Ok

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

jeudi, 10 mai 2018

Editions Bios, Colloque de Lille, 9 mars 2018 - Les interventions

lille-çmars.png

Editions Bios, Colloque de Lille, 9 mars 2018

 

Les interventions

Les éditions BIOS organisaient le vendredi 9 mars 2018  à Lille une conférence intitulée « L’Europe, une civilisation politique ? La politique pour éviter la guerre ! ».

L’équipe d’ERTV était sur place et vous propose aujourd’hui les interventions de Robert Steuckers, Tomislav Sunic, Pierre-Antoine Plaquevent et Alessandro Sansoni en vidéo.

Première partie: Intervention de Robert Steuckers

Deuxième partie: intervention de Tomislav Sunic

Troisième partie: intervention de Pierre-Antoine Plaquevent

Quatrième partie: intervention d'Alessandro Sansoni

mercredi, 07 mars 2018

Conférence Dinatoire à Lille le 9 mars 2018: L'Europe, une civilisation politique ?

bioslilleDWxxh0QXcAUT29c.jpg

Conférence Dinatoire à Lille le 9 mars 2018: L'Europe, une civilisation politique ?

La politique pour éviter la guerre !

Nous sommes à l’aube d’une nouvelle révolution et les peuples européens cherchent les incarnations politiques que de nouvelles formes pourraient prendre. 

D’un bio-conservatisme aux nécessités localistes en passant par les luttes contre tous les déracinements face aux vastes équilibres politiques des migrations à redessiner, les sujets que nous devons aborder pour ce XXIe siècle sont vitaux pour les Européens et notre persistance historique.

Ces prochaines formes politiques du XXIe siècle en sont à leurs balbutiements. De nouveaux cycles vont s’ouvrir.

Dans la première conférence du 9 Mars 2018 à Lille, nous posons la question suivante : Sommes-nous une civilisation politique ? Pour cela, nous invitons Robert Steuckershistorien et géopolitologue, qui a publié aux Editions BIOS un guide de survie culturelle pour lEurope. Robert Steuckers nous parlera de la civilisation européenne, de ses origines (souvent méconnues du grand public ou des « experts ») et développera sa pensée autour de formes nécessaires au renouveau pan-européen. 

Iurie Rosca exposera la situation d’un pays qui est le pivot stratégique des relations entre l’ouest et l’est de l’Europe. La Moldavie, véritable virgule géostratégique. Toute virgule oubliée change le sens d’une phrase. Toute nation oubliée peut changer le sens de l’Europe. La Moldavie est le point de départ d’une Europe en ré-écriture ou son point d’arrêt.


Les « résistances dites progressistes » à l’oeuvre au sein de l’Union Européenne se fondent-elles trop sur une domination des relations transatlantiques ? Tomislav Sunic décodera les ressorts d’une réorganisation des institutions de l’UE et de ses « Fake News » en proposant une grille d’analyse et de lecture des forces en présence, de leurs ambitions et des possibles axes de rupture entre lobbies et institutions. 

Enfin, le 4 mars 2018, l’Italie connaitra-t-elle une nouvelle respiration? Alessandro Sansoni analyse les résultats obtenus par les nouvelles alliances italiennes, prémisses possibles au renouveau dit démocratique en Europe lors des futures échéances européennes de 2019.

Laurent Hocq

 
Conférence Dinatoire à Lille le 9 mars 2018 : L'Europe, une civilisation politique ?
Ouverture des portes à 18h, début à 18h30
4 intervenants : Robert Steuckers, Iurie Rosca, Tomislav Sunic et Alessandro Sansoni
 
Laurent Hocq
Editeur
 
Editions BIOS 
 
Retrouvez nous sur :
 
+33 7 70 27 00 46
 

bioslogo.png

 

mardi, 13 septembre 2016

The Importance of Solzhenitsyn: Tom Sunic Interviews F. Roger Devlin

The Importance of Solzhenitsyn: Tom Sunic Interviews F. Roger Devlin

lundi, 12 septembre 2016

Julius Evola - Tom Sunic & E. Christian Kopff

Julius Evola - Tom Sunic & E. Christian Kopff

 

Tom Sunic interviews renowned educator, classicist and writer Dr. E. Christian Kopff. Topics include:

- How Tradition get passed down through the generations
- The mind of Julius Evola and what he meant by “revolting against the modern world.”
- Evola’s thoughts on the “masses.”
- Evola’s thoughts on Western Tradition
- Evola’s thoughts on masculinity
- Evola’s relevance for Americans and the rest of the modern West
- Evola’s criticism of Communism and its comparison to Capitalism
- The spiritual life vs. racial science; the State vs. the People
- Ezra Pound
- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Recorded April 20, 2010

jeudi, 26 mai 2016

Lettre ouverte de Tomislav Sunic à M. Laurent Joffrin, rédacteur en chef de Libération (Paris)

tomsun915_3373345024469298778_o-e1454783535331.jpg

Lettre ouverte de Tomislav Sunic à M. Laurent Joffrin, rédacteur en chef de Libération (Paris)

Nous publions cette lettre de Tomislav Sunic à la rédaction de Libération pour la raison suivante: cette gazette parisienne a l'art de publier des articles injurieux, moralisants, ineptes sur les réalités politiques de TOUS les autres pays européens, sous prétexte que ces réalités ne s'alignent pas sur les fantasmes malsains des gauches françaises, dont la caractéristique principale est le déni du réel, assorti d'une crapulerie de plus en plus manifeste. Cette attitude est inacceptable, dans le chef de Libération comme dans celui d'autres gazettes parisiennes. Il serait bon que de toutes les régions d'Europe, de protestations s'élèvent, véhémentes, pour que cette volonté de tout homogénéiser, que ce mépris d'autrui, que cette arrogance fondée sur l'ignorance crasse du monde et des faits, soient systématiquement fustigés, dénoncés et surtout moqués.

Le 24 mai, 2106

M. Laurent Joffrin, Rédacteur en chef, Libération

Objet : « En Croatie, un révisionniste ministre de la Culture » Le 23 mai 2016 http://www.liberation.fr/debats/2016/05/23/en-croatie-un-revisionniste-ministre-de-la-culture_1454623

Monsieur,

Chaque fois qu'un commentaire paraît dans les médias étrangers au sujet du nouveau gouvernement croate et surtout de son nouveau ministre de la Culture, M. Zlatko  Hasanbegovic, on doit s’armer contre un déluge d’amalgames.  Les termes diabolisateurs tels que « extrême droite », « droite extrême »,  « oustachis-fascistes »,  semblent toujours bien coller à la Croatie. La langue de bois qui était de rigueur chez les anciens scribes yougo-communistes semble être dorénavant reprise par les bien-pensants français qui l’emploient à volonté à l’encontre de tous ceux qui s’écartent un tant soit peu de l’historiographie officielle, ou bien qui expriment des doutes sur la vulgate libéralo-multiculturelle, prescrite par l’Union Européenne.     

Pour sa part et afin de mériter son certificat de bon élève démocratique, la Croatie est censée se vautrer éternellement dans le déni de soi et les mea culpa historiques. Quelles sont concrètement les sources auxquelles puise Libération quand il nous suggère que  « d’après les estimations les plus fiables, au moins 83 000 personnes ont été assassinées dans le camp (oustachi) de concentration et d’extermination de Jasenovac ».  On croit rêver en lisant les propos de Libération, vu que d’après le gouvernent serbe, ce chiffre victimaire, adopté volens nolens par le gouvernement croate, s’élève à neuf fois plus en Serbie !  Alors Libération semble tomber lui- même,  soit dans le guet-apens du révisionnisme, soit dans le mensonge ordinaire.

Vos correspondants auraient pu ajouter, ne serait-ce que par souci d’objectivité, qu’en grande partie, l'administration de la Croatie actuelle, les médias et  l’enseignement supérieur, regorgent encore de nombreux ex-communistes et de leur progéniture post-yougoslave. Autrefois, ils faisaient les pèlerinages de Moscou et de Belgrade et maintenant, leurs lieux saints sont devenus Washington et Bruxelles. Pour des raisons d’honnêteté minimum, on aurait peut-être pu ajouter aussi un mot ou deux sur l'anniversaire des massacres de centaines de milliers de civils croates et allemands de souche par les communistes de Josip Broz Tito, en mai-juin 1945… Un nombre important de ses sbires communistes, bien que séniles, sont encore bien vivants en Croatie d'aujourd’hui. Au lieu de perdre son temps sur la montée de la prétendue bête immonde de l’extrême droite oustachie-révisionniste en Croatie, on ferait mieux de se focaliser davantage sur l'héritage catastrophique de l'ancien  chouchou de l'Occident, à savoir l'ex-Yougoslavie communiste et multiculturelle.

Cordialement,

Tomislav SUNIC

(écrivain)

Croatie, Zagreb

mardi, 08 mars 2016

On demande un Prince Eugène

Eugen-1-Rrinz-Eugen-.jpg

On demande un Prince Eugène

Discours prononcé par Tomislav Sunic

20 février 2016, Klagenfurt, Autriche

Ex: http://www.polemia.com

Tout tourne toujours autour de bonnes ou de mauvaises dénominations politiques. Nous tous, nous nous désignons comme des citoyens épris de liberté qui sommes très inquiets aujourd’hui de l’avenir de l’identité européenne. En revanche, nos adversaires, à savoir les soi-disant « antifascistes», nous désignent comme des xénophobes, des racistes ou des nazis. Par notre propre expérience, acquise en ex-Yougoslavie et en Amérique multiculturelle, et suite aux recherches de nombreux sociologues, nous savons que les Etats multiculturels ne connaissent pas une vie bien longue. Tôt ou tard ils s’effondrent dans une guerre civile. Je me réfère à nouveau à l’ancien Etat bric-à-brac yougoslave qui a fini, malgré les éloges académiques, par s’écrouler sous la diversité des divers intérêts de ses peuples constituants.

Le chaos migratoire d’aujourd’hui porte un nom erroné, à savoir « la crise des réfugiés ». Parmi ces milliers et milliers de migrants qui se précipitent vers l’Autriche, la plupart ne sont guère des réfugiés. Ce sont des « réfugiés » dans la mesure où ils ont été déjà décrits comme réfugiés par la classe dirigeante et les médias autrichiens. Curieusement, tous ces migrants ne demandent pas l’asile en Turquie ou le long de la route des Balkans. Tous veulent absolument rejoindre l’Allemagne. Ils imaginent l’Autriche, l’Allemagne et la Suède comme des pays de cocagne où l’on peut se procurer de belles femmes. Mais non, Messieurs, Mesdames ! On ne devrait pas blâmer ces migrants pour leurs fausses perceptions : ce sont nos politiciens avec leurs fausses promesses qui fournissent de faux espoirs aux migrants.

L’utopie multiculturelle véhiculée par nos politiciens porte un autre faux nom, à savoir l’expression passe-partout « la culture de bienvenue », bien que le nom exact soit plutôt la « culture de l’auto-élimination », la « culture de la culpabilité » ou la « culture de la haine de soi ». Ce qui est connu à l’heure actuelle sous le vocable de « la culture de bienvenue » n’a rien à voir avec la traditionnelle culture européenne de l’hospitalité. La culture de l’accueil d’aujourd’hui n’est qu’un substitut libéral pour le projet communiste qui a échoué. Ce qu’autrefois les communistes en Europe de l’Est n’ont pas pu atteindre par la tyrannie, le Système en place est en train de le réaliser grâce à son ersatz idéologique nommé le multiculturalisme. Le communisme s’est effondré en Europe de l’Est, parce qu’il a su beaucoup mieux concrétiser ses promesses matérialistes dans le libéralisme. Le Système s’imagine que toutes les nations européennes peuvent être remplacées par des migrants non européens dans un supra-Etat multiculturel, et qu’à leur tour, en tant que pièces de rechange, ces migrants sont censés être continuellement renouvelés.

With Fire & Sword wallpaper.jpg

Si nous demandons à nos politiciens et apôtres du multiculturalisme s’ils veulent aller habiter des quartiers multiculturels, y compris les quartiers Vienne-Favoriten ou Neukölln en Allemagne, ils nous diront : « Pas question ! » Ils aiment bien prêcher leur amour de la société multiculturelle tant qu’ils se tiennent à l’écart des immigrés et tant qu’ils vivent dans leurs ghettos dorés en toute sécurité. Si, un de ces jours, la classe dirigeante et ses bien-pensants décident d’y vivre, je ne manquerai pas de leur présenter mes excuses. J’ai vécu fort longtemps dans des quartiers multiculturels aux Etats-Unis et j’y ai bien appris toute la signification de la double serrure sur ma porte et le sens des armes à feu.

Au niveau historique et philosophique, la folie multiculturelle d’aujourd’hui ou la prétendue culture de l’accueil en Autriche, en Allemagne et dans l’Union européenne, représente le dernier avatar de l’idéologie de l’hypermoralisme décrite autrefois par Arnold Gehlen. On peut également démontrer d’une manière scientifique que plus la population d’un pays est ethniquement et culturellement homogène, comme au Japon par exemple, plus ce pays est habité par des citoyens ethniquement et culturellement semblables, plus la survie de cet Etat, y compris le sens de la solidarité de ses citoyens, y sera assurée. Chez les peuples non européens d’Afrique et d’Asie, par exemple, il est inconcevable d’importer d’autres peuples en masse. Ce n’est que chez les peuples européens souffrant du mal de vivre qu’on observe cet accueil suicidaire, jamais dans les riches pays non européens comme l’Arabie Saoudite, par exemple. En fin de compte, cette pathologie hypermoraliste et altruiste conduit l’Europe droit au suicide. Dès qu’un peuple, en l’occurrence les Allemands, devient las de la vie, cela ne signifie en aucun cas la fin du politique : cela signifie la fin d’un peuple faible.

Pourquoi cet hyper-altruisme et cette culture de l’auto-abolition sont-ils si prononcés aujourd’hui en Allemagne et en Autriche et beaucoup moins dans d’autres pays européens ? La raison n’est pas difficile à deviner : toute critique du multiculturalisme vaut à un homme politique ou à un universitaire, en Autriche ou en Allemagne, les stigmates du « fascisme ». Et cela revient toujours à une notice nécrologique sur le plan professionnel. M. Werner Faymann et Mme Merkel, par crainte des amalgames nazis, doivent donc se protéger par une surenchère de l‘importation massive d’immigrants. L’idéologie du multiculturalisme est devenue une forme de légitimité négative dans toute l’Europe et surtout au sein de la classe politique allemande et autrichienne. Par conséquent, tout débat qui traite d’une manière critique du multiculturalisme est qualifié de « xénophobe ». Le mot tabou « xénophobie » est ainsi devenu pour la classe politique européenne une belle excuse pour pérenniser l’éternel statu quo politique.

En revanche, les critiques du multiculturalisme sont présentés par les médias comme des méchants absolus, voire comme des criminels. De cette manière, les apôtres du multiculturalisme peuvent justifier toutes les aberrations de leur propre Système en les désignant comme un moindre mal. Les politiciens autrichiens et allemands le savent fort bien et, par conséquent, ils doivent se montrer, aux yeux du monde, plus catholiques que le Pape. Ils doivent renchérir sur les inondations migratoires massives vers l’Allemagne et l’Autriche. Autrement dit, ils se sentent contraints de traiter les migrants mieux que ceux-ci ne s’y attendent. Il serait naïf de penser que les disciples actuels de la culture d’accueil en Autriche peuvent être contredits par des arguments. Le mot allemand « der Gutmensch » (le bien-pensant) décrit parfaitement cette espèce autocensurée multiculturelle et hypermoraliste. Si quelqu’un aujourd’hui en Autriche s’aventure par hasard à citer ses sources scientifiques au sujet du mythe multiculturel, il finit aussitôt sur l’écran de la police de la pensée. Les partis dirigeants et leurs médias ne maintiennent leur pouvoir que grâce à la diabolisation de ceux qui pensent autrement, comme ce fut par exemple le cas en ex-Yougoslavie communiste, où tout dissident était étiqueté fasciste ou criminel de droit commun. La classe politique en Autriche, mais également ailleurs en Europe, est empêtrée dans des simulacres politiques qui, d’une part, idéalisent les peuples non européens et, d’autre part, dénigrent les populations autochtones.

hussardsailés615352669.jpg

Or la pseudo-culture de l’accueil ne peut durer. Au lieu de conduire à la compréhension mutuelle entre les peuples elle approfondit les haines mutuelles. Ceci a été observé de nombreuses fois dans toutes les sociétés multiculturelles. Par exemple, les Américains d’origine asiatique n’aiment pas les Afro-Américains et les Afro-Américains ne sont pas bien vus des Latinos hispaniques. Les émeutes entre membres de différentes nationalités parmi les migrants d’aujourd’hui ne sont guère évoquées en public. Or, même si les « mauvais Allemands » et tous les « mauvais nazis » et tous les « fachos » du monde disparaissent, cela n’empêchera pas la haine mutuelle et la guerre entre ces divers groupes et peuples non européens. Le racisme et l’hostilité envers l’Autre ne sont pas le privilège des Autrichiens, des Allemands ou d’autres peuples européens.

