La psico-antropologia de L. F. Clauss

LA PSICO-ANTROPOLOGÍA DE L.F. CLAUSS:

UNA ALTERNATIVA FRUSTRADA

Sebastian J. Lorenz

 

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

Frente al concepto materialista de la antropología nórdica, que consideraba la raza como un conjunto de factores físicos y psíquicos, se fue haciendo paso una antropologíade tipo espiritual, que tendrá su máximo exponente en el fundador de la “psico-raciología” (Rassenseelenkunde) Ludwig Ferdinand Clauss. Frente a la preeminencia de los rasgos fisiológicos, a los que se ligaba unas características intelectuales, Clauss inaugurará la “ley del estilo” . Para él, la adscripción a una etnia es, fundamentalmente, un estilo que se manifiesta en una multiplicidad de caracteres, ya sean de tipo físico, psíquico o anímico que, conjuntamente, expresan un determinado estilo dinámico: «por el movimiento del cuerpo, su expresión, su respuesta a los estímulos exteriores de toda clase, el proceso anímico que ha conducido a este movimiento se convierte en una expresión del espacio, el cuerpo se convierte en campo de expresión del alma» (Rasse und Seele).

Robert Steuckers ha escrito que «la originalidad de su método de investigación raciológica consistió en la renuncia a los zoologismos de las teorías raciales convencionales, nacidas de la herencia del darwinismo, en las que al hombre se le considera un simple animal más evolucionado que el resto». Desde esta perspectiva, Clauss consideraba en un nivel superior las dimensiones psíquica y espiritual frente a las características somáticas o biológicas.

Así, la raciología natural y materialista se fijaba exclusivamente en los caracteres externos –forma del cráneo, pigmentación de la piel, color de ojos y cabello, etc-, sin reparar que lo que da forma a dichos rasgos es el estilo del individuo. «Una raza no es un montón de propiedades o rasgos, sino un estilo de vida que abarca la totalidad de una forma viviente», por lo que Clauss define la raza «como un conjunto de propiedades internas, estilo típico y genio, que configuran a cada individuo y que se manifiestan en cada uno y en todos los que forman la población étnica». Para él, la forma del cuerpo y los rasgos físicos no son sino la expresión material de una realidad interna: tanto el espíritu (Geist) como el sentido psíquico (Seele) son los factores esenciales que modelan las formas corpóreas exteriores. Así, en lo relativo a la raza nórdica, no es que al tipo alto, fuerte, dolicocéfalo, rubio y de ojos azules, le correspondan una serie de caracteres morales e intelectuales, sino que es a un determinado estilo, el del “hombre de acción”, el hombre creativo (Leistungsmensch), al que se deben aquellos rasgos físicos, conjunto que parece predestinar a un grupo determinado de hombres. La etnia aparece concebida, de esta forma, como una unidad físico-anímica hereditaria, en la que el cuerpo es la “expresión del alma”. Klages dirá que «el alma es el sentido del cuerpo y el cuerpo es la manifestación del alma».

La escuela “espiritualista” fundada por Clauss tuvo, ciertamente, una buena acogida por parte de sus lectores, que se vieron liberados de las descripciones antropológicas del tipo ideal de hombre nórdico, las cuales no concurrían en buena parte de la población alemana, reconduciendo, de esta forma, el estilo de la raza a criterios idealistas menos discriminatorios. Pero lo que, en el fondo, estaba proponiendo Clauss, no era una huida del racismo materialista sino, precisamente, un reforzamiento de éste a través de su paralelismo anímico, según la fórmula “a una raza noble, le corresponde un espíritu noble”. Distintos caminos para llegar al mismo sitio. Así, podrá decir que «las razas no se diferencian tanto por los rasgos o facultades que poseen, sino por el estilo con que éstas se presentan», esto es, que no se distinguen por sus cualidades, sino por el estilo innato a las mismas. Entonces, basta conceder un “estilo arquitectónico” a la mujer nórdica, a la que atribuye un orden metódico tanto corporal como espiritual, frente a la mujer africana que carece de los mismos, para llegar a las mismas conclusiones que los teóricos del racismo bio-antropológico.

Por todo ello, las ideas de Clauss no dejan de encuadrarse en el “nordicismo” más radical de la época. El hombre nórdico es un tipo cuya actuación siempre está dirigida por el esfuerzo y por el rendimiento, por el deseo y por la consecución de una obra. «En todas las manifestaciones de actividad del hombre nórdico hay un objetivo: está dirigido desde el interior hacia el exterior, escogiendo algún motivo y emprendiéndolo, porque es muy activo. La vida le ordena luchar en primera línea y a cualquier precio, aun el de perecer. Las manifestaciones de esta clase son, pues una forma de heroísmo, aunque distinto del “heroísmo bélico”». De ahí a afirmar que los pueblos de sangre nórdica se han distinguido siempre de los demás por su audacia, sus conquistas y descubrimientos, por una fuerza de empuje que les impide acomodarse, y que han marcado a toda la humanidad con el estilo de su raza, sólo había un paso que Clauss estaba dispuesto a dar.

El estilo de las otras razas, sin embargo, no sale tan bien parado. Del hombre fálico destaca su interioridad y la fidelidad por las raíces que definen al campesinado alemán (deutsche treue), puesto que la raza fálica se encuentra profundamente imbricada dentro de la nórdica. Respecto a la cultura y raza latina (Westisch) dirá que no es patrimonio exclusivo del hombre mediterráneo, sino producto de la combinación entre la viveza, la sensualidad gestual y la agilidad mental de éste con la creatividad del tipo nórdico, derivada de la productiva fertilización que los pueblos de origen indogermánico introdujeron en el sur de Europa (Rasse und Charakter).

De los tipos alpino (dunkel-ostisch) y báltico-oriental (hell-ostisch), braquimorfos y braquicéfalos, dirá que son el extremo opuesto del nórdico, tanto en sus formas corporales como en las espirituales, porque son capaces de soportar el sufrimiento y la muerte de forma indiferente, sin ningún tipo de heroísmo, pero su falta de imaginación los hace inútiles para las grandes ideas y pensamientos, en definitiva, el hombre evasivo y servicial. Curiosamente, el estudio que hace de la raza semítico-oriental –judía y árabe-, con las que se hallaba bastante involucrado personalmente, no resulta tan peyorativo, si bien coincidía con Hans F.K. Günther en que existe entre los hebreos un conflicto entre el espíritu y la carne que acaba con la victoria de esta última, con la “redención por la carne”, mientras que de los árabes destaca su fatalismo y la inspiración divina que les hace creer –como iluminados- que son los escogidos o los enviados de Dios.

Por lo demás, Clauss admitió que los diferentes estilos, al igual que sucede con los tipos étnicos, se entrecruzan y están presentes simultáneamente en cada individuo. Según Evola, «para él, dada la actual mezcla de tipos, también en materia de “razas del alma”, en lo relativo a un pueblo moderno, la raza es objeto menos de una constatación que de una “decisión”: hay que decidirse, en el sentido de seleccionar y elegir a aquel que, entre los diferentes influjos físico-espirituales presentes simultáneamente en uno mismo, a aquel que más se ha manifestado creativo en la tradición de aquel pueblo; y hacer en modo tal que, entonces una tal influencia o “raza del alma” tome la primacía sobre cualquier otra.»

No obstante lo anterior, el nordicismo ideal y espiritual de Clauss fracasó estrepitosamente porque nunca pudo superar la popularidad que tuvo el tipo ideal de hombre nórdico que Hans F.K. Günther proponía recuperar a través de los representantes más puros de la cepa germánica, si bien no como realidad, sino como una aspiración ideal, de tal forma que, finalmente, Clauss se vio apartado de todas las organizaciones del tejido nacionalsocialista a las que, desde un principio, había pertenecido.

Carl Schmitt, pensador liberal

Carl Schmitt, pensador liberal: a modo de introducción

por Giovanni B. Krähe

Ex: http://geviert.wordpress.com/
 

Una de las tesis consolidadas en los estudios schmittianos es el anti-liberalismo de Carl Schmitt. Conservadores, monárquicos, católicos, filo-schmittianos “de Weimar”,  anti-schmittianos de wikipedia, ocasionalistas pro-dictadura, antifascistas etc., todos, en familia, están de acuerdo con esta tesis: Schmitt fue un anti-liberal. En este preciso punto, ambos bandos de apologetas y anti-schmittianos se demuestran de acuerdo. La pregunta que queremos poner en este post es: ¿Pero de cuál liberalismo señores? ¿contra cuál liberalismo Schmitt desarrolla su crítica? A continuación retomanos una respuesta que se dió en este blog a modo de introducción sumaria al tema.

Entre revolución nacional y religión: las cuatro tradiciones de la Sonderweg alemana

En Alemania se desarrollan cuatro diferentes tradiciones políticas: conservadora, liberal, católica y socialista. Todas nacen y se desarrollan mucho antes de la fundación del Reich alemán por Bismark (1871). Las cuatro tradiciones poseen un curioso elemento pre-estatual, pre-societario, comunitario y anti-contractualista. Estas características no las convierten en tradiciones “prematuras” o “tardías” (H. Plessner) en relación a la formación de los Estados en USA, Inglaterra o Francia. Muy al contrario. En efecto, a las características mencionadas se añaden otros dos factores históricos muy interesantes que se desarrollarán transversalmente a las cuatro tradiciones mencionadas. Estos dos factores determinarán la denominada “vía particular” (Deutscher Sonderweg):  la revolución nacional y la religión. Siempre a modo de sinopsis, mencionaremos una diferencia curiosa ulterior: el denominado “absolutismo iluminado” de los prusianos (S. XVIII). Los prusianos introducen reformas estructurales a diferentes niveles (la tolerancia religiosa por ejemplo) que la “reina de las revolución continental”, la revolución francesa, conocerá tan sólo posteriormente. Se puede notar entonces un Estado alemán de facto, ya maduro en diferentes frentes, que le faltaba únicamente la forma política del aparato estatal en su sentido moderno con soberanía única, monopolio de la fuerza y territorio unificado. Mientras en los demás casos nacionales europeos los primeros partidos asumirán el rol de la socialización política, en Alemania, en cambio, los primeros agentes de socialización política no son “partidos”, sino asociaciones (Vereine) de creyentes, dado que no hay “Estado” como unidad política hasta 1871. El fenómeno de las asociaciones (religiosas) alemanas es un fenómeno europeo  de tipo cooperativo-comunitario muy interesante para los estudios de historia comparada.

Socialización política entre imperio y reino: los movimientos nacionales de creyentes

Estos agentes de socialización política serán más bien movimientos religiosos y nacionales, en parte “aglutinados” bajo una identidad negativa (el enemigo francés), pero curiosamente forjados a partir de una sutil “ambigüedad” constitutiva muy particular: una continuidad latente con el Sacro Romano Imperio Germánico. Debido a esta continuidad, al interior de las cuatro tradiciones mencionadas todos los agentes desarrollarán un visión fuertemente a favor del modelo del Reich como unidad indivisible y fuertemente pro-unitaria. Esto último se explica en parte debido a la ausencia misma de una forma estatal. No se olvide que el Sacro Romano Imperio era casi una “forma federal” sui generis, por lo tanto las “partes” hacen referencia a un imperio, no a una forma de estados relativamente autónomos, como afirmaría la actual teoría federal por ejemplo. Tal caracter pro-unitario y pro-imperio no será, entonces, unitario únicamente en terminos de la unidad del “Estado-nación” (que no existía), sino de cada uno de estos agentes en relación a sí mismo y al Reich.  En efecto, la etimología de la palabra alemana “partido” (Partei), tuvo siempre un significado íntimamente negativo para todos los agentes que entraban por primera vez en la area política de la revolución nacional. En esta revolución nacional, no se podía ser egoísticamente “de parte” frente a la comunidad. Se cumple, según las máximas de la ética prusiana de la época, un preciso rol, se brinda un preciso servicio (Dienst), según una precisa llamada (Beruf, profesión), para ejercer una función en un preciso ámbito (Be-Reich) al interior de la comunidad espiritual del Reino (Reich). Estos agentes que las cuatro tradiciones ideológicas canalizan a través de la idea de nación y religión, generarán ese futuro sistema de partidos fuertemente orientado al formato imperial de la comunidad del Reich. Será también la misma peculiaridad que llevará a la fuerte polarización inter-partidaria que se verá después de la Primera guerra Mundial, cuando el modelo configurante del II Reich desaparece.

Esta tendencia religiosa nacional-comunitaria, basada en la defensa del Estado como principio, la comunidad política y la identidad colectiva, no es únicamente una peculiaridad de la tradición alemana católica y conservadora, como se podría imaginar rápidamente. Será también un rasgo emblemático de las otras dos familias idelógicas, la liberal y la socialista, incluída la radicalización posterior de esta última, la comunista (en su ala no internacionalista atención). Esta curiosa convergencia se debió a la tendencia general pro-unificación del Estado en su sentido moderno, que era un objetivo y tendencia transversal a las cuatro familias ideológicas. Sólo el comunismo, variante externa y espuria del socialismo alemán, asumirá una contratendencia crítica a través del internacionalismo (por lo tanto será visto como el primer enemigo). Con la derrota de la primera Guerra, los partidos que representaban estras cuatro tradiciones ideológicas (más la novedad comunista) se verán, entonces, tal cual por primera vez, es decir en términos modernos: simplemente “partidos”, organizaciones “de parte” dentro de un Estado democrático frágil. La respuesta será insólita: Ese elemento partidario fuertemente inclusivo y pro-Reich (más aún en el revanchismo de la  derrota) regresará otra vez con el totalitarismo monopartidario del Nacionalsocialismo. El temor que Schmitt ya habia previsto venir desde antes de la primera Guerra, es decir, la completa eliminación de la distinción entre Estado y cuerpo social, se cumple finalmente. Nuevamente re-emerge, entonces, de sus cenizas la tendencia pro-Reich perdida. Este perfil fuertemente de estado-partido – mutatis mutandis – no desaparecerá después de la guerra. Es el caso del denominado “Estado-de-partidos” del sistema político alemán. Este sistema posee una fuerte hegemonía de coaliciones inter-partídarias (2 partidos centrales+3 satélites) excluyentes (se habla de Alemania actual como una “democracia blindada”).

Pietismo y Reforma

Estos agentes de socialización política se irán forjando entonces al interior de una tradición política nacional-religiosa madura, cuya mencionada “ambigüedad” constitutiva se continuará reflejando especularmente ya sea a nivel de la Liga alemana (1815-16) como del pacto militar de la liga “alemana del norte” (1866), oscilante entre “liga de estados” y el “Estado unitario”. Al interior del elemento religioso mencionado no podemos olvidar un factor histórico decisivo muy anterior obviamente, pero no menos incisivo, no sólo en Alemania: los efectos políticos de la Reforma. A esta se añadirá otro factor silencioso dentro de la Reforma misma, no menos decisivo, sobre todo a nivel de los mencionados agentes de socialización política nacional-religiosos, transformados en el tiempo en  movimientos “nacional-sociales”, en cuanto agentes de socialización política . Esto último debido al increiblemente rapido proceso de modernización industrial (casi a la par sino superior a Inglaterra). Tal factor silencioso interno no menos decisivo es el Pietismus, movimiento de creyentes evangélicos anti-iluministas y anti-dogmáticos que desarrollan una mística comunitaria transversal a la Reforma, en el tiempo convertida en “religión de Estado”. El Pietismus fue una corriente evangélica “transversal”, fuertemente comunitaria (fundaban ciudades (!) de creyentes) al dogma reformista. Su núcleo más íntimo es exquisítamente místico.

El nacional-liberalismo alemán de Carl Schmitt

Dados estos elementos histórico-ideológicos weltanschaulich, se puede deducir entonces que  la tradición del liberalismo alemán que surge de este contexto es una tradición con fuertes elementos religiosos en sus primeras formas sociales, y nacional-comunitarios en su vínculo con el Estado. Este liberalismo alemán no será, por lo tanto, confundido con el liberalismo anglosajón (tal vez con la tradición conservadora whig). No hay ni un “individuo” por defender ni libertades negativas por asegurar ante un Estado (no existía tal cual). Luego de la fundación del Reich (1871) el vínculo del nacional-liberalismo alemán a favor de la forma estatal aumentará más aún: En efecto, la peculiaridad del nacional-liberalismo alemán no es la defensa del individuo, sino la defensa de la relación entre la comunidad política y el Estado. En la historia del liberalismo europeo, el liberalismo alemán será sucesivamente catalogado como una “idealización” (Sartori), a través de Hegel, del Estado moderno. Este liberalismo alemán será considerado finalmente como un modelo “estado-céntrico”, para diferenciarlo del liberalismo inglés (que sería individualista-utilitarista). Bajo esta precisa tradición nacional-liberal se formará Schmitt, no menos que Max Weber. El joven Schmitt recibirá además la influencia del mencionado Pietismus, elemento que lo llevará luego a descubrir el misticismo de Franz v. Baader y los anti-iluministas franceses (Louis Claude de Saint Martin). Tales elementos “esotéricos” no serán tampoco extraños a Max Weber.

primera conclusión (tesis):

1) Como ya intuído por la escuela de Leipzig (H. Schelsky en particular), la crítica de Carl Schmitt al liberalismo es una crítica al liberalismo inglés desde la peculiaridad del nacional-liberalismo alemán (H.Preuss, Von Stein) . En la historia de la doctrinas políticas se tiene limitadamente en mente una tradición liberal anglo-americana y se desconoce la peculiaridad del liberalismo continental alemán. Desde esta perspectiva limitada, cualquier crítica no-comunista al liberalismo pasa entonces como mero anti-liberalismo,  asi como cualquier anti-comunismo, es decir, cualquier crítica no-liberal al comunismo, pasa como Fascismo. lo mismo sucede con la falacia del “anti-liberalismo” de Schmitt a secas. A partir de esta ignorancia (porque ignorancia es), se cataloga a Carl Schmitt como un pensador anti-liberal. Nosotros afirmamos: sí,  Schmitt es un pensador anti-liberal, pero contra el liberalismo inglés. El nacional-liberalismo de Schmitt podría catalogarse como una “tercera vía” hegeliana de derecha, como ya desarrollado en una traducción de un artículo de Schmitt al respecto.

Ordo ordinans: il carattere istitutivo del termine nomos

Ordo ordinans: il carattere istitutivo del termine nomos

Giovanni B. Krähe / Ex: http://geviert.wordpress.com/

Come sappiamo, dalla dissoluzione dell’ordinamento medioevale sorse lo Stato territoriale accentrato e delimitato. In questa nuova concezione della territorialità – caratterizzata dal principio di sovranità – l’idea di Stato superò sia il carattere non esclusivo dell’ordinamento spaziale medioevale, sia la parcellizzazione del principio di autorità (1).

Parallelamente, l’avvento dell’epoca moderna mise in atto un’autentica rivoluzione nella visione dello spazio. Questa fu caratterizzata dal sorgere, attraverso la scoperta di un nuovo mondo, di una nuova mentalità di tipo globale. In questo senso, l’evolversi del rapporto fra ordinamento e localizzazione introdusse un nuovo equilibrio tra terra ferma e mare libero, ‘‘fra scoperta e occupazione di fatto’’ (2). A questo punto ci sembra importante mettere in evidenza la specificità del rapporto che caratterizza un particolare ordine spaziale. Questo non è, come si può dedurre da una prima lettura dell’opera schmittiana, il semplice mutamento dei confini territoriali prodotto dallo sviluppo del dominio tecnico sulle altre dimensioni spaziali (terra, mare, aria o spazio globale complessivo). Ogni mutamento nei confini di queste dimensioni può determinare il sorgere di un nuovo ordinamento, di un nuovo diritto internazionale, ma non necessariamente istituire quest’ordinamento. Qui si colloca il concetto di sfida (Herausforderung) a partire dal quale, per Schmitt, una decisione politica fonda un nuovo nomos, che si sostituisce al vecchio ordinamento dello spazio (3).

Su questa via, possiamo considerare il concetto di ‘politico’ come un approccio teorico in risposta alla sfida aperta lasciata dalla fine della statualità in quanto organizzazione non conflittuale dei gruppi umani. Allo stesso modo possiamo cogliere, attraverso le trasformazioni del concetto di guerra, la proposta teorica schmittiana di una possibilità di regolazione della belligeranza. È vero poi che una decisione politica può anche risolversi in un mero rapporto di dominio egemonico, tutto centrato nella propria autoreferenzialità della sua politica di potenza. Non si può parlare in questo caso dell’emergere di un nuovo nomos in quanto il problema della conflittualità non si presenta più nei termini di una possibilità di regolazione. In questo senso, tale problema, se riferito alla guerra nell’epoca moderna, caratterizzata dalla ambiguità del principio di self-help, diventa fonte interminabile di nuove inimicizie :

“Le numerose conquiste, dedizioni, occupazioni di fatto (…) o si inquadrano in un ordinamento spaziale del diritto internazionale già dato, oppure spezzano quel quadro e hanno la tendenza – se non sono soltanto dei fugaci atti di forza – a costituire un nuovo ordinamento spaziale del diritto internazionale”(4).

Abbiamo detto che dal rapporto fra ordinamento e localizzazione può emergere un determinato ordine spaziale. La possibilità aperta di fondare, nel senso della sfida accennata da Schmitt, un nuovo ordine dipende dal carattere istitutivo della decisione politica. Il potere costituente, che da questa decisione emerge, problematizza nei suoi capisaldi il rapporto considerato implicito fra atti costituenti e istituzioni costituite, fra nomos e lex. Nella scontata sinonimia di queste due categorie fondamentali, l’autore introduce una distinzione radicale. Questa distinzione che considera l’atto fondativo di un determinato ordine spaziale attraverso la specificità pre-normativa della decisione politica è il carattere istitutivo del termine nomos (5). Questa caratteristica pre-normativa del nomos non va intesa nel senso di un diritto primitivo anteriore all’ordinamento della legalità statale, ma all’interno di una pluralità di tipi di diritto. In questa prospettiva, la norma, che c’è alla base del diritto positivo – costituito, a sua volta, sull’effetività materiale di un spazio pacificato – si colloca, all’interno di questa pluralità.

Per Schmitt, tuttavia, il nomos “è un evento storico costitutivo, un atto della legittimità che solo conferisce senso alla legalità della mera legge” (6). Di questa opposizione tra nomos e lex ripresa più volte dall’autore non ci occupiamo in questa sede, in quanto essa puó essere intesa come un unico processo a carattere ordinativo. Questo processo che viene generalmente operato dalla norma, è già, tra l’altro, implicito nello stesso nomos (7) . Piuttosto, ció che ci interessa sottolinerare all’interno di questo processo ordinativo è la collocazione del concetto di guerra. Cosí, in termini moderni, se il carattere istitutivo del termine nomos – nel senso di un ordo ordinans imperiale o federale come accennato da A. Panebianco – determina l’inizio di un unico processo strutturante fra ordinamento e localizzazione, allora la conflittualitá puó essere regolamentata, se collocata all’interno di questo processo. In questo senso, le odierne categorie del diritto internazionale sorte dal principio dello jus contra bellum (come, ad esempio, i crimini di guerra oppure i crimini contro l’umanitá) non solo non risolvono il problema dichiarando la guerra “fuori legge”, ma riducono le regolazioni della belligeranza a meri atti di polizia internazionale.

Note

(¹) La non esclusività risiedeva nella sovrapposizione di diverse istanze politico-giuridiche all’interno di uno stesso territorio. Cfr. John Gerard Ruggie, Territoriality and beyond: problematizing modernity in international relations, in “International Organization”, n. 47, 1, Winter 1993, p. 150.

(2) Carl Schmitt, Il nomos della terra (1950), Adelphi, Milano, 1991, p. 52.

(3) Cfr. ivi, p.75; vedi inoltre Carl Schmitt, Terra e Mare, Giuffrè, Milano, 1986, pp. 63-64 e pp. 80-82; sul concetto di sfida vedi la premessa (1963) a Id., Le categorie del ‘politico’, cit., pp. 89-100 in: Carl Schmitt:  Il concetto di ‘politico’ (1932), in Id., Le categorie del ‘politico’, a cura di G. Miglio e P. Schiera, Il Mulino, Bologna, 1972.

(4)  Carl Schmitt, Il nomos della terra, cit., p. 75; sul ruolo dell’America fra egemonia e nomos cfr. lo scritto Cambio di struttura del diritto internazionale (1943), pp. 296-297 e L’ordinamento planetario dopo la seconda guerra mondiale (1962), pp. 321-343 in Carl Schmitt, L’unità del mondo e altri saggi a cura di Alessandro Campi, Antonio Pellicani Editore, Roma, 1994.

(5) Sulla distinzione schmittiana tra nomos e lex si veda Carl Schmitt, Il nomos della terra, cit., pp. 55-62. La problematicità che introduce questa distinzione, per quanto riguarda l’ordinamento giuridico interno allo Stato, è stata sviluppata dall’autore in Legalità e legittimità, in Id., Le categorie del ‘politico’ cit., p. 223 ss.

(6) Carl Schmitt, Il nomos della terra, cit., p. 63.

(7) Sul carattere processuale specifico del termine nomos si veda Appropiazione/Divisione/Produzione (1958), in C. Schmitt, Le categorie del ‘politico’ cit., p. 299 ss., e Id., Nomos/Nahme/Name (1959), in Caterina Resta, Stato mondiale o Nomos della terra. Carl Schmitt tra universo e pluriverso. A.Pellicani Editore, Roma, 1999.

Nietzsche contra Wagner - Etica contra estética

NIETZSCHE CONTRA WAGNER

ÉTICA CONTRA ESTÉTICA

Sebastian J. Lorenz

 

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

Con sus concepciones sobre la “voluntad de poder”, su visceral anti-cristianismo –que consideraba una creación del judaísmo-, sus anuncios sobre el advenimiento del “super-hombre” (Übermensch) y la formación de una casta aristocrática superior, Nietzsche es, sin lugar a dudas, el filósofo más determinante en la construcción ideológica del nazismo y, desde luego, un pilar fundamental en la formación intelectual de Hitler, el cual, según la opinión mayoritaria, se apropió de la doctrina nietzscheana para legitimar su nueva concepción del mundo, si bien podemos adelantar que, colocado en la disyuntiva entre Nietzsche y Wagner, el Führer nunca ocultó su admiración por la Weltanschaung de este último, mucho más acorde con sus ideales estéticos.

La importancia de la filosofía de Nietzsche en la formación de la ideología nazi no es un tema pacífico. César Vidal, que no alberga dudas sobre la conexión nietzscheana con el nazismo, examina la exposición que efectúa Nietzsche sobre la antítesis entre una “moral de señores”, aristocrática, y una “moral de esclavos”, de resentimiento, correspondiendo la primera a los valores superiores de las razas germánicas, y la segunda a la moral judeo-cristiana (Judea contra Roma). Otros, como Ferrán Gallego, consideran que la manipulación del filósofo sólo pudo realizarse ejerciendo una profunda violencia sobre el sentido de la obra de Nietzsche. «A sabiendas de que nunca conseguirían ponerse a la altura de Nietzsche, se resignaron a falsificar la de Zaratustra».

El “mensajero del nihilismo” fue, desde luego, un predicador militante contra el orden caduco y la moral convencional, pero lo hacía desde un profundo individualismo que se oponía a las distintas formas de dominio ejercidas sobre las masas con el oscuro objetivo de anular toda personalidad. «Los buenos conocedores de la cultura alemana rechazaron la caricatura de un Nietzsche pangermanista, oponiendo su feroz individualismo a las tesis nacionalistas raciales que desembocarían en el nazismo». De hecho, Nietzsche sentía un auténtico desprecio por la cultura alemana de su tiempo, admirando en cambio la rusa, la francesa, la italiana, la española y, especialmente, la cultura clásica grecolatina, pero las alabanzas dedicadas a las bestias rubias germánicas de los vándalos y los godos fueron finalmente manipuladas por los teóricos nacional-racistas.

Desde luego, no cabe duda alguna de que Nietzsche identificaba al hombre ario y a la bestia rubia con la nobleza y la aristocracia, con la moral de señores propia de los conquistadores, si bien resultaría desproporcionado identificar a los arios rubios con su prototipo de hombre superior. Sin embargo, el filósofo utiliza comparativamente a las razas oscuras y a las razas rubias para distinguir lo malo y lo vulgar de los hombres de rasgos oscuros –los pre-arios en Europa- de lo noble y lo aristocrático que define, según él, al hombre ario. «Resulta imposible no reconocer, en la base de todas estas razas nobles, al animal de rapiña, la magnífica bestia rubia que vagabundea codiciosa de botín y victoria», escribirá Niezstche, reconociendo además «el derecho a no librarse del temor a la bestia rubia que habita en el fondo de todas las razas nobles …». Pues es “la bestia rubia”, una horda de hombres depredadores y conquistadores, el sinónimo de grandeza y nobleza.

Nietzsche utiliza su “bestia rubia” para enfatizar y ejemplarizar la antítesis entre la «humanidad aria, totalmente pura, totalmente originaria» y el «cristianismo, brotado de la raíz judía, que representa el movimiento opuesto a toda moral de la cría, de la raza, del privilegio: es la religión antiaria per excellence …», para finalizar con una inquietante duda sobre el futuro de la supuesta raza aria: «¿Quién nos garantiza … que la raza de los conquistadores y señores, la de los arios, no está sucumbiendo incluso fisiológicamente?». El filósofo alemán se remonta, obviamente, a la civilización indo-aria para ejemplarizar su sistema jerárquico racial, en cuya cúspide sitúa a la “bestia rubia” germánica, antítesis de los representantes degenerados del judeo-cristianismo, dividiendo su sociedad ideal en “brahmanes”, guerreros y sirvientes, además de los “chandalas”.

En definitiva, una sociedad elitista y aristocrática basada en la desigualdad que debe asumir la raza germánica frente a la mediocridad impuesta por el cristianismo, “hijo espiritual del judaísmo”. Nietzsche anuncia el “nuevo hombre” aristocrático, anticristiano, antijudío, que sólo responde a su “voluntad de poder”, el hombre sobrehumano que es, en realidad, el hombre superado en una evolución ascendente. Por eso, Hitler dirá tiempo después que el nacionalsocialismo no es un movimiento político, ni siquiera una religión, sino “la voluntad de crear un nuevo hombre”.

Nietzsche no fue propiamente un antisemita, si bien su inicial relación-admiración por Wagner le hizo alabar su visión espiritual de la vida, de la que los alemanes corrientes habían sido arrebatados por la mísera y agresiva política del judaísmo. Desde luego, el filósofo consideraba la ética judía como una “moral de esclavos” (Sklaven-Moral), el pueblo del que Tácito pensaba que había nacido para la esclavitud, siendo manifestaciones de la misma el cristianismo y el socialismo que propugnan la igualdad. Por eso, el judío se rebela contra las razas aristocráticas: «Roma vio en el Judío la encarnación de lo antinatural, como una monstruosidad diametralmente opuesta a ella, y en Roma fue hallado convicto de odio a toda la raza humana y con toda la razón para ello, por cuanto es correcto enlazar el bienestar y el futuro de la raza humana a la incondicional supremacía de los valores aristocráticos, de los valores romanos». Los judíos, según Nietzsche, habían falseado de tal forma la historia universal y los valores de la humanidad, que incluso resultaba inconcebible que el cristiano albergase sentimientos antijudíos: “Dios mismo se ha hecho judío!”.

El pensamiento aristocrático se confunde, en numerosas ocasiones, con el determinismo biológico que clasifica jerárquicamente a las razas según unos supuestos cánones creativos. La nueva raza de los super-hombres, la raza superior procedería –mediante el dominio de la voluntad- a la transmutación de los valores, creando otros nuevos que regirían para sí mismos y para las razas destinadas a la esclavitud. Nietzsche estaba de acuerdo con Gobineau, Wagner y Chamberlain, cuando calificaba la raza aria como “raza genuina, fisiológicamente superior a las otras razas y hecha para gobernarlas”. «Toda elevación del tipo “hombre” ha sido siempre obra de una sociedad aristocrática y así será siempre … una sociedad creyente en una larga escala de graduaciones de rango y diferencias en una forma u otra».

Como se ha apuntado, Nietzsche y Wagner, una vez superado su idilio artístico inicial, mantuvieron un crudo enfrentamiento ideológico, controversia que luego se reproduciría, en el seno del nacionalsocialismo, entre los seguidores del filósofo y del compositor, aunque sería la doctrina nietzscheana la que obtendría la mayoría de adhesiones, puesto que la concepción del mundo wagneriana se refugió en restringidos círculos intelectuales y artísticos que le restaron popularidad en la Alemania nazi, pese a contar con el apoyo incondicional del propio Hitler. Mientras Rosenberg, Darré o Himmler rechazaban la visión ética y mística del compositor y utilizaban el “superhombre” de Nietzsche para justificar el sometimiento de los más débiles –cruel filosofía que tuvo nefastas consecuencias en las generaciones de la época- los minoritarios círculos wagnerianos hacían de la compasión de los fuertes hacia los menos dotados una virtud ennoblecedora.

Carl Schmitt: A Dangerous Man

Carl Schmitt (part IV)

 A Dangerous Man

by Keith PRESTON

 

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

 

 

When Hitler first came to power, Carl Schmitt hoped that President von Hindenburg would be able to control him, and dismiss him from the chancellor’s position if necessary. But within days of becoming chancellor, Hitler invoked Article 48 and began imposing restrictions on the freedoms of speech, press, and assembly. Within a month, all civil liberties had essentially been suspended. Within two months, a Reichstag dominated by the Nazis and their allies (with the communists having been purged and subject to repression under Hitler’s emergency measures) passed the Enabling Act, which, more or less, gave Hitler the legal right to rule by decree. The Enabling Act granted Hitler actual legislative powers, beyond the emergency powers previously provided for by Article 48. Schmitt regarded the Enabling Act as amounting to the overthrow of the constitution itself and the creation of a new constitution and a new political and legal order.

The subsequent turn of events in Schmitt’s life remains the principal, though certainly not exclusive, source of controversy regarding Schmitt’s ideas and career as a public figure and intellectual. Schmitt remained true to his Hobbesian view of political obligation that it is the responsibility of the individual to defer to whatever political and legal authority that becomes officially constituted. On May 1, 1933, Carl Schmitt officially joined the Nazi Party.

Despite his past as an anti-Nazi, Schmitt’s prestigious reputation as a jurist and legal scholar heightened his value to the party. Herman Goering appointed Schmitt to the position of Prussian state councilor in July, 1933. He then became leader of the Nazi league of jurists and was appointed to the chair of public law at the University of Berlin. While occasionally including a racist or anti-Semitic comment in his writings and lectures during this time, Schmitt also hoped to strike a balance between Nazi ideology and his own more traditionally conservative outlook.

Schmitt’s hopes for such a balance were dashed by the Night of the Long Knives purge on June 30, 1934. Not only were hundreds of Hitler’s potential rivals within the party killed, but so were a number of prominent conservatives, including Schmitt’s former associate, General Kurt von Schleicher. Even Papen, who had initially been vice-chancellor under the Hitler regime, was placed under house arrest.

In response to the purge, Schmitt published the most controversial article of his career, “The Fuhrer Protects the Law.” On the surface, the article was merely a sycophantic and opportunistic effort at defending Hitler’s brutality and lawlessness. While Schmitt likely regarded the killing of rival Nazis as little more than a dishonorable falling out among thugs, he also included within the article subtle references to unjust murders that had been committed during the course of the purge, meaning the killing of his friend General Schleicher and others outside Nazi circles, and urged justice for the victims. The wording of the article pretended to absolve Hitler of responsibility while dropping very discreet and coded hints to the contrary.

Though Schmitt enjoyed the protection afforded to him by his associations with Goering and Hans Frank, he never exerted any influence over the regime itself. The purge of the SA leadership had the effect of empowering within the Nazi movement one of its most extreme elements, the SS. The SS soon concerned itself with the presence of “opportunists” and the ideologically impure elements, which had joined the party only after the party had seized power for the sake of being on the winning side. These elements included many middle-class persons and ordinary conservatives whose actual commitment to the party’s ideology and value system were questionable.

Schmitt was a prime example of these. His efforts to revise his theories to make them somewhat compatible with Nazi ideology were subject to attacks from jurists committed to the Nazi worldview. Further, former friends, professional associates, and students of Schmitt who had emigrated from the Third Reich were incensed by his collaboration with the regime and began publishing articles attacking him from abroad, pointing out his anti-Nazi past during his association with Schleicher, his prior associations with Jews, his Catholic background, and the fact that he had once referred to Nazism as “organized mass insanity.”

