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.

vendredi, 15 avril 2016

Eugenics & Environmentalism, Madison Grant & Lothrop Stoddard


The E Word:
Eugenics & Environmentalism,
Madison Grant & Lothrop Stoddard

Editor’s Note:

This is the transcript by V. S. of Richard Spencer’s Vanguard podcast interview of Jonathan Bowden about eugenics, environmentalism, Madison Grant, and Lothrop Stoddard. You can listen to the podcast here [2]. The subtitle is editorial.

Richard Spencer: Hello, everyone, and welcome back to Vanguard! And welcome back as well, Jonathan Bowden! 

Jonathan Bowden: Yes, hello! Nice to be here.

RS: Very good. Jonathan, today we’re going to talk about eugenics, Madison Grant, Lothrop Stoddard, and the whole constellation of ideas and thinkers surrounding that subject. Before we jump into the conversation, I think it’s worth mentioning this: we certainly live in an age of partisan vitriol and Left-Right battles, but some of the things that really interest me are not those places where the mainstream Left and Right disagree with one another but where they are in total agreement, where they walk lock-step, and one of those things is the denunciation of eugenics as the most evil movement or at least one of them of the past 200 years. It’s certainly also quite often associated with that other most evil movement of Fascism or National Socialism. I think all of them are in agreement that it is both a pseudo-science, but then it’s also in some ways all too effective and something we need to resist. So, it didn’t work, but then it was all too effective at the same time usually in some of these irrational critiques they have of it.

This is a fascinating opinion, because this is something that has changed dramatically over the past century. It’s hard to find another opinion where you have a 180 degree shift in such a fairly short amount of time. It’s almost as if the Western world converted to Islam and began denouncing Christianity and secularism overnight. Perhaps not that dramatic, but you see my point.

MG2.jpgCertainly, something like the National Socialist regime in Germany did have eugenics programs. They were not actually as pronounced as some might believe. They actually modeled a lot of those programs on the eugenics programs found in Sweden and in the state of California. California was probably the ultimate model. You had eugenics being endorsed by university presidents. That is, it was very much endorsed by the elite. They thought this was a good thing and it was also a part of the progressive elite. Eugenics was not a reactionary opinion. It was something that was opposed by the old time religion folks or whom you might call reactionaries. It was something that might even be on the Left in certain contexts. Certainly, with somebody like Lothrop Stoddard, who we’re going to speak about a little bit later, it was a position held by someone who openly thought of himself as a progressive and a modernist. And it also had some popular appeal. Actually, in a talk I gave not too long ago at the H. L. Mencken Club, I showed some pictures that were actually taken by a very good book, a biography of Lothrop Stoddard which was written by a Left-liberal who doesn’t like Stoddard very much but recognizes his importance, but these pictures were of eugenic buildings at the state fair. I believe a famous one was from the Kansas State Fair. They would have a competition for the fittest family, and what they wanted to see was a good genotype. That was a healthy family with all boys and girls looking strong and smart and good-looking parents and things like this. So, eugenics really had a positive value in peoples’ lives. It was something that meant that they were healthy and good and normal and people of quality. Obviously, this has gone through a total reversal.

Well, Jonathan, I think we should talk about all of these things in detail, but maybe you could pick up on that basic history of eugenics that I’ve just outlined that something that was hegemonic has become unspeakable just over the course of 100 years. Something that was endorsed by presidents and now is associated with crazed lunatics. Maybe just talk a little about that and talk a little bit about why that happened. Do you think it was just the legacy of the Second World War or was there something more involved? So, why don’t you just pick up on that, say, our consciousness of eugenics in the 20th century?

JB: Yes, I think what we have here is the acceptance of and then the rejection of, one then the other, the notion that biology impinges upon social matters to a very considerable degree. From about 1860/1870 through to the 1940s, you had a very pronounced view in all sorts of countries, particularly countries like Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, and elsewhere — countries you don’t often associate with these sorts of ideas. But eugenic ideas were very pronounced in the policies in these societies and amongst academic and clinical elites.

In some ways, it was progressive biologism. It was the belief that you could act upon that and upon circumstances of lived anthropology as contemporaneously understood, and you could improve the human lot. Just as you could act upon the social and economic sphere from a center-Left perspective to improve mankind’s lot, and from the interventionist conservative’s perspective as well, you could also improve man’s lot biologically.

How this was to be done was a subject of maximal debate, but the idea was that if you bred the strongest children and the tallest children and the fairest children and the most intellectually precocious children who also have pronounced athletic abilities that you would actually begin to create more wholesome human beings, better families, and better communities, and better societies. That sort of viewpoint would have been regarded as axiomatic in the mid-1930s, and it would have been shared by Left-wing liberals, some socialists, many sort of active and laissez-faire libertarians and old liberals, many new liberals, and many conservatives of all sorts.

The only people who really opposed it were people who were very much linked to certain forms of Biblical Christianity, because of course these ideas are inevitably linked to notions of biological health and reproduction what would later be cast by feminism late in the century, second wave feminism, as reproductive rights but then was looked at as reproduction for health and for eugenic health at that. This meant that contraception and abortion, abortion as a form of contraception, particularly in relation to life which was considered in some respects unworthy or inferior in one category or another, would definitely come into play, and Christians’ moral concerns about that fact of eugenics was very pronounced. However, probably a large number of evangelicals shared semi-eugenic ideas, because racial and national ideas were such much more conservative during this epoch and were so much more hegemonic that it meant that the amount of opposition that eugenics got was relatively small in comparison to the almost universal odium in which its held at the present time.

RS: Let me jump in on that, actually. One of the groups that loathes eugenics at the moment is the evangelical Christians, but it’s worth mentioning that there were eugenic laws in the state of North Carolina, for instance, up until the 1970s and the state sterilized a tremendous amount of people, most of them Blacks who were considered unfit for bearing children. So, there was a kind of old time religious repulsion from eugenics as modernist, and that kind of makes sense. But just to back up your point, it was something that was accepted by a large majority of Protestants in the South.

JB: Yes, the sterilization of the unfit was carried out right across the Western world until a particular generation of natural scientists died out in terms of the social application of biological ideas in the 1970s. Really what you have is a generation that accepts new ideas in the ’30s and ’40s when they are young and carries them out in orphanages and halfway houses and children’s homes and clinics for the elderly and infirm and mental hospitals and waystations for the mentally subnormal and so on and so forth and they carry these functions out right across the ’50s, ’60s, and into the ’70s. That generation then dies out, and the scientists who follow them don’t have the same ideas, because they’ve been exposed to a different and a contrary mindset from 1945/46 onwards.

MG3.jpgSo, you have a reversal of what went on and at times an unstated reversal whereby the policies just change. The sterilization of people with grossly deformed and inadequate IQs, for example, to prevent them from breeding people who might be described as “idiots” in future, sort of percussive generations. That came to an end in most Western countries around the same time in the mid-1970s, and I think it came to an end because generationally the scientists who’d imbibed eugenic ideas had essentially passed through the system and were retiring and being replaced by a cohort who didn’t share the same notions.

I also think it’s important to realize that essentially what’s happened is that two concepts have been conflated into one another in order to summarily dispatch both. This is the idea of eugenics as against dysgenics. Dysgenics, which is, if you like, the negative side of eugenics whereby you act though as to prevent harm but you also act as to, in some senses, prevent life through abortion or through selective contraceptive use or through sterilization. The proactive and yet sort of snip-oriented and negative side of eugenics is its really controversial feature. The wholesome side, the building people up, the tonics for the brave sort of side, is one which only the most niggardly and nihilistic and sordid Left-winger would be opposed to, because they find nauseous the idea of happy, athletic, intellectually precocious families beaming for the camera in an Osmonds-like way, you know. It fills them with nausea and disgust, but a number of people who are filled with nausea and disgust for such sort of pungent healthy normality are relatively few and far between, and many of them are neurotic and sort of outsider-in in their orientation.

That sort of eugenics has been deconstructed so that the term eugenics is no longer used, and it’s just a symbol of healthiness. Although, there are radical Christians of a certain specialization who dislike even that. I remember a Christian woman of my acquaintance a long time ago, a theorist in Christianity, Catholics variants of same, expectorated to me at great length about how she was appalled by pictures of athletes in hospital wards for the sick. She said it’s monstrously eugenic having these pictures of these healthy goddess/god type individuals reminding everyone that’s palsied and lame and sick and broken down what they’re not. And it’s essentially conceptually a form of beating them over the head with a truncheon as they’re trying to get a little bit better in their own terms. And these were just pictures of health. So, it shows you how far the sort of negative reaction to even the idea of healthiness as a perceived good has worked in this society. Illness is dealt with as something to be alleviated, but the corollary that you actually obtain health when you’re not ill is something that has been rather left out of the equation. Doctors who too radically value health fall under a certain cloud and under a certain moral suspicion these days that their viewpoint tends in a semi-eugenic direction.

So, certainly there’s been an incredible reversal, but when most people say “eugenics” the thing that they’re really talking about is the negative side of eugenics. The sort of parsimonious “getting rid of the inferior” dimension to it is what people really get riled against. The more positive agenda would probably get a more sullen acquiescence on behalf of most people who are not sold on the idea that healthiness is not necessarily just next to godliness, but two steps away from Fascism.

RS: Right. And actually it’s worth pointing out that many of the elite are pursuing eugenics. They call it genetic therapy or genetic counseling. I don’t want to dwell on these things, but they are in some ways pursuing negative eugenics in the sense that they are certainly much more willing to abort a child with Down syndrome or so on, and that, of course, can be discovered in the womb. In some ways, one could also suggest that eugenics is still living on. It’s just that you simply can’t use that name, because when you use that a swastika flag begins waving in someone’s mind. It just seems like that is what it is, but the actual practice seems to go on.

I want to return to your mentioning of the academic side of this, but before that, and I think I mentioned this at the beginning of the program, but Nazi Germany did have certain eugenics programs. They were not as unusual as many people would have you believe and they weren’t actually as pronounced as some people would have you believe. In some ways, they were rather hum-drum eugenics programs when compared to what was going on internationally and Hitler’s attacks on the Jewish people and what’s come to be known as the Holocaust was obviously not a eugenic program. Hitler obviously had very strong negative feelings against the Jews and he thought that they were a very dangerous enemy, but he did not think that they were stupid morons or something. Again, when you conflate eugenics and the Holocaust or all of the use of concentration camps and so forth in the Second World War you’re really mixing apples and oranges. They’re just not the same thing. But again, that’s the perception and that is the central reason why eugenics is a kind of non-starter in our contemporary world or it kind of has a sub rosa existence or something like that.

Let me ask you a real quick question, because you were talking about the academic side of this issue and the fact that so many of these researchers who were quite predisposed to Galton, Darwinism, eugenics that switched. Is that part of the so-called Boasian revolution in anthropology? What I mean by that is, of course, Franz Boas, who was a sworn enemy Madison Grant. This is actually one of the things that some of us have forgotten. When Boas was talking about things like there’s no correlation or connection between head size and brain size in intelligence and would even say things that were obviously false and literally fabricated his data claiming that an immigrant’s head would change shape when it came to America. The melting pot would change physics. It’s totally a nonsensical notion. But all those papers he wrote were all directed against Grant and eugenics. That was the target, and sometimes that’s forgotten because Boas’ revolution in anthropology and genetics has been so profound and broad that you forget that he was actually reacting against another force and that was Grant and eugenics, who again were hegemonic.

But, Jonathan, was that what you were getting to when you were talking before about the academic shift among researchers? When you had baby boomers and our generation you were essentially having people who were influenced by Boasian anthropology. They did not think in terms of Galton and let’s call it classical Darwinism. Really those people lost the battle, and this is the reason why eugenics kind of vanished after the Second World War.

JB: Yes, I do think it happened in a certain context though. I think that people who supported eugenics found that unless they found a different vocabulary for it their support couldn’t be sustained in polite society. Therefore, they either found arcane and differentiated terminology or they gave up on it completely, and when you have an idea whose time has come a vanguard will push for a contrary system, and if there’s nothing to push back against them they will take the high ground, and they will take over the theoretical discourse of a society, and you need a very small number of people to be singing from the same hymn sheet, in order to effect that. So, you just need the anthropology societies and the anthropological journals and the anthropology academic departments of the United States to tack one way or to lopsidedly tack one way decisively for there to be a complete re-routing and for one set of theories to be replaced by another one.

But it only happened because the soil was so fertile, because the other discourse had drained away to nothingness, and even those who were in favor of it they found themselves unable to articulate it given the moral climate post-1945.

So, Boas and his friends seized the hour, basically, and introduced forms of social discourse, because that’s what it was, that explained everything in terms of the social ramifications of man, and this very much, of course, fed indirectly into the New Left of the 1960s and ’70s, which is quite a break from the old Left in many ways which would accept quite a lot of prior and inheritable characteristics, even biological ones. Marx and so on never thought that man could be changed biologically in his primary nature. The only change that could be brought about was socio-economic, which could be decisive, but was rudimentary in relation to man’s fundamental being. Lenin, as well, never thought that man was capable of change at the biological level. Some people would always be born stupid; others would be born brilliant; some could approximate to one or the other by dint of some application or its absence. People would be born sick or rattled with disease. People would be born healthy. People would be born with mental diseases and disabilities. And with the exception of socialized medical concern, there’s not too much that could be done about that.

Whereas the New Left believed that everyone is a tabula rasa and that everyone can make it up as they go along and that there are certain things that, of course, impinge, such as extreme illness and that sort of thing, from the biological realm, that’s restricted very much just to the narrow issue of personal health. Other than that, every issue is explicable in terms of social engineering and purely social engineering but not sociobiological engineering. That was rendered out of account. So, progressivism snips off that element of it that was biological in the past, and that’s why eugenics was gotten rid of.

RS: Yes. I want to return to this theme that I was talking about before in terms of Grant and this former hegemonic discourse. I think it’s worth pointing out a little bit about Madison Grant the man, because I think if you really look at his story you really see in a nutshell, as it were, the story of the dispossession of the WASP elite over the course of the 20th century.

Grant was actually a lawyer by training, but he never really practiced. He was very similar to Lothrop Stoddard to that degree, who also had a law degree and also had a PhD, but he was immediately fascinated by naturalism. He was actually involved with people like Theodore Roosevelt and the big game hunter, Boone and Crockett club. He was really pioneering the whole concept of wildlife management and conservation. He was co-founder of the Bronx Zoo in 1899 in his native New York. They would actually bring bison into New York City and things like this.

He was involved in the American Bison Society. There were some statistics that before the society got going and the bison were being conserved — I can’t remember the exact statistic –but it was something like less than 20 bison were remaining. Essentially, the bison is obviously a majestic creature, but when it entered the world of rifles and horse-riding men with guns it was a big slab of meat as a target, and it was being slaughtered. We very well might not have the bison, the American buffalo without someone like Madison Grant.

He was one of the co-founders of Glacier National Park, which I am quite lucky to live about a 45-minute drive away from. It might be second only to Yellowstone National Park. Maybe some might even rank it higher. But it’s a truly gorgeous part of the world that includes all sorts of things from mountain peaks to rivers and lakes. It’s truly a miraculous place.

Lothrop Stoddard - 2.jpgHe was part of the Save the Redwoods League. Redwoods, of course, these massive trees, mostly in California. Again, we shouldn’t forget what still exists today for us to appreciate and what probably wouldn’t exist without the work of Madison Grant and his colleagues.

This is someone involved directly with the 1924 Immigration Restriction Act. He was part of the American Defense Society and the American Restriction League, so he was certainly not a politician or a political operative but he was the intellectual force behind these major initiatives which more or less cut off immigration to the United States. I think it did even more than that, because it made sure that America was going to return to what Grant thought of as the Nordic America, the America even before some of the massive Eastern European and Southern European immigration in the second half of the 19th century.

So, this is a man who was part of the elite, he was actually a kind of Brahmin though he was from New York City not Boston, but when you look at these people now you realize that there was this entire elite WASP class that was part of an even deeper tradition that might have included the Adamses and all of these people. Just a totally different version of the American Right than what we have today. In many ways, if you think about it, the kind of Buckleyite-influenced Right is a replacement or a perversion of what we had.

If you think about the history of the life of Madison Grant you really see this other world, a kind of alternative reality for what American conservatism could be.

Do you have any thoughts on that, Jonathan? Maybe America before the Second World War had a chance to have a different path in the world. If people like Madison Grant had been the intellectual leaders and they had been able to influence political leaders. And they were influencing political leaders. Calvin Coolidge was writing articles on how America shouldn’t become a waste dump for the degenerate. He was using extremely strong language that would probably shock some White Nationalists or something. I guess my question is, do you think that there was this other path that America could have taken if people like Madison Grant had prevailed instead of the types of people we have today?

JB: Yes, very much so. I think that the different parts of America could have followed probably proportionate to the issue of isolationism. If America could have remained isolated from not the rest of the world because that’s an impossibility, but isolated from policy involvement with the rest of the world and military intervention in the way it occurred in the First World War, after which there was an isolationist phase, of course, when President Wilson’s dictates were overthrown and there was a return to an isolationist posture. Then the build up to the Second World War, which changed everything and which led to the ascent of globalism as Stephen E. Ambrose calls it in his famous book about the emergence of an American empire as it were, and then the Korean War and then the wars with the Communist blocs and then the war in the modern world that we have today.

I think the influence of such figures would have had is entirely proportionate to the degree to which America remained a republic and not an empire, to use Buchanan’s phrase, and the more imperial America became, the more it became enamored of other models and the less it became enamored of a nativist American model. It’s almost inevitable that nativism would go together with the desire to keep America isolate and keep America out of other conflicts and to keep America from drifting towards global policeman-type roles that it’s been keen to adopt since the mid-1940s, since the attack on Pearl Harbor essentially.

So, I think the general point about men like Grant is that they were from an era where America should have decided its own destiny on its own terms, where the notion of American uniqueness and sort of preferentialism and providentialism, which irritates the hell out of the rest of the world of course, this notion of exceptionalism has been turned around to indicate an imperial or post-imperial vision. But in Grant’s day it was a plea for American uniqueness in American terms, which meant America was to be a society that did not involve itself with the other world particularly but was a New World sufficient unto itself. I think that once America opened up to the forces that wanted it to go global and play a global role, the influence of this old patterned, cross-grained WASP elite was bound to falter and die in the way that it has.

RS: Yes. Well, speaking of the ascent to globalism, I think it’s worth talking about the issue of Haiti, which was quite an important topic for Lothrop Stoddard, who was one of Grant’s protégés and certainly modeled his theories on Grant’s and so on and so forth. He actually wrote his doctoral dissertation on the revolution in San Domingo and that is the race war, for lack of a better term, that occurred on that island after the French Revolution, which was certainly inspired by the French Revolution.

I think it’s worth pointing out a couple of things, to go back to American globalism. In 1915, U.S. Marines were actually sent to Haiti by Woodrow Wilson, and he said that he was going to bring democracy, and they actually remained there for some 20-25 years. They built all sorts of things. That didn’t really work, and then actually in the latter half of Dwight Eisenhower’s administration Marines were sent back to Haiti to keep it from going Communist, and that didn’t do too much. Then in 1994, Bill Clinton actually sought to restore democracy this time around 75 to 100 years later after it was brought to the island.

So, it seems like Haiti has almost been a platform for all of these ideas to play out; that is American globalism, the continual failure of American globalism, and also something which Stoddard talked about which was those revolutionary ideas that would inflame the minds of men.

Maybe, Jonathan, you could just talk a little bit about Stoddard’s rather fascinating book on Haiti and a lot of the ideas he brings up and also just the contemporary relevance of Haiti, how it’s still in the news, we’re still fascinated by ideas of democratizing it or “developing it,” and how this fetish almost won’t ever go away.

JB: Yes, it’s thrown into stark relief by the recent Haitian earthquake and the enormous expenditure of dollars and time and muscle and energy in trying to rebuild Haiti after the earthquake. I remember Alex Kurtagić, I think, wrote a piece on Alternative Right or certainly a similar website that Haiti should not be rebuilt, which of course is an argument for dysgenics in many respects.

French-Revolution-in-San-Domingo2.jpgThe French Revolution in San Domingo by Stoddard dealt with the immediate aftermath of the French Revolution’s impact on Haiti and the tripartite war that developed between the British crown and the Spanish and French authorities there and the emergence of a racially-conscious Black army under Toussaint Louverture and its aftermath in Haiti when Louverture was outmaneuvered by Napoleon, who as history records of course was a racialist which rather shocks people today. When Toussaint was invited to France he was promptly arrested and put in a tower and Napoleon turned to his marshals and said, “You see how I deal with them?”

Napoleon’s views on many of these matters are now quite notorious and have led to a de-escalation of the Napoleonic cult that was part and parcel of French intellectual life for the better part of the last 200 years.

So, this racial warfare, which is not too extreme to call it, which subsumed Haiti led to many bloody massacres and internecine strife to the massacre of the residual White, largely French, population and the emergence of a Black republican dictatorship in Haiti for most of the 19th century.

Haiti is essentially an African society in the Western world and closely resembles a society America set up in extreme West Africa called Liberia. The Liberian flag, of course, is the American flag with just one star. Liberia, which America has also intervened in for the best part of a century and a half in order to try to make things right, was to be the resettlement zone for the Black slaves. Lincoln’s policy in relation to Black emancipation had two strands, one of which of course was never realized and that was the second one whereby after the Civil War he wished at least in theory to deport the African population of the United States back to Liberia, which is why this colony was established on the extreme West African coast, but that of course was never carried forward.

But in relation to Haiti, Stoddard sees it is a clear example of White folly in relation to dealing with essentially another race that has different standards of behavior, different characteristics of identity, and will run a society in a completely different manner to that which Europeans would or even semi-Europeans would. The elites in Haiti since the massacring of the Whites in the early 19th century have always been mulatto, of course, have always been of mixed race, including the notorious Haitian dictatorship of the mid-20th century, Papa Doc Duvalier’s regime and the militia called Tonton Macoute through whom he exercised supreme authority. The Americans supported him despite all of the penchants for bloodthirstiness, putting cabinet members to death during cabinet meetings, personal support for voodooism, dispensing money in the streets surrounded by men with weapons: traditional African ways of behaving. The United States of America supported all of this for fear of getting something worse in Haiti. Indeed, America is always intervening to either prevent authoritarianism in Haiti, but also reluctant to endorse certain people who are thrown up by democracy or pseudo-democratic reform. The controversy around President Aristide when Clinton was in power is a testament to this.

The IQ level in Haiti is pathetically low. Their standard of living is extraordinarily low. An enormous proportion of the population still live in shanty towns, still live in wooden huts, still live in cardboard boxes. A significant portion of the people eke out a purely subsistence form of life. One of the reasons the earthquake had such devastating effects was because all of the houses were jerry-built and didn’t have the internal architectural armor that’s necessary to prevent them from falling about people’s ears. Similar earthquakes occur in Japan all the time and hardly anyone is injured at all, and this is because the quality of the building is so much better.

Haiti is essentially a basket-case society. Stoddard’s first of the type in recognition of this. Usually, it’s dealt with anecdotally. There’s a book by St. John at the end of the 19th century called Haiti: The Black Republic, but his analysis of Haiti is anecdotal, really, and sort of spectatorish, whereas Stoddard’s is scientific and eugenic and sociobiological and anthropological and biophysical and racially historical. So, it’s an attempt to systematize what might otherwise appear to be whimsy and a collection of anecdotes about an Africanized society in the Caribbean and the perils and misadventures of it. Stoddard’s view is a systematization of what otherwise could be ethnic and political clichés. But it’s a pretty devastating analysis of Haiti which can’t really be refuted given its current parlous state as a semi-civilized polity.

