jueves, 15 de marzo de 2018

Shakespeare a help to find the path of perfection

Shakespeare considered in the key of sanctity

by Pablo López Herrera

Shakespeare en clave de santidad (Spanish Edition) by [López Herrera, Pablo]

Shakespeare en clave de santidad (Spanish Edition) Kindle Edition

Four hundred years away, how can William Shakespeare help us to reflect on the meaning of our own existence? 

The author examines Macbeth and Hamlet as if they were a mirror in which to analyze one's life, and to orient oneself in the great themes of existence, to find the meaning and the personal mission of our life, and to know the price of human happiness. 

The essay is a work of reflection on the Christian language and the economy of salvation that shows us the "rules of operation" of human nature alive.

With "Macbeth", we discover that the true freedom of man is in accepting the rules of game, and what happens to us when we want to play with our own rules.We also see the virtues necessary to the good governor as well as the social effects of his intemperance and his greed.

With "Hamlet", we find ourselves with the search of our mission, and as We are accompanied by doubts and tribulations as companions of the path of life, and what kind of consequence our fundamental choices produce in ourselves and in others.

The essay raises the possibility that Shakespeare was an "undercover" Catholic, in times of persecution of Catholicism in England, if it was, his message acquires a new dimension, which invites historical exploration.


1. Intentions and acknowledgments

2. Shakespeare's works as maps, and some "Sherpas"

3. Theodore Dalrymple, an anthropological vision of Shakespeare.

3.1. Shakespeare is a universal writer.

3.2. Anthropology shows us the "rules of functioning" of man
3.2.1. Respect for limits
3.2.2. On earth there is no "happiness", nor is there a definitive solution to man's problems
3.2.3. "Macbeth" allows us to analyze human nature
3.2.4. The importance of consciousness
3.2.5. Sin is an act of the will
3.2.6. When ambition becomes the main engine of "social" behavior
3.2.7. The problem of the choice of evil by Macbeth is the same as that of every human being.
3.2.8. In the end, the true freedom is in accepting the rules of the game.

3.3. Macbeth was not predestined to be a criminal
3.3.1. A hero can become a villain
3.3.2. A man who leads a normal life can slide down the slope
3.3.3. Neither the cradle nor the fortune neither the success are guarantee of probity
3.3.4. Living conditions can always seem insufficient
3.3.5. Nor is resentment the only source of evil
3.3.6. Everything is little for the one who does not limit himself
3.3.7. The ambition of power drives Macbeth to act as he does
3.3.8. The role of Lady Macbeth: Insane ambition is shared and the crossing of limits is not done alone ...
3.3.9. The desire to pretend is very strong
3.3.10. Macbeth succumbs to the "social pressure" represented in Lady Macbeth but "social pressure" can also be exerted for good
3.3.11. The limit between good and evil lies within Macbeth, and of all ...
3.3.12. The conscience of the faults committed may exist, but it is not enough for human redemption

4. The central theme in Macbeth: is it "ambition" or "sin"? - Sin in Macbeth

4.1. Curiosity
4.2. The temptation
4.3. Doubt and the desire to reject evil
4.4. Inclusion of the supernatural world in history
4.5. Recognition of service as mission and duty
4.6. There is a time when the consciousness of sin is full
4.7. As a sin I could be even more serious
4.8. The dissimulation as a tool of the sinner
4.9. Hesitation and consideration of the consequences of sin
4.10. Provisional Repentance ...
4.11. The importance we give to the image we project
4.12. Preparation, execution of the act and consideration of the destiny of Duncan's soul
4.13. Sin and its consequences in earthly life
4.14. Additional spiritual considerations
4.15. Additional invocation to the kingdom of shadows
4.16. Conscience, acceptance and state of sin
4.17. Lady Macbeth: Sin is not an involuntary mental delirium
4.18. The end of Macbeth shows the clarity of his ideas
4.19. Macbeth reiterates his will to continue killing, and prepares to die ...
4.20. We must never lose hope of saving ourselves

5. The virtues of the ruler in Macbeth

5.1. Intemperance and greed in political leaders have social effects
5.2. Shakespeare highlights the virtues of a good king
5.3. The faith was once in the considerations of the leaders