Schmitt attempted to defend himself against these attacks by becoming ever more virulent in his anti-Semitic rhetoric. When the Nuremberg Laws were enacted in September of 1935, he defended these laws publicly. His biographer Bendersky described the political, ethical, and professional predicaments Schmitt found himself in during this time:

No doubt at the time he tried to convince himself that he was obligated to obey and that as a jurist he was also compelled to work within the confines of these laws. He could easily rationalize his behavior with the same Hobbesian precepts he had used to explain his previous compromises. For he always adhered to the principle Autoritas, non veritas facit legem (Authority, not virtue makes the law), and he never tired of repeating that phrase. Authority was in the hands of the Nazis, their racial ideology became law, and he was bound by these laws.

Schmitt further attempted to counter the attacks hurled at him by both party ideologues and foreign critics by organizing a “Conference on Judaism in Jurisprudence” that was held in Berlin during October of 1936. At the conference, he gave a lecture titled “German Jurisprudence in the Struggle against the Jewish Intellect.” Two months later, Schmitt wrote a letter to Heinrich Himmler discussing his efforts to eradicate Jewish influence from German law.

Yet, the attacks on Schmitt by his party rivals and the guardians of Nazi ideology within the SS continued. Schmitt’s public relations campaign had been unsuccessful against the charges of opportunism, and Goering had become embarrassed by his appointee. Goering ordered that public attacks on Schmitt cease, and worked out an arrangement with Heinrich Himmler whereby Schmitt would no longer be involved with the activities of the Nazi party itself, but would simply retain his position as a law professor at the University of Berlin. Essentially, Schmitt had been politically and ideologically purged, but was fortunate enough to retain not only his physical safety but his professional position.

For the remaining years of the Third Reich, Schmitt made every effort to remain silent concerning matters of political controversy and limited his formal scholarly work and professorial lectures to discussions of routine aspects of international law or vague and generalized theoretical abstractions concerning German foreign policy, for which he always expressed outward support.

Even though he was no longer active in Nazi party affairs, held no position of significance in the Nazi state, and exercised no genuine ideological influence over the Nazi leadership, Schmitt’s reputation as a leading theoretician of Nazism continued to persist in foreign intellectual circles. In 1941, one Swiss journal even made the extravagant claim that Schmitt had been to the Nazi revolution in Germany what Rousseau had been to the French Revolution. Schmitt once again became fearful for his safety under the regime when his close friend Johannes Popitz was implicated and later executed for his role in the July 20, 1944, assassination plot against Hitler (though, in fact, Schmitt himself was never in any actual danger.)

When Berlin fell to the Russians in April 1945, Schmitt was detained and interrogated for several hours and then released. In November, Schmitt was arrested again, this time by American soldiers. He was considered a potential defendant in the war crimes trials to be held in Nuremberg and was transferred there in March 1947. In response to questions from interrogators and in written statements, Schmitt gave a detailed explanation and defense of his activities during the Third Reich that has been shown to be honest and accurate. He pointed out that he had no involvement with the Nazi party after 1936, and had only very limited contact with the party elite previously. Schmitt provided a very detailed analysis and description of the differences between his own theories and those of the Nazis. He argued that while his own ideas may have at times been plagiarized or misused by Nazi ideologists, this was no more his responsibility than Rousseau had been responsible for the Reign of Terror. The leading investigator in Schmitt’s case, the German lawyer Robert Kempner, eventually concluded that while Schmitt may have had a certain moral culpability for his activities under the Nazi regime, none of his actions could properly be considered crimes warranting prosecution at Nuremberg.

Schmitt’s reputation as a Nazi, and even as a war criminal, made it impossible for him to return to academic life, and so he simply retired on his university pension. He continued to write on political and legal topics for another three decades after his release from confinement at Nuremberg, and remained one of Germany’s most controversial intellectual figures. For some time, his pre-Nazi works were either ignored or severely misinterpreted. A number of prominent left-wing intellectuals, including those who had been directly influenced by Schmitt, engaged in efforts at vilification.

An objective scholarly interest in Schmitt began to emerge in the late 1960s and 1970s, even though Schmitt’s reputation as a Nazi apologist was hard to shake. Interestingly, the framers of the present constitution of the German Federal Republic actually incorporated some of Schmitt’s ideas from the Weimar period into the document. For instance, constitutional amendments that alter the basic democratic nature of the government or which undermine basic rights and liberties as outlined in the constitution are forbidden. Likewise, the German Supreme Court may outlaw parties it declares to be anti-constitutional, and both communist and neo-Nazi parties have at times been banned.

Schmitt himself returned to these themes in his last article published in 1978. In the article, Schmitt once again argued against allowing anti-constitutional parties the “equal chance” to achieve power through legal and constitutional means, and expressed concern over the rise of the formally democratic Eurocommunist parties in Europe, such as those in Italy and Spain, which hoped to gain control of the state through ordinary political channels.

 

Schmitt’s Contemporary Relevance

 

The legacy of Schmitt’s thought remains exceedingly relevant to 21^st-century Western political and legal theory. His works from the Weimar period offer the deepest insights into the inherent weaknesses and limitations of modern liberal democracy yet to be discussed by any thinker. This is particularly significant given that belief in liberal democracy as the only “true” form of political organization has become a de facto religion among Western political, cultural, and intellectual elites. Schmitt’s writings demonstrate the essentially contradictory nature of the foundations of liberal democratic ideology. The core foundation of “democracy” is the view that the state can somehow be a reflection of an abstract “peoples’ will,” which, somehow, rises out of a mass society of heterogeneous individuals, cultural subgroups, and political interest groups with irreconcilable differences.

This is clearly an absurd myth, perhaps one ultimately holding no more substance than ancient beliefs about emperors having descended from sun-gods. Further, the antagonistic relationship between liberalism and democracy recognized by Schmitt provides a theoretical understanding of the obvious practical truth that as democracy has expanded in the West, liberalism has actually declined. The classical liberal rights of property, exchange, and association, for instance, have been severely comprised in the name of creating “democratic rights” for a long list of social groups believed to have been excluded or oppressed by the wider society. The liberal rights of speech and religion have likewise been curbed for the ostensible purpose of eradicating real or alleged “bigotry” or “bias” towards former out-groups favored by proponents of democratic ideology.

The contradictions between liberalism and democracy aside, Schmitt’s work likewise demonstrates the ultimately self-defeating nature of liberalism taken to its logical conclusion. A corollary of liberalism is universalism, yet liberal universalism likewise contradicts itself. Liberalism, as Westerners have come to understand it, is a particular value system rooted in historic traditions and which evolved within a particular civilization and was affected by historical contingencies (the Protestant Reformation, the Enlightenment, and Modernism being only the most obvious.)

Schmitt’s definition of the essence of the political as the friend/enemy dichotomy simultaneously exposes the limitations of liberalism’s ability to sustain itself. Robert Frost’s quip about a liberal being someone who is unable to take his own side in a fight would seem to apply here. The principal weakness of liberalism is its inability to recognize its own enemies. Even in the final months of the Weimar republic, liberals, socialists, and even Catholic centrists held so steadfastly to the formalities of liberalism that they were unable to perceive the imminent destruction of liberalism that lurked a short distance ahead.

This insight of Schmitt would seem to go a long way towards explaining the behavior of many present day zealots of Liberal Democratic Fundamentalism. It is currently the norm for liberals to react with a grossly exaggerated, almost phobic, sense of urgency concerning the supposed presence of elements espousing “racism,” “fascism,” “homophobia,” and other illiberal or ostensibly illiberal ideas in their own societies. In virtually all Western countries, elements espousing the various taboo “isms” and “phobias” with any degree of seriousness are marginal in nature, often merely eccentric individuals, tiny cult-like groups, or politically irrelevant subcultures.

And yet, liberals who become hysterical over “fascism,” typically express absolutely no concern about the importation of unlimited numbers of persons from profoundly illiberal cultures into their own nations. Indeed, criticizing such things has itself become a serious taboo among liberals, who somehow believe that such values as secularism, feminism, and homosexual rights can never be threatened by the mass immigration of those from cultures with no liberal tradition, where theocratic rule is the norm, or where the political and social status of women has not changed in centuries or even millennia, where there is no tradition of free speech, where capital punishment is regularly imposed for petty offenses, and where homosexuality is often considered to be a capital crime.

A related irony is that liberals have embraced “Green” consciousness in a way comparable to the enthusiasm and adulation shown to pop music stars by teenagers, while remaining oblivious to the demographic and ecological consequences of unlimited population growth fueled by uncontrolled immigration.

Schmitt’s steadfast opposition to legal formalism as a method of constitutional interpretation and as an approach to legal theory in general is also interesting when measured against the standard complaints about “judicial activism” found among “mainstream” American conservatives. Schmitt’s view that laws, even constitutional law itself, should be interpreted according to the wider essence or deeper substance of the laws and constitutions in question and according to the concrete realities of specific political situations would no doubt make a lot of American conservatives uncomfortable. Of course, an important distinction has to be made between Schmitt’s seemingly open-ended approach to legal theory and the standard ideas about a “living constitution” found among American liberal jurists. Schmitt was concerned with the very real and urgent question of the need to preserve civil order and political stability in the face of severe social and economic crisis, civil unrest, and threats of revolution, whether through direct violence or cynical manipulation of ordinary political and legal processes. The various legal theories involving a supposed “living constitution” or “evolving standards” advanced by American liberals represents the far more dubious project of simply replacing the traditional Montesquieu-influenced American constitution with an ostensibly more “progressive” democratic socialist one.

That said, one has to wonder if it would not be appropriate for American anti-liberals to initiate an ideological move away from advocating strict adherence to the principle of legal or judicial neutrality towards a perspective that might be called “defensive judicial activism,” e.g. the advocacy of the use of the courts at every level to resist the encroachments of the present therapeutic-managerial-multiculturalist-welfare state in the same manner that liberals have used the courts to impose their own extra-legislative agenda. This would be an approach that is more easily discussed than implemented, of course, but perhaps it is still worthy of discussion nevertheless.

The political theory of Carl Schmitt likewise aids the development of a more thorough understanding of the nature of the state itself. Contrary to the prevailing view that political rule can be rooted objectively in sets of formal legal rules and institutional procedures, or that the state can be a mere reflection of the idealized abstraction of “the people,” Schmitt recognized that ultimately political rule is based on the question of “Who decides?” Ideological pretenses to the contrary, there will be a “sovereign” (whether an individual or a group) who possesses final authority as to what the rules will be and how they will be interpreted or applied.

Schmitt’s friend/enemy thesis likewise contains the recognition that the prospect of lethal violence defines the essence of politics. Political rule is about force, and about possessing the ability to exercise the necessary amount of physical violence to maintain a system of rule. The truth of these observations and of Schmitt’s broader critique of liberalism and democracy do not by themselves eliminate the problematical nature of Schmitt’s own Hobbesian outlook. Clearly, Schmitt’s own life and career illustrate the limitations of such a view. Indeed, after his purge by the Nazis, Schmitt reflected on Hobbes more extensively and modified his views on political obligation somewhat. He concluded that political obligation must be reciprocal in nature. Hobbes taught that the individual was obligated to obey political authority for the sake of his own protection. Schmitt argued in light of the Nazi experience that the individual’s obligation of obedience is negated when the state withdraws its protection. Schmitt’s concern with the primacy of order and stability could well be summarized by the Jeffersonian principle that “prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes.”

Yet, there is the wider question of the matter whereby the malignant nature of a particular state is such that the state not only fails to provide protection for the individual but threatens the wider culture and civilization itself, a situation for which Dr. Samuel Francis coined the term “anarcho-tyranny.” Clearly, in such a scenario, it will seem that the obligation of political obedience, individually or collectively, becomes abrogated.

Keith Preston

Keith Preston is the chief editor of AttacktheSystem.com and holds graduate degrees in history and sociology. He was awarded the 2008 Chris R. Tame Memorial Prize by the United Kingdom's Libertarian Alliance for his essay, "Free Enterprise: The Antidote to Corporate Plutocracy."

 

Ernst Jüngers Lieblingspsalm

Von Georg Oblinger

Ex: http://www.jungefreiheit.de/

Der 26. September 1996 war ein bedeutender Tag – auch wenn dies die Öffentlichkeit erst mehr als ein Jahr später erfahren sollte. An diesem Tag wurde Ernst Jünger in die katholische Kirche aufgenommen. Beim Gottesdienst zu diesem Anlaß wurde nach Jüngers Wunsch der Psalm 73 gebetet, in dem er die oft verschlungenen Pfade seines Lebens widergespiegelt sah:

„Lauter Güte ist Gott für Israel, für alle Menschen mit reinem Herzen. Ich aber – fast wären meine Füße gestrauchelt, beinahe wäre ich gefallen. Denn ich habe mich über die Prahler ereifert, als ich sah, daß es diesen Frevlern so gut ging. Sie leiden ja keine Qualen, ihr Leib ist gesund und wohlgenährt. (…) Sie sehen kaum aus den Augen vor Fett, ihr Herz läuft über von bösen Plänen (…) Sie reißen ihr Maul bis zum Himmel auf und lassen auf Erden ihrer Zunge freien Lauf. Darum wendet sich das Volk ihnen zu und schlürft ihre Worte in vollen Zügen. (…) Also hielt ich umsonst mein Herz rein und wusch meine Hände in Unschuld.

Und doch war ich alle Tage geplagt und wurde jeden Morgen gezüchtigt. Mein Herz war verbittert, mir bohrte der Schmerz in den Nieren. (…) Da sann ich nach, um das zu begreifen; es war eine Qual für mich, bis ich dann eintrat ins Heiligtum Gottes und begriff, wie sie enden. (…) Sie werden plötzlich zunichte, werden dahingerafft und nehmen ein schreckliches Ende. (…) Ich aber – Gott nahe zu sein ist mein Glück. Ich setze auf Gott, den Herrn, mein Vertrauen. Ich will all deine Taten verkünden.“

„Sie reißen ihr Maul bis zum Himmel auf“

Jünger konnte diesen Bibeltext auf seine lange religiöse Suche beziehen. Die Nationalsozialisten haben oftmals versucht, ihn für ihre Ideologie zu gewinnen und so wäre Jünger beinahe gestrauchelt. Doch Jünger erkannte ihre „bösen Pläne“ immer deutlicher, was schließlich 1933 zu seinem Ausschluss aus der Dichterakademie führte.

Wer vor dem Hintergrund der Biographie Ernst Jüngers den Psalm 73 liest, sieht vor seinem geistigen Auge Hermann Göring und Joseph Goebbels, wenn die Frevler beschrieben werden „sie sehen kaum aus ihren Augen vor Fett“ und „sie reißen ihr Maul bis zum Himmel auf.“

Wenn im Psalm von der Verbitterung des Herzens die Rede ist, denkt der Jünger-Freund unwillkürlich an die letzten Kriegsjahre in Paris, wo Jünger die „Pariser Tagebücher“ verfaßte, die später in seine „Strahlungen“ aufgenommen wurden.

Das Unsichtbare läßt sich für Jünger nur in Gleichnissen fassen

Doch der Psalm endet mit der Hinwendung zu Gott – ganz so wie das lange Leben Ernst Jüngers selbst. In seinem Alterswerk „Die Schere“ schreibt Jünger von der „Welt, die außerhalb unserer Erfahrung liegt.“ Er unterscheidet „zwischen dem Sichtbaren, dem Unsichtbaren und dem Nicht-Vorhandenen.“ Dieses Unsichtbare läßt sich für Jünger nur in Gleichnissen fassen.

Daher schreibt er „Gott“ immer in Anführungszeichen. Seine Begründung: „Die Wirklichkeit des Göttlichen ist für mich unleugbar, aber sie ist auch schwer zu definieren und zu benennen.“ Wie seine Konversion zeigt, war er allerdings der Meinung, daß der katholische Glaube der unfassbaren göttlichen Wahrheit wohl am nächsten kommt.

Werner Lass et Karl-Otto Paetel, deux nationaux-bolcheviques allemands

Werner Lass et Karl-Otto Paetel, deux nationaux-bolcheviques allemands

Moins connus qu’Ernst Niekisch, Werner Lass et Karl-Otto Paetel  sont deux figures atypiques du national-bolchevisme, décrit par Louis Dupeux comme le courant le plus fascinant  de la Révolution Conservatrice.

Au coeur de la jeunesse bundisch

Né à Berlin le 20 mai 1902, Werner Lass appartient aux Wanderwogel de 1916 à 1920. En 1923, il est élu chef du Bund Sturmvolk dont une partie s’unit, en 1926, avec la Schilljugend du célèbre chef de corps-francs Gehrardt Rossbach (1). En 1927, Lass  fait scission pour fonder la Freischar Schill, groupe bündisch dont Ernst Jünger devient rapidement le mentor (« Schirmherr ») et qui place au cœur de ses activités le « combat pour les frontières », les randonnées à l’étranger et la formation militaire (2).

D’octobre 1927 à mars 1928, Lass et Jünger s’associent pour éditer la revue Der Vormarsch (« L’Offensive »), créée en juin 1927 par un autre célèbre chef de corps-francs, le capitaine Ehrhardt. Désireux de dépasser les limites étroites du simple mouvement de jeunesse, il fonde le Wehrjugendbewegung ou Mouvement de jeunesse de défense. Il s’agit pour lui de lier la « dureté de l’engagement du soldat du front avec la force de réalisation et la profondeur du mouvement de jeunesse » afin de créer un nouveau type d’homme.

En août 1928, la Freischar Schill participe au Congrès mondial des organisations de jeunesse, à Ommen, en Hollande. Lass fait un coup éclat en protestant contre la « colonisation » de l’Allemagne et la non attribution d’un visa aux délégués russes. La même année il est emprisonné, accusé d’avoir participé à la révolte paysanne de Claus Heim qui secoue alors le Schlewig-Holstein, et son mouvement sera interdit dans plusieurs villes.

En 1929, la Freischar Schill entreprend des négociations avec le NSDAP, qui échouent du fait des prétentions exorbitantes de la Hitlerjugend. En septembre 1929, Lass fonde une ligue regroupant les membres les plus âgés, le Bund der Eidgenossen ou Ligue des Conjurés, qui adopte très vite des positions nationales-bolcheviques.

Die Kommenden et les nationalistes sociaux-révolutionnaires

Quelques mois plus tard, en janvier 1930, Werner Lass et Jünger prennent la direction de l’hebdomadaire Die Kommenden, qui exerce alors une grande influence auprès de toute la jeunesse bündisch. Lass y écrira de rares articles.

C’est à la rédaction de Die Kommenden qu’il croise la route d’une autre figure du national-bolchevisme des années 30 : Karl-Otto Paetel. Celui-ci est également né à Berlin, le 23 novembre 1906. Tout comme Lass, il a commencé à militer dans les rangs de la jeunesse bündisch, à la Deutsche Freishar et au Bund der Köngener. Issu d’un milieu très modeste, il a dû arrêter ses études quand la bourse dont il bénéficiait lui a été retirée après qu’il ai manifesté contre le plan Young. Esprit décidemment rebelle, il sera aussi exclu de la Deutsche Freishar, en 1930, à la suite d’un article jugé insultant envers le maréchal Hindenburg.

Animateur, de 1928 à 1930, du mensuel Das Junge Volk, Karl-Otto Paetel lie dans ses écrits, dès 1929, combat de libération nationale et lutte des classes : « Tout pour la nation !… Le mot d’August Winning, d’après lequel la lutte libératrice de la nation doit être le lutte du travailleur allemand mène ici à la seule conséquence possible : approuver la lutte des classes comme un fait, la pousser dans l’intérêt du peuple tout entier (…) l’emprunter comme une voie pour la victoire du nationalisme ».

En 1930, Paetel se voit proposer par Lass et Jünger la direction de Die Kommenden. Dans un article paru dans le premier numéro de l’année 1930, il appelle à « en faire un porte-parole de toutes les nouvelles impulsions et pensées qui partout sont à l’œuvre dans la jeune Allemagne, pour toutes les tentatives révolutionnaires de renouvellement » et à rejeter les « aboiements du libéralisme et de la réaction, en qui nous reconnaissons nos ennemis mortels » (3). Et d’assigner au journal une ligne résolument révolutionnaire : « Nous reprendrons à l’intérieur et à l’extérieur de l’espace allemand le combat contre le système de l’exploitation capitaliste, qui a toujours empêché l’intégration du prolétariat dans l’ensemble du destin allemand » (4).

Quelques mois plus tard, fin mai 1930, il crée le Gruppe sozialrevolutionarër nationalisten (Groupe des nationalistes sociaux-révolutionnaires). Une série d’articles, publiés dans le numéro du 27 juin 1930 présente la déclaration-programme du GSRN.  Pour Paetel, « le sens de toute économie est uniquement la couverture des besoins de la nation et non pas la richesse et le gain » (5). Il en appelle à une « révolution mondiale »,  considère le bolchevisme comme un mouvement de libération nationale et souhaite  l’alliance avec l’URSS pour faire pièce à l’esclavage exercé par les nations occidentales : « Nous nationalistes sociaux-révolutionnaires, nous en exigeons l’alliance avec l’Union soviétique . Nous voyons dans tous les peuples opprimés, à quelques races qu’ils appartiennent, nos alliés naturels »(6).

National-bolchevisme et national-socialisme

Pendant l’été 1930, Paetel est débarqué de Die Kommenden par les tenants d’un nationalisme plus classique. En janvier 1931, il lance le mensuel Die sozialistische Nation, qui se réclame du national-bolchevisme, prône la lutte des classes, la collaboration avec le PC et l’instauration de « l’Allemagne des conseils », et entend alors représenter « le secteur non marxiste, non matérialiste du front socialiste ». De son côté, Lass publie, en septembre 1932, une nouvelle revue, Der Umsturz (La Subversion), qui se veux l’organe « des nationalistes radicaux, des socialistes radicaux, des activistes révolutionnaires de toutes tendances » et se réclame ouvertement du national-bolchevisme. « Bolchevisme est présenté comme la quintessence de tout ce qui est destructeur et décomposant. Alors, c’est vrai, nous sommes nationaux-bolcheviks, car précisément, la voie de la nation ne passe que par cette destruction créatrice » (7) peut-on y lire.

L’orientation NB semble corroborée par les évènements des années 1930-1931, scission de l’aile gauche du NSDAP d’une part, politique « nationale » du KPD d’autre part. En ce qui concerne le NSDAP d’Hitler, les NB estiment qu’il s’est embourgeoisé. En 1931, Lass écrit ainsi : « Aujourd’hui au nationaliste convaincu du NSDAP peut seulement être accordé la tâche de radicaliser la large masse de la bourgeoisie et de contribuer au délitement national »(8). Rien de plus. Le 4 juillet 1930, Otto Strasser quitte le parti pour fonder la Communauté nationale-socialiste révolutionnaire. Mais très vite les NB se montrent critiques vis à vis des thèses strassériennes, stigmatisant son «  socialisme à 49 % »  et ses hésitations sur la question de l’alliance russe.

Le fossé entre NB et NS de gauche s’élargit encore du fait de l’espoir mis dans l’évolution du KPD. Le 24 août 1930, l’organe central, Die Rote Fahne, publie une « Déclaration programme pour la libération nationale et sociale du peuple allemand », qui accorde une large place à la question nationale. Il s’agit pour les communistes d’enrayer la radicalisation des classes moyennes, en développant une argumentation nationaliste appuyée sur un appel à une « alliance de classes » de tous les travailleurs contre le petit groupe de possédants capitalistes. Cette stratégie parvient à faire passer dans le camp communiste des nationalistes (9). Croyant naïvement qu’une ligne NB est à l’œuvre au KPD, Paetel multiplie les débats avec les communistes, prenant même la parole lors de leurs meetings. En 1932, il appelle même à voter pour le candidat communiste à l’élection présidentielle, Thaelmann . Début 1933, il publie un Manifeste national-bolchevik, dont les premiers exemplaires, imprimés le 29 janvier, sont distribués le soir même de l’arrivée au pouvoir d’Hitler.

Werner Lass sera arrêté, en mars 1933, pour détention d’explosifs et mis en prison. Après une instruction interrompue, la Freischar Schill et le Bund der Eidgenossen ayant été interdits, il intègre la Hitlerjugend, ce qui représente un cas unique parmi tous les chefs NB. Il en sera d’ailleurs exclu en 1934. De son côté, Paetel sera emprisonné à plusieurs reprises après l’arrivée au pouvoir d’Hitler, avant de parvenir à gagner Prague en 1935, puis la Scandinavie.

Edouard Rix

NOTES

 

(1)  Son nom perpétue le souvenir du major Schill, tombé au cours de la lutte de libération contre l’occupation napoléonienne.

(2) Ses jeunes membres subissent une formation paramilitaire selon le « Reibert », manuel de l’infanterie allemande.

(3) K.O. Paetel, « Unser Weg », Die Kommenden, 1930, n°1, p. 2.

(4) Idem.

(5) T. Münzen « Gwendsätzeiches zum sozialistischen Wirtschaftsarfbau », Die Kommenden, 1930, n°26, p. 307.

(6) K. Baumann, « Sozialistische Revolution », Die Kommenden, 1930, n°26, p. 301.

(7) « Wir Nationalbolchewisten », Der Umsturz, n°6-7.

(8) W. Lass, « Vom vormarsch des Nationalismus », Die Kommenden, 1931, n°7, p. 76.

(9) C’est le cas du capitaine Beppo Romer, chef du bund Oberland, du sous-lieutenant Richard Scheringer, directeur de la revue Aufbruch, de Bruno von Salomon, frère d’Ernst et dirigeant du Landvolkbewegung, ou encore d’Harro Schulze-Boyser, animateur du journal Der Gegner.

Source : Réfléchir & Agir, été 2008, n°29, pp. 48-49.

 

Les thèmes de la géopolitique et de l'espace russe dans la vie culturelle berlinoise de 1918 à 1945

Archives de SYNERGIES EUROPEENNES - 2002

Les thèmes de la géopolitique et de l'espace russe dans la vie culturelle berlinoise de 1918 à 1945

Karl Haushofer, Oskar von Niedermayer & Otto Hoetzsch

Intervention de Robert Steuckers à la 10^ième Université d'été de «Synergies Européennes», Basse-Saxe, août 2002

Analyse : Karl SCHLÖGEL, Berlin Ostbahnhof Europas - Russen und Deutsche in ihrem Jarhhundert, Siedler, Berlin, 368 S., DM 68, 1998, ISBN 3-88680-600-6. 

En 1922, après l'effervescence spartakiste qui venait de secouer Berlin et Munich, un an avant l'occupation franco-belge de la Ruhr, le Général d'artillerie bavarois Karl Haushofer, devenu diplômé en géographie, est considéré, à l'unanimité et à juste titre, comme un spécialiste du Japon et de l'espace océanique du Pacifique. Son expérience d'attaché militaire dans l'Empire du Soleil Levant, avant 1914, et sa thèse universitaire, présentée après 1918, lui permettent de revendiquer cette qualité. Haushofer entre ainsi en contact avec deux personnalités soviétiques de premier plan: l'homme du Komintern à Berlin, Karl Radek, et le Commissaire aux affaires étrangères, Georgi Tchitchérine (qui signera les accords de Rapallo avec Rathenau). Dans quel contexte cette rencontre a-t-elle eu lieu? Le Japon et l'URSS cherchaient à aplanir leurs différends en entamant une série de négociations où les Allemands ont joué le rôle d'arbitres. Ces négociations portent essentiellement sur le contrôle de l'île de Sakhaline. Les Japonais réclament la présence de Haushofer, afin d'avoir, à leurs côtés "une personnalité objective et informée des faits". Les Soviétiques acceptent que cet arbitre soit Karl Haushofer, car ses écrits sur l'espace pacifique —négligés en Allemagne depuis que celle-ci  a perdu la Micronésie à la suite du Traité de Versailles—  sont lus avec une attention soutenue par la jeune école diplomatique soviétique. Qui plus est, avec la manie hagiographique des révolutionnaires bolcheviques, Haushofer a connu les frères Oulianov (Lénine) à Munich avant la première guerre mondiale; il aimait en parler et relatera plus tard ce fait dans ses souvenirs. L'intérêt soviétique pour la personne du Général Haushofer durera jusqu'en 1938, où, changement brusque d'attitude lors des grandes procès de Moscou, le Procureur réclame la condamnation de Sergueï Bessonov, qu'il accuse d'être un espion allemand, en contact, prétend-il,  avec Haushofer, Hess et Niedermayer (cf. infra). Les mêmes accusations avaient été portées contre Radek, qui finira exécuté, lors des grandes purges staliniennes.

 

Ces trois faits d'histoire —la présence de Haushofer lors des négociations entre Japonais et Soviétiques, le contact, sans doute fort bref et parfaitement anodin, entre Haushofer et Lénine, les condamnations et exécutions de Radek et de Bessonov—  indiquent qu'indépendamment des étiquettes idéologiques de "gauche" ou de "droite", la géopolitique, telle qu'elle est théorisée par Haushofer à Munich et à Berlin dans les années 20, ne s'occupe que du rapport existant entre la géographie et l'histoire; elle est donc considérée comme une démarche scientifique, comme un savoir pratique et non pas comme une spéculation idéologique ou occultiste, véhiculant des fantasmes ou des intérêts. A l'époque, on peut parler d'une véritable "Internationale de la géopolitique", transcendant largement les étiquettes idéologiques, tout comme aujourd'hui, un savoir d'ordre géopolitique, éparpillé dans une multitude d'instituts, commence à se profiler partout dans un monde où les grands enjeux géopolitiques sont revenus à l'ordre du jour : la question des Balkans, celle de l'Afghanistan, remettent à l'avant-plan de l'actualité toutes les grandes thématiques de la géopolitique, notamment celles qu'avaient soulignées Mackinder et Haushofer.

 

Une démarche factuelle et matérielle, sans dérive occultiste

 

A partir de 1924, Haushofer publie sa Zeitschrift für Geopolitik (ZfG; "Revue pour la géopolitique"), où il met surtout l'accent sur l'espace du Pacifique, comme l'attestent ses articles et sa chronique, rédigée notamment grâce à des rapports envoyés par des correspondants japonais. La teneur de cette revue est donc politique et géographique pour l'essentiel, contrairement aux bruits qui ont couru pendant des décennies après 1945, et qui commencent heureusement à s'atténuer; ces "bruits" évoquaient une fantasmagorique dimension "ésotérique" de la Zeitschrift für Geopolitik (ZfG);  on a raconté que Haushofer appartenait à toutes sortes de sectes ésotériques ou occultes (voire occultistes). Ces allégations sont bien sûr complètement fausses. De plus, l'intérêt porté à Haushofer et à ses thèses sur l'espace du Pacifique par la jeune diplomatie soviétique, par Radek et Tchitchérine, est un indice complémentaire  —et de taille!—  pour attester de la nature factuelle et matérielle de ses écrits; les sectes étant par définition irrationnelles, comment un homme, que l'on dit plongé dans cet univers en marge de toute rationalité scientifique, aurait pu susciter l'intérêt et la collaboration active de marxistes matérialistes et historicistes? De marxistes qui tentent d'expurger toute irrationalité de leurs démarches intellectuelles?  L'accusation d'occultisme portée à l'encontre de Haushofer est donc une contre-vérité propagandiste, répandue par les services et les puissances qui ont intérêt à ce que son œuvre demeure inconnue, ne soit plus consultée dans les chancelleries et les états-majors. Il va de soi qu'il s'agit des puissances qui ont intérêt à ce que le grand continent eurasien ne soit pas organisé ni aménagé territorialement jusqu'en ses régions les plus éloignées de la mer.

 

Le principal ouvrage géopolitique et scientifique de Haushofer est donc sa Geopolitik des Pazifischen Raumes ("Géopolitique de l'espace pacifique"), livre de référence méticuleux qui se trouvait en permanence sur le bureau de Radek, à Berlin comme à Moscou. Karl Radek jouait le rôle du diplomate du PCUS ("Parti communiste d'Union Soviétique"). Il a cependant plaidé, au moment où les Français condamnent à mort et font fusiller l'activiste nationaliste allemand Albert Leo Schlageter, pour un front commun entre nationaux et communistes contre la puissance occidentale occupante. Plus tard, Radek sera nommé Recteur de l'Université Sun-Yat-Sen à Moscou, centre névralgique de la nouvelle culture politique internationale que les Soviets entendent généraliser sur toute la planète. Radek organisera, au départ de cette université d'un genre nouveau, un échange permanent entre universitaires, dont le savoir est en mesure de forger cette nouvelle culture diplomatique internationale.

 

Trois figures emblématiques

 

Dans le cadre de cette Université Sun-Yat-Sen , trois figures emblématiques méritent de capter aujourd'hui encore notre attention, tant leurs démarches peuvent encore avoir une réelle incidence sur toute réflexion actuelle quant au destin de la Russie, de l'Europe, de l'Asie centrale et quant aux théories générales de la géopolitique: Mylius Dostoïevski, Richard Sorge et Alexander Radós.

 

Mylius Dostoïevski est le petit-fils du grand écrivain russe. Qui, rappelons-le, a jeté les bases d'une révolution conservatrice en Russie, au-delà des limites de la slavophilie du début du 19^ième siècle, et a consolidé, par ricochet, la dimension russophile de la révolution conservatrice allemande, par le biais de ses réflexions consignées dans son Journal d'un écrivain, ouvrage capital qui sera traduit en allemand par Arthur Moeller van den Bruck. Mylius Dostoïevski s'était spécialisé en histoire et en géographie du Japon, de la Chine et de l'espace maritime du Pacifique. Il appartiendra à la jeune garde de la diplomatie soviétique et sera un lecteur attentif de la ZfG; pour rendre la politesse à ces jeunes géographes soviétiques, selon sa courtoisie habituelle, Karl Haushofer rendra toujours compte, avec précision, des évolutions diverses de la nouvelle géopolitique soviétique. Il estimait que les Allemands de son temps devaient en connaître les grandes lignes et la dynamique.

 

Richard Sorge, autre lecteur de la ZfG, était un espion soviétique en Extrême-Orient. On connaît son rôle pendant la seconde guerre mondiale. En 1933, au moment où Hitler prend le pouvoir en Allemagne, Sorge était en contact avec l'école géopolitique de Haushofer. Il le restera, en dépit du changement de régime et en dépit des options anti-communistes officielles, preuve supplémentaire que la géopolitique se situe bien au-delà des clivages idéologiques et politiciens. Au cours des années qui suivirent la "Machtübernahme" de Hitler, il écrivit de nombreux articles substantiels dans la ZfG. Sa connaissance du monde extrême-oriental  —et elle seule—  justifiait cette collaboration.

 

Alexander Radós et "Pressgeo"

 

Indubitablement, le principal disciple soviétique de Karl Haushofer a été l'Israélite hongrois Alexander Radós, un géographe de formation, qui a servi d'espion au profit de la jeune URSS, notamment en Suisse, plaque tournante de nombreux contacts officieux. Radós est l'homme qui a forgé tous les nouveaux concepts de la géographie politique soviétique. Il est, entre autres, celui qui forgea la dénomination même d'«Union des Républiques Socialistes Soviétiques». Radós fut principalement un cartographe, qui a commencé sa carrière en établissant des cartes du trafic aérien, lesquelles constituaient évidemment une innovation à son époque. Il enseignait à l'«Ecole marxiste de formation des Travailleurs» ("Marxistische Arbeiterschulung"). Il fonde ensuite la toute première agence de presse cartographique du monde, qu'il baptise "Pressgeo", où travaillera notamment une future célébrité comme Arthur Koestler. La fondation de cette agence correspond parfaitement aux aspirations de Haushofer, qui voulait vulgariser  —et diffuser au maximum au sein de la population—  un savoir pragmatique d'ordre géographique, historique et économique, assorti d'un esprit de défense. La carte, esquisse succincte, instrument didactique de premier ordre, sert l'objectif d'instruire rapidement les esprits décisionnaires des armées et de la diplomatie, ainsi que les enseignants en histoire et en science politique qui doivent communiquer vite un savoir essentiel et vital à leurs ouailles.

 

Haushofer parlait aussi, en ce sens, de "Wehrgeographie", de "géographie défensive", soit de "géographie militaire". L'objectif de cette science pragmatique était de synthétiser en un simple coup d'œil cartographique toute une problématique de nature stratégique, récurrente dans l'histoire. Pédagogie et cartographie formant les deux piliers majeurs de la formation politique des élites et des masses. Yves Lacoste, en France aujourd'hui, suit une même logique, en se référant à Elisée Reclus, géographe dynamique, réclamant une pédagogie de l'espace, dans une perspective qu'il voulait révolutionnaire et "anarchique". Lacoste, comme Haushofer, a parfaitement conscience de la dimension militaire de la géographie (et, a fortiori, de la "Wehrgeographie"), quand il écrit, en faisant référence aux premiers cartographes militaires de la Chine antique: «La géographie, ça sert à faire la guerre!».

