The disadvantage afflicting all those who embrace doctrine is that they proceed by masking their intentions and that their ‘reasonable’ argumentation is but a means to justify their prejudice and preconceived ideas, which thus take on the shape of experimental truths. Hence the failure and impotence of ‘human sciences’, which are often only scientific by name.
In a book that has not been granted the importance that it deserved, Mr René de Lacharrière, a professor of law at Nanterre and our President’s former technical advisor, deplores the very fact that political science ‘remains open to philosophical and literary intellectual processes’.
He writes that ‘in the case of certain categories of intellectuals, or assimilated ones’, dialectics ‘acts simultaneously as their daily bread, cake and cream pie’.
He undertakes, thereafter, to chastise ‘products, sub-products, and the wastes of Marxism, Freudism, surrealism, existentialism, structuralism, as well as informal art, musique concrète and a large number of human sciences which our traditions do not allow us to ridicule, save when we are among highly trustworthy friends and in a small, select group’.
Along the way, he scrapes the surface of bloated language (in the eyes of Roland Barthes, the spokesman for the ‘new critique’, ‘a neologism is an erotic act’), while also targeting the technocrats whose calculations ‘serve, above all, to protect the state against the intervention of profane blatancies’.
His criticism is aimed at three ideologies: Hegelianism, which goes so far in sanctifying the world that it even glorifies its absurdities; Marxism, which is founded upon a mystical and virtually providential interpretation of history; and fascism, which feeds on the kind of passions that traditional politics has left vacant, namely the allure of war and the complicity of death.
The Hegelian conception of an objective Reason ruling the world, one whose nature is vaguely transcendental, has led Mr de Lacharrière to compare Hegel62 to Hitler, who made the following declaration during his trial in 1924: ‘The judges of this state can, in all tranquillity, condemn us for what we have done. History, this goddess that personifies a superior truth and a higher right, shall nonetheless still rend their sentences asunder one day, smiling as she absolves us from the offences that we are allegedly being made to expiate’.
A certain notion of God is thus present in the Hegelian icon of the Spirit, and it has endured in Marx’s concept of a Goddess Humanity.
Bertrand Russell63 proceeded to categorise Marxism as one of the world’s great religions, alongside Judeo-Christianity, Islamism and Buddhism, while Mr de Lacharrière defines it as an anthropotheology.
‘Marx’s atheism64 is inclined to retrieve the aspirations that have strayed towards the heavens, and this socialisation of God precedes that of productions means. This renders Marxism all the more fearsome, since, as sensed by Max Stirner,65 “oppression is accentuated proportionately to the descent of divinity on earth and its interiorisation in man” (in Der Einzige und sein Eigentum,66 1845)’, Lacharrière writes.
As for Fascism, says Mr de Lacharrière, it represents ‘the cursed domain of political intelligence’. Indeed, in this regard, the latter finds itself simultaneously scorned to the extreme and exalted to the point of a paradox.
Mr de Lacharrière refutes the traditional explanations of Fascism, whether the Marxist interpretation (where Fascism is the ultimate defensive reflex of a bourgeoisie which, supported through capital, finds itself cornered) or the Sartrian one (in which Fascism is defined as psychological instability or mediocrity combined with authoritarian delusions), in addition to the psychoanalytical understanding of things. He writes that ‘there is a pacifistic slogan which claims that guns act as the penile extension of the impotent; but why should this privilege be the exclusive prerogative of guns? Never did Freudism lack the imaginative breadth to discern evocative shapes in the widest possible variety of instruments. Why does one not, likewise, state that a writer’s pen acts as his penis, as does a painter’s brush, a doctor’s thermometer, a priest’s aspersorium, and the Eiffel tower from the tourists’ point of view?’
Indeed, states Mr de Lacharrière, the real explanation behind Fascism lies in the romanticism of arms, people’s fondness for war and their fascination with death.
‘What makes Fascism so fortunate is that it conveys an irrational exaltation contrasting with the presence of republics that offer no political laudation, do not aspire to the latter and, what is more, display a very doubtful loyalty to the rational principles that they claim to uphold’.
