Ernst Niekisch è la figura più rappresentativa del complesso e multiforme panorama che offre il movimento nazional-bolscevico tedesco degli anni 1918-1933. In lui si incarnano con chiarezza le caratteristiche - e le contraddizioni - evocate dal termine nazional-bolscevico e che rispondono molto più ad uno stato d'animo, ad una disposizione attivista, che ad una ideologia dai contorni precisi o ad una unità organizzativa, poiché questo movimento era composto da una infinità di piccoli circoli, gruppi, riviste ecc. senza che ci fosse mai stato un partito che si fosse qualificato nazional-bolscevico. E’ curioso constatare come nessuno di questi gruppi o persone usò questo appellativo (se escludiamo la rivista di Karl Otto Paetel, "Die Sozialistische Nation") bensì che l’aggettivo fu impiegato in modo dispregiativo, non scevro di sensazionalismo, dalla stampa e dai partiti sostenitori della Repubblica di Weimar, dei quali tutti i nazional-bolscevichi furono feroci nemici non essendoci sotto questo punto di vista differenze fra gruppi d’origine comunista che assimilarono l’idea nazionale ed i gruppi nazionalisti disposti a perseguire scambi economici radicali e l’alleanza con l'URSS per distruggere l'odiato sistema nato dal Diktat di Versailles. Ernst Niekisch nacque il 23 maggio 1889 a Trebnitz (Slesia). Era figlio di un limatore che si trasferì a Nordlingen im Reis (Baviera-Svevia) nel 1891. Niekisch frequenta gli studi di magistero, che termina nel 1907, esercitando poi a Ries e Augsburg. Non era frequente nella Germania guglielmina - quello Stato in cui si era realizzata la vittoria del borghese sul soldato secondo Carl Schmitt - che il figlio di un operaio studiasse, per cui Niekisch dovette soffrire le burle e l’ostilità dei suoi compagni di scuola. Già in quel periodo era avido di sapere ("Una vita da nullità è insopportabile", dirà) e divorato da un interiore fuoco rivoluzionario; legge Hauptmann, Ibsen, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Kant, Hegel e Macchiavelli, alla cui influenza si aggiungerà quella di Marx, a partire dal 1915. Arruolato nell’esercito nel 1914, seri problemi alla vista gli impediscono di giungere al fronte, per cui eserciterà, sino al febbraio del 1917, funzioni di istruttore di reclute ad Augsburg. Nell’ottobre del 1917 entra nel Partito Socialdemocratico (SPD) e si sente fortemente attratto dalla rivoluzione bolscevica. E' di quell’epoca il suo primo scritto politico, oggi perso, intitolato significativamente Licht aus dem osten (Luce dall’Est), nel quale già formulava ciò che sarà una costante della sua azione politica: l’idea della "Ostorientierung". La diffusione di questo foglio sarà sabotata dallo stesso SPD al cui periodico di Augsburg "Schwabischen Volkszeitung" collaborava Niekisch. Il 7 novembre 1918 Eisner, a Monaco, proclama la Repubblica. Niekisch fonda il Consiglio degli Operai e Soldati di Augsburg e ne diviene il presidente, dopo esserlo già stato del Consiglio Centrale degli Operai, Contadini e Soldati di Monaco nel febbraio e nel marzo del 1919. Egli è l’unico membro del Comitato Centrale che vota contro la proclamazione della prima Repubblica sovietica in Baviera, poiché considera che questa, in ragione del suo carattere agrario, sia la provincia tedesca meno idonea a realizzare l’esperimento. Malgrado ciò, con l’entrata dei Freikorps a Monaco, Niekisch viene arrestato il 5 maggio - giorno in cui passa dal SPD al Partito Socialdemocratico Indipendente (USPD). lI 22 giugno viene condannato a due anni di fortezza per la sua attività nel Consiglio degli Operai e Soldati, per quanto non abbia avuto nulla a che vedere con i crimini della Repubblica sovietica bavarese. Niekisch sconta integralmente la sua pena, e nonostante l’elezione al parlamento bavarese nelle liste della USPD non sarà liberato fino all’agosto del 1921. Frattanto, si ritrova nel SPD per effetto della riunificazione dello stesso con la USPD (la scissione si era determinata durante la guerra mondiale). Niekisch non è assolutamente d’accordo con la politica condiscendente dell’SPD - per temperamento era incapace di sopportare le mezze tinte o i compromessi - ed a questa situazione di sdegno si aggiungevano le minacce contro di lui e la sua famiglia (si era sposato nel 1915 ed aveva un figlio); così rinuncia al suo mandato parlamentare e si trasferisce a Berlino, dove entra nella direzione della segreteria giovanile del grande sindacato dei tessili, un lavoro burocratico che non troverà di suo gradimento. I suoi rapporti con L'SPD si deteriorano progressivamente, per il fatto che Niekisch si oppone al pagamento dei danni di guerra alla Francia e al Belgio e appoggia la resistenza nazionale quando la Francia occupa il bacino della Ruhr, nel gennaio del 1923. Dal 1924 si oppone anche al Piano Dawes, che regola il pagamento dei danni di guerra imposto alla Germania a Versailles. Niekisch attaccò frontalmente la posizione dell’SPD di accettazione del Piano Dawes in una conferenza di sindacalisti e socialdemocratici scontrandosi con Franz Hilferding, principale rappresentante della linea ufficiale.
