eine gewisse Brisanz sowohl für Christen wie Juden besitzen. Und zum anderen, der Staat Preußen, von diesem her auch das, was man als „deutsche Frage“ sich zu bezeichnen angewohnt hat. Insbesondere sein sowohl wissenschaftlichen Ansprüchen wie allgemeinverständlicher Darstellung gerecht werdendes Buch „Preußen. Geschichte eines Staates“ (1) ist als geschichtliche Einführung bis heute unübertroffen. Eine von Schoeps veranstaltete Preußen-Anthologie „Das war Preußen. Zeugnisse der Jahrhunderte“ wurde im übrigen von Julius Evola ins Italienische übersetzt. (2)
Da Hans-Joachim Schoeps nicht nur distanzierter Forscher gewesen ist, sondern sowohl Juden- wie Preußentum als die beiden Koordinaten seines eigenen Lebens betrachtet hat, wurde für ihn ein politisches Engagement als Nationalkonservativer, Monarchist und jüdischer Patriot geradezu zur Pflicht. Seine wesentliche Prägung hat Schoeps durch die bündische Jugendbewegung (3) und deren Deutung durch Hans Blüher erfahren; Schoeps war es dann auch, der Blühers zentrales Werk, „Die Rolle der Erotik in der männlichen Gesellschaft“, nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg im Klett-Verlag neu herausgegeben hat. Blühers christlichem Antijudaismus hat er sich im „Streit um Israel“, einer in Briefform gehaltenen Auseinandersetzung auf höchstem Niveau, in direkter Konfrontation gestellt. (4) Für seinen Versuch, einem patriotischen, aber nicht „assimilierten“ (also letztlich apostatischen) Judentum auch im deutschen Aufbruch von 1933 einen Platz zu behaupten, gegen die de facto bestehende Allianz von Nationalsozialismus und Zionismus, die eine solche Position für unmöglich erklärt hat, wurde er Zeit seines Lebens und über den Tod hinaus angefeindet und hat sich gar noch von dem CSU-Klampfensänger Wolf Biermann als „Heil-Hitler-Jude“ anpöbeln lassen müssen. 1970 veröffentlichte Schoeps die Dokumente dieses Beharrungskampfes unter dem Titel „Bereit für Deutschland. Der Patriotismus deutscher Juden und der Nationalsozialismus“.
In Zeiten der beinahe vollständig vollzogenen Identifikation des Judentums mit dem Zionismus ist die Voraussetzung für das Verständnis des inneren wie äußeren Ringens eines „deutschbewußten Juden und jüdischbewußtes Deutschen“ (5), der den Zionismus mindestens ebenso entschieden ablehnte wie die Assimilation, und der auch niemals das zionistisch besetzte Palästina besuchte („Erst wenn der Messias gekommen ist, reise ich“), so gut wie nicht gegeben. Dazu kommt, daß Schoeps auch keineswegs ein Haredi, oder wie der eigentlich diffamierende Ausdruck heißt: „ultraorthodoxer“ Jude, dem man solchen messiaserwartenden Antizionismus selbst von Zionistenseite in gewissem Rahmen noch nachsieht, (6) gewesen ist, sondern große Sympathien für das Judenchristentum der Ebioniten (7), also eine spezielle jüdisch-christliche, vom Heidenchristentum unterschiedene Frömmigkeit hegte, und auch den, nach unserer Ansicht eigentlich traditionellen, den Talmud ablehnenden Karäern, die von den „orthodoxen“ Juden aber als häretisch betrachtet werden, Interesse entgegenbrachte.
1950 schreibt Schoeps über sein Verhältnis zu den zeitgenössischen Juden: „Die Juden glauben ja garnicht so [er bezieht sich auf sein eigenes, 1938 erschienenes Buch „Grundlehren des jüdischen Glaubens“]. Die glauben entweder an garnichts oder an Geld oder an den israelischen Staat. Und die Orthodoxen (=Rechtgläubigen) sind orthoprax und verketzern den Glauben überhaupt als Gojim naches. [...] Ich repräsentiere die Juden so wenig wie diese den jüdischen Glauben. Die Mentalität, die mir als jüdisch entgegentritt, wohin ich mich wende, ist mir so fern und fremd – ich gestehe häufig antipathisch. [...] Es kommt hinzu: 95-100% der in Europa lebenden Juden sind Zionisten, d.h. sie geben sich der nationalistischen Seuche hin, die ich wie die Pest hasse. Ich bin der Meinung, daß die Welt – wenigstens meine Welt – daran zugrundegeht.“ (8)
Nicht nur der zionistischen, sondern auch der mystisch-magischen Strömung, Kabbala und deren Wiederentdeckung und –belebung durch Gershom Scholem oder Oskar Goldberg, stand er ablehnend gegenüber. Dabei stehen sich kabbalistische Ekstase und zionistischer Aufbruch nicht so fern wie es scheinen mag. Sie haben in der Bewegung des „falschen Messias“ Sabbatai Zwi einen Kreuzungspunkt, der zugleich Schoepsens persönliche „Familientragödie“ darstellt. „Vieles ist möglich, aber Pseudomessianismus darf es in unserer Familie nie wieder geben. Kein biederer Protestant kann auch nur von ferne ahnen, was das Prinzip ‚sola fide’ ins Jüdische übersetzt beinhaltet. In meinem Fall tat sich ein Abgrund auf. Es hätte ja bedeutet, daß ich dem feigen Betrüger Sabbatai Zewi (Schapse Z’wi), an den meine Vorfahren auch nach dessen Selbstverrat vom 15. September 1666 inbrünstig geglaubt haben, weshalb man sie die ‚Schepse’ nannte, nachträglich Indemnity erteilt hätte. Das durfte ich nicht. (...) Adolf Hitler war doch nur ein dummer Mörder. Der Schapse Z’wi nach 1666 übertrifft ihn an Gemeinheit. – Und diesem Manne haben wir geglaubt. Im übrigen ist es von zweitrangiger Bedeutung, ob zum Prinzip ‚sola fide’ im Namen von Sabbatai Zewi, Martin Luther oder gar Karl Marx aufgerufen wird.“ (9) Der Verdacht gegenüber Gnostizismus und Mystizismus, das Gesetz ebenso außer Kraft zu setzen, wie die Zionisten das Verbot der Errichtung eines staatlichen Gebilde vor dem Erscheinen des Messias (tatsächlich haben die Sabbatianer als erste zu einer Einwanderungsbewegung nach Palästina aufgerufen), schmiedet in Schoeps Weltanschauung das Gesetz des Judentums (ohne seine ghettomäßige Ausgestaltung im orthodoxen Talmudjudentum) an den gerechten Staat Preußen. Die Problematik liegt hier offen als luthersche Ambiguität vor uns: die Gewissens- und Glaubensverinnerlichung im Verhältnis zur äußeren legitimen Autorität. Eine Flucht aus dieser Spannung kann zum Rückfall in das „Heidentum“ führt, auf den an den Beispielen Nationalsozialismus und Zionismus noch einzugehen ist.
In seiner Religionsgemeinschaft isoliert, brachte sich Schoeps als Vorsitzender monarchistischer und stockkonservativer Verbände vollends ins Abseits des Zeitgeistes. Auch die bundesdeutschen Konservativen dachten nicht daran, ihm zu folgen. Caspar von Schrenck-Notzing konnte mit einigem Recht schreiben: „Als Historiker Preußens war Schoeps am erfolgreichsten. Wenig Erfolg beschieden war ihm jedoch bei dem Versuch der Übertragung dieses Konservativismus in die Gegenwart.“ (10)
Paradox erscheint es da, daß er dennoch zum (Doktor-)Vater einer „Neuen Rechten“ oder eines neuen Nationalismus werden konnte. Durch seine Dissertanten Robert Hepp, (11) Hans-Dietrich Sander, (12) Hellmut Diwald und andere (13) wirkt sein politisch-wissenschaftlicher Einfluß, wenn auch eher untergründig und selektiv, fort.
Das Verständnis für seine Person hat sich bis heute nicht gerade erhöht. Dabei könnte Schoeps gerade wegen seiner Außenseiterstellung als Ausnahmegestalt ein Licht auf die Widersprüche und auch innere Größe einerseits der preußischen Geschichte und andererseits der zumeist mehr beschworenen als analysierten deutsch-jüdischen Symbiose werfen.

Nationalsozialistischer und zionistischer "Baalskult"

Schoeps bekannte, daß ihm alles „Völkische“, ob Nazismus oder Zionismus – die er zumindest diesbezüglich ausdrücklich auf die gleiche Stufe stellte - widerwärtig sei und seiner wie jeder politischen Theologie als biologische Theologie oder Bio-Theologie entgegenstünde. "Das goldene Kalb ist Symbol des baalischen Jungstiers, die angebetete Zeugungskraft der Allnatur, niemand anderes als der Blut- und Bodengötze. Überall wo die biologischen Kräfte vergottet werden, Rasse, Blut und Boden letzte Werte sind, ist der kanaaitische Baal am Werk."(14) In Nazismus wie Zionismus, in jedem völkischen Biologismus. Das historische Israel der Sinai-Gesetzgebung habe immer mit dem Baalskult gekämpft, so Schoeps.
Wenn man Baal, der solaren Gottheit Syriens, Gerechtigkeit widerfahren lassen will, so ergänze ich, muß man jedoch anerkennen, daß die im äußeren Kampf zwischen Juden- und Heidentum entgegenstehenden Gestalten beide korrekte und konkrete Ausprägungen der einen Tradition sind. Wenn allerdings das „auserwählte Volk“ im Sinne eines Monotheismus, diese Erwählung (15) als Selbstvergottung mißversteht, weil es den Bund zwischen Gott und Israel so versteht wie die Syrer ihre Beziehung zu Baal, so liegt eine monströse Entartung und Verkehrung der monotheistischen Sendung vor, wie umgekehrt dann auch, wenn ein heidnisches Volk – oder ein neuheidnisch gedachtes wie im Fall des Nationalsozialismus – sich als ein auserwähltes Volk analog Israel zu erheben versucht. In beiden Fällen kommt es zu der von Schoeps am Beispiel des zionistischen Judentums beklagten Hybris: „Denn auch das Judentum selber trägt die Möglichkeit des baalischen Selbstmißverständnisses von der Sinai-Gesetzgebung bis zum letzten Zionistenkongreß in sich – und immer dann wird der Abfall zum Baal akut, wenn das Bekenntnis statt zum ewigen Gott zur Ewigkeit des eigenen Volkes und seines – welches Mißverständnis – auserwählten Bluts sich Bahn bricht.“ (16) Mit dem historischen Baalskult und seine Umwandlung in den Sol Invictus des römischen Imperiums hat dieser beschriebene Vorgang offensichtlich wenig bis nichts zu tun. (17)
Schoeps spricht in Bezug auf das Buch „Wir Juden“ des Zionisten Joachim Prinz von „nackter Lebensverherrlichung und Diesseitsbejahung ohne Ausblick auf ein anderes, und sei es auch nur wie bei Nietzsche durch das Medium des schlechten Gewissens hindurch, daß ein anderes besseres Wissen verdrängt worden ist.“ (18) Da springt doch die Nähe zu der Unterscheidung von Leben und „Mehr-als-Leben“ ins Auge, die der Baron Julius Evola gerade als „Heide“ getroffen hat. (19) Evola stand wie auch Schoeps der „Konservativen Revolution“ nahe, auch wenn diese nach Schoeps „ein Unbegrif des Publizisten Armin Mohler“ sein soll. (Der Begriff wurde in Wirklichkeit auch von dem von Schoeps geschätzten Edgar Julius Jung explizit und affirmativ verwendet.) Die Kritik von Schoeps an der völkischen Bewegung, inklusive des „jüdisch-völkischen“ Zionismus, ist nicht von einem exklusiv jüdischen Standpunkt zu verstehen. Er wird auch nicht nur selbstverständlich von einem Christen geteilt werden müssen, sondern ist allgemein der Unterschied zwischen Tradition als Überlieferung von einem übernatürlichen und überindividuellen Ausgangspunkt her und der modernen Auffassung – mit bereits manchen antiken Vorläufern – von dem bloß natürlichen, animalischen Ursprung des Menschen und einem Kollektivismus der Pseudoüberwindung des Individualismus, dem Kollektiv-Individualismus, der die geordnete Wirklichkeit (den Kosmos) de facto nihilistisch negiert, so viel er auch an zu bloßem Tand werdenden Mythen der Überlieferung in Beschlag zu nehmen versucht (im Fall des biologistischen Nationalsozialismus die germanische Mythologie und im Fall der Zionisten die biblische Geschichte Israels.)
Schoeps Deutschtumsbekenntnis ist genausowenig völkisch-biologisch wie sein jüdisches. Gerade angesichts des völkischen Aufbruchs 1933, dessen begrenzte Gültigkeit Schoeps „um die Wahrung des bedrohten Volkskörpers willen“ anerkannte - was ihm heute als unverzeihlich vorgeworfen wird -, hat er die eigentliche deutsche Sendung als Erbe des mittelalterlichen Reichs hervorgehoben, die „Leibwerdung eines objektiven Ordnungsauftrages“, der geschichtlich stets „in einem übervölkisch-staatlichen Bezirk seine Ansatzpunkte gefunden“ hat. Als Wesensbestandteil des „preußisch-deutschen Staatsethos“ bezeichnet Schoeps in seiner dialektischen Sprache das „sich vor einem Objekt Verantworten“. Aber „im Bekenntnis zu Blut und Rasse droht die Gefahr einer Selbstverabsolutierung, die echter Objektverantwortung nicht mehr zu bedürfen scheint, weil es fraglich wird, ob die übersteigerte Verherrlichung der eigenen völkischen Art die in der staatlichen Ebene liegende Frage nach der geschichtlichen Sinnerfüllung oder Sinnverfehlung überhaupt noch zu konzipieren vermag.“ (20) Diese an das „Dritte Reich“ gerichteten Sätze entfalten aber auch ihre erschreckende Aktualität, wenn man die selbstgerechte und autistische Haltung des Zionistenstaats gegenüber der Weltöffentlichkeit betrachtet, es wird einem klar, daß von einem solchen Standpunkt, der das Volk an die Stelle Gottes gesetzt hat, aus keine Selbstkritik, keine Korrektur des eingeschlagenen Weges mehr möglich ist, ohne das Projekt insgesamt zu negieren. Dies ist der von Schoeps diagnostizierte molochitische, also letztlich selbstverschlingende Zug, dessen Zug die reine nihilistische Vergötzung der eigenen Macht ist. „Verfallenheit an die Naturmagie und nie zu sättigender Machttrieb - also Baal und Moloch in einer Gestalt - manifestieren sich im modernen Götzen, der mit Hilfe magischer Bannformeln und kultischer Riten ganze Lebensräume unter seine Gewalt bringt.“ (21)
Dies war nach Schoeps Ansicht im nationalsozialistischen, antipreußischen Großdeutschland der Fall - tatsächlich hat ja ein süddeutsch-österreichisches Pseudopreußentum all das zum Vorbild eigener Machtausübung genommen, was Preußenkarikaturen entspringt und in der Tat eine Projektion der Barbarei des englischen Imperialismus war (wir würden aber eine ergänzende, leider unterlegene Strömung im Dritten Reich anerkennen, für die etwa Carl Schmitt, Christoph Steding und auch Julius Evola stehen.) Bemerkenswert ist daher die sachliche und wenig dramatisierende, sondern scheinbar einer pessimistischen Grundstimmung entsprechende Bilanz von Schoeps, dessen Eltern in deutschen Konzentrationslagern ums Leben gekommen sind: „In Deutschland hat man ja gesehen, was dabei herauskommt, wenn ein Volk nationalistischen Kräften ausgeliefert wird und sich füglich von Gott und den sittlichen Gesetzen emanzipiert. Sie fragen mich, wie ich als Jude das deutsche Verhalten in der Hitlerzeit religiös beurteile? Ich kann nur sagen: folgerichtig und normal. Denn das steht eben zu erwarten, wenn sich Nationalismus und Technik verbünden. Ich habe mich über die ‚deutschen Greuel’ niemals gewundert, sie entsprechen ja nur der Abgründigkeit der menschlichen Existenz. Ich habe mich höchstens über die Zeiten gewundert bzw. sie bewundert, wo die Greuel gebändigt werden konnten wie etwa im Hl. Allianz genannten Staatenbund christlicher Monarchien. In der Zeit des hochseligen Königs Friedr. Wilh. IV. gab es zum letzten Mal pax christiana, die auch immer pax judaica ist.“ (22) Diese Bändigung des unter der Ordnung verborgenen Chaos ist für Schoeps in der biblischen Schöpfung verankert, wo dem Tohuwabohu (dem Wüsten und Leeren) von Gott die Ordnung aufgeprägt wird, ohne daß diese chaotischen Mächte aber völlig beseitigt werden: „Das Gesetz ist überhaupt nur gegeben worden, weil im Anfang das Chaos war, und die Menschen nahmen es an, weil sie im Chaos nicht untergehen wollten. Nur auf diesem Untergrund hat die gesetzliche Lebensordnung ihren tiefen Sinn. (...) Mir scheint die Verbürgerlichung der Religion hat uns Juden allesamt vergessen lassen, daß die Welt unheimlich, vielleicht sogar tückisch ist. Warum nimmt die jüdische Theologie Genesis 1,2 nie ernst? Da ist doch die Rede vom Tohu-wa-bohu, in das die Ordnungen der Schöpfung hineingelegt worden sind. Man sollte sich mit dem Besitztitel der Auserwählung nicht darüber hinwegtäuschen, daß unter der Schöpfungswelt noch immer das Tohu-wa-bohu liegt – als der grollende Abgrund. Wie hat man das vergessen können? Kann man denn ernstlich das Gesetz erfüllen, es sei denn auf der Flucht vor den Elementargewalten einer höchst unsicheren Welt?“ (23)
Diese tief in der Bibel verankerte konservative Grundhaltung, die fern allen „revolutionären jüdischen Geistes“ und der messianischen Verneinung der bestehenden Ordnung ist, bildet den einen, traditionsgebundenen Strom des Judentums, der geschichtlich leider oft nicht der dominante gewesen ist.

