#Armin mohler

[castilestateofmind]

"The entire world is becoming torrentially conservative, out of self-protection, to protect its heritage, from a duty to capture once again the elements that have been shaken together, each in a different way, us ourselves - in the most difficult of all: the re-overthrow of the overthrow, the negated and negating negation, the revolution against the revolution".

- Rudolf Borchardt.

[jgmail]

Quien domina la cultura siempre acabará dominando el Estado

Por Alain de Benoist

Traducción de Juan Gabriel Caro Rivera

La siguiente entrevista fue publicada por primera vez el 27 de junio en el blog del escritor turco Eren Yesilyurt.

Alain de Benoist es un escritor y pensador francés considerado como uno de los principales representantes del movimiento europeo conocido como la Nueva Derecha. De Benoist ha escrito muchas obras importantes, especialmente sobre la identidad, la cultura y el nacionalismo. Le he preguntado sobre la Revolución Conservadora, el gramscismo de derechas, las elecciones francesas y muchos otros temas. Esta es la primera entrevista que se ha hecho a de Benoist en Turquía.

¿Qué piensa del concepto de “Revolución Conservadora”? ¿Qué significado tiene hoy el concepto de Revolución Conservadora? Usted es considerado como un intelectual francés que muestra un considerable interés por los intelectuales alemanes del siglo pasado, especialmente por Friedrich Nietzsche, Carl Schmitt y Ernst Jünger. Empecemos por su interés por la Revolución Conservadora y los intelectuales conservadores revolucionarios.

La expresión “Revolución Conservadora” suena como una especie de oxímoron, una contradicción en los términos. Pero no es asó. Cuando uno desea hacer cambios radicales con tal de preservar ciertos elementos obviamente te conviertes automáticamente en un revolucionario. Si pensamos, por ejemplo, que para preservar los diferentes ecosistemas tenemos que acabar con el sistema capitalista, principal responsable de la contaminación y los daños ecológicos, entonces se hace manifiesto la magnitud de los cambios que debemos hacer. Muchos autores (y no sólo en Alemania) han sido clasificados como revolucionarios conservadores, empezando por Hegel, Walter Benjamin y Gustav Landauer.

También hay que recordar que lo que ahora llamamos Revolución Conservadora (RC) en Alemania nunca fue un término que usaran estos autores para autodescribirse. Ese término fue acuñado por el ensayista suizo-alemán Armin Mohler en una conocida tesis publicada en 1951 para designar a varios centenares de autores y teóricos que, bajo la República de Weimar, no pertenecían ni a la derecha tradicional o al nacionalsocialismo. Mohler distinguió varias corrientes diferentes dentro de la RC, siendo las principales los Jóvenes Conservadores, los Nacionalrevolucionarios y los representantes del movimiento Völkisch.

Usted busca crear una revolución cultural de derechas en contra de la hegemonía cultural de las izquierdas. Es conocido su interés por intelectuales de derecha como Schmitt y Jünger, así como por intelectuales marxistas como Antonio Gramsci. Usted incluso se describe como un “gramscianista de derechas”. ¿Qué han aprendido los intelectuales de derechas de Gramsci? ¿Por qué es tan importante la hegemonía cultural? Y tomando en cuenta lo anterior, ¿qué significa el concepto de “metapolítica”, un concepto muy utilizado por usted?

Antonio Gramsci, uno de los líderes del Partido Comunista Italiano, fue el primero en plantear la tesis de que ninguna revolución política es posible a menos que la mente de las personas haya sido imbuida por ciertos valores, temas y “mitos” transmitidos por los partidarios de esa revolución. En otras palabras, sostuvo que la revolución cultural era la condición sine qua non de cualquier revolución política y asignó esta tarea a lo que él llamó los “intelectuales orgánicos”. El ejemplo clásico de este problema sería la Revolución Francesa de 1789, que probablemente no habría sido posible si las élites de esa época no hubieran simpatizado con las ideas difundidas por la filosofía de la Ilustración. Del mismo modo, podría decirse que Lenin fue posible primero gracias a Marx.

El concepto de “metapolítica”, a menudo muy mal entendida, se refiere sobre todo al trabajo de los “intelectuales orgánicos”. La metapolítica es lo que está más allá de la política cotidiana: por lo que en ciertos momentos es más importante dedicarse al trabajo de las ideas, a un esfuerzo cultural y teórico, que embarcarse en empresas políticas prematuras condenadas al fracaso.

El “gramscismo” no hace referencia necesariamente a una familia particular de pensamiento. Ser conscientes de que la cultura no es algo secundario frente a la acción política es una idea importante para cualquier círculo. En este sentido he podido hablar de “gramscismo de derechas”.

Añadiría que, a finales de la década de 1970, me di cuenta de que el mundo estaba en un proceso de cambio y que los conceptos y teorías de los años anteriores se estaban quedando cada vez más obsoletos como consecuencia de ello. El gran ciclo de la Modernidad parecía estar llegando a su fin, mientras que el mundo venidero era aún demasiado incierto. Llegué a la conclusión de que había que empezar de cero y construir una doctrina intelectual sin preocuparse por la procedencia de sus ideas. Para mí no existen ideas de derechas e ideas de izquierdas, sino ideas correctas e ideas erróneas.

Mayo de 1968 fue sin duda un punto de inflexión, pero tampoco debemos sobrevalorarlo. Ante todo, debemos darnos cuenta de que en mayo del 68 surgieron dos corrientes que estuvieron relacionadas la una con la otra, pero que en realidad eran muy ajenas entre sí. Por un lado, había revolucionarios sinceros que querían romper con la sociedad del espectáculo, teorizada por Guy Debord y más tarde por Jean Baudrillard, y poner fin a la lógica del beneficio; y por otro, liberales-libertarios que querían fundar “una playa sobre la cual ver guijarros” y que obedecía a una realidad puramente hedonista. Los representantes de esta tendencia se dieron cuenta rápidamente de que el sistema capitalista y la ideología de los derechos humanos eran los principios más indicados para permitirles alcanzar la libertad ilimitada y la “revolución del deseo” que tanto buscaban.

Desde este punto de vista, yo no diría que seguimos viviendo en una hegemonía cultural creada por mayo del 68, sino que, más bien, estamos viviendo el reinado de una ideología dominante basada en una antropología de tipo liberal, a la que se han adherido muchos de los antiguos actores de mayo del 68. La hegemonía innegable de esta ideología dominante, cuyos dos vectores principales son la ideología del progreso y la ideología de los derechos humanos, no tiene nada de inevitable. En cuanto al argumento que cita (“los derechistas dirigen el Estado, pero nosotros dirigimos la cultura”), me parece extremadamente hipócrita, que es precisamente lo que Gramsci nos ayudó a comprender: quien domina la cultura siempre acaba dominando el Estado. La prueba es que quienes hoy dirigen el Estado están cada vez más influidos y manipulados por la ideología dominante que reina también en los medios de comunicación y en los círculos editoriales del sector cultural. Como vio claramente Marx, esta ideología dominante también está siempre al servicio de la clase dominante.

Con el inicio de la globalización parece que la distinción entre derecha e izquierda ya no es tan fuerte como antes y que resulta insuficiente para definir los conflictos actuales que se libran en la arena política. ¿Cómo podemos caracterizar las tensiones políticas del siglo XXI? ¿En base a qué contradicciones fundamentales divergen los países y el mundo? En su opinión, ¿siguen siendo válidas las distinciones entre izquierda y derecha? ¿Se ha convertido hoy la política esencialmente en una guerra cultural?

Lo que se denomina “populismo”, a menudo de forma puramente polémica, es uno de los fenómenos más característicos de la recomposición política que ya he mencionado. También habría que hablar de la aparición de “democracias iliberales”. Pero no hay que equivocarse: No existe una ideología populista, ya que el populismo es ante todo un estilo y este estilo puede estar al servicio de sistemas y doctrinas muy diferentes. Lo que mejor caracteriza al populismo es la clara distinción que hace entre democracia y liberalismo. En un momento en que las democracias liberales están todas más o menos en crisis, es hora de reconocer que existe una incompatibilidad fundamental entre liberalismo y democracia. La democracia se basa en la soberanía popular y en la distinción entre ciudadanos y no ciudadanos. El liberalismo analiza las sociedades desde la perspectiva del individualismo metodológico, es decir, piensa todo como una agregación de individuos. Desde el punto de vista liberal, los pueblos, las naciones y las culturas no existen como tales (“la sociedad no existe”, como dijo Margaret Thatcher). El liberalismo espera que el Estado garantice los derechos individuales sin percibir la dimensión colectiva de las libertades. También condiciona el ejercicio de la democracia rechazando cualquier decisión democrática que contradiga la ideología de los derechos humanos.

La asimilación del populismo a la “extrema derecha” (concepto que aún necesita de una definición precisa) no resulta para nada serio. Cuando se tildan de “extremistas” las reivindicaciones de una mayoría de ciudadanos, en última instancia se legitima el extremismo. Al hacerlo, terminamos por ser incapaces de cuestionar las causas profundas del auge del populismo.

Todavía es demasiado pronto para hacer un balance de los regímenes populistas que han surgido en los últimos años. A algunos les va muy bien. Otros han empezado a decepcionar a su electorado transigiendo con el sistema, como vemos actualmente en Italia (aunque el Gobierno de Giorgia Meloni es simplemente conservadurismo liberal que verdadero populismo). Pero carecemos de la perspectiva necesaria para emitir un juicio global.

Aún no se ha producido el fin de la hegemonía liberal y “occidentalista”, pero nos estamos acercando rápidamente a ello. Lo que ocurra en Francia, Alemania, España e Italia en los próximos diez o quince años será sin duda decisivo. Ya está claro que hemos entrado en un periodo de interregno, es decir, en un periodo de transición. La característica de los periodos de transición es que todas las instituciones experimentan una crisis generalizada. La brecha que se ha ensanchado entre la “clase alta” y las clases populares, asociada a una clase media en declive; la miseria social debida a la inseguridad política, económica y cultural de la mayoría; las amenazas que plantea la generalización de la precariedad y el agravamiento de la inseguridad, todo ello no hace sino agravar la crisis.

Pronto se celebrarán las elecciones al Parlamento Europeo. Todos los sondeos predicen que, en muchos países, incluida Francia, las elecciones darán la victoria a movimientos que durante mucho tiempo han sido etiquetados y demonizados como de “extrema derecha” por los actores políticos dominantes. ¿Qué puede decirnos del destino del populismo en la arena política? ¿Seguirán estos movimientos una línea de compromiso y se integrarán en el sistema, como en el caso de Italia, o estamos ante el principio del fin del orden de Maastricht y de la hegemonía liberal?

Es probable que la decisión de Emmanuel Macron de disolver la Asamblea Nacional tras las elecciones europeas, marcadas por el espectacular ascenso de la Agrupación Nacional (más del 30% de los votos) y el hundimiento de la antigua “mayoría presidencial” (15% de los votos o el 8% de los votantes registrados) acelere aún más la recomposición política. Mientras escribo, nos acercamos a las elecciones legislativas que tal disolución ha hecho inevitables. Creo que todo ello confirmará las tendencias reveladas por las elecciones europeas, a pesar de las diferencias entre los dos sistemas de votación, pero no podemos saber de antemano en qué medida. Lo que es seguro es que entramos en un periodo de gran inestabilidad. Son posibles los escenarios más diversos. Oswald Spengler usaba la expresión “años decisivos”.

[crazy-so-na-sega]

finché le persone sono radicate in qualcosa di individuale e speciale, non possono essere manipolate.

-Armin Mohler

[aurevoirmonty]

Nous prenons congé. En ravalant notre salive et en nous raclant la gorge face aux horribles chiens qui nous fixent, nous quittons le jardin négligé, et les propos de Céline nous repassent dans le crâne, notamment quand j'avais utilisé l'expression " Les Français ". " Les Français ? ", avait-il dit en riant de sa voix cassée, " mais ils n'existent plus ! Je suis le dernier Français. "

Armin Mohler

[korrektheiten]

Buchrezension: Buchrezension Was ist rechts und wie viele?

Die JF schreibt: »In seinem neuen Buch legt der Jurist Klaus Kunze Grundstrukturen eines modernen rechten Weltbildes frei. Läßt sich die Traditionslinie von antiken Denkern bis hin zu Armin Mohler ziehen? Dieser Beitrag Buchrezension Was ist rechts und wie viele? wurde veröffentlich auf JUNGE FREIHEIT. http://dlvr.it/TFDSlf «

[patoanacoreta]

Carl Schmitt y el concepto de lo político

Alain de Benoist

El siguiente texto ha sido tomado del libro de Alain de Benoist, Visto desde la Derecha, Volumen II: Sistemas y Debates.

Carl Schmitt (1) es uno de los autores y teóricos de la derecha alemana cuyas simpatías hacia el nacionalsocialismo fueron, como mínimo, sutiles. En su obra ya clásica Die konservative Revolution in Deutschland, 1918-32 (Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt, 1974), la cual dedicó a las diversas corrientes nacionalistas alemanas del periodo de entreguerras, el doctor Armin Mohler (2) menciona a Schmitt como una de las principales figuras de la “revolución conservadora”, junto a otros cinco “exiliados”: Ernst Jünger y su hermano Friedrich Georg, Hans Blüher, Oswald Spengler y Thomas Mann. Con su amplia frente, labios finos y arrugas alrededor de los ojos, Carl Schmitt, de ochenta y nueve años, es imposible de categorizar, Este hombre de Westfalia es natural de la región de Tréveris y tiene algunos parientes en la zona de Lorena. Fue discípulo del sociólogo Max Weber y enseñó en la universidad en Greifswald, Bonn y Berlín. Además, participó en la vida política de los años treinta. En 1936, criticado por ciertas facciones del movimiento nacionalsocialista, dejó por completo cualquier actividad que no fuera profesoral. En 1945, algunos universitarios ideologizados lo usaron como chivo expiatorio y fue detenido por los aliados. Sin embargo, su caso fue desestimado. Ahora lleva una vida normal retirado en su ciudad natal de Plettenberg y sigue publicando libros.

Sus primeras obras fueron de carácter jurídico. Sin embargo, a partir de 1918-1920 se dio a conocer como especialista en el pensamiento político. Al igual que Max Weber, Schmitt se oponía abiertamente a la República de Weimar y criticaba duramente el Tratado de Versalles. Traducido al francés cuarenta años después de su primera publicación, Der Begriff des Politischen (El concepto de lo político) es un texto que data precisamente de esta época. Poco después de su publicación en 1927, se vio envuelto en intensas polémicas con personalidades tan notables como Leo Strauss, Martin Buber y Karl Löwith, y desde entonces sigue siendo una de las obras fundamentales de la ciencia política alemana. Schmitt reprocha a la Constitución de Weimar ser “casi demasiado perfecta jurídicamente y, al mismo tiempo, demasiado magnífica como para seguir haciendo política”. Esta crítica resume la esencia de su argumentación, una argumentación que se basa en la distinción entre el concepto de “estatal” y de “política”. Los dos conceptos habían sido, durante mucho tiempo, indistinguibles: “Hubo, en efecto, una época en la que la identificación de los conceptos de ‘estatal’ y ‘político’ se justificaba”, razón por la cual el análisis del fenómeno político se redujo mayoritariamente a una teoría general del Estado (la allgemeine Staatstheorie). Sin embargo, Schmitt dice que “el concepto de Estado presupone un concepto de lo político”, pues lo político no es una mera consecuencia del Estado. Su existencia, de hecho, precede a la de este último. Puesto que el hombre lleva una vida social, toda sociedad se caracteriza necesariamente por una organización política. En cuanto al Estado en sí, no es más que uno de los medios para lograr dicha organización. El Estado no es, pues, una necesidad histórica intemporal, sino un “medio de existencia” concreto (un Estado). De hecho, la actividad política podría tener lugar fuera del marco estatal y, del mismo modo, la política podría seguir existiendo incluso si el Estado desapareciera.

