As recently came across two texts by authors who seem to be regarded as predecessors of Alain Soral, I enjoyed reading them both for themselves and to try to better understand the ins and outs of what seems to be a stream of ideas, but certainly not insignificant minority in the French political thought, at least since the mid-twentieth century.
Such exercises somehow devalues thinking on which it is carried out in that it diminishes the novelty. At the same time, it can better understand why attempts at political combat as they have failed in the past, and what, therefore, possibly, could give them more chances of success in the future.
I give you today the first of these texts, with some feedback ... that I will interrupt abruptly. This will give a partial aspect of my analysis on elements of A. Soral, but besides that I was getting a little long, so I went off in generalities that I feel need to be treated separately.
Moreover, I learned this morning the history of the complaint against A. UEJF Soral. The relationship of it to Jews is in some way, unnecessarily complicated, I thought a few times to dig myself without hitch. In other words, I do not know if it's an interesting question. We found some traces implicit in what follows.
- A small distraction to begin
and away!
"I have objected to both right and left: your comments are not without interest, but you place yourself at a point of view too exclusively economic and social development. You do not consider to explain our current weaknesses and confusion, that malfeasance caused by abuse and monopoly of a few large power business. You plan to prepare a remedy, the problem of social class structure. You neglect the disorders caused by the mechanism ill suited for our constitutional institutions. You seem to ignore you even ideologies, philosophical beliefs opposed by which, for many people, to whatever class they belong, differ Right mindset and mentality of the Left.
To this I reply: I am aware nor neglects the constitutional views and ideologies. But I want to avoid confusion, I want to put the concerns in their normal order of urgency.
I know very well that, initially, in France's parliamentary nineteenth century, in relation to constitutional positions and ideological formulas above, almost exclusively even in appearance, that has set the opposition between Right and Left. Under the Restoration those who claimed the Left is recommended primarily for what they called the liberal formulas from doctrines of 89, those who sit right in the meetings said they were primarily loyal to the moral traditions of the old monarchy, which, over the ages, had ensured the continuity of its size, influence and civilizing work of France .
Later, in the aftermath of the Franco-Prussian War, when the Assembly elected in 1871 he was fixing the new regime to give the country the distinction had appeared even clearer and more explicit constitutional. Right, in principle, it was the royalists. The Left, it was the Republicans.
It was also natural that the concerns Constitutional tinssent then a dominant since the country was without a defined status and it was to give her one. Already, however, behind the labels strictly political confusion of a very different lurked. While some called for the republic was in principle because republic democracy meant to them, that is to say government of the people by the people, government by the people in the interest of the masses to free them from this that called doctrinaire domination of the powerful selfish and abusive, and also ensured they, the domination of the Church which, they argued, for ensure his own power, based itself on material powers.
But in reality, very quickly, a number of economically and financially more powerful had realized that to save, at least temporarily, their positions threatened, it could be advantageous to exploit the misunderstanding that the constitutional debates and ideological shape of the plan could give rise. Indeed, if for various doctrinaire republic, identified by them with democracy, was the defense and prosperity of the oppressed masses, for many people, even in very popular republican form, historically linked to the bloody adventures and disorders of the first and second republic was then mainly instability, disorder and misery, disorder, misery and instability with the little people were the main victims . The monarchy against them was a regime where the sovereign arbiter between all could and should be in its own interest as well as in the general interest, the defender of the weak against the monopolies and the ambitions of dominating better off.
As a result, as the word republic continued to inspire great fear, as the doctrinaire Democrats knew they had the country behind them in a relatively small minority, some of the economically powerful groups and themselves at risk, as well as the side of the monarchists on the Republican side doctrinaire Democrats , had devised a clever combination. They had made an alliance with the Democrats, knowing that for now the weakest, were less demanding, to neutralize them. They give, as a diversion, the republican form of government, ideology anticlerical and a number of places. In return they would not too demanding reforms in economic structure and revision of large financial abuse.
This had facilitated the game is that all the great riders did not make the same calculation. Some of them, even in large numbers at the start, had seen in the combination of rallying to the republic danger. They had refused to join. Because they thought the republic was bound to fall one day into demagoguery ruinous interest. This reflex, loudly said, gave the naive impression that the Democrats rallied, which, themselves, hid their calculation were selfless idealists. We forgave them their fortunes because of the generosity their rally: they avoided asking for the immediate sacrifice of money, they even let the system take a lot of places, openly or concealed leadership, time that, by their rally, they allowed the republic to live.
They drew from all this are twofold. By joining forces with the republic, that is to say, according to the formulas of the moment, the Left, they saved at least temporarily their privileged economic position. And at the same time they located the belief in the opinion incorrect, but convenient for them, that the privileged money were right on the side of opponents of the republic.