Fortemente influenzato da Carl Schmitt, e partendo da questa base, Niekisch doveva vedere come nemico irriducibile il liberalismo borghese, che valorizza soprattutto i principi economici e considera l'uomo soltanto isolatamente, come unità alla ricerca del suo esclusivo profitto. l'individualismo borghese (con i conseguenti Stato liberale di diritto, libertà individuali, considerazioni dello Stato come un male) e materialismo nel pensiero di Niekisch appaiono come caratteristiche essenziali della democrazia borghese. Nello stesso tempo, Niekisch sviluppa una critica non originale, ma efficace e sincera, del sistema capitalista come sistema il cui motore è l’utile privato e non il soddisfacimento delle necessità individuali e collettive; e che, per di più, genera continuamente disoccupazione. In questo modo la borghesia viene qualificata come nemico interno che collabora con gli Stati occidentali borghesi all’oppressione della Germania. Il sistema di Weimar (incarnato da democratici, socialisti e clericali) rappresentava l’opposto dello spirito e della volontà statale dei tedeschi, ed era il nemico contro il quale si doveva organizzare la “Resistenza". Quello di "Resistenza" è un'altro concetto fondamentale dell'opera di Niekisch. La rivista dallo stesso nome recava, oltre al sottotitolo (prima "Blätter für sozialistische und nationalrevolutionäre Politik", quindi "Zeitschrift für nationalrevolutionäre Politik") una significativa frase di Clausewitz: "La resistenza è un'attività mediante la quale devono essere distrutte tante forze del nemico da indurlo a rinunciare ai suoi propositi". Se Niekisch considerava possibile questa attitudine di resistenza è perché credeva che la situazione di decadenza della Germania fosse passeggera, non irreversibile; e per quanto a volte sottolineasse che il suo pessimismo era “illimitato", si devono considerare le sue dichiarazioni in questo senso come semplici espedienti retorici, poiché la sua continua attività rivoluzionaria è la prova migliore che in nessun momento cedette al pessimismo ed allo sconforto. Abbiamo visto qual era il nemico contro cui dover organizzare la resistenza: “La democrazia parlamentare ed il liberalismo, il modo di vivere francese e l’americanismo". Con la stessa esattezza Niekisch definisce gli obiettivi della resistenza: l’indipendenza e la libertà della Germania, la più alta valorizzazione dello Stato, il recupero di tutti i tedeschi che si trovavano sorto il dominio straniero. Coerente col suo rifiuto dei valori economici, Niekisch non contrappone a questo nemico una forma migliore di distribuzione dei beni materiali, né il conseguimento di una società del benessere: ciò che Niekisch cercava era il superamento del mondo borghese, i cui beni si devono “detestare asceticamente". Il programma di "Resistenza" dell’aprile del 1930 non lascia dubbi da questo punto di vista: nello stesso si chiede il rifiuto deciso di tutti i beni che l’Europa vagheggia (punto 7a), il ritiro dall'economia internazionale (punto 7b), la riduzione della popolazione urbana e la ricostituzione delle possibilità di vita contadina (7c-d), la volontà di povertà ed un modo di vita semplice che deve opporsi orgogliosamente alla vita raffinata delle potenze imperialiste occidentali (7f) e, finalmente, la rinuncia al principio della proprietà privata nel senso del diritto romano, poiché “agli occhi dell’opposizione nazionale, la proprietà non ha senso né diritto al di fuori del servizio al popolo ed allo Stato”. Per realizzare i suoi obiettivi, che Uwe Sauermann definisce con precisione identici a quelli dei nazionalisti, anche se le strade e gli strumenti per conseguirli sono nuovi, Niekisch cerca le forze rivoluzionarie adeguate. Non può sorprendere che un uomo proveniente dalla sinistra come lui si diriga in primo luogo al movimento operaio. 
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Avant-Garde Fascism: The Mobilization of Myth, Art, and Culture in France, 1909–1939
Mark Antliff
Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2007
Mark Antliff, a professor of Art, Art History, and Visual Studies at Duke University, has put together a useful analysis of the cultural-aesthetic memes utilized by French fascists of 1909-1939 to promote their visions of national renewal. Antliff’s analysis focuses on the connection between fascist ideologies and the European avant-garde, which most people would more likely associate with the anti-national left. Antliff is fairly even handed in the book, with the occasional use of scare quotes to express his skepticism/disdain for certain “fascist ideas.”
In contrast, I believe his use of the term “democracy” should always have scare quotes, as “democratic” systems deceive the populace into believing that someone other than self-interested elites are running the show; however, apparently, Antliff and I disagree on our political preferences. Antliff also concludes the book with a line about how the ideas of the French fascists were not able to stem the tide of the “bloodshed” caused by the military aggressions of Hitler and Mussolini (including the invasion of France). Very well. One hopes an academic will write about the real blood that has been shed imposing “equality” on “the people” – either that of the mass-murdering Marxists or the genocidal globalist multiculturalists and their plans for a multiracial West. So much for my complaints about the book. What about fascism and avant-garde aesthetics?
