Eurofaschismus und bürgerliche Decadenz

Benedikt Kaiser: Eurofaschismus und bürgerliche Dekadenz

Europakonzeption und Gesellschaftskritik bei Pierre Drieu la Rochelle Pierre Drieu la Rochelle (1893–1945) schied im März 1945 durch Freitod aus dem Leben. Fluchtofferten ins befreundete Ausland lehnte der französische Intellektuelle, der im Zweiten Weltkrieg mit der deutschen Besatzungsmacht kollaboriert hatte, kategorisch ab. „Man muß Verantwortung auf sich nehmen“, schrieb er kurz vor dem Suizid in seinem Geheimen Bericht. Drieu la Rochelle war nicht nur ein gefeierter Romancier von Weltrang, er galt auch seinen Zeitgenossen als Ausnahme-intellektueller. In seinen Romanen, besonders in Die Unzulänglichen, kritisierte Drieu die Dekadenz des von ihm so verachteten Bürgertums. Parallel zum Reifungsprozeß seiner Romanprotagonisten entwickelte sich auch Drieu zum Mann der „Tat“, der „direkten Aktion“... zum Faschisten. Die Kollaboration Drieus mit der deutschen Besatzungsmacht in Frankreich war keine Kapitulation vor dem Feinde, sondern vielmehr der Versuch, eine ideologische Front zu schmieden. Der wahre Feind sei nicht der boche, der „Deutsche“, sondern der bourgeois, der „Bürger“. Gegen die Dekadenz könne, so glaubte Drieu, nur gemeinsam vorgegangen werden: einzig ein im Faschismus geeintes Europa habe die Kraft, sich innerer Dekadenz und äußerer Feinde zu erwehren und genuin europäisch zu bleiben. Die vorliegende Studie erkennt in Drieu la Rochelle einen modernen Europäer, der den Nationalismus hinter sich gelassen hatte. Benedikt Kaiser bettet den französischen Intellektuellen und sein Werk in den historischen Kontext der diversen europäischen Faschismen ein. Im Anhang findet sich ein Auszug aus Drieu la Rochelles Geheimem Bericht, der sein politisches Testament darstellt und das Handeln des Denkers nicht entschuldigen will, sondern es in einem letzten Akt bekräftigt. Mit einem Vorwort von Günter Maschke!   Inhaltsübersicht: Vorwort von Günter Maschke 1. Zum Anliegen der Arbeit 1.1 Fragestellung und Methodik 1.2 Forschungsstand und Quellenkritik 2. Pierre Drieu la Rochelle und die politische Theorienbildung 2.1 Politische Biographie 2.2 Ein früher Begleiter: der „Lehrmeister“ Friedrich Nietzsche 2.3 Ideengeber Georges Sorels: décadence, Mythos, Gewalt 2.4 Charles Maurras und der integrale Nationalismus 3. Gesellschaftskritik im schriftstellerischen Werk Drieu la Rochelles 3.1 Der Frauenmann 3.2 Verträumte Bourgeoisie (Revêuse bourgeoisie) 3.3 Die Unzulänglichen (Gilles) 4. Drieus Position in der faschistischen Ideologie Frankreichs 4.1 Drieu la Rochelle und die Action Française 4.2 Verhältnis zum Partei-Faschismus: Der PPF und Jacques Doriot 5. Zwischen Engagement und Enthaltung: Drieu la Rochelle und die französischen Intellektuellen 5.1 „Feindliche Brüder“? – Die antifaschistischen Schriftsteller 5.2 Versuchung Faschismus: Von Paul Marion bis Lucien Rebatet 5.3 Die Selbstwahrnehmung Drieu la Rochelles 6. Der faschistische Traum von Europa 6.1 Eurofaschismus? Begriffsklärung eines Phänomens 6.2 Eurofaschismus unter Waffen: Der Weg Léon Degrelles 6.3 „Europe a Nation!“ – Wesen und Wollen Sir Oswald Mosleys 6.4 Europakonzeption bei Pierre Drieu la Rochelle 7. Zusammenfassung 8. Appendix 9. Literaturverzeichnis 9.1 Sekundärliteratur 9.2 Quellen 10. Abkürzungen 11. Namens- und Sachregister   In der Reihe KIGS sind des weiteren erschienen: Kämpfer um ein drittes Reich: Arthur Moeller van den Bruck und sein Kreis (KIGS 2).  Dritter Weg und wahrer Staat: Othmar Spann – Ideengeber der Konservativen Revolution (KIGS 3).  Autor: Benedikt Kaiser Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2011 Verlag: REGIN-VERLAG Reihe: Kieler ideengeschichtliche Studien, Band 5 Seitenzahl: 160 Abbildungen: s/w. Bindeart: engl. Broschur (Klappenbroschur) im Großformat (14,5 x 22,5 cm) Preis: 18,95 Euro

Principes stratégiques fondamentaux

 

Principes stratégiques fondamentaux

Edouard RIX

Ex: http://tpprovence.wordpress.com/ 

Si l’on estime, comme Spengler, que « la politique n’est qu’un substitut à la guerre utilisant des armes plus intellectuelles » (1), appliquer la grille de raisonnement propre à la stratégie militaire au combat politique peut s’avérer fécond.

 

Les grands principes en matière de stratégie militaire, sont au nombre de cinq. Le 1er, la concentration des forces, consiste à frapper avec le maximum de puissance l’ennemi, en un point choisi comme étant le plus faible de son dispositif, pour obtenir soit une percée, soit sa destruction totale. En effet, seule l’attaque du fort au faible est payante, l’attaque du fort au fort ne conduisant qu’au carnage, comme l’Histoire l’a montré. Tel fut le cas de Gettysburg en 1863, qui coûta 23 000 hommes aux Nordistes et 28 000 aux Confédérés, soit un tiers de leurs troupes. Même résultat tragique pour l’offensive anglaise de la  Somme, en juillet 1916, qui entraîna des pertes ahurissantes, la résistance allemande n’ayant pas été entamée par les tirs d’artillerie préalables : 19 240 morts le 1er jour, et plus de 600 000 jusqu’en novembre ! A noter que la concentration des forces implique la maximisation de la puissance de feu : il faut impérativement concentrer son feu pour s’assurer la destruction de l’ennemi, plutôt que de le disperser sur plusieurs cibles…

2ème grande règle, l’économie des forces, qui consiste à privilégier un objectif principal sans s’attarder sur des objectifs secondaires. La défense cherche à disperser l’attaquant, alors que ce dernier doit se concentrer sur son objectif.

3ème principe, la surprise, l’un des éléments les plus importants de la stratégie militaire. On distingue deux niveaux : la surprise stratégique, qui consiste à cacher son plan de campagne, ses objectifs et ses manœuvres; la surprise tactique qui consiste à dissimuler la marche ou la position de ses armées, un nouveau matériel ou une supériorité technique. Pour profiter pleinement de la surprise, il importe que celle-ci débouche sur un avantage décisif : on revient à la concentration des forces, car il faut à tout prix « tirer pour tuer ».

4 ème règle de base à respecter : l’unité de commandement, qui garantit la rapidité de réaction et l’intégrité du plan initialement mis en œuvre. Elle doit être entendue comme unité de pensée, que se soit entre les armes (Terre, Air, Mer) ou entre les conceptions stratégiques. Mais ce principe est rarement atteint, même au sein d’une armée nationale, encore moins entre des commandements alliés de plusieurs nations. Les Américains ont toujours su unifier leur direction, que ce soit pendant la guerre de Sécession, celle du Pacifique, ou en Europe avec Eisenhower. Le commandement interallié de Foch, nommé commandant en chef du Front de l’Ouest en mars 1918 est un autre exemple de commandement unifié voulu par les Alliés. A l’inverse, les Allemands ont, au cours des deux guerres mondiales, totalement échoué à mettre en place cette unité de commandement, que ce soit au niveau des stratégies nationales ou des armes (Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe, Waffen SS).

Dernier élément, l’initiative des opérations : c’est le but essentiel de la manœuvre, qui découle de la maîtrise des autres principes stratégiques. Le camp qui dispose de l’initiative bénéficie d’un avantage moral considérable. Mais celui qui déclenche les hostilités n’est pas forcément celui qui engage les opérations : en 1939, si les Alliés surprennent Hitler en lui déclarant la guerre, ils restent sur leurs positions, abandonnant toute initiative stratégique au führer.

UN EXEMPLE DE MAITRISE DES PRINCIPES STRATÉGIQUES : AUSTERLITZ

La bataille d’Austerlitz, menée de main de maître par Napoléon, est le meilleur exemple d’une stratégie réussie.

Apprenant la formation de la 3^ème coalition, Napoléon exécute un retournement complet de son armée massée à Boulogne, qu’il envoie à Ulm battre l’Autriche, s’emparant de l’initiative stratégique. Face aux Russes et aux restes de l’armée autrichienne, il étudie soigneusement la carte de Moravie et sélectionne le site d’Austerlitz, imposant le champ de bataille aux Coalisés.

Le commandement est unitaire chez les Français. Clausewitz, fortement influencé par Napoléon, retiendra le principe du « généralissime ». A l’inverse, le conseil de guerre coalisé est bicéphale (Autriche-Russie), et le plan finalement adopté est un compromis boiteux entre les deux alliés.

Le plan de bataille français est simple et expliqué la veille aux soldats par Napoléon : il consiste à attirer l’aile gauche coalisée dans un piège en faisant reculer l’aile droite française, afin de prendre le plateau de Pratzen avec le gros des forces et, à partir de cette brèche, effectuer une manœuvre en tenaille. Au contraire, le plan des Coalisés est compliqué, exposé lors d’un interminable conseil de guerre où le maréchal Koutouzov s’endort ! Pis : les ordres sont donnés aux officiers russes au dernier moment et en allemand !

Les Français pratiquent la concentration des forces avec comme objectif principal le plateau de Pratzen. Les Coalisés se donnent plusieurs objectifs, d’où une dispersion de leurs forces qui sont battues en détail. Résultat : l’emploi des grands principes stratégiques offre sa plus grande victoire à Napoléon.

LA BATAILLE DE FRANCE DE MAI 40

Autre exemple parlant, la campagne de France de 1940. L’avantage de l’initiative stratégique est perdu par les Alliés lors de l’invasion allemande de la Pologne, et ils ne la retrouveront plus.

L’état-major allemand fait preuve de flexibilité en changeant son plan sous l’impulsion d’Hitler. La réédition du plan Schlieffen de 1914 initialement prévu (poussée massive vers le nord de la France à travers la Belgique) est abandonné. Alors que le plan français prévoit une avance du gros des forces alliées pour contrer l’avance ennemie, les allemands attaquent la Belgique et la Hollande tandis que leurs blindés percent à Sedan, dans les Ardennes, un endroit considéré par la doctrine française comme infranchissable par les chars (cours d’eau plus massif forestier). Les Allemands exploitent à fond la surprise.

Sur l’objectif principal, Hitler concentre 7 divisions blindées, face à 7 divisions d’infanterie et 2 divisions de cavalerie légère françaises. Le principe de l’attaque du fort contre le faible est respecté, les Allemands cherchant à réaliser la percée à un point précis, le Schwerponkt, point de rupture, en l’occurrence à Sedan. Grâce à la mobilité de leurs divisions blindées, ils foncent vers la Mer du Nord et isolent le gros de l’armée alliée en Belgique par un « coup de faux ».

PRINCIPES STRATÉGIQUES ET COMBAT POLITIQUE

Ces principes stratégiques ne visant qu’un but, la victoire, il semble donc pertinent de les appliquer aussi sur un plan politique.

Incontournables, la concentration et l’économie des forces, qui consistent à frapper avec le maximum de force militante le point faible de l’adversaire politique. En 1968, Alain Robert créera le GUD en partant du constat qu’un noyau dur de militants concentrés sur un bastion universitaire valait mieux que des centaines d’adhérents éparpillés (cf Occident). Le nid de résistance, véritable Nanterre à l’envers, ne pouvait qu’être Assas, plus favorable sociologiquement. Si l’on excepte Jean-Marie Le Pen, candidat gyrovague (Paris, Auray, Marseille, Nice), tous les dirigeants du FN se sont efforcés de constituer un fief électoral inexpugnable : le couple Stirbois à Dreux, Bruno Mégret à Vitrolles, Marine Le Pen à Hénin-Beaumont. A chaque fois, l’on retrouve les mêmes ingrédients qui assurent la victoire finale : concentration des forces vives du parti sur un point faible de l’ennemi – en l’occurrence, une mairie socialiste gangrénée par l’insécurité, l’immigration et les scandales -, et au final percée électorale décisive qui ouvre une brèche dans le mur du silence politico-médiatique.

Sur le plan idéologique aussi, il s’agit de frapper du fort au faible, et sur un nombre limité d’ «objectifs ». Pour percer, un mouvement politique doit se limiter à quelques idées simples et porteuses. L’émergence du FN dans les années 80 s’explique ainsi par « la règle des trois I » : Immigration, Insécurité, Impôts. Lorsque Le Pen reniera ce triptyque, en 2007, il obtiendra son pire score présidentiel. En revanche, l’attaque du faible au fort, c’est-à-dire sur des thèmes totalement verrouillés par le Système – antisémitisme, révisionnisme – déclenche immédiatement un violent tir de barrage médiatique et relève du grand suicide politique… Lancer l’offensive sur ces forteresses puissamment défendues par 50 ans de terrorisme intellectuel, c’est faire bien peu de cas de l’élément primordial de toute stratégie : la surprise.

Autre principe à ne pas ignorer, l’unité de commandement. L’expérience a montré la supériorité du principe du chef (qui a parlé de « führerprinzip » ?…) sur une direction collégiale. Initiative nationale, mensuel du Parti des forces nouvelles, présentait deux photos, l’une de Le Pen, l’autre du bureau politique du PFN, ainsi sous-titrées : « Face à face : Président (…) et Bureau Politique. Deux conceptions de l’action » (2). L’histoire a tranché entre un leader charismatique et une direction multiple et, au final, acéphale. Alors que Le Pen persévéra dans la dénonciation du giscardisme et de la « fausse droite », les jeunes gens du PFN multiplieront les stratégies les plus variées, passant d’un soutien à VGE en 1974, à un ralliement à Chirac en 1977, puis au lancement de l’Eurodroite avec le MSI néo-fasciste !

Ces principes stratégiques théorisés par les auteurs classiques suivent ce que l’historien de l’Antiquité gréco-latine Victor D. Hanson a appelé Le modèle occidental de la guerre (3), qui repose entièrement sur la recherche de la bataille décisive, chère à Clausewitz – bataille qui doit conduire à l’écrasement de l’adversaire -, ignorant d’autres formes de guerre, comme la guerre assymétrique.

Edouard Rix, Réfléchir & Agir, automne 2010, n°36.

NOTES

(1) O. Spengler, L’Homme et la technique, Gallimard, 1969, p. 120.

(2) Initiative nationale, novembre 1977, n°22, pp. 18-19.

(3) Victor D. Hanson, Le modèle occidental de la guerre, Les Belles Lettres, 2001, 298 p.

 

Klansmen, Irishmen, & Nativists

Klansmen, Irishmen, & Nativists:
The Origins of Racial Nationalism in America

Michael O'Meara

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

The heterogeneity of America’s European population has always posed a challenge to its national identity. Only late in the nineteenth century was this identity extended to European immigrants assimilated in its Anglo-Protestant values and, in the twentieth century, to Catholics, whose Church (the “Whore of Babylon”) had learned to accommodate the Protestant contours of American life (or what John Murray Cuddihy called its “civil religion”). From this ethnogenesis, the original Anglo-Protestant identity of the American people gradually evolved into a more inclusive European Christian identity, though one closely tied to its Anglo-Protestant antecedents.

Based on this heritage, racial nationalists today define America as a European nation and designate its anti-white elites as their principal enemy.

It was, though, but in fits and starts that American whites acquired an ethnonational identity. What’s often referred to as American nationalism—the expansionist slogans of Manifest Destiny, the ideology of Anglo-Saxonism, the gunboat diplomacy of the Progressives (McKinley, T. Roosevelt, Wilson)—was more a chauvinist statism legitimating territorial expansionism and land speculation than an ideological offshoot of the country’s racial-historical life forms. The primordial concerns of the American nation were thus only tangentially represented in these imperialist movements associated with the state’s expansion.

The first genuinely post-revolutionary expression of American ethnonationalism (i.e., “nationalism in its pristine sense”) began, accordingly, with the first wave of mass immigration, in the late 1830s and “the hungry Forties,” as Irish and South German Catholics reached American shores, affronting “Anglo-Americans” with their “otherness.” The “nativists” (native born, White, Protestant Americans) opposing the new immigrants rejected the crime, public drunkenness, pauperism the Irish brought, but above all the Catholicism of both groups, for “the Church of Rome” was an anathema to a liberal nation born of the Reformation and of the struggles against the Catholic empires of Spain and France.

The nativist response was nevertheless a nuanced one recognizing the distinctions that culturally separated Irishmen from Germans. The latter, who began to outnumber the Irish only in the late 1850s, tended to be farmers and artisans. That they settled inland, away from the older coastal settlements, and engaged in respectable occupations also mitigated nativist opposition, though nativists opposed the formation of German-speaking communities, beer-drinking forms of sociability, and the Germans’ political radicalism.

The Germans nevertheless seemed assimilable, which was not the case with the Irish. The first expression of American nativism was thus largely an anti-Irish movement, for the tribal solidarity of this unbourgeois people, their aggressive rejection of Protestant culture, their whiskey drinking and pre-modern behavior, and their anti-liberal sympathy with the slave states (which nativists resented because these states closed off land to white settlement) were an offense to the country’s Anglo-Protestant culture.

This anti-Irish sentiment became especially prominent once the famine ships, with their destitute cargoes, began arriving.

The Irish, though, offended not simply the Yankees’ religious and behavioral standards, their quick exploitation of the political system offended their republican convictions. Though one of the most afflicted of Europe’s nations, Erin’s exiles were also one of the most politically “advanced.” Not only had they a long history of secret societies (such as the Defenders, Whiteboys, Ribbonmen, etc.), which had waged an underground war against English landlords and Orangemen, in the 1820s, Daniel O’Connell’s Catholic Association, “the first mass political party in history,” taught the Irish how to exploit the new electoral forms of liberal parliamentary politics in order to throw off England’s Protestant ascendancy and its genocidal Penal Laws.

In America, the politically savvy Irish (led by their priests, saloon keepers, and eloquent rebels) challenged not just Yankee folkways, but the individualistic tenor of republican governance.

The terrible age of American ethnic politics begins with the Irish.

From the 1830s through to the late 1850s, nativist opposition to Catholic, specifically Irish, immigration took the form of intercommunal strife, the proliferation of anti-immigrant associations, and, then in 1854, the establishment of a national political party—the American Party (known as the “Know-Nothings”)—which, for a time, became a refuge for abolitionist and free-soil opponents of Southern slavery who had broken with the Whig party but not yet affiliated with the newly formed Republican party. (That is, this nativist party was partly the creation of those who now seek our destruction as a people.)

The Know Nothings held that Protestantism was an essential component of American identity; that Catholicism’s “autocratic” Pope and Church hierarchy were incompatible with republican self-rule; that Catholics had acquired undue political advantage; and that a longer, more thorough process of naturalization (Americanization) was necessary for the acquisition of citizenship. More fundamentally, it gave expression to the deep reservation which Anglo-American Protestants had about allowing their country to be overrun by Catholic immigrants.

Like most future manifestations of American racial nationalism (though they lacked a genuinely racial dimension), the Know Nothings were moved by a populist distrust of the state and the established political parties, which were seen as indifferent to the ethnocommunal identity of native whites.

Within but a year of its founding, the American Party succeeded in electing eight state governors, more than a hundred Congressmen, the mayors of Boston, Philadelphia, and Chicago, and thousands of local officials. Its future looked bright.

But the party fell almost as rapidly as it rose, having been swept up and then forced off the political stage by powerful sectional conflicts related to slavery and the preservation of the Union.

Its struggle for an Anglo-Protestant America in the 1850s nevertheless represented the first bloom of American nationalism in its blood-and-soil stage (somewhat earlier than other European nationalisms, which were still at the liberal political stage). As such, it resisted a political system privileging economics over community, opportunity over belief, and a liberal over a biocultural understanding of American life.

Though race was not an issue, religion, culture, and an endogamous sense of community were—issues that are preeminently ethnonationalist. Nativism became, as such, the foundation upon which the future defense of European life in America would be waged—for in however rudimentary and unfocused a way, it defended the American nation as an Anglo-Protestant community of descent, not a political entity based on an abstract ideological or creedal notion of nationality opened to all the world. (We Irish, supreme irony, have, as any roll of white nationalist ranks reveals, become the foremost exponent of this view today.)

The racial component of this biocultural definition of the nation did, though, soon come into its own—in the anti-Chinese movement that dominated California politics in the half century following the Gold Rush (1848).

As European immigrants, native Americans, and the first Chinese made their way to California in this period, so too did racial conflict—though conflict here would not be between natives and immigrants, but between Occidentals and Orientals, White against Yellow.

Standing together against the first Chinese arrivals—and to the swarming millions threatening to follow in their wake—native Americans and Irish Catholics discovered their common racial identity.

Almost from the start, they recognized the joint stake they had in opposing a people which worked at half the white man’s wage, retained their alien clothes, customs, and language, practiced a “heathen” religion, and created distinct, over-crowded, dirty, and often self-contained communities associated with vice and disease.

Comprising more than a fifth of the California labor force in the 1870s, these Chinese newcomers, with their low living standards and servile conditions, were seen as threatening not just the racial definition of the nation, but the American way of life—the prevailing standard for what it meant to be a free white man—and, ultimately, white civilization.

In such a situation, white solidarity was paramount—which meant that, in face of the Yellow Hordes, religious differences dividing Protestant natives and Catholic immigrants in the antebellum period had to be superseded.

Accused of cheapening labor and introducing foreign elements in the East, the Irish were now welcomed into California nativist ranks—as whites facing a common threat—and, accordingly, they came to play a leading role—perhaps the leading role—in spearheading the trade-union, political, and communal opposition to the Chinese.

The extent of white solidarity in the popular classes was such that it spurred numerous official and unofficial measures to restrict Chinese participation in the economy and in other realms of American life.

As early as the 1850s, local and state laws were passed to limit the type of jobs the Chinese could work, the land they could own, and the schools their children could attend, while white, especially Irish, workingmen not infrequently resorted to violence to drive them from certain trades and neighborhoods. In mining, logging, and construction, the Chinese were forced out entirely and in numerous small towns throughout California and the Northwest, Chinese communities were abandoned in face of angry white mobs.

Then, in the late 1870s, in a period of economic crisis, a Workingmen’s Party, led by an Irish demagogue, Denis Kearney, was formed in San Francisco.

Its principal slogan was “The Chinese must go.”

Supported by a mass network of “anti-coolie clubs” and trade unions, the party became the chief vehicle for the cause of Chinese exclusion.

The state organization of the two established national parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, each, for the sake of appeasing the pervasive anti-Chinese sentiment the Workingmen represented, were forced to support its exclusionist policies.

But more than transcending religious and political differences between closely related whites, the Chinese exclusion movement took aim at those large-scale corporate interests (primarily the railroads) responsible for importing Chinese contract labor and using it as leverage against white workers.

In frequent sand-lot demonstrations and in broadsheets, the movement, buttressed by large crowds of male workers, warned the monied men of Judge Lynch, targeting not just alien, but native threats to the nation’s bioculture.

