Editor’s Note:
This is the transcript by V. S. of Richard Spencer’s Vanguard Podcast interview of Jonathan Bowden about Oswald Spengler. You can listen to the podcast here [2].
Richard Spencer: Hello, everyone, and welcome back to Vanguard! And welcome back as well, Jonathan Bowden! How are you, Jonathan?
Jonathan Bowden: Yes, hello! I’m very well. Thanks for having me on again.
RS: Quite good. Today we’re going to talk about the philosophy of Oswald Spengler. In these podcasts we’ve talked quite a bit about philosophers who are of interest to the New Right or the Alternative Right or White Nationalists or whatever you want to call us. And we’ve talked about Nietzsche in particular. Nietzsche is an interesting case in the sense that, despite the fact that he has quite a few unfashionable ideas from the standpoint of our enlightened modern age, nevertheless he is still quite popular. Libraries and bookstores are well-stocked with titles on Nietzsche.
Spengler, on the other hand, who equaled or surpassed Nietzsche’s popularity in Central Europe in his own time, has gone down the memory hole in a way. It’s hard to find a book by Spengler at your local bookstore, even a large one. Though I think people have heard about him or they have some general notion that he was a pessimistic German or something like this, they don’t really know a lot about the man and his philosophy. We hope we can increase the level of understanding, certainly, with this discussion today.
Jonathan, the way I wanted to start out this talk about Spengler and the philosophy of history is at a very basic level of understanding. I was thinking before we started this conversation that this idea of linear history is one that is really powerful for people and it also has something to do with Christianity in a way, but it’s also something that’s survived well into the post-Christian West. What I mean by linear history is what maybe could be described in just a simple phrase like “It keeps getting better all the time,” this notion that we’re the next step in history, and this history leads to greater freedom, greater liberation, greater understanding, greater technology, so on and so forth and that, yes, there might be some bad things that happen along the way but those are kind of speed bumps along this highway towards utopia or something like that.
I think if we look at the world from the standpoint of technology perhaps that is true. We’ve had the creation of medicines, from the automobile to the iPhone. Obviously, there’s a way that things have been getting better. They’ve been slowly perfected.
But, of course, culture and civilization, these are two very different things than technology.
Jonathan, maybe we can talk just a little about that just to get this conversation started and to get our listeners’ minds’ wheels turning, so to speak, about the philosophy of history. Think about that powerful assumption. Just that it seems like something that everyone in the modern West, maybe even the modern world, Left and Right, all have and that is of linear history and how Spengler is really challenging that. What do you think about that idea, Jonathan?
JB: Yes, I think that’s a good way in. Spengler is a cosmologist of history. He’s a botanist of history, in a way. He sees human cultures and their attendant civilizations very much like geological strata or the morphology of plant life in that they have a natural cycle, even a diurnal, seasonal one. They have a brief flowering and they have a spring, they have a summer, they have an autumnal phase, and then they have a winter of the soul, and then they die. They literally atrophy and die. His belief in the death of great cultures, that cultures could be seen to come to an end, or they can lie silent for enormously long periods prior to some renaissance or kickstart, is deeply troubling to the modern mind which is addicted to the idea of progress and progressivism whatever its standpoint.
Spengler’s emotional register was profoundly melancholic and pessimistic. He once famously in Man and Technics said that “optimism is cowardice.” There is a degree to which his view of history, which is these radial circles which overlap with each other rather like a Venn diagram in mathematics, a science with which he was familiar, accords very much with his own view that things are cyclic and circular and turn back upon themselves, and cultures go through various stages which are inevitable, and each stage follows from the other one and has the seeds of death in its own mouth in the sense that the thing will turn full circle on itself. He turned cultural decline away from merely being of archival and archeological interest.
These are forbidding and almost totalitarian insights of pessimism which don’t accord easily with the 20th century. If you look at a book like Niall Ferguson’s The War of the World, for example, which is a narrative of the extreme violence in Western and global society in the century of the masses, the 20th century, that’s a mordant book. It’s an apocalyptic book. It’s a book that in some ways is opposed to the idea that things are getting better and better. Yet at the same time, it doesn’t feel emotionally pessimistic despite the fact that it’s brimming, on the whole, with pessimistic criteria. So, Ferguson remains an optimist in a sort of belletrist liberal methodology, the belief that things can get better even if they turn out for the worst at a particular time, which he wishes to express.
Spengler would have no truck with that. Spengler believes that cultures are sort of caged in a way and will wither and die a natural death just as [. . .] beauty in accordance with the rhythm which is close to that of biological life in human affairs.
RS: Before we get into his organic concept of history let’s talk a little bit about his milieu, where he was coming from. I would like to talk about the milieu of his life in Germany at the first quarter, first half of the 20th century.
But before that I think it’s worthwhile going back a little bit to the 19th century and some of the philosophies of history which preceded Spengler’s, and I’m thinking, of course, of Hegel and Kant — probably the two biggest figures in that philosophical school. Maybe you could just mention what are some of the ways that Hegel, probably the most well-known, influenced Spengler. Obviously Hegel had a dialectical view of history which is certainly more complicated than “it’s getting better all the time” linear view, but nevertheless it was a progress view of history. He actually felt that history was coming to an end with the Prussian state and so on and so forth.
So, what do you think about, say, the influence of some of these great German idealist thinkers that came before Spengler and how that impacted his notion of the decline of the West?
JB: Yes, I think that they obviously affected him deeply, because they looked for systematic answers unlike the neo-Kantian school that said there is no time for history and that all attempts to find a time in history are artistic and subjective and therefore historically worthless.
It’s important to realize that for a proportion of critics Spengler’s view is not just anathema, but it’s been fundamentally mysterious, because quite a few philosophical schools believe, whether it’s on the Left with Toynbee or it’s on the Right with Spengler, that it’s utterly pointless to have attempts at historical analysis which are non-linear and which seek for an answer to the conundrum of history, that seeks to elucidate the Sphinx and get it to answer questions about the nature of historical reality. They consider that there is no plan. There is nothing other than linear motion in the spasm of time and any attempt to find a historical plan other than the received wisdom of a work is fruitless. They would consider a work like The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Gibbon to be perfect in its way because it takes the Roman Empire as its topic where you have an enormous unfolding vista of historical time, and you have the idea that you have many triumphs and many disasters, but the end is partly a projection of the beginning. So, you have almost a biography of a society.
That’s acceptable. What isn’t acceptable from this school of thinking, which is the current one in academic orthodoxy at the present time, is to try to find a key or philosophical agency to history, to interpret history, that history has a meaning in the way that Thomas Carlyle believed it had meaning in the 19th century. Spengler’s addicted to finding the meaning in history, which pulls him to the outside of several of the major historical schools to begin with. There’s also the fact that he was self-taught and was a sort of autodidact and a sort of terribly gifted dilettante, as someone not completely kindly once said. History is an area par excellence which only academics really believe they are entitled to write.
So, in two areas, academicism and the search for an ontology in history — the search for teleology, the belief that there is a prospective future which can be determined, as Marx believed in a different way, and mapped out — those lie outside of Spengler’s purview and yet make marginal his historical essay, his attempt at finding out the meaning of things in his two volume enormous work The Decline of the West published in 1918 and 1923.
So, he draws on the primary idealists like Hegel, but I don’t think there’s much comparison to be frank when you get to the work, because Hegel believes that history will reach its fulcrum and its termination in the idealistic presentation of the Prussian state in history — a sort of being in history — whereas for Spengler the Prussian state, although he wanted Germany and the Germany of his time to dominate Europe, was just a part of the West and a part of the cycle of the West that would be doomed to decline as all of the great civilizations — the Arab, the Eastern Chinese, the Medieval — were doomed to decline in their way.