6. The road to the summit of Hamlet

6.1. A Catholic vision of the world
6.2. Knowing the mission in life
6.3. Hamlet makes a decision, a strategy is proposed, and progress
6.4. The doubts and the tribulation as companions of route
6.5. Disbanding the material world, the riches and the power
6.6. Responsibility for the next souls
6.7. Circumstances are forging the future
6.8. All the protagonists die: What is the meaning of the outcome?
6.9. The salvation of Hamlet ...
6.10. The role of Providence
6.11. Hamlet and the Newest
6.12. Question: Hamlet and revenge

7. What if Shakespeare were Catholic?

7.1. Catholicism in times of persecution
7.2. Some comments from scholars

8. Epilogue. The classicism of Shakespeare

9. Bibliography and sources (In order of appearance)

Shakespeare as political thinker: the most perceptive and brilliant efforts in recent decades to locate within the Western tradition a way to reintroduce the factor of revelation as an element with which to understand politics

What is new about our era, as opposed to the Christianity of an Augustine, of an Aquinas, or of a Shakespeare, is that now we actually see Christians themselves betraying their own traditions of political limitations…
Shakespeare as Political Thinker, edited by John Alvis and Thomas G. West
 (Durham: Carolina Academic Press, 1981)
For some time, political philosophy has, even to save its own integrity, needed to rediscover the classical tradition as a basis for understanding the place of politics within the human enterprise. Largely through the work of Leo Strauss, Hannah Arendt, Jacques Maritain, and Eric Voegelin, this has been accomplished, at least for those with eyes to see. But in recovering the classics—Plato, Aristotle, Thucydides, Xenophon, Cicero—there has been an embarrassed, unsettling silence about the place of revelation, of the Old and New Testaments especially, and also of Islam. Political philosophy in the modern era has believed it could be sufficient unto itself so that it was not even open to a hint of any intelligence not reduced to exclusively rationalist confines. The result was, since religion continued to be and even in many ways increased being a major factor in human affairs, in the lives of most men, in most places, and in most eras, an incapacity of political philosophy and those formally trained in it to account for the way men really act and why. Political theorists tried to explain human action in categories drawn exclusively from an understanding of man as abstracted from transcendent realities and considerations. This ironically resulted in a view of religion that described its motivations and institutions as “political” and thereby prevented any adequate comprehension of why men really acted in major areas of their lives. The narrowness of such modern political philosophy forced the Straussians and the Voegelinians, as the major proponents of the revival of the classics, to treat revelation with extreme care, if not actually in secret writing. No one wanted to “scandalize,” as it were, the academic moderns by appearing to take revelation too seriously, even when it was clear that faith must be taken into account if political philosophy itself were to understand even itself and its own intrinsic limits. Athens, Jerusalem, Rome—even Mecca, as Strauss recognized—loomed in the background of a discipline that prided itself on imitating modern natural science. The endeavor of being like unto science, however, did not reckon, as Stanley Jaki has shown, with the relation of this same science to the doctrines of creation and finite essence, doctrines, theological or philosophical, refined within the tradition of revelation. Modern political philosophy, consequently, has not known how to broach revelation as an intrinsic element to its own integrity, to its own understanding of itself within Western intellectual experience. The “modern project,” as Strauss called it, was simply to rid ourselves of revelation, to lower our sights, in order to erect a society according to norms which man could make “for himself,” on the grounds that only what man could know of his own power was worthy to exist in the first place. The only trouble was that the elevated goals of the Christian tradition did not cease to lure the modern political thinker even when the faith that originated and sustained them disappeared. The fruitless effort to find a “natural” substitute for supernatural motivations is, in one sense, what the “left” is about in modern political experience, both its rationale and its terrible danger.
The merit of Shakespeare as Political Thinker, and it is an inestimable merit, is to have discovered, almost from outside of political theory itself—though the relation of art to politics is, as Charles N.R. McCoy reminded us, a basic one—a way to treat legitimately the question of the relation of classical, of medieval, and of modern thought without ignoring or distorting the Judaeo-Christian revelational factor, which itself, as much as the classics, made Western civilization unique and gave truth a further universal, not merely parochial or cultural, claim. This remarkable book lies squarely within the tradition of Leo Strauss in particular. That is to say, it lies within the only academic tradition that is intellectually willing and, more importantly, able to ask what difference Christianity makes to the classics and to modern theory. The Thomist tradition used to be a major factor here, as Strauss recognized, but with the exception of the papacy and a few advanced places like the University of Dallas, from where many of these essays originated, this tradition has largely been abandoned or rejected by believers themselves, who, under the aegis of liberation theology, or ecology, or liberalism, have largely embraced the “modern project” itself, as if the Enlightenment were what religion is now about. This book also represents one of the few remaining avenues by which revelation can begin to be understood even by the intellectual representatives of religion, who no longer understand what they are about in the world of politics.
