Les citadins des champs

 

Les citadins des champs

par Georges FELTIN-TRACOL

En 1926, Louis Aragon publiait Le Paysan de Paris. Aujourd’hui, il l’intitulerait certainement Le Parisien de Province… En effet, à la lueur des dernières données de l’I.N.S.E.E. rendues publiques le 17 janvier 2012, on apprend que sept Français sur dix éprouvent un fort attachement à leur région natale, qu’ils y demeurent ou qu’ils y reviennent pour des raisons professionnelles ou au moment de leur retraite après des années d’expatriation en Île-de-France ou à l’étranger. Tout le contraire ici du mode de vie étatsunien ! En revanche, un constat inquiétant est resté inabordé, celui de la fragmentation géo-sociale du territoire.

 

Pendant des siècles, l’espace géographique s’organisait autour d’une dualité « classique » entre la ville (ou l’ensemble urbain) et la campagne (ou le monde rural). Toutefois, dès le milieu des années 1930, la majorité des Français vivait en ville. La « révolution agricole » ou « silencieuse » des années 1950 – 1960 favorisa l’exode rural, d’où un étalement des aires urbaines aux dépens des terres agricoles, des prés et des bois. On assiste cependant depuis deux décennies à une inversion notable du phénomène. Les campagnes presque vides se remplissent de nouveau avec la venue de citadins. Par cet exode urbain apparaît désormais une nouvelle structuration du territoire national avec des zones urbaines en pleine croissance, des campagnes reculées en déshérence et un « entre-deux » qualifié par les géographes d’espace péri-urbain ou de rurbain (contraction de rural et d’urbain).

 

Les métropoles, les agglomérations et les aires urbaines représentent d’indispensables atouts économiques mondiaux avec leurs quartiers d’affaires (La Défense dans l’Ouest parisien, La Plaine Saint-Denis à l’Est de la Capitale, Euralille dans le Nord, La Part-Dieu à Lyon). Mais cette fonction de compétition ne correspond plus ou très mal à des lieux d’habitation et de convivialité quotidienne. La priorité accordée aux bureaux pousse les ménages à déménager dans les périphéries. C’est ainsi que les catégories moyennes et populaires (employés, artisans, cadres inférieurs ou intermédiaires, petits fonctionnaires…) délaissent la ville-centre et/ou le centre-ville pour des pavillons résidentiels bâtis au moyen d’un endettement bancaire. Elles fuient aussi la cherté des loyers du centre-ville, la hausse de la fiscalité locale et une promiscuité souvent insupportable avec des groupes ethniques différents. Puisque tout le monde veut son habitat individuel, la ville s’étend par conséquent au détriment des campagnes proches…

 

Ces départs sont toutefois compensés par l’installation de ménages « bo-bo » (bourgeois-bohême) dont les revenus élevés permettent l’acquisition ou la location d’appartements ou de lofts de haut standing. De ce fait, le XVIIe arrondissement parisienne, le quartier de Belleville ou la Croix-Rousse à Lyon s’embourgeoisent et adoptent un caractère huppé, tendance et branché. Vivant non loin de rues à population exotique, les « Bo-Bo » réalisent leur rêve multiculturaliste tout en s’efforçant bien sûr d’inscrire leur progéniture à l’école, puis au collège privés plus réputés que les établissements publics du quartier classés en zone prioritaire…

 

L’implantation massive et continue de catégories populaires et moyennes en périphérie immédiate des villes ou dans des coins plus excentrés accentue un mitage préjudiciable de l’espace. Ce mitage efface progressivement la distinction ville – campagne. Il attise aussi la concurrence fonctionnelle des terrains : le lopin convoité demeurera-t-il un champ cultivé ou bien deviendra-t-il un terrain à bâtir, un futur emplacement routier, ferroviaire ou autoroutier, ou un lieu de production énergétique (implantation d’éoliennes, de panneaux solaires ou de biocarburants) ?

 

Les villages, y compris les plus perdus, voient pousser autour d’eux de nouveaux ensembles pavillonnaires horizontaux uniformes. Les nouveaux arrivants ne s’embarrassent pas d’exiger des édiles tout le confort urbain sans subir les inconvénients de l’existence rurale, d’où des plaintes répétées contre les cloches de l’église ou le cri matutinal du coq. À terme, si se poursuit l’« exode urbain », il est probable que l’ensemble métropolitain dont l’intercommunalité en est une préfiguration en fasse de simples communes – dortoirs.

 

Quant au rural profond encore dominant dans la Creuse, en Haute-Loire, en Ardèche, en Lozère, dans la Nièvre ou en Champagne-Ardenne, il dépérit doucement en raison d’un désintérêt et d’un mépris marqués des pouvoirs publics envers les populations locales. Après la fermeture de l’école, des services administratifs, du bureau de poste, du dispensaire médical, de la gare, de la desserte routière, du café, de l’épicerie, voilà maintenant que la Poste retire ses boîtes aux lettres jaunes et qu’Orange enlève les dernières cabines téléphoniques des places du marché. Quant au rectorat, il supprime volontiers une ou deux classes du primaire alors que la commune (ou le cadre intercommunal) a financé la réfection ou la construction de nouvelles salles de classe. Une véritable colonisation intérieure s’opère, car, dans le même temps, les projets déments d’enfouissement de déchets ménagers ou nucléaires dans ces territoires abandonnés se multiplient.

 

Les campagnes essentiellement peuplées de « petits Blancs » ne brûlent aucune bagnole et demeurent profondément légalistes. L’État peut s’en détourner ostensiblement et ignorer leur paupérisation flagrante. Oui, les campagnes françaises sont plus pauvres que les banlieues dont le taux élevé de chômage et la misère « officielle » statistique maquillent une autre réalité, celle d’une « narco-économie » souterraine, informelle, en pleine expansion. Quant aux immigrés, ils ne s’enrichissent pas parce qu’ils transfèrent leurs économies là-bas au pays.

 

L’éloignement du lieu de travail par rapport au domicile nécessite deux voitures minimum quand la nouvelle résidence n’est pas (ou mal) desservie par les transports collectifs. La flambée du prix du carburant signifie une hausse du budget transport supportée par des familles déjà en situation précaire. Et cela risque de s’aggraver avec la mise en place, tôt ou tard – soyons-en certains ! – d’une taxe carbone qui pénaliserait encore plus des familles incapables d’emprunter le Vélib’ ou le Vélove !

 

L’actuelle crise systémique atteint durement cette « troisième France » qui, hors des villes et des banlieues de non-droit, pourrait devenir le cadre de véritables jacqueries post-modernes. Aux XIXe et XXe siècles, les villes regroupaient les « classes dangereuses ». Aujourd’hui et encore plus demain, l’étincelle de la révolte ne surgira pas des banlieues de l’immigration contrôlées par les caïds de la drogue ni des centres urbains « bo-bo-isés », mais de ces nouvelles campagnes urbanisées…

 

Georges Feltin-Tracol

---

Article printed from Europe Maxima: http://www.europemaxima.com

URL to article: http://www.europemaxima.com/?p=2431

La balkanisation du Système - Ernst Jünger et la fin des temps

La balkanisation du Système - Ernst Jünger et la fin des temps 

ParTomislav Sunic

La  locution "la fin des temps" n'est pas sans rappeler les prédictions bibliques d'un cours du temps linéaire qui devrait conduire à la fin du monde. Cette idée semble être typique chez les gens dont la pensée est alimentée par le mental monothéiste et  sémitique, comme l’annonce la  Révélation présentée à la fin de l’Apocalypse  (XXI, 1-2).  Et j’ai vu un nouveau ciel et une nouvelle terre ; car l’ancien ciel et l’ancienne terre avaient disparu, et la mer n’est plus. J’ai vu aussi la ville sainte, la Nouvelle Jérusalem, qui descendait du ciel, d’auprès de Dieu, et préparée comme une épouse parée pour son mari.

Aujourd'hui, on observe cet esprit monothéiste dans la croyance au progrès économique, avec ses retombées idéologiques: le multiracialisme et le libéralisme apatride. Mais on rencontre également dans l’héritage européen la notion de fin des temps, bien que ces temps aient une nature cyclique. Dans ses ouvrages, Ernst Jünger décrit les temps du destin par rapport aux temps technocratiques, linéaires et mesurables du Système. Est-ce que la situation en Europe d’aujourd’hui peut être encore pire que ce qu’elle est déjà ? "Le destin peut être deviné, senti, et craint, mais il ne peut jamais être connu. Si cela devait changer, l’homme mènerait la vie d'un prisonnier qui connaît l'heure de son exécution »  (1). Par conséquent,  afin de mettre en place un avenir prévisible, le Système doit exiger de ses citoyens de se comporter comme des détenus dociles dans le couloir de la mort.

Pour beaucoup d’Européens - et surtout pour les anciens critiques du Système communiste -,  le communisme fut le symbole de la fin des temps qui devait fatalement exclure tous les temps ultérieurs. Le cours du temps dans le communisme semblait être bloqué pour toujours. Après le désastre de 1945, de nombreux Européens avaient commencé à croire non seulement à la fin d'un monde mais à la fin du monde tout court. Pour les Européens de la postmodernité, la même question se pose : vit-on les temps finaux européens, ou est-on témoin de la fin des temps mondiaux? Il se peut que les temps européens soient bien révolus depuis longtemps et il se peut que tous les Européens vivent depuis des décennies dans un profond déclin racial. Peut-être sont-ils arrivés à la fin d’une époque qui n’a pas encore reçu son nom? Le problème réside dans le fait que les temps du Système actuel, quoique d’une brièveté certaine dans le cadre de la grande histoire, possèdent une durée pénible pour un rebelle. Comment doit-on évaluer ces temps-là?

La notion du cours du temps, surtout en cas d'urgence, est très bien ressentie dans les Balkans, une partie de l'Europe qui est constamment sous influences tectoniques majeures. La balkanisation ne signifie pas seulement la dislocation géopolitique ; elle renvoie également à une forme de la dégénérescence d’identité, où se mélangent et se confondent diverses identités politiques, religieuses et raciales qui sont constamment remplacées par de nouvelles identités venues d’ailleurs. Toutefois, compte tenu des catastrophes qui s’approchent à grands pas de l’Europe, toute balkanisation peut servir de leçon pour aiguiser le talent de survie. Ce talent exige de pratiquer la vie en solitaire, et d’être complètement détaché de tous les liens politiques avec le monde d'aujourd'hui. En cas de nécessité, on devrait, comme ce fut habituel chez les chouans vendéens pendant la Révolution française, ou chez les guérilléros espagnols pendant l’occupation napoléonienne, ou bien encore chez les  haïdouks balkaniques pendant l’occupation turque du XVIe au XIXe siècle, vivre comme des paysans mais, en cas d'urgence, être prêt à rapidement prendre les armes.

Aujourd'hui, cependant, il ya deux formes opposées de la balkanisation. D'un côté, l’Europe orientale continue toujours d’être en proie à la haine interethnique entre ses peuples. D'un autre côté, on observe en Europe occidentale une guerre larvée avec les non-Européens. Or à la lumière des vagues d’immigration en provenance du Tiers-Monde, tous les Européens sont censés devenir de bons Balkaniques : pas forcément dans le sens négatif, mais dans un sens positif qui sous-entend l’esprit de la déterritorialisation locale, et qui est seulement possible dans une Europe d’Empire. Celui qui vit au milieu d'animaux sauvages devrait devenir un animal, et peu importe qu’il habite Paris, Washington ou Francfort. Comme le sociologue italien Vilfredo Pareto a justement prophétisé il y a cent ans: «Celui qui devient l'agneau va se trouver bientôt un loup qui le mangera." (2). Or le talent de vie dans la fin des temps exigera donc des loups européens d’apprendre à revêtir les habits de brebis. 

  
On devrait se rappeler la figure de l’Anarque d’Ernst Jünger dans son roman Eumeswil. Le protagoniste, Martin Venator, vit sa double vie dans une société postmoderne et multiculturelle à coté de la casbah d’Eumeswil. Or l’Anarque n'est ni rebelle, ni dissident, ni anarchiste quoiqu’au moment donné, il puisse revêtir toutes ces trois figures à la fois.  D’ailleurs, l’Anarque semble s’être très bien inséré dans le système de la pensée unique et de l’autocensure du Système. Il attend patiemment  son moment ; il va frapper seulement quand le moment sera mûr. Ce roman de Jünger peut être considéré comme le Bildungsroman pour la génération actuelle de jeunes Européens dont le rôle didactique peut leur faciliter le choix de la figure du rebelle.

L’arrivée en masse d’immigrés d’une culture et d’une race étrangère à l'Europe exige de tous les  Européens de bien réfléchir à quelle figure de comportement choisir, c’est à dire à quelle nouvelle identité jouer. Historiquement, les figures du rebelle nationaliste en Europe centrale et orientale n'ont jamais eu d’effet convergent sur les peuples européens. Elles ont été nuisibles et doivent donc être rejetées. Toutes les formes et figures de la rébellion – que ce soit l’appartenance à sa tribu ou à son Etat aux dépens de son voisin blanc, comme en témoignent les guerres entre la Pologne et l'Allemagne, entre les Serbes et les  Croates, entre les Irlandais et les Anglais – semblent devenues dérisoires aujourd’hui. L’Europe balkanisée, avec ses figures rebelles des nationalismes exclusifs, ne fait que donner davantage de légitimité au projet multiracial du Système. Toute figure de dissident au Système, comme fut autrefois la figure de l’anarchiste ou du partisan est désormais vouée à l’échec dans un Système possédant des moyens de surveillance totale. Ce qui reste maintenant aux nouveaux rebelles, c’est le devoir de se définir comme héritiers européens, nonobstant le pays où ils vivent, que ce soit en Australie, en Croatie, au Chili, ou en Bavière.

Compte tenu de l'afflux massif d’immigrés  non-européens, les Européens ne peuvent plus s’offrir le luxe de l’esprit de clocher. Le danger imminent de leur mort peut les aider à se débarrasser de leur  particularisme territorial. En effet, qu’est-ce que cela veut dire aujourd’hui être Allemand, Français, Américain, vu le fait que  plus de 10 pour cent d’Allemands et de Français et plus de 30 pour cent des Américains sont d'origine non-blanche?
 
Le génocide communiste ou le multiculturalisme génocidaire

Afin de s’appréhender soi-même et de se projeter par-dessus Le Mur du Temps on devrait faire un parallèle entre l’ancienne terreur communiste et la mort lente actuelle, causée par la dilution du fonds génétique des Européens. Dans ce contexte, les tueries gigantesques menées par les communistes en Europe orientale contre leurs ennemis suite à la fin de la Deuxième Guerre mondiale peuvent servir d’avertissement afin de mieux comprendre la situation actuelle menant à la mort de l’Europe. Dans le sillage de la terreur déclenchée par les communistes après la Seconde Guerre mondiale, les raisons idéologiques, telle que la «lutte des classes», jouaient un rôle mineur. Dans la psychologie des communistes, beaucoup plus important fut leur ressentiment pathologique vis-à-vis de leurs adversaires anticommunistes et nationalistes qui étaient plus intelligents et avaient davantage d’intégrité morale. Un semblable ressentiment est typique des immigrés non-européens. Bien entendu, ils ne sont pas encore en mesure de convertir leur haine contre les Européens blancs en conflit militaire mais leur nombre croissant peut facilement changer la donne.

Suite à  la Seconde Guerre mondiale, les génocides communistes ont eu une influence catastrophique sur l'évolution culturelle et génétique de toute l’Europe orientale. La classe moyenne ainsi qu’un grand nombre de gens intelligents furent simplement supprimés, ne pouvant transmette leur patrimoine génétique, leur intelligence et leur créativité à leur progéniture.  Alors, où sont donc les parallèles avec le monde multiracial d’aujourd’hui en Europe ? Force est de constater  que tout ce que les communistes ne pouvaient pas parachever par la terreur en Europe orientale est en train de se faire maintenant d’une manière soft par l'actuelle "super classe" libérale et cela par le truchement de son idéologie de rechange, le « multiculturalisme ». L'afflux constant de non-Européens est en train d’affaiblir le fonds génétique des Européens, menant à leur mort douce où les lignes entre l’ami et l’ennemi s’effacent complètement. On s’aperçoit clairement de l'impact brutal de l'idéologie de l'égalitarisme et de sa nouvelle retombée dans le Système, qui enseigne, aujourd’hui comme autrefois, que tous les hommes doivent être égaux et par conséquent interchangeables à volonté. 

Le multiculturalisme est la nouvelle forme du balkanisme, à  savoir une idéologie servant aujourd’hui d’ersatz au communisme discrédité. En effet, le multiculturalisme utilise des moyens plus subtils que le communisme quoique leurs effets soient identiques.  L’esprit communiste et l’esprit multiculturel sont très populaires auprès des gens du Tiers-Monde, mais également  auprès des intellectuels de gauche du Système, toujours à l'affût d’un nouveau romantisme politique. Le communisme a disparu en Europe orientale parce qu'en pratique, il a su beaucoup mieux réaliser ses principes égalitaires en Europe occidentale quoique sous un autre signifiant et sous un autre vocable. Le Système, soit sous son vocable communiste, soit sous son vocable multiculturel, croit que toutes les nations européennes sont remplaçables au sein du Système supra-étatique et supra-européen.
 
Les nouvelles figures du rebelle

 Les responsables de la balkanisation de l'Europe et de l'Amérique sont les capitalistes. Il est dans leur intérêt d'obtenir une armée de travailleurs de réserve en provenance du Tiers-Monde. Ils savent pertinemment que les travailleurs non-européens importés en Europe n'appartiennent pas forcément à l'élite intellectuelle de leurs pays d'origine, que leur conscience sociale n'est souvent qu'embryonnaire et qu'ils n'ont généralement aucun sens du destin européen. C'est pourquoi ils sont plus aisément manipulables. Leur marchand n'a pas d'identité, non plus. Un banquier allemand ou un ex-communiste croate devenu spéculateur dans l’immobilier ne se soucie guère de sa résidence ni de la leur  - tant qu'il gagne de l'argent. Même le père fondateur du capitalisme, l’infâme Adam Smith a écrit: «Le marchand n'est pas forcément citoyen d’aucun pays"  (3).  Par conséquent, le nouvel Anarque, à savoir le nouveau rebelle, ne doit pas être choqué par la nouvelle sainte alliance entre le Commissaire et le Commerçant, entre les grandes entreprises et la Gauche caviar. La Gauche est en faveur de l'immigration de masse parce que la figure de l’immigré tient lieu aujourd'hui du prolétaire d’antan.  Les capitalistes d’une part, et les « antifas », les pédérastes, les militants des droits de l’homme et les militants chrétiens de l'autre, sont désormais devenus les porte-parole de l'abolition des frontières et les haut-parleurs d’une Europe multiraciale et sans racines. Le capitaliste vise à réduire l'État-providence, car chaque État lui coûte cher. Un antifa veut abolir l'État, parce que tout État, lui rappelle « la bête immonde du fascisme ».

L'opinion s’est largement répandue que l'islam est l’ennemi principal de l’Europe car cette religion est prétendument violente et dangereuse. Soit. Mais on doit distinguer entre la religion et l'origine raciale. En outre, il est  à souligner que ni l'Ancien Testament ni l’Évangile ne sont une prose paisible. La critique de la religion n'est donc pas appropriée quand on fustige l'immigration de masse. En l’occurrence, la plupart des 30 millions d'immigrés illégaux en Amérique sont de pieux catholiques venus d'Amérique latine, mais ils ne sont pas de souche européenne !  Ils appartiennent à une autre race et à une autre culture.

Comment façonner un nouveau type de rebelle blanc ? Le nouvel Anarque doit chercher dans sa culture et sa race ses points de départ. La notion et la réalité de la race ne peuvent être niées, même si le terme de race est aujourd’hui criminalisé à outrance par les medias. L’hérédité  est considérée par les scribes académiques du Système avec horreur et dégoût, bien qu’ils sachent tous, surtout lorsque l'état d'urgence sera proclamé, qu’ils vont aller se réfugier du côté de leur propre tribu et de  leur propre race.  Force est de constater qu’on peut changer sa religion, ses habitudes, ses opinions politiques, son terroir, sa nationalité, voire même son passeport, mais on ne peut jamais échapper à son hérédité. La récente guerre dans les Balkans nous a montré de façon limpide que lors de l’instauration de l’état d’urgence, les anciens apatrides croates et pro-yougoslaves n’avaient pas hésité à devenir des ultras Croates - par défaut. Gare à celui qui oublie ses racines. C’est l’Autre qui va vite les lui rappeler. (4).

Toutefois, la conscience raciale dans la fin de nos temps ne peut être considérée comme un outil complet par le nouveau rebelle. La race, comme Julius Evola ou Ludwig Clauss nous l’enseignent,  n'est pas seulement une donnée biologique - la race est aussi la responsabilité spirituelle. Il y a beaucoup, beaucoup de Blancs en Europe et en Amérique dont l’esprit est complètement corrompu  - malgré une bonne mine "nordique".  Déjà  Clauss a écrit: "Examiner une race signifie d’abord de s’apercevoir du sens de sa figure corporelle. Mais ce sens ne peut être compris que du point de vue de la figure de l’âme » (5).

Pour restaurer son identité dans les temps d’urgence qui adviennent, l’Anarque doit examiner la doctrine de l'égalitarisme issue du christianisme. Les immigrés non-européens savent fort bien que l’Europe est très imprégnée d’un christianisme qui se reflète aujourd’hui dans les sentiments de culpabilité de l’homme blanc et dans le prêchi-prêcha séculièr sur la religion des droits de l’homme. En revanche, le sentiment de haine de soi n’existe guère chez les immigrés et pas plus au sein de la classe politique de leurs pays d'origine. Les Européens qui ont vécu dans les pays du Tiers-Monde savent fort bien ce que veut dire la discrimination raciale contre sa propre population. Un métis du Mexique habitant au sud de Los Angeles ou un Turc aux traits mongoloïdes habitant à Berlin Kreuzberg savent exactement quel groupe racial et culturel ils peuvent fréquenter. Le second, par exemple, n'a rien à chercher auprès des «Turcs» européens de la classe supérieure qui n’ont aucun scrupule à arborer en permanence leurs origines albanaises ou bosniaques, et qui aiment  bien s’en vanter en public. Un hidalgo mexicain servant comme haut-diplomate à Madrid déteste un Cholo habitant le barrio de Los Angeles.  En revanche, l'Allemagne, l'Amérique, l’Espagne, la France accordent à ces peuplades du Tiers-Monde des moyens de s’épanouir dont ils ne peuvent que rêver dans leurs pays d’origine.
Même s'il semble impossible de parler d’expulsion massive ou de transfert des populations, c’est une idée qu’on ne doit jamais exclure. Plus de 12 millions d'Allemands furent expulsés de leurs  foyers en Europe orientale à la fin de l'automne 1944 et au début de 1945  - dans une période de quelques mois seulement.  (6). Demain, le même scenario peut encore avoir lieu, suivi par de nouveaux génocides et par la migration massive de millions de personnes en Europe. Pour le rebelle européen reste à savoir qui sera l’architecte de ce nouveau «nettoyage ethnique» et qui en sera la victime.

Dans l’optique optimiste, même un aveugle peut s’apercevoir que le Système est mort. L’expérience avec ses dogmes abstraits de multiculturalisme et de progrès économique a échoué. Tant en Europe qu’aux États-Unis, on voit chaque jour que l'expérience libérale a touché à sa fin il y bien longtemps. Il y a suffisamment de preuves empiriques pour nous démontrer ce fait. On n’a qu’à choisir le plus visible et le plus audible. Il est caractéristique de la classe politique moribonde de vanter la « perfectibilité », « l’éternité », et la « véracité » de son Système – précisément au moment où son Système est en train de s'écrouler. Ces vœux pieux et d’auto-satisfaction, on a pu les observer tant et tant de fois dans l'histoire. Même les notions de la classe dirigeante actuelle portant sur la fin des temps et la «fin de l'Histoire» nous rappellent la mentalité de la classe politique des anciens pays communistes, en l’occurrence la Yougoslavie peu avant son effondrement. En 1990, il y avait encore de grands défilés pro-yougoslaves et procommunistes en Yougoslavie où les politiciens locaux se vantaient de l'indestructibilité du Système yougoslave. Quelques mois plus tard, la guerre commença  - et le Système mourut.

Dans l’Union européenne, la classe dirigeante d'aujourd'hui ne sait plus où elle va et ce qu'elle veut faire avec elle-même. Elle est beaucoup plus faible qu'elle ne veut le laisser voir à ses citoyens. Le nouvel Anarque vit de nouveau dans un vide historique et il dépend de sa seule volonté de remplir ce vide avec le contenu de son choix. La charrue peut facilement se muer en épée.
 
Tomislav Sunic (www.tomsunic.com) est écrivain, ancien diplomate croate et ancien professeur américain en science politique. Il est actuellement conseiller culturel  de l’American Third Position Party. Ses derniers livres publiés sont  La Croatie ; un  pays par défaut ? (Avatar, 2010) et Postmortem Report: Cultural Examinations from Postmodernity  (Wermod et Wermod, 2010), avec une préface de Kevin MacDonald.
 
Notes :
 
1.    Ernst Jünger, An der Zeitmauer, (Cotta- Klett Verlag, 1959), p. 25.
2.     Vilfredo Pareto, "Dangers of Socialism", The Other Pareto (St. Martin's, 1980), p. 125.
3.    Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, 2 Vol. (Edinburgh, Printed, at the Univ. Press, for T. Nelson, 1827) p. 172. http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN11.html 
4.    Tomislav Sunic, La Croatie, un pays par défaut? (Avatar, 2010).
5.     Ludwig Clauß, Rasse und Charakter, (Verlag Moritz Diesterweg, Frankfurt a. M. 1942), p. 43. 
6.    Tomislav Sunic, „ In Fluß der verlorenen Zeiten; Das Schicksaal  des Deutschtum im Donauraum “, in Kein Dogma, Kein Verbot, Kein Tabu! ( Hrsg. Alfred Schickel. Festschrift für Prof. F.W. Seidler, Pour le Merite, 2008), p. 213-219.
 

Jonathan Bowden’s “Western Civilization Bites Back”

New Podcast!
Jonathan Bowden’s “Western Civilization Bites Back”

 ^{Ex: http://www.counter-currents.com/}

To download the mp3, right-click here ^[2] and choose “save link as.”

To subscribe to our podcasts, click here ^[3].

Editor’s Note:

This is an unedited transcript of an extemporaneous talk.

Well I don’t really speak to a topic, but you need something to fasten your mind on when you’re engaged in a speech. Speeches are about energy, and are about power, and about how you utilize power and how you channel it. I’m what’s called a mediumistic speaker, so I hear the voice instant by instant before I speak, and when you stand up you hear what you’re going to say a fraction of a second before it comes out of your mouth. What I’d like to talk about is Western civilization and how we can save it.

Now the crisis of the West is ongoing and everybody knows what it is. In the circumstances of the United States — I’ve only ever been here twice — the prognosis for decay is well-advanced. The people who created the United States are on the defensive: they’re on the defensive psychologically, and emotionally, and linguistically, and culturally. People are comfortable, at least those that are, and a lot hit by recession but everyone is worried about what the future will hold. Demographically, the people in this room could well be a minority in 40 years, maybe less than 40 years, maybe more than 40 years, maybe it doesn’t matter if it’s 40 years or 44 or 64 or 35.

What matters is that you’ve become a minority now. You’ve become a minority mentally, because these things happen to people mentally and psycho-spiritually before they have a physical impact. I think people are preparing to be a minority now, long before it happens. I was well aware that President Bill Clinton was once asked about his commitment to political correctness, and he said whites NEED political correctness. He said White Europeans, White Americans need it because they’re going to be a minority relatively soon, and you need to play all of those vanguard games whereby you play off each group against every other group, you make sure that your protest is in early whenever you’re insulted, or you feel there’s the prospect that you might be insulted

And an insult in this trajectory, in this terrain can mean anything. It can mean the denial of future prospect that you might have expected to own and honor. It can be the denial of something which is your right as you perceive it. Your right to dominate the cultural space here in the United States. That the United States is a post-European society. That all of its architecture — Judeo-Christian and otherwise — seems to have the impress of old Europe upon it. I speak as a European obviously, who doesn’t know the United States that well. But everything that’s glorious about the United States is largely created by the people in this room, and those to whom they relate.

Now, the problem that we’re finding is that people are giving away the inheritance that they brought up. It’s as if you have a family business, and you’ve inherited it from a grandfather, and you inherit it from a father, and you have this patriarchal chain of hard work and understanding and excellence and fulfillment, and it comes down to you through the generational sort of structures of the past — and you decided to give it away. You decided to squander it.

It’s very reminiscent of the aristocratic families in Europe: in the era before the Great War, there were big blowouts in aristocracy where people would gamble away their entire fortune, because they were bored. Because they were bored with the Third Republic’s lifestyle, in French terms, in Francophone terms, of endless summers in the sun where people were pining for the destruction which Europeans would wreak on themselves in the Great War, the War that was to end all wars: a war of such manifold destructiveness that people didn’t think there would be another one, and yet within a generation there was another one that was even more destructive.

And that war is the crucial event of the last century, because everything that exists now is a rebounded correction, as it’s perceived, of that struggle and what occurred in it. Even in the United States, it’s almost as if we as a group won that war and lost that war simultaneously, irrespective of what side our forebears fought on. In the United States you fought against Nazi Germany, you fought against Fascist Italy, you fought against Imperial Japan in the Pacific theater, and yet in a strange way you’re the losers of that war. You’ve turned into the apostates of that war, retrospectively, and you’ve partly done it to yourselves, as all continental European people and post-European people have all over the world. That war has been wrenched out of history, and is used as an ideological totem in relation to everything that occurs.

Whether or not the next 18 months or the next six months we’re going to see an attack on Iran, and the Islamic Republic of Iran, is in its own way an extension of post-1945 events. In all sorts of ways, the attack in Iraq which occurred a couple of years ago had as much to do in many people’s minds with the symmetries and the re-symmetries, of the 1939 through ’45 conflicts and everything that resulted from it, then it had anything to do with the dictator in the Iraqi desert. He was a Sunni nationalist, and he held the Kurds down in the North and the Shia down in the South, and America invaded — you remember all this? – America invaded in order to remake the world safe for democracy!

There’s no democracy in Iraq now. All that’s happened is the Sunnis have lost power and the Shias have come up, and the great new hatred, which is Iran, dominates post-war Iraq. America launched a war that cost $2 trillion in order to bring to power Iranian sponsorship and Iranian surrogates inside Iraq. So you have the odd situation now that Iran manifests power through conquered Iraq, conquered under American guns and aegis, with a bit of support from Britain in the South, where the Shia and oil are, and that power that Shia arc of power runs through Iraq: to Lebanon and the Israeli border.

And you’ll find that all of these disputes are intimately connected with the society that was created in 1948 in Israel, and which didn’t exist before. And the need to keep that society safe, the need to watch out for it, the need to prize open this prospect of villainy against it, the need to go to war –conceptually and actually — anyone against anyone who might threaten it in the future, nevermind in the present.

This war, if it ever were to occur with Iran, has been looming for many years. Many years. Ahmadinejad’s speech has almost nothing to do with the Iranian desire to destroy Israel, per se, although you could argue that an extraordinarily foolish speech in many respects. But all he said in Farsi was that the society that was created falsely, and to the detriment of the Palestinians, should cease to exist within world history. Which is a pretty nebulous and “student-fist-in-the-air” sort of speech, but it’s been seized upon to deny the Iranians the prospect of nuclear weapons and to enable the West, through the United States, in yet more warfare: more warfare for peace.

I remember Harry Elmer Barnes once edited a compilation in book form, called Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace. And since 1945, we’ve had war after war: confined to the zero-sum game of the Cold War and now extending beyond it — whereby all of these wars were are fought allegedly for us, allegedly for our betterment, allegedly for our safety, allegedly for our security, and always on the basis of our patriotism.

The bulk of patriotic people from the Right would regard what I’m saying as unpatriotic, because in a Sarah Palin sort of a way, they believe that once should stick up for the West — and our allies — against perceived enemies. Many of these enemies may not be friends of ours, but they are not enemies in the real sense. The enemies that we face here in the West, here in California, are internal. They’re internal to our own societies, they’re even internal to our own minds.

The greatest enemy that we have — to slightly adapt Roosevelt’s slogan about fear, that there’s nothing to be afraid of except fear itself — the greatest enemy we have is raised in our own mind. The grammar of self-intolerance is what we have imposed and allowed others to impose upon us. Political correctness is a white European grammar, which we’ve been taught, and we’ve stumbled through the early phases of, and yet we’ve learned this grammar and the methodology that lies behind it very well.

And we’ve learned it to such a degree that we can’t have an incorrect thought now, without a spasm of guilt that associates with it and goes along with it. Every time we think of a self-affirmative statement, it’s undercut immediately by the idea that there’s something wrong, or something queasy, or something quasi-genocidal, or something not quite right, or something morally ill about us if we have that thought. And this extends out beyond racial and ethnic questions to all other questions. To questions of gender, to questions of group identity and belonging, to questions of cultural affirmation, to questions of history.

Think about what it will be like when White Americans are 10% of the population of the United States — or 12% — 15% — or even 25%. Political correctness will not save you from the marginalization of your history and traditions, which will occur because it’s not much fun being a minority. Which is why all minorities seek through their vanguards to take majorities down. And they seem to take them down physically, conceptually, actually, legally, philosophically, and in other ways. And they form alliances with like-minded groups that wish to do to majorities what minorities feel that they ought to, because it’s a question of survival. Everyone’s interested in surviving, and even getting along with each other in a relatively quiescent and “PC” way is just another way of surviving. Maybe in the current circumstances it’s the only way in which multiple group-based societies can survive.

The Bill Clinton metaphysic is that everyone should mind their own business, and everyone should get along with each other. But it denies the crucial harbinger of identity, which is the heart of all existence and becoming – in Nietzschean terms, or in neopagan terms. All real identity is underpinned by what existed before you. The societies that are being created are tabula rasa societies, where you’ve got essentially a blank piece of paper, and what an American is is written upon this piece of paper, the way you ask a child to do a diagram or an image and they do a face with a smile. And that’s your new American: your new American is straight off the boat, he’s a face with a smile to two dots for the eyes.

Where is the history of what it means to be an American? Where is the historical trajectory which relates to what you are now and to what you have achieved? And if that tabula rasa is such that everything that you have ever achieved in the past is smoothed-down and removed, what will it mean to be an American? What will it mean to be an American – a de-hyphenated American, deconstructed to the degree that [hypenation] doesn’t even occur – because that is all that will exist in the future. “Americans” will be those that wish to be American.

Osama bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda network once did a poll in accordance with their own resources, and a third of the people who live in the Third World would like to come and live in the United States. That’s a third of the global population outside Europe, outside Japan, outside developed East Asia, outside the new Bourgeois India — 200 million out of the billion on the subcontinent who have raised themselves up to a middle-class standard of life and wish to stay on the subcontinent — but a third of those that are outside of those Bourgeois remits want to come here. And when they say “the United States,” they mean “the West.” They mean “Western Europe,” “Northern Europe,” “Southern Europe,” and the new Eastern Europe.

The new Eastern Europe is rather really interesting and will have a lot to say about the future of European man in the next century or so. Eastern Europe was preserved by communism from the decadence of the liberalism which has semi-destroyed Western Europe (and points to the west of that.) Communism was a strange non-exultation. Communism was a strange doctrine, because it preserved under permafrost many of the characteristic social chapters of what it means to be a European. Communism was pretty hellish to live under, particularly materially, and it was almost always the most deformed, the most warped, and the most degraded parts of the society that had been put in charge of you.

