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.

mercredi, 27 juin 2018

Spatial : Trump réaffirme la totale domination américaine

1016694846.jpg

Spatial : Trump réaffirme la totale domination américaine

par Jean-Paul Baquiast
Ex: http://www.europesolidaire.eu
 
L'on sait depuis les origines des politiques spatiales que les Etats-Unis avaient décidé de faire du spatial un domaine stratégique entièrement sous leur contrôle. C'est ce que résume le concept dit de « full spatial dominance ». Donald Trump vient d'en réaffirmer la nécessité 1).

Il montre en cela qu'il est toujours, malgré certaines décisions jugées étranges, totalement sous le contrôle du complexe scientifico-militaro-industriel américain. Dès le début de la guerre froide, Washington et le Pentagone ont toujours considéré qu'il s'agissait d'un élément essentiel à la lutte, sinon à la destruction, de la Russie. Le débarquement sur la Lune, décidée par J.F. Kennedy, n'avait pas d'autre but, sous l'apparence d'une intention scientifique.

Cette domination du spatial a d'abord pris la forme d'une exploitation militaire de l'Espace. Les satellites militaires américains ne se comptent plus, de même que leurs applications stratégiques multiples. Mais tout ce qui est considéré comme relevant du spatial scientifique, au delà d'un intérêt propre pour la connaissance de l'espace et de l'univers, est également largement financé par l'Etat profond américain au regard de ses implications en faveur de l'industrie de défense.

A cet égard, la Nasa, malgré son petit budget de $2 milliards, en a toujours constitué un élément essentiel – ceci d'autant plus que sous couvert de coopération spatiale, elle permet un espionnage scientifique sans égal. Il en est de même des réalisations de l'industrie spatiale américaine. Eon Musk ne s'en cache pas, au contraire. Il utilise l'argument pour obtenir des aides considérables de l'Etat.

On ne doit pas oublier non plus que les Grands de l'Internet américain, qui fonctionnent principalement avec l'aide du spatial américain, sont un élément essentiel pour formater les consciences mondiales au profit de la puissance américaine.

A terme enfin, la course pour un retour sur la Lune, puis un débarquement sur Mars, vise à faire de ces planètes de nouvelles colonies américaines. Si à la suite d'une série de catastrophes, en partie d'ailleurs provoquées par eux, ne survivaient dans le système solaire que quelques dizaines de milliers d'humains éventuellement « augmentés », ils porteraient tous la bannière étoilée.

La Russie puis la Chine l'ont bien compris. Mais les moyens qu'elles peuvent dégager au profit de leurs projets spatiaux restent bien inférieurs à ceux des Etats-Unis. De plus, le retard qu'elles ont pris ne se rattrapera pas, compte tenu des délais nécessaires à la réalisation de nouveaux programmes.

Une « force armée spatiale » américaine 

La création d'une sixième branche des forces armées américaines, qualifie de « Space Force », que vient d'annoncer Donald Trump, met en évidence la volonté américaine de militariser complètement et définitivement l'espace. Ceci signifie nécessairement en éliminer progressivement Russie et Chine, sans mentionner d'autres puissances qui auraient la volonté d'y jouer un rôle. Rappelons à cet égard que l'Agence spatiale européenne avait dès le début refusé de s'impliquer dans des objectifs militaires. Ceci aurait fortement déplu au Pentagone, qui veut rester maître du jeu. La France s'est dotée de quelques petits satellites militaires, mais aux ambitions très limitées.

Trump n'a pas caché l'objectif de Washington et du Pentagone de maintenir et renforcer la pleine domination spatiale américaine. Que se passerait-il si celle-ci entrait en conflit direct, éventuellement au plan militaire, avec la Russie et la Chine ?

Compte tenu de l'importance de l'Espace, celles-ci ne pourraient pas ne pas riposter. Il en résulterait inévitablement une guerre mondiale. Mais le risque n'est pas plus grand, diront les optimistes, que ceux découlant des affrontements dans le domaine nucléaire.

1) https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44527672

Note au 21/06. La Russie réagit.

Le président du Conseil de défense et de sécurité russe, Viktor Bondarev, cité par l'agence de presse Ria le 19 juin, a réagi à l'annonce de Donald Trump de vouloir créer une force armée de l'espace : «La militarisation de l'espace mènera au désastre». Il a également fait référence à la possible volonté de Washington de mettre des armes de destruction massive en orbite. «Si les Etats-Unis se retirent des accords de 1967 qui proscrivent le déploiement d'armes nucléaires dans l'espace, ceci appellera «  une réponse forte de la part de notre pays, mais également d'autres Etats, il en irait de la préservation de la sécurité internationale »

Rappelons que le traité de l'espace de 1967 (également appelé «traité sur les principes régissant les activités des Etats en matière d'exploration et d'utilisation de l'espace extra-atmosphérique, y compris la Lune et les autres corps célestes») interdit le déploiement d'armes nucléaires et de destruction massive dans l'espace. Le traité interdit aussi de pratiquer des essais d'armement dans l'espace et d'établir des bases militaires sur tout corps céleste, dont la Lune.

Au delà des mots de Victor Bondarev, il faut se demander ce que serait « la réponse forte » russe,  de même qu'une réponse chinoise à laquelle il a fait allusion. S'agira-t-il de détruire, selon des moyens à préciser, les satellites militaires américains, voire de détruire une base militaire sur la Lune. On ne voit pas comment cela ne déclencherait pas une guerre mondiale, au moins dans l'espace.

 

dimanche, 22 octobre 2017

Decline of the Western Male

maledeclin.jpg

Decline of the Western Male


Martin Heidegger, Oswald Spengler – “Martin Spengler” – these two 20th-century thinkers provide the main source of inspiration behind this project. Both sought to understand the times we live in, and to bring into view the deeper historical and philosophical significance underlying many of the political, economic, social, and cultural issues before us today. Both offer profound insight, and our goal here will be to lean on them in order to tease out what is at stake in many of the day to day problems, challenges, and controversies that grip our attention across the Western world.

Spengler’s masterpiece is his Decline of the West, which first appeared in Germany in the years immediately following World War One. His contribution is to set contemporary events within a civilizational context, as milestones in the development of a culture whose evolution has been dictated by its own internal laws and dynamics, apparent at its very birth 1,000 years ago. Spengler allows us to see how the impulse that drove Medieval European craftsmen to construct magnificent Gothic cathedrals that soared towards the heavens, while betraying ever more intricate detail in their stonework, is the same motivating force behind the transgenderism agenda today, Hollywood’s obsession with the Superhero genre, and in the attractive power of the dream to travel in space.

For Heidegger the key event has been the rise of Modern science and technology, and it is the implications of this development he seeks to reveal. It is Heidegger who helps us to understand how the Modern project is in its essence nihilistic; if followed through to its logical conclusion it means no less than the annihilation of both the world and humanity. This is a cataclysmic perspective, but Heidegger’s reasons for sounding the alarm apply with a monumentally increased force since he first raised this prospect during the 1930s. It was Heidegger who understood that the “subjectivism” which reduces the world to a “standing reserve,” a resource to be used at our convenience, is at its core empty, that the desire for comfort and ease is in fact a death wish. Nietzsche understood this too. The danger does not lie so much in an ecological disaster, the consequence of reckless actions such as the use of GMO crops, but from the success of technology rather than its failure. We can see this with “climate change,” first global warming will be successfully held at bay, then extreme weather events prevented, and then . . . the outside world will be made to look and feel no different from the carefully controlled environment we have inside every shopping mall. After all, if you could push a button from your beachside mansion to stop an oncoming hurricane in its tracks, and instead select for a pleasant view offshore, why wouldn’t you?

No one openly articulates such an agenda, and it does not matter whether it is realistic or complete fantasy, the logic is there nonetheless. It has been present for a thousand years, and it is immensely powerful. Our entire civilization is testimony to its power. This is the value both Heidegger and Spengler bring to a discussion of such issues, they allow us to approach topical subjects such as climate change or transgenderism from a very different angle, to understand why these are the battlegrounds today, and what is at stake.

A third dimension, however, is also needed. It is one neither “Martin” nor “Spengler” were aware of in their lifetime, nor is it a question that has ever concerned Western philosophy to any significant extent in its 2,500-year history. It is a product of our time, and as such is the key to understanding everything. In this respect, “the West” is unique, and at its heart lies a contradiction.

Civilisation by its nature is a masculine project, but Western civilization is in its essence – feminine.

