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.

jeudi, 21 novembre 2019

La passion fusionnelle capitalisme-gauchisme

DCB-1.png

La passion fusionnelle capitalisme-gauchisme

Ex: http://www.zejournal.mobi

Hier, dans une présentation du texte sur la situation bolivienne, nous avions noté combien l’emploi de certains termes politiques courants au XXème siècle donnait une perception faussaire de la situation :
« Si l’auteur l’ignore, nous ne voulons pas pour notre part ignorer une seule seconde que “les progressistes”, incluant les forces sociétales et une part très importantes des gauchismes, ou “marxistes culturels” aux USA, sont de loin, de très loin au sein du bloc-BAO les meilleurs alliés, complices et frères de sang du Corporate Power, dit également woke capitalism...» (Woke capitalism ? “Capitalisme éveillé”, ou “capitalisme avancé” [politiquement, c’est-à-dire et communicationnellement “avancé” ; c’est-à-dire capitalisme doté d’un masque progressiste qui est quasiment l’équivalent d’une “conscience progressiste”, qui lui est gracieusement fourni par tant de fractions progressistes et gauchistes partageant les objectifs déstructurants et dissolvant du Système, – et le passage in extremis à l’emploi de cette dialectique Système-antiSystème étant dans notre chef extrêmement appuyée et intentionnelle.) »

... Notre exemple-type et institutionnalisé serait bien entendu Daniel Cohn-Bendit, autrefois plaisamment connu dans les salons et les antichambres des barricades sous le surnom de “Dany le Rouge”. Il fut si populaire qu’ils voulurent tous êtres des “juifs allemands” tandis que “Dany le Rouge” se tirait avec adresse et clandestinement de France au Luxembourg (le 28 mai 1968), couvert par l’actrice motorisée pour l’occasion (MG-B décapotable),  Marie-France Pisier qui croyait tourner un film de Godard.

(En fait, ce n’était pas du Godard : tous deux étant un peu lassés de la révolution, ils firent après leur escapade politique, « une escapade amoureuse » selon la délicieuse expression de la Bibliothèque Rose, de quelques semaines en Sardaigne.)

DCB2.jpeg

Aujourd’hui, Cohn-Bendit s’affiche comme un soutien affirmé du néo-libéralisme et de tout ce qui l’accompagne, un parfait exemple d’intellectuel-activiste partisan du capitalisme. A-t-il trahi la “révolution” ? Il affiche également, par son comportement, son aplomb, ses poses, ses convictions sociétales évidemment radicales et son caractère joyeusement supranational, le même entrain libertaire qu’on voyait chez “Dany le Rouge”. Aucune contradiction entre ceci et cela, aucune dissimulation, aucun jeu de rôle. Il est le parfait représentant d’une “passion fusionnelle” entre capitalisme et gauchisme ; on parle du capitalisme postmoderne qui se pare volontiers de vertus progressistes qui sont devenues sa marque de fabrique, c’est-à-dire du gauchisme postmoderne dont le courant libertaire s’exprimant essentiellement du point de vue culturel et sociétal est la plus juste référence postmoderne. 

Le professeur de Liberal Arts à l’université de New York de 2008 à 2019  Michael Rectenwald, auteur de neuf livres dont le plus récent, Google Archipelago, montre sa connaissance des mécanismes de communication postmodernes, a entrepris d’expliquer dans un article pour RT.com pourquoi le Corporate Power est devenu, notamment aux États-Unis et particulièrement dans sa politique générale de communication qui fait aujourd’hui l’essentiel de la posture politique et des engagements qui vont avec, sociétal-progressiste, – ou dit plus justement “est devenu ‘woke’”, selon le mot qui désigne dans le langage sociétal-progressiste cette posture fondamentale. (Le titre de l’article de Rectenwald : « This is the BIG reason why corporate America has gone woke (plus 4 more) ».)

DCB3.jpg

En termes US, particulièrement à la mode, il s’agit de l’attitude “wokeness” qui, dans cette science dialectique de la postmodernité, a remplacé le terme “cool” et son dérivé “coolness”. D’une certaine façon et si l’on mesure son emprise qui inclut désormais la toute-puissance capitaliste (le Corporate Power), il s’agit de la référence absolue de la structuration de surpuissance du Système. Le Monde , qui n’en manque pas une à ce propos de la fascination qu’il éprouve pour le Système et sa représentation opérationnelle terrestre que sont la dialectique sociétale et le progressisme du système de l’américanisme, nous en a donné il y a un an une appréciation  qui fait frissonner de plaisir les conversations des salons, lors des dîners du “parti des salonards” :

« Woke est dérivé du verbe to woke, « se réveiller ». Être woke, c’est être conscient des injustices et du système d’oppression qui pèsent sur les minorités. Ce terme s’est d’abord répandu à la faveur du mouvement Black Lives Matter (apparu en 2013) contre les violences policières dont sont victimes les Noirs aux États-Unis, pour ensuite se populariser sur le Net. »

Notre auteur Michael Rectenwald expose (en sens inverse dans son article, du n°5 au n°1) les cinq arguments qui expliquent la raison de cette fusion du capitalisme et du gauchisme-sociétal. Les quatre premiers exposés (du n°5 au n°2) sont des arguments de circonstances, qui relèvent d’une politique délibérée :
• les dirigeants postmodernes du Corporate Power sont eux-mêmes “woke”, comme l’on dirait des “enfants de mai 68” ;
• la clientèle la plus intéressante, la plus riche, la plus branchée-consommatrice, est elle-même “woke” (les pseudo-élites des côtes Est et Ouest aux USA, qui composent par ailleurs la clientèle principale du parti démocrate) ; le reste, ce sont les “deplorables” comme les identifia Hillary Clinton, et « les déplorables ont moins d’argent de toutes les façons et ils peuvent aller se faire voir s’ils n’apprécient pas le wokeness du Corporate Power » ;
• « Être woke coûte moins cher que d’augmenter les salaires des employés» : on s’affirme woke, on agit woke, on s’applaudit woke, on fait de la pub woke et tout le système de la communication, la presseSystème, Hollywood applaudissent et travaillent à la promotion des produits ainsi vertueusement fabriqués ;
• l’attitude “wokeness” agit comme un formidable argument face aux élites politiques, aux pressions des gouvernements et à tous leurs relais, terrorisés par tout acte qui paraîtrait mettre en cause un producteur de cette attitude-PC (Politiquement Correcte). 

DCB4GV.jpg

Puis l’auteur arrive au cinquième argument, qui est en fait le premier dans l’ordre de l’importance, qui englobe tous les autres et tranche décisivement la question de cette apparemment étrange fusion entre capitalisme et gauchisme.  (« Ci-dessous, je passe en revue certaines des explications possibles du capitalisme modernisé avec la tendance gauchiste du ‘Corporate Power’, – les cinq dans l’ordre inversé, de 5 à 1, –  quatre étant diversement convaincantes, et une [la n°1] étant la plus décisivement convaincante. »)

Michael Rectenwald nous explique alors pourquoi et comment le “wokeness” est si parfaitement constitutif de cette alliance entre la très-grand capitalisme globalisé et le gauchisme postmodernisé. Cette attitude postmoderne et sans précédent pour qui a l’habitude des classifications politiques classiques, représente en fait une synthèse (postmoderne, cela va de soi) de courants bien connus de cette attitude politique classique tout au long du XXème siècle. Il s’agit d’un recyclage massif de tout ce qui a échoué au XXème siècle, pris sous une autre forme, et donnant au capitalisme globalisé la clef d’accès à son rêve globaliste : c’est la victoire du marxisme (ou “marxisme culturel”) sur le capitalisme et la victoire du capitalisme sur le marxisme (ou “marxisme culturel”), – parce que, finalement, l’un est dans l’autre et inversement, puisqu’il s’agit finalement de la même chose, de la même nature, de la même ontologie-Système, puisqu’il s’agit enfin du Système lui-même...

« L’attitude dite-“wokeness” fait elle-même partie du capitalisme globaliste. La politique de gauche est parfaitement compatible avec les agendas des géants mondiaux de l'entreprise et les soutient. Les multinationales et les militants de gauche veulent les mêmes choses :
» • Le globalisme, – ou, en termes marxistes, l’“internationalisme”, – a toujours été un but de la gauche et il est devenu un but des entreprises multinationales. Les seconds élargissent leurs marchés et les premiers pensent qu'ils font avancer l'objectif marxiste du “Travailleurs du monde entier, unissez-vous !”.
» • Immigration sans restriction : Fournit une main-d'œuvre bon marché aux entreprises et donne aux gauchistes le sentiment d'être politiquement branchés et moralement supérieurs pour être des antiracistes qui accueillent tout le monde, –- quelle que soit leur race, leur religion, leur sexe ou leur orientation sexuelle, – y compris les membres de gangs mexicains qui vendent de la drogue et des enfants , – tout cela à la campagne, mais pas vraiment pour camper dans leur salon.
» • Le transgendrisme ou le polygendrisme, la pointe de la politique identitaire de gauche, est également bonne pour les affaires. Elle crée de nouveaux créneaux pour les produits d'entreprise, divise la main-d'œuvre et distrait les gauchistes par des arcanes et des absurdités quotidiennes.
» • Se débarrasser des nations, du genre stable, de la famille, de la culture occidentale et (pourquoi pas ?) du christianisme, –  la marque du “progrès” gauchiste et de la politique d'avant-garde, – favorise également les objectifs corporatistes mondiaux, éliminant tout obstacle à la domination mondiale des entreprises. »

Mais il y a un paradoxe à cette évolution assez rapide et qui s’est imposée avec une puissance inimaginable, de l’alliance entre le gauchisme (gauchisme-sociétal, pour parer cette mouvance des colifichets bling-bling des singularités humaines à caractère sexuel-absolument-libéré) et l’hypercapitalisme néo-libéraliste. Il s’agit de la position de forces marxistes de vieille souche, c’est-à-dire ces vieilles souches soi-disant inspiratrices de nos néo-révolutionnaires alliés au capital, qui restent redevables, à plus ou moins bon escient, et parfois même ridiculement mais qu’importe car seul nous importe le paradoxe, à cette fameuse doctrine. Ces vieilles forces marxistes qui ont gardé du marxisme ce qui leur importait, n’entendent pas une seconde y renoncer, et elles se font implicitement les plus virulents critiques de ces nouvelles forces gauchistes-sociétales, ou “marxistes-cultuelles”. Petite revue non limitative...

• La plus “pure et dure” de ces forces, parmi nos connaissances et nos fréquentations, est le siteWSWS.org de la IVème Internationale trotskiste, extrêmement bien documenté et très largement suivi et influent. Les trotskistes de WSWS.orgn’aiment pas qu’on leur rappelle que les neocons viennent du trotskisme, et de toutes les façons ils les considèrent comme des déviants pathologiques, des traîtres absolus servant d’avant-garde de l’impérialiste capitaliste et américaniste ; ils considèrent de toutes les façons qu’ils ont trahi le trotskisme. La fureur sinon la haine qu’ils entretiennent à l’encontre du gauchisme-sociétal, palpable dans la façon qu’ils dénoncent le mccarthysme des divers mouvements sociétaux type #MeToo et autres sphères de dénonciation du même type, est incommensurable. La défense furieuse qu’ils assurent du cas Julian Assange, victime expiatoire du Système et du gauchisme-sociétal et artisan d’un antiSystème héroïque, est caractéristique de cette position opposée complètement au néo-“marxisme culturel” complice de l’impérialisme.

 • Il y a l’exemple du communisme chinois, qui reste politiquement intraitable à la tête polkitique de cette puissance. Même si la référence marxiste est chez lui purement ornementale, son développement effréné du capitalisme ne nous paraît nullement aller dans le sens du Système, et même au contraire, jusqu’à laisser se développer une finalité qui fait de cette puissance un adversaire potentiel à mort du capitalisme dans sa composante gauchiste-libérale. En Chine, la dimension sociétale caractérisant le gauchisme du Bloc-BAO est traitée par le mépris le plus complet. Nous laissons de côté toutes les tares de l’hypercapitalisme qu’on retrouve chez les Chinois (corruption, immenses fortunes des oligarques) parce que c’est l’inévitable conséquence du Système imposant à tous ses tares, parce qu’enfin il nous paraît probable que cette dimension ne parviendra pas à subvertir la direction communiste, à moins d’un effondrement qui se placerait nécessairement dans le cadre d’un phénomène global et catastrophique d’effondrement emportant tous les rangements actuels pour nous amener devant des perspectives inconnues balayant toutes les analyses et tous les constats présents. 

• Le PC russe est un autre exemple de l’évolution d’un mouvement hérité du marxisme soviétique et qui s’est transformé en une force farouchement nationaliste et souverainiste.

dcb5liGV.jpg... Cette revue de détail nécessairement partielle et non limitative ne signifie en aucune façon qu’il existe, ou que va se créer un front vraiment “marxiste” contre le gauchisme-sociétal qu’on a tendance à assimiler au “marxisme culturel” pour le marier encore plus aisément à l’hypercapitalisme. (Leur “marxisme culturel” est un “marxisme de spectacle”, comme il y a la “société de spectacle” de Debord.) Seule importe cette position d'opposition très diverse à la passion fusionnelle capitalisme-gauchisme-sociétal, comme un socle continuel de critique, de mise en évidence et de dénonciation du simulacre capitalisme-gauchisme-sociétal.

Cela veut dire que l’alliance fusionnelle entre les gauchistes-sociétaux, ou “progressistes-sociétaux”, et l’hypercapitalisme/néolibéralisme est totalement, absolument faussaire par rapport à ses prétentions in fine doctrinales, et qu’elle draine tout ce qu’il y a de pire dans la production du XXème siècle parmi les forces qui ont survécu aux terribles soubresauts de ce siècle. Elle est totalement dépendante du Système, à la fois, enfant et idiote utile du Système, et elle connaîtra nécessairement son sort.  Elle est totalement de son temps catastrophique, et comme lui rangement pseudo-politique, faussaire et catastrophique, qui passera à la guillotine de la métahistoire.


- Source : dedefensa

mercredi, 23 octobre 2019

SJWs As Bourgeois Bolshies

Screen-Shot-2019-10-22-at-1.07.10-AM-554x579.png

SJWs As Bourgeois Bolshies

Illustration: LGBT Pride poster in Soviet Style (Design Boom)

I’m reading one of the best books I’ve ever seen, historian Yuri Slezkine’s The House of Government: A Saga of the Russian Revolution. It’s a massive — over 1,000 pages — history of the Bolshevik movement, focusing on the people who lived in a vast apartment building constructed across the Moskva River from the Kremlin, for party elites. In the 1930s, during the purges, it was the most dangerous address in the country. The secret police came for people there all the time.

sle.jpgThe book has given me a breakthrough in understanding why so many people who grew up under communism are unnerved by what’s going on in the West today, even if they can’t all articulate it beyond expressing intense but inchoate anxiety about political correctness. Reading Slezkine, a UC-Berkeley historian, clarifies things immensely. Let me explain as concisely as I can. All of this is going into the book I’m working on, by the way.

In my book, I identify two main factors that make the “soft totalitarianism” we’re drifting into different from the hard totalitarianism of the communist years. One is the vastly greater capabilities of surveillance technology, and its penetration into daily life in this current stage of capitalism. The other is the pseudo-religion of Social Justice, the holy trinity of which is Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion. The mathematician James Lindsay last year wrote an insightful essay analyzing Social Justice ideology as a kind of postmodern religion (“faith system,” he writes). Reading Slezkine on Bolshevism illuminates this with new depth.

To be clear, Social Justice religion is not the same thing as Bolshevism, which conquered a nation and turned it into a charnel house. But the psychological dynamics are so similar that I can understand now why Soviet-bloc emigres feel in their bones that something wicked is coming, and coming fast.

I’m going to give a brief overview of the ideas in this part of Slezkine’s book. Slezkine describes the Bolsheviks as “millenarian sectarians preparing for the apocalypse.” He gives a short history of apocalyptic sects, which he said began in the Axial Age, the period between the 8th and the 3rd centuries BC that saw parallel developments in civilizations — Chinese, Indian, Middle Eastern, Greco-Roman — that caused a fundamental shift in human consciousness. The Axial Age introduced some concepts that are still with us today, including the idea that history is linear. Religion and philosophical systems of the Axial Age developed a sense of separation from the Real (that is, what is material), and the Ideal (what is transcendent). They also introduced the idea that time would culminate in a final battle between Good and Evil that would result in the End of History and the everlasting reign of Justice. The rich will be conquered, and the poor will triumph.

Slezkine writes at some length about these themes in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), but points out that they also existed in parallel in other religions of the era. The two Abrahamic religions that emerged from Axial Age Judaism — Christianity and Islam — modified these same concepts for themselves. The Book of Revelation in the Christian Bible is the standard Western account of the Apocalypse, but not the only one.

In the 16th century, the radical Protestant theologian Thomas Müntzer, leader of an apocalyptic Reformation sect, led an armed revolt against the Catholic Church, Martin Luther, and feudal authority. He and his followers believed the Last Days were upon the world, and that revolutionary violence was necessary to prepare for them.

These movements, says Slezkine, often depend on the virtuous mutually surveilling each other to keep everyone in line. Calvin’s Geneva was like this, and had laws prescribing the death penalty for relatively minor violations of its purity code. In the 17th century, the English Puritan movement under Thomas Oliver [the mistake was mine — RD] Cromwell (the “Puritan Moses”) was in this same vein.

The Enlightenment birthed apocalyptic millenarianism without God. Slezkine doesn’t mention him, but I want to put in a plug for the book Black Mass by the English political philosopher John Gray, which I wrote about here. Gray is an atheist, but he cannot stand the militant atheism of people like Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens. In the book, Gray writes about how the instinct for utopia, born out of religion, keeps surfacing in the West, even without God. Nothing is more human, he writes, than to be prepared to kill and die to secure meaning in life. More Gray:

Those who demand that religion be exorcised from politics think this can be achieved by excluding traditional faiths from public institutions; but secular creeds are formed from religious concepts, and suppressing religion does not mean it ceases to control thinking and behaviour. Like repressed sexual desire, faith returns, often in grotesque forms, to govern the lives of those who deny it.

Slezkine writes that this same apocalyptic millenarianism erupted in anti-Christian form in the French Revolution. The Jacobins were Enlightenment apocalyptics, believing in the triumph of Reason, Science, and Virtue. And they were proto-Bolsheviks. Robespierre, in a 1794 speech to the National Assembly, praised “virtue, without which terror is destructive; terror, without which virtue is impotent. The Terror is nothing but justice, prompt, severe, inflexible; it is thus an emanation of virtue.”

In 19th century America, millenarianism took more gentle forms, but was still popular. Baptist preacher William Miller prophesied the end of the world in 1843, and reached a national audience with his forecast of doom. It didn’t happen, but his work gave rise to the Adventist movements, which are still with us today. Joseph Smith, founder of the Latter-Day Saints faith, was another millenarian — a more successful one.

Slezkine says that apocalyptic millenarianism in 19th century Europe often took the form of nationalism. Karl Marx advocated German nationalism as the first step in the worldwide communist revolution. Following Hegel, History was Marx’s god. Slezkine:

[F]aith in progress is just as basic to modernity as the Second Coming was to Christianity (‘progressive’ means ‘virtuous’ and ‘change’ means ‘hope’). ‘Totalitarianism’ is not a mysterious mutation: it is a memory and a promise; an attempt to keep hope alive.

By “totalitarianism,” he means the system by which apocalyptic millenarians enforce the conditions they believe will constitute the New Jerusalem — the utopia in which their sect believes.

The Marxist faith system prophesied a worldwide conflagration — Revolution — that would see the saints (the Proletariat) cleanse the world of the wicked (the Bourgeoisie) and their false religion (Capitalism). The Revolution would establish Communism: a paradise in which the state would wither away, because the cause of man’s alienation would have been dealt with. Marx despised religion, but he did not believe that his system was religious at all. It was, he taught, entirely scientific — thus making Marxism entirely compatible with what Enlightenment-era elites believed was the prime source of authority.

In Russia of the late 19th century, there was a great deal of apocalyptic fervor, and, of course, a number of Marxist and other left-wing revolutionary groups. The Bolsheviks were the most ruthless and disciplined of them all. Slezkine says it doesn’t matter whether the faith of the Bolsheviks was really a religion or not. The fact is, it functioned like one. If religion is a set of agreements about sacred realities, though sacred realities believed to be objectively true, and the community organized around those beliefs, then every state on earth is religious. The Bolshevik “faith” united people, focused them around what Slezkine calls “the ultimate conditions of their existence,” and told them what they had to do.

For the pre-revolutionary Bolsheviks, the priests and the prophets were their intellectuals, who were “religious about being secular.” Writes Slezkine: “A conversion to socialism was a conversion to the intelligentsia, to a fusion of millenarian faith and lifelong learning.”

The Bolshevik faith was initially spread among the intellectuals primarily through reading groups. Once you adopted the Marxist faith, everything else in life became illuminated. The intellectuals went into the world to preach religion to the workers. These missionaries, says Slezkine, appealed to and tried to intensify hatred in the hearts of their listeners. They spoke to the moral sense within the common people, and gave them what, if taken in a strictly religious sense, would be called prophetic revelations.

The pre-revolutionary Bolsheviks denounced “Philistines” — people who are sunk in their everydayness, and lack revolutionary consciousness. It is chilling to read the lines of description they had for people like this. Slezkine calls the Philistines the “stock antipode of the intelligent” — that is, the kind of person that a member of the intelligentsia saw as his exact opposite. In pre-revolutionary Russia, the intelligentsia saw themselves as a kind of secular priesthood. The way they wrote about their enemies, and the way they rhapsodized about revolution, was utterly fanatical and inhuman. Slezkine:

The revolutionaries were going to prevail because of the sheer power of their hatred. It cleansed the soul and swelled like the flood of the real day.

The “real day” is the day of Apocalypse, when the truth is fully made manifest, and all evil, injustice, and lies are cleansed from the earth. It would come about through “sacred fury.” Slezkine quotes Bolshevik memoirs recalling the revolutionary days of 1917-18. Pure ecstasy, like the day of Pentecost in the New Testament.

Slezkine draws this interesting distinction:

Marx and Engels were not utopians – they were prophets. They did not talk about what a perfect system of social order should be and how and why it should be adopted or tested; they knew with absolute certainty that it was coming – right now, all by itself, and thanks to their words and deeds.

The Bolsheviks, however, did have a complex plan for creating utopia. Reading Slezkine, you can’t help but be impressed by the power and discipline that Lenin and his lieutenants exercised. He was one of the most evil men who ever lived, Lenin — Slezkine’s accounts of Bolshevik mass murder of class enemies on Lenin’s orders make Robespierre’s bloodthirstiness seem like amateur hour. But he was a true revolutionary genius.

For young people in pre-revolutionary Russia, being part of these leftist groups “gave one a great sense of purpose, power, and belonging.” Note this: one reason for the advance of revolutionary consciousness is that parents, despite depending on the stability of Tsarist autocracy, would not turn away from their radicalized children. Slezkine: “The ‘students’ were almost always abetted at home while still in school and almost never damned when they became revolutionaries.”

Bolshevism in power tried to destroy the traditional family, seeing it as an incubator of capitalism. Slezkine writes about how this form of Bolshevik radicalism had to give way to a more conservative ideology of the family, because it caused problems that Soviet society could not deal with.

In power, Bolsheviks carried out apocalyptic destruction of the old order, including the mass murder of class enemies. I have just now arrived at the point in Slezkine’s narrative in which he describes the “Great Disappointment” — a term (borrowed from the Millerites) for the experience of the New Jerusalem not having arrived as promised. As I understand it, Slezkine will describe the homicidal spasms of the 1930s, under Stalin, as the vengeful Bolshevik reaction to utopia’s failure. Utopia can only have failed because its proselytes were weak in faith — and therefore deserve to be punished for their infidelity.

So, what does this have to do with our own Social Justice Warriors? There are clear parallels. Again, I encourage you to read James Lindsay’s analysis of the postmodern faith system of Social Justice for more.I believe that this is what those who lived under communism intuit from the Social Justice Warriors — I mean, why it frightens them:

Like the early Bolsheviks, the SJWs are radically alienated from society. They regard ordinary people as the intelligents regarded the so-called Philistines: with visceral contempt.

Justice depends on group identity. For Marxists, the line between Good and Evil ran between classes: the Proletariat and the Peasants on one side, the Bourgeoisie on the other. Marxism sees justice as entirely a matter of taking power away from the Bourgeoisie, and giving it to the revolutionary classes. Some in the bourgeoisie acquired revolutionary consciousness, and aided the Revolution.

Similarly, for the SJWs, the line also passes between groups, based on group identity. The Oppressors are whites, males, capitalists, heterosexuals, and Christians. The Oppressed are ethnic minorities, women, anti-capitalists, LGBTs, atheists, and other “marginalized” people. Justice is about taking power from the Oppressors and giving it to the Oppressed. Some among the Oppressors acquire revolutionary consciousness and aid the revolution; they are called “allies,” and practice “allyship.”

Social Justice Warriors, like the early Bolsheviks, are intellectuals whose gospel is spread by intellectual agitation. It is a gospel that depends on awakening and inspiring hatred in the hearts of those it wishes to induce into revolutionary consciousness. This is why it matters immensely that they have established their base within universities, where they can train those who will be going out to work in society’s institutions in ideologized hatred.

SJWs believe that science is on their side, even when their claims are unscientific. They are doing the old post-Enlightenment utopian trick of making essentially religious claims, but claiming that they are objectively true. Quote from a Times story: “We’re all born nonbinary. We learn gender.”

SJWs are utopians who believe that Progress requires smashing all the old forms for the sake of liberation. After we are freed from the chains that bind us, we will experience a new form of life. From a June 4 New York Times Magazine story on destroying gender binaries:

Our talk shifted again from the past to the future. Jacobs spoke about foreseeing a time when people passing each other on the street wouldn’t immediately, unconsciously sort one another into male or female, which even Jacobs reflexively does. “I don’t know what genders are going to look like four generations from now,” they added, allowing that they might sound utopian, naïve. “I think we’re going to perceive each other as people. The classifications we live under will fall by the wayside.”

Among the voices of the young, there are echoes and amplifications of Jacobs’s optimism, along with the stories of private struggle. “There are as many genders as there are people,” Emmy Johnson, a nonbinary employee at Jan Tate’s clinic, told me with earnest authority. Johnson was about to sign up for a new dating app that caters to the genderqueer. “Sex is different as a nonbinary person,” they said. “You’re free of gender roles, and the farther you can get from those scripts, the better sex is going to be.” Their tone was more triumphal: the better life is going to be. “The gender boxes are exploding,” they declared.

In the case of transgender SJWs, parents can become the greatest advocates for their children, as in pre-revolutionary Russia with the radical youth. A distressed parent of a female-to-male transgender told me that in her child’s high school, the pressure on parents from other parents to suppress all doubts about transgenderism was intense. Here, from that same NYT Magazine piece I quote above, is another anecdote:

Kai grew up in the Maryland suburbs outside Washington; both his parents are economists. He came out to them as genderqueer a year and a half ago, and they, as he put it, were willing “to step through the door” he held wide for them, the door into his way of seeing himself. They read a piece of creative writing he gave them, a meditation using Dadaism to explicate the nonsense of either-or. His mother asked if she could buy him new clothes. “Shopping for clothes was something we’d always done,” he said. “It was her way of saying, ‘I want to keep being part of your life.’ That was really stepping through the door. And then, all the nerve-rackingness of shopping in the men’s section of a department store and trying on pants and worrying about how people are looking at you and reading your gender, it would have been really hard to do on my own. But my mother was there. Just like when we’d shopped together before. And that made it normal.”

Here’s an interesting difference: from what I can tell, most SJWs don’t have a clearly envisioned utopia. What will the world look like when whiteness is once and for all defeated? When toxic masculinity has been fully vanquished? And so forth. They don’t know; all they know is that these things must come to pass, and will come to pass. We have to first destroy the old world and its corrupt structures. From the point of view of someone who stands to be smashed by these revolutionaries, it doesn’t really matter whether or not they have a plan for what to do after you’re overthrown.

Here’s another interesting difference, and an important one: SJWs may want to destroy the oppressive practices, but unlike the Bolsheviks, they don’t want to destroy the institutions of society. Rather, they want to conquer them and administer them. The religion of Social Justice has already conquered the university, as James Lindsay points out, and is moving quickly into other institutions: media (the NYT is its Pravda), law, tech, entertainment, and corporate America. The Social Justice faith system can be easily adapted by the institutions of bourgeois capitalism — a fact that conceals its radicalism.

The people who have lived in societies suffused with this kind of ideology — emigres from Soviet-bloc countries — can see through the veil. With this new book I’m working on, I’m going to do my best to help readers see through their eyes. Meanwhile, if you are really interested in the Russian Revolution, I strongly urge you to read The House Of Government — all 1,128 pages of it. Yuri Slezkine is a masterful storyteller. It reads like a novel.

mardi, 08 mai 2018

Zombies « antifas » et délires idéologiques

teaserbox_2468620120.jpg

Zombies « antifas » et délires idéologiques

par Dominique Baettig

Médecin, ancien conseil national (CH)

Ex: http://www.lesobservateurs.ch

Très peu de temps après avoir insulté, hué, incité à la haine, menacé, jeté des pierres contre les invités à la conférence de C. Blocher à Glovelier, les altermondialistes, antifas zombifiés ( morts vivants, programmés, selon des réflexes pavloviens, à combattre partout fascisme, racisme et autres concepts moralistes délirants selon leurs lunettes déformantes , tout ce qui n’est pas d’accord avec eux en fait !), redonnent dans le QJ un nouvel échantillon de leurs pratiques de harcèlement et d’interdiction du débat d’idées qui devrait pourtant être la marque de toute démocratie.

Le récit de Tina Leiser (une militante qui protège bien sûr les gentils migrants envahisseurs et  victimes de la haine des habitants autochtones) à Lesbos est hallucinant. On a peine à y croire, tant le récit descriptif des habitants locaux, en plein débarquement imposé, interdits de faire marcher le tourisme, se voyant imposés le droit à migrer sans discussion, abandonnés par l’Etat, piétinés par l’Union européenne, manipulés par les passeurs qui se moquent éperdument du chaos induit, est proche de la caricature. Pour les convictions délirantes des antifas, police politique qui se place en dessus du Droit, à la fois police de la pensée, pré-jugement expéditif ( sur des biais idéologiques) et bourreau habilité à frapper de manière préventive, les protestations des populations bousculées et dépouillées sont des manifestations de la « haine de l’Autre ». Elle cherche à neutraliser les victimes des chaos migratoires et criminaliser toute protestation.

L’affaire Théo, récemment en France était une illustration de cette manière de présenter des « fake news » qui ont eu la vie trop longue : des policiers accusés à tort d’avoir « sodomisé » un récalcitrant membre d’une minorité visible et donc forcément innocente. Ces terroristes, mélange de gardes rouges maoïstes et d’illuminés religieux (l’idolâtrie inconditionnelle et repentante du Grand Autre multiculturel) sont totalitaires et dangereux, sûrs d’eux-mêmes et convaincus de bénéficier de l’impunité. La manifestation antiBlocher n’était qu’un prétexte à houspiller des gens plutôt âgés, soucieux des inconvénients de la mondialisation et de la destruction, par remplacement, de leur monde qui disparaît. Ceux qui ont écouté la causerie de celui qui a , à l’époque,  en s’appuyant sur les principes de la démocratie directe, empêché l’intégration dans la machine libérale de l’Europe ont aujourd’hui entendu un discours très peu profilé : on ne peut pas faire grand-chose dit-il à ceux qui s’inquiètent des coûts de la santé, apprenez à être concurrentiels face à l’agriculture brésilienne répond-il à un agriculteur qui s’inquiète de la disparition des domaines agricoles, accueillons les forces de travail utiles à l’économie multinationale qui s’est installée ici pour bénéficier des conditions cadres propices à l’innovation. Rien sur les traités qui font perdre la souveraineté économique et politique de notre pays comme FATCA, TTIP, juste la promotion d’ initiatives politiciennes qui sont acceptées par le peuple certes mais engluées et dénaturés par la classe politique et parlementaire. Pas vraiment menaçant pour l’establishment. On peut facilement mesurer le fossé entre les fantasmes des altermondialistes et la réalité du pragmatique et libéral refondateur de l’UDC. C. Blocher est d’abord un entrepreneur avisé, un manager, qui sait s’offrir un soutien de légitimité populaire et s’appuie sur la théorie du ruissellement et de ses bienfaits indirects pour créer des emplois. C’est son droit.