I remember someone I know was imprisoned in East Germany in a Stasi prison for putting a slogan on Lenin’s finger. Do you remember those statues with Lenin’s finger, where Lenin addresses the masses, like this? There were hundreds of them in all of the Eastern European societies. And they used to appear in mass posters in East Germany. And one of his friends – very stupidly given the society that East Germany was — put a bubble, a sort of Marvel Comics bubble, on the end of the finger. And the bubble said “Hitler was Right!” And he stepped back to observe — this was his Japanese cousin, and they were on a holiday in East Germany — which is an unusual type of a holiday even then — and he stepped back to examine his handiwork, and said to his relative, “what do you think about that, Bob?” And Bob turned around and there were eight Stasi, eight Stasi — one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight — in their requisite leather jackets and trench coats, because they all had the same uniform. And he got 18 months in a Stasi prison breaking rocks and living on black bread and onions. And that Stasi prison was notorious in East Germany, in East Berlin. And that Stasi condemned him for “acts contrary to proletarian justice and the will of the Socialist Republic.” He was condemned for being out of kilter with the masses in history.

East Germany is now a state that no longer exists. It’s been agglomerated into Western and greater Germany. The Wall has come down, the Stasi have demobilized and are no longer evident, yet in a strange way a spirit of Marxism is abroad in the West. A spirit of Marxism is abroad in the United States, unbelievably so! The number of American Marxist-Leninists you could have gotten in a few taxis to a certain extent, and yet this element of cultural Marxism is abroad in the United States, as it is in Western Europe, as it is in Northern and to a certain extent Southern Europe, as it is much less evidently so in post-Communist Eastern Europe, where there’s been an enormous reaction against it.

It’s taken a little bit of time to examine why Marxism, of all things, has ended up culturally influential in the United States. It’s got little to do with economic theory; it’s got much more to do with self-hatred and negation. Guilt. The extending of your own mental remit into groups that don’t care for you, or that purposefully wish you ill. And it’s got a lot more to do with the architectonics of the Frankfurt school, and its ability to morph and to merge into the general Liberal currency of the last 50 years.

Since the Second World War, White Europeans have felt guilty about being themselves and have been made to feel guilty and are being encouraged to feel more guilty than they have at any other time in their history. There is no period in our history where we have faced such evident self-hatred and such evident insults upon ourselves which are harmful to the prospects of our children’s lives, and their children, and generations as yet unborn. Is this a phase that we’ve gone through, or is it something slightly more sinister and ulterior than that? These are questions which we need to analyze.

Why, here in the United States, is there such guilt about the majority identity when the United States could point to, in its own cognizance, an exemplary war record against Germany and Japan, being on the victor’s side, being on the victor’s table? And yet the guilt for alleged and prior atrocity is such that all White Americans feel ashamed about any push forward in relation to the prospect of their own identity. It’s quite shocking how, since 1960 — I was born in 1962 — the West has lost its fiber and has collapsed internally and morally in terms of its spirituality and in terms of its sense of itself.

Fifty years a blip historically; it’s a click of the fingers. And yet for fifty years we’ve see nothing but funk, nothing but a failure of nerve, nothing but a self-expiration, nothing but the degree to which the historical destiny of the European peoples has been traduced — and has been traduced by elements of themselves and their own leadership, who have accepted at face value the fact that much of what was wrong with the modern world is morally our responsibility and not that of any other group. And that if we ever dare to assert ourselves again in any meaningful way, that we are in turn co-responsible with some of the worst events of human history.

Now, let’s unpackage this a bit. Communism in the 20th century killed tens of millions. Tens of millions. When Mao met Edward Heath, who was the British prime minister, in 1972 in the Forbidden City, he said “I’m regarded as the world’s mass murderer in human history.” Of course he said this in Mandarin and this sort of thing, he had to be exhaustively translated by Foreign Office Sinologists and so on, and Edward Heath was rather shocked by this, and said “and what’s your view of this, Chairman?” – a politician’s answer, he just reflected it back upon Mao – and Mao said, after the laborious translation had intervened, “I’m rather proud of it, actually”; being the worst mass murderer in human history.

Don’t forget the Great Leap Forward, the enormous famine that devastated much of rural China and which was in fact a great leap backwards; claimed by mainstream historians to have claimed 46 million lives —  46 million lives – it’s so large that it’s that the human mind balks at it basically. Once you get beyond the body count of couple thousand, the brain falls silent and listens to these numbers and internal calculus almost in a fantastical way. But even if a scintilla of that is true, and the truth is most of the Communists atrocities and most of the worst sort of data that can be leveled against those regimes turns out to be quite true.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, the KGB figures for those that suffered under Stalin were halfway in the range between what the apologetic individuals in the West said about the regime — the sort of revisionists, if you like, of the Soviet sort — and the exterminationists in Western countries, who tended to be conservative and who tended to be religious. The actual body count was halfway in between. Whether communism killed 100 million in the 20th century is up for grabs. Whether it killed 20 million or between 20 and 100 million is up for grabs.

And yet everywhere one looks the soft Left, the Left untainted by communist atrocity, is everywhere apparent and appears to be everywhere triumphant.

The trick that the soft Left has learned is that if you disavow the hard edge of Leftist slaughter and Siberian camps and Stasi prison cells and you instead excel in the polymorphous rebellions of Herbert Marcuse and the student left of the 1960s, you can actually influence the whole soft spectrum from the moderate Right, through the Center, through the center-Left, through the general-Left/Generic-Left, through the soft Left, up to the softest accretions of the hard Left and to the moderate-hard Left. An enormous spectrum – two-thirds of the political spectrum — can be influenced by Marxist ideas shorn of their hard-edge Stalinist and Maoist filters.

No one wants to know about John-Paul Sartre now, even in France. Partly because he embraced Maoism at the end of his career. He embraced Maoism, with Simone de Beauvoir, and Gorz, and these other people right at the end of his career. He edited a Maoist paper. This was at a time when Pol Pot was wreaking extraordinary havoc in Indochina.

And yet the ideas that these people stood for: the idea that the family is a gun in the hands of the bourgeois class, the idea that humor itself is a gun in the hands of the bourgeois class, the idea that there’s something uniquely oppressive about being male, that there’s something uniquely oppressive about being a Caucasian, that there’s something uniquely oppressive about the Western historical destiny — all these ideas have been shorn of their human rights abuses in Eastern Europe and Central Asia and far Eastern Asia, and have been reflected back into the West and onto the West. To the degree that you can’t set up a student group in an American university now –unless you’re under relatively deep cover — to oppose this sort of thing because the ideas themselves are so hegemonic.

Why has this occurred? Why can’t Counter-Currents exist on American campuses? Why isn’t there a Counter-Currents group or something of a similar order at Berkeley, for example? Why is the idea that there could be such a group at Berkeley absurd, and almost risible, and produces a mild smile? Why is there? Because the physical danger that such a group would be in is largely exaggerated. It’s the moral, mental, and spiritual danger that afflicts our people and that afflicts the young and would-be radical amongst our people, that is the thing to look to.

Why has this occurred? It’s occurred because the radical Left with a culturally Marxian agenda, scorned by the Stalinist hard-line that they were quick to repudiate, marched through the institutions in the United States and elsewhere from the cultural and social revolution of the 1960s and has marched through those institutions for 50-odd years to such a degree that the whole of the media – mainstream — the whole of mainstream politicking outside of the Rightist and Libertarian allowed areas of dissent in the Republican Party and their European equivalents are controlled by nexus of ideas and interconnected thought processes which determine moral valency and morality.

Everyone in this room is regarded as immoral by the ruling dispensation in the United States, and that’s very important, because it prevents people from identifying with ideas which are, quite transparently, in their own interest. If people think an idea is immoral they will shun you, particularly in an era of media exposure. The idea that identifying with yourself and with your own past is somehow immoral is one of the chief factors whereby the identity of post-European people in the United States has been turned: turned back upon themselves, turned back in a vise-like constriction where it can be used to destroy people and disarm them. Because if you’ve disarmed yourself before the struggle begins, you’re easy meat and easy prey for what’s coming. And the future in America is darker than the past. Unless there is a desire amongst people of European ancestry to step outside of the vortex, the zone of chaos which they have allowed to be created for themselves over the last 50 years.

If people think that the circumstances of American life are ill-disposed to your future identity now, what’s it going to be like in 50 years? What’s it going to be like in 150 years? 150 years White Americans could be maybe 20% of the population. This is the future that faces you. And your culture will be disprivileged. Forget political correctness. Political correctness works when minorities aggregate together in a vanguard way. It doesn’t work when majorities fall and stagger into minority status and then look around for allies now that they are themselves a minority in the hope that somehow they will achieve fairness and equity because these things are not about fairness and equity. They are about who can set the standard and the tone for the cultural domination of a civic space. And if it’s not the White identity in the United States — if it’s not post-Europeanism in the USA — it will be other forms of identity. Some of them fractured, broken-down, mixed, and otherwise marginal.

To European eyes the Obama Presidency is the signification of America’s decline. You have a situation where it used to be only B-listed Hollywood films that would show a powerful Black executive President ruling in the Oval Office. Almost a psychic preparation for the real thing. And now the real thing has occurred. With the Obama Presidency, you see the future the United States writ large. And from an external point of view, it will be difficult to unseat Obama because the Republicans are doing all his work for him, it seems at the present time, and I speak as someone who obviously isn’t an American.

The Obama presidency epitomizes the willed decline of majority instinct in the society because if you don’t feel it’s at all offensive that somebody that does not relate to the majority — axioms, forms of entitlement, forms of belief, and historical precedent here in the United States — is actually President of your Union, is President of your society, is your Commander-in-Chief; if the Israeli planes need to be refueled over the Persian Gulf when they attack Iran at some time in the next year to two years to six months, Obama will give the order for that to occur. And he will do so in the name of everyone in this room; everyone beyond this room. And he will do so because he still speaks as the most powerful man in the world.

So the most powerful Western country is now led by a non-Westerner. Something which would’ve been unthinkable in the 1960s, I would imagine; unthinkable in the 1970s, but is now evidently thinkable and thinkable to such a degree that I think a lot of the anger about it which is manifested in Libertarian currents like the Tea Party movement, seems to have evaporated. I speak as an outsider obviously, but it seemed to me that halfway through the Obama presidency there was a mild cultural insurgency against his regime which found a way to channel itself so that it didn’t mention racial questions. And that’s what the Tea Party movement and Libertarianism was about.

And that’s what Libertarianism is. Libertarianism is the allowed Right wing for people who wish to make Ron Paul-esque points but can’t go the whole distance, and in many ways can’t go the whole distance under the present dispensation because many people feel constrained about who they know, and who they’re married to, and who did what their job is, in relation to how explicit they can be in terms of how they reject the current American and European power structures.

Our people are used to being in charge. That’s why they find it so psychologically and emotionally forbidding when they’re no longer in charge. That’s why they feel so bereft in contemporary Western societies, because to fall from a majority and a purpose and position of power, to a more desiccated and a more jaundiced view of oneself and one’s own capabilities, is quite a wrench.

Everything that I’ve said about the United States could’ve been said about my own country if one goes back 50 or 60 years. There was a time early in the 20th century when you could argue Britain was most powerful society in the world. Britain is now a shadow of a shadow of its former state. It is in a precarious and culturally quite a terrible situation. It has decided in its near-death throes to yoke its star to the contemporary United States. Everything about modern Britain is Americana taken to a different level and repositioned in Western Europe. Almost all of our models, speaking as a Briton, are American now. Almost all of our wars are American-led. We always tag along as a sort of surrogate or executive vessel.

All of our politically-correct trajectory has in some ways come retrospectively from the radical Left fringes of the 1960s, and has been filtered by both an indigenous, and a transatlantic, Left. And we’ve allowed all this to occur to ourselves because we have been inured to the prospect of suffering.

And we’ve been inured to it through plenty. There are many who believe that while Western people suffer no economic distress and while the fridge is full, and while there are several sort of four-wheel-drive vehicles in the yard outside, people will never resort to an anti-regime attitude and their default position will always be one of resignation in relation to what is coming. Particularly when they consider that they can negotiate their way out of what is occurring. The problem is that what may well occur in the future will be nonnegotiable, particularly when it hits.

There are those who believe that the white South African Boers or Afrikaners reposition themselves within their own society so as to have a sort of whites-only republic or an area of the country which is theirs. I think that’s an important yardstick that you put out there as a metaphorization. But my private view is more pessimistic than that. I feel that unless you can actually so soak a proportion or a quadrant of the union with yourself that to spit away from it at some unforeseeable time means that you’ve got a totally post-European enclave. I feel such things, such games are not really worth the candle because when you give up the control of a state for duration — particularly the control of the most powerful republic the world has ever seen — you’re partly doomed when you’ve done that. My view is you never restyle from the desire to be the governing echelon of one of the world’s most powerful societies.

It is true that the United States is in a radical — and from a European perspective, terminal — decline. Partly because the European empires of the past: British, French, German, Dutch, Spanish, German and elsewhere, can see the writing on the wall. All of the precedents: of indebtedness, of being beholden to China in relation to the manipulation of the debt and its economic management, by having an ally such as Israel that wags the tail of the dog to such a degree that it’s almost in charge of the Middle Eastern policy of the United States of America – you could say Cuban-Americans are in charge of America’s Cuban policy, yet the policy towards that tiny and redundant Stalinist island is not as important, by any stretch of the imagination, as the policy towards Israel in the Middle East is in relation to the crucible of world expectation.

The CIA don’t get many things right, but they predict a war in the Middle East involving nuclear weapons in the next 25 years, because the depth of the hatred on both sides is so great. No one can stop other countries getting nuclear weapons; this is the irony of the present Iranian situation. Thirty-four other countries are developing, thirty-four other countries are developing nuclear weapons as we speak, including Brazil, and South Africa, and Argentina, and Saudi Arabia, and so on. And there’s many societies, such as South Korea and Japan and modern Germany, that could develop these weapons overnight if they chose to do so.

The point of an increasingly destructive and an increasingly bifurcated and divided world is to reconstitute yourself in such a way as you are least threatened by its exigencies. If you are least threatened by them you have the biggest possibility of reviving your own culture. I regard the cultural health of the civilization to be the elixir of its development and its authorization, its preferment in its sense of itself. Without that cultural overhang and extension, you cannot be worthy of the inheritance of European identity. If you allow your culture to be transparently disfigured by forces which are external and internal to it, and which you could have controlled in previous incarnations, you will witness your own death knell. And you will witness it in your own lifetime.

But this is not necessarily to harp totally upon the negative, this speech of mine. Because I regard initiatives like Counter-Currents as very important. Counter-Currents is, to my estimation, a sort of right-wing university. A sort of free access right-wing University on the Internet, a radical Right-wing University. The whole point now is that higher education has locked off the Right end of the spectrum. You can learn about conservative ideas, you can learn about Liberal ideas, you can learn about Socialist ideas, you can learn about Marxist ideas in the University context; you can learn about all forms of pan-religiosity and so forth.

Bbut you can’t learn about radical Right-wing ideas in the University context unless it’s adversarial, unless you’re deconstructive, unless you’re against these ideas in a prior way. “I’m writing a thesis at the moment,” somebody would say, “about the far-Right in the United States.” But the premise for such a remark if they were talking to a fellow university lecturer, would be “I’m writing it from an adversarial point of view.” Because nobody can ever say that they were writing it from a friendly, or an effective, or non-adversarial point of view; because it’s a viewpoint to which you must must be opposed, because all right-minded people are allegedly opposed to it.

The truth is most right-minded people are only opposed to it because they believe that they ought to be. They believe that their own niceness and their sense of themselves and their sense of what their neighbors think of them is tied up with the reflexivity of reverse negation, as I call it. “We will not align ourselves with these haters,” “We will not align ourselves with these people who are depicted by the media in such a bad way,” “We will not align ourselves with people who could be held to be in some ways morally responsible for events in the past that we wish to have nothing to do with.” This is the majority sentiment.

Only when you can break through that permafrost — only when you can get into the majority sentiment and begin to turn it around — will there be a change here in the United States or elsewhere. One of the things that can force a change is the impact of more and more transmigration and migrations of peoples. All peoples indeed, which the future holds open for us. The degree to which the world is now shrinking, and although there are now more Caucasians than ever before, our proportion of overall mankind is going progressively downwards as we have one to two children per family and we do not replicate ourselves to the degree that other peoples are doing elsewhere around the world.

But it’s not necessarily something about which we should be completely negative. The prospect of negativity is so great with our people and with our predilections to look upon the worst side of things particularly when our back is against the wall, that we forget the advantages that we have at the present time. Technology and the creation by our group of many of the instruments of this technology is so fulsome and so extensive that we can communicate with almost everyone on Earth — and we can communicate amongst ourselves — instantaneously at the flick of a button or a switch.

Nobody who wishes to learn about Western civilization and is volitionally moving towards learning about it, cannot do so at the present time. It used to be that only a fraction of our societies could ever hold their minds anything about our past, certainly in an academic or vocational way. Now we have the prospect that vast millions of our people can access the Western tradition of the flick of a switch, and this is all to the good.

The problem is that they retain in their minds a mindset which filters out much of the excellence of the Western tradition. Because only when you realize that what we painted, what we built and what we wrote and what we self-dramatized and what we composed musically, had to do with concepts of our own strength, of our own becoming, of our own purpose of glory — only when you realize that that was the underpinning for much of what was valued, only then will you really accord value and respect to the precedence of the past. If you rip out, for the fear of being hostile to anyone else, all prospect of group identity that is based upon strength, you will end up with a very weak and very effeminate and a very fey doctrine of your own culture, and that is what is occurring at the present time.

Alex Kurtagic is a friend of mine who’s known to certain people in this room, and he wrote a very interesting article a couple of years ago about the decline of the modern face. The decline of the modern face. It was an article in physiognomy which is quite a technique of analysis in the 19th century. Have you noticed that most people when they’re photographed today wish to look as nice as possible, as reflexive as possible, as open-hearted as possible? They’re pleading to be liked. Whereas he dug up all of these photographs of missionaries from the late 19th century and Shakers from New England — remember that cult called the Shakers? — they used to have these ecstatic dances, they all died out because they were frightened of sexual intercourse — which of course will occur, because if you’re frightened of the one you will certainly meet the other. But the face of these Shakers was furious, even just to pose nicely for the camera they would look like this. They would look with a demonic intensity and ferocity and sense of themselves and sense of courageous purpose and that sort of thing.

Today you’re regarded as mentally ill if you look like that for your own portrait, aren’t you? And yet what they were doing is they were putting on a face. They were putting on the way in which they wish to be perceived by the world. It was like sitting for portrait, sitting for an oil portrait. You didn’t show your weakest or your most reflexive or your most kind-hearted side; that, if it existed, was for private use. This was a public face. And in the decline of the West’s public face you can see writ-large the decline in the spirit of ourselves which has occurred over the past last century, and which has accelerated over the last century.

People say today that men are less masculine than they used to be. That man have been emasculated by feminism. That maleness itself is so under threat that most men don’t even wish to mention the concept, certainly not in polite society. There’s nothing more fascistic than a recrudescent male, is the general idea. If you cannot even — and these are ideas that are outside of the racial box, outside of the culturally-specific area, still important ideas in relation to political correctness — but they are a softer area in which it’s possible to be more radical one would have imagined; and yet even here one sees funk and one sees decline and one sees an acceptance of that which will lead to the destruction of forms of identity which existed in the past and that need to exist in the present and the future, if there is to be a future.

To have a future people need to be aware of their past, and they need to be aware of the glory of that past. I believe there are celebrations at the present time in the United States — if celebrations is the word – about the Civil War. The Civil War is American experience of extraordinary intensity and drama, whereby the most elitist experiment ever decided upon on the North American continent was extirpated and destroyed by armed force.

Henry Miller is an unusual character in all sorts of ways, and ended up in Big Sur. Henry Miller wrote a book quite against type and against what you’d imagine his own predilections to be, called The Air-Conditioned Nightmare. He wrote it in 1942 after he had a car journey all around United States of America. In this book he makes several dissentient remarks, one of which he says the South — the old South — is to him the most beautiful part of the United States. People here around the Californian coast might not wish to hear that, but he reckoned that the old South was the only aristocratic society — based as it was upon slavery, of course — that was created here in the North Americas. And that it was an elitist society of an old European sort, the nature of which had to be extirpated if you were to have modern America.

What do you do about the Confederacy, and what do you do about the Civil War? You basically probably prefigure the Black and the female experience, you marginalize the White South, and you marginalize those who fought on behalf of racial consciousness at that time. You marginalize all those people in the North — weren’t they called Copperheads — the people in the North who sympathized with the South — a venomous snake, you see. Why is that when radical forms of White identity are dealt with in the historical tradition, they are always dealt with from a perspective of demonization?

When Haitian militants massacred the White population of Haiti, they would be considered by contemporary historiography to be more radical variations of Blackness, more radical variations of militaristic Republicanism in Haiti at that time. But they would not necessarily be condemned for what they did. There would be an attempt to evaluate and to explain and to provide extenuating circumstances within the discourse.

Why isn’t that done for the White South? Why isn’t there an attempted social experiment on the American soil perceived as one of the trajectories in White politics at that particular time? Why is the double standard of double moral jeopardy applied by the historians of our own group to more radical formulations of Caucasian identity here in the United States, or as then it was the dis-United United States? Why have people allowed a situation to emerge whereby our own historical reckoning and our own traditions of self are turned against us in such a radical way that it’s almost impossible — except by the recession to the absolute right — to defend oneself?

Let’s face it, many people do not want to come on to the Right end of the spectrum, and right at the end of that spectrum as well, in order to defend themselves. They would like to be in the middle. Most people are comfortable in the middle. They’re comfortable when they’re with their fellows, when they’re part of a crowd and feel that they’re mainstream. This is an extraordinary problem that we face: the degree to which people do not wish to stand alone. And it’s understandable that they don’t wish to stand alone, particularly at this time. We must provide them with the courage to do this, and Counter-Currents is one of the means by which people can educate themselves to defend themselves and their own honor and future prospects.

Counter-Currents is what I personally believe the best, most educative Right-wing site that I’ve come across, and it’s used by an enormous plethora of people who want information about their own past and their own future. There’s a great wealth of material on it, and it provides this tertiary education of the mind in a radical Right sensibility. I believe that this is crucial if we’re to have a future.

There are various other websites like Alternative Right and others, the Voice of Reason network, exist to furnish, in my opinion, in a more direct and concrete — and everyday and populist sense — the work that Counter-Currents does. Obviously one wants to see much more of this, and there’s no doubt that the Right has gravitated to the Internet in order to get around the censorship that exists almost everywhere else. Because these views are censored almost everywhere else.

Political correctness is a methodology and a grammar. It is designed to restrict the prospect of a thought before the thought is even enunciated. Chairman Mao had the idea of “magic words.” Magic words. “Racism” is a magic word. Use it, and people fall apart. People begin to disengage even from their own desire to defend themselves. All of the other “–isms”: sexism, disableism, classism, ageism, homophobia, islamaphobia, all the others are pale reflections, in other and slightly less crucial areas, of the original one: “racism.”

“Racism” is a term developed by Leon Trotsky in an article in the Left oppositionist journal in the Soviet Union in 1926 or 1927. It is now universalized from its dissentient communist origins — don’t forget Trotsky was on the way out of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union as Stalin engineered his disposal and the disposal the Left opposition that he led — and that word has been extracted now to such a degree that it is a universal. It’s universal, it’s become a moral lexicon of engagement and disengagement. If you wish to condemn somebody in contemporary discourse, you say that they are a racist. And there’s a degree to which nobody can refute you’re saying in the present dispensation.

Only when people gain the courage and the conviction to read what is on Counter-Currents, to internalize it, and to defend their own possibilities — of development, biologically and culturally — will we see a change here in America and elsewhere. Only when people are prepared not to fall down and beg for mercy in relation to the past — or the Shoah, which is a sort of a Moloch, sort of a ceremonial device which is used in order to shame nearly all Caucasian, Aryan, and Indo-European people; it’s become a religious totem, a pseudo-religious totem, which is wheeled out and shunted around and made use of so that people fall down and beg for mercy even before they’ve opened their own mouths. They’re begging for mercy even for the prospect of opening their own mouths.

And although I’m saying nothing the people in this room don’t already know, it’s important to realize that these psychological constructs for the majority of our people are deeply crippling and deeply negative in their effects. You have a situation now where people have so loaded upon themselves the untrammeled forces of guilt and the absence of self-preservation that almost any healthy instinctual or virile capacity is beyond them, except as a reaction to a prior threat.

Only when we recover the sense of dynamism that we seem to have partly lost will we have a future: here in the United States, here in California, or in the Western World as a whole. Many other groups in this world wonder about what is happened to us; wonder what has happened to our energy. Don’t be surprised if you learn that many of the elites in foreign countries, in India and China and so on, view with bemused amazement the trajectory of the present West, the degree to which the West is so self-hating: about its own music, about its own art, about its own architecture, about its own military history — other groups in the world are amazed at this, but will seek to take advantage of it because why wouldn’t they? In the circumstances of group competition which this globe entertains, all groups are partly in competition for scarce resources against all other groups. It doesn’t have to be as merciless as all that.

But it is real, and it is extant, and it is ongoing.

Mass immigration into Britain began with the Nationality Act in 1948, which was passed by the [Clement] Attlee government. And Attlee, who was the-then Labor Prime Minister, in a landslide victory that Labor won immediately after the Second World War; said that, “if the races of the world are mixed together there will be no more war.” “If the races of the world are mixed together there will be no more war,” and he took that idea from the anti-colonial movement of the 1920s and the 1930s.

What you get instead, is you get the internalization of divisions and a bellyaching of a globalist sort inside societies instead of between them. So all that happens is the group dynamics which were Nation-State oriented and National in the past three to five centuries become internal, because human competition and the dynamics of group difference are such that they will always exist, no matter what you do. They will exist inside multiracial marriages. They will exist inside multiracial schools, they will exist inside multiracial cities, they will exist within multiethnic housing developments, and they will certainly exist within multiracial societies.

What then happens, is that each group creates a vanguard that negotiates with the other groups about how big a slice of the pie that they get. And the future politics of societies like United States is the negotiation that occurs electorally — and between elections — between the groups. Obama’s elections is a snapshot. The ball goes on, there’s a flash and he’s there for an instant because for that moment the trajectory of forces between working-class whites who vote Center-Left, between women who are more inclined to vote Center-Left than Center-Right, between Black Americans who will vote overwhelmingly for Obama — even though he is of mixed-race — because they consider him to be one of themselves; towards Latinos, who will vote for an alternative candidate from the Democratic Center-Left because they feel that they will get more of a space under the sun under such a dispensation than they would from a White Republican; together with the apathy of those who don’t vote or those who vote for other candidates; together with the trajectory at that moment of that particular electoral cycle where the Republicans were deeply depressed, where there was a deep alienation from the Jr. Bush second presidency, where there was deep malaise in the society because of the forced nature of the Iraq war, which had created convulsion and dissent within the society; and where you had an enormous economic depression which led to an economic vote for Obama, which may be partially repeated next time but was certainly evident then. That’s a snapshot. All elections are, are snapshots out of the forces that are in coalition at a particular time. And yet notice how broken down and how ethnically fractious that coalition is to be.

The prospect of White Republicans being elected — except to lower levels — probably decreases with each year of demographic change in the United States. Even the number of years Obama has been in probably changes the thing in a game-changing way to his advantage. For each year that goes on — my understanding is that America is now a third nonwhite? — essentially it’s a two-thirds/one-third society — but many Western Europeans still conceive of the United States as a White European society. There was even bemused surprise in parts of Western Europe that a non-White President had been elected. But anyone who knows the United States relatively knowledgeably, and who knows of the Kennedys’ desire to extend immigration out to the whole world, and to end the previous Europeans-only, Whites-only immigration policy which had subsisted from the 1920s, I believe. Everyone knows that realizes that the new political dispensation in the United States is contrary to — and hostile to — the indigenous majority that lives here.

Why won’t Caucasian and European people wake up to Eurocentric verities?  The truth is they feel there’s always an excuse to put off the prospect of that waking up, and they are always moments — particularly of media intrusiveness — that people fear in their own lives. One of the major halting elements in the re-energization of our own people is the mass media. And it’s the control of the mass media by forces which are uniquely inimical to our future development. The mass media plays upon every segment of the masses that exist in contemporary Western society — churns them up, holds them against each other, reroutes them, messes up the agenda of everyone that has his own subtext to begin with, which it is forcing and corralling the points of energy in this society towards.  Everyone can see this who watches the mass media with half a mind. Then there’s just the effect of “prole-feed” as George Orwell called it in 1984, whereby the masses are just fed a cultural industry of excess and exploitative infotainment and entertainment for their own edification, and which is an important part of the overall project.

Only when you can break through the carapace of the mass media, with all its multiple Gorgon-like heads and its Hydra-like amphitheater — only when you can break through that, using the Internet, have you a chance to embolden the necessary vanguard of our own population. All change and all radical and all revolutionary change is led by minorities. And it always occurs top-down, even though the minority may be the throwing-forwards of a focus or a group tendency that is more generic and more general.

What the Right has to do here in the United States is to build vanguards. Build as many and as purposeful ones as possible. Build them in such a way as they can’t be broken down externally and defeated internally. One of the uses of the Internet is it gets around the extraordinary backbiting and rivalry, even as it expresses it, that exists between different Right-wing individuals and groups. Because people who have a naturally decisive and quasi-authoritarian mindset always believe that they are right. This is why the Right is extraordinarily difficult to arrange and manage and bring forward. Everyone who’s ever been prominent in a Right-wing group knows it involves herding cats. And the reason for that is because of the bloody-mindedness of the maverick people who are part of these tendencies of opinion. Because you have to be bloody-minded in order to attack against that which is comfortable, and that which is “in the zone,” and that which is the managed expectation of mediocrity in decline that is going on at the present time.

The first speaker this morning, Greg Johnson, talked about decadence. And the debate as to whether it’s just a decline — whereas just as I drop this pad it falls to the floor — is it just a decline, or is it a willed decline? Is there a force which is moving this pad down to the floor, metaphorically, and keeping it there and putting a boot on it once it’s there so that’s it’s got no prospect of rising up again or a hand would creep forward and wrench it up from under the boot and raise it back up to the table. That’s a debate that one can have, but one of the things that is most important to realize is that we have our own destiny before us.

There are more of us than ever before, we are better educated than the mass than ever before, and unbelievable though that may sound. When the Boer war happened in 1899, the British did an audit of the slums in Britain, and found that a quarter of the working-class men who came forward to fight in that war were so riddled with disease, and had been so badly educated, that they were militarily of no use. And Winston Churchill said at the time that “an empire that can’t flush its own toilet isn’t much use.” One of very few radical social statements of any sort, glosses or otherwise, that Churchill ever made.

So we have enormous advantages that exist now. But we must not allow comfort and ease to sleepwalk us towards oblivion. Comfort and ease are the enemy of a decisive cultural breakthrough and a decisive implementation of the politics of the future. We have to forget the last 50 to 60 years, but remember the lessons that we should draw from it. And the lessons that we should draw from it is to believe totally in ourselves.

There’s an organization in Ireland called Sinn Fein, which in Gaelic means “ourselves alone.” And ourselves, we are the locomotive of our own destiny. We ourselves will determine what the role that European people have in the United States will be well into the next century. We must not allow other groups to determine it for us. Only when we are fit for power will we find the means to re-exercise it in our own societies. What is happening here and elsewhere in the West is the biggest test that Western people have faced for a very long period. In the past threats are always perceived as external. Another nation, another dictator, another aggressor, another imperial rivalry. In this filament of Empire, in the scrabble for Africa at the end of the 19th century, and so on.

All the enemies that we now face are internal. And the biggest enemies that we face are in our own minds. The feeling that we shouldn’t say this, shouldn’t write this, shouldn’t speak this, shouldn’t think this. These are the biggest enemies that we have. We’re too riddled with post-Christian guilt. We’re too riddled with philo-Semitism. We’re too riddled with a sense of failure, funk, and futility in relation to the European, the Classical, and the High Middle Ages passed. We’re too defensive. We’re not aggressive and assertive enough as a group.

Many White people feel bereft because the leadership that we look to, the upper Bourgeois tier — the most educated part of our own society — seem to have left the majority. The elite has gone global and sees itself as part of a global elite, and the traditional brokers of power from the university lecturer to your senior businessman, to your senior lawyer and so on, always seem to be on the side of giving the line away. And that’s because in the present day it suffices and works for you to be on the side that gives away what the past has bequeathed to you.

What will it take for the bulk of people who leave Western universities to have the middle or common denominator view of the people in this room? It will take an earthquake. But it’s not that difficult to achieve, once you get people thinking in a dissentient way. This involves very much raising the game.

In some ways we have no freedom of speech in Europe. There’s no First Amendment “right” in Europe. Everyone who speaks in Europe and wishes to avoid a prison cell has to adopt in some ways a stylized and rather abstract form of language. Anti-revisionist laws exist in most of the Western European societies. Britain is slightly unusual in not having them. But that is also rather like the old Hollywood censorship which improved a lot of filmmaking because people had become more indirect and more artistic in the way in which they treated things. It can cause people to raise their game. And I’m very much in favor of Right-wing views being put in the highest — rather than the lowest or the median-way. I’m very much in favor of appealing to new elites, and getting them to come forward rather than making populist appeals when we’re not in the right electoral cycle for that.

I was involved with a nationalist party in Britain for quite a long time. With a project that has seemed to failed and have come to nothing, even though people were elected to the European Parliament. But at the end of the day people are only changed when their cultural sensibilities shifts. And when there is a release of energy, and a release of power, and a release of self-assertion. That is the change that you seek. Electoral change and advantage results from that, rather than the other way around. Getting a few people elected will not suffice, in my view, at the present time. What will suffice is a counter-current, and a counter-cultural revolution, which reverses the processes of the 1960s.

The Marxians have marched through the institutions of the last 50 years because the doors were swinging open for them. They hardly had to kick them down because they were swinging open for them.

All the doors are shut to us. We must find ways to work our way around these doors and reconnect with the new minds of our upcoming generations.

One of the reasons that this will happen is that people in the Western world at the moment are chronically bored. There’s a boredom that has settled upon our people. You can sense it. There’s a spiritual torpor out there. And the most exciting ideas, the most threatening ideas, the most psychopathological ideas, the ideas which are beyond all other ideas, are the ideas which are in this room. They are the most dangerous ideas and therefore they have a subtle attraction to radical and dissident minds.

Don’t forget that everything which has occurred in the last 50 years was once so dissident that the people in the 1920s — those who advocate the ultra-Liberalism of today — had to meet in secret because they were frightened of revealing what their views were to the generality, and to their own families, and to work colleagues. See how the entire notion of what it was to be “progressive” or “reactionary” or “unprogressive” or “traditionalist” or otherwise has changed around in a hundred years.

We are now the people stalking. We are now the people who are afraid of media revelation. We are the people who are taught to be frightened and ashamed of our own views. The whole thing has been reversed in a hundred years.

But there is a natural tendency to kick; there is a natural tendency to kick against the system which is in place. And politically correct Liberalism is an enormous target to be attacked. And it is fun to attack it. And it is life-affirming to attack it. And to traduce it and to kick its bottom and to run round and to be chased by it and to be opposed by all these po-faced zealots and that sort of thing.

It’s entertaining, and that’s one of the things that people have to realize that will attract many people to our side. The bloody mindedness of it; the useful cantankerousness of it. Everyone likes a rebel up to a point, as long as they’re not personally and they’re not adversely affected by the consequences of such radicalism. And what we need to do is position ourselves in the way that the International Times and 60s radicals did the other way around.