RS: Before we talk a little bit more about Germany in his time, actually, I think it would be good to lay out some of the basic terms of Spengler’s history. He talked about a series of great or high cultures and these included the Magian culture, which I guess is the Semitic culture, and the Apollonian of Classical culture, and then Western-American culture, which he described as quintessentially Faustian in nature.
So, Jonathan, maybe you could elucidate some of these big ideas for our listeners so they could have an idea of his organic historical sense, just in particular with those three massive cultures. And again, we’re not talking about epochs, because he’s getting away from a sense of time and he’s putting it in terms of a culture and a people, a civilization. So, maybe you could explain those basic concepts and then also just delineate for our listeners what he means by the Magian, Apollonian, and then finally the Faustian culture, which he felt was coming to a close.
JB: Yes. He felt cultures were self-enclosed and were organic and were not time-concentric. He thought they have a period or expanse of time associated with them.
He sees the Middle Eastern culture as essentially magical and somewhat sterile and introverted and flat and a culture of the desert.
He sees Greek culture as proportioned and massive in its architectural and classical relief. He sees it as less dynamic than the Western culture, more staid, more fixed, and had a tendency towards a preternatural order and the specificity of same.
The Western culture, which he is most keen on, he sees as a partly diabolical culture. He sees it as Faustian. He sees it as a mismatch and matching of things that don’t coherently go together in other cultures. He sees it as a culture of advanced restlessness and absence of an inner sense of ease and with an extraordinary desire for self-transcendence, which is a desire to change everything again and again and again to make it new and make it work and make the Western culture the most dynamically aggressive culture on Earth.
RS: So, is he talking about a mindset with this — I hesitate to use this term but — a collective consciousness, so to speak, amongst the people that is expressed most fully in some of the great people of the civilization? Is that a good way to describe what he’s talking about?
JB: Yes, it’s a sort of civilizational construct of culture permeated through an elite as articulated through and by the masses within a particular civics over time. It’s racially-based to an extent, but only partly so, because his positions are sublimated racialisms whereby, although the Semitic mostly goes with the Magian and the Eastern Mediterranean largely goes with the Apollonian, and the Western is made up of most of Europe and ex-Europe in the New World and the far reaches of the world associated with Western imperial conquests and settlements, North America in particular, the notion that they are purely racial is not one that he accedes to.
He has a Nietzschean concept of race which is that race is important, because breeding is the basis of everything, but it’s too rudimentary for reasons of analysis. For analysis, you have to look at the culture and the civics which are created by specific races and intermingled variants of races over time, and pure biology is not enough to describe man’s ascent, if indeed it has been an ascent rather than a withering to death of prior acknowledged cultures of whatever beauty.
So, Spengler’s always an unhappy bedfellow for various people, because he never fits in with people’s preconditions and prior suppositions. There will always be a tension even with the racialist Right with Spengler as there is with the Left over his pessimistic and non-materialist views of history, his intuitionism, his opening to the subjective elements in culture, his belief in the wintering of the soul of a culture and its partial decline over time, his obsession with the coming up to decadence. All of these would not render him attractive to a Left-wing mind at all. But, at the same time, the liberal progressive sees little in him, the man of the center, because he’s too morbid, too mordant, and pessimistic, too professorial, and too linked to a prior theory which cuts against their ingrained optimism, including the idea, as you said at the beginning of this clip, that “things are getting better and better.”
RS: Jonathan, why don’t you tell us a little bit about this organic story of Western or Faustian culture and its origins after the collapse of the Roman Empire and then how he felt that it was declining and ending in his own lifetime? Maybe you could just give us some outlines of Faustian culture’s birth and flowering and then decline. What was he talking about? Obviously, in order to talk about these things you have to paint in really broad strokes, but I think that’s good, particularly with a podcast like this. So, give our listeners a sense of this organic story of Faustian culture.
JB: With the collapse of the Roman Empire I think he thinks that the classical world comes to an end and the medieval world as such begins. The medieval world is a static and closed civilization which is a magical one based upon totem and taboo and based upon a stiff and regulated cosmology that is only unsettled by the return of classical wisdom in what becomes the proto-Renaissance and then the Renaissance.
The Renaissance inflamed the entire civilization mentally and culturally and sends an enormous coursing torrent of energy through it which leads to an unmapping and an unfolding of new visions and new vistas. Whereby, we see the Middle Ages replaced by a post-Medieval Europe that looks back on the classical period but based upon the stolidity and solidity and the transcendental Magianship of the Middle Ages. It’s the Renaissance and the scientific methodology that gives rise to it, which is a return to a particular intellectual inheritance of the Greeks that gives man this diabolical pact element in the Western cosmos. This is the idea that Faust literally would sell his soul to Mephistopheles for knowledge. He would sell his soul for power over given things, for the power of magic almost in the interpretation of physical reality and the ability to hold sway over the physical world with which the sciences are concerned.
Western man begins a transmutation of everything in life, of every science, of every art, of all forms of economic dealing, all forms of culture and civilizational intent. Recalibrated and cast anew through this prism of Faustian fire, and this enables the West to set out as the Athenians had once done in a restricted Grecian compass to conquer much of the known world and to subdue it to their own restless tasking and desire for self-overbecoming at every possible instance. So, the West is seen as in some ways as a culture of the superman, in Nietzschean terms, reaching out across the world, reshaping other cultures and interacting with them in often destructively creative ways to release more energy, to enhance more transcendence, to enhance more creativity, to lead to more Faustian pacts and bargains, and then to become even more enraptured of its own colossal strength and vigor by importing even more energy through even greater and deeper and more resonating Faustian pacts until the thing teeters on the brink of absurdity to a degree, because the West becomes so enamored of its own mettle that it can’t see that it’s beginning, like all cultures, to engage upon ineffable decline.
RS: What creates the decline? What leads to decadence? What turns continual self-overcoming into decadence?
JB: Probably repetition and probably the fact that he believes that everything is pre-programmed like a computer chip to decay over time. You can only go to the well so often. Probably the spread of democratic, liberal humanist, and materialist ideas and the disjunction between the Enlightenment and the Renaissance.
The Renaissance is seen by most Enlightenment thinkers as a precursor of the Enlightenment, but he doubtless sees the Enlightenment as a giving way of the Faustian bargain to decadence to untrammeled ideas about the will of the majority which the people who put them forward, he believes, must know are absurd because the majority of men could never decide any question of any importance amongst themselves. That women would be given the vote and would be allowed into the function hall of the male. The liberal humanism that would increasingly refuse to distinguish between patterns of being and hierarchies in nature as they express themselves in society.
So, really, it’s the Enlightenment and its definition of the West, which is necessary, because in my reading of his codex of history the decline is necessary and therefore is inborn and the forces which are there, rather like illness and death in the individual, are there to permit change in the rule in the future and the ending of a cycle which is natural as it is in the biological world. So, he doesn’t see decadence as a disaster. He sees it as a necessity.
RS: So, are we still living in an enlightened age in a way that that was the turning point, and we’re kind of the last dregs of the Enlightenment?
JB: You could interpret it in that way, although at the end of The Decline of the West, of course, in the second volume, he preaches a new caesarism, that there may be a democratic caesarism, which of course came to be true throughout the latter third of the first quadrant of the 20th century.