Le vrai motif des antifas c’est de terroriser de manière préventive tous ceux qui s’inquiètent de la déferlante migratoire, qui veulent restaurer les frontières, garantes du cadre de la démocratie et de la souveraineté. C’est le péché fondamental, la « Haine de l’Autre » qui justifie haine préventive, terrorisme, intimidation, agression, harcèlement. Indigne d’une démocratie où chacun devrait pouvoir participer à une conférence, dialoguer, échanger des points de vue en toute sécurité. #MeToo, assez de violence, d’incitation à la haine, de diabolisation, de fantasmes, d’interprétations faussées de ceux qui croient qu’ils combattent le Mal, Sauron, le Diable en personne alors qu’ils sont les complices des passeurs, des nouveaux esclavagistes, des déconstructeurs du modèle social traditionnel et identitaire, des mondialistes de l’oligarchie financière et économique.

 

Dominique Baettig, 3.5.2018

vendredi, 17 février 2017

Y a-t-il un populisme de gauche ? Le cas de Podemos

podemos-españa.jpg

Y a-t-il un populisme de gauche ?

Le cas de Podemos

par Javier Portella

Ex: http://www.bvoltaire.fr 

Comment ce Michéa, qui voit juste en mettant dans le même panier « Hayek et Foucault », peut-il ne pas voir que Podemos, c’est du « Foucault » tout craché ?

« Tout mon livre doit être lu comme un soutien à la révolution culturelle accomplie par Podemos et aux combats des partisans de la décroissance ! » C’est ainsi que Jean-Claude Michéa – quelqu’un pour la pensée duquel j’ai la plus grande estime – s’exprimait l’autre jour lors de l’entretien accordé à Libération et où il était question de son dernier livre Notre ennemi, le capital. C’est curieux de constater la déférence avec laquelle les médias amis du capital accueillent la pensée iconoclaste, anti-système, de Jean-Claude Michéa ; lequel, loin de leur faire la moindre courbette, en profite, comme c’était le cas lors de l’entretien à Libé, pour décocher des flèches envenimées contre l’esprit libéral-libertarien que le journal incarne.

La raison la plus probable d’un tel accueil est sans doute… la plus bête aussi : c’est quand même de la « gauche » que Michéa vient, doivent-ils se dire, les bobos des rédactions ! Quoi qu’il en soit, le fait est que toute cette déférence médiatique ne va pas sans rappeler celle que les grands médias espagnols ont accordée à Podemos ; une déférence sans laquelle jamais le parti de ces jeunes gauchistes ne serait passé, dans l’espace de quelques mois, du néant où il était aux portes (encore closes) du pouvoir.

Mais la comparaison s’arrête là car, quelles que soient les illusions que Michéa se fait à l’égard de Podemos, il n’y a aucun rapport entre l’idéologie de ce parti et la pensée de ce grand penseur qui a mis nettement en lumière le rapport intime reliant le libéralisme de « droite » (le capitalisme, dans sa dimension économique) et le libertarisme de « gauche » (le même capitalisme sous son jour sociétal).

Comment Michéa, ce grand pourfendeur du nihilisme libertarien qui déracine tout à son passage, peut-il applaudir à la « révolution culturelle » accomplie par ceux qui ne rêvent que de dissoudre les restes d’identité nationale qui peuvent encore demeurer en Espagne, tout comme ils souhaitent en finir avec l’assujettissement des femmes frappées, aujourd’hui encore, prétendent-ils, par l’oppression patriarcale ? Qu’y a-t-il à admirer chez ces partisans de la théorie du genre qui se font les apôtres des revendications des associations de lesbiennes, gays, transsexuels et transgenres, sans oublier – c’est finalement là le plus important – que s’ils parvenaient au pouvoir, ils ne se borneraient pas à faciliter la vie de l’oligarchie en sauvegardant l’invasion migratoire que nos peuples subissent : les gens de Podemos adorent tellement la dissolution « multiculturelle » qu’ils seraient parfaitement capables d’organiser des ponts aériens pour aller chercher les migrants directement sur place.
 

MUJERES-facebook.jpg

Deux femens se sont enchaînées dans la cathédrale Almudena: un happening foucaldien de mauvais goût. Même si Foucault peut être qualifié de "nietzschéen", ce faux nietzschéisme n'est en tous les cas pas "apollinien"... 

Comment ce Michéa, qui voit juste en mettant dans le même panier « Hayek et Foucault », peut-il ne pas voir que Podemos, c’est du « Foucault » tout craché ? Sans doute ne le voit-il pas parce que si, sur le plan sociétal, Podemos tombe en plein dans la fange nihiliste, il n’en va pas de même sur le plan économique. Là, c’est vrai, son libertarisme ne rejoint nullement le libéralisme, les positions anticapitalistes de Podemos étant plus qu’évidentes – du moins sur le papier, car mille autres questions restent posées.

Il y a deux grands fronts, finalement, dans la lutte du peuple contre les élites de l’oligarchie : le front sociétal ou culturel, et le front économique. Lorsqu’on oublie, chez ceux qu’on appelle parfois « les populistes de gauche », leur déchéance nihiliste concernant l’invasion migratoire, la dissolution sexuelle, la négation de l’identité nationale, lorsqu’on ne retient que leurs « bonnes intentions » sur le plan économique, cela revient à considérer que, de ces deux fronts – et là, je ne pense pas qu’au seul Michéa –, il y en a un qui l’emporte décidément sur l’autre. Cela revient à considérer, en un mot, que l’argent et la bouffe sont toujours la clé du monde : son « infrastructure », comme l’appellent depuis toujours les marxistes – clé ou infrastructure qu’aucun libéral-capitaliste ne saurait, d’ailleurs, contredire.

Javier Portella. 

mercredi, 11 janvier 2017

La grande santé intellectuelle de Charles Robin

La grande santé intellectuelle de Charles Robin

par Pierre Le Vigan

Ex: http://metamag.fr

itineraire-gauchiste-repenti-charles-robin-editions-krisis.jpgDepuis quelques années, Charles Robin est connu pour travailler sur un sujet qui lui vaut quelques ennemis. Il s’agit de l’analyse philosophique du libéralisme. Il étudie le libéralisme en philosophe, ce qui n’est pas la même chose que d’étudier la philosophie libérale (qui a beaucoup évolué du reste).

Victor Hugo distinguait, sous la Restauration, un « libéralisme destructeur » et un « libéralisme conservateur ». Toute l’analyse de Charles Robin consiste à expliquer que le libéralisme ne peut être que destructeur s’agissant des liens sociaux non marchands. Le libéralisme ne peut pas être conservateur de ce qu’il y a de bon à conserver, comme les mœurs de dons et de contre dons des sociétés traditionnelles. Les conservateurs d’une certaine socialité décente et populaire ne peuvent donc pas être libéraux. Et cet écart critique au libéralisme ne peut être que global, à savoir qu’il s’agit de s’opposer au libéralisme économique mais aussi au libéralisme politique (en tant qu’il organise l’impuissance du politique) et sociétal (dont le fruit est le libéralisme libertaire).

Cette analyse de Charles Robin se situe dans la lignée de Jean-Claude Michéa et de Michel Clouscard – qui n’avait toutefois pas toute la rigueur du premier. Alain Soral a popularisé ces thèmes lui aussi sur Egalité et réconciliation. Plutôt que de discuter sur le fond des argumentations solides, étayées de références de Charles Robin, « on » a préféré l’isoler, le « discriminer » (sic) sur la base de ceux qui aiment à le lire, à le citer, à mettre en ligne ses conférences. Discrimination ? C’est le mot moderne pour éviter de parler d’injustice. Car il est injuste de mettre sur la touche Charles Robin parce qu’il ne pense pas dans les clous. Mais aussi parce que ses idées sont reprises par des sites numériques ou des maisons d’éditions dites « confusionnistes » (sic) voire « conspirationnistes ».

De fait, Charles Robin n’est « pas clair » au regard du système

Cela veut tout simplement dire qu’il n’est pas aligné et qu’il pense ce qu’il écrit en écrivant ce qu’il pense. Où irait-on si tout le monde faisait comme lui ? Il était temps d’y mettre le holà. Les gardiens du politiquement correct s’y sont attelés. Comme quoi le système existe bien et « fonctionne ». Il persiste dans son être. Il persévère dans son conatus, pour employer un langage familier de Charles Robin.

Qu’est-ce que on ne lui pardonne pas ? C’est que Charles Robin, puisqu’il pense vraiment que la gauche internationaliste est devenue la même chose que la droite mondialiste, le dit et refuse de se dire encore de gauche ou d’extrême gauche. Pour autant, il n’a pas rallié une quelconque droite extrême. Il fréquente les non-alignés, les journalistes indépendants. On peut présumer que dialoguer avec les gens d’Eléments ne veut pas dire être en accord avec toutes les lignes parues dans cette revue, mais c’est un fait que les revues ouvertes à la liberté d’expression se font rares. Elles sont d’autant plus précieuses.

Il faut donc lire et écouter Charles Robin là où on peut le faire et, pour l’instant, force est de constater que ce n’est pas sur le site de la fondation Jean Jaurès (fondation proche du P.S). Il faut travailler les textes de Jean Robin, les lire crayon en main. La matière de son dernier livre est riche. Les textes Etre cause de soi et Sagesse anarchiste sont particulièrement passionnants. Décidément, dans un monde formaté par le Capital, il faut être attentif aux marges de l’esprit.

Charles Robin, Itinéraire d’un gauchiste repenti, Krisis, 200 pages, 18 €

dimanche, 20 mars 2016

The Left is Inferior

revolutionaere_mai_demo_6.jpg

The Left is Inferior


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

The Left is Intellectually Inferior

While reading rightist (especially Alt-Rightist) literature or blogs I see a pervading conviction that the Left is intellectually superior to the Right. I think this conviction arises from the fact that most modern intellectuals are leftist, and that liberal academia and media distort the intellectual history of the West and pretend that it has always been this way. It is not true, and thanks to the work of various Alt-Right authors we know it. 

But the fact that most intellectuals are now leftists does not mean that most leftists are intellectuals. The leftists I have worked with are probably the cream of the crop who receive the most funding and occupy important positions in NGOs, academia, and other public institutions.

Let us just begin with the fact that most of what the Left believes — egalitarianism, the blank slate, cultural reductionism, radical constructivism, etc. — has been proven by scientists and thinkers to be untrue. To put it more straightforwardly: most beliefs of the Left are bullshit.

But leftists often don’t even know their bullshit very well. They know a few quotes — mostly mis-quotes of leftist authors that they have heard from their mentors — but often don’t read the actual books. And those few who read often have problems understanding them or putting them in context. Except for a few leftist professors I have encountered, it was usually I who had the best knowledge of leftist literature in the room.

Furthermore, leftists are the modern equivalent of puritans. They are just as fanatical. They consider other views to be heresy and the so-called “extreme right” as evil incarnate and the voice of the devil. Thus, they refuse to listen to what nationalists are saying. They often turn off the TV or literally cover their ears when nationalists appear in the media. They also refuse to read anything written by their opponents, as the words of Satan may corrupt your soul, and by talking with heretics you let Satan’s words spread and poison the world. Thus, leftists (apart from rare exceptions) don’t have a clue about any non-leftist literature and have a very perverted view of what we believe. And they take pride in being unwilling to change that.

The Right is much more interested in the Left and knows it far better than the other way around. The educated rightists I know have at least basic knowledge of leftist literature, and some are quite fluent in leftist ideas, which they consciously reject. Even the most educated leftists I knew (including those who claim to be interested in the history of ideas) know only basic memes about the Right perpetuated by the anti-racist/anti-white outlets.

The Left is Morally Inferior

Another myth on the Right is that many leftists are idealists who devote their lives to attaining leftist goals. It is true that some leftists are idealists and that some of them devote their time to realizing the goals of the Left. But for the most part,  leftist activists either get paid for what they do — by various municipal, national, international government agencies, and institutions — or they don’t really devote much of their time to activism. Most of the Left’s activism is limited to the internet, especially social media, and all the real-life political events are actually social events with an added political veneer. (All this, unfortunately, is also true in the case of the Right, but it is a totally different topic.)

The two examples of mythical fierce real-life leftist activism are the black bloc and the antifa. The black bloc seems to be a violent and effective street force, but in reality it is a joke infiltrated by undercover police agents. Some of their actions may seem spectacular, but this is just window smashing which does not cause any serious political change. The antifa are the pitbulls of political correctness, and just like the black bloc they can only exist because they are tolerated by the police or even used by certain forces within the system to realize their own aims. Especially in Eastern Europe they have not managed to achieve anything, and all their supposed victories were the result of the intervention of external agents, such as various government agencies or organized crime.

dette3.jpg

When you turn to non-violent activism, the Left is even more pathetic. Unmarried aging women meet in a cafe with some beta orbiters, where they bitch about their jobs, take a few pictures for posting on Facebook, proclaim they have organized another “seminar,” and then go outside to smoke a joint.

However, when money becomes involved, then the real face of Left’s morality is revealed. The leftists I have worked with had no reservations about wasting or simply embezzling money they have been entrusted by various agencies, for instance spending money earmarked for a project on a vacation, or even something as petty as collecting used bus tickets from friends then getting reimbursed for them as travel expenses. They believe that they are the best people in the world and that they deserve to get money from the dumb masses of inferior tax-payers. Now, you might wonder how I know this. Simple: leftists love to talk about themselves, and they take pride in such cleverness.

But why does nothing happen to them? Wouldn’t revealing such fraud be enough to deal the Left a deadly blow? Unfortunately not.

For one thing, there is little to no oversight. Grants are supposed to be awarded based on anonymous peer review by unbiased experts, but the whole process is corrupt. Vast sums are dispensed by non-anonymous, biased, non-experts. These are usually leftists deciding that other leftists are to be given money. Then the parties change roles, and the recipients of grants dispense money to the people who just sat in judgment over them. And exactly the same people oversee the realization of one another’s projects. It is a closed circuit of leftist money wasting.

And even when frauds are uncovered — as in the case of one activist who wasted project money on buying a car — nothing is made public, lest the taxpayers threaten to cut off funds. The agencies dispensing public funds have more to lose by being honest than by being plundered, so they cover everything up.

Another proof of the Left’s moral inferiority is their tendency to abuse and exploit young activists. They attract young idealists, especially students, and then use them to do all their dirty work. I see nothing wrong with demanding a lot from activists if you believe you are working for a greater cause. But if the senior leader gets money and does nothing while volunteers are doing all the dirty (and futile) work, then something is wrong. Often, they use the activists to do personal work, such as running errands or even redecorating their homes. A good case study is a local activist who asks volunteers from her organization to go with her on vacation — she does not pay for them, of course — so they can watch her kids while she gets drunk.

I know that discussing personal issues of other people seems improper, but on the other hand it lets us know exactly who we are dealing with. Among the leftists I know, there are very few people who have happy marriages or families. Most of them are very hedonistic and narcissistic, thus they are unmarried, divorced, and usually have no kids. They are most often people of low moral character, who have no reservations about using every little occasion for some personal gain or pleasure: embezzling funds, getting drunk instead of working, or cheating on their spouses or partners. Another case study: a married middle-aged woman with young children who used various projects as a pretext to go to bed with her younger co-workers which resulted in a bitter divorce.

Furthermore, the supporters of the Left are not really willing to sacrifice anything. In most cases they only claim to support the movement, but when it comes to financial support or actually doing something, most of them suddenly disappear. In the cases I know the leftists either have no funds or the money comes from various government agencies or international organizations and corporations. The only idealists are the young volunteers, although in many cases they are just normies who want to “do something” but don’t really have a clue about politics. But they soon become disillusioned. Or they become greedy immoral professional activists themselves.

The Left is not United

Rose fanée 1.jpgIt is a common myth on the Right, that while the rightists are divided, the leftists have clearly defined goals and are struggling together to achieve them. While I do agree that the Left has more common goals (privileges for sexual, religious, and ethnic minorities, the destruction of ethnically homogeneous countries and nations, etc.) I do not agree that the Left is united in realizing these aims. When it comes to issues of the hierarchy of these goals, the means of achieving them, or leadership, they are just as divided as the Right, or even more.

First of all, the Left is divided on which of these goals are more important. A good case study is the recent wave of Muslim violence against women in Europe. The question is what is more important for the Left: the rights of women or the rights of ethnic and religious minorities? The most popular strategy so far was to criticize Muslim misogyny in predominantly Muslim countries and to criticize “Islamophobia” in non-Muslim countries. However, now that the Muslim war on women has come to Europe, this issue has become much more complicated. Yes, many feminists have joined this real war on women, as they hate Europeans more than they love “the second sex.” But there are many leftists who disagree with this strategy. They believe that Muslims are no exception and that they should be forced to live according to leftist cultural norms. The list of such problems goes on and on. What comes first: workers’ rights or LGBTQ rights? What should the Left focus on: the economy or culture? Should the Left criticize popular culture or use it to spread its agenda?

Secondly, the Left is divided on the question of the means of achieving its aims. The issues of entryism, political violence, internet and real life activism, gaining funds, or cooperating with the government are all controversial. Again, there are no simple answers to these questions among the Left. Instead they operate in total chaos, do what seems possible at the moment, and often change their strategies. Thus their means often conflict, leading leftist organizations to oppose and cancel each other’s actions.

Thirdly, there is the problem of leadership. The Left is comprised of extremely narcissistic individuals, each of whom believes that he or she could become the glorious leader of a globalized world. Thus, every organization strives to dominate the movement, and every member strives to dominate his or her organization. The effect is a myriad of small organizations in a state of constant cold war with each other. It is very difficult for leftists to form a coalition, and most of their cooperation ends after a short time due to the differences mentioned above. The only thing that keeps up long-term collaborations is steady stream of external funds. Although money can also be a source of conflicts, and squabbles over the division of government funds have brought many leftist initiatives to an end.

The Left is far from a “let a thousand flowers bloom” strategy. It is more of a “let a thousand knives stab a comrade’s back” strategy. You think the Right is sick with sectarian infighting? Just talk to a drunk leftist who presumes you are on his side. Or browse the polemics in the comments sections or social media profiles of some edgy leftist publications. They really hate each other. Although I don’t think the Right so far has been able to use this infighting to its advantage.

The Left is Weak

All these experiences and reflections lead me to one conclusion: the Left is weak. It is a lifeless zombie which is kept going only by transfusions of money from the system it claims to oppose. The impotence of the Left is especially visible when contrasted with the vigor of the Alt Right. There is not one sect among the contemporary Left that is equally intellectually interesting.

During my years on the Right I have met some kooks and awful people that I try to avoid at all costs. But on the other hand, the best people I have met — and who proved to be my best friends — are mostly from the nationalist Right. There is not one leftist I have worked with that I would want to spend any amount of my free time with or that I know would be willing to help or support me in any way.

I am sure that if the Left were the object of the kind of hate campaigns directed at us, most of them would lose their nerve and simply quit. The nationalist Right is much harder due to years of more or less explicit persecution.

In my opinion, if we seize power — or rather, when we seize power — the white Left will not be an important opponent. Sure, they will start a moral panic. They will try to “do something.” But they will be nothing more than dogs yapping at a marching battalion. I am far more afraid of the state and its police agencies, organized crime, and ethnic minority groups, all of which will not hesitate to torture and kill us to cling to their power.

Nevertheless, the Left is an opponent that we will have to deal with. We have to use their weaknesses against them, especially their greed and opportunism. Once government and international funds are cut off from the Left, many people will just stop associating with them. Many of these people can be “bribed” into obedience. If young people are offered real jobs with real salaries doing real social work, they will not volunteer for leftist activism. When it comes to hardcore leftists, many can be discredited, fired, and even imprisoned by exposing their corruption and personal abuses. The few fanatics that would remain at large can be silenced, marginalized, and ignored just as we rightists are under the present regime. 

The Left is Evil

Leftists really hate us. And by “us” I mean not just White Nationalists but all people of European descent who are not ashamed of their past. For instance, I talked with one of the young leftists I used to work with right after some nationalists managed to block a leftist event. She was obviously upset and devolved into an anti-nationalist rant. When I naively asked: “What exactly do these rightists advocate?” her reply was: “Well, of course they want to exterminate all minorities and their supporters. Like Hitler.” When I asked if she advocated killing nationalists in concentration camps like in the USSR or North Korea, the answer was that although these were fascist and nationalist states (sic!), some of their policies could be used to advance a good cause. Bear in mind that this was not a hardcore communist or antifa fighter but a liberal New Leftist and college social activist. Other interesting leftist political confessions include: children of conservatives should be taken away for adoption by homosexual couples, we should introduce a 100% inheritance tax and use the money to support leftist organizations, our fatherlands should no longer exist as a states, we should ban and burn all right-leaning books, etc.

I repeat: the Left really hates us. They consider us vermin that need to be exterminated by any means necessary. And they would kill us all, if only they had the power to do so. But they don’t. They are inferior, intellectually and morally, and largely ineffectual. I am not saying that we should ignore the Left. They are our true enemy, and this will not change. But they can be defeated. They can be disempowered, marginalized, and silenced. All of their work can be undone. We just have to decide when and how to strike. And we must not hesitate to strike with all necessary force once the time is right.

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

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2016/03/the-left-is-inferior/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/NazisWatchOut.jpg

mercredi, 30 octobre 2013

Briser l'influence du gauchisme culturel...

 

france,gauchisme,idéologie dominante

Briser l'influence du gauchisme culturel...

par Jean-Pierre Le Goff

Ex: http://metapoinfos.hautetfort.com/

Vous pouvez découvrir ci-dessous un point de vue de Jean-Pierre Le Goff, cueilli dans le quotidien Le Monde et consacré à l'emprise du gauchisme culturel sur le gouvernement socialiste.

Jean-Pierre Le Goff est sociologue et a publié de nombreux essais, dont La gauche à l'épreuve 1968 - 2011 (Tempus, 2012) et La fin du village (Gallimard, 2012).

Briser l'influence du gauchisme culturel

Ce qu'on appelle l'affaire Leonarda a fait apparaître une nouvelle fois l'opposition qui existe depuis longtemps entre une gauche politique et sociale et un gauchisme sociétal qui s'est approprié le magistère de la morale. Ce dernier accentue la coupure de la gauche avec les couches populaires et mine sa crédibilité. En refusant de rompre clairement avec ce courant, la gauche au pouvoir récolte les fruits amers de ce qu'elle a semé.

Des représentants du gauchisme sociétal appellent les lycéens à reprendre la lutte, multiplient les leçons de morale envers le gouvernement et un peuple considéré comme des "beaufs" fascisants. Par un paradoxe historique et la grâce électorale du Parti socialiste, certains, toujours prompts à jouer la société contre l'Etat, à considérer l'idée de nation comme xénophobe et ringarde, se retrouvent ministres et représentants de la nation. De nouveaux moralistes au pouvoir entendent éradiquer les mauvaises pensées et comportements en changeant les mentalités par la loi. Ils sont relayés par des militants et des associations qui pratiquent la délation, le lynchage médiatique et multiplient les plaintes en justice. La France vit dans un climat délétère où l'on n'en finit pas de remettre en scène les schémas du passé : "lutter contre le fascisme" toujours renaissant, "faire payer les riches" en se présentant comme les porte-parole attitrés des pauvres, des exclus et des opprimés de tous les pays du monde, en développant un chantage sentimental et victimaire contre la raison.

La confiance dans les rapports sociaux, la liberté d'opinion et le débat intellectuel s'en trouvent profondément altérés. Le chômage de masse, l'érosion des anciennes solidarités collectives et les déstructurations identitaires qui touchent particulièrement les couches populaires paraissent hors champ de ce combat idéologique entre le camp du progrès revisité et l'éternelle réaction. Des pans entiers d'adhérents, de sympathisants ou d'ex-militants ne se reconnaissent pas dans les camps ainsi tracés, tandis que le désespoir social gagne chaque jour du terrain. Ils désertent et s'abstiennent, quand ils ne sont pas tentés par les extrêmes pour exprimer leur protestation.

Dans une situation où les tensions s'exaspèrent, le cynisme et les calculs politiciens décrédibilisent la parole politique et la puissance publique. Quand l'Etat devient à ce point incohérent, la société se morcelle et le débat tourne à la confusion. Le plus surprenant en l'affaire est la légèreté avec laquelle on dénie cette réalité en pratiquant la langue de caoutchouc pour dire tout et son contraire avec aplomb.

UN PAYS EN PERTE D'ESTIME

La gauche au pouvoir est en panne de projet et de vision : elle n'en finit pas d'essayer tant bien que mal de réduire la dette et les fractures sociales et fait du surf sur les évolutions sociétales problématiques, en essayant de satisfaire les intérêts contradictoires de sa majorité et de ses clientèles électorales. La perspective difficile d'une inversion de la courbe du chômage, outre son caractère incertain, ne peut être le remède miracle au mal-être français. Les fractures sont à la fois sociales et culturelles. Le roman national est en panne, écrasé entre une version pénitentielle de notre histoire et un avenir indéterminé au sein d'une Union européenne qui pratique la dérégulation et ne parvient pas à maîtriser les flux migratoires.

Un pays qui ne sait plus d'où il vient et où il va perd l'estime de lui-même. Il faut aborder les questions qui dérangent en dehors des tabous et des invectives : quel rapport la gauche entretient-elle aujourd'hui avec la nation ? Les références éthérées à l'Europe et aux droits de l'homme ne peuvent tenir lieu de réponse à cette question ; l'attachement au modèle social ne peut suffire. Qu'en est-il de ce "cher et vieux pays" au sein de l'Union européenne et dans le monde ? La gauche devrait expliquer de façon cohérente et crédible le sens qu'elle donne désormais à la République face aux groupes de pression qui font valoir leur particularité ethnique, communautaire ou religieuse en considérant la laïcité comme discriminatoire.

La question n'est pas celle de maintenir à tout prix une majorité divisée sur des questions essentielles, mais de la crédibilité de la puissance publique et de l'unité du pays dans la période difficile qu'il traverse. Un tel enjeu suppose d'en finir avec la pratique de la " synthèse" et ses salmigondis, de trancher le nœud gordien entre l'angélisme et le sens de l'Etat qui enserre la gauche au pouvoir et l'entraîne vers la débâcle. L'affaire Leonarda en aura été l'occasion manquée. C'est l'avenir d'une gauche républicaine et sociale, attachée à l'état de droit, respectueuse des libertés d'opinion et du débat intellectuel, qui est désormais en question.

Jean-Pierre Le Goff (Le Monde, 25 octobre 2013)

 

france,gauchisme,idéologie dominante


mercredi, 23 octobre 2013

Herbert Marcuse and the Tolerance of Repression

herbert-marcuse.jpg

Herbert Marcuse and the Tolerance of Repression 1

by Keith Preston

Ex: http://www.attackthesystem.com

“I am not bound to defend liberal notions of tolerance.” –Left-wing anarchist activist to the author

The rise of the New Left is typically considered to have its origins in the student rebellions of the late 1960s and early 1970s when the war in Vietnam was at its height and cultural transformation was taking place in Western countries with dizzying rapidity. Yet scholars have long recognized that the intellectual roots of the New Left were created several decades earlier through the efforts of the thinkers associated with the Institute for Social Research (commonly known as the “Frankfurt School”) to reconsider the essence of Marxist theory following the failure of the working classes of Western Europe to produce a socialist revolution as orthodox Marxism had predicted.

The support shown for their respective national states by the European working classes, and indeed by the Socialist parties of Europe themselves, during the Great War which had broken out in 1914 had generated a crisis of faith for Marxist theoreticians. Marx had taught that the working classes had no country of their own and that the natural loyalties of the workers were not to their nations but to their socioeconomic class and its material interests. Marxism predicted a class revolution that would transcend national and cultural boundaries and regarded such concepts as national identity and cultural traditions as nothing more than hollow concepts generated by the broader ideological superstructure of capitalism (and feudalism before it) that served to legitimize the established mode of production. Yet the patriotic fervor shown by the workers during the war, the failure of the workers to carry out a class revolution even after the collapse of capitalism during the interwar era, and the rise of fascism during the same period all indicated that something was amiss concerning Marxist orthodoxy. The thinkers of the Frankfurt School sought to reconsider Marxism in light of these events without jettisoning the core precepts of Marxism, such as its critique of the political economy of capitalism, alienation, and the material basis of ideological hegemony.

The Institute attracted many genuine and interesting scholars some of whom were luminaries of the unique and fascinating German intellectual culture of the era of the Weimar Republic. Among these were Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Otto Kirchheimer, Franz Neumann, and Erich Fromm. But the thinker associated with the Institute who would ultimately have the greatest influence was the philosopher and political theorist Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979). The reach of Marcuse’s influence is indicated by the fact that during the student uprisings in France during 1968, which very nearly toppled the regime of Charles De Gaulle, graffiti would appear on public buildings with the slogan: “Marx, Mao, Marcuse.” Arguably, there was no intellectual who had a greater impact on the development of the New Left than Marcuse.

When the Nazis came to power in 1933, Marcuse and other members of the Frankfurt School immigrated to the United States and reestablished the Institute at Columbia University in New York City. Marcuse became a United States citizen in 1940 and during World War Two was employed by the Office of War Information, Office of Strategic Services (the forerunner to the Central Intelligence Agency), and the U.S. Department of State. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, Marcuse was a professor of political theory at Columbia, Harvard, Brandeis, and the University of California at San Diego. During his time in academia, Marcuse continued the efforts to revise Marxism in light of the conditions of an industrially advanced mid-twentieth century society. One of his most influential works was an effort to synthesize Marx and Freud, Eros and Civilization, published in 1955, and One Dimensional Man, a critique of the consumer culture of the postwar era and the integration of the traditional working classes into the consumer culture generated by capitalism. Both of these works became major texts for the student activists of the New Left.

Because of his legacy as an intellectual godfather of the New Left and the radical social movements of the 1960s and 1970s generally, Marcuse is not surprisingly a rather polarizing figure in contemporary intellectual discourse regarding those fields where his thinking has gained tremendous influence. Much of the curriculum of the humanities departments in Western universities is essentially derived from the thought of Marcuse and his contemporaries, particularly in sociology, anthropology, gender studies, ethnic studies, and studies of sexuality, but also in history, psychology, and literature. It is quite certain that if Marcuse and his fellow scholars from the Frankfurt School, such as Adorno and Horkheimer, were still alive today they would no doubt be regarded as god-like figures by contemporary leftist academics and students. From the other end of the political spectrum, many partisans of the political right, traditionalists, religious fundamentalists, nationalists, and social conservatives regard Marcuse as the personification of evil. Because the legacy of Marcuse’s work is so controversial and polarizing, it is important to develop a rational understanding of what his most influential ideas actually were.

Although he remained a Marxist until his death, Marcuse was never an apologist for the totalitarian regimes that had emerged in Communist countries. Indeed, he wrote in defense of dissidents who were subject to repression under those regimes, such as the East German dissident Rudolph Bahro. Marcuse considered orthodox Marxism as lacking concern for the individual and criticized what he regarded as the insufficiently libertarian character of Marxism. Like many associated with the New Left, he often expressed a preference for the writings of the younger Marx, which have a humanistic orientation inspired by the idealism of nineteenth century utopian socialism, as opposed to the turgid and ideologically rigid writings of the elder Marx. The thinkers of the Frankfurt School had also been influenced by the Weberian critique of the massive growth of bureaucracy in modern societies and strongly criticized the hyper-bureaucratic tendencies of both capitalist and communist countries as they were during the Cold War period.

Marcuse regarded the consumer culture that emerged during the postwar economic boom as representing a form of social control produced and maintained by capitalism. According to Marcuse, capitalist productivity had grown to the level where the industrial proletariat was no longer the impoverished wage slaves of Marx’s era. Economic growth, technological expansion, and the successes of labor reform movements in Western countries, had allowed the working classes to achieve a middle class standard of living and become integrated into the wider institutional framework of capitalism. Consequently, workers in advanced industrial societies no longer held any revolutionary potential and had become loyal subjects of the state in the same manner as the historic bourgeoisie before them. This by itself is not an original or even particularly insightful observation. However, Marcuse did not believe that the rising living standards and institutional integration of the working classes represented an absence of exploitation. Rather, Marcuse felt that the consumer culture made available by affluent industrial societies had multiple deleterious effects.

