Il fascino eterno della femme fatale

Il fascino eterno della femme fatale

Mario Bernardi Guardi

Ex: http://www.mirorenzaglia.org/

“Non lo fo per piacer mio, ma per dare un figlio a Dio”, garantivano in rima baciata i camicioni da notte delle nostre trisavole. E diamo pure per buoni pudori e rossori di quelle spose e madri esemplari: ma non ci si venga a dire che tutte le signore dello stupido XIX secolo, con novecentesche appendici, erano così devote e vereconde. Non lo era sicuramente la celeberrima contessa di Castiglione, cugina di Cavour, e scelta dal conte per convincere Napoleone III a scendere a fianco dei piemontesi nella guerra contro l’Austria. Lei, «bocca sdegnosa, occhi grigi dal fascino inesplicabile» non se lo fece ripetere due volte e «in una camera tappezzata di Damasco di seta azzurra del castello di Compiegne» lo sedusse, convertendolo alla buona causa del patriottismo italico. Ma così come non era mai stata fedele al marito, «un ingenuo galantuomo ingannato ‘prima, durante e dopo’, non si consacrò certo a un esclusivo amore imperiale e concesse lo stropicciato fiore della sua (poca) virtù a una numerosa schiera di amanti, non disdegnando l’amore mercenario. Visto che per una notte di fuoco chiese a Lord Hertford un milione di franchi. Va detto anche che la vocazione libertina della nostra contessa era ben nota. Tanto è vero che un gentiluomo della corte di Napoleone, vedendola succhiare un sorbetto di fiori d’arancio, le chiese in tono pesantemente allusivo: “Le piace succhiare, contessa?”, e lei rispose ridendo: “Dipende da cosa…”».

Donne, donne eterni dèi! E davvero fascinose, voluttuose, vampiresche divinità sciupamaschi sono quelle (ventidue, tra grandi dame, grandi cortigiane, attrici, muse ispiratrici, intellettuali salottiere e militanti ecc.)  ritratte da Giuseppe Scaraffia in un libro uscito l’anno scorso, ma che, in questo delirio di escort piuttosto sgraziate, volgarotte e urlanti da cui siamo afflitti, può essere recuperato, a insegna di altri tempi e altre, più eleganti e galanti, atmosfere (Femme fatale, Vallecchi, pp.175, euro 15).

Andiamo di fiore in fiore. Cristina di Belgioioso, avvezza a ricevere gli spasimanti «in un salotto tappezzato di velluto scuro ricamato di stelle d’argento» dove si mostrava mollemente «allungata su un sofà vicino a un narghilè, la testa incoronata di fucsie, il suo fiore preferito», era tanto sicura di sé da dividere gli uomini in tre categorie: «Mi ama, mi ha amato, mi amerà». E la amarono, tra alterne vicende, Balzac, Bellini, Heine, Liszt e de Musset. Non fece in tempo ad amarla, invece, il garibaldino Goffredo Mameli che, ferito mentre combatteva contro i francesi sul Gianicolo, spirò tra le braccia di Cristina, mentre lei gli sussurrava “Fratelli d’Italia”.

Sciupamaschi d’eccezione fu anche l’attrice Sarah Bernhardt di cui si diceva che dormisse «in una bara di raso bianco, tra una funebre abbondanza di fiori». Ma anche che dietro i suoi pallori anoressici occultasse bulumici appetiti: in pubblico rifiutava sdegnosamente il cibo, ma solo dopo essersi «rimpinzata coscienziosamente» in privato. La amarono, a lei si ispirarono, per lei si entusiasmarono Hugo, Proust, James, Rostand, Lawrence, Shaw: chissà se sapevano che la Divina «nei periodi di penuria non esitava a prostituirsi per congrue cifre, come testimoniano le note della polizia parigina».

Anche Jeanne Duval, la creola «bruna come la notte», la «strega dai fianchi d’ebano», che ammaliò il bello, dannato e fragilissimo Baudelaire, era adusa a procurarsi i soldi nei modi più spregiudicati. E amava troppo «bere e fare l’amore» per recitar la parte della Musa devota e dell’amante fedele. Lui, ovviamente, pativa, implorava, malediceva. Ma, cotto com’era, continuava a venerare quella mulatta ignorante che se ne fregava dei suoi versi.  «Anche quando cammina si direbbe che danzi», scriveva trasognato. E dopo aver beccato la sifilide.

Fior di danzatrice e “femme fatale” per eccellenza fu Mata Hari che diceva di essere nata nel sud dell’India, figlia di un bramino e di una baiadera. Quel nome esotico, aggiungeva, significa “pupilla dell’aurora”. Fosse vero o meno, quando appariva in palcoscenico, «ondeggiando sinuosamente sotto i veli che la nascondevano e la rivelavano», il pubblico andava in estasi e immergeva lo sguardo goloso in quel corpo che, tentatore, si arrotolava e si srotolava, fino a lasciarsi scivolare a terra, spossato, coperto soltanto da un minuscolo “cache-seins” e, sul pube, da un invitante triangolino tempestato di pietre preziose. Anche lei fu amata e venerata. Nell’aureo “carnet”, tra gli altri, Céline e Filippo Tommaso Marinetti. E un appuntamento con la morte, la mattina del 15 ottobre 1917. Fucilata dai francesi con l’accusa di spionaggio a favore degli Imperi Centrali. Ma gli elementi a suo carico erano ridicoli e inconsistenti. Forse, più che la spia, chi la condannò volle ammazzare la “femme fatale”. Che bella morte, però. Che stile. Che movimenti eleganti e ondulati da magnifica pantera non profanata dalla prigionia. E che concede un’ultima rappresentazione: «Si lasciò docilmente legare al palo. I due gendarmi le fecero una legatura finta, da teatro, da cui si sarebbe potuta liberare facilmente, ma non lo fece. Non doveva uscire dalla parte che la storia le aveva assegnato. Guardò negli occhi il comandante del plotone: “Monsieur, vi ringrazio”. Non volle che le bendassero gli occhi. Mata Hari non significava ‘luce del mattino’?».

MARIO BERNARDI GUARDI

Big Brother et Mickey Mouse

Big Brother et Mickey Mouse

Par François Bousquet

La gauche a toujours aimé se faire peur en se jouant des films d’horreur. Le ventre est encore fécond d’où a surgi la bête immonde, n’est-ce pas !

On connaît le refrain, il scande un demi-siècle d’antifascisme parodique. On le croyait inusable, mais il a vieilli. Il faut dire que la bête immonde a profondément mué. Elle ne porte plus des cornes, mais des Ray Ban. La chirurgie esthétique a adouci ses traits. Chemin faisant, on est passé des années 40 au CAC 40. C’est beaucoup plus fun. Il manquait un nom à cette nouvelle bête. Raffaele Simone lui en a trouvé un, c’est « le Monstre doux », titre de son dernier livre***, qui a fait pas mal de remous en Italie à sa sortie en 2009, dans un pays berluscosinistré. L’ouvrage n’est pas sans intérêt, même s’il n’apporte rien de nouveau, en tout cas rien qui n’ait déjà été dit par Tocqueville. Ce monstre doux, c’est l’Occident qui virerait à droite, selon Simone, mélange de Big Brother et de Mickey Mouse.

On a beau savoir qu’on ne prête qu’aux riches (et donc à la droite), on ne voit pas trop ce qu’elle vient faire ici, fût-elle génétiquement modifiée. Certes, la gauche a perdu la main, on le concède volontiers à l’auteur, mais elle a encore presque toutes les cartes. Ceux d’entre vous qui travaillent dans l’édition, le journalisme, l’éducation, la culture, en savent quelque chose. Elle est le pays légal figé dans une posture avant-gardiste, montrant la voie à des populations contrariées qui la désavouent dans les urnes. Ce désaveu attriste Raffaele Simone. Il ne le comprend pas. C’est pourtant bien simple : la gauche est confrontée à l’usure du pouvoir. Comme toutes les machines idéologiques longtemps dominantes, elle parle dans le vide. Pour autant, on ne sache pas que la droite l’ait remplacée, ou alors une droite aux hormones made in USA. Non, ce qui triomphe aujourd’hui, c’est la société du spectacle, le marché, l’hyperconsommation, l’obésité, le télévoyeurisme, etc. Qu’est-ce que la droite a à voir avec ça ? Raffaele Simone ne nous le dit pas.

Notre monde est résiduellement politique. Les libéraux et les libertaires, longtemps minoritaires de part et d’autre de l’échiquier politique, ont vampirisé ce qu’il restait de droite et de gauche historiques. Leurs mots d’ordre sont devenus notre quotidien. Jouissez, consommez, panurgez. L’un des maîtres à penser de la géopolitique américaine, Zbigniew Brzezinski, a appelé cela l’âge du « tittytainment », contraction d’« entertainment » (divertissement) et de « tit » (le sein, au sens d’allaitement maternel). Mais Juvénal, qui était meilleur poète que Brzezinski, a donné pour toujours la formule à succès des empires sur le déclin : panem et circenses. Des barres chocolatées et des jeux télévisés, ça a moins de gueule que les jeux du cirque, mais ça n’est guère différent.

François Bousquet

Source : Le Blog du Choc du Mois ^[1].

*** Raffaele Simone, « Le Monstre doux. Pourquoi l’Occident vire-t-il à droite ? », « Le Débat », Gallimard, 192 p. 17,50 €.

---

Article printed from :: Novopress.info France: http://fr.novopress.info

URL to article: http://fr.novopress.info/71930/big-brother-et-mickey-mouse-par-francois-bousquet/

URLs in this post:

[1] Le Blog du Choc du Mois: http://blogchocdumois.hautetfort.com/archive/2010/10/25/big-brother-et-mickey-mouse.html#more

Pétain & De Gaulle:
Two Figures of a Tragic Destiny

Dominique Venner

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

Translated by Greg Johnson

Pétain, De Gaulle . . . Let us think for a moment about those personages from a far-off time.

First, what a astonishing destiny for Marshal Pétain! To have risen so high and fallen so low! In the long history of France, other great personages were admired, but surely none was loved more before being denigrated so much.

His misfortune was to inherit not only a defeat in which he played no part, but also a people, once great, that had fallen terribly low. Yet, he never gave up on his people.

General De Gaulle, whose destiny so often crossed his, did not nourish the same hopes or the same illusions: “I bluffed,” he confided to Georges Pompidou around 1950, “but the 1st army, they were Negroes and Africans [he meant to say “pied-noirs”]. The Leclerc division had 2,500 engaged in Paris. Actually, I saved face, but France did not follow. They collapsed! From the bottom of my heart, I tell you: all is lost. France is finished. I will have written the last page.” [1]

Even at his worst moments, Pétain could not have thought that.

He was born in 1856 to a peasant family in Picardy, under the reign of Napoleon III, before the automobile and electricity. Three times, he saw his fatherland invaded, in 1870, in 1914, and in 1940. The first time, he was a teenager, and his dream of revenge made him a soldier.

In 1914, he was 58 years old. His independence of mind had put the general’s stars out of reach. A mere colonel, he prepared to retire. The assassination of an Austrian archduke in Sarajevo and the conflagration of Europe decided otherwise. In the crucible, he was suddenly revealed. Four years later, he was that commander and chief of the victorious French Armies of 1918 and received the baton of Marshal of France. Of all the great leaders of this atrocious war, he was the only one loved by the soldiers. Unlike so many of his peers, he did not see his men as raw material. The victor of Verdun was one of the few who understood there is no point in winning if one’s own country is bled to death.

There are many explanations of the defeat of 1940, but for the old Marshal, one of the main causes was in the appalling bloodletting of 1914 to 1918. The holocaust of a million and half of young men had killed the energy of a whole people.

Thus the first priority was to keep these people as safe as possible from another slaughter. At the same time, Pétain hoped for a future renaissance through a “national revolution.” He has been attacked for that. Admittedly, all would be mortgaged by the Occupation. But really he had no choice. The “national revolution” was not premeditated. With all its ambiguities, it emerged spontaneously as a necessary remedy to the evils of the previous regime.

Today, in the safety and the comfort of a society at peace, it is easy to pass categorical judgments on the men of this that time. But those brutal, pitiless days could not be appeased by moral petitions. At every moment, they required decisions with cruel consequences that could lead to, as so often in times of war, to saving some lives by sacrificing others.

In Cangé, in the Council of Ministers, on June 13rd, 1940, having taken the full measure of the disaster, Marshal Pétain, his voice broken, outlined the policy he followed to the end, in 1944: “I declare that as far as I am concerned, outside of the government, if need be, I refuse to leave French soil. I will remain among the French people to share their sorrows and miseries.”

For those who did not assume the responsibility of government, it was permissible to take another side and symbolically raise the challenge of arms. And it is salubrious that some brave men made this choice. But what does that take away of the nobility to the sacrificial resolution of Marshal Pétain?

General De Gaulle’s adversaries try to minimize the scope and nobility of his own gesture, the call to open resistance. They point out that the Marshal’s former protégé had not jumped into the adventure without a parachute. They add that facing the Germans from London, behind a microphone, was less perilous than doing so in France in dramatic, unequal, daily interactions. Perhaps. But, parachute or not, the General’s choice to rebel was of rare audacity. The fruit of an unrestrained ambition, his detractors reply. Surely. But what can one accomplish without ambition?

This type of ambition, however, was lacking in Marshal Pétain. At the age of 84, with his record, he had nothing more to prove and everything to lose.

If our time were less intoxicated with petty politics and base resentments, we would have long ago celebrated the complementarity of two men who redeemed, each in his own fashion, that which is small, vile, and abject in our times.

Note:

1. Georges Pompidou, Pour rétablir une vérité (Paris: Flammarion, 1982), p. 128.

Source: Nouvelle Revue d’Histoire, no. 50, http://www.dominiquevenner.fr/#/edito-nrh-50-petain-de-ga...

The Rebel:
An Interview with Dominique Venner

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

Translated by Michael O’Meara

Czech translation based on this English translation: here

The noted French nationalist and historian speaks to the personal imperatives of white liberation.

Translator’s Note:

It’s a testament to the abysmal state of our culture that hardly one of Dominique Venner’s more than forty books have been translated into English. Venner is more than a gifted historian who has made major contributions to the most important chapters of modern, especially twentieth-century European history. He’s played a key role in both the development of the European New Right and the “Europeanization” of continental nationalism.

It is his “rebel heart” that explains his engagement in these great struggles, as well as his interests in the Russian Revolution, German fascism, French national socialism, the US Civil War, and the two world wars. The universe found in his works is one reminiscent of Ernst von Salomon’s Die Geächteten — one of the Homeric epics of our age.

The following interview is about the rebel. Unlike the racial conservatives dominant in US white nationalist ranks, European nationalism still bears traces of its revolutionary heritage — opposed as it is not merely to the alien, anti-national forces, but to the entire liberal modernist subversion, of which the United States has been the foremost exemplar.

Question: What is a rebel? Is one born a rebel, or just happens to become one? Are there different types of rebels?

Dominique Venner: It’s possible to be intellectually rebellious, an irritant to the herd, without actually being a rebel. Paul Morand [a diplomat and novelist noted for his anti-Semitism and collaborationism under Vichy] is a good example of this. In his youth, he was something of a free spirit blessed by fortune. His novels were favored with success. But there was nothing rebellious or even defiant in this. It was for having chosen the side of the National Revolution between 1940 and 1944, for persisting in his opposition to the postwar regime, and for feeling like an outsider that made him the rebellious figure we have come to know from his “Journals.”

Another, though different example of this type is Ernst Jünger. Despite being the author of an important rebel treatise on the Cold War, Jünger was never actually a rebel. A nationalist in a period of nationalism; an outsider, like much of polite society, during the Third Reich; linked to the July 20 conspirators, though on principle opposed to assassinating Hitler. Basically for ethical reasons. His itinerary on the margins of fashion made him an “anarch,” this figure he invented and of which after 1932 he was the perfect representative. The anarch is not a rebel. He’s a spectator whose perch is high above the mud below.

Just the opposite of Morand and Jünger, the Irish poet Patrick Pearse was an authentic rebel. He might even be described as a born rebel. When a child, he was drawn to Erin’s long history of rebellion. Later, he associated with the Gaelic Revival, which laid the basis of the armed insurrection. A founding member of the first IRA, he was the real leader of the Easter Uprising in Dublin in 1916. This was why he was shot. He died without knowing that his sacrifice would spur the triumph of his cause.

A fourth, again very different example is Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Until his arrest in 1945, he had been a loyal Soviet, having rarely questioned the system into which he was born and having dutifully done his duty during the war as a reserve officer in the Red Army. His arrest and then his subsequent discovery of the Gulag and the horrors that occurred after 1917, provoked a total reversal, forcing him to challenge a system which he once blindly accepted. This is when he became a rebel — not just against Communist, but capitalist society, both of which he saw as destructive of tradition and opposed to superior life forms.

The reasons that made Pearse a rebel were not the same that made Solzhenitsyn a rebel. It was the shock of certain events, followed by a heroic internal struggle, that made the latter a rebel. What they both have in common, what they discovered through different ways, was the utter incompatibility between their being and the world in which they were thrown. This is the first trait of the rebel. The second is the rejection of fatalism.

Q: What is the difference between rebellion, revolt, dissent, and resistance?

DV: Revolt is a spontaneous movement provoked by an injustice, an ignominy, or a scandal. Child of indignation, revolt is rarely sustained. Dissent, like heresy, is a breaking with a community, whether it be a political, social, religious, or intellectual community. Its motives are often circumstantial and don’t necessarily imply struggle. As to resistance, other than the mythic sense it acquired during the war, it signifies one’s opposition, even passive opposition, to a particular force or system, nothing more. To be a rebel is something else.

Q: What, then, is the essence of a rebel?

DV: A rebel revolts against whatever appears to him illegitimate, fraudulent, or sacrilegious. The rebel is his own law. This is what distinguishes him. His second distinguishing trait is his willingness to engage in struggle, even when there is no hope of success. If he fights a power, it is because he rejects its legitimacy, because he appeals to another legitimacy, to that of soul or spirit.

Q: What historical or literary models of the rebel would you offer?

DV: Sophocles’ Antigone comes first to mind. With her, we enter a space of sacred legitimacy. She is a rebel out of loyalty. She defies Creon’s decrees because of her respect for tradition and the divine law (to bury the dead), which Creon violates. It didn’t mater that Creon had his reasons; their price was sacrilege. Antigone saw herself as justified in her rebellion.

It’s difficult to choose among the many other examples. . . . During the War of Secession, the Yankees designated their Confederate adversaries as rebels: “rebs.” This was good propaganda, but it wasn’t true. The American Constitution implicitly recognized the right of member states to secede. Constitutional forms had been much respected in the South. Robert E. Lee never saw himself as a rebel. After his surrender in April 1865, he sought to reconcile North and South. At this moment, though, the true rebels emerged, those who continued the struggle against the Northern army of occupation and its collaborators.

Certain of these rebels succumbed to banditry, like Jesse James. Others transmitted to their children a tradition that has had a great literary posterity. In The Unvanquished, one of William Faulkner’s most beautiful novels, there is, for example a fascinating portrait of a young Confederate sympathizer, Drusilla, who never doubted the justice of the South’s cause or the illegitimacy of the victors.

Q: How can one be a rebel today?

DV: How can one not! To exist is to defy all that threatens you. To be a rebel is not to accumulate a library of subversive books or to dream of fantastic conspiracies or of taking to the hills. It is to make yourself your own law. To find in yourself what counts. To make sure that you’re never “cured” of your youth. To prefer to put everyone up against the wall rather than to remain supine. To pillage whatever can be converted to your law, without concern for appearance.

By contrast, I would never dream of questioning the futility of seemingly lost struggles. Think of Patrick Pearse. I’ve also spoken of Solzhenitsyn, who personifies the magic sword of which Jünger speaks, “the magic sword that makes tyrants tremble.” In this Solzhenitsyn is unique and inimitable. But he owed this power to someone who was less great than himself. That should give us cause to reflect. In The Gulag Archipelago, he tells the story of his “revelation.”

In 1945, he was in a cell at Boutyrki Prison in Moscow, along with a dozen other prisoners, whose faces were emaciated and whose bodies broken. One of the prisoners, though, was different. He was an old White Guard colonel, Constantin Iassevitch. He had been imprisoned for his role in the Civil War. Solzhenitsyn says the colonel never spoke of his past, but in every facet of his being it was obvious that the struggle had never ended for him. Despite the chaos that reigned in the spirits of the other prisoners, he retained a clear, decisive view of the world around him. This disposition gave his body a presence, a flexibility, an energy that defied its years. He washed himself in freezing cold water each morning, while the other prisoners grew foul in their filth and lament.