His view that democratic niceties would be replaced by a much more Machiavellian and realistic politics, a politics of ruthless Realpolitik associated, even though he never advocated it, with Fascism. Although some of his political sayings are close to that of a fascistic or faschistoid conservative. That’s why, again, he falls between two camps. He’s not fascistic enough for those people who are enamored of those governments, movements, and regimes at a particular time, but nor is he conservative enough not to be associated with them at least through the glamor of nostalgia. So, he’s too quasi-fascistic for many conservatives, particularly now, but he’s also too conservative for thoroughgoing fascistic types. And that was his attitude, of course, to one of the most notorious governments in the Western world which he lived through the early stages of in the 1930s in his own country.
RS: Right. Actually, we talked about that and the Nazi regime banned his book, The Hour of Decision, which, again, I’m sure in the most of the modern mind they would probably just lump someone like Spengler on in there with Hitler as evil Right-wingers, but obviously that’s certainly not the way they saw it at the time.
Let’s put a little more pressure on this, because this is an interesting issue of Spengler’s life in an age which could even be described as “democratic caesarism.” That is, one based on populism, on popular sovereignty, but then one that is harsh and brutal in many ways, enamored with Realpolitik and so on and so forth. I think it’s a very interesting topic of Spengler’s own life.
JB: Yes, there’s always been a liberal qualm here as to why he didn’t support the Nazi regime. He did vote for Hitler against Hindenburg in the presidential election, which of course Hitler lost. Hindenburg retained the presidency until he died in office, and then it was after the Gleichschaltung it was just rolled up and it became one of Hitler’s many offices as he became supreme leader of all elements of the state and the offices of the president and chancellor were amalgamated into that of the Leader figure.
He also put a swastika outside his lodging windows to annoy the neighbors with his sister, saying that if he unfurled it one should always be prepared to pay the price for annoying people.
But, at the same time, he thought of them as irretrievably vulgar and without high culture, very much Ernst Jünger’s snobbish intellectual attitude towards them. He wasn’t so much bothered about the social origins of many of them, which is what convulsed the German old Right with which Spengler would have been more comfortable, but he was concerned about their cultural ignorance, as far as he was concerned, and the greatness and glory of what it was to be German seen in cultural terms.
In some ways, he’s too spare and too stark and too elitist a figure. For him, just to make mouthwatering speeches about Germany and German identity entirely begins it, what you mean by Germany, what you mean by German cultural identity, unless you’re highly educated, civilized, and knowledgeable about what it means to be German, or to be European in extenso, these political remarks are slightly meaningless.
His one intervention into politics, when he was attempting to get the power for a German on Ludendorff’s general staff during the First World War, General von Schacht I think, didn’t really go anywhere, because his view of practical politics as a man of the study was rather probably overly conspiratorial and sort of overly rarefied. Like a lot of academic intellectuals, he wouldn’t make a good politician.
But, at the same time, although he despised the Weimar Republic and regarded it as an unnecessary appendage, he looked at the glory of the German Empire which had preceded it. He was actually not particularly enamored of the Germans, partly because he believed they were too hostile to other European peoples, and he believed that the coming battles were civilizational and there should be alliances with other European nation-states against the hordes of Asia and Africa and the Far East who would be the real enemies in the future.
RS: So, he had an almost Nietzschean “Good European” sense or one that was almost similar to maybe even Lothrop Stoddard and some of the other people in that general time period.
JB: That’s right. To a Leftist’s mind, he’s almost as Right-wing as Hitler, but he doesn’t agree with his views, just as there are an enormous number of Left-wing intellectuals who, of course, didn’t agree with Stalin. So, there’s a degree to which he also didn’t entirely agree with the aggressive technological features in the Third Reich, which was Romantic and realist and agrarian at one level and yet embraced motorways and rockets and high technology at another, because he believed that technology had become a part of the enslavement of modern man. Very much prefiguring Heidegger’s thinking in this regard.
Also, of course, he didn’t share the anti-Semitism either, particularly. While in no sense being philo-Semitic, like Nietzsche, he didn’t share the crude Jew-baiting, beer hall attitudes that swirled around the German Right. It’s not civilizationally part of the way he perceived reality, because he didn’t view the world conspiratorially or metaphysically conspiratorially. He viewed the world in terms of these great overarching abstractions of cultural civilizations of which Germany was only a part.
He also was a pessimist and didn’t share the extreme and rather myopic optimism of that regime that was very shrill, particularly on its own behalf.
RS: So, Jonathan, what kind of ideas did Spengler have for the future and did he see the rise of a new civilization?
This past weekend I attended the American Renaissance conference, and Dr. Richard Lynn was there and he gave a very enjoyable and informative talk about eugenics, actually, but he ended by talking about the world of the 21st and probably 22nd, maybe 23rd century being that of the East and China in particular.
Did Spengler talk about any of this? Or did he believe that a new civilization would arise, that an Oriental civilization might have a new rebirth? Did he talk about this? Maybe you could even speculate on it yourself.
JB: Yes, he didn’t really speak of it. He sounded the death knell of an ever present West that was exhausted at the end of the Great War. His thesis was misunderstood and tens of thousands of copies that made him from a sort of penniless, living in genteel poverty intellectual into a sort of major cultural figure throughout Germany and the West, was based on a misnomer.
The mass of the cultured people, of course we’re talking in terms of hundreds of thousands and not the millions, who bought his enormous book and some of the others, which made him moderately wealthy as a consequence and able to live independently, they interpreted the book as an explanation for Germany’s defeat in the First World War, and because it put it into world-historical and cosmological terms it exonerated Germany from its personal defeat. It also seemed scholarly and well-wrought and was not propagandistic. It was not the “stab in the back” mythology. It was not the fact that they’d been let down by forces at home, nor was it the normative liberal view that they’d just run out of men, run out of material, run out of resources and been defeated in that way.
So, people stuck to his book really on the misnomer, because what he was saying was that Germany’s defeat was part of a pattern of defeats that were going on within the civilization at a particular time.
He posited the idea that these defeats could be arrested for a time by democratic caesarism and various forms of populism for which he had a distaste actually, but which he believed to be necessary at this time in the cycle. In Man and Technics, for example, there’s a quite ruthless extolling of the virtues of some of these sorts of regimes up to a point. But he never thought that they were the be all and end all for culture. So, his belief was that the West would continue to decline throughout the 20th century. One of Spengler’s offshoots, of course, is the doctrine of the “clash of civilizations,” which was made famous by that book, The Clash of Civilizations.
RS: Right. By Samuel Huntington.
JB: Yes, written about what? Fifteen years ago now?
RS: Or so, yeah.
JB: Now, that’s a Spenglerian thesis, which he may not like to admit to be influenced by Spengler, some people don’t choose to. You have all sorts of people like the Beats on the Left, or metacultural Left — let’s put it that way — like Burroughs and Ginsberg and Kerouac, who openly admitted being strongly influenced by Spengler, but other people are very reluctant to even admit the fact that he’s come anywhere hear them and their thinking at all.
Nevertheless, the idea that other civilizations will rise, particularly in the Far East, and will challenge the West’s hegemony later in the last century — don’t forget he died in 1936 — is indisputable from the nature of his work, but he doesn’t go on to specify it very much. The second volume of The Decline of the West basically closes on the turnaround of democratic caesarism and the fact that the West is, nevertheless, going into an autumnal and wintry stage and leaves it at that.
But lots of people, of course, take up the mantle. Yockey’s views are strongly Spenglerian even though he fills in Spengler’s work by essentially giving it a National Socialist register. In some ways, Yockey is a Nazified Spengler, because Spengler was never a whole-hogger as far as they were concerned and actually had a different viewpoint. That’s why Yockey’s book tends to be two books in one. Eighty percent of it is a Spenglerian exercise and then at the end there’s the 20% where he basically adopts a Fourth Reich/Third Reich viewpoint, which is his own grafting onto the Spenglerian architecture of a sort of neo-National Socialist Proclamation of London opinion or editorial.
