Surrender or will to defense?

December 25th, 2011

Switzerland facing blackmail by EU – Published on Current Concerns, monthly, no. 28, by Jean-Jacques Langendorf, December 9, 2011. (Translation from french by Current Concerns).

One could argue that the following reflections would allure us from our subject “will to defense”. This, however, is not the case, since they refer to the problem of the “crisis of civilization” that we are facing in Western Europe which has a strong impact on just this will. Most varying trends are marking the paths which are supposed to lead us to peace. Some are of the opinion that broad support of the Third World was an effective contribution to strengthening peace. 

Others, mainly from Switzerland consider mediation of serious conflicts. Dialogue would solve the problems and eliminate antagonisms. A further group not to be neglected turns its amorous eyes on a universal remedy, a united Europe which shall bandage our wounds and strengthen our muscles. With all these possibilities, however, we are pursuing the policy of “the proffered hand”.

Whatever the conflict may be about, the dialogue shall put it right. The goldsmith who has been robbed by a crook shall enter into a dialogue with the one! The pensioner who is threatened by the knife of a smaller crook on his return home – dialogue!  And – when the forces of evil have vanished, why, please, shall the fire man not apologize to the blaze – this cheerful and radiant gesture of freedom – and enter into dialogue as well!

Parallel to this, however, not entering into a dialogue, or even worse, to refuse to judge one’s fellow, or even a historic and social event, is raised to a dogma.

The Anglo-Saxon invention of political correctness prevails. Matters are not to be named as would be appropriate and as they really are. If language shapes the thinking as many linguistic theoreticians believe, it is not difficult to imagine the devastations caused by the invention of new terms for old realities … //

… With much common sense, the well known historian Max Gallo once said: “To the historian it is not acceptable that national representatives dictate what ‘correct history’ is, the only one that has to be taught. Too many well-intended new laws have characterized one or the other historical event. And then the courts decide. Hence, the judge has to assess history on the basis of law. The historian, however, has to evaluate history on the basis of facts.”

Blatantly obvious, the Sylvain Guggenheim affair shows how a reputable and independent historian’s freedom of thought may be constricted. In a book he put down that one seriously has to re-qualify the contribution of the Islamic men of science between the 7th and 12th century when mediating the ancient Greek world to the Western world and that this contribution has rather to be attributed to the Byzantium. This thesis which could have been disputed seriously amongst historians on a scientific level has become the object of a scandal since it trespasses the dogma that, at medieval times the Islam had been the most important mediator of the classic ancient world’s culture in Europe.

This was even to be witnessed in the Romandy, as the head of a red political party intervened at a university, because one of the professors of sociology permitted himself to criticize this party in a newspaper. The limit, however, is that the principal – in discarding his academic freedom – gave in to this political pressure.

In Switzerland as much as in the other parts of Europe, minds came under the influence of conformism – of the self-professed “wise” who determine what is allowed to write and say. Greetings from the “cabal of the pious” from a distance of four centuries. (full text).

(Source: Jean-Jacques Langendorf, Capitulation au Volonté de défense? La Suisse face à un défi.Éditions Cabédita 2011, ISBN 978-2-88295-621-7, Ed. Cabedita.ch).

Comments are closed.