I have read Andrew Joyce’s article “Against Mishima [2]” at The Occidental Observer with great interest and mixed feelings. I admire Dr. Joyce’s writings on the Jewish question, but to be candid, his critique of Mishima is on the whole tendentious and shallow. It is also overly emphatic on some topics while neglecting or downplaying other equally, if not more, important ones.
Dr. Joyce seems fixated on Mishima’s sexuality, which Joyce attributes to his unhealthy family environment and peculiar upbringing. Mishima’s sexuality is understandably regarded as unsavory by most traditional-minded people. But Dr. Joyce had gone a bit too far with his meticulous attention to this particular issue. Furthermore, I’m afraid that many of his claims about Mishima’s private life are based on taking his novel Confessions of a Mask as a straightforward autobiography, which is not supported by Mishima scholarship.
Mishima is certainly not a paragon of traditional sexual morality. That said, is he still worthy of the respect he receives from white nationalists? I believe the answer is yes, if we focus on the uplifting aspects of his life and work, including many of his writings and speeches that were given short shrift in Dr. Joyce’s article and perhaps are also generally less known to people who do not read Japanese.
The kernel of Dr. Joyce’s argument is that “if key aspects of his biography, including the death, are linked significantly more to his sexuality than his politics, then this is grounds to reconsider the worth of promoting such a figure,” which was later reinforced by his other claim that “a theory thus presents itself that Mishima’s carefully orchestrated death was a piece of homosexual sadomasochist theatre rather than anything political, let alone fascistic or in the tradition of the Samurai.”
To be frank, I found this assertion utterly preposterous. When a man delivers a speech about the importance of the Samurai tradition, then kills himself Samurai-style by cutting open his stomach—literally “spilling his guts”—it seems perverse to wonder if he is being insincere, if he is engaging in “homosexual sadomasochist theatre.” Irony, camp, and theatrics are all fake. There is nothing ironic or campy or fake about actually killing oneself.
Joyce simply ignores the text of Mishima’s final speech, in which he decried the ugly post-war era of Japan, deploring its materialistic and spiritually vacuous society. He lambasted venal and cowardly mainstream politicians. He called for Constitutional reform. He highlighted the authenticity of the Japanese military tradition, contrasting it to the miserable reality of the Japanese Self-defense Force, pointing out the dishonor of the Japanese military forever being a mercenary force of America and capitalists. He rejected the hypocrisy and nihilism of the post-war democracy and its mantra of “respect for human lives.” He reasserted the paramount status of the Tennō (Emperor) and Dentō (tradition), and urged the audience to die as real men and warriors combating the nation-wrecking post-war political regime and value system.
Then he demonstrated that he meant it.
The speech remains every bit as pertinent, powerful, and inspiring when read today as it was back then. The speech alone is enough to guarantee the immortality of Mishima as a nationalist figure of global significance, to say nothing of his numerous politically and culturally themed writings, fiction and non-fiction alike, and his other relevant speeches, which Dr. Joyce was either unaware of or chose to ignore.
A central argument of Dr. Joyce against Mishima is that “he seems hardly political at all. His fiction, denounced by early critics of all political hues as full of ‘evil narcissism’ possessing ‘no reality,’ is almost entirely devoid of ideology.” This could not be further from the truth and seems based on sheer ignorance. I wonder how many works of Mishima Dr. Joyce has actually read or even read about? Did he ever read Mishima’s final speech in full, or his Anti-Revolutionary Manifesto?
Admittedly, Mishima was not a political theorist or a philosopher; he was primarily a novelist and playwright. But being a nationalist writer and activist, his literary world was rich in themes drawn from Japanese history, traditional culture, politics, and current affairs. And, when it comes to political and ideological relevance, it is accurate to understand Mishima more as a Right-wing artist and inspirational activist than a theorist, which certainly has value for the Dissident Right in the West.