El error de la “despolitización” y sus consecuencias

El Sr. Julien Freund (3), profesor de la Universidad de Estrasburgo y autor de un libro titulado L'essence du politique (4) (Sirey, 1965), explica en el prefacio que escribió para la traducción al francés del libro de Carl Schmitt cómo el Estado puede dejar de ser político: “Es imposible expresar una voluntad auténticamente política si, de antemano, se ha renunciado al uso de los medios políticos normales, a saber, el poder, la coacción y, en casos excepcionales, la violencia. Actuar políticamente es ejercer la autoridad y manifestar el poder. De lo contrario, se corre el riesgo de ser destituido por un poder rival que pretenda, por el contrario, actuar de manera plenamente política. En otras palabras, toda forma de política implica poder y constituye uno de los imperativos de este último. En consecuencia, el hecho de excluir de entrada el ejercicio del poder reduciendo, por ejemplo, el gobierno a un mero lugar de reunión o un órgano de arbitraje que refleje la función de un tribunal civil es sinónimo de actuar contra la ley misma de la política. La propia lógica del poder exige que sea poderoso y no impotente. Y puesto que la política necesita esencialmente el poder, toda política que renuncie a éste por debilidad o legalismo deja de ser verdaderamente política: ya no cumple su función normal, al haberse vuelto incapaz de proteger a los miembros de la colectividad que le ha sido confiada. No se trata, pues, de que un país determinado tenga una Constitución jurídicamente impecable, ni de que busque una forma ideal de democracia, sino de dotarse de un régimen capaz de responder a dificultades concretas y de mantener el orden, generando al mismo tiempo un consenso que siga siendo favorable a todas las innovaciones con potencial para resolver los conflictos que inevitablemente afloran en toda sociedad”. Este planteamiento equivale a distinguir la autoridad política de la sustancia política. La decadencia del Estado liberal durante el siglo XIX y el auge de la tecnocracia y de la “política de gestión” han acelerado este proceso. Cuando el Estado deje de ser político, su autoridad desaparece. Sin embargo, su sustancia perdurará.

Así pues, esta sustancia seguirá operando carente de todo apoyo institucional, convirtiéndose en presa y objeto de grupos de presión ideológicos competidores que sustituyen al Estado en la toma de decisiones verdaderamente políticas, intentando hacerse con el control de los medios estatales para aplicar estas decisiones e imponiendo sus propias organizaciones. De este modo, los ámbitos hasta entonces considerados neutrales (religión, cultura, arte, educación, economía) “pierden su neutralidad en la medida en que esta palabra es sinónimo de ausencia de vínculos tanto con el Estado como con la política”. Son estos ámbitos metapolíticos los que encarnan posteriormente el ámbito ideal de la acción política. Y es este desplazamiento del campo de actuación política el que desencadena la ilusión de la “despolitización”. Tal es, en efecto, la situación que caracteriza nuestra época, una época en la que el Estado se marchita progresivamente (sobre todo bajo la influencia de las ideas estadunidenses sobre  la gobernanza) de acuerdo a la creencia según la cual la economía ha “sustituido” a lo político, lo cual sólo ha llevado a que el control y el ejercicio de la auténtica función política caigan en manos de poderes no estatales (ya que la política se considera subordinada a la economía, al igual que ésta al ámbito social, lo que da lugar a una inversión completa del orden tradicional que define estas tres funciones). Aunque sería tentador definir la política a través de su sustancia, significaría caer en el planteamiento erróneo de Aristóteles, al intentar delinear su “esencia” metafísica. El propósito de Schmitt es a la vez más modesto y más ambicioso. Se trata, escribe Freund, de “determinar el criterium, es decir, el signo, que nos permite reconocer si una cuestión es de naturaleza política o no, permitiéndonos así discernir lo que es puramente político, independientemente de cualquier otra conexión”.

Amigo y enemigo

Esta idea es fundamental, es un criterio de identificación relativo de toda dinámica estrictamente política, reside, según Schmitt, en la aptitud de cada uno para distinguir el amigo del enemigo (Freund-Feind Theorie). En el ámbito político, esta distinción es tan fundamental como la que existe entre lo bello y lo feo en la estética, el bien y el mal en el ámbito moral, etcétera. Freund escribe: “En definitiva, todo criterio político descansa sobre la posibilidad de que cualquier oposición evolucione hacia un conflicto extremo en el que los enemigos se enfrenten entre sí”. La decisión política arquetípica es, pues, la de designar al “enemigo público” (hostis, es decir, alguien que, por razones ajenas a la moral o a la legalidad, actúa como enemigo de todos, que no puede ser confundido con el enemigo privado, inimicus). La verdadera autoridad política es la que posee los medios para atacar a este enemigo o defenderse de él. Que el enemigo sea amenazador o no tiene poca importancia. “En términos de definición, basta con que sea alguien caracterizado por una alteridad y una extranjería particularmente pronunciadas que, definiendo su propia existencia, conduzcan a conflictos potenciales con él perfectamente concebibles en el peor de los casos, conflictos que no podrían resolverse ni mediante un conjunto de normas generales preestablecidas ni mediante el juicio pronunciado por cualquier tercero que se reconozca como ajeno e imparcial”. La idea de Clausewitz (5), según la cual “la guerra no es más que la prolongación de la política por medios diferentes”, tal y como lo afirma en Von Kriege (6), es invertida. “Un mundo en el que la contingencia de la lucha genuina ha sido completamente eliminada y prohibida, un planeta que ha sido pacificado de una vez por todas, sería un mundo desprovisto de toda diferenciación entre amigo y enemigo y, por lo tanto, un mundo sin política”. Sería un mundo cuyas apreciaciones ya no tendrían ningún valor ni significado, un mundo incapaz de seguir evolucionando, carente de tensiones creativas y condenado a repetirse indefinidamente y a “rumiar” el mismo momento una y otra vez. Un mundo así estaría vaciado de toda historia.

La inquietante perspectiva del “fin de la historia” alimentó a la generación alemana de 1914-1918, la misma que se preguntó por su propia posición en el universo al tiempo que leía las obras de Spengler y Rathenau (7). Su angustia ante el triunfo de la cuantificación tecnológica desprovista de toda alma que “se alimentaba de un oscuro sentimiento derivado de la propia lógica del proceso de neutralización”, como decía Carl Schmitt, está en el centro de sus reflexiones. En 1927, sin embargo, Schmitt expresó su convicción de que este proceso se acercaba a su fin, precisamente porque finalmente consiguió alcanzar a la tecnología, declarando: “Sólo de manera provisional se puede considerar que este siglo ha sido el de la tecnología, de acuerdo con el estado de ánimo que lo impregna. El juicio final sólo se emitirá cuando se haya determinado qué tipo de política es lo suficientemente poderosa como para doblegar el mundo moderno a su voluntad y qué agrupación real de amigos y enemigos ha tenido lugar en este nuevo dominio”.

Hemos llegado a una época caracterizada por su total ignorancia de las distinciones clásicas entre guerra, paz y neutralidad, entre política y economía, entre lo militar y lo civil, combatientes y no combatientes; la única excepción reside en la diferencia entre amigo y enemigo, cuya lógica preside su nacimiento y determina su propia naturaleza. Las consecuencias son temibles. La propia noción en torno a la existencia de “organismos internacionales” cuya autoridad sobrepasa la soberanía de los Estados y que se encargan de “interpretar la ley” implica que es necesario “demostrar” a todo el mundo que el enemigo es quien está totalmente equivocado. En el marco de esta perspectiva universalista, el adversario debe ser declarado proscrito, es decir, literalmente convertirse en un ser inhumano. Por lo tanto, ya no se le puede respetar mientras se lucha contra él, sino que sólo se le puede odiar, porque se ha convertido en la encarnación del mal. El poder ilimitado de los diversos medios de destrucción se refleja en la devaluación total del enemigo, cuyo exterminio está “justificado” una vez que se ha establecido su absoluta inutilidad. Por la misma razón, las diferencias fundamentales entre la guerra y la paz y entre los ámbitos civil y militar ya no se aplican. Todas las guerras son de carácter global y pueden emprenderse en cualquier momento. Y a medida que lo político se ve invadido por lo moral, llega la hora del partisano.

La teoría del partisano

En su Teoría del partisano, una conferencia pronunciada en España en 1962, Schmitt demostró que la aparición del “combatiente revolucionario” se corresponde perfectamente con lo que él mismo había predicho. En efecto, un partisano no se caracteriza únicamente por los métodos que elige utilizar, también encarna la función política que las instituciones regulares ya no desempeñan, participando en el combate y alineándose con una determinada política, aspecto político de su acción que pone de relieve el significado original del término “partisano”. Mientras que los soldados luchan porque su deber es hacer la guerra (independientemente de sus convicciones personales), los partisanos luchan porque creen que su lucha está justificada. La conciencia revolucionaria de un partisano se expresa a través de la “requisición total”. El Che Guevara (8) dijo una vez que “el partisano es el jesuita de la guerra”.

Otro rasgo específico que caracteriza nuestra época reside en el hecho de que el Estado, que dispone de todos los medios de poder necesarios, ya no es una auténtica autoridad política, mientras que el partisano, que actúa como encarnación de la sustancia política, trata de apropiarse de los medios de los que carece a través de sus propias acciones. El impacto que ha tenido Carl Schmitt durante este medio siglo ha sido considerable. Ha sido fuente de inspiración para muchos derechistas (como Armin Mohler), izquierdistas (como Kirchheimer) e incluso para el maoísta Schickel. Sin embargo, este hecho no lo ha exento de críticas. El Sr. Maurice Duverger (9) que, al menos en opinión del Sr. Freund, probablemente nunca ha leído ninguna obra de Schmitt, ha optado por tratarlo con desdén. Otros le han reprochado que dé prioridad al enemigo sobre los amigos (o “camaradas”), acusación a la que Schmitt respondió de la siguiente manera: “Esta objeción ignora el hecho de que, como resultado de la necesidad dialéctica, el desarrollo de cualquier concepto jurídico se deriva de su negación. La raíz tanto de la acción penal como del derecho penal no está en los hechos, sino en las fechorías. Y, sin embargo, ¿hablaría alguien alguna vez de una concepción positiva de tales fechorías, o de la primacía del delito?” Como todo el mundo sabe, el principio más importante de una actitud “maquiavélica” es negar a Maquiavelo. Carl Schmitt hace la siguiente observación razonable, incluyéndola como nota a pie de página en su libro: “Si Maquiavelo hubiera sido realmente maquiavélico, en lugar de su Príncipe habría escrito una obra literaria instructiva, anti-maquiavélica”.

Referencias

El concepto de lo político, seguido de La teoría del partisano, en obras de Carl Schmitt, Calmann-Lévy, 331 páginas. Publicado originalmente en la revista Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik (vol. LVIII, 1927), El concepto de lo político fue parcialmente traducido al francés en 1942, bajo el título “Considérations Politiques” (10) (Librairie générale de droit et de jurisprudence). En la propia Alemania se reeditó en su versión de 1932 después de la guerra (Der Begriff des Politischen, Duncker u. Humblot, Berlín, 1963). Otras obras de Carl Schmitt han sido publicadas (o reeditadas) muy recientemente: Politische Romantik, Duncker u. Humblot, Berlín, 1968), Legalität und Legitimität (Duncker u. Humblot, Berlín, 1968), Gesetz und Urteil (C. H. Beck, Múnich, 1969), Der Hüter der Verfassung (Duncker u. Humblot, Berlín, 1969), Die Geistesgeschichliche Lage des heutigen Parlamentarismus (Duncker u. Humblot, Berlín, 1969). Humblot, Berlín, 1969), Politische Theologie II (Duncker u. Humblot, Berlín, 1970), Verfassungslehre (Duncker u. Humblot, Berlín, 1970), Der Nomos der Erde im Völkerrecht des Jus Publicum Europaeum (Duncker u. Humblot, Berlín, 1974).

Notas:

1. Carl Schmitt (11 de julio de 1888-7 de abril de 1985) fue un jurista y teórico político conservador alemán cuyo pensamiento giraba en torno al ejercicio efectivo del poder político. Su obra ha ejercido una gran influencia en la teoría política, la teoría jurídica, la filosofía continental y la teología política posteriores. A pesar de su impacto, su pensamiento se considera controvertido debido a su supuesta estrecha colaboración y apoyo jurídico-político al nazismo; por ello, a menudo se le denomina el “jurista más importante del Tercer Reich”.

2. Armin Mohler (12 de abril de 1920-4 de julio de 2003) fue un politólogo y filósofo de orientación derechista nacido en Suiza y asociado al movimiento Neue Rechte (Nueva Derecha).

3. Julien Freund (8 de enero de 1921-10 de septiembre de 1993) fue un filósofo y sociólogo francés. Pierre-André Taguieff lo calificó de “liberal-conservador insatisfecho”; su obra como sociólogo y teórico político es una prolongación de la de Carl Schmitt.

4. La esencia de lo político.

5. Carl Philipp Gottfried (o Gottlieb) von Clausewitz (1 de junio de 1780-16 de noviembre de 1831) fue un general y teórico militar prusiano que hizo hincapié en los aspectos "morales" (es decir, en términos modernos, psicológicos) y políticos de la guerra.

6. Sobre la guerra.

7. Walther Rathenau (29 de septiembre de 1867-24 de junio de 1922) fue un estadista alemán que ocupó el cargo de Ministro de Asuntos Exteriores durante la República de Weimar.

8. Ernesto “Che” Guevara (14 de junio de 1928-9 de octubre de 1967) fue un revolucionario marxista, médico, escritor, líder guerrillero, diplomático y teórico militar argentino.

9. Maurice Duverger (5 de junio de 1917-16 de diciembre de 2014) fue un jurista, sociólogo y político francés.

10. “Consideraciones políticas”.

Fuente: https://arktos.com

Traducción de Juan Gabriel Caro Rivera

[buendischerwaldgang]

Armin Mohler, Gretha Jünger und Ernst Jünger, 50er Jahre

[gozel]

https://datacide-magazine.com/from-subculture-to-hegemony-transversal-strategies-of-the-new-right-in-neofolk-and-martial-industrial/

From Subculture to Hegemony: Transversal Strategies of the New Right in Neofolk and Martial Industrial

11 Comments

Neo-Folk and Martial Industrial are two sub-categories of Industrial Music, which developed in the 1980’s. Industrial as such was a direction that – parallel to Punk Rock – worked with the latest electronics in order to create an aesthetic of futuristic noise machines of the late 20th century and research extreme zones of contemporary society and history. Throbbing Gristle already thematized concentration camps, serial killers, Aleister Crowley etc by using cut-up techniques of William S. Burroughs and Brion Gysin and thus with strategies of liberation from brain washing. Similarly, Cabaret Voltaire were said to wage a “propaganda war against the propaganda war” (Industrial Culture Handbook). With SPK this was combined with a critique of Psychiatry and a presentation of extremes of the body and death. In the 80’s there were agitational and critical bands such as Test Dept., Nocturnal Emissions and Bourbonese Qualk which were often associated with the ever broadening spectrum of “Industrial”. However, with Laibach the critique of totalitarianism became more ambivalent. This ambivalence was at first seemingly shared by Death In June, the band that in many ways was at the origin of what is now considered Neo-Folk and Martial Industrial.