La mensongère culture de l’accueil d’aujourd’hui nous oblige donc à désigner notre ennemi principal. L’important est de souligner que ce ne sont pas les immigrés asiatiques ou africains qui portent le blâme pour le déclin de l’Europe, mais les politiciens du Système et leur « superclasse » capitaliste. Il s’ensuit que, pour restaurer notre identité allemande, autrichienne ou l’ensemble de l’identité européenne, nous devons d’abord démanteler le capitalisme débridé et le remplacer par d’autres valeurs. Le multiculturalisme est un mythe qui se rattache à la croissance économique sans limites et aux flux migratoires sans limites. Les migrants non européens savent bien qu’ils ne peuvent vivre sans souci que dans une Europe pleine de haine de soi. Les sentiments de haine de soi n’existent guère chez les politiciens de leurs pays d’origine. Le capital financier des oligarques européens, associé à des sentiments de culpabilité parmi les Européens, ainsi qu’à une gauche prédicatrice du multiculturalisme, ne fait que renforcer davantage la migration de millions de migrants non européens. Si les Européens veulent restaurer leur propre identité, ils doivent d’abord faire table rase du capitalisme débridé. L’immigration étrangère s’arrêtera immédiatement. Les migrants n’auront en effet plus aucune raison de résider dans nos pays et de vivre de faux espoirs.

Nous allons bientôt voir comment notre histoire évolue. En rétrospective, la question se pose à nous tous : à quoi a-t-il servi que le Prince Eugène conduise ses longues guerres contre les conquérants turcs ? Heureusement, l’histoire est ouverte et il ne tient qu’à nous de la refaire à nouveau. Cette fois-ci, ce ne sont pas des années, mais les jours de la décision qui sont devant nous. Or, nous connaissons tous le plus grand principe de sagesse politique de tous les temps : celui qui se fait brebis trouvera un loup pour le manger. Alors, Mesdames et Messieurs, ne soyons plus des brebis. La lutte continue.

Je vous remercie de votre attention.

Tomislav Sunic
www.tomsunic.com

21/02/2016

(*) Voir :
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugène_de_Savoie-Carignan
http://www.identitaere-generation.info/sunic-wo-bleibt-pr...

samedi, 27 février 2016

Wo bleibt Prinz Eugen? Der Multikultiwahnsinn und das Ende Europas

AUSSTELLUNG-PRINZ-EUGEN_1380991002503836.jpg

Tomislav Sunic:

Wo bleibt Prinz Eugen?

Der Multikultiwahnsinn und das Ende Europas

Alles dreht sich um die richtige oder falsche Kennzeichnung politischer Begriffe. Wir alle hier nennen uns freiheitsliebende Menschen, die heute sehr besorgt sind über die Zukunft der europäischen Identität. Unsere selbsternannten „antifaschistischen“ Gegner hingegen nennen uns Fremdenfeinde, Rassisten oder Nazis. Unserer eigenen Erfahrung nach – und meiner Erfahrung nach, die ich im ehemaligen Multkulti-Jugoslawien und in Multkulti-Amerika gesammelt habe, sowie aufgrund der Forschung vieler Soziologen, haben Multikulti-Staaten keine lange Lebensdauer. Früher oder später zerfallen sie alle in einem Bürgerkrieg. Ich kann hier wieder auf den ehemaligen zusammengeschusterten jugoslawischen Staat verweisen, der trotz aller akademischer Schönrederei unter der Vielfalt der Interessen seiner verschiedenen Völker zusammenbrechen musste.

Das heutige Migrationschaos trägt einen verlogenen Namen, nämlich „Flüchtlingskrise“. Von den tausenden und abertausenden Migranten, die nach Österreich hineinströmen, sind die meisten keine Flüchtlinge. Sie sind „Flüchtlinge“, nur insofern als sie von den Etablierten in den österreichische Medien schon im voraus als „Flüchtlinge“ bezeichnet wurden. Merkwürdigerweise stellen alle diese Migranten ihren Asylantrag nicht in der Türkei oder einem anderen Staat entlang der Balkanroute. Sie wollen alle unbedingt in die BRD. Sie bilden sich ein, Österreich, Deutschland und Schweden seien Schlaraffenländer, wo man gut leben und sich eine schöne Frau aussuchen kann. Aber – nein! Diese Migranten sind gar nicht schuld an ihren falschen Vorstellungen; es sind unsere Politiker mit ihren falschen Versprechungen, die wiederum bei den Einwanderern diese falschen Wunschvorstellungen hervorrufen.

Die Multikultiutopie unserer Politiker trägt einen anderen falschen Namen, nämlich das Unwort „Willkommenskultur“, obwohl der richtige Name auf gut Deutsch „Kultur der Selbstabschaffung“, „Schuldkultur“ oder „Selbsthasskultur“ heißen sollte. Was heute mit dem Wort „Willkommenskultur“ bezeichnet wird, hat gar nichts zu tun mit der althergebrachten europäischen Willkommenskultur. Die heutige Willkommenskultur ist bloß ein liberalistischer Ersatz für das gescheiterte kommunistische Projekt. Was einst die Kommunisten in Osteuropa mit ihrer Gewaltherrschaft nicht erzwingen konnten, will das heutige System mit seiner Ersatzideologie des Multikulturalismus erreichen. Der Kommunismus ging in Osteuropa zugrunde, weil er der Liberalismus seine materialistischen Heilsversprechungen besser umsetzen konnte. Das System glaubt, dass alle europäischen Völker in einem Multikulti-Superstaat von nichteuropäischen Zuwanderern ersetzt werden können und wie Ersatzteile ständig reproduziert werden können.

maxresdefault.jpg

Fragen wir unsere Politiker und Befürworter des Multikulturalismus, ob sie in Multikulti-Bezirken wie Wien-Favoriten oder in Neukölln in der BRD leben möchten! Sie werden „Nein!“ sagen. Sie predigen gerne von der Multkulti-Gesellschaft, so lange sie selbst von den Einwanderern fern bleiben und in ihren golden Ghettos in Sicherheit leben. Wenn sich eines Tages die Etablierten und ihre Gutmenschen doch entschuldige ich mich gerne bei Ihnen. Ich habe in den Multkulti-Bezirken in den USA sehr lang lange gelebt und habe dort sehr gut den Wortsinn der Doppelverriegelung an meiner Wohnungstür und Schusswaffen gelernt.

Historisch und philosophisch gesehen ist der heutige Multikulti-Wahn, bzw. die Willkommenskultur in Österreich, Deutschland und der EU, eine Abart der Ideologie der Hypermoral nach Arnold Gehlen. Es kann auch wissenschaftlich bewiesen werden, dass, je mehr die Bevölkerung eines Staates ethnisch und kulturell homogen ist, wie zum Beispiel in Japan, je mehr ein Staat von ethnisch und kulturell verwandten Bürgern bewohnt wird, desto größer ist die Überlebensdauer dieses Staates – und auch die Solidarität. Bei den nichteuropäischen Völkern in Afrika und Asien zum Beispiel ist es nicht vorstellbar, andere Völker massenweise ins eigene Land zu importieren. Nur bei den lebensmüden europäischen Völkern kann man diese selbstmörderischen Willkommenszüge beobachten, nicht jedoch bei den nichteuropäischen reichen Staaten wie Saudi Arabien. Dieser pathologische Hypermoralismus und Altruismus führt Europa letztendlich in den Selbstmord. Wenn ein Volk, wie die Deutschen, lebensmüde geworden ist, bedeutet das nicht das Ende der Politik; es bedeutet nur das Ende des schwachen Volkes.

Warum ist dieser Hyper-Altruismus, bzw. diese Selbstabschaffungs-Willkommenskultur heute besonders in Deutschland und in Österreich derart ausgeprägt und weniger inmitten anderer europäischen Staaten? Der Grund dafür ist nicht schwer zu erraten. Jegliche Kritik am Multikulturalismus kann einem Politiker oder einem Akademiker in Österreich oder BRD das Stigma des „Faschismus“ einbringen. Und das bedeutet quasi den Tod im öffentlichen Leben. Herr Faymann und Frau Merkel, aus Furcht vor der Nazikeule müssen sich jetzt mit dem massenhaften Import von Zuwanderern gegenüber jeglichen Nazivorwürfen versichern. Die Ideologie des Multikulturalismus ist heute eine Art Negativlegitimation ganz Europas geworden insbesondere inmitten der deutschen und österreichischen politischen Klasse. Dementsprechend wird jede Debatte, die sich kritisch mit dem Multikulturalismus befasst, mit dem Schlagwort „Fremdenfeindlichkeit“ etikettiert. Dieses Unwort „Fremdenfeindlichkeit“ dient heute der politischen Klasse in Europa als Alibi zum Fortbestehen ihres immerwährenden politischen Status quo.

Angela-Merkel-schweigt.jpg

Im Gegensatz dazu werden Multikulti-Kritiker von den Medien zu absoluten Bösewichten und sogar zu Kriminellen erklärt. Damit wollen die Multikulturalisten jede Fehlentwicklung in ihrem eigenen System rechtfertigen und ihr eigenes System als das geringere Übel darstellen. Dessen sind sich auch die Politiker in Österreich und der BRD bewusst und deswegen müssen sie sich in den Augen der Weltöffentlichkeit päpstlicher als der Papst zeigen, bzw. müssen sie die massive Migrantenflut nach Deutschland und Österreich weiterhin befürworten. In diesem Sinne sind sie dazu gezwungen die Einwanderer besser zu behandeln als diese das überhaupt von ihnen erwarten würden. Es ist naiv zu glauben, dass die heutigen Befürworter der Willkommenskultur in Österreich mit Argumenten widerlegt werden können. Das deutsche Wort „Gutmensch“ schildert am besten diese selbstzensierende und hypermoralistische Multikulti-Spezies. Sollte jemand heute in Österreich zufällig wagen, seine wissenschaftlichen Quellen gegen den Multikulti-Mythos zu nennen, gerät er prompt ins Visier der Gesinnungswächter. Die etablierten Parteien und ihre Medien können ihre Macht nur durch die Dämonisierung der Andersdenkenden beibehalten, wie zum Beispiel im ehemaligen kommunistischen Jugoslawien, wo jeder Dissident automatisch als Faschist oder Krimineller etikettiert wurde. Die Politiker in Österreich, aber auch anderswo in Europa, sind in politischen Selbsttäuschungen verstrickt, die sich einerseits mit der Idealisierung der außereuropäischen Leute und anderseits mit der Abwertung der Einheimischen befassen.

Die sogenannte Willkommenskultur ist jedoch langfristig nicht haltbar. Sie führt nicht zum gegenseitigen Völkerverständnis, sondern verursacht bzw. vertieft nur den gegenseitigen Hass zwischen Völkern. Das haben wir unzählige Male in allen Multikulti-Gesellschaften gesehen. Zum Beispiel asiatische Amerikaner in den USA mögen nicht die Afro-Amerikaner und die Afro- Amerikaner sind gar nicht beliebt bei den hispanischen Latinos in Amerika. Die Krawalle zwischen Mitglieder der verschiedenen Völker inmitten heutiger Zuwanderer werden gar nicht in unserer Öffentlichkeit debattiert. Auch wenn die „bösen Deutschen“ und alle „bösen Nazis“ und alle „Faschsiten“ verschwinden würden, wird es keinesfalls den gegenseitigen Hass und Krieg inmitten verschiedener nichteuropäischen Gruppen und Völker verhindern. Rassismus und Fremdfeindlichkeit sind kein Privilegium der Österreicher oder der Deutschen oder anderer europäischen Völker.

Die heutige verlogene Willkommenskultur verlangt von uns deswegen, unseren politischen Feind zu erkennen. Wichtig ist: Nicht die vorderasiatischen oder afrikanischen Einwanderer tragen Schuld an dem Niedergang Europas, sondern die Systempolitiker und ihre kapitalistische „Superklasse“. Um unsere deutsche und unsere österreichische bzw. die gesamte europäische Identität wiederherzustellen, müssen wir zunächst den schrankenlosen globalen Kapitalismus in dieser Form demontieren und andere Werte an die oberste Stelle setzen. Multikulturalismus ist ein Mythos, der an das grenzenlose Wirtschaftswachstum und dementsprechend auf den grenzenlosen Zustrom von Migranten anknüpft. Nichteuropäische Einwanderer wissen derzeit genau, dass sie im selbsthassenden Europa sorglos leben können. Gefühle des Selbsthasses gibt es gar nicht bei den Politikern in ihren Heimatländern. Das Finanzkapital der Oligarchen in Europa, gepaart mit Schuldgefühlen der Europäer auf der einen Seite – und linke Multkulti-Prediger auf der anderen Seite, sorgen für weitere Zuwanderung der Abermillionen von nichteuropäischen Einwanderern. Wenn die Europäer wieder ihre eigene Identität aufbauen wollen, sollten sie zuerst den entfesselten Kapitalismus abschaffen. Die Auslandsimmigration würde dann sofort gestoppt werden. Einwanderer hätten dann keinen Grund mehr, in unseren Ländern zu leben und sich falsche Hoffnungen zu machen.

Wir werden bald sehen, wie sich die Geschichte weiter entwickelt. Im Rückblick stellt sich auch die Frage: Wozu hat Prinz Eugen seine langen Kriege gegen die türkischen Eroberer geführt? Zum Glück bleibt die Geschichte immer offen und es liegt nur an uns unsere Geschichte aufs Neue zu gestalten. Nicht die Jahre, sondern die Tage der Entscheidung liegen vor uns. Wir alle wissen die größte politische Weisheit aller Zeiten nur zu gut: Wer sich zum Schaf macht, den fressen bald die Wölfe. Also meine Damen und Herren, seien wir keine Schafe. Der Kampf geht weiter.

Ich danke für Ihre Aufmerksamkeit.

lundi, 11 janvier 2016

Entretien avec Tom Sunic (ex-dissident croate) sur la crise du système en Europe

Entretien avec Tom Sunic (ex-dissident croate) sur la crise du système en Europe

Tomislav Sunic est écrivain, traducteur et ancien professeur en sciences politiques aux Etats-Unis. Il est né en Croatie en 1953, alors partie intégrante de la Yougoslavie communiste. Il est polyglotte et parlez notamment l’anglais, l'allemand, le français et le croate. Il est docteur de l'Université de Californie et ancien diplomate de l’État Croate. Son père, Mirko Sunić, était un avocat catholique qui a été emprisonné de 1984 à 1988 pour ses critiques contre le régime communiste yougoslave. Il est l'auteur de plusieurs ouvrages dont "Contre la Démocratie et l’Égalité : la Nouvelle Droite Européenne" ou encore "Homo americanus ; rejeton de l’ère postmoderne".

jeudi, 15 octobre 2015

Jonathan Bowden Interview with Tom Sunic (Voice of Reason Radio)

 

Jonathan Bowden

Interview with Tom Sunic

(Voice of Reason Radio)

mercredi, 30 septembre 2015

The Paranoid German Mind: Counting Down to the Next War

paranoiacccc.jpg

The Paranoid German Mind:

Counting Down to the Next War

Tom Sunic, Ph.D.

Ex: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net

Having lost, during and after World War II, over 9 million of its soldiers and civilians, Germany has had to wallow in expiation and self-abnegation.  Its present grotesque multicultural policy of Willkomenskultur (“welcoming culture” toward non-European migrants), openly heralded by Chancellor Angela Merkel and her government, is the direct result of the lost war. Germany’s role of an exemplary host country for millions of non-European migrants has been a major linchpin of its legal system over the last 70 years —  and by default for present day Central European countries subject today to floods of non-European migrants. The countries that were most loyal to National Socialist Germany in World War II, the contemporary Hungary, Croatia and to some extent Slovakia and Baltic countries further north, have similar self-denying dilemmas — due, on one  hand, to their historically friendly pro-German ties, and on the other, due to the obligatory rituals of antifascist mea culpas, as demanded by Brussels and Washington bureaucrats.  I have put together for TOO some excerpts from the chapter “Brainwashing the Germans” from my book Homo americanus: Child of the Postmodern Age, 2007 (foreword by Kevin MacDonald) (The second edition of this book is to be published by Washington  Summit Publishers). I guess some of those lines below might shed some light into extremely serious political developments in Europe today.

  *   *   *

In the aftermath of World War II, the role of Frankfurt School “scholars,” many of whom were of Jewish extraction, was decisive in shaping the new European cultural scene.  Scores of American left-leaning psychoanalysts — under the auspices of the Truman government — swarmed over Germany in an attempt to rectify not just the German mind but also to change the brains of all Europeans.  But there were also a considerable number of WASP Puritan-minded scholars and military men active in post-war Germany, such as Major Robert A. General McClure, the poet Archibald MacLeish, the political scientist Harold Laswell, the jurist Robert Jackson and the philosopher John Dewey, who had envisaged copying the American way of democracy into the European public scene.

As a result of Frankfurt School re-educational efforts in war-ravaged Germany, thousands of book titles from the fields of genetics and anthropology were removed from library shelves and thousands of museum artifacts were, if not destroyed by the preceding Allied fire-bombing, shipped to the USA and the Soviet Union. Particularly severe was the Allied treatment of German teachers and academics, wrote Caspar von Schrenck-Notzing, a prominent postwar conservative German scholar in his book on the post-WWII brainwashing of the German people. In his seminal book Schrenck-Notzing  writes that the Western occupying authorities considered that the best approach in curing the defeated Germany was by treating Germans as a nation of “clinical patients” in need of a hefty dose of liberal and socialist therapy.  Since National Socialist Germany had a significant support among German teachers and university professors, it was to be expected that the US re-educational authorities would start screening German intellectuals, writers, journalists and film makers first.

Having destroyed dozens of major libraries in Germany, with millions of volumes gone up in flames, the Allied occupying powers resorted to improvising measures in order to give some semblance of normalcy to what was later to become “democratic Germany.”

