Analysis of "Men Among the Ruins" (Kulturkampf Podcast)

 

EvolianArchiver

Full episode about Julius Evola's most political work - "Men Among the Ruins" which was written after the second World War. It has previously been taken off youtube.

 

Bulletin célinien n°418 (mai 2019)

Bulletin célinien n°418 (mai 2019)

Sommaire :

Carnaval à Sigmaringen (mars 1945)

Malaparte et Céline

Quand Kaminski taillait un costume à Céline

Raymond Giancoli dans sa correspondance avec Albert Paraz.

 

Céline, Vailland et Chamfleury

par Marc Laudelout

Andrea Lombardi est sans nul doute le célinien le plus actif d’Italie. Outre un blog entièrement dédié à son auteur de prédilection, on lui doit plusieurs ouvrages dont une superbe anthologie, richement illustrée, éditée en 2016 par son association culturelle “Italia Storica”. Depuis plusieurs années, il n’a de cesse de rendre accessible au lectorat italien des textes peu connus de Céline (dont sa correspondance) mais aussi des témoignages et des études littéraires qu’il réunit dans des ouvrages de belle facture.

Aujourd’hui, il publie une plaquette réunissant les pièces du dossier polémique qui opposa Céline à Roger Vailland. Celui qui joua le rôle d’arbitre fut Robert Chamfleury (1900-1972), de son vrai nom Eugène Gohin. Comme chacun sait, il était locataire de l’appartement juste au-dessous de celui de Céline, au quatrième étage du 4 rue Girardon, à Montmartre. Après la guerre, il réfutera Vailland et affirmera que Céline était parfaitement au courant de ses activités de résistant. Au moment critique, Chamfleury lui proposa même un refuge en Bretagne. Dans une version antérieure de Féerie pour une autre fois, Céline le décrit (sous le nom de “Charmoise”) « cordial, compréhensif, conciliant, amical ».  Sa personnalité est aujourd’hui mieux connue : parolier et éditeur de musique, Robert Chamfleury était spécialisé dans l’adaptation française de titres espagnols ou hispano-américains. Il fut  ainsi une figure marquante de l’introduction en Europe des compositeurs cubains, et des rythmes nouveaux qu’ils apportaient. Il travaillait le plus souvent en duo avec un autre parolier, Henri Lemarchand. Lequel préfaça La Prodigieuse aventure humaine (1951, rééd. 1961) de son ami qui, sur le tard, rédigea plusieurs ouvrages de vulgarisation scientifique et de philosophie des sciences. Céline lui accusa réception avec cordialité de cet ouvrage et l’invita à venir le voir à Meudon. Dans sa plaquette, Andrea Lombardi reproduit la version intégrale de la lettre que Chamfleury adressa au directeur du Crapouillot, telle qu’elle parut, pour la première fois, dans le BC en 1990.

Un biographe de Céline a admis qu’il a fait preuve de « suspicion systématique » [sic] envers son sujet ¹. C’est aussi le seul à avoir mis en cause le témoignage de Chamfleury, instillant même le doute sur ses activités de résistant. Les auteurs du Dictionnaire de la correspondance de Céline précisent, eux, qu’il « appartenait au bloc des opérations aériennes, responsable donc de nombreuses missions de parachutage ». En fait, c’est plutôt le témoignage de Roger Vailland qu’il eût fallu mettre en question. Dans un livre de souvenirs publiés en 2009, Jacques-Francis Rolland, qui appartenait au même réseau de résistance que Vailland, le qualifia de « mélange de forfanterie, d’erreurs, de fausses assertions, affligé par surcroît d’un  style indigne de l’auteur qui n’était manifestement pas dans son état normal lorsqu’il bâcla son pensum, l’un des pires de sa “saison” stalinienne » ².

• Andrea LOMBARDI (éd.), Céline contro Vailland (Due scrittori, una querelle, un palazzo di una via di Montmartre sotto l’Occupazione tedesca), Eclettica, coll. “Visioni”, 2019, 83 p., ill. Traduction des textes français : Valeria Ferretti. Couverture illustrée par Jacques Terpant (10 €)

1. Propos recueillis de Philippe Alméras in Maroc Hebdo International, 5-11 octobre 1996.
2. Jacques-Francis Rolland, Jadis, si je me souviens bien, Le Félin, coll. « Résistance-Liberté-Mémoire », 2009. Voir aussi « Roger Vailland l’affabulateur » in BC, n° 313, novembre 2009, pp. 4-8. Rolland et Vailland, qui appartenaient au réseau de résistance “Mithridate », se réunissaient régulièrement dans l’appartement de Chamfleury.

Patrice Jean: "Tour d'ivoire" & "L'homme surnuméraire"

Tour d'ivoire de Patrice Jean

par Christopher Gérard

Ex: http://archaion.hautetfort.com

Moins de deux ans après le magnifique et très-subversif L’Homme surnuméraire, le Nantais Patrice Jean propose son cinquième roman, Tour d’ivoire, dont le décor, et en fait l’un des personnages principaux, est Rouen, la ville de Gustave Flaubert. Comme dans son précédent roman, le héros, Antoine, est un déclassé, un lettré « surnuméraire » qui a fait le choix de la pauvreté volontaire pour se consacrer, stricto sensu, à une revue littéraire, confidentielle comme son nom l’indique, Tour d’ivoire. Un raté en somme, selon les critères aujourd’hui en vogue, qu’accompagne son ami ( ?) Thomas, encore plus intraitable sur la pureté de l’engagement en faveur de l’art pour l’art. Tout le roman tourne autour du dialogue, tantôt véhément, tantôt muet, entre ces deux hommes : faut-il céder, ne fût-ce que d’un pouce, aux sirènes, même postmodernes ?

Antoine a donc choisi l’obscurité, décevant ainsi son épouse, qui le largue (et cesse de jouer au mécène) et, bientôt, sa fille Blandine, que viendra consoler l’attentionné Thomas. Il vivote dans un HLM de la Grand’Mare (hilarants tableautins du « vivre-ensemble ») et se contente de CDD à la médiathèque Arthur Rainbow (!), l’un des décors du roman – prétexte pour l’auteur à une description aussi comique que glaçante du dispositif d’infantilisation des masses et de leur encadrement « culturel ». Notre bibliothécaire tranche d’avec ses jeunes collègues, acquis à la culture du divertissement et conscients de leur rôle dans le dressage « citoyen » de leurs usagers. Il fera, ô surprise, l’objet d’une dénonciation en règle pour un article littéraire de sa revue consacré à un écrivain qui, dans un français parfait, ose évoquer l’actuel chaos migratoire et ses conséquences sans l’enthousiasme ni la cécité de commande.

Avec un calme courage, Patrice Jean s’attaque à la doxa dominante, usant tour à tour de la cruauté du polémiste et de la douceur toute en sensibilité de l’artiste - un tueur en dentelles. L’une des questions qu’il pose est celle de la place de la culture authentique, vécue non comme docile consommation de produits estampillés culturels mais bien comme quête désintéressée du beau et du vrai, comme métamorphose. Comment résister à la méthodique profanation de la littérature ? Comment éviter son fatal déclassement dans un monde où l’argent est tout, où l’industrie culturelle dicte le mauvais goût et la bonne pensée : « A quoi bon psalmodier le bréviaire de l’exigence spirituelle dans un monde livré au néant de la matière, sous le soleil de la marchandise victorieuse, à l’ombre du divertissement ricaneur ? »

Doué d’un jolie vis comica,  l’impeccable styliste qu’est Patrice Jean* réussit ses descriptions de types humains, comme le progressiste, qui, pour recevoir une gratification narcissique (« susucre ») affiche de manière pavlovienne sa « révolte » au service du Bien (« papatte ») et qui, dans un désir éperdu de Vertu, s’arroge le pouvoir de cataloguer, et donc de condamner, une personne, même inconnue de lui, selon l’idée qu’il se fait d’elle, au gré de ses humeurs ou de ses intérêts : « En ce monde perdu, est-il plus sotte façon, plus lâche posture, que celle où l’on abdique la dignité du doute pour revendiquer, moralement, la supériorité d’être dans le vrai et le bien, au-delà des interrogations, dans le confort d’un choix juste et solide, jamais remis en cause ? »

Nihil novi depuis Tartuffe & Trissotin, certes, mais, aujourd’hui, ces ligues de rééducation, véritables bataillons de termites, sont légion, et servies par l’électronique, et défendues par des élites de pacotille.

Tout cet ambitieux roman, rédigé dans une langue limpide, charpentée par un compagnon du devoir devenu maître, pousse le lecteur à s’interroger sur notre crépuscule et sur la nature de la littérature comme défense et illustration du monde invisible, comme quête ascétique d’une forme d’excellence.

Christopher Gérard

Patrice Jean, Tour d’ivoire, Editions rue Fromentin, 244 pages, 21€.

* J’ai buté sur une seule scorie : un « tacler » par trop journalistique … sans doute utilisé avec ironie.

L’Homme surnuméraire ? Un splendide exemple de subversion classique

par Christopher Gérard

Honneur au confrère Olivier Maulin, qui, dans une magnifique chronique littéraire (Valeurs  actuelles du 31 août dernier), attirait l’attention de ses lecteurs sur un écrivain qualifié, à juste titre, d’immense. Dithyrambiques, Maulin & Gérard  ? Bluffés, partisans ?

Que nenni ! En près de trois cents pages, Patrice Jean, philosophe qui enseigne dans un lycée de Saint-Nazaire, livre avec L’Homme surnuméraire un grand roman, qui restera tant que subsistera, horresco referens, une élite raffinée. Double, et même triple, ce roman se révèle celui d’un virtuose de la narration, qui parvient sans peine aucune à enchâsser deux récits complémentaires en gommant toute trace d’échafaudage. Le premier narre la trahison vécue par un père de famille, agent immobilier de son état, un brave homme que sa femme et ses enfants trouvent trop ringard à leur (détestable) goût et abandonnent au bord du chemin comme un animal de compagnie qui aurait fait son temps. Pour pouvoir fréquenter des charlatans de l’Université, sa femme le quitte sur les conseils de sa meilleure amie, une écervelée ; de honte, ses enfants ne lèvent même plus leur regard sur lui. Serge Le Chenadec est ce petit-bourgeois de province, ce rescapé du monde d’avant ostracisé et nié par des mutants et qui, un moment tenté par le suicide (Quai Voltaire, à deux pas de l’appartement où se donna la mort Henry de Montherlant), vivra une sorte de miracle en retrouvant une amie de lycée, Chantal, vieille fille sans charme qui pratique, elle, le plus pur amour oblatif. Mais cette belle histoire n’est qu’un roman… qui agit, et comment !, sur les personnages de l’autre roman contenu dans l’œuvre. Ceux-ci, des intellectuels prolétarisés (une enseignante et un nègre, pardon un rewriter), dérivent, l’une en acceptant les avances d’un immonde mandarin de l’imposture matérialiste et égalitaire, le Grand Universitaire (traduit en vingt-quatre langues) qui annone Derrida & Genette à tout bout de champ, l’autre en pasteurisant, narines bouchées, des chefs-d’œuvre de la littérature, expurgés de tout élément sexiste, xénophobe, blablabla. Sombreront-ils avec leur époque ?

Roman subversif en diable, L’Homme surnuméraire tranche, entre autres, par le calme courage avec lequel son auteur pulvérise le dispositif académique de contrôle littéraire, ses stratégies d’intimidation, son stérilisant jargon, ses cuistres, mixtes de Trissotin, Tartuffe et Torquemada naguère dénoncés par Michel Mourlet. Entre les technocrates de la culture, hommes de pouvoir pratiquant la morbide accumulation d’un savoir désincarné, et les hommes en trop, grains de diamant qui rayent les rouages de la méga-machine, Patrice Jean choisit le camp de la liberté, suivant en cela les traces de Gombrowicz, cité en exergue du roman : « l’art devra se débarrasser de la science et se retourner contre elle ». Souvent hilarant, toujours émouvant, il excelle dans l’art de la satire, par le truchement d’une ironie suprêmement socratique et d’un style limpide. Plus grave, il défend, contre l’abaissement spirituel, un héritage fondé non sur le morcellement et la séparation post-modernes, mais bien sur « l’agglomération, la construction, la permanence ».

L’Homme surnuméraire ? Un splendide exemple de subversion classique, un livre romain.

Christopher Gérard
Source : archaion.hautetfort.com

Patrice Jean, L’Homme surnuméraire, Editions rue Fromentin, 276 pages, 20€.

 

L'universale significato spirituale della Romanità

L'universale significato spirituale della Romanità

 

Giandomenico Casalino

 

Ex: https://www.ereticamente.net

 

1)”Il Vero è l’Intero. L’Intero però, è solo l’essenza che si compie mediante il proprio sviluppo. Dell’Assoluto, infatti, bisogna dire che è essenzialmente un Risultato, che solo alla fine è ciò che è in Verità”. Hegel, Prefazione alla Fenomenologia dello Spirito.

2) Tale passo è la presentazione universale del concetto della Vita di ogni organismo dello Spirito, sia nel microcosmo come nel macrocosmo: l’uomo, l’universo, la Romanità… Pensare in guisa intensa i concetti profondissimi ivi presenti, conduce alla comprensione dell’Intero significato della Tradizione di Roma, proprio perché Realtà vivente.

3) Tale conoscenza non è sapere se non è innanzitutto uno stato dell’essere; lo stato dell’essere è vedere l’Invisibile, che è l’Indicibile, ma per colui che è Essere non è che l’Uno, l’Istante che è fuori dal tempo: colui che vive nella dimensione dello Spirito è nel tempo pur essendo, nella radice, fuori dal tempo, vedrà il Divenire che è Essere, come indica l’enigmatico sorriso dell’Apollo di Veio, Egli, sorridendo della nostra stupidità, accenna, svela e rivela la Verità: l’Assoluto, il Divino è semplicemente ciò che tu vedi e che sei! Tu però non lo sai!

4) Roma, nella sua essenza metafisica, nella sua potenza spirituale, nella sua eterna presenza come Simbolo dell’Ordine Cosmico, come Umbelicus Mundi, come Asse che non vacilla dell’Europa, è ciò che tu vedi se lo sei! È ciò che è se tu lo fai, lo vivi e lo crei, in ogni momento, in ogni Istante della tua vita, che sarà così il Rito filosofico interiore, come creazione costante del Kathekòn in quanto Limes nei confronti delle Tenebre e quindi  iniziazione all’Eterno.

5) È, quindi, necessario, oggettivamente necessario, come legge dello Spirito, acquisire il “mutamento di punto di vista”, di “stato mentale” in cui consiste, in buona sostanza, quello che Evola definisce lo stato dell’Essere interiore e, quindi, la sua manifestazione esterna che è la “Visione del mondo” che, se è necessario possedere in termini virtuali o potenziali, atteso che la stessa non si acquisisce sui libri né con altri strumenti se non la si possiede in potenza sin dalla nascita come “forma interna o carattere”, è vero anche che tutto ciò, secondo proprio il principio fondamentale della nostra Tradizione, che è il comando apollineo di Delfi: “conosci te stesso!”, deve essere però consapevolmente conosciuto e cioè esperimentato divenendo concretamente esso stesso!

Si conosce solo ciò che si è e si è solo ciò che si conosce. Gli Dei non esistono a priori (per fede) ma esistono solo se si conoscono e si conoscono solo se si esperimentano, quindi esistono solo per colui il quale li esperimenta, cioè li vive e quindi li conosce; nel senso che, pur esistendo da sempre, per colui il quale non li conosce Essi non esistono. Tale è il significato della frase: “I Greci non credevano negli Dei; poiché li  vedevano!”

6) Se si vuole vivere l’esperienza spirituale dell’agire e della conseguenziale visione, tipica dell’Ascesi dell’Azione che qualifica la Romanità, della realizzazione, mediante il Rito giuridico-religioso, “del fenomenico per effetto della azione magica sul Numenico”, è necessario Sapere-Vedere  (non guardare…) che il Sé, la Mente, il Pensiero, che è l’Invisibile, è il Numenico e che solo agendo nell’Invisibile, cioè nel Pensiero e sul Pensiero, nella Mente e sulla Mente, nell’Animo e sull’Animo, cioè agendo sulla Causa, che è lo Spirito, creando la Forma in essa Causa, la stessa  Forma si riverbera, si riflette nello specchio che è il fenomenico e cioè il Mondo e così esso appare ed è conforme, identico al Numenico cioè al Pensiero che lo ha causato e ciò dimostra, tale processo dimostra che la paideia ed il mos majorum, sono la causa generatrice del Mondo, della Res Publica, dell’Ordine Giuridico-Religioso e quindi Politico: che è l’Idea realizzata nella storia di Juppiter Optimus Maximus. Tutto ciò è vero solo se è stato della Mente, che è stato dell’Essere, ed è vero solo se si è conseguenzialmente l’Uomo Nuovo,  Uomo che pensa, vede e quindi è l’Uomo aperto al Mondo, l’Uomo che non dice e non pensa mai in termini di “Io” ma sempre in termini del Noi, perché sente e sa di essere Noi; poiché la Romanità è Noi!

7) Essere Noi (ed è il secondo “momento dello Spirito”) significa entrare nel Mondo, superare e vincere la falsità dualistica dell’Io e del Mondo, del soggetto e dell’oggetto, della Trascendenza e della Immanenza  ed essere quindi realtà spirituale, esistenziale e concreta  e quindi Intero che è, secondo la nostra Tradizione classica Greco-Romana, l’Athanòr nella Filosofia Ermetica, l’Uno il Tutto nella Tradizione Platonica, la Res Publica Universale nella Romanità, l’Intero medesimo e cioè l’Assoluto nel significato che ha rivelato la Sapienza di Hegel. Tale è secondo la cultura tradizionale il vivere che coincide con l’essere che è il pensare, significando ciò Roma come l’Idea Vivente  e si ritorna al principio secondo cui il Pensiero è il Tutto essendo la Causa di Tutto, atteso il fatto che, se non vi è il mutamento di “stato”, il “Risveglio”, anche il Mondo continua ad essere caos ed oblio, oscurità e nebbia: solo nel “momento” in cui si “conosce se stessi”, il Mondo è salvo, il Mondo è Cosmos, Ordine, Unità; anzi il Sapere e l’Essere lo stato corrispondente, consente di acquisire la Conoscenza che quell’Ordine e quella Unità del Mondo ci sono da sempre, ab aeterno, solo che non lo si sapeva poiché non lo si era.

Giandomenico Casalino

Le théoricien de la très grande Europe

par Georges FELTIN-TRACOL

Ex: http://www.europemaxima.com

Comme lors de la chronique de février dernier, il ne sera pas aujourd’hui question d’une figure européenne, mais d’une personnalité déjà évoquée à l’occasion de la deuxième chronique en date du 31 janvier 2017, à savoir Jean Thiriart (1922 – 1992).

La sortie en 2016 dans la collection « Qui suis-je ? » chez Pardès de Thiriart par Yannick Sauveur suscita un regain de curiosité autour de ses idées. Jusqu’alors, on ne disposait que d’Un Empire de quatre cents millions d’hommes, l’Europe. La naissance d’une nation, au départ d’un parti historique chez Avatar sorti en 2007. Paru à l’origine en 1964, cet essai qui présente quelques points toujours actuels par exemple « pas de liberté politique individuelle sans indépendance économique personnelle (p. 108) » n’en demeure pas moins daté.

Ne disposer que de ce seul ouvrage aurait été préjudiciable pour l’activisme grand-européen si les excellentes éditions nantaises Ars Magna n’avaient pas produit un fantastique effort de publication sur et autour de Jean Thiriart. Le prophète de la grande Europe, Jean Thiriart (2018, 484 p., 32 €) contient des entretiens (dont un, célèbre, avec Juan Peron en exil à Madrid), des articles de Thiriart ainsi que quatre textes sur lui. L’empire qui viendra (2018, 168 p., 28 €) comprend une préface de Claudio Mutti, un entretien méconnu de Thiriart en 1987 et divers textes géopolitiques. L’Empire euro-soviétique de Vladivostok à Dublin (2018, 191 p., 28 €) se compose, en dehors de quelques entretiens, d’articles du milieu des années 1980 et la version écrite d’une fameuse discussion à Moscou en août 1992 avec Egor Ligatchev, responsable d’une faction conservatrice au sein du Parti communiste russe. S’y trouvent aussi des notes d’un essai inachevé consacré à un hypothétique ensemble euro-soviétique. À la fin de l’année 2018 est cependant paru aux Éditions de la plus grande Europe L’Empire euro-soviétique de Vladivostok à Dublin, préfacé et annoté par Yannick Sauveur (2018, 337 p., 25 €), soit la version intégrale d’esquisses parfois bien avancées.

Il est indéniable que Jean Thiriart soutenait des positions hétérodoxes au sein de l’anticonformisme intellectuel. Athée résolu, ce faustien – il préférait cependant le terme de « prométhéen » – affirme sans ambages que « le politique, c’est la gestion intelligente de l’homme tel qu’il est, pour ce qu’il est. C’est un effort qui doit tendre à une société cohérente, solidaire, cohésive, efficace, en évolution constante (version de Yannick Sauveur, p. 164) ».

Cet infatigable militant qui connut l’aisance professionnelle et la quiétude privée ne cessa d’agir en faveur d’une union géopolitique continentale paneuropéenne réelle. Reconnaissant volontiers sa dette à l’égard du penseur libéral Vilfredo Pareto, ce lecteur attentif de Machiavel considérait que « l’Union soviétique a hérité du destin historique de la principale puissance continentale (version d’Ars Magna, p. 96) ». Dès 1979, il salue l’intervention de l’Armée Rouge en Afghanistan. Dans « L’Union soviétique dans la pensée de Jean Thiriart », José Cuadrado Costa le range parmi les nationaux-bolcheviks, ce qui est quelque peu réducteur. Jean Thiriart savait dépasser les clivages, y compris au sein des droites radicales.

Rares sont en effet ceux qui effectuent à ces temps de relance de la Guerre froide « une critique positive de l’URSS (version de Yannick Sauveur, p. 185) » et pensent que « l’agrandissement de l’URSS vers Dublin et Cadix relève de la perspective historique (Idem, p. 188) ». Jean Thiriart croît que « l’Empire euro-soviétique sera une construction géopolitique parfaite comme le fut l’Empire romain, comme l’était la première République pour Sieyès. Conception de géohistorien chez moi, dénuée de toute passion (Id., p. 69) ». Il regrette en revanche que l’Union soviétique n’ait pas annexé après 1945 la Pologne, la Roumanie, la Yougoslavie, la Hongrie, l’Allemagne de l’Est, etc. La Bulgarie a failli devenir en 1979 une 16^e république soviétique… « La forme grand-européenne exige plusieurs modifications des concepts ou habitudes mentales communistes, écrit Jean Thiriart : la stupide et dangereuse théorie des nationalités (multi-nationalités) doit faire place à la supranationalité, l’Empire (version d’Ars Magna, p. 66). »

Il parie enfin que « l’Empire euro-soviétique – une nécessité pour l’URSS – ne sera pas possible en l’absence d’un nouveau concept, celui d’imperium euro-soviétique. Il se charpente autour de deux règles : la garantie de l’« omnicitoyenneté » et l’État-Nation extensif grâce à un “ nationalisme politique ” (“ peuple politique ” opposé en tant que tel à peuple racial, à peuple linguistique, à peuple religieux, à peuple culturel, etc.) (version de Yannick Sauveur, p. 223) », ce qui implique à l’instar du modèle républicain laïque assimilationniste français qu’il ne cesse d’admirer une forme restreinte de cosmopolitisme, voire un mondialisme relatif et partiel, dans le cadre d’un grand espace continental représenté par cette République impériale euro-soviétique.

Remarquable doctrinaire grand-européen, Jean Thiriart s’inspirait finalement de l’exemple national et républicain turc. Son vœu le plus cher aurait-il été de devenir le Mustapha Kemal Atatürk de la très grande Europe ?

Au revoir et dans quatre semaines pour une chronique consacrée à une nouvelle grande figure européenne.

Georges Feltin-Tracol

• Chronique diffusée le 23 avril 2019 à Radio Courtoisie dans le cadre du « Libre-Journal des Européens » de Thomas Ferrier.

Aphorismes à la racine

par Georges FELTIN-TRACOL

Ex: http://www.europemaxima.com

Après Nietzsche, Benny Lévy et Pierre Boutang, Rémi Soulié continue sa pérégrination littéraire avec un recueil de méditations, d’aphorismes et de réflexions au titre énigmatique. Par « racination », il part en quête de nos racines généalogiques (ne parle-t-on pas d’« arbre » ?), anthropologiques et culturelles de la pérennité albo-européenne. Il juge ce terme préférable à celui d’« identité ». « Dans la démocratie marchande, l’identité est une part de marché et de l’« offre politique » parmi d’autres, comme la sécurité ou la souveraineté, ni plus, ni moins (p. 81). »

Il devine et s’inquiète en effet de l’acception explosive qu’il recèle parce qu’« il est aussi une façon haineuse de vivre son particularisme et son universalisme (p. 105) ». « Dès lors que l’affirmation identitaire est une réaction aux flux, à la mondialisation hors-sol, poursuit-il, elle reste prisonnière des termes qu’elle combat, comme la contre-révolution de la révolution ou l’alter-mondialisme de la mondialisation (p. 84). »

Ces objections n’empêchent pas Racination d’être un bel hymne chthonien aux terroirs, en particulier au Rouergue natal de l’auteur. Originaire de Decazeville, ville de charbon, Rémi Soulié se considère « par nomination, un autochtone, un indigène (p. 36) ». En ces temps de tyrannie douçâtre, c’est osé et courageux. Son cas s’aggrave en puisant chez Vico, Hölderlin et Heidegger. En outre, crime ô combien suprême !, il clame son amour charnel pour le cher Pays noir; cette patrie charnelle où « la francisation y fut tardive et l’occitan parlé plus pur (p. 64) ».

Occitanophone, l’auteur en devient d’autant plus suspect aux yeux du républicanisme hexagonal sourcilleux. Ainsi dépeint-il « Marianne, la femme sans corps, lestée de son poids de chair, la femme de tête, la vache barriolée de Zarathoustra (p. 136) ». L’effervescence patriotarde ne fascine pas ce lointain compatriote de Louis de Bonald. « Au sens moderne donc révolutionnaire, jacobine, républicain, français, la nation se réduit à une idée et à une volonté, peau de chagrin qui ne garde même plus le souvenir de la gens non plus que du peuple, auxquels ont été substitués des artefacts agglomérés. Au peuple fictif une souveraineté et des droits fictifs; rapt puis viol des libertés réelles et des franchises au pays des Francs (p. 73). »

Oui, cette République à vocation universaliste et cosmopolite infecte la France, pervertit son esprit et corrompt ses peuples natifs. Elle participe au désenchantement de l’Hexagone et à sa dépolitisation. « On ne mesure sans doute pas, avant la République, ce que nous fit perdre un roi qui se déclara “ Roi des Français ” et non plus “ Roi de France ”, comme si un roi ne l’était pas aussi des sources et des forêts, des fées et des montagnes, des ciels et des chemins (pp. 104 – 105). » Conséquence de l’« insupportable modernité de la nation et, a fortiori, du nationalisme, dont sont exempts la cité, l’empire et le royaume : la prose des codes y a défait la poésie des fées (p. 76) ». Nous payons au prix fort la traîtrise de l’usurpateur Louis-Philippe d’Orléans et de l’idée impériale plus que mitigée de Napoléon I^er, empereur des Français.

L’auteur raille donc avec justesse « un pléonasme, la “ société ouverte ”, conçue comme un antipode symbolique de la “ communauté ” (p. 17) ». Cette dernière est en réalité synonyme d’enracinement. Rémi Soulié n’hésite pas à en rappeler la signification. « L’enracinement désigne rien moins, pour les mortels, que l’identité de l’être et de l’habitation (p. 26). » Par ailleurs, il « implique une dimension communautaire et organique, mais, aussi, la conscience d’un héritage à faire fructifier, donc, la mémoire d’une dette à l’endroit de ceux qui nous ont précédés : l’homme se pense lui-même comme un débiteur, non un créancier, un homme de devoirs avant d’être un sujet de droits (pp. 24 – 25) ».

Attention, toutefois, pas de méprise, ni d’amalgame ! Racination n’est nullement un manifeste politique. C’est plutôt un questionnement poétique dans son sens étymologique primordial, à savoir poiesis (« faire, créer »), afin de réagir au chaos ambiant. « Faute de poètes […] il est impossible que l’ordre règne, le poème étant la véritable “ force de l’ordre ” (p. 109). » Le recours poétique s’impose au moment où « le règne antéchristique se caractérise par la volonté de réaliser le paradis – falsifié, par nature – sans Dieu et d’instaurer le règne de l’Homme – sans Dieu -, donc, de la Bête (p. 161) ».

Rémi Soulié pose ainsi les prolégomènes d’un « État poétique », précurseur d’un « Empire du Soleil » si cher à Frédéric Mistral. Loin, bien loin, très loin donc des remugles politiciens et de l’écume électoraliste…

Georges Feltin-Tracol

• Rémi Soulié, Racination, Pierre-Guillaume de Roux, 2018, 210 p., 23 €.

La destinée tragique de l’éditeur de Louis-Ferdinand Céline

Ex: https://eurolibertes.com 

« Robert Denoël avait toutes les qualités d’un grand éditeur
et on peut rêver à ce qu’eût été son destin
si la guerre, suivie de cette mort tragique,
n’avait pas mis un terme à une vocation contrariée
par les vicissitudes du temps »

La carrière d’éditeur de Robert Denoël débute le 30 juin 1928 et s’achève le 2 décembre 1945. Durant ces dix-sept années d’activité, il a publié quelque 700 livres à différentes enseignes. Il fût l’éditeur de Louis-Ferdinand Céline et pour cela, assassiné à la fin de la IIe Guerre mondiale. Qui était vraiment Robert Denoël ? On trouvera des réponses à la question dans cette enquête ; Jean Jour s’est attaché à remonter aux sources, tout homme étant le fruit de ses origines et de son éducation. Pour cette figure secrète et sulfureuse de l’édition, il s’agissait de s’affranchir d’un milieu provincial figé : celui de la bourgeoisie catholique des années vingt : à travers son existence tumultueuse, ce sont tous les dessous terribles de l’édition, des années de guerre, des règlements de comptes politiques et financiers qui nous sont racontés avec talent par un auteur qui n’a cure du politiquement correct.

Préface de Marc Laudelout, directeur du Bulletin célinien,  du livre de Jean Jour Robert Denoël, un destin, désormais disponible aux éditions Dualpha.

Alors que Bernard Grasset, Gaston Gallimard ou René Julliard ont depuis belle lurette leur biographe, aucune étude approfondie n’existe encore sur Robert Denoël. Le livre de l’Américaine Louise Staman, paru en 2002, s’attache surtout à éclaircir le mystère de son assassinat. C’est dire si Jean Jour s’aventure sur un terrain en friche et manifestement périlleux, compte tenu des circonstances de la disparition de cet éditeur.

Tragique destin que celui de ce jeune Liégeois qui n’aura pu exercer sa profession que durant une quinzaine d’années. Pour beaucoup, il de­meu­re le découvreur de Céline auquel son nom demeure associé. Et pourtant nombreuses sont les œuvres importantes du XXe siècle qu’il aura publiées : L’Hôtel du Nord d’Eugène Dabit, Héliogabale d’Artaud, Tropismes de Nathalie Sarraute, Les Beaux Quartiers d’Aragon, Les Décombres de Rebatet, Le Bonheur des tristes de Luc Dietrich, Les Marais de Dominique Rolin, Notre-Dame des Fleurs de Jean Genet, pour ne citer que les plus connues.

On a parfois traité Denoël d’opportuniste. C’est ne pas voir qu’il fut viscéralement éditeur, très tôt soucieux de diversifier sa production, de publier des livres de qualité à une époque où la concurrence était rude, et d’assurer la pérennité de sa maison. Il réussit même à damer le pion à ses illustres confrères dans la course aux prix littéraires, récoltant sept Prix Renaudot – dont le fameux Voyage au bout de la nuit – en une décen­nie. Il fut aussi l’un des premiers éditeurs à publier des textes psychanalytiques, notamment ceux de René Allendy, Otto Rank et Marie Bonaparte.

Jean Jour a raison d’écrire que sa vie d’éditeur se caractérisa par une incessante course à l’argent. Toujours sur le fil du rasoir, Denoël n’eut jamais les moyens de ses ambitions. C’est sans doute ce qui le perdit, étant sans cesse contraint de faire des concessions. Ceci concerne tout aussi bien la diffusion de ses livres que la publication de titres plus ou moins imposés par les circonstances, ou, plus fâcheux encore, la cession de parts de sa société à des tiers qui se révéleront encombrants, voire dangereux.

Il dut également se colleter à Céline. On sait que son auteur vedette n’était guère accommodant, ne craignant pas de mettre en péril la survie même de la maison d’édition par une redoutable avidité pécuniaire. Lorsqu’en 1936, Céline adresse, par huissier, une assignation en bonne et due forme à son éditeur, celui-ci le met en garde : « Si vous persistez dans votre attitude, vous réussirez simplement à me jeter par terre, sans obtenir un franc. En effet, l’affaire Denoël & Steele est hypothéquée pour 200 000 frs et elle doit 50 000 frs au fisc. Quand on aura vendu aux enchères, il ne restera rien pour les autres créanciers. Les bouquins se vendront au camion à raison de 80 frs les 1 000 kilos et tout le bénéfice que vous en aurez tiré sera d’avoir ruiné un homme qui, peut-être, vous a fait quelque bien. »

Terrible aveu qui montre à quel point Denoël se trouve alors tenaillé entre une situation financière difficile et le manque de souplesse de Céline qui se vantera plus tard d’avoir été l’auteur le plus exigeant sur le marché. Mais s’il abreuvait volontiers son éditeur de sarcasmes, cela ne l’empêchera pas, plus tard, de lui rendre un juste hommage : « Un côté le sauvait… il était passionné des Lettres… il reconnaissait vraiment ce travail, il respectait les auteurs. »

Nul éloge comparable, sous la plume de Céline, à l’égard de Gaston Gallimard, faut-il le préciser ?

Qui était vraiment Robert Denoël ? On trouvera des réponses à la question dans cette enquête qui s’est attachée à remonter aux sources, tout homme étant le fruit de ses origines et de son éducation. Le fait que Jean Jour soit également natif de Liège lui aura permis de mieux appréhender cette figure secrète. Il s’agissait aussi de comprendre cette volonté farouche de s’affranchir d’un milieu provincial figé : celui de la bourgeoisie catholique des années vingt.

Et si Denoël a marqué l’histoire littéraire des années qui ont suivi, c’est grâce à une forte personnalité qui lui permit de vaincre bien d’obstacles : « Le physique de l’homme traduit le caractère. Tête romaine, figure romantique, mais empreinte d’énergie. Les yeux observateurs, sous les lunettes, pétillent d’esprit ». Ainsi le voit un compatriote venu lui rendre visite dans son bureau directorial, trois ans seulement avant sa disparition.

Robert Denoël avait toutes les qualités d’un grand éditeur et on peut rêver à ce qu’eût été son destin si la guerre, suivie de cette mort tragique, n’avait pas mis un terme à une vocation contrariée par les vicissitudes du temps.

Journaliste, Jean Jour (1937-2016) est né sur l’île d’Outremeuse, à Liège, patrie de Simenon, et en a retenu tout le côté pittoresque. Il est l’auteur d’une cinquantaine de livres très divers et a traduit plu­sieurs romans américains.

Robert Denoël, un destin de Jean Jour, éditions Dualpha, collection «Vérités pour l’Histoire», dirigée par Philippe Randa, 246 pages, 27 euros. Nombreuses illustrations. Pour commander ce livre, cliquez ici.

Fiches de lecture

"Crépuscule" de Juan Branco

par Philippe Grasset

Ex: http://www.europesolidaire.com

Juan Branco, né le 26 août 1989 à Estepona en Andalousie, est un avocat, pamphlétiste, journaliste et homme politique franco-espagnol. Il est collaborateur régulier du Monde diplomatique. Wikipédia. Son livre Crépuscule, qui vient d'être publié, rencontre un grand succès

Plutôt que le commenter nous-mêmes, nous préférons reprendre ici quelques  extraits de l'article que vient de publier Philippe Grasset dans DeDefensa, notre lecture régulière.  http://www.dedefensa.org/article/chute-libre
JPB

29 avril 2019 – J'ai lu le livre dont on parle beaucoup, Crépuscule de Juan Branco. Tout le monde sait ce dont il s'agit : la description de l'ascension de Macron par un homme (un jeune homme) qui précise bien entendu qu'il appartint à ces réseaux qui firent le boulot, et qui en est sorti par choix moral pour “entrer en dissidence”, pour “lâcher le morceau”, – ce qu'il fait avec minutie. Ici, je ne veux pas parler de l'auteur, de ses diverses révélations (ou “révélations”), des diverses situations décrites, des personnes impliquées, mais seulement de l'impression générale concernant disons une “atmosphère”, que j'ai éprouvée à la lecture de son livre. S'il y a pour moi du vrai dans ce livre, je veux dire du fondamentalement vrai, c'est là que je l'y trouve.