These fifteen essays on Shakespeare, and on how political life appears in his tragedies, comedies, histories, and poems, are the most perceptive and brilliant efforts in recent decades to locate within the Western tradition a way to reintroduce the factor of revelation as an element with which to understand politics, its limits, what lies beneath (the family) and beyond it. The only comparable endeavor, I think, was the neo-Thomist movement of a half a century ago, a movement itself intrinsic to the understanding of the significance of this penetrating book. Shakespeare, however, has the advantage of having lain fallow for so many years, outside the usual ken of political thinkers, so that the abundance of what can grow out of his wisdom is both fresh and almost unlimited. We are not accustomed to reflect upon art as itself a way to comprehend politics, even though we recall that an Aristotle wrote the Poetics and Plato never ceased to worry about Homer.
Harry Jaffa’s and Michael Platt’s essays on this relationship are simply remarkable. These essays were in part written for an Intercollegiate Studies Institute Conference at the University of Dallas, in part written for the book itself. They treat the major political works of Shakespeare—his tyrants, best kings, common men, bishops, matrons, and villains. The realization that Shakespeare is as profound as Cicero or Aristotle in political things should come as a surprise to no one. Yet, it is a surprise, as political thinkers have left Shakespeare largely to the literary scholars, just as they have left the Bible largely to the theologians, that is to say, in both cases, to people themselves largely ignorant of political things. Political science, the highest of the practical sciences as Aristotle called it in The Ethics, has in the modern era acted as if its area of reality were meant to narrow itself so that it focused only on the “political,” whereas it was meant, by its own reality, to expand itself so that it could see and account for all there was, even something that came from no known political source. Politics had to be humble enough to leave metaphysics and theology to their practitioners, provided these latter themselves, as Aquinas knew, understood, as politicians do, how most men really are. This is also why there is no Christian political theory without Augustine.
“In the plays set before the advent of Christianity,” John Alvis writes in the first essay,
human lives take shape from individual propensities responding to the laws of cities. In the plays set within Christian times, Shakespeare’s characters consult not only their native inclinations and laws of their state, but, concurrently, certain transcendent prescriptions decreed by their Scriptural God. To follow Shakespeare’s reflections upon human beings and citizens, one must reflect upon the political consequences of Christian belief. The political subject necessarily embraces the religious subject.
This is surprisingly like the metaphysical reflections of a Karol Wojtyla discussing the nature of politics and faith. The shadow of Machiavelli, moreover, is not ever far from the Christian characters in Shakespeare. That is to say, we also find in the great English bard modern political theory precisely in its relation to the classics and to revelation. In the beginning of The City and Man Strauss remarks that we ought to study the classics in order to grasp what man can learn by his own powers so that we could learn about the limits of the queen of the social sciences. John Alvis likewise concludes: “To know what extends beyond politics, it helps to know the full scope of the political realm. Shakespeare’s poetry assists us in understanding what surpasses politics by allowing us to grasp how far politics extends in the determination of human lives.” That politics ought to be a consummation of human lives, of the mortal while he is mortal, as Hannah Arendt would say, is no more than Aristotle’s dictum that we are by nature political beings. We do what we are. But that politics ought to consume all of human life is totalitarianism, in whatever form it might appear. It is probably no accident that no Shakespearean play depicts the life of a modern totalitarian state since the latter is produced precisely by a process that denies the classic and Judaeo-Christian revelational elements in man, the religious and political subject. Yet, Shakespeare knew tyranny and corruption, ambition and vanity at a depth that few if any have ever equaled. Jaffa rightly suggests that this Shakespearean art enables us to avoid such a politics of destruction, even though we may still choose in actual deeds not to avoid it. The central theme of these essays seems to be, in essence, what is and what is not political. Once knowing this, the human mind, as Aristotle already implied, seeks to spend its life in wondering about the narrow light of the divine shining into its world. In this context, no doubt, Jaffa’s essay and that of Professor Allen Bloom are of special interest. Jaffa is surely correct in calling attention to the political implications of chastity, of what it means for love and for the city to found precisely a family. Nothing is quite so important for politics as the family, which itself is not political. This is why those theories that deny it, beginning with Plato, can be so dangerous. Bloom remarks, in his essay on Richard II, that “the exquisitely refined souls do not belong to the best political men.” This makes us wonder even with greater interest about Shakespeare’s treatment of Sir Thomas More. Bloom continues:
There are two sins mentioned in Richard II: the sin of Adam and the sin of Cain. They seem to be identical, or at least one leads to the other. Knowledge of practical things brings with it awareness that in order for the sacred to become sacred, terrible deeds must be done. Because God does not evidently rule, the founder of justice cannot himself be just.
We have here, I suppose, what Frederick D. Wilhelmsen worried about in his Christianity and Political Philosophy, the relation of Jewish to Christian intelligence, both revelational, both related to the classics, to modernity, and to each other. For the Christian intelligence, as I have suggested elsewhere (“The Christian Guardians,” Downside Review, January, 1979), the reality of a religious “elite” and of a drive to God and higher excellence is not designed to deny the normalcy of politics nor to turn against the usual expectations of common men. This is why monasteries are neither homes nor states. It is only when the monastic tradition becomes secularized in movements, parties, think-tanks, and specifically anti-family presuppositions that it can destroy politics. Caesar really is legitimate in the Christian tradition. He is just not everything, nor the highest. Thus Augustine’s notion, that the City of Godalluded to by Strauss at the beginning of The City and Man—is not the proper object of worldly politics, prevents us, in our drive for the best, from using politics as its vehicle for its advancement and achievement. The experience of fallen men is included in the political experience, just as is Aristotle’s experience of a real worldly human perfection. The current infatuations of Christian monks with politics rather than with transcendence is, as Jewish thinkers seem instinctively to sense, extremely dangerous, because they jeopardize both politics and transcendence. Jaffa’s reminder of the family, of the unworldliness of love—Hannah Arendt’s point—of the place of family autonomy, needs to be set also in the context of the City of God. Otherwise, secular monks will end up destroying both family and state. Louise Cowan puts her finger on this issue:
No man is able to perform his task perfectly; in the Biblical tradition within which Shakespeare’s imagination works, all earthly things are flawed and yet all are carriers of something flawless. Shakespeare sees the human enterprise as a series of catastrophes, brought about by the clash of human wills; yet within this turbulent and painful chronicle he testifies to the gradual mysterious growth of the kingdom.
Shakespeare shows us that human communities and political regimes exist in order to further what Allen Tate has called the ‘one lost truth that must be perpetually recovered – the supernatural destiny of man.’ It is in the constant rediscovery of shared love—between all sorts and conditions of men—that the true meaning of human history lies concealed.
The recovery of “the supernatural destiny of man,” which elites and mystics really seek to understand and to achieve, is alone what prevents these same elites, these choiceful elites, from turning on politics and destroying it by imposing truly transcendent goals among its demands. What is new about our era, as opposed to the Christianity of an Augustine, of an Aquinas, or of a Shakespeare, is that now we actually see Christians themselves betraying their own traditions of political limitations. This, too, is why the testimony of both Jews and Christians actually living under Marxist states goes unheeded in the West. Shakespeare as Political Thinker not only allows us to reintroduce the transcendent into politics, both in their proper place, but it also enables political theory to instruct theology on how to recover its own reality. “But in our age,” Strauss wrote, “it is much less urgent to show that political philosophy is the indispensable handmaid of theology than to show that political philosophy is the rightful queen of the social sciences, the sciences of man and human affairs.” Some twenty years after these remarkable lines were written. I think, this book on Shakespeare suggests, through the supreme dramatic artist of our tradition, that both theology and social sciences are in desperate need of their own handmaid. This handmaid is none other than political philosophy now lying within the ken of the religious “subject” who knows that politics produces of itself no everlasting kingdom, even when proposed by “elites,” by “theologizers,” clerical or lay. While we can agree with Strauss that “it is not sufficient for everyone to obey and to listen to the Divine message of the City of Righteousness,” reflection on the political thinking in Shakespeare will also teach us that it is not sufficient to neglect this same Divine message.
Books on the topic of this essay may be found in The Imaginative Conservative Bookstore. Republished with gracious permission from Modern Age (Summer/Fall 1982 – Volume 26 Nos. 3-4).

