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.

lundi, 30 mars 2020

Guillaume Faye: “Finishing with Western Civilisation” (1980)

Couv-elements-34.jpg

Guillaume Faye:

“Finishing with Western Civilisation” (1980)

My translation of Faye’s “Pour en finir avec la civilisation occidentale,” Éléments 34 (1980). This text distinguishes and advocates Europe (or Hesperia) over-against “the Western system.” The nouvelle droite-period Faye (before 1987), whom we see at work here, is quite different from the post-hiatus Faye (1998–2019) known to the Anglophone world. Note the apparently positive assessment of political Islam (p. 5) and the opposition to the identitarianism with which he came to be associated (pp. 6–7).

French original:

http://www.archiveseroe.eu/occident-a49054848

PDF of this translation:

https://www.academia.edu/42174979/Guillaume_Faye_Finishin...

Related texts on rival strains in European thought and deed:

https://ferguscullen.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-clash-of-wo... (Faye)

https://ferguscullen.blogspot.com/2020/01/giorgio-locchi-... (Giorgio Locchi)

“This Europe, always on the point of cutting its own throat in its unholy blindness,” wrote Martin Heidegger in his Introduction to Metaphysics,

[l]ies today in the great pincers between Russia on the one side and America on the other. Russia and America, seen metaphysically, are both the same: the same hopeless frenzy of unchained technology and of the rootless organisation of the average man. When the farthest corner of the globe has been conquered technologically and can be exploited economically […] and time as history has vanished from all Dasein of all peoples […] there still looms like a spectre over all this uproar the question: for what?—to where?—then what?*

51eCAsfPBLL._AC_UY218_ML3_.jpg[* Translator’s note. Transl. Gregory Fried and Richard Polt (Yale, 2000), with some pedantic syntactical amendments by me. Faye’s French rendition differs a little: “‘Cette Europe qui, dans un incalculable aveuglement, se trouve toujours sur le point de se poignarder elle-même,’ écrit Martin Heidegger dans son Introduction à la métaphysique, ‘est prise aujourd’hui dans un étau entre la Russie d'une part et l’Amérique de l’autre. La Russie et l’Amérique sont, toutes deux, au point de vue métaphysique la même chose: la même frénésie de l’organisation sans racine de l’homme normalisé. Lorsque le dernier petit coin du globe terrestre est devenu exploitable économiquement […] et que le temps comme provenance a disparu de l’être-là de tous les peuples, alors la question: “Pour quel but? Où allons nous? et quoi ensuite?” est toujours présente et, à la façon d’un spectre, traverse toute cette sorcellerie.’”]

In the French countryside, we no longer dance the jig or sardana on festival days. The juke-box and pinball machine have colonised the last refuges of folk culture. In a German college, a boy of eighteen dies at last of an overdose, curled up in a toilet-cubicle. In the suburbs of Lille, thirty Malians live packed into a cellar. In Bangkok or Honolulu you can get yourself a girl of fifteen for five dollars. “It’s not prostitution, because everyone here does is,” states an American tourist brochure. In the suburbs of Mexico, an American firm manufacturing skateboards lays off a hundred workers. Houston reckons it’s more cost-effective to set up shop in Bogotá…

Such is the hideous face of the civilisation that, with an implacable logic, imposes itself on every continent, razing cultures under one planetary way of life and digesting the socio-political contests of the peoples which it has submitted to the same standard habits (habitudes de mœurs).* Indeed, why shout “U.S. go home!” if one wears jeans? For Konrad Lorenz, this civilisation discovered something worse than servitude or oppression: it invented “physiological domestication.” And more efficiently than Soviet Marxism, it realises a social experience of the end of history, with the objective of assuring the ubiquitous triumph of the bourgeois type, by way of a homogenising dynamic and a process of cultural involution.

[* Translator’s note. Faye: “les mêmes habitudes de mœurs (standard habits).”]

We must call this civilisation, in which the peoples of Asia, Africa, Europe and Latin America are stuck today, by its name: it is Western civilisation. Western civilisation is not European civilisation. It’s the monstrous progeny of European culture—which imprinted it with its dynamism and spirit of enterprise, but to which it’s fundamentally opposed—and of egalitarian ideologies derived from Judeo-Christian monotheism. It arose in America, which, in the aftermath of the Second World War, gave it its decisive impulse. The monotheist component of Western civilisation, identical in substance to that of Soviet society, is indeed clearly noticeable in its project: to impose a universal civilisation founded on the domination of the economy as class-of-life (classe-de-vie) and to depoliticise peoples to the profit of global “management.”

It’s therefore worth distinguishing Western civilisation from the Western system, which denotes the power that drives the expansion of the former. The Western system cannot, besides, be described in terms of a homogeneous power, constituted as such. It organises itself through a global network of micro-decisions, coherent but inorganic, which renders it relatively ungraspable and, to that extent, the more formidable. It encompasses the OECD business community, the managements of a hundred transnational corporations, a large percentage of the political personnel of “Western” nations, ruling circles of conservative “elites” in poor countries, part of the executives of international institutions, and most of the highest functionaries of banking institutions in the “developed” world. The Western system has its epicentre in the United States. It isn’t essentially political or statal, but proceeds by the mobilisation of the economy. Disregarding states, borders, religions, its “theory of praxis” rests less on the diffusion of an ideological corpus, or on constraint, than on the radical modification of cultural formations, oriented towards the American model.

6a0147e4419f47970b0240a444e15c200c-800wi.jpg

But whoever thinks of the “West” thinks immediately of the “Third World.” It’s said that Alfred Sauvy coined this term a little after the conference of non-aligned nations at Bandung in 1955. But does the Third World exist? As a matter of fact, Soviet Leninism conceived the concept well before the term existed. In Imperialism, the Last Stage of Capitalism (1916), Lenin founds the doctrine that now inspires, more than ever, the foreign policy of the Soviet Union: to utilise poor countries as a mass to move against global capitalism, to make them objects of history and of revolution. Identical in this respect to Western liberalism, the Leninist ideology subordinates the independence of peoples to its universalist project. Leninism, which is an Occidentalism at its root, doesn’t envision national difference, and doesn’t conceive the nationalism of non-European peoples other than as a provisional instrument in the service of the same project as that of Occidentalism: one global homogeneous civilisation founded on economy. Besides, Karl Marx himself announces this kinship of Leninism and Western liberalism. In the British Rule in India and The Future Results of British Rule in India (1853), he was pleased to note that “British domination has completely demolished the strictures of Indian society,” and that “this part of the world, until then remaining inferior, is now annexed to the Western world.” For there is no greater obstacle to “socialism” than traditional societies. Did Georges Marchais not say that it was to abolish the droit du seigneur that the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan?

Does the Third World, then, encompass those peoples that, renouncing their own cultural identity, become candidates for Westernisation, as proletarians for bourgeoisification? Where necessary nurturing a resentment against their model? The strength of the Western system, objectively complicit in this regard with the Leninist project, is in understanding that the desire to assimilate always prevails over resentment: the Third World doesn’t threaten it. For the Venezuelan Carlos Rangel, “the essence of Third-Worldism is neither poverty nor underdevelopment,” but “a discontentment that impedes neither a Western way of live nor an ostentatious wealth” (“Pourquoi l’Occident est en train de perdre le Tiers-Monde,” Politique internationale, Spring 1979). For Rangel, “peoples belong to the Third World who, though very dissimilar, share the same deep sense of alienation from and antagonism towards successful non-communist countries, and who find themselves in relation to the latter in a position analogous to that of populations of colour in a society where power is in the hands of whites.” These peoples, Rangel continues, don’t feel themselves “founding members of the club called Western civilisation.” Even Japan or Spain, and France at a pinch, “will never be as integrated into Western capitalist society as New Zealand, which shares culturally in the source from which capitalism takes its impulse”—to wit, “the Anglo-Saxon hegemony installed by England and which the United States have taken up.” Rangel adds: “The slightest lack of identification with the primary source of ideas, and with the current seat of power, is an unavoidable cause of national anxiety and dissatisfaction.”

Membership of the third world, or of Western civilisation, thus remains a cultural fact. It’s the whole planet that’s experiencing an identity crisis. Like equality always proclaimed and never achieved, the Western model contains a logic of alienation. Western civilisation presents itself explicitly as a purely economic ensemble whose primary condition of membership is quality of life (niveau de vie); but implicitly, this civilisation structures itself hierarchically in two cultural levels: the “club” members and the “others,” who can never be better than half-Western, and who can never join the “club.” Why? Because they don’t belong to the Anglo-American world, which thinks itself the epicentre of the West. Also, Western civilisation, because of its dominant Anglo-American element, itself rejects any identification with European culture, particularly in light of the Latin, Germanic, Celtic or Slavic components of the latter. But this dichotomy might be pushed even further: to the degree that Western civilisation fully expresses the American project, and that America constitutes itself on a rejection of Europe, the essence of Western civilisation is the rupture with European culture, which it attacks even by dissolving it through cultural ethnocide and political neutralisation.

Western neo-colonialism—such as manifests itself in all parts of the world, from Ireland to Indonesia—is grounded essentially in American liberal ideology, which has imposed itself on international organisations. We would never finish citing those peoples whose own forms of sovereignty have been destroyed to the benefit of a “democracy” designed to integrate these peoples into the Western and mercantile economic order. Neo-colonialism instituted the direst of dependencies and obliterated the chief among liberties, which consists, for a people, in governing itself according to its own world-conception. And it’s the local bourgeoisie, created by the West, that becomes the instrument of that politico-cultural dispossession.*

[* Author’s note. Cf. the studies carried out by the Africanologist Hubert Deschamp on the destruction of cultural forms of African sovereignty by “democracy,” notably the systems of balanced anarchy and of chiefdom proper to certain American peoples.]

François Perroux

ob_6cb91d_perru-fransua-3.jpgIt’s the very idea of Third-World economic development that we ought, in fact, to suspect. This notion presupposes in effect that the peoples of the Third World ought necessarily to follow the path of Western industrialisation. Now this accords singularly well with the liberal desire for international division of labour and economic specialisation of zones, indispensable for the modern capitalism of planetary free exchange. And who, under doctrinal and humanitarian camouflage (the “right to development”) thus advocates Third-World industrialisation? Those who defend the interests of an economic system in which the growth of global industrial commerce is as necessary as warm water for mackerel shoals.* Again and again, François Perroux has shown that the “overall quality of life” in “developing” countries that are considered already nearly developed, was lower than that achieved by traditional societies. Inversely, poorer countries, or less industrialised zones, know a real “quality of life” superior to what OECD figures might have one believe.** And until today, the United States have been the only real beneficiaries of the industrialisation of Asia, Africa and South America.

[* Author’s note. It’s interesting to note that despite the theoretical positions of Marxist economists, socialist countries have practiced upon the Third World the same economic mercantilism as capitalist countries. The exterior economic practice of socialism is capitalist and mercantile.]

[** Author’s note. Cf. Daniel Joussen, “La faim n’est qu’une consequence,” Le Monde (29 December 1979).]

But we mustn’t delude ourselves: the industrialisation of the planet is irreversible. The share of consumption of Asia or Latin America never ceases to grow. On the other hand, it’s the form of this industrialisation, free-exchangist and subject to the Western development model, which must be critiqued. Inasmuch as industrial structures resemble one another, modes of consumption are standardised and Americanised. Besides, if this form of industrialisation is a factor of “development” for certain countries, it’s the source of serious instability and under-development for many others: “Four fifths of industrial exports of new countries,” writes Jean Lemperière, “are provided by nine countries: the workshops of the Far East, India, the three greater Latin American countries, and Israel” (Le Monde, 22 January 1980).

In the end, a globalised industrial economy will turn out to be of an extreme fragility in the face of crisis, given the network of dependencies which it weaves between nations. On the other hand, “ethno-national” ideologies might very well help certain peoples free themselves from Western neo-colonialism. These ideologies appeared in Europe from the beginning of the fourteenth century and already opposed a considerable universalism—that of ecclesiastical power.* They appealed to the constitution of a secular state coextensive with the nation, and referred themselves to the galvanising myth of ancient Roman imperium. Reprised by Fichte and Herder in the eighteenth century, ethno-national ideas aspire to radically challenge universalist and individualist ideologies, and themselves played an important role in movements of national liberation in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

[* Author’s note. Around 1300, Pierre Dubon, jurist of Philippe le Bel, urges the abolition of papal and ecclesiastical power. In the fourteenth century, in France and Italy, intellectuals envisages the nation-state as the political structure of European peoples, and extolled the idea of national power. These themes were reprised by Petrarch and Machiavelli, who were also inspired by Marsilius of Padova, theoretician, from 1342, of the autonomous, secular state, and of the replacement with political nationalism of the theocratic idea.]

It’s also thanks to nationalist ideology that the peoples of Africa, Asia and America might mobilise against colonialism. Today, it’s still ethno-nationalism that, alone, might break the yoke of Western (or Soviet) neo-colonialism. “There is an adaptation,” writes Marcel Rouvier, “of the European ethno-national ideological model, because it corresponds to the exigencies of the situation of the Third-World in the twentieth century”; and the success of this ideology is foreseeable “with the decline of Marxist universalism, which had remained its sole serious competitor.” For Rouvier, the major theme of ethno-national combat is “the development of ideas in the essential quest for identity as the primary motor of history, for the permanence of a foundation which is the transmutation of the romanticist Volksgeist, for the deep legitimacy of a healthy nationalitarianism (nationalitarisme).”

RamosMartinez_Calla-Lily-Vendor-Vendedora-de-Alcatraces-1-1-740x560.jpg

In Mexico, a country carved up by the United States, we thus witness the construction, by the state and by the people, of an original nationalism, founded on the regeneration of an historic conscience which finds its specific foundations in Indian cultures. A new people thus create themselves, freed from “Western” history, and rethinking their destiny beginning with the recreation of their past. A beautiful lesson for us Europeans, who, beyond that “Western Christendom” in which we can no longer recognise ourselves, must also rethink our destiny by rediscovering the specific foundations of our culture in constructing an Indo-European myth.