Roger Griffin, in his Fascism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), famously described fascism as “palingenetic populist ultra-nationalism” – making the elements of renewal, rebirth, and regeneration central to all permutations of this ideology. It is also important to differentiate between real fascism and “para-fascist” ersatz fascism. Para-fascism is often confused with real fascism in the public mind, which gives the false impression that fascism is ossified reactionary conservatism, rather than a revolutionary movement interested in avant-garde themes and ideas.
The differences between real revolutionary fascism and para-fascism are easily summarized: Para-fascist regimes are authoritarian, traditionalist, reactionary regimes, often military dictatorships, that fossilize a status quo favoring traditional elites of business, nobility, religion, and the military. Such regimes want nothing to do with the revolutionary and palingenetic aspects of true fascism; the idea that the secular religious, Futuristic, and avant-garde characteristics of, say, (early) Italian Fascism has anything to do with Franco’s Spain or Pinochet’s Chile is absurd.
Indeed, as Griffin makes clear, fascists and para-fascists are usually, by their very nature, bitter enemies. While para-fascists may co-opt some superficial characteristics of their fascist opponents, in power they tend to ruthlessly suppress the expression of revolutionary fascism. When para-fascism attempts to co-opt fascism by sharing power – as Antonescu attempted in Romania with the Legionaries — conflict is inevitable, since the objectives of the two parties are completely different: para-fascist ossification vs. fascist palingenetic regeneration. Thus, in Romania, civil war between para-fascists and fascists led to the victory of the para-fascists, and the exile of the fascist forces. The idea that Antonescu was “fascist” is a byproduct of either ideological ignorance or ideological mendacity, a Marxist desire to strip their fascist competitors of revolutionary dynamism and reduce them to mere “bourgeois hooligans.”
Not all fascisms were equally “fascist” and revolutionary, and even individual fascist movements have oscillated between revolutionary ideals and borderline reactionary para-fascism.
For example, Italian fascism went through three distinct phases. In the years before the seizure of power and in the first half-dozen years of Mussolini’s regime, Italian fascism was in its “purest” form – revolutionary and palingenetic – emphasizing the regeneration of the Italian people and the Italian nation-state. Avant-garde themes and theorists, particularly Futurism, were important in this period, and individuals such as Marinetti were influential in early day Italian fascism.
However, the forces of reaction and of compromise with the establishment were always present; the presence of the King and the Vatican were two impediments to the process of “fascistization” that Mussolini could not, or would not, deal with. In the end, the Concordat was a turning point and the regime’s second phase veered to the “right” in the 1930s, becoming more conservative and reactionary, replacing internal regeneration with external imperialism. Without WW II, chances were good that Italian fascism would have degenerated into a stagnant para-fascist regime similar to that of Franco’s Spain.
Military defeat and the overthrow of Il Duce stopped that process; in the last and third phase of Italian fascism, the “Salo Republic,” the ideology shifted to the left, embracing a militant socialism, and becoming overtly pan-European in scope.
What about the Hitler and the Nazis? There has been some debate as to whether German National Socialism was a form of fascism. It seems to me obvious that it was; that differences existed between the Italian and German forms of fascism is not an argument against that conclusion. All genuine fascisms displayed important differences, yet still contained within themselves the core components of Griffin’s “palingenetic populist ultra-nationalism.”
In the case of National Socialism, the palingenesis was biological; Nazism was a heavily racialized and materialist form of fascism. The German National Socialists were tribalistic in worldview rather than Futurist, and, internal debates aside; Hitler himself was very hostile to the European avant-garde.
Thus, key differences between fascist forms are observed. The German brand had the biopolitical advantage of recognizing the importance of race. On the other hand, the Italian brand had the sociopolitical advantage of a more optimistic Futurist orientation, and was more open-minded with respect to tapping into the cultural energies created by the avant-garde artistic and sociopolitical movements extant in the first decades of the twentieth century.
In some sense, perhaps the “purest” brand of fascism was that of Codreanu and his “Legion of the Archangel Michael,” also known as the Iron Guard. This intensely palingenetic movement emphasized spiritual and moral regeneration to create a Romanian “New Man” to lead the nation to a higher level and fulfill the destiny of the Romanian people. This highly “virulent” form of “palingenetic populist ultra-nationalism” proved itself unable to co-exist with Antonescu’s conservative authoritarian para-fascism; the Legionary movement’s attempt to seize full power for itself (rather than share it with para-fascists; this sharing was correctly seen by the Legionaries as being an emasculating compromise of their ideology) was crushed by the para-fascist military apparatus.
Three fascisms, three different movements. But the revolutionary energies unleashed by these ideologies stand in sharp contrast to the moribund and ossified conservatism of the para-fascists. The political/cultural avant-garde (Italian), the biological-racialist (German), and the spiritual/moral (Romanian) components of these fascisms are important to us today.
