Feeds:
Innlegg
Kommentarer

Archive for oktober, 2010

The transition to liberalism takes place in an imperceptible manner, like continental drift, thus hiding its effects from view. Its most terrible consequences are those of the long term. These effects themselves are concealed, paradoxically, by the resistance to which this transition is currently giving rise among those who defend the old order by drawing on the resources it contained, on old solidarities, on reserves of social capital that protect an entire portion of the present social order from falling into anomie. This social capital is fated to wither away – although not in the short run – if it is not renewed and reproduced.

But these same forces of “conservation”, which it is too easy to treat as conservative, are also, from another point of view, FORCES OF RESISTANCE to the establishment of the new order and can become SUBVERSIVE forces. If there is still cause for some hope, it is that forces still exist, both in state institutions and in the orientations of social actors that, under the appearance of simply defending an order that has disappeared and its corresponding “privileges” will be able to resist the challenge only by working to INVENT and CONSTRUCT a new social order.

– Pierre Bourdieu (1998)

* * * * * * * *

Neoliberalismen behandles ofte som pornografi: man kan ikke definere hva det er, men det gjenkjennes når man ser det. Neoliberalisme er vanligvis et polemisk begrep for å omtale nåtidens dominerende tankevev. Den tas på en måte for gitt, og undertegnede er intet unntak. Selv om man slutter opp om kritikken av fenomenet [se f.eks ”Reisen til helvete på første klasse”], betyr det ikke at forståelsen er fullendt. Så hvordan fange denne usynlige dragen i ord?

Subversive aktivister som stormer barrikadene behøver selvfølgelig ikke å grave seg ned i dette tåkete gjørmelandskapet. Deres lodd er å skape konkret historie. Følge handlingens imperativ, heroisk og forvandlende. Allikevel, selv fotsoldatene må hente sin viljestyrke fra noe mer enn sitt eget mot. For noen må tenne deres gnist på ny, vekke troen på at en annen virkelighet er mulig og at det eksisterende systemets sotteseng ikke er reisens ende. Elitetroppene derimot, skal gå bak fiendens linjer. Lære seg hans språk og tilrane seg hans hemmeligheter. Avsløringsprosjektet går alltid forut for frigjøringen.

Man kan kun erobre neste VENDETID ved å erkjenne HVA den herskende tankeveven er: HVEM manet den fram, HVORDAN spredte den seg, gjennom HVILKE forpostfektere, lanseknekter og geriljasoldater? Philip Mirowski fra Notre Dame er kanskje den som har kommet lengst i å forstå neoliberalismens genealogi og VÆREN. I 2009 var han og  Dieter Plehwe fra Berlin redaktører for boken The Road From Mont Pelerin.  Som mye annet Mirowski har skrevet – bare for å nevne More Heat than Light og  The Effortless Economy of Science? – er dette en veritabel tour de force.

Et mesterverk i sin sjanger, og han skriver gjennomgående bedre enn gjengse norske akademikere (de siste er preget av yrkesskade og stilistisk uførhet). Referanserammen er ufattelig mye større, og han er like bevandret i verdenslitteraturen som naturvitenskap, matematikk, økonomi, historie og kontinental så vel som anglosaksisk filosofi. Han er et utdøende tilfelle av det klassiske Bildungsmensch, mer tysk og kontinental enn amerikansk. Kjemper som Mirowski bygger i fjell, mens akademiske dverger borer seg på stadig smalere felt. De siste mister helheten av syne og eksisterer på et areal tilsvarende et frimerke. Men nok polemikk for denne gang (jeg kunne ikke dy meg).

Over til det vesentlige: hvorfor er det så vanskelig å definere ”neoliberalisme”? En mer amorf tankevev kan neppe forestilles i dag. Den kan ikke reduseres til ti bud, og det finnes intet ”neoliberalt manifest”. Som Mirowski sier: De aller fleste forskere i USA anser begrepet om neoliberalisme som et innholdsløst skjellsord oppfunnet av venstresiden. Men neoliberalisme er en korrekt betegnelse på et reelt fenomen”. Problemet ligger i at de som stemples som ”neoliberale” aldri kaller seg selv for det. Derfor må man først dra på en begrepshistorisk reise og tørke støv av arkivert flaskepost fra det forrige århundret.

Vi behøver ikke å gjenta fortellingen om Augusto Pinochet, Margaret Thatcher og  Ronald Reagan som alle kjenner fra før. De to siste var bare kulminasjonen av et METAPOLITISK FORARBEID gjennom nesten to generasjoner. Uten denne premissleveransen hadde kanskje aldri deres revolusjon funnet sted. En omveltning som feilaktig fikk fortegnet ”konservativt”, mens det egentlig var snakk om marxismens mørkeblå tvilling. Konservatismen avgikk altså ved døden allerede ti år før man demonterte Jernteppet.

Ifølge Dieter Plehwe var det den sveitsiske økonomen Hans Honegger som i 1925 lanserte begrepet neoliberalisme. ”Neoliberalismen” til Honegger var imidlertid et annet kreatur enn mutanten som senere ekspanderte. Her er arven fra klassisk liberalisme fremdeles til stede. Frihet forstås utelukkende negativt, dvs. frihet fra ytre tvang og begrensninger. Men det var ikke før 20 år senere at neoliberalismen fikk sitt teoretiske momentum (etiketten ble riktignok løsaktig brukt av franske liberalere i Colloque Walter Lippmann på 1930-tallet).

Mirowski og Plehwe sporer neoliberalismens egentlige fødsel til 1947, da tankekollektivet Mont Pèlerin Society (MPS)  ble etablert for å skape et alternativ til klassisk liberalisme. Bortimot 40 økonomer og intellektuelle møttes for å diskutere fremtiden, liberalismen og den vestlige sivilisasjonens verdier. Initiativtakeren var den østerrikske økonomen  Friedrich Hayek (1899-1992), og blant deltakerne på denne første kollokvien var en rekke andre fremtredende menn, blant dem Milton Friedman (1912-2006) og Karl Popper (1902-1994). Tankekollektivet tok sitt navn etter stedet de møttes i april 1947, nemlig Mont Pèlerin nær Montreux i Sveits. MPS var heterogent, og både libertarianere og anarkister deltok. Men de ble etter hvert marginaliserte.

Som allerede nevnt, er det ingen i dag som er selverklærte neoliberalister. I begynnelsen brukte faktisk medlemmene av MPS betegnelsen ”neoliberal” også om seg selv. Deriblant Friedman i en artikkel fra 1951. Det som har forvirret kommentatorer i ettertid, er at betegnelsen gikk ut av sirkulasjon i de innerste kretser allerede på slutten av 1950-tallet. Da insisterte de ikke lenger på at de representerte et brudd med den klassiske liberalismen. Mirowski mener allikevel at de forble nettopp neoliberalister, fordi deres grunnsyn var uforandret.

Neoliberalisme er ikke det samme som klassisk liberalisme. Motsetningen i neoliberalismen mellom stat og marked er en skinnmotsetning. Påstanden om at vi trenger mindre stat og mer marked, og at målet er en ekstremindividualisme av den typen Ayn Rand (1905-1982) forfektet er bare en myte (Rand var ingen neoliberaler). Hayek og Friedman trodde aldri på det. Staten var instrumentelt viktig for dem, og de var inspirerte av den autoritære tyske juristen Carl Schmitt (1888-1985).