Um die Reichstheologie

Nach diesen negativen Bestimmungen gilt es die positive politische Theologie – Reichstheologie – ins Auge zu fassen, von der Schoeps nicht nur meinte, daß jüdische Deutsche ihren Anteil daran haben könnten, sondern aufgrund der Kontinuität der Reichsvorstellung vom alten Israel an, sogar in besonderer Weise. Die Herleitung des Reichs nicht von Rom, sondern von Jerusalem, stieß erwartungsgemäß auf Widerspruch in Plettenberg, beim konservativ-revolutionären Exegeten der „Politischen Theologie“, Carl Schmitt.
„23.5.48
[...] Begegnung mit Joachim Schoeps: Erst durch Cramer von Laue [Schüler von C.S.] , dann jetzt durch den (mir als erster Sonntagsmorgengruß entgegenspringenden) Satz aus dem Blüherschen Streitgespräch um Israel 1933 (S. 50): 'Und dies (daß die jüdische Auserwähltheit das Vorbild des mittelalterlichen Reiches war) ist auch der Grund, warum ein gläubiges Judentum kaiserlich (nicht königlich) gestimmt ist!' Nein, Joachim Schoeps, das ist nicht der Grund! Der Grund liegt in Joh. 19, 15, und das christliche Reich der Kaiser des Mittelalters hatte eine Legitimation als ein katechon [Original in griechisch] nach 2. Tess. 6/7.“
So Carl Schmitt in seinem Glossarium. (24) Schoeps könnte auch darauf verweisen, daß die Übernahme des Erzengels Michael als Engel des deutschen Volkes (herabgesunken zum charakteristischen „deutschen Michel“), die Kontinuität des israelischen Reichsgedanken belegt. Carl Schmitt könnte einiges für seine christliche Rechtfertigung des Imperiums vorbringen. Letztlich muß man wohl feststellen, daß beide politischen Theologien im mittelalterlichen Reich verbunden oder überlagert gewesen sind, sich aber in den katholisch-protestantischen bzw. österreichisch-preußischen Gegensatz auseinanderentwickelt haben.
Drei Jahre nach dem erwähnten Tagebucheintrag Schmitts kam es, angestoßen durch die Zusendung eines Aufsatzes über Donoso Cortés durch Schoeps, zu einem kurzen Briefwechsel zwischen den beiden politisch-theologischen Kontrahenten. Schmitt in einer ersten Reaktion an Armin Mohler, in einem Brief vom 25.8.1951: „Ich bin überrascht, dass er sich an der gegen mich gerichteten Verschwörung des Totschweigens nicht beteiligt.“ (25) Wenig später gibt es ein persönliches Treffen, von dem Schmitt dann Mohler in einem Brief vom 12.11.1951 berichtet: „Vorige Woche habe ich Prof. Schoeps persönlich kennen gelernt; darüber gelegentlich mehr. Er hat mir gut gefallen.“ (26)
Im bereits erwähnten „Streit um Israel“ ist der Streitpartner nicht Schmitt, sondern konkret Blüher, und richtet sich der Stoß gegen ein (ausschließlich) „blutshaftes“ Verständnis von Deutschsein, von der her eine „jüdisch-preußische Symbiose“ immer nur widernatürlich erscheinen kann. So heißt es kurz nach der von Schmitt monierten Stelle: „das mittelalterliche Reich, das sacrum imperium, war gegründet durch den sakralen Ordnungsauftrag; der Kaiser als der ‚wahre Nachbildner Davids’ – so heißt es sogar noch in der Augsburgischen Konfession – sollte einstehen für Gerechtigkeit und Frieden. Im Reiche ist das Kaisersein ein Amt, wie der im kaiserlichen Dienste stehende Adel in ausgezeichneter Weise ein Amtsadel ist und damit im Gegensatz zum heidnischen Schwertadel und analog zum Priestertum eine geistige Angelegenheit. Und nur dasjenige Preußen, das sich als Erben des mittelalterlichen Kaiserreiches weiß, hat geschichtliche Bedeutung und echte Sachbeziehung zu den Positionen des Offenbarungsglaubens. Mir geht es stets nur um das ‚geistige’ Gebilde Preußen und nicht um das naturale, das letzten Endes immer nur die Objektivation eines bluthaft-vitalen Seins, einer ganz bestimmten, in Norddeutschland vorzugsweise beheimateten Struktur darstellt. In Ihren [Blühers] Darstellungen wittere ich aber immer wieder diese naturale Verkehrung [...]“ (27)
Schoeps hat auf verschiedene Weise versucht, die Möglichkeit des „preußischen Juden“ als „legitime historische Figur“, mehr noch: als „überzeugende Figur“ zu begründen. Der schwächste Ansatz ist der bei einer allgemeinen „Seelenverwandtschaft“ zwischen dem Bewohner der Wüste und der norddeutschen Weite. Die spezifisch preußische Beharrung der geprägten Form – sinnbildlich im Kasernenbau - angesichts der alles auflösenden Weite der Landschaft hat er sehr plastisch herauszuarbeiten verstanden, aber was soll dem von hebräischer Seite entsprechen - etwa das Wanderheiligtum des Bundeszelts? Stärker vermag auf den ersten Blick die Parallele zwischen dem jüdischen Gesetzesgehorsam und der preußischen Pflichtauffassung („das moralische Gesetz in uns“) einzunehmen. Hier sehen wir im übrigen wieder Schmitt auf der anderen Seite, der des Urteils, christlich-personalistisch als Entscheidung nicht als bloße Anwendung gedacht, gegenüber dem – bei Schmitt sicher auch jüdisch konnotierten - Gesetz. (28) Ganz am Rande sei vermerkt, daß die Sharia des Islam, zumindest in der dschafaritischen Rechtsschule, gerade weil das islamische Gesetz nicht so explizit und detailliert aufgelistet aufzufinden ist wie die mosaischen Gesetze, sondern in den Rechtsquellen, inklusive der Vernunft, aufgesucht werden muß und einer persönlichen Führung bedarf (Quelle der Nachahmung) die Vorzüge der beiden Systeme zu vereinen vermag, und die Nachteile – Starrheit bzw. Willkürlichkeit – vermeidet. (29)
Das Verhältnis von auctoritas und veritas kann für Schoeps aber auch in Preußen problematisch werden, wenn die „unbedingten Gehorsam“ verlangende Obrigkeit selbst keine – göttliche – Autorität über sich mehr kennt, der Staat also absolut wird. Für Schoeps eine heidnische Entartung, gegen die gerade das Festhalten am mittelalterlichen Reichsgedanken, das Gottesgnadentum, mobilisiert wird. Der moderne, rein säkulare Staat kann von ihm daher nur als die Monstrosität - das "kälteste Ungeheuer" Nietzsches - gesehen werden, die er auch ist, ob er sich nun nationalsozialistisch, bolschewistisch oder liberalistisch maskiert.
Die Linie zwischen einem totalen Staat als einzige Vermittlung des Göttlichen und einem totalen Staat anstelle des Göttlichen ist natürlich eine feine, aber nicht wirklich die zwischen jüdisch-christlich und heidnisch. So kann Franco Freda, den platonischen Staat vor Augen, heidnischer Apologet des „wahren Staates“ in seiner „Auflösung des Systems“ (30) schreiben: „Betonen wir nochmals daß die Wirklichkeit dessen, was heilig und göttlich ist, und die Heiligkeit dessen, was die wirkliche politische Struktur ist, das Fundament des wahren Staates bilden muß: denn wenn sich ein Staat, ein politisches Regime nicht durch das Faktum legitimeren läßt, daß es eine spirituelle Gültigkeit besitzt, spirituelle Ziele verfolgt, kann es nichts Organisches und Zentriertes repräsentieren: es wird nichts als eine tote, materialistische und soziale Anhäufung sein, resultierend aus der allen Organismen ohne Lebenskraft eigenen Erstarrung.“ Freda führt den Bruch „zwischen dem sogenannten laikalen Bereich des Staates und der abstrakten Ebene des ‚spirituellen’, der gegenüber diesem autonom bleibt“, einer moralischen „Welt des Gewissens“ einerseits und einer ausschließlich „profanen und laikalen, von jener göttlichen Potentialität ausgeschlossenen“ andererseits – man vergleiche Carl Schmitts „Leviathan“! – auf „die jüdisch-christliche Infektion vor zweitausend Jahren “ zurück. Die von Schoeps auf die kaiserlich-reichische Linie bis David und von Schmitt auf die katechontische Funktion des römischen Imperiums zurückgeführte sakrale Dimension des Staates als Ordnungserhalter gegenüber dem materialistischen Chaos, wird von Freda also gerade als das Heidnische angesehen (gegen alle Neuheiden, die nach der Trennung von Diesseits und Jenseits, gerade das Jenseits als christlich-jüdische „Erfindung“ wegstreichen.) Wir sehen uns scheinbar einer babylonischen Sprachverwirrung der Politischen Theologie gegenüber, die sich mit Hilfe der von René Guénon erörterten Doktrin lösen läßt. Nicht im exklusiven Rückgang auf das Königtum Davids, nicht allein auf das getaufte römische Kaisertum nach Konstantin, nicht auf die ausschließlich heidnisch-platonische Tradition, sondern auf die gemeinsame primordiale Stiftung durch den "König der Welt", in der biblischen Gestalt der Priester-König Melchisedek, der Gerechtigkeit und Frieden durch Herrschaft gewährleistet.

