Counter-Currents Publishing http://www.counter-currents.com Books Against Time Mon, 24 Nov 2014 15:54:57 +0000 en-US hourly 1 Counter-Currents Publishing http://feeds.feedburner.com/counter-currents-radio Le livre de Kerry Bolton : The Banking Swindle [L’arnaque du système bancaire] http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/kerry-bolton-larnaque-du-systeme-bancaire/ http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/kerry-bolton-larnaque-du-systeme-bancaire/#comments Mon, 24 Nov 2014 07:06:32 +0000 http://www.counter-currents.com/?p=51007 bankingswindle3,813 words

English original here

Kerry Bolton
The Banking Swindle: Money Creation and the State
[L’arnaque du système bancaire : la création d’argent et l’Etat]
London: Black House Publishing, 2013

Le livre de Kerry Bolton, The Banking Swindle, est une excellente introduction à la vision  économique de la vraie Droite, qui s’oppose aux forces de l’usure. Le sujet de l’économie est très négligé dans le discours de la Droite moderne, particulièrement dans le monde anglophone. Les préoccupations concernant la race, l’immigration, le multiculturalisme, ou le révisionnisme historique consomment bien plus d’encre que la question de l’argent, bien que ce soit le pouvoir de l’argent qui se trouve derrière toutes ces questions. De fait, Bolton parle de son importance capitale :

« Aucune autre politique de Droite, dans une quelconque partie du monde, n’est possible sans le besoin d’assurer d’abord la souveraineté économique et financière de l’Etat, et cela ne peut être accompli que quand l’Etat ou la Couronne assume la prérogative de la  banque et de la création de crédit. Le fond du problème est qu’aucun Etat – donc aucun peuple – n’est vraiment libre si certaines décisions qui sont prises peuvent être sapées et ruinées par des décisions prises dans les conseils d’administration des grandes entreprises mondiales, par les fluctuations du marché boursier mondial, et par le pouvoir des banquiers de couper l’apport de crédit si un Etat poursuit des politiques qui ne sont pas dans l’intérêt de la ploutocratie. … Toutes les autres questions, incluant la question de la race et de l’immigration, généralement suprême pour la Droite d’aujourd’hui, sont secondaires, et aucun gouvernement de Droite ne pourrait mettre en œuvre des politiques de droite tant que la souveraineté de la création de crédit n’est pas assurée. »

Le système financier des intérêts permet aux banquiers de créer de l’argent à partir de rien et de le prêter avec des intérêts, qui doivent être remboursés par de la production réelle. Comme Gottfried Feder et Dietrich Eckart le dirent dans leur pamphlet, Pour tous les travailleurs, « Les intérêts doivent venir de quelque part, après tout, quelque part ces milliards et ces milliards doivent être produits par un dur travail ! Qui le fait ? C’est vous qui le faites, et personne d’autre ! C’est vrai, c’est votre argent, durement gagné par du  travail soigné et de la sueur, qui est attiré comme par une force magnétique dans les coffres de ces gens insatiables… ». Ainsi des nations entières peuvent être asservies par la dette et leurs biens physiques saisis pour payer les créditeurs qui ont créé leur dette. C’est pourquoi nous voyons des nations comme la Grèce subir des régimes d’austérité, où les services sont coupés et les biens de la nation vendus, pour s’assurer que les actionnaires ne perdent pas leur argent. On dit sans cesse aux gens de se serrer la ceinture, de ne plus dépenser, et de se débrouiller tout seuls, pour que le système financier puisse surnager. Pourtant, durant la Grande Dépression, des alternatives à ce système furent populaires et furent prônées par des mouvements nationalistes et antilibéraux. Bolton éclaire ce chapitre oublié de l’histoire économique.

Avant de présenter les diverses alternatives au système financier de la dette, Bolton raconte brièvement l’histoire de ce dernier. Il remarque que si l’usure date de l’époque mésopotamienne, avec les emprunts babyloniens de grains de céréales, le système moderne de la finance internationale, basé à la City de Londres, bien que loyal envers le profit seulement, apparut avec l’expansion de l’Age commercial des Grandes Découvertes et avec l’affaiblissement de la position de l’Eglise catholique anti-usure après la Réforme. La victoire des forces mercantiles d’Oliver Cromwell sur les intérêts agricoles et féodaux de Charles 1er dans la Guerre Civile anglaise ouvrirent la voie à la domination financière. Cromwell maintint de bonnes relations avec les marchands hollandais, juifs sépharades et huguenots, ouvrant la voie pour que Londres devienne le principal centre financier en Europe.

La dénommée Glorieuse Révolution de 1688 accomplit ce résultat, avec la déposition du roi catholique Jacques II et son remplacement par le protestant hollandais Guillaume III, qui avait beaucoup emprunté aux banques d’Amsterdam pour mener ses guerres. C’est sous Guillaume III que la Banque d’Angleterre fut créée, établissant une banque privée ayant pour but de prêter au trône de l’argent à intérêts. De 1700 à 1815, la dette nationale de la Grande-Bretagne passa de 12 millions de livres à 850 millions, financés par cette banque.

La famille Rothschild, originaire de Frankfort et ayant des ramifications jusqu’à Paris, Naples, Vienne et Londres, s’impliqua dans le combat anglais contre Napoléon sous la direction de Nathan Rothschild, utilisant leur réseau international pour rassembler les informations. Il faut remarquer que le système économique de Napoléon cherchait à réaliser l’autarcie et que la Banque de France limitait les dividendes et étendait le crédit aux faibles taux d’intérêts pour aider les manufactures plutôt que de les laisser endettées. Une victoire de Napoléon aurait signifié une perte colossale pour les forces de la finance. La victoire de l’Empire britannique et son expansion mondiale permirent à la famille Rothschild d’étendre son influence.

Le petit-fils de Nathan, « Natty » Rothschild cultiva des liens avec l’impérialiste Cecil Rhodes. Mais Rothschild n’était pas un impérialiste britannique pour l’amour de la Grande-Bretagne, en fait il étendit ses prêts au gouvernement boer antibritannique en 1892, au grand déplaisir de Rhodes. Rothschild voyait simplement l’Empire britannique comme le moyen le plus sûr de soutenir le commerce. Quand l’expansion coloniale se ralentit, ils adoptèrent une ligne internationaliste, abandonnant le vieil Empire qui servit alors de barrière au libre-échange, forgeant des liens avec New York et Tokyo après la Première Guerre mondiale.

Dans l’histoire récente, ce furent les événements de la Grande Dépression qui firent découvrir à beaucoup les défauts du système financier des intérêts. La Réserve Fédérale, la banque privée qui contrôle l’apport d’argent des Etats-Unis, faisait appel aux prêts de ses 12 branches régionales, qui finançaient à leur tour les diverses banques locales du pays, et à la fin de cette transaction le débiteur ordinaire était forcé de payer ou de faire face à la saisie. Au milieu de cette crise, les fermiers reçurent l’ordre de détruire des stocks de nourriture qui ne pouvaient pas être achetés par manque de fonds, alors que les gens étaient affamés. A la différence d’aujourd’hui, les gens et leurs dirigeants politiques ne suivirent pas aveuglément les solutions proposées par les mêmes gens qui avaient causé le problème, ils cherchèrent au contraire des alternatives à l’usure. Les concepts corrélés du crédit d’Etat et du crédit social trouvèrent un très large appui social.

L’idée du crédit d’Etat précède le concept du crédit social, qui fut codifié par le major C. H. Douglas dans les années 20 et 30. Dans un système de crédit d’Etat, l’Etat imprime sa propre monnaie et l’utilise pour acheter des biens et des services ou pour le prêter à des producteurs à un intérêt nul ou minimal, au lieu d’emprunter de l’argent à intérêt à des créditeurs et faire travailler la population de l’Etat pour payer les intérêts de ces prêts extérieurs.

Un exemple précoce de crédit d’Etat fut vu au Québec en 1685, quand la colonie se trouva face à une interruption du financement venant de la Couronne. L’Intendant de la Province, Monsieur de Meulle, se trouva dans l’incapacité de payer ses troupes, et n’étant pas habilité à emprunter de l’argent ni à en imprimer, il collecta simplement les cartes à jouer, les coupa dans la partie supérieure, et les utilisa comme monnaie à la place de fonds extérieurs. Cette action épargna à la Couronne française 13.000 livres. Les cartes servaient de titre provisoire : des objets arbitraires comme le papier ou des jetons servant de cours légal.

Le titre provisoire fut utilisé sur l’île britannique de Guernesey en 1820, quand l’Etat ne put ni assurer des prêts extérieurs ni augmenter les impôts pour trouver les fonds nécessaires au maintien et à l’amélioration de l’infrastructure locale. Pour faire face à la situation, l’Etat émit 6.000 livres en Bons d’Etat, qui furent utilisés pour payer les travaux nécessaires sur l’île. Si l’idée d’une impression par l’Etat de son propre argent et de son utilisation pour payer directement des biens et des services est écartée sous le nom de « fausse monnaie », l’Ile de Guernesey prospéra plus tard de la création de monnaie libre de dette. La seule différence entre cette soi-disant « fausse monnaie » et la monnaie régulière était qu’elle n’était pas créée avec un intérêt usuraire par une banque privée.

Dans les années agitées de la République de Weimar, quand l’hyperinflation affecta la valeur du Mark, le Wära, émis par la Wära Barter Company [Société de Troc Wära], fut un exemple remarquable de la réussite économique d’un titre provisoire. A la suite de la Grande Dépression de 1929, les employés de Hebecker dans le village de Schwanenkirchen furent payés en Wära, que les villageois acceptèrent comme monnaie valide. Le succès conséquent à Schwanenkirchen fut décrit comme miraculeux dans la presse, et finalement 2.000 sociétés l’acceptèrent avant qu’il soit interdit en 1931. Dans la ville autrichienne de Woergl une monnaie similaire au Wära fut introduite, où la Commission de Secours Local émit des timbres pour servir de titre provisoire, qui financèrent de nouveaux programmes de travaux publics, ce qui réduisit le chômage. Le titre provisoire des timbres de Woergl fut interdit en 1933.

Dans les pays anglophones, les événements de la Grande Dépression provoquèrent un intérêt pour des alternatives au système financier de la dette, en particulier le système du Crédit Social du major anglais C. H. Douglas. La prémisse de base de ce système est que la quantité d’argent en circulation n’est jamais égale à la quantité nécessaire pour consommer tout ce qui est produit. Ceci est démontré par le « Théorème A + B ». Admettons que A soit la quantité qu’un producteur paye à ses employés, et que B soit la quantité qu’un producteur dépense pour des paiements extérieurs. La quantité minimum nécessaire au soutien du producteur est la somme A + B, bien que seul A ait du pouvoir d’achat. Ainsi B est en fait un manque de pouvoir d’achat. Pour faire face au manque de pouvoir d’achat, Douglas proposa un « Dividende National », payé par l’Etat aux gens, émis non comme une dette devant être remboursée, mais comme un droit de naissance du citoyen.

Un éminent représentant de cette idée fut le poète américain Ezra Pound, qui vit dans le Fascisme italien un véhicule du Crédit Social. En Nouvelle-Zélande, le poète Rex Fairburn adopta aussi les idées du Crédit Social. La tournée de Douglas en Nouvelle-Zélande inspira aussi la Légion néo-zélandaise de Campbell Begg, qui à un moment compta 20.000 membres. En Grande-Bretagne, les Chemises Vertes, une organisation venant du mouvement scout Kibbo Kift anglo-saxon et d’inspiration médiévale, rallia les chômeurs et les affamés à l’idée de Crédit Social. En 1936, le fondateur des Chemises Vertes John Hargrave fut nommé conseiller à un gouvernement de Crédit Social en Alberta, au Canada. Cependant, le gouvernement central s’arrangea pour faire échouer les tentatives pour correctement mettre en œuvre le système. W. K. A. J. Chambers-Hunter soutint les idées du Crédit Social dans l’Union Britannique des Fascistes d’Oswald Mosley, sous la prémisse que « le crédit britannique sera utilisé à des fins britanniques ». Au Canada, une organisation catholique appelée les Pèlerins de Saint Michel [Pilgrims of St. Michael], fondée en 1935 par Louis Even et encore existante, prôna le Crédit Social comme alternative au système financier honteusement basé sur l’usure.

Il y eut pourtant un autre croisé catholique contre l’usure qui influença les Pèlerins de Saint Michel. En Amérique, le père Charles Coughlin, de naissance canadienne, animateur d’un populaire programme radio catholique pour les enfants, s’adressait à leurs parents dans les émissions radio sur la question de l’argent, et ses attaques bien reçues contre l’usure menèrent à la création de la Ligue Radio de la Petite Fleur [Radio League of the Little Flower]. En 1932, il avait une audience allant jusqu’à 45 millions d’auditeurs. Originellement un partisan du New Deal, Coughlin rompit avec Roosevelt et créa l’Union Nationale pour la Justice Sociale, qui distribua son journal Social Justice. Il demanda l’abolition des banques privées, et la restauration du contrôle du Congrès, à la place de la Réserve Fédérale, sur l’habilitation à imprimer et réguler l’apport d’argent. Cependant, l’opposition croissante dans la hiérarchie de l’Eglise catholique et les changements dans les règlementations radio causés par le début de la Seconde Guerre mondiale forcèrent Coughlin à cesser ses émissions en 1940, et en 1942 le journal Social Justice fut interdit de transport par la poste US.

Si une grande partie de l’indignation populaire concernant les injustices du système financier de la dette disparut avec la Seconde Guerre mondiale, elle entraîna des changements politiques concrets dans plusieurs pays. Bien avant la Grande Dépression, le politicien travailliste australien King O’Malley identifia le système bancaire comme étant la racine de la misère de l’homme ordinaire, déclarant : « Le système bancaire actuel a été fondé sur l’idée que les masses ont été créées pour qu’un petit nombre de gens puisse les prendre comme proie. Les dettes sont contractées pour de la terre, du travail, des produits, et d’autres biens. Quand les intérêts montent, les bons du gouvernement se déprécient, les détenteurs vendent pour s’assurer des liquidités afin de bénéficier de la hausse des intérêts. Des taux d’intérêts élevés accroissent rapidement l’endettement des gens ».

La solution qu’il proposait était la création d’une Banque du Commonwealth qui servirait de banque nationale pour l’émission de monnaie sans avoir recours à l’usure. Finalement, après beaucoup de luttes, la Banque du Commonwealth fut instituée comme une banque étatique mais commerciale, et elle ne parvint pas à émettre du crédit d’Etat, bien que son premier gouverneur n’utilisa pas de capitaux privés pour financer la banque et parvint à financer le gouvernement australien sans imposer d’intérêts usuraires à la nation.

Durant la Première Guerre mondiale, alors que d’autres nations payaient 6% d’intérêts sur leur dette, la Banque du Commonwealth ne comptait que 1%, épargnant à l’Australie la tourmente économique qui s’ensuivit [ailleurs]. Jusqu’en 1924, la Banque du Commonwealth finança la construction de maisons, de routes, de chemins de fer, et d’autres formes d’infrastructure à un taux d’intérêt minimum, entraînant une grande prospérité. Cependant, en 1924, des intérêts privés prirent le contrôle du directorat gouvernant, et l’expérience prit fin.

Un autre succès politique aux antipodes fut le programme de logement d’Etat de Nouvelle-Zélande, financé par le crédit d’Etat de la Banque de Réserve. Ce projet réduisit le chômage en plein milieu de la Grande Dépression. Une première tranche de 5 millions de livres de crédit d’Etat fut émise, à un taux d’intérêt minimal, sans le soutien d’une autre institution financière privée. Si le projet de logement d’Etat fait l’objet de louanges générales, la méthode non-orthodoxe de son financement est rarement commentée dans les livres d’histoire. The Banking Swindle rend un immense service à l’histoire financière en racontant le succès de ce qui est bien trop souvent écarté comme de la « fausse monnaie ».

La figure centrale du combat pour le crédit d’Etat en Nouvelle-Zélande fut John A. Lee, un socialiste influencé par les idées du Crédit Social, qui exposa sa vision dans Money Power for the People [Le pouvoir de l’argent pour le peuple]. Il écrivit que « conquérir le pouvoir financier complet [est] le premier pas vers un nouvel ordre social », comprenant que les intérêts possédés par l’Etat seraient impuissants s’ils dépendaient d’un financement privé ou étranger, qui pouvait être manipulé pour produire des effets néfastes pour le peuple de la Nouvelle-Zélande. Cette leçon a été oubliée par beaucoup de gouvernements socialistes autoproclamés dans le monde, comme la Grèce, dont le gouvernement socialiste a emprunté des millions à des investisseurs étrangers simplement pour se voir imposer l’austérité par ces usuriers.

Le principe de liberté vis-à-vis des chaînes de la finance internationale plaisait aussi aux nationalistes de cette époque, comme on peut le voir par l’approbation de la BUF [British Union of Fascists] du « Crédit britannique à des fins britanniques ». L’un des principes fondateurs du Parti des Travailleurs Allemands, qui devint plus tard le Parti National Socialiste des Travailleurs Allemands [NSDAP], était de briser l’esclavage de l’intérêt. Le principal cerveau économique de ce parti était Gottfried Feder, un membre fondateur du Parti des Travailleurs Allemands. Comprenant que l’intérêt donnait à l’argent le pouvoir de se reproduire aux dépens du travail productif, Feder recommandait l’abolition des revenus obtenus sans travail physique ou intellectuel, un concept constituant le 11e point du programme du NSDAP. Alors que les marxistes concentraient leur colère sur la propriété privée, Feder disait que « vous n’entendez jamais un mot là-dessus, jamais une syllabe, et pourtant il n’y a rien dans le monde qui soit une telle malédiction pour l’humanité ! Je parle du capital des prêts ! ». Après l’arrivée au pouvoir du national-socialisme, le crédit d’Etat fut utilisé pour financer des projets de travaux publics et les taux d’intérêt furent limités par la loi. Hitler lui-même remarqua :

« Toutes pensées de réserves d’or et d’échange étranger pâlissent devant l’ardeur au travail et l’efficacité des ressources productives nationales bien planifiées. Nous pouvons aujourd’hui sourire en pensant qu’à une époque les économistes pensaient sérieusement que la valeur de la monnaie était déterminée par les réserves d’or et d’échange étranger dormant dans les coffres des banques nationales et, par dessus-tout, était garantie par celles-ci. Au lieu de cela, nous avons appris à comprendre que la valeur d’une monnaie réside dans le pouvoir de production d’une nation, qu’un volume croissant de production soutient une monnaie, et pourrait peut-être augmenter sa valeur, alors qu’une production décroissante doit, tôt ou tard, conduire à une dévaluation obligatoire. »

Dans le domaine du commerce international, l’Allemagne troquait directement ses produits en surplus contre les produits d’autres nations, évitant les échanges du système financier. Par une politique d’autosuffisance économique, évitant avant tout les pièges du marché des crédits, l’Allemagne put créer le plein-emploi pour son peuple. L’économiste moderne Henry C. K. Liu remarqua : « par une politique monétaire indépendante de crédit souverain et un programme de travaux publics de plein-emploi, le Troisième Reich parvint à transformer une Allemagne en faillite, dépouillée de colonies outre-mer à exploiter, en la plus forte économie d’Europe en quatre ans, avant même le début des dépenses d’armement … Si cette observation n’est pas une approbation de la philosophie nazie, l’efficacité de la politique économique allemande durant cette période, dont une certaine partie avait été initiée durant la dernière phase de la République de Weimar, est indéniable ».

De plus, les partenaires de l’Allemagne dans l’Axe poursuivirent aussi des alternatives nationalistes au système financier mondial. En 1932, la Banque du Japon fut réorganisée et devint une banque d’Etat, émettant du crédit basé uniquement sur les besoins des producteurs japonais. A partir de 1931-1941, la production industrielle japonaise s’accrut de 136% et le revenu national s’accrut de 241%. En Italie, l’Etat prit le contrôle des principales banques par l’Instituto Mobiliare Italiano en 1931. En 1936, la Loi Bancaire fit de la Banque d’Italie la seule banque pour prêter du crédit à d’autres banques, supprima les limites aux emprunts d’Etat, et retira l’Italie de l’étalon-or. De plus, elle déclara que l’émission de crédit devait servir le public. La République Sociale Italienne poussa les idées de partage du profit et de cogestion des travailleurs encore plus loin durant sa courte existence, à partir de 1943-1945, cherchant activement à impliquer l’homme ordinaire dans le contrôle de l’industrie avec un programme développé par l’ancien communiste Nicola Bombacci.

Avec la défaite de l’Axe et la Guerre Froide ultérieure, la pensée de Droite, qui s’était auparavant opposée au libéralisme dans le domaine économique aussi bien que dans le domaine social, devint synonyme des politiques de libre-échange anglo-américaines, qui étaient en faveur de la finance de la dette. Concernant les origines de cet affrontement supposé entre Capitalisme et Communisme, Bolton dit aussi clairement que la Révolution Bolchevique fut bien accueillie par les financiers américains comme Jacob H. Schiff et John B. Young. Schiff finança lui-même Les Amis de la Liberté Russe, qui répandit la propagande révolutionnaire parmi les prisonniers de guerre russes durant la guerre russo-japonaise.

La vraie raison de l’hostilité des financiers envers le Tsar était le refus de la Russie de céder sa souveraineté sur son économie. La Banque d’Etat de l’Empire russe était sous le contrôle du Ministère des Finances et elle étendit le crédit à intérêt minimal aux producteurs russes. La Russie possédait aussi de grandes réserves d’or, et elle n’avait donc pas besoin d’emprunter à l’extérieur. Pour la plus grande part l’économie tsariste était autarcique, échappant à l’emprise de la finance internationale.

Contre cette fausse opposition entre les idéologies également destructrices du capitalisme et du communisme, qui ont à leur racine le matérialisme atomisé, la vraie droite proclame la supériorité des valeurs spirituelles sur celles du profit. Bolton cite avec approbation l’apologiste tsariste George Knupffer : « Nous aimerions être certains que tous ceux qui mettent l’esprit au-dessus des choses matérielles, le devoir au-dessus de l’avidité et l’amour au-dessus de la haine et de la jalousie sont dans le camp de la Droite Organique ». Une prémisse fondamentale de l’économie de la vraie droite devrait être la subordination de l’argent à une cause supérieure, le bien culturel d’un peuple. Les gens ne devraient pas travailler pour gagner de l’argent afin de poursuivre une vie monotone de rouages dans la machinerie de la finance de la dette, ils devraient travailler pour leur propre élévation [spirituelle]. Le Communisme et le Capitalisme sont deux faces de la même pièce de monnaie matérialiste. Comme le remarqua Spengler :

« Les concepts du Libéralisme et du Socialisme ne sont véritablement mis en mouvement que par l’argent. Ce furent les Equites [= les Chevaliers], le parti des riches, qui rendirent possible le mouvement populaire de Tiberius Gracchus ; et dès que la partie des réformes qui leur était avantageuse eût été légalisée avec succès, ils retirèrent leur appui et le mouvement s’effondra. »

Il n’existe aucun mouvement prolétarien, ni même communiste, qui n’ait pas opéré en faveur de l’argent, dans les directions indiquées par l’argent, et pour la durée permise par l’argent – et cela sans que les idéalistes parmi ses dirigeants aient le moindre soupçon de ce fait.

Durant toute la durée des XIXe et XXe siècles il y eut des mouvements qui combattirent les deux formes de matérialisme, comme Bolton l’a raconté dans ce livre et dans d’autres. Si la Droite d’aujourd’hui consacre beaucoup de temps aux questions de la race et de l’immigration, il est nécessaire de comprendre les origines économiques de ce monde de plus en plus déraciné et atomisé que nous devons combattre. The Banking Swindle constitue une excellente histoire des mouvements qui cherchèrent à briser l’esclavage de l’intérêt et constitue une initiation à la véritable économie de la droite. Dans cet âge sombre d’austérité, il éclaire une voie pour les nations qui se trouvent sous la botte de la finance globale, et on espère seulement qu’il inspirera les actions nécessaires à leur libération vis-à-vis de ces chaînes dorées.

 

]]>
http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/kerry-bolton-larnaque-du-systeme-bancaire/feed/ 1
Nueva Derecha contra Vieja Derecha http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/nueva-derecha-contra-vieja-derecha/ http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/nueva-derecha-contra-vieja-derecha/#comments Mon, 24 Nov 2014 06:54:45 +0000 http://www.counter-currents.com/?p=51003 NewRightOldRight1crop3,190 words

Traducción por Francisco Albanese

English original here

¿Qué es lo “nuevo” de la Nueva Derecha Norteamericana, y cómo se relaciona con la “Vieja Derecha”?

Antes de poder responder eso, necesito clarificar lo que la Vieja Derecha y la Nueva Derecha tienen en común y lo que las diferencia de la falsa derecha de hoy, es decir, los partidos actuales de centro-derecha y todas las formas de liberalismo clásico. 

La verdadera Derecha, tanto en sus versiones Vieja y Nueva, está fundada en el rechazo a la igualdad humana como hecho y como norma.

La verdadera derecha abraza la idea de que la humanidad es y debería ser desigual, es decir, diferenciada. Los hombres son diferentes de las mujeres. Los adultos son diferentes de los niños. Los sabios son diferentes de los necios, los inteligentes de los estúpidos, los fuertes de los débiles, lo bello de lo horrendo. Estamos diferenciados por raza, historia, idioma, religión, nación, tribu y cultura. Estas diferencias importan, y debido a que importan, toda la vida se rige por jerarquías reales de hecho y de valor, no por la quimera de la igualdad.

La verdadera derecha rechaza la rama y la raíz del igualitarismo.

El derecho real tiene tres especies: la sociedad tradicional, la Vieja Derecha y la Nueva Derecha.

Toda sociedad tradicional conocida por el hombre es anti-igualitaria. Todas las formas de sociedad tradicional han sido destruidas, o están en proceso de ser destruidas — por la sociedad de masas moderna e igualitaria.

Para nuestros propósitos, la Vieja Derecha significa Fascismo, Nacionalsocialismo y otros movimientos nacionales-populares, los cuales son los intentos preeminentes para restaurar las formas sociales jerárquicas tradicionales dentro del contexto de la modernidad. El Fascismo y el Nacionalsocialismo no eran meras resistencias reaccionarias al igualitarismo moderno por partidarios de jerarquías corruptas. Representaron un impulso auténticamente revolucionario para restaurar los valores vitales, arcaicos, jerárquicos dentro del contexto de la ciencia moderna, la tecnología y la sociedad de masas.

La Nueva Derecha y la Vieja Derecha comparten el mismo objetivo: una sociedad que no es sólo jerárquica sino también orgánica, un cuerpo político, un pueblo racial y culturalmente homogéneo, un pueblo que es uno de sangre y espíritu, un pueblo que es políticamente organizado y soberano y, por lo tanto, controla su propio destino.