First, consumer culture had the effect of “buying off” the workers by offering them a lifestyle of relative comfort and material goods in exchange for their continuing loyalty to capitalism and indifference to struggles for social and political change. Second, consumer culture created a kind of a false consciousness among the public at large through the use of the advertising industry and mass media generally to inculcate the values of consumerism and to essentially create unnecessary wants and perceived needs among the population. The effect of this is that people were working more than they really needed to sustain themselves in order to achieve the values associated with consumer culture. This created not only the psychological damaging “rat race” lifestyle of the competitive capitalist workforce and marketplace, but generated excessive waste (demonstrated by such phenomena as “planned obsolescence,” for example), environmental destruction, and even imperialist war for the conquest of newer capitalist markets, access to material resources, and the thwarting of movements for self-determination or social change in underdeveloped parts of the world. Third, Marcuse saw a relationship between the domination of consumer culture and the outlandishly repressive sexual mores of the 1950s era (where the term “pregnant” was banned from American television, for instance). According to Marcuse, the consumerist ethos generated by capitalism expected the individual to experience pleasure through material acquisition and consumption rather than through sexual expression or participation. The worker was expected to forgo sex in favor of work and channel libidinal drives into consumerist drives. Material consumption was the worker’s reward for avoiding erotic pleasure. For this reason, Marcuse regarded sexual expression and participation (what he famously called “polymorphous perversity”) as a potential force for the subversion of the capitalist system. As the sexual revolution grew in the 1960s, student radicals would champion this view with the slogan “make love, not war.”

As the working class had ceased to be a revolutionary force, Marcuse began to look to other social groups as potentially viable catalysts for radical social and political change. These included the array of the traditionally subordinated, excluded, or marginalized such as racial minorities, feminists, homosexuals, and young people, along with privileged and educated critics of the status quo such as radical intellectuals. Marcuse personally outlined and developed much of the intellectual foundation of the radical movements of the 1960s and exerted much personal influence on leading figures in these movements. The Black Panther figure Angela Davis and the Youth International Party (“Yippie”) founder and “Chicago Seven” defendant Abbie Hoffman had both been students of Marcuse while he taught at Brandeis. However, it would be a mistake to regard Marcuse as having somehow been a leader or founder of these movements. Marcuse did not so much serve as a radical leader during the upheavals of the 1960s and 1970s as much as he was an interpreter of social and political currents that were then emerging and a scholar who provided ideas with which discontented thinkers and activists could identify. It is often argued by some on the political right that the thinkers of the Frankfurt School hatched a nefarious plot to destroy Western civilization through the seizure and subversion of cultural institutions. This theory suggests that radical Marxists came to believe that they must first control institutions that disseminate ideas such as education and entertainment in order to remove the false consciousness previously inculcated in the masses by capitalist domination over these institutions before the masses can achieve the level of radical consciousness necessary to carry out a socialist revolution. Those on the right with an inclination towards anti-Semitism will also point out that most of the luminaries of the Frankfurt School, such as Marcuse, were ethnic Jews.

Yet the cultural revolution of the 1960s and 1970s was the product of a convergence of a vast array of forces. The feminist revolution, for instance, had as much to do with the integration of women into the industrial workforce during World War Two while the men were absent fighting the war and the need for an ever greater pool of skilled workers in an expanding industrial economy during a time of tremendous technological advancement and population growth as it does with the ambitions of far left radicals. The real fuel behind the growth of the youth and student movements of the 1960s was likely the war in Vietnam and the desire of many young people of conscription age to avoid death and dismemberment in a foolish war in which they had no stake. The sexual revolution was made possible in large part by the invention of the birth control pill and the mass production of penicillin which reduced the health and social risks associated with sexual activity. The racial revolution of the era was rooted in centuries old conflicts and struggles that had been given new impetus by growing awareness of the excesses which occurred during the Nazi period. The heightened interest in environmental conservation, concerns for populations with serious disadvantages (such as the disabled or mentally ill), increased emphasis on personal fulfillment and physical and psychological health, and concern for social and political rights beyond those of a purely material nature all reflect the achievements and ambitions of an affluent, post-scarcity society where basic material needs are largely met. Suffice to say that the transformation of an entire civilization in the space of a decade can hardly be attributed to the machinations of a handful of European radicals forty years earlier.

herbmar111.jpgThere is actually much of value in the work of the Frankfurt School scholars. They are to be commended for their honest confrontation with some of the failings and weaknesses of Marxist orthodoxy even while many of their fellow Marxists continued to cling uncritically to an outmoded doctrine. Marcuse and his colleagues are to be respected for their skepticism regarding the authoritarian communist states when many of their contemporaries, such as Jean Paul Sartre, embraced regimes of this type with appalling naivete. The critique of consumer culture and the “culture industry” offered by Marcuse, Horkheimer, and others may itself be one-dimensional and lacking in nuance at times, but it does raise valid and penetrating questions about a society that has become so relentlessly media-driven and oriented towards fads and fashions in such a “bread and circuses” manner. However, while Marcuse was neither a god nor a devil, but merely a scholar and thinker whose ideas were both somewhat prescient and reflective of the currents of his time, there is an aspect to his thought that has left a genuinely pernicious influence. In 1965, Marcuse published an essay titled, “Repressive Tolerance,” which foreshadows very clearly the direction in which left-wing opinion and practice has developed since that time.

The essay is essentially an argument against the Western liberal tradition rooted in the thinking of Locke, with its Socratic and Scholastic precedents, which came into political reality in the nineteenth century and which was a monumental achievement for civilization. In this essay, Marcuse regurgitates the conventional Marxist line that freedom of opinion and speech in a liberal state is a bourgeois sham that only masks capitalist hegemony and domination. Of course, there is some truth to this claim. As Marcuse said:

But with the concentration of economic and political power and the integration of opposites in a society which uses technology as an instrument of domination, effective dissent is blocked where it could freely emerge; in the formation of opinion, in information and communication, in speech and assembly. Under the rule of monopolistic media – themselves the mere instruments of economic and political power – a mentality is created for which right and wrong, true and false are predefined wherever they affect the vital interests of the society. This is, prior to all expression and communication, a matter of semantics: the blocking of effective dissent, of the recognition of that which is not of the Establishment which begins in the language that is publicized and administered. The meaning of words is rigidly stabilized. Rational persuasion, persuasion to the opposite is all but precluded.

Marcuse proceeds from this observation not to advocate for institutional or economic structures that might make the practical and material means of communication or expression more readily available to more varied or dissenting points of view  but to attack liberal conceptions of tolerance altogether.

These background limitations of tolerance are normally prior to the explicit and judicial limitations as defined by the courts, custom, governments, etc. (for example, “clear and present danger”, threat to national security, heresy). Within the framework of such a social structure, tolerance can be safely practiced and proclaimed. It is of two kinds: (i) the passive toleration of entrenched and established attitudes and ideas even if their damaging effect on man and nature is evident, and (2) the active, official tolerance granted to the Right as well as to the Left, to movements of aggression as well as to movements of peace, to the party of hate as well as to that of humanity. I call this non-partisan tolerance “abstract” or “pure” inasmuch as it refrains from taking sides – but in doing so it actually protects the already established machinery of discrimination.

This statement reflects the by now quite familiar leftist claim that non-leftist opinions are being offered from a position of privilege or hegemony and are therefore by definition unworthy of being heard. Marcuse argues that tolerance has a higher purpose:

The telos [goal] of tolerance is truth. It is clear from the historical record that the authentic spokesmen of tolerance had more and other truth in mind than that of propositional logic and academic theory. John Stuart Mill speaks of the truth which is persecuted in history and which does not triumph over persecution by virtue of its “inherent power”, which in fact has no inherent power “against the dungeon and the stake”. And he enumerates the “truths” which were cruelly and successfully liquidated in the dungeons and at the stake: that of Arnold of Brescia, of Fra Dolcino, of Savonarola, of the Albigensians, Waldensians, Lollards, and Hussites. Tolerance is first and foremost for the sake of the heretics – the historical road toward humanitas appears as heresy: target of persecution by the powers that be. Heresy by itself, however, is no token of truth.

This statement on its face might be beyond reproach were it not for its implicit suggestion that only leftists and those favored by leftists can ever rightly be considered among the ranks of the unjustly “persecuted” or among those who have truth to tell. Marcuse goes on to offer his own version of “tolerance” in opposition to conventional, empirical, value neutral notions of tolerance of the kind associated with the liberal tradition.

Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left. As to the scope of this tolerance and intolerance: … it would extend to the stage of action as well as of discussion and propaganda, of deed as well as of word. The traditional criterion of clear and present danger seems no longer adequate to a stage where the whole society is in the situation of the theater audience when somebody cries: “fire”. It is a situation in which the total catastrophe could be triggered off any moment, not only by a technical error, but also by a rational miscalculation of risks, or by a rash speech of one of the leaders. In past and different circumstances, the speeches of the Fascist and Nazi leaders were the immediate prologue to the massacre. The distance between the propaganda and the action, between the organization and its release on the people had become too short. But the spreading of the word could have been stopped before it was too late: if democratic tolerance had been withdrawn when the future leaders started their campaign, mankind would have had a chance of avoiding Auschwitz and a World War.

The whole post-fascist period is one of clear and present danger. Consequently, true pacification requires the withdrawal of tolerance before the deed, at the stage of communication in word, print, and picture. Such extreme suspension of the right of free speech and free assembly is indeed justified only if the whole of society is in extreme danger. I maintain that our society is in such an emergency situation, and that it has become the normal state of affairs.

Here Marcuse is clearly stating that he is not simply advocating “intolerance” of non-leftist opinion in the sense of offering criticism, rebuttal, counterargument, or even shaming, shunning, or ostracism. What he is calling for is the full fledged state repression of non-leftist opinion or expression. Nor is this repression to be limited to right-wing movements with an explicitly authoritarian agenda that aims to subvert the liberal society. Marcuse makes this very clear in a 1968 postscript to the original 1965 essay:

Given this situation, I suggested in “Repressive Tolerance” the practice of discriminating tolerance in an inverse direction, as a means of shifting the balance between Right and Left by restraining the liberty of the Right, thus counteracting the pervasive inequality of freedom (unequal opportunity of access to the means of democratic persuasion) and strengthening the oppressed against the oppressed. Tolerance would be restricted with respect to movements of a demonstrably aggressive or destructive character (destructive of the prospects for peace, justice, and freedom for all). Such discrimination would also be applied to movements opposing the extension of social legislation to the poor, weak, disabled. As against the virulent denunciations that such a policy would do away with the sacred liberalistic principle of equality for “the other side”, I maintain that there are issues where either there is no “other side” in any more than a formalistic sense, or where “the other side” is demonstrably “regressive” and impedes possible improvement of the human condition. To tolerate propaganda for inhumanity vitiates the goals not only of liberalism but of every progressive political philosophy.

If the choice were between genuine democracy and dictatorship, democracy would certainly be preferable. But democracy does not prevail. The radical critics of the existing political process are thus readily denounced as advocating an “elitism”, a dictatorship of intellectuals as an alternative. What we have in fact is government, representative government by a non-intellectual minority of politicians, generals, and businessmen. The record of this “elite” is not very promising, and political prerogatives for the intelligentsia may not necessarily be worse for the society as a whole.

In this passage Marcuse is very clearly advocating totalitarian controls over political speech and expression that is the mirror image of the Stalinist states that he otherwise criticized for their excessive bureaucratization, economism, and repression of criticism from the Left. Marcuse makes it perfectly clear that not only perceived fascists and neo-nazis would be subject to repression under his model regime but so would even those who question the expansion of the welfare state (thereby contradicting Marcuse’s criticism of bureaucracy). Marcuse states this elsewhere in “Repressive Tolerance.”

Surely, no government can be expected to foster its own subversion, but in a democracy such a right is vested in the people (i.e. in the majority of the people). This means that the ways should not be blocked on which a subversive majority could develop, and if they are blocked by organized repression and indoctrination, their reopening may require apparently undemocratic means. They would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc”

herbmar.jpgMarcuse’s liberatory socialism is in fact to be a totalitarian bureaucracy where those who criticize leftist orthodoxy in apparently even the slightest way are to be subject to state repression. This is precisely the attitude that the authoritarian Left demonstrates at the present time. Such views are becoming increasingly entrenched in mainstream institutions and in the state under the guise of so-called “political correctness.” Indeed, much of the mainstream “anarchist” movement reflects Marcuse’s thinking perfectly. These “anarchists” ostensibly criticize statism, bureaucracy, capitalism, consumerism, imperialism, war, and repression, and advocate for all of the popular “social justice” causes of the day. “Tolerance” has ostensibly become the ultimate virtue for such people. Yet underneath this “tolerance” is a visceral and often violent hostility to those who dissent from leftist orthodoxy on any number of questions in even a peripheral or moderate way. Indeed, the prevalence of this leftist intolerance within the various anarchist milieus has become the principle obstacle to the growth of a larger and more effective anarchist movement.

A functional anarchist, libertarian, or anti-state movement must first and foremost reclaim the liberal tradition of authentic tolerance of the kind that insists that decent regard for other people and a fair hearing for contending points of view on which no one ultimately has the last word must be balanced with the promulgation of ideological principles no matter how much one believes these principles to be “true.” A functional and productive anarchist movement must recognize and give a seat at the table to all of the contending schools of anarchism, including non-leftist ones, and embrace those from overlapping ideologies where there is common ground. A serious anarchist movement must address points of view offered by the opposition in an objective manner that recognizes and concedes valid issues others may raise even in the face of ideological disagreement. Lastly, a genuine anarchist movement must realize that there is no issue that is so taboo that is should be taken off the table as a fitting subject for discussion and debate. Only when anarchists embrace these values will they be worthy of the name.

Sources:

William S. Lind. The Origins of Political Correctness. Accuracy in Academica. 2000. Archived at http://www.academia.org/the-origins-of-political-correctness/. Accessed on May 12, 2013.

Herbert Marcuse. Repressive Tolerance. 1965, 1968. Archived at http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/60spubs/65repressivetolerance.htm Accessed on May 12, 2013.

Martin Jay. The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research. University of California Press, 1966.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Marcuse – cite_note-marcuse.org-9

mercredi, 27 mars 2013

Feminisme: kan links zich verantwoorden?

Femen_galleryphoto_paysage_std.jpg

Feminisme: kan links zich verantwoorden?

door  Theo Van Boom

Ex: http://www.solidarisme.be/  

Economische crisis en oorlog overal, we weten het ondertussen wel - denken ze daar allicht bij De Wereld Morgen. Dus is het nu de week van het feminisme, heel mooi. De steun die zij hiervoor krijgen uit PVDA+-hoek zal niemand verbazen en de argumenten (gelijk loon, tegen geweld etc.) zijn ook redelijk onschuldig.

Toch kan bij de acuutheid van het thema enkele vragen gesteld worden. Allereerst, waarom net nu de genderspanningen nog eens op doen wellen? Ja, men stelt wel dat "mannen ook meer moeten vervrouwelijken", maar daar moet in deze tijd van hipsters en Justin Bieber maar eens deftig debat over worden gevoerd. Idem dito de chimera aan pseudofreudiaanse en gendertheoretische onwaarheden die allang ontkracht zijn... maar ach. Niemand zal ontkennen dat wij allemaal samen in de miserie van de economische crisis delen en dat dit sowieso de sociale verhoudingen turbulent zal houden over de klassen, rassen en leeftijden heen.

Klassen, rassen, leeftijden... en geloofsovertuigingen ook? Want dat is nog iets, allicht kan de PVDA+ haar goedkeuren van de hoofddoek toelichten? Karima Amaliki, verkozen voor de PVDA+ in de Antwerpse districtsraad, draagt immers een hoofddoek. Geen probleem wat mij betreft, het valt zelfs feministisch te verantwoorden voor wie de redenering een beetje kent.

Maar die redenering is wel niet meer zo genderneutraal als men zou willen, de abrahamitische religies kan je maar zo ver relativeren. Wil de PVDA+ zich dan ondertussen dus even verantwoorden voor haar steun aan Pussy Riot en FEMEN? En neen, die steun vind je niet zo zeer terug op de site van de PVDA+, daar moet je al flink zoeken, maar elke satelliet- en randorganisatie van de PVDA+ heeft het afgelopen jaar al meermaals haar liefde verklaard voor de dolle mina's (AFF, Occupy, DWM, Apache...)

We trekken de kwestie wat verder open. De PVDA+ haar contacten met Iraanse moedjahedeen doen wel vragen stellen wanneer je bedenkt dat de bannelingen van de Iraanse Communistische Partij in Zweden een eigen FEMEN-actie op poten stellen. Wil mevrouw Maliki (overigens een vaak sji'itische achternaam) haar commentaar eens geven bij de uitspraken van haar ideologische zusters, uitspraken zoals:

"Neen tegen de hidjab" (Anke Vandermeersch, jou werd niets gevraagd!)

"Mijn naaktheid is mijn protest" (Was dat de hidjab daarnet nog niet?)

"In de historische strijd van 'vrouw VS islam' zal de vrouw winnen" (PVDA+ & Dewinter: één front!)

Het bleef in deze optiek immers al langer opvallend stil bij de PVDA+ omtrent Syrië (ondanks de verklaringen van de Internationale waar zij deel van uitmaakt). Dat Syrië staat of valt bij de steun van Iran, is zeker. Dat de PVDA+ het niet zo op Iran heeft en daarom al decennia met de marxistische moedjahedeen optrekt, dat ook. Dat commercieel en valselijk feminisme een instrument is om het regime van Iran onderuit te halen sinds de mislukte Groene Revolutie... Tja, waar ben je dan nog mee bezig?

Nog eentje, Nadia El Fani, Tunesische communistische cineaste met de film "Laïcité Inchallah" ("Secularisme in naam van Allah") op haar naam. Vandaag mogen wij ons aan een documentaire van haar over FEMEN verwachten, dit keer in samenwerking met Caroline Fourest en onder de wel heel feministische titel "nos seins, nos armes" ("onze borsten, onze wapens"). In Tunesië zelf moet zij haar gezicht al langer niet meer laten zien (allicht nog wel in boerka, oh snap), maar ook hier de vraag: helpt dit de rechten van de vrouwen vooruit, of mag dit in het licht van de recentelijk heropgeflakkerde politieke trubbels gezien worden? De onlangs vermoordde Tunesisiche oppositieleider Chokri was immers communist.

Dus de centrale vraag wordt in dit geval: hoe ernstig kan je de PVDA+ nemen wat betreft haar progressieve strijd in het licht van de onvermijdelijke geopolitieke implicaties? De vraagstukken en internationale verhoudingen zijn niet meer die van de Koude Oorlog, het lijkt mij dat communisten en aanverwanten of de boot missen of de kar van Westers imperialisme trekken met hun culturele revolutie.

Onvermijdelijk.

Dus als u toevallig iemand deze week in de naam van het feminisme tegenkomt, dan weet u wat het (hem/haar is vast seksistisch) te vragen.

mardi, 12 février 2013

From Kennan to Trotsky

From Kennan to Trotsky

How the United States became a superpower of the left

samedi, 13 octobre 2012

Le Rouge , le Vert et le Noir : Serguei Oudaltsov chez les séparatistes islamistes Tatars !

 Old_flag_of_Tatarstan.png

Le Rouge , le Vert et le Noir : Serguei Oudaltsov chez les séparatistes islamistes Tatars !

http://zebrastationpolaire.over-blog.com/

On connaissait déja  les liens troubles de l'extrême-gauche française avec le fondamentalisme islamique [ lien ] .

Il en est de même en Russie .

La nouvelle date du 12 aout 2012 et elle vient de m'être communiquée  par un correspondant Russe s'intéressant aux problèmatiques ethno-séparatistes .

Le 12 aout 2012 , soit quelques jours après l'attentat contre les chefs religieux musulmans du Tatarstan [ lien vers article ] , le chef du " Front de Gauche " Russe Serguei Oudaltsov s'est rendu à Kazan [ capitale du Tatarstan ] pour y rencontrer les " jeunes " séparatistes islamistes tatars du mouvement " Azatlyk " - indépendance - dont leur chef Naïl  Nabiullin  .[ lien ]

A cette occasion le frondegôchiste  russe a appellé les séparatistes islamistes tatars a faire " front commun " et à mener des actions communes dans les rues et dans les usines : " Il est temps de réunir toutes les forces qui peuvent contribuer à l'affaiblissement du régime de Poutine " .

Selon certaines sources , le leader frondegôchard aurait aussi rencontré des membres de l'organisation terroriste Hizb ut-Tahrir contre laquelle il " n' a pas de préjugés " !

Notons que Naïl Nabulin considére lui qu'il n' a " rien à dire aux fondamentalistes d' Hizb ut-Tahrir "! ...

Le leader du frondegôche  Russe , le rouge Oudaltsov , s'est même proposé de jouer les " casques bleus " entre les islamistes  " verts " tatars et les nationalistes " noirs " Russes pour qu'ils puissent défiler côte à côte lors des " marche des millions "  Car ce n'est pas gagné ! Alors qu'il estimait pouvoir réunir 10 000 à 15 000 manifestants à Kazan pour la " marche des millions " , celle-ci n'a réunie que 50 à 100 personnes le 15 septembre dernier  : Islamistes , séparatistes , frondegôchistes , libéraux , Pussyriotistes ....confondus   ! [ lien ]   et [ lien ]  

On savait déja que Serguei Oudaltsov ne dédaignait pas la compagnie d'un Alexandre Belov-Potkine du DPNI -  ex Mouvement contre l'Immigration Illégale - et des nationalistes Oukraïniens [ lien ] .

On s'étonne de pouvoir encore s'étonner d'apprendre qu'il fréquente des terroristes islamistes et des terroristes séparatistes ! 

La presse et la blogosphère Russe se sont  amusés  de cette union de la carpe et du lapin en parlant de " califat rouge " ou " wahhabisme gauchiste  "!

dimanche, 31 juillet 2011

The NewDark Age: The Frankfurt School and "Political Correctness"

The New Dark Age: The Frankfurt School and 'Political Correctness'

Michael Minnicino

Ex: http://www.wermodandwermod.com/

The people of North America and Western Europe now accept a level of ugliness in their daily lives which is almost without precedent in the history of Western civilization. Most of us have become so inured, that the death of millions from starvation and disease draws from us no more than a sigh, or a murmur of protest. Our own city streets, home to legions of the homeless, are ruled by Dope, Inc., the largest industry in the world, and on those streets Americans now murder each other at a rate not seen since the Dark Ages.

At the same time, a thousand smaller horrors are so commonplace as to go unnoticed. Our children spend as much time sitting in front of television sets as they do in school, watching with glee, scenes of torture and death which might have shocked an audience in the Roman Coliseum. Music is everywhere, almost unavoidable—but it does not uplift, nor even tranquilize—it claws at the ears, sometimes spitting out an obscenity. Our plastic arts are ugly, our architecture is ugly, our clothes are ugly. There have certainly been periods in history where mankind has lived through similar kinds of brutishness, but our time is crucially different. Our post-World War II era is the first in history in which these horrors are completely avoidable. Our time is the first to have the technology and resources to feed, house, educate, and humanely employ every person on earth, no matter what the growth of population. Yet, when shown the ideas and proven technologies that can solve the most horrendous problems, most people retreat into implacable passivity. We have become not only ugly, but impotent.

Nonetheless, there is no reason why our current moral-cultural situation had to lawfully or naturally turn out as it has; and there is no reason why this tyranny of ugliness should continue one instant longer.

Consider the situation just one hundred years ago, in the early 1890's. In music, Claude Debussy was completing his Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun, and Arnold Schönberg was beginning to experiment with atonalism; at the same time, Dvorak was working on his Ninth Symphony, while Brahms and Verdi still lived. Edvard Munch was showing The Scream, and Paul Gauguin his Self-Portrait with Halo, but in America, Thomas Eakins was still painting and teaching. Mechanists like Helmholtz and Mach held major university chairs of science, alongside the students of Riemann and Cantor. Pope Leo XIII's De Rerum Novarum was being promulgated, even as sections of the Socialist Second International were turning terrorist, and preparing for class war.

The optimistic belief that one could compose music like Beethoven, paint like Rembrandt, study the universe like Plato and Nicolaus of Cusa, and change world society without violence, was alive in the 1890's—admittedly, it was weak, and under siege, but it was hardly dead. Yet, within twenty short years, these Classical traditions of human civilization had been all but swept away, and the West had committed itself to a series of wars of inconceivable carnage.

What started about a hundred years ago, was what might be called a counter-Renaissance. The Renaissance of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries was a religious celebration of the human soul and mankind's potential for growth. Beauty in art could not be conceived of as anything less than the expression of the most-advanced scientific principles, as demonstrated by the geometry upon which Leonardo's perspective and Brunelleschi's great Dome of Florence Cathedral are based. The finest minds of the day turned their thoughts to the heavens and the mighty waters, and mapped the solar system and the route to the New World, planning great projects to turn the course of rivers for the betterment of mankind. About a hundred years ago, it was as though a long checklist had been drawn up, with all of the wonderful achievements of the Renaissance itemized—each to be reversed. As part of this "New Age" movement, as it was then called, the concept of the human soul was undermined by the most vociferous intellectual campaign in history; art was forcibly separated from science, and science itself was made the object of deep suspicion. Art was made ugly because, it was said, life had become ugly.

The cultural shift away from the Renaissance ideas that built the modern world, was due to a kind of freemasonry of ugliness. In the beginning, it was a formal political conspiracy to popularize theories that were specifically designed to weaken the soul of Judeo-Christian civilization in such a way as to make people believe that creativity was not possible, that adherence to universal truth was evidence of authoritarianism, and that reason itself was suspect. This conspiracy was decisive in planning and developing, as means of social manipulation, the vast new sister industries of radio, television, film, recorded music, advertising, and public opinion polling. The pervasive psychological hold of the media was purposely fostered to create the passivity and pessimism which afflict our populations today. So successful was this conspiracy, that it has become embedded in our culture; it no longer needs to be a "conspiracy," for it has taken on a life of its own. Its successes are not debatable—you need only turn on the radio or television. Even the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice is deformed into an erotic soap opera, with the audience rooting from the sidelines for their favorite character.

Our universities, the cradle of our technological and intellectual future, have become overwhelmed by Comintern-style New Age "Political Correctness." With the collapse of the Soviet Union, our campuses now represent the largest concentration of Marxist dogma in the world. The irrational adolescent outbursts of the 1960's have become institutionalized into a "permanent revolution." Our professors glance over their shoulders, hoping the current mode will blow over before a student's denunciation obliterates a life's work; some audio-tape their lectures, fearing accusations of "insensitivity" by some enraged "Red Guard." Students at the University of Virginia recently petitioned successfully to drop the requirement to read Homer, Chaucer, and other DEMS ("Dead European Males") because such writings are considered ethnocentric, phallocentric, and generally inferior to the "more relevant" Third World, female, or homosexual authors.

This is not the academy of a republic; this is Hitler's Gestapo and Stalin's NKVD rooting out "deviationists," and banning books—the only thing missing is the public bonfire.

We will have to face the fact that the ugliness we see around us has been consciously fostered and organized in such a way, that a majority of the population is losing the cognitive ability to transmit to the next generation, the ideas and methods upon which our civilization was built. The loss of that ability is the primary indicator of a Dark Age. And, a new Dark Age is exactly what we are in. In such situations, the record of history is unequivocal: either we create a Renaissance—a rebirth of the fundamental principles upon which civilization originated—or, our civilization dies.

I. The Frankfurt School: Bolshevik Intelligentsia

The single, most important organizational component of this conspiracy was a Communist thinktank called the Institute for Social Research (I.S.R.), but popularly known as the Frankfurt School.

In the heady days immediately after the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, it was widely believed that proletarian revolution would momentarily sweep out of the Urals into Europe and, ultimately, North America. It did not; the only two attempts at workers' government in the West— in Munich and Budapest—lasted only months. The Communist International (Comintern) therefore began several operations to determine why this was so. One such was headed by Georg Lukacs, a Hungarian aristocrat, son of one of the Hapsburg Empire's leading bankers. Trained in Germany and already an important literary theorist, Lukacs became a Communist during World War I, writing as he joined the party, "Who will save us from Western civilization?" Lukacs was well-suited to the Comintern task: he had been one of the Commissars of Culture during the short-lived Hungarian Soviet in Budapest in 1919; in fact, modern historians link the shortness of the Budapest experiment to Lukacs' orders mandating sex education in the schools, easy access to contraception, and the loosening of divorce laws—all of which revulsed Hungary's Roman Catholic population.

Fleeing to the Soviet Union after the counter-revolution, Lukacs was secreted into Germany in 1922, where he chaired a meeting of Communist-oriented sociologists and intellectuals. This meeting founded the Institute for Social Research. Over the next decade, the Institute worked out what was to become the Comintern's most successful psychological warfare operation against the capitalist West.

Lukacs identified that any political movement capable of bringing Bolshevism to the West would have to be, in his words, "demonic"; it would have to "possess the religious power which is capable of filling the entire soul; a power that characterized primitive Christianity." However, Lukacs suggested, such a "messianic" political movement could only succeed when the individual believes that his or her actions are determined by "not a personal destiny, but the destiny of the community" in a world "that has been abandoned by God [emphasis added-MJM]." Bolshevism worked in Russia because that nation was dominated by a peculiar gnostic form of Christianty typified by the writings of Fyodor Dostoyevsky. "The model for the new man is Alyosha Karamazov," said Lukacs, referring to the Dostoyevsky character who willingly gave over his personal identity to a holy man, and thus ceased to be "unique, pure, and therefore abstract."

This abandonment of the soul's uniqueness also solves the problem of "the diabolic forces lurking in all violence" which must be unleashed in order to create a revolution. In this context, Lukacs cited the Grand Inquisitor section of Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karamazov, noting that the Inquisitor who is interrogating Jesus, has resolved the issue of good and evil: once man has understood his alienation from God, then any act in the service of the "destiny of the community" is justified; such an act can be "neither crime nor madness.... For crime and madness are objectifications of transcendental homelessness."

According to an eyewitness, during meetings of the Hungarian Soviet leadership in 1919 to draw up lists for the firing squad, Lukacs would often quote the Grand Inquisitor: "And we who, for their happiness, have taken their sins upon ourselves, we stand before you and say, 'Judge us if you can and if you dare.' "

The Problem of Genesis

What differentiated the West from Russia, Lukacs identified, was a Judeo-Christian cultural matrix which emphasized exactly the uniqueness and sacredness of the individual which Lukacs abjured. At its core, the dominant Western ideology maintained that the individual, through the exercise of his or her reason, could discern the Divine Will in an unmediated relationship. What was worse, from Lukacs' standpoint: this reasonable relationship necessarily implied that the individual could and should change the physical universe in pursuit of the Good; that Man should have dominion over Nature, as stated in the Biblical injunction in Genesis. The problem was, that as long as the individual had the belief—or even the hope of the belief—that his or her divine spark of reason could solve the problems facing society, then that society would never reach the state of hopelessness and alienation which Lukacs recognized as the necessary prerequisite for socialist revolution.

The task of the Frankfurt School, then, was first, to undermine the Judeo-Christian legacy through an "abolition of culture" (Aufhebung der Kultur in Lukacs' German); and, second, to determine new cultural forms which would increase the alienation of the population, thus creating a "new barbarism." To this task, there gathered in and around the Frankfurt School an incredible assortment of not only Communists, but also non-party socialists, radical phenomenologists, Zionists, renegade Freudians, and at least a few members of a self-identified "cult of Astarte." The variegated membership reflected, to a certain extent, the sponsorship: although the Institute for Social Research started with Comintern support, over the next three decades its sources of funds included various German and American universities, the Rockefeller Foundation, Columbia Broadcasting System, the American Jewish Committee, several American intelligence services, the Office of the U.S. High Commissioner for Germany, the International Labour Organization, and the Hacker Institute, a posh psychiatric clinic in Beverly Hills.

Similarly, the Institute's political allegiances: although top personnel maintained what might be called a sentimental relationship to the Soviet Union (and there is evidence that some of them worked for Soviet intelligence into the 1960's), the Institute saw its goals as higher than that of Russian foreign policy. Stalin, who was horrified at the undisciplined, "cosmopolitan" operation set up by his predecessors, cut the Institute off in the late 1920's, forcing Lukacs into "self-criticism," and briefly jailing him as a German sympathizer during World War II.