If we become the lightning rod for cultural revolution in the West, you will see, in the future, student movements that are loyal to the Right rather than Left, even if these terms break down and in increasingly group-based societies no longer have any meaning, as is occurring. But we still use them because it’s an affordable shorthand.

But never forget the thrill of transgression. Right-wing ideas are transgressive.  And are therefore interesting, and sexy. Herbert Marcuse once wrote about the eroticism of the Right. Susan Sontag did as well. And the Right is more erotic than the Left, is more exciting than the Left. The Left is boring, the Left is extraordinarily grungy and erotically unexciting, you know, despite its prevalence and its penchant for decadence, there’s a degree to which it is not as radically outside the box.

And my view is that people will be attracted in the future not by reason. They will read up with their reason once they have decided to emotionally commit. The important thing is to get people emotionally. And it’s to appeal to the forces and wellsprings in their mind which are eternal, and which underpin rationality. The power of irrational belief as spiritual codification, of mystical belief, of belief in identity, of the need for communitarianism, and the need to belong, is immensely powerful. Far more powerful than the anything the Left can offer.

If you can tap these forces of — in some respects — codified irrationalism,  if you can bring them to the surface, if you can bottle them, and if you can then add on reason and add in the discourse on Counter-Currents, you will tap the energies of future generations of majority Americans. And you will do so because it appears to be extraordinarily interesting. More interesting than anything else. More threatening than anything else. More shocking than anything else. And that is something that the Right should actually in my view heighten, in a civilized and persuasive way.

One should never lose sight of the reason that people are opposed to the our ideas is because they are thrilled to be frightened by them. They are thrilled to be appalled by them. It is the political equivalent of Satanism to many people. I’m saying nothing that is at all original. And in doing so we actually make ourselves tremendously attractive at certain levels of consciousness — not to some Southern Baptist chapter, admittedly. But you make yourself tremendously psychologically appealing. You may not have a halo over your head but you are transfigured in a sort of dark and sepulchral light, which makes you deeply spiritually ambivalent to people who exist now. And that contains the prospect of growth and the prospect of renewal.

I personally believe people agree with ideas long before they moved towards them. They have an instinctual saying of “YES!” They say “YES!” to the idea before they completely have worked out all of the formula for themselves. The Counter-Currents of this world exist to provide the formula for people after they’ve said “YES!”; after they’ve put forward their first step upon the route to identity, and the politics of identity, and the religion of identity.

If I can mention something about that, all the religious divisions that exist amongst people of European ancestry don’t really matter. All that you do is you format a doctrine of psychological inequality. If people believe in equality they can come to it in terms of whatever spiritual system they want. As long as they believe in orders of European inequality, all of the traditions of all of our people can be contained in that.

Thank you very much!

 

---

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

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/03/jonathan-bowdens-western-civilization-bites-back/

Why Conservatives Always Lose

Why Conservatives Always Lose

By Alex Kurtagic

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

In our modern Western societies, liberals do all the laughing, and conservatives do all the crying. Liberals may find this an extraordinary assertion, given that over the past century their preferred political parties have spent more time out of power than their conservative rivals, and, indeed, no radical Left party has ever held a parliamentary or congressional majority. Yet, this view is only possible if one regards a Labour or a Democratic party as ‘the Left’, and a Conservative or a Republican party as ‘the Right’—that is, if one considers politics to be limited to liberal politics, and regards the negation of liberalism as a negation of politics. The reality is that in modern Western societies, both ‘the Left’ and ‘the Right’ consist of liberals, only they come in two flavours: radical and less radical. And whether one is called liberal or conservative is simply a matter of degree, not of having a fundamentally different worldview. The result has been that the dominant political outlook in the West has drifted ever ‘Leftwards’. It has been only the speed of the drift that has changed from time to time.

This is not to deny the existence of conservatism. Conservatism is real. This is to say that conservatism, even in its most extreme forms, operates against, and is inevitably dragged along by, this Leftward-drifting background. And this is crucial if we are to have a true understanding of modern conservatism and why conservatives are always losing, even when electoral victories create the illusion that conservatives are frequently winning.

It would be wrong, however, to attribute the endless defeat of conservatism entirely to the Leftward drift of the modern political cosmos. That would an abrogation of conservatives’ responsibility for their own defeats. Conservatives are responsible for their own defeats. The causes stem less from liberalism’s dominance, than from the very premise of conservatism. Triumphant liberalism is made possible by conservatism, while triumphant conservatism leads eventually to liberalism. Anyone dreaming of ‘taking back his country’ by supporting the conservative movement, and baffled by its inability to stop the march of liberalism, has yet to understand the nature of his cause. The brutal truth: he is wasting his time.

Defeating liberalism requires acceptance of two fundamental statements.

• Traditionalism is not conservatism.
• Liberal defeat implies conservative defeat.

Much of our ongoing conversation about the future of Western society has focused on the deconstruction of liberalism. Not much of it has focused on a deconstruction of conservatism. Most deconstructions of conservatism have come from the Left, and, as we will see, there is good reason for this. It is time conservatism be deconstructed from outside the Left (and therefore also the Right). I say ‘also’ because neither conservatism nor traditionalism I class as ‘the Right’. Neither do I accept that ‘Right wing’ is the opposite of ‘Left wing’; ‘the Right’ is predicated on ‘the Left’, and is therefore not independent of ‘the Left’. Consequently, any use of the terms ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ coming from this camp is and has always been expedient; I expect such terms to disappear from current usage once the political paradigm has fundamentally changed.

Below I describe eight salient traits that define conservatism, explain the long-term pattern of conservative defeats, and show how liberalism and conservatism are complementary and mutually reinforcing partners, rather than contrasting enemies.

Anatomy of Conservatism

Fear

Proponents of the radical Left like to describe the politics of the Right as ‘the politics of fear’. Leftist propaganda may be full of invidious characterisations, false dichotomies, and outright lies, but this is one observation that, when applied to conservatism, is entirely correct. The reason conservatives conserve and are suspicious of youth and innovation is that they fear change. Conservatives prefer order, fixity, stability, and predictable outcomes. One of their favourite refrains is ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’. There is some wisdom in that, and there are, indeed, advantages to this view, since it requires less effort, permits forward planning, and reduces the likelihood of stressful situations. Once a successful business or living formula is found, one can settle quite comfortably into a reassuring routine in a slow world of certainties, which at best allows for gradual and tightly controlled evolution. Change ends the routine, breaks the formula, disrupts plans, and lead to stressful situations that demand effort and speed, cause stress and uncertainty, and may have unpredictable outcomes. Conserving is therefore an avoidance strategy by risk-averse individuals who do not enjoy the challenge of thinking creatively and adapting to new situations. For conservatives change is an evil to be feared.

No answers

We can deduce then that the reason conservatives fear change is that they are not very creative. Creativity, after all, involves breaking the mould, startling associations, unpredictability. Conservatives are disturbed by change because they generally know not how to respond. This is the primary reason why, when change does occur, as it inevitably does, their response tends to be slow and to focus on managing symptoms rather than addressing causes. This is also the primary reason why they either plan well ahead against every imaginable contingency or remain in a state of denial until faced with immediate unavoidable danger. Conservatives are first motivated by fear and then paralysed by it.

Defensive

Unfortunately for conservatives, the world is ever changing, the universe runs in cycles, and anything alive is always subject to unpredictable changes in state. Because they generally have no answers, this puts conservatives always on the defensive. The only time conservatives take aggressive action is when planning against possible disruptions to their placid life. They are the last to show initiative in anything else because being a pioneer is risky, fraught with stress and uncertainties. Thus, conservatism is always a resistance movement, a movement permanently on the back foot, fighting a tide that keeps on coming. The conservatives’ main preoccupation is holding on to their positions, and ensuring that, when retreat becomes inevitable, their new position is as close as possible to their old one. Once settled into a new position, any lull in the tide becomes an opportunity to recover the previous position. However, because lulls do not last long enough and recovering lost positions is difficult, the recovery is at best partial, never wholly successful. Conservatives are consequently always seen as failures and sell-outs, since eventually they are always forced to compromise.

Necrophiles

Their lack of creativity leads conservatives to look for answers in the past. This goes beyond learning the lessons from history. Averse to risk, they mistrust novelty, which makes their present merely a continuation of the past. In this they contrast against both liberals and traditionalists: for the former the present is a delay of the future, for the latter it is a moment between what was and will be. At the same time, conservatives resemble the liberals, and contrast against traditionalists more than they think. One reason is that they confuse tradition with conservation, overlooking that tradition involves cyclical renewal rather than museological restoration. Museological restoration is what conservatives are about. Their domain is the domain of the dead, embalmed or kept alive artificially with systems of life support. Another reason is that both liberals and conservatives are obsessed with the past: because they love it much, conservatives complain that things of the past are dying out; because they hate it much, liberals complain that things of the past are not dying out soon enough! One is necrophile, the other a murderer. Both are about death. In contrast, traditionalism is about life, for life is a cycle of birth, growth, maturity, death, and renewal.

Boring

Fear, resistance to change, lack of creativity, and an infatuation with dead things makes conservatives boring. Dead things can be interesting, of course, and in our modern throwaway society, dead things can have the appeal of the exotic, particularly since they belong to a time when the emphasis was on quality rather than quantity. Quality, understood both as high quality and possessing qualities, is linked to rarity or uniqueness, excitement or surprise, and, therefore, creativity or unpredictability. Conservatives, however, conserve because they long for a world of certainties—slow, secure, comfortable, and with predictable outcomes. Granted: such an existence can be pleasant given optimal conditions, and it may indeed be recommended in a variety of situations, but it is not exciting. Excitement involves precisely the conditions and altered states that conservatives fear and seek to avoid. It thus becomes difficult to get excited about anything conservative.

Old

There are good reasons why conservatism is associated with old age. As a person grows old he loses his taste for excitement; his constitution is less robust, he has less energy, he has fewer reserves, he has rigidified in mind and body, and he is less capable of the rapid, flexible responses demanded by intense situations and sudden shocks. It makes sense for a person to become more conservative as he grows old, but this is hardly a process relished by anyone. Once old enough to be taken seriously, the desire is always to remain young and delay the signs of old age. Expressing boredom by saying that something ‘got old’ implies a periodic need for change. Conservatives oppose change, so they get old very fast.

Irrelevant

Preoccupation with the past, resistance to change, and mistrust of novelty eventually makes conservatives irrelevant. This is particularly the case in a world predicated on the desirability of progress and constant innovation. Conservatives end up becoming political antiquarians, rather than effective powerbrokers: they operate not as leaders of men, but as curators in a museum.

Losers

Sooner of later, through their refusal to adapt until they become irrelevant, conservatives are constantly left behind, waving a fist at the world with angry incomprehension. Because eventually survival necessitates periodic surrenders and regroupings at positions further to the Left, conservatives come to be seen as spineless, as people always in retreat, as, in short, losers. The effective function of a conservative in present-day society is to organise surrender, to ensure retreats are orderly, to keep up vain hopes or a restoration, so that there is never risk of a revolutionary uprising.

Liberalism’s Best Ally

With the above in mind, it is hard not to see conservatism as liberalism’s own controlled opposition: it may not be that way, but the effect is certainly the same. Conservatism provides periodic respite after a bout of liberalism, allowing citizens to adapt and grow accustomed to its effects before the next wave of liberalisation. Worse still, conservative causes, because they eventually always become irrelevant, provide a rationale for liberalism, supplying proof for the Left of why it is and should remain the only game in town. Liberals love conservatives.

Conservatism and Tradition

Conservatism does not have to be liberalism’s best ally: conservatism can be the best ally of any anti-establishment movement, since it always comes to represent the boring alternative. Conservatives defend the familiar, but familiarity breeds contempt, so over time people lose respect for what is and grow willing to experience some turbulence—results may be unpredictable and may indeed turn out to be negative, but at least the turbulence makes people feel alive, like there is something they can be actively involved in. In the age of liberalism, conservatism is fundamentally liberal: it does not defend tradition, since liberalism has caused it to be forgotten for the most part, but an earlier version of liberalism. In an age of tradition, conservatism could well be the best ally of a rival tradition, since conservatism always stagnates what is, thus increasing receptivity over time to any kind of change. Thus conservatism sets the conditions for destructive forms of change.

By contrast, tradition is evolution, and so long as it avoids the trap of conservatism (stagnation), those within the tradition remain engaged with it. This is not to say that traditions are immune from self-destructive events and should never be abandoned: hypertely, maladaption, or pathological evolution, for example, can destroy a tradition from within. However, that is outside our scope here.

Confusion of Tradition and Conservation

In the age of liberalism, because it has forgotten tradition, tradition is confused with conservation. Thus some conservatives describe themselves as traditionalists, even though they are just archaic liberals. Some self-described traditionalists may erroneously adopt conservative traits, perhaps out of a confused desire to reject liberalism’s notions of progress. Tradition and conservation are distinct and separate processes. Liberalism may contain its own traditions. Liberalism may also become conservative in its rejection of tradition. Likewise for conservatism, except that it rejects liberalism and does so only ostensibly, not in practice.

End of Liberalism

Ending liberalism requires an end to conservatism. We should never call ourselves conservatives. The distinction between tradition and conservation must always be made, for transcending the present ‘Left’-‘Right’ paradigm of modern democratic politics in the West demands a great sorting of what is traditional from what is conservative, so that the former can be rediscovered, and the latter discarded as part of the liberal apparatus.

In doing so we must be alert to the trap of reaction. Reactionaries are defined by their enemies, and thus become trapped in their enemies’ constructions, false dichotomies, and unspoken assumptions. Rather than rejection, the key word is transcendence. The end of liberalism is achieved through its transcendence, its relegation into irrelevance.

Given the confusion of our times, it must be stressed that tradition is not about returning to an imagined past, or about reviving a practice that was forgotten so that it may be continued exactly as it was when it was abandoned. There may have been a valid reason for abandoning a particular practice, and the institution of a new practice may have been required in order for the tradition successfully to continue. A tradition, once rediscovered, must be carried forward. Continuation is not endless replication.

After Liberalism

The measure of our success in this enterprise will be seen in the language.

We know liberalism has been successful because many of us ended up defining ourselves as a negation of everything that defined liberalism. Many of the words used to describe our political positions are prefixed with ‘anti-‘. This represented an adoption by ‘anti-liberals’ of negative identities manufactured by liberals for purposes of affirming themselves in ways that suited their convenience and flattered their vanity.

Ending liberalism implies, therefore, the development of a terminology that transcends liberalism’s constructions. Only when they begin describing themselves as a negation of what we are will we know we have been successful, for their lack of an affirmative, positive vocabulary will be indicative that their identity has been fully deconstructed and is then socially, morally, and philosophically beyond the pale.

Developing such a vocabulary, however, is a function of our determining once again who we are and what we are about. Without a metaphysics to define the tradition and drive it forward, any attempt at a cultural revolution will fail. A people need a metaphysics if they are to tell their story. If the story of who we are and where we are going cannot be told for lack of a defining metaphysic, any attempt at a cultural revolution will need to rely on former stories, will therefore lapse into conservatism, and thus into tedium and irrelevance.

After Conservatism

One cannot be for Western culture if one is not for the things that define Western culture. A metaphysics, and therefore ‘our story’, is defined through art. Art, in the broadest possible sense, gives expression to values, ideals, and sentiments that a people share and feel in the core of their beings, but which often cannot be articulated in words. Therefore, the battle for Western identity is waged at this level, not in the political field, even if identity is a political matter. Similarly, any attempt to use art for political purposes fails, because politics, being merely the art of the possible, is defined by culture, not the other way around.

In the search for ‘our story’, we must not confuse art with craft. Craftmanship may be defined by tradition, and a tradition may find expression in crafts, making them ‘traditional’, but the two are not synonymous. Similarly, craftsmanship may improve art, but craft is not art anymore than art is craft. Art explores and defines. Craft reproduces and perpetuates. Thus, art is to tradition what craft is to conservatism. This is why contemporary art, being an extreme expression of liberal ideals, is without craftsmanship, and why art with craftsmanship is considered conservative, illustration, or ‘outsider’.

Those concerned with the continuity of the West often treat reading strictly non-fiction and classics as proof of their seriousness and dedication, but ironically it will be when they start reading fiction and making new fiction that they will be at their most serious and dedicated. If tradition implies continuity and not simple replication, then it also implies ongoing creation and not simple preservation.

After Tradition

No tradition has eternal life. Ours will some day end. Liberalism sees its fulfilment as the end of history, but that is their cosmology, not ours. Therefore, liberalism does not—and should never—indicate to us that we have reached the end of the line. The degeneration of the West is tied to the degeneration of liberalism. The West will be renewed when the liberals come crashing down. They will be reduced to an obsolete and irrelevant subculture living off memories and preoccupied with conserving whatever they have left. Once regenerated, the West will continue until its tradition self-destructs or is replaced by another. Whatever tradition replaces ours may be autochthonous, but it could well be the tradition of another race. If that proves so, that will be the end of our race. Thus, so long as our race remains vibrant, able to give birth to new metaphysics when old ones die, we may live on, and be masters of our destiny.

Du retrait

Du retrait

par Claude BOURRINET

 

Dans le film d’Akira Kurosawa, Kagemusha. L’ombre du guerrier, une fameuse scène de bataille illustre la stratégie inspirée par le défunt seigneur Shingen Takeda, qui fait du clan une « montagne » inamovible et invincible. Cette doctrine, apparemment dictée uniquement par des impératifs stratégiques, est reconduite par son sosie, voleur et vagabond, usurpateur de sa fonction seigneuriale, dont nul, sinon quelques vassaux, ne connaît l’identité. Mais, démasqué, le « kagemusha » est obligé d’abandonner le pouvoir au fougueux fils du chef charismatique, le téméraire Katsuyori Takeda. Si bien que la charge de cavalerie et d’infanterie menée à la bataille de Nagashino, face au feu des mousquets livrés par les Occidentaux, est réduite à néant. La mort et la destruction ont suivi la vaine agitation et la présomption.

 

L’œuvre d’Akira Kurosawa est d’une profondeur rarement égalée. Ses films sont une méditation imprégnée d’esprit zen. L’amertume liée à l’exercice dérisoire du pouvoir et du jeu mortel des apparences souille toute aspiration à la pureté ou à la paix, sinon même à la force véritable. C’est le cas par exemple dans cette adaptation emblématique de Macbeth qu’est Le Château de l’araignée, véritable chef d’œuvre irrigué par l’esthétique du théâtre Nô.

 

L’analogie avec l’histoire millénaire de notre civilisation occidentale n’est pas fortuite. Jadis, la lutte entre le Sacerdoce et l’Empire, entre le pouvoir spirituel de l’Église, tentée par la théocratie, et celui, terrestre, du Saint-Empire romain germanique, a ouvert la voie à la révolte du kshatriya, du guerrier, et, finalement, a permis aux États modernes d’asseoir une domination dégagée des contraintes de la Tradition, entraînant une dérive dont nous sommes les acteurs. Le déséquilibre entre la force armée et l’inspiration spirituelle a mené à un déchirement entre les deux tensions structurantes de la société, entre deux dynamismes qui, sous l’angle de la Tradition, se doivent d’être unis pour empêcher le monde de sombrer dans le déclin, dans l’âge de fer. En effet, l’axe central, l’essieu qui meut la roue, le «  moteur immobile », source de légitimation et d’énergie, noue un lien harmonieux entre l’impératif contemplatif,  la méditation, et l’éthique de l’engagement, le devoir chevaleresque de dépassement et de sacrifice. Le regard tourné vers l’ailleurs transcendantal, vers le monde divin, vers l’Un, « informe » (donne forme et sens) à l’immanente pluralité du monde humain. Son absence serait l’éclatement de monades erratiques. La rupture entre les deux puissance souveraines, dont l’une, par sa proximité avec les forces démoniaques et telluriques de la nature se devait d’être soumise à l’autre, supérieure par sa capacité à donner une signification au déploiement de l’action, a éloigné la société, progressivement, de toute validité, de tout bien-fondé, jusqu’à ce que la guerre elle-même, mobilisation extrême au service du massacre et de la destruction totales, fût  l’expression du nihilisme et de la volonté intégrale de puissance.

 

Dès lors que la pente est prise, il est presque impossible de remonter vers l’amont. L’action détient une supériorité par rapport à l’esprit de méditation, une séduction capable de toucher vigoureusement la nature humaine, qui est fascinée par le bruit, la fureur et les modifications spectaculaires du monde, et prodigue en dépenses d’énergie et de sang. C’est là le côté sombre de la condition guerrière, mais, notre époque, si avancée dans la voie plébéienne, met en sus l’obligation de résultat, l’impérieuse nécessité de voir bouger les choses. Aussi l’avenir semble-t-il le produit de la technique. La médiatisation prométhéenne entre l’homme et la nature s’est autonomisée, et le monde, création de l’artifex, redevable des lois de la métis, de la ruse et de l’astuce, du savoir-faire et du calcul, est devenu une seconde nature, un milieu où le jeu se conjugue au caprice, le désir de possession à celui de destruction. Si bien que l’homme, ce sorcier, éprouve l’hybris enivrante d’être un dieu pour lui-même.

 

Notre âge, de façon ironique, a vu dans le même temps une survalorisation du geste et sa perte de substance. Les combats d’ombres et leur spectacularisation rendent  la politique aussi impuissante qu’un coup d’épée dans l’eau.

Claude Bourrinet

 

 

---

 

Article printed from Europe Maxima: http://www.europemaxima.com

 

URL to article: http://www.europemaxima.com/?p=2326

Opening Pandora's Box: An Elitist Defence of Modernism

Opening Pandora's Box: An Elitist Defence of Modernism

Jonathan Bowden

Ex: http://www.wermodandwermod.com/

I would like to take this opportunity to respond to various postings which have been placed on the website ‘Stormfront’ in recent weeks. I would like to thank those people who have been supportive of my efforts— including ‘glasgow bnp’, ‘fraser’ and ‘Dux90’, who was kind enough to describe the work as “excellent”.

Other correspondents have been less charitable however. These include ‘Son Of Britain’, ‘Byzantium Endures’ (probably named after a novel by Michael Moorcock) and ‘brummie76’ among others. Now I’m not responding to their comments directly—primarily because most of them are semi-literate and scatological in tone. These persons are also hiding under false names. Their identities are known to me though by virtue of my status and links with the American owners of the Stormfront website. (Byzantium Endures, for example, is an Irish Republican and National Socialist who has been on the site for many years).

But amidst all of the silliness and abuse these people are contriving to make a serious point, and this is: the status of modern or modernist art.

This happens to be a completely legitimate debate and one which I will respond to now. What large numbers of western individuals have missed is that a seismic shock went through the art world at the end of the nineteenth century. This was completely adjacent to the creation of photography as both an art and a science. Once a classic early photographer like Edward Muybridge produced an interconnected series of images featuring Greco-Roman wrestlers and running horses, the world was forever changed. Fine art now had a choice – it either replicated photography badly or in a stylised way which was loyal to a tradition running from Rembrandt to Orpen or it contrived to do something else. What it did was to go inside the mind and tap all sorts of semi-conscious and unconscious ideas, fantasies, desires and imaginative forays. All these relate to iconic art, religious painting and the art of the occult, spiritualism, pornography and even the images of the insane or the marginally so. It also relates to religious art as exemplified by Pacher, Giotto, Cimabue, Bosch, Brueghel, Grunewald and various modern masters of a similar sort. The point about this art is that it is highly personal and powerful because it comes from inside. This means that people often of a highly rigid and morally defensive character find this work heretical, blasphemous, evil and even degenerate. (Indeed the theory of degenerate art originates from the 1880’s when this change of direction took place). A large number of modern masters like Bacon, Buffet, Ernst, Paolozzi, Balthus, Dali and Labisse have all dealt with these themes. What has happened to art in other directions is that representational, classical, traditional and academic work has been taken over by cinema. The moving image and the tens of thousands of individual films produced for well over a century now are a testament to this. Great filmmakers like Lang, Hitchcock, Stroheim, Gance, Truffaut, Renoir, Syberberg and Tarkovsky are all examples of this. They inherit the tradition of representation which has gone elsewhere. In the end you either love or loathe this. Two regimes in the twentieth century tried to prevent painters and sculptors producing modernist work. These were Nazi Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Union. Both failed. The reasons for this are the dynamism of the modern current—even though German sculptors like Arno Breker and Gustav Thorak were excellent artists but they were also copyists who were returning to the Greeks and Praxiteles. The dilemma which painters and sculptors have faced is either to create purely imaginatively or just to make films in another medium.

Turning to my own work various currents are discernable. These are the demonic, strength and a concern with pure power, ugliness and fury as well as erotica and shape, or purely imaginative formulations. In my own mind the softer material balances the harsher, more violent and aggressive work. Nonetheless, I have also done a large number of relatively traditional pieces which hark back to classic art by Bosch, Rops and Caravaggio. Some are also based on Hellenistic form. Obviously a subjective element intrudes into art but I believe that modernistic fury is the correct vehicle for elitist and hierarchical values.

I always sign everything I produce—whether in writing, on film or as an image—with my own name.

Source: Jonathan Bowden.

Thoughts on Debt Repudiation

Thoughts on Debt Repudiation

By Greg Johnson

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

In Ancient Athens, debtors who were unable to pay their creditors lost their land and were reduced to serfs who had to give their landlords one sixth of their produce in perpetuity. If the debt exceeded the debtor’s total assets, he and his family were reduced to slavery. A debtor could also become a slave by pledging his personal freedom for his debts.

By the 6th century BC, serfdom and slavery had become so widespread in Athens that the small landowners and militia men who were the backbone of Athenian society were disappearing. Wealth and power were becoming concentrated in the hands of a few families through the black arts of usury. Athens was thus in danger of losing the freedom guaranteed by its large, landed middle class, which was increasingly unable to resist the power of the rising plutocratic elite.

Thus to preserve republican government, the Athenian lawmaker Solon (c. 638 BCE–558 BCE) instituted the Seisachtheia, from seiein, to shake, and achthos, burden, i.e., to shake off the burden of debt. Solon’s debt repudiation cancelled all outstanding debts, emancipated all slaves and serfs, and returned all property seized by creditors. Solon also instituted a legal limit to property size, to prevent the concentration of land into the hands of a few wealthy families.

Similar forces were at work in the Roman Republic. Debtors who defaulted could lose their property, their freedom, and even their lives to usurers. This led to the concentration of power and property in the hands of the few and the decline of the small farmers and legionaries who were the foundation and strength of the Republic.

Rome, unfortunately, lacked a statesman with the vision of Solon. There was no wholesale debt repudiation, but some palliative measures were passed. For example, one of the provisions of the Lex Licinia Sextia of 376 BCE was the distribution of captured lands to establish small farms. The Lex Poetelia Paprina of 326 BCE abolished debt bondage (nexum). But, as Brooks Adams summarizes so compellingly, the unrelieved march of usury—along with deflation and cheap slave labor—was one of the chief causes of the destruction of Roman freedom. (See Brooks Adams, “The Romans ^[2]” and my own “Brooks Adams on the Romans ^[3].”)

Debt repudiation is also described in the book of Leviticus, where it is instituted on a 50 year cycle. In Leviticus 25:10, it is commanded: “Consecrate the fiftieth year and proclaim liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a Jubilee unto you—and you shall return every man unto his own clan, you shall return every man to his family.” This is taken to mean the abolition of debt slavery and indentured servitude. The Jubilee is also connected with land reform. In Leviticus 25:23 we read: “The land must not be sold permanently, for the land belongs to me. You are only foreigners, my tenant farmers.” In Leviticus 27:21 we read: “When the field reverts in the Jubilee year it shall become holy unto the LORD, as a field set apart; and it shall become owned by the priests.”

The purpose of the Jubilee seems to be the prevention of the concentration of land (the primary form of wealth in pastoral and agricultural societies) in the hands of a few families through usury, which results in the loss of land and liberty for debtors who cannot pay. Presumably, after the Jubilee, when land reverts to God (under the administration of the priests), it is again divided up among small farmers, including newly freed slaves and indentured servants. The idea that all men are tenant farmers of God means that no men should be tenant farmers of other men, which is a strong affirmation of the idea of a society of small, independent farmers. (It is ironic that the ancient Jews argued against usury and debt slavery and in favor of agrarian populism, given the economic profile they later assumed as urban money-lenders, traders, and professionals. Apparently Jews had become an overwhelmingly urban and non-agrarian people by late antiquity.)

The common assumption of the Solonic Seisachtheia and the Biblical Jubilee is that freedom is a high political value. Freedom, moreover, is best secured by a society in which as many men as possible are free and able to support themselves on their own land. Freedom requires private property that is widely distributed. Over time, however, debt and foreclosure lead to the concentration of wealth and power into the hands of the few, leading to the loss of freedom. Thus the preservation of freedom requires wholesale debt repudiation

The fate of debtors has become easier over the centuries. Debt slavery and serfdom are no more. Debtors’ prisons were abolished in the United States beginning in 1833 and in the United Kingdom in 1869. Bankruptcy laws allow people to escape crushing burdens of debt.

The moral premise of bankruptcy laws is that individuals should not have their lives and prospects ruined by financial mistakes. Society as a whole is better off if a man can shake off his debts and focus on the future: pursue an education, start a family, start a business, etc.

But if it is right for individuals to shake off their own debts, then it is certainly right to shake off the debts imposed upon us by others, including people who are long dead, i.e., public debts. Life is lived forward. Ascending life should not be shackled by the dead weight and accumulated mistakes and debts of the past.

Debt may no longer lead to slavery or prison. But debt still corrodes freedom is subtler ways. Those who are self-employed have more liberty of thought and action than employees, who are pressured to conform to the opinions and tastes of their employers. For the same reasons, property owners are freer than renters. And debt and foreclosure are the major factors in turning the self-employed into employees and property owners into renters. Thus if we wish to reestablish a society with a large middle class of self-employed farmers and businessmen, we need to revisit the idea of debt repudiation.

America’s national debt is now beyond $15 trillion and counting. The debt now approaches $50,000 per American citizen, $135,000 per taxpayer. Unless we have radical change, it will only get bigger. And in addition to paying those debts, taxpayers will also have to fund Social Security, Medicare, and Prescription Drug liabilities approaching $120 trillion and counting. That means that every white baby born today is saddled with $1.2 million in federal debts and liabilities (provided that he becomes a producer not a parasite). And this does not include state and local government debts.

But ask yourself: when a pregnant Mexican sneaks across the border to drop her “anchor baby,” is she bringing America another taxpayer to assume $1.2 million in debts and liabilities run up by Gringo politicians? Or is she here to add to the burdens that must be borne by white children?

Remember this when the eyes of immigration apologists grow moist describing the travails of hard-working people from around the globe who only wish to “contribute” to the great American experiment. Are they here to contribute more than $1.2 million apiece? Obviously not. They are coming to take, not contribute. They are coming to add to our burdens, not share them. Ultimately, they are coming here to replace us and our posterity. And when they are the majority, they are not going to go on laboring to feed and medicate old white people. They are going to pull the plug and take care of their own.

In addition to public debt, Americans also have trillions of dollars in personal debts, primarily in the form of credit cards, home mortgages, and student loans, some of them accruing interest at ruinous rates.

Nobody seriously thinks that all of these debts will be repaid. It is not a question of whether they will be repudiated, but how. The most likely method will be the devaluation (inflation) of the dollar. Someday, you might have the choice of paying $100,000 to pay off your student loans or to buy a cup of coffee. And since we’ll always be able to buy a cup of coffee, maybe hyperinflation would not be such a scary prospect, except that it creates economic and social chaos.

Beyond that, inflation is deeply unfair. When the currency is inflated, it is not all devalued at once. Instead, huge amounts of money are handed over to politically connected insiders. When they spend this money, it has the purchasing power of the previous day’s non-inflated currency. But with every subsequent transaction, as the value of the money is discounted, its purchasing power drops. So the first man who gets to spend a $100 bill can buy a nice dinner for two, but the last man who spends it can’t afford a taco. That can only lead to further concentration of wealth in the hands of parasites.

From a White Nationalist point of view, the most important thing is to accomplish debt repudiation with a minimum of interference in the real economy, particularly the core biological functions of the economy: the preservation and reproduction of our race. We cannot have bursting silos and empty stomachs. We can’t have creditors seizing real assets for merely notional debts.

But before we deal with practical questions, we need to deal with the moral question of the rightness of debt repudiation.

Two points of clarification: First, I am not arguing for the wholesale repudiation of debts between individuals or businesses. Sometimes such debts need to be repudiated, but this can be handled with existing bankruptcy laws.

Second, I am not arguing for the wholesale repudiation of Social Security, Medicare, and other such entitlements. I believe that these sorts of programs ought to exist in some form. The existing programs should simply be improved, not abolished.

What I specifically wish to establish is the morality of repudiating government debts and all private debts to banks.

Ultimately, only the ends justify the means, and in this case, debt repudiation is justified as the means to restore and preserve a society with widely distributed, securely held private property, which is the foundation of a large and powerful middle class. Aristotle argued that such a society best equips the majority to resist the tyranny of elites, although Aristotle could not have imagined the ultimate in tyranny: an elite so wicked that it would work for the destruction and replacement of its own people.

But debt repudiation would not merely help preserve our people. It would also simultaneously strike a blow against our enemies, who are deeply invested in the financial sector of the economy.

Let’s deal with government debts first. The moral principle behind public debt is that governments, acting in the common good of the people, can create collective obligations, such as laws, treaties, or debts. Although one can question whether many government policies really are in the common good, I accept the underlying principle that there are collective goods that can justify collective obligations.

My question is: Why do governments need to go into debt in the first place? Why do governments have to borrow money at all when they can either (a) print it, or (b) raise it through taxation?

In the past, currency consisted of scarce bits of shiny metal. If the government needed more of these bits than it could raise by taxation, it had to go to people with hoards of coins and borrow them at interest.

But in today’s world, in which governments can simply print money, why is there any need to borrow it from banks? Particularly when the banks themselves just make up the money they lend out.

Thus my argument is simply that public debt is wrong because it is not necessary. It is, therefore, fraudulent to justify public debt in the name of the common good. Public debt is actually a way of making the society as a whole—specifically, the taxpayers—subservient to private interests (banks) and even to alien peoples (market dominant minorities, foreign governments).

But a free people should serve its own interests—and, I would argue, the higher interests of life—not foreign interests or private interests. Such debts should, therefore, be repudiated.

As for the foreign governments holding US bonds, we should offer them the following compensation. They can keep all the factories that American businesses have built over there, and they can use them for domestic production. Because debt repudiation should go hand in hand with the restoration of economic nationalism, including tariffs on imported manufactured goods. So businesses that wish to sell products in the United States should have to manufacture them here.

As for the repudiation of debts to banks: this is necessary, because existing debts can never be repaid, and it is moral for the reasons already laid out above. Beyond that, it is morally absurd to hold that banks, which create money out of nothing, have a right to demand the repayment of their principal plus interest. In the end, however, the case for the repudiation of bank debt rests on the existence of a viable alternative financial system, some elements of which I have sketched in my essay “Money for Nothing ^[4].”

The repudiation of government and individual debts should be a political imperative for White Nationalists. When White Republics emerge, we will of course repudiate the debts of predecessor states. But even within the present system debt repudiation should be stressed by White Nationalists, for it would prove a very popular political plank. Debt repudiation would also be useful to break White Nationalists away from the dead ends of Republican conservatism and “free market” economic orthodoxy.

Of course the primary aim of White Nationalism is to secure the existence of our people and a future for white children. But if that does not get people’s attention, then promising to cancel their credit card, student loan, and home mortgage debts definitely will.