The driving purpose behind the science and technology of the West is to make life easy, comfortable, safe, and amusing. These are feminine desires not masculine ones. Western men have striven for centuries to deliver such a lifestyle to their women, and over the last 70 years or so this effort has borne fruit in the unsurpassed standard of living enjoyed by large sections of the population in Western countries. But the more it has done so, the more the essentially feminine character of the West has come into play. Masculine values, masculinity, men, these were all necessary to bring us to this point, the achievements of science and technology are products of the masculine impulse to make an impact on the world, to understand it, shape it, to create with it, to build with it, for their enjoyment in part but most of all for their women and children, and for the sake of the larger civilizational project to whose success they are committed. But to the extent this project is realized, and life does become easy, comfortable, safe, and amusing, masculinity becomes increasingly redundant, and fades into the background. In its place the feminine becomes primary, a process that has accelerated to an enormous extent over the past half-century with the arrival of the “sexual revolution” in the 1960s.

In the world that is emerging, there are no limits, nothing that women cannot do, nor anything that requires the masculine impetus to turn outwards towards the wider world, to discover its secrets, confront its dangers, for there is no longer is an outside world. Once we reach the point where everything that exists is either an oversized shopping mall, an air-conditioned office building, a campus safe space, a theme park, or a McMansion, masculinity has served its purpose and has no further place, other than to supply routine maintenance services in the background. In this world everything is self-referential, reality is what we make it, truth is what we decide it to be, on the basis of what makes us feel comfortable, safe, and amused. This is why the internet and social media are so central to our culture, why reality TV is our iconic genre, celebrities our key figures, entertainment our main industry, marketing our critical skill set, and brand value our ultimate asset. It is also why #fakenews is a thing.

This self-referentiality is Heidegger’s “subjectivism.” It is extending its influence everywhere, even such former bastions of masculinity as the military. Western militaries are completely feminized, with the partial exception of Special Forces, the only units who actually experience real combat. This is not to say that US or NATO forces do not kill and destroy, they do on a massive scale, their mostly male members also die, but they do not fight, they do not even engage their “enemy.” Instead they conduct operations against fictitious opponents who are figments of their own imagination, and take casualties at the hands of real adversaries about who they know nothing. The disastrous British campaign in Helmand, Afghanistan, from 2006-10 is the classic example of this, launched against an insurgent force that did not exist at that time, but which soon did come into being with a vengeance as a result of the “counter-insurgency” operation.

Helmand is the rule rather than the exception. It is no accident that the weakest branch of the US military machine has always been Intelligence, because this is the one element that cannot be self-referential if it is to be effective.

post-truth.jpg

The Eclipse of Truth

We see the contradiction that runs through the West above all in the current state of science as an institution. In spite of its critical role in the Western civilizational project, science today is in an appalling state of disrepair. This is so even though vast amounts of data and new information are becoming available to many scientific disciplines due to earlier developments in technology, and also to the enormous resources being thrown into research and academia. Astronomy is a good example of this. However, the ability to intellectually process these sources into theoretical advances, to improve our understanding, has been all but lost, at least in the mainstream. Instead, astronomically related areas such as cosmology and astrophysics have disappeared into a fantastical set of rabbit holes that bear no relation to any reality outside of their own mathematical set of fictions. As a result they are completely sterile, there has been no progress in these branches of science for decades, in sharp contrast to the revolutionary breakthroughs that marked the first half of the 20th century. These gave us the technological advances that make the present possible, although the irony lies in that they also have contributed in large part to the dead end we now find ourselves in. This includes its poster boy Albert Einstein, who in spite of his personal integrity has been the single greatest catastrophe ever inflicted on the scientific enterprise. It is no accident that this individual was the first ever science “celebrity,” in no other period could a set of intellectually incoherent nonsense be mistaken for genius, but then again, it did so because it suited certain purposes . . . long before #fakenews came #fakescience.

The reason for this is the eclipse of truth, which is a masculine value, as the determining factor in decisions over what ideas to accept, papers to publish, research to fund, who to appoint, and who is selected to go viral, at least on the media circuit. Science as a practice has to balance its inquiry into the world as it really is with a whole series of competing interests. These might be commercial, political, ideological, institutional, or personal. The more important a branch of science is to Western society as a whole, the more corrosive these other influences, so that when we get to a central political issue such as “climate change,” we soon find that the quality of the science being produced on this question is utterly corrupted, and from a scientific standpoint completely worthless. This is because its purpose is not to find the truth, but to support an agenda, which it does by creating “models” of how the world should be and then using these to justify policy decisions whose motivation always lay elsewhere – self-referentiality once again. The reality is that climate “science” is not science at all, which goes to explain why its proponents refuse to honor any of the principles that guide genuine scientific inquiry – honest debate, transparency of data, willingness to admit uncomfortable facts, or explore alternative hypotheses.

An indication of the West’s true character and current state of decay can be seen in some of the intractable problems that plague modern society. Many of these revolve around health, arguably the area that provides the greatest source of pride to those who believe in the achievements of Western civilization. But while it is true that life expectancy is at record levels, infant mortality at its lowest, and that a cut finger is unlikely to result in death from a ravaging infection, it can hardly be argued that the population of a nation such as the United States is “healthy” in any meaningful sense. If we look at the obesity epidemic, for example, what is most significant about this problem is less that people are getting fat, but that Western medicine has proved totally incapable of making even a small dent in the constantly rising numbers of the obese. A different approach is clearly needed, but one will only be found on the basis of civilizational values that understand medical treatment in terms that do not involve drugs or surgery. Counter currents of this nature do exist, such as the ancestral health movement, or the advocates of LCHF, but these are defined precisely by their rejection of the Western project and its conception of what a healthy way of life is. The same applies to mental health issues, or the unbelievably high rates of addiction across the West, to everything from pain killers, shopping, gambling, gaming, porn, anything that offers an escape from an otherwise entirely meaningless, but materially quite comfortable, existence.

Escape-from-Wuhlheide---Daan-Botlek_900.jpg

The Desire to Escape

It is Spengler who shows us that this desire to “escape,” in his words towards “the infinite,” was present at the very birth of the West, and is in fact its driving force. This too needs to be understood in terms of masculinity and femininity. The masculine impulse is not to escape the world but to go out and engage with it, to learn how to navigate through it, to understand it, and with this knowledge to create and to build with it. A man may seek an escape from the wind and the rain for his family, but the shelters he constructs are made from real materials, and if they are not built according to the natural laws that govern civil engineering they will fall down. This is why truth is the paramount masculine value, and this truth is never self-referential, it is truth about the external world, so that humanity can live within this world.

The feminine impulse is the opposite, it is an attractive force and its ultimate point of reference is the woman herself and her children. If the masculine seeks to expand outwards towards the infinitely large, to ever extend knowledge and understanding, then the feminine measures this in terms of what it means to her, how it affects her, whether she likes what emerges around her as a result of this, or not. Men build houses, but women decide whether they want to live in these structures, and turn them into homes. The feminine is in its essence aesthetic, its measure is beauty, and the beautiful is appreciated through emotion, how it makes her feel.

During the rise of the West, this masculine impulse is harnessed and the Modern world takes shape over time. The feminine character of the Western project, however, is expressed in the ultimate end state Western civilization sets as its objective. This is Spengler’s “infinity,” but in everyday terms it goes under the slogan of “freedom.” The dominant motive behind the entire development of the West has been the desire to be free, and this means freedom from any and all constraints. Science and technology emerge as the means by which to escape the constraints of nature, but alongside this there is also the desire to escape social constraints. During the first centuries of the West, this mostly involved the struggle to overcome the Catholic Church, which dominated the social and cultural landscape of medieval Europe, and this lead to the Protestant Reformation. Later it becomes the desire to be free of any religious imposition on life whatsoever, whether through moral codes or the law of the land. Western society becomes secular.

Freedom is a feminine value, not a masculine one.  Femininity resents any external constraints on it, whether natural or social, because its reference point is the woman herself, in her singularity. There is no such thing as a feminine morality, because even two women form a set of entirely different compass points for any moral code. These might coincide, the two might agree and cooperate well together, but they also might not, there is no force behind the agreement, as soon as it feels like a constraint to either of them it will be abandoned. Women approach all relationships in this way, except with their children, there the rules change.

Masculinity does not strive for freedom, it seeks to serve. A man is measured by his contribution to something larger and outside of himself, his family, his tribe, his nation, his civilisation, its Gods, the truth. This service must be voluntary, and it must be valued. The Roman slave in revolt may kill his master but he will also willingly give up his life in the army of Spartacus, and ask only that in battle his general not throw this away cheaply.

For the same reason, equality is not a masculine value either. Men contribute to the best of their ability, because that is the source of their worth, but the end results are measured externally. The input is irrelevant, only the output. Masculinity naturally gravitates towards hierarchy, because some are more talented, experienced, or able than others, and what matters is the common venture, success or failure, victory or defeat. Men will accept the leadership, and even the domination of others, if this leads to a good outcome, because that is all that counts. Better to follow the victorious general, than lead an army to its destruction.