A year later, after being transferred to another Moscow prison, Solzhenitsyn learned that the colonel had been executed.

“He had seen through the prison walls with eyes that remained perpetually young. . . . This indomitable loyalty to the cause he had fought had given him a very uncommon power.”

In thinking of this episode, I tell myself that we can never be another Solzhenitsyn, but it’s within the reach of each of us to emulate the old White colonel.

French Original: “Aujourd’hui, comment ne pas être rebelle?”

Tradition & Revolution

Tradition & Revolution

Edouard RIX

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

Translated by Greg Johnson

What are we fighting for? Every political soldier has to raise this question. Contradictory as it might seem, we are inclined to answer that we fight for Tradition and Revolution.

The Tradition

First of all, one should not confuse the Tradition with traditions, i.e., customs and habits.

The Tradition indicates the ensemble of higher-order knowledge regarding Being and its manifestations in the world, such as they were bequeathed to us by former generations. It pertains not to what is given in space and time, but to what is always. It admits a variety of forms — traditions — while remaining one in its essence. One should not confuse it with the one religious tradition, because it covers the totality of human activities — political, economic, social, etc. . . .

Following Joseph de Maistre, Fabre d’ Olivet, and especially René Guénon, Julius Evola speaks about a “primordial Tradition” which, historically, would make it possible to consider the concrete origin of a whole array of traditions. He refers to a “Hyperborean tradition,” coming from the Extreme North, located at the beginning of the present cycle of civilization, in particular the Indo-European cultures.

From Evola’s point of view, “a civilization or a society is traditional when it is governed by principles that transcend what is merely human and individual, when all its forms come to it from on high, and when as a whole it is oriented toward what is above.” Traditional civilization thus rests on metaphysical foundations. It is characterized by the recognition of an order superior to all that is human and contingent, by the presence and the authority of elites that draw from this transcendent plane the principles necessary to found a hierarchically articulated social organization, to blaze trails towards a higher knowledge, and finally to confer on life a vertical orientation.

The modern world, to Evola, is contrary to the world of the Tradition which was incarnated in all great civilizations, West and East. They are free of our ignorance of all that is higher than man, our generalized desacralization, materialism, and confusion of castes and races.

The Revolution

As for the term Revolution, it must be brought back to its double meaning. In its current sense, which is most commonly used, Revolution means the abrupt and violent change in the government of a State. The French Revolution and the Russian Revolution of 1917 are perfect illustrations.

However, in its original sense, Revolution does not mean subversion and revolt, but the opposite, namely the return to a starting point and movement centered around an axis. Thus, in astronomical terms, the revolution of a star precisely indicates its axial motion, its movement around a center that restrains its centrifugal force, thus preventing the star from losing itself in infinite space.

Today, however, we are at the end of a cycle. With the regression of the castes — the progressive descent of authority down the Traditional hierarchy of the four functions — power has passed from sacred kings to warrior-aristocrats, then to merchants, and finally to the masses. This is the Iron Age, the Indo-Aryan Kali-Yuga, the Dark Age of decline characterized by the reign of quantity, number, mass, and the unrestrained scramble for production, profit, material wealth.

Thus to be for the Revolution today is to want our European civilization to return to its original starting point, in conformity with the values and the principles of the Tradition, which happens, to borrow the words of Giorgio Freda, by “the disintegration of the current system,” the antithesis of the traditional world to which we aspire.

Edouard Rix, Le Lansquenet, no. 16, Fall 2002

Confession of a Reluctant Hater

Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

Gregor JOHNSON

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

Author’s Note:

I wrote the following essay in June of 2005. I circulated it around the internet under the pen name Michael Meehan. It is the first of many “illegitimate” children of my pen that I wish to claim as my own.

Racism, properly understood, is the acknowledgement of the reality of objective, biological differences between the races, differences that are so dramatic that racial mingling inevitably causes hatred and violence, thus racial separation is the best way to preserve all races.

Racism, properly understood, is also the recognition that it is perfectly healthy and normal and right to love what is one’s own more than what belongs to others. It is natural, normal, and right to show preferences to one’s self, one’s family, one’s friends, one’s homeland, one’s nation, and one’s race.

Why is so healthy, rational, and enlightened an outlook as racism smeared as “hate”? To prefer one’s family to the neighbors is not hate. To prefer one’s friends to strangers is not hate. To prefer one’s homeland to a foreign country is not hate. I prefer Whites to other races, but that fact alone does not mean that I hate other races.

Preference does not mean hatred, but merely an inequality of loves. I love New Mexico, but I love California more. And I perfectly understand why a New Mexican might feel exactly the opposite.

I will grant that some are people attracted to the White Nationalist movement simply because, for whatever psychopathological reasons, they are filled with hate, and they think that the movement will offer them a place to express their hate openly. But angry, hate-filled people are attracted to all causes. Every cause has an enemy, who is marked as an appropriate object of hate. Thus every cause will attract angry, sick people looking for an outlet for their aggression. I know from personal experience that anti-racists are typically a venomous, aggressive, hate-filled lot.

I suspect, moreover, that some marginal, psychopathic people are attracted to White Nationalism precisely because anti-racists have fostered the impression that we are all crazy. But I also suspect that far more psychopathic haters are attracted to the cultural and political mainstream than to a marginal movement like White Nationalism, simply because the establishment offers no shortage of socially acceptable objects of hatred. It is, for instance, socially acceptable to hate White people, especially rural and Southern Whites, White Nationalists, Arabs, Muslims, and other enemies of the Jews. So look for the majority of psychopathic haters in the ranks of the anti-racists, in the police forces, in the military, and in the mainstream conservative movement, especially among the warmongers.

But I must be frank. Although preferring one’s own race does not in itself lead to hating other races, I really do hate other races. This is where my enemies will place the close quotes, when they lift my words out of context to smear me. What follows is the context, i.e., some necessary distinctions, qualifications, examples, and explanations.

First of all, I find it very difficult to say that I hate anyone or anything. It goes against my nature. If anything, I tend to be too sentimental and soft-hearted, too open to appeals to emotion. I fawn over children and dogs, and I find it especially hard to say no to women.

Second, I do not hate all other races. If tomorrow we discovered life on Mars, I know that I would prefer my race to the Martians. But I would not hate them. Likewise, I prefer my own race to the headhunters of Papua, the Aborigines of Australia, the Pygmies of the Congo, and the Bushmen of the Kalahari. But I do not hate them.

Why not?

Because I do not have to live with them. Because I am separate from them. Because, so far as I know, they do not negatively affect my life.

If, however, the Catholic Church, the federal government, or the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society established a colony of Papuans, Aborigines, Pygmies, Bushmen, or Martians on my block, and I had to live in close proximity with them—and, worse yet, subsidize them with my tax dollars—then I probably would start hating them.

Of course it would begin slowly. I might try to get to know them at first. I might bring them food as a housewarming gift—although nervously, because I would not know if it would upset their stomachs or violate some unknown food taboo. Since they would probably know little or no English and show little interest in learning, I might try to greet them with a few words of their native tongue—although nervously, because I would always fear that the Pygmy word for “hello” would, to my ears, be undetectably similar to a cuss word. I would try my best to interpret their reactions, to determine how my friendly gestures were being received, but I would probably find them inscrutable and begin to feel uncomfortable around them. Then, as time revealed more and more of our racial and cultural differences, we would really start getting on one another’s nerves.

A year ago, I would have placed Polynesians on the list of peoples I had nothing against. But I had no direct contact with them. Then several families from Samoa or Tonga moved in a few buildings down. I thought they were aesthetically unappealing: large, brown, Australoid-Mongoloid hybrids who easily run to flab. But they seemed pleasant enough at first. Then I started noticing certain annoying differences.

For instance, although their personal hygiene does not seem problematic—though I have not gotten close enough to confirm that—in other respects, they are unspeakably filthy people. For instance, they are fond of noisily socializing and eating together outdoors. This is bad enough, but days later, the ground is still littered not only with trash and toys, but also with discarded food. After their last cookout, their landlord had to pay Mexicans to clean up after them. After another cookout, I found a mound of rotting fish, crawling with flies and maggots, dumped in a neighbor’s yard. Of course this kind of behavior would not be a problem in Tonga or Samoa, where it is probably accepted by everyone. But here it is disgusting and disrespectful, not to mention a potential health hazard.

Other behaviors are simply attempts to exploit White Americans, whom these Polynesians seem to regard with cordial contempt. It is hard not to be contemptuous of people whose commitment to “multiculturalism” means abandoning their own cultural standards whenever they conflict with foreign standards, no matter how barbarous and inferior. For instance, when the local Samoans or Tongans (or whatever) find the washing machines in their apartment building engaged, they simply come over and use the machines in my building. I do not know how they get in. I suspect that they have their abundant children lurk around and then prop open the door when someone leaves. Not only does this inconvenience people in my building who wish to do their laundry, it is a security hazard for doors to be propped open. Furthermore, once they gained access to the laundry room, the detergents I had left out without fear of theft by fellow Whites were rapidly depleted. These Polynesians did not even care to hide their theft by pilfering a little at a time. Either they are incredibly stupid, or they think they can steal from Whites with impunity.

Now these are minor problems, particularly compared with the plight of Whites forced to live among Blacks. But they illustrate how irritating diversity rapidly becomes. Furthermore, I can’t honestly say that I hate Polynesians—not yet. But if I confronted them about their behavior and the response were ugly, I might very well end up hating them. (I have not confronted them because I am planning to move in the near future, because it would do no good, and because I have bigger fish to fry.) But hate them or not, I don’t want to live around Polynesians, any Polynesians, ever again.

I do not deny that White people can be obnoxious. But I prefer obnoxious Whites to obnoxious non-Whites any day. Even the worst White people are easier to handle. At least I can appeal to common standards, and confronting them is not an international incident.

A third important qualification: It is possible to hate a group of people and yet not hate individual members. I am unfailingly polite in my dealings with individuals of other races. I have met likeable individual Blacks, Jews, Mestizos, and Orientals. I have even met non-Whites who are capable of adopting White standards and customs and living harmoniously in a White society.

But I never lose sight of the fact that these likeable individuals are members of races with identities and interests different from my own, races that inevitably come into conflict with my own when we share the same territory.

An individual Black, especially if nurtured by a White civilization, may turn out to be an intelligent and admirable scholar like Thomas Sowell. But a lot of Blacks living together according to their own natures never rise above primitive savagery. The potential Thomas Sowells are nipped in the bud. And when large numbers of Blacks are loosed on a White civilization, they inevitably drag it down to their level, as can be seen in Haiti, South Africa, and Detroit. There are just not enough good Blacks in the Black community to make any other outcome possible.

An individual Jew can make genuine contributions to White civilization. Gustav Mahler, for instance, was a first rate composer. But a lot of Jews living amongst us according to their own natures and interests have been overwhelmingly destructive. Without the Jews, there would have been no Communism, which is the single deadliest folly in human history. (Christianity, another Jewish product, is not far behind.) Without the Jews, the United States would never have gotten into World War I. Without the Jews, there would have been no World War II. Without the Jews, the United States would not be at war with Iraq. Nor would the US government be planning wars with Syria and Iran. Nor would the US be pursuing a reckless anti-Russian foreign policy. If any of these adventures leads to World War III, a future historian will tell us that it would not have happened without the Jews either. Compared with these crimes, it seems almost petty to complain about the Jewish role in promoting every form of cultural ugliness, filth, and degeneracy. There are just not enough good Jews in the Jewish community to make any other outcome possible.

By all means, treat individuals as individuals. But don’t fall for the folly of individualism, which denies the reality of group identities, group interests, and group conflicts. Be on guard when an individualist waxes gooey and sentimental about the Gustav Mahlers and Thomas Sowells and then “concludes,” by sheer assertion, that collective problems are non-existent or that collective solutions are immoral and out of the question.

Alex Linder once summed up this sort of individualism brilliantly: “Because the Black race produced a Thomas Sowell, the White race must die.” Because the Jews produced a Mahler, the race that produced Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, and countless other geniuses must perish. After all, if Whites were to secure their survival, that would be “collectivism.” But individualism founders on the fact that groups are real. And collective problems require collective solutions.

I showed a draft of this essay to a friend who questioned the wisdom of giving our enemies a sentence like “I really do hate other races” to quote. My reply was: we White Nationalists claim that, as a general rule, the mixing of races inevitably causes hatred and conflict, so it is preposterous for us to pretend that we are immune to the effects of racial mixture. If White Nationalists who claim this are honest, then they are living refutations of their own claim that multiracial societies breed racial hatred.

I am living proof that multiracial societies cause racial hatred. But here is another line to quote: I do not want to hate other races. That is why I want to live in a homogenously White society. Such a society would have plenty of problems, but racial hatred and conflict would not be among them.

Racism, properly understood, means recognizing biological differences between populations and preferring members of one’s own group. Racism has no necessary connection to hatred or violence towards other races. In a racial nationalist utopia, all races would have separate, homogenous homelands. All distinct tribes or nationalities would have separate homelands too.

Racial and cultural nationalism would not impede peaceful cooperation: the exchange of goods and ideas, tourism, international athletic competitions, artistic and cultural exchanges, studies abroad, etc. But nationalism would impede the hatred and violence that are inevitable when different races and peoples are forced to share the same territories and governments. Nationalism, consistently practiced, would even discourage the scourge of war between ethnostates, since true racial nationalists would neither seek to rule over other peoples nor stand in the way of the secession of separate ethnostates from multiracial, multiethnic states.

Multiracialism and multiculturalism do, however, have a necessary connection to hatred and violence toward other races. In theory, of course, the advocates of multiracial, multicultural societies are all about love, tolerance, and peace towards all men. (Except for racial and cultural nationalists, of course, for whom they have no love and tolerance, and against whom they are willing to wage wars of extermination.) But in practice, multiracial, multiethnic states do not work. They lead inevitably to hatred, intolerance, and bloodshed.

They even made a hater out of a nice guy like me.

An Aristocracy of Industry?
Andrew Fraser’s Reinventing Aristocracy

F. Roger DEVLIN

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

Andrew Fraser
Reinventing Aristocracy:
The Constitutional Reformation of Corporate Governance
Brookfield, Vermont: Ashgate Publishing Company, 1998

If you own even a single share of stock, you have probably been pestered with letters requiring your opinion on matters of corporate policy well beyond your competence to decide. Should the firm add Joe Schmedlep to its Board of Directors? Do you approve the proposal (200 pages long) for the creation of a new subsidiary? Should the company outsource accounting and make its own ball-bearings, or find a ball-bearing supplier and do its own accounting?

You are holding stock in this company for one reason only: you think you might one day be able to sell it for a higher price than you bought it. Your natural reaction to the letter, therefore, is to toss it in the trash. “Rational apathy” is Professor Fraser’s useful term for this.

The company, of course, knows that you will feel this way. So, reducing the demand on your attention to an absolute minimum, they are even telling you how to vote: normally, they “recommend” that you approve all their proposals. Still, you must find a pen, check a box, stuff the paper in an envelope, and mail it in. “No way,” you say; “into the can.”

If you are lucky, the matter will end there. But sometimes the law forbids the company from acting without consulting its owners—and that’s you, as long as you hold their stock. So they may pursue you further. I have known of people on vacation receiving emergency phone calls from frantic boards of directors seeking their views on matters wholly unintelligible to them. “Shareholder democracy,” this is called. Does it sound like any way to run a business? Professor Fraser thinks not, and it is hard to disagree with him.

On the other hand, there also exists a class of persons who take their shareholder rights with extreme seriousness. Armed, perhaps, with a single share of company stock, they march into the annual meeting, head high, and seize the agenda: is the firm protecting the ears of homosexuals in its employ from disagreeable pleasantries? Has it provided reasonable accommodation for deaf, dumb, and blind quadriplegics? Might its manufacturing process bring about the extinction of the critically-endangered Rocky Mountain Stinkweed? Has, in short, the base pursuit of lucre made the greedy capitalists forgetful of justice and righteousness?

Very often, these moral crusaders have bought stock only for the privilege of delivering their tirades. Corporations have been forced to devise procedural methods for limiting such people’s ability to monopolize shareholder meetings. Surely allowing them to push management around would be no way to run a business either. But then isn’t “shareholder democracy” a bit of a sham?

Well, yes it is, says Professor Fraser. His central thesis is that the public would be better served by a smaller, more committed “shareholder aristocracy.” The term aristocracy is “a metaphor for the civic virtues that a free people might expect of their leaders in politics, business and intellectual life” (p. 1). It should not conjure up a picture of effete fops dancing the minuet at Versailles. Fraser’s proposed aristocracy would even be self-selecting rather than hereditary (pp. 21-22).

Fraser quotes Christopher Lasch’s remark that “the value of cultural elites [such as an aristocracy] lay in their willingness to assume responsibility for the exacting standards without which civilization is impossible.” Such an elite must “live in the service of demanding ideals.” Ortega y Gassett similarly writes that “nobility is defined by the demands it makes on us—by obligations, not by rights” (p. 8).

Why, after all, does the prima donna of the shareholders’ meeting strike us as silly? Because he has no obligations toward the company, its employees, its other shareholders, its customers, or the general public. The neo-puritan crusader accuses others and poses demands, but bears no responsibility if his own proposals lead to disaster.

In smaller, family-run businesses the issue of placing responsibility hardly arises; everyone can see that the buck stops with the owner, who also runs his business from day to day. But in the modern corporation described by Berle and Means, characterized by a “separation of ownership and control,” it becomes unclear who is responsible for corporate acts.

The law at least makes clear that it does not hold individual shareholders responsible. This is the principle of limited liability, which only gained widespread acceptance around the middle of the nineteenth century. A company has legal personality, and can be held liable for harm it causes (think of the Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989). But the individual shareholder cannot be held liable for any amount greater than the value of his stock. Thus, while it is possible to lose all the money you invest in stocks, it is not possible to lose more than that. Would you want to invest in Exxon if you knew you would have to share responsibility for Exxon Valdez-type disasters?

Probably not. Limited shareholder liability has even been credited with causing the industrial explosion of the late nineteenth century. Nicholas Murray Butler, President of Columbia University wrote in 1911 that “the limited liability corporation is the greatest single discovery of modern times. . . . Even steam and electricity are less important.” (Some scholars dissent; cf., e.g., Michael S. Rozeff, “Limited Liability” at http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff28.html.)

Who if not the owners, then, should bear public responsibility for corporate behavior? The next likeliest suspect would seem to be the managers. But they have been notably successful at disclaiming responsibility on the grounds that they are mere agents of the shareholders, and act only upon the objective demands of economic efficiency.

This view finds support from surprisingly many scholars. They believe our dominant form of corporate governance is itself the result of market competition. The Berle and Means model, combining shareholder passivity with managerial irresponsibility, exists today, in other words, because it has proven itself the most economically efficient corporate constitutional model in free competition with all possible alternatives. (Best not ask these theorists to fill you in on the historical details.)

Professor Fraser sarcastically speaks of this view as a “cult of the divine economy” in which sovereignty has slipped from human hands into an impersonal system of economic demands. These demands rule over us like the inscrutable God of the Old Testament (p. 11); the managers function as its priesthood, interpreting and carrying out the divine will. No mere mortal is responsible.

Now, the market undoubtedly does impose some constraints on managerial behavior. But it would be difficult to believe, e.g., that the demands of profitability are what force the entertainment industry to churn out movies which consistently insult the religious and moral sentiments of the majority of American moviegoers. “Diversity training” does not improve efficiency either, but managerial enthusiasm for this fad goes well beyond what could be explained by fear of lawsuits. I will not undertake to determine the precise degree of freedom which the market leaves to managers, but it is certainly greater than zero.

Furthermore, a markedly different corporate structure is the rule in both Germany and Japan, where relatively “permanent” shareholders exercise control over major enterprises (pp. 17, 62).

Professor Fraser distinguishes “accountability for behavior” from “responsibility for actions.” Managers are accountable to shareholders for keeping firms profitable; this involves responding to the objective economic demands of the market. But human action is more than a reaction to circumstances. Managerial decisions affect not merely the profitability of the firms they direct but also the life of the larger society within which their firms operate. Financial accountability is too narrow a notion to substitute for public responsibility.

For example, “whenever risks generated by corporate activity become known, someone must decide how much danger to allow and assess the costs of preventing the danger.” Think of automobile design: morally responsible decisions about safety features may not be economically efficient. “Whenever government has failed to provide a policy of its own, corporate officials decide in ways that are practically binding for the ordinary citizen” (p. x). Just as Henry Ford’s customers were offered the Model T in “any color so long as it’s black,” the public today has neither any voice in nor any recourse from the safety decisions made on their behalf.