Martin A. Schwarz


(Alemannia Judaica - Der jüdische Friedhof in Erlangen)

(1) Berlin: Propyläen 1966, zahlreiche Neuauflagen.
(2) Schoeps, Das war Preußen. Zeugnisse der Jahrhunderte. Eine Anthologie; Honnef: Peters 1955; ital.: Questa fu la Prussia. Testimonianze sul prussianesimo; Rom: Volpe 1965. Die Übersetzung erschien unter Evolas üblichem Übersetzerpseudonym Carlo d’Altavilla.
(3) Die nicht wenige Fragen aufwerfende Identifikation des (Männer-)Bündischen mit dem jüdischen B’rith, Bund Gottes mit den Menschen, bleibt in unserer Darlegung ausgeblendet. Es sei nur bemerkt, daß Schoeps hier sein jüdisch-deutsches Bekenntnis so weit ins Metaphysische trägt, daß man an die Schwelle der Frage gelangt, ob man nach Schoeps überhaupt wirklich voll und ganz Deutscher sein kann als Nicht-Jude. Jedenfalls beansprucht er als Jude Deutscher zu sein und als Deutscher Jude.
(4) Hans Blüher / Hans Joachim Schoeps, Streit um Israel. Ein jüdisch-christliches Gespräch. Hamburg: Hanseatische Verlagsanstalt 1933.
(5) So der Titel der einzigen ihm gewidmeten Monographie:
Richard Faber, Deutschbewusstes Judentum und jüdischbewusstes Deutschtum. Der Historische und Politische Theologe Hans-Joachim Schoeps; Würzburg: Königshausen und Neumann 2008. Faber, dessen Bücher oftmals monomanisch um interessante bis abseitige Themen der Kultur- und Ideengeschichte, vorzüglich der konservativ-revolutionären bis faschistischen, kreisen, selten analytisch, sondern suggestiv und selbstreferentiell, immer auf der Suche nach der „Pointe der Pointe“, die sich aber oft nur dem als Pointe erweist, der schon weltanschaulich von Faber eingelullt nur mehr auf die Bestätigung wartet. Der als Dissertant von Mohammed Rassem (Freund Sedlmayrs und Bewunderer Schoeps) zu Jacob Taubes gewechselte Faber hat sich ein gewisses Feeling für die „Konservative Revolution“ erlesen, das seinem Faible fürs Faschistenriechen entgegenkommt. Die Grundthese seiner zahlreichen, anscheinend schnell heruntergeschriebenen Bücher ist gegen Mohler gerichtet und besagt, daß die „Konservative Revolution“ primär römisch gewesen sei und nicht nietzscheanisch-antirömisch.
Ich will nicht leugnen, daß diese kurze Würdigung von Schoeps der Faberschen Arbeit manche Hinweise verdankt, die es gegen den politisch-korrekten Strich Fabers zu bürsten galt. Zum Titel und der Formulierung ist noch zu sagen, daß Schoeps weitaus mehr preußisch als deutsch gewesen ist, oder anders gewendet, Deutschtum ganz von Preußen her gedacht hat.
(6) Im zionistisch besetzten Palästina sind die Haredim vom Wehrdienst befreit, siedeln sich aber schwer bewaffnet als kolonialistische Vortrupps in noch vorwiegend arabisch besiedeltem Land an – theoretisch antizionistisch, praktisch ultrazionistisch, mit talmudistischer Chutzpah das Göttliche Verbot umgehend, das sie mit dem Mund weiter bekennen.
(7) Siehe z.B.: Schoeps, Judenchristentum und Gnosis; u.a. zu finden in: Schoeps, Ein weites Feld. Gesammelte Aufsätze; Berlin: Haude & Spener 1980. Schoeps entwirft Ebioniten und Gnostiker (Marcioniten) als zwei geradezu idealtypische Gegensätze, wobei Gnosis unter dem Gesichtspunkt der Ablehnung des Schöpfergottes gesehen wird (also mit der universalen Gnosis als esoterischer Wahrheit jeder echten Tradition absolut nichts gemeinsam hat.) Für die Ebioniten war Jesus vor allem als Erfüllung des Gesetzes, d.h. als (vollkommener) Gerechter relevant und nicht als Messias-König. Es ist von der ebionitischen Auffassung auch nicht weit zu Schoeps’ preußischen Staat als Gerechtigkeit auf Erden, gegen den keine Auflehnung möglich ist.
(8) Brief an Schalom Ben Chorim, 18.3.1950, in: Julius H. Schoeps (Hg.), Auf der Suche nach einer jüdischen Theologie. Der Briefwechel zwischen Schalom Ben Chorim und Hans-Joachim Schoeps; Frankfurt am Main: Athenäum 1989, S. 56. Orthographie beibehalten.
(9) Schoeps, Ja – nein – und trotzdem. Erinnerungen – Begegnungen – Erfahrungen; Mainz: v. Hase & Koehler 1974; S. 139 f.
(10) Criticón, Nr. 28, 3./4.1975, S. 55.
(11) Hepps Dissertation „Politische Theologie und theologische Politik“ atmet natürlich unmittelbar, aber auch seine erste Veröffentlichung „ Selbstherrlichkeit und Selbstbedienung. Zur Dialektik der Emanzipation“ noch den Schoepschen Geist, des Denkens „von oben“ und ist mit großem Vergnügen zu lesen, anders als seine in die „Politische Biologie“ wenn auch nicht „Bio-Theologie“ abdriftende, allerdings auf einem realen Problem beruhende „Endlösung der deutschen Frage“, die ihn berühmt und wohl auch berüchtigt gemacht hat.
(12) In der Schoeps-Dissertation „Marxistische Ideologie und allgemeine Kunsttheorie“ ist bekanntlich die verschwiegene Beziehung von Walter Benjamin und Carl Schmitt erstmals aufgedeckt worden. „Der nationale Imperativ“ ist bereits durch den Titel preußisch konnotiert, wieweit auch der Sandersche Nationalismus in der Substanz mehr preußisch als völkischnational ist, wäre aufzuzeigen. Aber sicher hat Sander auch in die andere Richtung ausgeschwungen, als dialektischer Denker, dem es um die Totalität von Idee und Wirklichkeit angelegen ist. Sanders „Auflösung aller Dinge“ hat schließlich nochmals das Skandalon des Blüher/Schoeps-„Streits um Israel“ aufgenommen, eindeutig auf der Blüher-Seite anknüpfend. Sanders Kollege Robert Hepp hat dieses Buch einer scharfen (unveröffentlichten) Kritik unterzogen, ohne explizit die Schoepsche Gegenposition zu beziehen.
(13) Zu nennen wären etwa noch: Werner Maser (Frühgeschichte der NSDAP), Günther Deschner (die deutsche Gobineau-Rezeption), Hans-Joachim Schwierskott (über Moeller van den Bruck.)
(14) Schoeps, Was ist der Mensch? Philosophische Anthropologie als Geistesgeschichte der neuesten Zeit; Göttingen: Musterschmidt 1960, S. 325.
(15) Für das richtige, traditionsgemäße Verständnis dieses Begriffs, siehe: Charles-André Gilis, La profanation d'Israël selon le droit sacré; o.O. o.J (=2003); Neuauflage: Paris: La Turban noir 2008.
(16) Ebd., S. 325, zitiert nach Faber, S. 40.
(17) Vgl. für eine korrekte Darstellung: Franz Altheim, Der unbesiegte Gott. Heidentum und Christentum; Hamburg: Rowohlt 1957; auszugsweise auch hier: Der unbesiegte Gott (2) - Helios von Emesa.
(18) Schoeps, „Bereit für Deutschland!“ Der Patriotismus deutscher Juden und der Nationalsozialismus. Frühe Schriften 1930 bis 1939. Eine historische Dokumenation; Berlin: Haude & Spener 1970; S. 175.
(19) Und im übrigen hat Evola auf dieser Basis seine „Rassentheorie“ entwickelt, die dementsprechend nicht unter die Kritik der Rasseverherrlichung fällt, da diese bei Schoeps wie allgemein unter Rasse eben gerade „Blut“ und Biologie versteht. Der immer wieder vorgebracht Vorwurf, Evola hätte eine nationalsozialistische Rassetheorie vertreten ist daher völlig falsch. Eher schon läßt sich fragen, warum das „Mehr-als-Leben“ gerade mit dem aus der Biologie stammenden Wort Rasse belegt werden soll, was tatsächlich nicht einsichig ist.
(20) Ebd., S. 106.
(21) Schoeps, Was ist der Mensch?, S. 327.
(22) Brief an Schalom Ben-Chorin, 18.3.1950, in: Auf der Suche, S.55.
(23) Schoeps, Bereit, S. 151.
(24) Carl Schmitt, Glossarium. Aufzeichnungen der Jahre 1947-1951; Berlin: Akademie 1991, S. 153.
(25) Armin Mohler (Hg.), Carl Schmitt – Briefwechsel mit einem seiner Schüler; Berlin: Akademie 1995, S. 101.
(26) Ebd., S. 109.
(27) Schoeps/Blüher, S. 50 f.
(28) Carl Schmitt, Gesetz und Urteil. Eine Untersuchung zum Problem der Rechtspraxis; München: Beck 1912; Neuauflage für März 2009 vorgesehen.
(29) Exkurs: Schoeps und der Islam

In seinem Buch „Gottheit und Menschheit. Die großen Religionsstifter und ihre Lehren“ (Stuttgart: Steingrüben 1950) nimmt Schoeps auch zum Islam Stellung, es hat aber den Anschein, dies geschähe mehr der Vollständigkeit halber als von Interesse oder Kompetenz her. Schoeps reiht einige der Platitüden der Orientalistik über den unoriginellen, allzumenschlichen usw. Propheten des Islam aneinander und charakterisiert den Islam als in seinem Prädestitationsdenken und seiner Schicksalsgläubigkeit „calvinistisch“, was genauso sinnvoll ist, wie das Christentum – unter Ausblendung all seiner anderen Strömungen – als calvinistisch zu bezeichnen. Tatsächlich schreibt Schoeps auch von der entgegengesetzten „pantheistischen“ Strömung, die Einseitigkeit durch eine zweite ergänzend. Denn in Wirklichkeit ist Ibn Arabi als wichtigster Vertreter des esoterischen Islam genausowenig pantheistisch wie Shankara, Meister Eckart oder Lao-Tse, deren grundsätzliche Identität mit seiner „Mystik“ oder vielmehr Gnosis aufgezeigt werden kann. Auch das beklagte „allzumenschliche“ also anscheinend unethische Verhalten des Propheten muß hinterfragt werden, denn es beruht auf einigen späten Hadithen. Träte uns Muhammad als fehlerlose Idealgestalt entgegen, wären die Orientalisten sofort bei der Stelle, um den geschichtlichen Wahrheitsgehalt dieser Stellen in Zweifel zu ziehen. Tatsächlich sind diese Berichte über Fehler und unmoralisches Verhalten aber Hadithen – vorwiegend aus der „Hadithfabrik“ von Abu Huraira - zu entnehmen, die die Rechtfertigung des unislamischen Verhaltens der Umayyaden-Kalifen bezweckten, in deren Dienst die Hadithverfasser standen. Schiiten anerkennen keinen einzigen dieser Hadithe.
Von dieser Ausgangsbasis aus zweiter Hand – eben der westlichen Orientalistik – ist es dann schon bemerkenswert, daß Schoeps' eigenes Urteil durchaus die Größe des Islam erkennt: „Wäre Muhammed nur ein verschlagener Schlaukopf oder ein Sozialreformer oder ein religiöser Fanatiker gewesen, so hätte er niemals die Wirkung ausgeübt, die er hervorgebracht hat und die durch seinen Tod in keiner Weise aufgehalten wurde. So wirkt eben doch eine echte, original konzipierte Religionsidee. Muhammed war der große Reformer Arabiens; die Strenge und Nüchternheit, die den staatlich-politischen Sinn schärfen und ausbilden half, trägt bei ihm die Zeichen seiner Herkunft aus der Wüste. Auf seine religionsgeschichtliche Bedeutung hin geurteilt, ist der Islam der bisher letzte, ganz große Versuch zur Errichtung einer theokratischen Herrschaft in der Welt gewesen. Von der altrömischen Zeit abgesehen ist die Durchdringung des staatlichen öffentlichen und privaten Lebens mit der Religion, die Verbindung und der Zusammenschluß beider, niemals wieder ideell so eng gewesen wie in der Stiftung Muhammeds: dem Islam.“ (S. 125)
(30) Franco Giorgio Freda, La disintegrazione del sistema, Padova: Edizioni di Ar 2000 (EA: 1969); eigene Übersetzung, unveröffentlicht.
„Bereit für Deutschland!“

„Zionisten wie Nazis sind völkische Bewegungen, die von unten her den Staat aufbauen wollen. Wir denken grundsätzlich von oben her: Königtum und Obrigkeit von Gottes Gnaden.“
Brief an Schalom Ben-Chorin, 18.3.1950

„Hat man es mit Personen zu tun, die - Gott behüte - selbständige Denker sind und daher in keine der üblichen Schubfächer und Klassifizierungen hineinpassen, dann bezeichne man sie einfach als 'faschistisch' oder 'faschistoid', denn das macht bei minderbemittelten Leuten immer großen Eindruck. Gerade das Letztere ist ein wichtiger Punkt, der mit dem atemberaubenden Bildungsgrad der heutigen 'Journaille' zusammenhängt. Es ist ihr in der Regel gar nicht möglich: 'nationalistisch', 'reaktionär', 'konservativ', 'preußisch' zu unterscheiden, weil sie nicht weiß, daß jede dieser Bezeichnungen höchst verschiedenartige Phänomene und Sachverhalte deckt. Beispielsweise bedeutet konservativ das Gegenteil von reaktionär und preußisch das Bekenntnis zum Antinationalismus.“
Ja - Nein - und trotzdem

Veit Harlan revisited

Veit Harlan revisited

Martin LICHTMESZ - http://www.sezession.de/

Um meine kleine, ungeplante Harlan-Serie abzuschließen, möchte ich noch auf den sehr guten Dokumentarfilm „Harlan – Im Schatten von Jud Süß“ von Felix Moeller hinweisen, der zur Zeit im Kino zu sehen ist. Moeller hat den vielköpfigen Harlan-Söderbaum-Körber-Klan (Hilde Körber war Harlans zweite Ehefrau, Söderbaum die dritte) bis zu den Enkeln hinab zu dem berüchtigten Patriarchen befragt.

