NEMANJA: SMIRENOUMLJE

happy

HALLOWEEN

Svi sveti: Kao što u Adamu svi umiru, tako će u Kristu svi biti oživljeni

»Kao što Isus umre i uskrsnu, tako će i Bog i one koji usnuše u Isusu privesti zajedno s njime. I kao što u Adamu svi umiru, tako će i u Kristu svi biti oživljeni« - kaže ulazna pjesma mise spomena svih vjernih mrtvih koji u novije doba praktički obuhvaća i svetkovinu Svih svetih i Dušni dan.
Obilazeći grobove svojih najmilijih, kiteći ih cvijećem ili vijencima te paleći svijeće, vjernici ne iskazuju samo na vanjski način svoju pažnju i ljubav prema svojima nego time također znakovito ističu znakove života te na taj način potvrđuju svoju povezanost sa svojima koji za njih nisu samo prošlost nego su za njih i sada živi u nedokučivom vječnom svijetu.
Svetkovina Svih svetih u prvi plan stavlja i svima u svijest doziva najbolje sinove i kćeri svih naroda čitavoga roda ljudskoga te potiče ljude sadašnjih naraštaja da ne prestanu težiti da budu bolji, savršeniji, čovječniji, uspješniji - jednom riječju svetiji.
Crkva, stavljajući u prvi plan proslavljene i svete sinove i kćeri, potiče sve vjernike i sve ljude dobre volje da se u susretu sa svojima nad njihovim grobovima ili pred križevima koji nadomještaju grobove onih za koje se ne zna gdje su pokopani, spominju onoga lijepoga, dobroga, plemenitoga, uspješnoga i blagoslovljenoga u zemaljskom životu onih koji su otišli pred nama.
I molitvena povezanost s pokojnima, osim što je izričaj vjere suvremenih vjernika u uskrsnuće i život vječni, također je način potvrđivanja da želimo dobro našim najbližima i nakon što su prešli u vječnost, te se i na taj način potvrđujemo kao ljudi dobre volje.



Ines Grbić

RAZGOVOR: Bernard McGinn, stručnjak povijesne teologije i povijesti kršćanstva

Mistika je čovjekova svjesnost povezanosti s Bogom

Dr. Bernard McGinn, istaknuti američki teolog laik, jedan je od najvećih i priznatih svjetskih proučavatelja kršćanske mistike. U bogatoj akademskoj karijeri (od 2003. godine je profesor emeritus) 35 godina je predavao povijesnu teologiju i povijest kršćanstva na Teološkom studiju Sveučilišta u Chichagu. I u mirovini predaje na raznim sveučilištima i diljem svijeta aktivno sudjeluje na simpozijima o mistici i njezinu odnosu prema prošlosti i sadašnjosti. Studirao je teologiju na Gregorijani u Rimu. Autor je 17 knjiga, brojnih djela o povijesti kršćanstva i kršćanske misli, urednik 11 izdanja, član i predsjednik različitih akademskih društava. Njegov veliki autorski projekt je jedinstvena zbirka od pet tomova »Povijest kršćanskog misticizma na Zapadu«, s generalnim nazivom: »Prisutnost Boga«, a prva tri dijela govore o podrijetlu, razvoju i procvatu mistike. Za nedavnog sudjelovanja na međunarodnom simpoziju o kršćanskoj, karmelskoj mistici u karmelu sv. Ilije na Buškom jezeru u BiH, rado je pristao čitateljima Glasa Koncila pojasniti pojam mistike i predrasude koje prate tu duhovnost kršćanske tradicije.

Iskustvo nije samo senzacija, osjećaj

Kako tumačite činjenicu da izraz »mistično iskustvo« prije 20. st. nije bio u uporabi kršćanskih mistika?

McGinn: Kršćanski mistici rabili su pojam »iskustvo« prije puno vremena. Bernard de Clairvaux u 12. st. naglašavao je potrebu iskustva. I slavlja je počinjao riječima: »Danas ćemo čitati u Knjizi iskustva.« Ali kršćanski mistici nikad nisu govorili o mističnom iskustvu. Govorili su o iskustvu Boga, kontemplaciji, rabili su pojam »mistika« govoreći o svojoj nutarnjoj stvarnosti poznavanja Boga. Govorili su o mističnoj teologiji, poput Terezije Avilske, ili o mističnoj interpretaciji Pisma. Pojam »mistično iskustvo« je suvremeni pojam koji se koristi u naobrazbi i učenju 19/20. st. Mislim da treba istražiti načine na koji su kršćanski mistici koristili pojam »iskustvo«, imajući na umu da je »mistično iskustvo« suvremeni pojam. Iskustvo je jako važno, no ono što su mistici prošlosti, Bernard de Clairvaux, Terezija Avilska, Meister Eckhart i mnogi drugi mislili pod time, nije bilo sasvim isto onome što mi smatramo pod pojmom »iskustvo«. Mnogi danas misle da je iskustvo samo senzacija, osjećaj. A mistici prošlosti pojmu »iskustvo« davali su puno šire, dalekosežnije značenje, u smislu direktnog kontakta s Bogom, svijesti o Bogu. To ih je i vodilo istinama kojima su stremili i nastojali ih ostvariti: činima ljubavi koje su iskazivali i odlukama koje su donosili. To je razlog zbog kojeg preferiram pojam »svjesnost«, jer sve što radimo: razmišljanje, djela ljubavi i odlučivanja, jesu djela svijesti. To su čini unutar kojih je osoba kao subjekt svjesna sebe i nečega. Zato mislim da je »mistična svijest« bolji pojam od mističnog iskustva. Ne kažem da nije korektno koristiti i pojam »iskustvo«, ali to često ljude ograničava na nešto što je senzacija, osjećaj. A to nije ono što mistici žele. Oni mogu imati senzacije, osjećaj Boga, ali imaju i misli o Bogu, djela ljubavi, oni donose odluke koje obuhvaćaju njihov cijeli život, ne samo osjećaj.

Mistika kaže da je Bog svagdje

Je li suvremeni svijet pojmu »mistično iskustvo« dao karakteristiku ekskluzivnog? Može li se reći da je to stavljeno na višu razinu smatrajući da ne može biti blisko »običnim ljudima«?

McGinn: Da. To je druga jako važna stvar. Kad ljudi danas govore o mističnom iskustvu Terezije Avilske i ostalih, često misle: to je nešto posebno. To su vizije, slušanje Božjeg glasa. »Meni se to nikad ne događa, a to je mistično iskustvo.« Ali to nije ono što mistika kaže. Mistika kaže da su njihova svijest o Bogu i iskustvo Boga nešto što može biti pronađeno, doživljeno u svakodnevnom životu i uobičajenim činima svijesti. Kao što je to nekad i u posebnim darovima, poput vizija.

Primjer je engleska mističarka iz 14. st. Julian of Norwich. Bila je na samrti, a Bog joj je dao ozbiljne vizije Krista na križu. Onda se oporavila i poslije je meditirala tu viziju, nije ih više primala. Njoj su vizije bile važne i pomogle. Ali bit je voljeti Boga. Ona kaže da ljudi koji vole Boga ne trebaju vizije, te da mnogi kršćani koji nikad nisu imali vizije vole Boga više od nje. Ona traži da ljudi nađu Boga u svakodnevnom životu i uobičajenim iskustvima. Ako želimo koristiti taj pojam, možemo, ali pritom ne misleći da se direktno naći Boga, što je za mene bit misticizma, mora dogoditi kroz neke osobite događaje koje nemamo. Majstor Eckhart, veliki njemački mistik iz 14. st., također je bio vrlo sumnjiv prema vizijama, i Ivan od Križa, o čemu jasno govori. Eckhart kaže da se Boga može naći bilo gdje. Kaže, ako misliš da Boga nalaziš više u crkvi nego u štali gdje radiš svoj posao, to je kao da »upakiraš« Boga, sakriješ ga u ormar. Jer Bog je prisutan svagdje: u crkvi, ali i u štali, kuhinji, na radnom mjestu. Bog je prisutan.

Što bi na to rekli liturgičari? Kako tu činjenicu »pomiriti« s govorom o sakralnom prostoru i crkvi kao Božjem hramu, svetištu gdje je na osobit način euharistijski uprisutnjen?

McGinn: Eckhart, Bernard de Clairvaux, Terezija Avilska i drugi veliki crkveni ljudi bili su religiozni i puno su vremena provodili u crkvi, molitvi, liturgiji. Molitva i liturgija su im pomogli da svoju pažnju usmjere na Boga i koncentriraju se na njega koji je tamo stvarno prisutan. Ali nisu mislili da se Bog može naći samo u crkvi. Danas toliki griješe kad kažu da je Bog samo u crkvi: »Kad idem u crkvu, bit ću s Bogom.« Mistika kaže da je Bog svagdje. Bog je prisutan u crkvi i liturgiji, ali kad napustimo crkvu, kad odemo iz crkve, Bog je i tamo. Na kraju mise svećenik kaže: »Idi...« Idi, širi i shvati Božju prisutnost u svijetu. Dakle, poruka mistike je ne učiniti crkvu i liturgiju manje važnom, umanjiti njezino značenje, nego prepoznati da je Bog, koji je na poseban način prisutan u liturgiji, prisutan i u svemu drugome što radimo. Liturgija je tako »dizajnirana« da nas treba podsjetiti da je Bog prisutan u svim aktivnostima našeg života. To je, naravno, teško shvatiti. Zaposleni smo, pozornost nam odvraćaju druge stvari. No poruka mistika je pokušati shvatiti da je u svakoj aktivnosti prisutnost Boga. Jako direktna prisutnost.

Ujedinjeni smo u jedno Kristovo tijelo

Kako tumačite često citiranu misao Karla Rahnera da će kršćani 21. st. biti mistici ili ih neće biti. Može li se reći da je misticizam poput samog bivanja, bîti kršćanstva?

McGinn: Svi su kršćani pozvani biti mistici. U određenom smislu već jesu mistici jer su postali jedno s Kristom u krštenju. Kršćanski misticizam je ukorijenjen u naše jedinstvo s Kristom u krštenju. Mistični život postaje sve veća realizacija, praksa i življenje svijesti o jedinstvu kojeg imamo u Kristu. To je prepoznavanje duboke dimenzije. Pridjev »mysticus« znači skriveni. A naše jedinstvo s Kristom je skriveno u našim dušama, u krštenju kojeg smo primili. Dakle, to prepoznavanje postaje svjesno činjenice da smo jedno s Kristom, ujedinjeni s Kristom u krštenju. Življenje tog jedinstva je izražavati ga sve više i jasnije u našem životu. Kad veliki njemački teolog Rahner kaže da će kršćanin budućnosti biti mistik ili neće uopće biti kršćanin, mislim da izražava upravo tu istinu - da će kršćanin budućnosti biti onaj tko će shvatiti da je jedinstvo s Kristom bit, srž kršćanstva. No, mnogo ljudi to ne prepoznaje. Oni su kršćani »po službi«. Misticizam, kako ga ja razumijem, jest shvatiti da to nije služba nego bit, žila kucavica, skriveno značenje o tome što je jedinstvo koje nam je Bog već dao. I daje nam ga sve više, s obzirom na to koliko prepoznajemo i živimo na temeljima prepoznavanja tog jedinstva. Mistika nije stvar posebnog iskustva, nego stvar nove svjesnosti, dubljeg osvještavanja onog što već imamo, što postoji: dar koji imamo, dan nam je milošću, počinjući s milošću krštenja, čime smo ujedinjeni u jedno Kristovo tijelo.

Dakle i vjernik koji predano živi pučku pobožnost može živjeti sadržaj pojma »mistika«?

McGinn: Nije riječ samo o ljudima koji žive neki poseban religiozni život. Nego svi kršćani, i predani pučkoj pobožnosti, koji pokušavaju živjeti što dublje svoje jedinstvo s Kristom, to je poenta, što dublje, sudjeluju u misticizmu. Gledamo na neke osobe kao velike mistike: Terezija Avilska, Ivan od Križa, sv. Augustin, Bernard de Clairvaux. Oni su veliki učitelji i vođe, ali to ne isključuje činjenicu da svi kršćani, koji dublje žive kršćanski život, pa i ljudi bez mnogo naobrazbe, sudjeluju u dubokom jedinstvu koje su primili u krštenju i izražavaju ga u svom životu. Možda oni o tome ne mogu pisati na način kako je to činila Terezija Avilska, ali oni su u nekom smislu mistici. Akademskim rječnikom, misticizam je poznavanje, postojanje analogija. Različiti ljudi sudjeluju u tome na različite načine. Postoji neki veliki mistični učitelj koji je bio ekspert, no ima i drugih koji su još učili i radili na tome. I oni sudjeluju u mističnom životu.

Odnos mistika prema drugima

Često se misli da je misticizam usko i strogo povezan s osobnim iskustvom pojedinca, bez utjecaja na druge. Je li u javnosti zanemarena ta »pastoralna dimenzija« misticizma, potreba da ga se komunicira drugima?

McGinn: Mnogi misle da misticizam uključuje privatne senzacije, da je to nečije osobno iskustvo, posebna vizija, osobita radost. Ali to nije učenje velikih kršćanskih mistika. Njihovo učenje je uvijek ukorijenjeno u život Crkve. To se događa nekom kao osobi, ali to nije sebično, individualno. To se događa samo u kontekstu članstva u Crkvi i naše ukorijenjenosti u Krista po krštenju. To nas proziva, zove da pomognemo i podijelimo s drugima kako živjeti jedinstvo s Bogom. Veliki mistici bili su veliki komunikatori, pisci. Od očeva Crkve, poput sv. Augustina, preko karmelićana do modernog vremena. Oni su veliki učitelji jer se osjećaju pozvani dijeliti to i često kažu da im je Bog rekao kako to trebaju podijeliti s drugima. To je jako važno shvatiti.

Zatim, svi su mistici insistirali da njihova ljubav prema Bogu mora uključiti ljubav prema bližnjemu. To ne može biti odvojeno. Ne možemo voljeti Boga a odbaciti bližnjeg. Ivan od Križa kaže: ako je naš bližnji u potrebi, moramo prekinuti s kontemplacijom da bismo mu pomogli i našli Boga u bližnjemu na poseban, još i veći način. To su ponavljali svi kršćanski mistici, da je aktivna ljubav prema bližnjemu način da shvatimo ljubav Boga. Ako je netko u stanju molitve te usmjerava pozornost prema Bogu, a odjednom je pozvan pomoći susjedu u ime kršćanske ljubavi, to je iznimna obveza. Izvršavajući je, u tim djelima ljubavi Boga susreće direktno.

Cilj je uvijek biti uključen u zajednicu

Možete li pojasniti tvrdnju da mistici nisu bili koncentrirani na sebe ili svoje autobiografije; nisu htjeli pisati o svojim iskustvima kako bi pokazali što je Bog njima učinio, nego na to koji su plodovi predanja Bogu za svakog, generalno?

McGinn: To je jako važno. Mistika nije sebična niti želi promovirati sebe, nego je od Boga pozvana dijeliti učenje. Terezija Avilska je dobar primjer za to. Ona je počela pisati jer su mistične knjige koje je koristila u samostanu da bi učila sestre bile nestale, zbog inkvizicije koja je zabranila čitanje duhovnih knjiga, a Terezija ih je koristila da pomogne svojim sestrama produbiti mistični život. Terezija je time bila ožalošćena. No Krist joj se objavio i rekao: »Učinit ću tvoj život knjigom.« I to ju je vodilo tome da stvori vlastitu knjigu života, kao svojevrstan vodič za druge. Smatrala je to potrebnim učiniti zbog situacije i jer joj je Krist rekao da će tako biti. Nije to učinila da bi bila više poznata ili da bi se zbog toga dobro osjećala. To je učinila zbog potrebe učenja mistične istine. I uz pomoć njezina ispovjednika sve je bilo odobreno, nadaleko čitano, a čitano je i danas, kao primjer dubokog mističnog učenja iz kojeg možemo učiti.

Praktični misticizam?

McGinn: Da. Misticizam po definiciji treba biti praktičan. To nikad nije odvojenost između ljubavi prema Bogu i drugome. Mnogi to ne razumiju i misle da mistici idu na vrhove planine, u pustinje, na odvojena mjesta, da se odvajaju od društva. Mistici se mogu odvojiti na neko vrijeme, koncentrirati svoju pozornost, ali to nije cilj. Cilj je uvijek biti uključen u zajednicu, naći ljude i pomoći im. Ako se pogledaju životi velikih mistika, oni su bili jako aktivni. Sv. Terezija Avilska je utemeljila samostane diljem Španjolske, bila je iznimno aktivna. Sv. Augustin, veliki otac Crkve i mistik, aktivni je biskup u Africi u 4. st., uključen u sva crkvena, čak i u politička pitanja te odnose između Crkve i države. I dalje je propovijedao veliku mističnu poruku svojoj kongregaciji.

Je li misticizam jedini način na koji bi kršćanin trebao živjeti svoju duhovnost, religijsku svijest u ovom svijetu, ili postoji »alternativa«?

McGinn: Religija može biti živa i rastuća ako se Boga traži na dublji način i živi iz toga, nalazeći dublju prisutnost Boga koja nam je darovana. To je misticizam. Ali, ne želim neizostavno koristiti riječ koja neke ljude može uznemiriti i reći i: »Moraš biti mistik ili ne možeš biti religiozan.« Ali rekao bih im: Ako namjeravaš biti religiozan, moraš pokušati naći Boga u životu i živjeti iz te svjesnosti o Bogu. Ako mene pitate što to znači, odgovorio bih: Za mene to znači misticizam.

Teologija i mistika

Ako se mistika određuje kao jedinstvo Boga i čovjeka, otkud »napetosti« između teologije i misticizma, odnosno duhovnosti?

McGinn: Dva su pitanja pritom. Jedno je pitanje jedinstva s Bogom. To je centralno za misticizam. Naravno, temeljeno je na Svetom pismu, osobito pisanju sv. Ivana i sv. Pavla. U svojim poslanicama sv. Pavao često govori »biti u Kristu«. To je jedan od njegovih ključnih pojmova, »in Christo«, da smo jedno u Kristu. U Evanđelju sv. Ivana i poslanicama je dubok govor jedinstva. Krist na Posljednjoj večeri moli: »Oče, da svi budu jedno, kao što smo ti i ja jedno.« Dakle, svijest o tome da smo jedno s Bogom je ukorijenjena u Pismu. I to je najvažniji i najbolji način opisivanja duboke svijesti o Bogu koje mistik ostvaruje.

Ali, ima i drugih pojmova koje je mistika koristila da bi opisala direktan kontakt s Bogom. Mistici su govorili o dubokoj kontemplaciji ili o beskonačnoj pretpostavci Boga, jer nikad ne možemo postići statični trenutak. Bog je beskrajan, mi ograničeni. Dakle, postoje i druge forme jezika, pored govora o jedinstvu, »ujedinjenog, dogovorenog« jezika. Jer niti jedan ljudski govor ne može obuhvatiti kontakt s Bogom. Dakle, važni su mistično jedinstvo, kontemplacija, radikalna poslušnost Bogu. Važna je lepeza različitih forma jezika da izrazi misticizam. Zato je to jedan od razloga zbog kojih ne definiram misticizam. Ne želim ga opisati primarno ni u pojmu jedinstva. To je dublja forma prepoznavanja Božje prisutnosti, a često je vidljivo u uporabi pojma »jedinstvo«, jer se to koristi u kršćanskim pismima.

Što se tiče odnosa mističnog učenja i učenja Crkve, to je složeno pitanje. Mistično iskustvo zauzima mjesto u teologiji. U nekim vremenima povijesti kršćanstva crkvene vlasti neke jezične tvrdnje mistika smatrale su opasnima. Prije svega zato što neki mistici govore o svojoj bliskosti Bogu i jedinstvu s Bogom na način da se nekad javlja pitanje ima li razlike između stvorenja i Stvoritelja, između osobe i Boga. Bilo je napetosti, nekad čak i osuda u kršćanskoj povijesti, o nekim aspektima individualnog mističnog učenja. Crkva nikad nije odbacila misticizam, ali je kod određenih formulacija nekih mistika postavljala pitanja. Echkart osobno nije bio osuđen, ali neke izjave iz njegova pisanja jesu, kao heretičke i opasne. Echkart je objasnio te tvrdnje, koje uzete iz konteksta mogu zvučati ekstremno. No promatrane u kontekstu mislim da ne bi bile heretičke ili opasne. Problemi su nastajali zbog posebnog jezika, nikad zbog mistične dimenzije kršćanstva.

U povijesti je postojala podjela između razvoja teologije kao akademske znanosti i duhovnosti kao življenog iskustva, prakse. Gotovo svi veliki katolički teolozi 20. st., Rahner, Von Balthasar, Lonergan, smatrali su da se »raskol« između teologije i duhovnosti treba prevladati. Teologija se ne može vidjeti kao vrsta akademske vježbe, a duhovnost praksa odvojena od teološkog promišljanja i refleksije. Teologija treba biti upućena u duhovnost i mistično znanje, a duhovnost mora imati dobru teološku bazu i biti sposobna izraziti se teološkim jezikom.



Uskrsnuće tijela

Katekizam Katoličke Crkve - nadamo se - prilično jasno tumači što znači vjerovati u uskrsnuće tijela. Tako najprije govori o uskrsnuću ljudi koji su umrli kao o vrhuncu vjere u Boga Oca, Sina i Duha Svetoga te u Božje stvoriteljsko, spasiteljsko i posvetiteljsko djelo. Tumači također da uskrsnuće znači ustajanje mrtvih na novi život odnosno da će uskrsnuli od mrtvih, kao što je Isus, biti živi zauvijek. Bitno je u ovom nauku uočiti da vjera u uskrsnuće tijela znači zapravo vjeru u uskrsnuće osobe, čitavoga čovjeka koji je sastavljen od duhovne i tjelesne komponente.
Katekizam Katoličke Crkve izričito navodi: »Izričaj 'tijelo' (doslovno 'put', meso) označuje čovjeka u stanju slaboće i smrtnosti. 'Uskrsnuće tijela' znači da poslije smrti neće živjeti samo duša, nego da će i naša 'smrtna tijela' (Rim 8,11) oživjeti.« Drugim riječima, kad doživimo uskrsnuće svoga tijela, doživjet ćemo odnosno iskusit ćemo vječni život, i to kao osobe sa svojim specifičnim i vlastitim identitetom.
Katekizam zatim podsjeća da je Kristovo uskrsnuće model našega uskrsnuća, a o Kristovu uskrsnuću imamo u Evanđeljima zabilježeno iskustvo susreta s uskrsnulim Kristom. Prema tim zabilježenim iskustvima, Isus je nakon smrti i uskrsnuća imao prepoznatljivi lik svoga predsmrtnog ljudskog tijela. Imao je i rane na svome tijelu koje je zadobio u muci - te je apostolima i, posebno, nevjernome Tomi pokazao rane od čavala i ranu od probodenoga boka. Na susretima s apostolima Isus je i jeo - dakle imao je u stanovitom smislu tijelo s nama poznatim fizičkim svojstvima, ali isto tako, a to je zabilježeno naviše mjesta u Evanđeljima, njegovo uskrslo tijelo nije bilo više podložno poznatim fizičkim zakonima jer je među učenike dolazio kroz zatvorena vrata.
Zbog tih iskustava o svojstvima Isusova uskrsla tijela, govori se o »proslavljenom«, »slavnom« ili - kao Pavao u Prvoj poslanici Korinćanima - »duhovnom tijelu«. I Katekizam Katoličke Crkve jasno kaže navodeći učenje IV. lateranskog koncila: »Tako će isto u njemu (Kristu, op. ur.) 'svi uskrsnuti sa svojim vlastitim tijelima koja sada imaju', samo će to tijelo biti preobraženo u slavno tijelo, u 'tijelo duhovno' (l Kor 15,44).«
Dakle, nećemo u uskrsnuću doživjeti oživljavanje svoga mrtvog tijela poput Lazara, koji je nakon što ga je Isus uskrisio od mrtvih živio određeno vrijeme u ovozemaljskom, raspadljivom tijelu, tijelu koje je potpadalo pod sve poznate fizičke zakone ikoje se u smrti ponovno ugasilo, nego oživljavanje svoga vlastitog tijela u jedan posve nov život, kvalitativno drugačiji, savršeniji, u kojemu više nema raspadljivosti ni smrtnoga gašenja tijela.
Očito je da nam Bog nije objavio svu istinu o uskrsnuću tijela te to ostaje za nas i dalje misterij, otajstvo, stvarnost koja jest, ali koju još ne možemo dokraja shvatiti ni prereći.
No, nije najvažnije pitanje kako? - na koje ne znamo odgovoriti - nego je najvažnija objava da smrt u našem životu nema zadnju riječ, da mi kao osobe ne prestajemo u smrti postojati, te da mi kao osobe u nov, vječni život ulazimo u svojoj cjelovitosti, dakle i kao duhovno i kao tjelesno biće.



Zli duhovi prema sv. Tereziji Avilskoj i sv. Ivanu od Križa

Fr Antonio Moreno OP

U ovim vremenima nije popularno pisati o zlim duhovima. Kako s. Lucien-Mary od sv. Josipa kaže, "remek djelo ovog gospodara opsjena bez sumnje jest to da se predstavi kao da ne egzistira u svijetu gdje tako lako pridobija duše da idu putem kojim on hoće, bez potrebe da se pokazuje – jer ima veliki interes da to ne čini" (95). Njezino opažanje je slično Baudelaireovom dobro poznatom citatu o učinku najdomišaljtijeg đavolskog lukavstva: uvjeravati nas da on ne postoji.
Richard Woods je napisao da je teološka misao težila da protjera sotonu iz središta razmišljanja i propovjedanja. "Možda najuporniji prigovor na postojanje đavla ne dolazi od ateista ili psihologa, kao što bi se moglo očekivati, nego iz redova klera" (93). Papa Pavao VI, međutim, u Zlo koje se naziva đavao kaže da je jedna od najvećih potreba crkve danas da se brani od ovog uosobljenog zla te da je suprotno učenju biblije i crkve odbijati priznavanje postojanja takve realnosti. Joseph de Tonquedec SJ, teolog i službeni egzorcist pariške biskupije, zapaža u djelu "Neki aspekti sotonskog djelovanja u svijetu":
Istina je da su slučajevi potpunog opsjednuća iznimno rijetki, ali pacijenti o kojima ja govorim su nebrojeni. Ne bi bilo opravdano tretirati ih kao opsjednute, zbog svih dokaza koji pokazuju da oni to nisu. S druge strane, oni nisu nepromjenjivi ili nužni mentalni slučajevi koji bi imali neke šanse liječenja preko psihologije. (40)
Problem zlih duhova je još uvijek značajan, a spisi Terezije Avilske i Ivana od Križa o tome su prosvjetljujući. Oboje su iznimni sveci i crkveni naučitelji koji govore o nebrojenim susretima sa zlim duhovima. Oboje su bili dobro poznati, posebno Ivan, po svojim sposobnostima istjerivanja zlih duhova. Kao što Terezija tvrdi, "Ivan od Križa je imao poseban dar istjerivanja zloduha... U Avili ih je mnogo izagnao iz jedne osobe i zapovjedio im u ime Božje da kažu svoja imena i odmah su mu se pokoravali" (Pismo 48.2).

Zlodusi, Terezija i Ivan od križa

Prema Tereziji, đavao uloži više muke da dovede do pada dušu koja prima milosti od Boga u molitvi nego za manje napredne duše. Isto je mišljenje i Ivana od Križa koji kaže da đavao postiže više kroz malo zlo prouzrokovano naprednijoj duši nego za velike štete većini drugih.
Poput dobrog kapetana, sveta duša vodi mnoge u nebo i čini đavlu veliku štetu. Takva posebna ljubav svete duše prema Bogu je dovoljna da đavao pokuša napraviti sve moguće kako bi je doveo do propasti. Zbog toga je i konflikt neprijatniji za takvu dušu nego za onu koja je manje sveta.
Čim je đavao počeo zamjećivati Tereziju, ona je snosila užasne i podle napasti očaja, lažne pozinosti, lažnih pretpostavki, lažnih strahova i napasti da napusti mentalnu (misaonu) molitvu. Ove napasti su dovele mir i ljubav njezine duše prema Bogu u rizik.

Ukazanja zlih duhova

Ivan od Križa u svojim spisima nikad ne upućuje na osobna vanjska ukazanja zloduha. Terezija, međutim, u spisu Moj život opisuje kako joj se đavao prikazivao, ponekad imajući "odvratno obličje; usta mu bijahu užasna. Iz njegova tijela činilo se kao da dolazi veliki plamen koji ne pravi sjenu" (288). Drugom prilikom je vidjela najskrovitijeg malog zloduha, koji je režao kao u očaju zato što je izgubio ono što je pokušavao postići. Također je očima duše vidjela dva zloduha skrivene vanjštine koji su izgledali kao da rogovima opkoljuju vrat svećenika dok je slavio misu. U svom Životu, Terezija opisuje kako je 1550. imala viđenje koje je prenijelo njezinu dušu na mjesto u paklu.
Terezija otkriva da sveta voda, bolje od ičega drugog, ima moć da protjera ove vanjske i vidljive prikaze, primjećujući da su se teolozi složili s njenim iskustvom. Npr. u našem stoljeću Tonquedec kaže da je sveta voda izričito blagoslovljena da udalji od mjesta i osoba koje su njome poškropljene "svu silu neprijatelja i njega samog sa njegovim palim anđelima" (50).
Ova vanjska tjelesna viđenja bila su neobična, čak i za Tereziju, koja primjećuje da nije mogla ništa vidjeti u većini svojih viđenja anđela i zloduha. Tako su njena viđenja zloduha bila uglavnom intelektualne vizije: "rijetko sam ga vidjela u tjelesnom obliku, ali često sam ga viđala bez ikakvog obličja, kao u vrsti vizije koju sam opisala, u kojoj se ne vidi nikakva forma, ali se zna da je objekt prisutan" (292).

Važnost demonskih kušnji

I Terezija i Ivan od Križa ističu važnost demonskih kušnji. Terezija upozorava da su umijeće i lukavsvo koje đavao koristi da odvrati dušu od puta savršenosti užasni. Za Ivana od Križa, đavao je najmoćniji i najprepredeniji neprijatelj, njegove lukavštine su više zbunjujuće nego one od tijela i svijeta. Njega je "najteže razumjeti"; uzrokuje propast velikog broja redovnika koji krenu putem života savršenosti i nikakva ljudska moć ne može se s njim uporediti (Duhovni spjev, 431).
Đavao vara, zasljepljuje, podmićuje i zavodi. Đavolske napasti su uobičajeno iskustvo ljudske naravi. Za Tonquedeca, on je napasnik, zavodnik, nadahnitelj zlih djela. Ubojstvo, mržnja i laganje su njegova "djela". On je "otac" ubojstava i općenito svih grijeha. Woods vjeruje da suvremeno i povijesno iskustvo reafirmira važnost uloge demonskoga u duhovnoj evoluciji čovječanstva. On dodaje: "Očito dobro organizirane sotonske sekte postoje diljem Amerike, a neke od njih su u neku ruku barem poročne ili čak ubilačke" (100).
Ali đavao nije jedini uzrok naših grijeha, kao što primjećuje sv. Toma Akvinski u Summa Theologiae, kao i Terezija u svojoj knjizi Temelji. Po Tereziji, naša vlastita nastrana nagnuća i loša raspoloženja, posebno ako patimo od melankolije – također nam prouzrokuju mnogo zla (§ 4, br. 2). "Melankolija" je bio izraz koji se prije koristio za opisivanje neuroza. Međutim, treba reći da je đavao indirektno uzročnik svih naših padova koji proistječu iz naše naravi u smislu da je kao posljedicu iskonskog grijeha đavao uveo nered i požudu u ljudsku prirodu.

Đavao i slabost ljudske prirode

Moramo shvatiti da su zlodusi čista intelektualna, a ne racionalna bića poput nas. Posjeduju superiornono znanje o našim slabostima i sklonostima koje koriste da nas iskušavaju. Terezija je svjesna da "đavao veoma dobro zna iskoristiti prednost zbog naše naravi i malog razumijevanja" (Pismo Izabeli od sv. Jeronima i Mariji od Isusa u Obras Completas, 980). U Duhovnom spjevu, Ivan od Križa također sugerira da zlodusi koriste svijet i tijelo kako bi pojačali snagu svog djelovanja: "napast zloduhâ ... je jača od one svijeta i tijela, zato što je oni pojačavaju prethodnim dvama neprijateljima, svijetom i tijelom, kako bi vodili oštar rat" (431).
Đavao zna kako iskoristiti naše instinkte i strasti, slabosti tijela i našeg ponosa. Victor White, u djelu Bog i podsvijest, zamjećuje da nesreća, bolest ili mentalna anksioznost nisu grijesi, ali mogu potaknuti pobunu i očaj. A sotona može sve to iskoristiti da nas navede na grijeh.
Za sv. Tomu Akvinskoga, đavao može djelovati na ljudski um samo preko prirodnih, fizičkih i psiholoških uzroka; obratno, svi prirodni, fizički i psihološki uzroci mogu biti instrumenti za đavolske svrhe. Ovaj pogled zamućuje razliku između mentalnog poremećaja koji dolazi zbog nutarnjih uzroka i mentalnog poremećaja koji dolazi od đavolskog djelovanja, postavljajući problem razlikovanja. Za Whitea ne postoji takva stvar kao što je mentalni dijabolički poremećaj.