Dr. Joyce maintained that “Mishima, of course, never explored the Emperor’s role in World War II in any depth, and his chief fixation appears solely to have been the decision of the Emperor to accede to Allied demands and ‘become human.’” This is a baffling statement which again simply betrays Dr. Joyce’s lack of knowledge. Besides rightfully decrying the Showa Emperor’s self-demotion to “become human” from his traditional status of “Arahitogami” (god in human form or demigod), Mishima also critically examined the Emperor’s role in politics before, during, and after the war, which revealed that what Mishima essentially venerated was not the individual Tennō but the Kōtō (the unique and time-honored Japanese monarchical system).
For example, Mishima criticized the Showa Emperor, expressing strong sympathy with the rebel soldiers of the “2.26 Incident” of 1936, who were genuine patriots with lofty ideals who were mercilessly crushed by the explicit order of the Emperor. His Patriotism and Voice of the Martyrs were written with great feeling in commemoration of them. [1] [3]
Mishima also extolled the spirit and actions, and lamented the defeat of, the Samurai bands (prototypes of the movie The Last Samurai) who held fast to traditional values in defiance of Japan’s westernization in the wake of the Meiji Restoration. This is justifiably perceived as his criticism of the Meiji regime. Interested readers are recommended to take a look at my old review of the book Persona: A Biography of Yukio Mishima here [4].
Mishima believed that the Emperor could unify Japanese society as a cultural figure, standing above the political realm. He believed that if the monarchy stood as a national and cultural principle of unity, this would create a free space for political debate and cultural innovation, without endangering the cohesion of society. This view is rooted in Japanese tradition, but seeks to make space for important elements of modernity, including political pluralism and cultural freedom. One may agree or disagree with such views, but contra Joyce, they do exist, and they are not vague or vacuous.
A comprehensive search will discover that Mishima’s many books, essays, dramas, and speeches contain explicit or implicit messages defending Japan’s political, cultural, and military traditions, including but not limited to Bushido, expressed with the beauty and exuberance that are Mishima’s literary hallmarks and showing his profound cultivation in ancient Japanese and Chinese classics. His non-fiction books on cultural and political topics include For the Young Samurais, Introduction to Hagakure, Sun and Steel, and Theory of Cultural Defense. The same themes are discussed in his novel Runaway Horses and numerous essays. The five books cited above are especially popular and widely read in France and Italy.
In Sun and Steel (1968), Mishima writes, “Sword/martial art means to fight and fall like scattering blossoms, and pen/literary art means to cultivate imperishable blossoms.” Mishima has certainly lived up to this ideal himself, fulfilling it with his own sword and pen. According to literary critic Koichiro Tomioka, Sun and Steel is almost Mishima’s “literary suicide note” in which his cultural and philosophic thoughts were condensed. In it, Mishima argues that it is exactly the post-war era, in which all values have been inverted, that necessitates the revival of the ancient ethic code of “Bun-Bu-Ryodo” (cultivating a mastery of both pen and sword), as when “Bu” (sword) is gone, “Bun” (pen) slackens and decays. It is in the healthy tension created by the contrasting “Bun” and “Bu” that Mishima was seeking to reclaim traditional Japanese sensibilities.
Mishima also made some famous political statements in a long and heated debate with Leftist students at Tokyo University in 1969, the peak of a cultural and political maelstrom that had swept across Japan’s campuses at large. Their discussion went beyond different political stances into philosophical realms. While the students advocated transcending time and realizing a conceptual revolution in a new space, Mishima upheld the continuum of time. The topics included the Emperor, arts and aesthetics, ego and flesh, morality of violence, politics and literature, time and space, beauty as concept and reality, etc. While being an avowed and ardent Right-wing nationalist in politics and culture, Mishima actually showed sympathy with the Left-wing students’ opposition to capitalism and big business, telling the students: “If you guys are willing to recognize the sanctity and solemnity of the Emperor [as the head of the Japanese national community], I am willing join your ranks.”