Dabei sind etwa dreiviertel der Interviewten ebenfalls im Film-und Showbusiness tätig, am bekanntesten wohl Stanley Kubricks Witwe Christiane, eine Nichte Harlans, und ihr Bruder Jan, Kubricks „Executive Producer“. Es ist interessant zu sehen, wie auf sie alle der „Schatten von Jud Süss“ gefallen ist,  und wie sich die ganze Familie immer noch mehr oder weniger daran abarbeitet.

Am extremsten ist dabei sicher der 1929 geborene älteste Sohn Thomas Harlan, seines Zeichens selbst Filmemacher,  für den die Bewältigung der tatsächlichen, vermuteten oder unterstellten Schuld des Vaters zur lebenslangen Obsession geworden ist.  Dafür wird er von seinen eher moderaten Geschwistern, die eine überwiegend positive emotionale Bindung zu ihren Eltern haben, auch recht kritisch betrachtet. Es ist erschütternd mitanzusehen, wie dieser nunmehr 80jährige Mann immer noch vom Gespenst des Vaters heimgesucht wird. Sein Film „Wundkanal“ aus dem Jahr 1984 gehört zu den wohl krassesten Exponaten einer auf die Spitze getriebenen, nahezu pathologischen Vergangenheitsbewältigung (die Edition Filmmuseum wird ihn im Juni auf DVD herausbringen). Harlan engagierte sich seit den Fünfziger Jahren auf der radikalen Linken, wovon nicht zuletzt „Wundkanal“ mit seiner offenen Sympathie für die RAF zeugt. Harlans anklägerische Besessenheit erinnerte mich an Horst Mahler und seine 180 Grad-Wendungen: beide sind für mich Zeugen, daß der deutsche Rechtsextremismus und Linksextremismus ein- und demselben Knacks entspringen, und der eine nur die Kehrseite des anderen ist.

„Harlan“ kann man als einen weiteren Eintrag in einem Subgenre des „Bewältigungsfilms“ sehen, das ich als die „Familiengeschichte“ bezeichnen möchte. Andere Beispiele der letzten Jahre waren Malte Ludins „Zwei oder Drei Dinge, die ich von ihm weiß“ (2004), Jens Schanzes „Winterkinder“ (2005) und Rosa von Praunheims „Meine Mütter“ (2008) . Dabei ist zu verzeichnen, daß die jüngeren filmischen Aufarbeitungen (Ludin ist natürlich das Gegenbeispiel) sich immer mehr von der Anklage weg zum Versuch des distanzierten Verstehens hin bewegen. So läßt auch Felix Moellers Film den unterschiedlichen Perspektiven und Urteilen der Familienmitglieder einen beträchtlichen Spielraum, ohne selbst Partei zu ergreifen.

Als exponierter, herausragender Künstler ist Veit Harlan bis heute einer der bevorzugten Sündenböcke des Dritten Reichs. Es mutet seltsam an, seine Kinder und Enkel, die allesamt unverkennbar seinen und Kristina Söderbaums physiognomischen Stempel tragen, im Banne der „Schuld“ ihres Ahnherren zu sehen. Diese Identifikation oder zumindest schandhafte Affizierung durch das „Blut“  ist ein ebenso irrationaler wie seelisch schlüssiger Vorgang. Eine der Enkelinnen Harlans merkt in dem Film an, daß es ihr natürlich lieber wäre, wenn ihr Großvater ein „Widerstandskämpfer“ gewesen wäre, aber rational betrachtet würde das genausowenig einen besseren oder einen schlechteren Menschen aus ihr machen wie ein „Nazi“-Großvater.

Dennoch bleibt diese eigentümliche Affizierung, gleich einer Art von Erbsünde zurück, wobei der Grad der Emotionalität bei den Familienmitgliedern sehr verschieden ist. Man kann Moellers Film auch als eine Art von „Familienaufstellen“ sehen, frei nach der therapeutischen Schule des („umstrittenen“) Psychologen Bert Hellinger. (Über dessen ebenso seltsames wie genialisches Konzept kollektiver seelischer Kausalitäten und Verstrickungen kann man „kritisch“ hier und hier nachlesen.)

Hellinger postuliert die Existenz einer Art „Familienkarma“, das über Generationen hinweg schicksalshaft fortwirkt. Man muß den Begriff nicht unbedingt „mystisch“ nehmen – mir gefällt er als Metapher, mit der man auch die seelische Verfassung der Deutschen als Volk beschreiben könnte, die sich immerhin aus der Gesamtheit von vielen Millionen Familiengeschichten- und -schicksalen speist. Wer das bis heute weitervererbte Schuldgefühl und Unbehagen der Deutschen an sich selbst allein auf „Umerziehung“ und politische Idoktrinierung zurückführt, greift meines Erachtens zu kurz. Die „Seelengeschichte“ der Deutschen, das ist etwas, das immer noch nicht in seiner Tiefe ergründet worden ist.

Erwähnen möchte ich noch, daß der Film auch die faszinierende Seite von Harlan nicht unterschlägt. Seine schwerblütigen, zum Teil kitschigen und morbiden Melodram-Exzesse in berauschendem Agfacolor wie „Die goldene Stadt“ (1942), „Immensee“ (1943) oder „Opfergang“ (1944) haben auch heute noch ihren eigentümlichen, unverwechselbaren Reiz bewahrt. Sie mit neuen Augen sehen lernen kann man mithilfe der exzellenten und materialreichen Harlan-Biographie „Des Teufels Regisseur“ von Frank Noack. Noack scheut sich nicht vor kühnen Urteilen, und wartet mit vielen, zum Teil überraschenden historischen Details auf, die einen hochdifferenzierten Blick auf den Regisseur und seine Arbeit erlauben.

Zum Schluß noch eine Abbitte. Neulich schrieb ich „Nach dem Krieg ließ Stalin heroische Filme drehen, die dem Stil von „Kolberg“ aufs Haar glichen und den Sieg über den „Faschismus“ feierten,  etwa 1948 in Farbe „Die Schlacht um Berlin“. Nachdem ich nun „Die Schlacht um Berlin“ (1949) zur Gänze gesehen habe, muß ich zu Harlans Gunsten sagen, daß „Kolberg“ auch nicht nur annähernd so plump und naiv ist wie diese stalinistische Sowjetproduktion.

Veröffentlicht: Freitag, 15. Mai 2009, 10:20

Hans-Joachim Schoeps

Karlheinz WEISSMANN - http://www.sezession.de/

Vor einhundert Jahren wurde der Historiker Hans-Joachim Schoeps geboren

Vor einhundert Jahren, am 30. Januar 1909, wurde Hans-Joachim Schoeps in Berlin geboren. Er kam als Sohn eines renommierten Berliner Arztes zur Welt, studierte nach dem Schulabschluß in Heidelberg, Marburg, Berlin und Leipzig Germanistik, Geschichte und vergleichende Religionswissenschaft. 1932 wurde er zum Dr. phil. promoviert. Gleichzeitig hatte er das Erste Staatsexamen abgelegt, konnte aber im folgenden Jahr wegen der nationalsozialistischen Machtübernahme nicht mehr in das Referendariat eintreten; aus denselben Gründen scheiterte auch der Versuch, sich zu habilitieren.

Schoeps war in den zwanziger Jahren mit der Jugendbewegung in Berührung gekommen und hatte Kontakt zu verschiedenen Gruppen der „Konservativen Revolution“. Er gehörte damit zu dem kleinen Kreis deutsch-jüdischer Intellektueller, die dieser Bewegung nahestanden, so etwa Rudolf Borchardt, Ernst Kantorowicz und Hans Rothfels. Verbindungen bestanden vor allem zu Zeitschriften wie Die Tat, in der 1930 ein erster im eigentlichen Sinn politischer Aufsatz aus seiner Feder erschien, und Der Ring, die nachhaltig durch die Ideen Moeller van den Brucks geprägt war. Bemerkenswert ist auch, daß Schoeps die unter Konservativ-Revolutionären verbreitete Einschätzung  des Nationalsozialismus teilte, wenn er einerseits den „aufgeregten Kleinbürger Hitler“ verabscheute, andererseits meinte, daß man nur in der HJ noch „Gläubigkeit, Begeisterung und Leidenschaft“ finde, wenngleich sie für die falschen Ziele eingesetzt würden. Diese Bemerkungen stammen aus einem Brief, den Schoeps im November 1932 an den von ihm – trotz seiner scharf antijüdischen Position – hoch verehrten Hans Blüher schrieb. Beide hatten in Korrespondenzform ein Streitgespräch geführt, das noch 1933 unter dem Titel Streit um Israel als Buch veröffentlicht wurde. Darin betonte Schoeps einerseits sein Deutschtum im Sinne des preußischen Staatsethos, andererseits seine jüdische Identität. Diese verstand er allerdings nicht im zionistischen Sinn – das jüdische „Weltvolk“ war seiner Meinung nach im Jahre 70 mit der Zerstörung des Tempels und Jerusalems untergegangen –, sondern theologisch, wobei er neben dem Bundesschluß am Sinai auch die Möglichkeit anerkannte, daß Gott mit anderen Völkern ähnliche Bünde abgeschlossen habe.

Und was nun gar heute alles konservativ ist: Dieses vermickerte Kleinbürgertum, das Ruhe und Ordnung will, die Leute, die Angst haben, daß man ihnen ihre Geldsäcke klaut – aber darüber hinaus für keinen Sechser Haltung und Courage. – Schoeps 1932

Dieser „theonome Konservatismus“ ähnelte sehr stark der in den zwanziger Jahren von evangelischen Theologen entwickelten „Volksnomoslehre“ und führte Schoeps mit seinen politischen Vorstellungen in eine weltanschauliche Position zwischen allen Fronten. Daraus erklärte sich letztlich seine heute so stark irritierende Bemühung, für die deutschen Juden im „Dritten Reich“ eine selbständige Position als „Stand“ zu erreichen, weshalb er von Regierungsstellen ebenso wie von den an „Dissimilation“ interessierten Zionisten wie von der Emigration mit Feindseligkeit verfolgt wurde.

Der von Schoeps zu Ostern 1933 gegründete „Vortrupp. Gefolgschaft deutscher Juden“ sollte zusammen mit anderen konservativen jüdischen Organisationen, vor allem dem „Nationalverband deutscher Juden“, trotz dauernder Zurückweisung die patriotische Einsatzbereitschaft der verfemten Minderheit demonstrieren, hatte damit aber keinen Erfolg. Im Dezember 1938 mußte Schoeps fluchtartig das Land verlassen und emigrierte nach Schweden. Seine Eltern kamen in den Lagern ums Leben, sein Vater, der während des Ersten Weltkriegs als Regimentsarzt des Garde du Corps gedient hatte, konnte bis zum Schluß nicht glauben, daß eine „nationale Regierung“ Hand an ihn und seine Familie legen würde.

Die erzwungene Muße im skandinavischen Exil nutzte Schoeps, um seine Studien zur vergleichenden Religionsgeschichte fortzusetzen. Er arbeitete als Dozent an der Universität Uppsala und soll bei seiner Rückkehr mehr als dreizehn Kilogramm Manuskriptpapier bei sich gehabt haben, Material für sieben wissenschaftliche Werke. Den häufig kommunistisch orientierten Gruppen des Exils stand er ablehnend gegenüber. Unermüdlich versuchte er die Differenz zwischen Deutschland und dem NS-Regime klarzustellen. Insofern war es nur konsequent, daß er unmittelbar nach Kriegsende in das zerstörte Deutschland zurückkehrte. Er habilitierte sich 1946 in Marburg und wurde ein Jahr später auf den eigens geschaffenen Lehrstuhl für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte an der Universität Erlangen berufen, zeitgleich begann er mit der Herausgabe der Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte.

Schoeps‘ Vorstellung von „Geistesgeschichte“ knüpfte zwar an Dilthey an, verstand sich aber darüber hinausgehend als „Zeitgeistforschung“. In mehr als drei Jahrzehnten publizierte er zahreiche Monographien und Sammelwerke auf diesem Gebiet. Dabei zeichneten sich sehr deutlich zwei Schwerpunkte ab: die Geschichte des Urchristentums – insbesondere der „Judenchristen“ – und die Geschichte des preußischen Staates, vor allem seiner konservativen Denker.