The feminine, on the other hand, does aspire to equality, because like freedom it is an abstract concept, it means the removal of any expectations placed upon her by anyone, which she might perceive as a constraint. Equality is the stepping stone towards freedom, which is the ability of a woman to act as her own point of reference in any aspect of her life. Today this goes under the term, “empowerment,” or “You go girl!” This is one form of the “tendency towards abstraction” we will try to elaborate on further.

Masculinity, however, acts as a counter-balance to this female “solipsism.” The masculine overrides this impulse and it is the woman who benefits, because it allows her to serve something greater – children, to become something larger than herself, to contribute, to leave her mark on the earth, to attain a slice of immortality. Men do this by imposing an order that serves the civilizational project they are committed to, in other words they impose social constraints on women. This is the “patriarchy,” it ensures that a society will continue because there will be future generations, that women will bear children. It is a civilizational project that makes women have babies, and this is its greatest gift to femininity, to those same women, it overcomes their own drive to “self-referentiality” and allows them to be something more, to participate in something larger.

The project of Western civilization, on the other hand, has been to escape this very civilizational constraint. By the 1960s it had achieved an important milestone along this path through the application of science and technology, with the invention of the contraceptive pill. As a result, birth rates have plummeted, well below the numbers required to reproduce the population. This is one reason why it is safe to predict the coming demise of the West, a social order can not survive if its women do not have children.

trhum.jpg

Transhumanism — The Final Showdown

The West, in its essence, is neither a human nor a natural society. The current debate – is gender real ? – is not directed at finding truth but is instead a program of action – “we will make it so that there is no such thing as gender.” Masculinity and femininity, their polarity, will be abolished. This process is already well advanced, especially in the urban centers, and can be objectively measured by tracing the plummeting levels of testosterone in Western men. It is also the meaning behind the pronoun controversy that catapulted Jordan Peterson into the spotlight during 2015, and why his stance is so important.

Transgenderism is only the prelude, the real showdown is still to come. This will go under the title, “transhumanism,” and if its proponents are successful it will mean the end. Humanity will cease to exist. The technology is not yet fully developed, but the work is being undertaken, and rapid progress is being made. Starting with heart implants, prosthetic limbs, and wearable tech, the ultimate goal will be to overcome the limitations of the human body and achieve immortality. This will be done through packages whose benefits are undeniable – the replacement of legs lost by soldiers to IEDs, the extension of life expectancy, early detection of disease onset, and for this reason will be hard to resist.

An idea of what this means for humankind can be seen in the stresses and strains already affecting peak human activity, the Olympic Games. On the one side, the dissolution of gender difference will destroy women’s sport, a foretaste of which can be seen in the controversy surrounding South African runner Caster Semenya. On the other, advances in prosthetics mean Paralympians will increasingly overtake “able-bodied” athletes in their achievements, this already being the case for the 1500m event. In the background lies the ever more murky divide between legitimate diet and nutrition supplementation, and performance enhancing drugs, an indeterminancy that is also being exploited for political ends, as in the blatantly unjust treatment of Maria Shaparova over her use of meldonium. The point here is that the ruling to outlaw this drug in 2015, after years of its legally sanctioned use, was entirely arbitrary. The same applies to the earlier ban on blood doping.

All these trends lead in the same direction, a loss of meaning to the entire enterprise of elite sport as a human activity. This is nihilism playing itself out; it is Nietzsche’s “devaluation of all values.” The Paralympics for example, whose entire purpose is a celebration of the human spirit in the face of adversity, loses any sense of this once artificial limbs become a source of advantage rather than disadvantage, and replacing body parts becomes a desirable option. We approach the point in the first Robocop film where the decision is taken, “lose the arm,” even though it is undamaged. This has already happened on a small scale, with Australian Football League player Daniel Chick choosing to amputate an injured finger because it was harming his performance on field.

At the time, the idea of removing a body part for the sake of a sport was shocking. But the reasoning is clear, after all, what is there in our society that is not a game of some kind of other ? What better use could he have for his finger other than play a game in which he had attained a high level of mastery and was being well rewarded for doing so. Here it is important to understand what games are, and how they are essentially feminine in nature. This is because they are self-referential, defined by rules of their own making, and pursued for their own purpose – for fun. The value of a game is measured by whether it is enjoyable to play, or in our time, to watch. This applies with equal force to games that make a concession to masculinity – Call of Duty – and are therefore fun for boys to play. Such games are not masculine at all, in spite of feminist protests to the contrary, precisely because they are games – nothing is at stake. They are the safe forms of play a protective mother is happy to let her boys engage in, but they are forms that will also never allow these boys to grow into men, because for men failure has to matter, it has to hurt, physically not emotionally, it has to leave scars, it has to shape future behavior, it has to teach, the hard way. This still happens at the elite level, but only so the rest of us can spectate from the comfort of our sofas.

This helps us understand why, once a society becomes feminine primary, as the West is, it also takes on a more and more childish character. If everything is a game, with well-defined rules to prevent anyone from being harmed, and whose sole purpose is to be fun, then it is entirely legitimate to cry “not fair” whenever someone or something interrupts the proceedings. This was Donald Trump’s greatest sin, he spoiled Hillary’s party, he didn’t play by the rules, he didn’t accept that the 2016 election was never supposed to be a contest, but a game with only one outcome. This is how girls like to play, it was a crowning ceremony not a fight, and then that nasty boy ruined it. The massive display of infantilism that followed her defeat, the historically unprecedented tantrum that ensued, reflects just how far this process has gone.

This is again why Spengler and Heidegger are so useful. By standing back and adopting a perspective that spans 500 or a 1,000 years, it is possible to see how all these various strands interweave and form part of the same picture. There is a logic to this madness.

tangoarg.jpg

The Masculine-Feminine Polarity: The Key Battleground

It also helps us to understand what it is that needs to be defended, if all is not to be lost. First and foremost, it is this – masculine-feminine polarity.

Masculinity and femininity are opposite impulses, but not only do they complement one another, they are mutually dependent on each other if either is to fulfill its true nature. Masculine without feminine can no more be itself than feminine can be so without the masculine. This is why our current feminine primary world is so at risk of annihilation; it has lost the counter-balance it requires to avoid oblivion. Femininity alone is a black hole, it is an attractive force that has no limit, and as such will consume everything, including itself. Masculinity left to its own devices would be no different, exploding outwards into nothingness, just as the Mongol horde was able to roam the known world and conquer vast expanses of territory, but whose heartland was left a depopulated desert as a result, much as was Alexander’s Macedonia at the height of his empire.

Both Alexander and the Mongols were conquerors, but they were not builders. In their modes of warfare lay truth, they were victorious in battle, but they left nothing of beauty. They did not create a space for the feminine, no architecture to admire, no style to imitate, no structures to dwell in. As a result, they came and went, in a very short span of time, and they did so because they lacked internal cohesion, their territories were broken up from within, not without.

These were masculine primary civilizations, in which one polarity is taken to such an extreme that the absence of its opposite became its downfall. A feminine primary society works in a different way, in that what it does is undermine polarity itself. This is because the feminine impulse is singular, solipsistic, so that anything external that has shape or definition is experienced as a constraint, and as such must be neutralized or eliminated. Gender roles are by definition oppressive, not because they disadvantage women, but because they are defined, and as such are limiting, only non-gendered, abstract beings can be truly free.

This is the “tendency towards abstraction.” It is being applied to human bodily constraints, to social, ethical, and moral codes of conduct, and also to time and space. This goes under the name of “globalization.”

timespaceill.jpg

Globalization: The Loss of Any Meaning for Time and Place

Once again Heidegger assists us to understand what globalism is, in its essence. He does so in his classic work, “On the Question of Technology.” Here he takes the river Rhine as an example, whose role and function in modern Germany is primarily to serve as a source of hydroelectric power. This statement is usually interpreted as a kind of pro-environment stance, that the earth should not simply be seen as a set of resources for human beings to exploit. Heidegger certainly did believe that, but it is not the main point he wants to make. We see this when he introduces Holderlin’s 1808 poem, “Der Rhein,” into the discussion. For Heidegger, this poem represents the possibility of history, in which a people can emerge, a specific point in time that is their moment, and in a place that is their’s too. “Der Rhein” is not only a poetic work, it is the river, except that in the hands of Holderlin it becomes more than a moving body of water, but a historical location, the site of “Germanien,” the people whose language the poem is written in, the people for who this river is “Der Rhein.”