James V. Schall
Rev. James V. Schall, S.J., is a teacher, writer, and philosopher. Having served as Professor of Political Philosophy in the Department of Government at Georgetown University, Fr. Schall is the author of many books, including The Life of the Mind: On the Joys and Travails of ThinkingCatholicism and Intelligence, and A Line Through the Human Heart: On Sinning and Being Forgiven.


miércoles, 14 de marzo de 2018

Sex reassignment does not adequately address the psychosocial difficulties faced by people who identify as transgender

Sex Reassignment Doesn’t Work. Here Is the Evidence.

Ryan T. Anderson

Sex “reassignment” doesn’t work. It’s impossible to “reassign” someone’s sex physically, and attempting to do so doesn’t produce good outcomes psychosocially.

As I demonstrate in my book, “When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment,” the medical evidence suggests that sex reassignment does not adequately address the psychosocial difficulties faced by people who identify as transgender. Even when the procedures are successful technically and cosmetically, and even in cultures that are relatively “trans-friendly,” transitioners still face poor outcomes.

Dr. Paul McHugh, the university distinguished service professor of psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, explains:
Transgendered men do not become women, nor do transgendered women become men. All (including Bruce Jenner) become feminized men or masculinized women, counterfeits or impersonators of the sex with which they ‘identify.’ In that lies their problematic future. 
When ‘the tumult and shouting dies,’ it proves not easy nor wise to live in a counterfeit sexual garb. The most thorough follow-up of sex-reassigned people—extending over 30 years and conducted in Sweden, where the culture is strongly supportive of the transgendered—documents their lifelong mental unrest. Ten to 15 years after surgical reassignment, the suicide rate of those who had undergone sex-reassignment surgery rose to 20 times that of comparable peers.

McHugh points to the reality that because sex change is physically impossible, it frequently does not provide the long-term wholeness and happiness that people seek.

Indeed, the best scientific research supports McHugh’s caution and concern.

Here’s how The Guardian summarized the results of a review of “more than 100 follow-up studies of post-operative transsexuals” by Birmingham University’s Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility:
[The Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility], which conducts reviews of health care treatments for the [National Health Service], concludes that none of the studies provides conclusive evidence that gender reassignment is beneficial for patients. It found that most research was poorly designed, which skewed the results in favor of physically changing sex. There was no evaluation of whether other treatments, such as long-term counseling, might help transsexuals, or whether their gender confusion might lessen over time.
“There is huge uncertainty over whether changing someone’s sex is a good or a bad thing,” said Chris Hyde, the director of the facility. Even if doctors are careful to perform these procedures only on “appropriate patients,” Hyde continued, “there’s still a large number of people who have the surgery but remain traumatized—often to the point of committing suicide.”


Read more:

The "Most Predictable Economic Crisis in History"

Foundation for Economic EducationFEE Daily
View in browser

Capitalism Has Shown Itself to Be the Most Feminist System

by Tim Worstall
Given that it was just International Women’s Day, we should give some serious consideration to which socio-economic system is the most feminist, the most pro-women. The answer, of course, is the current dispensation, free-market capitalism larded with a bit of welfare-state redistribution.


Entitlements: The "Most Predictable Economic
Crisis in History"

by Daniel J. Mitchell

Heck, even folks on the left recognize that there’s a problem. Paul Krugman correctly notes that America is facing a massive demographic shift that will lead to much higher levels of spending. And he admits that entitlement spending is driving the budget further into the red. That’s a welcome acknowledgment of reality. It’s not just libertarians and conservatives who recognize that there is a problem.


5 Times US Tariffs Have Made Matters Worse

by Lexi Peery

The political wisdom of intervening to help an industry that produces half of what it did in the 1970s is more than slightly questionable, while history makes clear the economic foolishness of Trump’s decision. When Trump’s predecessors have imposed tariffs, it hasn’t ended well for the US economy or the President in question.


The Government Killed Free Checking—Can Amazon Save It?

by Daniel Press

For the last eight years, the trend has been toward the death of free checking. But that tide might be turning, as innovative companies like Amazon look to enter the market, in partnership with banks like JPMorgan and Capital One.


Soviet Communism Was Dependent on Western Technology

by Philip Vander Elst

What I wish to do in this article, is to draw the attention of open-minded Left-wing readers to the significant but little-known and highly-relevant fact that for decades, Western capitalist technology sustained the failed economic experiment of Soviet Communism, rescuing it from the full consequences of its inherent systemic weaknesses, until its final collapse in 1991.


domingo, 11 de marzo de 2018

La chiarezza illumina la mente per accettare la verità, mentre la confusione confonde la mente per accettare la falsità. | il primo giornale radio cattolico online


La natura dell’oscurantismo, le conseguenze del modernismo

Il Modernismo agisce come un veleno lento in quanto, oscurando una dottrina della Fede, ne indebolisce la virtù: cioè indebolisce l’aderenza della volontà alla Verità rivelata.


