Ok

En poursuivant votre navigation sur ce site, vous acceptez l'utilisation de cookies. Ces derniers assurent le bon fonctionnement de nos services. En savoir plus.

mardi, 21 mars 2017

Bannon: un guénonien à Washington D.C.?

steve-bannon-0403_b2.jpg

Bannon: un guénonien à Washington D.C.?

Ex: http://www.dedefensa.org

On a déjà beaucoup parlé de Stephen Bannon, ce “conseiller stratégique” du président Trump et, semble-t-il, le conseiller le plus écouté jusqu’à être considéré, – selon certains points de vue, – comme l’éminence grise et l’inspirateur de Trump. L’on sait également que Bannon a déjà beaucoup suscité de commentaires avec certaines de ses conceptions, notamment et précisément son idée selon laquelle il faut “détruire tout le Système” (cette expression étant une interprétation de certaines déclarations et écrits, qui s’éclaireront plus loin). (... Et nous laissons bien entendu de côté les sornettes insupportables de médiocrité, issues des complexes et obsessions postmodernismes, sur son prétendu “suprémacisme blanc” et le reste. Ce faisant, nous laissons les esprits forts et flics de la postmodernité jouer avec leurs poussières.) Or, voici un texte particulièrement intéressant à cet égard, que nous comptons utiliser comme une des références pour un prochain F&C consacré à la question que soulève le cas Bannon, du point de vue de notre civilisation et de son destin dans l’arrangement cosmique du monde... Pas moins, chers lecteurs.

Le texte est d’Alastair Crooke, dans Consortium News, le 10 mars. Nous connaissons Crooke que nous avons souvent cité, et qu’il nous est arrivé de rencontrer pour mieux apprécier ses qualités. Nous ferons deux remarques à son propos, qui situeront parfaitement l’appréciation que nous en avons, et par conséquent une façon de voir ce qu'on peut accorder de crédit au texte que nous examinons.

• Cet ancien officier du MI6 devenu conseiller du Haut Représentant de l’UE Solana au début des années 2000, a choisi ensuite la voie très difficile de l’indépendance en créant son institut dit Conflict Forum. Basé au Liban puis replié sur l’Italie, Crooke poursuit un chemin ardu, sans soutien institutionnalisé, caractérisé par une rupture avec la pensée dominante, ditto le Système. Ses positions sont évidemment elles-mêmes en rupture complète avec la doxa-Système et sa carrière nous garantit que ses jugements sont nourris de la rigueur et de l’expérience professionnelles qui lui sont naturelles.

• Crooke est un homme affable et doux, au jugement rationnel et d’une très grande culture, qui a l’habitude d’observer les divers problèmes soulevés par la Grande Crise générale du point de vue d’un érudit particulièrement versé dans les conceptions liées à la pensée de la Tradition. Il est un de ces esprits qui commentent les événements en ayant comme référence les grands courants philosophiques qui l’intéressent. Très grand connaisseur des questions de l’Islam, hors des analyses hystériquement artificielles sur l’“islamisme” extrémisme-terroriste et l’“islamophobie” qui lui répond, – caricature postmoderniste contre caricature postmoderniste, – on peut très bien lors d’une discussion avec lui se trouver entraînés dans une réflexion commune sur le néoplatonisme sans avoir le sentiment de se trouver hors-sujet.

Ce qui passionne Crooke dans la personne de Bannon, et par conséquent dans la sorte d’influence qu’il exercerait sur un Trump qui apparaîtrait lui-même intellectuellement bien plus conséquent qu’on ne croit, c’est la conscience qu’a le personnage de la profondeur vertigineuse de la Grande Crise. L’intérêt que présentent la personnalité et l’expérience de Bannon est qu’il a lui aussi, de son côté, à côté de positions théoriques très marquées, une expérience professionnelle également très marquée des instruments fondamentaux, déstructurants et dissolvants, de la postmodernité et du Système, ; il a en effet travaillé à Hollywood comme scénariste et réalisateur (son film Generation Zero) et à Wall Street, chez Goldman-Sachs, avant de passer à Breitbart.News.

(C’est une démarche courante aujourd’hui, qui demande une grande attention de la psychologie, une grande souplesse de l’esprit et de son jugement. Ce qui peut être d’abord perçu comme des signes de compromission avec le Système du point de vue des antiSystème, peut également, par éventuelle inversion vertueuse et suivant une enquête éclairée, être vu au contraire comme des instruments d’une connaissance éventuellement décisive de l’adversaire, “de l’intérieur”.)

Neil-Prophecy.jpgBannon est extrêmement influencé par les travaux de deux commentateurs de la sorte que nous nommerions “crisologues” tant le concept de crise (crisologie) est au centre de toutes nos réflexions, Neil Howe et William Strauss, auteurs de An American Prophecy, en 1997. Les deux auteurs adoptent une approche de l’actuelle situation,  – la grande Crise se faisant déjà sentir dès la fin du communisme avec la mise en cause radicale de la notion de Progrès, – qui se réfère aux théories cycliques de la Tradition. « [Leur] analyse rejette les promesses des historiens occidentaux modernes de développement social et économie linéaire (progrès continuel et déclin) ou chaotique (trop de complexité pour révéler n’importe quelle direction). Au lieu de cela, ils adoptent la vision d’à peu près toutes les sociétés traditionnelles : que le temps social est un temps cyclique dans lequel les événements sont significatifs seulement dans la mesure où ils sont caractérisés par ce que le philosophe Mircea Eliade nommait “reconstitution”. Dans l’espace cyclique, une fois que vous avez écarté les accidents accessoires et sans signification, ainsi que la technologie, il vous reste un nombre limité de conceptions sociales, qui tendent à se répéter selon un ordre bien fixé... »