Dr. Joyce also made a few jaundiced remarks that detract from his credibility. For example, he claims “[Mishima] was so poor at articulating his ideas to troops during his coup attempt that he was simply laughed at by gathered soldiers.” This is a surprisingly uninformed and erroneous assertion. It was true that Mishima was jeered and taunted by the gathered troops, who interrupted his speech multiple times by shouting. But their behavior had nothing to do with Mishima’s alleged inability to articulate his ideas. Mishima, after all, made a career of articulating ideas, a talent that did not fail him in his final speech.
The problem, rather, lies with the soldiers themselves, who understandably resented the fact that they were convened to listen to Mishima’s speech under duress because Mishima had taken their commander hostage. Moreover, most post-war Japanese servicemen were mere salarymen in a prosperous and materialistic society. They had little connection with the Japanese warrior tradition and were hardly capable of appreciating the problems of the spiritually vacuous society that had produced them. Mishima was perhaps aware of the possibility that he was “casting pearls before swine,” but he knew that his actions would give his words a far larger audience than the hecklers before him. Interestingly enough, according to a 2015 Mishima memorial in the Japanese nationalist publication Sankei Shimbun, some of the soldiers who mocked Mishima’s words later came around to his way of thinking.
Dr. Joyce states that “[Mishima] lied during his own army medical exam during the war in an effort to avoid military service.” This was simply not true. According to a number of Japanese books and essays on Mishima written by his supporters and critics alike, a large amount of evidence on this particular issue pointed to Mishima’s father Azusa Hiraoka using his government connections to help his son evade military conscription, about which Mishima was unaware. Another version of the story is that, although Mishima passed the initial exam, he was diagnosed with pulmonary infiltrates and was judged physically unqualified and excluded from military service, which was unsurprising due to his chronically weak physical conditions from early childhood.
Rather than chasing after such pointless shadows, it is far more worthwhile to take notice of the fact that Mishima had long felt pangs of conscience and an acute sense of survivor’s guilt for his inability to fight as a result of his physical condition in his youth, which partly explained why he took up body building after the war, striving to become a better man in both physical and spiritual senses, and entered the cultural and spiritual world of Bushido and the Samurai.
Another baseless and snide remark from Dr. Joyce is “One could add speculations that Mishima’s military fantasies were an extension of his sexual fixations, including a possible attempt to simply gain power over a large number of athletic young men. But this would be laboring an all-too-obvious point.” There is simply no evidence that Mishima harbored such baleful intent toward the young men who joined his Tatenokai (Shield Society). There has not been a single allegation of sexual impropriety, either before or after Mishima’s death, either from the young men themselves or from the media at large, including many hostile tabloid papers eager to pounce on the first possible chance to sling mud at Mishima. Surely one could expect that Mishima’s young followers, however juvenile and starry-eyed they might have been back then, would have said something in the last half-century if they had really become targets of Mishima’s “sexual fixations.”
Dr. Joyce moves from disparaging Mishima to demeaning Japanese culture in general in his misguided dismissal of Seppuku. Joyce’s major source, namely Toyomasa Fuse, is a Leftist who hates his ancestral cultural roots, like many Japanese and other East Asians who have either grown up in post-war American society or have been educated in toxic American institutions of higher learning. A simple search online reveals that Fuse was one of a select few Japanese groomed by the American occupation regime as a new intellectual elite. Fuse went to the US in 1950, sponsored by the US government, and later received both his Master’s and Ph.D. degrees from UC Berkeley, where he became a full-fledged Leftist and anti-traditionalist scholar. He was an active member of the anti-Vietnam War movement and moved from the US to Canada in 1968 with some other anti-war college professors. As the founder of the hilariously named Canada Suicide Studies Society, he specialized in and taught “Suicide Studies” at York University from 1972 until his retirement in 1997. Consulting Fuse on Japanese militarism is like consulting the Frankfurt School about Prussian militarism. Joyce, of all people, should know better.
The last sweeping and sloppy charge against Japanese culture by Dr. Joyce that I would like to counter is this: “Again, we must question, at a time when we are trying to break free from high levels of social concern and shaming in Europe, whether it is healthy or helpful to praise practices originating in pathologically shame-centered cultures.”