Neoliberalistene har alltid søkt en OMDEFINERING av statens rolle, aldri dens utslettelse. De ønsker ingen minimalistisk nattvekterstat. Fri konkurranse er ikke nødvendigvis et gode, og monopoler er ikke nødvendigvis et onde sett fra Hayek og Friedman. Begge deler relativiseres. Og diktaturer kan være funksjonelle så lenge de er (økonomisk) liberale, som Hayek sa i et intervju med den chilenske avisen El Mercurio i 1981. Hayek innså allerede i 1920-årene at den klassiske liberalismen var stein død.

Hans senere arbeid var et svar på utfordringen som ble servert av Schmitt: ”Hvordan kan politisk orden og frihet sikres dersom staten ikke har andre begrensninger enn de lover som lages av dem som til enhver tid sitter i parlamentet eller regjeringen”? Vi skal ikke besvare gåten her, men det kan sies at den har forblitt uløst i det 21.århundret. Hayek tok ikke sikte på å konfrontere Schmitt direkte, men tillot seg heller å skumme fløten av arbeidet til Det tredje rikets kronjurist.

Mirowski tilføyer: ”Det går en anekdote om at Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) en gang stormet ut av et møte i MPS og skrek til de andre medlemmene: Dere er sosialister alle sammen! Det er en morsom historie. Samtidig er den ikke bare morsom, for den har en kjerne av sannhet i seg som de fleste overser. Von Mises så at de andre i en forstand VAR ”sosialister”, fordi de hadde et begrep om å styrke staten. Gruppen av teoretikere i MPS, med von Hayek, Milton Friedman mfl. i spissen, hadde langsiktige mål om endring av samfunnet. De var ikke konservative, de var radikale. Og de har lykkes. De skapte et system som gradvis har erobret sentrale institusjoner verden over. Det handler om en samfunnsmodell som er autoritær og hierarkisk i sitt vesen, og som vil skape et helt bestemt marked som er avhengig av en sterk stat”.

Da Mirowski gjestet Oslo i fjor høst, tegnet han opp et kart der han viste innflytelsen fra gruppen i MPS via universitetet i Chicago til dagens store amerikanske tenketanker som Cato Institute og American Enterprise Institute. Han var også opptatt av innflytelsen i Norge, der man kan spore en linje fra Trygve Hoff (1895-1982) – som var redaktør i Farmand og medlem av MPS – via Libertas til dagens liberale tenketank Civita.

Rekkevidden har omsider blitt planetarisk, selv om den kanskje har vært på retur de siste to år. Hemmeligheten bak neoliberalismens slagkraft er dels at den ikke erklæres for hva den er. Tåkelegging er altså hersketeknikk, selv om den er ubevisst av de fleste utøverne i dag. Ifølge Mirowski var den neppe ubevisst hos Hayek selv, som var den mest sofistikerte av MPS-medlemmene i både bredde og dybde (Friedman nådde ham ikke til knærne).

For Hayek var det ikke ønskelig at folks frihet skulle forlenges fra kunnskap i samfunnet til kunnskap OM samfunnet, fordi slik makrososiologisk selvransakelse om hvorfor man PASSIVT aksepterer ufullstendig kunnskap fører til spørsmål om hvorfor markedet skaper rom for visse former for kunnskap og undertrykker andre. Tilstrebing av et helhetssyn undergraver idealet om markedet som den ultimate informasjonsdevise. Hayek var ifølge Mirowski tilhenger av doktrinen om DOBBEL SANNHET: nemlig at den politisk-økonomiske eliten skulle forstå nødvendigheten av å undertrykke demokratiet, samtidig som massene ble oppmuntret til å erodere legitimiteten til ”formynderstaten”.

Christian Arnsperger skrev i 2007 at Hayek nektet andre det som ga sistnevnte en mening i livet: å teoretisere om samfunnet som HELHET, å hevde sin egen forståelse av MENINGEN og FORMÅLET med den menneskelige evolusjon, og viljen til å påtvinge den sin egen utopi gjennom et prosjekt som ikke var altfor langt unna den totalitarismen han selv kritiserte. Som Arnsperger nådeløst sier: ”[it is] a theory to end all theories; not so different from the end of history scenarios so beloved of his epigones”. Frihet – ikke minst frihet til å tenke helhetlig – må derfor være like ujevnt fordelt som materielle goder innenfor markedet.

Tatt ut av sin sammenheng virker dette som en konspirasjonsteori og en stråmannsanalyse der man tillegger Hayek synspunkter han kanskje ikke hadde. Dersom man kun leser det som er utgitt av Hayek så kan man kanskje tro det, men Mirowski og hans team har gått enda grundigere til verks. De har saumfart arkivet over referatene fra MPS og derfra konkludert med disse påstandene. Han tilføyer at historien om neoliberalismen ikke er risset inn i stein, og mye gjenstår å finne ut.

Allikevel er hans studium en upolert diamant som danner en plattform for de som ønsker å forstå historiens kanskje mest suksessfulle metapolitiske prosjekt. Deltakerne i MPS forstod utmerket godt nødvendigheten av interdisiplinaritet, og holdt seg unna akademias stadig mer sterile spesialisering. Dessuten lyktes de i å oppnå kontakter i maktens korridorer. Selv for de som føler aversjon mot neoliberalismen, er deres eksempel noe å lære av for alle de som har et seriøst ønske om å endre status quo.

Bak ethvert VIRKELIG vellykket opprør kreves det minst en generasjon – kanskje mer – med METAPOLITISK ouverture som spenner fra det esoteriske til det populistiske. Barn av den passiviserte allmuen og overløpere fra herskerklassen må organisk inngå i åndens stille veving før mulighetsrommet er sprengt fullt ut. Morgendagens forbundsfeller har kanskje ikke krysset hverandres spor enda. Selv om det murres i Spania, Hellas og Frankrike – samt andre land – og forholdene for et omslag blir stadig bedre tilrettelagt, hjelper det ikke om man samtidig ikke tar sikte på å skape en positiv visjon.

Konseptuell forståelse alene blir uansett altfor intellektuelt. Her må demningene som holder følelseslivet i sjakk åpnes. EKSISTENSIELL ANGST hos et bredt lag unge mennesker som instinktivt merker at deres liv er uten framtidshåp om det herskende tankevev holdes i live, er kanskje det eneste som kan bryte sirkelen. Angsten skal være fødselshjelper for viljen til mestringsopplevelse, mestringen av å gripe ØYEBLIKKET som igjen skaper LYSNINGEN for det autentiske håp. Historiens tilsynelatende slutt er bare et langt interregnum. For historien vil gjenfødes. Nemesis og Fortuna vil atter gi tilværelsen fylde.

* * * * * * * *

floatingmosque_full

APROPOS: «Wikipedia som metafor»

Av Philip Mirowski (2009):

Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, claims that he got the idea for the site from his reading of Friedrich Hayek’s famous article on “The Use of Knowledge in Society”, the ur-text of the Mont Pèlerin thought collective. In other words, Wales subscribes to the precept that objective knowledge is a state rarely attained by any individual because his or her experience is subjective and idiosyncratic; that no individual is capable of understanding social processes as a whole. But given appropriate (market-like) aggregation mechanisms for information, the system ends up arriving at the truth through “free” entry and exit.