During the post-WWII vetting of well-known figures from the German world of literature and science, thousands of German intellectuals were obliged to fill out forms known in at the time as “Der Fragebogen” (The Questionnaire).  In his satirical novel under the same name and translated into English as The Questionnaire, German novelist and a former conservative revolutionary militant, Ernst von Salomon, describes American “new pedagogues” extorting confessions from the German captives, who were subsequently either intellectually silenced or dispatched to the gallows. Schrenck-Notzing  provides his readers with a glimpse of the mindset of the Allied educators showing the very great influence of the Frankfurt School:

Whoever wishes to combat fascism must start from the premises that the central breeding ground for the reactionary person is represented by his family.  Given that the authoritarian society reproduces itself in the structure of the individual through his authoritarian family, it follows that political reaction will defend the authoritarian family as the basis for its state, itsculture and its civilization. (my  emphasis)

From Ethno-Nationalism to National-Masochism

Much later,  Patrick J. Buchanan, in a similar vein, in his The Death of the West  also notes that Frankfurt School intellectuals in postwar Germany, having been bankrolled by the American military authorities, succeeded in labeling National Socialist sympathizers as “mentally sick,” a term which would later have a lasting impact on political vocabulary and the future development of “political correctness”  in Europe and America.  Political prejudice, notably, a sense of authority and the resentment of Jews, were categorized as “mental illnesses” rooted in traditional European child-rearing. The ideology of antifascism became by the late twentieth century a form of “negative legitimacy” for Germany and the entire West.  It implicitly suggested that if there was no “fascist threat,” the West could not exist in its present form.

Later on, German political elites went a step further. In order to show to their American sponsors their new democratic credentials and their philo-Semitic attitudes, in the early 1960’s they introduced legislation forbidding any historical revisionism of World War II and any critical study of mass immigration into Western Europe, including any study of negative socio-economic consequences of multiculturalism and multiracialism.

As of today the German Criminal Code appears in its substance more repressive than the former Soviet Criminal Code.  Day after day Germany has to prove to the world that it can perform self-educational tasks better than its former American tutor.  It must show signs of being the most servile disciple of the American hegemon, given that the “transformation of the German mind (was) the main home work of the military regime.” 

In addition to standard German media vilification of local “trouble-makers” — i.e. “right -wingers” —  Germany also requires from its civil servants obedience to constitutional commands and not necessarily their loyalty to the people or to the state of Germany. This is pursuant to Article 33, Paragraph 5, of its Basic Law.  ]) The German legal scholar Josef Schüsselburner,Germany’s observes that the powerful agency designed for the supervision of the Constitution (the famed “Office for the Protection of the Constitution” [Verfassungsschutz]) is “basically an internal secret service with seventeen branch agencies (one on the level of the federation and sixteen others for each constituent federal state).  In the last analysis, this boils down to saying that only the internal secret service is competent to declare a person an internal enemy of the state.

Given that all signs of German nationalism, let alone White racialism, are reprimanded in Germany on the grounds of their real or purported unconstitutional and undemocratic character, the only patriotism allowed in Germany is “constitutional patriotism” — Germany is de jure a  proposition nation:  “The German people had to adapt itself to the Constitution, instead of adapting the Constitution to the German people,” writes the German legal scholar, Günther Maschke. German constitutionalism, continuesSchüsselburner, has become “a civil religion,” whereby “multiculturalism has replaced the Germans by the citizens who do not regard Germany as their homeland, but as an imaginary “Basic Law country.”   As a result of this new civil religion, Germany, along with other European countries, has now evolved into a “secular theocracy.”

Similar to Communism, historical truth in Western Europe is not established by an open academic debate but by state legislation. In addition, German scientists whose expertise is the study of genetically induced social behavior, or who lay emphasis on the role of IQ in human achievement or behavior, and who downplay the importance of education or  environment — are branded as “racists.“

When Muslim Arabs or Islamists residing in Germany and elsewhere in Europe are involved in violent street riots, the German authorities do tolerate to some extent name calling and the sporadic usage of some anti-Arab or anti-Turkish jokes by local autochthonous (native) Germans. Moreover, a Muslim resident living in Germany can also legally and temporarily get away with some minor anti-Semitic or anti-Israeli remark—which a White German Gentile cannot dream of.  By contrast, a non-Jewish German average citizen, let alone a scholar, cannot even dream about making a joke about Jews or Muslims—for fear of being labeled by dreaded words of “anti-Semitism” or “racism.”

Tom Sunic is author (www.tomsunic.com)

lundi, 28 septembre 2015

Le Camp des saints en Croatie

croatie-leve-son-bl.jpg

Le Camp des saints en Croatie

par Tomislav Sunic

Ex: http://www.polemia.com

Tomislav Sunić est un écrivain et traducteur américano-croate, ancien professeur aux Etat-Unis en science politique et ancien diplomate.

♦ A quelque chose malheur est bon. C’est grâce à la poigne communiste que l’Europe de l’Est, y compris la Croatie encadrée en ex-Yougoslavie, a su préserver son visage blanc et sa mémoire historique. Pendant les Trente Glorieuses les immigrés africains, levantins et maghrébins surent fort bien que leurs hôtes en France et en Allemagne seront plus samaritains que le commissaire de l’Est dont les lendemains refusèrent obstinément de chanter.

Il fut prévisible que, suite à l’actuel choc migratoire en provenance du Moyen Orient et de l’Afrique, le peuple croate crachera sa colère envers l’UE ou les immigrés – ou tous les deux à la fois.

Ayant jadis fort bien appris la pensée unique communiste, la présente vulgate multiculturelle imposée par Bruxelles compte fort peu de disciples au sein du peuple croate. Les paroles acerbes à l’encontre des immigrés, qui seraient sujets aux dispositions de la loi Fabius-Gayssot en France ou sévèrement réprimés en Allemagne en vertu du paragraphe 130 du Code pénal, sont librement proférées en Croatie par beaucoup de ses citoyens. Contrairement à la France et à l’Allemagne, les vocables « racisme », « xénophobie » ou « convivialité multiculturelle » portent en Croatie un signifié dérisoire, digne de la langue de bois communiste. Se dire blanc et catholique à haute voix est souvent considéré comme un signe d’honneur croate.

Mais il ne faut pas s’y tromper pour autant.

La classe dirigeante croate, à l’instar des autres pays est-européens, est composée dans sa grande majorité de rejetons des anciens apparatchiks yougo-communistes dont le but suprême consiste à montrer à Bruxelles que la Croatie se comporte plus catholiquement que le Pape, à savoir qu’elle est plus européiste que la Commission européenne. Le côté mimétique des dirigeants croates n’a rien de neuf, ayant été hérité du passé yougoslave où les anciens communistes croates devaient se montrer davantage comme de bons Yougoslaves et de meilleurs titistes que leurs homologues serbes. Une peur bleue d’être dénoncés aujourd’hui par Bruxelles ou Washington comme des dérives « fascistes », « racistes » ou « oustachis », fait que Zagreb ne bouge pas sans l’assentiment de Washington ou de Bruxelles. Cela est souvent le cas au gré des circonstances : quand Washington misait dans les années 1990 sur la carte albanaise et antiserbe, les nationalistes croates s’étaient vu la porte grande ouverte ; quand, en revanche, la vulgate multiculturelle devient la règle, la Croatie est censée devenir un pays dépotoir pour les nouveaux migrants.

On peut tracer un parallèle avec l’Allemagne qui doit, elle aussi, jouer à la surenchère humanitaire envers les immigrés, s’imaginant que son passé, qui refuse de passer, sera ainsi mieux neutralisé. Soumise, après la Deuxième Guerre mondiale, à une rééducation exemplaire, il n’est pas étonnant que Mme Merkel et ses amis fassent des discours ultra-humanitaristes et antifascistes. Hélas, les paroles délirantes des Allemands sur leur « Willkommenskultur » (culture d’accueil) résonnent bien différemment aux oreilles des migrants venus de l’Afrique et de l’Asie.

Le grand avantage du flux migratoire en Europe de l’Est est qu’il se déroule de façon désordonnée et imprévue, ce qui ne motive guère ni les Croates ni les Serbes ni les Hongrois à accueillir les nouveaux venus à bras ouverts. Contrairement à la tactique bolchevique du salami, à laquelle les Occidentaux s’étaient déjà bel et bien habitués, le soudain drame migratoire en Europe de l’Est semble annoncer le nouveau printemps pour tous les Européens. Notre avant-guerre a commencé !

Tomislav Sunic
24/09/2015

www.tomsunic.com

Correspondance Polémia – 26/09/2015

vendredi, 22 mai 2015

Hero and Heretic in Western Literature and Politics

Tomislav Sunic:

Hero and Heretic in Western Literature and Politics

Coming from a family heavily persecuted for its traditionalist sympathies under the Communist Yugoslav regime, Tomislav Sunic made his mark as a lecturer at Califonia State University and then as a Croatian diplomat. However it has been as an anti-liberal political philosopher that he has really found his raison d’etre. An ever popular speaker and determined with it, (when the Conservative Fidesz Government of Hungary recently tried to stop the 4th October 2014 Identitarian Conference from taking place in Budapest, Tom Sunic was one of only two speakers – Jared Taylor was the other – to successfully run the blockade. See his speech here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jir4T...). A radio show presenter, and the author of numerous articles and three books – Homo Americanus: Child of the Postmodern Age, Against Democracy and Equality:The European New Right, Post-Mortem Report: Cultural Examinations from Postmodernity– Tom Sunic, will here in his fourth speech to The London Forum address the issue of what it is to be a White Nationalist - simultaneously a hero to our own people and a heretic to ‘The Powers That Be’ and their mind slaves – and how we can draw perspective, sustenance and inspiration from our literary and political history.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_nos...

samedi, 07 mars 2015

Babel and the Capitalist Babelization

Babel and the Capitalist Babelization

Tom Sunic

Review of Babel Inc.: Multiculturalism, Globalisation, and the New World Order
by Dr. Kerry Bolton

Black House Publishing Ltd, 2013

babel_cover300-500x500.jpgThe tower of Babel is rightly used as a metaphor for contemporary rootless and mongrelized masses stashed together in the towering inferno of end times. As an allegory, however, the process of “babelization” signifies a distorted reality and an inhumane political process in which standard forms of cognition and speech are subject to entirely new denominations, requiring a completely different method of conceptualization. Attempting, therefore, to draw some parallels between George Orwell’s 1984 and Bolton’s Babel Inc., cannot be valid; Orwell’s vision of the static future has become outdated.  Bolton’s Babel Inc. offers, instead, a dynamic description of the process of capitalist entropy in which Babel Inc. and its ruling class continue to grind human beings, including themselves, to dust.

Which are these ruling classes in this Babel Inc.? This is where the author masterfully steps in and rejects the wide-spread right-wing babble about the Babel Inc. being allegedly run by a conspiratorial and homogenous group of wicked people, or some extra-terrestrial golems allegedly bent on ruling the White world. Rather, the Babel Inc., or simply put,  the System, resembles a nameless, albeit grotesque polity that can in no way be reduced to just one single free-lance Orwellian big brother or some big postmenopausal feminist mama. The Babel Inc., as Bolton sees it, is a logical postmodern transposition of the myth of economism and egalitarianism, two doctrines whose genealogy can be traced from well before the period of Enlightenment in Europe.

Twin Brothers: Communism and Capitalism 

This does not mean at all that Bolton avoids elucidating the mindset and the self-perception of the main movers and shakers in the Babel Inc. In fact, Bolton’s scholarly credibility can best be spotted through the wealth of bibliographic references which indicate the intellectual depth of this effort. Bolton uses a three- pronged approach: theoretical, historical and descriptive. Such a threefold approach to this heavy subject is a prime necessity if the book is to retain a lasting educational value. Thus we learn in the first half of his book that capitalism, being a prime factor in the construction of the modern Babel Inc. and in the deconstruction of the nation-state, has always been a “modern and revolutionary” force. Its inherent dynamics aims at destroying traditional communities, regardless of their spot on the planet Earth. In fact, the much decried and alleged foe of capitalism (or rather its mirror- image), communism, fell apart in the East, in the late 20th century, because its paleo-communistic goals of egalitarianism and economism had already been better achieved in the capitalist West. Both communism and capitalism share a common ideological thread, namely a common belief in progress and common hatred of all racial, ethnic and territorial identities. The Banker and the Merchant, just like their mirror-image the Commissar, detect in any historical rootedness, in any national or racial consciousness a major hindrance on the way to the glorious future under the banner of “free market, democracy and human rights”.

Photo: Kerry Bolton

bolton.pngOn the daily political front, however, or better yet within the historical context of the development of the Babel Inc., Bolton does not spare the names of organizations and individuals promoting the borderless and globalist Babel Inc. project; knowledge of these forces can help the uninitiated reader dispel the myth of a “freedom- loving West” and its main transmission belt the United States of America. In fact, as Werner Sombart, the German sociologist of the early 20th century noted, “Holy Economy” (“heilige Wirtschaftlichkeit”) is a far more powerful revolutionary process than any anarchistic get together or a communist rabble-rousing pamphlet.

The author starts with his home turf with an examination of the early Australian working class, which under the banner of the Labor Party, as early as the 19th century, was bit by bit defrauded by the bankers and speculators who were all too eager to open Australia to Asian migrants and thus drive down the wages of white local workers.  The loudest advocates, and later on the beneficiaries of the process of the so-called decolonisation in Asia and Africa, were not just Marxist professors in Western academe, or Soviet Cold War apparatchiks, but primarily international big businessmen, “as old empires had become too restive to capitalism.” The author well illustrates this point by looking at the tragic fate of South Africa and Rhodesia, once upon a time White-ruled countries which used to be the bread basket of Africa, only to turn into violence-torn African basket cases with no future in sight. The iconic figure of the ANC, the Black activist Nelson Mandela, still hailed by starry-eyed globalists as the canonized Black Saint, once upon a time was determined to kick capitalism out of South Africa, only to declare in 1996, that is to say, after South Africa had already turned into an ungovernable entity, that “privatisation is the fundamental policy of the African Nation Congress and will remain so.”

The American government, The Trilateral Commission, along with many self-proclaimed humanitarian NGOs, such as the famed George Soros’ Open Society Institute, behind their mask of lacrimal multiculturalism and behind their culinary diplomacy, have been the main motors in turning Asia and Africa into a giant pool of cheap labor and permanent political unrest. This is the true goal of Babel Incorporated.  Hence the first conclusion one can draw after completing reading the first half of the book, and just before one starts railing and ranting against colored immigrants flooding now Europe and the USA: Massive non-White immigration, and now its reverse side, i.e. the colonisation of Europe and the USA, is just a logical outcome of political designs framed long time ago by rootless plutocrats and their leftist acolytes.

Bolton does not forget to look at the importance of “culture wars” and notes how global plutocrats use those wars in an attempt to subvert recalcitrant governments all over the word. Contrary to false presumptions, still strongly held by many right-wing intellectuals, the “uncultured” USA plutocrats have been very slick in fostering the multicultural “American dream” by resorting beforehand to the creation of a myriad of “independent” cultural outlets and think tanks in the target countries. One could enumerate a dozen post-communist countries in Eastern Europe which, in the mid- 90’s and early 2000’s, were all subjected to the Babel Inc.-inspired “velvet” and “rainbow” revolutions, as well as the so- called “Arab spring revolutions.” In an attempt to destroy a sense of national and racial pride and in an effort to impose a hybrid mishmash of new consumer species — i.e., homo consumens — the Babel Inc. decision makers do not need to send F14s to the Serbian skies or over the Iraqi desert, but instead resort first to Hollywood imagery and hip-hop political acrobatics in order to enchant the youth of the target country. The costs are negligible; the benefits are great.

The author rightly sees that before Whites start bewailing the destructive consequences of forced multiculturalism and its inevitable corollary of non-White immigration flooding their countries, they must critically re-examine the now redundant notion of their own nation-state. It is fundamentally wrong to blame all our ills on the SPLC, or the ADL, or the LICRA, or the Trilateral Commission, or some real or hypothetical Jew, or some hostile, plutocratic, culture-destroying Babel Inc. elites only.  We White Europeans and Americans must accept our full share of the blame. We must first and foremost reject the religion of progress and its underlying principle of permanent economic growth, before considering setting up our own ethnic enclaves. Whether these ethnic enclaves are in the Northwest of the U.S., or in Orania in South Africa, or somewhere in Europe, they must keep capitalism on a short leash aimed at preserving the racial/ethnic integrity of these enclaves, as occurred under the White Australia policy and the 1924 immigration restriction law in the U.S. Given the still strong and age-old squabbles among and amidst European peoples, this nearly impossible task can only be bestowed upon dispassionate White individuals capable of transcending their own narrow tribal interests — and their own egos.

Dr. Tom Sunic (www.tomsunic.com) is a writer and a board member of the American Freedom Party.

samedi, 28 février 2015

MYTHS AND MENDACITIES: THE ANCIENTS AND THE MODERNS

MYTHS AND MENDACITIES:  THE ANCIENTS AND THE MODERNS

Tomislav Sunic
(The Occidental Quarterly, vol. 14, no. 4, Winter 2014–2015)


querelle-anciens-modernes.jpgWhen discussing the myths of ancient Greece one must first define their meaning and locate their historical settings. The word “myth” has a specific meaning when one reads the ancient Greek tragedies or when one studies the theogony or cosmogony of the early Greeks. By contrast, the fashionable expression today such as “political mythology” is often laden with value judgments and derisory interpretations. Thus, a verbal construct such as “the myth of modernity” may be interpreted as an insult by proponents of modern liberalism. To a modern, self-proclaimed supporter of liberal democracy, enamored with his own system-supporting myths of permanent economic progress and the like, phrases, such as “the myth of economic progress” or “the myth of democracy,” may appear as egregious political insults.