Surely Dr. Joyce realizes that social shaming in today’s Western countries is fundamentally different from social shaming in traditional Japanese society.
The shaming of whites in Western societies was imposed by an alien hostile elite on the native white populace for the purpose of undermining their traditional culture and values. But the shame culture of Japan is imposed by the Japanese community on its own members to encourage them to live up to communal standards and serve the common good. To put it simply, shaming in the West is an alien contrivance to undermine white society by pinning whites down with false guilt, while shaming in Japan is an indigenous and organic way that the Japanese maintain social norms and enhance social cohesion. The gradual decline of Japanese shaming culture in recent years due to Western influence is another trend that has alarmed traditionalists and nationalists in Japan.
If white societies had greater social cohesion and responsibility, reinforced by shaming, they probably would have resisted the takeover of hostile alien elites. Perhaps, then, white nationalists should study and adopt Japanese shaming mechanisms instead of bashing and trashing them. By calling traditional Japanese shame-centered culture embodied by Mishima “pathological,” Dr. Joyce might as well be quoting from the Frankfurt School, which sought to pathologize healthy white family and social norms, which are not so different from healthy Japanese norms.
Note
[1] [5] Two of the leaders of the uprising, senior captain Asaichi Isobe and senior captain Hisashi Kōno, evoked the greatest empathetic feelings from Mishima, and their patriotism, sincerity, and Samurai mettle became sources of his literary creations. Mishima wrote Patriotism and Voice of the Martyrs based on the Prison Note of Isobe, which featured the revengeful ghosts of the 2.26 uprising soldiers and Kamikaze pilots.
In a conversation with Tsukasa Kōno, elder brother of senior captain Hisashi Kōno, who was a key member of the uprising and committed suicide after the coup failed, Mishima remarks on the Showa Emperor’s dismissive words on the officers who decided to commit suicide: “Go ahead and kill themselves if they want. I’m not going to honor those despicable men with any official envoy.” Mishima commented: “It was not the rightful conduct for a Japanese Emperor. This is so sad.” Tsukasa asked Mishima: “Had those young officers known what the Emperor had said, would they have still shouted ‘Tennō Heika Banzai!’ (Long Live His Majesty the Emperor) before the firing squad?”
Mishima answered: “Even when the Emperor didn’t behave like an emperor, subjects ought to behave like subjects. They knew they must fulfill their part as subjects and chanted ‘Long Live the Emperor,’ believing in the judgment of the heaven. But what a tragedy for Japan!” When uttering his, he looked teary and his voice choked. After publishing Voice of the Martyrs, Mishima wrote in a letter to Tsukasa: “I wrote it with an intention to present it before the memorial tablets of your younger brother and other deceased officers of the 2.26 Uprising.”
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
From about 1500 BC to 1200 BC, the Mediterranean region played host to a complex cosmopolitan and globalized world-system. It may have been this very internationalism that contributed to the apocalyptic disaster that ended the Bronze Age. When the end came, the civilized and international world of the Mediterranean regions came to a dramatic halt in a vast area stretching from Greece and Italy in the west to Egypt, Canaan, and Mesopotamia in the east. Large empires and small kingdoms collapsed rapidly. With their end came the world’s first recorded Dark Ages. It was not until centuries later that a new cultural renaissance emerged in Greece and the other affected areas, setting the stage for the evolution of Western society as we know it today. Professor Eric H. Cline of The George Washington University will explore why the Bronze Age came to an end and whether the collapse of those ancient civilizations might hold some warnings for our current society. 