And it is probably wrong to separate out the avant-garde mindset as being only applicable to the political/cultural sphere. After all, we really do need new, cutting-edge memes with respect to both materialist race and non-materialist morality. To quote a certain pro-fascist poet: “Make it new!”
With respect to Antliff’s book itself, chapter topics include Sorelian myth and anti-Semitism, and the fascistic politics of Valois, Lamour, and Maulnier. The importance of Sorelian myth was underscored by a recent Michael O’Meara piece that appeared on TOQ Online. Antliff stresses that culture and aesthetics were extremely important to Sorel in his quest to formulate a doctrine of instrumentally utilizing myth to overturn the hated rationalist-capitalist-democratic system. Art is part of this aesthetic emphasis and, truth be told, Sorel focused on culture over politics; indeed, he was scornful of the power of the myth being used and squandered for low-level political aims.
Further, Sorel went through a distinctly “anti-Semitic” phase, in which Jews were considered the exemplars of ultra-rationalist anti-creators, whose worldview set them in opposition to native peoples and native cultural expressions and aesthetics. Opposing the pro-Dreyfus “French” journal La revue blanche, Sorel sarcastically referred to the journal’s Jewish founders as “two Jews come from Poland in order to regenerate our poor country, so unhappily still contaminated by the Christian civilization of the seventeenth century.” Sorel accused Jewish intellectuals of wanting to promote an abstract (i.e., non-ethnic, non-national, non-cultural) concept of (French) citizenship and to also promote “cosmopolitan anarchy.”
Related to this “anti-Semitism,” Sorel admired and promoted the Classical World; the values of classical heroes, such as the Greeks at Thermopylae, were something counterpoised against the Jewish ethic and the degeneration of parliamentary democracy.
Sorel considered art as related to the creativity of work, a creativity that he wished to inculcate into the “productive workers” in place of assembly line mass capitalism and rationalized “one man-one vote” democracy. He also considered an enlightened “proletariat” as being able to reinvigorate a stagnant bourgeoisie through class conflict.
Georges Valois, 1878–1945
Georges Valois (born Alfred-Georges Gressent) went through a wide variety of ideological contortions in his lifetime, from fascism to “libertarian communism,” ending up dying in a Nazi concentration camp after being captured as a member of the “French Resistance.” While such an unbalanced individual represents much of what is wrong with the “movement” (changing your mind is one thing – completely switching your worldview from one moment to the next is another), some of his activities during his “fascist stage” are of interest.
Particularly enlightening is the focus on the urbanism of Le Corbusier, which stands in contrast to much of the American “movement” and its anti-urbanist emphasis on militant ruralism. No doubt, in the West today, the city is an anti-white, anti-Western disaster, full of racial enemies. No doubt as well that throughout much of human history, the city was an unhealthy and sterilizing place, inimical to racial survival and racial progress.
However, in our modern technological age, if we can solve our racial problems, the city itself does not necessarily have to be a racial evil. As part of a natural continuum of human ecologies – isolated rural, rural, suburban/town, small city, larger cities, etc. – the city may play an important role in the Futurist racial ethnostate of tomorrow, a place of technological advancement, racially healthy avant-garde memes, and sociopolitical dynamism. Racial nationalism can and should be reconciled to a certain degree of urbanism – not the urbanism of degeneration, but that of regeneration.
This of course underlies a schism within activism that often goes unnoticed – between modernist, technological tribalist-racialist Futurism and a ruralist anti-technological ecotribalism. It is clear that the French fascists described by Antliff for the most part fall into the first group. Thus, a major divide exists between the Futurist-Modernist fascists (think Marinetti in Italy) and the ruralist soil-oriented romantic past-oriented fascists (think Darre in Germany, or the agrarian-nostalgic Vichy regime in France).
Of course, a healthy society needs both worldviews, and in practical terms a balance is required. For example, Valois incorporated a “love for the native soil” along with his Futurist mindset. Indeed, Valois contrasted “Asiatic nomadness” associated with communism with the “Latin sedentary” style — derived from “cultured Roman legions” — of the French, tied to the native soil and inclined to fascism. He also associated the hated nomadic lifestyle with capitalism, since hyper-rational capitalism uprooted the workers from grounding in an organic society and turned them into atomized, rootless “nomads.”
A related issue is the relationship between Futurism and the veneration of the past. Antliff makes clear that the emphasis on the past in fascism (e.g., the Greco-Roman classical world) was not meant to mean turning back the clock and shunning progress. Instead, this look to the past was, paradoxically, futurist, in that the fascists wanted to take from the past certain noble values and behaviors and use these to help build the modern, technological world of tomorrow. Therefore, one need not discard the past to build a new future, but judiciously use elements of the past as necessary building blocks for the projected futurist edifice. Different strands of fascist thought need not be incompatible, just as common ground must be found between the tribalist futurist and tribalist ruralist strands of modern racial nationalist thought.