Lui-même, Branco, dans une interview que j'ai visionnée (Thinkerview, le 13 mars 2019), m'est apparu sous un jour favorable : parlant bien, droitement, avec naturel, d'une façon convaincante quant au récit qu'il nous donne. La phrase qui, à son avis, résume aussi bien Crépuscule que son sentiment général sur ces gens qui forment à la fois une partie importante “de nos élites” et les réseaux qui ont fabriqué et mis Macron sur orbite, c'est celle-ci, p.310 : « Ces gens ne sont pas corrompus. Ils sont la corruption. »

La phrase me va parfaitement parce qu'elle est à la fois abrupte puisque sans la moindre échappée possible de l'état de corruption pour les gens qu'elle décrit, à la fois singulière parce qu'elle décrit des gens qui, “étant la corruption” qui est une chose spécifique (partie du Système), en sont encore plus les prisonniers que ceux qui rencontrent épisodiquement la corruption. Cette ambiguïté sonne juste et contribue pour beaucoup à me faire accepter l'hypothèse que Branco dit le vrai.

Quel est le résultat pour mon compte ? C'est-à-dire, qu'est-ce que je retiens de ce livre ? Que la phrase citée est exactement descriptive : nous avons le spectacle d'un énorme tourbillon crisique qui est la corruption elle-même, bien plus qu'une étude des corrompus (et des corrupteurs par conséquent). On retient moins les êtres que la façon d'être de multiples acteurs dont on retient plus ou moins les noms et qu'on a de grandes difficultés à situer les uns par rapport aux autres, on s'imprègne d'un climat bien plus que l'on observe des événements. Tous, d'une certaine façon, ils pourraient être anonymes, tant leurs comportements semblent correspondre à une mécanique dont on croirait bien volontiers (c'est mon cas) qu'elle les dépasse et les manipule. Bien sûr, il y a les ambitieux, les manipulateurs, les énormes fortunes qui les tiennent tous et alimentent tout cela, et puis l'élu, – notre-président, – habile comme un aigrefin et bien mis comme un chauffeur de maître, et au fond absolument insignifiant, qui pourrait aussi bien être Tartempion, Boudu, ou bien encore Bouvard & Pécuchet. Je le répète parce que je l'ai ressenti à chaque page, ils me font bien rire ceux qui rient des Français comme on rit des moutons qui se laissent tondre, parce que dans cette affaire les élites sont bien plus moutonnières et menées à la baguette d'une entité énorme qui se nomme corruption que les citoyens soi-disant moutonniers.

Philippe Grasset

 

Jean Paul Baquiast

National Masochism

By Michael Walker

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

Review:

Martin Lichtmesz & Michael Ley (eds.)
Nationalmasochismus ^[2]
Steigra: Antaios Verlag, 2018

In the Platz der deutschen Einheit (German Unity Square) in Düsseldorf, someone has covered the street name with Simone de Beauvoir Platz. This is one example among many that anyone living in the Federal Republic of Germany may encounter – evidence of the hatred of their country which some Germans feel. Evidence is all around. Now a book has been published stating and stressing this tendency of Germans to despise their birthright and identity.

Reviewing National Masochismus (National Masochism) places me in an awkward position. I have no wish to be ungracious about the competent and intelligent writers who have contributed to the collection of essays which make up the book, and it may be seen as disloyal to react negatively towards any attempt to take to task what is here described as the “masochism” of the European. Besides, there is an inherent tendency – even a kind of protocol – which insists that those concerned about the predicament of the white race should praise anyone on the same side for their efforts regardless of their quality. The downside of this is that Right-wingers reviewing the writing of people “on their side” lack critical discrimination.

Putting protocol to one side, I believe that National Masochismus is neither a useful nor enjoyable book. It is not poorly written, not untruthful, nor irrelevant, but it offers the reader little new insight and no hope (there are many insights here, but most have been made many times before; of hope, there is none whatsoever that I could find). National Masochismus simply has nothing positive to offer its readers. It is for the most part tedious to read, depressing, and is neither enjoyable nor of practical use, unless one believes enjoyment or practical use can be obtained through having the failings and pathological tendencies of one’s nation or race exposed and condemned with ever more lurid and bizarre examples.

National Masochismus is a collection of nine essays by eight different writers, most but not all of them on the subject of national masochism. Martin Lichtmesz, who has written two of the nine essays, is the author of the book Rassismus, which I have already reviewed for Counter-Currents ^[3]. In Rassismus, Lichtmesz sought to demonstrate that the bugbear of “racism” used to such effect in contemporary dialogue – or better said, contemporary abuse – is an American import. Lichtmesz called “racism” the “American nightmare.” This collection of essays might have pointed out (but did not) that German masochism, originating in the “shame” of Auschwitz, has spread out to become a European nightmare. What was once a typically German sense of shame about the German past has been gradually extended to embrace the entire West. Europe is saddled with a sense of shame about Europe and Europe’s past, shame about colonialism, shame about slavery, shame about fascism, and shame about racism. Germany had Auschwitz; Portugal, France, and Britain had colonies. Spain has the Conquista. Each white nation to its shame.

The first essay by Lichtmesz (photo) is an overview of the notion of national masochism. In medical terms, masochism is the desire to obtain and/or the pleasure obtained from pain administered either by oneself or by others to oneself. The earliest use of the expression “national masochism,” according to Lichtmesz, comes from the actor Gustav Gründgens – ironic, if true – since the central figure in Klaus Mann’s Mephisto, Hendrik Höfgen, is a thinly-disguised Gründgens, and that book is a case study in German shame. The novel is about an actor who makes his peace with National Socialism for the sake of his professional career, drawing a parallel between Gründgens working in Germany after 1933 and Faust selling his soul to Mephistopheles for twenty-four years of youth, pleasure, and success. However, this theme had already been appropriated with vastly more skill, talent, and subtlety in his father Thomas Mann’s Doktor Faustus. Klaus Mann worked for American propaganda during the war and committed suicide in 1949. He himself might serve as an exemplary case of German self-loathing.

It is true, as Lichtmesz urges – as many have before him – that the German sense of guilt and shame at being German exceeds that of other European nations. This extreme self-loathing has its roots in the so-called Umerziehung (reeducation) that was carried out in post-war education and propaganda. It is not difficult to find examples to substantiate the case that the rejection of National Socialism in Germany is more than the rejection of a political doctrine; it is in fact a form of masochism, a mental sickness. Lichtmesz offers the example of Philippe Ruch to illustrate his point. Ruch was born in Dresden in 1981 and is the leader of an “alternative” arts troupe. In the manifesto of what he calls the group’s “aggressive humanism,” Ruch raves about himself and his fellow Germans. I have tried to render the awkward style of the original German in English:

We are the country of organizers and creators of the Holocaust. Our ancestors exterminated millions of people. They bumped off millions of innocent civilians. It cannot be repeated often enough: Germany struck the severest blow against humanity in the history of the human race. The moral core of the Federal Republic is the oath to ensure that genocide is banished for all time. The right to enjoy privileges as a German goes hand in hand with the awareness of a unique moral imperative. All those who do not live their lives in awareness of that imperative are politically illegitimate, they bask in a legitimation to which we only have a right on the assumption of that oath (p. 219).

This sort of writing substantiates Lichtmesz’s thesis that German self-loathing in respect of their own past is pathological, and borderline insane.

The second chapter of the book is an essay by Michael Ley, writing, as he says, in the tradition of the Enlightenment. Unlike Left-wing commentators and activists, Ley, who is Jewish, is consistent in his faith in the Enlightenment principles of free speech, individualism, and human rights, for he draws the logical conclusion from his rationalist and Enlightenment beliefs that Islam poses a direct threat to those beliefs. Trying to live in harmony and peace with this religion, so Ley, is a fatal delusion. The reader is confronted again with an example to illustrate the pathological dimensions of German – or in this case Christian – self-abnegation. In Ley’s example, the Archbishop of Cologne commissioned a life-sized model of an Islamic migrants’ boat to be set up outside Cologne Cathedral. Ley goes so far (p. 35) as to describe the demolition of intact buildings as a continuation of the “collective suicide” of the West, of which ignoring Islam’s challenge is the latest manifestation.

Dr. Michael Ley

Ley’s essay throws up the conundrum regarding Israel. Should those defending a European identity against Islamic migration identify with Israel on the grounds that the enemy of my enemy is my friend? In light of the Islamic mass migration into Europe now taking place, many Right-wingers who were formerly sympathetic to Islam – as in, for example, supporting the Mujahideen in Afghanistan fighting the Soviets – have now veered towards sympathy for Israel. The late Guillaume Faye and Steve Bannon come to mind.

In the third chapter, Michael Mannheimer begins his contribution, which is entitled “Vom Nationamasochismus zum nationalen Suizid” (From National Masochism to National Suicide), with an example of what must be regarded as derangement in this statement by a journalist named Wiglaf Droste (p. 41):

The German people have the moral duty to die out, and quickly. Every Pole, Russian, Jew, Frenchman, Black African, and so on has as much right to live on the German land – which has been talked about as though it were holy or blessed – as any German, if not more so (Heinz Nawratil, Kult mit der Schuld [Munich: Universitas, 2012], p. 9).

Michael Mannheimer, who is a leading critic of Islam and who has been subjected to many attacks by the Left, does not subscribe – as do many critics of Islam, such as Guillaume Faye – to the view that Israel is a bastion for the defense of the West (on his blog, he recently published a piece suggesting that the Christchurch massacre may be a Mossad “false flag”). He focuses on the reality of demographics, and cites the sobering fact that in 1950, ninety percent of the population of West and East Germany was ninety-nine percent German, but that in 2018, forty percent (!) of those living in Germany have non-German roots. The turnaround year is projected to be 2035, when more than half the population of Germany will be non-German (p. 43). If he differs with Ley concerning Israel, Mannheimer concurs entirely in drawing attention to the activity of the so-called anti-fascists, whom he describes as “a weapon to crush alternative political opinions,” and especially that no demonstration against Islam or against the replacement of the native population of Germany can take place without the presence of professional anti-fascists (p. 56). It seems to this reviewer that the anti-fascists are a European export to the United States, where they are known by their German abbreviated form as “antifa” – a Coca-Cola infection in reverse.

Mannheimer is a friend of the Federal Republic’s Constitution, a point about which many readers may part company with him, but it is hard to disagree that the government of the Federal Republic and its supporters has begun to abandon its former sense of duty to abide faithfully to the spirit and letter of that Constitution. Mannheimer notes:

The Merkel government is now breaking German laws practically on a daily basis, massively supported by the media, churches, and unions. She is breaking Article 20, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution, which binds all governments to uphold existing law (p. 61).

Whereas in the past, the Bonn and Berlin governments could at least claim that they were acting within the bounds of the constitutional rights accorded to them in the establishment of the Federal Republic in 1949, Merkel’s unilateral decisions, which even Right-wingers sometimes implausibly interpret as a “mistake,” is a breach of the provisions of the Constitution, and therefore illegal. Mannheimer regards the failure of the Bundestag to oppose Merkel as capitulation to what Josef Isensee called a Staatsstreich (coup) (p. 61):

A coup from above is a breach of the Constitution on the part of an organ of the state. It can result from inactivity, be it that of institutions set up by the Constitution being cleared away, be it that Constitutional duties are not fulfilled . . . If the organs responsible widely fail to guarantee the free individual safety and security, they will have lost their right to expect obedience from their subjects, and resistance (Widerstandsfall) is the order of the day (Josef Isensee, Das Legalisierte Widerstandsrecht [When Resistance is Legal] [Bad Homburg: Gehlen, 1969], p. 28).

Mannheimer believes that Germany has shifted from being a parliamentary democracy to become what he calls a “parliamentary dictatorship” (p. 62):

Even the politicians of the old conservative parties seem to be intoxicated by their own decline. The slightest opposition to the collective suicide of one of the greatest cultures and nations of the world will be declared “Nazi” or “racist” by a phalanx of politics, the media, and the church (p. 68).

The fourth essay, by Caroline Sommerfeld, brings some humor into what is a deadly earnest subject, and one treated with unrelenting earnestness in most of this book. She considers the psychological implication of the book’s title, namely the manifestation of the pathology of the drive to spiritual, and ultimately biological, self-harm that has germinated in the soil of the modern German psyche. Her essay is not only the sole amusing contribution, but it is the only piece which seems to me to approach the subject from an original perspective and in an original way. The style is discursive, even chummy, and the perspective very personal. Much of the contribution is an account of dialogues she had with her husband, or other people she knows. First, the reader is introduced to a supposedly “conservative” married couple in Berlin. A well-to-do mother is talking to the mother, Caroline Sommerfeld:

She: I think it is a good thing that there are always more brown children. At some stage, blonds will have died out.

Me: And you think that is good?

She: What is good about being blond? The white race has done so much wrong on this planet that it’s a good thing if it dies out (p. 71).

Sommerfeld humorously describes the reductio ad absurdum of the “blonde and blue-eyed,” Buddhistically-inclined, well-to-do mum. This mother rejects racialism for reasons which take fatalism to an altogether new level:

And so you think it is important to maintain white genes? Look, in a hundred years all people will be of mixed blood, and that’s good. Anyway, I see things in a Buddhist way, with no enemies – only teachers on the way. And you need to think globally. One day, humanity will have died out; the Sun will expand, and the whole planet will be destroyed (p. 72).

Caroline Sommerfeld speaking at the Frankfurt Book Fair 2018

Sommerfeld refers approvingly to Martin Sellner of the Austrian branch of Generation Identity for giving the Western world’s masochistic leaders the designation of sect (p. 73). The greater part of her contribution is taken up with an analysis of discussions she has had with her much older husband. He was born in 1939, she in 1979; their age difference provides her with the opportunity to analyze, as she puts it:

. . . what must have happened after 1945 to account for the narrative of the disappearance of the notion of “my own,” a narrative which includes the dissolving of frontiers, nations, and peoples in the cause of globalization, and in which international solidarity replaces national solidarity, and where there is a worldwide exchange of goods, money, and people, and that this is seen not only as a historical imperative, but to be good in itself and necessary (pp. 78-79).

I disagree that the course of events is primarily presented in terms defined by those who accept globalization as a good in itself. Of course there are those who stress their belief that globalization is ipso facto a good thing, but from my experience, the development is much more often seen as something inevitable; people are resigned to it. It is accepted as an inexorable development, rather as Marx insisted that the collapse of capitalism and its transformation into socialism was scientific and inexorable. However, a shift from optimism to fatalism among proponents of globalism may just reflect a difference between generations among one-worlders, with earlier generations greeting globalization as a step in the constant self-improvement of mankind, and a later generation more dispassionately regarding it as inevitable and ethically neutral; a development for which there is “no alternative,” as Merkel justified her own decisions.

Sommerfeld notes – quite correctly, in this reviewer’s opinion – that a major strategy of those who adhere to what she describes as an “alien paradigm” argue against any right of a nation, people, or race to self-determination or survival by insisting that the race or nation in question is a construct of history, enjoying no objective reality. Here we come back to the idea that those in power belong, if not to a conspiracy, at the very least to a sect (whether they do so consciously or unconsciously, she does not discuss). This sect denies as a matter of strategy the existence of that which it seeks to destroy: the white race. Sommerfeld makes a telling point at the end of her contribution:

We are much too much on the defensive. If pressed to acknowledge Germany’s unending guilt, the answer has to be: What do you like so much about a sense of guilt that you expect everyone to share it? What is so wrong about being far-Right? What is wrong with sexism? What is your problem with anti-Semitism? (p. 94)

She explains that she poses these questions for the purpose of studying her husband’s reaction to them. More’s the pity. I believe such questions should be posed to try and get some answers from the only race in the history of mankind which is busily clamoring for its own destruction.

But why is National Masochismus stressing the obvious – not once, but repeatedly? An apt way of describing what these writers are doing is psychologically flagellating themselves. Masochism, ironically, is on full display in these very writings: the writers relish in talking about German shame, ignorance, and decline. And National Masochismus is over 200 pages long.

For my part, I do not believe that the masochism described here is representative of most Germans. It is the masochism of the opinion-makers, not of a majority of the indigenous citizens. In all my experience of talking with Germans, I have heard at the most extreme that a person “does not care,” or is indifferent toward the fate of blonds or the white race, but I have never heard the wish expressed that blonds would do well to die out, or that it will be grand if everyone becomes coffee-colored. On the contrary, a Communist lady (a card-carrying party member, as it happens) said to me in response to regret I expressed concerning the decline of white people, “If you like blonds so much, you should go ahead and marry a blond and have a bevy of blond children. No one is going to stop you.” Thus, in my experience, it is a minority of Germans who are consciously pathological in the manner described in this book. The masochism is accepted with resignation by millions because it is dictated and urged by authority, and Germans, of all people, tend to believe in the inherent legitimacy of certified authority. The reaction of the average German to the masochism described in this book is less to embrace than to ignore it, offering only by way of submission the token sacrifice of widespread self-deprecation regarding some of the smaller things in life. (Example: “Germans go totally overboard when it comes to tax regulation. It’s typically German to make it so complicated!”)

This book exudes a negativity which works on the assumption that a majority of people are committed to the masochistic pleasures which are described and illustrated here, but the writers fall into the error of confusing the opinions of the elite with the acquiescence of the mass. It is not that I am suggesting that the mass is consciously opposed to what the masochists are doing and the damage they are causing, but rather that they are indifferent to it, and they are not so much “brainwashed” (that favorite mantra of Right-wing critics) as stultified and stupefied. They have other things than their country’s masochism or shame on their minds.

A chapter by Tilman Nagel on the Islamic religion simply stresses the incompatibility of Islam with Western society, and seems hardly relevant to the thesis of the book, unless it is to stress the masochism which indeed is likely to be a factor for people who welcome migrants to their country who will be toxic to their way of life.

The sixth chapter by Michael Klonovsky bears the peculiar sounding title of “Betroffenheitsathleten. Aus den Acta Diurna 2014-2017” (Athletes of Consternation: From the Acta Diurna, 2014-2017). In colorful language, Klonovsky recounts his reaction to daily events and statements which serve to illustrate German masochism. He begins by quoting a statement made by one of Dresden’s mayors that “Dresden was not an innocent city” (p. 119) – a masochistic declaration of a particularly distasteful kind, since it implicitly justifies the three-day destruction of a defenseless refugee city by the RAF and US Air Force, which was a war crime if the term “war crime” itself has any meaning. It was an act of terrorism which, given the extent of the destruction it caused, its cold-blooded determination to murder, and its efficiency and thoroughness in committing murder exceeded every act of Islamic terrorism in modern times by far.

Picture, right: Michael Klonovsky

Klonovsky’s writing style is not unlike that of Tarki and other journalists at the British Spectator: intelligent, angry, snide. He recounts a program about Hans Michael Frank and an interview with his son, Niklas Frank. Niklas Frank takes masochism to new heights by explaining that everywhere he goes, he carries a picture with him depicting his father hanging from the gallows at Nuremberg. That way he can always reassure himself that Daddy “is well and truly dead” (p. 123). This must have been a repeat of an old program, since I remember a German girlfriend of mine being appalled by Niklas Frank when she watched the program on television in the late 1980s.

After describing the perverse show, the book proceeds to offer more examples of German self-loathing. My feeling by this stage was, “Yes, all right! I’ve got the message! You don’t have to go on about it anymore.” But go on about it these writers surely do. Harping on the subject of their own self-hatred is the Right-wing German’s way of being anti-German, and paradoxically fulfilling the role which the victors of 1945 gave to the defeated nation. This book indeed proves how masochistic some Germans are today, by either enjoying the rejection and denouncing of their nation or writing and reading about those who do so.

Another instance of self-loathing cited here (and let this by the last example for the purposes of this review) is the changing of names. Names of schools, institutions, barracks, and street signs are often replaced in order to erase any hint of a tribute to anyone or anything associated with the “dark years” of 1933-1945. Not only are the names of people associated with – or even approved of – by the government of those “dark years” being erased, but those who might in any way be seen as having an unsound connection to them – such as having been a forerunner, for example – is subject to scrutiny, and where deemed appropriate, given the equivalent of an anti-smoking health warning. According to Klonovsky, the list of individuals thus tainted in one German city, Freiburg, includes Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Theodor Körner, Richard Wagner, Richard Strauss, and – here one may indeed question the sanity of the masochists – Carl von Linné. Given that the sect of self-loathing whites who decide these things deny the very existence of human races, it is ominous that a cautionary explanation has even been issued against the inventor of the Latin nomenclature for fauna and flora. What is unsound about the hapless Linné? Perhaps it is because he ascribed the various races of man to subspecies status, and thus is considered potentially racist, or perhaps he once spoke disparagingly of broad-nosed, wooly-haired savages.

Has the reader had enough? I dutifully read the entire book, which certainly has trenchant observations and is all-in-all a hard-hitting exposure of what it claims is a national psychological malaise. Siegfried Gerlich rightly points out that Germans suffer, and have always suffered, from a compulsion to plagiarize; maybe it lies in their oft-observed dearth of imagination. But one comment did strike me as simply wrong, however, and its wrongness is significant. In the eighth chapter, Andreas Unterberger states that one finds “real national masochism only in Austria and Germany” (p. 205). I do not know what “real masochism” is, as opposed to “unreal masochism,” but it is a characteristic error of Right-wingers to claim almost with perverted pride that their nation is “worse off” or “further down the road” than other nations. Perhaps this form of nationalistic masochism is especially prevalent among Germans, but it is not unique to them.

In providing an array of writers to express their disdain and bewilderment at their nation’s suicidal self-loathing in different ways, both the editors and contributors of this book provide the paradoxical evidence to back their own argument – namely, that German writers indulge in self-deprecation and self-loathing to a pathological degree.

This book’s contributors disregard two major factors at work which serve to explain the passivity of the mass of Germans in the face of the consistent denigration of their own nation. Perhaps because the book is focused on masochism, they did not consider it relevant, but it offers other causes for the malaise which so often is blamed on the specifically German Umerziehung (reeducation) and Vergangenheitsbewältigung (overcoming the past). I would stress again that I do not share the implicit argument of this book that the masochism displayed by the sect of Federal Republic bigwigs is a widely-held phenomenon, or unique to Germany. In my view, the German masses are indolent and ignorant; too much so to be masochistic.

The first, specifically German, element of the phenomenon is that partly through political propaganda and education (which is more or less the same thing in modern Germany), and partly through folk memory and accounts handed down through the generations, and linked – but not identical to – a sense of guilt, Germans in their great majority are strongly antithetical to war. This means not only wars between nation-states, but war in any form, including war within the state, or even political war at the simplest level of robust rhetoric. As Rolf Peter Sieferle noted in his posthumously published Krieg und Zivilsation (War and Civilization), his study of history at university was marked by an avoidance of the subject of war, and he was amazed when he went to England to see how many books there were on the history of war and war-craft in the London bookshops.

Out of a masochistic sense of shame regarding its military past, Germany eschews war as a topic, and German society regards even public disputes as essentially undesirable. Consensus is the priority of German political life. Consequently, the German Parliament is stupefyingly anodyne. Nothing much happens on the public political stage, and comparatively seldom do prominent personalities clash in public. The important work of horse-trading and lobbying – which is all German politics is – is carried out in committee, unseen by outsiders, and not monitored by the media. German politicians employ a kind of sterile and sanitized language so as not to provoke clashes of personality and principle. The dirty work of engaging in a war against radical Right-wing opponents of the system is left to the “antifa,” whose comportment and even dress significantly plagiarizes and satirizes the historical National Socialists it loves to imagine are all around.

A second factor which is ignored in National Masochismus – albeit not specifically German at all, but which is nowhere more pronounced than in Germany – is the ruling sect’s indifference to the low levels of health and education among large swathes of the population. Not only the rulers of Germany, but also the nationalists and identitarians of different hues who challenge the status quo, do not acknowledge the low state of self-esteem (is that masochism?) and health which characterizes so many Germans. Proponents of multiculturalism frequently seize on this as firstly a reason to “pep up” society by importing labor “which the indigenous population will not do,” and secondly to ridicule the overall inferiority of those opposing immigration and the replacement of the indigenous population by healthy, young “new citizens.”

A cartoon in the national press makes the point: It shows a group of smiling, happy-looking migrants arriving in Germany being confronted by ill-kempt and obese native Germans. “Ihr seid nur hier wegen dem Geld!” (“You are only here because from the money!”) a native German cries. “Nein, wir sind hier wegen des Geldes” (“No, we are here because of the money”), responds the dark-skinned newcomer. The joke mocks the low educational level of many German “nativists,” and especially the inability of many Germans to speak their own language well. It is true that the level of their own language spoken by many Germans is often very low, indeed. For example, it is common to hear what translated would be the equivalent in English to “bigger as,” “because from,” “if I would know,” and the like. Those who advocate for the replacement of the native German population like to stress – if not always as frankly as in the cartoon which I have cited – the low standards of health and education among ethnic Germans as compared to the high levels among many of the “new citizens.” Opponents of immigration either ignore this entirely, or consider such mockery further proof of the elitism of the ruling sect. The issue of the poor health, comportment, and education of the average ethnic German is ignored in this book. A book of 247 pages is published dealing with the way in which Germans “do their country down” as a pathological system of post-war reeducation, but it does not have a word to say about those aspects of German life about which Germans have a genuine reason to be ashamed.

The other side of this is that millions of ethnic Germans are pampered, indolent, and pacifistic. This state of affairs results from the enormous material gains made by post-war Germany and Austria. Practically every citizen can afford a car (and an expensive car at that), every employee enjoys paid holidays of five weeks per year, and lives under stringent rental and employment protection laws, retiring – often at an early age – with a guaranteed pension linked to previous earnings. It is surely obvious that such levels of comfort and financial security tend to make people soft and less inclined to fight for anything, especially as they have much to lose, but it is remarkable the extent to which Germans see no paradox here when they bemoan their lot. It is not always easy to take someone seriously who claims that the country is in rapid decline because of immigrants, and then cites national masochism as the reason, when that same person owns a Mercedes, drinks as much quality wine and beer as he or she wishes, and flies to Thailand on holiday. Thus, Michael Klonovsky – a not altogether oppressed member of the native population – apparently unconscious of the irony, introduces his critique of modern German society by mentioning what he was eating and drinking. He does not name his hotel, but my hunch is there were several stars next to its name:

Yesterday evening, convivially blessed with Wagyu Entrecôte and Châteauneuf-du Pape, I sought out my Berlin hotel. Not properly tired, I managed to avoid the trap of the hotel bat, but not the trap of the television . . . (p. 122)

Germans complain of tax and financial hardship, but changing one expensive car for another every few years is not uncommon (it is very rare to see an old banger on German roads), and the restaurants and cafés in the major cities do a booming business. Health insurance is mandatory. Critics of modern Germany may drown their sorrows in a good meal consisting of the most expensive kind of steak money can buy, accompanied by an exclusive and pricey wine. In terms of well-being, modern ethnic Germans present something of a paradox: many suffer from poor health, and live in accommodations which many Americans would find shockingly cramped; and low levels of property ownership (one of the lowest in Europe) and poor health go hand-in-hand with widespread health insurance coverage, child benefit payments, maternity leave, and rental and employment security. What all these partially contradictory aspects of modern German life have in common, however, is that they lower the fighting spirit of the citizens. The writers of National Masochismus have not a word to say about the lack of national spirit created by comfort and investment as it pertains to the well-being of the state, which ensures docility among the masses in the face of the masochism apparent among the state’s rulers and trendsetters.

The book also fails to make any distinction between the Germany of the immediate post-war years – where the political system of the Third Reich was thrown overboard, but conservative values remained very much in force – and the changes which came in the 1960s, which heralded a wholesale rejection of the puritanism of the ‘50s such that National Socialism and conservatism were regarded as much the same beast to a far greater extent than in other nations. This and much more could have been examined in a book on national masochism, rather than essays concentrating on the threat of Islam. It is not even clear whether this book is only about German national masochism. The title speaks of only national masochism, and most of the book concentrates on Germany, but the last chapter of the book, which is by Martin Lichtmesz, carries the title “White Guilt” and “White Genocide” – expressions very familiar to anyone involved in “the movement” in the United States – and in it, Lichtmesz looks at the devaluation and declining respect for whiteness in the United States.

This book is hard-hitting and at times entertaining, but none of the writers here outline any kind of plan for change, be it ever so vague. What is the purpose of this book other than to underline how dire the situation of white folk is?

The masochism the writers here describe and illustrate with many examples is proof of their own masochism. National Masochismus is a case study in national pathology which discusses no other aspects of the problem other than national masochism to account for the feebleness of the white man, and specifically the German, in the face of long-term racial and territorial dispossession. In an especially disheartening contribution by Siegfried Gerlich on German reeducation (Umerziehung), he quotes the American Vice President Henry A. Wallace: “The German people must learn to unlearn all that they have been taught, not only by Hitler, but by his predecessors in the last hundred years” (p. 169). This book provides ample examples of the success of that unlearning – if not among the German masses, at least among the decision-makers and people of influence. But who among this book’s readers will be greatly influenced by it? What is National Masochismus hoping to achieve? For whom is it even written? Those in prior agreement are unlikely to become more convinced by these texts. It only reinforces what they already believe. And those who hold to the establishment’s narrative will not change their views because of this book. Finally, there is nothing “sexy” enough in any sense of the word to induce the “don’t knows” to read this book and have their opinions swayed.

I look forward to reviewing a book for Counter-Currents which provides not an account of the success of the governing sect, but an account of those who are proposing recipes for change; a report not from pathologists, but from those striving to find a cure and demonstrating the wherewithal to overthrow the masochistic sect.

 

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

URL to article: https://www.counter-currents.com/2019/04/national-masochism/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: https://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/4-18-19-18.jpg

[2] Nationalmasochismus: https://antaios.de/gesamtverzeichnis-antaios/einzeltitel/57202/nationalmasochismus

[3] which I have already reviewed for Counter-Currents: https://www.counter-currents.com/2019/03/dont-get-mixed-up-with-racism/

 

 

Michel Houellebecq: Chronicler of Our Mass Incompetence in the Art of Living

by Theodore Dalrymple

 

Ex: https://www.lawliberty.org

Not reading many contemporary French novels, I am not entitled to say that Michel Houellebecq is the most interesting French novelist writing today, but he is certainly very brilliant, if in a somewhat limited way. His beam is narrow but very penetrating, like that of a laser, and his theme an important, indeed a vital one: namely the vacuity of modern life in the West, its lack of transcendence, lived as it is increasingly without religious or political belief, without a worthwhile creative culture, often without deep personal attachments, and without even a struggle for survival. Into what Salman Rushdie (a much lesser writer than Houellebecq) called “a God-shaped hole” has rushed the search for sensual pleasure which, however, no more than distracts for a short while.

Something more is needed, but Western man—at least Western man at a certain level of education, intelligence and material ease—has not found it. Houellebecq’s underlying nihilism implies that it is not there to be found. The result of this lack of transcendent purpose is self-destruction not merely on a personal, but on a population, scale. Technical sophistication has been accompanied, or so it often seems, by mass incompetence in the art of living. Houellebecq is the prophet, the chronicler, of this incompetence.

Even the ironic title of his latest novel, Sérotonine, is testimony to the brilliance of his diagnostic powers and his capacity to capture in a single word the civilizational malaise which is his unique subject. Serotonin, as by now every self-obsessed member of the middle classes must know, is a chemical in the brain that acts as a neurotransmitter to which is ascribed powers formerly ascribed to the Holy Ghost. All forms of undesired conduct or feeling are caused a deficit or surplus or malalignment of this chemical, so that in essence all human problems become ones of neurochemistry.  

On this view, unhappiness is a technical problem for the doctor to solve rather than a cause for reflection and perhaps even for adjustment to the way one lives. I don’t know whether in France the word malheureux has been almost completely replaced by the word déprimée, but in English unhappy has almost been replaced by depressed. In my last years of medical practice, I must have encountered hundreds, perhaps thousands, of depressed people, or those who called themselves such, but the only unhappy person I met was a prisoner who wanted to be moved to another prison, no doubt for reasons of safety.

Houellebecq’s one-word title captures this phenomenon (a semantic shift as a handmaiden to medicalisation) with a concision rarely equalled. And indeed, he has remarkably sensitive antennae to the zeitgeist in general, though it must be admitted that he is most sensitive to those aspects of it that are absurd, unpleasant, or dispiriting rather than to any that are positive.

Houellebecq satirises what might be called the neurochemical view of life which is little better than superstition or urban myth. The protagonist and narrator of Sérotonine, an early-middle aged agronomist whose jobs, though rewarding enough financially, have always seemed to him unsatisfactory or pointless. He suffers from the unhappiness that results from his inability to form a long-lasting relationship with a woman, instead having a series of relationships which he sabotages by his impulsive sensation-seeking behaviour. This man goes to a doctor to obtain more of his Captorix, a fictional new serotonergic anti-depressant. The doctor, without enquiring into the circumstances of his life, says to him:

What’s important is to maintain the serotonin at the correct level–then you’ll be all right–but to lower the cortisol and perhaps raise the dopamine and the endorphins would be the ideal.

This is the kind of debased scientistic language that can be heard on conversations on any bus, and reminds me strongly of Peter D Kramer’s preposterous book, Listening to Prozac, which some years back persuaded the public that we are on the verge of understanding so much neurochemistry that we shall soon be able to design our own personalities by means of self-medication.     

The novel lacks even the semblance of a plot, being more the fictional memoir of the chagrins of a man (one suspects) very much like the author himself. The protagonist, Florent-Claude (a ridiculous name that he hates) has been in love twice, but has both times ruined the relationship by a quick fling with a passing young woman. Although he has become dependent, at least psychologically, on his Captorix (incidentally, but not coincidentally, a very plausible name for a new drug), he recognises at the end of the book that he is the victim-participant of a culture in which monogamy is hardly to be expected. Speaking of the failure of his relationships, he says:

I could have made a woman happy… In fact, two; I have already told you which. Everything was obvious, extremely obvious, from the first; but we didn’t realise it. Had we surrendered to illusions of individual freedom, of the open life, the infinity of possibilities? That could be, these ideas were in the spirit of the times; we hadn’t formalised them, we hadn’t the desire to do so; we were content to conform to them, to allow ourselves to be destroyed by them.

For me the pleasure of reading Houellebecq is not in the plot, still less in the characterisation which is thin because the protagonist-narrator is so egotistical that he has little interest in anyone else (a trait which we are clearly intended to believe is widespread or even dominant in the modern world). It is rather in the mordant observations that Houellebecq makes on consumerism and its emptiness. Here, for example, Florent-Claude meets Yuku, his former Japanese girlfriend living in Paris, at an airport in Spain where he is temporarily living:

I knew her luggage very well, it was a famous brand that I had forgotten, Zadig and Voltaire or perhaps Pascal and Blaise, whose concept had been to reproduce on its material one of those Renaissance maps in which the landmass was represented very approximately, with a vintage legend reading something like ‘Here be tygers’, anyway it was chic luggage, its exclusivity reinforced by its lack of the little wheels that the vulgar Samsonite cases middle managers have, so it was necessary to wrestle with it, just like with the elegant trunks of the Victorian era.

He continues:

Like all the other countries of Western Europe, Spain was engaged on the mortal struggle to increase productivity and had suppressed all the unskilled jobs that formerly helped to make life a little less disagreeable, at the same time condemning the greater part of its population to mass unemployment. Luggage like this, whether it was Zadig and Voltaire or Pascal and Blaise, only had sense in a society in which porters still existed.

In this passage, with typical economy, Houellebecq skewers both the shallowness of a culture in which people obtain their sense of themselves from the visible labels or brands of their possessions, and the absurd but intractable contradictions of our political economy. He of course proposes no solution (perhaps there is none), but it is not the purpose of books such as his to propose solutions. It is enough if he opens our eyes to the problem.

His mordant observations make many people extremely uncomfortable, not because they are inaccurate, but because they are only too accurate and could conceivably lead to unpleasant conclusions, or at least thoughts. They therefore reject the whole: it is the easiest way to deny what one knows to be true. In the following passage, for example, the protagonist (or Houellebecq) describes the owner of a bar in Northern France who has just spent his time—of which there was much—in minutely reading the local newspaper:

The owner had finished Paris-Normandie [the local newspaper] and had launched on just as close a reading of France Football, it was a very thorough reading, such reading exists, I have known people like that who are not satisfied by reading just the headlines, the statements of Édouard Philippe [the current Prime Minister of France] or the amount of Neymar’s transfer fee [Neymar is a famous Brazilian footballer], but want to get the bottom of things; they are the foundation of enlightened opinion, the pillar of representative democracy.

Houellebecq runs an abattoir for sacred cows.

What can be said against his misanthropic, completely disabused view of the modern world? His sex scenes, which for those who have read several of his books now seem like a tic or the public confession of his own deepest fantasies, imply that sex is (and can be) nothing but the brief satisfaction of an urgent desire, as mechanical in its operation as that of a cement mixer. More importantly, it might be said that he concentrates only on the worst aspects of modernity, its spiritual emptiness for example, without acknowledgement of the ways in which life has improved. But this is like objecting to Gulliver’s Travels on the same grounds.   

His work, not least Sérotonine, is filled with disgust, as was Swift’s: but it is the kind of disgust that can only emerge from deep disappointment, and one is not disappointed by what one does not care about. There is gallows humour on every page: the personage hanged being Western civilisation.

Theodore Dalrymple

Theodore Dalrymple is a retired prison doctor and psychiatrist, contributing editor of the City Journal and Dietrich Weissman Fellow of the Manhattan Institute.

About the Author

Pierre Manent on Machiavelli, Luther, and the Eclipse of the Natural Law

by Nathaniel Peters

Ex: https://www.lawliberty.org

For most participants in modern political discourse, human rights are real and natural law is not.