In Africa, the adaptation of ethno-national ideology has also emerged, but under a less political and historical form than tribal and communitarian: “The value of African culture doesn’t concern certain phantasms or complexes repressed before Greek canons of beauty,” says—not without malice—the Senegalese cineaste Sembène Ousmane (Jeune Afrique, 19 September 1979). The search for authenticity, the choice of surnames and the return to traditional patriarchal customs, fought by Christianity and the United Nations, can make only idiots and scoundrels smile.

As for Islamic nationalism, it constitutes the happiest blow yet dealt to the civilising utopia of the American model. It calls into question the Western idea of mercantile growth and the primacy of economic development, while rejecting Marxism, rightly judged to be a factor of deculturation and, accessorily, as the instrument of Soviet neo-colonialism.

It’s also thanks to a surge in national conscience that China can attenuate the massifying effect of Marxism, and can thus effect a likely positive synthesis between ideas coming from the West and the pursuit of her destiny as people-continent (people-continent). She knew to adapt her ancestral cultural structures of sovereignty, and to constitute, “trusting in her own strength,” an historic power as independent of the Western mélange as from the Soviet bloc. It isn’t without good reason that China feels the need to no longer take on the role of historical actor alone, faced with two great universalisms, the American West and Russian “Sovietism.” In this game of three players, she can only ally itself to her opponent—the Soviet Union today, the United States tomorrow—she needs an partner-actor to join her. This is why it appeals to Europe, inciting the latter to shake off her lethargy, to re-enter history, to reconquer her liberty.

cinaterugconf.jpg

As China frees herself from “Sovietism,” so Europe must free herself from the West and reappropriate for herself the ethno-national ideologies she generated. To free oneself from Western civilisation is to begin by doubting the idea of Western solidarity imposed on Africa as upon Europe or Japan. For one must clearly distinguish, in geopolitics, between factual solidarities (solidarités factuelles) and real solidarities (solidarités réelles)—that’s to say, solidarities at once desirable and in conformity with historical interests and the people in question. The West and the Soviet bloc consist of ensembles of merely factual solidarity. Poland or Federal Germany, like Chile or Afghanistan, are not enmeshed in ensembles of real solidarity. Now the “Third-Worldist” left and “Occidentalist” right enforce, with concepts generated by their ideological vocabularies, the global status quo of blocs of factual solidarity. A new geopolitics begins with new definitions. The West and the Third World must disappear as geopolitical concepts. Let us speak of Europe, the United States, Latin America, the Soviet Union, or India. We must rethink the world in terms of organic ensembles of real solidarity: continental communities of destiny, groups of coherent peoples, “optimally” homogeneous by virtue of their traditions, their geography, their ethno-cultural components.

“The nation,” writes François Perroux,

[a] living and dynamic reality, becomes one of the essential sources of energy to restructure global society and its economy […]. The earthbound coagulate into armed nations, into empires, into hesitant communities, trying economically to form regions of nations (Bertrand Russell). One finds these assemblies—neither closed, which is impossible, nor unreservedly welcoming […]. In these associations of nations, there must be collective projects of infrastructure, investment, distribution of products and of revenues. It’s to the degree that these nations, witnesses and defenders of peoples, favour this deconcentration of economic powers and this decentralisation of their effects, that a certain reciprocity of development is outlined, which is not spontaneously generated by the interplay of private interests [Le Monde de l'économie, 9 October 1979].

These associations of nations are geopolitically possible, and they rupture current economic-strategic confines. Each great planetary region might thus be seen to coincide, in its living-space, with a related cultural heritage, a community of political interests, a certain ethnic and historic homogeneity, and macroeconomic factors that make possible, in time, autonomous development without recourse to international beggary.* A new nomos of the earth, to borrow Carl Schmitt’s expression, might thus see the light of day, founded on a society of communities, and no longer on a pseudo-community of societies.

[* Author’s note. For certain liberal economists, aid to underdeveloped countries ought, it’s true, be limited to aiding firms that invest in those countries. “By making aid to the Third World benefit industry,” said a senior French functionary, “we might at last make aid to industry benefit the Third World.”]

But these cultures, one could say, would no longer communicate with one another. Precisely the inverse is true. In communicating with one another with Western civilisation as a common reference, cultures in fact establish a pseudo-communication. This common reference in effect alienates the personality of those that use it. The signifier (Western cultural language) substitutes itself for the signified (the local culture that tries to express itself in Western language). In short, peoples know themselves less and less closely; cultures no longer communicate, and no longer manage to enrich themselves, because they use an infra-cultural Esperanto which belongs to anybody and everybody. Sharing in the same customs of language, dress, diet, etc., man can no longer perceive the specificities of his fellow man—where they survive. An Italian in Thailand will use English, descend on an international hotel, and will only see Thai customs as marginalised folklore. If he goes to Africa, the Africans with whom he mingles will be “three-piece-suit-briefcases” (costards-trois-pièces-attaché-case), in the pungent words of the Ivorian lawyer Badibanga. What will he know of African man? On the other hand, when Marco Polo arrived in China, the communication was real and fertile, despite the absence of common reference; and the influence of Chinese culture was significant in Europe thereafter. Cultures are incommensurable: they can only be understood from within; but they might influence “from the wings,” and profit by contact—not by mixture. The idea of the interpenetration of cultures, or the mechanist illusion of a universal measure of the “best” of cultures, an idea defended notably by Léopold Senghor, can bring about nothing but the impoverishment of all cultures, and the enforcement of Western infra-cultural language. Language alienates because it doesn’t rest on the anthropological support of any people; and in this respect, it doesn’t bear any meaning.

mhbuste.jpg

For Martin Heidegger, the term Western doesn’t express the essence of Europe. He prefers to use the enigmatic word Hesperian to denote the essence of European modernity—or, more precisely, its possible future, its virtuality. The advent of the Hesperian therefore presupposes the death, in Europe, of the Western.

Appendices

[Translator's note. These appeared as highlighted inserts in the original.]

1. There Is No “White World”

All dominant ideologies oppose, in their discourse, the Third World and the West. Whatever criteria be taken into account, these definitions all function according to the same principle of exclusion. Christianity was the first to thus oppose infidels and believers, perpetuating across centuries the Manichaean vision of the world. In the eighteenth century, the noble savage may well have known a paradisiacal existence: he nonetheless remains a “savage,” to which philosophers this time oppose the civilised. Inverting this proposition, rationalism in its turn distinguishes civilised Western peoples from uncivilised peoples. In their analysis of economic growth, liberal theories have themselves merely opposed the developed West to the developing Third World. Be they right or left, progressive or reactionary, occidentalist ideologies remain in submission to this Manichaean logic. Occidentalism negates the identity of the Other, which it perceives in the end as non-Christian, uncivilised or undeveloped…without imagining for a second that this Other might simply be itself. This repudiation of difference marks an essentially racist course. Implicitly, it’s always the white world that opposes itself to the world of colour. The very notion of the West is in fact the product of an ideology, and contains no geopolitical, cultural, or even economic reality (how to class Argentina—white developing country?—or Japan—hyper-developed country of colour?). These words are not neutral. The concept of the West ensnares who uses it. To speak of the West is, in the end, to recognise its existence and to admit the logic it carries. It’s to adopt implicitly the ideology of which it’s the product.

2. Decolonisation Must Be Redone

Is the Westernisation of the planet itself, as we generally assert, the historical consequence of European colonialism? Very widespread in progressive milieus, this thesis doesn’t seem particularly accurate. European colonialism, as manifested from the sixteenth to twentieth centuries, must in fact be clearly distinguished from the Western neo-colonialism that succeeded it. Traditional European colonialism expressed a hegemonic and imperial will, which needn’t entail the destruction of the values of the colonised. But from the nineteenth century, European colonialism was also the articulation of a “civilising” will, stemming from the philosophical universalism of the century of Enlightenment, which urged the coloniser to assimilate the colonised, and dispossess him of his values. In condemning, in the name of a humanist and Messianic ethic, the hegemonic and imperial will of European powers, the United States contributed in a decisive way to the dismantling of colonial empires. Not that they might free the colonised peoples, but to substitute for the traditional colonial order, essentially political, a neo-colonialism retaining nothing of colonialism but the “civilising” will. Thus “Westernised,” neo-colonialism does nothing but entrench the dangers that the old European colonialism brought down on the identity of colonised peoples. It’s thus that those peoples, having just escaped European colonial influence, find themselves irresistibly suppressed by Western neo-colonialism, without these people able to resist it. How, indeed, can they revolt against the network of influences that enfolds local bourgeoisies, multinationals, political milieus, etc.? When a master is visible, one might recognise him as an enemy and free oneself; but neo-colonialism submits peoples to a “system of live,” and no longer to the political power of another nation, as in traditional European colonialism. How can one combat a phantom coloniser? The answer reveals itself: “neo-decolonisation” must be metapolitical and cultural.

15631-les-incontournables-de-la.jpg

3. When the West Forgot Greece

It’s in Der Spruch des Anaximander, an exegetical text on a fragment of pre-Socratic philosophy, that Martin Heidegger introduces the concept of Abend-Land. He opposes it to Abendland (West) and, in the translation of Wolfgang Brockmeier, Abend-Land has been very happily rendered by Hespérie (Hesperia) and hespérial (Hesperian). Hesperia is, as the Greek root indicates, the land of sunset. But it doesn’t denote the West, nor the western regions of the world, but rather a project of world-organisation bearing the marks of sunset—that is, of the fulfilment of an auroral worldview, expressed in the seventh century before our era by the first European thinker. Heidegger writes: “The greatest event begins: the forgetfulness of being, in which Hesperian world-History comes and goes.” For Heidegger, European man has been by turns “Greek,” “Christian,” “modern,” “planetary,” or even “Western” or “American”; he must today become “Hesperian”:

“The antiquity that brings about the words of Anaximander,” writes Heidegger,

[b]elongs to the morning of the dawn of Hesperia […]. If we persist so obstinately in thinking the thought of the Greeks as the Greeks knew to think it, it’s not for love of the Greeks: it’s to rediscover this Identical which, in diverse guises, concerns the Greeks and concerns us historically. It’s that, which carries the dawn of thought into the destiny of the Hesperian. It’s in conformity with this destiny that only the Greeks become the Greeks, in a historical sense. Destiny awaits what becomes of its seed.

The Hesperian represents, at the same time, the sunset of the Greek metaphysical tradition and the virtual beginning of another cycle which fulfils Greek thought at another level—that of self-conscious will-to-power. The Hesperian is thus at once a restarting, a deep return to the dawn—that is, to the Greek conception of the world—and a rupture with the Western, which has itself forgotten Greece. Returning to Hesperia, for us Europeans, consists, then, in fulfilling our will-to-power as Europeans, conscious of our Greek heritage, and no longer as Westerners, forgetful of that heritage. The Hesperian is the European who becomes conscious that he’s Greek, and who therefore rejects the West as non-Greek, and ends by forgetting himself; who will have “meditated on the disarray of the present destiny of the world”; and will consciously fulfil the Greek vision of the world.

mardi, 09 mai 2017

Doug Casey on the End of Western Civilization

Doug-Casey.jpg

Doug Casey on the End of Western Civilization

Nick Giambruno: The decline of Western Civilization is on a lot of people’s minds.

Let’s talk about this trend.

Doug Casey: Western Civilization has its origins in ancient Greece. It’s unique among the world’s civilizations in putting the individual—as opposed to the collective—in a central position. It enshrined logic and rational thought—as opposed to mysticism and superstition—as the way to deal with the world. It’s because of this that we have science, technology, great literature and art, capitalism, personal freedom, the concept of progress, and much, much more. In fact, almost everything worth having in the material world is due to Western Civilization.

Ayn Rand once said “East minus West equals zero.” I think she went a bit too far, as a rhetorical device, but she was essentially right. When you look at what the world’s other civilizations have brought to the party, at least over the last 2,500 years, it’s trivial.

I lived in the Orient for years. There are many things I love about it—martial arts, yoga, and the cuisine among them. But all the progress they’ve made is due to adopting the fruits of the West.

DC-totincorr.jpgNick Giambruno: There are so many things degrading Western Civilization. Where do we begin?

Doug Casey: It’s been said, correctly, that a civilization always collapses from within. World War 1, in 1914, signaled the start of the long collapse of Western Civilization. Of course, termites were already eating away at the foundations, with the writings of people like Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx. It’s been on an accelerating downward path ever since, even though technology and science have been improving at a quantum pace. They are, however, like delayed action flywheels, operating on stored energy and accumulated capital. Without capital, intellectual freedom, and entrepreneurialism, science and technology will slow down. I’m optimistic we’ll make it to Kurzweil’s Singularity, but there are no guarantees.

Things also changed with the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913. Before that, the US used gold coinage for money. “The dollar” was just a name for 1/20th of an ounce of gold. That is what the dollar was. Paper dollars were just receipts for gold on deposit in the Treasury. The income tax, enacted the same year, threw more sand in the gears of civilization. The world was much freer before the events of 1913 and 1914, which acted to put the State at the center of everything.

The Fed and the income tax are both disastrous and unnecessary things, enemies of the common man in every way. Unfortunately, people have come to believe they’re fixtures in the cosmic firmament. They’re the main reasons—there are many other reasons, though, unfortunately—why the average American’s standard of living has been dropping since the early 1970s. In fact, were it not for these things, and the immense amount of capital destroyed during the numerous wars of the last 100 years, I expect we’d have already colonized the moon and Mars. Among many other things…

But I want to re-emphasize that the science, the technology, and all the wonderful toys we have are not the essence of Western Civilization. They’re consequences of individualism, capitalism, rational thought, and personal freedom. It’s critical not to confuse cause and effect.