This fascination is nothing new. Montaigne, a peaceful man by any means, once wrote that ‘there is no pleasanter kind of occupation than the military one’. Mr Roger Caillois67 compared people’s fondness for war to their penchant for the sacred. In Mr Gaston Bouthoul’s words,68 war is an end disguised as a means. In 1958, workers supported a ‘paratrooper presence in factories’. And yet, what the onlookers ‘applauded was not a procession of workers behind their banners, but the stern parade of parachutists’. There is nothing that can be done about it; that’s just the way things are. In Fascism, all is well that ends badly.
An Archetypal Conflict
With Mr Dominique Venner,69 a short-haired, forty-one-year-old man with an eventful life, we experience a return to praxis. His Guide to Politics targets a wide public, particularly those who would like to decide what position to adopt with regard to today’s political parties and politicians.
Most dictionaries of this kind limit their content to laborious enumerations copied from a Who’s Who and various commercial registers. This one, however, has been penned in a most alert and often impertinent fashion and thus belongs to a different genre. It is not meant for those who frequent political highways, but for tourists. Its greatest part consists of biographical notes, supported by numerous annexes.
‘In addition to the great tenors, I was eager to mention unknown individuals who entered the realm of politics not with the purpose of pursuing a career in it, but in a virtually religious manner. Thanks to them, politics has retained its nobility, dramatic tension and appeal, regardless of whether they are Leftists, Rightists or anything else. They do not strive to fool anyone, even when they themselves are foolish’, wrote Mr Venner.
Throughout its history, political science has, in turn, been contested by juridical sciences, economic sciences, morals, economics and sociology. One regularly stirs up the myth of ‘the end of politics’.
And yet, in August 1971, Mr Roger Priouret70 made the following remark: ‘Never has the French level of life experienced such a rapid increase as during these past years, and never have the French been so fractious. There is no economic solution to this problem. All of a sudden, the economy is facing the threat of losing the pre-eminence it has enjoyed during the past 20 years or so’.
As written by Max Webber71 in his inaugural lecture of May 1895 (The National State and the Economic Policy), ‘the real essence of our social problem does not relate to the economic situation of our governed people, but to the political qualifications of our dominant and ascending classes’.
With Mr Venner, one cannot help noticing the fact that ‘politics has returned with a vengeance’, the vengeance of an ‘archetypal conflict, of something that goes beyond the individual and exceeds the span of a lifetime’.
***
La Divagation de la pensée politique,72 written by René de Lacharrière, PUF, 362 pages.
Sociologie Politique,73 authored by Roger-Gérard Schwartzenberg, Montchrestien, 514 pages.
Guide de la politique,74 written by Dominique Venner, Balland, 461 pages.
***
In Qu’est-ce que la politique?75 (Seuil, 1968), Mr Julien Freund presents a sort of summary of the Essence of the Political. He has also published La sociologie de Max Weber76 (PUF, 1966), Le nouvel âge — éléments pour la théorie de la démocratie et de la paix77 (Rivière, 1970), Le droit aujourd’hui78 (PUF, 1971), Les théories des sciences humaines79 (PUF, 1973), and Pare
to — La théorie de l’équilibre80 (Seghers, 1974).
***
The Elite Corps
In his Germania, Tacitus81 describes ‘human societies’ that were born through struggle and were dedicated to Odin, the god of sovereign life and war: the Chatti82 and the Harii.83 Next came the hoplites of Sparta, the Roman legionnaires, the Teutonic knights, the Grey Musketeers, the Imperial Guard, and the Cadets of Holy Russia. So many powerful blows have been dealt upon the anvil of history; so many dreams have come true. All through bloodshed.
All of this intermingled in a perpetual past-present, within the interlacing of time. The battles of Camarón, Marathon, Lepanto, Stalingrad, and Bir-Hakeim all belong to yesterday, today and tomorrow, as does anything which, historically speaking, is striking and remarkable.