Another French fascist, Philippe Lamour, also went through many ideological “twists and turns,” ultimately rejecting fascism in favor of anti-fascism and syndicalism. Lamour originally represented the fascist variant of “machine primitivism” – that is, an anti-rationalist “new consciousness attuned to the dynamism of technology.” Thus, urban industrialism, technology, productivity, and futurist modernism need not be associated with “rational” egalitarianism but with tribalistic fascism. Lamour wished to create a “community of producers” integrating the different classes of French society to overturn liberal democracy in favor of a modernist technologically dynamic fascist state.
Early French fascists such as Lamour also promoted the idea of a European federation, and attempted to make common cause with more pan-European and “leftist” German National Socialists, such as the Strasserian “Black Front,” who favored European cooperation as opposed to Hitler’s hegemony through military conquest. Not coincidentally, before he fell into Hitler’s orbit, Mussolini also favored an alliance of European (fascist) states, promoted through the doctrine of “Roman Universality,” with practical expression through events such as the pan-fascist Montreux conference.
Lamour’s greatest contribution to French fascism was the promotion of the “conflict of generations,” pitting the younger fascistic generation of WW I against the older generation of parliamentary democrats. This latter group was seen as being out of touch with the new age of national regeneration, avant-garde culture and politics, Sorelian myth, as well as technological productivity. Lamour and his “war generation” were at the forefront of the battle of youth vs. the image of fossilized reactionary status quo politicians.
Aesthetically, the work of German artist Germaine Krull and even Soviet filmmaker Sergei Eisenstein influenced the avant-garde sensibilities of “machine primitive” young French fascists such as Lamour. Antliff summarizes Lamour’s unique contribution to the ideology of interwar French fascism as the melding of “machine aesthetics” to the concept of generational warfare. Thus, to Lamour, technological dynamism and the replacement of the ossified previous generation with fresh youth were the Sorelian myths required to spark an era of national renewal.
Thierry Maulnier, 1908–1988
Thierry Maulnier (born Jacques Talagrand), author of “Crisis Is in Man,” had as his concept of Sorelian myth “classical violence.” Within the journal Combat, Maulnier and colleagues opposed the leftist French Popular Front’s Marxist-themed “culture” with their own view of aesthetics in architecture and sculpture. Antliff describes Combat’s as focusing on “three interrelated spheres: political institutions, human spirituality, and aesthetics.” The classicism of the Maulnier school promoted the idea of a “synthesis of Dionysian energy and Apollonian restraint.”
Politically, Maulnier wished for a form of French fascism that rejected parliamentary democracy but which still supported the rights and aspirations of the individual, as opposed to what was perceived as the more authoritarian and collectivist societies of Fascist Italy and National Socialist Germany. These distinctions between French and other fascisms became more salient after Mussolini fell into Hitler’s orbit and became hostile to French national interests. Indeed, before the start of WW II, Maulnier advocated a “minimal fascist program” for France that would be both a short-term “fix” to bolster the French military for confrontation with the Axis, as well as preparation for the long-term and permanent fascistic remodeling of society after the Axis threat had dissipated.
It must be noted that the Valois, Lamour, and Maulnier fascist ideologies, while linked together by a palingenetic call for national renewal and a rejection of parliamentary democracy, did differ in important ways. In particular, the classicism of Maulnier can be contrasted with the militant futurism and “machine primitivism” of Lamour. Although Antliff stresses that the French fascist focus on the classical world does not necessarily imply a rejection of modernism per se, the specific differences between Maulnier and Lamour were the greatest of any of the individuals profiled by Antliff. Valois and Lamour both embraced the image of “industrial production” as a central motif of their ideology; however, while Lamour spun together a myth of generational conflict, Valois instead emphasized a “spirit of victory” in which the heroism of WW I will now be turned to a battle of the entire nation to create an organized fascist-industrial society. Of these three men, it was Lamour who was the most steadfastly “avant-garde” in cultural-aesthetic orientation, Maulnier the least.
Crude ethnic stereotyping may lead one to conclude that an emphasis on art, culture, and aesthetics in the creation of fascist ideology was (and is) a particularly “French” phenomenon. Of course, other fascist movements were concerned with these issues, sometimes to a significant extent, but none of them incorporated such memes into the core of the political thinking as did French fascist thinkers. Indeed, the cultural-aesthetic emphasis of the French strain of fascism is a breath of fresh air after immersion in the more focused political thought of the Italian Fascists and the racialist ideals of the German National Socialists.
In fact, all three areas of focus – cultural-aesthetic, political, and racialist – are required for a complete memetic complex to promote fascistic ideals. As a biological reductionist, I would emphasize the racialist first of all, but doing so with respect to modern genetic science rather than the sort of quackery that passed as “racial science” under the Nazis. However, biological racialism by itself is not enough. Without an edifice of political and cultural-aesthetic memes, the foundation of ultimate interests will go nowhere.
Related to this issue of political aesthetics, I was impressed by Alex Kurtagic’s analysis of “semiotic systems” and the importance of style in shaping perceptions of status within nationalist memes. This is important. Of course, the enemy will, as a matter of course, attempt to oppose this approach through co-option and/or mockery.