Načini demonskog napastovanja

Demonsko napastovanje općenito utječe na psihosomatske moći; kao npr. maštu, pamćenje i osjetilne nagone, koji su važni u uporabi i kontroli naših emocija. Iskušavajući ove moći, zlodusi uznemiruju osjetilni nagon i indirektno utječu na um i volju. Iskustva Terezije Avilske i Ivana od Križa potvrđuju ovo učenje koje je općenito prihvaćeno u duhovnoj teologiji. Ivan kaže da je najveća demoska prijevara ona preko pamćenja te da može trajati dugo vremena, posebno za duše koje se nalaze u tamnoj noći osjećaja na ulazu u noć duha.
Kao dodatak redovitim napastima mašte i pamćenja, duše u naprednim stanjima savršenosti su objekt druge vrste napasti. Đavao zna da napast koja uzrokuje pad napredne duše ne može biti uobičajena očita kušnja, koja se lako odbacuje, nego prijevara (ili zlo) pod vidom dobra. Tako Terezija piše:
Ali đavao dolazi sa svojim vještim lukavštinama i pod maskom činjenja dobra, navodi na njegovo potkopavanje na obične načine i čineći to radnjama koje, kako on da razumjeti, nisu pogrešne; malo po malo duša zamračuje svoj razum, slabi svoju volju te uzrokuje povećanje samoljublja na jedan ili drugi način, a đavao je počinje odvlačiti od Božje ljubavi i nagovarati je da udovoljava vlastitim željama. (Zamak duše 120)
Ivan od Križa također piše o tim iskustvima, primjećujući da đavao uzrokuje najveću štetu i čini da duša gubi obilje blagodati vabeći je malim mamcem izvan jednostavnih voda duha. Terezija je imala slična iskustva nalazeći da se ova vrsta napasti obično javlja kontemplativnim dušama koje se nalaze u "petom zamku"; zamak predstavlja kontemplativnu molitvu sjedinjenja s Bogom.

Đavao oponaša Boga

Kako bi prevario kontemplativne duše, đavao također oponaša Boga. Očite kušnje su zamaskirane kao lažna ukazanja svetaca ili u lijepim ili očigledno svetim riječima. Ivan kaže:
Đavao često opskrbljuje osjetila objektima, pružajući osjetilu vida slike svetaca i najljepših svjetala . . . . A osjetilu mirisa, različite miomirise; stavlja slatkoću u usta i ugodu u osjetilo dodira. On sve to tako radi da zavodeći osobe preko tih objekata osjetila, može osobe uvesti u mnoga zla (Uspon na goru Karmel 133).
Terezija je iskusila takve napasti u nekoliko prigoda kada joj se đavao pokušao predstaviti kao Gospodin praveći lažnu sličnost s Bogom. Ali ona je primjetila da duša postaje uznemirena, očajna, nespokojna i nesposobna za molitvu. Isto vrijedi i za nutarnji govor, kao i za teškoću prosuđivanja. U ovim slučajevima Ivan od Križa savjetuje da točno razlikovanje ovisi o svetosti duhovnog vođe: "Osoba, kao za posljedicu, će morati biti veoma duhovna kako bi ovo prepoznala" (Uspon na goru Karmel 207).

Različite vrste napasti

U Duhovnim spjevu Ivan od Križa obrazlaže tri različite vrste đavolskih napasti koje pogađaju duhovno napredne duše: prvo, one koje snažno potiču maštu; drugo, kad se prvi način pokaže beskorisnim, tjelesna mučenja i zvukovi koji rastresaju dušu; i treće, još gore, ponekad strašna mučenja đavla koji se protiv duše bori s duhovnim terorima i užasima (476). Španjolski svetac daje malo detalja ove druge kategorije napasti, iako smo čitali u biografijama njegovog života, da je bio pogođen njima (P. Crisogono de Jesus Sacramentado 111).
U slučaju duhovnih horora, "koje đavao može vrlo lako učiniti, jer kada duša dođe u veliku ogoljenost duha zbog te duhovne vježbe, đavao joj se može lako pokazati budući da je on također duh" (Duhovni spjev 476). Njegova tajanstvena prisutnost prouzrokuje psihološke i duhovne poteškoće.
Prihvaćeno teološko učenje jest to da je đavolski utjecaj uobičajen preko osjetila, posebno nutarnjih sjetila pamćenja i mašte. I Ivan i Terezija ukazuju da neke napasti i užasi mogu nadići osjetila i utjecati na duhovne moći duše. Ovo se izgleda javlja naprednim kontemplativcima koji su već dosegli duhovne zaruke s Bogom u šestom zamku i na pragu su sedmog, duhovnog braka. Promotrimo Ivanov opis užasa koji je đavao prouzrokovao preko osjetila:
Kad duhovna komunikacija nije udijeljena isključivo duhu nego i osjetilima, đavao mnogo lakše uznemiruje i potresa duh ovim užasima uz pomoć osjetila. Mučenje i bol koji su tako prouzrokovani su neizmjerni, a ponekad i neizrecivi. Pošto duhovna komunikacija prelazi ogoljeno s duha na duh, horor koji zao duh uzrokuje, ako dosegne duhovni dio dobrog duha, je nepodnošljiv. (Tamna noć, 383)
Kasnije u Tamnoj noći, Ivan od Križa ukazuje na mogućnost čisto duhovnog kontakta: "Ova užasna komunikacija prelazi jasno s duha na duh na neki nematerijalni način tako da nadilazi (transcendira) svu osjetilnu bol" (385).
U blizini duhovnog braka, bitka za spasenje i borba dobra i zla su dramatične. Anđeli pomažu duši, a zli duhovi pokušavaju iskoristiti svoju posljednju šansu. Kad duhovne komunikacije dolaze od anđela, đavao može detektirati neke od tih milosti darovanih duši. "Bog redovito dopušta neprijatelju da prepozna milosti darovane preko dobrih anđela, tako da može učinti ono što može, u skladu s mjerom pravde, da ih spriječi" (384). Onda se đavao ne može žaliti da mu nije dana prilika da osvoji dušu. Prema Ivanu, on bi to mogao učiniti kad Bog ne bi dopustio određenu ravnopravnost između dvojice u borbi za dušu.
Anđeli produciraju duhovne komunikacije; zli duhovi pak duhovne horore. Ali na kraju pobjeda pripada dobrim anđelima. One horore koji pročišćuju dušu slijede duhovne milosti, u skladu s tamom i užasnim čišćenjem koje podnosi. Duša "će uživati čudesnu i ugodnu duhovnu komunikaciju, povremeno neizrecivo uzvišeno. Nadolazeći horor zloduha pročošćuje dušu tako da ona može primiti ova dobra" (385). Međutim, Ivan primjećuje da ove duhovne vizije pripadaju više budućem životu nego ovom.
Terezija je iskusila slične susrete i zamjetila da đavli ne produciraju ništa osim suhoće i nemira.
Ovaj nemir je takav da ne znam odakle dolazi: samo se čini da se duša opire, da je uznemirena i da se muči ne znajući zašto; zato što su sotonine riječi dobre, a ne zle. Pitala sam se može li to biti zbog toga što je jedan duh svjestan prisutnosti drugoga. (Moj život 237)
Za Marcela Lepeea to je jedna od onih začuđujućih fraza koji je njezin genij vrlo lako izvukao iz pera jer je ona sposobna razlikovati ono što dolazi od nas od onoga što je nadodano, što dolazi od drugoga. "Njezin duh je težio Bogu, a drugi duh bi je htio odvratiti od Njega... tako da je stalno strahovao u tom prikrivenom kontaktu" (99).
Ovakve duhovne borbe pojavljuju se samo kod osoba tako uznapredovalih u savršenosti i tako pročišćenih patnjama i kušnjama tako da one steknu malo znanja koje odgovara duhovnim bićima, koje proniče sva bića, kao što kaže Pavao, a Ivan od Križa pojašnjava: "Duša sa univerzalnošću i velikom lakoćom opaža i proniče sve zemaljsko ili nebesko što joj se predstavlja. Zato apostol kaže da duhovni čovjek proniče sve stvari, čak i dubine Božje (1 Kor 2, 10) " (Tamna noć 345). To je svojstvo pročišćenog i oslobođenog duha od svakog djelomičnog znanja i sklonosti, a to je duh kontemplacije u svojim višim stanjima.

Poniznost i zlodusi

Prema Ivanu od Križa, duša koja očekuje da nadvlada đavlovu "snagu" biti će nesposobna za to bez molitve. Kako bi shvatila njegove "prijevare" duša treba poniznost – jer đavao je zakleti neprijatelj poniznosti. Španjolski mistik primjećuje da je đavlov mamac upravo ponos – naročito ponos koji dolazi od duhovne predispozicije. Svete duše moraju biti oprezne oko bilo kakve vrste objava jer se đavao obično u njih upliće i "spaja zajedno tako mnogo očitih i prikladnih činjenica koje tako često ugrađuje u maštu na taj način da se čini da će se svaki događaj nesumnjivo pojaviti" (345). Ako duša nema poniznosti, biti će odvučena od svog mišljenja i vjerovati će suprotno. Terezija kaže da se zlodusi čak koriste slikom Krista ili njegovih svetaca kako bi pothranjivali krivu pobožnost. Ali đavolske vizije ne škode ako je prisutna poniznost:
Što se mene osobno tiče, vjerujem da Njegovo Veličanstvo neće dopustiti ili dati snagu zloduhu da prevari ikoga takvim ukazama osim ako osoba sama ne bude kriva . . . Mislim da za ponizne duše nikakva prijevara nije moguća. (Temelji, 41)

Vjera i zlodusi

Temelj je kršćanske religije vjera. Zlodusi će širiti zablude i laži kako bi pokušali minirati taj temelj. Za Tereziju, đavao – potpuni lažac – može izvoditi mnoge trikove, ali "Bog mu neće dopustiti da prevari dušu koja ima pouzdanja i koja je učvršćena u vjeri" (238).
Ivan od Križa je još izrazitiji i savjetuje da je svjetlo vjere za đavla gore od tmine. Kad se duša zaogrne vjerom, đavao nije upućen kako da je otkrije, niti ima uspjeha u svojim pokušajima jer vjera daje duši snažnu zaštitu protiv đavla, koji je najmoćniji i najlukaviji neprijatelj. Za posljedicu, sv. Petar nije našao jaču obranu od vjere u svom oslobađanju od đavla kada je savjetovao: "Cui resistite fortes in fidei" (1Pt 5, 9). (Tamna noć 376)
Kako bi poticao skrovitost čiste vjere, duhovni vođa mora biti oprezan da ne bi poticao vizije, lokucije, proročanstva ili druge vrste neobičnih fenomena. Iako ponekad ovakvi fenomeni dolaze od Boga, često su od strane đavla. Za Ivana od Križa ova opasnost je bila stvarna. Shvatio je da đavao može prezentirati pamćenju mnoge krive ideje pod vidom istine, čineći te ideje tako sigurnima da duša misli da one ne mogu biti pogrešne jer ono što ona osjeća je u suglasju s istinom (Uspon na goru Karmel 227).

Đavao i stanje savršenog ujedinjenja s Bogom

Nakon što duhovno pročišćene duše dosegnu stanje savršenog ujedinjenja s Bogom preko ljubavi u "sedmom zamku", đavolske napasti su završene, a zlodusi se boje takvih duša. "Ni Aminadab se nije pojavio", kaže Ivan na kraju Duhovnog spjeva. Aminadab simbolizira đavla, a u ovom stanju duša je tako zaštićena, tako jaka i slavodobitna da đavao zna da je izgubio bitku. Na ovom nivou đavao bježi u neizmjeran strah i ne usuđuje se ponovo pojaviti. Terezija je također slavodobitno, opazila da se đavao boji nje, ali ne i ona njega: "Izgleda da me se [đavli] boje. Stekla sam vlast nad njima, udijeljenu mi prije svega od Boga, tako da me više nisu mučili; sada su otišli" (Moj život 242).
U ovom stanju duše su preobražene u Bogu. One su božanske tim sudjelovanjem i posjeduju Kristovske kvalitete. U njima je Otkupitelj porazio sotonu i njegovo kraljevstvo tame. Terezija i Ivan od Križa su se borili sa zlodusima, ali je na kraju njihova pobjeda – a i Božja – bila dovršena.

Neke teološke refleksije o zlodusima i misticima

Valjano učenje koje se tiče zloduha pretpostavlja vjeru koja nam predstavlja objekt našeg vjerovanja – u ovom slučaju, zloduhe. Kao što ne vidimo Boga, ne vidimo ni zloduhe. Bilo kakva spekulacija o zlodusima mora biti temeljena na Svetom pismu, duhovnoj teologiji i iskustvima svetaca.
1. Terezija Avilska i Ivan od Križa vjeruju, preko vjere, u postojanje zloduha. Nisu mogli sumnjati u njihovo postojanje. Osim toga, oni su iskusili vizije, lokucije, ukazanja, horore, psihičku štetu, napasti i druge manifestacije demonskog porijekla. Neki sveci su podvrgnuti ovim neobičnim demonskim intervencijama, kao što je bio slučaj s Ignacijem Loyolskim ili u modernim vremenima, Cure d' Ars.
2. Zlodusi su naši protivnici koji pokušavaju dati sve od sebe kako bi zastrli put duša prema Bogu. Ali demonska djelovanja poprimaju poseban intenzitet i više su rjeđa i snažnija kada su usmjerena protiv naprednih kontemplativnih duša. Ove duše privlače zloduhe koji žele spriječiti ili barem usporiti njihovo napredovanje prema Bogu. Duša sveca je bojno polje između dobra i zla, između Boga i zloduha. Pošto duša sveca dosegne "sedmi zamak", đavolske aktivnosti dolaze kraju i zlodusi je se boje.
3. Terezija i Ivan od Križa nisu uživali blagodat našeg poznavanja psihologije. Ali bili su obdareni neobičnim razlikovanjima i znali su da su očigledne demonske manifestacije bile često puki rezultat mentalne bolesti ili "melankolije". Također su znali da zlodusi koriste ljudske slabosti i nepovoljna mentalna stanja kao instrumente svoga napastovanja. Zato nije lako razlikovati kada je "očito" demonsko napastovanje puko psihološko, a kada je i psihološko i demonsko.
Pošto su španjolski mistici bili svjesni poteškoća često povezanih u otkrivanju demonskoga, oni preporučuju molitvu kako bi nadvladali đavlovu "snagu", kao i poniznost i utjecanje Božjem svjetlu kako bi razlikovali đavolske "prijevare". Moderno razlikovanje duhova ne može si priuštiti ignoriranje moderne psihologije, ali isključivo psihologijski pristup onima koji se čine da su pod demonskim utjecajem je nepotpun i trebao bi biti upotpunjen razboritim teološkim razlikovanjem. Pravila sv. Ignacija za razlikovanje duhova, na primjer, su model mudrosti i iskustva. Za napredne kontemplativne duše, spisi Terezije Avilske i Ivana od Križa su veoma korisni. U Usponu na goru Karmel, osobito u drugoj knjizi, Ivan od Križa pomno istražuje pravila za razlikovanje između onoga što dolazi od Boga i onoga što dolazi od naše vlastite mašte ili od đavla. U nekim od poglavlja Mog života i Zamka duše, Terezija dopunjuje analizu Ivana od Križa sa svojim vlastitim oštroumnim opažanjima (Zamak 6, pogl. 7 i 8; cf. Zamak 4, pogl. 2 i 3).
4. Neki ispovjednici su bili sigurni da je Terezija bila opsjednuta i da treba egzorcizam. Oni su bili, kako ih Terezija naziva, "polupriučeni ljudi", koji su joj nanijeli mnogo štete. Teolozi poput Pedra Ibaneza, Dominga Baneza, Alvareza iz Toleda te svetaca poput Petra Alkatranskog i Franje de Borja nikada je nisu iznevjerili. Pedro Ibanez, čuveni teolog, koji je zapovjedio Tereziji da napiše svoj Život, primjenio je pravila za razlikovanje duhova na Tereziju i ona je prošla test u svakom od jedanaest striktnih pravila. Allison Peers je imala dobar osjećaj da uvrsti ova pravila i način kako ih je Ibanez primjenio na Tereziju u trećem volumenu svoga izdanja Kompletna djela svete Terezije Avilske (312 – 333). Ova pravila su vrijedna čak i u našim vremenima kako za autentično razlikovanje duhova po nadahnuću Duha, tako i za pomoć zdravoj duhovnoj teologiji i zdravoj psihologiji.
Prirodno, bilo psiholog ili teolog koji a priori odbacuje postojanje zlih duhova nije kvalificiran kako bi nas prosvijetlio u ovom problemu bez obzira koliko vrstan znanstvenik on ili ona može biti. S druge strane, moramo odbaciti djela i spise bilo kojeg modernog teologa koji ignorira doprinos psihologije ili pak vidi zloduhe u svakoj neurozi.
Ovaj članak je pokušao pokazati kako pažljivo čitanje Terezije i Ivana od Križa o zlodusima može biti profitabilno

Ugo Vlaisavljević

ARHIPELAG LEPOGLAVA



Istaknuti profesor na Filozofskom fakultetu u Sarajevu i autor knjige Lepoglava i univerziteti. Ogled iz političke antropologije govori o odnosima znanja i vlasti u (post)komunizmu; ulozi kazamata u formiranju socijalističkih vođa i nužnosti repolitizacije obrazovnih institucija

Rade Dragojević

Razgovarali smo sa sarajevskim profesorom i filozofom Ugom Vlaisavljevićem prilikom njegova boravka u Zagrebu, gdje je održao predavanje Komunistički humanizam i produkcija novih ljudi. Osim toga predavanja, kao poticaj za razgovor poslužila je i njegova knjiga zanimljiva naslova Lepoglava i univerziteti. Ogled iz političke antropologije. S pogledom na francusku filozofiju, posebno na Derridu i Foucaulta, autor u knjizi na rijetko zanimljiv način govori o ulozi kazamata u formiranju političkih figura socijalističke Jugoslavije, te o subhumanizaciji neprijatelja u slučaju nove Jugoslavije. Dok je, dakle, Lepoglava bio univerzitet za nove komunističke lidere, dotle je Goli otok bio, kako kaže autor, zoološki vrt, mjesto bestijalnosti. Bilo je još riječi i o situaciji na ovdašnjim univerzitetima i ulozi rata u legitimiranju današnjih ideologija.

Tiranija obrazovnih institucija

Koja je bila vaša glavna motivacija za pisanje knjige Lepoglava i univerzitet?

- Glavni motiv za pisanje ove knjige bilo je izvjesno iskustvo akademske zajednice. Ono je, naime, za mene bilo negativno od samog početka. Prošao sam sve hijerarhijske faze i stupnjeve, od uspješnog studenta, asistenture, pa dosad, do izbora za redovnog profesora. Posrijedi je, dakle, jedna nelagodnost u obrazovnoj instituciji tipa kakav je univerzitet, iako se ta nelagodnost zapravo samo nadovezuje na cjelokupno iskustvo školovanja ili obrazovanja kao takvog i koje teče od vrtića do sadašnje pozicije. Knjiga je, dakle, vrsta artikulacije tog negativnog iskustva. Najprije sam to intuitivno osjećao, bila je to vrsta iskustva koje nisam nalazio kod drugih ljudi i nisam imao mogućnosti da s drugima o tome raspravim. S druge strane, knjiga je rezultat iskustva koje se očituje kroz promjenu dvaju poredaka, dvaju režima, a ta tranzicija se jako puno nadovezuje na obrazovne institucije. Poznato je, naime, da se nacionalizam zasniva na obrazovnim institucijama, te da univerzitet tu igra posebnu ulogu. Izazov je dakle bio analizirati tu političku rekonstrukciju. U podlozi knjige se osjeti, dakako, i literatura, prije svega, Foucault i Derrida.

Može li se reći da je socijalistička Jugoslavija rođena iz duha Lepoglave?

- Da, na izvjestan način bi se to tako moglo reći. Tu sam pokušao analizirati jedan tipični subjektivitet prethodnog režima. To je fukoovska tema u pravom smislu te riječi. U Kardeljevim analizama obrazovnih institucija postoji stalno inzistiranje da univerzitet nikako ne smije biti subjektivistička konstrukcija, to je upravo njegova sintagma. Pa se onda ta subjektivistička konstrukcija obično pridodavala avangardi, koju, dakako, predstavlja Komunistička partija. Tada dobivate stav koji kod Kardelja ostaje nerazrješiv, pa ga odmah imenuje kao dijalektički, i gdje se pokušavalo locirati mjesto znanja i znanosti u odnosu na kom-partiju, pogotovo odnos komunističkog vodstva u odnosu na znanost. S jedne strane, moralo se reći da znanost ima ulogu da osvjetljava put i da predvodi, a s druge strane, to se nikako ne smije dopustiti znanosti, već se ponavljalo kako na jedini ispravan put mora voditi komunistička avangarda. Pokušao sam, dakle, ukazati na jedan simptom koji odražava mjesto subjektiviteta unutar institucionalne konstrukcije - političke i ideološke - komunističkog sistema. Taj subjektivitet pronalazim u njegovom vodstvu, te smatram da je za formiranje stavova kod vodstva naročito važno bilo iskustvo robije političkih komunističkih vođa.

Kazamati kao univerziteti

Na primjeru jednog teoretičara - Moše Pijade i jednog praktičara - Josipa Broza pokazujete da su kazamati monarhističke Jugoslavije bili svojevrsni komunistički univerziteti.

- Pokušavao sam se hvatati doslovno za ono što su protagonisti sami govorili o svom iskustvu zatvorenosti i utamničenja. Oni su upravo govorili da su za njih te robijašnice bili svojevrsni univerziteti, iz čega slijedi i sintagma o narodnim univerzitetima. Na njima narod nije robijao, ali jesu narodne vođe. U tom smislu, postoji jedna reproprijacija po kojoj je naše iskustvo u stvari iskustvo naroda. Posrijedi je jedna alegorija koja se proteže na čitavu populaciju u smislu da je iskustvo ranog kapitalizma bilo praktički iskustvo tamnovanja čitavog naroda.

Za komunističke kazamate, poput Golog otoka, ne može se reći da su bili univerziteti?

- Komunistički režim, za razliku od ranokapitalističkog, nije mogao dopustiti postojanje one moderne uloge zatvaranja, a to je preodgoj ili humanizacija. Rani komunistički poredak - za koji će Foucault reći da nema ni jednog komunističkog režima koji tada nije iznjedrio konc-logore - ne može se izgraditi bez tih praznina. Tu situaciju sam analizirao kao nemogućnost humanizacije unutar zatvora. Najkraći bi odgovor glasio da politički zatvorenici nisu mogli biti smješteni, locirani u području humanosti, barem ne u tvrdoj, ranoj fazi komunizma. Jednostavno, politički protivnik nikako tada nije mogao biti smješten u registru humanosti i otuda taj zvjerski odnos prema njima. Politički zatvorenik je bio tada tretiran kao subhumano biće. U tom sam smislu Goli otok i odredio kao neku vrstu zoološkog vrta.

Tu spajate dva otoka, na Golom su politički zatvorenici, a na Brijunima stoluje gospodar nad njihovim životima?

- Postoji tu cijeli jedan arhipelag. Cijela ideja jest da se režim analizira kao jedan otok. On je imao neku svoju samosvijest koja je govorila da Jugoslavija nije ni na istoku ni na zapadu, da negdje lebdi i da predstavlja model kopna koje tek treba da dođe. Tu postoji svojevrsna imaginarna topologija, unutar koje se nalazi ta jedna arhipelaška situacija. Posvećeni otok, otok samog vođe su Brijuni. Tu je, zatim, otok s ljudima koji su na najbolji način pozvani da tumače historijsko iskustvo komunizma, to je Korčula s Korčulanskom ljetnom školom i praksisovcima, i to je, naravno, Goli otok, kao najnemogućiji otok, čak kao utopijsko mjesto.

Kontinuitet etnopolitike

Kakve su zatvorske škole završili postkomunistički vođe poput Franje Tuđmana ili Alije Izetbegovića?

- U jednom razgovoru u povodu knjige kazao sam da bi to tek trebalo da bude tema neke nove knjige. Imate jedan opći iskaz koji kaže da se nedemokratski režimi mijenjaju nasilnim putem, a imate i historijsko iskustvo koje kaže da je svaka vladajuća garnitura zapravo bivša zatvorenička. Zanimljivo je spomenuti da Izetbegović, kad govori o svom zatvorskom životu, priča kako je u zatvoru izučavao Kanta i da ga je naročito interesiralo pitanje antinomija kod Kanta. Zanimljivo je, dakle, da on preuzima potpuno isti model kao Tito ili Moša Pijade. U zatvoru iščitava filozofiju i pokušava pokazati da on, usprkos komunističkom režimu, nije kriminalac nego pravi politički zatvorenik.

Što je 1968. značila za jugoslavenske univerzitete?

- Tu godinu najčešće promatramo kao jedan povlašteni događaj od kojeg bi se mogao dekonstruirati čitav sistem. Promatram ga, rekao bih na jedan uzvodan način, dakle, prkoseći općem mnijenju, i interpretiram ga kao događaj koji prati logiku samog sistema, naime logiku koja je upravo krenula s Lepoglavom. To je logika humaniziranja i logika povezivanja znanja i moći. U toj povezanosti znanja i moći 1968. je predstavljala jedan pokušaj učvršćivanja vladajućeg sistema, upravo njegovih pravih izvorišta.

Je li 1971. na hrvatskom sveučilištu bila naznaka devedesetih?

- Sigurno tu postoji jak kontinuitet. Inače, u jednoj knjizi koja tek treba izaći upravo inzistiram na permanenciji etnopolitike. Pokazujem, zapravo, da je cijeli komunistički režim bio zasnovan na svojevrsnoj etnopolitici, da nema nikakvog diskontinuiteta tzv. postkomunističkog entonacionalizma i komunističke ideologije.

Repolitizacija obrazovanja

Dakle, o društvenim fakultetima ne može se samo danas govoriti kao etnociziranima, nego je tako od ranije?

- Upravo tako. Postoje dva razumijevanja etničkoga. Danas dominatno razumijevanje etničkoga briše onaj prethodni pojam kao neetničko. Ono što je izgledalo kao jedna parola - bratstvo-jedinstvo - otkriva zapravo snažnu etničku paradigmu prethodnog sistema. Najlakše se može objasniti time da socijalistička revolucija nije mogla imati svoj vlastiti događaj. Ona je interpretirana upravo kao narodnooslobodilačka borba. I obratno, od NOB-a, koji je imao toliko elemenata građanskog rata, toliko elementa etničkog oslobađanja, identifikacije, preporoda nacije i slično, trebalo je uzeti taj siloviti ratni sukob kao neku vrstu revolucionarnog događaja. U tom prepletanju se zapravo pokazalo da je onaj istinski subjekt, javni i službeni subjektivitet komunističke revolucije, a to su proleteri, nije mogao da funkcionira kao takav. Morao je, dakle, imati jednu nadopunu. Tu imate tipično deridijansku logiku nadopunjavanja. Proleteri, dakle, nisu mogli biti nosioci pretpodnog režima, odnosno to nisu mogli činiti bez nadopune bratstva etniciteta i etničkih zajednica. To kalemljenje i nadopunjavanje pokazuje kontinuitet jedne politike. Proleteri su devedesetih nestali, pa je proradila druga potka, premda i tu imamo svojevrsne nadopune u pojmu građanstva, na čemu posebno nastoji politička filozofija devedesetih. Moderni koncept nacije traži da se etničko uvijek kalemi i nadopunjuje i da se pokazuje u drugim formama, uglavnom, političkim formama.

Jesu li Fakultet političkih znanosti u Sarajevu osnovali političari i politika?

- Negdje šezdesetih godina počinje taj otklon od tvrdog, dogmatskog ili klasičnog komunizma, koji je podrazumijevao prije spomenutu dehumanizaciju protivnika. Sistem se, dakle, sofisticira, zatvori dobivaju klasičnu ulogu, a politički se protivnici pokušavaju uključiti u sistem. U polju znanja interesantna je linija koja dijeli Filozofske fakultete i novosnovane Fakultete političkih znanosti. To je faza u kojoj je bilo moguće da Filozofski fakulteti postanu otoci i da počnu funkcionirati po svom vlastitom telosu, telosu znanja. Zato će Kardelj i kazati tih šezdesetih godina za filozofske fakultete kako tamo postoje neki profesori koji razvijaju svoje privatne teorije, a mi to, je li, ne bi trebali dopustiti. Kao da ne znaju da je u stvarnosti socijalističko samoupravljanje jedini veliki događaj.

Kakvo je stanje univerziteta u BiH, i predstoji li mu reforma?

- Reformski pokušaju su karakteristični za čitavu regiju. Riječ je o važnim pokušajima reformiranja univerziteta s pogledom na Bolonjsku deklaraciju.

Je li Bolonjska deklaracija pokušaj amerikanizacije evropskog sveučilišta?

- To je prilika za, s jedne strane, dezidelogizaciju sveučilišta i općenito obrazovnih institucija, a s druge strane, prilika je to za istinsku politizaciju univerziteta. To bi moglo biti izvedeno na način američkih univerziteta na kojima političari gostuju i izlažu ono čime se bave i tako dolaze pod udar kritike ili bivaju podvrgnuti raspravama akademske zajednice. Nama nedostaje upravo takav tip repolitizacije, naročito danas nakon jedne jake politizacije, koja je ipak podrazumijevala udaljenost fakulteta od političkog života.

Rat kao najveći kulturni događaj

Postoji li opasnost od ulaska kapitala na univerzitete?

- Postoji jedna točka u kojoj ne bi bilo loše da se napokon nakon dugog vremena realnih režima, režima velikih imaginacija i paranoidnosti, možda dogodi to povezivanje kapitala s univerzitetom. Mislim da to ne bi bilo loše. Recimo, za BiH bi u ovom trenutku otvaranje institucija s privatnim kapitalom u okviru obrazovanja bilo blagotvorno, čak bi to bila jedna vrsta subverzije. Time bi se, zapravo, narušila situacija u kojoj postoji još jako ideološko povezivanje znanosti i ideologije naročito u nekim predmetima i pravcima kao što su historija, filozofija ili teorija književnosti.

Govorite o resocijalizaciji univerziteta. Što bi to bilo?

- O radu na ovoj knjizi mogu govoriti i kao o istraživanju. Tako sam u jednom momentu rada na knjizi opazio nešto što sam davno trebao uočiti. Naime, da univerzitetima koji imaju relativno kratku povijest, nedostaje jedna važna stvar, možda čak i najvažnija, nedostaje im bilo koja socijalna forma. Riječ je o akademskim građanima, profesorima, nazovite ih kako hoćete, koji nikada nisu bili socijalizirani, koji se nikada nisu pojavili kao određena zajednica.

Je li Filozofski fakultet mjesto kritičke misli?

- Neki su moji čitaoci primijetili da drugi dio knjige nije tako dobar kao prvi, jer se tu na jedan naivan način pojavljujem kao normativator. Kad hoćete da djelujete politički, onda tu normativnost morate smjestiti na jasan i pomalo naivan način. Tu sam se, dakle, uistinu držao toga da FF kao i FPZ trebaju funkcionirati kao forumi kritičke misli. Ono što se, recimo, danas dešava s parlamentom BiH-a, koji bi trebao biti politički forum, a to ne uspijeva, pokazuje da ne možete imati parlament koji funkcionira kao mjesto javne rasprave, a da u isto vrijeme imate univerzitet koji je despotski.

Ima li ovaj zadnji rat otprilike onu ulogu kakvu je ima NOB, naime, ulogu potvrđivanja službene ideologije?

- Prije nekoliko godina napisao sam jedan članak, za koji su mnogi smatrali da je i sam naslov bio nepristojan. No, mislio sam da je trebalo na taj način uzdrmati čitateljstvo i pokušati pokazati jednu izvjesnu svijest o ulozi rata. Naslovio sam taj članak Rat kao najveći kulturni događaj. Htio sam pokazati da nema ni jedne promjene režima na ovim prostorima, ni jedne promjene interpretacije literature, ni jedne promjene svijesti, ni jedne smjene ideologija, a da se to nije najprije odigralo kroz ratni događaj. Rat je u tom smislu konstitutivan i za identitete i za političke sisteme i za socijalne forme. Rat funkcionira, s jedne strane, epski predmoderno, a s druge strane unosi moderni kalendar, kroz radikalno moderno započinjanje računanje vremena. U interpretaciji koja ide iza fasade svega toga, vidi se kako se i u primjeru onog rata i ovog zadnjeg koristi potpuno isti instrumentarij i isti način interpretacije i uvjeren sam da se to događa nesvjesno.

Istočnoevropski profesori kao generali

Je li ona nelagoda u obrazovanju s početka rata prisutna kod vas i danas?

- I dan danas me strah vlastitog statusa, kao i kolega koje susrećem na hodnicima. Netko je primijetio da su svi istočnoevropski profesori poput generala. Oni nose sa sobom jednu vrstu straha koji šire oko sebe. Imam vrlo ohrabrujuća iskustva u radu sa studentima, i ne bih ostao na Filozofskom fakultetu da nije tako. Ono što izaziva najveću nelagodu jest u stvari to da oni ne dobivaju ono što bi mogli dobiti. Ono što oni uče daleko je od onoga što bi trebali učiti. Univerziteti, ne samo u BiH nego i šire, mjesta su gotovog znanja. Obaveza koja je tipična za univerzitete, posebno strane - koncept istraživanja - jest da svaki put kao profesor izlažete nešto novo, da u studentima ne gledate učenike, već suistraživače. To je, dakle, za vas kao profesora, prva zajednica kojoj izlažete rezultate svog rada, i kroz koju sve to propitujete. U nas se događaju posve opozitne stvari tome, verificiraju se programi koji traju po dvadeset godina, što debilizira profesore, ili ih tjera da budu subverzivni. Zamislite čovjeka koji predaje dvadeset godina jedno te isto.

masoni

IVA ŽIC
Sociologija, II. godina, FF, Zagreb

Povijest slobodnog zidarstva



SAŽETAK

Povijest slobodnih zidara je tema ovog rada. Slobodni zidari uvijek su bili mistično društvo koje je intrigiralo mnoge ljude. Da bi ih razumijeli, trebamo razumijeti njihov razvoj kroz povijest. Od prvih zidarskih društava, nastanka Velike lože i njihovog širenja u mnogim zemljama, do njihove umiješanosti u nekim revolucijama i podviga poznatih slobodnih zidara. Ovo je samo najvjerojatnija povijest slobodnih zidara i ne mora biti istinita, ali će pomoći u razumijevanju slobodnog zidarstva.