But Wikipedia in action is not some democratic libertarian paradise in cyberspace, but is rather predicated on a strict hierarchy, in which higher levels exist to frustrate and undo the activities of participants at lower levels. The notion that “everyone can edit” is simply not true; many controversial pages would not even exist were interventions from those lower down in the hierarchy not blocked.

I cannot resist highlighting the irony that Wikipedia, the purported poster child of neoliberalism, cannot even manage to get its own internal entry on neoliberalism straight. The conviction that the truth “emerges” from random interactions of variously challenged participants in the precincts of Wiki-world only holds water if we are allowed great latitude in the definition of “truth”. Neoliberals have great faith in the marketplace of ideas; and for them, the truth is validated as what sells.

The reader might object at this point: but Wikipedia is NOT a market and rejects advertising. Here is where the political lesson comes home. One must start by inquiring how it is that Wikipedia has managed to displace so many other comparable websites that also attempt to aggregate information into bite-sized chunks for the masses. There are two fundamental considerations that interact to sustain and promote its growth, and both of them are indeed related to neoliberal ideas.

The first is: the secret to a successful website in the dawn of the twenty-first century is that it attract or expropriate FREE INFORMATION and repackage it into formats that allow for capitalization and the creation of “derivatives” that can themselves be marketed. Sites like YouTube or Facebook or Twitter suck people into providing free content, which can be leveraged into something that can be retailed, such as advertising, personal information, marketing surveys or surveillance. Wikipedia accomplishes this by appealing to the VANITY of NONSPECIALISTS and AUTODIDACTS who are convinced their own lubrications deserve as much attention as that accorded recognized intellectuals.

Secondly, the success of Wikipedia is nonetheless traceable to how the site fits into the larger business plan of commodification of the Internet. In particular, the SYMBIOSIS of Google and Wikipedia goes quite the distance in explaining how it is that Wikipedia has been blessed with exponential growth. Google started out with a good search algorithm coupled to an essentially impossible goal: fast convenient access to everything on the Web. What Google needed for effective search was some other entity to preprocess the vast masses of dreck clogging the Web and crossreference the refined results in such a way that it would show up early on Google search results.

Conveniently, Wikipedia’s policy of citing everything from other sources exactly meshed with Google’s ranking algorithm. As in so many other instances, Google wanted access to such services for free. Thus Wikipedia materialized as a Godsend for Google’s business plan. Moreover, the supposed Chinese Wall between Google and Wikipedia makes it possible for Wiki-workers to think they are squirreling away for the betterment of humankind, while Google positions itself to the premier portal for information on the Web and the biggest corporate success of the “New Information Economy”.

What are we to take away from this Wiki-interlude? First and foremost, neoliberalism MASQUERADES as a RADICALLY POPULIST philosophy, which begins with a set of philosophical theses about “knowledge” and its relationship to society. It seems to be a radical leveling philosophy, denigrating expertise and elite pretensions to hard-won knowledge, instead praising the “wisdom of crowds”. It appeals to the vanity of every self-absorbed narcissist, who would be glad to ridicule intellectuals as “professional secondhand dealers in ideas”. In Hayekian language, it elevates a “cosmos” over a rationally constructed orders designed to achieve intentional ends.

But the linked lesson is that neoliberals are simultaneously elitists: they do not in fact practice what they preach. When it comes to actually organizing something, almost everything, from a Wiki to the Mont Pèlerin Society, suddenly the cosmos of a spontaneous order collapses into a constructed and intented end. In Wikipedia, what looks like a libertarian paradise is in fact a thinly disguised TOTALITARIAN hierarchy…It adds up to a “double truth” doctrine: one truth for the masses/participants and another for those at the top.

Reklamer

Read Full Post »

The Everlasting Man

Av Gilbert Keith Chesterton (1925):

“The tale of the end of Troy shall have no ending, for it is lifted up forever into living echoes, immortal as our hopelessness and our hope. Troy standing was a small thing that may have stood nameless for ages. But Troy falling has been caught up in a flame and suspended in an immortal instant of annihilation; and because it was destroyed with fire the fire shall never be destroyed. And as with the city so with the hero; traced in archaic lines in that primeval twilight is found the first figure of the Knight.

There is a prophetic coincidence in his title; we have spoken of the word chivalry and how it seems to mingle the horseman with the horse. It is almost anticipated ages before in the thunder of the Homeric hexameter, and that long leaping word with which the Iliad ends. It is that very unity for which we can find no name but the holy centaur of chivalry. But there are other reasons for giving in this glimpse of antiquity the name upon the sacred town.

The sanctity of such towns ran like a fire round the coasts and islands of the northern Mediterranean, the high-fenced hamlet for which heroes died. From the smallness of the city came the greatness of the citizen. Hellas with her hundred statues produced nothing statelier than that walking statue; the ideal of the self-commanding man. Hellas of the hundred statues was one legend and literature; and all that labyrinth of little walled nations resounding with the lament of Troy.

A later legend, an afterthought but not an accident, said that stragglers from Troy founded a repulic on the Italian shore. It was true in spirit that republican virtue had such a root. A mystery of honor, that was not born of Babylon or the Egyptian pride, there shone like the shield of Hector, defying Asia and Africa; till the light of a new day was loosened, with the rushing of the eagles and the coming of the name – the name that came like a thunderclap when the world woke to Rome.”

«And there fell on [Rome] the shadow from a shining and as yet invisible light and the burden of things to be. It is not for us to guess in what manner or moment the mercy of God might in any case have rescued the world; but it is certain that the struggle which established Christendom would have been very different if there had been an empire of Carthage instead of an empire of Rome. We have to thank the patience of the Punic wars if, in after ages, divine things descended at least upon human things and not inhuman…

Can any man in his senses compare the great wooden doll, whom the children expected to eat a little bit of the dinner, with the great idol who would have been expected to eat the children? That is the measure of how far the world went astray, compared with how far it might have gone astray.

If the Romans were ruthless, it was in a true sense to an enemy, and certainly not merely a rival. They remembered not trade routes and regulations, but the faces of sneering men; and hated the hateful soul of Carthage. And we owe them something if we never needed to cut down the groves of Venus exactly as men cut down the groves of Baal. We owe it partly to their harshness that our thoughts of our human past are not wholly harsh.

If the passage from heathenry to Christianity was a bridge as well as a breach we owe it to those who kept that heathenry human. If, after all these ages we are in some sense at peace with paganism, and can think more kindly of our fathers, it is well to remember the things that were, and the things that might have been. For this reason alone we can take lightly the load of antiquity and need not shudder at a nymph on a fountain or a cupid on a valentine.»