Co-option is a problem for any memetic threat to establishment power; for example, the GOP has effectively co-opted “rightist, racist” concerns through the exploitation of “implicit whiteness.” This strategy has enabled the Republicans to retain white support while at the same time moving continuously leftward in the direction of overtly anti-white policies.
Thus, while aesthetics and style are important, they always must be innately linked to content to prevent the establishment from utilizing the same semiotic systems to promote the exact opposite of our objectives. Dealing with co-option will be difficult, and it is crucially important that the problem be analyzed from the beginning in a proactive fashion.
In other words, right from the start, the construction of unique avant-garde racial-nationalist semiotic systems must incorporate strategies for preventing co-option and dealing with co-option if these preventive measures fail. Therefore, we must identify, in advance, as many problems with each approach as possible, and develop multiple contingency plans for dealing with each emergent counter-move of the establishment.
Mockery is also a problem; the establishment, utilizing its control of the mass media and its stable of celebrity puppets, can subject any racial-nationalist semiotic system to a barrage of withering ridicule. It is important that the elitist and superior nature of the system be of sufficient strength that adherents can turn around such ridicule and assert it as a matter of pride and not shame. In other words, the establishment ridicule itself must be mocked as the pathetic attempts of a dying and out-of-touch system to delegitimize a novel movement of which they are afraid.
Again, careful planning is required to plan against the establishment’s ridicule strategy, but if both co-option and mockery can be successfully dealt with, the semiotic-aesthetic strategy has a chance to achieve its objectives. And those objectives are, in essence, to defuse the “social pricing” attacks of the establishment against racial-nationalist activists and adherents, by providing an alternative value system opposed to, and independent of, establishment standards and acceptance.
In summary, Antliff has dissected a particularly interesting and heretofore unexplored strain of French fascism characterized by an embrace of avant-garde cultural concepts, modernism, Futurism, productivity and the planned society, urbanism and industrial technology, exemplified by so-called “machine primitivism.”
With today’s worries of “peak oil,” and concerns that the multiracial West will collapse, visions of decentralized ruralistic tribalism have again become prominent in nationalist thought. However, the white man is endlessly inventive, and free of the shackles of genocidal globalist multiculturalism, the technological genius of whites, so unleashed, may provide the foundation for a Futurist, technologically advanced and tribalist society. Such a society would have options for both the urbanist technological and ruralist agrarian lifestyles for those whose preferences are for one or the other.
Although I am sure he is an “anti-fascist,” Antliff’s work helps us to consider one technological Futurist option. The major conclusion from both Antliff’s and Kurtagic’s analyses is that staid and conformist methods for sociopolitical activism may be best replaced, at least in part, by avant-garde memes that let some “fresh air” into stale “movement” environs.
Die Pionierin der Meinungsforschung, Elisabeth Noelle-Neuman (vor wenigen Tagen 93-jährig gestorben), wusste über das Thema Meinungsfreiheit theoretisch viel zu sagen, mehr übrigens, als sie selbst es häufig praktisch umzusetzen wagte. Ihre Vorliebe für die Mächtigen hat sich bis heute in ihrem Meinungsforschungsinstitut »Demoskopie Allensbach« erhalten, was einige Beispiele gleich zeigen werden. So galt sie als enge Vertraute der meist konservativen Polit-Elite: Mit Adenauer trank sie Tee, Kohl verehrte sie und pflegte einen jahrelangen »Beratungskontakt«. Vielleicht gerade durch diese nicht unerheblichen Verflechtungen konnte sie genau erkennen, wohin zu viel Macht und Einfluss führen können: in die sogenannte »Schweigespirale«, deren Begriff sie schließlich erschuf und prägte! Schweigespirale? Was ist das denn? Und wo gibt’s die? Überall! Und zunehmend mehr! Sie hat die Menschen fest im Griff, diese Schweigespirale. Ihre Existenz allein beweist, dass sich viele Menschen im Lande ihre Meinung nicht auszusprechen getrauen, aus Angst, ausgelacht und ausgegrenzt zu werden. Es ist an der Zeit, offen über die Meinungsfreiheit als eine der wichtigsten gesellschaftspolitischen Forderungen zu diskutieren, diese endlich mit allen Mitteln einzufordern und die Schweigespirale zu zerstören!
Le 20 avril 1938 cinq jeunes scientifiques allemands montent à bord, dans le port de Gènes, sur le « Gneisenau », un navire rapide qui fait la liaison avec l’Extrême-Orient. Le but de leur voyage : le haut plateau du Tibet, entouré d’une nuée de mystères, le « Toit du monde ». Sous la direction du biologiste Ernst Schäfer, s’embarquent pour une aventure hors du commun pour les critères de l’époque, Bruno Beger (anthropologue et géographe), Karl Wienert (géophysicien et météorologue), Edmund Geer (en charge de la logistique et directeur technique de l’expédition) et Ernst Krause (entomologiste, cameraman et photographe).