Nick Giambruno: You mentioned that the average American’s standard of living has dropped since the early 1970s. This is directly related to the US government abandoning the dollar’s last link to gold in 1971. Since then, the Federal Reserve has been able to debase the US dollar without limit.

I think the dollar’s transformation into a purely fiat currency has eroded the rule of law and morality in the US. It’s similar to what happened in the Roman Empire after it started debasing its currency.

What do you think, Doug?

Doug Casey: All the world’s governments and central banks share a common philosophy, which drives these policies. They believe that you create economic activity by stimulating demand, and you stimulate demand by printing money. And, of course, it’s true, in a way. Roughly the same way a counterfeiter can stimulate a local economy.

Unfortunately, they ignore that, and completely ignore that the way a person or a society becomes wealthy is by producing more than they consume and saving the difference. That difference, savings, is how you create capital. Without capital you’re reduced to subsistence, scratching at the earth with a stick. These people think that by inflating—which is to say destroying—the currency, they can create prosperity. But what they’re really doing, is destroying capital: When you destroy the value of the currency, that discourages people from saving it. And when people don’t save, they can’t build capital, and the vicious cycle goes on.

This is destructive for civilization itself, in both the long term and the short term. The more paper money, the more credit, they create, the more society focuses on finance, as opposed to production. It’s why there are many times more people studying finance than science. The focus is increasingly on speculation, not production. Financial engineering, not mechanical, electrical, or chemical engineering. And lots of laws and regulations to keep the unstable structure from collapsing.

What keeps a truly civil society together isn’t laws, regulations, and police. It’s peer pressure, social opprobrium, moral approbation, and your reputation. These are the four elements that keep things together. Western Civilization is built on voluntarism. But, as the State grows, that’s being replaced by coercion in every aspect of society. There are regulations on the most obscure areas of life. As Harvey Silverglate pointed out in his book, the average American commits three felonies a day. Whether he’s caught and prosecuted is a subject of luck and the arbitrary will of some functionary. That’s antithetical to the core values of Western Civilization.

Nick Giambruno: Speaking of ancient civilizations like Rome, interest rates are about the lowest they’ve been in 5,000 years of recorded history. Trillions of dollars’ worth of government bonds trade at negative yields.

Of course, this couldn’t happen in a free market. It’s only possible because of central bank manipulation.

How will artificially low interest rates affect the collapse of Western Civilization?

DC-money.jpgDoug Casey: It’s really, really serious. I previously thought it was metaphysically impossible to have negative interest rates but, in the Bizarro World central banks have created, it’s happened.

Negative interest rates discourage saving. Once again, saving is what builds capital. Without capital you wind up as an empty shell—Rome in 450 A.D., or Detroit today—lots of wonderful but empty buildings and no economic activity. Worse, it forces people to desperately put their money in all manner of idiotic speculations in an effort to stay ahead of inflation. They wind up chasing the bubbles the funny money creates.

Let me re-emphasize something: in order for science and technology to advance you need capital. Where does capital come from? It comes from people producing more than they consume and saving the difference. Debt, on the other hand, means you’re living above your means. You’re either consuming the capital others have saved, or you’re mortgaging your future.

Zero and negative interest rate policies, and the creation of money out of nowhere, are actually destructive of civilization itself. It makes the average guy feel that he’s not in control of his own destiny. He starts believing that the State, or luck, or Allah will provide for him. That attitude is typical of people from backward parts of the world—not Western Civilization.

Nick Giambruno: What does it say about the economy and society that people work so hard to interpret what officials from the Federal Reserve and other central banks say?

Doug Casey: It’s a shameful waste of time. They remind me of primitives seeking the counsel of witch doctors. One hundred years ago, the richest people in the country—the Rockefellers, the Carnegies, and such—made their money creating industries that actually made stuff. Now, the richest people in the country just shuffle money around. They get rich because they’re close to the government and the hydrant of currency materialized by the Federal Reserve. I’d say it’s a sign that society in the US has become quite degraded.

The world revolves much less around actual production, but around guessing the direction of financial markets. Negative interest rates are creating bubbles, and will eventually result in an economic collapse.

Nick Giambruno: Negative interest rates are essentially a tax on savings. A lot of people would rather pull their money out of the bank and stuff it under a mattress than suffer that sting.

The economic central planners know this. It’s why they’re using negative interest rates to ramp up the War on Cash—the push to eliminate paper currency and create a cashless society.

The banking system is very fragile. Banks don’t hold much paper cash. It’s mostly digital bytes on a computer. If people start withdrawing paper money en masse, it won’t take much to bring the whole system down.

Their solution is to make accessing cash harder, and in some cases, illegal. That’s why the economic witch doctors at Harvard are pounding the table to get rid of the $100 bill.

Take France, for example. It’s now illegal to make cash transactions over €1,000 without documenting them properly.

Negative interest rates have turbocharged the War on Cash. If the central planners win this war, it would be the final deathblow to financial privacy.

How does this all relate to the collapse of Western Civilization?

Doug Casey: I believe the next step in their idiotic plan is to abolish cash. Decades ago they got rid of gold coinage, which used to circulate day to day in people’s pockets. Then they got rid of silver coinage. Now, they’re planning to get rid of cash altogether. So you won’t even have euros or dollars or pounds in your wallet anymore, or if you do, it will only be very small denominations. Everything else is going to have to be done through electronic payment processing.

This is a huge disaster for the average person: absolutely everything that you buy or sell, other than perhaps a candy bar or a hamburger, is going to have to go through the banking system. Thus, the government will be able to monitor every transaction and payment. Financial privacy, even what’s left of it today, will literally cease to exist.

Privacy is one of the big differences between a civilized society and a primitive society. In a primitive society, in your little dirt hut village, anybody can look through your window or pull back the flap on your tent. You have no privacy. Everybody can hear everything; see anything. This was one of the marvelous things about Western Civilization—privacy was valued, and respected. But that concept, like so many others, is on its way out…

Nick Giambruno: You’ve mentioned before that language and words provide important clues to the collapse of Western Civilization. How so?

Doug Casey: Many of the words you hear, especially on television and other media, are confused, conflated, or completely misused. Many recent changes in the way words are used are corrupting the language. As George Orwell liked to point out, to control language is to control thought. The corruption of language is adding to the corruption of civilization itself. This is not a trivial factor in the degradation of Western Civilization.

Words—their exact meanings, and how they’re used—are critically important. If you don’t mean what you say and say what you mean, then it’s impossible to communicate accurately. Forget about transmitting philosophical concepts.

Take for example shareholders and stakeholders. We all know that a shareholder actually owns a share in a company, but have you noticed that over the last generation shareholders have become less important than stakeholders? Even though stakeholders are just hangers-on, employees, or people who are looking to get in on a shakedown. But everybody slavishly acknowledges, “Yes, we’ve got to look out for the stakeholders.”

Where did that concept come from? It’s a recent creation, but Boobus americanus seems to think it was carved in stone at the country’s founding.

We’re told to protect them, as if they were a valuable and endangered species. I say, “A pox upon stakeholders.” If they want a vote in what a company does, then they ought to become shareholders. Stakeholders are a class of being created out of nothing by Cultural Marxists for the purpose of shaking down shareholders.

Reprinted with permission from International Man.

jeudi, 23 février 2017

Sid Lukkassen over Avondland en Identiteit

SL-ph.jpg

Sid Lukkassen over Avondland en Identiteit in Batavieren Podcast aflevering 19

We hebben een lang interview met Sid Lukassen over zijn boek Avondland en Identiteit. We hebben het over cultuurmarxisme, postmodernisme, de verhouding tussen man en vrouw en de teloorgang van onze maatschappij.

Bestel het boek Avondland en Identiteit: https://www.bol.com/nl/p/avondland-en...

Bezoek de website van Sid Lukkassen: sidlukkassen.nl/

Doneer nu: www.batavierenpodcast.nl
Luister op iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/nl/podcast/b...
Luister op Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/user-961843305
Like Batavieren op Facebook: www.facebook.com/batavierenpodcast/
Luister op YouTube: www.youtube.com/channel/UCG5MbIZ60hfKazU-8N9wg2A

dimanche, 23 août 2015

Western civilization is imploding

implowvmnhiioceu98xbrkn5l.jpg

Western civilization is imploding

by Brett Stevens

Ex: http://www.amerika.org

Over the generations, a sense of dread has been building: the observation that — despite some things which have improved — our society is heading downward. Its organization, or the pattern of how it holds itself together, is fraying. It is the death of the West.

We all make fun of the old guys who rail about how in their day the steaks were redder and the whiskey sweeter, but perhaps those were merely symbols for an ongoing decay in quality. Quality is measured by the experience as a whole, and not particular items that seem brighter and newer than others.

Over at The Mad Monarchist a new article gives voice to concern about the collapse of the West:

We are at or are fast approaching the point of critical mass for western civilization…The internationalists have the world firmly in their grip and with the United States circling the drain, western civilization is going the same way. Of course, all monarchists know that the USA was never a pure example of western civilization, it has never had any of the high culture of Europe but that is to be expected as it is a branch rather than the tree itself.

…The leaders of the EU have emasculated the countries of Europe to empower their central EU government while also making sure that Europe itself is never significant again. They are all part of the same internationalist clique. They don’t want any European country to be great because that would detract from the European Union and they don’t really want Europe to be great because they have nothing but contempt for European culture, European history and western civilization in general. Some actively want to destroy it while others are just looking out for themselves and willingly go along with those who do want to destroy it to further their own interests.

He makes excellent points and the following notions are designed to harmonize with those, not contradict them.

We do not get to a state such as our present condition without first having lost track of our future. Future is tied to past; past shows us not only what worked and what did not, but also who we are and from that, where we should be going. But that past was rejected in favor of egalitarianism during The Enlightenment™. Egalitarianism states that all people are equal, which means that the individual — not culture, values, philosophy, heritage or social order — determines the future. We base our decisions not on what has worked, or what would be good, but what individuals want to do. This creates a transition to a facilitative society.

Facilitative societies have many problems, but the two largest are the need for control, and the passivity of the population. When each person does whatever they want, there is no balance in social order nor is there a central idea to which people “harmonize” or find themselves in resonance with and attempt to fulfill. Morality would be one example of this type of order. Control in turn creates passivity. Citizens are accustomed to doing whatever they want unless stopped, but also become familiar with correction by their ideological leaders. As a result, they do not act toward any purpose, but instead flit around and do nothing of import unless explicitly told to do otherwise. The far extreme of this is what happens in authoritarian societies where people refuse to act unless commanded because the risks of unauthorized action are too great, and the state will step in at some point and tell them what to do anyway. Like children of an overbearing parent, they wait for this correction and achieve nothing in the meantime.

implo3lqchyph6eeff1nzyo.jpg

Control-based societies become miserable places. As the 21st century has taught us, even when “free” and “tolerant” places they become tyrannical because those in power — or those who want to join them — must manufacture a constant series of ideological crises in order to keep motivating the population. A facilitative society has no objectives, therefore must style every change as a “war” or a defensive action. This self-pity mentality spreads to the population at large. Between the constant war for ideological clarity, and the general apathy of the population to everything else, decay results and the society plunges downward into a spiral of despair. Eventually it loses all social order and becomes a third-world style society, unable to organize itself to have public hygiene, rule of law, freedom from corruption and even social order itself.

The origin of this decay begins with egalitarianism (or “equality”) which is itself a form of individualism, or the demand by the individual that society support him in his choices without a corresponding investment by the individual in society. All of the subsidy states — socialism, communism, and even consumerism which is capitalism supported through low-return consumer purchases funded by state welfare programs — are based in this form of radical individualism. It comes about when societies become “bottom-heavy,” or have many individuals who know nothing about how to run a society who nonetheless demand participation in its decision-making. These individuals band together into a “Crowd,” and through a philosophy of Crowdism develop a sense of victimhood based in self-pity which spurs them to attack their society and convert it into a facilitative society.

Control then becomes required because facilitative societies are chaotic and individuals, acting on radical individualism, tend to externalize the costs of their actions to others. Conservatism arises as a resistance to this movement, but generally fails because its adherents are unable to articulate what they really need, which is an end to the facilitative society. Early experiments in liberalism in France and Russia showed how quickly revolutions turn to ideological enforcement, usually by inventing or discovering enemies, and from that to authoritarianism. Conservative experiments in using this force against liberalism, as seen in Italy and Germany, met with less than shining results because of the inherent control-tendencies of liberal society which prevented the restoration of organic culture.

Opposite the control-based facilitative society is the leadership-based society. This is part of what is called “tradition,” which is a way of viewing the world through both (a) realistic and (b) transcendental viewpoints. These aim to discover methods that work in the real world, but to point them toward “transcendentals” or eternal goals that can never be fully realized and thus can both harmonize and motivate a society without the war/victimhood narrative of egalitarian societies. In these societies, leaders do not “control” their population but actually lead it, meaning that they discover necessary tasks and keep people organized toward transcendental goals. Leadership societies have purpose, and as a result, in them people have roles in which they fulfill parts of the overall ongoing goal. Paul Woodruff refers to the basis of the glories of the past as “reverence,” or an awe and transcendental appreciation for our world, and this seems like an appropriate basis for the combination of strong cultural, religious and moral feeling that traditional societies have.

implobuilding-1200.jpg

Perhaps the best definition of tradition comes from Aldous Huxley, who wrote The Perennial Philosophy to detail what is present in such societies. He outlines a mixture of religion and philosophy that serves as a principle of social order and personal order simultaneously:

More than twenty-five centuries have passed since that which has been called the Perennial Philosophy was first committed to writing; and in the course of those centuries it has found expression, now partial, now complete, now in this form, now in that, again and again. In Vedanta and Hebrew prophecy, in the Tao Teh King and the Platonic dialogues, in the Gospel according to St. John and Mahayana theology, in Plotinus and the Areopagite, among the Persian Sufis and the Christian mystics of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance–the Perennial Philosophy has spoken almost all the languages of Asia and Europe and has made use of the terminology and traditions of every one of the higher religions. But under all this confusion of tongues and myths, of local histories and particularist doctrines, there remains a Highest Common Factor, which is the Perennial Philosophy in what may be called its chemically pure state. This final purity can never, of course, be expressed by any verbal statement of the philosophy, however undogmatic that statement may be, however deliberately syncretistic. The very fact that it is set down at a certain time by a certain writer, using this or that language, automatically imposes a certain sociological and personal bias on the doctrines so formulated. It is only the act of contemplation when words and even personality are transcended, that the pure state of the Perennial Philosophy can actually be known. The records left by those who have known it in this way make it abundantly clear that all of them, whether Hindu, Buddhist, Hebrew, Taoist, Christian, or Mohammedan, were attempting to describe the same essentially indescribable Fact.

