Johann Gottlieb Fichte - the other father of German nationalism I thought I might follow up the Herder post from 13th January with a quick intro to another of the founding figures of German Idealism and of German nationalism, Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762 - 1814). Below the fold I will reproduce one of his famous series of Addresses to the German Nation. Fichte was an original thinker and offered important contributions to the theory of consciousness and to freedom of thought and speech. But it was only in his later years that his theory of an autarkic (or self-sufficient) government appeared, and he began to flesh out a notion of state, individual and fatherland that earned him his place in the nationalist pantheon. He was no Judeophile, describing Jews as a “state within a state” that could “undermine” the German nation. He suggested the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. In 1807-8 he took to circularising his Reden an die deutsche Nation, or Addresses to the German Nation, from the then French-occupied Berlin. Here, to give you a pretty strong flavour of early German Idealist thought and German patriotism, is one from 1807:- TO THE GERMAN NATION Love that is truly love, and not a mere transitory lust, never clings to what is transient; only in the eternal does it awaken and become kindled, and there alone does it rest. Man is not able to love even himself unless he conceives himself as eternal; apart from that he cannot even respect, much less approve, of himself. Still less can he love anything outside himself without taking it up into the eternity of his faith and of his soul and binding it thereto. He who does not first regard himself as eternal has in him no love of any kind, and, moreover, cannot love a fatherland, a thing which for him does not exist. He who regards his invisible life as eternal, but not his visible life as similarly eternal, may perhaps have a heaven and therein a fatherland, but here below he has no fatherland, for this, too, is regarded only in the image of eternity—eternity visible and made sensuous, and for this reason also he is unable to love his fatherland. If none has been handed down to such a man, he is to be pitied. But he to whom a fatherland has been handed down, and in whose soul heaven and earth, visible and invisible meet and mingle, and thus, and only thus, create a true and enduring heaven—such a man fights to the last drop of his blood to hand on the precious possession unimpaired to his posterity. Hence, the noble-minded man will be active and effective, and will sacrifice himself for his people. Life merely as such, the mere continuance of changing existence, has in any case never had any value for him; he has wished for it only as the source of what is permanent. But this permanence is promised to him only by the continuous and independent existence of his nation. In order to save his nation he must be ready even to die that it may live, and that he may live in it the only life for which he has ever wished. So it has always been, although it has not always been expressed in such general terms and so clearly as we express it here. What inspired the men of noble mind among the Romans, whose frame of mind and way of thinking still live and breathe among us in their works of art, to struggles and sacrifices, to patience and endurance for the fatherland? They themselves express it often and distinctly. It was their firm belief in the eternal continuance of their Roma, and their confident expectation that they themselves would eternally continue to live in this eternity in the stream of time. In so far as this belief was well-founded, and they themselves would have comprehended it if they had been entirely clear in their own minds, it did not deceive them. To this very day there still lives in our midst what was truly eternal in their eternal Roma. ... In this belief in our earliest common forefathers, the original stock of the new culture, the Germans, as the Romans called them, bravely resisted the oncoming world dominion of the Romans. Did they not have before their eyes the greater brilliance of the Roman provinces next to them and the more refined enjoyments in those provinces, to say nothing of laws and judges, seats and lictors, axes and fasces in superfluity? Were not the Romans willing enough to let them share in all these blessings? In the case of several of their own princes, who did no more than intimate that war against such benefactors of mankind was rebellion, did they not experience proofs of the belauded Roman clemency? To those who submitted the Romans gave marks of distinction in the form of kingly titles, high commands in their armies, and Roman fillets; and if they were driven out by their countrymen, did not the Romans provide for them a place of refuge and a means of subsistence in their colonies? Had they no appreciation of the advantages of Roman civilization, of the superior organization of their armies, in which even Arminius did not disdain to learn the trade of war? Their descendants, as soon as they could do so without losing their freedom, even assimilated Roman culture, so far as this was possible without losing their individuality. Freedom to them meant just this: remaining Germans and continuing to settle their own affairs, independently and in accordance with the original spirit of their race, going on with their development in accordance with the same spirit, and propagating this independence in their posterity. All those blessings which the Romans offered them meant slavery to them because then they would have to become something that was not German, they would have to become half-Roman. They assumed as a matter of course that every man would rather die than become half a Roman, and that a true German could only want to live in order to be, and to remain, just a German and to bring up his children as Germans. They did not all die; they did not see slavery; they bequeathed freedom to their children. It is their unyielding resistance which the whole modern world has to thank for being what it now is. Had the Romans succeeded in bringing them also under the yoke and in destroying them as a nation, which the Romans did in every case, the whole development of the human race would have taken a different course, a course that one cannot think would have been more satisfactory. It is they whom we must thank—we, the immediate heirs of their soil, their language, and their way of thinking—for being Germans still, for being still borne along on the stream of original and independent life. It is they whom we must thank for everything that we have been as a nation since those days, and to them we shall be indebted for everything that we shall be in the future, unless things come to an end with us now and the last drop of blood inherited from them has dried up in our veins. To them the other branches of the race, whom we now look upon as foreigners, but who by descent from them are our brothers, are indebted for their very existence. When our ancestors triumphed over Roma the eternal, not one of all these peoples was in existence, but the possibility of their existence in the future was won for them in the same fight. Comments:2
Posted by Gudmund on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 02:01 | # And also, the piece was very inspiring. Fichte had no idea what DNA was, but his blood was talking to him without him even knowing it. He could intuit the right things. Which begs the question: given the benefits of modernity and all it’s knowledge, why the ____ is it so difficult for us? 3
Posted by Davydd on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 02:36 | #
Because we’re not serious. 4
Posted by danielj on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 02:41 | #
Yet we live in serious times so all the elements of a fantastic tragedy are present. 5
Posted by cancercures on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:17 | # The real reason is because of LUXURIES of the modern world. These are what keep the majority sedated. Take away the satellite television and nationally syndicated programs. Take away the Ipod. Take away the PS3 and headset and World of Warcraft. Take away the lowered car with spoiler. Take away the opportunity to loiter around an air conditioned mall. Take away the cameraphone. Take away the 24-hour available porn. Take away the pills. Take away the toys, and see what happens. Take away the opportunities for work, and see what happens. Young men are the grease and the teeth in the gears of revolution. But they are sedated by modern marvels. 6
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 09 Sep 2009 20:50 | # Via n/a:
Post a comment:
Next entry: Are Jews Immune to Demographics?
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by Gudmund on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 01:58 | #
But it was only in his later years that his theory of an autarkic (or self-sufficient) government appeared, and he began to flesh out a notion of state, individual and fatherland that earned him his place in the nationalist pantheon.
All the neighing from modern economists aside (that means you, Paul Krugman!), was not autarky the prima facie condition of European man rather than “free trade”? What was feudalism other than a necessary survival tactic? Did not the modern idea of the “nation-state” originate from Euro man’s need for autarky?
Nationalism is a natural impulse amongst Euros. But in the Great Postmodern War, we must find new, stealthy ways to awaken it.