Dieses Interesse am „anderen Preußen“ hing vor allem mit der Sympathie zusammen, die Schoeps nach wie vor der konservativen preußischen Tradition entgegenbrachte. Fast alle seine politischen Stellungnahmen in der Nachkriegszeit müssen aus diesem Zusammenhang heraus verstanden werden. Bereits seine Rede zum 250. Jahrestag der ersten preußischen Königskrönung, dem 18. Januar 1951, über „Die Ehre Preußens“ (so der Titel der gedruckten Fassung) sorgte für Aufsehen. Zu Beginn der Ansprache hieß es: „Ich möchte mit der Feststellung beginnen, daß wir eines teuren Toten hier gedenken, der, vom Strome der Geschichte zum Licht getragen, in diesen Strom wieder zurückgetaucht ist. Staaten werden immer nur durch die Kräfte getragen und erhalten, durch die sie geschaffen worden sind. Preußen war ein königlicher Staat, und darum mußte Preußen sterben, als sein Königtum dahinstarb. Preußen hat am 9. November 1918 zu bestehen aufgehört und nicht erst 1933 oder gar 1945. Als durch Beschluß des Alliierten Kontrollrates vom 25. Februar 1947 der Staat Preußen, dessen Stammlande damals aber zum großen Teil unter fremder Herrschaft standen, offiziell aufgelöst wurde, haben alle alten Preußen dies als einen seltsamen Akt der Leichenschändung empfunden.“

Eine ähnlich irritierende Wirkung wie das Plädoyer eines deutschen Juden für den preußischen Staat hatten auch Schoeps’ später erhobene Forderung nach Einrichtung eines „Oberhauses“ und sein Eintreten für die Wiederherstellung der Monarchie. Je weiter sich die Linkstendenzen in der westdeutschen Gesellschaft in den sechziger Jahren verstärkten, desto schärfer wurde Schoeps im Ton und desto weniger schützte ihn seine jüdische Herkunft. Die Angriffe kamen dabei von verschiedenen Seiten: einmal von dem notorischen Ariel Goral, der Schoeps in einem Flugblatt wegen seiner Bemühungen um den jüdischen „Stand“ zwischen 1933 und 1936 als „braunen Juden“ beschimpfte, und zum anderen von der APO, der endlich eine Handhabe gegen den Konservativen zur Verfügung stand, der schon verschiedentlich energische Maßnahmen gegen den neuen linken Extremismus verlangt hatte und sich jetzt als „erfahrener Faschist“, „Nazi-Jude“ oder „jüdischer Obersturmbannführer“ verunglimpft sah.

Auf Unterstützung brauchte Schoeps nicht zu hoffen. Die Philosophische Fakultät seiner Universität hatte schon 1968 eine Solidaritätserklärung mit 33 gegen 5 Stimmen abgelehnt. Der „Fall Schoeps“ erregte bundesweit Aufsehen und zog jetzt Angriffe auch in der überregionalen Presse, etwa in Zeit und Spiegel, nach sich. Schließlich nahm unter der neuen sozialliberalen Regierung das Verteidigungsministerium die Vereinbarung über eine Sonderausgabe des Buches Preußen. Geschichte eines Staates für die Bundeswehr zurück. Schoeps geriet in den folgenden Jahren immer weiter in die Isolation.

Als er im Wintersemester 1976/77 zur Emeritierung anstand, versuchte er alles, um eine geplante Umwidmung seines Lehrstuhls zu verhindern. Im Rahmen der Vereinbarung zwischen der katholischen Kirche und dem bayerischen Staat über die sogenannten Konkordatslehrstühle war vorgesehen, an die Stelle des Erlanger Lehrstuhls für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte einen solchen für Politische Wissenschaften treten zu lassen.
Alle Versuche von Schoeps, das – und damit die Beschädigung seiner intellektuellen Hinterlassenschaft – zu verhindern, schlugen fehl, bis es ihm gelang, durch direkte Intervention bei der bayerischen Regierungsspitze wenigstens zu erreichen, daß die Geistesgeschichte im Rahmen der künftigen Lehrveranstaltungen einen besonderen Schwerpunkt bilden sollte. Vor allem auf Betreiben des landläufig als „konservativ“ geltenden Historikers Michael Stürmer wurde nach dem Tod von Schoeps am 8. Juli 1980 das noch bestehende „Seminar für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte“ liquidiert, sein Lehrstuhl eingezogen beziehungsweise umgewidmet und 1994 sogar die Bibliothek – darunter neunhundert von den Erben leihweise übergebene Titel – an ein Antiquariat verkauft.

Die ’Überwindung der Massengesellschaft’ wird in unserem Geschichtsraum vielleicht überhaupt nur noch vom Geist, von den Ideen und Institutionen des Preußentums her möglich sein. Denn Preußen war der einzige deutsche Staat, der mehr als ein Staat war, mit dem sich eine Idee verknüpft hat, durch die Menschen gebunden wurden und noch heute gebunden werden können. … Derlei ist heute vollkommen unzeitgemäß – aber gefordert. Gerade die Unzeitgemäßheit ist paradoxerweise die größte Chance für Preußens Wiederkehr. Erst in der Zukunft wird man das klar erkennen können. – Schoeps 1982

Man hat Hans-Joachim Schoeps immer wieder seine unkritische Haltung gegenüber der preußischen Vergangenheit vorgeworfen, seinen anachronistischen Royalismus, und selbst Wohlwollende glaubten, daß er sich allzu sehr nach Schnallenschuh und Perücke am Hof zu Sanssouci sehnte. Aber damit trifft man nicht den Kern der Sache. Hier hat einer mit bemerkenswerter Unbeirrbarkeit nicht nur daran festgehalten, daß es möglich sein müsse, Deutscher und Jude, Preuße und Jude zu sein, sondern auch darauf beharrt, daß „unser armes Land“ seine Wunden heilen lassen sollte und daß ohne die preußische Substanz staatliche Existenz gar nicht möglich sei. Damit war er in der ersten Nachkriegszeit durchaus repräsentativ für eine starke Minderheit der Deutschen, die eine Totalrevision der Geschichte für unwahrscheinlich hielt, dann akzeptabel, weil ihm Herkunft und Schicksal einen gewissen Schutz gewährten, schließlich einsam wie jeder, der im Ernst auf dem Wert der preußischen Lektion beharrte.

Veröffentlicht: Montag, 2. Februar 2009, 13:00

Cento anni Robert Brasillach

Cento anni Robert Brasillach

Tratto da http://www.ladestra.info/

Quando si dice Brasillach, di solito parte la retorica. È un vizio antico in uso dalle nostre parti. È morto giovane, d’accordo. Gli hanno fucilato l’animo di ragazzo, gonfio di romanticismi e sogni belli. Certamente. Ma oggi questo giovanotto di cent’anni è più vero di ieri. Nato nel 1909, morto nel 1945: si è risparmiato di scendere tutti i gradini della degradazione, all’opera nella vecchia Europa da allora in poi. Si è sottratto al destino di chi, come noi, è cresciuto nell’impenetrabile nebbione del mito mitizzato senza mai veramente conoscerlo, viverlo, vederlo a colori. La fortuna dei martiri è questa. Aver trovato qualcuno che ti fucila al momento giusto. E così ha mantenuto intatto l’alone di gloria, suo è l’esempio. Per sempre. Versato ad ammirare chiunque concepisca l’impegno come un ribollire di energia, Brasillach cantò la giovinezza in quanto contenitore naturale di forza e di tensione… e ad esempio di Codreanu richiamava lo spirito monastico e militare, la «poesia rude e piena di colore… lo stato di illuminazione collettiva…»; dei rexisti celebrava «l’elemento più spettacolare e più attraente del mondo nuovo: la giovinezza. L’universo fiammeggiava, l’universo cantava e si radunava…». Del Fascismo, dunque, coglieva non tanto le dottrine politiche, i corporativismi, le sociologie, ma soprattutto la capacità di radunare, animare e galvanizzare masse giovanili soffiando nei loro cuori uno spirito di vita… questo Fascismo-dio, che muove l’argilla e la rende carne pulsante, Brasillach lo volle vedere come il mito del secolo.

E disse cose inaudite per qualunque orecchio sordo e avvizzito. Pronunciò frasi sbalorditive per chiunque abbia venduto l’anima al perbenismo. Trinciò definizioni ingiuriose per tutti i preti laici del conformismo. Scrisse che «il fascismo è spirito. È uno spirito anticonformista in primo luogo, antiborghese e l’irriverenza vi aveva la sua parte. È uno spirito opposto ai pregiudizi, a quelli di classe come a tutti gli altri…». Che parole! E che sintesi! Che solenne poesia dello squadrismo, del darsi e del darsi altrimenti! Citò Sorel, e ne estrasse un programma politico ristretto in un’unica, brevissima frase: «…i miti non sono cabale astrologiche… Bisogna considerarli modi di agire sul presente». Come l’amore inetto e sterile, il mito mitizzato è funereo e castrante, immobilizza mentre è nato per sospingere. Il mito vivente deve dunque essere storia, società, uomo vero in carne e ossa. Dedichiamo la riflessione a quanti spesso hanno fatto di Brasillach, e di tutto quanto il Fascismo, la retorica degli imbelli e un cartone inanimato.

L’accademico di Francia Thierry Maulnier, nel 1964, paragonò la morte di Brasillach alla malattia del genio, quella che ne interrompe il volo, che inspiegabilmente spezza all’improvviso un destino attraverso la «stupida ferocia della storia». Come per Chénier o per Kleist, la morte per Brasillach è stata un annuncio: «attraverso la grazia e la tenerezza colma di tristezza del gesto con cui hanno accarezzato le forme visibili ed invisibili della vita: di quella vita che Robert amava troppo per rassegnarsi alla sua usura». Dunque il poeta Brasillach ha consapevolmente accettato la morte nel momento in cui si rese conto che, da un certo momento in poi, la sua vita si sarebbe logorata e sciupata. Lo si direbbe proprio un prescelto dagli dèi, che sono soliti infliggere ai sopravvissuti o ai posteri la condanna inespiabile di lunghe esistenze deprivate di grazia.

Le inquadrature da cui è possibile osservare oggi Brasillach sono quelle di un altorilievo neo-classico. Saint-Loup provò a sintetizzare: «Un essere tutto luce come lui non poteva sostenere il combattimento con armi comuni. Gliene occorrevano altre, più temprate di quelle degli Spartani che ammirava. Le ha trovate nel supplizio e la sua morte mira più alto della sua vita; il suo sacrificio conduce infinitamente più lontano della sua penna. Ha persino “trasfigurato” il fascismo che egli sosteneva». Una mistica di questo genere è il pane quotidiano per ogni religione. Perfino per quelle che predicano l’umiltà e sono tronfie, elogiano la povertà, ma vivono di sfarzo e di potere… Di mistica si nutrono i devoti, come dell’esempio cui rifarsi, del santo cui appellarsi. E poco importa se storicamente l’Idea ha prodotto contraddizioni, atroci disinganni, menzogne. Gli uomini vivono nel fango ma, ogni tanto, hanno bisogno di alzare lo sguardo e di pensare alto. Dura un attimo, ma conta. Come ogni religione che abbia mosso uomini alla milizia e al martirio di sé, anche il Fascismo ha i suoi santi. E Brasillach, mandato a morte mondo di peccato, conserva il suo alone di sorridente volontà di sacrificio. Non un “santino”, ma un uomo capace di assoluto. Giano Accame, invece, e con parole straordinariamente suggestive, ne fece un “inattuale”: «Perchè Drieu è attuale, Céline è ancora attuale, e Brasillach non lo è?». Scrisse che il suo ottimismo gli faceva un po’ pena, che le sue ingenue enfatizzazioni sul Fascismo e sul Nazionalsocialismo ne fecero un illuso. Un’anima semplice? Noi oggi, a tutto questo, vorremmo aggiungere l’elogio dell’ingenuo. Colui che rimane nel proprio gene. Che ne resta imbozzolato e non conosce l’altrove, bastando a se stesso. Wagner fece un poema dell’ingenuità di Sigfrido. E Parsifal non era forse un ingenuo? Quali figure, più di queste, richiamano alla mente la radicale opposizione col mondo moderno e con i suoi personaggi falsi, ottusi, materiali e gonfi di vuoto?

Brasillach ebbe la colpa di immaginare un mondo ribattezzato dal Fascismo come fosse una rivoluzione dello spirito, capace di rifare l’uomo dalla testa ai piedi. Parlando di Brasillach, Accame faceva del sarcasmo, alla sua maniera: «L’uomo nuovo che avevamo sognato non è diventato né migliore, come si sperava, né peggiore, come si temeva… abbiamo tirato fuori la testa dal disastro e ci siamo ritrovati adulti, sciatti, moralmente grigi, ma ben presto compiaciuti di noi stessi, dei nostri utensili, dei nostri guadagni, delle nostre ferie, sotto un cielo vuoto». Che terribile cantico al tracollo dello spirito poetico e che terribile denuncia circa il dilagare della più vile delle prose!

E poi è anche possibile che Brasillach fosse meno ingenuo di quanto pensiamo noi. Magari volle e si impose di essere poeta proprio perchè comprese alla perfezione che altrimenti sarebbe morto anche se avesse continuato a sopravvivere. Tra i non conformisti degli anni Trenta aleggiavano proiezioni e immaginative di cui noi oggi non possiamo comprendere che poche cose. Nella sua famosa Lettera a un soldato della classe ‘40, Brasillach in qualche modo ci spiega quanto poco fosse un illuso o un ingenuo. Il “caro ragazzo” a cui si rivolge è il giovane del dopoguerra e di tutti i dopoguerra. «Ti chiedo solo di non disprezzare le verità che noi abbiamo cercato, gli accordi che abbiamo sognato al di là di ogni disaccordo, e di conservare le due sole virtù alle quali io credo: la fierezza e la speranza».

Se pensiamo un attimo a quanto poco si aggirino per l’Europa mondializzata la fierezza e la speranza, si capisce che Brasillach non parlava il linguaggio etereo del metafisico con la testa tra le nuvole, ma quello concreto dell’uomo in cerca, sorretto dalla volontà di adornare l’esistenza di qualcosa, anche minima, per cui valga davvero la pena di essere vissuta. La fierezza e la speranza – ma non sarebbe un ottimo titolo per un libro postumo di Oriana Fallaci, certo ad altissima tiratura? - sono precisamente quelle cose di cui oggi manca completamente la povera Europa che ha fucilato Brasillach, colpendone ben più lo spirito che il corpo. Uomo tutt’altro che spaesato e abbandonato a sogni adolescenziali, Brasillach fu al contrario attento alla modernità, ne annusò certi segnali, ne apprezzò non poche manifestazioni, ne assaporò molti lati. Dal cinema alla musica jazz, al teatro, persino ai cartoni animati… e non gli fece difetto una “normalissima” inclinazione per la vita bella, suadente, rallegrante, esteticamente ricca e stimolante. E quando fu il momento, con la morte in faccia, mantenne quel sangue freddo che si addice più al navigato avventuriero che al semplice e al sognatore.