The original scriptures of most religions are poetical and unsystematic. Theology, which generally takes the form of a reasoned commentary on the parables and aphorisms of the scriptures, tends to make its appearance at a later stage of religious history. The Bhagavad-Gita occupies an intermediate position between scripture and theology; for it combines the poetical qualities of the first with the clear-cut methodicalness of the second. The book may be described, writes Ananda K. Coomaraswamy in his admirable Hinduism and Buddhism, “as a compendium of the whole Vedic doctrine to be found in the earlier Vedas, Brahmanas and Upanishads, and being therefore the basis of all the later developments, it can be regarded as the focus of all Indian religion” is also one of the clearest and most comprehensive summaries of the Perennial Philosophy ever to have been made. Hence its enduring value, not only for Indians, but for all mankind.

At the core of the Perennial Philosophy we find four fundamental doctrines.

  1. The phenomenal world of matter and of individualized consciousness–the world of things and animals and men and even gods–is the manifestation of a Divine Ground within which all partial realities have their being, and apart from which they would be non-existent.
  2. Human beings are capable not merely of knowing about the Divine Ground by inference; they can also realize its existence by a direct intuition, superior to discursive reasoning. This immediate knowledge unites the knower with that which is known.
  3. Man possesses a double nature, a phenomenal ego and an eternal Self, which is the inner man, the spirit, the spark of divinity within the soul. It is possible for a man, if he so desires, to identify himself with the spirit and therefore with the Divine Ground, which is of the same or like nature with the spirit.
  4. Man’s life on earth has only one end and purpose: to identify himself with his eternal Self and so to come to unitive knowledge of the Divine Ground.

Tradition treats reality as fact and includes in that fact a philosophical and metaphysical exploration of the order of life. Julius Evola gave us a hint in “On the Secret of Degeneration”:

If we look at the secret of degeneration from the exclusively traditional point of view, it becomes even harder to solve it completely. It is then a matter of the division of all cultures into two main types. On the one hand there are the traditional cultures, whose principle is identical and unchangeable, despite all the differences evident on the surface. The axis of these cultures and the summit of their hierarchical order consists of metaphysical, supra-individual powers and actions, which serve to inform and justify everything that is merely human, temporal, subject to becoming and to “history.” On the other hand there is “modern culture,” which is actually the anti-tradition and which exhausts itself in a construction of purely human and earthly conditions and in the total development of these, in pursuit of a life entirely detached from the “higher world.”

In a traditional culture, all is viewed by its significance as ideal; in a modern culture, all is material. This does not limit the ideal to the metaphysical alone, because ideas like loyalty, values and morality come first before material convenience. The difference lies in the tendency of traditional cultures to view the significance of acts as if, in Kant’s words, they were to “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” The order of nature itself as an idea matters more than material fate or condition. Where a modern culture is pragmatic, a traditional culture views itself through the lens of purpose and in that a sense of the underlying informational order to the universe. When radical individualism takes over, and cultures view themselves through egalitarianism, the idea of individuals deferring to an invisible social order formed of honor, loyalty, duty, culture, values and heritage becomes impossible.

implosion.jpg

That outlook creates a transcendental effect on a society by which it sacralizes itself not as an end, but as a means to more of the sacred. Like the transcendentals “the good, the beautiful and the true,” a traditional culture aims for the principle of every act and aspect of being. These principles are more important than materiality because, in the view of traditional cultures, they create materiality. Whether this is atheistic or theistic matters little. A society can either idealize the patterns of reality itself, or its own people, and the latter path leads to decay and ruin. On a simple level, when principles such as law, justice, integrity and honor are lost, corruption reigns. On a greater level, when principles such as morality are placed first, it becomes impossible for wholesale abuses in which damages of individual acts are socialized to the group to become valid. Tradition is the opposite of utilitarianism, which argues from what a group feels — statistically, or by majority — benefits them as individuals. As the West has turned from this traditional view, it has plunged into slow but inexorable decline.

While we search today for answers, all of our methods resemble symptomatic or palliative treatment. That is: we do not believe we can strike at the core of our decay, and instead apply intermediates. To reverse our decline, we must first — as Kant reminds us — choose to be good. We must target the transcendentals. With a little thought and some reading of history, we can see that these mandate a society quite unlike our own: ruled by an aristocracy, united by heritage and culture, governed not by laws but by principles and, perhaps most importantly, one that has reverence for life and the fact that there are more important things than convenience and survival. The answer is not as simple as a theocracy, or nationalism, or even cultural reign, but includes all of the above. We must restore our identity as the West not just as a physical group, but as a principle: those who do what is right, no matter how inconvenient, and rise accordingly.

vendredi, 28 novembre 2014

The European New Right & its Animus against Western Civ

thumbnail_Dr_Pierre_Krebs.png

The European New Right & its Animus against Western Civ

By Ricardo Duchesne 

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

My knowledge of the European New Right (ENR) is very scarce, no more than a few short articles and three books: Guillaume Faye’s Why We Fight [2], Alexander Dugin’s Fourth Political Theory, and Pierre Krebs’ Fighting for the Essence, Western Ethnosuicide or European Renaissance? [3]. I found Faye’s metapolitical dictionary substantively insightful and Dugin’s dissection of liberalism penetrating.

But Krebs’ book finally clarified for me something about the ENR I had sensed but was not sure about: its belief that Western Civ stands for the rise of multiracial societies in Europe.

drkrebs.jpgI noticed this animus against the West in Dugin’s book. In the case of Dugin it was more his identification of American Neoconservatism, or Mainstream Liberalism, with Western Civ as such, his rejection of Western rationalism, his condemnation of the idea of progress, his use of cultural Marxists and postmodernists (Franz Boas, Michel Foucault, Levi Strauss, Jean Baudrillard) to paint a picture of the West as the sickest, most destructive civilization in human history. Everything hateful about the world — consumerism, environmental despoliation, egalitarianism, plutocratic manipulation, erosion of ethnic and traditional differences — was explained by him as a direct product of the metaphysical orientation of the West.

In order to adequately understand the essence of liberalism, we must recognize that it is not accidental, that its appearance in the political and economic ideologies is based on fundamental processes, proceeding in all Western civilization. Liberalism is not only a part of that history, but its purest and most refined expression, its result (Fourth Political Theory, p. 140).

It is as if the West was from the beginning oriented towards our present-day pro-immigration regimen, driven by a rationalist logic dedicated to the reduction of cultural qualities to measurable quantities, by a will to a universal language for humanity based on mental constructs existing a priori in all humans, by an individualizing logic that seeks to free all concrete persons from any collective identities, and by a progressive view of history that ranks cultures in terms of how close they approximate the liberal-democratic aims of a West envisioned as the master culture led by a superior race. According to Dugin, the “very ideology of [Western] progress is racist in its structure.”

But I thought that these were the prejudices of a Russian nationalist, a keen defender of Putin’s foreign policies in the face of American Neocon wishes for control of former Soviet territories. But upon reading Pierre Krebs’ book a few days ago, I am starting to realize that opposition to the West (and, by direct necessity, opposition to almost the entire history of Europeans) is quite prominent among members of the ENR. I feel confident in making this generalization about the ENR, having read, additionally, some articles by and about Alain de Benoist, noticing right away that he too holds the West responsible for all the main maladies of our times: individualization, massification, desacralization, rationalization, and universalization. He traces the roots of these destructive trends to the Christian concept of equality and the Christian idea of progress, and then explains how these concepts were secularized in modern times. But my focus here will be on Krebs’ Fighting for the Essence, originally published in 1997.

PierreKrebs [4]I will engage with Krebs’ ideas by citing passages from his books, and then offering my responses below. I view Krebs as an ideological friend with whom I have a major disagreement about the nature of the West. He offers an effective rhetorical critique of the relationship between the homogenization of humanity and the celebration of diversity through miscegenation.

The originality and the richness of the human heritages of this world are nourished by their differences and their deviations, which surprise and fascinate as soon as one passes from the culture of one people to another. These originalities can find protection, in turn, only in the homogeneous ethno-cultural space that is proper to them. The defenders of multiracialism are the primary destroyers, consciously or unconsciously, of this elementary right. (p. 89)

But the claim that the West has been the destroyer of racial identities is very simplistic and evinces a truncated understanding of the history of the most enriching and complex civilization. Krebs distinguishes an “authentic” West that is Greek, Faustian, and Indo-European from a “Judeo-Christian West that came after. But he condemns the West in its entirety once it became “Judeo-Christian.” And this argument is historically flawed, starting with the term “Judeo-Christian,” which is a recent invention reflecting trends that cannot be teleologically attributed to the ancient past. “Genuine tragedies in the world are not conflicts between right and wrong. They are conflicts between two rights,” Hegel once wrote as he contemplated the history of Europe. Individualization, universalization, rationalization, and desacralization were inescapably connected to the rise of this civilization to world supremacy. They are part-expression of the tumultuous temperament and directional psyche of Europeans. You can’t condemn these world-historical processes without condemning Europeans as a people. These processes were not, historically for the longest time, and, therefore, in and of themselves, anti-White.

Pierre Krebs:

In the first stage which corresponds to its political phase, the egalitarian lie first turned the democratic integrity of the state on its head by progressively emptying the Greek model of the ethno-cultural organic principles of the demos which it purely and simply replaced with the vagabond and cosmopolitan institution of the parliament. (p. 18)

RD: Krebs is saying that the Greek polis which evolved gradually from the seventh century BC onward, a radically new form of governance based on laws, offices, and direct participation by members of the polis or city-state, in contrast to a form of rule based on the personal powers of a despot and his entourage, was not only a civic political community based on laws equally binding on all members, but was consciously grouped according to a shared sense of ethnic identity. The representative parliaments that emerged later were merely based on the civic identity of the members of the state, their shared political rights and responsibilities, which anyone regardless of ethnic identity could lay a claim to as long as he was or became a political member of the respective state.

I have heard this claim expressed in New Right circles, how Christians with their idea that we all have equal souls in the eyes of God were responsible for our current obsession with harmonizing all races inside the West, or how Romans with the granting of citizenship during the third century AD to inhabitants in the Empire of any race, started a new trans-racial concept of citizenship. My view is the opposite: racially conscious political communities were created only after the Enlightenment. Europeans were the first people in history to develop a science of race. Humans are ethnocentric by nature in showing a preference for their own linguistic, tribal, and ancestral groups, but this is not the same as being racially aware and having the intellectual wherewithal to articulate a rational argument about the existence of different races. Racial awareness began during the sixteenth century as Europeans were coming into contact with peoples in the Americas, Africa, and Asia with very different bodily attributes and customs. It was during the Enlightenment, however, that Europeans began to develop a scientific theory of race.

kampf.jpgThe same philosophers who announced that human nature was uniform everywhere, and united mankind as a subject capable of enlightenment, argued “in text after text . . . in the works of Hume, Diderot, Montesquieu, Kant, and many lesser lights” that men “are not uniform but are divided up into sexes, races, national characters . . . and many other categories,” so observes Aaron Garret in a book chapter titled “Human Nature” in The Cambridge History of Eighteenth-Century Philosophy [5] (2006). Eighteenth century talk about “human nature” and the “unity of mankind” was less a political program for a universal civilization than a scientific program for the study of man in a way that was systematic in intent and universal in scope. Enlightenment thinkers were not calling for the unity of humanity, the sameness of races, other than for a “federation of the peoples of Europe.” Garrett is stereotypically liberal and thus writes of “the eighteenth century’s dubious contributions to the discussion of race,” but what matters is that Enlightenment thinkers did engage in the scientific study of races in light of the evidence and the knowledge at the time. Most Enlightenment thinkers rejected polygenecism and asserted the fundamental (species) equality of humankind, but they also came to the conclusion that humanity was divided into different races with very different biological traits, behavioral dispositions and mental aptitudes.

One cannot speak of the suicide of Europeans in a racial way without the very “rationalism” Krebs condemns, which is presupposed in the scientific study of races. The Greeks were not yet rational in their understanding of races. Their concept of civic membership did presuppose membership of traditional kinship or tribal groupings, but it did not presuppose racial membership.The Greeks developed a Pan-Hellenic identity during the first century BC in the course of the Persian Wars (490-479 BC), but this was a cultural identity, easily fractured in the years ahead by the endemic wars between the city-states.

By contrast, in the nineteenth century, the age of full-blown individualization, universalization, and massification, the field of racial studies emerged, and it was in light of these studies that the United States, Australia, and Canada instituted in the twentieth century “white only” immigration policies. These policies were implemented in liberal democratic societies and accepted by the majority of citizens.