Its slogan—“We want no slaves or aristocrats”—was an “egalitarian” affirmation of the existing racial hierarchy, and of the right of white men to the ownership of the land their people had conquered and created.

The movement’s achievements were momentous. For the first time in modern history, national legislation (to supplant the less effective immigration law of 1790) was passed to prevent non-whites from entering the United States and preventing those already within its borders from setting down roots.

White workers, supported by their trade unions, workingmen associations, and other organized expressions of white power, succeeded in frustrating capitalist and official efforts to change the country’s demographic character. White racial solidarity, at this stage, triumphed over those differences that stemmed from the religious wars of the Reformation.

Racially consciousness, populist, and at times anti-capitalist, the anti-Chinese movement of the 1870s (whose spirit, incidentally, lived on in the national-socialist novels of Jack London) succeeded in preserving the American West as a white Lebens-raum. As I see it (and I see it from both from an Irish and American perspective), it represents the single greatest movement of White America

The third great formative influence affecting the shape of American racial nationalism—though a step back from the anti-Chinese movement—came during the First World War.

The Ku Klux Klan, which had emerged after Appomattox to defend Southern whites from Negro aggression and the Yankee military occupation, was re-organized in 1915 to address certain changes in American life.

Like the European fascist movements of the interwar period, this “Second Klan” constituted a mass populist reaction to the war’s radical cultural/social dislocations.

The war had imbued the central government with unprecedented powers, enabling it to encroach on local communities in ways previously unknown; the recently founded Federal Reserve, in charge of the money supply, and the growing influence of Wall Street and the great corporations assumed an influence in national life that seemed to come at the expense of independent entrepreneurs and “the little men.” At the same time, the war effort assaulted the existing racial, familial, and moral hierarchies.

Blacks in this period acquired a foothold in northern industries and discharged Negro soldiers, “after having seen Paris,” were no longer willing to tolerate their caste status. The year 1919 was accordingly one of unprecedented racial violence, as Negroes challenging the existing system of race relations set off bloody riots in 26 urban centers.

In the same period, the middle-class family came under attack. Suffragettes carried the day with the 19th Amendment, a “new women,” promoted by advertisers and by Hollywood, questioned conventional “gender” relations, divorce rates suddenly shot up, and children were increasingly exposed to anti-traditionalist influences.

Finally, there was the specter of Bolshevism, which appealed to the unassimilated communities of recently arrived Eastern and Southern European immigrants (only 10 percent of the CPUSA membership could speak English by the mid-1920s) and assumed a menacing form in the great industrial conflicts that swept up more than a fifth of the national workforce.

On every front, then, it seemed as if small-town, rural, and middle-class White America was in retreat.

But not before making a last—and, for a generation, successful—stand in its defense, for within a decade of its founding, the Klan had rallied 5 million members to its ranks, penetrating local and national power-structures as few other anti-liberal movements in US history.

Comprised of white, native-born, anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic, and anti-Jewish elements, particularly in the South and the Midwest, this “Second Klan” saw itself as an “army of Protestant Americans.” As such, it sought to defend “pure Americanism, old-time religion, and conventional Protestant morality”—in the process reviving those religious issues that had earlier divided whites along sectarian lines (like in the 1850s), yet at the same time attempting to preserve the hegemony of Anglo-Protestants against the forces seeking to subvert the nation’s historic ethnic core.

To the degree the Klan was more sectarian than racial, favoring the conformist, materialist, and philistine elements in American life, it was a step back from the white consciousness of the anti-Chinese movement. (A similar phenomenon occurred after the Second World War among recently assimilated, often Catholic, immigrants, whose support for Joseph McCarthy was part of a more general effort to demonstrate that the “Americanism” of the “old immigrants,” largely Irish and German, was superior to that of the established but liberal and cosmopolitan Anglo-Protestant elite).

The Klan (like McCarthyism) was nevertheless not entirely the “reactionary” movement that academic historians make of it, for like its European counterpart, it was both traditionalist and populist, favoring measures that were anti-liberal, anti-cosmopolitan, and anti-egalitarian in spirit but by no means regressive.

In this capacity, it forced the government to close the border to immigration, it beat back the black assault on white hegemony, it let the wheeler-dealers in Washington and New York know that their “progressive policies” would not go unchallenged in the Heartland, and it acted as a moral bulwark against the permissive forces of Hollywood and Madison Avenue.

Above all, it upheld a racial standard for American existence.

Only in the late 1920s, after successfully preserving many traditional areas of American life that might otherwise had succumbed to the race-mixing modernism of the postwar “Jazz Age” did the movement finally subside in face of the economic breakdown of the 1930s.

* * *

The history of American racial nationalism, as exemplified by the Second Klan, the Chinese exclusion movement, and the early nativists, is a history whose legacy has, in the last half century, been squandered and suppressed by the elites now controlling American destinies.

Yet this is the legacy that the heirs of European-America today, if they are to survive, need to reclaim.

For this history confirms them in their belief that the popular classes in America have always rejected the creedal definition of the nation; that they refused to allow their society and territory to be overrun by non-whites; and that divisive sectarian issues (between Protestants and Catholics, leftists and rightists, modernists and traditionalists, etc.) served only the interest of their enemies.

Most of all, this heritage of American ethnonationalism calls on whites today, in this era of their dispossession, to defend the racial-cultural-civilizational “nation” to which they once belonged and which, if regained, might again distinguish them from the world’s less favored races.

Le kémalisme, parenthèse de l'histoire turque

Le kémalisme, parenthèse de l'histoire turque

Aymeric CHAUPRADE

Ex: http://realpolitik.tv/

Voici ce que j’écrivais il y a plus de 3 ans dans Valeurs actuelles, à propos de la Turquie et plus généralement des expériences modernisatrices dans le monde musulman. L’analyse insiste sur la question de l’identité islamique qui continue d’être occultée dans les analyses dominantes des médias lesquels se font plaisir en affirmant que les peuples tunisien et égyptien rêvent de devenir comme nous. Il faudrait ajouter à cet article centré sur l’aspect identitaire, la dimension économique. La hausse des prix des matières premières a souvent été le facteur déclencheur de révolution lorsque les conditions d’épuisement du régime politique étaient arrivées à maturité.
Article paru dans Valeurs actuelles en 2007

Depuis plus de dix ans maintenant, le parti fondé par Mustapha Kemal, instrument de la laïcisation et plus largement de l’occidentalisation de la société turque, est écarté du pouvoir au profit des islamistes.

La question fondamentale que les Européens doivent alors se poser est la suivante : est-ce l’islam politique qui apparaîtra un jour comme une courte parenthèse de l’histoire de la Turquie moderne, ou est-ce au contraire la modernité kémaliste qui sera digérée par la « longue durée » de l’islam turc ?

Depuis leur entrée dans l’islam, les destins des aires culturelles turque, iranienne et arabe sont plus que jamais liés. Au XX^ème siècle, ces trois mondes ont tenté de s’occidentaliser en faisant reculer l’emprise de l’islam sur leur société civile. Ils vivent désormais, en décalage, la crise des idées modernes venues d’Europe.

L’Iran, avec la Révolution islamique de 1979, a rejeté l’occidentalisation à marche forcée voulue par le Shah ; au point d’amener des courants nationalistes, religieux et marxistes à se liguer autant contre le retour à l’Iran préislamique que contre la projection dans la modernité occidentale. La Révolution s’étant faite dans un contexte de développement accéléré (le PIB par habitant est passé de 176 à 2160 dollars entre 1963 et 1977), sa principale cause est donc identitaire : la majorité des Iraniens a considéré que l’islam était indissociable de l’identité nationale iranienne.

Le monde arabe aussi, soulevé par les Nasser, Saddam Hussein et Yasser Arafat, est également revenu à l’islamisme. L’échec des chefs nationalistes arabes face à l’alliance américano-israélienne, la corruption des élites et l’argent saoudien expliquent l’effondrement du panarabisme. On oublie souvent que ce nationalisme arabe, semé par l’Expédition d’Égypte de 1798, et qui emprunta tant aux théoriciens français et allemands du nationalisme, fut largement la conséquence de la levée des Jeunes Turcs contre l’ottomanisme.

Les unes après les autres donc, les expériences modernes du monde musulman s’effondrent et, même si les choses s’y font plus lentement et plus calmement, la Turquie n’échappe pas à ce retour à l’identité islamique, pas plus d’ailleurs que l’immigration musulmane d’Europe occidentale.

Pour le comprendre, il faut revenir aux causes du surgissement des idéologies modernisatrices en terre d’islam.

A l’origine, il y a la prise de conscience par le monde musulman que la religion islamique, venue après les « premières prophéties juive et chrétienne » et jusqu’alors en tête de la course à la puissance, est en train de perdre la direction de l’histoire.

Au XVI^ème siècle, l’ouverture des routes maritimes et la découverte de l’Amérique privent le monde musulman de sa qualité de centre incontournable du commerce mondial.

Entré dans le déclin, l’islam doit désormais se demander pourquoi. Une partie de ses intellectuels accepte alors de se rendre à l’évidence : c’est la place privilégiée de la raison dans leur religion qui a donné aux Européens un tel avantage.
Il faut donc accepter au XVII^ème siècle ce qui n’a jamais été accepté avant : ouvrir une fenêtre sur la modernité européenne. Jusque-là, l’islam n’a toléré qu’une (modeste) intrusion de la philosophie grecque préchrétienne dans son système de pensée. Désormais, il lui faut apprendre de ceux qu’il juge inférieurs, les Chrétiens.

Mais la modernité n’est admise qu’en tant que moyen de redevenir plus fort que l’Occident chrétien, non en tant que fin. On lui emprunte des éléments, mais sans adhérer au changement de perspective qu’elle contient, car alors cela signifierait une altération de l’islam.

Cette réalité historique que nos élites ne veulent pas voir est à la fois simple et terrible : le mouvement d’occidentalisation en Turquie, comme dans le reste du monde musulman, trouve sa source dans la volonté de retrouver la supériorité militaire face à l’Occident en progrès.

C’est ce qui explique que la laïcité turque n’en est pas réellement une et que le kémalisme apparaîtra un jour comme un épiphénomène de l’histoire de la civilisation turco-islamique.

On a ainsi pour habitude d’opposer, à propos de la Turquie, les partisans de la laïcité à ceux de l’islamisme. Soit, mais si la « Turquie moderne » est réellement moderne, comment expliquer l’acharnement constant de son État à faire disparaître ses minorités chrétiennes ?

Les médias parlent des assassinats de plus en plus fréquents de prédicateurs chrétiens afin de souligner qu’ils ne sont que l’expression marginale d’une frange minoritaire de radicaux, d’ailleurs condamnée par les tribunaux turcs. Mais ils passent sous silence le fait que ces même tribunaux intentent des procès aux musulmans qui se convertissent au christianisme, pour « insulte à la turcité ». Un pays où la conversion est punie par la loi est-il vraiment un pays laïc ?

Faut-il rappeler aussi, au risque de choquer, qu’après les sultans ottomans, le premier président de la Turquie moderne, comme les forces turques débarquant à Chypre en 1974, eurent droit à la qualification de « gazi » ? Ce terme honorifique qui vient de l’arabe « ghaziya » ne fait-il pas écho à la « glorieuse » époque des incursions à des fins de conquête, de pillage ou de captures d’esclaves, que pratiquaient les partisans du Prophète Mahomet ?

L’État turc est laïc parce qu’il n’est pas théocratique : ce ne sont pas des religieux qui le dirigent et la sphère politique y a gagné, grâce à Atatürk, une certaine autonomie. Pour autant, l’État turc reste bien le garant de l’identité musulmane du pays et de la propagation de l’islam à l’étranger, comme le montre son soutien à des groupes islamiques radicaux dans les Balkans, ou dans cet immense Turkestan d’Asie centrale.

« Mais les islamistes sont des démocrates ! » s’écrient certains en Occident. Ils « vaudraient même plus » que ces militaires turcs héritiers de ce jacobinisme autoritaire qu’est le kémalisme.

Logique ! Dans tous les pays musulmans les islamistes sont aujourd’hui majoritaires face à des gouvernements occidentalistes qui, menacés, « verrouillent », à des degrés divers, le champ politique. En faisant pression sur ces gouvernements modernisateurs mais autoritaires, les Européens ne font qu’accélérer la prise de pouvoir des islamistes, leurs véritables ennemis.

Hier les mouvements occidentalistes du monde musulman tentèrent de se servir de notre modernité pour redevenir plus forts que nous ; aujourd’hui, les islamistes tentent de se servir de nos idées démocratiques pour arriver au pouvoir et y appliquer leur programme de désoccidentalisation radicale, avec un seul et même objectif, obsessionnel : la revanche sur l’Occident.

Aymeric Chauprade

What is the American Nation?

 

Michael O'Meara

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

The following is part of a larger series of articles that was written for an audience of French “revolutionary nationalists” whose image of America is almost categorically negative. Its ostensible aim was to highlight the positive in the heritage we White Nationalists claim. But at a deeper level, it was also an effort to convince myself that America has not been a historical disaster for the white race. The negative interpretation opposed here can be found in the chapter “Anti-Europe” in my New Culture, New Right: Anti-Liberalism in Postmodern Europe.

In the United States, the closest thing to Europe’s “new revolutionary nationalism”—which designates liberalism’s cosmopolitan plutocracy as Europe’s chief enemy, resists the de-Europeanization of its capital, population, and territory, and identifies with a biocultural vision of Magna Europa rather than the 19th-century nation-state—is “White Nationalism.” Though a marginal force on the American political scene (theoretically deficient, fragmented into scores of tiny organizations, and with a greater presence in cyberspace than in the public sphere), it nevertheless wages the same fight as its European counterpart and, on the most decisive issue, race, is considerably more advanced. In this spirit, it takes its stand with the “Old America” that is the counter-part to Bush’s “Old Europe,” it considers its people part of Europe’s biosphere, and opposes not just the present Hebraicized administration in Washington, but the anti-White impetus of “the American century.”

Fundamental to White nationalism is the understanding that, historically, America was not a melting pot, but a settler nation: hence a European transplant. Its original settlers (all of whom were Protestant, but not exclusively Puritan or Calvinist) may have had an ambivalent attitude to the Europe they left behind, but they had no intention of shedding their European being for the sake of mixing with races and cultures unlike their own. Their identity as such was rooted in distinctly European life forms, which were opposed to those of the country’s aboriginals and to its imported Black slaves. Specifically, this identity was an Anglo-Protestant one adapted to the nativist environment of colonial America.

At the time of the revolution, 80 percent of the population was of Anglo-Protestant descent. Of the remaining 20 percent, most were Dutch, German, and Swedish, all of whom were Protestant and easily assimilated into the original core population. Only one percent of its people, mainly of French Canadian and Irish origin, was Catholic. The country’s institutions were accordingly reflective of the values and beliefs of its transplanted Anglo-Protestant settlers, just as the state’s republican ideology and the producerist ideology of its popular classes were in harmony with its specific ethnic disposition.

At the time of revolution, the country’s national identity was still an embryonic one. The loyalties of the revolutionary generation were more to the individual colonies that had become states, such as Virginia and Massachusetts, than to the federal republic established in 1789. But despite the absence of a strong state, informed by tradition and aristocracy, the American polity was not simply the cultureless, economic enterprise that certain Nouvelles Droitistes make it out to be and it was certainly not the “nation of nations,” “the first universal nation,” or “the proposition nation” that our virtualist-minded anti-White elites insist on.

Even in this early period there existed an American national identity, buttressed by several hundred years of history; and by the development of specifically American institutions based on instincts of racial superiority and self-reliance; by conflicts with the British crown, which caused its people to see itself as a transplanted nation of Anglo-Protestant descent (though one imbued with freedoms Englishmen had allegedly lost during the Norman Conquest); but above all by an ethnic or biocultural identity rooted in the North European, specifically British (that is, Celt, Norse, and Saxon) stocks of the country’s settlers.

America, thus, may have lacked Europe’s ancient genealogy, cultural legacy, rooted, territorial sense, and distinct ethnic consciousness, but its people spoke a European language, practiced a European religion, had a history informed by European symbols and themes, represented a fusion of European racial stocks, and felt their North European identity to be the defining part of their individual and collective identity. Until quite recently, as Jared Taylor argues, “America was a self consciously European, majority-white nation.”

Accordingly, the Americanized Englishmen who declared their political independence in the late 18th century did not simultaneously declare their autonomy from Europe’s ethnoracial identity. The liberal ideals of the revolutionary generation, in any case, were soon superseded by a Romantic emphasis on the particularisms and “special inner characteristics” of its people—a Romanticism that betrayed the new republic’s rationalist or Enlightenment premises. To these Indian-fighters, slavers, borderland Celts, and Texas revolutionaries, whose physical proximity to non-Whites had a powerful effect in enhancing their racial identity, it was obvious that the world’s peoples lacked the innate capacity to share in “the free government, power, and prosperity of the United States.”

What Tocqueville called the “Anglo-Americans” had not the slightest intention of extending their liberties to Indians or Negroes, nor even to those White men whose (Catholic) religion and (Irish clannish) temperament seemed to disqualify them for republican government. America’s founding liberal principles were, in fact, little more than the ideological gloss of the country’s Anglo-Protestant life forms.

Despite the Calvinist conceit of believing itself “chosen,” America’s political principles had universal import only in the most vacuous theoretical sense. For example, the Puritan vision of America was less a call to world reform than an affirmation of its uniqueness and superiority. And though the principles of American republicanism have since been re-interpreted to justify the present de-Europeanization, this was neither the intention of the Founders nor that of the country’s settlers, for their republic was preeminently a Herrenvolk democracy — germane not to humanity, but to the “historical humanity” that was White America.

In this vein, the US Constitution, which contemporary liberals have re-interpreted for the sake of their multiracial utopia, defended the institution of slavery and posited that a Black’s worth was only 60 percent of a White. The first Congress (1790) voted that only Whites could be naturalized as citizens. And even after the Civil War, the granting of basic civil rights to former negro slaves, as Sam Francis points out, had “nothing to do with voting, holding political office, sitting on juries, intermarriage, getting a job or being promoted . . . which is what civil rights have come to mean today.”

White immigrants were assimilated into the founding stock only after they (or their children) shed the cultural-linguistic identities that separated them from native Whites. As late as the Kennedy Administration (1960), the nationally conscious Irish, the first immigrant group, were still not fully assimilated. The so-called “melting pot” (a 20th-century concept invented by a cosmopolitan “Englishmen,” Israel Zangwill) was similarly selective, accepting only White immigrants as possible Americans (though it did mistakenly think that Jews from European countries were European).

Moreover, this racially defined identity was the legacy of both the popular classes and the country’s ruling elites. For example, Thomas Jefferson, who in a fit of Enlightenment enthusiasm included the phase “all men are created equal” in the Declaration of Independence, never — not for a moment — thought of extending equal rights to Negroes; Abraham Lincoln, the two faced Whig pioneer of the liberal leviathan, wanted to repatriate Blacks back to Africa; and the great liberal crusader, Woodrow Wilson, was an ardent segregationist who thought his cherished “democracy” inappropriate to all but Whites. Until the postwar period, White Americans of virtually every class and denomination saw themselves not as an amalgam of humanity, but as an American nativist variant of Europe’s white Christian nations. The racial vision of America which White nationalists today defend against the anti-European regimes in Washington, London, and Tel Aviv was actually the prevailing vision for most Americans for most of their history.

The racially selective character of America’s republican, and especially egalitarian, rhetoric, was indisputably evident in the country’s enslavement of Negroes, its extermination and/or ethnic cleansing of the aboriginal population, its territorial expansion at the expense of mestizo Mexico, and its effort to prevent Chinese and Japanese immigration. Its racial identity was so deeply rooted in the emerging national consciousness that it imbued Anglo-Americans with the confidence to assimilate different White ethnicities.

In the latter half of the 19th century, as European immigration and intermarriage demoted the prevalence of the British elements and the reigning spirit of American Anglo-Saxonism diminished the immigrants’ attachment to their past, American identity gradually extended beyond its original Anglo-Protestant core to become a European-American Christian identity. Race as such remained primary, for only on the basis of the immigrants’ racial compatibility with Anglo-Americans were they able to assimilate. The later advent of Black nationalism, as Walker Connor argues, testifies to the fact that American nationalism has always been a White nationalism. By the same token, the state’s new-found multicultural ideology inadvertently acknowledges that the historical forms of American identity are incompatible with non-European races and cultures.

From the time of the revolution until the beginning of the Civil Rights revolution (1956), American nationality was articulated almost exclusively in terms of three mutually reinforcing influences: an Anglo-European racial identity, Protestantism, and republicanism. The latter, it needs stressing, owed less to 18th-century liberalism than to the character of Anglo American society, whose small proprietors and farmers defined themselves in terms of self-sufficiency, relative equality, and self-rule.

Though the corporate capitalism and New Class managerialism today stifling this self-sufficiency grew out of the country’s liberal postulates, this was only one (however consequential) of its manifestations, for Anglo Protestant culture also nurtured a conservative, traditionalist, and authoritarian dimension opposed to much of what presently passes for “Americanism,” (just as the feminist, homophile, and ethnomasochistic beliefs of today’s mainstream Protestant denominations would have shocked earlier generations of Protestants). The Reformation heresies that prompted America’s Low Church settlers to accept the Bible’s inerrancy and uphold a literal interpretation of scripture also compelled them to spurn the behavioral, moral, and social principles of a purely materialist society of individualist gratification. Though this type of Protestantism engendered (or expressed) that “spirit of independence, self-reliance, and freedom” which accompanied the rise of capitalism in Northern European and today encourages the cosmopolitan nihilism of the existing order, at the same time its original impetus rejected an indifferent, massifying capitalism destructive of community and morality. In this spirit, it upheld hierarchy, authority, and tradition, opposed modern feudalism (corporate capitalism) and its verso, mob democracy (Communism), privileged the centrality of family, community, and mutuality, and cultivated behaviors and social structures supportive of a communally responsible rather than an atomized individuality.

In a conscious effort to re-engineer the character of the American people, the ruling Judeo-oligarchy has re-christened the republican component of traditional American identity the “American Creed” and made it the sole legitimate basis of American nationality — as if being an American were merely a matter of subscribing to a certain liberal beliefs. Divested of its racial-cultural grounding, and the political responsibilities it once entailed, the liberal, cosmopolitan, and globalist implications of this so-called creed is now used to legitimate the multiracial pluralism that presently assaults the nation’s European heritage. For at least the last two generations, the country’s elites have waged a merciless war on the ethnonational interests of America’s Whites, who are treated with “mingled scorn and apprehension” for hampering the country’s transformation into an economically efficient Brazil.

But if America for racial nationalists is preeminently a European country, it is — admittedly — “also something less than Europe. As a settler nation, America was founded and remains, to use Georges Dumézil’s term, a country of the “Third Function.” Lacking the warrior and priestly functions of its motherland and centered on the productive/reproductive activities of the lowest order, the American people traditionally immersed themselves in economic and mundane activities devoid of High Cultural possibility.

It would be exaggerated, though, to claim, as certain Europeans have, that this emphasis on economics (with its accompanying values of hard work, self reliance, and technical efficiency) made Americans somehow un-European. A middle-class country of the Third Function, America materialistically thrived in the technoeconomic realm. This may have left its culturally-impoverished society of self-made men something less than Europe — but hardly un-European.