More than that, the limits of natural law—not just particular natural law arguments made about human nature and its institutions—are seen as oppressive and mere constructs. Human rights, by contrast, are real freedoms that must be respected and benefits that must be granted to all human beings.

The French political philosopher Pierre Manent’s most recent book, Natural Law and the Rights of Man, is developed from his 2017 lectures for the Etienne Gilson Chair at the Institut Catholique in Paris and will be published in English later this year. (The final lecture is already available in translation.) In it, Manent offers a diagnosis of the way in which human rights have come to eclipse the natural law. He also advances an argument about the nature of political action and command in light of that law’s rationality and outlines the consequences of obscuring action. This shift from natural law to human rights was supposed to free us, Manent concludes, but has left us paralyzed.

The Double Standard that Relativism Creates

The perfect example arose last month. On February 19, the Trump administration announced a new campaign to fight laws in 72 countries that criminalize same-sex sexual acts. Why did Out magazine condemn it as racist and colonialist, instead of supporting it as a way to keep gays from being killed and imprisoned? Because rights claims are the moral trump card in our public debates, but not when it comes to cultures other than our own. As Manent notes, in our own countries, the bien pensant constantly make judgments about right and wrong in order to reform society. It is inexcusable to maintain the status quo, they claim, since nothing is more urgent or just than for men and women like us to recognize, declare, and vindicate our fundamental rights. But regarding other countries, they are more likely to suspend judgment: We would not want to suggest that our way of life is superior to those of other cultures, especially in a post-colonial era. As a result, we regard the “other” with cultured non-judgment, while furiously judging ourselves.

In effect, Manent argues, we posit that human rights are a rigorously universal principle, which have value for all cultures without exception. At the same time, we posit that all cultures and forms of life are equal, and that all appraisal that would presume to judge them is discriminatory. On the one hand, all human beings are equal, and we must fight vigorously for the equality of men and women in our society; on the other hand all cultures have the right to an equal respect, even those that violate the equality of human beings, and we should refrain from condemning cultures that, for example, keep women in a subordinate state.

This contradiction captures the paralysis Manent sees in our contemporary framework of rights. If we want to condemn barbarism without using scare quotes, he writes, there must be a human nature with which our actions can accord or that we are capable of violating. That nature operates according to a logic that we did not create ourselves. As he put it in a recent interview with the conservative French weekly Valeurs Actuelles, the natural law is the group of rules that necessarily order human life, and that human beings have not made. These laws fix the limits of our liberty, but also give it its orientation.

The Pleasant, the Useful, and the Honest

As Manent sees it, the natural law is not an ideal but a set of practical principles for action that helps agents act toward a happy life. All true action is a collaboration and balancing between the three principal motives of human action: the pleasant, the useful, and the honest. Without objective, transcendent principles, there is nothing to guide human freedom—nothing to determine what is pleasant, useful, or honest. “Natural law,” he concludes, “is the only serious defense against nihilism.”

Our problem today is that such thinking no longer makes sense to us. Manent traces this incomprehension to the reduction of our understanding of human nature to the separated individual and examines how it manifests itself in Niccolo Machiavelli and Martin Luther. Like other early moderns, Machiavelli claimed that he would not analyze humanity from inductive, Aristotelian principles, but would consider it “as it actually is.” Manent argues that Machiavelli fails to do this, because he substitutes a theoretical action for action “as it actually is.”

Instead of practical action, Machiavelli examines action as it can be seen by the theoreticians, without the point of view of the agent. For Machiavelli, human beings are prisoners of a fear of death and a fear of natural or divine law—a law that protects, but locks us in fear. To overcome this, he calls for a new kind of human agent who no longer fears the law and can therefore act according to what the situation authorizes and demands. We must escape our conscience (and the practical judgments it makes) and turn to the science of history for theoretical guidance for our action.

Manent sees a similar repudiation of practical reasoning and action in Luther: The acting Christian is replaced by the believer. For Luther, the Law produces a guilt and despair that can only be cured by faith, not action. The certitude of faith, not actions or conduct or conscience, determine salvation. As we saw with Machiavelli, the man who acts according to his conscience formed by the principles of the law is unable to accomplish his necessary end. Lutheran faith and Machiavellian virtu are different, but they both claim to allow us to escape the shame of the practical life and make the necessary break between ourselves and the law.

The Loss of the Law

In their own ways, therefore, Machiavelli and Luther illustrate the modern loss of the law as “rule and measure of action.” In a 2014 essay—which will serve as an appendix to the forthcoming translation of La loi naturelle et les droits de l’homme—Manent diagnoses our illness as a loss of the intelligence of law. This loss was not accidental, he writes:

We have lost it because we wanted to lose it.  More precisely, we have fled from law. We are still fleeing from it. We have been fleeing from law since we took up the project—let us call it “the modern project”—to organize common life, the human world, on a basis other than law. . . . Rights and self-interest are the two principles that allow for the ordering of the human world without recourse to law as the rule and measure of action. Of course we still have laws, indeed more laws than ever, but their raison d’être is no longer directly to regulate our actions but rather to guarantee our rights and equip us to seek our interests in a way that is useful or at least not harmful to the common interest.

Our flight from the law in the name of more freedom to act has paradoxically undermined the principles for practical action. It turns out that we could not make our own meaning and give ourselves our own laws and ends.

This is the heart of the problem that Manent identifies with the modern state. In ancient political thought, only the body politic as a whole could be autonomous or give itself the law. In the modern conception of the state—especially for French conceptions of the state rooted in Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s thought—the citizen authorizes the state’s commands that he must obey. How then can he be said truly to obey? Manent argues that the idea of obeying my own commands or commanding myself simply does not work. It requires that I imagine myself as two, a commanding self and an obeying self that is distinct but also me; I cannot imagine myself to be autonomous without producing a heteronomy in myself. In this way, our society confuses command and obedience and obscures them. This in turn damages our ability to perform true political actions, given that command is “the core and essence of action.”

The greatest contrast Manent identifies between the ancient and the modern world is the difference between the free agent and the free individual. The free agent is concerned more about the intrinsic quality of his action than the objects exterior to his action, while the free individual is more concerned with exterior obstacles to his action than its intrinsic quality. For example, free agents and free individuals view death differently. For the individual, death is an obstacle to be removed. For the agent, death becomes part of the logic of action. Death is not the chief obstacle to be overcome or conquered, and therefore the great menace, but one of the many rules and motifs governing action. The individualistic view of death as an extrinsic act of life is most fully captured in euthanasia, the arbitrary but authorized killing of innocents.

How Modernity Crowded Out the Possibility of Action

In the Greek city, a well-constituted democracy, each citizen commands and obeys alternately. No one would dream of pretending that he obeys himself or commands himself. At the beginning of the modern epoch, we deliberately abandoned the law that commands and gives a rule of action. In its place, the modern state organizes the condition of action—an action now judged not according to its rule or end, but according to its effects. By abandoning ourselves to the inertia of laissez-faire, laissez-passer, however, we have lost sight of the central role of command in practical life, especially the commanding role of the law as rule of common action. Instead, we place our faith in the idea that a certain inaction, or a certain abstention from action, is the origin of the greatest goods.

We have a greater flux of goods and services, but we abstain from actions that would be likely to moderate and direct the movement of men and things. Between two modes of passivity— suffering and enjoying—that hold all our attention and provide the matter of all our new rights, we have no more place for acting.

For all of this bracing diagnosis, Manent offers little in the way of prescription. How does his analysis cash out in terms of practical political action? Perhaps it helps to uncover the roots of the powerlessness that many feel in the face of larger political forces, and to explain how the possibility of real political action came to be so circumscribed.

If so, what is the alternative? What could help us recover our sense of the intelligence of law? Neither the absolutism of radical Islam in France’s present, nor the absolutism of throne and altar in her past, receive the philosopher’s endorsement; he gestures, rather, toward ancient Greece. There he finds representative self-government in accord with the natural law and without the conceits of the modern state. At the end of his Valeurs Actuelles interview, he also gestured toward France’s rich literary and spiritual traditions and history of rational discussion. These should, said Manent, “allow us to find an alternative to virulent and blind rights claims and the irony, shoulder-shrugging, or sterile sarcasm of the politically incorrect.”

Nathaniel Peters

Nathaniel Peters is the executive director of the Morningside Institute and a lecturer at Columbia University.

About the Author

La Caballería Espiritual. Un ensayo de Psicología Profunda

 

La Caballería Espiritual. Un ensayo de Psicología Profunda

(Presentación de Eduard Alcántara)

La Caballería Espiritual. Un ensayo de Psicología Profunda.

La editorial EAS acaba de publicar el ensayo del filósofo y psicólogo Dr. Carlos X. Blanco, La Caballería Espiritual. Este es un texto que, según su prologuista, el profesor Eduard Alcantára, se enmarca plenamente en la Filosofía Tradicional, con numerosos ingredientes de la Psicología Jungiana y otras reflexiones encaminadas a lograr por parte del lector la sanación, el crecimiento interior y el equilibrio orgánico de la psique.

Eduard Alcántara:

Al prologar la presente obra nuestra intención no va a ser la de repetir lugares comunes con lo expresado por el autor. Las jugosas reflexiones, los muy necesarios consejos que ofrece para subsistir y existir dignamente y en armonía con uno mismo y la visión del hombre y del mundo que refleja en estas páginas tampoco tenemos necesidad de reiterarlos en este nuestro prólogo. Y no lo vamos a hacer por tres razones:

Una, porque no pretendemos desvelar, con antelación a su lectura, los contenidos del trabajo de Carlos X. Blanco.

Dos, porque no necesariamente tenemos que identificarnos al 100% con los postulados basilares del pensamiento de nuestro autor, aunque sí recomendemos encarecidamente la lectura de su libro por comulgar con casi todo lo que en él se nos transmite.

Tres, porque lo sustancioso de esta obra nos da pie a extraerle muchas citas de enjundia para reflexionar sobre ellas y para cotejarlas con el prisma de nuestra personal cosmovisión.

Basamos nuestra manera de concebir el mundo y la existencia en la Tradición. Por ello adherimos al Tradicionalismo, así con mayúsculas. Adherimos, pues, a una forma de entender y de vivir el mundo y la existencia que ha empujado al hombre, en determinados momentos de su historia, a encauzar todo su quehacer cotidiano hacia fines Elevados, Suprasensibles, Metafísicos,… y le ha llevado, en consecuencia, a configurar unos tejidos sociales, culturales, económicos y políticos guiados e impregnados hasta la médula por dichos valores Superiores y dirigidos a la aspiración de la consecución de un Fin Supremo, Trascendente.

Adherir al Tradicionalismo presupone aspirar a conformar un Hombre de la Tradición[1]. No creemos que los consejos expuestos por el Sr. Blanco, a lo largo del libro que tenemos la honra de prologar, tengan el de configurar un tipo de hombre disímil al Hombre Tradicional, pues bregar (tal como pretende, encomiablemente, nuestro autor) por evitar que el hombre sucumba a las disoluciones inherentes a nuestro disolvente y alienante mundo moderno es, a la postre, no otra cosa que pugnar por convertirlo en un Hombre de la Tradición. Y para que éste no acabe siendo algo así como un concepto etéreo y quimérico sino un ser con entidad la persona que aspire a construirlo en sí debe ser fiel a las que, en tiempos no disolutos, fueron sus más genuinas raíces y su más sacro origen, pues de faltar éstos su asunción se tornará irremisiblemente irrealizable. En este sentido Carlos X. Blanco no en vano nos señala, en su obra, que “en los mitos de pueblos más diversos se expresa esta necesidad de volver hacia atrás” y que “el hombre es un animal desarraigado, y por ese mismo motivo trascendental, necesita tener raíz”. Asimismo, nos dice que “crear también consiste en seguir fielmente un Arquetipo que el tiempo, el olvido, la futilidad del día a día ha podido dejar enterrado.” El no romper con las raíces es una necesidad ineludible que nos es introducida por el autor con lo que él denomina como “la estrategia de pulgarcito” …ilustrativa imagen para que entre nuestros orígenes más genuinos y remotos y nosotros vayamos siempre dejando un camino de piedrecitas que se constituya en nuestro particular cordón dorado.

Las raíces que deberá hacer crecer el hombre que se niegue a ser vapuleado por la barbarie de la modernidad estarán impregnadas por el halo de lo sagrado, que siempre fue consustancial al Mundo de la Tradición. Pero lo sacro no debe ser percibido como algo extrínseco a uno sino intrínseco a nuestro propio ser. El problema estriba en que aunque forma parte de nosotros (es el Atman, de la tradición hinduista: “el Santo Grial habita dentro de sus corazones y en las profundas simas del alma”, nos enseña Carlos X. Blanco), aunque, decíamos, lo sacro forma parte del alma lo está en forma aletargada y no en acto, contrariamente a lo que acontecía en la Tradición Primordial (en la Edad de Oro, de la que nos hablaba el griego Hesíodo). Despertarlo es el resultado del tránsito por un arduo, metódico y concienzudo camino que en ciertas tradiciones se conoció con el nombre de Iniciación. Despertar el Espíritu que atesoramos es sacarlo de ese estado de ignorancia (o avidja, en término propio al hinduismo) en que él mismo se halla con respecto a su misma esencia. Despertarlo nos llevará no sólo a Conocer a ese Principio Supremo que se halla en el origen del Cosmos sino también a hacernos uno con Él. En tal sentido nos resultan sumamente interesantes asertos de nuestro autor como aquél que dice que “conocer, como ya advirtiera el gran Platón, es ante todo rescatar”; rescatar a atman del olvido y la autoignorancia.

Emprender la vía Iniciática es el único camino que puede llevar al hombre a Conocer. Conociéndose a uno mismo conocerá todos los arcanos del mundo manifestado, porque en nosotros también se hallan todas esas fuerzas sutiles que “estructuran” y armonizan el cosmos. Así, el Sr. Blanco escribe que “La vieja sabiduría ya lo decía: en nosotros llevamos un mundo infinito. Somos un microcosmos”. En nuestro interior cohabitan todos los enigmas del mundo. En este sentido rescatamos pensamientos de nuestro autor como aquél de que “en mí está Todo” o aquél otro de que “todo habita en nosotros”. En la misma línea nos recuerda aquella sentencia del poeta griego Píndaro: “Aprende a ser el que eres”. Y nos señala que “toda transformación verdadera no supone más que un auto-conocimiento. El oráculo de Apolo en Delphos decía: Conócete a ti mismo”. Despertar lo sagrado que hay en nosotros dará sus frutos y, así, ese “seréis como dioses”, que dice el Sr. Blanco, tendrá pleno sentido.

Esa vía de remoción interna que supone la Iniciación huirá del ruido dispersor y buscará el silencio. No sentirá grima ante la soledad, pues ésta le ayudará en su camino de perfección. Nos impele a ello el autor de esta obra con ese “no huyas del silencio”. De la soledad, por el contrario, huye nuestro desnortado hombre moderno (al cual el Sr. Blanco se ha propuesto tender puentes liberadores), pues aquélla le hace toparse con su vacío existencial: “La soledad –dice– resulta insoportable”.

Lo primero por lo que bregará la via remotionis será por descondicionar al hombre con respecto a todo aquello que lo obnubila, lo aliena, lo atormenta, lo esclaviza, lo altera, lo ciega y lo encadena, pues sólo con la mente calma podrá aventurarse en la gnosis de los planos metafísicos de la Realidad y en la identificación ontológica de la persona con ellos.

A este proceso de descondicionamiento lo denominó ‘obra al negro’ o nigredo la tradición hermético-alquímica. También habló de él como de ennegrecimiento o putrefacción, pues de lo que se trata es de pudrir (de eliminar) o, al menos, de dominar todo aquello que aturde a la psique. Carlos X. Blanco parece invitar a transitar por la vía iniciática cuando refiriéndose a su ocurrente Maestro Viajero dice que “cuando partió para dejarnos, todos sus discípulos hemos asumido nuestro traje de peregrinos, y adoptamos como verdadera Casa el camino”. Nuestro autor, igualmente, nos pone en bandeja muchas reflexiones que encajan como anillo al dedo en el meollo del nigredo, pues le podemos leer que “los demonios comenzaron a hacerse más visibles, nítidos. Las neurosis, los complejos, las preocupaciones, todo aquello que tenga que ver con la inseguridad. El Viaje es destructivo en gran medida. Consiste en acabar con todo ese género de basura”. En igual sentido nos comenta que “allá abajo también se agitan monstruos desconocidos, seres adormecidos que pueden un día despertarse y llevarnos con ellos hacia lo más profundo”. También nos escribe que “las zancadillas nos las ponen esos demonios ocultos que trasguean con nuestra existencia” y que “el héroe de verdad es aquel que va a lo más profundo de la Oscuridad. Y después, vuelve” …pues ese bajar a “lo más profundo de la oscuridad” recuerda a la imagen de ‘bajar a los infiernos’, para confrontar en ellos a ese submundo irracional y subconsciente al que se debe domeñar para no sucumbir a su vorágine.

Pero no se trata “tan solo”, por un lado, de pavores, de demonios, de traumas y de miedos o de, por otro lado, pulsiones, pasiones desaforadas, sentimientos exacerbados, emociones cegadoras e instintos subyugantes de lo que el alma/mente ha de liberarse sino que también debe hacerlo con respecto a los paradigmas conceptuales, a los prejuicios incapacitantes, a los falsos mitos, al racionalismo, a los subproductos pseudointelectuales y pseudocientíficos o al método analítico-fenomenológico-dispersador (y no al sintético-unitario-holístico) que la modernidad le ha insuflado. El Sr. Blanco nos brinda pensamientos que a nosotros nos parecen brillantes a la hora de denunciar estas bloqueadoras inoculaciones que la mente sufre sin cesar. Cuanto mayor se hace uno mayor es, también, la dosis de inoculación recibida. Por ello nuestro autor nos dice: “¡Fíjate en los niños, esos seres que también pueden observar durante horas las más insignificantes criaturas del jardín, o las más diminutas estrellas del firmamento! Ellos todavía no han aprendido conceptos para matar su atención y curiosidad”. Y en la misma línea escribe que “la piedra que apartamos en el camino con la punta de nuestra bota, contiene mayor complejidad, infinitamente mayor “densidad” para nuestro entendimiento que todos los armazones conceptuales que el hombre de ciencia construya para entenderla y explicarla”. También le leemos que “los más antiguos pensadores supieron poseer algo más que una mente analítica y calculadora” o que “la verdadera Ciencia, me dijo el Maestro Viajero, no es patrimonio del racionalista estrecho actual que se empeña por hacer encajar los fenómenos en sus esquemas pre-establecidos, en sus niveles de análisis. La verdadera Ciencia, como ya afirmó Aristóteles, no otra cosa es salvo Admiración y búsqueda de lo Universal”.

Superar la nigredo, descondicionarse de las ataduras que se le van tejiendo a la mente, convierten al Iniciado en El Gran Autarca del que, allá por los años ’20 de la anterior centuria, nos habló el italiano Julius Evola. Ese hombre al que el Sr. Blanco pugna por ayudar ya habría salido, a estas alturas del camino andado, del lodazal al que el mundo moderno sumerge al común de los mortales. “Construir un ser pleno es hacerse autárquico”, nos dice el autor de este libro. Y es que hacerse autárquico supone no depender de ninguna atadura interior alienante y/o incapacitante ni tampoco de circunstancias exteriores (estrechos convencionalismos sociales, morales coercitivas,…). Hacerse autárquico equivale a asemejarse al ‘señor de sí mismo’ del que hablaba el taoísmo; justo la figura opuesta al esclavo producto de nuestro mundo moderno. Ahonda, nuestro autor, en la misma idea cuando nos señala que “la garantía de toda supervivencia, no requerir de nadie y de no crearse necesidades superfluas. Estas pulsiones, evidentemente, si son superfluas no son necesidades”.

Muchos son los Tradicionalistas que opinan que este camino de realización interior necesita, sí o sí, de la guía de un maestro espiritual. Así, por ejemplo, lo postulaba el francés René Guénon. Por el contrario, el ya citado Julius Evola sostenía la convicción de que, aunque en la mayoría de los casos se precisaba de ese maestro, en otros casos excepcionales existían personas que (por sus especiales potencialidad espiritual y voluntad) no precisaban de él y podían apostar por una ‘vía autónoma de realización espiritual’. Nos parece que difícilmente se puede ilustrar mejor esta última convicción que cuando el Sr. Blanco escribe que “este autodescubrimiento de la Verdad es como el caminar. Puedes tomar un bastón. Incluso a algunos les resultará imprescindible. Pero no es estrictamente necesario si cuentas con dos buenas piernas”. O cuando aduce que “los Caminos y los Felices Encuentros deben ser buscados por uno mismo”.

No es éste lugar donde seguir desarrollando el meollo de las fases que suceden al nigredo de la tradición hermético-alquímico. Sólo delinearemos, a grandes trazos, que tras aquélla sobrevendría la albedo u ‘obra al blanco’, en la que el hombre descondicionado en la etapa anterior y con la mente/alma ya calma podrá acceder al Conocimiento, y actualización en sí, de la fuerzas sutiles (metafísicas) que no sólo forman parte de la totalidad del cosmos sino también de uno mismo. Tras la albedo vendría la rubedo u obra al rojo, en la que la meta a alcanzar sería la de Despertar ese atman o Principio Eterno que atesora en su fuero interno.

La búsqueda de lo Eterno, de lo Imperecedero, es la búsqueda del Ser. Las culturas y/o civilizaciones Tradicionales eran las Civilizaciones del Ser. Su desaparición lo fue a costa de esta anomalía que es el mundo moderno y sus civilizaciones del devenir, en las que el factor tiempo y su vorágine lo enloquece todo e impide vivir la eternidad y recrear y vivificar mitos formadores que aluden a illo tempore. La materia ha suplantado al Espíritu y el ‘demon de la economía’, con su engranaje envolvente de producción-consumo, anega toda la existencia humana. De forma brillante el Sr. Blanco nos dice al respecto que “La civilización devino en barbarie en cuanto se inventó el reloj.

El mundo de hoy, basado en el Mercado y en el culto a la Técnica, es un mundo que ha enloquecido.

Abundan los que se toman sus horas de placer y ocio como una mera prolongación de su horario de oficina. Se habla de rentabilizar su tiempo y de aprovecharlo. La Edad Media contaba con una más exacta comprensión del tiempo. El tiempo del campesino y del monje se subordinaba a la negación misma del tiempo, esto es, la Eternidad”. También denuncia que “Han montado un mundo de prisas y relojes con el único fin de destruirnos”.

Estas civilizaciones del devenir, para las que la primacía se la lleva el factor tiempo, cae, por pura lógica, en el historicismo (la historia de la humanidad como mera sucesión, a lo largo del vector tiempo, de hechos acaecidos sin ningún tipo de referencia mítica formadora). La concepción lineal de la historia lleva aparejada la idea de progreso continuo. El hombre moderno piensa que una suerte de fatalidad, ante la que ha perdido la libertad, conduce a la humanidad a cada vez mayores cotas de progreso (siempre entendidas, por él, en un sentido material: de acumulación de riquezas). A nuestro entender el hombre sufre una regresión desde unos orígenes sacros a esta postración actual que padece y que lo ha dejado inmerso en el más burdo materialismo. Carlos X. Blanco nos confirma que “culturas dignas, modos de vida nobles, sanos y hermosos, han sucumbido en el altar del Progreso” y que “El Progreso es el enemigo irreconciliable de la Dignidad y de la Espiritualidad”.

Son muchas otras las problemáticas y los temas tratados por el autor de esta obra. El lector es el que tiene que ir sumergiéndose en ellos a través de su lectura. No es tarea nuestra el repasarlos todos en estas líneas; no es el cometido de un prólogo y no hay espacio en él para ello. Encontrará, el dicho lector, mucha luz para el buen alumbrar de su camino existencial. Se trata de no verse abocado a un simple vegetar, a un latir anodino o a un convulsionarse o agitarse sin rumbo y con desazón; Carlos X. Blanco ayudará mucho, con el contenido de sus páginas, para evitarlo.

De entre tantas tan sustanciosas citas como hay en este libro queremos concluir este prólogo con un par más de ellas, por cuanto 

señalan al binomio Espíritu/Tradición como las claves de bóveda que, como puntos de referencia insoslayables, deben erigirse en los puntales que rescaten a nuestro actual desasosegado hombre moderno.

A saber:

“(…) tales estrechuras de una psicología estímulo-respuesta quedan relegadas a su condición de juguetes. Juguetes conceptuales y experimentales de unos sabios que han perdido (…) todo sentido espiritual de aquel ser que verdaderamente deberían estudiar: el ser espiritual.”

“(…) ciencia no es Conocimiento. Cualquiera puede saber de esos obreros de laboratorio, vestidos con bata blanca: especialistas en naderías, ignoran de forma feroz la Historia, desprecian la Tradición. (…) hay también en la Tradición el hermoso legado del saber de nuestros predecesores, la bella lección de humildad que nos reporta saber que otros meditaron verdades eternas con mucho mayor tino y mucha mayor hondura de lo que podamos hacer nosotros”.

Eduard Alcántara

[del Prólogo]

Eduard Alcántara

Profesor y experto en Filosofía Tradicional  [https://septentrionis.wordpress.com/]

Web de la Editorial EAS: https://editorialeas.com/

Enlace al libro La Caballería Espiritual: https://editorialeas.com/shop/hesperides/la-caballeria-espiritual-por-carlos-x-blanco/

[1] Recomendamos la lectura de la obra de Eduard Alcántara “El Hombre de la Tradición”; 2ª edición, editorial EAS, 2016 (Alicante).

Julius Evola pour tous (les hommes différenciés)

par Thierry DUROLLE

Ex: http://www.europemaxima.com

L’un des plus célèbres penseurs de la Droite radicale européenne fait toujours parler de lui, quarante-quatre ans après sa disparition. Ce penseur est Julius Evola. Nous préférons le qualifier de penseur plutôt que d’intellectuel, terme originellement péjoratif et qui d’ailleurs ferait bien de recouvrir sa définition initiale. Gianfranco de Turris, président de la Fondation Evola en Italie et auteur d’un magistral Elogio e difesa di Julius Evola, nous rappelle qu’Evola fut « peintre et philosophe, poète et hermétiste, morphologue de l’histoire et politologue, critique des mœurs et sexologue, orientaliste et mythologue, spécialiste des religions et de la Tradition. Mais ce fut aussi un alpiniste chevronné,il fut journaliste, conférencier et universitaire (p. 6) ».

Julius Evola est-il toujours actuel ? N’a-t-il pas été relégué dans la poubelle de l’Histoire par les forces de la subversion ? Et, est-ce que ses idées demeurent pertinentes encore aujourd’hui ? « Au début de l’année 2018, le 12 février, le principal quotidien italien de gauche, La Repubblica, publia en première page un article au titre exceptionnel et extravagant : “ Evola et le fascisme inspirent Bannon, le cerveau de Trump. ” […] Le philosophe et politologue russe Alexandre Douguine admit dans plusieurs interviews que sa pensée avait été profondément influencée par celle de Julius Evola […]. Or, le fait est que Douguine est assez proche du président russe, et fut même présenté comme son “ conseiller ” (p. 8). »

Deux exemples plutôt maladroits pour tenter de justifier de l’actualité de la pensée du Baron. Deux éminences grises déchues, l’un publiciste, l’autre « Raspoutine de sous-préfecture », pour reprendre l’amusante expression d’un traducteur à l’ego hypertrophié. Deux agents de l’anti-Europe, l’un national-libérale (sioniste ?) et l’autre néo-eurasiste pan-russe, deux formes de soumission politiques et spirituelles. Bref, rien d’évolien là-dedans. À noter qu’un certain Jason Horowitz s’émut, dès février 2017, de la possible influence d’Evola sur Bannon dans un article intitulé « Steven Bannon cited Italian thinker who inspired fascists ». La pensée de Julius Evola représente toujours un danger pour l’ennemi.

Il est évident que l’œuvre de Julius Evola reste d’actualité, puisqu’elle met en exergue notre européanité d’une part (sur les plans mythologiques, culturels, spirituels, et politiques) et la Tradition d’autre part. « Ses » idées sont d’actualité aussi car il fut un temps où elles furent la norme, l’évidence même. Ceux qui connaissent bien les différents écrits d’Evola peuvent témoigner de la présence constante de la Tradition comme principe ordonnateur et, en ce sens, cosmique. La pensée de Julius Evola est authentiquement de Droite, d’une Droite métaphysique, éternelle, verticale, ordonnée du haut vers le bas. La cohérence entre le verbe et l’action chez Evola suscite le respect et l’admiration : rares sont ceux qui unirent les deux à un tel niveau.

Pénétrer la pensée protéiforme du penseur italien n’est pas forcément chose aisée. Cela peut demander une certaine persévérance mais aussi une entrée adéquate. Par où commencer ? En ce qui nous concerne, nous avons toujours conseillé, dans la mesure du possible, de lire en premier Révolte contre le monde moderne pour avoir, au minimum, le « décor » de la pensée évolienne. Puis Orientations et Les hommes au milieu des ruines nous semblaient être deux ouvrages politiques fondamentaux à lire à la suite du maître-ouvrage mentionné. Mais il s’agit là d’une première approche au caractère politique. Elle ne permet pas d’avoir une vue d’ensemble des thèmes évoliens.

C’est là que toute la pertinence du Petit livre noir s’offre aux néophytes. Et nous ne pouvons que nous réjouir de la réédition augmenté de ce vade mecum grâce à la toute jeune maison d’édition helvète Lohengrin ! Clin d’œil anti-marxiste-maoïste au malheureusement célèbre Petit livre rouge, ce recueil de citations représente probablement l’une des meilleures façons d’aborder l’œuvre d’Evola dans son intégralité. Les extraits – qui furent soumis en leur temps à l’auteur – sont classés dans onze catégories distinctes et sont issus de quasiment tous les ouvrages d’Evola, dont certains toujours en attente d’une traduction française (!) en plus d’articles et de divers entretiens.

La préface de Gianfranco de Turris se veut aussi synthétique que le contenu de l’ouvrage. Turris fait une présentation de l’homme et ses idées qui, ici aussi, sera idéale pour les nouveaux venus. Enfin, la couverture bien que de noire vêtue, arbore dorénavant un magnifique portrait de Julius Evola signé Jacques Terpant, illustrateur et peintre de grand talent. En quatrième de couverture cette citation d’Evola fait figure de programme : « Seule un retour à l’esprit traditionnel dans une nouvelle conscience unitaire européenne pourra sauver l’Occident. » Gageons que la lecture du Petit livre noir éveille une nouvelle génération d’Européens à un tel impératif.

Thierry Durolle

• Julius Evola, Le petit livre noir, édition augmentée, Éditions Lohengrin, 2019, 175 p., 18 €.

Cette entrée a été publiée dans PRIMAUTÉ MÉTAPOLITIQUE, Recensions. Sauvegarder le permalien.

Conférence Rémi Soulié: "Racination" 

 

Cercle d'Artagnan

 

C'est le travail de Rémi Soulié que le Cercle d'Artagnan a cette fois-ci le plaisir de vous présenter. A l'heure où "identité" marque toutes les lèvres, ce dernier nous invite à nous intéresser, pour faire face aux enjeux de notre temps, au concept plus large et pertinent de racine.

 

Le populisme ou la véritable démocratie

Entretien avec Bernard Plouvier, auteur de Le populisme ou la véritable démocratie (éditions Les Bouquins de Synthèse nationale)

Ex: https://www.lesobservateurs.ch

« Finalement, le populisme, ce serait la réaction saine

d’un peuple qui souffre, qui est écœuré de ses soi-disant élites

et qui aspire à une vie plus digne,

faite de travail et d’honnêteté

dans la gestion des affaires publiques,

permettant d’espérer un avenir meilleur

pour les enfants et les petits-enfants… »

Dans ce livre, vous présentez ce que les bien-pensants et bien-disants interpréteraient comme un non-sens : l’assimilation du populisme à la démocratie. Est-ce une provocation à but commercial ou l’expression d’une intime conviction ?

Vous m’avez mal lu : je n’ai pas écrit du populisme qu’il était une forme de démocratie. Je prétends qu’il s’agit de la SEULE véritable démocratie, soit le gouvernement POUR le peuple. Le but de tout gouvernement est d’administrer au mieux le Bien commun, que, durant l’Antiquité gréco-romaine – qui est notre racine fondamentale, avec celles moins bien connues des civilisations celto-germano-scandinaves –, l’on nommait la Chose publique.

Pourtant les démocraties grecques antiques n’ont pas été des régimes populistes.

Effectivement, ce que nos brillants universitaires (les historiens allemands sont généralement moins naïfs) nomment la « Démocratie athénienne » n’était qu’une ploutocratie. Pour faire simple, une ploutocratie est un gouvernement de riches qui n’agissent que pour donner à leur caste – héréditaire ou matrimoniale – et à leur classe – liée à la surface sociale – les moyens d’assurer la pérennité de leur domination.

Certes, un peu partout en Grèce, à partir du VI^e siècle avant notre ère, on a introduit la notion d’égalité devant la Loi (ou Isonomia), mais cela ne touchait que les seuls citoyens, nullement les étrangers et moins encore les esclaves qui n’étaient que des biens mobiliers, assimilés aux choses. En outre, les citoyens pauvres n’avaient que le droit d’élire des riches pour administrer l’État. Soyons honnêtes, cela n’a guère changé en vingt-cinq siècles, en dépit du suffrage universel, détourné de sa finalité par d’énormes sommes d’argent dépensées avant chaque élection à des fins de propagande.

Or très rapidement, les peuples se sont révoltés. D’authentiques populistes ont dominé de nombreuses cités grecques antiques, puis Rome. Ces « tyrans » ont tous été élus, acclamés par le peuple, mais agonis par la classe des lettrés, issus de la caste nobiliaire. La mauvaise réputation du populisme est une affaire de règlement de comptes entre les riches et les chefs des pauvres.

Car, après une expérience populiste exaltante, les ploutocrates reviennent toujours et partout au Pouvoir, les pauvres étant trop souvent victimes de leur irréflexion et les gens des médias – de l’aède antique au présentateur d’actualités télévisées – sont fort vénaux et d’autant plus payés qu’ils sont plus efficaces dans la démagogie, soit l’art du pipeau… nous vivons, en France macronienne, une période de démagogie médiatique particulièrement efficace, où un agent des super-riches tente de persuader la classe moyenne qu’elle doit mépriser les pauvres.

Ce livre est donc une promenade historique, une visite guidée dans le Musée du populisme. Cela signifie-t-il qu’il existe des causes et des effets récurrents dans l’histoire humaine qui mènent au populisme ?

Bien évidemment et cela revient à dire qu’il existe des critères qui permettent à l’observateur de différentier un véritable populiste – être rare – d’un banal démagogue. Il faut être très critique à l’égard de ce qu’affirment les journalistes et les « politologues », cette curiosité contemporaine, lorsqu’ils balancent, un peu au hasard, l’appellation de populiste, qui est souvent, pour ces ignorants et ces malveillants, une accusation, alors que de nombreux exemples prouvent le bénéfice que certaines Nations ont retiré des gouvernements populistes. Et l’étude des échecs du populisme est également instructive.

Un chapitre entier du livre est consacré aux valeurs populistes et un autre aux critères, universels et diachroniques, d’un gouvernement authentiquement populiste. Et l’on étudie les différences qui existent entre le régime populiste et le despotisme éclairé.

Comment survient ce type de régime ?

Comme toujours en histoire, il faut, pour observer un phénomène hors du commun, la communion d’un chef charismatique et d’un groupe de compagnons résolus, unis par le même idéal… mais, hélas, pas toujours par des idées communes. Trop de théoriciens tuent un mouvement d’essence populiste avant qu’il puisse prétendre au Pouvoir. C’est ce que l’on a vu en France, en Belgique ou en Espagne durant l’entre-deux-guerres.

Ma question était mal posée : pourquoi un mouvement populiste réussit-il une percée ?

Ce type de mouvement résulte toujours d’un mal-être profond de la Nation, dans ses couches laborieuses et honnêtes. C’est ce qui suffit à différencier le populisme des partis marxistes, dirigés par de très ambitieux intellectuels déclassés et composés de sous-doués hargneux, envieux, très ambitieux et fort peu motivés par le travail effectif.

Dès qu’une ploutocratie cesse de proposer au peuple une ambition pour la génération active ou, de façon plus grave encore, une promesse d’avenir pour les descendants, elle devient insupportable. La situation devient intolérable, explosive, lorsque la Nation – soit la fraction autochtone du peuple – est menacée dans sa survie.

L’insurrection devient alors légitime, à moins qu’un mouvement, prenant en compte les besoins et les aspirations du peuple – singulièrement ces valeurs qui font l’identité d’une Nation –, rassemble une majorité électorale qui lui permette de parvenir démocratiquement au Pouvoir, ce qui évite l’insurrection, ses crimes et ses destructions.

Là encore, on mesure bien la différence entre le populisme et l’ignominie marxiste, où la Révolution est considérée comme le bien suprême, alors qu’elle est simplement nécessaire aux chefs et aux petits chefs pour se saisir des sinécures procurées par l’exercice du pouvoir.

Finalement, le populisme, ce serait la réaction saine d’un peuple qui souffre, qui est écœuré de ses soi-disant élites et qui aspire à une vie plus digne, faite de travail et d’honnêteté dans la gestion des affaires publiques, permettant d’espérer un avenir meilleur pour les enfants et les petits-enfants ?

Vous avez tout compris.

Le populisme ou la véritable démocratie, de Bernard Plouvier, éditions Les Bouquins de Synthèse nationale, 278 pages, 22 euros. Pour commander ce livre, cliquez ici.