Indeed, subsequently, the operation could not proceed smoothly. After a while, once the system is installed, the Democratic doctrine had begun to be more demanding. They had not fully satisfied with the two derivative forms of republican constitution and ideology anticlerical. A socialist party that had organized called for the masses, for masses of workers especially, economic reforms and social structure. So great had rallied threatened more or less discreetly returned to the Right and towards the Church, but without any real intention of letting the storm pass until one day the naive doctrinaire Democrats to save what they considered essential, and most directly threatened, that is to say, the constitutional forms and ideology anticlerical republican, had again agreed to abandon temporarily the structural reforms.
short (that is, in my view, the dominant notion that, having never been clearly analyzed before me has clouded any contemporary French life), it is not true, as some people naively believe , Like other far more Machiavellian applied themselves to believe, that the Right is or has France been the party of money. Money, big money is, was neither to right nor left. To save the most unfair advantages he has consistently played alternately by the Left and Right, most often of the Left, by exploiting a number of ideologies.
is misleading ambiguity has always maintained that in this respect, it is the alternating swings he used to save his excessive privileges that were primarily responsible for the continuing instability government and institutional whose contemporary France has ceased to suffer. It is these swings as a result are also primarily responsible for the weakening of the French international authority, depressing the confusion which this loss of prestige hurts the French and the resulting loss of dynamism and entrepreneurship that accuse us both now. "
These lines (reproduced without cuts, I only corrected the punctuation here and there) was written in 1956 by Emmanuel Beau de Lomenie, and published in the journal edited by Jacques Laurent , La Parisienne (No special "The Right", October 1956).
Beau Lomenie is mainly known for two books, a great history of Responsibilities bourgeois dynasties, five volumes published between 1943 and Denoël 1973, and an annotated anthology of the work of Drumont Edward Drumont or National anticapitalism , edited by Pauvert (and J.-F. Revel, render unto Caesar ...) in 1968.
If we can only hope that his work as a historian is documented more than a few lines of synthesis, too allusive, we salute the relevance of these, and we underline appearance pre-soralien: refusal of dogmatism separation Left-Right, Marxist concern audit in the concrete of the validity of separations political will for reconciliation between the French, spell out the following text, which is like a foreshadowing of certain aspects of the Gaullist regime. All accompanied by an interest in stateless powers, including the Jewish power. (Note that in the introduction to his book on Drumont Beau Lomenie estimated Jewish France is the worst text of his author's attention it was too exclusively focused on the Jews and not allowing understand the real issues of alliances between big capitalists. I only read the introduction.) These common with the founder of Equity and Reconciliation seem striking in that other extract (I practice a few cuts, to stay on key):
"Currently In France, outside the narrow minority more or less directly related to major business interests, which are maintained or even strengthened by their occult fact alternated games, there are two large masses roughly comparable numerical size.
There is a mass of workers and employees base, most of which have little resources other than their salaries. For them, because of democratic formulas that from the beginning, the doctrinaire Republicans were linked to the label on the left, left, and that meant much attention to the people, belonging to the left has become, in a spirit of class a kind of dogma. But as the same time, since its inception, have continued to figure in the parliamentary coalitions of left some of the representatives or agents of big business and politics embraced democratic forms in word to sleep or to neutralize the claims and the impatience of the most menacing; as in more recent times we have seen yet included in government with labels left men also marked by their big business affiliations that René Mayer, cousin and avowed agent of the Rothschilds, or even now, with the title of Secretary of State for the Budget, Mr. John Filippi , passed in the staffs of the house of Louis-Dreyfus, major traffickers of wheat and Shipping, then, without understanding the mechanism of such combinations, the working masses have confused the feeling of being deceived. And so much of them, giving up hope of finding their place quietly within the French community, look to Moscow.
Faced with this mass-based employee working there is the vast mass of middle class-based artisans, shopkeepers, farmers and much of intellectuals from the so-called liberal professions.
is this middle class that was quickly found, which is now more than ever the main victim of misunderstandings fostered by the great powers business. In principle, the kind of activities that are often independent character and Business, through its family relationships sometimes, it should have been sustained and supported by business leaders. In fact, most often, the latter, especially concerned to protect their positions and threatened their privileges to both viewpoints abusive, did nothing to help and sustain the spirit of initiative, dynamism producer of these middle managers. Quite the contrary, concerned above all to exclude potential competitors, reserving to themselves the credit facility, pumping systems by false promises of responsible borrowing the savings of these potential rivals, they have gradually methodically and somewhat depressed. And, to divert their instinctive revolt, they have with them better and even more easily with the masses of workers, played misunderstandings ideological dividing them.