While the country’s economic and materialist passions rendered its people vulnerable to the machinations of plutocrats and monopolists, bankers and corporate barons, and, above all, Jewish peddlers and illusionists, this, alas, has been the fate of White people worldwide. In America’s defense it should be emphasized that until the postwar era, when the state and the dominant institutions fell into the hands of corporate managers, social engineers, and alien interests, its popular history was very much a history of struggle against the great economic powers, as these powers endeavored to subordinate the nation to those systemic imperatives threatening the economic self-sufficiency and biocultural identity of its large middle class.

This is evident in the history of Jacksonian producerism, the nativism of the 1840s and ‘50s, the Confederate insurgency of the 1860s, the struggle against Chinese immigration in California in the 1870s, the populist revolt of Midwestern and Southern farmers in the 1880s and ‘90s, the bitter labor wars of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the rise of the Second Klan in the 1920s, Father Coughlin’s Social Justice movement in the 1930s, etc.

Though lacking an established church and an aristocracy (the First and Second Functions), even here the European racial spirit influenced the formation of the American nation. The yeoman farmers making up the ranks of the Minute Men who bloodied Britain’s imperial troops at Lexington and Concord, the gentlemen warriors like Nathanael Greene, Anthony Wayne, and George Washington who led the revolutionary armies, the Anglo-Celtic frontiersmen and colonists of the Texas Revolution who triumph over massively larger Mexican forces, the gallant Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson of the Confederacy, even George Patton of World War II fame, all these figures stand in the tradition of European arms and are tributes not just to America, but to the warrior spirit of their ancestral homeland.

Moreover, whatever High Culture Americans have known has been European. Disneyland may be the contemporary emblem of America’s Culture Industry, but its relationship to American life is as contrived as is Hollywood’s. The composers, philosophers, and great artists animating the higher reaches of American life have always been European. The few great men of literary stature they have produced— Edgar Allen Poe, T. S. Eliot, Ezra Pound, Henry James, Jack London, William Faulkner — belong to Europe’s Pantheon and are recognized as such. Only an intellectual sleight of hand can justify the argument that the American people are not an organic (however culturally hybrid) expression of Europe’s life-world.

Perhaps more to the point, the growth of the American republic ought to be seen as one of the great feats of modern history, for, from its origins as a small outpost on the outer edge of Western Civilization, it grew, in a remarkably short period, into a great power. Given the prominence of its Third Function, much of course was lost in this process, for America lacked the depths of its motherland, retained a weak grasp of history and tradition, and never developed a political class capable of sustaining its political ideals. Yet beyond the shallow, often philistine character this cultural paucity imparted to American life, the European settlement of North America represented an unprecedented manifestation of Nietzsche’s will to power — an untamed life force — that had transformed a vast wilderness into a flourishing extension of the European life world.

Against those transatlantic critics whose grand pronouncements are based on their familiarity with Los Angeles or New York (both of which have ceased to be American cities), it needs stressing that no White nationalist fails to honor Europe or to distinguish himself from its heirs. His opposition to the New Class, war-mongering, and Zionist hegemonism of the country’s deracinated elites stems, in fact, from his commitment to Europe’s biocultural heritage. This heritage, as such, informs virtually every significant facet of the country’s racial nationalism.

Bernard Lugan: la différence entre le Maroc et l'Algérie

Bernard Lugan:

la différence entre le Maroc et l'Algérie

 

Bernard Lugan: l'avenir de l'Europe: la guerre?

Bernard Lugan: l'avenir de l'Europe: la guerre!

Nazisme et révolution

 

À propos de Fabrice Bouthillon, Nazisme et Révolution. Histoire théologique du national-socialisme. 1789-1989 (Fayard, coll. Commentaire, 2011).

 «Que vienne à paraître un homme, ayant le naturel qu’il faut, et voilà que par lui, tout cela est secoué, mis en pièces : il s’échappe, il foule aux pieds nos formules, nos sorcelleries, nos incantations, et ces lois, qui, toutes sans exception, sont contraires à la nature. Notre esclave s’est insurgé, et s’est révélé maître.»
Platon, Gorgias, 483d-484a.

Ex: http://stalker.hautetfort.com/

Finalement, le lecteur pressé ou le journaliste n'auront pas besoin de lire de sa première à sa dernière page le curieux essai* de Fabrice Bouthillon puisque, dès la première ligne du livre, la thèse de l'auteur est condensée en une seule phrase : «Le nazisme a été la réponse de l’histoire allemande à la question que lui avait posée la révolution française» (p. 11). À proprement parler, cette thèse n'est pas franchement une nouveauté puisque Jacques Droz, dans L’Allemagne et la Révolution française, sur les brisées d'un Stern ou d'un Gooch, l'avait déjà illustrée en 1950, en montrant comment la Révolution française avait influencé quelques-uns des grands courants d'idées qui, comme le romantisme selon cet auteur, ont abouti à la déhiscence puis au triomphe du Troisième Reich.
La thèse de Bouthillon est, quoi qu'il en soit, fort simple, ses détracteurs diront simpliste (voire tout bonnement fausse) et ses thuriféraires, évidente sinon lumineuse : «À Paris en 1789, le contrat social européen se déchire, la Gauche et la Droite se définissent et se séparent. La béance qui en était résultée était demeurée ouverte depuis lors. Sur la fin du XIX^e siècle, le conflit mondial qui commençait à se profiler semblait devoir l’approfondir encore» (p. 77).
Le constat est imparable, le travail de démonstration peut-être moins, sauf dans les tout derniers chapitres de l'ouvrage de Bouthillon, de loin les plus intéressants. Les coups contre la Gauche pleuvent ainsi dans l'ouvrage de Fabrice Bouthillon, qu'il s'agisse de critiques radicales, touchant ses plus profondes assises intellectuelles ou bien de rapprochements, assez faciles à faire il est vrai, entre celle-ci et le nazisme. Ainsi, s'appuyant sur une lecture contre-révolutionnaire de l'histoire, Fabrice Bouthillon peut écrire, fort justement, que : «L’idée, essentielle à la démarche de toute Gauche, d’un homme hors de tout contrat, d’un homme dans l’état de nature, est donc une pure contradiction dans les termes. La nature de l’homme, c’est la société; pour l’humanité, la nature, c’est la culture. Et voilà pourquoi la politique révolutionnaire cherche à s’élaborer sur un fondement qui doit forcément lui manquer : il n’est pas au pouvoir des hommes d’instituer l’humanité; la politique n’est pas quelque chose que l’homme pourrait constituer, mais qui le constitue. La fondation de la Cité, de la politique, de l’humanité, exigerait des forces supérieures aux forces humaines; or les révolutionnaires sont des hommes, en force de quoi, la tâche à laquelle ils s’obligent est donc vouée à l’échec» (p. 26).
C'est sur ce constat d'échec que, selon Bouthillon, le nazisme va fonder son éphémère empire, d'autant plus éphémère que, comme n'importe quel autre gouvernement n'ayant son origine que dans une sphère strictement temporelle ou séculière, il périra, qu'importe, nous le verrons, la facilité avec laquelle il tentera, au moment de s'effondrer, de récupérer les emblèmes et symboles du christianisme.
Concernant les rapprochements entre les emblèmes et les symboles de la Gauche et ceux du nazisme (1), nous pouvons lire ceci, lorsque Bouthillon analyse longuement et de manière fort convaincante la première proclamation publique du programme du parti nazi, faite le 24 février 1920 : «les hommes de Gauche présent à la Hofbräuhaus ont pu finir par brailler «Heil Hitler !» avec les autres, parce que Hitler leur a tenu des propos et leur a fait accomplir des gestes dans lesquels ils se retrouvaient. Par le nazisme, la Gauche n’a pas été seulement contrainte; elle a aussi été séduite» (p. 162) et, surtout, cette autre longue évocation de points communs entre les deux ennemis qui n'ont pas toujours été, loin s'en faut, irréductibles : «ce qui compte, pour comprendre ce qui se passe dans la salle archétypique [le 24 février 1920 : première proclamation publique du programme du parti nazi] où le récit de Mein Kampf transporte le lecteur, et comment la révélation du programme contribue à y créer peu à peu l’unité, c’est d’abord de se souvenir qu’il comprend vingt-cinq articles, ce qui permet de faire monter peu à peu la sauce de l’enthousiasme; et que, dans le lot, il y en a bien neuf qui relèvent incontestablement du patrimoine politique de la Gauche, ce qui permet à ceux des siens qui restent encore dans l’auditoire de s’y joindre progressivement. Point 7, l’État a le devoir de procurer aux citoyens des moyens d’existence : c’est le droit au travail, tel que revendiqué par la révolution de 1848. Point 9, tous les citoyens ont les mêmes droits et les mêmes devoirs : c’est l’égalité devant la loi, type 1789. Point 10, tout citoyen a le devoir de travailler, et le bien collectif doit primer sur l’intérêt individuel : c’est le noyau de tout socialisme. Point 11, suppression du revenu des oisifs, et de l’esclavage de l’intérêt : mais c’est du Besancenot, nos vies valent plus que leurs profits. Point 12, confiscation des bénéfices de guerre : à la bonne heure; point 13, nationalisation des trusts : quoi de mieux ? Point 14, hausse des retraites; point 17, réforme agraire – on en revenait aux Gracques – avec possibilité d’expropriation sans indemnité pour utilité publique; point 20, enfin, l’égalité de tous les enfants devant l’école, façon Ferry» (pp. 163-4).
Rappelant les analyse de Michel Dreyfus dans L’Antisémitisme à gauche (Éditions La Découverte, 2009), l'auteur ne craint pas d'enfoncer le clou lorsqu'il affirme qu'une autre partie du programme nazi n'a pas pu manquer de plaire à la Gauche, à savoir, son antisémitisme viscéral : «Mais il faut aller plus loin encore, et dire que ces points-là n’étaient pas les seuls du programme nazi qui, sous la République de Weimar, pouvaient susciter l’approbation d’un auditoire de Gauche. Cinq autres articles visaient les Juifs. Les points 5, 6, 7, les excluaient de la citoyenneté allemande, et donc aussi de la vie politique nationale; l’article 23 les excluait de la presse et de la vie culturelle; l’article 24 proclamait le respect du parti nazi envers un «christianisme positif», pour mieux condamner «l’esprit judéo-matérialiste». or cette thématique pouvait elle aussi constituer un appât pour la Gauche, et il est, de ce point de vue, très suggestif, qu’à l’arraché tant qu’on voudra, l’unanimité n’ait vraiment été atteinte dans la salle, le 24 février 1920, que sur le vote d’une résolution antisémite» (p. 164).
Bouthillon poursuit sa démonstration en insistant sur la spécificité du nazisme, qui parvint à concilier, un temps du moins, Droite et Gauche et ainsi refermer la plaie qu'avait ouverte la Révolution française en séparant, historiquement, les deux frères irréconciliables partout ailleurs qu'en France selon l'auteur (2) : «Or, dans l’histoire allemande, la nazisme constitue à la fois l’apogée de la haine entre la Gauche et la Droite, parce qu’il est né de la Droite la plus extrême et qu’il vomit la Gauche, et, en même temps, l’ébauche de leur réconciliation, précisément parce qu’il se veut un national-socialisme, unissant donc, à un nationalisme d’extrême-Droite, un socialisme d’extrême-Gauche. Vu sous cet angle, sa nature politique la plus authentique est donc celle d’un centrisme, mais par addition des extrêmes; et c’est pourquoi il peut espérer parvenir en Allemagne à une véritable refondation» (p. 173). Au sujet de cette thèse de Bouthillon, sans cesse répétée dans son ouvrage, de la création du nazisme par l'addition des extrêmes, notons ce passage : «pour que la Droite mute en l’une de ces formes de totalitarisme que sont les fascismes, il faut qu’elle accepte de faire sien un apport spécifique de la Gauche, et même de l’extrême-Gauche» (pp. 189-90).
Toutes ces pages (hormis celles, peut-être, du chapitre 2 consacré à Bismarck) sont intéressantes et écrites dans un style maîtrisé, moins vif cependant que celui d'un Éric Zemmour. Elles n'évoquent cependant point directement le sujet même qui donne son sous-titre à l'ouvrage de Bouthillon. Il faut ainsi prendre son mal en patience pour découvrir, au dernier chapitre, la thèse pour le moins condensée (en guise de piste de recherche méthodiquement développée, comme celle d'Emilio Gentile exposée dans La Religion fasciste), d'un autre ouvrage de l'auteur intitulé Et le bunker était vide. Une lecture du testament politique d'Adolf Hitler (Hermann, 2007). Car, en guise d'histoire théologique du nazisme que la seule référence à Carl Schmitt évoquant la théologie paulinienne ne peut tout de même combler (3), nous avons droit à une série de rapprochements, parfois quelque peu spécieux (4) entre les derniers faits et gestes de Hitler et ceux du Christ, comme celui-ci : «Le testament qu’il [Hitler] laisse est lui-même conçu comme un équivalent du discours du Christ pendant la dernière Cène, au moment de passer de ce monde à son Père : «je ne vous laisse pas seuls», tel est le thème dominant de ces adieux, dans un dispositif où l’expulsion de Göring et de Himmler hors du Parti pour trahison est l’exact pendant de celle de Judas hors du cénacle» (p. 254).
C'est donc affirmer que, s'il ne faut point considérer Hitler comme l'antichrist (5), il peut à bon droit être vu comme l'un de ses représentants, une idée qui a fait les délices de nombre d'auteurs, dont le sérieux de la recherche est d'ailleurs matière à controverse, tant certaines thèses ont pu sembler loufoques aux historiens du nazisme.
Mais affirmer que Hitler n'est qu'une des figures du Mal, et certainement pas celui-ci en personne si je puis dire nous fait peut-être toucher du doigt la thèse qui semblera véritablement scandaleuse aux yeux des lecteurs : Hitler est un dictateur absolument médiocre, dont le seul coup de génie a été, selon Bouthillon, d'adopter une position centriste qui lui a permis de mélanger habilement les idées et les influences venues des deux extrêmes politiques.
Autant dire que, devant l'effacement des frontières politiques auquel nous assistons de nos jours, la voie est libre pour que naissent une furieuse couvée de petits (ou de grands) Hitler qui, soyons-en certains, auront à cœur de venger l'honneur de leur père putatif et surtout de lire le testament aux accents fondamentalement religieux selon Bouthillon que le chef déchu leur aura laissé juste avant de se suicider et de faire disparaître son corps, comme une ultime parodie démoniaque de l'absence du cadavre du Christ.

Notes
* Livre dont Jean-Luc Evard donnera, ici même, une critique véritable, ce que la mienne n'est évidemment point qui se contente de dégager les grands axes de la démonstration de Bouthillon.
(1) Sur le salut nazi, Fabrice Bouthillon affirme : «Ce geste fasciste par excellence, qu’est le salut de la main tendue, n’est-il pas au fond né à Gauche ? N’a-t-il pas procédé d’abord de ces votes à main levée dans les réunions politiques du parti, avant d’être militarisé ensuite par le raidissement du corps et le claquement des talons – militarisé et donc, par là, droitisé, devenant de la sorte le symbole le plus parfait de la capacité nazie à faire fusionner, autour de Hitler, valeurs de la Gauche et valeurs de la Droite ? Car il y a bien une autre origine possible à ce geste, qui est la prestation de serment le bras tendu; mais elle aussi est, en politique, éminemment de Gauche, puisque le serment prêté pour refonder, sur l’accord des volontés individuelles, une unité politique dissoute, appartient au premier chef à la liste des figures révolutionnaires obligées, dans la mesure même où la dissolution du corps politique, afin d’en procurer la restitution ultérieure, par l’engagement unanime des ex-membres de la société ancienne, est l’acte inaugural de toute révolution. Ainsi s’explique que la prestation du serment, les mains tendues, ait fourni la matière de l’une des scènes les plus topiques de la révolution française – et donc aussi, qu’on voie se dessiner, derrière le tableau par Hitler du meeting de fondation du parti nazi, celui, par David, du Serment du Jeu de Paume» (p. 171).
(2) «À partir de 1918, il n’est donc plus contestable qu’une voie particulière s’ouvre dans l’histoire de l’Europe pour l’une des nations qui la composent. Mais c’est la voie française. Parce que, sur le continent, pour la France, et pour la France seulement, la victoire pérennise alors la réconciliation de la Gauche et de la Droite qui s’était opérée dans l’Union sacrée, le clairon du 11 novembre ferme pour elle l’époque qui s’était ouverte avec la Révolution, et la République devient aussi légitime à Paris que la monarchie avait pu l’être avant 1789. Mais partout ailleurs sur le continent, c’est la défaite, dès 1917 pour la Russie, en 1918 pour l’Allemagne, en 1919, autour du tapis vert, pour l’Italie» (p. 107). Cet autre passage éclaire notre propos : «La période qui va de 1789 à 1914 avait été dominée par la séparation de la Gauche et de la Droite provoquée par la révolution française, et l’Allemagne avait perdu la chance que l’union sacrée lui avait donnée de refermer cette brèche. Du coup, la logique de la situation créée par la Révolution perdure, s’amplifie, se durcit : à Droite, la brutalisation exacerbe les nationalismes, à Gauche, elle surexcite l’universalisme, jusqu’à en tirer le bolchevisme. Moyennant quoi, la nécessité de mettre un terme à cette fracture se fait, au même rythme, plus impérieuse» (p. 197).
(3) «Rétablir l’Empire, réunir l’extrême Gauche et l’extrême Droite : Hitler aussi s’est donné ces deux objectifs, et la parenté de son entreprise avec celle de Napoléon ne doit donc rien au hasard. Elle vient de ce que le nazisme est né de l’effondrement révolutionnaire du katekhon aussi directement que le bonapartisme en est sorti. Comme ce qui se passe en Allemagne en 1933 vise à combler le gouffre, un moment refermé en 1914, mais rouvert dès 1918, qui béait sous la politique européenne depuis qu’en 1789, la Révolution avait mis un terme au prolongement que, durant près de quatorze siècles, le régime de Chrétienté avait procuré à l’Empire romain, la dimension antichristique du nazisme en découle immédiatement, faite d’opposition radicale au christianisme et de ressemblance avec lui, de ressemblance avec lui pour cause d’opposition radicale à lui» (pp. 262-3). Auparavant, l'auteur aura évoqué, tirant profit des thèses bien connues de René Girard (cf. p. 198) sur la violence mimétique, la volonté (et son exécution) d'exterminer les Juifs par une analyse du gouffre en question et des façons pour le moins radicales de le combler : «La Droite continentale tient qu’on ne peut quitter le contrat ancien, qu’il est en fait impossible de déchirer définitivement; la Droite insulaire [avec Burke], elle, démontre qu’on ne peut parvenir à un contrat nouveau. Or la Révolution s’étant pourtant bel et bien produite, il en résulte qu’on se trouve dans un état limbaire, intermédiaire entre ces deux vérités. On est entre l’Ancien Régime, chrétien, où la Victime, sur le sacrifice de laquelle reposait en dernière analyse tout l’ordre social, depuis la mise en place de l’augustinisme politique, était le Christ, régime qu’on ne peut totalement oublier – et le nouveau contrat social, qui, par hypothèse, ne devra plus rien au christianisme, mais auquel on ne peut atteindre. Eh bien, la solution intermédiaire est de refonder l’unité sur la haine du Juif : ce n’est plus le régime ancien, ça tient donc du nouveau; mais ce n’est pas un régime absolument nouveau, et ça tient donc de l’ancien : puisque dans l’ancien, en la personne du Christ, déjà la victime était juive» (p. 199).
(4) Ainsi du rapprochement opéré par l'auteur entre Eva Braun / Adolf Hitler et Ève / Adam, cf. p. 251-2.
(5) «En dictant son testament politique, Hitler visait à s’ériger en une espèce de dieu; faire de lui le Diable, comme y concourent avec ensemble de nos jours les médias, politiques et institutions d’enseignement, c’est l’aider à atteindre son but. S’il y avait cependant une leçon à retenir de la théologie de l’Antéchrist, ce serait pourtant que du mal, il n’a été qu’une des figures, et qu’il y aura pire – un pire que peu fort bien servir cette espèce de sacralisation perverse dont notre époque le fait jouir, grosse d’effets en retour au bout desquels nous ne sommes probablement pas rendus» (p. 268).

L'eredità falsata di Martin Heidegger

L’eredità falsata di Martin Heidegger

Luca Leonello Rimbotti

Ex: http://www.centrostudilaruna.it/

Che Heidegger, con tutto il suo bagaglio filosofico intatto, sia stato catturato dalle sinistre ormai da qualche decennio e venga tenuto prigioniero nelle bibliografie e nelle monografie democratico-giacobine, è ormai un fatto risaputo. Da quando il marxismo si è dimostrato un ferro vecchio inutilizzabile, abbiamo assistito a un accorrere in folla dalle parti dell’ideologia nazionalpopolare europea, per sottrargli idee, concetti, approcci di pensiero, nomi e cognomi. Sulle orme lasciate da Heidegger, in particolare, hanno pestato in parecchi. E sempre con l’aria di aver fatto una scoperta. Su questa appropriazione indebita, in Italia e all’estero, non pochi ci si sono costruite carriere e cattedre di gran lustro.

Il gioco è semplice: basta far finta che Heidegger non sia mai stato davvero nazionalsocialista… in fondo, dopo appena un anno dette le dimissioni da rettore, sì o no?… rimase iscritto al Partito nazista fino al 1945, d’accordo, non ha mai detto una parola di condanna su Auschwitz… è vero anche questo… ma insomma… basta non dirlo troppo ad alta voce… poi si ripete fino alla nausea che il suo pensiero è stato travisato, ecco, è stato strumentalizzato, ma certo… è così evidente… ma per fortuna che ora ci pensano loro, gli intellettuali di sinistra, a dare la giusta lettura… ed ecco che un filosofo della tradizione, della ferrea identità di popolo, del volontarismo vitalistico, uno schietto pangermanista, uno che nelle lezioni su Nietzsche invocava «un nuovo ordine partendo dalle radici», tracciando una bella linea retta da Eraclito al Führer, ecco che dunque il filosofo della Führung diventa all’istante un santino del “pensiero debole”, dell’esistenzialismo universalista, una specie di curatore d’anime mezzo new age e mezzo dialettico… Si tratta di un gioco di prestigio per virtuosi, soltanto i migliori tra gli intellettuali di sinistra sono in grado di rivoltare Heidegger, ma anche Nietzsche o Schmitt, ma anche Marinetti o Gehlen o Jünger o Eliade… e tirarne fuori ottime figure di giacobini mondialisti…

A smascherare questi procedimenti della manipolazione professionale, nel 1988 giunse improvviso un libro di Victor Farìas intitolato Heidegger e il nazismo, pubblicato in Italia da Bollati Boringhieri. Fu una bomba inattesa. Suscitò sbandamento e panico nel campo della sinistra intelligente: Heidegger, dopo centinaia di pagine di uno studio basato su fonti primarie, veniva riconsegnato di brutto al suo destino di pensatore della reazione anti-modernista europea, dimostrando testi alla mano che si trattava di un filosofo accesamente antisemita, nazionalista, forgiatore di una profonda identità tra uomo europeo del XX secolo e uomo dorico dell’antichità. Insomma, un nazista. Uno studioso che parlava di metafisica greca pensando all’esserci storico dei tedeschi degli anni Venti-Trenta, e che elaborava la moderna filosofia ontologica individuandone una concreta realizzazione nelle SA.