Les deux auteurs identifient quatre phases (quatre Turnings) dans le cycle, High, Awakening, Unravelling et Crisis, – étant entendu et étant évident que nous nous trouvons dans une quatrième phase du cycle donné qui voit évoluer notre civilisation et notre destin. Bien entendu, cette schématisation est irrésistiblement identifiable comme étant de type guénonien, c’est-à-dire selon la référence classique, et considérée par Guénon lui-même comme “universelle” du Manvatara hindouiste des quatre âges (Or, Argent, Airain et Fer), et référence effectivement de la Tradition et de toutes les doctrines qui s’y rapportent. Bien entendu encore, cette sorte de conception s’oppose d’une façon fondamentale et universelle à toutes les idées et conceptions de type moderniste. On a là, bien entendu toujours, une clef solide et fort bien ciselée pour expliquer la haine absolument diabolique, – le qualificatif sonne bien et juste, – qui accompagne Trump, son administration, et bien sûr son conseiller Bannon identifié comme le Diable en personne. (Ce qui est somme toute inacceptable comme on le comprend aisément, car il doit être admis que le Diable ne peut supporte ni admettre d’être plagié ni imité de quelque façon que ce soit...)

Dans les conceptions de Bannon, et puisque nous nous trouvons comme toutes les traditions s’accordent à le penser dans une fin de cycle, à la fois crisique et catastrophique, il y a comme une pressante et impérative nécessité d’aller jusqu’au bout de la catastrophe. Il se trouve, observe Crooke, que cette conception rencontre, ou se rapproche en la croisant, de certaines conceptions de Trump lui-même, exprimées dès 2000, selon l’extrême probabilité d’une catastrophe économique, financière et sociale, avec l’idée implicite de la nécessité de cette catastrophe pour parvenir à une sorte de “renaissance”.

(On pourrait penser qu’il y a là une idée qui pourrait aussi bien trouver sa symbolisation triviale dans l’expression que Trump employait pour indiquer qu’il allait attaquer la corruption, le clientélisme, etc., de l’establishment. “Drainer le cloaque” pourrait aussi bien s’appliquer à la nécessité de porter la Grande crise à son extrême catastrophique.)

On comprend l’intérêt de cette analyse, surtout dans le climat actuel qui ne cesse d’évoluer vers un catastrophisme quasiment opérationnel, laissant loin derrière lui les seules craintes de crises parcellaires, n’affectant qu’un seul domaine, et qui sont finalement des crises “rassurantes” pour le Système as a whole (comme celle de l’automne 2008, par exemple). Il y a maintenant plusieurs années qu’on ne mesure plus les possibilités de crise aux seuls chiffres du chômage, de la Bourse ou de la croissance, mais que le sentiment général est celui d’une crise de civilisation en train de se préparer ou déjà en train de se dérouler, affectant par définition tous les domaines, un bouleversement à la fois métahistorique et eschatologique.

trumpsalite.jpg

La question que soulèvent ces réflexions concerne bien entendu la signification réelle de la politique Trump, ou de ce qu’on perçoit comme étant une antipolitique, sinon une non-politique, – ce qui est un objet de très nombreuses interrogations et supputations depuis deux mois. (Trump est-il prisonnier du Système ? Trump a-t-il capitulé devant le Système ? Trump est-il un faux-nez du Système ? Trump est-il un comploteur ? Trump est-il un crétin? Trump est-il fou ? Etc.) Dans le chef de cette “politique“ qui a les allures d’une non-politique, peut-on concevoir que la politique de Trump soit une démarche volontaire à la finalité aussi vertigineuse, et peut-on concevoir qu’on puisse définir et accomplir une politique qui soit le contraire du concept de politique, accompagnant un processus de destruction-reconstruction, de chaos-renaissance, etc. ? Bien entendu, on voit combien cette sorte d’hypothèse s’accorde avec l’observation que nous faisons souvent du processus de surpuissance-autodestruction caractérisant le Système. Il y a là un courant d’hypothèses qui tend à s’orienter vers les attentes intellectuelles, sinon spirituelles, qu’a fait naître le développement des événements depuis quelques années (depuis 9/11, depuis l’automne 2008, depuis le “printemps arabe” de 2010, et singulièrement depuis le “coup de Kiev” de février 2014 et jusqu’au Brexit et USA-2016 avec Trump).

dedefensa.org

 

alg-steve-bannon-jpg.jpg

Steve Bannon’s Apocalyptic ‘Unravelling’

by Alastair Crooke

Steve Bannon is accustomed to start many of his talks to activists and Tea Party gatherings in the following way: “At 11 o’clock on 18 September 2008, Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke told the U.S. President that they had already stove-piped $500 billions of liquidity into the financial system during the previous 24 hours – but needed a further one Trillion dollars, that same day.

“The pair said that if they did not get it immediately, the U.S. financial system would implode within 72 hours; the world’s financial system, within three weeks; and that social unrest and political chaos could ensue within the month.” (In the end, Bannon notes, it was more like $5 trillion that was required, though no one really knows how much, as there has been no accounting for all these trillions).

“We (the U.S.) have”, he continues, “in the wake of the bailouts that ensued, liabilities of $200 trillions, but net assets – including everything – of some $50-60 trillion.” (Recall that Bannon is himself a former Goldman Sachs banker).

“We are upside down; the industrial democracies today have a problem we have never had before; we are over-leveraged (we have to go through a massive de-leveraging); and we have built a welfare state which is completely and totally unsupportable.

“And why this is a crisis … the problem … is that the numbers have become so esoteric that even the guys on Wall Street, at Goldman Sachs, the guys I work with, and the Treasury guys … It’s so tough to get this together … Trillion dollar deficits … etcetera.”

But, Bannon says — in spite of all these esoteric, unimaginable numbers wafting about — the Tea Party women (and it is mainly led by women, he points out) get it. They know a different reality: they know what groceries now cost, they know their kids have $50,000 in college debt, are still living at home, and see no jobs in prospect: “The reason I called the film Generation Zero is because this generation, the guys in their 20s and 30s: We’ve wiped them out.”