It is this kind of possibility the river as hydroelectricity denies. The current it produces is distributed through a grid. It is made available to anyone, anywhere, at any time. Who they are, and what they do with it, is irrelevant, in fact through the network the precise power source for any single wall socket might be any river, or any one of the various types of generating plant. This means that whatever people manage to create or achieve thanks to the availability of this electricity, it cannot bear the same relationship to the river Rhine we find in Holderlin’s poem. The connection has been severed, even if what comes into being is an online community of “Rhine lovers,” arrangements for a tourist cruise along its course, or a Heidegger fan page on Facebook. All of these can be enjoyable activities for those who participate, they can take on great significance in their personal life stories, but they do not have the capacity to be moments in historical time, where a “Germanien” is founded. There is no longer any possibility of history being made, of a “Der Rhein” coming into being.

This is globalization. It is the rupture of any meaningful link between place, time, and people. This is the postmodernist “end of the grand narrative,” which creates a lived experience of complete disorientation and disconnection, it is why our reality always feels so “artificial.” The problem is not so much that everywhere becomes the same, although this tendency is also present, but in the fact that any differences that do exist between locations are entirely random and meaningless. Even if a particular site has historical merit, or architectural splendor, this is now preserved purely for the benefit of tourists, who are visitors from nowhere in particular, who have come solely in order to be entertained, and whose value is entirely abstract – the money they spend. The great pyramids of Egypt may be the country’s main source of foreign currency earnings, but they bear no more relationship to the present nation’s culture, religion, language, or way of life, than they do to those who flock to see them. This is one reason why genuine study of these monuments has been effectively shut down for decades, in case any new understanding emerges that might have a negative impact on the tourism industry.

It is also why we can travel to Victoria in Australia and stumble across a large scale copy of the Sphinx, at what turns out to be a suburban gambling venue. Why a Sphinx? Who knows? Who cares? We can imagine future generations of archaeologists attempting in vain to decipher its meaning, because there is none, no greater relevance to the former manufacturing center and woolen industry export hub of Geelong than the original does to present day Cairo. Instead, the inspiration for this choice of design is more likely to have come from Las Vegas, where such total disregard for history and geography is taken to its logical extreme.

Las Vegas provides a good example of the “tendency towards abstraction” at work. The city’s location was chosen precisely because it was in the middle of nowhere, inside a state without any legal restrictions on gambling. Its founding was enabled by the availability of technology that overcame the natural constraints presented by the desert. Its central economic activity consists solely in the manipulation of symbolic values, games, whose appeal lies in their entertainment value. These games require as little skill acquisition as possible, and are governed purely by luck. Physical input is kept to an absolute minimum, no more demanding than pushing a button, the environment is carefully controlled for comfort, safety, and security, and no concession to time is made – venues are open 24/7 and no indication of whether it is day or night permitted. The entire enterprise is either entirely abstract or seeking to become so. Casinos, however, are not the final word in this process, their main competition now coming from the online gambling industry.

We see a similar tendency across the economy, which takes on an ever more “immaterial” character. This has two major forms. The first consists purely of symbols, above all banking and finance, which generate capital flows in various directions, but also the world of information technology that provides the platform for this kind of activity. These bear some relation to the “real” economy of tangible goods and services, but as the global financial crisis showed, this link is tenuous at best, and at times is broken entirely. The second is made up of “cultural” production – entertainment, fashion, style, brand identity, academic research, social media content, also dependent on IT to a large extent. As with finance capital, this constantly strives for autonomy from outside “reality,” it seeks to become self-referential, and in this it is becoming increasingly successful.

beautyjjj.jpg

The Impossibility of Beauty without Truth and Truth without Beauty

This is why a defense of male-female polarity is so important. Without this, both truth, the masculine value, and beauty, the feminine value, collapse. We see this in the Geelong Sphinx, which has neither truth nor beauty – it is tacky and looks ridiculous. We also see it in trends such as the “fat acceptance movement,” whose express purpose is to separate truth from beauty by denying that there is any such thing as a naturally beautiful female human form. On this question Gad Sa’ad has provided an overwhelming mass of evidence, but his argument only stands if we hold truth to be a value, and in a feminine primary world this is simply not the case. This is because the entire objective is to escape the truth, it is to create a world free of such constraints, so that any female, no matter how morbidly obese, can be considered beautiful. It is not a matter for debate, it is an agenda to be realized, and once again it is making rapid progress, as can be seen in the overwhelming number of Western women who are seriously overweight.

Beauty requires truth, it needs to be real in order to be truly beautiful. At the same time, truth needs beauty, because reality can be ugly too. There is a truth to female genital mutilation – by making sexual intercourse a painful act it serves as a powerful reinforcer in a patriarchal order whose goal is to subordinate women’s sexuality to family and property interests. As such, female genital mutilation works. Male genital mutilation, which is much more widespread in the West than female, also achieves its original purpose, almost identical to FGM, by reducing men’s enjoyment of sex. These truths do not make either practice any the less cruel or barbaric.

The masculine-feminine polarity is the central battleground today. It is why feminist ideology is the main opponent, because this is where the insurgent forces of annihilation are currently deriving their inspiration. What is at stake here is not simply an assertion of masculinity, or men’s rights, although our society is increasingly hostile to men; it is also a defense of femininity, because there is no single force on the planet more misogynistic than feminism, especially its radical wing, which detests everything feminine with the utmost venom.

In order to combat this misogyny and androgyny, it is necessary to set it in its proper historical perspective, to understand its source, and to appreciate the critical roles played by the concepts of “freedom” and “equality.” This is not to promote “unfreedom” or “inequality,” especially in relations between the sexes, but to grasp that the masculine and the feminine are forces that run in opposite directions, have different values at their core, but who ultimate complement and are necessary for one another to flourish. It is to protect a world in which truth and beauty both have a place, and it is to preserve the possibility of a new civilizational project, or projects, arising to replace a West now well into its terminal phase of decline.

jeudi, 07 janvier 2016

Ariane 6 : le début de la fin pour l'industrie spatiale européenne?

ariane-6.jpg

Le début de la fin pour l'industrie spatiale européenne ?...

Ex: http://metapoinfos.hautetfort.com

Nous reproduisons ci-dessous une note d'Hajnalka Vincze, cueillie sur le site de l'Institut de Veille et d'Etude des Relations Internationales (IVRIS) et consacré aux décisions européennes récemment adoptées vis-à-vis du programme Ariane. Analyste indépendante en politique de défense et de sécurité, Hajnalka Vincze a travaillé pour le ministère hongrois de la défense et a fondé l'IVRIS, un réseau d'experts européens dans les questions de défense et de géostratégie.

Ariane 6 : le début de la fin pour l'industrie spatiale européenne?

Atout stratégique par excellence, le lanceur Ariane est le symbole même de l’Europe spatiale. Fait plutôt rare, c’est un succès à la fois politique, technologique et commercial. Or il risque aujourd’hui d’être détricoté, suite à un transfert inédit de contrôle et de compétences de l’Etat vers des industriels privés. 

Le projet du nouveau lanceur, successeur de l’actuelle Ariane 5, fut approuvé en décembre 2014 par les ministres européens. Pour faire face à la concurrence internationale, en particulier à l’américain SpaceX et ses lancements à bas prix, ceux-ci ont accepté, de A à Z, un projet proposé par les industriels. Plutôt que de privilégier l’innovation technologique, ce projet se fonde sur la mainmise de ces derniers sur l’ensemble de la filière. Il prévoit une réorganisation-privatisation de fond en comble pour s’approcher d’un modèle, prétendument plus compétitif, importé des Etats-Unis ; mais sans la garantie des engagements étatiques qui, en réalité, le font vivre de l’autre côté de l’Atlantique.

En agissant ainsi, les gouvernements européens, en premier lieu la France, prennent de sérieux risques. Outre les aspects financiers (qui laissent poindre le spectre d’une immense gabegie), c’est avant tout la modification des rapports de force entre industriels et pouvoirs publics qui s’annonce fort problématique. Donner les clés de ce programme hautement stratégique à des industriels comme Airbus, aux visées douteuses et à l’allégeance malléable, témoigne, de la part de l’Etat, d’une attitude pour le moins irresponsable.