RS: One question that was coming to my mind was we are witnessing, experiencing the winter of Faustian Western culture. Do you think that if there were a rebirth amongst European peoples that it would be something different than Faustian culture? Would it be a kind of revival of the West as we’ve known it, or would there actually be a different paradigm that would be adopted by European peoples?
JB: Well, that’s very broad. I, personally, think that if there is to be a revival it would probably have to be more Classical than anything else and has to be a sort of classicism and has to be a return to the verities of the Greco-Roman world as at least a cultural basis and a starting point for thinking, because that provides you with a pre-Christian as well as a post-Christian dynamic. It’s rational. All of Western high culture had the Hellenic stamp upon it filtered through Rome and the Holy Roman Empire, Christianized and Germanicized, that came after it. And in some ways it’s a common appeal to the inner tensions in Western man that can be resolved classically. So, that’s the inner reason for GRECE, de Benoist’s outfit, calling itself the Group for Research and Study of European Civilization and culture. They want to go back to Greece with modern technology and with the hallmark of a new West and they want a new Right rather than an old Right to carry that project forward even though there are at least five currents of the New Right now separated even from de Benoist.
RS: Right. That’s certainly true. Well, Jonathan, this has been a fascinating discussion and I’m just going to put a bookmark in it because I think we could return to Spengler later on. As with so many of our podcasts, we only scratch the surface on these ideas and — I’m sure I speak for a lot of the listeners — I’m waiting for more. So, we should do it again. Thanks for being on the show again and speaking to us about Spengler, and we’ll talk to you soon.
JB: Thanks very much! All the best.Article printed from Counter-Currents Publishing: http://www.counter-currents.com
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Soeben ist der achte Band unserer Schriftenreihe BN-Anstoß erschienen: „Aufstand des Geistes. Konservative Revolutionäre im Profil“ vereint zehn Portraits über Denker, die wir wiederentdecken müssen.
Syndicalisten en sociologen hebben nooit bij bosjes rondgelopen in de Vlaamse Beweging. Victor Leemans bundelde de drie eigenschappen. Hij was een Vlaams-nationalist, studeerde sociologie, en ijverde voor het samensmelten van de katholieke en de meer autoritair-Vlaamse syndicaten tijdens de Tweede Wereldoorlog.
For a long time, Morris was considered the unofficial leader of the "Movement of Arts and Crafts". His main aim was the convergence of aesthetics and work, overcoming the industrialized impersonal production of the industrial age, that leads to the depersonalization of producer as well as the consumer of such goods, the transformation of work in the aesthetic and even (as it was in pre-Modern age) sacralized process. Morris was familiar with the works of Karl Marx, but he offered to solve problem of alienation, identified by socialist philosopher, by returning to manual labor and re-sacralization of production.
Si può comunque affermare con una certa sicurezza che attorno alla fine degli anni ’20 le tesi schmittiane subiscano un’evoluzione da una prima fase incentrata sulla “decisione” a una seconda che volge invece agli “ordini concreti”, per una concezione del diritto più ancorata alla realtà e svincolata non solo dall’eterea astrattezza del normativismo, ma pure dallo “stato d’eccezione”, assenza originaria da cui il diritto stesso nasce restando però co-implicato in essa.
Lo spazio, cardine di quest’impianto teorico, viene analizzato nella sua evoluzione storico-filosofica e con riferimenti alle rivoluzioni che hanno cambiato radicalmente la prospettiva dell’uomo. La modernità si apre infatti con la scoperta del Nuovo Mondo e dello spazio vuoto d’oltreoceano, che disorienta gli europei e li sollecita ad appropriarsi del continente, dividendosi terre sterminate mediante linee di organizzazione e spartizione. Queste rispondono al bisogno di concretezza e si manifestano in un sistema di limiti e misure da inserire in uno spazio considerato ancora come dimensione vuota. È con la nuova rivoluzione spaziale realizzata dal progresso tecnico – nato in Inghilterra con la rivoluzione industriale – che l’idea di spazio esce profondamente modificata, ridotta a dimensione “liscia” e uniforme alla mercé delle invenzioni prodotte dall’uomo quali «elettricità, aviazione e radiotelegrafia», che «produssero un tale sovvertimento di tutte le idee di spazio da portare chiaramente (…) a una seconda rivoluzione spaziale» (Ivi, p.106). Schmitt si oppone a questo cambio di rotta in senso post-classico e, citando la critica heideggeriana alla res extensa, riprende l’idea che è lo spazio ad essere nel mondo e non viceversa. L’originarietà dello spazio, tuttavia, assume in lui connotazioni meno teoretiche, allontanandosi dalla dimensione di “datità” naturale per prendere le forme di determinazione e funzione del “politico”. In questo contesto il rapporto tra idea ed eccezione, ancora minacciato dalla “potenza del Niente” nella produzione precedente, si arricchisce di determinazioni spaziali concrete, facendosi nomos e cogliendo il nesso ontologico che collega giustizia e diritto alla Terra, concetto cardine de Il nomos della terra, che rappresenta per certi versi una nostalgica apologia dello ius publicum europaeum e delle sue storiche conquiste. In quest’opera infatti Schmitt si sofferma nuovamente sulla contrapposizione terra/mare, analizzata stavolta non nei termini polemici ed oppositivi di Terra e mare
La complessa produzione di Carl Schmitt, tanto affascinante quanto labirintica, ha dato un contributo fondamentale alla comprensione del nichilismo e ai processi di secolarizzazione e neutralizzazione che l’hanno provocato. Spinto da un’inesorabile volontà di esorcizzare la crisi e la negatività in cui stava precipitando la decadente Europa d’inizio Novecento, il giurista tedesco si confronta impavidamente con la “potenza del Niente” – esperienza cruciale per la comprensione di quell’epoca e per restare dentro alla filosofia, come ammonivano Jünger ed Heidegger in Oltre la linea –, tentando di opporre all’horror vacui soluzioni di volta in volta sempre più solide, concrete ed elementari, nel corso di un itinerario intellettuale lungo, tortuoso e per certi aspetti contraddittorio.
Di qui la necessità avvertita dal giurista esperto del mondo classico di recuperare l’etimologia autentica del termine νεμειν, che si articola in tre significati: “prendere, conquistare” (da cui i concetti di Landnahme e Seenahme, sviluppati in Terra e mare nel ’42); “dividere, spartire”, ad indicare la suddivisione del terreno e la conseguente nascita di un ordinamento proprietario su di esso; “pascolare”, quindi utilizzare, valorizzare, consumare. Soffermandosi sulla genesi della parola nomos Schmitt vuole restituirle la “forza e grandezza primitiva” salvandola dalla cattiva interpretazione datale dai contemporanei, che l’hanno “ridotta a designare, in maniera generica e priva di sostanza, ogni tipo di regolamentazione o disposizione normativistica”, come afferma polemicamente ne Il nomos della terra, pubblicato nel 1950 e summa del suo pensiero giuridico e politico. L’uso linguistico di “un’epoca decadente che non sa più collegarsi alle proprie origini” funzionalizza il nomos alla legge, non distinguendo tra diritto fondamentale e atti di posizione e facendo scomparire il legame con l’atto costitutivo dell’ordinamento spaziale.