Ainsi, depuis les années 90, les « milieux autorisés » (universitaires, juridiques et politiques, tous metteurs en scènes des volontés économiques hégémoniques) sont partis en guerre contre le droit civil français afin de l’accommoder à la sauce anglo-américaine globaliste ; il s’agit, ni plus ni moins que de transformer les principes du droit civil en principes commercialistes. Il serait fastidieux d’énumérer toutes les « modifications-modernisations-simplifications » qui ont eu lieu depuis lors et qui concernent toutes les branches du droit (droit de la famille et des personnes, tant patrimonial que biologique, droit contractuel, droit des biens, droit des sociétés…), toutes ont pour point commun d’être motivées par la domination et l’accaparement des principaux propriétaires de capitaux. Plus précisément il s’agit, pour les dominants monétaro-économiques, de valider juridiquement – par le « droit » donc – leur accaparement définitif sur tous les biens tangibles alors que les valeurs financières immatérielles sont condamnées – par ceux-là mêmes qui les ont créées – à une très prochaine disparition.
la France a d’elle-même consciencieusement renoncé à ses fondamentaux historique, c’est-à-dire qu’elle a volontairement renoncé à exister. Il ne faut donc pas s’étonner aujourd’hui de la volonté, ferme et définitive, des différents « gouverne-e-ment » français de faire disparaître l’entité politique française, en tant qu’État-nation, en la scindant et en la fusionnant dans le magma – dont la vocation est ab initio fédéraliste et globaliste – appelé « Union Européenne ». Cette Union Européenne n’est rien d’autre qu’une imposture institutionnelle chargée de valider politiquement la domination irrémédiable des puissances d’argent sur les populations. Elle est le premier pas institutionnel vers le Gouvernement Mondial. D’autres pas institutionnels existent, comme celui vers la création d’une monnaie mondiale dématérialisée contrôlée par les banquiers et leurs affidés…
Berlin : Nous assistons à un nouvel épisode d’une tragicomédie qui a commencé déjà il y a quelques années. La SPD socialiste de Berlin vient d’exclure officiellement son ancien « Finanzsenator » Thilo Sarrazin, 74 ans. On se souvient que Thilo Sarrazin, écrivain en vue depuis la parution de son livre de 2010 « Deutschland schafft sich ab » (littéralement : « LAllemagne se déconstruit et s’autodétruit »), émettait des thèses non conformistes, parfois critiques à l’endroit de l’islam, ce qui le plaçait derechef sous la menace d’une exclusion. La goutte qui a fait déborder le vase fut une visite remarquée lors d’une manifestation de la FPÖ autrichienne dans le cadre de la campagne électorale pour les élections européennes.
Entretemps, la FPÖ viennoise a proposé à Sarrazin de lui accorder le titre de membre d’honneur. « Thilo Sarrazin a abordé dans ses ouvrages des problèmes importants en rapport avec l’islamisation de l’Europe et son corollaire, la perte de l’identité mitteleuropéenne », écrit la chef de la section viennoise de la FPÖ Dominik Nepp sur sa page Facebook, pour justifier la proposition de son parti. « C’est pour ces raisons qu’il est réprouvé et rejeté par de vastes segments de l’établissement de gauche. Pour ma part, il sera toujours cordialement le bienvenu à Vienne » (se). 