Lukacs survived to briefly take up his old post as Minister of Culture during the anti-Stalinist Imre Nagy regime in Hungary. Of the other top Institute figures, the political perambulations of Herbert Marcuse are typical. He started as a Communist; became a protégé of philosopher Martin Heidegger even as the latter was joining the Nazi Party; coming to America, he worked for the World War II Office of Strategic Services (OSS), and later became the U.S. State Department's top analyst of Soviet policy during the height of the McCarthy period; in the 1960's, he turned again, to become the most important guru of the New Left; and he ended his days helping to found the environmentalist extremist Green Party in West Germany.

In all this seeming incoherence of shifting positions and contradictory funding, there is no ideological conflict. The invariant is the desire of all parties to answer Lukacs' original question: "Who will save us from Western civilization?"

Theodor Adorno and Walter Benjamin

Perhaps the most important, if least-known, of the Frankfurt School's successes was the shaping of the electronic media of radio and television into the powerful instruments of social control which they represent today. This grew out of the work originally done by two men who came to the Institute in the late 1920's, Theodor Adorno and Walter Benjamin.

After completing studies at the University of Frankfurt, Walter Benjamin planned to emigrate to Palestine in 1924 with his friend Gershom Scholem (who later became one of Israel's most famous philosophers, as well as Judaism's leading gnostic), but was prevented by a love affair with Asja Lacis, a Latvian actress and Comintern stringer. Lacis whisked him off to the Italian island of Capri, a cult center from the time of the Emperor Tiberius, then used as a Comintern training base; the heretofore apolitical Benjamin wrote Scholem from Capri, that he had found "an existential liberation and an intensive insight into the actuality of radical communism."

Lacis later took Benjamin to Moscow for further indoctrination, where he met playwright Bertolt Brecht, with whom he would begin a long collaboration; soon thereafter, while working on the first German translation of the drug-enthusiast French poet Baudelaire, Benjamin began serious experimentation with hallucinogens. In 1927, he was in Berlin as part of a group led by Adorno, studying the works of Lukacs; other members of the study group included Brecht and his composer-partner Kurt Weill; Hans Eisler, another composer who would later become a Hollywood film score composer and co-author with Adorno of the textbook Composition for the Film; the avant-garde photographer Imre Moholy-Nagy; and the conductor Otto Klemperer.

From 1928 to 1932, Adorno and Benjamin had an intensive collaboration, at the end of which they began publishing articles in the Institute's journal, the Zeitschrift fär Sozialforschung. Benjamin was kept on the margins of the Institute, largely due to Adorno, who would later appropriate much of his work. As Hitler came to power, the Institute's staff fled, but, whereas most were quickly spirited away to new deployments in the U.S. and England, there were no job offers for Benjamin, probably due to the animus of Adorno. He went to France, and, after the German invasion, fled to the Spanish border; expecting momentary arrest by the Gestapo, he despaired and died in a dingy hotel room of self-administered drug overdose.

Benjamin's work remained almost completely unknown until 1955, when Scholem and Adorno published an edition of his material in Germany. The full revival occurred in 1968, when Hannah Arendt, Heidegger's former mistress and a collaborator of the Institute in America, published a major article on Benjamin in the New Yorker magazine, followed in the same year by the first English translations of his work. Today, every university bookstore in the country boasts a full shelf devoted to translations of every scrap Benjamin wrote, plus exegesis, all with 1980's copyright dates.

Adorno was younger than Benjamin, and as aggressive as the older man was passive. Born Teodoro Wiesengrund-Adorno to a Corsican family, he was taught the piano at an early age by an aunt who lived with the family and had been the concert accompanist to the international opera star Adelina Patti. It was generally thought that Theodor would become a professional musician, and he studied with Bernard Sekles, Paul Hindemith's teacher. However, in 1918, while still a gymnasium student, Adorno met Siegfried Kracauer. Kracauer was part of a Kantian-Zionist salon which met at the house of Rabbi Nehemiah Nobel in Frankfurt; other members of the Nobel circle included philosopher Martin Buber, writer Franz Rosenzweig, and two students, Leo Lowenthal and Erich Fromm. Kracauer, Lowenthal, and Fromm would join the I.S.R. two decades later. Adorno engaged Kracauer to tutor him in the philosophy of Kant; Kracauer also introduced him to the writings of Lukacs and to Walter Benjamin, who was around the Nobel clique.

In 1924, Adorno moved to Vienna, to study with the atonalist composers Alban Berg and Arnold Schönberg, and became connected to the avant-garde and occult circle around the old Marxist Karl Kraus. Here, he not only met his future collaborator, Hans Eisler, but also came into contact with the theories of Freudian extremist Otto Gross. Gross, a long-time cocaine addict, had died in a Berlin gutter in 1920, while on his way to help the revolution in Budapest; he had developed the theory that mental health could only be achieved through the revival of the ancient cult of Astarte, which would sweep away monotheism and the "bourgeois family."

Saving Marxist Aesthetics

By 1928, Adorno and Benjamin had satisfied their intellectual wanderlust, and settled down at the I.S.R. in Germany to do some work. As subject, they chose an aspect of the problem posed by Lukacs: how to give aesthetics a firmly materialistic basis. It was a question of some importance, at the time. Official Soviet discussions of art and culture, with their wild gyrations into "socialist realism" and "proletkult," were idiotic, and only served to discredit Marxism's claim to philosophy among intellectuals. Karl Marx's own writings on the subject were sketchy and banal, at best.

In essence, Adorno and Benjamin's problem was Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. At the beginning of the eighteenth century, Leibniz had once again obliterated the centuries-old gnostic dualism dividing mind and body, by demonstrating that matter does not think. A creative act in art or science apprehends the truth of the physical universe, but it is not determined by that physical universe. By self-consciously concentrating the past in the present to effect the future, the creative act, properly defined, is as immortal as the soul which envisions the act. This has fatal philosophical implications for Marxism, which rests entirely on the hypothesis that mental activity is determined by the social relations excreted by mankind's production of its physical existence.

Marx sidestepped the problem of Leibniz, as did Adorno and Benjamin, although the latter did it with a lot more panache. It is wrong, said Benjamin in his first articles on the subject, to start with the reasonable, hypothesizing mind as the basis of the development of civilization; this is an unfortunate legacy of Socrates. As an alternative, Benjamin posed an Aristotelian fable in interpretation of Genesis: Assume that Eden were given to Adam as the primordial physical state. The origin of science and philosophy does not lie in the investigation and mastery of nature, but in the naming of the objects of nature; in the primordial state, to name a thing was to say all there was to say about that thing. In support of this, Benjamin cynically recalled the opening lines of the Gospel according to St. John, carefully avoiding the philosophically-broader Greek, and preferring the Vulgate (so that, in the phrase "In the beginning was the Word," the connotations of the original Greek word logos—speech, reason, ratiocination, translated as "Word"—are replaced by the narrower meaning of the Latin word verbum). After the expulsion from Eden and God's requirement that Adam eat his bread earned by the sweat of his face (Benjamin's Marxist metaphor for the development of economies), and God's further curse of Babel on Nimrod (that is, the development of nation-states with distinct languages, which Benjamin and Marx viewed as a negative process away from the "primitive communism" of Eden), humanity became "estranged" from the physical world.

Thus, Benjamin continued, objects still give off an "aura" of their primordial form, but the truth is now hopelessly elusive. In fact, speech, written language, art, creativity itself—that by which we master physicality—merely furthers the estrangement by attempting, in Marxist jargon, to incorporate objects of nature into the social relations determined by the class structure dominant at that point in history. The creative artist or scientist, therefore, is a vessel, like Ion the rhapsode as he described himself to Socrates, or like a modern "chaos theory" advocate: the creative act springs out of the hodgepodge of culture as if by magic. The more that bourgeois man tries to convey what he intends about an object, the less truthful he becomes; or, in one of Benjamin's most oft-quoted statements, "Truth is the death of intention."

This philosophical sleight-of-hand allows one to do several destructive things. By making creativity historically-specific, you rob it of both immortality and morality. One cannot hypothesize universal truth, or natural law, for truth is completely relative to historical development. By discarding the idea of truth and error, you also may throw out the "obsolete" concept of good and evil; you are, in the words of Friedrich Nietzsche, "beyond good and evil." Benjamin is able, for instance, to defend what he calls the "Satanism" of the French Symbolists and their Surrealist successors, for at the core of this Satanism "one finds the cult of evil as a political device ... to disinfect and isolate against all moralizing dilettantism" of the bourgeoisie. To condemn the Satanism of Rimbaud as evil, is as incorrect as to extol a Beethoven quartet or a Schiller poem as good; for both judgments are blind to the historical forces working unconsciously on the artist.

Thus, we are told, the late Beethoven's chord structure was striving to be atonal, but Beethoven could not bring himself consciously to break with the structured world of Congress of Vienna Europe (Adorno's thesis); similarly, Schiller really wanted to state that creativity was the liberation of the erotic, but as a true child of the Enlightenment and Immanuel Kant, he could not make the requisite renunciation of reason (Marcuse's thesis). Epistemology becomes a poor relation of public opinion, since the artist does not consciously create works in order to uplift society, but instead unconsciously transmits the ideological assumptions of the culture into which he was born. The issue is no longer what is universally true, but what can be plausibly interpreted by the self-appointed guardians of the Zeitgeist.

"The Bad New Days"

Thus, for the Frankfort School, the goal of a cultural elite in the modern, "capitalist" era must be to strip away the belief that art derives from the self-conscious emulation of God the Creator; "religious illumination," says Benjamin, must be shown to "reside in a profane illumination, a materialistic, anthropological inspiration, to which hashish, opium, or whatever else can give an introductory lesson." At the same time, new cultural forms must be found to increase the alienation of the population, in order for it to understand how truly alienated it is to live without socialism. "Do not build on the good old days, but on the bad new ones," said Benjamin.

The proper direction in painting, therefore, is that taken by the late Van Gogh, who began to paint objects in disintegration, with the equivalent of a hashish-smoker's eye that "loosens and entices things out of their familiar world." In music, "it is not suggested that one can compose better today" than Mozart or Beethoven, said Adorno, but one must compose atonally, for atonalism is sick, and "the sickness, dialectically, is at the same time the cure....The extraordinarily violent reaction protest which such music confronts in the present society ... appears nonetheless to suggest that the dialectical function of this music can already be felt ... negatively, as 'destruction.' "

The purpose of modern art, literature, and music must be to destroy the uplifting—therefore, bourgeois — potential of art, literature, and music, so that man, bereft of his connection to the divine, sees his only creative option to be political revolt. "To organize pessimism means nothing other than to expel the moral metaphor from politics and to discover in political action a sphere reserved one hundred percent for images." Thus, Benjamin collaborated with Brecht to work these theories into practical form, and their joint effort culminated in the Verfremdungseffekt ("estrangement effect"), Brecht's attempt to write his plays so as to make the audience leave the theatre demoralized and aimlessly angry.

Political Correctness

The Adorno-Benjamin analysis represents almost the entire theoretical basis of all the politically correct aesthetic trends which now plague our universities. The Poststructuralism of Roland Barthes, Michel Foucault, and Jacques Derrida, the Semiotics of Umberto Eco, the Deconstructionism of Paul DeMan, all openly cite Benjamin as the source of their work. The Italian terrorist Eco's best-selling novel, The Name of the Rose, is little more than a paean to Benjamin; DeMan, the former Nazi collaborator in Belgium who became a prestigious Yale professor, began his career translating Benjamin; Barthes' infamous 1968 statement that "[t]he author is dead," is meant as an elaboration of Benjamin's dictum on intention. Benjamin has actually been called the heir of Leibniz and of Wilhelm von Humboldt, the philologist collaborator of Schiller whose educational reforms engendered the tremendous development of Germany in the nineteenth century. Even as recently as September 1991, the Washington Post referred to Benjamin as "the finest German literary theorist of the century (and many would have left off that qualifying German)."

Readers have undoubtedly heard one or another horror story about how an African-American Studies Department has procured a ban on Othello, because it is "racist," or how a radical feminist professor lectured a Modern Language Association meeting on the witches as the "true heroines" of Macbeth. These atrocities occur because the perpetrators are able to plausibly demonstrate, in the tradition of Benjamin and Adorno, that Shakespeare's intent is irrelevant; what is important, is the racist or phallocentric "subtext" of which Shakespeare was unconscious when he wrote.

When the local Women's Studies or Third World Studies Department organizes students to abandon classics in favor of modern Black and feminist authors, the reasons given are pure Benjamin. It is not that these modern writers are better, but they are somehow more truthful because their alienated prose reflects the modern social problems of which the older authors were ignorant! Students are being taught that language itself is, as Benjamin said, merely a conglomeration of false "names" foisted upon society by its oppressors, and are warned against "logocentrism," the bourgeois over-reliance on words.

If these campus antics appear "retarded" (in the words of Adorno), that is because they are designed to be. The Frankfurt School's most important breakthrough consists in the realization that their monstrous theories could become dominant in the culture, as a result of the changes in society brought about by what Benjamin called "the age of mechanical reproduction of art."

II. The Establishment Goes Bolshevik:
"Entertainment" Replaces Art

Before the twentieth century, the distinction between art and "entertainment" was much more pronounced. One could be entertained by art, certainly, but the experience was active, not passive. On the first level, one had to make a conscious choice to go to a concert, to view a certain art exhibit, to buy a book or piece of sheet music. It was unlikely that any more than an infinitesimal fraction of the population would have the opportunity to see King Lear or hear Beethoven's Ninth Symphony more than once or twice in a lifetime. Art demanded that one bring one's full powers of concentration and knowledge of the subject to bear on each experience, or else the experience were considered wasted. These were the days when memorization of poetry and whole plays, and the gathering of friends and family for a "parlor concert," were the norm, even in rural households. These were also the days before "music appreciation"; when one studied music, as many did, they learned to play it, not appreciate it.

However, the new technologies of radio, film, and recorded music represented, to use the appropriate Marxist buzz-word, a dialectical potential. On the one hand, these technologies held out the possibility of bringing the greatest works of art to millions of people who would otherwise not have access to them. On the other, the fact that the experience was infinitely reproducible could tend to disengage the audience's mind, making the experience less sacred, thus increasing alienation. Adorno called this process, "demythologizing." This new passivity, Adorno hypothesized in a crucial article published in 1938, could fracture a musical composition into the "entertaining" parts which would be "fetishized" in the memory of the listener, and the difficult parts, which would be forgotten. Adorno continues,

 

The counterpart to the fetishism is a regression of listening. This does not mean a relapse of the individual listener into an earlier phase of his own development, nor a decline in the collective general level, since the millions who are reached musically for the first time by today's mass communications cannot be compared with the audiences of the past. Rather, it is the contemporary listening which has regressed, arrested at the infantile stage. Not only do the listening subjects lose, along with the freedom of choice and responsibility, the capacity for the conscious perception of music .... [t]hey fluctuate between comprehensive forgetting and sudden dives into recognition. They listen atomistically and dissociate what they hear, but precisely in this dissociation they develop certain capacities which accord less with the traditional concepts of aesthetics than with those of football or motoring. They are not childlike ... but they are childish; their primitivism is not that of the undeveloped, but that of the forcibly retarded. [emphasis aded]

This conceptual retardation and preconditioning caused by listening, suggested that programming could determine preference. The very act of putting, say, a Benny Goodman number next to a Mozart sonata on the radio, would tend to amalgamate both into entertaining "music-on-the-radio" in the mind of the listener. This meant that even new and unpalatable ideas could become popular by "re-naming" them through the universal homogenizer of the culture industry. As Benjamin puts it,

 

Mechanical reproduction of art changes the reaction of the masses toward art. The reactionary attitude toward a Picasso painting changes into a progressive reaction toward a Chaplin movie. The progressive reaction is characterized by the direct, intimate fusion of visual and emotional enjoyment with the orientation of the expert.... With regard to the screen, the critical and receptive attitudes of the public coincide. The decisive reason for this is that the individual reactions are predetermined by the mass audience response they are about to produce, and this is nowhere more pronounced than in the film.

At the same time, the magic power of the media could be used to re-define previous ideas. "Shakespeare, Rembrandt, Beethoven will all make films," concluded Benjamin, quoting the French film pioneer Abel Gance, "... all legends, all mythologies, all myths, all founders of religions, and the very religions themselves ... await their exposed resurrection."

Social Control: The "Radio Project"

Here, then, were some potent theories of social control. The great possibilities of this Frankfurt School media work were probably the major contributing factor in the support given the I.S.R. by the bastions of the Establishment, after the Institute transferred its operations to America in 1934.

In 1937, the Rockefeller Foundation began funding research into the social effects of new forms of mass media, particularly radio. Before World War I, radio had been a hobbyist's toy, with only 125,000 receiving sets in the entire U.S.; twenty years later, it had become the primary mode of entertainment in the country; out of 32 million American families in 1937, 27.5 million had radios — a larger percentage than had telephones, automobiles, plumbing, or electricity! Yet, almost no systematic research had been done up to this point. The Rockefeller Foundation enlisted several universities, and headquartered this network at the School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. Named the Office of Radio Research, it was popularly known as "the Radio Project."

The director of the Project was Paul Lazersfeld, the foster son of Austrian Marxist economist Rudolph Hilferding, and a long-time collaborator of the I.S.R. from the early 1930's. Under Lazersfeld was Frank Stanton, a recent Ph.D. in industrial psychology from Ohio State, who had just been made research director of Columbia Broadcasting System—a grand title but a lowly position. After World War II, Stanton became president of the CBS News Division, and ultimately president of CBS at the height of the TV network's power; he also became Chairman of the Board of the RAND Corporation, and a member of President Lyndon Johnson's "kitchen cabinet." Among the Project's researchers were Herta Herzog, who married Lazersfeld and became the first director of research for the Voice of America; and Hazel Gaudet, who became one of the nation's leading political pollsters. Theodor Adorno was named chief of the Project's music section.

Despite the official gloss, the activities of the Radio Project make it clear that its purpose was to test empirically the Adorno-Benjamin thesis that the net effect of the mass media could be to atomize and increase lability—what people would later call "brainwashing."

Soap Operas and the Invasion from Mars

The first studies were promising. Herta Herzog produced "On Borrowed Experiences," the first comprehensive research on soap operas. The "serial radio drama" format was first used in 1929, on the inspiration of the old, cliff-hanger "Perils of Pauline" film serial. Because these little radio plays were highly melodramatic, they became popularly identified with Italian grand opera; because they were often sponsored by soap manufacturers, they ended up with the generic name, "soap opera."

Until Herzog's work, it was thought that the immense popularity of this format was largely with women of the lowest socioeconomic status who, in the restricted circumstances of their lives, needed a helpful escape to exotic places and romantic situations. A typical article from that period by two University of Chicago psychologists, "The Radio Day-Time Serial: Symbol Analysis" published in the Genetic Psychology Monographs, solemnly emphasized the positive, claiming that the soaps "function very much like the folk tale, expressing the hopes and fears of its female audience, and on the whole contribute to the integration of their lives into the world in which they live."

Herzog found that there was, in fact, no correlation to socioeconomic status. What is more, there was surprisingly little correlation to content. The key factor — as Adorno and Benjamin's theories suggested it would be — was the form itself of the serial; women were being effectively addicted to the format, not so much to be entertained or to escape, but to "find out what happens next week." In fact, Herzog found, you could almost double the listenership of a radio play by dividing it into segments.

Modern readers will immediately recognize that this was not a lesson lost on the entertainment industry. Nowadays, the serial format has spread to children's programming and high-budget prime time shows. The most widely watched shows in the history of television, remain the "Who Killed JR?" installment of Dallas, and the final episode of M*A*S*H, both of which were premised on a "what happens next?" format. Even feature films, like the Star Wars and Back to the Future trilogies, are now produced as serials, in order to lock in a viewership for the later installments. The humble daytime soap also retains its addictive qualities in the current age: 70% of all American women over eighteen now watch at least two of these shows each day, and there is a fast-growing viewership among men and college students of both sexes.

The Radio Project's next major study was an investigation into the effects of Orson Welles' Halloween 1938 radioplay based on H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds. Six million people heard the broadcast realistically describing a Martian invasion force landing in rural New Jersey. Despite repeated and clear statements that the show was fictional, approximately 25% of the listeners thought it was real, some panicking outright. The Radio Project researchers found that a majority of the people who panicked did not think that men from Mars had invaded; they actually thought that the Germans had invaded.

It happened this way. The listeners had been psychologically pre-conditioned by radio reports from the Munich crisis earlier that year. During that crisis, CBS's man in Europe, Edward R. Murrow, hit upon the idea of breaking into regular programming to present short news bulletins. For the first time in broadcasting, news was presented not in longer analytical pieces, but in short clips—what we now call "audio bites." At the height of the crisis, these flashes got so numerous, that, in the words of Murrow's producer Fred Friendly, "news bulletins were interrupting news bulletins." As the listeners thought that the world was moving to the brink of war, CBS ratings rose dramatically. When Welles did his fictional broadcast later, after the crisis had receded, he used this news bulletin technique to give things verisimilitude: he started the broadcast by faking a standard dance-music program, which kept getting interrupted by increasingly terrifying "on the scene reports" from New Jersey. Listeners who panicked, reacted not to content, but to format; they heard "We interrupt this program for an emergency bulletin," and "invasion," and immediately concluded that Hitler had invaded. The soap opera technique, transposed to the news, had worked on a vast and unexpected scale.

Little Annie and the "Wagnerian Dream" of TV

In 1939, one of the numbers of the quarterly Journal of Applied Psychology was handed over to Adorno and the Radio Project to publish some of their findings. Their conclusion was that Americans had, over the last twenty years, become "radio-minded," and that their listening had become so fragmented that repetition of format was the key to popularity. The play list determined the "hits"—a truth well known to organized crime, both then and now—and repetition could make any form of music or any performer, even a classical music performer, a "star." As long as a familiar form or context was retained, almost any content would become acceptable. "Not only are hit songs, stars, and soap operas cyclically recurrent and rigidly invariable types," said Adorno, summarizing this material a few years later, "but the specific content of the entertainment itself is derived from them and only appears to change. The details are interchangeable."

The crowning achievement of the Radio Project was "Little Annie," officially titled the Stanton-Lazersfeld Program Analyzer. Radio Project research had shown that all previous methods of preview polling were ineffectual. Up to that point, a preview audience listened to a show or watched a film, and then was asked general questions: did you like the show? what did you think of so-and-so's performance? The Radio Project realized that this method did not take into account the test audience's atomized perception of the subject, and demanded that they make a rational analysis of what was intended to be an irrational experience. So, the Project created a device in which each test audience member was supplied with a type of rheostat on which he could register the intensity of his likes or dislikes on a moment-to-moment basis. By comparing the individual graphs produced by the device, the operators could determine, not if the audience liked the whole show — which was irrelevant—but, which situations or characters produced a positive, if momentary, feeling state.

Little Annie transformed radio, film, and ultimately television programming. CBS still maintains program analyzer facilities in Hollywood and New York; it is said that results correlate 85% to ratings. Other networks and film studios have similar operations. This kind of analysis is responsible for the uncanny feeling you get when, seeing a new film or TV show, you think you have seen it all before. You have, many times. If a program analyzer indicates that, for instance, audiences were particularly titilated by a short scene in a World War II drama showing a certain type of actor kissing a certain type of actress, then that scene format will be worked into dozens of screenplays—transposed to the Middle Ages, to outer space, etc., etc.

The Radio Project also realized that television had the potential to intensify all of the effects that they had studied. TV technology had been around for some years, and had been exhibited at the 1936 World's Fair in New York, but the only person to attempt serious utilization of the medium had been Adolf Hitler. The Nazis broadcast events from the 1936 Olympic Games "live" to communal viewing rooms around Germany; they were trying to expand on their great success in using radio to Nazify all aspects of German culture. Further plans for German TV development were sidetracked by war preparations.

Adorno understood this potential perfectly, writing in 1944:

Television aims at the synthesis of radio and film, and is held up only because the interested parties have not yet reached agreement, but its consequences will be quite enormous and promise to intensify the impoverishment of aesthetic matter so drastically, that by tomorrow the thinly veiled identity of all industrial culture products can come triumphantly out in the open, derisively fulfilling the Wagnerian dream of the Gesamtkunstwerk—the fusion of all the arts in one work.

The obvious point is this: the profoundly irrational forms of modern entertainment—the stupid and eroticized content of most TV and films, the fact that your local Classical music radio station programs Stravinsky next to Mozart—don't have to be that way. They were designed to be that way. The design was so successful, that today, no one even questions the reasons or the origins.

III. Creating "Public Opinion": The "Authoritarian Personality" Bogeyman and the OSS

The efforts of the Radio Project conspirators to manipulate the population, spawned the modern pseudoscience of public opinion polling, in order to gain greater control over the methods they were developing.

Today, public opinion polls, like the television news, have been completely integrated into our society. A "scientific survey" of what people are said to think about an issue can be produced in less than twenty-four hours. Some campaigns for high political office are completely shaped by polls; in fact, many politicians try to create issues which are themselves meaningless, but which they know will look good in the polls, purely for the purpose of enhancing their image as "popular." Important policy decisions are made, even before the actual vote of the citizenry or the legislature, by poll results. Newspapers will occasionally write pious editorials calling on people to think for themselves, even as the newspaper's business agent sends a check to the local polling organization.

The idea of "public opinion" is not new, of course. Plato spoke against it in his Republic over two millenia ago; Alexis de Tocqueville wrote at length of its influence over America in the early nineteenth century. But, nobody thought to measure public opinion before the twentieth century, and nobody before the 1930's thought to use those measurements for decision-making.

It is useful to pause and reflect on the whole concept. The belief that public opinion can be a determinant of truth is philosophically insane. It precludes the idea of the rational individual mind. Every individual mind contains the divine spark of reason, and is thus capable of scientific discovery, and understanding the discoveries of others. The individual mind is one of the few things that cannot, therefore, be "averaged." Consider: at the moment of creative discovery, it is possible, if not probable, that the scientist making the discovery is the only person to hold that opinion about nature, whereas everyone else has a different opinion, or no opinion. One can only imagine what a "scientifically-conducted survey" on Kepler's model of the solar system would have been, shortly after he published the Harmony of the World: 2% for, 48% against, 50% no opinion.

These psychoanalytic survey techniques became standard, not only for the Frankfurt School, but also throughout American social science departments, particularly after the I.S.R. arrived in the United States. The methodology was the basis of the research piece for which the Frankfurt School is most well known, the "authoritarian personality" project. In 1942, I.S.R. director Max Horkheimer made contact with the American Jewish Committee, which asked him to set up a Department of Scientific Research within its organization. The American Jewish Committee also provided a large grant to study anti-Semitism in the American population. "Our aim," wrote Horkheimer in the introduction to the study, "is not merely to describe prejudice, but to explain it in order to help in its eradication.... Eradication means reeducation scientifically planned on the basis of understanding scientifically arrived at."

The A-S Scale

Ultimately, five volumes were produced for this study over the course of the late 1940's; the most important was the last, The Authoritarian Personality, by Adorno, with the help of three Berkeley, California social psychologists.

In the 1930's Erich Fromm had devised a questionnaire to be used to analyze German workers pychoanalytically as "authoritarian," "revolutionary" or "ambivalent." The heart of Adorno's study was, once again, Fromm's psychoanalytic scale, but with the positive end changed from a "revolutionary personality," to a "democratic personality," in order to make things more palatable for a postwar audience.

Nine personality traits were tested and measured, including:

  • conventionalism—rigid adherence to conventional, middle-class values
  • authoritarian aggression—the tendency to be on the look-out for, to condemn, reject and punish, people who violate conventional values
  • projectivity—the disposition to believethat wild and dangerous things go on in the world
  • sex—exaggerated concern with sexual goings-on.

From these measurements were constructed several scales: the E Scale (ethnocentrism), the PEC Scale (poltical and economic conservatism), the A-S Scale (anti-Semitism), and the F Scale (fascism). Using Rensis Lickerts's methodology of weighting results, the authors were able to tease together an empirical definition of what Adorno called "a new anthropological type," the authoritarian personality. The legerdemain here, as in all psychoanalytic survey work, is the assumption of a Weberian "type." Once the type has been statistically determined, all behavior can be explained; if an anti-Semitic personality does not act in an anti-Semitic way, then he or she has an ulterior motive for the act, or is being discontinuous. The idea that a human mind is capable of transformation, is ignored.

The results of this very study can be interpreted in diametrically different ways. One could say that the study proved that the population of the U.S. was generally conservative, did not want to abandon a capitalist economy, believed in a strong family and that sexual promiscuity should be punished, thought that the postwar world was a dangerous place, and was still suspicious of Jews (and Blacks, Roman Catholics, Orientals, etc. — unfortunately true, but correctable in a social context of economic growth and cultural optimism). On the other hand, one could take the same results and prove that anti-Jewish pogroms and Nuremburg rallies were simmering just under the surface, waiting for a new Hitler to ignite them. Which of the two interpretations you accept is a political, not a scientific, decision. Horkheimer and Adorno firmly believed that all religions, Judaism included, were "the opiate of the masses." Their goal was not the protection of Jews from prejudice, but the creation of a definition of authoritarianism and anti-Semitism which could be exploited to force the "scientifically planned reeducation" of Americans and Europeans away from the principles of Judeo-Christian civilization, which the Frankfurt School despised. In their theoretical writings of this period, Horkheimer and Adorno pushed the thesis to its most paranoid: just as capitalism was inherently fascistic, the philosophy of Christianity itself is the source of anti-Semitism. As Horkheimer and Adorno jointly wrote in their 1947 "Elements of Anti-Semitism":

 

Christ, the spirit become flesh, is the deified sorcerer. Man's self-reflection in the absolute, the humanization of God by Christ, is the proton pseudos [original falsehood]. Progress beyond Judaism is coupled with the assumption that the man Jesus has become God. The reflective aspect of Christianity, the intellectualization of magic, is the root of evil.

At the same time, Horkheimer could write in a more-popularized article titled "Anti-Semitism: A Social Disease," that "at present, the only country where there does not seem to be any kind of anti-Semitism is Russia"[!].

This self-serving attempt to maximize paranoia was further aided by Hannah Arendt, who popularized the authoritarian personality research in her widely-read Origins of Totalitarianism. Arendt also added the famous rhetorical flourish about the "banality of evil" in her later Eichmann in Jerusalem: even a simple, shopkeeper-type like Eichmann can turn into a Nazi beast under the right psychological circumstances—every Gentile is suspect, psychoanalytically.

It is Arendt's extreme version of the authoritarian personality thesis which is the operant philosophy of today's Cult Awareness Network (CAN), a group which works with the U.S. Justice Department and the Anti-Defamation League of the B'nai B'rith, among others. Using standard Frankfurt School method, CAN identifies political and religious groups which are its political enemies, then re-labels them as a "cult," in order to justify operations against them.

The Public Opinion Explosion

Despite its unprovable central thesis of "psychoanalytic types," the interpretive survey methodology of the Frankfurt School became dominant in the social sciences, and essentially remains so today. In fact, the adoption of these new, supposedly scientific techniques in the 1930's brought about an explosion in public-opinion survey use, much of it funded by Madison Avenue. The major pollsters of today—A.C. Neilsen, George Gallup, Elmo Roper—started in the mid-1930's, and began using the I.S.R. methods, especially given the success of the Stanton-Lazersfeld Program Analyzer. By 1936, polling activity had become sufficiently widespread to justify a trade association, the American Academy of Public Opinion Research at Princeton, headed by Lazersfeld; at the same time, the University of Chicago created the National Opinion Research Center. In 1940, the Office of Radio Research was turned into the Bureau of Applied Social Research, a division of Columbia University, with the indefatigable Lazersfeld as director.

After World War II, Lazersfeld especially pioneered the use of surveys to psychoanalyze American voting behavior, and by the 1952 Presidential election, Madison Avenue advertising agencies were firmly in control of Dwight Eisenhower's campaign, utilizing Lazersfeld's work. Nineteen fifty-two was also the first election under the influence of television, which, as Adorno had predicted eight years earlier, had grown to incredible influence in a very short time. Batten, Barton, Durstine & Osborne — the fabled "BBD&O" ad agency—designed Ike's campaign appearances entirely for the TV cameras, and as carefully as Hitler's Nuremberg rallies; one-minute "spot" advertisements were pioneered to cater to the survey-determined needs of the voters.