The author oddly neglects to mention government regulation at this point. Safety is, in fact, the main pretexts for such regulation, which is often onerous, arbitrary, and of questionable benefit to the public. While others worry that government is strangling private initiative, Professor Fraser baldly asserts that “the problem we face is the appropriation of public power by the corporate sector” (p. 2). Note, however, that he never recommends governmental regulation as a solution to the problem of corporate responsibility.

Safety is merely one example. Corporations today—like governments—allocate values by controlling the distribution of goods, services, honors, statuses, and opportunities. Corporate policies can be made binding and effective through the use of sanctions. These need not involve physical coercion or violence: punishment commonly takes the form of severe economic loss or a psychologically painful loss of social status. In any case, the modern corporation is private only in the formal sense that it remains extra-constitutional (pp. 73-74). Being a law unto itself, it is a legitimate target for constitutional reform.

“Corporate politics continues as a secretive affair conducted in corridors and behind closed doors,” Fraser points out; “our problem is that corporate elites have freed themselves only from constitutional politics. (p. 22). This, he believes, is leading us toward a kind of “neo-feudalism,” in which structures of corporate authority are based upon exchanges of services between persons: a system of private patronage without any place for rational deliberation or public involvement. Resistance by wage-earners would become virtually impossible, due to their economic dependence upon the managerial elite. (Professor Fraser is aware of the “managerial revolution” theory of James Burnham and Sam Francis.)

The author harks back to an older legal tradition which recognized the corporation not merely of a profit-generating system but as a civil body politic—a kind of tiny republic, in fact. In America before about 1840, the business corporation was created by a special act of a state legislature: the charter, which explicitly vested public service functions in it. Turnpikes, e.g., were not merely investments on the part of those who built and operated them, but were also authorized in order to provide a service to the community. Even banks and insurance companies were understood as hybrid amalgams of private interests and public purposes. The charter endowed each corporation with a specific raison d’être, and the corporation could be legally challenged if it acted outside its sphere of competence. Corporate decisions were sometimes voted upon by members according to the principle “one man one vote”; more often, caps were set upon the voting power of the larger shareholders. These constitutional features cannot be explained solely in terms of economic utility (p. 27).

As the nineteenth century progressed, special charters were replaced by general rules of incorporation. The notion of a defined sphere of corporate competence fell by the wayside, so that directors could seize upon any business opportunities that might arise. The principle of “one share one vote” became firmly established, entrenching monied interests. Ordinary shareholders came to be understood not as partners in a common public enterprise, but as passive investors whose preferences are fixed, unitary and homogeneous, viz., to maximize profits (p. 28). This assumed unanimity obviates the need for any deliberation on the public effects of their actions, such as is supposed to occur in a legislature. In Professor Fraser’s terminology, the bourgeois drove the citizen out of corporate life.

The nature of property itself was gradually transformed. Ownership once signified a form of personal dominion over the external things of the world. But property in a corporate entity does not carry with it the right of dominion over the physical plant and equipment, which remain the property of the corporation conceived as an entity distinct from the shareholders. Corporate shares establish instead a complex set of relationships between persons (pp. 18, 77). So complex, indeed, that a stockholder today would need to make an advanced study of international finance just to understand what it is he owns.

Yet Fraser notes the interesting circumstance that it is still illegal for a shareholder to sell his voting rights in a corporation. Such behavior is seen, perhaps inconsistently, as a violation of duty. Even corporate raider T. Boone Pickens “has been moved to outrage at the corrupt practice of vote selling, describing it as ‘un-American’ and akin to ‘prostitution’” (p. 37).

One thing these residual scruples may indicate is a still widespread feeling that the public good cannot safely be entrusted to a body of men motivated wholly by individual self interest and not liable for the effects of their actions. What is needed is a counterweight to managerial power which operates more effectively than our inherited system of an annual general shareholders’ meeting.

Professor Fraser’s central proposal is to establish a special class of corporate shares conferring both voting rights and responsibilities for corporate conduct. The ordinary investor will be able to buy stock up to some certain limit just as before. Meanwhile, “propertied persons could trade less diversity in their investment portfolios for the opportunity to play an active civic role in the governance of a narrower range of corporate enterprises” (p. 19). They would be expected to deliberate regularly with other shareholders and pass binding resolutions according to the principle “one man one vote.” This recognizes that the corporate enterprise involves deliberative rationality and not merely the pooling of economic assets. Such a voting procedure would counteract the plutocratic tendency of current corporate law.

Professor Fraser derives his model from classical aristocracy, an exclusive group of peers charged with public duties; but his proposal is a “reinvention” of aristocracy in that the peerage would not be a hereditary caste. In fact, his aristocracy would be entirely self-selected, and other investors would be free to exclude themselves from the order of corporate citizens. Such self-exclusion, “far from being arbitrary discrimination, would in fact give substance and reality to one of the most important negative liberties we have enjoyed since the end of the ancient world, namely, freedom from politics” (p. 22).

The central purpose of his proposal is to restore the role of collective deliberation in the conduct of public affairs, and he sees the ostensibly “private” corporate world as the venue where this can best be achieved today. “It may still be possible,” he concludes, “to govern corporations in the public interest without relying solely on the heavy hand of the nanny state” (p. 21).

Professor Fraser does not recommend simply imposing his republican model on all existing corporations:

It would be more useful to experiment with the concept in corporate enterprises whose business has an obvious public service dimension. Media corporations come immediately to mind. If media corporations have become surrogates and not just vehicles for public opinion, it may not be unreasonable to expect those firms to be governed in accordance with republican principles. So far the courts have not explained how a few autocratic media moguls can be expected to use their freedom from state interference to enhance rather than to corrupt the civic culture of constitutional democracy.

He goes on to mention “hospitals, universities and even prisons . . . tobacco, liquor and gambling interests . . . weapons manufacturers and defense industries generally” (p. 50).

The active shareholders would have to give up limited liability; they would be fully liable for the actions of managers under their direction. They “would become a political surrogate for the elusive ‘directing mind’ that the law requires as the sine qua non of corporate criminal liability. By holding active shareholders responsible for criminal misdeeds, the law could encourage them to create and sustain internal justice systems capable of preventing or punishing unlawful behavior by agents and employees of the firm” (p. 72).

The agonistic dimension of citizenship offers the real possibility of self-fulfillment, along with the dramatic risk of personal disaster. If Aristotle was right in claiming that man is a political animal, civic action may not be motivated solely by the hope of extrinsic rewards but also by the opportunity to exercise in public powers of reasoned speech and dramatic action [where] individuals compete for glory and recognition in the eyes of their peers. (p. 16)

Not to mention that their words would carry more weight than those of the itinerant one-share moralizers of today’s general shareholders’ meetings.

If the Western “democracies” were to implement Professor Fraser’s reform proposal, what could we expect? My guess is that the racial composition of shareholder boards would instantly become the biggest issue in politics and clog the courts with litigation. For similar reasons, I would be more enthusiastic about internal corporate judicial proceedings if I did not know that kangaroo-courts were already busy meting out punishment to white men who “offend” their colleagues. Professor Fraser is thinking of Cato and George Washington, but we would be more likely to get stuck with Al Sharpton and Catharine MacKinnon.

But these reservations are meant more in criticism of the present state of our civilization than of Professor Fraser, a contributor to TOQ who has gained international notoriety for defending the late White Australia policy to his ideologically besotted fellow-countrymen. A reading of Reinventing Aristocracy proves that long before emerging as a lightening rod for the “anti-racist” left, he had already demonstrated himself an independent thinker with an uncommon degree of political imagination.

TOQ Online, April 26, 2009

Tradition et Révolution

Tradition et Révolution

par Edouard RIX

Ex: http://tpprovence.wordpress.com/

Pour quoi combattons-nous ? Cette question fondamentale, tout soldat politique doit se la poser. Aussi contradictoire que cela puisse paraître, nous sommes tentés de répondre que nous luttons pour la Tradition et la Révolution.

LA TRADITION

Tout d’abord, il ne faut pas confondre la Tradition avec les traditions, c’est-à-dire les us et coutumes.

La Tradition désigne l’ensemble des connaissances d’ordre supérieur portant sur l’Etre et ses manifestations dans le monde, telles qu’elles nous ont été léguées par les générations antérieures. Elle porte non pas sur ce qui a été donné une fois dans un temps et un espace déterminés, mais sur ce qui est toujours. Elle admet une variété de formes -les traditions-, tout en restant une dans son essence. On ne saurait la confondre avec la seule tradition religieuse, car elle couvre la totalité des activités humaines -politique, économie, social, etc…

A la suite de Joseph de Maistre, de Fabre d’Olivet et, surtout, de René Guénon, Julius Evola parle d’une «Tradition primordiale» qui, historiquement, permettrait d’envisager l’origine concrète d’un ensemble de traditions. Il s’agirait d’une «tradition hyperboréenne», venue de l’Extrême Nord, située au commencement du présent cycle de civilisation, en particulier des cultures indo-européennes.

Du point de vue d’Evola, «une civilisation ou une société est traditionnelle quand elle est régie par des principes qui transcendent ce qui n’est qu’humain et individuel, quand toutes ses formes lui viennent d’en haut et qu’elle est toute entière orientée vers le haut». La civilisation traditionnelle repose donc sur des fondements métaphysiques. Elle est caractérisée par la reconnaissance d’un ordre supérieur à tout ce qui est humain et contingent, par la présence et l’autorité d’élites qui tirent de ce plan transcendant les principes nécessaires pour asseoir une organisation sociale hiérarchiquement articulée, ouvrir les voies vers une connaissance supérieure et enfin conférer à la vie un sens vertical.

Le monde moderne est quant à lui, à l’opposé du monde de la Tradition qui s’est incarné dans toutes les grandes civilisations d’Occident et d’Orient. Lui sont propres la méconnaissance de tout ce qui est supérieur à l’homme, une désacralisation généralisée, le matérialisme, la confusion des castes et des races.

LA REVOLUTION

Quant au terme Révolution, il doit être rapporté à sa double acception. Dans son sens actuel, le plus couramment utilisé, Révolution veut dire changement brusque et violent dans le gouvernement d’un Etat. La Révolution française et la Révolution russe de 1917 en sont l’illustration parfaite.

Toutefois, au sens premier, Révolution ne signifie pas subversion et révolte, mais le contraire, à savoir retour à un point de départ et mouvement ordonné autour d’un axe. C’est ainsi que, dans le langage astronomique, la révolution d’un astre désigne précisément le mouvement qu’il accomplit en gravitant autour d’un centre, lequel en contient la force centrifuge, empêchant ainsi l’astre de se perdre dans l’espace infini.

Or nous sommes aujourd’hui à la fin d’un cycle. Avec la régression des castes, descente progressive de l’autorité de l’une à l’autre des quatre fonctions traditionnelles, le pouvoir est passé des rois sacrés à une aristocratie guerrière, puis aux marchands, enfin aux masses. C’est l’âge de fer, le Kalî-Yuga indo-aryen, âge sombre de la décadence, caractérisé par le règne de la quantité, du nombre, de la masse, et la course effrénée à la production, au profit, à la richesse matérielle.

Etre pour la Révolution aujourd’hui, c’est donc vouloir le retour de notre civilisation européenne à son point de départ originel, conforme aux valeurs et aux principes de la Tradition, ce qui passe, pour reprendre l’expression de Giorgio Freda, par « la désintégration du système» actuel, antithèse du monde traditionnel auquel nous aspirons.

Edouard Rix, Le Lansquenet, automne 2002, n°16.

To Cleanse America:
Some Practical Proposals

Greg Johnson

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

Author’s Note:

The following short piece from 2002 or 2003 has the same major flaw as “Separatism vs. Supremacism,” namely, it deals with the issue in the abstract. Racial separation is not likely to happen this way. Nonetheless, it has the virtue of broadening the reader’s sense of what is morally and practically possible.

I hear a lot of defeatist talk among White Nationalists. A recurring theme is that there are too many non-whites in America to even consider an all-white nation. The most optimistic solution is to partition the country into ethnically pure nations.

The answer to this kind of talk is simple: If it was not too much trouble for all these people to come here, then it will not be too much trouble for them to go back. If whites could conquer and settle this country once, then we can do it again. The only thing stopping us from doing it again is lack of nerve, not lack of ability. But an awakened white nation could quickly set things right.

Part of the problem may be that people are trying to envision a government program that could remove tens of millions of non-whites. It seems impossible, so they give up in dismay. But as a matter of fact, there have already been such programs. From 1929 to 1939, more than one million Mexicans — more than half of them US citizens — were forced to return to Mexico. In the 1950s, more than one million Mexicans were again repatriated by Operation Wetback. Surely with modern computers and law enforcement techniques, it would be relatively easy to scale such programs up to deal with more than 20 million Mexicans plus other non-whites.

But does one really need a massive government operation to cleanse America? After all, most non-whites did not come here through government programs, but through private initiative. They came because there were economic incentives to come. They will leave when there are economic incentives to leave.

And I am not talking about the use of government money to bribe non-whites to leave. That was the feeble proposal of the British National Party, before they abandoned the idea of repatriation altogether as unfeasible.

We need to make a distinction between government programs, in which the state takes the initiative, and government policies, which allow or encourage private initiative. The economic incentives that lead to non-white immigration work only by the government’s permission. If immigration were banned and the ban rigorously enforced, these incentives would become impotent. By the same token, the government can pass laws creating economic incentives for non-whites to go home.

Of course before we talk of incentives, we need to deal with the hundreds of thousands of non-whites, citizens and aliens, who are already incarcerated at public expense for breaking the law. These people should be immediately deported. Then we should crack down on non-white crime and automatically deport all new offenders. That would rid us of millions in short order.

As for non-whites who are here illegally, but who are not already incarcerated, we should first levy fines of $10,000 per day per alien on any business that employs them and any landlord who rents to them. That should send most of them scurrying for the border. After six months or so, the police can scour out the ones who remain and deport them. After another six months, the government can offer a bounty for those who slipped through the cracks.

As for the ones here legally: They should be immediately stripped of their citizenship and all the benefits that come from it. They should be denied any government or government subsidized benefits, e.g., education, welfare, unemployment insurance, health care. We should allow them to sell their property and take the proceeds with them. But to make a quick departure even more appealing, that option would expire after a year. Those who cannot take a hint would then be deported, with a bounty for those who remain.

Such policies, after a couple of years, would rid us of millions of non-whites. Only diplomats, tourists, and traveling businessmen would remain within our borders. Yes, these would be government policies. But the beauty of them is that they would encourage most non-whites to leave on their own initiative. The government would not have to track down, incarcerate, and deport each one, which would be an enormously expensive burden on the taxpayer and economy.

Instead, the policies I propose would stimulate economic activity, especially in travel and real estate. One appealing result is that home prices would drop, making it easier for white couples to get a start. Another result would be higher wages for white workers.

Only after the non-white population had been significantly reduced would a more active government role be necessary, but by that time the problem would be much more manageable.

“But there would be violence! There would be race war!” the defeatists will bleat. Of course there would be.

I am all for minimizing violence. But let’s be real: There already is violence. There already is race war. There already is ethnic cleansing.

Every time a white is robbed, raped, or murdered by a non-white predator, that is race war. The Cincinnati riots were race war. The Wichita Massacre was race war. “Beat up a White Kid Day” was race war. “Polar Bear Hunting” is race war. When tens of thousands of whites fled American cities and lost tens of millions in property because of desegregation, that was ethnic cleansing.

The race war and the cleansing are already upon us. It is just that we are not fighting back. And if we don’t start fighting back, we are going to be destroyed.

Yes, there would be thousands of white race traitors marching and holding candlelight vigils. That’s why we have rubber bullets and fire hoses. Yes, Blacks and Mexicans would riot and burn down their neighborhoods and Korean convenience stores. But that’s why we have police and the National Guard. In the end, non-white lawlessness would simply allow us to accelerate their expulsion.

Yes, violence would have economic costs, but they would be nothing compared to the costs in crime, chaos, ugliness, and inefficiency of keeping these people here. Yes, there would be white casualties. But the white death toll would be nothing compared to the white death toll that is inevitable if we do nothing: namely, extinction.

Europees masochisme

Mia DOORNAERT:

Europees masochisme

'Wij lijken alleen nog vreemde geloven en culturen als onze naasten te
beschouwen'

Ban Ki-moon vond het vorige week nodig de landen van de Europese Unie te
kapittelen wegens onverdraagzaamheid jegens immigranten, in het bijzonder
moslims. De secretaris-generaal van de Verenigde Naties deed dit dinsdag in
een toespraak tot het Europees parlement. Bij het lezen van zijn woorden
vraag je je af hoe het komt dat miljoenen moslims hun paradijzen ontvlucht
zijn naar ons ongastvrij continent. Bij mijn weten is Ban Ki-moon nooit de
Organisatie van de Islamitische Conferentie, met haar 57 aangesloten
moslimlanden, de les gaan spellen, dus zou je denken dat het daar allemaal
veel beter is.

Nochtans is de wijze waarop immigranten in een aantal moslimslanden
behandeld worden berucht. De gastarbeiders die in de luxeparadijzen aan de
Perzische Golf de schitterende nieuwe gebouwen optrekken, worden genadeloos
uitgebuit. Veel geïmporteerd huispersoneel in Saudi-Arabië en andere
olielanden leeft in een toestand die neerkomt op lijfeigenschap en seksuele
slavernij. Godsdienst en gewetensvrijheid bestaan niet in de overgrote deel
van de OIC-landen. Niet-moslims worden institutioneel gediscrimineerd. De
media staan bol van hate speech tegen de 'kruisvaarders'
(westerlingen/christenen), en de antisemitische haatpropaganda in een aantal
moslimlanden herinnert aan die van de nazi's.

Het verschil is dat Ban Ki-moon onmiddellijk de wraak van het grote
moslimblok in de VN zou voelen als hij op de balk in hun oog zou wijzen.
Terwijl Europa niets liever doet dan zichzelf kastijden en laten kastijden.
Natuurlijk is de vaststelling dat het elders veel slechter is geen argument
om blind te zijn voor de eigen tekortkomingen. Maar evenmin gaat het op
juist een continent waar immigranten uit de moslimwereld jaarlijks en masse
naartoe komen, op de vingers te komen tikken. Niet alleen is Ban Ki-moon
eenzijdig in zijn vermaningen, hij is ook slecht op de hoogte van Europese
toestanden.

Het zijn niet de Europeanen, het is de moslimwereld, het zijn de
moslimimmigranten die van religie een zo dominerend thema van identiteit
maken, die de andersgelovige als de Andere zien. Het is onder die
mosliminvloed dat er hier nu een enorme druk ligt op de vrije meningsuiting,
in de naam van 'respect' voor de religies - lees voor de islam, want het
christendom kan niet genoeg bekritiseerd en bespot worden. Geert Wilders is
een zeldzame uitzondering, niet de regel. Er is een enorme censuur en
zelfcensuur aan de gang, op alle niveaus, juist om moslims niet voor het
hoofd te stoten - of uit schrik voor moslimgeweld, waar Ban Ki-moon ook niet
over sprak.

De Nederlandse liberale voorman Frits Bolkestein wijdde daar eind vorig jaar
in de Volkskrant een opmerkelijk artikel aan. Hij gaf onder meer het
voorbeeld van het Europees waarnemingscentrum tegen racisme en
vreemdelingenhaat 'dat in 2003 een onderzoek naar antisemitisme geheim hield
omdat daaruit bleek dat het antisemitisme in Europa voornamelijk werd gevoed
door moslims en pro-Palestijnse groeperingen'. De vaststelling van dat
onderzoek klopt vandaag de dag nog altijd, maar blijft een even groot taboe.

De intellectuele goegemeente vindt pittige kritiek op de islam niet kunnen,
ook al is die gegrond, want dat werkt 'polariserend'. Alsof niet elk debat
dat is, getuige onze aanslepende preformatie. In die context wordt het
spannend te zien welk onthaal de indrukwekkende bundel De islam. Kritische
essays over een politieke religie (ASP), van Vlaamse en Nederlandse auteurs,
straks op de boekenbeurs te wachten staat.

In hetzelfde artikel stelde Bolkestein vast dat het Westen niet meer voor de
eigen cultuur durft op te komen. 'In confrontatie met de islamitische
cultuur die zichzelf verabsoluteert en uitsluitend kritiek heeft op anderen,
neemt dit soms zelfdestructieve vormen aan', schreef hij over een Europa dat
niet eens zijn eigen erfgoed in zijn grondwet durfde benoemen. Het gevolg is
dat 'wij niet opkomen voor de onzen en alleen vreemde geloven en culturen
als onze naasten lijken te beschouwen'.

