From the Arsenal of Hephaestus

Alexander Wolfheze

 

Ex: https://www.geopolitica.ru

 

Ten Traditionalist Perspectives on the Ideology of the Hostile Elite in the Exegesis of Robert Steuckers’ Sur et autour de Carl Schmitt. Un monument revisité (Les Edition du Lore, 2018).

 

Prologue: the Anatomy Lesson of Carl Schmitt and Robert Steuckers[1]

Without power, righteousness cannot flourish,

without righteousness, the world will flounder in ashes and dust

- Guru Gobind Singh

Some aspects of the intellectual heritage of German legal philosopher Carl Schmitt (1888-1985) have already been dealt with by the author in general terms[2] - this essay is meant to look at Schmitt’s scientific oeuvre in more detail. The recent publication of the latest book of Belgian Traditionalist publicist Robert Steuckers affords a suitable opportunity for revisiting Schmitt’ work in a more comprehensive fashion. In the Low Countries, Steuckers’ book Sur et autour de Carl Schmitt represents the first substantial monograph dedicated to the rehabilitation of Schmitt’s highly original - and highly topical philosophy of law.[3] For many years, Schmitt’s intellectual universe and life-world were effectively ‘taboo’ due to his - complex and therefore easily vulgarized - association with the Nazi regime. It is a fact that Schmitt became a member of the NSDAP in May 1933, only a few months after Hitler’s seizure of power, and that he supported Hitler’s authoritarian amputation of the Weimar institutions - as did nearly all other German men and women at the time. It is a fact that he was interned by the American occupation authorities after the downfall of the Third Reich[4] and that he consistently refused to be subjected to the politically correct ‘second baptism’ of semi-obligatory ‘denazification’. His principled stance against foreign occupation cost him his academic career and social status. This stance, however, was not inspired by any great enthusiasm - or even basic respect - for the Nazi regime: in Schmitt’s view, this regime was fatally flawed in terms of higher legitimacy and historical authenticity.[5] After Stunde Null, Schmitt simply refused the new ideological Gleichschaltung demanded by the occupying powers. Irrespective of the exact degree to which Schmitt’s work can be considered intrinsically ‘tainted’ in the context of the virulent excesses of National Socialism, the fact remains that his life’s work was placed in the same post-war quarantine that befell the life work of other great European thinkers. It ended up in history’s cabinet of curiosities, together with that of Italy’s Julius Evola, France’s Louis-Ferdinand Céline, Romania’s Mircea Eliade, Norway’s Knut Hamsun and America’s Ezra Pound.

But seventy years later it is becoming increasingly evident that the historical-materialist mythology of ‘progress’ and ‘constructability’, now raised to the status of standard doctrine (with a socialist variety in the Eastern Bloc and a liberal variety in the Western Bloc), has brought Western civilization to the brink of extinction. After the fall of Eastern Bloc Realsozialmus, the entire Western world has fallen prey to what may be termed ‘Cultural Nihilism’: a poisonous cocktail of neo-liberal ‘capitalism for the poor and socialism for the rich’ and cultural-marxist ‘identity politics’ (the new ‘class struggle’ of old against young, female against male and black against white). This Cultural Nihilism is characterized by militant secularism (destroying religious cohesion), monetarized social-darwinism (destroying social-economic cohesion), totalitarian matriarchy (destroying family cohesion) and doctrinal oikophobia (destroying ethnic cohesion) and it is practised through the Macht durch Nivellierung (‘power through levelling’) mechanism of the totalitarian-collectivist Gleichheitsstaat.[6] The prime carrier of Cultural Nihilism is still the forever young ‘baby boomer’ generation of rebels without a cause, but that generation is now replacing itself by a time-less, shape-shifting ‘hostile elite’, feeding off continuous new discoveries of ‘repressed minorities’ (resentful feminists, ambitious immigrants, psychotic LBTG-activists). The power of this hostile elite resides in two distinct but intricately linked force fields: (1) the globalist institutional machinery (the ‘letter institutions’ - UN, IMF, WTO, WEF, EU, ECB, NATO) that allows it to overrule state sovereignty and electoral correction and (2) the universalist-humanist discourse of ‘human rights’, ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’ that allows it to monopolize the ‘moral high ground’. This double trans-national and meta-political power position allows the hostile elite to systematically elude any responsibility for the stupendous damage it is inflicting on Western civilization. The crimes committed by the hostile elite - industrial ecocide (anthropogenic climate change, environmental degradation, diabolical bio-industry), hyper-capitalist exploitation (‘free market’, ‘privatization’, ‘social return’), social implosion (matriarchy, feminization, transgenderism) and ethnic replacement (‘asylum policy’, ‘labour migration’, ‘family reunification’) - go unpunished within an institutional and ideological framework that operates literally ‘above the law’. Only an entirely new legal framework can end the legal immunity enjoyed by the hostile elite. Carl Schmitt’s philosophy of law provides that new frame: it offers a restoration of the lost link between institutional law and authentic authority and of what is found between these two - actual justice. To restore this link, Schmitt uses the concept of ‘political theology’, i.e. the assumption that all political philosophies are shaped, directly or indirectly, by theological positions that may or may not take on an ostensibly ‘secularized’ shape. From that perspective, the political imperative of promoting institutional laws aimed at immanent justice is derived from transcendently - theologically - defined authority.

The time has come to end the entirely anachronistic and increasingly untenable ‘taboo’ on Carl Schmitt’s work and thought - and to investigate its relevance during the contemporary Crisis of the Postmodern West.[7] Robert Steuckers’ Sur et autour de Carl Schmitt permits us not only a fascinating visit to a monumental past. It also permits us to find the weapons that are needed in the here and now - it gives us access to the mighty ‘Arsenal of Hephaestus’.[8]

(*) As in the earlier review of Steuckers’ work Europa II,[9] the reviewer has chosen for a double presentation of Steuckers’ original French text - sharp and acidic as usual - as well as an English translation. As stated in that earlier review, the reviewer shares the view of patriotic publicist Alfred Vierling that the French literary culture is essentially different from the English literary culture to a degree that virtually precludes one-on-one ‘translation’. This means that French language skills are actually indispensable for any conscientious studia humanitatis. The lack of such skills among the younger generations of the West, however, is not primarily due to any intellectual complacency: it can be directly attributed to the hostile elite’s anti-education policy of deliberate ‘dumbing down’. The reviewer is therefore willing to meet younger readers half-way by presenting both Steuckers’ original text and his own somewhat ‘free’ English translation. Obviously, the reviewer acknowledges his responsibility for the less successful attempts at transposing Steuckers’ ‘biting’ Walloon-French into English. A glossary of Steuckerian neologisms is added at the end of the text.

(**) This essay is not only meant to provide a review, it is also meant as a metapolitical analysis and a contribution to the patriotic-identitarian deconstruction of the Postmodern Western hostile elite. It is important to know who the enemy is, what he aims at and how he thinks. Carl Schmitt’s life work provides an ‘anatomical’ dissection of the hostile elite’s legal philosophy - it effectively deprives the hostile elite of any authentic foundation. Robert Steuckers has achieved a brilliant rehabilitation of Schmitt’s work - the patriotic-identitarian movement of the Low Countries owes him gratitude and congratulations.

(***) On the one hand, those readers that have still been traditionally educated are asked for patience with the somewhat ‘patronizing’ explanatory notes: these are meant to assist those younger readers that have been deprived of their basic intellectual heritage by decades of anti-education. On the other hand, those readers that lack a traditional education - and that may feel ‘put off’ by any ‘pretentious’ text - are asked for an effort at bettering themselves. They should realize that what may appear ‘pretentious’ reflects, in fact, nothing else than their own stolen heritage - the heritage of Western civilization. If the patriotic-identitarian movement is meant to protect anything of value, then it is exactly that: Western civilization itself - ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ.[10]

 

1. The World of Normativism as Will and Representation[11]

auctoritas non veritas facit legem

[power, not truth, makes law]

 

Steuckers commences his extensive overview of the life and work of Carl Schmitt with a reconstruction of the cultural-historical roots of post-war Western legal-philosophical thought. He retraces the historical-materialist reduction - one might say ‘secularization’ - of the Western philosophy of law to the Reformation and the Enlightenment.[12] The religious wars of the 16^th and 17^th Centuries resulted in the temporary regression of Western civilization into a ‘state of nature’ which could only be partially compensated for by the ‘emergency measure’ of classical Absolutism during the second half of the 17^th and the first half of the 18^th Century.[13] This ‘emergency brake’ Absolutism is characterized by a highly stylized personification of totally sovereign monarchic power as the last protection of a traditionalist community against the demonic forces of modernist chaos. After the abolition of the old securities of the sacred and feudal order, the ‘absolutist’ monarchs intervene in order to channel the disruptive dynamics of early mercantile capitalism, the incipient civil rights movement and the escalating tendency to religious decentralization. From a cultural-historical perspective, this ultimate resort to ‘hyper-personalized’ Auctoritas can be interpreted as a temporary ‘emergency measure’: ...en cas de normalité, l’autorité peut ne pas jouer, mais en cas d’exception, elle doit décider d’agir, de sévir ou de légiférer. ‘...in normal circumstances, [such an absolute] authority does not play a role, but in exceptional circumstances, it must act in a decisive, over-ruling and legislating fashion.’ (p.4) But this absolutist ‘emergency measure’ is only locally and temporarily effective: the pioneering nations of modernity, such as Great Britain and the Dutch Republic, remain exempt - despite ‘semi-absolutist’ measures such as the Stuart Restoration and the stadtholderate of William III. Even in its heartland, Absolutism reaches its expiry date in less than a century - the American and French Revolutions mark the end of Absolutism and the final Machtergreifung of the bourgeoisie as the new dominant force in the Western political arena.

The bourgeois-capitalist Wille zur Macht is abstractly expressed in a political doctrine that is based on the effective inversion of the preceding Traditionalist philosophy of law (i.e. of the clerical-feudal ‘political theology’): this new Normativism, constructed around bourgeois-capitalist interests, abstractifies and depersonalizes state authority - Thomas Hobbes already describes it as the mythically invisible ‘Leviathan’.[14] Abstractification is achieved through ideologization and depersonalization is achieved through institutionalization: both processes are directed at the foundation and consolidation of the new bourgeois-capitalist hegemony in the political sphere. Rigid routines and mechanical procedures (‘bureaucracy’, ‘administration’, ‘legislation’) replace the human measure and the personal dimension of Traditionalist power: concrete power is replaced by abstract ‘governance’. L’idéologie républicaine ou bourgeoise a voulu dépersonnaliser les mécanismes de la politique. La norme a avancé, au détriment de l‘incarnation du pouvoir. ‘The republican and bourgeois ideology needs to depersonalize the mechanics of politics. It favours normative power over embodied power.’ (p.4) The first consistent experiment with Normativism as Realpolitik ends with the Great Terror of the First French Republic: it illustrates the totalitarian reality that necessarily results from the consistent application of the do-or-die motto that covers the bourgeois-capitalist power project in its formal (republican) as well as its informal (freemasonic) forms: liberté, égalité, et fraternité ou la mort, ‘liberty, equality and fraternity - or death’. The ethical discrepancy between the utopian ideology and the practical application of this power project is ideologically covered by - and established as a norm in - 19^th Century Liberalism. Liberalism is the political ‘default setting’ of modernity. The propagandistic surface of Liberalism - its utopia of ‘humanism’, ‘individualism’ and ‘progress’ - covers its deeper substances: the pseudo-scientifically (social-darwinistically) justified economic disenfranchisement (‘monetarization’, ‘free market’, ‘competition’) and social deconstruction (‘individual responsibility’, ‘labour marker participation’, ‘calculating citizenship’) that mathematically result in social implosion (Karl Marx’ Entfremdung and Emile Durkheim’s anomie). In the long term, Liberalism results in a ‘superstructure’ that is based on a very puritanical - and therefore highly resilient - form of Normativism: Liberalism has the highest totalitarian potential of all modernist (historical-materialist) ideologies. Thus, Alexander Dugin historical analysis, translated into English as The Fourth Political Theory, points to the intrinsic - logically-consistent and existentially-adaptive - superiority of Liberalism. ...[L]e libéralisme-normativisme est néanmoins coercitif, voire plus coercitif que la coercition exercée par une personne mortelle, car il ne tolère justement aucune forme d’indépendance personnalisée à l’égard de la norme, du discours conventionnel, de l’idéologie établie, etc., qui seraient des principes immortels, impassables, appelés à régner en dépit des vicissitudes du réel. ‘...[S]till, Liberal Normativism is coercive - it is even much more coercive than the power exerted by any mortal ruler, because it does not tolerate any form of personalized autonomy with regard to its own ‘norm’ (conventional consensus, standard ideology, political correctness), which is elevated to an eternal and unapproachable principle that is permanently exempt from the vagaries of real life’. (p.5) From a sociological perspective, the totalitarian superstructure of Liberal Normativism can be described as ‘hyper-morality’.[15]

The apparently inviolable foundation of the Liberal Normative monolith in the bedrock of Postmodern social psychology raises the question of whether or not it is possible to dislodge by the application of legal philosophy. An affirmative answer to that question depends on breaking through the ‘event horizon’ of Liberal Normative Postmodernity, i.e. stepping beyond its epistemological boundary. A break-out from the ‘timeless’ dimension of Liberal Normativism is by means of an ‘Archaeo-Futurist’ formula: the simultaneous mobilization of re-discovered ancient knowledge and newly discovered strength will provide the necessary combination of imagination and willpower.

 

2. Through the Glass Ceiling of Postmodernism

ΔΩΣ ΜΟΙ ΠΑ ΣΤΩ ΚΑΙ ΤΑΝ ΓΑΝ ΚΙΝΑΣΩ

[give me a place on which to stand, and I will move the Earth]

- Archimedes

One of the most important childhood diseases of the patriotic-identitarian resistance movement, now rising up against the globalist New World Order throughout the entire Western world, is its inability to correctly assess the nature and power of the hostile elite. The widening (‘populist’) public anger and incipient (‘alt-right’) intellectual criticism that feeds this resistance movement are partially characterized by superficial pragmatism (political opportunism) and emotional regression (extremist conspiracy theories). Both of these phenomena can be understood as the political and ideological reflections of the natural instinct of self-preservation: in a confrontation with direct existential threats, such as the ethnic replacement of the Western peoples and the escalating psychosocial deconstruction of Western civilization, political purity and intellectual integrity simply lack priority. Still, it is of vital importance that the patriotic-identitarian movement outgrows these childhood diseases as quickly as possible - especially its ‘quick fix’ political islamophobia and its ‘shortcut’ ideological anti-semitism.[16] It should be empathically stated that this does not imply any recourse to the kind of ‘preventive self-censorship’ that is now practised by the politically correct journalistic and academic establishment with regard to legitimate cultural-historical questions that are embedded within the larger discourses of ‘islamophobia’ and ‘anti-semitism’. The patriotic-identitarian movement is bound to prioritize authentic - not merely legalistic - freedom of expression: it is bound to the position that politically correct (self-)censorship and repressive media policies are counter-productive because they increase public distrust and because they feed political extremism. The obvious ‘pride and prejudice’ of the system press (which stigmatizes every rational cost-benefit analysis of ‘mass-immigration’, ignores the ethnic profiles of ‘grooming gangs’ and re-interprets incidents of islamist terror) and the governmental policy of ‘shoot the messenger’ with regard to critical media (through ‘fake news’ projections, ‘Russian involvement’ smear campaigns and digital ‘deplatforming’) have caused the public to abandon the journalistic and political ‘mainstream’. The downfall of the traditional (paper and television) media and the splintering of the political landscape merely represent the surface reflections of this development. Now it is up to the patriotic-identitarian movement to lead the defence of the old freedoms of press and opinion, freedoms that have been now been discarded by the hostile elite as superfluous - and dangerous.[17] The task of defending Western civilization, which has been sold out by the neo-liberals and betrayed by the cultural-marxists, has now devolved upon the patriotic-identitarian movement. A correct assessment of the nature and power of the hostile elite is now its highest priority - without it, a winning strategy is impossible. A short-cut identification of the ‘enemy’ as ‘the Islam’ or a ‘Jewish world conspiracy’ simply does not stand up to cold calculus and ruthless realism required from this assessment.

The correct identification of the hostile elite requires more than a simple - albeit ethically and existentially correct - reference to its undeniably ‘demonic’ quality. The absolute evil that results from industrial ecocide, bloodthirsty bio-industry, neo-liberal debt slavery and matriarchal social deconstruction is self-evident.[18] But more is needed: it is necessary to achieve a legal understanding and a political strategy that ‘frames’ the hostile elite in a definitive manner. In this regard, Robert Steuckers’ analysis of Carl Schmitt’s ‘political theology’ is of great value: it offers the intellectual tools that are necessary to complete this - possibly greatest - task of the Western patriotic-identitarian movement.

3. Liberalism as Totalitarian Nihilism

...le libéralisme est le mal, le mal à l’état pur, le mal essentiel et substantiel...

[...liberalism is evil, evil in its purest form, evil in essence and substance...] (p.37)

Steuckers analyzes Liberal Normativism as the ‘default ideology’ of the hostile elite, i.e. the ideology that ultimately legitimizes its hold on power: Le libéralisme... monopolise le droit (et le droit de dire le droit) pour lui exclusivement, en le figeant et en n’autorisant plus aucune modification et, simultanément, en le soumettant aux coups dissolvants de l’économie et de l’éthique (elle-même détachée de la religion et livrée à la philosophie laïque) ; exactement comme, en niant et en combattant toutes les autres formes de représentation populaire et de redistribution qui s’effectuait au nom de la caritas, il avait monopolisé à son unique profit les idéaux et pratiques de la liberté et de l’égalité/équité : en opérant cette triple monopolisation, la libéralisme et son instrument, l’Etat dit ‘de droit’, prétendant à l’universalité. A ses propres yeux, l’Etat libéral représente dorénavant la seule voie possible vers le droit, la liberté et l’égalité : il n’y a donc plus qu’une seule formule politique qui soit encore tolérable, la sienne et la sienne seule. ‘Liberalism monopolizes (1) the law (and the right to legislate) by [permanently] setting its boundaries, by not allowing for any fundamental adaptations and by exposing it to the ‘dissolving’ effects of [an uncontrolled] economy and [borderless] ethics (ethics that escape any religious framework and are hijacked by ‘secular philosophy). By denying and sabotaging all other forms of (2) [non-party political] representation and (3) [non-monetarized economic] redistribution for the sake of its own exclusive profits, liberalism also monopolizes the [entire] ideal and practical [discourse] of freedom, equality [and] fairness. Through this triple monopoly [and] through its state-enforced ‘legal order’, liberalism is able to claim [an absolute] universal validity. In its own eyes, the liberal state represents the sole possible [and sole redeeming] way to achieve law, freedom and equality. Thus, only one acceptable political formula remains: liberalism - and liberalism alone.’ (p.38) This is the background on which neo-liberal globalism is able to project ‘universal’ and ‘absolute’ values such as ‘good governance’ and ‘human rights’. From a Traditionalist perspective, Liberal Normativism as defined by Steuckers represents the political and ideological ‘infrastructure’ that reflects the higher but intangible cultural- and psycho-historical ‘superstructure’ that was here earlier defined as ‘Cultural Nihilism’, viz. the experiential reality that is pre-conditioned by social-economic Entfremdung, psycho-social anomie, urban-hedonist stasis and collectively-functional malignant narcissism.[19] This Traditionalist perspective fits seamlessly into Steuckers’ analysis of the tangible cultural-historical effects of Liberal Normativism. Steuckers explicitly describes Liberal Normativism as ....[le] principe dissolvant et déliquescent au sein de civilisation occidentale et européenne. ...[L]e libéralisme est l’idéologie et la pratique qui affaiblissent les sociétés et dissolvent les valeurs porteuses d’Etat ou d’empire telles l’amour de la patrie, la raison politique, les mœurs traditionnelles et la notion de honneur... ‘...[t]he ‘dissolving’ principle and ‘rot’ in the heart of Western and European civilization. ...[L]iberalism represents the ideology and practice that most effectively weakens communities and that most effectively dissolves the values on which state[s] and empire[s] are build: love of country, responsible statesmanship, traditional loyalty and authentic honour.’ (p.36-7)[20]

From a Traditionalist perspective, the cultural-historical effects of Liberal Normativism are determined by larger meta-historical dynamic, i.e. the downward time spiral that Hindu Tradition interprets as Kali Yuga and that the Christian Tradition interprets as ‘Latter Days’. The historical agency of Liberal Normativism as a carrier of a contextually functional Wertblindheit is explicitly recognized in Steuckers’ prognosis: ...une ‘révolution’ plus diabolique encore que celle de 1789 remplacera forcément, un jour, les vides béants laissés par la déliquescence libérale ‘...[it is] inevitable that, someday, an even more [openly] demonic revolution than that of 1789 will fill the gaping void that has been caused by the liberal rot.’ (p.37) A first indication of the deeper ‘outer dark’ that still lies hidden beyond the Liberal Normativist facade is found in the recent monster alliance between neo-liberalism and cultural-marxism in Western politics (in Dutch politics this alliance is visible in the program of the governing coalition parties, which combines the ‘disaster capitalist’ agenda of the VVD and the ‘deep nihilist’ agenda of the D66).[21] Steuckers highlights Schmitt’s doubly philosophical and theological interpretation of the regressive cultural-historical tendency of Liberal Normativism. Schmitt draws attention to the consistent Liberal-Normativist support for pre-Indo-European primitivism (Etruscan matriarchy, Pelagianist ‘katagogic’ theology) at the expense of Indo-European civilization (Roman patriarchy, Augustinian ‘anagogic’ theology).[22] Traditionalism associates this tendency with a meta-historical movement towards a ‘neo-matriarchy’: this explains the chronological relation between the Postmodern hegemony of Liberal Normativism and typically Postmodern symptoms such as feminization, xenophilia and oikophobia.[23] In sociological terms, this phenomenology can be accurately described as befitting the development of a ‘dissociative society’.[24] The spectre of an absolute nihilist void is already casting ahead its shadow in Postmodern discourses such as ‘open borders’ (genocide-on-demand), ‘transgenderism’ (depersonalization-on-demand), ‘reproductive freedom’ (abortion-on-demand) and ‘completed life’ (euthanasia-on-demand) - discourses that are straightforwardly demonic in any authentic Tradition.[25]

Leaving aside the natural interethnic (effectively ‘neo-tribal’) conflicts of contemporary ‘multicultural societies’ (conflicting bio-evolutionary strategies, interracial libido trajectories, post-colonial inferiority complexes), the prime trigger of the existential conflict between indigenous Westerners and non-Western immigrants is found in the increasingly diabolical life-world of Liberal-Normativist Western ‘society’. For every traditional Muslim from the Middle East, for every traditional Hindu from South Asia and for every traditional Christian from Africa the Liberal-Normativist ‘open society’ or the Postmodern West not only an abstract (theological) evil but also a lived (experiential) horror. Even if the armed terror of the islamicist jihad is (a tolerated) part of the offensive ‘divide and rule’ strategy of the hostile elite in form, in substance it can also be understood as a defensive mechanism against the blasphemous and dehumanizing experience of life under Liberal-Normativist rule. From a Traditionalist perspective, it could be said that for the Western peoples an Islamic Caliphate would, in fact, represent a (very relatively) ‘better’ alternative to the bestial dehumanization that will logically result from the ‘harrowing of hell’ of fully-implemented Liberal Normativism.

Thus, the greatest enemy of all the Western peoples - in fact, the common enemy of all peoples that still live according to authentic Traditions - is politically identified: totalitarian-nihilist Liberalism. Liberal Normativism is politically realized through Liberalism: the program of the hostile elite is shaped by Liberalism. In this regard, it is important to note the fact that, since the Second World War, Liberalism has gradually gained the status of ‘standard political discourse’. Liberalism has infiltrated, disfigured and transformed its political rivals, including Christian Democracy (the Dutch CDA and CU, which have joined the liberal governing coalition without the slightest compunction), Social Democracy (the Dutch PVDA and SP, which have been marginalized through decades of compromise) and Civil Nationalism (the Dutch PVV and FVD, which have failed to formulate a viable alternative vision of society). This process has advanced to point of eradicating any trace of authentic democratic-parliamentarian opposition in key areas such as economic and social policy. Steuckers views this process of ‘politicide’ as a function of Liberalism’s intrinsic power of ‘ideological sterilization’. Even outside of the core party cartels (in the Netherlands these are represented by standard ‘governing parties’ of VVD, D66, CDA, CU and PVDA) Liberalism has become a political habitus[26] - all other parties automatically (largely unintentionally) take on the role of ‘controlled opposition’. The result is ‘mainstream politics’ (in the Netherlands it is explicitly referred as the all-levelling ‘polder model’), now dominating the entire West since the 1980’s rise of ‘Neo-Liberalism’: the rise to power of Margaret Thatcher in Britain, Ronald Reagan in America and Ruud Lubbers in the Netherlands.

4. Liberalism as Politicide

A ‘democratically elected’ parliament can never be the place for authentic debate:

it is always the place where collectivist absolutism issues its decrees.

- Nicolás Gómez Dávila

The formation of Liberalist-led party cartels and Liberalist-guided consensus politics is largely due to the simple practice of parliamentarism: the parliamentary technique of the hyper-democratically dumbed-down and hyper-regulated unrealistic ‘debate’ reduces all ‘opinions’ and ‘viewpoints’ to their lowest common denominator, which is always found in grossly materialist and totally amoral Liberalism. The all-levelling debate replaces quality with quantity (‘democracy’), thought with feeling (‘humanism’), concrete justice with abstract governance (regulation, bureaucracy, protocol) and collective future planning with individual impulse gratification. ‘Purchasing power’ always outweighs generational legacy, ‘lifestyle’ always prevails over ecological sustainability and ‘relationship experiments’ always have priority over family life. Parliamentarism is nothing but the political and institutional reflection of the collectivist levelling sentiment that underpins bourgeois Liberalism: it represents the reductio ad absurdum of politics - politics as talk show entertainment.[L]’essence du parlementarisme, c’est le débat, la discussion et la publicité. Ce parlementarisme peut s’avérer valable dans les aréopages d’hommes rationnels et lucides, mais plus quand s’y affrontent des partis à idéologies rigides qui prétendent tous détenir la vérité ultime. Le débat n’est alors plus loyal, la finalité des protagonistes n’est plus de découvrir par la discussion, par la confrontation d’opinions et d’expériences diverses, un ‘bien commun’. C’est cela la crise du parlementarisme. La rationalité du système parlementaire est mise en échec par l’irrationalité fondamentale des parties. ‘[T]he essence of parliamentarism is found in debate, discussion and publicity. Such parliamentarism may prove itself an asset in an Aeropagus [assembly][27] of rational and clear-minded gentlemen, but this is no longer the case when rigidly ideological parties are confronting each other with claims of possessing the ultimate truth. The latter debate is no longer loyal: the aim of its participants is no longer the discovery of the ‘higher cause’ through a discussion and an exchange of opinions and experiences. Herein lies [the cause of] the crisis of [comtemporary] parliamentarism. The rationality of the [present] parliamentary system fails due to the fundamental irrationality of the parties.’ (p.18-9)

It is inevitable that this self-reinforcing crisis is increasingly fed by groups that were previously ‘invisible’ in the political landscape. The escalating process of political levelling is fed by the individual ambitions and resentments of the self-appointed ‘representatives’ of supposedly ‘discriminated’ groups. Seek and you shall find: there are always more ‘under-privileged’ groups (to be invented): young people, old people, women, immigrants, homosexuals, transgenders. Totalitarian nihilist Liberalism is the deepest (maximally ‘deconstructed’, maximally ‘desubstantivized’ political sediment - and sentiment - that results from this implosive process: it is the political ‘zero position’ that remains after the all-levelling ‘debate’, i.e. after the neutralization of all attempts at political idealism, political intelligence and political willpower.

Liberalism realizes the political (parliamentarist, partitocratic) dialectics of the Liberal-Normativist ideology. In Schmitt’ view, the dialectically vicious circle that results from this ideology can only be broken by a fundamental restoration of political authority. Steuckers states this as follows: Dans [cette idéologie], aucun ennemi n’existe : évoquer son éventuelle existence relève d’une mentalité paranoïaque ou obsidionale (assimilée à un ‘fascisme’ irréel et fantasmagorique) - ...il n’y a que des partenaires de discussion. Avec qui on organisera des débats, suite auxquels on trouvera immanquablement une solution. Mais si ce partenaire, toujours idéal, venait un jour à refuser tout débat, cessant du même coup d’être idéal. Le choc est alors inévitable. L’élite dominante, constituée de disciples conscients ou inconscients de [cette] idéologie naïve et puérile..., se retrouve sans réponse au défi, comme l’eurocratisme néoliberal ou social-libéral aujourd’hui face à l’[islamisme politique]... De telles élites n’ont plus leur place au-devant de la scène. Elles doivent être remplacées. ‘In [this ideology] a [real] enemy cannot be conceived of: even to suggest the possible existence of such an [enemy] is ‘proof’ of the paranoid or obsessive mentality (always associated with an unreal and imaginary ‘fascism’) - ...there are only ‘debating partners’. With [such partners] debates are organized and these debates always end in a solution. But if, one day, this partner - always thought of in abstract terms of rational perfection - would actually refuse the debate, then the ideal [‘discussion’ model] would immediately fail. An [existential] shock would be inevitable. The ruling elite, which is [entirely] made up of conscious and unconscious adherents to [this utterly] naive and infantile ideology..., would have no answer to this challenge - in the same manner that neoliberal and social-democrat eurocrats [have no answer] to [political islamism]... Such elites do not deserve a place on the [political] stage - they have to be replaced.’ (p.245)

5. Liberalism as Anti-Law and Anti-State

A Marxist system can be recognized by its protection of criminals

and its criminalization of opponents.

- Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Sometime during the aftermath of the Machtergreifung of the soixante-huitards the hostile elite has taken the strategic decision to replace the indigenous peoples of the West.[28] Its underlying logic is as clear as it is ruthless. The European peoples have proven to be historically incompatible with Modernity, as it is defined by Culture Nihilism: this is why they have to be mixed with and replaced by more malleable - less intellectual, less demanding, less self-conscious - slave peoples. The European peoples are demographically infertile under totalitarian dictatorship, they are economically unproductive in urban-hedonist stasis and they are politically unreliable in debt slavery.[29] But the ethnic replacement of the Western peoples is a project with considerable risks: even the most optimally calibrated Umvolkung recipe and the most carefully calculated dosage of its various ingredients (mass immigration, ethnically selective natalist policy, affirmative action, native economic deprivation) demand a political balancing act of unparalleled refinement. To achieve the political ‘point of no return’ (the demographically-democratically checkmate of the Western peoples) the hostile elite runs the risk that its amputation-transplantation operation will fail when the double psychological and spiritual anaesthesia fails, causing the patient to awake on the operating table. Until that point is reached, the expiry date of the hostile elite depends on two main anaesthetic medicines: (1) the hedonist-consumerist defined level of ‘wealth’ and ‘wellness’ and (2) the educative-journalistic manipulated politically correct consensus. If one of these two elements fall under a certain critical measure (a measure that is gradually revised downward), the danger of the patient awakening increases exponentially. Thus, a certain minimum remnant (constantly revised downward as well) of the welfare state, labour legislation, political pluriformity and freedom of opinion must be maintained until the process of ethnic replacement has been completed. The neoliberal-globalist ideals of entirely ‘open borders’, of an entirely amoral ‘open society’ and a total social-economic bellum omnium contra omnes can only be fully realized after the ethnic replacement project has reduced the native Western population to the status of ‘endangered species’, confined to marginal ‘reservations’. Until that time, the transition process creates a legal predicament for the hostile elite: it has to carefully manage the maximum speed with which Western state institutions and laws can be demolished and replaced with Liberal anti-state institutions and anti-laws. If this demolition and replacement take place too quickly, the Liberal anti-state risks an uncontrollable backlash: an early overdose of chaos and injustice in the public sphere risks a premature alienation and collective countermovement among the native Western populace.

The increasingly grotesque side-effects of the Liberal demolition of state institutions and legal safeguards are particularly problematic in case of those privileges that are the exclusive preserve of the ‘immigrants’ (‘affirmative action’, ‘preferential treatment’, ‘housing priorities’, ‘targeted subsidies’) and of those sanctions that are explicitly aimed at the natives (student loans, commercial credit and administrative fines for natives vs. scholarships, grants and prosecution dismissal for ‘immigrants’). The contrast between the bureaucratic hurdles, fiscal pressure, labour market congestion and housing shortages faced by the native population (particularly its unfortunates: the homeless, the infirm, the poor) and the red carpet treatment (free legal assistance, free shelter and free money followed by priority housing, start-up facilities and full access to social support) provided to foreign colonists (including masses of fraudsters, thieves and rapists) is becoming more grotesque every year. As the immigrant population explodes due to ‘managed migration’ (‘Marrakesh’),‘family reunification’ (‘human rights’) and ‘child allowances’ (‘legal equality’) - always at the expense by the native population - the hostile elite risks pushing the native population into electoral resistance (‘populist parties’) and civil disobedience (gilets jaunes) too soon and too far. The hostile elite is attempting to abolish the historical gains of 150 years of Western civilization - legal recourse, labour law, social security, educational opportunity, universal healthcare, administrative integrity, responsible governance - in the space of no more than two generations. Here, the generational divide (essentially the divide between baby-boomer and post-baby-boomer) is essential because it is vitally important to ‘clean’ the collective memory of the Western populace: to make sure that inconvenient concepts such as ‘educational standards’, ‘living wage’, ‘income security’, ‘old age insurance’ and ‘justice for all’ are eradicated as quickly as possible. The hostile elite is close to achieving this aim, even if it is not fully ‘in the clear’ yet.

The Liberal anti-state and anti-law of the hostile elite has already basically reduced its hardworking, conscientious and naive indigenous subjects to ‘milk cows’ and ‘slaughter cattle’ to be exploited on behalf of a rapidly increasing mass of ruthless, unproductive, fraudulent and criminal ‘immigrants’. The sickening burden of this colonizing immigration is particularly crushing for the most vulnerable indigenous groups: day labourers, small entrepreneurs, pensioners, the physically and mentally handicapped and single-parent families. The hostile elite is silencing their feeble protests against demographic inundation and social-economic marginalization with mind-twisting and utterly cynical one-liners such ‘multicultural enrichment’ and ‘humanitarian duty’, ‘market forces’ and ‘private responsibility’. In the Dutch context, their situation is best symbolized by a caricature picture that is now frequently becoming reality: the humble indigenous bicyclist who is stopped in the pouring rain by the traffic police to be fined for a defect light, when a few yards away an ‘immigrant’ drugs lord is speeding through the red light in his sports car on the way to launder his ill-gotten riches in the ‘convenient store’ of his family clan.

But worse is yet to come - and many are starting to experience this ‘in the flesh’. Worse is the experience of indigenous girls and women: with the clients of their ‘lover boys’[30] during their school years, with their ‘rapefugee’ stalkers during their college years and with their ‘#metoo’ affirmative action ‘bosses’ during their working lives. And the worst is hidden still: the murderous decolonization (Lari 1953, Algiers 1956, Stanleyville 1964, Kolwezi 1978, Air Rhodesia Flight 827 1979) and the postcolonial atavism (Macías Nguema in Equatorial Guinea 1968-79, Muammar Kaddafi in Libya 1969-2011, Idi Amin in Uganda 1971-79, Pol Pot in Cambodia 1976-79, Saddam Hussein in Iraq 1979-2003) of the Third World bode ill for the future of the remnant native population of the West once it is fully colonized by primitive Africans and resentful Asians. Perversion is already the becoming the standard modality of Western bureaucracies and judiciaries as the indigenous Western peoples are abandoned and left to face terrorism, criminality and persecution without effective recourse. They are left with a toothless police that is caught up in red tape, a matriarchal anti-judiciary that is protecting criminals against victims, a silent media cartel that is hiding the ‘colour of crime’[31] and a perverted political system that prioritizes ‘public perception’ over public responsibility. These collective experiences, however, are now fast accumulating into a critical mass that threatens the whole ethnic replacement: they are, in fact, creating space for an effective collective challenge to the hostile elite. The moral legitimacy of the native resistance is giving it the status of an ‘Authority in the Making’, empowering it to tear up the seemingly inescapable but wholly fraudulent ‘IOU from history’ that the hostile elite is foisting on the Western peoples. The traffic light of history is flashing yellow for Liberalism. The gilets jaunes have already shown the Liberal hostile elite the ‘yellow card of history’: it is now up to the Western peoples to write out its red card - and to transfer it from the political stage to the penalty box of history.

6. The Patriotic-Identitarian Resistance as Authority in the Making[32]

And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep:

for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.

The night is far spent, the day is at hand:

let us therefore cast off the works of darkness,

and let us put on the armour of light.