Primera en aparecer, en 1776, bajo la forma de la Declaración de Independencia, la versión americana de la ideología de los derechos humanos hace más hincapié en la busqueda por el hombre de la felicidad, en el derecho del individuo a resistir a toda soberanía que obstaculizaría su "libre árbitro" y su placer, que en los derechos políticos del ciudadano. La Constitución americana refleja esta concepción del Estado de Derecho: los gobernantes tienen por principal objetivo la garantía de los derechos humanos. La finalidad asignada a la política es permitir que los hombres gocen, en seguridad, de sus bienes. Tal filosofía, que se inspira directamente en los hédonistas anglosajones y en los topicos del Segundo Tratado de Locke, presenta ya los fundamentos doctrinales del Estado benefactor occidental moderno, para el cual la gestión de la "felicidad pública" (common good) prevalece sobre la dirección política del destino de la nación. En este sentido, si la Revolución francesa fue fundadora de una "nación", la Revolución americana lo fue de una "sociedad", instancia despolitizada, dónde lo cotidiano y no la historia pasa a ser, como dice Baudrillard, el "destino social".
Zum Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts klingt ein Zeitalter der europäischen Kultur- und Geistesgeschichte aus, welches zugleich den Wendepunkt zur Moderne darstellt. Auf der Suche nach einem neuen Sinn und einem neuen Halt begibt sich die nun folgende Generation von Künstlern, Dichtern, Denkern und Ästhetikern. Einer dieser Suchenden ist Eugen Diederichs. Er wird den Weg eines Verlegers bestreiten, um auf diese neue Epoche nach seinen Vorstellungen einzuwirken. Im Jahr 1896 gründet er sein Unternehmen in Italien und verlegt kurze Zeit später den Sitz des Geschäftes nach Jena – in die Nähe seines Geburtsortes. Einen Versammlungsort moderner Geister will er begründen. Modern meint bei ihm aber nicht fortschrittlich und sich nach aktuellen Erscheinungen richtend. Bei der Auswahl seiner Autoren und deren Werke wird er nicht fragen, ob diese dem Geschmack des deutschen Lesers entsprechen und zeitgemäß sind, sondern er wird abwägen, inwiefern diese einer neuen Kultur zu gute kommen, die sich nicht nur von Rationalität und Wissenschaftlichkeit vereinnahmen lässt. Eugen Diederichs fragt nicht, was das deutsche Volk lesen will – er möchte jene Bücher darreichen, die seines Erachtens notwendig sind, um dem beginnenden Jahrhundert die richtigen Impulse zu geben. Die Gebiete auf denen er dies tun möchte sind vielfältig: Theosophie, Religion, Bildung und Pädagogik sind nur einige davon. Man kann ihn hinsichtlich seiner Programmatik nicht in eine Schublade stecken. Ob Neuromantiker, konservativer Revolutionär oder Antimodernist – nichts von alledem war er durch und durch, doch sicherlich kann man ihm für gewisse Anschauungen dieses oder jenes Etikett aufdrücken. Eines will er jedoch sein – und so definiert er auch seine eigene Tätigkeit: Kulturverleger. Viele seiner Autoren wollen mit ihrem Verleger reformieren, Neues gestalten, aber auch Altes bewahren. Dass diese Vorstöße nicht alle in die gleiche Richtung zielen versteht sich bei der Menge von verlegten Schriften, die diese Absicht verfolgen, von selbst. Dies kann auch kein Vorwurf an den Verleger sein – selbst wenn jener versucht Gegensätzliches zusammenzuführen. Nach dem 1. Weltkrieg schlägt Diederichs Enthusiasmus und Tatendrang manchmal in Resignation sowie Willen- und Ideenlosigkeit um. Er wird von so manchen verhöhnt und belächelt. Doch im Glauben an das nach seinen Grundsätzen neu zu schaffende Deutschland bleibt er seinen Prinzipien treu.![[Abbildung]](http://www.dhm.de/lemo/objekte/pict/haushofe/index.jpg)
Am 12. Dezember 2009 gab die Regierung von Bulgarien – ehemaliges Mitgliedsland des Warschauer Pakts und heute NATO- und EU-Mitglied – bekannt, man werde sich ungeachtet erheblichen Drucks vonseiten Washingtons an Moskaus South-Stream-Projekt beteiligen.
L’accusa più scontata che l’intellighenzia ufficiale lancia contro
Rencontre avec le docteur Tomislav SUNIC, enseignant en sciences politiques aux Etats Unis et écrivain croate.
Il 23 Febbraio 2010, l’intelligence iraniana assestava un duro colpo alla strategia neo-mackinderiana dell’amministrazione Obama, catturando Abdolmalek Rigi, il capo del gruppo terroristico Jundallah, responsabile di stragi, rapina a mano armata, sequestro di persona, atti di sabotaggio, attentati e operazioni terroristiche contro i civili, esponenti del governo e militari dell’Iran, assassinando in 6 anni oltre 150 persone in Iran, per la maggior parte civili.