Ernst von Salomon ist in Deutschland erstmals unrühmlich bekannt geworden durch seine Teilnahme am Attentat auf den damaligen Reichsaußenminister Walther Rathenau im Sommer 1922. Nach Verbüßung seiner Zuchthausstrafe trat er für eine große Öffentlichkeit erneut in Erscheinung‚ als er im Januar 1930 bei Ernst Rowohlt sein literarisches Erstlingswerk „Die Geächteten“ veröffentlichte. Dieses stark autobiographisch geprägte Buch hatte im wesentlichen eben diesen Mord an Walther Rathenau zum Inhalt‚ durch den Ernst von Salomon als Figur der damaligen unmittelbaren Zeitgeschichte überhaupt interessant geworden war. Fortan galt er neben Ernst Jünger‚ Franz Schauwecker‚ Albrecht Erich Günther‚ Ernst Niekisch und Friedrich Hielscher als eine der Hauptfiguren des in der Literatur und der Publizistik jener Jahre vor dem Ende der Weimarer Republik wuchernden „Neuen Nationalismus“‚ wie sie selbst sich nannten. In dieser Zeit blühten in der geistigen Szene der Republik die literarischen Wortmeldungen der heute sogenannten „Konservativen Revolution“. In allen Veröffentlichungen zu diesem für die Geschichte und das Scheitern der Weimarer Republik so wichtigen Thema taucht immer wieder der Name Ernst von Salomons auf‚ ohne daß indes weiter auf ihn eingegangen wird. Nach der Katastrophe des Zweiten Weltkrieges sollte er sich erneut durch einen in der damaligen politischen Lage der Deutschen hochbrisanten Bestseller bemerkbar machen‚ der zum ersten Buchverkaufserfolg der neu entstandenen Republik wurde: „Der Fragebogen“. Die als Folge dieser Veröffentlichung aufeinanderprallenden Meinungen ließen erahnen‚ inwieweit Ernst von Salomon abermals mit seiner „Provokation“ in ein politisches Wespennest gestochen hatte. In weiten Kreisen der publizistischen Öffentlichkeit galt er nun als unverantwortlicher „Weißwäscher“ des Dritten Reiches‚ seiner Vorgeschichte und seiner Greuel. Zumal seine bitterböse Polemik gegen die amerikanische Besatzungsmacht polarisierte seine Leser. Und ein weiteres Mal in seinem Leben sollte er mit großer Resonanz in der Öffentlichkeit erscheinen. Ende der fünfziger und Anfang der sechziger Jahre engagierte sich der bis dahin als einschlägiger Propagandist des Soldatentums und des deutschen Nationalismus bekannt gewordene Ernst von Salomon publikumswirksam gegen die Wiederbewaffnung und die atomare Rüstung‚ nahm demonstrativ an den entstehenden Ostermärschen teil und ergriff Partei für als „kommunistisch“ bekannte oder benannte Organisationen und Parteien. Erstaunt und befremdet nahm die bundesdeutsche Öffentlichkeit zur Kenntnis‚ daß er einen Bogen vom „Rechts“-extremisten zum „Links“-extremisten geschlagen zu haben schien. Darin unterschied er sich eindeutig von den Verhaltensmustern der ansonsten als ehemalige „Nationalrevolutionäre“ bekannten Personen wie beispielsweise Ernst Jünger. Umgekehrt wiederum ist er in seinem Hausverlag‚ in dem die weitaus meisten Wortführer jener frühen Friedensbewegung zu Worte kamen‚ posthum wegen seiner nationalistischen Vergangenheit zur persona non grata erklärt worden. Das Andenken an ihn besteht dort ledglich in der Weitervermarktung seiner auflagenstärksten Bücher.
Die Frage nach den Konstanten im Denken und Handeln Ernst von Salomons, aus denen sich eventuell eine politische Zuordnung ableiten ließe, die sein ganzes Leben erfaßt, läßt sich wohl nur dann beantworten, wenn man systematisch sein politisches Weltbild zusammenträgt. Dies soll hier geschehen.
Andererseits bedingte dieses Staatsverständnis aber auch zum Teil zumindest seinen aktivistischen Widerstand gegen die Weimarer Republik mit. Aus der dem Staat zugedachten Funktion heraus glaubte Ernst von Salomon, daß es für ihn auch eine „Pflicht zum Staate“ gäbe, d.h. daß er durch seinen Kampf gegen die Republik, der er ihr Staatssein in diesem Sinne absprach, eben die Vorraussetzungen schaffen würde, erneut einen Staat zu begründen. Hierbei taucht eine in seiner vita immer wiederkehrende Widersprüchlichkeit auf, die nur dadurch zu erklären scheint, daß Ernst von Salomon damals noch nicht begriffen hatte, daß dieser preußische souveräne Staat längst nicht mehr bestand, daß er auch nicht erst mit der Gründung der Republik verschwunden war, sondern weit vorher schon. Als seine Erziehung abgeschlossen war und er Kenntnis von politischen Erscheinungen nahm, war unglücklicherweise just jener Augenblick, in dem nach vierjähriger Kriegswirtschaft die Republik ausgerufen wurde. So machte er die Staatsform der Republik für etwas verantwortlich, was schon seit Jahrzehnten vorhanden war, und so kam er nicht auf den Gedanken, daß er selbst ein Relikt mit anachronistischem Staatsverständnis darstellt.