L’irrazionalità della guerra viene dunque confinata nelle amity lines del mare mentre sul suolo continentale, a mo’ di razionalizzazione effettiva del sacrificio, resta la guerre en forme tra Stati che si riconoscono reciprocamente come sovrani e che non mirano all’annichilimento o alla criminalizzazione del nemico. Una delle maggiori conquiste del diritto pubblico europeo è stata infatti la limitazione della guerra (Hegung des Krieges) e la trasformazione dal bellum iustum delle guerre civili di religione in conflitti “giusti” tra pari, tra hostes aequaliter iusti. Quest’atto di contenimento non è stato frutto delle ideologie razionalistiche, bensì della particolare condizione di equilibrio di cui l’Europa moderna ha goduto fino al 1914. Un assetto fondato non solo sulla dialettica vecchio/nuovo mondo – strumentalizzata da Schmitt, secondo alcuni, per difendere l’imperialismo e il colonialismo europeo -, ma anche sul rapporto tra terraferma e libertà del mare che ha fatto in primis le fortune dell’Inghilterra, che ha scelto di diventarne “figlia” trasformando la propria essenza storico-politica ed arrivando a dominare lo spazio liscio e uniforme.
Mais ce qui fait de Jünger un « nationaliste » dans les années 1920, c’est la lecture de Maurice Barrès. Pourquoi ? Avant la Grande Guerre, on était conservateur (mais non révolutionnaire !). Désormais, avec le mythe du sang, chanté par Barrès, on devient un révolutionnaire nationaliste. Le vocable, plutôt nouveau aux débuts de la république de Weimar, indique une radicalisation politique et esthétique qui rompt avec les droites conventionnelles. L’Allemagne, entre 1918 et 1923, est dans la même situation désastreuse que la France après 1871. Le modèle revanchiste barrésien est donc transposable dans l’Allemagne vaincue et humiliée. Ensuite, peu enclin à accepter un travail politique conventionnel, Jünger est séduit, comme Barrès avant lui, par le Général Boulanger, l’homme qui, écrit-il, « ouvre énergiquement la fenêtre, jette dehors les bavards et laisse entrer l’air pur ». Chez Barrès, Ernst Jünger ne retrouve pas seulement les clefs d’une métapolitique de la revanche ou un idéal de purification violente de la vie politique, façon Boulanger. Il y a derrière cette réception de Barrès une dimension mystique, concentrée dans un ouvrage qu’Ernst Jünger avait déjà lu au Lycée : Du sang, de la volupté et de la mort. Il en retient la nécessité d’une ivresse orgiaque, qui ne craint pas le sang, dans toute démarche politique saine, c’est-à-dire dans le contexte de l’époque, de toute démarche politique non libérale, non bourgeoise. 
L’abandon des positions tranchées des années 1918-1933 provient certes de l’âge : Ernst Jünger a 50 ans quand le III° Reich s’effondre dans l’horreur. Il vient aussi du choc terrible que fut la mort au combat de son fils Ernstl dans les carrières de marbre de Carrare en Italie. Au moment d’écrire La Paix, Ernst Jünger, amer comme la plupart de ses compatriotes au moment de la défaite, constate : « Après une défaite pareille, on ne se relève pas comme on a pu se relever après Iéna ou Sedan. Une défaite de cette ampleur signifie un tournant dans la vie de tout peuple qui la subit ; dans cette phase de transition non seulement d’innombrables êtres humains disparaissent mais aussi et surtout beaucoup de choses qui nous mouvaient au plus profond de nous-mêmes ». Contrairement aux guerres précédentes, la deuxième guerre mondiale a porté la puissance de destruction des belligérants à son paroxysme, à des dimensions qu’Ernst Jünger qualifie de « cosmiques », surtout après l’atomisation des villes japonaises d’Hiroshima et de Nagasaki. Notre auteur prend conscience que cette démesure destructrice n’est plus appréhendable par les catégories politiques usuelles : de ce fait, nous entrons dans l’ère de la posthistoire. La défaite du III° Reich et la victoire des alliés (anglo-saxons et soviétiques) ont rendu impossible la poursuite des trajectoires historiques héritées du passé. Les moyens techniques de donner la mort en masse, de détruire des villes entières en quelques minutes sinon en quelques secondes prouvent que la civilisation moderne, écrit le biographe Schwilk, « tend irrémédiablement à détruire tout ce qui relève de l’autochtonité, des traditions, des faits de vie organiques ». C’est l’âge posthistorique des « polytechniciens de la puissance » qui commencent partout, et surtout dans l’Europe ravagée, à formater le monde selon leurs critères. 
C’est évidemment une rupture non pas tant avec la RC (qui connait trop de facettes pour pouvoir être rejetée entièrement) mais avec ses propres postures nationales-révolutionnaires. Armin Mohler avait écrit le premier article louangeur sur Ernst Jünger dans Weltwoche en 1946. En septembre 1949, il devient le secrétaire d’Ernst Jünger avec pour première tâche de publier en Suisse une partie des journaux de guerre. Armin Mohler avait déjà achevé sa fameuse thèse sur la Révolution conservatrice, sous la supervision du philosophe existentialiste (modéré) et protestant Karl Jaspers, dont il avait retenu une idée cardinale : celle de « période axiale » de l’histoire. Une période axiale fonde les valeurs pérennes d’une civilisation ou d’un grand espace géoreligieux. Pour Armin Mohler, très idéaliste, la RC, en rejetant les idées de 1789, du manchestérisme anglais et de toutes les autres idées libérales, posait les bases, à la suite de l’idée d’amor fati formulée par Nietzsche, d’une nouvelle batterie de valeurs appelées, moyennant les efforts d’élites audacieuses, à régénérer le monde, à lui donner de nouvelles assises solides. Les idées exprimées par Ernst Jünger dans les revues nationales-révolutionnaires des années 20 et dans le Travailleur de 1932 étant les plus « pures », les plus épurées de tout ballast passéiste et de toutes compromissions avec l’un ou l’autre aspect du panlibéralisme du « stupide XIX° siècle » (Daudet !), il fallait qu’elles triomphent dans la posthistoire et qu’elles ramènent les peuples européens dans les dynamismes ressuscités de leur histoire. La pérennité de ces idées fondatrices de nouvelles tables de valeurs balaierait les idées boiteuses des vainqueurs soviétiques et anglo-saxons et dépasserait les idées trop caricaturales des nationaux-socialistes. 