Ključne riječi: slobodni zidari, ceh, Velika loža, plemstvo

UVOD

Da bi se shvatilo slobodno zidarstvo, potrebno je poznati njegovu povijest koja počinje u srednjem vijeku. Specifična je njegova starost po kojoj se ono razlikuje od drugih mističnih grupa. Svrha slobodnog zidarstva nikada točno nije otkrivena. Tajnovitost koja ga skriva često je bila razlog ulaska u to tajnovito bratstvo.

TEMA

U srednjem vijeku, od trinaestog do petnaestog stoljeća, u Engleskoj, Francuskoj i srednjoj Europi prevladavalo je uvjerenje da su zidari drugačiji od ostalih ljudi. Putovali su po cijeloj zemlji; radili su samo u kamenu pa su im jedini poslodavci bili kralj, plemići i Crkva za koje su gradili dvorce, katedrale, opatije, župne crkve i mostove[1]. Gradnja katedrala bila je dugotrajan posao i omogućila je zidarima mnogo posla[2]. (Ridley, 2001, str 13)
Zidari su bili stručni radnici. Postojale su dvije vrste zidara. Jedna vrsta su „teški klesari“ ili „grubi klesari“. Oni su postavljali obični tvrdi kamen iz Kenta i drugih predjela od kojeg su se gradile katedrale. Druga vrsta su bili visoko stručni zidari koji su klesali lijepa pročelja na katedrali i upotrebljavali mekši, kredni kamen[3]. Taj kamen nazivao se „slobodni kamen“, a stručni zidari koji su ga obrađivali nazivali su se „zidari u slobodnom kamenu“, što se često skraćivalo u „slobodni zidari“.
Blizu mjesta gdje su radili, zidari bi izgradili kolibu koju su zvali „loža“. To mjesto služilo je za čuvanje alata te su tamo ručali, ali ne i spavali[4]. Često su ostajali po nekoliko godina. Meštar je bio jedini punopravni član gilde[5], a ujedno i vlasnik alata i radionice koja je obično bila u sklopu njegove kuće[6]. (Ridley, 2001, 15)
Budući da su bili poznati po svojim vještinama, zidari su pozivani od biskupa i predstojnika kaptola graditi katedrale. Dobivali su ponude i iz drugih krajeva Engleske, Francuske i Njemačke da napuste posao i dođu raditi na drugoj katedrali za veću zaradu. Biskupi i predstojnici kaptola željeli su spriječiti njihov odlazak dok posao nije završen te su namećivali ugovor s uvjetom dovršenja posla. Slobodni zidari često se nisu s tim slagali. Kralj se ponekad koristio svojom moći novačenja pri gradnji dvorca ili važne utvrde da prisili zidare da rade za njega. Čak su vlasti uhićivale zidare i prisilno ih dovodili do odredišta jer im nisu vjerovali da će sami doći.
Ipak, vlada ili kralj nisu izravno zapošljavali zidare i druge radnike, nego je to radila korporacija ili trgovačko bratstvo kojima bi kralj dao povelju i upute kako urediti zanat. Bratstvo se sastojalo od vodećih poslodavaca u toj grani, ali ponekad ga je izravno kontrolirao kraljevski službenik. Zidari su bili pod kontrolom tvrtke Mason's Livery Company[7] iz Londona, koja je sigurno postojala od 1220.godine. Bratstvo je sigurno postojalo u Chesteru, Durhamu, Newcastleu i Richmondu u Yorkshireu. U Škotskoj su bratstva bila čak starija od onih u Engleskoj.
Srednjovjekovna Europa bila je vrlo disciplinirano i uređeno društvo. U Engleskoj je parlament odredio pravila po kojima se moralo živjeti; na primjer maksimalna nadnica, broj radnih sati, dopuštene igre itd. Zidari su također živjeli po ustaljenim pravilima[8].
Nakon što je epidemija kuge zahvatila Zapadnu Europu s Istoka 1348. godine, došlo je do nestašice radne snage. Parlament je izglasao zakone koji su odredili maksimalnu nadnicu jer se povećala pregovaračka moć preživjelih. Zidari i poslodavci često su sklapali tajne ugovore po kojima se zidare plaćalo više. Zidari su osnivali sindikate čiji su se članovi složili oko nadnice koja je bila puno veća od zakonitog maksimuma. Ti sindikati bili su izvan zakona te su se sastanci i odluke držale u tajnosti.
Zidari u Francuskoj[9] bili su elitna radna snaga zaposlena na gradnji katedrala. Pridružili su se organizaciji Compagnonnage. Compagnoni, koji su joj pripadali, primali su radnike iz gotovo svih struka i organizirali su im putovanja do raznih radnih mjesta. Francuski kraljevi i vlada to nisu odobravali te su donešeni zakoni i kraljevske odluke protiv Compagnonnage (npr. ne smij se pozdravljati na ulici ili više od trojice ići u krčmu). Nakon što su 1655. godine doktori Sorbogne, na teološkom fakultetu sveučilišta u Parizu, proglasili compagnone zločestim ljudima koji krše Božji zakon, oni su nastavili raditi u tajnosti. (Ridley, 2001, 19)
U Njemačkoj i središnjoj Europi Steinmetzen, zidari, bili su isto tako elita radne snage zaposlene na gradnji katedrala. Njihovi zanatlijski cehovi propisivali su im djelatnost. Razvili su nacionalnu organizaciju koja je pokrivala cijelu Njemačku i središnju Europu.
Zidari u kamenu pješčenjaku u Škotskoj bili su manje uspješni u zadržavanju povlaštenog položaja u građevinskom zanatu jer nije bilo takvog kamena u Škotskoj te nisu mogli izvoditi svoje stručne radove. Skraćeno je razdoblje naukovanja za postanak pristupnog naučnika koje se mora odslužiti da bi se postao majstor zidar te su škotski zidari pokušali ojačati svoj položaj pomoću lozinke koju su znali svi stručni majstori zidari, ali ne i pristupni naučnici. Tako su prepoznavali jedni druge i onemogućavali što je više moguće pristupne naučnike da obavljaju njihove poslove. Lozinka je poznata kao „masonska riječ“. Većina podataka govori da je ona nastala oko 1550. godine, a prenijeta je u najsjevernije zemlje Europe.
Iako su zidari stvaranjem svojih tajnih sindikata djelovali izvan zakona, u pogledu religije potpuno su se pokoravali zakonu. Prihvaćali su bez oklijevanja doktrinu i autoritet Rimokatoličke crkve. Njihovi zaštitnički sveci bili su sv. Ivan Krstitelj i sv. Ivan Evanđelist, a slavili su 24. lipnja blagdan sv. Ivana Krstitelja i 27. prosinca sv. Ivana Evanđelista. Štovali su sv. Barbaru koja je štitila zidare od munje, i Četiri okrunjena mučenika[10]. Zidari su bili usko povezani s religijom koja je priznata.
Nakon Tridesetogodišnjeg rat u Njemačkoj zamjećuje se pojava ljudi, iako si u manjini, koji vjeruju u vjersku snošljivost. Neki od njih postali su rosenkreutzeri[11], neki se nisu pridružili nikakvom pokretu ili organizaciji, a neki su postali slobodni zidari.
Slobodni zidari su između 1550. i 1700. godine prestali biti nezakonit sindikat radnika zidara koji prihvaćaju sve doktrine Katoličke crkve i postali organizacija intelektualne gospode koja je sklona vjerskoj toleranciji i prijateljstvu među ljudima različitih religija.
U Bibliji u Drugoj knjizi ljetopisa piše kako je kralj Solomon odlučio izgraditi hram te je zatražio od Hirama, kralja Tira, da mu pošalje arhitekte i zidare da rade na hramu. Spominjane su čak dužina, širina i visina hrama. Zidari su dodali mnoge priče o gradnji Solomonova hrama. Ispričali su priču o jednom drugom Hiramu – Hiramu Abifu, koji je znao tajnu hrama. Tri razbojnika su ga otela i prijetila mu smrću ako je ne otkrije. Ubili su ga jer ju nije htio otkriti. Kada je Solomon to saznao, htio je znati koja je to tajna Hirama Abifa i je li ona umrla s njim. Poslao je tri zidara da pronađu Hiramovo tijelo i tajnu te da će, ako ne budu mogli otkriti tajnu, tajna hrama biti prvo što vide kada nađu Hiramovo tijelo. Zidari su našli Hiramovo tijelo i prvo što su vidjeli, kada su otvorili njegov lijes, bila je njegova ruka. Budući da nisu mogli pronaći tajnu, stisak ruke i drugi znakovi prepoznavanja koje su zidari otad usvojili postali su nova tajna.
U ceremonijalu kada se neki slobodni zidar uzdiže na treći stupanj i postaje majstor-zidar, on sudjeluje u obnovi priče o ubojstvu Hirama Abifa i zaklinje se da, kao i Hiram, neće otkriti tajne slobodnih zidara te prihvaća da ga, ako prekrši zakletvu, usmrte vadeći mu srce, jetru i druge unutarnje organe[12].
Zidarska tradicija ima i druge priče o svom podrijetlu. Objavio ih je slobodni zidar James Anderson u svojoj „Knjizi statuta“ 1723. godine.(Ridley, 2001, 32) Te priče govore da je i sam Bog bio zidar – izgradio je nebo i zemlju u šest dana; Adam je bio zidar; zidari su izgradili Kulu babilonsku itd. Sve su to besmislice, ali zidarima je to godilo jer su vjerovali u ono što su željeli vjerovati. Masonska riječ zadobila je romantičnu i zlokobnu privlačnost nakon što su ljudi čitali o Solomonovu hramu i o pričama o tajnoj ceremoniji uvođenja i zakletvi slobodnih zidara.
Prvi zabilježen slučaj pristupa u vojnu ložu bio je kada je sir Robert Moray bio 20. ožujka 1641. promaknut u edinburšku masonsku ložu. Zidarske lože, koje su prihvaćale zidare u članstvo, bile su raširene po cijeloj Engleskoj. Robert Plot[13], iako sam nije bio slobodni zidar, pisao je o slobodnom zidarstvu u svojoj domovini u knjizi „Prirodna povijest Staffird-shire“ (1686.g.).
Teorija koja je pokušala objasniti porast slobodnog zidarstva u Škotskoj tvrdi da su slobodni zidari bili Vitezovi templari[14] Moguće je da su neki templari pobjegli u Škotsku i pridružili se ložama slobodnih zidara, ali nisu odigrali nikakvu ulogu u razvoju slobodnog zidarstva u Škotskoj i Engleskoj.
Krajem 17. stoljeća u Londonu slobodni zidari postali su nepopularni u nekim krugovima. Pitanje koje se najčešće postavljalo bilo je: 'Čemu tajnovitost, ako su slobodni zidari zakonito i ugledno društvo? Ljudi ne kriju svoje kreposti i svoja dobra djela već žele sakriti svoje mane i zločine.'
Godine 1717. četiri londonske lože odlučile su osnovati nacionalnu Veliku ložu koja će imati vlast nad svim ložama u Engleskoj. Prve tri lože sastojale su se većinom od djelatnih zidara ili tesara i gospode, a članovi četvrte bila su gospoda te nekolicina plemića. Velika loža je u veljači bila osnovana, a na dan sv. Ivana Krstitelja, 24. lipnja 1717. u pivnici Goose and Gridion u dvorištu crkve St. Paul dizanjem ruku izabran je gospodin Anthony Sayer za Velikog meštra. Škot velečasni James Anderson je 1723. po nalogu Velike lože napisao „Knjiga statuta starinskog i časnog bratstva slobodnih i prihvaćenih zidara“. U toj knjizi piše da se zidar mora pokoravati moralnom zakonu; da se obvezuju na onu vjeru s kojom se slaže većina ljudi; da se ne smije uplitati u urote protiv dobrobiti zemlje; da se ne upliće u rasprave o politici i religiji itd. Francuz Jean Théophile Desaguiles izabran je za Velikog meštra 1719., a kada je 1720. bio po drugi put izabran za Velikog meštra, to je bio posljednji put da je neplemić izabran za taj položaj. Sljedećih 278 godina svaki Veliki meštar bio je ili plemić ili član kraljevske obitelji.
Prije su Veliki nadzornici bili birani, ali od 1720. godine njih je postavljao Veliki meštar koji je mogao postaviti Zamjenika meštra i dva Velika nadzornika da mu pomažu. Philip Wharton bio je izabran za Velikog meštra 1722., ali je bio izbačen te je otišao u Španjolsku gdje je osnovao prvu masonsku ložu. Pod zaštitom plemstva, slobodni zidari su mogli slobodni izražavati svoja vjerska načela.
Za razliku od prijašnjih godina, slobodni zidari su sami počeli svraćati pozornost javnosti na sebe. Na svoj blagdan, 24. lipnja, svake su godine išli u procesiji ulicama Londona i Westminstera, odjeveni u zidarske haljine i pregače na čelu s Velikim meštrom. Unajmili bi neko londonsko kazalište za posebnu izvedbu nekog Shakespeareova komada ili Fraquharova „Časnika za novačenje“, kojoj bi prisustvovali Veliki meštar i druga braća.
Budući da nisu primali žene u svoje lože, često su bili optuživani da su ženomrsci. Nitko tih godina nije očekivao da žene imaju pristupa parlamentu, sveučilištima itd., ali su igrale vodeću ulogu u društvenom životu, osobito u plemićkim krugovima. Bile su središte pozornosti na balovima, večerama i drugim društvenim događanjima. Ljudi su se čudili što su žene isključene iz loža jer su sastanke smatrali društvenim događajima. Zidari su objašnjavali da ne primaju žene jer povijesno žene nikada nisu bile djelatni zidari, jer bi odvlačile pozornost muškaraca i kako bi spriječili da se govori o nemoralnom ponašanju u loži. (Ridley, 2001, 55)
Slobodni zidari doživjeli su veliku pobjedu kada ja 1737. godine tadašnji Veliki meštar otišao do palače princa od Walesa i primio princa u slobodne zidare. Zidari su koristili sva svoja sredstva da dobiju povoljni publicitet u novinama, ali istovremeno nisu željeli otkriti tajne nečlanovima jer tada ništa ne bi privlačilo ljude da postanu slobodni zidari, a privlačna je bila i ideja sjedenja pored nekog vojvode ili plemića. Slobodni zidari su slijedili u mnogim stvarima kraljevsku kuću i plemstvo (kao npr. u pušenju koje je bilo zabranjeno).
Do 1730-tih godina osnovane su zidarske lože u Nizozemskoj, Francuskoj, Njemačkoj, Austrijskom carstvu, u nekoliko talijanskih država, Španjolskoj i Švedskoj. Neke lože su osnivali predstavnici engleske Velike lože, druge mjesni stanovnici neovisno od Velike lože, ali nadahnuti engleskim primjerom. Slobodno zidarstvo privlačilo je plemstvo i srednju klasu i u Europi, ali je također izazivalo i bojazan. U Engleskoj je članstvo plemstva osiguravalo ugled i raspršivalo sumnju u njihove djelatnosti. U protestantskoj Nizozemskoj prvi put je vlada poduzela mjere protiv slobodnih zidara i to 1735. godine. Papa Klement XII. 28. travnja 1738.g. objavio je Bulu protiv slobodnih zidara; opet se postavilo pitanje njihova skrivanja, ako čine dobro. Zabranio je katolicima da postanu slobodni zidari pod prijetnjom izopćenja. (Ridley, 2001, 62) Bula se nije provodila u svim katoličkim zemljama. Provodila se u Portugalu i Italiji.
Zidarske lože pojavljuju se 1730-tih godina u Češkoj, a nekoliko godina kasnije i u Austriji i Mađarskoj. Slobodno zidarstvo širilo se u Njemačkoj i pobudilo je zanimanje Fridrika, prestolonasljednika Prusije, koji je kasnije postao pruski kralj Fridrik II., a u povijesti je poznat kao Fridrik Veliki[15]. Godine 1738. Fridrik je tajno postao slobodni zidar te je uveo slobodno zidarstvo u Prusku. (MacKenzie, 2002, str 202)
Godinu dana prije nego je papa Klement XII. obznanio Bulu protiv slobodnih zidara, Luj XV. je 1737. zabranio slobodne zidare u Francuskoj te je najavio da plemić koji se pridruži masonskoj loži neće biti primljen na dvoru. Ipak, par godina kasnije dopustio je nekim plemićima da budu slobodni zidari. Mnoge francuske lože primale su žene.
Godine 1750. uveden je novi obred zvan Kraljevski luk čije podrijetlo je nejasno. U ceremoniji primanja u Kraljevski luk, kandidatu se otkriva ime Boga, Velikog arhitekta svemira. To je jedna od najviše čuvanih tajni. Odmetnici iz slobodnog zidarstva objavili su da je to ime Jahbulon, s time da 'Jah' znači Jahve, 'Bul' Baal, a 'On' Oziris. Uključujući ime Baala u složeno ime Boga, članovi Kraljevskog luka poistovjetili su se sa žrtvama Mojsijeve okrutnosti[16]. (Ridley, 2001, 83)
Razvili su se i mnogi stupnjevi slobodnog zidarstva. U početku su postojala tri stupnja. Novajliju su primali kao zidara naučnika, tada bi ga uzdigli na pristupnog naučnika, a u trećoj ceremoniji primili bi ga kao meštra zidara. Zatim su dodali nove stupnjeve dok nisu došli do 33 stupnja na koje se neki mason mogao uzdići, iako su samo prva tri stupnja bila pod kontrolom Velike lože, a sam Veliki meštar mogao je dostići samo treći stupanj. U osamnaestom stoljeću drugi zidarski obredi razvili su se u raznim dijelovima svijeta, a najpoznatiji je tzv. Škotski obred[17].
Velika loža suočila se s pobunom 1751. godine. Do nje je došlo u loži u Yorku koja je smatrala da je starijeg porijekla od one u Londonu. Ona se proglasila višom od Velike lože u Londonu i nije htjela prihvatiti njezinu vlast. Određeni broj loža pristupio je toj Velikoj loži u Yorku koja se nazvala Starinskom velikom ložom (onu u Londonu smatrala je 'modernom'). Podjela između Modernih i Starinskih zidara, Londona i Yorka, trajala je 60 godina.
Osoba zbog koje su slobodni zidari bili ismijavani bila je Chevalier d'Éon. D'Éon je bio slobodni zidar koji je sudjelovao u engleskoj politici. Oko 1764.g. počele su kružiti glasine da je on ustvari žena koja se prerušava u muško te su se ljudi počeli kladiti. Godinama su se svote sve više povećavale. Vrhunac svega bio je kada je sud morao odlučiti kojeg spola je d'Éon. Porota je presudila da je d'Éon žena i on se u skladu s tim oblačio i ponašao. Kada je umro, dokazano je da je ipak bio muškarac što su slobodni zidari već znali jer za vrijeme obreda inicijacije novi član mora otkriti prsa.
Poslije 1717. godine engleska Velika loža izvozila je slobodno zidarstvo u Sjevernu Ameriku. Doseljenici su čuli da ono postaje pomodno u Engleskoj u najvišim slojevima društva pa su lože osnivane u Americi želeći tako slijediti engleski primjer. Do 1730.g. lože su osnovane u Bostonu i Philadelphiji. Engleska Velika loža obavljala je svoj nadzor nad američkim ložama imenovanjem Pokrajinskog Velikog meštra, koji je mogao stvarati lože na svom području i kontrolirati ih. Poznati slobodni zidari bili su: Benjamin Franklin[18], George Washington, Benedict Arnold, John Paul Jones, John Hancock, James Monroe, Paul Revere, La Fayette.
Zidarska godina zasnivala se na izračunu nadbiskupa Jamesa Usshera[19] koji je mislio da je Bog stvorio svijet 4004. pr. Kr., osim što su zidari zanemarili četiri godine i postavili stvaranje svijeta i početak zidarskog kalendara u 4000.g.pr.Kr. (Ridley, 2001, 105)
Rašireno je bilo razmišljanje da su slobodni zidari utjecali na Američku revoluciju. Ali nedavna objektivna proučavanja pokazala su da se dosad pretjeravalo u isticanju utjecaja zidara na Američku revoluciju.
U Austrougarskom carstvu Marija Terezija je provodila svoju politiku suzbijanja slobodnog zidarstva, iako je njen suprug, car Franjo I., umro kao slobodni zidar. Njihov sin, Josip II., bio je liberalnih stavova. Zidarske pregače i drugi amblemi uvodili su se u žensku odjeću pa je postalo moderno nositi bijele rukavice. Na sveopće iznenađenje i razočaranje slobodnih zidara, Josip II. izdao je 1785.g. edikt da postoje opasnosti u postojanju slobodnog zidarstva kao tajne organizacije jer bi se njezine lože mogle zloupotrijebiti za revolucionarne radnje te je ograničio broj loža u carstvu.
Franz Joseph Haydn i Wolfganag Amadeus Mozart bili su slobodni zidari. Mozart je tako pisao mnoga djela s masonskom tematikom. Najvažnije takvo djelo je opera „Čarobna frula“ koja naglašava korisne strane jednog tajnovitog kulta.
U austrijskom carstvu, kao i u Francuskoj, došlo je do proturječja u politici vlade prema slobodnim zidarima. Problem se zaoštrio kada se u Bavarskoj pojavilo tajno društvo koje je poznato kao iluminati ('prosvijetljeni')[20]
Mislilo se da su zidari odgovorni za Francusku revoluciju, a istina je da su u njoj, kao i u Američkoj, neki od revolucionarnih vođa bili slobodni zidari, a neki nisu.[21] Velika loža je, na dan kada je 1793.g. Britanija objavila rat Francuskoj, poslala svog Velikog meštra, princa od Walesa, da preda u njihovo ime pismo Kralju, uvjeravajući ga u njihovu lojalnost prijestolju i podršku ratu. Žirondinci su u Lyonu zadobili kontrolu nad ložama slobodnih zidara. Slobodni zidari Lyona odigrali su vodeću ulogu u pobuni protiv pariških jakobinaca.
U Irskoj, kao i u Engleskoj, slobodni zidari u početku su bili vrlo ugledni i nalazili plemiće da budu njihovi Veliki meštri. Ipak, neki od revolucionara pridružili su se masonskim ložama oko 1797. godine[22]. Tajnost koja obavija lože poslužila je kao izlika za pripreme irskih revolucionara.
Kralj Ferdinand IV: u Napulju je izdavao dekrete protiv slobodnih zidara, obnavljajući prve dekrete koji su slijedili Papinsku bulu od 1751. Ali nakon njegova vjenčanja s Marijom Terezijom, popustili su progoni, a dekreti se nisu izvršavali.
Došavši na vlast, Napoleon je dopustio postojanje slobodnih zidara jer nije želio da Katolička crkva postane presnažna.(Ridley, 2001, 166) Četiri Napoleonova brata bila su slobodni zidari[23]. Ipak, 1811. godine Napoleon je obajvio dekret kojim je proglasio nezakonitim osnivanje bilo kakve organizacije s više od dvedeset članova, koja se redovito sastaje, osim ako ta organizacija ne dobije pristanak od vlade. U Španjolskoj i Portugalu inkvizicija je suzbijala slobodne zidare.
Francuski slobodni zidari iskazivali su svoje oduševljenje prema Napoleonu usprkos njegovim porazima u Španjolskoj i Rusiji. Velika loža Velikog Orijenta dala je 5000 franaka za kupnju konja za vojsku, ali nakon što je Luj XVIII ponovno postavljen za kralja ona se okrenula protiv Napoleona. Napoleon je bio uhvaćen, ali je Joseph Bonaparte uspio pobjeći u Ameriku i tamo je proveo zadnjih dvadeset devet godina svog života. U to vrijeme on je bio Veliki meštar i slobodni zidari su ga u više navrata molili da odstupi. Joseph nije pristajao na to te su zidari odlučili da neko vrijeme neće izabirati Velikog meštra te su bili bez njega trideset osam godina.
Položaj slobodnih zidara pod Lujem XVIII nije bio jako ugodan zbog njihova glasa kao revolucionara i njihove potpore Napoleonu. Grof od Artoisa, kraljev brat, bio je slobodni zidar i naslijedio je brata 1824.g. postavši kralj Karlo X. Godine 1830. izbila revolucija protiv njega koju su vodili mladi slobodni zidari u ložama koje su preuzele revolucionarne skupine te je abdicirao i pobjegao u Englesku. Revolucionari su postavili Luja Filipa za kralja koji je bio liberalniji od svojih prethodnika i imao je punu potporu slobodnih zidara.
U Napuljskom kraljevstvu 1815. godine ukinute su lože slobodnih zidara, ali su se oni nastavili tajno sastajati. U Rusiji, nakon smrti Katarine Velike, prestali su progoniti slobodne zidare, iako njihova pozicija se i dalje često mijenjala. Pjesnik Aleksandar Puškin bio je slobodni zidar.
U Poljskoj je prva slobodnozidarska loža osnovana 1735., ali je odmah bila napadana. Kralj Stanislav August Ponjatovski bio je naklonjen slobodnim zidarima te je i sam postao 1777. godine zidar. Slobodni zidari bili su teškoj poziciji nakon što je Poljska ukinuta kao država
U Engleskoj se slobodno zidarstvo nastavilo razvijati pod kraljevskim okriljem, a princ od Walesa odstupio je kao Veliki meštar kada je postao kralj Edward VII. Nakon njega Veliki meštar londonske Velike lože postao je njegov brat, Augustus Frederick, a Veliki meštar Velike lože u Yorku postao je drugi brat, Edward Augustus. Dva brata uspjela su prisiliti te dvije Velike lože da zaborave svoje razlike i da se ujedine. Ujedinjena Velika loža osnovana je 1813., a Veliki meštar postao je Augustus Frederick. (Ridley, 2001, 188)
U Americi, državi New York, dogodilo se 1826. godine ubojstvo koje su najvjerojatnije počinili slobodni zidari. Radilo se o Williamu Morganu koji je bio slobodni zidar. On se posvađao s nekim članovima te je napustio društvo. Prijetio je da je napisao knjigu o tajnama slobodnih zidara te su ga oni pokušali na razne načine spriječiti u tome. Vjeruje se da su odveli do Niagare i tamo ubili, ali ništa nije dokazano.(Ridley, 2001, 193) Taj slučaj doveo je do protumasonskog pohoda te je pao broj članova. Poznatiji slobodni zidari u prvoj polovici 19. stoljeća bili su Andrew Jackson, koji je pobjedio na predsjedničkim izborima 1828. godine, Edward Livingstone, Albert Pike, predsjednik Andrew Johnson.
Većina ljudi koja je vodila revoluciju u Buenos Airesu 1820., bili su slobodni zidari[24]. Svi južnoamerički slobodnozidarski revolucionari bili su članovi Lože Lautaro (Ridley, 2001, 209), a podrijetlo te lože nije sigurno utvrđeno[25]. Slobodni zidar Dom Pedro, sin portugalskog kralja Juana VI., izabaran je za brazilskog cara Pedra I. Revolucionarni nemiri u Južnoj Americi proširili su se na Meksiko gdje je izbila pobuna 1811. godine pod vodstvom slobodnog zidara Manuela Hidalga.
Slobodno zidarstvo je u Španjolskoj, više nego u bilo kojoj drugoj zemlji na svijetu, organiziralo revolucionarnu urotu. Ferdinand VII je 1814. zabranio ilegalne lože i one su postale vrlo dobro organizirano revolucionarno društvo. Imali su određenu potporu plemstva, ali daleko značajnija je bila ona od časnika u vojsci. Slobodni zidari u vojsci organizirali su niz pobuna.[26]
Karbonari i slobodni zidari poveli su revoluciju u Napulju 1821. godine. Progon slobodnih zidara u Španjolskoj prestao je nakon 1829. godine kada je kralj Ferdinand oženio napuljsku princezu Mariju Kristinu. Ona je nagovorila kralja da zaustavi progon i promijeni zakon o nasljedstvu. To je dovelo do borbe između izabelista i karlista.[27] Izabelisti su pobijedili.
U građanskim ratovima koji su izbili u Brazilu i Argentini, slobodni zidari su bili na objema stranama. Talijanski revolucionar Giuseppe Garibaldi postao je slobodni zidar kada je došao u Južnu Ameriku i tamo je vodio urugvajsku mornaricu.
U Meksiku je vođa puča bio slobodni zidar general Augustin de Iturbide, koji je sam sebe proglasio meksičkim carem. To je izazvalo negodovanje te ga je general Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, također slobodni zidar, uz pomoć liberala zbacio. Kasnije se okrenuo protiv njih i postao diktator. Mnogi građani Sjedinjenih Država nastanili su se u meksičkoj pokrajini Texasu. Tamo je također izbila pobuna 1835.g.[28]
Francuski slobodni zidari u Velikom Orijentu, nakon revolucije iz 1830., bili su lojalni kralju Luju Filipu. Policija je pazila na slobodne zidare te je s vremena na vrijeme izvještavala da se neke masonske lože bave političkom djelatnošću. Kada je o tome obavijestila Veliku ložu Velikog Orijenta, ona je isključila iz članstva revolucionarnu ložu.
Slobodni zidari su 1847.g. organizirali nekoliko banketa na kojima su govornici kritizirali vladu[29]. Slobodni zidari su se izjasnili da vjeruju u ustavotvornu monarhiju.[30]
Karbonari i slobodni zidari odigrali su vodeću ulogu u revoluciji u Milanu. Kada je Luj Filip abdicirao, a u Francuskoj je proglašena Druga republika, Velika loža Velikog Orijenta objavila je svoju potporu novom režimu, republici i privremenoj vladi[31]. Nakon pobjede generala Louisa Eugčnea Cavaignaca, koji je zamijenio Lamartinea, Veliki Orijent objavio je izjavu podrške Cavaignacu. Rasprave na Narodnoj skupštini nisu razjasnile odnosi li se zabrana političikh društava na slobodne zidare, ali su oni ustvari mogli nastaviti sa svojim djelovanjem. U vrijeme izbora za novog predsjednika Republike u prosincu 1848., slobodnozidarske novine „Le Franc-Maçon“ pozvale su svoje čitatelje da glasuju za Lamartinea. Na izborima je pobjedio Luj Napoleon Bonaparte. Veliki Orijent mislio je da bi bilo dobro izmijeniti statut. Kada su sretno živjeli pod Lujom Filipom, izjavili su 1839.g. da je „slobodno zidarstvo sveopće filantropsko udruženje“, te da je jedan od njegovih ciljeva „raspravljati o svim društvenim i gospodarskim pitanjima koja se tiču sreće čovječanstva“. Nakon zakona koji su zabranjivali tajna politička društva, oni su u 1849.g. promijenili taj članak u svome statutu brišući riječi 'društveni' i 'gospodarski'. Godinu dana kasnije, Veliki Orijent je izjavio da svi slobodni zidari moraju vjerovati u Boga i u besmrtnost duše.
Louis Napoleon izvršio je puč i uspostavio diktaturu. Veliki Orijent naredio je svojim ložama, tjedan dana nakon puča, da obustave do daljnjega sve sastanke i djelatnosti, a kada je Napoleon održao plebicist na kojem je narod mogao glasati s 'da' ili 'ne' o tome želi li da on i dalje bude predsjednik Republike sljedećih deset godina, Orijent je poticao slobodne zidare da glasuju s 'da'.
Slobodni zidari djelovali su bez Velikog meštra 38 godina. Sada su pozvali princa Joachima Murata[32] da im bude Veliki meštar na što je on pristao. Godine 1853. uspostavljeno je Drugo carstvo i Louis Napoleon je preuzeo naslov cara Napoleona III. Veliki Orijent je 1854.g. promijenio svoj statut i prenio svu vlast s Vijeća Velike lože na Velikog meštra. Veliki meštar je vrhovni vođa Reda, njegov predstavnik u odnosima sa stranim zidarskim tijelima i s vladom, te je on izvršna, upravna i usmjeravajuća moć.
Napoleon III. napravio je potpun politički preokret zarativši 1859. godine protiv Austrije u savezu s kraljem Viktorom Emanuelom iz Piemonta, koji je bio slobodni zidar. Radikalni slobodni zidari nisu bili zadovoljni Napoleonovom vladavinom. Željeli su se riješiti i Murata čiji potezi im nisu odgovarali te su odlučili postaviti princa Napoleona za Velikog meštra Velikog Orijenta[33]. Murat je izdao naredbu da novog Velikog meštra treba izabrati već postojeći V. meštar i njegovo Vijeće, a ne Skupština i tako ih je zaustavio u njihovoj namjeri. Kasnije je raspustio Skupštinu, koja je unatoč njegovoj naredbi, izabrala princa Napoleona. Napoleon III. izdao je 1862.g. dekret kojim je za Velikog meštra Velikog Orijenta imenovao maršala Bernarda Magnana[34]. Kada je umro, pariški nadbiskup je dozvolio da se zidarski simboli izlože na svečanom odru. Papa Pijo IX. time nije bio zadovoljan i izdao je bulu kojom je osudio slobodne zidare.
Slobodni su zidari odigrali važnnu ulogu u revoluciji u Parizu 1870.g. Vođe revolucije[35], koji su proglasili Treću republiku, svi su bili slobodni zidari. Nakon uspostave Treće republike slijedila je Pariška komuna, a nekoliko njenih vođa bili su slobodni zidari[36]. Ali bilo je i slobodnih zidara koji su osuđivali komunu.
Revolucijom iz 1848. godine zbačen je Metternich, ali je stari režim ponovno uspostavljen pod mladim carem Franjom Josipom. On je u ranim danima svoje vladavine ukinuo slobodnozidarske lože. Revoluciju u Mađarskoj vodio je slobodni zidar Lajos Kossuth. Premijerom Mađarske postao je grof Gyula Andrassy koji je također bio slobodni zidar, a nakon 1867.g. zidarske lože su bile potpuno slobodne. U Češkoj nakon 1872. godine postojalo je društvo koje je u stvari, ako ne i po nazivu, bilo zidarska loža (iako je još uvijek službeno slobodno zidarstvo Austriji bilo zabranjeno).
Prva grčka zidarska loža utemeljena je na Krfu 1814. godine, a zatim su se i druge proširile po ostalim dijelovima Grčke. Loža Filiki Eteria (Prijateljsko društvo) povela je 1821.g. grčku revoluciju protiv turske vladavine, što je dovelo do grčke neovisnosti 1830.g.
U Turskoj je bilo mnogo slobodnih zidara koji su sudjelovali u borbama za vlast. Poznatiji su bili Cleanti Scalieris, Midhat paša, princ Murat, Talaat beg koji se poslije nazvao Mehmet Talaat paša i bio Veliki meštar turskog Velikog Orijenta te Mustafa Kemal zvan Kemal Ataturk.
U Engleskoj slobodni zidari neko vrijeme nisu bili popularni kod kraljevske obitelji što se tiče zainteresiranost za položaj Velikog meštra. Tako su zidari morali čekati dok Edward Albert, princ od Walesa, nije postao punoljetan.
Engleska Velika loža tijekom devetnaestog stoljeća nastavila je osnivati lože po cijelom svijetu. Sir Stamford Raffles utemeljio je slobodnozidarske lože u Singapuru[37], a John Lambton, bio je pokrovitelj loža u Kanadi. Prvi premijer Kanade, sir John Alexander Macdonald, također je bio slobodni zidar. Britanci su uveli slobodnozidarstvo u Australiji u prvim godinama kolonizacije. Kapetan James Cook bio je slobodni zidar. Prva zidarska loža u Novom Zelandu utemeljena je 1842. godine. Iako su Britanci rano počeli osnivati lože u Indiji, nisu bili skloni primati Indijce u njih[38]. Britanski zidari u Indiji bili su spremni primati muslimane, ali ne i Hinduse pod izgovorom da oni štuju više bogova, a ne samo jednog – Velikog arhitekta svemira. Ipak, bilo ima je naređeno da primaju Hinduse u svoje lože. Rudyard Kipling bio je posebno zdušan zidar i prvi primljeni zidar u Indiji[39].
Francuski Veliki Orijent odlučio je 1877. godine ukloniti iz svojih ceremonija sve upute na Boga i Velikog arhitekta, ukloniti Biblije iz svojih loža i primiti agnostike i ateiste. Veliki Orijent je tvrdio da primanje ateista znači zadnji korak u politici vjerske tolerancije koju su slobodni zidari oduvijek podupirali. Engleska Velika loža i američki slobodni zidari prekinuli su odnose s Velikim Orijentom.
Posljednjih godina devetnaestog stoljeća protumasonstvo[40] poprimilo je histerične razmjere. Uloga slobodnih zidara u revolucijama bila je preuveličavana. Ipak, bilo je i istine u tvrdnjama da su načela slobodnog zidarstva ohrabrila ljude da vjeruju u Slobodu, Jednakost i Bratstvo i da rade na tome da zbace despotizme apsolutističkih monarhija i Katoličke crkve.
Antisemitizam u dvadesetom stoljeću utjecao je na slobodne zidare. On je donekle odvukao pozornost od njih. Dok su se britanski zidari strogo držali svoga pravila ne miješanja u politiku, francuski su postali usko povezani s republikanskom političkom strankom. Feministički pokret u Francuskoj 1880-ih godina zahtijevao je da se žene primaju u lože. Veliki Orijent odbio je taj zahtjev, ali se nije suprotstavljao kada su se osnivale ženske lože ili miješane lože obaju spolova. Te se lože nisu baš razvile.
Rusiji je također došlo do optuživanja slobodnog zidarstva da je krinka za ispunjenje plana o židovskoj prevlasti u svijetu. Slobodno zidarstvo bilo je zabranjeno u Rusiji tijekom cijelog devetnaestog stoljeća jer je svaki car zadržao zabranu za slobodne zidare. Ipak, ruski liberali i socijalisti pridružil su se ilegalnim ložama. U komunističkom Sovjetskom Savezu nije bilo ozbiljnog progona slobodnih zidara.
Protumasonstvo se razbuktalo i u Austrijskom carstvu i Češkoj početkom dvadesetog stoljeća. Veliki češki liberal, Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk[41], protivio se protumasonstvu, a kada je postao predsjednik nove države Čehoslovačke, slobodno zidarstvo je procvalo.
Nakon Dreyfus afere[42], francusko društvo podjelilo se na drajfusovce i antidrajfusovce. Mnogi drajfusovci bili su slobodni zidari. Početkom dvadesetog stoljeća nekoliko istaknutih socijalista bili su slobodni zidari[43].
Španjolski građanski rat doveo je do novih napada na slobodno zidarstvo. Franco i njegove pristaše odbacili su masoneriju kao zlokobnu silu u pozadini revolucionarnih pokreta, a francuska desnica govorila je da francuski slobodni zidari pomažu svojoj španjolskoj braći da otpočnu revoluciju u Španjolskoj.
Slobodni zidari dali su svoju punu potporu ratu, ali su mnogi slobodni zidari napali stajalište predsjednika Velikog Orijenta za vrijeme Drugog svjetskog rata kao ulizivački napor da se Veliki Orijent ulaguje svakoj vladi koja dođe na vlast. U Francuskoj su 1940. došli na vlast protumasoni, među kojima je bio i Philippe Pétain. On je izdao dekret kojim zabranjuje tajna društva te je uspostavljena služba za tajna društva. U nacističkoj Njemačkoj slobodno zidarstvo je zabranjeno 1934.g. Ulogu koju su u pokretu otpora odigrali i slobodni zidari i katolici pružila je mogućnost da se konačno dokine dvjestogodišnji sukob između europskih slobodnih zidara i Katoličke crkve. Mussolini je, došavši na vlast u Italiji 1922., osudio slobodne zidare jer nije tolerirao postojanje tajnog društva koje bi moglo postati revolucionarna organizacija[44].
Sve od vladavine Gustava III., švedski kraljevi bili su zaštitnici i Veliki meštri švedskih slobodnih zidara. U Norveškoj je prva slobodnozidarska loža osnovana 1745. godine. Sve dok je Norveška bila dio Švedske, slobodno zidarstvo tamo se razvijalo pod pokroviteljstvom Velikog meštra, švedskoga kralja. Kada se Norveška mirno odvojila od Švedske 1905. i postala neovisna monarhija, slobodni zidari nastavili su uspješno postojati. Njemačka je napala Norvešku 1940. i povjerila vodstvo zemlje bojniku Vidkunu Quislingu koji je mrzio slobodne zidare.
Poslije Drugog svjetskog rata[45], u Južnoj Africi slobodni zidari bili su nepravdeno optuživani od strane članova nizozemske Reformističke crkve. U Švicarskoj su došli pod mnogo snažniji udar. Protumasonske demonstracije i kontrademonstracije antifašističkih aktivista održale su se u Bernu 1933. i 1934. godine nakon Hitlerovog govora na velikom protumasonskom skupu u Zürichu. Nakon neuspjelog referenduma o zabrani slobodnih zidara 1937., protumasonski pokret naglo se srušio.
Poteškoće za slobodne zidare pojavile su se i u Japanu gdje je prva loža bila britanska vojna loža u Jokohami 1864. Japanska vlada zabranila je svim Japancima da postanu slobodni zidari. Ipak, neki japanski intelektualci postali su zidari u inozemstvu. U Japanu, kao i u mnogim drugim državama, slobodne zidare su povezivali sa Židovima i smatrali ih opasnim komunističkim revolucionarima. Nakon ulaska Japana u Drugi svjetski rat, tajna policija je počela zatvarati slobodne zidare koje su progonili gore nego u europskim zemljama pod nacističkom okupacijom. Progoni su se proširili na sve zemlje koje je Japan osvojio – Koreju, Mandžuriju, Kinu, Hong Kong, Filipine i Singapur. Slobodno zidarstvo moglo je ponovno postojati nakon poraza i kapitualcije Japana 1945. godine. General Douglas MacArthur[46], bio je slobodni zidar i japanskim je zidarima pružio svaku moguću pomoć. Japanci su prvi put u povijesti mogli postati slobodni zidari.
Slobodni zidari u Sjedinjenim Američkim Državama oporavili su se krajem devetnaestog stoljeća, nakon nevolja koje su imali nestankom W. Morgana. Petnaest od 41 predsjednika SAD-a bili su slobodni zidari[47]. Slobodno zidarstvo nije politički pokret u SAD-u; oni su lojalni SAD-u i američkoj zastavi.
Franco je 1940. uspostavio Sud za suzbijanje slobodnog zidarstva koji je ukinut 1963. jer je, prema priopćenju, izvršio svoj zadatak i iskorijenio slobodno zidarstvo u Španjolskoj . Zabrana slobodnog zidarstva u Španjolskoj nastavila se tijekom cijelog Francova života. Kada je, nakon Francove smrti 1975. godine, kralj Juan Carlos došao na vlast, zabrana je ukinuta.
Slično je bilo u Portugalu. Diktatorski režim dr. Oliveire Salazara zabranio je slobodne zidare, ali je Salazar uspio spriječitit revoluciju i građanski rat. Nakon njegove smrti, obnovljena je demokracija u Portugalu i dopušteno je djelovanje slobodnozidarskih loža.
Loža Lautaro nastavila je igrati aktivnu ulogu u meksičkoj politici. Nakon pada Santa Anne, na vlast je došao liberalni predsjednik Ignacio Comonfort, koji je bio slobodni zidar. Katolička crkva bila je protiv liberala, slobodnih zidara i Benita Juáreza, koji je bio ministar pravde i slobodni zidar. Građanski rat, predvođen Juárezom, trajao je tri godine. Juáreza je naslijedio Porfirio Díaz, koji je bio diktator 35 godina; bio je slobodni zidar. Nekoliko predsjednika Meksika u dvadesetom stoljeću bili su slobodni zidari.
Slobodni zidari iz lože Lautaro, tijekom devetnaestog i dvadesetog stoljeća, nastavljali su revolucionarnu djelatnost u Latinskoj Americi. Odigrali su vodeću ulogu u oslobađanju Kube od španjolske vlasti. Čileanski socijalist, Salvador Allende, bio je slobodni zidar. Došao je na vlast 1970. godine na demokratskim izborima, ali je ubijen nakon što je August Pinochet izveo puč 1973.g.[48] Slobodni zidari odigrali su značajnu ulogu u odvajanju Filipina od Španjolske. José Rizal, junak pokreta za neovisnost, bio je slobodni zidar.
Liberalne ideje utjecale su na slobodne zidare u Hrvatskoj, Sloveniji, Bosni i Hercegovini, Srbiji, Crnoj Gori i Makedoniji. Kao i u drugim zemljama, i na području bivše Jugoslavije slobodni zidari bili su optuživani za određena događanja koja su željeli iskoristiti u svoju korist.Vjerovalo se da je Josip Broz Tito bio slobodni zidar jer na njegovom grobu stoji samo natpis 'Josip Broz Tito 1892-1945', što je inače običaj među slobodnim zidarima. Ali Tito je naredio da se njegov grob tako obilježi jer mu se svidio grob Franklina D. Roosevelta koji je na taj način označen, a poznato je da je Roosevelt bio slobodni zidar.
Englesko i kontinentalno slobodno zidarstvo razvijalo se u dva sasvim različita pravca. Slobodni zidari na kontinentu željeli su se uključiti u političku borbu, a engleski slobodni zidari su bili strogo izvan politike.Mnogi umjetnici, glazbenici i glumci[49], pisci[50], znanstvenici i liječnici[51], vojni zapovjednici[52], političari[53], bili su slobodni zidari. Kao princ od Walesa, Edward VII. bio je idealni Veliki meštar za engleske slobodne zidare[54]. Nakon Edwarda VII. drugi su članovi kraljevske obitelji nastavili veze sa slobodnim zidarima.
Slobodni zidari skupljali su novac za treću zgradu održavši najveći zidarski sastanak u povijesti, u Olympiji 8. kolovoza 1925. godine. Proslavili su dvjestopedesetu godišnjicu osnivanja Velike lože velikim skupom u Albert Hallu, u Londonu, 24. lipnja 1967. Danas ima više od 8000 zidarskih loža u Engleskoj i Walesu.
Rascjep između engleskih i kontinentalnih slobodnih zidara pojačao se kada je engleska Velika loža 1929. godine obznanila uvjete pod kojima će priznati strane slobodne zidare i s njima surađivati[55]. Uvjet o isključenju žena bio je jako naglašen. Engleska Velika loža odlučila je da više neće imati posla sa slobodnim zidarima koji iskazuju vjersku toleranciju prema ateistima, ali ni onima koji su bili spremni surađivati sa ženskim i miješanim ložama.