LSrevciv.jpgRS: Yes, one thing that I found quite interesting about his book, which I actually read recently because Alex put out a new edition, was the combination between let’s say Leftist ideology, on one hand, and then genetics and biology on the other. One thing you got from the book is that this pot was simmering for a long time. There was always going to be this racial clash. It was never going to ultimately work. It was going to end in tears and blood. But what really set off the revolution, the catalyst, was this new way of talking that was brought to the island immediately after the French Revolution. That you could soon start talking about the “rights of man” and so on and so forth and that this was like pouring gasoline on the fire, and it almost immediately set off a revolution and a race war on the island.

JB: Yes, and yet the irony is that most of those French revolutionary ideas were never to be applied in that way, because most of the extreme revolutionaries in France, such as the Club des Cordeliers or Club des Jacobins, the two major revolutionary clubs, only ever thought those ideas would be applicable to Europeans, to Frenchmen in particular and White men in general. They never thought that those ideas would be applicable to other groups and, although there were always those who wished to go further, there was no tendency in France apart from on the fringes of the fringes — and this was among a revolutionary class, don’t forget — to emancipate the slaves. Nor was there any move to, particularly. And Napoleon certainly put the kibosh on that, because he had no intention of doing so, just as there was no intention to extend these ideas in relation to women. This was regarded as absurd even by the Jacobins themselves, and the most radical people on the Jacobin side, people like Robespierre and Saint-Just, deprecated the idea that these were always for export and always to be reinterpreted in different contexts, although there were people who saw a correlation and believed that the universalism of the Declaration of the Rights of Man.

RS: Well, there was the group, the Amis des noirs, the Friends of the Blacks, that I remember were kind of taking Leftism to its ultimate conclusion. In some ways, what we’re talking about is the history of the Left in general, which has moved from advocating for working people or the proletariat towards advocating for the wretched of the Earth and the Third World. In some ways, that is the movement of the Left in a nutshell over the past 100 years or so.

In closing, Jonathan, let me bring up another movement which is associated with the Left, but it’s also one that’s associated with Madison Grant, and it’s one that I truly hope that our side, our little fringe contingent, might reclaim at some point and I think we should be working to reclaim it right now and that is environmentalism, so-called. I actually don’t even like the word “environmentalism.” I like saying the word “naturalist” or that we want to “conserve nature” is a better term. “Nature” evokes all sorts of things, has all sorts of connotations which I think are much more positive than “environment,” which seems kind of sterile.

Obviously, Madison Grant was a scientist, but he also wanted to preserve, say, the bison, because they were a majestic animal. He thought they were beautiful. He obviously wanted to preserve Glacier National Park, or the area therein, because it was some of the most spectacular grounds on the Earth. I think one way that we could bring to environmentalism and which I think is the most healthy and positive aspect of environmentalism and which actually attracts people as opposed to the other environmentalist movements of global government and things like this that are not very attractive, but what attracts people is the idea of nature, the beauty of nature and experiencing nature.

So, maybe we could just close on that thought, Jonathan. What do you think about our unique ability to reclaim conservationism or naturalism and how, much like Grant, that should be a major cause for us, which is to keep the world green and beautiful and to fight things like the terrible overpopulation that you see in some kind of horrifying city like Mexico City or São Paulo? We want quality over quantity and we want to live on a beautiful Earth. So, what are some of your thoughts on that idea?

JB: Yes, I think that’s mirrored in green ideas itself, because green ideas are not really part of the Left-Right spectrum but they cut across it in various respects. Green ideas are also circular, because there’s a sort of light green outer circle and a dark or deep green, as it’s called, inner circle. And the deep green ideas are very interesting, even misanthropic to a point with doctrines like Gaia and so on that see mankind as a sort of excrescence upon the Earth and the Earth only has value. This is part of the tendency all ideas have to maximize their own extremism and adopt at the margin a fundamentalism of their own coinage.

LSrreurope.jpgNevertheless, certain more moderate deep green ideas are deeply susceptible to a Right-wing coinage. The conservation of all forms of natural beauty, extreme forms of localism, forms of animal husbandry that are linked to preservation of animal species and biodiversity but are not linked to doctrines of rights and animal rights or animal liberation but draw on a similar metaphysic but end in a different place because it begins in one. You see this very much, say, with the split in Britain between a sort of anarchist group like the Animal Liberation Front and a conservationist group like the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The two sort of overlap in terms of some of their coteries, but ideologically they’re very much at variance because the one is conservative, small c, and ameliorative and piece-by-piece and localist, whereas the other wishes to extend the universal doctrine of human rights to animal species and has developed a concept of animal racism, of course, namely speciesism. All of which is an outgrowth of the politics of human rights. But if one eschews the politics of human rights in a grandstanding and universalist way and sees human identity and glory in very much an individual or localized manner then deep green and ecological ideas have a lot to say to all forms of conservativism that wish to preserve and restore as against that which is transitory and that which is to our end and which is purely and only concerned with human life to the detriment of the ecology without which mankind couldn’t subsist.

RS: Absolutely. I mentioned this before. There’s a very useful biography of Madison Grant and it’s by a man named Spiro. Although he seems to be a Left-liberal of some kind, he clearly wants to get it right and that’s certainly admirable. He offers a very useful and rich biography of Grant, which has really influenced my interest in Grant, and one of his major themes is that if you tell someone that Grant is an early environmentalist that’ll usually bring a smile to their face, but if you tell someone he’s also an early eugenicist that will usually inspire shock and horror. But as Spiro points out, there was no contradiction in Grant’s mind between saving the redwoods and saving the White race. Those were part of the same movement, so as I mentioned before, I think we are uniquely suited to generate a sort of renaissance of green or naturalist or environmentalist politics.

Jonathan, let’s just put a bookmark in the conversation right there, and I would love to return to these ideas in the near future and I look forward to speaking to you soon.

JB: Yes, thanks very much! All the best. Bye for now!

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

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2016/04/the-e-word/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Photo_of_Madison_Grant.jpg

[2] here: https://soundcloud.com/radixjournal

vendredi, 02 janvier 2015

Wahhabism, China, Mass Immigration: Lothrop Stoddard Rediscovered

Wahhabism, China, Mass Immigration: Lothrop Stoddard Rediscovered

Robert Locke

Ex: http://www.wermodandwermod.com

Stoddard.JPGEveryone accepts that it’s OK to read great thinkers of the past, like Aristotle, Hobbes, or Marx, who believed in things-slavery, absolutism, communism-that we abjure today.

But strangely, when it comes to the great racial thinkers of the past, this rule is suspended. So complete has been their effacement by the liberal establishment, so far beyond the pale of legitimate opinion have they been pushed, that it’s almost unnecessary to repress them anymore.

But in their day these men were best-selling authors and respected scholars. They produced some serious thinking on race that I have recently been trying to rediscover. The first of my rediscoveries: Lothrop Stoddard.

Stoddard (1883-1950) was no marginal figure. He came from a distinguished New England family, had a PhD in history from Harvard, and wrote 14 well-respected books. A lifelong Unitarian and Republican, Stoddard was also a member of the American Historical Association, the American Political Science Association, and the Academy of Political Science.

As with most thinkers, not everything he said can be endorsed. What he wrote, mainly in the 1920’s and '30’s, reflects the snobberies of that time-for example, the old WASP preference for (surprise, surprise) Northern Europeans over Southern or Eastern ones. I accept this attitude as a natural preference for one’s own kind but must dismiss it if it’s proposed to inform serious politics in this country today. But, since Stoddard also wrote of the dangers of internecine jealousies undermining the unity of whites, I can forgive him.

Stoddard was not, as liberal critics like to tar all race-conscious thinkers, a Nazi or anything like it. In fact, he wrote a book critical of Nazi Germany entitled Into the Darkness, and he saw, years before the Nazis became significant, the essential falsehood of their core racial myth:

Indeed the national-imperialists presently seized upon race teachings, and prostituted them to their own ends. A notable example of this is the extreme Pan-German propaganda of Houston Stewart Chamberlain and his fellows. Chamberlain makes two cardinal assumptions: he conceives modern Germany as racially purely Nordic; and he regards all Nordics outside the German linguistic-cultural group as either unconscious or renegade Teutons who must at all costs be brought into the German fold. To anyone who understands the scientific realities of race, the monstrous absurdity of these assumptions is instantly apparent. The fact is that modern Germany, far from being purely Nordic, is mainly Alpine in race. Nordic blood preponderates only in the northwest, and is merely veneered over the rest of Germany, especially in the upper classes... To let Teuton propaganda gull us into thinking of Germany as the Nordic fatherland is both a danger and an absurdity. (The Rising Tide of Color p .202)

This is the only place I know where Nazi ideology is refuted on its own terms.

Let’s look at some key passages from Stoddard’s magnum opus of 1920, The Rising Tide of Color. The first passage that really got my attention was his warning (in 1920!) that an obscure variety of Islam called Wahhabism was destined to be a major source of trouble for the Western World:

The brown world, like the Yellow world, is today in acute reaction against white supremacy... The great dynamic of this brown reaction is the Mohammedan Revival...

Islam’s warlike vigor has impressed men’s minds ever since the far-off days when its pristine fervor bore the Fiery Crescent from France to China. But with the passing cycles this fervor waned, and a century ago Islam seemed plunged in the stupor of senile decay. .. Yet at this darkest hour a voice came crying from out the vast Arabian desert, the cradle of Islam, calling the Faithful to better things. This puritan reformer was the famous Abd-el-Wahab, and his followers, known as Wahabis, soon spread the length and breadth of the Mohammedan world, purging Islam of its sloth and rekindling the fervor of its olden days. Thus began the great Mohammedan Revival.

That revival, like all truly great regenerative movements, had its political as well as its spiritual side. One of the first things which struck the reformers was the political weakness of the Moslem World and its increasing subjection to the Christian West... The result in Islam was a fusing of religion and patriotism into a ‘sacred union’ for the combined spiritual regeneration and political emancipation of the Moslem World...

No more zealous Moslems are to be found in all the ranks of Islam than those who have sojourned longest in Europe and acquired the most intimate knowledge of its sciences and ways. Mohammedans are keenly alive to the ever-shifting uncertainties and divisions that distract the Christianity of today, and of the woeful instability of modern European institutions.” (p.56)

Here Stoddard lays bare all the things we are missing today in the analysis of these questions-a grasp of the broad sweep of history beyond anything within the reach of the neocon imagination; honesty about the reality that a Nietzschean racial will-to-power lies in the background of Western relations with the Moslem world; a prescient recognition of the key fact about these fanatics that puzzles the globalist consensus-that they are not seduced by our society on contact, like East German teenagers guzzling their first Coca-Colas.

Stoddard wrote more about Islam in his book The New World of Islam. His ability to see things from an adversary’s point of view is remarkable, and gives the lie to the myth that only people indoctrinated in multicultural sensitivity can do this. (In fact, of course, multicultural ideology tends to produce the opposite effect, as it teaches that “we’re all the same” and forbids honesty about the core Hobbesian fact of relations between peoples: they are often enemies.)

Another contemporary problem whose racial aspect is taboo to discuss is cheap Oriental labor. Stoddard wrote:

Assuredly the cheapness of Chinese labor is something to make a factory owner’s mouth water... With an ocean of such labor power to draw on, China would appear to be on the eve of a manufacturing development that will act like a continental upheaval in changing the trade map of the world. (p.244)

Stoddard also foresaw the Third World unarmed invasion scenario made famous in Jean Raspail’s novel The Camp of the Saintsdecades before it began to become visible:

And let not Europe, the white brood-land, the heart of the white world, think itself immune. In the last analysis, the self-same peril menaces it too. This has long been recognized by far-sighted men. For many years economists and sociologists have discussed the possibility of Asiatic immigration into Europe. Low as wages and living standards are in many European countries, they are yet far higher than in the congested East, while the rapid progress of social betterment throughout Europe must further widen the gap and make the white continent seem a more and more desirable haven for the swarming, black-haired bread-seekers of China, India and Japan...We shall not be destroyed, perhaps, by the sudden onrush of invaders, as Rome was overwhelmed by northern hordes; we shall be gradually subdued and absorbed. (p. 289)

Stoddard wrote about one factor in the racial conflict of our time that tends to be ignored by Americans: the fact that the white race used to feel a sense of solidarity before World War I. The collapse of this sense of solidarity was one key to the unraveling of the white world’s instinct for racial self-preservation:

Thus white solidarity, while unquestionably weakened, was still a weighty factor down to August 1914. But the first shots of Armageddon saw white solidarity literally blown from the muzzles of the guns. An explosion of internecine hatred burst forth more intense and general than any ever known before... Before Armageddon there thus existed a genuine moral repugnance against settling domestic differences by calling in the alien without the gates. The Great War, however, sent all such scruples promptly into the discard. (p.208)

World War II, which Stoddard foresaw, was just the apotheosis of this process, complete with one state mythology that defined Jews, Russians and Poles as outside the pale of white civilization and another that denied the value of race altogether in favor of an economic mythology.

Finally, I would like to quote a succinct passage that can only trigger a shock of recognition:

Our present condition is the result of following the leadership of idealists and philanthropic doctrinaires, aided and abetted by the perfectly understandable demand of our captains of industry for cheap labor.” (p. xxxi) [not online]

How little has changed in 83 years!

I have the curious sense that since the melting of the geopolitical ice of the Cold War, which froze human relations into an artificial pattern for 44 years, history has not only not stopped but is in some ways going backwards-and that all these issues from earlier times are once again becoming live.

We have much to learn by revisiting the racial thinkers of the past-even if we do not always agree with them.

Source: VDARE, 21 Feb 2004.


You can get the stunning 2011 editions of Lothrop Stoddard's The Revolt Against Civilization: The Menace of the Under-Man (1922) and The French Revolution in San Domingo (1914) from our online book shop.

00:05 Publié dans Histoire | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : lothrop stoddard, raciologie | |  del.icio.us | | Digg! Digg |  Facebook

jeudi, 01 janvier 2015

Theodore Lothrop Stoddard

Lothrop Stoddard

Remembering Theodore Lothrop Stoddard (29 June 1883 - 1 May 1950)

Alex Kurtagic

Ex: http://www.wermodandwermod.com

American historian, journalist, anthropologist, and eugenicist Theodore Lothrop Stoddard was born 131 years ago today. A popular author and journalist until World War II, he was the author of 18 books, most published by a prestigious New York Publisher, Charles Scribner, including, The French Revolution in San Domingo (1914) and The Revolt Against Civilization (1922), of which we published new, annotated editions in 2011.

Racial-Realities.jpgStoddard was the archetypical product of ivy-league education in the old United States. He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard University, studied law at Boston University, and obtained a PhD in history from Harvard University, later published as the aforementioned book on San Domingo (Haiti).

Stoddard was closely associated with Madison Grant's circle of eugenicists and immigration restrictionists during the early part of the 20th century. His work, like that of his colleagues, is controversial today, and books like The Rising Tide of Colour (1920) set forth theses which would be rejected out of hand by present-day policy makers, even though said theses, if at times expressed in a language we would no longer use, have proven broadly correct, with the collapse of the European empires, the demographic trends of the past fifty years in Europe and North America due to mass immigration, the rise of Japan, and the rise of Islam as a threat to the West due to regious fanaticism. He also predicted a second world war and a war between Japan and the United States. Indeed, in his day, Stoddard's influence was significant, to the point of being alluded to in F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby. As is typical of American writers, then and now, and from all sides of the American political spectrum, Stoddard was accutely focused on human races, their characteristics, their relative status, and the conflicts of interests arising between them. As a representative of the old WASP establishment in his country, he was also preoccupied its continuity.

French-Revolution-in-San-Domingo2.jpgBut, while socially conservative, he was in every other sense a progressive liberal, strange as that may seem today: for him, eugenics was about improving the efficiency of human society—an aspiration well in keeping with the ideals of the Progressive Age in America, which was all about efficiency, wholesomeness, and purification (something not unrelated to Protestant ideals), and well in keeping with today's progressives, even if their approach is very different. Indeed, eugenics at this time (which was a generation or more before it fell into disrepute) was seen by its proponents as humane, and American writers made their case in terms of 'the right to be well born', and so forth. Today, this seems inconceivable, but let us think about this for a moment: is not pre-natal screening, and the option to abort a defective fetus, in effect congenial with eugenics, even if restricted to the welfare of individuals? And, given what we now know about epigenetics, would not efforts to improve the overall health of the population also congenial with eugenics? In future, it is likely parents will have the option to eliminate, initially by pre-natal prevention and later by means of therapy, congenital diseases and deformity through gene deactivation, replacement, or correction. While the cattle-breeding methods of the early eugenicists seem shocking to us—and it must be said, these methods were degrading, in that humans were treated like animals or livestock—so were some of the methods used in early medicine, before better ways were found to deal with injury and disease. Today's surgical methods may in future seem like butchery.

The change in attitudes towards eugenics, and the scientific progress that has taken place since it was in vogue, has obscured the fact that its proponents were progressives. They truly wanted a better world, a more peaceful and civilised world. And in Stoddard's case this is even reflected in his analysis of foreign affairs. As a pacifist, for example, he was against intense nationalisms and called for fairer policy towards European colonial subjects. He had expertise in Islam and on affairs in the Islamic world, and was, for a time, a Eastern correspondent. In his writing he proved sympathetic towards the concerns of the peoples of these regions.

darkness.jpgUnfortunately for Stoddard, his investigation of conditions in Germany in the Winter of 1939 - 194o, which resulted in the book Into the Darkness: Nazi Germany Today, proved disastrous for his career. As a journalistic exercise, it made perfect sense: it was topical and controversial. In the heat of the war, however, his theories came to be seen as too closely aligned with those of the National Socialists. By the time he died in 1950, his passing went unnoticed.

I am told that Stoddard wrote an autobiography, which has never been published. Rumour has it that efforts have been made to get ahold of the manuscript, but that his son has consistently denied access to it. This is pity no matter the reasons, because such an autobiography is of historical interest, and could yield new insights into the time period and the individuals in Stoddard's circle, which had links to the highest levels of the American political establishment.


The French Revolution in San Domingo, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1914.

Present-day Europe, its National States of Mind, The Century Co., 1917.

Stakes of the War, with Glenn Frank, The Century Co., 1918.[20]

The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1921 [1st Pub. 1920]. ISBN 4-87187-849-X

The New World of Islam, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1922 [1st Pub. 1921].

The Revolt Against Civilization: The Menace of the Under Man, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1922.

Racial Realities in Europe, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1924.

Social Classes in Post-War Europe. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1925.

Scientific Humanism. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1926.

Re-forging America: The Story of Our Nationhood. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1927.

The Story of Youth. New York: Cosmopolitan Book Corporation, 1928.
Luck, Your Silent Partner. New York: H. Liveright, 1929.

Master of Manhattan, the life of Richard Croker. Londton: Longmans, Green and Co., 1931.

Europe and Our Money, The Macmillan Co., 1932

Lonely America. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Doran, and Co., 1932.

Clashing Tides of Color. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1935.

A Caravan Tour to Ireland and Canada, World Caravan Guild, 1938.

Into the Darkness: Nazi Germany Today, Duell, Sloan & Pearce, Inc., 1940.


00:05 Publié dans Biographie, Hommages | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : raciologie, lothrop stoddard, hommage, biographie | |  del.icio.us | | Digg! Digg |  Facebook

vendredi, 26 décembre 2014

Der deutsche Scheich



Der deutsche Scheich

Juden-Retter, Rassekundler, Islamist: Als Beduine verkleidet lebte Ludwig Ferdinand Clauß in den zwanziger Jahren unter Nomaden in der jordanischen Wüste. Seither gilt er als Mittler zwischen den Kulturen - doch der Forscher arbeitete auch den Nazis zu.


Ex: http://www.spiegel.de 


Die israelische Holocaust-Gedenkstätte Yad Vashem ließ dem deutschen Geisteswissenschaftler Ludwig Ferdinand Clauß (1892-1974) 1981 postum eine große Ehre zuteil werden. Weil er eine Jüdin versteckt und so vor der Deportation bewahrt hatte, erklärte man ihn zu einem "Gerechten unter den Völkern" und stellte ihn damit in eine Reihe mit all jenen nichtjüdischen Personen und Organisationen, die sich dem Nazi-Regime widersetzt und Juden das Leben gerettet hatten. 15 Jahre später allerdings wurde die Auszeichnung zurückgenommen. Clauß hatte, so war bekannt geworden, außerdem einen wichtigen Beitrag zur Rassenideologie der Nazis geleistet.

Wie konnte es passieren, dass einer der einflussreichsten Rassenforscher der NS-Zeit vorübergehend als Menschenfreund und Retter der Juden galt? Ein Missverständnis?

Auf den ersten Blick erscheinen seine Handlungen in dieser Zeit wie eine Mischung eigentlich unvereinbarer Positionen. Mit seinen rassistischen Publikationen lieferte der gebürtige Offenburger den Nationalsozialisten zusätzlichen Stoff für ihre vernichtende Ideologie - und ließ sich bei seinen Forschungen von einer jüdischen Mitarbeiterin helfen. Seine Bücher zur arabischen Kultur, Ergebnisse dieser gemeinsamen Arbeit, werden bis heute verlegt. So lobte 2004 der Hildesheimer Georg Olms Verlag den "Ausdrucksforschers und Anthropologen" als "herausragenden Kenner der islamischen Welt".

Scheich der deutschen Beduinen

Im Sommer 1927 betrat Ludwig Ferdinand Clauß das Zelt des Beduinen Mitghgâl Paschas und stellte sich dem Häuptling der Beni Sachr vor: "Muhammad Ferid el-Almani, Scheich der deutschen Beduinen". Es sollte der Anfang eines Stücks gemeinsamen Lebensweges werden. Vier Jahre lang blieb Clauß bei diesem Stamm, lebte mit den Beduinen zusammen und machte sie zum Gegenstand seiner rassischen Feldforschung. Mit seinem Buch "Als Beduine unter Beduinen" beeinflusste er nicht zuletzt auch das Bild der Deutschen von der arabischen Welt.

Der Orient hatte Clauß schon immer fasziniert. Im Frühjahr 1927 war er seinen romantischen Phantasien gefolgt und zu einer langen Reise aufgebrochen. Nach einem kurzen Aufenthalt in Damaskus ließ er sich zunächst in Jerusalem nieder. Dort beobachtete er, welche enorme Entwicklung die Stadt unter der britischen Mandatsmacht und durch die zionistischen Einwanderer nahm. Die Entwicklung missfiel ihm, denn er lehnte den westlichen Einfluss im Orient grundsätzlich als "ruchlose Verletzung und Verwirrung fremder Artgesetze" ab. Ebenso wie Europa sollte auch der Orient seinen "arteigenen Gesetzen" folgen. Clauß forderte, "das Morgenland" möge "diesen Fremdling" - gemeint waren die jüdischen Einwanderer - "ausstoßen".