Pierre Krebs:

“[I]n the American-style ‘carnival’ multiculturalism, it is in fact the naturally aristocratic soul of Europe, its deeply individualist style, its essentially rebellious, Faustian and Promethean spirit that the globalist vulgate is in the process of attacking. Behind its multicultural alibi, Europe is invited to change its mentality — and so its skin — so that its lively identity may be silenced.” (p. 24)

RD:
Americans have been pushing multiculturalism and immigration in Europe for decades, and if the term “Western Civilization” is taken to mean that European nations should become as the US and Canada were in the 1960s, with multiple European ethnicities converging as members of one nation, then I am opposed to it. But the settler nations of America, Canada, and Australia (and New Zealand) are European creations and altogether they should be viewed as members of a Pan-European world we can conveniently label “Western Civilization” as a way of identifying common traits and common historical experiences in and outside Europe in North America and Australia, in contrast to that of other civilizations.

My book Uniqueness of Western Civilization emphasizes the roots of this civilization in the aristocratic culture of Indo-Europeans and the Faustian personality of Europeans. But it seems to me Krebs is making a mistake in assuming that the Faustian soul of the West was gradually eroded with the adoption of what he calls “the monster of Judaeo-Christianity” (p. 22). As I briefly argued in a prior essay [6], citing Spengler’s words:

Christianity, too, became a thoroughly Faustian moral ethic. “It was not Christianity that transformed Faustian man, but Faustian man who transformed Christianity — and he not only made it a new religion but also gave it a new moral direction.”

I will address in Part II Krebs’ erroneous understanding of Christianity. The point I like to make now is that the forces pushing for multiracialism inside the West are still imbued with a Faustian moral imperative, even as they seek to destroy this soul and are themselves already intermixed, in this late hour, with alien morals. The words cited about from Spengler come from Chapter X, “Soul-Image and Life-Feeling: Buddhism, Stoicism, Socialism.” I may write an essay exclusively on this magnificent chapter in the future. In it, Spengler specifically addresses the “morale” of Faustian man in the last stage of the West when it is about to exhaust itself, but before writing about this stage in particular, he notes that, for the Faustian morale in general,

everything is direction, claim to power, will to affect the distant. Here Luther is completely at one with Nietzsche, Popes with Darwinians, Socialists with Jesuits; for one and all, the beginning of morale is a claim to general and permanent validity. It is a necessity of the Faustian soul that this should be so. He who thinks or teaches “otherwise” is sinful, a backslider, a foe, and he is fought down without mercy. You “shall,” the State “shall,” society “shall — this form of morale is to us self-evident, it represents the only real meaning that we can attach to the word. (p. 341)

On the surface, or perhaps in a way that requires disentanglement, the socialists of Spengler’s day appeared to have rejected the Faustian aggressive will for overcoming all resistances when they spoke softly at conferences and at the ballot box about

the ideals of ‘welfare,’ ‘freedom,’ ‘humanity,’ the doctrine of the ‘greatest happiness of the greatest number’.

But

[i]t is a shallow judgment, and one incapable of inwardly understanding history, that cannot distinguish the literary chatter of popular social-moralists and humanity-apostles from the deep ethical instincts of the West-European Civilization. (p. 351)

metapo.jpgKrebs has an inverted understanding of the Faustian soul. He grasps the aggressive moral certainty of globalists against the heterogeneity of cultures and ethnicities, but attributes this drive to Judeo-Christianity, mainly on the basis of its monotheism and egalitarian impulses, while picturing the Faustian morality of Europeans as if it were inherently inclined toward a life without directionality, repetitive cycles, co-existence with other morals in the world, ecological harmony, and polytheism. Krebs misreads the Faustian will to power of the West; he wants Europeans to “return” to their pre-Christian pagan past. But the problem is, first, that our Indo-European ancestors were a uniquely expansionary and directional people exhibiting a glorious expansive drive since prehistoric times across the Old World, spreading their “Kurgan [7]” lifestyle across Asia and Europe, leading eventually to a situation in which Indo-European languages are spoken today by almost 3 billion native speakers, the largest number of any language family. The problem is also that the immense creativity of the ancient Greeks, Romans, Catholics, Protestants, and Moderns I have written about in previous essays was driven by this Faustian energy — before and after Christianity.

We are facing an enemy — both the Neocon assimilationists and the Left multiculturalists –possessed by a Faustian morale (intermixed with alien demonic motifs) dedicated to the destruction of European ethnic identity “without mercy” and in complete conviction of its ideals. We should not be surprised by this. But just because the proponents of European ethnic dissolution are Faustian it does not follow that this is what the West was always (since the inception of Christianity) inclined to do. The Faustian soul has expressed itself in multiple, conflicting ways throughout history. Europeans have been the most bellicose people in human history. They almost self-destructed in two world wars. Many other alternative outlooks were defeated or unable to gather sufficient support. Now we have a huge conflict opening up. In the Western world “life means struggling, overcoming, winning through” (343), and waging a successful political war against the prevailing Faustian ethic can only be accomplished with a Faustian ethnocentric morale.

Pierre Krebs:

Once the dangers have been perceived and the choices have been offered, we must then move to action, first refusing ‘compromise, weakness, and indulgence towards everything which, being derived from the Judaeo-Christian root, has infected our blood and our intelligence. Then secondly, return to our pagan Indo-European tradition without which ‘there will be no liberation and no true restoration, and conversion to the true values of spirit, power, hierarchy, and empire will not be possible.’ (p. 29)

RD:
The words cited by Krebs are from Julius Evola. Krebs sees how we are facing an ideology with which there can be no compromises, and yet he speaks of a “return to our pagan Indo-European tradition” without considering that this tradition welcomes the struggle for existence, overcoming limitations, mastering nature. Evola has a mythological understanding of European history, a preference for traditional cultures combined with an immense dislike for Western modernity. He writes of the “order of things” in traditional cultures without realizing that Faustian man refuses to be bounded by orders other than those he has subjected to rational investigation. I learned much from Evola’s Revolt Against the Modern World [8]; it offers fascinating ideas about the “higher world” of ancient cultures, how rulers, institutions, and laws were seen as divine in origin and how this divinity ensured spiritual stability with a clear sense of the proper ranking of classes and human activities, higher spiritual functions versus lower materialistic functions, giving purpose and meaning to life, uplifting everyone in the direction of the higher “invisible reality” and conferring a sacred dignity to leadership roles, rituals, and beliefs. His understanding of the meaning of “tradition” surpasses that of any sociologist.

But Evola is not a practical thinker in tune with the actualities of Western history, what is possible today in the modern world. Just as Spengler called for German conservatives to liberate themselves from Romantic, unrealistic goals based on “dead” programs, the New Right needs to accept and adapt to the realities of international finance, genetic engineering, and robotics. It must not let go of the Faustian ethos:

the Faustian technics, which with the full passion of the third dimension and, to sure, from the earliest days of the Gothic era thrusts itself upon Nature in order to hold sway over her (cited in Farrenkopf, p. 72).

Pierre Krebs:

. . . Judaeo-Christianity and its modern avatars, egalitarian democracy . . . and the mercantile ideologies of the Homo oeconomicus and all their variations. In fact, once the assumption that Europe and the West are synonymous, which was previously believed to be self-evident, has been turned on its head, the opposite idea becomes the rule: the West is then moved to the opposite pole as something absolutely alien, with the radical, exogenous character of a civilisation that must henceforth be perceived on the basis of the natural incompatibilities that separate it forever from the authentic European culture considered in all its aspects: ethnic, mental, and spiritual [ . . . ] Europe will be able to find itself, return to an obedience to its gods, purify the conscience of its being which has been adulterated for so long, and recreate in its liberated soul the vibrations of a forgotten transcendence and origin. (p. 39)

RD:
Homo oeconomicus was a unique creation of Europeans, authentic to them. Europeans were the first to develop a science of economics and to discover the laws behind the production and distribution of wealth. The first to separate analytically “economic man” and thereby understand the activities of this man without confounding these activities with religious and political motivations, and, in doing so, to apprehend the reality that a nation’s power is more efficiently sustained when a nation creates its own wealth through work rather that through conquest. This was another major step in redirecting the Faustian energies of European man into less destructive endeavors. This does not mean that one has to accept the principles of free market economics since there are other schools including the much neglected German school associated with the economics of Friedrich List’s National System of Political Economy (1841), which accepted the wealth-creating nature of capitalism based on the economic history and economic reality of nations.

The West is not alien to Europe but a creation of Europe’s incredible extension across the Atlantic in the modern era. Seeking a “return” to an “authentic” Europe of pagan gods, “transcendence and origin,” is Utopian. This Europe is nowhere to be found in the classical Greece Krebs cherishes. The ancient Greeks reinterpreted or limited the sphere of influence of their gods as they became self-conscious as distinctive personalities in possession of a faculty they called “mind” (in contradistinction to other bodily attributes and psychological drives) capable of self-grounding its own principles and criteria for truthful statements. The first step in the origins of self-awareness, or awareness of awareness, thinking about thinking, rather than thinking in terms of prescribed norms and mandated religious ordinances, came with the uniquely Indo-European fight to the death for the sake of pure prestige by aristocratic peers in the state of nature. I write about this in Chapter Eight of Uniqueness.

The liberation of Europe has to be grounded in its peculiar history rather than in some static “origin” disconnected from what came after.

Source: http://www.eurocanadian.ca/2014/09/the-european-new-right-and-its-animus.html [9]

 


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

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/the-european-new-right-and-its-animus-against-western-civ/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/MichaelandDragon.jpg

[2] Why We Fight: http://www.arktos.com/guillaume-faye-why-we-fight.html

[3] Fighting for the Essence, Western Ethnosuicide or European Renaissance?: http://www.arktos.com/pierre-krebs-fighting-for-the-essence.html

[4] Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/PierreKrebs.jpg

[5] The Cambridge History of Eighteenth-Century Philosophy: http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-History-Eighteenth-Century-Philosophy-Haakonssen/dp/0521418542

[6] prior essay: http://www.eurocanadian.ca/2014/09/oswald-spengler-and-faustian-soul-of_4.html

[7] Kurgan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan_hypothesis

[8] Revolt Against the Modern World: http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Revolt_Against_the_Modern_World

[9] http://www.eurocanadian.ca/2014/09/the-european-new-right-and-its-animus.html: http://www.eurocanadian.ca/2014/09/the-european-new-right-and-its-animus.html