Da allora, Farìas – che è stato allievo di Heidegger e di Fink – è diventato la bestia nera di tutti quei mandarini rossi che intasano università, riviste scientifiche, case editrici, forum e circuiti culturali, ma che per campare si erano inventati un Heidegger quasi-marxista. Se Marcuse si era ridotto a una caricatura, si poteva sempre ricorrere a un Heidegger ben limato… Su questa faccenda l’intellighenzia progressista si è da tempo spaccata in due. Da una parte i devoti di Heidegger, in fuga dalle macerie del marxismo; dall’altra parte i demolitori di Heidegger, custodi di una più intransigente ortodossia antifascista. Per dare un’idea, potremmmo dire: sinistra post-marxista e sinistra liberale ai ferri corti intorno alle spoglie di Heidegger.

In queste faide umilianti, tra l’altro, notiamo il tracollo finale di un modo di fare sub-cultura e di essere alla guida della macchina intellettuale, che si riassume nella bancarotta ormai irreversibile del progressismo. Falsificazione, fanatismo, faziosità, delazione, intimidazione… queste le attitudini scientifiche con cui i “filosofi” post-moderni, come nani confusi di fronte a qualcuno molto più grande di loro, arraffano oppure rigettano le posizioni di quello che è stato definito il maggior intellettuale del Novecento. Qualcuno glielo dica: si stanno occupando di un personaggio che non li riguarda in nessun caso.

Oggi Farìas ne fa un’altra delle sue e scarica nuove bordate di militanza democratica, pubblicando un esplicito L’eredità di Heidegger nel neonazismo, nel neofascismo e nel fondamentalismo islamico (Edizioni Medusa). Si prevedono nuovi travasi di bile tra le truppe intellettuali della sinistra heideggeriana, in fase di crescente spaesamento e comandate con qualche difficoltà, qui da noi, da maestri del pensiero del rango di un Gianni Vattimo.

Il discorso di Farìas, ancora una volta, non potrebbe essere più chiaro: Heidegger era nazista dalla testa ai piedi. Lo era perchè amico delle SA, perchè iscritto alla NSDAP fino all’ultimo giorno, perché pubblico elogiatore di Hitler, perché si identificò nel Terzo Reich e nelle sue guerre, perchè ha relativizzato pesantemente la Shoah, ma anche perchè tutto il suo pensiero, i suoi scritti, le sue lezioni universitarie, i suoi stessi concetti e argomenti sono riconoscibili per nazisti, sia prima che – addirittura – dopo il 1945. Poi Farìas va oltre, vuole strafare e, alla maniera dei persecutori “democratici”, quelli che vogliono imporre con le buone o con le cattive il Pensiero Unico, sui due piedi crea il mostro: Heidegger padre spirituale anche del neonazismo e del fondamentalismo islamico. Heidegger padre di tutti gli incubi dell’era globale. Prende Ernst Nolte – non uno qualsiasi, ma probabilmente il massimo storico vivente… ma col difetto di non appartenere alle cosche di sinistra – e lo diffama come agente neonazista. Direte: è uno scherzo? No, non è uno scherzo. Farìas fa sul serio: «Nolte di fatto apre le porte a un neonazismo che conferma tutti i modelli sociali autoritari… Nolte afferma che Heidegger intendeva il nazismo come “socialismo tedesco”… nel suo sforzo di riabilitare Heidegger utile a riabilitare un neonazismo… nella Repubblica Federale tedesca del 1987, Nolte interpreta le lezioni su Hölderlin (1934-1935) assumendo come evidente e accettabile l’ultranazionalismo dell’esegesi heideggeriana…».

Farìas, che è una punta di diamante della lobby mondialista liberal-libertaria di matrice cattolica, odia Nolte, che è un nazionalconservatore, di un odio da Inquisizione. Non elabora la possibilità che vi sia qualcuno che non la pensa come lui. E ne ha per tutti. Vede un mondo di neonazisti. Dalla “Nuova Destra” tedesca – un tranquillo ambiente di intellettuali alla Stefan George, dove si fa cultura di nicchia – al figlio di Heidegger, Hermann, accusato di voler insinuare un pernicioso “neo-heideggerismo”… fino a certi contatti culturali tra frange della destra e della sinistra tedesche: e, ad esempio, il loro anti-americanismo, attinto da Heidegger, diventa subito un sinistro “nazionalbolscevismo”. Attacca a testa bassa la “Nouvelle Droite” francese e infama de Benoist o Guillaume Faye tacciandoli coi soliti stereotipi di pericolosità neopagana e fascistoide: e sin qui nulla di nuovo. Ma subito li mette in collegamento con certe derive da lui astutamente individuate nel pensiero “corretto”: dice che Lacan o Baudrillart erano vicini a Céline e alla Rivoluzione Conservatrice, rivela che Foucault ammirava la «spiritualità politica» dei khomeinisti iraniani, giudica Steuckers un nocivo teorico “eurocentrista” e stende un verbale delle riviste cui collabora (comprendendoci anche quelle di Marco Tarchi…), poi descrive il nuovo ecologismo (e ci mette dentro anche quello di Eduardo Zarelli…) come un nido di eredi di Klages e del Blut und Boden… e ribatte ancora che l’heideggerismo del GRECE è stato un vaso d’infusione per il peggiore degli abomini, il razzismo: «de Benoist, come Heidegger, basa le gerarchie che fondano la discriminazione non come i razzisti “volgari” e zoologisti, bensì nello “spirito”…». Da questo poderoso concentrato di aria fritta, Farìas trae le sue conclusioni, rivelando al mondo l’esistenza di una perversa congiura metapolitica, al di là della destra e della sinistra: «Così, non sorprende che in Francia il matrimonio – impensabile fino a poco tempo fa – tra il sotterraneo fascismo heideggeriano e il neomarxismo militante sia oggi una realtà».

Subito dopo, Farìas si volge da un’altra parte del suo vasto spettro di nemici e ne individua uno tra i più temibili: l’islamismo heideggeriano. E ci informa che tra un tale Sayyd Qutb morto nel ‘66 e Heidegger esisteva una grande somiglianza di concezioni anti-americane… e che l’iraniano Ahmadinejad non sarebbe altro che «un militante “heideggeriano”». Infine si dice convinto che esista una nazi-connection mondiale che unifica tutti questi ambienti al «neofascismo militarista di Chàvez», dipinto come un Caudillo antisemita, a lungo ammaestrato dal defunto politologo péronista-revisionista Norberto Ceresole, a sua volta heideggeriano di ferro e perno ideologico del complotto neonazista… Insomma, è come leggere I Protocolli dei Savi di Sion… ma all’incontrario… e con l’uguale spessore scientifico pari a zero.

Farìas è uno dei più zelanti poliziotti a difesa del Pensiero Unico. Recita alla perfezione la parte del sacerdote che veglia sull’ortodossia totalitaria e che denuncia l’eretico, indicando la forca sulla quale farlo salire. Farìas lavora come pochi per le ragioni del mondialismo censendo pensieri, parole ed opere di quanti si ostinino ancora a usare la loro testa. Segnala ambienti, rivela retroscena, denuncia frasi che a forza sottolinea come pericolose, addita libri, uomini, associazioni come letali focolai di camuffamento neonazista sub specie heideggeriana. Uno afflitto da una simile sindrome, lo direste uno studioso… o piuttosto un delatore?

Noi imparziali e inattuali vogliamo dire la nostra: Farìas fa bene quando contribuisce a rettificare le cose, tornando a collocare Heidegger in modo documentato nella tradizione di pensiero che gli compete, quella anti-progressista e radicalmente identitaria. Del resto, Farìas è soltanto più rumoroso di altri: infatti, anche prima di lui, svariati studiosi, da Hugo Ott a Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe a Bernd Martin, per citarne solo alcuni, già tra l’87 e l’88, rimisero Heidegger al suo posto, dimostrandone i nessi biografici e filosofici col Nazionalsocialismo, senza per questo mandarne al capestro la memoria. E nessuno di loro intese recitare la parte fanatica del militante antifascista a tutti costi e fuori tempo massimo. Farìas fa infatti cattiva letteratura quando, da propagandista schierato e da terrorista intellettuale, fa sibilare la frusta dell’inquisitore “democratico”, evocando ad ogni passo la reazione in agguato, il neofascismo che dilaga, il Quarto Reich alle porte… e altri simili spropositi.

* * *

Tratto da Linea del 30 gennaio 2009.

Nazi Fashion Wars: The Evolian Revolt Against Aphroditism in the THird Reich

Nazi Fashion Wars:

The Evolian Revolt Against Aphroditism in the Third Reich

Part 1

Amanda Bradley

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

“We would like women to remain women in their nature, in the whole of their lives, in the aim and fulfilment of these lives, just as we likewise wish men to remain men in their nature and in the aim and fulfilment of their nature and their aims.”—Adolf Hitler

National Socialism promoted two images of woman: the hardworking peasant mother in traditional dress, and the uniformed woman in service to her people. Both images were an attempt to combat two types of woman that are foreign to Traditional European societies: the Aphrodisian and Amazonian woman.

To understand the implications of these types, we must first outline J. J. Bachofen’s theory of the phases of human development and their relation to the Traditionalism of Julius Evola, who translated Bachofen’s Das Mutterrecht (Mother Right) into Italian and wrote the introduction. Bachofen posited a progressive view of history. The earliest and most primitive civilizations were earth-based, what Bachofen called “hetaerist-aphroditic,” since they were characterized by promiscuity.

As a revolt against the mistreatment of women in these early societies, Bachofen determined, agricultural-based Demetrian societies were developed. This phase of development was matriarchal, and exalted woman in her role of wife and mother, since it viewed woman and the earth as sources of generation.

Next, patriarchy developed, in which the sun and man were seen as the source of life. States of consciousness, correspondingly, went beyond the earth and the moon in solar-oriented societies.

Bachofen also outlined several regressions within his system. The cult of Dionysus was a regression from a Demetrian back into an earth-based cult, as exemplified by its emphasis on the vine (i.e., earth), a drunken dissolution into nature, and the promiscuous maenads who were its followers. Another regression was found in the various examples of Amazonian women in Western history, who did away with the need for a male principle.

Evola said that he integrated Bachofen’s ideas in “a wider and more up-to-date order of ideas.” [1]. He posits the Arctic cycle of the Golden Age as the primordial tradition. Demetrian societies came later, and eventually declined into Amazonian and Aphrodisian cycles. Meanwhile, there were descents into Titanic and Dionysian cycles, with a brief revival of the Northern spirit in the heroic age. Although Evola and Bachofen disagreed about the primacy of the Northern tradition, their interpretations of Aphroditism and other degenerations are similar.

As an earth-based society, the Aphrodisian is entirely focused on the material world. These societies are ruled by “the natural law (ius naturale) of sex motivated by lust, and with no understanding of the relationship of intercourse to conception.” [2] Even the afterlife is viewed not as an ascent to a heaven, but a return to nature. Bachofen describes woman’s status in these cultures as the lowest—she is only a sex object, the property of the tribal chief or any man who wants her. Evola’s interpretation is that in Aphrodisian societies, it is man’s status that is the lowest, since woman is the “sovereign of the man who is merely slave of his senses and sexuality, merely the ‘telluric’ being that finds its rest and its ecstasy only in the woman.” [3] Whether interpreting Aphrodisian societies as degrading to men, women, or both, one aspect is clear: Such a worldview emphasizes the lower aspects of sex, and presents woman as an object of base lust. Contrasted to this are Demetrian societies, in which monogamy and the love of the wife and mother replace mere lust.

Such Aphrodisian cultures are found only in pre-Aryan and anti-Aryan societies. In the history of the West, Evola theorizes that solar-based societies originally were found throughout Europe. In the more southern areas of Europe, in the timeline of recorded history at least, the solar forces did not withstand opposing forces for long. According to Joseph Campbell, these earth and lunar forces migrated to the Mediterranean from the East, as the Oriental principle was found in the “Aphroditic, Demetrian, and Dionysian legacies of the Sabines and Etruscans, Hellenistic Carthage and, finally, Cleopatra’s Hellenistic Egypt.”[4] Thus, much of what we associate with classical Greece cannot be assumed to be European, but must be interpreted in light of the degenerations that developed from its contact with the East. Rome, according to Evola, was able to ward off the influence of the telluric-maternal cult due to its establishment of a firm political organization that was centered on the virile principles of a solar worldview.

In addition to the spheres of love and family, Aphrodisian societies have far-reaching political implications as well. Earth and lunar cults were not necessarily (in fact, rarely) governed by women, yet like gynaecocracy, they foster “the egalitarism of the natural law, universalism and communism.” The idea is that Aphrodisian, earth-based societies viewed all men as children of one earth. Thus, “any inequality is an ‘injustice’, an outrage to the law of nature.” The ancient orgies, Evola writes, “were meant to celebrate the return of men to the state of nature through the momentary obliteration of any social difference and of any hierarchy.”[5] This also explains why in some cultures, the lower castes practiced tellurian or lunar rites, while solar rites were reserved for the aristocracy.

These were the Aphrodisian elements that had made their way into the Weimar Republic and Third Reich, and which the National Socialists tried to restrain, along with modern Amazonian woman (the unmarried, childless, career woman in mannish dress). The Aphrodite type was represented by the “movie ‘star’ or some similar fascinating Aphrodisian apparition.”[6] In his introduction to the writings of Bachofen, National Socialist scholar Alfred Baeumler wrote that the modern world has all of the characteristics of a gynaecocratic age. In writing about the European city-woman, he says, “The fascinating female is the idol of our times, and, with painted lips, she walks through the European cities as she once did through Babylon.”[7]

(PICTURE: Hungarian-born singer Marikka Rökk)

The Nazis’ attempts to combat the Aphrodisian type of woman were manifest in various campaigns and in the writings of Nazi leaders. Most prominent was the promotion of the Gretchen type (the Demetrian woman, in her role as mother and wife), and the discouragement of anything that encouraged the fall of woman into a sex toy rather than a partner for men. Primary emphasis was placed on the discouragement of provocative dress, makeup, and unnatural hair, all which have associations with earth-based cults from the East. According to Evola, the Jewish spirit emphasizes the materialist and sensualist sides of life, with the body viewed as a material instrument of pleasure rather than an instrument of the spirit. Thus, ideologies such as cosmopolitanism, egalitarianism, materialism, and feminism are prevalent in a society that has a worldview infused with a Semitic spirit.[8]

Evola categorized the Aryan spirit as solar and virile, and the Jewish spirit as lunar and feminine. Using Bachofen’s classification system, the latter classifies most easily with Aphrodisian and earth-based cultures — where woman-as-sex-object prevails over woman-as-mother. In fact, there were various versions of “royal Asian women with Aphrodisian features, above all in ancient civilizations of Semitic stock.”[9] A review of archaeological evidence of Aryan and Semitic peoples reveals that, indeed, the only records of Aphrodisian culture in the West (as determined by a culture’s molding of woman into a sex object through fashion, makeup, and the idea of unnatural beauty) are the result of Eastern influence.

Aphrodisian Fashion and Cosmetics Are Absent from the History of Northern Europeans, and Found in Mediterranean Cultures as a Result of Eastern Influence

European civilizations unanimously associated unnatural beauty, achieved by cosmetics and dyed hair, with the lowest castes. This is because in Traditional societies, “health” was a symbol of “virtue” — to feign health or beauty was an attempt to mask the Truth.[10] Although cosmetics and jewelry were used ritually in ancient civilizations, their use eventually degenerated into a purely materialistic function.

 

The earliest Europeans tended toward simplicity in dress and appearance. Adornments were used solely to signify caste or heroic deeds, or were amulets or talismans. In ancient Greece, jewels were never worn for everyday use, but reserved for special occasions and public appearances. In Rome, also, jewelry was thought to have a spiritual power.[11] Western fashion often was used to display rank, as in Roman patricians’ purple sash and red shoes. The Mediterranean cultures, influenced by the East, were the first to become extravagant in dress and makeup. By the time this influence spread to northern Europe, it had been Christianized, and makeup did not appear again in northern Europe until the fourteenth century, after which followed a long period of its association with immorality.[12]

There is no firm evidence, archeological or narrative, for the use of makeup among the Anglo-Saxons. Only one story exists about its use among the Vikings, that of tenth century A.D. traveler  Ibrahim Al-Tartushi, who suggested that Vikings in Hedeby (in modern northern Germany) used kohl to protect against the evil eye (obviously an import from the East). Instead of makeup (outside of their often-described war paint), early northern Europeans focused on cleanliness and simplicity, as well as plant-based oils and aromatherapy. Archeological evidence reveals grooming tools for keeping hair tidy and teeth clean, and long hair was an essential beauty element for women.[13] Much of the jewelry worn by Vikings was religious, received as a reward for bravery in battle, or used to fasten clothing (such as brooches).[14]

Ancient Greece and Rome started out similar to northern Europe in the realms of fashion and beauty, but were quickly influenced by the East. Cosmetics were introduced to Rome from Egypt, and become associated with prostitutes and slaves. Prostitutes tended to use more makeup and perfume as they got older, practices that were looked down on as attempts to mask the unpleasant sights and odors of the lower classes. In fact, the Latin lenocinium means both “prostitution” and “makeup.” For a long time, cosmetics also were associated with non-white races, particular those from the Orient. As Rome degenerated, however, the use of makeup spread to many classes, with specialized slaves devoting much time to applying face paint to their masters, especially to lighten the skin color.

Although cosmetics became more accepted in Rome, their use was contrary to Roman beliefs and discouraged in their writings. Romans did not believe in “unnatural embellishment,” but only the preservation of natural beauty, for which there were many concoctions. Such unadulterated beauty was associated with chastity and morality. As an example, the Vestal Virgins did not use makeup. One who did, Postumia, was accused of incestum, a broad category that signifies immoral and irreligious acts.

In addition, Roman men found it suspicious when women tried to appear beautiful: the implications of cosmetic use included a lack of natural beauty, lack of chastity, potential for adultery, seductiveness, unnatural aversion to the traditional roles for women, manipulation, and deceitfulness. The poet Juvenal wrote, “a woman buys scents and lotions with adultery in mind.” Seneca believed the use of cosmetics was contributing to the decline in morality in the Rome Empire, and advised virtuous women to avoid them.[15] The only surviving text from Rome that approves of cosmetics, Ovid’s Medicamina Faciei Femineae (Cosmetics for the Female Face), gives natural remedies for whiter skin and blemishes but extols the virtues of good manners and a good disposition as highest of all beauty treatments.

Originally, the simplest hairstyles were prized in Rome, with women wearing their hair long, often with a headband. Younger girls favored a bun at the nape of the neck, or a knot on top of their head. Elaborate hairstyles only came into fashion during the Roman Empire as it degenerated.[16]

In ancient Greece, as well, makeup was the domain of lower-class women, who attempted to emulate the fair skin of the upper classes who stayed indoors. Rouge was sometimes used to give the skin a healthy and energetic glow. This tradition was continued by women in the Middle Ages, who also valued fair skin.

Cosmetics, dyed hair, and over-accessorizing continued to be associated with loose women as Western society was Christianized. Saint Irenaeus included cosmetics in a list of evils brought to the women who married fallen angels. The early Christian writers Clement of Alexandria, Tatian the Assyrian, and Tertullian also trace the origin of cosmetics to fallen angels.[17]

Dress presents a more difficult area to examine. Although the Nazis associated skimpy dress with foreign elements, this has not always been the case in West. Aryan societies generally did not moralize sex, nor see the body as shameful; women could show a bare breast or wear a short tunic without being viewed as a sex object. In fact, Bachofen reports that more restrictive dress represented a move toward Eastern cultures, which, seeing woman as temptress, insist on extensive covering. According to Plutarch, speaking on the old Dorian spirit:

There was nothing shameful about the nakedness of the virgins, for they were always accompanied by modesty and lechery was banned. Rather, it gave them a taste for simplicity and a care for outward dignity.[18]

Much of these distinctions in beauty treatments can be traced to deeper sources, to the differences in spirit of different peoples. Evola asserts the Roman spirit as the positive side of the Italian people, and the Mediterranean (more influenced by the East) as the negative that needs to be rectified. The first Mediterranean trait is “love for outward appearances and grand gestures”—it is the type that “needs a stage.” In such people, he says, there is a split in the personality: there is “an ‘I’ that plays the role and an ‘I’ that regards his part from the point of view of a possible observer or spectator, more or less as actors do.”

A different kind of split, one that instead supervises one’s conduct to avoid “primitive spontaneity,” is more befitting of the Roman character. The ancient Romans had a model of “sober, austere, active style, free form exhibitionism, measured, endowed with a calm awareness of one’s dignity.” Another negative trait of the Mediterranean type, Evola notes, is individualism, brought about by “the propensity toward outward appearances.” Evola also cites “concern for appearances but with little or no substance” as typical of the Mediterranean type.[19] Such differences in spirit will manifest in the material choices that are inherent to different peoples.

Notes

 

1. Julius Evola, Revolt Against the Modern World, trans. Guido Stucco (Rochester, Vt.: Inner Traditions, 1995), 211, footnote.

2. Joseph Campbell, Introduction, Myth, Religion, and Mother Right, by J. J. Bachofen, trans. Ralph Manheim (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967), xxx–xxxi.

3. Evola, “Do We Live in a Gynaecocratic Society?”

4. Campbell, “Introduction” to Bachofen, xlviii.

5. Evola, “Gynaecocratic.”

6. Evola, “Matriarchy in J.J. Bachofen’s Work.”

7. Alfred Baeumler, quoted in Evola, “Matriarchy.”

8. Michael O’Meara, “Evola’s Anti-Semitism.”

9. Evola, “Gynaecocratic.”

10. Evola, Revolt, 102.

11. “Creationism & the Early Church.”

12. “Cosmetics use resurfaces in Middle Ages.”

13. “In Pursuit of Beauty.”

14. Fiona McDonald,Jewelry And Makeup Through History (Milwaukee, Wis.: Gareth Stevens, 2007), 13.

15. Wikipedia. “Cosmetics in Ancient Rome.”

16. “Roman Hairstyles.”

17. “Creationism & the Early Church.”

18. Plutarch, quoted in Bachofen, 171.

19. Evola, Men Among the Ruins: Post-War Reflections of a Radical Traditionalist, trans. Guido Stucco (Rochester, Vt.: Inner Traditions, 2002), 260–62.

Nazi Fashion Wars:
The Evolian Revolt Against Aphroditism in the Third Reich, Part 2

Jewish Views on Jewelry and Cosmetics as Aphrodisian, Jewish Involvement in the Fashion Industry, and the Reaction of Germany

There is much archeological evidence for cosmetics and other beauty treatments in the East, particularly in Egypt and Asia. In Arab cultures, cosmetic use is traced back to ancient times, and there are no prohibitions in Islamic law against cosmetics. Though a simple use of makeup or hair dye could not be evidence of an Aphrodisian belief system, if such use is intended to limit woman’s role to the sexual realm, then we can assume there are elements of the culture that are earth-based and opposed to the Aryan solar cults.

Judaism is not historically opposed to cosmetics and jewelry, although two stories can be interpreted as negative indictments on cosmetics and too much finery: Esther rejected beauty treatments before her presentation to the Persian king, indicating that the highest beauty is pure and natural; and Jezebel, who dressed in finery and eye makeup before her death, may the root of some associations between makeup and prostitutes.

In most cases, however, Jewish views on cosmetics and jewelry tend to be positive and indicate woman’s role as sexual: “In the rabbinic culture, ornamentation, attractive dress and cosmetics are considered entirely appropriate to the woman in her ordained role of sexual partner.” In addition to daily use, cosmetics also are allowed on holidays on which work (including painting, drawing, and other arts) are forbidden; the idea is that since it is pleasurable for women to fix themselves up, it does not fall into the prohibited category of work.[1]

In addition to the historical distinctions between cultures on cosmetics, jewelry, and fashion, the modern era has demonstrated that certain races enter industries associated with the Aphrodisian worldview more than others. Overwhelmingly, Jews are overrepresented in all of these arenas. Following World War I, the beauty and fashion industries became dominated by huge corporations, many of the Jewish-owned. Of the four cosmetics pioneers — Helena Rubenstein, Elizabeth Arden, Estée Lauder (née Mentzer), and Charles Revson (founder of Revlon) — only Elizabeth Arden was not Jewish. In addition, more than 50 percent of department stores in America today were started or run by Jews. (Click here for information about Jewish department stores and jewelers, and here for Jewish fashion designers).