And it’s not just Bannon. A decade earlier, in 2000, Donald Trump was writing in a very similar vein in a pamphlet that marked his first toying with the prospect of becoming a Presidential candidate: “My third reason for wanting to speak out is that I see not only incredible prosperity … but also the possibility of economic and social upheaval … Look towards the future, and if you are like me, you will see storm clouds brewing. Big Trouble. I hope I am wrong, but I think we may be facing an economic crash like we’ve never seen before.”

And before the recent presidential election, Donald Trump kept to this same narrative: the stock market was dangerously inflated. In an interview on CNBC, he said, “I hope I’m wrong, but I think we’re in a big, fat, juicy bubble,” adding that conditions were so perilous that the country was headed for a “very massive recession” and that “if you raise interest rates even a little bit, (everything’s) going to come crashing down.”

The Paradox

And here, precisely, is the paradox: Why — if Trump and Bannon view the economy as already over-leveraged, excess-bubbled, and far too fragile to accommodate even a small interest rate rise — has Trump (in Mike Whitney’s words) “promised  … more treats and less rules for Wall Street … tax cuts, massive government spending, and fewer regulations … $1 trillion in fiscal stimulus to rev up consumer spending and beef up corporate profits … to slash corporate tax rates and fatten the bottom line for America’s biggest businesses. And he’s going to gut Dodd-Frank, the ‘onerous’ regulations that were put in place following the 2008 financial implosion, to prevent another economy-decimating cataclysm.”

Does President Trump see the world differently, now that he is President? Or has he parted company with Bannon’s vision?

Though Bannon is often credited – though most often, by a hostile press, aiming to present Trump (falsely) as the “accidental President” who never really expected to win – as the intellectual force behind President Trump. In fact, Trump’s current main domestic and foreign policies were all presaged, and entirely present, in Trump’s 2000 pamphlet.

In 2000, Bannon was less political, screenwriter Julia Jones, a long-time Bannon collaborator, notes. “But the Sept. 11 attacks,” Ms. Jones says, “changed him” and their Hollywood collaboration did not survive his growing engagement with politics.

Bannon himself pins his political radicalization to his experience of the 2008 Great Financial Crisis. He detested how his Goldman colleagues mocked the Tea Party’s “forgotten” ones. As Ms. Jones sees it, a more reliable key to Bannon’s worldview lies in his military service.

dharma-initiative-001-1280x960.jpg

“He has a respect for duty,” she said in early February. “The word he has used a lot is ‘dharma.’” Mr. Bannon found the concept of dharma in the Bhagavad Gita, she recalls. It can describe one’s path in life or one’s place in the universe.

There is no evidence, however, that President Trump either has changed his economic views or that he has diverged in his understanding of the nature of the crisis facing America (and Europe).

Tests Ahead

Both men are very smart. Trump understands business, and Bannon finance. They surely know the headwinds they face: the looming prospect of a wrangle to increase the American $20 trillion “debt ceiling” (which begins to bite on March 15), amid a factious Republican Party, the improbability of the President’s tax or fiscal proposals being enacted quickly, and the likelihood that the Federal Reserve will hike interest rates, “until something breaks.” If they are so smart, what then is going on?

What Bannon has brought to the partnership however, is a clear articulation of the nature of this “crisis” in his Generation Zero film, which explicitly is built around the framework of a book called The Fourth Turning: An American Prophecy, written in 1997 by Neil Howe and William Strauss.

In the words of one of the co-authors, the analysis “rejects the deep premise of modern Western historians that social time is either linear (continuous progress or decline) or chaotic (too complex to reveal any direction). Instead we adopt the insight of nearly all traditional societies: that social time is a recurring cycle in which events become meaningful only to the extent that they are what philosopher Mircea Eliade calls ‘reenactments.’ In cyclical space, once you strip away the extraneous accidents and technology, you are left with only a limited number of social moods, which tend to recur in a fixed order.”

Howe and Strauss write: “The cycle begins with the First Turning, a ‘High’ which comes after a crisis era. In a High, institutions are strong and individualism is weak. Society is confident about where it wants to go collectively, even if many feel stifled by the prevailing conformity.

“The Second Turning is an ‘Awakening,’ when institutions are attacked in the name of higher principles and deeper values. Just when society is hitting its high tide of public progress, people suddenly tire of all the social discipline and want to recapture a sense of personal authenticity.

“The Third Turning is an ‘Unravelling,’ in many ways the opposite of the High. Institutions are weak and distrusted, while individualism is strong and flourishing.

“Finally, the Fourth Turning is a ‘Crisis’ period. This is when our institutional life is reconstructed from the ground up, always in response to a perceived threat to the nation’s very survival. If history does not produce such an urgent threat, Fourth Turning leaders will invariably find one — and may even fabricate one — to mobilize collective action. Civic authority revives, and people and groups begin to pitch in as participants in a larger community. As these Promethean bursts of civic effort reach their resolution, Fourth Turnings refresh and redefine our national identity.” (Emphasis added).

Woodstock Generation

Bannon’s film focuses principally on the causes of the 2008 financial crisis, and on the “ideas” that arose amongst the “Woodstock generation” (the Woodstock musical festival occurred in 1969), that permeated, in one way or another, throughout American and European society.

The narrator calls the Woodstock generation the “Children of Plenty.” It was a point of inflection: a second turning “Awakening”; a discontinuity in culture and values. The older generation (that is, anyone over 30) was viewed as having nothing to say, nor any experience to contribute. It was the elevation of the “pleasure principle” (as a “new” phenomenon, as “their” discovery), over the puritan ethic; It celebrated doing one’s own thing; it was about “Self” and narcissism.

The “Unravelling” followed in the form of government and institutional weakness: the “system” lacked the courage to take difficult decisions. The easy choices invariably were taken: the élites absorbed the self-centered, spoilt-child, ethos of the “me” generation. The 1980s and 1990s become the era of “casino capitalism” and the “Davos man.”