Postulats erronés

Précisons d’emblée que la fusée, de même que la société qui l’exploite et le commercialise, Arianespace, est un succès incontesté et incontestable. Pour reprendre les propos de Stéphane Israël, le PDG d’Arianespace, récemment auditionné au Sénat, Ariane est « sur le point de battre un double record opérationnel et commercial », tout en étant une fierté européenne et nationale, ayant pour tâche principale de « garantir un accès indépendant de l’Europe à l’espace ». Chose surprenante par les temps qui courent, M. Israël n’oublie pas de rappeler l’effort collectif à la base de ces résultats remarquables. Quelques mois auparavant, devant les députés, il avait fait remarquer que « les systèmes de lancement que l’entreprise exploite, en particulier Ariane, n’existeraient pas sans la volonté et les investissements publics. Cette fusée est donc aussi un peu la vôtre. »

Or, il est clair que la décision des gouvernements européens concernant la suite de l’aventure soulève plus de questions qu’elle n’en résout. La cause en est simple : ils partent de postulats idéologiques au lieu de s’en tenir aux faits, et préfèrent des gains mercantiles immédiats (par ailleurs incertains) à la stratégie et à la vision politique à long terme. Les deux sources d’inspiration derrière ce choix, entériné en décembre 2014 par les ministres de l’Agence spatiale européenne, étaient l’Allemagne et les industriels eux-mêmes. Comme l’a expliqué la ministre Fioraso à l’époque, c’est Berlin qui fut l’avocat d’« une intégration industrielle plus importante, une prise de risques plus grande des industriels », en faisant valoir que « si l’industrie prend davantage de risques, il est normal qu’elle participe davantage à la conception et qu’elle partage la stratégie ».

Les industriels, eux, n’attendaient que cela. Ils avaient même devancé les gouvernements et les agences spatiales. Airbus, le maître d’œuvre, et Safran, le motoriste, avaient travaillé dans le plus grand secret, pour mettre les autorités publiques devant le fait accompli, en présentant, dès juin 2014 leur projet. En plus du design de la fusée, ils ont annoncé leur intention de fusionner leurs actifs respectifs, par la création d’une co-entreprise. Le tout assorti d’une condition de taille: la cession des parts du gouvernement français dans Arianespace. Deux semaines après, François Hollande lui-même donne son feu vert, lors d’un petit déjeuner rassemblant tous les acteurs principaux au palais présidentiel.

La co-entreprise Airbus Safran Launchers (ASL) aura donc désormais autorité sur les lanceurs dans tous les segments. Outre le développement proprement dit, cela inclut donc la conception (jusqu’ici la prérogative des agences, désormais réduites à définir les grandes lignes), de même que la commercialisation. Car en juin 2015, le gouvernement français a, en effet, entériné la cession des 34% d’Arianespace détenus par le CNES à ASL, ce dernier devient ainsi premier actionnaire avec 74% du capital. Rappelons encore une fois qu’en arrière-fond de cette restructuration-privatisation sans précédent se trouverait la volonté de « l’optimisation » de la filière dans le but de réduire les coûts, pour relever le défi de la concurrence internationale.

Paradoxalement, les points d’interrogation sur l’avenir d’Ariane sont moins liés à la compétition mondiale qu’aux choix opérés par les gouvernements européens soi-disant pour y faire face. A bien y regarder, le tant redouté américain SpaceX ne semble pas provoquer, en soi, un danger existentiel pour Ariane. Tout en reconnaissant les talents de son créateur Elon Musk (on lui doit également le service de paiement en ligne PayPal et les voitures électriques Tesla), il convient de souligner, comme l’a fait le PDG d’Arianespace, que les principaux atouts de SpaceX sont d’ordre politique, dans la mesure où le soutien indirect du gouvernement fédéral lui est fort bénéfique, à la fois en termes de marché captif (garanties de lancements domestiques) et en termes de prix.

arianerou-le-5-juin-.jpg

En effet, pour citer l’ancienne secrétaire d’Etat chargé du dossier, « les pouvoirs publics américains sont très impliqués ». Et Geneviève Fioraso de préciser que « la Nasa achète 130 millions de dollars à SpaceX un vol que l’entreprise va vendre à 60 millions de dollars à l’exportation. On peut appeler cela du soutien mais c’est du dumping ! » Curieusement, le patron d’Airbus Group, lui, passe cet aspect complètement sous silence lorsqu’il déclare vouloir s’inspirer de SpaceX, en louant notamment leur « dynamisme ». Fidèle à son dogme libéral-atlantiste, Tom Enders s’est servi de SpaceX pour revendiquer une restructuration complète de la filière avec, à la clé, plus de pouvoir aux industriels et la réduction du champ de contrôle des pouvoirs publics.

Incertitudes persistantes

La réorganisation en cours ne se fait pas sans mal, et comporte de sérieuses incertitudes pour Ariane. Pour commencer, l’annonce en fanfare du lancement du nouveau programme, et la passation des contrats qui s’en est suivie, ont failli faire oublier que les Allemands avaient obtenu un point d’étape (go/no go, autrement dit feu vert ou arrêt), à la mi-2016. Or si Berlin a été le grand avocat de l’option « industrielle » retenue pour Ariane 6 (restructuration-privatisation plutôt qu’innovation technologique), c’est avant tout parce qu’il considère le projet sous un angle mercantile. Son soutien risque de s’évaporer si, au lieu de la réduction escomptée des coûts du projet, l’opération finit, ce qui est fort probable, par en augmenter les frais.

Outre la multiplication des factures imprévues présentées par les industriels, l’autre point d’interrogation sur le plan financier concerne les éventuelles réserves des clients actuels et potentiels. En effet, les constructeurs de satellites rivaux d’Airbus (dont c’est une des branches d’activité) pourraient ne pas trop apprécier ce nouvel arrangement. Airbus Group se veut rassurant : pour eux« notre objectif est de vendre le plus de lanceurs possible, y compris pour lancer les satellites de nos concurrents. Rien ne justifie la moindre inquiétude à ce sujet ». Pourvu que les clients partagent ce sentiment. Car même si on leur promet une cloison impénétrable entre satellites faits maison et fusées, il est difficile d’empêcher qu’à un moment ou un autre, le doute surgisse. Que ce soit l’octroi des créneaux de lancement privilégiés ou la possibilité d’offres coordonnées, Arianespace, de facto devenue filiale d’Airbus Group, pourra toujours être soupçonnée de favoritisme.

Pour couronner le tout, en plus de la commercialisation des fusées, Arianespace remplit aussi une fonction d’expertise qui lui donne accès aux informations techniques confidentielles des constructeurs de satellites rivaux d’Airbus. Avant le lancement, elle « prépare les analyses de mission, qui visent notamment à s’assurer que le lanceur est adapté au satellite qu’il devra mettre en orbite ». Cela nécessite une connaissance exacte des données techniques des satellites. Pour le PDG d’Arianespace, un découpage entre les deux fonctions (commerciale et d’expertise) serait inconcevable, puisque les deux font ensemble le succès de la société, en positionnant Arianespace comme la garante de la fiabilité ultime de la fusée. Reste à voir comment la nouvelle co-entreprise saura jongler avec ces différents volets.

A ces questionnements de nature financière et commerciale viennent s’ajouter ensuite des interrogations d’ordre politique. Sans surprise, la première d’entre elles concerne la question, sempiternelle, de la préférence européenne. Autrement dit, le fait de savoir si les gouvernements du vieux continent seraient enfin prêts à s’engager à privilégier leurs propres produits; comme le font d’ailleurs, et à juste titre, les Etats-Unis. Pour Ariane 6, seuls cinq lancements institutionnels seront garantis, d’après la ministre. Certes, on reste au même nombre qu’aujourd’hui, mais « cela signifie, tacitement, que chaque pays membre accepte le principe d’une préférence européenne. On ne peut pas écrire obligation, à cause des règles européennes ».

Le PDG d’Arianespace voulait y voir, en mai, « une sorte de ‘Buy European Act’, sachant que notre concurrent américain bénéficie déjà, quant à lui, d’un marché garanti aux États-Unis : la législation américaine impose que les charges utiles américaines soient mises en orbite par un lanceur construit majoritairement aux États-Unis. » Cinq mois plus tard, il a dû se rendre à l’évidence :« Aujourd’hui, le ‘Buy European Act’ n’existe pas. Il est vrai que les États européens peuvent choisir un autre lanceur que ceux d’Arianespace ». Ce qu’ils font, en effet, sans état d’âme. A l’instar de l’Allemagne, qui n’a pas hésité à confier à SpaceX le lancement de certains de ses satellites.

Or, prévient la ministre française : « Si nous ne sommes pas la carte de l’Europe, nous fragiliserons et in fine, perdrons la filière des lanceurs européens. Et au-delà, nous perdons notre avantage compétitif en matière de télécoms, en matière d’accès aux données scientifiques, environnementales, climatiques et en matière de sécurité et de défense. » Mais comment attendre des gouvernements de jouer la carte de l’Europe en matière de lancement si même Airbus ne le fait pas ? Le groupe, qui aura désormais la haute main sur l’ensemble de la filière et réclame, de ce fait, la garantie de cinq lancements institutionnels, souhaitait lui-même confier à son concurrent US le lancement d’un satellite de télécommunication dernier cri de l’Agence spatiale européenne (ESA), simplement pour le rendre plus rentable…

Abandons coupables

Au départ, la réorganisation actuelle a été présentée comme répondant à deux critères de base. D’une part, un besoin de réduction des coûts, par le biais d’une plus grande prise de responsabilité des industriels, de l’autre le maintien, tout de même, de la position des Etats. Sur ce dernier point, la ministre Fioraso a été très claire : « L’Etat restera présent dans la gouvernance et contrôlera ». Sauf que le périmètre de cette présence se réduit comme une peau de chagrin, en emportant le pouvoir de contrôle dans son sillage. Pour le PDG d’Arianespace, « les acteurs minoritaires qui représentent un lien avec les Gouvernements (…) doivent recevoir des garanties ». Autrement dit, ce n’est pas d’emblée le cas.