ZAKLJUČAK

Organizacije često postaju ono za što ih njihovi protivnici optužuju. Kada su slobodni zidari optuživani da pripremaju revoluciju u svojim ložama, mnogi mladi revolucionari pridružili su se slobodnim zidarama, pa su s vremenom neke lože doista i postale središta revolucionarne agitacije. Danas je, kao i uvijek, najveći problem tajnost. Slobodni zidari uvjeravaju da nisu tajno društvo; da objavljuju godišnjak s imenima svojih Velikih meštara i dužnosnika Velike lože i tisuća drugih meštara loža po cijeloj Engleskoj i Walesu; da su objavili knjige u kojima otkrivaju svoje prijašnje tajne rituale i 'zidarske riječi' itd. Ipak, ako neki nemason počne ispitivati, samo su najviši dužnosnici puni razumijevanja dok na malo nižoj razini članovi će se koristiti izbjegavanjem ili šutnjom.
Slobodni zidari uvijek tvrde da oni nisu religija. Na tome inzistiraju zato jer tada mnogi nadbiskupi, biskupi, rabini i ostali vjerski dužnosnici ne bi smjeli prisustvovati sastancima religijske organizacije koja je različita od one u kojoj su oni istaknute vođe.
Slobodni zidari mogu svakako tvrditi da su rijetka organizacija u kojoj se riječi 'vrlina' i 'moral' uzimaju za ozbiljno. Za slobodne zidare sastanci su rituali nadahnuća, za druge oni su bezopasna gluma i budalaština. Njihovo stajalište prema ženama je krajnje zastarjelo. Iako je njihovo ponašanje prema svojim ženama i zaposlenicama jako ljubazno, oni, ne samo da isključuju žene iz svojih redova, već odbijaju imati ikakva posla s bilo kojima drugim društvom koje prihvaća žene. Ta je činjenica često negativno komentirana.
Lako je vidjeti zašto su slobodni zidari izabrani kao meta šikaniranja. Smatraju ih povlaštenim, bogatim ljudima iz srednje klase. Njih se može napadati jer oni uglavnom zanemaruju kritiku i ne žele se svojim odgovorima spustiti na razinu kritičara.

LITERATURA

Jasper Ridley: Slobodni zidari, Prometej, Zagreb, 2001.
John J. Robinson: Rođeni u krvi (Izgubljene tane masonerije), Stari grad, Zagreb, 1999.
Christopher Knight i Robert Lomas: Hiramova knjiga (Slobodno zidarstvo, Venera i tajni ključ Isusova života), Stari grad, Zagreb, 2004.
Branko Šömen: Amenkamen (Slobodnozidarska čitanka), Lumen, Zagreb, 2001.
Norman MacKenzie: Tajna društva, AGM, 2002.



[1] Najpoznatiji je Londonski most.
[2] U Francuskoj je od 1050. do 1350. godine izgrađeno osamdeset katedrala, 500 velikih crkava i mnogo više župnih crkava.
[3] Taj kamen se mogao naći u mnogim dijelovima Engleske, između Dorseta i Yorkshirea i u drugim zemljama Europe
[4] Spavati su išli u krčme ili negdje drugdje u gradu.
[5] Gilda je bila udruženje poduzetničkih vlasnika. Povelja joj je odobravala monopol na pružanje usluga na određenom, obično gradskom, području. Gilda je imala pravo izbaciti konkurenciju, odrediti visine cijena do razine na kojoj se mogao očekivati profit itd. (Robinson, 1999, str 199)
[6] Meštar je kupovao potrebne sirovine, nadzirao proizvodnju i brinuo se o plasiranju proizvoda na tržište.
[7] livery – cehovska odora, livreja
[8] Morali su ispunjavati svoju dužnost prema Bogu; morali su vjerovati u doktrine Katoličke crkve i odbaciti sva krivovjerstva; morali su se pokoravati zakonima kralja; imali su dužnost prema gospodaru, poslodavcu, majstoru zidaru za kojeg su radili zidari naučnici; nisu smjeli odavati tajne svoga majstora, zavoditi njegovu ženu, kćer ili sluškinju; nisu smjeli počiniti preljub ili blud, ne zadržavati se vani noću nakon 8 sati, ne posjećivati krčme i javne kuće i ne kartati, osim za vrijeme Božića, koje je trajalo dvanaest dana.
[9] Osobito oni zidari koji su izvodili dekorativne klesarske radove u kamenu pješčenjaku.
[10] Četiri okrunjena mučenika su bila četiri zidara u rimsko doba koji se nisu htjeli odreći kršćanstva, pa su po nalogu rimskoga cara živi zatvoreni u olovni lijes i bačeni u rijeku. Četrdeset i dva dana kasnije spasio ih je neki kršćanin koji ih je sakrio u svoju kuću.
[11] U Njemačkoj se 1610. godine pojavila vjerska sljedba koja je postala poznata pod imenom Rosenkreutz (rosenkreutzer - braća „Ružina križa“). Svoju doktrinu su razradili u knjizi „Univerzalna i opća reformacija cijelog širokog svijeta“, koja je vjerojatno već kružila u rukopisu 1610. godine iako je najprije objavljena u Kasselu u Rhinelandu 1614. Knjiga govori kako je neki član sljedbe naišao na grob Christiana Rosenkrantza. Na malom stolu pored groba našao je tri knjige koje je Rosenkrantz napisao i u kojima je iznio svoju viziju budućeg Raja u kojem ljudi vjeruju u Boga ili Vrhunsko biće, a vjerska sloboda bit će zajamčena. Mnogi ljudi vjeruju da Rosenkrantz nikada nije postojao i da je cijelu priču napisao Johann Valentin Andrea, njemački luteranski teolog.
[12] Ta kazna vrlo je slična kazni koju su izdajice trpjele u dijelu presude o vješanju, utapanju i raščetvorenju.
[13] Robert Plot bio je kustos Ashmolean Museuma i profesor kemije na sveučilištu Oxford.
[14] Vitezovi templari bili su vojni red koji je osnovan da brani kršćansko kraljevstvo u Palestini.
[15] Fridrikov otac nije bio zadovoljan njime jer ga je više zanimao francuski jezik i književnost od politike, i jer je bio homoseksualac. Otac je smaknuo njegovog ljubavnika pred Fridrikom. Nakon toga, Fridrik je skrivao svoje osjećaje i više se počeo zanimati za vojne planove.
[16] Midjanci su štovali Baala, a ne Jahvu i time kršili Prvu zapovijed. To je jako ljutilo Mojsija te ih je on odlučio istrijebiti. Rekao je Židovima da ih sve pobiju, ukljućujući žene i djecu. Oni su ubili sve muškarce, ali ostavili na životu žene i djecu. Mojsije je bio ljut te im naredi da ubiju svu mušku djecu i svaku žebu koja je poznavala muškarca. Ovog puta naredba je bila izvršena.
[17] Škotski obred nije nikada postojao u Škotskoj, već je potekao u Francuskoj pod nazivom Rite Ecossais jer se mislilo da ga je otpočeo Škot, Chevalier Ramsay.
[18] Postao je slobodni zidar 1731.g., meštar lože 1734., a Pokrajinski Veliki meštar 1749. god.
[19] Teolog iz 17. stoljeća.
[20] Organizacija se u početku sastojala od samo pet članova i čudno je da su takav strah i zanimanje izazivali. Utemeljio ju je Adam Weishaupt, Židov koji se prekrstio i postao profesor kanonskog prava na rimokatoličkom sveučilištu Ingoldstadt u Bavarskoj. Ubrzo je bilo 2500 iluminata.
[21] Poznati zidari u to vrijeme: Casanova, Giuseppe Balsamo, grof Mirabeau, Marat, švedski kralj Gustav, Petar Veliki (opće je prihvaćeno da je Petar Veliki uveo slobodnozidarstvo u Rusiju), Francois Joseph Westermann, Karl Wilhelm Ferdinand, žena u loži – Marie Therese Louise de Lambelle, Johann Wolfgang Goethe, Gotthold Lessing.
[22] U Irskoj se u to vrijeme stvarao revolucionarni pokret koji se nije temeljio na religijskim lojalnostima.
[23] To su bili: Joseph (postao napuljski, a kasnije i španjolski kralj), Louis (nizozemski kralj), Lucien (princ od Canniona) Jerome (vestfalski kralj).
[24] To su: Carlos Maria de Alvear, Miguel de Azcuenaga, Juan José Castillo, Vincente Lopez y Planes (napisao riječi za argentinsku nacionalnu himnu), Juan José Paso itd.
[25] Prema španjolskim katoličkim protumasonskim propagatorima, osnovao ju je Francisco Miranada, podrijetlom iz Venezuele.
[26] Rafael del Riego Nuńez izvršio je 1820. godine uspješan vojni puč u Cadizu. Borio se protiv Napoleona.
[27] Marija Kristina željela je da se promijeni zakon o nasljedstvu kako bi kralja naslijedila njezina kći Isabel. Kada je Ferdinand umro, njegov brat Don Carlos odbio je priznati Isabel za kraljicu. To je dovelo do građanskog rata između izabelista i karlista. Izabeliste su podupirali srednja klasa, liberali i revolucionari krajnje protuklerikalne ljevice, a mnogi vođe bili su slobodni zidari. Karliste je podržavala Crkva i veliki zemljoposjednici te seljaci.
[28] Poznati masoni: Sam Houston, Stephen F. Austin, Mirabeau Bonaparte Lamar, William B. Travis, predsjednik James Polk itd.
[29] Bio je to nastavka tradicije zidarskih banketa koji su se održavali prije revolucije iz 1830. godine kada je La Fayette kritizirao vladu Karla X.
[30] U to vrijeme premijer je bio konzervativni François Guizot koji je bio slobodni zidar. Glavni govornici bili su Odilon Barrot i Adolphe Crémieux, koji su zahtijevali Guizotovu ostavku. Ali je Crémieux izjavio da on ne poziva na revoluciju niti na uspostavu republike
[31] Vladu je predvodio umjereni liberal pjesnik Alphonse de Lamartine koji nije bio slobodni zidar.
[32] Joachim Murat je bio sin Napoleonova maršala, napuljski kralj i gorljivi pristaša i bliski suradnik Louisa Napoleona.
[33] Princ Napoleon bio je rođak Napoleona III.; bio je sin Jeromea Bonapartea, kralja Westphalie, i često su ga zvali njegovim nadimkom 'Plon-Plon'. Postao je poznat kao vođa radikalne skupine na dvoru Napoleona III. Izborom princa Napoleona kao Velikog meštra Velikog Orijenta bio bi čin prkosa prema caru.
[34] On je bio miroljubiv prema radikalnim slobodnim zidarima.
[35] To su bili: Jules Favre, Jules Ferry, Louis Garnier-Pagčs i Léon Gambetta.
[36] To su bili: Benoit Malon (bio član Marxova Međunarodnog saveza radnih ljudi, kasnije poznatog pod nazivom Prva internacionala), Felix Pyat, Jean Baptiste Clément, Zéphian Camélinat i Eugčne Pottier (napisao riječi „Internacionale“).
[37] On je ujedno bio i osnivač grada.
[38] Poznat je primjer Indijca Manockjee Cursetjeea. Britanski članovi lože u Bombay nisu ga željeli primiti te je on otišao u Englesku. Tamo su ga također odbili pa je otišao u Pariz gdje su ga primili. Kada se vratio u Indiju, ponovno je zamolio da ga prime u ložu u Bombayu, ali su ga ponovno odbili. Na kraju je pokrajinski Veliki meštar Zapadne Indije utemeljio novu ložu u Bombayu, a Cursetjee je primljen kao prvi i jedini član.
[39] On je tvrdio da su vjerske i rasne svađe, koje se izazivale nevolje u britanskoj Indiji, iščezle unutar zidarskih loža.
[40] Jedan od većih protumasona bio je Gabriel Jogand-Pagčs koji je pisao knjige i članke pod pseudonimom Leo Taxil. On je bio francuski slobodni zidar koji kasnije promijenio svoje mišljenje i djelovao protiv slobodnih zidara. Još su poznati protumasoni bili Erich von Ludendorff i Hitlerov pristaša dr. Custos.
[41] On nikada nije bio slobodni zidar, ali njegov glavni suradnik, Edvard Beneš, koji ga je naslijedio na mjestu predsjednika, i njegov sin, Jan Masaryk, pridružili su se masonskim ložama u Pragu.
[42] Kapetan Alfred Dreyfus, Židov koji je služio u francuskoj vojsci, lažno je optužen u Francuskoj 1894. da je izdao vojne tajne njemačkoj vladi. Podvalili su mu antisemitski časnici u vojsci. Osuđen je na najgori zatvor.
[43] Npr.: Jean Longuet, Jean Monnet, Roger Salengro i Vincent Auriol.
[44] Fašistički simpatizeri tvrde da su zidari krivi za svrgnuće Mussolinija, iako to nije istina.
[45] U to vrijeme je nacionalistička vlada provodila apartheid.
[46] američki vrhovni zapovjednik oružanih snaga i guverner Japana
[47] Sedam od njih u dvadesetom stoljeću – William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Warren G. Harding, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman i Gerald R. Ford. Bilo je i generala (Pershing, George C. Marshall i MacArthur), poslovnih ljudi i filmskih zvijezda.
[48] Pinochet je okončao svoju diktaturu tek 1990. godine
[49] Kao npr. sir John Soane, Thomas Arne, Lionel Monckton, David Garrick, Edmund Keane, sir Henry Irving (prvi engleski glumac koji je dobio čast viteza, 1895), sir Harry Lauder, sir Donald Wolfit, Peter Sellers...
[50] Alexander Pope, Jonathan Swift, Edward Gibbon, James Boswell, Robert Burns, Richard Brinsley Sheridan, sir Walter Scott, James Hogg, Anthony Trollope, Oscar Wilde, Rafael Sabatini, sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Rudyard Kipling...
[51] Chevalier Bartholomew Ruspini, sir Bernard Spilsbury i sir Alexander Fleming.
[52] Lord Roberts od Kandahara, Lord Kitchener, grof Haig...
[53] Lord Randolph Churchill, Cecil Rhodes, Arthur Grenwood, Clement Attlee, Harold Wilson...
[54] Usprkos skandalima izazvanim Edwardovim ponašanjem, slobodni zidari ostali su mu lojalni, a njihova vjera u Velikog meštra ostala je nenarušena.
[55] To će uraditi samo s onim slobodnim zidarima koji su pod strogom kontrolom središnje vlasti Velike lože i koji ne dopuštaju lokalnim ograncima slobodu da provode vlastitu politiku; ako vjerovanje u Boga bude uvjet za članstvo; ako se članovi zakunu da će izvršavati svoje obveze nad otvorenim sveskom Svetoga zakona – to jest Biblije ili Kurana, ili istovjetne knjige neke druge religije; ako se isključe žene; i ako 'rasprava o religiji i politici unutar lože bude strogo zabranjena'.

Edwin Arlington Robinson



Richard Cory

Whenever Richard Cory went down town,
We people on the pavement looked at him:
He was a gentleman from head to crown,
Clean favored, and imperially slim.

And he was always quietly arrayed,
And he was always human when he talked;
But he still fluttered pulses when he said,
"Good-morning," and he glittered when he walked.
And he was rich--yes, richer than a king--
and admirably schooled in every grace:
In fine, we thought that he was everything
To make us wish that we were in his place.
So on we worked, and waited for the light,
And went without the meat, and cursed the bread;
And Richard Cory, one calm summer night,
Went home and put a bullet through his head.

LAKU NOĆ, HRVATSKA!

PJESMA EUROVIZIJE





EVOLUTION OF DANCE

Yeux Glauques



Gladstone was still respected,
When John Ruskin produced
"Kings Treasuries"; Swinburne
And Rossetti still abused.

Foetid Buchanan lifted up his voice
When that faun's head of hers
Became a pastime for
Painters and adulterers.

The Burne-Jones cartons
Have preserved her eyes;
Still, at the Tate, they teach
Cophetua to rhapsodize;

Thin like brook-water,
With a vacant gaze.
The English Rubaiyat was still-born
In those days.

The thin, clear gaze, the same
Still darts out faun-like from the half-ruin'd face,
Questing and passive ....
"Ah, poor Jenny's case" ...

Bewildered that a world
Shows no surprise
At her last maquero's
Adulteries.

fashion-guru

TITO



One should either be a work of Art, or wear a work of Art.

– Oscar Wilde


Besprijekorni Josip Broz Tito (maršal, 88) nikada ništa nije prepuštao slučaju: za susret s J.F.Kennedyjem, primjerice, odlučio se za op-art.
Dobro pogledajte donju sliku. Što primjećujete?



Točno: Titov je sako šarmantno prekratak.
Pogledajte Titove ruke: rub rukava u ravnini je s donjim rubom sakoa!
Usporedite recimo te odnose na Kennedyjevom primjeru.
U čemu je štos? Tito, koji je bio savršeno obučen muškarac, odjednom se slika uz Kennedyja u konobarski skraćenom sakou?!
Da, tako je, ali to je samo još jedan dokaz Titove nevjerojatne zagorske prepredenosti.

Kennedy je dobio Nixona na televiziji: pobijedio je image, ne program.
Tito je znao kome ide u posjetu. Znao je da je ionako sve u fotografijama koje će obići svijet, znao je da je medij poruka, pa je stoga savršeno točno pretpostavio da ako je već u Americi, nema smisla ne izgledati kao u Hollywoodu.
Uvijek imaj na umu da se odijevaš kako bi zadivio druge a ne sebe, poduka je Bulwer Lyttona koju je Tito usvojio u sveopćoj maskeradi revolucionarne povijesti: ulazeći u Moskvi u vlak kao Walter da bi u Beču izašao kao Tito, Georgijević, Pepek, Novak, Rudi, Stari, Ivan Kostanjšek, John Alexander Karlson alias Josip Broz je negdje usput shvatio da ako su već i sami identiteti kostimi, a onda barem da budu chic!

I evo nas u 1963. godini, listopad je mjesec, stoje jedan do drugoga Tito i J.F.K., i iako je s manje fotografije vidljivo da je razlika u godinama i više nego očita, diskretno skraćeni sako i brižno izabarane naočale i Tito je sasvim feš. Skraćeni ga sako izdužuje, sunčane naočele čine ležernim (usred jednog od dva, tri najzačajnija bilateralna susreta u životu!), i, sve u svemu, velim: bon chic, bon genre!
U listopadu te davne 1963., Tito je imao 71 godinu; na fotografiji 'Life'-a, točno mu je 60.



Stevan Božić (72), Titov krojač u Beogradu

Mi, krojači njegovih odijela, Titu smo bili važniji od Kardelja

"Odijelo za Tita izrađivalo se tri dana, a najfiniji materijali nabavljali su se iz Engleske"
Stevan Božić (80) već je nekoliko godina radio u beogradskom BEKO-u kao krojač-modelar, kad ga je tajnica nazvala da hitno dođe kod direktora. Mislio je da će, kao i obično, uzeti mjere za nekoga, pa se prema direktorskom uredu zaputio s krojačkim metrom oko vrata. No kod direktora je zatekao kolegu koji je radio Titova odijela i jednog oficira.
"Upitali su me, gotovo odmah s vrata, bih li ja napravio uniformu za Tita. Znao sam da to neće biti lako, ali rekao sam da hoću. Počeo sam za njega raditi 1970. godine, a prvo što sam napravio bila je njegova bijela maršalska uniforma. Sve sportske jakne i sve njegove uniforme moj su rad, a Tito je uvijek imao vremena za nas majstore koji smo mu radili odijela. Volio se lijepo odijevati pa nije čudno da je izabran za najelegantnije odjevenog državnika Europe. Jovanka se pokušavala miješati u to kako će njegova odijela izgledati, ali joj on to nije dopustio. Još pri prvom pokušaju intervencije, nježno joj je rekao: "Ma, pusti majstore da rade svoj posao..." kaže Božić koji danas, iako u mirovini, i dalje kroji modele za jednu beogradsku kožarsku radnju, a predanost poslu ne može umanjiti ni činjenica da zbog operacije očiju danas nešto slabije vidi.
Dobro se sjeća svoga prvog susreta s Titom. Bilo je to u rezidenciji u Užičoj 15 u Beogradu. Priznaje da je imao tremu. "Dočekala nas je Jovanka i ja sam ostao nešto s njom razgovarati. Kad sam se okrenuo, shvatio sam da je moj kolega nestao. Uspaničio sam se jer nisam znao što da radim. U tom trenutku - i Jovanka je otišla. Ostao sam sam i ušao u prvu sobu. To je bila velika dvorana na čijem je kraju stajao Tito i moj kolega koji se već prihvatio posla. Tito je krenuo prema meni, stisnuo mi ruku i ja sam tek tada prestao imati tremu..."