Armin Mohler veut convaincre le maître de reprendre la lutte. Mais Jünger vient de publier Le Mur du Temps, dont la thèse centrale est que l’ère de l’humanité historique, plongée dans l’histoire et agissant en son sein, est définitivement révolue. Dans La Paix, Ernst Jünger évoquait encore une Europe réunifiée dans la douleur et la réconciliation. Au seuil d’une nouvelle décennie, en 1960, les « empires nationaux » et l’idée d’une Europe unie ne l’enthousiasment plus. Il n’y a plus d’autres perspectives que celle d’un « Etat universel », titre d’un nouvel ouvrage. L’humanité moderne est livrée aux forces matérielles, à l’accélération sans frein de processus qui visent à se saisir de la Terre entière. Cette fluidité planétaire, critiquée aussi par Carl Schmitt, dissout toutes les catégories historiques, toutes les stabilités apaisantes. Les réactiver n’a donc aucune chance d’aboutir à un résultat quelconque. Pour parfaire un programme national-révolutionnaire, comme les frères Jünger en avaient imaginé, il faut que les volontés citoyennes et soldatiques soient libres. Or cette liberté s’est évanouie dans tous les régimes du globe. Elle est remplacée par des instincts obtus, lourds, pareils à ceux qui animent les colonies d’insectes. ![AM_mohler-j-nger-briefe52a2b554d7f4d_720x600[1]_600x600.jpg](http://euro-synergies.hautetfort.com/media/02/00/3993534085.jpg)
La ND française émerge sur la scène politico-culturelle parisienne à la fin des années 60. Ernst Jünger y apparait d’abord sous la forme d’une plaquette du GRECE due à la plume de Marcel Decombis. La RC, plus précisément la thèse de Mohler, est évoquée par Giorgio Locchi dans le n°23 de Nouvelle école. A partir de ces textes éclot une réception diverse et hétéroclite : les textes de guerre pour les amateurs de militaria ; les textes nationaux-révolutionnaires par bribes et morceaux (peu connus et peu traduits !) chez les plus jeunes et les plus nietzschéens ; les journaux chez les anarques silencieux, etc. De Mohler, la ND hérite l’idée d’une alliance planétaire entre l’Europe et les ennemis du duopole de Yalta d’abord, de l’unipolarité américaine ensuite. C’est là un héritage direct des politiques et alliances alternatives suggérées sous la République de Weimar, notamment avec le monde arabo-musulman, la Chine et l’Inde. Par ailleurs, Armin Mohler réhabilite Georges Sorel de manière beaucoup plus explicite et profonde que la ND française. En Allemagne, Mohler reçoit un tiers de la surface de la revue Criticon, dirigée à Munich par le très sage et très regretté Baron Caspar von Schrenck-Notzing. Aujourd’hui, cet héritage mohlerien est assumé par la maison d’édition Antaios et la revue Sezession, dirigées par Götz Kubitschek et son épouse Ellen Kositza.
Le lecteur qui, comme moi, viendrait à peine d'achever la lecture de 
La guerre est étrange, du moins certaines de ses phases. Nous pourrions dire d'elle qu'elle est l'étrangeté même, le tout autre, le plus souvent démoniaque, parfois la déhiscence d'un mystérieux au-delà du bien et du mal et pourtant, l'homme, toujours l'homme réduit à de la chair à canon, des cadavres horriblement torturés ou bien des guerriers impavides et courageux, est au centre du théâtre des opérations, au sens métaphysique et même religieux que nous pourrions donner à cette expression, comme si l'expérience de la Grande Guerre était comparable à la scène des vieux mystères du Moyen Âge : le boqueteau 125, bien connu des lecteurs de Jünger, «n'était jamais tenu que par quelques hommes, mais il prolongeait sa résistance, et c'est ainsi qu'il devenait, visible au loin dans ce paysage de mort, un exemple de ce que même le plus colossal affrontement n'est jamais que la balance où l'on pèse, aujourd'hui comme toujours, le poids de l'homme» (p. 349).
L'expérience du combat, surtout lorsqu'elle a lieu dans un théâtre des opérations où se déchaîne la Machine, surtout lorsque approche une «bataille telle que le monde n'en avait encore jamais vue (p. 121, j'ajoute le e manquant dans le texte), est la certitude de pénétrer dans un monde qui n'est pas celui, qui ne peut être celui de notre expérience quotidienne. Plus d'une fois, Ernst Jünger affirme ainsi qu'il a pu estimer se trouver dans une terre maudite (cf. p. 273) peuplée de démons, où il «errait comme sur un immense tas de décombres au-delà des bords du monde connu» (p. 151), terre maudite dont il remarque «la méchanceté spectrale» (p. 161) ou bien comparable à quelque contrée «des premiers âges» (p. 155), en bref, cette zone élémentaire dont j'ai parlé plus haut. 
Aristocratisch
Icoon
Becher mocht dan wel marxist-leninist zijn, maar aan zijn vaderlandsliefde, aan zijn gloeiende liefde voor Duitsland en zijn grootse cultuur heeft hij nooit enige twijfel laten bestaan (zoals blijkt uit vele redevoeringen en zijn 'Deutschland-Dichtung'). De historicus Diesener had ontdekt dat de linkse Becher de rechtse Jünger als medestrijder tegen de nazi's wilde winnen, vanuit het besef 'Es ist Zeit, dass wir Deutschlandstreiter von rechts bis links unsere Waffen zusammenfassen' (het is tijd dat wij, strijders voor Duitsland van rechts tot links, onze wapens samenbrengen). Maar tegelijk wist Diesener dat Becher in een vroegere voordracht over het thema 'Moralische und ideologische Überwindung des Faschismus' (Morele en ideologische overwinning op het fascisme) Jünger als 'fascistische schrijver' had bestempeld. Daarom stelde Diesener de Poolse germanist Kuniciki de vraag of het vroegere oordeel van Becher over Jünger misschien niet moest worden herzien (gezien de respectvolle aanspreking in de radio-uitzending van oktober 1943) en hoe hij dit als kenner van de Duitse literatuur zag?
Titel boek : 
Seine analytisch eingehendste Betrachtung der politischen Nachkriegsordnung ist der Vortrag „Die Ordnung der Welt nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg“, den Schmitt 1962 in Madrid hielt und bei Lebzeiten nur in einer spanischen Fassung publizierte. Nur hier verknüpft er seine Überlegungen auch mit der Entwicklung der UNO. Sein Ausgangspunkt ist die Dekolonialisierung und der „Antikolonialismus“ nach 1945, den Schmitt als „Propaganda“ und „Reflex“ der Zerstörung der alten, europäischen Raumordnung betrachtet. Diese „anti-europäische Propaganda“ begann „leider“, betont Schmitt, als „inner-europäische Kampagne“ (SGN 594). Gegenstück sei der „Nomos des Kosmos“ (SGN 595): „Der Anti-Kolonialismus ist nichts anderes als die Liquidierung einer historischen Vergangenheit auf Kosten der europäischen Nationen. Die Eroberung des Kosmos hingegen ist pure Zukunft“ (SGN 596), schreibt Schmitt. Dazwischen sei der gegenwärtige „Nomos der Erde“ zu suchen. Schmitt nähert sich ihm mit Überlegungen zum Kalten Krieg als „Teil des revolutionären Krieges“. Er rekapituliert hier Überlegungen zur Wiederkehr der Lehre vom „gerechten Krieg“. Deutlicher benennt er nun aber „drei Stadien des Kalten Krieges“ und kennzeichnet die Gegenwart dabei durch ein „pluralistisches Stadium“, in dem sich eine „erstaunliche Zahl neuer afrikanischer und asiatischer Staaten“ (SGN 602) der dualistischen Struktur des Ost-West-Gegensatzes nicht mehr fügten und die UNO zum Forum der politischen Organisation einer „dritten Front“ nutzten. In der „Theorie des Partisanen“ nennt er an dieser Stelle dann China und Maos „pluralistische Vorstellung eines neuen Nomos der Erde“ (TP 62).