This snowball has not stopped rolling since. The entire development of television and advertising in the 1950's and 1960's was pioneered by men and women who were trained in the Frankfurt School's techniques of mass alienation. Frank Stanton went directly from the Radio Project to become the single most-important leader of modern television. Stanton's chief rival in the formative period of TV was NBC's Sylvester "Pat" Weaver; after a Ph.D. in "listening behavior," Weaver worked with the Program Analyzer in the late 1930's, before becoming a Young & Rubicam vice-president, then NBC's director of programming, and ultimately the network's president. Stanton and Weaver's stories are typical.

Today, the men and women who run the networks, the ad agencies, and the polling organizations, even if they have never heard of Theodor Adorno, firmly believe in Adorno's theory that the media can, and should, turn all they touch into "football." Coverage of the 1991 Gulf War should make that clear.

The technique of mass media and advertising developed by the Frankfurt School now effectively controls American political campaigning. Campaigns are no longer based on political programs, but actually on alienation. Petty gripes and irrational fears are identified by psychoanalytic survey, to be transmogrified into "issues" to be catered to; the "Willy Horton" ads of the 1988 Presidential campaign, and the "flag-burning amendment," are but two recent examples. Issues that will determine the future of our civilization, are scrupulously reduced to photo opportunities and audio bites—like Ed Murrow's original 1930's radio reports—where the dramatic effect is maximized, and the idea content is zero.

Who Is the Enemy?

Part of the influence of the authoritarian personality hoax in our own day also derives from the fact that, incredibly, the Frankfurt School and its theories were officially accepted by the U.S. government during World War II, and these Cominternists were responsible for determining who were America's wartime, and postwar, enemies. In 1942, the Office of Strategic Services, America's hastily-constructed espionage and covert operations unit, asked former Harvard president James Baxter to form a Research and Analysis (R&A) Branch under the group's Intelligence Division. By 1944, the R&A Branch had collected such a large and prestigeous group of emigré scholars that H. Stuart Hughes, then a young Ph.D., said that working for it was "a second graduate education" at government expense. The Central European Section was headed by historian Carl Schorske; under him, in the all-important Germany/Austria Section, was Franz Neumann, as section chief, with Herbert Marcuse, Paul Baran, and Otto Kirchheimer, all I.S.R. veterans. Leo Lowenthal headed the German-language section of the Office of War Information; Sophie Marcuse, Marcuse's wife, worked at the Office of Naval Intelligence. Also at the R&A Branch were: Siegfried Kracauer, Adorno's old Kant instructor, now a film theorist; Norman O. Brown, who would become famous in the 1960's by combining Marcuse's hedonism theory with Wilhelm Reich's orgone therapy to popularize "polymorphous perversity"; Barrington Moore, Jr., later a philosophy professor who would co-author a book with Marcuse; Gregory Bateson, the husband of anthropologist Margaret Mead (who wrote for the Frankfurt School's journal), and Arthur Schlesinger, the historian who joined the Kennedy Administration. Marcuse's first assignment was to head a team to identify both those who would be tried as war criminals after the war, and also those who were potential leaders of postwar Germany. In 1944, Marcuse, Neumann, and Kirchheimer wrote the Denazification Guide, which was later issued to officers of the U.S. Armed Forces occupying Germany, to help them identify and suppress pro-Nazi behaviors. After the armistice, the R&A Branch sent representatives to work as intelligence liaisons with the various occupying powers; Marcuse was assigned the U.S. Zone, Kirchheimer the French, and Barrington Moore the Soviet. In the summer of 1945, Neumann left to become chief of research for the Nuremburg Tribunal. Marcuse remained in and around U.S. intelligence into the early 1950's, rising to the chief of the Central European Branch of the State Department's Office of Intelligence Research, an office formally charged with "planning and implementing a program of positive-intelligence research ... to meet the intelligence requirements of the Central Intelligence Agency and other authorized agencies." During his tenure as a U.S. government official, Marcuse supported the division of Germany into East and West, noting that this would prevent an alliance between the newly liberated left-wing parties and the old, conservative industrial and business layers. In 1949, he produced a 532-page report, "The Potentials of World Communism" (declassified only in 1978), which suggested that the Marshall Plan economic stabilization of Europe would limit the recruitment potential of Western Europe's Communist Parties to acceptable levels, causing a period of hostile co-existence with the Soviet Union, marked by confrontation only in faraway places like Latin America and Indochina—in all, a surprisingly accurate forecast. Marcuse left the State Department with a Rockefeller Foundation grant to work with the various Soviet Studies departments which were set up at many of America's top universities after the war, largely by R&A Branch veterans.

At the same time, Max Horkheimer was doing even greater damage. As part of the denazification of Germany suggested by the R&A Branch, U.S. High Commissioner for Germany John J. McCloy, using personal discretionary funds, brought Horkheimer back to Germany to reform the German university system. In fact, McCloy asked President Truman and Congress to pass a bill granting Horkheimer, who had become a naturalized American, dual citizenship; thus, for a brief period, Horkheimer was the only person in the world to hold both German and U.S. citizenship. In Germany, Horkheimer began the spadework for the full-blown revival of the Frankfurt School in that nation in the late 1950's, including the training of a whole new generation of anti-Western civilization scholars like Hans-Georg Gadamer and Jürgen Habermas, who would have such destructive influence in 1960's Germany. In a period of American history when some individuals were being hounded into unemployment and suicide for the faintest aroma of leftism, Frankfurt School veterans—all with superb Comintern credentials — led what can only be called charmed lives. America had, to an incredible extent, handed the determination of who were the nation's enemies, over to the nation's own worst enemies.

IV. The Aristotelian Eros: Marcuse and the CIA's Drug Counterculture

In 1989, Hans-Georg Gadamer, a protégé of Martin Heidegger and the last of the original Frankfurt School generation, was asked to provide an appreciation of his own work for the German newspaper, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. He wrote,

 

One has to conceive of Aristotle's ethics as a true fulfillment of the Socratic challenge, which Plato had placed at the center of his dialogues on the Socratic question of the good.... Plato described the idea of the good ... as the ultimate and highest idea, which is supposedly the highest principle of being for the universe, the state, and the human soul. Against this Aristotle opposed a decisive critique, under the famous formula, "Plato is my friend, but the truth is my friend even more." He denied that one could consider the idea of the good as a universal principle of being, which is supposed to hold in the same way for theoretical knowledge as for practical knowledge and human activity.

This statement not only succinctly states the underlying philosophy of the Frankfurt School, it also suggests an inflection point around which we can order much of the philosophical combat of the last two millenia. In the simplest terms, the Aristotelian correction of Plato sunders physics from metaphysics, relegating the Good to a mere object of speculation about which "our knowledge remains only a hypothesis," in the words of Wilhelm Dilthey, the Frankfurt School's favorite philosopher. Our knowledge of the "real world," as Dilthey, Nietzsche, and other precursors of the Frankfurt School were wont to emphasize, becomes erotic, in the broadest sense of that term, as object fixation. The universe becomes a collection of things which each operate on the basis of their own natures (that is, genetically), and through interaction between themselves (that is, mechanistically). Science becomes the deduction of the appropriate categories of these natures and interactions. Since the human mind is merely a sensorium, waiting for the Newtonian apple to jar it into deduction, humanity's relationship to the world (and vice versa) becomes an erotic attachment to objects. The comprehension of the universal—the mind's seeking to be the living image of the living God—is therefore illusory. That universal either does not exist, or it exists incomprehensibly as a deus ex machina; that is, the Divine exists as a superaddition to the physical universe — God is really Zeus, flinging thunderbolts into the world from some outside location. (Or, perhaps more appropriately: God is really Cupid, letting loose golden arrows to make objects attract, and leaden arrows to make objects repel.) The key to the entire Frankfurt School program, from originator Lukacs on, is the "liberation" of Aristotelian eros, to make individual feeling states psychologically primary. When the I.S.R. leaders arrived in the United States in the mid-1930's, they exulted that here was a place which had no adequate philosophical defenses against their brand of Kulturpessimismus [cultural pessimism]. However, although the Frankfurt School made major inroads in American intellectual life before World War II, that influence was largely confined to academia and to radio; and radio, although important, did not yet have the overwhelming influence on social life that it would acquire during the war. Furthermore, America's mobilization for the war, and the victory against fascism, sidetracked the Frankfurt School schedule; America in 1945 was almost sublimely optimistic, with a population firmly convinced that a mobilized republic, backed by science and technology, could do just about anything. The fifteen years after the war, however, saw the domination of family life by the radio and television shaped by the Frankfurt School, in a period of political erosion in which the great positive potential of America degenerated to a purely negative posture against the real and, oftentimes manipulated, threat of the Soviet Union. At the same time, hundreds of thousands of the young generation—the so-called baby boomers—were entering college and being exposed to the Frankfurt School's poison, either directly or indirectly. It is illustrative, that by 1960, sociology had become the most popular course of study in American universities. Indeed, when one looks at the first stirrings of the student rebellion at the beginning of the 1960's, like the speeches of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement or the Port Huron Statement which founded the Students for a Democratic Society, one is struck with how devoid of actual content these discussions were. There is much anxiety about being made to conform to the system—"I am a human being; do not fold, spindle, or mutilate" went an early Berkeley slogan—but it is clear that the "problems" cited derive much more from required sociology textbooks, than from the real needs of the society.

The CIA's Psychedelic Revolution

The simmering unrest on campus in 1960 might well too have passed or had a positive outcome, were it not for the traumatic decapitation of the nation through the Kennedy assassination, plus the simultaneous introduction of widespread drug use. Drugs had always been an "analytical tool" of the nineteenth century Romantics, like the French Symbolists, and were popular among the European and American Bohemian fringe well into the post-World War II period. But, in the second half of the 1950's, the CIA and allied intelligence services began extensive experimentation with the hallucinogen LSD to investigate its potential for social control. It has now been documented that millions of doses of the chemical were produced and disseminated under the aegis of the CIA's Operation MK-Ultra. LSD became the drug of choice within the agency itself, and was passed out freely to friends of the family, including a substantial number of OSS veterans. For instance, it was OSS Research and Analysis Branch veteran Gregory Bateson who "turned on" the Beat poet Allen Ginsberg to a U.S. Navy LSD experiment in Palo Alto, California. Not only Ginsberg, but novelist Ken Kesey and the original members of the Grateful Dead rock group opened the doors of perception courtesy of the Navy. The guru of the "psychedelic revolution," Timothy Leary, first heard about hallucinogens in 1957 from Life magazine (whose publisher, Henry Luce, was often given government acid, like many other opinion shapers), and began his career as a CIA contract employee; at a 1977 "reunion" of acid pioneers, Leary openly admitted, "everything I am, I owe to the foresight of the CIA." Hallucinogens have the singular effect of making the victim asocial, totally self-centered, and concerned with objects. Even the most banal objects take on the "aura" which Benjamin had talked about, and become timeless and delusionarily profound. In other words, hallucinogens instantaneously achieve a state of mind identical to that prescribed by the Frankfurt School theories. And, the popularization of these chemicals created a vast psychological lability for bringing those theories into practice. Thus, the situation at the beginning of the 1960's represented a brilliant re-entry point for the Frankfurt School, and it was fully exploited. One of the crowning ironies of the "Now Generation" of 1964 on, is that, for all its protestations of utter modernity, none of its ideas or artifacts was less than thirty years old. The political theory came completely from the Frankfurt School; Lucien Goldmann, a French radical who was a visiting professor at Columbia in 1968, was absolutely correct when he said of Herbert Marcuse in 1969 that "the student movements ... found in his works and ultimately in his works alone the theoretical formulation of their problems and aspirations [emphasis in original]." The long hair and sandals, the free love communes, the macrobiotic food, the liberated lifestyles, had been designed at the turn of the century, and thoroughly field-tested by various, Frankfurt School-connected New Age social experiments like the Ascona commune before 1920. (See box.) Even Tom Hayden's defiant "Never trust anyone over thirty," was merely a less-urbane version of Rupert Brooke's 1905, "Nobody over thirty is worth talking to." The social planners who shaped the 1960's simply relied on already-available materials.

Eros and Civilization

The founding document of the 1960's counterculture, and that which brought the Frankfurt School's "revolutionary messianism" of the 1920's into the 1960's, was Marcuse's Eros and Civilization, originally published in 1955 and funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. The document masterfully sums up the Frankfurt School ideology of Kulturpessimismus in the concept of "dimensionality." In one of the most bizarre perversions of philosophy, Marcuse claims to derive this concept from Friedrich Schiller. Schiller, whom Marcuse purposefully misidentifies as the heir of Immanuel Kant, discerned two dimensions in humanity: a sensuous instinct and an impulse toward form. Schiller advocated the harmonization of these two instincts in man in the form of a creative play instinct. For Marcuse, on the other hand, the only hope to escape the one-dimensionality of modern industrial society was to liberate the erotic side of man, the sensuous instinct, in rebellion against "technological rationality." As Marcuse would say later (1964) in his One-Dimensional Man, "A comfortable, smooth, reasonable, democratic unfreedom prevails in advanced industrial civilization, a token of technical progress." This erotic liberation he misidentifies with Schiller's "play instinct," which, rather than being erotic, is an expression of charity, the higher concept of love associated with true creativity. Marcuse's contrary theory of erotic liberation is something implicit in Sigmund Freud, but not explicitly emphasized, except for some Freudian renegades like Wilhelm Reich and, to a certain extent, Carl Jung. Every aspect of culture in the West, including reason itself, says Marcuse, acts to repress this: "The totalitarian universe of technological rationality is the latest transmutation of the idea of reason." Or: "Auschwitz continues to haunt, not the memory but the accomplishments of man—the space flights, the rockets and missiles, the pretty electronics plants...."

This erotic liberation should take the form of the "Great Refusal," a total rejection of the "capitalist" monster and all his works, including "technological" reason, and "ritual-authoritarian language." As part of the Great Refusal, mankind should develop an "aesthetic ethos," turning life into an aesthetic ritual, a "life-style" (a nonsense phrase which came into the language in the 1960's under Marcuse's influence). With Marcuse representing the point of the wedge, the 1960's were filled with obtuse intellectual justifications of contentless adolescent sexual rebellion. Eros and Civilization was reissued as an inexpensive paperback in 1961, and ran through several editions; in the preface to the 1966 edition, Marcuse added that the new slogan, "Make Love, Not War," was exactly what he was talking about: "The fight for eros is a political fight [emphasis in original]." In 1969, he noted that even the New Left's obsessive use of obscenities in its manifestoes was part of the Great Refusal, calling it "a systematic linguistic rebellion, which smashes the ideological context in which the words are employed and defined." Marcuse was aided by psychoanalyst Norman O. Brown, his OSS protege, who contributed Life Against Death in 1959, and Love's Body in 1966—calling for man to shed his reasonable, "armored" ego, and replace it with a "Dionysian body ego," that would embrace the instinctual reality of polymorphous perversity, and bring man back into "union with nature." The books of Reich, who had claimed that Nazism was caused by monogamy, were re-issued. Reich had died in an American prison, jailed for taking money on the claim that cancer could be cured by rechanneling "orgone energy." Primary education became dominated by Reich's leading follower, A.S. Neill, a Theosophical cult member of the 1930's and militant atheist, whose educational theories demanded that students be taught to rebel against teachers who are, by nature, authoritarian. Neill's book Summerhill sold 24,000 copies in 1960, rising to 100,000 in 1968, and 2 million in 1970; by 1970, it was required reading in 600 university courses, making it one of the most influential education texts of the period, and still a benchmark for recent writers on the subject. Marcuse led the way for the complete revival of the rest of the Frankfurt School theorists, re-introducing the long-forgotten Lukacs to America. Marcuse himself became the lightning rod for attacks on the counterculture, and was regularly attacked by such sources as the Soviet daily Pravda, and then-California Governor Ronald Reagan. The only critique of any merit at the time, however, was one by Pope Paul VI, who in 1969 named Marcuse (an extraordinary step, as the Vatican usually refrains from formal denunciations of living individuals), along with Freud, for their justification of "disgusting and unbridled expressions of eroticism"; and called Marcuse's theory of liberation, "the theory which opens the way for license cloaked as liberty ... an aberration of instinct." The eroticism of the counterculture meant much more than free love and a violent attack on the nuclear family. It also meant the legitimization of philosophical eros. People were trained to see themselves as objects, determined by their "natures." The importance of the individual as a person gifted with the divine spark of creativity, and capable of acting upon all human civilization, was replaced by the idea that the person is important because he or she is black, or a woman, or feels homosexual impulses. This explains the deformation of the civil rights movement into a "black power" movement, and the transformation of the legitimate issue of civil rights for women into feminism. Discussion of women's civil rights was forced into being just another "liberation cult," complete with bra-burning and other, sometimes openly Astarte-style, rituals; a review of Kate Millet's Sexual Politics (1970) and Germaine Greer's The Female Eunuch (1971), demonstrates their complete reliance on Marcuse, Fromm, Reich, and other Freudian extremists.

The Bad Trip

This popularization of life as an erotic, pessimistic ritual did not abate, but in fact deepened over the twenty years leading to today; it is the basis of the horror we see around us. The heirs of Marcuse and Adorno completely dominate the universities, teaching their own students to replace reason with "Politically Correct" ritual exercises. There are very few theoretical books on arts, letters, or language published today in the United States or Europe which do not openly acknowledge their debt to the Frankfort School.

The witchhunt on today's campuses is merely the implementation of Marcuse's concept of "repressive toleration"—"tolerance for movements from the left, but intolerance for movements from the right"—enforced by the students of the Frankfurt School, now become the professors of women's studies and Afro-American studies. The most erudite spokesman for Afro-American studies, for instance, Professor Cornell West of Princeton, publicly states that his theories are derived from Georg Lukacs. At the same time, the ugliness so carefully nurtured by the Frankfurt School pessimists, has corrupted our highest cultural endeavors. One can hardly find a performance of a Mozart opera, which has not been utterly deformed by a director who, following Benjamin and the I.S.R., wants to "liberate the erotic subtext." You cannot ask an orchestra to perform Schönberg and Beethoven on the same program, and maintain its integrity for the latter. And, when our highest culture becomes impotent, popular culture becomes openly bestial. One final image: American and European children daily watch films like Nightmare on Elm Street and Total Recall, or television shows comparable to them. A typical scene in one of these will have a figure emerge from a television set; the skin of his face will realistically peel away to reveal a hideously deformed man with razor-blade fingers, fingers which start growing to several feet in length, and—suddenly—the victim is slashed to bloody ribbons. This is not entertainment. This is the deeply paranoid hallucination of the LSD acid head. The worst of what happened in the 1960's is now daily fare. Owing to the Frankfurt School and its co-conspirators, the West is on a "bad trip" from which it is not being allowed to come down.

The principles through which Western Judeo-Christian civilization was built, are now no longer dominant in our society; they exist only as a kind of underground resistance movement. If that resistance is ultimately submerged, then the civilization will not survive—and, in our era of incurable pandemic disease and nuclear weapons, the collapse of Western civilization will very likely take the rest of the world with it to Hell.

The way out is to create a Renaissance. If that sounds grandiose, it is nonetheless what is needed. A renaissance means, to start again; to discard the evil, and inhuman, and just plain stupid, and to go back, hundreds or thousands of years, to the ideas which allow humanity to grow in freedom and goodness. Once we have identified those core beliefs, we can start to rebuild civilization.

Ultimately, a new Renaissance will rely on scientists, artists, and composers, but in the first moment, it depends on seemingly ordinary people who will defend the divine spark of reason in themselves, and tolerate no less in others. Given the successes of the Frankfurt School and its New Dark Age sponsors, these ordinary individuals, with their belief in reason and the difference between right and wrong, will be "unpopular." But, no really good idea was ever popular, in the beginning.

Source: http://tinyurl.com/lkbrg6

jeudi, 30 décembre 2010

Bernd Rabehl: American Democratic Dictatorship is Merely Another Form of Fascism

Bernd Rabehl: American Democratic Dictatorship is Merely Another Form of Fascism

Ex: http://de-construct.net/

rabehl.jpgHow was Germany Occupied, Subjugated and Colonized Under the Guise of “Denazification”

Berlin University Professor Dr. Bernd Rabehl, closest associate of Rudi Dutschke (leader and spokesman of the left-wing German student movement of the 1960s), is regarded by the followers and critics alike as the “most important theoretician of the 1968 student movement in Germany”. One of the first genuine dissidents in the West who fought against both left and right-wing dictatorship, Rabehl asserts the U.S. hegemony has destroyed freedom and culture in Europe, under the pretext of spreading democracy and “American way of life”.

“American war against Serbia was first and foremost directed against Russia. What I don’t understand is why did the German government allow itself to be drawn in the war against Serbia. Because, one of the most important tasks for Germany should be precisely building good relations with Russia. Germany has missed a historical opportunity — we already fought the blood soaked wars with Russia, it is the last minute to finally start a long-term policy of peace with Kremlin,” Rabehl told Nikola Živković, Belgrade journalist.

Q: Together with Dutschke, you have created the concept of the Green Party. What do you think about that political party today?

A: Present-day Greens are indistinguishable from the liberals. They defend the interests of lawyers, judges, architects… They were active in the student movement in 1968, but today they too enjoy the highest standard of living, immersed in materialism. At the world stage, they became the chief advocates of an imperial idea. I’m including here the former German Minister of Foreign Affairs Joschka Fischer, although he didn’t play a significant role in the 1968 student movement.

Present-day Greens unconditionally support the U.S. and Israel policy. They are in no way disturbed by the fact they protested against the American imperial policy in Vietnam in 1968, while today they support the United States imperial policies everywhere. I assume some of them were bought and some were blackmailed.

Q: Rudi Dutschke would say: “If we don’t provoke, no one will pay attention to us”. Today too, it doesn’t do without provocations…?

A: There is no other way, we must provoke, but only within the bounds of law and constitution. There are so many taboos today, especially in Germany, subjects one is prohibited to even think about! Veritable crusades are lead against those who dare to violate those taboos.

Dutschke and I always spoke about the need to liberate Germany on a national level. We were against the American policy. We never lost sight of the fact Germany is not free, it is an occupied country.

Q: How would you define present-day Germany?

A: As a democratic dictatorship. The proof is the widespread corruption and affairs only shreds of which are allowed to reach the media. The power is in the hands of a clique which is slowly but surely extinguishing the last benefits of democracy. There are no real disagreements between the political parties — there is only a ritual and circus staged for the wide population, where the TV carries a Bundestag “debate” about the social problems, for example. The voters go to elections, but they really do not decide about anything. Two leading political parties are being sold to the voters in the same way the best known TV or car brands are sold. The voters are asked: “Sony” or “Philips”, “Volkswagen” or “Peugeot”?

“Democratization” as Leveling all the Cultural and National Differences

Q: Jürgen Habermas [German sociologist adhering to American pragmatism] called you and Dutschke the “left fascists”…

A: Neither Dutschke nor I are in any shape or form the “left fascists” — we could perhaps say that for Goebbels.

Habermas attacked Dutscke in 1967, but not as a professor who uses arguments, but as a denunciator. He wasted no time to declare Dutschke a state enemy number one. In such a situation, critical thinking becomes useless. Habermas simply asserts that everyone who criticizes United States is a “left fascist”. Habermas supported the bombardment of both Serbia and Iraq, he is an ideologist of the ruling socio-liberal clique and, as such, he was given countless awards by the establishment in Germany and West in general.

Q: You say the European countries have no sovereignty, that they are in a vassal relationship with Washington. Does that include Germany?

A: Even Brzezinski has admitted this. In addition to the economic, monetary, military and technological superiority, United States are striving to impose some sort of civilizational, ideological hegemony — an “American way of life”. This term involves not only the way of life, which boils down to consumerism, but also the “industry of culture”. The main goal of American “culture” is destruction of the traditional European culture. The US is striving to destroy the old Asian cultures too, mainly the culture of China, India and Japan. United States are “democratizing” — leveling all the cultural forms. When Washington speaks about the “end of history”, it wants to say it plans to ensure and secure American hegemony for all the time.

Q: That, of course, is impossible…

A: Of course. American ruling establishment is no longer maintaining the culture of dialogue and critique. There are only phrases, commercials, pictures offering new products. What dominates is the neutral, non-political tone. Over ten American aircraft carriers are cruising the world seas at all times, in the state of readiness 24/7. Only United States can afford such a pricey luxury. Their superiority and riches have a fascinating appearance. But our European or Chinese memory is much longer than Washington itself and we know very well from the history that no superpower can last forever.

Q: Where does the danger lie for Washington?

A: Not in the outside enemies, but on the inside. In the past half a century the non-European immigrants have flooded United States, so the white, European population will soon become a minority. The most numerous workers will be from Latin America, and the economic and scientific elite will consist of the Asians, primarily Chinese. Brzezinski is also expressing fear that in the near future “American” elite will become Asian. The only question is when. Some say in 20 years or so, the others are convinced this will happen sooner.

Debt to American Banks Made European States Easy Prey to American Imperialism

Q: Let’s go back to our Europe. After 1945 it has lost sovereignty…

mein-freund-rudi-dutschke-21016595.jpgA: United States even today have the right to intervene in the internal affairs of every European Union member state, and especially in Germany. It is not necessary to use military force for this. How was that achieved? After 1945, German elite went through the process of re-education. US was also exerting influence over the policies of German syndicates and political parties.

Q: When did the decisive American influence on Europe take place?

A: This influence started with the First World War. England and France were buying war supplies, wheat, machines in United States. American banks approved credits for purchase of these goods. England, France and the other Entente powers were indebted by the American banks and American government. After 1918, these debts represented the basis for American influence in Europe. After 1918, a defeated Germany was also given credits by the American banks. This was felt already in 1919, during the Versailles Conference, where the new European order was being created.

The U.S. Dictatorship — Reducing Collective to a Mass of Impotent Consumers

Q: Tell us more about the “re-education” of Germany…

A: After Germany was militarily defeated in 1945, American occupation forces organized consultations and meetings with American sociologists, psychologists, economy experts and anthropologists. A number of German Jews were involved in the project, as well as German emigrants (mostly social-democrats), who spent the war years in United States. The main subject was how to solve the “German question”. Some 2,000 scientists were involved in this project, which was headed by the Organization of Strategic Services [OSS], controlled by the American military leadership stationed in Germany.

The OSS had a task to describe, as precisely as possible, the economic, cultural and social situation in conquered Germany. Still, there were disagreements among the scientists.

Q: Who were the prominent critics of this project?

A: Two philosophers gained prominence among the critics of the blind copying of American model: Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno. They started from the premise that totalitarian dictatorship which existed in Nazi Germany does not represent some specifically German case. There is a democratic dictatorship in United States, which managed to prevent the conflicts between the social organizations and classes, simply because all of them became a part of the regime. Instead of confronted classes, in U.S. there are only consumers. There is no collective, only individuals who buy and spend. The entire industry is involved in satisfying the needs of consumers: media, commercials, advertising, market, sports and show business. In that way the individual is more thoroughly encompassed and controlled then it was ever possible in the authoritarian society of the Nazi Germany or Soviet Union under Stalin. The mobilization of the masses in American society is carried out far more efficiently, because there, as opposed to the Nazi regime, there is no need to ever reach for the enforcement of the state apparatus. The “values” promoted by the advertising agencies represent an ideal of every American citizen.

Q: This was also the position of Herbert Marcuse, the main ideologue of the 1968 student movement?

A: Marcuse fascinated us with the radical ideas. According to him, the Nazi movement wasn’t a specifically German product, but a logical consequence of a developed industrial society. The Nazi dictatorship and American hegemony are not two opposed social systems, they are rather the two forms of the authoritarian power system. Hitler was mobilizing masses with immense military parades, American type of democracy achieves this mobilization much more completely and less expensively with TV commercials, sport competitions and spectacles, where the people are reduced to the faceless mass, the audience.

Scientists as Controllers and Denunciators

Q: Who were the advocates of the concept which opposed Horkheimer, Adorno and Marcuse?

A: This group was headed by [American sociologist] Talcott Parsons. He advocated the view according to which the American society was a result of “productive symbiosis of democratic ideas and institutions”. He claimed that, unlike Germany, American society has succeeded to successfully repress the “reactionary forces”. According to Parsons, that is why the US managed to develop democratic dynamics in politics, economy and in culture, and that is why this type of democracy should serve as a blueprint for Europe.

This line of thinking sees the main task of sociologists, politicologists, communication experts and psychologists in pedantically analyzing the state of society, in order to give a timely warning to the political and economic leaders in case of a national discontent.

Therefore, the scientists become the carriers of the covert control and the hegemony of the system. They believe they can forecast the crisis, so the ruling elite shouldn’t worry. Scientists are also employed in state services, in the ministries, police force, political parties, army, secret services… The scientist’s job is to find and expose the opponents of the system, and then to persuade them every struggle is predestined to fail. In short, every resistance to the existing American system is futile. If they do not succeed to persuade them, the state scientists utilize threats and denunciations. In Germany after 1968, this role was given to Jurgen Habermas.

Q: What tasks have these American experts set before themselves back in 1945?

A: The aim of the project was to replace the Nazi elite, to reshape the people’s psyche and destroy the German national tradition. They mostly succeed.

Power-Hungry Establishment Served by Dishonorable NGOs

Q: Some of your buddies from 1968 are today ministers…

rudi_dutschke.jpgA: I was shocked when I saw how quickly people can discard their ideals, literally overnight, and step in the roles of “important politicians”. I’m horrified by the barefaced hatred of these people towards their own German nation. Tossed in the garbage bin are the great achievements of the German workers’ movement, German conservatism and liberalism. I, on the other hand, believe the European culture can only exist as the sum of different, national cultures, and not some amorphous mass drowned in the common cauldron as a unified “Coca-Cola culture”.

Q: In today’s Germany, each opposition party which calls for national tradition is labeled “extremist” or “neo-Nazi”. How does one defend oneself from the rampant branding?

A: With the clear and precise language, with the force of arguments. The ruling parties and non-governmental organizations which serve them are showing that the danger of a new totalitarian society is coming from themselves.

After the fall of the Berlin wall, we have more and more obvious concentration of power in the West. The capital, media and politics represent the “holy trinity” of the unchecked power not only in United States, but also in Europe. The most influential Westerners are most often resembling the Warsaw Pact leaders. In order to preserve privileges, establishment is using manipulations and denunciations, exerting efforts to criminalize every attempt at true opposition. “Political correctness” also serves this purpose. In this, the non-governmental sector plays a very important, dishonorable role. This particular maneuver discourages every attempt to think for oneself and suffocates a desire for national freedom. The very recalling of national history is instantly stigmatized as the “right-wing radicalism”.

History as a Tool in Demonizing the Enemy of the Day

Q: Germany took part in the NATO aggression against Serbia. It did not take part in the war against Iraq, but today German troops are present both in Afghanistan and now even in Lebanon…

A: In 1966 Washington was forced to give up on the idea of sending German soldiers to Vietnam. Today the slogans “Germans to the front!” are becoming ever louder. German soldiers, of course, are not taking part in the interventions as an independent factor which would take care of its own national interests, but as the cannon fodder — the more Germans get killed, the more American lives will be spared. This is regarded as the Germans still paying off the WWII debts. After 1945, Germans were reared to become the “nation without tradition and culture”. It is easy to manipulate such nation. German political elite feels no responsibility whatsoever for their own country.

Q: Do you view NATO bombardment in the same context?

A: Yes, quite. German media also took part in the propaganda war against Serbia. Together with German politicians, our media outlets were actively involved in demonization of the Serbian state. They simply compared it with Nazi Germany. It seems that for such people history exists only to allow drawing of the cheap parallels, in order to be able to successfully demonize the enemy of the day.

For example, German television showed the mound of corpses from Auschwitz as an illustration of what Serbia allegedly could do… And all of it, of course, in the name of “human rights, protection of minorities and justice”. Therein lies the cynicism of the “leader of the free world” and the alleged advocate of the freedom of media.

Q: How was it possible to bomb a capital of a European state at the end of 20th century?

A: In this case Germany must have resisted American requests. After all, it violated its own constitution, which prohibits Germany to conduct wars, and this bombardment didn’t even have a UN mandate.