Clauß interessierte sich vor allem für die "arteigene" Lebensweise der Araber. Um sie zu studieren wollte er sie in ihrem scheinbar ureigensten Lebensraum aufsuchen: Wie ein Biologe wilde Tiere am besten in freier Wildbahn beobachtet, entschied sich der Forscher, selbst in die transjordanische Wüste zu gehen. Ihre Bewohner, die Beduinen, verkörperten seiner Meinung nach den Ursprung wahren Arabertums. Von Schädelmessungen und ähnlichen Methoden anderer Rassenforscher hielt Clauß wenig. Sein Ansatz verlangte ein distanzloses Ergründen durch unmittelbares "Mitleben". Er verstand darunter eine beinahe mystische Verwandlung in "artfremdes" Sein, die über eine bloße "teilnehmende Beobachtung" weit hinausging: Er gab vor, nicht nur wie ein Beduine mit Beduinen, sondern tatsächlich als Beduine zu leben.

SS-Sonderauftrag "Rassen im Kampf"

LFC-1.jpgSeine Transformation bedurfte einiger Vorbereitungen. Äußerlich kam es auf die "artrechte Rassentracht" der Beduinen an; zudem übte sich Clauß im "artspezifischen Ausdruck" der Wüstenländer in Gestik und Mimik. Um sich von seinem ganzen Wesen her in einen Beduinen zu verwandeln, war aber noch ein weitere Schritt notwendig: Er musste den Islam, die seiner Ansicht nach "artspezifische Religion" der Araber, annehmen.

Nach seiner Rückkehr machte sich Clauß mit einschlägigen Büchern zur Rassenforschung einen Namen. Er entwickelte eine Lehre, die er "Rassenseelenkunde" nannte, forderte die radikale "Reinigung" des deutschen Volkes von "artfremden" Einflüssen und propagierte die Rückbesinnung auf das "nordische" Erbe. In völkischen Kreisen avancierte er zum Fachmann in Fragen des Islams, was sich in der NS-Zeit in entsprechenden Forschungstätigkeiten niederschlug.

Mit dem SS-Anthropologen Bruno Beger (mitverantwortlich für die "jüdische Skelettsammlung" an der Uni Straßburg) arbeitete Clauß in der SS-Stiftung "Das Ahnenerbe" an dem Sonderauftrag "Rassen im Kampf". Ziel war die Erforschung "fremdrassigen" Kampfverhaltens am Beispiel der muslimischen Verbände der Waffen-SS in Bosnien. Immer wieder betonte er in diesem Zusammenhang die angebliche "nahe weltanschauliche Nachbarschaft" des Nationalsozialismus "zur Glaubenswelt des Islams".

Einfluss auf die Nazi-Propaganda

In seiner Einteilung des Orients in unterschiedliche Rassen bracht sich auch der Antisemitismus Bahn: Clauß unterschied streng zwischen Arabern und einer von diesen scheinbar gänzlich verschiedenen "vorderasiatischen Rasse". Letztere verkörperte für ihn das urbane Leben, Rassenmischung, Wucherei und Betrug - mithin die klassischen Topoi des europäischen Antisemitismus. Kein Wunder also, dass er "das jüdische Volk" im Zentrum der "vorderasiatischen Rasse" wähnte.

Clauß trat damit zugleich der Zurechnung der Juden zu den "Semiten" entgegen, wozu theoretisch auch die Araber gehörten. Vielmehr formulierte er eine Unterscheidung von Juden und Arabern, die nicht zuletzt aus außenpolitischen Motiven heraus erwünscht war: Um die als Bündnispartner in Betracht kommenden Araber nicht zu verprellen, wurde der Begriff "antisemitisch" schließlich auch aus der offiziellen NS-Propaganda entfernt und durch "antijüdisch" ersetzt.

Nach dem Ende des Zweiten Weltkrieges blieb Clauß eine akademische Karriere in Deutschland verwehrt. Die islamische Welt wurde schließlich zu seinem persönlichen Refugium. Mehrfach reiste er mit seinem Wohnwagen durch verschiedene arabische Staaten und setzte seine Hoffnung dabei bemerkenswerter Weise auf den im Entstehen begriffenen Fundamentalismus. Ähnlich wie der islamistische Ideologe Sayyid Qutb (1906-1966) lehnte er den arabischen Nationalismus als Blasphemie vehement ab und rief zur Rückkehr zu den Wurzeln des Islams auf. Nur der Islam, so Clauß, könne die Welt vor einem Absturz in den totalen Materialismus des Westens retten.

Der Rassenforscher als Retter

Dass Clauß nach seinem Tod vorübergehend zum Gerechten unter den Völker wurde, verdankte er seinem Einsatz für seine Mitarbeiterin Margarete Landé, einer deutschen Jüdin. Die beiden kannten sich aus gemeinsamen Freiburger Studienzeiten. In Jerusalem traf Clauß Margarete Landé wieder, die Anfang der zwanziger Jahre als Zionistin nach Palästina gegangen war. Bei seinen Feldforschungen unter den Beduinen begleitete sie Clauß. Als "Sitt Marjam" konnte sie ihm vor allem beim Blick in das Frauenzelt behilflich sein.

1943 wurde Clauß wegen ihr aus der NSDAP ausgeschlossen. Eine Jüdin zu beschäftigten war verboten, außerdem wurde gemunkelt, dass er mit dieser zusammengelebt hatte. In den letzten Kriegsjahren versteckte er Landé auf seinem Brandenburger Landgut und schützte sie so vor dem Zugriff der Gestapo - der Grund für seine spätere Ehrung durch Yad Vashem.

Als Wissenschaftler war Clauß nach 1945 ein Einzelgänger geblieben. In seiner Schülerin, der rechtsextremen Religionshistorikerin Sigrid Hunke, fand Clauß allerdings eine Nachfolgerin, die viele seiner Ideen weiter transportierte. Ihr in dieser Hinsicht wichtigstes Buch "Allahs Sonne über dem Abendland" (1960) erscheint bis heute im Fischer-Taschenbuch-Verlag und liegt in der Islamecke jeder größeren Buchhandlung aus.

mercredi, 28 août 2013

Six naïvetés à propos du mot «race»

Six naïvetés à propos du mot «race»

Supprimer le mot ne supprime pas le fait

Nathalie Heinich*
Ex: http://metamag.fr
Le projet de suppression du mot «race» de la Constitution française repose sur plusieurs raisonnements implicites qui constituent autant de naïvetés, doublées d’un chantage sous-jacent à la rectitude morale. Tâchons d’y voir plus clair dans ces bêtises argumentatives.

1. S’insurger contre l’idée qu’existeraient des races humaines sous-entend que c’est leur réalité objective qui serait en question. Or, comme toute représentation, les races sont des conceptions de l’esprit humain consistant à agréger d’une certaine façon les faits observés (couleur de peau ou types de chevelures). Elles existent donc bien, mais seulement à titre de modes de catégorisation, exactement comme les «classes» sociales. Vouloir supprimer le mot pour tuer une chose qui n’existe que dans les esprits, c’est partir à la chasse aux fantômes (ou aux moulins à vent). Première naïveté.
2. Nier qu’il existerait des catégories «raciales» suppose de considérer que la notion de race renverrait à des regroupements non seulement réels mais aussi clairement différenciés, avec des frontières discontinues, de sorte qu’un être humain appartiendrait ou n’appartiendrait pas à telle ou telle race. C’est oublier qu’en matière de condition humaine les «catégories» sont rarissimes, alors qu’on a beaucoup plus souvent affaire à des «types», c’est-à-dire à des regroupements flous, de l’ordre du «plus ou moins» - de sorte qu’un être humain appartient plus ou moins à tel ou tel type racial (blanc, noir, asiatique, indien...). La notion de catégorie relève plutôt de la logique, alors que celle de type est plus adaptée à la réalité observée. Ceux qui «croient» à l’«existence» réelle de «catégories» raciales regardent aussi peu autour d’eux dans la rue que ceux qui n’y «croient» pas : les uns comme les autres confondent tant le type avec la catégorie que la réalité avec les représentations. Deuxième naïveté.
3. Vouloir supprimer le mot race parce qu’il ne renverrait pas à une réalité génétique, donc à un fait de «nature», n’a de sens qu’en vertu du raisonnement implicite selon lequel tout ce qui est «naturel» serait nécessaire et intangible, alors que tout ce qui est «social» serait arbitraire, donc modifiable. Pour pouvoir modifier un phénomène contraire à nos valeurs, il faudrait donc prouver qu’il est «socialement construit» - et donc, par exemple, que la race n’a aucun fondement génétique, ce qui rendrait cette notion arbitraire et le mot inutile. Classique méprise : en matière humaine, le «social», les institutions, les règles de vie commune, le langage etc., sont des réalités autrement plus contraignantes - ou «nécessaires» - que les réalités présumées «naturelles». Vouloir dénier tout fondement naturel à la perception des différences raciales (comme, sur un autre plan, des différences sexuées) n’enlève rien à la réalité, ni aux éventuels effets problématiques de ce phénomène social qu’est la perception des différences d’apparence. Troisième naïveté.
4. La dénégation des différences (de race, de sexe ou de catégorie sociale) repose sur un raisonnement implicite : toute différence impliquerait forcément une discrimination. C’est là la classique confusion entre similitude et égalité, qui plombe également une grande part du mouvement féministe actuel, persuadé qu’il faut nier la différence des sexes pour lutter contre les inégalités sexistes. Mais le racisme, contrairement à ce qu’on entend souvent, ne consiste pas à «croire que les hommes sont différents entre eux» : il consiste à croire qu’il existe entre eux des inégalités fondées sur la race. Vouloir remonter de l’inégalité à la différence pour mieux combattre la première est aussi intelligent que d’utiliser un marteau pour venir à bout d’une colonie de mouches dans un magasin de porcelaine. Quatrième naïveté.
5. Les opinions racistes ne sont pas fondées sur des arguments scientifiques, mais sur des affects, comme tout ce qui touche à l’amour et à la haine du prochain. Si ces opinions utilisent à l’occasion le langage de la «preuve» et la caution de la «science», ce n’est qu’à titre de rationalisation et d’argument de persuasion d’une opinion déjà constituée. Les spécialistes de psychosociologie des représentations savent bien qu’il ne sert à rien de combattre des croyances, des affects ou des rapports aux valeurs avec des contre-arguments scientifiques : on ne les combat qu’avec d’autres valeurs et, s’il le faut, avec des lois (qui, en matière de lutte contre le racisme, existent déjà). S’imaginer que la science génétique serait à même d’éradiquer le racisme est tout aussi irréaliste que d’imaginer qu’elle serait à même de le conforter. Cinquième naïveté.
6. Pour lutter contre une chose, il faut disposer de mots adéquats. Pour lutter contre la réalité du racisme, il faut bien pouvoir se considérer comme «antiraciste», stigmatiser les «racistes», et expliquer que quel que soit le degré d’existence ou de non-existence de différences fondées sur des types «raciaux», le comportement moral exige qu’on ne juge et traite les individus qu’en fonction des caractéristiques dont ils sont personnellement responsables, et non en fonction de propriétés avec lesquelles ils sont nés, telles que l’appartenance à un type racial, à un sexe, à une religion ou à un milieu social. Se priver de ces mots, c’est se priver des instruments pour combattre la chose. Sixième naïveté. 

Arrivés à ce point, la conclusion s’impose : animé des meilleures intentions mais digne des pires régimes totalitaires, ce projet «politiquement correct» de modification autoritaire de la langue est simplement stupide.
Auteur du «Bêtisier du sociologue» (éd. Klincksieck, 2009). Dernier ouvrage paru : «Maisons perdues» (éd. Thierry Marchaisse).

* Sociologue au CNRS, article paru dans Libération du 25 juillet 2013 et dansLibération.fr
Les sous-titres et illustrations sont de la rédaction

dimanche, 07 avril 2013

Scientific American über die Realität von Rassen

Scientific American über die Realität von Rassen

By Michael Polignano

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

 Übersetzt von Deep Roots

English original here

[Scientific American, dessen Titelseite oben zu sehen ist, ist übrigens das amerikanische Mutterschiff der deutschen Ausgabe „Spektrum der Wissenschaft“, in der neben deutschen Beiträgen auch Übersetzungen aus Scientific American mit ein bis zwei Monaten Verzögerung erscheinen.]

Anmerkung des Herausgebers [Greg Johnson]:

Dieser Essay stammt aus Michael Polignanos Buch „Taking Our Own Side“, das hier [3] als Hardcover, Paperback und PDF erhältlich ist. [Anm. d. Ü.: Dieses Buch kann ich sehr empfehlen – ich habe es auch.]

Finnische Übersetzung hier [4].

16. Dezember 2003

Das wissenschaftliche Studium der Rassen befindet sich an einem Scheideweg. Durch die Kartierung des menschlichen Genoms wissen die Wissenschaftler mehr über Rasse und Rassenunterschiede als je zuvor. Aber da die Gesellschaft immer mehr in die Lüge von der Rassengleichheit investiert, wird es für Wissenschaftler immer schwerer, diese Wahrheiten auszusprechen. Außerdem haben egalitäre Spin-Doctors in einem verzweifelten Versuch, die schlimmen politischen Konsequenzen der rassischen Wahrheit abzuwenden, eine große Menge Desinformation über die kürzlichen genetischen Entdeckungen verbreitet.

Man sagt uns zum Beispiel, daß die Unterschiede zwischen den Rassen vom genetischen Standpunkt aus vernachlässigbar sind, eine Sache von bloß ein paar Genen. Daher sollen wir schlußfolgern, daß Rassenunterschiede vernachlässigbar sind, Punkt. Rassenunterschiede, sagt man uns, sollten überhaupt keine praktischen Implikationen haben.

Aber das ist genauso absurd, wie wenn man argumentieren würde, daß es – nachdem feste Objekte aus dem Blickwinkel der subatomaren Physik großteils leerer Raum sind – bloß reines Vorurteil ist, daß wir lieber auf einer Straße fahren statt über eine Klippe.

Die Wahrheit ist: aus kleinen genetischen Unterschieden erwachsen große physische, spirituelle, kulturelle und politische Unterschiede. Falls die Genetiker diese Unterschiede nicht sehen können, dann suchen sie vielleicht an der falschen Stelle.

Man sagt uns auch routinemäßig, daß es eine größere genetische Variationsbreite innerhalb der Rassen gibt als zwischen ihnen. Es kann einen Unterschied von 100 IQ-Punkten geben zwischen einer extrem klugen und einer extrem dummen weißen Person. Aber es gibt nur 30 Punkte Unterschied zwischen dem Durchschnitt der Weißen und dem der Schwarzen. Daher, sollen wir schlußfolgern, sollten wir uns nur mit Individuen befassen und die Gruppendurchschnitte ignorieren.

Das Problem bei diesem Argument ist, daß Gesellschaften nicht aus isolierten Individuen bestehen, denn Individuen sind Bestandteile und Produkte von Fortpflanzungspopulationen. Fortpflanzungspopulationen, die über einen langen Zeitraum isoliert und unterschiedlichen Umweltbedingungen ausgesetzt waren, werden zu verschiedenen Rassen.

Und wenn die durchschnittliche Intelligenz – oder irgendeine andere wichtige Eigenschaft – zweier Fortpflanzungspopulationen, die dasselbe geographische Gebiet teilen, sich dramatisch unterscheidet, dann muß es zu Konflikten kommen. Die überlegene Gruppe wird sich unvermeidlicherweise über den hemmenden Effekt der unterlegenen ärgern, und die unterlegenen Gruppen werden die unmöglichen Standards verübeln, die von der überlegenen aufgezwungen werden.

Aber die praktischen Implikationen der rassischen Wahrheit sind schwer zu leugnen, und die Wahrheit sickert durch, manchmal an unwahrscheinlichen Stellen. Ein Beispielsfall ist der Titelartikel der Ausgabe Dezember 2003 von Scientific American, das trotz seines Titels üblicherweise so politkorrekt ist wie jedes Nachrichten- oder Unterhaltungsmagazin. Die Titelseite zeigt sechs weibliche Gesichter, die verschiedenen Rassen anzugehören scheinen, zusammen mit dem Bildtext: „Does Race Exist? Science Has the Answer: Genetic Results May Surprise You.“ [„Gibt es Rassen? Die Wissenschaft hat die Antwort: Genetische Resultate könnten Sie überraschen.“] Im Inhaltsverzeichnis lesen wir: „Gibt es Rassen? Vom rein genetischen Standpunkt, nein. Trotzdem können genetische Informationen über die Abstammung von Individuen manchmal medizinisch relevant sein.“

Das hat meine Aufmerksamkeit geweckt. Wenn Rasse medizinisch relevant ist, warum ist sie dann nicht genauso auch psychologisch relevant, kulturell relevant, moralisch relevant und politisch relevant? Und wenn die Wissenschaft von der Genetik solche drängend relevanten Unterscheidungen als unreal oder winzig betrachtet, ist dann nicht etwas faul an der genetischen Wissenschaft oder an unserer Interpretation und Anwendung ihrer Befunde?

Die Autoren des Artikels, Michael Bamshad und Steve Olson, argumentieren, daß „Menschen unter Verwendung genetischer Daten grob in Gruppen sortiert werden können.“ Diese Gruppen scheinen weiters geographisch getrennt zu sein – zumindest vor den massiven Bevölkerungsverschiebungen der Moderne. Nun ist dies ein riesiges Eingeständnis, denn die Existenz genetisch verschiedener Menschengruppen ist gewiß ein Teil dessen, was mit „Rasse“ gemeint ist, und genau das, was von jenen verleugnet wird, die behaupten, daß Rasse bloß ein „Sozialkonstrukt“ ist.

Die Basis für die Behauptung, daß Rassen „vom rein genetischen Standpunkt aus“ nicht existieren, ist der Konflikt zwischen genetischen Klassifizierungen und traditionellen rassischen Kategorien. Solche Kategorien beruhen nicht auf einer Analyse der Gene (Genotyp), sondern auf dem sichtbaren Ausdruck dieser Gene (Phänotyp). Dies mag stimmen, aber es beweist nicht, daß „Rasse nicht existiert“. Es beweist nur, daß es einen Konflikt zwischen genotypischen und phänotypischen Rassedefinitionen gibt.

Zum Beispiel merken die Autoren an, daß sub-saharische Afrikaner und australische Aborigines ähnlich aussehen und sich ähnlich verhalten, daß aber genetische Marker anzeigen, daß sich ihre Vorfahren vor langer Zeit getrennt haben. Aber der Konflikt zwischen den Klassifikationsschemen ist eher real als scheinbar, denn Australoide und Negroide sehen sich nur für das ungeschulte Auge ähnlich. Jeder, der Mitglieder der beiden Gruppen miteinander vergleicht, wird leicht die Unterschiede sehen, und mit ausreichend Erfahrung ist es buchstäblich unmöglich, sie miteinander zu verwechseln.

Die Autoren merken auch an, daß die sozialen Rassedefinitionen von Region zu Region variieren: „jemand, der in den Vereinigten Staaten als ‚schwarz’ klassifiziert wird… könnte in Brasilien als ‚weiß’ betrachtet werden und als ‚farbig’… in Südafrika.“ Aber dies ist ebenfalls ein Versuch, die Unterscheidung nach Phänotyp zu diskreditieren, indem man nur auf ihre gröbsten Formen verweist. Jedoch können phänotypische Klassifizierungsschemen in Gesellschaften mit einem großen Maß an Rassenvermischung recht komplex sein, um die Komplexitäten der zugrundeliegenden Genotypen wiederzugeben:

Die frühen französischen Kolonisten in Saint-Domingue [heute: Haiti] identifizierten 128 unterschiedliche Rassentypen, die recht präzise nach einer mathematischen Skala definiert wurden, welche durch einfache Berechnungen der Abstammungsanteile bestimmt wurde. Sie reichten vom „wahren“ Mulatten (halb weiß, halb schwarz) durch das Spektrum von marabou, sacatra, quarterón bis hin zum sang-mêlé (Mischblut: 127 Teile weiß und ein Teil schwarz)… Die Soziologin Micheline Labelle hat 22 rassische Hauptkategorien und 98 Unterkategorien gezählt (für variierende Haartypen, Gesichtsstrukturen, Farbe und andere Unterscheidungsfaktoren), die in den 1970ern unter Haitis Mittelklasse in Port-au-Prince verwendet wurden. Innerhalb jeder Kategorie waren die Worte oft genauso einfallsreich, wie sie beschreibend waren: café au lait („Milchkaffe“), bonbon siro („Zuckersirup“), ti canel („ein wenig Zimt“), ravet blanch („weißer Kakerlak“), soley levan („aufgehende Sonne“), banane mûre („reife Banane“), brun pistache („erdnußbraun“), mulâtre dix-huit carats („18karätiger Mulatte“)… [1]

Ein tieferes Problem mit der Betonung des Genotyps durch die Autoren ist, daß, auch wenn unterschiedliche Genotypen zu ähnlichen Phänotypen führen können – die Natur kann verschiedene Mittel einsetzen, um dasselbe Ziel zu erreichen – die Kräfte der Evolution sich keinen Deut um spezifische Genotypen scherten, sie „scherten“ sich nur darum, wie sich jene Genotypen in einem Individuum ausdrückten. Daher ist der Phänotyp vom praktischen Gesichtspunkt aus wichtiger als der Genotyp.

Die Autoren geben jedoch zu, daß phänotypische Rassenkategorien gut funktionieren, um Gruppen nach ihrer Neigung zu gewissen Krankheiten zu unterteilen, wie Sichelzellenanämie (am häufigsten unter Afrikanern) und zystische Fibrose (am häufigsten unter Europäern). Die Allele für Sichelzellenanämie und zystische Fibrose nahmen an Häufigkeit zu, weil ihre Träger (d. h. jene mit einer Kopie vom Vater oder der Mutter; zwei Kopien sind für die Krankheit nötig) gegenüber parasitischen Mikroorganismen resistent waren, die jeweils in Afrika und Europa vorkommen. Ein weiteres Beispiel ist, daß bewiesen wurde, daß derselbe Polymorphismus im CCR5-Gen den Krankheitsverlauf von AIDS bei Weißen bremst, aber bei Schwarzen beschleunigt.

Wegen der zunehmenden genetischen Beweise für die medizinische Relevanz von Rasse hat die US Food and Drug Administration der unvermeidlichen Kontroverse getrotzt und im Januar 2003 empfohlen, daß Forscher bei klinischen Versuchen Rassedaten sammeln.

Daher die extrem vorsichtige Schlußfolgerung der Autoren: „In Fällen, wo die Zugehörigkeit zu einer geographisch oder kulturell definierten Gruppe mit gesundheitsbezogenen genetischen Merkmalen korreliert worden ist, könnte es wichtig sein, etwas über die Gruppenzugehörigkeit eines Individuums zu wissen.“

Dies ist ein weiteres riesiges Eingeständnis. Denn wenn rassische Unterschiede medizinisch relevant sind, warum sind sie dann nicht genauso auch kulturell, sozial und politisch relevant? Zum Beispiel bedeutet die Tatsache, daß Neger im Durchschnitt mehr Testosteron produzieren als andere Rassen, daß schwarze Männer ein höheres Risiko für Prostatakrebs haben. Aber höhere Testosteronproduktion bedeutet auch, daß schwarze Männer mehr zu aggressivem Verhalten neigen. Wenn also Ärzte schwarze Männer rassisch profilieren sollten, warum sollten das dann nicht auch Polizisten tun?

Verglichen mit Weißen, haben Schwarze auch einen niedrigeren IQ und ein niedrigeres Empathieniveau, ein schwächeres Gefühl für persönliche Leistungsfähigkeit und Verantwortung, eine größere Neigung zu Soziopathie und Psychosen, weniger Verhaltenshemmungen, größere Impulsivität, höhere sexuelle Aktivität und geringere elterliche Investition etc. Sicherlich haben diese rassischen Unterschiede ebenfalls wichtige praktische Implikationen.