Dat masochisme levert Europa alvast weinig respect op, getuige onder meer de
selectieve verontwaardiging van Ban Ki-moon ten aanzien van een Europese
Unie die nota bene 40 procent betaalt van het budget van de VN. Zijn
toespraak was veelzeggend over het gewicht in de VN van het moslimblok, dat
zelf geen godsdienstvrijheid erkent (ook in het zogenaamd seculiere Turkije
zijn godsdiensten niet gelijkwaardig) maar onze democratische landen
constant aanvalt op hun zogenaamde islamofobie.

Mia Doornaert is onafhankelijk adviseur van de premier. Haar column
verschijnt tweewekelijks op maandag.
© 2010 Corelio
Publicatie:     De Standaard /
Publicatiedatum:     25 oktober 2010
Auteur:     avl;
Pagina:     23
Aantal woorden:     731

Messianismus mit verheerenden Folgen

Dr. Tomislav SUNIC:

 Messianismus mit verheerenden Folgen

Ex: http://www.deutsche-stimme.de/

Ein Kapitel Hintergrundpolitik: Nutznießer und Drahtzieher der US-Kriege im Irak und Afghanistan

Statt der Frage »Wem nutzt der Krieg in Afghanistan und Irak« kann man auch die Frage stellen: »Wer war der Anstifter dieser beiden Kriege?« Diese direkte Frage klingt aber nicht sachlich und stellt außerdem eine Fundgrube für Verschwörungstheoretiker dar.

Wilde Spekulationen über die wahren Motive dieser Kriege interessieren uns hier nicht, abgesehen von der Tatsache, wenngleich manche auch stimmen mögen. Was uns interessiert ist die Bilanz dieser Kriege, wie diese Kriege sprachlich und völkerrechtlich gerechtfertigt werden und wer von diesen Kriegen am meisten profitiert.

 

Übrigens sind Verschwörungstheorien keinesfalls Kennzeichen sogenannter »Rechtsradikaler« – wie liberalistische Medien oft unterstellen. Laut neuer liberaler Sprachregelung nutzt die herrschende Klasse im Westen gegen ihre politischen Feinde und Gegner auch Verschwörungsvokabeln, die auf Verteufelung und Kriminalisierung abzielen. Auch benutzen die Systempolitiker zur Rechtfertigung ihrer eigenen militärischen Aggressionen durchaus Verschwörungstheorien. Monate vor der Invasion Iraks hatten viele amerikanische Politiker und Medienleute mit vollem Ernst über die »irakischen Massenvernichtungswaffen« schwadroniert. Es stellte sich bald heraus, daß die Iraker keine derartigen Waffen hatten, wie später von denselben Politikern auch zugegeben wurde.

Ähnliche Sprachregelungen sind heute im Wortschatz der EU-Systempolitiker zu bemerken, die freilich ihre politischen Mythen und Vorstellungen nicht mit dem Wort »Propaganda«, sondern mit den Vokabeln »Kulturarbeit« und »Menschenrechte« tarnen.

Feldzugsplan aus der Schublade

Im Falle des Irak und Afghanistans ist es wichtig zu analysieren, wie die Systempolitiker und die Kriegshetzer mit der Sprache umgehen. Einerseits hört man Horrorvokabeln wie »Kampf gegen den Terror«, »Islamofaschismus«, »Al Kaida-Terroristen«, und andererseits vernimmt man sentimentale Sprüche wie »Kampf für die Menschenrechte« »Multikulti-Toleranz« oder »Freiheit für afghanische Frauen«.
Die deutsche Kanzlerin klang dabei auch nicht glaubwürdig, als sie vor kurzem in Bezug auf den deutschen Einsatz in Afghanistan erklärte: »Unsere gefallenen Soldaten haben ihr Leben für Freiheit, Rechtsstaatlichkeit und Demokratie gegeben.« Ihre Worte stellen eine typisch theatralische Metasprache nach kommunistischer Machart dar.
Außer dieser hypermoralischen Seite aus dem liberalen Lexikon sind die empirischen Belege und Beweise für die vorgenannten Angaben, Aussagen und Wunschvorstellungen der Systempolitiker bezüglich des Irak und Afghanistans spärlich, wenn nicht völlig abwesend.
Zunächst eine Bilanz: Der Krieg in Afghanistan wurde drei Wochen nach dem Terroranschlag in New York am 11. September 2001 begonnen. Eine langfristige militärische Strategie für Afghanistan kann man nicht innerhalb von drei Wochen formulieren. Der Plan zum Sturz der Regime in Afghanistan und Irak war schon lange Zeit vorher medial und akademisch in Amerika vorbereitet worden. Die ersten Hinweise auf den kommenden Krieg im Nahen Osten hatten amerikanische Medien und pro-zionistische Kulturkreise in Amerika schon Anfang neunziger Jahren gegeben, nämlich nach dem unentschiedenen ersten Golfkrieg von 1991.
Viele pro-israelische Kreise in Amerika sowie bekannte amerikanisch-jüdische Akademiker und Journalisten entwarfen damals einen langfristigen Plan für die Umorganisation des Nahen Osten und Asiens. Besonders wichtig war die Rolle einer sogenannten Denkfabrik wie dem »American Enterprise Institute« und die Aufstellung des »Projektes für das neue amerikanische Jahrhundert« (PNAC).
Sehr bedeutende Namen waren unter diesem Firmenschild beteiligt. Diese sind unter der Selbsteinschätzung »Neokonservative« bekannt und pflegten dabei ihre eigenen fixen Wahnideen zur Weltverbesserung. Der 11. September kam ihnen wie von Gott gesandt.
Ein entscheidender Kulturkampf, oder in der heutigen Sprache ausgedrückt: eine Erfolgspropaganda, muß in der Regel immer den großen politischen Umwälzungen vorangehen. Der Krieg in Afghanistan und Irak begann zuerst als akademische Auseinadersetzung, die von den neokonservativen Intellektuellen in Amerika bestimmt wurde. Aber das soll nicht heißen, daß sich die Akademiker und die Befürworter dieser Kriege nicht irren konnten. Die ganze völkerrechtliche Architektur der Irakkriege ist heute brüchig geworden.

Schwache Europäer, korrupte Kommunisten

Die US-Neokonservativen wollten seit langem die irakische und iranische Regierung beseitigen. Auch die angebliche Terrorgruppe Al Kaida war eine nebulöse Unterstellung, an der vielleicht etwas dran sein kann, die aber auch falsch sein kann. Wir haben nämlich keine genauen Beweise dafür, daß diese Terrorgruppe wirklich existiert. Aber solche Unterstellungen, ob wahr oder falsch, sind oft ein perfektes Mittel zur Rechtfertigung endloser Kriege. Schlimmer noch: Sie sind heute ein ideales Alibi für die Errichtung eines Überwachungssystems.
Nach neun Jahren Krieg in Afghanistan, nach sieben Jahren im Irak, hat sich das Sicherheitsklima im Nahen Osten und in Afghanistan sowie in der ganzen Welt nicht verbessert, sondern verschlechtert. Darin stimmen fast alle Politiker in Europa und Amerika überein. Heute gibt es einer größere Terrorismusgefahr als vor acht oder neun Jahren. Man kann sagen, daß die Terrorismusgefahr in Europa seitens radikaler Islamisten in dem Maße steigt, wie der Krieg in Irak und Afghanistan andauert.
Und was geschah mit den Europäern? Natürlich brauchten die Amerikaner 2001 die Zustimmung ihrer Verbündeten für die beiden Kriege. In Westeuropa war es dieses Mal ein bißchen schwieriger, da die meisten Systempolitiker in Europa, abgesehen von ihrer sonstigen Anbiederungspolitik gegenüber Washington, wußten, daß diese Kriege keine raschen Resultate erbringen würden. Das offizielle Deutschland war skeptisch, da es mehr muslimische Einwanderer beherbergt als die USA. Aber als europäisches NATO-Mitglied war es nicht leicht, den Amerikanern zu trotzen.

Politische Theologie der Amerikaner

Im Gegensatz zu Deutschland und Frankreich hatten die Amerikaner keine Probleme, Befürworter für ihre Expeditionen in Afghanistan und Irak in Osteuropa zu finden. Einer der Gründe dafür war, daß fast alle Etablierten und Akademiker vom Baltikum bis zum Balkan Überreste oder der Nachwuchs ehemaliger Kommunisten sind. Um ihre eigene kriminelle Vergangenheit aus den kommunistischen Terrorzeiten zu decken, müssen sie jetzt päpstlicher als der Papst sein, also amerikanischer als die Amerikaner selbst.
Die ersten Nutznießer der beiden Kriege waren, zumindest am Anfang der Kriege, wie schon erwähnt, die Neokonservativen und Israel. Aber es ist falsch zu behaupten, daß der Krieg nur von den amerikanischen Neokonservativen gerechtfertigt wurde. Um die wirklichen Motive der amerikanischen Außenpolitik zu begreifen, muß man die amerikanische politische Theologie gut verstehen, insbesondere die Überzeugung vieler amerikanischen Politiker von einer besonderen politischen Auserwähltheit. Die Nutznießer und die Architekten der Kriege sind ein tagespolitisches Phänomen, aber der Zeitgeist, der ihnen die Kriege rechtfertigt ist ein geistesgeschichtliches Phänomen. Dies kann man nicht voneinander trennen.
Uri Avnery, ein linker israelischer Schriftsteller, hat vor kurzem gesagt, daß »Israel ein kleines Amerika und die USA ein großes Israel« seien. Seit einhundert Jahren hat Amerika seine politischen Begriffe aus dem Alten Testament. Im Zuge dessen haben viele amerikanische Politiker ihre Mentalität von den alten Hebräern übernommen. Es ist auch kein Zufall, daß sich Amerika als Gottesbote mit einer universalistischen Botschaft für die ganze Welt wahrnimmt.
Vor 150 Jahren waren es die sezessionistischen Staaten des Südens, die das Sinnbild des absolut Bösen darstellten; später, Anfang des 20. Jahrhunderts, wurde das Sinnbild des »bösen Deutschen« bzw. »der Nazis« zum allgemeinen Feindbild; dann, während des Kalten Krieges, war eine Zeitlang der böse Kommunist in der Sowjetunion das Symbol des absolut Bösen. Heute gibt es keine Kommunisten, Konföderierten oder Faschisten mehr. Deswegen mußten die amerikanischen Weltverbesserer ein Ersatzfeindbild finden: nämlich den »Islamo-Faschisten« oder den islamistischen Terroristen.
In diese Kategorie des Bösen soll man die palästinensische Hamas, die libanesische Hisbollah und manche »Schurkenstaaten« wie Irak oder Iran einstufen. Geopolitisch sind diese Staaten von keinerlei Bedeutung für Amerika. Aber Amerikas religiös-ideologische Beziehungen zu Israel verpflichten die amerikanischen Politiker, Israels Feinde als ihre eigenen Feinde zu behandeln.
Es ist völlig falsch, nur die Israelis oder die Neokonservativen für die Kriege der USA verantwortlich zu machen. Sie sind zwar eindeutig die Nutznießer, aber die wahren Architekten dieser Weltverbesserungsideologie sind die Millionen amerikanischer christlicher Zionisten, die eine außerordentliche Rolle in Amerika spielen. Es ist auch falsch, über angebliche amerikanische »Heuchelei« zu reden, wie es oft üblich ist. Aufgrund ihres alttestamentarischen Geistes glauben viele amerikanische Christzionisten tatsächlich, daß Amerikas Militäreinsätze für alle Völker gut seien.

Die Verantwortung der Messianisten

Aus dieser Positionierung entspringt auch die Ideologie der »Menschenrechte«, die wir heute als etwas Selbstverständliches und Humanes hinnehmen. Aber gerade im Namen der Menschenrechte kann man ganze Völker bzw. viele nonkonformistische Intellektuelle kurzerhand auslöschen. Wenn jemand über »Menschenrechte« spricht, sollte man ihn immer fragen, was mit jenen passieren sollte, die nicht in die Kategorie der vorgesehenen Menschen passen. Das sind dann nämlich meist Bestien und Tiere, die nicht nur umerzogen, sondern kurzerhand physisch liquidiert werden sollten.
Fragen wir uns, welche Gedanken durch die Köpfe der amerikanischen Piloten gingen, die Köln oder Hamburg im Jahr 1943 niederbrannten. Ihrem Selbstverständnis nach waren sie keine Kriminellen. Sie hatten keine Gewissensbisse, da dort unten nach ihrer Auffassung keine Menschen, sondern die Verkörperung ganz besonders gefährlicher Tiere lebten.
Die amerikanischen Christ-Zionisten und viele andere biblische Fanatiker tragen die größte Verantwortung für die meisten der amerikanischen Kriege unserer Zeit. Der Außerwähltheitsgedanke führt nicht zu mehr Völkerverständigung, sondern zu endlosen Kriegen.

Unser Autor Dr. Tomislav (Tom) Sunic ist Schriftsteller und ehemaliger US-Professor für Politikwissenschaft. (www.tomsunic.info) Er ist Kulturberater der American Third Position Party. Sein neustes Buch erschien in Frankreich: La Croatie; un pays par défaut? (Ed Avatar, Paris, 2010)

Absurdistan - A State of Mind

Absurdistan

A State of Mind

 

By Mark Hackard

 

Ex: http://www.alternativeright.com/ 

 

 

The Pentagon has begun field testing for a new and devastating experimental weapon still shrouded under a cloak of secrecy. A spin-off of anti-gravity technologies, the highly anticipated platform operates on the latest developments in the realm of “anti-logic”. Its use will enable our information warriors to defy reason and intellect, paralyzing an opponent with unrelenting streams of contradiction as well as sheer nonsense.

DOD’s anti-logic weapon underwent its first trial run this summer, as it was rushed into action amidst the Koran-burning controversy. An obscure Florida pastor’s plan to barbecue the Muslim holy book on September 11^th was foiled, one suspects, largely due to the intervention of General David Petraeus, commander of U.S. and Coalition forces in Afghanistan. Deploying the anti-logic technology, Petraeus spoke against such an act, since it would “endanger troops” in his theater of responsibility. While the wisdom of the pastor’s step was very doubtful, Petraeus in his victory managed to obliterate truth and standards of reason. After all, the actual threat to U.S. troops stems not from a small Florida church’s play at publicity, but from occupying Afghanistan.

In the Postmodern Empire, news serves not so much to inform, but to blind, distract and intimidate. Our much-celebrated information age is defined by an incoherence that permeates society. Welcome to Absurdistan.

 

Russian traditionalist and science-fiction author Natalya Irtenina accurately diagnoses this disorder as the logical outcome of a culture’s flight from the Transcendent into revolutionary fantasies of liberty, equality and progress. She goes on to analyze the anti-traditional worldview and its manifestations, specifically within the domain of mass media.

 

Contemporary information technologies are founded, as a rule, on the rejection of

1) Principles of hierarchy, i.e. division of information into categories of important, secondary and negligible;

2) Principles of binary logic- the very significance of the antithesis “important – unimportant”, “necessary- unnecessary”, etc. is lost, and in the applications of mass media these concepts are made meaningless;

3) Unique connections- any information can undergo endless transformations and interpretations, thereby creating various pictures of the world, and any fact can be replaced by any other- the field of possibilities is limitless, and cultural conventions allow for it.

The collapse of values and ideas into an endless net-like structure can be viewed not only as the triumph of relativism, but also as a culminating moment of the liberal project. Where absurdity envelops what is left of a civilization, wars to impose democracy and today’s fashion tips enjoy equal value. The most varied images and sounds emanate through our televisions and internet newsfeeds in transitory fragments, and just as quickly they disintegrate into our subconscious. Western managerial elites wield data flows not to impart knowledge, but rather to impress certain emotions upon readers and viewers for profit and political control.

This jarring discontinuity surprises no one and registers with few, and perhaps nowhere is it more evident than in America’s spiral of decadence and imperial decline. President Obama chats up the women of a day-time talk show, The View, and perhaps within only hours of his appearance approves the movements of U.S. forces positioned across the world. GOP presidential hopeful Sarah Palin recites talking points on the sacred cause of Washington’s global supremacy, and then appears with her celebrity-seeking daughter on the program Dancing with the Stars. The surreal has swallowed our civilization, and any remaining distinctions between parody and public life melt away.

Discourse shifts within seconds from the sexual narcissism of average Americans to scenes of death and destruction abroad, and back. The latest market research, for example, has determined that women feel “sexy” when carrying Victoria’s Secret handbags; only a click away is a report on ongoing U.S. efforts to suborn Kandahar. We learn in passing that sixteen American soldiers have been killed in the course of operations there, and that a number of Taliban fighters and Pashtun villagers in Pakistan’s northwest were recently blown apart by Predator drones. Conservative, God-fearing Fox News tells us the CIA is carrying out these strikes to disrupt a plot by terror cells across Europe. Simultaneously Fox, the flagship of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation conglomerate, hoists a ringing endorsement of pornography and masturbation underneath the terrorism story. Fellow-citizens take daily excursions into what Irtenina terms our virtual apocalypse, where endurance of the Last Judgment is swapped out for a record total of kills in a game or the successful resolution to a sitcom.

For an observer of only moderate discretion, the rapidity and volume of what amounts to a continuous tidal wave of trivia and garbage is striking. Even more crucial is to recognize its underlying function. The self-isolating liberation of desire in individuals both drives and facilitates U.S. Empire, at least for a time. And the profligacy and consumption lifestyle so intensively marketed to Americans by Wall Street are directly related to the quest to lock down energy resources in Eurasia.

Facing Muslim militancy from the sands of the Maghreb to the peaks of Afghanistan, Washington capitalizes on the situation by expanding its sphere of control. The ideological justification given for this is the call to share the Gospel of the Open Society, with science diplomacy and generous foreign aid to outright bombardment, invasion and occupation the methods of proselytism.

Like Marxism-Leninism, liberal democracy has a universal mandate- it must spread to the ends of the Earth or perish. The regnant ideology behind American power allows for no higher value than platitudes on “free nations, open markets and social progress”, and even the frenzy of missionary wars and so-called institution-building cannot conceal the gaping meaninglessness beneath it all. Any substantive opposition rooted in religious faith, culture and ethnic identity must be delegitimized and wiped out, as the Serbs experienced just over a decade ago under the shadow of NATO cruise missiles.

Also ironically akin to Soviet Communism, the Open Society could be meeting the beginning of its end in the treacherous valleys of the Hindu Kush. Why are U.S. troops sent to foster “good governance” in Helmand Province and elsewhere, besides effectively running protection for pederast warlords who make a killing in the global heroin trade?

The answer to this question is multifaceted but rather straightforward. U.S. interventions in the Islamic world will continue so that our deluded nations may prolong the liberal dream, that the Brave New World will overcome any and all resistance from the East or West. So that Muslim demographics and power in our lands will only grow in strength, with churches made into mosques, death threats to cartoonists in hiding and interminable terror alerts. So that the emptying-out of the Western soul may proceed, that the bearers of our blessed and honorable heritage are condemned to dissolution, and that the chaos at the hollow core of the Postmodern Empire shall overrun us. And all of this will doubtless be covered in real-time on Fox & Friends, with today’s scoreboard highlights brought to you by Cialis.

Absurdistan is not just a label for one of Washington’s trillion-dollar carnage-laden adventures in the wilds of Central Asia; it is a state of mind. We are all in some degree subject to its power, but duty-bound to resist its seductions and lies. By lies and fantasies the regime may sustain itself, yet under their weight it will also implode. The struggle to affirm Truth will hasten that day.

Olivier Bardolle - Petit traité des vertus réactionnaires

Olivier Bardolle - Petit traité des vertus réactionnaires

 

 

Ex: http://lepetitcelinien.blogspot.com/

Vient de paraître chez L'Editeur, ce Petit traité des vertus réactionnaires d'Olivier Bardolle, que nous vous conseillons.