Was die unentwirrbare Vermischung solcher Gedanken noch verstärkte, war, daß Ernst von Salomon im Verlaufe seiner aktivistischen Phase über den souveränen Staat und das Volk hinweg noch eine dritte Solidarisierungsebene fand, die weder mit dem einen noch mit dem anderen etwas zu tun hatte. Dies war das frontenübergreifende Gemeinschaftsgefühl des sogenannten „Frontsozialismus“. Aus allen Kreisen und Schichten stammend, lag ihrem Empfinden und ihrem Verhalten, ebenso wie dem ihrer Jahrgangskameraden, die den entgegengesetzten Weg in die kommunistischen Truppen einschlugen, ein gemeinsames Generationserlebnis zugrunde. Dies war das Empfinden, daß mit dem Ausbruch des Krieges 1914 eine Epoche ihren Abschluß gefunden hätte, ähnlich wie dies auch bei den vergleichbaren Generationen in den anderen beteiligten Ländern begriffen wurde. Der Krieg bewirkte ein Gefühl der Auflösung sämtlicher Entzweiungen und des Durchbruchs zu einem neuen Prinzip des nationalen Zusammenlebens, was sich in dem Empfinden der Frontsoldaten noch unmittelbarer Ausdruck verschaffte. Das wurde begriffen als eine Antwort auf die Fragestellungen der vorherigen Epoche, die die Ausweichmöglichkeiten, vor allem die Jugendbewegung und der Expressionismus, nur unzureichend hatten verdrängen können. Und wo diese Fragestellungen nicht so prägnant oder auch überhaupt nicht vorhanden gewesen waren, der grenzenlose Krieg mußte sie zwangsläufig hervorrufen, denn „das Meer des vergossenen Blutes“, wie Ernst Niekisch schrieb, war nur zu ertragen, wenn sich die Aussicht auf eine neue, „höhere und `bessere΄ Ordnungswelt“ eröffnete. Um die Opfer des Krieges nicht als gänzlich sinnlos erscheinen zu lassen, mußte also ein Sinn dahinter gefunden werden, mußte am Ende all dieser Opfer stehen, und wo er es nicht tat, da war der Abgrund schier bodenlos, in den der Geist stürzte. Als aber am Ende des Krieges keine Wandlung eintrat, als die bürgerliche Ordnung weiterbestand und gar „den Sieg als Bestätigung ihrer selbst ausdeutete und feierte“, da öffnete sich eben dieser befürchtete Abgrund vor den Frontsoldaten wie vor den Kadetten, die in einem entsprechenden Geist erzogen worden waren und sich deshalb so nahtlos unter erstere einreihen konnten: „Das Ende des Krieges hat keinerlei eindeutige Lösung erbracht, hat keine Antwort gegeben, sondern hat nur die Fragestellung verschärft.“ Solche Ideen wiederum führten in Verbindung mit einer Enttäuschung über den angeblich „materialistischen“ Charakter der „Revolution“ von 1918/19 zu einer arroganten Position gegenüber den „Massen“, die doch andererseits das „Volk“ waren, das in seinen völkisch-nationalen Vorstellungen eine Rolle spielte. Und dieses elitäre Bewußtsein meinte eine Kategorie Menschen, die aktivistisch, idealistisch und „unbedingt“ handeln würden, im Gegensatz zum „bourgeoisen“ Bürger. Dieses Verbundenheitsgefühl aber bezog sich nicht ausschließlich auf deutsch Mitstreiter, sondern – auf einer gänzlich anderen Ebene – auf jeden Menschen, der dazugehören würde.