The lavish taxpayer bailouts of the U.S. banks after the Mexican, Russian, Asian and Argentinian defaults and crises washed away the bankers’ costly mistakes. The 2004 Bear Stearns exemption which allowed the big five banks to leverage their lending above 12:1 – and, which quickly extended to become 25:1, 30:1 and even 40:1 – permitted the irresponsible risk-taking and the billions in profit-making. The “Dot Com” bubble was accommodated by monetary policy – and then the massive 2008 bailouts accommodated the banks, yet again.

The “Unravelling” was essentially a cultural failure: a failure of responsibility, of courage to face hard choices – it was, in short, the film suggests, an era of spoilt institutions, compromised politicians and irresponsible Wall Streeters – the incumbent class – indulging themselves, and “abdicating responsibility.”

Now we have entered the “Fourth Turning”: “All the easy choices are back of us.” The “system” still lacks courage. Bannon says this period will be the “nastiest, ugliest in history.” It will be brutal, and “we” (by which he means the Trump Tea Party activists) will be “vilified.” This phase may last 15 – 20 years, he predicts.

greektragedy.jpg

Greek Tragedy

The key to this Fourth Turning is “character.” It is about values. What Bannon means by “our crisis” is perhaps best expressed when the narrator says: “the essence of Greek tragedy is that it is not like a traffic accident, where somebody dies [i.e. the great financial crises didn’t just arise by mischance].

The Greek sense is that tragedy is where something happens because it has to happen, because of the nature of the participants. Because the people involved, make it happen. And they have no choice to make it happen, because that’s their nature.”

This is the deeper implication of what transpired from Woodstock: the nature of people changed. The “pleasure principle,” the narcissism, had displaced the “higher” values that had made America what it was. The generation that believed that there was “no risk, no mountain they could not climb” brought this crisis upon themselves. They wiped out 200 years of financial responsibility in about 20 years. This, it appears, captures the essence of Bannon’s thinking.

That is where we are, Bannon asserts: Stark winter inevitably follows, after a warm, lazy summer. It becomes a time of testing, of adversity. Each season in nature has its vital function. Fourth turnings are necessary: they a part of the cycle of renewal.

Bannon’s film concludes with author Howe declaring: “history is seasonal and winter is coming,”

And, what is the immediate political message? It is simple, the narrator of Bannon’s film says: “STOP”: stop doing what you were doing. Stop spending like before. Stop taking on spending commitments that cannot be afforded. Stop mortgaging your children’s future with debt. Stop trying to manipulate the banking system. It is a time for tough thinking, for saying “no” to bailouts, for changing the culture, and re-constructing institutional life.

Cultural Legacy

And how do you re-construct civic life? You look to those who still possess a sense of duty and responsibility – who have retained a cultural legacy of values. It is noticeable that when Bannon addresses the activists, almost the first thing he does is to salute the veterans and serving officers, and praise their qualities, their sense of duty.

It is no surprise then that President Trump wants to increase both the veterans’ and the military’s budget. It is not so much a portent of U.S. military belligerence, but more that he sees them as warriors for the coming “winter” of testing and adversity. Then, and only then does Bannon speak to the “thin blue line” of activists who still have strength of character, a sense of responsibility, of duty. He tells them that the future rests in their hands, alone.

Does this sound like men – Bannon and Trump – who want to ramp up a fresh financial bubble, to indulge the Wall Street casino (in their words)? No? So, what is going on?

They know “the crisis” is coming. Let us recall what Neil Howe wrote in the Washington Post concerning the “Fourth Turning”:

“This is when our institutional life is reconstructed from the ground up, always in response to a perceived threat to the nation’s very survival. If history does not produce such an urgent threat, Fourth Turning leaders will invariably find one — and may even fabricate one — to mobilize collective action. Civic authority revives, and people and groups begin to pitch in as participants in a larger community. As these Promethean bursts of civic effort reach their resolution, Fourth Turnings refresh and redefine our national identity.”

Trump has no need to “fabricate” a financial crisis. It will happen “because it has to happen, because of the nature of the participants (in the current ‘system’). Because the people involved, make it happen. And they have no choice to make it happen, because that’s their nature.”

It is not even President Obama’s or Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson’s fault, per se. They are just who they are.

Trump and Bannon therefore are not likely trying to ignite the “animal spirits” of the players in the financial “casino” (as many in the financial sphere seem to assume). If Bannon’s film and Trump’s articulation of crisis mean anything, it is that their aim is to ignite the “animal spirits” of “the working-class casualties and those forgotten Americans” of the Midwest, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

At that point, they hope that the “thin blue line” of activists will “pitch in” with a Promethean burst of civic effort which will reconstruct America’s institutional and economic life.

If this is so, the Trump/Bannon vision both is audacious – and quite an extraordinary gamble …

Alastair Crooke

samedi, 18 mars 2017

José Javier Esparza "De la nueva Derecha a la "alt-right"

Esparza2010_0.jpg

José Javier Esparza

"De la nueva Derecha a la "alt-right"

Ponencia de José Javier Esparza en el Seminario de metapolítica 2017:
"De la nueva Derecha a la "alt-right"
www.seminariometapolitica.wordpress.com

lundi, 27 février 2017

Jason Reza Jorjani Identitarian Ideas IX

JRJ-ph.jpg

Jason Reza Jorjani

Identitarian Ideas IX

Jason Reza Jorjani speaks at the Identitarian Ideas gathering in Stockholm, Sweden.

mercredi, 22 février 2017

A Review of The Great Purge: The Deformation of the Conservative Movement

greatpurge.jpg

Where Conservatism Went Wrong:
A Review of The Great Purge: The Deformation of the Conservative Movement

Review:

Paul E. Gottfried & Richard B. Spencer (eds.)
The Great Purge: The Deformation of the Conservative Movement [2]
Arlington, Va.: Washington Summit Publishers, 2015

All political movements need a history, and such histories, if well-constructed, almost always coalesce into myth. Once mythologized, a movement’s past can inform its present members about its reason for being, its need for continuing, and its plans for the future. And this can be accomplished quickly – and without the need for study or research – in the form of what Edmund Burke called “prejudice.” “Prejudice,” Burke says [3], “is of ready application in the emergency; it previously engages the mind in a steady course of wisdom and virtue, and does not leave the man hesitating in the moment of decision, skeptical, puzzled, and unresolved.”