La question des coûts reste elle aussi opaque. Si les industriels disent prendre plus de risques, c’est loin d’être manifeste. Pour commencer, on ne sait toujours pas qui aura la charge d’éventuels échecs. Or, selon Stéphane Israël, « rien ne coûte plus cher qu’un échec et il importe de préciser les engagements des uns et des autres », mais « jusqu’à ce jour, rien n’est figé comme en témoignent les discussions en cours entre l’Agence spatiale européenne et Airbus Safran Launchers ». De surcroît, les industriels ne cessent de grignoter sur le volet financier de l’accord. Comme Michel Cabirol de La Tribune le met en évidence, tantôt ils demandent une rallonge d’un milliard, tantôt ils refusent de contribuer au maintien en condition opérationnelle du pas de tir en Guyane, tantôt ils exigent pour eux la gratuité pure et simple du Centre spatial, une faveur jamais octroyée à Arianespace.

Force est de constater que, dans ce domaine hautement stratégique, on risque de se retrouver devant un schéma étrangement similaire à celui des Etats-Unis. Un modèle caractérisé par de grandes sociétés privées, soutenues par d’immenses gaspillages de fonds publics. A la différence près que, contrairement au cas américain, les pouvoirs publics en Europe ne peuvent même pas être certains, à long terme, de la loyauté des sociétés qu’ils soutiennent – en l’absence d’un marché public gigantesque qui garantirait une loyauté d’intérêt, et faute de règles contraignantes européennes capables d’imposer, comme de l’autre côté de l’Atlantique, une loyauté juridico-institutionnelle.

Or, en parlant d’Ariane, il convient de garder à l’esprit que le lanceur conditionne la pérennité, la crédibilité, la rentabilité/compétitivité et l’autonomie de l’ensemble du secteur spatial. Que l’on se rappelle les origines mêmes de la création d’Ariane : en 1973, n’ayant pas de lanceur européen à leur disposition, Français et Allemands ont dû aller quémander auprès des Américains pour pouvoir mettre en orbite leur satellite de télécommunication. Or « les Américains, se souvient Frédéric d’Allest, ancien Directeur général du Centre national d’Etudes spatiales (CNES), ont fait savoir qu’ils voulaient bien lancer Symphonie mais à condition qu’il soit limité à des fonctions expérimentales ». Profitant de leur monopole, les Américains ont donc interdit toute utilisation à des fins commerciales, par souci d’éliminer la possibilité même d’un rival.

Un véritable déclic, d’après les témoins de l’époque, le diktat américain a finalement permis de lever les obstacles politiques, entre Européens, à la construction de ce formidable outil de souveraineté qu’est le lanceur Ariane. En effet, la leçon fut claire : sans accès indépendant à l’espace, il n’y a tout simplement pas de politique spatiale. Jouer aujourd’hui à l’apprenti sorcier, en procédant à une restructuration dans des conditions et avec des engagements opaques, au risque de fragiliser la position de l’Etat et au profit d’industriels dont le passé, le bilan et le profil sont loin d’être irréprochables – cela mérite au moins débat…

Hajnalka Vincze (IVERIS, 1er janvier 2016)

lundi, 30 mars 2015

Russia, Europe to Create Common Road Safety Space - GLONASS Union

  Ex: Strategic-Culture.org

Russia, Europe to Create Common Road Safety Space - GLONASS Union

glonass20logolo.jpegSputnik – The Russian-produced ERA-GLONASS emergency call system was commissioned in January and requires all new cars licensed in EEU founding nations Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan be equipped with the device. In March 2018, all new cars sold in the European Union will be outfitted with emergency call technology eCall.

"The systems operating in the EEU countries will be harmonized with the European eCall [system] and, eventually, a common road safety space will be created to cover all of Eurasia – everybody is a winner," GLONASS Union Vice President for Strategic Development Evgeniy Belaynko told RIA Novosti.

Armenia and Kyrgyzstan, the other two EEU nations, are in talks to introduce the ERA-GLONASS accident response system.

The ERA-GLONASS system provides data to emergency responders from Russia"s Global Navigation Satellite System. It is designed to reduce emergency service arrival times by quickly pin-pointing incident sites. The system calls an emergency service number automatically if the on-board transponder signals an accident.

China will train its satellite navigation experts on Russian soil as part of a broader plan to expand cooperation on satellite navigation systems, a vice president for Russian non-profit partnership GLONASS Union told RIA Novosti.

"The Chinese are going to send specialists to us for training every year. A corresponding accord has already been reached," Evgeniy Belyanko, GLONASS Union Vice President for Strategic Development, said.

A source at the Russian space agency Roscosmos told RIA Novosti in February that Russia and China had signed a cooperation deal in the field of satellite navigation.

"We continue to work under the cooperation program. What needs to be done first is to harmonize the standards of emergency navigation systems in transport, before we get on to develop major projects and technology," Belyanko said.

He added the two nations had set up working groups and four subcommittees to discuss compatibility in their corresponding navigation systems.

glonass_osnastyat_vse_novye_avto_v_rossii.jpg

GLONASS, which stands for Global Navigation Satellite System, was launched in 1993. It is considered to be Russia's version of the US Global Positioning System (GPS).

Moscow leads with on-board emergency call systems that export the ERA-GLONASS technology standard, a senior official for Russian non-profit partnership GLONASS Union said.

"We have been the first to create a massive, reliable in-vehicle emergency system that spans the territory of the entire country, and we did it three years and three months before the European Union, developing a critically important technology," GLONASS Union Vice President for Strategic Development Evgeniy Belyanko said in an interview with RIA Novosti.

Beginning in March 2018, all new cars sold in the 28-nation European Union must be outfitted with emergency call technology eCall, according to new regulations. The Russian-made technology has been in use since the beginning of this year.

Belyanko said the United Nations is already using ERA-GLONASS technology as a template for its system requirements.

"Russian experts are the driving force behind this effort to set out unified rules. We have virtually started to export knowledge," Belyanko said.

ERA-GLONASS is a real-time satellite technology used in reporting traffic accidents. It calls the 112 emergency service number automatically in case of an accident. The communication takes under 20 seconds.

Rules that came into force in 2015 require cars licensed in the Customs Union, Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan, to be equipped with ERA-GLONASS technology.

 

mercredi, 10 octobre 2012

A Concepção Sagrada dos Espaços

A Concepção Sagrada dos Espaços

por Orazio M. Gnerre

Ex: http://legio-victrix.blogspot.be/ 



Texto da palestra de Orazio Gnerre, do Instituto Millenium, no IIIº Encontro Nacional Evoliano em João Pessoa.

Boa noite à todos,

Com a permissão do público e do professor Dugin, começarei.