Le populisme ou la véritable démocratie de Bernard Plouvier (Éd. Synthèse, 278 pages, 22 €)

Die Notwendigkeit der Geopolitik

von Gereon Breuer

 

Ex: http://www.blauenarzisse.de

 

2015 erschien in unserer Schriftenreihe BN-Anstoß von Gereon Breuer eine Einführung in die „Geopolitik“. Wir drucken hier den Anfang seines zeitlosen Essays ab – in der Hoffnung, daß Sie Interesse an den restlichen 98 von 100 Seiten zeigen, die es aktuell im Sonderangebot gibt.

Politik ist ein Spiel von Macht und Herrschaft. Sie dreht sich in ihrem Kern um Interessen – um Interessen und ihre Durchsetzung. Die Frage, die sich hier unweigerlich stellt, ist die danach, welche Interessen Deutschland hat und was es zu unternehmen bereit ist, diese Interessen durchzusetzen.

Dabei richtet sich die Frage nicht danach, was die Bundesregierung oder präziser die Administration des Auswärtigen Amtes oder des Verteidigungsministeriums für deutsche Interessen hält, sondern welche Interessen sich mit Blick auf die Zukunft Deutschlands ergeben.

Die wichtigsten Interessen sind dabei diejenigen, die in direktem Zusammenhang mit der Selbsterhaltung Deutschlands stehen. Deutschland ist zwar Exportweltmeister, aber damit überhaupt irgendein Endprodukt oder ein Zwischenprodukt Deutschland verläßt, sind Rohstoffe ein entscheidendes Importprodukt. Neben Rohöl und Erdgas als Primärenergieträger, sind das vor allem Metalle und seltene Erden. Sie sind für die deutsche Wirtschaft überlebenswichtig.

Die Gewährleistung der Versorgung mit diesen Rohstoffen wird als Versorgungssicherheit bezeichnet. Sie ist das erste und wahrscheinlich bedeutendste Interesse, wenn es um die Selbsterhaltung Deutschlands geht.

Das zweite Interesse in diesem Zusammenhang ist die Sicherheit. Sie hat zwei Dimensionen: die innere und die äußere Sicherheit. Beide überschneiden sich gelegentlich. Zur inneren Sicherheit gehören Dinge wie die Vermeidung von Kriminalität, der Schutz des Eigentums oder der körperlichen Unversehrtheit. In den Bereich der äußeren Sicherheit fallen Dinge wie die Abwehr von direkten Angriffen, der Schutz vor den Gefahren der Migration oder die Bekämpfung des Terrorismus.

Erst als drittes Interesse im Hinblick auf die Selbsterhaltung Deutschlands ist die Versorgung mit Nahrungsmitteln zu nennen. Deutschland ist nur im Hinblick auf solche Nahrungsmittel auf den Import angewiesen, die hier nicht produziert werden können. Nahrungsmittel der Grundversorgung gehören hier nicht dazu. Das bedeutet, daß die Versorgung mit Nahrungsmitteln primär gegen Bedrohungen von innen geschützt werden müssen.

Ein mögliches Krisenszenario wäre etwa die Verseuchung des Trinkwassers einer Millionenstadt wie Köln oder München mit Chemikalien durch Terroristen. Versorgungssicherheit, die Abwehr krimineller, terroristischer und kriegerischer Aktivitäten sowie die Versorgung mit Nahrungsmitteln – diese drei wesentlichen Interessen der deutschen Selbsterhaltung müssen mit allen Mitteln geschützt werden. Dazu gehört letztlich auch der Einsatz der Bundeswehr, im Inneren genauso wie gegen eine äußere Bedrohung.

Gereon Breuer: Geopolitik. Das Spiel nationaler Interessen zwischen Krieg und Frieden. BN-Anstoß VI. Chemnitz 2015. Sonderangebot: 5 Euro statt 8,50 Euro. Hier bestellen!

Das verborgene Volk

von Johannes K. Poensgen

 

Ex: http://www.blauenarzisse.de

Mit „Das verborgene Volk“ ist nun der vierte Band aus dem Nachlaß Hans-Dietrich Sanders bei Arnshaugk erschienen.

„Es kennzeichnet die Deutschen, daß bei ihnen die Frage Was ist deutsch? niemals ausstirbt“, gehört inzwischen zu den abgeschmacktesten Nietzsche-Zitaten. Diese Frage befand sich zu oft in der Erbpacht der Romantiker. Doch der unter dem Titel „Das verborgene Volk“ herausgegeben Sammelband ist trotz dreier kurzer Texte, in denen der ehemalige Theaterkritiker sein eigenes dramaturgisches Talent versuchte, kein Geraune aus den romantischen Fluchtorten der Machtlosigkeit. Wie auch Sander selbst, trotz mancher poetischer Allüren, alles andere als ein Romantiker war. Das „verborgene Volk“ ist kein „geheimes Deutschland“ verseklopfender Kreisdenker.

Sind die Deutschen noch ein Volk?

Die Texte stammen fast alle aus den 90er Jahren und verarbeiten die Nachwendezeit. Einiges, vor allem ein sehr lesenswerter Text über die Amnestie nach politischen Umstürzen, ist immer noch bedeutsam. Doch das meiste könnte uns nur noch historisch interessieren, wenn die Wiedervereinigung nicht so erbärmlich ausgefallen wäre. Das heutige Deutschland ist ohne diese Erbärmlichkeit nicht zu verstehen. Sander zog Bilanz: Die Wiedervereinigung erwies sich als bloße Eingliederung der DDR in die BRD. Nichts mehr.

Die nationale Wiedergeburt blieb aus, die Kraft des Herbstes von 1989 ließ sich von der Bonner Administration in einen Verwaltungsakt kanalisieren und nach Brüssel ablenken. Vor diesem Hintergrund fragte Sander: Wie konnte das passieren? Es war das Ereignis eingetreten, das er und viele andere der patriotischen Opposition seit Jahren herbeigesehnt hatten – in den 80ern war man auch in der Union ein Rechtsaußen, wenn man die deutsche Teilung nicht als einen Dauerzustand anerkennen wollte – ohne daß das Erhoffte dann auch geschah.

Dabei schrieb Sander den Sturz der SED den Mitteldeutschen selbst zu und verwahrte sich eindeutig dagegen, die Wiedervereinigung sei ein Geschenk von Russen und Amerikanern gewesen. Das große Paradox, vor dem er stand, war, wie dieser Kraftakt so einfach verpuffen konnte.

Sind die Deutschen überhaupt noch ein Volk? Alle, die heute in irgendeiner Weise widerständig oder bürgerbewegt sind, mögen aufpassen, daß sie sich nicht bald dieselbe Frage stellen.

Kriegsgeneration und postfaschistische Intelligenz

Die konservative Standarderklärung für alles, was in diesem Land schiefläuft, war damals und ist zum Teil noch heute: Die 68er waren es. Sander, der wegen seiner Herkunft von Marx und Brecht in den konservativen Kreisen der alten Bundesrepublik nicht immer wohl gelitten gewesen war, gab sich mit diesem Verweis auf die ungezogenen Kinder nicht zufrieden.

Er bestritt, daß es jemals eine Bundesrepublik gegeben habe, die nicht auf der schiefen Ebene gebaut gewesen war und zerschlug dabei konservatives Porzellan. Zuvorderst ging es der Kriegsgeneration an den Kragen, präziser gesagt: den Überlebenden. Nachdem die Besten gefallen waren, sei sie zwar noch zum wirtschaftlichen Wiederaufbau fähig gewesen, verzog sich aber bewußt in ein Privatleben, der die öffentliche Betätigung jenseits wirtschaftlicher Interessenvertretung suspekt war.

Vorneweg marschierte bei diesem Rückzug, was Sander die „postfaschistische Intelligenz“ nannte. Die Überlebenden der konservativen Revolution. Die Schmitts und Jüngers, Benns und Heideggers und Gehlens, die sich nach 1945 in die Resignation zurückzogen, nicht ohne die morbide Würze, das eigene Scheitern mit dem nationalen Untergang in eins zu setzen. „In der Bennschen Perspektive des ‚Dunkeln, Altern, Aprélude‘ verschmolz bei diesen Geistern hermetisch persönliches und nationales Schicksal.“

Das verborgene Volk

Was hat es also mit dem „verborgenen Volk“ auf sich? Das verborgene Volk ist keine machtlose Geistestradition, kein Bildungskanon und keine Floskel für Sonntagsreden, sondern ein sehr einfacher Ausdruck für die Hoffnung, daß im deutschen Volk noch genug Kraft vorhanden ist, um eine politische Wende zu erreichen.

Genauer: Dass der Alltagsanschein des Bundesbürgers noch nicht das letzte Wort über die Zukunftsfähigkeit der Deutschen ist. Diese Hoffnung bildet die Grundstimmung dieses Buches, das in Teilen der politischen Theologie zuzurechnen ist. Es ist ein Bekenntnis des „Trotz alledem“, das auch mit der Wandelbarkeit menschlicher Zustände noch rechnet.

Hans-Dietrich Sander: Das verborgene Volk, Arnshaugk, 2018, 224 Seiten, gebunden. 24,00 Euro

The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities

The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities

An excerpt from John Mearsheimer's latest book.
by John J. Mearsheimer

Ex: https://nationalinterest.org

Editor’s Note: This is an excerpt from the new book The Great Delusion : Liberal Dreams and International Realities by John Mearsheimer.

Liberal hegemony is an ambitious strategy in which a state aims to turn as many countries as possible into liberal democracies like itself while also promoting an open international economy and building international institutions. In essence, the liberal state seeks to spread its own values far and wide. My goal in this book is to describe what happens when a power­ful state pursues this strategy at the expense of balance­-of­-power politics.

Many in the West, especially among foreign policy elites, consider liberal hegemony a wise policy that states should axiomatically adopt. Spreading liberal democracy around the world is said to make eminently good sense from both a moral and a strategic perspective. For starters, it is thought to be an excellent way to protect human rights, which are sometimes seri­ously violated by authoritarian states. And because the policy holds that liberal democracies do not want to go to war with each other, it ultimately provides a formula for transcending realism and fostering international peace. Finally, proponents claim it helps protect liberalism at home by eliminating authoritarian states that otherwise might aid the illiberal forces that are constantly present inside the liberal state.

This conventional wisdom is wrong. Great powers are rarely in a position to pursue a full­-scale liberal foreign policy. As long as two or more of them exist on the planet, they have little choice but to pay close attention to their position in the global balance of power and act according to the dictates of realism. Great powers of all persuasions care deeply about their survival, and there is always the danger in a bipolar or multipolar system that they will be attacked by another great power. In these circumstances, liberal great powers regularly dress up their hard­-nosed behavior with liberal rhe­toric. They talk like liberals and act like realists. Should they adopt liberal policies that are at odds with realist logic, they invariably come to regret it. But occasionally a liberal democracy encounters such a favorable balance of power that it is able to embrace liberal hegemony. That situation is most likely to arise in a unipolar world, where the single great power does not have to worry about being attacked by another great power since there is none. Then the liberal sole pole will almost always abandon realism and adopt a liberal foreign policy. Liberal states have a crusader mentality hard­-wired into them that is hard to restrain.

Because liberalism prizes the concept of inalienable or natural rights, committed liberals are deeply concerned about the rights of virtually every individual on the planet. This universalist logic creates a powerful incen­tive for liberal states to get involved in the affairs of countries that seriously violate their citizens’ rights. To take this a step further, the best way to ensure that the rights of foreigners are not trampled is for them to live in a liberal democracy. This logic leads straight to an active policy of regime change, where the goal is to topple autocrats and put liberal democracies in their place. Liberals do not shy from this task, mainly because they often have great faith in their state’s ability to do social engineering both at home and abroad. Creating a world populated by liberal democracies is also thought to be a formula for international peace, which would not just eliminate war but greatly reduce, if not eliminate, the twin scourges of nuclear prolifera­tion and terrorism. And lastly, it is an ideal way of protecting liberalism at home.

This enthusiasm notwithstanding, liberal hegemony will not achieve its goals, and its failure will inevitably come with huge costs. The liberal state is likely to end up fi endless wars, which will increase rather than reduce the level of conflict in international politics and thus aggravate the problems of proliferation and terrorism. Moreover, the state’s militaristic behavior is almost certain to end up threatening its own liberal values. Liber­alism abroad leads to illiberalism at home. Finally, even if the liberal state were to achieve its aims—spreading democracy near and far, fostering eco­nomic intercourse, and creating international institutions—they would not produce peace.

The key to understanding liberalism’s limits is to recognize its relation­ship with nationalism and realism. This book is ultimately all about these three isms and how they interact to affect international politics.

Nationalism is an enormously powerful political ideology. It revolves around the division of the world into a wide variety of nations, which are formidable social units, each with a distinct culture. Virtually every nation would prefer to have its own state, although not all can. Still, we live in a world populated almost exclusively by nation­-states, which means that liberalism must coexist with nationalism. Liberal states are also nation­states. There is no question that liberalism and nationalism can coexist, but when they clash, nationalism almost always wins.

The influence of nationalism often undercuts a liberal foreign policy. For example, nationalism places great emphasis on self­-determination, which means that most countries will resist a liberal great power’s efforts to inter­fere in their domestic politics—which, of course, is what liberal hegemony is all about. These two isms also clash over individual rights. Liberals be­lieve everyone has the same rights, regardless of which country they call home. Nationalism is a particularist ideology from top to bottom, which means it does not treat rights as inalienable. In practice, the vast majority of people around the globe do not care greatly about the rights of individu­als in other countries. They are much more concerned about their fellow citizens’ rights, and even that commitment has limits. Liberalism oversells the importance of individual rights.

Liberalism is also no match for realism. At its core, liberalism assumes that the individuals who make up any society sometimes have profound differences about what constitutes the good life, and these differences might lead them to try to kill each other. Thus a state is needed to keep the peace. But there is no world state to keep countries at bay when they have profound disagreements. The structure of the international system is anar­chic, not hierarchic, which means that liberalism applied to international politics cannot work. Countries thus have little choice but to act according to balance-­of-­power logic if they hope to survive. There are special cases, however, where a country is so secure that it can take a break from realpolitik and pursue truly liberal policies. The results are almost always bad, largely because nationalism thwarts the liberal crusader.

My argument, stated briefly, is that nationalism and realism almost always trump liberalism. Our world has been shaped in good part by those two powerful isms, not by liberalism. Consider that five hundred years ago the political universe was remarkably heterogeneous; it included city­-states, duchies, empires, principalities, and assorted other political forms. That world has given way to a globe populated almost exclusively by nation­ states. Although many factors caused this great transformation, two of the main driving forces behind the modern state system were nationalism and balance-­of-­power politics.

The American Embrace of Liberal Hegemony

This book is also motivated by a desire to understand recent American foreign policy. The United States is a deeply liberal country that emerged from the Cold War as by far the most powerful state in the international system. 1 The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 left it in an ideal position to pursue liberal hegemony. 2 The American foreign policy establishment em­ braced that ambitious policy with little hesitation, and with abundant opti­mism about the future of the United States and the world. At least at first, the broader public shared this enthusiasm.

The zeitgeist was captured in Francis Fukuyama’s famous article, “The End of History?,” published just as the Cold War was coming to a close. 3 Liberalism, he argued, defeated fascism in the first half of the twentieth century and communism in the second half, and now there was no viable alternative left standing. The world would eventually be entirely populated by liberal democracies. According to Fukuyama, these nations would have virtually no meaningful disputes, and wars between great powers would cease. The biggest problem confronting people in this new world, he suggested, might be boredom.

It was also widely believed at the time that the spread of liberalism would ultimately bring an end to balance-­of-­power politics. The harsh security competition that has long characterized great-­power relations would dis­appear, and realism, long the dominant intellectual paradigm in inter­national relations, would land on the scrap heap of history. “In a world where freedom, not tyranny, is on the march,” Bill Clinton proclaimed while campaigning for the White House in 1992, “the cynical calculus of pure power politics simply does not compute. It is ill­-suited to a new era in which ideas and information are broadcast around the globe before ambas­sadors can read their cables.”

Probably no recent president embraced the mission of spreading liberal­ism more enthusiastically than George W. Bush, who said in a speech in March 2003, two weeks before the invasion of Iraq: “The current Iraqi re­gime has shown the power of tyranny to spread discord and violence in the Middle East. A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region, by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. America’s interests in security, and America’s belief in liberty, both lead in the same direction: to a free and peaceful Iraq.” Later that year, on September 6, he proclaimed: “The advance of freedom is the calling of our time; it is the calling of our country. From the Fourteen Points to the Four Freedoms, to the Speech at Westminster, America has put our power at the service of principle. We believe that liberty is the design of nature; we be­lieve that liberty is the direction of history. We believe that human fulfill­ment and excellence come in the responsible exercise of liberty. And we believe that freedom—the freedom we prize—is not for us alone, it is the right and the capacity of all mankind.”

Something went badly wrong. Most people’s view of U.S. foreign policy today, in 2018, is starkly different from what it was in 2003, much less the early 1990s. Pessimism, not optimism, dominates most assessments of America’s accomplishments during its holiday from realism. Under Presi­dents Bush and Barack Obama, Washington has played a key role in sow­ing death and destruction across the greater Middle East, and there is little evidence the mayhem will end anytime soon. American policy toward Ukraine, motivated by liberal logic, is principally responsible for the ongo­ing crisis between Russia and the West. The United States has been at war for two out of every three years since 1989, fighting seven different wars. We should not be surprised by this. Contrary to the prevailing wisdom in the West, a liberal foreign policy is not a formula for cooperation and peace but for instability and conflict.

In this book I focus on the period between 1993 and 2017, when the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations, each in control of American foreign policy for eight years, were fully committed to pursuing liberal hegemony. Although President Obama had some reservations about that policy, they mattered little for how his administration actually acted abroad. I do not consider the Trump administration for two reasons. First, as I was finishing this book it was difficult to determine what President Trump’s foreign policy would look like, although it is clear from his rhetoric during the 2016 campaign that he recognizes that liberal hegemony has been an abject failure and would like to abandon key elements of that strategy. Second, there is good reason to think that with the rise of China and the res­urrection of Russian power having put great power politics back on the table, Trump eventually will have no choice but to move toward a grand strategy based on realism, even if doing so meets with considerable resistance at home.

John J. Mearsheimer is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago. His many books include The Tragedy of Great Power Politics and Conventional Deterrence .

Matthieu Baumier : "si le clivage gauche-droite n’existe plus, c'est qu'il n’existe plus au sein de la pensée libérale-libertaire"

Matthieu Baumier : "si le clivage gauche-droite n’existe plus, c'est qu'il n’existe plus au sein de la pensée libérale-libertaire"

Ex: https://www.sudradio.fr

Matthieu Baumier, écrivain, critique, essayiste et auteur de Voyage au bout des ruines libérales-libertaires (Éditions Pierre-Guillaume de Roux) était l’invité d’André Bercoff le 6 février 2019 sur Sud Radio.

Pour Matthieu Baumier, écrivain, critique, essayiste et auteur de Voyage au bout des ruines libérales-libertaires (Éditions Pierre-Guillaume de Roux), de nos jours, "tout ce qui serait réellement à gauche ou réellement à droite est repoussé aux extrêmes et considéré comme ne pouvant pas faire partie du jeu politique". Matthieu Baumier était l’invité d’André Bercoff le 6 février 2019 sur Sud Radio dans son rendez-vous du 12h-13h, "Bercoff dans tous ses états".

Les lib-lib, un groupe social aux caractéristiques bien définies

Matthieu Baumier a commencé par expliquer ce qu’est un libéral-libertaire (lib-lib). "J’aime beaucoup la définition que donne Jean-Claude Michéa. Un libéral-libertaire, c’est la conjugaison d’un certain libéralisme économique exacerbé et d’un libéralisme culturel et politique. C’est une religion de l’illimité, l’absence d’autorité, une conception du monde hors sol, sans enracinement", a expliqué Matthieu Baumier.

Il y a néanmoins une différence entre les lib-lib et les bobos. "Le bobo est une personne qui vit dans le monde lib-lib. La différence est que le lib-lib est mondialisé et acteur de cette mondialisation. Le lib-lib est un acteur politique, médiatique, économique ou culturel, tandis que le bobo peut être un citoyen lambda", nous a raconté Matthieu Baumier.

Pour les libéraux-libertaires, tant la gauche que la droite sont des extrêmes

"Il y a le monde réel, dont on ne tient pas compte. Et en lieu et place de ce monde réel est mis en place une image du réel à laquelle on ne peut pas s’opposer. Je crois que ce processus est contre-démocratique. Par exemple, le Président Macron est légitime car il a été élu sur le plan de la démocratie participative. En revanche, le pouvoir politique actuel n’a pas de légitimité parce que la moitié des citoyens français ne sont pas représentés à l’Assemblée nationale", a estimé Matthieu Baumier.

"Nous avons tendance à considérer que le clivage droite-gauche n’existe plus. S’il n’existe plus, il n’existe plus au sein de la pensée libérale-libertaire. Tout ce qui serait réellement à gauche ou réellement à droite est repoussé aux extrêmes et considéré comme ne pouvant pas faire partie du jeu politique. C’est de ce biais que naît la contre-démocratie dans laquelle nous sommes", a poursuivi Matthieu Baumier.

Cliquez ici pour écouter l’invité d’André Bercoff dans son intégralité en podcast.

Retrouvez André Bercoff et ses invités du lundi au vendredi sur Sud Radio, à partir de midi.

Toutes les fréquences de Sud Radio sont ici !

La gauche américaine et le piège identitaire

par Olivier Meuwly

Ex: https://www.letemps.ch

OPINION. L’auteur américain Mark Lilla prône une gauche réconciliée avec une citoyenneté qui aurait divorcé de ses démons identitaires et de son «narcissisme moralisant», explique l’historien Olivier Meuwly. Une leçon qui vaudrait aussi pour l’Europe.

La notion d’identité est traditionnellement accolée à la droite, surtout la plus extrême. Comme si l’identité ne renvoyait qu’à une ethnie ou une nation qu’il s’agirait de protéger contre une abrasive et universaliste modernité, hostile aux particularismes régionaux. Et si cette notion était plus complexe? Cette interrogation réside au cœur d’un essai du philosophe américain et homme de gauche Mark Lilla, récemment traduit en français*. L’auteur se demande ni plus ni moins, en s’adressant à ses amis membres du Parti démocrate, si la gauche ne se serait pas à son tour ménagé une politique identitaire, bien sûr antagonique à celle prévalant à droite, mais tout aussi mortifère, surtout pour ses propres intérêts. Son livre a été très mal reçu par ses amis politiques…

Mark Lilla estime que la gauche américaine, mais le constat vaut aussi pour l’Europe, a interprété l’individualisme des années 60 et 70 comme la matrice d’une politique orientée vers le moi, dans le prolongement du romantisme néoanarchiste en vogue à l’époque. Alors que la droite reaganienne dérivait vers un libéralisme «néo» vissé sur le profit, la gauche se serait représenté la société non comme un collectif, désormais dépassé, mais comme une juxtaposition de «moi» s’assemblant avec d’autres «moi» au gré de leurs similitudes, raciales, sexuelles, ou autres. Le monde de la gauche se serait ainsi transformé en un univers constitué de groupes partageant une identité dont la défense serait l’unique finalité. Tournant le dos à l’action politique, délégitimée dans le discours soixante-huitard, cette gauche aurait confié à la justice le soin de dresser des digues autour de ces identités pour mieux contourner les défaites enregistrées dans un champ politique de toute façon méprisé. Il est vrai que le système américain n’est pas avare d’opportunités en la matière…

Moralisme identitaire

Engluée dans cette quête identitaire génitrice d’un «politiquement correct» où le simple fait de ne pas adhérer pleinement à ses réquisitions est jugé amoral et donc condamnable, la gauche se réfugie dans l’anathème: l’identité de gauche n’aurait dès lors plus rien à envier à l’identité de droite récupérée par l’aile droite du Parti républicain, avec à la clé un repli identitaire d’obédience «populiste», voire cryptonationaliste.

La grande victime de ce virage identitaire serait l’idée même de citoyenneté que, devant le vide ainsi créé à gauche, la droite n’aurait, selon l’auteur, aucune peine à remplir de ses propres valeurs. Le citoyen s’étant ainsi effacé devant l’individu perçu à travers sa seule identité, le fossé se creuse entre le «nous», au bord de l’effondrement, et le «moi» triomphant. Piège d’autant plus pernicieux pour la gauche que l’individu se définit par des identités multiples que seule la conscience d’une appartenance collective aurait pu transcender. Or l’appartenance personnelle s’impose comme la seule référence, anesthésiant tout discours audible par l’ensemble des Américains.

Le citoyen s’étant effacé devant l’individu perçu à travers sa seule identité, le fossé se creuse entre le «nous», au bord de l’effondrement, et le «moi» triomphant

Mark Lilla s’abstient d’explorer toutes les raisons qui ont poussé la gauche à s’enliser dans ce moralisme identitaire à même de se retourner contre la légitime protection des minorités, mais survalorisant les marges au détriment de l’ensemble. L’égalitarisme ne mine-t-il pas les fondements de l’égalité? Il préfère ne pas aborder la question, douloureuse. Il aurait aussi pu évoquer l’exemple de l’islamo-gauchisme que l’Europe connaît bien et qui a été dénoncé par de nombreux auteurs, pas tous de droite.

Retrouver le bien commun

Mark Lilla ne manque néanmoins pas de courage et son plaidoyer pour une gauche réconciliée avec une citoyenneté qui aurait divorcé de ses démons identitaires, de ce «narcissisme moralisant» selon ses propres termes, mérite d’être analysé au-delà de sa seule famille politique. Car il ne dit pas qu’articuler un discours sur l’identité est mauvais en soi mais qu’au contraire la défense des identités, nécessaire, ne trouve sa justification ultime que dans la recherche du bien commun. Et ce bien commun se réalise dans le dialogue et le compromis, que Lilla reproche aux démocrates de son pays de négliger. Les social-démocraties européennes devraient être mieux outillées mais elles semblent elles aussi de plus en plus succomber à cet «identitarisme» malheureux.

Concentré sur les identités que la gauche a voulu prendre sous son aile mais sous lesquelles elle menace d’étouffer, l’auteur ne s’intéresse pas à l’identité nationale. Or la gauche peut-elle renouer avec cette citoyenneté réellement universelle sans réinventer un discours sur la nation et ses exigences minimales? Réciproquement, la droite doit réfléchir sur les façons de marier l’identité nationale avec les autres identités, expression de la liberté individuelle, pour ne pas s’illusionner d’une cohésion sociale «bricolée» par la seule grâce d’une nation magnifiée.

* La gauche identitaire. L’Amérique en miettes, Stock.

 

Lucien Cerise: Manuel de combat pour la guerre cognitive totale

Lucien Cerise: Manuel de combat pour la guerre cognitive totale

par Iure Rosca

Ex: https://echelledejacob.blogspot.com 

Préface à la traduction en roumain de « Neuro-Pirates – Réflexions sur l’ingénierie sociale », de Lucien Cerise.

Ce livre de Lucien Cerise est le premier de cet auteur traduit en roumain. Il succède aux autres ouvrages édités par l’Université Populaire et signés par nos amis français, que j’ai le plaisir de rappeler ici : Jean Parvulesco « Vladimir Poutine et l’Eurasie » ; Hervé Juvin « Le Mur de l’Ouest n’est pas tombé » ; Jean-Michel Vernochet « La guerre civile froide : La théogonie républicaine de Robespierre à Macron » ; Ivan Blot « L’Europe colonisée » ; Valérie Bugault & Jean Rémi « Du Nouvel Esprit des Lois et de la Monnaie » ; Youssef Hindi « La Mystique de la Laïcité. Généalogie de la religion républicaine de Junius Frey à Vincent Peillon » ; Hervé Juvin « Le gouvernement du désir ».

Ces livres ont été publiés en l’espace d’un an. Ils appartiennent au même courant d’opinion antimondialiste et manifestent des approches similaires face aux grands défis de notre époque. Tous ces auteurs français font partie de ce qu’on appelle depuis quelques années la nouvelle dissidence occidentale qui a émergé dans le monde de l’après-guerre froide.

 

L’émergence de ces travaux fondamentaux est d’une urgence extrême non seulement pour la France, mais aussi pour l’espace roumanophone car nous sommes également touchés par les effets néfastes d’un Occident globalisé, destructeur et même génocidaire. La capacité à pénétrer l’essence d’un système pervers, extrêmement complexe et multiforme, associé, non sans raison, avec l’empire mondial américain et son extension régionale, l’Union Européenne, est totalement censurée par l’oligarchie mondialiste, qui parvient à imposer un contrôle quasi total de la perception de la réalité.

Dans cette perspective, le livre de notre ami Lucien Cerise fait partie des outils de combat de la guerre cognitive, culturelle, idéologique, identitaire et psychologique en cours, qui englobe tous les peuples du monde sans exception. En ce sens, l’avertissement de Lucien Cerise – « La Patrie est en danger ! Toutes les Patries sont en danger ! » – est pleinement justifié et définit aussi clairement que possible l’abîme où toute l’humanité risque de s’effondrer si nous n’agissons pas.

Comme toute guerre, celle dans laquelle nous sommes engagés sans réserve nécessite une mobilisation totale. Et comme toujours dans l’histoire, les porteurs de vérité sont peu nombreux. Ils assument le rôle d’avant-garde sur le front intellectuel, portant la responsabilité morale d’une élite authentique pour guider leur nation vers l’objectif consistant à se libérer du joug de ce nouveau type d’impérialisme extraterritorial. Lucien Cerise défie fermement toutes les limitations imposées par la dictature du politiquement correct. Il parvient à détruire jusque dans les moindres détails le fonctionnement du Système dans ses dimensions géopolitique, militaire, économique, culturelle, éducative et médiatique. L’enjeu de cette guerre totale est sans précédent dans l’histoire de l’humanité puisqu’il s’agit, ni plus ni moins, de sauver l’espèce humaine de son extinction.

Les efforts de certains chercheurs comme Lucien Cerise méritent d’être appréciés non seulement pour leur érudition exceptionnelle, qui transcende toute approche sectorielle, partielle ou incomplète. Rassembler le puzzle d’une réalité aussi complexe et protéiforme, qui tente de masquer sa véritable essence sous une infinie variété de masques honorables, n’est possible que pour quelqu’un qui comprend que seul le dépassement des spécialités professionnelles et l’étude de tous les domaines de la vie humaine sont à même de leur offrir une image à peu près complète du monde. Son mérite est avant tout d’assumer la vocation de combattant qui connaît très bien son ennemi et sait à quel point il est puissant, perfide et dangereux.

Une des tâches de premier ordre assumée par l’auteur est donc de définir l’ennemi. Vous ne pouvez vaincre que si vous savez que le principe « Connais ton ennemi » est à la base de toute victoire. Qui sont les neuro-pirates, qui essayent de pirater notre capacité de réflexion, quels sont leurs enjeux, et comment les repousser ? Telle est la tâche de ce travail. Comment gérer les perceptions et le comportement, comment appliquer des techniques d’ingénierie sociale négative, quels sont les moyens de briser par effraction nos codes culturels, comment sont dissous nos traditions, l’identité, les frontières morales et les attachements naturels à la patrie et à notre prochain, tout cela est décodé de manière pertinente par Lucien Cerise. Mais pour renforcer, ou peut-être même retrouver, la capacité d’assimiler ces vérités bouleversantes, l’auteur nous invite à un premier acte de volonté minimum, consistant à sortir de la portée de l’arme de destruction massive qu’est la télévision.


Comme nous sommes dans une guerre culturelle, il faut veiller à notre hygiène mentale. À ce niveau, la priorité absolue, qui ne coûte rien, au contraire, consiste à se séparer définitivement de la télévision, qui reste le principal outil de management de perceptions du Pouvoir. Pour ma part, je n’ai plus de télé depuis des années, ça change la vie, car vous n’êtes plus sous l’influence virtualisante des images qui vous dépossèdent de votre propre vie mentale. Sans télé, vous récupérez votre souveraineté cognitive, vous gagnez en ”réalisme”, en capacité à voir les choses comme elles sont, et pas comme on vous dit de les voir.

Ayant pour ma part cessé de regarder la télévision, j’ai eu le plaisir de découvrir, parmi les amis de différents pays que j’ai acquis au cours des dernières années, des personnalités tout aussi hostiles que moi au téléviseur. C’est pourquoi mon ami français, Lucien Cerise, m’est cher notamment pour avoir rejeté la télévision qui détruit la capacité intellectuelle, anéantit l’esprit critique et liquéfie toute possibilité d’exercice intellectuel autonome et pertinent. J’insiste sur le besoin urgent de briser la fascination et la séduction exercées par les instruments de contrôle mental audiovisuel, car sans prendre nos distances face à ce tsunami cognitif, nous ne pouvons pas vraiment vaincre la condition « d’esclave heureux » (Ovidiu Hurduzeu). Heureux, car il ne réalise pas sa condition d’esclave. La suggestion de l’auteur est tout à fait valable pour les consommateurs de médias moldaves, en particulier pour ceux qui ont l’illusion que si vous regardez une chaîne de télévision opposée au gouvernement, vous obtenez des informations alternatives. Illusions ! Nous ne pouvons l’obtenir que par des sources « dissidentes », sur internet ou, peut-être tout d’abord, dans des livres qui vont au-delà des approches spécialisées.

Tous les efforts des intellectuels de marque, que j’ai découverts au cours des dernières années et dont je recommande les ouvrages aux lecteurs de langue roumaine, visent à clarifier les conditions de la gouvernance par le chaos, pour utiliser une expression pertinente de Lucien Cerise. Dans l’espace ex-communiste, même si nous avons finalement échappé à la dictature cognitive du régime, nous sommes, d’une certaine manière, désavantagés par rapport aux Européens qui vivaient de l’autre côté du « rideau de fer ». Nous avons naïvement pensé que le nouveau régime capitaliste, qui s’est étendu à notre espace, nous apporterait liberté, justice et dignité, tant personnelles que nationales. Mais après trois décennies de capitalisme, nous sommes tombés dans un désastre économique, politique, culturel et avant tout axiologique, bien pire que celui que nous avons connu sous les soviets. L’inertie de la pensée, le confort intellectuel et le manque de perspective empêchent encore beaucoup d’entre nous de réaliser l’ampleur de la catastrophe qui nous frappe. Nous vivons encore avec l’illusion que, pour éliminer un gouvernement corrompu et incompétent, il suffira de voter ou d’organiser des manifestations de masse et que tout sera résolu. Et ce genre de naïveté est un piège extrêmement dangereux.

L’eurolâtrie est encore en pleine vogue dans notre pays. Le message promu par le « nouveau clergé » (experts, analystes, journalistes, politiciens et autres idiots utiles du Système) à propos d’un Occident prospère, d’une Union Européenne vue comme une station terminale de notre succès, d’une démocratie libérale et d’une économie de marché au fonctionnement impeccable à l’Ouest, a des effets dévastateurs. Nous errons dans un faux système de référence et attendons notre salut terrestre en nous référant aux paramètres qu’il impose.

Le livre Neuro-pirates présente également une autre vertu qui peut être d’une grande utilité pour les théoriciens du phénomène identitaire en République de Moldavie. L’auteur analyse soigneusement le concept et la pratique de ce qu’on appelle le conflit triangulé (ou triangulaire), c’est-à-dire la technique d’instrumentalisation d’animosités inconciliables entre divers groupes sociaux présentant des différences identitaires mineures, afin de prendre le contrôle des deux camps belligérants. Le principe du conflit triangulé consiste en la collision des deux angles à la base du triangle, mais avec la préservation obligatoire du caractère anonyme et furtif de l’angle supérieur, qui est à la fois l’instigateur véritable et le bénéficiaire de ce conflit. En d’autres termes, les deux camps sont utilisés à l’aveugle, dans un conflit épuisant et stérile, permettant au sommet supérieur du triangle d’appliquer l’ancien principe impérial « Diviser pour mieux régner ». L’auteur écrit : « Cette ‘division du bas’ s’appuie notamment sur ce que René Girard a repéré sous le terme de ‘rivalité mimétique’ ou ‘capture imaginaire’ dans le vocabulaire de Jacques Lacan. Il s’agit du processus de montée aux extrêmes et de crescendo de violence qui saisit deux acteurs engagés dans un rapport de forces, mécanisme de vengeance et de vendetta parfaitement résumé dans la loi du Talion : ‘Œil pour œil, dent pour dent’. »

Dans notre cas, cela évoque l’exacerbation maladive des obsessions et des traumatismes des communautés roumanophone et russophone en nourrissant des représentations catastrophiques sur certaines périodes historiques. L’une des parties du conflit occupe la place de la victime, et l’autre partie a le rôle de bourreau, chacune des parties ayant sur sa propre identité une perception narcissique en symétrie inversée dans une structure duelle où les rôles bourreau-victime sont interchangeables. Ainsi, le sentiment de frustration suscité par une injustice réelle ou imaginaire se transforme en une soif de vengeance par annihilation du groupe bourreau, associé au mal absolu. Ce procédé d’ingénierie sociale négative connaît un succès majeur en République de Moldavie en raison de la rivalité d’influence entre la Russie et la Roumanie sur notre territoire, historiquement explicable, mais contre-productive et exploitée avec perversité à l’heure actuelle. Par conséquence, les russophiles qui sont obligatoirement roumanophobes se confrontent avec les roumanophiles qui sont par définition russophobes, les moldovenistes sont en guerre avec les unionistes identitaires, et cela dure depuis des décennies. Et les efforts d’éclaircissements sur le caractère stérile de cette guerre d’identité sans fin sont rejetés avec agressivité et dans l’opacité totale. Qui profite de cette bataille absurde de deux camps également perdants ? Il existe deux niveaux d’acteurs gagnants qui restent plus ou moins dissimulés.