 

De l'utilité pédagogique de la cartographie

 

Michel Foucher, professeur à Lyon, dirige aujourd'hui un institut géographique et cartographique, dont les cartes, très didactiques, illustrent la majeure partie des organes de presse français, quand ceux-ci évoquent les points chauds de la planète. Dans ce même esprit pluridisciplinaire,  à volonté clairement pédagogique,  —qui, en France et en Allemagne, va de Haushofer à Lacoste et à Foucher—  Alexander Radós, leur précurseur soviétique, publie, en URSS et en Allemagne, en 1930, un Atlas für Politik, Wirtschaft und Arbeiterbewegung  ("Atlas de la politique, de l'économie et du mouvement ouvrier"). Radós est ainsi le précurseur d'une manière innovante et intéressante de pratiquer la géographie politique, de mêler, en d'audacieuses synthèses, un éventail de savoirs économiques, géographiques, militaires, topographiques, géologiques, hydrographiques, historiques. Les synthèses, que sont les cartes, doivent servir à saisir d'un seul coup d'œil des problématiques hautement complexes, que le simple texte écrit, trop long à assimiler, ne permet pas de saisir aussi vite, d'exprimer sans détours inutiles. Ce fut là un grand pas en avant dans la pédagogie scientifique et politique, dans le sens inauguré, un siècle auparavant, par le géographe Carl Ritter.

 

Cette cartographie facilite le travail du militaire, du géographe et de l'homme politique; elle permet, comme le soulignait Karl August Wittfogel, de sortir d'une impasse de la vieille science géographique traditionnelle (et "réactionnaire" pour les marxistes), où, systématiquement, on avait négligé les macro-processus enclenchés par le travail de l'homme et, ainsi, le caractère "historique-plastique" de ce que l'on croyait être des "faits éternels de nature". C'est dans cette position épistémologique fondamentale,  qu'au-delà des clivages idéologiques, fruits d'"éthiques de la conviction" aux répercussions calamiteuses, se rejoignent Elisée Reclus, Haushofer, Radós, Wittfogel, Lacoste et Foucher. Wittfogel , qui se pose comme révolutionnaire, reconnaît cette "plasticité historique" dans l'œuvre du "géopolitologue bourgeois" Karl Haushofer. Les deux écoles, l'haushoférienne et la marxiste, veulent inaugurer une géographie dynamique, où l'espace n'est plus posé comme un bloc inerte et immobile, mais s'appréhende comme un réseau dense de relations, de rapports, de mouvements, en perpétuelle effervescence (on songe tout naturellement au "rhizome" de Gilles Deleuze, qui inspire les "géophilosophes" italiens actuels). Au sein de ce réseau toujours agité, le temps peut apporter des époques de repos, de plus grande quiétude, comme il peut injecter du dynamisme, de la violence, des bouleversements, qui contraignent les personnalités politiques de valeur à œuvrer à des redistributions de cartes. Le travail de l'homme, qui domestique certains espaces en les aménageant et en créant des moyens de communication plus rapides, est un travail proprement "révolutionnaire"; les hommes politiques qui refusent d'aménager l'espace, dans un esprit de défense territoriale ou dans l'esprit d'assurer aux générations futures communications et ressources, sont des "réactionnaires", des lâches qui préfèrent de lents pourrissements à la dynamique de transformation. Des capitulards qui font ainsi le jeu pervers des thalassocraties.

 

Par conséquent, évoquer des hommes comme Mylius Dostoïevski, Richard Sorge, Alexander Radós ou Karl August Wittfogel,  nous apparaît très utile, intellectuellement et méthodologiquement, car cela prouve:

◊ que l'intérêt général pour la géopolitique aujourd'hui ne peut plus être mis en équation avec un intérêt malsain pour le passé national-socialiste (contexte dans lequel Haushofer a dû œuvrer);

◊ qu'aucune morbidité d'ordre ésotérique ou occultiste ne se repère dans l'œuvre de Haushofer et de ses disciples allemands ou soviétiques;

◊ que ces écoles ont posé d'important jalons dans le développement de la science politique, de la géographie et de la cartographie;

◊ qu'elles ont laissé en héritage un bagage scientifique de la plus haute importance;

◊ que nous devrions davantage nous intéresser aux développements de la géopolitique soviétique des années 20 et 30 (et analyser l'œuvre de Radós, par exemple).

 

Oskar von Niedermayer, le "Lawrence allemand"

 

Outre Haushofer, une approche du savoir géopolitique, tel qu'il sera déployé à Berlin dans les années 20, 30 et 40, ne peut omettre d'étudier la figure du Chevalier Oskar von Niedermayer, celui que l'on avait surnommé, le "Lawrence d'Arabie" allemand. Né en 1885, Oskar von Niedermayer embrasse la carrière d'officier, mais ne se contente pas des simples servitudes militaires. Il étudie à l'université les sciences naturelles physiques, la géographie et les langues iraniennes (ce qui lui permettra d'avoir des contacts suivis avec la Communauté religieuse Ba'hai, qui, à l'époque, était quasiment la seule porte ouverte de l'Iran sur l'Occident). De 1912 à 1914, il effectue un long voyage en Perse et en Inde. Il sera ainsi le premier Européen à traverser de part en part le désert de sable du Lout (Dacht-i-Lout). En 1914, quand éclate la première guerre mondiale, Oskar von Niedermayer, accompagné par Werner Otto von Henting, sillonne les montagnes d'Afghanistan pour inciter les tribus afghanes à se soulever contre les Anglais et les Russes, afin de créer un "abcès de fixation", obligeant les deux puissances ennemies de l'Allemagne à dégarnir partiellement  leurs fronts en Europe, dans le Caucase et en Mésopotamie. Cette mission sera un échec. En 1919, Niedermayer se retrouve dans les rangs du Corps Franc du Colonel Chevalier Franz von Epp qui écrase la République des Conseils de Munich. En dépit de son rôle dans l'aventure de ce Corps Franc anti-communiste, Niedermayer est nommé dans la foulée officier de liaison de la Reichswehr auprès de la nouvelle Armée Rouge à Moscou. Dans ce contexte, il est intéressant de noter qu'il était, avant toutes choses, un expert de l'Afghanistan, des idiomes persans et de toute cette zone-clef de la géostratégie mondiale qui va de la rive sud de la Caspienne à l'Indus. C'est donc Niedermayer  qui négociera avec Trotski et qui visitera, pour le compte de la Reichswehr, dans la perspective de la future coopération militaire entre les deux pays, les usines d'armement et les chantiers navals de Petrograd (devenue "Leningrad"). Oskar von Niedermayer a donc été l'une des chevilles ouvrières de la coopération militaire et militaro-industrielle germano-russe des années 20. En 1930, il devient professeur de "Wehrgeographie" à Berlin.

 

Le "marais" et ses éthiques de conviction

 

La principale leçon qu'il tire de ses activités politiques et diplomatiques est une méfiance à l'endroit des politiciens du "centre", du "marais", incapables de comprendre les grands ressorts de la politique internationale, du "Grand Jeu". Ses critiques s'adressaient surtout aux sociaux-démocrates et aux centristes de tous plumages idéologiques; avec de tels personnages, il est impossible, constate von Niedermayer dans un rapport où il ne cache pas son amertume, d'articuler sur le long terme une politique étrangère durable, rationnelle et constante. Il les accuse de tout critiquer publiquement, par voie de presse; de cette façon, aucune diplomatie secrète n'est encore possible. Pire, estime-t-il, par le comportement délétère de ces bateleurs sans épine dorsale politique solide, aucun ressort habituel de la diplomatie inter-étatique  ne fonctionne encore de manière optimale. Car les éthiques de conviction (terminologie de Max Weber: "Gesinnungsethik") qui animent toutes les vaines agitations politiciennes de ces gens-là, altèrent l'esprit de retenue, de sérieux et de service, qui est nécessaire pour faire fonctionner une telle diplomatie traditionnelle. La priorité accordée aux convictions revient à trahir les intérêts fondamentaux de l'Etat et de la nation. L'amertume de Niedermayer est née à la suite d'un incident au Reichstag, où le socialiste Scheidemann, animé par un pacifisme irréaliste et de mauvais aloi, avait dénoncé un accord militaire secret entre l'URSS et le Reich, sous prétexte que le commerce et l'échange d'armements ne sont pas "moraux". Le lendemain, comme par hasard, la presse londonienne à l'unisson, reprend l'information et amorce une propagande contre les deux puissances continentales, qui avaient contourné les clauses de Versailles relatives aux embargos. Cet incident montre aussi que bon nombre de journalistes servent des intérêts étrangers à leur pays. En cela, rien n'a changé aujourd'hui: les Etats-Unis bénéficient de l'appui inconditionnel de la plupart des ténors de la presse parisienne.

 

Youri Semionov, spécialiste de la Sibérie

 

Dans les années 30, Niedermayer rencontre Youri Semionov, Russe blanc en exil et spécialiste de l'économie, de la géographie, de la géologie et de l'hydrographie sibériennes. Semionov est l'auteur d'un ouvrage, toujours d'actualité, toujours compulsé en haut lieu, sur les trésors de la géologie sibérienne. Egalement spécialiste de l'empire colonial français, Semionov a compilé ses réflexions successives dans un volume dont la dernière édition allemande date de 1975 (cf. Juri Semjonow, Erdöl aus dem Osten - Die Geschichte der Erdöl- und Erdgasindustrie in der UdSSR, Econ Verlag, Wien/Düsseldorf, 1973 & Sibirien - Schatzkammer des Ostens, Econ Verlag, Wien/Düsseldorf, 1975). Né en 1894 à Vladikavkaz dans le Caucase, Youri Semionov a étudié à l'Université de Moscou, avant d'émigrer en 1922 à Berlin, où il enseignera l'histoire et la géographie de la Russie, et plus particulièrement celles des territoires sibériens. Après la chute du IIIe Reich, il émigre en 1947 en Suède, où il enseignera à Uppsala et finira ses jours. Dans Sibirien - Schatzkammer des Ostens, il retrace toutes les étapes de l'histoire de la conquête russe des territoires situés au-delà de l'ex-capitale des Tatars, Kazan. Il démontre que la conquête de tout le cours de la Volga, de Kazan à Astrakhan, permet à la Russie de spéculer sur une éventuelle conquête des Indes. Semionov replace tous ces faits d'histoire dans une perspective géopolitique, celle de l'organisation du Grand Continent, de la Mer Blanche au Pacifique. Les chapitres sur le 19^ième siècle sont particulièrement intéressants, notamment quand il décrit la situation globale après la décision du Tsar Alexandre III de faire financer la construction d'un chemin de fer transsibérien.

 

Cet extrait du livre de Semionov (pp. 356-357) résume parfaitement  cette situation : «Nous savons que toute la politique de "concentration des forces sur le continent", telle celle que l'on avait envisagée en Russie, provoquait une inquiétude faite de jalousie en Angleterre. Tout mouvement de la Russie en Asie y était considéré comme une menace pesant sur l'Inde. L'Amiral Sterling a vu cette menace se concrétiser dès l'installation de la présence russe le long du fleuve Amour. L'écrivain anglais, oublié aujourd'hui, mais très connu à l'époque, Th. T. Meadows, évoquait en 1856, dans un de ses écrits, un "futur Alexandre le Grand" russe, qui s'en irait conquérir la Chine, puis, sans difficulté aucune, détruirait l'empire britannique et soumettrait le monde entier. Ce cri d'alarme pathétique, répercuté par la presse anglaise, est apparu soudain très réaliste, lorsque, dans les années 80 du 19^ième siècle, les Russes avancent en Asie centrale et s'approchent de la frontière afghane. En 1884, se déroule le fameux "incident afghan"; un détachement russe s'empare d'un point contesté sur la frontière; ensuite, les Afghans, qui agissaient sur ordre des Anglais, attaquent ce poste, mais sont battus et dispersés par les Russes. Le premier ministre britannique Gladstone déclare, face au Parlement de Londres, que la guerre avec la Russie est désormais inévitable. Seul le refus de Bismarck, de soutenir les Anglais, empêcha, à l'époque, le déclenchement d'une guerre anglo-russe». Toute l'actualité récente semble résumée dans ce bref extrait.

 

Les chapitres consacrés à l'œuvre de Witte, père du Transsibérien, sont également lumineux. Semionov rappelle que Witte est un disciple de l'économiste Friedrich List, théoricien de l'aménagement des grands espaces. Il existait, avant la première guerre mondiale et avant la guerre russo-japonaise, une véritable idée grande continentale. Elle était partagée en France (Henri de Grossouvre nous a rappelé l'œuvre de Gabriel Hanotaux), en Allemagne (avec le souvenir de Bismarck) et en Chine, avec Li Hung-Tchang, qui négociera avec Witte. L'Angleterre réussira à briser cette unité, ce qui entraînera le cortège sanglant de toutes les guerres du 20^ième siècle.

 

Oskar von Niedermayer  rencontre également le Professeur Otto Hoetzsch, dont nous allons retracer l'itinéraire dans la suite de cette intervention. En dépit de leurs itinéraires bien différents et de leurs options idéologiques divergentes, Haushofer, Niedermayer, Semionov et Hoetzsch se complètent utilement et la lecture simultanée de leurs œuvres nous permet de saisir toute la problématique eurasienne, sans la mutiler, sans rien omettre de sa complexité.

 

Du professorat à la 162^ième Division

 

En 1937, Hitler ordonne la fondation d'un "Institut für allgemeine Wehrlehre" (= "Institut pour les doctrines générales de défense"). Niedermayer, bien que sceptique, servira loyalement cette nouvelle institution d'Etat, dont l'objectif, recentré sur l'ethnologie vu l'intérêt des nationaux-socialistes pour les questions raciales, est d'étudier les rapports mutuels entre peuple(s) et espace(s). Hostile à la "Gesinnungsethik" des nationaux socialistes, comme il avait été hostile à celles des sociaux démocrates ou des centristes, Niedermayer proteste contre les campagnes de diffamation orchestrées contre des professeurs que l'on décrit comme des "intellectuels  apolitiques", comportement hitlérien qui trouve parfaitement son pendant dans les campagnes de diffamation orchestrées par un certain journalisme contemporain contre ceux qui demeurent sceptiques face aux projets d'éradiquer l'Irak, la Libye ou la Serbie et d'appuyer des bandes mafieuses comme celles de l'UÇK ou du complexe militaro-mafieux turc. Aujourd'hui, on ne traite pas ceux qui entendent raison garder d'"intellectuels apolitiques", mais d'"anti-démocrates". 

 

De la prison de Torgau à la Loubianka

 

Comme la plupart des experts ès-questions russes de son temps, Niedermayer déplore la guerre germano-soviétique, déclenchée en juin 1941. En 1942, sur la suggestion de Claus von Stauffenberg, futur auteur de l'attentat du 20 juillet 1944 contre Hitler, Niedermayer est nommé chef de la 162^ième Division d'Infanterie de la Wehrmacht, où servent des volontaires et des légionnaires de souche turque (issus des peuples turcophones d'Asie centrale). Cette unité connaît des fortunes diverses, mais l'échec de la politique nationale-socialiste à l'Est, accentue considérablement le scepticisme de Niedermayer. Stationné en Italie avec les restes de sa division, il critique ouvertement la politique menée par Hitler sur le territoire de l'Union Soviétique. Ce qui conduit à son arrestation; il est interné à Torgau sur l'Elbe. Quand les troupes américaines entrent dans la ville, il quitte la prison et est arrêté par des soldats soviétiques qui le font conduire immédiatement à Moscou, où il séjourne dans la fameuse prison de la Loubianka. Il y mourra de tuberculose en 1948.

 

La mort de Niedermayer ne clôt pas son "dossier", dans l'ex-URSS. En 1964, les autorités soviétiques utilisent les textes de ses dépositions à Moscou en 1945 pour réhabiliter le Maréchal Toukhatchevski. Il faudra attendra 1997 pour que Niedermayer soit lui-même totalement réhabilité. Donc lavé de toutes les accusations incongrues dont on l'avait chargé.

 

Le pivot indien de l'histoire et la nécessité du "Kontinentalblock"

 

Nous avons énuméré bon nombre de faits biographiques de Niedermayer, pour faire mieux comprendre le noyau essentiel de sa démarche d'iranologue, d'explorateur du Dacht-i-Lout, d'agitateur allemand en Afghanistan et de commandeur de la Division turcophone de la Wehrmacht. Deux idées de base animaient l'action de Niedermayer: 1) l'idée que l'Inde était le pivot de l'histoire mondiale; 2) la conscience de la nécessité impérieuse de construire un bloc continental (eurasien), le fameux "Kontinentalblock" de Karl Haushofer (projet qu'il a très probablement repris des hommes d'Etats japonais du début du 20^ième siècle, tels le Prince Ito, le Comte Goto et le Premier Ministre Katsura, avocats d'une alliance grande continentale germano-russo-japonaise). Si Niedermayer reprend sans doute cette idée de "bloc continental" directement de l'œuvre de Haushofer, sans remonter aux sources japonaises —qu'il devait sûrement ignorer—  l'idée de l'Inde comme "pivot de l'histoire" lui vient très probablement du Général Andreï Snessarev, officier tsariste passé aux ordres de Trotski, pour devenir le chef d'état-major de l'Armée Rouge. Ce général, hostile aux thalassocraties anglo-saxonnes, représentant d'un idéal géopolitique grand continental transcendant le clivage blancs/rouges, se plaisait à répéter: «Si nous voulons abattre la tyrannie capitaliste qui pèse sur le monde, alors nous devons chasser les Anglais d'Inde».

 

Principes thalassocratiques, libéralisme à l'occidentale, permissivité politique et morale, capitalisme dont les ressorts annihilent systématiquement  les traditions historiques et culturelles (cf. Dostoïevski et Moeller van den Bruck), logique marchande, étaient synonymes d'abjection pour cet officier traditionnel: peu importe qu'on les combatte sous une étiquette blanche/traditionaliste ou sous une étiquette rouge/révolutionnaire. Les étiquettes sont des "convictions" sans substance: seule importe une action constante visant à réduire et à détruire les forces dissolvantes de la modernité marchande, car elles conduisent le monde au chaos et les peuples à une misère sans issue. Comme nous le constatons encore plus aujourd'hui qu'à l'époque, l'industriel, le négociant  et le banquier, avec leur logique d'accumulation monstrueuse, apparaissent comme des êtres aussi abjects qu'inférieurs, foncièrement malfaisants, pour cet officier supérieur russe et  soviétique qui ne respecte que les hommes de qualité: les historiens, les prêtres, les soldats et les révolutionnaires. Les impératifs de la géopolitique sont des constantes de l'histoire auquel l'homme de longue mémoire, seul homme valable, seul homme pourvu de qualités indépassables, se doit d'obéir. A la suite de ce Snessarev, qu'il a sans doute rencontré au temps où il servait d'officier de liaison auprès de l'Armée Rouge, Niedermayer, fort également de ses expériences d'iranologue, d'explorateur du Dacht-i-Lout et de spécialiste de l'Afghanistan, clef d'accès aux Indes depuis Alexandre le Grand, savait que le destin de l'Europe en général, de l'Allemagne, son cœur géographique, en particulier, se jouait en Inde (et, partant, en Perse et en Afghanistan). Une leçon que l'actualité a rendue plus vraie que jamais.

 

Exporter la révolution et absorber le "rimland"

 

Pour Niedermayer, officier allemand, ce rôle essentiel du territoire indien pose problème car son pays ne possède aucun point d'appui dans la région, ni dans son environnement immédiat. La Russie tsariste, oui, et, à sa suite, l'URSS, aussi. Par conséquent, les positions militaires soviétiques au Tadjikistan et le long de la frontière afghane, sont des atouts absolument nécessaires à l'Europe dans son ensemble, à toute la communauté des peuples de souche européenne. C'est la possession de cet atout stratégique en Asie centrale qui doit justifier, aux yeux de Niedermayer, l'indéfectible alliance germano-russe, seule garante de la survie de la culture européenne dans son ensemble. Pour les tenants du bolchevisme révolutionnaire autour de Trotski et Lénine, la solution, pour faire tomber le capitalisme, c'est-à-dire la puissance planétaire des thalassocraties libérales, réside dans la politique d'"exporter la révolution", d'agiter les populations colonisées et assujetties par un bon dosage de nationalisme et de révolution sociale. Ainsi, les puissances continentales de la "Terre du Milieu" pourront porter leurs énergies en direction du "rimland" indien, persan et arabe, réalisant du même coup les craintes formulées par Mackinder dans son discours de 1904 sur le "pivot" sibérien et centre-asiatique de l'histoire. Propos qu'il réitèrera dans son livre Democratic Ideals and Reality  de 1919. Cependant, pour pouvoir libérer l'Inde et y exporter la révolution, il faut déjà un bloc continental bien soudé par l'alliance germano-soviétique, prélude à la libération de toute la masse continentale eurasiatique.

 

Pour structurer l'Europe: un chemin de fer à voies larges

 

Pour parfaire l'organisation de cette gigantesque masse continentale, il faut se rappeler et appliquer les recettes préconisées par le Ministre du Tsar, Sergueï Witte, père du Transsibérien. Dans le Berlin des années 20, un projet circule déjà et prendra corps pendant la seconde guerre mondiale: celui de réaliser un chemin de fer à voie large ("Breitspurbahn"), permettant de transporter un maximum de personnes et de marchandises, en un minimum de temps. Cette idée, venue de Witte, n'est pas entièrement morte, constitue toujours un impératif majeur pour qui veut véritablement travailler à la construction  européenne: le Plan Delors, esquissé dans les coulisses de l'UE, préconisait naguère des grands travaux publics d'aménagement territorial, y compris un système ferroviaire rapide, désormais inspiré par le TGV français. En 1942, Hitler, en évoquant le Transsibérien de Witte, donne l'ordre à Fritz Todt d'étudier les possibilités de construire une "Breitspurbahn", avec des trains roulant entre 150 et 180 km/h pour le transport des marchandises et entre 200 et 250 km/h pour le transport des personnes. Le projet, confié à Todt, ne concerne pas seulement l'Europe, au sens restreint du terme, n'entend pas seulement relier entre elles les grandes métropoles européennes, mais aussi, via l'Ukraine et le Caucase, les villes d'Europe à celles de la Perse. Ces projets, qui apparaissaient à l'époque comme un peu fantasmagoriques, n'étaient nullement une manie du seul Hitler (et de son ingénieur Todt); en Union Soviétique aussi, via des romans populaires, comme ceux d'Ilf et de Petrov, on envisage la création de chemins de fer ultra-rapides, reliant la Russie à l'Extrême-Orient.

 

Le destin tragique du Professeur Otto Hoetzsch

 

Le volet purement scientifique de cet engouement pour le Grand Est sera incarné à Berlin, de 1913 à 1946 par un professeur génial, autant que modeste: Otto Hoetzsch. Il a connu un destin particulièrement tragique. Après avoir accumulé dans son institut personnel une masse de documents et de travaux sur la Russie, pendant des décennies, les bombardements sur Berlin en 1945, à la veille de l'entrée des troupes soviétiques dans la capitale allemande, ont réduit sa colossale bibliothèque à néant. Cette tragédie explique partiellement le sort misérable de tout le savoir sur la Russie et l'Union Soviétique à l'Ouest. La majeure partie des documents les plus intéressants avait été accumulée à Berlin. La misère de la soviétologie occidentale est partiellement  le résultat navrant de la destruction de la bibliothèque du Prof. Hoetzsch. En 1945 et en 1946, celui-ci, âgé de 70 ans, erre seul dans Berlin, privé de sa documentation; cet homme, brisé, trouve néanmoins le courage ultime de rédiger une conférence, la dernière qu'il donnera, où il nous lègue un véritable testament politique (titre de cette conférence : "Die Eingliederung des osteuropäischen Geschichte in die Gesamtgeschichte"; = L'inclusion de l'histoire est-européenne dans l'histoire générale).

 

Slaviste et historien de la Russie, Otto Hoetzsch s'était aperçu très tôt que les Européens de l'Ouest, les Occidentaux en général, ne comprenaient rien de la dynamique de l'histoire et de l'espace russes; ce que les Russes repèrent tout de suite, ce qui les navrent et les fâchent. Cette ignorance, assortie d'une prétention mal placée et d'une irrépressible et agaçante propension à donner des leçons, vaut également pour l'espace balkanique (sauf en Autriche où les instituts spécialisés dans le Sud-Est européen ont réalisé des travaux remarquables, dont les chancelleries occidentales ne tiennent jamais compte). Hoetzsch constate, dès le début de sa brillante carrière, que la presse ne produit que des articles lamentables, quand il s'agit de commenter ou de décrire les situations existantes en Russie ou en Sibérie. Il va vouloir remédier à cette lacune. A partir de 1913, il se met à rassembler une documentation, à étudier et à lire les grands classiques de la pensée politique russe, à lire les historiens russes, ce qui le conduira à fonder en 1925, quelques mois après la sortie du premier numéro de la ZfG de Haushofer, une revue spécialisée dans les questions russes et centre-asiatiques, Osteuropa. Captivé par la figure du Tsar Alexandre II, sur lequel il rédigera un maître-ouvrage, dont le manuscrit sera sauvé in extremis de la destruction à Berlin en 1945; Hoetzsch le transportait dans sa valise en fuyant Berlin en flammes. Pourquoi Alexandre II? Ce Tsar est un réformateur social, il lance la Russie sur la voie de l'industrialisation et de la modernisation, ce que ne peuvent tolérer les thalassocraties. Il périra d'ailleurs assassiné. En dépit du ressac de la Russie sous Nicolas II, de sa lourde défaite subie en 1905 face au Japon, armé par l'Angleterre et les Etats-Unis, en dépit du terrible ressac que constitue la prise du pouvoir par les Bolcheviques, l'œuvre d'Alexandre II doit, aux yeux de Hoetzsch, demeurer le modèle pour tout homme d'Etat russe digne de ce nom.

 

Ami des Russes blancs et "Républicain de Raison"

 

Hoetzsch est un libéral de gauche, proche de la sociale démocratie, mais il déteste les Bolcheviques, car, pour lui, ce sont des agents du capitalisme anglais, dans la mesure où ils détruisent l'œuvre des Tsars émancipateurs et modernistes; ils ont comploté contre ceux-ci et contre d'excellents hommes d'Etat comme Witte et Stolypine (qui sera également assassiné). Hoetzsch fréquente l'émigration blanche de Berlin, consolide son institut grâce aux collaborations des savants chassés par les Bolcheviques, mais reste ce que l'on appelait à l'époque, dans l'Allemagne de Weimar, un «Républicain de Raison» ("Vernunftrepublikaner"), ce qui le différencie évidemment d'un Oskar von Niedermayer. Son institut et sa revue connaissent un essor bien mérité au cours des années 20; ce sont des havres de savoir et d'intelligence, où coopèrent Russes et Allemands en toute fraternité. En 1933, avec l'avènement au pouvoir des nationaux socialistes, Hoetzsch cumule les malchances. Pour le nouveau pouvoir, les "Vernunftrepublikaner" sont des émanations du "marais centriste" ou, pire, des "traîtres de novembre" ("Novemberverräter") ou des "bolchevistes de salon" ("Salonbolschewisten"). L'institut de Hoetzsch est dissous. Hoetzsch est "invité" à prendre sa retraite anticipée. La fermeture de cet institut est une tragédie de premier ordre. Le destin de Hoetzsch est pire que celui de l'activiste politique et éditeur de revues nationales révolutionnaires, Ernst Niekisch. Car on peut évidemment, avec le recul, reprocher à Niekisch d'avoir été un passionné et un polémiste outrancier. Ce n'était évidemment pas le cas de Hoetzsch, qui est resté un scientifique sourcilleux.

 

Pour une approche grande-européenne de l'histoire

 

Dans la conférence qu'il prépare dès août 1945, et qu'il prononcera peu avant de mourir en 1946, dans sa chère ville de Berlin en ruines, Otto Hoetzsch nous a laissé un message qui reste parfaitement d'actualité. L'objectif de cette conférence-testament est de faire comprendre la nécessité impérieuse, après deux guerres mondiales désastreuses, de développer une vision de l'histoire, valable pour l'Europe entière, celle de l'Ouest, celle de l'Est et la Russie ("gesamteuropäische Geschichte"). Personnellement, nous estimons que les prémisses pratiques d'une telle vision grande européenne de l'histoire se situent déjà toutes en germe dans l'œuvre politique et militaire du Prince Eugène de Savoie, qui parvient à mobiliser et unir les puissances européennes devant le danger ottoman et à faire reculer la Sublime Porte sur tous les fronts, au point qu'elle perdra le contrôle de 400.000 km2 de terres européennes et russes. Le Prince Eugène a définitivement éloigné le danger turc de l'Europe centrale et a préparé la reconquête de la Crimée par Catherine la Grande. Plus jamais, après les coups portés par Eugène de Savoie, les Ottomans n'ont été victorieux en Europe et leurs alliés français n'ont plus été vraiment en mesure de grignoter le territoire impérial des Pays-Bas espagnols puis autrichiens; les Ottomans n'ont même plus été capables de servir de supplétifs à cette autre puissance anti-impériale et anti-européenne qu'était la France avant Louis XVI.

 

Le testament de Hoetzsch nous interpelle !

 

Mais le propos de Hoetzsch, dans sa dernière conférence, n'était pas d'évoquer la figure du Prince Eugène, mais de jeter les bases d'une méthodologie historique et sociologique pour l'avenir; elle devait reposer sur les acquis théoriques de Karl Lamprecht, de Gustav Schmoller (inspirateur du gaullisme dans les années 60 du 20^ième siècle) et d'Otto Hintze. Il faut, disait Hoetzsch, développer une histoire intégrante et comparative pour les décennies à venir. En affirmant cela, il n'avait aucune chance de se voir exaucer en 1946, encore moins en 1948 quand, après le Coup de Prague, le Rideau de Fer s'abat sur l'Europe pour quatre décennies. En 1989, immédiatement après l'élimination du Mur de Berlin et l'ouverture des frontières austro-hongroises et inter-allemandes, l'Europe et la Russie auraient eu intérêt à remettre les propositions de Hoetzsch sur le tapis. Au niveau scientifique, des études remarquables ont été réalisées effectivement, mais rien ne semble transparaître dans la presse, faute de journalistes professionnels capables d'appliquer les leçons pédagogiques de Haushofer et de Radós. Les journalistes ne sont plus des hommes et des femmes en quête de sujets intéressants, innovateurs, mais bel et bien ceux que Serge Halimi nomme avec grande pertinence les "chiens de garde" du système. Les journaux et les revues constituaient la voie de pénétration vers le grand public dont disposaient jadis les instituts de sciences humaines et les universités; pour tout ce qui est véritablement innovateur, pour tout ce qui va à l'encontre des poncifs répétés ad nauseam, cette voie est désormais bien verrouillée, dans la mesure où les journalistes ne sont plus des hommes libres, animés par la volonté de consolider le Bien public, mais d'ignobles et méprisables mercenaires à la solde du système et des puissances dominantes.  Toutefois, le défi que nous a lancé Brzezinski en 1996, en publiant son fameux livre, The Grand Chessboard, où sont étalées sans vergogne toutes les recettes thalassocratiques pour neutraliser l'Europe et la Russie, avec l'aide de cet instrument qu'est le complexe militaro-mafieux turc,  —potentiellement étendu à toute la turcophonie d'Asie centrale—  montre une nouvelle fois qu'une riposte européenne et russe doit nécessairement passer par une vision claire de l'histoire, vulgarisable pour les masses. Le destin tragique de Hoetzsch, son courage opiniâtre qui force l'admiration, sa modestie de grand savant, nous interpellent directement: notre amicale paneuropéenne a pour devoir de travailler, modestement, dans son créneau, à l'avènement de cette historiographie grande européenne que Hoetzsch a voulu. Au travail!

 

Robert STEUCKERS.

(Forest-Flotzenberg, Vlotho im Weserbergland, août 2002).

Gli intellettuali tedeschi e la crisi di Weimar

Gli intellettuali tedeschi e la crisi di Weimar

Francesco Lamendola

Ex: http://www.centrostudilaruna.it/

In tempo di crisi – economica, politica, sociale e culturale -, gli intellettuali possono costituire un faro nella nebbia per i cittadini “comuni”? E, se lo possono, lo devono anche?

Qual è il loro ruolo, esattamente, nel contesto della società? È giusto aspettarsi da loro che siano la nostra coscienza critica? O forse non commettiamo l’errore, quando essi – specialmente in tempi di crisi – ci additano la Luna, di guardare il dito anziché la Luna, ossia di prendere troppo alla lettere ciò che essi dicono, invece di cogliere lo spirito che li muove e l’orizzonte cui aspirano e che cercano di dischiudere, per sé e per noi?

È facile fraintenderli, quando li si prende alla lettera: come nel caso dei surrealisti. Tutto essi volevano, tranne che fondare una scuola; il loro credo fondamentale era la rivolta contro ogni sistema, quindi anche contro il surrealismo. E invece che cosa fa il pubblico, davanti agli intellettuali che contestano un sistema ormai agonizzante? Li innalza sugli altari di un nuovo sistema; li promuove a profeti di una nuova religione – che essi lo vogliano o no. E, anche se lo vorrebbero – come nel caso di Spengler, di cui tra poco parleremo – non è detto che noi rendiamo loro un buon servizio, accontentandoli; certamente non lo rendiamo a noi stessi.

Tutte queste domande e queste considerazioni ci sono venute alla mente rileggendo un famoso brano del libro di H. Kohn (I Tedeschi, traduzione italiana Edizioni di Comunità, Milano, 1963), dedicato agli intellettuali tedeschi di fronte al nazismo.

Non è un brano molto breve, tuttavia ci sembra indispensabile riportarlo integralmente, per non correre il rischio di falsare, semplificandolo, il pensiero dell’Autore; dopo di che svilupperemo le nostre riflessioni, portandole dal piano storico contingente (la crisi della Repubblica di Weimar e l’avvicinarsi del nazismo al potere) a quello della riflessione storico-filosofica generale, per cercar di trarne qualche utile insegnamento per il presente.

«In poco più di un decennio gli intellettuali furono in grado di condurre il popolo tedesco nell’abisso. Non ci sarebbero riusciti se non fossero stati preceduti da generazioni di preparazione, in cui germanofilismo e antioccidentalismo erano divenuti sempre più caratteristici del pensiero nazionale. Nell’ultimo stadio il nazionalismo tedesco respinse non solo la civiltà occidentale, ma anche la validità della vita civile. «Il nuovo nazionalismo – ammonì Ernest Robert Curtius nel 1931 – vuole buttar via non solo il diciannovesimo secolo, attualmente tanto calunniato, bensì addirittura tutte le tradizioni storiche». I pensatori nazionalisti francesi – Charles Maurras,o Maurice Barrès – non si spinsero mai fino al punto di rivoltarsi contro la civiltà. In Germania gli antintellettuali non erano plebaglia, ma intellettuali di primo piano, uomini spesso di gusti raffinati e di grande erudizione.