Božić je s Titom dosta putovao po bivšoj Jugoslaviji, najviše je boravio na Brijunima, u rezidenciji u Karađorđevu, Splitu i Sloveniji. Koliko su Titu bili važni njegovi krojači, posvjedočit će i anegdota koju nam je ispričao Božić:
"Edvard Kardelj upravo se bio vratio s nekog važnog putovanja i trebao je ući k Titu da mu podnese izvještaj. Mi smo isto čekali da uđemo, da ga premjerimo za neko novo odijelo. Tito je izašao iz sobe, vidio je i nas i Kardelja i rekao mu: "Pričekaj još malo, prvo neka majstori završe svoj posao..."S nama je bio jako strpljiv i kada bi odijelo bilo gotovo, dugo bi stajao pred ogledalom, pogledavao, a ako bi i imao koju primjedbu, uvijek je bila na mjestu", tvrdi Božić. Odijelo za Tita radilo se u prosjeku tri dana, a ni njegov krojač ne može sa sigurnošću reći koliko ih je Tito imao. Materijali su se često nabavljali iz inozemstva, najčešće iz Engleske. Krojači su imali lutku izrađenu po Titovoj figuri, a posljednje odijelo koje je Božić radio za Tita ostalo je nedovršeno jer je maršal završio u bolnici, gdje je i preminuo.

Working Class Hero

Velika Koalicija: Motto



Hall napominje da je politika konsensusa, dakle nastojanje za općom suglasnosti, primjerice, postojana forma institucionalne politike u britanskom kapitalizmu nakon Drugoga svjetskog rata, neovisno o tome koja je stranka na vlasti. Posrijedi je oblik hegemonije kojim klasna elita upravlja pristankom masa u socijalno stratificiranim, diferenciranim, odnosno tzv. pluralističkim društvima. U takvu kontekstu, ideološki i retorički, nacionalni interes nadilazi sve moguće oblike kolektivnih socijalnih interesa. Pritom se sukob, posebice ako je otvoren ili radikalan, simbolički premješta na političku marginu. Oni koji ustraju u politici sukoba ili tumače društvo u terminima konflikta, izloženi su stigmatizaciji.

Dean Duda, "Hrvanje s anđelima"

Izbori 2007: Dva predviđanja

ISHOD IZBORA: HDZ ILI SDP?



DENIS KULJIŠ, 11.7.2007.

Rano je da se oklada kuvertira - ali kako ne riskiram ništa osim ugleda dalekovidog političkog analitičara, koji ionako možeš okačiti mačku za rep, spreman sam ovdje i ovog časa dati svoje prognoze rezultata narednih parlamentarnih izbora, bez obzira hoće li se održati u studenom ili u prosincu. To sam rekao Pavlu Kaliniću, novom Bandićevu najpovjerljivijem pomoćniku, kad smo se sreli pod šatorom u vrtu rezidencije američkog ambasadora na Tuškancu. Pod monsunskim kišama, praznovali smo ondje Dan ustanka naroda i narodnosti Amerike, promatrajući kako stupaju marinci i pronose zastave. Pavle je dugo izbivao iz zemlje, jer je pratio šefa esdepeovske gradske hunte na proputovanje sjevernoameričkim kontinentom. Tako je malo ispao iz štosa i bio je, mislim, šokiran prognozama, iako su one za njegovu stranku iznimno povoljne.
SDP, rekao sam mu, SDP će u deset izbornih jedinica osvojiti 38 posto glasova, a HDZ 24. Treći će biti HSP sa 12, dok će penzioneri doseći 11. Četvrti, HNS, bit će slab, 9, a HSS-HSLS još slabiji, 7. Ostali će biti ispod izbornog praga - odnosno, u Istri i Rijeci proći će ili IDS, ili bivši esdepeovci na čelu s Livijom Bolkovićem u kombinaciji sa skupinom Ninić-Bebić, dok svi ostali padaju ispod izbornog praga, i njihovi se glasovi d'Hontovom metodom neproporcionalno distribuiraju pobjednicima. Elem, što to znači, politički? Pa, Milanović će lako formirati vladu s penzićima i manjincima, a HNS će uzeti iz pijeteta i zato što će ga jeftino doći, pošto mu neće biti nužni - obećat će, recimo, Čačiću potporu na predsjedničkim izborima 2010. a Vesni dati, recimo, ministarstvo znanosti. To je posljednje zanima, ali kako će u Zagrebu stranka jedva prijeći prag, a ima u metropoli ozbiljne investirane interese, i s tim će se pomiriti. A Milanović je ionako najbolje ako predsjednika da u "outsource" drugoj stranci: to je mudra lekcija koju je mogao naučiti od esdepeovskog Yode, pokojnoga eks-premijera Račana. Dva predsjednika u istoj stranci, to zbilja ne ide, što me odmah vraća na ključno pitanje - a kamo s Jurčićem? Tu imam ideju koju još nisam gotovo nikome povjerio - dakle, Milanović se fura na Tonyja Blaira, a Jurčić mu dođe kao Gordon Brown. Znači, mogao bi mu dati funkciju kancelara: formalnu vlast nad svim financijskim i ekonomskim resorima te obećanje da će ga naslijediti u idućem mandatu, ako bude sve u redu...
Tako sam mislio u četvrtak, zaluđen idejom da se u sve može proniknuti spekulativno, analitički, ako napraviš ispravan tenzorski račun racionalnih interesa i postupaka. Ali, postoji i subjektivni faktor, instikt za politiku koji vodi njene protagoniste, i već dva dana kasnije, u subotu, bilo je jasno da će u utorak Ljubo Jurčić na Glavnom odboru SDP-a, biti oglašen kao premijerski kandidat SDP-a, pošto ga na tu funkciju predloži sam Zoran Milanović. To je, naravno, srušilo moje konstrukcije...
Prvo sam pomislio sve najgore. Ljubo baš ne nosi glasove, pravi političke gafove, a mnogi ga odbacuju jer je urbani Hercegovac. Slavko Goldštajn dao je "Feralu" veliki intervju o tome da između Sanadera i Jurčića, bira Sanadera. Dobro, to može biti politička kalkulacija - kao pobornik HNS-a, Slavko zna da uz Jurčića za njih nema kruha u gospodarskim resorima. No, za Jurčića kao premijera mogli bi se vezati esdepeovski disidenti, razočarani partijski lideri, pa paralizirati proces odlučivanja. I kako bi, tehnički, to trebalo funkcionirati? Ako nije premijer, zadržava li Milanović bilo kakvu moć? Za to nema presedana, osim onih iz vremena kad se politička linija bistrila u komitetu, a privreda vodila u republičkom Izvršnom vijeću - tu još samo fali samoupravljanje...
Onda sam pomislio sve najbolje. Dobra je vijest da Milanović nije na svaki način nastojao istisnuti konkurenta, kao što bi to učinio Račan. Ne teži da postane komunistički monomah, važno mu je da konsolidira stranku, uvažava tuđe težnje, ne pokušava svih naprosto izmanipulirati i osamiti se na poziciji moći. Pošten je, demokrat. Ima vjere u svoj leadership, kad je tako brzo donio tako dalekosežnu odluku. Pouzdaje se u svoju karizmu i misli da s Jurčićem ili bez Jurčića ima pobjedu u ruci - a te se stvari ne daju izračunati, u takvim stvarima, političar je sam, kao pilot u bolidu koji ulazi u krivinu brzinom od dvjesta kilometara na sat... Nemam pojma. Ali, Jurčić bi bio ispao isto takav heroj da je u času kad mu je Milanović ponudio položaj premijera, odgovorio: Ne, neću - bit ću potpredsjednik vlade, koordinator za ekonomske resore. Ti budi pilot, kao Tom Cruise u "Top Gunu", a ja ću biti navigator...
U šatoru sam sreo i Ranka Ostojića. Zadovoljan je rezultatima u svojoj, 9. jedinici (od Senja do Sinja) jer po anketi koju naručuje američki Republikanski isntitut (IRI) - a jedino se ta uvažava među profesionalcima - on vodi, i to masivno. Čak je i Željka u desetoj prestigla HDZ čiju listu nosi sam Sanader. Slet u "Ciboni" nije dolje bog zna kako odjeknuo - možda bi mogli prirediti još jedan, na Gripama. Ali, da se s tim masovnim manifestacijama može održati vlast, još bi vladao komunizam - ipak su ono bili nenadmašni majstori za te stvari.

NEMANJA, 3.3.2007. 15:01

Cvebice i Kizomire,

U politici je nezahvalno prognozirati, jer jedan jedini događaj može naruštiti ukupnu statiku društvene zgrade, ali, usudit ću se, upravo zbog zadnjih rečenica, predvidjeti ishod ovogodišnjih parlamentarnih izbora, i, odmah obrazložiti taj ishod:
Dakle, kada u ovoj gornjoj shemi HDZ lišite nacionalizma, i svedete ga na light-HDZ, dobit ćete Sanaderov HDZ: stranku koja isproručuje Gotovinu i premijera koji čestita Hristos se rodi: dakle, krajnje kooperativnu stranku konzervativnog imagea, koja se polako i realno približava svojoj promičbenoj predstavi: kao stranka koja se vrlo dobro razumije s krupnim kapitalom, jer njezin šef ionako njome ravna kao vlasnik svojom firmom, HDZ ubrzano postaje zastupnikom Kapitala! No, što dobijete od SDP-a kad prođe purgatorij? Čega se zapravo SDP treba lišIti? E, to se događa upravo ovih dana, u reformističkim zahtjevima koji se stavljaju pred vodstvo stranke, a ti su svedeni zapravo na odustajanje od socijalne preosjetljivosti socijaldemokrata: zahtjeva se poštavanje neoliberalnih tekovina i vrijednosti! To je dakle agenda: s jedne strane imati ex-nacionalnu light konzervativnu stranku Kapitala, a s druge lijevu, ex-socijalnu light stranku Rada, kako bi se prekrilo čitavo područje Tržišta, kako nas jedino i isključivo vide Planeri. Budući da se Designeri Novog svjetskog poretka jako dobro razumiju sa Sanaderom, budući da se izuzetno dobro slažu s Mesićem, budući da Milan Banić funkcionira kao fonatana (baciš novčić i zaželiš želju! koja nema drugu svrhu i namjenu nego da ispunjava te želje pod uvjetom da je na središnjem gradskom trgu), situacija je zapravo u Hrvatskoj IDEALNA! NE MOŽE BOLJA BITI! I zato će ovakvom i ostati.
Dakle, ja tvrdim, a dao sam i razloge (u ovakvoj se konstelaciji političkih odnosa i snaga u Hrvatskoj najlakše 'radi', i u hrvatkom političkom undergroundu, ali i na relaciji Svijet - Hrvatska) da će HDZ ostati na vlasti!
Sve je ostalo sekundarno: hoće li uz HSLS novi koalicioni partner biti HSS (to je zapravo lako moguće, jer HSS-ovci su željni vlasti, a Friščić je, iz razloga koje ovdje neću spominjati, na svaki način podatan za dogovore!), ili će to biti netko drugi, sasvim je nevažno. Vidjet ćete da će na vlasti ostati HDZ.
I još nešto mogu predvidjeti, naprosto stoga jer sljedim logiku ovih događaja: ovih će se mjeseci inzistirati na nužnosti reforme SDP-a i vremenu koje toj stranci treba dati da se preobrazi u modernu socijaldemokratsku stranku neoliberanog senzibiliteta i usmjerenja (vidi: Butkovićev tekst o nužnosti reforme SDP-a otprije sedam dana u JL-u, Kris Cviić u Globusu, dakle: EPH je već počeo, jasno, na osnovu tezarija iz Kraljevskog instituta - nimalo čudno da su autori baš Cviić i Butković, naime!). A kad se dakle vidi otkud vjetar puše, kad uz ovako rekonstruiranu logiku imamo i evidentne dokaze dobre internacionalne volje da Sanader vlada Hrvatskom još 4 godine, tja, uz idilu u vražjem trokutu Markov trg - Panta - Poglavarstvo Grada, u kojem nestaju ne samo avioni i brodovi nego čitave dvorane i tangente, malo nas što može iznenaditi!
U svakom slučaju, evo, ja sam reskirao da me zajebavate dovijeka, pa sam stavio karte na stol. Jasno, ako sutra slete Vanzemljaci pa inzistiraju da Namjesnik na Zemlji bude Jura Stublić, ja ću morati revidirati svoje stavove i prognoze, ali, bez ovakve ex machina intervencije, stvar mi se čini prilično razumljiva, dapače malo priprosto predvidljiva za moj ukus.
Dixi.

P.S., 4.6.2007.

Sve u svemu, Zoran Milanović zaista nema potrebu prepuštati ulogu i mjesto premijera nekom drugom, pa ni Ljubi Jurčiću.
Što bi Zoran Milanović, da u pola godine dva puta pobjedi, prvo u SDP-u a onda i na parlamentarnim izborima, zapravo trebao raditi prepustivši premijersko mjesto Ljubi Jurčiću?
Što bi trebao biti? Predsjednik Sabora? Predsjednik SDP-ovog kluba zastupnika?
Ili bi trebao sjediti na Iblerovom trgu i u ime Partije korigirati premijera države?
Što to znači da bi Milanović kao pobjednik na parlamentarnim izborima morao omogućiti političke uvjete da Jurčić vodi zemlju?
Znači li to da Milanović ne zna voditi Vladu ove zemlje? Zar to misle članovi SDP-a? Mislim da im to nije ni na kraj pameti!
Što bi to značilo da Milanović kao premijer ne zna donositi one odluke koje bi Ljubo Jurčić kao ekonomist i gospodarstvenik znao donijeti? O čemu se radi? Zar je politika ove zemlje svodiva na par gospodarskih problema koji preostaju nakon što se izvrši agenda artikulirana na visokim međunarodnim adresama MMF-a ili Svjetske banke! Je li dakle najviša državna egzekutiva Hrvatske samo transmisija volje inozemnih monitoringa?
Jasno je da je posao Vlade RH nešto više od toga i da nije bezostatno svodiv na kontroverze oko oporezivanja realizirane kapitalne dobiti ili reindustrijalizacije Hrvatske.
Ovakve tendence, uostalom, postoje u Hrvatskoj odavno.
Zna se i adresa koja ih promovira. Prije samo par godina Ljubo Jurčić se zvao Mladen Vedriš.
Od 2000-te naovamo ta su nastojanja stalno prisutan napor da se mimo demokratske procedure i volje građana uspostavi nekakva dogovorna, fantomska tehnička vlada, navodno ustanovljena po meritokratskom kriteriju, a zapravo vlada nove hrvatske oligarhije koja bi izražavala jedino i samo interes kapitala zabrinutog za okolnosti propitivanja vlastitog porijekla!
Poruka koju se želi uputiti građanima zapravo je pralaž našeg društva: tvrdi se time da Hrvatska zapravo nema bitnih političkih problema, nego je jedan jedini problem gorući, a taj je gospodarstveni: kako da i isključeni žive bolje!
Politički su problemi već riješeni: još samo ovaj mandat i socijalna je stratifikacija dovršena, moć je distribuirana i hijerarhija je za duga vremena ustanovljena i zadana! Tko je jamio, jamio je! Ostali su isključeni iz političkog života zemlje, i sve je samo sada do toga da se nađu gospodarske recepture podizanja standarda života depriviranih!
Uostalom, to se danas traži i od SDP-a kao stranke u cjelini! To je smisao tog zahtjeva za neoliberalnim redizajnom stranke: od SDP-a se ultimativno traži jasno i nedvosmisleno očitovanje da neće sankcionirati privatizacijski kriminal, jer da bi to pomelo ionako krhko hrvatsko poduzetništvo i tek stasali kapitalizam!

To je smisao licemjernog zahtjeva koji je izravno stavljen i pred samog Zorana Milanovića.
Razgovor koji je sa Zoranom Milanovićem bio vođen na temu navodnog prijateljstva s famoznim Franjom Turekom, imao je upravo taj smisao, i u tom je smislu taj razgovor metafora budućnosti Zorana Milanovića i socijaldemokracije u ovoj zemlji: jedini stvarni posao Zorana Milanovića i SDP-a, zapravo je takav zahtjev kao i njegovog podnosioca dovesti u pitanje!
Nikakva moderna socijaldemokracija ili Hrvatska kao moderna demokratska zemlja socijalne pravednosti naime nije moguća sve dok kapital stečen privatizacijskim bezakonjem uvjetuje presudne političke procese ove zemlje.
Tu su poruku izborom Zorana Milanovića za predsjednika partije članovi konvencije SDP-a uputili Hrvatskoj javnosti: izborom neokaljanog, čistog čovjeka za nekorumpiranu, poštenu budućnost Hrvatske.
Osnovno je pitanje današnje Hrvatske: Je li Zoran Milanović sam razumio tu poruku, poruku koju svima nama prenosi?
Razumije li Zoran Milanović, drugim riječima, koju on to poruku alegorizira?
Shvaća li što njegov izbor znači?
Sasvim je pošteno i primjereno Zoranu Milanoviću pružiti sada dovoljno vremena - a to znači i par godina bez obzira na ishod ovogodišnjih parlamentarnih izbora i nestrpljenje SDP-ovaca da preuzmu vlast! - da rekonceptualizira socijaldemokratsku stranku Hrvatske, ali i socijaldemokraciju u Hrvatskoj, da pokaže kako je jasno razumio poruku koju u ime svojih stranačkih drugova prenosi i nosi ostatku zemlje.
To je poruka o nužnosti modernizacije i SDP-a i Hrvatske, ali upravo u smislu suprotnom zahtjevu navodnog neoliberalnog lib-lab redizajna (koji to uostalom ionako nije): socijaldemokracija u ovoj zemlji što prije mora rehabilitirati vrijednosti svojstvene socijalizmu njemačkog ili skandinavskog tipa, pa, ako se već želi, i onoga u nasljeđu radničkog samoupravljanja što nikako nije smjelo biti s bačeno skupa s prljavom vodom komunističkog epohalnog projekta.
Kad se SDP i Hrvatska prestanu sramiti pa čak i strašiti riječi socijalizam, SDP će vrlo jasno znati što mu je za činiti.
Samo i jedino tako SDP od Hrvatske može napraviti i pravnu državu!

Ultimativna konspiracija

Venice’s War Against Western Civilization



“The currently ending 500-year cycle in European history, which came to the surface during the Fifteenth century, has been determined by the emerging conflict between the two leading forces within European culture during that century. On the one side, there were the forces of the Golden Renaissance, centered around such figures as Cardinal Nicolaus of Cusa and the 1439-40 Council of Florence. On the opposing side, was the re-emerging power of the Venice-centered European aristocratic and financier oligarchy. ... All European history since the Fifteenth century within Europe and globally, has been dominated by the cultural conflict between the radiated influence of the Renaissance and the opposing, Venice-launched force of the so-called ‘Enlightenment.’
—Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

‘The coming Fall of the House of Windsor’

This article was originally prepared as background documentation to “The Coming Fall of the House of Windsor,” a special report prepared by Executive Intelligence Review under the direction of Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. The supplementary material is taken from Tarpley’s “How the Dead Souls of Venice Corrupted Science,” a speech delivered to the Labor Day conference of the Schiller Institute and International Caucus of Labor Committees in Vienna, Virginia on Sept. 4, which is published in full in Executive Intelligence Review, Vol. 21, No. 38, Sept. 23, 1994.
The British royal family of today typifies the Venetian Party, and continues the outlook and methods of an oligarchical faction which can be traced far back into the ancient world. Oligarchism is a principle of irrational domination associated with hereditary oligarchy/nobility and with certain aristocratic priesthoods. At the center of oligarchy is the idea that certain families are born to rule as an arbitrary elite, while the vast majority of any given population is condemned to oppression, serfdom, or slavery. During most of the past 2,500 years, oligarchs have been identified by their support for the philosophical writings of Aristotle and their rejection of the epistemology of Plato. Aristotle asserted that slavery is a necessary institution, because some are born to rule and others to be ruled. He also reduced the question of human knowledge to the crudest sense certainty and perception of “facts.” Aristotle’s formalism is a means of killing human creativity, and therefore represents absolute evil. This evil is expressed by the bestialist view of the oligarchs that human beings are the same as animals.
Oligarchs identify wealth purely in money terms, and practice usury, monetarism, and looting at the expense of technological advancement and physical production. Oligarchs have always been associated with the arbitrary rejection of true scientific discovery and scientific method in favor of open anti-science or more subtle obscurantist pseudo-science. The oligarchy has believed for millennia that the Earth is overpopulated; the oligarchical commentary on the Trojan War was that this conflict was necessary in order to prevent greater numbers of mankind from oppressing “Mother Earth.” The oligarchy has constantly stressed race and racial characteristics, often as a means for justifying slavery. In international affairs, oligarchs recommend such methods as geopolitics, understood as the method of “divide and conquer,” which lets one power prevail by playing its adversaries one against the other. Oligarchical policy strives to maintain a balance of power among such adversaries for its own benefit, but this attempt always fails in the long run and leads to new wars.
The essence of oligarchism is summed up in the idea of the empire, in which an elite identifying itself as a master race rules over a degraded mass of slaves or other oppressed victims. If oligarchical methods are allowed to dominate human affairs, they always create a breakdown crisis of civilization, with economic depression, war, famine, plague, and pestilence. Examples of this are the Fourteenth-century Black Plague and the Thirty Years War (1618-48), both of which were created by Venetian intelligence. The post-industrial society and the derivatives crisis have brought about the potential for a new collapse of civilization in our own time. This crisis can only be reversed by repudiating in practice the axioms of the oligarchical mentality.

The ‘Fondo’

A pillar of the oligarchical system is the family fortune, or fondo, as it is called in Italian. The continuity of the family fortune which earns money through usury and looting is often more important than the biological continuity across generations of the family that owns the fortune. In Venice, the largest fondo was the endowment of the Basilica of St. Mark, which was closely associated with the Venetian state treasury, and which absorbed the family fortunes of nobles who died without heirs. This fondo was administered by the procurers of St. Mark, whose position was one of the most powerful under the Venetian system. Around this central fondo were grouped the individual family fortunes of the great oligarchical families, such as the Mocenigo, the Cornaro, the Dandolo, the Contarini, the Morosini, the Zorzi, and the Tron. Until the end of the Eighteenth century, the dozen or so wealthiest Venetian families had holdings comparable or superior to the very wealthiest families anywhere in Europe. When the Venetian oligarchy transferred many of its families and assets to northern Europe, the Venetian fondi provided the nucleus of the great Bank of Amsterdam, which dominated Europe during the Seventeenth century, and of the Bank of England, which became the leading bank of the Eighteenth century.
In the pre-Christian world around the Mediterranean, oligarchical political forces included Babylon in Mesopotamia. The “whore of Babylon” condemned in the Apocalypse of St. John the Divine, is not a mystical construct, but a very specific power cartel of evil oligarchical families. Other oligarchical centers included Hiram of Tyre and the Phoenicians. The Persian Empire was an oligarchy. In the Greek world, the center of oligarchical banking and intelligence was the Temple of Apollo at Delphi, whose agents included Lycurgus of Sparta and, later, Aristotle. The Delphic Apollo tried and failed to secure the conquest of Greece by the Persian Empire. Then the Delphic Apollo developed the Isocrates plan, which called for King Philip of Macedonia to conquer Athens and the other great city-states so as to set up an oligarchical empire that would operate as a western version of the Persian Empire. This plan failed when Philip died, and the Platonic Academy of Athens decisively influenced Alexander the Great, who finally destroyed the Persian Empire before being assassinated by Aristotle. Later, the Delphic Apollo intervened into the wars between Rome and the Etruscan cities to make Rome the key power of Italy and then of the entire Mediterranean.
Rome dominated the Mediterranean by about 200 B.C.E. There followed a series of civil wars that aimed at deciding where the capital of the new empire would be and who would be the ruling family. These are associated with the Social War, the conflict between Marius and Sulla, the first Triumvirate (Julius Caesar, Pompey the Great, and L. Crassus), and the second Triumvirate (Octavian, Marc Antony, and Lepidus). Marc Antony and Cleopatra wanted the capital of the new empire to be at Alexandria in Egypt. Octavian (Augustus) secured an alliance with the cult of Sol Invictus Mithra and became emperor, defeating the other contenders. After the series of monsters called the Julian-Claudian emperors (Tiberius, Caligula, Nero, et al.) the empire stagnated between A.C.E. 80 and 180, under such figures as Hadrian and Trajan. Then, between A.C.E. 180 and 280, the empire collapsed. It was reorganized by Aurelian, Diocletian, and Constantine with a series of measures that centered on banning any change in the technology of the means of production, and very heavy taxation. The Diocletian program led to the depopulation of the cities, serfdom for farmers, and the collapse of civilization into a prolonged Dark Age.
The Roman Empire in the West finally collapsed in A.C.E. 476. But the Roman Empire in the East, sometimes called the Byzantine Empire, continued for almost a thousand years, until 1453. And if the Ottoman Empire is considered as the Ottoman dynasty of an ongoing Byzantine Empire, then the Byzantine Empire kept going until shortly after World War I. With certain exceptions, the ruling dynasties of Byzantium continued the oligarchical policy of Diocletian and Constantine.
Venice, the city built on islands in the lagoons and marshes of the northern Adriatic Sea, is supposed to have been founded by refugees from the Italian mainland who were fleeing from Attila the Hun in A.C.E. 452. Early on, Venice became the location of a Benedictine monastery on the island of St. George Major. St. George is not a Christian saint, but rather a disguise for Apollo, Perseus, and Marduk, idols of the oligarchy. Around A.C.E. 700, the Venetians claim to have elected their first doge, or duke. This post was not hereditary, but was controlled by an election in which only the nobility could take part. For this reason, Venice erroneously called itself a republic.

Venice Was Never Part of Western Civilization

In the years around A.C.E. 800, Charlemagne King of the Franks, using the ideas of St. Augustine, attempted to revive civilization from the Dark Ages. Venice was the enemy of Charlemagne. Charlemagne’s son, King Pepin of Italy, tried unsuccessfully to conquer the Venetian lagoon. Charlemagne was forced to recognize Venice as a part of the eastern or Byzantine Empire, under the protection of the Emperor Nicephorus. Venice was never a part of Western Civilization.
Over the next four centuries, Venice developed as a second capital of the Byzantine Empire through marriage alliances with certain Byzantine dynasties and conflicts with the Holy Roman Empire based in Germany. The Venetian economy grew through usury and slavery. By 1082, the Venetians had tax-free trading rights in the entire Byzantine Empire. The Venetians were one of the main factors behind the Crusades against the Muslim power in the eastern Mediterranean. In the Fourth Crusade of A.C.E. 1202, the Venetians used an army of French feudal knights to capture and loot Constantinople, the Orthodox Christian city which was the capital of the Byzantine Empire. The Venetian doge Enrico Dandolo was declared the lord of one-quarter and one-half of one-quarter of the Byzantine Empire, and the Venetians imposed a short-lived puppet state called the Latin Empire. By this point, Venice had replaced Byzantium as the bearer of the oligarchical heritage of the Roman Empire.
During the 1200’s, the Venetians, now at the apex of their military and naval power, set out to create a new Roman Empire with its center at Venice. They expanded into the Greek islands, the Black Sea, and the Italian mainland. They helped to defeat the Hohenstaufen rulers of Germany and Italy. Venetian intelligence assisted Genghis Khan as he attacked and wiped out powers that had resisted Venice. The Venetians caused the death of the poet and political figure Dante Alighieri, who developed the concept of the modern sovereign nation-state in opposition to the Venetian plans for empire. A series of wars with Genoa led later to the de facto merger of Venice and Genoa. The Venetian bankers, often called Lombards, began to loot many parts of Europe with usurious loans. Henry III of England in the years after 1255 became insolvent after taking huge Lombard loans to finance foreign wars at 120-180 percent interest. These transactions created the basis for the Venetian Party in England. When the Lombard bankers went bankrupt because the English failed to pay, a breakdown crisis of the European economy ensued. This led to a new collapse of European civilization, including the onset of the Black Plague, which depopulated the continent. In the midst of the chaos, the Venetians encouraged their ally Edward III of England, to wage war against France in the conflict that became the Hundred Years War (1339-1453), which hurled France into chaos before St. Joan of Arc defeated the English. This was then followed by the Wars of the Roses in England. As a result of Venetian domination, the Fourteenth century had become a catastrophe for civilization.

The Basis for the Golden Renaissance

In the midst of the crisis of the 1300’s, the friends of Dante and Petrarch laid the basis for the Italian Golden Renaissance, which reached its culmination with Nicolaus of Cusa, Pope Pius II, and the Medici-sponsored Council of Florence of 1439. The Venetians fought the Renaissance with a policy of expansion on the Italian mainland, or terra firma, which brought them to the outskirts of Milan. More fundamentally, the Venetians promoted the pagan philosophy of Aristotle against the Christian Platonism of the Florentines. The school of the Rialto was an Aristotelian academy where Venetian patricians lectured and studied their favorite philosopher. Authors like Barbaro and Bembo popularized an Aristotelian “humanism.” The University of Padua became the great European center for Aristotelian studies.
Venice also encouraged the Ottoman Turks to advance against Constantinople, which was now controlled by the Paleologue dynasty of emperors. When Cusa and his friends succeeded in reuniting the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox and other eastern churches at the Council of Florence, the Venetians tried to sabotage this result. The ultimate sabotage was the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople in 1453, which was assisted by Venetian agents and provocateurs. Venice refused to respond to Pope Pius II (Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini) when he called for the recovery of Constantinople.
The program of Cusa, Pius II, Machiavelli, Leonardo da Vinci, and other Italian Renaissance leaders for the creation of powerful national states proved impossible to carry out in Italy. The first nation-state was created in France by King Louis XI during the 1460’s and 1470’s. The successful nation-building methods of Louis XI compelled attention and imitation in England and Spain. Despite their incessant intrigues, the Venetians were now confronted with large national states whose military power greatly exceeded anything that Venice could mobilize.

The League of Cambrai

The Venetians tried to use the power of the new nation-states, especially France, to crush Milan and allow further Venetian expansion. But ambassadors for the king of France and the Austrian emperor met at Cambrai in December 1508 and agreed to create a European league for the dismemberment of Venice. The League of Cambrai soon included France, Spain, Germany, the Papacy, Milan, Florence, Savoy, Mantua, Ferrara, and others. At the battle of Agnadello in April 1509, the Venetian mercenaries were defeated by the French, and Venice temporarily lost eight hundred years of land conquests.
Venetian diplomacy played on the greed of the Genoese Pope Julius II Della Rovere, who was bribed to break up the League of Cambrai. By rapid diplomatic maneuvers, Venice managed to survive, although foreign armies threatened to overrun the lagoons on several occasions, and the city was nearly bankrupt. Venice’s long-term outlook was very grim, especially because the Portuguese had opened a route to Asia around the Cape of Good Hope. The Venetians considered building a Suez canal, but decided against it.
One result of the Cambrai crisis was the decision of Venetian intelligence to create the Protestant Reformation. The goal was to divide Europe for one to two centuries in religious wars that would prevent any combination like the League of Cambrai from ever again being assembled against Venice. Thus, the leading figure of the Protestant Reformation, the first Protestant in modern Europe, was Venice’s Cardinal Gasparo Contarini, who was also the leader of the Catholic Counter-Reformation. Contarini was a pupil of the Padua Aristotelian Pietro Pomponazzi, who denied the immortality of the human soul. Contarini pioneered the Protestant doctrine of salvation by faith alone, with no regard for good works of charity. Contarini organized a group of Italian Protestants called gli spirituali, including oligarchs like Vittoria Colonna and Giulia Gonzaga. Contarini’s networks encouraged and protected Martin Luther and later John Calvin of Geneva. Contarini sent his neighbor and relative Francesco Zorzi to England to support King Henry VIII’s plan to divorce Catherine of Aragon. Zorzi acted as Henry’s sex counselor. As a result, Henry created the Anglican Church on a Venetian-Byzantine model, and opened a phase of hostility to Spain. Henceforth, the Venetians would use England for attacks on Spain and France. Zorzi created a Rosicrucian-Freemasonic party at the English court that later produced writers like Edmund Spenser and Sir Philip Sydney.
Contarini was also the leader of the Catholic Counter-Reformation. He sponsored St. Ignatius of Loyola and secured papal approval for the creation of the Society of Jesus as an official order of the Church. Contarini also began the process of organizing the Council of Trent with a letter on church reform that praised Aristotle while condemning Erasmus, the leading Platonist of the day. The Venetians dominated the college of cardinals and created the Index of Prohibited Books, which banned works by Dante and Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini (Pope Pius II).
As the Counter-Reformation advanced, the Contarini networks split into two wings. One was the pro-Protestant spirituali, who later evolved into the party of the Venetian oligarchy called the giovani, and who serviced growing networks in France, Holland, England, and Scotland. On the other wing were the zelanti, oriented toward repression and the Inquisition, and typified by Pope Paul IV Caraffa. The zelanti evolved into the oligarchical party called the vecchi, who serviced Venetian networks in the Vatican and the Catholic Hapsburg dominions. The apparent conflict of the two groups was orchestrated to serve Venetian projects.