Le premier groupe d’acteurs gagnants de ce conflit triangulé est le plus facile à repérer. Ce sont les politiciens locaux qui partagent aisément l’une des deux niches électorales : la niche des soutiens de la Russie, qui sont automatiquement des adversaires de la Roumanie, et vice versa. Cet état de fait ouvre un champ de manœuvres très large aux manipulateurs. Avec ces tireurs de ficelles locaux, les choses sont claires.

Mais identifier les tireurs des ficelles externes, qui sont les grands profiteurs de ce jeu sordide, est beaucoup plus difficile pour le moment. Ce sont précisément ceux-là qui se tiennent dans le coin supérieur du conflit triangulé, en restant loin des yeux du grand public. Ce sont les centres de pouvoir occidentaux, qui ont tracé le chemin à sens unique qui mène à notre ruine. Nous pouvons appeler cela oligarchie planétaire, corporatocratie, élite mondiale, la mafia des banquiers ou Grand Capital, mais tous ces noms peuvent paraître abstraits et, en outre – horribile dictu ! – être associés avec la « théorie du complot ». Or, nous sommes des gens civilisés et ne croyons pas à l’existence de ce genre des choses. Nous allons donc mentionner les noms des outils institutionnels de cette entité apparemment nébuleuse : l’Union Européenne, les USA, l’OTAN, le FMI, la Banque mondiale, l’Organisation Mondiale du Commerce, le Conseil de l’Europe, la malsaine mafia internationale du « réseau Soros », etc.

Ce sont précisément ces centres de pouvoir qui ont imposé le modèle suivi avec docilité par les sociétés post-communistes. Leurs dogmes sont gardés avec soin, car leur application aux nations captives leur permet une domination sans entrave. Résumons les dogmes du nouveau catéchisme idéologique : économie ultralibérale, soit libre circulation des capitaux, des biens, des services, des personnes et du travail, donc libre-échange sans frontières et sans limites, c’est-à-dire annihilation de la capacité de l’État à se protéger face aux géants économiques étrangers, maintien de la Banque nationale sous contrôle externe (sous prétexte d’être une entité indépendante des autorités politiques nationales), inoculation du féminisme dans les structures politiques et étatiques, « théorie du genre » qui affirme que le sexe n’est qu’une construction sociale artificielle, donc optionnelle, tolérance à l’égard des soi-disant « minorités sexuelles » et du LGBT, planification familiale et stimulation de l’avortement, en fait, un génocide planifié pour réduire la population, etc.

Conclusion : tant que les acteurs politiques nationaux resteront concentrés aveuglément sur les jeux de pouvoir et captifs d’un système de références imposé de l’extérieur comme une norme absolue et indiscutable, alors les prestidigitateurs invisibles au sommet du triangle peuvent être certains que le principe « Diviser pour mieux régner » fonctionnera parfaitement et que la colonie moldave ne déviera pas du chemin qui la mène à l’abattoir.

Or, notre émancipation nationale ne pourra commencer qu’avec l’abandon des anciens et stupides clivages politiques et idéologiques, quand les combattants de cette guerre fratricide se réconcilieront en levant les yeux vers le sommet de la pyramide, surmontant ainsi le conflit triangulé. Réorienter le conflit d’horizontal à vertical, de la base vers le haut, marquera le début de notre chemin vers la conquête de la vraie souveraineté. Gardons à l’esprit que notre souveraineté politique est conditionnée par la souveraineté économique, mais que l’une et l’autre doivent nécessairement être précédées par le rétablissement de la souveraineté cognitive, c’est-à-dire la capacité de raisonner de manière indépendante et en harmonie avec la réalité, et non avec ses simulacres. Les lecteurs qui souhaitent approfondir la compréhension de cette thématique se reporteront au chapitre V de la première partie du livre, intitulé Ingénierie sociale du conflit identitaire, dont voici un extrait pour illustrer notre argumentation : « À l’opposé, l’ingénierie sociale négative consiste à produire de la violence, ou au moins du séparatisme, de l’envie de se séparer. Comment ? Dans un premier temps, en s’appuyant sur ce que Freud a appelé les ‘petites différences narcissiques’ pour les exacerber au maximum et les rendre insupportables. Aucune société n’étant parfaitement homogène, il suffira de repérer les éléments hétérogènes pour les stimuler, les cultiver, les amplifier, les grossir. Rompre la coexistence pacifique de gens qui se ressemblent, mais pas totalement, en soulignant leurs petites différences afin d’aboutir à la constitution de camps tranchés, opposés et irréconciliables. »

Schématiquement, lorsque deux acteurs sociaux se battent, il en existe un troisième, qui tire profit de cette confrontation qu’il a lui-même provoquée. Tel est le véritable enjeu du conflit identitaire qui a été induit artificiellement dans notre espace roumanophone.

Lorsque Lucien Cerise affirme fermement que son pays, la France, pour s’affranchir du statut de colonie, doit immédiatement sortir de l’Union Européenne, de la zone euro, de l’espace Schengen, de l’OTAN et de l’Organisation mondiale du commerce, afin de rétablir ses frontières en appliquant un protectionnisme économique sévère, un grand nombre de lecteurs pourraient subir un véritable choc. Et si oui, alors j’aimerais que ce livre soit considéré comme un traitement du type « thérapie de choc », si nécessaire à nos sociétés tellement déboussolées et intellectuellement colonisées. La fin des tabous sur ces sujets est le moyen le plus direct de retrouver notre santé mentale. Notre dé-provincialisation dépend de notre ouverture sur le monde, d’une capacité d’analyse supérieure, qui devrait dépasser celle des individus qui constitue la faune politique et leurs mercenaires des médias.

Il y a trois décennies, nous espérions nous débarrasser du communisme, perçu comme une malédiction historique. Il est temps aujourd’hui de s’engager activement dans la grande bataille contre le mondialisme. Dès que nous aurons assimilé la vérité soulignée par notre auteur selon laquelle le mondialisme, et non les gouvernements successifs, est la cause première de tous nos malheurs, nous ressentirons également le besoin urgent de faire partie de ce front planétaire de la nouvelle vague de décolonisation des peuples. La ruine économique que nous subissons, le chômage, l’exode massif de la population, le désastre démographique, la corruption, la dépravation morale et l’incapacité de l’État à résoudre les problèmes sociaux les plus élémentaires n’ont pas de causes majeures autres que celles décrites avec brio par Lucien Cerise.

L’auteur souligne que la principale cause de tous les maux est le capitalisme. Le lecteur pourrait se demander avec inquiétude : « Comment ? Allons-nous revenir au communisme ? » Non. Lucien Cerise explique à juste titre que les anciens systèmes politiques et idéologiques qui dominaient le XXème siècle n’ont aucun avenir. Ni le communisme, ni le nazisme ou le fascisme, ni même le capitalisme. C’est la clé ! Lucien Cerise propose une approche non idéologique, réaliste et de bon sens. Toute organisation sociale qui possède au moins une valeur supérieure à l’argent est meilleure que le capitalisme, dit-il. En effet, n’est-ce pas cet état de fait qui nous exaspère le plus ? N’est-il pas vrai que l’argent fait la loi dans tous les secteurs de la société ? Et quand nous nous révoltons contre les oligarques qui ont émergé après la chute du communisme, nous devons comprendre que les gangsters qui ont accumulé une richesse astronomique à Chișinău ou à Bucarest ne sont qu’une pâle émanation de l’oligarchie financière mondiale.

Penser globalement et agir localement, voici un autre principe précieux souligné par Lucien Cerise. La vraie reconquête de la souveraineté nationale, ou renationalisation de tous les pays ne peut advenir que par un nationalisme authentique, qu’il appelle « nationalisme permaculturel ». Je ne développerai pas ce concept inspiré de l’écologie, vous le trouverez dans le livre. Je tiens simplement à mentionner que j’ai eu l’agréable surprise de trouver des idées dans cet ouvrage que j’avais également soutenues ces dernières années pour la République de Moldavie. Ce genre de nationalisme n’a rien à voir avec l’exclusivisme ethnique. C’est un nationalisme qui ne sépare pas mais qui solidarise autour d’un projet concret consistant à « prendre soin » de la nation. Nous parlons essentiellement de nationalisme économique et de protection de notre peuple contre l’ouverture excessive, qui met toujours en péril les communautés à moyen et à long terme.

L’un des mérites incontestables de ce livre est que l’auteur ne s’arrête pas à la critique de la situation actuelle. Il offre des solutions pratiques pour engager le combat. Comme je l’ai dit, c’est une bataille d’idées, qui peut être pratiquée par tout le monde. Le terme utilisé par la nouvelle dissidence française est la réinformation. Autrement dit, chacun de nous peut contribuer à la désintoxication de son entourage et à l’amélioration intellectuelle de son environnement humain en démasquant les procédés de manipulation de masse. Comment ? En communiquant directement avec nos familles, amis et collègues, en utilisant les réseaux sociaux, en diffusant des informations concernant les sites, les textes et les vidéos qui rétablissent la vérité, en lisant et en popularisant des livres comme celui-ci.

Je termine par une citation de Lucien Cerise, qui honorerait tout combattant, tout patriote, quels que soient le lieu et le moment historique où ces paroles sont prononcées : « Notre ennemi doit le savoir : nous allons nous battre. Cela tombe bien car nous aimons nous battre, nous adorons ça, nous n’aimons que ça, c’est le sens de notre vie, nous n’arrêterons donc jamais car la paix nous ennuie. Le combat, le polemos, c’est la vie, comme disait Héraclite. C’est dans le combat que nous nous sentons vivre et que nous sommes heureux. La perspective de l’affrontement nous remplis de bonheur, nous commençons à sourire, et nos yeux brillent quand l’heure de la bataille approche. Et nous ne sommes jamais fatigués, jamais découragés, et nous revenons toujours à l’assaut car la victoire n’est même pas le but, car nous aimons le combat pour le combat et qu’il est en lui-même la récompense. C’est ainsi que ceux qui aiment la vie en tant qu’elle est combat deviennent invincibles et ne peuvent que gagner. Car la victoire, c’est de se battre. »

J’ai trouvé dans ces lignes le même optimisme, le même courage, le même enthousiasme vigoureux que chez Radu Gyr, cet exceptionnel poète roumain, ancien prisonnier politique sous le régime communiste pendant 21 ans. Les deux écrivains procèdent différemment, l’un avec les moyens de la science, l’autre avec ceux de la poésie, mais ils convergent dans le même esprit et la même manière de comprendre les significations supérieures de la vie.

Iurie Roșca

Source

National Populism through the Ages:
On Azar Gat’s Nations

By Alex Graham

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

Azar Gat, with Alexander Yakobson
Nations: The Long History and Deep Roots of Political Ethnicity and Nationalism
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013

Israeli historian Azar Gat makes the case that ethnic nationalism has deep roots in human history and human nature in this detailed and wide-ranging historical survey of ethnicity and the nation-state. This is a useful book for White Nationalists because it provides an abundance of evidence attesting to the enduring importance of ethnicity and the pitfalls of diversity. I will summarize the most noteworthy points here.

Gat classifies his opponents as “modernists,” who argue that the phenomenon of nationalism is exclusive to the modern era, and “instrumentalists,” Marxists who see nationalism as a form of class-based social manipulation. As he points out, most instrumentalists are also modernists. Common to both viewpoints is the belief that, in the words of Jewish writer Ernest Gellner, “nationalism does not have any very deep roots in the human psyche” (p. 25).

The defining attributes of a nation are ethnic kinship, a shared culture, and self-government. By these criteria, nation-states existed long before nationalism is said to have been “invented.” The technological, economic, and social changes of the modern era had an indelible impact on the political expression of nationalist sentiments, but the nation-state was not a product of modernity.

Local identity was paramount for many pre-modern peoples, but a sense of overarching ethnic identity was also potent. Pre-modern peoples considered themselves distinct entities united by blood ties, language, and a common religion. Gat argues that modern historians exaggerate the extent to which pre-modern ethnic groups were internally divided by linguistic differences. Though local dialects existed, language was generally a powerful unifying factor. Shared religious practices and beliefs were reinforced by a “network of cultic and congregational sites,” as well as wandering bards (p. 11).

Contrary to the instrumentalists, the masses shared in this ethnic identification. Their illiteracy was not an obstacle; ordinary people participated in festivals, dances, and games that celebrated their heritage and reinforced their shared identity. They also fought fiercely against foreign invaders. Even when class relations were acrimonious (which was often the case), the masses invariably sided with their own nobles over foreign commoners. Naturally, we do not have a record of what they thought and felt, but it is significant that the people lent their support to nationalism as soon as they had a voice of their own and were able to participate in politics.

The masses were not “manipulated” to defend their nations. They did so freely and displayed a striking willingness to fight and die for their kinsmen. The impetus behind this phenomenon is humans’ innate preference for their own kind, which Gat discusses in the second chapter. Evolution selected for this trait because it enabled humans to bond more effectively and function better as a group in the face of threats. Kinship in turn emerged as the central organizing principle of human societies.

The nation-state is indeed a recent phenomenon in a broad sense. Anatomically modern humans have been around for two to three hundred thousand years (the genus Homo having emerged around two million years ago), but the first states did not emerge until about five thousand years ago. For most of human history, humans existed as hunter-gatherers whose group affiliation was confined to their respective clans. Local customs and codes of dress and behavior came about as a means to cement these bonds and distinguish between one’s own tribe and foreign tribes. The concept of kinship expanded with the advent of agriculture, which allowed societies to sustain larger populations, but it remained of central importance.

Of course, as Gat notes, the element of culture is equally important. A Dane who is equally related to a given Norwegian as he is to a fellow Dane would likely feel a greater sense of brotherhood with the Dane simply due to their shared cultural background. Danes, Swedes, and Norwegians are genetically very similar to each other, and state formation in Scandinavia could conceivably have followed a different trajectory under different circumstances. Similarly, early Germanic and Slavic ethnic designations were fairly fluid and “experienced a great deal of fusion and fission, mixing older tribal entities and newly formed war bands” (p. 141). One could grant, then, that there is an extent to which identity is socially constructed and subject to historical contingencies. Nonetheless, this does not negate the fact that shared genetic heritage is a necessary condition for nationhood.

The centrality of ethnicity is seen in the kinship between diaspora communities and their respective homelands. For instance, Finland granted citizenship rights to about twenty-five thousand ethnic Finns outside Finland following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

It is this sense of kinship (both ethnic and cultural) that motivates people to sacrifice their lives for their countries. Gat writes:

Thus, to the bewilderment of the ideologues of the Second International, when the First World War broke out the workers in each of the belligerent countries enthusiastically threw their lot in with their conational middle- and upper-class “exploiters” and against foreign “fellow workers.” A Frenchman or a German was prepared to kill or be killed for Alsace-Lorraine, whose possession appeared to have no practical bearing on his daily life. (p. 39)

Gat then outlines how proto-nations and early nation-states emerged from tribes and clans, or petty-states/polities. The groupings of Germanic peoples like the Franks and Alamanni, for example, represented the consolidation of many smaller tribes. Although these tribes frequently came into conflict, they banded together in the face of a greater enemy. This contributed to the later emergence of Western European nation-states. In Eastern Europe, the consolidation of tribal groupings following the expansion of early Slavs laid the foundations for Slavic nation-states.

The accumulation of wealth and land afforded by agriculture led to the evolution of more complex social hierarchies. Tribal chiefs became powerful warlords with retinues of younger warriors, and the networks they assembled grew into multilayered chiefdoms that represented an intermediate stage between tribal societies and states. The new aristocracy and emergent state gradually superseded older tribal institutions and affiliations: “States would be a major vehicle of ethnic leveling and assimilation. But they would themselves rely on preexisting ethnic realities” (p. 49). This foundation in kinship bonds “made the state’s work incomparably easier” (p. 65).

One oft-cited example of state formation is the Kingdom of Zulu, which emerged in the nineteenth century as a result of the consolidation of many Nguni-speaking Bantu tribes under the monarch Shaka. Shaka subjugated dozens of tribes and redirected their tribal loyalty to the state. Tribal lands were designated as administrative districts of the kingdom. Shaka also used communal ritual to unite the tribes under his domain.

This example is notable because Zulu society had no contact with Europeans. Though the Kingdom was formed during the modern era, Zulu society was (and still is) very primitive and had barely progressed beyond the Iron Age.

Gat identifies ancient Egypt as the first “national state.” In Egyptian prehistory, “agricultural tribal/chiefly society along the Nile Valley coalesced into small regional polities” (p. 85). It is thought that Egypt’s nomes (territorial districts) roughly preserved the boundaries of these polities. In other words, the Egyptian state emerged from the consolidation of tribes belonging to the same overarching ethnos. Upper and Lower Egypt were united in ca. 3100 BCE, marking the beginning of the Early Dynastic Period. This period witnessed the emergence of hieroglyphs and an official language, state religion (though local deities/cults remained prominent), and a broader Egyptian identity.

It is clear that the Egyptians saw themselves as a distinct people. Reliefs of pharaohs often depict them smiting foreigners. The pharaoh Kamose declares in a stele recounting his campaigns against the Hyksos and the Kushites: “My wish is to save Egypt and to smite the Asiatic!” Texts such as the Prophecies of Neferti and the Admonitions of Ipuwer depict a dystopian scenario in which the pharaoh is bereft of power and foreigners roam the land, leading to chaos and catastrophe.

Sumer, unlike Egypt, was divided into independent city-states, and there was frequent conflict among them. But when a “more starkly foreign threat loomed, city-states which shared ethnic attributes more often than not tended to cooperate against that threat, typically coalescing into formal alliances and confederacies” (p. 69). There is also an argument to be had that ancient city-states (and their medieval/early modern counterparts in Italy) themselves effectively qualify as national states.

Greek city-states likewise possessed a sense of regional and pan-Hellenic identity in addition to their local loyalties. There were four major Greek ethnic groups: Dorians, Ionians, Aeolians, and Achaeans. Dorian city-states, for example, spoke the Doric dialect, cultivated the cults of Helios and Heracles, and were known for their athletic and martial prowess. A similar kinship existed among Ionians. The Athenians came to the aid of fellow Ionian Greeks on the Anatolian coast who revolted against the Persian Empire under Darius I. This act of aggression was largely responsible for triggering the second Persian invasion of Greece. In the face of this foreign threat, Greek city-states united under the banner of pan-Hellenic identity. Some Greek city-states did surrender to the Persians, though they were accused of “medism,” or collaboration with the Persians, which was considered a crime. Athens declared its loyalty to Greece, citing “the kinship of all Greeks in blood and speech, and the shrines of gods and the sacrifices that we have in common, and the likeness of our way of life, to all which it would ill beseem Athenians to be false” (p. 74)

The ancient kingdom of Macedon, founded in the seventh century BCE, can be considered a national state, united by a common Macedonian language and culture. Ordinary Macedonians both comprised the nation’s infantry phalanx and participated in local assemblies on political matters. Classical sources indicate that Macedonians “openly expressed their resentment at Alexander’s increasing reliance on non-Macedonians” (p. 138).

The multinational character of pre-modern empires is sometimes cited as proof that ethnicity and race are modern social constructs. This is highly misleading, because ethnicity played a central role in determining the loyalties of imperial subjects. For example, Gat points out that when Rome invaded North Africa during the Second Punic War, the Numidians (a Berber tribe), though subjects of Carthage, did not hesitate to surrender to the Romans. It was only the Phoenician city-states that remained loyal to Carthage. The Numidians joined forces with the Romans and helped them win the Battle of Zama in 202 BCE.

A similar event occurred when Hannibal invaded Italy some dozen years earlier, prompting many Roman subjects, including Samnites and Greeks in the south and Celts and Etruscans in the north, to stage revolts against the Empire. Only the ethnocultural core of the Empire – the Latins and surrounding Romanized populations in central Italy – remained loyal.

Over time, the core of the Empire extended to the rest of the peninsula as ethnic differences melted away through intermarriage and Romanization. Gat quotes Gibbon:

From the foot of the Alps to the extremity of Calabria, all the natives of Italy were born citizens of Rome. Their partial distinctions were obliterated, and they insensibly coalesced into one great nation, united by language, manners, and civil institutions (p. 120).

The Persian Empire likewise possessed an ethnocultural core reflected among those most loyal to the Empire. Most satraps (provincial governors) and high-ranking officers were Persians or Medes. Others outside this ethnic core rarely displayed a willingness to fight for the Empire. Greek historians recount that non-Persians, when called upon to fight, had to be “driven into battle with lashes” and were not likely to risk their lives on the battlefield (p. 115). The standing army and Imperial Guard consisted of Persians/Medes.

The Seleucid Empire and the Ptolemaic Kingdom were founded on a Greek-Macedonian core from which most of their armies was drawn. When the Ptolemaic Kingdom did recruit soldiers from the native Egyptian population, the Egyptians, trained for war, ended up revolting against the empire.

In the Ottoman Empire, non-Muslims lived in ethnic enclaves called milletts, where they were able to preserve their own language, religious customs, and so on. Foreign subjects were loyal first and foremost to their respective milletts and displayed very little loyalty toward the Empire. With the notable exception of Janissaries, Muslim Turks formed the backbone of the army. Gat does not mention this, but it is perhaps worth noting that one of the most famous Janissaries, Skanderbeg (an ethnic Albanian), deserted the Ottoman army in the Battle of Nish in 1443 and led an Albanian uprising against the Ottoman Empire.

In a similar vein, it was noted by sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Portuguese writers that cosmopolitan Malay city-states “suffered militarily from their pluralism, since loyalties were fragmented and only the minority malayos (Malays) could be counted on to fight with the king” (who was himself Malay). This is a theme that persists from civilization’s earliest beginnings to the present day.

Asia has a record of nation-states stretching back several centuries. Japanese nationalism, for instance, was not merely a product of the modernization of the Meiji era. The Japanese state was founded around the middle of the first millennium and has been homogeneous since then. A robust sense of national identity has long pervaded Japanese culture. This applies both to the Japanese samurai, who notably rebuffed two Mongol invasions in the thirteenth century, and to the common people: “While resting on military force, the shogunate (bakufu) relied as heavily on the country’s deeply-entrenched sense of ethnic oneness, which, significantly, no autonomous or even rebellious feudal lord ever challenged” (p. 106).

Pre-modern China qualifies as a national state, as it was ethnically and culturally Chinese. Mass education and mandatory military service served to reinforce loyalty to the state. Chinese writers saw non-Chinese people as distinctly foreign and often portrayed them as inferior. During the Song Dynasty, popular militias staged nationalist rebellions against the Jurchen (Manchurians), who had conquered northern China in 1127. When Zhu Yuanzhang became Emperor following the collapse of the Mongol-led Yuan dynasty, he “took special care to eradicate everything Mongol and foreign, nominating only Han Chinese officials and restoring Chinese customs and practices” (p. 100).

The nation-state of Korea has also existed for more than a thousand years. Korea emerged as an independent state in 676. Like Japan, Korea has long possessed a strong national identity and a sense of national uniqueness.

As for Southeast Asia, Gat points out that the disintegration of French Indochina is proof that the nations belonging to the union (Vietnam, Cambodia, and Thailand) perceived themselves as distinct nations founded on a pre-modern national identity that had existed for centuries.

Of course, most Leftist theorists are not interested in delegitimizing nationalism in Asian countries. Their target is Europe, and they have a vested interest in weakening the bonds of European nations. It is not a coincidence that most leading “modernists” (Hans Kohn, Karl Deutsch, Ernest Gellner, Eric Hobsbawm) have been Jews.

Ethnic nationalism and the nation-state have several precedents in pre-modern Europe. The kingdom of the Anglo-Saxons is among the earliest. The Venerable Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People, written in 731, and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, written in the late ninth century, attest to the common identity shared by the Anglo-Saxon tribes of England. Though himself a Christian monk, Bede’s sympathies lay with his fellow (pagan) Anglo-Saxons rather than the Christianized native Britons: “even with a monk who laid great store on Britain’s conversion to Christianity, ethnonational affiliation trumped religion in the allegedly primarily religious and non-national Middle Ages” (p. 145). It is also notable that the linguistic regions Bede describes roughly correspond to the modern national borders in Britain.

The first King of England was Alfred the Great. His many accomplishments include defending the Kingdom against Viking invasions, founding the English navy, and establishing legal and educational reforms. England can clearly be said to have been a nation-state by the time of his reign.

By the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, the Anglo-Saxons and their Norman conquerors had begun to cohere into a unified English people. In the mid-fourteenth century, English was reinstated as the language of Parliament and became the language of the elites again.

Scotland, Ireland, and Wales have also long had a distinct national identity. In a letter to the Pope requesting recognition as an independent nation, having recently won the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314, the Scots referred to themselves as “Scottorum nacio [natio],” citing their common ancestry and their history of self-government. The wars of Scottish independence were effectively national populist uprisings that drew from all levels of society, from carpenters to aristocrats.

Nation-states began to emerge in Scandinavia during the High Middle Ages. Saxo Grammaticus, author of Gesta Danorum, a chronicle of Danish history, writes that he was motivated by “a passionate zeal to glorify our fatherland” and that “nations [nationes] are in the habit of vaunting the fame of their achievements, and joy in recollecting their ancestors” (p. 155). This patriotic spirit pervades the Norse sagas, in which Denmark, Norway, and Sweden are depicted as distinct nations. Gat notes that most Norse sagas were composed in Iceland and were not patronized, so one cannot claim that their patriotic message was royal propaganda.

Finland and Estonia are unusual in that neither truly became nation-states until the early twentieth century. Nonetheless, both nations possessed a distinct ethnocultural identity, which remained remarkably resilient in spite of their subjugation.

The question of German identity was not a subject of philosophical deliberation prior to the modern era, but the idea of Germanness dates back centuries. Late medieval maps of Germany depict a “German nation” united by language and culture. Martin Luther’s tract written to Germany’s nobles in 1520 is entitled “Address to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation.” The Holy Roman Empire was effectively “a German-based political order; it was popularly celebrated for its German base in the political lays of Walter von der Vogelweide and the Minnensingers; and authentic historians like Otto of Freising and Alexander von Roes identified imperial history with German history” (p. 161). A sense of German national identity is evident from the Middle Ages onward.

The Hussite Revolution in the Kingdom of Bohemia had a strong nationalist underpinning. It was essentially a national populist movement that united Czechs from all social classes (nobility, intellectuals, peasants, etc.). The wars in turn strengthened national awareness among Czechs. When Jan Has was tried and executed for heresy, Czech barons protested “the dishonor of our nationality and of the Bohemian land” (p. 164). Among the demands of the leaders of the movement was that foreigners be barred from holding civil offices.

Some scholars have argued that the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth solely served the interests of the nobility and that Polish identity excluded the peasantry. This notion is itself a modern invention. Polish national identity transcended class: “. . . no one, from Dugosz to Andrzej Frycz Modrzewski, denied that peasants were an integral part of the nation, based on one common language” (p. 170). Polish peasants played an important role in fighting the Swedes under Charles XII and were loyal to Poland despite their subjugation.

Russian peasants fared even worse than their Polish counterparts, yet they still identified strongly with Russia and revered the Russian Tsar. The Polish occupation of Russia during the Time of Troubles provoked a large-scale national revolt. A volunteer army of peasants is credited with having expelled Polish forces from the Kremlin in 1612. Glinka’s opera A Life for the Tsar dramatizes a legend in which one Russian peasant sacrificed his life in order to divert the Polish army.

A twelfth-century chronicler describes the “nations” around the Baltic Sea in his day:

Many nations [naciones] are seated about this sea. The Danes and the Swedes, whom we call Northmen, occupy the northern coast and all the islands it contains. Along the southern shore dwell the Slavic nations [naciones] of whom, reckoning from the east, the Russians [Ruci] are the first, then the Poles who on the north have the Prussians, on the south the Bohemians and those who are called Moravians and the Carinthians and the Sorbs (p. 183).

European nation-states were also referred to as such in ecclesiastic councils in the Late Middle Ages. Each nation had its own vote and was regarded as a distinct entity. Gat writes that there is no evidence for the claim that the word natio had a different meaning in the Middle Ages. The word has always signified “nation,” or a people united by blood and culture.

Hungary was formed in the late ninth century from the consolidation of nomadic Finno-Ugric tribes into a single nation under Árpád, known to Hungarians as “the founder of our homeland.” Hungarian national identity was well-established by the Middle Ages. Istaván Bocskai, leader of a Hungarian uprising against the Habsburgs in 1604, wrote in his manifesto, “It should be demanded that every man who loves his country and fatherland stand up for his nation and hasten against our common enemy” (p. 190). Peasant soldiers and brigands (haiduci) echoed this sentiment: “We owe it to our dear country and nation . . . to rise all together and live or die together” (p. 190). The haiduk movement extended throughout Central and Southeastern Europe and had a strong nationalist character. Haiduci were celebrated in national epics and folklore.

The Reaper’s War is another good example of a national populist uprising. In 1640, Catalonia revolted against Spain and declared itself an independent republic, which was put under French protection. The rebellion was led largely by peasants. Catalan identity persists to this day; in the 2017 Catalan independence referendum, ninety-two percent of voters voted for independence.

Despite immense regional diversity and internal conflict, a pan-Italian identity nonetheless existed long before Italian unification. Machiavelli writes in the final chapter of The Prince (entitled “Exhortation to Seize Italy and to Free Her from the Barbarians”):

The opportunity to provide Italy with a liberator . . . must not be missed. I have no doubt at all that he would be received with great affection in all those regions that have been inundated by the foreign invasions, as well as with a great thirst for revenge, with absolute fidelity, with devotion and with tears of gratitude. . . . This foreign domination stinks in the nostrils of everyone (p. 81).

Greece became an independent nation in 1830 following a nine-year-long war for independence. Peasant militias played a prominent role in the revolution. Gat points out that in the centuries preceding the revolution there were a number of unsuccessful rebellions against Ottoman rule, which failed “not because modernization inaugurated Greek nationalism, but because Ottoman power greatly declined” (pp. 250-251).

Most Balkan countries had a long history of revolting against the Ottoman Empire prior to gaining independence. One notable revolt is the uprising in Banat, in which, according to Serbian folklore, “six hundred villages arose” (p. 251). Gellner admits that nationalist movements in Southeastern Europe “can be seen as constituting a major problem for the theory, given the backwardness of the Balkans by the standards of industrialization and modernity” (p. 251).

France is an interesting case study given its paradigmatic status as a nation formed from a number of ethnicities. Gat attributes the success of French nation-building to both ethnic blending and state-backed cultural assimilation. By the Middle Ages, a distinct national identity had crystallized. The twelfth-century French abbot Suger refers to France as “our land” and “the mother of us all, of the king and of the commoner” (p. 200). The Song of Roland, which dates to the eleventh century, also makes a reference to “sweet France.” The refusal of French nobility to accept an English King (Edward III) as their monarch was what brought about the Hundred Years’ War. Patriotism was not confined to the elites, as the story of Joan of Arc evinces. Another example is that the peasants’ anger over the nobility’s defeat at the Battle of Poitiers, in which the French King was captured, was partly responsible for triggering the peasant uprisings of the mid-fourteenth century. Gat adds that the peasants “raised the banner of and loudly expressed their allegiance to the king of France” (p. 204).

Loyalty to the monarchy was a fluctuating element of French national identity. The monarch became the “focal point” of nationalistic sentiment during the age of absolutism, but French nationalism became more overly populist as dissatisfaction with the monarchy grew. The French people’s patriotism, though, remained a constant.

France can rightly be cited as a successful example of a nation formed from multiple ethnic components, but Gat emphasizes that ethnic diversity is generally an impediment to national unity. Countries like France and England were only able to form a unified national identity through a centuries-long process of ethnic blending and assimilation.

Experiments in forcing different ethnic groups to coexist in one nation have rarely been successful. Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia are both good examples. Another example is Cyprus, which began as a binational state but soon was de facto partitioned into two distinct regions; the conflict between Greek and Turkish Cypriots is ongoing. Coexistence is only truly feasible if there is a clear ethnic majority and if the minority groups are willing to accept their second-class status.

Switzerland is a very rare example of a successful multiethnic state, the exception that proves the rule. Its success cannot easily be replicated because its formation was the result of specific historical contingencies. Switzerland began as a loose military alliance called the Old Swiss Confederation. Central authority was nearly nonexistent, and each canton was a self-governing entity. Switzerland’s mountainous geography further reinforced the autonomy of each canton and prevented political turmoil.

A similar approach has been implemented in Belgium over the past half-century. A series of “state reforms” have transferred more power to the regional scale, granting Flanders and Wallonia more autonomy. This has somewhat eased Belgium’s ethnic tensions, though problems between the regions still exist today, and there is an active Flemish independence movement.

India is another notable example of a multiethnic state. Its success in nation-building can be attributed to its normative Indian identity, that of the country’s ethnolinguistic core, which is upheld by the majority of the population. Nonetheless, India is not free of ethnic conflict (see the Kashmiri Insurgency).

Gat identifies America as a nation founded by Englishmen whose shared heritage was central to American identity. He quotes John Jay:

Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people – a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence (pp. 269-270).

American national identity expanded in the nineteenth century to include Euro-Americans as a whole, creating a distinct American ethnicity. Gat then argues that American identity has since undergone a second shift, incorporating more recent non-white immigrants. He claims that America is an example of a successful multiracial nation whose citizens are united by such things as national holidays, popular tastes, and sports. This is bizarre in light of the rest of the book. Given the many examples of tensions existing between two similar ethnic groups, it is delusional to think that genetically distant races can peacefully coexist in America. To date, America’s experiment in integration has been far from successful.

Gat seems unwilling to discuss the issue of race. It is safer to point out ethnic differences than it is to point out racial differences because one can still maintain the egalitarian pretense that if Italians can become American, non-whites can as well. Of course, the rest of the book does not support this conclusion given its emphasis on kinship and the fact that white ethnic groups are much more genetically similar to each other than they are to other races.

His argument is later undermined again by his discussion of how ethnic homogeneity correlates with the percentage of a nation’s GDP that is directed toward social welfare programs. People are markedly less willing to subsidize welfare programs when they know that their beneficiaries disproportionately belong to an alien group:

Expenditure on social programs totals 14.6 percent of GDP in the United States, as opposed to a European average of 25.5 percent. The authors recognized that these differences, which go back a long way historically, have a variety of causes. They calculate that about half of the difference is . . . rooted in the United States’ ethnic and racial heterogeneity” (p. 322).

Within the United States, welfare policies “vary in proportion to the size of the black population” (p. 322). Race is not the only factor at play here, but this is nonetheless a good indicator that the average white American feels no sense of kinship with blacks, despite the fact that they have lived here for centuries and are well-represented in popular culture (which supposedly defines modern American identity, in Gat’s view).

Apart from the above issue, this book is a great overview of nationalism and the role of ethnicity in history. Nationalism would be legitimate even if it were a recent phenomenon, but it is worth addressing the claims of Leftist theorists, because their ultimate aim is to delegitimize nationalism and bolster the idea that national identity must be transcended. The examples in this book show that “kin-culture” identity is a perennial and universal feature of human civilization, and something that all peoples deserve to uphold.

The conclusion of the book is white-pilling. Most people’s ultimate loyalties still lie with their respective ethnicities and/or nations, and nationalist sentiments today “are anything but non-existent and can be triggered when challenged” (p. 319). This offers cause for optimism for White Nationalists.

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

URL to article: https://www.counter-currents.com/2019/03/national-populism-through-the-ages/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: https://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/3-14-19-1.jpg

Mark Sedgwick’s Key Thinkers of the Radical Right

By Greg Johnson

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

Mark Sedgwick, ed.
Key Thinkers of the Radical Right: Behind the New Threat to Liberal Democracy
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019

Mark Sedgwick is an English scholar of Western Esotericism and Islam. He is Professor of Arab and Islamic Studies at Aarhus University in Denmark. He is the author of six books, including Against the Modern World: Traditionalism and the Secret Intellectual History of the Twentieth Century (Oxford University Press, 2004), which I can highly recommend, and Western Sufism: From the Abbasids to the New Age (Oxford University Press, 2016).

Given the overlap between Traditionalism and other Western Esoteric thought currents and the contemporary radical Right, Sedgwick’s decision to edit this volume makes perfect sense. One simply cannot study contemporary Western Esotericism without encountering and grappling with the far Right.

The book is divided into three parts: Classic Thinkers (Oswald Spengler, Ernst Jünger, Carl Schmitt, and Julius Evola), Modern Thinkers (Alain de Benoist, Guillaume Faye, Paul Gottfried, Patrick Buchanan, Jared Taylor, Alexander Dugin, and Bat Ye’or), and Emergent Thinkers (Mencius Moldbug, Greg Johnson, Richard Spencer, Jack Donovan, and Daniel Friberg).

I found the section on Classic Thinkers to be the best in the book. Each chapter is written by a highly accomplished scholar.

The Spengler chapter is written by David Engels, who has published books in French on historical decline and cycles.

The Jünger chapter is by Elliot Neaman, author of A Dubious Past, Ernst Jünger and the Politics of Literature after Nazism (University of California Press, 1999).