Se un punto di forza della dottrina cattolica è la sua chiarezza, un punto di forza del Modernismo è la sua confusione. La chiarezza illumina la mente per accettare la verità, mentre la confusione confonde la mente per accettare la falsità.


In praeclara Summorum

Benedetto XV dedicò l’enciclica In praeclara summorum (1921) alla memoria di Dante.

Dante e l’islam

Spesso si sente ripetere che la Divina Commedia fu influenzata dalla cultura islamica e questo sarebbe anche un segno inequivocabile della simpatia di Dante verso la religione di Maometto. Ma si tratta di soltanto di una forzatura: ecco perché.

Commento alle elezioni politiche 2018 | di Roberto de Mattei

Commento alle elezioni politiche 2018 | di Roberto de Mattei

Dante e l’esoterismo

La cultura progressista cerca di arruolare Dante tra i suoi, definendolo di volta in volta eretico, cataro, Fedele d’Amore, odiatore della Chiesa, precursore della Riforma protestante, forgiatore di «versi strani» destinati ai soli iniziati («o voi che avete gl’intelletti sani…»). In realtà egli rimase sempre nell’alveo cattolico, apostolico e romano.

Dante non fu cataro

Tra le tante falsità che circolano su Dante c’è quella della sua adesione ai Catari. Ma basta leggere la Divina Commedia per rendersi conto di quanto sia assurda una tale affermazione: Dante fu perfettamente cattolico e le sue parole sono del tutto distanti da quella setta simil-gnostica.

Perché leggere Dante oggi? Non solo per il suo indiscutibile valore letterario, ma anche e soprattutto per il suo altissimo valore spirituale. A dirlo, è Luciano Pranzetti, autore di «Dante: la Divina Commedia tra Sacra Scrittura, Patristica, Scolastica», approfondito studio sulle fonti di Dante in tre agili volumi dedicati a ciascuna Cantica.

L’Anticristo nella letteratura

Quale il volto dell’Anticristo nella letteratura? E come la letteratura seppe prevedere situazioni quali quelle attuali? Lo abbiamo chiesto al prof. Andrea Sandri.

Quizás el acostumbramiento a las crisis sea algo más grave de lo que se pueda pensar de ordinario.

Peligroso acostumbramiento a las crisis recurrentes

Por Pablo López Herrera 

Es peligroso acostumbrarse a las crisis. Cuando escuchamos en Aregentina a los profetas de la catástrofe anunciar -con toda razón- las próximas que nos esperan y que estamos gestando sin que podamos hacer lo necesario y suficiente para impedirlas, no podemos dejar de recordar a Tocqueville, en cuya vida estuvieron presentes las “revoluciones” de 1789,  de 1830 y de 1848. (Aunque nació en 1805, su familia perdió miembros durante el “El Terror” y sus padres a penas se salvaron de ser muertos por los revolucionarios)

Quizás el acostumbramiento a las crisis sea algo más grave de lo que se pueda pensar de ordinario. En el caso de la Francia revolucionaria, pensaba Tocqueville que había “pasado del cataclismo a la rutina, porque las revoluciones – o más bien la Revolución, porque es siempre la misma- han hecho de Francia ese extraño país donde los trágicos enfrentamientos no arruinan ni la continuidad del estado, ni el arte de vivir alegremente. Escribe Tocqueville a William Senior (profesor de Política Económica en Oxford): “sabemos que hay que vivir como el soldado en campaña, y que la posibilidad de ser matado al día siguiente no impide concentrarse en las vísperas en las preocupaciones por la comida y el sueño, e incluso en las distracciones”” *

En nuestro país usamos con liviandad la expresión “bailar en la cubierta del Titanic”, y -sin haber llegado a tener que soportar los horrores de una revolución a la chilena, a la cubana o a la venezolana- los argentinos hemos pasado por la revolución peronista de mediados del siglo XX, la “camporista” de 1973, la “alfonsinista” y la “kirchnerista”, de menor intensidad. A pesar de todo lo sucedido, no se ha perdido en nuestro país ni “la continuidad del estado ni el arte de vivir alegremente”

Esperemos que con gradualismo o sin gradualismo pueda llegar el sano orden a estabilizar el barco, antes que pase un tsunami para el que manifiestamente no estamos preparados.