Nuestro ideal es una sociedad jerárquica libre de explotación y la injusticia, porque la sola justificación de la desigualdad política es el bien común del cuerpo político, no el bien entre facciones del estrato regente.

¿Cómo difiere la Nueva Derecha del Fascismo y el Nacionalsocialismo? Ésta es una cuestión vital, debido a los intensos estigmas adheridos a estos movimientos desde la Segunda Guerra Mundial. La Nueva Derecha Norteamericana, como la Nueva Derecha Europea, se basa en el rechazo de la política, totalitarismo, terrorismo, imperialismo y genocidio de los partidos Fascista y Nacionalsocialista.

La Nueva Derecha Norteamericana es un movimiento nuevo. No tenemos ningún pensador del calibre de Alain de Benoist, Guillaume Faye y muchos otros. Estamos profundamente agradecidos a las décadas de trabajo que ellos han realizado. Pero debido a Norteamérica difiere de Europa, nuestro enfoque difiere, de tres maneras importantes.

Primeramente, debido a la mezcla de las poblaciones europeas y al desglose de las identidades nacionales europeas más compactas en Norteamérica, nos vemos obligados a subrayar las raíces más profundas de la identidad común europea, incluida la identidad racial.

En segundo lugar, debido al protagonismo de la comunidad judía organizada en ingeniar la destrucción de los pueblos europeos, y debido a que Estados Unidos es la ciudadela del poder judío en el mundo hoy en día, la Nueva Derecha Norteamericana debe lidiar directamente con la cuestión judía.

Tercero, la Nueva Derecha Norteamericana cultiva un compromiso crítico mucho más franco y directo con el Fascismo y el Nacionalsocialismo. La Nueva Derecha Europea tiende a centrarse en los márgenes del entorno Nacionalsocialista y Fascista, lo que ha producido enormes dividendos intelectuales, particularmente con el estudio del movimiento Revolucionario Conservador. La Nueva Derecha Norteamericana, sin embargo, toma ventaja de nuestras protecciones de la Primera Enmienda. Pero nuestra disposición a ir a lugares peligrosos significa que necesitamos aclarar nuestra relación precisa con la Vieja Derecha. De hecho, deberíamos haberlo hecho hace mucho tiempo.

Una vez más: la Nueva Derecha Norteamericana se basa en el rechazo de la política, totalitarismo, terrorismo, imperialismo y genocidio de los partidos Fascista y Nacionalsocialista.

Creemos que la diversidad racial y cultural dentro de la misma sociedad conduce inevitablemente al odio y la violencia, y que el nacionalismo es la forma más práctica de asegurar la paz entre los pueblos.

Creemos que todos los pueblos deben tener patrias soberanas donde puedan vivir según sus propias luces, libres de la interferencia de otros pueblos.

Creemos que tal mundo puede lograrse a través de programas graduales y humanos de partición territorial y transferencia de la población.

Creemos que estos objetivos pueden cumplirse mediante el  cambio de conciencia de la gente, es decir, convencer a suficientes personas en posiciones de influencia que cada uno tiene un rol en el etnonacionalismo.

La promoción de un cambio político a través de la transformación de la conciencia y la cultura es lo que nosotros llamamos metapolítica.

La Metapolítica se refiere a lo que debe venir antes de la fundación de un nuevo orden político. La Metapolítica se desglosa en dos actividades básicas. En primer lugar, hay educación: articulando y comunicando formas de nacionalismo blanco a la medida de los intereses y perspectivas de la gama completa de circunscripciones blancas. Esto incluye no sólo la teorización de la torre de marfil, sino también la expresión artística, comentarios tópicos culturales y políticos y toda la gama de medios mediante los cuales están comunicados. En segundo lugar, hay organización de la comunidad, lo que significa el cultivo de las comunidades reales que viven según nuestra visión en el presente y que pueden servir como las semillas de un Nuevo Orden por venir.

El proyecto metapolítico primario de la Nueva Derecha Norteamericana es desafiar y reemplazar la hegemonía de ideas anti-blancas a lo largo de nuestra cultura y sistema político. Toda la corriente cultural y política — incluyendo cada tonalidad del espectro político “respetable” — trata a la conciencia racial blanca y a la autoafirmación blanca como algo malo.

Nuestro objetivo es criticar y destruir este consenso y, en vez de eso, hacer hegemónica a la conciencia racial blanca y a la autoafirmación, así que sin importar qué partido político gane, los intereses blancos estarán asegurados. Nuestro objetivo es una sociedad blanca pluralista en la cual haya desacuerdo y debate sobre una amplia gama de temas. Pero la supervivencia blanca no estará entre ellos.

Hay analogías sistemáticas entre la Vieja Derecha y la Vieja Izquierda, y entre la Nueva Derecha y la Nueva Izquierda.

La Vieja Derecha y la Vieja Izquierda vieja tenían objetivos ampliamente divergentes, pero compartían medios comunes: partidos ideológicos políticos jerárquicos, organizados la lucha eleccionaria y armada; estados policiales con partidos únicos dirigidos por dictadores; la eliminación de la oposición a través de la censura, encarcelamiento, terror y franco asesinato, a veces a una alucinante escala industrial.

Sí, en el caso del Nacionalsocialismo clásico, los revisionistas sostienen que muchas de estas atrocidades son exageradas o son una mentira fabricada. Pero el revisionismo sobre la Segunda Guerra mundial está lejos del punto, porque el impulso imperialista, terrorista y genocida existe en Nacionalsocialismo hoy. Por ejemplo, el Nacionalsocialista tardío William Pierce desdeñó rutinariamente el Holocausto, pero estaba dispuesto a tolerar el terrorismo, imperialismo y genocidio reales en una escala que dejaría chica a cualquier cosa del siglo XX. Ese espíritu es lo que rechazamos.

Sí, hubo grados de totalitarismo. La abolición comunista de la propiedad privada exigió una invasión e interrupción de la vida privada más grandes que las del Fascismo o Nacionalsocialismo, que sólo pretendían armonizar la propiedad privada y la empresa privada con el bien común cuando estuvieran en conflicto. Afortunadamente, el totalitarismo duro — e incluso la versión más suave de totalitarismo duro — no es ni deseable ni necesaria para garantizar la existencia de nuestro pueblo, así que lo rechazamos.

Es educativo mirar cómo la Nueva izquierda ha manejado las impactantes, desgarradoras y nauseabundas atrocidades de la Vieja Izquierda. Los mejores Nuevos Izquierdistas no las niegan. No las minimizan. No pondrán sus esperanzas en un “revisionismo del Gulag” o en rehabilitar la reputación de Pol Pot. Ellos sencillamente repudian las atrocidades. Se alejan de ellas y caminan hacia sus objetivos.

Esto es exactamente lo que nos proponemos hacer. Estamos demasiado ocupados resistiendo nuestro propio genocidio para desgastarnos defendiendo los errores y excesos de la Vieja Derecha. Sencillamente no son nuestro problema. Tomando prestada una frase de Jonathan Bowden, “hemos caminado por encima.” Nuestros enemigos lo siguen arrojando en nuestro camino y nosotros seguimos caminando por encima.

La Nueva Izquierda conserva los valores y metas finales de la Vieja Izquierda. También conservaron elementos de su marco filosófico. Luego se dispusieron a difundir sus ideas a través de la cultura por medio de propaganda y subversión institucional. Y ganaron. Fuera de Cuba y Corea del Norte, el comunismo ortodoxo está muerto. El Capitalismo parece triunfante en todos lados. Y aún en el ámbito de la cultura, los valores izquierdistas son completamente hegemónicos. La Izquierda perdió la Guerra Fría, pero ganó la paz.

(Debido a que en Occidente, tanto la Vieja como la Nueva Izquierda funcionaban principalmente como un vehículo para intereses étnicos judíos, sería más preciso decir que los valores judíos son hegemónicos a lo largo de la cultura, incluso en la Derecha establecida).

La Nueva Izquierda y la Nueva Derecha tienen objetivos ampliamente divergentes, pero medios muy similares, es decir, la búsqueda de un cambio político a través de la transformación de ideas y cultura, teniendo como objetivo el establecimiento de la hegemonía intelectual y cultural.

La Nueva Derecha rechaza el totalitarismo, imperialismo, terrorismo y genocidio de la Vieja Derecha.

Pero nosotros no rechazamos su modelo político: la sociedad étnica y culturalmente homogénea, jerárquicamente organizada, orgánica. Queremos un mundo en el cual cada gente distinta tenga una patria, incluyendo los Judíos.

Tampoco rechazamos los marcos teóricos del Fascismo y el Nacionalsocialismo, que hoy son más relevantes y mejor cimentados en la ciencia e historia que nunca antes.

Tampoco rechazamos figuras tales como Hitler y Mussolini. La objetividad requiere que reconozcamos tanto sus virtudes como sus defectos. Tenemos mucho que aprender de ellos. Nunca repudiaremos a gente blanca despierta sólo para congraciarnos con la Burguesía.

He recibido algunas suaves patadas en las costillas acerca de incluir a Hitler y Mussolini entre los natalicios que conmemoramos, como si fueran cultos totalitarios de la personalidad. Pero como redactor, encuentro que los natalicios son ocasiones ideales que ocurren con regularidad para discutir sobre importantes figuras. También producen picos de tráfico en el motor de búsqueda que queremos capturar. Además, conmemoramos muchos natalicios y sería cobarde el discutir sobre gente como Ezra Pound o Knut Hamsun, pero ignorar a las personas por la cuales –al seguirlas– ellos fueron encarcelados. Así que seguiremos conmemorando sus natalicios hasta que, a la larga, todo lo hagan.

Uno de los motivos principales de la Nueva Izquierda para moverse de la política a la cultura fue la decepción con el proletariado, que fue efectivamente movilizado por el Fascismo y Nacionalsocialismo, sin mencionar los regímenes centristas de la época de la Guerra Fría.

La Nueva Izquierda creía que representaba a los intereses de los trabajadores, pero su enfoque fue completamente elitista. Centraron su atención en influir en las clases medias universitarias y profesionales, porque estas personas tienen una influencia desproporcionada sobre el resto de la sociedad, particularmente a través de la educación, los medios de comunicación y cultura popular.

Asimismo, la Nueva Derecha representa los intereses de todos los blancos, pero cuando se trata de un cambio social, tenemos que adoptar una estrategia resueltamente elitista. Tenemos que reconocer que, cultural y políticamente hablando, algunos blancos importan más que otros. La historia no es hecha por las masas. Está hecha de las masas. Es hecho por las elites moldeando a las masas. Por lo tanto, tenemos que dirigir nuestro mensaje al medio urbano, educado y clases profesionales y hacia arriba.

No hay escasez de grupos al estilo de la Vieja Derecha, con mensajes populistas dirigidos a la clase obrera y a las circunscripciones rurales. Pero necesitamos ir más allá de ellos si es que vamos a ganar.

¿Por quién estoy hablando aquí? Cuando digo “nosotros”, estoy hablando por más que mí mismo, pero no por todos o incluso la mayoría de nuestros escritores o lectores. No hay ninguna presunción de que cada autor que publicamos apruebe nuestra agenda, en su totalidad o en esencia. (De hecho, muchos de ellos están muertos). Tampoco hay ninguna presunción que cada autor coincide con cualquier otro autor publicado aquí. La publicación aquí, sin embargo, implica que yo, como editor en jefe, creo que un trabajo dado avanza nuestra agenda directa o indirectamente: directamente, mediante la articulación de una visión que respaldaría como verdadera; indirectamente, ayudando a construir un movimiento intelectualmente apasionante.

Y la Nueva Derecha Norteamericana es un movimiento intelectual, no una doctrina fija. Los objetivos están establecidos. La estrategia básica intelectual está fija. Pero todo lo demás está en movimiento: generalmente hacia nuestras metas, pero a veces sólo giran alrededor de la pista de baile sólo por el goce de hacerlo (lo cual, de una manera más sutil, también se mueve hacia nuestras metas).

Hay una amplia gama de tradiciones intelectuales diferentes y a menudo incompatibles dentro de la nueva derecha. Tenemos seguidores del Tradicionalismo de Julius Evola y René Guénon, así como otros pensadores que enfatizan una metafísica de forma eterna. Tenemos seguidores de filósofos no-Tradicionalistas y orientados a la historia como Nietzsche, Spengler, y Heidegger. Tenemos creyentes en declive y creyentes en el progresismo prometeico. Tenemos biólogos darwinistas y materialistas científicos enfrentados contra metafísicas dualistas. Tenemos ateos, y tenemos representantes de todas las escuelas de religión, cristianas y paganas, orientales y occidentales.

Necesitamos este tipo de diversidad, porque nuestra meta es fomentar las versiones del nacionalismo blanco que apelan a todas las circunscripciones blancas existentes. Podemos hablar a las multitudes porque contenemos multitudes.

¿Cómo se relaciona la Nueva Derecha Norteamericana con los grupos al estilo de la Vieja Derecha en Norteamérica y alrededor del mundo? ¿Y cómo nos relacionamos con los partidos nacionalistas democráticos en América y Europa?

Alex Kurtagic ha sostenido recientemente que la política democrática partidista puede realizar las funciones metapolíticas de educación y de organización de la comunidad, por lo tanto, no hay ninguna contradicción fundamental entre la política de partidos y la metapolítica. Por supuesto que las campañas políticas implican educación y organización de la comunidad, pero éstos son simplemente los subproductos del puesto al que se aspira. Y ello significa que todos los esfuerzos educativos y organizativos estarán dominados por el ciclo electoral y las cuestiones políticas del día.

Eso está bien, si el real objetivo de uno es ganar el puesto. Pero fuera de los sistemas de representación proporcional, buscar ganar puestos es bastante inútil. Así que si el real objetivo de uno es la educación y organización, entonces las campañas políticas son simplemente una distracción. Así que ¿por qué no enfocar toda la energía de uno en la educación y la organización de los esfuerzos, y determinar la agenda nosotros mismos, en lugar de dejar que la política electoral la determine por nosotros?

¿Por qué no tomar todo el dinero gastado en actividades puramente políticas — campañas de inscripción de votantes, viajes de campaña, literatura de la campaña y canalizarla hacia la educación y la organización?

David Duke, por ejemplo, ha estado haciendo trabajos importantísimos con sus escritos, discursos y videos. La mayor parte de ese trabajo se detendría si tuviera que hacer otra inútil y costosa carrera por un puesto político.

Intelectualmente, tenemos que trazar una línea nítida y clara entre la metapolítica de Nueva Derecha y todas las formas de política de partido nacionalista. Compartimos los mismos objetivos generales, pero diferimos sobre la mejor manera de alcanzarlos. Tenemos que reconocer estas diferencias francamente, luego dividir nuestro campo y perseguir nuestros objetivos comunes por los variados caminos que nos parezcan mejores.

No quiero gastar tiempo criticando y atacando a otros sinceros defensores blancos, compitiendo por nimiedades. Al final, el único argumento válido por o contra un enfoque es mirar sus resultados. Yo quiero ganar apoyo haciendo un buen trabajo, no denigrando el trabajo de otros.

Aunque uno puede trazar una aguda línea intelectual entre la metapolítica de Nueva Derecha y la política de partido nacionalista, ningún muro nos separa en el mundo real. La Nueva Derecha Norteamericana no es un partido político o una secta intelectual tipo partido. Somos una red informal que puede superponerse y penetrar todas las instituciones sociales, incluidos los partidos. Mantener contactos con personas de todo el mundo que participan en diversos partidos políticos. Ellos saben dónde estoy. Donde estamos en desacuerdo, acordamos en no estar de acuerdo.

Hablando personalmente, sin embargo, me gustaría que un muro pudiera erigirse en algunos casos, pues si hay sólo seis grados de separación social entre Barack Obama y yo, hay muchos menos grados de separación entre yo y el próximo Anders Behring Breivik. Y, para mí, eso es demasiado cerca para estar cómodo. No quiero tener nada que ver con ejércitos armados de uno. La única arma que quiero poseer está hecha de porcelana.

Verán, realmente creo que lo que estoy haciendo es correcto e importante. Muy correcto y muy importante para exponerse al riesgo de hombres vestidos como Caballeros Templarios o los soldados de asalto y jugando con las armas reales. No tengo nada contra las armas o los propietarios de armas como tal. Pero el modelo de la Vieja Derecha atrae a gente inestable, propensos a la violencia, que sólo hace nuestro trabajo más difícil.

Pero ya que no puedo construir un movimiento — incluso un movimiento metapolítico — siendo un ermitaño, lo mejor que puedo hacer es trazar líneas intelectuales de demarcación claras: una vez más: la Nueva Derecha Norteamericana se basa en el rechazo de la política, totalitarismo, terrorismo, imperialismo y genocidio de los partidos Fascista y Nacionalsocialista.

(Breivik es un caso complejo, porque salió del movimiento Contra-Jihad, una oposición falsa, dominada por los judíos, a la colonización islámica de Europa. Pero todavía compartimos sus preocupaciones básicas y su meta de Europa para europeos, aunque rechazamos sus acciones y gran parte de su marco analítico).

Los cínicos han acusado a la Nueva Izquierda de ser nada más que un truco de mercadeo deshonesto. Por supuesto, no tiene sentido en intentar convencer a los cínicos, que conocen a priori que la verdad es siempre más sórdida de lo que parece. Pero la Nueva Izquierda en realidad cumplió sus promesas: marxismo sin totalitarismo, sin terror, sin campos.

Por supuesto todos sabemos que el régimen actual es una forma de totalitarismo suave el cual promulga el genocidio de la raza blanca en cámara lenta. Pero el punto es que este régimen no fue impuesto a nuestro pueblo a través de una revolución violenta. Lo aceptaron debido a la transformación de su conciencia. Pueden ser salvados de la misma forma.

 

]]>
http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/nueva-derecha-contra-vieja-derecha/feed/ 0
A Tale of Two Victims http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/a-tale-of-two-victims/ http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/a-tale-of-two-victims/#comments Mon, 24 Nov 2014 05:01:15 +0000 http://www.counter-currents.com/?p=50990 Emma Sulkowicz

Emma Sulkowicz

2,287 words

In the month of August the American press turned its spotlight on the suffering of two women. The attention they were given did not correspond to the depth of tragedy of each but rather to the priorities of the parasites occupying the positions of power.

As students returned to campus there was no doubt that Emma Sulkowicz was the victim of choice of our so-called elite. Her hashtag, #CarryThatWeight, was trending on Twitter and promoted by the humanities and arts students, by the secular Jewish females, and their rainbow coterie of Bourgeois feminists.

Parenthetically, I want to emphasize that I do not wish to cheapen the suffering of the hundreds of thousands of women raped around the world each year. I know numerous women in my personal life who have been subjected to this crime, and I do not share the views of those who wish to minimize its seriousness by quibbling over the word survivor, among other things. A White Nationalism that is stripped of chivalric values has cut itself off from its roots in Europe and beyond.

Emma Sulkowicz is a senior majoring in Fine Art at Columbia and has begun her thesis. She will, without a doubt, enter the annals of Degenerate Art alongside the pantheon of unforgettable Performance Artists like the guy who got shot in the arm on stage during the Vietnam War, the Jewish girl who stuffed things up her vagina in the ’60s, and the gay guy with AIDS who sent blood-soaked rags along a clothesline over his audience in the ’80s.

The Asian-Ashkenazi, Ms. Sulkowicz is carrying a futon mattress, a replica of the one on which she was allegedly raped, wherever she goes on campus. Others may help her to carry it but she may not ask for help. Her accused rapist is a fellow student at Columbia. She will carry the mattress until he is expelled . . . or until she graduates with a nice scholarship to an MFA program, and maybe a book contract with a fat advance.

Emma SulkowiczShe has been featured on numerous national media outlets, including the cover of New York Magazine; on TMZ, Democracy Now, and local New York stations; and within pages of Newsweek, Time, the nationally distributed Arts & Design section of the New York Times, the Washington Post, various women’s fashion magazines, and all of the New York tabloids.

Her budding stardom has not been hurt by the fact that her claims are almost certainly false. She did not report their sexual encounter as rape until seven months had passed and two other women told her they had sex with the accused assailant. This Manhattan native who attended the ultra-exclusive Dalton School was contacted by the District Attorney’s Office (the prosecuting lawyer who represents the State), after being tipped off by the school. She rejected their offer to begin a criminal investigation. She has since characterized such an investigation as “a waste of time [for herself].” However, since her “thesis” began at the beginning of the year she has not demurred from calling for his expulsion without due process.

This new media darling caught the wave of #CampusRapeCulture at just the right moment, and she will ride it all the way to a tenured position on a Fine Arts faculty.

We have all known a guy who has had sex with a woman on the first day they meet. For about three days he felt like Casanova, that he is the special one. Once he realizes that he is not especially seductive, but she is especially slutty, he is filled with pain and embarrassment. The only half measure of balm for his pain is provided by attempting to sabotage her social life (now known as slut-shaming). Perhaps it was a similar pain that drove Emma to speak to the Columbia University administration back in her Sophomore year. At first, she just wanted to punish him with the same social sanction that sexually active women sometimes received in the days of dorm mothers and sexually segregated campuses over five decades ago. Luckily for him, her wrath didn’t extend to false criminal accusations. When she recalls this decision not to press charges, she does not regret it . . . rather she reflects on the bother of a legal process, “If I sit around waiting for that, I’ll be missing out on other opportunities like creating this piece, or doing other work.”

Her gang of followers across America, who mostly look like rejects from an American Apparel photo shoot casting call, have since taken to slandering the character of sexually active men with bathroom graffiti. There may in fact be true rapists among the accused, but my hunch is they are a minority.

As silly as the behavior of Emma Sulkowicz may seem, there are serious results for the young men being targeted. Many of whom have committed no crime more serious than breaking an immature girl’s heart.

A university run on New Right principles would not have time for such decadent foolishness. There will be a house-cleaning in the humanities faculties that will leave few professors. Our Arts and Letters will once again be in the service of Truth, Beauty, and Goodness rather than the service of the Jewish metapolitical project seeking to deny their existence.

As Greg Johnson has pointed out, in a society reflecting our principles, the only place to find a woman ready for a one night stand would be among the prostitutes working the shipyards. The pathetic spectacle of binge drinking beyond the point of consent that today seems inseparable from the university experience will be an embarrassing and distant memory, just as cross-dressing renditions of Gilbert & Sullivan musicals seem to students of today.

* * *

Maria Fernandes

Maria Fernandes

There was another tragedy in August 2014. That was the death of Maria Fernandes in Newark, NJ. It was covered in the regional news section of the New York Times, NJ.com, other local outlets, and a handful of labor bloggers. She probably got more attention outside of the US than from the national media. It also came days before the “strike” of fast food workers seeking a living wage on Labor Day.

Maria Fernandes was born in Massachusetts to working class parents from Portugal. In case Jessica Alba or any Vantards are reading this . . . yes, Portugal counts as European. She was a woman who oozed maternal instinct and sympathy, as is evident from family photos. She loved animals and cared for her common law husband’s children as though they were her own. She was a huge Michael Jackson fan, a feeling I don’t share but understand and recognize in many people I have met, all of whom are lonely and disappointed with life and are memorable for their simplicity, their kind hearts, and their bitter-sweet life stories. (Her fellow fans raised funds for her funeral costs with this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5Qjyq7USTE) Her immediate family returned to Portugal, but she remained in the US as one of the 7.5 million who worked multiple jobs to make ends meet.

Despite working 4 jobs, including three at separate Dunkin Donuts franchises, she was still eligible for Medicaid and EBT cards. Do you have any loyal Republican friends who wonder why their party rails against social programs like these but never move to defund them? The case of Maria Fernandes illustrates that a preposterously low minimum wage combined with welfare programs for the working poor create a wealth transfer from taxpayers to corporations employing cheap labor. In this case, the DC government is taking taxpayer money into a corporate welfare scheme to the benefit of the franchisees and shareholders of Dunkin Donuts. Taxpayers subsidize these companies so that they do not have to offer health insurance and a living wage to their workers or to make capital expenditures on process improvements to increase the efficiency of each worker. This keeps the dividends rolling in each quarter with minimal investment and effort from the owners of capital.

Maria Fernandes, her Common Law husband, and his daughter

Maria Fernandes, her Common Law husband, and his daughter

Though she worked more than 40 hours per week, Dunkin Donuts kept her “part time” by separating her hours at different franchised locations for years on end, thus Ms. Fernandes was never eligible for the insurance and retirement benefits set aside for full-time employees. This is a very common practice in the US within corporations employing unskilled labor. Ms. Fernandes knew that she could never say no to her bosses or else they might reduce her weekly hours; there is no guaranteed minimum agreed upon with part time workers. The result was that in the last months of her life from Friday afternoon through Monday morning she worked almost continuously from one location to the next. She would sleep in her car on breaks to try and keep up with the workload. Because she would keep a gas can in her car to avoid an empty tank at the end of the month, she died of toxic fumes during her nap.

From the pre-recession high in 2008 to the time of her death, the US GDP rose over 7%. Over the same period, those who lost their job during the recession returned to work with an average 23% pay cut in similar positions. Post-crash hourly wages have been stagnant from 2009 to present. (All stats are available on the US Department of Labor website.). So who is capturing this newly created value? Obviously shareholders are doing much better than wage earners these past few years.

Had Maria Fernandes followed her parents and sister back to Portugal she would certainly have had a hard time finding a job since the crisis hit. However, neither the tragedy of her death nor of her life could have been possible. The strong labor laws in the civilized countries of Europe (ex-UK of course) guarantee a living wage and minimal health coverage. The tactics used by US bosses to make work precarious and part-time are illegal. The American legal concepts such as “fire-at-will” or the Orwellian “right-to-work” do not exist either. To fire someone, an employer must prove either a material adverse change in the business environment or a “serious fault” on the part of the employee in achieving reasonable expectations. These laws date to the days when Social Democratic parties were “national” by default and “socialist” by conviction. These laws are under attack by the Center-Right Parties who talk tough of Immigration and Identity but are entirely kosher in their policies (if not also in leadership).

The Democratic Party promised to raise the Minimum Wage in the month leading up to the election of November 2014, when the polls showed they would not control either house of Congress. Since the election, Barack Obama, spokesman of the DC government, proclaimed an Amnesty for 5 million illegal immigrants (almost entirely non-white). Counter-Currents readers are well aware of the benefits this will bring to the oligarchy. As for the minimum wage, I doubt American workers can count on an imperial decree to fix this . . . we have to think of the Constitution after all.

Maria Fernandes would not have been helped by the policy decisions and priorities of the Democratic Party. Millions of Americans in a similar situation must now compete more vigorously with millions of mostly single men who have no family duties to balance and whose third world standards of living will be easily exceeded with the minimum wage as it is. The cries for a minimum wage as a living wage will go unheard for years now.

* * *

Two points are worth making here about our movement.