Noi gli perdoniamo facilmente di aver preso qualche memorabile “cantonata”. Non fu l’unico. Si tratta anzi di una regola storica. Rileggiamo volentieri le sue pagine visionarie, lisergiche, pregne di santa e sana allucinazione: via di fuga dalle miserie borghesi. Ripercorriamo insieme a lui l’arduo cammino di quanti furono per una lunga stagione al centro degli eventi e vi si tuffarono a capofitto secondo istinto. E confessiamo invidia per chi, come lui e molti della sua generazione, ha avuto in dono dal destino la possibilità di commettere anche grandi sbagli, potendosi dare l’aria di aver centrato il senso della storia. A noi è toccato in sorte di frugare tra gli avanzi degli altri, senza trovare nulla che non fosse avvilimento.
«Un accampamento di giovinezza nella notte, l’impressione di essere un tutt’uno con la propria Patria, il collegarsi ai santi e agli eroi del passato, una festa di popolo, ecco taluni elementi della poesia fascista, in cui è consistita la follia e la saggezza del nostro tempo. Ecco ciò, ne sono sicuro, cui la gioventù tra vent’anni, dimentica di tare e di errori, guarderà con oscura invidia e con inguaribile nostalgia…». Queste parole, effettivamente, nascondono un errore di valutazione. Ma non riguarda l’analisi del suo tempo, bensì la prognosi di quello a venire. Nessuno ha dimenticato le tare e gli errori, ma tutti ricordano soltanto quelli… e nessuno si azzarda a provare invidia o nostalgia per idee che, nel frattempo, lavorate a lungo da eserciti di termiti giganti, sono state ridotte a relitti terribili e a minacciose mostruosità.

Di Brasillach ci piacciono ancora e nonostante tutto e in faccia al mondo alcuni suoi fondamentali. L’Europa è uno di questi. Un asse latino-germanico, un pullulare di patrie e di identità rivendicate, un mito da agitare, e ancora oggi, e proprio nel momento in cui la parola “identità” è diventata una colpa e un insulto e al mito si affibbia la maschera tragica del delirio. Di Brasillach ci piace poi il suo anarchismo. La sua voglia mobile di raccontare storie di radicamento: «Voglio restare… restare nella tua ombra, ingannare l’attesa, il ricordo di avere atteso, sperare, attendere ancora…», fa dire a Berenice l’errante. Questo “restare” potrebbe diventare all’improvviso una parola d’ordine e un grido. Di pochi oppure magari di molti. Magnifica illusione o scelta pesante? Dopo tutto, lo aveva scritto ne I sette colori: «Ad altri gli entusiasmi della illusione, la certezza che mai ha dubitato di sé. Per noi, il nostro solo merito, in tutti i campi, è di esserci accettati, di avere scelto».

* * *

Tratto da Linea del 24 aprile 2009.

Luca Leonello Rimbotti

Eugen Rostenstock-Huessy und die Deutsche Revolution

 

Erich Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddhin - http://www.monarchieliga.de

Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy und die Deutsche Revolution

Rosenstock-Huessy zu hören, war sicherlich immer leichter als ihn zu lesen, denn sein brillanter Geist und sein großes Wissen verleiteten ihn stets dazu, panoramisch zu wirken, und in der Konversation mit ihm konnte man sich nicht seiner Persönlichkeit entziehen. Er hatte nach Amerika emigrierend zuerst den Versuch gemacht, einen gesicherten Platz in Harvard zu finden, doch der dem Christentum zuneigende Philosoph Alfred Whitehead warnte ihn, daß seine Universität völlig kommunistisch orientiert sei. Ein „Begräbnis erster Klasse in der theologischen Fakultät“ ausschlagend, begab er sich schließlich in das damals weniger „fortschrittliche“ Dartmouth College, in dem zu dieser Zeit ältere Traditionen noch lebendig waren.

Ich hatte während meiner amerikanischen Professuren 1937 - 1947 nur zweimal Gelegenheit, Rosenstock-Huessy zu sehen. Bei diesem Zusammentreffen hatte ich in New York die Zeit, mit ihm eingehend über den Nationalsozialismus zu sprechen. Es war ein sehr ruhiges, leidenschaftsloses Gespräch, obwohl Rosenstock keineswegs als Phlegmatiker angesehen werden konnte und Hyperbeln keineswegs abhold war. Doch erregte das Thema ihn nicht über Gebühr, und er behandelte den Nationalsozialismus, der ihn doch in doppelter Weise um seine Heimat gebracht hatte, mit christlicher Gelassenheit, vielleicht aber auch, weil ihn dieses mörderisch-skurrile Phänomen nicht vordergründig interessierte.

Es waren dies Gelegenheiten gegen Ende des Krieges oder knapp nach dem Krieg: ich kann das nicht mehr genau feststellen, da ich kein Tagebuch führe. Ich muß allerdings auch gestehen, daß wir, obwohl geeint durch den christlichen Glauben, nur zu oft auf verschiedenen Gleisen fuhren; die ganze Art des Schauens, Wägens und Beurteilens waren öfters anders, wobei aber er, der amerikanischer Staatsbürger wurde, viel weniger von seiner neuen Heimat beeinflußt wurde, als ich, der Ausländer, der zufällig in Amerika „gelandet“ war und in fast jeder Nacht von der Heimkehr träumte. Er war zwar der um 21 Jahre ältere, doch war ich in diesem Zwiegespräch wahrscheinlich der „amerikanisiertere“.

Natürlich sah auch Rosenstock im „Umbruch“ von 1933 eine wahre Zäsur in der Geschichte des Herzens von Europa, aber doch nicht eine Revolution und als solche figuriert die Machtübernahme auch nicht in Rosenstocks „Die europäischen Revolutionen“, auch der Marcia su Roma der Faschisten nicht, der historisch-genetisch, aber keineswegs charakterlich-inhaltlich mit dem Nationalsozialismus eine gemeinsame Wurzel besitzt. Mit der Entstehungsgeschichte dieser beiden, viel zu oft in einen Topf geworfenen Bewegungen fing auch unser Gespräch an.

Ich erwähnte, daß 1896 unter der Führung von Klofáč, Střibrný und Franke eine Gruppe von tschechischen Sozialdemokraten sich von der Sozialdemokratischen Partei trennten und eine Nationalsozialistische Partei gründete, die alsbald auch im Wiener Reichsrat vertreten war. Diese Nationalsozialisten bejahten weiter den Sozialismus, waren aber zugleich davon überzeugt, daß dieser zumindestens in der Gegenwart nicht auf internationaler, sondern nur auf nationaler Grundlage realisierbar war. Als tschechische Nationalisten bekämpften sie höchst natürlich die deutsche Minderheit in den drei Ländern der heiligen Wenzelskrone, eine Minderheit, die aber augenscheinlich reicher und auch industriell entwickelter und kapitalkräftiger war. Wichtig war auch bei dieser Parteigründung ihr geschichtliches Leitbild: die Bewegung und der Kampf der fanatischen Hussiten, also der Taboriten im 15. Jahrhundert. Sie waren die ersten nationalen Sozialisten gewesen, die das deutsche (katholische) Element in einem richtigen Genozid auszurotten versucht hatten - ein einzigartiges Ereignis im spätmittelalterlichen christlichen Europa. Mit ihnen hatten die tschechischen Nationalsozialisten ihr Image d'Epinal. Einst die tschechische Nationalschande unter den Gebildeten, war diese totalitäre paramilitärische Bewegung nunmehr im Zeitalter des Nationalismus umbewertet worden. Schon in der Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts sahen Tschechen in den hussitischen Taboriten wahre Nationalhelden; Jan Hus war es freilich als wahrer Märtyrer schon früher gewesen.

Die nationalistische Welle, die Rosenstock so sehr bedauerte, nahm im Rahmen der Nationaldemokratie einen Parteiencharakter an und verrichtete in ganz Europa ihr Zerstörungswerk. Die Donaumonarchie bot ihr dazu eine ideale Gelegenheit. Es waren aber die Deutschen des Habsburgerreiches, die eigentlich in dieser ursprünglich eher romantischen Bewegung die Vorkämpfer waren. Dieser Nationalismus war natürlich eine Folge der Französischen Revolution als auch der Befreiungskriege.

In Österreich entstand eine deutschnationale Bewegung, die unter die Führung von Georg v. Schönerer geriet. Einem kleinen Teil der deutschen Arbeiterschaft in Böhmen, Mähren und Schlesien war diese aber viel zu „bürgerlich“ und daher kam es 1903 zur Geburt der D.A.P., der „Deutschen Arbeiterpartei“. In dieser wurde schon wenige Jahre später der Vorschlag gemacht, sie in „Nationalsozialistische Arbeiterpartei“ umzubenennen, doch wurde dieser Plan zuerst einmal fallengelassen, denn man fürchtete von Kritikern, vor allem von „Schönererianern“ als Nachahmer der tschechischen Nationalsozialisten ausgelacht zu werden. Das aber sollte sich später ändern.

Rosenstock hörte meinem Bericht aufmerksam, ja gespannt zu, gerade weil er viel eher Geschichtsphilosoph als Geschichtsforscher war. Er schien aufgeregt, als ich ihm weiter berichtete, wie ein sozialistischer italienischer Journalist jahrelang als Freund des unglückseligen Cesare Battisti im österreichischen Trient weilte, wo er in aller Wahrscheinlichkeit von diesem Reichsratsabgeordneten Battisti erfuhr, daß im „Hohen Haus“ in Wien Nationalsozialisten als Vertreter der tschechischen Arbeiterklasse Sitz und Stimme hatten. Der Journalist war von dieser nationalistisch-sozialistischen Synthese derart beeindruckt, daß er später nach seiner Ausweisung durch die österreichischen Behörden nicht nur ein Büchlein über die Aussichtslosigkeit der irridentistischen Bewegung im Trentino, sondern auch ein Buch über Jan Hus und die Revolution, die durch seinen tragischen Tod entfacht wurde, in Rom anno 1913 veröffentlichte. Es hieß Giovanni Hus il Vendico und ist wissenschaftlich eigentlich wertlos, historisch aber doch voll Bedeutung, denn es zeigt, in welcher Richtung die Gedanken dieses Publizisten der äußersten Linken sich bewegten.

Sein radikal anarcho-sozialistischer Vater hatte ihm einen spanischen Taufnamen gegeben, nach dem Revolutionär Mexikos, Benito Juárez. Rosenstock erriet gleich, daß es sich um Benito Mussolini handelte, der 1919 den Faschismus ins Leben rief, wobei er den Namen einer alten linken Bauernbewegung aus Mittelitalien kopierte. Die Fascas, wie wir wohl alle wissen, sind ein rein republikanisches Symbol, der Faschismus war auch republikanisch, sozial-sozialistisch, aber nationalistisch im romanisch-britischen, d.h. staatlichen und nicht im ethnischen, also germano-slawischen Sinn. Trotz gemeinsamer Wurzel haben jedoch Faschismus und Nationalsozialismus einen verschiedenen Grundcharakter. Der Nationalsozialismus, wie wir sehen werden, ist die ältere Bewegung, und den Nationalsozialismus als „Faschismus“ zu bezeichnen, ist eine rein moskowitische Sprachregelung, die aber von linken Sympathisanten im Westen mit lakaienhafter Ergebenheit sorgfältig befolgt wird. Die Realisierung der faschistischen Vision war selbstverständlich nicht die Dyarchie von 1922 bis 1943, sondern die Repúbblica Sociale Italiana.

Für Rosenstock war natürlich der Unterschied zwischen dem Fascismo und dem Nationalsozialismus äußerst interessant. Immer betonte er „Jedes Volk macht seine Revolution. Wir beide stimmten aber darin überein, daß der Faschismus ohne den Triumph des Nationalsozialismus ein relativ unbedeutendes mediterran-exotisches Phänomen geblieben wäre, das im Anfang allenthalben auf überraschende Sympathien stieß, nicht zuletzt, weil die bessere Organisation in Italien das Leben der Touristen auf mannigfache Art erleichterte. Daher die Begeisterung eines Liberalen wie Lloyd George oder eines Sozialisten wie George Bernard Shaw für den Duce. Ich kannte schließlich auch amerikanische Demokraten, die sich für den Faschismus erwärmten und möchte da auf George D. Herron hinweisen, eines fanatischen „Demokratisten“, der Wilsons linke Hand in der Außenpolitik war, seinerzeit den österreichischen Friedensvorstoß im Februar 1918 zunichte gemacht hatte, aber 1925 als glühender Verehrer des Fascismo starb. Alles wurde anders durch den Einfluß von Hitler und den enormen Eindruck, den ab 1938 die deutsche Tüchtigkeit auf Mussolini machte. Er wurde dann zum Kopisten. Das hätte allerdings nicht so kommen müssen.

Wir sprachen auch von Hannah Arendt, die große Unterschiede zwischen den beiden Bewegungen gemacht hatte, und da war Rosenstock wahrlich in seinem Element, denn nationale Unterschiede waren für ihn stets von großer Bedeutung und über diese hatte er ja immer nachgedacht und geschrieben, besonders aber über die Gegensätze im französischen und deutschen Volkscharakter. Wir debattierten damals auch die Frage, inwieweit der Faschismus eine verzweifelte „südliche“ Reaktion eines doch recht anarchisch veranlagten Volkes in einem industriell-technischen Zeitalter auf Ordnung, Gehorsam, Pünktlichkeit und den Reichtum im Norden Europas war. Von dort kamen ja die geldkräftigen Touristen, die den Werken Botticellis, Leonardos und Michelangelos als auch der antiken Vergangenheit Roms ihre Verehrung darbrachten, sich aber über die Zugverspätungen, schlecht funktionierenden Badezimmer, die Taschendiebe und Bettler entrüsteten. Diese Problematik fehlte jedoch bei den Deutschen völlig.