Para Tocqueville, en el caso que la humanidad debiera elegir entre libertad e igualdad, optaría por la segunda, aunque la libertad es un bien superior que debe sobreponerse a la igualdad: "las naciones hoy en día no saben hacer que en su seno las condiciones no sean iguales, pero depende de ellos que la igualdad lleve a la servidumbre o a la libertad, a las luces o a la barbarie, a la prosperidad o a la miseria."

En eso estamos.

* Tocqueville, Lettres choisies, Souvenirs, Gallimard, 2003 - Presentación de Françoise Mélonio, responsable de la publicación de “Las obras completas de Tocqueville” en 29 tomos por Gallimard

La Convention avait décidé « la dépopulation » et la destruction de la Vendée

Le 11 mars 1793 : la révolte de Machecoul éclate ainsi que dans plus de 100 paroisses de Vendée.

Carrier avait déclaré entre deux noyades :

« Nous ferons un cimetière de la France plutôt que de ne pas la régénérer à notre manière »

Rappelons qu'il fit construire des bateaux à soupapes qui noyaient cent personnes à la fois et inventa les « mariages républicains » qui consistaient à ligoter ensemble un homme et une femme qu'on précipitait dans la Loire. On évalue ses victimes à 16 000 personnes. (*)

Depuis l'annonce de la conscription de 300 000 hommes pour aller combattre sur le front est, la région vendéenne est en proie à une agitation grandissante. Lorsque les patriotes en charge de la conscription, habillés en bleu, d'où leur surnom, arrivent à Machecoul, la population accueille les tirages au sort avec des fourches. Le conflit tourne à l'affrontement entre paysans et patriotes. En quelques jours, ce sont plusieurs villages, tels que Chemillé, Saint-Florent-le-Vieil, ou encore Tiffauges qui se rebellent. Les premiers morts se comptent surtout chez les "Bleus", lynchés par la population. Rapidement, cette dernière s'organise.

(*) François Marie Algoud dans Histoire de la volonté de perversion de l'intelligence et de mœurs, page 82

La mémoire de la Vendée


Spécialiste des guerres de Vendée, Reynald Secher s'interroge sur le silence qui entoure encore le massacre de 1793-1794.

En mars dernier, Reynald Secher* , spécialiste des guerres de Vendée, auteur d'un ouvrage dont le titre déclencha en son temps une violente polémique (Le Génocide franco-français, PUF, 1986, rééd. Perrin, 2006), achève le manuscrit d'un nouveau livre. En parallèle, il travaille aux Archives nationales dans les dossiers du Comité de salut public, organisme qui gouvernait la France au temps de la Terreur. Au hasard d'un carton, l'historien tombe sur un lot de papiers signés Robespierre, Carnot ou Barère. Dans ces lettres, datées de 1793, les chefs révolutionnaires commandent explicitement de liquider la population vendéenne. Commentaire de Reynald Secher : «On n'avait jusqu'ici découvert aucun document permettant d'affirmer que les membres du Comité de salut public avaient donné des ordres précis et circonstanciés d'extermination. Ces documents, je les publie pour la première fois.» *

L'auteur a donc enrichi son travail avec les papiers exhumés. Le 21 brumaire an II [11 novembre 1793], Paris s'adresse «aux citoyens du peuple réunis à Rennes» : «Le Comité de salut public, chers collègues, a arrêté un plan vaste général tel que les brigands doivent disparaître en peu de temps non seulement de la Vendée mais de toute la surface de la République.» Quatre jours plus tard, l'avertissement est réitéré à l'intention du «citoyen Garnier représentant du peuple à Rennes» : «Les forces républicaines vont se dérouler avec un développement si terrible que bientôt non seulement la Vendée mais encore toute la surface du sol libre seront purgées des rebelles.» Le 27 frimaire an II [17 décembre 1793], c'est aux soldats de l'armée du nord que cette consigne est donnée : «Soldats de la liberté, la convention nationale vous appelle à l'honneur d'exterminer les brigands fugitifs de la Vendée.»

* Vendée: du génocide au mémoricide, préface de Gilles-William Goldnadel, postfaces d'Hélène Piralian et de Stéphane Courtois / Le Génocide franco-français, PUF, 1986, rééd. Perrin, 2006