The Schmitt chapter is by Reinhard Mehring, author of the definitive 700-page doorstop Carl Schmitt: A Biography (Polity, 2014). I especially appreciate Mehring’s attention to Schmitt’s mystical and heretical religiosity. (In 1942, Schmitt told Mircea Eliade ^[2] that René Guénon is “the most interesting man alive today.”) This dimension of Schmitt’s thought is usually glossed over by biographers who simply refer to him as a Catholic thinker. (A very good recent book on Schmitt that foregrounds his heretical theological interests is Peter Uwe Hohendahl’s Perilous Futures: On Carl Schmitt’s Late Writings [Cornell University Press, 2018].)

The Evola chapter is by Thomas Hakl, author of Eranos: An Alternative Intellectual History of the Twentieth Century (McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2013).

My main quarrels with this section have to do with what it leaves out. There should be chapters on Nietzsche and Heidegger, and at the very least the Evola chapter should have dealt with Guénon as well.

Nietzsche had an immense influence on the entire Conservative Revolutionary movement in Germany, which included Spengler, Jünger, and Schmitt. He also influenced Evola, Benoist, Faye, Dugin, Donovan, Spencer, and me. There simply would not have been a modern radical Right without Nietzsche.

Heidegger was also influenced by Nietzsche and went on to influence Benoist, Faye, Dugin, and me. Indeed, I have argued that Heidegger’s project, beginning in the 1930s, of fashioning a post-nihilist, post-technological, post-totalitarian alternative to National Socialism was the outline of what we call the New Right today.

Guénon belongs because he did more than influence Evola. He is a distinct thinker who made his own impact on the interwar and post-war Right.

The section on Modern Thinkers is also quite informative. I don’t have any major quarrels with the chapters on Benoist, Faye, Gottfried, Buchanan, or Taylor.

I have read only two books by Dugin, but Marlene Laruelle’s essay on his certainly coincides with my impressions. Laruelle describes Dugin as “a chameleon thinker” who can “adapt his discourse to different publics” without commenting upon whether this is consistent with intellectual honesty or ideological consistency. She firmly debunks the idea that he is an influential member of the Kremlin inner circle.

I cannot evaluate the accuracy of Sindre Bangstad’s chapter on “Bat Ye’or and Eurabia,” because I have never read Ye’or. But must note that this chapter has a carping and tendentious attitude that violates Sedgwick’s stated desire to maintain a neutral and scholarly tone. The running heads of the chapter also read “Bay Ye’or and Eurabia.”

There are two major omissions in the Modern Thinkers section: Samuel Francis — who is an original thinker who influenced Gottfried, Buchanan, Taylor, Spencer, and me — and Kevin MacDonald, whose work on the Jewish question is single-handedly responsible for moving this topic from the margins to the center of contemporary far-Right discourse.

The section on Emergent Thinkers is the worst part of the book.

I can’t comment on Joshua Tait’s “Mencius Moldbug and Neoreaction” because I don’t recall ever finishing a Moldberg essay. I did, however, find Tate’s overview fascinating, although I was puzzled that he referred to Evola and Benoist as “irrationalist thinkers” (p. 188). (Is Tate an Objectivist?) I especially appreciated his point that “The overall effect of the language and style of [Moldbug’s] blog is of joining a conspiracy and entering a world of illicit knowledge” (p. 193). There is a definite neoreactionary mystique, and there is no question that such non-intellectual factors contribute to the success and influence of intellectual movements, at least initially.

Naturally, I am flattered that Graham Macklin’s chapter “Greg Johnson and Counter-Currents” was written and included in the book. The author has ably surveyed my works and hits a lot of the highlights. But he tries to paint me as more Old Right than New Right, which is really not accurate or fair, and flatly contradicts the whole tendency of my work, in which I take pains to differentiate my New Right metapolitical approach from Old Right politics. See, for instance, “New Right vs. Old Right ^[3]”  and “The Relevance of the Old Right ^[4].”

Macklin and I seem to disagree on what differentiates the New Right and the Old Right. I see the distinction as primarily a matter of approach rather than doctrine. New Right and Old Right share a lot of the same political ideas, but they have very different approaches to actualizing them. The primary vehicle of the Old Right is the militant, hierarchical, totalitarian political party. The New Right’s primary vehicle is metapolitics: the transformation of culture to create a consensus supporting the ethnonationalism for all nations. As I conceive it, New Right metapolitics is also consistent with maintaining a large measure of democratic pluralism and respecting the human rights of all people.

Macklin wants to treat the Old Right and the New Right as bodies of ideas. He takes the European New Right as normative and points out my departures from it: my emphasis on race as a biological concept and the legitimacy of the Jewish question as revived by Kevin MacDonald. I am, of course, quite candid about these differences with the European New Right. But that does not alter in any way the fact that I embrace and advocate a New Right metapolitical approach to political change.

What’s more, I have always taken a New Right approach. This fact is implicit in some of the sources that Macklin cites, but I need to make it crystal clear.

I first took an intellectual interest in aspects of the Old Right within the context of scholarly debates about Heidegger. My outlook then as now was essentially (late) Heideggerian. Even in the 1990s, before the publication of Heidegger’s Black Notebooks, it was clear that Heidegger initially thought that National Socialism was an alternative to modern technological nihilism, but eventually he came to see it as just another expression of the same underlying worldview. For Heidegger, nihilism is basically having a false vision of man as being uprooted from nature and history and capable of controlling and consuming them.

The only way to avoid this trap is to move the battle from the political to the metapolitical plane. We need a fundamental transformation of our view of ourselves and our relationship to history and nature. But it is not as simple is manufacturing and promulgating a correct alternative worldview, for such a project itself is a form of technological nihilism. It assumes that the human mind and its machinations can stand behind culture and history and manufacture them according to its designs. Whereas the truth is that history and culture stand behind us. We are shaped by cultural and historical forces we can neither understand nor control.

But once we recognize this fact, i.e., that we are finite beings, rooted in a particular time and place, rather than rootless cosmopolitan citizens of nowhere, the spell of nihilism is broken, which clears a space in which a new dispensation — a new fundamental worldview — can emerge.

Thus Heideggerian metapolitics is not the construction of systems of ideas, ideologies, or -isms. Any worldview we can construct is simply an expression of nihilism, not an alternative to it. But that does not mean that we are impotent. We might not be able to manufacture an alternative, but we can still help one to emerge, first and foremost by owning up to our finitude and rootedness, then by clearing away the detritus of nihilism to create a space in which an alternative might grow.

One can create political policies. One can create legal codes. One can build the damned wall. But it is not in our power to manufacture a new culture. But neither can we manufacture a simple tomato. We can, however, work with forces we ultimately do not understand or control — nature itself — to grow tomatoes. We can clear a space, plant a seed, weed, water, and fertilize — and then wait. We can do the same in the metapolitical realm: clear spaces by deconstructing false ideas, plant identitarian and ethnonationalist seeds, and tend what grows.

That’s what we do here at Counter-Currents. We help people envision new answers to the questions “Who are we?” “What is the right way to live together?” and “How can we get there from here?”

Heidegger did not believe that philosophers or poets are the hidden legislators of mankind, whose machinations create history. But that doesn’t mean we have to shut up and let history do the talking, or sit back and let history do the work. Rather, Heidegger believed that history speaks and acts through us. Philosophers and poets are the first people to become aware of fundamental changes in the Zeitgeist. Thus dissident thinkers and artists proceed historical change not as its creators but as its prophets, awakening and leading people to changes that are already underway. The very fact that we can conceive of fundamentally different ideas may mean that a new dispensation is nearing.

This is the larger context in which my intellectual work has to be placed. Because Macklin has a fuzzy understanding of this, he tends to treat my thinking as a grab bag of Old Right and New Right ideas. When he sent a draft of his chapter to me, I confess I did not think this was particularly problematic. But when I read Mark Sedgwick’s Editor’s Introduction, my blood pressure spiked at the sentence “Among contemporary thinkers of the radical right, only one of any importance (Greg Johnson) expresses any sympathy for Nazism” (p. xiv). This, mind you, is the Introduction to a book which contains a chapter on Richard “Hail Victory” Spencer.

When I asked Sedgwick what gave him this idea, he cited Macklin’s essay.

I have taken great pains to differentiate my New Right approach from the Old Right and to argue that neo-Nazism is a self-marginalizing and self-defeating ideology which, outside of Germany and Austria where it is illegal in any case, is also deeply inauthentic — a symptom of modern rootlessness, not an alternative to it. I hope that Sedgwick sees fit to change this highly misleading remark in the second edition of his book. (Honestly, I would be glad to cede my place in the volume to essays on more deserving figures like Nietzsche, Heidegger, Francis, and MacDonald.)

Tamir Bar-On’s chapter “Richard B. Spencer and the Alt Right” is by far the sloppiest production in the book, and it is also marred by tendentious editorializing.

• Francis Parker Yockey and Alexander Dugin are “European theorists.”
• Spencer is a “controversial star on the university lecture circuit.” He is “known for his numerous speaking engagements, especially to university audiences.” I can think of exactly six times that Spencer has spoken on university campuses since 2010. Even if we double the number, we don’t get “numerous” engagements or anything approaching stardom.
• Spencer is “owner” of Washinton Summit Publishers. (Really?)
• Spencer “hosts a weekly podcast called Vanguard Radio.” The present tense is a bit out of date.
• In 2014 “Spencer was deported from Budapest, Hungary.” Not just Budapest, all of Hungary, and not just Hungary, the whole Schengen Zone.
• “A key contributor on AltRight.com is Jared Taylor, the author of the seminal white nationalist tract White Identity . . .” I am sure Taylor would be quite surprised to know that he was a key contributor to AltRight.com. Perhaps Bar-On was confusing him with Vincent Law.
• “Spencer is married to Nina Kouprianova, who has translated numerous books written by Alexander Dugin. Those books have been published by Spencer’s Washington Summit Publishers.” “Numerous” meaning exactly one book, Martin Heidegger: The Philosophy of Another Beginning ^[5] (Radix, 2014).
• Spencer’s “major work” is his “Alt-Right Manifesto ^[6]” (it is neither major nor entirely Spencer’s work).

We learn that “blood and soil” is a “discredited” idea, that Spencer has an “obsession” with race and Jews, and that one aim of Spencer’s “Alt-Right Manifesto” and Unite the Right in Charlottesville is “to intimidate Jews, blacks Mexicans, and other minorities to leave the U.S.”

But Bar-On isn’t wrong about everything, noting for instance that “Spencer is more known for his YouTube videos, tweets, television and newspaper interviews, and university speaking engagements than for any substantive body of intellectual work” (p. 228).

To top it off, the whole essay reads like a hastily assembled and barely edited draft, with occasional fragments of Yoda-like syntax.

“Jack Donovan and Male Tribalism” by Matthew N. Lyons is a well-written and fair-minded overview of Donovan’s masculinist and tribalist ideas, including his one-time association with and subsequent estrangement from White Nationalists and the Alt Right. The essay is marred by a bizarre typesetting error in which the name of the tribal group to which Donovan belongs, the Wolves of Vinland is rendered “wolf of Vinland” at least eight times. This is frankly an embarrassment to Oxford University Press. They really should pull the current edition and reprint it. (Preferably with some edits to Mark Sedgwick’s Introduction as well — hint, hint.)

The last essay, Benjamin Teitelbaum’s “Daniel Friberg and Metapolitics in Action,” quite frankly strikes me as unethical. Teitelbaum is an American Jewish scholar of ethnomusicology and the far Right. He admits that he is a personal friend of Friberg: “I have dined, drunk, and lived with him” (p. 260). But even if he had not mentioned it, it would have been obvious to any reader. Unlike every other chapter in the book, his essay reads like a puff piece.

Indeed, some of it seems to have been written by Friberg himself.  Sentences like the following definitely have his bombastic self-promotional touch:

• “He had assembled a media, literature, and music empire whose expansion seemed exponential . . .” (p. 259)
• “Though rooted in the thinking of neo-Marxist Antonio Gramsci, metapolitics as a theorized concept entered the radical Right via the French New Right. Daniel Friberg, however, emerged as its foremost strategist and implementer.” (p. 260)
• “If you study an anti-immigrant political party, militant organization, think tank, retail outlet, or festival in 1990s or early 2000s in Sweden you are likely to find [Friberg’s] hand in it, and projects for which he was centrally responsible later became mainstays for radical rightists throughout the globe.” (p. 259)

No mention is made, however, of Friberg’s typical departures from these projects under clouds of recriminations about embezzlement, sabotage, doxing, and suspicious contacts with police and antifa. Of course one would not expect Friberg to mention such things, but perhaps an objective scholar would. There is no point in listing all of Teitelbaum’s factual errors, most of which are highly flattering to Friberg. He obviously believed everything that Friberg told him and did not bother to check any of his assertions.

I have no doubt that most of the essays in Sedgwick’s collection would have turned out rather differently if they had been written by personal friends of the subjects, not to mention ghost-written by the subjects themselves. But then the book would have forfeited even the pretense of objectivity, and I doubt very much that Oxford would have chosen to publish it. Frankly, this essay is a carbuncle on the whole project, and Sedgwick should not have included it.

Key Thinkers of the Radical Right is flawed in conception and botched in production. But it does contain a number of excellent essays, and its very existence is a further sign that New Right, White Nationalist, and National Populist ideas are now being taken seriously enough to merit the attention of academic scholars. (Lyons is merely an antifa researcher, but at least he’s well-behaved.) Let’s hope that there is sufficient demand for a new edition so that some of its more egregious flaws can be remedied.

 

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

URL to article: https://www.counter-currents.com/2019/03/key-thinkers-of-the-radical-right/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: https://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/KeyThinkers.jpg

[2] Schmitt told Mircea Eliade: https://www.counter-currents.com/2013/07/mircea-eliade-carl-schmitt-and-rene-guenon/

[3] New Right vs. Old Right: https://www.counter-currents.com/2012/05/new-right-vs-old-right/

[4] The Relevance of the Old Right: https://www.counter-currents.com/2016/11/the-relevance-of-the-old-right-2/

[5] Martin Heidegger: The Philosophy of Another Beginning: https://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/dugin-on-heidegger/

[6] Alt-Right Manifesto: https://altright.com/2017/08/11/what-it-means-to-be-alt-right/

Le Président des ultra-riches. Chronique du mépris de classe dans la politique d’Emmanuel Macron

Le Président des ultra-riches Chronique du mépris de classe dans la politique d’Emmanuel Macron

par Frédéric Stévenot

Ex: https://echelledejacob.blogspot.com

« Macron, c’est moi en mieux », confiait Nicolas Sarkozy en juin 2017. En pire, rectifient Michel Pinçon et Monique Pinçon-Charlot. Huit ans après Le Président des riches, les sociologues de la grande bourgeoisie poursuivent leur travail d’enquête sur la dérive oligarchique du pouvoir en France.

Au-delà du mépris social évident dont témoignent les petites phrases du président sur « ceux qui ne sont rien », les auteurs documentent la réalité d’un projet politique profondément inégalitaire. Loin d’avoir été un candidat hors système, Emmanuel Macron est un enfant du sérail, adoubé par les puissants, financé par de généreux donateurs, conseillé par des économistes libéraux. Depuis son arrivée au palais, ce président mal élu a multiplié les cadeaux aux plus riches : suppression de l’ISF, flat tax sur les revenus du capital, suppression de l’exit tax, pérennisation du crédit d’impôt pour les entreprises… Autant de mesures en faveur des privilégiés qui coûtent un « pognon de dingue » alors même que les classes populaires paient la facture sur fond de privatisation plus ou moins rampante des services publics et de faux-semblant en matière de politique écologique.
Mettant en série les faits, arpentant les lieux du pouvoir, brossant le portrait de l’entourage, ce livre fait la chronique édifiante d’une guerre de classe menée depuis le cœur de ce qui s’apparente de plus en plus à une monarchie présidentielle ».

Si le titre de l’ouvrage évoque à dessein l’une des précédentes publications des « Pinçon-Charlot »[1] , l’attention du lecteur doit se concentrer sur le sous-titre. Car le projet du livre y est défini très clairement. Le couple de sociologues utilise les connaissances acquises au cours de leurs nombreuses enquêtes au sein des élites pour analyser le parcours de l’actuel président de la République, mais aussi les mesures prises en l’espace d’une année et demie.

Les cent-soixante seize pages de cet ouvrage se lisent sans aucune difficulté, l’humour n’y étant pas pour rien. Les mieux informés ne trouveront pas de révélations inédites sur le personnage du président de la République, ce qui n’est d’ailleurs pas l’objectif des auteurs. En revanche, ils nous offrent une synthèse qui permet de mettre en relation tout ce que l’on sait sur lui, très précisément informée. Encore s’agit-il d’une analyse de type sociologique bâtie autour d’une problématique : en quoi E. Macron est-il représentatif de la classe sociale dont il est issu et dont il porte les intérêts ?

Si l’on se fie à ce que les auteurs disent en préambule, leur « Président des ultra-riches » est une réponse au défi lancé implicitement par E. Macron, dont les propos avaient été rapportés par Le Canard Enchaîné, à l’automne 2017. Il réfutait le fait qu’on puisse le qualifier de « président des riches », comme l’avait été N. Sarkozy : « personne ne peut me relier à cette image ». À défaut de cela, les sociologues devaient pouvoir démontrer facilement le mépris et la condescendance exprimés par le candidat puis par le président, en s’appuyant sur les premières mesures qui venaient appuyer les « macronades ». Ils rappellent toutefois les conditions de son élection : 24 % des votes exprimés, mais seulement 18,2 % des inscrits au premier tour, soit le plus mauvais résultat de toute la Cinquième République. Ce qui inciterait à la modestie laisse au contraire place à l’arrogance, au nom de la légitimité sortie des urnes. Ils rappellent également les conditions de la campagne électorale, et la construction d’un candidat « hors système », alors que son parcours démontre à l’envi qu’il se place parfaitement dans le système. On se dit alors que, finalement, avec une base populaire aussi restreinte, les mesures prises par le nouveau président sont en parfait accord avec ceux qui le soutiennent réellement. C’est justement la conclusion à laquelle parvient les Pinçon-Charlot, « en croisant le contenu de sa politique sociale et économique avec sa trajectoire sociobiographique et le maillage oligarchique de son pouvoir » (p. 155).

Quand la rédaction du livre s’est achevé, le mouvement des « gilets jaunes » avait commencé. La reprise de deux récits publiés dans L’Humanité (26 nov. et 11 déc. 2018) s’imposait pour confirmer le bien-fondé du propos du livre. En effet, l’un des thèmes exprimés par les manifestants concernait sinon la personne du président de la République, au moins le mépris de classe qu’il n’avait cessé d’exprimer.

Frédéric Stévenot, pour Les Clionautes

[1] Michel Pinçon et Monique Pinçon-Charlot, Le Président des riches. Enquête sur l’oligarchie dans la France de Nicolas Sarkozy, La Découverte, coll. « Zones », 2010, rééd. La Découverte, coll. « Poches/Essais », 2011.

 

Source

Edelweiss The Archaeo-Futurist European Imperial Idea in Robert Steuckers’ Europa I. Valeurs et racines profonds de l’Europe

Edelweiss

The Archaeo-Futurist European Imperial Idea in Robert Steuckers’ Europa I. Valeurs et racines profonds de l’Europe

(Madrid: BIOS, 2017)

by Alexander Wolfheze

Prologue: Wormtongue in Zürich

For the Brussels regime of globalist eurocrats the upcoming European elections obviously represent an opportunity to fit itself with a new set of ‘democratic clothes’, but it also offers the patriotic-identitarian resistance an opportunity to revisit its critique of the ‘EU project’. At this point, the camouflage cover of EU emperorship has become so threadbare that even its heir-apparent Mark Rutte openly wonders if the time has not come to switch from outdated democratic outfits to updated totalitarian styles. In this regard, the title of his Zürich ‘Churchill Lecture’ of 13 February 2019 - interpreted as yet another ‘job application’ by many political analysts - leaves little room for doubt: ‘The EU: from the power of principles towards principles and power’. Despite the grammatical ambiguity, the ‘semantic switch’ is clear for all to see: the ‘power principle’ is now foremost in the minds of the eurocratic elite. For the EU needs a reality check; power is not a dirty word read: ‘the EU should use its instruments of power’. For the importance of being less naïve and more realistic read: ‘it is time to end the idealistic charade’. For The requirement of unanimity reflects the fact that foreign policy is part of the core of national sovereignty... But when it comes to sanctions, I do think that we must give serious thought to enabling qualified majority voting for specific, defined cases read: ‘the remaining state sovereignty of the member states should be diminished even further’. In fact, the transformation of the EU into a ‘super state’ is already a palpable reality: the steady accumulation of censorship in the (social) media and digital sphere, through ‘hate speech codes’,[1] ‘fake news taskforces’[2] and ‘copyright directives’,[3] is approaching the level of Orwellian perfection. As the totalitarian finish line of the EU project is coming into view, it is important to re-view its historical genesis and ideological baseline.

The Maastricht Treaty that laid the formal groundwork for the present-day European Union was signed on 7 February 1992, only six weeks after the formal dissolution of the Soviet Union. Thus, the construction of the new cultural-marxist Western Bloc commenced almost immediately after the demolition of the old real-socialist Eastern Bloc. Since then, the EU was not only enlarged externally (most substantially through the hasty absorption of the Central European nation-states that had just freed themselves from Eastern Bloc rule) - it was also transformed internally, rapidly developing into a proto-totalitarian ‘super state’ project and a worthy successor to the Soviet Union. In a number of ways, the similarities are increasingly startling. The same social ‘deconstruction’ - Eastern Bloc: hyper-proletarian collectivism / Western Bloc: neo-matriarchal levelling. The same economic ‘deconstruction’ - Eastern Bloc: ‘forced collectivization’ / Western Bloc: ‘disaster capitalism’. The same ethnic ‘deconstruction’ - Eastern Bloc: ‘group deportation’ / Western Bloc: Umvolkung. In the contemporary West, the discrepancy between the theoretical discourse of the rulers and the practical lived reality of the people is approaching the same grotesque ‘doublethink’ level as it reached in the Eastern Bloc. The ideological doctrine of Western liberal-normativism theoretically upholds ‘freedom’, ‘equality’, ‘democracy’, ‘justice’ and ‘human rights’, but its real-time practice of nihilist deconstruction provides only social-darwinist economic jungle law, perverse social implosion, pervasive institutional corruption, failing law enforcement and wholesale ethnic replacement. In a certain sense, the Western Bloc has already surpassed Eastern Bloc totalitarianism: in all EU member states the EU flag is everywhere displayed right next to the national flag - a direct insult to national dignity that even the formally independent Soviet satellite states were spared.

Given this escalating discrepancy between theory and practice, the ruling class of the Western Bloc - a globalistically-eurocratically operating coalition between neo-liberal high finance and cultural-marxist intelligentsia - has been transformed into a hostile elite in the true sense of the word. Its EU project has been shown for what it truly constitutes: a globalist anti-Europe project. If European civilization, and the indigenous peoples of Europe that are the bearers of this civilization are to survive, the removal of the hostile elite must have absolute priority. In working towards this end, a fundamental (cultural-historical, political-philosophical) critique of its ideology is of crucial importance for the patriotic-identitarian resistance. An important contribution to this critique has recently been made by Belgian Traditionalist publicist Robert Steuckers: a better ‘guide’ to the issues at stake in the upcoming ‘European elections’ of May 2019 than his great trilogy Europa is hardly imaginable. This present essay aims at making Steuckers’ analysis of Europe’s authentic core values and identitarian roots, found in Part I of Europa but written in French and not yet translated, available to a wider English-speaking audience. Part I of Europa offers more than a thorough counter-analysis of the postmodern ‘deconstruction’ of Europe’s authentic values and identities: it offers a clear formulation of a viable alternative: an Archaeo-Futuristically inspired ‘Europe of the Peoples’, based on the complementary principles of autonomous ethnic communities, consistently-applied political subsidiarity and pragmatic confederative structures. It ought to be said once more: the Western patriotic-identitarian movement owes Robert Steuckers a great debt of gratitude for his tireless educational work. Above and beyond this, the patriotic-identitarian movement of the Low Countries congratulates him on rising above the usual intellectual mediocrity of our ‘lowlands’ - and reminding Europe of the fact that even in our backwaters thought is being given to the possible shape of a new Europe of the Peoples.

(*) As in the case of the preceding ‘Steuckers reviews’,[4] this essay is not only meant as a review: it also serves as a meta-political analysis in its own right - a contribution to the patriotic-identitarian counter-deconstruction of the postmodern deconstruction discourse of the Western hostile elite. The core of this essay provides a summary of Steuckers’ Traditionalist exploration of European identity. This exploration puts a full stop behind the postmodern deconstruction of that identity and provides a cultural-historical tabula rasa that allows the patriotic-identitarian movement to give an entirely new and revolutionary meaning to the idea that is ‘Europe’. In an intellectual sense, an Archaeo-Futurist Europe is now effectively within reach.

(**) This essay treats the ‘European case’ in three steps: the first paragraph triad offers base-line ‘diagnostics’, the second paragraph triad offers ‘therapeutic’ reference points and the seventh paragraph suggests avenues for a concrete ‘treatment’. In the first and last paragraphs, the reviewer gives an outline of the larger Archaeo-Futurist context within which Steuckers’ exploration of European identity becomes relevant for the patriotic-identitarian movement - the actual ‘review’ of Steuckers’ Europa I is found in paragraphs 2 through 6.

(***) For an explanation of the chosen linguistic form and note format the reader is referred to the prologues of the preceding ‘Steuckers reviews’.

1.

The Red Weed

(psycho-historical diagnosis)

‘Over Your Cities Grass Will Grow’[5]

Till today, H.G. Wells’ masterpiece The War of the Worlds not only remains one of the greatest works of the entire literary science fiction genre: till today, this evergreen also retains a direct - albeit mostly unconsciously and instinctively recognized - relevance to the existential condition of Western civilization.[6] Wells’ masterful impressionist rendering of ‘Earth under the Martians’ sketches a world where mankind has lost its bearings - where all recognition and reference points have been wiped away. As human civilization is destroyed by superior alien technology, alien occupation reduces mankind itself to cattle for the slaughter - even earthly nature itself is displaced by alien vegetation. Thus a (literally) creepy ‘red weed’ - a reference to the red colour of ‘war planet’ Mars - grows over the ruins of human civilization, suffocating the remnants of earthly vegetation.[7] Literary analyses of The War of the Worlds recognize that Wells’ masterpiece can be plausibly interpreted as a series of retrospective and contextual psycho-historical ‘mirror images’. Thus, Wells projects the imperialistically rationalized and social-darwinistically justified genocide of ‘primitive peoples’ (such as the indigenous people of Tasmania)[8] by the ‘white master race’ throughout the modern era on the hypothetical extermination of humanity by a superior alien race. He also projects the dehumanizing horror of the rising ‘bio-industry’ of his time on humanity’s hypothetical ‘cattle status’ under alien dominion. Most literary analyses, however, stop of short of pointing to the predictive value of Wells’ work - a value that derives from its forward projection of multiple and simultaneous occurring technological and sociological developmental trajectories. Earlier times would undoubtedly have been recognized Wells’ genius literary packaging of these projections as straightforward ‘prophecy’ – our own time must make do with ‘scientific fiction’.

The existential stress fractures that Modernity has caused in Western civilization can be analyzed - and partially projected forward - by means of modern scientific models: economically as Entfremdung (Karl Marx), sociologically as anomie (Emile Durkheim), psychologically as cognitive dissonance (Leon Festinger) and philosophically as Seinsvergessenheit (Martin Heidegger). For the Western patriotic-identitarian movement the meta-political relevance of these analyses does not primarily reside in their - sometimes ideologically biased - ‘deconstructive’ capacity, but rather in their simple diagnostic value. In this respect, there exists an important similarity between such modern scientific models and modern artistic ‘models’ such as Wells’ The War of the Worlds: by interpreting societal develops as ‘omens’ they can provide societal ‘traffic signs’ - and existential ‘warning signs’. By now, the accumulative impact of Modernity on Western societies is so great that the existential condition of the Western peoples can no longer be described in terms of authentic civilizational continuities or historical ‘standard settings’. When deviation, aberration and derailment determine an entire existential condition, then historically recognizable ‘standards’ are obsolete. When scientifically formulated ‘traffic signs’ are ignored for long enough, then artistically ‘predicted’ dystopian abysses must be faced. It is not by chance that the current phase op (ex-)Western cultural history is described by the term ‘post-modern’: the (ex-)Western societies of today have largely left behind authentic civilizational continuity and they are now moving with increasing speed in the direction of existential conditions that bare an uncanny resemblance to those that prevailed in Wells’ vision of Earth under the Martians.

The new ‘globalist’ ruling class of the West has effectively separated itself from the Western peoples - and positioned itself above it. Now, its only ‘connection’ to these peoples is found in the impact of its power. The hostile elite now considers itself superior to the ‘masses’ that it has ‘outgrown’ in a sense that is not merely ethical and aesthetical: it considers itself evolutionarily superior - it has become alienated in the most literal sense of the word.[9] The consistently negative effects of the hostile elite’s exercise of power - felt most particularly in neo-liberal exploitation, industrial ecocide, bio-industrial animal cruelty, cultural-marxist deconstruction, social implosion, ethnic replacement - define its role as a literally hostile elite. It does not know empathy and sympathy in any way, shape or form: not for its Western enemies, not for its Third World servants and not for its home planet - it is now literally alien to the Earth itself. The globalists are at war with humanity as a whole. They seek to eliminate or enslave at will. They care about themselves and themselves alone. They are committed to concentrating all wealth in their hideous hands. In their evil eyes, our only purpose is to serve them and enrich them. Hence, there is no room for racism, prejudice, and discrimination in this struggle. It is not a race war but a war for the human race, all included, a socio-political and economic war of planetary proportions (Jean-François Paradis).[10]

The globalist - and therefore anti-European - geopolitical strategy of the hostile elite (which aims at industrial delocalization, social atomization and cultural deracination, cf. Steuckers 223ff.) may be recognized as social-economic and psycho-social warfare by a handful of patriotic-identitarian thinkers, but the Western masses only recognize its effects: economic marginalization (labour market manipulation, artificial unemployment, interethnic wealth redistribution), social malaise (matriarchal anti-law, family structure disruption, digital pornification) and cultural decadence (educational ‘idiocracy’, academic ‘valorization’, media ‘political-correctness’). Through a carefully calibrated - but now critically dosed - process of mass immigration, the hostile elite is constantly reinforcing these economic, social and cultural ‘deconstruction’ programs, to the point of irreversibility. The Umvolkung process aims at eradicating the Western peoples as ethnically, historically and culturally distinct entities by ‘dissolving’ them in an atomized mass of atomized déracinés - by stamping them down into la boue,[11] the ‘mud’ of identity-less, character-less and will-less ‘mass man’. This process of ethno-cultural, social-economic and psycho-social total levelling, for now directed primarily at Europe, aims at the ultimate Endlösung of the core problem of the New World Order, which is the continued existence of authentic - and therefore automatically anti-globalist - identities at the collective level. Most concretely, this Endlösung is realized through the totalitarian implementation of ethnocidal ‘multiculturality’ and anti-identitarian ‘mobocracy’.

The motivations and aims of the hostile elite effectively ‘surpass’ the imagination of the Western masses - in certain respects, they even ‘surpass’ the common categories of human thought. In fact, their ‘un-earthly’ and ‘diabolical’ quality is starting to become increasingly evident in its concrete effects.[12] Elsewhere, the ideology of the hostile elite was defined as ‘Culture Nihilism’, i.e. as an improvised amalgam of ideas characterized by militant secularism, social-darwinist hyper-individualism, collectively internalized narcissism and doctrinal culture-relativism aimed at the destruction of all authentic forms of Western civilization.[13] The fact that the Western masses are not able to grasp Cultural Nihilism as an ideology and a program is largely due to its deliberate ‘vagueness’: the explicit motivations and aims of the hostile elite are intentionally il-logical and anti-rational. The only thing that is important for the hostile elite is power: its so-called ‘ideas’ are mere stratagems to gain, retain and expand power: they should be understood as ‘frames’ that serve specific purposes in cognitive warfare.

A good example of this cognitive warfare can be found in the currently fashionable ‘climate debate’: the ‘party (cartel) line’ that has been laid out by the hostile elite makes an appeal to Gutmensch eco-consciousness, but the punitive tribute that is imposed on the masses by means of new ‘climate taxes’ is exclusively used for ‘investment’ in commercial ‘climate business’ - and to subsidize politically-correct ‘climate clubs’. The inevitable popular backlash is then cognitively ‘transposed’ into a sub-rational ‘climate denial’ discourse that is projected on - even pragmatically claimed by - the ‘populist’ opposition, either in activism (the French ‘yellow vests’) or in parliament (the ‘0,00007 degrees centigrade’ slogan of the Dutch Forum for Democracy party). In this case, the cognitive dissonance that has been successfully created by the hostile elite runs so deep that the ‘common man in the street’ is actually denying the reality of vanishing winter ice and absurd February springs seasons to himself. The balancing act of the hostile elite is entirely effective: the ‘populist opposition’ is happy to abandon the moral high ground for the sake of a few extra parliamentary seats, the masses are happy because they can continue their ‘dance on the volcano’ with some extra years of holiday flights and automobile kilometres and the hostile elite is happy to continue in its ‘economic growth’ model - and with the extra ‘climate taxes’ that can be fed into ‘commercial investments’ and, of course, ‘climate refugees’. In the meantime, ‘business as usual’, or actually more than usual, means that the ecocidal clock of anthropogenic global warming and meteorological catastrophes is left to run its course - to the ‘final countdown’.

On balance, however, the Western masses do instinctively recognize the globalist megalomania of the hostile elite - the elite intelligentsia dismisses this instinctive recognition as ‘belly feel’ and it disqualifies its political expression as ‘populism’. This extreme demophobic arrogance may long retain its effectiveness, but in the longest run, it will come at a heavy price: even now, the Western peoples are beginning to experience the globalist regime of the hostile elite as an ‘alien occupation’. The masses are slowly by slowly starting to see the all-suffocating power of the hostile elite for what it is: an alien ‘red weed’ that is literally smothering Western civilization and the Western homeland.

I had not realised what had been happening to the world, had not anticipated this startling vision of unfamiliar things. I had expected to see... ruins - I found about me the landscape, weird and lurid, of another planet. For that moment I touched an emotion beyond the common range of men, yet one that the poor brutes we dominate know only too well. I felt as a rabbit might feel returning to his burrow and suddenly confronted by the work of a dozen busy navvies digging the foundations of a house. I felt the first inkling of a thing that presently grew quite clear in my mind, that oppressed me for many days, a sense of dethronement, a persuasion that I was no longer a master, but an animal among the animals, under [alien rule]. With us it would be as with them, to lurk and watch, to run and hide; the fear and empire of man had passed away. - Herbert George Wells, The War of the Worlds

2.

The European Kata-morphosis

(political-philosophical diagnosis)

 

Impia tortorum long[o]s hic turba furores sanguinis innocui, non satiata, aluit.

Sospite nunc patria, fracto nunc funeris antro, mors ubi dira fuit,

vita salusque patent.

[Here an impious mob of torturers, insatiable,

fed their long-lasting frenzies for innocent blood.