 

---

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

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/02/thoughts-on-debt-repudiation/

Pensées buissonnières d’un Européen

Pensées buissonnières d’un Européen

par Georges FELTIN-TRACOL

Croate et éminemment Européen, Jure (Georges) Vujic a écrit au cours des décennies 1990 et 2000 dans les revues dissidentes Vouloir et Nouvelles de Synergies européennes. Maîtrisant l’anglais, l’allemand et le français, il a fait paraître chez Avatar, une maison d’éditions bien connue pour son goût avisé de l’anti-conformisme radical, un ouvrage profond et essentiel au titre singulier : Un ailleurs européen. Hestia sur les rivages de Brooklyn.

C’est un essai d’une très grande richesse, dense en réflexions et qui exige du lecteur une intense concertation. Il peut être (un peu) déstabilisé par de nombreuses références puisque l’auteur établit des rapprochements (paradoxaux ?) entre les penseurs des droites radicales européennes (Maurice Bardèche, Julius Evola, Charles Maurras, Abel Bonnard, Pierre Drieu La Rochelle, Donoso Cortès, Oswald Spengler, etc.) et les théoriciens du post-structuralisme et du déconstructivisme tels que Jacques Derrida, Gilles Deleuze, Félix Guattari, Michel Foucault, Jean Baudrillard, Massimo Cacciari… Jure Vujic avertit que « sa démarche n’était pas celle d’un collage minutieux, travail de ciseaux et de papiers. Plus qu’une synthèse de fragments de théories et de pensées, il s’agissait pour [lui] à l’image d’une partition musicale inachevée de dégager quelques lignes de réflexions à la fois “ transversales ” et “ asymétriques ”, au travail de composition qui puisait dans le passé et s’inscrivait dans le présent (p. 11) ». En écrivant Un ailleurs européen, il a en effet « éprouvé le désir à la fois vif et anxieux de dresser un bilan intellectuel, à l’aube du troisième millénaire de notre société globale. Une remise en cause pouvait à [son] sens n’être que bénéfique (p. 11) ».

Contre le globalitarisme planétaire

Jure Vujic s’intéresse par conséquent tout autant à la littérature qu’à la géopolitique, aux effets néfastes de la « société du spectacle » qu’à l’avènement de la « cyber-crétinisation globale »… C’est au scalpel qu’il opère ce dur constat. Il estime ainsi que « l’intellectuel sous nos cieux devrait vivre avec le sentiment tragique qu’il ne peut rien ou presque rien pour son peuple (p. 119) ». Pourquoi ? Parce que « l’époque contemporaine et le mythe de la société transparente sont indéniablement propices au foisonnement des pensées “ faibles ”, fragmentées ainsi qu’à un certain “ polythéisme des valeurs ”, car il n’est plus possible de parler au sujet de l’histoire comme de quelque chose d’unitaire (p. 77) ».

Après avoir critiqué l’ère des « idéologies solubles », il examine avec une rare pertinence les concepts antithétiques d’aristocratie et d’élite. Il soutient que « l’aristocratie est par essence méritocratique (p. 111) ». En revanche, « une élite suppose un groupe d’hommes qui manifeste une capacité spécifique dans l’accomplissement d’une tâche donnée, une fonction donnée (p. 111) », d’où par ces temps de fluidité maximale, des « élites liquides » qui se coulent parfaitement dans le grand dessein globalitaire indifférencié.

Vujic conteste avec force les processus de globalisation et de mondialisation. « La globalisation, écrit-il très justement, ne s’est jamais fixée pour but philanthropique de créer une utopie d’une communauté mondiale pacifique et fraternelle. Elle n’est qu’un processus avancé de libéralisation des marchés, de délocalisation et de dérégulation des économies ainsi qu’un instrument de conquête capitaliste dans la marche au plus grand profit (p. 56). » Il observe que l’actuelle globalisation n’est que la manifestation actuelle de ce « capitalisme [qui] est un solvant remarquable pour toutes les idéologies solubles et gazeuses qui n’ont plus de prise sur le mental et l’imaginaire collectif (p. 116) ». « La globalisation rend désormais caduques les oppositions entre ici et ailleurs, entre tradition et modernité (p. 179) » parce que « l’idéologie globale est par essence totalitaire, affectée d’un évolutionnisme pathogène car par la voie du manu militarisme et du manu monétarisme, elle entend effacer et niveler toutes les diversités, les réalités naturelles et plurielles afin de soumettre les peuples aux sacerdoces des lois du monothéisme du marché (p. 56) ».

L’auteur dénonce aussi la collusion existant dans les coulisses de l’« actualité discrète » entre les mondialistes financiaristes de Davos, de la Trilatérale et de Bilderberg, et les altermondialistes gauchistes de Porto Allegre. Mondialistes en costume et altermondialistes en haillons ne constituent que les deux faces d’une même pièce ! « D’un point de vue culturel, Davos et Porto Allegre ne sont que l’alter ego, les deux forces prétendument opposées d’un seul et unique processus de mondialisation qui se propage à l’échelon planétaire, articulé autour d’une dualité complémentaire, le nivellement uniformisateur d’un côté et la micro-hétérogénéité anarchique de l’autre côté (p. 139). » Les gauchistes et l’extrême gauche sont dorénavant les auxiliaires zélés de la Ploutocratie mondialisée depuis que « le discours révolutionnaire a cédé le pas devant une stratégie réformiste qui rejoint le discours globalisant et rassurant d’une croissance soutenue des pontifes de Davos (p. 137) ». Il n’est donc guère surprenant qu’au lieu d’exiger une révolution radicale, « le Mouvement des Sans-Terre, l’organisation Via Campesina, le mouvement A.T.T.A.C., les rescapés de mouvements maoïstes, les crados anarcho-libertaires, les bolchos en tout genre et les étudiants ratés des campus de la nouvelle gauche, ont planché, répartis en cent ateliers, pour affirmer une plus grande participation de la société civile dans le commerce international (p. 136) ». Leurs homologues cravatés font de même dans des séminaires tenus dans les hôtels les plus huppés de la planète…

L’Occident, tueur de l’Europe

En dépit de quelques divergences portant sur des détails ou sur les moyens à utiliser, l’entente entre ces deux pôles hyper-modernes est complète ! Tous sont les rejetons du « libéralisme [qui] constitue dans le monde moderne l’idéologie dominante, une école, une chapelle, une secte planétaire avec ses gourous, ses cénacles, sa hiérarchie de prévôts, ses cultes et ses idoles (p. 35) ». Se produit ainsi la marchandisation globale du monde ! Et le tsunami libéral emporte tout sur son passage puisque « l’essence du libéralisme est de négocier, de traiter, négoce de l’argent et de l’opinion (p. 40) ». L’auteur en profite pour critiquer au passage le soi-disant conservatisme ou l’esprit d’ordre des libéraux : « le libéralisme n’est qu’une solution bâtarde qui ne cultive sous le nom d’ordre que le statique équilibre des pouvoirs savamment dosé (p. 40) ».

Cette déferlante globalitaire a des effets sur les sociétés humaines en général et sur l’Europe en particulier. « La tradition est inversée. L’Europe ne raconte plus l’Occident. C’est l’Occident qui conte l’Europe (p. 177). » « L’Europe d’hier s’est irrémédiablement retournée en son contraire, l’Occident contemporain (p. 19). » Assujettie à l’idéologie libérale-occidentiste, « l’Europe s’est peu à peu transformée en super-usine occidentale qui produit à l’excès une idéologie économiciste de marché, des valeurs exclusivement consuméristes, une prolifération sans frein de développement technologique, de progrès infini, et s’est fait le porte-drapeau d’une morale totalitaire planétaire, qui s’est donnée pour but de réaliser le rêve utopique d’une “ unité intégrale ” mondiale (pp. 18 – 19) ». Dans cette déchéance majeure, magistrale catagogie d’un destin, « l’Union européenne constitue un mécanisme régional politico-économique, un maillon dans la chaîne du globalisme qui assoit sa primauté planétaire par le biais d’une cartellisation régionale du monde (p. 55) ». Il devient dès lors cohérent que « dans le contexte panoptique de la pensée unique dominante, l’action de penser librement et en toute indépendance est indéniablement “ subversif ” (p. 15) ». L’Europe se rapproche de l’Amérique où « par leur politique de creuset, de melting pot, les États-Unis contribueront à générer une nation d’extravertis grégaires, dépersonnalisés, décervelés, uniformisés et purgés de tous les instincts hérités du Vieux Monde; il en résultera sur le plan politique, l’émergence d’une démocratie qui entrave le libre jeu et le développement de talents, mais au contraire favorise l’ostracisme et l’élimination silencieuse de tous les éléments non conformistes (p. 49) ». Il se prépare un redoutable hiver des libertés; on en décèle déjà les prémices dans l’Italie du Goldman Sachs’ boy Monti : les persécutions envers Casa Pound et les réfractaires au nouveau monde marchand ont commencé avec l’embastillement de militants et des manipulations crypto-policières comme la fusillade de Florence de la mi-décembre 2011…

À la différence de la liberté des Modernes et des « Hyper-Modernes » qui n’est en fait qu’un subtil esclavage mental et comportemental, Jure Vujic considère que « la vraie liberté c’est la soumission au devoir être à ce qui doit “ être ”, un devoir qui préexiste au choix de l’homme, un devoir qui existe en soi et en eux (pp. 35 – 36) ». S’affirmer européen procède de cette liberté fondamentale.

« L’unité du continent européen est une nécessité (p. 151) », mais elle ne doit pas favoriser le nivellement des différences. Considérant que « l’État est “ agonal ” par essence ou il n’est pas (p. 93) », l’auteur rappelle que « la polis en tant que communauté civique ne constitue pas la réunion d’éléments identiques, mais, au contraire, repose sur la diversité de ses composantes, qu’il convient de sauvegarder (pp. 160 – 161) ». Il s’appuie sur un exemple précis : « la Grèce antique et l’Europe gothique [c’est-à-dire des cathédrales du XIIIe siècle] étaient comme des prismes que divisait un unique rayon de lumière spirituelle en une variété de couleurs vives. Les contrastes étaient évidents mais un même sentiment religieux de surnaturel unissait les êtres, les idéaux et les symboles (p. 46) ». Certes, « la civilisation européenne est peut-être mort-née. C’est pourquoi, plutôt que de penser le devenir de l’Europe en terme de “ renaissance ”, il conviendrait mieux de s’attendre comme l’a remarqué Paul Valéry à un “ avenir sans la moindre figure ” (p. 189) ». Plus exactement, le temps n’est-il pas venu d’abandonner le Logos et de redécouvrir le mythe ? « Le mythe devrait être réinstallé dans l’histoire collective des peuples. Non pas le mythe conçu comme l’image archaïque et stationnaire, passéiste, d’une figure fondatrice, mais comme le vecteur de nouvelles potentialités créatrices à l’œuvre dans l’inconscient collectif et individuel des peuples (p. 143). » Il importe en outre de « remonter à l’essence, à la source spirituelle de la pensée européenne, c’est la reconnaître dans sa solidarité comme dans sa diversité (p. 13) ».

Au fond, Jure Vujic s’adresse à « ceux qui ont une vision de l’Europe [qui] sont ces nouveaux Européens qui se battent pour reconquérir et réintégrer cette essence spirituelle. Il s’agit d’une communauté silencieuse et agissante pour laquelle la notion de la culture européenne constitue une “ forme ” absolue qui s’inscrit dans le cadre d’une “ expérience rafraîchie de cette idée dans son antique sainteté ” (p. 16) ». Hestia délaissera les rivages de Brooklyn quand les Européens retrouveront enfin leur sens du sacré.

Georges Feltin-Tracol

• Jure Vujic, Un ailleurs européen. Hestia sur les rivages de Brooklyn, Avatar Éditions, coll. « Polémiques », 2011, B.P. 43, 91151 Étampes C.E.D.E.X., 23 €.

---

Article printed from Europe Maxima: http://www.europemaxima.com

URL to article: http://www.europemaxima.com/?p=2362

Le Concordia : naufrage d’une société...

Le Concordia : naufrage d’une société...

Par Claude Bourrinet

Vox NR cliquez ici

 

On se souvient du naufrage du Joola, au Sénégal, le 26 septembre 2002. Cette catastrophe fit 1953 morts, et, comme d'autres désastres maritimes, notamment en Asie du Sud-Est, fut considéré comme un symbole de la misère et de l'infortune des pays sous développés.

La navigation, le pilotage de bateaux, les hommes d'équipage et la figure du capitaine, furent de tout temps, en Occident, les ingrédients métaphoriques du politique, de l'Etat, du gouvernement des hommes. Dans notre âge des masses et des transports mondialisés, l’image a pris une valeur emblématique encore plus prégnante, débordant le domaine du pouvoir. La tragédie du Titanic, déjà, en 1912, anticipait les propos de Paul Valéry sur la caducité des civilisations. Réputé insubmersible, comme la Belle époque, si confiante dans le progrès scientifique et technique, le paquebot avait sombré rapidement, surprenant un monde si afféré à ses plaisirs. On n’avait pas, non plus, manqué de dénoncer l’inorganisation du sauvetage, l’incompétence de certains officiers, et surtout l’injustice qui prévalut à la sélection des personnes à sauver. La troisième classe, celle des émigrés pauvres qui lorgnaient vers l’utopie américaine, fut sacrifiée au profit des classes supérieures. Bien plus, l’orchestre jouant une dernière valse avant le dénouement fatal symbolisait une Europe brillante qui allait s’abîmer dans la grande tuerie de 14, la fleur au fusil.

Le destin du Concordia, à moitié coulé un vendredi 13, date de la dégradation du triple A de certains pays, au large de l’île de Giglio, en Toscane, n’est pas sans présenter non plus une image de ce qu’est la société contemporaine. Comme pour le Titanic, comme si l’Histoire se mettait à bégayer, l’état d’impréparation, le manque d’organisation, l’incompétence des hommes d’équipage, immigrés sous payés venant des quatre coins du monde, le temps fort long mis pour prendre des décisions, le mensonge qui consistait, comme pour le Titanic, à faire croire à un exercice, étaient des paramètres aggravants. Sans compter la fuite du capitaine, dédaigneux de l’honneur des marins, qui enjoint de couler avec son navire ! La prétention d’une époque qui envoie des hommes dans l’espace et s’attaque à l’infiniment petit empêchait d’imaginer qu’un tel monstre marin pût être si fragile. Bien sûr, le nombre de morts n’égale pas celui du Joola ou du Titanic : le navire a eu la chance de s’échouer à quelques mètres du rivage. Et pour cause ! Car les circonstances mêmes du drame sont emblématiques. Il semblerait que le désir de se plier à une tradition, somme toute récente, celle de la révérence, de l’ « inchino », qui consiste à passer au plus près du village de Grosseto toutes sirènes hurlantes et tout feux allumés, ait été pour beaucoup dans la catastrophe.

Car nous sommes dans un scénario que l’on pourrait appeler postmoderne. L’époque est à l’hyper démocratisation, à l’utopie bas de gamme, au rêve low cost, au paradis de masse. Le monstre peut contenir 5000 passagers, un village important, une petite ville. Comme la prolifération des charters, des parcs d’attraction, des spectacles énormes à Bercy ou ailleurs, il correspond à la demande d’une société où la grosse classe moyenne s’est presque universalisée. On veut du luxe, de l’amusement pour une somme relativement modique. La société du spectacle populaire a colonisé la terre et la mer.

Est-ce un hasard si un naufrage pareil, aussi grotesque (n’étaient les quelques morts) a lieu exactement au moment où le système mondialisé de la consommation de masse s’effondre et annonce la fin d’un univers de pacotille et de fausseté marchande ? Les dieux ne se montrent pas, mais font signe…

L'histoire serait-elle impartiale ?...

L'histoire serait-elle impartiale ?...

Nous reproduisons ci-dessous l'éditorial de Dominique Venner publié dans le dernier numéro de la Nouvelle Revue d'Histoire (n°58, janvier - février 2012) au manichéisme qui sévit actuellement dans la lecture de l'histoire.

 

L'histoire serait-elle impartiale ?

Pour tous ceux qui avaient des raisons de combattre la Collaboration, celle-ci fut détestable.  Et de fait, ses aspects haïssables n’ont pas manqué. Pourtant, du côté français, mais aussi du côté allemand, des hommes d’honneur et de foi se sont engagés dans cette voie qu’ils croyaient juste et que l’histoire a condamné. Le plus souvent, ils ont payé leurs illusions au prix fort. Non seulement ils y ont fréquemment perdu la vie, leur liberté et leur existence sociale, mais plus encore la possibilité de faire valoir leurs raisons. Morts ou survivants, il leur fallait endurer une réprobation générale à l’égard d’un engagement réputé ignoble et devenu incompréhensible, L’interprétation imposée par la victoire de leurs adversaires triomphants était à la fois totale et totalitaire (1). En d’autres termes, l’histoire écrite par les vainqueurs impose un manichéisme absolu entre eux-mêmes qui sont associés au Bien, et les vaincus, devenus incarnation du Mal à tout jamais.

Il en est toujours ainsi après une guerre de religions. Et la Seconde Guerre mondiale fut une guerre de religions. Les vaincus perdirent d’un seul coup la possibilité d’être compris. Ce qui les avait justifiés quand ils portaient encore les armes, soudain s’est évanoui, remplacé par le verdict sans appel d’un procès jugé d’avance, où les inquisiteurs triomphants jouissaient du pouvoir de les transformer en d’indicibles criminels pour l’éternité ou presque. Oui, je dis bien l’éternité !

L’empereur Julien, qui pourtant ne fit jamais couler le sang pour la cause qu’il croyait juste, se voit aujourd’hui encore qualifié d’Apostat par la mémoire collective imposée par ses adversaires victorieux. Rien ne sert d’expliquer que cet attribut est aussi calomnieux que scandaleux. Calomnieux, puisque jamais Julien n’adopta la nouvelle religion étrangère contre laquelle il éleva la protestation de sa fidélité. Il ne fut donc pas « apostat », mais fidèle. Si l’on réfléchit un instant, l’attribut dont on continue de l’affubler est également scandaleux. Dans notre monde européen, libre en principe de tout interdit religieux, l’apostasie est en effet une sentence criminelle d’un autre âge, impliquant une condamnation pour l’éternité. En dépit du temps écoulé et des travaux de réhabilitation des historiens, elle a cependant persisté (2).

Par ce détour, je ne me suis pas éloigné de ma réflexion initiale. L’exemple de l’opprobre attachée au nom de l’empereur Julien, disparu depuis plus de quinze siècles, attire l’attention sur l’écriture de l’histoire après un conflit ayant mobilisé les passions à l’extrême et dont les vainqueurs ont l’exclusivité de la parole publique. Ce que j’ai dit de l’empereur Julien pourrait l’être aussi, bien que de façon plus limitée, pour le grand personnage que fut le Connétable de Bourbon, à tout jamais qualifié de « traître » par une mémoire française qui se confond avec celle de l’État. En son temps, la révolte du Connétable contre François Ier et sa mère qui l’avaient grugé, fut comprise par les contemporains. Le droit féodal et le principe de l’engagement réciproque la justifiaient. Rien de cela ne fut plus admis quand s’imposa plus tard l’idée nouvelle de la nation et de la « trahison » postérieure à 1792 ou 1870.

Nous voici revenus au jugement manichéen que l’histoire inflige aux acteurs des années de l’Occupation. Par deux autres exemples, j’ai montré ce qu’il y a d’incertain dans le jugement historique. Autrement dit, quand un vaincu, devant les fusils qui vont le tuer, s’écrie : « L’Histoire jugera ! », il se remonte le moral au prix d’une chimère. L’histoire n’est jamais un tribunal impartial. Elle est toujours écrite par les vainqueurs. Il arrive cependant qu’une défaite ultérieure des anciens vainqueurs, une défaite « historique », c’est-à-dire sans appel, accorde une revanche inattendue aux vaincus. Il en a été ainsi en Russie pour les Blancs, réhabilité par l’effondrement absolu du système qu’avaient édifié les Rouges après 1917.

Dominique Venner (La Nouvelle Revue d'Histoire n°, janvier-février 2012)

Notes

1. Totalitaire : qui s’impose à tous et en toute chose, pénétrant la vie privée au même titre que le vie publique.

2. Grand historien récemment disparu, Lucien Jerphagnon, chrétien lui-même, s’indignait de l’éternisation de la condamnation posthume portée contre le jeune empereur auquel il consacra une captivante et riche biographie, Julien, dit l’Apostat (Tallandier, 2008).

Dominique VENNER: Is de geschiedenis werkelijk onpartijdig… ?

Dominique VENNER:

Is de geschiedenis werkelijk onpartijdig… ?

Hieronder vindt u het editoriaal van Dominique Venner in het laatste nummer van La Nouvelle Revue d'Histoire (nr. 58, januari - februari 2012) over het manicheïsme dat tegenwoordig heerst in de manier waarop men de geschiedenis uitlegt.

Voor hen die goede redenen hadden om de collaboratie te bevechten, was deze verwerpelijk. Het heeft de collaboratie inderdaad niet aan verfoeibare aspecten ontbroken. Niettemin hebben zich zowel aan Franse als aan Duitse zijde mensen in eer en geweten ingezet voor deze weg, waarvan zij dachten dat hij de juiste was, en die achteraf door de geschiedenis werd veroordeeld. Heel vaak hebben ze hun illusies cash betaald. Niet enkel hebben ze er vaak het leven bij gelaten, of hun vrijheid en hun sociaal bestaan verloren, maar meer nog bleven ze verstoken van de mogelijkheid om hun beweegredenen te duiden. Zowel de overledenen als de overlevenden werden blootgesteld aan de algemene veroordeling van een engagement dat als weerzinwekkend werd afgeschilderd en dat onbegrijpelijk was geworden. De interpretatie die door de overwinning van hun zegevierende tegenstanders werd opgelegd was tegelijkertijd totaal en totalitair (1). Met andere woorden, de geschiedenis, die door de overwinnaars wordt geschreven, legt een absoluut manicheïsme op tussen deze laatsten enerzijds, die geassocieerd worden met het Goede, en de overwonnenen anderzijds, die tot in de eeuwigheid het Kwade belichamen.

Zo gaat het altijd na een godsdienstoorlog. En de Tweede Wereldoorlog was wel degelijk een godsdienstoorlog. De overwonnenen verloren in één klap de mogelijkheid om begrepen te worden. Wat hen rechtvaardigde toen ze nog wapens droegen, verdween in één klap en werd vervangen door een verdict van een proces zonder beroepsmogelijkheid, waarvan de uitkomst op voorhand vaststond, met triomferende inquisiteurs die genoten van de macht die hen in staat stelde hun tegenstanders voor de eeuwigheid – of zo goed als - te veranderen in uitgespuwde criminelen. Ja, ik zeg wel degelijk “voor de eeuwigheid”!

Keizer Julianus, die nochtans nooit bloed liet vloeien voor een zaak die hij als de juiste aanzag, wordt vandaag nog steeds uitgemaakt voor “afvallige” door het collectieve geheugen dat werd opgelegd door zijn zegevierende tegenstanders. Uitleggen dat dit predikaat even lasterlijk als schandalig is, heeft weinig zin. Lasterlijk, omdat Julianus zich nooit bekeerde tot de vreemde nieuwe religie waartegen hij uit trouw protesteerde. Hij was dus niet “afvallig”, maar trouw. Wanneer men wat verder nadenkt, beseft men dat de bijnaam waarmee men hem bedenkt ook schandalig is. In onze Europese wereld, die in principe vrij is van religieuze verboden, is afvalligheid een crimineel vergrijp dat dateert uit een ander tijdperk en eeuwige verdoemenis met zich meebrengt. Ondanks het vervliegen van de tijd en de rehabilitatie door historici blijft deze desondanks aan hem kleven (2).

Ik ben langs deze omweg niet afgeweken van mijn initiële bedenking. Het voorbeeld van de schandvlek die kleeft aan keizer Julianus, die meer dan vijftien eeuwen geleden gestorven is, vestigt de aandacht op de geschiedschrijving na een conflict dat de emoties tot in het extreme heeft beroerd en waarvan de overwinnaars over de exclusiviteit van het publieke woord beschikken. Wat ik geschreven heb over keizer Julianus geldt evenzeer, zij het in beperktere mate, voor de Konstabel van Bourbon, die voor altijd het stigma van « verrader » kreeg opgekleefd door een Frans geheugen dat zichzelf verwart met het geheugen van de staat. Indertijd kon de opstand van de Konstabel tegen Frans I en diens moeder, die hem geruïneerd hadden, op begrip rekenen bij zijn tijdgenoten. Het feodale recht en het principe van de wederzijdse verbintenis rechtvaardigden deze opstand. Dit verdween toen later de nieuwe idee van de natie en van het “verraad” na 1792 of 1870 ingang vond.

Laat ons nu terugkeren naar het manicheïstische oordeel dat de geschiedenis velt over de actoren van de collaboratiejaren. Met twee voorbeelden heb ik de onzekerheden in het historische oordeel aangetoond. Een overwonnene maakt zich dus illusies, wanneer hij voor het vuurpeloton uitroept dat de geschiedenis wel zal oordelen. De geschiedenis is nooit een onpartijdige rechtbank. Zij wordt altijd geschreven door de overwinnaars. Het gebeurt evenwel dat een latere nederlaag van de vroegere overwinnaars, een « historische » nederlaag, namelijk ééntje zonder mogelijkheid om ze ongedaan te maken, uiteindelijk toch nog onvoorzien gelijk geeft aan de vroegere overwonnenen. Zo is het bijvoorbeeld in Rusland gelopen met de Witten, die door de volledige ineenstorting van het systeem dat door de Roden na 1917 was opgebouwd, werden gerehabiliteerd.

Dominique Venner (La Nouvelle Revue d'Histoire nr. 58, januari - februari 2012)

Voetnoten :

1. Totalitair: wat zich aan alles en iedereen opdringt, en zowel het openbare als het privé-leven binnendringt.

2. De grote, onlangs overleden historicus Lucien Jerphagnon, die zelf christen is, was verontwaardigd over de vereeuwiging van de postume veroordeling van de jonge keizer, aan wie hij een boeiende en rijke biografie heeft gewijd: Julien, dit l’Apostat (Tallandier, 2008).

Por quê nós somos Soldados Políticos?

Por quê nós somos Soldados Políticos?

 

por Rodolphe Lussac

Ex: http://legio-victrix.blogspot.com/

 

"Em última instância a civilização é sempre salva por um pelotão de soldados". (Oswald Spengler)

 

Nós somos soldados que servem a causa do renascimento europeu - uma causa tão pura, dura, e imperiosa quanto nossos estandartes.

 

Nós somos soldados porque recusamos os experimentos reformistas do sistema dominante, que - através de seus comitês eleitorais e partidários, suas venalidades sectárias, e sua farsa parlamentar - objetiva garantir a autorregulação e a reciclagem das elites corruptas controlando o sistema plutocrático vigente.

 

Nós somos soldados porque nós acreditamos que a salvação da família europeia de nações depende da destruição do sistema presente.

 

Nós somos soldados porque servimos e não apenas falamos, nós refletimos e nós agimos.

 

Nós serimos a causa da política no sentido de Julien Freund, sabendo que a essência da ação é a própria ação.

 

Nosso entendimento tríplice da política, praxeológico, fatídico, e escatológico transcende as políticas puramente operacionais, pragmáticas, e seculares da política moderna. Indo além, nós pensamos que a propaganda por idéias é uma quimera e que as idéias vem da ação e não o inverso.

 

É por isso que abraçamos a dialética revolucionária de Carlo Pisacane, Enrico Malatesta, Carlo Cafiero, Paul Brousse, e José Antonio, que advogavam a propaganda do feito - o feito prenhe de idéias.

 

Nossa fé e dever militantes estão embrenhadas no ideal nacional-revolucionário que busca uma nova ordem política, aristocrática, hierárquica, antidemocrática, e anti-igualitária, situada dentro de um esquema continental europeu, geopoliticamente auto-centrado, desconectado da economia global, independente de nossa atual servidão atlanticista, e enraizado em um conceito eurocultural de civilização baseado nos valores do sangue e do solo.

 

Nós somos soldados porque nós vemos a história como um conflito dialético entre forças antagônicas, cujos elementos constituintes são povos e nações.

 

Pois conflito e luta, como a obra de Stéphane Lupasco e Max Planck demonstram, são inerentes a todo sistema.

 

A história é então uma batalha sem fim entre povos organizados ao redor de suas culturas e comunidades singulares, cada uma, conscientemente ou inconscientemente, motivada por um desejo de expandir e dominar.

 

Como soldados, nós lutamos pela restauração do princípio político no sentido nobre de politeia, imperium e auctoritas, e em função da anagogia de Evola, que é capaz de impregnar povos com aqueles valores metapolíticos, espirituais, e antimaterialistas específicos que garantem a adesão espontânea das massas.

 

Para nós, como para Carl Schmitt, a política é aquela arena privilegiada na qual o inimigo e o amigo são claramente designados.

 

É por isso que nós rejeitamos o conceito administrativo favorecido por políticos partidários, que promovem um estado sustentado por frenesis hedonistas - um estado cujos sujeitos são cretinizados e emasculados, manipulados pela sociedade de consumo e pela mídia - sujeitos desse modo a um empreendimento que organiza, dirige, e os trata com condescendência de modo a dissolver todo esforço revolucionário no solvente de uma falsa ordem hiperfestiva de entretenimento permanente.

 

Como soldados, nós defendemos o ideal de um estado "polemológico" encarregado, acima de tudo, com a defesa da sobrevivência e crescimento do poder europeu contra os ataques do hegemonismo americano, do islamismo radical, e da colonização extra-europeia de nossas terras ancestrais. Nesse sentido, nós rejeitamos categoricamente a concepção social-contratual da nação e buscamos restaurá-la como aquele corpo místico passado de uma geração a outra.

 

A nação para nós permanece um determinismo, uma necessidade, uma força, e uma vontade.

 

Nós somos soldados porque acreditamos que a atividade guerreira é o mais alto grau pelo qual as civilizações se tornam complexas pela qual a alavanca primordial da história eleva pátrias e cidades-estado.

 

A guerra nesse sentido heraclítico tem animado as relações internacionais desde o tempo de Tucídides, e do tempo de Maquiavel.

 

A guerra é a mais alta expressão do estado, como mostra Hegel; ela evoca sua maior consciência e sua maior eficácia.

 

O estado é e permanece acima de tudo uma máquina de guerra e todas as suas outras funções são subordinadas a isso, mesmo se a concepção burguesa e administrativa do estado democrático vigente conseguiu amarrar uma certa ordem a partir da delinquência reinante e sua prosperidade corruptora.

 

A autoridade internacional do estado é tão grande quanto sua habilidade de causar dano, e a história mostra que apenas aqueles ligado ao mos maiorum (lei ancestral) e a uma oposição conservadora contra as forças centrífugas conseguem alcançar a soberania da glória militar.

 

É assim que era na Roma de Augusto e Diocleciano, na Rússia de Pedro o Grande e Lênin, no Islâ de Mehmet Ali e Mustafá Kemal, na China de Huang-di e Mao Zedong, cada um dos quais conquistou vitórias domésticas e externas antes de ousar impôr a profunda transformação revolucionária na qual eles acreditavam.

 

Como soldados políticos, nós buscamos restaurar o ideal de uma vocação política que transcende o economismo contemporâneo e relegitimar o ideal daqueles homens excepcionais que articulam e incorporam uma ética de convicção, responsabilidade e dever.

 

Dentro das democracias burguesas nos governando e nos ofendendo, prospera uma classe de políticos profissionais e burocratas, de demagogos e oportunistas de todos os tipos, cujo uso mercenário de altos cargos políticos é motivado exclusivamente por razões de ganhos pessoais ou carreirismo.

 

Como soldados, nós realizaremos a varredura necessária que enviará estes impostores, estes traidores de nossos grande ideais políticos europeus, ao diabo. E nisso nós aspiramos a ver imperador e proletário, animados pela mesma fé revolucionária, marchando ombro a ombro: paradigma de um novo heroísmo.

 

Nós sustentamos que há uma contingência essencial entre o estado de exceção e a essência da soberania política, constituindo o ponto de desequilíbrio separando o direito público do fato político.

 

Nós defendemos um estado de exceção de modo a estabelecer o estado como a emanação de uma nova ordem, como um meio de terminar a anomia geral e a disordem reinante.

 

O sintagma "força da lei" se sustenta em uma longa tradição de direito romano e medieval constituído para eficácia e lealdade.

 

Nós gostaríamos de restaurar uma perspectiva operacional investida com o arquétipo da instituição jurídica romana - o iustitium - decretado sempre que o Senado Romano era informado de uma situação que poderia comprometer a República - um senatus consultum ultimum ditando medidas necessárias para garantir a segurança do estado.

 

Esse modo de lidar com estados de emergência remete ao antigo conceito de sol stitium: àquelas instâncias quando a lei era suspensa, como o Sol em seu solstício, (e onde a questão da soberania - a questão de quem porta a autoridade final - era diretamente colocada).

 

Acima de tudo, nós somos soldados políticos porque somos militantes.

 

Etmologicamente, "militantes" faz referência a distinção teológica entre a Igreja Militante e a Igreja Triunfante.

 

Uma analogia pode ser feita entre o militante político e o crente, cujas verdades informam todos os aspectos de seu ser, especialmente em sua essência e totalidade.

 

O militante luta, ataca, e paga com sua pessoa pelo triunfo de seus ideais.

 

O verbo "militar" vem do latim militari, que significa "soldados" (no plural), aos quais pertencia uma Igreja (um exército) que demandava um espírito de disciplina, auto-sacrifício, e abnegação.

 

É por isso que a militância está no coração de nossa luta política.

 

O militante ideal para nós deve ser um revolucionário, capaz de ligar dialeticamente seu conhecimento teórico e prático a uma compreensão global da sociedade na qual ele vive. Ele assim voluntariamente se submete a uma rotina disciplinada, realizando nela uma unidade de teoria e prática.

 

Como soldados políticos, nós não acreditamos que a evolução é automática ou que as revoluções são espontâneas, porque não há fatalidades na política ou na economia; a ordem liberal e capitalista dominante sabem muito bem como se regenerar e como superar contradições de modo a sobreviver.

 

As massas também não são apenas exploradas, elas são mentalmente manipuladas e alienadas.

 

Não há avanço revolucionário sem um processo de desenvolvimento, culminando em uma luta entre povos beligerantes.

 

Esses conflitos se manifestam em diversas formas, em lutas setoriais ou locais (ao nível da empresa, da região, etc.)

 

Elas podem parecer espontâneas mas elas estão ligadas a uma consciência em mutação e ao esforço de militantes que emergem de baixo conforme são dirigidos a partir de cima.

 

Conflitos de rua, não importa quão exemplares, não podem realizar uma mudança global do sistema, porque tais conflitos abordam apenas certos particulares quotidianos, produtos de um complexo social mais amplo, e não o próprio sistema.

 

Ao invés, eles precisam ser conectados e coordenados na forma de uma ação ideológica vanguardista global, capaz de levantar questões a partir de uma perspectiva que abranja todo o sistema. É necessário, então, evitar um elitismo extremamente rígido e um reformismo lúdico - de modo a garantir uma intermediação entre a luta global e a luta local, entre a ação política de vanguarda e o movimento de massa.

 

Como soldados políticos nós advogamos uma revolução que resulte não apenas em uma mera mudança estrutural na economia e no estado, mas também no espírito, uma mudança ontológica que levará à formação de um novo homem, livre do individualismo e egoísmo burgueses.

 

Essa "revolução total" afetará as relações e a ética que regulam o significado de nossa vida quotidiana.