- Romans 13:11-12

The basis of a successful campaign of Liberal Normativism as an ideological model and of Liberalism as a political force is the realization that both are the mortal enemies of Western civilization. For the Western peoples, the annihilation of Liberalism as a political force is an absolute precondition for a successful reconquista of state sovereignty and ethnic identity. In this case, the absolute right of survival coincides with the ethical imperative of resistance. This ethical imperative applies to all nations with ‘their back against the wall’, as formulated by Marek Edelman, the last leader of the Zydowska Organizacja Bojowa (‘Jewish Combat Organization’): We knew perfectly well that we had no chance of winning. We fought simply not to allow the Germans alone to pick the time and place of our deaths. We knew we were going to die.[33]

In this regard, the Western patriotic-identitarian movement would be well advised to take to heart what Steuckers has to say about the illusion of ‘dialogue’ with the hostile elite. Reasonability and dialogue end - have to end - when one is faced with an existential threat: ...l’ennemi n’est pas bon car il veut ma destruction totale, mon éradication de la surface de la Terre: au mal qu’il représente pour moi, je ne peux, en aucun cas et sous peine de périr, opposer des expressions juridiques ou morales procédant d’une anthropologie optimiste. Je dois être capable de riposter avec la même vigueur. La distinction ami/ennemi apporte donc clarté et honnêteté à tout discours sur le politique. ‘...the enemy simply cannot be good, because he seeks my total destruction [and] my eradication from the face of the Earth: I cannot, when faced with the [absolute] evil that he represents to me, apply the legal and moral prescriptions of [a misguided] anthropological optimism - if I do so, I will become extinct. I must be able to retaliate with equal vigour. Thus, the distinction between friend [and] enemy provides the political discourse with clarity and honesty.’ (p.51)

The hostile elite, which speaks through Liberal Normativism and which acts through Liberalism, has declared war on the Western peoples and on Western civilization: the Western peoples are simply left with no other choice than to fight for their lives and to appoint a newly-legitimate ‘authority in the making’. The weapons with which the Western patriotic-identitarian resistance can deal the intellectual deathblow to the hostile elite can be found in the arsenal of Carl Schmitt - Robert Steuckers’ Sur et autour provides the key to this arsenal. One of the weapons to be found there is Schmitt’s philosophical validation of the restoration of authentic Auctoritas.

7. Decisionism as State Theory

In Gefahr und grosser Noth

Bringt der Mittel-Weg den Tod

[In danger and distress

The middle way leads to death]

- Friedrich von Logau

The weakness of the hostile elite’s pseudo-philosophy of law is ruthlessly exposed in Steuckers’ analysis of Schmitt’s basic notions of the inevitably concrete and personal dimension of all authentic forms of legitimate law and power. The concrete and personal dimensions of law and power are best illustrated in its unavoidable incarnation in the person of the judge: the person of the judge bridges the gap between abstract and historically determined law (legal code, jurisprudence) and the concrete and contemporary reality (event, circumstance). La pratique quotidienne des palais de justice, pratique inévitable, incontournable, contredit l’idéal libéral-normativiste qui rêve que le droit, la norme, s’incarneront tous seuls, sans intermédiaire de chair et de sang. En imaginant, dans l’absolu, que l’on puisse faire l’économie de la personne du juge, on introduit une fiction dans le fonctionnement de la justice, fiction qui croit que sans la subjectivité inévitable du juge, on obtiendra un meilleur droit, plus juste, plus objectif, plus sûr. Mais c’est là une impossibilité pratique. ‘The daily, inevitable and undeniable practice of due legal process contradicts the Liberal-Normativist illusion that laws and norms can [somehow] be realized without a flesh-and-blood intermediary. By imagining an ‘absolute law’ that eliminates the person of the judge, it introduced a legal fiction: a fiction that proposes a better, more just and more objective law without the inevitable subjective [mediation of the] judge. But, [of course,] no such thing is possible in practice.’ (p.5-6) No legal verdict can be conceived of without the physical presence of a Vermittler, i.e. a man of flesh and blood who is - consciously or unconsciously - shaped by values and sentiments. Thus, no legal order can be conceived of without the imprint of the specific (historically and contextually experienced) charisma of the judge. In the Postmodern context, this charisma will tend to be of a collectivist-tainted, resentment-fed and downward-directed negative nature. Parce qu’il y a inévitablement une césure entre la norme et le cas concret, il faut l’intercession d’une personne qui soit une autorité. La loi [et] la norme ne peu[vent] pas s’incarner toute[s] seule[s]. ‘Because there will always be a gap between the [abstract] norm and the concrete [case], mediation by personalized authority is a necessity. [Thus,] the law [and] the norm can never incarnate themsel[ves].’ (p.6) The same concrete and personalized dimension apply with regard to political power: the entirely abstract, institutionalized and bureaucratized form of political power that is wished for, believed in and aimed at my Liberal Normativism is simply impossible. Thus, the inevitable and indispensable incarnation of political authority remains ...le démenti le plus flagrant à cet indécrottable espoir libéralo-progressisto-normativiste de voir advenir un droit, une norme, une loi, une constitution, dans le réel, par la seule force de sa qualité juridique, philosophique, idéelle, etc. ‘...the most definitive argument against the incorrigible liberal-progressivist-normativist hope that it will be possible, one day, to achieve a real-world law, norm [and] order that is solely based on judicial, philosophical and idealist quality.’ (p.6)

Under the aegis of totalitarian Liberal Normativism, however, Postmodern West politics has no longer any space for rational debate and superior argumentation: only ‘might is right’. L’idéologie républicaine ou bourgeoise a voulu dépersonnaliser les mécanismes de la politique. La norme a avancé, au détriment de l‘incarnation du pouvoir. ‘The republican and bourgeois ideology is aimed at the depersonalization of the mechanics of politics. It favours normative power at the expense of personalized power.’ (p.4) The contemporary power of Liberal Normativism is psychosocially anchored in an anti-rational matriarchal conditioning that abolishes all personalized forms of authentic authority in a hyper-collectivist règne de la quantité.[34] Dramatic illustrations of this increasingly oppressive matriarchal reality can be found in the Western European ‘ground zero’ of Postmodernity: in the ex-nation states of ‘Anti-Frankrijk’ en ‘Anti-Germany’ the policies of anti-tradition, anti-nationalism and anti-masculine are now metastasizing into openly sadomasochistic projects of self-mutilating and suicidal Umvolkung à l’outrance. In this context, every form of collectivist resistance (parliamentary ‘opposition’ and extra-parliamentary ‘activism’) against the idiocratic and absurdist excesses of Liberal Normativism is doomed to failure because it will limit itself to pragmatic ‘symptom management’. By limiting themselves to the matriarchal-collectivist (doubly politically-institutional and psycho-social) ‘frame’ of Liberal Normativism, such parliamentary opposition (the AfD in Germany, the FvD in the Netherlands) and such extra-parliamentary activism (the Reichbürger movement in Germany, the gilets jaunes movement in France[35]) are effectively reduced to ‘lightning conductors’. There exists only one true remedy for the matriarchal-collectivist ‘anti-authority’ of Liberal Normativism: patriarchal-personalized authority as defined in Traditionalist Decisionism.

The Decisionist approach to law and politics is always concrete, and therefore also physical and personal. In legal-philosophical terms, it is primarily concerned with the physical protection of the concrete (geographically and biologically bounded) realities of state and ethnicity. In Decisionism, earthly realities always take priority over abstract norms: ist erdhaft und auf Erde bezogen [the law is earth-bound and refers to earthly reality]. In metapolitical terms, it proceeds from the recognized necessity of personalized authority in order to meet physical calamities as well as overdoses of ‘normative’ power. It sanctions personalized authority for the effective management of existential threats against the state and the people: Ausnahmezustand, ‘state of emergency’, Ernstfall, ‘case of emergency’, Grenzfall, ‘borderline case’. This highest command authority is based on the (temporary) suspension (in fact: correction) of (normative) law through its (temporary) personification: this emergency measure is applied whenever the legal order, the power of the state or the survival of the nation are undermined or shaken. ...[E]n cas de normalité, [cet] autorité peut ne pas jouer, mais en cas d’exception, elle doit décider d’agir, de sévir ou de légiférer. ‘...[U]nder normal circumstances, th[is] authority stands outside daily life, but in case of emergency it is obliged to act, to rule and to legislate [directly].’ (p.4) This ‘emergency power’ kicks in case of existential threats from without (natural disaster, enemy invasion) and from within (rebellion, treason). In Traditional societies, this personalized authority is permanently (institutionally) available in the ‘reserve functionality’ of sacred office. In pre-modern Western societies, this reserve functionality is institutionally represented in the Monarchy, regulated either through election or succession. The sacred nature of the highest command authority is derived from the transcendental (and therefore anagogical) concept of state and nation that prevailed in all pre-modern societies. Carl Schmitt’s philosophy of law - inspired by the Traditionalist-Catholic state theory of Donoso Cortés[36] - retains this sacred element in its transcendental definition of a holistically conceived unity of state, nation and society. This unit, as qualified through the ancient notions of Unitas Ordinis, ‘Unified Order’, Societas Civiles, ‘Civil Society’ and Corpus Mysticum, ‘Mystical Body’, is taken to represent a creation that is naturally organic as well as divinely ordained - as such it can never be wholly encompassed by any political institution. The man that fate has called upon to defend the life of this mysterious ‘creature’ is held to be imbued with a sacred vocation of the highest order.

Thus, from a Traditionalist perspective, the state-nation-society agglomerate constitutes a living organism and a historical community with a mystical destiny that constitutes a political a priori: politics should be shaped around its needs and interests and politics serves it. ...[L]e peuple... n’est pas chose formée (par une volonté humaine et arbitraire) mais fait empirique et n’est jamais ‘formable’ complètement; il restera toujours de lui un résidu rétif à tout formatage, un reste qui échappera à la volonté de contrôle des instances dérivées de certaines ‘Lumières’... [L]a souveraineté populaire ne peut être entièrement représentée (par des députés) car alors une part plus ou moins importante de sa présence concrète est houspillée hors des institutions de représentation, lesquelles ne représent[e]nt plus que les intérêts ou des réalités fragmentaires. ‘...[T]he people... is not a ‘construct’ (to be made and unmade according to human will), but rather an empirical given fact that can never be entirely ‘malleable’ [in a political sense]: it always retains an indivisible residue that resists [all attempts at] ‘construction’ - a residue that remains intangible in terms of the kind of institutional control that derives from ‘Enlightenment’ [thought]... [N]ational sovereignty [and electoral mandates] can never be entirely representative through ‘representation’, because a [certain] - larger or smaller - part of the concrete presence [of the nation] will always be excluded from institutional representation, [because such a representation] will be inevitably focussed on fragmentary interest and realities.’ (p.33) The Traditionalist definition of the state-nation-society agglomerate is found in the vision of ... la ‘nation unie’, non mutilée par des dissensions partisanes, donc une nation tournant ses forces vives vers l’extérieur, et non pas vers sa seule sphère interne en y semant la discorde et en y désignant des ennemis, provoquant à terme rapide l’inéluctable implosion du tout. La Nation comme l’Eglise doit être un coïncidentia oppositorum : elle doit faire coïncider et s’harmoniser toutes les forces et différences qui l’irriguent, en évitant les modi operandi politiciens qui sèment les dissensus et ruinent la continuité étatique... ‘...the ‘unified nation’, undivided by partisan strife - a nation that directs its vital force outwards, and not merely inwards, where [that force] will create frictions and factions, results in inevitable and early total implosion. As in the case of the Church, the Nation is called upon to constitute a coïncidentia oppositorum: it must focus all [its] powers and harmonize the differences that feed its growth. It must avoid all politicized modi operandi - [factional divides and party-political narrow-mindedness] - that would cause [societal] friction and that would endanger the continuity of its state [sovereignty]...’ (p.38)

From this follows the double theological and legal imperative of a trans-democratic and trans-secular state authority which is simultaneously open in a downward (earthly) and upward (heavenly) direction and which guarantees the historical continuity of the nation(s) that it represents. A built-in permanent Decisionist ‘reserve option’ - a (temporal) ‘dictatorial’ command structure to deal with the Ernstfall - is an indispensable part of this state authority. Within the Traditionalist philosophy of law of the Christian world this reserve option is always ‘framed’ - and limited - by the higher transcendental principle of Caritas, which is explicitly expressed in the key principles of Catholic politics: Community, Solidarity and Subsidiarity. Caritas: the ‘anthropologically pessimistic’ Christian ethical imperative and pious practice of magnanimity with all creatures that need protection and assistance. First and foremost these are those people that are vulnerable, incapacitated or weak-minded - children, women, the poor, the sick, the handicapped and the dying. But these are also the animals and plants that cannot speak up for themselves and that are subject to man’s dominion. Noblesse oblige. In the Traditionalist philosophy of law of the Christian world the Monarchy was the highest natural and legitimate carrier of Decisionistically defined Auctoritas: ...les familles royales, qui incarnent charnellement les Etats dans l’Ancien régime, offrent de successions de monarques, différents sur le plan du caractère et de la formation, permettant une plus grande souplesse que les régimes normatifs et normateurs. Elles permettent la continuité dans l’adaptation et le changement, apportés par les héritiers de la lignée. En ce sens, les monarchies constituent des contrepoids contre le déploiement purement technique de la raison normative, qui fait basculer les Etats dans l’abstraction et apportent, in fine, la dictature. ‘...royal families - which are made to literally embody the state during the [Absolutist] ancien régime - offer a [continuous] succession of [ever new generations of] monarchs differ in character, upbringing and education: they offer a [‘built-in’ and] much greater flexibility than ‘normative’,... [democratically liberal] regimes. In this sense, monarchies offer a counterbalance against the purely ‘technocratic’ rule of normative ‘reason’ that reduces states to legal abstractions and, eventually, to [normative] dictatorships.’ (p.36) In a Monarchy the principle of Subsidiarity postulates an additional and derivative role for other ‘privileged’ institutions as well: the Clergy and the Nobility are called upon to carry many responsibilities - they are burdened with a secondary Decisionist Pflicht zur Tat, or ‘obligation to act’. All of these Traditional institutions were assumed to take on a number of natural and legitimate obligations on the basis of an existential quality that is simply unimaginable under the aegis of Liberal-Normativist modernity - a quality that can best be grasped in a number of concepts of more ‘aristocratically minded’ languages: solemnidad, ‘solemnity’, gravedad, ‘gravity’, Haltung, ‘composure’, Würde, ‘dignity’. In this regard, Steuckers points to the ‘Roman Form’ that is essential to this existential orientation - an orientation that was largely eliminated from the originally Roman-Catholic Church during the 20^th Century aggiornamento that is now associated with Second Vatican Council (1962-65).[37] This Roman Form views ...l’homme... comme un être combattant, un être sans cesse préoccupé de limiter le chaos naturel des choses, de donner forme au réel, de maintenir les continuités constructives léguées par l’histoire... ‘man... as a warrior creature, a creature that is waging an incessant struggle against the chaotic state of the natural [world and that is called upon] to give structure to the reality [around himself and] to maintain the constructive continuities that he has inherited from history...’ (p.41)

This Roman Form is deconstructed in the utterly false ‘anthropological optimism’ of Liberal Normativism, which sets ‘self-made’ - cosmologically ‘autonomous’, sinless ‘free’, morally ‘self-determining’ - ‘modern man’ aside from Divine Creation, the Divine Order and Divine Providence. Liberal Normativism does not offer - cannot offer - any alternative for the Roman Form that it has ‘deconstructed’: Liberal Normativism is an exclusively negative ideology that can only thrive on denial, deconstruction and destruction. In political terms, it represents the abdication of Fortitudo, ‘fortitude’, and its replacement with administrative chaos and legal impunity. In economic terms, it represents the abdication of Temperantia, ‘self-restraint’, and its replacement with greedy materialism and unbridled consumerism. In social terms, it represents the abdication of Castitas, ‘chastity’, and its replacement with public feminization and private immorality. In psychological terms, it represents the abdication of Humilitas, ‘humility’, and its replacement with megalomania and narcissism. Thus, in the sense of Carl Schmitt’s politische Theologie, Liberal-Normativism can be interpreted as the political application of theological antinomianism.

8. The Antinomianist Project of the Hostile Elite

errare humanum est, perservare est diabolicum

[to err is human, to persist is diabolic]

Liberal-Normativism is entirely incompatible with any form of positive (eudaemonic, anagogic) - let alone Traditionalist (holistic, Decisionistic) - philosophy of law or concept of state. Its antinomianism - its pretence to be exempt from Divine Order and the Divine Law - places it outside and under and transcendentally inspired form of philosophy and statecraft. In the words of Robert Steuckers: Le normativisme se place en dehors de tout continuum historique puisque la norme, une fois instaurée, est jugée tout à la fois comme un aboutissement final et comme indépassable et, en théorie, le normativisme exclut toute dérogation au fonctionnement posé une fois pour toutes comme ‘normal’, même en cas d’extrême danger pour les choses publiques. ‘Normativism places itself outside all forms of historical continuity because, as soon as it is installed, its norm achieves the status of necessary and unsurpassable finality. Strictly speaking, normativism excludes any kind of exemption from the once-and-for-always established ‘normal’ functionality [of state power], even if the greater good is threatened in an unprecedented manner.’ (p.35) The epistemological and ontological ‘steel cage’ of Liberal Normativism closes with mathematical precision - in its doctrinal perfection, it wholly excludes all corrective possibilities. In this regard, Steuckers designates the legalism of Liberal Normativism as the ultimate arcanum of Western Postmodernity. This pharisaic legalism guarantees the (mentally preventive) ‘deconstruction’ of all authentic visions of a societas perfecta. It literally rules out the Decisionist (pragmatic, flexible, temporary) Auctoritas that is built into every Traditionalist concept of state power and philosophy of law.

In the chapter La décision dans l’oeuvre de Carl Schmitt, ‘The Decision in the Work of Carl Schmitt’, Steuckers provides a precise analysis of Schmitt’s intellectual Werdegang. He points to the remarkable parallelism between Schmitt’s intellectual development and the 20^th Century development of the Liberal-Normativist epistemological-ontological ‘steel cage’. The three phases that Steuckers distinguishes in Schmitt’s work and life can be interpreted as three phases in the development of the antinomian project of the hostile elite, i.e. three phases in the construction of the Liberal-Normativist totalitarian dictatorship that is nearing completion under the aegis of Western Postmodernity. Steuckers names each of these three phases after the historical function of the ‘decision-maker’ - the symbolic personification of highest command power - during the phase in question. In the framework of this essay, which aims at a ‘short anatomy of the ideology of the hostile elite’, it is useful to briefly review each of these three ‘decision makers’ according to an improvised - artificial but investigative - ‘timetable’.

(1) The phase of the Beschleuniger, the ‘Accelerator’, which covers the forty years between two symbolically important years in Western history, viz. 1905, marking the first military-political victory of a non-Western over a Western great power (the Russo-Japanese War) and the ‘constitutionalization’ of the last Traditional Western autocracy (First Russian Revolution), and 1945, marking the final military-political victory by late-modern trans-nationalism (Grossraum, American and Soviet superpower) over the classic-modern nation-state (Lebensraum, Axis powers).[38] This phase is characterized by an ‘engineering ideology’ that allows for a technical acceleration of power, in the sense of a chronological break-through as well as a spatial break-out. Here, ‘1905’ expresses a double breaking-point in terms of significant power expansions in technique (submarine exploration, aviation, ether communication, spectrum analysis) as well as cognition (Einstein’s annus mirabilis, the Weber Thesis, de Saussure’s semiotics, Durkheim’s social fact-finding). The technical suppression of the classic-modern nation-state during this phase starts with an acceleration of sea power (1905 marks the launch of the Dreadnought and the start of the Naval Arms Race) and ends with a break-out into literally supra-terrestrial power: the launch of V-2 Wunderwaffe number MW18014 on 20 June 1944 marks the start of the Space Age and the ‘Trinity Test’ of 16 July 1945 marks the start of the Nuclear Age. It is ironic that the pursuit of revolutionary and transformative forms of power was most explicitly incorporated in the ideologies of the geopolitical losers of 20^th Century, viz. in Italian Futurism and in German Technical Idealism.[39] In this regard, Steuckers points to the fact that Schmitt’s legal-philosophical analysis of the economically and technologically motivated Beschleuniger can only be properly understood as an expression of the new ‘titanic’ ontology that is incarnated in German Technical Idealism, i.e. the same ‘spectral’ spirituality that inspires technocrats of the Third Reich such as Albert Speer and Wernher von Braun. The German Technical-Idealist aim of transformative Beschleunigung also characterized the parallel philosophical explorations of Martin Heidegger.[40] Here it should be noted that the search for a way out of the dead-end of Western Postmodernity would benefit from a systematic revaluation of the ideal content of German Technical Idealism - such a revaluation would be much more interesting than the endless ruminations over its ideological weight. A revaluation of German Technical Idealism can proceed from its emphasis on a productive (qualitatively measured) rather than a commercial (quantitatively measured) economy and on an explorative rather than a utilitarian science.

(2) The phase of the Aufhalter, the ‘Inhibitor’, which covers the forty years between the Götterdämmerung of German Technical Idealism and the Promethium Sky over Hiroshima[41] from 1945 till 1985. 1985 is not only the year of Carl Schmitt’s death; it is also symbolically significant as the year after George Orwell’s 1984 and as ‘point of no return’ in anthropogenic global warming - it marks the point at which the Postmodern ‘fall into the future’[42] becomes inevitable and at which all ‘inhibitions’ fail. This phase is characterized by a protracted ‘delaying action’ of the (political, social, cultural) traditional institutions of Western civilization against the rising tide of (doubly technical-industrial and psycho-social mobilized) proto-globalism that starts to flood the Western heartland in 1945. During this phase, these traditional institutions (Monarchy, Church, Nobility, Academy) are gradually pushed back in their role as Katechon. As Aufhalter the Katechon represents the ‘shield of civilization’ that surrounds any Traditional society.[43] Le katechon est le dernier pilier d’une société en perdition; il arrête le chaos, en maintient les vecteurs la tête sous l’eau. ‘The katechon is the last pillar of a society in dissolution: it holds back the [forces of] chaos by holding [its] vectors below the surface.’ (p.10) During this phase, the roots of authentic philosophy of law are gradually cut away: its Ortungen (as expressed in Schmitt’s adage Das Recht ist erdhaft und auf die Erde bezogen, ‘the law derives from the Earth and refers back to the earthly realm’) are abolished in a global process of de-naturalization, de-territorialization and de-location. During this phase, the Katechon institutions are no longer able to stop the literally all-mobilizing but teleologically negative process of globalization - they mere retain a residual function as a temporary inhibitor.[44] The political reflection of this cultural-historical process is found in the deliberate globalist demolition of the nation-state: states and ethnicities are stripped of their sovereign rights and authentic identities. The geopolitical force field is increasingly dominated by an all-mobilizing, all-liquefying and border-less thalassocracy: the all-monetarizing ‘sea power’ that gradually expands outwards from its Atlantic-Anglo-Saxon heartland through tides of money and commerce.[45] Globalist fata morgana’s such as ‘universal human rights’, ‘international law’, ‘free market mechanisms’ and ‘open borders’ are raised to the status of ‘norm’ in the political arena. L’horreur moderne, dans cette perspective généalogique du droit, c’est l’abolition de tous les loci, les lieux, les enracinements, les im-brications. Ces dé-localisations, ces Ent-Ortungen, sont dues aux accélérations favorisées par les régimes du XX^e siècle, quelle que soit par ailleurs l’idéologie dont ils se réclamaient. ‘The modern horror that finds expression in this genealogy of law is the eradication of all loci - all placements, all roots [and] all enclosures. These ‘displacements’, these Ent-Ortungen, result from the accelerations that are favoured by all 20^th Century regimes, irrespective of the [formal] ideological [discourses] that they claim to represent.’ (p.10)

(3) The phase of the Normalisateur, the ‘Normalizer’, approximately coincides with the Postmodern Era. During this phase, the structural inversion of the traditional institutions and values of Western civilization is basically completed. The political-institution and legal-philosophical role of the Katechon, which was previously determined by the positive (anagogic) trajectory of Western civilization is now reversed and replaced by that of the ‘Normalizer’, i.e. by the political-institutional and legal-philosophical ‘anti-christ’ in pursuit of the negative (katagogic) norm of globalist Postmodernity. This is the phase of fully-fledged Liberal Normativism. Steuckers points to the ‘Weimar Standard’ as the ‘factory setting’ of Liberal Normativism: this standard provides, as it were, the ‘sacred’ reference point and the ideal form of secular-bourgeois Liberalism. The thalassocratic ‘New World Order’, enforced by the ‘letter institutions’ (UN, IMF, WEF, EU, NATO), implements this ‘Weimar Standard’ on a global scale, hijacking the technical (digital, virtual) innovations that are now directly linking ‘borderless’ products and services to ‘borderless’ demands and emotions (world wide web, social media, virtual reality). Instability becomes the standard modality in all spheres of life. In the political sphere, ‘open borders’ prevail. In the social sphere, ‘open relations’ prevail. In the psychological sphere, ‘open access’ prevails: relations are reduced to ‘role-playing’, interactions are reduced to narcissist ‘ego communication’ and intimacies are reduced to the ‘pornosphere’. In the cultural sphere, ‘open sources’ prevail: knowledge is reduced to ‘resource management’ and publicity is reduced to ‘(b)log activity’ - Schmitt uses the term Logbücher. The spiritual ‘melt-down’ of Western civilization during this nearly literal new ‘Age of Aquarius’ is a fact. Against this background the role of the ‘Normalizer’ becomes clear. La fluidité de la société actuelle... est devenue une normalité, qui entend conserver ce jeu de dé-normalisation et de re-normalisation en dehors du principe politique et de toute dynamique de territorialisation. Le normalisateur, troisième figure du décideur chez Schmitt, est celui qui doit empêcher que la crise conduirait à un retour du politique, à une re-territorialisation de trop longue durée ou définitive. La normalisateur est donc celui qui prévoit et prévient la crise. ‘The fluidity of society... has [now] become ‘norm’: the [dialectic] process of de-normalization and re-normalization is permanently put beyond the grasp of political power and territoriality. The normalizer, the third avatar of the ‘decision-maker’ in Schmitt[’s work], is appointed to manage all crises in such a way as to prevent any definitive or prolonged return to the [exercise of] political power or re-territorialization. Thus, the normalizer is the one that foresees and prevents such crises.’ (p.14) Effectively, the ‘Normalizer’ is charged with the permanent maintenance of the Liberal-Normativist anti-order: he must prevent the widespread recognition of the Ernstfall and the resulting declaration of a state of emergency. In religious terms, this would be the classical function of the ‘anti-christ’. This ‘Normalizer’ is now incarnated in the hostile elite of the Postmodern West. The functionality of the hostile elite as ‘Normalizer’ explains the extreme forms of its antinomian project: institutional oikophobia, rabid demophobia, politically correct totalitarianism, Orwellian censorship, matriarchal ‘anti-law’, idiocratic anti-education, social deconstruction and ethnic replacement.

9. The Decisionist Alternative

In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man,

and brave, and hated and scorned.

When his cause succeeds, the timid join him,

for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.

- Mark Twain

An answer to the question of whether or not the fast-growing patriotic-identitarian movement in the heavily battered nation-states of the West is able to politically destroy the globalist New World Order in its old heartland will depend on its meta-political - philosophical, ideological - ability to break out of the ‘frame’ of Postmodernity, which was here identified as the ‘steel cage’ of Liberal-Normativism. Within the limited framework of this essay, extensive consideration of this problem is impossible - all that can be done here is to indicate the approximate direction in which this ability must be sought.

Martin Heidegger already pointed to the profound psycho-social conditioning that follows from the ontological quality of Western Modernity. Liberal Normativism can be defined as the psycho-social reflection of this ontological quality, which Heidegger exposes as embodied in the Modern-Western Gestell, or ‘technical frame’. Jason Jorjani has pointed to the necessity of an explicit re-orientation on the Techne as an autonomous and self-creative force field that determines this Gestell: only a brand-new technical-idealist ‘re-thinking’ of this Techne will provide control over the Gestell. Jorjani has started this process of re-thinking: his Archaeo-Futurist approach encapsulates this Techne and is thus able to break through the epistemological ceiling of historical-materialism. Jorjani’s break-out from historical-materialist discursive dialectics has delivered a fatal blow to the Liberal-Normativist ideology that is based upon these dialectics - but only if and when that break-out is followed up by a ruthless exploitation of its final (political, economic, social, cultural) consequences. In terms of this exploitation, Carl Schmitt’s philosophy of law is highly relevant, because it offers a possibility of an Archaeo-Futurist deconstruction of Liberal Normativism in its political and legal guises. It provides a ‘crowbar’ with which to wrench open the political-legal ‘steel cage’ of the Liberal-Normativist anti-state and anti-law. This crowbar is found in Decisionism, as sanctioned by Carl Schmitt’s philosophy of law. Carl Schmitt breaks down the (abstract, deconstructive) discursive dialectics of Liberal Normativism by the (concrete, constructive) Realdialektik of Decisionism. Decisionism recovers the habitus of Ordnungsdenken and it restores the authentic (flexible, pragmatic) counter-norm of the Obrigkeitsstaat. Decisionism offers the patriotic-identitarian movement an Archaeo-Futuristically valid deconstruction of Liberal Normativism.

Steuckers’ reconstruction of Schmitt’s philosophy of law provides the building blocks of a new, Archaeo-Futuristically framed Decisionism as a remedy for Liberal Normativism. An Archaeo-Futuristically determined Decisionism will have to take its cue from the institutional and legal-philosophical Western Tradition: Tout avenir doit être tributaire du passé, être dans sa continuité, participer d’une perpétuation, faute de quoi il ne serait qu’une sinistre farce, un projet éradicateur et, par là même, criminel. ‘Every [vision of the] future must recognize itself as heir of the past and as [carrier of historical] continuity: otherwise, it will be nothing more than a sinister farce, a project of destruction and, therefore, a criminal [enterprise].’ (p.60-1) At the same time, it is important to build in an important caveat: Steuckers points to the need for a pragmatic application of Decisionism, befitting the contemporary reality: ...il y a... deux dangers à éviter, celui de caricaturer la tradition, [comme] éloigné[e] de tout véritable souci du...’ politique politique’, et celui de l’abandonner au profit de maigres schémas normativistes. ‘... two dangers must be avoided: [first,] a caricature of tradition, divorced from an effective concern for... a [always pragmatic] ‘political politics’, and, [second,] an abandonment of tradition in favour of substance-less normativist schemes.’ (p.63) Accordingly, there can be no neo-reactionary return to anachronistic forms of Decisionism: ...les régimes pré-libéraux... étaient plus stables sur le long terme, [m]ais... on ne pourra pas les restaurer sans d’effroyables bains de sang, sans une sorte d’apocalypse. [On] doit dès lors éviter l’enfer sur terre et œuvrer au maintien des stabilités politiques réellement existantes. ‘...the pre-liberal forms of government [that ruled the pre-modern world]... were more stable in the long term, [b]ut... they cannot be restored without a horrific bloodbath [and] a kind of apocalypse. [It] is imperative to avoid hell on earth and to work within the framework of such political stability as can still be found.’ (p.31) Thus, modern Decisionism should avoid anachronistic purism: it should seek organic development.

Key elements of such an organic development can be found in Steuckers’ reconstruction of the historical trajectory of Western Decisionism. Partially secularized, but still transcendentally-inspired aspects of a Decisionism that serves the ‘greater good’ can be found in a series of chronologically sequential but organically related notions that are scattered throughout the history of the Western philosophy of law. These include: the Corpus Mysticum of Francisco Suárez (1548-1617), the volonté générale of Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-78), the élan vital of Henri Bergson[46] (1859-1941), the omul nou of Corneliu Codreanu (1899-1938) and the Reichstheologie of Erich Przywara (1889-1972). These notion transcend all 19^th and 20^th Century ‘isms’: the transcend fascism (which tends to wrongly view the state as an aim instead of a means), nationalism (which tends to wrongly ascribe an active instead of a passive role to the nation) and parliamentarism (which tends to wrongly prioritize procedures over problem-solving). Thus, there exists an uninterrupted (semi-)Traditionalist continuity that develops alongside - and in constant opposition to - the gradual modernist devolution that has now resulted in the Liberal Normativist New World Order, realized through the (trans-national and informal) potestas indirecta of the hostile elite. This alternative Decisionist continuity offers a guideline for an Archaeo-Futurist deconstruction of Liberal Normativism: it offers an exit from the total Staatsdämmerung of neo-Liberalism and the permanent Ersatz-Revolution of cultural-marxism.

In the peripheral areas of the West, the first signs of a proto-Archaeo-Futurist reaction to Liberal Normativism are already becoming visible: these are the ‘Enlightened Decisionisms’ of Vladimir Putin, Viktor Orbán and Recep Erdogan, very accurate defined as ‘illiberal’ by the Liberal-Normativist propaganda machine. The Western hostile elite is now scrambling to prevent the spread of this Decisionist reactive movement into the Western heartland, a spread that can already be discerned in phenomena such as ‘Brexit’, ‘Trump’ and ‘M5S’. The hostile elite is opting for a Flucht nach vorn, a ‘flight forward’, by an accelerating of its core strategies: the introduction of totalitarian matriarchy (anti-white ‘multiculturalism’, anti-male ‘transgenderism’, anti-intellectual ‘political correctness’), the fostering of social implosion (‘no-fault divorce’, ‘birth control’, ‘sexual revolution’) and the enforcement of ethnic replacement (‘refugee quotas’, ‘migration pacts’, ‘high-skill migration’).

The success of the Western patriotic-identitarian movement in its struggle with the hostile elite depends not only on an intellectual re-armament through the re-instatement of a Decisionist (meta-)political discourse, but also on the inner re-enactment of a deeper Wehr- und Waffen-Instinkt, or ‘defence and armament instinct’.[47] In this regard, Steuckers emphasizes the importance of traditional Western ethics of the crusader, i.e. the double monastic and knightly archetype of the ‘military Katechon’. There is a direct psycho-historical relation between the Crisis of the Modern West and the abolition of the Western monastic and knightly traditions. Steuckers points to the crucial role of crusader ideal in Western history, which tends to recur in highly stylized forms in heroic figures such as Johann Tserclaes Count von Tilly, commander of the Catholic League from 1610 till 1632, Prince Eugene of Savoy, victorious over the French hereditary enemy at Blenheim (1704) and Oudenaerde (1708) and over the Turkish archenemy at Zenta (1697) and Belgrade (1717). The capacity of the Western patriotic-identitarian movement to mount a credible Decisionist challenge against the Liberal-Normativist hostile elite will also depend on a re-enactment of the Western Wehr- und Waffen-Instinkt. This means the capacity to wage war in all spheres: physical, psychological, intellectual and spiritual. The ‘training’ required to reach a sufficient level of ‘fitness’ will have to start with a therapeutic confrontation with the psycho-historical traumas of the West. Session One: a positive inner re-enactment of the existential attitude that is expressed in - obviously German and Prussian - ‘taboo words’ such as Beharrung, ‘persistence’, Kleinkrieg, ‘guerrilla’, Zermürbung, ‘attrition’, totaler Widerstand, ‘total resistance’, totaler Krieg, ‘total war’. Session Two: a transformative projection of this re-enactment into brand-new ‘catch phrases’ that call for peaceful but effective civic resistance: ‘Take the Hit’ (Jared Taylor) and ‘Great White Strike’ (Frodi Midjord). Session Three: the development of an unwavering commitment through a permanent confrontation with the enemy: inward in what the Islamic Tradition terms al-jihad al-akbar, or ‘Greater Holy War’, and outward in what the Augustinian Tradition terms the bellum justum, or ‘Just War’. The discipline and courage that will result from these exercises will bring the hostile elite to its knees soon enough: the hostile elite maybe malicious - it is also cowardly.

Noch sitzt ihr da oben, ihr feigen Gestalten.

Vom Feinde bezahlt, dem Volke zum Spott.

Doch einst wird wieder Gerechtigkeit walten, dann richtet das Volk.

Dann genade Euch Gott!

[Still you are on top, you cowardly figures,

paid by our enemy, ridiculed by our people.

But one day righteousness will prevail - on you will be judged by our people.

On that day, may God be with you!]