Secret Services Blocking Movements for Reaffirming Cultural Identity

Q: Your political engagement hasn’t been unnoticed. What is the goal of your political activism?

A: I am fighting to finally have a dialogue opened. The process of European unification shouldn’t have only economic but, most of all, a cultural dimension. This cannot be achieved with the European political elite and its bureaucracy. I am fighting for the European cultural identity in which the main role will belong to the European nations. Of course, I’m perfectly aware this cannot be achieved by an individual. Foreign secret services operating in Germany and other EU states are doing all in their power to block this process. This is especially true for the secret services from allegedly friendly states, the most active of which in Germany are the American and Israeli secret service — CIA and Mossad.

dimanche, 20 juin 2010

Learning from the Left: Douglas Hyde's "Dedication & Leadership"

Learning from the Left:
Douglas Hyde’s Dedication & Leadership

White Nationalism is at present confined largely to the political right, i.e., the people who have been on a losing streak since Stalingrad. European rightists do, of course, have much practical wisdom to impart, even if they failed in the end.

But American rightists have not even managed to learn what they can from the losers, much less take an interest in learning from the winners: the left, which has now established ideological hegemony up and down the political spectrum, defining the Limbaughs and libertarians of the “respectable” (viz., ineffectual) opposition as surely as the liberals they huff and puff about.

For those rightists who want to learn from the winners, Douglas Hyde’s Dedication and Leadership (South Bend, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1966) is a good place to begin. Hyde was a 20 year veteran of Communist activism, serving as news editor of the Communist London Daily Worker, until 1948, when he resigned, renounced Communism, and announced his conversion to Catholicism.

Although Hyde rejected the ideals and aims of Communism, he thought that the party’s highly effective organizational techniques should be emulated by those who wish to change the world for the better. Dedication and Leadership is a 150-page distillation of his experiences and insights.

Communism has killed more than 100 million people world-wide and is still racking up victims. Thus it is hard to think of Communism as anything but evil. But even evil is an accomplishment, and prodigious evil is a prodigious accomplishment.

How did tiny minorities of Communists accomplish so much? Because they worked harder and smarter than their opponents. They were particularly effective in mobilizing important moral qualities: idealism, dedication, and self-sacrifice. (One tends to feel licensed to kill for causes that one is willing to die for oneself.)

The fact that these moral qualities were bent toward evil ends does not make them any less praiseworthy.

How does one find and mobilize idealism, dedication, and sacrifice? Hyde advises the following.

First, recruit people who are already idealistic.

Young people tend to be idealistic, so special efforts should be focused on recruiting them.

Second, if you want to get a lot from people, demand a lot from them.

Communists inspired tremendous efforts simply because they asked for them. Communists were taught not to ask what they party can do for them, but what they can do for the party. The Marine Corps has no shortage of recruits for the same reason: their recruitment propaganda emphasizes sacrifice and discipline, not the perks of membership.

I was particularly impressed by one example of the dedication and self-sacrifice that was routine in Communist circles. Hyde and his fellow party employees took 8/14 of their income—more than 50%—and tithed it back to the party. They did this every payday, not just on special occasions.

How many White Nationalists are willing to tithe any percentage of their income to the cause they claim is sacred to them?

There are legions of professional Jews and Blacks. But there are fewer than ten full-time White Nationalists in the entire United States, and most of them make so little from the cause that it would be inconceivable that they could tithe anything back to it. Poverty is their sacrifice.

It is not that money is lacking. There are individual White Nationalists whose wealth runs not just into tens, but hundreds of millions of dollars. Something else is lacking: the qualities of character that give rise to real, effective idealism, dedication, and sacrifice.

The truth is on our side. But truth is not enough to win if it remains locked in our hearts and heads, without consequences in the real world. When the first White Nationalist pledges 8/14 of his income to securing the existence of our people and a future for White children, I’ll believe that we will win.

But beyond asking for 8/14 of an employee’s income, Communism asked for 100% of each member, body and soul. And they got it.

Yes, demanding heroic dedication did make some hesitate before joining the party, but when they did, they were prepared to give their all. It also kept out lukewarm sympathizers and fellow travelers. But the party still had ways of utilizing the talents and resources of those who were unready or unable to take the plunge.  

Third, aim high.

If one is going to ask for everything, one has to have a good reason. The Communists asked everything of their activists because they had a world to win. Grandiose aims are only a problem if there is nothing concrete one can do in the here and now to realize them. But if one can forge that link, then even the humblest drudgery suddenly takes on a deeper and higher meaning.

I once asked an audience at a meeting on White community organizing why they were there. There were many answers: meeting new people, networking, seeing old friends, even learning about White community organizing. All of these were good enough reasons to get people there.

But then I offered a better reason: to save the world. Make no mistake, White nationalists are not just struggling to save the White race, since the welfare of the whole world depends upon our triumph. If we perish, the other races will breed recklessly and despoil the planet unchecked, and the one place in the universe where we know there is life will end up nothing but a burnt out cinder in the vastness of space.

So the next time you attend a White Nationalist gathering, remind yourself that you are saving the world. It will make the commute a little easier, parking less of a hassle.

The Communists realized that demanding heroic dedication to a higher cause does not drain people but energizes them. It does not hollow out their personalities but deepens them. Those who live for themselves alone have less meaningful lives than those who dedicate themselves to a higher cause.

Fourth, be the best.

The Communists taught that there is no contradiction between being a good Communist and being good in every other area of one’s life. The same should be true of White Nationalists. If you are going to be a good White Nationalist, you also have to be a good student, worker, employer, artist, spouse, parent, and neighbor.

One is a more credible and effective advocate for White Nationalism if one is well-regarded in other areas of one’s life. The Communists found that personal relationships with exemplary individuals were more important than ideology in recruiting new people to the cause.

Also, if one finds that one’s political commitments are interfering with excellence in other areas of one’s life, then one needs to scale back and regain balance. This prevents activists from burning out and keeps them in the fight.

Fifth, activism is essential.

Most individuals who joined the Communist party were immediately required to engage in some form of public activism. (A few with important social connections were trained as Communist secret agents.)

Public activism came before ideological instruction. By acting publicly as a Communist, one makes one’s commitment open and irreversible. By acting before one receives ideological instruction, one learns in a very personal and sometimes painful fashion the necessity of such instruction. Such activism also helps one weed out people who lack moral and physical courage before anything is invested in indoctrinating them.

Activism has a twofold purpose: to change the world and to change the activists. Since the party must act until the world changes, it must be organized for perpetual activism. Campaigns should be designed to (a) demonstrate that the party cares about its constituency, (b) to heighten the conflicts between the system and the party’s constituency, and (c) by building character, skills, and camaraderie among activists.

Hyde illustrates these and many other points with vivid anecdotes. His discussion of Communist cadre indoctrination techniques deserves an article of its own. I have not read many books that pack as much food for thought into so few pages.

Some White Nationalists might find Dedication and Leadership a depressing read, since it highlights the truly primitive, pathetic, unserious nature of the movement today. But that is the wrong way to look at it.

One does not need to read Douglas Hyde to see that White Nationalism in America today is full of kooks, losers, and dilettantes. One needs Hyde and authors like him if one is serious about creating a movement that can win.

The Occidental Observer, June 8, 2010

vendredi, 04 juin 2010

G. Maschke: ex-gauchiste, schmittien, pessimiste et amoureux de la vie

Archives de SYNERGIES EUROPEENNES - 1997

Günter Maschke: ex-gauchiste, schmittien, pessimiste et amoureux de la vie

 

maschke.jpgA l'âge de six ans, Günter Maschke, natif d'Erfurt en Thuringe, s'installe dans la ville épiscopale de Trêves, en Rhénanie-Palatinat. En 1960, il adhère à la Deutsche Friedensunion  (l'Union allemande pour la paix) et, plus tard, à la KPD communiste illégale. Deux tentatives pour échapper à l'étroitesse d'esprit de cette ville provinciale. Après des études secondaires et un diplôme de courtier d'assurances, il décide de devenir écrivain. Dans le cercle qui se réunissait autour de Max Bense et de Ludwig Harig, il fait la connaissance de Gudrun Ensslin (future figure de proue de la Bande à Baader) à la Technische Hochschule de Stuttgart. Accompagné de la sœur de Gudrun, Johanna, il va s'installer à Tübingen pour y prendre en charge la rédaction du journal étudiant Notizen, de concert avec le futur terroriste Jörg Lang.

 

En 1964, Maschke met sur pied un “Groupe d'Action Subversive” à Tübingen, une organisation légendaire qui a préfiguré la fameuse SDS gauchiste, à laquelle ont appartenu Rudi Dutschke et Bernd Rabehl. Un an plus tard, Maschke reçoit son ordre de rejoindre la Bundeswehr: il refuse tant le service armé que le service civil. Il prend la fuite et commence un exil qui l'amènera d'abord à Paris puis à Zurich et finalement à Vienne, où il est collaborateur occasionnel de Volksstimme (d'obédience communiste) et du Wiener Tagebuch. Après une manifestation énergique contre la guerre du Vietnam dans la capitale autrichienne, Maschke est arrêté par la police. Il est déclaré “étranger indésirable” et il risque d'être refoulé en Allemagne où l'attend un mandat d'arrêt pour désertion. Après trois semaines de prison, l'ambassade de Cuba lui propose l'asile politique.

 

Il restera à Cuba du début de 1968 à la fin de 1969. Dans le pays de Castro, Maschke est devenu national-révolutionnaire. Les raisons de cette conversion sont sans doute multiples: les conditions déplorables dans lesquelles végétaient ses amis ou les formes spéciales du “stalinisme tropical”... Ami du poète Padilla, un adversaire du régime cubain, il est impliqué dans cette affaire, arrêté par la police de Castro et renvoyé en Allemagne. Il y passera d'abord treize mois dans les prisons de Munich et de Landsberg.

 

C'est là qu'il passera définitivement à “droite”. Mais le camp de la droite a hérité là d'un allié très critique, trop critique aux yeux de bon nombre de conservateurs bon teint. Ses premières avances sont brusquement repoussées. Beaucoup de droitiers et de conservateurs rejettent aveuglément les idées de gauche, un aveuglement que Maschke n'a jamais compris. Avec la gauche radicale, il s'est révolté contre l'américanisme, contre le parlementarisme et a milité en faveur d'une réforme du droit de la propriété. Mais, par ailleurs, il a toujours plaidé, contre une gauche qui ne cesse plus de s'éloigner du marxisme, pour un Etat fort, modérément autoritaire.

 

Dans sa vie privée aujourd'hui, Maschke traduit et édite les textes de l'Espagnol Juan Donoso Cortés et de Carl Schmitt. Sur le plan scientifique, il travaille dur, il est exigeant et méticuleux, mais quand il reçoit ses amis, il est un hôte jovial et généreux, qui aime les bons plats et les bons vins, qui dissimule son pessimisme notoire derrière des blagues hautes en couleurs, derrière un charme exquis, avec une souveraineté bien consciente d'elle-même.

 

Werner OLLES.

(article paru dans Junge Freiheit, n°26/97).

mercredi, 24 février 2010

Contre le capitalisme: du terrorisme rouge à d'Annunzio

Archives de SYNERGIES EUROPEENNES - 1995

Contre le capitalisme: du terrorisme rouge à d'Annunzio

Entretien avec Enrico Galmozzi

 

primalinea.jpgEnrico Galmozzi est l'un des fondateurs du mouvement d'extrême-gauche “Prima Linea” (= Première Ligne), et aussi l'une des principales victimes des “années de plomb” en Italie. Son engagement lui a coûté treize années de prison. Dans les geôles de l'Etat italien, il a étudié la sociologie et obtenu son doctorat. Aujourd'hui, la passion du politique continue à l'animer, ce qui l'amène à une intense activité in­tellectuelle et à dépasser les limites de l'idéologie à laquelle il a spontanément adhé­rer dans ses plus jeunes années: il fréquente désormais des auteurs inhabituels pour un ancien “communiste combattant”. En effet, Enrico Galmozzi vient de publier un essai sur Gabriele d'Annunzio, Il soggetto senza limite, auprès de la Società Editrice Barbarossa à Milan en 1994. Ensuite, il a dirigé le dossier Pareto de la revue Origini, éditée par Synergies Européennes en Italie. Ce passage de l'extrême-gauche au dannunzisme réputé d'extrême-droite est effectivement une curiosité. C'est pourquoi nous sommes allés nous entretenir avec Enrico Galmozzi.

 

Comment peut-on se rapprocher à ce point de Gabriele d'Annunzio quand on a une base idéologique marxiste-léniniste?

 

La majorité de mes contemporains qui sont devenus communistes ont été mus par deux options essentiel­lement: la critique du capitalisme, comme modèle économique fondé sur l'exploitation mais aussi comme modèle culturel, c'est-à-dire comme consumérisme exaspéré. C'est ce consumérisme que combattait le mouvement de 68. Ensuite, deuxième motif: notre aversion profonde à l'égard des Etats-Unis. L'impérialisme américain, nous le percevions comme la représentation emblématique de ce modèle éco­nomique et culturel, mais aussi comme le gendarme de la planète, le garant de ce modèle et le véhicule de sa pénétration dans tous les pays du monde. L'effondrement des pays où dominait le socialisme réel et la crise du marxisme en Occident ont conditionné l'abandon de toutes ces problématiques qui furent les nôtres. Aujourd'hui, la gauche, notamment en Italie, ne représente plus qu'une option réformiste parfaite­ment compatible avec le modèle capitaliste. Veltroni est le plus philo-américain de tous nos politiciens. Tous ceux qui veulent continuer à refuser absolument le capitalisme comme modèle culturel américano­morphe se trouvent aujourd'hui face à un problème de références et de paradigmes: il faut revoir les théo­rèmes et les éléments traditionnels de la gauche. En récapitulant toute ma propre pensée, j'en viens à croire que le marxisme n'a jamais représenté une alternative authentique et vraiment radicale (qui va aux racines des choses) au positivisme et aux Lumières qui sont les prémisses théoriques et idéologiques de la bourgeoisie.

 

En fait, dans votre livre, vous procédez à une critique incessante du matérialisme marxiste, tout en faisant l'éloge des dimensions héroïques et vitalistes présentes chez d'Annunzio, que vous percevez comme un chef charismatique “qui affirme et choisit la vie” quand il passe de l'extrême-droite à l'extrême-gauche. Dans un pas­sage de votre livre, vous soulignez explicitement une apologie de la guerre qui rap­pelle certains accents de la “Révolution Conservatrice” allemande, plus spéciale­ment le “nationalisme soldatique”...

 

Quand il devient impossible de comprendre la réalité et de la changer avec les instruments qu'on a tou­jours employés, il faut procéder à une introspection. D'abord, premier constat, la gauche n'est pas la seule à avoir été inadéquate dans ses réalisations pratiques. Nous devons passer en revue toute l'histoire du XIXième siècle afin de réexaminer critiquement et transversalement tous les territoires idéo­logiques sans aucun schématisme, sans manichéisme et sans passéisme idéologique. Par exemple, nous devons admettre, à gauche, que la “droite radicale” n'a jamais produit une critique scientifique du capitalisme et qu'elle s'est toujours mobilisée sur base de catégories morales, sans réussir à dégager vé­ritablement une vision scientifique de la société...

 

Mais Werner Sombart, lui, a développé une analyse fondamentalement scientifique de l'évolution du capitalisme en Europe, certes sur base d'un héritage résolument marxiste, mais en débouchant finalement sur une noologie qui n'a rien de matéria­liste et qui n'est de ce fait pas attribuable à la “gauche”...

 

Stamp_Fiume_1920_25c_Annunzio.jpgC'est vrai, mais Sombart est bien le seul. Au fond, c'est Evola qui devrait faire son auto-critique car il a mené le discours de la droite radicale dans une optique plus morale et plus spirituelle que scientifique. Par ailleurs, on ne peut plus prendre l'analyse économique du marxisme telle qu'elle a été; on ne peut plus re­prendre tel quel son déterminisme économique, où il n'y a pas de place pour d'autres valeurs en dehors de celles qui sont exclusivement relatives à l'économie. Voilà pourquoi il est utile de procéder à cette ana­lyse critique transversale dont je viens de vous parler. Il y a des périodes et des moments historiques qui doivent être complètement réévalués et revus car, jusqu'à nos jours, la critique dominante et surtout la critique de gauche n'ont montré que leur myopie et leur caractère manipulatoire. Par exemple, à Fiume, le subjectivisme volontariste de d'Annunzio convenait parfaitement aux sensibilités et aux revendications sociales émanant des syndicalistes révolutionnaires, en particulier de De Ambris. Cela les a conduit à ré­diger une constitution comme la Carta del Carnaro, qui est absolument exemplaire. L'interventionnisme italien pendant la première guerre mondiale est également un phénomène sur lequel il faudra jetter un re­gard nouveau parce qu'il a été un mouvement absolument transversal qui est passé à travers toutes les formations politiques et qui est très riche en motivations de toutes provenances: du centre, de la droite et de la gauche, des milieux impérialistes et nationalistes comme des milieux socialistes et révolutionnaires. C'est le même cocktail d'éléments que l'on retrouvera quelques années plus tard dans l'arditisme et dans l'organisation des Fasci jusqu'au second congrès.

 

Dans votre livre, vous n'avez guère mis en exergue le concept de nation qui fut pour­tant le mythe qui unifia tous ces courants hétérogènes...

 

La réalité est un petit peu plus complexe, mais si ce que vous dites est vrai: c'est sûr, un des aspects les plus obsolètes de la pensée de Marx, c'est la thèse que “le prolétariat n'a pas de nation”. Le prolétariat appartient toujours à une nation, comme l'histoire l'a démontré. L'une des principales limites du marxisme est de n'offrir au prolétariat qu'un seul type abstrait d'identité, calque du processus de production capita­liste, c'est-à-dire une identité générale qui le pose définitivement comme travailleur, alors qu'en réalité personne n'est seulement travailleur. Tout prolétaire, en tant que personne, possède une identité intime beaucoup plus profonde qui plonge dans les legs de la tradition que véhicule chaque homme, dans la mé­moire spécifique, dans une histoire particulière: autant de rapports complexes qui constituent une exis­tentialité humaine et dont l'anthropologie marxiste n'a pas tenu compte. Ensuite, on peut aisément cons­tater que ni l'interventionnisme de d'Annunzio ni celui de Marinetti se limitent au concept de “nation”. Ils souhaitent tous deux l'intervention parce qu'ils ont un projet de civilisation, un projet culturel qui s'inscrira dans un espace européen.

 

Autre aspect important de votre livre: vous accordez une très grande importance au culte des morts  —d'aucuns prétendront que c'est typique d'une “tradition fas­ciste”—  et vous insistez tout particulièrement sur le serment des Arditi qui jurent de combattre au nom de leurs camarades tombés au combat.

 

Au sein de la gauche, on trouve également une tradition “hérétique” représentée par Ernst Bloch, où ce culte des morts est également fondamental. Bloch nous parle d'un processus révolutionnaire qui est pure continuité depuis les guerres paysannes dans l'Allemagne du XVIième siècle, depuis Thomas Müntzer. Cette continuité est un puissant filon de mysticisme où les révolutionnaires communient et participent à une cause commune, qui a des assises spirituelles. Dans le marxisme classique, au contraire, nous dé­bouchons rapidement dans le cursus théorique sur un point de non retour et nous basculons dans l'ultra-rationalisme, où plus aucune valeur n'a droit de cité, où tout réflexe irrationnel est banni et éradiqué. Alors que le communisme, au fond, n'est jamais qu'une étape dans un processus qui a commencé avec les gnoses et les mouvements utopistes, puis a passé par le filtre des sectes hérétiques, pour aboutir, en fin de course, dans la Première Internationale, où Marx a viré les blanquistes et les anarchistes. En imposant le déterminisme économique, Marx a jeté par dessus bord le culte des morts et celui du passé, sous pré­texte que tout cela était “condamné par l'Histoire”.

 

Vous faites carrément l'éloge de la Carta del Carnaro. Et vous dites qu'elle est “embarrassante pour la droite et pour la gauche” et qu'elle ne pourra jamais plus se répéter. Que voulez-vous dire?

 

Je l'ai dit, effectivement. Et j'espère que je me trompe, parce que ce document contient des intuitions très en avance sur leur temps, des aspects qui sont encore parfaitement actuels, comme la définition qu'elle donne des rapports entre l'Etat et la société et l'Etat et le monde du travail. Le corporatisme que déve­loppe la Carta del Carnaro est très différent de celui qu'a proposé le fascisme  —sauf celui de la dernière période, de la République Sociale Italienne. Dans la Carta, les corporations sont des articulations de l'Etat dans la société civile. Elles sont des institutions qui travaillent sans cesse pour qu'advienne l'extinction même de l'Etat. L'Etat, dans cette Charte de Fiume, doit être dépassé, il faut mobiliser les efforts des meilleurs voire de tous pour qu'il laisse le champ libre aux organisations communautaires spontanées. Cette charte présente ces intentions avec une pléthore de références historiques et culturelles surpre­nante, en rappelant les structures de fonctionnement des communes médiévales et l'organisation des Soviets. La conception du travail chez d'Annunzio et De Ambris est très en avance sur son temps, car ils ne conçoivent pas le travail seulement comme travail manuel et productif mais aussi comme travail intel­lectuel, artistique et artisanal, ce qu'il s'agit pour eux de valoriser et de sauvegarder face aux productions sérielles. Ils perçoivent enfin le peuple dans son intégrité et non pas au sens classiste, comme l'ont tou­jours fait les marxistes.

 

Plus récemment vous vous êtes penché sur l'œuvre de l'économiste et sociologue italien Vilfredo Pareto. Comment avez-vous découvert son œuvre? Comment êtes-vous arrivé à lui?

 

Pareto, Mosca et Michels sont des figures de format international. Ils constituent à eux trois l'unique école sociologique italienne et, bien évidemment, elle est méconnue chez nous! Pareto est au fond une figure scandaleuse qui examine  —comme Machiavel—  méticuleusement et jusqu'au tréfond des choses les mécanismes de la politique. En étudiant son œuvre, j'ai trouvé que ce qu'il nous démontrait gardait une incroyable actualité: il a prévu beaucoup d'éléments de la théorie de la communication, il en a dévoilé les mécanismes conscients et inconscients. Dans ses rapports avec le marxisme, enfin, il refuse le détermi­nisme historique mais il récupère la lutte des classes, en l'expliquant et en la faisant fonctionner mieux que ne le firent jamais les marxistes: c'est sa fameuse théorie de la circulation des élites.

 

En tant qu'intellectuel, comme voyez-vous l'avenir?

 

Je suis optimiste, j'espère que les nouvelles générations pourront enfin mettre au rencart les idéologies dépassées et rechercheront de nouvelles synthèses et ouvriront de nouvelles possibilités.

 

(propos recueillis par Pietro Negri et parus dans la revue romaine Pagine Libere, septembre 1995).

mardi, 10 novembre 2009

Les convergences paradoxales de l'extrême gauche et de la superclasse mondiale

h-20-1565986-1244233639.jpgLes convergences paradoxales de l'extrême gauche et de la superclasse mondiale

Communication de Jean-Yves Le Gallou, ancien député français au Parlement européen, président de Polémia, à la XXVe Université annuelle du Club de l’Horloge le 18 octobre 2009


Comme Polémia l’a annoncé, le Club de l’Horloge a tenu son université annuelle les 17 et 18 octobre 2009 avec pour thème général :

CRISE ÉCONOMIQUE :

LA RESPONSABILITÉ DE LA “SUPERCLASSE MONDIALE”

Polémia qui était présent à cette manifestation mettra en ligne sur son site dans les jours à venir plusieurs des interventions. Cette série commence par l’allocution de son président Jean-Yves Le Gallou qui a traité un aspect socio-économique assez peu connu du public qui reste ancré sur le clivage d’un patronat appartenant plutôt à une droite conservatrice et opposé au gauchismes, au mondialisme et à l’altermondialisme.

Il a articulé son exposé :

LES CONVERGENCES PARADOXALES DE L'EXTREME GAUCHE ET DE LA SUPERCLASSE MONDIALE

en neuf points annoncés ci-après, la communication en totalité pouvant être téléchargée en pdf

1/ L’extrême gauche sert de bulldozer à la superclasse mondiale : elle procède à la déforestation du couvert culturel des nations.

2/ La superclasse mondiale veut le libréchangisme mondial. L’extrême gauche sape le sentiment national.

3/ La superclasse mondiale veut la suppression des frontières. L’extrême gauche soutient les délinquants étrangers clandestins.

4/ La superclasse mondiale veut une main-d’œuvre interchangeable. L’extrême gauche prône la table rase.

5/ La superclasse mondiale veut ouvrir de nouveaux champs à la production et à la consommation marchande. L’extrême gauche l’aide en fragilisant la famille.

6/ La superclasse mondiale craint par-dessus tout l’émergence de courants identitaires et souverainistes qui briseraient la dynamique de la mondialisation. L’extrême gauche joue un rôle d’obstruction face aux populismes nationaux.

7/ La convergence entre le grand patronat et le projet sociétal de la gauche et de l’extrême gauche

8/ En échange de ses services, l’extrême gauche bénéficie de la complaisance de la superclasse mondiale.

9/ Le cosmopolitisme, idéologie commune de l’extrême gauche et de la superclasse mondiale.

Polémia



Téléchargement pdf de la communication de Jean-Yves Le Gallou
http://www.polemia.com/pdf/Convergencesparadoxa.pdf


 Jean-Yves Le Gallou

vendredi, 16 octobre 2009

"Potlatch": succès posthume d'une revue

Archives de SYNERGIES EUROPEENNES - 1997

«POTLATCH»: SUCCES POSTHUME D'UNE REVUE

 

Ceux qui n'entendent pas se noyer dans la littérature “pataphysique” et veulent garder un regard serein et lucide sur le jeu social de notre belle société fin de siècle liront avec profit la reproduction d' une revue dont Guy Debord était l'un des principaux rédacteurs Potlatch. Cet auteur était encore bien jeune mais cela ne l'empêchait pas d'afficher un style déjà très particulier.9782070401345.jpg

 

Ce livre qui en résulte est d'abord un témoignage sur une époque: celle de la reconstruction de l'après-guerre qui marque aussi le départ de ce que l'économiste Jean Fourastié a nommé d'une expression depuis passé à la postérité  —“Les trente glorieuses”—  époque pendant laquelle l'économie occidentale a connu une croissance jusqu'alors inédite dans l'histoire de l'humanité.

 

Mais cet ouvrage est également l'aventure d'un groupe contestataire qui allait beaucoup faire parler de lui: c'est “la bande à Guy Debord”, nommée d'abord “Internationale lettriste”, scission de la gauche lettriste intervenue en 1952 et qui ensuite allait devenir la fameuse “Internationale Situationniste”.

 

Potlatch était envoyé gratuitement à des adresses choisies par sa rédaction, et à quelques-unes des personnes qui sollicitaient de le recevoir. Il n'a jamais été vendu. Potlatch fut à son premier numéro tiré à cinquante exemplaires. Son tirage, en augmentation constante, atteignait vers la fin environ 500 exemplaires. Ce bulletin paru 27 fois, entre le 27 juin 1954 et le 5 novembre 1957. Debord et ses amis allaient ensuite s'exprimer dans d'autres revues de l'Intemationale Situationniste (1).

 

Au premier abord, cela parait proprement incroyable qu'un bulletin gratuit et au tirage aussi modeste connaisse une pareille notoriété posthume, grâce à de gros tirages d'abord en 1985 par Gérard Lebovici puis maintenant par des éditions de poche (10 à 15.000 exemplaires au minimum). Oserions-nous imaginer pareil sort pour la collection de “Nouvelles de Synergies Européennes”!

 

A sa première lecture, on est d'abord surpris par l'originalité de ses prises de position et on s'interroge pour savoir comment dans les années cinquante, dans le petit monde parisien, on pouvait ne pas s'extasier devant la politique américaine, la construction des grands ensembles et des grands magasins, l'avènement de la consommation, des médias et des sports de masse et les élucubrations d'Elvis Presley. Une croissance économique exponentielle, des loisirs en pleine explosion et des syndicats assez consensuels pour obtenir un bout de gras de la bête qui grandit... bref le bonheur pour tous dans cette machine à faire l'Occident qui tourne à plein régime... Il leur en fallait donc du courage ou bien alors de l'inconscience pour défier dès 1954 ce qu'ils appellaient déjà notre “sinistre civilisation occidentale”. Et surtout une incroyable dose de lucidité et une méfiance instinctive face à l'idéologie du progrès véhiculée par le capitalisme libre-échangiste mettant en place l'univers, le nôtre maintenant, qui se profilait alors à l'horizon à grands pas.

 

Raymond Aron, Henri Michaux, Camus, Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, Mauriac, Malraux, Le Corbusier, Quéneau mais aussi le Parti Communiste, la bourgeoisie ou l'art abstrait, aucune des vedettes de la société du spectacle qui se met en place ne sont épargnées par le démasquage judicieux des situationnistes si prompts à dénoncer la chape de plomb faite de bêtise et de conformisme qui commence à s'abattre sur la société et dont bien peu arrivent à percevoir les mécanismes par lesquels les impostures finissent par occuper le devant de la scène. Leurs adversaires les accusent d'être purement nihilistes. Je pense qu'il ne faut pas être aussi catégorique et que derrière cette apparence, on peut deviner un solide bon sens qui lutte avec les moyens du bord sans avoir aucune possibilité concrète de résister autrement.

 

C'est ainsi qu'en dehors de toutes leurs exécrations, nous retrouvons tous ces florilèges judicieux qui ne peuvent que nous réjouir: «Même les plus imbéciles meneurs des bourgeoisies européennes comprendront plus tard à quel point les succès de leur “indéfectibles alliés” les menacent, les enferment dans leur contrat irrévocable de gladiateurs mal payés de l'“American Way of Life”, les condamnent à marcher et à crever patriotiquement dans les prochains assommoirs de l'Histoire, pour leurs quarante-huit étoiles légèrement tricolores». Nous voyons en 1997, où nous en sommes dans le cadre de la politique mondiale imposée par les Etats-Unis.

 

Ensuite leur lucidité n'est pas moindre dans le domaine de l'urbanisme qui bouleverse la société: «Nos ministres et architectes urbanistes ont mis au point quelques taudis-types, dont les plans servent aux quatre coins de la France [...] .Dans leurs œuvres un style se développe, qui fixe les normes de la pensée et de la civilisation occidentale du vingtième siècle et demi. C' est le style “caserne” et la maison 1950 est une boîte.[...] Les casernes civiles qui s'élèvent à leur place ont une laideur gratuite qui appelle les dynamiteurs».  C'est exactement ce que le système lui-même est arrivé à faire avec certaines grandes tours (tours des Minguettes à Vénissieux et aussi en banlieue parisienne par exemple). Avec leur regard d'une acuité étonnante, ils devinaient déjà le futur problème des banlieues lorsqu'ils notaient: «L'aspect morne et stérile de la plupart des quartiers nouveaux»  pouvant produire des effets psychologiques sur les populations amenées à y habiter. Ils ne pouvaient donc mieux dire. En dehors de la rationalité marchande à l'œuvre, ils nommaient responsables les architectes, larbins des ministres qui acceptaient de faire ces basses œuvres à cause de: «leur pauvreté spirituelle et créatrice, leur manque total de simple humanité».

 

Enfin pour “enrober” ce beau monde, l'alliance de l'humanitarisme et du show-business parachève l'édifice pour endormir le bon peuple. Le commentaire sur Chaplin dans le rôle du Bernard Koutchner de l'époque et de l'abbé Pierre (déjà) intitulé “Flic et curé sans rideau de fer” mérite d'être cité dans son intégralité: «Chaplin en qui nous dénoncions dès la sortie tapageuse de Limelight [comme] “l'escroc aux sentiments, le maître chanteur de la souffrance” continue ses bonnes œuvres. On ne s'étonne pas de le voir tomber dans les bras du répugnant abbé Pierre pour lui transmettre l'argent “progressiste” du Prix de la Paix. Pour tout ce monde, le travail est le même: détourner et endormir les plus pressantes revendications des masses. La misère entretenue assure ainsi la publicité de toutes les marques: la Chaplin's Metro Paramounty gagne, et les Bons du Vatican». Par la suite cette pensée alors assez réactive allait donner naissance aux chefs d'œuvre de la pensée situationniste.