 

A revolução que nós advogamos será um retorno às origens, um voltar atrás, que estabeleça uma ordem estatal autoritária, uma economia dirigida, e uma concepção exclusiva de identidade - uma revolução realizada em harmonia com a mentalidade singular dos povos europeus e em acordo com um princípio de homologia que expurga instituições e mentalidades de elementos alógenos dissolventes.

 

Como soldados políticos, nós estamos imbuídos de modo irredimível com uma concepção trágica da vida, sabendo, como Alfred Webber, que cada ordem superior acaba perpetuando um certo caos conforme aperfeiçoe seu poder.

 

Trágica porque nós estamos conscientes da grandeza imponderável do universo e do mundo e da imperfeição e finitude da natureza humana.

 

Em face dessa metafísica constante e paradoxal, nós defendemos um reencantamento do mundo e uma estetização do estado, como visualizado por românticos alemães como Goethe, Novalis, Schlegel, e Müller - conscientes, como nós somos, de que as idéias iluministas da revolução francesa, a revolução liberal de 1789, junto com o processo geral de secularização, desde então desencantou o mundo no sentido de Max Weber.

 

Nós queremos, como Novalis, que nossa revolução se torna uma totalidade orgânica, poética na qual o novo estado é a incorporação existencial e estética de nosso ideal de perfeição humana.

 

E uma vez que completemos esta tarefa, nós iremos a algum outro lugar, distante, sempre mais distante, lá próximo de nossos Deuses.

Generation Lovecraft: Die Flucht in den konservierten Raum

Generation Lovecraft: Die Flucht in den konservierten Raum

Geschrieben von: Dietrich Müller   

 Ex: http://www.blauenarzisse.de/

Meine Generation dankt langsam ab. Sie hat ihren Part gespielt, ihre Aufgabe an der Geschichte vollzogen. Hedonisten ohne Plan, die der großen Symbolzertrümmerung den nötigen Schub gaben, damit alles über die Kante fiel. Es war wohl nötig. Die Kinder der „Generation Kohl“, welche ihre Lektion aus der „geistig-moralischen Wende“ gezogen hatten. Das es nämlich keine Geistigkeit und keine Moral gebe und auch keine Wende, sondern nur einen sinnlosen Trott, dem der Mensch folgt. Wir waren eine materialistische, eine nihilistische Generation. Das Produkt und die Gegenwart waren uns alles, denn alles war im Überfluss vorhanden. Der Westen war Trumpf im drögen Spiel, es galt nur zu kollaborieren und zufrieden zu verwesen. Alles gemacht.

Heute ist nichts mehr im Überfluss vorhanden. Das Wort Freizeit, vorher noch Gebot der Stunde, hat einen schalen Klang bekommen, sogar einen leicht despektierlichen. Von meinen Bekannten und Freunden gleichen Alters sind ungefähr ein Viertel durch Suizid abgetreten, ein großer Teil hat immerhin hart dorthin gearbeitet.

Die Party ist vorbei!

Der Rest wurde eskapistisch oder verschwand in ominösen Berufen fernab der Gegenwart. Eine ganze Generation auf dem Rückzug, in Auflösung begriffen wie eine geschlagene Armee. Was wir der Jugend kurz hinter uns lassen, ist ein zweifelhaftes Geschenk: Das früher alles besser, alles leichter war. Das der beste Teil gelaufen sei und man nicht mehr so einfach durchs Leben komme. Das es nun mühevoll sei. Doch keine Party.

Ich stehe hier ein bisschen zwischen den Stühlen. Ich war nicht richtig meiner Generation angeschlossen, aber ich teilte wohl doch mehr Punkte mit ihr, als mir lieb ist. Freilich lehnte ich den Hedonismus ab. Meine Exzesse hatten immer etwas Verbissenes an sich, zeugten von einer durchaus masochistischen Neigung; sich mit Lust selbst zu zerstörten, weil man keinen Sinn kannte und keine Autorität akzeptierte.

Es war der Schrei, der ein Echo verlangte: Gewaltig, versessen und ohne ein Gefühl von Verantwortung. Pure gegenwärtige Energie. Ein Kraftakt gegen sich selbst und die verlornen Ordnungen. Ein Verlangen nach elementarer Antwort im Ausdruck absoluter Katastrophe. Schön und dumm – wie die Jugend eben ist. Ich vermisse sie nicht.

Die neuen Ordnungshüter kamen wie Phoenix aus der Asche

Heute ist aber eine Generation schneidiger Erneuerer angetreten und hebt sich – scheinbar wie Phoenix aus der Asche – aus den Ruinen einer ruinierten Gesellschaft. Den kaputten Kollektiven wird da mit einem trotzigen Ordnungswahn entgegengegangen, der jeder Beschreibung spottet. Man ist bereit einen Unterschied zu machen und betet einen Katalog an Forderungen und an Leistungswille hinunter: Der Mensch muss arbeiten, er muss glauben, er muss bereit sein sich zu fügen im Großen, in seinem Umfang aber die irre gewordene Welt zur Ordnung rufen.

Lauter selbst ernannte Kreuzritter, die den Katalog der Sekundärtugenden ebenso aufsagen können wie Stellen aus der Bibel. Man hißt alte Symbole: Das Kreuz Christi, die Fahne der BRD, die Fahne Preußens, man hat das „Buch der Bücher“ am Nachttisch und übt sich in früher Monogamie (so gut es geht...). Ausgezogen, aufgezogen den Weltenlauf gerade zu rücken. Konservative Revolution mit dem Ruf nach Autorität; dem Anspruch darauf?

Es regiert Lovecraft und keine Konservative Revolution: Über den negativen Pessimismus

Alles Mumpitz. Was regiert ist das „Prinzip Lovecraft“. Gestorben ist der seltsame, bittere Mann im Jahre 1937 mit gerade mal 46 Jahren. Gelebt hat er nicht, aber viel geschrieben. Eine Ehe geführt, welche wie ein peinlicher Zufall wirkt. Die Migrantenströme im New York der 20er-Jahre besehen und für rassischen Dreck befunden. Zurückgeflohen in die nicht vorhandene Idylle der Provinz, wo er sich vor dem Leben versteckte und von der Epoche abkapselte, die er so sehr hasste. Bis er endlich unter den qualvollen Schmerzen des in ihm wuchernden Krebses verstarb und damit seiner puritanischen Meinung scheinbar nachdrücklich Gewicht gab, dass der Körper, das Fleisch widerlich seien.

Was da nach den ruinösen Resten meiner Generation verglühend vergangenen Träumen hinterherjagt, ist keine Konservative Revolution, denn das bedürfte eines offensiven Gestus, eines aggressiven Optimismus mit Sendungsbewusstsein. Das ist nicht vorhanden, sondern der Wille zur erzwungenen Ordnung im beschränkten Kreis des eigenen Selbst. Es ist kein Aufstand, sondern ein Angstruf gegenüber einer Zeit, die man nicht versteht und nicht kontrollieren kann. Was man vertritt, ist Ruhe und Ordnung beim Tanz auf dem Vulkan. Pardon. Natürlich beim Gleichschritt hin zum Krater.

Die schöne Bundesrepublik, das Altersheim

Man verlangt sich selbst und andere zur Ordnung zu rufen, weil man das Chaos als unerträglich empfindet und die Zeit als Barbarei. Man huldigt der Xenonphobie. Europa als bedrängte Welt und Deutschland als Schlachtfeld zerfallender Kultur, die man quasi im Wohnzimmer konservieren muss.

Reformieren: Ja. Revoltieren: Nein. Das Alte soll bewahrt werden. So schön ist die BRD, wenn nur nicht so viele Idioten und Türken da wären. Sehnsucht nach dem „Eisernen Besen“ in der Stille der musealen Eigentumswohnung. Ruhe muss gewahrt werden durch die leise Reform abseits vom Leben. Sich selbst zügeln, damit man andere hoffentlich zügelt. Und hoffen, dass der große Umbruch an einem selbst noch einmal vorbeizieht. Denn eigentlich will man nur in Ruhe und Frieden leben. Ähnlich wie in einem Altersheim. Niemals aufgeschreckt durch Veränderung oder vitale Energieentladung.

Die konservierenden Konservativen sind in Wahrheit Nihilisten

Das ist kein Konservatismus, das ist ein konservierter Raum, bestückt mit Symbolen und Werten, die man Marken gleich übernommen hat. Es wird eine Scheinwelt konstruiert mittels derer man sich auf der Flucht vor dem Leben befindet. In diesen Raum hinein soll dann die Saat geworfen werden: Die Familienplanung als Keimzelle zur Rettung bedrohter Ordnung. Lächerlich. Versponnen. Feige.

Wie Lovecraft ist diese Generation nicht wirklich konservativ, sondern im Kern nihilistisch. Sie erkennt die Macht der Sinnlosigkeit absolut an und setzt dieser ein Gemälde entgegen, gegenständlich im Ausdruck. Bitte nicht berühren, nicht interpretieren. Bewegungslosigkeit als Kraftprobe. Jesus als Pantomime. Disziplin im Stilstand. Preußen als ewiger Haltbefehl – auf dem Friedhof.

Wie Lovecraft auch, so hat diese Generation etwas nekrophilies an sich. Ghule, die sich an der deutschen und europäischen Geschichte vergreifen und das faulige Fleisch von den alten Knochen ziehen. Schamlos. Peinlich. Neurotisch.

Scham vor der eigenen Lebensunfähigkeit

Deshalb reagieren sie auch aufgeschreckt und verlegen, wenn man ihre Grabschändungen ans Licht zerrt. Sie kümmert die Geschichte nicht, weil sie das Leben und die Menschen lieben, sondern weil sie nach Ausreden suchen, um sich an der Historie zu vergreifen um der Gegenwart zu entgehen. Selbst für einen rauschhaften Totentanz sind sie noch zu träge, darin den leichenfressenden Guhlen, die nicht umsonst die niedrigsten Kreaturen der Nacht darstellen, gleich. Kein deutscher Furor, kein römischer Stoizismus. Nicht Pracht, nicht Herrlichkeit von geistiger Aristokratie. Nur morbide Gärgase einer Bewegung auf mikroskopischer Ebene.

Die Generation Lovecraft. Lovecraft starb am Ende aus Scham ob der eigenen Lebensunfähigkeit.

USA: Nation ohne Kultur oder Vorbild für Europa? Eine andere Betrachtung

USA: Nation ohne Kultur oder Vorbild für Europa? Eine andere Betrachtung

 

Robin CLASSEN

Ex: http://www.blauenarzisse.de/

Als 2008 Barack Obamas Chancen auf das Präsidentenamt der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika immer größer wurden, hätte man fast glauben können, der tief verwurzelte Antiamerikanismus der Deutschen stünde für kurze Zeit still. Eine Ironie der Geschichte, dass der Hass auf Amerika, der seinen Ursprung im Ersten Weltkrieg hat und sich seitdem über alle politischen Systeme erstreckt hat, gerade durch einen Kandidaten zum Erliegen gebracht werden sollte, der selbst eine durch und durch europäische Agenda vertrat und nach seiner Wahl so unamerikanisch regieren sollte, wie kaum einer seiner Vorgänger.

Der europäische Stil Obamas

Heute ist die Obama-Begeisterung nicht nur in den USA, wo er sogar die historisch schlechten Beliebtheitswerte von Jimmy Carter unterbietet, sondern auch in Europa der Ernüchterung gewichen. Gerade auf dem Kontinent, wo man ihm gar nicht schnell genug den Friedensnobelpreis verleihen konnte, ist die Enttäuschung über seinen unmotivierten und kaum konturierten Regierungsstil groß.

In den USA ringt man hingegen darum, sein eigenes Gesicht in Zeiten von Unternehmensverstaatlichung, Zwangsgesundheitsversicherung und Massenarbeitslosigkeit nicht zu verlieren. Was ist europäisch und vor allem: Was ist amerikanisch? Der Konflikt über die eigene Identität ist der eigentliche Hintergrund der lediglich oberflächlichen Erscheinungen einer entwurzelt-linkseuropäischen „Occupy-Wall-Street“-Bewegung auf der einen, und einer überzeichneten erzchristlichen Tea-Party-Bewegung auf der anderen Seite.

Kann ein klassisches Einwanderungsland eine genuine Kultur hervorbringen?

In Europa vertritt man auch in Zeiten der Euro-Krise seit Jahrzehnten konsequent den Standpunkt, Amerikaner hätten gar keine Kultur, die es zu verlieren gebe. Als kulturloses, konsumsüchtiges, dumpf-patriotisches und kaum gebildetes Volk sieht der linksgrüne Herrenmensch von Oslo bis Gibraltar nach Übersee, rümpft die Nase über die „Völkermordzentrale“ oder empört sich über das Kriegsgefangenenlager Guantanamo.

Was ist dran an der Legende von der kulturlosen Nation? Kann eine Kultur auch in einer der klassischen Einwanderungsnationen entstehen, oder ist das von vornherein ein Widerspruch? Besonders übel stößt dem Durchschnittseuropäer in der Regel die politische Kultur in Amerika auf, die angeblich eine Manifestation der Bildungsschwäche der Yankees sei.

Doch sind die im kontinuierlichen Abschwung befindlichen europäischen Medien wirklich geistig von höherem Wert? Wo in Deutschland eine in grundlegenden Dingen gleichgeschaltete Medienlandschaft wartet, bieten die USA eine Fülle an politisch neutralen oder politisch klar definierten Informationskanälen an. Der konservative Amerikaner schaut Fox News, für den Liberalen gibt’s MSNBC oder CNN – in Deutschland herrscht Einheitsberichterstattung, kleine Wochenzeitungen wie die Junge Freiheit oder Internetmagazine à la BlaueNarzisse.de bieten für Personen rechts der Mitte die einzig lesbare Alternative.

Eine ganz andere Meinungs- und Politikkultur

Besonders positiv fällt in den USA auf, dass nicht nur über, sondern vor allem mit den Betroffenen gesprochen wird. Während der iranische Präsident Mahmud Ahmadinedschad sich zur besten Sendezeit einen Schlagabtausch mit Larry King liefert, langweilt sich der deutsche Fernsehkonsument bei Maischberger und Co. mit den immergleichen fünf bis sechs mehr oder minder linken Studiogästen herum, die selbstherrlich darüber debattieren, ob man nun die NPD verbieten sollte oder nicht. Auch ist in den US-Talkshows die Manipulation durch Kameraführung kaum gegeben, da entweder alle Diskutanten parallel geschaltet werden, oder aber lediglich ein oder zwei Kameras im Einsatz sind.

Diese Linie der unbeschränkten Meinungsfreiheit zieht sich wie ein roter Faden durch die amerikanische Gesellschaft. Kein Wunder, dass Deutschland im US-Menschenrechtsreport immer wieder Rüffel für die Verfolgung politisch Andersdenkender bis hin zum direkten Verweis auf Paragraph 130 StGB erfährt, wohingegen eine offene Diskussion über Geschichte und Politik in den USA eine Selbstverständlichkeit ist.

Durch und durch eigenverantwortlich

Bei den politischen Kandidaten haben die Amerikaner mehr zu sagen, als wir. Was die SPD ängstlich wieder aus ihren Konzeptpapieren strich, ist in den USA gang und gäbe: In sogenannten „Primaries“ und Vorwählen bestimmt der Wähler und nicht der Parteifunktionär die künftigen Präsidentschaftskandidaten. Die Lehre von der Eigenverantwortlichkeit, die auch im Sozialsystem konsequent durchgehalten wird, die das soziale Engagement der Besserverdienenden moralisch, nicht rechtlich eingefordert (was angesichts von „MediAid“ und „MediCare“ zur kostenlosen Gesundheitsversorgung nichtversicherter Mitbürger entgegen der einseitigen Darstellung in europäischen Medien glänzend funktionieren kann), ergänzt den Glauben an die echte Freiheit des Individuums und damit der Gesellschaft.

Im Bereich der demokratischen und politischen Kultur sind die Amerikaner den Europäern weit voraus und lassen die Verhältnisse in Deutschland regelrecht archaisch wirken. Doch auch das Kulturverständnis im eigentlichen Sinne lässt nicht die eklatanten Defizite erkennen, die europäische Meinungsmacher mantraartig heraufbeschwören.

Europa hat den Wettstreit in der Popkultur längst aufgegeben

Ob Rock, Pop, Techno, Jazz oder House: Nahezu alle europäischen Musikformen haben den offenen Wettstreit mit der amerikanischen Musikwelt verloren – der Widerstand ist längst gebrochen. Kaum eine Nation hat so viele verschiedene Formen der Musik entwickelt und verfeinert, wie die amerikanische, kaum eine hat damit so große internationale Erfolge gefeiert. Das Argument, hierbei gäbe es auch viel Schund, zieht nicht: Das war und ist in Europa nicht anders.

Auch das Filmwesen hat Amerika revolutioniert – von Donald Duck bis Avatar, immer marschieren die Amerikaner an der Spitze des Fortschritts, europäische Produktionen füllen nur noch Nischen. Selbst kulinarisch hat Amerika weitaus mehr zu bieten, als McDonalds und Budweiser. Die amerikanische Küche von West- bis Ostküste zu entdecken, ist ein Erlebnis für sich. Ebenso die vielen kleinen Brauereien, die teilweise längst vergessene Brautraditionen hochhalten und in manchen Regionen in ihrer Anzahl und Qualität fast bayerische Qualität erreichen, sind neben den „Großen“ wie Budweiser und Miller, die jeder gute Europäer für schlecht hält, aber noch nie vorurteilsfrei getrunken hat, sehr empfehlenswert.

USA mit Japan und Deutschland die höchste Patentrate

Bekanntlich haben die Amerikaner zudem im Bereich Wissenschaft und Technik etwas zu bieten. Legendäre Autos wie der Ford Mustang oder die noch heute auf Kuba zu bewundernden Technikwunder der 50er und 60er Jahre widerlegen die gängige Vorstellung, amerikanische Autos seien einfach und unzuverlässig. Der Umstand, dass die USA neben Japan und Deutschland die höchste Pro-Kopf-Rate bei den Patenten vorweisen kann, wird gerne mal vergessen. Eine Wissenschaft ohne jegliche Einschränkung oder Bevormundung macht es möglich.

Fakt ist, dass sich nicht die USA, sondern vor allem Europa um seine Kultur sorgen muss. Während in den klassischen Kulturnationen durch Masseneinwanderung und Kulturrelativismus angestammte Bräuche und Traditionen missachtet und aufgegeben werden, bewahrt der amerikanische Patriotismus die amerikanischen Grundfesten sicher.

In Amerika wird man auch in 50 Jahren noch Coca Cola trinken und Elvis hören

Vereinfacht gesagt: In den USA wird man auch in 50 Jahren noch Coca Cola trinken, Mustang fahren, Elvis hören und in die Kirche gehen. In Deutschland warten dann womöglich nur noch Döner, Kopftuch und Muezzin auf die autochthone Bevölkerung. Während in den USA heute schon – bei einem verschwindend geringen Anteil von Muslimen – Kampagnen anlaufen, um ein verfassungsrechtlich verankertes Sharia-Verbot zu erreichen, interessiert es in Deutschland niemanden, dass dieses Rechtssystem in Gebieten mit weit über 50 Prozent Ausländeranteil schon längst angewandt wird.

Schuld am Niedergang der ehemaligen Kulturnationen in Europa tragen also nicht die USA und noch nicht mal unbedingt die Masseneinwanderung, sondern vor allem die konsequente Verweigerung, seinen eigenen kulturellen Standpunkt zu betonen und zu verteidigen. Dahingehend können wir uns ruhig eine Scheibe vom „großen Bruder“ abschneiden.

Europe, plus que jamais notre destin

Europe, plus que jamais notre destin

par Jacques GEORGES

 

Tout va pour le mieux en notre beau pays : nous naviguons vers un P.I.B. immobile, quatre millions de chômeurs, une dette de 100 % du P.I.B., un déficit extérieur de soixante-dix milliards d’euros et une dépense sociale incontrôlable qui dépasse déjà le tiers du P.I.B. Nos usines fondent depuis des décennies comme neige au Soleil, affaiblissant structurellement notre appareil productif. Les trains de banlieue et les écoles témoignent d’une substitution de population très avancée et d’une identité en perdition. La pauvreté progresse, et la classe moyenne craint pour son avenir. Nous vivons une crise existentielle dans un monde dangereux. On songe irrésistiblement au scénario de la convergence des catastrophes imaginé il y a plus de dix ans par le visionnaire Guillaume Faye.

 

La crise frappant l’Europe aujourd’hui ressemble beaucoup à celle de 2008, dite des subprimes. Elle en partage les causes profondes, financières, économiques, sociales, commerciales, industrielles, politiques et morales, qui sont pour l’essentiel communes à tout le monde occidental. Elle en partage également la nature, puisque ce sont toutes deux des crises de l’endettement. Mais celle-ci est plus grave pour nous Européens pour trois raisons :

 

* L’origine de la crise vient cette fois-ci de chez nous. Il n’est plus guère possible de chercher des coupables ailleurs. Il s’agit d’une crise de la dette publique de certains pays d’Europe, suite à trente années de laxisme budgétaire, qui n’est que le révélateur d’une pente politique et morale profonde et ancienne.

 

* Les munitions tirées pour contrer les effets de la première crise sont en large partie tirées et ne sont pas renouvelables. Les États se sont endettés pour lancer des plans de relance peu efficaces qui apparaissent surtout comme des répits coûteux aggravant le mal en profondeur. Les Banques centrales tendent à se transformer en structures de défaisance et planches à billets. Bref, on a combattu l’excès d’endettement par un surcroît d’endettement. Les manœuvres dilatoires sont de moins en moins de mise. Il va falloir tailler dans le vif des dépenses publiques de l’État, des collectivités territoriales, et plus encore des budgets sociaux. C’est une volte-face radicale vis-à-vis de la politique menée par tous bords confondus depuis soixante ans, et toujours immensément populaire.

 

* La crise partage l’Europe en deux : l’Europe du Nord (Allemagne, Pays Bas, Belgique, Autriche, Finlande, Slovaquie, Slovénie) à la gestion budgétaire rigoureuse, à l’endettement public contenu et au commerce extérieur équilibré ou excédentaire, et l’Europe du Sud (France, Espagne, Italie, Portugal Grèce, Irlande) combinant forts déficits publics, endettement dépassant 60 % du P.I.B., et déficit commercial extérieur.

 

La question qui se pose est celle de la pérennité de la zone euro, de son rôle dans l’Europe communautaire, et plus largement de l’avenir de la construction européenne. La réponse engagera notre destin de peuple français et européen pour des décennies. En gros, trois voies sont ouvertes :

 

1.Faut-il, comme le préconisent les souverainistes, sortir de l’euro ? jeter le bébé européen avec l’eau du bain ? Laisser les endettés gérer seuls et individuellement leurs problèmes de déficit budgétaire, de déficit commercial et d’endettement ? Réduire l’Europe à une alliance interétatique et nous redonner des marges de manœuvre nationales ? Retrouver notre souveraineté monétaire ?

 

2.Faut-il accepter, voire promouvoir une scission en deux de la zone euro, la France prenant la tête d’une zone Sud incluant les « mauvais » élèves de la classe européenne ?

 

3.Faut-il au contraire retourner la force de l’adversaire à notre profit, jouer à fond la solidarité européenne dans une optique de très long terme et de destin continental, et faire faire à l’Europe le bond fédéral qu’elle aurait dû faire il y a une décennie pour retrouver le fil de sa très longue histoire ?

 

Des hommes de droite sincères et de qualité se trouvent parmi les partisans des trois réponses. Le choix est complexe et pas entièrement rationnel. Pour ma part, je n’ai aucune tentation pour la solution 1. Je suis esthétiquement à fond pour la solution 3. Mais je me rallierais si besoin était et par réalisme à la solution 2, à condition qu’elle soit conduite comme une étape tactique vers la solution 3.

 

Voici en résumé mes raisons :

 

1.Le repli souverainiste me paraît extrêmement risqué sur tous les plans. Sur le plan économique, il me paraît synonyme de chacun pour soi, de monétisation de la dette, de forte régression du P.I.B., de vaste paupérisation, d’inflation et donc de ruine de pans entiers de la société, bref de chambardements aux conséquences incalculables. Plus encore, ce choix me paraît petit et médiocre sur le plan moral. Ce serait en quelque sorte le parachèvement de l’œuvre de destruction de notre génération, celle de 68, celle qui a laissé filer la démographie, a développé ou laissé se développer l’immigration, a bien vécu à crédit, a refilé la facture aux générations suivantes, et viendrait in fine saborder sa seule œuvre historique et de long terme, l’unité européenne. Un désastre et un vide sidéral venant clôturer soixante ans de laxisme, d’hypocrisie, de dictature des bons sentiments, de trahison et d’égoïsme forcené.

 

2.La scission en deux de la zone euro est une possibilité techniquement réalisable et non sans avantages. Elle est réaliste et, bien menée, permet à terme d’une décennie de restructurer nos finances et de reconstruire une base industrielle, tout en gardant un esprit et un objectif européens. Une étude Natixis de septembre 2011 intitulée « Que se passerait-il si l’euro se coupait en deux ? » en détaille le contenu technique et les conséquences positives et négatives. Sa conclusion est la suivante : « au total, à court terme, la séparation en deux de l’euro est très coûteuse pour tous les pays; à moyen terme, elle est coûteuse pour les pays du Nord et favorable pour les pays du Sud ». Le risque de cette solution est celui de la dynamique ainsi créée : l’éclatement de la zone euro ne serait-elle pas alors la première étape de l’éclatement de l’Europe institutionnelle, du détricotage des traités, de la sortie de l’Histoire, bref du scénario 1 ci-dessus ? Si cette solution « raisonnable » devait avoir lieu, il faudrait la gérer avec force et détermination comme une étape tactiquement nécessaire vers le scénario 3 ci-dessous.

 

3.La solution « héroïque » de la solidarité européenne consiste à jouer à fond la carte de la solidarité à travers notamment le F.E.S.F. (Fonds européen de stabilité financière) et l’émission d’euro-obligations, accompagnés bien sûr d’un véritable contrôle budgétaire européen et d’une mise sous tutelle financière et budgétaire temporaire, rigoureuse et acceptée par référendum, des pays aidés. La facture est certes potentiellement lourde (la seule dette publique grecque approche le budget français de 2011), mais doit être relativisée, si l’on prend en compte le montant des engagements des États de l’Union européenne envers leur système financier depuis 2008, de l’ordre de 4 600 milliards d’euros, plus de deux fois le P.I.B. français. In fine, faisons le pari qu’il n’en coûtera pas plus cher que de soutenir à bout de bras le tonneau des Danaïdes des confettis de l’Empire encore sous notre dérisoire « souveraineté », et infiniment moins cher que de financer une immigration sans limite. Cette solution est celle d’une Europe qui ne marchande pas son destin, celle qui a la vision d’un Empire romain du XXIe siècle et de l’Europe-puissance de la Méditerranée à la Baltique et de l’Océan Atlantique aux frontières de la Russie, voire un jour à Vladivostok. C’est l’Europe de l’Empire, soit, en termes contemporains et juridiques, de la Fédération Européenne. Prenons aujourd’hui le chemin d’une grande Patrie qui produise ses effets de puissance dans cent ans.

 

Jacques Georges

 

D’abord mis en ligne sur Novopress, le 26 octobre 2011.

 

---

 

Article printed from Europe Maxima: http://www.europemaxima.com

 

URL to article: http://www.europemaxima.com/?p=2240

The Unforeseen, the Chinese, & the Favorable Moment

The Unforeseen, the Chinese, & the Favorable Moment

By Dominique Venner

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

Translated by Greg Johnson

Current events sometimes offer striking examples of the unforeseen. Last spring, we were all shocked by images of one of the great and powerful looking despondent, his wrists shackled, having suddenly fallen from his perch of impunity. By means of the media, spectators felt that they were following much more than a single news event. In a second, one of the princes of our age, by the unforeseen revelation of a sordid escapade, was brought down to earth, and with him the hopes of an arrogant coterie.

We could conclude from this that the unexpected is king, not only in petty politics, but also in history. Suddenly, human weakness triumphed over power. But on other occasions, the acting power can find instruments to bring down an obstacle condensed in a person, as the colored revolutions of our time show. We know that history is the realm of the unexpected.

War offers brutal demonstrations. It is surprising enough that in Europe a serious reflection on the subject had to wait until shortly after the Napoleonic adventure. Then Clausewitz reported that Europe had failed to ponder war. Paradoxically, he said, Europe failed insofar as she always wanted to predict and model war. She wanted to understand it in reference to a “model” that one never encounters in reality. The distinctive mark of war, he says, it is that its reality never coincides with the “model.” This is often said of the French Army, but it also goes for the others. In 1914, France prepared for the war of 1870, and in 1940, for that of 1914. . . . The Americans have not done differently. In Iraq and in Afghanistan, they wished to avoid the errors of Vietnam, but things turned out differently.

Ultimately, one awaits a great political or military strategist, if not a “stroke of genius” which consists in leaving aside all models, to seize the “decisive factors” in flight, to trust his sense of smell and his perspicacity, which the Ancients called metis, of which Ulysses, in the Odyssey is the very incarnation.

Unlike Europeans, the ancient Chinese had developed a true understanding of war at the time of the Warring States in the 5th and 4th centuries before our era. China was then divided into rival principalities that made continual war in order to restore, to their advantage, the unity of the Empire. At this point in time, the treatises of Sun Tzu and various others were written, of which one finds no equivalent in Europe, aside from the patience and wiles of Ulysses revealed in the Odyssey.

Ulysses did not model in advance a plan of survival or victory. But, with an innate talent, he observed situations, saw how they evolved and could be turned to his profit, then reacted like lightning (to blind the Cyclops Polyphemus or to neutralize the sorceress Circe), but sometimes also arming himself with patience (“patience, my heart”), during his long captivity with Calypso or in preparing his revenge after his return to Ithaca.

To detect the “decisive” factors means being able to await the occasion, the turn of “fortune.” As in bridge or poker, there are times when it is necessary to “pass” for lack of “play.” In the Odyssey, this strategic concept is constantly present. Ulysses is unfailingly patient in awaiting the favorable moment. Then, he strikes like lightning (the liquidation of the “suitors”).

But the very notion of metis (cunning, wile) disappeared from Greek thought and even from the language in the classical era with the rise of philosophical reasoning (Plato). The notion of the Platonic essences, by disqualifying the empirical method in favor of abstract construction, founded an enduring era of modeling. This became the strength but also the weakness of Europe.

What to do when “fortune” is concealed, when the “decisive” factor is absent? One can, of course, in a very European way, hurl oneself into futile but heroic action. Indeed, there are moments when one must know when to withdraw oneself and wait for the situation to change. And it always changes. It was, for example, a political strategy used by De Gaulle. During his “crossing of the desert,” for lack of “play” in the Chinese sense of the word, he wrote his War Memoirs. It was a way of waiting and preparing for the future.

Source: http://www.dominiquevenner.fr/#/edito-nrh-56-imprevu/3897130 ^[2]

 

---

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

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/11/the-unforeseen-the-chinese-and-the-favorable-moment/

Who's a Fascist?

 

Who's a Fascist?

by Paul Gottfried

Ex: http://www.lewrockwell.com/

Having participated this weekend in an Internet discussion courtesy of Paul Craig Roberts, it seems to me that "fascist" is bandied about on the right in the same careless way as one finds on the left. Note that the anti—New Deal American Right in the thirties fell over themselves denouncing FDR and his minions as American Mussolinians. The Old Right associated the fascists with a corporatist economy, welfare programs, and military rearmament, all of which they despised. The fact that the New Republic and other American leftist organs then raved about the virtues of Latin fascism and often considered it soft Communism may have contributed to the illusion that big-government boosters at home were fascists in a state of denial. Recently the Old Right has revived the same charge of fascism and hurled it at the neoconservatives. Because neocons are imperialists, militarists, and enthusiasts for centralized government (all of which they admittedly are), they must also be fascists. After all, didn't Mussolini teach his nation to do everything for the state and nothing against it? How is this different from Bill Kristol's view that to be an American patriot one must love the American state?

While Kristol's "state" does not differ from Mussolini's fascist creation by being truly lovable (God knows it is not!), it may be possible to point out certain palpable differences between the two forms of state worship. Neoconservatives and fascists do not share the same historical context; nor are they reacting against the same enemies. Fascism was an interwar phenomenon and one bound up with a reaction against the revolutionary Left in Italy, Spain, Austria, and other European countries. It was also profoundly reactionary, in the sense that it valued certain classical conservative principles, like hierarchy, patriarchy and the restoration of antiquity, but believed it was only possible to bring about what it wanted through a constructivist project. Therefore Mussolini and his counterparts created a neoclassical version of a pre-bourgeois society, which was cobbled together with Roman republican and Spartan models. Fascists also stressed the organic unity of the nation, something that points to the semantic problem incurred by critics of the neoconservatives who wish to see them as "multicultural" fascists. Although not all fascists were racialists (the German case was the lunatic exception), most of them were avowed anti-internationalists and would not have approved of anything as destabilizing as immigration expansion. In the 1930s the Italian fascist government even tried to make sure that government workers would marry ethnic Italians.

Peter Brimelow was correct to observe in last weekend's Internet chat that neoconservatives believe not in fascism but in "Goldbergism" when they push for open borders and an aggressive foreign policy in the name of human rights. Jonah Goldberg, one of their major political theorists, has explained on NROnline that European conservatives like Joseph de Maistre were really on the left, seeing that they rejected "human rights," which is the essence of a conservative belief system. No matter how silly Goldberg's interpretation may seem, what he enunciates is the current neoconservative dogma that justifies imperial expansion. And it is hard to grasp anything fascist about Goldberg's redefinition of conservatism. Goldberg arrives at his view from reading the English social democratic historian Isaiah Berlin, who plays up the derivation of fascist thinking from Maistre's attack on the universalism and abstract ideals of the French Revolution. Although Berlin overstates this connection, he is nonetheless justified in perceiving the fascists as being connected to European counterrevolutionary traditions. The neoconservatives are not only not connected in any way to such traditions but are clearly on the side of what Michael Ledeen calls the "creative destruction" of the social and cultural traditions of other peoples.

Without judging the merits of this project, it seems that those who pursue it are not definable as fascists. They may in fact be far more destructive but are not a subgenus of interwar fascists who have landed up in our society. Depicting them as such depends on an underdetermined definition that serves strictly polemical ends. Just because all modern Western industrial states have large administrations that socialize the family and feature public education does not make them "fascist." Fascists took advantage of a political paradigm they shared with non-fascist modern governments, in order to achieve in some cases counterrevolutionary ends. But they did not initiate the welfare state, which flourished without the fascists, on the Euro-American left. Nor were the fascists unique in having military dictators and wars of expansion. Both Tom Woods's The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History and Tom DiLorenzo's study of the Great Emancipator as state-builder provide illustrations of Lincoln's authoritarian manner that show bad European habits could crop up here as well. But that happened generations before there was a fascist movement.