Now that the fatherland is safe, now that the cave of murder has been destroyed,

in the place where foul death once was,

life and health are open to all.][14]

After half a century of systematic demolition work on state structures and ethnic identities, Europe’s political, economic, social and cultural landscape has changed beyond recognition. The decades’ long outgrowths of parasitical neo-liberalism and prolific cultural-marxism have covered Europe as a ‘red weed’, creating previously unimaginable societal deformations. Hyper-mobile ‘flash capital’ is causing short-lived economic bubbles that give rise to architectural, artistic and fashion monstrosities, spreading outwards from ‘central business districts’, ‘leisure time resorts’ and ‘academic campus environments’. Ethnic ‘diversity’ is resulting in social-economic networks that are smothering the Western public sphere as so many ‘invasive species’: diaspora economies, drug mafias and polycriminal subcultures. These networks are supplemented by un-Western ‘spirit-based’ institutions: the awqāf[15] sponsored by Middle Eastern oil capital, the ‘asylum industry’ funded by public taxes and the ‘system media’ managed by globalist capital. What effectively links all these networks and institutions, systematically tolerated and facilitated by the hostile elite, is their common functionality, viz. their role as replacement mechanisms that are laying the groundwork for the New World Order. In this regard, a crucial role is reserved for the schwebende Intelligenz, viz. cultural-marxist intelligentsia that constitutes the globalist avant-garde. This intelligentsia is tasked with the supra-spatial and im-material deconstruction that precedes the spatial and material deconstruction of Western civilization. These ‘spiritual’ and ‘intellectual’ representatives of the globalist occupation regime ...se nichent dans [l]es trois milieux-clefs - média, économie, enseignement - et participent à la élimination graduelle mais certaines des assises idéologiques, des fondements spirituels et éthiques de notre civilisation. Les uns oblitèrent les résidus désormais épars de ces fondements en diffusant une culture de variétés sans profondeur aucune, les autres en décentrant l’économie et en l’éclatant littéralement par les pratiques de la spéculation et de la délocalisation, les troisièmes, en refusant l’idéal pédagogique de la transmission, laquelle est désormais interprétée comme une pratique anachronique et autoritaire, ce qu’elle n’est certainement pas au sens péjoratif que ces termes ont acquis dans le sillage de Mai 68. [...have settled in [the] three key positions [of globalist power] - media, economy [and] education - and there they work towards the slow but sure elimination of the ideological, spiritual and ethical foundations of our civilization. Some of them are engaged in the erasure of the already crumbling foundational remnants by disseminating superficial ‘cultural diversity’. Others [are engaged in] the ‘decentralization’ of the economy by literally blowing it up through speculation and delocalization. Yet others [are engaged in] the sabotage of the pedagogical ideal of [cultural] transmission by representing [that ideal] as an ‘outdated’ and ‘authoritarian’ practice on the basis of the negative connotation that these terms were charged with in the aftermath of May ’68.] (p. 262-3)

The globalist intelligentsia is using refined ‘alien audience’ propaganda strategies and coordinates the cognitive warfare that the hostile elite is waging against the Western peoples: it is creating a liberal-normative habitus of exclusively ‘economic thought’ that justifies the physical deconstruction of Western civilization. ...[U]ne économie ne peut pas, sans danger, refuser par principe de tenir compte des autres domaines de l’activité humaine. L’héritage culturel, l’organisation de la médecine et de l’enseignement doivent toujours recevoir une priorité par rapport aux facteurs purement économiques, parce qu’ils procurent ordre et stabilité au sein d’une société donnée ou d’une aire civilisationnelle, garantissant du même coup l’avenir des peuples qui vivent dans cet espace de civilisation. Sans une telle stabilité, les peuples périssent littéralement d’un excès de libéralisme, ou d’économicisme ou de ‘commercialité’... [An econom[ic model] cannot refuse to take account of other spheres of human activity with impunity. The cultural sphere, the healthcare sphere and the educational sphere must always be prioritized above merely economic factors because they provide order and stability to a given community or civilization. They are the guarantors of the future of the peoples living within that civilization. Without such stability, the[se] peoples will literally die of an overdose of ‘liberalism’, ‘economism’ and ‘commercialism’...] (p. 216-7)

In the European context, the doubly neo-liberal and cultural-marxist deconstruction of Western civilization and peoples is implemented through the Brussels-based ‘EU project’. This project is characterized by a radical departure from all traditional notions of pan-European cooperation: in a meta-historical sense, the postmodern ‘EU project’ represents a structural inversion of the classical concept of the European empire. L’Europe actuelle, qui a pris la forme de l’eurocratie bruxelloise, n’est évidemment pas un empire, mais, au contraire, un super-état en devenir. La notion d’‘état’ n’a rien  à voir avec la notion d’‘empire’, car un ‘état’ est ‘statique’ et ne se meut pas, tandis que, par définition, un empire englobe en son sein toutes les formes organiques de l’aire civilisationnelle qu’il organise, les transforme et les adapte sur les plans spirituel et politique, ce qui implique qu’il est en permanence en effervescence et en mouvement. L’eurocratie bruxelloise conduira, si elle persiste dans ses errements, à une rigidification totale. L’actuelle eurocratie bruxelloise n’a pas de mémoire, refuse d’en avoir une, a perdu toute assise historique, se pose comme sans racines. L’idéologie de cette construction de type ‘machine’ relève du pur bricolage idéologique, d’un bricolage qui refuse de tirer des leçons des expériences du passé. Cela implique une négation de la dimension historique des systèmes économiques réellement existants, qui ont effectivement émergé et se sont développés sur le sol européen. [Contemporary ‘Europe’, as given shape by the Brussels ‘eurocrats’, is clearly not an empire - it represents its opposite: a superstate-in-the-making. The notion of the ‘state’ is essentially different from the notion of the ‘empire’: the ‘state’ is [literally] ‘static’ and [essentially] immovable, whereas the ‘empire’ is [always in a state of flux as it is] engaged in the [constant] absorption of the organic forms that come within its reach, re-shaping and re-adapting them in accordance with its spiritual and political precepts. [T]hus, [the empire] is a constant state of fermentation and movement. If the Brussels eurocracy continues on its current path, which is leading [in the opposite direction and] towards a dead end, then it will end up in a state of total ‘fossilization’. In its current form, the Brussels eurocracy lacks - and refuses - [any kind of historical] memory and it resists [any kind of historical] rootedness. [Its radically] constructivist and mechanical self-image is based on an ideological improvisation that refuses to learn from the lessons and experiences of [European] history. This involves a denial of the historical dimension of the [specific national] real-life economic systems that have [organically] sprung up from the soil of Europe.] (p. 215-6)

From a political-philosophical perspective, the deeply anti-European ‘EU project’ represents no less than a globalist Machtergreifung. Neo-Jacobin radicals have taken over the reins of power and the historical precedents for Jacobin power experiments[16] - as in French and Russian revolutionary terror - should set off alarm bells all over Europe. But knowledge of the European historical context of the ‘EU project’, by itself, is insufficient for a thorough understanding of its ostensibly contradictory - because self-destructive - anti-European aims. Such an understanding requires insight into the larger aims of globalism - in his Europa trilogy, Steuckers now provides that insight in a lucid and concise manner.

3.

Globalist Anti-Europe Project

(geo-political diagnosis)

 

Sometimes the crime that one is about to commit is so terrible

that to commit it on behalf nation is not enough

- one needs to commit it on behalf of humanity.

- Nicolás Gómez Dávila

Steuckers’ panoramic overview of the contemporary global geopolitical landscape proceeds from the notion that the anti-European ‘EU project’ can only be properly understood as the result of the Second World War. That conflict ended the great power status and imperial hegemony of the European nation-states: the military defeat of France (1940), Italy (1943) and Germany (1945) was followed by the liquidation of European colonial empires (British India in 1947, the Dutch East Indies in 1949, Belgian Congo in 1960, French Algeria in 1962 and Portuguese Africa in 1975). In a few short years, world rule shifted to two superpowers that were guided by universalist ideologies and globalist geopolitics: the United States as the champion of Liberalism and the Soviet Union as the champion of Socialism. The physical (geographic, demographic, industrial) assets of defeated Europe was divided between the victors through military treaties (NATO, Warsaw Pact) and economic structures (EEC, Comecon). It is important to remember these brutal realities of military defeat, colonial liquidation and political tutelage. La Seconde Guerre mondiale avait pour objectif principal, selon Roosevelt et Churchill, d’empêcher l’unification européenne sous la férule des puissances d’Axe, afin d’éviter l’émergence d’une économie ‘impénétrée’ et ‘impénétrable’, capable de s’affirmer sur la scène mondiale. La Second Guerre mondiale n’avait donc pas pour but de ‘libérer’ l’Europe mais de précipiter définitivement l’économie de notre continent dans un état de dépendance et de l’y maintenir. Je n’énonce donc pas un jugement ‘moral’ sur les responsabilités de la guerre, mais je juge son déclenchement au départ de critères matériels et économiques objectifs. Nos médias omettent de citer encore quelques buts de guerre, pourtant clairement affirmés à l’époque, ce qui ne doit surtout pas nous induire à penser qu’ils étaient insignifiants. [For Roosevelt and Churchill the main aim of the Second World War was to prevent of the unification of Europe under the Axis powers, which would have given rise to a [European] economy that would have been ‘impenetrable’ and ‘invincible’ as an independent force on the world stage. Thus, [their true] aim in fighting the Second World War was not the ‘liberation’ of Europe, but [merely] the reduction of [Europe’s] continental economy to a state of permanent dependence. This statement does not reflect any pronouncement on the ‘moral’ responsibility for that war - it merely reflects the objective material and economic goals [that shaped it]. The fact that [the system] media are [carefully] avoiding any mention of [those] other goals, [goals] that were clearly pronounced at the time, does not mean that they were unimportant.] (p.220)

In the mid-‘80s, after four decades of Cold War, the first stress fractures started to appear the globally operating power structures of the two superpowers. The Challenger and Chernobyl disasters (respectively, 28 January and 26 April 1986) clearly illustrated the fact that the symptoms of ‘imperial overstretch’ could no longer be hidden from public view. Escalating economic chaos and increasing loss of political credibility forced both superpowers into radical domestic reforms: Reaganomics and Perestroika represent the superpowers’ geopolitical high water mark. After the implosion of the Soviet Union, the United States formally comes out ‘on top’, but the Pyrrhic quality of America’s Cold War ‘victory’ soon becomes undeniable: it immediately ‘rolls over’ when China transforms itself into an economic superpower and it soon retreats from the Third World, which had been the prime battlefield of the Cold War just a few years before. After the American defeat in Somalia (Black Hawk Down, 1993), Africa is allowed to collapse into ‘failed states’ and neo-tribal chaos. After the American retreat from Panama (Canal Zone Handover, 1999), Latin America is left to Bolivarianismo and the Marea Rosa.[17] The imperialist ‘rat race’ between sovereign nation-states that started with the ‘World War Zero’ Seven Years War (1756-63) may have ended with America as ‘last man standing’, but the enforcement of an authentically imperial Pax America is far beyond the scope of America’s geopolitical intent, ambition and capacity. Thus, despite the overt Wilsonian rhetoric that surrounded America’s interventions in Iraq (Bush Senior in 1991 and Bush Junior in 2003), these do not represent exercises in principled ‘global governance’ - rather, they simply represent attempts at pragmatic resource control. After the self-abolition of the Soviet Union as a superpower contender and after the official announcement of a ‘New World Order’ (Bush Senior, 1991), the American ruling class decided that the ‘End of History’ (Francis Fukuyama, 1992) had come: it decided to switch from Americanism to globalism. Thus, it deliberately transformed itself into a ‘world elite’, now accessible to anybody with very much money and very little morality. This new world elite considers itself entirely exempt from the old rules and laws of geopolitics: from its perspective, national sovereignty, cultural uniqueness and ethnic identity are hopelessly outdated phenomena that merely stand in the way of its ‘Brave New World’. As a group, this new ‘globalist’ elite has cut itself off from all ethnic, religious and cultural roots: on the basis of this self-willed rootlessness it turns against the rest of mankind, to the extent that the rest still possesses roots: against states that still possess sovereign rights, against cultures that still possess authentic essences and against peoples that still possess substantial identities. The globalist hostile elite is born.

Under the double banners of neo-liberalism and cultural-marxism, the hostile elite regards the ‘backward’ residue of humanity as little more than a mass of infinitely malleable ‘human material’ that it can use to fill its bank accounts, to serve its sexual perversities and to compensate for its existential crises. [La superclasse... domine à l’ère idéologique du néoliberalisme. Il n’est pas aisé de la définir : elle comporte évidemment les managers des grandes entreprises mondiales, les directeurs des grandes banques, de cheiks du pétrole ou des décideurs politiques voire quelques vedettes du cinéma ou de la littérature ou encore, en coulisses, des leaders religieux et des narcotrafiquants, qui alimentent le secteur bancaire en argent sale. Cette superclasse n’est pas stable : on y appartient pendant quelques années ou pendant une ou deux décennies puis on en sort, avec, un bon ‘parachute doré’. ...[N]umériquement insignifiante mais bien plus puissante que les anciennes aristocraties ou partitocraties, elle est totalement coupée des masses, dont elle détermine le destin. En dépit de tous les discours démocratiques, qui annoncent à cor et à cri l’avènement d’une liberté et d’une équité inégalées, le poids politique/économique des masses, ou des peuples, n’a jamais été aussi réduit. Son projet ‘globalitaire’ ne peut donc pas recevoir le label de ‘démocratique’. [The ‘superclass’... dominates the era of neo-liberal ideology. It is not easy to define it: it is most clearly composed of the managers of the great multinationals, the directors of the great banks, the oil sheikhs [and some prominent] political leaders, but [it also includes] some movie stars, intellectuals and ‘spiritual gurus’. Aside from these, [it also includes] a much more opaque number of [mafia bosses and] drug barons who feed its banking branch with ‘black money’. The ‘superclass’ is far from stable: it is possible to belong to it for some years or decades, and then to drop out of it again - mostly with a ‘golden parachute’. ...[N]umerically, it is small, but it is more powerful than any of the aristocracies and partitocracies that preceded throughout all of [recorded] human history. Despite a [public] discourse that continually speaks about a glorious dawn of unprecedented freedom and equality, the [real] political [and] economic weight of the masses has never been so small before. Thus, the globalist project [that is now pursued by the ‘superclass’] cannot be qualified as ‘democratic’ in any meaningful way.] (p. 291)

The globalist hostile elite instrumentalizes American military power and political influence: it uses American power and influence to further its own globalist agenda. It abuses American prestige, American wealth and American lives - this is the deepest reason for the anti-globalist and nationalist ‘populist’ backlash that brought Donald Trump into the White House. But the hostile elite operates above and behind formal institutions such as the presidency: in America, real power is largely exempt from institutional control and democratic correction. Real power resides in the ‘Washington swamp’, the ‘lying press’ and the ‘deep state’ - they determine policy; it is to fight these monsters that the American people chose Donald Trump to be its president. The monstrous power of the hostile elite, however, is so great that the public sphere is still dominated by Trump’s enemies, even two years after his election victory. The terrible anger and open sabotage with which the hostile elite responds to Trump is understandable: in the final analysis, the fate of the globalist hostile elite depends on its control over American military and political assets. The hostile elite needs to maintain its control over America’s monetary supply, America’ armed forces and America’s diplomatic network if it wants to maintain the international geopolitical chaos on which its financial interests and ideological chimaeras thrive.

The most pressing geopolitical concern of the hostile elite and the reason it needs absolute control over America is the permanent subjugation of its potentially most dangerous enemy: Europe. The deadly danger to nihilist and rootless globalism posed by Europe resides in its combination of technological-industrial/social-economic capacity with authentic cultural-historical rootedness/ethnicity-based identity. After the collapse of the Soviet Union the task of keeping Europe in subjugation to globalism, previously shared between the two superpowers, devolved on the United States alone. The globalist strategy to achieve this task started out twofold: the globalist hostile elite enforced a permanent weakening of newly re-united Germany (through formal sovereignty limits and ‘monetary union’ tribute payments to France) and it expanded American military presence eastward (through NATO enlargement). This double strategy, however proved problematic as a long-term solution to the ‘European Question’: given America’s many global commitments, its military presence throughout all of Europe constitutes a considerable liability that forces it into grotesque deficit spending and risqué diplomatic brinkmanship. Its centrepiece, the ‘containment’ of Germany, is also proving to be more problematic than previously thought: even the burdens of German unification (from 1990) and European single-currency liability (from 1999) have not been able to slow down the German social-economic motor. Quite the opposite has happened: EU expansion into the former Eastern Bloc (from 2004) is raising the old spectre of a German-led semi-autarkic geopolitical bloc. The prevention of such a Mitteleuropa project was the main aim of the Balkan ‘thwarting’ policy of the Entente powers in the early 20^th Century: in the summer of 1914 it finally provoked the Central powers into starting the First World War. This geopolitical ‘larger picture’ provides an entirely different perspective on phenomena such as the ‘Financial Crisis’ of 2008, which started in America but led Europe into the crippling ‘European Debt Crisis’ of 2009, and the ‘Arab Spring’ of 2011, which led to the ‘European Migration Crisis’ of 2015.

This perspective is best formulated by Steuckers himself: La globalisation, c’est... le maintien de l’Europe, et de l’Europe seule, en état de faiblesse structurelle permanente. Et cette faiblesse structurelle est due, à la base, à un déficit éthique entretenu, à un déficit politique et culturel. Il n’y a pas d’éthique collective, de politique viable ou de culture féconde sans que Machiavel et les anciens Romains, auxquels le Florentin se référait, appelaient des ‘vertus politiques’, le terme ‘vertu’ n’ayant pas le sens stupidement moraliste qu’il a acquis, mais celui, latin, de ‘force agissante’, de ‘force intérieure agissante’... [Globalization means this: ...the maintenance of Europe - and only Europe - in a permanent state of structural weakness. In the final analysis, this weakness is due to a permanent ‘ethical deficit’ [that translates into] a political and cultural deficit. Collective ethics, viable politics [and] fruitful cultures are impossible without what Machiavelli, and the ancient Romans on whom the Florentine based hi[s thought], termed the ‘political virtues’ - a phrase in which the meaning of the word ‘virtue’ does not have the short-sighted moralistic charge that it has attracted recently, but rather the [original] Latin [meaning] of ‘acting force’ [and] ‘inner guiding force’.] (p. 279-80) Steuckers correctly points to the ‘ethical deficit’ of Europe as being imposed by globalist cognitive warfare, resulting in Europe’s debilitating lack of purpose and willpower. This deficit prevents psycho-historical catharsis, geopolitical assertiveness and decisionist self-defence. It renders Europe helpless in the face of acute existential threats such as the social implosion, mass-immigration and jihadist terror that are deliberately fostered by its enemies. This globalist ‘anti-European’ Europe is realized in the internalization of the cognitively dissonant globalist ‘mainstream media’ discourse of self-destructively interpreted ‘human rights’, ‘multiculturality’ and ‘diversity’. L’arme principale qui est dirigée contre l’Europe est donc un ‘écran moralisateur’, à sens unique, légal et moral, composé d’images positives, de valeurs dites occidentales et d’innocences prétendues menacées, pour justifier des campagnes de violence politique illimitée. [The main weapon employed against Europe is the uniquely ‘moralist [television, computer and telephone] screen’ that [is imposing specific] legal and moral ‘values’ [through] the positive ‘frame’ of so-called ‘Western values’ and supposedly ‘threatened innocence’ by justifying a [systematic] campaign of endless political terrorism.] (p.281)

Everywhere across Europe this globalist discourse is entirely internalized and primarily represented by the soixante-huitard generation that achieved a power monopoly in the wake of its ‘long march through the institutions’. Pendant les années de leur traversée du désert, ...les [utopistes]de [la] génération soixante-huitard] feront... un ‘compromis historique’ qui repose, ...premièrement, sur un abandon du corpus gauchiste, libertaire et émancipateur, au profit des thèses néolibérales, deuxièmement, sur une instrumentalisation de l’idée freudo-sartienne de la ‘culpabilité’ des peuples européens, responsables de toutes les horreurs commises dans l’histoire, et troisièmement, sur un pari pour toutes les démarches ‘mondialisatrices’, même émanant d’instances capitalistes non légitimées démocratiquement ou d’institution comme la Commission Européenne, championne de la ‘néolibéralisation’ de l’Europe, dont le pouvoir n’est jamais sanctionné par une élection. [During their years in the desert... the [utopists] of the [‘68] generation... made a ‘historical compromise’ that is based... on [three complementary strategies]: (1) an [abandonment and] betrayal of their [core] leftist ideology [of] freedom and emancipation in favour of neo-liberalism, (2) a [political] application of the Freudian-Sartrean notion of the ‘guilt’ of the European peoples, [who are held] responsible for all crimes in history and (3) an adherence to ‘globalizing’ processes - even [if those processes] are driven by [un]democratic [and] illegitimate capitalist powers of institution[s] such as the European Commission, [which has become] the champion of the ‘neo-liberalisation’ of Europe and which has never received a democratic mandate.[18]] (p.293) This ideological betrayal and this globalist collaboration, now the standard modalities of the European hostile elite, have brought European civilization to the brink of the abyss.

Steuckers points to the functionality of the treason of the European soixante-huitards in the larger framework of globalist geopolitics: this treason delivers Europe into the hands of a de facto ‘monster pact’ between two quintessentially anti-European globalist forces: liberal-normativism, as symbolized by American ‘Puritanism’, and islamism, symbolized by Saudi ‘Wahhabism’. Aujourd’hui, nous faisons face à l’alliance calamiteuse de deux fanatismes religieux : le wahhabisme, visibilisé par les médias, chargé de tous les péchés, et le puritanisme américain, camouflé derrière une façade ‘rationnelle’ et ‘économiste’ et campé comme matrice de la ‘démocratie’ et de toute ‘bonne gouvernance’. Que nous ayons affaire à un fanatisme salafiste ou hanbaliste qui rejette toutes les synthèses fécondes, génératrice et façonneuses d’empires, qu’elles soient byzantino-islamiques ou irano-islamisées ou qu’elles se présentent sous les formes multiples de pouvoir militaire équilibrant dans les pays musulmans, ou que nous ayons affaire à un fanatisme puritain rationalisé qui entend semer le désordre dans tous ces états de la planète, que ces états soient ennemis ou alliés, parce que ces états soumis à subversion ne procèdent pas de la même matrice mentale, nous constatons que toutes nos propres traditions européennes... sont considérées par ces fanatismes contemporains d’au-delà de l’Atlantique ou d’au-delà de la Méditerranée comme émanations du Mal, comme des filons culturels à éradiquer pour retrouver une très hypothétique pureté, incarnée jadis par les pèlerins du ‘Mayflower’ ou par les naturels de l’Arabie du VIII^e siècle. [In the contemporary world we are facing a disastrous [globalist, anti-European] alliance between two religious fanatisms: Wahhabism,[19] which is visualized as the scapegoat [‘bad cop’] in the [mainstream] media - and American puritanism, which is portrayed as a stable rational and economist reference frame [‘good cop’] that provides ‘democracy’ and ‘good governance’. But such [fanatisms] are [entirely] incompatible with our own European traditions. This is not only true for [‘Wahhabism’ and its] ‘Hanbalite and ‘Salafist’ [fellow-traveller] fanatisms[20] that are incompatible with the fertile, creative and imperial syntheses characteristic of [Traditional Islam, such as] Byzantine Islam and Persian Islam, but [it is] also [true] for the puritanically rationalized and militarily enforced [America-based] fanatism that is [now] creating chaos throughout the entire world (because all other cultural circles, irrespective of their allied or enemy status, necessarily represent incompatible mental worlds). To the fanatisms [that face Europe] across the Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea, [all of Europe’s authentic traditions] represent incarnations of Evil [pure and simple]: they represent mental worlds that they will fight to the death for the sake of their - highly hypothetical - purity, as modelled on the ‘Pilgrim Fathers’ [of the 17^th Century] Mayflower[21] and the bons sauvages[22] of the 8^th Century Arabian Desert.] (p.261-2)

The totalitarian-regressive fanatisms of ‘Puritanical’ liberal-normativism and ‘Wahhabist’ islamism have to be overcome emotionally, intellectually and spiritually if European civilization and the European peoples are to survive the Crisis of the Modern West. At this critical juncture, the therapy that Traditionalism can recommend as having the greatest chance of success is the ultimate political-philosophical ‘emergency option’: Archaeo-Futurism.

4.

The Archaeo-Futurist Alternative

(political-philosophical therapy)

Lo, all our pomp of yesterday
Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!
Judge of the Nations, spare us yet.
Lest we forget - lest we forget!

- Rudyard Kipling

The Archaeo-Futurist alternative for the globalist anti-European ‘EU project’ is based on a simultaneous retrograde recovery and forward projection of a Traditionalist concept that has long played a vital role in European history and may do so again: the European Imperial Idea. This is an idea that is strictly speaking supra-historical and can, therefore, be reactivated at any given point in history. The ideological abuse and historiographical misinterpretation of the European Imperial Idea in 19^th and 20^th Century (hyper-)nationalism - most recently in the ‘Third Reich’ - does not invalidate its supra-historical vitality. In this regard, Steuckers points to the vital importance of a correct understanding of the larger Traditionalist framework in which the Imperial Idea functions. Traditionalism states that all collective (linguistic, religious, ethnic, national) identities and the horizontally (worldly, physically) experienced differences between them are potentially organic parts of larger, synergetically unique entities with a higher, vertical, and transcendentally (spiritually, psychologically) experienced functionality. This entity can be identified as Imperium (German: Reich) - in the Western Tradition it derives its legitimacy from the ancient Roman Empire. Its numinous character becomes obvious from the fact that its mere mention conjures up a feeling of awe among those that naturally belong to it - and that inspires a feeling of fear among those that are unworthy of it.

Pour résumer brièvement la position traditional[iste],... disons que les horizontalités modernes ne permettent pas le respect de l’Autre, de l’être-autre. Si l’Autre est jugé dérangeant, inopportun dans son altérité, il peut être purement et simplement éliminé ou mis au pas, sans le moindre respect de son altérité, car l’horizontalité fait de tous des ‘riens ontologiques’, privés de valeur intrinsèque. Tel est l’aboutissement de la logique égalitaire, propre des idéologies et des systèmes qui ont voulu usurper et éradiquer la tradition ‘reichique’ : si tout vaut tout dans l’intériorité de l’homme, ou même dans sa constitution physique, cela signifie, finalement, que plus rien n’a de valeur spécifique, et si une valeur spécifique cherche à pointer envers et contre tout, elle sera vite considérée comme une anomalie qui appelle l’extermination. L’intervention fanatique et sanglante de ‘colonnes infernales’. La verticalité, en revanche, implique le devoir de protection et de respect, un devoir de servir les supérieurs et un devoir des supérieurs de protéger les inférieurs, dans un rapport comparable à celui qui existe, dans les sociétés et les familles traditionnelles, entre parents et enfants. La verticalité respecte les différences ontologiques et culturelles ; elle ne les considère pas comme des ‘riens’ qui ne méritent ni considération ni respect. [To summarize the traditional[ist] perspective... it may be said that modern[ist] horizontality impedes a[ny true] respect for [what is] Other and [what is D]ifferent. When the Other-ness of what is [D]ifferent is judged to be [mere] ‘interference’ [and] ‘inconvenience’, than it can be simply eliminated or ignored without the least respect for [its] Other-ness: [thus], modern[ist] horizontality reduces all [forms of authentic] identity to ‘ontological nullities’ without intrinsic value. This is the [inevitable] end result of the egalitarian logic that shapes ideologies and systems that aim at supplanting and erasing the imperial tradition. When everything is assumed to depend exclusively on human [subjective value], or even exclusively on [individual] human physical [existence], then nothing of specifically [objective] value remains. When any specific value points in a different [non-egalitarian] direction against the [perceived ‘common good’], then it is quickly identified as an ‘aberration’ that needs to be eliminated. This [results] in the fanatic and bloody intervention of ‘infernal columns’[23] [of modernist collectivism]. The principle of [Traditionalist] verticality, on the other hand, proceeds from a [reverse] duty: to protect and respect [the Other]. [This implies] the duty of [the commoners] to serve those set above them, and the duty of the higher-ranked to protect the lower-ranked, in a relationship that can be compared to that of parents and children in traditional communities and families. This verticality respects ontological differences and the cultural [expressions of these differences]: it does not reduce them to ‘[ontological] nullities’ unworthy of consideration and respect.] (p. 157)

Thus, the Traditionalist Imperial Idea implies a holistic vision in which all collective and individual [authentic] identities are organically fitted into a larger entity of synergetic ‘added value’. Il faut enfin... que chaque communauté et chaque individu aient conscience qu’ils gagnent à demeurer dans l’ensemble impéria[ux]au lieu de vivre séparément. Tâche éminemment difficile qui souligne la fragilité des édifices impériaux : Rome a su maintenir un tel équilibre pendant les siècles, d’où la nostalgie de cet ordre jusqu’à nos jours. ...[L]a civitas de l’origine... de l’Urbs, la Ville initiale de l’histoire impériale, ...s’est étendue à l’Orbis romanus. Le citoyen romain dans l’empire signale son appartenance à cet Orbis, tout en conservant sa natio et sa patria, appartenance à telle nation ou telle ville de l’ensemble constitué par l’Orbis. [In the final analysis, it is necessary... that every community and every individual realizes that it stands to benefit more from its allegiance to the imperial entity than from a separate existence. [This requires] a difficult balancing act, underlining the vulnerability of [all] imperial projects: for centuries, Rome managed to maintain such a balance - hence the nostalgi[c longing] for the [Roman] order that pervades [Europe] up to today. ... [as the Roman Empire grew], the original civitas... of the ancestral Urbs, [i.e.] the City from which imperial history unfolded,... grew into an Orbis romanus. In th[at] empire, Roman citizenship meant identification with that Orbis, even if [citizens] still belonged to a particular natio and a particular patria, [i.e.] even if [they permanently] retained [their] specific nationality and fatherland within the [larger] Orbis.] (p.129-31) D’abord, il faut préciser que le ‘Reich’ n’est pas une nation, même s’il est porté, en théorie, par un populus (le populus romanus) ou une ‘nation’ (la deutsche Nation) : ...[c’est] n’est pas [une chose] nationaliste, [c’est] même [une chose] anti-nationaliste. [I]l n’a rien contre les sentiments d’appartenance nationale, contre la fierté d’appartenir à une nation. De tels sentiments sont positifs... mais doivent être transcendés par une idée. Cette transcendance conduit à une verticalité, qui oppose à toutes les formes modernes d’horizontalité, ce qui est, par ailleurs, le noyau idéel, de toutes les traditions... [Above all, it should be made clear that an ‘Empire’ is no nation, even if it is theoretically carried by a [particular] populus ([i.e. a ‘people’ such as] the populus romanus) or a [particular] nation ([i.e. a ‘nation’ such as] the deutsche Nation): ...[the Empire] is not nationalist, [it is, in fact,] anti-nationalist. [I]t does not oppose the [collective] nationalist sentiment or the [individual] pride that [rightly] derives from national identity. Such sentiments are positive [in themselves]... but they should be surpassed by the [still higher imperial] idea. This transcendence determines a vertical direction that opposes all modern forms of horizontality. In the final analysis, this [verticality] constitutes the ideal core of all [authentic T]raditions.] (p. 156-7)

The practical combination of collective and individual identities is realised in the political application of the Traditionalist principle of subsidiarity, a late trace of which can still be detected in the Dutch anti-revolutionary principle of ‘sphere sovereignty’[24]). ...[L]e principe de ‘subsidiarité’, tant évoqué dans l’Europe actuelle mais si peu mis en pratique, renoue avec un respect impérial des entités locales, des spécificités multiples que recèle le monde vaste et diversifié. [...The principle of ‘subsidiarity’, often claimed by seldom practised in contemporary Europe, can provide [a new] imperial[ly legitimate] respect for the [many] local communities [and] specific identities that are found in the real world of great [authentically-rooted] diversity.] (p. 139)

In relation to the Imperial Idea, ‘identity politics’, ‘multiculturality’ and ‘diversity’ are effectively reduced to ‘non-issues’: they are organically resolved by - and dissolved in - a sublimation into the higher functionality of the Empire. L’empire est donc fait de multiplicités, de différences, qui n’ont rien de commun avec la fausse multiculturalité vantée par les médias d’aujourd’hui. Cette multiculturalité, escroquerie idéologique, relève justement de cette horizontalité qui vise à vider tous les hommes, autochtones et allochtones, de leur substance ontologique. Cette multiculturalité tue l’essentiel qui vit en l’homme. Toute politique qui cherche à la promouvoir est une politique criminelle, exterministe... [Thus, an Empire is based on [necessarily complex] pluralities [and] diversities that have nothing in common with the counterfeit ‘multiculturality’ currently promoted by the [main stream] media. This [fake] multiculturality represents an ideological deception that is based on [modernist] horizontality [and] that is meant to deprive all people - indigenous as well as non-indigenous - of their ontological substance. [That perverse kind of] multiculturality kills the essence that animates humanity. [Any form of] politics that aids and abet [this counterfeit multiculturality] constitutes criminal - and ethnocidal - politics....] (p.158) It is ironic that the Traditionalist concepts of the Imperial Idea and the Imperial Community provide much more tolerance and much more freedom than any kind of modernist ‘diversity’ and ‘democracy’ ever could.

5.

Sacrum Imperium

(neo-imperial therapy)

Hier die Ma[h]nen hehrer Krieger
Seien euch ein Musterbild
Führen euch vom Kampf als Sieger

[May the memory of the fearsome warriors

who fought before you, here inspire you

and lead you to glorious victory in battle]

- Joseph Hartmann Stuntz[25]

Western civilization is based on a vulnerable balance of complementary authentic identities that obtain synergetic ‘added value’ in a variety of historical interactions. This ‘added value’ can be expressed in the ‘hyper-boreal’ archetypes of Techne (technological liberation), Nomos (judicial liberation) and Evangelion (spiritual liberation).[26] But this ‘added value’, and the ethnicities on which it is based, require constant protection and guarding - this is the basis of the Traditionalist European Imperial Idea. En Europe, les structures de type impérial sont... une nécessité, afin de maintenir la cohérence de l’aire civilisationnelle européenne, dont la culture a jailli du sol européen, afin que tous les peuples au sein de cette aire civilisationnelle, organisée selon les principes impériaux, puissent avoir un avenir. [In Europe, structures of the imperial type... are indispensable for the cohesion of the European civilization sphere, which is grounded in the European soil - and for the future of the peoples that are indigenous to that sphere. [The maintenance of that cohesion requires] the organization of that sphere on imperial principles.] (p.214) A simultaneously idealistic and realistic - Archaeo-Futurist - reconsideration of the European Imperial Idea is essential for the protection of the European peoples and their common civilization. The extension of the European Imperial Idea to include the overseas peoples of European descent is a logical next step: this step has already been Archaeo-Futuristically explored in the concept of a ‘Boreal Alliance’. At a global level, such an alliance would find natural allies in the other two Indo-European Imperial Ideas: Persia and India - an Archaeo-Futurist exploration of this theme can be found in Jason Jorjani’s concept of the ‘World State of Emergency’. The alternative geopolitics that is required to do justice to these Archaeo-Futurist visions is already the object of concrete study in the anti-globalist Neo-Eurasianist movement.[27]

Traditionalism is tasked with the defence of the collective ‘Higher Vocation’ of the European peoples whenever it faces a serious threat.[28] Steuckers acts on this obligation by restating the Traditionalist vision of Europe: L’Europe, c’est une perception de la nature comme épiphanie du divin... L’Europe, c’est également une mystique du devenir et de l’action... L’Europe, c’est une vision du cosmos où l’on constate l’inégalité factuelle de ce qui est égal en dignité ainsi qu’une pluralité de centres... [C’est] une nouvelle vision de l’homme, impliquant la responsabilité pour l’autre, pour l’écosystème, parce que, ... sur [s]es bases philosophiques, ...l’homme... est un collaborateur de Dieu et un miles imperii, un soldat de l’empire. Le travail n’est plus malédiction ou aliénation mais bénédiction et octroi d’un surplus de sens au monde. La technique est service à l’homme, à autrui... La construction de l’Europe... nécessite de revitaliser une ‘citoyenneté d’action’, où l’on retrouve la notion de l’homme coauteur de la création divine et l’idée de responsabilité. [‘Europe’, [as a Traditionalist concept,] is a vision in which the natural world is treated as Divine Epiphany... [Such a] Europe is a mystery of becoming and enacting... [Such a] Europe is a cosmic vision that recognizes the factual inequality of all things as well as their equality in dignity - and [that validates cultural-historical and geo-political] multipolarity... [This] new vision of humanity implies a responsibility for [all that] is different [and] for the entire [natural and human] ecosystem because... at its philosophical [this vision establishes]... every man as a collaborator of God - [as] a miles imperii, a soldier of the [divinely instituted] Empire. Thus, work no longer represents a curse or alienation,[29] but a blessing as a duty regarding a [higher sense of] responsibility for [all of creation]. Technology serves man in his work - [also] for the benefit of the other...[30] The construction of Europe... demands a new ‘activist citizenship’ that is based upon the idea of man as a co-worker in the Divine Creation - and upon the idea of a [cosmic] responsibility that is rooted in authentic identity and vocation.] (p.138-9). It is clear that the Higher Vocation of the European peoples does not stop at the geographical borders of the European subcontinent: it is retained by the European peoples that have moved across these boundaries to dominate the boreal and austral regions overseas.

Inwardly, this Higher Vocation requires individual self-discipline, individual work ethic and individual acceptance of hierarchical order - and therefore a radical reversion of the narcissist, hedonist and collectivist existential modality that is fostered and maintained by the liberal-normativism that dominates the postmodern West. This requires a transition to a new (or re-newed) existential condition, dominated by authentic norms and values - and by a legitimate Authority. In the European Tradition, which is based on a Roman archetype, this Authority bears the title ‘Caesar’ - Emperor.[31] Dans la conception [traditionaliste] hiérarchique des êtres et des fins terrestres... l’empire constituait le sommet, l’exemple impassable pour tous les autres ordres inférieurs de la nature. De même, l’empereur, également au sommet de cette hiérarchie par la vertu de sa titulaire, doit être un exemple pour tours les princes du monde, non pas en vertu de son hérédité, mais de supériorité intellectuelle, de son connaissance ou des ses connaissances. Les vertus impériales sont justice, vérité, miséricorde et constance... [In the [Traditionalist] vision of the hierarchy of creatures and purposes... the Empire represents the highest aim, the unrivalled example for all lower natural orders. This means that the emperor, who stands at the apex of this hierarchy on the basis of his title, provides an example for all [other] worldly princes - not on the grounds of his [earthly] descent but [on the grounds] of his intellectual superiority and of his abilities and insights. [In him,] the imperial ‘[political] virtues’ of justice, truth, mercy and stability [are realized]...]. (p. 136) Obviously, a recognizably legitimate Authority is difficult to imagine in the present European context, but still, the archetype of this Authority is indispensable as a fixed point of reference. To a certain extent, the same applies to the Imperial Idea as such: within the present-day discourse of political philosophy, the concept is primarily meant as a thought experiment that allows the patriotic-identitarian movement to chart a new course towards a new destination. In the same way that the ‘Kingdom of Heaven’ embodies the Higher Vocation of Christianity, thus the Imperial Idea embodies the Higher Vocation of European civilization - even if the ideal has not yet been tangibly realized in the here and now. Thus, the old Traditionalist Imperial Idea can serve as a reference point for a new Archaeo-Futurist Imperial Idea. Here too, the hierarchical political philosophy of Neo-Eurasianism can serve as a bridge.