 

L' univers décrit par Potlatch  est exactement le même que celui qu'en 1981 le cinéaste libertaire Rainer Werner Fassbinder racontait dans son sublime film Lola, histoire d'une femme allemande  où justement en 1957, à Cobourg, petite ville du nord de la Bavière, se déroulait sous le regard acerbe du réalisateur le spectacle cruel d'une société qui déjà subissait les dégâts causés par le libéralisme américain en train de s'imposer dans cette Allemagne de la reconstruction: arasement des valeurs traditionnelles, prostitution généralisée et corruption des élites politiques, administratives et économiques. Les situationnistes n'employaient pas le mot de “corruption” sans doute pas encore passé dans le vocabulaire courant comme c'est la cas actuellement et sans doute parce qu'ils estimaient aussi que, dans son essence, même le système porte les germes de ce phénomène.

 

Bien entendu dans sa préface de 1985, Guy Debord ne cachait pas sa délectation d'assister au triomphe de ses thèses: «On sait aussi que personne, en dehors de l'Internationale situationniste, n'a plus jamais voulu formuler une critique centrale de cette société, qui pourtant tombe autour de nous; déversant en avalanche ses désastreux échecs, et toujours plus pressées d'en accumuler d'autres».  Nous voyons où nous en sommes aujourd' hui... Pour les raisons contenues dans cette phrase, il n'est pas inutile de lire ce livre et par là même d'un peu mieux comprendre le monde d'aujourd'hui.

 

Pascal GARNIER.

 

(l) Dans une prochaine livraison nous rendrons compte du volume paru chez Fayard, qui reproduit en fac-similé la revue de l'Internationale Situationniste.

 

Guy DEBORD présente Potlatch 1954-1957. Edition augmentée. Paris, Gallimard/Folio, n°2906, Octobre 1996, 291 p., 32 FF.

 

mardi, 02 juin 2009

La RAF allemande: une analyse

rafstar.gif

 

 

 

SYNERGIES EUROPÉENNES - Juillet 1988

 

 

 

La RAF allemande: une analyse

 

 

par Michel FROISSARD

 

 

 

 

 

Les éditions Méridiens-Klincksieck ont sorti récemment une analyse du phénomène RAF (Rote Armee Fraktion) ou "Bande à Baader", où les chapitres sur les préoccupations idéologiques du groupe ont retenu toute notre attention. Son titre:

 

 

Anne Steiner & Loïc Debray

La Fraction Armée Rouge. Guérilla urbaine en Europe occidentale,

Méridiens-Klincksieck, Paris, 1987, 267 pages.

 

 

Pour les auteurs, l'histoire de la RAF comporte deux phases distinctes: celle de 1970-72 et celle de 1976-77. La première de ces phases est, bien sûr, la phase de maturation où la RAF acquiert son type particulier. Une quarantaine de personnes sont à la base des infrastructures de guerilla urbaine et, phénomène caractéristique, près de 50% d'entre elles sont des femmes, qui exerceront les mêmes tâches "militaires" que les hommes, en dépit de leur maternité. Pour Anne Steiner et Loïc Debray, ce renoncement au statut de femme et de mère, élément déterminant de l'"ascétisme révolutionnaire", procède d'une hiérarchie de valeurs affirmée par les militants: le "devenir général" pas-se avant le "cercle individuel". Cette intransigeance conduira les deux vagues de la RAF au terrorisme et à l'échec.

 

 

Vient ensuite la question des générations: la RAF est-elle un phénomène de génération, comme on l'a souvent dit? Est-elle le fait de ceux et celles dont les parents étaient jeunes adultes à l'apogée du nazisme? L'écrasante majorité des militants est effectivement née entre 1942 et 1949: leur petite enfance est marquée par la destruction totale de leur pays et par le désorientement des parents. En ce sens, il n'est pas faux d'affirmer que la variante terroriste de l'extrême-gauche allemande découle d'un mal-être propre à la "générations des ruines". Le terrorisme urbain a été une part essentielle dans l'après-guerre allemand, japonais et italien, c'est-à-dire dans l'après-guerre des trois pays vaincus de la seconde guerre mondiale; même si les formes du terrorisme urbain et les formes du régime dominant avant la guerre étaient fort différentes dans chacun des trois pays, il y a là plus qu'une coïncidence, contrairement à ce que semblent penser Steiner et Debray. Ce dénominateur commun de vaincu, pour nos deux auteurs, serait fortuit, puisqu'aux Etats-Unis, grands vainqueurs de la seconde guerre mondiale, il existait également un terrorisme urbain, ce-lui des Weathermen et de la SLA (Symbionese Liberation Army).  C'est oublier que la masse des isolationnistes amé-ricains, qui n'avaient pas voulu la guerre et souhaité une autarcie américaine non-interventionniste, ont été également des vaincus en ce siècle et que l'hostilité d'hier à toute guerre contre l'Allemagne ou le Japon re-pose sur les mêmes principes po-li-tiques que l'hostilité à la guerre du Vietnam.

 

 

Pas d'identité historique possible pour les militants de la RAF

 

 

En revanche, Steiner et Debray signalent à très juste titre que si les Brigades Rouges (BR) italiennes, les indépendantistes basques ou l'IRA irlandaise pouvaient se référer à une identité historique (les "partisans" pour les BR) partagée par de larges strates de la population, les militants de la RAF étaient en quelque sorte orphelins sur ce chapitre: ils ne pouvaient plus se référer au combat de l'Allemagne contre les impérialismes américain et britannique, as-sorti du soutien aux indépendantistes arabes et hindous et aux justicialistes latino-américains, puisque l'extrême-gauche, dont les chefs de file idéologiques avaient trouvé refuge à l'Ouest, de Londres à la Californie, n'avaient guère cultivé de traditions anti-impérialistes à cette époque cruciale de notre siècle. Malheureusement Steiner et Debray se bornent seulement à constater l'impossiblité d'une référence à une identité historique précise. Il est juste en revanche de percevoir, chez les hommes et les femmes de la RAF comme chez un Pierre Goldmann, une aspiration existentielle/existentialiste au combat, à la lutte armée, à l'aventure révolutionnaire. Très juste aussi de dire que cette aspiration procède d'une volonté de sortir d'une situation d'apathie dans laquelle l'Allemagne s'était enlisée dans le sillage du miracle économique et de l'opulence des Golden Sixties. Les générations parentales, ex-nationales-socialistes, ont-elles dès lors été inconsciemment accusées d'avoir trahi les linéaments d'anti-impérialisme de l'ère hitlérien-ne et de n'en avoir retenu que les réflexes anti-communistes ou les calculs opportunistes, dépourvus de toute conscience politique forte? La RAF, à son insu, constitue-t-elle un retour maladroit des analyses nationales révolutionnaires anti-fascistes (Paetel, Niekisch, etc.) en matière d'impérialisme, mais un retour d'emblée condamné à l'échec à cause de son déséquilibre paroxystique patent?

 

 

Cet échec, directement prévisible, n'est-il pas dû à une absence de dimension populiste, de cœur pour le concitoyen qualunquiste, benoîtement aveuglé par les facilités du monde libéral ambiant, et à un trop-plein d'existentialisme héroïcisant et élitiste, de facture sartrienne, où le non engagé est d'office un "salaud", où le militant devient arrogant parce qu'il connaît ou croit connaître, dans son intimité personnelle, un niveau de conscience supérieur à la moyenne générale? L'idiosyncrasie des figures de proue de la RFA est à ce sujet révélatrice: la plupart de ces figures sont des intellectuel(le)s militant(e)s dont la pensée est conséquente jusqu'au bout, au point de n'accepter aucune espèce de compromission. Divers courants de gauche, dont le dénominateur commun est un refus de la société libérale et marchande, cimentée de surcroît par un conservatisme rigide, quelque peu autoritaire, conformiste et anti-intellectuel, débouchent sur la stratégie terroriste du refus absolu: ainsi, l'avocat Horst Mahler, militant du SDS (Sozialistischer Deutscher Studentenbund;  ligue des étudiants socialistes allemands) et de l'APO (Außerparlamentarische Opposition;  Opposition extra-parlementaire), laboratoire de la gauche anti-dogmatique, a estimé que seul le re-cours au terrorisme pouvait provoquer l'avènement d'une société idéale, soustraite à tous dogmes. Ulrike Meinhof est, elle, une ancienne activiste de la KPD, interdite en 1952 (1). Elle a été la rédactrice en chef du journal Konkret,  organe théorique du parti. La gauche dont elle est issue n'a pas le caractère soft  de l'anti-dogmatisme de l'APO/ SDS. Sa trajectoire est très classique: issue d'une famille socialiste qui avait refusé le compromis de Bad-Godesberg (2), elle adhère à la KPD semi-clandestine mais refuse de militer dans la DKP, le parti qui en prend le relais après la levée de l'interdiction. Le passé de Ulrike Meinhof est un passé marqué par le communisme dur.

 

 

Ne pas se laisser déterminer par les "conditions objectives"

 

 

Gudrun Ensslin, pour sa part, est issue d'un milieu pacifiste chrétien: elle a été membre de la Jeunesse évangélique et a milité dans le mouvement anti-atomique, avant de fonder les Editions Voltaire avec son camarade Vesper et d'adhérer au SDS. Jan-Carl Raspe incarne les nouvelles voies du gauchisme: vie en communauté, création de structures alternatives, pédagogie anti-autoritaire, etc. La motivation de Raspe est toute personnelle et d'ordre psychologique: il était sans cesse travaillé par une angoisse envahissante et avait besoin d'une sphère d'affectivité communautaire. Raspe a transposé ce désir d'affectivité à l'ensemble de la société: selon lui, les prolétaires accèderaient à un monde meilleur, plus satisfaisant, si on leur donnait l'occasion de vivre en dehors des structures individualistes de la société marchande. "Seules des expériences alternatives dans le combat politique, pourraient mettre en route les processus par lesquels l'idéologie bourgeoise et la structure psychique individualiste seraient surmontées de façon durable", écrira-t-il. Comme les mouvements de jeunesse du début du siècle, les quelques dizaines de militants de la RAF refusent de se laisser déterminer par les "conditions objectives" mais ne se contentent pas de leurs communautés alternatives et veulent intervenir brutalement dans l'espace bourgeois, conquérir par la violence des morceaux d'"espaces libérés" supplémentaires. Et cette violence, ultime recours de ces desperados  intellectuels, ne s'est-elle pas d'autant plus facilement installée dans leurs cerveaux parce qu'aucune tempérance de nature organique et historique, aucune mémoire vectrice de nuances, ne pouvait plus se lover dans un intellect germanique après la grande lessive de la rééducation perpétrée par les psychologues-policiers de l'US Army?

 

 

La carte terroriste a précisément été jouée par ceux qui, contrairement à Rudy Dutschke et Bernd Rabehl, n'ont pas voulu s'immerger dans le nationalisme de gauche, n'ont pas songé à recourir à l'histoire nationale, pourtant témoin de tant de luttes pour la liberté, le droit et l'égalité, pour donner à leur engagement une dimension collective concrète, même dans ses dimensions mythiques. Un langage social-révolutionnaire, propre au mouvement ouvrier, mais couplé à une mythologie nationale, aurait permis aux activistes de la RAF de conserver un lien avec les mas-ses populaires. Cela, Dutschke et Rabehl, les para-maoïstes qui dirigeaient la revue berlinoise Befreiung  (= Libération), l'avaient compris. La RAF, de son côté, gardait un langage très raide, très expurgé de toute connotation historico-romantique instrumentalisable, accessible aux masses. Pourtant son constat relatif à la RFA, nous le trouvons, sous des formes variées, dans tous les discours idéologico-politiques allemands: l'Allemagne Fédérale n'a jamais eu de souveraineté et ne constitue plus un "Etat national" proprement dit; elle est une zone privée d'autonomie au sein d'un système économico-politique dominé par les Etats-Unis; la classe politique ouest-allemande est "fantoche"; l'occupation militaire américaine ôte toute indépendance à la RFA, etc. Quel conservateur, quel nationaliste, quel socialiste, quel communiste, quel gauchiste, quel écologiste n'a pas déploré ce nanisme politique? N'est-ce pas le démocrate-chrétien Barzel qui a résumé de la façon la plus concise la situation de son pays: "L'Allemagne? Un géant économique et un nain politique". Conjugaison de toutes les "conditions objectives" jugées inadmissibles, le système, expliquaient dans leurs tracts les militants de la RAF, instaure un "nouveau fascisme" qu'il s'agit de combattre. D'où leur venait cette définition du "nouveau fascisme"? D'André Glucksmann, aujourd'hui grand défenseur de l'Occident, rénégat aux yeux d'Hocquenghem, pourfendeur de toutes les tentatives de "finlandisation" réelles ou imaginaires. Steiner et Debray ont le grand mérite de rappeler ce détail.

 

 

Le "nouveau fascisme" défini par Glucksmann

 

 

Glucksmann, en 1972, écrivait, dans Les Temps modernes,  la revue de Sartre, que le "nouveau fascisme" ne vient pas de la base comme l'ancien, mais qu'il s'est au contraire imposé d'en haut. " (...) le nouveau fascisme s'appuie, comme jamais auparavant, sur la mobilisation guerrière de l'appareil d'Etat, il recrute moins les exclus du système impérialiste que les couches autoritaires et parasites produites par le système (...). La particularité du nouveau fascisme, c'est qu'il ne peut plus organiser directement une fraction des masses". En d'autres mots et sans phraséologie militante pompeuse, l'intégration totale des individus à la machinerie politico-économique, l'homogénéisation des identités, l'arasement définitif des originalités, si bien perçus par Pier Paolo Pasolini le Corsaire (et avec quel style!), s'opère par des instances et du personnel d'idéologie officiellement "démocratique", installés au pouvoir par l'anti-fascisme (armé en France et en Italie, "psychologue" et "pédagogue" en Allemagne) et revenus dans les fourgons de l'US Army ou des troupes anglo-impérialistes de Montgomery. La contradiction, propre aux discours de la gauche militante et intellectuelle, est ici flagrante et a fini par ruiner leur crédibilité: comment peut-on baptiser "nouveau fascisme" l'ensemble des instances nées de l'anti-fascisme? Comment peut-on se réclamer à la fois de l'anti-impérialisme et de l'anti-fascisme, alors que ce dernier n'a pu vaincre qu'avec l'appui du grand capitalisme amé-ricain et de l'impérialisme colonial britannique? Comment faire accepter aux combattants du tiers-monde cette logique qui, en dernière instance, est américanophile? Comment faire accepter à l'indépendantiste indien, au militant panarabe, au justicialiste argentin, au sandiniste nicaraguayen, à l'indigéniste péruvien, au martyr malgache que la logique de Roosevelt, des banquiers de la City et de Wall Street, des compagnies pétrolières ou des marchands de fruits est certes mauvaise sous les tropiques mais qu'elle a été une bénédiction pour la vieille Europe? N'est-ce pas là le plus sûr moyen d'apparaître niais et schizophrène? Glucksmann a au moins été conséquent en pro-cédant à ses reniements successifs, quitte à se métamorphoser, aux yeux des soixante-huitards durs et purs, en un "nouveau fasciste", selon sa propre définition! Pasolini, quant à lui, a écrit que le fascisme ancien, mussolinien, était une broutille provinciale, comparable aux mésaventures cocasses de Don Camillo, à côté de la chape de plomb que faisait peser sur nos cultures la société marchande; la schizophrénie de la gauche, devenue désespérément furieuse dans le chef des combattants de la RAF, est restée en-deçà de ces brillantes analyses et c'est la raison essentielle de son échec.

 

 

Mais cet échec n'est pas seulement celui du terrorisme violent, c'est l'échec de l'ensemble des forces de gauche. Le constat posé par les disciples de Baader quant à l'involution de la gauche ouest-allemande est juste: après la guerre, la SPD a neutralisé tous les courants contestataires de la RFA qui s'opposaient à l'intégration à sens unique dans la "communauté atlantique des valeurs", autrement dit dans le réseau des flux économiques déterminé depuis Washington. Avec le congrès de Bad Godesberg, la SPD admet l'intégration occidentale, abandonne toute perspective neutraliste donc toute indépendance et souveraineté ouest-allemandes, tout projet d'apaisement centre-européen, toute fonction dialoguante à l'autrichienne, toute possibilité de "troisième voie" gaullienne. Ce refoulement énorme, cet--te mise au frigo de tant d'aspirations légitimes, ancrées dans l'histoire, anciennes comme la civilisation de notre continent, n'a pu conduire qu'à l'explosion anarchique et incohérente de la révolte étudiante et, par suite, à l'épilogue navrant du terrorisme urbain. Si la stratégie terroriste ne pouvait qu'être marginale, coupée du peuple, élitiste à mauvais escient, brutale au point d'apparaître gratuite, le constat posé est exact, bien que mal formulé, et de surcroît présent partout dans les milieux intellectuels de RFA, à degrés divers, depuis les cercles conservateurs jusqu'aux activistes nationalistes et gauchistes. Le legs majeur de la RAF, ce n'est pas une lutte victorieuse, ce n'est pas une brochette de héros auréolés de gloire et vertueux (ses protagonistes sont marqués d'angoisse, de schizophrénie, d'agressivité pathologique), c'est surtout une analyse qui dit que le "nouveau fascisme", c'est la social-démocratie, celle qui a capitulé à Bad-Godesberg. Ce slogan contradictoire, basé sur une série de faits réels, contient précisément tous les errements, tous les refoulements, toutes les distorsions que la gauche n'a pas pu surmonter, incapable qu'elle a été de poser des constats d'ordre historique cohérents et de moduler sa praxis en conséquence. On ne fait pas de vraie politique en manipulant des concepts occasionalistes à la sauce psychanalytique et en tripotant des pseudo-arguments freudo-marxistes, où transparaissent des fantasmes sexuels incapacitants. Un retour à Dutschke et à Paetel serait sans doute une meilleure thérapeutique.

 

 

Michel FROISSARD.       

 

mercredi, 27 mai 2009

Ernesto Guevara mito e simbolo della destra militante?

Chepscfoszn.jpg

Ernesto Guevara mito e simbolo della destra militante?

 

  
Venerdi 22 Maggio 2009 – http://www.rinascita.info/ - Davide D'Amario   
 

Rinascita ha intervistato Mario La Ferla

Come è nato il “mito” de “il fascista Che Guevara”? Quali sono state le tappe culturali e militanti che ne hanno definito l’immaginario di certa destra militante?

Prima di tutto, io penso che non sia né esatto né giusto parlare di un Che Guevara “fascista”. Perché nessuno, nemmeno a destra, salvo qualche caso sporadico e isolato, ha mai parlato del guerrigliero argentino in questi termini. La destra lo ha amato e onorato pensando sempre che il Che fosse un marxista convinto. Le eccezioni ci sono state, anche significative. Alcuni intellettuali hanno pensato di paragonarlo a D’Annunzio e a Lord Byron. Adriano Bolzoni, lo sceneggiatore cinematografico autore della prima biografia italiana del Che, aveva rivendicato l’appartenenza di Guevara alla destra internazionale. Infiammati dall’illuminazione dello scrittore francese Jean Cau, che in “Una passione per il Che” aveva identificato il guerrigliero con Cristo, i ragazzi della Giovane Italia avevano scritto un articolo intitolato “Il fascista Che Guevara”, avvicinandolo al superuomo di Nietzsche o all’individualismo aristocratico di Alfredo Oriani. Ma la maggioranza della destra radicale è su tutt’altre posizioni, anche se è stata forte in molte occasioni la tentazione di portare il Che dalla propria parte. Detto questo, sulla base della documentazione che ho potuto mettere insieme, sono del parere che il mito del Che a destra sia nato ancora prima della data ufficiale del ’68. Intanto, a proposito del ‘68, il Che sbandierato dai militanti dell’estrema destra risale al primo marzo e non dopo il fatidico maggio parigino dal quale tutti ormai fanno nascere il “vero ‘68”. A Valle Giulia, mescolati ai ragazzi di sinistra, c’erano in gran numero di ragazzi delle organizzazioni di destra che tra le varie bandiere e simboli mostravano anche l’immagine del Che. Posso dire, ma credo sia cosa nota, che la nascita del Che come simbolo della destra militante debba essere collocata subito dopo la tragica morte di Guevara, il 9 ottobre 1967. In Italia alcuni esponenti della destra detengono il primato europeo della scoperta del Che come loro mito. E’ ormai un fatto storico che è stato il Bagaglino, il popolare cabaret romano tutto di destra, a onorare per primo il Che pochissimo tempo dopo la morte. Due fondatori del cabaret, Pierfrancesco Pingitore e il maestro Dimitri Gribanovski, composero la ballata “Addio Che”. Ed è stato un altro italiano, proprio Adriano Bolzoni, a scrivere un libro sul Che e a trarne poi la sceneggiatura di un film diretto dal regista Heush raccomandato da Pier Paolo Pasolini. Ma la scintilla per il Che si era già accesa ancora prima, verso la metà degli anni 60. Lo ricorda lo scrittore e storico fiorentino Franco Cardini, allora giovane iscritto al Movimento Sociale e poi alla Giovane Europa di Jean Thiriart. Addirittura il primo omaggio al Che avvenne nel 1961, a Firenze, in occasione dell’occupazione dell’università da parte del Fuan. E l’ammissione di Guevara tra le file dei giovani contestatori di destra venne ufficializzata nel giugno 1965, durante il congresso provinciale del Msi con l’uscita dei giovani amici di Cardini che nel partito ci stavano ormai stretti. Posso citare altri casi che hanno contribuito a fare del Che il simbolo della destra movimentista: la rivista “L’Orologio” di Luciano Lucci Chiarissi, il giornale della federazione nazionale combattenti della Repubblica sociale di Salò “Azimut” e il foglio giovanile “Controcorrente”. Non solo il Che, anche Fidel Castro allora aveva conquistato un posto nel cuore dei giovani di destra. Lo ammette lo stesso Cardini: “In un modo o nell’altro, lo abbiamo amato tutti, Fidel. Posso testimoniarlo appieno, personalmente, perché io allora ero un ragazzo che militava nelle formazioni dell’estrema destra, e contro il parere dei nostri padri e dei nostri fratelli maggiori per i quali era solo un “comunista”, anche noi andavamo pazzi per lui …”. E dopo Jean Thiriart, a consolidare l’ammirazione per il Che contribuirono gli scritti e i discorsi di Alain De Benoist, capofila di “Nouvelle Droite”. Comunque è stato il ‘68 a fare esplodere l’amore per il Che, in maniera vistosa e lampante, e a confermare il culto per il guerrigliero che rappresentava il mito ideale: la figura del perdente coniugata a quella dell’eroe combattente per un ideale al di fuori dei canoni dell’utilitarismo e del carrierismo politico. Il successo del Che presso i giovani della destra radicale è via via aumentato grazie agli interventi di scrittori e intellettuali, non soltanto di destra, che hanno avvicinato Ernesto Guevara a personaggi famosi che facevano già parte dell’immaginario collettivo della destra ribelle. Per esempio, Lawrence d’Arabia, i personaggi di Salgari, Giuseppe Garibaldi, Zorro e Don Chisciotte, insomma la stirpe dei Marinetti e dei Papini, dei Drieu La Rochelle e dei Louis-Ferdinand Céline, Ernst Junger e di Giuseppe Prezzolini.

Quale movimento, o meglio tendenza interna alla destra radicale rivendica con più convinzione il camerata guevarista?

Lo spunto per scrivere “L’altro Che” mi è stato offerto dalla lettura della “lettera d’amore” per Guevara scritta da Gabriele Adinolfi e pubblicata dal suo quotidiano on line “noreporter.org” il 9 ottobre 2007. Quindi sono tentato di rispondere che tra i movimenti della destra radicale che possono vantare la grande passione per il Che in pole position si schiera Terza Posizione. Proprio il movimento fondato dallo stesso Adinolfi con Roberto Fiore e Giuseppe Dimitri, con la forte collaborazione di Walter Spedicato e Francesco Mangiameli. La passione per il Che dimostrata da Terza Posizione, secondo il mio parere, si fonda su due basi, una politica e un’altra, diciamo, romantica. Le idee di Adinolfi e amici, insieme con alcuni nuclei della destra rivoluzionaria, erano e sono molto chiare: prima di tutto c’è l’avversione per gli Stati Uniti, nata nell’immediato dopoguerra negli ambienti della destra delusi per la fine dei sogni nati con il fascismo e irrobustita con la guerra nel Vietnam. Da questo atteggiamento ostile verso gli Usa, mi sembra che derivino tutte le altre prese di posizione pro e contro della destra cosiddetta movimentista Contro la globalizzazione, contro Israele e contro la Nato, contro il colonialismo, contro il comunismo, contro l’arroganza del potere e del denaro, contro i partiti politici e i sindacati, contro l’immobilità e contro l’arrivismo. E quindi a favore di una ‘terza via’ (“Né fronte rosso, né reazione!”) come pensavano anche i ‘maestri’ Alain de Benoist e Jean Thiriart, e poi anche a favore degli oppressi di tutto il mondo: gli indiani d’America, gli irlandesi dell’Ira, i palestinesi, con il Chiapas, con il Tibet, e così anche con Mussolini, con Peròn, con l’ “eroe” rumeno Cornelius Codreanu, il maestro Julius Evola, il poeta Ezra Pound, Alessandro Pavolini. Ecco che le posizioni politiche si mescolano con l’anima romantica espressa dalla destra radicale italiana. Il Che è amato sì perché combatteva contro lo strapotere degli Usa e dei suoi alleati, ma anche e soprattutto perché appariva agli occhi dei giovani nazionalrivoluzionari come un personaggio dai contorni passionali.
Anche Franco Cardini, scrittore e storico fiorentino di solida fama internazionale, mi appare sulla stessa lunghezza d’onda di Adinolfi. Cultura diversa e origine diversa, però gli ideali sembrano gli stessi. Ancora molto giovane, Cardini era un sostenitore entusiasta di Jean Thiriart, il quale non perdeva occasione per dimostrare ammirazione per Guevara. Ancora prima del ’68, Ernesto Guevara e Fidel Castro erano diventati idoli e simboli di molti ideologi e intellettuali della destra radicale. Tra questi, spiccava proprio Franco Cardini. Il quale, come lo stesso Thiriart e Alain De Benoist, era stato travolto dall’entusiasmo per i due famosi barbudos della rivoluzione cubana soprattutto per l’aspetto avventuristico della loro rivolta contro Batista e i suoi protettori americani. Lo ha spiegato molto chiaramente il celebre medievalista fiorentino: “Fidel era l’uomo della politica tradotta nelle dimensioni della generosità e dell’avventura. Fidel, allievo dei gesuiti, giovane cattolico irrequieto che leggeva Bernanos e si ispirava ai primi eroici e puri falangisti spagnoli, quelli sacrificati dalla furia repubblicana e dal cinismo di Franco, quel Fidel ci piaceva, ci incantava”. Poche, essenziali parole che spiegano l’arcano, quel mistero che mi ha affascinato man mano che leggevo la ricca documentazione che testimonia l’amore per Guevara da parte della destra. E’ vero quello che dicono molti neofascisti: l’amore che la destra ha nutrito per il Comandante è senz’altro superiore a quello sventolato dalla sinistra per molti anni. Per lo meno, quest’amore a destra sembra più genuino, più spontaneo, quasi “puro”, mentre l’altro ha dovuto alimentarsi con slogan e discorsi che hanno finito per ridurre il Che a un fantoccio da tirar fuori quando maggiore se ne sentiva la necessità per dare corpo a teorie ormai vuote e talvolta insensate. Insomma, a sinistra, la rivoluzione di Che Guevara serviva per cogliere l’occasione propizia di imbastire polemiche contro i nemici della classe operaia, contro gli avversari politici del Pci, per sognare l’occupazione del potere. A destra, invece, il rivoluzionario Guevara non è mai stato “sfruttato” per fini politici. Era soltanto un personaggio tutto d’un pezzo, da amare o da odiare, senza però secondi scopi. Anzi, secondo me, la destra radicale europea ha amato il Che sapendo di rischiare molta impopolarità tra molti dei suoi stessi adepti e di farsi nuovi nemici tra quelli che consideravano senza il minimo dubbio il Che “uno dei loro”.


Nota. “Destra radicale” con il “Che”? Una vera e propria falsità. La Ferla prende per buone le “testimonianze a posteriori” di ex ragazzi che, di certo, nella loro giovinezza, non avevano pensato a Guevara come loro “mito unificante”, anzi. La storia, la cronaca di quegli anni, è differente e di molto. La riesumazione ex post del mito del Che per la destra radicale è un falso. Lo dichiara chi scrive, che veniva chiamato (a sproposito) “il Che” anche ai tempi di Valle Giulia. La “destra radicale” di allora era esattamente il contrario da quella descritta da La Ferla. Issava i tricolori per “dis-occupare” le università, compiva raid contro i beatniks, non amava né il Che né, ancora più, Mao o Giap. Era l’altra faccia del Pci: né al Pci “d’ordine”, né alla destra neofascista “d’ordine” erano graditi quegli strani studenti con i capelli lunghi che amavano Kerouac e Nietzsche. Al massimo, alla “Giovane Italia” di quei tempi, ai neo-iscritti veniva dato da leggere qualche libro reazionario, tipo “Il tempo che fu” di Gioacchino Volpe. Un saggio filo-monarchico-fascista. Tutt’al più, per pochi intimi, andavano alla Libreria Europa di Ordine Nuovo, per leggere Evola e l’apologia della reazione. Sempre dichiarando la loro avversione ai rossi, al movimento studentesco “rosso”.
Gli unici ad amare il “Che” furono quelli dell’ex Primula, i neogollisti che leggevano Malraux e Kerouac, manifestavano a favore del Viet-Nam libero, contro i colonnelli greci, contro il trattato di non proliferazione nucleare che privava l’Italia e l’Europa della sua sovranità, a favore della scelta di De Gaulle di uscire dalla Nato e di restituire gli eurodollari al mittente… E fu l’incontro di Ferrara tra costoro - che avevano stampato e affisso, unici in Italia, un manifesto su “Che Guevara rivive in tutti noi” - e Jean Thiriart che dichiarava che “il più grande Viet-Nam sarà l’Europa” che aprì la strada alla loro unione su una linea di “sinistra nazionale europea”, con le occupazioni delle università, con i documenti anticapitalistici, per l’autogestione e la socializzazione delle aziende, contro il Vaticano, per la più grande Patria Europa, contro… il fronte rosso e la reazione. Lo slogan di battaglia contro il sistema e quindi contro la sinistra e la destra radicale fu, dappertutto, anche in Belgio, in Francia: ni front rouge, ni reation: avant avec la lutte du peuple. Né fronte rosso, né reazione: Avanti con la lotta di popolo.
La Ferla si informi, prima di scrivere libri.

Ugo Gaudenzi

 

lundi, 20 octobre 2008

Une démocratie de semi-expression

UNE DÉMOCRATIE DE SEMI-EXPRESSION

jmrouillancdr.jpg

Chatouilleuse liberté d’expression ! Tout à chacun ne cesse de s’en gargariser, mais elle est une chose trop importante, sans doute, pour qu’on permette à n’importe qui d’en faire usage comme bon lui semble.
Jean-Marc Rouillan, deux fois condamné à la réclusion perpétuelle et actuellement en semi-liberté après vingt ans de détention, en fait l’amère expérience.
L’État est bon Prince, tout de même, mais point trop n’en faut : l’ancien membre d’Action Directe n’a en effet pas le droit – entre autres – « d’évoquer publiquement les faits pour lesquels il a été condamné. »
Des faits qui remontent à un quart de siècle, que tout le monde –à l’époque et ensuite – a largement commentés. Seul l’intéressé n’en a pas, aujourd’hui, la possibilité. Ses déclarations pourraient-elles être des révélations, gênantes pour certains ? Si c’était le cas, on a peine à croire qu’il n’ait pas encore trouvé le moyen de les exposer sur la place publique.
Non, si l’ancien leader d’Action directe risque de perdre l’aumône qui lui a été faite de cette généreuse « semi-liberté », ce n’est pas pour avoir évoqué son passé ou quelques zones restées dans l’ombres de celui-ci, mais pour avoir indiqué qu’il en aurait probablement le droit « s’il crachait sur tout ce (qu’ils) avaient fait » et que « par cette obligation de silence on empêche aussi (son) expérience de tirer son vrai bilan critique. » À la lâcheté de ne pas l’avoir, à l’époque, fait exécuter – lui et ses complices qui avaient sciemment versés le sang – la Justice française ajoute aujourd’hui l’ignominie d’exiger du militant politique qu’il est resté, qu’il devienne un renégat.
Cela fleure bon les méthodes des régimes de Joseph Staline ou de Mao Tse-Tong qui acculaient leurs ennemis politiques à se couvrir eux-mêmes d’opprobre pour bénéficier d’une mort plus rapide, sans torture.
Le jovial Petit Père des Peuples et le sympathique Grand Timonier entendaient ainsi imposer à leurs peuples leurs excitantes démocraties populaires.
Nicolas Sarkozy, moins sanguinaire, reconnaissons-le, semble, lui, en tenir plus simplement pour une démocratie de semi-expression.
Si Jean-Marc Rouillan était acculé à faire repentance, il bénéficierait à l’évidence de quelques conforts de vie, mais ce serait aussi une mise-à-mort. Celle du respect que l’on peut avoir pour quelqu’un qui a mis son existence au bout de ses convictions.
Aussi imbibées de sang soient-elles.