Prejudice is a time-saver, in other words, and it puts everyone on the same page. These are two invaluable things for any movement which aims to effect political change. For those who wish to participate in any of the various factions of the Alt Right and learn its history and myth, they do not need to go much farther than The Great Purge: The Deformation of the Conservative Movement.

Edited by Paul Gottfried of the H. L. Menken Club and Richard Spencer of Radix Journal, The Great Purge discusses the march of the once-mighty American conservative movement towards the abject irrelevance it faces today. This took about fifty years, but the villains of this inquisition managed to purge conservatism of its conservatives and replace them with a globalist elite which kowtows to political correctness. The villains, of course, are National Review founder and publisher William F. Buckley (an unflattering photo of whom graces the book’s cover) and a cabal of refugees from the Left known as “neoconservatives.” The Great Purge, as Spencer tells us, is less a “full chronicling of these purges,” and more a “phenomenological history of conservatism. It seeks to understand how its ideology . . . functioned within its historic context and how it responded to power, shifting conceptions of authority, and societal changes.”

prof-paul-edward-gottfried.jpg

The book presents seven essays, with a foreword by Spencer and an afterward by VDARE.com founder and former National Review writer Peter Brimelow. In between, we have essays from established Dissident Right luminaries such as Gottfried, William Regnery, and John Derbyshire. Sam Francis, perhaps one of the godfathers of the Alt Right, who passed away in 2005, contributes a comprehensive and quite useful philosophical treatise on how mainstream conservatism devolved into the toothless friend of the Left it has become today. Rounding out the remainder is American Revolutionary Vanguard founder Keith Preston, professor and writer Lee Congdon, and independent author and scholar James Kalb.

So, according to myth, William F. Buckley founded his conservative magazine National Review in the mid-1950s and revitalized a flagging conservative ideology. At the time, liberalism in its various forms enjoyed near-complete hegemony in academia, enough to prompt scholar Lionel Trilling by mid-century to announce that conservatism, at least as it had been embodied by what we now call the Old Right, was dead. Buckley, along with other conservative thinkers such as Russell Kirk and popular authors like Ayn Rand, proved that reports of conservatism’s death were a tad overstated. Thanks to Buckley, conservatism now had the intellectual heft to resist the Left, both foreign and domestic. As Spencer describes it, this entailed promoting free-market capitalism over Soviet Communism, erecting the Christian West as a bulwark against Soviet atheism, and pushing for an aggressive foreign policy both to thwart Soviet militarism and promote the interests of Israel. The New Right was born.

Enter the neocons. Disenchanted by the manifest failures of Communism, these former Leftists, led by Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz, began testing the waters in conservative circles by the 1970s. The neocons shared much of the New Right’s anti-Soviet belligerence and loyalty towards Israel. Having given up on the New Deal and other big-government initiatives, the neocons were equally uncomfortable with free-market capitalism. Sam Francis quotes Irving Kristol at length, describing how the welfare state should not be eradicated, but altered to create a “social insurance state.”

Most importantly, the neocons promoted a Wilsonian “global and cosmopolitan world order” which sought to greatly increase America’s role in foreign affairs, often through military interventionism. In particular, democracy was the great talisman which could civilize the world – whether the world wanted to be civilized or not. Bolstered by their faith in the Democratic Peace Theory, which posits that democracies do not wage war upon each other, the neocons transferred the messianic fervor of Communism to democratization and never looked back. Lee Congdon’s entire essay. “Wars to End War,” rails against such “morality-driven foreign policy” and how it co-opted conservatism almost completely. “Pluralism, (human) rights, and democracy,” as stated by Charles Krauthammer, became something of a rallying cry for the neocons. Against such high-minded egalitarianism, which opened the door for feminism, gay rights, race-mixing, and other by-products of democratic freedom, the traditional conservative arguments began to crumble.

Congdon quotes Pat Buchanan as defending true conservatism when he wrote in 2006 that America is bound together by “the bonds of history and memory, tradition and custom, language and literature, birth and faith, blood and soil.” This is an outright rejection of the neocon claim of America being a “proposition nation” in which citizens are “bound by ideals that move us beyond our backgrounds,” to quote George W. Bush from his first inaugural address. Essentially, if you believed in putting America first, or had no interest in foreign wars, or took the libertarian ideal of limited government seriously, or (most importantly) professed a tribal or familial fealty to the white race, then you had no place among the neocons or in the New Right.

And there to police you and expunge you into the wilderness, if need be, was none other than Mr. Buckley himself.

Both Paul Gottfried and William Regnery provide first-hand accounts of the purges, as well as some historical perspective on them. For example, according to Gottfried, Buckley banished the John Birch Society from respectable conservatism in the 1960s not because of anti-Semitism, but because the Birchers expressed insufficient hawkishness against the North Vietnamese and in the Cold War in general. This point is echoed later in the volume by Keith Preston. It seems that any anti-Semitic aspect in the early victims of the purge was purely incidental.

richspencer.jpg

That didn’t remain the case, of course. What I find most striking and ironic about The Great Purge is that the “racist” infractions of many of the purge victims were so slight, so indirect, and so buried in one’s past that to summarily expurgate a person on those grounds required almost Soviet levels of behind-the-scenes machinations and ruthlessness. Gottfried explains that his offense was to merely assume a leadership role in the H.L. Menken Club, which gives a platform to people “who stress hereditary cognitive differences.” For this, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) severed all ties with him. Another example is Joe Sobran, who was labeled an anti-Semite by Buckley and banished from the National Review in the late 1980s because, as Gottfried explains, Sobran “noticed the shifting meaning of ‘anti-Semite,’ from someone who hates Jews to someone who certain Jews in high places don’t like.”