Hitler was not the only one who noticed Jewish influence in fashion and thought it harmful. Already in Germany, a belief existed that Jewish women were “prone to excess and extravagance in their clothing.” In addition, Jews were accused of purposefully denigrating women by designing immoral, trashy clothing for German women.[2] There was an economic aspect to the opposition of Jews in fashion, as many Germans thought them responsible for driving smaller, German-owned clothiers out of business. In 1933, an organization was founded to remove Jews from the Germany fashion industry. Adefa “came about not because of any orders emanating from high within the state hierarchy. Rather, it was founded and membered by persons working in the fashion industry.”[3] According to Adefa’s figures, Jewish participation was 35 percent in men’s outerwear, hats, and accessories; 40 percent in underclothing; 55 percent in the fur industry; and 70 percent in women’s outerwear.[4]

Although many Germans disliked the Jewish influence in beauty and fashion, it was recognized that the problem was not so much what particular foreign race was impacting German women, but that any foreign influence was shaping their lives and altering their spirit. The Nazis obviously were aware of the power of dress and beauty regimes to impact the core of woman’s self-image and being. According to Agnes Gerlach, chairwoman for the Association for German Women’s Culture:

Not only is the beauty ideal of another race physically different, but the position of a woman in another country will be different in its inclination. It depends on the race if a woman is respected as a free person or as a kept female. These basic attitudes also influence the clothes of a woman. The southern ‘showtype’ will subordinate her clothes to presentation, the Nordic ‘achievement type’ to activity. The southern ideal is the young lover; the Nordic ideal is the motherly woman. Exhibitionism leads to the deformation of the body, while being active obligates caring for the body. These hints already show what falsifying and degenerating influences emanate from a fashion born of foreign law and a foreign race.[5]

Gerlach’s statements echo descriptions of Aphrodisian cultures entirely: Some cultures view women as a sex object, and elements of promiscuity run through all areas of women’s dress and toilette; Aryan cultures have a broader understanding of the possibilities of the female being and celebrate woman’s natural beauty.

The Introduction of Aphrodisian Elements into Germany and the Beginning of the Fashion Battles

Long before the Third Reich, Germans battled the French on the field of fashion; it was a battle between the Aphrodisian culture that had made its way to France, and the Demetrian placement of woman as a wife and mother. As early as the 1600s, German satirical picture sheets were distributed that showed the “Latin morals, manners, customs, and vanity” of the French as threatening Nordic culture in Germany. In the twentieth century, Paris was the height of high fashion, and as tensions between the two countries increased, the French increased their derogatory characterizations of German women for not being stereotypically Aphrodisian. In 1914, a Parisian comic book presented Germans as “a nation of fat, unrefined, badly dressed clowns.”[6] And in 1917, a French depiction of “Virtuous Germania” shows her as “a fat, large-breasted, mean-looking woman, with a severe scowl on her chubby face.”[7]

Hitler saw the French fashion conglomerate as a manifestation of the Jewish spirit, and it was common to hear that Paris was controlled by Jews. Women were discouraged from wearing foreign modes of dress such as those in the Jewish and Parisian shops: “Sex appeal was considered to be ‘Jewish cosmopolitanism’, whilst slimming cures were frowned upon as counter to the birth drive.”[8] Thus, the Nazis staunch stance against anything French was in part a reaction to the Latin qualities of French culture, which had migrated to the Mediterranean thousands of years earlier, and that set the highest image of woman as something German men did not want: “a frivolous play toy that superficially only thinks about pleasure, adorns herself with trinkets and spangles, and resembles a glittering vessel, the interior of which is hollow and desolate.”[9] Such values had no place in National Socialism, which promoted autarky, frugalness, respect for the earth’s resources, natural beauty, a true religiosity (Christian at first, with the eventual goal to return to paganism), devotion to higher causes (such as to God and the state), service to one’s community, and the role of women as a wife and mother.

Opposition to the Aphrodisian Culture in the Third Reich

Most students of Third Reich history are familiar with the more popular efforts to shape women’s lives: the Lebensborn program for unwed mothers, interest-free loans for marriage and children, and propaganda posters that emphasized health and motherhood. But some of the largest battles in the fight for women occurred almost entirely within the sphere of fashion—in magazines, beauty salons, and women’s organizations.

The Nazis did not discount fashion, only its Aphrodisian manifestations. On the contrary, they understood fashion as a powerful political tool in shaping the mores of generations of women. Fashion and beauty also were recognized as important elements in the cultural revolution that is necessary for lasting political change. German author Stafan Zweig commented on fashion in the 1920s:

Today its dictatorship becomes universal in a heartbeat. No emperor, no khan in the history of the world ever experienced a similar power, no spiritual commandment a similar speed. Christianity and socialism required centuries and decades to win their followings, to enforce their commandments on as many people as a modern Parisian tailor enslaves in eight days.[10]

Thus, Nazi Germany established a fashion bureau and numerous women’s organizations as active forces of cultural hegemony. Gertrud Scholtz-Klink, the national leader of the NS-Frauenschaft (NSF, or National Socialist Women’s League), said the organization’s aim was to show women how their small actions could impact the entire nation.[11] Many of these “small actions” involved daily choices about dress, shopping, health, and hygiene.

The biggest enemies of women, according to the Nazi regime, were those un-German forces that worked to denigrate the German woman. These included Parisian high fashion and cosmetics, Jewish fashion, and the Hollywood image of the heavily made up, cigarette-smoking vamp—the archetype of the Aphrodisian. These forces not only impacted women’s clothing, personal care choices, and activities, but were dangerous since they touched the German woman’s very spirit.

Although the image of the dirndl-wearing woman working the fields was heavily promoted, Hitler was not anti-fashion and realized the value in beautiful dress and that in order to retain women’s support, he could not do away with their luxury items completely. Part of the reason he opposed Joseph Goebbels’ 1944 plans to close fashion houses and beauty parlors was not because he disagreed, but because he was “fearful that this would antagonize German women,” particular those of the middle classes who he relied on for support.[12] Hitler showed his concern for tasteful clothing when he rejected the first design of girls’ uniforms for the Bund Deutscher Mädel (BDM, League of German Girls) as “old sacks” and said the look should not be “too primitive.”[13] And in a conference with party leaders he said:

Clothing should not now suddenly return to the Stone Age; one should remain where we are now. I am of the opinion that when one wants a coat made, one can allow it to be made handsomely. It doesn’t become more expensive because of that. . . . Is it really something so horrible when [a woman] looks pretty? Let’s be honest, we all like to see it.[14]

Though understanding the need for tasteful and beautiful dress, the Nazis were adamantly against elements foreign to the Nordic spirit. The list included foreign fashion, trousers, provocative clothing, cosmetics, perfumes, hair alterations (such as coloring and permanents), extensive eyebrow plucking, dieting, alcohol, and smoking. In February 1916, the government issued a list of “forbidden luxury items” that included foreign (i.e., French) cosmetics and perfumes.[15] Permanents and hair coloring were strongly discouraged. Although the Nazis were against provocative clothing in everyday dress, they encouraged sportiness and were certainly not prudish about young girls wearing shorts to exercise. A parallel can be seen in the scanty dress worn by Spartan girls during their exercises, a civilization characterized by its Nordic spirit and solar-orientation.

Some have said that Hitler was opposed to cosmetics because of his vegetarian leanings, since cosmetics were made from animal byproducts. More likely, he retained the same views that kept women from wearing makeup for centuries in Western countries—the innate understanding that the Aphrodisian woman is opposed to Aryan culture. Nazi proponents said “red lips and painted cheeks suited the ‘Oriental’ or ‘Southern’ woman, but such artificial means only falsified the true beauty and femininity of the German woman.”[16] Others said that any amount of makeup or jewelry was considered “sluttish.”[17] Magazines in the Third Reich still carried advertisements for perfumes and cosmetics, but articles started advocating minimal, natural-looking makeup, for the truth was that most women were unable to pull off a fresh and healthy image without a little help from cosmetics.

Although jewelry and cosmetics were not banned, many areas of the Third Reich were impossible to enter unless conforming to Nazi ideals. In 1933, “painted” women were banned from Kreisleitung party meetings in Breslau. Women in the Lebensborn program were not allowed to use lipstick, pluck their eyebrows, or paint their nails.[18] When in uniform, women were forbidden to wear conspicuous jewelry, brightly colored gloves, bright purses, and obvious makeup.[19] The BDM also was influential in shaping fashion in the regime, with young girls taking up the use of clever pejoratives to reinforce the regime’s message that unnatural beauty was not Aryan. The Reich Youth Leader said:

The BDM does not subscribe to the untruthful ideal of a painted and external beauty, but rather strives for an honest beauty, which is situated in the harmonious training of the body and in the noble triad of body, soul, and mind. Staunch BDM members whole-heartedly embraced the message, and called those women who cosmetically tried to attain the Aryan female ideal ‘n2 (nordic ninnies)’ or ‘b3 (blue-eyed, blonde blithering idiots).’[20]

The Nazis offered many alternatives to Aphrodisian values: beauty would be derived from good character, exercise outdoors, a good diet, healthy skin free of the harsh chemicals in makeup, comfortable (yet still stylish and flattering) clothing, and from the love for her husband, children, home, and country. The most encouraged hairstyles were in buns or plaits—styles that saved money on trips to the beauty salon and were seen as more wholesome and befitting of the German character. In fact, Tracht (traditional German dress) was viewed as not merely clothing, but also as “the expression of a spiritual demeanor and a feeling of worth . . . Outwardly, it conveys the expression of the steadfastness and solid unity of the rural community.”[21] Foreign clothing designs, according to Gerlach, led to physical and “psychological distortion and damage, and thereby to national and racial deterioration.”[22]

*   *   *

Some people may be inclined to interpret Aphrodisian culture as positive for the sexes—it puts the emphasis for women not on careers but on their existence as sexual beings. Men often encourage such behavior by their dating choices and by complimenting an Aphrodisian “look” in women. But Aphrodisian culture is not only damaging to women, as Bachofen relates, by reducing them to the status of sex slave of multiple men. It also is degrading for men, at the level of personality and at the deepest levels of being. As Evola writes about the degeneration into Aphroditism:

The chthonic and infernal nature penetrates the virile principle and lowers it to a phallic level. The woman now dominates man as he becomes enslaved to the senses and a mere instrument of procreation. Vis-à-vis the Aphrodistic goddess, the divine male is subjected to the magic of the feminine principle and is reduced to the likes of an earthly demon or a god of the fecundating waters—in other words, to an insufficient and dark power.[23]

(PICTURE: Swedish singer Zarah Leander)

Aphroditism also contributes to the loss of wonder that is essential to a transcendent-based worldview, since many now find it hard to be moved by the ordinary. Josef Pieper discusses the importance of being able to see the divine in the natural:

If someone needs the ‘unusual’ to be moved to astonishment, that person has lost the ability to respond rightly to the wondrous, the mirandum, of being. The hunger for the sensational . . . is an unmistakable sign of the loss of the true power of wonder, for a bourgeois-ized humanity.[24]

A society that promotes so much unnatural beauty will no doubt lose the ability to experience the wondrous in the natural. It is essential that people retain the ability to love and be moved by the pure and natural, in order to once again return to a civilization centered in a Traditional Aryan worldview.

Notes

1. Daniel Boyarin, “Sex,” Jewish Women’s Archive.

2. Irene Guenther, Nazi ‘Chic’?: Fashioning Women in the Third Reich (Oxford: Berg, 2004), 50–51.

3. Guenther, 16.

4. Guenther, 159.

5. Agnes Gerlach,  quoted in Guenther, 146.

6. Guenther, 21–22.

7. Guenther, 26.

8. Matthew Stibbe, “Women and the Nazi state,” History Today, vol. 43, November 1993.

9. Guenther, 93.

10. Stefan  Zweig, quoted in Guenther, 9.

11. Jill Stephenson, Women in Nazi Germany (Essex, UK: Pearson, 2001), 88.

12. Stephenson, 133.

13. Guenther, 120.

14. Adolf Hitler, quoted in Guenther, 141.

15. Guenther, 32.

16. Guenther, 100.

17. Guido Knopp,  Hitler’s Women (New York: Routledge, 2003), 231.

18. Guenther, 99.

19. Guenther, 129.

20. Guenther, 121.

21. Guenther, 111.

22. Gerlach, quoted in Guenther, 145.

23. Evola, Revolt, 223.

24. Josef Pieper,  Leisure: The Basis of Culture, trans. Gerald Malsbary (South Bend, Ind.: St. Augustine’s Press, 1998), 102.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Churchill: More Myth than Legend

Churchill: More Myth than Legend

by Patrick Foy

Ex: http://takimag.com/

Last week a country-club Republican friend in Palm Beach gave me a copy of The Weekly Standard and urged me to read “A World in Crisis: What the thirties tell us about today” by opinion editor Matthew Continetti. The article would have the reader believe that the universe’s fate hinged upon a little-known 1931 Manhattan traffic accident involving Winston Churchill.

Churchill was crossing Fifth Avenue at 76th Street in the late evening of December 13th, 1931 on his way to Bernard Baruch’s apartment for a powwow when he looked the wrong way, crossed against the light, and was sideswiped by a car going 30MPH. The hapless statesman spent over a week in Lenox Hill Hospital recovering from a sprained shoulder, facial lacerations, and a mild concussion, all of which required a doctor’s prescription for “alcoholic spirits especially at meal times.” Continetti mentions “the granularity of history,” whatever that means: “If the car had been traveling just a little bit faster, the history of the twentieth century would have been irrevocably altered.” True enough, but for the better or the worse?

Continetti would argue that this chance mishap worked out for the best. His premise is that the 1930s were dangerous times much like our own, and it took the astute Winston Churchill to come to humanity’s rescue and make things right: “A few people in December 1931 recognized the growing danger. The patient at Lenox Hill Hospital was one.” Oh, dear. What bilge.

The Weekly Standard, as well as National Review Online and Commentary Magazine, all belong to the same faux-conservative neocon fraternity which hijacked Washington starting with H. W. Bush in the Cold War’s aftermath and has demolished any hope of a “peace dividend” ever since.

Fighting fire with gasoline is not generally a good idea, and Islamic extremism is a logical byproduct of the Tel Aviv-Washington alliance. Hence, the slow-motion downfall of the world’s “indispensable nation” is now upon us. It reminds me of the sad state of Little England in WWII’s aftermath, all thanks to Sir Winston’s myopic leadership.

Neocon opportunists have grabbed Churchill as one of their own. He is always linked to the presumed “good war” and has been glorified to the skies as a result. But what if that car had been traveling faster down Fifth Avenue in 1931 and knocked the British bulldog into the next world? Could the Second World War have been avoided altogether?

“Neocon opportunists have grabbed Churchill as one of their own.”

The “good war” resulted in approximately fifty million fatalities worldwide, left Europe a starved and blasted continent, destroyed the far-flung British and French empires, brought the Soviets into Europe’s heart for more than forty years, and handed China over to Mao Tse-tung.

Churchill actively participated in making World War II a global conflict. He promoted war’s outbreak in Europe in the summer of 1939, utilizing the Versailles Treaty’s last unresolved issue: Danzig and the Polish Corridor. Prime Minister Chamberlain gave Poland a blanket guarantee of the status quo, terminating a negotiated settlement and making war between Berlin and Warsaw inevitable.

In 1941, Churchill withheld vital information from the Hawaiian commanders about an imminent outbreak of hostilities. London’s Far East code-breakers had cracked the Japanese naval code, JN-25, and Churchill had access to it. The “surprise” attack on Pearl Harbor turned the European conflict into a truly global war. It was Pearl Harbor that saved Churchill’s backside and rescued the Roosevelt presidency.

Churchill had some surprisingly positive things to say about Hitler prior to the invasion of Poland. In Francis Neilson’s The Churchill Legend Neilson quotes what Churchill wrote about the German leader in a letter to himself dated September 17th, 1937 and included in Step by Step, published in 1939:

“One may dislike Hitler’s system and yet admire his patriotic achievement. If our country were defeated, I hope we would find a champion as indomitable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations.”

Along the same lines, Neilson cites the 1937 book Great Contemporaries, in which Churchill states that Hitler’s life’s story “cannot be read without admiration for the courage, the perseverance, and the vital force which enabled him to challenge, defy, conciliate, or overcome, all the authorities or resistances which barred his path.”

I’m now wondering about pre-1931. If the twentieth century could have been “irrevocably altered” by Churchill’s brush with death in a traffic accident between the World Wars, what if Churchill had never been engaged in politics in the first place? For the answer, one has only to get a copy of The Churchill Legend and read it. Francis Neilson, who was a member of Parliament at the outbreak of the Great War, claimed to have known Churchill longer than anyone alive.

The list of disasters Churchill presided over prior to the Second World War includes the fiasco at Gallipoli, the Lusitania’s sinking (when Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty), and the issuance of the Balfour Declaration in 1917 by the British War Cabinet, which opened a Pandora’s box from which has sprung endless injustice and bloodshed in the Middle East. Not that Churchill deserves the sole credit for these disasters, but his fingerprints are there. He was certainly involved at the highest level. Both the sinking of the Lusitania and the Balfour Declaration were the byproducts of a desperate strategy to drag America into the Great War.

One gets the impression from reading Neilson that Churchill’s entire public career—grounded in both World Wars—shows indisputable evidence of incompetence, opportunism, ruthlessness, mendacity, and bad judgment. Yes, history is repeating itself.

Ernst Jünger in den Kreidegräben der Champagne

Ernst Jünger in den Kreidegräben der Champagne

Niccolo Giani e la Mistica della rivoluzione fascista

Niccolò Giani e la Mistica della rivoluzione fascista

Autore: Andrea Strummiello

Ex: http://www.centrostudilaruna.it/

 

Il suo nome ai più non dirà molto. Ma Niccolò Giani fu uno dei più importanti, radicali e oltranzisti esponenti del Fascismo rivoluzionario. Fu, infatti, tra i fondatori, nonché uno dei massimi rappresentanti, della Scuola di Mistica Fascista (SMF). Vissuto il suo ideale fino all’ultimo respiro, morì combattendo sul fronte greco nel 1941, ricevendo, per l’esempio offerto, la medaglia d’oro al valore. Tutto questo, mentre molti “fascisti” – le virgolette sono d’obbligo – s’imboscavano in patria, nascondendosi dietro la retorica di vuoti slogan e sterili parole d’ordine. Quegli stessi che, dopo il 1945, seppero bene in che direzione riciclarsi.

Oggi, con il titolo Mistica della rivoluzione fascista. Antologia di scritti, 1932-1941, la casa editrice catanese Il Cinabro ([e-mail]) porta alla luce i suoi scritti più significativi, fino ad ora mai ripubblicati. L’antologia prodotta – 268 pagine di passione, analisi politica e militanza vissuta – è un quadro completo ed esplicativo non solo della sua figura, ma anche dell’anima più intransigente della Scuola. Negli scritti di Giani si percepisce, infatti, in modo assolutamente lucido, puntuale e analitico, l’intento della SMF: vivere radicalmente, senza compromessi né mezze misure, lo spirito rivoluzionario dei primi anni del Fascismo. Quello stesso spirito che col passare del tempo e con la strutturazione del partito in regime, con le sue logiche di potere e la tendenza di molti a cavalcarne l’onda per fini personali, si stava ormai perdendo.

Nei testi di Giani si può osservare come quei compromessi di partito venissero, in modo radicale, combattuti e tentati d’estirpare dallo spirito degli appartenenti alla Scuola di Mistica. Ma nel libro non si ritrova solo un’analisi politica contestuale al suo tempo. Si trova anche una visione politica e storica d’insieme dai tratti chiari e netti, in cui il tentativo lampante (si veda, a questo proposito, l’articolo La marcia ideale sul mondo della Civiltà fascista), è quello di superare le categorie politiche derivanti dalle visioni materialistiche, razionalistiche ed economicistiche sorte dal 1789, per dar spazio ad una visione del mondo basata sullo spirito e sulla dedizione totale e incondizionata all’idea e al suo capo.
«Nudi alla meta», non a caso, era uno dei motti dei mistici, che avevano in Arnaldo Mussolini, fratello di Benito – e sua “eminenza grigia”- il loro riferimento. Non fu perciò un caso, che ebbero in dono, come sede, “il Covo” di via Paolo da Cannobio a Milano: vecchia sede del Popolo d’Italia e uno dei centri aggregativi dei primi squadristi. Proprio gli squadristi, il loro spirito rivoluzionario e la loro volontà d’affermazione, furono uno dei principali punti di riferimento dei mistici, i quali intendevano farsi strenui difensori di un ideale che sì, si era affermato, ma che andava sempre più imborghesendosi. Non a caso «Ogni rivoluzione – come aveva detto Mussolini ai capi della SMF – ha tre momenti. Si comincia con la Mistica, si continua con la politica, si finisce nell’amministrazione», e la Scuola avrebbe dovuto perpetuare questo primo momento per la totalità della nuova “era”. Era fascista, appunto.

Il libro, dunque, rappresenta un documento unico e di rara importanza, impreziosito da un ricca bibliografia finale, e dagli interessanti saggi introduttivi di Maurizio Rossi e Luca Leonello Rimbotti. Saggi che aiutano il lettore a districarsi in un contesto storico non facile, e nella vita di un fenomeno ancora troppo poco conosciuto: qual è quello della Scuola di Mistica Fascista. Fenomeno che, non a caso, ha visto, negli ultimi anni, un interessamento di pubblico, studiosi e critica sempre maggiore: e di cui il Borghese si è già più volte interessato.

Consigliamo perciò la lettura di questo volume, senza se e senza ma. Si scoprirà così un mondo di «assurdi» e «fanatici» del movimento fascista messi per troppo tempo in soffitta dalla storiografia ufficiale. Ma che ora bussano prepotentemente alla porta della storia.

* * *

Niccolò Giani, Mistica della rivoluzione fascista. Antologia di scritti, 1932-1941 (con saggi introduttivi di M. Rossi e L. L. Rimbotti), Edizioni Il Cinabro, Pp. 268, Euro 15. Articolo tratto da Il Borghese, dicembre 2010.

"Arkaïm", une cité de l'âge du bronze dans les steppes de l'Oural

« Arkaïm », une cité de l’âge du bronze dans les steppes de l’Oural
Exposition au Musée départemental des Merveilles de Tende du 26 juin 2010 au 31 mars 2011

Manifestation organisée dans le cadre de l’année France-Russie 2010
Exposition « Arkaïm », une cité de l’âge du bronze dans les steppes de l’Oural, présentée, pour la première fois en Europe,

Cette nouvelle exposition temporaire, présentée jusqu’au 31 mars 2011, permettra de révéler aux visiteurs, la richesse des vestiges découverts depuis 1987 dans les steppes, à l’Est de l’Oural, et leur offira un voyage passionnant dans une cité mystérieuse : Arkaïm.
Il y a 4 000 ans, dans les régions des steppes de l’Oural, l’exploitation de minéraux de cuivre présents sur ses contreforts a permis le développement de grandes colonies fortifiées et très organisées.
Constituant ce que les scientifiques appellent « la Contrée des cités » une vingtaine de structures circulaires qui correspondent à des concentrations urbaines de l'âge du Bronze ont été repérées sur le versant oriental de l'Oural et six ont déjà fait l'objet de fouilles archéologiques. Parmi elles, le site emblématique « d'Arkaim ».