Wenn man die nervösen Einschränkungen und vorsichtigen Wortklaubereien der Autoren wegschnippelt, dann gibt „Does Race Exist?“ zu, daß es eine genetische Basis für Rassenunterschiede gibt und daß diese Unterschiede praktische Bedeutung haben. Dies ist ein ermutigendes Zeichen im heutigen Klima der ideologischen Rassenverleugnung™. Offen gesagt ist es bemerkenswert, daß es überhaupt in Scientific American veröffentlicht wurde.

Eine Erklärung dafür, daß es veröffentlicht wurde, könnte man im Leitartikel „Racing to Conclusions“ von John Rennie und Ricki Rusting finden. Sie beginnen damit, daß sie das Scheitern von Proposition 54 in Erinnerung rufen, der kürzlichen kalifornischen Wählerinitiative, die der Regierung auf vielen Gebieten verboten hätte, rassische Daten zu sammeln. Obwohl Proposition 54 die Sammlung rassischer Daten für Gesundheitszwecke ausdrücklich erlaubte, behaupteten viele Ärzte und medizinische Gruppen, daß die Maßnahme Bemühungen behindern würde, Krankheiten nachzuverfolgen und zu behandeln, die sich auf verschiedene Rassen unterschiedlich auswirken. Die Redakteure stellen diese düsteren Prophezeiungen in Frage, nicht weil Proposition 54 ihre Besorgnisse zerstreut hätte, sondern weil sie den Artikel von Bamshad/Olson mißverstanden und fälschlicherweise behaupten, daß seine Autoren fest gegen die Verwendung rassischer Klassifizierung in der Medizin seien. Man fragt sich, ob der Artikel in Druck gegangen wäre, wenn die Redakteure ihn verstanden hätten!

Die Redakteure zitieren die Schwierigkeiten rassischer Klassifizierung, besonders der Klassifizierung gemischtrassiger Individuen. Dann beklagen sie, daß „Rasse in der Forschung als Surrogat für genetische Unterschiede“ benutzt wird, als ob die Korrelation zwischen den beiden bedeutungslos wäre. Sie verweisen auf die Empfehlung der FDA und zitieren J. Craig Venters Bemerkung: „Die selbstzugeschriebene Rasse als Surrogat dafür zu verwenden, eine Person direkt auf ein relevantes Merkmal zu testen, ist ähnlich, als würde man das Durchschnittsgewicht einer Gruppe aufzeichnen, statt jedes Individuum zu wiegen.“

Natürlich kann man von Venter erwarten, daß er gegen rassische Klassifizierungen in der Medizin ist. Damit ist er nicht nur politisch korrekt, sondern nimmt auch eine Position ein, von der er beträchtlich profitieren könnte, nachdem seine Firma Celera die erste war, die das menschliche Genom sequenziert hat und wahrscheinlich die erste wäre, die das individuelle Gensquenzieren massenmarktfähig machen würde.

Die Redakteure lassen jede Erwähnung der Vorteile rassischer Klassifizierung in der Medizin weg. Wer den Hauptartikel nicht liest, würde unrichtigerweise schlußfolgern, daß Rasse in der Medizin keine Verwendung hat. Noch ein Beispiel dafür wie die Medien die Wahrheit verdrehen und verzerren. Zum Glück kann jeder, der den Artikel liest, die Verdrehung durchschauen. Wenn solch eine Geschichte jedoch von den Breitenmedien gebracht würde, dann könnten Sie sicher sein, daß die Verdrehung alles ist, was das Publikum bekommen würde.

Das Titelbild riecht ebenfalls nach politisch korrekter Rassenverleugnung™. Die Bilder von sechs attraktiven Frauengesichtern aus scheinbar verschiedenen Rassen wurden von Nancy Burson unter Verwendung eines Morphing-Programms geschaffen, das dazu bestimmt ist, verschiedene Rassenmerkmale zu simulieren. Nur die blonde, blauäugige Frau ist echt. Die anderen Bilder wurden durch Abänderung ihres Bildes geschaffen. Aber man kann sehen, daß die darunterliegende Knochenstruktur, Lippen und Nase der Frau unverändert bleiben, obwohl diese zwischen den Rassen beträchtlich variieren. Nur Hautfarbe, Augenfarbe und Haarfarbe scheinen zu variieren. Die offensichtliche Botschaft des Fotos ist, daß Rasse nur eben bis unter die Haut geht. Die Welt besteht bloß aus Weißen mit unterschiedlichen Farbschattierungen. Was kann das schon schaden?




Das erinnert mich an ein Bild in einem Bilderbuch, das ich als Kind gesehen habe, wo Löwen sich an Lämmer kuscheln und Wölfe mit Schafen tanzen, wo allein die äußerliche Erscheinung Tiere unterscheidet, die ansonsten tief drinnen alle gleich sind und daher in der Lage, in Glück und Harmonie zu leben.

Anscheinend hängen manche Erwachsene immer noch solchem Wunschdenken an.

Source: http://fjordman.wordpress.com/2011/06/06/scientific-american-uber-die-realitat-von-rassen/ [6]

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

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/06/scientific-american-uber-die-realitat-von-rassen/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/ScientificAmericanRace.jpg

[2] here: http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/05/scientific-american-on-the-reality-of-race/

[3] hier: http://www.counter-currents.com../2010/12/taking-our-own-side-paperback/

[4] hier: http://www.counter-currents.com../2011/05/scientific-american-rodun-todellisuudesta/

[5] Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/LionAndLamb.png

[6] http://fjordman.wordpress.com/2011/06/06/scientific-american-uber-die-realitat-von-rassen/: http://fjordman.wordpress.com/2011/06/06/scientific-american-uber-die-realitat-von-rassen/

dimanche, 21 août 2011

Out of Africa? Races are more different than previously thought

Out of Africa?

Races are more different than previously thought.

Researchers led by Prof. Svante Pääbo at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig have placed a very large question mark over the currently fashionable “out-of-Africa” theory of the origins of modern man. They have done this by producing a partial genome from three fossil bones belonging to female Neanderthals from Vindija Cave in Croatia, and comparing it with the genomes of modern humans.

Neanderthal skull
Neanderthal Man: Our ancestor after all.

Their initial results show that Neanderthals interbred with anatomically modern humans, mainly with the ancestors of peoples now found in Europe and Asia. This discovery both underlines the genetic differences between African and non-African populations and contradicts the pure, “out-of-Africa” version of human evolution, according to which all non-Africans living today are descended exclusively from migrants that left Africa less than 100,000 years ago. These migrants are said to have out-competed and eventually driven to extinction all other forms of homo and to have done so without interbreeding.

The authors of the Max Planck study note that Neanderthals, who lived in Europe and western Asia, were the closest evolutionary relatives of current humans, but went extinct about 30,000 years ago. They go on to note:

“Comparisons of the Neanderthal genome to the genomes of five present-day humans from different parts of the world identify a number of genomic regions that may have been affected by positive selection in ancestral modern humans, including genes involved in metabolism and in cognitive and skeletal development. We show that Neanderthals shared more genetic variants with present-day humans in Eurasia than with present-day humans in sub-Saharan Africa, suggesting that gene flow from Neanderthals into the ancestors of non-Africans occurred before the divergence of Eurasian groups from each other.” (Richard E. Green, Johannes Krause, et. al., A Draft Sequence of the Neanderthal Genome, Science, May 7, 2010).

In other words, Neanderthal genes remained in the human genome because they were beneficial, and are mainly found in non-African groups.

The traditional alternative to the “out-of-Africa” theory has been that different races evolved from earlier forms of homo in different parts of the world. That theory allows for a far longer period for the evolution of races. The great obstacle to this multi-regional theory has been genetic evidence taken from modern humans that points to a common ancestor who left Africa about 100,000 years ago. However, this judgment is based on mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) — the DNA outside the nucleus — which shows no evidence of interbreeding. The Max Planck team, however, was the first to do a large-scale comparative study of nuclear DNA which, as they point out, “is composed of tens of thousands of recombining, and hence independently evolving, DNA segments that provide an opportunity to obtain a clearer picture of the relationship between Neanderthals and present-day humans.”

champanzee skull
Chimpanzee: Our closest living relative.

The researchers note that their conclusions are tentative because they were able to reconstruct only about 60 percent of the Neanderthal genome. Much of this had to be carefully sifted because of contamination, especially by bacterial DNA. Nonetheless, where the Neanderthal genome could be compared to that of modern humans, the researchers found an estimated 99.7 percent match. They also found that the Neanderthal and modern genomes shared exactly the same degree of genetic similarity — 98.8 percent — with chimpanzees.

Of particular significance, however, is the result of comparing the Neanderthal genome with representatives of different modern races: “one San from Southern Africa, one Yoruba from West Africa, one Papua New Guinean, one Han Chinese, and one French from Western Europe.”

Non-Africans got a far larger genetic contribution from Neanderthals than Africans did:

“[I]ndividuals in Eurasia today carry regions in their genome that are closely related to those in Neanderthals and distant from other present-day humans. The data suggest that between 1 and 4 percent of the genomes of people in Eurasia are derived from Neanderthals. Thus, while the Neanderthal genome presents a challenge to the simplest version of an ‘out-of-Africa’ model for modern human origins, it continues to support the view that the vast majority of genetic variants that exist at appreciable frequencies outside Africa came from Africa with the spread of anatomically modern humans.”

Although the Neanderthal contribution is small, the fact that it survived at all suggests that it conferred an evolutionary advantage. The Max Planck team notes that those contributions were “involved in cognitive abilities and cranial morphology.” Neanderthals passed on to non-Africans whatever genetic advantages they had in these important areas.

It is possible that Neanderthals contributed more than the 1 to 4 percent calculated by the Max Planck researchers. Their Neanderthal genome was incomplete and the missing 40 percent may contain more genes present in modern humans. Even if Neanderthal genes form only a very small part of the modern non-African genome, small genetic differences can have important consequences. We share almost all of our DNA with chimps, yet are very different from them. It has become clear since the mapping of the human genome that the central importance of genes lies not in their quantity but in the way they interact. Many scientists expected that sequencing or decoding the human genome would lead to an understanding of how it works, but that has not been the case. Many mysteries remain, but it is clear that small differences can have profound effects.

Homo erectus
Homo erectus: bred with modern humans?

If modern humans bred with Neanderthals could there have been other mixtures of the varieties of homo throughout evolution? There was ample opportunity. Homo habilis is estimated to have existed from 2.3 to 1.4 million years ago, homo erectus to have lived between 1.9 million and 300,000 years ago (and possibly much later in isolated areas), Neanderthals from 400,000 years until 30,000 years ago, and homo sapiens from 250,000-150,000 years ago to the present. One promising candidate for interbreeding with modern humans is homo erectus. As the online encyclopedia science.jrank.org explains:

“Fossils of the species have been collected from South Africa, Tanzania, Kenya, Ethiopia, Algeria, Morocco, Italy, Germany, Georgia, India, China, and Indonesia. The oldest specimens come from Africa, the Caucasus, and Java and are dated at about 1.8 million years. These very early dates outside of Africa indicate that H. erectus dispersed across the Old World almost instantaneously, as soon as the species arose in Africa ... Homo erectus persisted very late in the Pleistocene epoch in Indonesia to possibly as late as 30,000 years ago, which suggests that the species survived in isolation while modern humans spread everywhere in the Old World.”

Neanderthal woman
National Geographic's Neanderthal woman.

Just as this article was going to press, there were reports on the analysis of 30,000-year-old bones found by the Russians in a cave in Denisova in Siberia in 2008. The DNA, whose state of preservation has been called “miraculous,” proved to be distinct from both Neanderthals and modern humans, and researchers called the newly discovered hominids Denisovans. Svante Pääbo of the Max Planck Institute studied this DNA as well, and determined that Denisovans also bred with modern humans — though not with those that remained in Africa.

The Denisovans were related to Neanderthals, and their common ancestors are thought to have left Africa some 400,000 or more years ago. One branch became Neanderthal in Western Eurasia and another became Denisovan in the East. Modern man appears to have encountered and bred with both groups, but only after leaving Africa. Specialists greeted the news about Denisovans with the expectation that yet more missing members of the human family tree could be rediscovered.

Indeed, the complexity and variety of the fossil record hints at what could have been considerable interbreeding. There has been a huge number of discoveries during the last century, but hominid remains are still very scarce and are often only a small fragment of a skeleton. Complete skeletons are like hens’ teeth. Moreover, when new fossils turn up, rather than clarify the record by filling in missing branches on the evolutionary tree, they tend to complicate matters. For example, they may show that a variety of homo was much older than previously thought or appeared in an unexpected place. Variability of fossils can also suggest intermediate forms that had not been anticipated, such as a specimen with traits characteristic of both homo erectus and Neanderthals. The difficulty in classifying human fossils and especially the existence of intermediate forms suggest interbreeding.

We are only now beginning to learn of some variants of homo that could have contributed genes to modern humans. In 2004, fossils of a dwarf species of homo — “Flores man,” who has been nicknamed “hobbit” — were found on the Indonesian island of Flores. Flores man is thought to have gone extinct about 12,000 years ago, so he certainly coexisted with modern humans.

Interbreeding between related varieties of homo would be more likely than that between related animals because even primitive homo had a large brain, which suggests self-consciousness, and, most probably, language. Animals mate in a largely automatic process prompted by various triggers: aural, chemical, condition of feathers and so on. Man, although not entirely without such triggers, adds conscious thought to mate selection. This allows humans to overcome the barriers of behavior and biology, and mate outside their subspecies or even species.

Vindija cave in Croatia
The Vindija cave in Croatia. The bones that
yielded the Max Planck Institute’s first
Neanderthal genome were found here.

Even today, tribal peoples may take women by force from other groups, often by organized raiding. Prehistoric man may have done the same, raising the possibility that interbreeding took place without the willing participation of the females.

At some point, of course, separate evolution would have produced separate species that were not mutually fertile. However, the social nature of homo and his probable ability to speak would tend to counteract the tendency to remain isolated from others for so long that breeding became impossible. It is worth adding that judging from the rapid spread of homo throughout Eurasia, man has been a very mobile animal. Such mobility would also make isolation difficult because even in a very sparsely populated world, the likelihood of encountering other bands of homo would be reasonably high.

How would different varieties of archaic humans have appeared to one another? Probably not so strange. There are certainly combinations of current-day racial types that appear more alien to each other than that would have Neanderthals and modern men.

In 2008, National Geographic released a likeness of a Neanderthal woman based on DNA from 43,000-year-old bones. The findings suggested that at least some Neanderthals had red hair, pale skin, and possibly freckles. These are particularly interesting traits because these were commonly noted by Romans who wrote about the inhabitants of Northern Europe. Today, many scientists would argue that if a Neanderthal were dressed in modern clothes he could walk down a busy street without attracting much attention.

If interbreeding did occur within the homo genus over several million years or even over hundreds of thousands of years, it would help explain the evolution of the group differences that now distinguish the different races. The purest “out-of-Africa” theory has always been implausible to those who think it does not allow enough time for races to emerge. There are differences of opinion among experts about time scales but the consensus is that modern man emerged from Africa at most 200,000 years ago. At 20 years per generation, this allows for only 10,000 generations to produce the enormous human variety that includes everything from Pygmies to Danes. Is that enough? Whites are supposed to have begun evolving independently for only 2,000 generations. Again, is that enough?

Realistic depictions of human beings go back to at least 3000 BC, and mummies, created deliberately or naturally, are often preserved well enough to determine racial type. The oldest North American mummy, for example, is of a 45-year-old male found in Churchill County, Nevada, and estimated to date from 7420 BC. These artifacts show that racial types have been stable for 5,000 to 10,000 years. If they have not changed in this time, it is reasonable to doubt that evolution could have changed migrants from Africa rapidly enough to produce today’s races.


The Max Planck Institute’s findings clearly show that the “out of Africa with no interbreeding” theory is incorrect. However, that does not necessarily mean that the ultimate origins of man do not lie in Africa or that the modern humans whose origins lie outside of Africa do not have a predominantly African heritage. What the Neanderthal and Denisovan genome research does confirm is that the human story is complicated.

The distribution of hominid fossil finds to date, the paleontological evidence, and the growing knowledge acquired through DNA analysis suggest that a plausible scenario for evolution is this: The story probably began in Africa, because this is the continent with the largest number of the most ancient fossils. Africans also show the greatest genetic variety, which suggests human evolution has been taking place there longer than anywhere else. However, early versions of homo moved out of Africa, perhaps as much as several million years ago. Some of these early versions evolved into creatures that approximated modern man, while at the same time evolution among African populations also brought them closer to modern man. At various points, African migrants emerged into Eurasia and interbred with forms of homo already there. There was no equivalent migration of Eurasians into Africa, or at least none that resulted in known interbreeding. The fossil record of mixtures of features from different hominids also suggests interbreeding.

Neanderthal bones
Neanderthal bones.

Why was the rigid “out-of-Africa” theory so widely believed? Probably because it gave rise to the claim that “we are all Africans,” and because it suggested there were few biological differences between races. At the same time, the emphasis until recently on mtDNA rather than nuclear DNA, gave rise to dogmatic statements about distinct lineages and leant scientific backing to the idea.

“Out of Africa” supported the modern liberal view that race is a social construct and that the physical differences between races are trivial. In fact, racial differences are more dramatic than the differences between many closely related species of animals. There are objective racial differences in physiology, such as testosterone level, as well as differences in behavior and in average IQ. When we add to these differences the mix of genetic contributions from extinct or absorbed forms of homo, the liberal argument becomes even weaker. If homo sapiens were viewed as any other organism is viewed, it would no doubt be classified as several species rather than as a single species.

The group at the Max Planck Institute hopes to have decoded the entire Neanderthal and Denisovan genomes soon, and similar work is being done on other forms of ancient homo such as the “hobbits” from Flores. Decoding ancient DNA is difficult, but it is probable that the genomes of other early hominids, particularly that of homo erectus — the longest surviving and most widely dispersed ancient form of homo — will be decoded in the foreseeable future.

If such research shows that interbreeding was present throughout hominid evolution, or at least for substantial periods, then the multiregional theory is true to the extent that different races received genetic contributions from populations that developed outside of Africa for immense periods of time. If the genotypes of such ancient varieties such as homo erectus and homo heidelbergensis are mapped successfully, it may be found that Eurasians have a substantial selection of genes that are distant from those of Africans.

Even if that is not the case, a better understanding of genetics increasingly shows that small genetic differences cause significant physical differences. Whatever the case, the claim that “we are all Africans” has been significantly weakened, and a potent propaganda tool has been taken from the hands of the politically correct. AR

vendredi, 11 février 2011

Julius Evola's Concept of Race: A Racism of Three Degrees

Julius Evola’s Concept of Race:
A Racism of Three Degrees

Michael Bell

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

EvolaTrent'AnniDopo.jpgSince the rise of physical anthropology, the definition of the term “race” has undergone several changes. In 1899, William Z. Ripley stated that, “Race, properly speaking, is responsible only for those peculiarities, mental or bodily, which are transmitted with constancy along the lines of direct physical descent.”[1]

In 1916, Madison Grant described it as the “immutability of somatological or bodily characters, with which is closely associated the immutability of psychical predispositions and impulses.”[2] He was echoed a decade later by German anthropologist Hans F. K. Günther, who in his Racial Elements of European History said, “A race shows itself in a human group which is marked off from every other human group through its own proper combination of bodily and mental characteristics, and in turn produces only its like.”[3]

According to the English-born Canadian evolutionary psychologist J. Philippe Rushton:

Each race (or variety) is characterized by a more or less distinct combination of inherited morphological, behavioral, physiological traits. . . . Formation of a new race takes place when, over several generations, individuals in one group reproduce more frequently among themselves than they do with individuals in other groups. This process is most apparent when the individuals live in diverse geographic areas and therefore evolve unique, recognizable adaptations (such as skin color) that are advantageous in their specific environments.[4]

These examples indicate that, within the academic context (where those who still believe in “race” are fighting a losing battle with the hierophants of cultural anthropology), a race is simply a human group with distinct common physical and mental traits that are inherited.

Among white racialists, where race has more than a merely scientific importance, a deeper dimension was added to the concept: that of the spirit. In The Decline of the West, Oswald Spengler set forth the idea of the Apollinian, Faustian, and Magian “soul forms,” which can be understood as spiritual racial types.[5] In his highly influential Spenglerian tome Imperium, Francis Parker Yockey elaborated this notion, asserting that while there are genetically related individuals within any particular human group, race itself is spiritual: it is a deeply felt sense of identity connected with a drive to perpetuate not just genes, but a whole way of life. “Race impels toward self-preservation, continuance of the cycle of generations, increase of power.”[6] Spiritual race is a drive toward a collective destiny.

The spiritual side of race, however, was never systematically explained to the same extent as the physical. Its existence was, rather, merely suggested and taken for granted. It was only in the writings of the much overlooked Italian Radical Traditionalist and esotericist Julius Evola that the spiritual dimension was finally articulated in detail. One who has studied race from the biological, psychological, and social perspectives should turn to Evola’s writings for a culminating lesson on the subject. Evola’s writings provide a wealth of information that one cannot get elsewhere. Through a careful analysis of ancient literature and myths, along with anthropology, biology, history, and related subjects, Evola has pieced together a comprehensive explanation of the racial spirit.

My purpose here is simply to outline Evola’s doctrine of race. Since Evola’s life and career have been thoroughly examined elsewhere,[7] the only biographical fact relevant here is that Evola’s thoughts on race were officially adopted as policy by Mussolini’s Fascist party in 1942.[8]

Body and Mind

Evola’s precise definition of “race” is similar to Yockey’s: it is an inner essence that a person must “have”; this will be explained further below. In the meantime, a good starting point is Evola’s understanding of distinct human groups.

Evola agrees with the physical anthropologists that there are distinct groups with common physical traits produced by a common genotype: “the external form . . . which, from birth to birth, derives from the ‘gene’ . . . is called phenotype.”[9] He refers to these groups as “races of the body,” and concurs with Günther that suitable examples include the Nordic, Mediterranean, East Baltic, Orientalid, Negroid, and many others.[10]

Evola decribes the “race of the soul” as the collective mental and behavioral traits of a human stock, and the outward “style” through which these are exhibited. Every race has essentially the same mental predispositions; all human peoples, for example, desire sexual satisfaction from a mate. However, each human stock manifests these inner instincts externally in a different way, and it is this “style,” as Evola terms it, which is the key component of the “race of the soul.”

To illustrate this point, compare the Spartan strategos (Nordic soul) to the Carthaginian shofet (Levantine soul)[11]: the Spartan considers it heroic to fight hand-to-hand with shield and spear and cowardly to attack from a distance with projectiles, whereas the Carthaginian finds it natural to employ elephants and grand siege equipment to utterly shock and scatter his enemies for an expedient victory.