Wir kamen dann wieder auf die Vorgeschichte des Nationalsozialismus zu sprechen. Die D.A.P., die Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, ursprünglich nur in den drei nordwestlichen Ländern der Habsburgermonarchie vertreten, bereitete sich langsam auch in der Alpen- und Donauregion aus. Im Nordwesten gab es lediglich den Kampf gegen die Tschechen, die „blutsaugerischen“ Unternehmer und Banken als auch gegen einen grundbesitzenden Adel, der nicht national, sondern heimatlich-vaterländisch dachte. Fragte man einen typischen Vertreter des Hochadels, ob er sich deutsch oder tschechisch fühle, antwortete er in der Regel scharf: „böhmisch!“, „mährisch!“ oder „schlesisch!“, wenn nicht „österreichisch“! Doch in Innerösterreich, vor allem in Wien, gab es den „Antisemitismus“, der eigentlich eher bei den Tschechen als bei den Deutschböhmen vorhanden war, und in Wien war es, wo die D.A.P. im Mai 1918 ihren ersten Kongreß außerhalb des Nordwestens abhielt. Auf diesem Kongreß erfolgte die Namensänderung: die D.A.P. wurde in D.N.S.A.P., „Deutsche Nationalsozialistische Arbeiterpartei“, umgetauft. Damals war Hitler noch an der Westfront, aber in Aussig, dem Hauptsitz der DAP-DNSAP, wurden schon zahlreiche Zeitschriften, Bücher, Pamphlete, Plakate gedruckt, viele mit dem Hakenkreuz verziert. Das Wiener Programm der DNSAP war demokratisch, sozialistisch und als Folge des demokratischen Mehrheitsprinzips gegen unpopuläre Minderheiten gerichtet, als da sind: der Adel, die Reichen, die Juden, die Kleriker. Für die Banken wurden „demokratische Kontrollen“ gefordert, ebenso für die Aufstiegsmöglichkeiten in der Armee. Die Habsburgermonarchie mit ihrer nationalen Vielfalt wurde in Bausch und Bogen abgelehnt und ein „großdeutsches“ Reich gefordert. Es war dies das Programm einer typischen Linkspartei.

Im November zerfiel die Monarchie, in den ersten Wahlen der Tschechoslowakei bekam die DNSAP 42.000 Stimmen und im Frühjahr 1919 brachte der Ingenieur Rudolf Jung die ganze Literatur der DNSAP zu Hitler nach München, der ursprünglich eine „sozialrevolutionäre“ Partei gründen wollte - und auf Anraten Jungs die rote Fahne wählte. Es gab nun mit einer Namensumstellung vier deutsche nationalsozialistische Parteien: eine österreichische, deutsche und sogar eine polnische (mit dem Sitz in Bielitz) - dazu die ursprüngliche, die „tschechoslowakische“, die Národně socialistická strana československá. In den tschechischen Lexika figurierten die tschechischen und die deutschen Nationalsozialisten immer zusammen! Von dieser böhmisch-mährischen Wurzel wußte Rosenstock ein wenig, hatte ihr aber keine Bedeutung zugemessen, sah aber in der „Deutschen Revolution“ (einem Begriff, dem er nur sehr zögernd zustimmte) eine Entwicklung analog jener der Französischen Revolution, einer Revolution, die sich nach dem Sturz der Bastille ohne Unterlaß radikalisierte. Und das tat auch die Deutsche Revolution. Das Wort von Theodor Heuss: „Alles war daran nicht falsch, aber das Ganze war falsch“, war in dieser Diskussion nicht gefallen, doch vielleicht- ich sage „vielleicht“ - war dies auch die Ansicht Rosenstocks. Man darf da nicht vergessen, daß er einmal, 1926, Mitbegründer eines Arbeitslagers für Arbeiter, Bauern und Studenten gewesen war. Ich meinte aber, daß in der deutschen - in der „legalen Revolution“, um einen Ausdruck Carl Schmitts zu gebrauchen - eine gewisse linke Fatalität steckte, wobei der Historiker, der die Geschichte wirklich kennt, das Wort „Unabänderlichkeit“ sehr ungern in den Mund nimmt. Rosenstock, der stark am Rhythmus der Revolutionen festhielt, war über meine stete Rückkehr zu den Begriffen „links“ und „rechts“ nicht allzu glücklich und zwar gerade, weil er das sprachliche Element in der Geschichte für sehr wichtig hielt. Er schwelgte manchmal geradezu in der Sprachanalyse.

Ich versuchte „links“ und „rechts“ als echte Antithesen darzustellen und solche berühren sich in ihren Extremen nie. Der Glaube an die Extremberührung - les extrêmes se touchent - ist eine fausse idée claire, denn extrem groß und klein, nah und fern, schwer und leicht, gut und böse wachsen nie zusammen. Nun aber ist die linke Vision vom idealen Staat stets ein Gebilde von einer Sprache, einer Rasse, einer Nation, einer Partei, einem Führer, einer Sitte, einer Klasse, eines Einkommens, einer Schulform, eines Bildungsniveaus, eines Gesetzes, also eines zentralistischen Staates, der keine Abweichungen von der Norm duldet. In ihm regiert (in der Theorie) das Volk, zumeist versinnbildlicht durch einen Mann, der kein Vater, sondern ein „Bruder“ ist - Big Brother. Nun ist dies ein anti-personalistischer Traum, also ein Alptraum.

Rosenstock, der gerne in Kategorien dachte, wußte jedoch nicht, warum ich unbedingt dieser Vision ein linkes Etikett aufkleben wollte. Ich betonte daraufhin, daß ich ebenso wie er selbst eine solche unnatürliche Ordnung verdamme, und in allen Sprachen - sowohl im Sanskrit, in den ural-altaischen Idiomen als auch in der Bibel – „links“ einen negativen und „rechts“ einen positiven Charakter tragen. Im Deutschen ist, zum Beispiel, „rechts“ mit dem Recht, mit richtig, rechtlich, gerecht, redlich verwandt. Im Italienischen ist sogar die Linke (la sinistra) vom Unglücksfall (il sinistro) nur im Genus verschieden. In der Heiligen Schrift werden nicht nur beim Jüngsten Gericht die Erlösten auf die rechte und die Verdammten auf die linke Seite Christi gestellt.

Dabei kam man gleich auf die psychologischen Grundlagen von „links“ und „rechts“ zu sprechen. Ich betonte, daß der Linke auf das Zwillingspaar Gleichheit und Nämlichkeit (identity, sameness) eingestellt ist. Wir alle haben mit dem Tierreich einen Trieb zur Nämlichkeit gemeinsam: wir sind manchmal tatsächlich in der Stimmung, mit Menschen unserer Kultur, Sprache, Rasse, Geschlecht, Alter, politischer Überzeugung, Religion, künstlerischem Geschmack usw. zusammenzukommen. Wenn dies zu einer Dauerhaltung wird, entsteht Misogynie (oder Misandrie), Xenophobie, Rassismus, geistige Verengung, Kleinkariertheit, Intoleranz und dergleichen mehr. Glücklicherweise hat jedoch der Mensch auch den entgegengesetzten Trieb, den er mit dem Tierreich nicht teilt, und das ist ein diversitärer Trieb, der sich in einer Freude am Wandel und an der Verschiedenheit, die sich nicht nur in der Begegnung mit andersdenkenden Menschen, sondern vor allem in der Reiselust äußert, das heißt ganz andere Erdbewohner zu treffen, andere Speisen zu essen, eine fremde Musik zu hören, ungewohnte Pflanzen zu sehen, ein neues Klima zu erfahren, eine exotische Architektur zu studieren und Kunstprodukte zu genießen, die uns überraschen. Einem Hund kann man dasselbe Futter tagaus-tagein vorsetzen, wir aber brauchen als Menschen „Abwechslung“.

Die Natur ist variabel und frei, daher auch voller Ungleichheiten. Das Blumenbeet und das Kartoffelfeld müssen „angelegt“ werden. Wollen wir eine gerade Gartenhecke, so müssen wir sie brutal mit einer Schere immer wieder schneiden. Und deshalb besteht auch ein unüberbrückbarer Gegensatz zwischen Gleichheit, Nämlichkeit und Freiheit. Gleiche sind wir nur in der Tyrannis, am wenigsten sind wir „Gleiche vor Gott“, denn wenn Judas Iskarioth dem heiligen Johannes, dem Täufer gleich wäre, müßte das Christentum gleich abtreten. Die Linke steht also für Gleichheit, Nämlichkeit und die „gleichmacherische“ Knechtschaft. Nationalsozialismus und kommunistischer Internationalsozialismus sind einander weitgehend ähnlich, denn sie sind beide extrem links, beide Erben der Französischen Revolution und also keineswegs „Extreme, die sich berühren“. Es war also gar nicht so zufällig, daß der Zweite Weltkrieg nur auf Grund der deutsch-sowjetischen Allianz möglich wurde. Rosenstock hörte mir aufmerksam zu. In seine Systematik war das nicht allzu leicht einzuordnen. Er bestand darauf, daß die Existenz ein Kreuz sei, das in vier Richtungen weise: in die Zukunft, aber auch in die Vergangenheit, nach außen und nach innen. Sie sei weder linear noch zirkular. Für Rosenstock war diese Kreuzform der Existenz von zutiefst christlicher Symbolbedeutung. Irgendwie war er doch ein Mystiker, der sich weder auf die evangelische, noch auf die katholische Seite schlagen wollte, aber auch nicht wie Wilhelm Röpke als „erasmisch“ bezeichnet werden wollte. Dafür war Rosenstock zutiefst vom Ostchristentum fasziniert und machte Rom für den kirchlichen Bruch zwischen Ost und West hauptverantwortlich. Dem Taufschein nach war Rosenstock ein evangelischer Christ geworden und seine christliche Schau war stets präsent. Für Karl Muth, katholisch und aufgeschlossen, aber kein „Modernist“, hatte er die größte Verehrung.

Rosenstock wußte natürlich nicht nur von der gemeinsamen fränkisch-karolingischen Wurzel Frankreichs und des Römisch-Deutschen Reichs, sondern bekräftigte sie immer wieder, doch wies er andererseits auch auf die deutschfranzösischen Unterschiede hin. Organisation ist ein französisches Wort, schrieb er, das aber von Kant übernommen wurde, und Organisation war die Stärke des Nationalsozialismus vom Beginn an, während sie sich in der Französischen Revolution erst entwickelte und in ideologisch gefärbten Angriffskriegen später ihren konkretesten Ausdruck fand. In Frankreich, aber vielleicht noch mehr in Deutschland, bestätigte sich dann das Rosenstock-Wort, daß man vom rechten Pfad abkommen kann, wenn man am geraden Weg bleibt und in Deutschland verlief alles erbarmungslos gradlinig. Das Reich ging gradlinig in den Untergang - ohne den Common Sense, der die „Angelsachsen“ auszeichnet. Freilich: Die Franzosen können genau so pèlerins de l'absolu - ein Bloy-Wort - wie die Deutschen sein! Es gibt da eben ein „absolutistisches“ Rückgrat von Europa, das mit Gibraltar beginnt und über Spanien, Frankreich, Deutschland und Polen nach Rußland führt. In dieser Region gilt das „Alles oder Nichts“ und dort werden auch von den Grundprinzipien die letzten, ja mörderisch-logischen Schlußfolgerungen gezogen.

Rosenstock wies in dieser Beziehung auf Descartes und Kant hin, zwei „lieblose Junggesellen“, wie er sich ausdrückte, die in einer blutlosen Geistigkeit lebten. Sehr analog war Rosenstocks Kritik an John Dewey und Konfuzius, die in ihrer Philosophie keinen Raum für die Leidenschaften, für das Unerwartete und Unfaßbare übrigließen, doch überraschte mich ein wenig der Umstand, daß Rosenstock die Vortragsserie Deweys in China nach dem Ersten Weltkrieg nicht erwähnte, diesen Beitrag des amerikanischen Instrumentalismus zum chinesischen Pragmatismus, der in der Folge fast umweglos zu Maos „zündenden Platitüden“ in seinem roten Büchlein und indirekt auch zu den unsagbaren Schrecken der sogenannten „Kulturrevolution“ geführt hat.

Schon die Wahlschlachten der Nationalsozialisten im demokratischen Rahmen zeichneten sich genau so durch eine hervorragende Organisation aus wie ihr Regieren und darin standen sie auch den blutrünstigen französischen Demokraten nicht nach, die aber allerdings nicht wie die National- und Internationalsozialisten ihre Untaten in entlegenen Lagern und Kellern ausführten, sondern am hellichten Tag mit voller Beteiligung und zum Gaudium des Volkes. Nicht umsonst waren der sadistische Marquis de Sade und der masochistische Neurotiker Rousseau die intellektuellen Väter der Französischen Revolution gewesen. Frankreich und Deutschland! Man vergesse da nicht den französischen Beitrag zur grundlegenden Modernisierung Preußens, durch die Réfugiés, den auch Friedrich II. in seinem Ersten Testament anerkannte, und die Bewunderung des linken Frankreich für das fortschrittliche und aufgeklärte Preußen. Danton nannte Preußen den natürlichen Alliierten Frankreichs und das Comité du Salut bezeichnete die Allianz Frankreichs mit Österreich im Jahre 1756 als größten Unsinn der Bourbonen. Diese Sympathien führten schließlich zum Basler Sonderfrieden.

Es war ganz natürlicherweise dieser aufgeklärte, fortschrittliche, religiös äußerst geschwächte Norden und Osten der Weimarer Republik, in dem die Nationalsozialisten ihre erdrückende Mehrheit bekamen und Spenglers These vom Preußischen Sozialismus - diesmal im nationalen Gewand - ihre Bestätigung fand. Dies bezeugt ganz eindeutig die Wahlkarte. Das will aber nicht bedeuten, daß der deutsche Süden restlos unschuldig ist. August M. Knoll stellte richtig fest, daß Hitler der Mann war, der den österreichischen Wahnsinn in den Dienst des deutschen Schwertes stellte.