Mettendosi a considerare ogni cosa dall’angolo visuale tedesco, essi si convinsero che la civiltà occidentale fosse dappertutto profondamente minata come in Germania. Partendo da osservazioni parziali arrivarono alle conclusioni più estreme. Identificarono la situazione tedesca, com’era peraltro da essi interpretata, con quella dell’umanità, addirittura con quella dell’universo. Gottfried Benn non dubitava che il periodo quaternario dell’evoluzione geologica stessa approssimandosi alla fine, che l’homo sapiens stesse diventando sorpassato. Nessuna espressione era tanto forte da riuscire a manifestare tutto l’odio nutrito per la civiltà occidentale, il liberalismo, l’umanitarismo. La filosofia di Martin Heidegger, la dottrina politica di Carl Schmitt, la teologia di Karl Barth contribuirono per parte loro a convincere gli intellettuali che l’umanità aveva raggiunto una svolta decisiva, una crisi senza precedenti causata dal liberalismo. Questi intellettuali guardavano dall’alto in basso l’Occidente con lo stesso disprezzo più tardi manifestato dai capi nazisti. Allo stesso tempo si mostravano arrogantemente sicuri che il pensiero tedesco, proprio per la sua consapevolezza della crisi, fosse l’unico degno della nuova epoca storica. […]

“La comprensione classica della tradizione, così viva in Goethe, fu perduta negli anni trenta in Germania come in Russia. L’arte divenne ‘popolare’, ‘nuova’ e ‘utilitaria’; la forma non contò più. Nadler si sentì autorizzato a criticare Goethe perché «un uomo come lui non poteva trasformare un popolo». Ora il popolo si stava «trasformando»; perlomeno i suoi portavoce se ne vantavano. Un periodico molto stimato, Hochschule und Ausland, dedicato al mantenimento dei contatti fra le università tedesche e quelle straniere, nell’aprile del 1937 cambiò testata assumendo il nuovo nome di Geist der Zeit (Spirito dei tempi). Il suo editoriale dichiarò con appropriata modestia: «Non c’è alcuna nazione in Europa, e non ce n’è mai stata alcuna al di fuori della Grecia, in cui lo spirito è così vivo come nell’odierna Germania». Ma gli intellettuali tedeschi sbagliavano scambiando il loro spirito dei tempi con l’effettivo spirito del tempo. Nella loro cieca antipatia per l’Occidente essi interpretavano erroneamente la storia. […]

Moeller, Spengler e Jünger ritenevano che la guerra perduta si sarebbe trasformata in vittoria, se i tedeschi si fossero resi conto di rappresentare lo spirito dei tempi – Moeller aveva iniziato la sua attività come critico letterario e principale traduttore tedesco di Dostoevskij. La guerra comunque lo trasformò da uomo di cultura in pensatore politico. Nel Diritto dei popoli giovani, apparso all’inizio del 1919, egli chiedeva che fosse riconosciuto il diritto all’espansione delle giovani nazioni, che avevano idee nuove, mentre il decrepito Occidente non era altro che una continuazione del sorpassato diciottesimo secolo. Fra i popoli giovani era la Prussia che avrebbe assunto la funzione di guida. «Verrà il momento in cui tutti i popoli giovani, in cui tutti coloro che si sentono giovani, riconosceranno nella storia prussiana la più bella, la più nobile, la più virile storia politica dei popoli europei». […]

“Nel 1923, due anni prima di suicidarsi, Moeller pubblicò il suo libro più autorevole, Das Dritte Reich. Il titolo non può essere tradotto con ‘Terzo Impero’. Il Reich è nella sua essenza molto più di un impero. Ci sono più imperi, c’è un unico Reich. «Il nazionalismo tedesco – scriveva Moeller – è un campione del Reich finale: sempre ricco di promesse, mai concluso… C’è un unico Reich, come c’è un’unica Chiesa. Gli altri pretendenti al titolo non possono essere altro che uno stato, una comunità o una setta. Esiste solo Il Reich». Creando il Reich, i tedeschi non agivano per se stessi, ma per l’Europa. Il loro Reich era urgentemente necessario perché la civiltà occidentale aveva non elevato, bensì degradato l’umanità. «Circondato dal mondo in sfacelo che è il mondo vittorioso di oggi, il tedesco cerca la sua salvezza. Cerca di preservare quei valori imperituri, che sono tali per propria natura. Cerca di assicurare la loro permanenza nel mondo riconquistando il rango a cui hanno diritto i loro difensori. Allo stesso tempo combatte per la causa dell’Europa, per ogni influenza europea che si irradia dalla Germania in quanto centro dell’Europa… L’ombra dell’Africa si proietta sull’Europa. È nostro compito fare da sentinella sulla soglia dei valori».

Moeller definiva il Reich «una vecchia bella idea tedesca che risale al Medioevo, ed è associata all’attesa di un regno millenario». Esso sarebbe stato genuinamente socialista e antiliberale. Il terzo capitolo del libro portava come motto le significative parole «Col liberalismo il popolo perisce».Il socialismo tedesco non aveva nulla in comune col materialismo storico marxista e con la lotta di classe internazionale. Era la solidarietà nazionale di un popolo sfruttato dalla plutocrazia straniera; era l’idea dell’altruismo al servizio del bene comune anziché del perseguimento del profitto personale. «Dove finisce il marxismo – scriveva Moeller – lì comincia il socialismo: un socialismo tedesco, la cui missione è quella di soppiantare nella storia intellettuale dell’umanità ogni specie di liberalismo. Il socialismo tedesco non è compito di un Terzo Reich. È piuttosto la sua base». Moeller accettava la rivoluzione antiliberale e antiplutocratica di Lenin come un tipo di socialismo nazionale peculiarmente adatto alla Russia e si dichiarava propenso a collaborare con essa purché dirigesse la sua espansione verso l’Asia e ammettesse la legittimità della missione della Germania nelle terre di confine russo-tedesche.[…]

Oswald Spengler in Preussentum und Sozialismus [Prussianesimo e Socialismo] (1919) fece un altro passo avanti: «Solo quello tedesco è vero socialismo! Il vecchio spirito prussiano e il socialismo, benché oggi sembrino contrari l’uno all’altro, sono in realtà tutt’uno». Questo libro relativamente beve di Spengler rimase sconosciuto al pubblico inglese, ma attrasse molti più lettori tedeschi dei due grossi volumi della sua opera principale. Le idee esposte in Preussentum und Sozialismus furono, come egli stesso confessò, il nucleo (Kern) da cui si sviluppò tutta la sua filosofia. Il libro è basilare non solo per la conoscenza dell’autore, ma anche per la conoscenza del periodo weimariano. Naturalmente Spengler contrapponeva i suoi prussiani socialisti agli individualisti inglesi attaccati al denaro, che facevano ognuno per conto proprio, mentre i primi erano legati l’uno all’altro. Quando gli inglesi lavoravano, lo facevano per smania di successo; i prussiani lavoravano invece per amore del dovere da compiere. In Inghilterra era la ricchezza che contava, in Prussia l’azione. Il socialismo marxista era profondamente influenzato dalle idee inglesi. Marx infatti, al pari degli inglesi, non ragionava dal punto di vista dello stato, bensì da quello della società. Per lui, come per gli inglesi, il lavoro era qualcosa da comprare e vendere, una merce dell’economia di mercato, mentre per i prussiani ogni lavoro, da quello del più alto funzionario a quello del più umile manovale, era un dovere, compiuto come un servizio reso alla comunità. A detta di Spengler, Federico Guglielmo I, il re-soldato prussiano del diciottesimo secolo, e non Marx, era stato «il primo socialista cosciente». Soltanto la Prussia era uno stato reale, e quindi uno stato socialista. «Qui, nel senso stretto del termine, non esistevano individui isolati. Chiunque viveva nell’ambito del sistema, che funzionava con la precisione di una buona macchina, faceva parte della macchina».

Spengler andava a ritroso nella storia per spiegare la differenza fra inglesi e prussiani; il carattere inglese derivava dai saccheggiatori vichinghi, quello prussiano dai devoti Cavalieri Teutonici. Malgrado lo storicismo, ora brillante, ora falso, gli scritti di Spengler intendevano essere non distaccate opere di studio, bensì littérature engagée [letteratura impegnata]. Il suo Preussentum und Sozialismus era infatti un fervido appello alla gioventù tedesca, lanciato nell’ora della disfatta e dello sconforto. «Nella nostra lotta – egli scriveva nell’introduzione – conto su quella parte della nostra gioventù che sente profondamente, al di là di tutti gli oziosi discorsi quotidiani, […] l’invincibile forza che continua a marciare in avanti malgrado tutto, una gioventù […] romana nell’orgoglio di servire, nella umiltà di comandare, preoccupata di chiedere non diritti dagli altri, bensì doveri da se stessa, senza eccezione, senza distinzione, per realizzare il destino che sente nel suo intimo. In questa gioventù vive una tacita coscienza che integra l’individuo nel tutto, nella nostra cosa più sacra e profonda, un patrimonio di duri secoli, che distingue noi fra tutti i popoli, noi, i più giovani, gli ultimi della nostra civiltà. A questa gioventù io mi rivolgo. Possa essa comprendere quello che ora diventa il suo compito futuro. Possa essere fiera di aver l’onore di affrontarlo.»

L’appello di Spengler alla gioventù si faceva ancora più fervido alla fine del libro: «Chiamo a raccolta coloro che hanno midollo nelle ossa e sangue nelle vene… Diventate uomini! Non vogliamo più discorsi sulla cultura, sulla cittadinanza mondiale, sulla missione spirituale della Germania. Abbiamo bisogno di durezza, di ardito scetticismo, di una classe di dominatori socialisti. Ancora una volta: socialismo significa potenza, potenza, ancora e sempre potenza. La via verso la potenza è chiaramente segnata: i più valenti lavoratori tedeschi devono unirsi ai migliori rappresentanti del vecchio spirito politico prussiano, gli uni e gli altri decisi a creare uno stato rigidamente socialista, una democrazia nel senso prussiano, gli uni e gli altri legati da un comune senso del dovere, dalla coscienza di un grande compito, dalla volontà di obbedire per dominare, di morire per vincere, dalla forza di compiere tremendi sacrifici per realizzare il nostro destino, per essere quel che siamo e quel che senza di noi non esisterebbe. Noi siamo socialisti. Noi non intendiamo esser stati socialisti invano».

La filosofia spengleriana della storia era concisamente esposta in un brano di Preussentum und Sozialismus: «La guerra è eternamente la più alta forma di esistenza umana, e gli stati esistono per la guerra; essi manifestano per la guerra essi manifestano la loro preparazione alla guerra. Anche se un’umanità stanca e smorta desiderasse rinunciare alla guerra, essa diventerebbe, anziché il soggetto, l’oggetto della guerra per cui e con cui gli altri guerreggerebbero».

Lo stesso tema viene ripetuto nel secondo volume del Tramonto dell’Occidente, apparso nel 1922: «La vita è dura. Essa lascia un’unica scelta, quella tra vittoria e sconfitta, non quella fra guerra e pace.» E nell’ultimo libro pubblicato, undici anni dopo, Anni della decisione, egli affermava con ripetitività quasi hitleriana: «La lotta è il fatto fondamentale della vita, è la vita stessa. La noiosa processione di riformatori, capaci di lasciare come loro unico monumento montagne di carta stampata, è ora finita… La storia umana in un periodo di civiltà altamente evoluta è storia di potenze politiche. La forma di questa storia è la guerra. La pace è soltanto […] una continuazione della guerra con altri mezzi […] Lo stato è l’essere in forma di un popolo, che è da esso costituito e rappresentato, per guerre attuali e possibili». Questa filosofia della storia ultrasemplificata portava la priorità della politica estera su quella interna, tipica di Ranke, a un estremo palesemente assurdo. Civiltà e religioni, istituzioni e costituzioni, economia e benessere nazionale non contavano più nella storia; non rimaneva che la politica estera, ridotta essa stessa alla guerra e alla preparazione della guerra. Le guerre non erano più eccezioni o incidenti, erano il fatto centrale della vita e della storia, il loro significato e coronamento. La prima nazione moderna che l’aveva compreso era, secondo Spengler, la Prussia, che su questa consapevolezza basava la sua pretesa di supremazia nella nuova era. «La Prussia – egli scriveva – è soprattutto priorità incondizionata della politica estera su quella interna, la cui sola funzione è quella di mantenere la nazione in forma per quel compito.»[…]

Le teorie politiche proclamate da Spengler col tono di un veggente furono esposte, in veste più erudita, da Carl Schmitt, professore di diritto internazionale e costituzionale all’università di Bonn, per due decenni il più autorevole maestro di diritto pubblico in Germania. I suoi scritti, legati a quelli di Spengler, introdussero una nuova concezione della politica, che riceveva il suo significato non più da quella che era considerata la vita normale della società, bensì da situazioni estreme. Il normale non tendeva più a controllare l’anormale. […]

La guerra era un momento importante della vita politica e della vita in genere; l’inevitabile relazione amico-nemico dominava ogni settore. «I punti culminanti della grande politica – sosteneva Schmitt – sono quelli in cui si discerne il nemico con estrema concreta chiarezza come nemico». Questa teoria politica corrispondeva al presunto primordiale istinto combattivo dell’uomo che tendeva a considerare chiunque si frapponesse all’appagamento dei suoi desideri come un avversario da toglier di mezzo. La tradizionale arte di governo dell’Occidente, invece, consisteva nel trovare e vie e i mezzi per superare l’istinto primitivo col negoziato paziente, col compromesso, con uno sforzo di reciprocità, soprattutto con l’osservanza di leggi universalmente vincolanti.

La totalitaria filosofia di guerra fu così riassunta da Schmitt: «La guerra è l’essenza di ogni cosa. La natura della guerra totale determina la forma naturale dello stato totale». Comprensibilmente, egli nutriva un profondo disprezzo per il diciannovesimo secolo, «un secolo pieno d’illusione e frode.» Nel suo stato ideale di quest’epoca, ovviamente immune da illusioni e frode, la vita nella sua interezza era subordinata al conflitto armato. in tale ordine d’idee Karl Alexander von Müller, direttore della Historische Zeitschrift [Rivista storica], l’organo ufficiale degli storici tedeschi, concluse, nel numero di settembre del 1939, un editoriale sulla guerra con le parole: «In questa battaglia d’animi troviamo il settore delle trincee che è affidato alla scienza storica della Germania. Essa monterà la guardia. La parola d’ordine è stata data da Hegel: lo spirito dell’universo ha dato l’ordine di avanzare; tale ordine sarà ciecamente obbedito».

In questo brano di riflessione storica emergono, a nostro avviso, alcuni tipici difetti della storiografia d’impostazione liberal-democratica, primo fra tutti quello di presentarsi (e percepirsi essa stessa) come la storiografia, immune da passioni e pregiudizi, e perciò titolata a giudicare, davanti al tribunale della storia, tutte le altre ideologie. Intendiamoci: molti giudizi sono pertinenti e perfettamente condivisibili. Giusto porre l’accento sulle responsabilità politiche ed etiche degli intellettuali tedeschi dell’epoca di Weimar nell’aver spianato la strada al nazismo; giusto evidenziare la rozzezza e le eccessive semplificazioni della filosofia della storia di Moeller, Spengler, Schmitt; e giusto anche aver richiamato il fatto che il successo di quella impostazione dei problemi politici, nella cultura e nella società, non sarebbe stato possibile se non vi fosse stata una lunga preparazione, da parte di generazioni e generazioni di intellettuali che li avevano preceduti.

In che cosa verte, dunque, la nostra perplessità, davanti all’approccio storiografico di Kohn? Essenzialmente nel fatto che egli, tutto preso dal suo pathos moralistico, sembra essersi scordato che il compito primo e fondamentale del mestiere di storico (e anche dello storico del pensiero) non è quello di giudicare, ma di sforzarsi di capire. Il che, naturalmente – giova ripeterlo, onde evitare il solito malinteso tanto caro ai moralisti in male fede – non significa giustificare alcunché. Nel caso specifico, a Kohn è sfuggita la comprensione di quanto di originale poteva esservi nella “rivoluzione conservatrice” che ha coinvolto, oltre a Moeller, Spengler e Schmitt, anche personalità della statura di Heidegger, Jünger, Frobenius, Gogarten e, per certi versi, anche Jung; per non parlare, fuori della Germania, di Hamsun, Pound, Evola, Gentile, Ungaretti, Pirandello, Unamuno, Barrés, Eliade, … dobbiamo continuare? E occorre ricordare che alcuni di questi intellettuali, anche fra quelli particolarmente presi di mira da Kohn, ebbero il coraggio di opporsi al nazismo, o ad aspetti significativi della sua politica, esponendosi in prima persona? Il tanto vituperato Spengler rifiutò di aderire al fanatico antisemitismo nazista e avrebbe subito gravi rappresaglie, se la morte non fosse giunta in buon punto, nel 1936, per metterlo al riparo da esse. Jünger, col romanzo Sulle scogliere di marmo, presentò apertamente Hitler come un malvagio e dissennato timoniere che porta la nave della Germania verso la catastrofe; e suo figlio venne ucciso dai nazisti. Heidegger, come è noto, si dissociò al regime e si chiuse in un cupo silenzio, pur non schierandosi esplicitamente contro di esso.

Ma, si dirà, Kohn non accusa costoro di essere stati dei cripto-nazisti, bensì di avere oggettivamente spianato il terreno della cultura tedesca all’influsso nefasto del nazismo. Senonché, è proprio quell’avverbio, oggettivamente (che ricorda, guarda caso, altri climi politici e altre condanne spicciole), che ci sembra ingeneroso e poco corretto dal punto di vista del metodo. In un’epoca di crisi, morale non meno che materiale, gli intellettuali vanno anch’essi a tentoni e non li si può accusare con troppa disinvoltura di aver preparato le catastrofi a venire, istituendo per loro una sorta di retroattività morale. Lungi da noi voler minimizzare le responsabilità degli intellettuali; senz’altro alcuni di essi sono stati dei cattivi maestri, e ne portano tutta intera la responsabilità. Occorre, però, distinguere bene i due piani della riflessione: quello storico e quello etico. Se il libro di Kohn, I Tedeschi, vuol essere un libro di storia, è necessario che del metodo storico accetti le premesse e l’impostazione generale: la priorità rivolta allo sforzo di comprendere, innanzitutto. E non ci pare che egli abbia fatto molto in tal senso. Non ha tenuto conto del punto di vista interno della società tedesca nel periodo della Repubblica di Weimar; e non ha tenuto conto della frustrazione e del risentimento, in parte comprensibili, con i quali il popolo tedesco visse quel periodo, dopo che a Versailles Clemenceau era riuscito a far prevalere la logica della pace “punitiva” e dopo che l’inflazione aveva polverizzato non solo i risparmi e i frutti del lavoro di una intera generazione, ma anche – apparentemente – le speranze di rinascita del popolo tedesco.

Se la famosa pugnalata alla schiena è, infatti, un mito bello e buono, inventato dalla cricca militare prussiana per scaricare sulla società civile, e specialmente sulla socialdemocrazia, la responsabilità della sconfitta in quella guerra che essa aveva fortemente voluto, considerandola – a torto o a ragione – necessaria e inevitabile per la sopravvivenza della Germania come grande potenza, vi sono pochi dubbi – a nostro parere – che il popolo tedesco, al termine della prima guerra mondiale (e, di nuovo, con la crisi della Ruhr del 1923), fu vittima di una grossa ingiustizia storica. Se si fa astrazione da ciò, si rischia di non capire come le parole e gli slogan degli intellettuali conservatori tedeschi ebbero tanta risonanza e tanto successo, specialmente fra la gioventù, negli anni Venti e all’inizio degli anni Trenta. Lo storico, invece – anche e, per certi aspetti, soprattutto lo storico del pensiero – deve sempre e rigorosamente contestualizzare. Non si può comprendere Lutero fuori del proprio tempo e della propria situazione storica; non si può comprendere Kant; non si può comprendere Hegel o Nietzsche o Heidegger. In verità, non si può comprendere niente; a meno che si immagini che il pensiero non vada in nulla debitore della società che lo esprime.

Un’altra riflessine di carattere generale che ci sembra opportuno fare è che la sconfitta, così nella vita del singolo individuo come in quella dei popoli, è portatrice di una crisi che può anche essere salutare, perché costringe, letteralmente, a prendere atto di una inadeguatezza e a elaborare delle strategie per superare le presenti difficoltà. La società tedesca non era stata certo l’unica responsabile della tragedia del 1914-1918; ma, alla fine della guerra, si trovò dalla parte del perdente e quindi, automaticamente, dalla parte del torto (cosa che si sarebbe ripetuta di lì a ventisette anni). Una clausola del trattato di pace imponeva ai rappresentanti della Germania di firmare una dichiarazione in cui la loro patria si assumeva, tutta intera, la responsabilità di quanto era accaduto: e questo sotto la minaccia di una ripresa immediata della guerra. Mai si era vista una simile prepotenza giuridica, per giunta sotto l’ipocrita bandiera del democraticismo wilsoniano; ma Erzberger dovette trangugiare, a nome del suo popolo, l’amaro boccone (cosa che ne provocò la condanna a morte da parte dell’estremismo nazionalista: condanna che fu eseguita, pochi anni dopo, da un giovane assassino).

Né basta. Per tre volte – nel 1919, nel 1923 e nel 1929 – l’economia tedesca fu travolta dalla terribile bufera della crisi economica, che spazzò il risparmio e creò milioni e milioni di disoccupati. Ogni volta la società tedesca riusciva a rimettersi in piedi, compiendo degli sforzi veramente titanici, un intervento esterno la rigettava a terra. Nel 1919 la pace punitiva – con le mutilazioni territoriali, la perdita delle colonie e della marina, l’enorme indennità di guerra da pagare agli Alleati; nel 1923 l’occupazione francese e belga del bacino minerario della Ruhr, che rendeva ancor più impossibile soddisfare quei pagamenti; nel 1929 il crollo della borsa di Wall Street, cui gli speculatori della finanza ebraica newyorkese non furono certo estranei: e la terza volta spianò la strada a Hitler. C’è da chiedersi, semmai, come poté resistere tanto a lungo la società tedesca alle sirene del nazismo, con la comunità internazionale ben decisa a distruggerne la volontà di ripresa e la Lega delle Nazioni, comodo paravento giuridico-morale delle plutocrazie britannica e francese, a fare da cane da guardia alle assurde decisioni politiche e territoriali della Conferenza di Versailles.

Tale il contesto del decennio preso in esame da Kohn (1923-33), e che egli chiama “la marcia verso l’abisso”, attribuendone tutta la responsabilità morale agli intellettuali tedeschi, che avrebbero dissennatamente predicato la violenza e l’esasperazione del darwinismo sociale e del machiavellismo politico. Egli conclude affermando che, per opera di Schmitt e di Spengler, penetrò nella cultura tedesca “una nuova concezione della politica, che riceveva il suo significato non più da quella che era considerata la vita normale della società, bensì da situazioni estreme. Il normale non tendeva più a controllare l’anormale”. Omette però di precisare che la Germania, a causa della miopia e dell’egoismo delle classi dirigenti britanniche, francesi e americane, da oltre un decennio non viveva affatto in una situazione “normale”; che potenti forze economico-finanziarie internazionali facevano di tutto per tenerla in una condizione di cronica e disperata anormalità.

Così pure, quando Spengler afferma che «La vita è dura. Essa lascia un’unica scelta, quella tra vittoria e sconfitta, non quella fra guerra e pace», Kohn omette di precisare che questa visione cinica e brutale della vita umana era stata ampiamente diffusa (anche se non “inventata”) dall’egoismo e dalla cecità dei vincitori di Versailles. Era stata la loro politica ad insegnare agli sconfitti la dura legge del vae victis, la legge inumana secondo la quale la pace è un lusso degli oziosi e degli imbelli o un’utopia dei sognatori, e che la sola cosa che conta è la forza. Per giunta, i brutali vincitori avevano ammantato tale machiavellismo con le vesti rispettabili dell’umanitarismo wilsoniano e della democrazia liberale, sanzionando a posteriori, con una capillare opera di propaganda e di diplomazia internazionale, il puro e semplice trionfo della forza. Come avrebbero fatto col processo di Norimberga (e con quello di Tokyo) alla fine della seconda guerra mondiale. Un processo ove i crimini tedeschi (e giapponesi) vennero giudicati dagli stessi vincitori, ragion per cui nessun fiatò sui crimini anglo-americani e sovietici.

Ma veniamo allo specifico, e cioè alle caratteristiche fondamentali della cultura tedesca nel decennio 1923-33, in cui Kohn vede solo e unicamente una marcia verso l’abisso, una preparazione del diluvio nazista, mentre gli sfuggono completamente le esigenze autentiche e legittime di rinnovamento che si esprimevano in quel contesto e con quella tradizione storica: elementi dai quali non è lecito prescindere, a meno di fare un’operazione culturale altamente anti-storica. Non entriamo ora nel merito della filosofia di Mueller, Spengler, Schmitt, e neanche di Jünger, Wittgenstein o Gogarten, perché ciò esulerebbe, e di molto, dai limiti che ci siamo prefissi. Desideriamo piuttosto far notare che questi autori (che, fra l’altro, non vanno arbitrariamente omologati, pena il perdere di vista la specificità intellettuale di ciascuno d’essi) testimoniano uno sforzo del pensiero per trovare nuove certezze dopo le tremende delusioni e i traumi del periodo precedente e, al tempo stesso, un tentativo di ridefinire lo spazio culturale della Mitteleuropa, e anche dell’Europa in generale, nei confronti di un “Occidente” sentito ormai come una realtà socio-culturale al tempo stesso obsoleta e artificiale. In questo senso, furono i promotori di un’autocritica del pensiero europeo: autocritica, ripetiamo, nata dalla sconfitta e dall’umiliazione nazionale; mentre nulla di simile fu neanche immaginato dalla cultura delle nazioni vincitrici, tutte intente a godersi il bottino di Versailles e, semmai, a giocare cinicamente sulle rivalità dei nuovi, piccoli Stati dell’Europa centrale (Cecoslovacchia, Jugoslavia, ecc.) sorti dallo sfacelo del vecchio ordine europeo.

È vero, gli intellettuali inglesi e francesi degli anni Venti non hanno seminato idee ultranazionaliste e guerrafondaie. Non ve n’era bisogno: la cultura di quei Paesi si godeva la meravigliosa sensazione di aver affrontato e superato una dura prova e, alla fine, di aver contribuito al trionfo della giustizia, della libertà, della democrazia. Gli intellettuali tedeschi – e, a maggior ragione, quelli austriaci o dell’area ex asburgica: Musil, Roth, Kafka, von Rezzori, Cioran – erano costretti a interrogarsi non solo sulla sconfitta e sulla disintegrazione della vecchia Mitteleuropa, ma anche sull’incipiente disintegrazione dello spirito europeo, sulla stessa disintegrazione dell’Io come soggetto unitario della coscienza. Avevano a che fare con una situazione estrema, e fecero del loro meglio per trovare un raggio di luce, una indicazione che li guidasse fuori dalla crisi, verso il futuro. Possiamo discutere la saggezza della via da essi battuta e dissentire da alcuni aspetti della loro polemica; tuttavia, se vogliamo essere onesti, dobbiamo riconoscere che non tutte le ragioni della loro polemica erano infondate.

Quando Spengler, ad esempio, affermava che “per Marx, come per gli inglesi, il lavoro era qualcosa da comprare e vendere, una merce dell’economia di mercato, mentre per i prussiani ogni lavoro, da quello del più alto funzionario a quello del più umile manovale, era un dovere, compiuto come un servizio reso alla comunità”, non ci sembra che dicesse cosa molto lontana dal vero. Anche l’osservazione che nel vecchio sistema prussiano erano impliciti elementi di socialismo e che, ad ogni modo, in Germania il senso dei valori collettivi prevaleva sull’individualismo, non era peregrina; come non era infondata la convinzione di Moeller che il regime bolscevico, per le sue istanze profonde antiplutocratiche, fosse – nonostante le apparenze – ideologicamente più vicino agli interessi e al sentire del popolo tedesco di quanto non lo fossero i sistemi liberal-democratici dell’Europa occidentale e degli Stati Uniti. La polemica degli intellettuali tedeschi contro l’umanitarismo era sicuramente riprovevole, così come pericoloso il loro continuo soffiare sul fuoco del nazionalismo esasperato. Però bisogna rendersi conto di una cosa: essi sentivano il dovere di ricorrere a ogni mezzo per rimettere in piedi un popolo che era stato ridotto in ginocchio e che era tuttora vittima di una ingiustizia storica. La spettacolare crescita economica, culturale e sociale tedesca del Secondo Reich, fra il 1871 e il 1918 (sì, anche sociale: con una delle legislazioni del lavoro fra le più avanzate al mondo) era stata letteralmente strangolata da una coalizione mondiale che adesso era ben decisa a impedire che la Germania si rialzasse e tornasse a mettere in pericolo i privilegi acquisiti dalle potenze mondiali più vecchie.

Gli storici come H. Kohn, implicitamente o esplicitamente, rimproverano agli intellettuali tedeschi di quel periodo di non aver fatto nulla per convogliare le simpatie dei loro compatrioti verso gli istituti della democrazia. Così facendo, sembrano dimenticare un elemento fondamentale, che oggi si ripete in Iraq e in varie altre parti del mondo: la democrazia era stata, per la Germania, non il punto d’arrivo di un processo interno e naturale, ma la conseguenza della sconfitta e, in un certo senso, una imposizione dei vincitori. Quantomeno, gli Alleati si erano serviti della Repubblica democratica di Weimar per presentare al popolo tedesco il conto salatissimo della Conferenza di Versailles e della pace-capestro. Portata al potere dal doppio trauma della disfatta militare e del diktat dei vincitori, la Repubblica non era amata e, soprattutto, non era sentita come parte della tradizione storica nazionale.

Si può, naturalmente, chiamare in causa la scarsa maturità politica della classe dirigente tedesca e, più in generale, la tradizione filistea del ceto medio, sempre pronto – in particolare dal 1870 – ad applaudire il vincitore di turno, ossia qualunque governo capace di portare al successo l’affermazione dello Stato con la forza materiale. Questo, certamente, era il peccatum originalis del Secondo Reich: il “patto col diavolo” della borghesia tedesca che, nel 1866 e nel 1870, si era inchinata davanti alla politica di Bismarck solo perché, sul piano della pura forza, si era dimostrata vincente. Ma sarebbe antistorico e ingeneroso addossare tutte le colpe agli intellettuali che, negli anni Venti, dovettero procedere alla liquidazione del vecchio mondo e delle vecchie certezze a prezzi fallimentari; e che, contemporaneamente, dovettero cercare in tutta fretta di fornire nuovi orientamenti al loro popolo traumatizzato e demoralizzato.

Più in generale, ci sembra che la vicenda della cosiddetta “rivoluzione conservatrice” segni l’ultimo sprazzo di vitalità della cultura europea, l’ultima sua reazione davanti alle forze inumane e omologanti che oggi chiamiamo della globalizzazione, ma che già allora venivano percepite come una americanizzazione del vecchio continente, capace di fare piazza pulita, in nome della borsa, del profitto e dei metodi tayloristici di organizzazione scientifica del lavoro, dell’anima stessa del vecchio continente. Si può interpretare l’opera filosofica di Mueller, Spengler, Schmitt e Jünger come una reazione, aristocratica e popolare al tempo stesso, contro gli aspetti più minaccioso della modernità, primo fra tutti il prevalere delle logiche del mercato su quelle della società civile, della quantità sulla qualità, dell’egoismo privato sull’interesse collettivo. In breve, si può interpretare il pensiero di quegli autori come un tentativo disperato, nostalgico e anti-moderno, di ripristinare i valori tramontati dell’aristocrazia davanti al trionfo degli aspetti più massificanti ed egoistici dello spirito borghese.

Certo, vi furono molte, troppe scorie all’interno di un tale tentativo; vi fu un uso irresponsabile di slogan aggressivi e razzisti; vi fu un disprezzo esagerato e irragionevole per tutto quanto, a torto o a ragione, era considerato parte di quello spirito borghese e, pertanto, parte di quel quadro internazionale che aveva penalizzato così duramente la patria tedesca. Vi furono molte semplificazioni assurde, molti facili luoghi comuni e un uso troppo disinvolto di formule dall’intrinseco potere distruttivo, che avrebbero sospinto alla catastrofe la società tedesca per la seconda volta nel volgere di una sola generazione. Però, lo ripetiamo, occorre tener conto della particolare situazione tedesca, anche sul piano internazionale. Da una parte la Russia staliniana, dall’altra i vincitori di Versailles, chiusi e sordi a ogni senso di equità e di saggezza, protesi unicamente a sfruttare al massimo i loro immensi imperi coloniali e i profitti giganteschi che la guerra stessa, come nel caso degli Stati Uniti, aveva portato loro.

La Germania, pertanto, si sentiva come una cittadella assediata e abbandonata alle sue risorse; o trovava in se stessa la forza di reagire, o sarebbe perita, forse per sempre. Questo videro i Mueller, gli Spengler e gli Schmitt. Bisognerebbe tener conto del dramma che stava vivendo il loro popolo, prima di giudicarli con una severità dettata dal senno di poi e da una serie di pregiudizi ideologici che derivano proprio dal fatto che la storia, una volta di più, l’hanno fatta e continuano a farla i vincitori. Basti pensare al destino riservato, circa vent’anni dopo, al cuore della Germania, la vecchia Prussia: smembrata, svuotata dei suoi abitanti con una spietata pulizia etnica, cancellata totalmente dalla carta geografica. Vae victis, appunto: gli Alleati, nel 1945 come nel 1918, non amavano i toni rozzi e aggressivi alla Spengler, ma agivano esattamente in base a quei criteri, brutali e machiavellici, che tanto li disgustavano quando a teorizzarli erano i Tedeschi.

Francesco Lamendola

Atlantis, Kush, & Turan:
Prehistoric Matrices of Ancient Civilizations in the Posthumous Work of Spengler

Robert Steuckers

Translated by Greg Johnson

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

Editor’s Note:

In this brief review essay, Robert Steuckers provides an introduction to Spengler’s writings on prehistory and early world history, which contain surprising theses, stunning metaphors, and quite interesting departures from The Decline of the West. These writings are almost unknown because they were never finished and were only published in incomplete form decades after Spengler’s death.

Oswald Spengler’s morphologies of cultures and civilizations in his most famous work, The Decline of the West, are widely known. However, Spengler’s positions changed after the publication of Decline. So claims the Italian Germanist Domenico Conte in his recent work on Spengler, Catene di civiltà: Studi su Spengler (Napoli: Ed. Scientifiche Italiane, 1994), which is a thorough study of the posthumous texts published by Anton Mirko Koktanek, especially Frühzeit der Weltgeschichte [The Early Period of World History], which gathers the fragments of a projected but never completed work The Epic of Man.

In his reflections immediately following the publication of The Decline of the West, Spengler distinguished four stages of human history which he designates simply as A, B, C, and D. Stage “A” lasted a hundred thousand years, from the first phases of hominization up to the lower Paleolithic. It is during this stage that the importance of the “hand” for man appears. It is, for Spengler, the age of Granite.

Stage “B” lasted ten thousand years and lay in the lower Paleolithic, between 20,000 and 7,000–6,000 BCE. During this age the concept of interior life was born: “then appeared the true soul, as unknown to men of stage ‘A’ as it is to a newborn baby.” In this stage in our history man was first “able to produce traces/memories” and to understand the phenomenon of death. For Spengler, it is the age of the Crystal. Stages “A” and “B” are inorganic.

Stage “C” lasted 3,500 years: it starts with the Neolithic era, running from the sixth millennium BCE to the third. It is the stage when thought started to be articulated in language and the most complex technological achievements became possible. In this stage are born “cultures” whose structures are “amoebic.”

Stage “D” is that of “world history” in the conventional sense of the term. It is the stage of “great civilizations,” each of which lasts approximately 1,000 years. These civilizations have structures of the “vegetable” type. Stages “C” and “D” are organic.

Spengler preferred this psychological-morphological classification to the classifications imposed by the directors of museums who subdivided the prehistoric and historical eras according to materials used for the manufacture of tools (stone, bronze, iron). In keeping with this psychological-morphological classification, Spengler also rejected the idea of the “slow, phlegmatic transformation” or continuous development, rooted in the progressivist ideas of the 18th century.

Evolution, for Spengler, is a matter of catastrophic blows, sudden irruptions, unexpected changes. “The history of the world proceeds from catastrophe to catastrophe, without any concern with whether we are able to understand them. Today, following H. de Vries, we call them ‘mutations.’ It is an internal transformation, which affects without warning all the members of a species, without ‘cause,’ naturally, like everything else in reality. Such is the mysterious rhythm of the world” (Man and Technics). There is thus no slow evolution but abrupt “epochal” transformations. Natura facit saltus [Nature makes leaps—Ed.].

Three Culture-Amoebas

In stage “C,” where the matrices of human civilization actually emerge, Spengler distinguishes three “culture-amoebas”: Atlantis, Kush, and Turan. This terminology appears only in his posthumous writings and letters. The civilizational matrices are “amoebas” and not “plants” because amoebas are mobile, not anchored to a particular place. The amoeba is an organism that continuously pulsates along an ever-shifting periphery. Then the amoeba subdivides itself as amoebas do, producing new individualities that move away from the amoeba-mother. This analogy implies that one cannot delimit with precision the territory of a civilization of stage “C,” because its amoebic emanations can be widely dispersed in space, extremely far away from the amoeba-mother.

“Atlantis” is the “West” and extends from Ireland to Egypt. “Kush” is the “South-east,” an area ranging between India and the Red Sea. “Turan” is the “North,” extending from Central Europe to China. Spengler, explains Conte, chose this terminology recalling “old mythological names” in order not to confuse them with later historical regions of the “vegetable” type, which are geographically rooted and circumscribed, whereas they are dispersed and not precisely localized.