For many contemporaries, democracy is not just a doctrine that could be discussed; it is not a “fact” that experience could contradict; it is the truth of faith beyond any dispute. (1)


Criticizing, therefore, the myth of modern democracy may be often interpreted as a sign of pathological behavior. Given this modern liberal dispensation, how does one dare use such locutions as “the myth of modern democracy,” or “the myth of contemporary historiography,” or “the myth of progress” without being punished?


Ancient European myths, legends and folk tales are viewed by some scholars, including some Christian theologians, as gross re-enactments of European barbarism, superstition, and sexual promiscuity. (2)  However, if a reader or a researcher immerses himself in the symbolism of the European myths, let alone attempts to decipher the allegorical meaning of the diverse creatures in those myths, such as, for instance, the scenes from the Orphic rituals, the hellhole of Tartarus, the carnage in the Iliad or in the Nibelungenlied, or the final divine battle in Ragnarök, then those mythical scenes take on a different, albeit often a self-serving meaning. (3) After all, in our modern so-called enlightened and freedom-loving liberal societies, citizens are also entangled in a profusion of bizarre infra-political myths, in a myriad of hagiographic tales, especially those dealing with World War II victimhoods, as well as countless trans-political legends which are often enforced under penalty of law. There-fore, understanding ancient and modern European myths and myth-makers, means, first and foremost, reading between the lines and strengthening one’s sense of the metaphor.


In hindsight when one studies the ancient Greek myths with their surreal settings and hyperreal creatures, few will accord them historical veracity or any empirical or scientific value. However, few will reject them as outright fabrications. Why is that? In fact, citizens in Europe and America, both young and old, still enjoy reading the ancient Greek myths because most of them are aware not only of their strong symbolic nature, but also of their didactic message. This is the main reason why those ancient European myths and sagas are still popular. Ancient European myths and legends thrive in timelessness; they are meant to go beyond any historical time frame; they defy any historicity. They are open to anybody’s “historical revisionism” or interpretation. This is why ancient European myths or sagas can never be dogmatic; they never re-quire the intervention of the thought police or a politically correct enforcer in order to make themselves readable or credible.


hés782869306080.jpgThe prose of Homer or Hesiod is not just a part of the European cultural heritage, but could be interpreted also as a mirror of the pre-Christian European subconscious. In fact, one could describe ancient European myths as primal allegories where every stone, every creature, every god or demigod, let alone each monster, acts as a role model representing a symbol of good or evil. (4) Whether Hercules historically existed or not is beside the point. He still lives in our memory. When we were young and when we were reading Homer, who among us did not dream about making love to the goddess Aphrodite? Or at least make some furtive passes at Daphne? Apollo, a god with a sense of moderation and beauty was our hero, as was the pesky Titan Prometheus, al-ways trying to surpass himself with his boundless intellectual curiosity. Prometheus unbound is the prime symbol of White man’s irresistible drive toward the unknown and toward the truth irrespective of the name he carries in ancient sagas, modern novels, or political treatises. The English and the German poets of the early nineteenth century, the so -called Romanticists, frequently invoked the Greek gods and especially the Titan Prometheus. The expression “Romanticism” is probably not adequate for that literary time period in Europe because there was nothing romantic about that epoch or for that matter about the prose of authors such as Coleridge, Byron, or Schiller, who often referred to the ancient Greek deities:

Whilst the smiling earth ye governed still,
And with rapture’s soft and guiding hand
Led the happy nations at your will,
Beauteous beings from the fable-land!
Whilst your blissful worship smiled around,
Ah! how different was it in that day!
When the people still thy temples crowned,
Venus Amathusia!  (5)

Many English and German Romanticists were political realists and not daydreamers, as modern textbooks are trying to depict them. All of them had a fine foreboding of the coming dark ages. Most of them can be described as thinkers of the tragic, all the more as many of them end-ed their lives tragically. Many, who wanted to arrest the merciless flow of time, ended up using drugs. A poetic drug of choice among those “pagan” Romanticists in the early nineteenth-century Europe was opi-um and its derivative, the sleeping beauty laudanum. (6)


Myth and religion are not synonymous, although they are often used synonymously—depending again on the mood and political beliefs of the storyteller, the interpreter, or the word abuser. There is a difference between religion and myth—a difference, as stated above, depending more on the interpreter and less on the etymological differences between these two words. Some will persuasively argue that the miracles per-formed by Jesus Christ were a series of Levantine myths, a kind of Oriental hocus-pocus designed by an obscure Galilean drifter in order to fool the rootless, homeless, raceless, and multicultural masses in the dying days of Rome.(7)


Some of our Christian contemporaries will, of course, reject such statements. If such anti-Christian remarks were uttered loudly today in front of a large church congregation, or in front of devout Christians, it may lead to public rebuke.


In the modern liberal system, the expression “the religion of liberalism” can have a derisory effect, even if not intended. The word “religion” derives from the Latin word religare, which means to bind together or to tie together. In the same vein some modern writers and historians use the expression “the religion of the Holocaust” without necessarily assigning to the noun “religion” a pejorative or abusive meaning and without wishing to denigrate Jews. (8)


However, the expression “the religion of the Holocaust” definitely raises eyebrows among the scribes of the modern liberal system given that the memory of the Holocaust is not meant to enter the realm of religious or mythical transcendence, but instead remain in the realm of secular, rational belief. It must be viewed as an undisputed historical fact. The memory of the Holocaust, however, has ironically acquired quasi-transcendental features going well beyond a simple historical narrative. It has become a didactic message stretching well beyond a given historical time period or a given people or civilization, thus escaping any time frame and any scientific measurement. The notion of its “uniqueness” seems to be the trait of all monotheistic religions which are hardly in need of historical proof, let alone of forensic or material documentation in order to assert themselves as universally credible.


The ancestors of modern Europeans, the ancient polytheist Greeks, were never tempted to export their gods or myths to distant foreign peoples. By contrast, Judeo -Christianity and Islam have a universal message, just like their secular modalities, liberalism and communism. Failure to accept these Islamic or Christian beliefs or, for that matter, deriding the modern secular myths embedded today in the liberal system, may result in the persecution or banishment of modern heretics, often under the legal verbiage of protecting “human rights” or “protecting the memory of the dead,” or “fighting against intolerance.” (9).


There is, however, a difference between “myth” and “religion,” although these words are often used synonymously. Each religion is history-bound; it has a historical beginning and it contains the projection of its goals into a distant future. After all, we all measure the flow of time from the real or the alleged birth of Jesus Christ. We no longer measure the flow of time from the fall of Troy, ab urbem condita, as our Roman ancestors did. The same Christian frame of time measurement is true not just for the Catholic Vatican today, or the Christian-inspired, yet very secular European Union, but also for an overtly atheist state such as North Korea. So do Muslims count their time differently—since the Hegira (i.e., the flight of Muhammad from Mecca), and they still spiritually dwell in the fifth century, despite the fact that most states where Muslims form a majority use modern Western calendars. We can observe that all religions, including the secular ones, unlike myths, are located in a historical time frame, with well-marked beginnings and with clear projections of historical end-times.

On a secular level, for contemporary dedicated liberals, the true un-disputed “religion” (which they, of course, never call “religion”) started in 1776, with the day of the American Declaration of Independence, whereas the Bolsheviks began enforcing their “religion” in 1917. For all of them, all historical events prior to those fateful years are considered symbols of “the dark ages.”


What myth and religion do have in common, however, is that they both rest on powerful symbolism, on allegories, on proverbs, on rituals, on initiating labors, such as the ones the mythical Hercules endured, or the riddles Jason had to solve with his Argonauts in his search for the Golden Fleece. (10) In a similar manner, the modern ideology of liberalism, having become a quasi-secular religion, consists also of a whole set and subsets of myths where modern heroes and anti-heroes appear to be quite active. Undoubtedly, modern liberals sternly reject expressions such as “the liberal religion,” “the liberal myth,” or “the liberal cult.” By contrast, they readily resort to the expressions such as “the fascist myth” or “the communist myth,” or “the Islamo-fascist myth” whenever they wish to denigrate or criminalize their political opponents. The modern liberal system possesses also its own canons and its own sets of rituals and incantations that need to be observed by contemporary believers— particularly when it comes to the removal of political heretics.


Myths are generally held to be able to thrive in primitive societies only. Yet based on the above descriptions, this is not always the case. Ancient Greece had a fully developed language of mythology, yet on the spiritual and scientific level it was a rather advanced society. Ancient Greek mythology had little in common with the mythology of today’s Polynesia whose inhabitants also cherish their own myths, but whose level of philosophical or scientific inquiry is not on a par with that of the ancient Greeks.


Aphrodite_Venus_Greek_Goddess_Art_08.jpgDid Socrates or Plato or Aristotle believe in the existence of harpies, Cyclops, Giants, or Titans? Did they believe in their gods or were their gods only the personified projects of their rituals? Very likely they did believe in their gods, but not in the way we think they did. Some modern scholars of the ancient Greek mythology support this thesis: “The dominant modern view is the exact opposite. For modern ritualists and indeed for most students of Greek religion in the late nineteenth and throughout the twentieth century, rituals are social agendas that are in conception and origin prior to the gods, who are regarded as mere human constructs that have no reality outside the religious belief system that created them.” (11).


One can argue that the symbolism in the myths of ancient Greece had an entirely different significance for the ancient Greeks than it does for our contemporaries. The main reason lies in the desperate effort of the moderns to rationally explain away the mythical world of their ancestors by using rationalist concepts and symbols. Such an ultrarational drive for the comprehension of the distant and the unknown is largely due to the unilinear, monotheist mindset inherited from Judaism and from its offshoot Christianity and later on from the Enlightenment. In the same vein, the widespread modern political belief in progress, as Georges Sorel wrote a century ago, can also be observed as a secularization of the biblical paradise myth. “The theory of progress was adopted as a dogma at the time when the bourgeoisie was the conquering class; thus one must see it as a bourgeois doctrine.” (12)

The Western liberal system sincerely believes in the myth of perpetual progress. Or to put it somewhat crudely, its disciples argue that the purchasing power of citizens must grow indefinitely. Such a linear and optimistic mindset, directly inherited from the Enlightenment, prevents modern citizens in the European Union and America from gaining a full insight into the mental world of their ancestors, thereby depriving them of the ability to conceive of other social and political realities. Undoubtedly, White Americans and Europeans have been considerably affected by the monotheistic mindset of Judaism and its less dogmatic offshoot, Christianity, to the extent that they have now considerable difficulties in conceptualizing other truths and other levels of knowledge.


It needs to be stressed, though, that ancient European myths have a strong component of the tragic bordering on outright nihilism. Due to the onslaught of the modern myth of progress, the quasi-inborn sense of the tragic, which was until recently a unique character trait of the White European heritage, has fallen into oblivion. In the modern liberal system the notion of the tragic is often viewed as a social aberration among individuals professing skepticism or voicing pessimism about the future of the modern liberal system. Nothing remains static in the notion of the tragic. The sheer exuberance of a hero can lead a moment later to his catastrophe. The tragic trait is most visible in the legendary Sophocles’ tragedy Oedipus at Colonus when Oedipus realizes that he is doomed forever for having unknowingly killed his father and for having un-knowingly had an incestuous relationship with his mother. Yet he struggles in vain to the very end in order to escape his destiny. Here is the often quoted line Nr. 1225, i.e., the refrain of the Chorus:


Not to be born is past all prizing best; but when a man has seen the light this is next best by far, that with all speed he should go thither whence he has come. (13)
The tragic consists in the fact that insofar as one strives to avoid a catastrophe, one actually brings a catastrophe upon himself. Such a tragic state of mind is largely rejected by the proponents of the liberal myth of progress.

Artemis_Diana_Greek_Goddess_Art_01_by_michael_c_hayes.jpg



MYTHS AND THE TRAGIC: THE COMING OF THE TITANIC AGE


Without myths there is no tragic, just like without the Titans there can be no Gods. It was the twelve Titans who gave birth to the Gods and not the other way around. It was the titanesque Kronos who gave birth to Zeus, and then, after being dethroned by his son Zeus, forced to dwell with his fellow Titans in the underworld. But one cannot rule out that the resurrection of the head Titan Kronos, along with the other Titans, may reoccur again, perhaps tomorrow, or perhaps in an upcoming eon, thus enabling the recommencement of the new titanic age. After all Prometheus was himself a Titan, although, as a dissident Titan, he had decided to be on the side of the Gods and combat his own fellow Titans. Here is how Friedrich Georg Jünger, an avid student of the ancient Greek myths and the younger brother of the famous contemporary essayist Ernst Jünger, sees it:


Neither are the Titans unrestrained power-hungry beings, nor do they scorn the law; rather, they are the rulers over a legal system whose necessity must never be put into doubt. In an awe -inspiring fashion, it is the flux of primordial elements over which they rule, holding bridle and reins in their hands, as seen in Helios. They are the guardians, custodians, supervisors, and the guides of order. They are the founders unfolding beyond chaos, as pointed out by Homer in his remarks about Atlas who shoulders the long columns holding the heavens and the Earth. Their rule rules out any confusion, any disorderly power performance. Rather, they constitute a powerful deterrent against chaos. (14)

clash-of-the-titans-news-teil-3.jpg


Nothing remains new for the locked-up Titans: they know every-thing. They are the central feature in the cosmic eternal return. The Titans are not the creators of chaos, although they reside closer to chaos and are, therefore, better than the Gods—more aware of possible chaotic times. They can be called telluric deities, and it remains to be seen whether in the near future they may side up with some chthonic monsters, such as those described by the novelist H. P. Lovecraft.


It seems that the Titans are the necessary element in the cosmic balance, although they have not received due acknowledgment by contemporary students of ancient and modern mythologies. The Titans are the central feature in the study of the will to power and each White man who demonstrates this will has a good ingredient of the Titanic spirit:


What is Titanic about man? The Titanic trait occurs everywhere and it can be described in many ways. Titanic is a man who completely relies only upon himself and has boundless confidence in his own powers. This confidence absolves him, but at the same time it isolates him in a Promethean mode. It gives him a feeling of independence, albeit not devoid of arrogance, violence, and defiance. (15)


Today, in our disenchanted world, from which all gods have departed, the resurgence of the Titans may be an option for a dying Western civilization. The Titans and the titanic humans are known to be out-spoken about their supreme independence, their aversion to cutting deals, and their uncompromising, impenitent attitude. What they need in addition is a good portion of luck, or fortuna.
 
Notes:


1. Louis Rougier, La mystique démocratique (Paris: Albatros, 1983), p. 13.
2. Nicole Belmont, Paroles païennes: mythe et folklore (Paris: Imago, 1986) quotes on page 106 the German-born English Orientalist and philologist Max Müller who sees in ancient myths “a disease of language,” an approach criticized by the anthropological school of thought. His critic Andrew Lang writes: “The general problem is this: Has language—especially language in a state of ‘disease,’ been the great source of the mythology of the world? Or does mythology, on the whole, represent the survival of an old stage of thought—not caused by language—from which civilised men have slowly emancipated themselves? Mr. Max Müller is of the former, anthropologists are of the latter, opinion.” Cf. Andrew Lang, Modern Mythology (New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1897), p.x.
3. Thomas Bullfinch, The Golden Age of Myth and Legend (London: Wordsworth Editions, 1993).
4.See the German classicist, Walter F. Otto, The Homeric Gods: The Spiritual Significance of Greek Religion, trans. Moses Hadas (North Stratford, NH: Ayer Company Publishers, 2001). Otto is quite critical of Christian epistemology. Some excerpts from this work appeared in French translation also in his article, “Les Grecs et leurs dieux,” in the quarterly Krisis (Paris), no. 23 (January 2000).
5. Friedrich Schiller, The Gods of Greece, trans. E. A. Bowring.  ttp://www.bartleby.com/270/9/2.html
6. Tomislav Sunic, “The Right Stuff,” Chronicles (October 1996), 21–22; Tomislav Sunic, “The Party Is Over,” The Occidental Observer (November 5, 2009).  http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Sunic-Drugs.html
7.Tomislav Sunic, “Marx, Moses, and the Pagans in the Secular City,” CLIO: A Journal of Literature, History, and the Philosophy of History 24, no. 2 (Winter 1995).
8.Gilad Atzmon, The Wandering Who? A Study of Jewish Identity Politics (Winchester, UK: Zero Books, 2011), 148–49.
9. Alain de Benoist, “Die Methoden der Neuen Inquisition,” in Schöne vernetzte Welt (Tübingen: Hohenrain Verlag, 2001), p. 190–205.
10. Michael Grant, Myths of the Greeks and Romans (London: Phoenix, 1989), p. 289–303.
11. Albert Henrichs, “What Is a Greek God?,” in The Gods of Ancient Greece, ed. Jan Bremmer and Andrew Erskine (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2010), p- 26.
12. Georges Sorel, Les Illusions du progrès (Paris: Marcel Rivière, 1911), p. 5–6.
13. Sophocles, Oedipus at Colonus, in The Complete Plays of Sophocles, ed. and trans. R. C. Jebb (New York: Bantam Books, 1979), p. 250.
14. Friedrich Georg Jünger, Die Titanen (Frankfurt: Klostermann, 1944), p. 89–90.
15. Ibid., 105.

mardi, 16 décembre 2014

Handboek Nieuw-Rechts eindelijk ook in het Nederlands beschikbaar!