vendredi, 25 septembre 2009

Face à l'horreur moderne

Munch-Cat-300-100a.jpg

Face à l’horreur moderne…

FACE A L’HORREUR MODERNE DE LA CIVILISATION DU POUVOIR DE L’AVOIR…RAPPELONS-NOUS TOUJOURS L’EMOTION SPONTANEE DE LA COMMUNAUTE DE l’ÊTRE ARCHAÏQUE…
N’en déplaise à  toutes les idéologies de justification des mensonges économiques et politiques de la société de l’avoir, le communisme primitif le plus primitif exprimait bien et d’abord l’immanence naturelle du souci de l’être, en la vérité qualitative de l’essence émotionnelle du jouir et du ré-jouir humains… C’est en tout cas et une fois de plus, la conclusion pratique évidente à laquelle on aboutit face à une découverte remarquable effectuée dernièrement par une équipe de paléoanthropologues lors de fouilles effectuées sur le gisement de la Sima de los Huesos ( la Cime des Os) dans la Sierra de Atapuerca, dans la province de Burgos en Espagne…
L’espace ici étudié est celui des territoires traditionnels de l’Homo Heidelbergensis qui a vécu en Europe au Pléistocène. Cet ancêtre commun de l’Homme de Néanderthal et de l’Homo Sapiens qui occupait ces lieux, il y a environ 530 000 ans, vivait et se nourrissait communautairement par la cueillette et surtout par la chasse. Il était expérimenté pour venir à bout du gros gibier, par exemple les chevaux et les rhinocéros laineux. Il fabriquait avec soin des armes diversifiés et notamment des épieux à lancer qui pouvaient atteindre jusqu’à 2,50 m de long ainsi que de multiples outils en silex. Les marques de découpage sur les os retrouvés indiquent que ces derniers étaient raclés méticuleusement pour que l’on en retire la viande. Les os étaient aussi utilisés comme instruments pour la fabrication d’outils en silex. Avec habileté,  le bois et les os étaient taillés et l’on confectionnait aussi, à partir d’eux, des aiguilles pendant que les tendons, eux, servaient de fils. Et ainsi, avec la peau, les aiguilles et les tendons, il était possible d’élaborer des vêtements particulièrement chauds et résistants. Le développement de ses capacités sociales et culturelles tel que les restes de campements communautaires méthodiquement ordonnés en témoignent laisse très clairement supposer  que l’ Homo heidelbergensis qui vivait centralement autour de feux communs possédait déjà les fondements d’une langue simple mais efficacement fonctionnelle. La culture matérielle d’ Homo heidelbergensis correspond en fait au Paléolithique inférieur et le plus souvent il s’agit d’Acheuléen.
Les archéologues ont aussi découvert des traces nombreuses d’os calcinés, ce qui  indique indéniablement la pratique élaborée de rites funéraires avérés. Sur la trentaine d’individus identifiés et examinés dans la Sierra de Atapuerca, un crâne a très particulièrement retenu l’attention du Centro de Evolucion y Comportamiento Humanos de Madrid. Ce crâne est très probablement  celui d’une jeune fille d’une dizaine d’années et les fragments que l’on en a retrouvé permettent de diagnostiquer les traces certaines d’une craniosynostose, une maladie génétique rare débutant au cours de la vie fœtale et qui provoque une soudure prématurée des os crâniens susceptible d’entraîner de sévères et irréversibles déficiences psychomotrices.
D’où, la conclusion d’évidence qui s’impose immédiatement et logiquement… Atteinte par cette grave et invalidante malformation congénitale, la jeune fille en question n’aurait jamais pu atteindre l’âge relativement avancé qui fut le sien sans la sollicitude, l’attention et  l’égard permanents des siens au sein du groupe dans lequel elle est née et a justement pu vivre dans une bien-veillance obligée de chaque instant. Si cette dernière a donc pu exister, grandir, résister et subsister malgré son lourd handicap, cela procède de l’accompagnement attentif et systématique du groupe de chasseurs-cueilleurs qui était le sien. Cette découverte confirme que l’accueil, la compréhension, la douceur, l’ouverture d’âme et la sollicitude que l’on peut porter aux personnes souffrantes, malades ou infirmes n’est pas un comportement récent dans l’histoire de l’humanité… Bien loin de là, du reste, puisqu’aujourdhui, si l’on retire les avantages financiers des impostures économiques générales en jeu et les pathologies spectaculaires compensatoires de fallacieuse bonne conscience mises en scène, les fraîches et franches relations directes à l’autre sont dorénavant ici extrêmement  rares…
Il y a un bon demi-million d’années, nos ancêtres lointains qui vivaient en groupes communautaires ignorant le pouvoir, l’argent et la servitude étaient donc d’instinct capables de ce sentiment, de cette inclination et de cette sensibilité pratique qui regarde l’autre avec émoi, bouleversement et com-préhension. Voilà qui vient nous rappeler les très pertinentes analyses de Marx et d’Engels dans les Grundrisse et dans L’origine de la famille, de la propriété privée et de l’Etat tels qu’ils avaient su démontrer que les communautés  primitives sont des espaces où l’être ensemble  indivisé (et pour cela,  se voulant totalité une de sa propre immanence de besoins et de désirs) est une dynamique de vie sans scission entre dominants et dominés qui ignore tout organe séparé de pouvoir et qui d’emblée s’émeut de tous en chacun et de chacun en tous.
Dans la tribu primitive, il n’y a pas d’organe séparé du pouvoir parce que le pouvoir n’est pas sépare de la communauté parce que c’est elle – en l’essence de son être – qui le détient comme son être en tant que totalité unitairement homogène de son auto-mouvement de vie, d’affection, de délicatesse, de sentir, de re-ssentir et de fidélité.
Quel est le lieu réel du pouvoir dans la communauté primitive? C’est la totalité du  vivre ensemble lui-même qui le détient et l’exerce comme unité totale de son indivision globale de corps et d’âme. Ce pouvoir non séparé de la communauté s’exerce en un seul sens et  il anime tous les sens en un seul projet: maintenir dans l’indivision l’être de la communauté, empêcher que la non-réciprocité entre les hommes installe la division dans le groupe. Il s’ensuit que ce pouvoir s’exerce sur tout ce qui est susceptible d’aliéner la société, d’y introduire la désagrégation, le morcellement et le parcellement. Il s’exerce, entre autres, sur l’institution d’où pourrait surgir la captation du pouvoir, la chefferie. Le chef est, dans la tribu, sous surveillance d’intelligence critique constante. La communauté veille à ne jamais laisser le goût du prestige passager se trans-former en désir de pouvoir permanent.
Si l’appétit de pouvoir du chef devient trop évident, la procédure mise en jeu est simple et c’est toujours la même: on le réprimande puis on l’abandonne, voire même on le tue. La crainte clairvoyante de la séparation  habite très certainement la communauté primitive, mais elle possède fondamentalement les moyens de la conjurer par l’ardeur passionnelle à exister et à aimer qualitativement les joies de l’être.
L’exemple des communautés préhistoriques nous enseigne là que la division n’est pas inhérente à l’être de l’être ensemble et qu’en d’autres termes, l’Etat n’est pas éternel, qu’il a, ici et là, une date de naissance et qu’il aura d’ailleurs et bien évidemment une date de mort.
Pourquoi la pathologie de la domestication étatique a-t-elle émergé ? La question de l’origine de l’Etat doit se préciser ainsi : à quelles conditions une communauté cesse-t-elle d’être primitive et accepte-elle que les satisfactions de l’être se trouvent subjuguées par les inversions mortifères de la dialectique de l’avoir?
Pourquoi les expériences, les normes et les savoirs qui empêchent le surgissement de l’Etat défaillent-ils, à tel ou tel moment de l’histoire ?
Il est hors de doute que seule l’interrogation attentive et critique du fonctionnement affectif profond des communautés primitives permet efficacement d’éclairer le problème des origines du déchoir dans l’errance étatique des asservissements de l’acquérir. Et ainsi, la lumière jetée sur le moment de la genèse de l’Etat éclaire-t-elle également les conditions de possible réalisation de sa liquidation historique quand demain, fatigués de subir la tyrannie du spectacle du quantitatif, les êtres humains décideront de re-trouver l’humanité des véritables tréfonds de leur être.
L’homme du communisme primitif  était naturellement en relation naturelle à l’humain et tout en même temps en rapport d’humanité à la nature. Cette découverte à la fois remarquable et touchante en vieille terre d’Espagne vient exhumer cette réalité des profondeurs ignorée depuis des lustres d’insipidité universitaire et étatique et suivant laquelle il est manifeste que la préhistoire fut aussi préhistoire d’une passion et d’une  compassion non encore abruties par la temporalité du commerce et du pouvoir.
Qu’en est-il du produire dans la communauté pré-historique ? A cette question fondamentale, la réponse classique de la vérité officielle de la crasse imbécillité médiatico-universitaire dominante est la suivante : la vie archaïque pré-historique est un vagabondage  de subsistance et de pauvreté, elle parvient au mieux à assurer la survie du groupe incapable de sortir du sous-développement technique. Le sauvage écrasé par son environnement écologique et sans cesse guetté par la famine et l’angoisse, telle est l’image d’idiotie ignare habituellement répandue.
Manipulation idéologique des faits, a déjà répliqué depuis longtemps l’anthropologue de vrai terrain Marshall Sahlins. Passant des chasseurs australiens et Bochimans aux communautés néolithiques d’agriculteurs primitifs telles que l’on pouvait encore au siècle dernier, les observer en Afrique ou en Mélanésie, au Viêt-Nam ou en Amérique du Sud, relisant sans parti pris les archives  connues et y ajoutant des données chiffrées argumentés, celui-ci affirme, avec méthode et recherche que  non seulement la communauté primitive n’est pas une dynamique de misère mais qu’elle est la première et jusqu’à présent la seule vie commune d’abondance.
Comme le disait Marx dans sa radicale critique absolue et universelle de tous les capitalismes tant de sauce bolchévique que de soupe libérale ou de brouet social-démocrate:  Si l’homme primitif ne rentabilise pas son activité, c’est non pas par ce qu’il ne sait pas le faire, mais parce qu’il n’en a ni l’envie ni le besoin puisqu’il se trouve en une autre dimension que celle de l’entassement, de l’accumulation et de l’addition.
Evidemment, en ces temps là, la relation d’être à la vie qui considérait qu’il n’est de richesse que d’être, n’empêchait pas nos très lointains ancêtres de se tuer en des guerres d’ailleurs limitées et éphémères qui avaient d’abord pour objet d’empêcher les dérives du commerce pacifique qui transforme toujours et aliénatoirement le produire pour l’homme en travailler pour l’échange. Mais, il est tout de même réconfortant d’apprendre sur le terrain concret de la vie réelle vérifiée que le comportement humain vrai a bien entendu  préexisté à l’invention des impostures de la morale lorsque le temps civilisationnel du politique et de l’économique a généralisé la paix des éthiques commerçantes et la guerre interminable des religions de l’expansion pour que la dictature démocratique  du calcul cosmopolitique finisse par s’emparer du monde.
La guerre localisée et circonscrite entre tribus est une façon pré-historique de repousser l’émergence économique du rencontrer avec  la politique de l’avoir et donc d’endiguer la menace d’une délégation de pouvoir menant aux dérives intrinsèquement liées à la naissance des sociétés de la médiation, de la possession et de la rentabilisation.
Les communautés primitives refusent la différenciation économique et politique en s’interdisant le surplus matériel du spectacle social des prétentions et des représentations qui génèrent inévitablement les démesures infinies du marché narcissique du fétichisme des impuissances de l’ego qui réifie les êtres et qui divinise les choses.
Aujourd’hui, dans la société du triomphe de l’équivalent général-argent près de 30.000 personnes meurent de faim chaque jour dans le monde, soit une toutes  les quatre secondes, ceci dans l’indifférenciation démocratique la plus absolue puisque désormais tout a un prix et que cette mort est la première facture normalement due au système de l’échange qui veut que dans le circuit des transactions, chaque marchandise humaine soit indifféremment équivalente à n’importe quelle autre humaine marchandise consommée par la vie ou par la mort mais toujours digérée par les impératifs de la distribution financière de la quantité nécessaire.
A la différence de ces milliers d’errants isolés et solitaires qui décèdent, chaque année, dans le sans-abrisme froid, insensible et triste du despotisme de la valeur qui précisément les trouve sans valeur, cette jeune fille pré-historique dans le monde de l’anti-valeur, a eu le contentement de trouver des êtres d’être avec qui une relation d’essence, de sensation et de sentiment a pu jaillir en pur dé-sintéressement d’avoir et en strict attachement d’être…
De la sorte, nous sommes avertis que dans l’embarras momentané que pouvait occasionnellement rencontrer la communauté de l’être archaïque, jamais personne ne restait à l’écart de son groupe dans le délaissement et l’esseulement car l’abondance dans le satisfaire communautaire des chasseurs-cueilleurs était avant tout un accomplir de chacun en l’être et de l’être en chacun. A l’opposé, dans la société de l’avoir qui a aujourd’hui fini par définitivement voiler l’être à lui-même, l’abondance paranoïaque du système solipsiste des objets s’en va tellement loin dans l’abomination de l’in-sensible que le dés-intéressement pour l’être humain qui ne serait pas produit rentable de marchandisation estampillé, peut tout à fait tolérer la mort industrielle de millions d’hommes qui n’ont pas le bon ticket pour entrer dans les grandes surfaces où s’obtiennent les accréditations certifiés pour la sur-vie organisée.
Au moment où la crise radicale du monde du produire de l’intérêt est en train d’atteindre le point crisique majeur où le produire de l’intérêt mondial ne peut plus supporter les mensonges du crédit par lesquels il a longuement fait semblant de croire que la vérité de sa finitude spatiale pourrait être compensée par une fausse infinitude temporelle, il est plus que jamais temps de se remémorer les inspirations et les enthousiasmes d’avant l’argent…Ce vieux monde pourri de temporalité marchande va crever et c’est tant mieux, regardons donc un tout petit peu vers l’Homo Heidelbergensis, non pas évidemment pour fuir déraisonnablement dans un retrouver nostalgique impossible qui n’aurait pas de sens mais pour penser subversivement la rationalité du sens de la communauté humaine, cette fois non plus locale, restreinte et étriquée mais universelle, cosmique, révolutionnaire et consciente du Tout historique de son histoire…
Contre la pourriture marchande qui sacralise les errances de l’oubli de l’être…
A bas l’échange, le salariat et l’Etat…
Vive la communauté ontologique et universelle de l’être de l’homme…

… De la civilisation du pouvoir… Rappelons-nous toujours l’émotion spontanée de la communauté de l’être archaïque…

N’en déplaise à  toutes les idéologies de justification des mensonges économiques et politiques de la société de l’avoir, le communisme primitif le plus primitif exprimait bien et d’abord l’immanence naturelle du souci de l’être, en la vérité qualitative de l’essence émotionnelle du jouir et du ré-jouir humains… C’est en tout cas et une fois de plus, la conclusion pratique évidente à laquelle on aboutit face à une découverte remarquable effectuée dernièrement par une équipe de paléoanthropologues lors de fouilles effectuées sur le gisement de la Sima de los Huesos (la Cime des Os) dans la Sierra de Atapuerca, dans la province de Burgos en Espagne…

L’espace ici étudié est celui des territoires traditionnels de l’Homo heidelbergensis qui a vécu en Europe au Pléistocène. Cet ancêtre commun de l’Homme de Néanderthal et de l’Homo Sapiens qui occupait ces lieux, il y a environ 530 000 ans, vivait et se nourrissait communautairement par la cueillette et surtout par la chasse. Il était expérimenté pour venir à bout du gros gibier, par exemple les chevaux et les rhinocéros laineux. Il fabriquait avec soin des armes diversifiés et notamment des épieux à lancer qui pouvaient atteindre jusqu’à 2,50 m de long ainsi que de multiples outils en silex. Les marques de découpage sur les os retrouvés indiquent que ces derniers étaient raclés méticuleusement pour que l’on en retire la viande. Les os étaient aussi utilisés comme instruments pour la fabrication d’outils en silex. Avec habileté,  le bois et les os étaient taillés et l’on confectionnait aussi, à partir d’eux, des aiguilles pendant que les tendons, eux, servaient de fils. Et ainsi, avec la peau, les aiguilles et les tendons, il était possible d’élaborer des vêtements particulièrement chauds et résistants. Le développement de ses capacités sociales et culturelles tel que les restes de campements communautaires méthodiquement ordonnés en témoignent laisse très clairement supposer  que l’Homo heidelbergensis qui vivait centralement autour de feux communs possédait déjà les fondements d’une langue simple mais efficacement fonctionnelle. La culture matérielle d’Homo heidelbergensis correspond en fait au Paléolithique inférieur et le plus souvent il s’agit d’Acheuléen.

Les archéologues ont aussi découvert des traces nombreuses d’os calcinés, ce qui  indique indéniablement la pratique élaborée de rites funéraires avérés. Sur la trentaine d’individus identifiés et examinés dans la Sierra de Atapuerca, un crâne a très particulièrement retenu l’attention du Centro de Evolucion y Comportamiento Humanos de Madrid. Ce crâne est très probablement  celui d’une jeune fille d’une dizaine d’années et les fragments que l’on en a retrouvé permettent de diagnostiquer les traces certaines d’une craniosynostose, une maladie génétique rare débutant au cours de la vie fœtale et qui provoque une soudure prématurée des os crâniens susceptible d’entraîner de sévères et irréversibles déficiences psychomotrices.