The difference between White Nationalism the political movement and White Nationalism the internet subculture lies in its ability to serve and represent a constituency that is larger than the movement itself. Our Movement fights for “Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country” to benefit of those who have never heard of us, for white people who read Walmart paperbacks as much as for those who read Faye and Benoist, for those poor souls touched by Michael Jackson as much as for the heroic souls inspired by Arkona.

Finally, many comrades and potential sympathizers have a hard time imagining a White Nationalist America without an intervening zombie apocalypse. When you are painting a picture of a country remade on the order of our values, it might be best to highlight the most banal aspects when speaking with the skeptical. Moving the dial more in the direction of labor than capital when it comes to who captures that extra 7% of GDP might be a good start. Don’t let the banality of this suggestion fool them into believing that reform rather than revolution can fix this, though. When the Democrats had all branches of government, during Obama’s first two years as spokesman of the DC government, they failed to ensure a living wage. Rather they wrote a healthcare reform that was a gift to the private insurance companies and ensured pharmaceutical corporations that Americans would continue to overpay for their drugs. They enacted laws that gave a minimum of oversight to Wall Street while burdening future generations with billions in debt to pay unmerited bonuses to the Wall Street banksters. They wrote a stimulus package that privileged job creation in the affirmative action-addled make-work, desk job centers of the government when they could have invested in infrastructure improvements that would mostly employ white men in the skilled building trades.

Whether we are imagining a breakaway republic or a military caretaker government, only a revolutionary force driven by the ideas of White Nationalism, of the North American New Right, and of Third Way Economics could offer any redress to the injustices faced by millions of our people in America each day and which cost the life of Maria Fernandes.

 

 

]]>
http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/a-tale-of-two-victims/feed/ 8
Heidegger in L.A. http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/heidegger-in-l-a/ http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/heidegger-in-l-a/#comments Mon, 24 Nov 2014 05:00:58 +0000 http://www.counter-currents.com/?p=50983 All the rage in L.A.

All the rage in L.A.

3,909 words

The first chapter of a novel, Heidegger in Chicago (a comedy of errors)

Chinchilla Heatherton stared up at the man behind the lectern. “He reminds me of my father,” she thought. He too had legs that could bend in the middle, enabling him to sit on objects smaller than himself. He too had colored orbs embedded in his head, enabling him to register light waves refracted off the surface of objects. He too had a hole below the orbs, from which sounds emerged.

But the sounds she was hearing now were not like those her father made. Those had usually been wet sounds, but these were cool and dry. As cool and dry as a fall afternoon in the Schwarzwald. She plugged another cigarette into her holder. Woodrow Hasenpfeffer leaned forward to light it. “Thank you, darling,” she said languidly. The speaker glanced at her momentarily. She had been too loud, and she knew it. She was used to being the center of attention.

“My pleasure, pet,” hissed Hasenpfeffer, oblivious to the audience.

Chinchilla crossed and uncrossed her legs, then pulled at the neckline of her dress, trying anything to attract the speaker’s attention. She was fascinated by his exotic, peasant dress, especially by his gaiters.

“What is that he’s wearing?” she whispered to Hasenpfeffer.

“I believe they call it ‘the existential suit.’ I imagine it will be all the rage by the time he’s left L.A.” Hasenpfeffer was waspish and suave. Tall, with a thin moustache, impeccable taste in clothes, and brilliantined, black hair, he too had legs that could bend in the middle.

The speaker finished his presentation. Chinchilla, mesmerized, forgot to applaud until seconds after she realized that others were clapping and that some had even risen to their feet. The question period began as soon as the clamor had died down.

“Professor Heidegger, could you explain the ontological difference again, please?” someone asked. Patiently, Heidegger explained once more, speaking in the same monotone Chinchilla had found so hypnotic, and powerfully attractive. She imagined that he was addressing his answers to her and only to her, though she had said nothing.

She searched and searched for something to ask him. Finally, she had an inspiration and shot her hand up. He called on her. “Professor Heidegger,” she said, “do you believe in gay marriage?”

Heidegger thought for a moment, then began speaking. Chinchilla listened intently, more earnestly than she had ever listened to anything before in her life. Her moist, glossy lips parted a bit. She forgot to breathe. This man had her so thoroughly in his spell. He went on, and just when she thought he was finished, he added something. The answer had gone beyond her question entirely, to get at the very basis from which such a question could be asked—to something Heidegger kept calling “originary.” The sounds washed over her and she felt something vibrating at her core, as if the words he used touched her not through their meaning but through sound alone. He finished and went on to another questioner. Chinchilla had not understood a word he had said.

She began to feel faint. For a split second it crossed her mind that if she did faint, Heidegger would definitely have to respond. He would rush to her side. She would reach up, clutching at the little oak leaf and acorn patterns embroidered into his lapels. Suddenly, she was Camille. She was Garbo. She was dying. Heidegger was Robert Taylor. A last kiss? Chinchilla shook herself out of this reverie. But she had to get out—she had to get air. She rose abruptly, heading down the aisle and to the doors which led into the hotel lobby. Hasenpfeffer quickly followed her. “What is it, my dear?” he implored her.

“God I’m beginning to hate him!” she thought to herself. She had allowed Woodrow Hasenpfeffer to court her for the last two years, mainly because he had his own jet. She had the house in Bel Aire, the condo in Malibu. There were occasional TV appearances, and the residuals from that godawful show her agent had made her do in the ’60s, the one where she was shipwrecked on an island with six other has-been actors. Her five-day marriage to Count Massimo Chimichanga had ended in divorce and a hefty settlement, but she had run through that in one afternoon spent on Rodeo Drive.

Outside the meeting room, Chincilla sat down in a red velvet chair and reached for another cigarette.

“Do you need some water?” Hasenpfeffer inquired.

“I need a drink,” she snapped, and soon they were sitting in front of matching drinks in the hotel bar: Bloody Marys with huge stalks of celery. “Tabasco!” shrieked Chinchilla in the direction of the waiter. “I just don’t get it,” she whispered. “I don’t know what it is about this guy. I’ve tried Satanism, Objectivism, EST, Scientology, the Kabbalah, and lesbianism—in that order—but somehow this is different. Just the title of that book, Being and Time . . . it hit me when I saw that title. I just knew: this is the guy.”

Two weeks earlier, she had entered a bookstore in Beverly Hills, wearing a long, camel’s hair coat with its high collar turned up, and large amber-colored sunglasses—even though it had been years since anyone had recognized her. Oh, and the black leather driving gloves. She never took them off. Liver spots.

Chinchilla moved through the store slowly and cautiously, as if she were poised to flee at any moment. When a large man in a dress shirt with wet armpits glanced in her direction she lifted a hand up to hide her face and then turned down the philosophy aisle. She knew where the philosophy books were only because they were on the other side of the General Metaphysics section, which she occasionally visited. And that was when she saw Being and Time: the attractive, hardcover Macquarrie and Robinson translation. Something about the cover of the book spoke to her. She bought it and left hurriedly, as if expecting paparazzi to descend on her at any moment.

Chinchilla began reading the book by the pool that afternoon, while sipping a Long Island Iced Tea. She started with the table of contents, and began pondering the book’s strange vocabulary. She knew something about Being from her experience with EST. “Being alive . . . being alive,” she whispered to herself and sipped her drink. The straw made a rude gurgling, sucking sound, and she realized the glass was empty. She set it down on the metal patio table with a loud BANG. “Time,” she intoned, and lay the book against her breasts. “Being and time. . . . Like the sands of the hourglass, these are the days of our lives.”

But what on earth did “Dasein” mean?

Her thoughts now turned from the book to its author. She imagined Heidegger with a dark, angular face, a beret perched slightly askew on the top of his head. She pictured him smoking those very strong French cigarettes her husband, the Count, had enjoyed. Heidegger was sitting outdoors at a café, scribbling in a notebook. There was a demitasse at one of his elbows, a plate with some kind of . . . French . . . cheese or something at his other elbow. It was 1940. Heidegger was a philosopher by day, a member of the Underground, fighting the Nazis by night. She could hear the sound of jackboots approaching the café. Heidegger quickly closed his book, took a carrier pigeon from his coat pocket, a tiny scroll already tied to one of its talons, and released it into the bright sky. An SS officer with a dueling scar took aim, fired, and missed.

Chinchilla was angry at herself for daydreaming again. She glanced down at the table of contents, and was pleased to see that Heidegger included a discussion of Care. Care was very important to Chinchilla. She opposed Hate in all its ugly forms. “He must be a wonderful man,” she thought. “What does it take to write something like this?” She hefted the book in her left hand. Five-hundred and eighty-nine pages. Chinchilla couldn’t imagine reading a book that long, let alone writing one. Then it occurred to her that this might be yet another of those books that she had bought and never finished. “Not this time,” she said, out loud. She thought that the book might become for her something like the Bible was for others. She would leave it by her bed. She would read a few passages each night before retiring, and go to bed feeling inspired by its wisdom.

Something startled her, and she realized that her houseboy, Hop Theng, was at her side, removing the drink from the table. “You want another, Countess?” he asked, sounding like he had a mouth full of shot. “No,” she said, distinctly annoyed. He walked around the pool to the French doors and suddenly drew back, calling to her, “Oh! Mr. Hasenpfeffer here to see you!” Woodrow Hasenpfeffer emerged from the house into the bright sun, waving to her. He was wearing a pin-striped, double-breasted suit and a bright grin. “Hello, lovely one!” he called, striding around the pool. Chinchilla didn’t want to see him, not now. Not when . . . Well, it seemed silly to think that a book could make her not want to see Hasenpfeffer. But it was more than the book. It was as if Heidegger himself had come between them. She wanted to hide Being and Time before Hasenpfeffer could set his jaded, unsavory eyes on it.

“What’s that you’re reading? Being and Time? Oh, my! Philosophy, Chinchilla? You’re not serious!” he smiled and diddled with his moustache.

She turned her head away. “What do you want, Bunny?” she asked, needling him with his Harvard nickname.

But he wouldn’t let the subject drop. “You’re really reading that book? You know, my nephew teaches philosophy at UCLA. He told me this Heidegger fellow is coming here next week. The name meant nothing to me, but apparently he’s the next big thing.”

Chinchilla sat forward quickly. “What did you say? He’s coming here?”

“Yes, to give some sort of lecture. He’s on a whirlwind tour of several major American cities.”

For the next seven days, Chinchilla Heatherton could think of nothing other than meeting Heidegger. The day after Hasenpfeffer had given her the news, she stood in front of the full length mirror in her bedroom, wearing her nightgown, and her heart sank. “I’m not ready,” she said to herself. “I’m not ready. . . . But damn it I will be!” She rushed over to her bedside, picked up the white, enamel receiver of her princess phone, and dialed. “Hello, Margo? What was the name of that woman who gave you the chelated seaweed-guava eyelid treatment?” She twirled the cord around in her fingers and, looking down, realized that she would have to go on wearing the driving gloves. “Does she do Black Sea salt scrubbing? Or Dead Sea, or whatever it is? . . . Yes . . . Good.”

The arrival of the chelated seaweed-guava eyelid woman began a daily round of therapists, masseurs, natural healers, and plastic surgeons. Chinchilla was massaged, waxed, and scrubbed. She underwent colonic irrigation, neti nasal douching, ear candling, crystal therapy, aroma therapy, essential oil therapy, Reiki, Rolfing, past life regression, fasting, foot reflexology, Tai Chi, Chee Gung, Hatha Yoga, dermabrasion, botox, and Scientological clearing. She was quietly escorted out of a Lamaze class.

At the end of five days, Chinchilla was so exhausted she began leafing through the “spa getaway” brochures Margo had leant her, until she realized that that meant doing it all over again.

On day six, she rested. Hasenpfeffer called her at noon. “The Countess is asleep,” Hop Theng told him.

He called back at 2:00. “Hello . . . yes,” Chinchilla whispered, lifting her heated eye mask.

“Tomorrow is the big day, my sweet,” Hasenpfeffer said. “I still don’t understand why you want to meet this man.” He waited for a response, but none came. “I’d be delighted to escort you to the lecture, though.”

“When is it?”

“Tomorrow at 7:00 pm at the airport Marriott.”

She was glad it wasn’t in the morning. “Do you know what the lecture is about?”

“Well, I have a flyer. They were handing them out at the M-G-M commissary this morning. It’s a damnably strange title. ‘What is Dwelling?’”

“What did you ask me?” Chinchilla said, sitting up and wondering where Hop Theng was with her coffee.

“No, that’s the title, dear. ‘What is Dwelling?’ I don’t know what it means either.”

“Dwelling,” Chinchilla thought. “Dwelling on your problems, I would think. It’s about learning to take one day at a time, and to be . . . proactive. Yes, it’s a self-help talk.” She hoped it would be easier to understand than Being and Time. Two days earlier she had returned to the bookstore and bought another volume by Heidegger: Basic Problems of Phenomenology. Hasenpfeffer’s nephew, the philosophy professor, had advised her that this was easier than Being and Time. But Chinchilla couldn’t understand it either. She imagined the lecture would reveal all.

And now it was over, and Chinchilla still did not understand. She sipped her Bloody Mary, wishing that Hasenpfeffer would just disappear. Suddenly, there was a great deal of hubbub from outside the bar. The lecture audience was leaving. Chinchilla brightened. After they had all left, she might go back to the room and talk alone with Heidegger. But then she realized that the little German was in the midst of the crowd that now moved through the lobby, being peppered with questions. He was moving toward the elevators. Chinchilla caught a glimpse of his face. He looked exhausted and annoyed. She realized he was probably heading for his room. If Heidegger disappeared upstairs, she might never get a chance to speak with him alone.

She pushed through the crowd. “Excuse me! Excuse me! I’m the Contessa Chinchilla Heatherton!” But no one appeared to notice her. Heidegger was entering an elevator alone, waving the crowd away with a polite, but weary smile. Chinchilla pushed past a large man wearing Vulcan ears and got on the elevator just as the doors were about to close.

Now she was alone with Heidegger. He stood stiffly, looking down at the floor. Just once, he glanced up in her direction with a slight twinkle in his eyes.

"What a doll!' thought Chinchilla Heatherton.

“What a doll!’ thought Chinchilla Heatherton.

“What a doll!” thought Chinchilla. And she couldn’t take her eyes off his existential suit. In this new light, she could see that it was dark green, and not the grey she had thought it was earlier. Heidegger had not pressed one of the elevator buttons. “Oh, what’s your floor?” she asked brightly and, when he answered her, she pressed 21. “That’s my floor too! What a coincidence!” she said and began giggling, then playfully slapped Heidegger on the arm. He twinkled at her again, then cleared his throat, bringing his fist up to his lips.

There was silence for several seconds.

“Are you in town long?” Chinchilla asked him. He answered politely, but concisely that he was leaving the following day. Chinchilla froze. She could think of nothing else to say. She was amazed that Heidegger had not shown more interest in her. Most men would have.

The doors opened and Heidegger, with a slight bow, insisted that she leave first.

“Well, good night!” said Chinchilla. She walked deliberately in the opposite direction. As soon as Heidegger’s back was turned, however, she did an about face and squinted to see what door he was headed toward. He inserted a plastic key in his lock, and just as he opened the door, Chinchilla sprinted several feet ahead and saw that the number was 2123. Heidegger had been unaware of her approach, and shut the door gently.

Just as Chinchilla was about to walk back down the hall and formulate Plan B, the door to the room next to Heidegger’s opened and out stepped Tyler Hasenpfeffer, the gay philosophy professor nephew of Woodrow Hasenpfeffer.

“Tyler!” Chinchilla cried, “What are you doing here?”

“Shoosh! Not so loud,” he said and quickly turned to shut the door behind him. But Chinchilla had seen into the room and what it contained.

“Tyler, what are you doing in there!”

He hushed her again. “Keep your voice down. I don’t want the old man to hear us.”

“What is going on here?” she demanded.

“Well, all right. I’ll show you. But you have to keep it a complete secret.” Chinchilla promised that she would, and Tyler unlocked the door and motioned for her to come in. There was a desk against the wall separating Tyler’s room from Heidegger’s. The desk was piled high with sophisticated electronic equipment. Something that appeared to be a thin metal tube had been driven into the wall separating Tyler’s room from Heidegger’s.

“What is all this?” Chinchilla asked, and then she saw the TV monitor. It showed a man in front of a queen size bed, taking off his jacket. It was Heidegger!

“I’ve bored a hole in Heidegger’s wall, and inserted a tiny camera through it so that we can see into his room. I can see—and videotape—everything that happens,” Tyler said with a self-satisfied smirk.

“But . . . why?”

“So that I can out him.”

Chinchilla suddenly remembered what Bunny had told her about Tyler. He had made a small name for himself in something called “Queer Theory,” and had published a book a couple of years earlier called Buridan’s Asshole. It had purported to “out” many a famous philosopher as gay. Recently, Tyler had turned to outing living philosophers. “Yessirree,” he said. “I can see everything that goes on in there. This was the baby I used to out A. J. Ayer,” he said, patting the VCR. “You’ll never believe what Ayer is into.”

Chinchilla reared back. “You mean you think that Heidegger is . . . gay?” Revealingly, she laid her right hand over her heart.

“Well . . . no,” Tyler said, looking down. “That is, I really don’t know. He could be. People have their suspicions. You should hear some of the things Michel Foucault has to say about him.”

“No, it’s impossible!” Chinchilla cried. “He’s a sexy, vibrant, virile man. He’s got a sort of, I don’t know, Burl Ives quality. Only he’s so European or something. Anyway, it’s scary how sexy he is.”

Tyler curled his lip. “You just can’t believe that a masculine man could be gay.”

“I’ll prove to you he’s not gay,” she said, thumping the carpet with one of her heels.

“What are you going to do?”

But Chinchilla didn’t answer. She left hurriedly, and, moments later, Tyler heard her knocking at Heidegger’s door.

Several minutes earlier, Heidegger had unpacked a compact, beige suitcase and had removed two small, stuffed animals: a rabbit and a mole. He went everywhere with them. They were called Rabbit Podvillion and Mole Bracegirdle. Heidegger had gotten the idea from Fritz Lang, who went everywhere with a stuffed monkey. Sometimes, Heidegger would talk to them after a long day of writing or speaking. Once Hans-Georg Gadamer had shown up unannounced at the Todtnauberg hut, obviously tripping on acid, and had carried on a long conversation with the two animals. Chinchilla and Tyler had not noticed Heidegger setting the rabbit and the mole on the dresser in his room. They had been too busy arguing.

Now Heidegger answered his door, coming face to face once again with Chinchilla Heatherton. She had yanked the neckline of her dress down a bit just as the door swung open. “Hello . . . Professor Heidegger? I just wanted to come by and tell you . . . tell you how much I enjoyed your lecture. It was so, so . . . philosophical. And really,” she grinned broadly and scratched at her cheek with long, red-shellacked nails, “really it was so . . . relevant.” Something made her stop. Perhaps it was his glassy stare. Perhaps it was what she interpreted as a “smoldering look” behind the glassiness. Years later, she would write the following in her autobiography, Tinseltown Goddess (Feral House, 2004):

There was a cigarette dangling from his lips. “Aren’t you Chinchilla Heatherton, ‘Cinammon’ from Hoolihan’s Atoll? You know, ‘the movie star?’”

“Why yes, I am,” I said, and stepped into the room. In seconds, I was coming out of my dress. He was breathing against my shoulder, hot and heavy. “Yes!” I screamed, overcome with lust. “Give me your Dasein!”

“I will give you Dasein!” he cried, snapping his suspenders.

Then we were in the bed, coupling like two bison in heat. “More German!” I screamed. He bit into the nape of my neck and began muttering a stream of German obscenity. “Sorge! Gerade! Sein! Welt! Gestell! Gelassenheit!” Suddenly, he went rigid, and then he screamed, “Geworfenheit!!”

Alas, none of this actually occurred. It was simply the product of a ghost writer’s imagination.

“May I come in?” Chinchilla asked, forcing her way past him. Heidegger shut the door behind her. Chinchilla glanced briefly at the mole and the rabbit on the dresser. She took a cigarette from a pack in her bag. Heidegger lit it gallantly. “Nice place you’ve got here,” she said, and coughed on the smoke. “So when are you going back to Amsterdam?”

They made small talk for several minutes. Heidegger glanced occasionally at the clock over her shoulder. She interpreted this as sexual tension. “Listen,” Chinchilla said, “I’ve got something to show you.” She took a videocassette from her purse. On it was a label that read Hoolihan’s Atoll. Fortunately, the TV in Heidegger’s room had a VCR built into it. Chinchilla inserted the tape into the machine, causing the TV screen to blink on. Heidegger, who had never watched television before, sat down on the edge of the bed, mesmerized. Chinchilla appeared on screen, looking twenty years younger and wearing a skintight, red sequined gown. The tape was a compilation of her best moments from the series. The first scene had her as one of three participants in an island beauty contest.

Chinchilla began to babble as the images flickered on the screen. “I didn’t want to do this show. I felt it . . . compromised my craft. I needed something that would stretch me as an actress. I tried to get better scripts. There was this episode where we did a musical version of Macbeth . . . Oh, yeah! That’s what you’re seeing right now. See, that’s me doing the “out, out damned spot” routine to the tune of “Away in a Manger.” At least I got to sing. I’m not bad, don’t you think?”

Suddenly there was a crash. Chinchilla and Heidegger turned in time to see the door flying in, knocked off its hinges. They caught a glimpse of two dark figures wearing gas masks, and then the room was full of grey smoke. The two intruders lobbed gas grenades onto the carpet. Heidegger remained sitting on the bed, but his mouth opened slightly in surprise. Chinchilla screamed and backed toward the window. The intruders were carrying semi-automatic pistols fitted out with shoulder stocks and silencers.

The room began spinning, and all at once Chinchilla felt better than she had felt since . . . since . . . Her face met the plush, beautiful, comfortable carpet, that felt so good, and just as she lost consciousness she thought she had to find out where to get this stuff . . .

Heidegger hit the carpet seconds after she did.

To be continued . . .

 

]]>
http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/heidegger-in-l-a/feed/ 2
Can We Stop Pretending Yet?The Obama Amnesty http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/can-we-stop-pretending-yet/ http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/can-we-stop-pretending-yet/#comments Fri, 21 Nov 2014 05:36:16 +0000 http://www.counter-currents.com/?p=50963 brownfreeloaders1,674 words

Can we stop pretending yet? Can we please just stop with this sick farce of Constitutions, and Dreams, and Exceptionalisms and all the rest of it?

It’s over. It’s done. The Experiment failed.

At this point, what is the point of all this?

Barack Obama just abolished immigration law by granting amnesty to an estimated five million illegal immigrants. All of the children of these illegal immigrants will be citizens. He did this unilaterally and illegally. We know it was illegal because he told us so on multiple occasions over the last few years.

If the rule of law, the principle of sovereignty, and even the distinction between foreigner and citizen is to be abolished, why do we have this government to begin with? It seems incredible that this massive apparatus commanding vast intelligence agencies, terrifying military and paramilitary forces, and nightmarish weapons capable of destroying the world ten times over is simply giving up.

History tells us that revolutions occur when the ruling class loses faith in its right to lead. To the more conservative among us, it might seem like this is precisely what is happening. An exhausted white ruling class is simply giving in to demographic reality. As Bill O’Reilly noted after Barack Obama’s re-election, the “white establishment is now the minority.”

Yet there’s something deeper underneath all this. Contra the predictions of imminent collapse, the federal government is now reporting record tax revenues and the our expanding federal deficit means little as long as the dollar is secure as the world’s reserve currency. Some believe that other powers are rising to counter American influence, particularly Russia. Yet the entire Russian stock market is worth less than Apple (as are Singapore and Italy.) And the United States has overtaken Saudi Arabia and is now the biggest oil producer in the world. Put simply, the pax Americana continues and Bismarck is proven correct – “There is a special providence for drunkards, fools, and the United States of America.”

The terrible truth is that the decision to essentially hand over the country to a foreign population is being done from a position of strength. The ruling powers of the country have made the conscious decision that they can tighten their control by electing a new people. The new Third World “American” population will be willing to accept lower living standards and the transfer or resources from labor to capital. At the same time, the multicultural Left is far more concerned about attacking European-Americans and transferring their wealth to nonwhites than seriously confronting structural inequality. Socialism has been replaced by racial socialism and both “Right” and “Left” are aligned against the remnants of Middle America.

Dana Milbank (a man, evidently) in a column giggling about the “tired blood” of white Americans, wrote that the United States is undergoing a “rapid decoupling of race and nationality.” Such racial mysticism is quite acceptable when it is used as a weapon against whites. But Milbank is slightly off — the United States is actually undergoing a rapid decoupling of nation and state.

As Carl Schmitt taught, the “friend-enemy” distinction is critical to understanding the structure of politics and the purpose of the state. After the age of nationalism, a state was held to be the political expression of a particular people, with citizens who belonged to both the state and the nation (the ethnic community) being the pillar of each state.

This is usually compromised, as there are usually many citizens of the state who aren’t members of the ethnic community. Nonetheless, each state has a “core” population that gives its character to the state. For the United States, it is the White Anglo Saxon Protestant founding population that answered Samuel Huntington’s question, Who Are We?, with the larger European population assimilating into this basic type.

Obama’s amnesty represents something rarely seen – a formal acknowledgement that the “state” is turning against the “nation.” The core European-American population – what Peter Brimelow of VDARE calls the “historic American nation” – is disposable. Indeed, in the eyes of our rulers, both Republican and Democrat, it is a liability. And as Jack Donovan has said, it makes sense, from their perspective.

Therefore, any critique premised upon this being American leaders being “stupid” is misguided. Even the eventual loss of American territory – a real possibility someday, if not anytime soon – doesn’t really represent a “loss” to our leaders. Indeed, it is actually a benefit, a development that paves away for the eventual European Union style economic and political integration of the North American continent. As Sam Francis spent his career explaining, the current leadership of the United States has no real stake in the continued existence of the American national community.

So why bother waving a flag or being loyal to a “nation?” It seems self-evident that European-Americans should turn on those who have betrayed them, renounce the failed American experiment, and secure their own destroy by any means necessary – secession, rebellion, and the eventual goal of the White Republic. Unfortunately, it’s not that simple.

The very beneficiaries of the government’s largesse are those who are most eager to destroy the symbols of the state. We are in an ironic position where the government subsidizes and rewards those who burn its flag and attack its law enforcement officers.

Meanwhile, European-Americans who are consistently betrayed and sabotaged by own government are still eager to leap to the defense of the symbols of the Old Republic and lay down their lives to fight her perceived enemies.

Nor is this simply European-Americans being foolish or stupid. One is reminded of Commander George Lincoln Rockwell, a man who openly paraded under the swastika of German National Socialism, saving an American flag from being destroyed at the hands of a Vietnam War protester. Even those who should know better (including me) find themselves moved by the symbols and songs of national institutions that we know full well are being used against our people.