Spengler does not believe in the Platonic myth of Atlantis, the sunken continent, but notes that an ensemble of civilizational remnants are locatable in the West, from Ireland to Egypt. “Kush” is a name that one finds in the Old Testament to indicate the territory of the ancient Nubians, the area inhabited by the Kushites. But Spengler places the culture-amoeba “Kush” more to the East, in an area between Turkestan, Persia, and India, undoubtedly inspired by the anthropologist Frobenius. As for “Turan,” it is “North,” the Turanic high-plateau, which he thought was the cradle of the Indo-European and Ural-Altaic languages. It is from there that the migrations of “Nordic” peoples departed (Spengler is not without racial connotations) to descend on Europe, India, and China.

Atlantis: Hot and Mobile; Kush: Tropical and Content

Atlantis, Kush, and Turan are cultures bearing morphological principles emerging mainly in the spheres of religion and the arts. The religiosity of Atlantis “hot and mobile,” is centered on the worship of the dead and the preeminence of the ultra-telluric sphere. The forms of burials, notes Conte, testify to the intense relationship with the world of the dead: The tombs always have a high profile, or are monumental; the dead are embalmed and mummified; food is left or brought for them. This obsessional relationship with the chain of ancestors leads Spengler to theorize the presence of a “genealogical” principle. The artistic expressions of Atlantis, adds Conte, are centered on stone constructions, as gigantic as possible, made for eternity, signs of a feeling of life which is not turned towards a heroic surpassing of limits, but towards a kind of “inert complacency.”

Kush developed a “tropical” and “content” religion. The problem of ultra-telluric life is regarded with far less anxiety than in Atlantis, because in the culture-amoeba of Kush a mathematics of the cosmos dominates (of which Babylon will be the most imposing expression), where things are “rigidly given in advance.” Life after death is a matter of indifference. If Atlantis is a “culture of the tombs,” in Kush tombs have no significance. One lives and procreates but forgets the dead. The central symbol of Kush is the temple, from which priests scrutinize celestial mathematics. If in Atlantis, the genealogical principle dominates, if the gods and goddesses of Atlantis are father, mother, son, daughter, in Kush, the divinities are stars. A cosmological principle dominates.

Turan: The Civilization of Heroes

Turan is the civilization of heroes, animated by a “cold” religiosity, centered on the mysterious meaning of existence. Nature is filled with impersonal powers. For the culture-amoeba of Turan, life is a battlefield: “for the man of the North (Achilles, Siegfried),” Spengler writes, “only life before death, the fight against destiny, counts.” The divine-human relationship is no longer one of dependence: “prostration ceases, the head remains high; there is ‘I’ (man) and you (gods).”

Sons guard the memory of their fathers but do not leave food for their corpses. There is no embalming or mummification in this culture, but cremation. The bodies disappear, are hidden in underground burials without monuments, or are dispersed to the four winds. All that remains of the dead is their blood in the veins of their descendants. Turan is thus a culture without architecture, where temples and burials have no importance and where only the terrestrial meaning of existence matters. Man lived alone, confronted with himself, in his house of wood or in his nomad’s tent.

The War Chariot

Spengler reserved his sympathy for the culture-amoeba of Turan, whose bearers were characterized by the love of adventure, implacable will power, a taste for violence, and freedom from vain sentimentality. They are “men of facts.” The various peoples of Turan were not bound by blood ties or a common language. Spengler does not utilize archaeological and linguistic research aiming to find the original fatherland of the Indo-Europeans or at reconstituting the source language of all the current Indo-European idioms: the bond which links the people of Turan is technical; it is the use of the war chariot.

In a lecture given in Munich on February 6th, 1934 entitled “Der Streitwagen und the Seine Bedeutung für den Gang der Weltgeschichte” (“The War Chariot and its Significance for the Course of World History”), Spengler explains why this weapon constitutes the key to understanding the history of the second millennium BCE It is, he says, the first complex weapon: One needs a war chariot (with 2 wheels and not a less mobile carriage with 4 wheels), a domesticated and harnessed animal, a meticulously trained warrior who will henceforth strike his enemies from above. With the war chariot is born a type of new man. The chariot is a revolutionary invention on the military plane, but also the formative principle of a new humanity. The warriors became professional because the techniques they had to handle were complex, and they came together as a caste of those who love risk and adventure; they made war the meaning of their life.

The arrival of these castes of impetuous “charioteers” upset very ancient orders: the Achaeans invaded Greece and settled in Mycenae; the Hyksos burst into Egypt. To the East, the Kassites descended on Babylon. In India, the Aryans bore down on the subcontinent, “destroyed the cities,” and settled on the ruins of the civilization of Mohenjo Daro and Harappa. In China, the Zhou arrived from the north, mounted on their chariots, like the Hyksos and their Greek counterparts.

From 1,200 BCE, warlike princes reigned in China, in India, and in the ancient world of the Mediterranean. The Hyksos and Kassites conquered two older civilizations of the South. Then three new civilizations carried by “dominating charioteers” emerged: the Greco-Roman, the Aryan civilization of India, and the Chinese civilization resulting from Zhou. These new civilizations, whose princes came from North, Turan, are “more virile and energetic that those born on banks of the Nile and Euphrates.” According to Spengler, however, these warlike charioteers sadly succumbed to the seductions of the softening South.

A Common Heroic Substrate

The theory of the rough simultaneity of the invasions of Greece, Egypt, India, and China was shared by Spengler and the sinologist Gustav Haloun. Both held that there is a common substrate, warlike and chariot-borne, of Mediterranean, Indian, and Chinese civilizations. It is a “heroic” civilization, as shown by the weapons of Turan. They are different from those of Atlantis. In addition to the chariot, they are the sword and the axe, which imply duels between combatants, whereas in Atlantis, the weapons are the bow and arrow, that Spengler judges “vile” because they make it possible to avoid direct physical confrontation with the adversary, “to look him right in the eyes.”

In Greek mythology, Spengler claims, the bow and arrows are remnants of earlier, pre-Hellenic influences: Apollo the archer originated in Asia Minor; Artemis is Libyan, as is Hercules. The javelin is also “telamon” [= Atlantid] while the jousting lance is “Turanic.” To understand these distant times, the study of the weapons is more instructive than that of kitchen utensils or jewels, Spengler concludes.

The Turanic soul also derives from a particular climate and a hostile landscape. Man must fight unceasingly against the elements, thus becomes harder, colder, more wintry. Man is not only the product of a “genealogical chain,” but equally of a “landscape.” Climatic rigor develops “moral strength.” The tropics soften the character, bringing us closer to a nature perceived as more matriarchal, supporting female values.

Spengler’s  late writings and correspondence thus show that his views changed after the publication of The Decline of the West, where he valorized Faustian civilization to the detriment primarily of ancient civilization. His focus on the “chariot” gives a new dimension to his vision of history: the Greeks, the Romans, the Indo-Aryans, and the Chinese found favor in his eyes.

In The Decline of the West the mummification of the Pharaohs was considered as the Egyptian expression of a will to duration, which he opposed to the oblivion implied by Indian cremation. Later, he disdained “telamon” mummification as an obsession with the beyond, indicating an incapacity to face terrestrial life. “Turanic” cremation, on the other hand, indicates a will to focus one’s powers on real life.

A Change of Optics Dictated by Circumstances?

Spengler’s polycentric, relativistic, non-Eurocentric, non-evolutionist conception of history in The Decline of the West fascinated researchers and anthropologists outside the circles of the German right, particularly Alfred Kroeber and Ruth Benedict. His emphasis on the major historical role of castes of charioteers gives his late work a more warlike, violent, mobile dimension than revealed in Decline.

Can one attribute this change of perspective to the situation of a vanquished Germany, which sought to ally itself with the young USSR (from a Eurasian-Turanian perspective?), with India in revolt against Great Britain (that he formerly included in “Faustian civilization,” to which he then gave much less importance), with China of the “great warlords,” sometimes armed and aided by German officers?

Did Spengler, by the means of his lecture on the charioteers, seek to give a common mythology to German, Russian, Chinese, Mongolian, and Indian officers or revolutionaries in order to forge a forthcoming brotherhood of arms, just as the Russian “Eurasianists” tried to give the newborn Soviet Russia a similar mythology, implying the reconciliation of Turco-Turanians and Slavs? Is the radical valorization of the “Turanic” chariot charge is an echo of the worship of “the assault” found in “soldatic nationalism,” especially of the Jünger brothers and Schauwecker?

Lastly, why didn’t Spengler write anything on the Scythians, a people of intrepid warriors, masters of equestrian techniques, who fascinated the Russians and undoubtedly, among them, the theorists of the Eurasiansm? Finally, is the de-emphasis on racial factors in late Spengler due to a rancorous feeling toward the English cousins who had betrayed Germanic solidarity? Was it to promote a new mythology, in which the equestrian people of the continent, which include all ethnic groups (Mongolian Turco-Turanians, descendants of the Scythians, Cossacks and Germanic Uhlans), were to combine their efforts against the corrupt civilizations of the West and the South and against the Anglo-Saxon thalassocracies?

Don’t the obvious parallels between the emphasis on the war chariot and certain theses in Man and Technics amount to a concession to the reigning futuristic ideology, insofar as Spengler gives a technical rather than a religious explanation of the Turanian culture-amoeba? These are topics that the history of ideas will have to clarify in-depth.

Source: Nouvelles de Synergies européennes, no. 21, 1996.

La aventura del rebelde

LA AVENTURA DEL REBELDE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Publicado en ElManifiesto.com]

Conservadurismo revolucionario frete a neoconservadurismo

 CONSERVADURISMO REVOLUCIONARIO FRENTE A NEOCONSERVADURISMO

ReCons versus NeoCons

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

SEBASTIAN J. LORENZ

Bajo la fórmula “Revolución Conservadora” acuñada por Armin Mohler (Die Konservative Revolution in Deutschlan 1918-1932) se engloban una serie de corrientes de pensamiento contemporáneas del nacionalsocialismo, independientes del mismo, pero con evidentes conexiones filosóficas e ideológicas, cuyas figuras más destacadas son Oswald Spengler, Ernst Jünger, Carl Schmitt y Moeller van den Bruck, entre otros. La “Nueva Derecha” europea ha invertido intelectualmente gran parte de sus esfuerzos en la recuperación del pensamiento de estos autores, junto a otros como Martin Heidegger, Arnold Gehlen y Konrad Lorenz (por citar algunos de ellos), a través de una curiosa fórmula retrospectiva: se vuelve a los orígenes teóricos, dando un salto en el tiempo para evitar el “interregno fascista”, y se comienza de nuevo intentando reconstruir los fundamentos ideológicos del conservadurismo revolucionario sin caer en la “tentación totalitaria” y eludiendo cualquier “desviacionismo nacionalsocialista”.

Con todo, los conceptos de “revolución conservadora” y de “nueva derecha” no son, desde luego, construcciones terminológicas muy afortunadas. Por supuesto que la “revolución conservadora”, por más que les pese a los mal llamados “neconservadores” (sean del tipo Reagan, Bush, Thatcher, Sarkozy o Aznar), no tiene nada que ver con la “reacción conservadora” (una auténtica “contrarrevolución”) que éstos pretenden liderar frente al liberalismo progre, el comunismo posmoderno y el contraculturalismo de la izquierda. Pero la debilidad de la derecha clásica estriba en su inclinación al centrismo y a la socialdemocracia (“la seducción de la izquierda”), en un frustrado intento por cerrar el paso al socialismo, simpatizando, incluso, con los únicos valores posibles de sus adversarios (igualitarismo, universalismo, falso progresismo). Un grave error para los que no han comprendido jamás que la acción política es un aspecto más de una larvada guerra ideológica entre dos concepciones del mundo completamente antagónicas.

Tampoco la “nueva derecha” representa un nuevo tipo de política conservadora frente a la ya tradicional economicista, gestionaria y demoliberal, sino que se sitúa en algún lugar “neutro” (no equidistante) entre la derecha y la izquierda (extramuros de la política), como se desprende inmediatamente de la antología de textos de Alain de Benoist publicada por Áltera (“Más allá de la derecha y de la izquierda”). Recordemos que, cuando a Drieu La Rochelle le preguntaron por su adscripción política, jugando con la posición que ocupan en los parlamentos los distintos grupos políticos a la derecha o a la izquierda del presidente de la cámara, el pensador francés se situaba, precisamente, justo por detrás de éste. Toda una declaración de principios.

El propio Alain de Benoist, en la citada antología, se pregunta cuáles son las razones del retraimiento progresivo de la interferencia entre las nociones de derecha y de izquierda, precisando que «desde luego que la derecha quiere un poco más de liberalismo y un poco menos de política social, mientras que la izquierda prefiere un poco más de política social y un poco menos de liberalismo, pero al final, entre el social-liberalismo y el liberalismo social, no podemos decir que la clase política esté verdaderamente dividida» Y citando a Grumberg: «El fuerte vínculo entre el liberalismo cultural y la orientación a la izquierda por un lado, y el liberalismo económico y la orientación a la derecha por otro, podrían llevar a preguntarnos si estos dos liberalismos no constituyen los dos polos opuestos de una única e igual dimensión, que no sería otra que la misma dimensión derecha-izquierda.»

Pero seguramente ha sido Ernst Jünger (“El Trabajador”) quien mejor ha descrito estos conceptos políticos. El conservador genuino –escribe Jünger- no quiere conservar éste o aquél orden, lo que quiere es restablecer la imagen del ser humano, que es la medida de las cosas. De esta forma, «se vuelven muy parecidos los conservadores y los revolucionarios, ya que se aproximan necesariamente al mismo fondo. De ahí que sea siempre posible demostrar la existencia de ambas cualidades en los grandes modificadores, en las que no sólo derrocan órdenes, sino que también los fundan». Jünger observaba cómo se fusionan de una manera extraña las diferencias entre la “reacción” y la “revolución”: «emergen teorías en las cuales los conceptos “conservador” y “revolucionario” quedan faltamente identificados …, ya que “derecha” e “izquierda” son conceptos que se bifurcan a partir de un eje común de simetría y tienen sentido únicamente si se los ve desde él. Tanto si cooperan como si lo hacen al mismo tiempo, la derecha y la izquierda dependen de un cuerpo cuya unidad tiene que hacerse visible cuando un movimiento pasa del marco del movimiento al marco del estado.» Sin comentarios.

Por todo ello, queremos subrayar aquí que, con la denominación de “Nueva Derecha” –aunque no nos agrade tal calificación y optemos por la de “Conservadurismo Revolucionario”--, se hace referencia a un estilo ético y estético de pensamiento político dirigido al repudio de los dogmatismos, la formulación antiigualitaria, el doble rechazo de los modelos capitalista y comunista, la defensa de los particularismos étnicos y regionales, la consideración de Europa como unidad, la lucha contra la amenaza planetaria frente a la vida, la racionalización de la técnica, la primacía de los valores espirituales sobre los materiales. El eje central de la crítica al sistema político “occidental” lo constituye la denuncia del cristianismo dogmático, el liberalismo y el marxismo, como elementos niveladores e igualadores de una civilización europea, perdida y desarraigada, que busca, sin encontrarla, la salida al laberinto de la “identidad específica”. En el núcleo de esta civilización europea destaca la existencia del “hombre europeo multidimensional”, tanto al nivel biológico, que en su concepción sociológica reafirma los valores innatos de la jerarquía y la territorialidad, como al específicamente humano, caracterizado por la cultura y la conciencia histórica. Constituye, en el fondo, una reivindicación de la “herencia” –tanto individual como comunitaria-, fenómeno conformador de la historia evolutiva del hombre y de los pueblos, que demuestra la caducidad de las ideologías de la nivelación y la actualidad de la rica diversidad de la condición humana. Un resumen incompleto y forzado por la tiranía del espacio digital, pero que sirve al objeto de efectuar comparaciones.

Entre tanto, el “Neoconservadurismo” contrarrevolucionario, partiendo del pensamiento del alemán emigrado a norteamérica Leo Strauss, no es sino una especie de “reacción” frente a la pérdida de unos valores que tienen fecha de caducidad (precisamente los suyos, propios de la burguesía angloamericana mercantilista e imperialista). Sus principios son el universalismo ideal y humanitario, el capitalismo salvaje, el tradicionalismo académico, el burocratismo totalitario y el imperialismo agresivo contra los fundamentalismos terroristas “anti-occidentales”. Para estos neconservadores, Estados Unidos aparece como la representación más perfecta de los valores de la libertad, la democracia y la felicidad fundada en el progreso material y en el regreso a la moral, siendo obligación de Europa el copiar este modelo triunfante. En definitiva, entre las ideologías popularizadas por los “neocons” (neoconservadores en la expresión vulgata de Irving Kristol) y los “recons” (revolucionarios-conservadores, de mi cosecha) existe un abismo insalvable. El tiempo dirá, como esperaban Jünger y Heidegger, cuál de las dos triunfa en el ámbito europeo de las ideas políticas. Entre tanto, seguiremos hablando de esta original “batalla de las ideologías” en futuras intervenciones.

[Publicado por "ElManifiesto.com" el  20/08/2010]

Evola & Spengler

by Robert STEUCKERS

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

Translated by Greg Johnson

“I translated from German, at the request of the publisher Longanesi . . . Oswald Spengler’s vast and celebrated work The Decline of the West. That gave the opportunity to me to specify, in an introduction, the meaning and the limits of this work which, in its time, had been world-famous.” These words begin a series of critical paragraphs on Spengler in Julius Evola’s The Way of Cinnabar (p. 177).

Evola pays homage to the German philosopher for casting aside “progressivist and historicist fancies” by showing that the stage reached by our civilization shortly after the First World War was not an apex, but, on the contrary, a “twilight.” From this Evola recognized that Spengler, especially thanks to the success of his book, made it possible to go beyond the linear and evolutionary conception of history. Spengler describes the opposition between Kultur and Zivilisation, “the former term indicating, for him, the forms or phases of a civilization that is qualitative, organic, differentiated, and vital, the latter indicating the forms of a civilization that is rationalist, urban, mechanical, shapeless, soulless” (p. 178).

Evola admired the negative description that Spengler gives of Zivilisation but is critical of the absence of a coherent definition of Kultur, because, he says, the German philosopher remained the prisoner of certain intellectual schemes proper to modernity. “A sense of the metaphysical dimension or of transcendence, which represents the essence of all true Kultur, was completely lacking in him” (p. 179).

Evola also reproaches Spengler’s pluralism; for the author of The Decline of the West, civilizations are many, distinct, and discontinuous compared to one another, each one constituting a closed unit. For Evola, this conception is valid only for the exterior and episodic aspects of various civilizations. On the contrary, he continues, it is necessary to recognize, beyond the plurality of the forms of civilization, civilizations (or phases of civilization) of the “modern” type, as opposed to civilizations (or phases of civilization) of the “Traditional” type. There is plurality only on the surface; at bottom, there is a fundamental opposition between modernity and Tradition.

Then Evola reproaches Spengler for being influenced by German post-romantic vitalist and “irrationalist” strains of thought, which received their most comprehensive and radical expression in the work of Ludwig Klages. The valorization of life is vain, explains Evola, if life is not illuminated by an authentic comprehension of the world of origins. Thus the plunge into existentiality, into Life, required by Klages, Bäumler, or Krieck, can appear dangerous and initiate a regressive process (one will note that the Evolian critique distinguishes itself from German interpretations, according exactly to the same criteria that we put forward while speaking about the reception of the work of Bachofen).

Evola thinks this vitalism leads Spengler to say “things that make one blush” about Buddhism, Taoism, Stoicism, and Greco-Roman civilization (which, for Spengler, is merely a civilization of “corporeity”). Lastly, Evola does not accept Spengler’s valorization of “Faustian man,” a figure born in the Age of Discovery, the Renaissance and humanism; by this temporal determination, Faustian man is carried towards horizontality rather than towards verticality. Regarding Caesarism, a political phenomenon of the era of the masses, Evola shares the same negative judgment as Spengler.

The pages devoted to Spengler in The Path of Cinnabar are thus quite critical; Evola even concludes that the influence of Spengler on his thought was null. Such is not the opinion of an analyst of Spengler and Evola, Attilio Cucchi (in “Evola, Tradizione e Spengler,” Orion no. 89, 1992). For Cucchi, Spengler influenced Evola, particularly in his criticism of the concept of the “West”: by affirming that Western civilization is not the civilization, the only civilization there is, Spengler relativizes it, as Guénon charges. Evola, an attentive reader of Spengler and Guénon, would combine elements of the the Spenglerian and Guénonian critiques. Spengler affirms that Faustian Western culture, which began in the tenth century, has declined and fallen into Zivilisation, which has frozen, drained, and killed its inner energy. America is already at this final stage of de-ruralized and technological Zivilisation.

It is on the basis of the Spenglerian critique of Zivilisation that Evola later developed his critique of Bolshevism and Americanism: If Zivilisation is twilight for Spengler, America is the extreme-West for Guénon, i.e., irreligion pushed to its ultimate consequences. In Evola, undoubtedly, Spenglerian and Guénonian arguments combine, even if, at the end of the day, the Guénonian elements dominate, especially in 1957, when the edition of The Decline of the West was published by Longanesi with a Foreword by Evola. On the other hand, the Spenglerian criticism of political Caesarism is found, sometimes word for word, in Evola’s books Fascism Seen from the Right and the Men Among the Ruins.

Dr. H. T. Hansen, the author of the Introduction to the German edition of Men Among the Ruins (Menschen inmitten von Ruinen [Tübingen: Hohenrain, 1991]), confirms the sights of Cucchi: several Spenglerian ideas are found in outline in Men Among the Ruins, notably the idea that the state is the inner form, the “being-in-form” of the nation; the idea that decline is measured to the extent that Faustian man has become a slave of his creations; the machine forces him down a path from which he can never turn back, and which will never allow him any rest. Feverishness and flight into the future are characteristics of the modern world (“Faustian” for Spengler) which Guénon and Evola condemn with equal strength.

In The Hour of Decision (1933), Spengler criticizes the Caesarism (in truth, Hitlerian National Socialism) as a product of democratic titanism. Evola wrote the Preface of the Italian translation of this work, after a very attentive reading. Finally, the “Prussian style” exalted by Spengler corresponds, according to Hansen, with the Evolian idea of the “aristocratic order of life, arranged hierarchically according to service.” As for the necessary preeminence of Grand Politics over economics, the idea is found in both authors. Thus the influence of Spengler on Evola was not null, despite what Evola says in The Path of Cinnabar.

Source: Nouvelles de Synergies européennes no. 21, 1996.

Note: Evola’s The Path of Cinnabar is now available in English translation from Arktos Media.

Carl Schmitt: The End of the Weimar Republic

Carl Schmitt (part III)

The End of the Weimar Republic

By Keith Preston

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

 

 

 Adolf Hitler Accepts the Weimar Chancellorship From President Paul von Hindenburg, January 30, 1933

Carl Schmitt accepted a professorship at the University of Berlin in 1928, having left his previous position at the University of Bonn. At this point, he was still only a law professor and legal scholar, and while highly regarded in his fields of endeavor, he was not an actual participant in the affairs of state. In 1929, Schmitt became personally acquainted with an official in the finance ministry named Johannes Popitz, and with General Kurt von Schleicher, an advisor to President Paul von Hindenburg.

Schleicher shared Schmitt’s concerns that the lack of a stable government would lead to civil war or seizure of power by the Nazis or communists. These fears accelerated after the economic catastrophe of 1929 demonstrated once again the ineptness of Germany’s parliamentary system. Schleicher devised a plan for a presidential government comprised of a chancellor and cabinet ministers that combined with the power of the army and the provisions of Article 48 would be able to essentially bypass the incompetent parliament and more effectively address Germany’s severe economic distress and prevent civil disorder or overthrow of the republic by extremists.

Heinrich Bruning of the Catholic Center Party was appointed chancellor by Hindenburg. The Reichstag subsequently rejected Bruning’s proposed economic reforms so Bruning set about to implement them as an emergency measure under Article 48. The Reichstag then exercised its own powers under Article 48 and rescinded Bruning’s decrees, and Bruning then dissolved the parliament on the grounds that the Reichstag had been unable to form a majority government. Such was the prerogative of the executive under the Weimar constitution.

In the years between 1930 and 1933, Carl Schmitt’s legal writings expressed concern with two primary issues. The first of these dealt with legal matters pertaining to constitutional questions raised by the presidential government Schleicher had formulated. The latter focused on the question of constitutional issues raised by the existence of anti-constitutional parties functioning within the context of the constitutional system.

Schmitt’s subsequent reputation as a conservative revolutionary has been enhanced by his personal friendship or association with prominent radical nationalists like Ernst Jünger and the “National Bolshevist” Ernst Niekisch, as well as the publication of Schmitt’s articles in journals associated with the conservative revolutionary movement during the late Weimar period. However, Schmitt himself was never any kind of revolutionary. Indeed, he spoke out against changes in the constitution of Weimar during its final years, believing that tampering with the constitution during a time of crisis would undermine the legitimacy of the entire system and invite opportunistic exploitation of the constitutional processes by radicals. His continued defense of the presidential powers granted by Article 48 was always intended as an effort to preserve the existing constitutional order.

The 1930 election produced major victories for the extremist parties. The communists increased their representation in the Reichstag from 54 to 77 seats, and the Nazis from 12 to 107 seats. The left-of-center Social Democrats (SPD) retained 143 seats, meaning that avowedly revolutionary parties were now the second and third largest parties in terms of parliamentary representation. The extremist parties never took their parliamentary roles seriously, but instead engaged in endless obstructionist tactics designed to de-legitimize the republic itself with hopes of seizing power once it finally collapsed. Meanwhile, violent street fighting between Nazi and communist paramilitary groups emerged as the numbers of unemployed Germans soared well into the millions.

In the April 1932 presidential election, Hitler stood against Hindenburg, and while Hindenburg was the winner, Hitler received an impressive thirty-seven percent of the vote. Meanwhile, the Nazis had become the dominant party in several regional governments, and their private army, the SA, had grown to the point where it was four times larger than the German army itself.

Schmitt published Legality and Legitimacy in 1932 in response to the rise of the extremist parties. This work dealt with matters of constitutional interpretation, specifically the means by which the constitutional order itself might be overthrown through the abuse of ordinary legal and constitutional processes. Schmitt argued that political constitutions represent specific sets of political values. These might include republicanism, provisions for an electoral process, church/state separation, property rights, freedom of the press, and so forth. Schmitt warned against interpreting the constitution in ways that allowed laws to be passed through formalistic means whose essence contradicted the wider set of values represented by the constitution.

Most important, Schmitt opposed methods of constitutional interpretation that would serve to create the political conditions under which the constitution itself could be overthrown. The core issue raised by Schmitt was the question of whether or not anti-constitutional parties such as the NSDAP or KPD should have what he called the “equal chance” to assume power legally. If such a party were to be allowed to gain control of the apparatus of the state itself, it could then use its position to destroy the constitutional order.

Schmitt argued that a political constitution should be interpreted according to its internal essence rather than strict formalistic adherence to its technical provisions, and applied according to the conditions imposed by the “concrete situation” at hand. On July 19, 1932, Schmitt published an editorial in a conservative journal concerning the election that was to be held on July 31. The editorial read in part:

Whoever provides the National Socialists with the majority on July 31, acts foolishly. … He gives this still immature ideological and political movement the possibility to change the constitution, to establish a state church, to dissolve the labor unions, etc. He surrenders Germany completely to this group….It would be extremely dangerous … because 51% gives the NSDAP a “political premium of incalculable significance.”

The subsequent election was an extremely successful one for the NSDAP, as they gained 37.8 percent of the seats in the parliament, while the KPD achieved 14.6 percent. The effect of the election results was that the anti-constitutional parties were in control of a majority of the Reichstag seats.

On the advice of General Schleicher, President Hindenburg had replaced Bruning as chancellor with Franz von Papen on May 30. Papen subsequently took an action that would lead to Schmitt’s participation in a dramatic trial of genuine historic significance before the supreme court of Germany.

Invoking Article 48, the Papen government suspended the state government of Prussia and placed the state under martial law. The justification for this was the Prussian regional government’s inability to maintain order in the face of civil unrest. Prussia was the largest of the German states, containing two-thirds of Germany’s land mass and three-fifths of its population. Though the state government had been controlled by the Social Democrats, the Nazis had made significant gains in the April 1932 election. Along the way, the Social Democrats had made considerable effort to block the rise of the Nazis with legal restrictions on their activities and various parliamentary maneuvers. There was also much violent conflict in Prussia between the Nazis and the Communists.

Papen, himself an anti-Nazi rightist, regarded the imposition of martial law as having the multiple purposes of breaking the power of the Social Democrats in Prussia, controlling the Communists, placating the Nazis by removing their Social Democratic rivals, and simultaneously preventing the Nazis from becoming embedded in regional institutions, particularly Prussia’s huge police force.

The Prussian state government appealed Papen’s decision to the supreme court and a trial was held in October of 1932. Schmitt was among three jurists who defended the Papen government’s policy before the court. Schmitt’s arguments reflected the method of constitutional interpretation he had been developing since the time martial law had been imposed during the Great War by the Wilhelmine government. Schmitt likewise applied the approach to political theory he had presented in his previous writings to the situation in Prussia. He argued that the Prussian state government had failed in its foremost constitutional duty to preserve public order. He further argued that because Papen had acted under the authority of President Hindenburg, Papen’s actions had been legitimate under Article 48.

Schmitt regarded the conflict in Prussia as a conflict between rival political parties. The Social Democrats who controlled the state government were attempting to repress the Nazis by imposing legal restrictions on them. However, the Social Democrats had also been impotent in their efforts to control violence by the Nazis and the communists. Schmitt rejected the argument that the Social Democrats were constitutionally legitimate in their legal efforts against the Nazis, as this simply amounted to one political party attempting to repress another. While the “equal chance” may be constitutionally denied to an anti-constitutional party, such a decision must be made by a neutral force, such as the president.

As a crucial part of his argument, Schmitt insisted that the office of the President was sovereign over the political parties and was responsible for preserving the constitution, public order, and the security of the state itself. Schmitt argued that with the Prussian state’s failure to maintain basic order, the situation in Prussia had essentially become a civil war between the political parties. Therefore, imposition of martial law by the chancellor, as an agent of the president, was necessary for the restoration of order.

Schmitt further argued that it was the president rather than the court that possessed the ultimate authority and responsibility for upholding the constitution, as the court possessed no means of politically enforcing its decisions. Ultimately, the court decided that while it rather than the president held responsibility for legal defense of the constitution, the situation in Prussia was severe enough to justify the appointment of a commissarial government by Papen, though Papen had not been justified in outright suspension of the Prussian state government. Essentially, the Papen government had won, as martial law remained in Prussia, and the state government continued to exist in name only.

During the winter months of 1932-33, Germany entered into an increasingly perilous situation. Papen, who had pushed for altering the constitution along fairly strident reactionary conservative lines, proved to be an extraordinarily unpopular chancellor and was replaced by Schleicher on December 3, 1932. But by this time, Papen had achieved the confidence of President von Hindenburg, if not that of the German public, while Hindenburg’s faith in Schleicher had diminished considerably. Papen began talks with Hitler, and the possibility emerged that Hitler might ascend to the chancellorship.

Joseph Bendersky summarized the events that followed:

By late January, when it appeared that either Papen or Hitler might become chancellor, Schleicher concluded that exceptional measures were required as a last resort. He requested that the president declare a state of emergency, ban the Nazi and Communist parties, and dissolve the Reichstag until stability could be restored. During the interim Schleicher would govern by emergency decrees. …

This was preferable to the potentially calamitous return of Papen, with his dangerous reform plans and unpopularity. It would also preclude the possibility that as chancellor Hitler would eventually usurp all power and completely destroy the constitution, even the nature of the German state, in favor of the proclaimed Third Reich. Had Hindenburg complied with Schleicher’s request, the president would have denied the equal chance to an anti-constitutional party and thus, in Schmitt’s estimate, truly acted as the defender of the constitution. … Having lost faith in Schleicher, fearing civil war, and trying to avoid violating his oath to uphold the constitution, Hindenburg refused. At this point, Schleicher was the only leader in a position to prevent the Nazi acquisition of power, if the president had only granted him the authorization. Consequently, Hitler acquired power not through the use of Article 48, but because it was not used against him.

[emphasis added]

The Schleicher plan had the full support of Schmitt, and was based in part on Schmitt’s view that “a constitutional system could not remain neutral towards its own basic principles, nor provide the legal means for its own destruction.” Yet the liberal, Catholic, and socialist press received word of the plan and mercilessly attacked Schleicher’s plan specifically and Schmitt’s ideas generally as creating the foundation for a presidential dictatorship, while remaining myopically oblivious to the immediate danger posed by Nazi and Communist control over the Reichstag and the possibility of Hitler’s achievement of executive power.

On January 30, 1933, Hitler became chancellor. That evening, Schmitt received the conservative revolutionary Wilhelm Stapel as a guest in his home while the Nazis staged a torchlight parade in Berlin’s Brandenburg Gate in celebration of Hitler’s appointment. Schmitt and Stapel discussed their alarm at the prospect of an imminent Nazi dictatorship and Schmitt felt the Weimar Republic had essentially committed suicide. If President von Hindenburg had heeded the advice of Schleicher and Schmitt, the Hitler regime would likely have never come into existence.

Carl Schmitt: The Concept of the Political

Carl Schmitt (Part II)

The Concept of the Political

By Keith Preston

 

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

 

Carl Schmitt, circa 1928

It was in the context of the extraordinarily difficult times of the Weimar period that Carl Schmitt produced what are widely regarded as his two most influential books. The first of these examined the failures of liberal democracy as it was being practiced in Germany at the time. Schmitt regarded these failures as rooted in the weaknesses of liberal democratic theory itself. In the second work, Schmitt attempted to define the very essence of politics.

Schmitt's The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy was first published in 1923.^* In this work, Schmitt described the dysfunctional workings of the Weimar parliamentary system. He regarded this dysfunction as symptomatic of the inadequacies of the classical liberal theory of government. According to this theory as Schmitt interpreted it, the affairs of states are to be conducted on the basis of open discussion between proponents of competing ideas as a kind of empirical process. Schmitt contrasted this idealized view of parliamentarianism with the realities of its actual practice, such as cynical appeals by politicians to narrow self-interests on the part of constituents, bickering among narrow partisan forces, the use of propaganda and symbolism rather than rational discourse as a means of influencing public opinion, the binding of parliamentarians by party discipline, decisions made by means of backroom deals, rule by committee and so forth.

Schmitt recognized a fundamental distinction between liberalism, or "parliamentarianism," and democracy. Liberal theory advances the concept of a state where all retain equal political rights. Schmitt contrasted this with actual democratic practice as it has existed historically. Historic democracy rests on an "equality of equals," for instance, those holding a particular social position (as in ancient Greece), subscribing to particular religious beliefs or belonging to a specific national entity. Schmitt observed that democratic states have traditionally included a great deal of political and social inequality, from slavery to religious exclusionism to a stratified class hierarchy. Even modern democracies ostensibly organized on the principle of universal suffrage do not extend such democratic rights to residents of their colonial possessions. Beyond this level, states, even officially "democratic" ones, distinguish between their own citizens and those of other states.

At a fundamental level, there is an innate tension between liberalism and democracy. Liberalism is individualistic, whereas democracy sanctions the "general will" as the principle of political legitimacy. However, a consistent or coherent "general will" necessitates a level of homogeneity that by its very nature goes against the individualistic ethos of liberalism. This is the source of the "crisis of parliamentarianism" that Schmitt suggested. According to the democratic theory, rooted as it is in the ideas of Jean Jacques Rousseau, a legitimate state must reflect the "general will," but no general will can be discerned in a regime that simultaneously espouses liberalism. Lacking the homogeneity necessary for a democratic "general will," the state becomes fragmented into competing interests. Indeed, a liberal parliamentary state can actually act against the "peoples' will" and become undemocratic. By this same principle, anti-liberal states such as those organized according to the principles of fascism or Bolshevism can be democratic in so far as they reflect the "general will."

The Concept of the Political appeared in 1927. According to Schmitt, the irreducible minimum on which human political life is based.

The political must therefore rest on its own ultimate distinctions, to which all action with a specifically political meaning can be traced. Let us assume that in the realm of morality the final distinctions are between good and evil, in aesthetics beautiful and ugly, in economics profitable and unprofitable. […]

The specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is that between friend and enemy. … In so far as it is not derived from other criteria, the antithesis of friend and enemy corresponds to the relatively independent criteria of other antitheses: good and evil in the moral sphere, beautiful and ugly in the aesthetic sphere, and so on. 