D’où, la conclusion d’évidence qui s’impose immédiatement et logiquement… Atteinte par cette grave et invalidante malformation congénitale, la jeune fille en question n’aurait jamais pu atteindre l’âge relativement avancé qui fut le sien sans la sollicitude, l’attention et  l’égard permanents des siens au sein du groupe dans lequel elle est née et a justement pu vivre dans une bien-veillance obligée de chaque instant. Si cette dernière a donc pu exister, grandir, résister et subsister malgré son lourd handicap, cela procède de l’accompagnement attentif et systématique du groupe de chasseurs-cueilleurs qui était le sien. Cette découverte confirme que l’accueil, la compréhension, la douceur, l’ouverture d’âme et la sollicitude que l’on peut porter aux personnes souffrantes, malades ou infirmes n’est pas un comportement récent dans l’histoire de l’humanité… Bien loin de là, du reste, puisqu’aujourdhui, si l’on retire les avantages financiers des impostures économiques générales en jeu et les pathologies spectaculaires compensatoires de fallacieuse bonne conscience mises en scène, les fraîches et franches relations directes à l’autre sont dorénavant ici extrêmement  rares…

Il y a un bon demi-million d’années, nos ancêtres lointains qui vivaient en groupes communautaires ignorant le pouvoir, l’argent et la servitude étaient donc d’instinct capables de ce sentiment, de cette inclination et de cette sensibilité pratique qui regarde l’autre avec émoi, bouleversement et com-préhension. Voilà qui vient nous rappeler les très pertinentes analyses de Marx et d’Engels dans les Grundrisse et dans L’origine de la famille, de la propriété privée et de l’État tels qu’ils avaient su démontrer que les communautés  primitives sont des espaces où l’être ensemble  indivisé (et pour cela,  se voulant totalité une de sa propre immanence de besoins et de désirs) est une dynamique de vie sans scission entre dominants et dominés qui ignore tout organe séparé de pouvoir et qui d’emblée s’émeut de tous en chacun et de chacun en tous.

Dans la tribu primitive, il n’y a pas d’organe séparé du pouvoir parce que le pouvoir n’est pas sépare de la communauté parce que c’est elle – en l’essence de son être – qui le détient comme son être en tant que totalité unitairement homogène de son auto-mouvement de vie, d’affection, de délicatesse, de sentir, de re-sentir et de fidélité.

Quel est le lieu réel du pouvoir dans la communauté primitive? C’est la totalité du  vivre ensemble lui-même qui le détient et l’exerce comme unité totale de son indivision globale de corps et d’âme. Ce pouvoir non séparé de la communauté s’exerce en un seul sens et  il anime tous les sens en un seul projet : maintenir dans l’indivision l’être de la communauté, empêcher que la non-réciprocité entre les hommes installe la division dans le groupe. Il s’ensuit que ce pouvoir s’exerce sur tout ce qui est susceptible d’aliéner la société, d’y introduire la désagrégation, le morcellement et le parcellement. Il s’exerce, entre autres, sur l’institution d’où pourrait surgir la captation du pouvoir, la chefferie. Le chef est, dans la tribu, sous surveillance d’intelligence critique constante. La communauté veille à ne jamais laisser le goût du prestige passager se trans-former en désir de pouvoir permanent.

Si l’appétit de pouvoir du chef devient trop évident, la procédure mise en jeu est simple et c’est toujours la même: on le réprimande puis on l’abandonne, voire même on le tue. La crainte clairvoyante de la séparation  habite très certainement la communauté primitive, mais elle possède fondamentalement les moyens de la conjurer par l’ardeur passionnelle à exister et à aimer qualitativement les joies de l’être.

L’exemple des communautés préhistoriques nous enseigne là que la division n’est pas inhérente à l’être de l’être ensemble et qu’en d’autres termes, l’État n’est pas éternel, qu’il a, ici et là, une date de naissance et qu’il aura d’ailleurs et bien évidemment une date de mort.

Pourquoi la pathologie de la domestication étatique a-t-elle émergé ? La question de l’origine de l’État doit se préciser ainsi : à quelles conditions une communauté cesse-t-elle d’être primitive et accepte-elle que les satisfactions de l’être se trouvent subjuguées par les inversions mortifères de la dialectique de l’avoir ?

Pourquoi les expériences, les normes et les savoirs qui empêchent le surgissement de l’État défaillent-ils, à tel ou tel moment de l’histoire ?

Il est hors de doute que seule l’interrogation attentive et critique du fonctionnement affectif profond des communautés primitives permet efficacement d’éclairer le problème des origines du déchoir dans l’errance étatique des asservissements de l’acquérir. Et ainsi, la lumière jetée sur le moment de la genèse de l’État éclaire-t-elle également les conditions de possible réalisation de sa liquidation historique quand demain, fatigués de subir la tyrannie du spectacle du quantitatif, les êtres humains décideront de re-trouver l’humanité des véritables tréfonds de leur être.

L’homme du communisme primitif  était naturellement en relation naturelle à l’humain et tout en même temps en rapport d’humanité à la nature. Cette découverte à la fois remarquable et touchante en vieille terre d’Espagne vient exhumer cette réalité des profondeurs ignorée depuis des lustres d’insipidité universitaire et étatique et suivant laquelle il est manifeste que la préhistoire fut aussi préhistoire d’une passion et d’une compassion non encore abruties par la temporalité du commerce et du pouvoir.

Qu’en est-il du produire dans la communauté pré-historique ? À cette question fondamentale, la réponse classique de la vérité officielle de la crasse imbécillité médiatico-universitaire dominante est la suivante : la vie archaïque pré-historique est un vagabondage  de subsistance et de pauvreté, elle parvient au mieux à assurer la survie du groupe incapable de sortir du sous-développement technique. Le sauvage écrasé par son environnement écologique et sans cesse guetté par la famine et l’angoisse, telle est l’image d’idiotie ignare habituellement répandue.

Manipulation idéologique des faits, a déjà répliqué depuis longtemps l’anthropologue de vrai terrain Marshall Sahlins. Passant des chasseurs australiens et Bochimans aux communautés néolithiques d’agriculteurs primitifs telles que l’on pouvait encore au siècle dernier, les observer en Afrique ou en Mélanésie, au Viêt-Nam ou en Amérique du Sud, relisant sans parti pris les archives  connues et y ajoutant des données chiffrées argumentés, celui-ci affirme, avec méthode et recherche que  non seulement la communauté primitive n’est pas une dynamique de misère mais qu’elle est la première et jusqu’à présent la seule vie commune d’abondance.

Comme le disait Marx dans sa radicale critique absolue et universelle de tous les capitalismes tant de sauce bolchévique que de soupe libérale ou de brouet social-démocrate :  « Si l’homme primitif ne rentabilise pas son activité, c’est non pas par ce qu’il ne sait pas le faire, mais parce qu’il n’en a ni l’envie ni le besoin puisqu’il se trouve en une autre dimension que celle de l’entassement, de l’accumulation et de l’addition. »

Evidemment, en ces temps là, la relation d’être à la vie qui considérait qu’il n’est de richesse que d’être, n’empêchait pas nos très lointains ancêtres de se tuer en des guerres d’ailleurs limitées et éphémères qui avaient d’abord pour objet d’empêcher les dérives du commerce pacifique qui transforme toujours et aliénatoirement le produire pour l’homme en travailler pour l’échange. Mais, il est tout de même réconfortant d’apprendre sur le terrain concret de la vie réelle vérifiée que le comportement humain vrai a bien entendu  préexisté à l’invention des impostures de la morale lorsque le temps civilisationnel du politique et de l’économique a généralisé la paix des éthiques commerçantes et la guerre interminable des religions de l’expansion pour que la dictature démocratique  du calcul cosmopolitique finisse par s’emparer du monde.

La guerre localisée et circonscrite entre tribus est une façon pré-historique de repousser l’émergence économique du rencontrer avec  la politique de l’avoir et donc d’endiguer la menace d’une délégation de pouvoir menant aux dérives intrinsèquement liées à la naissance des sociétés de la médiation, de la possession et de la rentabilisation.

Les communautés primitives refusent la différenciation économique et politique en s’interdisant le surplus matériel du spectacle social des prétentions et des représentations qui génèrent inévitablement les démesures infinies du marché narcissique du fétichisme des impuissances de l’ego qui réifie les êtres et qui divinise les choses.

Aujourd’hui, dans la société du triomphe de l’équivalent général-argent près de 30 000 personnes meurent de faim chaque jour dans le monde, soit une toutes  les quatre secondes, ceci dans l’indifférenciation démocratique la plus absolue puisque désormais tout a un prix et que cette mort est la première facture normalement due au système de l’échange qui veut que dans le circuit des transactions, chaque marchandise humaine soit indifféremment équivalente à n’importe quelle autre humaine marchandise consommée par la vie ou par la mort mais toujours digérée par les impératifs de la distribution financière de la quantité nécessaire.

À la différence de ces milliers d’errants isolés et solitaires qui décèdent, chaque année, dans le sans-abrisme froid, insensible et triste du despotisme de la valeur qui précisément les trouve sans valeur, cette jeune fille pré-historique dans le monde de l’anti-valeur, a eu le contentement de trouver des êtres d’être avec qui une relation d’essence, de sensation et de sentiment a pu jaillir en pur dé-sintéressement d’avoir et en strict attachement d’être…

De la sorte, nous sommes avertis que dans l’embarras momentané que pouvait occasionnellement rencontrer la communauté de l’être archaïque, jamais personne ne restait à l’écart de son groupe dans le délaissement et l’esseulement car l’abondance dans le satisfaire communautaire des chasseurs-cueilleurs était avant tout un accomplir de chacun en l’être et de l’être en chacun. À l’opposé, dans la société de l’avoir qui a aujourd’hui fini par définitivement voiler l’être à lui-même, l’abondance paranoïaque du système solipsiste des objets s’en va tellement loin dans l’abomination de l’in-sensible que le dés-intéressement pour l’être humain qui ne serait pas produit rentable de marchandisation estampillé, peut tout à fait tolérer la mort industrielle de millions d’hommes qui n’ont pas le bon ticket pour entrer dans les grandes surfaces où s’obtiennent les accréditations certifiés pour la sur-vie organisée.

Au moment où la crise radicale du monde du produire de l’intérêt est en train d’atteindre le point crisique majeur où le produire de l’intérêt mondial ne peut plus supporter les mensonges du crédit par lesquels il a longuement fait semblant de croire que la vérité de sa finitude spatiale pourrait être compensée par une fausse infinitude temporelle, il est plus que jamais temps de se remémorer les inspirations et les enthousiasmes d’avant l’argent…Ce vieux monde pourri de temporalité marchande va crever et c’est tant mieux, regardons donc un tout petit peu vers l’Homo heidelbergensis, non pas évidemment pour fuir déraisonnablement dans un retrouver nostalgique impossible qui n’aurait pas de sens mais pour penser subversivement la rationalité du sens de la communauté humaine, cette fois non plus locale, restreinte et étriquée mais universelle, cosmique, révolutionnaire et consciente du Tout historique de son histoire…

Contre la pourriture marchande qui sacralise les errances de l’oubli de l’être…

À bas l’échange, le salariat et l’État…

Vive la communauté ontologique et universelle de l’être de l’homme…

Gustave Lefrançais

vendredi, 13 juin 2008

Civilisation occidentale: entre agonalité et irénisme

1837156767.jpg
SYNERGIES EUROPEENNES – BRUXELLES / TOULOUSE - AVRIL 2004

KORTE INLEIDING : Deze tekst van Rodolphe Lussac is ook een nuttige herhaling van sommige filosofische ideeën, die wij jammer genoeg vergeten zijn. Zijn argumentatie staat volledig op de lijn van de conservatieve revolutie, maar hij haalt ook dikwijls argumenten,  om de notie van identiteit te bepalen en te verdedigen, uit onverwachte hoeken (Lévi-Strauss, Merleau-Ponty, Kundera, Althusser, enz.). Daarom, alhoewel soms moeilijk voor wie het Frans debat niet goed  kent, is zijn tekst hieronder uiterst belangrijk, om de perspectief nog wijder te maken. De referenties naar minder bekende geciteerde sociologen zijn ofwel in het Duits ofwel in het Engels.  

Réflexions sur le devenir de la civilisation occidentale : entre agonalité et irénisme
 

Par Rodolphe Lussac

Le cours de l'histoire contemporaine et événementielle, avec son cortège de guerres, de conflits inter-ethniques, de catastrophes humanitaires, de terrorisme transnational, met en exergue, et de manière évidente, l'irruption, ou plutôt le retour en force, du fait religieux et de l'irrationalité politico-idéologique, qui s'enracinent dans les différentes aires civilisationnelles et minent peu à peu les fondements humanitaro-pacifistes de la civilisation occidentale moderne.

Ce constat nous conduit à nous interpeller sur le sens et le devenir des civilisations et surtout de la destinée de la civilisation occidentale. S'il est établi, en reprenant  un mode de pensée spenglerien, que toutes les civilisations sont périssables, il est pertinent de s'interroger sur les causes de déclin et de mort des dites civilisations. En ce sens, il convient de rappeler qu'à juste titre, Arnold Toynbee a affirme que les civilisations se font par l'action des minorités créatrices et se défont quand la force de création diminue. En un mot, toute civilisation est vouée au déclin lorsqu'elle n'a plus de défi à relever. Force est de constater que la civilisation occidentale (qui serait constituée de l'aire civilisationnelle européenne et “extrême-européenne” américaine) serait indéniablement vouée au déclin par défaut de défi régénérateur et d'absence d'élites créatrices de valeurs et vecteurs de mimétisme socio-politique , qui transcendent les seuls pseudo-défis économiques et financiers qui justifient les entreprises belliqueuses comme c'est le cas pour les Etats Unis.