This takes the form of a curious doublethink. If a right-minded friend wears an upside down American flag or even burns the federal banner, I’ll approve it as a form of outraged protest and response to betrayal. If I see pro-immigration protesters burning the flag and cursing out the United States, I’m probably getting in a fight and going to jail to try to save that bit of cloth. I fully recognize the absurdity of this. It changes nothing.

It’s all very well to write a critique snarking about some “Tea Party patriot” in Murietta, CA waving the flag of the United States Army to protest the decisions of the government those soldiers are defending. But even though it makes no logical sense, the actions of misguided paleo-Americans still somehow rings true.

The United States of America still belongs to European-Americans in some primal way that can never be transferred via a piece of paper. The flag is still ours in some way that can’t be touched by anyone else. And this remains true even though the rot was present at the beginning of the American experiment and it’s hard to see how America could have ended up any other way.

If European-Americans can’t break away from this totemic fixation on the United States, they will not long survive. White survival on this continent depends upon the historic American nation recognizing that it is a European population and but a branch of a greater Western family. The pathetic fear of American conservatives that “we will end up like a European nation” and must remain a New Jerusalem is what has led us to this point.

But this will be far easier said than done. The psychic hold of the American Dream on our people will not be easily sundered. What is required is an ingathering, a conscious attempt by activists and thinkers to form the core of a self-aware people. Political activity framed explicitly as in the interests of European-Americans will further this ingathering. We have to give our enemies what they want and let their hatred and rage at our collective activity forge our people together in spite of ourselves.

Yet it’s equally true any mass movement of European-Americans will borrow heavily from the iconography and rhetoric of the very regime it is rebelling against. Even the Confederate States of America took as its seal the image of the Father of Our Country, George Washington, the federal government’s first President and an advocate of strong central authority.

Moreover, the breakdown of the United States, which is already unlikely in the short-term, won’t necessarily lead to some glorious new dawn for European-American populations. After all, what “ethno-nationalism” could conceivably emerge ex nihilo out of the North American Empire? It seems far more likely that if the United States collapsed tomorrow with whites in their current deracinated state, we would simply end up with miniature versions of the same system that we have today. It might even be worse, as we could simply be citizens of “independent states” that function as colonies of international finance.

Regardless of what metapolitics or theoretical construct is created, European-Americans are now a common people with a common destiny on this continent by virtue of nothing else than that is how they are regarded by their enemies. These enemies now include the very people who govern “their” country. We are but one among the various stakeholders on this continent. We are divided amongst ourselves by region, religion, and political orientation, but such differences do not change our common fate.

No progress will be made unless European-Americans become conscious of themselves as Europeans abroad, as a people in their own right, and as possessing a destiny separate from that of the larger Washington, D.C. regime. The actions of the Obama Administration and the accelerating hysteria of the media against European-Americans is actually simplifying our task. Now that it is clear that the Washington regime is willing to do without us, we must be willing to do without it, at least within our own minds.

 

 

]]>
http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/can-we-stop-pretending-yet/feed/ 25
Dugin on Heidegger http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/dugin-on-heidegger/ http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/dugin-on-heidegger/#comments Fri, 21 Nov 2014 00:33:31 +0000 http://www.counter-currents.com/?p=50895 Heiegger+Cover+Web3,088 words

Alexander Dugin
Martin Heidegger: The Philosophy of Another Beginning
Ed. and trans. Nina Kouprianova
Preface by Paul E. Gottfried
Whitefish, Mt.: Radix, 2014

Martin Heidegger is one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century. So it should come as no surprise that Heidegger, a life-long man of the Right, is also an important thinker for the New Right in Europe and North America.

Heidegger belonged to the broad German Conservative Revolutionary intellectual current. He fell in and out with the National Socialist movement. His encounter with National Socialism and his post-War thinking on modernity, technology, and the possibility of a new dispensation are of enduring relevance to the New Right project of defining a post-totalitarian alternative to both the Old Right and the existing Jewish/Leftist hegemony.

Thus a book-length discussion of Heidegger by Alexander Dugin, who is loosely affiliated with the European New Right, would seem a welcome contribution. There would be two reasons to read Dugin’s book on Heidegger: first, for what it reveals about Heidegger; second, for what it reveals about Dugin. Unfortunately, after nearly 400 pages, I felt that I had learned very little about either thinker.

It isn’t easy to write a book about Heidegger, who is notoriously obscure. Unfortunately, Dugin’s method of exposition leans heavily on paraphrase and repetition, and if you have trouble reading Heidegger himself, Dugin’s restatement will hardly be more intelligible. If you are just looking for an exposition of Heidegger in English, there are many better choices. I highly recommend Richard Polt’s Heidegger: An Introduction (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1999), which is lucid, comprehensive, and concise (180 pages).

I also hoped that this volume would throw light on why Dugin proposes Heidegger’s concept of Dasein as the “subject” of what he calls the “fourth political theory.” Unfortunately, it adds nothing to what Dugin has said on the matter in The Fourth Political Theory.

* * *

Heidegger’s favorite word is “Being” (Sein), which he uses constantly but defines only infrequently, incompletely, and in passing. This makes it tempting for readers to plug in notions of Being inherited from the history of philosophy: God, objective reality, ultimate reality, what all beings have in common, etc. All these interpretations founder, however, on the fact that Heidegger insists that Being somehow requires man, or human being (Dasein).

Heidegger does not, however, mean that nothing existed before mankind evolved, or that the universe was completed by the evolution of man. For Heidegger, Being does not mean beings (objectively existing things). Nor does Being mean “ultimate reality” (the One, Brahman, God, etc.). Nor does it mean something all beings have in common, like a common element or particle, or the widest, emptiest category.

For Heidegger, Being = meaning. To be is to be meaningful. Meaningful to whom? Meaningful to man. And insofar as man is a being who has meaning, Heidegger refers to man as Dasein (or Da-Sein, the place of Being).

Meaningful things do not, however, exist in isolation. They are parts of a larger context of meaning, which Heidegger calls a “world.” Again, the tendency is to think of a world as an assemblage of objectively existing beings, which does not require man. Surely it makes sense to speak of the “world of the dinosaurs,” even though mankind did not exist at the time. Heidegger does not deny that dinosaurs existed before us, or that they existed in a web of relationships (an ecosystem). But, again, Heidegger is using “world” in a specific way to mean “world of meaning,” which requires man (Dasein) as the one to whom things are meaningful.

But Heidegger’s ultimate topic is not Being (meaning) but the meaning of Being (the meaning of meaning). This is the question of what makes meaning possible.

Since Being always involves man, the question of the meaning of Being involves man as well. Man and Being have a relationship of mutual belonging. Heidegger’s term for this relationship is Ereignis, which ordinarily means “event” but for him also means (1) taking hold (Er-eignis, usually translated as appropriation or “enowning”) and (2) beholding (Er-äugnis, be-eyeing).

An English word that captures both taking hold and beholding is “enthrallment.” To enthrall literally means to enslave, but also it means to captivate or enchant by a spectacle. Being and man are mutually in thrall, mutually enthralled. “Enthrallment” also captures Heidegger’s insistence that individuals do not construct their own worlds of meaning, but are taken up and thrown into pre-existing worlds of meaning by greater historical forces: languages, cultures, traditions. Meaning comes in worlds, and worlds are collective, not individual. And collective meanings seize and hold sway over individuals.

In Being and Time, Heidegger began his account of meaning and its relationship to man using the subject-centered phenomenological method adopted from his teacher Edmund Husserl. But the collective nature of meaning, and the fact that the individual has collective meanings imposed upon him, chafed against the phenomenological method, in which the philosopher reflects upon how the world is given to him/us. Because Heidegger realized that the human subject itself is structured by inherited meanings (language, culture, tradition), he needed to move outside the subject-centered phenomenological perspective and explore the relationship of man and meaning from the side of meaning rather then the side of man.

Being and Time remained unfinished because, at the time, Heidegger was unable to articulate this shift in perspective. Heidegger characterized his later philosophy not as transcendental phenomenology but as “seinsgeschichtliches Denken,” which is literally and misleadingly translated as “being-historical thinking.” Heidegger, however, is not thinking of mere history, but of what lies above and behind history, the intellectual conditions that make it possible. For Heidegger, history is not just a record of rulers, battles, and inventions, but of the underlying assumptions about reality that shape politics, warfare, and technology.

Ordinarily, the German Geschichte means “history.” But Heidegger is attentive to the roots and etymological associations of Geschichte, namely schicken (to send) and Geschick (destiny). A good English equivalent is “dispensation,” since it has the sense of a received order, the existing regime. Furthermore, a dispensation is always finite, time-bound, epochal. One speaks of “the present dispensation,” because one is aware of past and future ones. Since for Heidegger Being = meaning, “Being-historical thinking” really means “thinking about the dispensations of meaning.”

Heidegger divides European history into a succession of different epochs or dispensations of meaning: the pre-Socratic and Socratic periods of classical thought, the Christian world, early modernity, and the completion of modernity in modern nihilism, i.e., man-centered technological materialism. For Heidegger, the history of Western philosophy, from Plato to Nietzsche, is a trajectory of decline.

The objective reality of beings is forgotten, as Being is defined in terms of knowability in thought and manipulability in action. The intimate connection of man and world is forgotten, replaced with the dualism of mind and matter. The dependence of the individual on received systems of collective meaning is forgotten, replaced with arrant individualism and the idea that human history and human nature can be mastered and reconstructed according to conscious plans. Finally, we have forgotten the fact that none of this was inevitable, that another dispensation — the new beginning of Dugin’s title — is possible.

And Heidegger makes quite clear that a new beginning is highly desirable, for he rejects modernity — and the Western philosophical tradition that gives rise to it — in the strongest possible terms as leading to the dehumanization of man and the destruction of nature by establishing the dominion of an anthropocentric, technological materialism, which encompasses both communism and liberal capitalism. (Heidegger had no objection to technology per se, but to technology linked to a leveling materialism and man-centered values.)

In his memoir Philosophical Apprenticeships, Hans-Georg Gadamer, one of Heidegger’s most eminent students, recounted a meeting after the First World War in which different radical ideas for the salvation of Germany were proposed. One voice called out “phenomenology!” Heidegger himself certainly linked phenomenology to the crisis of his time, thus his philosophical writings have an intensely rhetorical dimension that is by turns moral, political, religious, poetic, prophetic, eschatological, and often strongly nationalistic.

Heidegger hoped that National Socialism would provide a fundamental alternative to modern man-centered materialism, but when National Socialism itself turned out to be another form of materialist modernity, Heidegger criticized it from the Right and never gave up the hope that a real Right-wing alternative would emerge. Creating that alternative is the aim of New Right today.

After the Second World War, Heidegger gave up on politics proper. If the problem with the modern world is the idea that we can understand and control everything, including history and society, then working out and implementing an anti-modernist political program is not a solution, but just another version of the problem.

The only way to overturn the idea that everything can be understood and controlled is to find things that are mysterious and uncontrollable. For Heidegger, the source of the idea that everything can be understood and controlled can itself be neither understood nor controlled. When one looks into a light, the light itself obscures its source. The same is true of meaning. The modern dispensation of meaning, like all dispensations of meaning, arises from sources that are obscure. This is why Heidegger speaks of each dispensation as an Ereignis, an event, meaning an inscrutable contingency.

For Heidegger, meaning is finite: if the intelligibility and manipulability of beings is highlighted by the modern dispensation, that simply means that other dimensions are being obscured. And the source of that dispensation is itself obscure. But if the modern dispensation is finite, it can never be final. A new dispensation can dawn. What is hidden can come to light, and what is illuminated can become obscure. We do not know how or why.

But we do know that man and meaning belong together.

That means that the present dispensation cannot exist without us. Even though it holds us in thrall, it somehow depends upon us as well. We sustain it whenever we act under the assumption that everything can be transparent and available. Whenever we want things to be faster or cheaper or more convenient, we are sustaining the modern dispensation.

But what if we attune ourselves to the mysterious and uncontrollable? What if we cultivate a taste for the poetic and the mystical? What if we reject utilitarian values for the beautiful, the useless, or the heroic? What if we prize uniqueness over uniformity, the earthy over the plastic, slow food over fast food, the limits of nature over the power of the technologically weaponized will? What if we opt out of mainstream culture and create a counter-culture that cultivates a different worldview and way of life? Then we are no longer sustaining the present dispensation. And if enough of us opt out, surely a new dispensation must dawn. We know not how or why.

But we do know that historical change is possible.

Indeed, we know that it is already happening. Heidegger did not believe that philosophers or poets are the hidden legislators of mankind, excogitating theories that give rise to new historical dispensations. This is pure anthropocentrism, the idea that man makes history rather than history makes man. Instead, Heidegger believed that philosophers and poets receive their ideas from the hidden currents of the Zeitgeist. They look like they create ideas because they merely receive them first.

Thus Heidegger’s own thought, and the thought of others like him, is not to be dismissed as merely subjective and ineffectual ideas hatched by alienated dreamers. For Heidegger sees the very existence of such ideas as the stirring of the most sensitive souls, the earliest risers, to the dawn of a new dispensation. By hearkening to Heidegger and the other critics of modernity, one is hearkening to a new dispensation. One is becoming the change that one desires. One is living under the next dispensation today.

Thus perhaps one can excuse Heidegger for obscurity, for the medium is clearly part of the message. But if communicating this message was as important to Heidegger as it seems, you would think he would have striven for utmost clarity — that he would have tried to imitate Schopenhauer rather than to outdo Kant, Fichte, Hegel, and Schelling for Teutonic turbidness. He can’t plead lack of talent, since his lecture courses are famously clear. He had to work hard to write texts as pretentious and maddeningly obscure as Contributions to Philosophy.

But there is nothing contradictory or self-defeating about a clear exposition of the nature and role of obscurity and hiddenness. Shadows, gaps, and abysses can have cleanly delineated edges. If Heidegger is right, then it really is of epochal importance that he find an able popularizer, his own Alan Watts.

Dugin’s book, however, does not fit the bill. Dugin is attracted to all of Heidegger’s worst rhetorical excesses, which he misinterprets in maximally metaphysical terms. For instance, Heidegger’s notion of “fundamental ontology” refers to his quest for the meaning of Being (the meaning of meaning — the conditions that make worlds and dispensations of meaning possible). It has nothing to do with standard metaphysical notions of ultimate reality. According to Dugin, however:

Starting out from the ontic (from beings in their most obvious, accessible characteristics), this time we must progress in another direction: we must not rise above beings, remaining bound to them and destroying them with this ambiguous relationship, as in the case of European metaphysics. Instead, we must glance below, delve into beings’ primordial source — a place where nothing exists and where Nothingness is. But this Nothingness is not simply non-beings (generated from beings). This is Nothingness, which makes beings what they are, but which does not turn into beings. This Nothingness is life-giving, constituting all with its quiet power this is what “fundamental-ontology” is: the kind of ontology built along principally new patterns as compared to the entire preceding philosophy. “Fundamental-ontology” will let the new kind of logos shine. This time, however, it will not focus on beings, but on Nothingness. (pp. 63–64)

Heidegger’s fundamental ontology is not, however, about the “primordial source” of beings. Again, it is about what makes it possible for beings to have meaning, to be taken up into worlds of intelligibility. This is characteristic of Dugin’s exposition of Heidegger: it isn’t any more readable than Heidegger, and half the time it isn’t even Heidegger.

Dugin seems to understand Heidegger’s Ereignis as a singular apocalyptic event which will inaugurate a new beginning, a new dispensation of meaning:

The Seynsgeschichtliche horizon of Heidegger’s philosophy is oriented toward Ereignis. Ereignis is the culmination of Being’s history, because at this point the whole process of Seynsgeschichte manifests itself in its true dimension: as Being’s narration about itself in a reversed (inverted) form — the form of Being’s oblivion (Seinsvergessenheit) and the triumph of nihilism. Ereignis is directly linked to the fact that at a certain point the entire cycle of Western European philosophy is being grasped in its true proportions and in terms of fundamental-ontological significance. And this process of grasping and comprehension forms the premise for Seyn-Being’s advancement as it truly is — this time not through continuance in which it conceals itself, but rather through the single moment in which it reveals itself. (p. 148)

It is easy to get this sort of impression from Heidegger’s posthumously publishing writings from the 1930s, such as Contributions to Philosophy. But one should take the accounts of Ereignis that Heidegger published during his lifetime, particularly in his 1962 lecture “Time and Being,” as his most considered view. And there Heidegger describes Ereignis as the generic structure of all dispensations of meaning: all ages of history emerge and take hold of us as inscrutable contingencies. Worlds of meaning happen like the rain: when we say, “It’s raining,” there is no “it” that is actually raining, just as there is no “it” that is sending a new dispensation. It just happens.

In the 1930s, Heidegger was full of apocalyptic hopes. His dalliance with National Socialism was in part motivated by his conviction that the German people had a leading role to play in ushering in a new dispensation. After the war, we hear nothing more about such philosophical geopolitics, which makes sense given the generally apolitical tenor of Heidegger’s later thought. Dugin, however, seems to have adopted unaltered Heidegger’s 1930s-style nationalism and hope for a political solution to the modern age. He has merely transposed them to Russia:

Another beginning is a matter of the future, of those who will be upcoming, as Nietzsche dreamt. But the Sun does not rise in the West. And from now on, we have grapsed the meaning of the sunset, necessary for moving toward the horizon from another direction. Heidegger’s another Beginning cannot address the people of the West. Therefore, it addresses us. (p. 390)

When Dugin writes about liberalism, his ranting is often entertaining:

Man of the global world, a Liberal, accepting and recognizing the normativity of the “American way of life,” is the kind of person who is a patented idiot from the philosophical and etymological point of view, a documented idiot, an idiot parading his foolishness above his head like a banner. (pp. 163–64)

This, by the way, is the only passage in this admirable translation that one might be tempted to read in a Russian accent.

* * *

As a material object, this book is most impressive. The cover may look at bit like an English prog rock cover from the 1970s, but I like that sort of thing. The design and typesetting are quite elegant and readable, setting a new standard for Anglophone New Right publishing. I appreciate the use of footnotes rather than endnotes, and I particularly admire the care lavished on the extensive index. Radix has spared no labor or expense to bring out this volume.

This is definitely a prestige project: Heidegger is a prestigious thinker. A translation into English increases Dugin’s prestige. Heidegger and Dugin bring prestige to Radix. Lest the Radix crew be suspected of anti-Semitism, Paul Gottfried helps out with a Preface and even says some good things about the book in the process.

But, in the end, my reservations about Dugin remain unchanged: he is opposed to a racial criterion of European identity; he is opposed to European ethnonationalism; he is an apologist for Russian multiculturalism and imperialism. I do not see how any of his works contribute to staving off the biological extinction of the white race. Heidegger can contribute to the metapolitical foundations for white salvation. But Dugin’s Heidegger is not Heidegger, and Dugin himself is just a distraction.

 

]]>
http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/dugin-on-heidegger/feed/ 1
Thinking Tragically, & Accurately http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/thinking-tragically-and-accurately-2/ http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/thinking-tragically-and-accurately-2/#comments Thu, 20 Nov 2014 22:51:11 +0000 http://www.counter-currents.com/?p=50905 Depero-Lamp-Candle-Still-Life963 words

If personal anecdote is poor evidence of a more universal truth, then fictional anecdote is even worse, and the foundation of a great novel deserves better. So I propose that there is a place for direct, sustained, quantitive analysis/argument in literary fiction. The main characters and their immediate story need not, and absolutely should not, be touched by this, but the establishment of setting is also important, and this ought to be done, well, with direct, sustained, quantitive analysis/argument.

The usual novelist way of social commentary is to explain the larger with the example of the smaller. Whether it is Stendhal’s stories set among the upper-crust in early nineteenth-century France, or Franzen’s depictions of the urban gentry of our day; whether it is Jane Austen’s stories of late eighteenth-century aristocrats finding love (and/or marriage and/or financial security), or Adelle Waldman’s of today’s youngish literary types attempting the same in Brooklyn, this is just how it is done.

And of course, it is what is expected—one of the chief functions of book reviews is the determination of if the characters and/or their experiences are “accurate,” accurate as hipsters, or small-town middle-Americans, or Dominican immigrants. Specific (conveniently fictional) characters and actions are put forward as representative types.

Direct commentary may be sprinkled in, but sound-bite style, very much in the manner of the cable-news/talk-radio discourse that the literary world holds in such low regard. Indeed, though not necessarily political in the narrow sense, this sort of author is merely preaching to his own ditto-heads. What logical reason is there for the reader to be converted into believing that x equals y, if the author’s only proofs are the actions of fictional characters?

Instead, serious literature should understand its limitations, and either merge itself with science (I use the term broadly so as to include history, social science data, philosophy etc.) or it should give up on social analysis (a narrow commentary of likes and dislikes should of course remain open to the non-scientific author). If the author claims that real world x is y, especially if his fictional story is predicated upon real world x being y, then some lasting interlude(s), whether in the form of a dialogue, a straight narration, or some more inventive device, should be given over to direct, sustained, quantified analysis/argument demonstrating the reality of y. The more novel and complex the argument, the more pages of explanation required.

Of course, the idea that the actions and natures of fictional characters can not be legitimate social commentary has ramifications for the central story too. If the author has provided a sufficient scientific basis for his social setting, that does not mean he should then simply proceed to tell his central story in accordance with his findings. If the author has already explained, quantitatively, that x is often y, and therefore produces z, to then depict a fictional x being y, and producing z, does not tell us anything new. So the role of the central story ought to be more precisely defined. Aside from subjective abstractions like beauty, sorrow, decadence, etc., the central story can not represent anything larger than itself, nor can it make any argument except an implicit one that it itself is beautiful or interesting or in some other way worthy of attention. In a social commentary novel, the hero’s actions are in response to his (our) society, but these actions are entirely his own, worthy of attention not on the basis of how well they explain, or conform to, an existing type, but in their own right.

With the unveiling of such a grand new word, there are bound to be some caveats; here are a few:

  • None of the above applies to children’s stories that express simple moral or life lessons. Aesop’s Fables do not need to be scientifically quantified. Serious fiction though, should not just be complicated children’s literature; it should be different in kind, not just in degree.
  • There are borderline cases, such as Fight Club and Season of Migration to the North, my two favorite twentieth-century novels. I say they are borderline because, while they do not quite offer what I consider to be the ideal depth of analysis in establishing their social settings, it is probably enough because their societal observations are so obvious and simple (and remember, I’m not including any character’s characteristics or actions as societal observation).
  • Of course, I allow that the characters may express social/political opinions within the main story, but the purpose of this should be to explain the characters themselves.
  • Likewise, the hero may still be of an existing type, but this must not be the rationale for his actions, and it definitely can not be the reason for our interest in him. Minor characters however, might be presented as pure examples, especially if they are no more than background, but only for the fun of it.
  • The truth of the human heart is a serious matter of investigation in its own right, and in no way do I mean to imply otherwise.

Some will protest that the novelist is not a cultural historian or a social scientist, that his job is only to give eloquent expression to his impression of the situation, leaving to those others the task of assessing the accuracy of his work. But that is just it; literature is different from cultural history and social science, and in an increasingly data-driven world, literary fiction risks a crisis of legitimacy. My response to the crisis is what I have outlined above: literature should admit, without any reservation, that it is entirely separate from the science of social analysis, from all social analysis, and then, if it earnestly abides by this separateness, the two can again be put back together.

Ryan Andrews is the author of The Birth of Prudence, which was published earlier this year by Vdare.

 

]]>
http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/thinking-tragically-and-accurately-2/feed/ 4
Remembering P. R. Stephensen: November 20, 1901 to May 28, 1965 http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/remembering-p-r-stephensen-3/ http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/remembering-p-r-stephensen-3/#comments Thu, 20 Nov 2014 07:31:36 +0000 http://www.counter-currents.com/?p=50930

P. R. Stephensen, circa 1934

227 words

Percy Reginald Stephensen was born on November 20, 1901. Stephensen was a writer, publisher, and political activist dedicated to the interests of the white race and the Australian nation. Like Jack London, Stephensen was an archetypal man of the racially conscious left. He began his political career as a Communist but later moved to the nationalistic, anti-Semitic Right. From 1942 to 1945, he was interned without trial for his pro-German and pro-Japanese sympathies.

Early in his career as a publisher, Stephensen championed the works of Nietzsche, D. H. Lawrence, and Aleister Crowley. Later, he worked to promote a distinctly Australian national literature and culture. As a political organizer and propagandist, he worked for an Australia First economic and foreign policy.

Stephensen was a prolific author. He published over 30 under his own name. He also translated works by Lenin and Nietzsche. On top of that, he wrote nearly 70 books as a ghostwriter for Frank Clune.

To learn more about Stephensen’s life and work, read Kerry Bolton’s biographical essay, “P. R. Stephensen.”

I also wish to draw your attention to the following works by Stephensen on this site:

For other works by Stephensen, see The Percy Stephensen Collection online: http://home.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/stephensen/index.html

 

]]>
http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/remembering-p-r-stephensen-3/feed/ 0
Democratic Multiculturalism:Strategy & Tactics http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/democratic-multiculturalism/ http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/democratic-multiculturalism/#comments Thu, 20 Nov 2014 00:25:27 +0000 http://www.counter-currents.com/?p=50903 1,910 words

Norman Rockwell, Study for "Freedom of Speech"

Norman Rockwell, Study for “Freedom of Speech”

A Time to Complain

There are two basic things we need to do: we need to build a new society based upon a new movement (the theme of my Western Destiny blog), while, at the same time, undermining the System, which includes undermining the “movement” — which is actually part of that System (an inept bogeyman, playing a role similar to that of Emmanuel Goldstein in Nineteen Eighty-Four). Today, I have a few words about undermining the System as a whole, built as it is on the ideology of multiculturalism. I would like to talk about “democratic multiculturalism,” a concept endorsed by Frank Salter and Ricardo Duchesne, and one that I have previously discussed here. Why do people who believe that “the only thing worse for the majority than a multiculturalism that does not work is a multiculturalism that does work” want to promote so-called “democratic multiculturalism?” This paradox should become clear with some further explanation.

Whites need to demand a seat at the multicultural table, represented by real advocates of White interests, not groveling patsies. Given that “Western” multiculturalism is defined by majority passivity and atomization contrasted to collectivist minority mobilization, a more collectivist and mobilized majority will go a long way to undermining the foundations of the System.

How to best begin this process on the group level is something that needs to be determined. We will need Rightist elites to stand up and follow the lead of Salter and Duchesne. They need not be hypocritical or even deceptive about this, but essentially state: “It is well known that I do not approve of multiculturalism, a destructive ideology bad for my people, my culture, my nation. However, that is the dominant system we currently have and my people and my culture need to be represented within it.”