- Theodor Körner

 

10. The Eurasianist Dimension

à tous les coeurs bien-nés que la patrie est chère

[to all well-born hearts the fatherland is dear]

The struggle against the globalist hostile elite, which is thinking and operating on a planetary scale, demands more than a patriotic-identitarian intervention at the national level within each Western nation-state: it also demands a certain degree of geopolitical coordination at an international level. In this regard, Steuckers’ brilliant ‘update’ of Schmitt’s Land und Meer analysis[48] is highly relevant. Steuckers points to the fact that the approaching apogee globalism - effectively the apogee of Atlanticist-Anglo-Saxon thalassocracy analyzed by Schmitt - is characterized by ‘pyro-politics’, i.e. a compulsive resort to globalist ‘arson’ in all parts of the world that are not directly accessible to sea power-based globalism. Les forces hydropolitique cherchent à détruire par tous les moyens possibles cette terre qui ne cesse de résister. Pour parvenir à cette fin, l’hydropolitique cherchera à provoquer des explosions sur les lambeaux de continent toujours résistants ou même simplement survivants. L’hydropolitique thalassocratique va alors chercher à mobiliser à son profit l’élément Feu comme allié, un Feu qu’elle ne va pas manier directement mais confier à des forces mercenaires, recrutées secrètement dans des pays ou des zones urbaines en déréliction, disposant d’une jeunesse masculine surabondante et sans emplois utiles. Ces forces mercenaires seront en charge des sales boulots de destruction pure, de destruction de tout ce qui ne s’était pas encore laissé submerger. ‘The hydro-political powers are pursuing the destruction of all land[power] that persists in resisting [globalist thalassocracy] with all means at their disposal. To achieve that aim, hydro-politics is seeking to provoke explosions in all remnants of continent[al power] that continue to exist, or simply continue to survive. To this end, thalassocratic hydro-politics is attempting to mobilize the Fire element as an ally - an [element] that it cannot apply directly, but which it entrusts to those mercenary forces that it secretly recruits from the unemployed surplus male youth [found] in [backward] countries and derelict suburbs. These mercenary forces are committed to the ‘dirty work’ of wanton destruction - [to] the destruction of everything that has not yet allowed itself to be submerged [by globalism].’ (p.241)

Thus, Steuckers explains a number of contemporary geopolitical patterns, such as the waves of ‘humanitarian interventions’ (Somalia 1992, Kosovo 1999, Libya 2011), ‘proxy wars’ (Chechenia from 1994, Sinkiang from 2007, Syria from 2011) and ethnic émeutes, or ‘city riots’ (Los Angeles 1992, Paris 2005, London 2011). Other phenomena that can be explained through the prism of Steuckers’ pyro-politics are the hostile elite’s deliberate creation of ‘colour revolution’, ‘separatism movements’ and ‘failed states’. The writer of this essay proposes to extend this pyro-political analysis to even greater contemporary patterns. Thus, anthropogenic climate change (‘fired up’ through global-scale hyper-consumerism and industrial ‘outsourcing’ to the Third World), global overpopulation (‘fired up’ through ‘development aid’ to the Third World) and intercontinental migration (‘fired up’ through ‘refugee resettlement’ and ‘humanitarian assistance’) can be understood as calculated experiments in globalist pyro-politics. ...[L]a stratégie thalassocratique de mettre le Feu à des régions entières du globe en incitant à des révoltes, en ranimant des haines religieuses ou des conflits tribaux n’est certes pas nouvelle mais vient de prendre récemment des proportions plus gigantesque qu’auparavant dans l’histoire. C’est là le défi majeur lancé à l’Europe en cette deuxième décennie du XXI^e siècle. ‘...[T]he thalassocratic ‘scorched earth’ strategy, which is [now] affecting entire regions of the globe by inciting revolts, stoking up religious hatreds and reanimating tribal conflicts, is certainly not new, but it has recently taken on historically unprecedented proportions. This is the greatest challenge facing Europe in the second decade of the 21^st Century.’ (p.243)

Steuckers points to Schmitt legal-philosophical validation of a geopolitical vision that offers Europe an alternative to globalist pyro-politics: a European Monroe Doctrine. This alternative finds its legal-philosophical validity in the Decisionist priority of earthly Realpolitik over abstract ‘normative politics’: das Recht ist erdhaft und auf die Erde bezogen, ‘the law derives from the Earth and refers back to the earthly realm’. In the geopolitical vision of Schmitt that has been reconstructed by Steuckers, the atrocious atavism of globalist pyro-politics is directly caused by the philosophical regression that runs parallel to America’s rise as a thalassocratic superpower - the American intervention in the First World War marks the fatal turning point. ...[L]e droit n’existe pas sans territoire et... les civilisations se basent sur une organisation spécifique de l’espace (Raumordnung), d’où découle un jus publicum admis par tous. En Europe, de la fin du Moyen Age jusqu’au début de notre siècle, l’histoire a connu un jus publicum europaeum où l’on admettait que chaque Etat, chaque Nation menaient une guerre juste de son point de vue. Ce respect de l’adversaire et des [motives] qui le poussent à agir humanisera la guerre. Avec Wilson, on assiste à un retour à la discrimination entre les ennemis car l’Amérique s’arroge le droit de mener seule une guerre juste. ‘...[T]here can be no law without territory and... all civilizations base themselves on their own particular Raumordnung, or ‘spatial order’, from which they derive a jus publicum, or ‘public law’, that is recognized by all. From the late Middle Ages till the beginning of the [20^th] Century, the history of Europe is determined by a jus publicum europaeum which recognizes the legitimate right of every State and every Nation to wage war, commensurate to its lawful interests. This respect for the enemy and for the motives that cause him to act led to a [relative] ‘humanization’ in [European] warfare. But during [the presidency of Woodrow] Wilson, there is a regression into discrimination between enemies, because [under his leadership] America claims the exclusive right to wage a just war.’ (p.19)

The abstractly normativist philosophy of law that underpins globalist geopolitics and that continues to follow the Wilsonian path can only be deconstructed by a systematic return to concrete legal-philosophical Ortungen, i.e. by literal re-territorializations and the reconstitution of multiple place-bound legal orders. This is the legal-philosophical basis for a viable multipolar geopolitical order - a multipolarity that forms the basis for the Neo-Eurasianist project proposed by Alexander Dugin.[49] Dugin’s work reflects the re-territorialization of the Russian State and Nation after the seventy-year de-territorialization of the trans-national Soviet project. Thus, what Steuckers already predicted in 1985, before Gorbachev’s Glasnost and Perestroika, has come true : Quand les Russes cesseront de se laisser gouverner par de vieux idéocrates, ils seront à nouveau eux-mêmes: le peuple théophore, le peuple porteur du sublime. ‘When the Russian stop allowing themselves to be ruled by old ideocrats, they will again be what they were before: the theophoric people, the people that carry the Sublime’. (p.27) The miraculous resurrection of Russia from the ashes of Soviet Communism can inspire the Western peoples: it sets a precedent for their own resurrection from the ashes of Liberal Normativism.

Thus, the basis of a Eurasianist ‘Monroe Doctrine’ that can protect the peoples and civilizations of Eurasia from globalist thalassocracy must be sought in a concrete legal-philosophical Ortung. Si l’Europe a un droit à l’identité, il convient de définir cette identité à la lumière du concret, en rappelant les lourdes concrétudes de l’histoire et sans ressasser ces pseudo-arguments complètement stériles qu’avancent tous les fétichistes adorateurs d’idéaux désincarnés. Parce que l’Europe n’est pas d’abord une idée, belle et abstraite... L’Europe, c’est d’abord une terre, un espace, morcelé en Etats nationaux depuis le XVII^e siècle, balkanisée avant la lettre en son centre géographique depuis ce pré-Yalta que furent les traités de Westphalie conclus en 1648. ‘If Europe has the right to an identity, then it is necessary to define that identity in the light of concrete [reality], recalling the burdensome concrete facts of [its] history without regressing into the entirely vacuous and sterile pseudo-arguments that have been launched by the adoring fetishists of abstract ideas. Because Europe is not a beautiful and abstract idea... Above all, Europe is a territory, a space that has been divided up into nation-states since the 17^th Century, and that has been ‘balkanized’ avant la lettre since the proto-Yalta of the Westphalia Treaties signed in 1648.’ (p.25) Accordingly, the Eurasianist project aims at re-territorializations: politically in restored state sovereignty, socially in restored ethnic identity and economically in restored autarky (i.e. a maximum of self-sufficiency in the production of food, energy and industry for each of its regional ‘welfare spheres’). L’économie, par la crise, nous défie et nous accuse d’avoir fait fausse route. La géopolitique nous dicte ses vieux déterminismes que personne ne peut contourner. Il n’y a que nos volontés qui vacillent, qui ne suivent pas l’implacable diktat du réel et de l’histoire. ‘[Chronic] economic crises are challenging us and they prove to us that we have chosen the wrong path. Geopolitics forces us to deal with the older [earth-bound] realities that cannot be overturned by anybody. It is only our will that is [still] lacking: [we should recover our] determination to follow the incontrovertible signposts of [earthly] and historical reality.’ (p.27)

To defeat the globalist hostile elite, the patriotic-identitarian movement of the West must gain insight into the enemy’s mind and motives. In this respect, it has much to gain by simply revisiting the great thinkers of the Western Tradition. It therefore owes a great debt of gratitude to Robert Steuckers for providing updated access to the rich heritage of Carl Schmitt - and for providing the weaponry it needs to destroy the hostile elite.

Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire,

and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work;

and I have created the waster to destroy.

No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper;

and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn.

This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord,

and their righteousness is of me, saith the Lord.

- Isaiah 54:16-17

 

Glossary

 

Decisionism	doctrine of directly-concrete and physically-embodied command authority, opposite of indirectly-abstract and psychologically-manipulative Normativism (Rex vs. Lex);
Kakocracy	‘government by the worst’, rule of the hostile ‘fake-elite of counterfeits’[50];
Normativism	totalitarian doctrine based on the absolute ‘anti-political’ norm established by the combined praxis of neo-liberal nihilism and culture-marxist deconstruction;
Partitocracy	political ‘hostage-taking’ of parliamentary institutions by party-political interests and party-cartels; mechanism behind Politicide;
Politicide	destruction of political plurality through a monolithic politically-correct party-cartel, introduction of dogmatic political-correctness as ‘public consensus’ (‘1984’);
Pyro-politics	geopolitical ‘scorched earth’ strategy of the globalist hostile elite to ‘burn away’ all multipolar resistance to its New World Order;
Quiritary	inflexibly legalistic interpretation of political command authority, historically reflected in some of the totalitarian practices of fascism and nazism.

 

Notes

[1] An oblique reference to the title of one of the most famous works of Dutch Golden Age painter Rembrandt, entitled ‘The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp’ (1632).

[2] Cf. https://www.geopolitica.ru/en/article/dutch-ernstfall .

[3] Alaine de Benoist’s Carl Schmitt actuel (2007), which provides a concise and updated introduction to Schmitt’s work, has recently been published in English translation by Arktos Publishing – for a review cf. https://www.counter-currents.com/carl-schmitt-today/.

[4] On the day of Hitler’s death Schmitt was arrested in Berlin by Red Army troops, but he was released almost immediately after a short interview. Later, he was re-arrested and interned by the Americans as a potential suspect in the Nuremberg Trials. Plettenberg, the place of Schmitt’s birth, residence and death, is located in Westphalia and it was therefore located in the American Zone of Occupation.

[5] The following excerpt from his diary elucidates Schmitt’s deeply critical attitude to the subrational-collectivist (‘popular democratic’) roots of the Nazi regime: Wer ist der wahre Verbrecher, der wahre Urheber des Hitlerismus? Wer hat diese Figur erfunden? Wer hat die Greuelepisode in die Welt gesetzt? Wem verdanken wir die 12 Mio. [sic] toten Juden? Ich kann es euch sehr genau sagen: Hitler hat sich nicht selbst erfunden. Wir verdanken ihn dem echt demokratischen Gehirn, das die mythische Figur des unbekannten Soldaten des Ersten Weltkriegs ausgeheckt hat. [Who is the true criminal and the true perpetrator of Hitlerism? Who invented this figure? Who has birthed this monstrous episode of horror? To whom we owe these 12 million [sic] dead Jews? I can tell you very exactly: Hitler did not invent himself. We owe hi[s appearance] to the truly democratic brain that concocted the mythical ‘unknown soldier’ of the First World War.]

[6] A reference to the title of a work by German legal philosopher Walter Leisner.

[7] For convenience sake, the ‘West’ will here be defined as the agglomerate of European nation-states that are historically associated with the Western Roman/Catholic Tradition rather than the Eastern Roman/Orthodox Tradition – in short: Western Europe plus the overseas Anglosphere.

[8] In Classical Antiquity (Greek) Hephaestus (Latin: Vulcan) was the smith of the gods and the guardian divinity of smithery: German Schmitt is English ‘Smith’.

[9] Cf. https://www.geopolitica.ru/en/article/le-rouge-et-le-noir... .

[10] The ‘laconic’ bon mot of Spartan king Leonidas at the Battle of Thermopylae (480 BC), where he faced hopeless odds and was summoned by his Persian enemy to put down his weapons - the meaning is a stronger version of ‘Come and take them’.

[11] An oblique reference to the title (and contents) of the main work of German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung.

[12] Cf. Alexander Wolfheze, The Sunset of Tradition and the Origin of the Great War (2018) 53ff and 367ff (preface freely accessible under the button ‘View Extract’ at https://www.cambridgescholars.com/the-sunset-of-tradition... - review freely available at https://www.counter-currents.com/tag/alexander-wolfheze/ ).

[13] An important cultural-historical reflection of this regression may be found in Thomas Hobbes’ mid-17^th Century concept of a universally projected (proto-social-darwinist) bellum omnium contra omnes.

[14] For a literary analysis of the 20^th Century cultural-historical consequences of Normativism cf. Tom Zwitzer, Permafrost: een filosofisch essay over de westerse geopolitiek van 1914 tot heden (2017).

[15] Cf. Jost Bauch’s Abschied von Deutschland: Eine politische Grabschrift (2018).

[16] Dutch patriotic-identitarian working group IDNL has already addressed these issues in the Dutch context: cf., respectively, http://www.identitair.nl/2018/08/laat-de-islam-met-rust.h... en http://www.identitair.nl/2018/12/van-jq-naar-iq.html .

[17] Cf. https://www.counter-currents.com/2018/11/freedom-of-speech/ .

[18] For a cultural- and psycho-historical analysis of the hostile elite cf. https://www.geopolitica.ru/en/article/living-dead .

[19] For an overview of the most important cultural-historical phenomena that coincide in this ‘superstructure’, cf. Alexander Wolfheze, The Sunset of Tradition and the Origin of the Great War (2018) 9-12.

[20] A bio- and psycho-social analysis of the cultural-historical effects of Liberal Normativism may be found in the work of German sociologist Arnold Gehlen (1904-76). His structural opposition between (anagogically directed) Zucht and (katagogically directed) Entartung allows for the objectively scientific calculus of the Liberal-Normativist process of de-socialization (social ‘deconstruction’).

[21] The VVD (‘People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy’) is the ex-‘classic liberal’ and now utterly corrupt banksterite-globalist party of PM Mark Rutte; the D66 (‘Democrats [19]66’) is the ex-‘progressive liberal’ and now militantly anti-normative (anti-royalist, anti-national, anti-family, anti-religious) party that was until recently led by Alexander Pechtold, who had to resign after a series of scandals in the public and private sphere. 

[22] A theological reference to an early Christian doctrinal controversy that was originally resolved by the recognition of the doctrine of original sin (Augustine 354-430) and the rejection of its denial by Pelagius (360-418).

[23] For a cultural-historical development of neo-matriarchy, cf. https://www.geopolitica.ru/en/article/living-dead - for a descriptive insight into the experiential reality of neo-matriarchy, cf. https://www.counter-currents.com/2018/12/against-escapism/ .

[24] Cf. Jost Bauch’s Abschied von Deutschland: Eine politische Grabschrift (2018).

[25] The spectre of the ultimate totalitarian state, i.e. a life-world in which the entire social and individual sphere is controlled by the state, already provided the central theme of 20^th Century dystopian literary classics such as Jevgeny Zamjatin’s My (1924), Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World (1932) and George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949).

[26] A sociological concept covering social-psychological conditioning (hexis, mimesis) developed by Pierre Bourdieu.

[27] A reference to the hill near the Acropolis where the Athenian senate met during Classical Antiquity.

[28] A proto-type strategy of ethnic replacement is found in the political writings of one of the ideological founders of the trans-national project ‘European Union’, Richard Count von Coudenhove-Kalergi (1894-1972). The possible existence of an anti-European ethnocidal ‘Kalergi Plan’ to implement his vision is the subject of a controversial conspiracy theory, but that vision itself is as clear as it needs to be: The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today's races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals. (Praktischer Idealismus p.22-3, cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_von_Coudenhove-Kale... ).

[29] From Alexander Wolfheze, Alba Rosa. Ten Traditionalist Essays about the Crisis in the Modern West (forthcoming, advance ordering: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/43409181-alba-rosa ).

[30] In the Netherlands, ‘lover boy’ is a politically-correct euphemism that describes the same ‘grooming gang’ phenomenon that is terrorizing Great Britain.

[31] A reference to the title of a work by Jared Taylor, freely available at https://www.amren.com/the-color-of-crime/ .

[32] A reference to Carl Schmitt’s legal philosophical analysis of the partisan as ‘authority in the making’ in the context of the popular insurrections led by Mao Tse-Tung in China, Vo Nguyen Giap in Vietnam and Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara in Congo.

[33] On 8 May 1943, Marek Edelman succeeded to the highest command position after the suicide of Mordechai Anielewicz in the bunker of 18 Mila Street. The author had the privilege of speaking to several eye-witnesses of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising – he lived near Edelman in the Polish city of Lodz (Edelman was anti-zionist, fought for Poland during the Warsaw Uprising of 1944 and thereafter lived in Lodz till his death in 2009).

[34] Cf. René Guénon, Le Règne de la Quantité et les Signes des Temps (1945).

[35] References to, respectively, the German civil rights movement that denies the sovereignty of the Federal Republic of Germany and the French civil rights movement that demanded the resignation of President Macron.

[36] A reference to the Spanish political philosopher Marquis Donoso Cortés (1809-53).

[37] An ‘Archaeo-Futurist’ revaluation of this theme may be found in John Leonard’s recent analysis of the ‘CQ’ (‘Catholic Question’) within the context of Western Postmodernity, cf. https://arktos.com/2018/12/20/the-problem-of-christianity... .

[38] Chronological terminology according to the scheme of Alexander Wolfheze, The Sunset of Tradition and the Origin of the Great War (2018), 390-2 (Early Modernity 1488-1776, Classic Modernity 1776-1920, Late Modernity 1920-1992, Post-Modernity 1992-present).

[39] Cf. Alexander Wolfheze, The Sunset of Tradition and the Origin of the Great War (2018) 237ff.

[40] A first systematic attempt at resuming the Heideggerian line of exploration, directed at a break-through of the historical-materialist Gestell of Western Modernity and a break-out into the ‘spectral space’ that encapsulates it, is found in the work of Jason Jorjani.

[41] A reference to Jason Jorjani’s ‘magical’ interpretation of the ontological (Atlanticist) transformation of Japan, enacted in the collective experience of nuclear warfare.

[42] A reference to the cultural-historical analysis of Peter Sloterdijk’s Die schrecklichen Kinder der Neuzeit. Über das anti-genealogische Experiment der Moderne (2014).

[43] The theme of the Katechon in its Dutch setting is explored in https://www.geopolitica.ru/en/article/dutch-ernstfall .

[44] Carl Schmitt projected this role on Adolf Hitler as ‘Protector of the Law’ (der Führer schützt das Recht) against the revolutionary power of atavist chaos that was (temporarily) disabled during the Nacht der langen Messern, the ‘Night of the Long Knives’.

[45] For a short introduction to the theme of ‘thalassocracy’ cf. https://www.geopolitica.ru/en/article/le-rouge-et-le-noir... .

[46] A notion that implies morpho-genetic synergy that he develops in his best-known work, L’Evolution créatrice – for its Archaeo-Futurist reinterpretation cf. Jason Jorjani’s Prometheus and Atlas (review freely available at https://www.geopolitica.ru/en/article/archaeo-futurist-re...  ).

[47] A reference to Friedrich Nietzsche’s usage of Martin Luther’s theme ‘A mighty fortress is our God, a good defence and weapon’.

[48] A reference to Carl Schmitt’s Land und Meer. Eine weltgeschichtliche Betrachtung (1942).

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

[50] A reference to the title of a Dutch political treatise written by Martin Bosma, second in command of Geert Wilders’ patriotic party PVV (De schijn-élite van de valsemunters (2010), made freely available by Bosma at https://gratis-boek.nl/martin-bosma-de-schijn-elite-van-d... ).

 

Hide Related links

The Identitarian Revolution: Dutch Preliminaries

Identity and Sovereignty – Two Inseparable Notions

THE SOVEREIGNITY OF THE ETERNITY VS THE IMPERIALISM OF THE TIME

Bannon and Traditionalism

Challenges of Modern Traditionalism

Dugin: The 'third totalitarianism' from the West

Herman Wirth’s Theory of Civilization

Alexander Dugin

Ex: http://www.geopolitica.ru

The Cultural Circle of Thule

Bachofen’s idea of a primordial matriarchy and his theory of “cultural circles” were developed by another historian and archaeologist, a specialist in paleo-epigraphy, Herman Wirth (1885-1981).

Wirth’s theories are based on the hypothesis borrowed from the Indian author Bala Gandhara Tilak (1856-1920) [1], that the original Proto-Indo-European civilization was formed in the late Paleolithic (the Aurignacian culture) in the lands of the northern polar circle. This hypothesis was based on the interpretation of the data of Indian astrology, Vedic texts, and the myths of the Hindus, Iranians, and Greeks which speak of the existence in remote antiquity of a populated country lying in the Far North (Hyperborea). This continent was described in the Vedas as the “land of the white boar”, Varahi, and the “island of light”, or Sweta Dvipa. The Zoroastrian tradition speaks of the ancient abode of the first man, the city of Vara, located in the Far North, from which he was forced to descend southwards as the dark deity Angra Mainyu, the enemy of the god of light, Ahura-Mazda, unleashed a “great cold” across these lands. Tilak argues for the existence of this “Nordic” proto-civilization on the basis of Indian astrology, the symbolism of which, according to Tilak, becomes clear only if we accept that the constellations were originally observed in the circumpolar regions, where the day of the gods is equal to the year of men.

Wirth adopted this hypothesis and constructed his own theory upon it, the “Hyperborean theory” [2] or theory of the “cultural circle of Thule” [3], which represents the Greek name for the mythical city lying in the country of the Hyperboreans. According to this theory, before the latest wave of global cooling, the circumpolar zone in the North Atlantic Ocean was home to inhabitable lands whose inhabitants were the creators of a primordial cultural code. This culture was formed under conditions when the natural environment of the Arctic was not yet so harsh, and when its climate was similar to the modern temperate Central European climate. There were present all the annual and atmospheric phenomena which can be observed in the Arctic today: the Arctic day and Arctic night. The yearly solar and lunar cycles of the Arctic are structured differently than their counterparts in middle-range latitudes. Thus, the symbolic fixations of the calendar, the trajectory of the sun, the moon, and the constellations of the zodiac necessarily had a different form and different patterns.

On the basis of an enormous swathe of archaeological, paleo-epigraphical (cave paintings, Paleolithic symbols, ancient carvings, etc.), mythological, and philological material, Herman Wirth undertook an attempt to reconstruct the primordial system of this Arctic proto-civilization’s cultural code. At its heart he put the reconstructed proto-calendar, the last traces of which Wirth believed are constituted by the Scandinavian runes, which he attributed to remote antiquity. Wirth proposed to examine this calendar, which records the key moments of the Arctic year, as the key to all later versions of mythological, religious, ritualistic, artistic, and philosophical heritages which continued and developed this primordial algorithm over the course of the wave-like migrations of the bearers of “Thulean culture” into the southern regions. When applied to other climatic conditions, however, many of the symbolic patterns of this calendar, otherwise crystal clear in the Arctic, lost their meaning and rationale. They were partially transferred to new realities, partially frozen as relics, and partially lost their meanings or acquired new ones.

First and foremost, this change entailed a fundamentally new understanding of the basic unit of time: instead of the Hyperborean day, equal to a year, the daily circle, which is much more clearly defined in the regions south of the polar circle, became the measure of events of human life. What is more, the localizing points of the spring and autumn equinoxes changed in relation to southward movement. All of this gradually confused the crystal clarity and simplicity of the primordial matrix.

Wirth believed that his reconstruction of the sacred complex of the culture of Thule lay at the heart of all historical types of writing and language, as well as musical tones, the symbolism of colors, ritual gestures, burials, religious complexes, etc.

Studying this culture formed the basis of Wirth’s attempts at reconstructing what he called the “proto-writing” or “proto-script” of humanity. Wirth published the results of his studies in two monumental works, Der Aufgang der Menschheit (The Emergence of Mankind) [4] and Die Heilige Urschrift der Menschheit (The Sacred Proto-Script of Mankind) [5], both equipped with an enormous lot of synoptic tables, comparative illustrations of archaeological excavations, writing systems, etc.

Nordic matriarchy

Wirth embraced Bachofen’s notion of primordial matriarchy and attributed to the “Thule culture” a matriarchal form of civilization. He suggested that the belief that the female gender is inclined towards materiality, corporeality, chthonicity, and empirical specifics is purely a product of patriarchal censorship, and that matriarchy could be no less, indeed even more of a spiritual phenomenon than patriarchy. Wirth believed that societies dominated by women and female priesthoods, religions, and cults represented the more advanced types of Hyperborean culture, which he termed the “culture of White Ladies” (weisse Frauen).

Wirth thus presented an altogether peculiar view on the relationship between matriarchy and patriarchy in the archaic culture of the Mediterranean region. In his point of view, the most ancient forms of culture in the Mediterranean were those established by bearers of the Hyperborean matriarchy, who in several stages descended from the circumpolar regions, from the North Atlantic, by sea (and that ships with shamrocks on the stern were characteristic of them). These were the people mentioned in ancient Near Eastern artifacts as the “sea-peoples”, or am-uru, hence the ethnic name of the Amorites. The name Mo-uru, according to Wirth, once belonged to the very main center of the Hyperboreans, but was transmitted along with the natives of the North in their migration waves to new sacred centers. It is to these waves that we owe the Sumerian, Akkadian, Egyptian (whose pre-dynastic writing was linear), Hittite-Hurrian, Minoan, Mycenaean, and Pelasgian cultures. All of these Hyperborean strata were structured around the figure of the White Priestess.

Patriarchy, according to Wirth, was brought by immigrants from Asia, from the steppe zones of Turan, who distorted the primordial Hyperborean tradition and imposed upon the Mediterranean cultures quite different – rude, violent, aggressive, and utilitarian -values which contrasted (for worse) the pure spiritual forms of the Nordic matriarchy.

Thus, in Wirth we have the following reconstruction: the Hyperborean cultural circle’s primordial, spiritual and highly-developed type of matriarchal culture spread from a circumpolar center, mainly be sea, penetrating the Mediterranean, scraping Africa, and even reaching the southern coast of Asia all the way down to Polynesia, where the Maori culture still retains traces of the ancient Arctic tradition. Another offshoot of the center of Mo-uru in the North Atlantic migrated to North America, where it laid the foundations of the cultural code of many tribes. One of Wirth’s undertakings was to demonstrate a homology between these two branches that dispersed out of the culture of Thule – the European, Mediterranean, and further African and Pacific on the one hand, and the North-American on the other.[6]

Meanwhile, in continental Asia there formed a cultural pole which represented the embryo of proto-patriarchy. Wirth associated this culture with crude naturalism, phallic cults, and a martial, aggressive, and utilitarian type of culture, which Wirth believed to be lower and Asian. We have devoted a whole separate volume to a more detailed outline of Herman Wirth’s views.[7]

The significance of Wirth’s ideas to geosophy

Many aspects of Herman Wirth’s unjustly forgotten works deserve attention in the study of plural anthropology. First of all, his extremely fertile hypothesis of the cultural circle of Thule, which is usually discarded from the outset without any careful analysis of his argumentation, is so rich that it deserves serious attention in itself. If such an hypothesis allows for the resolution of such numerous historical and archaeological problems associated with the history of symbols, signs, myths, rituals, hieroglyphs, the calendar, writing, and the most ancient views of the structure of space and time, then this alone is enough to warrant thorough inquiry. Even though Wirth’s works contain many claims which seem either unequivocally wrong or highly controversial, we can set them aside and try to understand the essence of his theory which, in our opinion, is an extraordinarily constructive version that expands our understanding of the archaic epochs of the ancient history of mankind. The theory of the cultural circle of Thule need not be unconditionally accepted, but an assessment of its interpretive potential is necessary.

Secondly, Wirth’s positive appraisal of matriarchy is extremely interesting and adds weight to sympathy for Bachofen. Indeed, we are dealing with an interpretation of a conditionally reconstructed matriarchal civilization from the position of what is the, in the very least nominal, patriarchy to which our society has become accustomed. Wirth proposes an alternative interpretation of the female Logos, an attempt to view the Logos of the Great Mother through different eyes. This is also an extremely unconventional and fertile proposal.

Thirdly, in Wirth’s theories we can see clear analogues to the reconstructions of both Spengler and Frobenius. If Frobenius and especially Spengler took the side of Indo-European (Turanian, Eurasian) culture, i.e., the side of patriarchy as they interpreted it, then Wirth proposes to look at things from the standpoint of the civilization of the White Ladies, i.e., from the position of the primordial Mediterranean culture that preceded the invasion of the “people on war chariots.”

Footnotes:

[1] Tilak, B.G., Arkticheskaiia rodina v Vedakh (Moscow: FAIR-PRESS, 2001). In English: Tilak, B.G., The Arctic Home in the Vedas: Being Also a New Key to the Interpretation of Many Vedic Texts and Legends (Poona City: Tilak Bros, 1903).

[2] Dugin, A.G., Znaki Velikogo Norda: Giperboreiskaiia Teoriia (Moscow: Veche, 2008). English translation of introduction available here.

[3] Wirth, H., Khronika Ura-Linda. Drevneishaiia istoriia Evropy (Moscow: Veche, 2007). In German: Wirth, Herman. Die Ura-Linda Chronik (Leipzig: Koehler & Amelang, 1933).

[4] Wirth, H., Der Aufgang der Menschheit. Forschungen zur Geschichte der Religion, Symbolik und Schrift der atlantisch-nordischen Rasse (Jena: Diederichs, 1928).

[5] Wirth, H., Die Heilige Urschrift der Menschheit. Symbolgeschichtliche Untersuchungen diesseits und jenseits des Nordatlantik (Leipzig: Koehler & Amelang, 1936).

[6] The full title of Wirth’s Die Heilige Urschrift der Menschheit specifies “on both sides of the North Atlantic.” See footnote 5.

[7] See footnote 2.

Translator: Jafe Arnold

Chapter 22 of Part 2, “Theories of Civilizations: Criteria, Concepts, and Correspondences”, of Noomachy: Wars of the Mind – Geosophy – Horizons and Civilizations (Moscow, Akademicheskii Proekt, 2017).

German Youth Movement and its conservative-revolutionary foundations

Ex: https://phosphorussite.wordpress.com 

“The basic experience of the Youth Movement was the conflict between the bourgeois world and individual life. It was also a conflict between generations, in which, strangely enough, the fathers were the liberals and the sons the conservatives. This was a marked reversal since the days of the earlier youth movement the Burschenschaften of 1815. Then the new generation, which had fought in the Wars of Liberation, was in the fore in the struggle for a unified German state and for constitutionalism. Now liberalism, so it seemed to the sons, had lost its vitality and had come to stand for a world of confinement and convention. The young generation was tired of the state and tired of constitutions just as the early conservatives had been distrustful of them. In the Youth Movement there was a touch of the anarchic. It was antiauthoritarian, but it was also in search of authority and allegiances. This was its conservatism.

The Youth Movement derived its conservatism from Nietzsche and the traditions of nineteenth century irrationalism. Nietzsche, Lagarde, Stefan George became its heroes and were read, quoted, imitated, and freely plagiarized. They had given sanction to the struggle between the generations. Nietzsche had called upon the “first generation of fighters and dragon-slayers” to establish the “Reich of Youth.” Lagarde had defended German youth against the complaint that it lacked idealism: “I do not complain that our youth lacks ideals: I accuse those men, the statesmen above all, who do not offer ideals to the young generation.” To a searching youth, the irrationalists, all experimenters in conservatism, pointed a way to a conservatism through rebellion and radicalism, thus setting the tone for a revolutionary conservatism. Hegel and Bismarck were squarely repudiated. And Nietzsche, in lieu of traditions long lost, postulated the “will of tradition” a variation only of the ominous “will of power” as the foundation of a new conservatism. All the more did Stefan George’s symbolism appeal to the young. They learned to see themselves as the “new nobility” of a “new Reich”:

New nobility you wanted 
Does not hail from crown or scutcheon! 
Men of whatsoever level 
Show their lust in venial glances, 
Show their greeds in ribald glances…
Scions rare of rank intrinsic 
Grow from matter, not from peerage, 
And you will detect your kindred 
By the light within their eyes.

Twentieth century knights were they, united by secret codes. They claimed to be dedicated to a “mission”; more correctly they were in search of one. Heinrich Heine, had he lived to see those Wandervogel, would have called them “armed Nietzscheans.”

The revolutionary temper of the Youth Movement is evident from its famous declaration, formulated at a meeting near Kassel on the Hohen Meissner hill in October 1913. It stated that “Free German Youth, on their own initiative, under their own responsibility, and with deep sincerity, are determined independently to shape their own lives. For the sake of this inner freedom they will under any and all circumstances take united action…”.“

– Klemens Von Klemperer, “Germany’s New Conservatism: Its History and Dilemma in the Twentieth Century” (1968)

La perfection de la technique...

La perfection de la technique...

Les éditions Allia publient cette semaine un essai de Friedrich-Georg Jünger intitulé La perfection de la technique. Frère d'Ernst Jünger. Auteur de très nombreux ouvrages, Friedrich-Georg Jünger a suivi une trajectoire politique et intellectuelle parallèle à celle de son frère Ernst et a tout au long de sa vie noué un dialogue fécond avec ce dernier. Parmi ses oeuvres ont été traduits en France un texte écrit avec son frère, datant de sa période conservatrice révolutionnaire, Le nationalisme en marche (L'Homme libre, 2015), et un recueil d'essais sur les mythes grecs, Les Titans et les dieux  (Krisis, 2013).

“ « L’ère de la technique excelle certes à susciter des organisations mais est incapable de fonder des institutions. Elle s’entend toutefois à transformer les institutions existantes en organisations, à en faire des organisations, c’est-à-dire à les mettre en relation avec l’appareillage technique. Le progrès technique ne tolère plus que des organisations qui dans leur ensemble ont quelque chose de mobile, qui correspondent donc foncièrement à la grande mobilisation de ce temps. Or le concept d’institution implique qu’elle soit posée, ou du moins pensée comme immuable, comme un édifice immobile qui a quelque chose de statique et qui résiste aux outrages du temps. Les organisations livrent à la technique les moyens pour ses plans de travail ; c’est là une vocation que l’on discerne toujours plus nettement. »

La perfection de la technique, c’est la rationalité absolue des procédés qui ont mécanisé et automatisé le travail depuis le début de la Révolution industrielle. Une efficacité implacable, pourtant délétère dans le contexte de la société humaine tout entière. Reliées en réseau à l’échelle planétaire, les machines fixent le but à atteindre et dominent l’activité du travailleur, désormais détaché de tout ancrage local. En favorisant une pensée économique uniquement fondée sur une partie du processus, en envisageant les ressources naturelles sur lesquelles elle s’appuie comme une manne inépuisable, la technique pourrait bien précipiter elle-même sa propre fin.

Dans cet essai visionnaire, inédit en français, Friedrich Georg Jünger dénonce les illusions que suscite la technique moderne, ses promesses d’un accroissement de la richesse et du temps libre. Après la destruction de la composition typographique du livre dans un bombardement allié en 1942, une première édition a pu voir le jour en 1944, rapidement réduite en cendres par une attaque aérienne. La Perfection de la technique paraît enfin, en deux livres séparés, en 1946 et 1949, avant de connaître de multiples éditions en un seul volume par la suite."

Source: http://metapoinfos.hautetfort.com 

Robert Steuckers: Sur et autour de Carl Schmitt

Robert Steuckers:

Sur et autour de Carl Schmitt

Sur Carl Schmitt

La décision dans l’œuvre de Carl Schmitt

Carl Schmitt a quitté la vie

Une doctrine de Monroe pour l’Europe

Carl Schmitt, Donoso Cortés, la notion du politique et le catholicisme

allemand

Du droit naturel et de l’essence du politique chez Carl Schmitt

L’Europe entre déracinement et réhabilitation des lieux : de Schmitt à Deleuze

Une bibliographie biographique de Carl Schmitt

Sources et postérité de Carl Schmitt

Pourquoi lire Clausewitz ?

Sur Gustav Ratzenhofer (1842-1904)

Othmar Spann et l’État vrai

La leçon du sociologue et philosophe Hans Freyer

Otto Koellreutter (1883-1972)

L’État comme machine ou les théories politiques pré-organiques

Le Triomphe, fondement du politique ?

Sur le politologue Rüdiger Altmann

Bernard Willms (1931-1991)

Der « Ganze » Rationalismus : réponse de Helmut F. Spinner au rationalisme critique par une relecture de Max Weber et Carl Schmitt

Autour des concepts de Carl Schmitt

La notion d’Ernstfall

L’ère de la pyropolitique a commencé

Carl Schmitt : État, Nomos et « Grands espaces » par Theo Hartman

Annexes

Hommage à Piet Tommissen pour ses 75 ans par Günter Maschke

Adieu au Professeur Piet Tommissen (1925-2011)

Piet Tommissen, gardien des sources

Le livre est disponible à la vente au lien suivant :
http://www.ladiffusiondulore.fr/home/693-sur-et-autour-de...