It is not accurate to refer to Abraham Lincoln as a "fascist," because he applied military force to quell the Southern secession and ruled as a military dictator. Political leaders can do things that are open to condemnation without being fascists. It would also not be irrelevant to cite the case of one of Lincoln's precursors, Oliver Cromwell, who also slaughtered secessionists, to reunite the United Kingdom, and whom the young Lincoln saw as someone he wished to emulate. Yet curiously the two men, long viewed as being alike in their nationalist fervor, connection to an Anglo-Saxon Protestant culture, and role as social modernizers, have contributed to very different cults. After being identified for centuries with republicanism and Protestant sectarians, Cromwell became a hero for rightwing English nationalists, including the fascist followers of Sir Oswald Mosley in the late thirties. Lincoln, by contrast, has become a god figure for the Left, from the communist Abraham Lincoln Brigade fighting in the Spanish Civil War down to the civil rights movement and his current apotheosis, as the incarnation of global democratic ideals. My friend Tom Di Lorenzo has made this last point clear by debating Lincoln-admirers, who invariably bring with them leftist agendas. But neither Cromwell nor Lincoln produced the twentieth-century cults that sprang up around their putative achievements. The Irish are certainly entitled to dislike Cromwell and his son-in-law for devastating their land during the English Civil War and like Paul Craig Roberts, I cannot find any sane reason for a Southerner whose family suffered during Lincoln's invasion of the South to revere this brutal nationalist. But neither figure belonged to the twentieth century or to its ideological wars; and both have been co-opted to symbolize battles that are no longer theirs. Like Cromwell, Lincoln was neither a fascist nor a neocon.

December 2, 2004

Paul Gottfried [send him mail] is Horace Raffensperger Professor of Humanities at Elizabethtown College and author of, most recently, Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt.

Copyright © 2004 LewRockwell.com

5 to 9 Conservatism

5 to 9 Conservatism

By Greg Johnson

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

Years ago, the friend who had the most influence on my awakening on race and the Jewish question offered a quite clarifying distinction between “9 to 5” and “5 to 9” conservatism.

The 9 to 5 conservatives take their name from the standard 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. work day. These conservatives focus on the economic realm. They wish to preserve economic freedom from government interference. They also focus on cutting taxes and resisting new taxes, so that productive people can keep more of the fruits of their labor. 9 to 5 conservatism, in short, is just economic liberalism. Its most ideologically pure advocates in America today are libertarians and the Tea Party.

5 to 9 conservatives take their name from the rest of the day. They focus on preserving the non-economic realms of life: the family, civil society, religion, culture, history, the environment, etc.

Many 5 to 9 conservatives are actually political liberals. For instance, environmentalists, historical preservationists, and promoters of walkable communities, mixed-used development, human-scale architecture, and public spaces are all objectively conservatives of the 5 to 9 variety (regardless of any genuinely liberal positions they might also hold). But politically they tend to be left-of-center and at odds with the commercial interests championed by 9 to 5 conservatives.

There is good reason why the two kinds of conservatives are at loggerheads. Unlimited economic freedom tends to corrode the other realms of society. The best way to appreciate this is to consider working hours. In America today, we do not have a 9 to 5 economy. We have a 24/7 economy.

As a bohemian intellectual, I can’t complain about this. I find it very convenient to be able to go out at 4:00 am to buy a carton of milk from a meth-zombie. Americans living in Germany are shocked that most stores are closed by 6:00 pm and are not open at all on weekends. It forces them to actually plan ahead, one of the many faculties that American life has allowed to grow slack.

The reason why Germany and other countries regulate the hours of businesses is not because they are “socialists” or “liberals.” It is because they are 5 to 9 conservatives. They realize that shop clerks have friends and families and communities. Work days are regulated so that more people can spend the 5 to 9 hours, and weekends, with their families and friends. Yes, such laws inconvenience us insofar as we are consumers. But we are more than consumers. We have families, friends, communities. Or we should have them.

Why does the government have to get involved? Say that there are no laws regulating the hours of retail establishments. If one firm decides they will extend their evening hours to increase their market share, others will be pressured to follow. Eventually, through the magic of the marketplace, we will compete our way into a 24/7 economy, in which there will be entire industries where the entry level jobs often taken by young people who have children (or should have them) are on aptly-named “graveyard” shifts.

From a social point of view, this is a profoundly destructive development. And from an economic point of view, it is destructive too, since the same amount of milk is sold in a 24 hour day as would be sold in a 10 hour day, yet all are forced to keep the lights on and the buildings manned 24/7 lest they lose their market share.

F. Roger Devlin uses an excellent analogy ^[2] to illustrate the nature of destructive competition. Imagine you are seated at a sports event. It might be to your advantage to stand up to see an exciting play. But if one person stands, then others will be forced to stand as well. Eventually, everyone will be standing, so the advantage to any individual of standing will be erased. Everyone will have just as good a view of the game as when they started, but they will all be less comfortable . . . because they are standing. The only way to stop this sort of destructive competition is for people in authority to legislate and enforce rules against it. The same goes for the economic realm.

The idea of 5 to 9 conservatism is useful to White Nationalists, because we are 5 to 9 conservatives ourselves. After all, we are concerned to preserve our race, and we are willing to do battle with the 9 to 5 conservatives who are destroying us by importing non-white labor to take white jobs, or exporting white jobs to non-white countries.

The distinction between 5 to 9 and 9 to 5 conservatism is also helpful for envisioning new political alliances—and breaking up existing ones. In America today, the major political parties are coalitions, both of which include significant numbers of 5 to 9 conservatives.

Among Republicans, the 5 to 9 conservatives tend to be religious conservatives and traditionalists. Among Democrats, the 5 to 9 conservatives tend to be environmentalists, consumer advocates, historical preservationists, new urbanists, and the like.

In both parties, the 5 to 9 conservatives tend to be overwhelmingly white. Furthermore, in both parties, 5 to 9 conservatives are exploited by party leaders for their votes. Finally, in the end, 5 to 9 conservative interests are vetoed by the leaders of the major parties, because their primary focus is the promotion of socially corrosive ideologies: economic liberalism for the Republicans, social liberalism for the Democrats. It would be enormously subversive/productive if 5 to 9 conservatives could free themselves from the corrosive ideology of liberalism, whether of the left or the right.

It would be interesting to bring together 5 to 9 conservatives from across the political spectrum to begin a dialogue. I think they would discover that they have a lot more in common than they think. It is a conversation in which we White Nationalists need to take part. We need to be there to help bring their implicit whiteness to full consciousness. We must show them that their values are the products of homogeneous white communities and cannot be preserved without them. We need to explain to them that the leaders of the major parties are exploiting and betraying them. And we cannot neglect to explain to them why both parties pursue Jewish interests at the expense of white interests.

It is also important to help them understand that before the emergence of the modern aberrations of economic and political liberalism, the mainstream of Western political thought from Aristotle through the American Founders recognized that a free society requires private property broadly distributed and stably possessed, and that to achieve this end, a certain amount of economic regulation is necessary.

In the end, White Nationalists are more than mere conservatives, for although a lot of what we want can be captured by the idea of 5 to 9 conservatism, it is not enough. From my Nietzschean/Spenglerian point of view, mere conservatism is not really an alternative to decadence. Instead, it is a form of decadence, for a healthy organism does not merely preserve or repeat the past, but carries it forward and transforms it creatively. But politically speaking, conservatism comes first, since our race needs to survive before we can worry about the luxury of self-perfection.

 

---

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

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/10/5-to-9-conservatism/

L'Occident, un crime contre l'imaginaire européen

L'OCCIDENT, UN CRIME CONTRE L'IMAGINAIRE EUROPEEN

Jure Georges Vujic, un écrivain „contre-bandier“ d'idées

 

A propos du livre „Un Ailleurs européen -Hestia sur les rivages de Brooklyn“

Avatar Editions, mai 2011

 

„La tradition est inversée. L’Europe ne raconte plus l’Occident. C’est l’Occident qui comte l’Europe. La marche en avant des proto-iraniens, peuples de cavaliers vers leur foyer « européen », la « hache barbare » du peuple des demi-dieux hyperboréens, Alexandre, Charlemagne, Hoffenstaufen, Charles Quint, Napoléon ne font plus rêver. L’Occident hyperréel sublimé, le mirage du « standing », du bonheur à la carte est le songe éveillé et névrotique du quart-monde favellisé, d’un imaginaire tiers-mondiste « bolly-woodisé ». Il n’y a plus de grand métarécit européen faute de diégèse authentiquemment européenne. La « mimesis vidéosphérique » occidentale dévoile, déshabille, montre et remontre dans l’excès de transparence. Loin des rivages de l’Hellade, Hestia s’est trouvé un nouveau foyer sur les bords de Brooklyn, aussi banal et anonyme que les milliers d’« excréments existentiels » qui jonchent les rivages de Long Island.“

 

C'est sur ce constat pessimiste que l'on pourrait très bien résumer le dernier livre de Maitre Jure Georges Vujic, (écrivain franco-croate),   intitulé  „ Un Ailleurs européen-Hestia sur les rivages de Brooklyn ». Ce livre qui sort aux éditions Avatar, pourrait très bien être autobiographique, l'auteur y mêlant avec un langage á la fois lapidaire, incisif et au style hermétique, á la fois des éléments mémorialistes et anthologiques, mais aussi analytiques qui rendent très bien compte de l'état de la crise á la fois politique , spirituelle  et identitaire que traverse aujourd'hui l'Europe. Au fil d'une méditation et d'une réflexion personnelle que l'auteur qualifie de „contrebandière“ „transversale“ et „asymétrique „ Vujic se livre á un défrichage intellectuel des contradictions et de maux internes qui accablent l'Europe contemporaine. Dans le cadre de cette réflexion, il l'oppose l'idée  d’Europe, éminemment spirituelle, aristocratique, organique et plurielle á l'occidentisme contemporain mercantile, néolibéral, techniciste americanocentré contemporain. Selon lui : « L’Europe d’après 1945 et l’Europe de nos jours ne sont guère différentes et présentent des similitudes flagrantes ou plutôt portent les mêmes stigmates « décadentistes » de la « fin d’un monde », . Depuis la guerre froide jusqu’au monde unipolaire américanocentré de nos jours, l’Europe semble inéluctablement engagée dans une lente agonie á la fois « festives «  et « hyper-réelle » caractérisée par un climat généralisé de déliquescence, la corruption des « idées » et mœurs, l’anomie généralisée, l’absence de « sens et de principes métaphysiques », l’irresponsabilité et la pusillanimité des démocraties parlementaires, l’imposture libérale et le déclin de la notion de souveraineté. La blessure et l’humiliation infligées à l’Europe au lendemain de 1945 ne cessèrent de grandir et d’affecter les organismes vivants que sont les peuples européens : d’est en ouest les mêmes maux accablent l’Europe d’hier comme celle d’aujourd’hui, et je persiste à croire que les mêmes remèdes restent indispensables pour une renaissance authentiquement européenne. »

Il convient de reconnaitre á l’auteur le mérite  et l’audace de vouloir á travers cette démonstration littéraire concilier les thèses et les pensées d’écrivains et penseurs de la « droite révolutionnaire » ou de la « tradition »« » tels que Jünger, Évola, Bardèche, Salomon, avec des penseurs contemporains « post-structuralistes » et « dé-constructivistes » classés à gauche, tels que Derrida, Deleuze, Guattari, Cacciari, Foucault ou Baudrillard. Vujic prône une reconquête de cet esprit européen originel mais sans tomber dans le carcan  d’un discours passéiste et néoromantique antimoderniste. »Remonter à l’essence, à la source spirituelle de la pensée européenne, c’est reconnaître que dans sa solidarité comme dans sa diversité. Cette Europe « plurielle » et « buissonnière » apparaissait ainsi dès le XIXe siècle aux plus hauts et sages de nos penseurs à un Goethe, un Renan. Michelet, Proudhon, Quinet, fils de 1789 et militants de la génération de 1848, traitaient déjà des thèmes socialistes et nationaux : respect de la force, critique de la démocratie, culte du travail et de la patrie, contre-religion. La génération de 14 et la « camaraderie » de 1945 feront entendre la même mélodie martiale : reconquête de la virilité, fidélité à la fraternité des tranchées, exaltation de l’héroïsme guerrier ; Péguy, E. von Salomon, Moeller Van den Bruck, E. Jünger, Georges Sorel apportaient un bain de jouvence révolutionnaire à la pensée nationale. La pensée de Vujic est manifestement « oecuménique «  et reflète bien son idiosyncrasie personnelle,  qui tente dedépasser la simple dimension réactive d’une pensée hétéroclite et à la fois cohérente, pour en extraire les matrices constantes et stables qui imprègnent les diverses chapelles de pensées dites de « droite » ou de « gauche », le plus souvent dispersées voire rivales.

En abordant la question du devenir de l’Europe, l’auteur rend compte des mutations du „monde européen“ contemporain dans le sens symbolique, essentialiste et métaphysique, asphyxié sous l’empire d'un „occidentalo-centrisme“ mécaniciste qui l'a indéniablement absorbé et consumé, est qui du reste constitue son degré zéro de la puissance symbolique.  Il constate  que l'Europe actuelle  s'est mise aux couleurs de l’Occident qui, dans ses excès, dans son absurdité, produit une fatale réversion pour se transformer en son exact contraire : un extrême-occident impérialiste et mortiphère. Au de la de toute pensée passéiste , a l’opposé des formules réactionnaires et restauratrices, Vujic fait preuve d’une extrême lucidité en appelant á  constater le monde en soi, l’Europe contemporaine « en soi »  c'est-à-dire par ce qu'elle nous offre de plus concret. Cette approche qui nous rappelle l’attitude d’un Jünger ( réalisme tragique), le gai savoir d’un Nietzche et « l’être au monde » d’un  Merleau-Ponty, conduit l’auteur á la réflexion su « l’ailleurs européen » le miroir- inversion, la version spéculaire d’une Europe « kidnappée » par l’occidentisme contemporain. » Défendre le passé d'une Europe „originelle“, intact et mythique consisterait en une opération tautologique qui tendrait á s'opposer á son propre devenir et de défendre son propre „simulacre“, car il faut partir du simple constant que l'esprit prométhéen européen a bel et bien depuis l'antiquité enfanté l'occidentisme hypermoderne actuelle. L'Europe d'hier s'est irrmédiablement  retournée en son contraire, l'Occident contemporain. » C’est ce qui l fait dire a l’auteur que l’Europe actuelle est en proie « au jeu de simulacres ». « La « simulacr-isation » de l’Europe sous forme de produits consuméristes, d’images d’épinal, d’archétypes culturels, de stéréotypes touristiques ne fait que simuler d'autres simulacres sois-disants « évènementiels » « rétrospectifs » ou « ostensibles » . Toute méta-narration incantatoire, tout grand-récit, toute notion de « grande politique »  á la fois « vectorielle » et « vertêbrante », d'une œuvre originale, d'un événement authentique, d'une réalité première a disparu, pour ne plus laisser la place qu'au jeu des simulacres ». En ceci,  Vujic  rejoint l'analyse nietzschéenne de la vérité comme voile, et de la pudeur de la féminité, ensemble de voiles qui ne font que voiler d'autres voiles. Ôtez tous les voiles, et il ne reste plus rien. ». Pour lui l’occident contemporain est «  avant tout un paysage sociétal, de « landscape » virtuel. Souffrant d’un vide identitaire et d’une absence de paternité, L'Europe s'est peu á peu transformer en super-usine occidentale qui produit á l’excès une idéologie économiciste de marché, des valeurs exclusivement consuméristes , une prolifération sans frein de développement technologique, de progrès infini, et s'est fait le porte drapeau d’une morale totalitaire planétaire, qui 'est donnée pour but de réaliser le rêve utopique d'une „unite intégrale“ mondiale.

La structure du livre quasi-photographique pourrait très bien être celle d’un scénario de Godart alors que le séquençage rappelle les actes du théâtre antique- La méprise, la Forclusion, ect… au nombreuses  références de la mythologie grecque. Le style de l’auteur est á la fois baroque et dépouillé, et témoigne d’une curieuse « sérendipité » comme l’aime  l’appeler l’auteur qui nous plonge dans un récit dystopique,  métapolitique et philosophique qui n’en finit pas d’interroger au gré des chapitres.

Le parcours narratif de l’auteur, est hanté par la présence du personnage parabolique et métaphorique d’Hestia, une sorte de déesse postmoderne du foyer et de l’identité, mi-démon mi-ange, qui au gré du cheminement réflexif de l’auteur, rôde telle une vagabond en quête de sens sur les rivages de Brooklyn, comme leitmotiv d’un Occident désoeuvré, spirituellement ravagé et vidé, un peu comme dans un film noir,  mêlant les accents d’un Kerouac  ou d’un Céline.

„Que faire ? Hestia devra-t-elle chevaucher ce nouveau paysage extrême-occidental, c’est-à-dire faire en sorte que ce paysage devienne le centre de l’aventure d’une nouvelle extension métaidentitaire ? Faire l’expérience d’une nouvelle déconstruction identitaire par « l’archipélisation » ? La tâche de Hestia est celle du poète qui s’efforce de diffuser la totalité dans son lieu, trouver et inscrire « l’Ailleurs » dans « l’Ici ». Faire d’un territoire hostile et rival un lieu commun. Le génie « européen » qui avait pensé sensiblement le monde, qui l’avait dompté et conquis en l’accaparant dans la raison instrumentaire et intelligible avait fini par être consumé par la res cogitans occidentale, un « Nouveau monde » qui l’avait pulvérisé dans la sphère de l’intelligible et la surreprésentation excessive. En un mot l’esprit européen avait lui-même enfanté une image criminelle de lui-même. Et si c’était vrai ? Si l’Occident n’avait été que ça : un crime contre l’imaginaire ? S’il n’était rien d’autre qu’une machine à sublimer qui n’a cessé de servir le plus sournois des cultes de la représentation et de la raison discursive ? L’Occident en tant que processus de désenchantement irréversible ?“

 

La question reste ouverte, l’auteur ne nous offre pas des réponses toutes faites, L’intertextualité et les thèses critiques de Vujic sont éminemment politiquement incorrect, contestataires et  « réfractaires », mais aussi pédagogiques et anticipatrices ouvrant diverses pistes de réflexions, de nouvelles lignes de fuites dans la pensée unique. Le grand mérite de ce livre est de mettre en exergue et d’offrir au de lá  des schémas de critique « binaire »,« un archipel de « litteralité » qui regroupe des pensées de générations différentes

C’est pourquoi , dans le contexte de la pensée unique dominante, Vujic fait incontestablement preuve d’un liberté de pensée indéniablement subversive car  l’acte de penser librement et en toute indépendance est indéniablement « subversif », acte non pas illégal mais a-légal, qui se situe en amont du systémisme et du positivisme dominant. Le livre est á recommander á tous les esprits épris de sens et d’amour pour une certaine idée de l’Europe. On parle de la fameuse quête du sens en oubliant que la question du sens est inséparable de la mise en question du sens établi.

 

Edouard Largny

Journaliste et critique littéraire

Erwachen aus dem „amerikanischen Traum“

 

Erwachen aus dem „amerikanischen Traum“

Helmut Mueller

 

 

 

Ex: http://helmutmueller.wordpress.com/

Vor bald einem Jahr zitierte ich an dieser Stelle den Ökonomen John Kenneth Galbreith der „das selbstmörderische  Treiben der gesellschaftlichen Hoffnungsträger und politische Ignoranz“ für den wirtschaftlichen Niedergang der USA verantwortlich gemacht hatte. Es brauchte immerhin zwei Jahrzehnte, bis sich – begünstigt durch eine inzwischen unhaltbar gewordene soziale und ökonomische Lage – diese Erkenntnisse nicht nur im Kopf der „kleinen Leute“ durchgesetzt hatte,  sondern  die Wut im Bauch auch an die Öffentlichkeit dringen konnte.                                                                                                                              

Kurz und gut: das Unbehagen war unterschwellig schon lange vorher spürbar, es fehlte nur noch der geeignete Zeitpunkt zu dessen öffentlichem Hochkommen.

Die  bisher gewaltlosen „Aufstände“ sind daher auch nicht spontan über Nacht ausgebrochen, sondern wurden schon Monate vorher geplant und wurden z. B. von der „Midwest Academy“, die  radikale Aktivisten in den Taktiken der Protestkundgebung, Zielausrichtung, Konfrontation und Einschüchterung unterrichtet“, unterstützt.                

Von Anfang an waren aber auch schon Funktionäre von Gewerkschaften und Obama nahestehende Berater, so z. B. John Podesta, der  Obama’s Team zur Regierungsübernahme (transition team) mitleitete und der dem von George Soros finanzierten „Center for American Progress“ vorsteht, eingebunden.                                    

Daß Soros, im Gegensatz zu New Yorks Bürgermeister Bloomberg, dieser ebenfalls steinreich, sich nun auf der Seite der Demonstranten findet, überrascht daher nicht.

Der eher links-liberale und teilweise regierungsnahe Führungs-Hintergrund läßt mutmaßen, daß von demokratischer Seite eine Gegenbewegung zur republikanischen „Tea-Party“ geschaffen werden sollte. Anzunehmen ist auch, daß die Studien zur „Organisation  eines gewaltfreien Widerstandes“ des Politologen Gene Sharp (hier schon einmal erwähnt), die bereits von den jungen arabischen „Revolutionären“ beachtet wurden, erstmals im eigenen Land zum Tragen kommen. Wie weit? Man wird sehen.        

Ob Ratschläge der serbischen „Otpor“-Galionsfigur Srdja Popoviv, der – bekanntlich von Sharp inspiriert -  den „arabischen Frühling“ mitgestaltete, dabei auch eine Rolle spielen,  ist mir noch nicht bekannt.

Wenn es jetzt von Teilnehmerseite heißt, „das souveräne Volk jeder Nation habe die Macht, das Recht und die Pflicht das Schicksal der Nation mitzubestimmen“, dann mag das in manchen Ohren wie ein altbekanntes Lied klingen. Aber warum sollte diese bescheidene Vorstellung plötzlich jenseits des Atlantiks eher umgesetzt werden als hierzulande, wo übrigens die Volkssouveränität noch etwas weiter gedacht wird?                                          

Starke Zweifel sind angebracht. Eher ist davon auszugehen, daß die allmächtigen Eliten im Hintergrund  diese Protestbewegung längst in andere, für sie gefahrlosere Bahnen leiten. Und daß eine idealistisch bewegte Masse, nach einigen „Bauernopfern“, wieder einmal, wie schon beim Zusammenbruch der DDR oder jetzt in Nordafrika um die Früchte der Revolution bzw. ihren Traum betrogen wird. Alles andere wäre eine Jahrhundertsensation.

Aktueller Nachtrag: Soeben vernehme ich, daß Goldman Sachs in Zukunft in die Pfefferspray-Industrie investieren wolle. Wenn das kein Scherz ist?

Anhang:

Da die außenpolitische Vorgangsweise der USA seit Anbeginn nicht ohne Auswirkungen auf die Innenpolitik bleibt, folgt hier ein entsprechend ausführlicher Anhang für daran Interessierte:

Das Imperium  USA*  und dessen Außenpolitik

Der US-Präsident gilt hochoffiziell als grundlegende Institution der Außenpolitik, die  maßgeblich vom „Council of  Foreign Relations“  (zu 30%  Geschäftsleute, der Rest Diplomaten, Ex-Präsidenten, Universitätsprofessoren und Spitzenjournalisten) und weiteren „Think-Tanks“ gestaltet wird. Diese stehen ebenfalls nicht nur dem Außenministerium  bzw. der Regierung nahe, sondern vorwiegend auch den Konzernen und der Hochfinanz.

Offizielle oberste Priorität einer US-Regierung: Etablierung und Sicherung von Freiheit, Wohlstand und Frieden für die US-Bürger.

Inoffizielle oberste Priorität: Israels Wohlstand und Sicherheit gewährleisten. Jüdische Lobbies arbeiten und spionieren mittels  zionistisch inspirierter Mittelsmänner in und im Dunstkreis von Regierung, Repräsentantenhaus und Kongreß. Diese organisieren, gemeinsam mit christlichen Fundamentalisten, großzügige Israel-Unterstützung und verhinderten bisher eine gerechte  Friedenslösung zwischen  Palästinensern und Israelis. Auch zettelten sie mit getürkten Informationen den Krieg gegen den Irak an.

Die frühe amerikanische Außenpolitik wurde von der 1823 verkündeten  Monroe-Doktrin des Präsidenten  James Monroe  geprägt. Diese besagte, daß sich die europäischen Mächte vom amerikanischen Kontinent fernhalten sollten, bei gleichzeitiger Nicht-Einmischung der USA in die Angelegenheiten anderer Staaten.                                                                        

Daraus wurde  schließlich „Amerika den Amerikanern“. Doch Deutschland den Deutschen oder Europa den Europäern  hört man  dort wie anderswo schon weniger gerne. Man mischt sich überall ein, verbietet dasselbe aber für sich. Immerhin: nach den heute geltenden US-Vorstellungen hätte z.B. das zaristische Rußland zugunsten der Indianer eingreifen müssen.

 

Im Bürgerkrieg 1861-65 verfolgte die Nordstaaten-Armee gegen Kriegsende mit ihrem erbarmungslosen Vorgehen gegen unschuldige  Dörfer, Pflanzungen und selbst Tiere bereits lange vor Hitler eine Politik der verbrannten Erde.                                                    

Der Begriff „bedingungslose Kapitulation“ stammt aus dieser Zeit und erinnert an die Roosevelt/Churchill-Forderung in Casablanca 1943. Die US-Außenpolitik trägt ohne Zweifel barbarische Züge aus der Zeit der Kolonisierung Amerikas (Ausrottung der Indianer).

Die nachfolgende Industrialisierung führte zur Bildung großer  Konzerne, die durch ihre wirtschaftliche Macht-  repräsentiert durch Rockefeller, Morgan, Carnegie, Meyer Guggenheim  u.a. – auch die zukünftige Außenpolitik  beeinflussen sollten.                            In konzernnahen Denkfabriken wurde die spätere Globalisierung, wie wir sie heute kennen, entwickelt. Durch sie versprach man sich nicht nur einen größeren US-Einfluß, sondern auch enorme ökonomische Gewinne.                                                                          

Aber offensichtlich hatte man Nebenwirkungen der Globalisierung und die direkten und indirekten Schäden der so genannten Terrorbekämpfung und daraus resultierender Folgekriege nicht entsprechend bedacht.

Schon Präsident Theodore Roosevelt (1901–1909), der eine hegemoniale Machtstellung über die lateinamerikanischen Staaten beanspruchte, betrieb eine rein interventionistische Politik.  Der Vorfall im Hafen von Havanna 1898, wo das US-Kriegsschiff Maine auf rätselhafte Weise explodierte, war einer dieser seither immer wieder inszenierten Anlaßfälle einen „kleinen Krieg“ zu beginnen.                                                                             

Die spanische Flotte in Kuba, die damals die Waffen gestreckt hatte und abdampfen wollte, schoß man freundlicherweise gleich kurz und klein.

Federführend war  bereits im Hintergrund die Hochfinanz. So auch als es um Panama ging. Roosevelt wollte den von den Franzosen begonnen Kanal fertigbauen lassen, doch erstens lief der Vertrag aus und zweitens gehörte die Provinz zu Kolumbien. Was tun?                    Nun die Amerikaner sind erfinderisch: Man wiegelte Bewohner Panamas  auf, bewaffnete sie und unterstützte deren „Rebellion“ militärisch. Schließlich kaufte man den „Bloßfüßigen“ den Kanal ab und machte 1903 ein US-Hoheitsgebiet daraus.                       

Und weil beim Essen bekanntlich der Appetit kommt, hat man 1898 die Philippinnen  und Puerto Rico auch gleich den Spaniern, die militärisch nichts mehr entgegensetzen konnten, abspenstig gemacht. Hawaii war dann 1898 ohnehin nur mehr ein nicht ernst zu nehmender Jausengegner.

Während des  Ersten Weltkriegs blieben die Vereinigten Staaten bis 1917 formal neutral, unterstützten aber die  Entente  vor allem durch Nachschublieferungen, nachdem der verhinderte Engel Wilson mit dem Angriff auf die  „Lusitania“ überzeugt werden konnte, daß das Deutsche Reich diszipliniert werden müßte.. Dazu beizutragen versuchte  schon vorher eine Desinformation eines Herrn Morgenthau, damals Gesandter in Konstantinopel, der von einem deutschen Komplott gegen die freie Welt zu berichten wußte.                      

Doch noch wollte Wilson keinen Krieg. Am 6. April erklärten die USA, eigentlich die Hochfinanz, die die Milliarden, die sie bereits in ihre Freunde gesteckt hatten,  gewinnbringend wiedersehen wollte, dann doch Deutschland den Krieg.**

Nach dem militärischen Sieg versuchte Präsident  Woodrow Wilson (1913–1921) in Europa eine stabile Nachkriegsordnung zu etablieren, indem er in seinem  14-Punkte-Programm das Prinzip des  Selbstbestimmungsrechts der Völker sowie die Bildung eines  Völkerbundes durchzusetzen. Dieser Plan schlug (sofern er überhaupt ernst gemeint war) erwartungsgemäß fehl und die USA verfolgte fortan wieder eine mehr isolationistische Politik.                                                                                                                                                

Wilson aber soll nach dem Krieg an seinem Schreibtisch immerhin geweint haben. Was eigentlich wieder für ihn spräche. Ein früher Jimmy Carter sozusagen.

Bei Ausbruch des  Zweiten Weltkriegs – Präsident war inzwischen Heilsbringer Franklin Roosevelt, der vom ewigen Frieden träumte –  blieben die USA dem Wunsch der Mehrheit der Bevölkerung entsprechend zunächst neutral, unterstützten jedoch im Rahmen des  Leih- und Pachtgesetzes Großbritannien und die  Sowjetunion massiv mit Kapital- und Waffenlieferungen.. Auch aus innenpolitischen Gründen, so betrugen die Staatsschulden bereits 36 Mrd. Dollar.

Im Anschluss an den inszenierten  Angriff auf Pearl Harbor am 7. Dezember 1941, wo tausende Amerikaner für die Hochfinanz geopfert wurden,   erklärten Roosevelt und seine  „Gang“  Japan den Krieg und erhielten kurze Zeit später Kriegserklärungen von Deutschland und  Italien.                                                                                                             

Wie schon im Ersten Weltkrieg waren die Interessen des bereits erstarkten militärisch-industriellen Komplexes und das Potenzial der USA (290.000 Flugzeuge, 25.000 Panzer) entscheidend für den Sieg der Alliierten.                                                                                

Nicht unerwähnt bleiben soll die Anbiederung Roosevelts an Stalin, dem er vorschlug gleich einmal 50.000 deutsche Offiziere erschießen zu lassen. So war das Verhungern-lassen von hundertausenden deutschen Kriegsgefangenen durch die US-Befreier dann wohl ein Akt „humanitärer Sterbebegleitung“.

Wenn Hitler einer der Gründerväter  Israels ist, so ist Roosevelt dank seiner Sympathien für Stalin,   der Schöpfer  des einstigen kommunistischen Weltreichs. Daß der amerikanische Durchschnittsbürger von all dem auch nur das Geringste  mitbekommen, geschweige denn verstanden hat, darf bezweifelt werden.

Die USA waren nach dem Kriege maßgeblich an der Gründung der  Vereinten Nationen am 26. Juni 1945 in  San Francisco beteiligt, die im Einvernehmen mit der Sowjetunion stattfand, haben aber  inzwischen wegen des Mitspracherechts neuer, für sie wenig berechenbarer  Staaten große Vorbehalte gegen sie.

Bald mündeten die internationalen Beziehungen jedoch in den Kalten Krieg. Präsident  Harry S. Truman  (1945-52)  verfolgte eine antikommunistische  „Containment“-Politik, die in der  „Truman-Doktrin“ ihren Ausdruck fand. Was sogar  zur Folge hatte, daß pro-nazistische  so wie anti-semitische Fachkräfte aus Mittel- und Osteuropa angeheuert wurden.

In Abkehr von der  Monroe-Doktrin sagten die USA dann allen Ländern zur Wahrung ihrer Unabhängigkeit Militär- und Wirtschaftshilfe zu, legten zur Eindämmung des Kommunismus den  Marshall-Plan  auf und genossen die Friedensdividende. Auf die  Berlin-Blockade 1948/49 reagierten die Amerikaner mit der Luftbrücke.

Es folgte die Gründung der NATO 1949, die  danach mehrmals einer Zerreißprobe ausgesetzt war, zuletzt im Fall Libyen.  Relativ große Einigkeit gab es noch ein Jahr nach ihrer Gründung und während des Korea-Krieges (1950-53) , aber natürlich nur solange die Sowjetunion ein gefährliches Feindbild war.                                                                             

Unter dem Vorwand Sicherheit zu gewährleisten, verkaufte man der Welt die Idee, es gebe eine internationale kommunistische Verschwörung, die  allein durch Washingtons Macht gebannt werden könne. Man sagte, „indem ihr unsere Waffen kauft, unserem Militär und unseren Unternehmen erlaubt, sich in Euren Ländern auszutoben, von wem Euer Land geführt wird, werdet ihr von uns beschützt“.

Gleichzeitig hatte man es geschafft, die Europäer mit jenen herzergreifenden Floskeln von Demokratie und Freiheit aus ihren Kolonien zu verdrängen und ihnen die Idee der Entwicklungshilfe, die ihnen in Wirklichkeit nichts bringt,  aufzuschwatzen.                              In diesem Sinne ist die NATO, auch nach neuem strategischen Konzept und infolge neuer (auch künstlich geschaffener) Bedrohungsszenarien, ein Instrument zur Festigung des Engagements der USA in Europa.

Erwähnenswert danach die Kennedy-Jahre  1961-63: Erst das Desaster in der kubanischen “Schweinebucht“ ,dann der  Vietnamkrieg  1964-73 , der wie der Korea-Krieg unter demokratischer Präsidentschaft geführt wurde und den ein US-Kommentator als einen „Akt der Nächstenliebe“ bezeichnet hatte.                                                                     

Dieser Krieg  wurde durch den gefälschten Tonkin-Zwischenfall ausgelöst,  geriet zu einem militärischen und moralischen Fiasko, das unter dem Republikaner Nixon mit dem Abzug der US-Truppen 1973 endete.

Zwischenbemerkung: Der  Tonkin-Zwischenfall (auch Tongking-Zwischenfall genannt) war ein Ereignis vor der Küste Nordvietnams im August 1964, bei dem ein US-amerikanisches Kriegsschiff angeblich in ein Gefecht mit nordvietnamesischen Schnellbooten verwickelt wurde.

Der Zwischenfall wurde von der US-amerikanischen Regierung um  Lyndon B. Johnson (1963-69) als Vorwand für die offizielle Beteiligung der  USA an den damals stattfindenden Feindseligkeiten zwischen den beiden Landesteilen benutzt, die sich in der Folge zum Vietnamkrieg (1965–75) ausweiteten.

1971 veröffentlichte der Pentagon-Mitarbeiter  Daniel Ellsberg einen als  Pentagon-Papiere bekannt gewordenen Bericht, der die Darstellung des Zwischenfalls durch die frühere Regierung, als eine vom Geheimdienst später bestätigte bewusste Falschinformation (wahrscheinlich des militärisch-industriellen Komplexes) entlarvte.

Die Glaubwürdigkeit als Verbreiter demokratischer Werte stand hier und auch bei anderen Konfliktherden in Widerspruch mit der Unterstützung zahlreicher Militärdiktatoren oder  der Durchführung und Unterstützung von Militärputschen, wie den  Pinochets in Chile  1973-90 oder  Mobutos  1965-97  im seinerzeit  „Zaire“ genannten Kongo.

Die Furcht vor dem Kommunismus wurde denn auch zum Katalysator der Rüstungsanstrengungen (Wettrüsten) , an allen Ecken und Enden wurde der Feind ausgemacht. Am Ende erreichte die Autonomie des militärischen Establishments unglaubliche Ausmaße, die jeder demokratischen Kontrolle sich entzogen.