Outwardly, any Traditionalist Imperial Idea requires collective self-identification, collective pride and collective dedication - to the point of supreme self-sacrifice. In this regard, it is important to emphasize that the Imperial Idea, as it is defended by the highest command authority, has a positive relation to the various authentic identities that are protected by the Empire through subsidiary guarantees: it literally has ‘added value’. Thus, a Traditionalist definition of a European - or even Western - Empire does not diminish specific linguistic, religious, cultural and ethnic identities that it contains: it merely adds an extra identity, viz. a European - or even Western - identity. This identity is not dominant in an inward sense (i.e. in citizens’ self- representation on the individual level), but it is dominant in an outward sense: to the outside world it represents a collective will. This implies that, to the outside world, the Empire represents an absolute standard that must be expressed in physical boundaries. Thus, the liberal-normative delusion of globalist ‘universal values’ and ‘open borders’ are entirely incompatible with effective maintenance of the classical norms of civilization that are incarnated in the Traditionalist Imperial Idea. L’empire se conçoit comme un ordre, entouré d’un chaos menaçant, niant par là même que les autres puissent posséder eux-mêmes leur ordre ou qu’il ait quelque valeur. Chaque empire s’affirme plus ou moins comme le monde essentiel, entouré de mondes périphériques réduits à des quantités négligeables. L’hégémonie universelle concerne seulement “l’univers qui vaut quelque chose”. Rejeté dans les ténèbres extérieures, le reste est une menace dont il faut se protéger. [The Empire conceives of itself as an order that is surrounded by threatening chaos [and in doing so] it must effectively deny that other [civilizations] may have their own order of [equal] intrinsic value. To a certain extent, every Empire views itself as a ‘world on its own’, surrounded by ‘peripheral worlds’: these ‘other worlds’ are reduced to negligible entities.[32] Universal hegemony exclusively applies to the ‘valuable universe’ [that is one’s own]. The rest [of reality] is intellectually and psychologically rejected [and thrust] into the Outer Dark: it is reduced to a threat that should be defended against.[33]] (p. 129)

6.

Ex oriente lux

(psycho-historical therapy)

 

Hail to our Prince!

We have searched the northwest winds for you

To you we offer our mortality

You are our Oath!

- freely inspired by Hereditary

The effectiveness of any Archaeo-Futurist therapy for the psycho-historical self-mutilation of Western civilization depends on the re-discovery and the re-activation of its archetypes.[34] From a meta-historical perspective, the political experiment of the narrowly nationalist and hyper-biodeterminist ‘Third Reich’ represents a rather improvised attempt at re-activating of these archetypes. The (actually rather tenuous) association of the Traditionalist Imperial Idea with the ‘Third Reich’ and the European Götterdämmerung of 1945 effectively removed these archetypes from Western public discourse. Thus, the idealistic, knightly and ascetic existential models that are linked to these archetypes, as incarnated in the ancient vocations of Academy, Nobility and Church, lost their raison d’être -  the utter decay of the West’s academic, military and ecclesiastical institutions proves this point beyond a reasonable doubt. This psycho-historic Untergang has recently reached the point that anything that even vaguely refers to ‘aristocratic’, ‘aryan’ or ‘masculine’ quality is automatically considered ‘subject’ in the public sphere. Deep conditioning in matriarchal oikophobia and resentful feminization has destroyed the old Western institutions of Academy, Army and Church.

Even so, this process is far from irreversible - it may even be considered as an indispensable part of a purifying ‘dialectic process’.[35] In such a process, an extreme negative polarity is a necessary precondition for any extreme discharge of positive energy. Thus, the ‘deconstruction’ of the improvised and superficial ‘hyper-nationalist’ and ‘hyper-biodeterminist’ ideology of the ‘Third Reich’ may, in fact, turn out to be a necessary precondition for a re-discovery and re-activation of the deepest archetypes of the Indo-European Tradition. The Archaeo-Futurist exploration of these deepest archetypes has started only recently, but the direction in which the new Golden Dawn of the West must be sought is already clear: - ex oriente lux. Jason Jorjani, the philosophical pioneer of the Archaeo-Futurist Revolution in the New World has already crossed the ‘event horizon’ of Western Modernity and he has already reported back on the civilizational outlines that are becoming visible in the first rays of what may be termed its coming ‘Golden Dawn’. It is cannot be a coincidence that Robert Steuckers, the foreman of Traditionalism in the Low Countries, is pointing in the same direction. Both are pointing to the oldest Indo-European archetypes that have been preserved in the Persian Tradition - and both point to their imminent return to the West.

La catégorie d’hommes capables d’incarner un ‘Reich’ est née de la tradition persane, laquelle a été longtemps un ‘Orient’ (in modèle sur lequel on s’‘orientait’)... Dans la tradition persane, il est question d’un ‘hiver éternel’, allusion plus que probable au début d’une ère glaciaire particulièrement rude, qui a surpris les premiers peuples européens dans leur habitat premier. Au moment où survient cet ‘hiver éternel’, un roi-héros, Rama, rassemble les tribus et les clans et se dirige, à leur tête, vers le sud, vers le Caucase, la Bactriane et la Perse (les hauts plateaux iraniens). Ce roi-héros fonde les castes, ou, plus exactement, les fonctions que George Dumézil étudiera ultérieurement. Après avoir mené son peuple à bonne destination, pour échapper aux rigueurs de cet ‘hiver éternel’, Rama se retire dans les montagnes. Cette figure héroïque et royale se retrouve dans les traditions avestique et védique où il s’appelle Yama ou Yima. Pour mener cette expédition et cette migration, Rama-Yama-Yima s’est servi de chevaux et de chars et a jeté ainsi les premiers principes d’organisation d’une cavalerie... Plus tard, Zarathoustra codifie les règles qui doit suivre chaque cavalier... La troupe de Zarathoustra, qui doit faire respecter son enseignement pratique, est armée de massues (la ‘Clave’ dans l’œuvre de Julius Evola). Au départ de la troupe des adeptes de Zarathoustra se forme la caste des guerriers, les Kshatriyas de la tradition indienne, une caste opérative ancrée dans le réel politique et géographique, qui domine la caste de prêtres, contemplative et moins encline à exercer sur elle-même une discipline rigoureuse. ...La figure iranienne de Sraosha, qui donnera le Saint-Michel de la tradition médiévale, évolue entre le ciel et la terre, c’est-à-dire entre l’idéal de la tradition et la réalité, va-et-vient qui postule une formation rigoureuse, à l’instar des disciples de Zarathoustra. Ceux-ci, au fur et à mesure que se consolide la tradition iranienne, sont formés à rendre claire leur pensée, à purifier leurs sentiments, à prendre conscience de leur devoir. Armés de ces trois principes cardinaux d’orientation, le disciple de Zarathoustra lutte contre Ahriman, incarnation du mal, c’est-à-dire de la déliquescence des sentiments, qui rend inapte à œuvrer constructivement et durablement dans le réel. Seul les chevaliers capables d’incarner cet idéal simple mais rigoureux se donneront un charisme, un rayonnement, une lumière, la kwarnah. Ils sont liés entre eux par un serment. (p. 159-60) [The category of people that is able to personify an Empire originates in the Persian [T]radition: this Oriental reference point has been a constant existential orientation point [for the West] throughout the ages. The Persian [T]radition speaks of an ‘eternal winter’, a concept that probably dates back to the beginnings of a particularly harsh Ice Age that struck the ancient European peoples in their original habitat. When the ‘eternal winter’ began, a heroic king [named] Rama assembled the[se] peoples and tribes and he led them southward, towards the Caucasus, Bactria and Persia (the Iranian Highlands). This heroic kind was the founder of [their] castes, or, to be more precise: the [social-hierarchic] functionalities that were eventually reconstructed by Georges Dumézil.[36] After having saved his people from the hardships of the ‘eternal winter’, Rama retired into the mountains. This heroic and royal personality subsequently recurs in the Avestan and Vedic [T]raditions, in which he is called Yama or Yima.[37] To achieve this mission and migration, Rama-Yama-Yima organized horses and wagons, providing the foundations of a cavalry organization... Later the rules that had to be followed by every mounted warrior, [or ‘knight’], were codified by Zoroaster... The host of Zoroaster that obeyed his practical injunctions was armed with the mace (Julius Evola’s clava).[38] [Subsequently,] Zoroaster’s ‘school’ gave rise to the caste of the warriors - the Kshatriyas of Indian Tradition - that established itself in political [institutions] and geographical [holdings] and that came to predominate over a caste of the priests that was inclined to contemplation and rejection of over-rigorous discipline. ...The Iranian figure of Sraosha,[39] who re-appears in the Medieval [Western] Tradition as Saint Michael, is [constantly] realized [through re-birth and re-discover] between Heaven and Earth, i.e. between the Traditional ideal and [worldly] reality: [for aspiring knights] this ‘re-cycling’ requires [a constantly maintained] rigorous schooling, as it was for the students of Zoroaster. [These are the people] who realize [and re-live] the Iranian Tradition in themselves by learning to cleanse their thought[s] and feelings and by becoming aware of their vocation. Armed with these three main principles of orientation, the student of Zoroaster engages in combat with Ahriman,[40] the personification of evil, which is primarily [defined as] the kind of emotional weakness that makes it impossible to act on reality in a constructive and durable manner. Only ‘knights’ who are able to realize this simple but rigorous ideal [in themselves], can achieve the charisma, the shining halo, the crown of light - the khvarenah.[41]] (p. 159-60)

The Indo-European archetype that is able to realize the new Empire is above all the ‘knight’. As stated earlier, the oldest expression of this archetype is preserved in the Persian Tradition: ...le modèle de la chevalerie perse... constitue... pour l’Europe un mode opératif sans égal, de type ‘kshatriyaque’... [que] ne peut être pensé en dehors du projet de ‘nouvelle chancellerie impériale européenne’, énoncé par Carl Schmitt. Celui-ci a évoqué la nécessité de former une instance de ce type, après les catastrophes qui ont frappé l’Europe dans la première moitié du XX^e siècle et pour préparer la renaissance qui suivra l’assujettissement de notre sous-continent. ...[for Europe... the model of Persian knighthood... represents... an unequalled modality of the ‘kshatriyan’ type... without which one cannot imagine the project proposed by Carl Schmitt: the ‘new European imperial chancellery’. [Schmitt] pointed to the necessity of such an institution in the wake of the catastrophes that had struck Europe during the first half of the 20^th Century: is in indispensable for the preparation of the rebirth that will follow the subjugation of our subcontinent.[42]] (p.163) The chronicle of the Persian Tradition provides hope to the peoples of Europe: it shows how the oldest Indo-European archetypes can survive even the catastrophic immersion of alien subjugation, ethnic replacement and cultural regression. ...[Le] philosophe perse islamisé Sohrawardi, ...dépositaire de la sagesse iranienne originelle, s’insurge, avant la destruction de son pays par les Mongols, contre la bigoterie, le rationalisme étrique qui est son corollaire, et réclame le retour à une attitude noble, lumineuse, archangélique et michaëlienne, qui n’est rien de autre que la tradition perse/avestique des origines les plus lointaines. Sohrawardi réclame une révolte contre la caste des prêtres étriques, et, partant, contre toutes pensées et démarches impliquant des limitations stérilisantes. Cette attitude a toujours paru suspecte aux vastes de prêtres ou d’intellectuels, soucieux d’imposer des corpus figés aux populations qui leur étaient soumises, en Occident comme en Orient. Arthur de Gobineau... a été le premier... à attirer l’attention des Européens... sur le passé lumineux de la Perse antique, modèle plus fécond, à ses yeux, que la Grèce, trop intellectuelle et trop spéculative. Le modèle chevaleresque, dont les traces premières remontent à Rama et à Zarathoustra, induit une pratique de le maîtrise de soi, supérieure, pour Gobineau, à la spéculation intellectuelle des Athéniens. Et, de fait, quand la Perse a été laminée par les Mongols, l’islam tout entier a commencé à sombrer dans le déclin. Le fondamentalisme wahhabite est l’expression de cette décadence, dans la mesure où il est une réaction outrée, caricaturale, au déclin de l’islam, désormais privé de la grande Lumière de la Perse. Les pauvres simagrées wahhabites ne pouvant bien entendu jamais servir d’‘Orient’. [...Even before the Mongol devastation of his country,[43] ...[the] ‘islamicized’ Persian philosopher Sohrawardi,[44] ...made a stance against the religious bigotry and superficial rationalism... - he demanded a return to the aristocratic, enlightened, angelic and michaelean [existential] attitude that is a characteristic of the original Persian [T]radition, which may be traced back to its oldest historical [sources in the] Avesta.[45] Thus, Sohrawardi represents a revolt against the [intellectually and spiritually] superficial priestly caste and against all ideologies and activisms that submit to sterilizing self-censorship. Everywhere and always, in the East as well as the West, such a stance is ‘suspect’ to the [time-serving] priestly and intellectual establishment that base themselves on a dogmatic[ally imposed] consensus. Arthur de Gobineau[46]...was one of the first [thinkers] who... drew the attention of Europe... to the luminous past of Ancient Persia: [he thought it] represented a much more fertile model than [Ancient] Greece, which to his mind was too much [focussed on] intellectual and speculative [endeavour]. The knightly model that can be traced back to Rama and Zoroaster was based on a self-disciplinary praxis that De Gobineau considered superior to the speculative intellectualism of Athens. In fact, it is true that the entire Islam[ic world] sunk into [cultural] decay after Persia had been reduced to ashes [and rubble] by the Mongols. Wahhabist fundamentalism represents the [final] expression of this decadence: it represents a grotesque caricature of Islam after its greatest Persian light had been extinguished. The shallow arrogance of the Wahhabites can offer n[either East nor West] an existential ‘orientation’. (p. 162)

Throughout the ages, the Indo-European archetypes that are at the core of the Persian Tradition have been transmitted to the West through various channels: through the [Hellenic] Empire of Alexander the Great, through the Crusaders, through Oriental Studies - and through the philosophy of the Traditional School (Steuckers, p.161ff). Their power resides in their essence - an essence that can be destroyed neither by pseudo-islamic cultural levelling, nor by pseudo-christian psychological regression, nor by cultural-nihilist intellectual deconstruction. Nietzsche overcame modern European nihilism in an authentic re-activation of the Indo-European archetype that is embodied in the Persian prophet Zoroaster. Nietzsche not only sought physical health in the High Alps, but he also sought spiritual health on this most rarefied top of the Indo-European Tradition - there he found the cure for nihilism.

...wirf den Helden in deiner Seele nicht weg! Halte heilig deine höchste Hoffnung!

[...do not reject the hero in your soul! Preserve the sanctity of your highest hope!]

- Also Sprach Zarathustra

7.

Edelweiss-heit[47]

(Archaeo-Futurist medication)

 

                                                       Save a spot for me

Among the Edelweiss

- Danielle White

Every quest for the highest good must start with transforming the lowest defect. Thus, the foundation of the Western Imperial Idea depends on the proper tending of the Western soil. The building of the larger Western Empire depends on the proper construction of the smallest Western houses.

‘A better Netherlands starts in Small Houses!’ - these were the words of His Majesty King Willem Alexander of the Netherlands in his Christmas speech of 2018. These simple words express a profound truth: the King refers to the fact that all greatness starts small - even the greatest journey begins with one small step. For the Dutch people, a New West and a New Europe must start with a New Netherlands. It must start even tinier: it must start in a new city, a new village, a new street - and a new self. A New West starts with the basic qualities that define Western-ness: self-discipline, labour ethics, natural hierarchy and future planning. With basic ethics that include family dedication and marital faithfulness, modest wage demands and conscientious work, appropriate respect for high birth and natural abilities, social space for artistic talent and scientific achievement, solidarity with less fortunate fellow-countrymen and ecological responsibility. Thus, the characteristic features of the contemporary West and its liberal-normative postmodernity - collective narcissism, consumer hedonism and artificial class struggle - are entirely incompatible with Western-ness. But Western-ness is also incompatible with undignified reaction to these phenomena: a New West can never be achieved by ‘angry white men’. It can only be achieved - and maintained - by happy white people. It can only be achieved if it is built upon the positive energy of the indigenous European peoples - an ethnic collective that can only be historically defined as phenotypically ‘white’. This positive charge can only develop through self-esteem: in this regard, the slogan ‘it’s ok to be white’ is no more than a point of departure. This implies that not only European men but also European women should be able to positively experience their specific human identities as Europeans and as women - and to reject the artificially oikophobic and feminist ‘class warfare’ against European civilization and European men. It should be said that this New West - which must define itself as a universal standard of civilization - needs to reserve some space for a (limited number of) hard-working, well-behaved and well-intentioned (ex-colonial, inter-married, assimilated) non-Westerners, to the extent that they are able and willing to conform to the Western Leitkultur. This is an intrinsic feature of the Archaeo-Futurist Imperial Idea: it recognizes that the ‘magnetic’ effect of the authentic Western Tradition may result in an existentially regulating. i.e. inwardly transformative, attraction for gifted and talented individuals from other cultural circles. This effect, however, can never be assumed to automatically apply to entire ethnic collectives from other cultural circles: it requires an absolutely dominant Leitkultur that guarantees the high polar tension that is required for that inner transformation. The failure to impose that dominance is among the most reasons for the catastrophe of liberal-normative ‘multiculturalism’.

Steuckers points to the need for ‘micro-re-territorializations’ throughout the entire Western habitat, i.e. for a Reconquista of the West by means of a systematically planned and minutely exercised reclamation of the heritage of the West. Thus, for Steuckers too, the re-building of the larger Western Empire starts with the proper re-construction of the smallest Western houses: a New West starts with by re-living local traditions, regional cohesions and national identities. In the overseas Anglosphere, this requires a bottom-to-top reaffirmation of state rights and ethnostatist power devolution. In Europe, this requires the top-to-bottom rejection of hyper-nationalist Einzelgang, i.e. of nationalist projects such as Napoleon’s and Hitler’s. In Europe, a people - or a few peoples - may very well be the ‘chosen’ carrier(s) of the Imperial Idea, but this implies responsibility rather than superiority. Accordingly, the construction of an Archaeo-Futurist New European Empire will have to recognize the natural central role of the German people (which was also the ‘carrier nation’ of the ancient Holy Roman Empire), as well as the need for a pragmatic anti-globalist alliance on the Franco-German-Russian axis. Given the fact that the globalist hostile elite prioritizes the ‘pyro-political’ destruction of the Franco-German space - as currently realized in the Macron-Merkel strategy of Umvolkung à l’outrance - the Reconquista of Europe will have to start from its natural geopolitical citadel, which is Russia. The anti-globalist liberation of Russia, initiated by President Putin, provides a natural ‘fall back’ position for a meta-political counteroffensive that ‘rolls back’ globalism from east to west. The confederative and multipolar vision of Eurasianism, as formulated by Aleksandr Dugin, provides a good starting point. Once again the ancient adage holds true: ex oriente lux.[48]

To conclude this essay, it seems proper to support Steuckers’ plea for micro-re-territorialization by elaborating the strategy he suggests in the European context. Such elaboration will be required if the globalist ‘EU projects’ implodes within the foreseeable future - a scenario that is increasingly conceivable. Such implosion will require the smaller states of Europe to immediately re-position themselves in a post-globalist New Europe: they will have to re-invent and re-orient themselves. Even states of modest size and most weight, such as the three states currently occupying the Low Countries, may then gain a new lease of life. A New Europe will offer opportunities to regain lost state sovereignties, lost ethnic identities, lost national currencies and lost social welfare models. The collapse of the globalist ‘EU project’ and the disintegration of globalist control mechanisms will provide the smaller states of Europe with the freedom to develop themselves according to their particularities and unique characteristics.

At the micro-level this potential is illustrated by the smallest European states: in many regards, the microstates of San Marino, Andorra, Monaco and Liechtenstein have swum through the mazes of the globalist net. They have been able to optimally develop themselves in their own small biotopes without abandoning their identities. They have been far better able to defend the rights of their indigenous peoples than the smaller EU member states: their peoples still maintain many of the judicial privileges, economic safeguards, social dominance and cultural hegemony that have been lost under the direct globalist rule of the EU.[49] There, citizenship and residency are not handed out to every ‘labour migrant’. There, welfare payments and housing facilities are not made available to every ‘asylum seeker’. There, the indigenous people are not expected to bend to every whim of cultural-marxist ‘diversity’ spin doctors. There, modern technology and economic prosperity have been proven to be entirely compatible with ethnic dominance and cultural hegemony. Without denying the specific circumstances and without ignoring the specific problems of the microstates, it is still possible to discern in them the first features of an Archaeo-Futurist Revolution. In this regard, a place of honour is reserved for the Principality of Liechtenstein, which has been benefitted from the direct and personal rule of hereditary Prince Hans-Adam II since the democratically approved constitutional reform of 2003. The Liechtenstein Archaeo-Futurist experiment proves that semi-decisionist governance and protected ethnic identity can very well be combined with a free market mechanism, great prosperity and a high level of social-economic development. Perhaps it is no coincidence that Liechtenstein, which actually constitutes the last legitimately ruled remnant of the Holy Roman Empire, has given rise to a first indication of how an Archaeo-Futurist Europe may look like. This ‘Edelweiss Model’, hidden high between the Alpine peaks, may inspire the smaller and medium-sized member states of the EU to reject the ‘Calimero argument’, i.e. the globalist argument that they are ‘too small’ to be able to stand on their own legs.

From a global (not: globalist) perspective, the situation of the European microstates is effectively not all that different from that of the smaller EU member states. Even at a larger scale, the ‘Edelweiss Model’ offers a viable alternative to globalism: the social-economic and ethnic models of smaller and medium-size of the prosperous Pacific Rim - Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, Taiwan, South Korea - offer ample illustrations of viable non-globalist policies.[50] The fact that the ‘backward’ institution of the Monarch has been preserved in some of the smaller EU member states - in Scandinavia and the Low Countries - may very well provide them with a distinct advantage: the Monarchy can function as a ‘reserve sovereignty’ on which, in due time, a decisionist counter-offensive against liberal-normative globalism can base itself. Thus, for the Small House of the Netherlands, a New Europe may start with an ‘Edelweiss Model’ re-positioning. Decades of neo-liberal ‘disaster capitalism’ and cultural-marxist ‘deconstruction’ have caused social implosion and ethnic replacement on an unprecedented scale: the ruins of fifty years ‘purple’[51] prove that the Small House known as ‘The Netherlands’ is slated for demolition under globalist EU rule. The Low Countries - Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg - would be well advised to start thinking about a viable alternative: subsidiary-based sovereignty and ethnicity-based identity within a New Europe - a Europe that may be inspired by the Archaeo-Futurist Imperial Idea and the Eurasianist confederate idea. This is what the Low Countries - and all the nations of the West - deserve: a place between the Edelweiss.

Mon Dieu, ayez pitié de nos pauvres peuples[52]

 

Glossary

 

banlieusard	French: ‘suburban dweller’; referring specifically to the HLM social housing estates around Paris, largely inhabited by ethnic minorities;
decisionisme	doctrine of directly-concrete and physically-embodied command authority, opposite of indirectly-abstract and psychologically-manipulative Normativism (Rex vs. Lex);
éditocratie	or : ‘mediacracy’, ‘intellocracy’; rule of the mainstream media plus the politically-correct academic establishment;
éristique	Greek: εριστικός: ‘combative’, ‘battle ready’;
mobocratie	or: ‘ochlocracy’; mob rule, totalitarian hyper-collectivism;
partitocratie	political ‘hostage-taking’ of parliamentary institutions by party-political interests and party-cartels, politically-correct ‘1984’;
pyropolitiek	geopolitical ‘scorched earth’ strategy of the globalist hostile elite to ‘burn away’ all multipolar resistance to its New World Order;
soixante-huitard	French: ‘68 person’; reference to the Paris ‘cultural revolution’ of May 1968 and the ‘hippie-to-yuppie’ baby boomer generation that incarnates globalism through a combination of cultural-marxist theory and neo-liberal practice, currently being replaced by a successor generation of feminist-minority power elites;

 

Notes

 

[1] https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/counte...

[2] https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/fake-news-d...

[3] https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/modernisati... - note the intriguingly explicit link that is here made between the proposed measures and the recent ‘Marrakesh Pact’ that aims at speeding up the ethnic replacement of the European peoples.

[4] https://www.geopolitica.ru/en/article/le-rouge-et-le-noir... and https://www.geopolitica.ru/en/article/arsenal-hephaestus

[5] A (double entendre) reference to the title of the post-modern – and ‘pre-apocalyptic’ - art documentary Sophie Fiennes (2010).

[6] For a summary Traditionalist interpretation of the science fiction genre – as hierophany and cryptomnesia – cf. Alexander Wolfheze, The Sunset of Tradition and the Origins of the Great War (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, 2018 - https://www.cambridgescholars.com/the-sunset-of-tradition... ) 240ff. For a psycho-historical ‘update’ on this theme cf. Alexander Wolfheze, Alba Rosa. Ten Traditionalist Essays about the Crisis in the Modern West (London: Arktos, 2019 - https://arktos.com/product/alba-rosa/ ) 35ff.

[7] Cf. the masterful illustrations that are added to Jeff Wayne’s Wells-based musical version: http://www.thewaroftheworlds.com/

[8] In pre-postmodern scientific sources Truganini is mentioned as the last full-blood Tasmanian and the last mother-tongue speaker of the Tasmanian language. She was born around 1812 as a daughter of the chief of the indigenous people of Bruny Island, located just off the southern coast of Tasmania. She survived the massacres, rapes and relocations of British colonial Umvolkung of her motherland and died in exile in 1876 – after her death, her skeleton was exhibited as a ‘scientific curiosity’. Cf. Wolfheze, Sunset, 318ff.

[9] For a ‘techno-philosophical’ forward projection of this ‘evolutionary’ development cf. Jason Jorjani, World State of Emergency (London: Arktos, 2017) 69ff.

[10] https://www.geopolitica.ru/en/article/what-white-genocide

[11] A term used by the anti-multicultural French political philosopher Charles Maurras (1868-1952), known as a proponent of ‘national integralism’ and chief ideologue of the monarchist and anti-revolutionary movement Action française.

[12] Wolfheze, Alba Rosa, 147ff.

[13] For a summary of the philosophical and cultural-historical context of Cultural Nihilism cf. https://www.geopolitica.ru/en/article/identitarian-revolu...

[14] The motto of Edgar Allen Poe’s The Pit and the Pendulum: ‘Quatrain composed for the gates of a market to be erected upon the site of the Jacobin Club House at Paris’. Comments and translation from http://blogicaster.blogspot.com/2010/10/epigraph-to-poes-...

[15] ‘Shielded property’; a charity institution serving the public good as defined by Islamic Law (e.g. a mosque, a school, a bathhouse).

[16] During the French Revolution, the Jacobin Club was based in the Jacobin monastery in the Paris Parijse Rue Saint-Honoré – it was an extreme-left party-political organization founded by radical freemasons led by Maximilien Robespierre. It attempted to enforce its vision of secular republicanism and social revolution through judicial murder and state-sponsored terrorism. During the Russian Revolution, Lenin’s political methodology was directly inspired by the Jacobin experiment.

[17] References to, respectively, the pan-Hispanic-American, anti-imperialist and semi-socialist ideology that is named after the 19th Century South American freedom fighter Simón Bolívar first formulated by Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez (1954-2013), and the ‘Pink Tide’ of (semi-)anti-globalist en progressivist political reform movement that dominated large parts of Latin America during the years between the election of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez (1999) and the impeachment of Brazilian President Dilma Roussef (2016).

[18] The European Commission consists (after ‘Brexit’) of 27 unelected ‘Commissioners’ (mark the nomenclature similarity with the old Soviet ‘Commissars’) that are nominated by the member state governments and that have an absolute executive power, aside from their monopoly on legislation initiative and a strong control over the European judiciary. Thus, the European Commission, headed by former Luxembourgian PM Jean-Claude Juncker since 2014, effectively has dictatorial powers, even if it chooses to use this power in an almost exclusively negative sense through its institutional deference to laissez-faire neo-liberalism and ‘open borders’ cultural-marxism. In theory, the European Parliament has the power to veto Commission nominees and to fire sitting Commissioners, but in practice, these prerogatives are dead letter shams: appointments are exercises in consensus politics and dismissals are blocked by parliamentary sabotage. A further ‘democratic deficit’ is found in the fact that the turn-out for the elections of the supposedly ‘controlling’ European Parliament is structurally lower than 50%.

[19] Wahhabism, named after Sunni Islamic religious leader and reformer Mohammed al-Wahhad (1703-92), is a fundamentalist and iconoclastic doctrinal movement within the Hanbali School. The use of the term ‘Wahhabi’ as a reference to a follower of this movement is mostly restricted to its opponents: its supporters prefer to use terms such as muwahhīd (‘monotheist’) or Salafist. Wahhabism is characterized by a militant and even aggressive purism that is realized in regressive social practices within its community and institutional intolerance to the outside world. In contemporary geopolitics, the historically pragmatic alliance between the Wahhabite clergy and the Saudi Royal House results in phenomena such an ‘Al-Qaida’ and the ‘Islamic State’.

[20] Salafism (salaf, ‘predecessors, forefathers’, concrete: the first three generations of religious authorities in Islam) is a Sunni-Islamic religious reform movement that was inspired by 18^th Century Wahhabism, originating in the 19^th Century Egypt resistance movement against the social effects of Western imperialism. Although the whole Salafist movement opposes Western-style secularism and democracy, only a small minority of its followers (the so-called ‘Jihadists’) supports an armed ‘holy war’ to achieve the Salafist aims of social reform. The Hanbali maḏab (‘ethical code’, concrete: doctrinal ‘school’), which was founded by Ahmad ibn-Hanbal (780-855), is the smallest of the four legal traditions of Sunni Islam – its dominance as a religious and social code is limited to the Arabic Peninsula (where it has been incorporated in public law in Saudi-Arabia and Qatar). The Hanbali School is characterized by an effective rejection of ijmā‘ (‘specialist consensus’) and ijtihād (‘mental effort’) and a very restrictive application of qiyās (‘deductive analogy’) in Islamic legal practice. The social conservatism and financial power of the Gulf States have made the Hanbali School an attractive ideological base line for islamist extremists.

[21] The ‘Pilgrim Fathers’ were the English (mostly radical-Calvinist) religious dissidents who went into exile in the Dutch Republic in 1609 before emigrating to North America, where they founded Plymouth Colony (which was later absorbed into the Massachusetts Bay Colony). They are regarded as the founding fathers of the American nation (here ‘classically’ defined as ‘White Anglo-Saxon Protestant’) and as the instigators of the American Thanksgiving Day tradition (which may have been shaped by their memory of the Leyden October Festival celebrating the lifting of the Leyden Siege in 1584).

[22] The concept of the ‘noble savage’, supposedly still ‘uncorrupted’ by the globalist-imperialist expansion of ‘unnatural’ Western civilization, was an integral part of 18^th Century Enlightenment thought. The term is widely but wrongly attributed to the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-78). Rousseau’s work did provide a prominently ‘proto-oikophobic’ twist to the older notion of ‘romantic primitivism’, which is, in fact, archetypal (cf. the ‘Enkidu’ character in the Gilgamesh Epic). For an Archaeo-Futurist re-interpretation of the Enlightenment motive of the ‘noble savage’, cf. Wolfheze, Sunset, 318ff.

[23] A reference to the semi-genocidal pacification campaign of early 1794 that was ordered by the Jacobin Republican regime in the aftermath of the War in the Vendée - it combined the strategies of scorched earth and ethnic cleansing and claimed the lives of up to 40.000 civilians.

[24] The concept of soevereiniteit in eigen kring, or ‘sphere sovereignty’, stipulates differentiated authority and responsibility and is a core element of Neo-Calvinist political theory - it was important in the policies of Dutch statesman Abraham Kuyper.

[25] Text written for the occasion of the ceremonial opening of the Bavarian Walhalla Memorial (1842) - translation Alexander Wolfheze.

[26] Cf. Alba Rosa, 112ff.

[27] For an introduction to Eurasianism cf. https://www.geopolitica.ru/en/article/le-rouge-et-le-noir...

[28] Cf. Wolfheze, Alba Rosa, 200ff.

[29] References to, respectively, the Biblical Fall (cf. Gen. 3:17) and Karl Marx’ theory of Entfremdung.

[30] Cf. Wolfheze, Alba Rosa, 55.

[31] In the European Tradition the Imperator, representing the highest command authority of the Empire, carries the honorary title ‘Caesar’ in tribute to the cognomen of Roman dictator Gaius Julius (100-44 v. Chr.). One of the historical etymologies of this cognomen assumes a link to a North African word for ‘elephant’ (much of Caesar’s coinage depicts an elephant).

[32] This ‘horizon’ principle a key component of the Dasein hermeneutics of German philosopher Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) – it has recently been reactivated for Archaeo-Futurism by the American-Persian philosopher Jason Jorjani (born 1981) – cf. Wolfheze, Alba Rosa, 228ff.

[33] A reference to the metaphysical dimension of the Traditionalist concept of the ‘Guardian of the Threshold’ that has been recently reactivated by Russian philosopher Aleksandr Dugin – cf. https://www.geopolitica.ru/en/article/broken-arrow

[34] Cf. Alba Rosa, 209ff.

[35] A reference to the modern dialectic method (‘thesis-antithesis-synthesis’), developed by German philosopher Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) and ‘operationalized’ by German-Jewish political philosopher Karl Marx (1818-83).

[36] A reference to French comparative linguist Georges Dumézil (1898-1986) who did pioneering research into archaic Indo-European myths and social structures, known for his ‘Tri-functional Hypothesis’ regarding the original Indo-European caste system.

[37] In later Persian language forms and in the Shahnameh (the national epics of Iran entitled ‘The Book of Kings’ and written by the poet Ferdowsi at the end of the 10^th Century AD) this king is named Jamshid (which means ‘Shining Yama’), a mythical priest-king who is said to possess supernatural abilities and who has the charismatic character associated with the highest Katechon.

[38] Later, the Indo-European mace became a ceremonial staff (often covered with gold foil) as a power symbol for high office in all Traditions of the Ancient Near East and the Classical World. The symbolic meaning of the mace can be related (through cultural-anthropological analyses of structural oppositions) to that of the sceptre (political power), the magic wand (spiritual power) and the baton (military power).

[39] The Avestan name for one of the Zoroastrian Yazata’s (deified principles ‘worthy of worship’ – the term is etymologically related to the Greek word ἅγιος ‘holy’): this is the principle of ‘Observance’ which functions as an ‘Archangel’ and is symbolically associated with the mace of worldly power – in later Persian language forms it is known as Sorush.

[40] The Middle Persian name Ahriman finds its older equivalent in Avestan Angra Mainyu, ‘Evil Spirit’, the cosmic archenemy of the highest creator divinity Ahura Mazda. As God (Light, Truth, Order) and the devil (darkness, deceit, chaos) oppose each other in Christianity, thus Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu oppose each other in Zoroastrianism.

[41] In the Christian Tradition, this charisma is symbolically expressed by means of an aureola, the halo effect that is associated with angels and saints. Modern science describes this phenomenon in neurological terms (as in relation to liminal phenomena such as epilepsy, synaesthesia and hallucination). For the historical context of the concept of the khvarenah cf. Jason Jorjani, World State of Emergency (Londen: Arktos, 2017) 153-92.

[42] For an introduction to Steuckers’ view of Europe as a subcontinental part of the larger Eurasian space cf. https://www.geopolitica.ru/en/article/le-rouge-et-le-noir...

[43] A reference to the Mongol conquest of the Khwarazmian Empire (approximately equivalent with ‘Persia’ at that time) by Genghis Khan that started in 1219.

[44] Shihab ad-Din Yahya Sohrawardi (1154-91), one of Persia’s Medieval ‘Masters of Enlightenment’, based his Illuminationism on the notion of prisca theologia – he was thus able to integrate pre-Islamic (philosophical concepts and) knowledge into his work. Esoteric symbolism and intellectual intuition pervade Sohrawardi’s work, which came to have a substantial influence on Western Traditionalism through the translations and interpretations of Henri Corbin (1903-78) and Seyyed Hussayn Nasr (born 1933).

[45] In the context of the Persian Tradition, this spiritual modality can be unreservedly characterized as ‘Aryan’ in the most precise sense of the word – it is this Aryan existential condition which is explored in Jason Jorjani’s books Prometheus and Atlas and The World State of Emergency.

[46] Joseph Count de Gobineau (1816-82) was a palaeo-conservative French thinker who is often mentioned as the founder of late 19^th and early 20^th Century ‘scientific racism’. During his diplomatic service in Persia, De Gobineau developed a life-long fascination with the philosophy, history and mysteries of the Persian Tradition.

[47] A contraction of the German words Edelweiss, for, and Weisheit, ‘wisdom’.

[48] https://www.geopolitica.ru/en/article/problems-european-s...

[49] In the wake of ‘Brexit’, even the mainstream media have picked up on the non-globalist ‘immigration model’ of Europe’s microstates, e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/09/liechten...

[50] Models worth exploring are the ethnicity-based ‘Community Funds’ of Singapore and ‘Bumiputra’ privileges of Malaysia.

[51] A reference to De puinhopen van acht jaar paars, ‘The Ruins of Eight Years Purple’, the last book of assassinated patriotic leader Pim Fortuyn,. The term ‘purple’ here refers to the grand political coalition of ‘red’ social democrats and ‘blue’ neoliberals that ruled the Netherlands from 1994 to 2002.

[52] Freely inspired by the last words of William the Silent, Prince of Orange, leader of the Dutch Revolt and Dutch Father of the Fatherland (1533-84), spoken when he was assassinated after being declared an outlaw and a heretic by Philip II of Spain.