Cadre géographique
La cité d'Arkaïm est située au centre de l'Eurasie, à proximité des contreforts orientaux de la chaîne montagneuse de l'Oural, à l'intérieur de l'oblast deTchélyabinsk, et au nord de la frontière entre la Russie et le Kazakhstan.
Les paysages de steppes et de forêts-steppes prédominent : bouleaux, pins et mélèzes sont les espèces végétales prépondérantes.

Historique des recherches
La cité d'Arkaïm a été découverte en 1987, lors de la construction d'un grand réservoir d'eau sur la rivière Bolchaïa Karaganka : le site se trouvait exactement dans ce qui devait être le fond du réservoir. Les scientifiques de l'Université d'Etat de Tchélyabinsk ont mené une lutte sans précédent pour sauvegarder ce site unique et, grâce au puissant soutien des savants les plus éminents de Russie, à la participation active de la municipalité de l'oblast de Tchélyabinsk et à l'engagement de l'opinion publique, la construction du réservoir a été suspendue et Arkaïm a pu être sauvée.

Stratigraphie / datation
L'Oural du sud possède un passé historique très riche : la région était peuplée déjà à l'époque moustérienne; au Mésolithique et au Néolithique, le nombre de campements situés sur les bords des lacs et dans les vallées fluviales est également très important.
A l'âge du Cuivre et à l'âge du Bronze, dans les régions des steppes, le processus de sédentarisation s'accroît fortement et coïncide avec l'apparition des grandes colonies. La mise en valeur des zones steppiques atteint néanmoins son apothéose à l'âge du Bronze moyen, lorsque, suite à l'exploitation des minéraux de cuivre présents sur les contreforts de l'Oural, des colonies fortifiées et organisées commencent à apparaître. Cette période - qui prend le nom de culture de Contrée de cités ou d'Arkaïm-Sintachta – s'insère, par datation radiométrique, dans un intervalle de temps compris entre 2040 et 1690 av. J.-C. et, d'un point de vue chronologique, correspond à l'âge du Bronze final en Europe. Cette phase, dite de la Contrée de cités, peut-être subdivisée en trois étapes principales : ancienne, développée et récente, dont le critère de distinction correspond au changement de forme et d'organisation des colonies fortifiées ainsi que celui de la culture matérielle. Au-dessus des couches datées de la culture d'Arkaïm-Sintachta, la tradition de la construction des villages fortifiés se poursuit avec les porteurs des cultures de l'âge du Bronze final.

Architecture
Dans le cadre de la Contrée de cités, les cités fortifiées se situent à une distance comprise entre 40 et 60 km les unes des autres. Le lieu de construction choisi se révèle toujours sec et plat, surélevé de quelques mètres au-dessus du niveau de l'eau, et délimité sur ses côtés par des fleuves et des pentes naturels. Grâce à des recherches archéologiques récentes et à l'observation de photographies aériennes, il a été possible de reconnaître la succession précise des divers systèmes d'aménagements : les structures de forme ovale sont les plus anciennes, remplacées plus tardivement par des structures en forme de cercle ; enfin, les systèmes de fortification rectangulaires sont les plus récents.
La cité d'Arkaïm se distingue des autres cités par l'état d'intégrité unique de ses ouvrages de fortification et de ses sépulcres, mais surtout par l'exceptionnel état de conservation du paysage alentours.

Matériel archéologique : céramique, industrie lithique, armes et bijoux
Les objets découverts lors des fouilles archéologiques témoignent du développement des différents métiers d'artisanat, tels que la poterie, la sculpture sur os, la taille de la pierre et la métallurgie. Tous les objets produits par les habitants de la Contrée de cités possèdent deux fonctions bien distinctes : utilitaire et sémantique. La poterie, par exemple, est ornée de motifs géométriques qui symbolisent les différentes forces de la nature - cercles, carrés, losanges, triangles, croix gammées - qui se retrouvent également dans l'aspect général des colonies et des constructions tombales. D'autres objets sont également décorés : il s'agit de petites sculptures anthropomorphes et zoomorphes en pierre, de pilons, de coupes en pierre ou de manches d'armes et d'outils.

La plupart des objets découverts proviennent toutefois des sépultures présentes en grand nombre, celles des hommes comme celles des femmes, non moins importantes dans la culture de la Contrée de cités. La tenue funéraire féminine présente ainsi de nombreux éléments de parures, tels que des bandeaux placés sur le front, et décorés de bijoux minuscules en bronze et en or; des pendeloques encadrant le visage de la femme ; des colliers enrichis de diverses amulettes et perles de verroterie ; des bracelets. Les inhumations masculines sont, quant à elles, accompagnées d'un vaste assortiment d'armes : arcs, pointes de flèches, haches de guerre et lances. Dans toutes les sépultures de personnages adultes, on trouve également des récipients emplis de nourriture.

Sépultures et pensée religieuse
Les sépultures d'Arkaïm présentent une organisation complexe : en effet, les anciens habitants de la Contrée de cités les considéraient, non seulement comme de simples tombes, mais aussi comme de véritables asiles pour les défunts ; chaque mort y était enterré avec son outillage funéraire personnel.
Les rites funéraires sont également chargés d'une symbolique complexe. On retrouve différentes typologies d'inhumation, parmi lesquelles les plus frappantes sont sans doute celle des hommes accompagnés d'un char et celle où l'homme et la femme sont inhumés ensemble, dans l'idée probablement d'une union sacrée jusque dans l'au-delà.

Les sépultures découvertes sur les différents sites de la Contrée decités témoignent d'un système complexe de cultes et de croyances des peuples qui habitaient la région. On peut affirmer que leur religion était de type polythéiste, basée sur l'existence de plusieurs divinités incarnant les différents éléments naturels - eau, feu, soleil, etc.
Faute de documentation écrite, il n'a été possible d'appréhender la pensée religieuse des peuples d'Arkaïm qu'au travers de lamythologie indo-européenne.

Comportement et mode de vie
Les communautés de la Contrée de cités se divisaient de manière tripartite en guerriers, prêtres et artisans, comme c'est typiquement le cas au sein des sociétés indo-européennes. On ne peut toutefois reconnaître l'existence d'un pouvoir détenu par un chef de tribu unique : grâce aux études menées sur les rites funéraires et les sépultures, il a été possible de conclure que la société de la Contrée de cités était en fait hiérarchisée et rassemblée autour d'une élite. L'autorité de ce groupe d'individus n'était pas fondée sur des contraintes économiques mais sur des valeurs religieuses traditionnelles. Les membres de l'élite tenaient le rôle de prêtres et disposaient également d'une position importante dans le domaine militaire. La femme possédait un statut social élevé et la part jouée d'une manière générale par les femmes dans la culture de la Contrée de cités était très développée.

© Texte, photographies, Établissement public de la culture « Réserve de l’histoire et de la culture d’intérêt régional « Arkaïm », ville de Tchéliabinsk, 2010.

Il fascismo in America

Il fascismo in America

Autore: Luca Leonello Rimbotti

Ex: http://www.centrostudilaruna.it/

La recente morte dello storico americano John Patrick Diggins ci offre il destro per alcune considerazioni circa l’argomento del suo studio più noto in Italia, L’America, Mussolini e il fascismo, ormai fuori commercio da anni, in quanto pubblicato da Laterza nel lontano 1982, ma originariamente uscito dieci anni prima col titolo Mussolini and Fascism: The View from America, a cura dell’Università di Princeton. Quello di Diggins è un libro famoso, tradotto in molte lingue, ed è stato un po’ l’apripista della scarna bibliografia sui rapporti tra USA e Italia fascista e sull’attività delle organizzazioni del PNF nella repubblica stellata. Ai tempi fecero scandalo, nel provinciale antifascismo nostrano, alcune riflessioni di Diggins sulla generale simpatia mostrata in America per l’avvento al potere di Mussolini, in virtù della sua politica sociale e, soprattutto, in virtù del suo rivoluzionario disegno antropologico di mutare gli Italiani da turba di straccioni emigranti, facili al coltello e al crimine – di cui negli USA si aveva sin dall’Ottocento una sprezzante opinione, venata di non secondarie inflessioni razziste – finalmente in un popolo serio, moderno e disciplinato.

Diggins, che è stato un rinomato studioso dei movimenti politici e in particolare del ruolo degli intellettuali nelle moderne dinamiche della società di massa, ribaltò decennali pregiudizi che in America avevano, sin dai primi flussi migratori, bollato l’Italiano come un delinquente mafioso, e operò di conserva un aggiustamento delle posizioni. Scrisse che «la maggioranza degli Americani approvarono il Fascismo in base alle loro inclinazioni e ai loro bisogni»: ne apprezzarono il lato di movimento di “rinascita nazionale”. E formulò l’originale prospettiva di un Mussolini visto come un “eroe americano”: l’uomo che dal nulla era riuscito a pervenire a un disegno di riedificazione politica che parve esaltante alla mentalità americana, adusa a premiare lo sforzo bagnato dal successo, l’efficientismo e la tenacia dei propositi dell’individuo d’eccezione. Per una volta, era dunque l’Italia che si dimostrava il “Paese delle occasioni”.

Era, questo, ciò che Diggins ha chiamato «il lato oscuro delle valutazioni politiche americane», implicando la storica immaturità ideologica di quel popolo, versato a superficiali simpatie piuttosto che ad approfonditi scandagli di cultura politica. Bisogna pur dire che, come molto spesso accadde all’estero (ma per la verità non solo all’estero), e soprattutto negli anni Venti, l’accoglienza favorevole che venne riservata al Fascismo al suo avvento e per parecchi anni a seguire, si presentò negli Stati Uniti, più che un filo-fascismo, un filo-mussolinismo. Era la figura carismatica dell’uomo d’ordine, del giovane politico decisionista e innovatore, che colpiva gli immaginari anglosassoni, più di quanto non fosse l’ideologia nazionalpopolare che ne animava le scelte, per lo più ignorata nei suoi risvolti, a parte una generica curiosità per il corporativismo. Le simpatie raccolte da Mussolini in quel mondo – pensiamo solo a Churchill o a Franklin Delano Roosevelt – le diremmo per lo più a-fasciste e prive di connotati ideologici, se non per l’aspetto, certo non secondario, del robusto anti-comunismo impersonato dal Duce.

Paradigmatico, in questo senso, è quanto scritto da Diggins, quando riportava autorevoli giudizi di studiosi dell’Università di New York circa un Mussolini visto come «l’uomo della tradizione con il quale Aristotele, San Tommaso o Machiavelli si sarebbero senza imbarazzo trovati a loro agio». Del resto, come giustamente ha ricordato Renzo Santinon in I Fasci italiani all’estero (Settimo Sigillo), il terreno era già stato in precedenza preparato ad esempio da Marinetti, che «seminando il futurismo nel continente americano, aprì negli anni Venti la strada a una lettura avanguardistica ed entusiasmante del fascismo». Poi, a queste iniziali simpatie si aggiunse nel decennio seguente l’importante episodio del grande successo mediatico e d’opinione ottenuto negli USA da Italo Balbo, a seguito delle sue straordinarie imprese aviatorie. L’eccezionale prestigio riservato al trasvolatore fu sancito da un trionfale corteo per le vie di New York, con l’intitolazione di strade e targhe celebrative all’ex-capo squadrista. Tutto questo funzionò certamente da volano per nuovi consensi al Regime fascista, destinati a scemare soltanto a seguito della guerra etiopica (gli Stati Uniti, su sobillazione inglese, parteciparono alle sanzioni anti-italiane votate dalla Società delle Nazioni, di cui pure non facevano parte), volgendosi poi in crescente ostilità solo dopo l’intervento militare del 1940.

Ma, prima, ci fu tutto un lungo intreccio di rapporti tra America e Italia fascista. In cui non mancarono le luci e le ombre. Se la luce era essenzialmente la figura di Mussolini e in specie la sua politica sociale – segnatamente quella relativa alla bonifica delle terre paludose, che riscosse in America larga eco -, le ombre erano date dalla presenza dell’attivismo fascista di base negli Stati Uniti. Qui, spesso, risuonarono antichi pregiudizi anti-italiani duri a morire. Su questo terreno, il fuoriuscitismo antifascista lavorò sporco e a fondo. Sulla scorta di talune predicazioni marcatamente di parte – pensiamo a Salvemini, che a lungo saturò le Università americane con la sua propaganda ideologica basata sul risentimento – si volle ricreare anche su suolo americano la storica diffamazione basata sul binomio Fascismo-violenza. Un’ostinata campagna falsificatoria si ingegnò di sospingere l’opinione pubblica di quel Paese, ingenuamente portata a dare credibilità al bluff (allora come oggi), verso una preconcetta diffidenza nei confronti dei Fasci, sorti a quelle latitutidini sin da 1921. Fu allora facile mischiare le carte e fare del militante fascista italo-americano nulla più che una nuova versione del mafioso o del picchiatore da bassifondi. E questo, nonostante che le cronache dell’epoca riportassero sì di scontri tra Italo-americani fascisti e antifascisti, ma non mancando per altro di precisare che spesso erano proprio i fascisti a rimanere vittime della violenza e dell’odio: nel 1927, per dire, a New York vennero uccisi i fascisti Nicola Amoroso e Michele D’Ambrosoli, oppure, nel 1932, venne assassinato il fascista Salvatore Arena a Staten Island. Non si ha invece notizia di gravi fatti di sangue di parte fascista.

Il fascismo italo-americano era organizzato. E anche bene. Già nel 1925 c’erano novanta Fasci e migliaia di iscritti nelle città americane, riuniti nella Fascist League of North America guidata da Ignazio Thaon di Revel, che per motivi politici cessò di operare nel 1929. Il coordinamento tra i Fasci fu opera di Giuseppe Bastianini, primo segretario dei Fasci Italiani all’Estero e personaggio ingiustamente demonizzato per le sue origini “movimentiste” (era stato Ardito e vicesegretario del PNF a ventiquattro anni), favorevole allo sviluppo dello squadrismo tra gli italofoni d’oltreoceano. Un ambiente in cui si distinse Domenico Trombetta, singolare figura di organizzatore e animatore, esponente del radicalismo fascista newyorchese, direttore del periodico fascista “Il Grido della Stirpe”, assai diffuso tra gli Italiani e attorno al quale si catalizzò l’idea del volontariato di milizia, a difesa dell’italianità tra i milioni di nostri immigrati negli Stati Uniti. Questo ambiente rimase attivo anche quando, negli anni Trenta, Mussolini, per non urtare la sensibilità americana allarmata dalle campagne antifasciste, per gestire l’immagine del Regime preferì puntare sui normali canali diplomatici anziché sull’attivismo di base. Eppure, anche nel nuovo contesto, diciamo così più istituzionale, il Fascismo dimostrò di essere ben vivo tra gli Italo-americani, tanto da esprimere, persino verso la fine del decennio, una militanza a tutto campo – comprese trasmissioni radiofoniche di propaganda da una stazione di Boston –, ben rappresentato dall’American Union of Fascists di Paul Castorina, in rapporti amichevoli con i fascisti inglesi di Oswald Mosley e con la Canadian Union of Fascists, e dal pre-fascista Ordine dei Figli d’Italia in America, la principale associazione comunitaria italo-americana, che proprio nei tardi anni Trenta si identificò strettamente col Regime italiano, condividendone anche i più recenti indirizzi di politica razziale. Messi in sordina i Fasci per motivi di opportunità politica, una fitta rete di associazioni culturali, di attivisti, animatori di eventi comunitari, ma specialmente di giornali e stampa periodica, fece sì che il Fascismo, fino agli anni a ridosso della guerra, fosse di gran lunga la scelta politica che godeva dei maggiori consensi tra gli Italiani residenti negli USA. Un caso tipico fu l’arruolamento di un migliaio di volontari italo-americani nella Legione degli Italiani all’Estero, comandata in Africa Orientale dal Console della Milizia Piero Parini. E nella sola New York, negli anni Trenta, funzionavano non meno di cinquanta circoli fascisti, i cui membri indossavano la camicia nera e divulgavano assiduamente l’Idea.

Talune di queste dinamiche, e soprattutto quella relativa alla polemica tra istituzioni diplomatiche e Fasci politici, sono state rivisitate nel 2000 da Stefano Luconi in La diplomazia parallela. Il regime fascista e la mobilitazione degli Italo-americani (Franco Angeli), che ha segnalato proprio il ruolo centrale della comunità italo-americana filo-fascista come fattore politico di sostegno al governo di Roma, strumento di pressione economica, d’opinione e anche politica nei confronti di Washington. Una realtà che vedeva le ragioni politiche del Fascismo appoggiate non già dalla teppa dei portuali o dei picciotti del sottoproletariato italiano del New England, ma proprio all’opposto dalla vasta quota di Italiani che in America riportarono un solido successo personale, andando a costituire quel segmento sociale nazionalista, politicamente maturo ed etnicamente solidarista, sul quale non a torto Mussolini faceva conto per avere buona stampa negli Stati Uniti.

Per concludere brevemente l’argomento, vogliamo solo dire che, nonostante il seminale studio di Diggins abbia riportato larga fama, insegnando a molti come si fa storiografia senza confonderla con le opinioni personali, ancora oggi ci si imbatte in spiacevoli casi di ottusa faziosità. Chi si desse la pena di dare uno sguardo a quanto scrive ad esempio Matteo Pretelli sul sito “Iperstoria” gestito dal Dipartimento di Storia dell’Università di Verona e dal locale Istituto Storico della Resistenza, sotto il titolo Fascismo, violenza e malavita all’estero. Il caso degli Stati Uniti d’America, potrebbe pensare che Diggins abbia predicato nel deserto. Il solerte accademico italiano – che ci assicurano Lecteur presso l’Università di Melbourne – si danna l’anima per dimostrare i legami tra Fascismo italo-americano e criminalità mafiosa. Nessuno nega che da qualche parte ci sia stato un mascalzone che abusava della camicia nera. Ogni rivoluzione ha avuto la sua feccia, e il Fascismo molto meno di altre. Ma vorremmo segnalare al propagandista in parola che la malavita vera, quella gestita dai grandi criminali mafiosi, dimostrò di non stare dalla parte del Fascismo, bensì da quella dell’antifascismo. Basta sfogliare il libro di Alfio Caruso Arrivano i nostri pubblicato nel 2004 da Longanesi, in cui si dimostra in che misura la lobby di massoni e mafiosi di vertice preparò lo sbarco americano in Sicilia nel 1943. Lì non fu il caso di teppistelli: l’intero apparato della criminalità mafiosa organizzata, estirpata manu militari dal Fascismo nel 1928, si ripresentò compatto in veste di mortale nemico del Fascismo. E fu la volta di Genco Russo, Calogero Vizzini, Lucky Luciano… insomma la “cupola” al completo, ritornata al potere in Sicilia sotto bandiera a stelle e strisce e garantita dal capofila del legame tra mafia e governance americana: quel Charles Poletti che gettò le basi della repubblica italiana “democratica”, antifascista, ma soprattutto mafiosa, che gode ancora oggi ottima salute.

* * *

Tratto da Linea del 6 febbraio 2009.

Il fascismo in America

Il fascismo in America

Autore: Luca Leonello Rimbotti

Ex: http://www.centrostudilaruna.it/

La recente morte dello storico americano John Patrick Diggins ci offre il destro per alcune considerazioni circa l’argomento del suo studio più noto in Italia, L’America, Mussolini e il fascismo, ormai fuori commercio da anni, in quanto pubblicato da Laterza nel lontano 1982, ma originariamente uscito dieci anni prima col titolo Mussolini and Fascism: The View from America, a cura dell’Università di Princeton. Quello di Diggins è un libro famoso, tradotto in molte lingue, ed è stato un po’ l’apripista della scarna bibliografia sui rapporti tra USA e Italia fascista e sull’attività delle organizzazioni del PNF nella repubblica stellata. Ai tempi fecero scandalo, nel provinciale antifascismo nostrano, alcune riflessioni di Diggins sulla generale simpatia mostrata in America per l’avvento al potere di Mussolini, in virtù della sua politica sociale e, soprattutto, in virtù del suo rivoluzionario disegno antropologico di mutare gli Italiani da turba di straccioni emigranti, facili al coltello e al crimine – di cui negli USA si aveva sin dall’Ottocento una sprezzante opinione, venata di non secondarie inflessioni razziste – finalmente in un popolo serio, moderno e disciplinato.

Diggins, che è stato un rinomato studioso dei movimenti politici e in particolare del ruolo degli intellettuali nelle moderne dinamiche della società di massa, ribaltò decennali pregiudizi che in America avevano, sin dai primi flussi migratori, bollato l’Italiano come un delinquente mafioso, e operò di conserva un aggiustamento delle posizioni. Scrisse che «la maggioranza degli Americani approvarono il Fascismo in base alle loro inclinazioni e ai loro bisogni»: ne apprezzarono il lato di movimento di “rinascita nazionale”. E formulò l’originale prospettiva di un Mussolini visto come un “eroe americano”: l’uomo che dal nulla era riuscito a pervenire a un disegno di riedificazione politica che parve esaltante alla mentalità americana, adusa a premiare lo sforzo bagnato dal successo, l’efficientismo e la tenacia dei propositi dell’individuo d’eccezione. Per una volta, era dunque l’Italia che si dimostrava il “Paese delle occasioni”.

Era, questo, ciò che Diggins ha chiamato «il lato oscuro delle valutazioni politiche americane», implicando la storica immaturità ideologica di quel popolo, versato a superficiali simpatie piuttosto che ad approfonditi scandagli di cultura politica. Bisogna pur dire che, come molto spesso accadde all’estero (ma per la verità non solo all’estero), e soprattutto negli anni Venti, l’accoglienza favorevole che venne riservata al Fascismo al suo avvento e per parecchi anni a seguire, si presentò negli Stati Uniti, più che un filo-fascismo, un filo-mussolinismo. Era la figura carismatica dell’uomo d’ordine, del giovane politico decisionista e innovatore, che colpiva gli immaginari anglosassoni, più di quanto non fosse l’ideologia nazionalpopolare che ne animava le scelte, per lo più ignorata nei suoi risvolti, a parte una generica curiosità per il corporativismo. Le simpatie raccolte da Mussolini in quel mondo – pensiamo solo a Churchill o a Franklin Delano Roosevelt – le diremmo per lo più a-fasciste e prive di connotati ideologici, se non per l’aspetto, certo non secondario, del robusto anti-comunismo impersonato dal Duce.

Paradigmatico, in questo senso, è quanto scritto da Diggins, quando riportava autorevoli giudizi di studiosi dell’Università di New York circa un Mussolini visto come «l’uomo della tradizione con il quale Aristotele, San Tommaso o Machiavelli si sarebbero senza imbarazzo trovati a loro agio». Del resto, come giustamente ha ricordato Renzo Santinon in I Fasci italiani all’estero (Settimo Sigillo), il terreno era già stato in precedenza preparato ad esempio da Marinetti, che «seminando il futurismo nel continente americano, aprì negli anni Venti la strada a una lettura avanguardistica ed entusiasmante del fascismo». Poi, a queste iniziali simpatie si aggiunse nel decennio seguente l’importante episodio del grande successo mediatico e d’opinione ottenuto negli USA da Italo Balbo, a seguito delle sue straordinarie imprese aviatorie. L’eccezionale prestigio riservato al trasvolatore fu sancito da un trionfale corteo per le vie di New York, con l’intitolazione di strade e targhe celebrative all’ex-capo squadrista. Tutto questo funzionò certamente da volano per nuovi consensi al Regime fascista, destinati a scemare soltanto a seguito della guerra etiopica (gli Stati Uniti, su sobillazione inglese, parteciparono alle sanzioni anti-italiane votate dalla Società delle Nazioni, di cui pure non facevano parte), volgendosi poi in crescente ostilità solo dopo l’intervento militare del 1940.