Als Architekt der Außen- wie auch der so genannten Entspannungspolitik  unter Ford (1974-77)  trat in diesen Jahren (1973 – 77) der in Fürth geborene Heinz Alfred Kissinger in Erscheinung. Vorher war er Sicherheitsberater unter Nixon 1969-74. In dieser Zeit gingen besonders viele geheime verdeckte Operationen der US-Außenpolitik über die Bühne, die unzählige  unschuldige Opfer forderten.                                                                 

2009 veröffentlichte übrigens Kissinger  einen Vorschlag zu einer neuen Weltordnung, die  sinngemäß vor allem eine neue Weltfinanzordnung sein sollte. In wessen Auftrag wohl?

Doch die  Ölkrise 1974 und die  iranische Geiselkrise 1979  unter  dem oft belächelten „Friedensapostel“ Carter  (1977-81) sowie die Folgen des Vietnamkriegs verursachten eine außenpolitische Orientierungslosigkeit. Nur für kurze Zeit.                                                        

Es war die  Regierung Reagan (1981-89)  die  schließlich einen Paradigmenwechsel der amerikanischen Politik erreichte, sowohl in der Innen-  als auch in der Außenpolitik.          Bereits unter diesem Präsidenten versuchte die  politische Gruppierung der Neokonservativen (Neocons)  sich zu profilieren,  insbesondere durch die Befürwortung einer interventionistischen Außenpolitik und  unilateraler Hegemonieansprüche. Die Invasion Grenadas war so ein Beispiel  bzw. ein Vorgeschmack auf das, was noch kommen sollte.

Die Neocons, wie sie (mit ihrem Gründervater Irvin Kristol) fortan genannt wurden,, entstammen meist aus unteren jüdischen sozialen Schichten, die erst einmal Sympathien für Marl Marx und Lenin  zeigten und sich erst später zu so genannten Neokonservativen entwickelten. In den letzten Regierungen waren sie durch Leute wie Richard Pearle, Wolfowitz  u.v.a. vertreten. Bei der Durchsetzung ihrer  Konzepte waren und sind sie bereit, die Missachtung traditioneller Formen der Diplomatie und sogar  des  Völkerrechts in Kauf zu nehmen.

Reagans acht Regierungsjahre (bis 1989) waren durch eine liberale Wirtschaftspolitik ( Reaganomics), die Verminderung staatlicher Subventionen und Sozialleistungen, Einsparungen  und ökonomische Probleme  gekennzeichnet. Die Rüstungsausgaben wurden erhöht und ein sogenanntes „Star-Wars-Programm“ (SDI-Projekt bzw.„Krieg der Sterne“) aufgelegt.                                                                                                                               

Was nicht ohne Konsequenzen für die deutsche Innenpolitik blieb, in der sich neben besorgten Bürgern und Friedensaktivisten vor  allem rot-grüne Schreihälse, später als Wendehälse à  la Joschka Fischer bekannt,  profilieren konnten.

Dem Kalten Krieger Reagan folgte Bush senior 1989-93 , der 1990 seine Neue Weltordnung  ausrief. Schon dessen  Politik wurde im eigenen Lande mit dem Imperialismus des alten Rom verglichen. Bushs Regierung vertraute nicht so sehr auf Zusammenarbeit und internationale Organisation, sondern auf einseitige Anordnung, die mit militärischer Gewalt durchgesetzt wird.                                                                           

Dieser Bush war aber immerhin der einzige Staatschef der Vier Siegermächte der die deutsche Wiedervereinigung befürwortete. Allerdings mit der Bedingung: Nur wenn Deutschland  in der NATO bleibt.

Eine widersprüchlich scheinende  US-Außenpolitik – die aus einer komplexen Gesellschaft mit einer Vielzahl an Strömungen und Interessen resultiert -  gegenüber Staaten, die die Menschenrechte nicht achten, also z. B.  an Riad und Tel Aviv festhalten, andererseits die durch mangelndes Verständnis für andere Kulturkreise mit daraus folgenden Fehleinschätzungen gekennzeichnet ist.

So hatte man schon nach dem Ausbruch des ersten Golfkriegs zwischen Iran und  Irak (1980–1988) aus Furcht vor den fundamentalistischen Kreisen in  Teheran den Diktator  Saddam Hussein unterstützt.                                                                                                         

Die Geld- und Waffenlieferungen an die  Mujaheddin in Afghanistan erwiesen sich ebenfalls als zweischneidig. Die Sowjetunion musste zwar nach zehn Jahren ihre Truppen abziehen, doch wurden gleichzeitig radikal-islamische Gruppen gestärkt. Ähnliches zeichnet sich in Tunesien, Ägypten und Libyen ab.

Mit dem Zusammenbruch der Sowjetunion, die man u.a. zu Tode rüstete, endete der Kalte Krieg 1991. Genau in diesem Jahr kam es unter Bush Senior  nach der Kuweit-Affäre im Rahmen der Operation Desert Shield zur schlimmsten Dauerbombadierung des Irak  bei dem unter anderem hunderte Menschen, darunter Frauen und Kinder, in einem Bunker verbrannten.  Aber wie heißt es so schön von Seite US-amerikanischer Militärs: „In diesen Ländern hat der Wert eines Lebens ohnehin eine andere Bedeutung“.

Unter dem demokratischen Präsidenten Bill Clinton  (1993–2001), kam  es zu einem länger anhaltenden wirtschaftlichen Aufschwung („ New Economy“). Präsident Clintons Außenpolitik führten die Außenminister  Warren Christopher während seiner ersten Amtszeit und  Madeleine Albright während seiner zweiten.                                                        

In dieser Zeit wurde das israelisch-jordanische Friedenabkommen 1994 trotz innenpolitischen Drucks und das Kyoto-Protokoll 1997 unterzeichnet. Mit dem Anschlag auf das WTC begann die Angst vor Terroranschlägen.

Clinton mußte am Ende politischen Exponenten der Rechten nachgeben und eine außenpolitische Kurskorrektur vornehmen. War er zunächst noch UNO-freundlich gesinnt, so wurde er immer mehr vom Kongreß dazu angehalten, die Welt auschließlich mit amerikanischer Macht und allenfalls amerikanischer Gewalt zu ordnen.                                Zum Beispiel: Nachdem es den europäischen Staaten nicht gelungen war, nach dem Zerfall Jugoslawiens die Region zu befrieden, griffen US-Truppen im Rahmen der  NATO völkerrechtswidrig  in Bosnien, Kroatien und Serbien ein. 1999 gelang es,  eine moderne, hoch entwickelte Gesellschaft auf  Dritte-Welt-Niveau zurück zu bomben.

Versuche, im Nahen Osten einen Frieden zwischen  Israel und Palästina zu erreichen, erlitten mit dem Attentat auf  Jitzchak Rabin einen schweren Rückschlag. Bis heute hat man sich davon nicht erholt.                                                                                                     

Clinton reagierte auf Provokationen des irakischen Diktators Saddam Hussein mit sporadischen Luftangriffen, ebenso wie im  Sudan und Afghanistan nach Terroranschlägen auf die US-Botschaft in  Nairobi 1998 und ein US-Kriegsschiff  vor der Küste Jemens. Diese Anschläge wurden bereits dem  Al Quaida- Netzwerk des  Osama bin Laden (eine CIA-Schöpfung) zur Last gelegt.

Die „Erfolge“ der US-Außenpolitik können sich auch sonst sehen lassen: Zwischen 1945 und 2005 versuchten die USA mehr als 30 nationale Volksbewegungen zu zerschlagen und mehr als 30 fremde Regierungen zu stürzen. Millionen Menschen  mußten dabei ihr Leben lassen, Millionen blieben in Not und Verzweiflung zurück.                                                          

Es ist eben so: Washingtons selektive Weltherrschaft, inzwischen allerdings  in Frage gestellt, folgt zwingend einer imperialen Logik, und zwar aus einer einzigartigen Machtfülle.

Auf  Clinton folgte der wenig ehrenwerte G. W. Bush  (2001-09)., dessen zweite Amtszeit alles andere als glorios bezeichnet werden darf. Nach den Anschlägen vom 11. September 2001, die Bush als große Chance bezeichnete, die Welt hinter den USA zusammenzuführen, verkündete der Präsident –  der, wie seine israelischen Partner und früher Reagan auch, seine Visionen aus dem Alten Testament bezieht und sonst neokonservativen Beratern das Ohr schenkte –  einen weltweiten „Krieg gegen den Terrorismus“.                                        

Was zunächst in weiten Teilen der Bevölkerung- mit einem 60-70 Millionen-Anteil  fundamentalistischer  Christen – Zustimmung fand. Bush identifizierte, ähnlich wie bereits Reagan, eine  „Achse des Bösen“ so genannter  Schurkenstaaten wie Irak, Iran, Kuba und Nordkorea.

Bushs Außenpolitik, getragen von einer bunten konservativen Sammlungsbewegung, war vor allem nach dem 11. September militärisch orientiert, grenzte sich zu ihren Verbündeten ab und behielt sich vor, ihren Weltmachtanspruch mit Gewalt präemptiv und präventiv  durchzusetzen.                                                                                                                 

In der Bush-Doktrin kam der imperiale Machtanspruch am deutlichsten hervor, auch wenn vordergründig von Kooperation, Menschenrechten, freier Marktwirtschaft und der  Bekämpfung von Terrornetzwerken und Schurkenstaaten die Rede war.

Im Oktober 2001 wurde durch einen Feldzug in Afghanistan das radikal-islamische  Taliban Regime gestürzt, das  Osama bin Laden beherbergt hatte, den man aber  in Wirklichkeit, nach Worten von CIA-Mann Michael Scheurer gar nicht stoppen wollte . (In 10 Fällen sei ihm ihm befohlen worden, sein Feuer zurückzuhalten. Während des Zeitraums 2007-09 konnten somit 285 Milliarden Steuerzahler-Dollar in betrügerische Firmen für den “Krieg gegen Terror” gepumpt werden).

Die durch das Afghanistan-Engagement erfolgten geostrategischen Verschiebungen im zentralasiatischen Raum blieben vorerst unbeachtet. Die Präsenz der USA drängte den Einfluß Rußlands zurück, und die US-Truppen werden als wichtigster Akteur gegen den islamistischen Terror akzeptiert, stützen  aber gleichzeitig die autokratischen Regime der Region.

Ebenfalls im Namen des „Krieges gegen den Terrorismus“  begann im März 2003 ohne UNO-Mandat der Krieg gegen den Irak (Dritter Golfkrieg)  mit dem Ziel, den Diktator  Saddam Hussein zu stürzen. Unter dem Vorwand, er besitze Massenvernichtungswaffen und habe Kontakte zu Bin Laden, erfolgte der durch Lügen gestützte Angriff ohne UN-Mandat, also völkerrechtswidrig.                                                                                        

Die auch dadurch eingeleiteten Veränderungen im Nahen und Mittleren Osten, wofür Bush ja eine „Road Map“, die nie vollendet wurde, präsentiert hatte, werden  erst jetzt in Ansätzen erkennbar.

George W. Bushs Hinwendung zu einem strategischen Konzept der „Präemption“  kann als Abkehr von der bisherigen amerikanischen Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik gewertet werden, die auf Abschreckung, Eindämmung sowie der Einwirkung  ökonomischer und kultureller Einflussnahme basiert hatte                                                                                       

In Bushs eigenen Worten:

1. „Make no distinction between terrorists and the nations that harbor them–and hold both to account.“
2. „Take the fight to the enemy overseas before they can attack us again here at home.“
3. „Confront threats before they fully materialize.“
4. „Advance liberty and hope as an alternative to the enemy’s ideology of repression and fear.“

Unter Bush (der sich selbst natürlich als „unschuldig, rein und frei von Sünde“ einschätzt)  beanspruchte der Verteidigungsetat etwa 400 Milliarden Dollar, was der Summe der Etats der zehn nächstgrößeren Staaten entsprach, womit die Mängel des Gesundheitssystems so wie ein Gros der Infrastrukturschäden behoben hätten werden können.

Nach der  Präsidentenschaftswahl  vom 4. November 2008 wurde der demokratische Senator des Bundesstaates  Illinois Barack Obama, am 20.Januar 2009  vereidigt. Er ließ die laufenden Militärgerichtsverfahren gegen Insassen des Gefangenenlagers Guantanamo für 120 Tage aussetzen, was als Beginn der Auflösung des Lagers gewertet wurde. Zudem sagte er zu, binnen 18 Monaten die Truppen aus dem Irak abzuziehen. Beides ist nicht geschehen. Insgesamt versuchte er zumindest stärker auf  Diplomatie als auf Konfrontation zu setzen.

Dennoch beschloß die Obama-Regierung 2009 den größten Verteidigungsetat der US-Geschichte in Höhe von 636,3 Milliarden Dollar, was gegenüber Obamas Vorgänger George W. Bush noch einmal -  bedingt auch durch  das Engagement in der arabischen Welt und die Milliardenhilfe für Israel – eine gewaltige Anhebung bedeutete.  Die US-Regierung hat jedoch bereits angekündigt, weitere 30 Milliarden Dollar  für Israel zu benötigen.                                                                                                                                          

Wie lange die amerikanische Öffentlichkeit angesichts großer wirtschaftlicher Probleme   diese von Hochfinanz, Konzernen  und Pentagon bestimmte Politik noch mitmacht, ist eine Frage der Zeit. Schon rumort  es ja.

Derweil hat man außenpolitisch  neue Prioritäten: Bereits 2010 hatte Außenministerin Clinton  eine Erhöhung der staatlichen Mittel für Bevölkerungskontrolle und -reduzierung in Entwicklungsländern angekündigt, die, zum »Kernstück der US-Außenpolitik« werden sollen.                                                                                                                                                  Mitte der 1970er-Jahre hat ja  schon der erwähnte Henry Kissinger als Außenminister das berüchtigte Geheimdokument NNSM-200 verfasst, durch das die Bevölkerungskontrolle insgeheim auf die Agenda der US-Außenpolitik gesetzt wurde.                                    

Weltweite Geburtenkontrolle und verdeckte Reduzierung der Welt-Bevölkerung sind also ein wichtiges Ziel der aufgefrischten Eugenik-Politik der USA (vor dem Zweiten Weltkrieg gab es so etwas ähnliches  ja schon einmal).

Die Supermacht USA mit  ihrem immer wieder neuem Neue-Weltordnung-Gefasel versucht also nach ihrem Gutdünken die Welt neu zu ordnen und drapiert ihre einseitigen, nicht unbedingt im Weißen Haus getroffenen Entscheidungen mit Hypermoral und einem abstrakten Sendungsbewußtsein.  Besser  stünde  ihr an, endlich einmal intensiv den einzigartigen Holocaust an Indianern und Schwarzen sowie auch ihre weltweiten Kriegsverbrechen (besonders an Deutschen) aufzuarbeiten.

Noch einige Schlußbemerkungen: Di e USA sind zwar nach wie vor  – als WK I- und WK II-Kriegsgewinner und mit dem Dollar als Leitwährung – der bestimmende außenpolitische, ökonomische und militärische Faktor  in der Welt. Aber ihre in jeder Hinsicht feststellbare Überdehnung und die einseitige Einmischung im Nahen und Mittleren Osten (mit Israel als Klotz am Bein) sowie das Afghanistan-Abenteuer werden sich noch als nachhaltig fatal (auch für verbündete Europäer)  herausstellen.                       

In Afrika versucht zwar Washington mehr Gewicht zu erlangen, wird es aber aus innenpolitischen Gründen und mit China, Indien und Brasilien als Konkurrenten dort zusehends schwerer haben.                                                                                                           

Die von den USA ausgehende, von der Politik und den Finanzspekulanten verursachte und von den europäischen Regierungen beförderte und verschleppte Finanz- und Wirtschaftskrise ist ein Zeithammer, der uns noch hart treffen wird.                                    

„Amerika über  alles“  bleibt jenseits des Atlantiks zwar weiter die Devise, was allerdings nicht mehr überall goutiert wird und  längerfristig in einen neuen US-Isolationismus führen könnte. Dann würden die Karten neu gemischt werden, auch im Protektorat Europa.                                                                                                                                              

Ein gewißer Entfremdungsprozeß ist vor allem in den deutsch-amerikanischen Beziehungen jetzt schon nicht mehr zu übersehen, sollte vorerst aber nicht überschätzt werden. Noch funktionieren bewährte Seilschaften in beiden Lagern.

* Seit 1776 unabhängig, drittgrößter Staat, fast 10 Mio.km2, 311 Mio.EW, davon 1% Indianer, Supermacht und Weltpolizist

** Dazu schreibt Guido Giacomo Preparata, ein in Boston geborener Italiener, bis 2008 Assistenzprofessor für Volkswirtschaft an der Universität von Tacoma (Bundesstaat Washington,) in seinem im Jahre 2005 erschienen Buch „ Wer Hitler  mächtig machte – Wie britisch-amerikanische Finanzeliten dem Dritten Reich den Weg bereiteten“ u.. a. : „…die Politik Großbritanniens und der USA war von Anfang an darauf ausgerichtet war, Deutschland als mögliches Hindernis gegenüber westlichen Herrschaftsbestrebungen auszuschalten. Mitteleuropa sollte keine unabhängige und eigenständige Rolle spielen dürfen, sondern dem Westen einverleibt werden. Unter allen Umständen wollten die westlichen Eliten verhindern, dass es zu einer Annäherung Deutschlands und Russlands käme, weil das ihren Zielen der Beherrschung des eurasischen Kontinents diametral entgegengesetzt gewesen wäre“.                                   

In der Einleitung skizziert Preparata die Hauptthese seines Buches. Danach war das Aufkommen des Nazismus in Deutschland alles andere als ein Zufall. Mehr als 15 Jahre lang (1919–1933) haben sich seiner Ansicht nach die anglo-amerikanischen Eliten in die deutsche Politik eingemischt, um eine reaktionäre Bewegung zu schaffen, die als Schachfigur für ihre geopolitischen Intrigen benutzt werden konnte. Ohne diese (auch finanzielle) Unterstützung hätte es keinen Führer und keine Aufrüstung geben können.

Lettre aux enfants européens (nés en 2011) : devenez des hommes

Dans cette épître, Michel Geoffroy dresse un panorama glacial de ce qui attend les nouveau–nés. C’est aussi une satire sans concessions du système contemporain. Un système, il est vrai, en voie d’effondrement.

Bayard en 1504, défendant seul le pont du Garigliano (peinture de Félix Philipotteaux, XIXe siècle)

Mes pauvres enfants, vous êtes nés dans un monde finissant et vous allez participer à son agonie. Vous, les jeunes Occidentaux, votre cauchemar ne fait que commencer.

 

Vous avez échappé à l’avortement et vous êtes nés dans ce qui reste de la famille en Europe. Elle sera peut-être « monoparentale », c’est-à-dire réduite à une seule personne. Ou bien constituée de deux personnes aux noms différents, voire de même sexe. Vos grands-parents, vous les verrez de temps en temps, pour qu’ils vous fassent des cadeaux ou pour qu’ils vous « gardent » pendant que vos parents travaillent ou s’amusent ; avant qu’ils ne rejoignent l’hospice car ils finiront aussi par gêner. Vos parents divorceront un jour, sans doute, s’ils se sont mariés (un mariage sur deux finit en divorce selon les statistiques). Votre famille se réduira au droit de visite.

Vous n’aurez pas le réconfort d’avoir beaucoup de frères et de sœurs car la démographie occidentale s’effondre : vous n’aurez que des copains, des potes et des adresses Internet. Vous n’aurez que des amis en silicone. Cela vous suffira puisque de toute façon vous allez passer 4 heures par jour devant la télévision. Le reste du temps, vous écouterez de la musique déracinée avec vos copains en « boum », en « boîte » ou sur votre MP3 et vous tapoterez sur votre téléphone-ordinateur-appareil photo-GPS portable.

Vous lirez peu et rarement de vrais livres. L’accès à la culture ne vous sera pas accordé sauf si vos parents sont riches. On vous dressera ainsi à rester des éternels spectateurs du monde : des objets et non des sujets de l’histoire.

L’école publique ne vous apprendra rien de votre passé, de votre histoire, de votre culture, de vos racines ou de votre religion. Elle vous apprendra seulement à respecter les commandements de l’idéologie dominante et qu’il est normal de copuler avec vos petits copains et copines. Elle vous apprendra à vous repentir de votre civilisation, à mépriser vos ancêtres et à suspecter vos parents. A la cantine on vous fera manger halal car il ne faut pas discriminer vos petits camarades musulmans. On vous apprendra à consommer et à céder à ce que vous croirez être vos libres pulsions, alors que vous serez seulement victimes de la suggestion publicitaire omniprésente.

Si vos parents ont un peu d’argent, vous vous inscrirez à l’université puisque tout le monde y va, bien que vous ne sachiez pas bien l’orthographe, à la différence de vos arrière-grands-parents qui n’avaient que leur certificat d’études primaires mais qui savaient lire, écrire et compter et qui connaissaient les chefs-lieux de départements. Avec un peu de patience vous obtiendrez un diplôme, comme tous les autres, et vous devrez alors chercher du travail. Comme tous les autres, car vous entrerez dans un monde où le travail durable est un privilège rare, désormais.

Vous serez en concurrence avec le monde entier : avec les Chinois et les Indiens qui fabriquent chez eux ce que l’on vous somme d’acheter, et avec les Africains qui sont installés en Europe. Des législations compliquées, destinées à empêcher de « discriminer » tout le monde sauf vous, ont en outre été mises en place. Il faudra vous contenter de peu si vous voulez travailler. Il faudra aussi faire preuve de docilité et de mobilité car la délocalisation de l’emploi industriel est désormais la loi. Et puis, compte tenu des prix de l’immobilier – car c’est le seul bien qui n’a pas encore été dévalué par les crises financières à répétition –, il vous faudra beaucoup vous déplacer entre votre domicile et votre travail, et de plus en plus longtemps puisque les centres villes sont de plus en plus chers. Et vous voyagerez dans les transports collectifs bondés car les routes sont saturées ou interdites.

Vous vivrez dans des banlieues et non plus dans des villes, des villages et des campagnes, comme vos ancêtres. Vous logerez entre le centre commercial, le centre culturel et le parking. La nuit, il vous faudra éviter de circuler pour ne pas rencontrer des « jeunes », des criminels récidivistes ou des contrôles de police musclés. Le mieux pour vous sera de rester chez vous à regarder la télévision. Vous y verrez des tas de choses auxquelles vous ne pourrez jamais accéder mais cela vous fera rêver, avant de vous endormir. Et cela vous donnera l’idée de vous endetter un peu plus pour acheter des objets inutiles que vous aurez « vus à la télévision ».

Mais il vous faudra éviter d’être malade, surtout si vous n’avez qu’un emploi à durée déterminée. Parce que les systèmes de sécurité sociale font faillite et qu’on remboursera mal vos dépenses médicales. Et parce qu’un arrêt de longue durée peut signifier un début de chômage, la dégringolade sociale irrémédiable dans un pays où 10% de la population n’a pas d’emploi.

Vous n’apprendrez pas le métier des armes puisque le service militaire a été aboli et qu’il est interdit de posséder des armes. Vous n’apprendrez pas à protéger votre nation, votre foyer, vos proches. Si vous êtes militaire de carrière on vous enverra guerroyer au loin, jouer les mercenaires de l’OTAN.

Vous n’apprendrez pas à être un citoyen qui participe à la vie de la cité. Non, si on vous fait militer ce sera pour des causes lointaines : on vous fera faire de « l’humanitaire » ou sauver les bébés phoques. On vous consultera sur pas grand’ chose d’important ; on vous laissera tranquille ; on vous demandera seulement de voter pour les candidats choisis par la télévision.

On vous apprendra à être un bon petit sujet docile, une gentille « ressource humaine » au service de l’économie, qui fait confiance aux institutions, aux conseils d’administration des entreprises et aux experts financiers pour vous « protéger ».

Il faudra aussi vous habituer à respecter les multiples prohibitions dont on a rempli votre vie, pour votre bien : trier sagement vos déchets ménagers, ne pas rouler trop vite, mettre votre ceinture de sécurité, ne pas fumer, ne pas manger trop sucré ou trop salé, ne pas boire plus d’un verre de vin, ne pas transporter d’objet pointu et coupant dans les avions et surtout ne pas avoir de mauvaises pensées.

Il faudra aussi que vous appreniez à être minoritaire. Minoritaire dans le monde, car les Européens ne représenteront plus que 7,5% de la population mondiale en 2050. Minoritaire à l’échelle de l’Union européenne élargie, car cette union n’est qu’un nain politique. Minoritaire dans votre pays, car vous devrez vous « ouvrir » aux us et coutumes de tous les peuples qui vous feront l’honneur de venir s’installer en France, si vous ne voulez pas qu’on vous accuse de « racisme » et subir les foudres de la justice. Minoritaire, il faudra que vous appreniez à baisser les yeux dans la rue.

Avec un peu de chance vous durerez ainsi au moins 80 ans, dans la solitude ou en la partageant avec un autre individu que vous aurez rencontré. Avec votre petite retraite et les quelques économies qui auront survécu aux différentes crises financières, vous traînerez votre vie inutile et sans but. Peut-être aurez-vous décidé de faire des enfants pour qu’ils profitent à leur tour de ce paradis terrestre ? Mais il faudra vous résigner à ce qu’ils n’aient pas une meilleure situation que la vôtre.

A moins que dans un suprême effort vous ne rejetiez ce système : que vous décidiez d’être des hommes et des Européens, comme vos ancêtres. Alors tout ce qui précède n’aura été qu’un mauvais souvenir ou qu’un affreux cauchemar.

Polémia

Stuff Our Betters Like

Stuff Our Betters Like

By James J. O'Meara

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

Olivier Magny
Stuff Parisians Like: Discovering the Quoi in the Je Ne Sais Quoi ^[2]
New York: Berkley, 2011.

Chris Lehmann
Rich People Things: Real-Life Secrets of the Predator Class ^[3]
Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2011.

Considering how Christian Lander’s Stuff White People Like, first the blog, then the book, then the sequel, created more than a little frisson among the NPR crowd (see the Counter-Currents reviews here ^[4] and here ^[5]) it’s surprising we haven’t seen more knock-offs or outright parodies (along the lines of The Job of Sex or Bored of the Rings); in fact, as far as I know, these are the very first (not counting the rather differently intended but invaluable provocateur of White consciousness, Stuff Black People Don‘t Like ^[6]).

Stuff Parisians Like shares its title and numbered format with SWPL. Turns out, it’s an excellent format for studying le vie Parisiene, since “reaching a form of happiness in Paris” (the Parisiene is never just “happy” like an American — despite “the fact that all Parisians deliberately wear American clothes, watch American movies, listen to American music, use American words or fantasize about American celebrities . . . when hearing the phrase “Les Américains”, the Parisian will implacably … just be taken over by one overpowering thought . . . “Oui, mais les Américains, ils sont cons”) entails “internalizing certain codes and refusing certain habits” (p. 75).

But while Lander writes as a mildly cynical member of the group, establishing, as the more perceptive reviewers noted, his credentials precisely by gently mocking but never really challenging his group’s tastes and ideas (WASPs do love self-criticism and faux objectivity, after all!), Magny writes as a Parisian, oui, (apparently a restaurateur and oenophile no less, to judge from his website, where you can “Optimize your future interactions with Homo Parisianus [by] browsing the full list of Stuff Parisians Like… ^[7]”), but with a difference; he disagrees heartily with his confreres, and seems to be something of a . . . well, conservative, I guess. Horreurs!

Which comes first, the dyspeptic view or the conservatism, is a toss up. Suffice to say, it makes for some very penetrating observations about an urban type that has not only fascinated Americans, but also seems remarkably like some of our own domestic species.

Thus while filled with cultural tidbits such as

• Fans of “continental dining” should beware that the cheese course has given way to just coffee, although the addition of a little beurre sale ^[8] will make the sweetest concoction acceptably ascetic;

• Wine, too is passé; lunch means water – San Pellegrino, or San-Pé ^[9], to the American’s amusement – dinner perhaps beer, a party definitely only hard liquor;

• License plate numbers reveal the driver’s place of origin ^[10] as well as their character; the very best is 75 – Paris, of course – and the others ‘smell of mud’ or ‘depression’ in various numerical ratios, while also revealing their driving habits — “C’est ce con de 27 qui bloque tout le monde depuis deux heures.”

along with some surprises — the Parisian despises artists ^[11], who are perceived as lazy and un-credentialed (state-funded art degrees are almost unknown, a pretty good idea it seems to me) unlike the busy graduates of the grandes Ecoles ^[12]; the Parisian loves not art but his idea of France’s cultural heritage — and stuff you only need to have read an Edmund White to know — the L’ile Saint-Louis ^[13] is the place to be! The Luxembourg Gardens ^[14] are the place to be seen! — we also learn that

Parisians have an opinion about most things, thus making it clear they have a significant knowledge about most things in life.

Having theories takes this to the next level.

Theories prove that not only does the Parisian have more information and knowledge than other people, but he also processed that information through his own personal filter. The superiority filter. Parisians will use theory after theory but never warning that these are theories. Other people, including Parisians, will be fooled and will inevitably reach the conclusion that this Parisian is extremely cultivé and intelligent.

It is important to realize that very few Parisians form their own theories. Most Parisians repeat theories they heard on TV, or from their really smart uncle. No actual credit is ever given to the actual source. The actual source is always the Parisian. (pp. 89-90)

Theories, of course, are not facts; who needs facts when you have theories?

The Parisian, no matter how much he is into freedom of mind and against propaganda, rarely bothers to double-check his facts. He remains vastly foreign to elements that might otherwise feed and qualify his reflections. (p. 254)

While the American Leftist might have an opinion about, say, the Dalai Lama, the Parisian has a theory:

Le Dalai Lama is good. China is bad. Amen.

And that leads to some stuff those on the Alternative Right, or even non-Democrats, will recognize:

Worldwide, a fascist is a follower or an admirer of the pre-WWII Italian Fascist regime.

In Paris, a fascist is anyone who disagrees with a Parisian and makes a point.

The rarest use of the word facho is to define extreme right wing people. More common use of the word is to be found in situations when someone expresses beliefs and thoughts that are unacceptable to Parisians. The more brutally true the statement is, the more facho the person who says it is.

Calling someone a facho is a fantastic way for Parisians to win a conversation. [See “Winning Conversations ^[15]”]. When a Parisian’s dabbling is countered by superior, non-PC, implacable reasoning, the opponent will be called a facho. To seal the victory, the Parisian will say, “On peut pas discuter avec toi.” And walk away. Victory. (pp. 169-70)

Or, as Charlie Sheen would say, “Winning!”

Interestingly, both “Calling People Fachos” and “Le Dalai Lama” are not part of the “complete” list on his website; as he says himself:

If your opinion is susceptible to reach a significant number of people through a given media, Parisians will start a petition against you. It’s best to behave really . . .

One reviewer has suggested that the book’s disparaging remarks about Parisian nightlife and parties are a cheap attempt to drum up business for his wine bar. These more political passages, and his reticence about them, lead me to think he knows his Parisians too well.

Do not support small businesses — that will make you a fascist.

Dressed in black ^[16] and lacking testosterone ["There are three types of males in Paris: the gay-looking homosexuals, the gay-looking heterosexuals, and men over fifty"], the Parisian may seem familiar; didn’t we meet them that time in New York?

Calling people beaufs is a wonderful thing for Parisians. It allows them to assert conveniently their superiority while not going through the trouble of enduring a painstaking analysis that might lead them to interrogations about themselves or others.

But of course, it would be too easy to mock the beauf (the “redneck” if you will) for wearing white socks ^[17] or liking football.

Superior perceived social status is acquired by mocking habits and attitudes that are typical of upper class or even better – rich people. “He’s spending the weekend in Deauville? Can’t believe it, quel beauf!”; “Is he really driving a Hummer? Quel gros beauf!” By striking his audience with an unsuspected beauf designation, the Parisian scores serious social points: “Did he really take his nephew to Disney Land? Quel beauf!” The ultimate goal is to make all the people surrounding the Parisian wonder if, compared to him, they are not ultimately complete beaufs. (p. 7)

Le Beauf Americain

Yes, indeed, the New York State of Mind, and the feeling is mutual:

Paris is every Parisians’ wife. New York is their mistress. Parisians know how living with your wife gets old.

NY gear is very popular, especially amongst the younger generation of Parisians. The I Love New York T-shirt is a must. Worn properly, it is considered very chic in Paris. Less stylish people will opt for a NYPD T shirt. FDNY gear is exclusively reserved for the gay community in Paris. (p. 130)

Each section ends with a Helpful Tip (“When in doubt, just say putain”) and instructions on how to “Sound Like a Parisian” (which, I am sure, must contain its share of booby traps).

* * *

^[18]Chris Lehmann’s Rich People Things, from its title to its cover to its number system, is clearly another SWPL title, but he and even his publishers make no mention of the earlier books; Lehmann claims his online column “began life as an afterthought title without any particular mission statement.” It’s a bit odd, considering his (well deserved) savaging of Chris Anderson (# 11. Wired Magazine) for mistaking his upstream rent-seeking for a new paradigm of free information.

Whatever. Lehmann seems part of what we might call the “unattached Left”; unattached, that is, to the conventional Democratic Party and its personality cult. No Obama-worshiping minion, he. (Unlike the Parisian, who very much likes Obama: his election proves the Parisian is right, there is no problem with immigrants, only racist fachos — see Magny‘s penultimate item.)

Thus, his targets and criticisms will be shared by many on the Alternative Right. He even quotes Steven Pinker — favorably! No paradox this; if one thinks of the traditional Left/Right field as a ping pong table, those not playing the game and just standing around share a space around it, and thus have more in common with each other than with either “player.”

He takes as his theme class analysis, not identity politics, and Americans’ peculiar lack thereof (boasted about, as Americans always find their limitations to be a source of perverse pride, as “our Exceptionalism;” Americans are proud to let everyone know they are very ‘special’ as they ride on the short bus of nations). And his targets are what takes the place — literally displaces, as a obscuring ideology — of class analysis: the “free markets and free men” mythology. So his topics tend to fall into two categories: economic myths (low taxes create jobs), and the mythical triumphant “individuals” (from Ayn Rand to Facebook and the aforementioned Wired) whose stories are thrown out by the system like squid ink.

Speaking of Rand, his chapter strikes me as one of the best objective (if you will) analyses of her work. His analysis hits the exact point where Rand gains her influence; starting out from the rather conventional standpoint of Nietzschean individualism (We the Living could even be filmed in Mussolini’s Italy) she hits the jackpot when she connects to the Horatio Alger myth of the Robber Baron era. By transposing individualism from the deterministic realm of nature to the marketplace of “free choice,” she allows her readers to vicariously imagine themselves (of course, who thinks of the Master Race without thinking oneself part of it?) being able, not so much to be heroes as to recognize them (most of us, after all, are mediocre but loyal Eddies not heroic Galts) and by serving them (buying their products and lowering their taxes) avoid the unforgivable sin of siding with the looters.

In general, Lehmann seems to be able to mouth the usual PC cliches, say, about the “genuine virtues of openness and diversity” while pointing out that:

These qualities form the basis of the twenty-first century’s corporate managerial mindset . . . a more diverse and culturally tolerant world is also a far more market-friendly world. It’s also, far from coincidentally, a world in which wealth and income disparity never seem to achieve the same vaunted status as cultural and gender diversity. (pp. 82-83)

This is not to say that Lehmann is a Traditionalist. For one thing, his good-thinking Liberal credentials show in an obsession with the Catholic Church as the citadel, or at least syneccdoche, of evil. The very first line reads:

American class privilege is very much like the idea of sex in a Catholic school — it’s not supposed to exist in the first place, but once it presents itself in your mind’s eye you realize that it’s everywhere.

My, what an original trope!