Read Full Post »

Der Waldgang

Ernst Jünger (1895-1998) hører til blant kjempene fra forrige århundre. Han overlevde to verdenskriger og ble en av de skarpeste observatørene av sin samtid. I Skogvandreren [Der Waldgang] fra 1951 tegner han opp et eksistensielt veikart for den lille minoritet av dissidenter som føler seg frastøtt av modernitetens  teknokratiske herskersjikt, og som ikke lar seg blende av liberalismens grunnfalske frihetsbegrep. Konturløsheten til de som styrer er ikke mindre påtagende i dag enn den gang. Dette ble skrevet for snart 60 år siden, og enkelte passasjer bærer preg av det tidsbundne. Men hovedbudskapet er like aktuelt: Istedet for å konfrontere Leviathan direkte – noe som gir ham påskudd til å nøytralisere deg – bør man heller la ham leve sitt liv til ende, til han når sin ytterste konsekvens. Lik en vulkan som tømmes for aske. Det er ikke et valg mellom enten å være på skipet [altså modernitetens skip] eller å være i skogen for å finne sine røtter og drive geriljakrig mot Leviathan og den omkringliggende konsensus. Man må klare den ekstreme balansegangen og mestre begge deler. Mytteriet ombord på skipet er dristig: Er man midt ute på verdenshavet venter sult, kannibalisme og haier. Alt har sin tid, og derfor må skogvandreren alltid være forberedt på omslaget. Og han må ikke nøye seg med det: Dets grunn må beredes.

[Se også «Martin Heidegger og Lysningen»]

* * * * * * * *

The Retreat into the Forest

1. Fear is one of the most characteristic phenomena of our age. Its appearance is all the more perplexing, because it follows closely upon an era of individual freedom in which even the misery which was still familiar to Dickens had become almost unknown. How did this reversal come about? Were one to choose a turning point, one would find none more suitable than the day of the Titanic shipwreck. There light and darkness clash; the hubris of progress is confronted by panic, luxurious comfort by destruction, automatism by the catastrophe which appears as a traffic accident.

Indeed, increasing automatism and anxiety are closely related. They  appear whenever man limits the scope of his decisions in order to ease  his fate by technological means. To be sure, these limitations result in a variety of conveniences; but they are accompanied by an increasing loss of freedom. The individual is no longer rooted in society as a tree in a forest, rather he is comparable to the passenger in a rapidly moving vehicle whose name may be Titanic, but also Leviathan. As long as the weather holds and the outlook is pleasant, he will scarcely notice the curtailment of his freedom.

He may even be filled with optimism and with the consciousness of power produced by the sense of speed. But all this changes when the fiery  volcanic islands and icebergs emerge on the horizon. Then not only will technology claim a right to dominate fields other than the procurement of comfort, but at the same time the lack of freedom will   become apparent; be it in the victory of elemental forces or in the fact that individuals who have remained strong acquire the means to exercise absolute power.

It may be objected that ages of anxiety and of apocalyptic panic occurred without a comparable automatism. This may be, for the   automatism becomes terrifying only when it is revealed as one of the forms, indeed as the style of nemesis. The anxiety of modern man may  be of a very special sort or it may be merely the contemporary   incarnation of a recurrent cosmic anxiety. This problem need not detain us.

Rather we should ask a question which concerns all of us: is it possible to reduce the fear while the automatism of the age persists, or rather, while this automatism – as may be anticipated – makes   further progress toward its ultimate perfection? Can we stay on ship and at the same time reserve our powers of free decision? Can we not merely preserve, but strengthen the roots which still cling  to the prime depths of being? This is the essential question of our time.

The reader will have experienced a change in the nature of what is   considered a question. We are constantly confronted by forces that question us. And their inquisitiveness is by no means motivated by a concern with ideas. In approaching us with their questions, they do not expect us to promote the cause of objective truth, or even to contribute to the solution of any specific problems.

They are not concerned with our solutions, but with our answers. This distinction is relevant. Increasingly, the act of questioning takes on the characteristics of a cross examination, a process which can be studied in the development which leads from the ballot-box to the questionnaire.

The ballot is designed to determine a factual relationship, the will of the voter, and the act of voting is so organized that it may be expressed without outside intervention or influence. Hence the act of   voting is accompanied by the feeling of security and even by the sense of power which distinguishes of sovereign expression of the free will within a sphere protected by law. But the contemporary, obliged to reply to a questionnaire, is far removed from this sense of security. His statements are far-reaching in their implications, for his fate may depend upon them. We see individuals confronted by a situation in   which they are asked to procure documents designed to cause their   ruin. And how trivial are the things which nowadays determine the  destruction of man!

It stands to reason that the change in the nature of the process of questioning points to an order of things altogether different from that at the beginning of the century. The old security   has disappeared, and we must adjust our thinking accordingly.   Questions press in on us ever more closely, ever more menacingly, and the manner in which we answer becomes increasingly significant. And even silence has become an answer. These are the dilemmas of the age, and there is no escape from them.

Another characteristic of our period is the intertwining of   significant events with insignificant representatives. This is  particularly remarkable in our great men. They make the impression of  figures which can be seen in any number in the coffee-houses of Vienna or in provincial officers’ clubs. These are the men who cause millions to tremble, who shape the fate of countless numbers. And yet they are the very men whom our time has selected with unfailing tact, if we consider it under one of its aspects, that of a tremendous wrecking   enterprise.

All these liquidations, rationalizations, socializations, electrifications and pulverizations require neither culture nor character, both of which are a threat to the automatism. Wherever in   our period power is essential, it is attracted by the individual in  whom the insignificant is coupled with a strong will.

Such phenomena have occurred before in the history of mankind. They might be counted among the atrocities which are rarely missing when   great transformations take place. More disquieting is the fact that cruelty threatens to become not an accompaniment but an inseparable   element of the new power structures, and that the individual is  exposed to it without any possibility of defending himself. There are several reasons for this, above all the fact that rational thinking is  itself cruel and that this cruelty then enters into the process of   planning.

The extinction of free competition plays a special part, leading to a curious distortion. For competition is like a race in which the most  skillful win the prize. Where it ceases, it is replaced domestically  by great pressures for a general sinecure at the expense of the state, while external competition – the race between the states – continues.

Terror steps into the resulting gap. The speed formerly produced by the race of competition must now be produced by fear. In the one case the standards of efficiency depend on high pressure, in the other on a   vacuum.

There it is the winner who sets the pace, here it is the man who is   worse off. For this reason the state feels constantly compelled to   subject a segment of its population to atrocities. Life has become   gray, but it may well seem bearable to the man who, next to himself,   sees the absolute black of utter darkness. These, and not their   economic implications, are the dangers of extensive planning.

The selection of the persecuted groups is a question of secondary  importance. They will always be minorities, set apart either by nature or artificial construction. Obviously, all who are distinguished by virtue of tradition or excellence will be endangered. It is  understandable that under these conditions human beings would rather submit to the most oppressive burdens than to be counted among those who are different. Seemingly without effort the automatism succeeds in destroying the remnants of free will, and persecution becomes   ubiquitous like an all-pervasive element.

Escape may be possible for a favored few, but it usually leads to something worse. Resistance only animates the Leviathan by giving him  a welcome pretext for repressive measures. In the face of such  conditions only one hope seems to remain, that the process may spend itself like a volcano spends its fiery ashes. But at this point a question arises, which is not at all theoretical, but an inevitable  concomitant of every contemporary existence whether there is not,  after all, another road that may be traveled, whether there do not  exist mountain passes which can be discovered only after a long ascent.