Most readers here are not, and never will be, part of that elite, but something that can be done at the individual level is to engage in some sociopolitical ju-jitsu against multiculturalism yourself. Think of this as the “bottom-up” component of the strategy, in contrast to the “top-down” approach described above. When the opportunity arises, one can assert that Whites need to be included and given a legitimate seat at the multicultural table. However, one must present the proper ticket of admission: victimization. Complain about discrimination whenever you have a legitimate case (in today’s society, you should have no shortage of opportunities). The complaints should be couched in the language of multiculturalism, but explicitly aimed at targeting discrimination on a racial (anti-White), ethnic (anti-[fill in name of White ethnic group]), gender (anti-male), sexual orientation (anti-heterosexual), religious (anti-Christian, if you are a believer or even if you are not), etc. basis – with those guilty of discriminating being “others” (e.g., coloreds, liberals, feminists, Jews, Muslims, “gay” activists, System apparatchiks, etc.).

We need to get over the idea that such complaining is “weak, beta, non-White, feminine” blah blah blah. Not only is this complaining being done for a specific political purpose, but note that in a multicultural milieu, power is in part derived from the role of “victim.” Yes, it is a “Last Man” attitude, but it is a means to an end, it is the case of Higher Men being able to stomach their sense of disgust (self-mastery, no?) to use the ressentiment of the Last Men against them.

Remember, this is a means to an end, not an end to itself. It is not mainstreaming, it is not compromise, it is not incremental progress, and it is not reforming the System. It is instead using the contradictions and weaknesses of the System against itself; it is an approach which forces the System to take its own ideology at face value, or be forced to declare its illegitimacy to the majority of the population.

Certainly, at least in the beginning, these complaints of anti-White, anti-male, anti-heterosexual discrimination will be met with derision, disbelief, snarky ridicule, sarcasm, hysterical responses, heavy breathing about “White Privilege,” and, perhaps, the claim that majority assertions of discrimination are themselves signs that the complainers are the bigots. This is where the men are separated from the boys, so to speak, where self-mastery comes in: you must ignore these responses, persevere, and push through the barrier.

If the System is going to ignore or ridicule your legitimate complaints, you need to push them into a corner in which they have to openly admit that discrimination against straight White men (Sailer’s “war against Whites”) is acceptable to them; they must be forced to admit that, to them, Whites have no rights; they must be forced to admit that “inclusion” excludes Whites; they need to admit that multiculturalism is for non-Whites only. The System depends on all of this being implicitly understood by Whites without it ever getting to the level of being explicit (although some former government officials have openly stated that “civil rights laws do not apply to [male] Whites”).

The System loves the status quo; they want multiculturalism do work smoothly. They want the low-caste subaltern Whites to quietly accept their lowly status without complaint, without forcing the System to crudely reveal its agenda. Don’t let them off easy. If they want to exclude Whites, then the exclusion needs to be open and overt, as a slap in the face to the complacent White masses. Therefore, if you have a legitimate complaint, go for it.

After all – and this is crucially important – our complaints of discrimination, as opposed to those of the Others, have the added power of actually being true (note my caveat above: make sure your complaints are based on some sort of legitimate issue). This is an “the emperor has no clothes” situation – some Whites do know what the score is, but each alone is afraid of saying anything. In a multicultural regime, complaining about discrimination is a socially acceptable means of protest. In theory, socially acceptable for everyone; in practice, not acceptable for White men.

But, following the implicit/explicit argument I made above — it is “not acceptable” only in an implicit sense. Implicit attitudes are the downfall of a White race unable to articulate or defend its racial interests. Implicit Whiteness. The acceptance of an implicit lower-caste status for Whites. An implicit understanding that White men are “not allowed” to complain about race/sex/ethnic animus directed toward them. This implicit bluff needs to be called.

If multiculturalism makes whining victimology socially acceptable, then the real victims of multiculturalism have to force the issue. If a few Whites so complain, that might embolden others to follow suit. With sufficient White complaints, that seat on the multicultural table just might open up, as the System strives to placate Whites by assimilating them into multiculturalism. At first, they may try and get System agents to pose as White representatives, to defuse the pressure: this must be opposed and such individuals replaced by real advocates.

First steps first. Discriminated against? Complain. Persevere. Use the multiculturalists’ own language of “inclusion” and “fairness” against them. If “White Privilege” comes up, make arguments against it – one can find plenty online. One can slip in subtle “movement” memes at this point; the idea that a people being demographically displaced as a result of official policy are “privileged” is ludicrous, as one example. Keep on pushing, but within the System framework. Use common sense; become familiar with the vernacular of victimology. Play the game well. The System is based upon a house of cards and they know it. You should know it too.

Success here is predicated on the assumption that “breaking the ice” will embolden other Whites to speak up as well. Of course, this assumption may be wrong, given the pitiful passivity of the subaltern White race. But one never knows, one must try. If you wait for the “beer and football crowd” to be the first ones to voice their simmering complaints and resentment you will be waiting forever.

One concern at this point would be that this essay, along with the statements of Salter and Duchesne, will lead the Others to conclude that the demand for a seat at the multicultural table is for the purpose of undermining their multicultural project, leading to a refusal of that demand. After all, you can argue that these folks can simply point to essays such as this one that openly state what the strategy is. That is true. But it is irrelevant. One should not deny the obvious. One can say:

It’s true. I don’t like multiculturalism. I want to see it end. I have an overt pro-White agenda. Others who are demanding a “seat at the table” share these views. But that is not relevant. The multicultural system exists, it is YOUR system, and any system that disenfranchises that majority of the population will be viewed as illegitimate by that majority. This being YOUR system, it is up to YOU to find a way to include Whites and LEGITIMATE White interests (defined by us, not by you) in multiculturalism. If you believe multiculturalism can work, it is up to YOU to show it can work for everyone. Inclusion cannot be exclusive, as much as you would like it to be, as much as you have practiced it as such for decades. Whites are no longer going to be passive while others are mobilized.

This of course, once again, depends upon other Whites doing their part – Rightist elites applying pressure from above, and a fraction of the White masses applying pressure from below. Obviously, if they fail to do so, there will be no incentive to the System to compromise (note: they compromise, not us) in the manner described here. The “top” and “bottom” pressure must exist, it must be consistent, and it must weaken the legitimacy of the multiculturalist regime. The System may realize that including Whites in that regime may have the same long-term result that “glasnost” had for the USSR – but, like Gorbachev, they must feel like that have no choice but to take the chance on reform.

Another concern is that the System will attempt to co-opt White multiculturalist involvement by promoting compliant anti-White White traitors to positions of representing Whites. We must absolutely refuse to let the System dictate the terms of our own participation. Only those who represent the interests of Whites, defined by those Whites who have historically been defending and prompting White interests in an explicitly racial manner, will be acceptable. Puppets will be rejected.

This is a long, hard road, and there will be additional objections, problems, and criticisms, but here at least is a broad statement in favor of “democratic multiculturalism” and an outline of sorts of what should be done.

Start complaining! Do your best imitation of an aggrieved member of the Tribe, or some whining colored activist. It may be hard at first, and out of character, but remember, it’s for a good cause. Disruption, chaos, heightening the contradictions. Probe the System to expose the anti-White animus of multiculturalism. It’s win-win. If they refuse that seat at the table, use that refusal to expose the animus and the hypocrisy; if they allow the seat, then undermine the very essence of multiculturalism by forcing majority interests to be accepted as a legitimate topic of discussion and policy objective. Above all else, shake up the status quo. Chaos, chaos, and more chaos.

Source: http://eginotes.blogspot.com/2014/11/tactics-and-strategy-for-democratic.html

 

]]>
http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/democratic-multiculturalism/feed/ 15
Was Roman Citizenship Based on Laws for “All of Humanity”? http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/was-roman-citizenship-based-on-laws-for-all-of-humanity/ http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/was-roman-citizenship-based-on-laws-for-all-of-humanity/#comments Wed, 19 Nov 2014 08:34:14 +0000 http://www.counter-currents.com/?p=50838 corpus-iuris-civilis

Corpus Juris Civilis

2,496 words

The claim that the Roman empire was a legally sanctioned multiracial state is another common trope used by cultural Marxists to create an image of the West as a civilization long working itself toward the creation of a universal race-mixed humanity. This is a lie to which patriots of Western Civ must not yield.

The majority of scholars agree that Rome’s greatest contribution to Western Civilization was the development of a formal-rational type of legal order characterized by the logical consistency of its laws, the precise classification of its different types of law, the precise definition of its terms, and by its method of arriving at the formulation of specific rules wherein questions were posed, various answers from jurists were collected, and consistent solutions were offered. It was a legal order committed to legal decisions based on fairness and equity for all citizens.

The early Romans, before the Republic was established in 509 BC, lived according to laws established through centuries of custom, much like every other culture in the world, each with their own traditions, each ruled by what Max Weber called “traditional law,” a type of authority legitimated by the sanctity of age-old practices. Traditional law tended to be inconsistent and irrational in its application. During Republican times, the Romans created, in 451 BC, their famous Twelve Tables, which established in written form (lex) their centuries-old customary laws (ius). The Twelve Tables covered civil matters that applied to private citizens as well as public laws and religious laws that applied to social fields of activity and institutions. These Tables were customary but they also constituted an effort to create a code of law, a document aiming to cover all the laws in a definite and consistent manner.

Roman Legal Rationalism

Weber associated “formal-rational authority” with the rise of the modern bureaucratic states in the sixteenth century, but legal historians now recognize that he understated the “formal-rational” elements of both medieval Canon Law and Roman Law. (Harold Berman and Charles Reid, “Max Weber as Legal Historian,” in The Cambridge Companion to Max Weber, ed. Stephen Turner, 2000). By the time we get to the writings of Q. Mucius Scaevola, who died in 82 BC, and his fellow jurists, we are dealing with attempts to systematically classify Roman civil law into four main divisions: the law of inheritance, the law of persons, the law of things, and the law of of obligations, with each of these subdivided into a variety of kinds of laws, with rational methods specified as to how to arrive at the formulation of particular rules. These techniques to create and apply Roman law in a rationally consistent and fair manner were refined and developed through the first centuries AD, culminating in what is known as Justinian’s Code, a compilation of all existing Roman law into one written body of work, commissioned by the emperor Justinian I, who ruled the Eastern side of the empire from 527 to 565 AD. Initially known as the Code of Justinian, it consisted of i) the Digest, a collection of several centuries of legal commentary on Roman law, ii) the Code, an outline of the actual law of the empire, constitutions, pronouncements, and iii) the Institutes, a handbook of basic Roman law for students. A fourth part, the Novels, was created a few decades later to update the Code.

This legal work is now known Corpus of Civil Law, considered to be one of the most influential texts in the making of Western civilization. More specifically, some see it as the foundation of the “Papal Revolution” of the years 1050-1150, which Harold Berman has identified as the most important transformation in the history of the West. The ecclesiastical scholars who made this legal revolution, by separating the Church’s corporate autonomy, its right to exercise legal authority within its own domain, and by analyzing and synthesizing all authoritative statements concerning the nature of law, the various sources of law, and the definitions and relationships between different kinds of laws, and encouraging whole new types of laws, created not only the modern legal system, but modern culture itself. This is the thesis of Berman’s book, Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition (1983).

There are flaws with Berman’s great book (simply stated, he underestimated much of what was accomplished before and after 1050-1150), but he is right to emphasize not just this Papal revolution but the common Western legal heritage of the peoples of Europe neglected by the nationalist historians of the nineteenth century, and, of course, by some New Right intellectuals who prefer “pagan” law.

Here I want to criticize recent works which argue that the Roman legal system broke decisively with any notion of ethnic identity by formulating a legal system “for all of humanity.” This is not easy; there is a universalizing logic inherent to Western civilization, which becomes all the more evident in the development of Roman law, which deliberated and encoded legal principles in reference to all human beings as possessors of reason in common and as inhabitants of a multiethnic Roman community. I don’t intent to fabricate arguments about the racial self-awareness of Romans and the particularistic language of Roman law. But I will nevertheless try to show that Roman legal ideas cannot be used to make the claim that they invented a legal system for a “multicultural and a multiethnic state” — teleologically pointing towards the creation of our current immigrant state in which racial identities are abolished and a raceless humanity is created. There is vast temporal and cultural space between Rome and our current state of affairs.

This argument will come in two parts, with a second part coming later, focusing on the Stoic idea of the “world citizen.” Now I will focus on Philippe Nemo’s argument on the “Invention of Universal Law in the Multiethnic Roman State,” presented in his book, What is the West? (2006). As I said in my last essay, Nemo is a French liberal right political philosopher. In the chapter on Rome, he contradicts his earlier assertion that Greek citizenship was “regardless of ethnicity,” as he admits that Greek city-states were “ethnically homogeneous” (p. 17). But Nemo now thinks he has a tight case to persuade us that with their contribution to law “the Romans revolutionized our understanding of man and the human person” wherein all reference to ethnicity was disregarded. His first line of argument is that, as the Romans expanded beyond Italy and created a multiethnic empire, and foreign subjects came under their sovereignty,

it became necessary to use ordinary words and formulas without reference to the religions or institutions of specific ethnic groups so that they could be understood by everyone. This, in turn, encouraged the formulation of an increasingly abstract legal vocabulary. (p. 19)

I would express the implications of this expansion across multiple ethnic lands as follows: with non-citizens inhabiting the empire, to whom the current laws for citizens did not apply, jurists developed “laws of nations” or laws that applied to all people, foreigners and non-citizens as well as citizens. In connection to this they also began to reason about the common principles by which all peoples should live by, the laws that should be “natural” to all humans (rooted in “natural law”). But this form of reasoning about law was not merely a circumstantial reaction to the problem of ruling over many different categories of people; it was a form of reasoning implicit in the process of reasoning itself. The development of an increasingly abstract vocabulary resulted from the application of reason (as opposed to customary thinking) to the development of law; abstraction is inherent to the process of reasoning and results from the process of generating definitions, classifications, and concepts, recognizing common features in particular instances and individual cases, and generating different types of laws and different terms. As Aristotle writes in his Posterior Analytics, inductive reasoning “exhibits the universal as implicit in the clearly known particular” (Book I: Ch.1).

Essentially what the Romans did was to apply Greek philosophy, particularly the Aristotelian inductive logic of moving from experience to certainty or probability by coalescing together in one’s mind the common elements in the particular cases observed. Romans jurists were trained to be very practical about their legal reasoning, and rather than debating ultimate questions about justice, they went about deciding what was the best legal course of action in light of the stated facts, and, in this vein, they classified Roman law into different kinds of law in a systematic fashion, as was evident in the treatises of Q. Mucius Scaevola.

The point I am driving at is that just because the Romans were developing legal concepts that were increasingly abstract and without reference to customs by particular groups, it does not mean they were trying to create a multiracial state with a common system of law, or a nation dedicated to racial equality. There is clearly a connection between rationalization and universalization which engenders an abstract language that bespeaks of a common humanity. That is why Western thinkers always write in terms of “man,” “humanity,” “mankind” even if they are really thinking of themselves, be they Greeks, Romans, or Germans. Westerners created a universal language in the course of becoming the only people in this planet — as I will argue in a future essay — self-conscious of the “human” capacity to employ its rational faculties in a self-legislating manner in terms of its own precepts, rising above the particularities of time, custom, and lineage and learning how to reason about the universal questions of “life” and the “cosmos.” Europeans are the true thinkers of this planet, the only ones who freed their minds from extra-rational burdens and requirements, addressing the big questions “objectively” from the standpoint of the “view from nowhere,” that is nobody’s in particular. But we should realize that it is the view of European man only.

Romanitas

Now, it is also the case, as Nemo points out, that with the emergence of the Hellenistic world after Alexander the Great’s conquests (323-31 BC), Greek Stoics philosophized about a common humanity (in the context of the combination of Greeks, Persians, Syrians, Egyptians, and other groups within this world) with a common nature. It is also the case that Stoicism was very influential among Romans, who produced their own Stoics, Marcus Aurelius and Seneca. Influenced by the Stoics, Roman jurists developed the idea of natural law, which, in the words of Cicero, means:

True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application. . . . And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is God, over us all, for he is the author of this law . . . (cited by Nemo, p. 21).

How can one disagree with Nemo that the Romans bequeathed to us the idea that we should envision a New World order in which all the peoples of the earth are ruled by universal laws regardless of ethnicity and other particularities? Add to this the fact that with the Edict of Caracalla issued in 212 AD, all free men in the Roman Empire were given Roman citizenship. Citizenship had long been reserved for the free inhabitants of Rome, and then extended to the free inhabitants of Italy, but this edict extended citizenship to multiple ethnic groups.

Still, it would be a great mistake to envision Roman citizenship as a conscious effort on the part of ethnic Romans to recognize the common humanity of all ethnic groups. Firstly, the extension of citizenship was part of the process of Romanization, of acculturation and integration of conquered peoples into the empire; it was intended as a political measure to ensure the loyalty of conquered peoples, and the acquisition of citizenship came in graduated levels with promises of further rights with increased assimilation; and, right till the end, not all Roman citizens had the same rights, with Romans and Italians generally enjoying a higher status. Secondly, it is worth noticing that this process of Romanization and expansion of citizenship was effective only in the Western (Indo-European) half of the Empire, where inhabitants were White; whereas in the East, in relation to the non-Italian residents of Egypt, Mesopotamia, Judea, and Syria, it had only superficial effects.

The Roman Empire at its greatest extent

The Roman Empire at its greatest extent

It has been argued, to the contrary, that Roman political culture itself fell prey to “orientalizing” motifs coming from the eastern side. Bill Warwick’s book, Rome in the East (2000), shows that Roman rule in the regions of Syria, Jordan, and northern Iraq was “a story of the East more than of the West,” and states flatly that these lands were responsible for the “orientalizing” of Rome (p. 443). Thus, it would be wrong to argue that, as a result of extending citizenship to non-Romans, “a single nation and uniform culture developed.”

Thirdly, keep in mind that, before Caracalla’s edict of 212 AD, the vast majority of those who held Roman citizenship were from Italy; in other words, Romans only agreed to grant citizenship to non-Italians close to the last period of their empire; and historians agree that the only reason Caracalla extended citizenship was to expand the Roman tax base. In fact, it took a full-scale civil war, or, as it is known by historians, a Social War or Marsic War [Lat. socii = allies], 91–88 BC, for Romans to agree to share citizenship with their Italian allies who had long fought on their side helping them create the empire. It is no accident that the roots of the word “patriot” go back to Roman antiquity, the city of Rome, expressed in such terms as patria and patrius, which indicate city, fatherland, native, or familiar place, and worship of ancestors. Roman ethnic identity was strongly tied to the city of Rome for centuries, and when it did extend beyond this city, it did so almost exclusively in relation to closely related ethnic groups in Italy and southern Gaul.

Therefore, it would be anachronistic to project back to the Romans a program akin to our current immigration/diversity reality, implemented with the conscious purpose of undermining European pride and identity and creating a race-mixed population. The cultural Marxists in control of our universities are simply using deceptive arguments to make Europeans think that what is happening today is part of the natural course of Western Civ. This form of intellectual manipulation of students is now rampant in academia.

In a second part of this essay, I will question some of the incredibly absurd lengths to which the Stoic ideal of a cosmopolitan citizen has been willfully misinterpreted and misapplied by our “major” scholars as a “program of education” to be implemented across the West in order for white children to overcome their racism and sexism and accept mass immigration and matriarchy.

Reprinted from: http://www.eurocanadian.ca/2014/10/was-roman-citizenship-based-on-laws-for.html

 

]]>
http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/was-roman-citizenship-based-on-laws-for-all-of-humanity/feed/ 3
Journalists Lie, People Die Who Is Responsible for Ferguson? http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/who-is-responsible-for-ferguson/ http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/who-is-responsible-for-ferguson/#comments Tue, 18 Nov 2014 07:48:34 +0000 http://www.counter-currents.com/?p=50875 1,040 words

demonstrators-defy-curfew-fergusonJournalists are never innocent.

Their job is not to report facts. It is to reinforce a certain Narrative. The Narrative holds that European-Americans, especially heterosexual European-American men, are uniquely culpable for creating systems of oppression. These systems of oppression are responsible for any disparate impacts between whites and other races.

Journalists are also responsible for hunting down dissenters from the Narrative and trying to destroy them. They are the System’s foot soldiers. They are a control mechanism. And they know exactly what they are doing.

Though it is for some reason seen as more appropriate to kill a soldier than a journalist in war, this reflects a mistaken view of moral responsibility. A soldier obeys the orders of his government and lives by a certain code. Even enemy soldiers can recognize the honor of the profession of arms and grant each other certain rights once they are captured or disarmed. Leaving aside senior officers, soldiers don’t bear moral responsibility for the decisions of their governments.

As Abraham Lincoln put it, “Must I shoot a simple-minded soldier boy who deserts, and not touch a hair of the wily agitator who induces him to desert? I think that in such a case, to silence the agitator and save the boy, is not only constitutional, but withal a great mercy.”

Count this Traditionalist with the Great Emancipator in this case.

A politician is responsible for certain policies, but even the President of the United States is relatively powerless when it comes to determining the overall state of the culture. And a politician is limited in his freedom of action by that culture.

Be it under our collapsing system of multicultural tyranny, the “night watchmen” state of libertarian imagination, or under a racialist system of nationalist dictatorship, a technocrat like Mitt Romney would largely serve the same function. If you changed nothing else, replacing all of Congress would simply yield a new crop of disposable politicians that would impose the same policies.

Every citizen bears some minimum amount of responsibility for the society in which he lives and the privileges he enjoys thereby unless he is actively rebelling against it. Soldiers and government employees bear a greater share of responsibility, but even they don’t actually determine the course of the state. Ultimately, those who shape the circumstances that constrain politicians are those who bear ultimate responsibility.

Unfortunately for us, determining just who “holds the strings” is difficult in a modern democracy – and, as Chuck Klosterman has noted, it makes “revolution” in the traditional sense all but impossible. Many Identitarians or Traditionalists would point at financiers and others who control the flow of money to political actors as those who hold the ultimate responsibility. And even mainstream political activists understand that donors and financiers are more important than almost any one politician, with the Koch Brothers a target of the American Left and George Soros a hate figure for the American Right.

Yet this is also unsatisfactory. While there is much we do not see and we can all think of exceptions, it seems likely that your average Wall Street millionaire is more concerned with protecting his own financial interests than executing some grand agenda. Unless we are willing to accept the charge of Ward Churchill that those who work in high finance are “little Eichmanns” by virtue of their very industry, it seems premature to hold each one of them personally responsible for what we don’t like about the world. (I note in passing that I use Churchill’s metaphor here without endorsing the insult to Adolf Eichmann.) While it seems clear that international finance as a system is responsible, it’s a bit more difficult to track down which individuals bear culpability.

This isn’t the case with journalists – they sign their work. A journalist actively seeks to shape policy. They lie, conceal information, and try to destroy the lives of individuals who obstruct their ideology. They cause incalculable human suffering. They coordinate with their fellows to perpetuate the anti-white Narrative. They demand exemption from violent reprisal even while benefiting from the use of violence by others. It is far less dishonorable to execute an enemy journalist than an enemy soldier, or even an enemy spy.

In the one-sided race war, journalists have blood on their hands.

As of this writing, Ferguson Missouri is already in a state of emergency because of the upcoming grand jury decision on the fate of Officer Darren Wilson. At this point, the media’s Narrative about an innocent “Gentle Giant” ruthlessly executed by a violent, racist cop has been utterly discredited by the facts. Indeed, the main reason why people are expecting rioting is because it seems likely that Officer Wilson will not be indicted.

Yet the media is still sticking to its overall frame that there has been A Great Injustice in Ferguson and whatever violence and destruction results is somehow justified. However, at its essence, this is nothing but a call for lynch mob violence. And unlike many lynch mobs of the past, this is a call for violence against a man whom most objective observers now concede is not just innocent, but acted bravely. Furthermore, these actions are coming from a community that almost defines itself by its willingness to use violence against each other and everyone else.

Who is responsible? Barack Obama, who has evidently been meeting with the riot organizers, has some responsibility, as does Eric Holder. Community activists themselves bear much of the blame, as do the rioters. However, I largely consider these looters agency free – it is in the nature of lower class blacks to riot, loot, and destroy, and given license for whatever reason, that is what they do.

The reason we are even discussing this is because of journalists. The media is not a check on the power of the System, but a pillar. Reporters know full well that the path to success isn’t serving as a check on the state, but hunting down and shaming the state’s enemies and dissidents from multiculturalism. Insofar as we can blame anyone for what is about to happen, we should blame then. And if the time comes where we can enforce real change, we should remember who made it necessary.

 

]]>
http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/who-is-responsible-for-ferguson/feed/ 11
Remembering Wyndham Lewis: November 18, 1882 to March 7, 1957 http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/remembering-wyndham-lewis-3/ http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/remembering-wyndham-lewis-3/#comments Tue, 18 Nov 2014 05:23:52 +0000 http://www.counter-currents.com/?p=50883 151 words

Wyndham_Lewis_photo_by_George_Charles_Beresford,_WWIWyndham Lewis was born on this day in 1882. A first-rate novelist, critic, and painter, he was a leading English exponent of fascist modernism. In honor of his birth, I wish to draw your attention to the following works on this website:

Kerry Bolton’s essay and Bowden’s “Elitism, British Modernism, and Wyndham Lewis” are both excellent overviews of Wyndham Lewis’s life and work.

To learn more about Wyndham Lewis, visit the website of the Wyndham Lewis Society. Click here to see some of his paintings.

 

]]>
http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/remembering-wyndham-lewis-3/feed/ 0
Hope & Wait http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/hope-and-wait/ http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/hope-and-wait/#comments Tue, 18 Nov 2014 05:16:58 +0000 http://www.counter-currents.com/?p=50879 DefianceCvr113 words

For Savitri Devi

Defeated? No, not defeated, not yet,
Not ever. I am not going to forget,
I am not willing to forgive, I am
Not inclined to pretend that any damn
Thing has changed except time. Which I regret,
But I can do nothing about time. Let
It pass, let it roll on, it’s not a threat
To me. I consider that boogeyman
Defeated. No,
I have higher wars to wage. I must set
Things right, I must avenge the dead, I get
Older but not old. What I will, I can.
I can fight on. I must. I do not plan
To end my days wearing the sobriquet:
Defeated. No.

 

]]>
http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/hope-and-wait/feed/ 1
Two New Poems http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/two-new-poems/ http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/two-new-poems/#comments Mon, 17 Nov 2014 05:16:01 +0000 http://www.counter-currents.com/?p=50846 JapaneseCatfish

19th-century Japanese print of “namazu” (the catfish that cause earthquakes) being restrained by a rock.

145 words

Tarn Catfish

When viewed from the grey bridge above
they are black submarines that wait
to be refueled. Each collared dove
is their tanked diesel, the sandy shore
of the green isle their pastel plate.

With gaping mouths they drag them down
to the bone yards of pike and bass,
to the cold water, deep and brown,
then they release them at the door
between the clouds that pass and pass.
 
 
Witness

The wind or consciousness intones:
“Better never to have been born.”
You watch along the creek bank stones.
A Norway rat filled up with corn
squeals as a mink drags it away,
the blood left on the loam: a trail,
a trail to heaven, blue today,
but winding first through earth and hell.