André Balland editions have entrusted the ‘Elite Corps’ collection to a man who once fought in Algeria: Mr Dominique Venner. A total of ten volumes have been published: The Samurai, The Marines, The Haganah, The Waffen-SS, The Cossacks, The Afrika Korps, The Commandos and the Teutonic Knights, all of which focus on adventure and combat while touching upon a certain type of exceptional men.
We must be under no illusions. An elite corps is only defined as such when the army, as a whole, is no longer elite. The former thus becomes the army’s superior, its quintessence and model. The elite corps brings to mind the days when the entire army reflected such an image, since it was essentially comprised of volunteers. Soldiers, who only took on the trade of war in order to be granted a certain pay, thus contrast with the warrior, who, far from having merely been put in charge of protecting a civil society, embodied the actual core of social organisation. The duty to do one’s military service (which applied to everyone and was the result of the democratisation of war) had not yet replaced the right (that some had) to carry weapons. It is in this sense that the existence of elite units in contemporary times is also the expression of the decadence that had afflicted both military matters and the evolution of regular armed forces. And it is hardly a matter of chance that the USA, the most instinctively anti-militaristic Western country (the most fundamentally hostile land to any and all hierarchical authority), has established the Marines, who are simultaneously the target of reprobation (they are all kept out of sight for being most visibly different to others) and the country’s supreme recourse.
Elite soldiers drug themselves by leading a rather intense life. Supreme indifference. Mr Maurice Bardèche84 reminds us that in Sparta, ‘the sole purpose of education was to glorify courage and energy. Virile training commenced at the age of 12: a collective life, closely trimmed hair, a self-constructed bulrush bed, barefooted walking and running, a tunic as one’s sole item of clothing, and a naked body during all stadium exercise’ (in Sparte et les Sudistes85 ).
This is how Mr François d’Orcival86 describes a Marine parade: ‘Their movements form a cross, a square, a circle or a line, in a terrifying ballet of guns and men from which all accompaniment is absent. Warriors to the last man, they are, however, solidary, affiliated and of the same blood, remaining strangers to the rest of the world. Notice how much they resemble each other: an identically solemn, child-like smile is carved into their faces, the faces of men who have already vanquished death’.
The aim is to generate absolute self-confidence, but most of all, to overcome fatigue and take their efforts to the limit, just like in a stadium: to end up panting, drooling, half-dead and at the end of one’s strength, proud of having achieved the impossible and truly knowing oneself. War takes on the shape of Olympic games that are held ceaselessly and where bullets and knives are the only referee.
In the Marines, the phrase ‘Yes sir!’ is the source of all momentum. ‘The training lasts for 8 weeks. During this time, the most important answers you will need to give are ‘Sir, yes sir, and No sir!’, the drill instructor tells the men. At first, they all consider the sergeant to be rather dull-witted, but soon enough, the job sets in. After 4 weeks, ‘the sergeant has turned into a god in the eyes of his men. A god, a devil, a lion. This is because his heart is strung with steel fibres; because he is the best at everything he does; because he always marches with the others; because he can hold his drink better than anyone else; and because nothing ever frightens him’.
Liberty, equality, and fraternity: it is only in practice that it all comes true. As pointed out by Mr Thierry Nolin87 , in the Haganah, ‘rank does not bestow upon a person the right to any sort of privilege, if one does not count the right to lead the charge while shouting “Aharai!” (meaning “Follow me!”)’.
An Unwritten Law
The ideal example? Mr Jean Mabire88 and Yves Bréheret89 mention that of a kamikaze pilot about to crash into an allied plane carrier. ‘He plummets with all the power that both his engine and will can grant him. He no longer wants to ponder anything, focusing only on this enemy construction that grows ever larger and that he must not miss, no matter what. He is both the leader and the one who sets an example. He feels the handle of his Samurai sword press against his thigh. The seconds seem like centuries. He plummets. At that very moment, this single pilot represents the entire Japanese people, becoming simultaneously a torpedo and a nation’.