Handboek Nieuw-Rechts eindelijk ook in het Nederlands beschikbaar!
 
Ex: Deltastichting - Nieuwsbrief Nr. 89

Onze zusterorganisatie Identiteit was een tijdje geleden op het briljante idee gekomen het Engelstalig handboek van Tomislav Sunic over Nieuw-Rechts in het Nederlands te vertalen.
Het resultaat ligt eindelijk voor in boekvorm, en het mag gezien worden.

Reden genoeg dus om de uitgevers van "
Nieuw Rechts: voor een andere politieke cultuur" even aan de tand te voelen naar de reden om dit fundamentele boek ook in het Nederlands uit te geven, en naar hun toekomstplannen.

Vanwaar kwam de idee om net dit boek te vertalen en uit te geven? Hoe kwam je op de naam van Tomislav Sunic?
 
Het boek zelf is zeer gekend in de Angelsaksische wereld.  Het wordt er  – samen met het recentere boek New Culture, New Right: Anti-Liberalism in Postmodern Europe  van Michael O’Meara – gezien als het basiswerk inzake Nieuw-Rechts.   Het feit dat Sunic  heel wat contacten heeft met Vlamingen maakte het ook gemakkelijker.   Tomislav Sunic was overigens  zeer tevreden over de Nederlandse vertaling.

Kan je in 5 woorden de inhoud van dit boek aan de lezers meegeven (mag natuurlijk iets langer zijn)?

Het boek heeft een overzicht van de verschillende politieke denkers die Nieuw-Rechts beïnvloed hebben.  Het is in feite de doctoraatsverhandeling van Tomislav Sunic, die in boekvorm verschijnt.  Oorspronkelijk uitgegeven in het Engels is het ondertussen vertaald in het Kroatisch, Spaans en Frans.  En nu in het Nederlands.

Waarom zou de lezer van deze elektronische Nieuwsbrief dit boek zéker moeten aanschaffen?

Het boek schetst hoe NR zich niet zo gemakkelijk in de klassieke links/rechtsschaal laat indelen. Het boek schenkt  aandacht aan de  historische cycli (in contrast met vooruitgangsmythe),  de heidense vorm van spiritualiteit, de visie op democratie en kapitalisme. Het is het ideale boek om Nieuw Rechts beter te situeren en te leren kennen.  Het boek sluit af met het manifest van Nieuw Rechts

Welke andere projecten staan er op stapel? Wordt eraan gedacht om een echte NR-reeks op te zetten? Welke boeken en welke auteurs heb je in gedachten?

Het is hopelijk het eerste boek van een reeks.  Er zijn concrete plannen om ook andere boeken in vertaling uit te geven.  Wat zit er momenteel in de pijplijn?  Alain de Benoist met Critiques/Théoriques, Evola… maar ook onbekend Engelstalig werk van Jan De Vries.

Hoe wordt het boek verspreid? De traditionele verspreidingskanalen? Sociale media? Waarom werken jullie niet met voorinschrijvingen?

We verspreiden ons boek zeker via de klassieke kanalen (meetings, Ijzerwake). Anderzijds zullen we ook via mailings het boek proberen aan de man te brengen.  Voorinschrijvingen is iets dat we bij de volgende uitgaven zullen overwegen, maar daar moeten we eerst onze nieuwsbrief voor rondkrijgen.
 
Bedankt voor dit gesprek!
 
Interesse? Het boek kan besteld worden via het volgende e-postadres 
Kostprijs € 18€ (+ 4€ verzendingskosten)

Een ideaal nieuwjaarscadeau.

 

Peter Logghe

vendredi, 05 décembre 2014

Dr. Sunic: Voor een andere politieke cultuur

Boek-Nieuw-Rechts-Tomislav-Sunic-300x300.png

Voor een andere politieke cultuur

Dr. Sunic werd geboren in Zagreb (Kroatië). Hij studeerde in 1978 af aan de universiteit Zagreb als germanist en romanist. Van 1980 tot 1982 werkte hij in Algerije als tolk voor de Kroatische bouwfirma Ingra. Hij emigreerde naar de Verenigde Staten, waar hij eerst een masterdiploma behaalde aan de California State University (Sacramento). Daarna volgde een doctoraat in politieke wetenschappen aan de University of California, Santa Barbara.

Tijdens zijn studies in Amerika lobbyde hij actief voor Kroatische politieke gevangenen in communistisch Joegoslavië. Daarnaast schreef hij voor enkele buitenlandse Kroatische tijdschriften: het in Londen gevestigde Nova Hrvatska en in het Madrileense literaire tijschrift Hrvatska Revija. Van 1988 tot 1993 doceerde hij aan de California State University, de University of California en Juniata college in Pennsylvania. Tussen ’93 en 2001 was hij namens de Kroatische overheid actief op verschillende diplomatieke posten in Zagreb, Londen, Kopenhagen en Brussel.

Momenteel leeft hij met zijn gezin in Zagreb waar hij blijft werken als freelanceschrijver onder andere over communistisch totalitarisme en politieke semiologie (voor tijdschriften zoals Catholica, Chronicles, Elements…).

Nieuw Rechts. Voor een andere politieke cultuur

€18,00

Auteur: Tomislav Sunic
Uitgeverij: iD
Aantal pagina’s: 222
Verzending: 4 euro

OPGELET: Beschikbaar vanaf 1/12/2014

Om te bestellen:

http://pallieterke.net/product/nieuw-rechts-voor-een-andere-politieke-cultuur/

mercredi, 03 décembre 2014

Modern education and the destruction of culture

Professor Tomislav Sunić

Modern education and the destruction of culture

Talk given at the Traditional Britain Conference 2014 - The Basis of Culture?

Hosted by The Traditional Britain Group.

Find out more http://www.traditionalbritain.org

 

mardi, 02 décembre 2014

Authoritarianism, "Hate Speech" Legislation & Universalism

Authoritarianism, "Hate Speech" Legislation & Universalism: An Interview With Dr. Tomislav Sunic

Journalist Joshua Blakeney interviewed Dr. Tomislav Sunic, a former Croatian diplomat, professor and translator. They discussed comparisons between the authoritarianism of Communist Yugoslavia and the creeping authoritarianism in countries such as the US, France, Canada and Germany. Dr. Sunic compared the "hostile propaganda" laws which were invoked to prosecute his family members in Communist Yugoslavia with the Orwellian "Hate Speech" laws which exist in various Western jurisdictions.

They also discussed the interface between universalism and particularism in the formation of the philosophy and ideology of the New Right. The interview was conducted on June 12, 1014. Links of relevance include:

Website of Dr. Tomislav Sunic:

http://www.tomsunic.com

Articles by Tomislav Sunic

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/...

Website of Joshua Blakeney

http://www.joshuablakeney.info

Joshua Blakeney Interviews Kevin MacDonald:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdNus...

Book - Homo Americanus:

http://www.amazon.ca/Homo-Americanus-...

Book - Against Democracy and Equality:

http://www.amazon.ca/Against-Democrac...

mercredi, 29 octobre 2014

Les chroniques acérées de Tomislav Sunic

Tomislav_Sunic.JPG

Les chroniques acérées de Tomislav Sunic

par Georges FELTIN-TRACOL

Les lecteurs d’Europe Maxima connaissent bien sûr notre ami Tomislav Sunic. Ancien diplomate croate et naguère professeur de sciences politiques aux États-Unis, il vécut dans le système titiste yougoslave avant de se retrouver confronté au système occidental étatsunien. Dans les deux cas, il comprit, par-delà les maigres différences de l’un et de l’autre élevées en données majeures rivales, leur fonctionnement similaire. Pour le public francophone, il vient de publier dans une nouvelle collection, « Fahrenheit 451 », dirigée par un autre vieil ami, l’infatigable combattant des ondes Pascal G. Lassalle, un recueil d’articles, d’entretiens et de conférences sobrement intitulé Chroniques des Temps Postmodernes.

 

Richement illustré par les magnifiques peintures du Serbe Dragos Kalajic (1943 – 2005), l’ouvrage développe trois axes principaux : la question de la liberté d’expression en Occident globalitaire, le destin contrarié de l’Amérique d’origine européenne et le sort des Balkans. Tomislav Sunic ne se contente pas d’utiliser les enseignements de la géopolitique. Il met à son profit les connaissances de la philosophie politique, de l’histoire et de la sociobiologie (ou psychologie évolutionnaire).

 

Très attaché à la liberté de recherche en histoire, il ose aborder un talon contemporain : « la “ solution finale ” de la question allemande (p. 113) ». Il s’inquiète de l’instrumentalisation de l’histoire et de son piratage par une mémoire reformatée qui dévalorise l’héroïsme et encourage la victimisation. « L’esprit victimaire découle directement de l’idéologie des droits de l’homme. Les droits de l’homme et leur pendant, le multiculturalisme, sont les principaux facteurs qui expliquent la résurgence de l’esprit victimaire. Quand tous les hommes sont déclarés égaux, chacun a droit à sa victimologie (p. 104). » Toutefois, « dans “ la concurrence mondiale pour la mémoire historique ”, soutient-il, toutes les victimes ne bénéficient pas des mêmes droits (p. 241) ». L’auteur observe que « le Système multiculturel actuel est par force conflictuel : chaque doctrine victimaire persiste dans sa propre unicité et ne se propage qu’aux dépens des autres (p. 245) ». Or « le multiracialisme, qui se cache derrière l’hypocrite euphémisme du “ multiculturalisme ”, mène à la guerre civile et à la haine interraciale. Les Serbes et les Croates, toujours immergés dans leurs victimologies conflictuelles, ignorent toujours que l’Europe occidentale a franchi depuis belle lurette le cap du Camp des Saints et que nous, les Européens, nous sommes tous menacés par une mort raciale et culturelle (p. 99) ». Et c’est gravissime, car « lorsqu’un peuple oublie son mythe fondateur, il est condamné à périr. Pire, il peut se transformer en un agrégat de robots heureux dont le nouveau principe des droits de l’homme universel pourrait n’être qu’un masque pour un hédonisme insouciant (p. 43) ».

 

 

chroniques_cov_500.jpg

 

 

Dans le même temps, « l’Europe orientale subit deux maux : d’une part, le tragique héritage du mental communiste, d’autre part, la grotesque imitation de la sphère occidentale. […] Les Européens de l’Est absorbent essentiellement le pire de l’Occident : décadence et anomie (p. 84) ». Pourquoi ? Parce que « le communisme a disparu en Europe orientale parce qu’en pratique, il a su beaucoup mieux réaliser ses principes égalitaires en Europe occidentale quoique sous un autre signifiant et sous un autre vocable. Le Système, soit sous son vocable communiste, soit sous son vocable multiculturel, croit que toutes les nations européennes sont remplaçables au sein du Système supra-étatique et supra-européen (p. 215) ». Il en découle que « le libéralisme, avec son jumeau le marxisme et son avatar moderne le multiculturalisme, sont des systèmes profondément inhumains (p. 27) ». Mais, optimisme ou réalisme ?, « l’Amérique actuelle est devenue un système hautement balkanisé qui fonctionne de plus en plus comme l’ancien système soviétique et où les formes élémentaires de “ survivalisme ” de chaque groupe ethnique risquent de déclencher des guerres interraciales (p. 186) ». Toutefois, on ne doit pas se focaliser sur le seul fait étatsunienne. « L’homo americanus n’est pas propre à la seule Amérique. C’est une figure transpolitique mondiale qui réside partout et surtout en Europe (p. 161). » Il remarque enfin que « l’américanisme est devenu un concept liquide qui fonctionne de plus en plus comme un système supra-étatique aux identités disparates (p. 139) ».

 

Avec une rare lucidité, Tomislav Sunic pense que « les grands conflits du futur n’opposeront plus la gauche à la droite, ni l’Est à l’Ouest, mais les forces du nationalisme et du régionalisme au credo de la démocratie universelle (p. 39) » et formule un vœu : « Les Blancs en Europe et en Amérique se doivent de surmonter leur sentiment d’enracinement territorial ainsi que des querelles intra-ethniques : l’identité raciale et culturelle européenne va de l’Argentine à la Suède et de la Russie à bien d’autres coins du globe. Plus important encore : les Blancs doivent clairement accepter leur identité de Blanc (p. 199). » Attention cependant aux éventuels contresens ! Il avertit que « l’Identité, lorsqu’elle repose seulement sur l’hérédité, a peu de sens si elle manque de “ Gestalt ” – si elle refuse de s’assigner un nom, un prénom et un lieu d’origine. Une identité blanche abstraite, dépourvue d’« âme raciale », n’a pas de sens. Nous portons tous des noms et nous traînons tous notre mémoire tribale et culturelle  (p. 205) ». Il prévient par ailleurs que « tous les beaux discours contre l’immigration non européenne, tous les récits sur un certain axe Paris – Berlin – Moscou, tous les projets d’une Europe empire, qui sont de bon ton parmi les identitaires ouest-européens, ne veulent pas dire grand-chose en Europe de l’Est (p. 133) ». Il se méfie en outre du concept d’Empire. « Il nous faut être fort prudent avec l’emploi du vocable “ empire ” – vu que ce terme porte des signifiés fort différents des deux côtés du Rhin – et de l’autre côté de l’Atlantique (p. 298). »

 

Ces précautions indispensables prises, cela n’empêche pas l’auteur d’insister sur « notre ennemi principal : le capitaliste local et son alter ego, le spéculateur globalitaire (p. 142) ». Il suppose dès lors que « très probablement, nous aurons besoin de davantage de chaos dans notre cité, parce que c’est seulement du chaos que de nouvelles élites et un nouveau système de valeurs peuvent émerger (p. 25) ». Le dissident à l’Occident global vient encore de frapper les esprits ! Écoutons et méditons ses judicieux conseils.

 

Georges Feltin-Tracol

 

• Tomislav Sunic, Chroniques des Temps Postmodernes, Avatar Éditions (B.P. 43, F – 91151 Étampes C.E.D.E.X.), coll. « Fahrenheit 451 », 2014, 303 p., 25 €.

 


 

Article printed from Europe Maxima: http://www.europemaxima.com

 

URL to article: http://www.europemaxima.com/?p=3917

 

mardi, 10 juin 2014

Sunic: la ND europea

tom_sunic.jpg

Contra la democracia y la igualdad.

La Nueva Derecha Europea.

de Tomislav Sunic

NOVEDAD
1ª edición, Tarragona, 2014.
21×15 cms., 202 págs.
Cubierta a todo color, con solapas y plastificada brillo.
 
PVP: 18 euros
 
Índice
 
Prólogo del traductor 9
 
Primera parte: Presentación de la Nueva Derecha 13
 
Introducción 15
 
Capítulo I: Entrando en la Nueva Derecha 23
Capítulo II: El “Gramcianismo” de la Derecha 45
Capítulo III: ¿La izquierda conservadora o la derecha revolucionaria? 53
Capítulo IV: Carl Schmitt y la política de destino 63
Capítulo V: Oswald Spengler y la historia como destino 73
Capítulo VI: Vilfredo Pareto y la patología política 83
Capítulo VII: La Derecha pagana 93
 
Segunda parte: La mística igualitaria. Las raíces de la crisis moderna 111
 
Introducción 113
 
Capítulo I: La metafísica de la igualdad 121
Capítulo II: La Nueva Derecha y la igualdad inalcanzable 133
Capítulo III: Homo Economicus: La Batalla de Todos Contra Todos 153
Capitulo IV: Totalitarismo e igualitarismo 165
Capítulo V: Homo Sovieticus: El Comunismo como entropía igualitaria 187
Conclusión 199
 

contra-la-democracia.png

 
Orientaciones
Éste es el primer libro que se publicó en lengua inglesa sobre la Nueva De­recha Europea, y a día de hoy sigue siendo una introducción imprescindi­ble a esta escuela de pensamiento fundamental para la comprensión de la política europea. Tomislav Sunic examina las cuestiones principales que han preocupado a los pensadores de la Nueva Derecha desde su fundación por Alain de Benoist en 1968, así como la naturaleza problemática de la etiqueta “Nueva Derecha” para una corriente que se ve a si misma más allá de los conceptos tradicionales de izquierda y derecha: su revolucionaria filosofía política; su concepción cíclica de la historia; su actitud hacia la democracia, el capitalismo y el socialismo; y su defensa de la espirituali­dad “pagana”. El autor también analiza el papel de algunos autores ante­riores que han sido especialmente influyentes en el desarrollo del movi­miento, como es el caso de Oswald Spengler, Carl Schmitt y Vilfredo Pareto.
 
Tomislav Sunic nació en Zagreb (Croacia) en 1953. Es doctor en Ciencias Políticas por la University of California at Santa Barbara. El doctor Sunic da conferencias por todo el mundo y dirigía su propio programa de radio, The Sunic Journal, emitido a través de Voice of Reason Network, una emisora de radio online. Es autor de varios libros, incluyendo Homo Americanus: Hijo de la Era Postmoderna (publicado en español por Ediciones Nueva Re­pública), y Postmortem Report: Cultural Examinations from Postmodernity (Collected Essays), los cuales profundizan en cuestiones planteadas en este libro. Recientemente ha publicado en lengua francesa Chroniques des Temps Postmodernes (marzo, 2014), una obra que ha generado gran expec­tación en Francia
 
 
 
Pedidos:
edicionesfides@yahoo.es
 
Tlf: 682 65 33 56
 

jeudi, 17 avril 2014

Chroniques des Temps postmodernes...