Death In June has already been the subject of an article in datacide by Stewart Home. Although the band’s name derives from the ���night of the long knives” when the SA leadership and other elements in German fascism were liquidated by Hitler and the SS in June 1934, DIJ’s left wing origins as well as their collaboration with a number of musicians not suspected to have far right leanings seemed to suggest to followers of 80’s industrial that their use of fascist imagery had some sort of critical element to it. There was a romantic and fetishistic element to it and and when Tony Wakeford was sacked from the band (supposedly) for his membership in the National Front it seemed to show that indeed they were rejecting politics and their use of fascist themes and imagery was on the level of aesthetic provocation.

In the course of the late 80’s and throughout the 90’s a number of other bands flocked to the use of this strategy creating a small sub-culture heavy with far right symbolisms and content, sometimes more, sometimes less explicit and politically oriented. Although there is no doubt that this scene harbours a lot of entirely “unpolitical” elements, there are definite personal connections to some elements of the organized far right who are trying to use a “metapolitical” strategy of intervention to fight their fascist kulturkampf.

Right wing sub-cultures are still mostly associated with White Power rock, Skinhead and Oi!-music. This has historical reasons. Central in this is the band Skrewdriver around Ian Stuart Donaldson. The first couple of 7”s and the first album came out on the pub/punk rock label Chiswick Records in 1977. Lack of success however made the band dissolve twice until they reformed again in 1982 and released a 12” on Last Resort’s Boot and Braces Records and then a couple of 7”s on the National Front’s White Noise Records. By now they had become the quintessential White Power band and played numerous “Rock Against Communism” festivals, the NF-answer to the much more popular Rock Against Racism festivals at the time. In 1987, Ian Stuart fell out with Patrick Harrington and Derek Holland of the White Noise Club, the National Front’s “musical” arm, and founded his own Blood & Honour network, in which he played a leading role until his death in a car accident in 1993.

Two things have to be stated in our context here: 1. The ludicrous paranoid race hate ramblings present in the lyrics of Skrewdriver and a host of other like-minded bands that joined them just didn’t lead them anywhere in terms of commercial success, which is something Stuart by his own admission wanted to achieve. 2. With that avenue barred, this scene didn’t and doesn’t have problems outing themselves as National Socialists. To present their political ideas they can do without references to obscure authors of the “conservative revolution” or völkish occultists, and are quite happy to chant their primitive slogans undiluted. The same is true with “National Socialist Black Metal (NSBM), the openly neo-nazi section of the Black Metal scene and certain White Power Noise Bands. There seems to be a competition to pronounce the most inhuman, brutal and anti-Semitic messages. Song titles as “Die Juden sind unser Unglück”, “Systematische Judische Vernichtung” (Deathkey), “Sieg Heil Vaterland”, “Europa Erwache!” (Der Stürmer), “The Whitest Power”, “Blood Banner SS”, “Juda Verrecke” (Streicher) are quite common.

With Neo-Folk and other outgrowths of the Industrial scene this is different. A great importance is attached to avoid being easily associated with the brown swamp. Their attitude is intellectual and elitist with adoration for Ernst Jünger and Julius Evola not Hitler and Mussolini. Even with key figures who have undeniably been members of far right political groups (in Britain this is crystallized around the mid-80’s National Front and its “Political Soldier” faction), there is a surprising eagerness to distance themselves from allegations of “fascism”. This has a historical precedent in the French “Nouvelle Droite” (see appendix) who, motivated to get out of the neo-Nazi cul-de-sac, and on their march through the institutions, tried hard to avoid being tagged fascists while serving old wine in new bottles, or old ideology in new phraseology for to the present day.

Troy Southgate, head of the group HERR, seems particularly eager not to be branded a fascist despite his history as a wanderer from one group of the extreme right to the other (such as the National Front, the International Third Position, the English Nationalist Movement, the National Revolutionary Faction etc). Presumably this is a tactical move not to scare away potential recruits to his more recent “National Anarchist Movement”. With a list of his favorite authors including pre-cursors like Bakunin, Proudhon and Nietzsche, “classic” fascist and National-Bolshevik authors such as Julius Evola, the Strasser Brothers, Ernst Jünger, Martin Heidegger, Gabriele D’Annunzio, Ernst Niekisch, Arthur Moeller van den Bruck, Karl Haushofer, and finally more contemporary fascists and esoteric Hitlerists like Francis Parker Yockey, Miguel Serrano and Savitri Devi, one wonders why he pretends to be so allergic to the f-word. While this is not necessarily a homogenous bunch of authors, and most of them are not “Nazis” in the sense of toeing the line of the NSDAP, all of them (minus the 19th century pre-cursers) can reasonably be called fascist in the sense of using “fascism” as an umbrella term for tendencies including the conservative revolution, national bolshevism, the Hitler-Nazis to the various strains of the contemporary New Right.

Armin Mohler, a historian and speaker of the “conservative revolution” said: “Fascism for me, is when disappointed liberals and disappointed socialists come together for something new. Out of this emerges what is called conservative revolution.” He somewhat modifies this point in 1973/74: “Apart from a few extras from the ‘lunatic fringe’, no one was defining themselves as ‘fascist’ anymore.” He then tries to define what “fascist” means. He chooses a procedural method he terms the “physiognomic approach”: “In any case all attempts to understand fascism from its theoretical declarations, or (which is not the same) to reduce it to a theory, are doomed to fail (…) In this area of politics the relationship to the concept (Begriff) is just instrumental, indirect, retrospective. Preceding there is a decision for a gesture, a rhythm, in short: a style. This style can of course express itself in words – fascism is not mute, on the contrary. It loves words – but they are not there to communicate a logical context”, rather, according to Mohler, they lead “most of the time” to “random and arbitrary results”. “To summarize we can say that fascists can obviously easily accept discrepancies in theory, because their communication is happening in a shorter curve, exactly through ‘style’”. (Von Rechts gesehen, 181f.) Mussolini declared in an almost more radical fashion: “Fascism is to the highest degree a relativist movement, because it never made the attempt to clothe its multi-layered and powerful mentality in a defined program. Its success lies rather in the fact that it has followed constantly changing individual inspirations (…) Us fascists have always expressed our complete indifference towards any theory…” Mohler (1920-2003) himself was increasingly openly calling himself a fascist towards the end of his life, while the younger “new right” adepts on the contrary try to utilize an ideological fog machine to obscure their positions.

While Southgate only more recently added a musical “career” to his CV, his former comrade in the NF, Tony Wakeford, has been involved with music longer than his involvement with far right politics. In fact, Wakeford did have roots in the far left scene as a member of the Socialist Workers Party when he was in the band Crisis (see Datacide 7). Douglas Pearce was simultaneously in the International Marxist Group, a competing Trotskyist group. Crisis was dissolved apparently out of disillusionment with the left, and Death In June was founded in 1981.

Shortly afterwards Tony Wakeford joined the National Front. The NF had been the most important party of British neo-fascism in the 1970’s. However, in the early 80’s it already was in a state of decline and internal factional disputes. There was soon a de facto split between the “Official NF” and the “Flag Group”. In control of the “Official NF” was the “Political Soldier” faction around Nick Griffin and Patrick Harrington, and it was with this latter faction that Wakeford was sympathizing. Supposedly Wakeford had to leave the band DIJ for this reason, although this seems strange, given that this was right at the point when the NF took a turn to Strasserism, the so-called “left wing” of National Socialism. Douglas Pearce himself said in 1992 that when “searching for a new political perspective we stumbled across nationalist Bolshevism (…) people like Gregor Strasser and Ernst Röhm, who were later known as the ‘second revolutionaries’”. This is a position that would have been compatible with the “Political Soldiers” from the NF.

The question has to be inserted here: why wasn’t DIJ immediately recognized as a far right band by most people? There are different reasons for this. Their background was explicitly left, texts and imagery seemed to be ambivalent, one wanted to recognize not a glorification but also a critique, and when the band was singing the Horst Wessel Lied, it was seen as a provocation embedded in a historical collage. One could and should have been more critical, but songs like “Death of the West” were serving both “left” and “right”-wing anti-Western resentment. People like John Balance and David Tibet, who seemed unsuspicious, were playing on DIJ records and Douglas Pearce was working for a time in Rough Trade record shop, which was supposed to be politically correct – hadn’t they banned Whitehouse records for the fact the band shared the same address as the fascist League of St. George? And last but not least hadn’t Wakeford been sacked from the band for his involvement with the NF?

After leaving DIJ, Wakeford founded the band Above The Ruins with the bassist Gary Smith of No Remorse, which was an openly neo-nazi band similar to Skrewdriver both in terms of musical style and ideological direction. Above The Ruins released one album and became effectively the first line-up of the new band Sol Invictus, in which Wakeford is still active. Sol Invictus first album was called “Against The Modern World” in homage to Julius Evola, on which Smith still played bass, and was joined by Ian Read and Liz Gray. Wakeford has denied this connection for many years, although there was a re-release of the album in 1996 which was also sold through the Sol Invictus mail order. Above the Ruins featured on a National Front benefit sampler called “No Surrender” alongside the likes of Skrewdriver on the Rock-o-Rama label, who have as recently as 2008 released a track by No Remorse on a 30 years anniversary compilation. Interesting detail: The track “Waiting” had not previously been released on Rock-o-Rama, but was on the “Songs of the Wolf” album. This album, released originally on cassette tape in 1984, then on vinyl in 1986, had already reaped praise in Scorpion magazine from Michael Walker, who is another figure of the British New Right as former NF member.

What is certain is that Wakeford makes some sort of effort at damage control concerning his involvements with the far right. His strategy seems to be to make flimsy disclaimers and otherwise deny everything (see his “Message from Tony” on his website). The legend that he was only briefly involved with far right politics in ca. 1984 doesn’t hold up. His involvement with the NF went back at least two years during which he was a member of DIJ. Wakeford has had many personal involvements with important figures of the far right till at least 1999 when Richard Lawson was best man at his wedding, which also include figures like Patrick Harrington and National Socialist Movement leader Tony Williams. We already encountered Patrick Harrington as one of the organizers of the White Noise Club in the mid 80’s, and he was also a part of the Political Soldier faction of the NF. When this faction split at the end of the decade (leaving the small rump of the NF to the “Flag” group), it produced the International Third Position (Griffin, Holland) and the “Third Way” (Harrington), which is posing as a “think tank” rather than a political group. Harrington remains a confidant of Griffin as the chairman of the fake trade union Solidarity, which is essentially a BNP front. Wakeford was good friends with Harrington and Tony Williams, the future leader of the National Socialist Movement and the person who would issue his NSM membership card to London nail-bomber David Copeland. Wakeford’s other close friend Richard Lawson had a career in the extreme right going back into the 70’s. He was editor of “Britain First” together with Dave McCalden, who became known as a holocaust revisionist, followed the Strasserite split of the short lived National Party. In the 80’s he returned to the “Strasserized” National Front, founded the IONA-Group (Islands of the North Atlantic) and wrote for Scorpion, the magazine of Michael Walker (who was one of the people who safe-housed Italian neo-fascist terrorist Roberto Fiore). In the mid-90’s, Lawson founded the fluxeuropa website and was involved along with Southgate in Alternative Green, the nationalistic spin-off from Green Anarchist. As we can see, Wakeford was surrounded by key figures of the extreme right until the end of the 90’s at least. So it’s not surprising that he spouts on about Europe in true new right fashion in an interview with Jean Louis Vaxelaire, which was published on Lawson’s fluxeuropa site. Wakeford said that Europe was “one of my obsessions”, and slightly distanced himself from 19th century concepts of nationalism by preferring to see “Europe as a collection of regions”, but he then in accordance with the new right decried the “unstoppable” “americanization of European culture.”

Wakeford and Southgate are by no means the only ones involved in the far right. Ian Read, a founding member of Sol Invictus and occasional member of Current 93, who featured on Death In June’s “Brown Book”, founded his own project Fire & Ice in 1990. Known in occult circles for his editorship of Chaos International, his interests are focussed on runes, odinism, nordic mythology, and he thinks of himself as one of the most important occultists of the British Isles. But he too has a history as a far right militant as he acted as security for Michael Walker and Michèle Renouf at events around 1990.

Renouf is one of the leading figures of British holocaust denial and anti-Semites. Amongst other things, she participated in the Teheran holocaust conference, and is one of the most active supporters of David Irving. She also pops up in our context again in 2007 when she spoke at an event of Southgate’s New Right groupuscule, as reported by the anti-Fascist magazine Searchlight. This (and a looming leadership contest) led to disputes within the British National Party, since its culture commissioner, self-declared “philosopher” and “artist” (who made garish oil paintings with titles such as “Adolf and Leni” or “Freud was wrong”) was simultaneously Southgate’s partner in the New Right grouplet. This was at a time when Nick Griffin (former Political Soldier, now BNP chairman and recently elected to the European Parliament) tried to create a more “respectable” image for the party. Of course if leading functionaries rub shoulders with radical anti-Zionists and anti-Semites, who, as Renouf does, believe that “Hamas fights for us all”, then Griffin’s attempt to clear the BNP from charges of anti-Semitism have little credibility.

Back to Neo-Folk: In contrast to “Battlenoise!”, the book titled “Looking For Europe” was received with praise in the scene. The 500 page convolute is stuffed with information on bands and records. It functions a bit like a film documentary cut with snippets of interviews in between the text, and amended with “essays” on the “philosophical” background of the artists. The book title of course is taken from a song by Sol Invictus. All sides of the scene are presented and indeed all kinds of references are mentioned and quoted, but the overall agenda seems to be to discredit the anti-Fascists who are active in monitoring and counter-acting the fascist tendencies in neo-folk. Thus, “Rik” from the fluxeuropa web site comments on whether the Neofolk-scene in England has the reputation of being politically incorrect: “The witch hunters of Political Correctness have their very own and narrow minded political agenda – a kind of ‘social marxism’ – and are not satisfied with anything less than complete compliance with their own values and aims. To justify oneself towards these people would be to play their game, and is ultimately futile. This is why I think we shouldn’t even pose this question.” (p 24) This “Rik” can be none other than Richard Lawson, who we already encountered as NF cadre and IONA founder, but the reader is kept in the dark about these facts. It would be interesting to know if the authors of the book knew this information. If the answer is yes, it would show that they are manipulating the reader on this question; if no, it means they didn’t do their research properly. Either way it illustrates well how the book operates – consciously or not – in its quest to create a whitewashed encyclopedia of Neofolk. Why left wing authors like Martin Büsser or Lars Brinkmann let themselves be instrumentalized remains unclear, but it makes it possible that pretend-equilibrium is created. Most importantly, the involvement of the far right in Neofolk is trivialized and reduced to footnote status.