Nós definimos o tema que escolhemos para a nossa discussão, "a concepção do espaço sagrado." Como você bem sabe, a escola de pensamento do tradicionalismo integrante baseia-se sobre um determinado assunto: os conceitos polares opostos subjacentes à abordagem dialética da realidade humana são dois simetricamente opostos - Tradição e Modernidade. Por Tradição compreendemos de modo geral a abordagem do "sagrado" ao real, uma leitura simbólica da mesma que, trabalhando com o que Carl Schmitt chamou de "catolicismo romano e forma política" princípio da representação, consideraremos o plano como um reflexo do mundo imanente transcendente, como expresso sistematicamente pela filosofia platônica. É um erro, porém definir o conservadorismo como um ramo da filosofia derivada do idealismo platônico porque, em sua visão ortodoxa, é considerada a ciência que estuda a manifestação do Uno pré-existente imanente - uma revelação eterna - e as estradas a fim de acessar sua experiência direta. A abordagem tradicional também pode ser definida cosmologicamente. A modernidade é a ruptura drástica com a concepção de existência simbólica e espiritual: a chave para o que não é mais cosmológico, como é na concepção tradicional, e sim mecânico. Se o pensamento tradicional é generalizante, representante, universalizante e essencialmente metafísico, o pensamento moderno, como seu oposto radical, manifesta-se como fragmentado, mecanicista e potencialmente niilista. Digo "basicamente" niilista porque, no desenrolar do fenômeno moderno, não esgota as possibilidades (ou pelo menos, não tivemos a oportunidade de conhecer este evento), mas aprofunda-se, expandindo sua influência e aumentando o grau de entropia que contém, provando ser o tempo da grande confusão prevista por René Guénon. Mais do que um sociólogo, incluindo Jedlowsky, advertiu-nos o fato de que a suposta pós-modernidade não é outra coisa senão o fenômeno moderno que é o apenas aparentemente negar a si mesmo, ele se quebra e se expande, criando uma nuvem de "modernidade diversas", e, aparentemente contrário ao contrário, de fato, todos os participantes do mesmo projeto e relativista perspectivista que, em aparente oposição ao primeiro evento universalista e racionalista da modernidade, na verdade, partes da natureza e cartesiana subjetivista. O professor Dugin, em seu discurso na conferência internacional de Moscou "Contra o mundo pós-moderno", tem bem definida a pós-modernidade como a queda da modernidade, então a expansão, a hipertrofia do princípio da quantidade que caracteriza a própria modernidade. Também o professor Dugin tem repetidamente salientou a necessidade de uma restauração da categoria filosófica do objetivismo, em oposição à natureza subjetivista da modernidade: na verdade ele não é o único que viu no universalismo marxista e no objetivismo (assim como na derrubada da manifestação idealista tripartite do Espírito) a continuação de categorias clássicas e tradicionais de pensamento. Cito neste caso o filósofo italiano Costanzo Preve que, em conjunto com Domenico Losurdo, representam a aresta de corte efectivo da Europa neomarxista. 

 

Se, como já dissemos, Tradição e Modernidade se opõem totalmente (e não dialeticamente), aqui é que ambos se projetam de cada fenômeno, porque, na verdade, são duas chaves reais para a leitura totalizante. É evidente, portanto, que deve haver um "sagrado" (tradicional e religioso) e "profano" (moderno e niilista), mesmo com o conceito de espaço, a importância de lugares, a interpretação providencial de áreas geográficas. O principal trabalho a que deve ser feita referência quando se trata desta diferença de abordagem é "O sagrado e o profano", texto esclarecedor do historiador romeno de religiões, famoso por ser ligado ao movimento da Legião do Miguel Arcanjo, professor, então, University, em Chicago, Mircea Eliade. Em seu texto explicativo, ele salienta as diferenças irreprimíveis que existem entre um homem religioso e secular, entre um homem e um homem da tradição da modernidade, na consideração do tempo, da vida, e lugares. Especialmente este último tema é que nos interessa em particular.

 

 

Eliade parte de um pressuposto geral, que é a base da consideração do fator espaço do homem religioso, o homem da Tradição: o mundo não é real. Neste sentido, a única coisa que o homem tradicional via como real, no entanto, era o Sagrado. A objetividade hegemônica do sagrado era aquele pelo qual o homem pudesse fazer o mundo real. O homem tradicional foi o vencedor real do mundo, o verdadeiro governante dos elementos (como ele era, interiorizados no pentagrama, que milênios mais tarde tornou-se o símbolo do Império Soviético sacral), como o filho dos deuses. O antropocentrismo tradicional, longe de ser semelhante ao do Iluminismo, ao contrário do último reconheceu a primazia do sagrado, como a única verdade incontestável. Como para os seres humanos, também criados devem ser realizados, "tornar-se o que você é", afirmando que o neoplatônico Santo Agostinho chamou "o poder" - estar no poder. E ele foi o homem, na verdade, o "Subcreator" (nas palavras de John Ronald Reuel Tolkien) que consagrou lugares, fez-se sagrado, tornando o domínio do Ser brilhante, e participando da criação de Deus também na concepção agostiniana, na verdade, a única coisa que se possa imaginar está sendo a adesão (que é a revelação do Santo), onde o mal é profundo como forte é a sua separação. Mesmo hoje, arar a terra perpetuamente consagrada ao Divino de nossos pais, cujos espíritos, anjos e santos padroeiros intercedem porque não afundam no abismo da não-existência. A perene conquista do Mundo do homem tradicional, então passou através da socialização do próprio mundo. O desenvolvimento desta verdade metafísica foi implementada após a revelação de Cristo, no ideal de evangelização ou Jihad. Útil a este respeito é lembrar que, para o homem tradicional, sendo o mundo espiritual mais importante e mais "real" do que o material, a primeira batalha era travada arduamente para conquistar a nível interno, uma luta até a morte pelo assassinato de seu Ego: esse foi o simbolismo de que também tratava o Barão Julius Evola, a que esta reunião é dedicada, a Grande Guerra Santa (para São Bernardo de Claraval, um dos grandes mestres do monasticismo ocidental, que são inspirados pelos cistercienses e trapistas) ou o Grande Jihad (o profeta Maomé). A corrida espacial foi qualitativamente inferior à horizontal para vertical, a conquista de seu microcosmo, a sua transferência sobre o domínio de si mesmo do indivíduo: a sacralização de si mesmo. Como o Buda disse: ". Entre aquele que vence na batalha mil vezes mil inimigos, e apenas aquele que vence a si mesmo, este é o melhor dos vencedores de cada batalha" . Qualitativamente inferior, mas não menos importante, a conquista horizontal, que Eliade identifica com o landname da tradição germânica, foi o processo pelo qual o homem subtraíu lugares no domínio da água, sem forma, do escuro, para render-se ao domínio da forma, da terra, e da luz. Igualmente Eliade considerava que estes dois princípios arquetípicos existem não apenas no plano horizontal, mas também sobre o eixo vertical. O nível horizontal é expresso pelo conceito axis mundi, o eixo do mundo, o centro radical da realidade. É importante que o eixo do mundo é único para si mesmo, ou localizado em um lugar (poderia realmente existir ...) que pode ser verdadeiramente chamado de centro de todo o mundo. No Mundo da Tradição tudo é relativo e tudo é absoluto, porque é o completo domínio do símbolo. É no templo que o homem tradicional no centro de seu mundo, que é o templo axis mundi. Não poderia ser de outra forma, para todos aqueles que vivem na orientação ao Sagrado: O templo é o seu ponto de referência, como um lugar de encontro entre a terra e os céus. Mas o templo, sendo o eixo do mundo, não só tem o valor de Scala Coeli, a Escada aos Céus: ele também ligou o homem à polaridade oposta, o mundo do informe, as águas primordiais. Esta é a ambivalência simbólica entre os pináculos das igrejas e suas criptas. O templo é de forma que, ao mesmo tempo, permite que você suba ao céu e retenha a água. É uma função mística e exorcista.

É interessante ver que todos estes arquétipos tradicionais nós podemos encontrar também em um pensador substancialmente “laico”, embora pessoalmente muito religioso. Falamos do já mencionado católico alemão Carl Schmitt, uma das mentes mais agudas do século passado, a quem o estudo do direito e mesmo da geopolítica devem muito. Ele abordou o problema espacial/territorial em duas obras suas, que lembramos serem “O Nomos da Terra” e “Terra e Mar”, este último escrito na forma de conto. Ele identificava duas fases da história da Civilização, que chamava respectivamente terrestre e marítima, e que nós podemos associar facilmente ao Mundo da Tradição e o da Modernidade. Segundo Schmitt estas duas concepções não estão ligadas somente a limites históricos, mas também a vínculos territoriais. Este é o motivo pelo qual a concepção terrestre está estritamente ligada ao bloco continental europeu e asiático, enquanto a marítima remete à Grande Ilha, a anglosfera que define o bloco anglo-americano. A primeira concepção, a terrestre, é ligada substancialmente aos princípios tradicionais do Sagrado (que em sentido político, se transpõem na comunidade orgânica, na hierarquia, na legitimidade, e no domínio da Forma e da Política), a segunda ao invés prova ser a manifestação do profano (nas suas expressões sociais de individualismo, igualitarismo, no domínio do informe e na ausência da norma). É aqui que se demonstra claramente o quanto a contraposição da Terra consagrada e da Água está presente também no pensamento de Schmitt. Não é casual que a manifestação da modernidade ocorra gradualmente, por meio da descoberta progressiva do novo mundo. Este é um argumento que tem sido aprofundado, partindo da geografia sagrada, pelo professor Dugin, e disso falaremos mais tarde. A Norma se demonstra em Schmitt com a legítima apropriação do território por parte de uma comunidade humana, que acaba sendo precisamente a consagração da mesma: é aqui que retorna o conceito já citado de landname. O landname é válido, porém somente na estabilidade: é a estabilidade que garante a legitimidade da norma (pelo mesmo motivo pelo qual o não se ater ao ordenamento jurídico pré-existente durante uma revolução política não é considerado ilegítimo). É assim que o landname só possui sentido na perspectiva terrestre. Um dos personagens pelos quaiso pensador alemão foi mais influenciados foi o nobre espanhol Donoso Cortés, herdeiro do que foi o último baluarte contra o avanço do poder marítimo anglo-saxão, a Santa Espanha Católica. Cortés, diplomata europeu de imenso calibre, homem político sem igual e agudo pensador, conhecia bem a realidade das revoluções igualitárias de 1848 e os ambientes da Restauração, considerando que entreteve também uma correspondência com o chanceler Metternich. Nele, feroz opositor da deriva anárquica europeia, Schmitt vê o defensor por excelência da Norma, da Lei. Como Schmitt, também Cortés também estava a procura daqueles que poderiam deter o avanço do anticristo, o processo de decadência total, o kat-echon, um papel que na tradição russa é preenchido pelo Imperador, e ele o identificou (com ou sem razão) em Napoleão III. O próprio Cortés define a Inglaterra como “a Grande Meretriz” (ou seja, Babilônia), que, como é sabido, na simbologia apocalíptica indica a mãe do Anticristo. Schmitt destaca várias vezes, em “Terra e Mar”, a natureza genealógica que liga o Império Britânico aos Estados Unidos da América. A conexão resulta então muito simples, em pleno acordo com todos os movimentos de resistência à Nova Ordem Mundial, que veem nos EUA “o Grande Satã”. Na Itália há dois livros dedicados ao ensinamento antimundialista que se pode tirar do Barão Evola, um de Carlo Terracciano, conhecido e amigo do Professor Dugin, e o outro de Pietro Carini. A lição de Cortés, entre outras coisas, está ligada profundamente à obra majestosa do primeiro opositor da Revolução Francesa (etapa central do processo subversivo na Europa), Joseph de Maistre, embaixador da Savóia junto ao czar. Ele e seu irmão Xavier se comprometeram firmemente ao lado da Rússia na luta contra o jacobinismo, um no sentido político, o outro no sentido militar.