These categories need not be inclusive of one another. For instance, a political enemy need not be morally evil or aesthetically ugly. What is significant is that the enemy is the "other" and therefore a source of possible conflict.

The friend/enemy distinction is not dependent on the specific nature of the "enemy." It is merely enough that the enemy is a threat. The political enemy is also distinctive from personal enemies. Whatever one's personal thoughts about the political enemy, it remains true that the enemy is hostile to the collective to which one belongs. The first purpose of the state is to maintain its own existence as an organized collective prepared if necessary to do battle to the death with other organized collectives that pose an existential threat. This is the essential core of what is meant by the "political." Organized collectives within a particular state can also engage in such conflicts (i.e. civil war). Internal conflicts within a collective can threaten the survival of the collective as a whole. As long as existential threats to a collective remain, the friend/enemy concept that Schmitt considered to be the heart of politics will remain valid.

Schmitt has been accused by critics of attempting to drive a wedge between liberalism and democracy thereby contributing to the undermining of the Weimar regime's claims to legitimacy and helping to pave the way for a more overtly authoritarian or even totalitarian system of the kind that eventually emerged in the form of the Hitler dictatorship. He has also been accused of arguing for a more exclusionary form of the state, for instance, one that might practice exclusivity or even supremacy on ethnic or national grounds, and of attempting to sanction the use of war as a mere political instrument, independent of any normative considerations, perhaps even as an ideal unto itself. Implicit in these accusations is the idea that Schmitt’s works created a kind of intellectual framework that could later be used to justify at least some of the ideas of Nazism and even lead to an embrace of Nazism by Schmitt himself.

The expression "context is everything" becomes a quite relevant when examining these accusations regarding the work of Carl Schmitt. This important passage from the preface to the second edition of The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy sheds light on Schmitt’s actual motivations:

That the parliamentary enterprise today is the lesser evil, that it will continue to be preferable to Bolshevism and dictatorship, that it would have unforeseen consequences were it to be discarded, that it is 'socially and technically' a very practical thing-all these are interesting and in part also correct observations. But they do not constitute the intellectual foundations of a specifically intended institution. Parliamentarianism exists today as a method of government and a political system. Just as everything else that exists and functions tolerably, it is useful-no more and no less. It counts for a great deal that even today it functions better than other untried methods, and that a minimum of order that is today actually at hand would be endangered by frivolous experiments. Every reasonable person would concede such arguments. But they do not carry weight in an argument about principles. Certainly no one would be so un-demanding that he regarded an intellectual foundation or a moral truth as proven by the question, “What else?”

This passage indicates that Schmitt was in fact wary of undermining the authority of the republic for its own sake or for the sake of implementing a revolutionary regime. Clearly, it would be rather difficult to reconcile such an outlook with the political millenarianism of either Marxism or National Socialism. The "crisis of parliamentary democracy" that Schmitt was addressing was a crisis of legitimacy. On what political or ethical principles does a liberal democratic state of the type Weimar establish its own legitimacy? This was an immensely important question, given the gulf between liberal theory and parliamentary democracy as it was actually being practiced in Weimar, the conflicts between liberal practice and democratic theories of legitimacy as they had previously been laid out by Rousseau and others and, perhaps most importantly, the challenges to liberalism and claims to "democratic" legitimacy being made at the time by proponents of revolutionary ideologies of both the Left and the Right.

Schmitt observed that democracy, broadly defined, had triumphed over older systems, such as monarchy, aristocracy and theocracy, by trumpeting its principle of "popular sovereignty." However, the advent of democracy had also undermined older theories on the foundations of political legitimacy, such as those rooted in religion ("divine right of kings"), dynastic lineages or mere appeals to tradition. Further, the triumphs of both liberalism and democracy had brought into fuller view the innate conflicts between the two. There is also the additional matter of the gap between the practice of politics (such as parliamentary procedures) and the ends of politics (such as the "will of the people").

Schmitt observed how parliamentarianism as a procedural methodology had a wide assortment of critics, including those representing the forces of reaction (royalists and clerics, for instance) and radicalism (from Marxists to anarchists). Schmitt also pointed out that he was by no means the first thinker to recognize these issues, citing Mosca, Jacob Burckhardt, Hilaire Belloc, G. K. Chesterton, and Michels, among others.

A fundamental question that concerned Schmitt is the matter of what the democratic "will of the people" actually means, and he observed that an ostensibly democratic state could adopt virtually any set of policy positions, "whether militarist or pacifist, absolutist or liberal, centralized or decentralized, progressive or reactionary, and again at different times without ceasing to be a democracy." He also raised the question of the fate of democracy in a society where "the people" cease to favor democracy. Can democracy be formally renounced in the name of democracy? For instance, can "the people" embrace Bolshevism or a fascist dictatorship as an expression of their democratic "general will"?

The flip side of this question asks whether a political class committed in theory to democracy can act undemocratically (against "the will of the people"), if the people display an insufficient level of education in the ways of democracy. How is the will of the people to be identified in the first place? Is it not possible for rulers to construct a "will of the people" of their own through the use of propaganda?

For Schmitt, these questions were not simply a matter of intellectual hair-splitting but were of vital importance in a weak, politically paralyzed liberal democratic state where the commitment of significant sectors of both the political class and the public at large to the preservation of liberal democracy was questionable, and where the overthrow of liberal democracy by proponents of other ideologies was a very real possibility.

Schmitt examined the claims of parliamentarianism to democratic legitimacy. He describes the liberal ideology that underlies parliamentarianism as follows:

It is essential that liberalism be understood as a consistent, comprehensive metaphysical system. Normally one only discusses the economic line of reasoning that social harmony and the maximization of wealth follow from the free economic competition of individuals. ... But all this is only an application of a general liberal principle...: That truth can be found through an unrestrained clash of opinion and that competition will produce harmony.

For Schmitt, this view reduces truth to "a mere function of the eternal competition of opinions." After pointing out the startling contrast between the theory and practice of liberalism, Schmitt suggested that liberal parliamentarian claims to legitimacy are rather weak and examined the claims of rival ideologies. Marxism replaces the liberal emphasis on the competition between opinions with a focus on competition between economic classes and, more generally, differing modes of production that rise and fall as history unfolds. Marxism is the inverse of liberalism, in that it replaces the intellectual with the material. The competition of economic classes is also much more intensified than the competition between opinions and commercial interests under liberalism. The Marxist class struggle is violent and bloody. Belief in parliamentary debate is replaced with belief in "direct action." Drawing from the same rationalist intellectual tradition as the radical democrats, Marxism rejects parliamentarianism as a sham covering the dictatorship of a particular class, i.e. the bourgeoisie. “True” democracy is achieved through the reversal of class relations under a proletarian state that rules in the interest of the laboring majority. Such a state need not utilize formal democratic procedures, but may exist as an "educational dictatorship" that functions to enlighten the proletariat regarding its true class interests.

Schmitt contrasted the rationalism of both liberalism and Marxism with irrationalism. Central to irrationalism is the idea of a political myth, comparable to the religious mythology of previous belief systems, and originally developed by the radical left-wing but having since been appropriated in Schmitt’s time by revolutionary nationalists. It is myth that motivates people to action, whether individually or collectively. It matters less whether a particular myth is true than if people are inspired by it.

At the close of Crisis, Schmitt quotes from a speech by Benito Mussolini from October 1922, shortly before the March on Rome. Said the Duce:

 

We have created a myth, this myth is a belief, a noble enthusiasm; it does not need to be reality, it is a striving and a hope, a belief and courage. Our myth is the nation, the great nation which we want to make into a concrete reality for ourselves.

Whatever Schmitt might have thought of movements of the radical Right in the 1920s, it is clear enough that his criticisms of liberalism were intended not so much as an effort to undermine democratic legitimacy so much as an effort to confront its inherent weaknesses with candor and intellectual rigor.

Schmitt also had no illusions about the need for strong and decisive political authority capable of acting in the interests of the nation during perilous times. As he remarks,

If democratic identity is taken seriously, then in an emergency no other constitutional institution can withstand the sole criterion of the peoples' will, however it is expressed.

In other words, the state must first act to preserve itself and the general welfare and well-being of the people at large. If necessary, the state may override narrow partisan interests, parliamentary procedure or, presumably, routine electoral processes. Such actions by political leadership may be illiberal, but they are not necessarily undemocratic, as the democratic general will does not include national suicide. Schmitt outlined this theory of the survival of the state as the first priority of politics in The Concept of the Political. The essence of the "political" is the existence of organized collectives prepared to meet existential threats to themselves with lethal force if necessary. The "political" is different from the moral, the aesthetic, the economic, or the religious as it involves, first and foremost, the possibility of groups of human beings killing other human beings.

This does not mean that war is necessarily "good" or something to be desired or agitated for. Indeed, it may often be in the political interests of a state to avoid war. However, any state that wishes to survive must be prepared to meet challenges to its existence, whether from conquest or domination by external forces or revolution and chaos from internal forces. Additionally, a state must be capable of recognizing its own interests and assume sole responsibility for doing so. A state that cannot identify its enemies and counter enemy forces effectively is threatened existentially.

Schmitt's political ideas are, of course, more easily understood in the context of Weimar's political situation. He was considering the position of a defeated and demoralized German nation that was unable to defend itself against external threats, and threatened internally by weak, chaotic and unpopular political leadership, economic hardship, political and ideological polarization and growing revolutionary movements, sometimes exhibiting terrorist or fanatical characteristics.

Schmitt regarded Germany as desperately in need of some sort of foundation for the establishment of a recognized, legitimate political authority capable of upholding the interests and advancing the well-being of the nation in the face of foreign enemies and above domestic factional interests. This view is far removed from the Nazi ideas of revolution, crude racial determinism, the cult of the leader, and war as a value unto itself. Schmitt is clearly a much different thinker than the adherents of the quasi-mystical nationalism common to the radical right-wing of the era. Weimar's failure was due in part to the failure of the political leadership to effectively address the questions raised by Schmitt. 

______________

 

 

*The German title -- Die geistesgeschichtliche Lage des heutigen Parlamentarismus -- literally means “the historical-spiritual condition of contemporary parliamentarianism.” The common rendering, “The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy,” is certainly more euphonious, though it is problematic since one of Schmitt’s central points in the book is that parliamentarianism is not democratic.   

Carl Schmitt - Weimar: State of Exception

Carl Schmitt (Part I)

Weimar: State of Exception

By Keith Preston

 

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

 

 

Carl Schmitt, the Return of the German Army Following World War I (photo: BBC)

Among the many fascinating figures that emerged from the intellectual culture of Germany’s interwar Weimar Republic, perhaps none is quite as significant or unique as Carl Schmitt. An eminent jurist and law professor during the Weimar era, Schmitt was arguably the greatest political theorist of the 20th century. He is also among the most widely misinterpreted or misunderstood.

The misconceptions regarding Schmitt are essentially traceable to two issues. The first of these is obvious enough: Schmitt’s collaboration with the Nazi regime during the early years of the Third Reich. The other reason why Schmitt’s ideas are so frequently misrepresented, if not reviled, in contemporary liberal intellectual circles may ultimately be the most important. Schmitt’s works in political and legal theory provide what is by far the most penetrating critique of the ideological and moral presumptions of modern liberal democracy and its institutional workings.

Like his friend and contemporary Ernst Junger, Schmitt lived to a very old age. His extraordinarily long life allowed him to witness many changes in the surrounding world that were as rapid as they were radical. He was born in 1888, the same year that Wilhelm II became the emperor of Germany, and died in 1985, the year Mikhail Gorbachev became the final General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Schmitt wrote on legal and political matters for nearly seven decades. His earliest published works appeared in 1910 and his last article was published in 1978. Yet it is his writings from the Weimar period that are by far the most well known and, aside from his works during his brief association with the Nazis, his works during the Weimar era are also his most controversial.

Not only is it grossly inaccurate to regard Schmitt merely as a theoretician of Nazism, but it is also problematical even to characterize him as a German nationalist. For one thing, Schmitt originated from the Rhineland and his religious upbringing was Catholic, which automatically set him at odds both regionally and religiously with Germany’s Protestant and Prussian-born elites. As his biographer Joseph Bendersky noted, Schmitt’s physical appearance was “far more Latin than Germanic” and he had French-speaking relatives. Schmitt once said to the National-Bolshevik leader Ernst Niekisch, “I am Roman by origin, tradition, and right.”

At age nineteen, Schmitt entered the prestigious University of Berlin, which was exceedingly rare for someone with his lower middle-class origins, and on the advice of his uncle chose law as his area of specialization. This choice seems to have initially been the result of ambition rather than specificity of interest. Schmitt received his law degree in 1910 and subsequently worked as a law clerk in the Prussian civil service before passing the German equivalent of the bar examination in 1915. By this time, he had already published three books and four articles, thereby foreshadowing a lifetime as a highly prolific writer.

Even in his earliest writings, Schmitt demonstrated himself as an anti-liberal thinker. Some of this may be attributable to his precarious position as a member of Germany’s Catholic religious minority. As Catholics were distrusted by the Protestant elites, they faced discrimination with regards to professional advancement. Schmitt may therefore have recognized the need for someone in his situation to indicate strong loyalty and deference to the authority of the state. As a Catholic, Schmitt originated from a religious tradition that emphasized hierarchical authority and obedience to institutional norms.

Additionally, the prevailing political culture of Wilhelmine Germany was one where the individualism of classical liberalism and its emphasis on natural law and “natural rights” was in retreat in favor of a more positivist conception of law as the product of the sovereign state. To be sure, German legal philosophers of the period did not necessarily accept the view that anything decreed by the state was “right” by definition. For instance, neo-Kantians argued that just law preceded rather than originated from the state with the state having the moral purpose of upholding just law. Yet German legal theory of the time clearly placed its emphasis on authority rather than liberty.

Schmitt’s most influential writings have as their principal focus the role of the state in society and his view of the state as the essential caretaker of civilization. Like Hobbes before him, Schmitt regarded order and security to be the primary political values and Schmitt has not without good reason been referred to as the Hobbes of the 20th century. His earliest writings indicate an acceptance of the neo-Kantian view regarding the moral purpose of the state. Yet these neo-Kantian influences diminished as Schmitt struggled to come to terms with the events of the Great War and the Weimar Republic that emerged at the war’s conclusion.

Schmitt himself did not actually experience combat during the First World War. He had initially volunteered for a reserve unit but an injury sustained during training rendered him unfit for battle; Schmitt spent much of the war in Munich in a non-combatant capacity. Additionally, Schmitt was granted an extended leave of absence to serve as a lecturer at the University of Strassburg.

As martial law had been imposed in Germany during the course of the war, Schmitt’s articles on legal questions during this time dealt with the implications of this for legal theory and constitutional matters. Schmitt argued that the assumption of extraordinary powers by military commanders was justified when necessary for the preservation of order and the security of the state. However, Schmitt took the carefully nuanced view that such powers are themselves limited and temporary in nature. For instance, ordinary constitutional laws may be temporarily suspended and temporary emergency decrees enacted in the face of crisis, but only until the crisis is resolved. Nor can the administrators of martial law legitimately replace the legislature or the legal system, and by no means can the constitutional order itself be suspended.

Carl Schmitt was thirty years old in November of 1918 when Kaiser Wilhelm II abdicated and a republic was established. To understand the impact of these events on Schmitt’s life and the subsequent development of his thought, it is necessary to first understand the German political culture from which Schmitt originated and the profoundly destabilizing effect that the events of 1918 had on German political life.

Contemporary Westerners, particularly those in the English-speaking countries, are accustomed to thinking of politics in terms of elections and electoral cycles, parliamentary debates over controversial issues, judicial rulings, and so forth. Such was the habit of German thinkers in the Wilhelmine era as well, but with the key difference that politics was not specifically identified with the state apparatus itself.

German intellectuals customarily identified “politics” with the activities surrounding the German Reichstag, or parliament, which was subordinated to the wider institutional structures of German statecraft. These were the monarchy, the military, and the famous civil service bureaucracy, with the latter headed up primarily by appointees from the aristocracy. This machinery of state stood over and above the popular interests represented in the Reichstag, and pre-Weimar Germans had no tradition of parliamentary supremacy of the kind on which contemporary systems of liberal democracy are ostensibly based.

The state was regarded as a unifying force that provided stability and authority while upholding the interests of the German nation and keeping in check the fragmentation generated by quarrelling internal interests. This stability was eradicated by Germany’s military defeat, the imposition of the Treaty of Versailles, and the emergence of the republic.

The Weimar Republic was unstable from the beginning. The republican revolution that had culminated in the creation of a parliamentary democracy had been led by the more moderate social democrats, which were vigorously opposed by the more radical communists from the left and the monarchists from the right.

The Bolshevik Revolution had taken place in Russia in 1917, a short-lived communist regime took power in Hungary in 1919, and a series of communist uprisings in Germany naturally made upwardly mobile middle-class persons such as Schmitt fearful for their political and economic futures as well as their physical safety. During this time Schmitt published Political Romanticism where he attacked what he labeled as “subjective occasionalism.” This was a term Schmitt coined to describe the common outlook of German intellectuals who sought to remain apolitical in the pursuit of private interests or self-fulfillment. This perspective regarded politics as merely the prerogative of the state, and not as something the individual need directly engage himself with. Schmitt had come to regard this as an inadequate and outmoded outlook given the unavoidable challenges that Germany’s political situation had provided.

Schmitt published Dictatorship in 1921. This remains a highly controversial work and subsequent critics of Schmitt who dismiss him as an apologist for totalitarianism or who attack him for having created an intellectual framework conducive to the absolute rule of the Fuhrer during the Nazi period have often cited this particular work as evidence. However, Schmitt’s conception of “dictatorship” dealt with something considerably more expansive and abstract than what is implied by the term in present day popular (or often academic) discourse.

For Schmitt, a “dictatorship” is a situation where a particular constitutional order has either been abrogated or has fallen into what Schmitt referred to as a “state of exception.” As examples of the first kind of situation, Schmitt offered both the Leninist model of revolution and the National Assembly that had constructed the constitutional framework of Weimar. In both instances, a previously existing constitutional order had been dismissed as illegitimate, yet a new constitutional order had yet to be established. A sovereign dictatorship of this type functions to

represent the will of these formless and disorganized people, and to create the external conditions which permit the realization of the popular will in the form of a new political or constitutional system. Theoretically, a sovereign dictatorship is merely a transition, lasting only until the new order has been established.

By this definition, a “sovereign dictatorship” could include political forces as diverse as the Continental Congresses of the period of the American Revolution to the anarchist militias and workers councils that emerged in Catalonia during the Spanish civil war to guerrilla armies holding power in a particular region where the previously established government has retreated or collapsed during the course of an armed insurgency. Schmitt also advanced the concept of a “commissarial dictatorship” as opposed to a “sovereign dictatorship.”

Schmitt used as an illustration of this idea Article 48 from the Weimar constitution. This article allowed the German president to rule by decree in states of emergency where threats to the immediate security of the state or public order were involved. As he had initially suggested in his wartime articles concerning the administration of martial law, Schmitt regarded such powers as limited and temporary in nature and as rescinded by the wider constitutional order once the emergency situation has passed. Contrary to the image of Schmitt as a totalitarian apologist, Schmitt warned of the inherent dangers represented by the powers granted to the president under Article 48, noting that such powers could be used to attack and destroy the constitutional order itself.

The following year, in 1922, Schmitt published Political Theology. This work advanced two core arguments. The first of these was a challenge to the legal formalism represented by German jurists of the era such as Hans Kelsen. Kelsen’s outlook was not unlike that of contemporary American critics of “judicial activism” who regard law as normative unto itself and insist legal interpretation should be restricted to pure law as derived from constitutional texts and statutory legislation, irrespective of wider or related political, sociological or moral concerns. Schmitt considered this to be a naïve outlook that failed to consider two crucial and unavoidable matters: the reality and inevitability of political and social change, and exceptional cases. It was the latter of these that Schmitt was especially concerned with. It was the question of the “state of exception” that continued to be a preoccupation of Schmitt.

Exceptional cases involved situations where emergencies threatened the state itself. For Schmitt, the maintenance of basic order preceded constitutional norms and legal formalities. There is no constitution or law if there is chaos. The important question regarding exceptional cases was the matter of who decides when an emergency situation exists. Schmitt regarded this decision-making power as the prerogative of the sovereign. Within the constitutional framework of Weimar, sovereignty was held jointly by the Reich president and the Reichstag, meaning that the president could legitimately declare a state of emergency and temporarily rule by decree if the Reichstag agreed to grant him such powers.

While Schmitt was certainly a thinker of the Right, it is a mistake to group him together with proponents of the “conservative revolution” such as Moeller van den Bruck, Oswald Spengler, Edgar Jung, or Hugo von Hofmannsthal. There is no evidence of him having expressed affinity for the views of these thinkers or joining any of the organizations that emerged to promote their ideas. Schmitt’s conservatism was squarely within the Machiavellian tradition, and he counted Machiavelli, Hobbes, Jean Bodin and conservative counterrevolutionaries such as Joseph De Maistre and Juan Donoso Cortes as his influences.

During the Weimar era, Schmitt expressed no sympathy for the mystical nationalism of the radical Right, much less the vulgar racism and anti-Semitism of the Nazi movement. He was closer to the anti-liberal thinkers that James Burnham and others subsequently labeled as “the neo-Machiavellians.” These included Vilfredo Pareto, Robert Michels, Gaetano Mosca, and Georges Sorel along with aristocratic conservatives like Max Weber. These thinkers expressed skepticism regarding the prospects of liberalism and democracy and emphasized the role of elites, the irrational, and the power of myth with regards to the political. Though Schmitt never joined a political party during the Weimar era, within the spectrum of German politics of the time he can reasonably be categorized as something of a moderate. He had admirers on both the far Right and far Left, including sympathizers with the Conservative Revolution as well as prominent intellectuals associated with the Marxist Frankfurt School, such as Walter Benjamin, Franz Neumann, and Otto Kirchheimer.

Schmitt’s own natural affinities were mostly likely closest to the Catholic Center Party, which along with the Social Democrats who had led the revolution of 1918 were the most consistently supportive of the republic and the constitutional order, and which represented the broadest cross-section of economic, class, regional, and institutional interests of any of the major parties during Weimar.

Like Hobbes before him, Schmitt was intensely focused on how order might be maintained in a society prone to chaos. Both economic turmoil and political instability continually plagued the republic. Successive political coalitions failed in their efforts to create a durable government and chancellors came and went. The Reichstag was immobilized by the intractable nature of political parties representing narrow class, ideological, or economic interests and possessing irreconcilable differences with one another. Additionally, many of the political parties that formed during the Weimar era, including those with substantial representation in the Reichstag, possessed little or no genuine commitment to the preservation of the republican order itself. Extremist parties, most notably the German Communist Party (KPD) and the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP), or the Nazis, as they came to be called, openly advocated its overthrow. Terrorism was practiced by extremists from both the right and left. Crisis after crisis appeared during the Weimar period, and the parliament was each time unable to deal with the latest emergency situation effectively. The preservation of order subsequently fell to the president. Article 48 of the constitution stated in part:

If a state does not fulfill the duties imposed by the Reich constitution or the laws of the Reich, the Reich president may enforce such duties with the aid of the armed forces. In the event that public order and security are seriously disturbed or endangered, the Reich president may take the necessary measures in order to restore public security and order, intervening, if necessary, with the aid of the armed forces. To achieve this goal, he may temporarily suspend entirely or in part, the stipulated basic rights in articles 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153. All measures undertaken in accordance with sections 1 or 2 of this article must be immediately reported to the Reichstag by the Reich president. These measures are to be suspended if the Reichstag so demands.

As an indication of the unstable nature of the Weimar republic, Article 48 was invoked more than two hundred and fifty times by successive presidents during the republic’s fifteen years of existence.

Das Stierlein - Zum Tode von Liselotte Jünger

Das Stierlein

Zum Tode von Liselotte Jünger

Von Lutz Hagestedt

Ex: http://www.literaturkritik.de/

1963 wäre Ernst Jünger beinahe das Opfer der tückischen Strömung im Meer an dem sardinischen Badeort Villasimius geworden. Als er sich, quasi in letzter Minute und völlig entkräftet an den Strand retten kann, wirft sich seine Frau, liebevoll „Stierlein“ genannt, über ihn. Ernst und Liselotte Jünger sind auf diesen Schicksalstag des öfteren zu sprechen gekommen: Seit 1962 erst waren sie miteinander verheiratet, für beide war es die zweite Ehe.

Die im Sternbild des Stieres 1917 geborene Liselotte Bäuerle, verwitwete Lohrer, genoss allgemein Respekt. Von zierlicher Gestalt, dabei lebhaft und humorvoll, ertrug sie gefasst die immer wieder aufs Neue entfachten Debatten um das politisch Anstößige ihres Mannes. Der Schriftsteller hatte die promovierte Verlagshistorikerin zwei Jahre nach dem Tod von „Perpetua“ (Gretha von Jeinsen), seiner an Krebs gestorbenen ersten Frau, geheiratet.

Der Autor und sein Stierlein kannten sich schon vor ihrer Ehe, denn nach ihrer Promotion arbeitete Liselotte Lohrer in Marbach und lektorierte Jüngers Werke für den Klett Verlag. Sie war maßgeblich an der ersten und dann auch an der zweiten Werkausgabe beteiligt und fungierte als Herausgeberin des „Schlusssteins“ der „Sämtlichen Werke“.

Die gelernte Bibliothekarin, die mit einer Geschichte des Cotta Verlages promoviert wurde, hat sich um Jüngers Werk und Person verdient gemacht: Sie führte und ordnete seine Korrespondenz, begleitete Jünger auf seinen Reisen, versorgte seine Katzen, führte ihm den Haushalt, wachte über seine Arbeitsruhe, kutschierte ihn in ihrem PKW. Seine Gäste, Staatsgäste zumal, waren auch die ihren: Resolut wachte sie über die Oberförsterei im schwäbischen Wilflingen.

Sie gab einzelne Texte heraus (zum Beispiel Jüngers Fragment „Prinzessin Tarakanow“), betreute den Vorlass und später auch den Nachlass. Großzügig förderte sie die Forschung, und auf Tagungen gab sie unermüdlich Auskunft, so sehr hatte sie sich die Perspektive ihres Mannes zu eigen gemacht. Als bei der Enthüllung von Gerold Jäggles Jünger-Denkmal am Wilflinger Weiher ein Dummer-Jungen-Streich zum Vorschein kam, war sie es, die durch ein herzliches Lachen den Bann brach.

Oft ist in den Tagebüchern von ihr die Rede, zahllose Briefe in Jüngers Namen hat sie unterzeichnet. In der Nacht vom 31. August auf den 1. September ist sie 93-jährig in Überlingen gestorben.

Liselotte Jünger gestorben

Liselotte Jünger gestorben "Die frühere Leiterin des Cotta-Archivs, Liselotte Jünger, ist 93-jährig in Überlingen gestorben. Die zweite Ehefrau des Schriftstellers Ernst Jünger (1895-1998) hatte das Verlags-Archiv in den Jahren 1952 bis 1962 geleitet, das als das bedeutendste und am besten erschlossene Verlagsarchiv des 19. Jahrhundert in Deutschland gilt. Nach der Hochzeit mit Ernst Jünger verließ Liselotte Jünger das Archiv und widmete sich als Archivarin und Lektorin dem Werk ihres Mannes. Trotzdem blieb Liselotte Jünger dem Literaturarchiv in Marbach eng verbunden." Quelle: Rheinische Post, 3.9.2010 (Print) "Liselotte Jünger (geb. Bäuerle) ist am 31. August 2010 in Überlingen gestorben. .....Die Germanistin und Historikerin Liselotte Jünger, geboren am 20. Mai 1917, schrieb ihre Promotion an der Universität Gießen über die Komödien von Sebastian Sailer, einem Prediger und schwäbischen Mundartdichter des Barock. Von 1943 bis 1952 war sie Archivarin der J. G. Cotta’schen Buchhandlung, dann in gleicher Funktion Angestellte der »Stuttgarter Zeitung«. Nachdem die von der Stuttgarter Zeitung gestiftete »Cotta'sche Handschriftensammlung« (1952) und die Archivbibliothek (1954) dem Deutschen Literaturarchiv übergeben wurden, hat sie das Cotta-Archiv im Deutschen Literaturarchiv maßgeblich aufgebaut und betreut. Außerdem verfasste Liselotte Jünger u. a. eine Verlagsgeschichte (1959), ein Bestandsverzeichnis (1963) und gab gemeinsam mit Horst Fuhrmann den Schelling-Cotta-Briefwechsel (1965) heraus. .....[I]hr Herzensanliegen war es zuletzt, das ehemalige Wohnhaus Ernst Jüngers im oberschwäbischen Wilflingen als Erinnerungsstätte für Ernst Jünger zu erhalten: Das Ernst-Jünger-Haus wird nun im Frühjahr 2011 nach Sanierung wiedereröffnet. An der Vorbereitung der großen Ernst Jünger-Retrospektive, die das Deutsche Literaturarchiv am 7. November 2010 eröffnen wird, nahm sie bis zuletzt lebhaft Anteil." Quelle: Literaturarchiv Marbach 039/2010 Wolf Thomas - am Sonntag, 5. September 2010

Heidegger: la thématisation de l'être et ses énigmes

Archives de SYNERGIES EUROPENNES - 1996

 

HEIDEGGER : La thématisation de l'être et ses énigmes

 

 

Sens de la question

 

Nous avons tous entendu un jour ou l'autre que Heidegger, le métaphysicien, avait reposé le problème de l'Etre. Très bien, mais que signifie cette phrase et dans quelle mesure nous perrnet-elle de nous orienter?

 

La culture contemporaine favorise les mystifications. La philosophie de Heidegger reste ainsi abandonnée aux associations prévisibles, à l'avidité des théologiens estampillés, aux apologies et aux dénonciations faciles. Les diatribes du jeune Carnap possèdent quelque chose d'aristocratique par comparaison avec les jugements sommaires de notre époque. L'inquisiteur Levinas, par exemple, a trouvé que les incursions étymologiques et les métaphores rupestres de Heidegger dénonceraient une pensée liée au Sol et au Sang, étrangère aux aspirations de ces tribus de nomades philanthropiques qui vaguaient, dépourvues de tout, par le désert. Expert en lamentations, Levinas déplore également que le philosophe s'inspire de la poésie de Holderlin et non pas, par exemple, des Lamentations de Job. Heidegger, par conséquent, un antisémite larvé. Admettons. Et alors?

D'autres esprits critiques proches de la Nouvelle Droite, comme par exemple Pierre Chassard dans son ~u-delà des choses (1992), nous avertissent que cet Etre heideggérien cohabite avec un universalisme suspect, que la distance de l'Etre par rapport aux choses réelles et sa parenté avec le Néant font de lui le pendant du Dieu de l'Exode, que les textes pertinents accusent l'influence de Maïmonide... Heidegger, donc, un philosémite subreptice. Admettons. Et alors?

Le caractère alternatif ou périphérique d'une culture ne nous dispense pas d'un minimum de sérieux. Il est temps que nous commencions à accéder à la pensée de Heidegger en tant que pensée philosophique, la jugeant de ce point de vue, et non selon ses affinités avec les idéologies des Systèmes dominants ou de leurs rivaux contestataires. C'est là la question générique.

Consentons à un usage ambigu de l'expression "I'Etre", puisque aussi bien il s'agira d'une ambiguïté nécessaire et provisoire. La Philosophie que nous pouvons qualifier de "classique", avec Parménide tout d'abord, puis Platon, Aristote et la Scolastique, a commis une thématisation de l'Etre qui disparait avec la Modernité: de Descartes à Fichte, nul philosophe (qu'il soit rationaliste, empiriste, criticiste ou idéaliste) ne croit que la solution des vrais problèmes philosophiques dépende de certaines précisions, intuitions ou thèses sur l'Etre... Si toutefois l'Etre réapparaît dans l'idéalisme de Hegel comme Leitmotiv de quelques philosophèmes, ce n'est qu'avec Heidegger qu'est rétablie une thématisation comparable aux précédentes, et qui leur est probablement supérieure, tant par son obstination que par son caractère problématique.

C'est dans la compréhension du sens de l'Etre que réside le destin de l'Occident et l'histoire de la Philosophie se déroule conformément à l'élucidation ou à l'occultation de l'Etre. Que peut bien signifier une telle assertion? Les difficultés interprétatives soulevées par les textes de Heidegger sont bien connues. Je vais tenter ici une reconstruction des idées qu'il paraît suggérer - reconstruction qui doit être jugée non pas pour sa fidélité à la lettre ni pour sa fidélité à un "esprit" insaisissable (nous laissons cela à la Heideggerphilologie) mais pour son degré de fécondité explicative. C'est là la question spécifique. Notre explanandum est constitué par les solutions persistantes ou par l'absence non moins persistante de solution dans le traitement classique des problèmes ontologiques. Le chercheur contemporain, s'il est honnête, éprouve une série de désarrois devant des énigmes qui lui paraissent plus suscitées que découvertes. Par exemple:

a) Comme peuvent l'attester les élèves du Kindergarten néothomiste le plus proche, c'est dans la Différence Ontologique Etre/Étant que réside la clef de la Philosophie; mais une telle différence s'articule sur un mode inintelligible et nous conduit parfois à identifier l'Etre et le Néant. Pourquoi devrions-nous accepter ce jargon?

b) La Métaphysique (par exemple dans la première douzaine de Disputationes de Suarez) établit de fastidieuses équations entre transcendantaux pour nous informer que l'étant est un, etc.; information qui ne nous paraît pas trop excitante. A quoi vise-t-elle?

c) Depuis Platon on se demande "Qu'est-ce que l'Etre?" et l'on répond par telle ou telle catégorie de prédilection (Substance, Esprit, Matière). Mais il paraît absurde et capricieux de définir le plus général par seulement l'un de ses genres.

d) Fréquemment, depuis Aristote, la Métaphysique oscille entre une Ontologie du plus universel et une Théologie du plus singulier; on ne voit pas pour quelle raison on a pu unir des disciplines aussi disparates.

e) A peine l'Ontologie, qui prétend être la science de l'être en tant qu'être, nous introduit-elle à lui qu'elle nous signale avec impatience la porte de sortie (avec un écriteau "analogia entis" pour les sorties de secours) et qu'elle nous propose de diviser et subdiviser des entités spécifiques.

f~ L'Etre, de par son degré de généralité, ne paraît pas apte à abriter des contenus spécifiqu~s de telle sorte qu'il puisse inclure dans sa compréhension "le destin d'un peuple", ou quelque chose d'une pareille importance.

 

Cette liste sélectionne quelques sujets de perplexité. Une explication doit venir mitiger l'impression d'absurdité crasse que la Métaphysique produit aujourd'hui et l'inventaire précédent offre certains critères pour juger de l'hypothèse proposée. L'explication, contrairement à ce que l'on pourrait croire à première vue, ne sera pas simplement linguistique: il s'agit de discerner des structures ontologiques différentes qui sont parfois unifiées par de vieilles habitudes verbales.

 

Homonymie Ontologique Tran~cntégorielle: un Trépied

 

L'expression "I'Etre" n'est pas utilisée normalement comme une description définie, à la manière de "I'auteur du Quichotte". Les acceptions les plus fréquentes paraissent hésiter entre trois catégories:

1. une propriété, que nous désignerons par S

2... Ia classe E des objets qui satisfont cette propriété

3. Ies éléments de E, spécialement cet élément qui possède la propriété S d'une façon nécessaire et éternelle.

 

Le langage de tous les jours adjuge des termes de propriété au moyen du verbe avoir et des termes de classe au moyen du verbe être. Nous disons que Socrate est un sage ou qu'il a de la sagesse, mais nous ne disons pas qu'il est de la sagesse ou qu'il a un sage. En revanche, ce test linguistique est défaillant avec l'Etre: on dit sans problème de cohérence qu'il est un être ou qu'il a un être, qu'il est un étant ou qu'il a une entité. Nous pouvons supposer qu'ici il y a une distinction qui s'est obscurcie.

Les propriétés, par exemple la blancheur, définissent une classe, celle du blanc. Si nous distinguons la classe de la propriété qui la définit, il paraît naturel d'interpréter dans l'usage philosophique l"Etant" comme un terme qui se réfère à la classe (2) et l"'Etre" comme la désignation de (1). La priorité de la propriété qui définit sur la classe définie rend évident de quelle manière l'Étant se fonde sur l'Etre. Quand on dit que l'Etre "fait" que l'étant soit, on ne doit pas considérer un tel "faire" comme l'exercice d'une causalité. Il ne s'agit pas non plus du problème de l'Unité versus la Multiplicité, mais de la dépendance d'une classe - qui pourrait bien être unitaire - à l'égard de la propriété qui la détermine.