The names of these races of the soul correspond to those of the body, hence a Nordic soul, a Mediterranean soul, Levantine soul, etc. Evola devotes an entire chapter in Men Among the Ruins to comparing the “Nordic” or “Aryo-Roman” soul to the “Mediterranean.” The Nordic soul is that of “‘the race of the active man,’ of the man who feels that the world is presented to him as material for possession and attack.”[12] It is the character of the quintessential “strong and silent type”:

Among them we should include self-control, an enlightened boldness, a concise speech and determined and coherent conduct, and a cold dominating attitude, exempt from personalism and vanity. . . . The same style is characterized by deliberate actions, without grand gestures; a realism that is not materialism, but rather love for the essential . . . the readiness to unite, as free human beings and without losing one’s identity, in view of a higher goal or for an idea.[13]

Evola also quotes Helmuth Graf von Moltke (the Elder) on the Nordic ethos: “Talk little, do much, and be more than you appear to be.”[14]

The Mediterranean soul is the antithesis of the Nordic. This sort of person is a vain, noisy show-off who does things just to be noticed. Such a person might even do great deeds sometimes, but they are not done primarily for their positive value, but merely to draw attention. In addition, the Mediterranean makes sexuality the focal point of his existence.[15] The resemblance of this picture to the average narcissistic, sex- and celebrity-obsessed American of today—whether genetically Nordic or Mediterranean—is striking. One need only watch American Idol or browse through the profiles of Myspace.com to see this.

Race of the Spirit

The deepest and therefore most complicated aspect of race for Evola is that of the “spirit.” He defines it as a human stock’s “varying attitude towards the spiritual, supra-human, and divine world, as expressed in the form of speculative systems, myths, and symbols, and the diversity of religious experience itself.”[16] In other words, it is the manner in which different peoples interact with the gods as conveyed through their cultures; a “culture” would include rituals, temple architecture, the role of a priesthood (or complete lack thereof), social hierarchy, the status of women, religious symbolism, sexuality, art, etc. This culture, or worldview, is not simply the product of sociological causes, however. It is the product of something innate within a stock, a “meta-biological force, which conditions both the physical and the psychical structures” of its individual members.[17]

The “meta-biological force” in question has two different forms. The first corresponds to an id or a collective unconscious, a sort of group mind-spirit that splinters off into individual spirits and enters a group member’s body upon birth. Evola describes it as “subpersonal” and belonging “to nature and the infernal world.”[18] Most ancient peoples, as he explains, depicted this force symbolically in their myths and sagas; examples would include the animal totems of American aborigines, the ka of the Pharaonic Egyptians, or the lares of the Latin peoples. The “infernal” nature of the latter example was emphasized by the fact that the lares were believed to be ruled over by an underground deity named Mania.[19] When a person died, this metaphysical element would be absorbed back into the collective from whence it came, only to be recycled into another body, but devoid of any recollection of its former life.

The second form, superior to the first, is one that does not exist in every stock naturally, or in every member of a given stock; it is an otherworldly force that must be drawn into the blood of a people through the practice of certain rites. This action corresponds to the Hindu notion of “realizing the Self,” or experiencing a oneness with the divine source of all existence and order (Brahman). Such a task can only be accomplished by a gifted few, who by making this divine connection undergo an inner transformation. They become aware of immutable principles, in the name of which they go on to forge their ethnic kin into holistic States—microcosmic versions of the transcendent principle of Order itself. Thus, the Brahmins and Kshatriyas of India, the patricians of Rome, and the samurai of Japan had a “race of the spirit,” which is essential to “having race” itself. Others may have the races of body and soul, but race of the spirit is race par excellence.

Transcendence is experienced differently by different ethnic groups. As a result, different understandings of the immutable arise across the world; from these differences emerge several “races of the spirit.” Evola focuses on two in particular. The first is the “telluric spirit” characterized by a deep “connection to the soil.” This race worships the Earth in its various cultural manifestations (Cybele, Gaia, Magna Mater, Ishtar, Inanna, etc.) and a consort of “demons.” Their view of the afterlife is fatalistic: the individual spirit is spawned from the Earth and then returns to the Earth, or to the infernal realm of Mania, upon death, with no other possibility.[20] Their society is matriarchal, with men often taking the last names of their mothers and familial descent being traced through the mother. In addition, women often serve as high priestesses. The priesthood, in fact, is given preeminence, whereas the aristocratic warrior element is subordinated, if it exists at all.

This race has had representatives in all the lands of Europe, Asia, and Africa that were first populated by pre-Aryans: the Iberians, Etruscans, Pelasgic-Minoans, Phoenicians, the Indus Valley peoples, and all others of Mediterranean, Oriental, and Negroid origin. The invasions of Aryan stock would introduce to these peoples a diametrically opposed racial spirit: the “Solar” or “Olympian” race.

The latter race worships the heavenly god of Order, manifested as Brahman, Ahura-Mazda, Tuisto (the antecedent of Odin), Chronos, Saturn, and the various sun deities from America to Japan. Its method of worship is not the self-prostration and humility practiced by Semites, or the ecstatic orgies of Mediterraneans, but heroic action (for the warriors) and meditative contemplation (for the priests), both of which establish a direct link with the divine. Olympian societies are hierarchical, with a priestly caste at the top, followed by a warrior caste, then a caste of tradesmen, and finally a laboring caste. The ruler himself assumes the dual role of priest and warrior, which demonstrates that the priesthood did not occupy the helm of society as they did among telluric peoples. Finally, the afterlife was not seen as an inescapable dissolution into nothingness, but as one of two potential conclusions of a test. Those who live according to the principles of their caste, without straying totally from the path, and who come to “realize the Self,” experience a oneness with God and enter a heavenly realm that is beyond death. Those who live a worthless, restless existence that places all emphasis on material and physical things, without ever realizing the presence of the divine Self within all life, undergoes the “second death,”[21] or the return to the collective racial mind-spirit mentioned earlier.

The Olympian race has appeared throughout history in the following forms: in America as the Incas; in Europe and Asia as the Indo-European speaking peoples; in Africa as the Egyptians; and in the Far East as the Japanese. Generally, this race of the spirit has been carried by waves of phenotypically Nordic peoples, which will be explained further below.

Racial Genesis

Of considerable importance to Evola’s racial worldview is his explanation of human history. Contrary to the views of most physical anthropologists and archaeologists, and even many intellectual white racialists, humanity did not evolve from a primitive, simian ancestor, and then branch off into different genetic populations. Evolution itself is a fallacy to Evola, who believed it to be rooted in the equally false ideology of progressivism: “We do not believe that man is derived from the ape by evolution. We believe that the ape is derived from man by involution. We agree with De Maistre that savage peoples are not primitive peoples, but rather the degenerating remnants of more ancient races that have disappeared.”[22]

Evola argues in many of his works, like Bal Ganghadar Tilak and René Guénon before him, that the Aryan peoples of the world descend from a race that once inhabited the Arctic. In “distant prehistory” this land was the seat of a super-civilization—“super” not for its material attainments, but for its connection to the gods—that has been remembered by various peoples as Hyperborea, Airyana-Vaego, Mount Meru, Tullan, Eden, and other labels; Evola uses the Hellenic rendition “Hyperborea” more than the rest, probably to remain consistent and avoid confusion among his readers. The Hyperboreans themselves, as he explains, were the original bearers of the Olympian racial spirit.

Due to a horrible cataclysm, the primordial seat was destroyed, and the Hyperboreans were forced to migrate. A heavy concentration of refugees ended up at a now lost continent somewhere in the Atlantic, where they established a new civilization that corresponded to the “Atlantis” of Plato and the “Western land” of the Celts and other peoples. History repeated itself, and ultimately this seat was also destroyed, sending forth an Eastward-Westward wave of migrants. As Evola notes, this particular wave “[corresponded] to Cro-Magnon man, who made his appearance toward the end of the glacial age in the Western part of Europe,”[23] thus lending some historical evidence to his account. This “pure Aryan” stock would ultimately become the proto-Nordic race of Europe, which would then locally evolve into the multitude of Nordic stocks who traveled across the world and founded the grandest civilizations, from Incan Peru to Shintoist Japan.

Evola spends less time tracing the genesis of nonwhite peoples, which he consistently refers to as “autochthonous,” “bestial,” and “Southern” races. In his seminal work Revolt Against the Modern World, he says that the “proto-Mongoloid and Negroid races . . . probably represented the last residues of the inhabitants of a second prehistoric continent, now lost, which was located in the South, and which some designated as Lemuria.”[24] In contrast to the superior Nordic-Olympians, these stocks were telluric worshippers of the Earth and its elemental demons. Semites and other mixed races, Evola asserts, are the products of miscegenation between Atlantean settlers and these Lemurian races. Civilizations such as those of the pre-Hellenes, Mohenjo-Daro, pre-dynastic Egyptians, and Phoenicians, among countless others, were founded by these mixed peoples.

Racialism in Practice

Racialist movements from National Socialist Germany to contemporary America have tended to emphasize preserving physical racial types. While phenotypes were important to Evola, his foremost goal for racialism was to safeguard the Olympian racial spirit of European man. It was from this spirit that the greatest Indo-European civilizations received the source of their leadership, the principles around which they centered their lives, and thus the wellspring of their vitality. While de Gobineau, Grant, and Hitler argued that blood purity was the determining factor in the life of a civilization, Evola contended that “Only when a civilization’s ‘spiritual race’ is worn out or broken does its decline set in.”[25] Any people who manages to maintain a physical racial ideal with no inner spiritual substance is a race of “very beautiful animals destined to work,”[26] but not destined to produce a higher civilization.

The importance of phenotypes is described thusly: “The physical form is the instrument, expression, and symbol of the psychic form.”[27] Evola felt that it would only be possible to discover the desired spiritual type (Olympian) through a systematic examination of physical types. Even to Evola, a Sicilian baron, the best place to look in this regard was the “Aryan or Nordic-Aryan body”; as he mentions on several occasions, it was, after all, this race that carried the Olympian Tradition across the world. He called this process of physical selection “racism of the first degree,” which was the first of three stages.

Once the proper Nordic phenotype was identified, various “appropriate” tests comprising racism of the second and third degrees would be implemented to determine a person’s racial soul and spirit.[28] Evola never laid out a specific program for this, but makes allusions in his works to assessments in which a person’s political and racial opinions would be taken into account. In his Elements of Racial Education, he asserts that “The one who says yes to racism is one in which race still lives,” and that one who has race is intrinsically against democratic ideals. He also likens true racism to the “classical spirit,” which is rooted in “exaltation of everything which has form, face, and individuation, as opposed to what is formless, vague, and undifferentiated.”[29] Keep in mind that for Evola, “having race” is synonymous with having the “Olympian race” of the spirit. Upon discovering a mentality that fits the criteria for soul and spirit, a subsequent education of “appropriate disciplines” would be carried out to ensure that the racial spirit within this person is “maintained and developed.” Through such trials, conducted on a wide scale, a nation can determine those people within it who embody the racial ideal and the capacity for leadership.

Protecting and developing the Nordic-Olympians was primary for Evola, but his racialism had other goals. He sought to produce the “unified type,” or a person in whom the races of body, soul, and spirit matched one another and worked together harmoniously. For example: “A soul which experiences the world as something before which it takes a stand actively, which regards the world as an object of attack and conquest, should have a face which reflects by determined and daring features this inner experience, a slim, tall, nervous, straight body—an Aryan or Nordic-Aryan body.”[30]

This was important because “it is not impossible that physical appearances peculiar to a given race may be accompanied by the psychic traits of a different race.”[31] To Evola, if people chose mates on the basis of physical features alone, there is a good chance that various mental and spiritual elements would become intermingled and generate a dangerous confusion; there would be Nordics with Semitic mental characteristics and Asiatic spiritual predispositions, Alpines with Nordic proclivities and fatalistic religious attitudes, and so on. Such a mixture was what Evola considered to be a mongrel type, in whom “cosmopolitan myths of equality” become manifested mentally, thus paving the way for the beasts of democracy and communism to permeate the nation and take hold.

Evola cared more about the aristocratic racial type, but he did not want the populace to become a bastardized mass: “We must commit ourselves to the task of applying to the nation as a whole the criteria of coherence and unity, of correspondence between outer and inner elements.”[32] If the aristocracy had as its subjects a blob of spiritless, internally broken people, the nation would have no hope. For the Fascist state, he promoted an educational campaign to ensure that the peoples of Italy selected their mates appropriately, looking for both appearances and behavior; non-Europeans would of course be excluded entirely. The school system would play its role, as would popular literature and films.[33]

Another way to develop the “inner race” is through combat. Not combat in the modern sense of pressing a button and instantly obliterating a hundred people, but combat as it unfolds in the trenches and on the battlefield, when it is man against man, as well as man against his inner demons. Evola writes “the experience of war, and the instincts and currents of deep forces which emerge through such an experience, give the racial sense a right, fecund direction.”[34] Meanwhile, the comfortable bourgeois lifestyle and its pacifist worldview lead to the crippling of the inner race, which will ultimately become extinguished if external damage is thenceforth inflicted (via intermixing with inferior elements).


American racialists have much to gain from an introduction to Evola’s thoughts on race. In the American context, racialism is virtually devoid of any higher, spiritual element; many racialists even take pride in this. There are, without a doubt, many racialists who consider themselves devout Catholics or Protestants, and they may even be so. However, the reality of race as a spiritual phenomenon is given little attention, if any at all. For whatever reason, American racialists are convinced that the greatness of Western civilization, evinced by its literature, architecture, discoveries, inventions, conquests, empires, political treatises, economic achievements, and the like, lie solely in the mental characteristics of its people. For instance, the Romans erected the coliseum, the English invented capitalism, and the Greeks developed the Pythagorean theorem simply because they all had high IQs. When one compares the achievements of different Western peoples, and those of the West to the East, however, this explanation appears inadequate.

Intelligence alone cannot explain the different styles that are conveyed through the culture forms of different peoples; the Greeks’ Corinthian order on the one hand, and the Arabs’ mosques and minarets on the other, are not results of mere intellect. Sociological explanations do not work either; the Egyptians and the Mayans lived in vastly different environments, yet both evoked their style through pyramids and hieroglyphs. The only explanation for these phenomena is that there is something deeper within a folk, something deeper and more powerful than bodily structures and mental predispositions. As Evola elucidates through his multitude of works—themselves the result of intense study of ancient and modern texts from every discipline imaginable—race has a “super-biological” aspect: a spiritual force. Ancient peoples understood this reality and conveyed it through their myths: the Romans used the lares; the Mayans used totemic animal symbols; the Persians used the fravashi, which were synonymous with the Nordic valkyries[35]; the Egyptians used the ka; and the Hindus in the Bhagavad-Gita used Lord Krishna.

To better understand the spiritual side of race, the best place to look is Julius Evola. Through his works, which have greatly influenced the European New Right, Evola dissects and examines the concept of the Volksgeist, or racial spirit. It is the supernatural force that animates the bodies of a given race and stimulates the wiring in their brains. It is the substance from which cultures arise, and from which an aristocracy materializes to raise those cultures to higher civilizations. Without it, a race is simply a tribe of automatons that feed and copulate:

When the super biological element that is the center and the measure of true virility is lost, people can call themselves men, but in reality they are just eunuchs and their paternity simply reflects the quality of animals who, blinded by instinct, procreate randomly other animals, who in turn are mere vestiges of existence.[36]

Nowhere would Evola’s racial ideas be more valuable than in the United States, a land in which the idea of transcendent realities is mocked, if not violently attacked. Even American racialists, who nostalgically look back to “better” times when people were more “traditional,” are completely unaware of how the Aryan Tradition, in its purest form, understands the concept of race. Many of these people claim to be “Aryan” while simultaneously calling themselves “atheist” or “agnostic,” although in ancient societies, one needed to practice the necessary religious rites and undergo certain trials before having the right to style onself an Aryan. Hence the need for these “atheist Aryans” to become more familiar with Julius Evola.


1. William Z. Ripley, The Races of Europe: A Sociological Study (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1899), 1.

2. Madison Grant, The Passing of the Great Race (North Stratford, N.H.: Ayer Company Publishers, Inc., 2000), xix.

3. H. F. K. Günther, The Racial Elements of European History, trans. G. C. Wheeler (Uckfield, Sussex, UK: Historical Review Press, 2007), 9.

4. J. Philippe Rushton, “Statement on Race as a Biological Concept,” November 4, 1996, http://www.nationalistlibrary.com/index2.php?option=com_c...

5. Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West, 2 vols., trans. Charles Francis Atkinson (New York: Knopf, 1926 & 1928), vol. 1, chs. 6 and 9; cf. vol. 2, ch. 5, “Cities and Peoples. (B) Peoples, Races, Tongues.”

6. Francis Parker Yockey, Imperium (Newport Beach, Cal.: Noontide Press, 2000), 293.

7. See the Introduction to Julius Evola, Men Among the Ruins, trans. Guido Stucco, (Rochester, Vt.: Inner Traditions International, 2002).

8. Evola, Men Among the Ruins, 47.

9. Julius Evola, The Elements of Racial Education, trans. Thompkins and Cariou (Thompkins & Cariou, 2005), 11.

10. Evola, Elements of Racial Education, 34–35.

11. For more on the Levantine “race of the soul” see Elements of Racial Education, 35.

12. Evola, Elements of Racial Education, 35.

13. Evola, Men Among the Ruins, 259.

14. Evola, Men Among the Ruins, 262.

15. Evola, Men Among the Ruins, 260. Evola’s descriptions of Nordic and Mediterranean proclivities show the strong influence of Günther’s The Racial Elements of European History.

16. Evola, Elements of Racial Education, 29.

17. Julius Evola, Metaphysics of War: Battle, Victory & Death in the World of Tradition, ed. John Morgan and Patrick Boch (Aarhus, Denmark: Integral Tradition Publishing, 2007), 63.

18. Julius Evola, Revolt Against the Modern World, trans. Guido Stucco (Rochester, Vt.: Inner Traditions International, 1995), 48.

19. Evola, Revolt Against the Modern World, 48.

20. Evola, Elements of Racial Education, 40.

21. Evola, Revolt Against the Modern World, 48.

22. Julius Evola, Eros and the Mysteries of Love, trans. anonymous (Rochester, Vt.: Inner Traditions International, 1991), 9.

23. Evola, Revolt Against the Modern World, 195.

24. Evola, Revolt Against the Modern World, 197.

25. Evola, Revolt Against the Modern World, 58.

26. Evola, Revolt Against the Modern World, 170.

27. Evola, Elements of Racial Education, 30.

28. Julius Evola, “Race as a Builder of Leaders,” trans. Thompkins and Cariou, http://thompkins_cariou.tripod.com/id7.html.

29. Evola, The Elements of Racial Education, 14, 15.

30. Evola, The Elements of Racial Education, 31.

31. Evola, “Race as a Builder of Leaders.”

32. Evola, Elements of Racial Education, 33.

33. Evola, Elements of Racial Education, 25.

34. Evola, Metaphysics of War, 69.

35. Evola, Metaphysics of War, 34.

36. Evola, Revolt Against the Modern World, 170.

Source: TOQ, vol.9, no. 2 (Spring 2009).

mardi, 26 octobre 2010

La psico-antropologia de L. F. Clauss


Sebastian J. Lorenz
Frente al concepto materialista de la antropología nórdica, que consideraba la raza como un conjunto de factores físicos y psíquicos, se fue haciendo paso una antropologíade tipo espiritual, que tendrá su máximo exponente en el fundador de la “psico-raciología” (Rassenseelenkunde) Ludwig Ferdinand Clauss. Frente a la preeminencia de los rasgos fisiológicos, a los que se ligaba unas características intelectuales, Clauss inaugurará la “ley del estilo” . Para él, la adscripción a una etnia es, fundamentalmente, un estilo que se manifiesta en una multiplicidad de caracteres, ya sean de tipo físico, psíquico o anímico que, conjuntamente, expresan un determinado estilo dinámico: «por el movimiento del cuerpo, su expresión, su respuesta a los estímulos exteriores de toda clase, el proceso anímico que ha conducido a este movimiento se convierte en una expresión del espacio, el cuerpo se convierte en campo de expresión del alma» (Rasse und Seele).
Robert Steuckers ha escrito que «la originalidad de su método de investigación raciológica consistió en la renuncia a los zoologismos de las teorías raciales convencionales, nacidas de la herencia del darwinismo, en las que al hombre se le considera un simple animal más evolucionado que el resto». Desde esta perspectiva, Clauss consideraba en un nivel superior las dimensiones psíquica y espiritual frente a las características somáticas o biológicas.
Así, la raciología natural y materialista se fijaba exclusivamente en los caracteres externos –forma del cráneo, pigmentación de la piel, color de ojos y cabello, etc-, sin reparar que lo que da forma a dichos rasgos es el estilo del individuo. «Una raza no es un montón de propiedades o rasgos, sino un estilo de vida que abarca la totalidad de una forma viviente», por lo que Clauss define la raza «como un conjunto de propiedades internas, estilo típico y genio, que configuran a cada individuo y que se manifiestan en cada uno y en todos los que forman la población étnica». Para él, la forma del cuerpo y los rasgos físicos no son sino la expresión material de una realidad interna: tanto el espíritu (Geist) como el sentido psíquico (Seele) son los factores esenciales que modelan las formas corpóreas exteriores. Así, en lo relativo a la raza nórdica, no es que al tipo alto, fuerte, dolicocéfalo, rubio y de ojos azules, le correspondan una serie de caracteres morales e intelectuales, sino que es a un determinado estilo, el del “hombre de acción”, el hombre creativo (Leistungsmensch), al que se deben aquellos rasgos físicos, conjunto que parece predestinar a un grupo determinado de hombres. La etnia aparece concebida, de esta forma, como una unidad físico-anímica hereditaria, en la que el cuerpo es la “expresión del alma”. Klages dirá que «el alma es el sentido del cuerpo y el cuerpo es la manifestación del alma».
La escuela “espiritualista” fundada por Clauss tuvo, ciertamente, una buena acogida por parte de sus lectores, que se vieron liberados de las descripciones antropológicas del tipo ideal de hombre nórdico, las cuales no concurrían en buena parte de la población alemana, reconduciendo, de esta forma, el estilo de la raza a criterios idealistas menos discriminatorios. Pero lo que, en el fondo, estaba proponiendo Clauss, no era una huida del racismo materialista sino, precisamente, un reforzamiento de éste a través de su paralelismo anímico, según la fórmula “a una raza noble, le corresponde un espíritu noble”. Distintos caminos para llegar al mismo sitio. Así, podrá decir que «las razas no se diferencian tanto por los rasgos o facultades que poseen, sino por el estilo con que éstas se presentan», esto es, que no se distinguen por sus cualidades, sino por el estilo innato a las mismas. Entonces, basta conceder un “estilo arquitectónico” a la mujer nórdica, a la que atribuye un orden metódico tanto corporal como espiritual, frente a la mujer africana que carece de los mismos, para llegar a las mismas conclusiones que los teóricos del racismo bio-antropológico.
Por todo ello, las ideas de Clauss no dejan de encuadrarse en el “nordicismo” más radical de la época. El hombre nórdico es un tipo cuya actuación siempre está dirigida por el esfuerzo y por el rendimiento, por el deseo y por la consecución de una obra. «En todas las manifestaciones de actividad del hombre nórdico hay un objetivo: está dirigido desde el interior hacia el exterior, escogiendo algún motivo y emprendiéndolo, porque es muy activo. La vida le ordena luchar en primera línea y a cualquier precio, aun el de perecer. Las manifestaciones de esta clase son, pues una forma de heroísmo, aunque distinto del “heroísmo bélico”». De ahí a afirmar que los pueblos de sangre nórdica se han distinguido siempre de los demás por su audacia, sus conquistas y descubrimientos, por una fuerza de empuje que les impide acomodarse, y que han marcado a toda la humanidad con el estilo de su raza, sólo había un paso que Clauss estaba dispuesto a dar.
El estilo de las otras razas, sin embargo, no sale tan bien parado. Del hombre fálico destaca su interioridad y la fidelidad por las raíces que definen al campesinado alemán (deutsche treue), puesto que la raza fálica se encuentra profundamente imbricada dentro de la nórdica. Respecto a la cultura y raza latina (Westisch) dirá que no es patrimonio exclusivo del hombre mediterráneo, sino producto de la combinación entre la viveza, la sensualidad gestual y la agilidad mental de éste con la creatividad del tipo nórdico, derivada de la productiva fertilización que los pueblos de origen indogermánico introdujeron en el sur de Europa (Rasse und Charakter).
De los tipos alpino (dunkel-ostisch) y báltico-oriental (hell-ostisch), braquimorfos y braquicéfalos, dirá que son el extremo opuesto del nórdico, tanto en sus formas corporales como en las espirituales, porque son capaces de soportar el sufrimiento y la muerte de forma indiferente, sin ningún tipo de heroísmo, pero su falta de imaginación los hace inútiles para las grandes ideas y pensamientos, en definitiva, el hombre evasivo y servicial. Curiosamente, el estudio que hace de la raza semítico-oriental –judía y árabe-, con las que se hallaba bastante involucrado personalmente, no resulta tan peyorativo, si bien coincidía con Hans F.K. Günther en que existe entre los hebreos un conflicto entre el espíritu y la carne que acaba con la victoria de esta última, con la “redención por la carne”, mientras que de los árabes destaca su fatalismo y la inspiración divina que les hace creer –como iluminados- que son los escogidos o los enviados de Dios.
Por lo demás, Clauss admitió que los diferentes estilos, al igual que sucede con los tipos étnicos, se entrecruzan y están presentes simultáneamente en cada individuo. Según Evola, «para él, dada la actual mezcla de tipos, también en materia de “razas del alma”, en lo relativo a un pueblo moderno, la raza es objeto menos de una constatación que de una “decisión”: hay que decidirse, en el sentido de seleccionar y elegir a aquel que, entre los diferentes influjos físico-espirituales presentes simultáneamente en uno mismo, a aquel que más se ha manifestado creativo en la tradición de aquel pueblo; y hacer en modo tal que, entonces una tal influencia o “raza del alma” tome la primacía sobre cualquier otra.»
No obstante lo anterior, el nordicismo ideal y espiritual de Clauss fracasó estrepitosamente porque nunca pudo superar la popularidad que tuvo el tipo ideal de hombre nórdico que Hans F.K. Günther proponía recuperar a través de los representantes más puros de la cepa germánica, si bien no como realidad, sino como una aspiración ideal, de tal forma que, finalmente, Clauss se vio apartado de todas las organizaciones del tejido nacionalsocialista a las que, desde un principio, había pertenecido.