 

 

Na abordagem sacra ao estudo dos espaços, não é possível deixar de recordar o papel desempenhado pelo presente professor Aleksandr Dugin, uma importante mente de nosso século, que abarca da geopolítica à filosofia, da sociologia à metafísica. Ele, como bem explica em muitos dos seus textos, está profundamente empenhado em difundir através de suas obras o elo estreito e direto que existe entre a geopolítica e a geografia sagrada, partindo especialmente das teorias do geopolítico alemão Karl Haushofer, que, sob a guarda do alpinista e estrategista britânico Mackinder, teorizava a integração política e militar do bloco continental europeu e asiático (que ele chamou de Heartland – Coração da Terra), contra a integração igual e oposta da World-Island (a Ilha-Mundo anglo-americana). Não definindo com o termo guenoniano de “ciência sagrada” a geopolítica, o professor Dugin a enquadra no âmbito daquelas pseudo-ciências que, por não terem sido completamente racionalizadas, e preservando ainda um alto nível de generalizações, manteve vivos, ainda que inconscientemente, aqueles arquétipos tradicionais dos quais estamos tratando. Em seu texto “Da Geografia Sagrada à Geopolítica”, cujas teses confluíram sucessivamente no “Paradigma do Fim”, o professor indaga antes de tudo o significado simbólico dos pontos cardeais na contraposição geopolítica “leste-oeste” e sociológica “norte-sul”. Leste e Oeste, na dialética geopolítica do mundo bipolar, constituía claramente o binômio da contraposição mundial da guerra Fria, bem como dois modelos diferentes de abordagem da vida. Se de um lado o Leste representava a “geométrica ordem prussiana” socialista, o Oeste simbolizava ao contrário o modelo hedonista do capitalismo desenfreado. Com a queda da contraposição dos blocos, e a transição pouco estável ao mundo unipolar, essa diferença não tem sido aplacada, de fato, ela foi radicalizada. Se bem que aparentemente também o Leste do mundo tem sido influenciado pelos dogmas modernos do progresso e do crescimento econômico exponencial, não podemos deixar de notar como nele estão ressurgindo (acima de tudo graças à parcial independência geopolítica de que pode desfrutar) os modelos culturais fundamentais para uma restauração integral. A oposição Leste-Oeste, no pensamento duginiano, se revela como a manifestação da contraposição do Oriente e do Ocidente metafísicos, ou melhor, simbólicos: a eterna ambivalência do apolíneo nascer do Sol e de sua descida nas Águas ocidentais. Os termos do desafio entre os dois pólos se tornam a Ascensão e a Queda, o Nascimento e a Morte, Criação e Dissolução. Em vários textos o professor se ocupou também do significado simbólico do centro geográfico que animam este desafio titânico dos continentes. Em dois de seus trabalhos, publicados na Itália no volume “Continente Rússia”, editado em 1991, ele diz limpidamente como, em uma perspectiva sacral e simbólica, a Sibéria – centro do Continente – coincide em realidade com a Hiperbórea, e a América do Norte se corresponde ao invés com a mitológica Ilha dos Mortos, a “terra verde”, da mitologia egípcia, a segunda Atlântida, o local das práticas obscenas de cultos orgiásticos. A segunda contraposição polar se identifica ao invés com Norte e Sul que, em uma concepção profana de sublevação, representam a parte rica e a pobre do globo, Primeiro e Terceiro Mundo. Nós todos conhecemos o simbolismo que na vasta literatura tradicional permeia os Pólos, especialmente o Norte. O Norte, ponto superior do Eixo do Mundo, nada mais é que o ápice solar. O Norte representa a superabundância de riqueza espiritual, o estágio último da Ascese. O Sul (de um ponto de vista simbólico e não meramente geográfico representa o contrário. A mentalidade profana, que em tudo opera a derrubada satânica dos significados, imanentizando esta contraposição em um sentido puramente geográfico, a preencheu com o significado de riqueza e pobreza materiais. Na concepção tradicional o nórdico é aquele que retorna ao gelo, aquele que perde o elemento passional e egoístico “demasiado humano” e que transcende a dimensão humana pela heroica. Já o racismo branco anglo-saxão ou pan-germanista, levado ao ápice político pelo Império Britânico em sua escana colonial global, e pelo hitlerismo ideológico ao nível europeu, demonstrava os elementos fundamentais dessa inversão demoníaca, ainda que preservando, no segundo caso, alguns elementos simbólicos da Tradição. O próprio Barão Evola escreveu muito sobre a necessidade de formar e criar uma raça do espírito, uma elite de aristocratas do espírito. O neopaganismo hitlerista, ao qual o orientalista, historiador das religiões e ex-tenente da SS italiana Pio Filippani Ronconi deu a alcunha de “contra-iniciático”, transpôs tudo a um plano biológico, invertendo o problema.

 

Em nossa opinião, também a cessão do Alasca polar por parte da Rússia aos Estados Unidos, no século XIX, representa um passo em direção à queda do Oriente do Norte espiritual. Não se há de duvidar do fato de que, se o Alasca tivesse permanecido nas mãos do Império Russo, o movimento bolchevique, fortificado no Gelo Eterno, teria empurrados suas hordas aos próprios portões da Pátria do Capitalismo. A sorte histórica seguramente teria sido diversa. No entanto, “os caminhos do Senhor são infinitos”, e Ele opera de maneiras misteriosas.

A ideologia eurasiática revivida pelo professor Dugin, e adaptada ao contexto pós-soviético, representa um destes modelos culturais alternativos, radicalmente verdadeiros, com os quais combater arduamente a Decadência iminente, para ataca-la em seu coração, nas suas contradições mais profundas, e superá-la gloriosamente. Não há dúvida de que as ações do antimoderno atingirão o seu objetivo porque, como dito pelo Para Urbano II durante o Concílio de Clermont: “Deus vult!” – Deus o quer. A Eurásia-Rússia, perfeito centro do Continente, da Heartland, representa hoje um farol de esperança para o Oriente e para o Sul do Mundo, para os europeus orgulhosos de suas próprias tradições e não alinhados ao unipolarismo estadounidense, não só geopolítico, mas também cultural, e para todos os Povos livres que sofreram o martírio por parte dos emissários da Decadência. Penso, neste momento, no heroico povo sírio, uma cidadela de Luz, onde os filhos de Deus xiitas, católicos e ortodoxos estão lutando tenazmente contra as hordas inimigas. A Eurásia, núcleo de reconciliação dos polos, porta do templo de Jano, que se abre para gerar a Unidade do real, se mostra como o Eixo do Mundo global, o templo geográfico, o ponto de partida para o landname total, a sacralização completa do Mundo, a Era do Espírito de Joaquim de Fiore, o Reino do Ar de Carl Schmitt, a terceira concepção espacial.

AMEN.

Tradução por Raphael Machado e Álvaro Hauschild