Chroniques des Temps postmodernes...

Les éditions Avatar viennent de publier Chroniques des Temps postmodernes, un recueil de textes et d'entretiens de Tomislav Sunic. Intellectuel croate, ancien professeur de sciences politiques au Juniata college de Pennsylvannie et ancien diplomate, déjà auteur de nombreux ouvrages en langue anglaise et en langue croate, Tomislav Sunic a publié deux essais en France, Homo americanus (Akribéia, 2010) et La Croatie: un pays par défaut ? (Avatar Editions, 2010).

 

Chroniques des Temps postmodernes.jpg

" Authentique dissident dans un XXIème siècle lourd de menaces multiples et protéiformes, Tomislav Sunic, auteur de plusieurs ouvrages dont deux publiés en français (La Croatie: un pays par défaut ? Avatar Editions, 2010; Homo americanus. Rejeton de l’ère postmoderne, Akribeia, 2010), déploie sa plume acérée dans ce recueil d’études et d’entretiens, pour établir une description clinique et lucide des temps de déraison et des années décisives qui constituent notre présent.

A l’aune des funestes figures engendrées par les systèmes idéologiques du siècle des grandes conflagrations (homo sovieticus et sa déclinaison balkanique, homo americanus), appréhendées dans un subtil jeu de miroirs, l’essayiste et conférencier américano-croate, nourri des travaux des “nouvelles droites” européennes, des penseurs transversaux et des meilleurs auteurs euro-américains, n’hésite pas à aborder avec courage et sérénité quelques-unes des problématiques essentielles, érigées en tabous de ces temps post-démocratiques d’unidimensionnalité néo-totalitaire, en posant les bonnes questions, avant de proposer de stimulantes pistes de réflexion et d’action. "

 

samedi, 12 avril 2014

Friedrich Georg Jünger: The Titans and the Coming of the Titanic Age

Friedrich Georg Jünger:

 

The Titans and the Coming of the Titanic Age

 

 

Tom Sunic

 Translated from the German and with an Introduction by Tom Sunic

Friedrich Georg Jünger (1898-1977)

Friedrich Georg Jünger (1898-1977)

Introduction: Titans, Gods and Pagans by Tom Sunic

Below is my translation of several passages from the last two chapters from Friedrich Georg Jünger’s little known book, Die Titanen, 1943, 1944 (The Titans). Only the subtitles are mine. F.G. Jünger was the younger brother of Ernst Jünger who wrote extensively about ancient Greek gods and goddesses. His studies on the meaning of Prometheism and Titanism are unavoidable for obtaining a better understanding of the devastating effects of the modern belief in progress and the role of “high-tech” in our postmodern societies. Outside the German-speaking countries, F.G. Jünger’s literary work remains largely unknown, although he had a decisive influence on his renowned brother, the essayist Ernst Jünger. Some parts of F.G Jünger’s other book,Griechische Götter (1943) (Greek Gods), with a similar, if not same topic, and containing also some passages from Die Titanen, were recently translated into French (Les Titans et les dieux, 2013).

In the footsteps of Friedrich Nietzsche and along with hundreds of German philosophers, novelists, poets and scientists, such as M. Heidegger, O. Spengler, C. Schmitt, L. Clauss, Gottfried Benn, etc., whose work became the object of criminalization by cultural Bolsheviks and by the Frankfurt School in the aftermath of WWII, F. G. Jünger can also be tentatively put in the category of “cultural conservative revolutionaries” who characterized the political, spiritual and cultural climate in Europe between the two world wars.

Ancient European myths, legends and folk tales are often derided by some scholars, including some Christian theologians who claim to see in them gross reenactments of European barbarism, superstition and sexual promiscuity. However, if a reader or a researcher immerses himself in the symbolism of the European myths, let alone if he tries to decipher the allegorical meaning of diverse creatures in the myths, such as for instance the scenes from the Orphic rituals, the hellhole of Tartarus, or the carnage in the Nibelungen saga, or the final divine battle in Ragnarök, then those mythical scenes take on an entirely different meaning. After all, in our modern so-called enlightened and freedom-loving liberal societies, citizens are also entangled in a profusion of bizarre infra-political myths, in a myriad of weird hagiographic tales, especially those dealing with World War II vicitmhoods, as well as countless trans-political, multicultural hoaxes enforced under penalty of law. Therefore, understanding the ancient European myths means, first and foremost, reading between the lines and strengthening one’s sense of the metaphor.

There persists a dangerous misunderstanding between White nationalists professing paganism vs. White nationalists professing Christian beliefs. The word “paganism” has acquired a pejorative meaning, often associated with childish behavior of some obscure New Age individuals carrying burning torches or reading the entrails of dead animals. This is a fundamentally false conception of the original meaning of paganism. “Pagans,” or better yet polytheists, included scores of thinkers from antiquity, such as Seneca, Heraclites, Plato, etc. who were not at all like many modern self-styled and self-proclaimed “pagans” worshipping dogs or gazing at the setting sun. Being a “pagan” denotes a method of conceptualizing the world beyond the dualism of “either-or.” The pagan outlook focuses on the rejection of all dogmas and looks instead at the notion of the political or the historical from diverse and conflicting perspectives. Figuratively speaking, the plurality of gods means also the plurality of different beliefs and different truths.  One can be a good Christian but also a good “pagan.”  For that matter even the “pagan” Ernst Jünger, F.G. Jünger’s older brother, had a very Catholic burial in 1998.

When F.G Jünger’s published his books on the Titans and the gods, in 1943 and in 1944, Germany lay in ruins, thus ominously reflecting F.G. Jünger’s earlier premonitions about the imminent clash of the Titans. With gods now having departed from our disenchanted and desacralized White Europe and White America, we might just as well have another look at the slumbering Titans who had once successfully fought against Chaos, only to be later forcefully dislodged by their own divine progeny.

Are the dozing Titans our political option today? F.G. Jünger’s book is important insofar as it offers a reader a handy manual for understanding a likely reawakening of the Titans and for decoding the meaning of the new and fast approaching chaos.

*    *    *

THE TITANS: CUSTODIANS OF LAW AND ORDER

….The Titans are not the Gods even though they generate the Gods and relish divine reverence in the kingdom of Zeus. The world in which the Titans rule is a world without the Gods. Whoever desires to imagine a kosmos atheos, i.e. a godless cosmos, that is, a cosmos not as such as depicted by natural sciences, will find it there. The Titans and the Gods differ, and, given that their differences are visible in their behavior toward man and in view of the fact that man himself experiences on his own as to how they rule, man, by virtue of his own experience, is able to make a distinction between them.

Neither are the Titans unrestrained power hungry beings, nor do they scorn the law; rather, they are the rulers over a legal system whose necessity must never be put in doubt. In an awe-inspiring fashion, it is the flux of primordial elements over which they rule, holding bridle and reins in their hands, as seen inHelios. They are the guardians, custodians, supervisors and the guides of the order. They are the founders unfolding beyond chaos, as pointed out by Homer in his remarks about Atlas who shoulders the long columns holding the heavens and the Earth. Their rule rules out any confusion, any disorderly power performance. Rather, they constitute a powerful deterrent against chaos.

The Titans and the Gods match with each other. Just as Zeus stands in forKronos, so does Poseidon stand in opposition to Oceanus, or for that matterHyperion and his son Helios in opposition to Apollo, or Coeus and Phoebe in opposition to Apollo and Artemis, or Selene in opposition to Artemis.

THE TITANS AGAINST THE GODS

What distinguishes the kingdom of Kronos from the kingdom of Zeus? One thing is for certain; the kingdom of Kronos is not a kingdom of the son. The sons are hidden in Kronos, who devoured those he himself had generated, the sons being now hidden in his dominion, whereas Zeus is kept away from Kronos by Rhea, who hides and raises Zeus in the caverns. And given that Kronos comports himself in such a manner his kingdom will never be a kingdom of the father. Kronos does not want to be a father because fatherhood is equivalent with a constant menace to his rule. To him fatherhood signifies an endeavor and prearrangement aimed at his downfall.

What does Kronos want, anyway? He wants to preserve the cycle of the status quo over which he presides; he wants to keep it unchanged. He wants to toss and turn it within himself from one eon to another eon. Preservation and perseverance were already the hallmark of his father. Although his father Uranusdid not strive toward the Titanic becoming, he did, however, desire to continue his reign in the realm of spaciousness. Uranus was old, unimaginably old, as old as metal and stones. He was of iron-like strength that ran counter to the process of becoming. But Kronos is also old. Why is he so old? Can this fluctuation of the Titanic forces take on at the same time traits of the immovable and unchangeable? Yes, of course it can, if one observes it from the perspective of the return, or from the point of view of the return of the same. If one attempts it, one can uncover the mechanical side in this ceaseless flux of the movement. The movement unveils itself as a rigid and inviolable law.

THE INFINITE SADNESS OF THE TITANS

How can we describe the sufferings of the Titans? How much do they suffer anyway, and what do they suffer from? The sound of grief uttered by the chainedPrometheus induces Hermes to derisive remarks about the same behavior which is unknown to Zeus. In so far as the Titans are in the process of moving, we must therefore also conceive of them as the objects of removal. Their struggle is onerous; it is filled with anxiety of becoming. And their anxiety means suffering. Grandiose things are being accomplished by the Titans, but grandiose things are being imposed on them too. And because the Titans are closer to chaos than Gods are, chaotic elements reveal themselves amidst them more saliently. No necessity appears as yet in chaos because chaos has not yet been measured off by any legal system. The necessity springs up only when it can be gauged by virtue of some lawfulness. This is shown in the case of Uranus and Kronos. The necessary keeps increasing insofar as lawfulness increases; it gets stronger when the lawful movements occur, that is, when the movements start reoccurring over and over again.

Mnemosyne (The Titaness of Memory) (mosaic, 2nd ct. AD)

Mnemosyne (The Titaness of Memory) (mosaic, 2nd century AD)

Among the Titanesses the sadness is most visible in the grief of Rhea whose motherhood was harmed.  Also in the mourning ofMnemosyne who ceaselessly conjures up the past. The suffering of this Titaness carries something of sublime magnificence. In her inaccessible solitude, no solace can be found. Alone, she must muse about herself — a dark image of the sorrow of life. The suffering of the Titans, after their downfall, reveals itself in all its might. The vanquished Titan represents one of the greatest images of suffering. Toppled, thrown down under into the ravines beneath the earth, sentenced to passivity, the Titan knows only how to carry, how to heave and how to struggle with the burden — similar to the burden carried by the Caryatids.

THE SELF-SUFFICIENT GODS

The Olympian Gods, however, do not suffer like the Titans. They are happy with themselves; they are self-sufficient. They do not ignore the pain and sufferings of man. They in fact conjure up these sufferings, but they also heal them. In Epicurean thought, in the Epicurean  world of happiness, we observe the Gods dwelling in-between-the-worlds, divorced from the life of the earth and separated from the life of men, to a degree that nothing can ever reach out to them and nothing can ever come from them. They enjoy themselves in an eternal halcyon bliss that cannot be conveyed by words.

The idea of the Gods being devoid of destiny is brought out here insofar as it goes well beyond all power and all powerlessness; it is as if the Gods had been placed in a deepest sleep, as if they were not there for us. Man, therefore, has no need to think of them. He must only leave them alone in their blissful slumber. But this is a philosophical thought, alien to the myth.

Under Kronos, man is part of the Titanic order. He does not stand yet in the opposition to the order — an opposition founded in the reign of Zeus. He experiences now the forces of the Titans; he lives alongside them. The fisherman and boatman venturing out on the sea are in their Titanic element. The same happens with the shepherd, the farmer, the hunter in their realm. Hyperion, Helios and Eos determine their days, Selene regulates their nights. They observe the running Iris, they see the Horae dancing and spinning around throughout the year. They observe the walk of the nymphs Pleiades and Hyadesin the skies. They recognize the rule of the great Titanic mothers, Gaia, Rhea, Mnemosyne and that of Gaia-Themis. Above all of them rules and reigns the old Kronos, who keeps a record of what happens in the skies, on the earth, and in the waters.

TITANIC NECESSITY VS. DIVINE DESTINY

The course of human life is inextricably linked to the Titanic order. Life makes one whole with it; the course of life cannot be divorced from this order. It is the flow of time, the year’s course, the day’s course. The tides and the stars are on the move. The process resembles a ceaseless flow of the river. Kronos reigns over it and makes sure it keeps returning. Everything returns and everything repeats itself — everything is the same. This is the law of the Titans; this is their necessity. In their motion a strict cyclical order manifests itself. In this order there is a regular cyclical return that no man can escape. Man’s life is a reflection of this cyclic order; it turns around in a Titanic cycle of Kronos.

Man has no destiny here, in contrast to the demigods and the heroes who all have it. The kingdom of Zeus is teeming with life and deeds of heroes, offering an inexhaustible material to the songs, to the epics and to the tragedies. In the kingdom of Kronos, however, there are no heroes; there is no Heroic Age. For man, Kronos, and the Titans have no destiny; they are themselves devoid of destiny. Does Helios, does Selene, does Eos have a destiny? Wherever the Titanic necessity rules, there cannot be a destiny. But the Gods are also deprived of destiny wherever divine necessity prevails, wherever man grasps the Gods in a fashion that is not in opposition to them. But a man whom the Gods confront has a destiny. A man whom the Titans confront perishes; he succumbs to a catastrophe.

We can say, however, that whatever happens to man under the rule of the Titans is a lot easier than under the rule of the Gods. The burden imposed on man is much lighter.

*   *   *

What happens when the Gods turn away from man and when they leave him on his own? Wherever they make themselves unrecognizable to man, wherever their care for man fades away, wherever man’s fate begins and ends without them, there always happens the same thing. The Titanic forces return and they validate their claims to power. Where no Gods are, there are the Titans. This is a relationship of a legal order which no man can escape wherever he may turn to. The Titans are immortal. They are always there. They always strive to reestablish their old dominion of their foregone might. This is the dream of the Titanic race of the lapetos, and all the Iapetides who dream about it. The earth is penetrated and filled up with the Titanic forces. The Titans sit in ambush, on the lookout, ready to break out and break up their chains and restore the empire of Kronos.

TITANIC MAN

What is Titanic about man? The Titanic trait occurs everywhere and it can be described in many ways. Titanic is a man who completely relies only upon himself and has boundless confidence in his own powers. This confidence absolves him, but at the same time it isolates him in a Promethean mode. It gives him a feeling of independence, albeit not devoid of arrogance, violence, and defiance. Titanic is a quest for unfettered freedom and independence. However, wherever this quest is to be seen there appears a regulatory factor, a mechanically operating necessity that emerges as a correction to such a quest. This is the end of all the Promethean striving, which is well known to Zeus only. The new world created by Prometheus is not.

Dr. Tom Sunic is a former political science professor, author and a Board member of the American Freedom Party. He is the author of Against Democracy and Equality; The European New Right.

dimanche, 09 février 2014

Tragedy & Myth in Ancient Europe & Modern Politics

LONDON FORUM:

Dr. Tomislav Sunic

Tragedy & Myth in Ancient Europe & Modern Politics

mardi, 28 janvier 2014

T. Sunic: Tragic Identity

Tomislav Sunic

Tragic Identity

mardi, 24 décembre 2013

Tom Sunić Interviews Jonathan Bowden

Southgate, Troy (Ed.) Bowden Thoughts and Perspectives.jpg

Tom Sunić Interviews Jonathan Bowden

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

Editor’s Note:

The following text is a transcript by V. S. of Tomislav Sunić’s interview with Jonathan Bowden. Click here [2] to listen to the audio. A couple of words have been marked as unintelligible. If you can make them out, please post a comment below.

Tom Sunić: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen! Good afternoon, dear friends! 

This is your host, Tom Sunić, from Croatia and I’m very pleased again to have a good friend of mine and also a good guest. This is Jonathan Bowden. Hello, Jonathan! Can you hear me well?

Jonathan Bowden: Yes. Hello! Greetings from Britain!

Sunić: Listen, Jonathan, I’m very, very pleased to have you on my show for a variety of reasons. What I would like to do today is the following thing. In the first segment, I’d like you first to say a few words about yourself, about your background, and about your political background as well. Then in the second segment we’ll talk a little bit about your literary and artistic accomplishments.

But, let’s first start with yourself, Jonathan. Don’t be too shy. Just tell me what you’ve got, because you have heavy artillery. I’m very pleased indeed to have you on my show.

Bowden: Ha! Yes, well, I’d like to say hello to everyone who might be out there in the ether. I was born in England, in Kent, in the farther southeast of England, the so-called garden of England in 1962. So, I’m sort of 48 now. During almost the entirety of my educated life, liberal ideas of one sort or another, libertarian, center-Left, far-Left ideas have been hegemonic and dominant amongst most educated people in Britain and elsewhere.

It may come as sort of news to people, particularly in the United States, that there is really very little freedom of expression in Britain and in parts of Western Europe about certain key matters. It’s rather ironic because the rest of the world thinks that opinion is free here, and the Second European Civil War (what I call the Second World War) was fought for freedom of expression and so on. Whereas there’s no First Amendment right here, and there are many ways in which discussion is curtailed. I think that’s rather ironic because dictating a discussion indicates that you have something to suppress, when in actual fact most educated and artistic people in England and Britain now are vaguely liberal-minded or, at the very least, they go along with what is called a politically correct mindset.