A New Approach To Destroy Science

During the decades after 1570, the salon of the Ridotto Morosini family was the focus of heirs of the pro-Protestant wing of the Contarini spirituali networks. These were the giovani, whose networks were strongest in the Atlantic powers of France, England, Holland, and Scotland. The central figure here was the Servite monk Paolo Sarpi, assisted by his deputy, Fulgenzio Micanzio. Sarpi was the main Venetian propagandist in the struggle against the papacy during the time of the papal interdict against Venice in 1606. Sarpi and Micanzio were in close touch with the Stuart court in London, and especially with Sir Francis Bacon and Thomas Hobbes, who got their ideas from Sarpi’s Pensieri (Thoughts) and Arte di Ben Pensare (Art of Thinking Well). Sarpi’s agents in Prague, Heidelberg, and Vienna deliberately organized the Thirty Years War, which killed half the population of Germany and one-third of the population of Europe.
Sarpi also marks a turning point in the methods used by Venetian intelligence to combat science. Under Zorzi and Contarini, the Venetians had been openly hostile to Cusa and other leading scientists. Sarpi realized that the Venetians must now present themselves as the great champions of science, but on the basis of Aristotelian formalism and sense certainty. By seizing control of the scientific community from the inside, the Venetians could corrupt scientific method and strangle the process of discovery. Sarpi sponsored and directed the career of Galileo Galilei, whom the Venetians used for an empiricist counterattack against the Platonic method of Johannes Kepler.

Growth of the Venetian Party

During the 1600’s, the Venetian fondi were transferred north, often to the Bank of Amsterdam, and later to the newly founded Bank of England. During the reign of “Bloody” Mary, the Stuart period, the civil war in England, the dictatorship of Cromwell, the Stuart Restoration, and the 1688 installation of William of Orange as King of England by the pro-Venetian English oligarchy, the Venetian Party of England grew in power.
During the first half of the 1700’s, the most important activities of Venetian intelligence were directed by a salon called the conversazione filosofica e felice, which centered around the figure of Antonio Schinella Conti. Conti was a Venetian nobleman, originally a follower of Descartes, who lived for a time in Paris, where he was close to Malebranche. Conti went to London where he became a friend of Sir Isaac Newton. (See Box on Conti and Newton) Conti directed the operations that made Newton an international celebrity, including especially the creation of a pro-Newton party of French Anglophiles and Anglomaniacs who came to be known as the French Enlightenment. Conti’s agents in this effort included Montesquieu and Voltaire. Conti was also active in intrigues against the German philosopher, scientist, and economist Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, whom Conti portrayed as a plagiarist of Newton. Conti also influenced Georg Ludwig of Hanover, later King George I of England, against Leibniz.
The Conti conversazione was also sponsored by the Emo and Memmo oligarchical families. Participants included Giammaria Ortes, the Venetian economist who asserted that the carrying capacity of the planet Earth could never exceed three billion persons. Ortes was a student of the pro-Galileo activist Guido Grandi of Pisa. Ortes applied Newton’s method to the so-called social sciences. Ortes denied the possibility of progress or higher standards of living, supported free trade, opposed dirigist economics, and polemicized against the ideas of the American Revolution. The ideas of Conti, Ortes, and their network were brought into Great Britain under the supervision of William Petty, the Earl of Shelburne, who was the de facto doge of the British oligarchy around the time of the American Revolution. The Shelburne stable of writers, including Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, Thomas Malthus, James Mill, John Stuart Mill, Charles Darwin, and other exponents of British philosophical radicalism, all take their main ideas from Conti and especially Ortes.
Francesco Algarotti, author of a treatise on “Newtonian Science for Ladies,” was another Venetian in the orbit of the Conti conversazione. Algarotti was close to Voltaire, and, along with the French scientist Pierre Louis de Maupertuis, he helped form the homosexual harem around British ally Frederick the Great of Prussia. Frederick the Great was Britain’s principal continental ally during the Seven Years War against France, when British victories in India and Canada made them the supreme naval power of the world. The homosexual Frederick made Algarotti his court chamberlain at his palace of Sans Souci. Maupertuis had become famous when he went to Lapland to measure a degree of the local meridian, and came back claiming that he had confirmed one of Newton’s postulates. Frederick made him the president of the Berlin Academy of Sciences. Frederick corresponded with Voltaire all his life; Voltaire lived at Sans Souci and Berlin between 1750 and 1753. Voltaire quarreled with Maupertuis and attacked him in his “Diatribe of Doctor Akakia.” The mathematicians Leonhard Euler of Switzerland and Joseph Louis Lagrange of Turin were also associated with Fredrick’s cabal.
Venice ceased to exist as an independent state after its conquest by Napoleon in 1797 and the Austrian takeover of the lagoon under the Treaty of Campo Formio. But the influence of the Venetian oligarchy over culture and politics has remained immense to the present day, both directly through its own cultural operations like the European Society of Culture (SEC) and the Cini Foundation, but more significantly, through such British-led institutions of the international oligarchy as the International Monetary Fund, the United Nations, and Prince Philip’s World Wildlife Fund.

Venice: Control Over How People Think

Between A.C.E. 1200 and about A.C.E. 1600, the world center of gravity for the cancerous forces of oligarchism was the oligarchy of Venice. Toward the end of that time, the Venetian oligarchy decided for various reasons to transfer its families, fortunes, and characteristic outlook to a new base of operations, which turned out to be the British Isles. The old program of a worldwide new Roman Empire with its capital in Venice was replaced by the new program of a worldwide new Roman Empire with its capital in London—what eventually came to be known as the British Empire.
This was the metastasis of the cancer, the shift of the Venetian Party from the Adriatic to the banks of the Thames, and this has been the main project of the world oligarchy during the past five centuries. The Venetian Party, wherever it is, believes in epistemological warfare. The Venetian Party knows that ideas are more powerful weapons than guns, fleets, and bombs. In order to secure acceptance for their imperial ideas, the Venetian Party seeks to control the way people think. If you can control the way people think, say the Venetians, you can control the way they respond to events, no matter what those events may be. It is therefore vital to the Venetians to control philosophy and especially science, the area where human powers of hypothesis and creative reason become a force for improvements in the order of nature. The Venetian Party is implacably hostile to scientific discovery. Since the days of Aristotle, they have attempted to suffocate scientific discovery by using formalism and the fetishism of authoritative professional opinion. The Venetian Party has also created over the centuries a series of scientific frauds and hoaxes, which have been elevated to the status of incontrovertible and unchallengeable authorities. These have been used to usurp the rightful honor due to real scientists, whom the Venetians have done everything possible to destroy.
We can identify the Venetian faction which has been responsible for the most important of these scientific and epistemological frauds. We can approach these Venetians in three groups: First there is the group around Pietro Pomponazzi, Gasparo Contarini, and Francesco Zorzi, who were active in the first part of the 1500’s. Second, there is the group of Paolo Sarpi and his right-hand man Fulgenzio Micanzio, the case officers for Galileo Galilei. This was the group that opposed Johannes Kepler in the early 1600’s. Third, we have the group around Antonio Conti and Giammaria Ortes in the early 1700’s. This was the group that created the Newton myth and modern materialism or utilitarianism and combatted Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. These three groups of Venetian game-masters are responsible for a great deal of the obscurantism and garbage that weighs like a nightmare on the brain of humanity today. These Venetian intelligence officials are the original atheists and materialists of the modern world, as reflected in the sympathy of Soviet writers for figures like Galileo, Newton, and Voltaire as ancestors of what was later called Dialectical Materialism.

Paolo Sarpi and Galileo

Galileo Galilei taught mathematics at the University of Padua from 1592 to 1610, and it was during his stay on Venetian territory that he became a celebrity. Galileo was a paid agent of Paolo Sarpi, the chief of Venetian intelligence, and, after Sarpi’s death, of Sarpi’s right-hand man Micanzio.
Galileo’s fame was procured when he used a small telescope to observe the four largest moons of Jupiter, the rings of Saturn, and the phases of Venus. (The first telescope had been built by Leonardo da Vinci about a hundred years before Galileo.) He reported these sightings in his essay The Starry Messenger, which instantly made him the premier scientist in Europe and thus a very important agent of influence for the Venetian Party. This entire telescope operation had been devised by Paolo Sarpi, who wrote about Galileo as “our mathematician.” In 1611, a Polish visitor to Venice, Rey, wrote that the “adviser, author, and director” of Galileo’s telescope project had been Father Paolo Sarpi.
Kepler and Galileo were in frequent contact for over thirty years. In 1609, Kepler published his Astronomia Nova, expounding his first and second laws of planetary motion. Nonetheless, in Galileo’s Dialogues on the Two Great World Systems, published in 1633, Kepler is hardly mentioned. At the end, one of the characters says that he is surprised at Kepler for being so “puerile” as to attribute the tides to the attraction of the Moon.
Sarpi’s achievement for Venetian intelligence was to abstract the method of Aristotle from the mass of opinions expressed by Aristotle on this or that particular issue. In this way, sense certainty could be kept as the basis of scientific experiments, and Aristotle’s embarrassingly outdated views on certain natural phenomena could be jettisoned. In the Art of Thinking Well, Sarpi starts from sense perception and sense certainty. Galileo’s epistemology is identical with that of Sarpi.
For Galileo, the trial before the Inquisition was one of the greatest public relations successes of all time. The gesture of repression against Galileo carried out by the Dominicans of Santa Maria Sopra Minerva in Rome established the equation “Galileo = modern experimental science struggling against benighted obscurantism.” That equation has stood ever since, and this tragic misunderstanding has had terrible consequences for human thought. Lost in the brouhaha about Galileo, is the more relevant fact that Kepler had been condemned by the Inquisition more than a decade before.

Abbot Antonio Conti and Newton

For the oligarchy, Newton and Galileo are the only two contenders for the honor of being the most influential thinker of their faction since Aristotle himself. The British oligarchy praises Newton as the founder of modern science.
But Newton’s real interest was not mathematics or astronomy. It was alchemy. His laboratory at Trinity College, Cambridge was fitted out for alchemy. Here, his friends said, the fires never went out during six weeks of the spring and six weeks of the autumn. And what is alchemy? What kind of research was Newton doing? His sources were books like the Theatrum Chemicum Britannicum of Elias Ashmole, the Rosicrucian leader of British speculative Freemasonry.
Newton’s love of alchemy and magic surfaces as the basis of his outlook, including in his supposed scientific writings. In his Opticks, he asks, “Have not the small particles of bodies certain powers, virtues, or forces, by which they act at a distance. ... How those attractions may be performed, I do not here consider. What I call attraction may be performed by Impulse, or some other means unknown to me.” This is Newton’s notion of gravity as action at a distance, which Leibniz rightly mocked as black magic. Newton’s system was unable to describe anything beyond the interaction of two bodies, and supposed an entropic universe that would have wound down like clockwork if not periodically re-wound.
How then did the current myth of Newton the scientist originate? The apotheosis of Newton was arranged by Antonio Conti of Venice. Conti understood that Newton, kook that he was, represented the ideal cult figure for a new obscurantist concoction of deductive-inductive pseudo-mathematical formalism masquerading as science. Venice needed an English Galileo, and Conti provided the intrigue and the public relations needed to produce one, first through the French networks of Malebranche, and later, Voltaire.

Abbot Antonio Conti and Voltaire

French literary historians are instinctively not friendly to the idea that the most famous Frenchman was a Venetian agent working for Conti, but the proof is convincing. Voltaire knew both Conti personally and Conti’s works.
The book which made Voltaire famous was his Philosophical Letters, sometimes called the English letters, because they are devoted to the exaltation of all things British. Most important, the Philosophical Letters center on the praise of Newton. After chapters on Francis Bacon and John Locke, there are four chapters on Newton, the guts of the work. Voltaire also translated Newton directly, and published Elements of Newtonian Philosophy.
In 1759, Voltaire published his short novel Candide, a distillation of Venetian cultural pessimism expressed as a raving attack on Leibniz, through the vicious caricature Dr. Pangloss. When Candide visits Venice, he meets Senator Pococurante, whom he considers a great genius; Senator Pococurante is clearly a figure of Abbot Antonio Conti. Conti later translated one of Voltaire’s plays, Mérope, into Italian.

Solving the Paradox of Current World History

Lord Palmerston's Multi Cultral Zoo

What you have before you, in the following pages, is what can correctly be described as a lesson in the method of strategic intelligence. This lesson was presented in far more dramatic fashion, including sections of videos and a multitude of other visual aids, during a three-hour session of the Feb. 19-20, 1994 conference of the Schiller Institute and the International Caucus of Labor Committees in Washington, D.C. which was entitled "Lord Palmerston's Multicultural Human Zoo." While it is impossible to fully replicate the impact of such a multi-media panel in written form, a proper approach to reading these transcripts should provide invaluable insight into how current history is being determined.
You note that I do not say that you will find invaluable "information," but rather an understanding of method. It is one of the major methodological pitfalls of intelligence work today, that it seeks to overload the reader with its selection of "facts," while obscuring the methodological assumptions and approach which actually determine the truth or falsehood of what is being conveyed. To convey the truth about how current history is being determined, we were forced to present the entire multi-faceted panel as a unit, so that you can think about it—and behind it—as a unit.
Thus we urge you: Please read this feature story in one sitting, as a totality. The panel was conceived by economist and statesman Lyndon LaRouche as a totality, much as a classical drama by Shakespeare or Schiller is conceived as a totality. The subject of the drama is not represented by any of the historical vignettes presented, nor can it be adequately summarized in an essay. In other words, any fixation on one particular part of the historical presentation will result in a false understanding of the historical puzzle being unraveled.
As in a drama, the "Palmerston Zoo" panel was broken up into scenes, which were connected by the voice of a chorus-commentator. The chorus's purpose is to activate the self-consciousness of the audience, directing its attention to the subject which lies behind the particular stories being told. (In this Feature, the chorus's comments are given in italics at the beginning or end of the presentations.)

The method of paradox

One way of describing the problem being addressed in this panel is this: How did it come about, and how is it perpetuated, that the enemies of humanity—of human creativity—control the course of current history? Just who or what is the enemy? What are the common axioms behind the various ideologies which have served to obstruct mankind's development of civilization over the past 500 years?
To answer this question, the following paradox must be addressed. An analysis of any particular turning point in history, or any national history, must turn out to be wrong. From a consistent analysis of even several particular periods of history, it can only be shown that such an analysis is consistently wrong. Why? Because history itself exemplifies the Parmenides paradox, the paradox of the relationship between the "one" and the "many" presented in Plato's famous dialogue on the Eleatic philosopher Parmenides.
What Plato's Parmenides dialogue demonstrates, through ruling out other alternatives (i.e., in a negative fashion), is that the causal reality behind a phenomenon, or historical period, lies outside that period, in what bounds the particulars.
A particular example may make the paradoxical nature of the problem clearer. From one period of history, it may look as though the enemy of civilization is a movement to destroy the monarchy of a country, whereas in other periods, the enemies of civilization may appear to be those defending the monarchy. To comprehend the actual nature of the enemy, one must understand the anti-human axioms which transcend the question of monarchy versus revolution. Another way to pose the problem is very common in our experience: How can you say that the British, who have no ostensible material power over the world, are dominating the United States, much less world history?
According to this Platonic method, which has been the conscious method of LaRouche and EIR from the start, the only productive approach to intelligence work is to address these "contradictions," or discontinuities in the process. Those who limit themselves to looking for good guys and bad guys in the historical process, will easily find themselves being led down the garden path by intelligence masters of the Venetian or British ilk. It is the system of discontinuities which must become the focus of those who wish to determine history, rather than be led by the nose.
Had there been more time, the panel would have presented more facets of the story, in order to make clear the overall conception of British intelligence. In particular, this would have included a presentation on the Leibnizian philosophical current that served as a foil to the British during the last 300 years. But you will find that it is not information that you lack, in order to get the conception of Lord Palmerston's multicultural human zoo.
And as in all true learning, you're going to have fun.

INTRODUCTION

Speaking from the vantage point of Lord Palmerston's British Empire circa 1850, Schiller Institute U.S. President Webster Tarpley chaired the panel on ``Lord Palmerston's Multicultural Zoo'' at the Schiller Institute's conference on Feb. 20. Tarpley served as tour guide through the centuries, and as the ``choral'' backdrop to the historical drama, introducing each of the seven speakers in turn and concluding the panel. What follows is Tarpley's introduction. Subtitles have been added.
I am now standing in the shadow of the Houses of Parliament in the part of London called Westminster. It is the year of grace 1850. Around me lies Victorian London, the London of Dickens and Thackeray, of John Stuart Mill and Thomas Carlyle. This capital city is now the center of the greatest colonial empire the world has ever known, shortly to embrace between one-fifth and one-fourth of the total population and land area of the Earth. Although in theory there are still empires ruled by the French, the Spanish, the Portuguese, the Dutch, the Belgians, and the Danes, all of these, in this year of 1850, are but the satellites of the British Empire. Britain is the mistress of the seas, the empire upon which the sun never sets. It is the new Rome on the banks of the Thames.
The empress is Queen Victoria, who is largely occupied with Prince Albert in her business of breeding new litters of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to take over the royal houses of Europe. A quarter-century from now Victoria will be made empress of India to reward her for so much breeding. But for all of Victoria's wealth and power, Britain is not really a monarchy; it is an oligarchy on the Venetian model, and the most powerful leader of the British oligarchy in these times, between 1830 and the end of the American Civil War, is Lord Palmerston.
Henry Temple, the third Viscount Palmerston. Palmerston is the man the others--the Russells, Disraelis, and Gladstones--simply cannot match. Palmerston was first a Tory, then a Whig, always a disciple of Jeremy Bentham, and for 35 years there is scarcely a cabinet without Palmerston as foreign secretary or prime minister. In London they call him Lord Cupid, a Regency buck always on the lookout for a new mistress, perfectly at home in a ménage ô trois. On the continent they call him Lord Firebrand. The schoolboys of Vienna sing that if the devil has a son, that son is Lord Palmerston. ``Pam'' is an occultist who loves Satanism and seances. And here, between Big Ben and the Foreign Office, are the haunts of this nineteenth-century devil, Lord Palmerston, old Pam.

A New Roman Empire

It is 1850. Lord Palmerston is engaged in a campaign to make London the undisputed center of a new, worldwide Roman Empire. He is attempting to conquer the world in the way that the British have already conquered India, reducing every other nation to the role of a puppet, client, and fall-guy for British imperial policy. Lord Palmerston's campaign is not a secret. He has declared it here in the Houses of Parliament, saying that wherever in the world a British subject goes, he can flaunt the laws, secure that the British fleet will support him. ``Civis Romanus sum, every Briton is a citizen of this new Rome,'' thundered Lord Palmerston, and with that, the universal empire was proclaimed.

During the Napoleonic Wars, the British managed to conquer most of the world outside of Europe, with the exception of the United States. After 1815, the French--be they restored Bourbons, Orleanists, or Bonapartists--are generally pliant tools of London.

But in central and eastern Europe, there was Prince Metternich's Austrian Empire, a very strong land power. There was vast Imperial Russia, under the autocrat Nicholas I or the reformer Alexander II. There was the Kingdom of Prussia. Lord Palmerston likes to call these the ``arbitrary powers.'' Above all, Palmerston hated Metternich, the embodiment and ideologue of the Congress of Vienna system. Metternich presided over one of the most pervasive police states in history. Men said his rule was shored up by a standing army of soldiers, a sitting army of bureaucrats, a kneeling army of priests, and a creeping army of informers.

For Britain to rule the world, the Holy Alliance of Austria, Russia, and Prussia had to be broken up. There is also the matter of the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire. Starting with Lord Byron's Greek Revolution in the 1820s, British policy has been to play the card of national liberation against each of these rival empires.

The imperial theme was sounded in 1846 with the free trade policy, Britain's declaration of intent to loot the world in the name of the pound. Then, in January 1848, Lord Palmerston arranged an insurrection in Sicily, using British networks that went back to Lord Nelson.

That started the great revolutionary year of 1848, and in the course of that year, every government in Europe was toppled, and every monarchy badly shaken, at least for a time. Metternich of Austria and King Louis Philippe of France fled to London, where they now spend their time playing cards. There was war in Italy, civil war in Austria, barricades in Paris, and tumult in Germany.

The only exception to the rule was Russia, and now Lord Palmerston is preparing to invade Russia, with the help of his strategic catamite, Napoléon III, also known as Napoléon le Petit. That will start in about three years, and it will be called the Crimean War. As soon as the war against Russia is over, Palmerston and John Stuart Mill at the British East India Company will start the Great Mutiny in India, which some historians will call the Sepoy Rebellion. Muslim soldiers will be told that new cartridges are greased with pig fat, Hindu soldiers will be told the cartridges are greased with cow fat, and the result will be what you would expect. But in the conflagration the British will get rid of the Great Mogul and the Mogul Empire, and impose their direct rule in all of India. Typical John Stuart Mill. He, of course, is the author of ``On Liberty.''

The British would like to give China the same treatment they are giving India. Since 1842, Palmerston and the East India Company have been waging Opium Wars against the Chinese Empire, partly to get them to open their ports to opium from India, and also as a way to conquer China. Already the British have Hong Kong and the other treaty ports. By 1860, the British will be in Beijing, looting and burning the summer palace of the emperor.

Shortly after that, the British will back Napoléon in his project of putting a Hapsburg archduke on the throne of an ephemeral Mexican Empire--the Maximilian Project. These projects will be closely coordinated with Palmerston's plans to eliminate the only two nations still able to oppose him--the Russia of Alexander II and the United States of Abraham Lincoln. Lord Palmerston will be the evil demiurge of the American Civil War, the mastermind of secession, far more important for the Confederacy than Jefferson Davis or Robert E. Lee. And in the midst of that war, Palmerston will detonate a rebellion in Poland against Russian rule, not for the sake of Poland, but for the sake of starting a general European war against Russia.

But when the Russian fleets sail into New York and San Francisco, when Lee's wave breaks at Gettysburg, when the Stars and Bars are lowered over Vicksburg, the British Empire will be stopped--just short of its goal. Just short--and yet, British hegemony will still be great enough to launch the two world wars of the twentieth century, and the third conflagration that will start in 1991. And as we look forward for a century and a half from 1850, British geopolitics, despite the challenges, despite the defeats, despite the putrefaction of Britain itself, will remain the dominant factor in world affairs.

Palmerston's Three Stooges

How do the British do it? How can a clique of depraved aristocrats on this tight little island bid to rule the entire world? Don't believe the stories about the workshop of the world; there are some factories here, but Britain lives by looting the colonies. The fleet is formidable, but also overrated, and very vulnerable to serious challenges. The army is third-rate. But the British have learned from the Venetians that the greatest force in history is the force of ideas, and that if you can control culture, you can control the way people think, and then statesmen and fleets and armies will bend to your will.

Take our friend Lord Palmerston. Pam has the Foreign Office, the Home Office, and Whitehall, but when he needed to start the 1848 revolutions, or when the time will come for the American Civil War, he turns to a troika of agents.

They are Lord Palmerston's Three Stooges. But instead of Moe, Larry, and Curly, these Three Stooges are named Giuseppe Mazzini, Louis Napoléon Bonaparte, and David Urquhart. These Three Stooges--far more than the Union Jack, Victoria, the bulldog breed, the thin gray line of heroes, and the fleet--are the heart of what is called the British Empire.

We will get to know Lord Palmerston's Three Stooges better. But first, one thing must be understood. Moe, Larry, and Curly often had to work together on this or that project. But their relations were never exactly placid.

[Slapstick episode from a ``The Three Stooges'' movie is shown to the audience.]

You understand: Their stock in trade was infantile violence. So do not be surprised if we find Palmerston's Three Stooges lashing out with slanders, knives, and bombs against each other, and even against their august master, Lord Palmerston himself.

Under Lord Palmerston England supports all revolutions--except her own--and the leading revolutionary in Her Majesty's Secret Service is Giuseppe Mazzini, our first Stooge.

Mazzini's terrorist revolution

Mazzini has concocted a very effective terrorist belief structure. Mazzini is a Genoese admirer of the diabolical Venetian friar Paolo Sarpi. Mazzini's father was a physician to Queen Victoria's father. For a while Mazzini worked for the Carbonari, one of Napoléon's freemasonic fronts. Then, in 1831, Mazzini founded his Young Italy secret society. Louis Napoléon Bonaparte, today's President of France, sent him articles for his magazine. Mazzini's cry is ``God and the People,'' ``Dio e Popolo,'' which means that the people are the new God. Populism becomes an ersatz religion. Mazzini teaches that Christianity developed the human individual, but that the era of Christianity, of freedom, of human rights, is now over. From now on, the protagonists of history are not individuals any more, but peoples, understood as racial nationalities. Mazzini is adamant that there are no inalienable human rights. There is only Duty, the duty of thought and action to serve the destiny of the racial collectivities. ``Liberty,'' says Mazzini, ``is not the negation of all authority; it is the negation of every authority that fails to represent the Collective Aim of the Nation.'' There is no individual human soul, only a collective soul. According to Mazzini, the Catholic Church, the papacy, and every other institution which attempts to bring God to man must be abolished. Every national grouping that can be identified must be given independence and self-determination in a centralized dictatorship. In the coming century, Mussolini and the Italian Fascists will repeat many of Mazzini's ideas verbatim.
Mazzini thinks that each modern nation has a ``mission'': The British would take care of Industry and Colonies; the Poles, leadership of the Slavic world; the Russians, the civilizing of Asia. The French get Action, the Germans get Thought, and so forth. For some strange reason, there is no mission for Ireland, so Mazzini does not support the independence of Ireland. There is only one monarchy which Mazzini supports, because he says it has deep roots among the people: You guessed it, Queen Victoria.

Mazzini preaches an Italian revolution for the Third Rome: After the Rome of the Caesars and the Rome of the Popes comes the Rome of the People. For this, the pope must be driven out. Mazzini has tried to put this into practice just last year. In November 1848, armed Young Italy gangs forced Pope Pius IX to flee from Rome to Naples. From March to June of 1849, Mazzini ruled the Papal States as one of three dictators, all Grand Orient Freemasons. During that time, death squads operated in Rome, Ancona, and other cities. Some churches were sacked, and many confessionals were burned. For Easter 1849, Mazzini staged a monstrous mock Eucharist in the Vatican he called the Novum Pascha, featuring himself, God, and the People. During this time he was planning to set up his own Italian national church on the Anglican model.

The defense of Rome was organized by Giuseppe Garibaldi, who had joined Mazzini's Young Italy in the early 1830s. But a French army sent by fellow Stooge Louis Napoléon drove out Mazzini, Garibaldi, and their supporters. Lord Palmerston said that Mazzini's regime in Rome was ``far better than any the Romans have had for centuries.''

Right now Mazzini is here in London, enjoying the support of Lord Ashley, the Earl of Shaftesbury, a Protestant fanatic who also happens to be Lord Palmerston's son-in-law. Mazzini's direct access to the British government payroll comes through James Stansfeld, a junior Lord of the Admiralty and a very high official of British intelligence. Last year, Stansfeld provided the money for Mazzini's Roman Republic. Stansfeld's father-in-law, William Henry Ashurst, is another of Mazzini's patrons, as is John Bowring of the Foreign Office, the man who will provoke the second Opium War against China. Bowring is Jeremy Bentham's literary executor. John Stuart Mill of India House is another of Mazzini's friends. Mazzini is close to the protofascist writer Thomas Carlyle, and has been having an affair with Carlyle's wife.

One of Metternich's henchmen has said that Palmerston's policy is to make Italy turbulent, which is bad for Austria, without making her powerful, which would harm England. Mazzini's role in Italy has been that of a marplot, a wrecker, a terrorist, an assassin. His specialty is sending his brainwashed dupes to their deaths in terrorist attacks. He hides out and always succeeds in saving himself. Mazzini travels readily on the continent using false passports, posing as an American, an Englishman, a rabbi.

In the thirties and forties, Mazzini was targeting Piedmont in the north, and the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies in the south. In 1848, he rushed to Milan as soon as the Austrians had been driven out and tried to start trouble. One of Mazzini's agents, General Ramorino, let the Austrian commander Radetzky outflank the Piedmontese and win the battle of Novara. Ramorino was executed for treason, but Piedmont had lost the first war for Italian liberation. The king abdicated, and Mazzini tried to break up Piedmont with a revolt in Genoa. Three years from now, Mazzini will stage an abortive revolt against the Austrians in Milan, mainly to stop Russia from allying with Austria in the Crimean War. A few years after that Mazzini will try another insurrection in Genova, still trying to break up Piedmont. In 1860, he will encourage Garibaldi to sail to Sicily, and then try to provoke a civil war between Garibaldi's dictatorship in the south and Cavour's Piedmontese government in the north. In 1860, he will be thrown out of Naples as a provocateur. By that time, Mazzini will be a hated and reviled figure, but British propaganda and British support will keep him going.

Mazzini is also an assassination bureau. In 1848, there was a chance that Pius IX's very capable reforming minister Pellegrino Rossi could unify Italy and solve the Roman Question in a constructive way, through an Italian confederation, chaired by the pope, arranged with Gioberti, Cavour, and other Piedmontese. Mazzini's agents, members of Young Italy, stabbed Pellegrino Rossi to death. The killer was in touch with Lord Minto, Palmerston's special envoy for Italy.

Stooge violence between Mazzini and Napoléon III is always intense, especially after Napoléon's army finished off Mazzini's Roman Republic. In 1855, a Mazzini agent named Giovanni Pianori will attempt to kill Napoléon III, and a French court will convict Mazzini. Have Napoléon's forces outshone the bungling British in the Crimea? Are the British nervous about Napoléon's new ironclad battleship, when they have none? Attempts to kill Napoléon are financed by the Tibaldi Fund, run by Mazzini and set up by Sir James Stansfeld of the Admiralty.

Later, in February 1858, there will be an attempt to blow up Napoléon by one of Mazzini's closest and best-known lieutenants from the Roman Republic, Felice Orsini. Napoléon will get the message that it is time to get busy and start a war against Austria in 1859.

At other times, Mazzini tried to kill King Carlo Alberto of Piedmont. Mazzini's Young Italy is always the party of the dagger, of the stiletto. ``In the hands of Judith, the sword which cut short the life of Holofernes was holy; holy was the dagger which Harmodius crowned with roses; holy was the dagger of Brutus; holy the poniard of the Sicilian who began the Vespers; holy the arrow of Tell.'' Vintage Mazzini. London's future ability to assassinate men like Walter Rathenau, Jürgen Ponto, Aldo Moro, Alfred Herrhausen, Detlev Rohwedder, stretches back in unbroken continuity to the Mazzini networks of today.

Mazzini is actually doing everything he can to prevent Italian unity. When unity comes, 20 years from now, it will come in the form of a highly centralized state dominated by Grand Orient Freemasons. For 30 years the prime ministers will be Mazzini's agents, like DePretis and Crispi. Because of the violent liquidation of the Papal States, the Catholics will refuse to take part in politics. Italy will remain weak, poor, and divided. After Mussolini, the Italian Republican Party will identify with Mazzini, and Ugo LaMalfa and his friends will continue Mazzini's efforts to make sure that Italy is weak and divided, bringing down one government after another, and ruining the economy.
The Ethnic Theme Parks of Mazzini's Zoo
Mazzini's work for the British extends far beyond Italy. Like the Foreign Office and the Admiralty which he serves, Mazzini encompasses the world. The Mazzini networks offer us a fascinating array of movements and personalities. There are agents and dupes, professional killers, fellow-travelers, and criminal energy types. Mazzini's court of miracles was a public scandal. Leopold of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, now the king of Belgium, has been complaining to his niece Queen Victoria that in London there is maintained ``a sort of menagerie of Kossuths, Mazzinis, Legranges, Ledru-Rollins, etc. ... to let loose occasionally on the continent to render its quiet and prosperity impossible.''

Indeed. On Feb. 21, 1854, this crew will come together at the home of the American consul, George Sanders: Mazzini, Felice Orsini, Garibaldi, Louis Kossuth, Arnold Ruge, Ledru-Rollin, Stanley Worcell, Aleksandr Herzen, and U.S. traitor and future President James Buchanan. There will also be a Peabody from the counting house.

We can think of Mazzini as the zookeeper of a universal human zoo. Mazzini's human zoo is divided into theme parks or pavilions, one for each ethnic group. In a normal zoo there is an elephant house, a monkey house, an alligator pond, and the like. In Mazzini's human zoo there is an Italian house, a Russian house, a Hungarian house, a Polish house, an American house. Let us walk through the various theme parks in the zoo and identify some of the specimens.

Young Italy, as we have seen, was founded in 1831, attracting the young sailor Giuseppe Garibaldi and Louis Napoléon. Shortly thereafter there followed Young Poland, whose leaders included the revolutionaries Lelewel and Worcell. Then came Young Germany, featuring Arnold Ruge, who had published some material by an obscure German ``red republican'' named Karl Marx. This is the Young Germany satirized by Heinrich Heine. In 1834, Mazzini founded ``Young Europe,'' with Italian, Swiss, German, and Polish components. Young Europe was billed as the Holy Alliance of the Peoples, opposed to Metternich's Holy Alliance of despots. By 1835, there was also a Young Switzerland. In that same year Mazzini launched Young France. The guiding light here was Ledru-Rollin, who later became the interior minister in Lamartine's short-lived Second French Republic of 1848. There was also Young Corsica, which was the mafia.

By the end of this century we will have a Young Argentina (founded by Garibaldi), Young Bosnia, Young India, Young Russia, Young Armenia, Young Egypt, the Young Czechs, plus similar groupings in Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Greece. Mazzini is especially interested in creating a south Slavic federation dominated by Belgrade, and for that reason, he has a Serbian organization. That will have to wait for Mazzini's student Woodrow Wilson and the Versailles peace conference of 1919. Right now, a masonic group in the United States is gearing up to support the pro-slavery doughface Franklin Pierce for President in 1852; they are the radical wing of the Democratic Party, and they call themselves Young America. In the future there will be the Young Turks. And yes, there is also a Palmerston-Mazzini group for Jews, sometimes called Young Israel, and sometimes called B'nai B'rith.

For Mazzini, a nationality means a race, a fixed array of behavior like a breed of dog or a species of animal. He is not thinking of a national community united by a literate language and a classical culture to which any person can become assimilated through a political choice. For Mazzini, race is unchangeable, and race is destiny. It is a matter of blood and soil. Cats fight dogs, French fight Germans, Germans fight Poles, and so on through all eternity. These hatreds are the main datum of sensory perception.