William Regnery relates how he had been banished from the ISI as well, an organization to which his grandfather, father, and uncles had very close ties for many years. Regnery’s offense? He spoke at an American Renaissance study group in 2005 and promoted “building a sense of racial unity.” For this, he faced an anonymous charge from ISI and was tried among his peers, only one of whom voted to keep him on. Seventeen voted to expel him, and expelled he was.

Another person who pops up a lot in The Great Purge is Jason Richwine, a junior researcher who lost his job at the Heritage Foundation in 2013. It was discovered that his approved doctoral thesis from years earlier contained a fully supported statistic which pointed to the lower than average IQ of many immigrant groups. For this, and for fear of causing too much consternation among Leftist elites, the Heritage Foundation determined that Richwine had to go, his permanently sullied reputation notwithstanding. Certainly, mainstream conservatives know how and when to eat their own – unlike the Left, of course. As Regnery aptly points out, “Media Matters would never have cashiered a researcher on the strength of conservative ire.”

This only cracks the surface of the damage the Bill Buckley mentality has done to the Right over the years. John Derbyshire and Peter Brimelow relate how their more deliberate infractions got them evicted from the movement. Keith Preston describes how, despite the New Right’s professed desire to limit government, it did absolutely nothing to stop its near-exponential growth. In The Great Purge, Buckley and his epigones are called nearly every name in the book, from cowardly to cannibalistic, yet Regnery attributes much of this betrayal to something a little more mundane: complacency. Buckley and his people were simply unwilling to give up their cushy lifestyles in order to combat the Left in any meaningful way. As a result, they put tight leashes on anyone who did.

Perhaps the biggest surprise in this volume is the thirty-five page essay from Sam Francis, which was written back in 1986. Francis, who suffered his own purge from The Washington Times in the 1990s thanks to Dinesh D’Souza, provides a philosophical vocabulary to explain the fall of conservatism in America. It was the slow usurpation of the Old Right, in other words “traditionalist and bourgeois ideologies, centering on the individual as moral agent, citizen, and economic actor” by a “managerial elite” which did in conservatism. This “managerial humanism,” according to Francis, espoused

a collectivist view of the state and economy and advocated a highly centralized regime largely unrestrained by traditional legal, constitutional, and political barriers. It rejected or regarded as backward, repressive, or obsolete the institutions and values of traditional and bourgeois society – its loyalties to the local community, traditional religion and moral beliefs, the family and social and political differentiation based on class, status, and property – and it articulated an ideal of man “liberated” from such constraints and re-educated or redesigned into a cosmopolitan participant in the mass state economy of the managerial system.

This certainly is an apt description of the Left, and as more and more neocons joined the conservative movement, the more apparent it became that they were bringing this managerial humanism along with them. This cultural shift, of course, had deleterious effects across the board for the Right, not least of which was separating it from its stated purpose and weakening its resolve to combat change. In characteristic form, Francis ends his essay with a prediction, this one quite dire:

If neoconservative co-optation and the dynamics of the continuing managerial revolution deflect the American Right from [its] goal, the result will not be the renaissance of America and the West but the continuation and eventual fulfillment of the goals of their most ancient enemies.

If The Great Purge has any flaws, it’s of omission, which isn’t really a flaw since Spencer copped to it in his Foreword. This book is not a history, but rather a collection of reminiscences and musings on the state of the Right. So, it’s not surprising that many things are left out. Still, I wish more detail had been provided in places. It is possible, for example, that there was more to the Sobran affair than what Gottfried and others provide. Sobran’s split with Buckley may have spoken as much to Buckley’s sincere philo-Semitism and his desire not to appear anti-Semitic as it did to Sobran’s desire (or need) to speak out against Israel. The whole thorny issue of whether or not this constitutes anti-Semitism was covered thoroughly (and perhaps ad nauseum) in In Search of Anti-Semitism [4], Buckley’s 1992 recounting of the affair. But it would have been nice to hear a different perspective from one who was around back then.

Further, The Great Purge seems to let Buckley off the hook for not banishing the John Birch Society because of anti-Semitism, yet fails to mention (at least in my reading) any mention of Buckley’s early purge of writers from The American Mercury, which was, in Buckley’s words, “anti-Semitic.” Therefore, Buckley showed his philo-Semitic stripes early on, and that may have informed some of his attitude vis-a-vis the John Birch Society.

The Jewish Question in general is also never explored. While not absolutely necessary to the subject, I’m sure it would have been interesting at the very least, given how eighty to ninety percent of the neoconservatives named in the book are obviously Jewish. Really, it’s impossible not to notice the nigh-homogeneous ethnic makeup of the neocons who appear over and over in The Great Purge like a gang of irrepressible supervillains. Such a list renders parenthesis-echoing utterly superfluous: Irving Kristol, Norman Podheretz, Charles Krauthammer, David Frum, Daniel Bell, Nathan Glazer, Seymour Lipset, Ben Wattenberg, Elliott Abrams, Michael Ledeen, Max Boot, David Gerlenter, Allen Weinstein, William Kristol, Robert Kagan, and Paul Wolfowitz.

You could practically host a baseball game with such a lineup. And is it all a huge coincidence? Well, I guess we’ll just have to wait for the sequel to find out.

In the meantime, however, The Great Purge does a magnificent job of myth-making for the Alt Right. It spells out our origins and purpose, and describes the challenges and betrayals the older generation of conservatives had to face while remaining true to the nationalist, traditionalist, and racialist ideals which made Western civilization great to begin with. Most importantly, The Great Purge shows what happens when you give up on winning and instead compromise with the enemy. You eventually become him. And at no point will your pettiness and spite become more apparent than when you turn on your own.