New conceptions of authority and great concentrations of power have  arisen. In order to resist them, we require a new conception of   freedom transcending the anemic abstractions we have come to associate with this term. The first prerequisite for this new awareness is that man must not content himself with being left in peace; that he must be ready to risk his life. In that case, we shall soon learn that even in the states in which the power of the police has become overwhelming,  independence is by no means extinct.

The armor of the new Leviathan has its chinks which must be constantly sought out, an activity requiring both caution and audacity of a kind  hitherto unknown. This suggests that elites are about to begin the   struggle for a new freedom which will require great sacrifice and  which must not be interpreted in a manner unworthy of it. In order to find analogies we must go back to ages of strength, say, to the period of the Huguenots or of the guerillas as Goya saw them in his Desastros. Compared to these, the storming of the Bastille – an event   which still provides nourishment for the current notion of freedom – appears like a Sunday stroll into the suburbs.

Is there at least one root left which will open up the riches of the  soil? Health and life depend upon it -beyond all civilization, and beyond its safeguards. This becomes evident in periods of extreme danger, when the apparatus not only forsakes the individual but even turns against him. Then each individual must decide whether he wants   to surrender or to persevere by relying on his own and innermost   strength. In this case he may choose the retreat into the forest (Waldgang).

2.

The ship is a symbol of temporal existence, the forest a symbol of   supratemporal being. In our nihilistic epoch, optical illusions   multiply and motion seems to become pervasive. Actually, however, all   the contemporary display of technical power is merely an ephemeral reflection of the richness of Being. In gaining access to it, and be   it only for an instant, man will gain inward security: the temporal  phenomena will not only lose their menace, but they will assume a positive significance. We shall call this reorientation toward being   the retreat into the forest (Waldgang), and the man who carries it out   the wanderer in the forest (Waldgänger).

Similar to the term «worker» (Arbeiter), it signifies a scale of  values. For it applies not only to a variety of forms of activity, but   also to various stages in the expression of an underlying attitude.   The term has its prehistory in an old Icelandic custom. The retreat   into the forest followed upon proscription. Through it a man asserted   his will to survive by virtue of his own strength. That was held to be   honorable, and it is still so today in spite of all commonplaces to   the contrary.

Wanderers in the forest (Waldgänger) are all those who, isolated by   great upheavals, are confronted with ultimate annihilation. Since this could be the fate of many, indeed, of all, another defining   characteristic must be added: the wanderer in the forest (Waldgänger) is determined to offer resistance. He is willing to enter into a   struggle that may appear hopeless. Hence he is distinguished by an   immediate relationship to freedom which expresses itself in the fact   that he is prepared to oppose the automatism and to reject its ethical   conclusion of fatalism. If we look at him in this fashion, we shall  understand the role which the retreat into the forest (Waldgang) plays not only in our thoughts but also in the realities of our age.

Everyone today is subject to coercion, and the attempts to banish it   are bold experiments upon which depends a destiny far greater than the   fate of those who dare to undertake them. The retreat into the forest   (Waldgang) is not to be understood as a form of anarchism directed   against the world of technology, although this is a temptation,   particularly for those who strive to regain a myth. Undoubtedly,   mythology will appear again. It is always present and arises in a   propitious hour like a treasure coming to the surface. But man does   not return to the realm of myth, he reencounters it when the age is   out of joint and in the magic circle of extreme danger. It is not a question therefore of choosing the forest or the ship but of choosing  both the forest and the ship.

Døden

The number of those who want to abandon the ship is growing, and among   them are clear heads and fine minds. But it amounts to a disembarkation in mid-ocean. Hunger will follow, and cannibalism, and the sharks: in short, all the terrors that have been reported from the raft of Medusa. Hence it is advisable under all circumstances to stay aboard even at the danger of being blown up. This objection is not directed against the poet who reveals through his life as well as  through his work the vast superiority of the artistic universe over the world of technology. He helps man to rediscover himself: the poet is a wanderer in the forest (Waldgänger), for authorship is merely another form of independence.

In general, we are not concerned with specific political and   technological configurations. Their fleeting images pass, but the   menace remains or returns with ever greater speed and with increased impact. The opponents come to resemble one another to such an extent   that it is easy to recognize them as disguises of the very same power. Our task then is not to master the external phenomena here or there, but to subdue the age. That requires a sovereign will which, nowadays,   is to be found less in heroic decisions than in the man who has   forsworn fear in his own heart.

The immense precautions of the state are directed against him and him alone, and yet ultimately they are destined to bring about his   triumph. When he realizes this, he is liberated and dictatorships sink   into dust. Therein lie the untapped resources of our age and not only of ours. This is the theme of all history and it defines history,  setting it apart from the realm of the demons and from mere zoological  events. It is anticipated by myth and by the great religions, and   recurs forever. Again and again giants and titans appear with the same   seemingly overwhelming superiority, only to be felled by the free man who need not always be a prince or a Heracles. The stone from the sling of the shepherd, the banner raised by a maiden, and a crossbow,  have also been known to suffice.

3.

At this point another question arises. To what extent is freedom desirable in the first place? Can it serve a purpose within our present historical situation? Is it not a distinctive merit of   contemporary man, and a merit easily underestimated that he knows  how to renounce freedom to so large an extent? In many ways he is like a soldier marching toward unknown destinations or like a worker building a palace others shall inhabit. Nor is this his worst aspect.  Should he be distracted as long as the process continues?

There is no doubt that there are goals served by countless millions  who lead lives which would be unbearable without this prospect and which cannot be explained in terms of sheer coercion. The sacrifices will perhaps reap them glory only in a distant future, but they will not have been in vain. The processes will continue, and as in all conditions ordained by fate, the attempts to delay the development and to revert to points of departure will only serve to further and to accelerate the course of events.

It is well to remain aware of the inevitable in order to avoid being lost in illusions. Freedom coexists with necessity, and only after freedom enters into a relation with necessity can the new state of   mind emerge. Every transformation of the concept of necessity has brought with it a change in the concept of freedom. For this reason the notions of freedom of 1789 have become obsolete and are no longer effective against the coercion of our time. Freedom in itself is   immortal, but in each period it appears in a different guise and must be conquered anew.

History in the true sense can be made only by free men; it is the form given by the free to his destiny. In this sense, man can act as a symbol; his sacrifice includes and counts for the other members of the community. It cannot be our task, then, to change the design of the universe. But palaces could be built upon it and not only the ant-heaps anticipated by the utopias of our day.

Let us consider a further objection. Should we restrict ourselves to a philosophy of catastrophe? Should we – and be it only in our spiritual   preoccupations – seek out the waters of extreme danger, the cataracts,  the maelstroms, the huge abysses? This is an objection not to be underestimated. Much is to be said for the judicious man who maps out the safe itineraries with the firm will to persevere in his course. It is a problem which can assume practical aspects, as in the case of armaments.

Armaments are designed for the eventuality of war, to begin with as a preventive measure. Subsequently, they lead to a borderline situation where preparedness seems to invite war. There are kinds of investment which, under all circumstances, must end in bankruptcy. Thus systems of lightning-rods are conceivable which would ultimately bring on the   thunderstorms. The same considerations apply in the spiritual realm. In considering the marginal case, we may overlook the routes it will open. However, one does not exclude the other. Rather reason demands that we consider all possible eventualities, and keep a response in readiness for each, as one does on the chessboard.