 

]]>
http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/two-new-poems/feed/ 1
Heidegger in San Francisco http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/heidegger-in-san-francisco/ http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/heidegger-in-san-francisco/#comments Mon, 17 Nov 2014 05:04:31 +0000 http://www.counter-currents.com/?p=50843 4,563 words

Illustration by Jef Costello

Illustration by Jef Costello

A short story by Jef Costello

The lesbians of Berkeley can strip a man to the bone in thirty seconds. At least, that was what Heidegger had heard. They lumbered around the U.C. Berkeley campus, their large, pale, shapeless bodies suspended in boiler suits. Land manatees with buzzcut heads full of raised consciousness. One of them dropped a few quarters into the cup of coffee Heidegger was holding as he stood on Telegraph Avenue, trying to find his bearings. He had not been enjoying the coffee anyway.

Heidegger had flown into Oakland in the late morning, and had been picked up by his host, Furness Meeks, a professor of theology at the Berkeley Union of Liberal Learning, School of Higher Involvement in Theology, or B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T., as the locals called it. When Heidegger had exited his plane, bags in hand, he had seen Meeks standing with families waiting to greet their returning loved ones. He was bald on top, with a very long, grey beard, and wore a tee shirt and a broad grin. Meeks approached Heidegger with arms outstretched. “Martin! Welcome,” he said, and embraced Heidegger. The philosopher was glad he had his hands full with his raincoat and briefcase, as he was not sure how he should respond.

In Meeks’ Volkswagen van, Heidegger had asked him about his institution’s curious name. “You know, Martin, it’s an odd story. Originally the school was called the Hackett School of Theology. But the Hacketts were a wealthy, white family from San Francisco, and none of us really liked having that as our image. Of course, when we changed the name we lost the Hackett money, so that’s why we affiliated with B.U.L.L. We had a meeting to decide on the new name. It dragged on for about fourteen hours. Various ideas were proposed. Lee, one of my best friends on the faculty, wanted to call it the School for Enlightened, Non-Racist, Non-Sexist, Non-Classist, Non-Homophobic, Non-Eurocentric, Non-Christocentric Study of Interfaith, Non-Sectarian Theology. One person objected that that was too long. But he’s sort of a dinosaur, and dead now anyway. The real trouble was we couldn’t agree on the word order.”

Heidegger raised his eyebrows.

“I mean, Tina, who was a transgendered student in the program, argued that it was demeaning to make ‘non-homophobic’ the fourth adjective on the list, as if it’s the fourth most important issue. Everyone was prepared to give in to him . . . er . . . her and make it item number two, but then Pat Smear, who is a very prominent feminist scholar on our faculty, objected that ‘non-sexist’ absolutely had to stay where it was. Anyway, that whole discussion actually took place at the second meeting, which lasted thirty-six hours. But we couldn’t reach any agreement. So ‘School of Higher Involvement in Theology’ was kind of a compromise name. We worked that one out over the course of a third meeting, during which that older professor—the one I said was a dinosaur—during which he passed away.”

Heidegger asked why the words “higher involvement in theology” had been chosen.

Meeks laughed uncomfortably, as if caught out in an embarrassing mistake. “Well, it’s a little too specific, I know. But we wanted to convey the idea that our program is a place where students come to learn about diversity, and to become involved in meaningful activities that promote diversity, and that combat racism, sexism, homophobia, and ethnocentrism. The students and the faculty work on community outreach programs dealing with multiculturalism. We work with the homeless, we campaign for progressive politicians, and we run a free AIDS screening clinic.”

Heidegger asked if the students had any time left over to study theology.

Meeks was silent for a while. “We do some of that, yes. More recent work, of course, because the older stuff is really out of date and filled with sexist God talk.”

Heidegger was scheduled to speak at B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T.’s Interfaith Chapel that evening at eight p.m. He had lunch with Meeks, but asked to be left alone to explore Berkeley by himself for the rest of the day. Somewhat disappointed, Meeks extracted from Heidegger a promise that on the following day they would do some sight-seeing together.

So now, some hours later, Heidegger stood on Telegraph, looking for the way back to the U.C. Berkeley campus. It was just after seven p.m. and Heidegger was thinking about heading back toward B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T., whose campus lay on the other side of U.C. Berkeley on a hill that, provided the day was clear, afforded a magnificent view of the San Francisco Bay. Unfortunately, somehow he had gotten turned around, and could not find his way back.

Heidegger entered a bookstore called “Moe’s,” intending simply to ask for directions, but instead he succumbed to a curious temptation. He asked where the philosophy books were, and, climbing some stairs, found a large collection of them on an upper floor. His eyes scanned the “H” section, going past Hegel, and then lighting on his own name. Almost half a shelf was taken up by English translations of Heidegger’s works. He took a copy of Basic Problems of Phenomenology off the shelf and opened it, recoiling from the book at once, for almost every page had been defaced by a yellow highlighter pen. In some places, the yellow ink had turned a kind of burnt brown color. He was about to close the volume in disgust, when suddenly his thumb slipped and the book flipped open to the very back. On the blank pages at the back of the book, the previous owner had written, in pencil, a list of numbered items in a small, neat hand:

  1. Oaxacan animals
  2. New Zappa release
  3. New cap
  4. Kimchee

Stranger things were written in the back of this book, however. On the lower, right hand corner of one page, the book’s previous owner had written, “The Duke and Duchess of Windsor.”

Suddenly, Heidegger heard a man’s voice call out behind him. It was high-pitched, with an English accent: “But Pookie Deamus!”

“Shut up, David!” barked a woman with a rather deep voice.

Instinctively, Heidegger snapped the book shut just as the woman rounded the corner. She was over fifty and smartly dressed, but with a harsh, angular face; not pretty in the least, but elegant. She held two pug dogs on a leash. The woman addressed herself to Heidegger. “Excuse me, do you know where the chief jeweler is?”

Heidegger hesitated, then explained that this was a bookstore.

“You see, David. There’s nothing but books here,” she called behind her. “And you know my allergies. We’ll have to leave.”

“No!” the little man piped. He remained on the other side of one of the book cases and did not come around to speak to her. “I want to look at the golfing books.”

“David . . .” she began, threateningly.

“No!” he piped, rather more meekly.

“Well, I’m surprised,” she said, putting her hands on her hips. “For once you show a little backbone. But over nothing at all! How typical.” She turned to Heidegger. “He’ll abdicate a throne for me, but he won’t leave a bookstore. Do you know any jewelers around here?”

Intimidated by the woman’s manner, Heidegger began to stammer out an answer in the negative. But she cut him off: “Come on!” She paused long enough to deposit the two pugs with her husband, then headed down the stairs and out the door. Strangely, Heidegger felt he had no choice but to follow her.

Out on Telegraph Avenue, she turned to him. “It’s all right if you don’t know any jewelers. I just want to spend a little time away from him. He panics when I do that. Especially if I’m with another man. So we’ll spend awhile together, okay? I’m Wallis, Duchess of Windsor,” she said, sticking out a bony hand. Heidegger shook it and introduced himself. “Oh, a German? David and I just love Germans. David speaks the language fluently. So where shall we go?”

Heidegger indicated that he needed to head back to B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T. so that he could give his address. There was supposed to be some kind of service held beforehand, and Heidegger had promised to attend. So he and the Duchess began making their way across the U.C. Berkeley campus, during which she chattered away happily. “It’s an attractive campus, don’t you think? Although I would move that building . . . just a little bit to the left,” she said, stopping to indicate with her hands. “Yes, about three feet. Oh, and I love those misty hills, although there’s the most gawdawful concrete bunker architecture up there. Oh, and the palm trees are so lovely. They remind me of the Bahamas. So tell me, what sort of lecture are you giving?”

Heidegger intended to repeat the “What is Dwelling?” address he had given twice already at other universities, and he began to try and summarize it for her. The Duchess listened quietly, but soon she began to make a face as if she had just heard someone break wind. Her eyes began scanning the horizon, looking for almost anything to divert her. “Yes . . . uh huh . . . yes, well that sounds very interesting,” she said when Heidegger had finished. “But frankly I think it’s all just talk, and rather useless talk at that. No offense. Believe me, I know dwelling. The first place David and I dwelt was the Château de la Maye in Versailles. Oh, well that’s if you don’t count the Hotel Meurice. Then we moved on to the Château de la Cröe on Cap d’Antibes. That was really our first home. But a dwelling isn’t just a box you put furniture and people in. You have to choose the furnishings—and, I might add, the people—to bring out the dwelling’s natural virtues. So, for instance at the Mill . . .”

Heidegger interrupted her to explain that this was not the sort of thing he meant, but at this point they had just started up the hill to the B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T. campus and had run right into Furness Meeks. “Martin! I was getting worried. The service starts in about five minutes. Who’s your friend?” The Duchess introduced herself simply as “Wallis” and Meeks did not recognize her. They went up the hill together, and the Duchess continued chatting about the furnishings in the various houses she and the Duke had lived in. When they reached the door of the Interfaith Chapel, a small, squat modernistic structure that didn’t look like a church at all, one of the land manatees was waiting for them.

“Uh, Furness we’re just about ready to begin,” she said in a husky voice and ushered Heidegger, Meeks and the Duchess inside. They stood together for a couple of minutes making awkward conversation. Meeks noticed the jeweled flamingo-shaped brooch the Duchess wore on her Chanel jacket. “Oh my, that’s pretty,” he said. “Was it very expensive?”

The Duchess recoiled slightly, then replied, “Well, let’s just say it’s good enough to wear here.” She glanced around the room. The chapel was devoid of decoration. There were about fifteen long pews, and a raised platform in the front of the room, which was supposed to suggest an altar. “Christ, what a dump!” the Duchess exclaimed, oblivious to the fact that she could be plainly heard. “I mean, I’m not particularly religious, but if you’re going to do the whole church thing you can at least do it with style: stained glass and high, vaulted ceilings and incense. This place looks like traffic court.”

Meeks shifted around uncomfortably. “Well, we didn’t want to give the suggestion of endorsing any particular faith . . .”

“How do they do communion here?” the Duchess continued. “Take a number and wait your turn? ‘Now serving Number 58, come get your body and blood!’”

“Perhaps you’d like to be seated now,” Meeks whispered. There were about forty people present, and every one of their heads was now turned toward the Duchess. She sat next to Heidegger several pews back from the altar, and Meeks went to join the minister, who was a young woman with short, brown hair, standing near what passed for a pulpit.

“My God,” the Duchess called out, “I haven’t seen so many pale, unhealthy bodies since Patton liberated Dachau.” She tapped the shoulder of the hefty, buzzcut lesbian sitting in front of her. “Excuse me, sir . . .” When the lesbian turned around, the Duchess gasped. “Oh! I thought you were a man! Wait, you are a man, aren’t you? Professor Hildegard what is this, a man or a woman?”

“What do you want?” snarled the lesbian.

“I want to know how I can order something from the bar . . .”

At just that moment, the minister began. She had now donned lime green vestments (“Tacky,” whispered the Duchess) and raised her arms to welcome the congregation. “Greetings! And a non-sectarian blessing be upon all of you!”

“And also on you!” most of the crowd called out in unison.

“We are gathered here this evening for a joyous occasion, to welcome new members of the School of Higher Involvement in Theology community. Please rise.” Four individuals now stood up. They were one man and three women, including the lesbian in front of the Duchess. “We welcome you in a spirit of ecumenical fellowship,” continued the minister. “And we urge you to become involved in the greater fellowship that is the Bay Area community. You may be seated. We also give an especial welcome to those of our community tonight who are African American, Latino/Latina, and Gay, Lesbian, and Transgendered, in the hopes that we may build bridges and mend fences together.”

The Duchess looked around the room and noticed that about two thirds of those present were white, and a third were Asian. “What are all these gooks doing here?” she asked sotto voce, though seven faces turned to glare at her.

Meeks now came to the podium. “It’s my pleasure to introduce to you tonight a world-renowned philosopher, Martin Heidegger.” There followed some details of Heidegger’s career, including a list of his major publications, conveniently omitting some of the unpleasantness of the ’30s and ’40s. “His topic tonight is, ‘What is Dwelling?’”

Heidegger rose and moved to the altar, removing his address from his inside coat pocket. He spoke slowly and carefully. Everything seemed to be going smoothly, but then about ten minutes into the talk there was a commotion in the back of the room. Heidegger looked up to see a tall black man, a latecomer to the gathering, standing near the Duchess, engaged in animated conversation with her. “No, I won’t get up!” she cried. The man muttered something but Heidegger did not hear him. “I’ll be damned if you’re sitting next to me!” the Duchess shouted and waved him away. The man didn’t budge, however, and there now flowed from him a virtual glossary of profane language. Meeks rushed over to see what the problem was. “Don’t you have a section for the coloreds?” the Duchess asked him. “When the Duke and I were in the Bahamas we didn’t even let them through the front door!”

The crowd gasped. The burly lesbian in front of the Duchess fainted. The minister crossed herself, though she wasn’t Catholic. Meeks shook with rage. “I’m afraid I’m going to have to ask you to leave!” he bleated.

“With pleasure!” the Duchess said, and rose quickly from the pew, her small Louis Vuitton handbag hooked over one wrist. “I’ve never seen such a collection of stunted, mealy-mouthed imbeciles in my entire life. Come along, Martin!” She motioned for Heidegger to follow her, and then disappeared out the door.

Strangely, unaccountably, just as before, Heidegger felt that he simply had to obey her. He tucked the speech back into his pocket and rushed outside to join the Duchess.

“But Martin! Professor Heidegger! Where are you going?! I didn’t mean for you to leave!” Meeks cried. He waffled back and forth between outrage and solicitousness. “If this woman is a friend of yours, I didn’t mean to . . . Well, that is to say I hope you don’t share her views! . . . Just because she leaves doesn’t mean that you . . . But then again, if you would associate with such a person then perhaps it’s best . . .”

But neither Heidegger nor the Duchess heard him. It was growing dark outside, and the two of them started back down the hill under the palm trees, in the direction of the U.C. Berkeley campus. “Martin,” she said, “first thing we’ll do is fetch the Rolls from my hotel, then Sidney can drive us into the city and we’ll have a hi-ho time! Jimmy Donahue showed me some marvelous spots on Castro Street. I wonder if they’re still in business . . .”

Many hours later Heidegger and the Duchess of Windsor were sitting at a bar in San Francisco sipping martinis. Behind the bar were tall metal racks stacked with liquor, and behind the stacks were opaque sheets of plastic through which colored lights were projected. Every few seconds one color would fade into another: blue into green, into red, into orange, into purple, into blue again, etc. Heidegger decided that he liked the Duchess best when she was red; least when green. Yes, she was almost attractive when she was red. But the green light made her look like a witch from a children’s stage production of “Hansel and Gretel.”

He had no idea where they were, and only a dim idea of how many martinis he had already had. He seemed to vaguely remember a visit to Alcatraz involving a boat load of drag queens. They had already hit three bars by that point. Afterwards, the Duchess had amused herself by feeding truffles to a group of sea lions on the pier. One of the drag queens had taken them along to what Heidegger had thought to be a very low place, where queer things went on. Bashful as ever, he had kept his eyes focused on his martini glass most of the while. Yet he worked up the courage to ask the Duchess about one thing in particular he had caught a glimpse of.

“Fisting? Oh, please don’t get me started talking about my second husband.”

Heidegger thought it best to change the subject and, groping for a way out, asked the Duchess to tell him what her first husband was like.

“Win? Oh, he was a dreadful man. Just dreadful. When we were married he had a big house in Coronado, California. He’d had it since he was a bachelor. When we came back to it after the honeymoon, he showed me a rack of keys in the kitchen. There were about a dozen of them, and they opened all the major doors in the house. You see, this was one of his peculiarities: he liked to keep everything locked. Anyway, he told me, ‘You may use any of these keys,’” the Duchess now tucked her chin in and lowered her pitch, “‘except this one.’ He meant the last one on the rack. ‘That opens the attic. You may never enter that room,’ he told me. Well, I said that that was just fine. And I meant it. My philosophy is live and let live. If Win had something he wanted hidden in that attic, it was fine with me. I was perfectly content to let that be his business. But every day after that he would come home from work—he was a flight instructor in the Navy—and put his hands on his big hips and say . . . ,” the Duchess now dropped her pitch again, “‘You have been into the attic, haven’t you! Confess it, woman!’ It was horrible, and I would say, ‘No, I have not.’ And I was being perfectly honest. Well, in any case, this happened so many times I got to think that he was positively encouraging me to go peek in that attic. But I never did. And it just made him madder and madder. Finally, we came to blows. Or rather, he did. It was an impossible situation. We just had to part ways. Would you like another martini?”

She finished off her drink and delicately blotted her lips with a folded paper napkin, leaving two crimson crescents on it. “You know, Martin, after this I think we ought to . . . Oh, my!” She had seen someone over Heidegger’s shoulder. “It’s Ron and Nancy Reagan. He’s a crashing bore,” she whispered, “talks nothing but politics and is so . . . ,” she swallowed hard, “wholesome. But I’ll have to say hello. Excuse me . . .” Heidegger now sat alone, staring down into his martini glass, wondering where the Duchess would drag him next, knowing he was powerless to resist. All of a sudden, he felt a presence near him. He looked up and saw Furness Meeks, the wispy hair on the sides of his head disheveled, his eyes wild.

“Well, I hope you’re happy with yourself,” he began. “Reverend Dworkin says we’re going to have to perform an exorcism on the Interfaith Chapel before we can use it again. Yes, that’s right. You’re not hearing things. The whole place will have to be scrubbed from top to bottom and all the carpets and furniture replaced . . . what do you mean ‘Why?’! Because of what your little friend the . . . the Countess Dracula did in there! Because of her obscene, racist rant! No one can use the building until it’s been thoroughly cleansed. Dale Grout, the student who fainted, she’s in intensive care, under heavy sedation. And poor Retrobatus Johnson, the African-American student your friend brutalized, he hasn’t uttered a word since. Yes, he’s completely mute. We’ve erected a tent on the quad and staffed it with counselors to care for the others who were present. And I don’t want to talk about myself, but I’ve now gone through four of the seven classic stages exhibited by trauma victims. I’m feeling a fifth coming on right now! In fact, we’re not sure that cleaning and then blessing the building is going to help at all. The memory could linger on indefinitely. We may have to tear the whole thing down. Dean Aspic, who’s very sensitive about these things, thinks we should turn it into a basketball court as a gesture of reconciliation to the African American community. And, my God! If this gets out, the school’s reputation may be harmed beyond repair. We may have to close the school entirely! We may have to kill ourselves!” The man was now shaking violently, and tears were streaming down his cheeks.

Heidegger stood up and slapped him hard across the left side of his face.

Meeks was silent for a while, and began wiping the tears away. “You’re right. You’re right. I’m taking this far too lightly.”

Heidegger asked him what time it was.

“It’s almost five a.m.”

Meeks scattered as soon as he saw the Duchess returning to Heidegger’s side. “Let’s get going, Martin. I feel like some air.”

As the sun rose over the hills of San Francisco, the pair walked up Haight Street and into the notorious hippie quarter. They saw only a handful of other faces, and the entire area was unusually quiet. It was Saturday, and much too early for most people to be awake, especially in this neighborhood. The Duchess kept chattering away cheerfully. She dished about a freight car full of dirt on the Royal Family. She told him about the last time she had dined with General Franco. She gave him her predications about the rise and fall of hemlines for the next two decades. And she explained to him, in great detail, how to throw a successful dinner party. “One point—and this cannot be overstressed—is that the guests can wait for the food, but the food cannot wait for the guests. This goes double if there’s a soufflé involved.”

Presently, they came to a public park. At the entrance were a few scruffy youths, one of whom said something to Heidegger about “buds” as they passed by. He thought this curious, but gave it no further thought. They wound their way through the park, which was heavily wooded, and came to a large field. On the path running through it were a group of men and women dancing and beating drums. As Heidegger and the Duchess approached, a man joined the group and began playing a flute. There was no tune at all, just a beat, but the effect was somehow intoxicating. Heidegger looked around the clearing. There was a domed building nearby, with what appeared to be a carousel inside. There were white, modernistic buildings beyond the trees, on the misty hills above them, along with a tall radio tower.

“Well, why don’t we sit down someplace and rest awhile?” said the Duchess. They noticed a small group of people sitting on a hill nearby and began walking up it. “I really shouldn’t sit after all,” she said. “I don’t want the grass stains.” Heidegger removed his suit coat and gallantly laid it down on the grass, inviting her to sit. “Thank you, Martin! You’re such a dear,” she said, and sat down on it. He plopped down beside her, and both of them surveyed the horizon and listened to the music. “It’s so peaceful here,” said the Duchess after several minutes. “I think the Duke would love it, if they’d let him putt his little balls around.”

Sometime later, two young hippie girls with long skirts and flowers woven into their hair began moving unobtrusively through the crowd. Both of them carried small picnic baskets. One of the girls approached Heidegger and the Duchess and said, “Would you like some brownies made with ganja?”

“Yes, I’d love a little something sweet to nibble on,” cried the Duchess. “We’ll take four, two for each of us. Pay her, Martin.” Heidegger took out his wallet and paid the girl. Twenty dollars seemed a lot for four brownies. “Peace!” the girl said after handing them the merchandise, and moved on to someone else. Heidegger took his time opening the cellophane on his first brownie, but the Duchess tore into hers and was soon devouring it.

“Oh, my! This is the best brownie I’ve ever tasted,” she said. “I really must call that girl back and get the recipe. What did she say they were made with?”

Heidegger had to admit, as he got halfway through his, that there certainly was something magical about these brownies. In fact, after a few minutes he had quite forgotten himself, and was leaning back on his elbows, smiling up at the clouds.

“My, my!” exclaimed the Duchess as she finished off her second one. “Those were truly delicious, and I don’t understand it, but I haven’t felt this good since Queen Mary died!”

Heidegger laughed and scanned the horizon, thinking that he might like to retire to here. But Elfride would never stand for it. When his gaze returned to earth, he watched the joyful scene of dancing and drumming at the bottom of the hill. He saw something new there, and threw back his head and laughed. The Duchess of Windsor had joined the crowd below and was moving among them. Her arms and legs cleaved the air, and her Chanel skirt flapped to and fro as she did the Watusi.

 

]]>
http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/heidegger-in-san-francisco/feed/ 6
Ever Sacred, Ever Vexed:Getting Down with the Lord of the Codes http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/ever-sacred-ever-vexed/ http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/ever-sacred-ever-vexed/#comments Mon, 17 Nov 2014 05:00:57 +0000 http://www.counter-currents.com/?p=50842 3,618 words

NomadCodesErik Davis
Nomad Codes: Adventures in Modern Esoterica
Portland, Or.: Yeti Publishing, 2010

“I find the internet-driven pressure to make pieces short, data-dense, and crisply opinionated — as opposed to thoughtful, multi-perspectival, and lyrical — rather oppressive, leading to a certain kind of superficial smugness as well as general submission to the forces of reference over reflection.” — Erik Davis[1]

Nomad Codes collects about twenty years of Erik Davis’ essays and journalism. Some has appeared in rather obscure ’zines and websites, but much of it comes from mainstream outlets like the Village Voice, Wired, Salon, and Slate. That, along with titles like “The Technofreak Legacy of Golden Goa,” “UFO Epistemology,” and “My Date with a Burmese Transvestite Spirit Medium,” might lead you to pass it by, but that would be a mistake.[2]

What’s distinctive about Erik Davis’s journalism is a unique combination of immersive reportage from the most eccentric subcultures — think Tom Wolfe among the Pranksters or Hunter Thompson riding with the Hell’s Angels — with the kind of profound insights derived from a lifetime (at least since the release of Led Zeppelin IV[3]) of practical study of the mythological and esoteric realms that Wolfe or Thompson could only dream of.

A Klingon Con, for example, is revealed to me rather more than a sad collection of acned-scarred basement-dwellers — an awful lot seem to be drawn from law enforcement or the army, which Davis notes is a hotbed of Neopaganism as well; he quotes one Klingon saying that “The Klingons are very similar to the Norse” and then draws back to offer some commentary:

But as good myth-weavers know, the potency of myth lies in the magic of ambiguity. . . . No matter how much you allegorize Klingons, as Russkies or black nationalists or creatures from the id, they are compelling because they retain a certain nomadic volatility – what the ’zine Katra calls “outliness”

Further along, after observing a Klingon ritual and noting that everyone is aware that it’s “not real,” he neither scoffs like a Huffington Post secular bigot nor sniffs about “inauthentic pagan reconstructions” but makes the same point we have been arguing from in our own reviews of pop culture:

Both fans and witches share a very concrete sense of the power of imagination, seen not as an elite realm restricted to “artists” (or TV producers) but as a vital phantasmic faculty that links the realms of fantasy with the here and now. . . .

By performing their spiritual sensibilities in the trapping so a TV show, Karizans also revived the oldest derivation of the word “fan:” fanaticus, a devotee of the ancient mystery cults.[4]

The term Davis likes to use for this kind of intersection of the sacred and profane is “occulture”:

the place where popular culture meets the underground and very real currents of magic, mysticism, and the esoteric — a stream that has always been with us, but which was rediscovered and reaffirmed, in not always healthy ways, in the ’60s. “Occulture” is also a way to claim the occult or the religious fringe as a kind of cultural identity or playground, rather than an overly serious and hidden realm.

I try to look at the mysteries from both ends — I think its important to look at, say, the contemporary ayahausca scene as a scene, with dress codes and slang and rock stars, not as a sacred separate realm.[5] (Even though sacred things can and do go down there.) At the same time I think it is important (or at least more rewarding) to look at our often junky[6] world of late capitalist culture as a place where the seeds of insight and vision might be found, if only you look at the landscape in just the right way . . .[7]

Davis unpacks this idea right from the start by opening this collection with what he (or his editors) dubs a “Prolegomenon” in the form of an autobiographical account: “Teenage Head: Confessions of a High School Stoner.”

[P]ot also gave me something that has stuck with me far longer than the urge to bake the brain: a love of slippage, founded in the realization that altering perception alters the claims reality makes on you. The various social agendas of parents, teachers, and the ghost of God could be sidestepped not only by sullen monosyllables and the worship of unwholesome heavy metal guitarists but by tinkering with consciousness itself. What greater rebellion than rewiring one’s experience of the world?

Davis then adds this intriguing note:

It’s no accident that many kids start taking drugs at about the same age when children in traditional societies are tossed into a terrifying rite of passage, often involving some freaked-out combination of blood, darkness, self-sufficiency, and secrets. For better or worse, acid, ’shrooms, and massive bongloads now perform this rite, leaving marks that are both scars and the deep patterns of change.

That’s where subculture steps in, collective identities which can shore up the threat of dissolution and excess.