298 pages - 26 euro

Oswald Spengler et la collapsologie en 1931

Oswald Spengler et la collapsologie en 1931

par Nicolas Bonnal

Ex: http://www.dedefensa.org

Nous sommes mal partis, et nous le savons depuis longtemps maintenant. Poe, Tocqueville, Balzac nous mirent en garde à l’époque romantique puis Nietzsche, Le Bon ou le redoutable australien Pearson au demi-siècle de l’électricité et du colonialisme. Le problème c’est que nous pouvons encore être mal partis pendant encore longtemps !

Longtemps donc avant les plus lucides de nos « mécontemporains », comme dit Alain Finkielkraut, la « collapsologie » (citons en vrac nos amis Kunstler, Klein, Diamond, Orlov) intéresse de grands et controversés esprits comme Oswald Spengler. Dans son dernier chapitre de l’homme et la technique (ici retraduit de l’anglais), le célèbre auteur du Déclin de l’occident (si le contenu du livre est oublié, déjà déconstruit en son temps par Thomas Mann, le titre est demeuré magique) observe notre lent déclin.

Il attaque au dernier chapitre de son bref et très brillant essai :

« Chaque haute culture est une tragédie. L’histoire de l’humanité dans son ensemble est tragique. Mais le sacrilège et la catastrophe du Faustien sont plus grands que tous les autres, plus grands que tout ce qu'Eschyle ou Shakespeare n’ont jamais imaginé. La créature se soulève contre son créateur. »

Spengler évoque la puissance de l’Europe « nordique » et son origine… charbonnière :

« Leur pouvoir politique dépend de leur richesse et celle-ci consiste en leur force industrielle. Mais cela est lié à l’existence du charbon. Les peuples germaniques, en particulier, sont protégés par ce qui est presque un monopole des charbonnages connus, ce qui les a conduits à une multiplication de leurs populations sans égale dans l’histoire. »

Ce règne de la quantité (Spengler est contemporain de Guénon) crée le monde inégal de l’économie aux temps de la mondialisation (qui fête ses trois siècles et non ses trois décennies, lisez Voltaire) :

« Les pays industriellement pauvres sont pauvres en tous points ; ils ne peuvent donc pas soutenir une armée ou faire la guerre ; ils sont donc politiquement impuissants ; et, par conséquent, leurs ouvriers, qu'ils soient dirigeants ou dirigés, sont des pions dans la politique économique de leurs adversaires. »

Spengler souligne la grande altération physique, et même climatique du monde dit moderne :

« L'image de la terre, avec ses plantes, ses animaux et ses hommes, a changé. En quelques décennies, la plupart des grandes forêts sont parties pour être transformées en journaux d’actualité, ce qui a entraîné les changements climatiques qui menacent l’économie foncière de populations entières. D'innombrables espèces animales ont été éteintes, ou presque, comme le bison ; Des races entières de l'humanité ont presque atteint le point de disparition, comme les Indiens d'Amérique du Nord et les Australiens. »

Le golem de Prague ou la machine de Bernanos remplace le monde ancien :

« Toutes les choses organiques meurent sous l'emprise de l'organisation. Un monde artificiel imprègne et empoisonne le naturel. La civilisation elle-même est devenue une machine qui fait ou tente de tout faire de manière mécanique. Nous pensons seulement en chevaux [-vapeur] maintenant ; nous ne pouvons pas regarder une cascade sans la transformer mentalement en énergie électrique ; nous ne pouvons pas arpenter une campagne pleine de bétail en pâturage sans penser à son exploitation comme source d'approvisionnement en viande ; nous ne pouvons pas regarder la belle vieille main d'un peuple primitif intact sans vouloir le remplacer par un processus technique moderne. »

Puis Spengler annonce le grand mécontentement des années soixante, soixante-dix, la montée de l’écologie, des spiritualités emballées sous vide(Debord) et le scepticisme du progrès :

« La machine, par sa multiplication et son raffinement, va finalement à l'encontre de son objectif. Dans les grandes villes, l’automobile a, par son nombre, détruit sa propre valeur, et on marche plus vite à pied. En Argentine, à Java et ailleurs, la simple charrue à cheval du petit cultivateur s'est révélée économiquement supérieure au gros outil à moteur et chasse ce dernier. Déjà dans de nombreuses régions tropicales, l'homme noir ou brun avec ses méthodes de travail primitives est un concurrent dangereux de la technique moderne de plantation du blanc. Et le travailleur blanc de la vieille Europe et de l’Amérique du Nord commence à s’inquiéter de son travail. »

On a parlé de l’écologie. Spengler écrit sur cette fatigue (plus que crise) du monde moderne :

« La pensée faustienne commence à en avoir assez des machines. Une lassitude se répand, une sorte de pacifisme de la bataille avec la Nature. Les hommes reviennent à des formes de vie plus simples et plus proches de la nature ; ils passent leur temps dans le sport au lieu d'expérimentations techniques. Les grandes villes leur deviennent odieuses, et elles voudraient bien se soustraire à la pression de faits sans âme et au climat froid et clair d'organisation technique. Et ce sont précisément les talents forts et créatifs qui se détournent des problèmes pratiques et des sciences pour se tourner vers la pure spéculation. »

Spengler voit bien le retour à l’orientalisme :

« L'occultisme et le spiritualisme, les philosophies hindoues, la curiosité métaphysique à la couleur chrétienne ou païenne, qui étaient tous méprisés à l'époque darwinienne, sont en train de réapparaître. C'est l'esprit de Rome à l'âge d'Auguste. Par satiété, les hommes se réfugient dans les parties les plus primitives de la terre, dans le vagabondage, dans le suicide. Chaque grand entrepreneur a l’occasion de constater une diminution des qualités intellectuelles de ses recrues. »

Car Spengler annonce même le déclin du QI comme on dit aujourd’hui :

« Le XIXe siècle n’a été possible que parce que le niveau intellectuel ne cessait de s’élever. Mais un état stationnaire, à moins d’une chute réelle, est dangereux et laisse présager une fin… »

C’est la mutinerie des mains :

« Il commence sous de multiples formes – du sabotage au suicide en passant par la grève – en passant par la mutinerie des Mains contre leur destin, contre la machine, contre la vie organisée, contre tout et n'importe quoi. »

Spengler voit aussi que notre déculottée sera longue et n’aura pas de fin heureuse ou digne. La fin de l’histoire c’est la maison de retraite :

« Face à ce destin, il n’existe qu’une vision du monde digne de nous, celle qui a déjà été mentionnée comme le choix d’Achille – mieux vaut une vie courte, accalmie des actes et de la gloire, qu'une longue vie sans contenu. Déjà, le danger est si grand, pour chaque individu, chaque classe, chaque peuple, que de chérir toute illusion déplorable. Le temps ne se laisse pas arrêter ; il n'est pas question de retraite prudente ni de sage renonciation. Seuls les rêveurs croient qu'il existe une issue. »

Spengler voit aussi le problème « racial » se profiler. Le sous-homme blanc n’aura pas le courage de continuer (et on est placés avec May, Merkel ou Macron pour voir qu’il se donne les chefs qu’il mérite) et il se fera remplacer :

« Le troisième et le plus grave symptôme de l'effondrement qui commence est cependant ce que je pourrais appeler une trahison envers la technique. »

L’humanisme ou l’humanitarisme blanc fait déjà école (derrière sa puissance industrielle ou militaire Nietzsche comme Goethe voyaient notre affaiblissement) :

« Au lieu de garder strictement les connaissances techniques qui constituaient leur plus grand atout, les peuples « blancs » l’offrent avec complaisance au monde entier, dans chaque Hochschule, verbalement et sur papier, et l’hommage étonné des Indiens et des Japonais les ravissait. »

Tout cela va avec la mondialisation et le commerce bien sûr :

 « La fameuse « diffusion de l’industrie » s’est installée, motivée par l’idée de réaliser des profits plus importants en amenant la production sur le marché. Ainsi, au lieu d'exporter exclusivement des produits finis, ils ont commencé à exporter des secrets, des processus, des méthodes, des ingénieurs et des organisateurs. Même les inventeurs émigrent, car le socialisme, qui pourrait, s'il le voulait, les exploiter dans son équipe, les expulse à la place. Et si récemment, les « indigènes » ont pénétré dans nos secrets, les ont compris et les ont pleinement utilisés. »

Résultat, la bataille de Tsushima en 1905 :

« En trente ans, les Japonais sont devenus des techniciens de premier rang et, dans leur guerre contre la Russie, ils ont révélé une supériorité technique à partir de laquelle leurs professeurs ont pu tirer de nombreuses leçons. »

C’est la vengeance des « races de couleur ». A l’époque de Spengler écrivent aussi les penseurs pessimistes américains Madison Grant et Lothrop Stoddard (parodiés dans Gatsby le magnifique) :

« Le monde exploité commence à se venger de ses seigneurs. Les innombrables mains des races de couleur – au moins aussi intelligentes et beaucoup moins exigeantes – briseront l'organisation économique des Blancs à sa base. Le luxe habituel de l'ouvrier blanc, en comparaison avec le coolie, sera son destin. Le travail du blanc devient lui-même indésirable. Les énormes masses d'hommes concentrés dans les bassins miniers du Nord, les grands travaux industriels, les capitaux investis dans ces régions, des villes et des quartiers entiers, sont confrontés à la probabilité de tomber dans la compétition. »

Détroit, Cleveland, Lorraine : Spengler voit alors la fin de notre civilisation « faustienne ». A la même époque (1931 donc) André Siegfried recense le déclin de la civilisation industrielle de la Grande-Bretagne :

« Cette technique de la machine se terminera avec la civilisation faustienne et un jour restera en fragments, oubliés – nos chemins de fer et bateaux à vapeur aussi morts que les routes romaines et le mur de Chine, nos villes géantes et nos gratte-ciels en ruines comme le vieux Memphis et Babylone. L’histoire de cette technique touche à sa fin inévitable. Elle sera mangée de l’intérieur, comme les grandes formes de toute culture. Quand et de quelle manière, nous ne le savons pas. »

Spengler ignore la civilisation postindustrielle et surtout la civilisation de la dette immonde – et perpétuellement augmentée (New deal, guerres, dépenses de beurre et de canons…). Le catastrophisme ignore en effet la dimension vraie de notre catastrophe, dimension qui est de durer. Plus notre société touche le fond, plus elle creuse !

Il termine brillamment avec ce style snob et envolé que lui reprochait Thomas Mann :

« L'optimisme est la lâcheté. Nous sommes nés à cette époque et devons courageusement suivre le chemin qui nous mène à la fin prévue. Il n'y a pas d'autre moyen. Notre devoir est de garder la position perdue, sans espoir, sans secours, comme ce soldat romain dont les ossements ont été retrouvés devant une porte à Pompéi, qui, lors de l'éruption du Vésuve, est décédé à son poste, faute d'avoir été relevé. C'est cela la grandeur. C'est ce que signifie être un pur-sang. Une fin honorable est la seule chose qui ne peut pas être prise à un homme. »

On se demande toutefois quelle fin honorable nous attend…

Source 

Oswald Spengler, l’homme et la technique (cinquième partie)

Il viaggio atlantico dell’impubblicabile Jünger

Il viaggio atlantico dell’impubblicabile Jünger

Andrea Scarabelli

Ex: http://blog.ilgiornale.it/scarabelli

Londra, 1947. A due anni dalla fine del conflitto mondiale viene pubblicato un singolare volumetto, in una collana destinata ai prigionieri di guerra tedeschi detenuti in Inghilterra. È Ernst Jünger l’autore di Atlantische Fahrt, appena uscito con il titolo Traversata atlantica per Guanda, nella traduzione di Alessandra Iadicicco e con una curatela finalmente degna di questo nome. Oltre al testo, infatti, il volume contiene un ricco apparato epistolare, appendici biobibliografiche, una gran mole di note e una recensione di Erhart Kästner del 1948. Ricostruita attraverso questi ricchi apparati, la storia editoriale di Atlantische Fahrt ha del comico. Il primo libro pubblicato da Jünger nel dopoguerra, infatti, non uscì in Germania, complice il repulisti democratico che mise al bando lui e altri numi della filosofia novecentesca, tra cui Martin Heidegger e Carl Schmitt. La piazza pulita culturale e antropologica della nuova Germania finì per colpire anche lui, abbandonato a se stesso, impossibilitato a scrivere e pubblicare eppure stampato e ristampato all’estero (soprattutto in Svizzera, in quegli anni), nonostante una lunga cordata d’intellettuali fosse intervenuta a suo favore. Il veto durerà fino al 1949. Fino ad allora, nulla da fare. «Bisogna essere prigionieri tedeschi per poter leggere un certo autore proibito in Germania?» noterà amaramente lo scrittore Stefan Andres, recensendolo nel 1949.

Alla fine degli anni Quaranta, insomma, il futuro premio Goethe è in catene: ma Jünger, il reietto, si metamorfosa, cambia pelle, assumendosi il compito di fari aristocratico del dolore, come dirà pochissimi anni più tardi. È la carne degli sconfitti a reclamare attenzione in queste luminose pagine, che la sapienza europea non potrà a lungo ignorare. Un grido che di certo risulterà sgradito a certe anime belle, ma che fa delle sue parole uno dei canti più intensi del secolo XX.

Il libro, ad ogni modo, esce nel ’47, ma è il resoconto di un viaggio compiuto undici anni prima in Brasile: da Amburgo a Belém, Recife, San Paolo, Rio de Janeiro e Bahia. Con uno scalo preliminare alle Azzorre, occasione ideale per fare il punto sulla situazione della Germania, che si è appena lasciato alle spalle: «Il loro arcipelago mi è parso un simbolo della nostra situazione: come una catena di vulcani che, sull’estremo confine dell’Europa, si leva in mezzo a infinite solitudini». Decide di prendersi una pausa da una civiltà di cui comincia a intravvedere le ombre, cambiando emisfero, sotto un sole e costellazioni differenti. Un viaggio che segnerà una svolta profonda nella sua visione del mondo, spostando l’asse dalla situazione della Germania a quella mondiale, nella sua totalità, come nota Detlev Schöttker nel suo saggio in conclusione del libro. Ma Jünger ancora non lo sa, e nel Nuovo Mondo, nella sua sovrabbondanza proteiforme, cerca le immagini, i fenomeni originari di cui ha parlato Goethe nei suoi scritti sulla metamorfosi delle piante. Ognuna di queste immagini risveglia antiche reminiscenze, rendendo ogni uomo artista e artefice. L’Atlantico come specchio, nel quale il poeta delle Tempeste d’Acciaio si riconosce, ritrovandosi. Qui ogni scoperta è una (auto)rivelazione, un ritorno a casa. Lo intuisce scorgendo un pesce dalla forma bizzarra, sconosciuto alle classificazioni occidentali. Qualcosa di sopito si risveglia in lui:

«Alla vista di simili creature favolose, ciò che colpisce è soprattutto l’accordo tra apparizione e immaginazione. Non le percepiamo come se le scoprissimo, ma come se le inventassimo. Ci sorprendono e al tempo stesso le sentiamo intimamente familiari, come fossero parti di noi stessi che si realizzano in immagini. A volte, in certi sogni e, molto verosimilmente, nell’ora della morte, questa immaginazione acquista in noi una forza straordinaria. I miti nascono dove realtà superiori e supreme si accordano con la forza dell’immaginazione».

Ma il Sudamerica non è solo natura incontaminata. Tra i dedali vegetali e gli umbratili argini di fiumi senza fine svettano imponenti megalopoli ancora sconosciute agli europei di quegli anni. È proprio al cospetto di questi vertiginosi agglomerati che avviene la rivoluzione copernicana dello scrittore: la tecnica, vista all’opera nella Prima guerra mondiale e poi nelle industrie, è diventata un fenomeno planetario. Gli accoliti del Lavoratore hanno invaso il globo, trasfigurandolo, ridisegnandone le frontiere. Rio de Janeiro lo sgomenta: «La città esercita su di me un’impressione possente. È una residenza dello spirito del mondo». E proprio in queste pagine compare il nome di Oswald Spengler, che ne Il tramonto dell’Occidente aveva indicato nelle metropoli, inorganiche e amorfe, uno dei sintomi delle fasi terminali di una civiltà. Profezie amare quanto attuali, anche a distanza di un secolo dalla pubblicazione del monumentale trattato di morfologia delle civiltà.

Eppure, come scrisse Hölderlin, dove cresce il pericolo nasce anche ciò che salva, e, nel corso di questo viaggio al termine dell’Occidente, a far da buen retiro, da contrappeso alla sfrenata tecnicizzazione planetaria è ancora una volta la natura selvaggia e illibata. Lo testimonia una lettera a suo fratello Friedrich Georg, scritta il 20 novembre 1936 a Santos: «Da queste parti c’è un proverbio che mi piace tanto; dice: Il bosco è grande, e significa che chiunque si trovi in difficoltà o sia vittima di persecuzioni può sempre sperare di trovare rifugio e accoglienza in questo elemento». Probabilmente la pensano così anche alcuni dei suoi compagni di viaggio, i quali, giunti in Brasile, decidono di scendere dalla nave, non tornando in Germania. Cosa che lui invece farà, vivendo la tragedia europea sino al suo ultimo atto ma portando con sé questa immagine del bosco, sviluppata pochi anni dopo ne Il trattato del ribelle. Nel bosco vedrà l’autentica patria spirituale dell’uomo, contrapposta alla nave, dominio della velocità e del progresso, e il ribelle sarà colui che passa al bosco, dandosi alla macchia – scendendo dalla nave, appunto.

Di questo, però, non c’è ancora traccia nella sua biografia. Per ora non vi è che mare aperto e isole, l’immensità dell’Atlantico e il riparo di atolli e arcipelaghi, a ribadire quella dualità irriducibile che costituisce la quintessenza letteraria – ma non solo – di Ernst Jünger. L’oceano, nella cui malia «il nostro essere fluisce e si dissolve; tutto ciò che in noi è ritmico si ravviva, risonanze, battiti, melodie, il canto originario della vita che va cullandosi nei tempi. Il suo incantesimo ci fa tornare indietro svuotati, eppure felici come dopo una notte trascorsa danzando». Le isole, invece, che custodiscono la promessa di una gioia «più profonda della quiete, della pace in questo elemento tempestoso mosso fin dai fondali. Anche le stelle sono isole nel mare della luce dell’etere».

Le isole, il mare… Si è fatto tardi. Il nostro viaggiatore annota queste parole mentre torna nella sua Europa, martellata dall’urgenza della storia, squassata da venti che ben presto riveleranno la loro forma mostruosa e titanica. Le ultime parole del diario brasiliano sono datate 15 dicembre 1936:

«Mi sento soddisfatto del viaggio. Eolo e tutti gli altri dèi sono stati propizi. Ancora più intenso appare il piacere che vi ho provato rispetto ai tempi minacciosi che si annunciano in maniera sempre più evidente, le cui fiamme anzi già guizzano all’orizzonte».

Quelle fiamme che finiranno per incendiare una civiltà intera, una civiltà di cui Jünger sceglierà di farsi testimone, pagando in prima persona, come tanti altri, la propria inattualità.

Tag: Alessandra Iadicicco, Carl Schmitt, Goethe, Guanda, Martin Heidegger, Oswald Spengler

Terra Sarda: il mediterraneo metafisico di Ernst Jünger

Terra Sarda: il mediterraneo metafisico di Ernst Jünger

Andrea Scarabelli

Ex: http://ilgiornale.it/scarabelli

«Insel, insula, isola, Eiland – parole che nominano un segreto, un che di separato e conchiuso»: Ernst Jünger scrisse queste parole a Carloforte. Vi era giunto per la prima volta nel 1955, passando dall’isola di Sant’Antioco, attratto dalla presenza di un insetto che vive solo lì, la Cicindela campestris saphyrina. Le sue impressioni sull’isola sono riportate nel saggio San Pietro (1957), uscito in italiano nel 2015 nella traduzione di Alessandra Iadicicco. Entomologia a parte, era rimasto folgorato dal luogo, trascorrendovi le vacanze fino al 1978, all’età di ottantatré anni. Jünger era un amante delle isole, e i suoi diari (molti dei quali, purtroppo, ancora inediti da noi) stanno a dimostrarlo; del bacino mediterraneo amava soprattutto Sicilia e Sardegna. Il fascino esercitato dalle isole risale all’inizio dei tempi. Per caratteri come quello di Jünger, ogni isola è beata, nel senso di Esiodo (Le opere e i giorni): «Sulle isole beate, presso il profondo gorgo dell’oceano, vivono gli eroi felici col cuore libero da affanni. La terra feconda offre loro il frutto del miele che matura tre volte nell’anno». Anche D. H. Lawrence, tra i molti altri, era stato in Sardegna, precisamente nell’estate del 1921, assieme alla moglie Frieda. Vi era giunto da Taormina e aveva visitato Cagliari, Mandas e Nuoro. Nel suo libro Mare e Sardegna, contenente il racconto di questo viaggio, riporta un’ottima definizione di insulomania, il male di cui soffre chi prova un’attrazione irresistibile verso le isole. «Questi insulomani nati sono diretti discendenti degli Atlantidi e il loro subcosciente anela all’esistenza insulare». Una diagnosi che si attaglia alla perfezione a Jünger, amante del mare e di ciò che il mare circonda, separandolo dalla terraferma.

Come già detto, il futuro Premio Goethe approda a Carloforte nel 1955, ma il suo primo contatto con la Sardegna risale all’anno precedente. Il diario del suo mese trascorso nel piccolo villaggio di Villasimius è uscito in varie edizioni, con il titolo Presso la torre saracena. Tradotto – magistralmente – da Quirino Principe, verrà inserito insieme agli altri “scritti sardi” ne Il contemplatore solitario (Guanda, 2000) e in Terra sarda (Il Maestrale, 1999).

Ecco l’itinerario di quel primo viaggio: partito da Civitavecchia la sera del 6 maggio 1954, il Nostro arriva al porto di Olbia alle prime ore del mattino. Raggiunta Cagliari in treno, un paio d’ore di autobus lo separano da Villasimius (nel diario indicata come Illador): un percorso accidentato, su strade malmesse. Poche case coloniche, il piccolo borgo di Solanas. Dietro a ogni tornante si squadernano panorami mozzafiato, con un mare color zaffiro. Fin da subito capisce di trovarsi in un luogo tagliato fuori dalla civiltà, anche per via di un’epidemia di malaria e una carestia che fino a quel momento hanno reso Villasimius impermeabile al turismo di massa. Ancora per poco, però: proprio nei giorni della sua residenza, gli operai stanno collocando la rete elettrica, dando così il via alla modernizzazione della cittadina, che si concluderà con l’invasione di televisioni, radio, cinema, traffico, caos… La tecnica giungerà, livellando ogni differenza tra sessi e generazioni, demolendo una cultura millenaria e andando a costituire quel brodo di coltura grazie a cui la modernità trionferà anche a Illador. Ma in quel momento di tutto ciò non c’è ancora traccia. La cittadina si trova a un crocevia, e lo scrittore ha modo di fotografarla per quel che fu, «un luogo più cosmico che terrestre, lontano dal mondo». In realtà queste parole sono riferite a Carloforte, ma potrebbero estendersi alla Villasimius di allora, anzi alla Sardegna tutta, che in qualche modo agì su di lui come un «detonatore di emozioni», secondo la definizione di Stenio Solinas, che ha firmato l’introduzione a San Pietro.

Crocevia per la Sardegna, gli anni Cinquanta lo sono anche per Jünger: dopo aver visto l’Europa messa a ferro e fuoco dalle forze scatenate della tecnica, che aveva in qualche modo celebrato nel suo Der Arbeiter, agli inizi degli anni Trenta, il suo sguardo muta radicalmente, dando vita a opere come Il trattato del ribelle, che esce nel 1951, e soprattutto Il libro dell’orologio a polvere, pubblicato lo stesso anno di quel suo primo viaggio sardo. Se il primo è l’invito a riparare in un bosco del tutto interiore, al riparo dalle barbarie della tecnica e della tirannide, l’ultimo è uno studio comparato dedicato agli orologi naturali (clessidre, meridiane, gnomoni e così via) e a quelli meccanici, insieme alle nozioni di tempo che veicolano. Così come c’è un tempo storico, scandito dagli orologi meccanici, ce n’è anche uno cosmico, misurato dalle ombre proiettate dal sole e dall’affastellarsi dei chicchi di grano nelle clessidre. Sarà questa compresenza, come vedremo, a scandire il suo primo soggiorno sardo.

Torniamo alla Villasimius degli anni Cinquanta, la cui case sono ancora illuminate da candele, una cittadina semi-diroccata circondata da immense spiagge deserte e torri in rovina, i cui ospiti non sono miliardari o attricette o parvenu ma pastori, elettricisti, ciabattini e pescatori, insieme a impiegati statali trasferiti lì per qualche oscuro regolamento di conti burocratico. In loro compagnia, annoterà in San Pietro,

«L’uomo della terraferma viene trattato con una benevola superiorità. Gli manca quell’impronta degli elementi che qui ha lasciato il suo segno».

Saranno queste figure semplici, dalla pelle coriacea battuta dal Sole e saggiata dal vento, i compagni di quelle lunghe giornate, anche perché il protagonista della nostra storia si è guardato bene dal portarsi dietro un libro, un giornale o una compagnia umana. Ama stare con la gente comune e partecipa a feste e banchetti, cene e battute di caccia, passeggiate e sessioni di pesca, ben sapendo che è possibile studiare un luogo anche senza orpelli letterario-filosofici. La pensione in cui alloggia – gestita da una certa Signora Bonaria – diventa così il teatro d’interminabili discussioni (ma anche di lunghi silenzi, scanditi da un vino nero come la notte e pranzi pantagruelici). Cogli abitanti del luogo Jünger parla un po’ di tutto, ma perlopiù ascolta, di passato e presente – il futuro, quello, mai – dalle usanze locali alla Storia, che ha ovviamente attraversato anche quei corpi. Dopo cena, talvolta, i doganieri intonano il canto del «Duce Benito», non senza prima essersi tolti le uniformi. Uno dei suoi interlocutori gli dice di esser stato ferito nella Prima Guerra Mondiale e di aver perso un figlio nella seconda. Anche lui ne sa qualcosa. Reclina il capo, mentre il suo pensiero va alle scogliere di marmo di Carrara, dove è caduto suo figlio Ernstel.

I giorni passano e il Signor Ernesto – così lo chiamano a Illador – fa lunghe passeggiate, attraversando campi imbionditi dai cereali, muraglie di fichi d’India e una macchia mediterranea issatasi eroica sotto un sole sferzante, che dardeggia la costa, irrorata dal mare. Di tanto in tanto il suo sguardo si posa sull’Isola dei Gabbiani e su quella dei Serpenti (oggi Serpentara), nei pressi di Castiadas, sormontate rispettivamente da un castello in rovina e un faro. A colpirlo è l’abbondanza della natura, che non fa economia né lesina in sperperi («è ben oltre la funzionalità», parole che avrebbero sottoscritto Georges Bataille e Marcel Mauss), la stessa che fece esclamare, dall’altra parte del mare, allo Zarathustra nietzschiano:

«Ho imparato questo dal sole, quando il ricchissimo tramonta: getta nel mare l’oro della sua inesauribile ricchezza, così che anche il più povero pescatore rema con remi d’oro! Vidi questo una volta e alla vista non mi saziai di piangere».

Se fu un tramonto ligure a dettare queste parole a Nietzsche, che le scrisse a Rapallo, Jünger cercò il Grande Meriggio di Zarathustra in Sardegna, come disse una volta Banine, sua correttrice di bozze e compagna di viaggio ad Antibes. Ma il Sole e il mare mediterranei gli sussurrano, soprattutto, di avere ancora un’immensa riserva di tempo. E il tempo gli darà ragione, facendolo vivere sino al 1998, all’età di centotré anni.

L’enigma del tempo, che ha incantato Borges e gli spiriti più eletti del Novecento: ecco ciò che Jünger incontra in Sardegna in quella tarda primavera, non ancora estate. Il Contemplatore Solitario si tuffa nel miracolo della storia nei nuraghi presso Macomer, adornati da licheni, che dovettero apparire antichi già ai Fenici. Il suo sguardo si amplia, sfondando gli orizzonti storiografici moderni, andando oltre le sue Colonne d’Ercole, impresa conclusa cinque anni dopo in quello che forse è il suo libro migliore, Al muro del tempo, trattato di metafisica della storia che analizza il tempo storico come una parentesi, nata dalla messa al bando di forze mitiche che stanno per fare ritorno. Ebbene, il passaggio dalla storia del mondo (Weltgeschichte) alla storia della terra (Erdegeschichte) ha luogo forse per la prima volta al cospetto di un nuraghe che, come ha scritto Henri Plard, curatore de Il contemplatore solitario, ricorda a Jünger il fenomeno originario di cui ha parlato il suo maestro Goethe, che si cela dietro a tutte le manifestazioni naturali. Da esso nascerà la torre, il granaio, il castello… Archetipi? Null’affatto. Gli archetipi sono molti, il fenomeno originario è uno.

Questa compresenza, ai suoi occhi, sceglie quello sardo come territorio d’elezione. È come se in certi luoghi la geografia costringesse la storia a venire allo scoperto, esibendo i propri caratteri fondamentali. Anche perché qui il passato vive in una contemporaneità assoluta, plastica. La Sardegna jüngeriana è in grado di cicatrizzare e risanare antiche ferite. Qui tutto è presente, l’eternità coesiste con il tempo: «La storia diventa un mysterium. La successione temporale diventa un’immagine campata nello spazio», parole che – come scrive Quirino Principe – ricordano quelle di Gurmenanz del Parsifal wagneriano: «Figlio mio, qui il tempo diventa spazio». Il cerchio si chiude.

Il sigillo di quel viaggio è una fuoriuscita dalla storia non veicolata dalla ratio ma dalla contemplazione delle forme, del loro stile. È nella continuità delle forme, nella loro metamorfosi, a manifestarsi il fenomeno originario. Che non è un’idea astratta, ma qualcosa d’immanente al reale, la messa in forma di un destino e allo stesso tempo la sua più alta meta. Contemplando il reale e non dissezionandolo, come fa invece la scienza moderna, ci reinseriamo nei meccanismi che regolano il cosmo. Ciò è molto facile in Sardegna – e in Italia – scrive Jünger, dove la compresenza di presente e futuro è visibile a livello geografico, territoriale, elementare, ma anche fisiognomico. Lì può accadere, passeggiando per luoghi affollati, d’incontrare un viso particolare, con tratti inusuali. Allora ci fermiamo, percorsi da un brivido. I tratti intravisti sono antichi, forse addirittura preistorici, e l’osservazione si spinge allora sempre più a ritroso, nelle profondità dei secoli e dei millenni, fino al limite estremo del muro del tempo. «Sentiamo che ci è passato vicino un essere originario, primordiale, venuto a noi da tempi in cui non esistevano né popoli né paesi». Ma la stessa cosa accade anche se ci mettiamo a riflettere su noi stessi: per quale motivo non siamo tutti uguali, ma nutriamo peculiari inclinazioni per la caccia o la pesca, per la contemplazione o l’azione, «per lo scontro in battaglia, per l’occulta magia degli esorcismi? Seguendo le nostre vocazioni, consumiamo la nostra più antica parte di eredità. Abbandoniamo il mondo storico, e antenati sconosciuti festeggiano in noi il loro ritorno».

È la contemplazione e non l’analisi a permettere questa fuoriuscita dal tempo – la stessa di cui parlò Mircea Eliade, che tra l’altro diresse con Jünger «Antaios», dall’inizio degli anni Sessanta a metà dei Settanta. Ebbene, sulle colonne di quella meravigliosa rivista uscì, nel 1963, lo scritto jüngeriano Lo scarabeo spagnolo, sempre nato in terra sarda. Qui la meditazione su uno scarabeo intravisto sul gretto di un fiume (Riu Campus) diventa occasione per riflettere sulla caducità delle cose. Tutto muore e trapassa nell’inorganico, ma guai a chi non lo inserisce in un contesto più alto. Guai a chi si esaurisce nel presente, nella storia. Guai a non vedere nel transeunte l’orma dell’eterno. Chi abbia il coraggio di avventurarsi nei labirinti della contemplazione, tuttavia, scoprirà scenari inediti, all’interno dei quali anche l’uomo acquisisce facoltà nuove:

«Ognuno è re di Thule, è sovrano agli estremi confini, è principe e mendicante. Se sacrifica l’aurea coppa della vita alla profondità, offre testimonianza della pienezza cui la coppa rinvia e che egli incarna senza poterla comprendere. Come lo splendore dello scarabeo spagnolo, così le corone regali alludono a una signoria che nessuna conflagrazione universale distrugge. Nei suoi palazzi la morte non penetra; è solo la guardiana della porta. Il suo portale rimane aperto mentre stirpi di uomini e di dèi si avvicendano e scompaiono».

Avventurandoci in questa Babele di dimensioni storiche e piani dell’essere, lo stesso linguaggio finisce per rivelare la propria insufficienza e naufraga, laddove la traiettoria di un insetto è in grado di ripetere il moto planetario. Servendoci di un’antica immagine, il linguaggio discorsivo è come una canoa utile per attraversare un fiume, ma che una volta espletato questo compito va abbandonata a riva. Il percorso deve proseguire in altro modo. Così sono i nomi, che non si limitano a designare cose, ma rinviano sempre a qualcos’altro,

«ombre d’invisibili soli, orme su vasti specchi d’acqua, colonne di fumo che s’innalzano da incendi il cui sito è nascosto. Là il grande Alessandro non è più grande del suo schiavo, ma è più grande della propria fama. Anche gli dèi, là, sono soltanto simboli. Tramontano come i popoli e le stelle, eppure hanno valore i sacrifici che li onorano».

Come già accennato, i diari di Illador-Villasimius sono dedicati alla Torre Saracena di Capo Carbonara; vi si arriva facilmente, percorrendo un sentiero – nulla di particolarmente impegnativo – che dalla lunga spiaggia bianca porta alle pendici dell’antica torre di vedetta. L’11 maggio, ai piedi della solitaria costruzione arroventata dal sole (oggi conosciuta come Torre di Porto Giunco), Jünger avverte «un alito di nuda potenza, di pallida vigilanza». Un sentore di perenne insicurezza, d’instabilità. Comprende di trovarsi in un luogo di confine, Giano bifronte che unisce e separa a un tempo, linea di frontiera tra Oriente e Occidente, storia e metastoria. Segno liminare tra terra e mare che impone un aut-aut, ci torna una decina di giorni dopo, assieme a un certo Angelo (uomo mercuriale), armato di martello e scalpello. Lascia una traccia, com’era – ed è tutt’ora – uso fare. Quella traccia è ancora lì, a distanza di oltre cinquant’anni: E. J., 22.V.54. Dopodiché ridiscende il sentiero, fino alla spiaggia. Guardandola dall’alto, si è accorto che presenta singolari striature rosate: sono conchiglie frantumate. Frugando, ne trova una semi-intatta, la cui forma lo sgomenta. È una conchiglia a forma di cuore, la cui perfezione formale rimanda a un ordine che è di questo mondo ma in esso non si esaurisce. È come se la bacchetta di un direttore invisibile avesse dato il la a un’esecuzione di cui non udiamo che gli echi. E, ancora una volta, ecco emergere dalla contemplazione la Terra originaria, in una magnifica assenza di umanità. È ad essa che il piccolo oggetto rinvia: una proprietà, annota Jünger, ben nota a quei popoli antichi che utilizzavano le conchiglie come moneta, al posto dell’oro. La sua forma potrebbe condurci

«a fiammeggianti soli. Colui che vaga per la nostra terra la esibisce come un geroglifico. Il guardiano del portone di fiamma vede a quale sublime configurazione è adatta la polvere che turbina su questa stella. Qualcosa d’immortale lo illumina. Dà il suo segnale: la conchiglia si trasforma in ardore incandescente, in luce, in pura irradiazione. Il portone si apre di scatto».

Abbiamo detto che la Sardegna segna, in qualche modo, l’approdo di Jünger ai grandi spazi di una storiografia ultraeuclidea, mostrandogli un territorio innervato da un destino antecedente a quello dei manuali. I nuraghi precedono le piramidi, le mura di Ilio e il palazzo di Agamennone. Un giorno si trova nei pressi di Punta Molentis, al largo della quale si dice esserci un antico porto sommerso. Chissà, magari a questo porto corrisponde anche una città, secondo un’antica leggenda diffusa in tutte le coste mediterranee. È un’immagine molto potente del senso della storia. Come ha scritto Predrag Matvejević nel suo magnifico Breviario mediterraneo,

«un porto affondato è una specie di necropoli. Divide lo stesso destino delle città o delle isole sommerse: circondato dagli stessi misteri, accompagnato da questioni simili, seguito dagli stessi ammonimenti. Ciascuno di noi è talvolta un porto affondato, nel Mediterraneo».