One other method in this strategy is to present authors such as Ernst Jünger and Julius Evola as heroic mavericks and mystical sages. It is worth briefly looking into their relationships with fascism. Ernst Jünger was active as a publicist and author from the 1920’s onwards on the fringes of the furthest right of the Weimar Republic. He was never a Hitlerite National Socialist, but still he was one of those intellectuals who expected to be the helm of intellectual life after the “German Revolution”. Benn and Heidegger are other examples of this. In 1964, Jünger wrote in his book “Maxima-Minima”: “Revolutions also have a mechanical side”, complaining that the result is that “subaltern” types are coming to the fore. I’m sure he is thinking of the mediocre writers that became national authors of Nazi Germany. Of course Jünger is a stylistic “genius” compared to a Herbert Böhme. It was beneath him to formulate cheap adulations of the “Führer”. Much has been made of Jünger’s supposed refusal to join the Deutsche Akademie der Dichtung when it was purged and then filled with Nazis in the spring of 1933. Fact is that he wasn’t actually invited to join it in May ‘33. One month later, when the NSDAP was already consolidating its power, five more writers were nominated to the Academy. Besides Jakob Schaffner, this also included Jünger. However Jünger got the least number of votes. The poet was insulted and penned a letter of refusal even before the actual invitation arrived. He wrote: “The character of my work lies in its essentially soldierly character, which I do not wish to compromise with academic ties… I ask you therefor to see my refusal as a sacrifice which my participation in the german mobilisation is imposing on myself, in which service I have been active since 1914.” He was obviously offended by the preferential treatment lesser authors were receiving. In any case there is no anti-fascist attitude that can be projected into this statement, and is rather a position that is still consistent with his critique of the Hitlerites from the right.

In his post war writings there is clearly a different tone, and Jünger may well have learned something from the horrors, but it is also possible that a very similar message was encrypted in a different way for a different cultural climate (see the box on “Der Waldgang”). Whatever may be the case, there is definitely no self-critical analysis of his own role in the “german mobilization”. Instead, he often revised his older writings including those versions in his collected works making the texts more compatible for the cultural climate of the post war era. In passing it should be mentioned that Armin Mohler, who was Jünger’s secretary for a while in the early 50’s, turned away from the author exactly for this reason.

Julius Evola was one of the main inspirations for the extreme end of Italian post war fascism. Marginally involved with avant-garde art after WWI, he soon became an ideologist of a radical and anti-Semitic “traditionalism”. That he was not just some random occultist will be clear from the following quote from the preface of the English edition of “Men Among the Ruins”: “… for us as integral advocates of the “Imperium”, for us as aristocratically inclined, for us as unbending enemies of plebeian politics, of any ‘nationalistic’ ideology, of any and all party ranks and all forms of party ‘spirit’, as well as of any more or less disguised form of democracy, “Fascism is not enough”. We should have wanted a more radical, more fearless, a more absolute fascism that would exist in pure strength and unbending spirit against any compromise, inflamed by a real fire for imperial power. We can never be viewed as ‘anti-Fascists’ except to the extent that ‘super-Fascism’ can be equated with ‘antifascism’.” Despite this, various protagonists of the neo-folk scene are allowing themselves to present Evola only as an eccentric mystic in order to trivialize what he is really about: “super-fascism”.

Not everybody sees it like that. For example, the Ukrainian academic and fascism scholar Anton Shekhovtsov wrote the article “Apoliteic music: Neo-Folk, Martial Industrial and ‘Metapolitical’ Fascism”, which appeared in “Patterns of Prejudice” magazine in December 2009. His starting point is that in the post war years the radical right had to switch from openly political forms to what he calls “apoliteic” form. Here, he is particularly referring to Evola, Mohler and Jünger. These conservative revolutionaries find themselves in an interregnum until the time would be ripe again for the “glorious” national re-awakening. The metapolitcal fascism of the New Right manifests itself less in the form of parties than in networks of think tanks, conferences, journals, institutes and publishing houses. Shekhovtsov demonstrates how this strategy is at work in Neo-folk and Martial Industrial with bands such as Folkstorm, Death In June, HERR and others. Of course, record labels and distributors, venues and festivals, fashion and fetishism also add to the cohesion of the scene and operate as transmitters of ideas.

We have seen how certain activists of the scene have roots in the political milieu of British neo-fascism, and that their later activities appear not to be “sins of the youth” but rather a conscious change in strategy. This makes it easier to sell records and exert influence, and also makes is possible that the Antifa can be portrayed as “intolerant” and “totalitarian”. The examples shown in this article are by far not the only ones. From the US, examples such as Michael Moynihan, Boyd Rice or Robert Taylor could be examined and would show deep involvement with far right politics, just as the band Von Thronstahl from Germany would. There are numerous other examples. On the other hand, it doesn’t mean that everybody involved in this scene is automatically to be seen as a far right activist. There are even members with years of involvement who seemed to be unaware of the political components. The right wing Gramscian strategy works best when the recipients of the ideas don’t identify them with the hard right, but with “common sense”. This is a very small scene which tries to ennoble its consumers into being supposedly part of some “elite”.

One of the more prevalent opinions on this topic is: as long as these are just the quirks of some pseudo-eccentrics, we shouldn’t care. However, the danger of lies in a camouflaged and sneaking popularisation of ideas as concepts of the New Right can not be underestimated. Caught in the cul-de-sac of “straight” neo-nazi politics, the individuals involved in the far right and neo-folk switched to “metapolitical”, sub-cultural strategies. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary to expose these actual connections, to prompt those in the “grey zone” to distance themselves, and especially to expose the actual arbitrariness and banality of fascist thinking.

[janwilhelms]

Mädchen in superkurzen Miniröcken schieben Kaugummi von einer wohlgeformten Kinnbacke in die andere.

Armin Mohler, [Reisebericht aus Island, genauen Titel vergessen, Zitat aus dem Gedächtnis.], Ca. 1975. Es geht um einen Sonnabend nachmittag in Rejkjavik.

[zerogate]

In 1922, Schmitt published Political Theology, which has in recent years been given a significant amount of attention. It may appear tenuous at first to connect Carl Schmitt to psychedelic aesthetics; yet, as Alan Piper points out, Schmitt and Albert Hofmann, the discoverer of LSD, were in contact with one another via the far right thinker, Armin Mohler, who first published the work of his friend Alain de Benoist, the founder of the Nouvelle Droite.

Roger K. Green, A Transatlantic Political Theology of Psychedelic Aesthetics

[dersonderbund]

Alte Meister und "monumentale Unterernährung"

Eine der Aufgabe dieser Seite wird es sein, Hilfestellung dabei zu leisten, Personen, Werke und damit Ideen zu entdecken oder wiederzuentdecken, welche uns bei der Bewältigung der Probleme und Herausforderungen helfen können, denen die Schweiz und Europa sich heute und in Zukunft gegenübersehen werden. Insbesondere in einer Zeit der menschlichen Hybris, in einer Zeit, in der viele davon überzeugt sind, "in der besten aller Welten" zu leben, wenn nur ein wenig an den Stellschrauben gedreht werde, wäre es schlichtweg verantwortungslos und naiv, wenn wir uns nicht im Fundus derjenigen Männer der Geschichte umsehen, an deren Sicht wir uns orientieren können und die über ein Potenzial verfügen, das einem Umdenken, einer notwendigen geistigen Wende, den Weg eben kann.

Denn früher wie auch heute gab und gibt es jenseits und ausserhalb der offiziellen (und somit unausgesprochen einzig erwünschten und scheinbar allein glückseligmachenden) Sprach- und Denk-Cluster eine geistige Welt, die wieder erschlossen werden will. Stellvertretend für viele andere seien hier nur einige wenige genannt

  Carl Ludwig von Haller, Staatsrechtler, Politiker und Publizist, der mit seinem Werk "Restauration der Staatswissenschaft" Namensgeber der gleichnamigen Epoche wurde 

Gonzague de Reynold, Freiburger Aristokrat, Literaturprofessor und Verfasser verschiedener Schriften ("Die Tragik Europas", "Die Lebensfrage der Eidgenossenschaft" etc. ), deren Geist auch und insbesondere heute für uns von Interesse sein muss 

Philipp Etter, Jurist und langjähriger, konservativ-katholisch-antiliberal

Prälat Robert Mäder, standhafter und unerbittlicher Kämpfer für den Glauben ("Gedanken eines Reaktionärs" etc.)

Nicht zu reden von Armin Mohler, Sekretarius von Ernst Jünger und quasi "Godfather" der konservativen Revolution, innerhalb der Nachkriegsrechten im gesamten deutschsprachigen Raume und darüber hinaus bekannt - ausgerechnet in seiner Heimat aber fast gänzlich der Vergessenheit anheimgefallen.

Man mag über die von diesen Männern und Ihresgleichen vertretenen Meinungen, Positionen und Standpunkten sowie deren "Anwendbarkeit" in der heutigen Zeit verschiedener Ansicht sein; unumgänglich ist die Feststellung, dass sie uns Anregungen geben können und müssen, um letztendlich die geistige Verkrustung aufbrechen zu können, welche, aus welchen Gründen auch immer, uns über lange Zeit daran gehindert hat, die verschütteten Traditionslinien einer schweizerischen Rechten wieder aufzudecken und hernach für uns im hier und heute sowie für die Zukunft fruchtbar zu machen.

Abschliessend sei konkret auf zwei Bücher (Letzteres leider nur noch antiquarisch erhältlich) hingewiesen, welche im oben genannten Zusammenhang die Zeit zwischen ca. 1900 und Beginn des zweiten Weltkrieges 1939 beleuchten:

"Die Reaktionäre Avantgarde - die Geburt der neuen Rechten in der Schweiz um 1900"

von Hans Ulrich Jost / Chronos Verlag, 1992

sowie

"Intellektuelle von rechts - Ideologie und Politik in der Schweiz 1918"

von Aram Mattioli (Hrsg.) / Orell Füssli, 1995

"der Bedenkenträger"

[jgmail]

Carta de Julius Evola a Ernst Jünger

Por Maxim Medovarov

Traducción de Juan Gabriel Caro Rivera

 Julius Evola y Ernst Junger fueron dos grandes pensadores tradicionalistas – si es que entendemos esta palabra en un sentido radicalmente distinto – que nunca se conocieron en persona aún cuando tenían muchos amigos en común. Sabemos muy bien que Evola leyó atentamente todos los escritos de Jünger y escribió un libro entero analizando El Trabajador, interpretando esta figura como un hombre heroico y desprendido, digno representante de la aristocracia del espíritu. A Evola nunca le gustaron los libros que escribió Jünger posteriores a las décadas de 1940-1950, en los que veía ciertas concesiones al humanismo clásico y al mito de Occidente. Resulta extraño que pensara esto de Heliópolis, pues tal libro debería haberle parecido al barón italiano mucho más interesante y cercano a su obra. Desgraciadamente, Evola no vivió lo suficiente para conocer la novela de Jünger Eumeswil (1977) donde este último creo la imagen del Anarca, una figura muy parecida al l'uomo differenziato (hombre diferenciado) de Evola. Se trata de un hombre aislado que vive en medio de las ruinas y encontrando la forma para que los tradicionalistas sobrevivan en medio de la Edad de los Lobos...

 Evola solo le escribió una vez a Jünger, fue el 17 de noviembre de 1953, preguntándole si podía publicar oficialmente una traducción italiana de El Trabajador. La ocasión de semejante carta fue un regalo para Jünger quien, a través de su secretario Armin Mohler (futuro autor de la Revolución Conservadora), entregó a Evola un ejemplar de Heliópolis con su autógrafo. La carta es importante por su crítica al fascismo y el nacionalsocialismo que, según su autor, no lograron resolver ninguno de los problemas propios de la sociedad moderna esbozados por ambos autores en sus libros.

 Cuatro días más tarde, el 21 de noviembre, Jünger respondió con evasivas a Evola, pues no quería volver a hablar de su libro de 1930. Escribió que pensaba revisar el texto de El Trabajador y aplazar la publicación de una traducción del mismo para otro momento. En lugar de permitirle a Evola publicar el libro y darle un ejemplar de El Trabajador, Jünger sugirió que tradujera sus obras posteriores como los Cruzando la línea, La Emboscadura o El nudo gordiano (curiosamente ignorando obras como El estado del mundo o Heliópolis). Evola se limitó a escribir una reseña crítica de El nudo gordiano publicada en julio de 1954. Fue así como el diálogo directo entre estos dos pensadores acabó en el tiempo, pero no en la eternidad. Evola mencionará a Jünger varias veces en sus artículos.

 Cabe destacar que Evola envió esta carta en italiano e inmediatamente la tradujo – a máquina a – al alemán. La traducción que aquí se ofrece es del original alemán, pues la traducción inglesa de D.F. Williams disponible en Internet es extremadamente inexacta.

 Texto de la carta:

 ¡Querido señor!

 Puede que mi nombre le resulte familiar, quizá por intermediación del Dr. Armin Mohler, de quien hace poco recibí un ejemplar de Heliópolis con su dedicatoria, y también porque tuvimos muchos conocidos en común durante el Reich, como el profesor Carl Schmitt y el barón von Gleichen.

 Hace tiempo que leo con gran interés sus trabajos y a menudo lo cito en mis textos. De hecho, me siento muy interpelado por sus primeros escritos, antes de los Acantilados de Mármol. Es por eso que me atrevo a dirigirme a usted con la intención de publicar la traducción al italiano de El Trabajador. Creo que la analogía que existe entre la primera y la segunda posguerra revela que los problemas esbozados en este libro han vuelto a ser relevantes hoy en día y aunque las soluciones que creíamos haber encontrado en el periodo de entreguerras tanto en el Reich como en Italia resultaron ser soluciones imaginarias, falsas o simples fenómenos coyunturales resulta importante en estos momentos volver a este libro con la esperanza de que vuelva a “despertarnos”.

 El único obstáculo que tenemos es que no tengo un ejemplar de esta obra y me resulta muy difícil conseguirlo. El Dr. Mohler incluso me ha escrito que sólo tiene una copia en sus archivos. Sin embargo, tal vez sea posible encontrar a alguien en su círculo de conocidos que me pueda vender o prestar tal libro mientras lo reviso y lo traduzco con la garantía de que lo devolveré lo antes posible.

 Por cierto, ¿a quién debo dirigirme para obtener los derechos de la traducción?

 Le pido disculpas por mi petición: por supuesto, esta carta me ha brindado la oportunidad, siempre aplazada, de tener el honor de entrar en contacto personal con usted.

 Con todo respeto y admiración

 Julius Evola,

 Corso Victor-Emmanuela, m. 197, Roma.