Kirchheimer, Neumann und Fraenkel waren Schmitt nicht unkritisch gefolgt. Sie hatten ihn politisch wie rechtstheoretisch abgeklärt rezipiert, so dass Berührungsscheu nach 1949 nicht nötig schien. Aus dem „Fall“ Schmitt ließ sich deshalb auch kein „Fall“ Habermas machen. Der von Ellen Kennedy33 formulierte Verdacht lautete dennoch vereinfacht gesagt, dass Habermas von seinen frühen politischen Schriften bis in die Deutung der „Friedensbewegung“ der 80er Jahre hinein um den Preis ideologischer Verblendung von Schmitt beeinflusst war. Habermas’ Replik „Die Schrecken der Autonomie“ grenzte den eigenen, kommunikationstheoretisch entwickelten Begriff der „normativen Grundlagen der Demokratie“ von Schmitt ab. Demnach hält Habermas nicht Schmitts Liberalismuskritik für fruchtbar, sondern dessen Überlegungen zu den normativen Grundlagen der Demokratie. Er schreibt:
En effet, il me paraît très important de replacer la révolution conservatrice allemande dans un contexte temporel plus vaste et plus profond, comme d’ailleurs Armin Mohler lui-même l’avait envisagé, suite à la publication des travaux de Zeev Sternhell sur la droite révolutionnaire française d’après 1870, qui représente une réaction musclée, une volonté de redresser la nation vaincue : après la défaite de 1918 et le Traité de Versailles de juin 1919, c’est ce modèle français qu’évoquait explicitement l’Alsacien Eduard Stadtler, un ultra-nationaliste allemand, bilingue, issu du Zentrum démocrate-chrétien, fondateur du Stahlhelm paramilitaire et compagnon de Moeller van den Bruck dans son combat métapolitique de 1918 à 1925. L’Allemagne devait susciter en son sein l’émergence d’un réseau de cercles intellectuels et politiques, d’associations diverses, de sociétés de pensée et de groupes paramilitaires pour redonner au Reich vaincu un statut de pleine souveraineté sur la scène européenne et internationale. 
A la fin du siècle, l’Europe, par le truchement de ces « sciences allemandes », dispose d’une masse de connaissances en tous domaines qui dépassent les petits mondes étriqués des politiques politiciennes, des rabâchages de la caste des juristes, des calculs mesquins du monde économique. Rien n’a changé sur ce plan. Quant à la révolution conservatrice proprement dite, qui veut débarrasser les sociétés européennes de toutes ces scories accumulées par avocats et financiers, politicards et spéculateurs, prêtres sans mystique et bourgeois égoïstes, elle démarre essentiellement par l’initiative que prend en 1896 l’éditeur Eugen Diederichs. Il cultivait l’ambition de proposer à la lecture et à la réflexion une formidable batterie d’idées innovantes capables, à terme, de modeler une société nouvelle, enclenchant de la sorte une révolution véritable qui ne suggère aucune table rase mais au contraire entend ré-enchanter les racines, étouffées sous les scories des conformismes. La même année, le jeune romantique Karl Fischer fonde le mouvement des Wandervögel, dont l’objectif est d’arracher la jeunesse à tous les conformismes et aussi de la sortir des sinistres quartiers surpeuplés des villes devenues tentaculaires suite à la révolution industrielle. Eugen Diederichs veut un socialisme non matérialiste, une religion nouvelle puisant dans la mémoire du peuple et renouant avec les mystiques médiévales (Maître Eckhart, Ruusbroec, Nicolas de Cues, etc.), une libéralisation sexuelle, un néo-romantisme inspiré par des sources allemandes, russes, flamandes ou scandinaves. 
Il faut se rappeler que le rejet le mieux charpenté de la démocratie libérale et surtout de ses dérives partitocratiques ne provient pas d’un mouvement ou cénacle émanant d’une droite posée comme « conservatrice-révolutionnaire » mais d’une haute figure de la social-démocratie allemande et européenne, Roberto Michels, actif en Belgique, en Allemagne et en Italie avant 1914. Ici aussi, je ne fais pas d’anachronisme : à l’université en 1974, on nous conseillait la lecture de sa critique des oligarchies politiciennes (sociaux-démocrates compris) ; après une éclipse navrante de quelques décennies, je constate avec bonheur qu’une grande maison française, Gallimard-Folio, vient de rééditer sa Sociologie du parti dans la démocratie moderne (Zur Soziologie des Parteiwesens), qui démontre avec une clarté inégalée les dérives dangereuses d’une démocratie partitocratique : coupure avec la base, oligarchisation, règne des « bonzes », compromis contraires aux promesses électorales et aux programmes, bref, les maux que tous sont bien contraints de constater aujourd’hui en Europe et ailleurs, en plus amplifiés ! Michels suggère des correctifs : référendum (démocratie directe), renonciation (aux modes de vie matérialistes et bourgeois, ascétisme de l’élite politique se voulant alternative), etc. Dans cet ouvrage fondamental des sciences politiques, Michels vise à dépasser tout ce qui fait le ronron d’un parti (et, partant, d’une vie politique nationale orchestrée autour du jeu répétitif des élections récurrentes d’un certain nombre de partis établis) et suggère des pistes pour échapper à ces enlisements ; elles annoncent les aspirations ultérieures des conservateurs-révolutionnaires (ou assimilés) d’après 1918 et surtout d’après Locarno, sans oublier les futurs non-conformistes français des années 30 et ceux qui, aujourd’hui, cherchent à sortir des impasses où nous ont fourvoyés les établis. Ces pistes insistent sur la nécessité d’avoir des élites politiques ascétiques, sur une virulence correctrice que Michels croyait déceler dans le syndicalisme révolutionnaire (et ses versions italiennes comme celles activées par Filippo Corridoni avant 1914 – Corridoni tombera au front en 1915), dans les idées activistes de Georges Sorel et dans certaines formes d’anarchisme hostiles aux hiérarchies figées. L’idée-clef est de traquer partout, dans les formes de représentation politique, les éléments négatifs qui figent, qui induisent des répétitions lesquelles annulent l’effervescence révolutionnaire ou la dynamique douce/naturelle du peuple, oblitèrent la spontanéité des masses (on y reviendra en mai 68 !). En ce sens, les idées de Michels, Corridoni et Sorel entendent conserver les potentialités vivantes du peuple qui, le cas échéant et quand nécessité fait loi, sont capables de faire éclore un mouvement révolutionnaire correcteur et éradicateur des fixismes répétitifs. 
Reste aussi un autre problème que l’époque et ses avant-gardes politiques et littéraires ont tenté de résoudre dans la pétulance et l’intempérance : celui de la vitesse. Chez les futuristes, c’est clair, surtout dans certaines de leurs plus belles œuvres picturales, la vitesse est l’ivresse du monde, le mode exaltant qui, maîtrisé ou chevauché, permet d’échapper justement aux fixismes, au « passatismo ». A gauche aussi, la révolution a pour but de réaliser vite les aspirations populaires. Le prolétariat révolutionnaire des bolcheviques, une fois au pouvoir, maîtrise les machines et les rapidités qu’elles procurent. Le conseillisme bavarois, quant à lui, ne souhaitait pas effacer les spontanéités vitales de la population. Le fascisme de Mussolini, venu du socialisme et du syndicalisme sorélien et corrodinien, ne l’oublions jamais, entend réaliser en six heures ce que la démocratie parlementaire et palabrante (et donc lente, hyper-lente) fait en six ans. Les réactionnaires, que les futuristes ou les bolcheviques jugeront « passéistes », rappelaient que la prise de décision du monarque ou du petit nombre dans les anciens régimes était plus rapide que celle des parlements (d’où la présence récurrente de figures de la contre-révolution française dans les démarches intellectuelles d’Ernst Jünger, fussent-elles les plus maximalistes avant 1925). Un système politique cohérent, pour les avant-gardes des années 20, doit donc pouvoir décider rapidement, à la vitesse des nouvelles machines, des bolides Bugatti ou Mercedes, des avions des pionniers de l’air, des vedettes rapides des nouvelles forces navales (d’Annunzio). Une force politique nouvelle, démocratique ou non (Fiume est une démocratie avant-gardiste !), doit être décisionnaire et rapide, donc jeune. Si elle est parlementaire et palabrante, elle est lente donc vieille et cette sénilité pétrifiée mérite d’être jetée bas. La double idée de décision et de rapidité d’exécution est évidemment présente dans le nationalisme soldatique et explique pourquoi le coup de force est considéré comme plus efficace et plus propre que les palabres parlementaires. Elle apparait ensuite dans la théorie politique plus élaborée et plus juridique de Carl Schmitt, qui rejette le normativisme (comme étant un système de règles figées finalement incapacitantes quand le danger guette la Cité, où la « lex », par sa lourde présence, sape l’action du « rex ») et le positivisme juridique, trop technique et inattentif aux valeurs pérennes. Schmitt, décisionniste, prône évidemment le décisionnisme, dont il est le représentant le plus emblématique, et insiste sur la nécessité permanente d’agir au sein d’ordres concrets, réellement existants, hérités, légués par l’histoire et les traditions politiques de la Cité (ce qui implique le rejet de toute volonté de créer un « Etat mondial »).