In our situation it is our duty to reckon with catastrophe, to sleep   with it, so to speak, so that we shall not be caught unaware. Only in   this manner can we acquire a reserve of security which will enable us   to act reasonably. In a state of complete security our thought merely   plays with the possibility of catastrophe. We include it in our plans   as an improbable eventuality, and we protect ourselves with minimal   precautions. In our days the reverse must be the case. We must spend   almost our entire capital on the possibility of catastrophe precisely   in order to keep open the middle road that has become as narrow as the   edge of a knife.

But we are concerned here with the threat to which the individual is exposed, and with his fear, not with politics or political ideas. Fundamentally the individual is only interested in his profession, in   his family, and in the pursuit of his inclinations, but, sooner or later, the age intrudes upon him. Either conditions gradually   deteriorate or he is exposed to extremes. Expropriation, compulsory labor, and worse appear on his horizon. Before long, he will realize that neutrality would be tantamount to suicide, you must either howl with the wolves or fight them.

Where in his distress can he find a third solution which leaves him  some freedom from the dynamics of the events? Only in his existence as an individual, in his own being which remains unshaken. Anyone who has   escaped from catastrophes knows that, in the last analysis, he owed   his rescue to simple human beings who did not submit to the power of   hatred and fear or to the automatism of slogans.

They resisted the impact of propaganda and of technical   suggestiveness, the impact of all demoniac forces of our civilization. Immeasurable may be the blessings when such virtue becomes visible in   the leaders of nations, as it became manifest in Augustus. Upon this virtue empires are founded. The prince does not rule by killing, but by giving life. Therein lies one of the great hopes, that among the   faceless millions one perfect human being may arise.

Among such humans we may name Socrates whose example inspired not only  the Stoa but countless spirits of all ages. We may differ in our   opinions concerning the life and the teachings of this man; his death   belongs to the greatest of all events. The world is such that prejudice and passion will ever again demand blood. It is necessary to realize that this will never be otherwise. The arguments change, but stupidity sits forever in judgment.

Men were brought before its tribunal first, because they despised the   gods; then because they did not recognize a dogma; or again, because   they offended against a theory. There exists no great word or noble   thought in the name of which blood has not been spilled. The message   of Socrates resides in the conviction of the invalidity of the verdict   which testifies to a standard transcending the human scale. The true   verdict was spoken long before the trial began and took expression in the exaltation of the victim.

The trial is perennial, and the philistines who sat in judgment then   may be met today on every street corner and in every parliament. The idea that this might end has always distinguished the shallow thinkers. But human greatness must be reconquered again and again. It triumphs whenever man masters the onslaught of vulgarity in his own heart. Therein resides the real substance of history; in the encounter of man with himself, that is to say, with his own divine power. That must be understood if one wishes to teach history.

Socrates called the sphere where he was counseled by a voice not to be   expressed in words, his daimonion. It might also be called the forest.   But what does it mean to the contemporary if we advise him to follow   the example of the man who conquered death, the models of gods,   heroes, and sages? It means that he participates in the resistance   against the age, and, indeed, not against this age only, but against   every age whose basic motivation is fear. It is in the nature of   things that education today aims at the very opposite. Never before   have such strange notions concerning the teaching of history existed.

All these systems are designed to cut off the influx of metaphysics,  to domesticate and to drill the spirits for the benefit of the collective. Even when the Leviathan is obliged to rely upon courage, as on the battlefield, it will attempt to keep the fighting man in place with a second and stronger menace. In such states one depends on the police.

We touch here the core of modern suffering, the great emptiness, which Nietzsche called the growth of the desert. The desert is growing; this is the spectacle of civilization with its draining relationships. In   this landscape we yearn for sustenance: The desert is growing; woe to him who contains deserts within himself. It will be well if the churches create oases. It will be better still if man is not satisfied even with that. The church can give us assistance, but not existence. The decision will take place within man; no one can spare him his   travails.

The great loneliness of the individual belongs to the characteristics of the age. He is surrounded and imprisoned by anxiety which closes in upon him like approaching walls. Anxiety becomes tangible in the   prisons, in slavery, and in the battles of modern war. These experiences fill the thoughts, the soliloquies, perhaps even the   diaries in years when a man may not even trust his closest neighbor.  Yet the proximity of saving powers is also felt. The terrors are alarms, symptoms of ever more insistent questions which are being put to man. No one can spare him the answer.

The desert is growing; the faded, infertile spheres are multiplying. The fields which gave life purpose are disappearing; so are the   gardens from which one can take nourishment without suspicion, the   sheds which have familiar tools. The laws have become dubious, the weapons double-edged. Woe to him who harbors deserts; who does not contain, be it only in one cell, the substance which ever again   guarantees fertility.

4.

It is frightening how concepts and objects often change their  appearance over night, and produce wholly unexpected results. That is a symptom of anarchy. Let us consider, for instance, freedom and the   rights of the individual in relation to authority. These are   determined by the constitution. Again and again, and, unfortunately,  for some time to come, we will have to expect the violation of these rights by the state, by a party which has seized the state, by a foreign invader, or by a combination of these forces. It may be said   that the masses, at least in our country, are in a state where they   scarcely perceive the violation of the constitution any longer. It seems that they are far more concerned with football games than with  their own basic rights. Once this consciousness is lost, it cannot be restored artificially.

The violation of a law can assume a legal varnish; for example, when a  ruling party prevails upon a majority to change the constitution. The majority can be right and yet commit wrong, a contradiction that the   simple-minded cannot grasp. Even at plebiscites it is often difficult  to decide where the law ends and violence begins. These encroachments can gradually gain in strength until they assume the character of pure   atrocities. Those who witnessed these actions, accompanied by the   applause of the masses, know that traditional expedients are of no avail against them. Suicide is not to be expected from everybody, least of all when recommended from abroad. No fate is more hopeless   than to live in a period in which the law has become a weapon.

In Germany, resistance against authority is, or was, especially difficult because, from the days of legitimate monarchy, the population preserved a modicum of respect for the state. Hence the individual found it difficult to understand why the victorious powers prosecuted him, not merely by means of a blanket accusation of   collective guilt, but also as an individual for having, for example, continued in his profession as a conductor of an orchestra or as a   public official.

Although this state of mind produced some grotesque results, we must not treat it as a mere curiosity. It is indicative of a new feature in our world, in which foreigners may accuse the individual as a collaborator with popular movements, while political parties try him as a sympathizer of unpopular causes. The individual is thus placed between Scylla and Charybdis; he is threatened with liquidation either because he participated or because he failed to participate.

Hence, a high degree of courage is required which will enable him to defend the cause of justice all alone, and even against the power of   the state. It will be doubted whether such men can be found. Some will appear, however, and they will be wanderers in the forest (Waldgänger). Even against his will, this type of man will enter the   historical scene, for there are forms of coercion that leave no choice.

It may seem strange that a single individual, or even several, should   resist the Leviathan. Yet it is precisely through their action that   the colossus reveals its vulnerability. For even a handful of   determined men can become a threat, not only morally but physically. Again and again we witness that two or three gangsters can upset an entire metropolitan district, and cause lengthy sieges. If the relationship is reversed, if the authorities turn criminal and men of justice offer resistance, incomparably greater effects can be produced. The consternation of Napoleon at the uprising of Mallct, a single, but unbending man is a well-known instance.