Each of Mazzini's organizations demands immediate national liberation for its own ethnic group on the basis of aggressive chauvinism and expansionism. Mazzini's warhorse is the Territorial Imperative. Each is obsessed with borders and territory, and each finds a way to oppose and sabotage dirigist economic development. Each one is eager to submerge and repress other national groupings in pursuit of its own mystical destiny. This is Mazzini's racist gospel of universal ethnic cleansing.

We have seen some Italian cages; next comes the Hungarian theme park in the zoo. Our principal specimen here is Louis Kossuth, a leader of the Hungarian revolution of 1848-49. Kossuth was for free trade. He wanted equal status for Hungarians in the Austrian Empire--equal with the Austrians. But within the Hungarian part of the Hapsburg Empire there were many other national groups--Poles, Ukrainians, Germans, Serbs, Romanians, Croatians, and others. Would they receive political and linguistic autonomy? Kossuth's answer was to ban all official use of the Slavic and Romanian languages in favor of Hungarian. Kossuth was therefore on course for a bloody collision with the Illyrian movement for Greater Croatia, and with the military forces of the Croatian leader Jellacich. There was also conflict with the Serbs. Mazzini had promised the same territories to Hungary, to the Illyrian Croatians, and to his Serbian south Slav entity. Then there was the question of Transylvania, claimed by the Hungarians but also by the Young Romania of Dimitirie Golescu, another Mazzini agent. Young Romania's program was to restore the Kingdom of Dacia as it had existed before the Roman Emperor Trajan. So Young Hungary and Young Romania were pre-programmed to fight to the death over Transylvania, which they did, last year. Because of the ceaseless strife of Hungarians and Croatians, Hungarians and Serbians, Hungarians and Romanians, it proved possible for the Hapsburgs to save their police state with the help of a Russian army.

The ethnic theme houses of the zoo thus sally forth to fight, not only Hapsburgs and Romanovs, but most of all, each other. We will find the same thing in viewing the Polish and Russian pavilions.

The Young Poland of Lelewel and Worcell demands the re-creation of the Polish state and rollback of the 1772-95 partitions of Poland. But they go much further, laying claim to Poland in its old Jagiellonian borders, stretching from the shores of the Baltic to the shores of the Black Sea. This includes an explicit denial that any Ukrainian nation exists. In the orbit of Young Poland is the poet Adam Mickiewicz, a close friend of Mazzini's who was with him last year during the Roman Republic. Mickiewicz argues that Poland is special because it has suffered more than any other nation; Poland is ``the Christ among nations.'' Mickiewicz dreams of uniting all the west and south Slavs against the ``tyrant of the north,'' the ``barbarians of the north.'' By this he means Russia, the main target. Young Poland's program also foreshadows the obvious conflict with Young Germany over Silesia.

Young Russia means the anarchist Mikhail Bakunin and the aristocratic ideologue Aleksandr Herzen. Herzen is an agent of Baron James Rothschild of Paris. Right after the Crimean War, Herzen will start publishing The Polar Star and The Bell, both leak sheets for British secret intelligence that will build up their readership by divulging Russian state secrets. Herzen's obvious target is Czar Alexander II, the ally of Lincoln. Herzen prints the ravings of Bakunin, who preaches pan-Slavism, meaning that Russia will take over all the other Slavic nations. ``Out of an ocean of blood and fire there will rise in Moscow high in the sky the star of the revolution to become the guide of liberated mankind.'' Vintage Bakunin. If Mazzini relies on the stiletto, for Bakunin it is ``the peasant's axe'' that will bring down the ``German'' regime in St. Petersburg.

Herzen is interested in sabotaging Alexander II and his policy of real, anti-British reform in Russia. To block real industrial capitalist development, he preaches reliance on the aboriginal Slavic village, the mir, with ``communal ownership of the land'' plus the ancient Slavic workshop, the artel. The mir will never build the Trans-Siberian railway. Herzen sees Russia as the ``center of crystallization'' for the entire Slavic world. Herzen, although he is usually called a ``westernizer,'' is totally hostile to western civilization. He writes of the need for a ``new Attila,'' perhaps Russian, perhaps American, perhaps both, who will be able to tear down the old Europe. In the moment when the British will seem so close to winning everything, Herzen will support Palmerston's Polish insurrection of 1863, and will lose most of his readers. Once the American Civil War is over, the British will have little use for Herzen. By then, London will be betting on the nihilist terrorists of the Narodnaya Volya (People's Will), who will finally kill Alexander II, plus the Russian legal Marxists, all British agents. But already today we can see the conflicts ahead between Young Poland and Young Russia. In the conflicts among Mazzini's national chauvinist operations, we can see the roots of the slaughter of World War I.

Now, let us view the cages in the American theme park in Mazzini's human zoo. This is Young America. The name was popularized in 1845 by Edwin DeLeon, the son of a Scottish Rite, Jewish slave-trading family of Charleston, South Carolina. Edwin DeLeon will later be one of the leaders of the Confederate espionage organization in Europe. The leader of Young America is George N. Sanders, the future editor of the Democratic Review. Young America's view of Manifest Destiny is a slave empire in Mexico and the Caribbean. In the 1852 election, Young America will back the dark horse doughface Democrat, Franklin Pierce, against the patriot Winfield Scott. Scott's Whig Party will be destroyed. Young America operatives will receive important posts in London, Madrid, Turin, and other European capitals. Here they will support Mazzini and his gang.

Mazzini's American contacts are either proto-Confederates or strict abolitionists, such as William Lloyd Garrison. During the American Civil War, Mazzini will favor both the abolition of slavery and the destruction of the Union through secessionism--the London line. This subversion will be showcased during the famous tour of Kossuth in the United States, next year and the year after. Kossuth will be accompanied by Mazzini's moneybags, the Tuscan Freemason Adriano Lemmi. On the eve of the Crimean War, with Palmerston doing everything to isolate Russia, Kossuth's line will be that the ``tree of evil and despotism'' in Europe ``is Russia.'' Kossuth will try to blame even the problems of Italy on Russia. Despite Kossuth's efforts, the United States will emerge as the only power friendly to Russia during the Crimean conflict. Kossuth will call for the United States to join with England and France in war against Russia--Lord Palmerston's dream scenario.

Kossuth will refuse to call for the abolition of slavery. Kossuth will get on well with the slaveholders, since he will also be attempting to mediate a U.S. seizure of Cuba, which meshes perfectly with the secessionist program.
The Second Stooge: David Urquhart
Mazzini is the zookeeper for all of these theme parks. But there are other zookeepers, and still more theme parks in the human, multicultural zoo. The custodians are Palmerston's two other Stooges, David Urquhart and Napoléon III.

There is also a theme park for the English lower orders. The keeper here is the strange and eccentric Scot, David Urquhart, the most aristocratic of Palmerston's Stooges. Urquhart was chosen for his work directly by Jeremy Bentham, who lavishly praised ``our David'' in his letters. Urquhart took part in Lord Byron's Greek revolution, but then found he liked Turks better after all. He secured a post at the British Embassy in Constantinople and ``went native,'' becoming an Ottoman pasha in his lifestyle. Urquhart's positive contribution to civilization was his popularization of the Turkish bath. He also kept a harem for some time. Urquhart also thought that late Ottoman feudalism was a model of what civilization ought to be. In Turkey, Urquhart became convinced that all the evil in the world had a single root: Russia, the machinations of the court of St. Petersburg. A very convenient view for Palmerston's Britain, which was always on the verge of war with Russia. For Urquhart, the unification of Italy is a Russian plot. He once met Mazzini, and concluded after ten minutes that Mazzini was a Russian agent! The usual Stooge on Stooge violence again! For this Russophobe, the problem of Great Britain is that Palmerston is a Russian agent, having been recruited by one of his many mistresses, the Russian Countess Lieven. During the years of Chartist agitation, Urquhart bought up working class leaders and drilled them in the litany that all of the problems of the English working man came from Russia via Lord Palmerston. To these workers Urquhart teaches something he calls dialectics. Urquhart will be a member of Parliament and he controls a weekly paper, The Free Press.

Palmerston understands that his subversive methods will always generate opposition from the Tory gentry and the straight-laced crowd. So he has taken the precaution of institutionalizing that opposition under his own control, with a raving megalomaniac leader to discredit it. Urquhart's demonization of Russia foreshadows something that will be called McCarthyism a century from now.

Urquhart's remedy is to go back to the simplicity of character of Merrie England, in the sense of retrogression to bucolic medieval myth. ``The people of England were better clothed and fed when there was no commerce and when there were no factories.'' That is vintage Urquhart.

Does this talk of pre-capitalist economic formations strike a familiar chord? Do you smell a big, fat commie rat?

How interesting that Urquhart should be the controller of British agent Karl Marx, who earns his keep as a writer for Urquhart's paper. David Urquhart is the founder of modern communism! It is Urquhart who will prescribe the plan for Das Kapital. Marx is a professed admirer of Urquhart--acknowledging his influence more than that of any other living person. Marx will even compose a Life of Lord Palmerston, based on Urquhart's wild obsession that Pam is a Russian agent of influence. This says enough about Marx's acumen as a political analyst. Marx and Urquhart agree that there is no real absolute profit in capitalism, and that technological progress causes a falling rate of profit.

Another of Urquhart's operatives is Lothar Bücher, a confidant of the German labor leader Lassalle, and later of the Iron Chancellor, Otto von Bismarck himself. After Gettysburg, Urquhart will move to France, and open a theme park for right-wing Catholics; he will meet Pius IX and will join members of Cardinal Newman's Oxford Movement at the First Vatican Council in 1870.

The Third Stooge: Napoléon III

Our third Stooge is the current President and soon-to-be emperor of France, Napoléon III. Napoléon le Petit. As we have seen, he started off as a Carbonaro and terrorist in contact with Mazzini. In 1836, Napoléon tried to parlay his famous name into a successful putsch; he failed and was exiled to America. Then Napoléon was given a private study at the new British Museum reading room and frequented Lord Palmerston. He began work on his book, Les Idées Napoléoniques. His main idea was that the original Napoléon was not wrong to be an imperialist, but only erred in trying to expand his empire at the expense of Great Britain. There is plenty of room for a French Empire as a junior partner to the British. The preferred form of government would be democratic Caesarism, with frequent plebiscites.
In 1848 Napoléon was working for the British as a special constable--a riot cop--to put down an expected Chartist revolution; he was then shipped to Paris. There Napoléon III used his name to become President, and then organized a coup d'état that made him emperor. Palmerston quickly endorsed the coup, causing hysteria on the part of the Victoria and Albert palace clique. Palmerston was forced out, but he was soon back, stronger than ever.
After hundreds of years of warfare, France at last had been broken, placed under a more or less dependable British puppet regime. The ``western powers,'' the ``Anglo-French,'' were born. Napoléon III gave Palmerston one indispensable ingredient for his imperial strategy: a powerful land army. Soon an open Anglo-French entente was in full swing. When Victoria came to Paris it was the first such visit by an English sovereign since Henry VI had been crowned King of France in Notre Dame in 1431. When Napoléon joined Palmerston in attacking Russia in the Crimea, it was the first war in 400 years to see France and England on the same side.

The French pavilion of the zoo is being redecorated with a new version of British empiricism: This is positivism, the miserable outlook of Auguste Comte and Ernest Renan. This will lead to the French structuralists, ethnologists, and even deconstructionists of the late twentieth century.

Napoléon III is Palmerston's strategic catamite, usually with as much will of his own as an inflatable sex doll. Think of him as a blow-up British agent. After the Crimea, Palmerston will need a land war against Austria in northern Italy. Napoléon, egged on by Camillo Benso di Cavour who knows how to play the interstices, will oblige with the war of 1859 and the great Battle of Solferino. When the time will come for Maximilian's Mexican adventure, Napoléon will be eager to send a fleet and an army. During the American Civil War, Napoléon's pro-Confederate stance will be even more aggressive than Palmerston's own. In 1870, Bismarck will defeat Napoléon and send him into exile in England. Here Napoléon will plan a comeback after the Paris Commune, but he will need to be seen on horseback, and he has a bladder ailment. The bladder operation designed to make him a man on horseback once again will instead kill him.

Napoléon III calls himself a socialist and will style the latter phase of his regime ``the liberal empire.'' That means all of France as a theme park in the British zoo. In 1860 Napoléon will sign a free trade treaty with the British. Along the way, he will pick up a junior partner colonial empire in Senegal and in Indo-China in 1862, something that will set the stage for the Vietnam War a century later. Under Napoléon, France will build the Suez Canal, only to have it fall under the control of the British. Napoléon III will furnish the prototype for the fascist dictators of the twentieth century. After his defeat in the Franco-Prussian war, he will bequeath to France a party of proto-fascist colonialists and revanchists beating the drum for Alsace-Lorraine, which Napoléon will lose to Bismarck. These revanchists will turn up again in Vichy, the Fourth Republic, and the French Socialist Party of today.
And so it will come to pass that Lord Palmerston will attempt to rule the world through the agency of a triumvirate of Stooges, each one the warden of some pavilions of a human zoo.

The reason why must now be confronted.

The ideology of British Imperialism

The British Empire exists in the mind of its victims. This is the empire of senses, of sense certainty, the empire of empiricism. It is the empire of British philosophical radicalism, of utilitarianism, of hedonistic calculus, existentialism, and pragmatism.
Why are the British liberal imperialists called the Venetian Party?

Well, for one thing, they call themselves the Venetian Party. The future prime minister Benjamin Disraeli will write in his novel Conningsby that the Whig aristocrats of 1688 wanted ``to establish in England a high aristocratic republic on the model of [Venice], making the kings into doges, and with a `Venetian constitution.'|''

During the years after the Council of Florence in 1439, the Venetian enemies of Nicolaus of Cusa plotted to wage war on the Italian High Renaissance and Cusa's ecumenical project. To combat Cusa's Renaissance Platonism, the Venetians of the Rialto and Padua turned to a new-look Aristotelianism, featuring Aristotle's characteristic outlook shorn of its medieval-scholastic and Averroist outgrowths.

This was expressed in the work of Pietro Pomponazzi, and in that of Pomponazzi's pupil, Gasparo Contarini. During the War of the League of Cambrai of 1509-17, an alliance of virtually every power in Europe threatened to wipe out the Venetian oligarchy. The Venetians knew that France or Spain could crush them like so many flies. The Venetians responded by launching the Protestant Reformation with three proto-Stooges--Luther, Calvin, and Henry VIII. At the same time, Contarini and his Jesuits made Aristotle a central component of the Catholic Counter-Reformation and the Council of Trent, and put Dante and Piccolomini on the Index of Prohibited Books. The result was a century and a half of wars of religion, and a ``little dark age,'' culminating in the Great Crisis of the seventeenth century.

Venice was a cancer consciously planning its own metastasis. From their lagoon, the Venetians chose a swamp and an island facing the North Atlantic--Holland and the British Isles. Here the hegemomic Giovani party would relocate their family fortunes, their fondi, and their characteristic epistemology. France was also colonized, but the main bets were placed further north. First, Contarini's relative and neighbor Francesco Zorzi was sent to serve as sex adviser to Henry VIII, whose raging libido would be the key to Venetian hopes. Zorzi brought Rosicrucian mysticism and Freemasonry to a land that Venetian bankers had been looting for centuries. The Venetian Party in England grew under the early Stuarts as Francis Bacon and his wife Thomas Hobbes imported the neo-Aristotelianism of Fra Paolo Sarpi, the great Venetian gamemaster of the early 1600s, the architect of the Thirty Years' War.

When James I and Charles I disappointed the Venetians in that Thirty Years' War, Cromwell, Milton, and a menagerie of sectarians were brought to power in an all-Protestant civil war and Commonwealth. This was the time of the Irish genocide and the foundation of the overseas empire in Jamaica. After the depravity of the Restoration, the ``Glorious Revolution'' of 1688 gave birth to the most perfect imitation of the Venetian oligarchical system ever created. The great Whig and Tory aristocrats set as their goal a new, world-encompassing Roman Empire with its center in London. After the defeat of Leibniz's attempt to save England, Great Britain set off on the path of empire with its new Hanoverian Guelph dynasty.

The War of the Spanish Succession in 1702-13 was the first war fought on a world scale and the last gasp for rivals Spain and Holland. The Peace of Utrecht left the British supreme on the oceans. Louis XIV and Colbert were defeated by divide-and-conquer Venetian geopolitics, as British cash was used to hire states like Brandenburg and Savoy to fight the French. By winning the coveted asiento, the monopoly on slave commerce with Spanish America, the British became the biggest slave merchants in the world. The wealth of Bristol and Liverpool would be built on slaves.

After several decades of Walpole and the Hell-Fire Clubs, there came the great war of the mid-eighteenth century, the Austrian Succession followed by the Seven Years' War. This was the end of France as a naval power and worldwide rival for the British. William Pitt, Earl of Chatham, subsidized Frederick the Great of Prussia to win an empire on the plains of Germany. The British took Ft. Louisburg and then seized Quebec City, driving the French out of Canada. The British became the paramount power in India. The British oligarchs of the day, like their successors after 1989, were convinced that they could run wild, violating the laws of nature without penalty, for nothing could now stand against them. But, in loading the American colonies with their prohibitions of settlement and manufacture, their Quebec Act, Stamp Acts, Townsend Acts, and Intolerable Acts, they set the stage for the American Revolution.

In these years William Petty, Earl of Shelburne and Marquis of Lansdowne, gathered a stable of ideologues and operatives, his stooges. These were Jeremy Bentham, Adam Smith, Edward Gibbon. These were the founders of British philosophical radicalism, the most primitive form of Aristotle yet devised, and its Siamese twin, free trade. Shelburne was defeated by the superior ability of Hamilton, Franklin, and Washington, but he did succeed in destabilizing and nearly destroying France. The reign of terror in the French Revolution was the work of agents and dupes of Shelburne among the Jacobins, enragés, and sans-culottes.

By now British policy was in the hands of Shelburne's student and protégé, William Pitt the Younger. After letting the Jacobin horrors of Bentham's agents brew up for three years, Pitt was able to unite the continental powers against France in the first, second, and third coalitions. Using the armies raised by Lazare Carnot, Napoléon shattered each of these coalitions. Napoléon's final defeat was the work of Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, and the Prussian reformers, but the beneficiaries were the British.

At the Congress of Vienna in 1815, the British were clearly the dominant force, but they were still obliged to make deals with Metternich, Russia, and Prussia. But under the regimes of Castlereagh and Canning, the oligarchical stupidity, greed, and incompetence of Metternich and Co. made possible the revolts and revolutions of 1820, 1825, and 1830. By 1830, Lord Palmerston was ready to take control of the Foreign Office and begin his direct march to undisputed world domination. Metternich was still sitting on the lid of the boiling European cauldron, but Lord Palmerston and his Three Stooges were stoking the flames underneath.

There was a time when the center of oligarchy, usury, and geopolitics was Venice, the group of islands in a lagoon at the top of the Adriatic. In the sixteenth century, in the wake of the war of the League of Cambrai, Venice was a cancer planning its own metastasis. These were the years during which the patrician party known as the Giovani, the Youngsters, began meeting in a salon known as Ridotto Morosini. It is here that the future course of England and Britain was charted.

The Venetian Takeover of England:

A 200-Year Project by Gerald Rose

It was one of the most well-known ``secrets'' of the British oligarchy, that the model for the British Empire was Venice. Benjamin Disraeli, the late-nineteenth-century prime minister of England, let the cat out of the bag in his novel Coningsby when he wrote, ``The great object of Whig leaders in England from the first movement under Hampden to the last most successful one in 1688, was to establish in England a high aristocratic republic on the model of the Venetian.... William the Third told ... Whig leaders, `I will not be a doge.'... They brought in a new family on their own terms. George I was a doge; George II was a doge.... George III tried not to be a doge.... He might try to get rid of the Whig Magnificoes, but he could not rid himself of the Venetian constitution.'' The well-known secret of all the Whig insiders was that the Venetian takeover of England was a 200-year project beginning with the break of Henry VIII with Rome and concluding in 1714, with the accession to the throne of George I.
What Disraeli was publicly referring to was that in 1688, for the first time, a non-hereditary king, William of Orange (William the Third), was invited to rule by a group of noble families. This was a decisive break with previous English history. For the first time, you had a king beholden to the English oligarchy, though William was not particularly happy about his power being circumscribed.

The English parliamentary system of government was modeled explicitly on the Venetian system of a Great Assembly and Senate that controls the doge. England officially in 1688 became an oligarchy.

This formality was merely the tip of the iceberg. The Venetian takeover of England had been nearly a 200-year project, proceeding in two phases. The first began in the 1530s under Henry VIII with the break from Rome engineered by Thomas Cromwell. The later, more radical, phase was the takeover of England by the Giovani (``the young ones'') of Paolo Sarpi, beginning 70 years later.

What was Venice?

The best way to understand the evil of Venice is to look at the great poets' portrayal of the unbelievable duplicity that Venice represented: portrayals by Marlowe in The Jew of Malta, and by Shakespeare in The Merchant of Venice and especially in Othello, the Moor of Venice. The quintessential Venetian is Iago. Yet the most brilliant portrait of Venetian method was done by Friedrich Schiller in his The Ghostseer.

You can never understand Venice by studying what positions the Venetians took on an issue. The Venetians did not care what position they took. They always took all positions. Their method was one of looking for the weak point and corrupting the person. At this form of evil, they were the masters. Their diplomatic corps was the best in the world at the time, and the British diplomatic corps was trained by the Venetians.

The year is 1509. The League of Cambrai, representing the total combined power of western Europe, is called upon by the papacy to crush Venice. At the Battle of Agnadello, the Venetian forces are completely destroyed. France is poised to invade the very islands that comprise Venice to deliver the coup de grace. The papacy relents, fearing a war that will be fought on Italian soil by foreign troops. Several times before, such troops had seized parts of Italy. In a series of diplomatic moves, the alliance falls apart, and, miraculously, Venice is saved.

Venice, which worked with the Turks to create a republic of usury and slavery; Venice, the slave trader of Europe, so close to being destroyed, survived. Its survival would now wreak havoc on western civilization.

Modern history commences with Nicolaus of Cusa and the Council of Florence, and the Italian Renaissance that Cusa and his collaborators inspired. It was Cusa, with the help of Pius II, who created the basis for a war on the pagan idea of man as a beast, and to defend the concept of man as imago Dei and capax Dei. It was the power of these ideas which caused the greatest increase in human population in the history of man. This idea of the power of hypothesis and its relationship to transforming nature proved conclusively that man was fundamentally different from the beast, and as such could not be used as a slave. Venice reacted wildly against the ascendancy of this idea. With the papacy in the firm grip of Pius II and Cusa, Venice launched a war to destroy Christianity.

Contarini and the evil of Aristotle

The figure of Gasparo Contarini is the key one for Venice in its war. Contarini was trained at Padua University, the son of one of the oldest families in Venice. It was said of him that he was so versed in Aristotle, that if all of Aristotle's work were lost, he could reproduce it in its entirety. He learned his Aristotle from his mentor at Padua, Pietro Pomponazzi. Every Venetian oligarchical family sent their children to Padua University to become trained Aristotelians. To understand Venice, you must understand that Aristotle is pure evil, and has been so since the time he wrote his diatribe against the method of Plato, approximately 2,300 years ago.
Since Aristotle is almost unreadable, you must ask the question, what is it about Aristotle that has made his writings so influential in western civilization? Aristotle is a thoroughgoing defense of oligarchical society.

In his Politics, Aristotle is most explicit. His theory of the purpose of politics is to maintain inequality. The state must carry on this natural idea and maintain it. The very basis for Aristotle's politics is the maintenance of the ``master-slave'' relationship, because it is, as he asserts, ``natural'': ``That one should command and another obey is both necesary and expedient. Indeed some things are so divided right from birth, some to rule, some to be ruled.... It is clear then that by nature some are free, others are slaves, and that for these it is both just and expedient that they should serve as slaves.'' One could accuse me of taking quotes out of context, but this would be false. It is true that even Plato makes a case for slavery, but, unlike Aristotle, Plato bases his state on the idea of Justice. Just compare Aristotle's Politics with Plato's Republic, where Plato from the very beginning launches a diatribe against arbitrary power. In the Thrasymachus section of the dialogue, he proves that the very basis for the Republic is a universal, that only universal ideas are fundamentally causal. That idea for the Republic, as he shows, must be based on the good.

Since Aristotle is functioning within a philosophical environment created by Plato, he cannot throw out the concept of universals altogether. What he does instead, is to assign them to the realm of vita contemplativa, since they are not known by the senses, and we can only have faith in their existence. Contrast that to Plato, in which the ideas of the Good and Justice are causal, not contemplative and unknowable. These innate ideas, which in another dialogue Plato proves by showing a slave to possess them, are the very basis for the Republic. I contend that the reason Aristotle was so widely influential in Venice, is that Venice was a slave society based on a principle of oligarchism. Renaissance Christianity is the antithesis of this bestial conception. For Venice and Contarini, the Christian idea of man and the rejection of slavery and usury called their very existence into question, and they reacted with cold, hard evil, in defense of their way of life.

This is Gasparo Contarini.

Contarini's Aristotelianism was highlighted by his early writings, in which he asserted, ``and in truth, I understood that even if I did all the penance I could and more, it would not suffice in the least to merit happiness or even render satisfaction for past sins.... Truly I have arrived at the firm conclusion ... that nobody can become justified through his own works or cleansed from the desires in his own heart.'' In another letter, he calls man a ``worm.'' Radical Protestantism and Contarini's Catholicism are the Aristotelian split between vita contemplativa (faith) and vita activa (works). Aristotelianism is the hatred of both God and man.

It is remarkable that there was no real difference between him and Luther, yet Contarini and several other Venetian noblemen later dominated the reform commission which nominally prosecuted the war on the Reformation.

Contarini's views were the essence of the Spirituali movement, which was to dominate a section of the most powerful Venetian oligarchy. Let us now look briefly at Contarini's career, to understand how critical he is to Venice.

Contarini was Venice's ambassador to the papacy. At another time he was the ambassador to the court of Charles V. He profiled both Charles V and the papacy. He was next appointed to the Council of Ten and later the Council of Three, the supreme ruling body of Venice. This council was justice in Venice; it ruled on all cases and could order assassinations. This was how Venice kept control of its oligarchical families. From the Council of Three, Contarini was appointed a cardinal. As a cardinal, he was first asked to create the reform commission for the Council of Trent. He and four other Spirituali dominated the commission. He was next appointed to negotiate with the Lutherans at Regensburg, at the behest of the Hapsburg Emperor Charles in 1541. At Regensburg, he gave away the Venetian game. Contarini, in what was to be called Article Five, reiterated his Lutheran beliefs. It is a bit of an embarrassment that Calvin praised Article Five at Regensburg: ``You will marvel when you read Article Five ... that our adversaries have conceded so much.... Nothing is to be found in it that does not stand in our own writings.'' Then, in typical Venetian fashion, Contarini created an Aristotelian (Fideist) faction inside the church, which insisted that the only thing that separates Protestants from Catholics be reduced fundamentally to the question of the Magisterium.

It can now be stated what happened to the Renaissance: Venice manipulated both the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation, leading to a series of wars which drowned the Renaissance legacy of Cusa and Pius II in a sea of blood that culminated in the Thirty Years' War.

This war depopulated most of Europe. It set up the basis for an onslaught against Christianity, much like the cultural pessimism that dominated Europe after World War I.

This Venetian evil was now to descend on England.

Designs on England

What was Venice's strategic objective?

It is now the 1520s.

According to the Venetians' profile of the Spanish Hapsburgs, the major vulnerability of the Hapsburgs was the strategic shipping lanes across the English Channel. Spain needed the Netherlands for massive tax revenue that these holdings brought, in order to maintain the Spanish army. The problem was that the Spanish were also very much aware of the strategic need to have good relations with England, and the Hapsburg monarchy married Catherine to Henry VIII to ensure such an alliance. For Venice to succeed, Henry had to be broken from Spain.

How was this accomplished, and through whom?

The Venetian faction in England got the upper hand when Henry VIII fell for the sexual bait that faction put before him: Anne Boleyn. Anne was the granddaughter of the leader of the Venetian faction in England, Thomas Howard, Duke of Norfolk, of the powerful Howard family. The Howards continued to be agents of Venetian influence for a very long time, and may still be so today, even though they were also occasionally Venice's victims. Other great families such as the Russells, Herberts, and Cavendishes also became consistent carriers of the Venetian virus.
Henry's insistence upon divorce from Catherine of Aragon and remarriage to Anne entailed the fall of his chief minister Cardinal Wolsey. Wolsey knew very well what evil Venice represented and, at least on one occasion, told the Venetian ambassador so to his face. In Wolsey's place emerged a technocrat of the Venetian faction, Thomas Cromwell, who had learned the Venetian system while working in Venice as an accountant to a well-known leading Spirituali, Reginald Pole. Cromwell effectively ran the English government in the 1530s, until his own fall and execution in 1540.

Cromwell had cultivated those humanists who were favorable to the break with Rome, and a ``little Padua'' came to be developed around one of these figures at Cambridge University, by the name of Thomas Smith. Smith returned from Padua to become the head of Cambridge in 1544. He is best known for a book on English government which asserts that kings were too powerful. Other leading figures of this ``little Padua'' were Roger Ascham, John Cheke, and William Cecil. This was a tight-knit group, tutors to the Protestant children of Henry VIII, Edward and Elizabeth.

At this point, we must add the infamous Francesco Zorzi. Zorzi was the Venetian sex counsellor for Henry VIII. It was Zorzi who rendered Venice's official pronouncement that, according to his reading of the ancient Hebrew text, the pope did not have the right to grant dispensation for Henry to marry Catherine. Therefore, according to Venice, Henry never truly married Catherine. For Henry, this sealed the alliance with Venice against Spain, and unleashed his own ambitions.

How explicit they are on the question of Venice is identified by Thomas Starkey, a Spirituali who traveled through Venice with Reginald Pole. Pole is a Plantagenet, possibly one of the claimants to the English throne. He later became the chief adviser to Mary Tudor, who reigned in England after Henry VIII. Previously, Pole was almost elected pope. Starkey became one of Thomas Cromwell's chief spies. In a fictional dialogue between ``Thomas Lupset and Reginald Pole,'' Starkey states, ``For this cause the most wise men considering the nature of princes, and the nature of man as it is indeed, affirm a mixed state to be of all others the best most convenient, to conserve the whole out of tyranny.... For, as in Venice, is no great ambitious desire to be there Duke, because he is restrained to order and politic, so with us, also, should be our king, if his power were tempered after the manner before described.''

This tightly knit group of Venetian Aristotelians organized Henry's break with Rome. It was this break which opened England wide for Venetian operations.
The role of Paolo Sarpi
The second phase of the Venetian operations was much more devastating. It was launched by the notorious Paolo Sarpi. It was in this phase that England's mind and soul were taken, and England was set up to become the bastion of the New Age. To understand this, you must understand the mind of Paolo Sarpi, and who in Venice deployed him.
This phase was highlighted by what was understood in Venetian history as the 1583 fight between the Giovani (young houses) and the Vecchi (old houses). In this phase, a very radical faction took over. The Giovani realized that time had run out for the Islands of Venice. They were increasingly less viable as a military force. For the Giovani, the only defense Venice had was a desperate attempt to destroy both the papacy and the Hapsburgs, by securing Germany for the Protestants with the help of France.

The Vecchi wanted to control the papacy and stay within a neutralized Catholic Church. The Giovani organized the Protestant rebellion and wanted to see the destruction of even the name of Christianity.

Further, the plan that evolved was to move part of the money from the massive funds in the vaults of the Church of St. Mark to the Dutch Calvinist republic, Holland, and to England.

For this phase, the takover of England was left to Paolo Sarpi.

Paolo Sarpi was nominally a Servite monk who was exceptionally talented. Yet he was much more. He was the leading organizer of the Giovani. Out of the Giovani salons and secret society, Venice planned the destruction of Christianity in what was later to be called Freemasonry.

In a book about Sarpi, a modern historian by the name of Wooton proves that Sarpi was the creator of empiricism and taught Francis Bacon his so-called scientific method. The thesis of this book, which the author proves conclusively, is that Sarpi, while nominally a Catholic monk, revealed himself in his philosophical work to be a radical atheist. Sarpi was to argue that the idea of the need for a providential religion, as the basis for the majority of men acting morally, was unnecessary. He insisted that belief in God was irrational, since it is not necessary to explain the existence of the physical universe by an act of creation. This is the empiricism of Bacon. It was later revealed by sources that Sarpi was a homosexual and a blasphemer, who believed that the Bible was just some fantastic stories. He especially attacked the idea that Moses was given the Ten Commandments by God. Since one could be burned for these beliefs, he never published his philosophical writings. Some of you may be aware of the phrase, ``The pope is the Anti-Christ.'' It was Paolo Sarpi that created that myth.

He is the real founder of modernism and the Enlightenment. With these ideas, he created a pagan cult later called Freemasonry, which dominates England to this day. Out of this salon came Giordano Bruno, Galileo (a complicated case), the Rosicrucian cult, and the Thirty Years' War.
How was this phase accomplished?
The story begins with an interdict by the pope against Venice in 1606. This dispute was nominally about two jurisdictional matters respecting the right of Rome to try two accused prelates, and the right to collect monies in Venice. Venice retained Paolo Sarpi as its defender. In this fight, Sarpi wrote pamphlet after pamphlet, defending the rights of the state against those of the papacy. Henry Wooten, the ambassador from England to Venice, sent all of Sarpi's writings back to England immediately, to be translated. In the course of this fight, Sarpi became the most famous man in Europe. The papacy ended the interdict without achieving its ends and breaking Venice. Sarpi had won. In the ensuing days after the interdict was lifted, an assassin tried to kill Sarpi, but he survived. The attempt was laid at the papacy's doorstep, and now Sarpi was a hero in England and throughout Europe. He had faced down the papacy and survived.