jeudi, 14 octobre 2010

Ludwig Woltmann: la obsesion por la hegemonia germanica

Sebastian J. Lorenz
Ex: http://imperium-revolucion-conservadora.blogspot.com/

ludwig-woltmann.jpgComenzamos por señalar la corriente darwinista que reinterpretó la lucha de clases como una lucha de razas, en la que destaca la obra de Ludwig Gumplowicz (Der Rassenkampf), judío de origen polaco que, casualmente, sería considerado como maestro sociológico por el germanista radical Ludwig Woltmann. Precisamente, increpado Gumplowicz por su discípulo Woltmann al haber abandonado el concepto de raza, el sociólogo nostálgico respondió en los siguientes términos: «Me sorprendía … ya en mi patria de origen el hecho de que las diferentes clases sociales representasen razas totalmente heterogéneas; veía allí a la nobleza polaca, que se consideraba con razón como procedente de un tronco completamente distinto del de los campesinos; veía la clase media alemana y, junto a ella, a los judíos; tantas clases como razas … pero, en los países del occidente de Europa sobre todo, las distintas clases de la sociedad hace ya mucho tiempo que no representan otras tantas razas antropológicas y, sin embargo, se enfrentan las unas a las otras como razas distintas …».
Woltmann, sin embargo, representa ya un modelo racista más avanzado en el tránsito hacia el racismo biológico, apropiándose, al mismo tiempo, de ciertas elucubraciones de Gobineau y De Lapouge. Ludwig Woltmann, un ex-marxista que abandonó la lucha de clases y se convirtió a la lucha de razas, representa, en definitiva, un racismo que aparece ahora revestido como una ciencia de la antropología que se dirige a establecer los caracteres de los pueblos superiores y dominadores, capaces de asegurar la primacía y la potencia de las civilizaciones. Curiosamente, en su famoso “manual”, Armin Mohler incluye a Woltmann entre los autores völkischen (rama del “campesinado”) de la Revolución Conservadora alemana.
Para ello, Woltmann define un tipo biológico, puramente antropológico y morfológico en sus descripciones, y después, lo asocia a una serie de cualidades espirituales: «el hombre de alta estatura, de cráneo desarrollado, con dolicocefalia frontal y de pigmentación clara –la raza nord-europea- representa el tipo más perfecto del género humano y el producto más alto de la evolución orgánica». Otto Hauser, su discípulo, definía a los pueblos indoeuropeos como «pueblos rubios, bien definidos, que llegaron por sí mismos a una cultura cuyo nivel será admirado siempre, mientras circule en un pueblo, en un individuo, sangre nórdica afín».
Insiste Woltmann en que, mientras a las razas nórdicas les corresponde mayores cualidades intelectuales y facultades creativas, a las razas inferiores les resulta imposible acoger elementos de las civilizaciones que, como la nórdico-mediterránea tan próxima a sus áreas geográficas, pudieron adoptar para su propio beneficio, pero no lo hicieron, sumiéndose finalmente en la barbarie. Sin embargo, las razas germánicas se adueñaron rápidamente de las culturas griega y romana, mientras que, ni griegos ni romanos asimilaron la hebraica. «La transmisión de una civilización superior a razas inferiores no es posible sin una mezcla de sangre, a través de la cual los elementos de la raza más dotada se fundan con los de las razas menos dotadas». Pero el cruce de razas no es un factor de progreso duradero, sino cuando se trata de dos razas afines y del mismo valor biológico y espiritual: «es así como los germanos y los romanos se sintieron recíprocamente como de igual valor».
A pesar de reiterar la tradicional advertencia sobre los peligros de la mezcla de razas, Woltmann se aparta del pesimismo gobiniano para abrazar el difuso concepto de la “desmezcla de razas” que luego reinterpretarían Rosenberg y Darré para el nacionalsocialismo. Según esta teoría, debía atribuirse una importancia capital al fomento artificial de la raza a través de cruzamientos endogámicos (esto es, entre individuos supuestamente pertenecientes a la misma raza), con «la modesta esperanza de poder conservar y salvaguardar la sana y noble existencia de la raza actual por medio de medidas higiénicas y políticas encaminadas a protegerla».
291208_152955_PEEL_QZBZNe.jpgLas tesis iniciales de Woltmann, no obstante lo anterior, irían cobrando un intenso matiz germanista, hasta el extremo de no tolerar la unión de los alemanes con otras ramas de la familia nord-europea. Es más, una posible asimilación de los otros pueblos germánicos –daneses, holandeses, etc- la condicionaba a su dominio por parte de una gran Alemania. La extravagancia de Woltmann, que partía de la idea según la cual el valor de una civilización depende de la cantidad de raza rubia germana que contenga, le hizo asegurar que los grandes hombres (nobles, políticos, artistas, filósofos, etc) más representativos de la cultura y la sociedad italiana, francesa y española eran, sin duda alguna, de ascendencia germánica, pensando que sus cualidades anímicas y espirituales revelarían siempre los caracteres antropológicos del germano, dolicocéfalo y rubio, aun cuando su apariencia física externa fuera la de un alpino braquicéfalo o la de un oscuro mediterráneo.
Poseído por la obsesión del “racismo rubio”, veía en las élites intelectuales y artísticas de las naciones europeas a hombres de cabello rubio y ojos azules. Hasta un teórico racista de la talla de Hermann Wirth llegaría a decir que «por un error singular de observación, Woltmann y sus partidarios descubrieron en tantos genios y talentos europeos rasgos germánicos. Para ojos imparciales, los retratos que Woltmann agregó como explicación muestran precisamente lo contrario: tipos baskiros, mediterráneos y negros».
Evidentemente, ningún historiador serio pondrá en duda que en todos los países europeos, en mayor o menor medida, existen elementos raciales –o más exactamente antropológicos- del tipo germánico o, en general, indoeuropeo, debidos a las continuas y sucesivas invasiones de estos pueblos. Así, Max van Gruber podrá decir que «cuando examinamos las características físicas de nuestros más grandes hombres en cuanto a su pertenencia, encontramos, es verdad, caracteres nórdicos, pero en ninguno exclusivamente nórdicos … pero a las cualidades de los nórdicos han tenido que agregarse ingredientes de otras razas para producir tan feliz composición de cualidades».
El sueño de una hegemonía germánica mundial de Woltmann tenía, sin embargo, un obstáculo históricamente reiterado y constatado: el hombre germánico es el gran enemigo –y el más peligroso- del hombre germánico. Alemania necesitaba “una regeneración espiritual y una purificación racial internas” destinadas a la lucha final y definitiva, para lograr un grado de civilización superior a todos los precedentes, contra todas las familias de raza germánica.
Unas décadas más tarde, la Gross Deutschland conseguiría la anhelada “unidad racial germánica” (Germanische Blutseinheit) sometiendo, no sólo a los baltos y eslavos parcialmente germanizados (lituanos, letonios, checos, polacos, ucranios), sino también a otros pueblos germanos, como daneses, noruegos, holandeses, flamencos, y enfrentándose, especialmente, con los anglosajones –británicos y norteamericanos- por la conquista del mundo, pero el resultado final fue muy distinto al de la premonición de Woltmann.

vendredi, 07 mai 2010

Julius Evola on Race


Ex: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Sunic-Evola.html#TS


Julius Evola on Race

Tom Sunic

May 1, 2010 

Growing interest in English speaking countries for the Italian philosopher Julius Evola may be a sign of the revival of the awesome cultural legacy of the Western civilization (see here and here). This legacy is awkwardly termed the “traditional –revolutionary – elitist – anti-egalitarian – postmodern thought.” But why not simply call it classical thought?  

The advantage of Evola, in contrast to many modern scholars of the same calibre, may be his staggering erudition that goes well beyond the narrow study of race. Evola was just as much at ease writing thick volumes about religion, language and sexuality as writing about legal issues related to international politics, or depicting decadence of the liberal system. His shortcomings are, viewed from the American academic perspective, that his prose is often not focused enough and his narrative often embraces too many topics at once. Evola was not a self-proclaimed “expert” on race — yet his erudition made him compose several impressive books on race from angles that are sorely missing among modern sociobiologists and race experts. Therefore, Evola’s works on race must be always put in a lager perspective. 

In this short survey of Evola’s position on race I am using the hard cover of the French translation of Indirizzi per una educazione razziale (1941) (Eléments pour une éduction raciale, 1984) and the more expanded Sintesi di dottrina della razza (1941), (“Synthesis of the racial doctrine”), translated into German by the author himself and by Annemarie Rasch and published in Germany in 1943. To my knowledge these two books are not available in English translation. His and Rasch’s excellent German translation of Sintesi had received (in my view an awkward and unnecessary) ‘political’ title; Grundrisse der faschistischen Rassenlehre (“Outlines of the fascist racial doctrine”) and is available on line.

Race of the Body vs. Race of the Spirit   

Evola writes that race represents a crucial element in the life of all humans. However, while acknowledging the clear-cut physical and biological markers of each race, he stresses over and over again the paramount importance of the spiritual and internal aspects of race — two points that are decisive for genuine racial awareness of the White man. Without full comprehension of these constituent racial parts — i.e., the “race of the soul” and the “race of the spirit” — no racial awareness is possible. Evola is adamantly opposed to conceptualizing race from a purely biological, mechanistic and Darwinian perspective. He sees that approach as dangerously reductionist, leading to unnecessary political and intellectual infighting.  

Diverse causes have contributed until now to the fact that racism has become the object of propaganda entrusted to incompetent people, to individuals who are waking up any day now as racists and anti-Semites and whose simple sloganeering has replaced serious principles and information. (Eléments pour une éduction raciale, p. 15) 

Evola freely uses the term ‘racism’ (razzismo) and ‘racist’ (razzista).  This was quite understandable in his epoch given that these words in Europe in the early thirties of the 20th century had a very neutral meaning with no dreaded symbols of the absolute evil ascribed to them today. The same can be said of the word ‘fascism’ and even ‘totalitarianism’ —  words which Evola uses in a normative manner when depicting an organic and holistic society designed for the future of the Western civilization. For Evola, the sense of racial awareness is more a spiritual endeavor and less a form of biological typology.      

And in this respect, we need to repeat it; we are dealing here with a formation of a mentality, a sensibility, and not with intellectual schemes or classifications for natural science manuals. (Eléments p. 16) 

For Evola, being White is not just a matter of good looks and high IQ, or for that matter something that needs to be sported in public. Racial awareness implies a sense of mysticism combined with the knowledge of one’s family lineage as well as a spiritual effort to delve into the White man’s primordial and mythical times. This is a task, which in the age of liberal chaos, must be entrusted only to élites completely detached from any material or pecuniary temptation.

Thus, racism invigorates and renders tangible the concept of tradition; it  makes the individual get used to observing in our ancestors not just a series of the more or less illustrious “dead,” but rather the expression of something still alive in ourselves and to which we are tied in our interior.  We are the carriers of a heritage that has been transmitted to us and that we need to transmit  – and in this spirit it is something going beyond time, something indicating,  what we called elsewhere, ‘the eternal race.’ (Eléments, p.31) 

In other words race is at a same time a heritage and a collective substrate. Irrespective of the fact that it expresses itself among all people, it is only among few that it attains its perfect realization and it is precisely there that the action and the significance of the individual and the personality can assert themselves. (Eléments, p.34) 

Evola offers the same views in his more expanded Sintesi (Grundrisse), albeit by using a somewhat different wording. Racial awareness for Evola requires moral courage and impeccable character and not just physical prowess. It is questionable to what extent many White racists today, in a self-proclaimed “movement” of theirs, with their silly paraphernalia on public display, are capable of such a mental exercise.       

Race means superiority, wholeness, decisiveness in life. There are common people and there are people “of race”. Regardless of which social status they belong to, these people form an aristocracy(Grundrisse, p.17).

In this particular regard, the racial doctrine rejects the doctrine of the environment, known to be an accessory to liberalism, to the idea of humanity and to Marxism. These false doctrines have picked up on the theory of the environment in order to defend the dogma of fundamental equality of all people. (Grundrisse, p. 17) 

And further Evola writes: 

Our position, when we claim that race exists as much in the body as in the spirit, goes beyond these two points of view. Race is a profound force manifesting itself in the realm of the body (race of the body) as in the realm of the spirit (race of the interior, race of the sprit).  In its full meaning the purity of race occurs when these two manifestations coincide; in other words, when the race of the body matches the race of the spirit and when it is capable of serving the most adequate organ of expression. (p.48) 

Racial-Spiritual Involution and the present Dark Ages  

Evola is aware of the dangerous dichotomy between the race of the spirit and the race of the body that may occur within the same race — or, as we call it, within the same ingroup. This tragic phenomenon occurs as a result of selecting the wrong mates, miscegenation, and genetic flaws going back into the White man’s primordial times. Modern social decadence also fosters racial chaos. Evola argues that very often the “race of the body” may be perfectly pure, with the “race of the spirit” being already tainted or destroyed. This results in a cognitive clash between a distorted perception of objective reality vs. subjective reality, and which sooner or later leads to strife or civil war. 

Evola harbors no illusions about master race; he advocates racial hygiene, always emphasizing the spiritual aspect of the race first. On a practical level, regarding modern White nationalists, Evola’s words are important insofar as they represent a harsh indictment of the endless bickering, petty sectarianism and petty jealousy seen so often among Whites. A White nationalist may be endowed with a perfect race of the body, but his racial spirit may be dangerously mongrelized.  

Studying racial psychology is a crucial task for all White racialists — an endeavor in which Evola was greatly influenced by the German racial scholar and his contemporary Franz Ludwig Clauss.

Furthermore, a special circumstance must be singled out, confirming the already stated fact that races that have best biologically preserved the Nordic type are inwardly sometimes in a higher degree of regression than other races of the same family. Some Nordic nations — especially the Anglo-Saxons — are those in which the tradition-conditioned normal relationship between the sexes has been turned upside down. The so-called emancipation of woman — which in reality only means the mutilation and degradation of woman — has actually started out among these nations and has been most widespread among them, whereas this relationship still retains something of a tradition-based view among other nations, regardless of it its bourgeois or its conventional echo.(Grundrisse p. 84).

Evola is well aware of the complexity of understanding race as well as our still meager knowledge of the topic. He is well aware that race cannot be just the subject of biologists, but also of paleontologists, psycho-anthropologists and mystics, such as the French mystic René Guenon, whom he knew well and whom he often quotes.  

Following in Evola’s footsteps we may raise a haunting question. Why individuals of the same White race, i.e. of the same White in-group frequently do not understand each other? Why is it that the most murderous wars have occurred within the same race, i.e. within the same White ingroup, despite the fact that the European ingroup is more or less biologically bonded together by mutual blood ties?  One must always keep in mind that the bloodiest wars in the 20th century occurred not between two racially opposed out-groups, but often within the same White ingroup. The level of violence between Whites and Whites during the American civil war, the savagery of the intra-White civil war in Spain from 1936 to 1939,  the degree of mutual hatred amidst White Europeans during WWII, and not least the recent intra-White barbarity of the Yugoslav conflict, are often incomprehensible for a member of the non-European outgroup. This remains an issue that needs to be urgently addressed by all sociobiologists. It must be pondered by all White nationalist activists all over the world.

There are actually too many cases of people who are somatically of the same race, of the same tribe, indeed who are fathers and sons of the same blood in the strict sense of the word and, yet who cannot “understand” each other. A demarcation line separates their souls; their way of feeling and judging is different and their common race of the body cannot do much about it, nor their common blood.  The impossibility of mutual understanding lies therefore on the level of supra-biology (“überbiologische Ebene”). Mutual understanding and hence real togetherness, as well as deeper unity, are only possible where the common "race of the soul" and the "spirit" coexist. (Grundrisse, 89) 

In order to understand his political and moral predicament, the White man must therefore delve into myths of his prehistory and look for his faults. For Evola, we are all victims of rationalism, Enlightenment and positivistic sciences that keep us imprisoned in a straitjacket of “either-or,” always in search for causal and rational explanations. Only by grasping the supraracial (superraza) meaning of ancient European myths and by using them as role models, can we come to terms with the contemporary racial chaos of the modern system.  

It is absolutely crucial to grasp the living significance of such a change of perspectives inherent to racist conceptions; the superior does not derive from the inferior. In the mystery of our blood, in the depth of our most abysmal of our being, resides the ineffaceable heredity of our primordial times. This is not heredity of brutality of bestial and savage instincts gone astray, as argued by psychoanalysis, and which, as one may logically conclude, derive from “evolutionism” or Darwinism. This heredity of origins, this heredity which comes from the deepest depth of times is theheredity of the light. (Eléments  72–73) 

Briefly, Evola rejects the widespread idea that we have evolved from exotic African monkeys, as the standard theory of evolution goes, and which is still widely accepted by modern scientists. He believes that we have now become the tainted progeny of the mythical Hyperborean race, which has significantly racially deteriorated over the eons and which has been adrift both in time and space. Amidst the ruins of the modern world, gripped by perversion and decadence, Evola suggest for new political elites the two crucial criteria, “the character and the form of the spirit, much more than intelligence.” As a racial mystic, Evola warns:

Because the concept of the world can be much more precise with a man without instruction than with a writer; it can be more solid with a soldier, or a peasant loyal to his land, than with a bourgeois intellectual, professor, or a journalist. (quoted in Alain de Benoist’s, Vude droite, 1977, p. 435)

We could only add that the best cultural weapons for our White “super-race” are our common  Indo-Aryan myths, our sagas, our will to power — and our inexorable sense of the tragic. 