Sempre nei pressi di Punta Molentis, dove un’esile lingua di sabbia separa i due mari, trova un’antichissima grotta, addirittura più vecchia degli stessi nuraghi. È stupefatto: per inquadrare questa rudimentale abitazione, occorre adottare scale temporali molto più ampie di quelle storiografiche. Luoghi del genere intimano al visitatore di confrontarsi con regioni sommerse del proprio Io, abbandonando gli orpelli mentali usuali:

«A volte, l’uomo è costretto dall’urgenza del destino a uscire dai palazzi della storia, a venire al cospetto di questa sua primitiva dimora, a domandarsi se ancora la riconosca, se sia ancora alla sua altezza, se ne sia ancora degno. Qui egli è processato e giudicato dall’Immutabile che persiste al fondo della storia».

L’uomo tende a ricacciare questo Immutabile in un lontanissimo passato, nell’alba dei tempi. Una sciocchezza: esso è «al centro, nel punto più interno della foresta, e le civiltà gli girano intorno». Al pari del mito che, come aveva scritto nel Trattato del ribelle tre anni prima, non è la narrazione dei tempi che furono ma una realtà che si ripresenta quando la storia vacilla sin dalle fondamenta.

Meditando su ciò che ha appena visto, con maschera e tubo respiratorio, si getta nell’acqua poco profonda e attraversa la piccola laguna a nuoto. È una delle sue attività preferite, specie in Sardegna. In quel periodo nessuno degli abitanti fa il bagno, ma lui è abituato ad altre latitudini, e non perde tempo. C’è un vecchio epitaffio, inciso sulle rovine accanto al porto di Giaffa, nei pressi di Tel Aviv, che recita: «Nuoto, il mare è attorno a me, il mare è in me, e io sono il mare. In terra non ci sono e mai ci sarò. Affonderò in me stesso, nel mio proprio mare». In queste antichissime righe, c’è tutto Jünger, sospeso sulla superficie acquea di un mare cristallino, a riflettere sui sottili legami tra passato e presente, mito e storia.

Teatro di queste incursioni è il Mediterraneo, qui inteso in senso più che geografico. Agorà e labirinto, «perduto mare del Sé» (Janvs), archivio e sepolcro, corrente e destino, crepuscolo e aurora, apollineo e dionisiaco, «è una grande patria», scrive Jünger, «una dimora antica. A ogni mia nuova visita me ne accorgo con evidenza sempre maggiore; che esista anche nel cosmo, un Mediterraneo?». Se è vero, come scrive Matvejević nel suo libro già citato, che «il Mediterraneo attende da tempo una nuova grande opera sul proprio destino», quella di Jünger potrebbe esserne la bozza. Un destino osservato sulle rocce e sulle piante, abbrivio a dèi ed eroi omerici, simulacri di battaglie cosmiche che si compiono dall’aurora dei tempi. Tutto ciò è riflesso nei volti che ha modo d’incontrare, nelle calette in cui si avventura e negli insetti che osserva, con la discrezione di un entomologo professionista. Tutte maschere di una sola cosa:

«Terra sarda, rossa, amara, virile, intessuta in un tappeto di stelle, da tempi immemorabili fiorita d’intatta fioritura ogni primavera, culla primordiale. Le isole sono patria nel senso più profondo, ultime sedi terrestri prima che abbia inizio il volo nel cosmo. A esse si addice non il linguaggio, ma piuttosto un canto del destino echeggiante sul mare».

Un mare da cui si accomiaterà il primo giugno, ma solo per qualche tempo (mediterranea è anche, in senso eminente, la certezza del ritorno). Jünger prepara i bagagli, e percorre a ritroso il suo viaggio. Sulla strada verso Cagliari, s’imbatte nei bunker eretti dalla Wehrmacht durante la Seconda guerra mondiale. Forse la foresta se li inghiottirà. Difficile che invecchino bene, come invece il Forte di Michelangelo a Civitavecchia, le macchine da guerra di Leonardo o le prigioni di Piranesi… Prende il treno per Olbia. Dopo settimane di astinenza dalla modernità, compra un giornale, solo per vedere quanto poco il mondo sia cambiato. L’argomento à la page è la bomba atomica, il tono è «come sempre noioso, irritante, indecoroso. Ci si domanda a volte a quale scopo si paghi l’onorario ai filosofi». Chissà cosa direbbe oggi, di fronte a certe querelle da bettola… Dopodiché, in nave fino a Civitavecchia, dove lo attende un treno, diretto a Nord. La linea passa da Carrara, mentre a sinistra c’è sempre il mediterraneo, muto spettatore di un dolore non ancora cicatrizzato. «Il mare è una lingua antichissima che non riesco a decifrare» scrisse il suo amico Jorge Luis Borges nel 1925 (nel saggio Navigazione, uscito ne La luna vicina).

Il congedo di Jünger dalla Sardische Heimat è solo temporaneo. Vi tornerà diverse volte, finché le condizioni di salute glielo permetteranno. Nato sotto costellazioni settentrionali, in quel lontano 1954 ha subito un fascino cui è molto difficile sottrarsi, e ora non può che rispondere periodicamente a quest’appello. «Mare! Mare! Queste parole passavano di bocca in bocca. Tutti corsero in direzione di esso… cominciarono a baciarsi gli uni cogli altri, piangendo» ci rivela Senofonte nelle Anabasi, descrivendo la reazione dei soldati greci, dopo un lungo peregrinare a terra, affacciatisi sul Mediterraneo. Furono forse le stesse parole che rimbombarono nelle orecchie del Contemplatore Solitario a bordo di quell’autobus, tra un tornante e l’altro, tra un mare e l’altro, fino a Illador, oasi di un passato martoriato e misteriosa prefigurazione di un destino a venire.

Tag: Al muro del tempo, D. H. Lawrence, Esiodo, Friedrich Nietzsche, Il contemplatore solitario, Il trattato del ribelle, Mircea Eliade, Predrag Matvejević, Quirino Principe, San Pietro, Stenio Solinas, Villasimius

Conférence: le mouvement völkisch

Editions du Lore: parution du tome deuxième de Robert Steuckers sur la "Révolution conservatrice" allemande

Editions du Lore: parution du tome deuxième de Robert Steuckers sur la "Révolution conservatrice" allemande

Pour se procurer ce volume:

http://www.ladiffusiondulore.fr/home/690-la-revolution-co...

ENTRETIENS, CONFERENCES ET PHILOSOPHIE AUTOUR DE LA REVOLUTION CONSERVATRICE

Entretien avec Robert Steuckers sur la « révolution conservatrice » allemande dans la revue Le Harfang

Entretien avec Robert Steuckers sur Ernst Jünger, Armin Mohler et la « révolution conservatrice » pour la revue Philitt (Paris)

Entretien avec Robert Steuckers sur la "révolution conservatrice" pour l’hebdomadaire Rivarol

Ma découverte de la « révolution conservatrice ». Entretien avec Thierry Martin (Université Paris IV)

Conférence de Robert Steuckers sur la révolution conservatrice allemande à la tribune du « Cercle Non Conforme »

Bibliographie jüngerienne

Treize thèses et constats sur la « révolution conservatrice »

Retrouver un âge d’or ? Intervention au Colloque Erkenbrand, Rotterdam, octobre 2017

Conception de l’Homme et révolution conservatrice : Heidegger et son temps

Heidegger, la tradition, la révolution, la résistance et l’ « anarquisme »

Heidegger et la crise de l’Université allemande

La philosophie politique de Heidegger

La philosophie de l’argent et la philosophie de la Vie chez Georg Simmel (1858-1918)

Arnold Gehlen et l’anthropologie philosophique

Une critique de la modernité chez Peter Koslowski

REVOLUTION CONSERVATRICE ET GEOPOLITIQUE

Rudolf Kjellen (1864-1922)

L’œuvre géopolitique de Karl Haushofer

L’itinéraire d’un géopolitologue allemand : Karl Haushofer

Une thèse sur Haushofer

EN FRANCE, APRES LA REVOLUTION CONSERVATRICE

En souvenir de Jean Mabire

En souvenir de Dominique Venner

Ernst Jüngers Entwurf von der „Herrschaft und Gestalt des Arbeiters“

Ernst Jüngers Entwurf von

der „Herrschaft und Gestalt

des Arbeiters“

Philologischer

Versuch einer Annäherung

ISBN: 978-3-8260-5824-0
Autor: Dietka, Norbert
Year of publication: 2016

 

more about Dietka, Norbert

 

29,80 EUR

excl.Shipping costs

Pagenumbers: 226
Language: deutsch

Short description: Mit dieser „philologischen Annäherung“ an Ernst Jüngers Hauptwerk „Der Arbeiter. Herrschaft und Gestalt“ (1932) wird erstmalig der Versuch unternommen, den gesamten Text des äußerst umstrittenen Großessays von der Entstehung her, ergo bezugnehmend auf Jüngers „Politische Publizistik“ (1919-1933), zu beleuchten sowie die Programmschrift „Die totale Mobilmachung“ von 1930 und den Essays „Über den Schmerz“ von 1934 als integrative Bestandteile einzubeziehen. Dabei wird nicht unterschlagen, dass Jüngers gewichtiger Beitrag zur Zeitgeschichte bislang zahlreiche Exegesen hervorgerufen hat – eine diesbezügliche Werkübersicht ist angefügt. In erster Linie aber sollen der Text selbst und die zeitnahe Reaktionen auf diesen Text untersucht werden – keine ideologiekritische Bewertung ist intendiert, vielmehr wird hier eine sachliche, kontextuelle Analyse vorgelegt.

Der Autor Norbert Dietka studierte Germanistik und Geschichte an der Universität Dortmund und wurde dort mit einer Arbeit über die Jünger-Kritik (1945- 1985) 1987 promoviert. Dietka war bis 2013 im Schuldienst und versteht sich heute als freier Publizist. Der Autor hat mehrere Beiträge zur Jünger- Rezeption in der französisch-deutschen Publikationsreihe „Les Carnets“ der „Revue du Centre de Recherche et de Documentation Ernst Jünger“ (Rédacteurs en chef: Danièle Beltran-Vidal und Lutz Hagestedt) veröffentlicht und war zuletzt mit einem Aufsatz am Projekt „Ernst Jünger Handbuch“ des Verlages J. B. Metzler (hg. von Matthias Schöning) beteiligt.

Leopold Ziegler. Eine Schlüsselfigur im Umkreis des Denkens von Ernst und Friedrich Georg Jünger

Leopold Ziegler.

Eine Schlüsselfigur im Umkreis

des Denkens von Ernst und

Friedrich Georg Jünger

 

ISBN: 978-3-8260-3935-5
Autor: Kölling Timo
Year of publication: 2008

Price: 26,00 euro

 

more about Kölling Timo

Pagenumbers: 172
Language: deutsch

Short description: Der große Einfluß, den das Werk des Philosophen Leopold Ziegler (1881-1958) auf das Denken der Brüder Ernst Jünger und Friedrich Georg Jünger ausgeübt hat, ist bislang nicht nur unterschätzt, sondern im Grunde überhaupt noch nicht zur Kenntnis genommen worden. Die vorliegende Studie, die zugleich als Einführung in Zieglers Werk gelesen werden kann, legt diesen Einfluß erstmals frei. Im Zentrum steht der Nachweis, daß Ernst Jüngers umstrittene und in vielerlei Hinsicht rätselhafte Konzeption des „Arbeiters“ als metaphysische „Gestalt“ sich in allen ihren wesentlichen Momenten auf Leopold Zieglers Buch „Gestaltwandel der Götter“ zurückführen läßt. Der entscheidende Grundgedanke Zieglers wird von Jünger aber in sein Gegenteil verkehrt: aus der philosophisch fruchtbaren Konzeption einer mystischen Teilhabe wird die theoretische Sackgasse einer magischen Identitätstheorie. Der Aufweis dieser Differenz erlaubt es, Zieglers Denken, das in seinem Kern der Versuch einer zeitgemäßen Erneuerung der Philosophia Perennis mit den Mitteln einer negativen Geschichtsphilosophie ist, gegen das Konstrukt der sogenannten „Konservativen Revolution“ abzugrenzen. Der Autor Timo Kölling lebt und arbeitet als freier Schriftsteller in Frankfurt am Main. Seit März 2007 Arbeitsstipendium der Leopold-Ziegler-Stiftung. http://www.leopold-ziegler-stiftung.de

Leopold Ziegler,

Philosoph der letzten Dinge.

Eine Werkgeschichte 1901-1958.

Beiträge zum Werk, Bd. 4

ISBN: 978-3-8260-6111-0
Autor: Kölling, Timo
Band Nr: 4
Year of publication: 2016

 

more about Kölling, Timo

 

58,00 EUR - excl.Shipping costs

Pagenumbers: 540
Language: deutsch

Short description: Leopold Ziegler (1881–1958) ist der Poet unter den deutschsprachigen Philosophen des zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts. Seiner Philosophie eignet ein künstlerischer Zug, der ihren sachlichen Gehalt zugleich realisiert und verschließt, ausdrückt und verbirgt. Ziegler hat sein Anliegen in Anknüpfung an Jakob Böhme, Franz von Baader und F. W. J. Schelling als „theosophisches“ kenntlich gemacht und damit die Grenzen der akademischen Philosophie seiner Zeit weniger ausgelotet als ignoriert und überschritten. Timo Köllings im Auftrag der Leopold-Ziegler- Stiftung verfasstes Buch ist nicht nur das erste zu Ziegler, das nahezu alle veröffentlichten Texte des Philosophen in die Darstellung einbezieht, sondern auch eine philosophische Theorie von Zieglers Epoche und ein Traktat über die Wiederkehr eines eschatologischen Geschichtsbildes im 20. Jahrhundert.

Der Autor Timo Kölling ist Lyriker und Philosoph. Als Stipendiat der Leopold-Ziegler-Stiftung veröffentlichte er 2009 bei Königshausen & Neumann sein Buch „Leopold Ziegler. Eine Schlüsselfigur im Umkreis des Denkens von Ernst und Friedrich Georg Jünger“.

Die Ordnung der Dinge. Ernst Jüngers Autorschaft als transzendentale Sinnsuche

Die Ordnung der Dinge.

Ernst Jüngers Autorschaft

als transzendentale Sinnsuche

 

ISBN: 978-3-8260-6533-0
Autor: Rubel, Alexander
Year of publication: 2018

 

more about Rubel, Alexander

 

29,80 EUR

excl.Shipping costs

Pagenumbers: 200
Language: deutsch

Short description: Die vorliegende Arbeit beschäftigt sich mit dem Gesamtwerk Ernst Jüngers aus einer ganz bestimmten Perspektive, die bislang noch nicht erforscht wurde: Ernst Jünger wird als Autor der Transzendenz gedeutet, dessen Werk in besonderem Maße von der religiös-transzendentalen Bewältigung der Kriegserfahrung im Ersten Weltkrieg bestimmt ist. Jüngers Werk ist vor diesem Hintergrund in seiner Gesamtheit als Manifest einer Sinnsuche zu interpretieren, mit welcher der Autor der eigenen Kontingenzerfahrung ein sinnvolles, religiös-metaphysisch grundiertes Ordnungssystem entgegenstellt. Jünger erscheint in dieser Deutung nicht als moderner Autor, etwa als Vertreter eines eigenständigen deutschen Surrealismus (in diesem Sinne deutete K-H. Bohrer Jüngers Frühwerk), sondern bleibt einer traditionellen Denkweise verhaftet, die das Grundproblem der Moderne ignoriert: Die Erfahrung der Kontingenz. Anders als die meisten Autoren der literarischen Moderne akzeptiert Jünger die Kontingenz des individuellen Lebens nicht, sondern insistiert auf einem Sinn des individuellen Lebens ebenso hartnäckig wie auf der Ordnung des Kosmos, die sich freilich nicht offenbart, sondern die es in der Welt der Erscheinungen mit subtilen Methoden erst aufzuspüren gilt.

Der Autor:

 

Alexander Rubel ist Inhaber einer Forschungsprofessur am Archäologischen Institut der Rumänischen Akademie in Jassy (Rumänien), dem er seit 2011 als Direktor vorsteht. Neben Arbeiten aus seinem engeren Fachgebiet publiziert er zu breiteren kultur- und literaturwissenschaftlichen Themen.

Carl Schmitt fra “terra e mare” alla ricerca di un “nomos” per la Terra

da Giovanni Balducci

Ex: http://www.barbadillo.it

Nella postfazione a Terra e mare di Carl Schmitt, dal titolo “Il potere degli elementi”, il grande quanto sfortunato filosofo e storico della filosofia Franco Volpi (scomparso prematuramente nel 2009 a soli 57 anni in un banale incidente in bici), facendo fede sul resoconto di un discepolo del grande giurista tedesco, ci presenta la suggestiva immagine di uno Schmitt che nel suo eremo di Plettenberg, in piena seconda guerra mondiale, si interroga circa le sorti del mondo e dell’Europa in particolare, sublimando la sua nostalgia e il proprio isolamento accostando la sua sorte a quella di eminenti predecessori o di mitiche figure di valenti outsider, fra cui Niccolò Machiavelli, che dopo aver insegnato al mondo gli arcana imperii ebbe a terminare i suoi giorni nel suo ritiro di San Casciano e il letterario Benito Cereno, il capitano “bianco”, uscito dalla penna di Herman Melville, ammutinato da schiavi “negri”.

Il grosso problema che a quel tempo ossessionava Schmitt era riuscire a dirimere il conflitto, da lui individuato, fra le due concezioni del mondo cattolica ed ebraica, che caratterizzava la civiltà occidentale. Schimitt, che stranamente – stando al racconto – ha appeso alla parete del suo studio un ritratto del politico ebreo Benjamin Disraeli, quando nelle case di ogni buon tedesco anni ’40 l’unico quadro a campeggiare era quello del Führer, non fa mistero di ritenere come interpretazione vincente la visione ebraica della storia, intesa come progresso dell’umanità verso un “futuro regno di pace”, o se si vuole, verso la “Nuova Gerusalemme”, lontana sì nel tempo, ma situata nell’aldiquà, e dunque ben più concreta di quell’ipotetico aldilà cui anelava la teologia cristiano-cattolica.

Per Schmitt, tuttavia, il cristianesimo può essere interpretato come una sorta di divulgazione “essoterica” fatta ai gentili della vera dottrina giudaica. In effetti, nella stessa interpretazione della Genesi, come espressa nello Zohar, suo commentario cabbalistico, si afferma che compito di ogni pio ebreo e di ogni uomo di retta volontà tra i gentili sarebbe quello di operare per la realizzazione del «tikkun» , la riparazione dell’anima umana (tikkun ha-nefesh) e di rimando del mondo (tikkun ha olàm), riportando la “presenza divina” (Shekhinah), o meglio sarebbe dire, rendendo la stessa presente, nel dominio degli uomini, riscattando in tal modo il peccato di Adamo, che osò separare sé stesso dalla Totalità universale e divina. Lo stesso Disraeli, del resto appare a Schimitt come «un iniziato, un saggio di Sion»: è quanto testualmente scrive nell’edizione di Terra e Mare del 1942; frase saggiamente espunta a guerra finita.

Un altro tema forte delle cogitazioni del grande giurista tedesco è la lotta tra le categorie giuridico-politiche di «Staat» (“Stato”), quella, per intenderci, dello stato “Leviatano” introdotta da Hobbes, e quella, verso cui Schmitt è più propenso, ritenendola superiore sia allo «Staat» di Hobbes sia all’ideologia völkisch che animava l’azione di Hitler e del nazionalsocialismo, di «Großraum» (“grande spazio terrestre”, o anche “ spazio imperiale”).

Questa variante era preferita da Schimitt alla stessa Lega delle Nazioni, incapace di dirimere le grandi questioni europee ed internazionali e di dare nuova legge e nuovo ordine al mondo, secondo il famoso concetto schmittiano di «nomos della terra». Essa inoltre si mostrava in tutta la sua debolezza al confronto con gli Stati Uniti d’America, che Schmitt vedeva come il vero nuovo “arbitro della terra”.

Egli, tuttavia, pur ammirando la dottrina Monroe, che secondo la sua visione delle cose aveva consentito agli Stati Uniti di assurgere al primato internazionale, costituendosi come un mix di indipendentismo e sovranità (isolazionismo?) e interventismo mirato in spazi extranazionali, riteneva che gli Stati Uniti, pur non essendo, a differenza dell’Inghilterra, un fattore di “dissolvimento”, non potevano rappresentare quella che per lui doveva essere la figura del katèchon, capace di frenare il processo dissolutivo dell’Ecumene occidentale, e per due gravi motivi: l’incapacità dimostrata nel recidere il cordone ombelicale dalla madrepatria britannica e al contempo l’ideologia accarezzata di un “nuovo secolo americano”.

Ecco che proprio questo farebbe declassare agli occhi di Schmitt gli Stati Uniti, da possibile katèchon, al ruolo addirittura di “ acceleratore involontario” della definitiva dissoluzione della società occidentale.

La concezione marittima del potere, come portata avanti dagli inglesi, per Schmitt, infatti, aveva avuto un ruolo determinante nella fine della concezione continentale, dunque terrestre, dello Ius publicum Europaeum e dell’ordine tradizionale del Vecchio continente, tendendo essa a radicalizzare i conflitti fino a promuovere l’ideologia di una “guerra totale” , che più non si limita al mero scontro fra eserciti belligeranti, ma porta alla “criminalizzazione” di interi popoli, e addirittura degli stati che commerciano o in qualche modo sono accusati di sostenere l’economia del nemico.

Schmitt paragona l’Inghilterra a una “nave” – a una “nave pirata” ad esser precisi – del resto, gran parte del suo impero è stato costruito grazie ad azioni che non tenevano in nessun conto alcuna legge e il Diritto delle genti. Veri e propri atti di pirateria di schiumatori e buccaneers, come quelli di Francis Drake, poi divenuto Sir, hanno rappresentato il suo quasi consueto modus operandi.

Era pressappoco quanto si stava già profilando sullo scenario di guerra cui Schmitt sta assistendo. Siamo per la precisione nell’anno di “grazia” 1942, quando, sbarcando in Irlanda, giunge in Europa il primo contingente militare statunitense, e la guerra dopo aver attraversato gli elementi terra e aria, si appresta ad interessare l’elemento acqua, facendosi poi addirittura sottomarina.

@barbadilloit

Di Giovanni Balducci

Ruimterevolutie: Hoe de walvisjacht ons wereldbeeld veranderde

Ruimterevolutie: Hoe de walvisjacht ons wereldbeeld veranderde

door Erwin Wolff

Ex: http://www.novini.nl

Het boek Land en zee van de Duitse rechtsfilosoof Carl Schmitt is een opvallende afwijking van zijn gebruikelijke discours. In zijn andere werken schrijft hij vooral over recht, politiek en direct aanverwante zaken. Een voorbeeld is het boek Die geistesgeschichtliche Lage des heutigen Parlamentarismus waarin Schmitt in 1923 de parlementaire democratie van de Weimarrepubliek bekritiseert. Bekender is het werk Der Begriff des Politischen waarin hij de politiek tot wij-zij tegenstellingen herleidt. In Land en zee gaat hij echter op heel andere zaken in.

Wat is de aarde eigenlijk en hoe komt het dat we de aarde zien zoals wij die zien? Hoe komt het dat wij anno 2018 de aarde zien als een groen-blauwe bol in een oneindige ruimte? Hoe kan dat zo verschillen van het wereldbeeld van andere volkeren? Volgens Carl Schmitt ligt hier een zogenoemde “ruimterevolutie” aan ten grondslag en die heeft alles te maken met de manier waarop onze voorouders naar hun wereld keken.

De eersten die de omslag maken zijn de oude Grieken in de klassieke Oudheid. Griekenland bestaat uit vele stadstaten, maar de zeemacht Athene en de landmacht Sparta steken in deze Griekse wereld boven allen uit. Het denken van de Grieken veranderde van een volk dat zich enkel met landbouw bezighield naar een zeemacht, omdat het op een gegeven moment het gehele oostelijke deel van de Middellandse zee ging beheersen. De Grieken waren opgesloten in deze context en ze misten de mankracht om hieruit te breken.

Pas toen het Romeinse Rijk uitdijde naar het tegenwoordige Frankrijk en dus naar de Atlantische oceaan, wist de klassieke Oudheid uit deze kooi te breken in de eerste eeuw van onze jaartelling. Maar toen was het eigenlijk al gedaan. Het Romeinse Rijk stortte zichzelf daarna in chaos en er was onder Romeinse leiding geen paradigmaverschuiving.

In de middeleeuwen was heel Europa, van het noorden tot het hele zuiden, opgemaakt uit verschillende agrarische staten. Aan de randen van deze boerenstaten werd er visserij bedreven. Met de Bijbel in de hand werden de Germaanse volkeren van noord tot zuid bekeerd tot het Christendom. De ruimte op de aarde is wat de Middeleeuwers betreft een heleboel land en een heleboel agrarische producten op dat land. Tot het einde van de middeleeuwen is er geen echte verandering in deze zienswijze.

In het Oude Testament is er een mythisch zeedier te vinden, de leviathan (Job, hoofdstuk 40 en 41), en leviathan gaat een grote rol spelen in de omslag van het besef van ruimte van de Germaanse volkeren in Europa. De leviathan, meestal afgebeeld als walvis, lokt de vissers van Europa de zee op omdat deze vis zich niet laat vangen aan de kust. Zonder de walvisjacht zouden de Europese vissers in een smalle strook van de kust zijn gebleven. Het besef van de ruimte op aarde verandert onder druk van de walvisjacht razendsnel. Carl Schmitt beschrijft dit fenomeen als een “ruimterevolutie”. De ruimte waarin men denkt te leven verandert van landmassa naar land- en zeemassa.

Ook de middelen om zich op de zee te begeven veranderen. De galei van de Klassieke wereld worden afgedaan en schepen die de wind opvangen met zeilen doen hun intrede. Men kan veel verder en veel sneller zich op zee begeven. Er wordt een nieuw continent ontdekt en daarmee nieuwe handel, nieuwe regels, nieuwe innovaties. Ongeveer tussen de jaren 1490 en 1600 vinden deze veranderingen plaats. Het besef van de ruimte waarin men denkt te leven verandert en de middeleeuwse ordening der dingen komt definitief ten einde. Hulpeloos rolt de Europese beschaving een nieuw tijdperk binnen.

Het begin is nog wat onhandig. Er gebeurt ook iets geks met Engeland. Vooral Engeland is in de middeleeuwen ook een boerenstaat die zich voornamelijk bezighoudt met schapen, textiel en Frankrijk proberen te veroveren. Het protestantse Engeland draait zijn rug naar het continent Europa en richt zich op de zee. Met zo’n succes zelfs dat het de katholieke landen Spanje en Portugal inhaalt. De heerschappij van de zee is van niemand of iedereen. Maar eigenlijk vooral van één land: Engeland. Dit Germaanse volk beheerst in de negentiende eeuw de zee, de zeehandel en daarmee de wereld. Zozeer zelfs dat Engeland zichzelf niet meer als Europese macht ziet.

We belanden aan in de 20e eeuw en dan vindt een tweede ruimterevolutie plaats. Het oudtestamentische monster, Leviathan, is niet meer zozeer een vis, maar een ijzeren monster in de vorm van een modern slagschip. De overgang van stoomboot naar modern slagschip is niet kleiner dan de overgang van galei naar zeilschip, verklaart Carl Schmitt. Duitsland en enkele andere landen zijn industriële machten geworden en kunnen net zo produceren als Engeland. Hiermee komt de onbetwiste heerschappij over de zee door Engeland ten einde.

Land en Zee is een bijna dichterlijke beschrijving van deze gigantische veranderingen. Het zijn mooie woorden die laten zien hoe het komt dat de Europese beschaving andere volkeren ontdekte en dat het niet die andere volkeren zijn geweest die ons ontdekt hebben.

The Historical Background of Oswald Spengler’s Philosophy of Science

Between the Heroic & the Immeasurable:
The Historical Background of Oswald Spengler’s Philosophy of Science

By A. E. Stern

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

Oswald Spengler’s writings on the subject of the philosophy of science are very controversial, not only among his detractors but even for his admirers. What is little understood is that his views on these matters did not exist in a vacuum. Rather, Spengler’s arguments on the sciences articulate a long German tradition of rejecting English science, a tradition that originated in the eighteenth century.

Luke Hodgkin notes:

It is today regarded as a matter of historical fact that Isaac Newton and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz both independently conceived and developed the system of mathematical algorithms known collectively by the name of calculus. But this has not always been the prevalent point of view. During the eighteenth century, and much of the nineteenth, Leibniz was viewed by British mathematicians as a devious plagiarist who had not just stolen crucial ideas from Newton, but had also tried to claim the credit for the invention of the subject itself.[1] ^[2]

This wrongheaded view stems from Newton’s own catty libel of Leibniz on these matters. During this time, the beginning of the eighteenth century, Leibniz’s native Prussia had not yet become a serious power through the wars of Frederick the Great. Leibniz, together with Frederick the Great’s grandfather, founded the Royal Prussian Academy of Sciences. Newton’s slanderous account of Leibniz’s achievements would never be forgiven by the Germans, to whom Newton remained a bête noire as long as Germany remained a proud nation.

In the context of inquiring into the matter of how such a pessimist as Spengler could admire so notorious an optimist as Leibniz, two foreign members of the Prussian Academy of Sciences merit attention. The thought of French scientist and philosopher Pierre Louis Moreau de Maupertuis, an exponent and defender of Leibnizian ideas, was in many ways a precursor to modern biology. Maupertuis wrote under the patronage of Frederick the Great, about a generation after Leibniz. Compared to other eighteenth-century philosophies, Maupertuis’ worldview, like modern biology and unlike most Enlightenment thought, presents nature as rather “red in tooth and claw.”

An earlier foreign member of the Prussian Academy of Sciences, a contemporary and correspondent of Leibniz, Moldavian Prince (and eccentric pretender to descent from Tamerlane) Dimitrie Cantemir, left two cultural legacies to Western history. Initially an Ottoman vassal, he gave traditional Turkish music its first system of notation, ushering in the classical era of Turkish music that would later influence Mozart. Later – after he had turned against the Ottoman Porte in an alliance with Petrine Russia, but was driven out of power and into exile due to his abysmal battlefield leadership – he wrote much about history. Most impactful in the West was a two-volume book that would be translated into English in 1734 as The History of the Growth and Decay of the Othman Empire. Voltaire and Gibbon later read Cantemir’s work, as did Victor Hugo.[2] ^[3]

Notes one biographer, “Cantemir’s philosophy of history is empiric and mechanistic. The destiny in history of empires is viewed . . . through cycles similar to the natural stages of birth, growth, decline, and death.”[3] ^[4] Long before Nietzsche popularized the argument, Cantemir proposed that high cultures are initially founded by barbarians, and also that a civilization’s level of high culture has nothing to do with its political success.[4] ^[5] Thus was the Leibnizian intellectual legacy mixed with pessimism even in Leibniz’s own lifetime.

It was most likely in the context of this scientific tradition and its enemies that Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, generally recognized as Germany’s greatest poet (or one of them, at any rate), later authored attacks on Newton’s ideas, such as Theory of Colors. Goethe, an early pioneer in biology and the life sciences, loathed the notion that there is anything universally axiomatic about the mathematical sciences. Goethe had one major predecessor in this, the Anglo-Irish philosopher and Anglican bishop George Berkeley. Like Berkeley, Goethe argued that Newtonian abstractions contradict empirical understandings. Both Berkeley and Goethe, though for different reasons, took issue with the common (or at least, commonly Anglo-Saxon) wisdom that “mathematics is a universal language.”

By the early modern age of European history, when Goethe’s Faust takes place, cabalistic doctrines, notes Carl Schmitt, “became known outside Jewry, as can be gathered from Luther’s Table Talks, Bodin’s Demonomanie, Reland’s Analects, and Eisenmenger’s Entdecktes Judenthum.”[5] ^[6] This phenomenon can be traced to the indispensable influence of the very inventors of cabalism, collectively speaking, on the West’s transition from feudalism to modern capitalism since the Age of Discovery, and in some cases even earlier. In 1911’s The Jews and Modern Capitalism, Werner Sombart points out that “Venice was a city of Jews” as early as 1152.

Cabalism deeply permeates the worldviews of many influential secret societies of Western history since medieval times, and certainly continuing with the official establishment of Freemasonry in 1717. Although the details will never be entirely clear, it is known that Goethe was involved with the Bavarian Illuminati in his youth. He seems to have experienced conservative disillusionment with it later in life. It is possible that the posthumous publication of Faust: The Second Part of the Tragedy was due at least in part to the book’s ambivalently revealing too much about the esoterica of Goethe’s former occult activities.

What is clear is that he was directly interested in cabalistic concepts. Karin Schutjer persuasively argues that “Goethe had ample opportunity to learn about Jewish Kabbalah – particularly that of the sixteenth-century rabbi Isaac Luria – and good reason to take it seriously . . . Goethe’s interest in Kabbalah might have been further sparked by a prominent argument concerning its philosophical reception: the claim that Kabbalistic ideas underlie Spinoza’s philosophy.”[6] ^[7]

At one point in the second part of Faust, Goethe shows an interest in monetary issues related to usury or empty currency, as Schopenhauer after him would.[7] ^[8] This is fitting for a story that takes place in early modern Europe and concerns an alchemist. Some early modern alchemists were known as counterfeiters and would have most likely had contact with Jewish moneylenders. Insofar as his scientific philosophy had a social, and not just an intellectual, significance, this desire on Goethe’s part for economic concreteness was perhaps what led him to reject and combat one key cabalistic doctrine: numerology.

Numerology is the belief that numbers are divine and have prophetic power over the physical world. Goethe held the virtually opposite view of numbers and mathematical systems, proposing that “strict separation must be maintained between the physical sciences and mathematics.” According to Goethe, it is an “important task” to “banish mathematical-philosophical theories from those areas of physical science where they impede rather than advance knowledge,” and to discard the “false notion that a phrase of a mathematical formula can ever take the place of, or set aside, a phenomenon.” To Goethe, mathematics “runs into constant danger when it gets into the terrain of sense-experience.”[8] ^[9]

In his well-researched 1927 book on Freemasonry, General Erich Ludendorff remarks, “One must study the cabala in order to understand and evaluate the superstitious Jew correctly. He then is no longer a threatening opponent.”[9] ^[10] In his proceeding discussion of the subject, Ludendorff focuses exclusively on the numerological superstitions in cabalism. Such beliefs are affirmed by a Jewish cabalistic source, which informs us that “Sefirot” is the Hebrew word for numbers, which represent “a Tree of Divine Lights.”[10] ^[11]

Everything about Goethe’s rejection of scientific materialism can be seen as a rebellion against numerology in the sciences – and certainly, the modern mathematical sciences stand on the shoulders of numerology, as modern chemistry does on alchemy. Schmitt once mentioned the “mysterious Rosicrucian sensibility of Descartes,” a reference to the mysterious cabalistic initiatory movement that dominated the scientific philosophies of the seventeenth century.[11] ^[12] In this Descartes was hardly alone; the entire epoch of mostly French and English mathematicians in the early modern centuries, which ushered in the modern infinitesimal mathematical systems, was infused with cabalism. Even if it were possible to ignore the growing Jewish intellectual and economic influence on that age, one would still be left with the metaphysical affinities between numerology and even the most scientifically accomplished worldview that takes literally the assumption that numbers are eternal principles.

According to early National Socialist economist Gottfried Feder, “When the Babylonians overcame the Assyrians, the Romans the Carthaginians, the Germans the Romans, there was no continuance of interest slavery; there were no international world powers . . . Only the modern age with its continuity of possession and its international law allowed loan capitals to rise immeasurably.”[12] ^[13] Writing in 1919, Feder argues with the help of a graph that that “loan-interest capital . . . rises far above human conception and strives for infinity . . . The curve of industrial capital on the other hand remains within the finite!”[13] ^[14] Goethe may have similarly drawn connections between the kind of economic parasitism satirized in the second part of Faust and what he, like Berkeley, saw as the superstitious modern art of measuring the immeasurable.

The fusion of science with numerology, it should be noted, is actually not of Hebrew or otherwise pre-Indo-European origin. It originates from pre-Socratic Greek philosophy’s debt, particularly that of the Pythagoreans, to the Indo-Iranian world, chiefly Thrace.[14] ^[15] (Possibly of note in this regard is that Schopenhauer admired the Thracians for their arch-pessimistic ethos, as though this mindset were the polar opposite of the world-affirming Jewish worldview he loathed.)[15] ^[16] In any case, Goethe recognized it as a powerful weapon. That he studied numerology has been established by scholars.[16] ^[17]

A generation before Goethe, Immanuel Kant had propounded the idea that the laws of polarity – the laws of attraction and repulsion – precede the Newtonian laws of matter and motion in every way. This argument would influence Goethe’s friend Friedrich Wilhelm von Schelling, another innovator in the life sciences as well as part of the literary and philosophical movement known as Romanticism. By the time Goethe propounded his anti-Newtonian theories and led a philosophical milieu, he had an entire German tradition of such theories to work from.