S'il y a plusieurs éléments dans cette classe E, qu'on appelle les "étants", ils peuvent se trouver dans dif~érentes relations de dépendance (par exemple, causalité, inhérence, composition), mais cette dépendance horizontale n'affecte ni n'annule la dépendance verticale à l'égard de S. Par exemple, un étant suprême, cause totale de tous les autres, etc., ne pourrait de ce fait équivaloir à la propriété. Lorsque l'on dit "Deus est ipsum esse" on semble tomber dans une erreur catégorielle, qui fait d'un élément d'une classe l'équivalent de la propriété qui définit cette classe. Il pourrait arriver qu'un élément de cette classe possède la propriété de façon nécessaire, sempiternelle, éminente, infinie etc., mais il apparaît qu'il continuerait à être différent de la propriété. Une propriété est infinie en tant qu'elle peut être le prédicat d'un nombre illimité d'objets. L'erreur se produit quand on assimile l'Etre et l'Acte, de telle sorte que l'Acte est compris comme une sorte de pensée universelle; à la suite de quoi on interprète l'Acte - par opposition à la Puissance - comme une Perfection. De là surgit un Etre comme infinie perfection et actualité, qui va comme un gant àl certaines représentations de la déité (voir les trois premières des vingt-quatre Thèses Thomistes). On déambule d'une catégorie à l'autre. De toute manière, les hésitations relatives à ces catégories expliquent que l'on puisse penser à une Onto-Théologie, à laquelle on faisait allusion en (d). Cette affirmation sera confirmée plus loin.

On a l'habitude de caractériser l'Ontologie comme une discipline de l'Etre, assimilant S et E. La distinction précédente dissipe l'inquiétude (e), quant aux deux voies que peut adopter une Ontologie: ou bien tenter de discriminer des régions et des relations à l'intérieur de la classe E des étants (ce qui paraît superficiel) ou bien élucider cette propriété fondatrice, ses relations avec d'autres propriétés et avec les divers étants (ce qui paraît profond). Il y a cependant une perturbation dans la diffusion pacifique du travail. Gilson a déclaré, dans son galimatias: "on peut penser qu'etre, c'est être un etre - mais aussi qu'etre un etre, c'est simplement etre". C'est-à-dire: nous pouvons privilégier dans notre spéculation les sujets de la propriété ou la propriété elle-même. Ainsi le galimatias disparaît, et le chemin s'ouvre aux vraies difficultés.

Jusqu'à présent l'idée était très simple. Mais si S est la propriété et E la classe des étants (c'est-à-dire des individus qui possèdent cette propriété), alors l'Etre sera-t-il un étant (non pas la classe E mais un élément de E)? Considérons attentivement la question et le dilemme. Si l'Etre n'est pas un étant, alors c'est qu'il manque de la propriété qui définit les étants, ce qui signifie : I 'Etre n 'est pas. C'est pourquoi bien souvent l'être est perçu comme un Néant, soit absolu, soit qualifié ("Néantd'Étant" - mais, pourrait-il y avoir un autre Néant?). Si l'on admet l'existence d'une classe complémentaire de l'Étant, le Néant, remplie de tout ce qui manque d'Etre, alors l'Etre sera un élément du Néant. Il paraît très curieux que le Néant ne soit pas quelque chose de plus ou moins similaire à l'ensemble vide. Nous savons que Hegel s'est trouvé dans une perplexité semblable, mais celle de Heidegger mérite plus d'attention.

Prenons l'autre terme du dilemme: la possibilité que S soit un étant. Alors une classe comprendrait la propriété qui la définit parmi ses éléments. Ce n'est pas à première vue impossible. D'une part il y a des propriétés qui se distinguent de leurs sujets: la proprieté "être un nombre pair" n'est ni paire, ni un nombre - la propriété qui définit la liste 2, 4, 6, 8... n'est pas l'un des nombres qui apparaissent dans cette liste. Mais d'autre part il y a des propriétés plus exotiques. Par exemple, la propriété "être pensable" est elle-même quelque chose de pensable: la propriété détermine la totalité de ce qui est pensable et elle est elle-même membre de cette totalité. Est-ce que la relation entre l'Etre et la classe des étants est de cette nature? Et nous voyons déjà que la question de l'Onto-Théologie se présente d'une manière moins capricieuse.

Si nous admettons avec beaucoup de libéralité ce type de propriétés et de classes exotiques, nous pouvons nous embrouiller dans des problèmes. Par exemple, on peut présumer que la classe des étants E, non seulement comprendrait l'Etre comme élément, mais aussi posséderait elle-même l'être. Ainsi E serait élément d'elle-même, et la totalité d'une collection ferait partie d'elle-même.

Assurément l'astuce des logiciens permet d'endiguer ces libéralités au moyen de divers traitements: ce qui n'empêche pas la persistance d'un symptôme alarmant. L'intuition primordiale qui guidait ces réflexions imposait une hiérarchie entre individus, classes et propriétés. Les propriétés sont universelles, les individus non: par conséquent, si l'Etre était un étant, il serait un universel et un individu. Et si parmi les éléments on admet des individus et des propriétés universelles, l'ordre rêvé se désagrège.

Ici le dilemme dé~ouche sur une confusion, un balbutiement sur la différence ontologique, affection facilement explicable vue l'hypothèse que nous avons introduite sur la thématisation de l'être et la possibilité de voir en lui une propriété. Ce qui conduit Heidegger plus d'une fois à voir dans l'Etre un Néant. Et qu'il ne s'agit pas là d'une idée accidentelle de Heidegger, on peut le vérifier en étudiant le "parricide" de l'Étranger d'Élée (Platon, Sophiste 241 d) et la polémique d'Aristote contre Melissô et Parménide (spécialement le texte de Physique I c.3, 186 a: 2531). Ainsi est satisfaite la requête (a). Il ne s'agit pas toujours d'un verbiage arbitraire au sujet de la Différence Ontologique, mais aussi d'une série de difi~lcultés pressel1ties sans que l'on possède l'instrument conceptuel pour les mettre en ordre.

 

Homonymie Ontologique Catégorielle ~ ventail de propriétés

 

Tant chez Aristote que chez Heidegger on rencontre une préoccupation liée à la pluralité des propriétés visées par le terme "l'Etre" (ne pas confondre avec l'analogia entis). L'expression "l'Etre" ne désignerait pas, comme on l'a supposé, une propriété, mais un éventail de propriétes. Ce fait dénote une homonymie catégorielle (puisque l'on se restreint à la catégorie des propriétés). L'interrogation sur l'Etre peut être comprise comme l'examen desdites propriétés et des relations qu'il pourrait y avoir entre elles. Sans vouloir être exhaustifs, nous pourrions consigner une série de propriétés compatibles et (au moyen de quelques raccords) coextensives entre elles:

- l'existence dans le temps présent

chose

 

- I'existence en général

- la possibilité d'existence

- I'identité

- la prédication

- I'affirmation

- la possibilité d'être pensé la possibilité d'être estimé en termes de volonté le fait d'être en relation de fondement, de cause ou d'effet avec quelque

 

- le fait d'être déterminé par quelque propriété

- le fait de posséder, pour un couple quelconque de propriétés contradictoires, I'une d'entre elles.

Cette deuxième homonymie explique les diverses formes dans lesquelles s'est développée une bonne part de la spéculation métaphysique traditionnelle, que ce soit dans le traitement des "transcendantaux" (un, vrai, bon), ou dans les explications sur son "objet" (étant nominal, étant participial, le "Meinbare" de Meinong, etc.). Les équations fastidieuses sont un effort pour explorer les distinctes propriétés auxquelles il a été fait confusément allusion. Les catégories (prédicaments) s'imposent comme la seule manière d'étudier les diverses prédications. Une oeuvre aussi influente que méconnue, celle de Josef Maréchal Le Point de Départ de la Métaphysique, se nourrit de l'assimilation des termes prédication, affirmation et existence (interprétée comme acte infini): le fait que nous puissions énoncer des jugements assertoriques ne serait explicable, selon Maréchal, que parce que nous supposons une synthèse de la copule de la prédication avec un acte infini: ici se révèlent certains thèmes de Malebranche, Fichte et peut-être Bradley, mais ce n'est que grâce à l'homonymie catégorielle qu'ils peuvent apparaître dans ce contexte métaphysique de façon assez naturelle.

Si Heidegger insis~e sur sa démonstration que l'Etre est essentiel au Langage, c'est qu'il pense à l'Etre comme faisant référence à la propriété de déterminer la prédication; s'il établit une relation avec le Temps, c'est que l'actualité de l'existence réclame le présent. La préférence des métaphysiciens qui placent au premier plan un certain type d'étants et à l'arrière-plan la généralité, se comprend s'ils croient voir chez certains étants une exemplification plus juste des propriétés qui dans tel ou tel système sont considérées comme remarquables. De telle sorte que l'interrogation "qu'est-ce que l'être?" acquiert un autre sens, libérée de son absurdité. Et s'il existe plusieurs propriétés implicites dans l'Etre, l'objet de l'ontologie est loin d'être simple et le recours à des divisions et subdivisions s'impose. Ainsi sont satisfaits, selon moi, les critères (b), (c) et (e) de notre liste.

Mais nous arrivons ici à une thèse cruciale pour la pensée heideggérienne: I'expansion de l'Etre en éventail nous permet de passer à une compréhension dialectique de ces propriétés (ceci renvoie au passage de Platon dans le Sophiste, 254 b sqq.). Etre, comme propriété centrale s'oppose à Devenir (Werden), à Apparence (Schein), à Penser (Denken) et à Devoir-Etre (Sollen) comme à des propriétés périphériques constituant une trame de propriétés.

 

Chaque fac,on de saisir une propriété centrale conditionnerait de manière radicale la façon de saisir une propriété périphérique proche. Ces propriétés sont à leur tour centrales par rapport à d'autres propriétés, et ainsi de suite. Une propriété centrale peut se comporter ou non comme un genre (un déterminable); sa centralité ne dépend pas de cela, mais d'un système de positions, tensions et compléments étendu non seulement au sens de la propriété mais aussi aux représentations qui l'enveloppent. "Devenir" signifie une succession continue de situations, mais représentée par le cours d'un fleuve, le bourgeonnement d'un arbre, la vague qui croît sans être une chose mais le déploiement d'une force qui se manifeste dans l'euphorie de l'aube. L'Art et la Poésie, créant un lien entre représentation et sens, peuvent donner accès à ces dimensions et placer les choses sujettes à l'expérience dans une perspective métaphysique - si tant est que la Métaphysique nous engage dans cette trame de propriétés. Ceci nous foumit la raison de cette étrange affirmation sur le destin d'un peuple et sa compréhension de l'Etre, sa façon d'aborder la question de l'Etre. Cette compréhension est portée par un langage naturel, qui est nécessairement collectif, et elle s'étend à travers lui au peuple qui le parle, et qui, de par cette compréhension athématique de l'Etre, se situe dans-le-monde d'une façon ou de l'autre. Ceci satisfait le réquisit (f).

 

L"'Interrogation Fondamentale de la Métaphysique"

 

La question (d) au sujet de l'Onto-Théologie n'était pas encore suf~lsamment résolue. Ainsi donc, si l'Etre instaure un ordre de fondements et de raisons suff1santes, il paraît adéquat d'instaurer un tel ordre dans la contingence générale de l'étant, introduisant par là une entité nécessaire. Mais si Heidegger feint de répéter la question de Leibniz "pourquoi y a-t-il quelque chose plutôt que rien?" il le fait seulement pour la rejeter, bien que d'une manière très diplomatique. Et il fait bien, car une question qui ~ne peut avoir de réponse est nulle et non avenue. J'omets de faire la démonstration exacte de cette nullité, mais j'en suggérerai les grandes lignes.

Appliquant le principe de raison suffisante nous imaginons deux situations contradictoires, toutes les deux possibles prises séparément: un monde vide ou un monde non vide. Chacune des deux situations paraît logiquement contingente, peut se présenter ou non, et la question fondamentale devrait conduire à donner raison de la contingence en général. Mais si la réponse est également contingente, on aurait seulement ajourné la question: comme avec le monde soutenu par un éléphant, qui devrait être soutenu par une tortue... etc.

Mais si la réponse n'était pas logiquement contingente et impliquait, par exemple "il existe une entité nécessaire" alors cette conclusion devrait être nécessaire et sa négation impossible. Est-ce là un résultat admissible? Non. De là suivraient deux inconvénients: l'un, qu'on disposerait alors d'un argument ontologique, car rendant superflue toute preuve à partir de la contingence; dans le fameux débat radial de Russell et Copleston en 1948 ce problème reste sousjacent, dominant ce qu'on voit à la surface. L'autre inconvénient est que du nécessaire ne peut s'ensuivre le contingent: la réponse ne peut donc donner raison de la contingence. C'est pourquoi l'Onto-Théologie implose quand elle tente d'expliquer la création a parte dei, dans la mesure où elle fait de Dieu un Créateur. Cette création (ou le fait qu'il y ait un Dieu créateur plutôt qu'un Dieu qui ne l'est pas) est une question logiquement contingente, comme l'existence même du monde. Si l'on introduit ici la Liberté divine, en réalité on ne fait que hisser un drapeau blanc, et ce principe de raison suffisante qui avait rendu de si précieux services se rend pieds et poings liés Le théologien propose un armistice: "Bâillonnons le principe de raison suffisante et parlons d'autre chose, de Dieu qui est amour, ou de la dignité de la personne humaine. " Le philosophe fait observer : "Comment? Dieu s'était introduit pour rationaliser le scandale de la contingence et puis, pour la compréhension de cet être nécessaire, on réintroduit en lui la contingence, l'affiublant du nom de Liberté." Spinoza en son Ethica (Pars I, prop. 17, 29 et 32) est plus conséquent que les Onto-Théologiens: ayant admis l'argument ontologique il nie qu'il puisse y avoir au monde quelque chose de contingent... Du nécessaire ne peut découler que le nécessaire.

En résumé: une réponse sensée à ce qu'on appelle la Question Fondamentale de la Métaphysique ne peut être ni une proposition nécessaire ni une proposition contingente. Mais une question qui empêche en principe toute réponse est une pseudoquestion - le résultat vaut indépendamment de toute théorie de vérification du sens et des critères similaires. Rien ne peut donc constituer une réponse à la question, qui s'annule par ce fait même, ce qu'il fallait démontrer. La démonstration exacte exige plus de précisions.

Il est clair que le chemin indiqué par Heidegger est différent, plus conforme à son style, difficile à abréger. Disons: la question peut s'autoabolir dans le questionnement "pourquoi un Pourquoi?". Nous trouverons seulement la propriété de l'Etre comme exigence de fondements des étants, et donation de ces fondements. Remplaçons alors la question abolie par la question sur la propriété centrale, et ce faisant nous retomberons sur nos pieds.

 

~eidegger et la Kulturphilosophie

 

Si de ce qui pre!cède on peut inférer des conséquences agréables ou désagréables au judéochristianisme et à ses institutions, c'est là une question qui intéresse plus le propagandiste que le philosophe. Ce qui est certain, c'est que Heidegger (considéré comme l'archétype du métaphysicien par des épigones insignifiants) déplace le centre de gravité de l'Ontologie vers ce qu'on peut appeler Philosophie de la Culture. J'ai proposé au début d'aborder Heidegger sous un angle philosophique et de juger sa pensée dans ce sens. Je vais risquer un jugement: si nous le comparons en tant que philosophe de la culture à Nietzsche, à Spengler, à Evola, il n'occupe pas la première place, nous sommes gênés par ses détours excessifs et le manque d'évidence des faits qu'il allègue. Si nous le considérons comme un philosophe de la ligne classique et théorique, nous sommes déconcertés par le peu de sensibilité de Heidegger à l'égard des problèmes métaphysiques. Depuis la cime de sa propre position, qu'il ne se donne jamais la peine d'expliciter, il se met à historiciser, émettant des opinions sur les penseurs qui l'ont précédé. Ce qui alimente la plèbe de la Philosophie, les professeurs sans idées qui tournent comme des vautours autour des grands morts. Heidegger se prête bien à une justification de la phrase de Nietzsche sur l'Histoire qui se convertit en fossoyeuse du présent. Dans nos institutions académiques - et dans une bonne partie de celles d'Europe, avoir été un philosophe est un honneur - vouloir parvenir à l'être, un opprobre.

Mais la Philosophie, après deux millénaires de lutte avec les mythologies judéochrétiennes et leurs sécularisations, est pour la première fois une nouvelle possibilité. C'est ici qu'il y a une splendeur de Heidegger. Sa grandeur est dans ce mode du philosopher à la frontière de la Science et de la Weltanschauung, sur cette mince ligne qui peut fasciner et confondre, induire au vertige ou empêcher la pensée. Heidegger nous éveille à de nouvelles possibilités épurées de toute tradition supposée. C'est cela que nous pouvons apprendre de Heidegger, non pas son jargon ou son désordre, son hostilité à l'égard de la science ou ses mauvaises argumentations. Ce ne sont pas ses thèses qui nous importent, mais les voies qui s'ouvrent en elles. Ce n'est pas tant la thématisation de l~tre qui nous intéresse, mais un retour de ce qui survint dans l'Hellade, le penser entre Mythos et Logos.

 

Carlos Dufour. Traduit de l'espagnol (argentin) par Bruno Dietsch.

 

 

Right-Wing Anarchism

Karlheinz Weißman

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

The concept of right-wing anarchism seems paradoxical, indeed oxymoronic, starting from the assumption that all “right-wing” political viewpoints include a particularly high evaluation of the principle of order. . . . In fact right-wing anarchism occurs only in exceptional circumstances, when the hitherto veiled affinity between anarchism and conservatism may become apparent.

Ernst Jünger has characterised this peculiar connection in his book Der Weltstaat (1960): “The anarchist in his purest form is he, whose memory goes back the farthest: to pre-historical, even pre-mythical times; and who believes, that man at that time fulfilled his true purpose . . . In this sense the anarchist is the Ur-conservative, who traces the health and the disease of society back to the root.” Jünger later called this kind of “Prussian” . . . or “conservative anarchist” the “Anarch,” and referred his own “désinvolture” as agreeing therewith: an extreme aloofness, which nourishes itself and risks itself in the borderline situations, but only stands in an observational relationship to the world, as all instances of true order are dissolving and an “organic construction” is not yet, or no longer, possible.

Even though Jünger himself was immediately influenced by the reading of Max Stirner, the affinity of such a thought-complex to dandyism is particularly clear. In the dandy, the culture of decadence at the end of the 19th century brought forth a character, which on the one hand was nihilistic and ennuyé, on the other hand offered the cult of the heroic and vitalism as an alternative to progressive ideals.

The refusal of current ethical hierarchies, the readiness to be “unfit, in the deepest sense of the word, to live” (Flaubert), reveal the dandy’s common points of reference with anarchism; his studied emotional coldness, his pride, and his appreciation of fine tailoring and manners, as well as the claim to constitute “a new kind of aristocracy” (Charles Baudelaire), represent the proximity of the dandy to the political right. To this add the tendency of politically inclined dandies to declare a partiality to the Conservative Revolution or to its forerunners, as for instance Maurice Barrès in France, Gabriele d’Annunzio in Italy, Stefan George or Arthur Moeller van den Bruck in Germany. The Japanese author Yukio Mishima belongs to the later followers of this tendency.

Besides this tradition of right-wing anarchism, there has existed another, older and largely independent tendency, connected with specifically French circumstances. Here, at the end of the 18th century, in the later stages of the ancien régime, formed an anarchisme de droite, whose protagonists claimed for themselves a position “beyond good and evil,” a will to live “like the gods,” and who recognized no moral values beyond personal honor and courage. The world-view of these libertines was intimately connected with an aggressive atheism and a pessimistic philosophy of history. Men like Brantôme, Montluc, Béroalde de Verville, and Vauquelin de La Fresnaye held absolutism to be a commodity that regrettably opposed the principles of the old feudal system, and that only served the people’s desire for welfare. Attitudes, which in the 19th century were again to be found with Arthur de Gobineau and Léon Bloy, and also in the 20th century with Georges Bernanos, Henry de Montherlant, and Louis-Ferdinand Céline. This position also appeared in a specifically “traditionalist” version with Julius Evola, whose thinking revolved around the “absolute individual.”

In whichever form right-wing anarchism appears, it is always driven by a feeling of decadence, by a distaste for the age of masses and for intellectual conformism. The relation to the political is not uniform; however, not rarely does the aloofness revolve into activism. Any further unity is negated already by the highly desired individualism of right-wing anarchists. Nota bene, the term is sometimes adopted by men–for instance George Orwell (Tory anarchist) or Philippe Ariès–who do not exhibit relevant signs of a right-wing anarchist ideology; while others, who objectively exhibit these criteria–for instance Nicolás Gómez Dávila or Günter Maschke–do not make use of the concept.

Bibliography

Gruenter, Rainer. “Formen des Dandysmus: Eine problemgeschichtliche Studie über Ernst Jünger.” Euphorion 46 (1952) 3, pp. 170-201.
Kaltenbrunner, Gerd-Klaus, ed. Antichristliche Konservative: Religionskritik von rechts. Freiburg: Herder, 1982.
Kunnas, Tarmo. “Literatur und Faschismus.” Criticón 3 (1972) 14, pp. 269-74.
Mann, Otto. “Dandysmus als konservative Lebensform.” In Gerd-Klaus Kaltenbrunner, ed., Konservatismus international, Stuttgart, 1973, pp. 156-70.
Mohler, Armin. “Autorenporträt in memoriam: Henry de Montherlant und Lucien Rebatet.” Criticón 3 (1972) 14, pp. 240-42.
Richard, François. L’anarchisme de droite dans la littérature contemporaine. Paris: PUF, 1988.
______. Les anarchistes de droite. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1997.
Schwarz, Hans Peter. Der konservative Anarchist: Politik und Zeitkritik Ernst Jüngers. Freiburg im Breisgan, 1962.
Sydow, Eckart von. Die Kultur der Dekadenz. Dresden, 1921.

Karlheinz Weißman, “Anarchismus von rechts,” Lexikon des Konservatismus, ed. Caspar von Schrenck-Notzing (Graz and Stuttgart: Leopold Stocker Verlag, 1996). Translator anonymous. From Attack the System, June 6, 2010, http://attackthesystem.com/2010/06/right-wing-anarchism/

Spengler: Criticism & Tribute

Revilo Oliver

 

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

Editor’s Note:

Oswald Spengler’s Man and Technics and Revilo Oliver’s America’s Decline: The Education of a Conservative and The Origins of Christianity are available for purchase on this website.

Conceived before the First World War is Oswald Spengler’s magisterial work, Der Untergang des Abendlandes (Munich, 1918). Read in this country chiefly in the brilliantly faithful translation by Charles Francis Atkinson, The Decline of the West (New York, two volumes, 1926-28), Spengler’s morphology of history was the great intellectual achievement of our century. Whatever our opinion of his methods or conclusions, we cannot deny that he was the Copernicus of historionomy. All subsequent writings on the philosophy of history may fairly be described as criticism of the Decline of the West.

Spengler, having formulated a universal history, undertook an analysis of the forces operating in the immediately contemporary world. This he set forth in a masterly work, Die Jahre der Entscheidung, of which only the first volume could be published in Germany (Munich, 1933) and translated into English (The Hour of Decision, New York, 1934). One had only to read this brilliant work, with its lucid analysis of forces that even acute observers did not perceive until 25 or 30 years later, and with its prevision that subsequent events have now shown to have been absolutely correct, to recognize that its author was one of the great political and philosophical minds of the West. One should remember, however, that the amazing accuracy of his analysis of the contemporary situation does not necessarily prove the validity of his historical morphology.

The publication of Spengler’s first volume in 1918 released a spate of controversy that continues to the present day. Manfred Schroeter in Der Streit um Spengler (Munich, 1922) was able to give a précis of the critiques that had appeared in a little more than three years; today, a mere bibliography, if reasonably complete, would take years to compile and would probably run to eight hundred or a thousand printed pages.

Spengler naturally stirred up swarms of nit-wits, who were particularly incensed by his immoral and preposterous suggestion that there could be another war in Europe, when everybody knew that there just couldn’t be anything but World Peace after 1918, ’cause Santa had just brought a nice, new, shiny “League of Nations.” Such “liberal” chatterboxes are always making a noise, but no one with the slightest knowledge of human history pays any attention to them, except as symptoms.

Unfortunately, much more intelligent criticism of Spengler was motivated by emotional dissatisfaction with his conclusions. In an article in Antiquity for 1927, the learned R. G. Collingwood of Oxford went so far as to claim that Spengler’s two volumes had not given him “a single genuinely new idea,” and that he had “long ago carried out for himself” — and, of course, rejected — even Spengler’s detailed analyses of individual cultures. As a cursory glance at Spengler’s work will suffice to show, that assertion is less plausible than a claim to know everything contained in the Twelfth Edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Collingwood, the author of the Speculum Mentis and other philosophical works, must have been bedeviled with emotional resentments so strong that he could not see how conceited, arrogant, and improbable his vaunt would seem to most readers.

It is now a truism that Spengler’s “pessimism” and “fatalism” was an unbearable shock to minds nurtured in the nineteenth-century illusion that everything would get better and better forever and ever. Spengler’s cyclic interpretation of history stated that a civilization was an organism having a definite and fixed life-span and moving from infancy to senescence and death by an internal necessity comparable to the biological necessity that decrees the development of the human organism from infantile imbecility to senile decrepitude. Napoleon, for example, was the counterpart of Alexander in the ancient world.

We were now, therefore, in a phase of civilizational life in which constitutional forms are supplanted by the prestige of individuals. By 2000, we shall be “contemporary” with the Rome of Sulla, the Egypt of the Eighteenth Dynasty, and China at the time when the “Contending States” were welded into an empire. That means that we face an age of world wars and what is worse, civil wars and proscriptions, and that around 2060 the West (if not destroyed by its alien enemies) will be united under the personal rule of a Caesar or Augustus. That is not a pleasant prospect.

Oswald Spengler, 1880 - 1936

The only question before us, however, is whether Spengler is correct in his analysis. Rational men will regard as irrelevant the fact that his conclusions are not charming. If a physician informs you that you have symptoms of arteriosclerosis, he may or may not be right in his diagnosis, but it is absolutely certain that you cannot rejuvenate yourself by slapping his face.

Every detached observer of our times, I think, will agree that Spengler’s “pessimism” aroused emotions that precluded rational consideration. I am inclined to believe that the moral level of his thinking was a greater obstacle. His “fatalism” was not the comforting kind that permits men to throw up their hands and eschew responsibilities. Consider, for example, the concluding lines of his Man and Technics (New York, 1932):

Already the danger is so great, for every individual, every class, every people, that to cherish any illusion whatever is deplorable. Time does not suffer itself to be halted; there is no question of prudent retreat or wise renunciation. Only dreamers believe that there is a way out. Optimism is cowardice.

We are born into this time and must bravely follow the path to the destined end. There is no other way. Our duty is to hold on to the lost position, without hope, without rescue, like that Roman soldier whose bones were found in front of a door in Pompeii, who, during the eruption of Vesuvius, died at his post because they forgot to relieve him. That is greatness. That is what it means to be a thoroughbred. The honorable end is the one thing that can not be taken from a man.

Now, whether or not the stern prognostication that lies back of that conclusion is correct, no man fit to live in the present can read those lines without feeling his heart lifted by the great ethos of a noble culture — the spiritual strength of the West that can know tragedy and be unafraid. And simultaneously, that pronouncement will affright to hysteria the epicene homunculi among us, the puling cowards who hope only to scuttle about safely in the darkness and to batten on the decay of a culture infinitely beyond their comprehension.

That contrast is in itself a very significant datum for an estimate of the present condition of our civilization …

Three Points of Criticism

Criticism of Spengler, therefore, if it is not to seem mere quibbling about details, must deal with major premises. Now, so far as I can see, Spengler’s thesis can be challenged at three really fundamental points, namely: (1) Spengler regards each civilization as a closed and isolated entity animated by a dominant idea, or Weltanschauung, that is its “soul.” Why should ideas, or concepts, the impalpable creations of the human mind, undergo an organic evolution as though they were living protoplasm, which, as a material substance, is understandably subject to chemical change and hence biological laws? This logical objection is not conclusive: Men may observe the tides, for example, and even predict them, without being able to explain what causes them. But when we must deduce historical laws from the four of five civilizations of which we have some fairly accurate knowledge, we do not have enough repetitions of a phenomenon to calculate its periodicity with assurance, if we do not know why it happens.

(2) A far graver difficulty arises from the historical fact that we have already mentioned. For five centuries, at least, the men of the West regarded modern civilization as a revival or prolongation of Graeco-Roman antiquity. Spengler, as the very basis of his hypothesis, regards the Classical world as a civilization distinct from, and alien to, our own — a civilization that, like the Egyptian, lived, died, and is now gone. It was dominated by an entirely different Weltanschauung, and consequently the educated men of Europe and America, who for five centuries believed in continuity, were merely suffering from an illusion or hallucination.

Even if we grant that, however, we are still confronted by a unique historical phenomenon. The Egyptian, Babylonian, Chinese, Hindu, and Arabian (“Magian”), civilizations are all regarded by Spengler (and other proponents of an organic structure of culture) as single and unrelated organisms: Each came into being without deriving its concepts from another civilization (or, alternatively, seeing its own concepts in the records of an earlier civilization), and each died leaving no offspring (or, alternatively, no subsequent civilization thought to see in them its own concepts). There is simply no parallel or precedent for the relationship (real or imaginary) which links Graeco-Roman culture to our own.

Since Spengler wrote, a great historical discovery has further complicated the question. We now know that the Mycenaean peoples were Greeks, and it is virtually certain that the essentials of their culture survived the disintegration caused by the Dorian invasion, and were the basis of later Greek culture. (For a good summary, see Leonard R. Palmer, Mycenaeans and Minoans, London, 1961). We therefore have a sequence that is, so far as we know, unique:

Mycenaean>Dark Ages>Graeco-Roman>Dark Ages>Modern.

If this is one civilization, it has had a creative life-span far longer than that of any other that has thus far appeared in the world. If it is more than one, the interrelations form an exception to Spengler’s general law, and suggest the possibility that a civilization, if it dies by some kind of quasi-biological process, may in some cases have a quasi-biological power of reproduction.

The exception becomes even more remarkable if we, unlike Spengler, regard as fundamentally important the concept of self-government, which may have been present even in Mycenaean times (see L. R. Palmer, Mycenaeans and Minoans, cited above, p. 97). Democracies and constitutional republics are found only in the Graeco-Roman world and our own; such institutions seem to have been incomprehensible to other cultures.

(3) For all practical purposes, Spengler ignores hereditary and racial differences. He even uses the word “race” to represent a qualitative difference between members of what we should call the same race, and he denies that that difference is to any significant extent caused by heredity. He regards biological races as plastic and mutable, even in their physical characteristics, under the influence of geographical factors (including the soil, which is said to affect the physical organism through food) and of what Spengler terms “a mysterious cosmic force” that has nothing to do with biology. The only real unity is cultural, that is, the fundamental ideas and beliefs shared by the peoples who form a civilization. Thus Spengler, who makes those ideas subject to quasi-biological growth and decay, oddly rejects as insignificant the findings of biological science concerning living organisms.

It is true, of course, that man is in part a spiritual being. Of that, persons who have a religious faith need no assurance. Others, unless they are determined blindly to deny the evidence before us, must admit the existence of phenomena of the kind described by Franz E. Winkler, M.D., in Man: The Bridge Between Two Worlds (New York, Harper, 1960), and, of course, by many other writers. And every historian knows that no one of the higher cultures could conceivably have come into being, if human beings are merely animals.

But it is also true that the science of genetics, founded by Father Mendel only a century ago and almost totally neglected down to the early years of the Twentieth Century, has ascertained biological laws that can be denied only by denying the reality of the physical world. Every educated person knows that the color of a man’s eyes, the shape of the lobes of his ears, and every one of his other physiological characteristics is determined by hereditary factors. It is virtually certain that intellectual capacity is likewise produced by inheritance, and there is a fair amount of evidence that indicated that even moral capacities are likewise innate.

Man’s power of intervention in the development of inherited qualities appears to be entirely negative, thus affording another melancholy proof that human ingenuity can easily destroy what it can never create. Any fool with a knife can in three minutes make the most beautiful woman forever hideous, and one of our “mental health experts,” even without using a knife, can as quickly and permanently destroy the finest intellect. And it appears that less drastic interventions, through education and other control of environment, may temporarily or even permanently pervert and deform, but are powerless to create capacities that an individual did not inherit from near or more remote ancestors.

The facts are beyond question, although the Secret Police in Soviet Russia and “liberal” spitting-squads in the United States have largely succeeded in keeping these facts from the general public in the areas they control. But no amount of terrorism can alter the laws of nature. For a readable exposition of genetics, see Garrett Hardin’s Nature and Man’s Fate (New York, Rinehart, 1959), which is subject only to the reservation that the laws of genetics, like the laws of chemistry, are verified by observation every day, whereas the doctrine of biological evolution is necessarily an hypothesis that cannot be verified by experiment.

The Race Factor

It is also beyond question that the races of mankind differ greatly in physical appearance, in susceptibility to specific diseases, and in average intellectual capacity. There are indications that they differ also in nervous organization, and possibly, in moral instincts. It would be a miracle if that were not so, for, as is well known, the three primary races were distinct and separate at the time that intelligent men first appeared on this planet, and have so remained ever since. The differences are so pronounced and stable that the proponents of biological evolution are finding it more and more necessary to postulate that the differences go back to species that preceded the appearance of the homo sapiens. (See the new and revised edition of Dr. Carleton S. Coon’s The Story of Man, New York, Knopf, 1962.)

That such differences exist is doubtless deplorable. It is certainly deplorable that all men must die, and there are persons who think it deplorable that there are differences, both anatomical and spiritual, between men and women. However, no amount of concerted lying by “liberals,” and no amount of decreeing by the Warren [Supreme Court] Gang, will in the least change the laws of nature.

Now there is a great deal that we do not know about genetics, both individual and racial, and these uncertainties permit widely differing estimates of the relative importance of biologically determined factors and cultural concepts in the development of a civilization. Our only point here is that it is highly improbable that biological factors have no influence at all on the origin and course of civilizations. And to the extent that they do have an influence, Spengler’s theory is defective and probably misleading.

Profound Insights

One could add a few minor points to the three objections stated above, but these will suffice to show that the Spenglerian historionomy cannot be accepted as a certainty. It is, however, a great philosophical formulation that poses questions of the utmost importance and deepens our perception of historical causality. No student of history needed Spengler to tell him that a decline of religious faith necessarily weakens the moral bonds that make civilized society possible. But Spengler’s showing that such a decline seems to have occurred at a definite point in the development of a number of fundamentally different civilizations with, of course, radically different religions provides us with data that we must take into account when we try to ascertain the true causes of the decline. And his further observation that the decline was eventually followed by a sweeping revival of religious belief is equally significant.

However wrong he may have been about some things, Spengler has given us profound insights into the nature of our own culture. But for him, we might have gone on believing that our great technology was merely a matter of economics — of trying to make more things more cheaply. But he has shown us, I think, that our technology has a deeper significance — that for us, the men of Western civilization, it answers a certain spiritual need inherent in us, and that we derive from its triumphs as satisfaction analogous to that which is derived from great music or great art.

And Spengler, above all, has forced us to inquire into the nature of civilization and to ask ourselves by what means — if any — we can repair and preserve the long and narrow dikes that alone protect us from the vast and turbulent ocean of eternal barbarism. For that, we must always honor him.

Journal of Historical Review, vol. 17, no. 2 (March-April 1998), 10-13.

 

Heidegger “The Nazi”

Michael O'Meara

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

Emmanuel Faye
Heidegger: The Introduction of Nazism into Philosophy in Light of the Unpublished Seminars of 1933-1935
Trans. Michael B. Smith, foreword Tom Rockmore
New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009

National Socialism was defeated on the field of battle, but it wasn’t defeated in the realm of thought.

Indeed, it’s undefeatable there because the only thing its enemies can do to counter its insidious ideas is to ban those thinkers, like Martin Heidegger, whose works might attract those wanting to know why National Socialism is undefeatable and why its world view continues to seduce the incredulous.

Or, at least, so thinks Emmanuel Faye in his recently translated Heidegger, l’introduction du nazisme dans la philosophie (Paris: Albin Michel, 2005).