So spoke, the more comfortable and maintenance of the worst abuses unhealthy economic cutting of small and middle bourgeoisie between a Republican and radical left and right unparliamentary, so busy arguing about the shape of institutions and the religious problem that they forget their interests as their social responsibilities and the common development of economic and financial program related to the joint role that should be theirs in all the French activities.
Imagine instead that the sick game that has maintained and grown its divisions has been understood by her. Instead of wear in its theoretical arguments it would naturally have to take the initiative to organize a program of all individual generating initiatives. It would not condemn the principle of large fortunes and large enterprises. It would control them, through among other things, the orderly distribution of credit, to bend to the common good. Well understood and the program, which would normally be that of a new right would also be sanitized the formation of a new Left, on sound and consistent.
New Left counter our new Right, issued riots prompted by the hypocrisy of the current leftist coalition, would be less inclined to undergo the attraction of communism Muscovite, even this kind of latent hatred for our national past that we can guess at some of the doctrinal Current MRP who want the left.
Then the parliamentary game could work in a balanced way, with two major groupings consistent enough to allow the establishment of social programs and national assembly. And the false equivocation that contributed so much to the demoralization common being eliminated, the debates on institutional reform, discussions about the religious policy could take in an atmosphere that would not quarrel over the passions artificially maintained and irritated.
If indeed it is normal for different interests to get organized in their confrontation with a balance, it is unhealthy that the active forces of the country are regimented in a sustainable manner into factions grouped on programs whose main themes, consisting to keep challenging question the essential foundations of our national life and morals, maintain a mentality of continuous civil war. "
" When strikes the hour an ideology, while contributing to its success, his enemies themselves ... " - you can see once again the validity of that adage Cioran, as the regime that emerged in the years following the drafting of This article has filled in some respects the wishes of Beau Lomenie, in other respects has strengthened the weight of the large capitalist groups compared to that of SMEs and the "middle class".
Do not push parallels between the authors and between periods too far, but found an ambiguity here that I happened to mention on the side "restorer of capitalism" Alain Soral. There are three reasons for this seems to me there, and if the first two: the incredible power of recovery and recycling of capitalism, its undeniable trend towards self-destruction, which means that those who fight against it tend trying to save him from himself - if the first two are external factors and heavy at the thought of E. Beau Lomenie or A. Soral, the third refers to the internal coherence of their discourse and impulses of economic reductionism that we can detect.
Somewhere in her latest video Alain Soral epilogue on the rich Muslims Neuilly who get thick as thieves with the Zionists and cathos corner without religion will make the slightest obstacle. I have written things like this, I still subscribe to that view. I am also fully agree with the analysis on the strategy of "divide and conquer." Anything that can show in the line of about Beau Lomenie, some how, while pretending to argue, agree so hidden on the backs of the poor, is good to know, because, quite simply, true. Finally, I maintain a work habit of the French from diverse backgrounds together to done overnight, at school, at work for those who do, etc.. - Unless indeed the anthropological type that comes out is necessarily exciting, but that's another matter. Suffice to say that I find myself in a friendly country in these texts.
This can only impede, however, is a kind of naive Marxist theoretical strategies inseparable unveiling say, as if, once they had demonstrated the artificiality of certain disputes, they would s 'vanish of themselves. Try here to distinguish what should be:
- and despite his side with Don Quixote, Alain Soral itself is not, humanly speaking, a naive - probably at the point of depressing its aficionados certain statements by some moody or cynical;
- strictly speaking, Marxism (or other strategy of unveiling, Freudianism) n not imply that the discovery of some hidden structures of domination automatically the disappearance of these structures;
- yet there is in all these theories a kind of underestimation due to cultural differences in materialism- Underlying that while having a fund actually generate their own illusions. These illusions
may be practical, receipt of these theories: the belief in the amateur of Equality and reconciliation if all the poor will reach out to all the best in the best of France, etc.. - Loaded for those who know it's not so easy to remember, to make lucid Billancourt, so to speak;
these illusions are also derived from a prosaic egalitarianism that can seems to me he detect in Soral, or otherwise, in Bourdieu. Here we find elsewhere, from another angle, the recent quarrel between Soral and M.-E. Nabe. The first looks like the second it is a aesthetic philistine or something like that, it remains there in whichever is the sense of an artist the beauty of the variety of human affairs that we do not feel the same degree at Alain Soral .
Here s'atteignirent the Athenians, and that I stop. The logical analysis of these leads, as I mentioned in the preamble to generalities that need their own space to be expressed with the precision which alone can enable them not add to banalities. To thank those who have gone through this text, a small reward - to watch over, the Godfather himself is through.
- soon!
0 comments:
Post a Comment