Goethe’s work was influential in Victorian Britain. Most notably, at least in terms of the scientific history of that era, Darwin would cite Goethe as a botanist in On the Origin of the Species. Darwin’s philosophy of science, to the extent that he had one, was largely built on that of Goethe and the age of what came to be known as Naturphilosophie. Historian of science Robert J. Richards has found that “Darwin was indebted to the Romantics in general and Goethe in particular.”[17] ^[18] Darwin had been introduced to the German accomplishments in biology, and the German ideas about philosophy of science, mainly through the work of Alexander von Humboldt.[18] ^[19]

Why has this influence been forgotten? “In the decade after 1918,” explains Nicholas Boyle, “when hundreds of British families of German origin were forcibly repatriated, and those who remained anglicized their names, British intellectual life was ethnically cleansed and the debt of Victorian culture to Germany was erased from memory, or ridiculed.”[19] ^[20] To some extent, this process had already started since the outbreak of the First World War.

This intellectual ethnic cleansing would not go unreciprocated. In 1915’s Händler und Helden (Merchants and Heroes), German economist and sociologist Werner Sombart attacked the “mercantile” English scientific tradition. Here, Sombart is particularly critical of what he calls the “department-store ethics” of Herbert Spencer, but in general Sombart calls for most English ideas – including English science – to be purged from German national life. In his writings on the philosophy of science, Spengler would answer this call.

Spengler heavily drew on the ideas of Goethe, and evidently also on the views of a pre-Darwinian French Lutheran paleontologist of German origin, Georges Cuvier. For instance, Spengler’s assault on universalism in the physical sciences mostly comes from Goethe, but his rationale for rejecting Darwinian evolution appears to come from Cuvier. The idea that life-forms are immutable, and simply die out, only to be superseded by unrelated new ones – a persistent theme in Spengler – comes more from Cuvier than Goethe.

Cuvier, however, does not belong to the German transcendentalist tradition, so Spengler mentions him only peripherally. On the other hand, in the third chapter of the second volume of The Decline of the West, Spengler uses a word that Charles Francis Atkinson translates as “admitted” to describe how Cuvier propounded the theory of catastrophism. Clearly, Spengler shows himself to be more sympathetic to Cuvier than to what he calls the “English thought” of Darwin.[20] ^[21]

Several asides about Cuvier are in order. First of all, this criminally underrated thinker is by no means outmoded, at least not in every way. Modern geology operates on a more-Cuvieran-than-Darwinian plane.[21] ^[22] Secondly, it is worth noting that Ernst Jünger once astutely observed that Cuvier is more useful to modern military science than Darwin.[22] ^[23] It may also be of interest that the Cuvieran system is even further removed from Lamarckism – and its view of heredity, as a consequence, more thoroughly racialist – than the Darwinian system.[23] ^[24]

Another scientist of German origin who may have influenced Spengler is the Catholic monk Gregor Mendel, the discoverer of what is now known as genetics. One biography notes:

Though Mendel agreed with Darwin in many respects, he disagreed about the underlying rationale of evolution. Darwin, like most of his contemporaries, saw evolution as a linear process, one that always led to some sort of better product. He did not define “better” in a religious way – to him, a more evolved animal was no closer to God than a less evolved one, an ape no morally better than a squirrel – but in an adaptive way. The ladder that evolving creatures climbed led to greater adaption to the changing world. If Mendel believed in evolution – and whether he did remains a matter of much debate – it was an evolution that occurred within a finite system. The very observation that a particular character trait could be expressed in two opposing ways – round pea versus angular, tall plant versus dwarf – implied limits. Darwin’s evolution was entirely open-ended; Mendel’s, as any good gardener of the time could see, was closed.[24] ^[25]

How very Goethean – and Spenglerian.

His continuation of the German mission against English science explains, even if it does not entirely excuse, Spengler’s citation of Franz Boas’ now-discredited experiments in craniology in the second volume of The Decline of the West. In his posthumously-published book on Indo-Europeanology, the unfinished but lucid Frühzeit der Weltgeschichte, Spengler cites the contemporary German Nordicist race theorist Hans F. K. Günther in writing that “urbanization is racial decay.”[25] ^[26] This would seem quite a leap, from citing Boas to citing Günther. However, in the opinion of one historian, Boas and Günther had more in common than they liked to think, because they were both heirs more of the German Idealist tradition in science than what the Anglo-Saxon tradition recognizes as the scientific method.[26] ^[27] Spengler must have keenly detected this commonality, for his views on racial matters were never synonymous with those of Boas, any more than they were identical to Günther’s.

He probably went too far in his crusade against the Anglo-Saxon scientific tradition, but as we have seen, Spengler was not without his reasons. He was neither the first nor the greatest German philosopher of science to present alternatives to the ruling English paradigms in the sciences, but was rather an heir to a grand tradition. Before dismissing this anti-materialistic tradition as worthless, as today’s historiographers of science still do, we should take into account what it produced.

Darwin’s philosophy of nature was predominantly German; only his Malthusianism, the least interesting aspect of Darwin’s work, was singularly British. As for Einstein, that proficient but unoriginal thinker was absolutely steeped in the German anti-Newtonian tradition, to which he merely put a mathematical formula. These are only the most celebrated examples of scientists influenced by the German tradition defended – maniacally, perhaps, but with noble intentions – in the works of Oswald Spengler.

Whether we consider Spengler’s ideas useful to science or utterly hateful to it, one question remains: Should the German tradition of philosophy of science he defended be taken seriously? Ever since the post-Second World War de-Germanization of Germany, euphemistically called “de-Nazification,” this tradition is now pretty much dead in its own fatherland. But does that make it entirely wrong?

Notes

[1] ^[28] Luke Hodgkin, A History of Mathematics: From Mesopotamia to Modernity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013).

[2] ^[29] See the booklet of the CD Istanbul: Dimitrie Cantemir, 1630-1732, written by Stefan Lemny and translated by Jacqueline Minett.

[3] ^[30] Eugenia Popescu-Judetz, Prince Dimitrie Cantemir: Theorist and Composer of Turkish Music (Istanbul: Pan Yayıncılık, 1999), p. 34.

[4] ^[31] Dimitrie Cantemir, The History of the Growth and Decay of the Othman Empire, vol. I, tr. by Nicholas Tindal (London: Knapton, 1734), p. 151, note 14.

[5] ^[32] Carl Schmitt, The Leviathan in the State Theory of Thomas Hobbes: Meaning and Failure of a Political Symbol, tr. by George Schwab and Erna Hilfstein (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008), p. 8.

[6] ^[33] Karin Schutjer, “Goethe’s Kabbalistic Cosmology ^[34],” Colloquia Germanica, vol. 39, no. 1 (2006).

[7] ^[35] J. W. von Goethe, Faust, Part Two, Act I, “Imperial Palace” scene; Schopenhauer, The Wisdom of Life, Chapter III, “Property, or What a Man Has.”

[8] ^[36] Jeremy Naydler (ed.), Goethe on Science: An Anthology of Goethe’s Scientific Writings (Edinburgh: Floris Books, 1996), pp. 65-67.

[9] ^[37] Erich Ludendorff, The Destruction of Freemasonry Through Revelation of Their Secrets (Mountain City, Tn.: Sacred Truth Publishing), p. 53.

[10] ^[38] Warren Kenton, Kabbalah: The Divine Plan (New York: HarperCollins, 1996), p. 25.

[11] ^[39] Schmitt, Leviathan, p. 26.

[12] ^[40] Gottfried Feder, Manifesto for Breaking the Financial Slavery to Interest, tr. by Alexander Jacob (London: Black House Publishing, 2016), p. 38.

[13] ^[41] Ibid., pp. 17-18.

[14] ^[42] See, i.e., Walter Wili, “The Orphic Mysteries and the Greek Spirit,” collected in Joseph Campbell (ed.), The Mysteries: Papers from the Eranos Yearbooks (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1955).

[15] ^[43] Arthur Schopenhauer, tr. by E. F. J. Payne, The World as Will and Representation, vol. II (Mineola, N.Y.: Dover, 2014), p. 585.

[16] ^[44] Ronald Douglas Gray, Goethe the Alchemist (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), p. 6.

[17] ^[45] Robert J. Richards, The Romantic Conception of Life: Philosophy and Science in the Age of Goethe (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2010), p. 435.

[18] ^[46] Ibid, pp. 518-526.

[19] ^[47] Nicholas Boyle, Goethe and the English-speaking World: Essays from the Cambridge Symposium for His 250th Anniversary (Rochester, N.Y.: Camden House, 2012), p. 12.

[20] ^[48] Oswald Spengler, tr. by Charles Francis Atkinson, The Decline of the West vol. II (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1928), p. 31.

[21] ^[49] Elizabeth Kolbert, The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History (London: Bloomsbury, 2015), p. 94.

[22] ^[50] From Jünger’s Aladdin’s Problem: “It is astounding to see how inventiveness grows in nature when existence is at stake. This applies to both defense and pursuit. For every missile, an anti-missile is devised. At times, it all looks like sheer braggadocio. This could lead to a stalemate or else to the moment when the opponent says, ‘I give up’, if he does not knock over the chessboard and ruin the game. Darwin did not go that far; in this context, one is better off with Cuvier’s theory of catastrophes.”

[23] ^[51] See Georges Cuvier, Essay on the Theory of the Earth (London: Forgotten Books, 2012), pp. 125-128 & pp. 145-165.

[24] ^[52] Robin Marantz Henig, The Monk in the Garden: The Lost and Found Genius of Gregor Mendel, the Father of Genetics (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2017), p. 125.

[25] ^[53] Oswald Spengler, Frühzeit der Weltgeschichte (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1966), Fragment 101.

[26] ^[54] Amos Morris-Reich, “Race, Ideas, and Ideals: A Comparison of Franz Boas and Hans F. K. Günther ^[55],” History of European Ideas, vol. 32, no. 3 (2006).

 

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

URL to article: https://www.counter-currents.com/2018/07/between-the-heroic-and-the-immeasurable/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: https://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/7-31-18-3.jpg

[2] [1]: #_ftn1

[3] [2]: #_ftn2

[4] [3]: #_ftn3

[5] [4]: #_ftn4

[6] [5]: #_ftn5

[7] [6]: #_ftn6

[8] [7]: #_ftn7

[9] [8]: #_ftn8

[10] [9]: #_ftn9

[11] [10]: #_ftn10

[12] [11]: #_ftn11

[13] [12]: #_ftn12

[14] [13]: #_ftn13

[15] [14]: #_ftn14

[16] [15]: #_ftn15

[17] [16]: #_ftn16

[18] [17]: #_ftn17

[19] [18]: #_ftn18

[20] [19]: #_ftn19

[21] [20]: #_ftn20

[22] [21]: #_ftn21

[23] [22]: #_ftn22

[24] [23]: #_ftn23

[25] [24]: #_ftn24

[26] [25]: #_ftn25

[27] [26]: #_ftn26

[28] [1]: #_ftnref1

[29] [2]: #_ftnref2

[30] [3]: #_ftnref3

[31] [4]: #_ftnref4

[32] [5]: #_ftnref5

[33] [6]: #_ftnref6

[34] Goethe’s Kabbalistic Cosmology: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23981598?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

[35] [7]: #_ftnref7

[36] [8]: #_ftnref8

[37] [9]: #_ftnref9

[38] [10]: #_ftnref10

[39] [11]: #_ftnref11

[40] [12]: #_ftnref12

[41] [13]: #_ftnref13

[42] [14]: #_ftnref14

[43] [15]: #_ftnref15

[44] [16]: #_ftnref16

[45] [17]: #_ftnref17

[46] [18]: #_ftnref18

[47] [19]: #_ftnref19

[48] [20]: #_ftnref20

[49] [21]: #_ftnref21

[50] [22]: #_ftnref22

[51] [23]: #_ftnref23

[52] [24]: #_ftnref24

[53] [25]: #_ftnref25

[54] [26]: #_ftnref26

[55] Race, Ideas, and Ideals: A Comparison of Franz Boas and Hans F. K. Günther: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1016/j.histeuroideas.2006.05.001

De Carl Schmitt et du combat tellurique contre le système technétronique

par Nicolas Bonnal

Ex: https://voxnr.com

Il y a déjà cinq ans, pendant les fortes manifs des jeunes chrétiens contre les lois socialistes sur la famille (lois depuis soutenues et bénies par la hiérarchie et par l’ONG du Vatican mondialisé, mais c’est une autre histoire), j’écrivais ces lignes :

« Deux éléments m’ont frappé dans les combats qui nous occupent, et qui opposent notre jeune élite catholique au gouvernement mondialiste aux abois : d’une part la Foi, car nous avons là une jeunesse insolente et Fidèle, audacieuse et tourmentée à la fois par l’Ennemi et la cause qu’elle défend ; la condition physique d’autre part, qui ne correspond en rien avec ce que la démocratie-marché, du sexe drogue et rock’n’roll, des centres commerciaux et des jeux vidéo, attend de la jeunesse.»

L’important est la terre que nous laisserons à nos enfants ne cesse-ton de nous dire avec des citations truquées ; mais l’avenir c’est surtout les enfants que nous laisserons à la terre ! Cela les soixante-huitards et leurs accompagnateurs des multinationales l’auront mémorisé. On a ainsi vu des dizaines milliers de jeunes Français – qui pourraient demain être des millions, car il n’y a pas de raison pour que cette jeunesse ne fasse pas des petits agents de résistance ! Affronter la nuit, le froid, la pluie, les gaz, l’attente, la taule, l’insulte, la grosse carcasse du CRS casqué nourri aux amphétamines, aux RTT et aux farines fonctionnaires. Et ici encore le système tombe sur une élite physique qu’il n’avait pas prévue. Une élite qui occupe le terrain, pas les réseaux.

Cette mondialisation ne veut pas d’enfants. Elle abrutit et inhibe physiquement – vous pouvez le voir vraiment partout – des millions si ce n’est des milliards de jeunes par la malbouffe, la pollution, la destruction psychique, la techno-addiction et la distraction, le reniement de la famille, de la nation, des traditions, toutes choses très bien analysées par Tocqueville à propos des pauvres Indiens :

« En affaiblissant parmi les Indiens de l’Amérique du Nord le sentiment de la patrie, en dispersant leurs familles, en obscurcissant leurs traditions, en interrompant la chaîne des souvenirs, en changeant toutes leurs habitudes, et en accroissant outre mesure leurs besoins, la tyrannie européenne les a rendus plus désordonnés et moins civilisés qu’ils n’étaient déjà. »

Et bien les Indiens c’est nous maintenant, quelle que soit notre race ou notre religion, perclus de besoins, de faux messages, de bouffes mortes, de promotions. Et je remarquais qu’il n’y a rien de pire pour le système que d’avoir des jeunes dans la rue (on peut en payer et en promouvoir, les drôles de Nuit debout). Rien de mieux que d’avoir des feints-esprits qui s’agitent sur les réseaux sociaux.

J’ajoutais :

« Et voici qu’une jeunesse montre des qualités que l’on croyait perdues jusqu’alors, et surtout dans la France anticléricale et libertine à souhait ; des qualités telluriques, écrirai-je en attendant d’expliquer ce terme. Ce sont des qualités glanées au cours des pèlerinages avec les parents ; aux cours des longues messes traditionnelles et des nuits de prières ; au cours de longues marches diurnes et des veillées nocturnes ; de la vie naturelle et de la foi épanouie sous la neige et la pluie. On fait alors montre de résistance, de capacité physique, sans qu’il y rentre de la dégoutante obsession contemporaine du sport qui débouche sur la brutalité, sur l’oisiveté, l’obésité via l’addiction à la bière. On est face aux éléments que l’on croyait oubliés. »

Enfin je citais un grand marxiste, ce qui a souvent le don d’exaspérer les sites mondialistes et d’intriquer les sites gauchistes qui reprennent mes textes. C’est pourtant simple à comprendre : je reprends ce qui est bon (quod verum est meum est, dit Sénèque) :

« Je relis un écrivain marxiste émouvant et oublié, Henri Lefebvre, dénonciateur de la vie quotidienne dans le monde moderne. Lefebvre est un bon marxiste antichrétien mais il sent cette force. D’une part l’URSS crée par manque d’ambition politique le même modèle de citoyen petit-bourgeois passif attendant son match et son embouteillage ; d’autre part la société de consommation crée des temps pseudo-cycliques, comme dira Debord et elle fait aussi semblant de réunir, mais dans le séparé, ce qui était jadis la communauté. Lefebvre rend alors un curieux hommage du vice à la vertu ; et il s’efforce alors à plus d’objectivité sur un ton grinçant.

Le catholicisme se montre dans sa vérité historique un mouvement plutôt qu’une doctrine, un mouvement très vaste, très assimilateur, qui ne crée rien, mais en qui rien ne se perd, avec une certaine prédominance des mythes les plus anciens, les plus tenaces, qui restent pour des raisons multiples acceptés ou acceptables par l’immense majorité des hommes (mythes agraires).

Le Christ s’exprime par images agraires, il ne faut jamais l’oublier. Il est lié au sol et nous sommes liés à son sang. Ce n’est pas un hasard si Lefebvre en pleine puissance communiste s’interroge sur la résilience absolue de l’Eglise et de notre message :

Eglise, Saint Eglise, après avoir échappé à ton emprise, pendant longtemps je me suis demandé d’où te venait ta puissance.

Oui, le village chrétien qui subsiste avec sa paroisse et son curé, cinquante ans après Carrefour et l’autoroute, deux mille ans après le Christ et deux cents ans après la Révolution industrielle et l’Autre, tout cela tient vraiment du miracle.

Le monde postmoderne est celui du vrai Grand Remplacement : la fin des villages de Cantenac, pour parler comme Guitry. Il a pris une forme radicale sous le gaullisme : voyez le cinéma de Bresson (Balthazar), de Godard (Week-end, Deux ou trois choses), d’Audiard (les Tontons, etc.). Le phénomène était global : voyez les Monstres de Dino Risi qui montraient l’émergence du citoyen mondialisé déraciné et décérébré en Italie. L’ahuri devant sa télé…

Il prône ce monde une absence de nature, une vie de banlieue, une cuisine de fastfood, une distraction technicisée. Enfermé dans un studio à mille euros et connecté dans l’espace virtuel du sexe, du jeu, de l’info. Et cela donne l’évangélisme, cette mouture de contrôle mental qui a pris la place du christianisme dans pas le mal de paroisses, surtout hélas en Amérique du Sud. Ce désastre est lié bien sûr à l’abandon par une classe paysanne de ses racines telluriques. Je me souviens aux bords du lac Titicaca de la puissance et de la présence catholique au magnifique sanctuaire de Copacabana (rien à voir avec la plage, mais rien) ; et de son abandon à la Paz, où justement on vit déjà dans la matrice et le conditionnement. Mais cette reprogrammation par l’évangélisme avait été décidée en haut lieu, comme me le confessa un jour le jeune curé de Guamini dans la Pampa argentine, qui évoquait Kissinger.

J’en viens au sulfureux penseur Carl Schmitt, qui cherchait à expliquer dans son Partisan, le comportement et les raisons de la force des partisans qui résistèrent à Napoléon, à Hitler, aux puissances coloniales qui essayèrent d’en finir avec des résistances éprouvées ; et ne le purent. Schmitt relève quatre critères : l’irrégularité, la mobilité, le combat actif, l’intensité de l’engagement politique. En allemand cela donne : Solche Kriterien sind: Irregularität, gesteigerte Mobilität des aktiven Kampfes und gesteigerte Intensität des politischen Engagements.

Tout son lexique a des racines latines, ce qui n’est pas fortuit, toutes qualités de ces jeunes qui refusèrent de baisser les bras ou d’aller dormir : car on a bien lu l’Evangile dans ces paroisses et l’on sait ce qu’il en coûte de trop dormir !

Schmitt reconnaît en fait la force paysanne et nationale des résistances communistes ; et il rend hommage à des peuples comme le peuple russe et le peuple espagnol : deux peuples telluriques, enracinés dans leur foi, encadrés par leur clergé, et accoutumés à une vie naturelle et dure de paysan. Ce sont ceux-là et pas les petit-bourgeois protestants qui ont donné du fil à retordre aux armées des Lumières ! Notre auteur souligne à la suite du théoricien espagnol Zamora (comme disait Jankélévitch il faudra un jour réhabiliter la philosophie espagnole) le caractère tellurique de ces bandes de partisans, prêts à tous les sacrifices, et il rappelle la force ces partisans issus d’un monde autochtone et préindustriel. Il souligne qu’une motorisation entraîne une perte de ce caractère tellurique (Ein solcher motorisierter Partisan verliert seinen tellurischen Charakter), même si bien sûr le partisan – ici notre jeune militant catholique – est entraîné à s’adapter et maîtrise mieux que tous les branchés la technologie contemporaine (mais pas moderne, il n’y a de moderne que la conviction) pour mener à bien son ouvrage.

Schmitt reconnaît en tant qu’Allemand vaincu lui aussi en Russie que le partisan est un des derniers soldats – ou sentinelles – de la terre (einer der letzten Posten der Erde ; qu’il signifie toujours une part de notre sol (ein Stück echten Bodens), ajoutant qu’il faut espérer dans le futur que tout ne soit pas dissous par le melting-pot du progrès technique et industriel (Schmelztiegel des industrielltechnischen Fortschritts). En ce qui concerne le catholicisme, qui grâce à Dieu n’est pas le marxisme, on voit bien que le but de réification et de destruction du monde par l’économie devenue follen’a pas atteint son but. Et qu’il en faut encore pour en venir à bout de la vieille foi, dont on découvre que par sa démographie, son courage et son énergie spirituelle et tellurique, elle n’a pas fini de surprendre l’adversaire.

Gardons une condition, dit le maître : den tellurischen Charakter. On comprend que le système ait vidé les campagnes et rempli les cités de tous les déracinés possibles. Le reste s’enferme dans son smartphone, et le tour est joué.

Bibliographie:

Carl Schmitt – Du Partisan

Tocqueville – De la démocratie I, Deuxième partie, Chapitre X

Guy Debord – La Société du Spectacle

Henri Lefebvre – Critique de la vie quotidienne (Editions de l’Arche)

Ernst Jünger: Dalle rovine della Tecnica rinascerà l’età dello spirito

Marcello Veneziani

Ex: http://www.marcelloveneziani.com 

A leggerlo con gli occhi miopi del presente, L’operaio di Ernst Jünger sembra la grandiosa metafora dell’avvento dei tecnici al potere. Anzi il Tecnico stesso sembra l’Operaio in loden, versione estrema della borghesia che si è fatta globale e immateriale come la finanza rispetto all’epoca dell’oro e del decoro.

Ma più in profondità, lo sguardo profetico di Jünger è rivolto a un’epoca planetaria dominata dalla tecnica, che ha un esito a sorpresa rispetto alle sue premesse: la tecnica «spiritualizza la terra». Dopo gli dei, dopo il monoteismo, verrà lo Spirito, signore dell’Età dell’acquario, che appare attraverso i sogni e agisce mediante la magia.

Lo spirito verrà tramite la tecnica, scrive Jünger, nel suo linguaggio oracolare, a volte allusivo, in alcuni tratti reticente, ed esoterico. Dopo la catastrofe e in fondo al tunnel del nichilismo il suo pensiero intuitivo scorge una luce inattesa. Non la luce di un nuovo umanesimo, come pensavano da differenti postazioni i suoi contemporanei Maritain e Gentile, Bloch e Sartre. Ma un disumanesimo integrale, una sorta di superamento dell’umano e non in una dimensione sovrumana, alla Nietzsche, ma compiutamente inumana, geologica e spirituale.

In questa chiave, l’Operaio è un nuovo titano, quasi una figura mitologica, della razza di Anteo, Atlante e Prometeo, che mobilita il mondo tramite la tecnica, che è il suo linguaggio. L’operaio di Jünger – o Milite del lavoro, come preferivano tradurre Delio Cantimori e anche Julius Evola – compie 80 anni e per l’occasione esce finalmente in Italia Maxima-Minima, un libro breve e intenso che fu la prosecuzione dell’opera jüngeriana del ’32 a 32 anni di distanza, nel 1964.

Quando dirigevo da ragazzo una casa editrice, negli anni Ottanta, tentai temerariamente di farlo tradurre in Italia; ma alla Buchmesse, la Fiera del libro di Francoforte, l’agente letterario di Klett Cotta, l’editore tedesco, mi disse che quest’opera era già opzionata in Italia. Ci sono voluti quasi trent’anni per vederla alla luce ora, a cura e con la postfazione di Alessandra Jadicicco.

Un’opera oracolare di minima loquacità e massima densità, in cui si avverte il respiro della grandezza, dove l’eco dell’Operaio si mescola all’eco dello Stato mondiale, Le forbici, Al muro del tempo e altre opere jüngeriane del suo personale «Nuovo Testamento», come egli stesso diceva.

La tesi metafisica è quella: dalla Macchina, per inattese vie, sorgerà lo Spirito; il Mito, il Gioco, la Geologia e l’Astrologia lo porteranno a compimento. Ma dalla Tecnica sorge anche il nemico: laddove il tecnico «conquisti il governo politico, se non dittatoriale, grava la peggiore delle minacce».

Il condensato deteriore della tecnica è l’automatismo, che è il peggiore degli autoritarismi, un dispotismo che uccide la libertà alla radice. E qui Ernst Jünger ritrova suo fratello Friedrich Georg che alla Perfezione della tecnica e all’avvento degli automi aveva dedicato un lucido saggio, degno del suo germano (tradotto in Italia dal Settimo Sigillo nel 2000).

La tesi metapolitica di Jünger è invece l’avvento auspicato dello Stato planetario, dopo l’unificazione del mondo compiuta dalla Tecnica, di cui scriveva negli stessi anni in Italia anche Ugo Spirito. Dopo la patria il mondo intero sarà amato come «Terra Natia».
Destra e sinistra, rivoluzione e conservazione, sono per Jünger braccia di uno stesso corpo.

Ma il politico, rispetto a questi fenomeni grandiosi, è inadeguato, si occupa dell’ovvio dei popoli, si cura del successo e dell’attualità, non si sporge nell’avvenire e, a differenza dell’artista, non dispone di uno sguardo ulteriore.
La miseria della politica propizia il dominio della tecnica (sembrano glosse al presente…). A rimorchio della politica va la giustizia che «segue la politica come gli avvoltoi le campagne degli eserciti». Dei, padri, autorità, eroi tramontano nell’era in cui la prosperità cresce con l’insicurezza.

Tocca all’outsider, che Jünger aveva battezzato già l’Anarca o il Ribelle, avvertire come un sismografo il tempo che verrà. «L’amarezza riguardo ai contemporanei è comprensibile in chi ha da dire cose immense».
Pensieri lucidi e affilati come lame si susseguono nella prosa asciutta e ad alta temperatura di Jünger; a volte sfiorano la storia, i popoli, le culture, le razze.

Precorrendo o incrociando le tesi della Scuola di Francoforte e di Herbert Marcuse in particolare, Jünger nota che la nuova schiavitù e la nuova alienazione non si concentrano più nel tempo della produzione, ma nel tempo libero. La dipendenza si sposta dal lavoro al consumo. Jünger intuisce che la globalizzazione coinvolgerà non solo i popoli più avanzati, ma anche le società feudali e primitive, che rientreranno in pieno nel ciclo della tecnica: e ci pare di vedere le tigri asiatiche, la Cina, l’India e la Corea nel suo sguardo profetico.

Jünger critica la pur grandiosa morfologia della civiltà di Oswald Spengler e incontra invece il nichilismo attivo e poetico di Gottfried Benn e soprattutto il pensiero di Martin Heidegger, che a sua volta studia e fa studiare nei suoi seminari L’operaio e per altri sentieri raggiunge la stessa radura di Jüger, al di là dell’umano.

Ho letto in questi giorni, accanto a Jünger, gli appunti heideggeriani raccolti sotto il titolo La storia dell’Essere dove si respira in altre forme e linguaggi la stessa aria jüngeriana: il dominio planetario della tecnica, la rivoluzione conservatrice, il realismo eroico, il potere di cui i potenti sono esecutori e non dignitari, la guerra e la mobilitazione, la scomparsa dell’umano.

E affiora esplicito il nome di Jünger. Sullo sfondo, come un’allusione che vuol restare in ombra, la tragedia della Germania e dell’Europa.
Quel che alla fine apre all’apocalittico Jünger uno spiraglio di luce nella notte è l’Amor fati, l’accettazione istintiva del destino.

«Tutto ciò che accade è adorabile» scrive Jünger citando Leon Bloy. E una leggera euforia attraversa il paesaggio catastrofico, quasi una musica sorgiva tra le rovine e gli automi.

MV, Il Giornale 2 aprile 2012

 

Jesús Lorente sobre Weimar

III Encuentro Literario Editorial EAS

Jesús Lorente sobre Weimar

 

Amo del Calabozo

 

Conferencia de Jesús Lorente sobre Weimar, con introducción de Francisco José Fernández-Cruz Sequera, para el III Encuentro Literario de la Editorial EAS, en Madrid el 5 de mayo de 2018.

 

Spengler's "Der Mensch Und Die Technik" / Troy Southgate

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Spengler's "Der Mensch

Und Die Technik"

Troy Southgate

 

National-Anarchist Movement YT Channel

 

Troy Southgate's speech about Oswald Spengler's

"Der Mensch Und Die Technik" @ International N-AM Conference

in Madrid 17th and 18th june 2017.

 

More info : www.national-anarchist.net

FIND US ON FACEBOOK!

 

The Winter of Spengler’s Discontent

The Winter of Spengler’s Discontent

 

The decline of Spengler: reconsidering High Cultures

 

Ex: http://westdest.blogspot.com

 

It has been decades since I last tackled Oswald Spengler, and it seemed time to refresh my understanding of his major work.  Upon the advice of a Spengler expert (and following the Pareto Principle), I acquired the abridged edition of The Decline of the West.

 

First, a few words about Spengler’s writing in this book, which I found to be terrible: like Heidegger, overly dense and sometimes nearly incomprehensible in the pompous old school German style (in contrast, Nietzsche, particularly apart from Zarathustra, was exceedingly comprehensible and easily understandable).  Contrary to all of Spengler’s breathless fans, I did not find his magnum opus to be very well written.  It’s a terribly boring, turgid compilation of rambling prose.  I can only imagine the full-scale version is worse (and if memory serves, it was). Another point is that Spengler’s deconstructivism is highly annoying to the more empiricist among us, his idea that Nature is a function of a particular culture.  Well (and the same applies to some of Yockey’s [plagiarized] rambling on the subject), for some cultures, Nature apparently is a more accurate “function” of reality than for others, and this more accurate representation of objective reality has real world consequences that cannot be evaded.

 

Thus, Spengler’s rambling on “Nature Knowledge” can be for the most part safely ignored.  Spengler laughably wrote: “Every atomic theory, therefore, is a myth, and not an experience.”  Yes, tell that to the Japanese of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, who encountered the myth – not the experience, oh no! – of being blasted by atom bombs.  Spengler’s comments about the “uranium atom” are particularly ludicrous in hindsight. I have to say: Spengler was an idiot (*).

 

The problem with Spengler (and Yockey) and science is that the Spenglerian view could be tenable if science was only a purely abstract phenomenon, with no practical real world consequences.  Unfortunately, for Spengler, science leads to technics, and the outcome of technics (contra Yockey) is directly related to the reality behind the science.  In the absence of real world consequences, in the absence of technics, the Spenglerians can pretend that there is no objective difference between, say, Classical or Egyptian physics on the one hand, and Faustian physics on the other. However, the former, if followed to technics, will not lead to methods that can obliterate cities, shatter mountains, and sink islands; while the latter can, and has.  Facts are facts. “Theory is working hypothesis…” according to Spengler’s formulation of Faustian technics, but that can be just as easily reversed: the working hypothesis is based upon theory.  Without scientific theory, practical technics is mere makeshift tinkering.

 

The sections “Race is Style” and “People and Nation” are of course relevant from a racial nationalist perspective, and reflects Spengler’s anti-scientific stupidity, this time about biological race.  Those of you familiar with Yockey’s wrong-headed assertions on this topic will see all the same in Spengler’s work (from which Yockey lifted his assertions).  This has been critiqued by many – from Revilo Oliver to myself – and it is not necessary to rehash all of the arguments against the Spenglerian (Boasian) deconstructivist attitudes toward biological race.  We can just shake our heads sadly about Spengler’s racial fantasies – that is as absurd as that of any hysterical leftist SJW race-denier – and move on to other issues.

 

The comments by Spengler (and others) about the Russian soul and Russian character, and its “non-Faustian” nature (‘the horizontal expansive plain…the plain, the plain….”) are interesting, and may well have some validity (as a close look at Russian literature informs us, to some degree).  But this can all be taken too far.  With the benefit of hindsight obviously not available to Spengler himself – but which is just as obviously available to modern-day Spenglerians – we look at the Russian interest in space exploration, particularly during the Soviet period, and ask – was that merely just for political propaganda purposes?  The answer is not quite clear.  There are differences between cultures, yes, but when there is an underlying racial affinity, then the different cultures are not quite orthogonal to each other.  And the same principle applies to the Classical-Faustian distinction as well. Spengler would argue that the Classical and Faustian are as different from each other than either are to, say, the Chinese, Indian, or Egyptian.  I think that’s nonsense, and the same applies to Russian-Faustian/Western.  There are differences and then there are DIFFERENCES.  Being more objective about Spengler’s ideas than Spengler himself, I hope the “differences between differences” are obvious.

 

The section on “State and History” was actually readable and made some valid points, but I disagree with Spenglerian inevitability, and I believe he draws the line of the Fellah stage too early in some historical cases. The high point of the Roman Empire, the Pax Romana – was a historyless desert?  Spengler, I think, became too enamored with his own theories (or nonsense, if you want to be harsh).  The “Philosophy of Politics” section is also readable, with some useful points, but also has, obviously, areas of profound disagreement between Spengler and reality.  The idea that the “born statesman” has – or should have - no convictions, should be a completely amoral actor dealing with facts and effects with no ideology affecting their actions - that I reject. Who is or is not a “born statesmen?”  The examples Spengler gives are ludicrous given his assertion. Sulla, Robespierre, Bismarck, and Pitt – they all acted with no underlying ideology or conviction influencing their actions?  I will say his comments about the value of a “tradition” in politics, statesmanship, in fact in any manifestation or organized human activity (comments mirrored by Yockey), are basically sound. Again, in reading Spengler, there are some diamonds in the piles of dirt and dung; one has to dig them out and treasure them.  However, the diamond-to-dung ratio is not enough to grant Spengler the acclaim as a “great writer.” While Spengler and his ideas have worth, whether or not we agree with all of them, I wonder if he may not be one of the most over-rated writers in history.

 

Those are mere details however.  Important details, but not the fundamental, the main thesis.  So, what about the main thesis of his work?  The overall idea of cyclical history?  Yockey’s lifting of that idea in his own work?  Rereading Spengler’s major thesis hasn’t changed my mind about it in any major way, but there are some further points to make.

 

To begin with, I do believe that Spengler was on to something; his most fundamental observations about the cyclical nature of High Cultures, in their broadest sense, have validity.  I reject his self-assured assertions about inevitability and his smug and snide pontification about the emptiness of current and future cultural possibilities, as well as his complete lack of self-awareness of the effects of his fundamental observation on the ability of future generations to interfere with what was previously a completely unguided historical process.  By analogy, before the germ theory of infectious disease was asserted, and then proven as fact, man was for the most part helpless against the onslaught of microbes, apart from the natural and (by conscious thought) unguided processes of the human immune system.  After the discovery of the germ-disease link, we have preventive and therapeutic interventions against these diseases.  Furthering this analogy, we can say that before Spengler, man was helpless in the face of historical inevitability; after Spengler and his discovery, the situation is changed.

 

Another point: being more familiar with Yockey’s work than with Spengler’s, I note how much Yockey plagiarized from Spengler.  Everyone talks about Yockey plagiarizing Carl Schmitt, and that Spengler “inspired” Yockey  - well, if by “inspired” you mean ruthlessly copy than, yes, Yockey was very “inspired.”  However, I do not say that to disparage Yockey or Imperium, the work which contains most of the plagiarism in question.  Yockey was a political polemicist, and Imperium was meant to be a thoroughly political work, sort of a Communist Manifesto for fascists, it wasn’t meant as a scholarly work and Yockey made no pretense of any original thought in that book. So, I just note for the record that the plagiarism took place.  I also note that, in a real sense, it is good that the plagiarism did take place, because Imperium is much more readable, much more digestible, than Spengler’s ponderous work, which is, as stated above, a caricature of “heavy” self-indulgent pedantic German scholarship.  Spengler’s views on (biological) race, as derived from his statements in this book, were as wrong-headed as Yockey’s regurgitation of them.  But enough of that; it is a side-issue at this time, and has been already discussed, by myself and (many) others, with respect to Imperium.