Let us assume that a small number of truly free men are left in a city or state. In that case the breach of the constitution would carry a  heavy risk. In this sense, the theory of collective guilt is justified, for the possibility of violating a law is directly proportional to the degree of resistance it encounters at the hands of  freedom. An attack on the invulnerability and, indeed, on the sanctity of the home would not have been possible in old Iceland, in the form   in which it was possible as a purely administrative measure in Berlin in 1933, in the midst of a population of several millions.

As an honorable exception we should mention a young Social Democrat who killed half a dozen of the so-called auxiliary police at the entrance of his apartment. He still partook of the substantial Old-Germanic sense of freedom which his opponents celebrated in their theories. Naturally, he had not learned this from the program of his party.

Let us suppose, furthermore, that the authorities would have had to expect an incident of this sort in every street of Berlin. In that case, things would have been different. Long periods of peace and   quiet favor certain optical illusions. Among them is the assumption   that the invulnerability of the home is founded upon the constitution and safeguarded by it. In reality, it rests upon the father of the family who, accompanied by his sons, appears with the ax on the threshold of his dwelling.

This truth is not always apparent, however. Nor is it to be construed   as an objection to the constitution. It is simply that the old saying   still holds: the man must vouch for his oath; the oath cannot vouch   for the man. The German has been reproached for his lack of resistance to official acts of violence and perhaps justifiably. He did not yet   know the rules of the game, and he felt threatened from other   directions where there has never been any question of basic human   rights.

Those who died in a hopeless struggle, unarmed, and in defense   of their wives and children, are, as yet, hardly noticed. But their   lonely destruction will become known. For it counts as a weight in the   scale of history. We, who survived, must see to it, however, that the   spectacle of coercion which met no resistance shall never be repeated.

5.

We live in a period in which it is difficult to distinguish between   war and peace, and the boundaries between merit and crime are obscured  by intermediary shades. This deceives even sharp eyes. For into every   case of individual guilt enters the confusion of the age, the collective guilt. An aggravating circumstance is the fact that there are no sovereigns left, and that all who exercise power have risen by way of feuding political parties.

This reduces from the very outset the capacity for actions oriented toward the welfare of the whole: that is, for impartiality, for generosity, and for development. Those who exercise power prefer   instead to live off the whole; they are incapable of preserving it, and of increasing it through their inner abundance, through being. Hence, capital is wasted by victorious factions for the benefit of shortsighted aims and conceptions.

The only consolation is the realization that this spectacle is part of  a descent which leads in a definite direction and toward definite   goals. In former times, phases such as the present were termed an   interregnum. Their distinctive characteristic is the absence of   ultimate values. But it is already a significant achievement that we recognize this, and the realization is of much greater value than the attempt to reintroduce old and obsolete values with the pretense that   they might still be effective. Our eyes reject Gothic ornaments in the world of machinery; in the moral realm a similar law obtains.

When all institutions have become dubious or even infamous, when you hear prayers being offered not for the persecuted but for the persecutors, then the ethical responsibility shifts to the individual, or rather to the individual who is still unbroken, the wanderer in the forest (Waldgänger).

It is a hard decision which he must make that he will reserve the right of independent judgment whatever the cause for which his   approval or participation is solicited. It will require a considerable   sacrifice, but it will also lead to an immediate gain in sovereignty.   As matters stand, this gain will be felt as such only by very few. Yet   the power of sovereign rule can come only from those who have   preserved the awareness of the primal scales of value, only from the   men who cannot be induced to renounce humanity by any superiority of   force.

The great experience of the forest consists of the encounter with the Ego, with the self, with the inviolate core and essence that sustains   the temporal and individual appearance. This encounter, so decisive   for the conquest of health and for the victory over fear, is also   supreme in its moral value. It leads to the primal basis of all social   intercourse, to the man whose example defines individuality.

In this sphere we will encounter not only community, but also identity.  This is the symbolic meaning of the embrace: the Ego recognizes itself   in the other human being in the saying, is this you? The other can  be the beloved, the sufferer, or the helpless victim. In giving help, the Ego helps its own immortal essence and confirms the basic ethical order of the universe.

Countless men are alive today who have traversed the nadirs of the   nihilistic process. They know that the mechanism reveals itself as an   ever-greater menace, that man has entered into the interior of a huge   machine which has been designed for his annihilation. They have   learned that every form of rationalism leads to machine-like   mechanism, and every mechanism to torture as its logical consequence,   a fact which the nineteenth century failed to grasp. A miracle must   take place if a man is to escape from such whirlpools.

And this miracle has taken place times without number when among the   faceless numbers there appeared an individual and gave succor. This was the case even in the prisons and, indeed, especially there. In every situation and in his relation to every man, the individual can   become the brother, this is his genuine, his sovereign, trait. The origin of nobility was the task of protection;  protection against the  threats of beasts and monsters. This is the token of the aristocratic being, and it shines forth in the guard who secretly gives a piece of   bread to a prisoner. Such actions can never cease, for the world subsists on them. They are the sacrifices upon which it rests.

Taking the Forest Way

14.

The fundamental question amid all this turmoil is: can humanity be liberated from fear? This is far more important than arming people or  supplying them with medicines. Those who are unafraid have power and   health. Conversely, fear also lays siege to those who are armed to the teeth to them above all. The same can be said of someone swimming in abundance. The threat cannot be banished by weapons or riches. These are just means to that end.

Fear and danger are so closely entwined that it is scarcely possible   to say which of these two forces generates the other. Fear is more   important, so we must start with that if we want to loosen the knot.

People must be warned, however, against trying to do the opposite, that is: attempting to start with the danger. Simply trying to make   oneself more dangerous than the thing one fears will not achieve the   solution. This is the classic relationship between Red and White,   between Red and Red, and tomorrow perhaps between White and Coloured.

Terror is like a fire that wants to consume the world. Simultaneously, the fear multiplies. The person who puts an end to fear legitimises himself as one who is called upon to rule. This is a person who has   previously mastered fear.

It is also important to know that fear cannot be completely banished.   That would not go beyond automatism. On the contrary it would   introduce fear into the inner depths of man. Fear will always remain   the great partner in the dialogue when a person thinks things over. In this fear strives for monologue, and only in that role does it have the last word.

However, if fear is forced back into dialogue, the human being can have his say. This also dispels the impression that he has no way out. Another solution will always be apparent besides the automatic one. So there are now two ways; or, in other words, freedom of choice is re-established.

Even if one is prepared to accept the worst case of breakdown, there   remains a distinction between light and darkness. Here the way rises   into high realms, towards a sacrificial death or to the fate of one   who falls fighting; there it sinks into the lowly spheres of   slave-camps and slaughter houses where primitives murderously unite   with technology. There destiny is absent, and only numbers exist.   Having a destiny or being regarded as a statistic: this is a decision   that is forced on everyone today, but which has to be taken   individually.

The individual is just as sovereign today as in any other period of   history, perhaps even more so? As collective powers gain ground, the individual becomes separated from the old, established associations   and stands alone. He now becomes the opponent of Leviathan, even its   conqueror, its master.