Présentation de l'éditeur
En Occident, depuis près d'un demi-siècle, les idées progressistes tiennent le haut du pavé. Il semblerait pourtant que l'on redécouvre aujourd'hui certaines vertus à la pensée réactionnaire. Ne serait-ce qu'une capacité de résistance certaine aux ravages de l'hypermodernité et aux bienfaits immodérés de la pensée unique. Sans tomber dans le manichéisme propre à l'époque, ce petit traité, particulièrement tonique, dénonce les fausses valeurs avec jubilation et poussera chacun, qu'il se prétende de droite ou de gauche, à réviser son catéchisme idéologique. C'est ainsi qu'Eric Naulleau, réputé de gauche, n'a pas hésité à préfacer ce texte en toute indépendance d'esprit. A lire sans modération

L'auteur
Olivier Bardolle, né en 1952, est un essayiste reconnu et un interlocuteur recherché (on l'a vu plusieurs fois dans l'émission de Frédéric Taddeï, Ce soir ou jamais). Du Monologue implacable (Ramsay, 2003) à De la prolifération des homoncules sur le devenir de l'espèce (L'Esprit des Péninsules, 2008) ou à ce Petit traité des vertus réactionnaires, Olivier Bardolle tisse, dans la lignée de Philippe Muray (à qui ce dernier ouvrage est dédié), le portrait de l'hypermodernité avec sagacité, ironie, mordant et, ce qui n est pas encore interdit : érudition. Chacun de ses essais épingle la bien-pensance et les idées toutes faites de ses chers contemporains.

Olivier Bardolle, Petit traité des vertus réactionnaires, L'Editeur, 2010.
Commande possible sur Amazon.fr.

 

Theory & Practice

Greg Johnson

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

The aim of Counter-Currents Publishing and our journal North American New Right is to create an intellectual movement in North America that is analogous to the European New Right. We aspire to learn from the European New Right’s strengths and limitations and to tailor its approach to the unique situation of European people in North America. Our aim is to lay the intellectual groundwork for a white ethnostate in North America.

To achieve this aim, we must understand the proper relationship of social theory to social change, metapolitics to politics, theory to practice. We must avoid drifting either into inactive intellectualism or unintelligent and therefore pointless and destructive activism.

Guillaume Faye’s visionary new book Archeofuturism, newly translated into English and published by Arktos Media, offers many important lessons for our project. Chapter 1, “An Assessment of the Nouvelle Droite,” is Faye’s settling of accounts with the French New Right. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Faye was a leading thinker and polemicist of the French New Right before quitting in disillusionment. In 1998, after 12 years, he returned to the battle of ideas with Archeofuturism, which begins with an explanation of his departure and return.

In the 1970s and 1980s, the Nouvelle Droite, led by Alain de Benoist, was a highly visible and influential intellectual movement. The Nouvelle Droite published books and periodicals like Nouvelle École and Éléments; it sponsored lectures, conferences, and debates; it engaged the intellectual and cultural mainstreams. The Nouvelle Droite did more than receive coverage in the mainstream press, it often set the terms of debates to which the mainstream responded.

The Nouvelle Droite was deep; it was highbrow; it was radical; it was relevant; and, above all, it was exciting. It was based on the axiom that ideas shape the world. Bad ideas are destroying it, and only better ideas will save it. It had the right ideas, and it was increasingly influential. Its metapolitical strategy was a “Gramscianism” of the Right, i.e., an attempt to shape the ideas and ultimately the actions of the elites—academics, journalists, businessmen, politicians, etc.—as envisioned in the writings of Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci.

However, according to Faye, as the 1980s came to a close, the Nouvelle Droite became less influential: “Regrettably, it has turned into an ideological ghetto. It no longer sees itself as a powerhouse for the diffusion of energies with the ultimate aim of acquiring power, but rather as a publishing enterprise that also organizes conferences but has limited ambitions” (pp. 24–25). The causes of this decline were based partly on objective conditions, partly on the movement’s own weaknesses.

Two of Faye’s points seem particularly relevant here. I should note that even if these points do not turn out to be entirely fair to the Nouvelle Droite, they still contain universal truths that are applicable to our project in North America.

 

1. The rise of the Front National of Jean-Marie Le Pen caused a decline in the visibility and influence of the Nouvelle Droite, whereas one would have thought that the Front National’s good fortunes would have magnified the Nouvelle Droite. After all, the two movements share much in common, and there can be little doubt that the Nouvelle Droite influenced the Front National and brought new people into its orbit.

Faye claims, however, that there are many “airlocks” that seal off the different circles of the French Right. Faye claims that the Nouvelle Droite never really tried to engage the Front National, because its members fundamentally misunderstood Gramsci. Gramsci’s cultural battle was organically connected with the economic and political struggles of the Italian Communist Party. The Nouvelle Droite, however, treated the battle as entirely cultural and intellectual. Thus they were not really Gramscians. They were actually followers of Augustin Cochin’s theory of the role of intellectual salons in paving the way for the French Revolution. Under the autocracy of the old regime, of course, one could ignore party and electoral politics. But after 1789, one cannot.

The North American New Right aims to change the political landscape. To do that, we must influence people who have power, or who can attain it. That means we must engage with organized political parties and movements. No, in the end, white people are not going to vote ourselves out of the present mess. But we are not in the endgame yet, and it may be possible to influence policy through the existing system. Moreover, there are other ways that parties attain power besides voting. Just look at the Bolsheviks.

We know that the present system is unsustainable, and although we cannot predict when and how it will collapse, we know that collapse will come. It is far more likely that whites can turn a collapse to our benefit if we already have functioning political organizations that aim at becoming the nucleus of a new society. Yet we will not have functioning political organizations unless we engage the presently existing political institutions, corrupt, sclerotic, and boring though they may be.

2. Even though the Nouvelle Droite did not engage with organized politics, it was organized according to “an outdated ‘apparatus logic’ of the type to be found in political parties, which was not appropriate for a movement and school of thought, as well as journalistic or editorial policy, and which led cadres to flee on account of ‘problems with the apparatus’” (p. 27). By an “apparatus logic,” Faye seems to mean a hierarchical organization in which an intellectual and editorial “party line” is promulgated.

Although Faye does not say so, the inability of the Nouvelle Droite to interface with the Front National may in fact be based on the fact that they shared the same structure and thus naturally perceived each other as rivals promulgating slightly different “party lines” and competing for the adherence of the same public.

The North American New Right is an intellectual movement with a political agenda, but it is not a political party. We do not have a rigorous and detailed party line, but we do share certain basic premises:

(a) Ideas shape history and politics.

(b) The survival of whites in North America and around the world is threatened by a host of bad ideas and policies: egalitarianism, the denial of biological race and sex differences, feminism, emasculation, racial altruism, ethnomasochism and xenophilia, multiculturalism, liberalism, capitalism, non-white immigration, individualism, consumerism, materialism, hedonism, anti-natalism, etc.

(c) Whites will not save ourselves unless we (i) speak frankly about the role of Jews around the world in promoting ideas and policies that threaten our race’s survival and (ii) work to reduce Jewish power and influence.

(d) Whites will not survive unless we regain political control over a viable national homeland or homelands.

These premises leave a great deal of latitude for interpretation and application. But that is good. As an intellectual movement, we embrace a diversity of opinions and encourage civil debate. We believe that this is the best way to  attract talented and creative people who will advance our agenda. We also believe that debating diverse perspectives on these issues is the best way to arrive at the truth, or a workable approximation of it.

The North American New Right, therefore, is not a hierarchical intellectual sect. Instead, it is a network of independent authors and activists who share certain basic principles and aims. We collaborate where collaboration is possible. Where differences exist, we seek to build consensus through dialogue and debate. Where differences persist, we agree to disagree and either change the subject or part ways. Because we are a loose network, we can overlap and interface with any number of hierarchical organizations without competing with them.

Even though the North American New Right is a metapolitical movement, and everything we do bears in some way on politics, there will be times when the connections will seem remote and tenuous. Thus we will surely be mocked as pointy-headed, ivory-tower intellectuals or apolitical dandies, poseurs, and wankers.

That’s fine. A vibrant and effective intellectual movement has to be exciting to intellectuals, and intellectuals get excited by the damnedest things. Besides, I have learned from ample experience that bullet-headed pragmatists who see no value in any ideas that cannot contribute to an immediate change in poll numbers tend to give up or sell out anyway.

What does that mean for the editorial policy of Counter-Currents and the journal North American New Right? It means, first of all, that those of you who might be holding back because you imagine you diverge from the party line around here can relax. There is no party line beyond the basic agenda outlined above. Second, it means that we welcome civil debate and commentary on our articles, interviews, and reviews, including this one (here are the guidelines).

Jure Vujic: l'Empire et nous

Archives de SYNERGIES EUROPEENNES - 1998

 

 L'empire et nous

 

Discours inaugural de Maître Jure Vujic, secrétaire politique du Mouvement “Minerve” correspondant de “Synergies Européennes” en Croatie

 

 L'Empire est avant tout une essence spirituelle, une sublime nuance ancrée dans l'honneur et qui s'affirme dans le style et l'allure. Il est le kaléidoscope de nos facultés oniriques et l'expression de nos potentialités virtuelles. L'idée d'Empire implique une réintégration ontologique pour chaque individu, des valeurs aristocratiques qui furent l'épine dorsale de l'histoire.

 

L'essence impériale invite à la réconciliation avec soi-même, aux retrouvailles avec son fond originel. C'est pourquoi il conviendra pour chacun de nous d'expurger les résidus d'une éducation prophylactique, pour libérer et accroître son propre champ de vision et se projeter hors de soi-même vers l'horizon infini. La libération de nos âmes passera par le rejet inconditionnel de toute forme de cinétisme ambiant pour adopter les dynamiques constantes, charnelles et naturelles de notre dualité intrinsèque, faite de corps et d'esprit, d'Etre et de matière. Ainsi restituer l'intégralité de l'être impérial pour l'immerger dans nos âmes supposera de mettre en mouvement en chaque lieu, à chaque instant, ses attributs sacrés qui sont capacité d'appréhension, d'intégration, de captation, d'amour, d'ouverture et de conquête. L'impérialité consiste à dépasser les crispations nationalitaires étriquées et à refuser de se plier à toutes les formes d'idolâtries contemporaines, pour rétablir et reconstruire comme les arcs-boutants d'une cathédrale, le lien d'allégeance impérial, seul à même de consumer les contradictions inhérentes à la nature humaine, et de fédérer organiquement des ethnies, des peuples et des nations différents de par leurs coutumes, leur histoire et leur religion. L'Empire se fera le réceptacle des disparités naturelles et le garant de leur émancipation. Au-delà du constructivisme des idéologies abstraites qui réduisirent les peuples européens durant des siècles à la servilité, l'Empire nous invite à renouer avec le langage tellurique du sol, des vastes steppes, des étendues de forêts vierges, des contrées désertiques, des glacis immaculés et de recourir au ressort humain de l'inaccessible, de la polarité et de l'absolu, seuls antidotes empêchant la sclérose de l'esprit humain.

 

La pensée impériale est une ligne intérieure qui relie les perspectives obliques des âmes vagabondes vers la centralité. Elle est cette muraille inaccessible à l'existence désincarnée. Elle est en quelque sorte l'incarnation du Verbe éternel. L'Empire est cette puissance motrice qui comble les espaces, il est cet hôte indésirable qui surgit de nulle part, à l'éminente dignité de l'éphèmère et qui, pourtant, comme un fluide d'évocation, déploie sa force dans la permanence. L'Empire s'insurge contre la barbarie moderne et odieuse de l'argent, pour rappeler à l'ordre la sainte barbarie de nos ancêtres, fille aînée des déterminismes naturels et historiques. Penser en termes de puissance et d'expansion est le propre de l'impérialité qui nous renvoie sans cesse à l'histoire universelle. La volonté de puissance est à elle seule volonté impériale. Elaborer et promouvoir une grande politique impériale ne pourra se concevoir que sur la base de grands espaces.

 

L'Europe désarmée, livrée aux convoitises et aux pillages des thalassocraties anglo-saxonnes, repue de richesses perfides et aliénantes, demeure dans l'ombre d'elle-même, dans les ténèbres, dans un monde chtonien qu'elle s'est aménagé au cœur d'une jungle fébrile de consumérisme. L'Europe est dépossédée de son âme, elle reste atteinte d'une calvitie impressionnante, d'une surface d'ivoire, qu'elle ne reconquèrera qu'au prix d'une réappropriation de l'idée de puissance et d'impérialité. L'Europe avance à vitesse d'escargot sur les parois échancrées d'un monde aiguisé où règne la furie collective. Elle retrouvera la liberté de disposer de ses ressources et de l'ensemble de ses forces par la construction d'un bloc continental eurasiatique fédérant les diverses nations européennes constituées, débouchant symétriquement sur la Mer du Nord, la Mer Baltique, la Méditerranée et l'Océan Indien. Pour ce faire, il conviendra de s'affranchir des coquilles hexagonales pusillanimes et étroites et de briser les carcans des Etats-Nations qui asphyxient les communautés naturelles, et nient les potentialités individuelles.

 

Aspirer à la puissance, c'est redonner aux peuples européens leur place dans l'histoire universelle. Puissance et domination s'excluent, la première impliquant une responsabilité, un sens du devoir inné et une adhésion volontaire, la seconde se fondant sur la simple force coercitive, vouée à une chute certaine. L'espace déterminant le destin des peuples dans leur étendue, leurs ressources et leur configuration, interpelle leur vocation historique dans le monde. Jordis von Lohausen écrivit que le propre destin des peuples historiques est leur capacité à accéder à la puissance. Les peuples européens auront-ils ce courage? Nul ne le sait. Mais l'avenir appartient à cette nation européenne-Piémont qui aura la volonté politique de trouver prise sur un sol salvateur, de fonder la “Heimat” pour les générations futures et repousser toujours plus loin ses Limes, ses fronts expansifs et ses têtes de pont défensives, pour réaliser cette unité de destin dans l'universel. Alors renaîtra de ses cendres comme le Phénix mythique, l'Empire régénéré, florilège de notre conversion spirituelle. «C'est lui qui rompt la chaîne sur les ruines de l'Ordre; il chasse au bercail les égarés qu'il fouette vers le droit de toujours où Grand redevient Grand, Maître redevient Maître et la Règle, la Règle; fixant l'Emblème vrai au drapeau de son peuple, sous l'orage, aux signaux d'honneur de l'aube, il guide la troupe de ses preux vers les œuvres du jour, du jour lucide, où se bâtit le Nouveau Règne» (Stefan George).

 

Jure VUJIC.

Ludovici on Feminism & Emasculation

Anthony M. Ludovici

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

Illustration: Picture by Cristofano Allori: Judith with the Head of Holofernes (1613)

Each sex has the instincts, emotions and mental powers related to the kind of life that it will have to lead, and the corresponding limitation in selecting and rejecting. For instance, the male as the active par­ticipator in coition is the wooer and initiator; he has to awaken desire for himself in the female, and finds his pleasure in these roles. The fe­male finds pleasure in being captivated, in surrendering herself, in yielding to initiation, provided that she approves of the male.

In his role of initiator, man develops boldness, leadership, the habit of dominance, responsibility, originality, independence. In her role of passive partici­pator, woman develops shyness, prudery and coyness, sequaciousness, irresponsibility, imitativeness, dependence. (These are the oldest psy­chical consequences of sexual dimorphism and probably antecede by millions of years the qualities of mind which are associated with par­enthood.)

The active role in procreation leads to the rivalry of other males, and develops courage, fighting powers and a marked tendency to violent jealousy in the male, particularly when he is old. But the fe­male, finding her sex-adaptations normally arranged for her, will not need to fight, nor will she develop courage and jealousy to the same extent as the male at this stage.

Happiness will be pursued by each sex in trying to fulfill the specialized functions that derive from its own role. And if the object be to make either sex miserable, this will be best achieved by compelling them to break bounds. Sexual desire is thus the need to perform a specialized function, and love for the opposite sex is attachment to the sexual object which makes this performance possible. Happiness comes with performance.

Each sex will find pleasure in the adaptations peculiar to its own role, and will pursue happiness by seeking those adaptations. The female will find pleasure in exhibitionism, while the male will find pleasure in voyeurism or, to put in plainly, in feasting his eyes. If the wooing has been successful—that is to say, if the female has been captivated—each sex will display its instincts to the full. There will be in­creased preliminary exhibitionism on the part of the female, and a cor­responding increase of pleasure for her. In the same way there will be increased male voyeurism, and a like increase of pleasure for him. There will be a short period of increasing familiarity, the play of the sexes, which may be confined merely to secondary sexual characteristics. This will all be natural and clean. It has its basis deep down in the ancestors of the mammalia, and we cannot now eradicate the instincts that urge us to it. And during this time, while eagerness and pleasure will increase for both, barriers will break down. Each will then find further and greater joy in his or her particular part in the consummation. The passive, yielding role, if it is ably directed by the male, will be en­joyed the female, while the violent active role, if he is versed in the arts of life, will be enjoyed by the male, and each will be grateful and proud . . .

History, science, fiction, the lives of all great peoples, the experience of every one of us—evidence of every kind and from every corner of the compass tells us convincingly how fundamental and how won­derful this relationship is. Some of the greatest and noblest acts of heroism have been performed precisely for the sake of this love which unites two people of different sexes, and examples could be multiplied ad infinitum to show the extremes of devotion, fidelity and happiness which it inspires. (Man: An Indictment, pp. 15–18)

The history of most cultures seems to teach the following moral: that the relation of the sexes is always a fluctuating balance of male and female elements, and that at every stage in social development the bisexual components of each man and each woman tend to assert themselves to the utmost of their capacity, within the limits allowed by the values and the customs of the people. The check upon the expression by the male of his latent femininity thus consists of: (a) virile values, (b) masculine pursuits, (c) the single-minded preoccupation with male problems, and (d) the process of selection, which, operating through the taste imposed by the values, tends to keep down the proportion of males with prominent feminine characteristics. Thus the femininity of the male, where such checks exist, becomes what psychologists term recessive and may remain latent for centuries.

The check upon the expression by the female of her latent masculinity consists of: (a) her male environment, (b) the feminine pursuits, (c) the single-minded preoccupation with female problems, and (d) the process of selection, which, operating through the taste imposed by values, tends to keep down the proportion of females with pronounced masculine characteristics. Thus the masculinity of the female, where such checks exist, also becomes recessive and may remain latent for centuries.

Surrounded by males who maintain masculine standards, and who are capable of giving the highest expression to masculine ability and taste, the male elements in women tend to grow furtive, timid and averse from expression. A woman then knows that she only make herself ridiculous by trying to measure her rudimentary maleness against masculinity of the full-fledged brand. In an environment of masculine men, therefore, her femininity tends to be expressed with boldness, and selection operates in favour of females with only latent masculinity.

The moment, however, she finds, as she does in periods of male degeneracy, that the expression of her latent masculinity does not make her appear ridiculous—that is to say, that the amount of her masculinity can, without appearing absurd by comparison, be measured against the masculinity of her menfolk—there is no longer anything to make her male elements recessive, and her maleness is likely to become developed at the cost of her femaleness, while the process of selection will operate in favour of a multiplication of females with excessive mascu­linity, and vice versa.

This does not mean that the female with strong male elements is necessarily to be deprecated. For, provided her male environment is always sufficiently beyond her in masculinity to make her male side recessive, no harm is likely to arise, and the multiplication of maleish women then contributes without evil results to the cultivation of a virile people. This happened in Sparta and was successful from the ninth to the fourth century BC without the appearance of a woman’s movement, because until the fourth century there was no marked degeneration of the male.

It also happened in England. And the presence of a large proportion of masculine women in our midst today is not in itself a proof of the degeneracy of our men. For as a virile culture we required mas­culine women who would not introduce too much of the feminine ele­ment into our stock. It is the present unadaptedness of these women, their present free expression of their maleness at the cost of their femaleness, which is a sign of male degeneracy, because it means that their menfolk have not remained sufficiently beyond them in male characters to make their masculinity recessive.

The question, therefore, is whether there are always signs of masculine degeneracy, accompanied by female virility, in societies where women tend to dominate. The test is whether the male elements in the woman are being freely expressed. That there were such signs in an­cient Athens, Rome and eighteenth-century France, I have already shown. The fact that the hetairai of Athens consorted with the philosophers, and instructed so famous a man as Socrates, is a comment at once upon the Socratic philosophy and upon the hetairai, while the historical proofs we have of the wanton cruelty of Roman matrons in the period of the decline, and of the viragoes that Rome produced during the Empire, leave us in no doubt that the male elements in the Ro­man women of the first century AD had long ceased to be recessive.

Cruelty in woman, which is the morbid expression of that part of her male elements that includes sadism, is always a sign of unrestrained bisexuality, and although it is by no means the only sign it occurs again and again in periods of masculine decline. The diabolical cruelty of the women of the French Revolution revolted even the male terrorists themselves, and we must not forget that, since extravagant and maudlin humanitarianism is only an inverted and socially permitted form of sadism, the display of excessive humanitarianism in modern England is really as suspicious as was the cruelty of the later Roman matrons. (Man: An Indictment, pp. 87–91)

From The Lost Philosopher: The Best of Anthony M. Ludovici, ed. John V. Day (Berkeley, Cal.: ETSF, 2003), available for purchase here.