[bdscuatui]

Giao dịch Bất động sản Quận Erie - Tin tức Buffalo #thôngtin [ad_1] Sau đây là các giao dịch bất động sản trên 5.000 đô la như được liệt kê trong hồ sơ của văn phòng thư ký Quận Erie trong tuần kết thúc vào ngày 29 tháng 11. ALDEN • 154 Đường Ba Rod, Cheryl Brueggeman; Cynthia Kolb; Sandra Schmidbuaer cho Brandon Becker; Kelsey Snyder, $ 259,900. • 13010 West Main St., Deborah A. Kicior; Thomas M. Kicior cho Anthony J. Alu; Karen Alu, $ 215.000. • Tòa án bãi cỏ phía Bắc 12485, Deborah H. Fortin cho Michael J. Brice; Amanda Lam, $ 196,000. • 3613 Đường Crittenden, Bengart Steven B Dec; Michael K. Duncan đến Ngân hàng Wells Fargo NA, $ 160,817. AMHERST • 114 Waterway Lane, Marrano / marc-Equity Corporation đến Corine M. Grieco; Gary J. Grieco, $ 389,601. • 184 Vòng tròn Sunburst, Nancy A. Gary; Stephen M. Gary Sr. đến Danbo Shen; Ling Xu, $ 380.000. • 32 Timberlane Drive, Andrea L. Plucinski; Craig H. Plucinski cho Steven Kinney; Victoria R. Kinney, 365.000 đô la. • 477 Đường Ramble, Nancy Biondo-Doyle; John Joseph Doyle đến Erin S. Waas; Christopher B. Wilson, 335.000 đô la. • 1025 Đường rừng phía Bắc, Justin H. Tate; Rebekah M. Tate to Saloni Patel, $ 291,000. • 545 Alberta Drive, Niasher Realty Inc cho Công ty Quỹ phát triển nhà Attica, $ 284,022. • 21 Candlewood Lane, Ann Burstein Cohen; Lawrence M. Cohen đến Amanda L. Mooney; Shawn M. Mooney, 280.000 đô la. • Ổ đĩa Northhill 299-g, Marrano / marc Equity Corporation cho Kenneth K. Kohl; Mary C. Kohl, $ 275,900. • 299-e Northhill Drive, Marrano / marc Equity Corporation đến Lisa S. Abbott, $ 275,900. • 25 Mill St., Nancy Highway đến Annette L. Sapienza, $ 275,000. • 20 Cobblestone Lane, Amy Remmele ; Mary E. Vogt đến Cheryl L. Stein; Irving Stein, $ 275,000. • 139 Ranch Trail, Charles P. Faso; Lynn M. Faso đến Shawna K. Matthews; Ira A. Meyers, $ 260.000. • Sân thượng Fruitwood, Christine M. Kiffer; Michael W. Kiffer cho Jenna Sullivan; Timothy M. Sullivan Jr., 250.000 đô la. • 81 Evans, Charlotte E. Jurek đến Christine L. Hunt; Daniel A. Hunt, 250.000 đô la. • 520 đường rừng phía Bắc, Anthony J. Paulazzo đến Joshua H. Henderson; Nelis Henderson, 240.000 đô la. • 47 Tòa án Vườn, Monique Michaud đến Rebecaa Elias, 236.000 đô la. • 57 Đại lộ Stevenson, Carl L. Shepard; Kathleen A. Shepard đến Mohammed J. Uddin, 209.900 đô la. • 2081 Đường Tonawanda Creek, Robert T. Washington đến Marianna C. Cantella; Lawrence E. Giorgi, $ 202,990. • 167 Brockmoore Drive, Oleg Sapozhnikov đến Kelly Kaczmarek; Kevin Kaczmarek, 199.000 đô la. • 214 Bucyrus Drive, David Foster; Leola Foster cho Deborah Maxey; Peter R. Tunkey II, $ 195,214. • 3 Homer Lane Unit C, Edith Block to Patricia J. Rabin, $ 189,000. • 63 Das Court, Kathleen Sheehan tới Carl Shepard, $ 172.500. • 40 Tòa án Wellington, Carol S. Evans đến Brent Mcenroe , 169.000 đô la. • Đường 76 Elm, Marjorie E. Kuss; William T. Kuss đến William T. Brown; Simone S. Walker, 165.000 đô la. • 515 Mt Vernon Road, Carla Duke; David A. Công tước; Susan J. Laska; Duke Family Trust Tr đến Nancy M. Duke, 158.000 đô la. • 496 Đại lộ Windermere, Cuộc sống mới với US Realty LLC đến Robert Louis Hengesbach, 158.000 đô la. • 4153 Harlem Road, Yi Yu Chen đến Jonny Nicolas Santana, 155.000 đô la. • 15 Apollo Drive, Thomas D. Lewis; Peggy Ann Marciano đến Philip D. Noah Jr., 152.900 đô la. • 474 Đại lộ Windermere, Angelo Ingrassia; Yang Zhao đến Richard F. Skomra, 143.000 đô la. • 1651 Eggert Road, Ellas Agkavanakis đến Kiriakos P. Agavanakis, 134.000 đô la. • 30 Oakbrook # 3 & Garage # 83, Mary Ellen Mcpartlan đến Murphy 2017 Family Trust 101217 Tr, 129.000 đô la. Đường Hopkins, Judith C. Baty; William F. Baty; William Francis Baty; Judith C. Trống cho Christopher Kowalski, 128.900 đô la. • 4613 Chestnut Ridge Rd Đơn vị J và Garage28, Joyce M. Neel; Timothy J. Neel đến Kaitlin D. Scott, 104.900 đô la. • 2554 Đường rừng phía Bắc, Elizabeth I. Miller đến David Eron, 103.000 đô la. • 111 Sundridge Drive, Julia Kennedy; Julia Kay vượt qua Elizabeth A. Fildes, 100.000 đô la. • 70 Amsterdam Ave., Điểm chuẩn Firehouse Associates LLC đến Công ty phát triển nhà ở Attica, 85.978 đô la. • 175 Lynette Lane, Ciminelli Muir Woods LLC đến Ryan Homes của New York, 82.330 đô la. 47 Đường Hemlock, Michael J. Kolczynski đến Thi An Huynh; Van Khoa Mai, 70.000 USD. • 3520 Millersport Hwy, Theresa M. Ketchmark cho Donald Bruce Robinson; Judith S. Robinson, 40.100 đô la. ÁO • 156 Grove St., Deborah L. Hyde; Lynn R. Hyde đến Mary E. Davis, 154.000 đô la. AURORA / EAST AURORA • 23 Creekstone Drive, Marrano / marc Equity Corporation cho Gerald E. Patterson; Kathleen M. Patterson, $ 533.822. • 18 Creekstone Drive, Marrano / marc Equity Corporation cho John M. Vetter; Regina M. Vetter, $ 441,055. • Đường 538 Jewett Holmwood, Cotto Patricia Del; Michael J. Mcgee đến Kerr Property Management LLC, $ 325.000. • Đất trống Willardshire Road, Daniel J. Mania; Jennifer L. Noah đến Tricia J. Silliman, 320.000 đô la. • 1950 Đường Blakeley, Francis C. G 4.0.3k đến Zachary P. Keller, 165.000 đô la. BLASDELL • 8 Silver Ave., Austin M. Phillips đến Tricia A. Switzer, $ 142.000. • 148 Pearl Ave., George Grager; Maria Grager đến Kalea A. Duengfelder, 110.000 đô la. BOoston • 7375 State Road, Mmart 1 LLC đến 570 Dab 28 LLC, 375.000 USD. • 8075 Feddick Road, Altius Vista LLC đến David May; Joan M. May, $ 230.000. • 7707 Đường tiểu bang, Marie A. Los; Robert J. Los đến Barbara J. Schunk, 103.000 đô la. BUFFALO • Khách hàng tại Window, Thomas F. Jamison đến M Property Holdings LLC, $ 686.000. • 309 Lincoln Parkway, Kathryn Gordon đến Kathrine Caldiero; Matthew E. Caldiero, $ 540,000. • 126 Chatham Ave., Matthew E. Caldiero; Kinda Flemming đến Rui Ma; Taylor Sining Wong, $ 460.000. • 52 Beard Ave., Jon Kraus; Veronica Kraus đến Jarret A. Izzo; Rebecca F. Izzo, 450.000 đô la. • 47 Bremen St., Cheryl Berey đến Bunje Bower Corey, 440.000 đô la. • 361 Porter Ave., Jeffrey C. Huynh cho Justin Anderson; Elizabeth Zavarella, 429.000 đô la. • 163 Lexington, Richard C. Greene đến Elizabeth I. Swift, 420.000 đô la. • 33 Shoreham, Rebecca Murphy đến Max S. Zimmerman, $ 275.000. • 102 Bình thường Ave., Lena Stanuszek; Miroslaw Stanuszek đến Brian M. Mckenna; Stephanie C. Mckenna, 250.000 đô la. • 65 Ridgewood, Giáo xứ Công giáo Đức Mẹ từ thiện đến Amy L. Santiago; Thiên thần L. Santiago, 230.000 đô la. • 447 Auburn, Richard J. Mohler đến De Santana Hager Alem M; De Santana Hager Murilo W, $ 228.000. • 233 North Drive, Bruce N. Walker; Jacqueline T. Walker đến Angelo J. Conti; Jennifer L. Conti, $ 210,233. • 333 Humboldt, Edith Brooks cho Justin Pendleton, $ 210.000. • 112 Montrose Ave., Sharon Lyn Larson cho Andrew Peter Dearing; Ting Dearing, 205.000 đô la. • 140 Sage Ave., Darren S. Sapienza; Maryorie Lundie Sapienza đến Lena C. Stanuszek; Miroslaw K. Stanuszek, 190.000 đô la. • 205 Quốc hội, Lynda Maywalt; Michael Maywalt cho David R. Thornbury; David R. Thornbury Jr., $ 190.000. • 204 Woodside Ave., Birch & mortar Homes LLC đến Brent Brown, $ 180.000. • 45 Hollywood, Markev Properties LLC đến Joseph D. Ferron, $ 179.000. • 41 Eaglewood, Mushtaq M. Kaid cho Joel P Renzoni, 165.000 đô la. • 33 Evelyn St., Shirley Sontag đến Hasta Tamang, 165.000 đô la. • 15 Arkansas, Michael Maywalt Jr.; Michael Maywalt Sr đến Jeffrey M. Offhaus; Sarah R. Offhaus, $ 162.500. • 130 Ross Ave., James E. Cratsley; Lorraine Cratsley đến Manndy Say Light; Sella Light, 155.000 đô la. • 101 Woodside Ave., Raepple Real Real Inc; Bất động sản Raepple hợp nhất với Dwight E. Simpson, $ 135.999. • 478 Bình thường, Kyaw Kyee đến Haronbin Mohamed Gulam; Nasimbanubinti Mohamad Ibrahim, 135.000 đô la. • 336 Riverside Ave., Rosenberg Ira Funds LLC đến Mu La Er; Er Soe, 125.000 đô la. • 50 Lilac, Synbdicated Development LLC cho Justin Menzel; Sharmin Menzel, 120.000 đô la. • 904 Clinton, Mkj Buffalo Group Inc đến 904 Clinton LLC, 115.000 đô la. • 63 Weiss, Michael Kasza; Michael S. Kasza đến 63 Weiss LLC, 105.000 đô la. • 81 Nicholson, Andrew J. Byrd đến Dianne L. Jobson, 105.000 đô la. • 87 Deerfield Ave., Tasheka T. Scott đến Golam Kibria, 95.000 đô la. • 129 Vandalia, Robert Thomas Walker đến Nicholas Flaitz, 90.000 đô la. • 80 Phyllis, Bill Y. Edward L. Billups Jr. đến Evelyn K. Jones, 86.920 đô la. • 129 Armin Place, Briana Popek cho Paul Judd, 85.000 đô la. • 95 Pooley, Bstr LLC cho Mohamed Shiek; Hussein Waris, $ 76.000. • 379 Newburgh Ave., Kruz đáng tin cậy; Kruz LLC đáng tin cậy đến Fatisha Collins, 71.000 đô la. • 116 Dunlop Ave., Daniel Summers đến Terry Powell, 61.900 đô la. • 96 St Louis Ave., Shohag Abu Bakkar Siddique đến Marium Begum; Marin Mostafa, 60.000 đô la. • 48 Lyth Place, Decent Property NY LLC đến Earline Washington, 59.900 đô la. • 320 Weimar, Quản lý tài sản trung thực & đa dịch vụ Inc cho Kamal Ahmed, 58.000 đô la. • 134 Elmer, Brenda A. Patterson; Brenda Patterson cho Michael Royster Jr., 57.000 đô la. • 257 Ontario, Kenneth Robert Moyer tới Sahajahan Hossain Sozib, 55.000 đô la. • 142 East Ave., Elaine M. Urban cho Dearborn Development LLC, 54.000 đô la. Ka Say, 50.000 đô la. • 535 Dartmouth Ave., Shinyin Management LLC đến Mohammed Shaiful Hồi giáo, 49.900 đô la. • 347 Walden, Akhtar Salimon Newaz đến Joynab Bibi, 47.000 đô la. • 416 East phà, Gary B. Preston đến Courtney Allen, 45.000 đô la. 97 Condon, Cmac Properties LLC đến B & r Cho thuê LLC, 40.000 đô la. • 109 Albert, John Butler đến Bishnu P. Kapri, 40.000 đô la. • 326 Cornwall, Nancy M. Snyder; Quận Erie đến Jevon B. Romeo; Christopher M. Spence, 36.000 đô la. • 21 Cambridge, Eric Jordan đến Kaifas Property Group LLC, 35.000 đô la • 46 Glor, Rachel Deutsch đến Kskc Properties LLC, 30.500 đô la. • 2780 Bailey, Jose Muniz đến 2788 Bailey Ave LLC, 30.000 đô la Đô thị St., Safina Begum; Mohammed Miah đến Goyghar Inc, 30.000 đô la. • 124 Ontario, Nancy M. Snyder; Quận Erie đến Ademir Ronald Bustamante, $ 28.000. • 27 Sherwood St., Vahaira Perez; Yaihara Perez đến Javier Duranona; Mylenis Vazquez, 28.000 đô la. • 37 Rommel, Purityson LLC đến Vin7 LLC, 23.000 đô la. • 373 Dearborn, Nancy M. Snyder; Quận Erie đến Jevon B. Romeo; Christopher M. Spence, 22.000 đô la. • 1368 Sycamore, Mohammad H. Kabir đến Selim M. Reza, 22.000 đô la. • 11 Bennett Village Terrace, Kristian Clemons cho Smrn Family Inc, 20.000 đô la. • 145 Kilhoffer St. Hossain, $ 13,000. • 135 Baitz, D & n Cho thuê LLC đến Maurice Cornelious, $ 10.000. • 75 Ashley St., Bộ trưởng Cựu chiến binh cho Mohammed K. Munshi, $ 7.000. CHEEKTOWAGA • 139 Topaz Drive, Marrano / marc Equity Corporation cho Philip V. Rizzi, 339.568 đô la. • 125 Blossom Wood Lane, Denis G. Boucher; Samuel J. Guida đến Joseph M. Bifaro; Patricia D. Bifaro, $ 298,900. • 337 Drive, Gail Ann Conschafter; Gary Conschafter đến 337 Cleveland LLC, $ 275,000. • 41 Redoak Drive, Barbara C. Weber to Dawan D. Jones, $ 212.500. • 500 Roycroft Boulevard, Murphy 2017 Family Trust 101217 Tr cho Jane M. Osullivan; Michael D. Osullivan, 190.000 đô la. • 72 Rowley Holw, Delphine C. Boersch cho Robert H. Dornbrock; Deborah A. Minotti, $ 188,000. • 93 Patsy Lane, Delphine C. Boersch đến Pavel Belavus; Viktoria Belous, 175.000 đô la. • 85 Andres Place, Joseph J. Lesinski Jr. đến Syed A. Samad, $ 172.000. • 96 Lordan Drive, Otylia Przybyla; Otylia M. Przybyla; Tillie Przybyla đến Troy A. Fogle, $ 169,900. • 96 Baywood Drive, Peter J. Wilson đến Edith Bochman; Matthew P. Hanna, 164.900 đô la. • 12 ổ đĩa, Lisa K. Glaser đến Mon M. Mangar; Bir D. Subba, 164.900 đô la. • 111 Fairelm Lane, Thomas H. Rummell đến Trần Ngọc Phạm, 159.000 đô la. • 158 South Huxley, Andrew P. Desabio; Leah M. Desabio đến John Coutlakis; Christina Stubbs-Coutlakis, $ 156.000. • 90 ngôi nhà Ave., Joseph G. Moreno đến Felicia A. Buster; Nicholas Buster, 155.000 đô la. • 105 Andres Place, Eugene A. Kaczmarek đến Jeffrey G. Hilbruner, 153.000 đô la. • 128 Ellen Drive, Jeffrey J. Jackson đến Dylan J. Long, 139.000 đô la. • Đại lộ đô thị George George, Robert C. Napier Chudamani Adhikari, 135.000 đô la. • 138 Tòa án Princeton, Kevin P. Kaczmarek; Kelly T. Neiss đến Brett M. Nadolinski, 135.000 đô la. • 514 Beach Road, David G. Brug đến Wilbert J. Lynch Jr., 134.000 đô la. • 105 Southgate Road, Buffalo Niagara Apartments LLC đến Brandy Robinson, 129.000 đô la. , Dennis Komrek; Debora Krasnka; Denise Olszewski cho Yu Yang; Ping Yu, 125.000 đô la. • 54 King Ave., Diane M. Filipowicz đến Sara E. Casillo, 125.000 đô la. • 225 Ellen Drive, Ltd Nhà và tài sản LLC đến Hubbard Harris Ward III, 124.000 đô la. • 82 Woodridge Ave., Qun Yu đến Andrew S Crowe, 122.000 đô la. • 18 ngõ Nassau, Kimberly Popiela-Saia; Salvatore F. Saia Jr. đến Kc Buffalo Enterprises LLC, 110.000 đô la. • 199 Đại lộ Đông Grand, Randy M. Traner đến Emama Williams, 110.000 đô la. • 127 Kilbourne Road, Charles P. Maloney; Sandra J. Maloney cho Robyn L. Bauer, 93.000 đô la. • 84 Edmund St., Christopher Bain; David G R; Paula E. Sommer đến Pietro Enterprises LLC, 90.000 đô la. • 2561 Genesee