Sozialismus und Liberalismus
La France a été pionnière dans le domaine des armes biologiques et chimiques. Dès la première décennie du XXe siècle, un chimiste français renommé, Auguste Trillat, inventeur du formol quelques années auparavant, brevetait certes un procédé de fabrication industrielle du roquefort, mais posait aussi les bases de la production intentionnelle d’épidémies à l’aide de nuages artificiels microbiens.
De même, rares ont été les avocats de l’usage des sciences biomédicales pour la guerre. Si quelques scientifiques comme le généticien britannique John Burdon Sanderson Haldane (photo), dans les années 1920, ou des militaires tels que le brigadier général Jacquard Hirshorn Rothschild, après la Seconde Guerre mondiale, ont entrevu dans l’utilisation des connaissances en physiologie un moyen de rendre la guerre plus humaine (en introduisant la possibilité d’utiliser des agents non létaux plutôt que des armes conventionnelles aux effets moins prévisibles, comme les explosifs), la sélection précise des effets physiologiques des armes est demeurée une inclusion contre-nature de la science et de la médecine dans la guerre (tandis que des armes conventionnelles aux effets moins prévisibles sont restées autorisées).
Acquis au racialisme scientifique, il popularisa le concept du Blut und Boden (Sang et Sol), espérant abolir une société industrielle fermée au monde des affaires afin de la remplacer par une société organique prenant sa base sur un système de nobilité agreste héréditaire.
Most widely held works 
Paul Craig Roberts, journaliste, ancien Secrétaire-adjoint au Trésor de Ronald Reagan, économiste inventeur de la Reaganomics, l’affirme en janvier 2016 : « Le gouvernement des Etats-Unis est l’organisation criminelle la plus achevée de l’histoire humaine». Robert Mac Namara parlera d’un «Etat voyou »…Par leur présence militaire (de 750 à 1200 bases dans tous les recoins du monde), leurs implications officielles passées (en Corée, au Vietnam, enYougoslavie, en Afghanistan, en Irak) ou présentes (Irak, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalie, Yémen, Syrie), par leurs ingérences et leurs intimidations secrètes ou avouées (au Moyen-Orient, en Amérique Latine, en Europe, en Asie), ils constituent la plus grande menace contre la paix et la sécurité. Sous laprésidence de G. W. Bush, les forces d’opérations spéciales sévissaient dans 66 pays. En 2010, ce nombre était passé à 75 selon le Washington Post, et à 120 en 2011, selon le Commandement de ces forces. En 2013, on en comptait 134, hormis les guerres conventionnelles et les opérations par drones (de plus en plus fréquentes), le pacifique Obama ayant à son actif une progression de 123%. En 2019/2020, les dépenses militaires US devraient friser les 750 milliards de dollars, soit environ 37 % du total mondial : énorme mais, comme dirait Picsou, « des cacahuètes » pour un pays qui imprime lui-même ses billets !
Dès la chute de l’URSS, on ne peut que noter ce mépris croissant des institutions internationales, du multilatéralisme, des compromis, et cette tendance à peine voilée à faire prévaloir la constitution et les lois étatsuniennes sur la légalité onusienne, des comportements tels qu’on les dénonce sur les rives du Potomac. Le vocabulaire travestissant les mots et les concepts, les narratives contrefaisant systématiquement faits et réalités achèveront de rendre tout dialogue insensé et toute diplomatie illusoire. Simple exemple parmi d’autres, la notion de Rogue State qui, selon Avraham Shlaim, l’un des « nouveaux historiens » israéliens, professeur à l’Université d’Oxford, se définit par les trois critères suivants : (1) Violer régulièrement la légalité internationale, (2) Détenir des armes de destruction massive, (3) Utiliser le terrorisme pour terroriser les populations civiles. Destiné à cibler Moscou ou Téhéran ou Damas, ce logiciel dévoyé ne conduirait-il pas à Washington, à Tel-Aviv, ou à telle capitale « civilisée » ?
Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss are extremely popular in China, especially in Mainland China—this is no longer a secret in the Western academia. As early as 2003, Stanley Rosen had already told the Boston Globe that “A very, very significant circle of Strauss admirers has sprung up, of all places, China.”