Tom Sunic (http://www.tomsunic.info; http://doctorsunic.netfirms.com) is author, translator, former US professor in political science and a member of the Board of Directors of the American Third Position. His new book, Postmortem Report: Cultural Examinations from Postmodernity, prefaced by Kevin MacDonald, has just been released. Email him 

Permanent link: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Sunic-Evola....

mercredi, 09 septembre 2009

La lecture évolienne des thèses de H. F. K. Günther





Robert Steuckers:

La lecture évolienne des thèses de H.F.K. Günther:


Hans Friedrich Karl Günther (1891-1968), célèbre pour avoir publié, à partir de juillet 1922 et jusqu'en 1942, une Rassenkunde des deutschen Volkes  (= Raciologie du peuple allemand), qui atteindra, toutes éditions confondues, 124.000 exemplaires. Une édition abrégée, intitulée Kleine Rassenkunde des deutschen Volkes  (= Petite raciologie du peuple allemand), atteindra 295.000 exemplaires. Ces deux ouvrages vulgarisaient les théories raciales de l'époque, notamment les classifications des phénotypes raciaux que l'on trouvait  —et que l'on trouve toujours—   en Europe centrale. Plus tard, Günther s'intéressera à la religiosité des Indo-Européens, qu'il qualifiera de «pantragique» et de «réservée», qu'il définira comme dépourvue d'enthousiasme extatique (cf. H.F.K. Günther, Religiosité indo-européenne,  Pardès, 1987; trad. franç. et préface de R. Steuckers; présentation de Julius Evola). Günther, comme nous l'avons mentionné ci-dessous, publiera un livre sur le déclin des sociétés hellénique et romaine, de même qu'une étude sur les impacts indo-européens/nordiques (les deux termes sont souvent synonymes chez Günther) en Asie centrale, en Iran, en Afghanistan et en Inde, incluant notamment des références aux dimensions pantragiques du bouddhisme des origines. Intérêt qui le rapproche d'Evola, auteur d'un ouvrage de référence capital sur le bouddhisme, La Doctrine de l'Eveil  (cf. H.F.K. Günther, Die Nordische Rasse bei den Indogermanen Asiens, Hohe Warte, Pähl Obb., 1982; préface de Jürgen Spanuth). Pour Günther, les Celtes d'Irlande véhiculent des idéaux matriarcaux, contraires à l'«esprit nordique»; en évoquant ces idéaux, il fait preuve d'une sévérité semblable à celle d'Evola. Mais, pour Günther, cette dominante matriarcale chez les Celtes, notamment en Irlande et en Gaule, vient de la disparition progressive de la caste dominante de souche nordique, porteuse de l'esprit patriarcal. Dans sa Rassenkunde des deutschen Volkes  (pp. 310-313), Günther formule sa critique du matriarcat celtique: «Les mutations d'ordre racial à l'intérieur des peuples celtiques s'aperçoivent très distinctement dans l'Irlande du début du Moyen Age. Dans la saga irlandaise, dans le style ornemental de l'écriture et des images, nous observons un équilibre entre les veines nordiques et occidentales (westisch); dans certains domaines, cet équilibre rappelle l'équilibre westique/nordique de l'ère mycénienne. Il faut donc tenir pour acquis qu'en Irlande et dans le Sud-Ouest de l'Angleterre, la caste dominante nordique/celtique n'a pas été numériquement forte et a rapidement disparu. Le type d'esprit que reflète le peuple irlandais  —et qui s'aperçoit dans les sagas irlandaises—  est très nettement déterminé par le subsrat racial westique. Heusler a suggéré une comparaison entre la saga germanique d'Islande (produite par des éléments de race nordique) et la saga d'Irlande, influencée par le substrat racial westique. Face à la saga islandaise, que Heusler décrit comme étant "fidèle à la vie et à l'histoire du temps, très réaliste et austère", caractérisée par un style narratif viril et sûr de soi, la saga irlandaise apparaît, dans son "âme" (Seele), comme "démesurée et hyperbolique"; la saga irlandaise "conduit le discours dans le pathétique ou l'hymnique"; plus loin, Heusler remarque que "l'apparence extérieure de la personne est habituellement décrite par une abondance de mots qui suggère une certaine volupté". Heusler poursuit: "La saga irlandaise aime évoquer des faits relatifs au corps (notamment en cas de blessure), en basculant souvent dans la crudité, le médical, de façon telle que cela apparaît peu ragoûtant quand on s'en tient aux critères du goût germanique" (...). La saga chez les Irlandais nous dévoile, par opposition à l'objectivité factuelle et à la retenue de la saga islandaise, une puissance imaginative débridée, un goût pour les idées folles et des descriptions exagérées, qui, souvent, sonnent "oriental"; on croit reconnaître, dans les textes de ces sagas, un type de spiritualité dont la coloration, si l'on peut dire, vire au jaune et au rouge et non plus au vert et au bleu nordiques; ce type de spiritualité présente un degré de chaleur bien supérieur à celui dont fait montre la race nordique. Nous devons donc admettre que la race westique, auparavant dominée et soumise, est revenue au pouvoir, après la disparition des éléments raciaux nordiques momentanément dominants (...). A la dénordicisation (Entnordung), dont la conséquence a été une re-westicisation (Verwestung) de l'ancienne celticité (nordique), correspond le retour de mœurs radicalement non nordiques dans le texte des sagas irlandaises. Ce retour montre, notamment, que la race westique, à l'origine, devait être régie par le matriarcat, système qui lui est spécifique. Les mœurs matriarcales impliquent que les enfants appartiennent seulement à leur mère et que le père, en coutume et en droit, n'a aucune place comparable à celle qu'il occupe dans les sociétés régies par l'esprit nordique. La femme peut se lier à l'homme qu'elle choisit puis se séparer de lui; dans le matriarcat, il n'existait pas et n'existe pas de mariage du type que connaissent les Européens d'aujourd'hui. Seul existe un sentiment d'appartenance entre les enfants nés d'une même mère. La race nordique est patriarcale, la race westique est matriarcale. La saga irlandaise nous montre que les Celtes d'Irlande, aux débuts de l'ère médiévale, n'étaient plus que des locuteurs de langues celtiques (Zimmer), puisque dans les régions celtophones des Iles Britanniques, le matriarcat avait repoussé le patriarcat, propre des véritables Celtes de race nordique, disparus au fil des temps. Nous devons en conséquence admettre que, dans son ensemble, la race westique avait pour spécificité le matriarcat (...). Le matriarcat ne connaît pas la notion de père. La famille, si toutefois l'on peut appeler telle cette forme de socialité, est constituée par la mère et ses enfants, quel que soit le père dont ils sont issus. Ces enfants n'héritent pas d'un père, mais de leur mère ou du frère de leur mère ou d'un oncle maternel. La femme s'unit à un homme, dont elle a un ou plusieurs enfants; cette union dure plus ou moins longtemps, mais ne prend jamais des formes que connaît le mariage européen actuel, qui, lui, est un ordre, où l'homme, de droit, possède la puissance matrimoniale et paternelle. "Ces états de choses sont radicalement différents de ce que nous trouvons chez les Indo-Européens, qui, tout au début de leur histoire, ont connu la famille patrilinéaire, comme le prouve leur vocabulaire ayant trait à la parenté...". Le patriarcat postule une position de puissance claire pour l'homme en tant qu'époux et que père; ce patriarcat est présent chez tous les peuples de race nordique. Le matriarcat correspond très souvent à un grand débridement des mœurs sexuelles, du moins selon le sentiment nordique. La saga irlandaise décrit le débridement et l'impudeur surtout du sexe féminin. (...) Zimmer avance toute une série d'exemples, tendant à prouver qu'au sein des populations celtophones de souche westique dans les Iles Britanniques, on rencontrait une conception des mœurs sexuelles qui devait horrifier les ressortissants de la race nordique. La race westique a déjà d'emblée une sexualité plus accentuée, moins réservée; les structures matriarcales ont vraisemblablement contribué à  dévoiler cette sexualité et à lui ôter tous freins. La confrontation entre mœurs nordiques et westiques a eu lieu récemment en Irlande, au moment de la pénétration des tribus anglo-saxonnes de race nordique; les mœurs irlandaises ont dû apparaître à ces ressortissants de la race nordique comme une abominable lubricité, comme une horreur qui méritait l'éradication. Chaque race a ses mœurs spécifiques; le patriarcat caractérise la race nordique. Il faut donc réfuter le point de vue qui veut que toutes les variantes des mœurs européennes ont connu un développement partant d'un stade originel matriarcal pour aboutir à un stade patriarcal ultérieur».

Comme Evola, mais contrairement à Klages, Schuler ou Wirth, Günther a un préjugé dévaforable à l'endroit du matriarcat. Pour Evola et Günther, le patriarcat est facteur d'ordre, de stabilité. Les deux auteurs réfutent également l'idée d'une évolution du matriarcat originel au patriarcat. Patriarcat et matriarcat représentent deux psychologies immuables, présentes depuis l'aube des temps, et en conflit permanent l'une avec l'autre.

Dans Il mito del sangue,  Evola résume la classification des races européennes selon Günther et évoque tant leurs caractéristiques physiques que psychiques. En conclusion de son panorama, Evola écrit (pp. 130-131): «Du point de vue de la théorie de la race en général, Günther assume totalement l'idée de la persistence et de l'autonomie des caractères raciaux, idée plus ou moins dérivée du mendelisme. Les "races mélangées" n'existent pas pour lui. Il exclut en conséquence que du croisement de deux ou de plusieurs races naisse une race effectivement nouvelle. Le produit du croisement sera simplement un composite, dans lequel se sera conservée l'hérédité des races qui l'auront composé, à l'état plus ou moins dominant ou dominé, mais jamais porté au-delà des limites de variabilité inhérentes aux types d'origine. "Quand les races se sont entrecroisées de nombreuses fois, au point de ne plus laisser subsister aucun type pur ni de l'une race ni de l'autre, nous n'obtenons pas, même après un long laps de temps, une race mêlée. Dans un tel cas, nous avons un peuple qui présente une compénétration confuse de toutes les caractéristiques: dans un même homme, nous retrouvons la stature propre à une race particulière, unie à une forme crânienne propre à une autre race, avec la couleur de la peau d'une troisième race et la couleur des yeux d'une quatrième", et ainsi de suite, la même règle s'étendant aussi aux caractéristiques psychiques. Le croisement peut donc créer de nouvelles combinaisons, sans que l'ancienne hérédité ne disparaisse. Tout au plus, il peut se produire une sélection et une élimination: des circonstances spéciales pourraient  —au sein même de la race composite—  faciliter la présence et la prédominance d'un certain groupe de caractéristiques et en étouffer d'autres, tant et si bien que, finalement, de telles circonstances perdurent; il se maintient alors une combinaison spéciale relativement stable, laquelle peut faire naître l'impression d'un type nouveau. Sinon, si ces circonstances s'estompent, les autres caractéristiques, celles qui ont été étouffées, réémergent; le type apparemment nouveau se décompose et, alors, se manifestent les caractères de toutes les races qui ont donné lieu au mélange. En tous cas, toute race possède en propre un idéal bien déterminé de beauté, qui finit par être altéré par le mélange, comme sont altérés les principes éthiques qui correspondent à chaque sang. C'est sur de telles bases que Günther considère comme absurde l'idée que, par le truchement d'un mélange généralisé, on pourrait réussir, en Europe, à créer une seule et unique race européenne. A rebours de cette idée, Günther estime qu'il est impossible d'arriver à unifier racialement le peuple allemand. "La majeure partie des Allemands", dit-il, "sont non seulement issus de géniteurs de races diverses mais pures, mais sont aussi les résultats du mélange d'éléments déjà mélangés". D'un tel mélange, rien de créatif ne peut surgir».      

C'est ce qui permet à Evola de dire que Günther développe, d'une certaine façon, une conception non raciste de la race. La dimension psychique, puis éthique, finit par être déterminante. Est de «bonne race», l'homme qui incarne de manière toute naturelle les principes de domination de soi. Après avoir été sévère à l'égard du bouddhisme dans Die Nordische Rasse bei den Indogermanen Asiens  (op. cit., pp. 52-59), parce qu'il voyait en lui une négation de la vie, survenu à un moment où l'âme nordique des conquérants aryas établis dans le nord du sub-continent indien accusait une certaine fatigue, Günther fait l'éloge du self-control   bouddhique, dans Religiosité indo-europénne  (op. cit.). Evola en parle dans Il mito del sangue  (p. 176-177): «Intéressante et typique est l'interprétation que donne Günther du bouddhisme. Le terme yoga, qui, en sanskrit, désigne la discipline spirituelle, est "lié au latin jugum et a, chez les Anglo-Saxons la valeur de self-control; il est apparu chez les Hellènes comme enkrateia et sophrosyne et, dans le stoïcisme, comme apatheia; chez les Romains, comme la vertu purement romaine de temperentia et de disciplina, qui se reconnaît encore dans la maxime tardive du stoïcisme romain: nihil admirari. La même valeur réapparaît ultérieurement dans la chevalerie médiévale comme mesura et en langue allemande comme diu mâsze; des héros légendaires de l'Espagne, décrits comme types nordiques, du blond Cid Campeador, on dit qu'il apparaissait comme "mesuré" (tan mesurado). Le trait nordique de l'auto-discipline, de la retenue et de la froide modération se transforme, se falsifie, à des époques plus récentes, chez les peuples indo-germaniques déjà dénordicisés, ce qui donne lieu à la pratique de la mortification des sens et de l'ascèse". L'Indo-Germain antique affirme la vie. Au concept de yoga, propre de l'Inde ancienne, dérivé de ce style tout de retenue et d'auto-discipline, propre de la race nordique, s'associe le concept d'ascèse, sous l'influence de formes pré-aryennes. Cette ascèse repose sur l'idée que par le biais d'exercices et de pratiques variées, notamment corporelles, on peut se libérer du monde et potentialiser sa volonté de manière surnaturelle. La transformation la plus notable, dans ce sens, s'est précisément opérée dans le bouddhisme, où l'impétuosité vitale nordique originelle est placée dans un milieu inadéquat, lequel, par conséquent, est ressenti comme un milieu de "douleur"; cette impétuosité, pour ainsi dire, s'introvertit, se fait instrument d'évasion et de libération de la vie, de la douleur. "A partir de la diffusion du bouddhisme, l'Etat des descendants des Arî n'a plus cessé de perdre son pouvoir. A partir de la dynastie Nanda et Mauria, c'est-à-dire au IVième siècle avant JC, apparaissent des dominateurs issus des castes inférieures; la vie éthique est alors altérée; l'élément sensualiste se développe. Pour l'Inde aryenne ou nordique, on peut donc calculer un millénaire de vie, allant plus ou moins de 1400 à 400 av. JC».  Evola reproche à Günther de ne pas comprendre la valeur de l'ascèse bouddhique. Son interprétation du bouddhisme, comme affadissement d'un tonus nordique originel, a, dit Evola, des connotations naturalistes.    


jeudi, 26 février 2009

Indogermanische Stämme in Afghanistan



Indogermanische Stämme in Afghanistan

Hans Friedrich Karl Günther

Zwischen den beiden indoiranischen Hauptgruppen, den Indern und den Persern, vermitteln nach ihren Siedlungsgebieten heute zwei Völker indogermanischer Sprache, die Belutschen und die Afghanen, die Belutschen unter britisch-indischer Herrschaft, die Afghanen als Herren eines eigenen Staatswesens.

In Belutschistan findet sich kaum noch eine Spur desjenigen nordischen Einschlags, den man bei den Überbringern der Sprache wie bei allen Indogermanen annehmen muß. Diese Sprache, das Belutschi, ist eine westiranische Mundart und soll in manchen Zügen altertümliche Eigenheiten bewahrt haben. Mitten in Belutschistan wird aber auch noch eine Drawidasprache gesprochen, das Brahui, und eben bei dem Brahuistamme ist auch ein deutlicher negrider Einschlag vom Schlage der Indo-Melaniden zu erkennen. Die Belutschen und die Brahui heiraten einander häufig, so daß die Kreuzung dieser beiden Menschenschläge schon weit vorgeschritten ist.

Am meisten verbreitet unter den Belutschen und in den angrenzenden indischen Gebieten ist ein rassegemischter Schlag, den Rapson geschildert hat: über mittelgroß, von verhältnismäßig heller Hautfarbe, breitköpfig, mit einer langen, ausgebogenen und ziemlich schmalen Nase, mit meist dunklen, selten grauen Augen, mit starker Körperbehaarung. Nach Schindler kommt unter den Belutschen auf etwa 200 Menschen ein Blonder. Nach dem Dictionaire des Sciences Anthropologiques, S. 135, finden sich unter den Belutschen vereinzelt Hellhäutige, Hellhaarige, Grauäuggige und Blauäugige.

Somit ist auch bei diesen Indogermanen der nordische Einschlag noch nicht ganz geschwunden, obschon gerade das Klima Belutschistans der Erhaltung nordischer Erbanlagen durchaus ungünstig ist.

Die Afghanen oder Paschtun sprechen eine indoiranische Sprache, die zu den ostiranischen Mundarten gehört. Ihre Sprache Paschtu (englisch Pushtu) genannt, ist nicht vom Altpersischen abzuleiten, stellt vielmehr eine selbständige Fortbildung des Altiranischen dar. Sie ist durch ein eigenes Schrifttum seit dem 16. Jahrhundert bekannt und wird heute von etwa 1,5 Millionen Menschen gesprochen.

Die Afghanen bilden als Ostiraner diejenige iranische Gruppe, die ursprünglich den Indern am nächsten stand. Die frühere Geschichte der Afghanen ist kaum noch erhellt. Unter den Eigennamen früherer Afghanengeschlechter finden sich solche hinduisch-indischer, solche iranischer und parthisch-iranischer Herkunft, so daß man im Afghanentum auch schon einzelne Bestandteile altiranischer und altindischer Herkunft vermutet hat.

Im 11. Jahrhundert scheinen die Afghanen noch im Suleimangebirge westlich vom mittleren Indus gewohnt zu haben, von wo aus sie dann in nördlicher und westlicher Richtung in das heutige Afghanistan einwanderten. Damit ließen sich die Schilderungen vereinen, welche die Ähnlichkeit vieler Afghanen mit Pandschabindern hervorheben.

In dem Dictionaire des Sciences Anthropologiques sind die leiblichen Merkmale der Afghanen (unter “Asie”, S. 135) nach Reane angegeben: der Längen-Breiten-Index des Kopfes beträgt 79, das Gesicht ist durchschnittlich schmal, das Haar und die Augen sind meist dunkel; doch sind helle Haare und Augen unter den Afghanen nicht selten und kommen häufiger besonders unter den Gebirgsstämmen im Suleimangebirge vor. Es wäre also möglich, daß ein heller Einschlag sich in den gebirgigen Ursitzen des Volkes deutlicher erhalten hätte.


Zu den Afghanen gehören die Afridi, die auf britisch-indischem Gebiet zwischen Afghanistan und Nordwestindien wohnen, in den abgelegenen Gebirgstälern westlich und südwestlich von Petschaur (Peshwar) in der Nähe des Khaiberpasses. Bis 1879 haben sie als ein kriegerischer und seinen Nachbarn gefährlicher Stamm den Khaiber- und den Kohatpaß beherrscht. Die Afridi halten sich nicht für Afghanen oder wollen nicht dafür gehalten werden.

Die Afghanenstämme bestehen aus kriegerischen Hirten, geübten Reitern, die als Herrenbevölkerung die übrige Bevölkerung Afghanistans beherrschen. Trotz dem herrschendem Islam ist die Stellung der afghanischen Frau - eine Nachwirkung indogermanischer Sitte - freier als bei den Nachbarvölkern. Unter der afghanischen Herrenschicht, die nur etwa die Hälfte der Bevölkerung ausmacht, sitzen als Ackerbauern, Handwerker, und Kaufleute Tadschiken, die ebenfalls iranische Mundarten sprechen, und deren rassische Eigenart später zu behandeln sein wird. Daneben leben als Wanderhirten in Afghanistan einige türkische Stämme wie die Turkmenen und Kyzylbasch. Ihrem Glauben nach sind die Afghanen Moslem, und zwar sunnitische; zwischen sunnitischen Afghanen und schiitischen Persern besteht ein überlieferter Glaubenshaß.

Die Afghanen werden als ritterlich und gastfrei geschildert, als kühn und tapfer; ihre Neigung zu Mißtrauen, häufig bei Vorschützen einer gewissen Offenherzigkeit, wird betont, ebenso ihre Habsucht.

Elphistone (Englische Gesandtschaft am Hofe von Kabul, 1808) führt als Vorzüge der Afghanen an: Freiheitsliebe, Offenheit, Männlichkeit, Tapferkeit, Mäßigkeit, Fleiß, verständiges Wesen und Güte gegen Untergebene; in ihrem Auftreten seien die Afghanen lange nicht so lebhaft wie die Perser. Als Mängel der Afghanen vermerkt er: Rachsucht, Neid, Geiz, Raubsucht und Hartnäckigkeit. Mit einer Zusammensetzung des Afghanentums aus orientalischer, vorderasiatischer und nordischer Rasse, einer Zusammensetzung, wie sie die verschiedenen rassekundlichen Zeugnisse vermuten lassen, würde sich im ganzen gerade das Bild seelischer Züge vereinen lassen, das sich aus Elphistones Bericht ergibt.

Über leibliche Merkmale vermerkt Elphinstone, daß Kopf- und Barthaare der Afghanen meist schwarz seien, bisweilen braun, selten rot; Hellhäutige von der Helligkeit der Europäer finde man häufiger im Westen, Dunkle von der Dunkelhäutigkeit der Hindus mehr im Osten; und eben im Westen träten die oben geschilderten Vorzüge der Afghanen besonders hervor, diese “Vorzüge”, die sich ja, wenigstens zum Teil, durch Züge der nordischen Rassenseele erklären lassen. “Ich kenne kein Volk in Asien, das weniger Fehler hat” urteilt Lord Elphinstone (nach seinen abendländischen Sittlichkeitsbegriffen) und setzt hinzu, daß dies besonders für die helleren Afghanen im Westen zutreffe.

Prichard, Naturgeschichte des Menschengeschlechtes, Bd. III, 2, 1845, S89/90, führt einen Bericht Frasers an über dessen Forschungsreise in die Gebirgsländer am Mittellauf des Satledsch (englisch Sutlej), der in den Indus mündet. Dabei wurde Fraser von 80 bis 100 Afghanen (Pathans) begleitet, deren Anblick er beschreibt: “Sie sahen sehr kriegerisch aus und achtungsgebietend. Viele von ihnen hatten rotes Haar, blaue Augen und eine rosighelle Hautfarbe.”

Bei den östlichen Afghanen, die am Fuße des Suleimangebirges im Bezirke Bannu, wo der Kurum in den Indus mündet, ansässig sind, d. h. also auf britisch-indischem Gebiete, gelten helle Augen als häßlich. Wer häßlich sein soll, dem gibt Gott grüne Augen”, heißt es dort im Sprichwort. Graugrünliche Augen sollen aber unter diesen Afghanen nicht selten sein. (Gerland, Bannu und die Afghanen, Globus, Bd. 31, 1877 S. 332).


Siedl, Unsere Feinde, 1916, S. 32, schildert Afghanen, die im Weltkriege in deutsche Gefangenschaft geraten waren, also wahrscheinlich ausgelesen kriegerische Vertreter ihres Volkes. Er hebt ihren offenen, treuen Augenausdruck hervor und findet, daß die meisten “ebensogut auf einem Bauernhofe Norddeutschlands geboren sein könnten wie in der Hütten ihrer Hochgebirgsheimat”.

In der norwegischen Zeitung Tidens Tegn vom 9. Mai 1925 hat der norwegische Sprachforscher Morgenstierne seine Eindrücke aus Afghanistan mitgeteilt (Folk og Sprog i Afghanistan): “Oft findet man blonde nordische Gestalten; sie sitzen im Gegensatz zu anderen Morgenländern auf Stühlen.” - Die Sitte des Sitzens an Stelle eines Sichlagerns oder Niederkauerns is ja nach Südeuropa und Vorderasien durch Indogermanen verbreitet worden; das Liegen beim Mahle der Hellenen und Römern ist von diesen erst später als eine Sitte der indogermanisierten Unterschichten und des Morgenlandes übernommen worden; vgl. Malachowski, Über das Sitzen bei den alten Völkern, Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, Bd. 51, 1919, S. 22/23.

Herbordt, Eine Reise nach “Där-i-Nur” im Nordosten Afghanistans, Petermanns Mitteilungen, Bd. 72, 1926, S. 207, beschreibt die Bewohner eines Afghanendorfes Sarrur in Nuristan, Nordwestafghanistan, 2500 m über dem Meere, als meist rotblonde, große Menschen mit weißlicher Haut”.

Dieser “europäische” Einschlag im Afghanentum wird auch von Afghanen selbst empfunden, wenn sie sich mit Europäern zusammen Turkbevölkerungen Innerasiens gegenübersehen. Im Pamir sagte ein Afghane zu dem französischen Forschungsreisenden Capus: “Salam aleikum brader” (brader = Bruder), als sie einander unter Kirgisen begegneten. Capus schildert die Würde und geistige Überlegenheit dieses Afghanen, demgegenüber er gleich empfunden habe: “Das ist der Europäer” (C’est l’Europeen); vgl. Zaborowski, Les Peuples Aryens d’Asie et d’Europe, 1908, S 81).

Die Afghanen haben den indogermanischen Geschlechterstaat, den über Großfamilien, Geschlechtern und Geschlechterverbänden aufgebauten Staat, in wesentlichen Grundzügen bewahrt, den “Staat”, wenn man dies so nennen darf, aus der Zeit der indogermanischen Wanderungen, wie ihn ein frühes Inder- und Persertum, frühes hellenen- und Italikertum, Kelten und Germanentum zeigen, wie ihn Homer oder die “Germania” des Tacitus erkennen lassen. Die Bewahrung der Stämme als Geschlechterverbände indogermanischer Art hat in der Geschichte des Afghanentums viel Blut, und zwar gerade altiranisch-afghanisches Blut gekostet, weil diese Geschlechterverbände untereinander diejenigen Fehden führten, die für die Frühzeiten und Mittelalter aller Völker indogermanischer Sprache kennzeichnend sind. Bis ins 19. Jahrhundert hinein sind diese Fehden der afghanischen Geschlechter sehr blutig verlaufen. Diese Unabhängigkeit der einzelstämme bildete aber - ebenfalls kennzeichnend frühgeschichtlich-indogermanischer Weise - den Stolz des älteren Afghanentums. Elphinstone, der Afghanen über diese Fehden und das Fehlen einer Übergeordneten Königsmacht befrug, erhielt zur Antwort: “Wir sind zufrieden mit Zwietracht, Blut und Unruhe; aber niemals mit einem Oberherren.” So hätten im fränkischen Frankreich des frühen Mittelalters noch die Barone germanischer Herkunft antworten können.