Philippe Randa

lundi, 22 septembre 2008

De Mai 68 à "Capitalisme et barbarie"

 

 

mai68alenvers.JPG
VIVRE SANS TEMPS MORTS, JOUIR SANS ENTRAVES! 40 ANS PLUS TARD : CAPITALISME ET BARBARIE
Convertir en PDF Version imprimable Suggérer par mail
Écrit par Jean-Baptiste Santamaria   
Jules Monnerot après avoir fait ses premières armes au sein du surréalisme et de l’extrême-gauche intellectuelle termina son itinéraire politique et philosophique sous la bannière de la droite de conviction. Doté d’un sens historique aiguisé il avait qualifié le communisme, véritable mythe du XX° siècle, de « nouvel islamisme », résumant par là le caractère relativement fruste mais messianique du message, de plus il est notamment connu pour avoir forgé le concept d’hétérotélie. Emprunté à Pareto, ce concept renvoie à la difficulté qu’ont les hommes à se reconnaître dans leurs œuvres. Max Weber dans un même ordre d’idées avait mis en garde contre l’éthique de conviction, toujours prompte à s’enflammer pour les nobles causes futures mais aux retombées imprévisibles et milité pour une éthique de la responsabilité, soucieuse des conséquences immédiates de l’action humaine et des moyens à mettre en œuvre. Ceci présentant une théorisation précise de la question de la fin et des moyens. Le XX° siècle a vu le capitalisme libéral sortir vainqueur de ses deux adversaires totalitaires : le fascisme et le communisme. Ici l’affaire est entendue, le nazisme, se voulant une synthèse entre le nationalisme et le socialisme - les deux grandes idées de la modernité tardive- a sombré dans le cauchemar en rééditant la saignée de la grande guerre et débouchant sur le plan démographique par un vaste appel d’air au profit de populations extra-européennes. Hitler qui avait mis la science (l’anthropométrie entre autres…) au service de ses idéaux et des ses exigences raciales (les ariens représentant pour lui la quintessence des races européennes) a ouvert la porte au métissage généralisé :bel exemple de retournement des idéaux initiaux.
 Nous-nous bornerons ici au simple constat d’hétérotélie, sans porter de jugement  sur la valeur intrinsèque du nationalisme, du socialisme, du racisme et de la techno-science et des manipulations démocratiques des masses au service de ces idéologies.
Même constat avec le communisme. Le mythe de la classe a échoué de même, dans le massacre de masse et l’aliénation quant son projet de subversion et de fondation d’un ordre nouveau. La notion de classe était double, ambiguë dès le départ. Elle renvoyait en même temps à un extrema de la modernité et au retour au grand un et au sacré primitif. En effet le schéma marxiste prétendait utiliser toutes les ressources de la science pour diagnostiquer un futur post-capitaliste : le matérialisme historique branche d’un matérialisme dialectique l’englobant. En même temps, le projet communiste renvoyait à un imaginaire pré-moderne du grand tout, la communauté retrouvée, pronostiquée après la parenthèse individualiste libérale, de la classe abolie.
Echec sur toute la ligne : les prévisions scientifiques ont fait chou blanc, le communisme réel n’ayant touché que des pays à large dominante rurale.
Fascisme et communisme avaient tous deux cette ambiguïté initiale : ils s’inscrivaient en faux contre la modernité libérale, grande atomisatrice de l’homme, tout en mettant en œuvre des techniques de manipulations de masse (propagande, partis et syndicats, mobilisation totale et permanente etc) extrêmement sophistiquées, techniques, bref modernes et parallèlement à cette hyper-modernité ils étayaient leur pouvoir sur le mythe du grand tout sacré :la classe ou la race ou l’Etat expression de la Raison pour-soi.
Ce qui nous occupera ici cependant c’est non pas l’hétérotélie résultant du projet libéral-capitaliste mais dans un premier temps l’analyse de l’absorption par celui-ci de l’imaginaire contestataire de 1968. En gros comment l’imaginaire libéral redynamisé par la pensée 68 a en même temps relancé la machine économique, philosophique et technique tout en induisant des conséquences à mille lieues  des volontés initiales des initiateurs de la grande festivité contestataire.
   Mais c’est surtout le second point : comment du sein même de l’imaginaire du mouvement ouvrier ou de sa variante petite-bourgeoise-pro-prolétarienne va émerger un courant que nous qualifierons d’ultra-gauche antitotalitaire. Ce courant nous semble intéressant pour assurer (avec d’autres) une re-fondation de la mouvance identitaire.
Ce courant comme tout le mouvement ouvrier a certes été défait par le capitalisme mais il a su faire preuve d’une dynamique critique et réflexive d’une grande qualité.
Ce ne sera pas tant le bilan du mouvement ultra-gauche qui nous intéressera, même s’il a su non seulement rapidement déceler dans le mouvement communiste réellement existant une expression du capitalisme d’Etat, mais aussi les impasses du mouvement ouvrier lui-même, comme, avec la notion de fascisme brun et fascisme rouge, anticiper sur les thèses d’Hannah Arendt concernant le totalitarisme.





1-Des gauchistes en général et en particulier, quelques catégories :

 A-Catégories :
L’objet du premier mouvement de ce texte est donc d’analyser en quoi les idéaux gauchistes soixante-huitards se sont retournés en leur contraire. Non seulement ils ont été –pour utiliser la phraséologie en vogue à l’époque - « récupérés » par la bourgeoisie, mais ils ont débouché sur une manière d’être aux antipodes des desiderata initiaux.
Les chapelles gauchistes étant nombreuses nous avons ici défini trois grandes familles. Cette division ne recoupe pas essentiellement des groupements idéologiques mais plutôt des pratiques et des évolutions différentes.
Le premier groupe, le plus connu, est celui appelé simplement « gauchiste ». Il regroupait à la fin des années 60 une myriade d’organisations anarchistes, maoïstes et trotskistes. Seuls les derniers ont survécu et semblent même -au moins pour la LCR- connaître aujourd’hui un certain regain. Ces trotskistes sont toujours faiblement implantés dans l’industrie lourde (à cause de l’origine petite-bourgeoise des ses membres) mais connaissent un certain succès –via le syndicat Sud- dans le secteur public.
Le second groupe était constitué d’une nébuleuse « mouvementiste ». Prémisses d’un mouvement qui allait toucher la société civile et la modifier semble-t-il de manière importante au niveau des mœurs. Dans cette catégorie : le féminisme, l’homosexualisme, l’écologisme.
Au départ ces « sensibilités » sont regroupées sous la forme d’organisations plus ou moins structurées ou plus ou moins spontanéistes. Elles récusent l’autoritarisme de l’organisation bolchévique –dont trotskistes et maoïstes constituent des caricatures velléitaires- et surtout prônent la révolution immédiate du mode de vie. Un peu comme les anarchistes, elles rejettent le schéma léniniste (des gauchistes et des staliniens ) qui dit que d’abord il faut faire la révolution puis, après une phase de transition, l’Eden libéré du machisme, de l’homo-phobie et de la rentabilité verra le jour.
Un troisième groupe retiendra notre attention et notre intérêt : celui qui débouchera sur une extrême-gauche non totalitaire. C’est sur lui que portera le deuxième temps de notre analyse. Disons ici qu’on l’appellera ultra-gauche par opposition aux groupes léninistes. L’ultra-gauche prend certes racine dans l’extrême-gauche mais rapidement rompt, d’abord avec le schéma bolchevique, puis après, avec le messianisme prolétarien lui-même tel que le marxisme le raconte. Cette matrice a donné notamment les courants Socialisme ou Barbarie, la revue Libre, le MAUSS ou l’actuelle revue Le meilleur des mondes.
Sous cette étiquette nous pourrions placer, malgré peut être l’avis des intéressés une large part des néo-réactionnaires. On pourrait ainsi citer pêle-mêle : Castoriadis, Morin, Lefort, Clastres, Bruckner, Courtois, Finkielkraut, Dantec, Manent, Gauchet.
Nous tenterons plus loin de voir comment ces groupes, puis les individus qui y ont fait leurs premières armes, une fois débarrassés de leur gangue marxisto-léniniste ont pu accéder dans leur période de maturité à une pensée renouvelée du « capitalisme » et exercer une critique qui nous semble pertinente.

B-Etat actuel du gauchisme :
Pour un premier bilan nous pourrions dire –quant à leur degré d’absorption par le capitalisme:
que le premier courant dit gauchiste- dont le reliquat aujourd’hui est essentiellement trotskiste- se constitue comme une extrême-gauche du capital. La LCR, le Parti des Travailleurs et maintenant Lutte ouvrière constituant une force d’appoint aux marges des partis de gauche. Toujours manoeuvrant au sein des luttes étudiantes ce courant constitue une force non négligeable dans le secteur d’Etat (Postes, SNCF, hôpitaux, enseignants) avec un bon levier :SUD.
Même si seule la vieille garde maîtrise les fins et la vision du mouvement grâce à sa dialectique marxiste et léniniste, la plupart des jeunes militants participent seulement d’une bouillie tiermondo-compassionnelle-humanitariste qui ferait se retourner dans leurs tombes les fondateurs du Goulag (Trotski, Lénine). Prisonnier au mieux d’une idéologie ouvrière ce courant s’exprime donc dans les termes économistes propres au Capital les rendant par là impuissants à subvertir l’ordre bourgeois se bornant à appeler au développement du secteur nationalisé.
Ce courant reste donc capitaliste d’Etat à long terme et exprime aujourd’hui bien concrètement les intérêts corporatistes (essentiellement petit-bourgeois) du secteur nationalisé au sens large.
Le deuxième courant dit « mouvementiste » a échoué de même à présenter une alternative au capitalisme. En plus de cet échec on peut dire qu’il a fourni au capitalisme actuel un certain nombre de pratiques et une idéologie dans certains de ses secteurs.
Notamment en ce qui concerne la « gestion des ressources humaines » et la « communication ». On voit déjà bien là que si le coeur de la production (en biens et services) respecte des normes d’efficiency encore largement tayloriennes, elle emprunte tout un verbiage et un style axé sur la multiplication des réunions en tous genres. Ce management de la production entre en résonnance avec un management de la consommation dégageant une ambiance d’idéologie soft basée sur le matérialisme consumériste, un hédonisme de bon aloi et respectueux des tabous, aux antipodes du sybaritisme nietzschéen des Situs.
Donc ici, la compatibilité avec le Capitalisme est complète :sans exagérer l’influence exacte de la pensée 68 dans les modernes méthodes de management –elles touchent les cadres moyens et quelques secteurs de l’économie- on peut dire qu’elles ont été récupérées totalement.
Le troisième courant a lui aussi été battu par le Capital, mais ce qui nous retient ici c’est la capacité d’évolution de certains de ses membres.
Partis comme tout le mouvement ouvrier de catégories économistes, comme les capitalistes - en effet Marx comme Ricardo (moins, Adam Smith) pensent que l’économie détermine la phénoménologie humaine- ces individus ont évolué vers le politique.
Ils se sont vite aperçu non seulement des impasses du stalinisme et de la social-démocratie puis du trotskisme mais aussi des limites du potentiel contestataire du mouvement ouvrier .
Ce, autour du débat sur le caractère spontanément trade-unioniste du prolétariat.
Puis l’analyse du stalinisme leur a permis de dégager le caractère totalitaire du projet marxiste et de retrouver via le politique (débat autour de l’invention de la démocratie) le chemin de l’identité européenne autour du projet de création de la personne humaine.
C’est cette capacité à renouer avec le politique et la mise en œuvre d’une réflexivité et de l’esprit critique qui fait des principaux représentants de ces courants, à mon sens, un des noyaux de la composition d’un mouvement identitaire entendu comme le creuset de la résistance à un ordre mondial économiste et coupé des enracinements civilisationnels types.


2-Capitalisme et barbarie :

Pour mettre quelques noms derrière ce courant qui nous semble intéressant tant par son passé que par son potentiel nous nous attarderons sur quelques groupes même s’ils sont défunts car ils ont été des moments clés dans l’évolution de ceux qui nous semblent dignes d’être visités.
Un des groupes les plus prometteurs de l’ultra-gauche fut Socialisme ou Barbarie, animé par Cornelius Castoriadis et où Lefort et Morin sans doute ont transité.
Marcel Gauchet, sans y avoir appartenu de par ses références « phénoménologistes » nous semble pouvoir y être raccroché.
Nous ne ferons pas ici le bilan de l’action et des thèses de ce groupe. Simplement nous notons qu’il a été un des terreaux où se sont formés nombre de penseurs de cette gauche anti-totalitaire qui nous semble porteuse d’un projet d’actualité.
De leur anti-capitalisme et de leur anti-léninisme ces individus que je qualifie par commodité d’ex-ultra-gauche-devenus-antitotalitaires ont conservé, en ce qui concerne leur psychologie, une attitude de pugnacité et une extrême sensibilité dans l’application de leur esprit critique.

Habitués à combattre de front le capitalisme aussi bien que le léninisme ils ont développé une attitude faite d’une grande exigence éthique et politique et une endurance à toutes les pressions et campagnes de calomnies et de réduction de leur pensée. De plus les « erreurs de jeunesse » commises à l’époque de leur enrôlement plus ou moins long ou distancié sous la bannière des gauchistes –voire des staliniens- pour nombre d’entre eux les amène à une vigilance accrue face à tous les simplismes.
De leur passé anti-capitaliste ils ont conservé une démarche critique à propos du libéralisme économique.
Nous passons sur les divergences pour simplifier. En effet Castoriadis aimait à rappeler que pour rester révolutionnaire il lui avait fallu rompre avec le marxisme. Lefort lui insistait sur l’invention de la démocratie. Dantec semble, quant à lui, verser dans une condamnation globale de la modernité sur la plan théorique tout en assurant sur le plan pratique et tactique une défense du libéralisme (donc de la modernité en sa dernière phase). Nous-nous positionnerons donc ici sur une moyenne utopique de ce courant néo-réac ou ex-ultra-gauche. Il en résulte pour cette moyenne une position de défense du libéralisme politique dans ce qu’il a de meilleur –la défense de la personne humaine. Cette défense s’accompagne d’une analyse critique de sa phase actuelle . Critique de l’hédonisme matérialiste, de l’absence de transcendance et affaiblissement du rôle du politique.
Nous pourrions ajouter à cette liste Finkielkraut qui, sans avoir participé au courant ultra-gauche en a redécouvert les principales articulations doctrinales avant de rejoindre le camp des anti-totalitaires. Adeptes certes du libéralisme politique, ce courant n’en demeure pas moins fort critique du libéralisme économique et de la décomposition du Politique qu’il induit.
Bruckner se rattache à ce type de profil humain.
Dans tous les cas ces personnalités doivent être créditées d’une grande capacité critique et de retour sur soi. Analyser l’anti-racisme comme le totalitarisme du XXI° siècle (Finkielkraut) et le mondialisme métisseur et destructeur d’identités (Zemmour, issu quant à lui de la droite traditionnelle) implique une lucidité totale sur les pratiques de la gauche, la continuité de méthodes relevant du terrorisme intellectuel , la manipulation médiatique et l’organisation de carrières autour d’idéologies comme l’anti-fascisme puis l’anti-racisme et aujourd’hui l’instrumentalisation des droits-de l’homme.
Une fois dégagées les qualités inhérentes à ce type de parcours militant, le paragraphe suivant expose les avantages qu’apporteraient la rencontre avec ce pan de l’identité européenne qui incarne le meilleur de la pratique du mouvement ouvrier et petit-bourgeois pour les courants issus plus classiquement de l’extrême-droite ; ce, dans un projet de fondation d’une nouvelle configuration politique basée sur la référence à l’identité européenne en vue d’ un dépassement du projet moderne permettant une meilleure résistance à la subversion démographique extra-européenne. Ainsi une synthèse entre des fractions différentes de l’imaginaire européen pourrait permettre d’accéder à une défense raisonnable, dans le cadre d’une approche circonspecte et pleinement politique, de notre identité. Mettant à profit des capacités de résistance diverses à l’air du temps constitué autour du compassionnel et de l’infra-politique.


3-De l’intérêt des ex-ultra-gauches dans l’actuelle recomposition :


Ce qui nous intéresse dans ce courant est alors non pas une succession d’instantanés plus ou moins « vrais » mais une dynamique. Ces individus, que nous appelons ici ex-ultra-gauches-devenus-antitotalitaires, ont témoigné d’une certaine dynamique, d’une certaine « progression ». Cette évolution témoigne d’une certaine capacité éthique, intellectuelle, spirituelle, d’une certaine attitude vis-à-vis du « monde ». Attitude caractérisée par une certaine recherche du « vrai » en politique notamment le respect du fait historique (querelle sur le Livre noir du Communisme) . Cette recherche peut exiger un refus des compromis, des modes, des impératifs de carrière. Elle implique donc un certain caractère entier, une certaine exigence.
Il leur a fallu combattre aussi bien le libéralisme politique en tant qu’établissement où il aurait été facile de s’ériger en porte-parole et (bonne) conscience auto-proclamée, que l’opposition marxiste ayant pignon sur rue c'est-à-dire reconnue au sein (ou en marge autorisée) de bureaucraties ouvrières ou des multiples courants, officines, revues, synécures de la mouvance progressiste « petite-bourgeoise ».
C’est ce profil qui nous intéresse aujourd’hui.
Certes l’extrême-droite a pu engendrer semblable profil de lutteurs trempés par les défaites et les trahisons successives et exigeant une lucidité et un caractère forgé dans les plus dures épreuves.
D’ailleurs Souvarine (auteur de « A contre-courant », tout un programme…) a pu être à la jonction de ces deux profils de militants aguerris par les résistances et les défaites.
Mais c’est là que les trajectoires des ex-ultra-gauches peuvent être d’une importance pour la recomposition à venir de la mouvance identitaire.
La mouvance réactionnaire ou fasciste a maintenu des valeurs non-bourgeoises d’un grand intérêt : honneur, courage physique et intellectuel, désintéressement, fidélité, courtoisie, tempérance, anti-conformisme, circonspection, ruse, enracinement.
Ces valeurs sont d’origine aristocratiques ou rurales et s’opposent aux valeurs de la bourgeoisie : goût du travail, industriosité, sens de l’innovation, régularité, sens de la négociation, modération, rigueur de l’analyse, goût pour l’égalité.
Les valeurs prolétariennes sont les mêmes que les bourgeoises car l’ouvrier comme le bourgeois relève des catégories économistes. Ce qui les différencie (esprit de solidarité) provient de mentalités pré-capitalistes (common sense de l’artisan au sens de Latsch ou Michea).
Nous sommes redevables à l’extrême-droite classique ou simplement la droite de conviction d’avoir su maintenir intactes ces valeurs non modernes héritières de notre passé féodal donc militaire, en opposition et en complémentarité avec les valeurs propres de la bourgeoisie.
C’est comme disait Paul Valéry le bien contre un autre bien.
Le bien aristocratique contre le bien bourgeois, l’honneur contre le compromis astucieux.
Opposition réelle dans l’Histoire mais dans un dépassement de cette opposition nous pouvons tenter de ramasser ensemble le féodal et le marchand (et le prolétarien donc), la valeur guerrière et l’astuce industrieuse. Symbiose incarnée dans notre lointaine mémoire par Ulysse polyméthis, Ulysse aux mille tours, guerrier aguerri et stratège rusé.
Mais si l’ex-ultra-gauche ne participe pas de l’héritage pré-moderne quant aux valeurs qu’il incarne il (versant positif de la chose) ne véhicule pas tout un imaginaire de la défaite.
En effet l’extrême droite (versant négatif de sa résistance à la modernité) véhicule une idéologie de vaincus depuis presque trois siècles ; avec la morale du ressentiment qui l’accompagne chez nombre d’entre eux. Il n’est que de voir le courrier des lecteurs de Rivarol : toujours de haute tenue sur la forme et sur le fond mais dégoulinant de rancœur et de défaitisme.
On ne saurait aujourd’hui livrer bataille avec ce fond idéologique héritier de l’E-D ni son personnel politique transi par cette tradition de défaites cumulées.
La défaite n’est pas un mal en soi. Si elle est suivie d’une analyse, d’une victoire sur soi même et d’un dépassement de ce qui a été sa raison de vivre, c'est-à-dire son échelle de valeurs.
Au contraire chez nombre de camarades d’E-D c’est la vie par procuration et le rappel de configurations politiques dépassées.
En vivant dans les modèles et catégories du passé l’ex-militant phantasme sur un passé dépassé et en tire une certaine joie morbide qui le rend au mieux inapte à la nouvelle configuration du combat présent et au pire l’amène à soutenir l’ennemi au nom d’anciennes configurations (anti-sémitisme et anti-américanisme pro-arabe).
Nous sommes aujourd’hui dans une phase nouvelle : les empires européens ont disparu, les nations sont à dépasser, les combats de classe n’ont plus (sauf pour les trotskistes) le caractère messianique qu’ils revêtaient aux deux siècles précédents.
Nous sommes à la veille d’une refondation du mouvement identitaire dans une situation qui ressemble à celle (fin des années 1970) où le FN est devenu l’outil fédérateur de toutes les forces de l’E-D traditionnelle.
Mais là où le FN s’est construit comme le dernier sursaut de l’Empire et des valeurs des vaincus anti-modernes des dernières grandes guerres civiles de la nation française il va nous falloir œuvrer dans une perspective européenne et dans un cadre qui fait fi des clivages traditionnels de classe tout en prônant le politique d’abord face au tout économique des « libéraux ».
Et c’est là qu’intervient l’impact d’une tradition, issue du mouvement ouvrier mais ayant dépassé les simplismes et les messianismes. Tradition se déployant autour de clercs de valeur qui  bénéficient d’une aura certaine. Clercs qui redynamisent la fonction de l’intelligentsia face aux pouvoirs des média et des politiciens, simples porte-parole du capital financier.
Continuer à nous ouvrir vers d’autres courants issus comme nous de la matrice européenne –relevant donc de notre identité- est le seul moyen de surmonter le syndrome des vaincus de 1945. Syndrome par exemple dépassé en son temps par les défenseurs de l’Algérie Française par exemple, mais dans lequel nous avons replongé à cause et de la dynamique de cette ultime défaite et par la politique habile de l’adversaire.

4-Leçon de chose et méthode :


Voilà quelle serait la leçon que nous pourrions tirer de cette ultime phase des grandes guerres civiles européennes qu’ont constitué les années 68 et alii :
A- Considérer celle-ci  comme une étape de notre histoire, étape constitutive donc de notre identité.
B- Comme dans toute guerre civile il n’y avait pas les bons contre les mauvais.
C- Toute guerre civile se termine et est dépassée non pas par la victoire d’un camp mais par une reconfiguration du topos politique.
D- Ce qui est le plus intéressant, expression et en même temps moteur du dépassement c’est l’évolution dans chaque camp des membres les plus « dynamiques ». Ce dynamisme se déploie dans l’exercice de valeurs.
E- Ces valeurs sont elles-mêmes mises en perspective, retravaillées, dépassées en synthèse avec d’autres valeurs parfois portées par l’ex camp adverse.

 Concrètement : la référence à diverses fractions de l’imaginaire européen permet une relance et une recomposition de cet imaginaire européen. Synthèse de dépassement du meilleur des parcours pratiques et idéologiques des individus qui ont fait montre dans leur trajectoire militante et simplement existentielle des meilleures dispositions ; à savoir la capacité à se remettre en question en permanence sans sombrer ni dans le découragement, ni le relativisme, ni la culpabilité (pour les « erreurs » passées) avec le détachement, la persévérance et la joie face à tous les mauvais prophètes de la grande lassitude et de la haine de soi.
Il va de soi (nous avons cité plus haut Eric Zemmour qui est issu de la droite traditionnelle) que la liste des courants et personnalités qui pourraient apporter leurs talents à une redynamisation de l’esprit européen n’est pas limitée au courant anti-totalitaire et à l’extrême droite réfléchie…

mercredi, 06 août 2008

Bernd Rabehl: 70 ans !

73645.jpg

 

Bärbel RICHTER:

Hommage à Bernd Rabehl pour ses 70 ans !

Les conformistes de gauche disent de lui qu’il est un rénégat mais une seule chose le rebutait essentiellement: la partialité et le sectarisme dans lesquels se complaisaient volontairement tant de militants au siècle des idéologies. Bernd Rabehl s’est toujours frayé un chemin entre les contradictions du monde politique, entre les blocs idéologiques, soutenu en cette errance par un esprit de joueur inné. Ce goût de l’errance et du jeu lui est venu carrément dès le berceau. En 1944, en pleine guerre, sa mère demande le divorce. Son père, adjudant d’état-major dans les services médicaux de l’armée et féru de jeux de hasard, s’installe à l’Ouest après la guerre. Son ex-femme et ses enfants restent à l’Est, à Rathenow dans le Brandebourg. Cette décision du père marquera durablement l’itinéraire politique de Bernd Rabehl. Mais les impressions les plus marquantes de son enfance sont évidemment les bombardements nocturnes, les hurlements de sirènes et les signaux de la BBC, car sa mère écoutait en secret les “émetteurs ennemis”.

Le goût et le talent pour le théâtre de la politique, il les a acquis fort tôt, encouragé par ses professeurs. En 1948 déjà, quand beaucoup d’autres jeunes allemands de la zone soviétique refusaient de s’y engager, il adhère à la FDJ (le mouvement de jeunesse du régime). Il devient membre d’un groupe théâtral d’agitprop communiste et s’y taille une réputation de bon acteur. En  1949, il est présent lors de la cérémonie du 8 mai au cimetière militaire soviétique de Rathenow: le garçonnet de 11 ans est debout face aux formations d’honneur de l’armée rouge et des délégations du parti et des “comités d’entreprise”, ainsi que des “masses populaires” présentes bon gré mal gré. Il récite des poèmes d’Erich Weinert ou de Johannes R. Becher. Il chante dans le choeur “Karl-Marx”. C’est là qu’il apprendra l’hymne légendaire de la révolution bourgeoise, “Die Gedanken sind frei” (“Les idées sont libres”). Ce chant est resté depuis lors son chant favori.

En 1952, quand tous avaient finalement adhéré à la FDJ et renoncé à la confirmation chrétienne au profit de la “Jugendweihe” (“L’initiation de la jeunesse”), lui, las de tant de conformisme, par défi, opte pour la confirmation. Le prêtre luthérien explique au jeune confirmé que le Christ avait été un “combattant de la liberté”. Son choix n’eut aucune conséquence: personne ne lui en tint rigueur.

Le 17 juin 1953, lors du soulèvement des ouvriers berlinois contre le régime pro-soviétique, il apprend, sur les barricades, à connaître des communistes et des socialistes oppositionnels. Un camarade de classe disparaît pour dix ans dans un pénitencier car il avait été impliqué dans l’assassinat d’un espion de la STASI, connu de tous dans la ville. Rabehl, lui, arrache le portrait de Staline qui ornait sa classe. Après que le soulèvement populaire eut été écrasé, le socialisme du régime n’eut plus d’attrait pour lui. Plus tard, il suivit à la radio, captivé, les récits de l’insurrection hongroise et des grèves générales polonaises de 1956.

Enfant d’ouvrier  —sa mère travaille dans une équipe de nettoyage—  il peut achever ses études secondaires à l’ “Oberschule”. Pour sa composition de maturité (“Abitur”), il est libre de choisir le thème; il décide de parler de “la mort” et écrit une variation sur Walter Ulbricht et la mort de la RDA. Conséquence: le secrétaire du parti convoque l’ensemble des élèves de dernière année dans le grand auditorium de l’école. Il exige que Rabehl fasse son auto-critique. Mais au lieu de se rétracter, il dénie une fois de plus tout avenir à la RDA. Silence de mort dans la salle. La sanction est toutefois modérée: on ne lui donne pas son diplôme de fin de secondaire; il doit redoubler sa classe puis “faire ses preuves dans la production”. C’est là qu’il rencontre les anciens meneurs de la grève générale du 17 juin 1953. On lui interdit alors de s’inscrire en histoire et il ne reçoit l’autorisation de n’étudier que l’agronomie à la “Humboldt-Universität” de Berlin-Est. Quatre semaines après, il franchit la ligne de démarcation et s’installe à Berlin-Ouest.

L’édification du Mur de Berlin, en 1961, hérisse ce jeune homme qui, lui, avait encore eu le temps de franchir la ligne sans devoir essuyer de coups de feu. De nombreux jeunes, dont Rudi Dutschke, qu’il ne connaissait pas encore à l’époque, marchent vers le Mur pour protester. Lorsqu’ils tentent, avec un piolet, de jeter bas le Mur, la police militaire américaine intervient et disperse les jeunes manifestants.

Pendant l’automne de l’année 1961, Rabehl entame des études de sociologie, de philosophie et d’histoire d’Europe orientale à la “Freie Universität” de Berlin. Parmi ses professeurs, il y avait bon nombre de communistes dissidents, dont Otto Stammer; bien vite, Rabehl et Rudi Dutschke prennent contact avec la “Subversive Aktion”, qui gravitait autour de Dieter Kunzelmann. Leur but? Démasquer le caractère autoritaire et non démocratique de l’Etat et de la société par des provocations bien ciblées. En 1965, le groupe rejoint le SDS (les étudiants de la gauche extra-parlementaire), où il constituera la principale fraction. Dans les années cruciales de 1967 et 1968, Rabehl appartient au comité dirigeant du SDS.

Après l’attentat contre Dutschke en avril 1968, Rabehl tentera de maintenir le mouvement dans le sens où Dutschke l’avait voulu. Ce sera l’échec. L’opposition extra-parlementaire  (APO) se délite et se fractionne en sectes et groupuscules; une partie des militants “se militarisent”. Quant à Rabehl, il entame sa carrière d’enseignant universitaire.

Trente ans après, en 1998, d’anciens militants du SDS se réunissent à l’occasion d’un symposium et fixent leur ligne pour l’avenir: s’immerger dans la coalition socialiste-libérale, sous prétexte que c’est “une nécessité”. Rabehl n’admet pas cette démarche. Il choisit une fois de plus un chemin de traverse, une voie ardue, et commence à évoquer la dimension “nationale-révolutionnaire” de 68, que Dutschke et lui incarnaient tout particulièrement. Il prononce un exposé dans ce sens devant les étudiants nationaux-conservateurs de la Corporation “Danubia” de Munich. Rabehl venait alors de franchir le pas qui le mènera là où il se trouve aujourd’hui: dans l’espace de la dissidence la plus osée, en restant conséquent avec sa logique subversive et révolutionnaire mais en suscitant l’incompréhension de beaucoup. Rabehl n’a jamais été un rénégat: bien plutôt un dialecticien pragmatique. Le discours tenu à la Danubia de Munich, et la plupart de ses exposés, articles et essais prononcés ou publiés depuis 1998, se situent pourtant dans le même esprit que celui de la “Subversive Aktion”: ils ne dénoncent peut-être plus les mêmes ennemis qu’hier mais concentrent le tir sur les “camarades” de jadis qui se sont alignés sur l’une ou l’autre fraction de l’établissement.

Le 30 juillet 2008, Bernd Rabehl fêtera ses 70 ans. Ad multos annos!

Bärbel RICHTER.

(article paru dans “Junge Freiheit”, Berlin, n°31-32/2008; trad. franç.: Robert Steuckers).