La aventura del rebelde

LA AVENTURA DEL REBELDE

Ex: http://imperium-revolucion-conservadora.blogspot.com/

La existencia de una supuesta tendencia humana hacia la igualdad, la nivelación en todos los órdenes, fenómeno que Ratheneau calificaba como la invasión vertical de los bárbaros o la revolución por lo bajo (Revolution von unten) de Spengler, es una afirmación rigurosamente inexacta. El hombre es un ser naturalmente inconformista, competitivo y ambicioso, al menos, en un sentido progresivo y evolutivo. El mito de la igualdad deja paso a la lucha eterna por la diferenciación. Y este concepto dinámico se integra en la sociedad mediante dos polos opuestos que originan en ella un movimiento de tensión-extensión: minorías y masas, formadas por hombres-señores o por hombres-esclavos, estos últimos seres mediocres en los que se repite un tipo genérico definido de antemano por los valores imperantes de la moral burguesa o progresista triunfante en cada momento o por los dictados de la modernidad, siervos de una civilización decadente que pugna por la nueva nivelación-igualación consistente en rebajar o disminuir a los que se sitúan por encima atrayéndolos a un estrato inferior. El combate por la libertad cede ante la búsqueda de una felicidad gratuita.

Nietzsche expuso su antítesis entre una “moral de señores”, aristocrática, propia del espiritualismo en sentido europeo intrahistórico, y una “moral de esclavos”, de resentimiento, que correspondería al cristianismo, al bolchevismo y al capitalismo demoliberal. Es la naturaleza la que establece separaciones entre los individuos “espirituales”, los más fuertes y enérgicos y los “mediocres”, que son mayoría frente a “los menos”, una “casta” que anuncia el advenimiento del “superhombre” (Übermensch). El “mensajero del nihilismo” fue un predicador militante contra el orden caduco y la moral convencional, pero lo hacía desde un profundo individualismo que se oponía a las distintas formas de dominio ejercidas sobre las masas con el oscuro objetivo de anular toda personalidad.

Y es aquí cuando percibimos que la figura solitaria, dramática y patética del rebelde, del anticonformista, parece haber desaparecido de la sociedad posmoderna. El declive del romanticismo y el advenimiento de la sociedad de masas han puesto de manifiesto la crisis del héroe, del intelectual comprometido con la disensión y la protesta, reduciéndolo a un mero personaje de ficción literaria. El neoconformista interpreta toda renovación como un atentado contra su seguridad. Atemorizado por el riesgo y la responsabilidad inherente al difícil ejercicio de la libertad personal, aprieta filas con el modelo colectivo. Es el hombre heterodirigido de Riesman o el hombre masa de Ortega y Gasset. Sin embargo, a lo largo del pasado siglo, diversos movimientos han respondido, intuitivamente en la mayoría de las ocasiones, enérgicamente las menos, contra esta homogeneización de las formas de vida.

Durante la década de los cincuenta aparecieron los llamados jóvenes airados o generación beat, espíritus extravagantes caracterizados por sus deseos de romper con las reglas del orden constituido. Forman un grupo promiscuo de bohemios, artistas fracasados, vagabundos, toxicómanos, asociales inadaptados y genios incomprendidos. Mezclan, en extraña confusión, ciertos gestos incomformistas respecto al sexo, las drogas, la amistad, con actitudes intolerantes hacia las formas de vida social, familiar e individual establecidas. Viven en pequeñas comunidades, desprecian el dinero, el trabajo, la moral y la política. Su culto a la rebelión anárquica se resuelve en una técnica existencial autodestructiva que suele concluir en el psiquiátrico, el reformatorio o el presidio. Los beats, en medio de la alucinación y el desespero intelectual, degeneron en lo absurdo, porque absurdo era el mundo en el que estaban obligados a vivir.

Marcuse, símbolo de la protesta estudiantil de los sesenta, intuía la contracultura como una gran negación y, como toda actitud negativa, suponía la afirmación de unos valores opuestos a la cultura en su sentido clásico. El mayo francés, con su imaginación al poder, dio vida efímera al fenómeno de la contracultura.: su temporalidad se debió, sin duda, a su carácter de negación, «porque aquel que reacciona contra algo afirmado no tiene iniciativa en la acción», en expresión de Evola. La contracultura intentó construir una alternativa diferente al futuro tecno-industrial, renovando la caduca cultura occidental a través de una revolución psicológica de la automarginalidad.

Por otra parte, la infracultura delincuente constituye una auténtica anticultura, cuyo código de honor consiste en trastornar las normas justas –o, al menos, aceptadas colectivamente- de la cultura dominante, a través de la ritualización de la hostilidad gratuita y el vandalismo, erigidos como principios éticos que no se dirigen a la obtención de un lucro inmediato, sino a la posesión del placer por lo ilícito, del riesgo por la violación de un tabú. Su comportamiento es incontrolado, carente de toda lógica, y su actuación es hedonista, inmediata, no programada, lo que la diferencia de la delincuencia profesional. Este tipo de rebelde fracasado, surgido de los sectores menos favorecidos –ahora la extracción se produce también entre los niños pijos consentidos-, ve en la propiedad ajena el símbolo tangible del éxito, razón por la cual su apropiación o destrucción constituye una singular venganza, un camino más sencillo que el de la autodisciplina, el sacrificio o el valor del trabajo.

La cultura urbana, a través de expresiones musicales como el rock y sus más modernos ritmos afroamericanos y de sus depresiones alucinógenas –mezcla de drogas, alcohol, música e imágenes estereotipadas-, ha creado nuevos tipos de protesta uniformada, es decir, una paradójica protesta neoconformista, totalmente absorbida por el sistema y por las corrientes de la moda. En nuestro país, este fenómeno de hastío moral degeneró en la movida, un mero gesto contradictorio expresado por las vías del espectáculo huero y el sensacionalismo absurdo. La movida, de repente, reaccionando en sentido contrario a la ley física que le dió su nombre, se detuvo. La vaciedad de su contenido provocó su muerte prematura.

De todo lo anterior se desprende que los hijos de la posmodernidad han aprendido una lección: la inutilidad del acto de protesta institucionalizado y la conveniencia de aceptar las leyes de la sociedad capitalista. Y he aquí que el antiguo revolucionario cambia de uniforme y se entrega en manos de la ambición desmedida, de la competitividad, el consumismo y la seducción. Es el prototipo del nuevo burgués descrito por Alain de Benoist. Mientras los medios de comunicación difunden este tipo humano robotizado, la publicidad lo eleva al altar como único ejemplo de valores eternos que merece la pena imitar. La fórmula lucro-especulación más placer teledigirido, divulgada por la estética urbana, fría y despersonalizada, ha triunfado finalmente.

En el lado opuesto se sitúan, incómodos y descolgados del tren pseudoprogresista, los nuevos bárbaros, personajes que parecen extraídos de los mitos de la literatura fantástica. Son auténticos rebeldes que rechazan, a veces cruentamente, el código cultural y moral hegemónico. Retorno a las formas naturales, gusto por el misticismo, espíritu de combate, tendencia al caudillismo y al sectarismo organizativo, pretensiones literarias y filosóficas, actuación marginal, a veces incluso extremista, son las líneas básicas que los definen, como si constituyesen una recreación de las bestias rubias de Nietzsche. Su inconfesable propósito es sustituir el espacio cibernético de Spielberg por la espada mágica de Tolkien.

Pero también hoy nos encontramos con un nuevo tipo de rebelde, que lucha por hacerse un sitio en el bestiario de la sociedad tecno-industrial. Es el hombre duro, incombustible emocional y espiritualmente, eternamente en camino, en constante metamorfosis nietzscheana, que ejerce su profesión como actividad no especulativa, que defiende su ámbito familiar y relacional como último e inviolable reducto de su intimidad, que participa con actitud militante en la formación de la opinión pública, que en fin, subraya sus rasgos propios frente a la masa y que está dispuesto a sacrificar su individualismo en aras de valores comunitarios superiores. No es hombre de protestas gratuitas o solemnidades falsamente revolucionarias. Busca la autenticidad a través de la resistencia a lo habitual, como un gerrillero schmittiano, aunque esta resistencia sea dolorosa y desgarradora porque se dirige, sobre todo, hacia el interior de sí mismo. En ocasiones también, su dramática existencia y el repudio de la sociedad demoliberal, le acercan a la revolución nihilista de los nuevos bárbaros. Este proyecto humano es aventura, destino no propuesto, la dimensión heróica y trágica del rebelde de Jünger, del nuevo hombre que resulta enormemente peligroso para el inmovilismo.

[Publicado en ElManifiesto.com]

Interview: Anarcho-Primitivist Thinker and Activist John Zerzan

Interview: Anarcho-Primitivist Thinker and Activist John Zerzan

By Alex BIRCH

Ex: http://www.corrupt.org/

John Zerzan is one of the leading advocates of the anti-civilization movement, communicating through speech, literature and action that modern society is unsustainable and harmful to our psychology and freedom. Following in the footsteps of Theodore Kaczynski, Zerzan is a radical anarcho-primitivist and believes that we must get rid of civilization itself, returning to a very simple lifestyle close to nature. His ideas confront commonly held beliefs about primitive people and about our path towards progress.

When was the first time you seriously began to question modern civilization?

I began to question civilization by the early '80s. Began the route to this in the '70s when I was looking at the beginnings of industrialism in England, which led to certain conclusions about the nature of technology (that's it's always about values, never neutral). This went on to thinking about division of labor and soon I was confronted by the nature of civilization. About when Fredy Perlman was making similar conclusions.

Most people today would agree that we live in troubled times, but few would dare to claim the system is fundamentally flawed. What makes you defend the radical viewpoint that we cannot reform civilization to better meet our needs and the future health of our planet?

Freud saw civ [Editor's note: civilization] as the cause of neurosis (Civ and its Discontents), Jared Diamond called domestication (the basis of civ) "the worst mistake humans ever made." It isn't so hard to come to a radical conclusion about it; what is harder is to project an alternative.

A big part of your criticism against civilization is that it gives birth to hierarchies and inequalities. Is it possible for humans to completely get rid of social power structures?

I think it's possible to get rid of the structures; afterall. Homo didn't seem to need them for more than two million years. Power structures emerge quite recently really. That is with domestication, followed swiftly by civ.

German anthropologist Hans-Peter Dürr made a study during the 80’s, which described primitive tribes in modern time displaying extreme social guilt over nakedness and sexuality. Aren’t there other countless examples of primitive tribes where social and cultural norms uphold power and gender structures as part of everyday life?

Primitive is a fairly useless term. The watershed is whether or not people practice some domestication. This sounds simplistic but it holds true universally. Think of a behavior or attitude that we might call negative. Did it exist before domestication? No is the simple answer.

Theodore Kaczynski rejected leftism, because he believed it would inevitably support collectivism, and thus, the growth of large-scale societies. Do you agree with him or have you chosen a different ideological path?

I do agree with that. I am anti-leftist. ('Post-leftist' is a phoney term signifying about nothing.)

Kaczynski also famously claimed that technology creates incentive for its own continued growth. Is technology a necessary evil, or is primitive technology in small-scale communities acceptable, as long as it doesn’t develop into industrial forms?

Tools are fine, that which has little or no division of labor/specialization. Systems of technology are a 'necessary evil' if you want eco-disaster and barren techno-cultures (like this one).

Let’s say we had the possibility of returning to local, self-sustaining communities tomorrow. Would we be able to regulate or prevent communities to unite and begin developing better technology and more advanced lifestyles?

Given what we know about the bad results of political and technological development I would think that people would not want to replicate that path.

You’ve said that the “symbolic thinking” of modern man, including language, mathematics and time, limits and oppresses our freedom. What do you believe led up to the development of these things—why did humanity choose civilization culture and not primitive culture? Do we have a choice at all?

My guess is that the very, very slow movement of division of labor crept up on humans and set the stage for domestication. All of society moves along together so that it is hard to reverse things - which is a big reason technology never goes backward. The whole question of the symbolic is connected, I think, to the movement of alienation. Unless it's just a coincidence that both seemed to have come along together.

Kaczynski argues that we need to destroy key elements of industrial society in order to return to a pre-industrial order. Do you believe this is realistically possible, and if so, are there ethical limits to radical activism against the current order?

I think the elements need to be destroyed but if the population wants technology it will likely, I'm afraid, simply be re-installed. So the challenge is deeper than just physically destroying the stuff. The limits of militancy would seem to be determined in terms of how serious the situation is in one's estimation. That is people who are shocked by radical acts are basically those who feel that the dominant order is mainly sound and healthy.

Do you believe green anarchists are organized enough to be able to overthrow the current system and replace it with your ideal vision, or do anarcho-primitivists need to align themselves with other anti-globalist groups in order to grow more powerful?

What other 'anti-globalist' groups, is one question. Where are leftist groups, for instance, anti-globalization? They want to reform it not get rid of it - because industrial existence, mass society, is fine with them. But a-p folks [Editor's note: anarcho-primitivists] are nowhere potent enough yet to be decisive against it.

What changes do you want to see being implemented as a part of reducing the negative impacts of globalization?

Abolition of globalization ,in favor of radically decentralized, face-to-face community somewhat along the lines of band society, which obtained for thousands of generations.

Some people might compare your views with that of Rousseau. Isn’t there a danger in romanticizing “the wild man” against “the modern man,” imposing a romantic picture of what’s it like to live a primitive lifestyle?

Romantizing or idealizing life outside of domestication/civlization is not a good idea and the road there is not likely to be a picnic. But what are the choices? Continuing on a path of suicide, genocide, ecocide?

The current ecological crisis is beginning to scare many. Is humanity by nature an irresponsible species, or what motivates us to value profit and greed over long-term health for the environment and ourselves?

No, not by nature. Again, consider that war, hierarchy, eco-destruction, the systematic objectification of women, religion, work, etc etc. are products of domestication/civ and that people - who were cooking with fire 2 million years ago -did fine without that exalted development.

Do you believe a collapse of the globalist order is inevitable, or is there a possibility for humanity to unite its best of minds and choose a different path?

I am actually hopeful that as reality continues to present itself unmistakably that there could be a conscious choice in favor of a sane existence. That of course is what I am working toward.

---

Visit John Zerzan's site at http://www.johnzerzan.net/ for more information.

 

 

Dreaming of a Culture War

By Paul E. Gottfried

 

Ex: http://www.alternativeright.com/

Fjordman’s comments about multiculturalism, which were originally published on the website Gates of Vienna, are so full of dubious assumptions that it is hard to know where to start one’s critique. But having produced copious scholarship on the subject of his literary exercise, I feel driven to question Fjordman’s conclusions.

Western societies, he explains, can be divided into PC-pushing elites and a far more traditionalist populace, which is now preparing to go after the seats of illegitimate power. Fjordman quotes the Hoover Institute-resident scholar Angelo M. Codevilla, writing in American Spectator, Lee Harris’s The Next American Civil War, and Christopher Lasch’s posthumously published Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy to prove his contention. He then brings up Thilo Sarrazin, the president of the German Bundesbank, who just resigned his post under pressure, after having publishing what became a politically incorrect bestseller Deutschland schafft sich ab. These authors all putatively prove the same thing, Harris, Codevilla, and Lasch by what they say and Sarrazin by the excitement that his controversial attack on Muslim immigration has aroused in Germany.

Fjordman thinks that a great revolt of the populace is erupting, as they turn ever more indignantly against the “multicultural oligarchs,” who are “actively hostile to the long-term interests of the white population.” Fjordman incorporates into his ominous or cheery prediction (depending on how one reads things) published statements about cultural divisions in the US. He then segues into Germany, where despite the almost universal condemnation of Sarrazin’s candor by political elites, from Bundespräsident Christian Wulff and Chancellor Angela Merkel to the fuming multiculturalists in the Green Party and Party of the Left, the “people” themselves are behind the courageous former Bundesbank director.

Moreover, the Munich tabloid Bild, which is read by millions, devoted its feature on September 4 to a defense of Sarrazin under the title “Wir wollen keine Sprechverbote.” The editors indicated that the vast majority of Germans are behind Sarrazin and tired of the way the political classes “patronize” them by imposing intricate speech taboos in the name of fighting an imaginary fascist enemy. Fjordman relates what is happening in Germany to the rise of the Tea Parties in the U.S., seeing in both expressions of disdain for arbitrary, undemocratic elites, which are practicing multicultural policies at the expense of the “people.”

Allow me as an expert, who is absent from Fjordman’s commentary, to make two germane observations. First, there is no indication that the German “people” are rejecting their “elites.” Almost 80 percent of Germans polled support the two national parties, which are equally antinational, equally antifascist, equally pro-multicultural, and equally hysterical about showing remorse for the entire German past.

Parties of the Right, like the moderately free market and immigration-critical Republicans, and the more nationalist National Democrats, received altogether about 3 percent of the vote in German federal elections. Far more votes go to the passionately multicultural Greens and the Party of the Left than to the utterly marginalized German Right. If Western Europeans are truly sick of anti-Western elites that are riding rough shod over them, why then in almost all Western countries do the voters rally to the multicultural Left, in record numbers? Germans may be buying Sarrazin’s lament about Third World immigration but they are also gravitating toward the other side. They are running in a beeline toward the very politicians who humiliated and brought down their populist hero.

Second, Fjordman seems to be drunk on Republican propaganda when he writes about revolts about to break out in the U.S. One of his star witnesses, Codevilla, is a fixture at the very Republican American Spectator. How much credence should we lend Codevilla’s picture of impending cultural wars? What he is doing is rephrasing David Brook’s well-known thesis about the U.S. being a land divided between Red and Blue states or constituencies, a situation that has resulted in the earth-shaking development that some voters are Reps while others are Dems. Presumably the next time Michael Steele and Karl Rove orchestrate a GOP victory, we shall be witnessing some kind of “counterrevolution.”

As for the Tea Party revolutionaries Fjordman talks up, they are something far less than a counter-revolutionary army. They are predominantly Bush-McCain Republicans, who think that Obama has pushed deficits too far. According to polls, the Tea Party activists love the welfare state, or at least its entitlements. They just don’t want their social programs endangered by allowing illegal immigrants to take public money or by having the government run up unmanageable debts.

If Tea Party leaders like Palin and Beck, who are constantly singing the praises of the civil rights movement and invoking the ghost of Martin Luther King, are radical right-wingers, then I’ve missed this entirely. While Palin could indeed be the GOP presidential nominee in 2012, she would not be offering us any violent break from the past. In all probability this frequenter of Tea Parties would be providing an ideological replay of the presidential campaign of 2008, when she campaigned as McCain’s very neocon-sounding running mate.

Fjordman has a skewed view of political reality because he is ignoring two self-evident truths (all men being created equal is not one of them). One, people live with authority structures, and the “oligarchs,” whom Fjordman doesn’t fancy any more than I, are the ones we are now confronting. Those who are imposing “democracy” as a value-system, as well as a cornucopia of social programs, control their obliging subjects. They educate the young while their allies in the media supervise our entertainment and, to whatever extent they can, our access to information. The bloated partitocrazia, with its overlapping programs and parasitic “public servants” organize elections and keep the system from getting out of hand.

Finally “democracies,” and particularly the ones that look after their “citizens” with tax monies and custodial oversight of behavior, generate widespread loyalty because of their uninhibited paternalism and because the people are made to believe they consent to having their brains laundered. This is a political success story unparalleled in human history. And the fact that some naughty Germans, who live in the most intellectually controlled society in the West, dare to take a prurient glance at Sarrazin’s politically incorrect observations does not mean that the nation of Hitler, Ulbricht, and Merkel has rediscovered its independence. Germans still overwhelmingly back their police-state with votes. Until about a year ago, this was equally true of Sarrazin, who came out of the very politically correct Social Democrats and who seems shocked that the party bosses expelled him.

Two, although the “oligarchs” climbed to power as enactors of democratic equality through public administration, once ensconced with a massive electorate and equipped with public money and a vast welfariate, these pests are damned hard to remove. In fact barring a major catastrophe, it seems inconceivable that they can be driven from power. And under catastrophe, I do not mean having the unemployment rate, including multiple wage earners in families, rise from ten to eleven percent, or having European inner cities fill up with crime-prone Third World immigrants. The populace can live with these discomforts, and since their authority structure is interpreting for their benefit what is going on in their society while providing social programs, the voters will not likely make much of a fuss.