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

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2017/02/where-conservatism-went-wrong/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: https://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/2-20-17-1.jpg

[2] The Great Purge: The Deformation of the Conservative Movement: http://amzn.to/2meCuPd

[3] says: https://books.google.co.in/books?id=92AIAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA130&lpg=PA130&dq=%22and+does+not+leave+the+man+hesitating+in+the+moment+of+decision%22&source=bl&ots=OGHbkM9vXL&sig=Ghby2bcwjX2pVS70u5d-hm4ouMc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjU6p2Y5p7SAhXG1RQKHVPkD0MQ6AEIMTAG#v=onepage&q=%22and%20does%20not%20leave%20the%20man%20hesitating%20in%20the%20moment%20of%20decision%22&f=false

[4] In Search of Anti-Semitism: http://amzn.to/2kEivgE

jeudi, 26 janvier 2017

Etats-Unis : qu’est-ce que l’ « Alt-Right » ?

RSp-7361.cached.jpg

Georg Immanuel Nagel :

Etats-Unis : qu’est-ce que l’ « Alt-Right » ?

On sait que l’élection de Donald Trump à la présidence des Etats-Unis a été un séisme politique d’ampleur globale. Mais le changement serait encore plus radical et plus profond si nous assistions, dans un futur proche, à un renforcement continu du mouvement dit de « Alt-Right ». Cette dénomination recouvre un courant intellectuel de droite aux facettes multiples, dont les adhérents constituent le seul groupe perceptible sur l’échiquier politique américain à avoir soutenu ouvertement Trump et à l’avoir ovationné.

Il faut cependant préciser qu’il n’y a aucun lien organique entre cette « Alt-Right » et Donald Trump, dont la rhétorique et les exigences sont bien plus inoffensives et bien moins idéologisées que celles de cette droite alternative. Cependant, Hillary Clinton, la candidate battue de ces élections présidentielles, n’a pas pu s’empêcher d’essayer d’identifier Trump à la « Alt-Right ». Ce genre de calomnies se nomme la « culpabilisation par association » dans le langage politique anglo-saxon. Mais cette tentative a eu des effets contraires à ceux espérés. Hillary Clinton a tenu un très long discours où elle a cité longuement tous les « méchants » qui soutenaient son adversaire. Elle faisait usage, dans ce discours, des injures politiques habituelles de la gauche et de l’extrême-gauche (« raciste », « homophobe », « sexiste », etc.).

hillary-vs-alt-right.jpg

Hillary Clinton n’a pas obtenu la réaction qu’elle escomptait. Donald Trump n’a nullement été freiné dans son élan, sans doute parce qu’il n’y avait pas moyen de prouver qu’il avait un lien quelconque avec les animateurs des cercles qualifiables de « Alt-Right ». Du coup, grâce à la maladresse d’Hillary Clinton, le mouvement de la droite alternative a été connu dans toute l’Amérique et est devenue l’objet de vastes débats. Les pages de la grande toile de ces groupes alternatifs très peu connus ont été visitées à grande échelle : elles ont battu tous leurs records de fréquentation et les médias « mainstream » se sont mis à parler des initiatives, colloques et conférences de la « Alt-Right » et ont invité leurs représentants à répondre à des entretiens. Métapolitiquement parlant, on peut parler d’un tournant historique et peut-être même décisif.

L’Alt-Right ne se borne pas à fustiger le Zeitgeist, l’esprit du temps, marqué par le gauchisme. Elle brocarde aussi l’établissement conservateur conventionnel et les vieux Républicains. Elle considère que ces derniers se soumettent trop facilement aux diktats du politiquement correct, ce qui a pour corollaire qu’ils n’osent pas aborder les vrais problèmes de la société américaine, qu’ils ne se hasardent pas à adopter un « race realism », un « réalisme racialiste ». Cette réticence fait du mouvement conservateur conventionnel un « tigre de papier », condamné à échouer à tout bout de champ, parce qu’il abandonne continuellement ses propres positions et ses propres intérêts pour ne pas devoir subir les pressions habituelles, lesquelles ont évidemment recours à l’insulte classique de « racisme ».

Le philosophe et politologue Paul Gottfried avait naguère, bien avant le buzz déclenché par le discours anti-Alt Right d’Hillary Clinton, réclamé l’avènement d’une « droite alternative », différente du « conservatism mainstream ». Son appel à une « droite alternative » a été entendu : plusieurs publicistes l’ont repris, dont Richard Spencer, le fondateur de la boîte-à-penser « National Policy Institute ». Aussitôt Spencer baptise « Alternative Right » le magazine en ligne qu’il crée dans le sillage du discours de Gottfried, lui conférant aussi le diminutif de « Alt Right ». Tout le mouvement contestataire de l’idéologie libérale-gauchiste dominante et du conservatisme timoré reçoit alors le terme générique de « Alt Right ».

La droite alternative voulue par Gottfried au départ, lancée par Spencer dans la foulée, reproche, pour l’essentiel, aux conservateurs traditionnels de ne pas se poser comme les défenseurs des Américains de souche européenne, alors que ceux-ci constituent leur unique base électorale potentielle. C’est en fait le cas dans tous les Etats européens aliénés par le multiculturalisme où les minorités ethniques étrangères votent presque toujours pour les partis de gauche.

ramz-6UkAAvi9e.pngL’Alt Right américaine est constituée d’une variété de groupes très différents les uns des autres. D’une part, nous avons des revues et des maisons d’édition qui ne se distinguent guère des nouvelles droites française ou germanophones, dans la mesure où elles entendent se poser comme des initiatives sérieuses et intellectuelles. D’autre part, nous avons des personnalités qui s’adonnent à la moquerie et à la satire. Citons, en ce domaine, le comique « RamZPaul » (photo), les séries de caricatures « Murdoch Murdoch ». L’humour que répandent ces initiatives-là est, bien sûr, politiquement incorrect, et de manière explicite ! Parfois, il est espiègle et seulement accessible aux « initiés ». Les tenants de gauche de la « religion civile » américaine y sont fustigés à qui mieux-mieux, sans la moindre pitié. Personne n’oserait un humour pareil sous nos latitudes européennes.