Über Preußen und Österreich hatte meines Wissens Rosenstock kaum Aussagen gemacht. Für ihn war der Nationalsozialismus ein Stück rasanter Dummheit. Man erinnere sich da an das alte Witzwort: „Selig sind die Armen im Geiste, denn ihrer ist das Dritte Reich“. Rosenstock aber schrieb: „Hitler war die Antwort des von allem Denken enthobenen Volkes. Angebrüllt werden ist besser als objektiv ausgedacht werden. Denn das Böse, das aus den Herzen kommt, hat Luther gesagt, ist immer noch lebensspendender als das Gute, das aus dem Kopf stammt. Das ist natürlich auch eine Kritik an der Demokratie, um die man nicht herumkommt, wenn man sich an Plato erinnert, der die Tyrannis als Folge der Demokratie sah, und auch nicht Aristoteles vergißt, der uns ermahnt hatte, in der Demokratie ein Regierungssystem zu sehen, in dem die Stimmen gezählt und nicht gewogen werden. Stimmt man mit den Erkenntnissen der Antike überein, darf man sich nicht an Rosenstocks Feststellung stoßen, daß die Masse der Deutschen das Denken nie erlernt hatte, was aber natürlich für alle Massen auf dem weiten Erdenrund zutrifft. Und Masse, wie Rosenstock hervorhob, kommt vom lateinischer Massa, d.h. Teig, und ein Teig läßt sich nun einmal kneten. Dies hatte der Nationalsozialismus mit dem deutschen Volk vor und nach der „Machtübernahme“ gründlichst getan.

Doch die Nationalsozialisten taten eben noch etwas - nicht ganz anderes wohl aber Dazugehörendes: sie füllten den Alltag des modernen Menscher aus, was ja auch die Kommunisten in Rußland taten und was Rosenstock „anerkennend“ bemerkte. Das ist natürlich ein Problem der Moderne und erinnert auch an einen Ausspruch von Karl Kraus, der mit Ironie gesagt hatte daß wenn man dem Menschen die Politik wegnimmt, ihm gar nichts mehr übrigbliebe als sein Innenleben. In der Sowjetunion war es tatsächlich nicht nur die Arbeit, die daseinsausfüllend wirken sollte, sondern auch die marxistische Heilslehre, die in der Zweiten Revolution des Jahres 1917 von der RSDAP, der Russischen Sozialdemokratischen Arbeiterpartei, in Szene gesetzt wurde. (Erst 1918 nannten sich die radikalen Vertreter der RSDAP „Kommunisten“.) Die Wichtigkeit der Arbeit, ja, die Heiligung der Arbeit hat auch das katholische, in Spanien gegründete Opus Dei erkannt.

Für die Nationalsozialistische Arbeiterpartei waren konstruktive Volksgenossen eben auch nur die „Arbeiter der Stirne und der Faust“, die Werktätigen im roten Jargon. Für die Arbeit muß es allerdings auch eine Muße geben und dafür war dann Kraft durch Freude, wobei die Freude da nicht Selbstzweck war, sondern nur der Kraft diente.

Es war aber bei weitem eben nicht nur die Arbeit, sondern vor allem die weltanschauliche Ausfüllung eines doch größtenteils religiösen Vakuums, das von größter Bedeutung war. Was das Leben des Menschen in der Vergangenheit ausfüllte, war zwar oft harte, aber kreative Handarbeit, wenn nicht gar künstlerische oder kunstverwandte Schöpfung, wie z.B. beim Schneider, Schuster, Tischler, Baumeister. Dazu kamen früher vier hochwichtige Elemente: Religion, Familienleben, vaterländische Begeisterung und noch zivile Vereinigungen. Alles das wurde kollektiviert, in Frage gestellt, bedroht, an den Rand gedrängt. Der „Sinn des Lebens“ entfloh, die Treuebindungen nach oben und unten zerbrachen. Dafür gab es Parteien und Parteiungen mit Wahlschlachten, wahre Orgien von Treueerschütterungen und Treuebrüchen. Die alle Bürger verbindenden Loyalitäten zerbrachen. Vergessen wir nicht, daß allein schon das Wort „Partei“ („Teil“) auf einen Zwist hinweist. Das gewählte Staatsoberhaupt, anders als der Monarch, wurde von einem Teil des Volkes gewünscht, von den anderen abgelehnt, wenn nicht gehaßt oder verachtet.

In dieses Vakuum stieß eine Ideologie vor, die in einem archaischen Land wie Rußland nur ein sehr kleines Segment der Bevölkerung ergriff, in den modernen deutschen Landen ebenso wie in Frankreich am Ende des 18. Jahrhunderts jedoch ein sehr großes. Hier, in einer von der Monotonie geplagten Gesellschaft war auf einmal durch die Synthese „der beiden Jahrhundertkräfte“ (Pfitzner), durch Nationalismus und Sozialismus, den Massen ein neuer Lebensinhalt geboten worden. Und da war nach 1933 eine Regierung vorhanden, die energisch handelte, die eine dynamische, aufregende Politik betrieb, die nach Jahren der Erniedrigung die ganze Welt in Atem hielt. „Viele Deutsche wurden Nazis“, schrieb Rosenstock, „denn schlechte Entscheidungen sind besser als gar keine“. Als es dann am Ende des „Tausendjährigen Reiches“ und nach dem Zusammenbruch offenbar wurde, daß die schlechten Entscheidungen unsagbar dumm und zugleich verbrecherisch waren, verlor die braune Masse bis auf kleine Minderheiten ihren Glauben.

Über die Untaten zeigte sich Rosenstock-Huessy nicht erstaunt. Er zitierte mir gegenüber Dostojewskij: „Wenn es Gott nicht gibt, dann ist alles erlaubt!“ Ich aber treffe manchmal, wenn auch sehr selten, Nationalsozialisten, die von ihrem Glauben nicht loskommen, weil es ihnen vor dem Nichts graut, aber öfters ehemalige Braune, die zu keiner Alternative gefunden haben und bitter die Jahre beklagen, in denen sie vor Begeisterung lichterloh gebrannt hatten und bereit gewesen waren, für ihre Ersatzreligion jedes Opfer zu bringen, denn der Mensch ist nun einmal ein ideologisch-religiöses Wesen; er lebt nicht durch Brot allein, er ist nicht nur auf den Genuß ausgerichtet, sondern auch auf Askese und Opfer. „Alles in der Welt läßt sich ertragen, nur nicht eine Reihe von schönen Tagen!“, wie schon Goethe sagte.

Eine Hinwendung zur Religion löst für solche Menschen dieses Problem, aber die Gnade des Glaubens läßt sich nicht „verordnen“ und eine Bekehrung zur Liberaldemokratie ist zumeist eine eitle Hoffnung. Heute stehen wir sogar dem Neologismus der „Demokratieverdrossenheit' gegenüber, und Professor Allan Bloom hat uns in seinem amerikanischen Beststeller The Closing of the American Mind gestanden, daß die großen Europäer stets rechts standen. Wer könnte sich auch einen nicht jugendlich-enthusiastischen, sondern reifen Sokrates, Plato, Aristoteles, Dante, Shakespeare, Leibniz, Vico, Pascal, Kant, Schiller, Goethe, Hegel, Schelling, Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Spengler, Freud, Solowjew oder Berdjajew als Protagonisten unserer heutigen Demokratie oder des Sozialismus vorstellen? Die liberale, parlamentarische Demokratie ist ja auch keine geschlossene Ideologie, sondern eigentlich nur ein Rahmen, in den durch Wahlen ein Bild eingelegt wird. Und auf Grund dieses vorher nicht festgelegten Bildes regiert dann nicht „das Volk“, eine reine Abstraktion, sondern die Vertreter einer Mehrheit über eine Minderheit.

In seinem großen Werk Die europäischen Revolutionen spricht er, sich an Polybius anlehnend, von einem historisch wiederholten Kreislauf von der Monarchie über die Aristokratie zur Demokratie, betont aber ganz richtig, daß diese Staatsformen nie in völliger Reinheit, sondern stets mit anderen gemischt vorkommen. Rosenstocks Denken war eigentlich zu elitär, um sich für die - sagen wir - betont demokratische Staatsform zu erwärmen. Er hatte die Erfahrung der Krisen und der Wandlung der Weimarer Republik hinter sich. Das glaubte ich aus unserer Diskussion herauszuhören. Politische Denker wie Rousseau und Thomas Paine hielt er für ein ganz großes Unglück. Seine Bejahung Amerikas widerspricht dem nicht, da das Wort „Demokratie“ weder in der Unabhängigkeitserklärung, noch in der Verfassung der USA aufscheint, und die Gründerväter der Union, die sich in der Verfassung nicht einmal als Republik bezeichnet, überzeugte Antidemokraten waren. Drüben machte sich erst nach 1828 der Einfluß der Ideen der Französischen Revolution massiv bemerkbar. Ob Rosenstock in Dartmouth, wo er lehrte, antidemokratische Äußerungen machte? Leicht möglich. Wie Rosenstock einmal betonte, zeichnet sich die geistige Welt der amerikanischen Universitäten durch einen völligen Mangel an Originalität aus; es bleibe die Rolle von importierten Europäern im Professorat, den stark konformistischen Charakter der dortigen Hochschulen zu durchbrechen. Er gab aber auch zu, daß es europäisch-kontinentale Gedankengänge gäbe, die den Amerikanern nicht immer gut tun.

Rosenstock wurde amerikanischer Staatsbürger, bezeichnete sich aber nicht als Refugee, vielleicht weil ihm die Gesellschaft der meist linksdralligen Emigraille nicht sympathisch war, und stellte fest, daß ihm das preußische Kultusministerium bis zur Kriegserklärung Hitlers an Amerika monatlich 150 Dollar schickte. In seinen Büchern benützte er zwar die „Wir-Form“ für Amerikaner, doch paßte er in die amerikanische Szene eigentlich nicht hinein. Sein enormes Wissen schreckte die Amerikaner, sie verstanden ihn wenig, doch muß man gestehen, daß Georg Müller in seinem Nachwort zu Rosenstock Ja und Nein recht hatte, als er schrieb, wie schwierig es sei, eine systematische Einführung zur Ideenwelt Rosenstocks zu verfassen. Dem muß man wohl zustimmen, zugleich aber protestierte Rosenstock in seiner Soziologie, daß man ihn als „unsystematisch“ betrachte. Auch ich muß sagen, daß ich selbst es mühevoll finde, immer und überall dem roten Faden seiner Gedankenwelt nachzuspüren. In Dartmouth hatte er jedoch eine Gruppe von Jüngern um sich. Er hatte sie zweifellos fasziniert.

In vielerlei Beziehung war Rosenstock sehr deutsch. Ich glaube - beweisen kann ich es nicht -, daß seine Exilierung ihn doch so schmerzte, daß er deswegen an einer öffentlichen Distanzierung zu seiner Heimat Abstand nahm. Man kann sich gar nicht vorstellen, welch ungeheurer Blödsinn in Amerika, das ja eine gigantische Insel im Weltmeer ist, über Deutschland gesagt, geschrieben und auch gefilmt wurde. Die ganze psychologische Kriegsführung war eine Fortsetzung der Propaganda des Ersten Weltkrieges, und die marxistischen Emigranten, wie Gustav Stolper festgestellt hatte, waren daran furchtbar schuldig. Rosenstock war für interne Propagandazwecke nicht benützbar und dasselbe konnte man von Brüning sagen, dem ich erst drüben begegnet bin und der einen ganz großen Eindruck auf mich machte. Die Linke griff ihn wegen seiner Passivität wütend an.

Was in Deutschland geschehen war, entsetzte, aber überraschte ihn eigentlich nicht. Er bekräftigte, daß „die Massen keinen Rückblick und keinen Sinn für die Zukunft haben“. Auch bestand er darauf, daß jede Revolution ihre Abwehr viel grausamer gestalte als jede vorhergehende (oft nur angebliche) Unterdrückung. Sicherlich waren die Französische und die Russische Revolution zu einer Zeit liberaler Reformen ausgebrochen und die Weimarer Republik war viel eher chaotisch als repressiv. Die russische Revolution zerstörte übrigens nicht die Monarchie, sondern eine demokratische Republik unter der Führung Kerenskis, eines hellen Narren und verkappten Sozialrevolutionärs. Wir stehen hier einfach sowohl primitiven Leidenschaften als einem Sieg von Ideen gegenüber. „Ideas Have Consequences“, um den Titel eines amerikanischen konservativen Buches zu zitieren. Die Mischung von Leidenschaften mit Ideen führen jedoch allzuleicht zur Unerbittlichkeit. Der Sturz monarchischer Patriarchalität hat überall nur die entsetzlichsten Folgen gehabt Nicht nur in Europas drei Kaiserreichen, sondern auch in Spanien, Jugoslawien, Rumänien, Bulgarien, China, Iran, Afghanistan, Äthiopien; sie hat auch Portugal, Italien, Griechenland und Brasilien nichts Gutes gebracht.

Der „Restauration“ in Deutschlands Westen nach 1945 stand Rosenstock mit einer gewissen Skepsis gegenüber, denn er empfand sich als ein wichtiger Anreger des Kreisauer Kreises vor 1933, dessen Ideen keine Verwirklichung fanden. Auch entdeckte er, daß die deutsche Jugend an derselben Sterilität litt wie die amerikanische. An einer Universität im Herzen Europas hätte es Rosenstock wahrscheinlich nicht leicht gehabt. Revolution und Krieg hatten ihm eigentlich doch übel mitgespielt. Er hat Deutschland nach dem Krieg zwar wiedergesehen, war aber doch fern von der Heimat in Vermont im 85. Lebensjahr gestorben - ein Riese, der in unsere kleinkarierte Welt nicht mehr hineingepaßt hat.