Moreover, even the non-programmed complaining we now hear is being explained by the media as racism, xenophobia, and anti-Semitism. This censure may be enough to force most of the populace to move back into line. In Germany the acceptable Right shows how moderately “conservative” it is by voting for Merkel and other anti-fascist centrists, while in the US FOX-news and the Weekly Standard are leading our so far fictitious counter-revolution toward a return to a GOP Congress. Fjordman may see things differently, but then our purposes are different. While he’s into happy talk, I’m trying to understand why the current oligarchs have done so well for so long. And I find absolutely no evidence that their string of successes will not continue into the indefinite future.

L'Europe en dormition

L’Europe en dormition

Depuis la fin des deux guerres mondiales et leur débauche de violences, l’Europe est « entrée en dormition » (1). Les Européens ne le savent pas. Tout est fait pour leur masquer cette réalité. Pourtant cet état de « dormition » n’a pas cessé de peser. Jour après jour, se manifeste l’impuissance européenne. La démonstration en a été assénée une nouvelle fois durant la crise de la zone Euro au printemps 2010, prouvant des divergences profondes et l’incapacité d’une volonté politique unanime. La preuve de notre « dormition » est tout aussi visible en Afghanistan, dans le rôle humiliant de forces supplétives assigné aux troupes européennes à la disposition des États-Unis (OTAN).

L’état de « dormition » fut la conséquence des catastrophiques excès de fureur meurtrière et fratricide perpétrés entre 1914 et 1945. Il fut aussi le cadeau fait aux Européens par les États-Unis et l’URSS, les deux puissances hégémoniques issues de la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Ces puissances avaient imposé leurs modèles qui étaient étrangers à notre tradition intellectuelle, sociale et politique. Bien que l’une des deux ait disparu entre-temps, les effets vénéneux se font toujours sentir, nous plongeant de surcroît dans une culpabilité sans équivalent. Suivant le mot éloquent d’Elie Barnavi, « La Shoah s’est hissée au rang de religion civile en Occident » (2).

Mais l’histoire n’est jamais immobile. Ceux qui ont atteint le sommet de la puissance sont condamnés à redescendre.

La puissance, d’ailleurs, il faut le redire, n’est pas tout. Elle est nécessaire pour exister dans le monde, être libre de son destin, échapper à la soumission des impérialismes politiques, économiques, mafieux ou idéologiques. Mais elle n’échappe pas aux maladies de l’âme qui ont le pouvoir de détruire les nations et les empires.

Avant d’être menacés par divers dangers très réels et par des oppositions d’intérêts et d’intentions qui ne font que s’accentuer, les Européens de notre temps sont d’abord victimes de ces maladies de l’âme. À la différence d’autres peuples et d’autres civilisations, ils sont dépourvus de toute conscience de soi. C’est bien la cause décisive de leur faiblesse. À en croire leurs dirigeants, ils seraient sans passé, sans racines, sans destin. Ils ne sont rien. Et pourtant, ce qu’ils ont en commun est unique. Ils ont en privilège le souvenir et les modèles d’une grande civilisation attestée depuis Homère et ses poèmes fondateurs.

Les épreuves lourdes et multiples que l’on voit poindre, l’affaiblissement des puissances qui nous ont si longtemps dominés, les bouleversements d’un monde désormais instable, annoncent que l’état de « dormition » des Européens ne saurait être éternel.

Dominique Venner

Notes:

1. J’ai développé cette interprétation historique dans mon essai Le Siècle de 1914
(Pygmalion, 2006).
2. Réponse d’Elie Barnavi à Régis Debray, À un ami israélien, Flammarion, 2010.

Source : Dominique Venner ^[1]

---

Article printed from :: Novopress Québec: http://qc.novopress.info

URL to article: http://qc.novopress.info/8860/leurope-en-dormition/

Traditionalism: This is the Enemy!

Guillaume Faye 

 

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

Translated by Greg Johnson

In the circles of what we might euphemistically call the “revolutionary right,” or more broadly the “anti-liberal right,” one can observe the recurrent rise—like outbreaks of acne—of what one can only call “metaphysical traditionalism.”

Authors like Evola or Heidegger are in general the pretexts—mark my words: the pretexts—for the expression of these tendencies, many aspects of which seem to me negative and demoralizing. These authors themselves really aren’t the problem. To speak only of Evola and Heidegger, the works of neither author—whose true ideas are often extremely distant from those of the “Evolians” and “Heideggerians”—are susceptible to the criticisms that apply to their right-wing “disciples” who are in question here.

How do we characterize this “deviation” of metaphysical traditionalism, and what are the arguments against it? This mentality is characterized by three axiomatic presuppositions:

1. Social life must be governed by “Tradition,” the forgetting of which brings about decadence.
2. All that relates to our time is darkened by this decadence. The further back one goes in the past, the less decadence there is, and vice versa.
3. Ultimately, the only things that matter are “inner” preoccupations and activities, turned towards the contemplation of a certain something usually called “being.”

Without lingering over the relatively pretentious superficiality of this outlook which prefers, instead of true reflection and clarity, the facile obscurity of the unverifiable and the free play of words, which—under the pretext of depth (and even, in certain authors with strong narcissistic tendencies, of “poetry”)—ignores the very essence of all philosophy and all lyricism, one should especially recognize that this metaphysical traditionalism is in profound contradiction with the very values it generally claims to defend, i.e., counteracting the modern ideologies, the spirit known as the “European tradition,” anti-egalitarianism, etc.

Indeed, in the first place, the obsession with decadence and the dogmatic nostalgia that it induces make it seem like a reverse progressivism, an “inverted” linear vision of history: the same frame of mind, inherited from Christian finalism, of all “modern” progressivist ideologies. History does not ascend from the past to the present but descends.

Only, contrary to the progressivist doctrines, traditionalism cultivates a profoundly demoralizing pessimism toward the world. This pessimism is of exactly the same type as the naive optimism of the progressivists. It proceeds from the same mentality and incorporates the same type of vanity, namely a propensity to verbose prophecies and to set oneself up as a judge of society, history, and the like.

This type of traditionalism, in its tendency to hate and denigrate everything in the “present day,” does not only lead its authors to bitterness and an often unjustifiable self-conceit, but reveals serious contradictions that make its discourse incoherent and unbelievable.

This hatred of the present day, the “modern age,” is absolutely not put into practice in day to day life, unlike what one often sees, for example, in Christianity. Our anti-moderns can perfectly well benefit from the conveniences of modern life.

By this they reveal the true meaning of their discourse: the expression of a guilty conscience, a “compensation” carried out by deeply bourgeois souls relatively ill at ease in the current world, but nevertheless unable to get beyond it.

In the second place, this type of traditionalism usually leads to an exaggerated individualism, the very individualism that their “communitarian” vision of the world claims to denounce in modernity.

Under the pretext that the world is “bad,” that their contemporaries are patent decadents and imbeciles, that this materialist society “corrupted by science and technology” cannot understand the higher values of inwardness, the traditionalist, who always thinks of himself as standing on the mountain tops, does not deign to descend and accept the necessity of combat in the world, but rejects any discipline, any solidarity with his people, any interest in politics.

He is interested only in his hypertrophied self.

He transmits “his” thought to future generations like a bottle in the ocean—without seeing the contradiction, since they are supposedly incapable of understanding it because of increasing decadence.

This individualism thus leads logically to the very reverse of the original ideology, i.e., to universalism and implicit globalism.

Indeed, the metaphysical traditionalist is tempted to believe that the only associations that count are “spiritual,” the communication of great thinkers, which is similar throughout the world, regardless of their origin and source, provided that they seem to reject “Western modernity.” They replace the service of the people, of politics, of community, of knowledge, of a cause, not only with the service and contemplation of the self, but with the service of mere abstractions.

They defend “values,” no matter what their place of incarnation. From this, for some, comes a captivation with Orientalism; for others, a militant globalism; and for all of them, a disillusioned disinterest in the destiny of their people.

One even arrives at straightforwardly Christian attitudes—on the part of “philosophers” who usually busy themselves fighting Christianity.

Some random examples: the choice to prize the intention over the result; the choice to judge an idea or a value in terms of their intrinsic characteristics rather than their efficacy; a spiritualistic mentality that judges all cultures and projects in terms of their spiritual “value” rather than their material effects.

This last attitude, moreover, obviously has very little to do with the European “paganism” that our traditionalists often profess.

Indeed, by looking at a work, project, or culture from an exclusively “spiritual” point of view, one posits the Christian principle of the separation of matter and spirit, the dualistic dissociation between the pure idea and the concrete product.

A culture, a project, a work are nothing but products, in the concrete and dynamic sense of the term.

From our point of view there is no separation between the “value” and its “product.” The lyrical, poetic, aesthetic qualities of a culture, work, or project are intimately incorporated in its form, in its material production. Spirit and matter are one and the same thing. The value of a man or a culture lies in their acts, not in their “being” or their past.

It is precisely this idea, going back to the most ancient sources of the European tradition, that our metaphysical traditionalists—so imbued with their spiritualism and their monotheism of the “tradition” or their quest for “Being”—readily betray.

Paradox: nobody is further from European traditions than the traditionalists. Nobody is closer to the Near Eastern spirit of the monastery.

Everything that characterizes the European tradition, everything the cults from the East tried to abolish, is exactly the reverse of what today’s European traditionalists defend.

The European spirit, or that in it which is the greatest and the most civilizing, was optimistic and not pessimistic, exteriorized and not interiorized, constructivist and not spiritualistic, philosophical and not theological, open to change not settled and complacent, creator of its own traditions and forms or immutable ideas, conquering and not contemplative, technical and urban and not pastoral, attached to cities, ports, palaces, and temples and not to the countryside (the domain of necessity), etc.

In reality, the spirit of today’s traditionalists is an integral part of Western, commercial civilization, as the museums are part of the civilization of the supermarket. Traditionalism is the shadow self, the justification, the living cemetery of the modern bourgeois.

It serves as a spiritual supplement. It makes him believe that it doesn’t matter if he likes New York, television serials, and rock ’n’ roll, provided that he has sufficient “inwardness.”

The traditionalist is superficial: the slave of his pure ideas and contemplation, of the intellectual games of philosophical poseurs, at bottom he believes thought is a distraction, an agreeable but ultimately pointless exercise, like collecting stamps or butterflies—and not a means of action, of the transformation of the world, of the construction of culture.

The traditionalist believes that values and ideas preexist action. He does not understand that action precedes all, as Goethe said, and that it is through the dynamic combination of will and action that all ideas and values are born a posteriori.

This shows us the true function of traditionalist ideologies in the anti-liberal “right.” Metaphysical traditionalism is a justification to give up any combat, any concrete project of creating a European reality different from the present day’s.

It is the ideological expression of pseudo-revolutionaries. Its regressive utopias, hazy and obscure considerations, and pointless metaphysics do more than cause fatalism, inaction, and enervation. They also reinforce bourgeois individualism by implicitly preaching the ideal type of the “thinker”—if possible contemplative and disembodied—as the pivot of history. Men of action—the true historical personalities—are thus devalued.

Because the traditionalist ultimately does not support the “community,” he declares it impossible hic et nunc and turns it into a utopian and regressive fancy lost in the mists of who knows what “tradition.”

In this sense, “anti-modern” and “antibourgeois” traditionalism belongs objectively to the system of bourgeois ideologies. Like these ideologies, its hatred of the “present” is a good way, a skilful pretext, to reject as impossible any concrete historical construction, even those opposed to the present.

At the heart of its discourse, traditionalism maintains an absurd confusion between the “modernity” of European technological-industrial civilization and the “modern spirit” of egalitarian and Western ideologies (which are arbitrarily linked to each other). Thus traditionalism disfigures, devalues (sometimes to the profit of an idealized “traditional” Third World), and abandons the Western and American spirit, the very genius of European civilization.

Like Judeo-Christianity, but for different reasons, the traditionalist says “No” to the world and consequently undermines the tradition of his own culture. Ultimately, a traditionalist is someone who always already knows that there is only one tradition, as an idealist always already knows that everything is an idea.

Finally, from the point of view of “thought”—that war-horse of metaphysical traditionalism—what could be more detrimental to the spirit, more incompatible with the quality of intellectual debate and the reflection that makes one free and contemplative, than to disembody them from all “political” projects (in the Nietzschean sense) and divert them into the elitism of bibliophiles and salaried autodidacts?

Let us dare to liquidate the Evolians and Heideggerians.

But let us read Evola and Heidegger: to put them in perspective, rather than mount them on waxed paper.

“Le traditionalisme: voilà l’ennemi,” Lutte du Peuple, no. 32, 1996.

Il vizio oscuro dell'Occidente

Massimo Fini     

[28 apr 2003] :

Il vizio oscuro dell’Occidente

Ex: http://www2.unicatt.it/unicatt/

 

E se l’11 settembre fosse colpa nostra? Non, come farneticato da qualche fanatico in preda a convulsioni anti-americane, che siano stati gli statunitensi ad abbattere le Twin Towers, magari con la complicità degli ebrei, in una riedizione un po’ stantia del complotto dei «Savi di Sion». No, in altro senso. E cioè nel senso che l’11 settembre sarebbe la «conseguenza logica, e prevedibile, della pretesa dell’Occidente di ridurre a sé l’intero esistente».

 

È quello che cerca di dimostrare Massimo Fini nel suo pamphlet «Il vizio oscuro dell’Occidente», dove sferra un attacco violento alla nostra certezza, manifesta, inconscia, o ipocriticamente celata nel politically correct, di appartenere ad una civiltà superiore. L’accusa all’Occidente è di totalitarismo, di reductio ad unum, ossia di voler cancellare tutto ciò che è «altro da sé», fagocitandolo. «All’occupazione dell’intero pianeta», afferma Fini, avevano già aspirato in passato «il cristianesimo, il colonialismo classico, il marxismo-leninismo». Oggi il tentativo sta riuscendo al modello di sviluppo economico e industriale egemone, di cui gli Stati Uniti incarnano l’essenza ed esprimono la potenza.

 

La matrice di questo impulso totalitario è la convinzione, sincera ma nefasta, di vivere nel «migliore dei mondi possibili», e quindi di «credersi il Bene» senza rendersi conto «di operare eternamente il Male». Perché nel mondo della democrazia, delle libertà, del benessere materiale, ossia nel presunto migliore dei mondi possibili, il luccichio è illusorio. Sentiamo, secondo Fini, la frustrazione «di non essere né felici né sereni, ma divorati dall’angoscia, dalla nevrosi, dalla depressione, dall’anonimia, in misura maggiore del più disperato abitante di un tugurio terzomondista». La causa va ricercata in un sistema incardinato sull’insoddisfazione, sulla competizione e l’invidia, in cui l’uomo è costantemente lanciato verso obiettivi, raggiunti i quali se ne daranno di ulteriori, in una corsa senza fine. Solo in questo modo il sistema economico può mantenere quel dinamismo indispensabile alla sua conservazione. «Come al cinodromo i cani levrieri…inseguono la lepre di stoffa che, per definizione, non possono raggiungere», così l’uomo insegue la felicità, parola senza corrispettivo reale: l’appagamento e l’armonia interiore sono preclusi.

 

All’origine di questo andamento schizofrenico la centralità, nel sistema di valori occidentale, dell’economia rispetto ai legami affettivi, emotivi, esistenziali. Il prodotto di questa civiltà è il «Consumatore», un essere vivente omologato e privato di un’identità autentica, terminale acefalo di tutto quello che il mercato propina, narcotizzato grazie all’induzione di nuovi bisogni.

 

Questa è per Fini la civiltà «made in West» che, in forza della nostra potenza militare ed economica, andiamo esportando nel mondo, nel tentativo di assimilarlo al nostro sistema di valori, al «migliore dei mondi possibili». Con le buone o le cattive, per ragioni che di volta in volta sono economiche o etiche o umanitarie, ma sempre, alla fine, perché non tolleriamo la diversità. E quale arma, si chiede Fini, è opponibile all’assoluta egemonia militare occidentale (o meglio statunitense), ai tribunali speciali, costituiti ad hoc dai vincitori per processare gli sconfitti, ad un «modello economico pervasivo», il sistema capitalista, in continua espansione? «Di fronte ad un blocco di potere di questa portata, inattaccabile direttamente e frontalmente, quale altra risposta se non il terrorismo, per chi voglia combatterlo con le armi?». Perché quando tale modello avrà inglobato il mondo intero, lo scontro si sposterà al suo interno: «fra i fautori della modernità e le folle deluse, frustrate ed esasperate, che avranno smesso di crederci».

 

Bastano poco più di sessanta pagine a Fini per fustigare con gelida lucidità l’Occidente, i suoi valori e il suo attualizzarsi. Illuminante, eccessivo, provocatorio, inquinato da un relativismo livellante, «Il vizio oscuro dell’Occidente», comunque lo si voglia considerare, è un libricino sferzante e acuto che si può condividere o meno, ma che ha il pregio di non lasciare indifferenti e attizzare il dibattito. Stimolando quel «pensiero che pensi la modernità», la cui assenza è per Fini una delle carenze più gravi del nostro tempo.

Paolo Algisi

Cette droite schizophrène

CETTE DROITE SCHIZOPHRÈNE

Ex: http://www.emediat.fr/

Chronique de Paul-Alexandre Martin

Après la diffusion sur TF1 d’un reportage au sein des musulmans salafistes de Marseille, j’entends dire ici et là que le temps des modérés est révolu, qu’une nouvelle ère se doit de débuter, et que nos gouvernants doivent faire preuve de courage face à la menace des minarets qui commenceraient à percer le sol sous nos pieds. Cependant, je ne peux m’empêcher de sourire au vu des commentaires des uns et des autres, tous se disent « réacs’ », « très à droite », « ultraconservateurs », une vraie génération de camelots du Roy à les entendre. Et quand il s’agit de leur demander d’expliciter leurs « croyances » politiques, ceux-ci me répondent alors : « libéral-conservateur », ou « capitaliste-traditionaliste ». Tous affirment cela avec arrogance, et un air de gentil provocateur, se pensant encore plus subversif qu’un gay qui ferait son coming-out aujourd’hui. Leurs idoles ? Ils tiennent en un couple : Ronald Reagan et Margaret Thatcher. Aucun d’eux n’est français, mais peu importe ils vous expliqueront là aussi que plus patriotes qu’eux : « y’a pas ! ».

Revenons-en au sujet initial, et aux réactions suscitées par la diffusion d’un tel reportage. N’est-il pas déjà risible de voir TF1, aller enquêter sur les méfaits des replis identitaires religieux, conséquence directe du communautarisme, et de l’abandon de l’assimilation ? TF1, chaîne détenue par Martin Bouygues, fils de Francis Bouygues, qui nous expliquait dans les années 70, que la main d’œuvre étrangère avait toutes les vertus du monde et qu’il fallait la faire venir sur notre sol, crachant ainsi à la figure des ouvriers français, « trop chers » – salauds de pauvres ! Bref, un Francis Bouygues d’ores et déjà converti au libéralisme anglo-saxon, dont le seul appât du gain s’est substitué à l’éthique entreupreunariale, et qui a du applaudir des deux mains lorsque Ronald & Margaret ont été portés au pouvoir outre-Atlantique, et outre-Manche.

Des grands patrons qui se sont appuyés sur des politiques adeptes du libéralisme pour pouvoir toujours plus déréglementer et obtenir ainsi satisfaction. Des politiques qui pensaient toujours que la solution se trouvait là où la croissance était « la plus forte », qu’importent les dégâts occasionnés dans certains secteurs, comme en Angleterre qui propose désormais un magnifique éventail de professions allant du « Mac job », au trader de la City…les usines ont entre temps disparu du paysage, elles. Nos bons lobbys ont ainsi obtenu gain de cause de nos dirigeants, sans trop d’encombres, pour que le regroupement familial voit le jour. Adieu l’immigration régulée, et assimilée ! Désormais, on met aussi de côté la tradition française de l’assimilation pour embrasser la seule intégration sur le marché du travail.

Une conversion au libéralisme, et une volonté de construire un marché toujours plus grand, débordant du cadre national, puis continental, à qui l’on doit des banlieues surpeuplées, une France désindustrialisée, une précarité de l’emploi, une immigration incontrôlée…Ces constats là, que la plupart des gens censés, et qui gardent les pieds sur terre, font, ces jeunes dont je vous parlais plus haut sont incapables d’en tirer des conclusions. L’instabilité chronique de nos sociétés, qui font face à une communautarisation sauvage, débouchant sur des replis identitaires et religieux, où des déracinés s’enferment dans ce qui faisait leur identité originelle, doit être résorbée certes, afin de garantir une unité nationale menacée. Sauver aussi une France, en décomposition, en voie de devenir à terme un tas de décombres, sur lequel ne doivent pas prospérer ceux qui nous ont mené à cette situation.