Cette audace est possible grâce à la constitution américaine qui interdit explicitement de punir, par le truchement de lois régissant les opinions, l’expression libre et sans entrave de celles-ci, alors qu’en Europe les législations liberticides sont acceptées sans sourciller. Ainsi, les publications scientifiques des milieux de l’Alt Right sont autorisées, même si elles abordent des sujets brûlants comme l’anthropologie biologique. Sur ce chapitre, les productions du groupe « American Renaissance » sont particulièrement intéressantes pour nous, Européens, qui ne bénéficions plus d’une liberté de recherche en ce domaine spécifique du savoir.

Georg Immanuel Nagel,

Article paru dans zur Zeit, Vienne, n°3/2017, http://www.zurzeit.at .

mercredi, 23 novembre 2016

„Die Rückkehr der echten Rechten“ – Im Gespräch mit Daniel Friberg

DF-Ruck8Ne9QWIAAYyyH.jpg

„Die Rückkehr der echten Rechten“ – Im Gespräch mit Daniel Friberg

Daniel Friberg, 1978 im schwedischen Göteborg geboren, gehört zu den wichtigsten Vertretern der rechten Publizistik in Europa. Der von ihm mitgegründete Arktos-Verlag (www.arktos.com) hat sich international durch die Veröffentlichung von Werken bedeutender Denker der „Neuen Rechten“ wie Alain de Benoist, Guillaume Faye oder Alexander Dugin einen Namen gemacht. Der frühere Manager und Business-Analyst gründete auch den metapolitischen Think-Tank „Motpol“ und ist Herausgeber des Internetmagazins „RightOn“ (www.righton.net). Vor wenigen Wochen erschien sein Buch „Die Rückkehr der echten Rechten“ in zweiter Auflage als Lizenzausgabe der Stiftung „Europa Terra Nostra“ (ETN). DS-TV hat mit Daniel Friberg am Rande des ersten „Freiheitlichen Kongresses“ der ETN-Stiftung in Mecklenburg Vorpommern Ende Oktober, wo er einen mit Begeisterung aufgenommenen Vortrag hielt, unterhalten – über sein aktuelles Buch, die Bedeutung von Metapolitik und alternativen Medien für die politische Rechte, den Siegeszug von Donald Trump in den USA und dessen Auswirkungen auf Europa.



Für den Ausbau von DS-TV, vor allem die Beschaffung weiterer Technik, brauchen wir Ihre Hilfe. Spenden Sie unter dem Verwendungszweck "DS-TV" an NPD, IBAN: DE 80 1005 0000 6600 0991 92, BIC: BELADEBEXXX

Abonnieren Sie auch unseren Youtube-Kanal: https://www.youtube.com/user/offensivTV

dimanche, 02 octobre 2016

European Resurrection: Identitarianism in Europe

main-player-cover.ab94b306.jpg

Erkenbrand Conference

European Resurrection: Identitarianism in Europe


Red Ice will be live streaming the Erkenbrand conference that is taking place in Rotterdam, Netherlands. The theme is European Resurrection: How Identitarianism Will Shape the Future of Europe.

Millennial Woes, F. Roger Devlin & a third mystery guest will be speaking on Tuesday the 27th at 7 pm Central European Summer Time / 1 pm Eastern Daylight Time / 10 am Pacific Daylight Time.

vendredi, 23 septembre 2016

Erkenbrand: The Alt-Right in the Netherlands

Bart & Michael - Erkenbrand: The Alt-Right in the Netherlands

cropped-Erkenbrand-09.jpgDutch Alt-Right activists Bart and Michael have taken the initiative to set up regular meetups in the Netherlands people concerned with the future of Europe. Their first conference, Erkenbrand, will take place in Rotterdam at the end of September and include guests such as Millennial Woes and Roger Devlin.

We begin with a few necessary introductions, including a brief mention of the upcoming Erkenbrand conference in Holland. We then delve into the ongoing demographic crisis in the West. Although this topic is certainly commonplace within the Alt-Right, there has been very little coverage on the how it has affected Holland in particular. Thankfully, Bart and Michael are more than willing to fill us in. We learn that Holland, much like the rest of the West, is being flooded with non-European immigrants. Major cities like Amsterdam are already nearly half non-Dutch; the countryside, unfortunately, is beginning to undergo a similar transformation. We also discuss Geert Wilders, the establishment right, and whether or not we will be able to save our countries through the political process.

In the members’ hour, we begin by discussing the vital role that networking plays within our movement. We consider the fact that many aspects of Western culture – history, myths, art, etc. – are currently being altered or, in some cases, blatantly removed for political reasons. Bart and Michael then tell us more about Amsterdam. Thanks to 100 years of socialist rule, the Netherlands’ capital has become overrun with prostitution, drugs, and crime. We also discuss how liberalism’s promotion of tolerance has effectively created a culture of indifference, in which people now consider it moral to allow immorality. The show concludes with a consideration of the steps that need to be taken to preserve the West.

Guest's website: http://www.erkenbrand.nl

Listen to the second hour of this show and get full access to our archives at http://redicemembers.com
Subscribe and stream or download over 1000 programs, videos, films, Insight episodes, Red Ice TV & Weekend Warrior.

More Red Ice Radio:
https://redice.tv/red-ice-radio

Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/rediceradio
Like us on Facebook: https://facebook.com/RedIceCreations
Listen on Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/red-ice-radio
Listen on Spreaker: https://spreaker.com/show/red-ice-rad...
Subscribe to our YouTube: https://youtube.com/user/RedIceRadio
RSS feeds: https://redice.tv/rss

ERKB-hi.jpg