Later, he can’t even express his loathing and contempt for corporate (and, he fails to observe, Judaicly) backed frauds like Damien Hirst without making this outburst:

[W]e have entered an aesthetic universe every bit as blinkered and morally obtuse as that of the Catholic Church, when it elected to suppress classical composers in the wake of the Napoleonic Wars out of the conviction that they presented an urgent Jacobin threat to the established order of things. (p. 104)

^[19]

This makes Lehmann think of Palestrina

I can’t be bothered to research this, but does anyone remember some papal bull condemning equal temperament? Myself, I get my history from fiction, and I remember Huysmans, in his Catholic phase, bemoaning the Church’s replacement of Gregorian chant with half-assed operatics by Gonoud and Faure (long before the LP-driven fashion for it, Huysmans was promoting the reconstruction work of the Abbey of Solesmes, which contributed to our more recent “early music” revival). One wants to say, like one of Lehmann’s landsmen, “from your mouth to God’s ear”; if only the Church had, successfully, stamped out that demonic manifestation known as “classical music”; see Evola in Ride the Tiger, or even Colin Wilson: passing from Mozart to Beethoven, one is wearied by all the table-pounding; or Delius: a preference for Mozart over Beethoven was his test of a new acquaintance’s cultural level.

If you can ignore the weird, unmotivated Catholic bashing, and the recurrent genuflection to PC orthodoxy, the reader on the Alternative or Traditionalist Right will be able to find much useful historical and critical discussion of our most contemporary economic and cultural busybodies and nuisances, from Malcolm Gladwell to Alan Greenspan to Frank Gehry.

However, it lacks any information on food and drink, and above all, don’t quote any of it to a Parisian.

Source: http://jamesjomeara.blogspot.com/ ^[20]

 

---

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

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/10/stuff-our-betters-like/

Toward a North American New Right

Toward a North American New Right

By Greg Johnson

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

 

Author’s Note:

This is the Editor’s Preface to North American New Right, vol. 1, which will be published in November.

To plant a field or build a house, one must first clear a space. The same is true of an intellectual movement. North American New Right was created as a space for dialogue in which a new intellectual movement, a North American New Right, might emerge.

North American New Right began on June 11, 2010, as an online journal, the “blog” of Counter-Currents Publishing (http://www.counter-currents.com). But from the very beginning, North American New Right was also conceived as a print publication, an annual volume that would showcase the best of the online journal and provide a more readable format for appreciating our longer, more involved pieces. With this, the first volume of North American New Right, that project has now come to fruition.

The North American New Right is a “metapolitical” movement modeled on the European New Right, but adapted to the realities of North America. The goal of the North American New Right is to lay the metapolitical foundations for the emergence of a White Republic (or republics) in North America.

This project is motivated by consciousness of an existential threat. European peoples, both in our mother continent and scattered around the globe, now live under a cultural, political, and economic system that has set our race on the path to cultural decadence and demographic decline. If these trends are not reversed, whites will disappear as a distinct race. The incomparable light we bring to the world will be extinguished, and the greatness of our achievements will be preserved only in fragments, like the scraps of literature, shards of pottery, and shattered artworks that survived the wreck of pagan antiquity.

We aim to halt that process here in North America, but we also wish to learn from and contribute to the struggle of our comrades for white homelands around the globe.

“Metapolitics” refers to what comes before the political, i.e., the foundations of politics, including both (1) political ideas, i.e., the intellectual case for a particular political order, and (2) a concrete community that embodies those ideas in the present and will serve as the seed of a new political order to emerge in the future. As a journal of ideas, North American New Right naturally focuses on the intellectual dimension of metapolitics, which centers around three issues: identity, morality, and practicality.

If we are to defend the idea of a White Republic, we have to answer the question of identity: Who are we? Once we know who we are, we still have to answer the moral question: Is it right to create a society for our people alone? Finally, even if a White Republic is moral, we have to deal with the question of practicality: Is a White Republic even possible?

Identity

Questions of identity include such topics as: existing European regional and national identities; the problem of identity in European colonial societies where the blending of European stocks is almost universal; the inadequacy of abstract, propositional forms of identity; the problem of petty nationalism; the deep roots of a common European identity, including biological race, European history and prehistory, and the cultural diffusions revealed by comparative linguistics and mythology; the Traditionalism of René Guénon and Julius Evola; concepts of collective destiny; causes for collective pride and guilt, i.e., the strengths and weaknesses of our people; and the relationship of the North American New Right to the Western political, philosophical, and cultural tradition.

A corollary of the question of who we are is the question of who we are not, the question of “the others,” which subsumes unavoidable debates regarding the Jewish question. In an ideal world, it would be possible to be for oneself without being against anybody else. But as Carl Schmitt so cogently argues, in the real world, the political realm is constituted by the distinction between friend and enemy, which is rooted in the potential for existential conflicts between peoples.

On the other hand, we need to know who we are before we can deal with the question of who we are not. It is not possible to create political movements based merely on opposition to other groups while avoiding any discussion of our own identity as “divisive.” Thus the project of the North American New Right is to deal forthrightly with the questions of who we are not, but only within the larger context of the positive questions of who we are. Who and what we are for has logical and practical priority over who and what we are against.

Morality  

In my view, the key moral question is whether it is right to prefer one’s own kin over others. Whites, and only whites, have become convinced that it is wrong to prefer our people over other ethnic groups. Strict ethnic impartiality would not, however, be destructive of our race if all other races abided by the same principle. But unfortunately, they do not. All other groups not only are allowed to appeal to ethnic solidarity, they are encouraged and rewarded to do so. This puts whites at a systematic disadvantage in dealing with other groups, a disadvantage that over time would be sufficient to dispossess whites of our own homelands.

But our situation is actually far worse, for many whites have not adopted mere impartiality in dealing with other ethnic groups. Instead, they actually prefer other groups to their own. They are practitioners of what Guillaume Faye calls “ethnomasochism” and “xenophilia.” Such attitudes, of course, can only accelerate white dispossession.

And when whites no longer control homelands of our own, our destiny as a race will pass into the hands of other groups, many of which have deep historical grudges against us. We will, in effect, be a conquered people, and we will share the fates of conquered peoples, most of whom disappear from the pages of history.

Note that the question of ethnic partiality is not the issue of moral “univeralism.” Partiality to one’s own people is a completely universalizable principle. So is ethnic impartiality. So are ethnomasochism and xenophilia. The reason that ethnic impartiality and ethnomasochism/xenophilia are destructive to whites is simply that they are not practiced universally and reciprocally.

Another moral issue is the question of utopia. Whites are willing to maintain racially destructive moral attitudes like ethnic impartiality or ethnomasochism/xenophilia because they believe that they are making sacrifices to bring about a better world, a world without ethnic enmity and conflict. We have to destroy this illusion before it destroys us. We need to establish the enmity and conflict are ineradicable. They are normal, natural, and a challenge to our improvement, not something that can go away.

But we also need to advance our own, more realistic vision of utopia:  a peaceful world in which the causes of quarrel are not eliminated, but simply managed. Ethnic diversity in and of itself need not cause conflicts. Ethnic strife is, however, inevitable when diverse groups try to occupy the same living spaces. Therefore, the best way to avoid ethnic hatred and conflict is universal nationalism, i.e., giving every distinct people a country or countries of its own. A durable foundation for world peace is the recognition that all peoples have an interest in preserving the principle of national self-determination. (There is also a common interest in preserving our planetary environment.)

Dreams & Reality

Before the White Republic can become a reality, it must first be a fantasy, a dream, a vision of a possible world. But to become a reality, a vision must also be realistic. So the North American New Right has the dual task of cultivating dreamers and realists.

To cultivate the dreamers, we have a strong focus on the arts. Art is an indispensable tool of propagating political ideals, for it can reach more people, and stir them more deeply, than mere prose. But more fundamentally than that, our ideals and programs themselves are also the products of the artistic imagination.

To encourage contemporary artists, we seek to place them in contact with our tradition. Many of the greatest artists of the last century were men of the right, and one does not have to go back too far in history before the principles we defend were the common sense of virtually every great creative genius. We also seek to offer contemporary artists constructive criticism, publicity, and opportunities to network and collaborate.

To cultivate realism, we explore the questions of whether a White Republic is even feasible and how we might get there from here. These questions can be approached from two distinct though complimentary angles: the theoretical and the historical. Philosophy and the human sciences can tell us a good deal about what is possible and impossible, likely or unlikely. They seek to move from the possible to the actual. History, by contrast, moves from the actual to the possible. If something has happened, it is ipso facto possible.

The examples of the Irish and the Spanish, for example, show us that European peoples who have been conquered and colonized for centuries can preserve their identities and reconquer their homelands. More recent history also gives us examples of how large, multinational, multiracial empires have collapsed, allowing their constituent nations to free themselves and create ethnically homogeneous states. History thus provides us with a vast store of examples and analogies that can help us shape our ideas and guide them toward realization.

Theory & Practice[1]

To achieve our political aims, the North American New Right 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 Archeofuturism[2] 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 those of 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.[3] 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. If this is true, then the North American New Right can avoid this problem by configuring itself not as a hierarchical apparatus with a party line but as a lateral network that cultivates dialogue on a common set of questions from a plurality of different viewpoints.

A Pluralistic Movement

The North American New Right is an intellectual movement with a political agenda, but it is not a hierarchical intellectual sect or a political party. Instead, it is a network of independent authors and activists. We do not have a rigorous and detailed party line, but we do share certain basic premises, questions, and aims. These 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.

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.

Just as the North American New Right rejects “apparatus logic,” we also reject “representation logic.” Because we are a pluralistic movement, there is no presumption that a given author speaks for me or any other authors who are published here. Every author speaks only for him- or herself.

This is important to understand, because part of every issue of North American New Right will be devoted to translations of articles from European New Right thinkers whose positions and aims differ from one another and also from those of the North American New Right. These works are offered for discussion and debate. In their breadth, depth, and originality, they are also exemplars of the kind of work we wish to cultivate in North America.

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 oddest things. Besides, the 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 Publishing and the journal North American New Right? It means, first of all, that those of you who share our concerns but may be holding back because you imagine you diverge from an unstated party line can relax. There is no party line beyond the questions and concerns outlined above. Second, it means that we encourage civil debate and commentary on our articles, interviews, and reviews, including this one. We welcome the challenge.

Notes

1. The rest of this article is adapted from an earlier piece, Greg Johnson, “Theory and Practice,” Counter-Currents/North American New Right, September 30, 2010,  http://www.counter-currents.com/2010/09/theory-practice/ ^[2]

2. Guillaume Faye, Archeofuturism: European Visions of the Post-Catastrophic Age, trans. Sergio Knipe (Arktos Media, 2010).

3. For an excellent introduction to Cochin, see F. Roger Devlin, “From Salon to Guillotine: Augustin Cochin’s Organizing the Revolution,” The Occidental Quarterly, vol. 8, no. 2 (Summer 2008): 63–90.

 

---

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

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/09/toward-a-north-american-new-right/

El mito y la vanguardia,

Adriano Scianca

Ex: http://www.idpress.org/

El problema del lenguaje

Todo movimiento auténticamente revolucionario – es decir, portador de proyectos radicalmente innovadores y originales a todo lo que se ha experimentado y en todo y por todo heterogéneo y alternativo con respecto al mundo socio-político en que irrumpe – choca inevitablemente con el problema del lenguaje.

Esto sucede porque todo movimiento “nuevo” debe necesariamente hacer uso de un lenguaje “viejo”, impregnado de la sensibilidad y de la lógica propia del mundo que se querría subvertir. Por lo demás, no podría proceder de otra manera: el lenguaje es siempre lenguaje recibido. Observa con lucidez un filósofo contemporáneo – aunque muy lejano de nuestra perspectiva – que “un sujeto que fuese el origen absoluto del propio discurso y lo construyese ‘en todas sus piezas’ sería el creador del verbo, el Verbo en persona” (1), sería por tanto el Dios de la Biblia que crea ex nihilo, siendo el “totalmente otro” respecto al mundo, estando entonces fuera de la historia y del lenguaje. El hombre, en cambio, es siempre en el lenguaje; una obra de ingeniería lingüística le resulta completamente imposible, ya que siempre debe actuar con los “instrumentos” que encuentra en su lugar. Pero actuar con “instrumentos” pensados para finalidades completamente distintas respecto a las que uno se ha propuesto no siempre resulta cómodo.

Pensemos en Heidegger- pero problemas análogos se presentan ya en Nietzsche – que deja inacabada su obra maestra Ser y Tiempo porque carece de un lenguaje apropiado; en cierto momento al pensador alemán “le faltan las palabras”, ya que todas aquellas disponibles están irremediablemente empapadas de la visión del mundo dominante en Occidente. Pero para que el problema aquí abordado no resulte excesivamente abstracto e individualista, pensemos también en todos aquellos movimientos políticos y culturales que han pasado a la historia con el nombre de Konservative Revolution: echando un vistazo a los eslóganes, a los lemas, a los títulos de los libros, a los nombres de los distintos grupos no se puede más que observar un cierto gusto por el oxímoron, por la paradoja, por la violación abierta de los cánones y de los esquemas comunes; pensar en un socialismo que sea también nacional, en una aristocracia que hunda sus raíces en el pueblo, en una democracia desvinculada de la tutela del liberalismo plutocrático, en un cristianismo que afirme valores germánicos (es decir, paganos) – todo esto tiene orígenes de una muchísima mayor profundidad que un simple anhelo de originalidad.

Detrás de todo esto, se encuentra más bien la incapacidad de definirse uno mismo de manera adecuada a través del lenguaje dominante y hay, por tanto, una voluntad de síntesis, una tentativa de pensar de forma simultánea lo que siempre se ha concebido como distinto. Un ejemplo más todavía, pero esta vez más concreto: pensemos en nosotros mismos; pongámonos en relación con los grandes temas de la actualidad y tratemos de tomar parte en el debate tal y como nos viene presentado por los medios de comunicación.

Y bien, ¿estamos con la retórica angelical, empalagosa, igualitaria e hipócrita de los pacifistas o con la cruzada a base de Bible & business de George W. Bush? ¿Estamos contra los bárbaros inmigrantes islámicos en nombre del Occidente cristiano o somos filo-inmigracionistas a ultranza, seguidores del cosmopolitismo y del mestizaje etnocultural? ¿Estamos a favor de la fuga hacia delante del “desarrollo” neoliberal o a favor del “retorno” a una civilización neopastoral, fuera de la historia, al estilo de las últimas tribus africanas? De manera más banal: ¿somos de derechas o de izquierdas? Estas son las alternativas que nos propone el mundo contemporáneo. Nuestra incomodidad ante estas es evidente ya que la posición que hay que tomar nos parece que es siempre una tercera con respecto a las que nos dan. Eso sucede porque, en la medida en que somos realmente revolucionarios, usamos un lenguaje diferente. El lenguaje del mito.

El mito

Según Giorgio Locchi(2), todo movimiento que encarne una tendencia histórica nueva se presenta bajo forma mítica. El mito, precisamente porque es “nuevo”, no puede hablar un lenguaje totalmente in-formado por valores a él antitéticos, y sin embargo no tiene otras formas expresivas a su disposición; por esto nace bajo el signo de la ambigüedad, su expresión es la paradoja.

Respecto a los códigos lingüísticos dominantes la expresión mítica aparece como herejía, como trasgresión, como unidad de los contrarios. Esto sucede precisamente en virtud de la violación- más o menos consciente- de la dialéctica del lenguaje utilizado. El lenguaje que se parasita se desarrolla y se articula de hecho mediante la institución de parejas de opuestos y de contrarios- que en el caso del igualitarismo son, entre otras, cristianismo/ateismo, comunismo/capitalismo, nacionalismo/internacionalismo, derecha/izquierda, individualismo/colectivismo, reacción/progreso, etc.- que reflejan la autorreflexión ideológica del universo político-cultural imperante. La expresión mítica hace de cortocircuito para esta dialéctica al no pensar los contrarios ya como tales. Las palabras fundamentales son, por tanto, “falsificadas”. Significados nuevos se derraman en significantes viejos. Se tiene así un uso instrumental del lenguaje, que ya no debe explicar analíticamente, sino que ahora debe evocar, tocar una sensibilidad profunda que va más allá de la mera razón. La unidad de los contrarios propia del mito viene dada por los Leitbilder (imágenes conductoras) de las que habla Armin Mohler (3).

Los Leitbilder son los mitemas, las unidades primarias de la estructura mítica, del Weltbild, es decir, de la imagen del mundo. Son símbolos evocadores, imágenes conductoras de una idea del mundo. La creación y la difusión de los mitemas instaura un flujo comunicativo, es decir, la red de las relaciones humanas mediante la cual el mito mismo se dice y habla. Comunicar es, de hecho, instaurar relaciones, vincularse a otros, descubrir afinidades o idiosincrasias. Los individuos están necesariamente abiertos al propio contexto comunicacional; comunicándose tienden también a re-conocerse, tienden a tomar posición junto a quienes sienten como afines. La disposición mítica de quien dice el discurso mítico, en la práctica, tiende a “excitar” la disponibilidad mítica de quien acoge el discurso. Quien logra situarse como centro de la estructura de los signos lingüísticos del discurso mítico -para usar un lenguaje estructuralista precisamente- logra dominar (aunque sólo sea parcialmente: el lenguaje no se domina nunca como una cosa) el flujo comunicativo, logra imponerse en la producción de los símbolos y se sitúa como vanguardia metapolítica.

La vanguardia

Por tanto, dominar el lenguaje. Imponer una lógica nueva que deconstruya los paradigmas dominantes, que disuelva y vuelva a plasmar las formaciones. La vanguardia debe distinguirse por “una acción sistemática y culturalmente eversiva, que trate de introducir en el circuito ideas ‘envenenadas’, que trate no tanto de influir, demostrar, convencer, organizar burocráticamente, como de chocar, fascinar, crear dudas, generar necesidades, hacer que crezcan consciencias, producir actitudes y conductas desestabilizadoras. Debe, en una palabra, hablar y saber hablar el lenguaje del mito, crear a partir de sí misma su propio público, atraer plenamente la atención tanto de las tendencias espontáneas de rechazo político de la realidad del Sistema en sus variadas articulaciones, como de los arquetipos romántico-fáusticos que todavía circulan en el inconsciente colectivo europeo” (4).

Chocar y seducir. Pero para esto es preciso otro estilo, que salga definitivamente de la ritualidad vacía del nostalgismo, de los eslóganes manidos, del conformismo sectario. Superar los estereotipos, hablar un lenguaje nuevo, rechazar las lógicas del Sistema para imponer otras nuevas, enfrentarse al presente y proyectar el futuro- he aquí nuestro objetivo. Debemos practicar- como ya hizo brillantemente la Nouvelle Droite en su periodo de oro- la lógica del terzo incluso (el tercero incluido): se participa en el debate sosteniendo siempre una tercera opinión (lógicamente usando la cabeza: innovar por innovar es un ejercicio estéril) respecto a las posiciones opuestas en que se dividen los seguidores del Sistema.

De este modo, se les pone ante un discurso nuevo para el que no están preparados, se les obliga a tomar posición y a redefinir las formaciones. Los individuos habituados, por convicción o costumbre, al discurso dominante nos consideran algo ya previsible, nos asignan de oficio una identidad compuesta de ignorancia y prepotencia, de nostalgia e intolerancia, de prejuicio y arrogancia. Nuestro cometido es sorprenderles, hacer que salten por los aires las lógicas y los ritmos impuestos, escapar a las clasificaciones y a las etiquetas. Lo que importa en estar en el mundo contemporáneo, siempre dispuestos a enfrentarnos con este y a recoger sus desafíos, sin ser de este mundo, perteneciendo a otra raza, a otro estilo, ligados a otros mitos y a otros valores. Sólo así se puede escapar de dos comportamientos especulares pero igualmente peligrosos: el ansia de tomar posición, de participar, de ser recuperados por el Sistema y admitidos en la discusión entre las “personas civiles” y el opuesto repliegue a debates esotéricos e insignificantes, todos internos a un micro-ambiente aislado del mundo.

Después de todo, la misma Nouvelle Droite, aunque aquí se la ha tomado como ejemplo positivo, no ha aplicado esta estrategia más que de manera parcial, limitándose al discurso cultural y filosófico, casi como si una idea por sí misma innovadora resultase revolucionaria por el mero hecho de ser dicha. La elaboración ideológica en sentido estricto, sin embargo, ha de integrarse en una acción global y diversificada más ambiciosa y de mayor alcance, aunque al mismo tiempo más humilde y concreta.

El mito se afirma con todos los lenguajes posibles, también y sobre todo con el del ejemplo y el de la acción, afirmando cotidianamente una presencia activa en la sociedad y sobre el terreno; presencia que, de vez en cuando, no sirva para reclamar una comisión o una poltrona sino que sea, al contrario, la demostración concreta de que la alternativa es posible. Sólo madurando la capacidad de mantener y afirmar tal presencia en el corazón de la sociedad podremos arrancar de las indignas manos del carro new-global el monopolio del pensamiento alternativo, atrayendo por consiguiente hacia nuestro campo todas las institividades de rebelión y los conatos de revuelta, tratando así de “dar forma” y de movilizar conscientemente tales sentimientos expresados hasta ahora sólo en estado bruto. Tan sólo este esfuerzo constante en dirección hacia una apertura al mundo contemporáneo puede permitirnos hablar el verdadero lenguaje del mito, que por su naturaleza es siempre provocador (pro-vocare, es decir, etimológicamente, “llamar fuera”, es decir, invitar, desafiar, tentar, excitar, incitar; en una palabra: movilizar).

La alternativa es la cerrazón orgullosa en un ghetto que se cree comunidad, en una secta que se cree aristocracia, fuera del mundo y de los desafíos de la contemporaneidad, eternamente tarde en la historia, por todos mal conocidos e ignorados antes incluso que condenados y proscritos.

A nosotros nos corresponde la elección.

* * *
[i] Jacques Derrida, La struttura, il segno e il gioco nel discorso delle scienze umane, in La Escrittura e la diferenza Einaudi, Turín 2002.

[ii] Cfr Giorgio Locchi, Wagner, Nietzsche e il mito sovrumanista, Akropolis, Roma 1982.

[iii] Cfr. Armin Mohler, La Rivoluzione Conservatrice in Germania 1918-1932. Una guida, Akropolis/La Roccia di Erec, Florencia 1990.

[iv] Stefano vaj, Introducción alla prima edizione de Il Sistema per uccidere i popoli di Guillaume Faye (SEB, Milán 1997).

Extraído de Orion n° 228, settembre 2003.
http://www.centrostudilaruna.it/

A Prophecy for the Future of Europe

A Prophecy for the Future of Europe

By John Morgan

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

 

The 2009 French film A Prophet, directed by Jacques Audiard, is one of the best prison/crime films (it contains elements of both) I have seen in a long time. In its gritty realism, it is a throwback to the greatest prison films of bygone eras. I’m thinking of classics like A Man Escaped, Escape from Alcatraz, Papillon, or even the 1985 Runaway Train.

These disappeared after the Tarantino age was ushered in with Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, and after that, prison and crime films, with their slick, fast-paced cinematography, jumbled morality and glamorous characters, came to resemble long music videos more than dramas. (The 2004 British film Layer Cake is a prime example of this type of film.)

A Prophet, however, shows criminals and prison life as I imagine they are really like: dirty, ugly and unpleasant, inhabited by people who have to be both brutal and cunning just to survive from one day to the next. In this sense, the film is a great success, and that alone would make it worth viewing. Many other people have sung its praises as well, and it won the Grand Prize at the Cannes Film Festival in 2009.

There is another layer to A Prophet, however, and that is primarily what I would like to discuss here. It is also the story of the rise of a criminal mastermind from nothingness to absolute power, similar to the paradigm we’ve seen before in The Godfather films and Scarface. Mixed with this is a none-too-subtle parable about the position of immigrants in France, and, by extension, Europe, in both the present and the future.

Alarm bells should immediately ring when Wikipedia quotes a French interview with director Audiard about the film in which he said that he was “creating icons, images for people who don’t have images in movies, like the Arabs in France,” even though he added to this that it “has nothing to do with [his] vision of society.” I’m sorry, Monsieur Audiard, but I don’t believe that you simply wanted to make a movie about Parisian criminals.

My discussion requires that I give a quick summary of the film’s plot, so if you haven’t seen the film and don’t want to know the story before doing so, turn back now. The film begins as 19-year-old Arab Malik El Djebena is being thrown into a prison in Paris. The prison is run by two gangs of inmates: one consisting of the Muslims; and the other, which is much more successful and wealthy, run by Cesar Luciani, a Corsican crime boss who is still running his empire from inside the prison, along with his Corsican cohorts.

Malik, weak and defenseless, is at first easy prey, and he is attacked and robbed by fellow Muslims shortly after his arrival. Typically, the Corsicans will have nothing to do with the Arabs, but an Arab prisoner arrives who they know intends to testify against them. Not having any allies in the Muslim section of the prison, they recruit Malik by offering to give him protection in exchange for murdering the witness.

Malik carries out the assassination, and thereafter becomes a servant to the Corsicans, who protect him but treat him with contempt and hold him at a distance. At the same time, the other Muslims regard Malik as a traitor for working with them, and as a result he is kept safe but isolated.

This situation continues for some time until most of the Corsicans are freed, leaving Cesar with only a handful of followers. After this he is forced to rely to a much greater extent on Malik, but gives him occasional, brutal reminders not to think that he can live without Cesar’s continued protection. Still, Malik’s life begins to improve considerably, and he is able to have many goods brought to his cell from the outside, including White prostitutes. Eventually, because of his good behavior in the eyes of the prison authorities, he is allowed to begin taking day-long leaves out of the prison, and Cesar uses him as a messenger to negotiate deals with his own bosses in Paris, becoming even more indispensable to him.

Meanwhile, Malik finally befriends one of the Muslim prisoners, Ryad, who finishes his sentence and helps Malik, in spite of Cesar’s threats, to set up a hashish smuggling operation which begins to win Malik contacts among the Muslim inmates. We later learn that Ryad is dying of cancer, but he continues to help Malik to build his network in return for Malik’s promise that he will care for Ryad’s wife and family after he dies.

Malik continues to become more and more important to Cesar’s operations, and simultaneously begins to win the respect of the Muslim gang leaders both inside and outside the prison, as they recognize that Malik occupies a unique position, being the only person to straddle both sides of the underworld. Things come to a climax when Cesar, suspecting that his Italian boss is plotting against him, asks Malik to arrange for the Don’s assassination during one of his leaves outside the prison.

Malik agrees, and initially the Arabs and the Corsicans plan to carry out the attack together, but the two groups despise each other and cannot cooperate. On the day of the attack, Malik deserts the Corsicans, and he and Ryad successfully carry out the hit on their own. Knowing that the remaining Corsicans in the prison will now turn on each other, Malik deliberately returns from his leave late and is thrown into solitary confinement – for forty days and forty nights. By the time he emerges, all of the Corsicans apart from Cesar himself have either been killed or sent to other prisons.

In the last part of the film, Malik is returned to the prison population, and we see him come out into the yard, which has traditionally been split between the Corsicans and the Muslims, only now, Cesar sits by himself. Malik is welcomed by the Muslims as their new leader, and he takes his place at the center of their group.

Cesar signals for Malik to come and speak with him, but Malik ignores him. Getting desperate, Cesar finally attempts to cross over to the Muslim side, but some of them stop him and beat him up before he can reach Malik. Realizing he has lost, Cesar staggers back to his side of the yard.

Shortly thereafter, Malik completes his sentence, and on the day he is released, he is met by Ryad’s wife and children. As he walks home with them, we see several vehicles pull up behind them, discreetly keeping their distance, and we realize that it is Malik’s new security detail. The film ends, the transfer of power now complete.

The subtext of this story should be easy to read without much analysis. If we view the prison as a microcosm of Europe, Cesar and the Corsicans represent the White European establishment, while Malik and the other Muslims represent the disenfranchised immigrants. Malik suffers repeated humiliation at the hands of the Whites, and even does their dirty work, but he is really just biding his time. He slowly builds his power base, and after he gains their trust, he uses it against them, and manages to displace them in the prison that formerly belonged to them.

There is even a giveaway line in the middle of the film, when Cesar remarks to Malik that at one time the Whites were in the majority in the prison, but that they are rapidly becoming outnumbered by the Muslims. Indeed, if present trends continue, the story of A Prophet is very likely going to be the story of Europe in the twenty-first century. Muslim immigrants will tolerate the system as long as they have to, but as soon as they have the strength and are in a position to do so, they will surely shove their hosts aside and suck whatever remains of Europe dry, leaving the descendants of the original inhabitants of Europe to simply watch and mourn while it happens – those who don’t switch sides, that is.

As Greg Johnson has expressed it, the new masters of Islamic Europe will be like teenagers who steal a car: they’ll take it for a joy ride, drive it until it crashes, and then move on to the next car. Why? Because, fundamentally, it’s not theirs. Why should they be concerned with what happens to the culture of Homer, Goethe, and Baudelaire?

While it is very possible that this tale was born from the imaginations of ethnomasochistic French liberals, I don’t find much in this parable with which to disagree. Whatever their motivations, the filmmakers have caught the essential truth of what is happening in Europe today.

It is worth noting that one of the measures of Malik’s success is his screwing of White whores, and there is also a quick shot of a White woman embracing a Black man on a Paris street during one of Malik’s leaves. The ability of non-Whites to dominate White women through sex, thus robbing us of future progeny which we can call our own, is among the trophies of their success, as we’ve been seeing for a long time in our own country.

And, interestingly, it is not any of the Muslims who deliver the death blow to the White power base in the prison. Rather, the Whites do themselves in, rather as we have seen continuously among the European nations over the past century. Non-Whites will just need to step in once the Whites have finished killing themselves off.

Similarly, in the film, the process begins when Cesar admits an outsider to serve his own purposes, believing that he can keep him under control, just as the elites of the United States and Europe began to admit non-White immigrants in large numbers out of economic expediency and with little thought that the future might bring something altogether different from what they imagined. So, again, I challenge Audiard’s claim that his film has nothing to say about European society. Furthermore, this film could easily be remade in America with a Latino in the main role, and the message would remain the same.

One criticism the film has received from some quarters is in its treatment of Islam, and in particular the references to Malik as a prophet. I myself, given the film’s title, had assumed that eventually, Malik was going to undergo some sort of religious awakening, but it never happens. At no point in the film does he evince any interest whatsoever in his Muslim heritage.

We get occasional glimpses of more devout Muslim inmates in the background, and at one point Malik brings some of his hashish profits to a mosque (only because he didn’t think it was worth the risk to keep it himself, we learn). On another occasion, high on heroin, he sees another inmate spinning in the style of the whirling dervishes and chanting the names of Allah, and imitates him, working himself into ecstasy. But it never goes beyond this, and Malik’s actions could hardly be described as those of a good Muslim.

Still, the film draws a number of deliberate parallels between Malik and the lives of the Prophets of Islam. Malik, we learn, is illiterate, just as Muhammad was. Malik is kept in solitary confinement for forty days and nights, just as Moses and Jesus had fasted and prayed for the same length of time in isolation before being granted divine revelations. Muhammad also received many revelations through dreams, and Malik himself has a dream of deer running across a road. When he is in a car driving through a forest with a Muslim gang leader, he recognizes the area from his dream and warns the driver seconds before he hits a deer, henceforth becoming known as “a prophet.”

But if he’s not a religious leader, in what way is Malik a prophet? Is it really just a tasteless joke, as some critics have claimed?

I would say no, and the reasons for this have to do with my own views on Muslim immigration into Europe, and not Muslim immigration into the United States, I hasten to add, which I do not view as a threat of the same order. Many Rightists conflate Muslim immigration into Europe and America as if they are the same thing, but the fact is, they are not. The truth is that Muslims in the United States comprise less than 1% of the population, while Hispanics account for over 16%, and they are coming into the country at a much faster rate, both legally and illegally, than Muslim immigrants are. This is beside the fact that the majority of Muslims in Europe are poor and uneducated, while Muslims generally come to the United States to receive education and enter the middle class. The situations are simply not comparable. So, personally, I think those who believe that we have to protect ourselves from shariah law before it overtakes America, and who are trying to pass legislation to this effect, are wasting their time. The threat of immigration to America is real, but comes from different sources.

As a traditionalist, I respect Islam in its genuine forms, primarily Sufism, as a manifestation of the supreme, metaphysical truth. Unlike many of my political colleagues, my own problem with Muslim immigration has little to do with the religion itself, and I think A Prophet successfully illustrates my own thoughts on the matter.

There are some traditionalists, particularly followers of the teachings of René Guénon or Frithjof Schuon who have converted to Islam themselves, who view Muslim immigration into Europe as a positive thing, since they believe that Europe, having lost its own sacred traditions, will be resacralized by being reintegrated into a spiritual culture, regardless of the fact that it is a foreign tradition.

Even Ahmed Huber, the Swiss German banker who, rather like Malik, occupied a unique place where the worlds of Islamic fundamentalism and the European Right met, contended that, eventually, Muslim immigration into Europe would give rise to a unique form of “European Islam.” Muslim scholars, including the Scots convert Shaykh Abdalqadir as-Sufi and the Swiss Egyptian Tariq Ramadan, have likewise predicted the rise of such a thing.

On the surface, this might seem like a good idea, since it is undeniable that Europe is in desperate need of a return to spirituality. Unlike Guénon or Schuon, however, I believe that a religion has to be connected to one’s racial and cultural makeup, and the mere fact of a system of beliefs being associated with the Primordial Tradition is insufficient by itself. A “European” Islam would remain as inherently anti-European, no matter how many concessions it makes, as Christianity has always been, and surely its impact would be just as destructive as the last attempt to alter the spiritual foundations of our people was.

However, even this is not the main issue for me. The fact is, as we see in A Prophet, the culture of the majority of Muslims in Europe is not the high-minded Sufi Islam of Martin Lings or Seyyed Hossein Nasr (two prominent contemporary traditionalists). Mostly, it does not even rise to the purely exoteric, black-and-white level of political Islamism.

The culture of Muslims in Europe is a ghetto culture, a culture of the lowest form of materialism, which is the only thing that can emerge from generation after generation of poverty, ignorance, resentment, and petty violence, all the while being encouraged in this by their cheerleaders among the ethnomasochistic liberal elites. It is no more “Islamic” in the true sense than the culture of urban Blacks in America is reflective of African culture.

There will be no restoration of spirituality or traditional values, European or Muslim. What I imagine would emerge from their triumph would be something like the city of Detroit over the past half-century, in which the underclass came to power only to set about stripping down and selling off anything of value with no thought for the future, quickly reducing the entire area into a depressing wasteland that is beyond recovery, and bearing only the faintest traces of having once been something better.

This is the true prophecy that Malik offers us: a vision of the brutal rise of a criminal-minded underclass which is interested in nothing but its own survival and material enrichment, and one which will have little regard for the welfare of its former overlords. I do not blame immigrant populations for being this way. They come to the West to seek a better life, which is only natural, and it cannot be denied that their lives here have been rough and humiliating.

However, we cannot let understanding of their plight to any degree lessen our resolve to protect what is rightfully ours. As John Michell once wrote, every people is given a space in which to realize itself. Europe, at least for the time being, still has its space, and the Muslims have theirs (apart from Palestine). There should be no shame in asserting ourselves, even though many of us, under the influence of negative and culture-destroying ideologies, have come to feel shame about it.

Therefore it remains to be seen if Europe will actually resign itself to having reached the end of its natural life cycle, or if it still retains enough vitality to bring about a restoration of some sort. But the hour is getting late, and there is much to be done. And Malik and his cohorts are already dreaming of their prophecy with their eyes wide open.

---

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

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/09/a-prophecy-for-the-future-of-europe/