La perception que l'on se fait de la civilisation occidentale procède d'une dissonance cognitive (pour reprendre un concept sociologique) entre, d'une part, l'image d'une Amérique va-t'en guerre dont les valeurs se fondent sur un réalisme “hobbesien” de recours à la force et, d’autre part, l'image d'une Europe bercée par l'irénisme kantien et idéaliste d'une "paix perpétuelle"  et illusoire, aux accents mielleux, “pacificards”, dignes des héritiers de Kellog et de Briand. L'un et l'autre des deux camps qui sont l'incarnation d'un même mal économiciste et ploutocratique, pêchent par excès d'ignorance car tous deux se réfèrent de manière messianique (pour les Etats Unis) et de manière timorée (pour l'Europe) aux sacro-saintes pseudo-valeurs désuètes de la démocratie, de l'économie libérale de marché et de l'égalitarisme “droit-de-l'hommien”, qu'ils entendent propager coûte que coûte aux "confins barbares" et périphériques des autres peuples et civilisations extra-occidentales. Baignant dans le registre bien connu de la pensée unique, de l'indignation, de la condamnation et du pathos incantatoire face au terrorisme de type ethnique et religieux, ils se refusent à croire que, malheureusement, le moteur de l'histoire humaine résulte de ressorts irrationnels enracinés dans la religion et l'identitarisme national et ethnique dont les irruptions violentes sont cycliques mais constantes.

De récentes fouilles archéologiques et anthropologiques ont établi que le sacrifice humain rituel était la pierre angulaire de toute civilisation, et que la guerre a bien été à la source des premières civilisations et constitue un processus nécessaire du degré de complexification des dites civilisations (l'action guerrière serait fondatrice de la première ville-mère), alors que les thèses sociologiques conflictuelles comme celles avancées par Lewis Coser (http://www.net-lexikon.de/Lewis-Coser.html - http://www.asanet.org/footnotes/septoct03/indexthree.html - http://cgi.sociologyonline.co.uk/News/coser.shtml) ainsi que l'herméneutique de Gadamer démontrent combien les préjugés, les conflits sociaux et la conflictualité générale ont joué un rôle de résolution et de stabilisation des sociétés humaines. La principale erreur de jugement de la civilisation occidentale moderne est de croire aveuglément que toutes les civilisations se valent sur un même pied d'égalité et sont réductibles à l' omniprésence de la démocratie, des droits de l'homme et de la suprématie de l'économie de marché.

L'histoire démontre au contraire que toutes les grandes civilisations ont émergé et vécu sur un mode d'agonalité ( d'opposition, de conflictualité),  un mode donc éminemment conflictuel, et s'insèrent dans une structure d'inégalité. Déjà les travaux de Lévi-Strauss faisaient état d'une opposition entre cultures chaudes et cultures froides, par référence aux cultures actives prométhéennes et aux cultures passives et contemplatives. L'anthropologue K. Avruche  (http://www.republique-des-lettres.com/samuel_huntington/huntington_contre.php ) a démontré, en ce sens, que les concepts de tradition et de nation sont impliqués dans un processus constant et interactif de constructions sociales et culturelles  et résultent de luttes et de conflits d'identités opposées. Ainsi, les matières premières des traditions, de la religion et de l'idéologie peuvent être utilisées pour générer une gamme extrêmement large de civilisations alternatives. Dans cette structure d'inégalité agonale, on assiste à une échelle variable du fait religieux, des ressorts irrationnels, de degrés divers de sacralisation et de sécularisation qui font que les civilisations, à un moment donné historique, peuvent se compénétrer, évoluer de manière synchronique, puis dériver vers une confrontation diachronique de rupture et d'hostilité (le cas le plus flagrant pour la période pré-moderne est celui de l'Empire musulman d’ Al-andalus en Espagne, annihilé à la fin du 15ième siècle par la Reconquista).

A l'époque du mondialisme triomphant, les changements brutaux, économiques et sociaux, détachent les peuples de leur identité locale séculaire. La dé-sécularisation du monde, remarqué par Arthur Weigall, est une réalité de la vie contemporaine. Dans la plupart des civilisations du monde, la religion vient combler ce vide spirituel par un retour aux racines identitaires:
“asianisation” au Japon, hindouisation en Inde, ré-islamisation au Moyen Orient, etc. Le fait religieux et, plus largement, la religion, constituent un facteur structurant et permanent de l'identité nationale, sous forme de ciment d'une identité nationale menacée, et certains aspects de la religion cristallisant les antagonismes sociaux entre nations et communautés cohabitant au sein d'une même nation, et peuvent aboutir à des manifestations de violence fanatique, reflet de l'exacerbation du moi collectif, de doctrine libératrice ou de messianisme prophétique, qui peuvent être, tour à tour, conjoncturelles ou structurelles (cf. Les travaux récents de l’anthropologues américaine Amy Chua, originaire de la  communauté chinoise des Philippines).

Les conditions de structuration et d'évolution d'une culture ou d'une identité  sont évolutifs et, par rapport à d'autres cultures étrangères, s'articulent selon les principes structurants et des hiérarchies de valeurs variables d'un groupe à un autre. Les contacts peuvent être pacifiques mais sont le plus souvent conflictuels. Les sociologues appellent “acculturation” le fait, pour les membres d'une culture donnée, d'adopter contre leur gré des éléments d'une autre culture; les conquêtes militaires sont souvent suivies de stratégies d'acculturation, d'assimilation, voire de destructions pures et simples. Ainsi, les civilisations connaissent une phase d'expansion caractérisée par un processus combinant la dilation spatio-temporelle, l'absorption-domination de cultures mineures, d'assimilation et d'acculturation.

A la lumière de cet enseignement, force est de constater combien est vulnérable la civilisation occidentale matérialste et libérale, laquelle a pour base des stéréotypes médiatiques et des dingueries publicitaires, et doit,  à l’aide de ces pauvres schémas, faire face aux assauts parfois violents et aspirants d'autres civilisations théocratiques et holistes, car elle a déjà succombé au phénomène d'acculturation, adoptant des modes vie et de pensée extérieurs, que je qualifierai d’ “orientalo-anglo-saxons”, de sorte que le pacte culturel "originel", européano-centré, qui touche à la structuration intellectuelle, affective et symbolique (vision du monde, attitudes morales, croyances, réactions affectives)  est largement contaminé par des éléments exogènes et verse dans l'anomie généralisée.

Ce n'est qu'au prix d'une ré-européanisation identitaire, que l'Europe redeviendra ce qu'elle est et que l'européanité  (Roland Barthes parle aussi d'américanité) ne sera plus un vague concept technocratique vide de sens et définira une essence spirituelle héroïco-aristocratique comme l'a si bien évoqué Hugo von Hoffmannsthal. A cette “acculturation culturelle” qu’est la colonisation culturelle de l'Europe, les peuples européens opposeront le retour à leur propre identité culturelle, à un nativisme post-moderne, qui se traduirait par le rejet de toute culture étrangère dominante, vecteur  de ce que Léo Hamon appelle la “causalité extérieure comme forme absolue d'hétéro-détermination”; les Européens se dresseront pour réactiver leurs cultures chtoniennes spécifiques, et, dans ce mouvement, viendrait éclore ce que le sociologue Heiner Mülhmann (http://www.brock.uni-wuppertal.de/Schrifte/Habil/Rezens1.html ) nomme l'adhésion et l'identification de la masse à un chef prestigieux et charismatique dans le sens wébérien du terme et ce que Jean Lacouture appelle "l'homme-témoin-drapeau" qui incarne l'identité nationale.

La société globale et néo-libérale est irrémédiablement gangrénée par le syndrome de la modernité, vision mono-linéaire de l'évolution de l'humanité, le miroir aux alouettes des parvenus et des drogues de l'illusion du progrès, l'ambition des "feuilles mortes" comme l'appelait Kundera, la chasse gardée de la caste du "mandanirat" technocratique, vilipendé par Noam Chomsky comme les représentants de la nouvelle oligarchie ploutocratique.  Au lieu de se lamenter sur son sort et de faire l'anathème d'un monde qui trébucherait sur des anachronismes et des guerres de religions, la civilisation européenne (enfin ce qu'il en reste) ferait bien d'accepter l'évidence que la religion est une expression naturelle, une forme de croyance, la traduction d'un désir d'interprétation du monde et qu'au lieu de s'indigner et de dénoncer la violence aveugle, elle  s'attache à réfléchir sur la grille de lecture que procure le radicalisme religieux et plus précisément sur le sacré, qui, selon Regis Debray, se révèle être une voie de compréhension et d'accès au profane.

Le fait religieux restera indubitablement  un indicateur de la réalité humaine et collective. A  rebours d'une Amérique messianique contemporaine, qui, au moins, a eu le mérite de remettre au goût du jour le concept de recours à la force, la civilisation européenne plonge dans un irénisme béat et fonctionne sur un mode expiatoire d'auto-flagellation, rongée par ce que Spinoza fustigeait comme la complainte sanglotante de l'homme blanc : le remord, le ressentiment et la propension européenne à culpabiliser sur son passé colonial, ainsi qu'à se morfondre dans une compassion “victimaire” au lieu de se ressaisir sur un mode matriciel et de renouer avec le concept de puissance fondé sur un projet commun géopolitique eurasiatique, la défense des valeurs spirituelles, politiques et culturelles séculaires.

Même si les thèses de Huntington sur le choc de civilisations pêchent par réductionnisme et par culturalisme, et font l'impasse sur les conflits intra-civilisationnels (qu’Amy Chua met bien en exergue), elles ont eu le mérite de remettre au goût du jour les ressorts conflictuels latents, inhérents à toute civilisation, ressorts qui peuvent être, selon le contexte, réactifs par la religion, l'identité ethnique et nationale. A l'instar de ce que l'historien Edward Gibbons a declaré jadis, à savoir que dans l'histoire des civilisations, seuls la naissance et le décès ont une valeur explicative, l'analyse des causes de déclins des civilisations s'avère fondamentale, sans oublier que le déclin de la civilisation occidentale moderne et libérale peut être une lente agonie, compte tenu des capacités d'autorégulation et de régénération du capitalisme de marché, si bien expliquées par Joseph Schumpeter.

Le philosophe Ernst Troeltsch, qui se rattache à l'école de Bade et à l'historisme de Dilthey, a considéré qu'il existe une unité de devenir à travers chaque culture et ses valeurs, et l'on pourrait dire qu'il existe indéniablement une unité de régression propre à toutes les civilisations dont les symptômes sont: anomie généralisée, multiculturalisme exacerbé, persistance du crime, drogue et violence, déclin de la famille et de la natalité, déclin du capital social, faiblesse générale de l'éthique et du civisme, désaffection pour la politique et le savoir, suprématie de l'industrie du spectacle, syncrétisme néo-spirituel et hédonisme généralisé.

Arnold Toynbee écrira, à juste titre, que la civilisation contemporaine est corrompue par les images et les ondes et le résultat de cette désastreuse nouvelle donne culturelle a été le désert spirituel que Platon avait décrit comme une "communauté de gorets" et qu’Aldous Huxley avait raillé sous le nom de "meilleur des mondes". L'imaginaire collectif européen est purement et simplement colonisé par la société de la communication et de l'information, l'hyper-festif fictif et par les pilules anesthésiantes de la télé-réalité, qui constituent aujourd'hui ce que Louis Althusser appelait les relais modernes de l'"appareil idéologique d'Etat".   

Tous ces maux qui accablent la civilisation occidentale procèdent d'un principe du mal que Baudrillard a nommé le “principe de dé-liaison”, ce qui veut dire que l'Occident est en dé-liaison avec ses racines spirituelles et cuturelles comme la societe occidentale est en “dé-liaison” avec le respect du civisme, de l'autorité et de la hiérarchie. Pour se régénérer , la civilisation occidentale se doit de se soumettre à un devoir de mémoire, non pas une mémoire accablante et culpabilisante, mais une mémoire sous forme de maïeutique, que prône le précepte husserlien du "retour aux choses mêmes", du retour aux origines spirituelles et culturelles originelles. Une fois désintoxiquée, cette mémoire collective serait à même, comme le préconise Merleau-Ponty, de mesurer sa conscience au monde, et, en s'incarnant en situation historique, de se confronter aux autres civilisations par l'affirmation de sa volonté de puissance.

Dans la compréhension des dynamiques des civilisations, au pessimisme spenglerien, au réalisme et l'élitisme de Toynbee, il faudrait ajouter une dose de réalisme darwiniste social, selon lequel il est  établi que, dans la survie et la suprématie, la victoire appartiendra à la civilisation la plus unifiée culturellement et la plus déterminée ainsi que la plus adaptée à la poursuite de la puissance mondiale. Oui, il faut croire que la civilisation occidentale, plongée dans une longue déliquescence morale et politique, peut encore s'inscrire dans une sorte de "possibilisme", et envisager un sursaut salvateur, un déterminisme à rebours et relever un nouveau défi culturel et identitaire comme le prônait Arnold J. Toynbee. Pour ce dernier, "la facilité est nuisible à la civilisation", et il est vrai que toutes les grandes constructions se sont édifiées dans un cadre difficile par ré-activité volontariste. L'art politique est agonal, naît de la lutte, vit de contrainte et meurt de facilité. "Le stimulant de la civilisation croit en proportion de l'hostilité du milieu". La renaissance de la civilisation européenne se fera si il y a lieu dans un climat de rivalité sous l'impulsion de minorités agissantes et déterminées, car comme le disait si bien Bernanos, les "hommes d'exception naissent à la lisière des pouvoirs forts". Les futures guerres et conflits décisifs seront combattus le long des fractures civilisationnelles et identitaires. La civilisation exprime la plus vaste base symbolique et pratique d'affiliation culturelle humaine en aval d'une conscience d'appartenance à l'espèce humaine. C'est pourquoi, la culture, l'identité et non la classe, l'idéologie ou la nationalité fera la différence dans la lutte des puissances du futur.

Rodolphe Lussac
(Toulouse, avril 2004).