It was Drieu la Rochelle90 who once said: ‘There is a great deal of action in dreamers, and a great deal of dreaming in men of action’.
One day, the Japanese emperor sent one of his greatest servants a message in which he commended him. While reading it, the servant noticed that it was entirely written in the past tense. Understanding the allusion, he committed seppuku (‘hara-kiri’) so as to harmonise the facts with his Emperor’s choice of tense.
An elite troop soldier incarnates the virtues of his own country, raising them to the point of paroxysm. Could one, however, state that he actually has a fatherland of his own? In truth, what he is the latter’s embodiment. On the edge of a runway, at Khe Sanh91 level, a notice declares: ‘Home is where you dig it’.
The same type of man could be found on both sides of the conflict in Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, and Arnhem. It is no coincidence that French paratroopers adopted the solemn and profound chants one used to hear on the other bank of the Rhine and that FLN92 leader Amirouche, who was killed in 1959, wore a ‘Bigeard’s Boys’ cap.93 The only worthwhile battle is the one that opposes men who all belong to the same rank, men that respect each other. Energy versus energy, muscle against muscle: such is the only conceivable equality. This is, in fact, the reason why duels are the archetypal form of aristocratic combat. Whether the focus is on French and German parachutists, Soviet cadets, or the heroes of an eternal Japan, all these frozen faces express something fraternal. At a time when the ‘morality’ of war demands that the enemy become an incarnation of evil, it is only at this level that one can still exchange smiles while preparing to slaughter one another.
A parachutist is not merely someone who is ‘airborne’. The paratrooper state of mind can be created in the space of ten seconds: at the time of the first jump. At this very instant, overcoming one’s fear pays off, and a hundred times over. Erwan Bergot94 explains why. ‘The reason is that the world is henceforth divided in two: those who jump, as opposed to the others, the so-called “lead arses”’.
When someone joins the Marines, the first thing that happens is that their hair is shaven clean. ‘Volunteers come out of this cleansing process looking ugly, pathetic and inferior, with their protruding ears, dented heads and shapelessness, not to mention their evasive eyes that have been robbed of all glimmer. This is intentional, for they are equal in their ugliness and have lost everything that was once theirs. The other world recedes into the distance, and there is no turning back anymore. No one would recognise them any longer; they have now been branded’, wrote Mr d’Orcival.
Have they been humiliated? Not at all. ‘To make all the newcomers aware of the fact that they have now entered a specific caste, one must begin by reducing them to the level of slaves so that they may subsequently rise in accordance with
the caste’s rules’.
Having been dragged to the very bottom, they will now be able to dominate the world.
It is a group psychology that characterises the elite corps. The mentality of the corps does not differ much from that of gangs. ‘Conducting commando strikes, lending a helping hand, resorting to tricks and other harsh blows’, says Mr Bergot. Is it all the result of the environment? Perhaps so. The platoon is like a patrol, a gang, a tribe, or the clan of the Jungle Book. ‘We are of the same blood, you and I’.
The law demands that a legal code extract is read to those who join the Marines, for it is part of their rights. Shortly thereafter, however, an instructor always adds: ‘There is only one law in here — our own. It is a law that none have yet dared to write, because it is the law of blood’.
The following will be reiterated to them at a later point: ‘You ain’t ever sorry for nothin’ you do in the Marine Corps’. Symbols are added to such traditional vocabulary. Terrifying armour, silvery runes, leopard attire, all of it comes together in a manner that welds these men into a single whole. The soldiers commune with their weapons as if they were freshly dubbed knights. The beret is earned as in a Legion of honour. And the Bigeard cap, one that is half Afrika Korps, half Sherlock Holmes, is worth a lot on the souvenir market.
‘Whether red, green, black or khaki, the beret has been the parachutist symbol for almost 30 years now. To wear it is to accept both the constraints and the risks, to change both one’s skin and one’s mentality’, Erwan Bergot writes.
Systems and Debates Page 4