Teenage cults of drugs and music (psychedelic, heavy metal, trance, as opposed to the squeaky-clean world of pop and the thug culture of [c]rap) are the modern equivalents of the traditional adolescent rites of passage, where drugs, music (and sex) are used to break the bonds of childhood and forge new ties with the adult world, or perhaps a “subculture” such as the Männerbund, the military, or the priesthood.

[T]hat aimless and reckless quest for the silliest of grails (a party, pot, a parent-free abode)

The particular role of drugs (to an extent shared with music and sex) is to produce a state Michael Hoffman has called “loose cognition,” where the tight bonds of what passes for common sense (Kuhn’s “normal science”) are loosen or broken, allowing new combinations to arise (Kuhn’s “new paradigm”).[8]

Phasing between the reveries of a bookish childhood and the hormone-fueled angst of teendom, my mind liquefied, running through the cracks and creases of a suddenly unfolded world.

For some, the shamanistic, shall we say, a lasting taste for such adventures in perception is retained, ideally combined with some ability to maintain an ability to function in normal society. The point is not to gain some new dogma, but to retain the ability to see.

Acid doesn’t give you truths; it builds machines that push the envelope of perception. Whatever revelations came to me then have dissolved like skywriting. All I really know is that those few years saddled me with a faith in the redemptive potential of the imagination.

It produces a bubbling, crackling connection-machine which quickly sinks into the mire. Trivial objects, words, and glances stitch together webs of deep and intense meaning that uncomfortably thicken—once a Greek salad in New Haven set off a rumination on the flows of Western history which overwhelmed my puny mind like a tidal wave.

But I take great satisfaction in the fact that many people acquainted with either my writing or my person assume I’m a total stoner.[9]

But Deleuze and Guattari are fairly down on drugs themselves. To quote them quoting Henry Miller, the point is to get drunk on a glass of water.

Or, to quote William Burroughs, the self-styled “master drug addict” himself, “Learn to make it without chemical corn.”

This is somewhat like what Peter Lamborn Wilson, subject of another fascinating piece — “The Wandering Sufi” — calls “sacred drift,” which Davis calls “a magical mode of writing: recombinant, luminous, fragmentary.” Even so, as Davis notes, “for an anarchist, he has a remarkably traditional respect for rigor and cautious argument, as well as a real love of the dusty bibliographies and arcane disputes of classic scholarship.” (He was, after all, part of Seyyed Nasr’s Iranian Academy of Philosophy, and remembers their patroness, “Mrs. Shaw,” with great fondness).[10]

Unlike the kids, not everyone likes the Drift; for example, H. P. Lovecraft, who even though he was dead in his forties, had long since taken to referring to himself as “Old Grandpa.” In “Calling Cthulhu,”[11] Davis describes the then-nascent cult of pop-Cthulhu, and noted that Lovecraft’s “dread” and “horror” seemed to belong to a 19th-century materialist confronting vast new vistas opened up by science, not unlike those opened by the ’60s drug culture; as he describes it in a later article on Cthulhu porn:

In this tangy bon-bon of nihilistic materialism, Lovecraft anticipates a peculiarly modern experience of dread, one conjured not by irrational fears of the dark but rather by the speculative realism of reason itself, staring into the cosmic void. . . . This terror before the empty and ultimately unknowable universe of scientific materialism is what gives the cosmic edge to the cosmic horror that Lovecraft, more than any other writer, injected into the modern imagination (though props must be given up as well to Arthur Machen, William Hope Hodgson, and, in the closing chapters of The Time Machine at least, H. G. Wells). While many secular people proclaim an almost childlike wonder at the mind-melting prospect of the incomprehensibly vast universe sketched out by astrophysics and bodied forth by doctored Hubble shots, Lovecraft would say that we have not really swallowed the implication of this inhuman immensity—that we have not, in other words, correlated our contents.[12]

Or, as Davis says in “Teenage Head”:

Whether or not the sense that everything fits together is perceived as a holistic liberation or a dire trap depends a lot on how tightly you are clutching to your frame of mind.

“Calling Cthulhu” also explores the “curiously literal dimension” of Lovecraft’s cult, “made all the more intriguing by the fact that Lovecraft himself was . . . philosophically opposed to spirituality and magic of any kind.” Yet in his work, thanks to the “tension between fact and fable” called magic, “ancient and amoral forces violently puncture the realistic surface of his tales,” drawing the reader “into the chaos that lies ‘between the worlds’ of magic and reality.” Davis calls this “Lovecraft’s magical realism” but we have elsewhere suggested that it also resembles what has been called “archeofuturism,” the continued accessibility of the past in the future, now.[13]

The resurgence of weed as cultural icon may not be a matter of returning to nature but recovering its flow in the urban milieu: how to slip through the cracks in the concrete,[14] how to grow wilderness in the most degraded or rigidly stratified of circumstances. That’s not a spoon or a needle or a bottle on all those caps around town. It’s a leaf.

Speaking of Cthulhu, and theurgy (acting on the gods) in general, Lovecraft, in “The Call” and elsewhere liked to bring in voodoo cults and other darkie woo-woo to suggest parallels, or equivalents, to his fictional cults of the Elder Gods; Lovecraft the Village Atheist no doubt also liked to imply this was the real nature of more respectable religions like Puritan Christianity.[15]

Here again, once you make the connection, you can’t really control where it will take you (“sacred drift”); perhaps there’s more to those “primitive” cults, perhaps as much as the White man’s fancy theology? “Trickster at the Crossroads” explores African cults that may make the White “neopagan” uncomfortable, but may have something to teach us moderns.

Perhaps that discomfort arises not (only) from “a lingering afterimage of colonialism” but from an uncomfortable similarity:

As one Neopagan I know put it, “why be interested in these grotesque and parasitic deities?” You could answer that these deities are not so much grotesque as rich with character, not so much parasitic as deeply and reciprocally bound up with the daily lives of their devotees.”

Though they possess godlike powers, the orisha are not transcendent beings; rather, they are idiosyncratic personalities thoroughly bound up with ritual, practice, and the sort of exchanges that define human community.

In short, rather more pagan than the alien Christianity imposed on us.[16] Traditionalists like Guénon and Coomaraswamy scorned the whole notion of “primitive” peoples,[17] either as vertigoes of a past left behind by religious or scientific “progress” or as role models to be emulated, considering them rather as degenerate traces of lost primordial civilizations; but the degenerate culture, by definition, bear some connection to the healthy, unlike the deviationism of Judeo-Christianity and Modernity.[18]

In fact, in the spirit of archeofuturism, the orisha suggest not merely the past but the present future:

In our wired world, Eshu can also be seen as the spirit of the network, nomadic lord of the codes and protocols that tie movement and trade, images and perspective, data and sex. Of all the orisha, he perhaps speaks most forcefully to us today because he is about the very process that we engage in order to understand and recognize him: the tangle process of communication itself, ever sacred, ever vexed.

Erik Davis lecturing at Burning Man in 2003

Erik Davis lecturing at Burning Man in 2003

Now, I know what many of you are thinking: this Davis cat is just another aging neo-hippie, and no doubt some kinda eco-friendly anti-Westerner, peddling more new-age pap. Admittedly, there are times when Davis does seem to lean perilously close to becoming some kind of Burning Man trendster (see “Beyond Belief: The Cults of Burning Man”)

or just another fruity California nut (see the section on “Kalifornika” as well as his historical/spiritual/psycho-geographical travelogue, The Visionary State: A Journey Through California’s Spiritual Landscape[19]).

But at his best, which is most of the time, Davis is made of sterner stuff. Take “Snakes and Ladders,” an important Gnostic manifesto that echoes, not only in the title, James Hillman’s “Peaks and Vales.” Here the “tension” we’ve seen is abstracted into

two contrasting modes of spiritual movement, two pervasive “styles” or religious impulses. One the one hand, the desire to establish an intense, deeply wedded connection with the imaginative matrix of the natural world; on the other hand, a desire to overcome desire, to ascend towards virtual light, to escape the demands of matter and wake up to a new order of knowledge and being.

This wariness of what Ken Wilber might call “premature unity” leads him to suggest that

the impulse to transcend—the Neo-Platonist’s ascent through the spheres, the Gnostic’s sudden awakening, the desert monk’s rejection of the élan vital—is not simply a philosophical error or the mark of patriarchy, but is fired by an intensely lucid yearning for the highest of goals: liberation.

Davis avows that he distrusts

[A]ny easy attempt to shove them under one roof. It’s too simple to paper over their real differences be appealing to the supposed unity of mystical experience or the clichéd notion that various religious languages describe the same truth from different perspectives. What if the truth itself is multiple?

Like Hillman, Davis sees that polytheism is not — or should not be — just another dogma like monotheism:

The polytheistic alternative does not set up conflicting opposites between beast and Bethlehem, between chaos and unity; it permits the coexistence of the psychic fragments and gives them patterns in the imagination . . .[20]

On the other hand, Davis is admittedly given to the usual knee-jerking; he can’t help but interrupt an account of his first encounter with the OnStar system — when he sets it off accidentally in a rental car — without wondering not just what the cops in Skokie would do if they had arrived and he was black. (The answer, of course, is “Nothing as bad as the brothers would do if they found you in Compton.”)

But even so. Constant Readers will find his positive take on “The Matrix Way of Knowledge” — “the Wachowski brothers realize that the cybernetic problem of control reboots the hoary old struggle between freedom and fate” — to be an interesting contrast to Trevor Lynch’s disgust,[21] and his musing over

What, then, is the proper rejoinder to determinism? The Oracle tells Neo that “You are here to understand why you made the choice, not to make the choice.” I take this to mean that, to an awakened one, events and decisions have always already occurred, but that understanding and compassion can still dissolve their karmic hold.

intersects nicely with our own obsession with finding the rather more amoral “passing the buck” motif — escape from karma through a scapegoat or “sucker” — in genre flicks.[22]

“Intersection” is really what it — and Erik Davis’ writing — is all about. Knowledge may be fragmentary, but Wisdom arise from the intersection — ever repeated — of the fragments. This collection will expose the intrepid spiritual adventurer to many of those “Shards of the Diamond Matrix,” from jazzbo Islamic heresies, to the hash-addled surf epiphanies of California teenagers, to “Scratch” Perry churning out dub from Switzerland. Like another one of its own topics — how appropriately fractal — it is truly “a mighty bizarre volume known as The Secret Museum of Mankind.”

Yeti has done a great service to esoteric adventurers by bringing out this collection. It has a great personal introduction by Marcus Boon, but one does miss — in the spirit of Peter L. Wilson, and Davis’s “bookish” boyhood, if not Melville’s Sub-Sub Librarian[23] — a list of first appearances rather than just dates; moreover this sort of writing calls out for an index to guide the reader who is sure Davis mentioned something about something somewhere.

But perhaps they hope the reader with enter into the spirit of the thing, and just dive in and wait for the sacred drift to take them . . . somewhere.

Notes

1. Klint Finley, “Erik Davis – Technoccult Interview,” November 23, 2010, here.

2. In the interests of full disclosure, our paths first intersected through mutual interests in lectures given at the New York Open Center when Erik was writing for the Village Voice; in the Wild West days of the Internets I passed for something of an expert, believe it or not, and lent research assistance to a piece, post-Oklahoma City, on neo-Right websites; later, as guest editor of an issue of FringeWare Review, he solicited an article on my involvement with the Da Free John sect.

3. See his Led Zeppelin IV, #17 in the “33 and 1/3” series (New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2005).

4. See Greg Johnson’s “Interview with James J. O’Meara,” here and reprinted in The Homo and the Negro: Masculinist Meditations on Politics and Popular Culture, ed. Greg Johnson (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2012), where I discuss Jeremy Reed’s appropriation of the pop culture “fan” as a model for the intense awareness of the “mundane” that characterizes the poet, and the relationship of this notion to Archetypal psychology (Moore, Hillman) and Sufi mysticism (Peter Lamborn Wilson, to be mentioned later); see also Michael Hoffman’s egodeath.com for research on, among much else dear to the hearts of Davis and myself, psychedelic rock music as modern mystery rituals.

5. Compare my discussion of the role of dress codes and themes as constitutive of anti-modern zones in “Mad Männerbund?” and “Fashion Tips for the Far From Fashionable Right” in The Homo and the Negro.

6. He means of course “filled with junk” (in “The Technofreak Legacy of Golden Goa” he refers to “junky speakers”) but the link to Burroughs’ Junky, his one piece of hardboiled realism, is interesting.

7. Antonio Lopez, “Follow your Weird: A Conversation with Erik Davis,” Reality Sandwich, here.

8. For drugs, sex and the Männerbund, see the work of Wulf Grimsson, generally, and my review of his Loki’s Way here and reprinted in The Homo and the Negro; for drugs, music and loose cognition, see the work of Michael Hoffman collected at his egodeath.com.

9. I too have had this ambiguous pleasure: “Reading James O’Meara is a psychedelic experience.” — Jack Donovan, jacket copy for The Homo and the Negro.

10. Wilson is another seminal influence on my own writing and research, as noted in my interview with Greg Johnson.

11. “Calling Cthulhu: H. P. Lovecraft’s Magical Realism” in op. cit.

12. Erik Davis, “Cthulhu is not cute!”

13. Thus Ed Wood’s Grade-Z films, an equivalent genre to Lovecraft’s pulp fictions, paradoxically produced real effects in the present day (“Future events like these will affect your lives in the future, as Criswell predicts) due to the principle that “any endeavor pursued with sufficient vigor [e.g., magick, even performed by a non-believer] will achieve results, those results potentially surpassing the endeavor’s original intentions.” Lovecraft might be compared to the bogus psychic is Wood’s Night of the Ghouls (a rather Lovecraftian title) whose fake séances actually raise the dead and bring about his doom. See my “Getting Wood: Closely Watching the Cinematic Alchemy of Ed Wood, Jr.,” here.

14. Cf. the Situationist slogan from ’68: “Beneath the pavement, the beach!”

15. E.g., “The Dunwich Horror” as a blasphemous reworking of the Incarnation and Crucifixion; see my “Knowing All the Angles: the Lovecraftian Fiction of Don Webb,” here.

16. See the essays of Collin Cleary, here and collected in Summoning the Gods: Essays on Paganism in a God-Forsaken World, ed. Greg Johnson (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2010) and most recently “What is Odinism” in TYR 4 (Ultra, 2014) reviewed here; also, Greg Johnson’s “The Philosophy of Collin Cleary,” here.

17. Tellingly euphemized in Canadian PC-speak as “First Peoples.”

18. See “Shamanism and Sorcery,” chapter 26 of The Reign of Quantity (Ghent, N.Y.: Sophia Perennis, 2001), especially the cautions expressed on p. 181. In the same way, the stoner culture Davis emerged from is a degenerate modern version of the ancient rites of passage, and so more valuable than mere bourgeois normality.

19. San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 2006.

20. Davis quoting James Hillman, A Blue Fire (New York: HarperCollins, 1989), p. 44.

21. “About twenty minutes into The Matrix Reloaded I was feeling sick to my stomach — literally.” See his review here and in Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies (San Francisco: Counter Currents, 2013).

22. See the discussion in “Getting Wood,” above.

23. Melville, of course, was a pioneer of the esoteric methods of linguistic warp and woof; see Harold Beaver’s 300-page commentary attached to the Penguin English Library edition of Moby Dick (New York: Penguin, 1972), and my recent comments here.

 

]]>
http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/ever-sacred-ever-vexed/feed/ 2
Remembering Sir Oswald Mosley: November 16, 1896 to December 3, 1980 http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/remembering-sir-oswald-mosley-3/ http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/remembering-sir-oswald-mosley-3/#comments Fri, 14 Nov 2014 18:42:40 +0000 http://www.counter-currents.com/?p=50825 857 words

Sir Oswald Ernald Mosley, 6th Baronet of Ancoats, was an English aristocrat (a fourth cousin once removed of Queen Elizabeth II) and statesman. Mosley was a Member of Parliament for Harrow from 1918 to 1924 and for Smethwick from 1926 to 1931. He was also Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in the Labour Government of 1929–1931.

Mosley began his political career as a Conservative; then he broke with the Conservatives to become an independent; then he joined the Labour Party. In 1931, he broke with Labour and formed his “New Party.” After the New Party candidates failed in the elections of 1931, Mosley regrouped and founded the British Union of Fascists in 1932.

The BUF went through typical political ups and downs, but claimed a peak membership as high as 50,000, including prominent members of the aristocracy, military, press, business community, and intelligentsia. Furthermore, many Britons who sympathized and collaborated with Mosley and the BUF never officially joined the party. Adventurer T. E. Lawrence, author Henry Williamson, and conductor Sir Reginald Goodall have been profiled at Counter-Currents. For an extensive list, see the Wikipedia article on the BUF.

Like other fascist parties, the BUF was anti-communist, nationalistic, pro-private property, and anti-egalitarian. As fascists, the BUF recognized the necessity of cultivating individual excellence, ambition, and creativity. But they also wished to mitigate of the worst excesses of individualism and capitalism by opposing free trade (globalization) and usury and advocating better wages and benefits for workers, social welfare programs, and public spending on infrastructure.

Like Hitler and Mussolini, Mosley was a charismatic leader and speaker who sought to attain power by the creation of a mass political party. Public marches and speeches were staples of BUF activity. To protect BUF rallies from Communist and Jewish violence, Mosley formed a paramilitary “blackshirt” corps. There were many bloody brawls and police bans.

The largest meeting addressed by Mosley took place at Victoria Park, Bow, in July 1936. The crowd was estimated at 250,000 people. In July 1939, the BUF held the largest indoor meeting in the world at Earls Court in London, where Mosley addressed a Peace Rally of some 30,000 people.

Mosley’s strongest support was in East London, where in 1937, the BUF won up to one fourth of the vote.

At the beginning, the BUF, like Mussolini’s movement, was not anti-Semitic and actually had a number of Jewish members. However, over time, it became apparent that the vast bulk of the Jewish community was aggressively anti-BUF, thus the BUF became increasingly anti-Semitic.

The BUF was never a National Socialist party. Like Mussolini, Mosley never took biological race or anti-Semitism all that seriously. After Hitler’s rise to power, however, Mosley maintained cordial relations with the Third Reich. Mosley married his second wife, Diana Mitford, on October 6, 1936 in Berlin at the home of Joseph Goebbels. Adolf Hitler was one of the guests.

In the late 1930s, as Jewish anti-German warmongering intensified, the BUF worked to save Britain and Europe from another war, campaigning on the theme of Mind Britain’s Business. After Britain and France started the Second World War by declaring war on Germany on September 3, 1939, Mosley campaigned for a negotiated peace.

On May 23, 1940 Mosley’s opposition to the war was silenced. He was interned under Defence Regulation 18B, which was used to silence the most active fascists and National Socialists in Britain. The BUF was later banned. Diana Mosley was also interned. The Mosleys lived together in a house in the grounds of Holloway prison until November 1943, when they were released from Holloway because of Sir Oswald’s ill health. They spent the rest of the war under house arrest.

After the war, Mosley returned to politics, in 1948 forming the Union Movement, which called for a European federation (called Europe a Nation) with an essentially fascist political and economic order. The idea of a European federation was advocated in the 1930s by fascists like Pierre Drieu La Rochelle, although it was always a minority viewpoint. After the Second World War, however, it became a central idea of the most far-sighted thinkers of the right, including Francis Parker Yockey, Jean Thiriart, and now Guillaume Faye.

In 1951, Mosley left Britain for Ireland. Later, he settled near Paris. He explained his decision to leave Britain by saying, “You don’t clear up a dungheap from underneath it.” In 1959, Mosley returned to Britain to run in the 1959 general election at Kensington North. In 1966, he ran in the 1966 general election at Shoreditch and Finsbury.

In 1968, Mosley published his autobiography, My Life. In his later years he suffered from Parkinson’s disease. He died on December 3, 1980 in Orsay, near Paris, aged 84.

Counter-Currents has reprinted six pieces by Mosley:

See also:

For articles tagged Sir Oswald Mosley, click here.

For more information on Mosley’s life and work, see http://www.oswaldmosley.com/

 

]]>
http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/remembering-sir-oswald-mosley-3/feed/ 10
Remembering René Guénon: November 15, 1886 to January 7, 1951 http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/remembering-rene-guenon-4/ http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/remembering-rene-guenon-4/#comments Fri, 14 Nov 2014 18:38:53 +0000 http://www.counter-currents.com/?p=50821 Rene-guenon-1925305 words

René Guénon was born on November 15, 1886. Along with Julius Evola, Guénon was one of the leading figures in the Traditionalist school, which has deeply influenced my own outlook and the metapolitical mission and editorial agenda of Counter-Currents Publishing and North American New Right. (For a sense of my differences with Guénon, see my lecture on “Vico and the New Right.”) 

In commemoration of his birth, I wish to draw your attention to the following works on this website.

This relative handful of articles does not give a true sense of Guénon’s importance, for along with Evola, Nietzsche, and Spengler, he is also one of the most widely mentioned thinkers on this site. It is a presence, and an influence, that will only grow in time.

Those looking for an introduction to Guénon’s work should begin with the short and relatively accessible The Crisis of the Modern World. For a judicious overview of Guénon’s works, see The Essential René Guénon: Metaphysics, Tradition, and the Crisis of Modernity. My personal favorite among Guénon’s books, and the one the provides the most “empirical” access to the idea of Tradition, is Symbols of Sacred Science.

For a brief biography of Guénon, see Robin Waterfield, René Guénon and the Future of the West: The Life and Writings of a 20th-Century Metaphysician. For an interesting and readable historical/journalistic account of Traditionalism, see Mark Sedgwick, Against the Modern World: Traditionalism and the Secret Intellectual History of the Twentieth Century.

 

]]>
http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/remembering-rene-guenon-4/feed/ 4
Martha Nussbaum:Premier Citizen of the World http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/martha-nussbaum-premier-citizen-of-the-world/ http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/martha-nussbaum-premier-citizen-of-the-world/#comments Fri, 14 Nov 2014 16:00:08 +0000 http://www.counter-currents.com/?p=50813 Nussbaum

Ecstatic with herself

3,166 words

The world of academia is full of hyper-inflated academics with multiple titles, prizes, honors, publications, grants and “original” ideas. Martha Nussbaum, Ernst Freund Distinguished Service Professor of Law and Ethics at the University of Chicago, is a typical case in point; and since she is a woman, the accolades border on the preposterous. She has 50 honorary degrees from colleges and universities in North America, Europe, Africa and Asia. Among the many awards she has received are the “American Philosophical Society’s Henry M. Phillips Prize in Jurisprudence” and the “Prince of Asturias Award for Social Sciences.” She has been honored multiple times including as Corresponding Fellow of the British Academy, Past President of the American Philosophical Association, and listed among the world’s Top 100 Intellectuals by The Prospect/Foreign Policy global poll in 2005, 2008, and 2010.

Martha’s Capabilities

Her great contribution to knowledge, apparently, has been a “capabilities approach” to development, which she originated together with economist Amartya Sen. The approach is actually very pedestrian and merely regurgitates the old Marxist idea that achieving the economic well being of all humans in the planet should be biggest priority in the pursuit of justice. She argues that humans need real opportunities in order to develop their “capabilities.” Humans cannot live up to old age and develop their “capabilities” when they are deprived of food, political freedom, and religious tolerance. This is a variation on Friedrich Engels’ speech at the grave of Marx, “Mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing before it can pursuit politics, science, religion and art.” The difference is that Nussbaum scavenges a few thoughts from Aristotle to argue that humans should be afforded with cultural opportunities together with economic means to develop their full capabilities. In short, Nussbaum is one more cultural Marxist in academe.

Combined with her “capabilities approach,” her other original accomplishment has been the promotion of multiculturalism in Western societies and the idea of “a citizen of the world.” Her driving motivation is that whites have a moral responsibility to develop the capabilities of all humans. She offers no policies about how to solve world poverty other than the same empty slogans leftists have bandied around for decades. But she is quite good moralizing about the subject and inflicting guilt on her whites students about their privileges, “ethical egoism,” and antisemitism. She condemns the practice of female genital mutilation alright, but the moral onus is on white feminists to abolish this practice and thereby promote the capabilities of non-European females.

But if whites are held responsible with the task of raising the capabilities of all humans, they are not to be commended for their ethical lineage. Nussbaum, you see, was born into “the East Coast WASP elite” but converted to Judaism after her marriage to Alan Nussbaum. She later divorced in 1987, but had her bat mitzvah in 2008. In Judaism, she found a religion dedicated to justice in the world, a religion that teaches humans to feel the pain of others, not only of friends and family members, but also of those “on the other side of the world.” In contrast, the WASP world she grew in was “very sterile, very preoccupied with money and status.” In 2002, while visiting Israel, she commented,

I converted to Judaism at the age of 21, and I felt then, as I do now, that Judaism is above all a moral identity, connected to the love of justice. I felt that I was dedicating myself to a program of moral action aimed at realizing justice in the here-and-now rather than in some dim Christian afterlife–that, as Moses Mendelssohn once wrote, “The highest stage of wisdom is incontrovertibly doing that which is good.” More viscerally, I felt I was leaving an elitist WASP culture that cared not one whit for social justice to join a liberal, socially alert Jewish family that read I.F. Stone and The Nation.

Nussbaum’s Take on the West

What Nussbaum found in Judaism was an ideological program for the reinterpretation of Western Civ in a cosmopolitan direction against European ethnocentrism and uniqueness. There are a number of ways in which the history of Western Civ has been misinterpreted, misused, and manipulated. Some in the European New Right blame Christianity for the current promotion of diversity and mass immigration, which I questioned here; still, the ENR has the proper attitude towards Europeans, and does not willfully seek to mislead anyone, but is sincerely trying to understand how we got into the current mess. Then we have the pathological leftists who hate the West or think it managed to “diverge” from Asia only as a result of “windfall gains” from the Americas. Then there are those who actually voice great admiration for Western Civ on the alleged grounds that this civilization mandates, from its very origins through to modern times, the promotion of race-mixing and mass immigration. They believe that the West engendered the universal values that are necessary for the creation of a race-mixed New World order, and they admire the West for this, but demonize Europeans who show loyalty to their ancestors and any form of ethnic affirmation. European ethno-nationalists, and only European ethno-nationalists, are seen as retrograde fascists on the “wrong side of history.”

Nussbaum admires the West but calls her WASP father a “racist.” In Judaism she encountered a morality that would allow her to bring out the multiculturalism she alleges is embedded in classic Western works, unappreciated by the radical leftists. When I first encountered Nussbaum’s work some 15 years ago, I interpreted it as a sensible questioning of leftist excoriations of the West; only later did I start to see that her admiration was not for the ideas of Europeans but for ideas that she could manipulate to justify the promotion of a radical program of race mixing against any form of European ethnic identity.