St., James Szymanski; Richard Urbanski đến Jeffrey Mendoza-Pena, 81.450 đô la. • 37 đường Tudor, Nancy M. Snyder; Quận Erie đến Brent Hardy, 71.000 đô la. • 94 Franklin Ave., Thomas T. Hoàng đến Nicolette C. Evans, 55.000 đô la. • 132 Francis Ave., Nancy M. Snyder; Quận Erie đến Ali Mahmood, 48.000 đô la. • 2527 Genesee St., Nancy M. Snyder; Quận Erie đến Noor N. Chowdhury, $ 42.000. • 15 Tòa án Lưỡi liềm, Webster20 LLC cho Robert Koerntgen Ira Ben; Công ty ủy thác vốn cổ phần, 36.000 đô la. • 6 Wagner Ave., Nancy M. Snyder; Quận Erie đến Anl 3 Realty LLC, $ 32.000. • 52 Bright St., Nancy M. Snyder; Quận Erie đến Anl 3 Realty LLC, $ 22.000. • 44 đường Meadowlawn, Daniel A. Có thể đến James K. Roberts, $ 20.000. CÂU HỎI • 5745 Waterford Lane, Essex Ngôi nhà của WNY Inc đến Joy A. Ricotta, $ 573.995. • 6020 Jessica Place, Donald J. Jarmusz đến Dorothy A. Wzontek; Stephen M. Wzontek, 505.000 đô la. • 6315 Đường Heise, Sarah E. Morris đến Jonathan Cross; Samantha J. Cross, $ 440.000. • 5499 Qua bến du thuyền, Joy A. Ricotta đến Khalid Ahsan; Uzma Riaz, 440.000 USD. • 5643 Ferncrest Ct Ud, Melanie Drazba; Paul Drazba đến Tập đoàn tài chính Cartus, trị giá 415.000 đô la. • 5643 Ferncrest Ct Ud, Tập đoàn tài chính Cartus đến Annette D. Gervase; David A. Gervase, trị giá 415.000 đô la. • 5652 Ferncrest Ct-a, Biệt thự tại Spaulding Green LLC đến Marilyn Vogt; Norman J. Vogt, $ 363,183. • Đường 4620 Schurr, Kristin K. Boehler; Kristin Marfoglia đến Edward H. Badhorn; Faithann M. Badhorn, 140.000 đô la. MÀU SẮC • Đường 3082 Vail, Cheryl T. Griffin; Robert M. Griffin đến Sally Ann Cataldo; Thomas Patrick Purcell, $ 145.000. CONCORD • 7148 Đường Fowler, Christine J. Metzger; Glenn J. Metzger; Joseph M. Metzger; Kinda C. Ryan; Amanda R. Wilcox cho Chelaine A. Bauer; Erich W. Bauer, $ 305,000. • 41 Ridge Trl, Jonathan D. Maybray; Niềm vui A. Maybray cho Michael J. Filighera, 165.000 đô la. EDEN • 7602 Sisson Hgwy, Darrick S. Kristich; Jessica L. Parker đến Danielle M. Steiner; Michael W. Steiner, 227.500 đô la. • 2937 Schoolview Drive, Michael W. Lis đến Jason T. Lawniczak; Tanya A. Lawniczak, 160.000 đô la. ELMA • 560 Northrup Road, Buffalo Bungalow Inc đến Barry S. Gluckstein; Cindy Gluckstein; Cynthia Gluckstein, $ 533,654. MỌI NGƯỜI • 9164 Lakeside Ave., Gregg K. Walls; Mary E. Walls cho Nancy Blake Fitzpatrick, $ 522.000. • 341 đường Woodside, David Marshall Harig đến Linda Flower-Hebeler; Alan Hebeler, 200.000 đô la. • 1399 Darlington Drive, Donald A. Dressel; Jenifer R. Dressel đến Jacob Bednarz; Alisha Sanborn, $ 180,094. • Đường 9273 Lake Shore, Toni L. Kiebzak đến William D. Johnson, $ 140.000. • 701 Đường Beach, Joseph N. Giambrone; Loretta Giambrone cho Joseph J. Viapiano III, $ 122.000. ĐẢO GRAND • 5010 Đường sông Đông, Harjinder Kaur Kang; Sukhwinder Kang đến Christine Carter Carter; Lawrence E. Carter II, $ 650.000. • Ngõ 385 Tracey, Kevin M. Rustowicz; Maura Am Rustowicz cho Jeremy Dettmer; Kathleen Dettmer, 210.000 đô la. • 1925 Creekside Drive, Lori L. Itienne đến Megan A. Angelina, $ 173.500. • 51 Woodlee Lane, Michael L. Miller; Sheila A. Miller đến Beverly A. Hurley, 138.500 đô la. • Đường sửa chữa 2635, Marcia A. Hunt đến Steven J. Hunt, 26.000 đô la. HAMBURG • 3779 Lakeshore Road, Farrell North Properties LLC đến Jameson Realty LLC, $ 1.000.000. • Đất trống Tây Nam Boulevard, Hamburg Land Associates LLC đến Jl Hamburg 1301 LLC, $ 575.000. • 5463 Sycamore Lane, Forbes Homes Inc đến Paul R. Cochran III Wendi D. Cochran, $ 538.370. • 3504 Mckinley Parkway, G & i Ix Empire Mckinley Mall Outparcel LLC đến Orchard Park trọ Ventures LLC, $ 400.000. • 5665 Đại lộ Tây Nam, Biệt thự tại Brierwood LLC đến Pamela S. Gargano, $ 352.300. Craig Mcrobb; Wendy Mcrobb đến Austin Michael Phillips, $ 324,900. • Tòa án 6023 Pinehurst, Steven Smolkovich đến David G. Brug; Annmarie M. Todaro, 307.000 đô la. • 3353 Lạch lái xe, David J. Mcdermott; Lauren Mcdermott; Lori Mcdermott đến Cody A. Ruchser; Tara J. Ruchser, 285.000 đô la. • 2284 Agassiz Drive, Marrano / marc Equity Corporation cho Kimberly L. Stack; Paul M. Stack, $ 280.000. • 156 Triển vọng Ave., Jonathan P. Appleby; Sara L. Appleby đến Daniel W. Roushey; Eve D. Roushey, $ 275,000. • 4993 Điểm quan sát, Bgrs Relocation Inc cho Robert Glowacki; Theresa Glowacki, 250.000 USD. • 4414 Rushford, Mary Durward; Paul Durward cho Alex Funderburk; Amy Jo Funderburk, 236.500 đô la. • 5928 Shoreham Drive, Kimberly L. Butera; Kimberly L. Chồng; Paul M. Chồng đến Jason M. Fick; Tabitha M. Fick, $ 215.000. • Đường 3243 South Lyth, Hailand Marsha Rose Kochan; Marlene Therese Miller đến Leo M. Rudny, 175.000 đô la. • 3610 Terri Trl, Elisa A. Esford đến Kinda A. Filipski, 175.000 đô la. • 4146 Burke Parkway, Isabelle Welsh; Patrick J. Welsh đến Jordan A. Reed, 175.000 đô la. • 188 Oak Hill Drive, Brenda B. Lamm đến Marie J. Schreiber; Stephen M. Schreiber, 166.400 đô la. • 4061 Buffalo Ave., Jody Victor đến Renay C. Tucci, 155.900 đô la. • 6427 Center St., Kathleen Hosken; Ronald Hosken cho David Michelsen; Laura Michelsen, 150.000 đô la. • 4913 Morgan Parkway, Chellse A. Lavtar đến Katelin E. Rubach, 145.000 đô la. • 4793 Kennison Parkway, Diane Meli đến Erica M. Eckenrode, 145.000 đô la. • 3736 Blair Court, Patricia C. Ceccarelli đến Lindsay R. Khát khao; Gerard S. Ruszchot, $ 144.500. • Đại lộ 4525 Mt Vernon, David R. Brooks; Geraldine Brooks đến Gerhardt Hoffman; Emilee Puccio, 122.500 đô la. • Đất trống Taylor Road, Joseph A. Duggan; Linda A. Vấn đề với Andrew Cocina, 105.000 đô la. • 4034 Tiểu bang St., David J. Henneberry II cho David J. Henneberry; Margaret E. Henneberry, 75.000 đô la. • 10 Stelle St., Country Meadows kết hợp với Ryan ngôi nhà của New York, 48.000 đô la. • 3060 Abbott Road, Joseph P. Ngành làm việc với Caremony Funeral Holdings Inc, 15.000 đô la. HÀ LAN • 73 Park St., David B. Brenton đến Jeffrey D. Furcron, 151.000 đô la. LACKAWANNA • 36 Della Drive, Helen Marsillo; Helen M. Marsillo; Patrick N. Marsillo đến Alyssa Koshinski; Timothy D. Parker, 128.000 đô la. • 344 Đại lộ South Shore, Mae Fannie; Fannie Mae đến Mushtaq M. Kaid, 84.000 đô la. • 3129 South Park Ave., Patrick A. Mccusker đến Hamed Al-Humaikani, 19.000 đô la. LANCASTER • 107 Avian Way, Marrano / marc Equity Corporation cho Bruce R. Wilson; Lynnette L. Wilson, $ 371,526. • 96 Avian Way, Marrano / marc Equity Corporation cho Rebecca Hejmanowski; Scott A. Hejmanowski, $ 359,070. • 44 Pheasant Run Lane, Maureen J. Pantera; Thaddeus P. Pantera cho Laura R. Klinck; Sean P. Klinck, 280.000 đô la. • 324 Đường vỉa hè, Redland Quarries NY Inc đến Teds Quarry LLC, 250.000 đô la. • 22 Matthews Drive, Christine M. Graves đến Michele Tryjankowki; Paul Tryjankowski, 210.000 đô la. • 1717 Đại lộ Como Park, Robert Gregory Mcdonald đến Jennifer Vanderwerf, 165.000 đô la. • 238 Aurora St., Deborah E. Odonnell đến Nicole M. Tatum, 160.000 đô la. • 8 Huntley Place, Dolores M. Leprell đến Ashley L Morlock; Jeremy P. Morlock, 133.000 đô la. • 16 Holland Ave., Jason R. Drake; Malgorzata Kurtyko đến Danielle M. Gang, 130.000 đô la. • 298 Broezel Ave., Nancy M. Snyder; Quận Erie đến Brent Hardy, 77.000 đô la. • 39 Partridge Walk, Hidden Lawn Lan LLC đến Elizabeth A. Vealey, 69.000 đô la. BẢN TIN MỚI • Đường 11714 Rapids, Monica D. Muggelberg đến Micah J. Burgett; Tina M. Burgett, 187.000 đô la. • 6021 Đường Crittenden, Carl J. Longwell đến Megan Kiener; Nathan Kreher, $ 183.500. PHÍA BẮC • 2044 Southside Ave., Stone Creek Holdings LLC đến Joshua Bryant; Joshua P. Bryant, 68.000 đô la. CÔNG viên ORCHARD • 48 Breezewood Drive, Lisabeth M. King; Matthew R. King cho Kinda Elizabeth Sales; Bán hàng Kelly Graham, 360.000 đô la. • 36 Ferndale Drive, Donna M. Franz; Karl H. Franz tới 36 Ferndale Living Trust, 343.000 đô la. • 7900 Milestrip Road, De La Rosa Dann R; De La Rosa Karin L đến Ashley R. Wheeler; Mitchell P. Wheeler, $ 275,000. • 155 Squire Drive, Janette C. Neumeister; Michael J. Neumeister đến Jonthan Szematowicz; Patricia Szematowicz, 220.000 đô la. • 5051 đường Abbott, Francis Martino Jr.; Sharon E. Martino cho Mtglq Nhà đầu tư Lp, $ 181,687. • Vl Auckland Ave., 1972 Southwestern Blvd Inc đến Nbsn Properties LLC, $ 25,300. MÙA XUÂN • 526 East Main St., Guntrum 2018 Family Trust 101618 Tr đến Deborah Hammond, 155.000 đô la. • 148 Maple Ave., Ish Properties LLC đến Shaun L. Casey, 105.000 đô la. THÀNH PHỐ TONAWANDA • 34 Peuquet Parkway, Craig Holler đến Pde Real Estate Holdings LLC, $ 337,100. • 22 Peuquet Parkway, Craig M. Holler đến Pde Real Real Holdings LLC, $ 240.000. • 49 Peuquet Parkway, Craig M. Holler Holdings LLC, $ 172,900. • 55 Frances St., Susan E. Kottke đến Qamar A. Chaudhary, $ 170.000. • 29 Hackett Drive, George P. Gross Jr. đến Barbara Biniarz, $ 145.000. • 76 Dekalb St., Alexi M. Salamone ; Joseph A. Salamone; Susan M. Salamone cho James P. Patterson, 138.500 đô la. • 125 William St., Darlynn E. Harms; Robert W. Có hại cho Lillian R. Roberts, 122.500 đô la. • 285 William St., Gail R. Winch; William Warren Winch đến John Pecoraro, 95.000 đô la. • 60 Park Ave., Cheskiewicz Helen M Est; Jennifer Ann Runfola đến Công ty Ủy thác Quốc gia Deutsche Bank Tr; Tín dụng cho vay vốn chủ sở hữu thế kỷ mới 2004-1 Tr, $ 88,720. • 490 Morgan St., Anthony Brooks; Kimberly Brooks; Terry Jo Devlin; Kellie Roy đến Kimberly Brooks, 50.000 đô la. • 316 Brookside Terr, Sean R. Mcdonald cho Laura Hansen; Michael Hansen, 6.000 đô la. TONAWANDA • 3514 Delkn Ave., Mccormick 111 LLC đến 3514 Delkn Ave LLC, $ 475.000. • Tòa án 10 Lorna Lane, Nora Magnani đến Christopher R. Zambito, $ 265.000. • 2824 Delkn Ave., Alan P. Miller; Alan P. Walaski-Miller; James Walaski-Miller đến Ccr716 LLC, 200.000 đô la. • 201 Westfall Drive, Ryno Cho thuê LLC đến Jeffrey E. Williams, 171.500 đô la. • 93 Broadmoor Drive, WNY Homeworks Inc cho Alexander Kalosza; Charlene Kalosza, $ 167.500. • 58 Cresthill Ave., Robert Leber; Cathy A. Nixon; Susan M. Wackenheim đến Ann T. Cooper; Maurice D. Cooper III, $ 167.000. • 105 Wrexham Ct N, Rena Malarkey; Kyle T. Mcmahon đến Rory M. Murphy; Victoria Murphy, $ 159,547. • 117 Eble Ave., Amanda L. Buckley; Amanda L. Mooney cho Matthew Rice; Timothy Rice, 158.000 đô la. • Đường 252 Greentree, Lynn E. Collette đến Bonnie L. Guppenberger; Gary Guppenberger, 153.000 đô la. • 185 Westgate Road, Beatrice M Halton Không thể thu hồi ủy thác 103118 Tr đến Kristin R. Hall; William A. Schultz, 150.000 đô la. • 309 Cleveland, Sean P. Burns cho Adam D. Seitz, 150.000 đô la. • 321 Woodland Drive, Sheri L. Ackendorf; Sheri L. Pulvino đến Frank W. Morath, 149.900 đô la. • 516 Đường hai dặm Cr, Joshua D. Tarasek đến Nicholas Crane, 148.000 đô la. • 429 ​​Đường Glenalby, Candice A. Geiger; Nô-ê J. Mchale gửi Patrick W. Cahill Jr., $ 144,400. • 285 Abbington Ave., Frank N. Gennuso đến Sara J. Gallagher, 140.000 đô la. • 2203 Đại lộ Parker, Andrew R. Somerville; Heather L. Swain đến Dale R. Swain; Luann K. Swain, 135.000 đô la. • 42 Palmer Ave., Elizabeth Ann Ohara đến Tara Lynn Himes, 135.000 đô la. • 141 Wendel Ave., Joseph A. Farrauto đến Thawng L. Bik; Ngun S. Tial, $ 131.000. • 96 đường Willowbreeze, Franklin Carter đến Heather R. Colling; Justin M. Colling, 130.000 đô la. • 187 Floradale Ave., Lmb Capital Inc đến Susan E. Kottke, 127.000 đô la. • 132 đường Greentree, Mary B. Bakaysa đến Matthew R. Seaman, 120.000 đô la. • 338 Washington Ave., Christian Ferullo Chandap Chand; Rama Chand, $ 117.500. • 206 Wood 4.0.3 Drive, Margaret A. Glor; Timothy R. Vinh dự cho Duke Capital Holdings LLC, 100.000 đô la. • 210 Homewood Ave., Jeffrey E. Williams đến Cynthia A. Noelk; Heather A. Noelk, 90.000 đô la. • 750 Đại lộ Parker, Michael J. Notz; Susan M. Notz cho James K. Roberts, 40.000 đô la. WALES • 6680 Đường Maple Hill, Cecilia A. Pilc; James J. Pilc đến Brandon Daly; Jamie D. Daly, $ 298,969. TÂY SENECA • 47 Jaycee Lane, Marrano / marc Equity Corporation đến Elizabeth A. Kobialka; Przemyslaw S. Kobialka, $ 376,633. • Đất trống Bắc Mỹ Drive, Liên doanh West Seneca đến Kamax LLC, $ 304.000. • 81 Circle End Drive, Gary W. Kluck; David W. Neilson đến Sean P. Nowadly; Jenny K. Pfeiffer-Nowadly, $ 265.000. • 330 Forest Drive, Michelle A. Arteaga; Patricia A. Arteaga; Robert Arteaga; Lisa C. Wojciechowski đến Gary W. Kluck; David W. Neilson, $ 245.000. • 43 Leaside Drive, Judith Flak Mahoney; Đánh dấu E. Mahoney; Mahoney Family Trust 121218 Tr gửi đến Kristin Betti; Timothy Betti, 230.000 đô la. • 14 Marilyn Drive, Michael R. Koeppel đến Lawrence Sall; Marie Sall, $ 182.500. • 27 Race St., Roger L. Chudzik đến Kimberly A. Kuhn, $ 166.100. • 190 Brookside Drive, Dennis R. Heidt; Jan J. Heidt đến Katie J. Mccourt, 165.000 đô la. • 92 Cambridge Ave., David P. Lipchot; Steven M. Lipinc Hot; Leaann Wilczak tới Edward J. Majchrowicz, 150.000 đô la. • 197 Barnsdale Ave., Marilyn E. Mccormick đến Juliana M. Armstrong, 139.000 đô la. • 4411 Clinton St., John H. Hackney; John Henry Hackney cho Steven E. Gummo, 25.000 đô la. [ad_2] Nguồn