Ernst Niekisch est un révolutionnaire de gauche pur jus. Il a participé à un gouvernement des Conseils en Bavière, lesquels seront balayés par les Corps Francs de von Epp. Dans ce gouvernement, figurait également Gustav Landauer, penseur anarchiste éminemment fécond, puisant à des sources intéressantes du 19ème siècle et développant une anthropologie compénétrée de mystique. Ce premier gouvernement des Conseils, non explicitement communiste, sera renversé par les bolcheviques du KPD, provoquant chez Landauer une immense déception. Pour lui, la politique révolutionnaire bavaroise sombrait, par ce coup de force, dans les rigidités léninistes et perdait son originalité unique. Niekisch était sans nul doute plus marqué par le marxisme de la social-démocratie d’avant 1914 mais sous l’influence d’un camarade aussi subtil que Landauer, il a dû ajouter à sa formation initiale des éléments moins conventionnels, notamment plus communautaires-anarchisants (héritage de Bakounine et Kropotkine). Cet anarchisme, hostile à toute rigidité et répétition, Niekisch le couple à des idéaux paysans/ruralistes présents dans les « sources du communisme russe » (explorées par Berdiaev) ou chez Tolstoï (édité par Diederichs) et, bien entendu, chez les folcistes (Völkischen) allemands, lesquels étaient plutôt classés « à droite ». Cette mythologie nouvelle devient alors chez Niekisch un mixte de prolétarisme socialiste et de ruralisme germano-russe, saupoudré de quelques oripeaux libertaires légués par Landauer, le tout pour favoriser une révolution allemande philo-soviétique, destinée à libérer les ouvriers et les paysans d’Allemagne d’une bourgeoisie pro-occidentale qui acceptait les réparations imposées par l’Ouest lors du Traité de Versailles, au détriment de son propre peuple, et les crédits américains des Plans Young et Dawes, limitant la souveraineté nationale.
Pour ma génération qui a exactement vingt ans en 1976, c’est effectivement le livre Baltikum de Dominique Venner qui fait découvrir la geste des Corps Francs allemands d’après 1918. Par la suite, nous avons découvert assez rapidement Ernst von Salomon, dont Les Réprouvés étaient édités en « livre de poche » et que nous trimbalions dans nos cartables de collégiens. 
En France, la veine nietzschéenne et les progrès des études germaniques, sous l’impulsion de Charles Andler, introduisaient des ferments similaires à ceux qui agitaient la scène culturelle wilhelminienne en Allemagne avant 1914. Le filtre de la Grande Guerre fait que partout en Europe les postures politiques acquièrent une dimension plus « quiritaire ». En Angleterre, certains avant-gardistes optent pour des sympathies profascistes. David Herbert Lawrence rejette le puritanisme victorien, comme les Allemands avant 1914 avaient rejeté d’autres formes de rigorisme, en injectant dans la littérature anglaise des ferments d’organicisme à connotations sexuelles (« L’amant de Lady Chatterley »), en insistant sur la puissance tellurique inépuisable des religions primitives (du Mexique notamment), en démontrant dans Apocalypse que toute civilisation doit reposer sur un cycle liturgique naturel intangible ; il induit ainsi des ferments révolutionnaires conservateurs (il faut balayer les puritanismes, les rationalismes étriqués, etc. et maintenir les cycles liturgiques naturels, au moins comme le fait le catholicisme) dans la pensée anglo-saxonne, qui, liés aux filons celtisants et catholiques du nationalisme culturel irlandais, partiellement dérivés de Herder, s’insinuent, aujourd’hui encore, dans une quantité de démarches culturelles fécondes, observables dans les sociétés anglophones. Même si ces démarches ont parfois l’agaçant aspect du « New Age » ou du post-hippysme. 
Ernst Jünger was one of the true luminaries of the intellectual Right in the 20th century. A popular hero of the First World War, famous for his memoir of the conflict entitled The Storm of Steel, he became aligned with the German conservative revolutionary movement in the interbellum years, and as such advocated a radical, authoritarian, militarist nationalism. This being said, he never made the fatal gesture Heidegger made, and was never associated with National Socialism; his relationship with Nazism began as coolly ambivalent, progressing into antipathy and finally open hostility (he was even peripherally involved with 20 July Plot to assassinate Hitler). This being said, his contribution to political theory outside his initial context was, essentially, minimal. However, he was regarded as a figure of great literary stature in post-war Europe. He was a prolific novelist, and his incredibly long lifespan (over a century) gave him an enviable vantage point to comment from: he was a grown man when the German Empire collapsed, he was present during the rise and fall of the Third Reich, and lived to see the reunification of Germany (comfortably outliving the German Democratic Republic). His fans included a variety of contradictory figures, including Hitler, Goebbels, Francois Mitterand, Thomas Mann and Bertolt Brecht. As well as writing, he was also a well-educated botanist and entomologist. He was even one of the very earliest experimenters with LSD. He was a man who embodied the very paradoxes and contradictions of recent European existence.
This is a deeply reactionary novel, and doesn't make for easy reading. Jünger's writing meanders, straying into lengthy digressions into his narrator's memory; his pace is languid, virtually glacial in fact. Although his prose is beautiful, even poetic, it feels incredibly indulgent and is often, frankly, dull. Very little happens as such in the novel, the bulk of it simply being Richard's recollections. And yet, what is curious is how this achingly slow piece of writing is able to convey the sheer speed with which modernity did away with the old world. The narrator, like Jünger, grew up in a world were the horse was still yet to be rendered obsolete by the automobile. 
Klages puts Life in the centre, but he also identifies an anti-Life force that gradually infiltrated the world and took it over.
The hatred of the ‘West’ and of ‘Europe’ is the hatred for a Civilisation that had already reached an advanced state of decay into materialism and sought to impose its primacy by cultural subversion rather than by combat, with its City-based and money-based outlook, ‘poisoning the unborn culture in the womb of the land’. (Spengler, 1971, II, 194). Russia was still a land where there were no bourgeoisie and no true class system but only lord and peasant, a view confirmed by Berdyaev, writing: 
Spengler states above that the Russians do not ‘fight’ capital. (Ibid., 495). Yet their young soul brings them into conflict with money, as both oligarchy from inside and plutocracy from outside contend with the Russian soul for supremacy. It was something observed by both Gogol and Dostoyevski. The anti-capitalism and ‘world revolution’ of Stalinism took on features that were drawn more from Russian messianism than from Marxism, reflected in the struggle between Trotsky and Stalin. The revival of the Czarist and Orthodox icons, martyrs and heroes and of Russian folk-culture in conjunction with a campaign against ‘ rootless cosmopolitanism’, reflected the emergence of primal Russian soul amidst Petrine Marxism. (Brandenberger, 2002). Today the conflict between two world-views can be seen in the conflicts between Putin and certain ‘oligarchs’ and the uneasiness Putin causes among the West. 