Ma, prima, ci fu tutto un lungo intreccio di rapporti tra America e Italia fascista. In cui non mancarono le luci e le ombre. Se la luce era essenzialmente la figura di Mussolini e in specie la sua politica sociale – segnatamente quella relativa alla bonifica delle terre paludose, che riscosse in America larga eco -, le ombre erano date dalla presenza dell’attivismo fascista di base negli Stati Uniti. Qui, spesso, risuonarono antichi pregiudizi anti-italiani duri a morire. Su questo terreno, il fuoriuscitismo antifascista lavorò sporco e a fondo. Sulla scorta di talune predicazioni marcatamente di parte – pensiamo a Salvemini, che a lungo saturò le Università americane con la sua propaganda ideologica basata sul risentimento – si volle ricreare anche su suolo americano la storica diffamazione basata sul binomio Fascismo-violenza. Un’ostinata campagna falsificatoria si ingegnò di sospingere l’opinione pubblica di quel Paese, ingenuamente portata a dare credibilità al bluff (allora come oggi), verso una preconcetta diffidenza nei confronti dei Fasci, sorti a quelle latitutidini sin da 1921. Fu allora facile mischiare le carte e fare del militante fascista italo-americano nulla più che una nuova versione del mafioso o del picchiatore da bassifondi. E questo, nonostante che le cronache dell’epoca riportassero sì di scontri tra Italo-americani fascisti e antifascisti, ma non mancando per altro di precisare che spesso erano proprio i fascisti a rimanere vittime della violenza e dell’odio: nel 1927, per dire, a New York vennero uccisi i fascisti Nicola Amoroso e Michele D’Ambrosoli, oppure, nel 1932, venne assassinato il fascista Salvatore Arena a Staten Island. Non si ha invece notizia di gravi fatti di sangue di parte fascista.

Il fascismo italo-americano era organizzato. E anche bene. Già nel 1925 c’erano novanta Fasci e migliaia di iscritti nelle città americane, riuniti nella Fascist League of North America guidata da Ignazio Thaon di Revel, che per motivi politici cessò di operare nel 1929. Il coordinamento tra i Fasci fu opera di Giuseppe Bastianini, primo segretario dei Fasci Italiani all’Estero e personaggio ingiustamente demonizzato per le sue origini “movimentiste” (era stato Ardito e vicesegretario del PNF a ventiquattro anni), favorevole allo sviluppo dello squadrismo tra gli italofoni d’oltreoceano. Un ambiente in cui si distinse Domenico Trombetta, singolare figura di organizzatore e animatore, esponente del radicalismo fascista newyorchese, direttore del periodico fascista “Il Grido della Stirpe”, assai diffuso tra gli Italiani e attorno al quale si catalizzò l’idea del volontariato di milizia, a difesa dell’italianità tra i milioni di nostri immigrati negli Stati Uniti. Questo ambiente rimase attivo anche quando, negli anni Trenta, Mussolini, per non urtare la sensibilità americana allarmata dalle campagne antifasciste, per gestire l’immagine del Regime preferì puntare sui normali canali diplomatici anziché sull’attivismo di base. Eppure, anche nel nuovo contesto, diciamo così più istituzionale, il Fascismo dimostrò di essere ben vivo tra gli Italo-americani, tanto da esprimere, persino verso la fine del decennio, una militanza a tutto campo – comprese trasmissioni radiofoniche di propaganda da una stazione di Boston –, ben rappresentato dall’American Union of Fascists di Paul Castorina, in rapporti amichevoli con i fascisti inglesi di Oswald Mosley e con la Canadian Union of Fascists, e dal pre-fascista Ordine dei Figli d’Italia in America, la principale associazione comunitaria italo-americana, che proprio nei tardi anni Trenta si identificò strettamente col Regime italiano, condividendone anche i più recenti indirizzi di politica razziale. Messi in sordina i Fasci per motivi di opportunità politica, una fitta rete di associazioni culturali, di attivisti, animatori di eventi comunitari, ma specialmente di giornali e stampa periodica, fece sì che il Fascismo, fino agli anni a ridosso della guerra, fosse di gran lunga la scelta politica che godeva dei maggiori consensi tra gli Italiani residenti negli USA. Un caso tipico fu l’arruolamento di un migliaio di volontari italo-americani nella Legione degli Italiani all’Estero, comandata in Africa Orientale dal Console della Milizia Piero Parini. E nella sola New York, negli anni Trenta, funzionavano non meno di cinquanta circoli fascisti, i cui membri indossavano la camicia nera e divulgavano assiduamente l’Idea.

Talune di queste dinamiche, e soprattutto quella relativa alla polemica tra istituzioni diplomatiche e Fasci politici, sono state rivisitate nel 2000 da Stefano Luconi in La diplomazia parallela. Il regime fascista e la mobilitazione degli Italo-americani (Franco Angeli), che ha segnalato proprio il ruolo centrale della comunità italo-americana filo-fascista come fattore politico di sostegno al governo di Roma, strumento di pressione economica, d’opinione e anche politica nei confronti di Washington. Una realtà che vedeva le ragioni politiche del Fascismo appoggiate non già dalla teppa dei portuali o dei picciotti del sottoproletariato italiano del New England, ma proprio all’opposto dalla vasta quota di Italiani che in America riportarono un solido successo personale, andando a costituire quel segmento sociale nazionalista, politicamente maturo ed etnicamente solidarista, sul quale non a torto Mussolini faceva conto per avere buona stampa negli Stati Uniti.

Per concludere brevemente l’argomento, vogliamo solo dire che, nonostante il seminale studio di Diggins abbia riportato larga fama, insegnando a molti come si fa storiografia senza confonderla con le opinioni personali, ancora oggi ci si imbatte in spiacevoli casi di ottusa faziosità. Chi si desse la pena di dare uno sguardo a quanto scrive ad esempio Matteo Pretelli sul sito “Iperstoria” gestito dal Dipartimento di Storia dell’Università di Verona e dal locale Istituto Storico della Resistenza, sotto il titolo Fascismo, violenza e malavita all’estero. Il caso degli Stati Uniti d’America, potrebbe pensare che Diggins abbia predicato nel deserto. Il solerte accademico italiano – che ci assicurano Lecteur presso l’Università di Melbourne – si danna l’anima per dimostrare i legami tra Fascismo italo-americano e criminalità mafiosa. Nessuno nega che da qualche parte ci sia stato un mascalzone che abusava della camicia nera. Ogni rivoluzione ha avuto la sua feccia, e il Fascismo molto meno di altre. Ma vorremmo segnalare al propagandista in parola che la malavita vera, quella gestita dai grandi criminali mafiosi, dimostrò di non stare dalla parte del Fascismo, bensì da quella dell’antifascismo. Basta sfogliare il libro di Alfio Caruso Arrivano i nostri pubblicato nel 2004 da Longanesi, in cui si dimostra in che misura la lobby di massoni e mafiosi di vertice preparò lo sbarco americano in Sicilia nel 1943. Lì non fu il caso di teppistelli: l’intero apparato della criminalità mafiosa organizzata, estirpata manu militari dal Fascismo nel 1928, si ripresentò compatto in veste di mortale nemico del Fascismo. E fu la volta di Genco Russo, Calogero Vizzini, Lucky Luciano… insomma la “cupola” al completo, ritornata al potere in Sicilia sotto bandiera a stelle e strisce e garantita dal capofila del legame tra mafia e governance americana: quel Charles Poletti che gettò le basi della repubblica italiana “democratica”, antifascista, ma soprattutto mafiosa, che gode ancora oggi ottima salute.

* * *

Tratto da Linea del 6 febbraio 2009.

Wikileaks - Pearl Harbor, 1941

Wikileaks - Pearl Harbor, 1941

by Srdja Trifkovic

Ex: http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/

Over two thousand four hundred American sailors, soldiers and airmen were killed in Pearl Harbor 69 years ago today. Had we had an equivalent of WikiLeaks back in 1941, however, the course of history could have been very different. FDR would have found it much more difficult to maneuvre the country into being attacked in the Pacific in order to enable him to fight the war in Europe, which had been his ardent desire all along.

One leak—just one!—almost torpedoed Roosevelt’s grand design. In mid-1941 he incorporated the Army’s, Navy’s and Air Staff’s war-making plans into an executive policy he called “Victory Program,” effectively preparing America for war against Germany and Japan regardless of Congressional opposition and the will of the people. His intention was to lure public opinion into supporting the Program because the increase in weapons production promised meant more jobs and a healthier economy. A supporter of the America First Committee, Senator Burton K. Wheeler, obtained a copy of the Victory Program, classified Secret, from a source within the Air Corps, and leaked it to two newspapers on December 4, 1941, the Chicago Tribune (a serious newspaper back then) and the Washington Times-Herald (long defunct). Vocal public opposition to the plan erupted immediately, but ceased three days later, on December 7, 1941. Congress soon passed the Victory Program with few changes. The Japanese performed on cue.

Imagine the consequences had the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald published a series of other leaks over the preceding few months, including the following:

Berlin, 27 September 1940. U.S. Embassy reports the signing of the Tripartite Pact, the mutual assistance treaty between Germany, Italy, and Japan: “It offers the possibility that Germany would declare war on America if America were to get into war with Japan, which may have significant implications for U.S. policy towards Japan.”

Washington, 7 October 1940. Having considered the implications of the Tripartite Pact, Lt. Cdr. Arthur McCollum, USN, of the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI), suggests a strategy for provoking Japan into attacking the U.S., thus triggering the mutual assistance provisions of the Tripartite Pact and finally bringing America into war in Europe. The proposal called for eight specific steps aimed at provoking Japan. Its centerpiece was keeping the U.S. Fleet in Hawaii as a lure for a Japanese attack, and imposing an oil embargo against Japan. “If by these means Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better,” the memo concluded.

Washington, 23 June 1941. One day after Hitler’s attack on Soviet Russia, Secretary of the Interior and FDR’s advisor Harold Ickes wrote a memo for the President, saying that “there might develop from the embargoing of oil to Japan such a situation as would make it not only possible but easy to get into this war in an effective way. And if we should thus indirectly be brought in, we would avoid the criticism that we had gone in as an ally of communistic Russia.”

Washington, 22 July 1941. Admiral Richmond Turner’s report states that “shutting off the American supply of petroleum to Japad will lead promptly to the invasion of Netherland East Indies: “[I]t seems certain [Japan] would also include military action against the Philippine Islands, which would immediately involve us in a Pacific war.”

Washington, 24 July 1941. President Roosevelt says, “If we had cut off the oil, they probably would have gone down to the Dutch East Indies a year ago, and you would have had war.” The following day he freezes Japanese assets in the U.S. and imposes an oil embargo against Japan.

London, 14 August 1941. After meeting the President at the Atlantic Conference, Prime Minister Winston Churchill noted the “astonishing depth of Roosevelt’s intense desire for war.” PM is aware that FDR needs to overcome the isolationist resistance to “Europe’s war” felt by most Americans and their elected representatives.

Washington, 24 September 1941. Having cracked the Japanese naval codes one year earlier, U.S. naval intelligence deciphers a message from the Naval Intelligence Headquarters in Tokyo to Japan’s consul-general in Honolulu, requesting grid of exact locations of U.S. Navy ships in the harbor. Commanders in Hawaii are not warned.

Washington, 18 October 1941. FDR’s friend and advisor Harold Ickes notes in his diary: “For a long time I have believed that our best entrance into the war would be by way of Japan.” Yet four days later opinion polls reveal that 74 percent of Americans opposed war with Japan, and only 13 percent supported it.

Washington, 25 November 1941. Secretary of War Stimson writes that FDR said an attack was likely within days, and wonders “how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without too much danger to ourselves… In spite of the risk involved, however, in letting the Japanese fire the first shot, we realized that in order to have the full support of the American people it was desirable to make sure that the Japanese be the ones to do this so that there should remain no doubt in anyone’s mind as to who were the aggressors.”

Washington, 26 November 1941. Both US aircraft carriers, the Enterprise and the Lexington, are ordered out of Pearl Harbor “as soon as possible”. The same order included stripping Pearl of 50 planes, 40 percent of its already inadequate fighter protection.

Washington, 26 November 1941. Secretary of State Hull demands the complete withdrawal of all Japanese troops from French Indochina and from China.

Tokyo, 27 November 1941. U.S. Ambassador to Japan Grew says this is “the document that touched the button that started the war.” The Japanese reacted on cue: On December 1, final authorization was given by the emperor, after a majority of Japanese leaders advised him the Hull Note would “destroy the fruits of the China incident, endanger Manchukuo and undermine Japanese control of Korea.”

San Francisco, 1 December 1941. Office of Naval Intelligence, ONI, 12th Naval District in San Francisco found the Japanese fleet by correlating reports from the four wireless news services and several shipping companies that they were getting signals west of Hawaii. There are numerous U.S. naval intelligence radio intercepts of the Japanese transmissions.

Washington, 5 December 1941, 10 a.m. President Roosevelt writes to the Australian Prime Minister that “the next four or five days will decide the matters” with Japan.

Washington, 5 December 1941, 5 p.m. At Cabinet meeting, Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox says, “Well, you know Mr. President, we know where the Japanese fleet is?” FDR replied, “Yes, I know … Well, you tell them what it is Frank.” Just as Knox was about to speak Roosevelt appeared to have second thoughts and interrupted him saying, “We haven’t got anything like perfect information as to their apparent destination.”

Washington, 6 December 1941, 9 p.m. At a White House dinner Roosevelt was given the first thirteen parts of a fifteen part decoded Japanese diplomatic declaration of war and said, “This means war!” he said to Harry Hopkins, but did not interrupt the soiree and did not issue any orders to the military to prepare for an attack.

As per that old cliché, the rest is history…

Jean-Claude Valla: l'histoire, un enjeu et des leçons

Jean-Claude Valla: l'histoire, un enjeu et des leçons

Adam Fergusson’s When Money Dies

Alex KURTAGIC

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

Adam Fergusson
When Money Dies: The Nightmare of Deficit Spending, Devaluation, and Hyperinflation in Weimar Germany
Old Street Publishing, 2010

Warren Buffett recommendations notwithstanding, it says something about the state of our economy when someone decides it is time to resurrect a 35-year-old account of the Weimar-era hyperinflation.

Written during the stagflationary 1970s, Adam Fergusson’s When Money Dies: The Nightmare of the Weimar Hyperinflation contains much to titillate our morbid curiosity, besides an instructive illustration of what we can expect should the Austrian economists’ gloomiest prophecies ever come true.  (The book, long out of print, was fetching close to $700 on eBay this summer, and has now been made available in electronic format.)

Defined in the present text as occurring when the rate of inflation exceeds 50 percent per month, hyperinflation is caused by an uncontrolled increase in the money supply and a loss of confidence in the currency. Because of the absence of a tendency towards equilibrium, fear of the rapid and continuous loss of value makes people unwilling to hold on to the money for any longer than is necessary to convert it into tangible goods or services. Hyperinflation is therefore characterized by very rapid depreciation and a dramatic increase in the velocity of the circulation of money.

Although the most famous (because it was the first to have been systematically observed and because it was deemed to have made Hitler possible), the hyperinflation of Weimar-era Germany, where Papiermark-denominated prices came to double every 3.7 days, takes “only” fourth place in the hyperinflationary hall of fame. The first place belongs to post-World War II Hungary, where in July 1946 pengő-denominated prices doubled every 15 hours. The second place belongs to Mugabe-era Zimbabwe, where in November 2008 Zimbabwean dollar-denominated prices doubled every 24.7 hours. And the third place belongs to Balkans War-era Yugoslavia, where in January 1994 Yugoslav dinar-denominated prices doubled every 1.4 days.

In Germany the inflationary cycle had already begun during World War I, when the paper mark went from 20 to the pound (at the time worth around 4 dollars) to 43 to the pound by war’s end. Although the paper mark continued tumbling downward, spiking momentarily in the first quarter of 1920, it recovered somewhat afterwards and remained more or less stable until the first half of 1921. The London Ultimatum, however, which demanded war reparations to be paid in gold marks to the tune of 2,000,000,000 per annum, plus 26 per cent of the value of German exports, triggered a new leg of rapid depreciation. The French policy towards Germany, backed by the British, was virulently vengeful, and imposed an onerous burden on Germany’s economy: in fact, the amount demanded was in excess of Germany’s total holding of gold or foreign exchange. The deficit in the budget, of which reparations contributed a third, was made up by discounting government Treasury bills and printing money.

Despite a momentary respite during the first half of 1922, during which international reparations conferences caused the paper mark to stabilize at around 320 to the dollar, the lack of an agreement triggered a new crisis, resulting in a phase of hyperinflation. Fuelled by the German government’s policy of passive resistance to French occupation of the Ruhr, which from January 1923 meant subsidizing through money-printing an anti-occupation strike by German workers, said hyperinflation escalated exponentially until November that year, when the introduction of the Rentenmark finally stopped the economic rot. By that time the German currency had fallen to 4,200,000,000,000 paper marks to the dollar.

Fergusson attributed the extraordinary self-inflicted destruction of Germany’s monetary system to a failure on the part of its government and the Reichsbank to link currency depreciation to money printing. Depreciation was initially believed to have been the result of the Entente powers forcing up foreign exchange through market manipulations. The German public appeared equally ignorant, believing that prices were going up as opposed to the value of their currency going down. Anti-Semitic explanations, not refuted by visible examples of vulgar Jewish ostentation, financial acrobatics, and profiteering, were also popular. The consequent misery and economic chaos showed the weaknesses of the chartalist monetary standard.

Combining a clear exposition with contemporary private diary entries, When Money Dies offers a harrowing narrative. The Weimar inflation obliterated savings, devoured wages, and caused assets to be distributed in the most unfair ways imaginable. As the wealthy had the means to protect themselves and even take advantage of the situation, and as the working class was organized and able to secure wage increases through frequent strikes and union demands, the main victims were the middle class — professionals, civil servants, the rentier class, and those on fixed incomes, who were reduced to penury and destitution. Landlords were also affected as a result of government-imposed rent controls.

The industrialist class, on the other hand, was not unhappy with the inflation, as they benefited from it. Indeed, some industrialists and profiteers made fortunes at everyone’s expense. Individual industrialists were able to acquire assets (usually fixed assets and raw materials) for minuscule amounts by securing large bank loans that became virtually worthless within weeks because of the low interest rates. Said industrialists also welcomed the virtual destruction of fiscal burdens: high inflation also made tax assessments worthless by the time taxes were due.

One of the effects of inflation was to turn everyone into a speculator — in the stock market, in foreign exchange, in commodities, and in assets, which offered protection from depreciation as well as profit opportunities. Foreign visitors in Germany were also able to take advantage of a notable differential between the official rate of foreign exchange and prices in real terms within Germany, where in relation to solid currencies like the dollar and the pound goods and services were available at bargain prices.

For most of the inflationary period Germany enjoyed full employment, but the incentive to work hard and save was progressively eroded by the increasing fugacity of purchasing power. The main concern was somehow keeping ahead of the mark’s accelerating depreciation, so as to be able to still obtain the necessities of life. Payday had to come with increasing frequency, and finally daily in order to keep up with prices, which rose with increasing rapidity until they changed by the hour. Part of the rise was due to the need to factor in depreciation occurring between the time the money was paid to the merchant and the time the merchant was able to dispose of it. It became the norm to spend money as quickly as it was obtained and for shops to sell out in a single day. Coffees were ordered two at a time, to avoid having to pay more for any second cup. Barter, bribes, and corruption also became universal.

Despite the prodigious nominal amounts, people’s main problem during this period was a chronic scarcity of money. Dozens of paper mills and printing firms and thousands of printing machines working night and day could not keep up with prices, causing the total amount of money in circulation constantly to decrease in real terms. Obviously, the more furious the money printing, the more acute the rate of depreciation, but his was something apparently not understood by Rudolf Havenstein, the president of the Reichsbank (German central bank), whose main preoccupation was ensuring there was enough money available to meet economic needs. Depreciation accelerated to such a degree that it eventually made more sense directly to burn money in the stove than first use it to purchase wood.

The scarcity of money was reflected in the government’s budget, which dwindled to paltry amounts in real terms, further aided by the breakdown of the taxation system and the ridiculously low price of stamps and railway fares. By the end of the hyperinflationary cycle, the government’s income was a fraction of 1 percent of its outgoings.

Food became progressively scarce as a result of hoarding and the refusal by farmers to sell their produce against worthless paper. Farmers were, in fact, relatively well off until almost the end, as they were able to produce their own food. City-dwellers were forced to sell their possessions in exchange for comestibles, and those visiting friends or relatives witnessed the latter’s flats gradually emptying of furniture, paintings, and any movable asset of value. Once these were gone, looting and farm raids was the next step for some. For others it was starvation and death.

The highest denomination note, issued towards the end of 1923, was 100,000,000,000,000 marks (compare with Hungary’s 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 pengő note in 1946). By this time, Dr. Havenstein had the equivalent of 300 ten-tonne train wagons of unissued bank notes awaiting distribution for the day. The mark, however, had become not only worthless but largely shunned in favour of foreign currencies and tangible assets. Also in circulation were not only the official Papiermark issued by the central bank but also emergency money issued by municipalities, local banks, and even private firms in the effort to make up for money shortages. Such an environment had made it impossible to ascertain with precision the value of anything, as sellers used their own indexes and asked whatever they thought they could get people to pay for their goods or services. The chaos and economic breakdown was so complete that Germany by late 1923 was on the verge dismemberment, with the republic having long been under siege from both Communists and the Far Right. Hitler, who attempted his Beer Hall Putsch in November that year, was among the agitators.

The death of Dr. Havenstein and the appointment of Dr. Hjalmar Schacht, marked the end of Weimar hyperinflation. This occurred under the auspices of a military dictatorship, comprised of Hans von Streisser, Otto von Lossow, and Gustav von Kahr, appointed by Prime Minister Eugen von Knilling, who, following a period of political violence an assassinations had declared martial law in September 1923. The discounting of Treasury bills was stopped and the Rentenmark — a temporary currency — was introduced at the rate of 1,000,000,000,000 Papiermark to 1 Rentenmark; also, debts were largely rescinded, unfairly to the detriment of many. Somehow, the confidence trick worked and a semblance of normality returned. Unfortunately, however, the price of stopping hyperinflation was steep and known in advance: mass unemployment, a sharp economic slowdown, and bankruptcies. The hyperinflation was allowed to carry on as long as it did partly because of an absence of political will to swallow the necessary bitter medicine.

Among the casualties were some of the industrialists and profiteers who were caught out in the hyperinflationary game of musical chairs once the currency reform was enacted. Those who survived and had benefited from the economic conditions were forced to adjust to the dull world of hard work, thrift, small profits, and taxes. Some, like the Jewish-Lithuanian Barmat brothers, still managed to exploit the situation to their advantage: they converted their assets into the new, strong mark and issued loans at extortionate rates of interest (of up to 100 percent) while credit was nearly impossible to find elsewhere. Hyperinflation had bred universal corruption, however — a world of dog-eat-dog rapacity, opportunism, and pauperized billionaires, where the worst human instincts flourished and became a matter of survival.