Although Nussbaum is not a Neocon, she is a strong defender of certain “universal values” our establishment has come to identify with the Enlightenment. Her much talked-about criticism of Judith Butler’s obscure writing style (not Butler’s radical constructionist claim that there are no natural differences between males and females), and her rejection of Jacques Derrida’s postmodernist denial of truth and objectivity seemingly placed her on the side of Western rationalism. She seemed to offer a fresh view against the influential postmodernist strain in academia:

What is deeply pernicious in today’s academy, then, is the tendency to dismiss the whole idea of pursuing truth and objectivity as if those aims could no longer guide us. . . . Postmodernists do not justify their more extreme conclusions with compelling arguments. . . .  Derrida on truth is simply not worth studying for someone who has been studying Quine and Putnam and Davidson.[1]

But as the reviewer who cited this passage points out, much as Martha Nussbaum eulogizes over the importance of an education in the classics, “she is an unscrupulous propagandist.” She cleverly twists the ideas of classical philosophy to serve the contemporary ends of feminism, gay rights, racial integration, and mass immigration. Rather than making generalizations, here I will focus on one essay, Kant and Cosmopolitanism, published in a book, Perpetual Peace: Essay’s on Kant’s Cosmopolitan Ideal, commemorating the 200th anniversary of the publication of Kant’s essay “Toward Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch” (1795). This book contains essays by major luminaries such as Jürgen Habermas, Axel Honneth, Thomas McCarthy, and David Held. The argument of Nussbaum’s essay is that Kant was deeply influenced by Roman Stoic philosophy in his defense of a “politics based upon reason rather than patriotism or group sentiment.”[2] Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, and Cicero, she says, were the main intellectual sources behind Kant’s cosmopolitan citizen.

Martha versus the Stoics

Again, as I argued in my essay on Roman citizenship, on the surface it appears that Roman Stoics, and Roman legal reasoning generally, were committed to the idea of creating a nation based on values held to be true for humanity; but only on the surface. Nussbaum recklessly goes about using forms of expression used by the Stoics which bespeak of a “common humanity” to justify a radical program of indoctrinating American children to join the fight against “racism and sexism” and create citizens who no longer see the United States in patriotic terms but love all humans on the planet as rightful members of the US. We can start with two passages she cites from Aurelius:

If reason is common, so too is law; and if this is common, then we are fellow citizens. If this is so, we share in a kind of organized polity. And if that is so, the world is as it were a city state. […] It makes no difference whether a person lives here or there, provided that, wherever he lives, he lives as a citizen of the world.[3]

According to Nussbaum, what Aurelius means here is that:

any human being might have been born in any nation. . . . Recognizing this, we should not allow differences of nationality or class or ethnic membership or even gender to erect barriers between us and our fellow human beings.

This is a very tendentious reading of a classical author by someone who is supposedly a “world authority” on classical philosophy. The “common humanity” Aurelius was writing about is that of humans as fellow citizens of a Universe in which “all things are woven together” and in which all humans have “one common Reason.” In this respect, he says:

We should not say ‘I am an Athenian’ or ‘I am a Roman’ but ‘I am a citizen of the Universe‘.

This is a metaphysical statement about the nature of the universe and man’s place in it. It would be extremely anachronistic to align Aurelius’ Stoicism with mass immigration, the “irrelevance of tradition, identity, and group membership,” and the creation of a New World Order ruled by the ideas of Martha. After a few additional warm expressions cited from the Stoics about human connectedness, she is compelled to admit that the Stoics “did not and could not conclude, as Kant does, that colonial conquest is morally unacceptable.[4] She is also obligated to admit that Kant did not object to colonialism per se, but to the brutal treatment of colonized peoples. Nevertheless, she tries to persuade us that in his Anthropology, Kant was a multiculturalist who enjoined Europeans to realize that:

we owe it to other human beings to understand their ways of thinking, since only that attitude is consistent with seeing oneself as a “citizen of the world.”[5]

Nussbaum refers to page two of the Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View (1798), and it may be that she only read this far since in this book Kant classifies (and ranks) humans racially into white (European), yellow (Asians), black (Africans) and red (American Indians), and then argues that non-Europeans lacked adequate self-consciousness and “rational will.” After calling whites “the most perfect race,” Kant goes on to say:

The race of the American cannot be educated. It has no motivating force; for it lacks affect and passion . . . They hardly speak, do not caress each other, care about nothing and are lazy. . . . The race of the Negroes . . . is completely the opposite of the Americans; they are full of affect and passion, very lively, talkative and vain. They can be educated but only as servants.

This aspect of Kant’s thought has been well documented by Emmanuel Chukwudi Eze in his long essay, The Color of Reason: The Idea of ‘Race’ in Kant’s Anthropology.

But the most egregious infraction in Nussbaum’s reading of philosophical texts is her claim that:

the Stoics believed that a central goal of the world citizen was the complete extirpation of anger, both in oneself and in the surrounding society (my italics).[6]

Most of the writing by Nussbaum under examination is concerned with this claim. She relies mainly on Seneca’s book on anger to make the claim that for the Stoics anger was not an instinct of human nature; rather, anger was a socially generated attitude that could be removed from humans. Humans “are born for mutual aid and mutual concord,” but anger stands in the way; therefore children must be educated in such a way that they never become angry in the face of difficulties and conflicts. This removal of anger “will cut down greatly on the world’s total conflict.”[7] Anger, and the accompanying attitudes of fear and hatred, “are constructed by social evaluations and can be undone by the patient work of philosophy.”[8] In fact, according to Nussbaum’s interpretation of the Stoics, all the passions (grief, fear, love, hatred, envy, jealousy) are the product of the way children are raised and educated. She makes these claims without any direct quotations from the Stoics or Seneca, other than indirect references to some books and article titles.

I am not an expert on Stoicism. I have read Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations, Seneca’s Letters from a Stoic, and a number of chapters about this subject in histories of Western philosophy. But I know enough to know there is something fundamentally wrong with Nussbaum’s interpretation, and it has to do primarily with the way she misuses the Stoic emphasis on the improvement of one’s character through self-control, and acceptance of the limitations nature imposes on all humans, into a call for a radical alteration in the nature of humans through the total socialization of humans from the moment they are born. According to her, if we are to fulfill the intended goals of the Stoics, we need

some fairly radical changes in moral education on a large scale [will be required], so that people will increasingly define themselves in terms of their reason and character rather than in terms of honor, status wealth, [and] power.[9]

Nussbaum’s Inirascibility

She gets even more absurd employing Stoic philosophy to “eradicate” racism, which she calls the most “pernicious form of anger and hatred,” the “hatred of other members of other races.” “The rearing of nonracist children” and the “suppression of unreasoning misogyny”[10] is what Stoicism is all about. There will be “Stoic success” in education when “hatred of the foreigner” is “eradicated” “through programs of education that will make the Stoics’ and Kant’s idea of world citizenship real in our schools and universities.” “Eradicating passions” that have existed in humans as humans since the beginning of time is not “in the least a totalitarian idea,” says Nussbaum, but a fulfillment of classical philosophy.

Now, as members of a privileged elite in charge of transforming human nature, Martha and her like-minded clones will continue to define themselves in terms of wealth and power:

“We have great power over racism, sexism, and other divisive passions that militate against cosmopolitan humanism” (my italics).[11]

This is cultural Marxism writ large; it has nothing to do with Stoicism. Seneca’s advice on how to deal with anger was dramatically different. For Seneca, people get angry because they are too optimistic in their expectations of what is possible in life; people should lower their expectations, come to terms with the limits set by nature and by the fact that there are many things in life that are beyond our control; we can learn to self-control our own passions, but we should not delude ourselves overestimating our capacities to change our surroundings in such a way that we will never encounter problems and difficulties that will tax our patience and self-control; we should learn to expect problems and to accept the inevitability of bad situations and bad outcomes, and bad people (like Nussbaum). What we can do is learn to master better our emotional reactions to those things that are beyond our control.

But our Premier Citizen will have none of this; she is determined to eradicate racism; and she means the racism of whites who disagree with her; the alleged racism of her father against blacks and Jews. She wants men like her father to be eradicated. And she wants the full power of the government to punish those whites who do not follow her philosophical goals:

Where we cannot altogether eradicate racial hatred, we can ensure that heavy penalties for ethnic and racial hate crimes are institutionalized in our codes of criminal law — and this is now being done (my italics).[12]

If it were only a matter of criminalizing “racist” acts, but we are dealing with an ideology that is dedicated to the transformation of European-majority cultures into race-mixed societies; a “radical program,” as Nussbaum likes to say, in which European children (regardless of whether they acted in a “racist” way or not) are being compelled to accept the destruction of their parents heritage and those who question it are being criminalized! Yet, this incredibly affected, pretentious, artificial, actorly, and super-mediocre woman has the nerve to demand the “extirpation” of anger from children who may voice discontent and prideful anger against the demoralization of their cultural lineage. She wants to designate any form of anger as a form of psychological maladjustment requiring life-time forms of brainwashing and policing.

Nussbaum, said to be a foremost scholar on Aristotle, might have considered Aristotle’s argument that lack of anger “at the right things” is a vice in that it shows a lack of pride. When someone infringes on your status, attacks your family, friends, and beloved culture, anger is a necessary response; it is what a good man would show. Let Aristotle have the last word, and let it be known that the great minds of the Western tradition would have never agreed with the efforts of Nussbaum to destroy any sense of pride among Europeans by “extirpating anger” from them.

The man who is angry at the right things and with the right people, and, further, as he ought, when he ought, and as long as he ought, is praised. This will be the good-tempered man, then, since good temper is praised. For the good-tempered man tends to be unperturbed and not to be led by passion, but to be angry in the manner, at the things, and for the length of time, that the rule dictates; but he is thought to err rather in the direction of deficiency; for the good-tempered man is not revengeful, but rather tends to make allowances.

The deficiency, whether it is a sort of ‘inirascibility’ or whatever it is, is blamed. For those who are not angry at the things they should be angry at are thought to be fools, and so are those who are not angry in the right way, at the right time, or with the right persons; for such a man is thought not to feel things nor to be pained by them, and, since he does not get angry, he is thought unlikely to defend himself; and to endure being insulted and put up with insult to one’s friends is slavish.[13]

Notes

1. Martha Nussbaum, Cultivating Humanity, 1997: 40, 41.
2. Ibid., 27.
3. Ibid., 31.
4. Ibid., 38.
5. Ibid., 36.
6. Ibid., 34.
7. Ibid., 45.
8. Ibid., 46.
9. Ibid., 48.
10. Ibid., 48.
11. Ibid., 49.
12. Ibid., 49.
13. Nicomachean Ethics, Book IV: CH. 5, in The Basic Works of Aristotle, Ed. with an Introduction by Richard McKeon, 1941.

Reprinted from: http://www.eurocanadian.ca/2014/11/martha-nussbaum-premier-citizen-of-world_8.html

]]>
http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/martha-nussbaum-premier-citizen-of-the-world/feed/ 11
The Revolutionary Conservative Critique of Oswald Spengler http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/the-revolutionary-conservative-critique-of-oswald-spengler/ http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/the-revolutionary-conservative-critique-of-oswald-spengler/#comments Fri, 14 Nov 2014 14:15:17 +0000 http://www.counter-currents.com/?p=50817 Oswald Spengler

Oswald Spengler

2,727 words

Oswald Spengler is by now well-known as one of the major thinkers of the German Conservative Revolution of the early 20th Century. In fact, he is frequently cited as having been one of the most determining intellectual influences on German Conservatism of the interwar period – along with Arthur Moeller van den Bruck and Ernst Jünger – to the point where his cultural pessimist philosophy is seen to be representative of Revolutionary Conservative views in general (although in reality most Revolutionary Conservatives held more optimistic views).[1] 

To begin our discussion, we shall provide a brief overview of the major themes of Oswald Spengler’s philosophy.[2] According to Spengler, every High Culture has its own “soul” (this refers to the essential character of a Culture) and goes through predictable cycles of birth, growth, fulfillment, decline, and demise which resemble that of the life of a plant. To quote Spengler:

A Culture is born in the moment when a great soul awakens out of the proto-spirituality of ever-childish humanity, and detaches itself, a form from the formless, a bounded and mortal thing from the boundless and enduring. It blooms on the soil of an exactly-definable landscape, to which plant-wise it remains bound. It dies when the soul has actualized the full sum of its possibilities in the shape of peoples, languages, dogmas, arts, states, sciences, and reverts into the proto-soul.[3]

There is an important distinction in this theory between Kultur (“Culture”) and Zivilisation (“Civilization”). Kultur refers to the beginning phase of a High Culture which is marked by rural life, religiosity, vitality, will-to-power, and ascendant instincts, while Zivilisation refers to the later phase which is marked by urbanization, irreligion, purely rational intellect, mechanized life, and decadence. Although he acknowledged other High Cultures, Spengler focused particularly on three High Cultures which he distinguished and made comparisons between: the Magian, the Classical (Greco-Roman), and the present Western High Culture. He held the view that the West, which was in its later Zivilisation phase, would soon enter a final imperialistic and “Caesarist” stage – a stage which, according to Spengler, marks the final flash before the end of a High Culture.[4]

Perhaps Spengler’s most important contribution to the Conservative Revolution, however, was his theory of “Prussian Socialism,” which formed the basis of his view that conservatives and socialists should unite. In his work he argued that the Prussian character, which was the German character par excellence, was essentially socialist. For Spengler, true socialism was primarily a matter of ethics rather than economics. This ethical, Prussian socialism meant the development and practice of work ethic, discipline, obedience, a sense of duty to the greater good and the state, self-sacrifice, and the possibility of attaining any rank by talent. Prussian socialism was differentiated from Marxism and liberalism. Marxism was not true socialism because it was materialistic and based on class conflict, which stood in contrast with the Prussian ethics of the state. Also in contrast to Prussian socialism was liberalism and capitalism, which negated the idea of duty, practiced a “piracy principle,” and created the rule of money.[5]

Oswald Spengler’s theories of predictable culture cycles, of the separation between Kultur and Zivilisation, of the Western High Culture as being in a state of decline, and of a non-Marxist form of socialism, have all received a great deal of attention in early 20th century Germany, and there is no doubt that they had influenced Right-wing thought at the time. However, it is often forgotten just how divergent the views of many Revolutionary Conservatives were from Spengler’s, even if they did study and draw from his theories, just as an overemphasis on Spenglerian theory in the Conservative Revolution has led many scholars to overlook the variety of other important influences on the German Right. Ironically, those who were influenced the most by Spengler – not only the German Revolutionary Conservatives, but also later the Traditionalists and the New Rightists – have mixed appreciation with critique. It is this reality which needs to be emphasized: the majority of Conservative intellectuals who have appreciated Spengler have simultaneously delivered the very significant message that Spengler’s philosophy needs to be viewed critically, and that as a whole it is not acceptable.

The most important critique of Spengler among the Revolutionary Conservative intellectuals was that made by Arthur Moeller van den Bruck.[6] Moeller agreed with certain basic ideas in Spengler’s work, including the division between Kultur and Zivilisation, with the idea of the decline of the Western Culture, and with his concept of socialism, which Moeller had already expressed in an earlier and somewhat different form in Der Preussische Stil (“The Prussian Style,” 1916).[7] However, Moeller resolutely rejected Spengler’s deterministic and fatalistic view of history, as well as the notion of destined culture cycles. Moeller asserted that history was essentially unpredictable and unfixed: “There is always a beginning. . . . History is the story of that which is not calculated.”[8] Furthermore, he argued that history should not be seen as a “circle” (in Spengler’s manner) but rather a “spiral,” and a nation in decline could actually reverse its decline if certain psychological changes and events could take place within it.[9]

The most radical contradiction with Spengler made by Moeller van den Bruck was the rejection of Spengler’s cultural morphology, since Moeller believed that Germany could not even be classified as part of the “West,” but rather that it represented a distinct culture in its own right, one which even had more in common in spirit with Russia than with the “West,” and which was destined to rise while France and England fell.[10] However, we must note here that the notion that Germany is non-Western was not unique to Moeller, for Werner Sombart, Edgar Julius Jung, and Othmar Spann have all argued that Germans belonged to a very different cultural type from that of the Western nations, especially from the culture of the Anglo-Saxon world. For these authors, Germany represented a culture which was more oriented towards community, spirituality, and heroism, while the modern “West” was more oriented towards individualism, materialism, and capitalistic ethics. They further argued that any presence of Western characteristics in modern Germany was due to a recent poisoning of German culture by the West which the German people had a duty to overcome through sociocultural revolution.[11]

Another key intellectual of the German Conservative Revolution, Hans Freyer, also presented a critical analysis of Spenglerian philosophy.[12] Due to his view that that there is no certain and determined progress in history, Freyer agreed with Spengler’s rejection of the linear view of progress. Freyer’s philosophy of culture also emphasized cultural particularism and the disparity between peoples and cultures, which was why he agreed with Spengler in terms of the basic conception of cultures possessing a vital center and with the idea of each culture marking a particular kind of human being. Being a proponent of a community-oriented state socialism, Freyer found Spengler’s anti-individualist “Prussian socialism” to be agreeable. Throughout his works, Freyer had also discussed many of the same themes as Spengler – including the integrative function of war, hierarchies in society, the challenges of technological developments, cultural form and unity – but in a distinct manner oriented towards social theory.[13]

However, Freyer argued that the idea of historical (cultural) types and that cultures were the product of an essence which grew over time were already expressed in different forms long before Spengler in the works of Karl Lamprecht, Wilhelm Dilthey, and Hegel. It is also noteworthy that Freyer’s own sociology of cultural categories differed from Spengler’s morphology. In his earlier works, Freyer focused primarily on the nature of the cultures of particular peoples (Völker) rather than the broad High Cultures, whereas in his later works he stressed the interrelatedness of all the various European cultures across the millennia. Rejecting Spengler’s notion of cultures as being incommensurable, Freyer’s “history regarded modern Europe as composed of ‘layers’ of culture from the past, and Freyer was at pains to show that major historical cultures had grown by drawing upon the legacy of past cultures.”[14] Finally, rejecting Spengler’s historical determinism, Freyer had “warned his readers not to be ensnared by the powerful organic metaphors of the book [Der Untergang des Abendlandes] . . . The demands of the present and of the future could not be ‘deduced’ from insights into the patterns of culture . . . but were ultimately based on ‘the wager of action’ (das Wagnis der Tat).”[15]

Yet another important Conservative critique of Spengler was made by the Italian Perennial Traditionalist philosopher Julius Evola, who was himself influenced by the Conservative Revolution but developed a very distinct line of thought. In his The Path of Cinnabar, Evola showed appreciation for Spengler’s philosophy, particularly in regards to the criticism of the modern rationalist and mechanized Zivilisation of the “West” and with the complete rejection of the idea of progress.[16] Some scholars, such as H. T. Hansen, stress the influence of Spengler’s thought on Evola’s thought, but it is important to remember that Evola’s cultural views differed significantly from Spengler’s due to Evola’s focus on what he viewed as the shifting role of a metaphysical Perennial Tradition across history as opposed to historically determined cultures.[17]

In his critique, Evola pointed out that one of the major flaws in Spengler’s thought was that he “lacked any understanding of metaphysics and transcendence, which embody the essence of each genuine Kultur.”[18] Spengler could analyze the nature of Zivilisation very well, but his irreligious views caused him to have little understanding of the higher spiritual forces which deeply affected human life and the nature of cultures, without which one cannot clearly grasp the defining characteristic of Kultur. As Robert Steuckers has pointed out, Evola also found Spengler’s analysis of Classical and Eastern cultures to be very flawed, particularly as a result of the “irrationalist” philosophical influences on Spengler: “Evola thinks this vitalism leads Spengler to say ‘things that make one blush’ about Buddhism, Taoism, Stoicism, and Greco-Roman civilization (which, for Spengler, is merely a civilization of ‘corporeity’).”[19] Also problematic for Evola was “Spengler’s valorization of ‘Faustian man,’ a figure born in the Age of Discovery, the Renaissance, and humanism; by this temporal determination, Faustian man is carried towards horizontality rather than towards verticality.”[20]

Finally, we must make a note of the more recent reception of Spenglerian philosophy in the European New Right and Identitarianism: Oswald Spengler’s works have been studied and critiqued by nearly all major New Right and Identitarian intellectuals, including especially Alain de Benoist, Dominique Venner, Pierre Krebs, Guillaume Faye, Julien Freund, and Tomislav Sunic. The New Right view of Spenglerian theory is unique, but is also very much reminiscent of Revolutionary Conservative critiques of Moeller van den Bruck and Hans Freyer. Like Spengler and many other thinkers, New Right intellectuals also critique the “ideology of progress,” although it is significant that, unlike Spengler, they do not do this to accept a notion of rigid cycles in history nor to reject the existence of any progress. Rather, the New Right critique aims to repudiate the unbalanced notion of linear and inevitable progress which depreciates all past culture in favor of the present, while still recognizing that some positive progress does exist, which it advocates reconciling with traditional culture to achieve a more balanced cultural order.[21] Furthermore, addressing Spengler’s historical determinism, Alain de Benoist has written that “from Eduard Spranger to Theodor W. Adorno, the principal reproach directed at Spengler evidently refers to his ‘fatalism’ and to his ‘determinism.’ The question is to know up to what point man is prisoner of his own history. Up to what point can one no longer change his course?”[22]

Like their Revolutionary Conservative precursors, New Rightists reject any fatalist and determinist notion of history, and do not believe that any people is doomed to inevitable decline; “Decadence is therefore not an inescapable phenomenon, as Spengler wrongly thought,” wrote Pierre Krebs, echoing the thoughts of other authors.[23] While the New Rightists accept Spengler’s idea of Western decline, they have posed Europe and the West as two antagonistic entities. According to this new cultural philosophy, the genuine European culture is represented by numerous traditions rooted in the most ancient European cultures, and must be posed as incompatible with the modern “West,” which is the cultural emanation of early modern liberalism, egalitarianism, and individualism.

The New Right may agree with Spengler that the “West” is undergoing decline, “but this original pessimism does not overshadow the purpose of the New Right: The West has encountered the ultimate phase of decadence, consequently we must definitively break with the Western civilization and recover the memory of a Europe liberated from the egalitarianisms . . .”[24] Thus, from the Identitarian perspective, the “West” is identified as a globalist and universalist entity which had harmed the identities of European and non-European peoples alike. In the same way that Revolutionary Conservatives had called for Germans to assert the rights and identity of their people in their time period, New Rightists call for the overcoming of the liberal, cosmopolitan Western Civilization to reassert the more profound cultural and spiritual identity of Europeans, based on the “regeneration of history” and a reference to their multi-form and multi-millennial heritage.

Notes

[1] An example of such an assertion regarding cultural pessimism can be seen in “Part III. Three Major Expressions of Neo-Conservatism” in Klemens von Klemperer, Germany’s New Conservatism: Its History and Dilemma in the Twentieth Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1968).

[2] To supplement our short summary of Spenglerian philosophy, we would like to note that one the best overviews of Spengler’s philosophy in English is Stephen M. Borthwick, “Historian of the Future: An Introduction to Oswald Spengler’s Life and Works for the Curious Passer-by and the Interested Student,” Institute for Oswald Spengler Studies, 2011, <https://sites.google.com/site/spenglerinstitute/Biography>.

[3] Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West Vol. 1: Form and Actuality (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1926), p. 106.

[4] Ibid.

[5] See “Prussianism and Socialism” in Oswald Spengler, Selected Essays (Chicago: Regnery, 1967).

[6] For a good overview of Moeller’s thought, see Lucian Tudor, “Arthur Moeller van den Bruck: The Man & His Thought,” Counter-Currents Publishing, 17 August 2012, <http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/08/arthur-moeller-van-den-bruck-the-man-and-his-thought/>.

[7] See Fritz Stern, The Politics of Cultural Despair (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974), pp. 238-239, and Alain de Benoist, “Arthur Moeller van den Bruck,”Elementos: Revista de Metapolítica para una Civilización Europea No. 15 (11 June 2011), p. 30, 40-42. <http://issuu.com/sebastianjlorenz/docs/elementos_n__15>.

[8] Arthur Moeller van den Bruck as quoted in Benoist, “Arthur Moeller van den Bruck,” p. 41.

[9] Ibid., p. 41.

[10] Ibid., pp. 41-43.

[11] See Fritz K. Ringer, The Decline of the German Mandarins: The German Academic Community, 1890–1933 (Hanover: University Press of New England, 1990), pp. 183 ff.; John J. Haag, Othmar Spann and the Politics of “Totality”: Corporatism in Theory and Practice (Ph.D. Thesis, Rice University, 1969), pp. 24-26, 78, 111.; Alexander Jacob’s introduction and “Part I: The Intellectual Foundations of Politics” in Edgar Julius Jung,The Rule of the Inferiour, Vol. 1 (Lewiston, New York: Edwin Mellon Press, 1995).

[12] For a brief introduction to Freyer’s philosophy, see Lucian Tudor, “Hans Freyer: The Quest for Collective Meaning,” Counter-Currents Publishing, 22 February 2013, <http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/02/hans-freyer-the-quest-for-collective-meaning/>.

[13] See Jerry Z. Muller, The Other God That Failed: Hans Freyer and the Deradicalization of German Conservatism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987), pp. 78-79, 120-121.

[14] Ibid., p. 335.

[15] Ibid., p. 79.

[16] See Julius Evola, The Path of Cinnabar (London: Integral Tradition Publishing, 2009), pp. 203-204.

[17] See H. T. Hansen, “Julius Evola’s Political Endeavors,” in Julius Evola, Men Among the Ruins: Postwar Reflections of a Radical Traditionalist (Rochester: Inner Traditions, 2002), pp. 15-17.

[18] Evola, Path of Cinnabar, p. 204.

[19] Robert Steuckers, “Evola & Spengler,” Counter-Currents Publishing, 20 September 2010, <http://www.counter-currents.com/2010/09/evola-spengler/> .

[20] Ibid.

[21] In a description that applies as much to the New Right as to the Eurasianists, Alexander Dugin wrote of a vision in which “the formal opposition between tradition and modernity is removed . . . the realities superseded by the period of Enlightenment obtain a legitimate place – these are religion, ethnos, empire, cult, legend, etc. In the same time, a technological breakthrough, economical development, social fairness, labour liberation, etc. are taken from the Modern” (See Alexander Dugin, “Multipolarism as an Open Project,” Journal of Eurasian Affairs Vol. 1, No. 1 (September 2013), pp. 12-13).

[22] Alain de Benoist, “Oswald Spengler,” Elementos: Revista de Metapolítica para una Civilización Europea No. 10 (15 April 2011), p. 13.<http://issuu.com/sebastianjlorenz/docs/elementos_n__10>.

[23] Pierre Krebs, Fighting for the Essence (London: Arktos, 2012), p. 34.

[24] Sebastian J. Lorenz, “El Decadentismo Occidental, desde la Konservative Revolution a la Nouvelle Droite,” Elementos No. 10, p. 5.

Source: http://www.motpol.nu/english/2014/11/07/the-revolutionary-conservative-critique-of-oswald-spengler/

 

]]>
http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/the-revolutionary-conservative-critique-of-oswald-spengler/feed/ 0