Why, though, all this alarmed concern about a difficult, some say unreadable, philosopher of the last century?

The reason, Tom Rockmore says, is that he lent “philosophical cover to some of the darkest impulses that later led to Nazism, World War II, and the Holocaust.”

One.
The Scandal

Faye’s book is part of a larger publishing phenomenon — in all the major European languages — related to the alleged National Socialism of the great Freiburg philosopher.

Like many prominent German academics of his age, Heidegger joined Hitler’s NSDAP shortly after the National Revolution of 1933.

He was subsequently made rector of the University of Freiburg, partly on the basis of his party affiliation, and in a famous rectorial address — “The Self-Assertion of the German University” — proposed certain reforms that sought to free German universities from “Jewish and modernist influences,” reorienting it in this way to the needs and destiny of the newly liberated Volksgemeinschaft.

 

Heidegger’s role as a public advocate of National Socialist principles did not, however, last very long.  Within a year of his appointment, he resigned the rectorship.

As he told the de-Nazification tribunal in 1945, his resignation was due to his frustration in preventing state interference in university affairs, a frustration that soon turned him away from all political engagements.

The story he told to the liberal inquisitors (which most Heideggerians accepted up to about 1988) was one in which a politically naive academic, swept up in the revolution’s excitement, had impulsively joined the party, only to become quickly disillusioned.

The story’s “dissimulations and falsehoods” were, indeed, good enough to spare him detention in a Yankee prison — unlike, say, Carl Schmitt who was incarcerated for two years after the war (though the only “Americans” Schmitt ever encountered there were German Jews in the conquerors’ uniform) — but not good enough to avoid a five-year ban on teaching.

In any case, it has always been known that Heidegger had at least a brief “flirtation” with “Nazism.”

Given the so-called “negligibility” of his National Socialism, he was able, after his ban, to resume his position as Germany’s leading philosopher.  By the time of his death (1976), he had become the most influential philosopher in the Western world.  His books have since been translated into all the European languages (and some non-European ones), his ideas have come to dominate contemporary continental thought, and they have even established a beachhead in the stultifying world of the Anglo-American academy, renowned for its indifference to philosophical issues.

Despite Heidegger’s enormous influence as “the century’s greatest philosopher,” he never quite shed the stigma of his early brush with National Socialism.  This was especially the case after 1987 and 1988.

For in late 1987 a little known Chilean-Jewish scholar, Victor Farìas, produced the first book-length examination of Heidegger’s “brush” with National Socialist politics.

His Heidegger and Nazism was not a particularly well-researched work, and there was a good deal of speculation and error in it.

It nevertheless blew apart the story Heidegger had told his American inquisitors in 1945, revealing that he had been a party member between 1933 and 1945; that his National Socialism was something more than the flirtation of a politically naive philosopher; and that his affiliation with the Third Reich was anything but “fleeting, casual, or accidental but [rather] central to his philosophical enterprise.”

This “revelation” — that the greatest philosophical mind of the 20th century had been a devoted Hitlerite — provoked a worldwide scandal.

In the year following Farìas’ work, at least seven books appeared on the subject.

The most impressive of these was by Hugo Ott, a German historian, whose Martin Heidegger: A Political Life (1994) lent a good deal of historically-documented substance to Farìas’ charges.

In the decades since the appearance of Farìas’ and Ott’s work, a “slew” of books and articles (no one is counting any more) have continued to probe the dark recesses of Heidegger’s scandalous politics.

Almost every work in the vast literature devoted to Heideggerian philosophy must now, in testament to the impact of these studies, begin with some sort of “reckoning” with his “Nazism” — a reckoning that usually ends up erecting a wall between his philosophy and his politics.

In this context, Emmanuel Faye’s book is presently being touted as the “best researched and most damaging” work on Heidegger’s National Socialism — one that aims to tear down the wall compartmentalizing his politics and to brand him, once and for all, as an apologist for “the greatest crime of the 20th century.”

It’s fitting that Faye, an assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Paris-Nanterre, is French, for nowhere else have Heidegger’s ideas been as influential as in France.

Heidegger began appearing in French translation as early as the late 1930s.  The publication in 1943 of Jean-Paul Sartre’s Being and Nothingness, based on a misreading of Heidegger, gave birth to “existentialism,” which dominated Western thought in the late 1940s and 1950s, helping thus to popularize certain Heideggerian ideas.

At the same time, French thinkers were the first to pursue the issue of Heidegger’s alleged National Socialism.

Karl Löwith, one of the philosopher’s former Jewish students exiled in France, argued in 1946 that Heidegger’s politics was inseparable from his philosophical thought. Others soon joined him in making similar arguments.

Though Löwith’s critique of Heidegger appeared in Les Temps Modernes, Sartre’s famous journal, the ensuing, often quite heated, French controversy was mainly restricted to scholarly journals.  Faye’s father, Jean-Pierre Faye, also a philosopher, figured prominently in these debates during the 1960s.

It was, though, only with Farìas and Ott that the debate over Heidegger’s relationship to the Third Reich spread beyond the academic journals and touched the larger intellectual public.

This debate continues to this day.

Part of the difficulty in determining the exact degree and nature of Heidegger’s political commitment after 1933 is due to the fact that Heidegger’s thought bears on virtually every realm of contemporary European intellectual endeavor, on the right as well as the left, and that there’s been, as a consequence, a thoughtful unwillingness to see Heidegger’s National Socialism as anything other than contingent — and thus without philosophical implication.

This unwillingness has been compounded by the fact that the Heidegger archives at Marbach are under the control of Heidegger’s son, Hermann, who controls scholarly access to them, hindering, supposedly, an authoritative account of Heidegger’s thinking in the period 1933-1945.

Moreover, only eighty of the planned 120 volumes of Heidegger’s Gesamtausgabe have thus far appeared and, as Faye contends, these are not “complete,” for the family has allegedly prevented the more “compromising” works from being published.

The authority of Faye’s Heidegger — which endeavors to eliminate everything separating his politics from his philosophy — rests on two previously unavailable seminars reports from the key 1933-34 period, as well as certain documents, letters, and other evidence, which have appeared in little known or obscure German publications — evidence he sees as “proving” that Heidegger’s “Nazism” was anything but contingent — and that this “Nazism” was, in fact, not only inseparable from his thought, but formative of its core.

On this basis, along with Heidegger’s collaboration with certain NSDAP thinkers, Faye claims that the philosophy of the famous Swabian is so infused with National Socialist principles that it ought no longer to be treated as philosophy at all, but, instead, banned as “Nazi propaganda.”

Two.
Faye’s Argument

Heidegger’s seminars of 1933 and 1934, in Emmanuel Faye’s view, expose the “fiction” that separates Heidegger’s philosophy from his politics. For these seminars reveal a brown-shirted fanatic who threw himself into the National Revolution, hoping to become Hitler’s philosophical mentor.

At the same time, Faye argues that Heidegger’s work in the 1920s, particularly his magnum opus, Being and Time (1927), was already infected with pre-fascist ideas, just as his postwar work, however much it may have resorted to a slightly different terminology, would continue to propagate National Socialist principles.

Earlier, however, when the young Heidegger was establishing himself in the world of German academic philosophy (the 1920s), there is very little public evidence of racial or anti-Jewish bias in his work. To explain this, Faye quotes Heidegger to the effect that “he wasn’t going to say what he thought until after he became a full professor.” His reticence on these matters was especially necessary given that his “mentor,” Edmund Husserl, was Jewish and that he needed Husserl’s support to replace him at Freiburg.

(For those militant Judeophobes who might think this is somehow compromising, let me point out that Wilhelm Stapel [1882-1954], after also doing a doctorate in Husserlian phenomenology, was a Protestant, nationalist, and anti-Semitic associate of the Conservative Revolution who played an important early role in NSDAP politics.)

Faye nevertheless claims that Heidegger’s early ideas, especially those of Being and Time, were already disposed to themes and principles that were National Socialist in nature.

In Being and Time, for example, Heidegger rejects the Cartesian cogito, Kant’s transcendental analytic, Husserlian phenomenology — along with every other bloodless rationalism dominating Western thought since the 18th century — for the sake of an analysis based on “existentials” (i.e., on man’s being in the world).

Like other intellectual members of Hitler’s party, Heidegger disparaged all forms of universalist thought, dismissing not only notions of man as an individual, but notions of the human spirit as pure intellect and reason.

In repudiating universalist, humanist, and individualist thought associated with liberal modernity, Faye’s Heidegger is seen not as contesting the underlying principles of liberal modernity, which he, as a former Catholic traditionalist, thought responsible for the alienation, rootlessness, and meaninglessness of the contemporary world. Rather he is depicted as preparing the way for the “Nazi” notion of an organic national community (Volksgemeinschaft) based on racial and anti-Jewish criteria.

Revealingly, this is about as far as Faye goes in treating Heidegger’s early thought. In fact, there is very little philosophical analysis at all of Being and Time or any other work in his book. Every damning criticism he makes of Heidegger is based on Heidegger’s so-called affinity with National Socialist themes or ideas — or what a liberal defending a Communist would call guilt by association.

Worse, Faye lacks any historical understanding of National Socialism, failing to see it as part of a larger anti-liberal movement that had emerged before Hitler was even born and which influenced Heidegger long before he had heard of the Führer.

For our crusading anti-fascist professor, however, the anti-liberal, anti-individualist, and anti-modern contours of Heideggerian thought are simply Hitlerian — because of their later association with Hitler’s movement — unrelated to whatever earlier influences that may have affected the development of his thought. Q.E.D.

Faye, though, fails to make the case that Heidegger’s pre-1933 thought was “Nazi,” both because he’s indifferent to Heidegger’s philosophical argument in Being and Time, which he dismisses in a series of rhetorical strokes, and, secondarily, because he doesn’t understand the historical/cultural context in which Heidegger worked out his thought.

More generally, he claims Heidegger negated “the human truths that are the underlying principle of philosophy” simply because whatever doesn’t accord with Faye’s own liberal understanding of philosophy (which, incidentally, rationalizes the radical destructurations that have come with the “Disneyfication, MacDonaldization, and globalization” of our coffee-colored world) is treated as inherently suspect.

Only on the basis of the 1933-34 and ‘34-35 seminars does Faye have a case to make.

For the Winter term of 1933-34 Heidegger led a seminar “On the Essence and Concepts of Nature, History, and State.” If Faye’s account of the unpublished seminar report is accurate (and it’s hard to say given the endless exaggerations and distortions that run through his book), Heidegger outdid himself in presenting National Socialist doctrines as the philosophical basis for the new relationship that was to develop between the German people and their new state.

Like other National Socialists, Heidegger in this seminar views the “people” in völkisch terms presuming their “unity of blood and stock.”

Faye is particularly scandalized by the fact that Heidegger values the “people” (Volk) more than the “individual” and that the people, as an organic community of blood and spirit, excludes Jews and exalts its own particularity.

In this seminar, Heidegger goes even further, calling for a “Germanic state for the German nation,” extending his racial notion of the people to the political system, as he envisages the “will of the people” as finding embodiment in the will of the state’s leader (Führer).

Faye contends that people and state exist for Heidegger in the same relation as beings exist in relation to Being.

As such, Heidegger links ontology to politics, as the “question of all questions” (the “question of being”) is identified with the question of Germany’s political destiny.

Heidegger’s rejection of the humanist notion of the individual and of Enlightenment universalism in his treatment of Volk and Staat are, Faye thinks, synonymous with Hitlerism.

Though Faye’s argument here is more credible, it might also be pointed out that Heidegger’s privileging of the national community over the interests and freedoms of the individual has a long genealogy in German thought (unlike Anglo-American thought, which privileges the rational individual seeking to maximize his self-interest in the market).

The second seminar, in the Winter term of 1934-35, “On the State: Hegel,” again supports Faye’s case that Heidegger was essentially a “Nazi” propagandist and not a true philosopher. For in this seminar, he affirms the spirit of the new National Socialist state in Hegelian terms, spreading the “racist and human-life destroying conceptions that make up the foundations of Hitlerism.”

In both courses, Faye sees Heidegger associating and merging philosophy with National Socialism.

For this reason, his work ought not to be considered a philosophy at all, but rather a noxious political ideology.

Faye, in fact, cannot understand how Heidegger’s insidious project has managed to “procure a planetary public” or why he is so widely accepted as a great philosopher.

Apparently, Heidegger had the power to seduce the public — though on the basis of Faye’s account, it’s difficult to see how the political hack he describes could have pulled this off.

In any case, Faye warns that if Heidegger isn’t exposed for the political charlatan he is, terrible things are again possible. “Hitlerism and Nazism will continue to germinate through Heidegger’s writings at the risk of spawning new attempts at the complete destruction of thought and the extermination of humankind.”

Three.
Race and State

 

Martin Heidegger, 1889 - 1976

From the above, the reader might conclude that Faye’s Heidegger is a wreck of a book.  And, in large part, it is, as I will discuss in the conclusion.

However, even the most disastrous wrecks (and this one bears the impressive moniker of Yale University Press) usually leave something to be salvaged.  There are, as such, discussions on the subjects of “race” and “the state,” which I thought might interest TOQ readers.

A) Race

National Socialism, especially its Hitlerian distillation, was a racial nationalism.

Yet Heidegger, as even his enemies acknowledge, was contemptuous of what at the time was called “biologism.”

Biologism is the doctrine, still prevalent in white nationalist ranks, that understands human races in purely zoological and materialist terms, as if men were no different from the lower life forms — slabs of meat whose existence is a product of genetics alone.

Quite naturally, Heidegger’s anti-biologism was a problem for Faye, for how was it possible to claim that Heidegger was a “Nazi racist,” if he rejected this seemingly defining aspect of racial thought?

In an earlier piece (”Freedom’s Racial Imperative: A Heideggerian Argument for the Self-Assertion of Peoples of European Descent,” TOQ, vol. 6, no. 3), I reconstructed the racial dimension of Heidegger’s thought solely on the basis of his philosophy.

But Faye, who obviously doesn’t put the same credence in Heidegger’s thought, is forced, as an alternative, to historically investigate the different currents of NSDAP racial doctrine.

In his account (which should be taken as suggestive rather than authoritative), the party, in the year after the revolution, divided into two camps vis-à-vis racial matters: the camp of the Nordicists and that of the Germanists.

The Nordicists were led by Hans K. Günther, a former philologist, and had a “biologist” notion of race, based on evolutionary biology, which sought, through eugenics, to enhance the “Nordic blood” in the German population.

By contrast, the Germanists, led by the biologist Fritz Merkenschlager and supported especially by the less Nordic South Germans, held that blood implied spirit and that spirit played the greater role in determining a people’s character.  (This ought not to be confused with Klages’ “psychologism.”)

The Germanists, as such, pointed out that Scandinavians were far more Nordic than Germans, yet their greater racial “purity” did not make them a greater people than the Germans, as Günther’s criteria would lead one to believe.

Rather, it was the Germans’ extraordinary Prussian spirit (this wonder of nature and Being) that made them a great nation.

This is not to say that the Germanists rejected the corporal or biological basis of their Volk — only that they believed their people’s blood could not be separated from their spirit without misunderstanding what makes them a people.

For the Germanists, then, race was not exclusively a matter of biological considerations alone, as Günther held, but rather a matter of blood and spirit.

(As an aside, I might mention that Julius Evola, whose idea of race represents, in my view, the highest point in the development of 20th-century racial thought, was much influenced by this debate, especially by Ludwig Ferdinand Clauss, whose raciology was a key component of the Germanist conception, emphasizing as it does the fact that one’s idea of race is ultimately determined by one’s conception of human being.)

Faye claims that, in a speech delivered in August 1933, Hitler emphasized the spiritual determinants of race, in language similar to Heidegger’s, and that he thus came down on the side of the Germanists.

The key point here is that, for Faye, the “völkisch racism” of the Germanists was no less “racist” than that of the biological racialists — implying that Heidegger’s Germanism was also as “racist.”

The Germanist conception, I might add, was especially well-suited to a “blubo” (a Blut-und-Boden nationalist) like Heidegger. Seeing man as Dasein (a being-there), situated not only in a specific life world (Umwelt), but in exchange with beings (Mitdasein) specific to his kind, his existence has meaning only in terms of the particularities native to his milieu, (which is why Heidegger rejected universalism and the individualist conception of man as a free-floating consciousness motivated strictly by reason or self-interest).

Darwinian conceptions of race for Heidegger, as they were for other  Germanists in the NSDAP, represented another form of liberalism, based on individualistic and universalist notions of man that reduced him to a disembedded object — refusing to recognize those matters, which, even more than strictly biological differences, make one people unlike another.

Without this recognition, Germanists held that “the Prussian aristocracy was no different from apples on a tree.”

B) The State

As a National Socialist, Faye’s Heidegger was above all concerned with lending legitimacy to the new Führer state.

To this end, Heidegger turned to Carl Schmitt, another of those “Nazi” intellectuals, who, for reasons that are beyond Faye’s ken, is seen by many as a great political thinker.

In his seminar on Hegel, Heidegger, accordingly, begins with the 1933 third edition of Schmitt’s Concept of the Political (1927).

 

There Schmitt defines the concept of the state in terms of the political — and the political as those actions and motives that determine who the state’s “friends” and who its “enemies” are.

But though Heidegger begins with Schmitt, he nevertheless tries to go beyond his concept of the political.

Accepting that the “political” constitutes the essence of the state, Heidegger contends that Schmitt’s friend/enemy distinction is secondary to the actual historical self-affirmation of a people’s being that goes into founding a state true to the nation.

In Heidegger’s view, Schmitt’s concept presupposes a people’s historical self-affirmation and is thus not fundamental but derivative.

It is worth quoting Heidegger here:

There is only friend and enemy where there is self-affirmation. The affirmation of self [i.e., the Volk] taken in this sense requires a specific conception of the historical being of a people and of the state itself. Because the state is that self-affirmation of the historical being of a people and because the state can be called polis, the political consequently appears as the friend/enemy relation. But that relation is not the political.

Rather, it follows the prior self-affirmation.

For libertarians and anarchists in our ranks, Heidegger’s modification of Schmitt’s proposition is probably beside the point.

But for a statist like myself, who believes a future white homeland in North America is inconceivable without a strong centralized political system to defend it, Heidegger’s modification of the Schmittian concept is a welcome affirmation of the state, seeing it as a necessary stage in a people’s self-assertion.

Four.
Conclusion

From the above, it should be obvious that Faye’s Heidegger is not quite the definitive interpretation that his promoters make it out to be.

Specifically, there is little that is philosophical in his critique of Heidegger’s philosophy and, relying on his moralizing attitude rather than on a philosophical deconstruction of Heidegger’s work, he ends up failing to make the argument he seeks to make.

If Faye’s reading of the seminars of 1933-34 are correct, than Heidegger was quite obviously more of a National Socialist than he let on. But this was already known in 1987-88.

Faye also claims that Heidegger’s pioneering work of the 1920s anticipated the National Socialist ideas he developed in the seminars of 1933-34 and that his postwar work simply continued, in a modified guise, what had begun earlier. This claim, though, is rhetorically asserted rather than demonstrated.

Worse, Faye ends up contradicting what he sets out to accomplish. For his criticism of Heidegger is little more than an ad hominem attack, which assumes that the negative adjectives (”abhorrent,” “appalling,” “monstrous,” “dangerous,” etc) he uses to describe his subject are a substitute for either a proper philosophical critique or a historical analysis.

In thus failing to refute the philosophical basis of Heidegger’s National Socialism, his argument fails, in effect.

But even if his adjectives were just, it doesn’t change the fact that however “immoral” a philosopher may be, he is nevertheless still a philosopher. Faye here makes a “category mistake” that confuses the standards of philosophy with those of morality. Besides, Heidegger was right in terms of his morals.

Faye is also a poor example of the philosophical rationalism that he offers as an alternative to Heidegger’s allegedly “irrational” philosophy — a rationalism whose enlightenment has been evident in the great fortunes that Jews have made from it.

Finally, in insisting that Heidegger be banned because of his fascist politics, Faye commits the “sin” that virtuous anti-fascists always accuse their opponents of committing.

In a word, Faye’s Heidegger is something of a hatchet job that, ultimately, reflects more on its author’s peculiarities than on his subject.

Yet after saying this, let me confess that though Faye makes a shoddy argument that doesn’t prove what he thinks he proves, he is nevertheless probably right in seeing Heidegger as a “Nazi.”  He simply doesn’t know how to make his case — or maybe he simply doesn’t want to spend the years it takes to “master” Heidegger’s thought.

Even more ironic is the scandal of Heidegger’s “Nazism” seen from outside Faye’s liberal paradigm. For in this optic, the scandal is not that Heidegger was a National Socialist — but rather that the most powerful philosophical intelligence of the last century believed in this most demonized of all modern ideologies.

But who sees or cares about this real scandal?

UN ouvrage fondamental sur la "révolution conservatrice"

 

 

Archives de SYNERGIES EUROPEENNES - 1999

Un ouvrage fondamental sur la révolution conservatrice

 

Richard FABER (Hrsg.), Konservatismus in Geschichte und Gegenwart, Königs­hau­sen & Neu­mann, Würzburg, 1991, ISBN 3-88479-592-9.

 

Deux contributions de cet ouvrage collectif intéressent directement notre propos: 1) Ri­chard FABER, «Differenzierungen im Be­griff Konservatismus. Ein religionssoziolo­gi­scher Versuch» et 2) Arno KLÖNNE, «"Rechts oder Links?". Zur Geschichte der Nationalrevolutionäre und Na­tionalbolsche­wisten». Richard Faber, dont nous connais­sons déjà la concision, résume en treize points les positions fondamentales du "con­servatisme" (entendu dans le sens alle­mand et non pas britannique):

◊1) le principe de "mortui plurimi", le culte des morts et des anciens, garant d'un ave­nir dans la conti­nui­té, de la durée.

 

◊2) Ce culte de la durée im­plique la no­stal­gie d'un ordre social stable, comme celui d'a­vant la révolution, la réfor­me et la re­nais­san­ce (Hugo von Hofmanns­thal).

 

◊3) Dans l'actualité, cette nostalgie doit con­duire l'homme politique à défendre un or­dre économique "sain", respectant la plu­ralité des forces sociales; à ce niveau, une con­tra­diction existe dans le conservatisme con­temporain, où Carl Schmitt, par exem­ple, dé­nonce ce néo-médiévisme social, com­me un "romantisme politique" inopé­rant, au nom d'un étatisme efficace, plus dur encore que le stato corporativo italien.

 

◊4) L'ordre social et politique dérive d'une re­­pré­sentation de l'empire (chinois, babylo­nien, perse, assyrien ou romain) comme un analogon du cosmos, comme un reflet mi­cro­cosmique du macrocosme. Le christia­nis­­me médiéval a retenu l'essentiel de ce cosmisme païen (urbs deis hominibusque com­munis). La querelle dans le camp con­ser­vateur, pour Faber, oppose ceux qui veu­­­lent un retour sans médiation aux sour­ces originales païen­­nes et ceux qui se con­tentent d'une ré­­pétition de la synthèse mé­dié­vale christia­ni­sée.

 

◊5) Les conservateurs perçoivent le fer­ment chrétien comme subversif: ils veu­lent une re­ligion qui ne soit pas opposée au fonction­nement du politique; à partir de là, se déve­loppe un anti-christia­nisme conservateur et néo-païen, ou on impose, à la suite de Jo­seph de Maistre, l'ex­pé­diant d'une infailli­bi­li­té pontificale pour bar­rer la route à l'impo­li­tis­me évangélique.

 

◊6) Les positivistes comtiens, puis les maur­ras­siens, partageant ce raisonnement, déjà présent chez Hegel, parient pour un catho­li­cis­me athée voire pour une théocratie a­thée.

 

◊7) Un certain post-fascisme (défini par Rü­diger Altmann), observable dans toutes les traditions politiques d'après 1945, vise l'in­té­gration de toutes les composantes de la so­ciété pour les soumettre à l'économie. Ainsi, le pluralisme, pourtant affiché en théo­rie, cè­­de le pas devant l'intégra­tion/ho­mo­loga­tion (option du conservatisme technocrate).

 

◊8) Dans ce contexte, se dé­ve­lop­pe un ca­tholicisme conservateur, hostile à l'auto­no­mie de l'économie et de la so­cié­té, les­quel­les doivent se soumettre à une "syn­thèse", celle de l'"organisme social" (suite p. 67).

 

◊9) Le contraire de cette synthèse est le néo-li­béralisme, expression d'un polythéis­me po­liti­que, d'après Faber. Les principaux re­pré­sentants de ce poly­théis­me libéral sont O­do Marquard et Hans Blumenberg.

 

◊10) Dans le cadre de la dialectique des Lu­mières, Locke estimait que l'individu devait se soumettre à la société civile et non plus à l'autorité po­litique absolue (Hobbes); l'exi­gence de soumission se mue en césarisme chez Schmitt. Dans les trois cas, il y a exi­gence de soumission, comme il y a exi­gen­ce de sou­mission à la sphère économique (Alt­mann). Le conservatisme peut s'en ré­jouir ou s'en insurger, selon les cas.

 

◊11) Pour Fa­ber, comme pour Walter Ben­jamin avant lui, le conservatisme représente une "tra­hi­son des clercs" (ou des intellec­tuels), où ceux-ci tentent de sortir du cul-de-sac des discussions sans fin pour débou­cher sur des décisions claires; la pensée de l'ur­gence est donc une caractéristique ma­jeu­re de la pensée conservatrice.

 

◊12) Faber cri­ti­que, à la suite d'Adorno, de Marcuse et de Ben­jamin, le "caractère affir­ma­teur de la cul­ture", propre du con­ser­va­tisme. Il re­mar­que que Maurras et Maulnier s'engagent dans le combat politique pour pré­server la culture, écornée et galvaudée par les idéo­logies de masse. Waldemar Gu­rian, disciple de Schmitt et historien de l'Ac­tion Fran­çai­se, constate que les sociétés ne peuvent sur­vivre si la Bildung disparaît, ce mé­lange de raffinement et d'éducation, pro­pre de l'é­li­te intellectuelle et créatrice d'une na­tion ou d'une civilisation.

 

◊13) Dans son dernier point, Faber revient sur la cosmologie du conservatisme. Celle-ci implique un temps cyclique, en appa­ren­ce différent du temps chrétien, mais un au­teur comme Erich Voe­gelin accepte explici­te­ment la "plus ancien­ne sagesse de l'hom­me", qui se soumet au rythme du devenir et de la finitude. Pour Voe­gelin, comme pour cer­tains conserva­teurs païens, c'est la pen­sée gnostique, an­cêtre directe de la moder­nité délétère, qui re­jette et nie "le destin cy­clique de toutes choses sous le soleil". La gnose christia­ni­sée ou non du Bas-Empire, cesse de per­ce­voir le monde comme un cos­mos bien or­don­né, où l'homme hellé­ni­que se sentait chez lui. Le gnostique de l'an­tiquité tardive, puis l'homme moderne qui veut tout mo­di­fier et tout dépasser, ne par­vient plus à re­gar­der le monde avec émerveillement. Le chré­tien catholique Voe­gelin, qui aime la cré­a­tion et en admire l'or­dre, rejoint ainsi le païen catholique Maur­ras. Albrecht Erich Günther, figure de la ré­vo­lution conserva­trice, définit le conserva­tis­me non comme une propension à tenir à ce qui nous vient d'hier, mais propose de vi­vre comme on a toujours vécu: quod sem­per, quod ubique, quod omnibus.      

 

Dans sa contribution, Arno Klönne évoque la démarche anti-système de personnalités comme Otto Strasser, Hans Ebeling, Ernst Niekisch, Beppo Römer, Karl O. Paetel, etc., et résume clairement cette démarche en­tre tous les fronts dominants de la pen­sée politique allemande des années 20 et 30.  Le refus de se laisser embrigader est une leçon de liberté, que semble reprendre la "Neue Rechte" allemande actuelle, sur­tout par les textes de Marcus Bauer, philo­so­phe et théologien de formation. Un ex­cel­lent résumé pour l'étudiant qui sou­hai­te s'i­ni­tier à cette matière hautement com­ple­xe (RS).

 

Thomas Molnar (1921-2010)

Thomas Molnar (1921-2010)

 

Ex: Nieuwsbrief Deltastichting nr. 38 - Augustus 2010

 

De Hongaars-Amerikaanse politieke filosoof Thomas Molnar werd in 1921 geboren te Boedapest als Molnár Tamás. Hij liep school in de stad Nagyvárad, op de Hongaars-Roemeense grens, die werd ingenomen door Roemeense troepen in 1919. Het jaar nadien bepaalde het Verdrag van Trianon dat de stad, herdoopt als Oradea, zou toebehoren aan Roemenië. Begin jaren ‘40 verhuisde hij naar België om er in het Frans te studeren aan de Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB). Tijdens de oorlog werd hij er als leider van de katholieke studentenbeweging door de Duitse bezetter geïnterneerd in het KZ Dachau. Na de oorlog keerde hij terug naar Boedapest en was er getuige van de geleidelijke machtsovername door de communisten. Daarop vertrok hij naar de Verenigde Staten, waar hij in 1950 aan de Universiteit van Columbia zijn doctoraat in filosofie en geschiedenis behaalde. Hij droeg vaak bij tot National Review, het in 1955 door William F. Buckley opgerichte conservatieve tijdschrift. Hij doceerde aan verscheidene universiteiten en na de val van het communistisch regime in Hongarije ook aan de Universiteit van Boedapest en de Katholieke Péter-Pázmány-Universiteit. Sinds 1995 was hij ook lid van Hongaarse Academie der Kunsten. Hij is de auteur van meer dan 40 boeken, zowel in het Engels als Frans, en publiceerde in tal van domeinen zoals politiek, religie en opvoeding.

 

Geïnspireerd door Russell Kirks ”The Conservative Mind” ontwikkelde Molnar zich tot een belangrijk denker van het paleoconservatisme, een stroming in het Amerikaanse conservatisme die het Europese erfgoed en traditie wil bewaren en zich afzet tegen het neoconservatisme. Paul Gottfried vermeldt terecht in zijn memoires (Encounters. My Life with Nixon, Marcuse, and Other Friends and Teachers. ISI Books, 2009) dat Molnar in verschillende van zijn geschriften zijn verachting voor de Amerikaanse maatschappij en politiek niet onder stoelen of banken steekt. Zo bespot hij de “boy scout” mentaliteit van Amerikaanse leiders , hun “Disney World”-opvattingen over de toekomst van de democratie en identificeert hij protestantse sektarische driften achter het Amerikaanse democratische geloof. Het Amerikaanse materialisme is volgens hem geëvolueerd van een ondeugd naar een wereldvisie. Het is dus niet toevallig dat Molnar vandaag wordt ‘vergeten’ door mainstream conservatieven aan beide zijden van de Atlantische Oceaan.

 

Molnar trad ook veelvuldig in debat met Europees nieuw rechts. Toen Armin Mohler zijn "Nominalistische Wende" uiteenzette, bediende Molnar hem van een universalistisch antwoord. Als katholiek intellectueel publiceerde Molnar in 1986 samen met Alain de Benoist “L’éclipse du sacré” waarin zij vanuit hun gemeenschappelijke bezorgdheid voor de Europese cultuur de secularisering van het Westen bespreken. “The Pagan Temptation”, dat het jaar nadien verscheen, was Molnars weerlegging van de Benoists “Comment peut-on etre païen?” Molnars eruditie en originaliteit blijken echter onverenigbaar met elk hokjesdenken en dat uitte zich onder meer  in het feit dat hij enderzijds lid was van het comité de patronage van Nouvelle Ecole, het tijdschrift van Alain de Benoist, en anderzijds ook voor de royalisten van de Action Française schreef.

 

Thomas Molnar stierf op 20 juli jongstleden, zes dagen voordat hij 90 zou worden, te Richmond, Virginia.

 

Meer informatie bij het Intercollegiate Studies Institute, waar men tal van artikels en lezingen van Thomas Molnar kan consulteren.

 

Prussien par élection

Prussien par élection

 

Hommage à Hans-Joachim Schoeps, à l’occasion du trentième anniversaire de sa disparition

 

« On n’est pas Prussien par le sang, on le devient par un acte de foi ». Cette phrase est due à la plume du philosophe juif et de l’explorateur des religions Hans-Joachim Schoeps. Le 8 juillet 2010, il y avait juste trente ans qu’il avait quitté ce monde. Inutile de préciser que la maxime mise en exergue de ce texte le concernait personnellement : Schoeps s’affirmait Prussien.

 

Après la seconde guerre mondiale, à une époque où le peuple allemand entamait le long processus qui consistait à se nier soi-même, Schoeps s’est dressé et a commencé à militer pour le droit de l’Allemagne à la vie. Il savait comment son engagement allait être perçu et il l’a dit de manière très pertinente : « Les pierres angulaires de ma vie, être tout à la foi conservateur, prussien et juif, font bien évidemment l’effet d’une provocation chez les fils rouges de pères bruns ». Les insultes n’ont pas manqué de fuser : Wolf Biermann, compositeur juif de chansons d’inspiration communiste, s’est immédiatement laissé aller en étiquetant Schoeps de « Juif à la Heil Hitler ». Cette insulte était bien entendu une aberration telle qu’elle n’a jamais eu d’équivalent. De fait, Schoeps, qui a enseigné jusqu’en 1938 au Gymnasium juif de Vienne, n’avait pas eu d’autre alternative, après la terrible « Nuit de Cristal » d’emprunter le chemin de l’exil. Il s’est rendu en Suède. Son père, le Dr. Julius Schoeps, colonel médecin militaire attaché à l’état-major, et d’après le très officiel « Biographisches Handbuch der deutschsprachigen Emigration » (« Manuel biographique de l’émigration germanophone ») , un « nationaliste allemand », est mort en 1942 dans le camp-ghetto de Theresienstadt.

 

Le rêve de l’unité allemande

 

Hans-Joachim Schoeps est né en 1909 à Berlin. Il était sentimentalement et profondément lié à la capitale allemande et le resta jusqu’à la fin de ses jours. Il n’a malheureusement pas pu vivre la chute du Mur et la réunification du pays. Dans les souvenirs qu’il nous a laissés, il écrit : « ah, que j’aimerais encore une fois au moins me promener dans les rues de Potsdam et entendre le son des vieilles cloches de l’église de la garnison ou me retrouver sur les murailles de Marienburg pour voir y flotter l’aigle noir et le drapeau avec nos deux couleurs, le drapeau sous lequel ont combattu les Chevaliers de l’Ordre pour gagner la Prusse au Reich ».

 

Pendant la République de Weimar, Schoeps a fréquenté les nationaux-allemands, les mouvements de jeunesse « bündisch » (liguistes), liés à  la tradition des Wandervögel, mais en s’intéressant à la politique et animés par une volonté de forger une société et un Etat nouveaux. En 1932, une année après avoir obtenu son doctorat en philosophie, thèse qui portait sur « l’histoire de la philosophie religieuse juive à l’époque moderne », Schoeps fonde le « Deutscher Vortrupp – Gefolgschaft deutsche Juden » (« Avant-garde des éclaireurs allemands – Leudes juifs allemands »), pour offrir un espace d’activité et de survie aux Juifs allemands patriotes, leur donnant simultanément la possibilité d’agir pour forger un ordre nouveau. L’entreprise fut un échec car ni les antisémites de la NSDAP ni les sionistes ne voulaient voir se constituer un tel mouvement.

 

En 1946, Schoeps revient de Suède et se fixe à nouveau en Allemagne. Il a l’honneur de refuser catégoriquement l’offre que lui fit immédiatement l’occupant américain : travailler dans un journal sous licence pour participer à la rééducation du peuple. « Je ne veut pas devenir un Quisling des Américains », déclara-t-il à la suite de son refus hautain. En 1947, il obtient un nouveau titre de docteur à l’Université de Marbourg et, à partir de 1950, il enseigne l’histoire des religions et des idées à l’Université d’Erlangen. Dans le cadre de ses activités universitaires, il s’est toujours dressé contre les accusations collectives que l’idéologie nouvelle, anti-allemande, ne cessait de formuler. Schoeps s’engage aussi pour réhabiliter l’histoire prussienne, continuellement diffamée. Dès 1951, il réclame la reconstitution de la Prusse, que le Conseil de Contrôle interallié avait dissoute en 1947.

 

Après la guerre, il n’a jamais cessé non plus de parler au nom de la communauté juive d’Allemagne. Il refusait de s’identifier aux idéologues du sionisme et n’a jamais voulu se rendre dans le nouvel Etat d’Israël.

 

(article paru dans DNZ, n°28/juillet 2010).