Now, this has grown up over the last 40 to 50 years in this sort of cultural revolution of the 1960s in Britain and elsewhere across the West. You have a situation now where almost everybody who goes through tertiary and even higher secondary education comes out with a slightly identikit formulation, the same sort of views about certain core issues or the same belief that certain topics are unsayable or are off-limits, particularly about generic inequality, or biological differences between people, or inherent differences between male and female.

Another difference, particularly with American listeners, is the almost complete collapse of Christianity in England and Britain. We, of course, had a state semi-Protestant church for half a millennium called the Church of England. I was baptized in it, I was confirmed in it, as 30 million English people were. Yet, it is largely invisible and is kept alive by the residual liberals in its hierarchy and many of the immigrants from the Third World, via the British Empire, who were given the religion externally and, of course, who still believe in its precepts. You have the paradox that many of the immigrants who are Anglicans now and have come in from the outside are more socially conservative and come from more psychologically conservative cultures than the hierarchy of their own church. But that’s a minor cultural war increasingly on the margins of English life.

But it would be wrong to say that many Judeo-Christian assumptions have gone. They’ve been secularized and have taken a humanist form.

Sunić: I’m [unintelligible], so to speak. How did that affect your formative years? Let’s say 20, 30 years ago when to grammar school and afterwards when you went to university. Can you tell me something about that because, as I understand, the Left back then did not hold such a firm grip on cultural power.

Bowden: Yes, that’s contradictory. I was about 18 coming on 20 when Margaret Thatcher came to power in Britain, and it’s paradoxical that the liberal Left was not so entrenched in establishmentarian discourse then as now, the better part of 30 years on. However, the far Left, by which we mean a sort of Trotskyite, sort of ultra-Left, and sort of Leftish reaches of Communism, which looked down on the Communist Party of Great Britain which was to wind up in 1990 with the collapse of the Soviet Union that partly financed it. They had enormous power at least at the level of the street, by which I mean in campuses they had the power to break the windows of dons who had ideas that they disapproved of particularly in the biological sciences, but also in psychology and culture and elsewhere.

I joined the Conservative Party, which is the equivalent of the Republican Party in the United States, and center-Right Christian Democrat parties throughout Western Europe, when I was about 18. The interesting thing about the Conservative Party is that (1) it ceased to be culturally conservative in a metaphysical sense a long time ago, and (2) it has never understood the cultural struggle that the radical Left has waged inside European societies, which includes Britain and indeed the United States. Conservatism has never conserved anything for about 40 to 50 years, and because it allowed the arts and the media and the academy and much of the clerisy and intelligentsia to be completely penetrated by the ideas of their sworn enemies, you’ve ended up in Britain and elsewhere with this strange hybrid of a Left-wing capitalist society which is the norm across the West.

Sunić: How do you explain that? How were they able? You’re talking, of course, about the Leftists. How did they permeate and infiltrate into the mainstream opinion-making?

Bowden: I think there’s two ways. I think there’s an external or exterior strategy, and there’s an interior strategy. I think the exterior one is by pressure groups, by proselytization, by student militancy, by the militants of today who tone it down to become the dons of tomorrow.

But I think there’s also an internal element. I think many people internalize the idea that Right-wing values, elitist values, values of prior identity, values of belief in hierarchies, and so on were somehow wrong or vaguely immoral or amoral or non-permissible or, in a much more mercenary way, wouldn’t foster one’s career too much in the future. So, the moral uncertainty of certain people, even on the moderate Right, meant that they had partly internally collapsed in relation to a range of ideas.

I also think it’s important to understand that the Left understood that it had lost the battle over the economy several generations back, and since Gramsci in the latter part of the second decade of the twentieth century had been fighting various forms of cultural war primarily against conservative opponents who were increasingly mentally defenseless against them.

Unlike the moderate Left that’s always seen far-Left ideas shorn of Communist politics as a permissible ally, the moderate Right has always seen far-Right or radical Right ideas as part of the enemy mix or an area that they can’t go to. They have this paradox that there were certain very radical conservative, metaphysically and intellectually conservative dons in English life, Maurice Cowling at Cambridge about whom I’ve given a talk somewhere on the internet, and Professor Roger Scruton, who’s still alive. They’re known as deep blue or metaphysical conservatives. They’re the last of a dying breed, if you like. Even they were resistant to the idea of using far-Right ideas against the Left and the liberal Left on campus.

Sunić: Let me just clarify one thing, Jonathan, if you don’t mind. You remember Enoch Powell. You remember what he said, and he was a real promising politician, but nowadays he would be clearly dismissed as a Fascist, an ultra-Fascist. So, basically we’re talking about this semantic distortion (there’s that word that I keep repeating over and over again). What was considered quite decent, normal, mainstream Right in the UK or for that matter in continental Europe 30 years ago, now this is considered an extreme Right.

Bowden: Yes, that’s right. It’s as if you’ve had a shuffling to the Left in all areas, in religion, in the media, in the academy, in the arts, in the general clerisy, even in the sort semi-sciences, the humanistic sciences, and the social sciences, and even in the softer parts of the hard sciences. So, you’ve had a shift to the Left in all areas.

Enoch Powell is an interesting example. Like Nietzsche, who was given a university professorship when he was 24, Powell was given a professorship at the University of Sydney in Australia when he was 24 years of age. Powell could speak 10 European languages.

Sunić: Did you know him personally? Did you ever meet him?

Bowden: I met him towards the end of his life. Like a lot of allegedly dictatorial men, he was extraordinarily short. He used to stand on a box to address meetings. It was concealed behind the podium, you know. He came from quite a long line of sort of Napoleanesque men in various ways.

The irony is that Powell was in many respects an extremely Right-wing liberal. He was at the outermost cuff of the old Tory party. He was very much an economic liberal. Very anti-statist. Very anti-socialist. Some of his values were not far-Right at all, but would be close economically to people like Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek and the Austrian school. Don’t forget the great reaction in Britain is against the post-war planned welfare state, deficit financing, and Keynesianism, so many fiscal conservatives looked to be in that sort of area and wouldn’t be regarded as radical Right at all.

In certain other areas, Powell was out of grain with what might be called a compassionate society. He was Minister of Health in the 1950s, and you may remember there was a scandal about birth defects with a drug called thalidomide, and he had to deal with that. Though he turned to Christianity in his middle life, the High Church, High Anglican, Anglo-Catholic type of Christianity a bit like T. S. Eliot the poet (and Powell was also a poet actually), early in his life he had been very strongly influenced by Nietzsche, and that certain intellectual implacability influenced Powell throughout his life.

Powell is most famous with the masses for speaking out against mass Third World immigration into Britain in the late 1960s, which catapulted him from obscure Tory ministerial ambition to be somebody that skinheads and football fans and the overwhelming mass of the population had heard of. He then became one of the most significant men in the country because he dared to speak about issues which virtually no one else in the establishment would.

Powell was an outsider in many ways, despite his intellectual accomplishments. He was seen as an outsider. He didn’t attain the leadership of the Conservative Party in and around 1970. He later advocated that people should vote Labour in order to get a referendum on membership of the European Union, the sort of putative federation that exists in this part of the world that Right-wing nativists and nationalistic people across Europe tend to oppose. Not all, but most of them do. He was an Ulster unionist, of course, which got him involved in radical Protestant type politics in relation to the sort of war that people have heard of in Northern Ireland.

But Powell was one of these figures that Britain has grown up in the last 100 years. Joseph Chamberlain at the beginning of the twentieth century, Sir Oswald Mosley in the middle of the twentieth century, and Enoch Powell at the end of the twentieth century who posited an alternative political trajectory for Britain. They were very radical men. They didn’t really have an allegiance to party, and there’s a nationalistic strand to all of them. Powell was a member of the Tory party, a member of the Ulster Unionist Party, he advocated voting Labour at times tactically. Mosley was a member of both the Tory and the Labour parties before he founded the New Party that then became the British Union of Fascists in the 1930s. Joseph Chamberlain began in the Liberal Party, then formed his own Liberal Unionist Party, then moved over to the Tories. The Liberal Unionists were probably proto-fascistic in the late years of the nineteenth century and the early years of the twentieth century.

Sunić: Excellent. Jonathan, how did it affect your own trajectory, if I can put it that way? Because you had at some point a couple of years ago quite a prominent role as a cultural advisor for Nick Griffin. I don’t want to get into those squabbles and what happened, but could you just give us a rough idea of to what extent Enoch Powell and then Tyndall affected your political trajectory, not intellectual so much?

Bowden: Yes, I mean, politically . . . In some ways the two are combined because the one thing I always thought about conservatism, even very Right-wing conservatism, is (Powell to one side) there’s great cultural aridness there. There’s a strong anti-intellectuality and philistinism in conservatism per se, particularly its British example. You know, philosophy is taught in France from the age of 6. But the British culture, particularly English culture, is strongly pragmatic, strongly non-heuristic, anti-conceptual, practical and pragmatic and utilitarian.

Margaret Thatcher was a scientist, and it showed in the politics, particularly the cultural policies of her government. When you bear in mind that she had as much power as Reagan had in the United States, particularly in the first term, and yet virtually nothing was done with this cultural power. There were a few items, a minor issue about homosexuality, so-called Section 28, and tacit support for White South Africa, but apart from these things, all other institutions, in particular the BBC, were left in the hands of her most ferocious opponents.

Sunić: You mean Leftists?

Bowden: Partly it’s an inability to see where your enemies are and know where they are, and it’s also the absence that many conservative politicians had of what you might call a complete civilizational discourse that led me to look at political tendencies further out, if you like.

Sunić: Sure. Jonathan, let me just focus for a while on your specific case. You are pretty much active. First with the BNP and now you’re the “chief intellectual leader” of the British New Right. So, could you give me some specific details about your political and intellectual trajectory over the last ten years?

Bowden: Yes, in the last twenty actually. In the early 1990s, I was in the accredited Right-wing group on the Right-wing of the Conservative Party, which then called itself the Conservative and Unionist Party, called the Monday Club, which went back to the 1960s and was created by the Marquess of Salisbury who, of course, is related to the aristocratic British Prime Minister Lord Salisbury 70 years before in the last years of the nineteenth century.

The Monday Club, of course, deliberately chose that name so that there would be no far-Right subliminal messages. They first had their meeting on a Monday, so they called themselves the Monday Club, the most neutral name in the world. The Monday Club was a significant organization in the 1970s. By the time I had joined it, it was well and truly dying.

I formed a metapolitical group of my own called Revolutionary Conservative at that time which lasted for a few years and I was also the deputy chairman of quite a notorious group, actually, called Western Goals, which was an extreme anti-Communist and Cold War group. I went through that Cold Warrior phase, if you like, on the Western side. Those groups were quite interesting because they did consist of people from the conservative Right and people from the far Right who rubbed shoulders with each other. It was a sort of reverse alliance of the Second World War, do you see what I mean? It was Right-wing conservatives and far Rightists against Communism.

The interesting thing about the World Anti-Communist League which was the organization that Western Goals was affiliated with was that it contained anti-Communists of every race and type right across the world. It had some very notorious affiliates in Latin America, in Asia, in Africa and that sort of thing.

General Singlaub who was head of the National Security Council under Jimmy Carter came across and gave us a talk once. I like these American generals very much as individuals, because they’re very brave men, But they were warriors and you had to wonder in your inner mind if they really knew what cause they were fighting for. John Singlaub had fought in ten wars across his lifetime. He’d fought for the American Empire, as even he called it privately, all his life. He was a fascinating man. So, just sort of artistically and intellectually and psychologically it’s interesting to meet some of these types who do sort of, partly, run the world. Carter sacked him, of course, because he accused Carter of being soft on Communism.

Then, after the Cold War was basically won, I moved slightly further out and became more and more enamored of cultural struggle. I was in a group called the Bloomsbury Forum, published a few things, and I had a little group of my own called the Spinning Top Club which was sort of a metapolitical group. It was largely a group of friends. Then I became increasingly involved in and around the edge of the British Nationalist Party. I was involved in a break-away tendency from that in some respects called the Freedom Party. Then, in 2003, I joined the BNP and became cultural officer for about four years thereafter. After that, I was in this tendency which I still am chairman of now called the New Right.

Sunić: Jonathan, let me ask you. I hope it’s not too personal of a question. Do you still have contacts with the BNP? Specifically, are you in touch with Nick Griffin?

Bowden: Well no, Griffin and I don’t really get on. But that doesn’t really matter. I still speak at their meetings. I still have some sort of residual cultural influence with them. Lots of people think I’m too Right-wing for the BNP, actually. It’s a great paradox, given that I seem to have started as a conservative. In my own mind, of course, my views have hardly changed. The perception of them has changed a great deal. But my views were always philosophically based and I’m a very unusual British Right-wing thinker in some ways.

Sunić: Very much so. In fact, I was going to point that out to our listeners today that you seem to combine this militant political activism just as much as you are skilled and very much adept at writing excellent pieces and also giving good lectures on Carlyle, on Nietzsche, on Jünger, and we’ll talk about this in our next segment.

But back a little bit to this political life of yours. So, I understand now you don’t have any specific official ties with the BNP, am I correct?

Bowden: That’s right. People announce me as sort of cultural officer and that sorts of thing, but that’s just something that to see at meetings, really. I’ve always seen my role as very similar to that of a Marxist intellectual in reverse. If you take the small parties of the British far-Left. The Left wing never goes anywhere but culturally has been very significant. Of course, you’ve got the Socialist Workers Party and militant Workers Revolutionary Party and these sorts of groups. They would have had Marxist academics and Marxist intellectuals who passed through them, who often weren’t members, who had cultural or metapolitical roles, sometimes critical of the narrow sectarian leadership of such parties, and so on. Intellectuals like the Greek Alex Callinicos in the Socialist Workers Party.

I see myself the other way around. I see myself as a Nietzschean, or sort of post-Nietzschean, who has been in various Right-wing political parties and groups attempting to educate people, attempting to culturalize them to various things, attempting to put things in a broader context, trying to get people to understand that it’s not just about immigration and leaving the European Union. Or, in an American context, it’s not just about the absence of gun control, states’ rights, immigration, who controls the media, and these sorts of issues.

The Right at its best should basically stand for the advance of Western civilization, and that means you have to know something about the civilization that you have to know something about the civilization that you’re attempting to push forward, if you see what I mean.

Sunić: Sure, by all means. We’ll definitely discuss more about cultural hegemony and about some of the artistic works by our friend, author Jonathan Bowden in the next segment. But, Jonathan, let’s get back a little bit to some of those technical issues. I understand there’s a New Right in Great Britain now. I know some people. Our common friend, Troy Southgate, and I understand there are more folks. Do you have some loose structure? Do you guys hold some meetings? Or what specifically is the goal of the British New Right including Troy Southgate? I’m sure you’re in touch with him.

Bowden: Yes, he’s the organizing secretary of the group. In some ways, the New Right is a bigger and better continuation of some of the smaller metapolitical groups I’ve mentioned in the last couple of minutes. It’s gone on for about four to five years now; it’s had about 26 through 30 meetings and a couple of dinners, five magazines. Now that this is very much the internet age, you can speak to 50 to 60 people in a room and tens of thousands of people, if they want, can see the thing or hear the thing later on the world wide web.

The term “New Right” confuses people, of course. It’s a relatively useful term. It’s not as intellectually and culturally coherent in the sense of de Benoist’s French New Right or Steuckers’ Belgian version. It’s a more eclectic group that consists of different and even Old Right tendencies, if truth be told.

jonathan_bowden-new_right-small.jpg

Sunić: I’m glad you pointed that out, because I had a discussion on a VoR show with Alain de Benoist about this conceptual problem as to how the New Right is being defined or interpreted or instrumentalized in the UK as opposed to France. This causes friction sometimes, definitely. Go ahead.

Bowden: Yes, it’s partly a Britishness, of course. Many British intellectuals, for example, are uncomfortable even with the word intellectual. So, British intellectual life when it takes a political form tends to be less purist and less sectarian. French and continental intellectuals love tiny little tendencies that are completely pure, and people who can’t stand it leave and form a trajectory of their own. Whereas our group tends to be more of a synthesis. It’s basically a generalized Right-wing philosophical circle which allows freedom of speech particularly in a culture where there is not freedom of speech about quite a lot of salient matters, and you have to be quite careful about the speech that you put forward even within this space.

Also, there’s a general premise. Even for a very ideological group, there’s a streak of English pragmatism to it.  It creates a greater space for people to put forward educated (I believe reasonably highly educated) inegalitarian views. Probably about 5% of it, in truth, would be consonant with GRECE and what they formulate. Probably intellectually, GRECE has had more influence in the United States than it has in Britain.

Sunić: Let me read a little paragraph of yours which I think is very fascinating and which serves almost like a framework for our discussion.

“Politics is just a sideline, you see. Artistic activity is what really matters. As Bill Hopkins once told me, one man sat writing alone in a room can alter the entire cosmos. It is the ability through a typewriter or whatever else to radically transform the consciousness of one’s kind. Cultural struggle is the most interesting diversion of all.”

This is what you said to Troy Southgate. Could you please comment a little bit on that, on cultural struggle, and how you see it exactly from this our contemporary perspective and from the British perspective?

Bowden: I think politics is limited in a way in this era. I think this is quite true when you look at the votes that radical Right parties past the accredited center-Right get. They come up. They go down. I suppose the party in Belgium, Vlaams Belang, once the Vlaams Blok, and Jean Marie Le Pen’s organization in the French fifth Republic, the Front National, have done the best on the Western side of the continent. But even they are partly peripheral, demonized, out of power, and very far away from even having a hand upon the hand that controls the tiller of their respective states.