 

Let’s get back to Spengler’s content, and some of my objections alluded to above.  Thus, as far as content goes, my “take” on it remains the same; I agree with much but I disagree with much as well, particularly the “pessimistic” inevitability of it, and the smug arrogance in suggesting, or implying, that disagreement with that aspect of the work implies some sort of mental weakness, delusion, or cowardice on the part of the reader.  Spengler himself suggests that he “truth” of the book is a “truth” for him, a “truth” for a particular Culture in a particular time, and should not necessarily be viewed as an absolute truth in any or every sense (indeed, it everything from science to mathematics is, according to Spengler, formed by the Culture which creates it, and is thus no absolute in any universal sense, then we can quote Pilate ‘“what is truth?”).  Therefore, my “truth” in the current year leads me to conclusions different from Spengler; one can again assert that Spengler himself, by writing the book and outlining he problem, himself undermined his assertion of inevitability, since know we can understand the trajectories of Cultures and, possibly, how to affect those trajectories.

 

I’ll have more to say about that shortly.

 

One thing about re-reading the book that did influence me – more of a minor point – is that I’m now more in agreement (although not totally in agreement) with Spengler that the Classical Culture was quite different from out Western Faustian one.  There was always a sense of a different style, a different mindset, a different worldview, but The Decline of the West, and the evidence Spengler presents, helps clarify the Classical-Faustian distinction and brings it into stark relief.  So, yes, there’s more to that issue than I previously thought.  However, it doesn’t’ change the fact that both the Classical and the Faustian (or Western) High Cultures came into being in Europe, created by Europeans, and, therefore, if we accept one aspect of Spenglerian inevitability – the actual “decline of the West” – and indeed we appear to be ahead of schedule, well into Winter, then we can discard other aspects of inevitability and assert that Europe and Europeans are well capable of creating other High Cultures.

 

So, I will say that Spengler exaggerates the Classical-Faustian divide, even though I’m a bit more supportive of his views on that than before.  There is an intermediate ground between saying the two Cultures are completely and utterly distinct entities with absolutely no connection and saying that the Faustian is merely an outgrowth of the Classical.  On a side note, as a result of re-reading Spengler, I’m now studying the last period of the Western Roman Empire, from Adrianople to Odoacer, to (1) examine the parallels to our own day, (2) discern the “breaking point” where the last vestiges of the Classical World died out (What happened? How?  What came after, what was the result?), and (3) to re-examine stupid “movement” dogma on how the later Empire was becoming ever more decadent as a result of racial changes (if anything, the later Empire was more moral than before).

 

That is related to an important deficit in the work of Spengler that I have read.  He describes the lifecycle of High Cultures, but never really dissects why the cultures inevitably (or so he says) move from Culture to Civilization to Fellahdom.  What actually are the mechanistic causes of Spring to Summer to Fall to Winter?  I guess that Spengler (and Yockey) would just say that it is what it is, that the Culture is life an organism that grows old and dies.  The problem is that this analogy is just that, an analogy.  A Culture is composed of living organisms, humans, but is itself not alive. And esoteric rambling about a “cosmic beat” explains nothing.  If ones buys into the Spenglerian premise, then some rigorous analysis as to why High Cultures progress in particular ways is necessary.  We need an anatomical and molecular analysis of the “living organism” of the High Culture. Does Frost’s genetic pacification play a role? The cycle, noted by Hamilton, of barbarian invasions, the influx of altruism genes, followed by the aging of the civilization at which point fresh barbarian genes are required to spark a renaissance in the depleted fellhahs?  The moral decay that occurs with too much luxury, too much wealth, too much power?  A form of memetic exhaustion?  

 

By analogy to the memetic exhaustion hypothesis, consider successful television shows.  Although a few of these have been unusually very long lasting – but even these eventually do go off the air – the vast majority follow a trajectory of a lifespan of, say, half-a-dozen years or so.  In the first season of a successful show, there is freshness and novelty, experimentation with plotlines and characters, some unevenness, but excitement and the growth of a fan base.  Then the show reaches a crest wave of success – compelling storylines, solid character development, a strong fan base. This is followed by a bit of stagnation, attempts are made to shake things up, introducing new characters, altering the basic storyline, which may well cause a secondary, shorter spike in interest (Caesarism?), followed by “jumping the shark,” actors leaving the show, stale and repetitious stories, flat characters, a loss of interest of the fan base, decline, and eventual cancellation.  At some point, the show exhausts the memetic possibilities of its setting, characters, and fundamental storyline, and the “magic” is lost.  Does a Culture likewise exhaust all the possibilities of its actualization?  But unlike a TV show, where the station and the show writers (and the fans and reviewers) are consciously following the show’s trajectory and ratings, a High Culture is, or has been, independent of such analysis and direction.  In what way does memetic exhaustion promote the next phase of development?  Further, given Spengler’s identification of the cycle, does this now mean that a High Culture can be tracked analogous to a defined cultural artifact, like a TV show?  If so, how?  Can an elite consciously and directly alter a culture’s direction?  Can they “cancel” it and create a new one?  These are questions that require the rigorous analysis of mechanism previously stated as being required.

 

What about moving forward?

 

I maintain that those of us in the interregnum between High Cultures have the power to shape the next High Culture to come, to plant the seed, to choose the specific seed to plant, to nurture it as it grows up toward the sun.  Analogous to lucid dreaming, in our awareness of the Spenglerian thesis – to the extent that it is true – we can guide what was in the past an unconscious and organic flowering, speed it up, and mold it in particular directions.  Obviously, the extent of this control is limited; one cannot “preplan” an entire High Culture in advance, but one can influence its direction, and get it jumpstarted. Imagine some asteroid or comet hurtling toward Earth; if you can deflect it just a small bit, when it is far enough away, that small deflection will become amplified over time, over the long distances it travels at great speeds, and it would them miss the Earth by a healthy margin.  Giving a “nudge” in the right direction at the very beginning of a High Culture’s flowering can be enough, over time, to create a path along which it will develop.  The exact outcome, the precise path, cannot be determined or even precisely predicted, but the general direction, the overall constraints of a set of possible paths, I believe can be determined and predicted.  You might not be able to pinpoint a direction to the precision of saying, “we’re going to Boston” but perhaps to the extent of “we are going to the Northeast United States.”  And that would be enough.

 

In any case, imagine a person, or group of people, and here I mean our people, who today or tomorrow (broadly defined) wish to create cultural artifacts.  And this culture creation can be of our current Western Faustian High Culture or some new one to come.  Very well.  Should they refrain from doing so simply because Spengler insisted that the time of culture was over, and we should now be concerned only with technics and conquest?  When Spenglerism takes itself too seriously, it descends into absurdity.  It is best thought of as possible guidance, as broad outlines, as description – but not any sort of definitive absolute prescription.

 

By the way, having a European Imperium – which Spenglerians would say is a marker of late Civilization – is not in my opinion in any way incompatible with the creation of a new High Culture.  After all, some Spenglerians are fond of telling us that a new High Culture is likely to come from Russia, and Russia is, as many Duginite Russian “nationalists” like to tell us, an empire.  So massive states, including multiethnic empires, can very well be the wellsprings of new cultures.  We shouldn’t confuse surface political forms with the underlying cultural realities.

 

Speaking of Russia, another part of Spengler’s work that I found reasonably well argued and somewhat convincing (as well as fairly novel) is his idea of applying the concept of pseudomorphosis to human populations. In particular, one cannot really dispute some of his points about the Magian and Russian cultures in this regard, but when he says that Antony should have won at Actium – what nonsense is that?  So, that Rome should have become more tainted with Near Eastern cults and ideas even more than it was?  What’s the opposite of pseudomorphosis – where a Civilization becomes memetically conquered by a meme originating from a young Culture?  How did the memetic virus of Christianity infect the West?  Wouldn’t it have been worse if Actium was won by the East?  When Spengler writes of “syncretism” he begins to touch upon this reversal, which eventually goes in both directions (and as Type I “movement” apologists for Christianity like to tell us, that religion was eventually “Germanized” in the West).

 

Speaking of Christianity, Spengler’s comments about Jesus are interesting, but in my opinion too naive and too positive.  Yes, the meeting between Jesus and Pontius Pilate was world historical and meaningful; however, I view it from the Pilate perspective rather than, as Spengler does, the Jesus perspective.  Spengler takes his own view too seriously in the sense that – and the Antony-Actium thing fits here – and he seems to think that we all need to look from the viewpoint of “what was best for the new Magian High Culture?”  Personally, I could care less – I care about – only care about – those High Cultures of racially European origin (Classical, Faustian, Russian, and what comes next for the West).  Let the Magians worry about the Magian.  What? The poor little NECs were suppressed by the Classical?  Too bad. Who cares about them?  Spengler rightfully outlines how alien the Magian worldview is from the Faustian; thus, why should Faustian peoples care about Magians or follow a Magian religion like Christianity?

 

Spengler’s basic, fundamental thesis is novel and powerful: the idea of a series of High Cultures, moving in parallel with similar life morphologies.  But he went too far, arrogantly casting his idea with the aura of rigid inevitability – neglecting that the very act of identifying and evaluating the phenomenon, and doing so as part of a history-obsessed Faustian High Culture, forever destroyed a basic prerequisite of the phenomenon’s previous record of repeatability; i.e., that it was unknown and ahistorical.  Ironically, Spengler’s own observations are a major reason why the patterns he observed are no longer inevitable, or, perhaps better said no longer immune from intentional manipulation and control.  When the process was unknown, unidentified, and occurring in the background independent of direct human perception, it was beyond control, once identified and classified, that no longer necessarily holds.  

 

Let’s reconsider the analogy I made above, about the discovery of the germ theory of disease.  Before discovery, there was inevitability of certain events; with vaccination, that no longer holds.  Smallpox epidemics are no longer inevitable.  Even if the decline of the West (which has already occurred) is not stoppable, the idea that rollover to the next European High Culture is beyond control has been refuted by the knowledge gained by Spengler’s own analysis.  Spengler himself is responsible for eliminating the clockwork inevitability of his system.  What kind of “Fellah” status can a people really have once they – or at least their intellectual elites – are aware of Spenglerism?  Is a “Fellah” aware of their “Fellahsm” really “Fellah” anymore?  Or is that an oxymoron?  The Spenglerian Cycle can occur in its previously manifested form only when its actors – human actors in various cultures and civilizations and post-civilizations – are not consciously aware of its workings.  Once aware, the illusion of inevitability fades, once aware, and awareness manifested in those with a will to power, the knowledge becomes a tool and the Cycle becomes amenable to manipulation and direction.  Spengler’s work was based on the analysis of High Cultures that were to a very basic extent unaware of their own existence in these terms, unable to look at themselves objectively from “outside.”  That is no longer the case.

 

And if Spengler’s main thesis is flawed by its own self-realization, what can one say about his side ideas?  Those, particularly dealing with science, are absolute hogwash.  In that sense, Spengler is over-rated, never mind his poor writing, including his horrifically turgid style.  Yockey may have been offended by this “blasphemy” against his idol – “The Philosopher of History” – but it is nevertheless warranted.

 

Do I recommend The Decline of the West to the reader?  No.  As per the Pareto Principle, just read Imperium, which will take 20% of your effort and give you 80% of Spenglerism.

 

Notes:

 

*A particularly retarded footnote: “And it may be asserted that the downright faith that Haeckel, for example, pins to the names atom, matter, energy, is not essentially different from the fetishism of Neanderthal Man.”

 

Yeah, that’s great Oswald, you pompous semi-Jewish purveyor of ponderous Teutonic rumblings.  Too bad this idiot wasn’t around in the 1950s; they could have tied him to the Castle Bravo thermonuclear device and he could have experienced the “downright faith” that what he was about to experience was just the subjective interpretation of the Faustian High Culture.  Oswald would have been deconstructed indeed!

 

And for those who wish to take the Yockeyian line that technics is separate from scientific theory - that is nonsense.  The technics of nuclear power or GPS systems require an understanding of the underlying physics; the technics of CRISPR requires an understanding of the biological principles involved.  Can you train someone to use those technics, at a low level, without understanding the science?  Of course you can, but what’s the point?  Someone can read a history book without knowing Spengler, someone can fix a car engine without knowing about internal combustion.  But you cannot construct, refine, improve, or replace with something superior a technic without knowing the principles behind it. Read up on the difficulties nations had in figuring out how to get thermonuclear weapons to work (and, no, it’s not that you stick a tank of hydrogen behind an atom bomb) and you’ll understand how integral theory is for getting the technics to work and keep working.  It doesn’t take an understanding of nuclear physics to drop the bomb; however, it does require such an understanding to invent the bomb to begin with.

 

Further:

 

I can’t help notice that the buffoon Chad Crowley cites Spengler to support some of his viewpoints, even though Spengler’s fundamental thesis was that ALL High Cultures have an innate tendency to travel along the same socio-economic-politico-religious trajectory; the case of Rome is not unique, and “racial degeneration” by no means needs to be invoked to explain any of the broader changes that, according to Spengler, were destined to occur there as in any other culture he studied.

An evocation of Ludwig Klages

An evocation of Ludwig Klages

by Thierry Durolle

It is important for the militants of the Greater Europe to possess a philosophical background which enables them to build or comfort a proper Weltanschaaung. One important understanding, we believe, is the antagonistic relationship between the philosophie des Lumières and the (neo) romantic movement. The latter was embodied by a lot of different thinkers and writers, most of them being German.

Some of us would think that Friederich Nieztsche would represent the zenith of  this movement, whose ideas would consist of a « surhumanism », as per the Italian thinker Giorgio Locchi’s writtings. For sure Nietzsche is a good start so to speak and he obviously influenced and will influence a lot people out there. Thinking of Nietzsche’s heirs, the names of Oswald Spengler and Ludwig Klages immediately come to mind. If the first one became famous with his Decline of the West, Ludwig Klages remains quite unknown to some.

Ludwig Klages was a one-of-a-kind brilliant man who is firstly known for his graphology work. But it is his philosophical work especially which deserves our attention. In fact, Klages belongs to what used to be called Lebensphilopsohie, a term that applies to Nietzsche’s. One thing they share is this dionysiac view on life which is often called « biocentric » when applied to Klages’ philosophy. His anti-christianity is another common point with Friedrich Nietzsche, and the same goes for a genre of paganism, or pantheism, shared by both philosophers.

Nevertheless, Nietzsche’s famous concept of Wille zur Macht (Will to Power), a concept often misunderstood, does not meet Ludwig Klages’ approval. Indeed, he considers it to be a spark which lit the fire of modern technician craziness - working hand in hand with the worst kind of capitalism at some point. For if Klages is against capitalism, in a wider view, he is against liberalism in general. One important criticism he addresses to both technician and capitalist systems is the destructive effect they both exert on nature.

Ludwig Klages is to be considered as a pioneer of ecology. In 1913, he delivered a speech which was later turned into a small book called Man and Earth. In his speech, Klages foresaw the future devastation caused by capitalism on nature such as the animal extinction, the alienation of the producer/consumer system and even mass tourism. This text must be read by any Right-Wing ecologist.

Thanks to Arktos, glimpses of Ludwig Klages work are now available to the public in English in the form of two books. The first one - entitled Ludwig Klages The Biocentric Worldview - consists of a collection of selected texts which stress the author’s biocentrism. The second one - Ludwig Klages Cosmogonic Reflections - is a collection of aphorism. Both books contain foreword by Joseph D. Pryce who excellently introduce the reader to Ludwig Klages. The reading of Ludwig Klages texts completes those written by Nietzsche and Spengler in a poetic manner typical of Germany’s best authors.

L'oeuvre de Carl Schmitt, une théologie politique

Yoann Colin et Nonfiction

Ex: http://www.slate.fr

L’auteur examine en quatre chapitres l’impact de celle-ci.

La leçon de Carl Schmitt

Heinrich Meier

Acheter

L’auteur examine en quatre chapitres l’œuvre de Carl Schmitt, en montrant que ce qui l’unifie, c’est qu’elle constitue une «théologie politique». Toutefois, il faut se reporter à la fin de l’ouvrage pour comprendre ce qu’il faut entendre par ce terme. Dans la dernière partie du livre, l’auteur propose une rétrospective sur «la querelle de la théologie politique», qui permet de mieux comprendre le sens de cette expression utilisée dans le reste de l’ouvrage. Il y montre que si l’on interprète souvent l’expression de «théologie politique», à partir des textes mêmes de l’œuvre de Schmitt, comme «une affirmation relevant de l’histoire des concepts ou plutôt une hypothèse de la sociologie de la connaissance qui traite des «analogies de structures» entre des disciplines et des «transpositions» historiques» (p256), on restreint la portée et l’importance de ce concept que l’auteur estime central dans la pensée de Schmitt. Certes, C. Schmitt, évoquant une «théologie politique» a bien l’idée que des juristes ont transféré les concepts théologiques, comme celui de la toute-puissance de Dieu, sur le souverain temporel, dans les Temps modernes. Mais pour lui, la «théologie politique» désigne aussi, derrière cette opération de transfert, la volonté de ces juristes de répondre en chrétien à l’appel de l’histoire en «montrant le chemin à suivre pour sortir de la guerre civile confessionnelle.» Leur entreprise de sécularisation n’était pas portée par des intentions antichrétiennes, mais, bien au contraire, inspirée chrétiennement. Jean Bodin et Thomas Hobbes par exemple, que Schmitt désigne comme «ses amis», se tinrent, dans l’interprétation qu’il en donne, «solidement à la foi de leurs pères, et cela pas seulement de manière extérieure» (p261). Autrement dit, plus qu’un transfert de fait et historiquement repérable, la théologie politique désignerait pour Schmitt une attitude dans laquelle c’est à la politique de remplir une mission héritée de la religion, dans un monde qui se sécularise ou qui s’est sécularisé. La sécularisation, qui advient de fait, doit être gérée dans une intention qui demeure animée par la foi chrétienne. De là résulte entre autre que le critère du politique manifesté par la distinction entre ami et ennemi renvoie, pour l’auteur, en dernière analyse à l’opposition entre Dieu et Satan.

Chapitre 1: la réflexion schmittienne sur la morale

Dans le premier chapitre, centré sur la réflexion schmittienne sur la morale, l’auteur commence par montrer quel tableau –qui l’indigne– Schmitt dresse de son époque: un monde vivant aux pulsations de l’entreprise commerciale, rongé progressivement par la sécularisation et l’abandon de la foi, la démesure des hommes qui en «substituant à la providence les plans échafaudés par leur volonté et les calculs de leurs intérêts, pensent pouvoir créer de force un paradis terrestre dans lequel ils seraient dispensés d’avoir à décider entre le Bien et le Mal, et duquel l’épreuve décisive serait définitivement bannie.» (p15). La science elle-même n’est pour Schmitt que «l’auto-divination contre Dieu». Et Schmitt rejette ces formes d’auto-habilitation, par lesquelles l’homme prétend s’émanciper du Dieu transcendant.

Or, ce que souligne l’auteur, c’est que c’est chez Bakounine que Schmitt trouve en quelque sorte le paradigme de cette rébellion et de cette défense de la désobéissance, contre le souverain et contre Dieu. Bakounine en effet «conteste l’objet de la conviction la plus intime de Schmitt. Il attaque la révélation et nie l’existence de Dieu; il veut supprimer l’Etat et nie l’universalité revendiquée par le catholicisme romain.» (p19) ( «Dieu étant tout, le monde réel et l’homme ne sont rien. Dieu étant la vérité, la justice, le bien, le beau, la puissance et la vie, l’homme est le mensonge, l’iniquité, le mal, la laideur, l’impuissance et la mort. Dieu étant le maître, l’homme est l’esclave. Incapable de trouver par lui-même la justice, la vérité et la vie éternelle, il ne peut y arriver qu’au moyen d’une révélation divine. Mais qui dit révélation, dit révélateur, messies, prophètes, prêtres et législateurs inspirés par Dieu même; et ceux-là une fois reconnus comme les représentants de la divinité sur terre, comme les saints instituteurs de l’humanité, élus par Dieu même pour la diriger dans la voie du salut, ils doivent nécessairement exercer un pouvoir absolu. Tous les hommes leur doivent une obéissance illimitée et passive, car contre la Raison Divine il n’y a point de raison humaine, et contre la Justice de Dieu, point de justice terrestre qui tienne. Esclaves de Dieu, les hommes doivent l’être aussi de l’Eglise et de l’Etat, en tant que ce dernier est consacré par l’Eglise.» Mikhaïl Bakounine, Dieu et l’Etat). La devise «Ni Dieu ni maître» affiche le rejet de toute forme d’obéissance et détruit les fondements classiques de l’obéissance dans la culture européenne d’après Schmitt. Pour Bakounine, la croyance en Dieu est la cause de l’autorité de l’Etat et de tout le mal politique qui en procède. D’ailleurs Schmitt reprend à Bakounine l’expression de «théologie politique» que ce dernier emploie contre Mazzini. Pour Bakounine, le mal vient des forces religieuses et politiques affirmant la nécessité de l’obéissance et de la soumission de l’homme; alors que pour Schmitt – et dans une certaine tradition chrétienne – le mal provient du refus de l’obéissance et de la revendication de l’autonomie humaine.

Chez ces deux auteurs, politique et religion sont mises ensemble, dans un même camp, dans une lutte opposant le bien au mal, même si ce qui représente le bien chez l’un représente le mal chez l’autre. Pour Schmitt, dans ce combat, le bourgeois est celui qui ne pense qu’à sa sécurité et qui veut retarder le plus possible son engagement dans ce combat entre bien et mal. Ce que le bourgeois considère comme le plus important, c’est sa sécurité, sécurité physique, sécurité de ses biens, comme de ses actions, «protection contre toute ce qui pourrait perturber l’accumulation et la jouissance de ses possessions» (p22). Il relègue ainsi dans la sphère privée la religion, et se centre ainsi sur lui-même. Or contre cette illusoire sécurité, Schmitt, et c’est là une thèse importante défendue par l’auteur, met au centre de l’existence la certitude de la foi («Seule une certitude qui réduit à néant toutes les sécurités humaines peut satisfaire le besoin de sécurité de Schmitt; seule la certitude d’un pouvoir qui surpasse radicalement tous les pouvoirs dont dispose l’homme peut garantir le centre de gravité morale sans lequel on ne peut mettre un terme à l’arbitraire: la certitude du Dieu qui exige l’obéissance, qui gouverne sans restriction et qui juge en accord avec son propre droit. (…) La source unique à laquelle s’alimentent l’indignation et la polémique de Schmitt est sa résolution à défendre le sérieux de la décision morale. Pour Schmitt, cette résolution est la conséquence et l’expression de sa théologie politique» (p24).). Et c’est dans cette foi que s’origine l’exigence d’obéissance et de décision morale. Schmitt croit aussi, comme il l’affirme dans sa Théologie politique, que «la négation du péché originel détruit tout ordre social».
Chez Schmitt, derrière ce terme de «péché originel», il faut lire la nécessité pour l’homme d’avoir toujours à choisir son camp, de s’efforcer de distinguer le bien du mal («Seule une certitude qui réduit à néant toutes les sécurités humaines peut satisfaire le besoin de sécurité de Schmitt; seule la certitude d’un pouvoir qui surpasse radicalement tous les pouvoirs dont dispose l’homme peut garantir le centre de gravité morale sans lequel on ne peut mettre un terme à l’arbitraire: la certitude du Dieu qui exige l’obéissance, qui gouverne sans restriction et qui juge en accord avec son propre droit. (…) La source unique à laquelle s’alimentent l’indignation et la polémique de Schmitt est sa résolution à défendre le sérieux de la décision morale. Pour Schmitt, cette résolution est la conséquence et l’expression de sa théologie politique» (p24).). L’homme est sommé d’agir dans l’histoire en obéissant à la foi («la théologie politique place au centre cette vertu d’obéissance qui, selon le mot d’un de ses plus illustres représentants, «est dans la créature raisonnable la mère et la gardienne de toutes les vertus» (Augustin, Cité de Dieu XII, 14). Par leur ancrage dans l’obéissance absolue, les vertus morales reçoivent un caractère qui leur manquerait autrement.» (p31-32).), et il doit pour cela avant faire preuve de courage et d’humilité. L’auteur montre ainsi que loin de se réduire à la «politique pure», la pensée schmittienne investit la morale en en proposant un modèle aux contours relativement précis.

Chapitre 2: Réflexion sur la conception politique de Schmitt

Dans chapitre II, H. Meier montre que la conception politique de C. Schmitt ne peut être entièrement détachée d’une réflexion sur la vérité et la connaissance. En effet, Schmitt écrit, dans La notion de politique, que le politique «se trouve dans un comportement commandé par l’éventualité effective d’une guerre, dans le clair discernement de la situation propre qu’elle détermine et dans la tâche de distinguer correctement l’ami et l’ennemi». Cela implique que le politique désigne un comportement, une tâche et une connaissance, comme le met en évidence l’auteur. Pour mener à bien l’exigence d’obéissance mise au jour dans le chapitre précédent, il faut une certaine connaissance. Cela semble relativement clair, mais l’auteur va plus loin et défend la thèse selon laquelle non seulement le politique exige la connaissance, mais il veut montrer que l’appréhension du politique pour Schmitt est «essentiellement connaissance de soi» (p46).

La distinction entre l’ami et l’ennemi s’appuie sur une notion existentielle de l’ennemi. L’ennemi présupposé par le concept de politique est une réalité publique et collective, et non un individu sur lequel on s’acharnerait, mu par une haine personnelle. Comme le précise H. Meier, «il n’est déterminé par aucune «abstraction normative» mais renvoie à une donnée de la «réalité existentielle» (…). Il est l’ennemi qui «doit être repoussé» dans le combat existentiel.» (p49). La figure de l’ennemi sert le critère du politique, mais chez Schmitt, selon l’auteur, elle n’est pas le fruit d’une élaboration théorique, voire idéologique, mais elle est ce en face de quoi je suis toujours amené existentiellement à prendre position et elle sert aussi à me déterminer et à me connaître moi-même, sur la base du postulat que c’est en connaissant son ennemi qu’on se connaît soi-même. Grâce à la distinction entre l’agonal et le politique, qui tous deux mettent en jeu la possibilité de ma mort et celle de l’adversaire ou de l’ennemi, mais qui s’opposent sur le sens de la guerre et la destination de l’homme ( Dans une compréhension politique du monde, l’homme ne peut réaliser pleinement sa destinée et sa vocation qu’en s’engageant entièrement et existentiellement pour l’avènement de la domination, de l’ordre et de la paix, tandis que dans la pensée agonale, ce qui compte, c’est moins le but pour lequel on combat que la façon de combattre et d’inscrire ainsi son existence dans le monde. E. Jünger, qui défend une pensée agonale écrit ainsi: «l’essentiel n’est pas ce pour quoi nous nous battons, c’est notre façon de nous battre. (…) L’esprit combattif, l’engagement de la personne, et quand ce serait pour l’idée la plus infime, pèse plus lourd que toute ratiocination sur le bien et le mal» (La guerre comme expérience intérieure).), Schmitt montre qu’il ne s’agit pas de se battre par principe et pour trouver un sens à vie, mais de lutter pour défendre une cause juste, ou mieux la Justice. Et c’est à ce titre que le politique est ce par quoi l’homme apprend à se connaître, à savoir ce qu’il veut être, ce qu’il est et ce qu’il doit être ( H. Meier développe ainsi un commentaire long et précis sur le sens d’une phrase de Theodor Däubler qui revient souvent chez Schmitt: «l’ennemi est la figure de notre propre question». Nous nous connaissons en connaissant notre ennemi et en même temps nous reconnaissons notre ennemi en celui qui nous met en question. L’ennemi, en quelque sorte, est aussi le garant de notre identité. Notre réponse à la question que l’ennemi nous pose est notre engagement existentiel-par un acte de décision – concret dans l’histoire.).

La confrontation politique apparaît comme constitutive de notre identité. A ce titre, elle ne peut pas être seulement spirituelle ou symbolique. Cette confrontation politique trouve son origine dans la foi, qui nous appelle à la décision («La foi selon laquelle le maître de l’histoire nous a assigné notre place historique et notre tâche historique, et selon laquelle nous participons à une histoire providentielle que nos seules forces humaines ne peuvent pas sonder, une telle foi confère à chacun en particulier un poids qui ne lui est accordé dans aucun autre système: l’affirmation ou la réalisation du «propre» est en elle-même élevée au rang d’une mission métaphysique. Etant donné que le plus important est «toujours déjà accompli» et ancré dans le «propre», nous nous insérons dans la totalité compréhensive qui transcende le Je précisément dans la mesure où nous retournons au «propre» et y persévérons. Nous nous souvenons de l’appel qui nous est lancé lorsque nous nous souvenons de «notre propre question»; nous nous montrons prêts à faire notre part lorsque nous engageons ma confrontation avec «l’autre, l’étranger» sur «le même plan que nous» et ce «pour conquérir notre propre mesure, notre propre limite, notre propre forme.»« (p77-78).).

Aussi les «grands sommets» de la politique sont atteints quand l’ennemi providentiel est reconnu. La politique n’atteint son intensité absolue que lorsqu’elle est combat pour la foi, et pas simple combat, guerre limitée et encadrée par le droit des gens moderne (Les croisades sont ainsi l’exemple pour C. Schmitt d’une hostilité particulièrement profonde, c’est-à-dire pour lui authentiquement politique.). C’est pour une communauté de foi, et plus particulièrement pour une communauté de croyants qui se réclame d’une vérité absolue et dernière, au-delà de la raison, que la politique peut être authentique. C’est d’abord pour défendre la foi qu’on tient pour vraie, une foi existentiellement partagée – et qui éventuellement pourrait être une foi non religieuse – que la politique authentique peut exister. C’est ainsi que Schmitt pense défendre la vraie foi catholique contre ces fausses fois qui la mettent en danger et qui sont le libéralisme et le marxisme. Ce qu’on appelle ordinairement ou quotidiennement la politique n’atteint pas l’intensité décisive des «grands sommets», mais n’en est que le reflet.

Chapitre 3: théologie politique, foi et révélation

Dans le troisième chapitre, H. Meier établit l’inextricable connexion entre théologie politique, foi et révélation. Aussi la théologie politique combat-elle l’incroyance comme son ennemi existentiel. Comme le résume l’auteur: «l’hostilité est posée avec la foi en la révélation. (…) la discrimination entre l’ami et l’ennemi trouverait dans la foi en la révélation non seulement sa justification théorique, mais encore son inévitabilité pratique» (p102). Obéir sérieusement à la foi exige, pour Schmitt, d’agir dans l’histoire, ce qui suppose de choisir son camp, c’est-à-dire de distinguer l’ami de l’ennemi. Politique et théologique ont en commun la distinction entre l’ami et l’ennemi; aussi, note l’auteur, «quand le politique est caractérisé grâce à la distinction ami-ennemi comme étant «le degré extrême d’union ou de désunion» (…), alors il n’y a plus d’obstacle au passage sans heurt du politique à la théologie de la révélation. La nécessité politique de distinguer entre l’ami et l’ennemi permet désormais de remonter jusqu’à la constellation ami-ennemi de la Chute, tandis que se révèle le caractère politique de la décision théologique essentielle entre l’obéissance et la désobéissance, entre l’attachement à Dieu et la perte de la foi.» (p104). L’histoire a à voir avec l’avènement du Salut, les fins politiques et théologiques sont indissociables pour Schmitt. La décision entre Dieu et Satan est aussi bien théologique que politique, et lorsque l’ennemi providentiel est identifié comme tel, le théologique et le politique coïncident dans leur définition de l’unique ennemi. Le reste du temps, politique et théologique peuvent ne pas coïncider, dans la mesure où toute confrontation politique ne met pas en jeu la foi en la révélation et où toute décision théologique ne débouche pas nécessairement sur un conflit politique. Et si Schmitt développe une théologie politique, c’est parce que ce qui est fondamental est le théologique (qui toujours requiert la décision et l’engagement de l’homme («la foi met fin à l’incertitude. Pour la foi, seule la source de la certitude, l’origine de la vérité est décisive. La révélation promet une protection si inébranlable contre l’arbitraire humain que, face à elle, l’ignorance semble être d’une importance secondaire.» (p138).)) qui prend parfois, mais pas toujours nécessairement, la forme du politique pour sommer l’homme de se décider.

Puis l’auteur examine la critique de la conception de l’Etat dans la doctrine de Hobbes (dans Le Léviathan dans la doctrine de l’Etat de Thomas Hobbes. Sens et échec d’un symbolisme politique) qu’il étudie en trois points.

D’une part, Schmitt reproche à Hobbes d’artificialiser l’Etat, d’en faire un Léviathan, un dieu mortel à partir de postulats individualistes. En effet, ce qui donne la force au Léviathan de Hobbes, c’est une somme d’individualités, ce n’est pas quelque chose de transcendant, ou plus précisément, transcendant d’un point de vue juridique, mais pas métaphysique. A cette critique, il faut ajouter que, créé par l’homme, l’Etat n’a aucune caution divine: créateur et créature sont de même nature, ce sont des hommes. Or ces hommes, véritables individus prométhéens, font croire à l’illusion d’un nouveau dieu, né des hommes, et mortels, dont l’engendrement provient du contrat social. Et cette création à partir d’individus et non d’une communauté au sein d’un ordre voulu par Dieu, comme c’était, selon Hobbes, le cas au moyen-âge, perd par là-même sa légitimité aux yeux d’une théologie politique ( C. Schmitt écrit ainsi que: «ce contrat ne s’applique pas à une communauté déjà existante, créée par Dieu, à un ordre préexistant et naturel, comme le veut la conception médiévale, mais que l’Etat, comme ordre et communauté, est le résultat de l’intelligence humaine et de son pouvoir créateur, et qu’il ne peut naître que par le contrat en général.»).

D’autre part, Schmitt critique le geste par lequel l’Etat hobbesien est à lui-même sa propre fin. Autrement dit, cette œuvre que produisent les hommes par le contrat n’est plus au service d’une fin religieuse, d’une vérité révélée, mais, au contraire, est rendu habilité à définir quelles sont les croyances religieuses que doivent avoir les citoyens, qu’est-ce qui doit être considéré comme vrai. Enfin, Schmitt désapprouve le symbole choisi par Hobbes pour figurer l’Etat, le Léviathan.

Comme le note l’auteur, Schmitt pointe la faiblesse et la fragilité de la construction de Hobbes: «C’est un dieu qui promet aux hommes tranquillité, sécurité et ordre pour leur «existence physique ici-bas», mais qui ne sait pas atteindre leurs âmes et qui laisse insatisfaite leur aspiration la plus profonde; un homme dont l’âme artificielle repose sur une transcendance juridique et non métaphysique; un animal dont le pouvoir terrestre incomparable serait en mesure de tenir en lisière «les enfants de l’orgueil» par la peur, mais qui ne pourrait rien contre cette peur qui vient de l’au-delà et qui est inhérente à l’invisible.» (p167). Autrement dit, chez Hobbes, l’Etat peut se faire obéir par la peur de la mort, ce qui rend l’obéissance des hommes relatives à cette vie terrestre, alors que pour Schmitt, ce qui rend décisif et définitif l’engagement politique, c’est qu’il a à voir avec la fin dernière, le salut. Aussi peut-on être prêt ou décidé à mourir pour lutter contre l’ennemi, ce que nous craignons alors le plus est moins la mort violente que l’enfer post mortem. Et on comprend ainsi bien comment le libéralisme est ce qui veut éviter cet engagement, en niant la dimension proprement politique de l’existence humaine.

Chapitre 4: l'histoire comme lieu de discernement

Dans le dernier chapitre, centré sur l’histoire comme lieu de discernement dans lequel doit toujours se décider l’homme, l’auteur montre comment morale, politique et révélation sont liées à l’histoire pour permettre une orientation concrète («Pour la théologie politique, l’histoire est le lieu de la mise à l’épreuve du jugement. C’est dans l’histoire qu’il faut distinguer entre Dieu et Satan, l’ami et l’ennemi, le Christ et l’Antéchrist. C’est en elle que l’obéissance, le courage et l’espérance doivent faire leurs preuves. Mais c’est en elle aussi qu’est porté le jugement sur la théologie politique qui se conçoit elle-même à partir de l’obéissance comme action dans l’histoire.» (p177).). L’exemple privilégié par Schmitt pour mesurer un penseur qui se décide à l’histoire dans laquelle il se fait condamné à naviguer est celui de Hobbes. En effet, pour Schmitt, Hobbes prend position, avec piété pour l’Etat moderne, dans un cadre historique précis, celui des luttes confessionnelles, et sa décision en faveur de l’Etat qui neutralise les oppositions religieuses et sécularise la vie est liée à ce contexte historique. Si pour Schmitt, l’Etat n’est plus au XXème siècle une bonne réponse politique à la situation historique, au temps de Hobbes, se déterminer en faveur de cet Etat était la bonne réponse, puisque l’Etat «trancha effectivement à un moment historique donné la querelle au sujet du droit, de la vérité et de la finalité en établissant le «calme, la sécurité et l’ordre» quand rien ne semblait plus urgent que l’établissement du «calme, de la sécurité et de l’ordre»« (p183). En revanche, une fois conçu, l’Etat comme machine ou comme appareil à garantir la sécurité, il peut tomber entre les mains du libéralisme, du bolchévisme ou du nazisme qui peuvent s’en servir pour parvenir à leur fin, d’où sa critique de l’Etat au XXème siècle.