Let us return once again to the image of choice. As we saw, the   process of choice has become an automatic accord determined by the   organiser. The individual can be and is compelled to participate in   this. He need only know that all the positions he is able to adopt   within this sphere are equally vain. It makes no difference whether a   hunted animal moves here or there if it is in a trap.

Freedom is completely different to mere opposition, and cannot be achieved by flight. We called this place the forest.  Admittedly, we have seen that, in the present state of decline, perhaps only one   person in a hundred is capable of taking the forest way. But this is   not a question of percentages. If a theatre catches fire, a single   clear thinker, a single stout heart, is sufficient to put a stop to the panic of a thousand people, all threatening to crush one another   and succumb to their animal fear.

Mention here of individuals refers to true human beings, without the   overtones the idea has attracted over the past two centuries. The   reference is to the free human being as God created him. This human   being is not an exception, does not embody an elite. He is in fact   concealed within everyone, and differences only arise out of the   degree to which the individual manages to implement the freedom   granted to him. As a thinker, a friend, as one who knows and loves, one has to help him achieve that.

It can also be said that man is sleeping in the forest. In the moment   when he awakens and recognises his power, order is restored. The   higher rhythm of history can generally be interpreted in terms of the   human being periodically rediscovering himself. The powers that want   to mask this are sometimes totemic, sometimes magical, and sometimes   technological. Then rigidity increases, accompanied by fear. The arts petrify and dogma becomes absolute. But the spectacle of man removing   his mask has repeated itself since earliest times, to be followed by   joy, the reflection of freedom.

Under the spell of powerful optical illusions, we have become  accustomed to seeing the human being as a grain of sand in comparison   with his machines and all his apparatus. However, this apparatus is   and remains the setting for the lower imagination. The human being has created this apparatus, and he can dismantle it or incorporate it in a new meaning. The bonds of technology can be broken, and the individual   is the one to do this.

29.

In the case of attack by a foreign army, taking the forest way becomes   a means of waging war. That applies especially to weak or unarmed   states. Someone taking the forest way does not ask how advanced armaments are,   or whether they exist at all. The forest way can be taken at any time   and in any place, even against vastly superior powers. In such a case   it is in fact the only means of resistance.

The person who follows this course is not a soldier. He does not know  military conventions and their discipline. His life is both freer and harder than that of a soldier. Followers of the forest way are   recruited from those who are determined to fight for freedom, even   when the situation is hopeless. Ideally, their personal freedom should   accord with the freedom of their country. This gives free peoples a great advantage which tips the scales increasingly in their favour when warfare is prolonged.

Those for whom another form of existence is impossible are also forced   to rely on following the forest way. Invasion is succeeded by measures   that threaten much of the population: arrests, extensive searches,   listing of suspects, forced labour, and obligatory service in a   foreign army. That drives people to resist, either secretly or   openly.There is special danger when criminal elements invade. The   follower of the forest way may not fight in accordance with military   law, but he is not a criminal. Nor is his discipline soldierly, and   that fact presupposes strong and direct conduct.

As far as its location is concerned, the forest is everywhere. It is  in the wasteland and in the cities, wherever the follower of the forest way lives in hiding or concealed beneath the mask of his   profession. The forest is in the desert and in the bush. The forest is   in the fatherland and in any other country where resistance can be  offered. Above all, the forest is behind the enemy’s own lines. The follower of the forest way is not in thrall to that optical illusion   which sees the attacker as an enemy of the nation.

He knows his   predicament, the hiding-places of the oppressed, the minorities   waiting for their moment. He wages guerrilla warfare along railway   tracks and supply routes; he threatens bridges, power-lines, and   depots. His activities force the dispersal of troops and the   strengthening of guards. The follower of the forest way is responsible   for reconnaissance, for sabotage, for spreading news among the   population.

He makes his way into impassable terrain and becomes anonymous, so as   to reappear when the enemy shows signs of weakness. He spreads   constant unrest and causes nocturnal panics. He can even paralyse   armies, as happened to Napoleon?s forces in Spain.The follower of the   forest way does not have extensive means of combat at his disposal.   However, he knows how weapons that cost millions can be destroyed   through bold actions.

He knows their tactical weaknesses, their defects, their   destructibility. He also has greater freedom in choice of location   than soldiers do, and will attack where limited means can cause great   damage: in bottlenecks, in arteries leading through difficult terrain,   and in places far removed from military bases. Each advance reaches   the most exposed of positions where men and equipment become precious   because they have to be transported over huge distances. For every   combatant there are a hundred more linked up in the supply line. And   this one combatant encounters the follower of the forest way. Here we   return again to our ratio.

The world situation favours following the forest way. It creates   equilibria which call forth free actions. In the global civil war,   every attack must expect difficulties in his own hinterland. And every   new area that falls to him enlarges this hinterland. At the same time   he has to intensify his methods, which leads to an avalanche of   reprisals. His opponent makes this undermining, and the encouragement   of it, his first priority. This means that even if he can?t expect the   direct support of a world power, the follower of the forest way can   reckon with weapons and supplies. He is not, however, a follower of   political parties.

Following the forest way conceals a new principle of defence. This can   be practised whether armies exist or not. In all countries,   particularly in small ones, people will recognise that its preparation   is indispensable. Large-scale weapons can be produced and possessed by   only super-states. The forest way can be followed by the smallest   minority, even by the individual. This is the answer freedom has to   give. And it has the last word.

Following the forest way is linked more closely to freedom than any   armaments; in it resides the original will to resist. That is why only   volunteers are suited to it. They will defend themselves in all   circumstances regardless of whether or not the state prepares, arms,   or calls on them. They therefore provide an existential demonstration   of their freedom. The state which lacks this kind of consciousness   will decline into being a mere satellite. Freedom is the big issue today. It is the power that masters fear.

It is the main concern of the free human being; not just freedom   itself, but also the way in which it can effectively be represented   and made visible in resistance. We do not want to go into details.  Fear will already be reduced through recognition of its role in the  event of catastrophe. Catastrophe must be prepared for, just as one practises for a shipwreck when setting out on a voyage at sea.  Wherever one people prepares itself for following the forest way, it will inevitably become a fear-inducing power.

A power which places the emphasis on following the forest way demonstrates that it has no intention of launching an offensive war.  Nevertheless, it could make its defensive powers very strong, even acting as a deterrent at no great expense. That would make long-term policy possible. The fruits fall into the hands of those who know   their rights and can wait.

Brief mention should be made of the possibility that following the   forest way, where necessity and freedom recognise each other, may   exert an influence on armies, in that the primal forms of resistance,   from which the military derive, once again enter into history. When a terrible threat results in the emergence of a naked sense of  «to be or not to be»,  freedom is elevated beyond the legal sphere onto another   more holy level, where fathers, sons, and brothers unite. Military   systems cannot hold out against that.

The view that mere empty routine can cope with things is more   dangerous than lack of weapons. However, that is not a question which   relates directly to following the forest way. In this here the   individual determines the way in which he upholds freedom. When he  decides to follow soldierly discipline, this will be transformed into freedom, will be one of its forms, one of its means. The free man  endows the weapon with meaning.

Read Full Post »