[korrektheiten]

Kubitschek über Krah bei Köppel

PI schreibt: »Von GÖTZ KUBITSCHEK* | Wenn Roger Köppel (Weltwoche) zum Gespräch bittet, entspannen sich die angespannten AfD-Politiker. Woran liegt das? Köppel strahlt eine interessierte Liberalität alten Schlages aus. Armin Mohler schrieb einmal, im Gegensatz zu Deutschland gehe es in der Schweiz stets nur um Mehr oder Weniger, nie um Alles oder nichts. Das ist eine Charakterisierung […] http://dlvr.it/T6hc9h «

[republicstandard]

The White Man's Third Position

Eric Striker has noted that in the recent elections the Republican governor of Kentucky ran a campaign based on a 1980s Reaganesque style revulsion towards "socialism" and against teachers, and he got his head handed to him, justifiably so; in other elections that night affirmative action and sanctuary cities took a beating.  One needn't be skilled in the reading of tea leaves to understand which way the wind is blowing.

Richard Spencer's publishing house, Washington Summit Publishers, recently issued a translation of Armin Mohler's The Conservative Revolution In Germany (1918-1932). Out of that matrix came National Socialism and, while not everyone is a Nazi, embedded within that is the magical position, the third position: conservative on social issues and progressive on economics.  If any enterprising politician should ever want to carry everything and everyone before him he really ought to look into it.

The amazing thing is that Trump ran on a set of issues that were unheard of for a quarter century, and he pulled off a miracle.  One would think that he would have countless imitators but in fact he has none, not even himself.

(function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:10817585113717094,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7788-6480"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.lockerdomecdn.com/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");

Capitalism overturns everything, uproots the world as it creates new ones every minute.  Exotic sexual ideologies expel nature, and fabricate an ersatz reality.  These aren't two sides of the same coin, they are the same coin, the coin of the realm of the ruling class.

By loosening economic controls the right destabilizes communities, by loosening social controls the left destabilizes human beings. Together they work as a pincer movement against our security, as everything that was solid melts into thin air.

The third position is protectionism for human beings and, as such, is inherently conservative.  It is fascism with a human face.  

A few years back Ashton Kutcher infamously declared that he was liberal on social issues and conservative on economics and his statement was hailed as the wave of the future.  He of course had it completely backwards, poll after poll shows a majority wants the exact opposite, wants the third position, wants a generous social democracy combined with an end to the tyranny of insidious social experimentation, be it that of an invasion of alien races or ever new frontiers in gender identity.  What they want is a tight knit and upright community, not a continued greasing of the skids of a no holds barred neo-liberal accelerationism.  They know in their hearts that the left got rid of social controls and the right got rid of economic ones, and that all sides conspired against them.

We forget just how much of a player David Duke was in the early 1990s, ideologically at least, people said oh but they're racists but others said maybe they like his platform.  Then Duke and Buchanan went back and forth accusing the other of stealing the agenda they had first.  But then they faded away, and no one picked up the mantle.

In the early 1990s the movie Falling Down became iconic, about a white man who had had enough and wasn't going to take it any more and proceeded to start mowing people down. This was adduced as an example of the growing phenomenon of the angry white male.  But really the map of this was clear by the time of George Wallace and his not a dime's worth of difference, or even way back in 1948 with Strom Thurmond.  Later Sam Francis cribbed Donald Warren's 1976 book The Radical Center and conjured up his legendary Middle American Radical, and Christopher Lasch diagnosed why liberalism was bad for the common man, and another liberal, Richard Rorty, gave two cheers not for capitalism but for social solidarity.  Later another Warren--Elizabeth--got into the act with her book The Two Income Trap, for by then the American Dream was over.

What was happening was clear enough.  After the war was a golden age for the American white working class.  While our enemies were wading through rubble our industrial plant was in pristine condition.  A man could work, the wife stay home to care for the children, vacations could be taken, retirements made, a good life had. But soon came the natural accelerants of open borders and open markets and the re-proletarianization of our people. This was done in the name of "freedom" and "openness", two things which are always the mortal enemies of decent folk everywhere.  They acted as agents of social sterilization, the jobs went out, the people came in, the housing prices went up, the neighborhoods became crowded, crime went up, as did the cost of living, the birth rates went down. In turn the money machine required more immigrants.  Wash, rinse, repeat, decimate, as is said.

Just in the middle of this deluge came figures who saw it clearly and wanted to arrest this wasting away of the social fabric.  The aforementioned Duke and Buchanan for sure, and also Ross Perot. Together they took what can be considered the white man's third position, against pointless foreign wars which bled our young dry, against the invasion by the colored races, against the free movement of goods across our borders, against moral and social chaos.  If you want to know more about it just listen carefully to that giant sucking sound.  

In addition to waging the culture war against the forces of moral decay Buchanan made a hard edged moved toward economic autarky and economic nationalism. While in Reagan's White House Buchanan once sent a businessman looking for tariffs packing but the former doctrinaire free trader got Dick Gephardt religion, and promoted industrial policy (which by then had become dirty words).  He wanted to make it impossible for goods made outside America to be sold here by throwing up massive tariff walls.  At the same time his corporate tax was zero. Haul up the drawbridge, make it enticing and necessary to produce here, and watch the middle class revive.  It could have worked.

But by the time he came around neo-liberalism was coming into its own, history was declared over, the free movement of goods and people across all barriers was ascendant.  Former hippie Bill Clinton was all for global capital, took the baton from that old internationalist traitor George Bush Sr. and pushed through NAFTA (see giant sucking sound, above).  Earlier Reagan and Thatcher were said to have been running some kind of supposed counter-revolution in the name of the decent folk, but they were not even speed bumps on the road to the loosening of all controls, threw gasoline on the accelerants, tossed on the match, and greased every skid on the way to disaster. Capitalism is nothing less than the overturning of everything at every instant, it says so in the brochure.

And the left came around all the way soon, became outriders of capital. Mass immigration is nothing but a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich but the ones who rail most against income inequality are its biggest supporters, in another time we would have called that false consciousness. Former hippie Hillary Clinton's dream was a unified market from Tierra Del Fuego to the Arctic Circle, and the free movement of everything throughout it.  This too is the dream of our ruling class.  The money spigots of the new world order are open borders and open markets which when the epitaph of America is written will be seen to be its death blow.

Old Socialists knew better.  It was always Nationalism in one country. Bernie Sanders once famously, or infamously, told Ezra Klein that open borders and mass immigration were Koch brothers' ideas (as are freeing all prisoners and eating away at the substance of America). While in his heart of hearts it's doubtful Bernie wants to build Fortress America (alas) it seems reasonable to think that he does want reasonable controls on immigration.  If he could get his base to go along with it he could walk away with the election.  Problem is, he's got the endorsement of Alexandria ("this is occupied land") Ocasio-Cortez.  That crowd hates white people and, contrary to what you read in the papers, they are no friends to the working class, but do the dirty work of corporations, wittingly or unwittingly, take your pick.

It wasn't always that way.   Old socialists knew better.  Dick Gephardt championed industrial policy, the notion that government and business can cooperate in tandem for what's good for the nation, Ralph Nader showed us what evil unregulated corporations will do, Barbara Jordan knew what was good for the worker and it wasn't a mass influx of cheap labor.  Cesar Chavez had his goons bust the heads of border jumping wetbacks who undercut the wages of his men, though the growers wanted brown serfs for their growing world-wide plantation.  And recently in American Affairs Angela Nagle made the left wing case for closed borders and for her trouble was made a pariah, and Aimee Therese regularly reviles all forms of neo-liberalism, or most of them, at least.

Liberal icon Eugene McCarthy wrote a book saying that America was fast becoming a colony of the world, arguing that economically and culturally, colonial status is evident in loss of control over borders, religion and language. Major investment in a colony is from outside, with control held by the investing powers.

Pat Buchanan said he fell out of his chair when he heard Trump's announcement speech and it's true, Trump ran on a straight up ticket of Buchananism.  He took on the three pillars of the ruling class cash machine, war, free trade, and open borders, and he also took away their shield, political correctness, the you can't say this, and you better not say that.  It's what spooked them so very terribly.  An angel mom said that when she heard Trump's speech she sat down and cried.   But as it turned out Trump became obsessed with blacks, gays, Jews, Israel, everything and everyone but what elected him.  The ruling class needn't have worried, he was no traitor to his class, he was one of them and, for that, may his memory forever be met with violent howls of execration.

(function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:10817587730962790,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-5979-7226"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.lockerdomecdn.com/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");

The odd thing is that for a position so inherently appealing there's not a single public official who will touch it with a ten foot pole.

So why would such a popular ideology go begging for suitors?  Why the wallflower at the dance?  The problem is that it's what Sam Francis called a strange amalgam of left-right, it's neither this nor that, not one thing nor the other, an ambidextrous ideology and, as such, it's a gossamer world-view, a unicorn position, chimerical. Who would espouse it?  The left demonizes borders while promoting social democracy; the right has its tax cuts while ostensibly preaching morality; they are an inverted mirror image of the other, right where the other is wrong, wrong where the other is right;  yes, the third position is an odd brew.  Add to that that the donors have a stranglehold on the parties and that whoever would take up its cudgel would find himself in the cross hairs of the ruling class and the distaste with which it is viewed by our leaders becomes explicable. Treacherous, but explicable.

This democracy of ours, owned by this ruling class, does have an Achilles heel.  It's that if enough of the people want something, and want it badly enough, they can get it, or at least they can make life very difficult for their enemies.  If Trump proved anything it's that a hostile takeover of a party from the very top is possible, with the right person, at the right time, with the right message.  If the difference between the rank and file of a party and its rulers becomes too great and a canny enough, a forceful enough, and a presentable enough person comes along to exploit and explain it, miracles can occur.  This is not the infiltration of the party, it is a coup de main, a knockout blow.  No one knows what the future holds.  A leader can arise.

In the meantime, of course, every man to his post.  

What that leader would advocate is simple: no wars, no immigration, no free trade, bring up the drawbridge, create Fortress America, become a hermit kingdom, disentanglement from Israel, pro guns, social democracy, pro unions, massive infrastructure spending, social solidarity, anti-degeneracy, public health care, a wealth tax, natalism, pro family formation, pro marriage, pro traditional American heritage, pro traditional gender roles, anti-corporate measures.

Apply social and economic controls, in a word.   Practice fascism with a human face.   To let the middle conspire against the traitors in our midst.

Someone really ought to look into it.

from Republic Standard | Conservative Thought & Culture Magazine https://ift.tt/2Khdzci via IFTTT

[interregnum-intermarium]

Growing a Forest in a World State: Ernst Jünger on Anarcho-Tyranny

Speech by Olena Semenyaka, international secretary of National Corps, at the Scandza Forum in Stockholm on March 30, 2019.

I am very grateful to Froði Midjord for inviting me to the annual Scandza Forum, which has become a true epicenter of the Scandinavian revival.