Il faut surtout, et avant toute chose, sortir la droite de son carcan schizophrène, qui lui fait dire des choses aussi absurdes, que grotesques. Cette dite « droite » qui pense que capital et tradition ne font qu’un, que l’ordre marchand est l’allié des valeurs ancestrales, et du conservatisme social. La droite dominante, et qui nous gouverne – s’il nous reste un tantinet de pouvoir à Paris – sombre aujourd’hui dans un état de déliquescence car sa spiritualité a disparu, ses valeurs originelles ayant été troquées pour celle d’un libéralisme issu de 68…et si cette fameuse dichotomie libérale ne faisait en réalité qu’un, messieurs les « droitiers » ?

Krisen-Vernebelung

Claus M. Wolfschlag / http://www.sezession.de/ :

Krisen-Vernebelung

Die heraufziehende Wirtschaftskrise, die auch eine Systemkrise werden wird, bringt Bewegung in die politische Szenerie. Leute im eigenen Bekanntenkreis, denen bis vor kurzem keine noch so gewichtig vorgetragene Warnung das Wässerchen ihrer Gewißheit vom ewigen Wohlstand und sicheren Fortbestand unserer Gesellschaftsform, vom „unumkehrbaren“ Prozeß der EU-Einigung trüben konnte, fangen auf einmal an, nachdenklich zu werden.

Von drohenden Aufständen und Bürgerkrieg ist auf einmal die Rede, und daß alles noch so unheimlich ruhig sei hier und erst recht in Griechenland. Ein anderes Zeichen für die beginnende Unruhe sind die hektischen Reformversuche und wirr wirkenden Ideen aus dem Bereich der alten Nomenklatura, mit denen man die überkommenen Zustände zu retten versucht.

In den Niederlanden sind nun Vertreter der linksliberalen Führungseliten mit dem Vorschlag vorgeprescht, sämtliche Drogen zu legalisieren, also nicht nur Cannabis, sondern auch den Verkauf von Kokain und Heroin zu erlauben. Dies ist eine ohnehin alte Position in der kontroversen Diskussion vom Umgang mit den harten Drogen. So vertreten Linksliberale eher die Auffassung, diese Drogen zu legalisieren, um dadurch der Mafia den Boden zu entziehen, zugleich sauberen Stoff unter die Konsumenten zu bringen, der weniger Krankheitsrisiken birgt, und durch eine den Herstellungskosten angemessene Preispolitik die Beschaffungskriminalität und soziale Verelendung Süchtiger zu verhindern.

Konservative hingegen befürchten tendenziell mit einer Legalisierung ein Anwachsen der Sucht nach harten Drogen, gerade unter Jugendlichen, die nun weitaus leichter angefixt werden, also den Weg in den Einstieg finden können – mit allen Folgen auch für das Sozialgefüge und die Wirtschaftsleistung des Landes. Von der seelischen Verfassung der Menschen ganz abgesehen.

In den Niederlanden hat der Vorstoß allerdings einen aktuellen Aufhänger. Die Linksliberalen erklären, daß sie sich von einer Legalisierung mit einhergehender Besteuerung der Drogen ein sattes Mehr an staatlichen Einnahmen versprechen. Statt 15 Milliarden Euro jährlich durch die Schäden der Beschaffungskriminalität und die aufwendige Drogenfahndung zu verlieren, würde der Staat nun ein finanzielles Plus aus dem Konsum von Kokain und Heroin ziehen.

Das ist natürlich eine moralisch heikle Position. Der Staat verdient an der Sucht seiner Bürger. Doch steht diese nicht in der Tradition staatlicher Doppelmoral, auch hierzulande? Einerseits verbietet der Staat das Rauchen innerhalb von Gaststättenräumlichkeiten (ein Verbot, das zumindest für kleinere Eckbars, die existentiell bedroht waren, wieder gelockert wurde), andererseits fährt er satte Gewinne aus der Tabaksteuer ein. Ähnliches gilt für die Steuer auf alkoholische Getränke, während es im Gegenzug immer mal wieder politische Vorstöße gibt, deren Werbung weitgehend zu verbieten. Man könnte auch die Mineralölsteuer anführen, die keinesfalls vorrangig für ökologische Ausgleichsprojekte verwendet wird.

Fazit: Der Staat verdient kräftig mit an den Sünden, die von der Politik offiziell und oft so gerne – und manchmal ausgesprochen penetrant – angemahnt werden. Insofern wäre eine – natürlich „kritisch“ und „aufklärerisch“ begleitete – Drogenfreigabe bei gleichzeitiger Besteuerung eine logische Konsequenz.

Doch der niederländische Vorstoß könnte noch einen dritten Grund neben der Suche nach Finanzquellen und der Hoffnung auf Verwirklichung alter linksliberaler Positionen haben. Drogen lenken ab. Sie beeinträchtigen das Denken, das klare Erkennen der Wirklichkeit und das Reagieren darauf. Wer im Heroinrausch den Abend auf der Couch vergammelt, stellt keine unbequemen Fragen mehr, er sorgt sich nicht um seine Zukunft, er entwickelt keine politische Aktivität, die den herrschenden Eliten bedrohlich werden könnte. Ein Schuß nur, und die Verhältnisse bekommen eine rosarote Farbe. Was kann den Linksliberalen lieber sein? Schließlich mühen sich ihre Vertreter in den Interviews und Talkshows der TV-Kanäle fast täglich damit ab, gerade diesen Eindruck bei den glotzenden Zuschauern zu hinterlassen: „Es wird schon, lehnt Euch zurück, Schmetterlinge werden Eure Nasenspitzen kitzeln, wenn der nächste Aufschwung kommt…“ Doch die Droge Fernsehen könnte langsam ihre Wirkung verlieren. Warum dann nicht härtere Bandagen zulassen?

Das erinnert ein wenig an ein Motiv in Joss Whedons Science-Fiction-Action-Film „Serenity – Flucht in neue Welten“ (2005). Eine Regierung hat darin an der Bevölkerung eine drogenähnliche Substanz namens Pax (lat. Friede) getestet, mit der die Planetenbewohner beruhigt und soziale Aggressionen unterdrückt werden sollten. Bei den meisten Leuten funktierte das Experiment offenbar. Sie hörten mit allen Aktivitäten des täglichen Lebens auf, vergaßen sogar die Nahrungsaufnahme, und verhungerten einfach. Bei einer Minderheit allerdings führte das Ganze zum Gegenteil. Sie wurden so etwas wie U-Bahn-Messerstecher im Dauerrausch.

Der Rausch, die Vernebelung trifft auch auf ein weit verbreitetes Bedürfnis in unserer hiesigen Bevölkerung. Die Ablenkung, die Verdrängung scheint seit jeher ein allgemeingültiges Verhaltensmuster. Das Absacken beim Feierabendbier auf der Couch, die Fußballübertragungen und Fernsehserien, die ewig gleichen täglichen Spaziergänge mit dem Hund, dem wir Fürsorge entgegenbringen wollen und mit dem wir Liebe simulieren, die unendliche Musikkulisse in den Bekleidungsläden, die „Promi“-Geschwätzigkeit in den Boulevardmedien, das Handy-Display, der zur Routine gewordene Smalltalk mit den immer gleichen Denkschablonen. All diese unbewußt vollzogenen Handlungen können doch so hervorragend der Ablenkung von uns dienen, unseren Seelen, unseren Lebensumständen. Nur nicht nachdenken, nur nicht weiterentwickeln, scheint die Devise. Und all dies dient dadurch auch denjenigen, die daran verdienen. Die harten Drogen wären demnach nur noch die Spitze des Eisbergs jener riesigen abstumpfenden Entertainmentbeschallung, die in unsere Leben hineinwirkt und der wir uns auch gar nicht vollends entziehen können oder wollen.

Clint Eastwood und der Abtritt des weissen Mannes

Clint Eastwood und der Abtritt des weißen Mannes

Ex: http://www.sezession.de/

Martin LICHTMESZ

Zum heutigen 80. Geburtstag von Clint Eastwood ist in der aktuellen Jungen Freiheit eine von mir verfaßte Würdigung mit dem Titel „Das Ende des weißen Mannes“ erschienen. Dieser bezieht sich vor allem auf Eastwoods Film „Gran Torino“ aus dem Jahr 2008, den man auch als eine Art Schwanengesang des Regisseurs und Schauspielers lesen kann. Der ist indessen ungebrochen agil und hat rechtzeitig zur Fußball-Weltmeisterschaft den Nelson-Mandela-Film „Invictus“ gedreht, der 1995 während der (hierzulande wohl wenig bekannten) „Rugby-Union-Weltmeisterschaft“ spielt.

Es ist bezeichnend, daß Hollywood einen Film über Südafrika nicht in der mehr als problematischen Gegenwart, sondern in der frühen Präsidentschaftsperiode Mandelas ansiedelt, als im Westen der Eindruck erweckt wurde, daß mit dem Ende der Apartheid das Gute nun für immer gesiegt habe – „and they lived happily ever after.“ (Daß es natürlich ganz anders kam, kann man in der neuen IfS-Studie „Südafrika. Vom Scheitern eines multiethnischen Experiments“ nachlesen.) Das Image Mandelas im Westen wurde schon in den Achtzigern vorwiegend von der US-Unterhaltungsindustrie geprägt, die ihn mit starbesetzten Benefizkonzerten und Anti-Apartheids-Filmen als eine Art zweiten Gandhi (und zwar einen Gandhi frei nach Richard Attenborough und Ben Kingsley) präsentierte.  Und passend zur Fußball-WM wird in „Invictus“ mal wieder das alte sentimentale Liedchen angestimmt, daß Sportsgeist die Rassenspannungen nachhaltig kurieren und aus „Feinden Freunde“ machen könne, wie es in der literarischen Vorlage heißt.

Es ist traurig, Eastwood an einem solch verlogen-politisch korrekten Projekt beteiligt zu sehen.  Dabei denke ich nicht nur an den Mann, der noch im hohen Alter ein Meisterwerk wie „Letters from Iwo Jima“ (2007) gedreht hat, das die Schlacht um die Pazifikinsel ausschließlich aus der Sicht der Japaner zeigt (ein ähnlich fairer Film über die deutsche Seite der Normandie-Invasion steht noch aus.)  Ich denke dabei auch an Eastwood als Symbolfigur, zumindest was seine Leinwand-Persona betrifft.

Während Hollywood heute beinah geschlossen auf der Seite der Demokraten steht (das war nicht immer so), sind Republikaner wie Schwarzenegger oder eben Eastwood eher die Ausnahme. In den Siebzigern wurde er wegen Filmen wie „Dirty Harry“, die liberale Gemüter entsetzten, als „Faschist“ und reaktionärer Macho geschmäht, heute gilt er als klassische Ikone traditioneller Männlichkeit. Dazu paßt auch, daß er als einer der wenigen US-Filmemacher dem oft totgesagten ur-amerikanischen Genre schlechthin, dem Western, über Jahrzehnte hinweg die Treue gehalten hat – freilich vor allem in seiner düsteren, „revisionistischen“ Form, die sich spätestens seit dem Vietnam-Krieg durchgesetzt hat.

Wo der Klassikerstatus erreicht ist, sind auch das Klischee und die (Selbst-)Parodie nicht mehr fern. In „Gran Torino“ hat Eastwood nicht nur den eigenen Kinomythos einer halb-ironischen Revision unterzogen, der Film reflektiert auch die in Obamas Amerika stetig an Einfluß gewinnende Vorstellung, daß die Herrschaft des weißen Mannes allmählich auch dort an ihr Ende gekommen ist. Dabei vermischt der Film auf eigentümliche Weise emphatisch hervorgehobene konservative Wertvorstellungen mit einer liberalen message, die durchaus mit dem Zeitgeist von Obamas (vermeintlich) „post-rassischem Amerika“ kompatibel ist.

Eastwood spielt darin den knorrigen Witwer Walt Kowalski, der auf seiner Veranda ein großes Sternenbanner wehen läßt, eigenbrötlerisch vor sich hin grantelnd den Lebensabend verbringt und bei fremdem Übertritt auf seinen Rasen auch mal das Gewehr zückt. Der polnischstämmige Koreakrieg-Veteran ist verbittert darüber, daß das Amerika seiner Jugend und seine Werte längst verschwunden sind. Sein Wohnort ist fast völlig überfremdet durch den Zuzug von Ostasiaten. Die Großmutter der benachbarten Hmong-Familie beschimpft ihn genauso rassistisch, wie er sie. Für seine eigene Familie hingegen ist er nur mehr ein misanthropischer Dinosaurier.

Der Film stellt sich zunächst ganz auf Kowalskis Seite, indem er ihn zwar als rauhbeiniges Ekel zeichnet, aber die Gründe seiner Verstimmung nachvollziehbar macht. Die eigene Familie ist oberflächlich und abweisend, die Fremdartigkeit der Nachbarn enervierend. Sein Hausarzt wurde durch eine Asiatin ersetzt, während die kopftuchtragende Sprechstundenhilfe seinen Namen nicht aussprechen kann und er im Warteraum der einzige Weiße in einem bunten Gemisch von Menschen unterschiedlichster Herkunft ist.

Vor allem aber sind die Straßen beherrscht von multikultureller Gewalt: Gangs von Latinos, Asiaten und Schwarzen machen sich die Vorherrschaft streitig. Die Weißen sind entweder wie Walts Familie fortgezogen oder aber unfähig, sich zu wehren. In einer Schlüsselszene wird das in Kowalskis Nachbarschaft lebende Hmong-Mädchen in Begleitung eines jungen Weißen von einer schwarzen Gang bedroht. Der Weiße trägt ein Hip-Hopper-Outfit, das den Habitus der Schwarzen zu imitieren sucht. Seine plumpen Versuche, sich beim Anführer der Gang im Ghettoslang anzubiedern („Alles cool, Bruder!“) gehen nach hinten los.

Ehe die Situation – vor allem für das Mädchen – richtig ungemütlich wird, schreitet Eastwood ein und demonstriert wie schon in „Dirty Harry“ mit gezücktem Revolver, daß Gewalt nur mit Gegengewalt bekämpft werden kann. Zu dem verängstigten weißen Jungen sagt er voller Verachtung: „Schnauze, du Schwuchtel! Willst du hier den Oberbimbo geben? Die wollen nicht deine Brüder sein, und das kann man ihnen nicht verübeln.“ Hier denkt man als deutscher Zuschauer unweigerlich an den von einem türkischen Dealer gemobbten Jungen aus dem berüchtigten Fernsehfilm „Wut“.  Die schwarze Gang indessen guckt dem pistolenschwingenden Alten mit einer Mischung aus Angst und aufrichtigem Respekt nach – Respekt, den sie ihm, nicht aber dem feigen „Wigger“ entgegenbringen können.

Im Laufe der Handlung wird Kowalski schließlich eher widerwillig zum Schutzpatron der benachbarten Hmong-Familie, insbesondere des schüchternen jungen Thao, der sich der Gang seines Cousins nicht anschließen will, und dem es an einem starken männlichen Vorbild fehlt. Dem bringt Kowalski schließlich bei, wie man Waffen und Werkzeuge benutzt, Mädchen anspricht und rassistische Witze erzählt.

Im Gegensatz zu Walts Familie werden bei den Hmong von nebenan der Zusammenhalt und die konservative Tradition großgeschrieben, so daß er irgendwann irritiert erkennen muß: „Ich habe mit diesen Schlitzaugen mehr gemeinsam als mit meiner eigenen verdammten verwöhnten Familie.“ Dabei profitieren die Hmong wiederum von der Lockerung allzu enger Traditionen durch den amerikanischen Einfluß. „Ich wünschte, mein Vater wäre mehr so gewesen wie Sie. Er war immer so streng zu uns, so traditionell, voll von der alten Schule“, sagt Thaos Schwester zu Kowalski. „Ich bin auch von der alten Schule!“ – „Ja… aber Sie sind Amerikaner.“

Wie so oft tritt Eastwood am Ende des Films gegen eine Überzahl von Schurken in Form der Gang des bösen Cousins an, doch diesmal um sich selbst zu opfern, anstelle zu töten. Sein Hab und Gut erbt die katholische Kirche, seinen symbolbeladenen „Gran Torino“ Baujahr 1972 der junge Hmong, während die eigene Familie leer ausgeht.  Die Söhne des patriarchalen weißen Mannes haben sich freiwillig von ihm losgesagt, womit sie sich allerdings auch selbst entwaffnet und dem Untergang preisgegeben haben. Denn beerbt werden sie nun von verdienten Adoptivsöhnen aus anderen Völkern.

So scheint „Gran Torino“ die Idee zu propagieren, daß mit dem Aussterben der weißen Männer, die Amerika aufgebaut haben, nicht auch unbedingt der amerikanische Traum am Ende ist – er muß nur in die richtigen Hände gelegt werden, und Rasse und Herkunft spielen dabei eine untergeordnete Rolle; dazu muß der Film freilich einen scharfen Gegensatz zwischen „anständig“- konservativen und kriminell-entwurzelten Einwanderern konstruieren.  Dies funktioniert im – freilich trügerischen! – Rahmen des Films auch recht gut, und vermag sogar die nicht ausgesparten negativen Seiten der „multikulturellen Gesellschaft“ zu übertönen.

Diese ins Positive gewendete Resignation läßt jedoch überhaupt keinen Platz mehr für den Gedanken, die Weißen könnten sich eventuell nun doch noch wieder aufrichten, die desertierenden Söhne also wieder zu den wehrhaften Vätern und Großvätern zurückfinden, wie der weiße Junge, der meint, er könnte die feindseligen Andersrassigen durch Anbiederung und Angleichung beschwichtigen. Im Gegenteil scheint „Gran Torino“ ihren Abgang für gegeben und unvermeidlich anzunehmen, ihn jedoch zu akzeptieren, solange „die Richtigen“ das Erbe antreten. Um so mehr fällt ins Gewicht, daß gerade Clint Eastwood als ikonische Figur des weißen, männlichen Amerika es ist, der in diesem Film den Stab weitergibt.

Was das Schicksal der weißen Amerikaner betrifft, so ist der Subtext von „Gran Torino“ keineswegs übertrieben. Der weiße Bevölkerungsanteil in den USA ist seit den frühen Sechzigern um etwa ein Drittel auf 65 Prozent gesunken, bei anhaltender Tendenz. Im Süden sind bereits weite Teile des Landes hispanisiert, während Multikulturalismus, „Diversity“-Propaganda und Rassendebatten rund um die Uhr die Medien beherrschen. Routinemäßig wird den diffusen Protesten der Tea Party-Bewegung, die fast ausschließlich von Weißen getragen werden, impliziter „Rassismus“ vorgeworfen. Tatsächlich mag hier eine dumpfe Ahnung der kommenden Entmachtung der eigenen, bisher dominanten ethnischen Gruppe hineinspielen,  während gleichzeitig jeder Ansatz zum Selbsterhalt tabuisiert und diffamiert wird.

Ein Kommentator der generell eher obamafreundlichen, linksliberalen New York Times schrieb in einem Artikel im März 2010 im Grunde nichts anderes:

Die Verbindung eines schwarzen Präsidenten und einer Frau als Sprecherin des Weißen Hauses – noch überboten durch eine „weise Latina“ im Obersten Gerichtshof und einen mächtigen schwulen Vorsitzenden des Kongreßausschusses – mußte die Angst vor der Entmachtung innerhalb einer schwindenden und bedrohten Minderheit (sic) im Lande hervorrufen, egal was für eine Politik betrieben würde.  (…) Wenn die Demonstranten den Slogan  „Holt unser Land zurück“ skandieren, dann sind das genau die Leute, aus deren Händen sie ihr Land wiederhaben wollen.

Aber das können sie nicht. Demographische Statistiken sind Avatare des Wechsels (change), die bedeutender sind als irgendeine Gesetzesverfügung, die von Obama oder dem Kongreß geplant wird. In der Woche vor der Abstimmung über die Gesundheitsreform berichtete die Times, daß die Geburtenraten von asiatischen, schwarzen und hispanischen Frauen inzwischen 48 Prozent der Gesamtgeburtenrate in Amerika betragen (…). Im Jahr 2012, wenn die nächsten Präsidentschaftswahlen anstehen, werden nicht-hispanische weiße Geburten in der Minderzahl sein. Die Tea Party-Bewegung ist praktisch ausschließlich weiß. Die Republikaner hatten keinen einzigen Afroamerikaner im Senat oder im Weißen Haus seit 2003 und insgesamt nur drei seit 1935. Ihre Ängste über ein sich rasch wandelndes Amerika sind wohlbegründet.