The post-hyperinflationary credit crunch was, not surprisingly followed by a credit boom: starved of money and basic necessities for so long (do not forget the hyperinflation had come directly after defeat in The Great War), many funded lavish lifestyles through borrowing during the second half of the 1920s. We know how that ended, of course: in The Great Depression, which eventually saw the end of the Weimar Republic and the beginning of the National Socialist era.

From the vantage-point of 2010, we see glimpses in Fergusson’s account of the way events might play out in the United States and possibly Western Europe in the coming years, absent any political will to tackle the mountain of public and private debt, the enormous budget deficits, and the stupendous above-growth monetary expansion of the past decade. The crises are likely to be similar in kind, but follow a different order. The credit boom of the 2000s has been followed by the credit crunch of the late 2000s. Analysts of the Austrian school deem us to be in the initial stages of a Second Great Depression, and vaticinate much worse to come.

Personally, I sometimes get tired of the unrelenting pessimism coming from some Austrian-influenced quarters, and wonder whether there is not a morbid curiosity there — untempered by personal experience — to witness a catastrophic collapse; but, all the same, I am not going to take chances and risk losing the little I have because I was bored by the truculent fantasies of some cleverer-than-thou commentators. When Money Dies is well worth reading if you are searching for a real-life overview of the sequence of weird phenomena that emerge during a inflationary cycle. Those who can would be well advised to use it and related texts to design in advance coping strategies in the event of monetary failure.

PS: For a fictional preview of what a hyperinflationary blowout might look like in Europe and the United States in 2022, see my novel Mister (Iron Sky Publishing, 2009).

Source: http://www.wermodandwermod.com/newsitems/news130120111511.html

John F. Kennedy – Ein Star wird demontiert

Niki Vogt

 

Es gibt nationale Ikonen, deren Tugenden und Fähigkeiten symbolisch für das Selbstbild stehen, das eine Nation von sich selbst pflegt – und das auch Bewunderer dieser Nation teilen. Mahatma Ghandi für Indien, beispielsweise – oder Jeanne d’Arc und Napoleon Bonaparte für Frankreich, Evita Peron für Argentinien, Winston Churchill für England oder John F. Kennedy für Amerika. Es ist meist gar nicht so schwer herauszufinden, dass die strahlenden Helden manchmal deutliche Makel und dunkle Seiten aufweisen. Solange eine Nation selbstbewusst ist und angesehen, tastet niemand das strahlende Image an. Eine Revision des Vorbildcharakters einer Nation als Ganzes äußert sich nicht selten in einer Abrechnung mit einer solchen Identitätsstiftenden, nationalen Überfigur. So geschehen mit Napoleon, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Otto von Bismarck und vielen anderen mehr. Ein Artikel im Telegraph – als Beispiel für viele – zum 50. Jahrestag der Präsidentenwahl von John F. Kennedy macht nachdenklich.

Mehr: http://info.kopp-verlag.de/hintergruende/geostrategie/nik...

A quand une repentance pour les "captifs en Barbarie"?

A quand une repentance pour les « captifs en Barbarie » ?

Ex: http://www.polemia.com/ 

 

Des centaines de livres sont consacrés chaque année aux Africains vendus (généralement par leurs compatriotes) aux négriers fournissant les colonies d’outre-Atlantique. Un calvaire également détaillé dans de multiples films et émissions de télévision et solennellement évoqué chaque 10 mai par la « Journée commémorative des mémoires de la traite négrière, de l’esclavage et de leur abolition » instituée (sans crainte de la redondance !) par Jacques Chirac en 2005 avant que Nicolas Sarkozy n’y aille de sa larme le 8 janvier dernier lors de son hommage antillais à Aimé Césaire. Mais qui rappelle le martyre des esclaves blancs, plus d’un million selon l’historien anglais Giles Milton ?

Dans son roman policier Le Phare, paru en 2008 à LGF/Livre de Poche et qu’elle situe à Combe Island, au large de la Cornouailles, l’Anglaise P. D. James signale à plusieurs reprises la terreur exercée par les pirates maghrébins, surtout ceux de Rabat-Salé, sur les côtes sud de l’Angleterre où ils s’étaient emparés de plusieurs îles, transformées en bastions. Le sort tragique et « l’histoire extraordinaire des esclaves européens en terre d’islam », c’est justement ce qu’a étudié l’historien Giles Milton, anglais lui aussi, dans Captifs en Barbarie.

Plus d’un million d’esclaves blancs

On sait quelle ampleur avait prise la piraterie barbaresque en Méditerranée et le péril qu’elle faisait courir aux populations riveraines, au point que la prise de la Régence d’Alger par la France, en 1830, fut approuvée et accueillie avec soulagement par toute l’Europe. Même si une cousine de la future impératrice Joséphine, la Créole Aimée Dubuc de Rivery, qui avait pris place sur un bateau pour la Métropole, vit le navire arraisonné et ses passagers vendus en esclavage, elle-même étant destinée au harem du sultan de Stamboul, on sait moins que cette piraterie fut presque aussi active dans l’Atlantique. A partir des côtes marocaines furent ainsi razziés aux XVIIe et XVIIe siècle non seulement des Britanniques mais aussi des Scandinaves, des Islandais, des colons du Groenland et même des Américains.

Après de longs recoupements, Giles Milton estime à plus de un million le nombre des esclaves occidentaux dont une infirme minorité put recouvrer la liberté, grâce au versement d’une rançon ou par évasion — cas du Cornouaillais Thomas Pellow, enlevé en 1715 à l’âge de onze ans, enfin libre vint ans plus tard et dont l’autobiographie publiée en 1740, après son miraculeux retour en Angleterre, sert à l’auteur de fil conducteur.

A l’époque comme aujourd’hui en Afghanistan et surtout en Afrique (qu’on pense à la Somalie, au Mali où croupissent plusieurs Français), la prise d’otages occidentaux était pratiquée à grande échelle pour obtenir d’abord d’extravagantes rançons, surtout quand ces otages étaient de hauts personnages, mais aussi pour obtenir aussi des appuis politiques et des retournements d’alliances. Ainsi le Maroc multiplia-t-il au début du XVIIe siècle les razzias d’Anglais dans le dessein d’obliger le roi Jacques 1er Stuart à attaquer l’Espagne.

Une main-d’œuvre à bon marché

Mais la cause principale était évidemment de se procurer au moindre coût une énorme main-d’œuvre. Celle-ci étant par exemple nécessaire à la réalisation des projets pharaoniques du sultan alaouite Moulay Ismaïl qui régna de 1672 à 1727 et dont l’obsession était de surpasser Louis XIV, qu’il sommait d’ailleurs de se convertir à l’islam… Ce qui n’empêchait d’ailleurs pas ce fervent musulman de se saouler rituellement à mort pour fêter la fin du ramadan ! Pour que son ensemble palatial de Meknès, avec notamment le Dar el-Mansour, « haut de plus de cinquante mètres », fût infiniment plus vaste et plus imposant que Versailles, le monarque avait donc besoin d’une masse d’ouvriers mais aussi d’artisans, de contremaîtres et d’architectes que seuls pouvaient lui procurer les pirates écumant les côtes européennes. Selon l’historien arabe Ahmad al-Zayyani cité par Milton, il y eut simultanément à Meknès jusqu’à 25 000 esclaves européens, soit une population « à peu près égale à celle d’Alger ».

Certes, il y avait un moyen pour les captifs d’adoucir leur servitude : embrasser l’islam, comme l’avait fait le renégat hollandais Jan Janszoon, devenus l’un des plus redoutables et des plus riches chefs pirates sous le nom de Mourad Raïs. Mais la foi étant encore si grande et si profonde à l’époque, bien peu s’y résolurent, préférant l’enfer sur terre à l’Enfer au Ciel.

Car c’est bien la géhenne que ces malheureux subissaient sous la férule d’une sanguinaire Garde noire, qui terrorisait autant qu’elle surveillait. Ces Noirs, « d’une hauteur prodigieuse, d’un regard épouvantable et d’une voix aussi terrible que l’aboiement de Cerbère » selon l’ancien esclave français Germain Moüette, n’hésitaient pas à recourir aux châtiments les plus extrêmes, voire à la peine capitale, à l’encontre des prisonniers rétifs, ou simplement trop malades et donc incapable de fournir le labeur exigé d’eux malgré les rations de vin et d’eau-de-vie procurées par les juifs, courtiers habituels entre les pirates et Moulay Ismaïl.

Non content de procéder aux pires profanations — après la prise de la place-forte espagnole de la Memora en 1688, le souverain alaouite se fit apporter les statues de la Vierge et des saints afin qu’il puisse « cracher sur elles » avant de les faire briser— Moulay Ismaïl prenait grand plaisir au spectacle de la torture. Selon le récit de Harrison, ambassadeur anglais venu négocier le rachat de ses compatriotes et surtout des femmes, le sultan, qui se déplaçait volontiers sur un « char doré, tiré non par des chevaux mais par un attelage d’épouses et d’eunuques », pour la plupart européens, « faisait battre les hommes presque à mort en sa présence, certains sous la plante des pieds et il les forçait ensuite à courir sur des cailloux et des épines. Certains des esclaves avaient été traînés par des chevaux jusqu’à être mis en pièces. D’autres avaient même été démembrés alors qu’ils étaient encore vivants, leurs doigts et orteils coupés aux articulations ; bras et jambes, tête, etc. »

L’un des chapitres les plus sombres de l’histoire de l’humanité

Un traitement sadique que ne subirent jamais les victimes de la traite triangulaire. « Etre esclave en Géorgie, voilà le vœu d’un ouvrier lyonnais », devait d’ailleurs écrire l’humoriste français Alphonse Karr à la veille de la guerre de Sécession. Certes, tous les « captifs en Barbarie », et notamment au Maroc, pays dont on nous dit être de haute civilisation et profondément humaniste, ne furent pas traités de manière aussi inhumaine. Comme dans d’autres camps, plus récents, beaucoup succombèrent non sous les coups ou la question, mais du fait d’épidémies décimant des organismes affaiblis par la faim, le froid des nuits d’hiver et surtout une promiscuité immonde, les esclaves regroupés dans des cellules surpeuplées vivant dans leurs immondices.

Nul ne saurait bien sûr, et surtout pas notre Nomenklatura politique (Nicolas et Carla Sarkozy, Jacques et Bernadette Chirac, Dominique et Anne Strauss-Kahn, Béatrice et Jean-Louis Borloo, Patrick et Isabelle Balkany, Ségolène Royal, Jean-Paul Huchon et quelques autres) qui vient de passer Noël au Maroc, exiger une repentance en bonne et due forme de la part de « notre ami le roi » Mohamed VI, actuel descendant de l’Alaouite Moulay Ismaïl. Mais l’Ecole de la République, si prolixe sur le sort des esclaves noirs, ne pourrait-elle du moins renseigner nos chères têtes blondes, et autres, sur ce que fut de l’autre côté de la Méditerranée le sort des esclaves blancs ? Cette ordalie subie par plus d’un million d’Européens constitue, Giles Milton est formel sur ce point, « l’un des chapitres les plus sombres de l’histoire de l’humanité ». Pourquoi en est-elle aussi le chapitre le plus systématiquement occulté ?

Claude Lorne
08/01/2011

Giles. Milton, Captifs en Barbarie / L’histoire extraordinaire des esclaves européens en terre d’Islam, traduction de l’anglais de Florence Bertrand, Payot coll. Petite Bibliothèque, 2008, 343 pages, 9,50€

Correspondance Polémia – 09/01/2011

Force et Honneur

Force et Honneur

« Le calendrier mémoriel de nos pères était, autrefois, parsemé de noms de saints, de soldats héroïques et aussi de grandes batailles. Ces noms, gravés dans l’histoire des peuples, étaient toujours évocateurs : ils constituaient une mémoire collective et forgeaient les identités nationales », écrit Jean-Pierre Papadacci, « Français d’Empire », en préface à un ouvrage intitulé « Force et honneur ».

Ce livre, auquel ont collaboré une trentaine d’auteurs, raconte « ces batailles qui ont fait la grandeur de la France et de l’Europe ». Sans doute certaines manquent-elles, comme Fontenoy, mais on y trouve beaucoup de rencontres qui ont compté, depuis la bataille de Marathon au début du V^e siècle avant Jésus-Christ jusqu’au siège de Sarajevo à la fin du XX^e siècle de notre ère.

Le lecteur y trouvera, entre autres, les Thermopyles, Bouvines, le siège de Vienne, Torfou, Austerlitz, le siège de l’alcazar, la bataille d’Alger…

Tous les textes ne sont pas d’égale facture, mais la plupart sont bien écrits et intéressants. Citons notamment le récit de la prise de Jérusalem par les croisés, par Pierre Vial, la bataille d’Azincourt, par Jean Denègre, la levée du siège d’Orléans, par Thierry Bouzard, Lépante, par Robert Steuckers, Camerone, par Alain Sanders, Verdun, par Philippe Conrad, Dien Bien Phu par Eric Fornal, un récit de l’insurrection de Budapest par Vitéz Marton Lajos…

Le livre se conclut sur une série d’entretiens avec des officiers français : le général Yves Derville, qui participa à la première guerre du Golfe ; le colonel Jean Luciani, ancien des FFI et vétéran de Dien Bien Phu ; le capitaine Dominique Bonelliancien du 1^er BEP puis du 1^er REP en Indochine et en Algérie ; l’adjudant-chef Jean Laraque, les sergents Alexis Arette et Roger Holeindre, le caporal-chef Trogne, autres « sentinelles de l’Empire ».

« Nous savons que nous sommes des débiteurs et que nous avons le devoir de faire fructifier et de transmettre le patrimoine que nous avons reçu », écrit encore Jean-Pierre Papadacci dans sa préface. Nul doute que ce livre, destiné prioritairement aux adolescents, y contribue.

Force et honneur, ces batailles qui ont fait la grandeur de la France et de l’Europe, Les amis du livre européen ed.

ACHETER SUR AMAZON

Drieu on the Failure of the Third Reich

Michael O'MEARA

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

The powers threatening our people became hegemonic in May 1945, when the liberal-Communist coalition known as the “United Nations” imposed its dictatorship on defeated Germany.

This dictatorship—whose defining characteristic, East and West, is its techno-economic worship of the Jewish Moloch—was subsequently imposed on the rest of Europe and, in the form of globalization, now holds the whole world in its grip.

For white nationalists, the defeat of National Socialist Germany is both the pivotal event of the twentieth century and the origin of their own movement—to save the white race from the rising tide of color.

White nationalists resume, in effect, the struggle of the defeated Germans. But they do so not uncritically.

As an idea and a movement, National Socialism (like Fascism) was a product of the late nineteenth-century political convergence that brought together elements from the revolutionary anti-liberal wing of the labor movement and elements from the revolutionary anti-liberal wing of the nationalist right. Hitler’s NSDAP was the most imposing historical offshoot of this anti-liberal convergence, but one not always faithful to its origins—which bears on the fact that Hitler shares at least part of the responsibility for the most devastating defeat ever experienced by the white race.

It’s not enough, then, for the present generation of white nationalists to honor his heroic resistance to the anti-Aryan forces.

Of greater need, it seems to me, is to identify and come to terms with his failings, for these, more than his triumphs, now effect our survival as a people.

The following is an excerpt from a piece that Pierre Drieu La Rochelle wrote in the dark days after August 1944, after the so-called “Liberation” of Paris and before the suicide that “saved” him from De Gaulle’s hangman.

It was written in haste, on the run, and never completed, but is nevertheless an illuminating examination of Hitler’s shortcomings (even where incorrect).

The central point of Drieu’s piece (and it should be remembered that he, like many of France’s most talented thinkers and artists, collaborated with the Germans in the hope of creating a new European order) is that Germany alone was no match for the combined powers of the British Empire, the United States, and the Soviet Union.

Only a Europe recast on the basis of National Socialist principles, he believed, could triumph against this coalition and the Jews who inspired and guided it.

Hitler’s petty bourgeois nationalism, critiqued here by Drieu, prevented him from mobilizing the various national families of Europe in a common front, proving that his distillation of the anti-liberal project was inadequate to the great tasks facing the white man in this period.

* * *

From Drieu’s “Notes sur l’Allemagne”:

I was shocked by the extreme political incompetence of the Germans in 1939, 1940, and 1941, after the victories [which made them Europe’s master]. It was in this period that their political failings sealed the fate of their future military defeat.

These failings seem even greater than those committed under Napoleon [in the period 1799-1815, when the French had mastered Europe]. The Germans obviously drew none of the lessons from the Napoleonic adventure.

Was German incompetence the incompetence of fascism in general? This is the question.

The imbecilic maxim guiding Hitler was: “First, wage and win the war; then, reorganize Europe.” This maxim contradicted all the lessons of history, all the teachings of Europe’s greatest statesmen, particularly those of the Germans, like Frederick and Bismarck. It was Clausewitz who said war is only the extension of politics.

But even if one accepts Hitler’s maxim, the German dictator committed a number of military mistakes:

1. Why did he wait six months between the Polish campaign and the French campaign?

2. Why did he squander another ten months after the French campaign?

3. Why in late 1940 did he wage a futile aerial assault on England, instead of striking the British Empire at its most accessible point, Gibraltar?

After July 1940 [when no European power opposed him on the continent], he could have crossed Spain, destroyed the [English] naval base at Gibraltar, and closed off the Mediterranean.

The armistice with Pétain [which led to the establishment of the Vichy regime] was [another] German disaster. If the French had followed [Paul] Reynaud [the last Premier of the Third Republic who advocated continued resistance from France’s North African colonies], the Germans would have been forced to do what was [militarily] necessary to win the war.

For once master of Gibraltar, Hitler would have rendered [the English base at] Malta useless, avoided the Italian folly in the Balkans [which doomed Operation Barbarosa in Russia], and assured the possibility of an immediate and relatively uncostly campaign against [English occupied] Egypt. Instead of bombing London, he should, have seized Alexandria, Cairo, and Suez.

This would have settled the peace in the Balkans, avoiding the exhausting occupations of Greece and Yugoslavia, [it would have cut England off from her overseas empire, and guaranteed Europe’s Middle Eastern energy sources].

These military failings followed from Hitler’s total lack of imagination outside of Germany.

He was [essentially] a German politician; good for Germany, but only there.

Lacking political culture, education, and a larger tradition, having never traveled, being a xenophobe like many popular demagogues, he did not possess an understanding of what was necessary to make his strategy and diplomacy work outside Germany.

All his dreams, all his talents, were devoted to winning the war of 1914, as if conditions [in 1940] were still those of 1914. . . He thus underestimated Russian developments and totally ignored American power, which had already made itself felt in the Great War.

He did understand the importance of the tank and the airplane [whose military possibility came into their own after 1918], but not in relationship to the enormous industrial potential of Russia and America.

He neglected [the role of] artillery, which was a step back from 1916-1918.

He is least reproachable in his estimation of submarine warfare, whose significance was already evident in 1916. But even here, the Anglo-Saxons [i.e., the Anglo-Americans] deployed their maritime genius in a way difficult for a European continental to anticipate.

Hitler’s political errors [, however,] were far worse and more thorough-going than his military errors. He hardly comprehended the problem, seeing it in terms of 1914—in terms, that is, of diplomacy, national states, cabinet politics, and [rival] chancelleries. His understanding of Europe did not even measure up to that of old aristocrats like Bismarck and Wilhelm II, who never forgot the tradition of solidarity that united Europe’s dynasties, courts, and nobilities. . .

It’s curious that this man who knew how to inspire the masses in his own country, who always maintained the closest contact with his people, never, not for a second, thought of extending his [successful] German policies to the rest of Europe. He [simply] did not understand the necessity of forging a policy to address Europe domestically and not just internationally.

Diplomats and ambassadors had lost command of the stage after 1940—it was now in the hands of political leaders capable of winning the masses with the kind of social policies that had succeeded in Germany and could succeed elsewhere.

Hitler didn’t understand this. After his armies invaded Poland, France, and elsewhere, he never thought of implementing the social and political practices that had worked in Germany . . . He never thought of carrying out policies that would have forged bonds of solidarity between the occupied and the occupiers. . .

These failures lead me to suspect that the Germans’ political stupidity . . . owed something to fascism—that political and social system awkwardly situated between liberal democracy and Communist totalitarianism.

In the fascist system there was something of the “juste milieu” that could only lead to the miserable failure awaiting the Germans. [A French term meaning a “golden mean” or a “happy medium,” “juste milieu” is historically associated with the moderate centrist politics (or anti-politics) of bourgeois constitutionalists—first exemplified by France’s July Monarchy (1830-48) and subsequently perfected in the American party system].

The Germans have no political tradition. For centuries, most of them inhabited small principalities or cities where larger political forces had no part to play.

However, there was Vienna and Berlin. In these two capitals, politics was the province of a small [aristocratic] caste. The events of 1918 [i.e., the liberal revolutions that led to the Weimar and Viennese republics] abruptly dislodged this caste, severing its ties from the new governing class.

Everything that has transpired in the last few years suggests that Germany remains what it was in the eighteenth century . . . a land unable to anchor its warrior virtues in politically sound principles . . .

[Part of this seems due to the fact that] the German is no psychologist. He is too much a theoretician, too intellectually speculative, for that. He lacks psychology in the way a mathematician or metaphysician does. German literature is rarely psychological; it develops ideas, not characters. The sole German psychologist is Nietzsche [and] he was basically one of a kind. . . Politically, the Germans [like the French] are less subtle and plastic than the English or the Russians, who have the best psychological literature and hence the best diplomacy and politics.

Hitler’s behavior reflected the backward state of German, and beyond that, European attitudes.

This son of an Austrian custom official inherited all the prejudices of his father’s generation (as had Napoleon). And like every German nationalist of Austrian extraction, he had an unshakable respect for the German Army and the Prussian aristocracy. Despite everything that disposed him against it, he remained the loyal Reichwehr agent he was in Munich [in 1919]. . . If he subsequently became a member of a socialist party [Anton Drexler’s German Workers’ Party]—of which he promptly became the leader—it was above all because this party was a nationalist one. Nationalism was always more important to him than socialism—even if his early years should have inclined him to think otherwise . . .

Like Mussolini, Hitler had no heartfelt commitment to socialism. [Drieu refers here not to the Semitic socialism of Marx, with its materialism, collectivism, and internationalism, but rather to the older European corporate socialism, which privileges the needs of family, community, and nation over those of the economy] . . . That’s why he so readily sacrificed the [socialist] dynamism of his movement for the sake of what the Wehrmacht aristocracy and the barons of heavy industry were willing to concede. He thought these alone would suffice in furnishing him with what was needed for his war of European conquest. . .

Fascism failed to organize Europe because it was essentially a system of the “juste milieu” —a system seeking a middle way between communism and capitalism. . .

Fascism failed because it did not become explicitly socialist. The narrowness of its nationalist base prevented it from becoming a European socialism . . .

Action and reaction: On the one side, the weakness of Hitlerian and Mussolinian socialism prevented it from crossing national borders and becoming a European nationalism; on the other, the narrowness of Mussolinian and Hitlerian nationalism stifled its socialism, reducing it to a form of military statism. . .

Source: Pierre Drieu La Rochelle, Textes retrouvées (Paris: Eds. du Rocher, 1992).

Lili Marlene par Suzy Solidor

 

 

Lili Marlene de Suzy Solidor

Wandervogel

 

Wandervogel

Zupfgeigengretel

Wir wollen zu Land ausfahren