La question que pose alors l’auteur est celle de l’engagement de Schmitt. Il montre que Schmitt dans les années 1920 et au début des années 1930 commence par soutenir le fascisme mussolinien dans lequel il voit le modèle d’un Etat qui s’efforce de maintenir l’unité nationale et la dignité de l’Etat contre le pluralisme des intérêts économiques. Il oppose ce type d’Etat au libéralisme qu’il considère comme un «système ingénieux de méthodes visant à affaiblir l’Etat» et qui tend à dissoudre en son sein le proprement politique. Il critique l’Etat de droit bourgeois et en particulier le parlementarisme ( Il écrit ainsi dans l’article «l’Etat de droit bourgeois»: «les deux principes de l’Etat de droit bourgeois que sont la liberté de l’individu et la séparation des pouvoirs, sont l’un et l’autre apolitiques. Ils ne contiennent aucune forme d’Etat, mais des méthodes pour mettre en place des entraves à l’Etat.»). Il démasque l’imposture des prétendues démocraties qui n’intègrent pas le peuple, qui ne lui permettent pas d’agir en tant que peuple ( Pour Schmitt, le peuple ne peut être que réuni et homogène (c’est-à-dire non scindé en classes distinctes ou divisé culturellement, religieusement, socialement ou «racialement»). Il estime également que seule l’acclamation permet d’exprimer la volonté du peuple, à l’opposé des méthodes libérales qu’il accuse de falsifier la volonté du peuple.) mais l’atomisent, ne serait-ce que parce qu’au moment de la décision politique, les hommes sont isolés pour voter, alors qu’ils devraient être unis: «ils décident en tant qu’individus et en secret, ils ne décident pas en tant que peuple et publiquement.» (p204). Ce qui fait que les démocraties libérales sont pour lui des démocraties sans démos, sans peuple. Schmitt veut fonder la politique sur un mythe puissant et efficace, et dans cette optique, il estime que le mythe national sur lequel se fonde le fascisme est celui qui donne le plus d’intensité à la foi et au courage (plus, par exemple, que le mythe de la lutte des classes). Ce que souligne l’auteur cependant, c’est que pour Schmitt, tout mythe est à placer sur un plan inférieur à la vérité révélée. Il s’agit donc pour le théologien politique de ne pas croire ce mythe, national ou autre, parce qu’il est éloigné de la vraie foi, mais de l’utiliser pour intensifier la dimension politique de l’existence que tend à effacer le libéralisme européen de son époque.

Comment concilier la décision de Schmitt en faveur du nazisme au printemps 1933? Pour Heinrich Meier, il faut considérer avant tout que cet engagement est fait en tant que théologien politique et non en tant que nationaliste. Il faudrait la lire comme l’essai pour sortir de deux positions antagonistes et qu’il rejette toutes les deux: le libéralisme et le communisme, tous deux adversaires du catholicisme et animés par une commune tradition visant un objectif antipolitique (L’auteur écrit ainsi: «Pendant les dix années, de 1923 à 1933, durant lesquelles Schmitt, empli d’admiration, suivit le parcours de Mussolini, sa conviction que le libéralisme et le marxisme s’accordaient sur l’essentiel ou en ce qui concerne leur «métaphysique» ne fit que se renforcer: l’héritage libéral était toujours déterminant pour le marxisme, qui «n’était qu’une mise en pratique de la pensée libérale du XIXème siècle». La réunion du libéralisme et du marxisme dans la «nouvelle croyance» du temps présent (…) disposant d’un fonds de dogmes communs et poursuivant le même objectif final antipolitique, devait faire apparaître le fascisme et le national socialisme comme les antagonismes les plus résolus.» (p212-213).). A cela s’ajoute, selon l’auteur, l’idée que le nazisme s’appuie sur la croyance au destin et à l’importance d’agir dans l’histoire. Mais peu après cette explication des raisons de l’adhésion de Schmitt au national-socialisme, l’auteur s’attache à montrer que des critiques du régime apparaissent dans ses écrits. On peut ainsi selon l’auteur lire de nombreux passages du livre sur Hobbes comme des critiques indirectes du régime nazi qui ne pouvaient pas ne pas être prises comme telles à l’époque (par exemple, des passages dans lesquels il explique que si l’Etat ne protège pas efficacement les citoyens, le devoir d’obéissance disparaît, ou des passages exposant que si un régime relègue la foi à l’intériorité, le «contre-pouvoir du mutisme et du silence croît».) Cependant, l’auteur prend également soin de distinguer d’un côté l’éloignement de Schmitt du pouvoir nazi en place et de l’autre la persistance de son antisémitisme. Ainsi le livre sur Hobbes est foncièrement antisémite – l’antisémitisme de ce livre ne serait pas qu’un fond, un langage destiné à répondre aux critères de l’époque – comme, du reste, dans de nombreux ouvrages. Et pour l’auteur cet antisémitisme a son origine dans la tradition de l’antijudaïsme chrétien, ce qui n’a pas détaché Schmitt de l’antisémitisme nazi. Au contraire, comme le souligne H. Meier, «on est bien obligé de dire que c’est l’hostilité aux «juifs» qui lie le plus durablement Schmitt au national-socialisme (…) Et il restera fidèle, même après l’effondrement du Troisième Reich, à l’antisémitisme» (p220).

Puis l’auteur s’intéresse à l’interprétation que Schmitt fait de l’histoire en mettant au cœur de cette interprétation le katechon, qu’on trouve dans la seconde lettre de Paul aux Thessaloniciens, et qu’il définit comme «la représentation d’une force qui retarde la fin et qui réprime le mal» ( Schmitt écrit ainsi dans Terre et Mer: «Je crois au katéchon; il représente pour moi la seule possibilité, en tant que chrétien, de comprendre l’histoire et de lui trouver un sens.»). Schmitt expose une vision chrétienne de l’histoire (notamment exposée dans une critique de Meaning in History de Karl Löwith) qu’il entend opposer à celle du progrès défendue par les Lumières, le libéralisme et le marxisme. La Providence ne peut être assimilée aux planifications prométhéennes humaines. La notion de katechon permet d’une part de rendre compte du retard de la parousie – et donc de l’existence perse de l’histoire ( C’est d’ailleurs dans cette perspective que Paul en parle.); d’autre part, elle «protège l’action dans l’histoire contre le découragement et le désespoir face à un processus historique, en apparence tout-puissant, qui progresse vers la fin. Enfin, elle arme à l’inverse l’action dans l’histoire contre le mépris de la politique et de l’histoire en l’assurant de la victoire promise.» (p231-232). En effet, sans le katechon, on est conduit à penser que la fin de l’histoire est imminente et que l’histoire n’a qu’une valeur négligeable.

Ainsi, l’auteur parvient à montrer efficacement comment morale, politique, vérité révélée et histoire sont liées dans la pensée schmittienne, pensée ayant son centre dans la foi catholique de Schmitt. On ne peut comprendre la genèse des concepts schmittiens et leur portée véritable qu’en ayant à l’esprit cette foi expliquant sa pensée est moins une philosophie politique – si la philosophie doit être pensée comme indépendante de la foi en la révélation – qu’une théologie politique, pour ainsi dire totale en ce qu’elle informe tous les aspects de l’existence. La tentative d’H. Meier d’expliquer et de rendre compte et de l’engagement de Schmitt dans le nazisme –sans évidemment l’excuser ou n’en faire qu’une erreur malencontreuse– par l’antagonisme que ce régime pouvait manifester à l’encontre des autres régimes (libéralisme, marxisme) qui luttaient contre le catholicisme est pertinente, d’autant qu’elle ne le disculpe pas et qu’elle prend soin de souligner son indéfendable antisémitisme. Il faut aussi reconnaître à l’auteur une connaissance extrêmement précise des textes de Schmitt, de leur contexte et des adversaires que vise ce dernier même lorsqu’ils ne sont pas nommés, ce qui contribue à la clarification de maintes argumentations de Schmitt parfois équivoques ou elliptiques.

Zum 20. Todestag Ernst Jüngers: aus dem Archiv von literaturkritik.de

Ex: http://literaturkritik.de

Vor den Beiträgen in der Februar-Ausgabe 2018 zum 20. Todestag Ernst Jüngers (geb. am 29.3.1895, gest. 17.2.1998) sind in literaturkritik.de zahlreiche Rezensionen und Essays erschienen, die sich mit dem umstrittenen Autor, seinem Werk und seiner Rezeption auseinandergesetzt haben. Hier eine Zusammenstellung aus unserem Archiv in chronologischer Anordnung:

Ernst Jüngers Gestaltdenken aus narratologischer Sicht.
Eine neue Studie untersucht „Heliopolis“ und „Eumeswil“
Von Christophe Fricker
Ausgabe 08-2017

Der Chronist des Getöses.
Zur kritischen Edition von Ernst Jüngers „Krieg als inneres Erlebnis. Schriften zum Ersten Weltkrieg“
Von Walter Delabar
Ausgabe 09-2016

Im Gespräch mit einem Titanen.
Christophe Fricker gibt die Gespräche zwischen Ernst Jünger und André Müller heraus
Von Stefan Tuczek
Ausgabe 08-2015

Aporien des Krieges, des Erzählens und der Theorie.
Die lesenswerte Studie „Writing War“ von Daniela Kirschstein widmet sich der Kriegsliteratur von Ernst Jünger, Louis-Ferdinand Céline und Curzio Malaparte
Von Wolfgang M. Schmitt
Ausgabe 07-2015

Günter Grass und Ernst Jünger.
Trotz aller Unterscheide zeigen sich erstaunliche Parallelen im Werk der beiden Schriftsteller
Von Gabriela Ociepa
Ausgabe 05-2015

Biographisches Rohmaterial.
Über Ernst Jüngers „Feldpostbriefe an die Familie 1915–1918“
Von Niels Penke
Ausgabe 12-2014

Die Hoffnung führt weiter als die Furcht.
Tom Schilling liest Ernst Jüngers „In Stahlgewittern“
Von Martin Ingenfeld
Ausgabe 07-2014

Warum eigentlich Ernst Jünger?.
Ein neues Handbuch bereichert die Forschung zu einem umstrittenen Autor
Von Daniel Borgeldt
Ausgabe 07-2014

In allen Lagern Gegner.
Tonaufnahmen von Lesungen und Vorträgen Ernst Jüngers
Von Andreas R. Klose
Ausgabe 03-2014

Stahlgewitter.
Ernst Jünger und der Erste Weltkrieg
Von Helmuth Kiesel
Ausgabe 02-2014

Werkpolitik im Spiegel nordischer Motive.
Niels Penke stellt Ernst Jüngers Schriften in den Kontext der skandinavischen Literatur
Von Maik M. Müller
Ausgabe 01-2014

Tore der Wahrnehmung.
Über eine erstmals veröffentlichte Auswahl des Briefwechsels zwischen Albert Hofmann und Ernst Jünger
Von Volker Strebel
Ausgabe 11-2013

Noch einmal: Der neue revolutionäre Mensch.
Mario Bosincu über „Die Wende Ernst Jüngers“
Von Jerker Spits
Ausgabe 08-2013

Planetarisches aus der Provinz.
Ein Konstanzer Tagungsband nimmt den mittleren und späten Ernst Jünger in den Blick
Von Niels Penke
Ausgabe 04-2013

En vogue in einem kleinen Kreis.
Ernst Jünger aus der Sicht seines französischen Übersetzers Julien Hervier
Von Jerker Spits
Ausgabe 10-2012

Ein zuweilen starrsinniges Beharren auf Unabhängigkeit.
In bislang ausführlichster Weise berichtet der 2011 verstorbene Literaturwissenschaftler Heinz Ludwig Arnold über seine Zeit mit Ernst Jünger
Von Volker Strebel
Ausgabe 06-2012

Zwischen Bewegung und Verharren.
Jan Robert Weber untersucht den ästhetischen Wert von Ernst Jüngers Reisetagebüchern
Von Heide Kunzelmann
Ausgabe 01-2012

Zum Oberlehrer ungeeignet.
Thomas Amos legt in der bewährten Reihe der Rowohlt-Monografien eine Biografie Ernst Jüngers mit Ecken und Kanten vor
Von Volker Strebel
Ausgabe 01-2012

Instrumentalisierter Tötungstrieb.
Michael Gratzke untersucht die Grundfiguren des Heldentums bei Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, Heinrich von Kleist, Theodor Fontane, Ernst Jünger und Heiner Müller
Von Erhard Jöst
Ausgabe 06-2011

Der kanonische Rang eines Klassikers.
Ernst Jünger – mehr als eine Bilanz in einem neuen Sammelband
Von Gabriele Guerra
Ausgabe 05-2011

Ernst Jüngers Rhodos-Reisen von 1938, 1964 und 1981
Ausgabe 01-2011

Totale Tinte.
Ohne Anlass wird Ernst Jünger vom Deutschen Literaturarchiv Marbach als einer der „wichtigsten Schriftsteller der Moderne“ vorgestellt – und Helmuth Kiesel beglückt uns mit seiner Erst-Edition der „Tagebücher 1914-1918“
Von Jan Süselbeck
Ausgabe 01-2011

Der verborgene Prophet.
Ernst Jüngers politische Theologie zwischen Autorität und Repräsentation
Von Gabriele Guerra
Ausgabe 01-2010

Eine gute Zeit für Drogen.
Wiederbegegnung mit Ernst Jüngers „Annäherungen“
Von Christophe Fricker
Ausgabe 01-2009

Kriegsträumer.
Lars Koch zu Walter Flex und Ernst Jünger als Repräsentanten der Gegenmoderne
Von Walter Delabar
Ausgabe 12-2008

Fotoalbum für Wehrsport-Fans.
Nils Fabiansson hat Schauplätze von Ernst Jüngers Kriegstagebuch „In Stahlgewittern“ aufgesucht
Von Jan Süselbeck
Ausgabe 03-2008

Nach dem Fazit.
Hans Blumenberg über Ernst Jünger
Von Kai Köhler
Ausgabe 03-2008

Hochmut und Leutseligkeit auf dem Dorf.
Ernst Jünger in neueren Biografien und Monografien
Von Lutz Hagestedt
Ausgabe 03-2008

Springtime for Ernst Jünger.
Über Heimo Schwilks Jünger-Biografie
Von Philipp Steglich
Ausgabe 03-2008

Freunde unter sich.
Günther Nicolin editiert den Briefwechsel von Ernst Jünger und Stefan Andres
Von Torsten Mergen
Ausgabe 06-2007

Unterhaltung über Mescalin.
Die späte Begegnung der beiden Einzelgänger Gottfried Benn und Ernst Jünger: Jetzt wurde der schmale Briefwechsel vorgelegt
Von Volker Strebel
Ausgabe 07-2006

Deutschsein als Amt.
Zum Briefwechsel Ernst Jüngers und Friedrich Hielschers
Von Volker Strebel
Ausgabe 12-2005

Ernst Jünger: Politik – Mythos – Kunst
Ausgabe 12-2004

„Wie kein anderer erfährt er den Weltkrieg sogleich metaphysisch.“.
Martin Heideggers Bemerkungen zu Ernst Jünger
Von Stephan Günzel
Ausgabe 08-2004

Teilnehmen, Anteil nehmen.
Michael E. Sallinger begeistert sich für Ernst Jünger und seinesgleichen
Von Viktor Schlawenz
Ausgabe 08-2004

Zwischen Traum und Trauma.
Michael Gnädingers Studie zum Frühwerk Ernst Jüngers
Von Helmut Kaffenberger
Ausgabe 04-2004

„Wann hat dieser Scheißkrieg ein Ende“?.
Der britische Germanist John King gewährt Einblicke in die originalen Kriegstagebücher Ernst Jüngers
Von Jerker Spits
Ausgabe 12-2003

Vor und nach dem Rochenstich.
Mit Band 22 ist die Ausgabe der „Gesammelten Werke“ Ernst Jüngers abgeschlossen
Von Lutz Hagestedt
Ausgabe 12-2003

Stratege im Hintergrund.
Ernst Jüngers Briefwechsel mit Gerhard Nebel
Von Gunther Nickel
Ausgabe 11-2003

Ernst Jünger – verzettelt und verzeichnet.
Nicolai Riedels Ernst Jünger-Bibliographie und Tobias Wimbauers „Personenregister“
Von Gunther Nickel
Ausgabe 07-2003

Die Psychoanalyse des körperlichen und gestischen Agierens.
Über ein neues Paradigma für Psychotherapie und Kulturwissenschaften mit einem Ausblick auf Ernst Jüngers „In Stahlgewittern“
Von Harald Weilnböck
Ausgabe 03-2003

Literarische Adaption des Griechentums.
Annette Rinks Studie über Ernst Jüngers Antike-Rezeption
Von Reinhard Wilczek
Ausgabe 11-2002

Schönheit des Untergangs.
Roswitha Schieb untersucht Körper- und Kollektivbilder bei Ernst Jünger, Hans Henny Jahnn und Peter Weiss
Von Lutz Hagestedt
Ausgabe 11-2002

Eine Welt sinnloser Bezüge.
Ulrich Prill entdeckt Ernst Jünger als homo ludens
Von Helge Schmid
Ausgabe 11-2002

Ich befand mich einfach in einer anderen Dimension.
Ernst Jünger im Gespräch mit Antonio Gnoli und Franco Volpi
Von Lutz Hagestedt
Ausgabe 11-2002

Ich fühle, dass meine Wurzeln hier sind.
Ein Bildband über Ernst Jünger in Oberschwaben
Von Helge Schmid
Ausgabe 11-2002

Der Einzelne nach der Kehre.
Jörg Sader untersucht Ernst Jüngers „Strahlungen“
Von Lutz Hagestedt
Ausgabe 11-2002

Starke Frauen, intrigante Männer.
Ernst Jüngers Dramenfragment „Prinzessin Tarakanowa“
Von Christina Ujma
Ausgabe 11-2002

Ernst Jünger in Berlin 1927-1933
Ausgabe 01-2002

Ernst Jünger in Wilflingen
Ausgabe 01-2002

Zwischen Subjektivität und Authentizität.
Volker Mergenthaler zum poetologischen Problem narrativer Kriegsbegegnung im Frühwerk Ernst Jüngers
Von Reinhard Wilczek
Ausgabe 01-2002

Ambiguität des Figürlichen.
Julia Draganovic untersucht das metaphysische Grundkonzept in Ernst Jüngers Prosa
Von Lutz Hagestedt
Ausgabe 01-2002

Exotische Lesefrüchte eines Jahrhundert-Autors.
Thomas Pekars Studie über Ernst Jüngers Orient-Rezeption
Von Reinhard Wilczek
Ausgabe 01-2002

Führung durch Stahlgewitter und Waldgänge.
Steffen Martus gibt einen exzellenten Überblick über das Werk Ernst Jüngers
Von Stephan Landshuter
Ausgabe 01-2002

Autor und Sekretär, Verehrer und Gegner.
Ernst Jünger in einer Festschrift und in einer Streitschrift
Von Lutz Hagestedt
Ausgabe 01-2002

Garantiert politisch unkorrekt.
Ernst Jüngers politische Publizistik aus den Jahren 1919 bis 1933
Von Gunther Nickel
Ausgabe 01-2002

Großer Übergang und päpstlicher Segen.
Ernst Jüngers Werkausgabe in den Supplementbänden 19 und 20
Von Lutz Hagestedt
Ausgabe 01-2002

Ernst Jünger als Nietzsche-Rezipient.
Die Nihilismusthese ist die Leitlinie seines Schaffens
Von Ursula Homann
Ausgabe 02-2001

Momente der Selbstbegegnung.
Ernst Jüngers Tagebuch und Briefwechsel
Von Lutz Hagestedt
Ausgabe 10-2000

Unsere Total-Kalamität.
Ernst Jüngers Briefwechsel mit Carl Schmitt
Von Lutz Hagestedt
Ausgabe 10-2000

Saulus und Paulus.
Elliot Y. Neamans Studie über Ernst Jünger und die post-faschistische Literaturpolitik
Von Lutz Hagestedt
Ausgabe 10-2000

Elementar nützlich.
Tobias Wimbauers Personenregister der Tagebücher Ernst Jüngers
Von Helge Schmid
Ausgabe 10-2000

Trauma, Drogenrausch, Gewaltrausch.
Klaus Gauger über drei liminale Zustände in Ernst Jüngers Werk
Von Helge Schmid
Ausgabe 10-2000

Das Ende der Heldenzeit.
Dirk Blotzheim untersucht Ernst Jüngers Frühwerk
Von Lutz Hagestedt
Ausgabe 10-2000

Ich werde plötzlich dumpf, erbreche draußen.
Armin Mohler berichtet über seine Jahre mit Ernst Jünger
Von Kai Köhler
Ausgabe 10-2000

Die durchgedrückte Brust des Melancholikers.
Die Ernst Jünger-Biografie von Paul Noack
Von Oliver Jahn
Ausgabe 10-2000

Bildhauer, bleib bei deinen Skulpturen.
Serge D. Mangin und seine „Annäherungen an Ernst Jünger 1990 – 1998“
Von Oliver Jahn
Ausgabe 10-2000

Zum 20. Todestag von Ernst Jünger

Ex: https://www.der-dritte-weg.info

Auch heute noch, zwanzig Jahre nach seinem Tod, ist es kein leichtes Unterfangen über Leben, Werk und Wirken des Jahrhundertschriftstellers zu schreiben. Zu widersprüchlich scheinen seine Worte und seine Taten zu sein, zu wechselhaft seine Gedanken und Sätze. Ernst Jünger, das ist der hochdekorierte Stoßtruppführer des ersten Weltkriegs, der radikale Nationalist der Zwischenkriegszeit, der innere Emigrant während des dritten Reiches und schließlich der kategoriensprengende Denker der zweiten Hälfte des letzten Jahrhunderts. Es kann bereits am Anfang dieses Artikels gesagt werden, dass man keinesfalls eine befriedigende oder abschließende Betrachtung Jüngers – auch aus nationalrevolutionärer Perspektive – in diesem begrenzten Platz liefern kann, sondern allenfalls eine Annäherung. Wie soll man auch einen Soldaten, Schriftsteller und Denker, dessen Leben 103 Jahre währte, dessen Gesamtausgabe (wo nicht einmal alle Werke und Aufsätze drin enthalten sind!) nicht weniger als 23 dicke Bände füllt und der nicht nur zwei Weltkriege, sondern, die BRÖ mit eingerechnet, sechs deutsche Staaten gesehen hat, in einem einzigen Artikel gerecht werden? Als ältestes von fünf Kindern 1895 geboren, erlebte Jünger noch die letzten Jahre des deutschen Kaiserreiches, welches ihn durchaus noch für den Rest seines Lebens prägen sollte. Der Weg des schlechten Schülers, aber begeisterten Lesers, sollte ihn zunächst in den Wandervogel und später durch die halbe Welt führen.

Dass Jünger vor allem ein „abenteuerliches Herz“, wie eines seiner Werke heißt, war, zeigte sich bereits 1913, als der grade 18 Jährige nach Frankreich entfloh und sich zur Fremdenlegion meldete. Einzig dem diplomatischen Geschick seines Vaters ist es geschuldet, dass sich Jünger als Kriegsfreiwilliger nach Ablegung seines Notabiturs 1914 in den ersten Weltkrieg auf deutscher Seite melden konnte und er nicht als Fremdenlegionär gegen das eigene Vaterland zu Felde ziehen musste. Mehr als 20 Jahre später beschrieb Jünger in seinen „Afrikanischen Spiele“ seine Zeit bei der Fremdenlegion. Bereits am ersten Kriegstag begann er mit dem Schreiben seines später weltberühmt werdenden Tagebuchs. Schonungslos und objektiv, und doch mit einer lebendigen Sprache und einer, wie er schrieb, „trunkenen Stimmung aus Rosen und Blut“ beschrieb er in seinem als „In Stahlgewittern“ veröffentlichtem Tagebuch seine Kriegserlebnisse. Der „ruhige Leutnant“ machte sich in vierjährigem Einsatz an der Westfront einen Namen, durchquerte alle bekannten westlichen Schlachtfelder des ersten Weltkriegs und ging mit fast stoischer Haltung durch „Feuer und Blut“, wie eines seiner weiteren Werke über den ersten Weltkrieg heißt.

„Es entstand ein neuer Mensch, ein neuer Lebenswille. Ihn kennzeichnete die nervige Härte des Kämpfers, der Ausdruck der einsameren Verantwortung, der seelischen Verlassenheit. In diesem Ringen … bewährte sich sein Rang. Der Weg, den er ging, war schmal und gefährlich, aber es war ein Weg, der in die Zukunft führte … Der Anblick des Gegners bringt neben letztem Grauen auch Erlösung von schwerem, unerträglichem Druck. Das ist die Wollust des Blutes, die über dem Kriege hängt wie ein rotes Sturmsegel über schwarzer Galeere, an grenzenlosem Schwunge, nur dem Eros verwandt“, schrieb Jünger in seinem ersten literarischen Gehversuch. Den Krieg hatte, laut ihm, der deutsche Frontsoldat wie einen Wein genossen und war auch nach seinem Ende immer noch davon berauscht, ein Ausdruck, der sicherlich auf viele der entlassenen Soldaten und kommenden Freikorpskämpfer zutrifft. Für ihn gewann der Kampf neben der Zerstörung und des Todes auch eine metaphysische Bedeutung, wie er in „Der Kampf als inneres Erlebnis“ darzustellen versuchte. Für ihn war derjenige, der beim Krieg nur die Verneinung, nur das eigene Leiden und nicht die Bejahung empfunden habe, ein Sklave, der lediglich ein äußeres, aber kein inneres Erlebnis hatte.

Doch in den Stahlgewittern der Materialschlachten gewann er nicht nur seine Ansichten über Krieg und Frieden, sondern auch den Beginn seiner technikkritischen Anschauungen, die ihn sein Leben lang als einer der wenigen Kontinuitäten begleiten sollte. Die Materialschlachten, Artilleriegeschosse und Panzer reduzierten den Krieg zum Handwerk und den Krieger zu einem namen- und gesichtslosen Objekt. Die Ansichten, ob der Soldat doch über die Materie siegen kann oder ob diese ihn dominiert, schwankt immer wieder in seinen Werken und in denen seiner Zeitgenossen. Die vier Hauptwerke Jüngers über sein „Bruderschaftstrinken mit dem Tod“, „In Stahlgewittern“, „Feuer und Blut“, „Der Kampf als inneres Erlebnis“ und „Wäldchen 125“ zeugen nicht nur von diesen Gedanken, sondern gehören wohl auch zu den literarisch besten Beschreibungen der Erlebnisse des feldgrauen Soldaten des ersten Weltkriegs. Es ist eine Mischung aus Heldenmut, Eros, Sprachkraft, Tod und Leben, die ihm bei vielen Pazifisten bis heute in den Ruf eines Kriegstreibers bringt.

„Oft hielt ein Fähnlein eherner Gesellen sich endlose Tage im Gewölk der Schlacht, verbissen in ein unbekanntes Stückchen Graben oder eine Reihe von Trichtern, wie sich Schiffbrüchige im Orkan an zertrümmerte Masten klammern. In ihrer Mitte hatte der Tod seine Feldherrnstandarte in den Boden gestoßen. Leichenfelder vor ihnen, von ihren Geschossen gemäht, neben und zwischen ihnen die Leichen der Kameraden, Tod selbst in ihren Augen, die seltsam starr in eingefallenen Gesichtern lagen, diesen Gesichtern, die an die grausige Realistik alter Kreuzigungsbilder erinnerten. Fast verschmachtet hockten sie in der Verwesung, die unerträglich wurde, wenn wieder einer der Eisenstürme den erstarrten Totentanz aufrührte und die mürben Körper hoch in die Lüfte schleuderte … Man zog ja über das Grausige hinweg mit genagelten Stiefeln, ehern und blutgewohnt. Und doch fühlte man, wie etwas um die verwaisten Kamine strich und einem den Hals zuschnürte, so eisig, daß man schlucken mußte. Man war ja ein Träger des Krieges, rücksichtslos und verwegen, hatte manchen umgelegt, über den man weitergeschritten war mit starken Gefühlen in der Brust. Doch dies war wie ein Kinderwimmern aus wilden Mooren, eine gespenstische Klage wie das Glockengeläut des versunkenen Vineta über Meer und Mittag. Gleich dem Untergang jener übermütigen Stadt spürte man das hoffnungslose Versinken einer Kultur, erschauernd vor der Erkenntnis, im Strudel mit hinabgerissen zu werden“, heißt es etwa im „Kampf als inneres Erlebnis“.

Selbst am Ende seines Lebens sollte er sich nie von diesen Darstellungen distanzieren, noch als Greis antwortete er französischen Journalisten, dass sein schrecklichstes Erlebnis im ersten Weltkrieg gewesen sei, dass Deutschland ihn verloren habe. Eine Aussage, die umso höher zu bewerten ist, wenn man bedenkt, dass der junge Stoßtruppführer vierzehn Verwundungen erlitt. Mit Ende des Krieges begann auch der wohl bis heute umstrittenste Abschnitt seines Lebens. Während sich zahlreiche andere Soldaten zu den Freikorps meldete , diente der Kriegsheld zunächst in der Reichswehr. Zwar soll er, laut eigener Aussage, einmal eine kurze Zeit bei dem berühmten Freikorpsführer Roßbach gewesen sein, allerdings habe ihn die Landknechtartigkeit vieler Freikorpskämpfer abgeschreckt. In die folgenden Jahren folgen nicht nur seine zahlreichen Artikel in radikalnationalistischen Zeitschriften – zusammengefasst gibt es sie heutzutage als „Politische Publizistik“ zu erwerben – sondern auch seine Zeit als Bohemien. Neben literarische Studien, nationalistischen Büchern und Artikeln gab es auch Jüngers erste Drogenerfahrungen, die er in seiner Erzählung „Polnischer Karpfen“ behandelt. (Später sollten weitere Experimente, speziell zusammen mit dem Erfinder von LSD, folgen.) Jünger, so viel sei an dieser Stelle gesagt, ergab sich aber nicht dem in der Weimarer Schandrepublik propagierten Drogenkonsum zur Erhöhung der Lust und des Rausches wegen, sondern eher aus transzendenten Abenteuerlust.

Während der Kampfzeit der Nationalisten gegen die Novemberverbrecher wurde Jünger einer der Wortführer des „Neuen Nationalismus“. Sätze wie „Der Tag, an dem der parlamentarische Staat unter unserem Zugriff zusammenstürzt, und an dem wir die nationale Diktatur ausrufen, wird unser höchster Festtag sein.“ begeisterten zahllose nationale Aktivisten. Doch grade auch seine nationalistische Zeit wirft neue Fragen in Mysterium Jüngers auf. War er auf der einen Seite radikaler Nationalist – die NSDAP lehnte er später u. A. deswegen ab, weil diese einen legalen Weg beschritt, er wollte die bewaffnete Revolution – und erklärter Todfeind der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft, so führte er, während Hunderte Nationalisten im Straßenkampf ihr Leben ließen, selbst ein bürgerliches Leben. Noch 1926 sandte er Adolf Hitler sein Buch „Feuer und Blut“ mit der Widmung „Dem nationalen Führer Adolf Hitler“ und sprach sich in verschiedenen Beiträgen positiv über die NSDAP und den Nationalsozialismus aus. Erst die Entwicklung zur Massenpartei sowie eine wirtschaftspolitische Orientierung von Jünger an den Bolschewismus entfremdeten ihn der NSDAP, der er schließlich sogar vorwarf, verbürgerlicht zu sein.

Als vermeintlich sein höchster Feiertag gekommen war und der parlamentarische Staat am 30. Januar 1933 zerbrach, stellte sich Jünger nicht der neuen nationalen Regierung zur Verfügung, sondern begab sich in die „innere Emigration“. Vom Nationalsozialismus trennte ihn zwar der Rassegedanke (den Jünger als materialistisch ablehnte) , auch war die NSDAP eine Massenpartei, während sich Jünger in einem, wie man es wohl heute aus unserer Sicht beurteilen kann, „Elitenwahn“ befand, dennoch waren die Übereinstimmungen zwischen dem dritten Reich und Jüngers nationaler Visionen weit größer als die Differenzen. Es wird wohl für immer ein Rätsel bleiben, wieso Jünger nicht wie andere seiner Zeit und einiger seiner engen Freunde – etwa Heidegger, Benn oder Schmitt – zumindest versuchte, die neue Zeit mitzugestalten, sondern sich von Beginn an abseits hielt. Unzweifelhaft war ihm der Totalitarismus des dritten Reiches nicht genehm, dennoch muss man wohl als Nationalist das Urteil ziehen, dass für Jünger mehr der Weg als das Erreichen des Ziels entscheidend gewesen war. Dazu kommt seine Ende der 20er-Jahre einsetzende Entwicklung weg von der politischen Publizistik hin zur reinen literarischen Betätigung. Allerdings sollte er eine gewisse nationale Einstellung sein Leben lang beibehalten, zwar nicht mehr in ihrer ursprünglichen Radikalität, aber dennoch vorhanden.

So wie es über seine Tätigkeiten in der Novemberrepublik zahlreiche Vorwürfe von den späteren Kriegssiegern und liberalen Nachkriegsgenerationen gab, so gibt es über seine Zeit im dritten Reich und insbesondere im zweiten Weltkrieg solche von nationalistischer Seite. Jünger hielt auch während der Zeit der nationalsozialistischen Regierung Kontakt zu Staatsfeinden wie Ernst Niekisch, was ihn ins Visier der Polizei geraten ließ. Doch handelt es sich dabei nicht um einen im eigentlichen Sinne widerständigen Kontakt, Jünger hielt vielmehr den intellektuellen Austausch mit dem ihm befreundeten Niekisch. Später sollte er einen solchen auch mit dem französischen Faschisten und Kollaborateur Pierre Drieu la Rochelle, zu dem ihm ebenfalls eine Freundschaft verband, pflegen. Überhaupt muss Jünger mehr als Denker und Schriftsteller und weniger als politischer Mensch angesehen werden. Als solcher hatte er auch Kontakt zu dem Widerstandskreis des 20. Juli 1944, allerdings ohne sich an den Planungen zum Attentat auf Adolf Hitler zu beteiligen oder genaueres zu wissen. Zwar war Jünger ohne Zweifel ein Gegner des Krieges, in dem sein einziger Sohn fiel, politische Attentate lehnte er allerdings schon aus Prinzip ab.

Er hatte sich in den Jahren seiner „inneren Emigration“ zunehmend zum Selbstbildnis seiner literarischen Gestalt des Anarchen bzw. des Waldgängers entwickelt, einer Person, die sich aus dem Laufe der Geschichte heraushält und versucht, seinen eigenen Weg abseits der großen Ereignisse zu gehen. Seine oft als Anti-NS Schrift beschriebenen Marmorklippen sind ebenfalls Teil dieser Entwicklung, die Marmorklippen sind aber eher als generell antitotalitäres Buch zu verstehen, als explizit gegen das dritte Reich gerichtet. Adolf Hitler selbst hielt die zwölf Jahre durchgehend persönlich seine schützende Hand über Jünger, mit dem er in der Kampfzeit noch signierte Bücher austauschte. Nach dem 8. Mai 1945 erhielt Jünger über einige Jahre ein Publikationsverbot, bevor er sein literarisches Schaffen weiterführen konnte. Damit gelangen ihm nicht nur Bestseller, sondern sogar die Verleihung des Goethe-Preises, wobei zahlreiche linke und linksradikale Akteure der bundesrepublikanischen Kulturlandschaft gegen Jünger zu Felde zogen.

Über Jahrzehnte zog sich die Diskussion um ihn und seine Werke, auch heute noch ist sie nicht abgeschlossen. Unabhängig von den Inhalten seiner Werke mussten aber die meisten Kulturkritiker die hohe literarische Qualität des wohl umstrittensten deutschen Autoren überhaupt würdigen. Ein abschließendes Fazit zu Jünger wird sich wohl nie finden lassen: Abenteurer und doch verharrend in einem bürgerlichen Leben, radikaler Nationalist und doch Gegner des dritten Reiches, Kriegsheld und Denker, Schriftsteller und Philosoph, zu groß sind die Widersprüche und die Richtungswechsel, die Jünger eingeschlagen hat. Am ehesten lässt er sich wohl noch als romantischer Abenteurer beurteilen, er selbst gefiel sich in der Rolle des Seismografen, der die Ereignisse seiner Zeit beobachtet und schilderte, statt sie zu gestalten. Ob man ihn ablehnt – und wenn ja aus welchen Gründen – oder ob man sich von seinen Werken begeistern lässt, vor 20 Jahren starb unzweifelhaft einer der Großen der deutschen Kulturlandschaft.