I think one of the many reasons for this is that the entire culture, with the odd exception that maybe in relation to market economy performance in a liberal way, is stressing humanistic and egalitarian goals. The entire Zeitgeist is against you, or seems to be so. And, therefore, I think that you have to sit as Gramsci and other Leftists did 90 to 100 years ago and work out what can be done to push the culture back in a more organic, more traditional, more elitist, more hierarchical way, however you want to look at it.

Therefore, I think that cultural struggle, particularly in the arts (I think especially in the arts, because I see the arts as the dream space or the sub-consciousness, if you want to use that phrase, of the society.) I think it’s extraordinarily interesting and/or important, and it’s really my fundamental interest to see what can be done in that area.

Situationism is a theory that came out of Surrealism and influenced the Leftist events of May 1968 in Paris and America and elsewhere. Whether you can engage in what they call détournement,  the idea that you can turn around the specificity of the moment, and you can invert in many ways the cultural inversion of the last 40 to 50 years. Is it possible? Liberals would say, “Is it desirable?” But can it be done and in what ways can it be done?

I take an elitist view of culture. I believe that everything comes down from above, and I believe that the spirit is the brain of the mind and the mind dominates the body. But the mind, of course, is only a part of the body. I think rather like Hobbes the great English theorist 400 odd years ago against whom British cultural theory reacted. Hobbes was an authoritarian, an absolutist, a semi-elitist, a non-democrat, and even an atheist in a deeply religious age. So, he was quite a shocking combination. He appalled both the Royalists and the Cromwellians. I’m quite enamored of Hobbes, in a way, who of course is close to the English version of Machiavelli in his doctrine of statecraft.

Hobbes’ idea of the society that is organic and where the mind and the body are integrated influenced me a great deal. I think the contemporary West suffers from an extraordinary mind-body split. And the intelligentsia has gone off and talks to themselves and doesn’t connect to the bulk of people in Western societies at all. There is a degree to which I personally think that if you put into currency ideas and cultural forms which have a primal element, have a primordial element, have in some respect a pagan dimension, I think you can knit the mind and the body back together again.

I also think it’s very important, and something that political people nearly always miss, that rationalism is not enough. I think you move people at a level beneath the mind, physiologically and in terms of the emotions. In fact, the Right is more powerful when it appeals as much to the subconscious as much as the conscious mind. I think an enormous number of people, including the Right’s bitterest and harshest opponents, are slightly subconsciously attracted to it in spite of themselves. That’s why they can never stop talking about it, even from an oppositional perspective.

I do believe in cultural inversion, that you can get into sub-consciousness of the era that you’re in and begin to turn it around. I’m also very aware that movements of the ’20s and ’30s were based upon, in part, a Romantic counter-culture that stretches back to the 1870s if not before. The counter-culture as we perceive it is purely Leftist and comes from the 1960s. I agree with Ezra Pound that the artistic community is like the antennae of the civilization that they’re a part of and that they feel the tremors in the web or in the ether before anyone else. That’s why a lot of twentieth century art is about trauma and alienation and ugliness and neurosis, because that’s what the intelligentsia feel, and that’s what the artistic part of the intelligentsia feel.

I see Right-wing cultural formations everywhere, even though they wear other hats, even though they seem to be denouncing the Right. But you have to view these areas artistically and not completely in a linear or rational way.

Sunić: You mentioned Hobbes. So, how do you actually square away Hobbes now with our modern society?

Bowden: I think British and English theory reacted against Hobbes and English Enlightenment, Scottish Enlightenment thinking is a reaction against him. Hobbes is interesting because he’s so modern. He’s so ferocious and contemporary. It’s amazing to think it’s 400 years ago, but the climactic events of English history, certainly the internal violent events, are 400 years ago. We only ever had one Puritan revolutionary military dictator, and he’s 400 years ago. We’ve only ever had one republic, and that’s 400 years ago.

The elements of Hobbes that interest me are the closest to Machiavelli, but the idea of an organic society where mind and body are synchronized with each other. I think modern culture suffers from an enormous mind-body split, a Cartesian split. About 140-odd years ago, artists and intellectuals began creating totally for themselves and, if you like, divested themselves of the mass of the population and have been talking to themselves partly since. That’s partly a good thing, partly a very bad thing. I think if you can to knit the mind and body back together again in various subtle ways, great changes can occur, but they won’t be immediately obvious.

Artistic activity is extraordinarily important, and the arts are not really, although they appear to be,  from our point of view, completely in the hands of the enemy. I don’t always think that is the case if you view the arts in a different way. I think Rightist ideas, or let’s call them conceptually elitist notions, are ubiquitous even when they’re being traduced and denounced. I think that a different perspective on these sorts of things can lead to turn around. Inversion of the inversion and attacks upon liberal definitions of culture even from within what it’s saying.

But these are very complicated areas and, on the whole, political people have almost no time for this and I think don’t often understand the dynamics of the artistic space, which is why they’ve left it to people who are interested in these areas. And in this era and the one that precedes it, that’s congruent with their most significant opponents.

Sunić: Jonathan, let me ask you one thing which is quite conspicuous, that I come across in your writings quite often. This is elitism. I would certainly appreciate if you could define it a little bit. So, let me just read a sentence of yours.

“A man who possesses an idea or a spiritual truth is the equivalent of 50 men. Every pundit, tame journalist, academic, or mainstream politician is mouthing hand-me-down ideas from a philosopher of yesteryear.”

I just want to make clear that I understand that correctly. So, basically, as I understand, you both reject egalitarianism and economism but, at the same time, just in terms of conceptualizing objective reality, it seems to me that you sometimes use language which is a little bit too arcane, if I can put it modestly.

Bowden: Yes. That particular set of ideas comes in some ways from an artist and a writer who would be regarded as a Leftist: George Bernard Shaw. One of the things I’m interested in is the reclamation of certain people who were once regarded as Left-wing. I think that, although it’s a small amount of mileage, there is a tiny bit of mileage in these very elitist, extremely culturally knowledgeable people of 100 years ago and more who were on the Left then. People like H. G. Wells and George Bernard Shaw and some, but not all, of the Fabians here; people like Jack London, in a complicated way, in the United States at the same time.

Now, there is a complication with them because increasingly these figures—and Shaw was influenced by both Wagner and Nietzsche and this odd comingling of Marx and Wagner (an interesting synthesis, if you like)—and I personally think these figures are now too White, too Eurocentric, too knowledgeable about the classical world. I think they make the contemporary New Left quite uncomfortable. And there’s a certain energy to their criticism which can be made use of.

William Pierce of the National Alliance, of course, was heavily influenced by Man and Superman and by quite a few of Shaw’s more elitist and dissentient ideas.

Even though I am a pagan and a Nietzschean, even though I wonder if the supernatural actually exists in a factual sense rather than a metaphorical and an aesthetic one, I do believe that the ultimate truth is religious, and the ultimate truth is outside man, and we are not aware of what that ultimate truth may be, and the Western post-Socratic tradition is an opening out to the possibility of that, rather than the declamatory affirmation of what it is.

Sunić: Let me ask you a question. Are you a pagan? Are you a Christian? Are you a religious person? How would you define yourself, if I may ask you that?

Bowden: I would say I was a spiritual person more than I was a religious person. I believe in having what de Benoist calls a sense of the sacred. I am a pagan. I’ve attended pagan events. I am aware that metaphysically objectivist pagans, as I would call them, believe that Odin and Thor and Loki and all the others physically exist in another realm. I’m less certain about that. I don’t mind make-believe. But I personally don’t believe that’s the issue with religion. Religion, to me, deals with emotional rather than normative or factual or empirical truth. Emotional truth is far more powerful and is ultimately what draws the energy of civilizations together, what creates great ecstasies, what creates great waves of creation and destruction, what creates great civilizations and prepares for their fall.

Sunić: OK, Jonathan, where’s the spiritual? You’re talking about the emotional. How about the spiritual aspect?

Bowden: I personally think that the heightened creative energy that comes from emotionally-based rationality reaches the spiritual. But, for me, artistic activity is probably the nearest I get to belief. To me, it’s a form of religious belief.

Just take one example that convulsed contemporary culture quite recently in the United States and all over the world. I went to a Catholic school, but I went as a Protestant, and I’m not a Christian, retrospectively. But Mel Gibson’s film The Passion of the Christ, which had an enormous impact all over the world, to me is extraordinarily interesting and is a spiritual as well as a cultural event.

But primarily, it’s an artistic phenomenon of immense power whatever prior system one adheres to.

I don’t think the West has a prior system. I agree with Evola when he was asked, “What is your religion?” He said, “I’m a Catholic pagan.” And I think the West has a dialectic that’s both Christian and pagan fused together.

Sunić: Jonathan, I noticed in your artistic work and also in your prose an almost obsession, if I can put it that way, with the Gothic and the macabre. Why is that?

Bowden: Yes! Yes, I do love the macabre! I think that’s where part of the power in art is. I see politics and art in a slightly occultistic way.

If you attend a far-Right meeting, it’s not a conservative meeting, at all, but many of the views expressed are extremely conservative. I think that Left-wing people are rebels, conservative people are conformists and radically Right-wing people are rebellious conformists.

Sunić: Good point!

Bowden: In the occult, if you like, you have a destructive potentiality, which is the Left, and you have a concrete and stabilizing force, which is the Right, and yet the energy comes from the Left on to the Right to energize it and to reformulate the nature of civilization and its discourse. Therefore, I see, partly, the ultra Right as having certain energies which are drawn from the Left and are purified by the Right and then moves further out because there isn’t room elsewhere on the spectrum for them.

I see the Right as partly demonic, in the sense that Goethe meant, partly Mephistophelian. Although these are dangerous areas, of course, the primal cultural areas are dangerous. The reason that the far Right is vilified and demonized all over the Western world is because it represents the fundamentalist energies of its own culture.

Sunić: This is a fascinating statement of yours, but would you elaborate? Not just for the audience, but for myself as well. Go ahead.

Bowden: In the Islamic world and in the Arab world, you’ve got a lot of these corrupt elites and so on who are aligned with American and, indeed, Zionist power in a strange sort of way to keep Islamism down. And Islamism is seen as their own fundamentalism, their enemy within, the danger, the danger that people will turn to the most fundamentalist current within their society and civilization.

Now, looking at the Western world which is a civilization based upon inverted premises of the Islamic world. The West, in my view, is an anti-theocratic and open-minded civilization, but the idea that because of that we don’t believe in anything is utter nonsense. We have a fundamentalism of our own, and I think it’s the guilty conscience of most Western intellectuals, particularly liberal-minded people in the arts. An enormous number of Western artists and writers and intellectuals, even through reversal and antagonism, were attracted to fascism in the first 30 to 40 years of the twentieth century, and they were often attracted in an emotional way at a level deeper than reason, because they were attracted to the ur-discourses, the foundational and fundamentalist beliefs, classical and yet Romantic combined, of our own civilization.

It’s interesting to note, in relation to modernism for example, many of the early modernists—Eliot, Wyndham Lewis, Marinetti, Céline, Ezra Pound, and so on—were deeply attracted to the extreme Right. They were attracted because they saw in it fundamentalist cultural energies. It’s very interesting that late modernism has been taken up as the pet of the liberal establishment and completely denuded of nearly all of those energies, and it’s ended up in often decadent and squalid vistas that deconstruct almost everything the West is about and laughs whilst the process is going on.

And yet, even in that, I see a reaction against the foundational light, and I see the danger of European intellectuals being attracted to their fundamentalist discourses.

Often with culture you have to make things concrete. For example, take the book about cinema that was written by Lucien Rebatet [actually Robert Brasillach—Ed.] and Maurice Bardèche which influenced Truffaut. Now, Truffaut (half-Jewish director, of course) came to Britain to make his film in English, but the film is completely aesthetically French. French cinema is extremely distinct within Western cinematography. Every different from Anglo-American cinema. This is a film of Ray Bradbury’s science fiction book, Fahrenheit 451, where the books are burnt by firemen and nobody reads because books give people dangerous ideas. Now, the aesthetic of that film is deeply fascistic, and I believe it’s influenced by Rebatet, who knew Truffaut personally. Because fascist theorists in the ’30s, including ex-Communists, were obsessed with cinema.

Why were they obsessed with cinema? Because cinema is the mass art. It is the art of modernity. It appeals to the intellectual and it appeals to the man who’s got almost no mind at all because the images go straight on to his nervous system. It’s an organic form of art that can appeal from the professor at one end to the roadsweeper at the other. Of course, it is the fine art of the modern age. Modernism turned inside the mind because replication of external realities became photographic.

Cinema is the mass medium of modernity. It’s why I’ve made films. It’s also why Communism and fascism were obsessed with cinema and obsessed with control of it. It’s why Hitler wanted Fritz Lang to be head of German cinema after Metropolis in 1939.

Sunić: Excellent point. Jonathan, I know you’ve got an excellent website. I would certainly appreciate if you could just say aloud for our audience exactly the address of your website.

Bowden: It’s www.jonathanbowden.co.uk [The site is no longer online.—Ed.]

Sunić: That’s very easy. You’re everywhere. I see you on Wikipedia and everywhere. I certainly need to alert you, folks. Do listen to our friend, Jonathan. He’s an excellent speaker. I’m somewhat suspicious about your art though, your pictorial art. May I ask just a private question? Why do you actually sort of revel in those distorted figures, those oddly almost degenerate faces of yours? I mean you talk about chthonic art, this primeval feelings that you so often mention in your talks and in your artwork.

Bowden: It’s interesting. Partly because there are savage and ferocious forces in me, and I think you have to be truthful to them when you create. Probably the greatest artist in the Western tradition is Michelangelo. The greatest painter in the Western tradition is Botticelli. And yet, the one who appeals to me most emotionally is Hieronymus Bosch. Modernism is partly a diabolical form of art, and I’m not an aesthetic conservative. I’m partly revolutionary and conservative. On the whole, Left-wing people like my art and Right-wing people like the ideas contained in it but don’t like it. That’s simplistic, but it’s true. I think you have to paint what’s inside you.

The Christian tradition’s quite interesting here because the most aesthetically interesting parts of the Christian tradition are the Baroque magnificence of sort of heavenly ardor, the building on light or the principle of light, the almost Albigensian idea of light cascading upon itself. The Baroque. And the other potentiality is the demonic and the diabolical.

I mentioned Gibson’s film a moment or two ago, and in that film the devil is an androgynous woman. Many people, including certain ultra-Catholics who of course are close to Gibson conceptually, were rather put out by that. But in Christian tradition, because the diabolical can never be known by man, the artist is free to interpret it to a degree with his own imagination.

See, I think the imagination is incredibly powerful, and I think imagination moves people more than reason. I think the reason people are attracted to the radical Right, even though the forefront of their mind says they’re not, is the power that it has, and that power is negative as well as positive. It’s not just beauty. It’s beauty and ugliness combined, synthesized, and even stepped beyond.

So, I suppose my aesthetics are Nietzschean in a way. I’m a sort of Right-wing modern person in some ways. I would like the world to be different than what it is, obviously. But this is where I differ from Evola. Evola said there was three alternatives to modernity: suicide, being a Nietzschean or getting rid of it all and destroying it and returning to absolute Tradition based upon prior metaphysical realities. A part of me wouldn’t be opposed to that, like pagan poets like the American extremist Robinson Jeffers, for example. But at the same time, I think we’re in the modern world, and what you hope to do is turn its own energies in an elitist way.

One of the things that fascinates me is how under the surface images can be used. I once sat and watched the film 300. You know the Hollywood film which is in fact based on a Frank Miller graphic novel?

Sunić: I heard of it, but I didn’t see it.

Bowden: David Duke did an analysis of that film. That’s an anti-Persian, anti-Iranian film. It’s partly, if you want to look at it in this way, a neo-conservative film. If you know what I mean. And yet, if you turn the sound down and you look at it as a tableau of images. It’s sepia tints, which relates to early Renaissance paintings, people like Cimabue and Giotto. It’s images from Leni Riefenstahl. [Unintelligible] without any ideological overlay, just look at the aesthetics of the heroic! Not who we’re supposed to be against, not who we’re supposed to be for, but you just look at the physiological aesthetics of the thing. Images are very powerful and can create different mental states in people.

Goebbels wrote a novel when he was very young called Michael.

Sunić: I read it! Yes.

Bowden: It’s an Expressionist novel, and it’s a sort of Left-Right novel written when he was under the Strassers’ influence. Somebody once asked him, because he was regarded as a Catholic fundamentalist, “What is your view of God?” And he said, “My view of God is an eight-armed idol in darkness with flames around it, dancing girls, and human sacrifice.”

It’s almost Assyrian, isn’t it? And somebody said to him, “Well, my dear doctor, that’s not very Christian, is it?” And he said, “You mistake me, my friend. That is Christ.”

Sunić: Jonathan, well, this is a fascinating discussion that we’ve had and I hope to have you more often here on my show.

Folks, this was Jonathan Bowden, as I said you’ve got to check his website. He’s a great artist, and you can download his books. He’s a man who is quite familiar with Lovecraft. He probably knows him by heart, and Carlyle, but he is a man also of tremendous classical erudition. You can ask him about Marlowe and Shakespeare. He can talk for hours.

Jonathan, it was nice to have you here. We’ll have to go now. We’ll part company, but I hope to catch up with you soon in London. Thank you very much and bye for now!

Bowden: Thanks very much.

 

 


 

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

 

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/12/tom-sunic-interviews-jonathan-bowden-transcript/

 

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/VenusFlytrap2.jpg

[2] here: http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/12/tom-sunic-interviews-jonathan-bowden/