Wintergrau liegt auf der Heimat. Eisig fegen frostige Stürme über kahle Felder, darüber ziehen Krähenschwärme hin. Am Horizont versinkt ein matter Sonnenball ins Grau das über die Welt gekommen ist mit dem Fall der letzten Blätter - von ferne kündet Trommelschlag: SCHWERTZEIT bricht an!
Ende 2009 hat Moskau genau zum geplanten Zeitpunkt und zur großen Überraschung Washingtons nach vierjähriger Bauzeit die Ostsibirien-Pazifik-Pipeline (East Sibiria Pacific Ocean, ESPO) in Betrieb genommen. Der Bau der Ölpipeline hat etwa 14 Milliarden Dollar gekostet. Sie ermöglicht Russland nun den direkten Export von Öl aus den ostsibirischen Feldern nach China sowie nach Südkorea und Japan – ein großer Schritt zu einer engeren wirtschaftlichen Integration zwischen Russland und China. Die Pipeline verläuft zum etwas nördlich der chinesischen Grenze gelegenen Ort Skoworodino am Fluss Bolschoi Newer. Dort wird das Öl für den Transport zum Pazifikhafen Kozmino in der Nähe von Wladiwostok zurzeit noch auf Eisenbahntankwagen umgeladen. Allein der Bau dieser Station hat zwei Milliarden Dollar gekostet. Dort können täglich bis zu 300.000 Barrel Rohöl verladen werden. Das Öl, das von vergleichbarer Qualität ist wie die im Nahen Osten geförderten Sorten, dominiert mittlerweile den Markt in der Region. Der russische staatliche Pipelinemonopolist Transneft hat noch einmal zwölf Milliarden Dollar in die 2.700 Kilometer lange Pipeline durch die ostsibirische Wildnis investiert, die eine Verbindung zu den verschiedenen, von den russischen Großunternehmen Rosneft, TNK-BP und Surgutneftegaz erschlossenen Ölfelder in der Region herstellt.
In un articolo del marzo 1935 dal titolo “Il nazismo sulla via di Mosca?” apparso sul quotidiano “Lo Stato”, Julius Evola, allora umile pensatore ai margini del fascismo italiano, prendendo spunto dalle vicende occorse il 30 giugno del 1934 in Germania storicamente note come “Notte dei lunghi coltelli” e cioè la decapitazione sanguinosa, da parte della “destra” hitleriana, delle S.A., le Squadre di Assalto di Roehm e di Strasser che volevano – conquistato il potere – che la rivoluzione nazionalsocialista mettesse in opera il programma sociale, la cosiddetta “seconda rivoluzione” - muove una profonda critica alle posizioni espresse da Carl Dryssen nella sua opera “Fascismo nazionalsocialismo, prussianesimo”, considerato da Evola come il testo guida delle volontà dei rivoluzionari delle SA, facenti capo ad Ernst Röhm, nel quale si rintracciava la linea che essi volevano imporre al movimento nazionalsocialista.
Pendant longtemps le Grand Electeur Frédéric-Guillaume de Prusse n’a connu aucun succès dans ses ambitions d’outre-mer. L’entreprise, qui a consisté à mettre sur pied une société à l’image de la Compagnie néerlandaise des Indes orientales, a échoué face aux réticences anglaises.
La troupe de protection allemande fut rapidement coupée de toute voie d’approvisionnement et, devant des forces ennemies supérieures en nombre, est obligée de se replier progressivement sur les hauts plateaux du pays, autour de l’actuelle capitale Yaoundé. Les combats acharnés durent jusqu’au début de l’année 1916. A ce moment-là, Allemands et Camerounais n’ont plus de munitions. Les Askaris de l’Empereur Guillaume II engagent le combat contre l’ennemi uniquement avec leurs baïonnettes. A la mi-février, le gros de la troupe de protection gagne un territoire neutre, la colonie espagnole de Rio Muni au Sud du Cameroun. Des dizaines de milliers d’indigènes, fidèles au Reich allemand, les suivent dans cet exil. Dans le Nord du protectorat du Cameroun, à proximité du Lac Tchad, la forteresse de montagne de Maroua tient sans fléchir sous les ordres du capitaine von Raben, grièvement blessé.
EUROPEAN SYNERGIES – MANAGERS’ SCHOOL / BRUSSELS/LIEGE –![cia_cia_db[1].jpg](http://euro-synergies.hautetfort.com/media/02/02/470148509.jpg)
Van
Je vous le donne en mille : le huitième corridor passe par Skopje, en Macédoine, à quelques kilomètres du Kosovo. Pourquoi n'en n'avons-nous jamais entendu parler, puisque nous vivons en démocratie, que nous nous permettons de bombarder des télévisions et des radios, de tuer des journalistes (coupables de faire de la propagande, et nous de l'information), pourquoi n'avons-nous jamais entendu parler des corridors VIII, X, IV et "dalmatien" ? Pourquoi ces projets, qui sont au cœur des politiques de tous les pays des Balkans, qui concernent directement le développement économique de l'Europe, nous ont-ils été cachés ? Pourquoi cet élément vital, dans la décision des peuples à entrer en guerre, a-t-il été occulté ?