Die Afghanen würden ein Beispiel einer solchen indogermanischen Herrenschicht abgeben, wie man sich zu Jakob Grimms Zeiten und wie einige sich heute wieder die Indogermanen vorstellen möchten: nämlich als Hirtenkrieger, die sich zu Herren von hackbau- oder ackerbautreibenden Bevölkerungen aufwerfen und bei mittelalterlichen Zuständen für das so aus Rassenüberschichtung entstandene Volk einen Schwertadel, ein “Nur-Kriegertum, bilden, jedenfalls aber eine im Boden nicht verwurzelte, freizügige Oberschicht unruhig herrentümlichen Wesens - die Afghanen würden ein solches Beispiel abgeben, wenn ihr Hirten-Kriegertum etwas ursprüngliches wäre. Dieses Hirtenkriegertum - wenn man die Eigenart des afghanischen Herrenstandes überhaupt so richtig bezeichnet - kann aber nicht ursprünglich sein, da gerade auch die iranische Gruppe der Indogermanen in ihren Anfängen die kennzeichnenden Züge indogermanischen Bauernkriegertums zeigt, wie es besonders erhaben sich im persischen Mazdaismus ausgedrückt hat. Die Lockerung des Afghanentums zu einem dem Boden nicht mehr verbundenen Herrenstande muß in besonderen Verhältnissen des afghanischen Wohngebietes und der Geschichte der afghanischen Stämme gesucht werden. Leider hat sich diese Geschichte bisher nicht mehr als nur dürftig erhellen lassen.

Sind die Ursitze der Afghanenstämme wirklich im Suleimangebirge zu suchen, so ließe sich diese Entbäuerlichung der Afghanen wohl erklären: dieses Gebirge besitzt nur in seinen Tälern einige fruchtbare Anbaugebiete.

* * *

[Gereuth, September 1933]

Hans Friedrich Karl Günther

mardi, 23 décembre 2008

L. F. Clauss: "L'âme des races"

L'âme des races - L.F. Clauss

Né le 8 février 1892 à Offenburg dans la région du Taunus, l'anthropologue Ludwig Ferdinand Clauss est rapidement devenu l'un des raciologues et islamologues les plus réputés de l'entre-deux-guerre, cumulant dans son oeuvre une approche spirituelle et caractérielle des diverses composantes raciales de la population européenne, d'une part, et une étude approfondie de la psyché bédouine, après de longs séjours au sein des tribus de la Transjordanie. L'originalité de sa méthode d'investigation raciologique a été de renoncer à tous les zoologismes des théories raciales conventionnelles, nés dans la foulée du darwinisme. Clauss renonce aux comparaisons trop faciles entre l'homme et l'animal et focalise ses recherches sur les expressions du visage et du corps qui sont spécifiquement humaines ainsi que sur l'âme et le caractère.

Sous le IIIème Reich, Clauss a tenté de faire passer sa méthodologie et sa théorie des carcatères dans les instances officielles. En vain. Les autorités israéliennes ont fait planter un arbre en son honneur à Yad Vashem en 1979. Car sa fidélité qui le liait à son pays et son travail au Département VI C 13 du RSHA (Reichssicherheitshauptamt), en tant que spécialiste du Moyen-Orient n'a toutefois pas empêché l'amitié qui liait Clauss à sa secrétaire Margarete Landé (d'origine juive) qu'il sauva des camps de concentration.


Chaque fois qu’une nouveauté surgit dans l'histoire, les clameurs ne se font pas attendre. Ce que la recherche allemande en racio-psychologie a dû affronter, un certain temps en Allemagne même, fut en réalité le lot de toute la raciologie allemande de la part du reste du monde. Les reproches les plus inouïs lui furent adressés. La plupart étaient d'ailleurs si niais que le temps en fit rapidement litière. Peu à peu cependant, les armes dirigées contre nous s'affinèrent. Mais, toujours, la question des valeurs fut au centre de l'argumentaire qui devait nous abattre. On nous accusa de tenir la race nordique pour la seule valable, toutes les autres étant supposées l'être moins... Là où cet « argument » fut cru, il nous fit d'autant plus de mal que l'épithète « nordique », à l'origine de tant de méprises chez le profane, se prête à toutes sortes de manipulations gratuites, allant de la malhonnêteté à la bêtise.

Le Vatican, hélas, joignit sa voix aux vociférations contre les acquis de la raciologie. Il nous attaqua en particulier, avec les arguments habituels, dans un article de l'Osservatore Romano du 30 avril 1938. Comme mes livres furent également la cible de ces attaques, il est de mon devoir, me semble-t-il, de mettre ici les choses au point en quelques lignes, tout au moins en ce qui me concerne. Même si ces propos anticipent sur le contenu de l'ouvrage qu'ils sont censés préfacer.

Il y a trois erreurs par lesquelles ces attaques essaient de nous brouiller avec nos voisins. La première consiste à donner l'impression que la raciologie allemande attribuerait à chaque race, comme le maître à ses élèves, un rang déterminé. Selon cette erreur, elle assignerait ainsi une place à chaque race, la première revenant à la race nordique. Ce qui impliquerait que la race méditerranéenne, par exemple, dût se contenter de la seconde, ou d'une place inférieure encore.

Rien n'est plus faux. Certes, des livres et des brochures, parus en Allemagne et à l'étranger, ont affirmé cela. Mais la racio-psychologie, dont la seule mission, en fin de compte, est de déterminer les valeurs liées à l'âme de telle ou telle race, nous enseigne d'emblée, très explicitement, que chaque race représente en elle-même et pour elle-même la valeur suprême. Chaque race porte son ordre et ses critères de valeurs. Elle ne peut être appréciée au moyen des critères d'une autre race. Il est donc absurde et de surcroît anti-scientifique de voir, par exemple, la race méditerranéenne avec les yeux de la race nordique et de porter sur elle un jugement de valeur selon des critères nordiques - et l'inverse est tout aussi vrai. Bien sûr, de telles bévues se produisent sans cesse dans la vie quotidienne, et c'est inévitable. Mais pour la science, c'est là un manquement à la logique la plus élémentaire.

Pour juger « objectivement » de la valeur d'une race humaine, il faudrait être au-dessus de toutes les races ! Chose impossible car être homme, c'est être déterminé par des caractères raciaux.

Dieu, peut-être, a-t-il son échelle de valeurs. Pas nous.

La science a donc pour mission de trouver la loi qui gouverne la constitution physique et mentale de chaque race. Cette loi particulière renferme également le système de valeurs spécifique, inhérent à cette race. On peut comparer ces systèmes de valeurs : l'échelle de valeurs spécifique à la race nordique, par exemple, peut être comparée à celle de la race méditerranéenne.

Ces comparaisons sont même instructives car toute chose, dans le monde où nous vivons, ne dévoile sa nature que si elle se distingue d'une autre, différente. Mais ces ordres de valeurs ne peuvent être jugés « en soi », à partir d'une axiologie « surplombante » puisqu'une telle axiologie, à notre connaissance, n'existe pas.

Que le Nordique soit nordique et le Méditerranéen méditerranéen ! Car ce n'est que si l'un et l'autre reste lui-même qu'il sera « bon », chacun à sa façon ! C'est la conviction de la racio-psychologie allemande que j'ai l'honneur de représenter, et cette conviction, la politique raciale allemande l'a reprise à son compte : le Bureau de la politique raciale du NSDAP a ainsi fait imprimer et distribuer dans les écoles des planches illustrées où l'on peut lire en gros caractères :


La deuxième illusion que l'Osservatore Romano voudrait propager est la suivante : pour la science allemande, une race se distinguerait d'une autre par la possession de telles qualités, telle autre race ayant telles autres qualités. La race nordique, par exemple, se signalerait par son discernement, son dynamisme, son sens des responsabilités, son caractère consciencieux, son héroïsme - les autres races étant dépourvues de toutes ces qualités. Il n'est pas niable que de nombreux traités d'anthropologie anciens, dont certains furent rédigés par des Allemands, contiennent ce genre d'affirmations bien peu psychologiques.

Cela dit, ne vaut-il pas mieux consulter un cordonnier pour ses chaussures, un marin sur la navigation et un psychologue plutôt qu'un anatomiste sur les lois de la psychologie ?

Depuis 1921, la racio-psychologie allemande nous enseigne clairement ceci : l'âme d'une race ne réside pas dans telle ou telle « qualité ». Les qualités sont affaire individuelle : untel aura telles qualités, untel telles autres. La qualité « héroïsme » se rencontre sans aucun doute chez de nombreux Nordiques, mais également chez d'autres races. Il en est de même du dynamisme, du discernement, etc... L'âme d'une race ne consiste pas à posséder telle ou telle « qualité », elle réside dans le mouvement à travers lequel cette qualité se manifeste quand elle est présente chez un individu. L'héroïsme d'un Nordique et d'un Méditerranéen peut être « égal », il n'en reste pas moins que ces deux héroïsmes ne se présentent pas de la même façon : ils opèrent de manière différente, par des mouvements différents.

Le procédé parfaitement puéril consistant à rassembler une somme de qualités relevées chez quelques représentants individuels d'une race donnée, disons de la race nordique, et à (faire) croire que c'est dans la possession de ces qualités que réside le fait racial, est à peu près aussi intelligent que de vouloir décrire l'aspect physique de la race nordique, par exemple, en disant : elle a un nez, une bouche, des bras, des mains. Sans nul doute, cette race possède tout cela, et bien d'autres choses encore. Mais toutes les races possèdent un nez, une bouche, des bras et des mains. Ce n'est donc pas là, dans la possession de telle ou telle partie du corps, qu'il faut chercher le fait racial. Ce qui, en revanche, est déterminé racialement, c'est la forme du nez, de la bouche, et la manière dont on s'en sert. Même chose pour la forme des bras, des mains, et la façon dont ils se meuvent. Que l'homme de race méditerranéenne évolue dans l'espace différemment du Nordique, qu'il marche et danse différemment, qu'il accompagne son discours de gestes différents, cela est indéniable, il suffit d'ouvrir les yeux. Quant à savoir quels mouvements du corps, quelle gestuelle, ont le plus de « valeur », ceux du Méditerranéen ou ceux du Nordique, c'est là une question vide de sens. La réponse est : tous les deux, chacun à sa manière, chacun selon son style propre.

Les mouvements du corps sont l'expression des mouvements de l'âme, comme en témoignent le jeu des muscles de la face et les gestes des bras et des mains qui ponctuent l'élocution.
Pourquoi le locuteur agite-t-il ses mains de telle façon et non pas autrement ? Parce que le rythme auquel vit son âme lui dicte cette façon-là de remuer les mains. Le style des mouvements de l'âme détermine le style des mouvements du corps, car tous deux ne font qu'un.

Un exemple simple, tiré de l'observation quotidienne, illustrera ce propos : lequel, du Nordique ou du Méditerranéen, est le plus « doué » pour conduire une automobile ? Question, ici encore, vide de sens : ce n'est pas "le" Nordique, ni "le" Méditerranéen, qui a le don de ceci ou de cela, de nombreux êtres humains, appartenant à ces deux races, sont capables de conduire une automobile. Mais les Nordiques le seront d'une certaine manière, et c'est cette manière qui les fera apparaître comme tels. De même, les Méditerranéens le seront à la manière méditerranéenne, et c'est à cela qu'on les reconnaît comme méditerranéens. Voici la différence entre ces deux styles de conduite : le conducteur méditerranéen est maître de l'instant : où qu'il se trouve, il y est dans la perfection achevée du moment présent. D'un mouvement brusque du volant, il abordera un virage à toute vitesse, évitera un obstacle et freinera avec effet immédiat. Plus l'action est folle, dangereuse, plus le jeu sera magnifique. L'automobiliste nordique ne le suit pas sur ce terrain-là : non parce qu'il est piètre conducteur, mais parce que la loi qui préside aux mouvements de son âme et de son corps lui dicte un style de conduite différent. Le Nordique ne vit pas dans ce qui est, il vit toujours dans ce qui viendra : il n'est pas le maître de l'instant, il est le maître du lointain. Il n'abordera pas un virage de façon brusquée, il décrira au contraire un vaste arc de cercle : pour lui, le virage est « beau » s'il l'a prévu et s'il l'accentue le moins possible. Le Méditerranéen affectionne la surprise, l'imprévu : par là, il s'affirme comme le maître de l'instant présent. Le Nordique, lui, essaie toujours de pressentir, de prévoir ce qui va venir, même si cela n'est pas certain. C'est pourquoi il se crée un code de la route pensé jusque dans ses ultimes éventualités - ce qui exaspère le Méditerranéen. Car pour ce dernier, supprimer l'excitation de la surprise, ce n'est pas lui simplifier la tâche !

La troisième erreur que commet l'Osservatore Romano consiste à affirmer ceci : le peuple allemand se confond avec la race nordique, le peuple italien avec la race méditerranéenne. Si ce n'est pas dit explicitement, c'est admis implicitement. Or, le peuple allemand est composé de plusieurs races, parmi lesquelles la nordique prédomine bien sûr, mais elle n'est pas exclusive : il y a du sang méditerranéen dans le peuple allemand.

D'ailleurs, le peuple italien lui-même est constitué de plusieurs races, parmi lesquelles la race méditerranéenne domine certes (du moins dans la moitié Sud de la péninsule) ; mais il y a d'autres apports dans le peuple italien, par exemple beaucoup de sang nordique. Il n'existe pas de frontière raciale rigide entre les deux peuples, ils ont au contraire de nombreux traits communs, y compris au niveau du sang. Cette parenté biologique remonte très loin dans la Rome primitive et a, depuis, été renouvelée par plusieurs apports. Au sein des deux cultures, la germanique et la latine, les lois de la nordicité coexistent avec celles de la latinité mais le résultat en est différent d'une culture à l'autre : ces deux civilisations se sont formées ensemble, au contact l'une de l'autre. La latine est plus ancienne, la germanique plus récente. Laquelle a le plus de valeur, la plus ancienne ou la plus jeune ? Là encore, le problème nous paraît mal posé.

Le piège qui consiste à faire porter le soupçon sur la politique raciale allemande pour semer la méfiance entre peuples amis ne peut aujourd'hui leurrer que les naïfs. Tous les actes de la politique internationale, ou coloniale, viennent corroborer les acquis de la racio-psychologie et confirment son utilité pratique dans les relations avec des peuples différents. Son but n'est pas de séparer les peuples, mais de les rapprocher en fondant entre les divers types humains une compréhension mutuelle éclairée par la science.

Ludwig Ferdinand Clauss, « L’âme des races ».

samedi, 26 juillet 2008

Note sur Wilhelm Stapel



Note sur Wilhelm Stapel


Né le 27 octobre 1882 à Calbe dans l'Altmark et décédé le 1 juin 1954 à Hambourg, Wilhelm Stapel était un écrivain politique, issu d'une famille de la petite classe moyenne. Après avoir achevé des études de bibliothécaire et avoir passé son "Abitur" (équivalent allemand du "bac"), il fréquente les universités de Göttingen, Munich et Berlin et obtient ses titres grâce à un travail en histoire de l'art. Au départ, vu ses orientations politiques, il semble être attiré par le libéralisme, mais un libéralisme de facture spécifique: celui que défendait en Allemagne Friedrich Naumann. Son idée du nécessaire équilibre entre "nation" et "société" le conduit à rencontrer Ferdinand Avenarius et son "Dürer-Bund" (sa "Fédération Dürer") en 1911. Un an plus tard, Stapel devient rédacteur de la revue de cette fédération, Der Kunstwart. Il a conservé cette fonction jusqu'en 1917. A la suite d'une querelle avec Avenarius, Stapel réalise un vœu ancien, celui de passer à une activité pratique; c'est ainsi qu'il prend la direction du "Hamburger Volksheim" (le "Foyer du Peuple de Hambourg"), qui se consacrait à l'éducation de jeunes issus de milieux ouvriers.


A ce moment-là de son existence, Stapel avait déjà entretenu de longs contacts avec le "Deutschnationaler Handlungsgehilfenverband" ("L'Association Nationale Allemande des Employés de Commerce"), et plus particulièrement avec sa direction, regroupée autour de M. Habermann et de Ch. Krauss, qui cherchaient un rédacteur en chef pour la nouvelle revue de leur association, Deutsches Volkstum. A l'automne 1919, Stapel quitte son emploi auprès du Volksheim et prend en mains l'édition de Deutsches Volkstum (à partir d'avril 1926, il partagera cette fonction avec A. E. Günther). Stapel transforme cette revue en un des organes de pointe de la tendance révolutionnaire-conservatrice. Il s'était détaché de ses anciennes conceptions libérales sous la pression des faits: la guerre d'abord, les événements de l'après-guerre ensuite. Comme la plupart des Jungkonservativen (Jeunes-Conservateurs), son attitude face à la nouvelle république a d'abord été assez élastique. Il était fort éloigné de l'idée de restauration, car il espérait, au début, que la révolution aurait un effet cathartique sur la nation. La révolution devait aider à organiser le futur "Etat du peuple" (Volksstaat) dans le sens d'un "socialisme allemand". Dans un premier temps, Stapel sera déçu par la rudesse des clauses du Traité de Versailles, puis par la nature incolore de la nouvelle classe politique. Cette déception le conduit à une opposition fondamentale.


Bon nombre de ses démarches conceptuelles visent, dans les années 20, à développer une critique de la démocratie "occidentale" et "formelle", qui devait être remplacée par une démocratie "nationale" et "organique". D'une manière différente des autres Jungkonservativen, Stapel a tenté, à plusieurs reprises, de proposer des esquisses systématiques appelées à fonder une telle démocratie. Au centre de ses démarches, se plaçaient l'idée d'une constitution présidentialiste, le projet d'un droit de vote différencié et hiérarchisé et d'une représentation corporative. Pendant la crise de la République de Weimar, Stapel a cru, un moment, que les "Volkskonservativen" (les "conservateurs populaires") allaient se montrer capables, notamment avec l'aide de Brüning (qui soutenait la revue Deutsches Volkstum), de réaliser ce programme. Mais, rapidement, il s'est aperçu que les Volkskonservativen n'avaient pas un ancrage suffisant dans les masses. Ce constat a ensuite amené Stapel à se rapprocher prudemment des nationaux-socialistes. Comme beaucoup de Jungkonservativen, il croyait aussi pouvoir utiliser la base du mouvement de Hitler pour concrétiser ses propres projets; même dans les premiers temps de la domination nationale-socialiste, il ne cessait d'interpréter le régime dans le sens de ses propres idées.


On trouve une explication aux illusions de Stapel surtout dans son ouvrage principal, paru en 1932 et intitulé Der christliche Staatsmann ("De l'homme d'Etat chrétien"), avec, pour sous-titre "Eine Theologie des Nationalismus" ("Une théologie du nationalisme"). Tout ce texte est marqué par une tonalité apocalyptique et est entièrement porté par un espoir de rédemption intérieure. Stapel, dans ce livre, développe la vision d'un futur "Imperium Teutonicum", appelé à remodeler le continent européen, tout en faisant valoir ses propres principes spirituels. Il y affirme que les Allemands ont une mission particulière, découlant de leur "Nomos", qui les contraint à apporter au monde un ordre nouveau. Cette conception, qui permet à l'évidence une analogie avec la revendication d'élection d'Israël, explique aussi pourquoi Stapel s'est montré hostile au judaïsme. Dans les Juifs et leur "Nomos", il percevait un adversaire métaphysique de la germanité, et, au fond, le seul adversaire digne d'être pris au sérieux. Mais Stapel n'était pas "biologisant": pendant longtemps, il n'a pas mis en doute qu'un Juif pouvait passer au "Nomos" germanique, mais, malgré cela, il a défendu dès les années 20 la ségrégation entre les deux peuples.


Le nationalisme de Stapel, et son anti-judaïsme, ont fait qu'il a cru, encore dans les années 30, que l'Etat national-socialiste allait se transformer dans le sens qu'il préconisait, celui de l'idéologie "volkskonservativ". C'est ainsi qu'il a défendu l'intégrité de Hitler et manifesté sa sympathie pour les "Chrétiens allemands". Cela lui a valu de rompre non seulement avec une bomme partie du lectorat de Deutsches Volkstum, mais aussi avec des amis de combat de longue date comme H. Asmussen, K. B. Ritter et W. Stählin. Ce n'est qu'après les pressions d'Alfred Rosenberg et du journal Das Schwarze Korps que Stapel a compris, progressivement, qu'il avait succombé à une erreur. La tentative de son ancien protégé, W. Frank, de lui procurer un poste, où il aurait pu exercer une influence, auprès de l'"Institut pour l'Histoire de la Nouvelle Allemagne " (Reichsinstitut für die Geschichte des neuen Deutschlands), a échoué, après que Stapel ait certes insisté pour que les Juifs soient séparés des Allemands, mais sans accepter pour autant qu'ils perdent leurs droits de citoyens ni qu'ils soient placés sous un statut de minorisation matérielle. Le pogrom du 9 novembre 1938 lui a appris définitivement qu'une telle option s'avérait désormais impossible. A cette époque-là, il s'était déjà retiré de toute vie publique, en partie volontairement, en partie sous la contrainte. A la fin de l'année 1938, il abandonne la publication de Deutsches Volkstum (la revue paraîtra par la suite mais sans mention d'éditeur et sous le titre de Monatsschrift für das deutsche Geistesleben, soit "Mensuel pour la vie intellectuelle allemande").


Sa position est devenue plus critique encore lors de la crise des Sudètes et au moment où s'est déclenchée la seconde guerre mondiale: il s'aperçoit, non seulement qu'il s'est trompé personnellement, mais que le système politique dans son ensemble vient d'emprunter une voie fatale, qui, dans tous les cas de figure, conduira au déclin de l'Allemagne. Par l'intermédiaire de Habermann, qui avait des relations étroites avec C. F. Goerdeler, il entre en contact en 1943 avec certains cercles de la résistance anti-hitlérienne. Beck aurait estimé que le livre de Stapel, paru en 1941 et intitulé Drei Stände ("Trois états"), était capital pour la reconstruction de l'Allemagne. Mais ce lien avec la résistance allemande n'a pas servi Stapel après la guerre, même si J. Kaiser et Th. Heuss avaient tous deux signé pour lui des attestations garantissant sa parfaite honorabilité. On a limité de manière drastique après la guerre ses possibilités de publier. Pour s'adresser à un public relativement large, il n'a pu, après 1945, qu'utiliser le "Deutsches Pfarrerblatt" ("Journal des pasteurs allemands"), qu'éditait son ami K. B. Ritter.


Son dernier livre Über das Christentum ("Sur le christianisme"), paru en 1951, constitue un bilan somme toute résigné, montrant, une fois de plus, que la pensée de Stapel était profondément marquée par la théologie et le luthérianisme.


Dr. Karlheinz WEISSMANN.


(entrée parue dans: Caspar von SCHRENCK-NOTZING (Hrsg.), Lexikon des Konservatismus, L. Stocker, Graz, 1996, ISBN 3-7020-0760-1; trad. franç.: Robert Steuckers).