Addressing this year’s topic of the Forum, which is “Anarcho-Tyranny,” today, especially after an unbelievable detainment of Jared Taylor and barbaric campaign launched by Facebook in order to exclude even critical examination of nationalism from a public sphere, the decrease of freedom in Western societies is the main problem which is faced by everyone wishing to initiate some changes and even simply a discussion of the latter.

 Those on the Right, or Alt-Right taken broadly, often fairly consider an option of building their own networking community similar to the concept of a state within a state. In the context of new Facebook limitations, it would mean not only the creation of their own social networks (the path which has already been well-trodden by American Alt-Right) but also regular socializing, providing all kinds of assistance to each other, basically, building a paradoxical international tribe.

Such an approach, again, is natural and fair. But, to find the remedy in a long-term perspective, it’s important to determine the origins of the problem. To understand why operating within the global Western political system can be only temporary, it would be helpful to address the thought of the Third Way, the German interwar movement which has given the world names like Arthur Moeller van den Bruck, Oswald Spengler, Ernst and Friedrich Georg Jünger, Carl Schmitt, Armin Mohler and others. Having done that, we will realize that a much safer, or at least a parallel way, should consist in nothing but shaping the alternative world order. Which, again, does not cancel the entryist strategy of subverting the system from within.

Normies got used to the idea that horrors of total control are the legacy of totalitarian regimes only, whereas the brave new world born after WW2 is bad only in Huxley's and Orwell's books. The point of Ernst Jünger, who offered one of the earliest and most insightful descriptions of the coming totalitarian orders in his interwar classic treatise "The Worker. Domination and Gestalt" (1932), is that the difference between the two regimes which rivalled for the planetary domination in the 20th century and the post-war neo-liberal order, in fact, is not so striking. 

Back in the 30-s, Jünger had been observing the same developments not only in the Soviet Union and Germany but also in democratic France and Great Britain. He called this process "total mobilization" which is carried out by means of technology. And, Jünger went on to say, since the information component was growingly significant in modern wars, the states not only secretly engaged in race of arms but also had been enhancing the spheres which helped to make a society more homogeneous and uniform: sports, cinematograph, press, as a means of propaganda in particular. 

Jünger traced the origins of this process back to the Napoleonic wars, which for the first time dissoluted the borderline between the lacking military and the civilians. The declining warrior estate, the last bastion of aristocracy, eventually collapsed during the WW1 due to its groundbreakingly industrial character. The soldier behind the artillery battery no longer needs to be honorable, strong or clever. He needs to be professional, that's all. The very basis for heroism breaks down. Warriors turn into workers who often don't even have an experience of direct contact with the enemy. Jünger makes it clear that heroic realism is the only attitude which is worthy of cultivating under altered conditions, and precisely stoical acceptance of the latter is what makes such an attitude "heroic."

Jünger, who occupies a very special place among the theorists of philosophy of technology, heuristically associated the latter with the mythological forces of titanism. He and his brother Friedrich Georg described in detail what it means, and their mythological and poetic metaphors, in my opinion, have a huge descriptive and explanatory value.

In terms of Ernst Jünger's philosophy of culture, the titans, chthonic creatures, rebel against the gods, Olympians, by destroying the established borders between their creations, including Oswald Spengler's creatures (beings) of the higher type: cultural-civilizational types, let alone nations, nation states and races. The only difference between the interwar and the post-war spiritual-historical situation is that the advent of industrial orders bore the mark of titan Prometheus, homo faber, basically, the principle of productivity and a merciless rational warfare, whereas the post-industrial society loses heroic voluntarism of Prometheus (who, after all, remained on the side of the gods), because now the titans have a more powerful ally: Gaia, Mother Earth herself revolting against Heaven-Uranus. 

The invention of the lightening rod defending earth from heavenly fire in 1752, according to Jünger, was one of the starting points of this process. Today, Gaia covers herself with an ever denser network of cables, the true kingdom of titans producing their own fire and energies, which replaced earlier industrial gigantism. Along with the erosion of godly archetypes, species of animals and plants, flourishes genetic engineering challenging natural divine designs, as well as artificial insemination as the most obvious manifestation of the matriarchal orders’ expansion. All kinds of borders, limitations and inequality are treated with extreme irritation. Everything becomes fluid like early shape-changing sea-god Proteus, one of the enemies of Hercules, who sided with the gods against the chthonic creatures.

 Actually, we have already heard similar ideas in this or that form, for example, Julius Evola’s take on the “gynecocratic” society, but the important difference is that Jünger describes these tendencies in neutral objective terms, firstly, because the titans also have their legitimate place in the mythological structure of the universe and resonate with some aspects of a human psyche, secondly, these tendencies are not eternal. In this respect, Jünger, like Nietzsche, was a true visionary.

For the shipwreck of Titanic, in Jünger's interpretation, was another powerful sign sent by Cassandra indicating that the reign of the titans would also soon come to an end. At the same time, it is not a matter of sequential cycles of the divine and titanic rules. According to Jünger's forecast, the titans will reign throughout the entire 21th century, but then the gods will return, casting the titans in the Tartarus again, but also completing the eventual decline of the anthropocentric history which began with WW1 as the gates through which the titans entered the historical scene. Anti-individualistic, anti-human, misanthropic totalitarian orders, in Jünger's words, are a natural outcome of a much more global metaphysical dynamics: man's giving way to the titans on the historical arena.

However, early Jünger welcomed this process as the active-nihilistical phase of Friedrich Nietzsche's transvaluation of all values which must end with the birth of new values. Superman is the conqueror of God and nothing, says Nietzsche meaning that it is about creative ruination, but also giving a hint that Nothing may be an enemy much more terrific than the old order and values.

That's why early Jünger neutralized Marxist economical reductionism by reinterpreting the Worker not as a worker estate or a proletarian class but as a new human type which is as if engraved, as if imprinted in the human material by the metaphysical and, should be added, titanical Gestalt of the Worker. The new human type assumes the features of technology: activity, dynamism, impersonality and a passion for uniform ways of behaviour. Jünger calls it the principle of work carefully distinguishing it from the moral Biblical merits of hard labours. And he welcomes the new human type replacing the "touching child of the bourgeois sentimentality," the individual. In this context, Jünger also attacks the freedom of speech and fake artistic expression.

Simultaneously, the new human type is not so much totalitarian as “superhuman”: according to Jünger, this is the new aristocracy born in the trenches of WW1. Anyway, we easily recognize the polemic with “I accuse,” Emil Zola's letter to the president of French Republic in defense of Alfred Dreyfus, Jewish officer who was charged with state treason and was also condemned by the patriotic public. Since then, criticism of the state, bureaucracy and official media from a civic point of view has been associated exclusively with the Left.

 However, having received a ban on publishing in the British occupation zone right after the end of WW2 and, overall, experiencing total control in the post-war FRG, Jünger, soon enough, developed his own extremely influential third positionist criticism of the police state. Following his friend Carl Schmitt, he labeled the neo-totalitarian political system “Leviathan” and started summoning gods back. Shortly afterwards, Jünger was reintegrated into the post-war German society as a writer, participated in the German-French reconciliation ceremony in 1984 alongside German chancellor Helmut Kohl and French president Francois Mitterand and, eventually, has become a true cultural icon in Germany and beyond, but his criticism has remained unchanged.

 As opposed to the interwar emphasis on the new human type, Jünger started stressing individual strategies of resisting Leviathan. Jünger documents this change of perspective in works like "Across the Line" (1950), "The Forest Passage" (1951), as well as later collection of aphorisms named "Author and Authorship" (1984). As opposed to his early attack on fake political and artistic freedom, this time, Jünger places poets and artists among other figures hated by the tyrants: the followers of religious and metaphysical teachings who don't fear death but whom the tyrants fear, friends and lovers who do not let Leviathan dissolute the personal in the public. Almost liberal ideas, as far as we see, but they are well-familiar to us in the context of discussing the model of a state within a state, the oasis in the desert of post-war nihilism, as Jünger defines this space of personal freedom. For the elephant skin of the titans still suffers from artistic stings of the muses, Jünger adds.

 To sum up, Jünger suggests the models of a sovereign individual, first Waldgänger (the Forest Fleer), then the Anarch as the advanced version of the latter. The metaphor of the Forest and hidden forest paths leading to freedom becomes crucial for the post-war Third Way, especially in Jünger’s and Heidegger’s work. Many recognize here a reference to Tacitus’ “Germania,” and Jünger himself referred to the old Icelandic right to retreat into the forest for those who were proclaimed outlaws. In many respects, these models are as polemical with regard to the liberal (bourgeois) concept of freedom as the new human type exemplified in the Warrior and the Worker. But, as opposed to the latter, the Forest Fleer and the Anarch target not the old discredited order but Nothing itself, Nothing that not so much replaced it in all its outright omnipresence as found its way into the very heart of the new post-war order, seemingly humanist and freedom-loving.

Actually, already in 1949 futuristic dystopian novel “Heliopolis” Jünger showed that technological development wouldn't bring liberation and equality. He illustrates it in the episode about the device named phonophor, an analogue of modern smartphones with an access to the Internet, which unveiled the old deception of indirect democracy. Although all residents of Heliopolis could participate daily in internet plebiscites and questionnaires, answer “yes,” “no,” “abstain,” the right to pose questions for voting, as always, belonged to the few. Today, in the epoch of audio-visual technologies, the dystopian aspect of technology in the service of a particular political agenda consists in the filtered informational, especially online, exchange with a society: anytime, a political opponent can be announced an “extremist” and deprived of such access.

The Orwellian genre of the futuristic dystopian novel has become very symptomatic for late Jünger. 1977 novel “Eumeswil,” which is a sequel to “Heliopolis,” is a key parody of the modern society in which Jünger, conceptually, continues developing the main theme of “The Forest Passage”: liberalism has nothing to do with freedom. The main difference between the two models of a sovereign individual described in these works is that the society expelled the Forest Fleer, whereas the Anarch expelled the society from himself; as famous Jünger’s formula says, the Anarch is to the anarchist, what the monarch is to the monarchist.

A protagonist of the Anarch in the novel, historian Martin “Manuel” Venator, is also employed as a night steward at the Casbah, a fortress of Condor, the tyrant ruling over the futuristic city state Eumeswil somewhere in North Africa. As a sovereign individual, he is no enthusiastic supporter of Condor and, theoretically, could even assassinate him, but the self-stylized Anarch is even more distanced from the “opposition” in the person of advocates of what he believes to be fake freedom: anarchists “raging until they are thrust into a more rigorous straitjacket,” liberals, demagogic socialists imagining themselves the followers of Brutus. As opposed to them, the Anarch rejects not the state and power structures as such; he rejects the very foundations of the contemporary society, because, as a historian, he knows “what can be offered” (“I am an anarch – not because I despise authority, but because I need it”).

Interestingly enough, in tune with late Jünger’s frequent motif of “The Great Transition,” “Eumeswil” ends with the Great Hunt in the jungle in which participate both the narrator, Martin Venator (meaning “hunter”), and tyrant Condor. Nobody returns from this highly metaphorical “Forest Passage,” and this final conjunction of the Anarch and the tyrant, just like Jünger’s conscious collision of freedom vs. “freedom,” functions as a positive counterpart of today’s anarcho-tyranny.

In other words, the Anarch rejects only the regime of anarcho-tyranny comprised of delusional freedom and no less fake and illegitimate authorities. And we, third positionists, in no way attack freedom while attacking neo-liberalism: we attack neo-totalitarian despotism of quasi-Eastern type which currently reigns in the old West maniacally hunting thought crimes of the dissidents.

 Actually, it was Oswald Spengler who for the first time clarified that the late phase of the European cultural and civilizational type, the Faustian phase, is indifferent to arts, poetry and, overall, culture. It cares about science, technology, industry, construction (not architecture as such), spatial expansion and quantitative growth in general. Spengler called it the late civilizational phase when the culture's creativity is already exhausted. Jünger reinterpreted it as the contrast between the divine and titanic reigns. Similar ideas may be found in the creativity of Rene Guenon, the founder of integral traditionalism, “The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times” (1945) in particular. When the cannons sing, muses are silent, reiterated back in the days Nietzsche.

 That's why, on a global scale, as pompous and surreal as it may sound, we will feel a relief only when we hasten the coming of a new metahistorical aeon. When the gods return, culture, intelligence and argumentation become important again. Yet, the very idea of expansion and voluntaristic hastening of higher cycles is titanic, Promethean, and that is also why I refer to Jünger's principled belief that man should be friends both with the gods and the titans, for he has elements of both of them.

The main lesson drawn by Jünger from WW2 was that the new orders did not bring new values and can easily coexist with nihilism. However, the reverse is also true: the Forest can grow bigger from any point of the existing titanic infrastructure, for, as Jünger persuasively shown, it is not “evil,” it’s neutral. Technology, as a mythical power, of course, is neutral not in a sense of being a mere instrument of progress and equal distribution of material goods. Experience of two world wars says that technology, above all, is a destructive, levelling power. Still, it can work both ways, for Leviathan and for the Forest, for the global state and for the rebel who does not need the mediation of the latter while addressing the society. That’s why the global political system fears popular metapolitical video bloggers so much: they defeat the modern world with its own weapons.

As Carl Schmitt observed, modern Partisan, thanks to new technological means, becomes mobile and rootless, which makes him especially dangerous for the system. Schmitt provided probably the deepest philosophical-political account of anarcho-tyranny: the global police state which denies the normal notion of the enemy, and, having demonized all opponents as enemies of humanity as such (not some contingent and particular regime like the modern Western political system), legitimizes its neo-totalitarian oppression through repeated counter-terror operations against all disagreeing. Today it happens, above all, by importing representatives of incompatible cultural values into Western societies and criminalizing the popular frustration. But certain geopolitical alternative, inspired by the modernity itself, will make the system armless.

Not incidentally, Jünger, during his stay in Paris as part of the German occupation administration, wrote a secret treatise “Peace” in which he suggested a model of the United States of Europe. Learning from Trotskyist internationals, Jünger called to develop universalism from the Right instead of reactionary, and futile, resistance to this world-historical tendency. Today, when I say that the model of a state in a state is insufficient or, more precisely, intermediate, and refer to paneuropean geopolitical doctrines and a planetary geostrategy, I mean creation of the infrastructure for the universalism from the Right within which we will be able to expand (“titanically”) without compromising our values (the “divine”).

Fear of the system when it saw that networking of Alt-Right brought Donald Trump to power was enormous, although he’s a part of it. However, shutting down the public space for too many dissidents will cost too much for the system. We have to strongly "inject freedom" in the information space, in the artistic sphere as well, instead of letting it associate us with real terror acts, which, also after the 11th of September and Iraq, are used only for imposing more control on the individual, even apolitical. It does not mean that we cannot show teeth: there is enough crime, violence and injustice in the world entitling us, especially in Eastern Europe, to self-organize and claim first civic, then political, and, finally, geopolitical power to ourselves.

But the main battle lies in the individual’s relation to technology as both an alienating and a bonding power, both an instrument of dystopian totalitarian control or propaganda and an emancipating energy that does not recognize any limitations, intimately reaching people’s minds and souls like modern music and cinematograph.

 In this respect, the situations in Western and Eastern European parts of the world are equal. We have to make a careful mapping of the public space to mark the territories in which the Forest can sprout out as the mythical vines of Dionysus. Illuminating social interaction, true art, liberating metaphysical teachings and practices, combined with our own geoeconomical projects, will bring down the regime of anarcho-tyranny in the blink of an eye.