Sarpi immediately launched a thoroughgoing attack on the very existence of the church, in two works called History of Benefices, and the most famous work of his career, The History of the Council of Trent. The latter book was dedicated to James I of England, and was first published in England. It is ironic that the nominally Catholic Sarpi organized the radical Protestant opposition throughout Europe. After all, this is Venice.

Sarpi was introduced by a circle around Wooten to Francis Bacon, who corresponded with him. Bacon picked up Sarpi's writing on method from Sarpi's Arte del Ben Pensare, where he insists that the only way an individual can know anything is through the senses. With this, modern empiricism is launched, which later becomes the radical nominalism of David Hume.

The Giovani very consciously had to build up their own faction among the English nobility. England had to be totally controlled. The drawback that the Giovani had to correct, was the fact that England was not really reliable, because the kings tended to act independently of Venetian strategic considerations. The way the Giovani functioned was by the creation of a Protestant-controlled merchant class. This was most explicit with the creation of the Venice Company by the Earl of Leicester, the funder of the Puritan movement in England. It was he who was granted by Venice certain trading routes. In 1581, another trading company was created with Venetian agreement, called the Turkey Company. These two companies later merged and became the Levant Company, which later became the infamous British East India Company. The first governor of the East India Company was Thomas Smythe, who studied law in Padua. Through this process of creating a rich merchant class, predominantly Puritan, Venice also created a battering ram against the king. These radical Protestant cults took over England during the so-called Commonwealth period.

While it takes some 80 more years to complete the Venetian takeover of England (which will be detailed by Graham Lowry in another presentation), the empire of the mind became ensconced in England. Sarpi and Venice create the Rosicrucian cult of syncretic religion that becomes Freemasonry. Once that process of takeover is complete, England becomes the bastion of paganism: usury and slavery. In short, real Aristotelians. This hatred of imago Dei is the basis of England's promotion of the New Age. This was Sarpi's program and intention, and it completed the essential destruction of the English soul. Venice and Venetian methods had transplanted themselves in England.

How The Venetian Virus Infected and Took Over England

by H. Graham Lowry

Chorus: The consolidation of the Venetian Party in England and Britain was a question of culture. Francesco Zorzi of Venice, the close friend and relative of Gasparo Contarini, who was sent by the Venetian oligarchy to England as the sex adviser to Henry VIII, was a cabbalist and Rosicrucian. In 1529, Zorzi came to London to deliver his opinion, and he remained at the court for the rest of his life, building up an important party of followers--the nucleus of the modern Venetian Party in England. In 1525, Zorzi had published the treatise De Harmonia Mundi, which uses the cabbalistic Sephiroth to expound a mystical, irrationalist outlook and to undercut the influence of Nicolaus of Cusa.
In 1536, when he was at the English court, Zorzi wrote his second major work, In Scripturam Sacram Problemata. This is a manual of magic, with Zorzi assuring the aspiring wizard that Christian angels will guard him to make sure he does not fall into the hands of demons.

Zorzi was a great influence on certain Elizabethan poets. Sir Philip Sidney was a follower of Zorzi, as was the immensely popular Edmund Spencer, the author of the long narrative poem The Faerie Queene. Spencer is a key source for the idea of English imperial destiny as God's chosen people, with broad hints of British Israel. Christopher Marlowe and William Shakespeare both attacked Zorzi's influence in such plays as Doctor Faustus and Othello, but the Venetian school was carried on by the Rosicrucian Robert Fludd, and, of course, by Francis Bacon and Thomas Hobbes.

John Milton, the admirer of Paolo Sarpi and apologist for usury, is an example of the pro-Venetian Puritan of the Cromwell Commonwealth period. Milton taught that the Son of God is inferior to the Father, a kind of afterthought, and in any case not necessary. Milton was the contemporary of Sabbatai Zevi, the false messiah from Smyrna, Turkey, whose father was an agent for English Puritan merchants. Did Milton's Paradise Regained of 1671 reflect knowledge of Sabbatai Zevi's meteoric career, which burst on the world in 1665?

The British East India Company was founded in 1600. By 1672, adventurers, such as Diamond Pitt, were freebooting around India.

In December 1688, the armies of the Dutch Prince William of Orange invaded England, interrupting the Hobbesian nightmare the country had experienced under the deranged King Charles II and his brother James II. A worse nightmare was to follow when William seized the throne of James II, for he embodied a more highly distilled form of poison which Venice had perfected during its sway over the remains of the Dutch Republic. This outright usurpation is blithely referred to in British-Venetian parlance as the ``Glorious Revolution''--which should give you some idea of how little regard for truth prevails in these circles.

The notion of ``English rights and liberties'' was quickly transformed from fiction to fraud under William's dictatorial regime. When King James II fled to France, the rightful successor to the English throne was his eldest daughter Mary, who had married William of Orange reluctantly (he was a notorious homosexual). William's demand to be declared king was never submitted to Parliament for a ``constitutional'' veneer. Instead, he summoned a special ``convention,'' which granted him full power, rather than simply the rank of the Queen's Consort.

King William's Venetian baggage included the evil John Locke, who became the chief propagandist for foisting the Bank of England on that hapless country in 1694. This was not the sort of bank you turned to for financial assistance. It was a gargantuan Venetian swindle, which promptly created England's first national debt to finance ongoing wars of attrition in Europe, imposed a credit crunch by cutting the amount of circulating English coinage nearly in half, and loaded new taxes on an already-collapsing economy. The bank's chief architect was Venetian Party leader Charles Montagu, William's new chancellor of the exchequer, who later attained the loftier position of British ambassador to Venice. Montagu appointed the pathetic Sir Isaac Newton to oversee the ``recoinage'' swindle, and Newton repaid that debt by prostituting his own niece to serve as Montagu's mistress.

The bank's promotional hireling John Locke is better known as the peddler of the obscene notion that the human mind is nothing more than a tabula rasa--a passive register of animal sensations. He clearly had a higher regard for the cash register, however, and openly defended usury as a necessary service for those whose ``estates'' lie ``in money.'' Locke's theories of government approximate those of a casino operator who lays down rules rigged for the house, under which the bestialized players compete for sums of money, which then define their worth as individuals. This is Locke's ``liberty'' to pursue property. His notion of the ``social contract,'' which guarantees the players' club members the right to enter the casino, was in fact advanced in order to justify William of Orange's usurpation of the British throne. James II, in effect, was charged with having denied those rights to his more speculative subjects, thus breaking the contract. Locke argued that the Venetian mob was therefore entitled to move in under a new contract.

By 1697, the Venetian Party's coup inside England was nearly total, and its members filled William's ``ship of state'' from stem to stern. They looked forward to reducing a most troubling matter in the English colonies of America: the impulse toward building an independent nation, which had been driving the Venetians berserk since the 1630s founding of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. In 1701, John Locke, as a member of England's Board of Trade, advocated revoking all the independent charters of the American colonies, placing their economic activity under royal dictatorship, and banning their manufacture of any finished goods.
Leibniz builds anti-Venice movement
Yet, even as the Venetians were swaggering over their apparent triumph, a powerful republican opposition was building around a higher conception of the nature and purpose of man, which both inspired and opened the way for the later founding of the United States. Its leader was the great German scientist and statesman Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz, who led what might well be called a movement for the pursuit of happiness--the ultimate goal of the liberty which America embraced in its Declaration of Independence.
In the face of the new Venetian onslaught in England, Leibniz set forth his view of human happiness, from the standpoint of man's creation in imago Dei. Writing ``On the Notions of Right and Justice'' in 1693, Leibniz defines charity as ``universal benevolence,'' which he calls the habit of loving, i.e., ``to regard another's happiness as one's own.'' That joy is first approximated, he says, in the contemplation of a beautiful painting by Raphael, for example, ``by one who understands it, even if it brings no riches, in such a way that it is kept before his eyes and regarded with delight, as a symbol of love.''

When the object of delight ``is at the same time also capable of happiness, his affection passes over into true love,'' Leibniz says. ``But the divine love surpasses other loves, because God can be loved with the greatest result, since nothing is at once happier than God, and nothing more beautiful and more worthy of happiness can be known than He.'' And, since God possesses the ultimate wisdom, Leibniz says, ``the notions of men are best satisfied if we say that wisdom is nothing else than the very science of happiness.''

As the leading scientist and philosopher of his day, Leibniz was widely known throughout Europe, and among such republican leaders of New England as the Winthrops and Mathers, later extending to include, most significantly, Benjamin Franklin. From the 1690s onward, Leibniz's leading ally within England, Scotland, and Ireland, was the brilliant anti-Venetian polemicist Jonathan Swift, who directed a cultural onslaught against the bestial notions of Bacon, Hobbes, René Descartes, Newton, and Locke, for more than 40 years.

From the standpoint of reason, the Aristotelian empiricism of the likes of Descartes and Locke reduces the notion of man to the level of a mere beast, which, of course, is the prerequisite for imposing an empire of the sort the Venetians sought, then and now. When Jonathan Swift took up his cudgels on behalf of Leibniz's refutation of empiricism, he ridiculed their enemies' ideas for what they were: insane. Swift's ``A Digression on Madness,'' in his 1696 work A Tale of a Tub, examines ``the great introducers of new schemes in philosophy,'' both ancient and modern. They were usually mistaken by all but their own followers, Swift says, ``to have been persons crazed, or out of their wits;|... agreeing for the most part in their several models, with their present undoubted successors in the academy of modern Bedlam.''

Oligarchical Families Move In

By 1701, the lunatics of the late-model incarnation of the Venetian Party had typically inbred a set of oligarchical families, mixing and matching Spencers, and Godolphins, and Churchills--the last headed by John Churchill, soon to become duke of Marlborough.
Churchill had begun as a page boy to Charles II in 1665, behind the skirts of his sister Arabella, the mistress of the king's brother James. Then, for similar services rendered, Churchill received Ł10,000 from Charles II's favorite mistress.

With things apparently moving so swimmingly, the Venetians set their course for their next major objective: the destruction of France, the most productive economic power in Europe. Under the ministry of Jean-Baptiste Colbert, the patron of the scientific academy at Paris where Leibniz himself was engaged in the early 1670s, France had led the way in infrastructural and industrial development. So in 1701, England launched war on France. More than a decade of bloodshed and destruction followed--for the populations of both countries, and their European allies. It was yet another rigged game, in which Venice expected to be the only winner.

There are inevitably loose ends in any foul scheme. Queen Mary had died in 1694, leaving William without a direct heir. Her sister Anne was next in line to the throne, but the death of Anne's only surviving child in 1700 presented a new succession crisis. An Act of Settlement was imposed in 1701. James I's 71-year-old granddaughter Sophie, the head of the German House of Hanover, was designated as Anne's successor. King William died in 1702, and Anne became queen of England.
As the Venetian Party expected, she quickly bestowed preeminence at court upon the duke and duchess of Marlborough, who had spun their webs of influence over her for many years. The problem for the Venetians, was that Sophie's chief adviser and privy counsellor, was Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz.
The Battle for Britain
With Leibniz virtually one step away from guiding policy in London, the final battle against Venetian Party dictatorship within England broke out in earnest. It was a conflict between the pursuit of happiness, and the lust for empire. The Marlboroughs resorted to deceit, terror, and treachery to cut off political relations--or even ordinary civilities--between Queen Anne and Sophie of Hanover. Swift maintained a fierce barrage both publicly and privately against Marlborough's Venetian gang, to the point that he broke their domination of Queen Anne's cabinet. He extended his own influence to her innermost circle, and, during 1710 and 1711, he drove the Marlboroughs and all their cronies from office.

London desperately hurled Isaac Newton into the fray against Leibniz, puffing the old fraud up with the lie that differential calculus was his invention rather than Leibniz's. Leibniz and Swift conspired to bring the great composer George Frideric Handel from Hanover to London in 1710, seeking to uplift English musical culture from decadent braying and outright snoring.

The American Flank

And in the midst of all this, Swift managed to get two of his allies appointed to royal governorships in the American colonies. Robert Hunter in New York, and Alexander Spotswood in Virginia, launched a drive in 1710 which opened the door to our future continental republic.
That same year, in Massachusetts, Cotton Mather published his republican organizing manual, An Essay upon the Good, which spread Leibniz's notion of the science of happiness throughout America for more than a century. Benjamin Franklin paid tribute to Mather's book as the single most important influence upon his life.

Jonathan Swift said of this period, that he doubted there was another in history ``more full of passages which the curious of another age would be glad to know the secret springs of.'' The Venetians would not like you to know that Leibniz and Swift constructed some of the secret passages which led to the founding of the American Republic. But within Britain (as it came to be known after the 1707 union which England forced upon Scotland), the battle against the Venetian Party was soon lost.

Leibniz's patron, Sophie of Hanover, the designated successor to Queen Anne, died in May 1714, at the age of 84. Her son George was now the heir to the British throne. William of Orange had been George's idol, and Marlborough and the Venetian Party had bought him many times over. Barely two months after Sophie's death, Queen Anne's life was ended, probably by poison, at the age of 49. The duke of Marlborough, who had plotted in exile for years for Anne's overthrow, landed in England the same day; and George of Hanover was proclaimed Great Britain's King George I. Jonathan Swift had been forced to flee to Ireland, and George soon dismissed Leibniz from the court of Hanover.

How serious was the threat Leibniz and Swift posed to the Venetian Party's conspirators? Just consider the conspirators' satanic rage against the dead Queen Anne, who for all her faults had learned to seek something better in life than they could ever know. There was no public mourning, nor royal funeral; her corpse was left to rot for more than three weeks. Then a chosen few, serving George I, buried her secretly at night, in Westminster Abbey--beneath the tomb of her great-great-grandmother, Mary, Queen of Scots. To this day, no stone or tablet marks her grave.

Leibniz himself died in 1716. Jonathan Swift fought on from Ireland, from the position Queen Anne had granted him as the Dean of St. Patrick's Cathedral in Dublin.

He became the acknowledged political leader of all Ireland during the 1720s, building a mass-based movement on the principles of man's God-given right to liberty, and the right to national sovereignty based on natural law. Swift thereby extended Leibniz's movement for the pursuit of happiness, and immeasurably influenced the growth of republicanism in eighteenth-century America.

Britain, however, began a rapid descent into hell, under the new regime of George I. Previously secret Satan-worshipping societies such as the Hell-Fire Club now surfaced, heralded by the publication in 1714 of Bernard Mandeville's Fable of the Bees, or Private Vices, Public Benefits. Very simply, Mandeville argued that the interests of the state were nothing more than the maximum fulfillment of its individuals' hedonistic pleasures: The more private vices, the more public benefits. Therefore, the state thrives most upon the corruption of its subjects. Inevitably, Britain was soon locked into a Venetian orgy of corruption and new heights of financial speculation, leading to the massive blowout of the South Sea Bubble in 1720. Appropriately, the government which emerged in 1721 from this devastating collapse, was headed by Prime Minister Robert Walpole, who held that post in the service of evil for the next 20 years.
The Hell-Fire Clubs not only proliferated; they became the inner sanctum of Britain's degenerate elite. The most prominent one, founded in 1720 by Lord Wharton, included on its dining-room menu ``Hell-Fire Punch,'' ``Holy Ghost Pie,'' ``Devil's Loins,'' and ``Breast of Venus'' (garnished with cherries for nipples). By the 1760s, when the American colonies began to openly break with Britain, most of the king's cabinet were members of the Hell-Fire Club. When Benjamin Franklin served as our colonial postmaster general, for example, his official superior, Sir Francis Dashwood, was the head of the Hell-Fire Club!

The murderous toll of such a regime upon the British population is expressed by the following statistics: From 1738 to 1758, there were only 297,000 births recorded--against 486,000 deaths. Typifying the bestiality of the emerging British Empire, was the phrase smugly coined by Robert Walpole, ``Every man has his price.''

We must not pay it.

The Bestial British Intelligence Of Shelburne and Bentham

Jeffrey Steinberg

Chorus:
British empiricism started from Francis Bacon's inductive method based on sense certainty, all of which was taken directly from such Venetians as Paul Paruta and Pietro Sarpi. With Bacon is Thomas Hobbes, who wrote of human society as a war of all against all, necessarily dominated by a tyrannical leviathan state. Then came John Locke, for whom the human mind was a blank slate destined to be filled by sense perceptions. Locke's hedonism led him to the conclusion that human freedom was an absurd contradiction in terms. Locke was followed by the solipsist George Berkeley, who denied any basis in reality to our sense impressions: They are a kind of videotape played in each one of our heads by some unknown supernatural agency. Perception was the only existence there was.
Then came the Scots lawyer and diplomat David Hume. For Hume also, there is really no human self, but merely a bundle of changing perceptions. In his ``Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding'' and other earlier works, Hume attacks the idea of cause and effect. For Hume, there is no necessary connection between a cause and an effect that the human mind can know with certainty; we only have a vague association or habit of thought that one phenomenon has been usually followed by another. But in these same earlier works, Hume had at least accepted the importance of filling the tabula rasa of each new human mind with a stock of received ideas of conduct which can be lumped under the heading of morals or custom, including religion.
During Hume's later years, the power of the Shelburne faction became dominant in Britain, and Hume's skepticism became bolder and more radical. The later Hume, as in his ``Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion,'' totally repudiated the notion of custom and morality in favor of an unbridled hedonism that points toward the depths of pederasty and degradation inhabited by Jeremy Bentham.
Immanuel Kant, during his long teaching career in Königsberg, Prussia, had been a retailer of Hume's ideas. The two liberals Kant and Hume had a broad common ground in their determination to eradicate the influence of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. But when Hume repudiated all notion of custom and traditional morality, even Kant could not follow. Kant responded with the Critique of Pure Reason to defend the notion of cause and effect as one of Aristotle's categories, against Hume, who had reached a sub-Aristotelian level. On this basis, Kant was able to defend customary ideas of religion and morality, das Sittengesetz.
The Kant-Hume split illustrates why British liberal empiricism tends to be several degrees more rotten than its continental European counterparts.

Mr. Steinberg:
In October 1776, a 28-year-old English barrister named Jeremy Bentham wrote contemptuously of the American Declaration of Independence, which had been signed as an Act of the Continental Congress on July 4th of that year: ``This,'' he spewed, ``they `hold to be' a `truth self-evident.' At the same time, to secure these rights they are satisfied that government should be instituted. They see not ... that nothing that was ever called government ever was or ever could be exercised but at the expense of one or another of those rights, that ... some one or other of those pretended unalienable rights is alienated.... In these tenets they have outdone the extravagance of all former fanatics.''
Shortly after penning this venom, Bentham made his philosophical breach with the American republicans all the more clear in a lengthy tract titled An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1780). That manuscript would not only prescribe the founding principles of British philosophical radicalism; it would propel Bentham into the very center of a then-emerging new British Foreign Office and British Foreign Intelligence Service, consolidated under the guiding hand of William Petty, Lord Shelburne, a man who at the time was the de facto, if not de jure doge of Britain.
Bentham categorically rejected any distinction between man and the lower beasts, defining man instead as a creature driven purely by hedonistic impulses. To wit: ``Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do.... Every effort we make to throw off our subjection, will serve but to demonstrate and confirm it. The principle of utility--the greatest happiness or greatest felicity principle--recognizes this subjection, and assumes it for the foundation.... Systems which attempt to question it deal ... in caprice instead of reason, in darkness instead of light.''
Lord Shelburne was so taken with Bentham that he installed the writer, who fancied himself alternately as the reincarnation of Sir Francis Bacon and as the ``Sir Isaac Newton of the moral sciences,'' in an apartment at his Bowood estate. Shelburne assigned to Bentham an English and Swiss editor in order to ensure the widest dissemination of Bentham's works in both the English- and French-speaking worlds. Later, Bentham's works would be even more widely circulated throughout Latin America during his years of intimate collaboration with the American traitor Aaron Burr, and with revolutionists Gen. Francisco de Miranda--a Venezuelan by birth who played a leading role as a paid agent of the British East India Company in the Jacobin Terror in France--and Simón Bolívar. Burr, fleeing the United States, took up residence at the home of Bentham, and the two men conspired to establish an empire, first in Mexico, and later in Venezuela.

Shelburne's political intrigues

At the very moment of his taking up with Bentham, Lord Shelburne was in the process of launching his most daring political intrigues.
In June 1780, weary of the failed prosecution of the war in North America, and convinced that the ministry of Lord George North would bring eternal ruin to his dreams of permanent empire, Lord Shelburne, through the East India Company and its allied Baring Bank, bankrolled a Jacobin mob to descend upon London, ostensibly in protest over the granting of Irish reforms. The so-called Irish reforms amounted to little more than forced conscription of Irishmen into the British Army to fight in North America--a move Shelburne hoped would also defeat the pro-American republican movement inside Ireland that had nearly launched its own revolt against Britain in 1779.
Led by Lord George Gordon, the Protestant rabble stormed Westminster, sending parliamentarians and lords alike down flights of stairs, out windows, and to the hospitals. For eight days, London was ransacked, culminating in the storming of the Newgate Prison and the freeing of all the prisoners, who joined in the assault on the Parliament building.
Lord Shelburne, as head of the interior committee of the House of Lords, personally ensured the maximum terror by delaying the reading of the Riot Act (which would have called out the Home Guard) until violence had spread to every corner of the city. When the flames subsided, the ministry of Lord North was in ashes as well. North resigned as prime minister, and within months, Shelburne was himself in the new Rockingham cabinet as foreign secretary for the Northern District, subsuming the North American colonies. From that post, he would be the principal negotiator in Paris across the table from Benjamin Franklin.
By this time also, King George III had declared himself wholly subservient to the Shelburne-led East India Company faction--the Venetian Party.
As the result of these events, the shadow government formally took charge of the official state apparatus. The intelligence operations formerly housed at the East India Company were henceforth run out of the Foreign Ministry and the British Secret Intelligence Services (SIS).
A postscript on Lord Gordon, Shelburne's agent provocateur: After a brief stay in the Tower of London, foreshortened by Shelburne's personal intervention with the crown, Lord Gordon made off to friendlier ground in the Netherlands, where, to the astonishment of his Scottish Presbyterian cronies, he became a convert to Jewish cabbalism, taking the name Israel Bar Abraham. He shortly thereafter surfaced in Paris as an occult adviser to Marie Antoinette, and from that position participated in Shelburne's intrigues against the French Bourbons.
The Jacobin insurrection in Paris during 1791-93 was a replay on grander scale of the earlier Shelburne-instigated Gordon Riots, down to the storming of the Bastille prison and the unleashing of the criminals.

Smith Assigned To Scribble Against America

Lord Shelburne, as foreign minister, took the position that the former colonies in North America must be once again brought under the British yoke, but not through the deployment of military might or through claims of property title. For Shelburne, the battle cry of the New Venice/New Rome was ``free trade.''
As early as 1763, in a famous carriage ride from Edinburgh to London, Shelburne had commissioned two works from one of his East India Company scribblers, Adam Smith. First, he had commissioned Smith to prepare the research outlines for the study that would be later completed by another India House propagandist, Edward Gibbon, on the decline and fall of the Roman Empire--a study critical to Shelburne's commitment to establish a new third Roman Empire headquartered in London. In addition, he ordered the preparation of an apologia for free trade, which Smith completed in 1776 under the title The Wealth of Nations.
In 1787, Shelburne's leading intelligence agent Jeremy Bentham went one better than Smith by publishing a series of letters from Russia that were assembled in a pamphlet titled In Defense of Usury. The final letter, addressed to Smith, chastized the India House economist for not going far enough in his embrace of unbridled monetary dictatorship. Bentham demanded an end to all restrictions on usurious interest rates, employing the liberal argument that suppression of usury stifles invention. Smith immediately wrote of Bentham's In Defense of Usury, ``The work is one of a superior man.''
Shelburne's own most eloquent plea for unbridled free trade and usury came during his brief tenure as prime minister from 1782 to 1783. Although he had formerly preferred to steer British politics from behind the scenes in his capacity as chairman of the three-man ``Secret Committee'' of the East India Company, Shelburne felt compelled to briefly take the formal reins of government in order to ensure the launching of his new British imperium.

"Destroy America with free trade"

On Jan. 27, 1783, Shelburne stood before the House of Lords to argue for ratification of the Treaty of Paris, formally bringing to an end the American Revolution and the conflict with France and Spain. ``You have given America, with whom every call under the heaven urges you to stand on the footing of brethren, a share in a trade, the monopoly of which you sordidly preserved to yourselves.... Monopolies, some way or other, are very justly punished. They forbid rivalry, and rivalry is of the very essence of well-being of trade.... I avow that monopoly is always unwise; but if there is any nation under heaven which ought to be the first to reject monopoly, it is the English. Situated as we are between the old world and the new, and between southern and northern Europe, all we ought to covet on Earth is free trade.... With more industry, with more capital, with more enterprise than any trading nation on Earth, it ought to be our constant cry: Let every market be open.''
Shelburne's policy of unbridled free trade between Britain and the United States nearly destroyed the American republic in its cradle. Some of the American Founding Fathers clearly understood the danger in Shelburne's free trade ruse. They launched a crucial debate over the need for a strong federal constitution. But for the Federalist debate and the resulting United States Constitution of 1787, Shelburne's scheme for rapidly bankrupting and re-absorbing North America into the British imperial domain, would have probably succeeded.
Alexander Hamilton was blunt in his Federalist Paper No. 11, published in November 1787: ``The adventurous spirit ... of America has already excited uneasy sensations in several of the maritime powers of Europe.... If we continue united, we may counteract a policy so unfriendly to our prosperity in a variety of ways.... Suppose for instance, we had a government in America, capable of excluding Great Britain from all our ports; what would be the probable operation of this step upon her politics? Would it not enable us to negotiate, with the fairest prospect of success, for commercial privileges of the most valuable and extensive kind in the dominion of that kingdom?''

Shelburne unleashes Jacobins against France

Even with matters still unresolved in North America, Shelburne and Bentham turned their attention to another critical front across the English Channel in France. The Seven Years' War of 1756-63 had stripped France of its once formidable maritime capacity. Shelburne now sought to destroy France as an economic and military rival on the continent. From the outset, the Jacobin Terror was a British East India Company-, British Foreign Office-orchestrated affair. The bloody massacre of France's scientific elite was systematically carried out by French hands, manning French guillotines, but guided by British strings.
Jacques Necker, a Geneva-born, Protestant, slavishly pro-British banker, had been installed through the efforts of Shelburne's leading ally in France, Philippe Duke of Orléans, as finance minister. Necker's daughter, the infamous Madame de Staël, would later run one of Shelburne's most important Parisian salons.
Although Necker had failed to block France from allying with the Americans during the American Revolution, he did succeed in presiding over the depletion of the French treasury and the collapse of its credit system.
Economic crisis across France was the precondition for political chaos and insurrection, and Shelburne readied the projected destabilization by creating a ``radical writers' shop'' at Bowood staffed by Bentham, the Genevan Etienne Dumont, and the Englishman Samuel Romilly. Speeches were prepared by Bentham and translated and transported by diplomatic pouch and other means to Paris, where leaders of the Jacobin Terror, Jean-Paul Marat, Georges Jacques Danton, and Maximilien de Robespierre delivered the fiery oratories. Records of East India Company payments to these leading Jacobins are still on file at the British Museum.

Bentham's Slave Labor Scheme

Bentham was so taken up with the events in France, that on Nov. 25, 1791, he wrote to National Assemblyman J.P. Garran offering to move to Paris to take charge of the penal system. Enclosing a draft of his Panopticon proposal, Bentham wrote: ``Allow me to construct a prison on this model--I will be the jailer. You will see by the memoire, this jailer will have no salary--will cost nothing to the nation. The more I reflect, the more it appears to me that the execution of the project should be in the hands of the inventor.''
At the same time, Bentham was proposing to assume the post of chief jailer of the Jacobin Terror, which sent many of France's greatest scientists and pro-American republicans to the guillotine or to prison. Bentham made no bones about his loyalties: In accepting the honorary title of Citizen of France, Bentham wrote to the Jacobin interior minister in October 1792: ``I should think myself a weak reasoner and a bad citizen, were I not, though a royalist in London, a republican in Paris.''
Bentham's Panopticon scheme was a slave labor camp first designed by him in Russia in 1787 while he was visiting his brother, a Shelburne spy. Asked by Prince Potemkin, the prime minister of Catherine the Great, to help procure a steam engine to build up Russian industry, Bentham argued that human labor--not steam power--ought to be sufficient.
His design, complete with elaborate architectural drawings, called for criminals, the indigent, and the retarded--along with their children--to be placed in jail cells equipped with primitive machinery run by a central power source, which in turn would be fueled by swings, merry-go-rounds, and see-saws in the children's cellblock. The energy expended by the children playing with the toys would drive the factory. A central guardroom equipped with two-way mirrors would permit one guard to oversee the slave labor of hundreds. Above the main door of the Panopticon was to be a sign, reading: ``Had they been industrious when free, they need not have drudged here like slaves.''
During his tour of Russia and the Ottoman Empire, when he devised his Panopticon scheme and wrote In Defense of Usury, Bentham wrote in his diary: ``It is an old maxim of mine that interest, as love, should be free.''

In Defense of Pederasty

It is therefore of little shock that we find Bentham also writing in 1785 an essay on the subject of pederasty--arguing against any sanctions against homosexuality, lesbianism, masturbation, and bestiality. Bentham dismissed the harsh penalties then in force against pederasty as the result of irrational religious fears born of the Old Testament destruction of Sodom and perpetuated by society's ``irrational antipathy'' to pleasure in general and to sexual pleasure in particular. Christian morality, like every other expression of natural law, had no place in Bentham's world of pleasure and pain.
In the wake of the initial success in forcing France to its knees with the Jacobin Terror, Bentham sponsored several generations of philosophical radicals, ranging from his closest protégés, James Mill and John Bowring, to Mill's son John Stuart Mill, Thomas Carlyle, and David Urquhart. Carlyle, under the watchful eye of J.S. Mill, penned the official British history of the French Revolution, needless to say burying the role of the Shelburne-Bentham cabal in that blood-soaked tragedy. Bowring, Bentham's long-suffering personal secretary, would later supervise the publication of Bentham's collected works in an 11-volume series; would serve as Lord Palmerston's agent-handler of the notorious Giuseppe Mazzini; and would instigate the Second Opium War against China from his post as emissary in Canton. Urquhart, one of the youngest of the Benthamites, would later become the agent-handler for Karl Marx.
Upon his death in 1832, Bentham's body was dissected and stuffed; his head was cast in bronze and placed at his feet, with a mask affixed in its place. For years, the mummified Bentham, seated in his favorite chair inside a glass case, was an ever-present participant in meetings of his radical circle. In the 1990s, the mummy would still enjoy a place of prominence at London University

America's 'Young America' movement:
slaveholders and the B'nai B'rith

by Anton Chaitkin

Chorus: Ten years from now, in 1860, Lord Palmerston's quest for world empire will enter its most critical phase: the American Civil War, provoked by Young America and other pro-British networks. A French army will be in Mexico, propping up Maximilian. Britain will ready the fleet and send troops to Canada. The only support for Lincoln's beleaguered Union will come from the Russian Empire of Czar Alexander II, with two Russian fleets being sent to American ports in 1863 with orders from the czar to join Lincoln in fighting Britain and France should general war break out. Mazzini, Urquhart, and their assets will pull out all the stops to isolate Russia and blow up eastern Europe.
In the midst of these preparations, we have the emergence of Young Israel—B'nai B'rith—as an ideal British weapon against both the United States and Russia, and also against other nations. Lord Palmerston's interest in Zionism was stimulated during the Middle East crisis of 1840, when France backed a rebellious satrap of the Ottoman sultan. The British found that while the French were the official protectors of the Roman Catholics in the Turkish Empire, and the Russians the patrons of the Orthodox, the British had no group of Anglicans or Puritans to sponsor. The British turned their attention to Armenians and Jews. Palmerston ordered British diplomats to take Jewish communities under their protection, since Britain was "the natural guardian of the Jews." This gave the British a foot in the door in the Middle East, and also in Russia, including Russian Poland, where 50% of world Jewry then resided. At this time, Palmerston's son-in-law, the Earl of Shaftesbury, wrote that "it may be safely asserted that [the Jews] contemplate a restoration to the soil of Palestine." Shaftesbury was talking through his hat: He admitted that many Jews "will prefer a seat in the House of Commons in England to a seat under their vines and fig trees in Palestine." But the British resolve to settle Jews in Palestine was clear.
The founder of Zionism in its modern, British-sponsored form is not Theodor Herzl, but a certain Moses Hess. Hess converted Friedrich Engels to communism, and wrote parts of Marx's German Ideology. In 1861, Hess will write Rome and Jerusalem, which attacks Moses Mendelssohn for the idea that Judaism is a religion and a culture. For Hess, Judaism is a race in Mazzini's blood-and-soil sense, and therefore must have a homeland. Yet another of Palmerston's theme parks will open its doors.

In the B'nai B'rith's official, authorized history, it says: "B'nai B'rith's relationship to the Civil War presents something of a mystery." They say that the arrest of the B'nai B'rith's leader in Washington as a Confederate spymaster was unfair. They say that no one can account for why the group was not pro-Union, whereas most Jews were pro-Union, and B'nai B'rith's lodges were almost all located in the North. Indeed, Jewish soldiers in the Union Army were intensely proud, mostly German-speaking immigrant, anti-slavery Republicans.
To solve the mystery, we go back 20 years before the start of the American Civil War.
British Foreign Minister Palmerston launched Zionism in 1840. He wrote that the Jews desired to return to Palestine (Abba Eban points out that the Jews knew nothing about this); and a month later, the British landed troops in Palestine for the first time.
B'nai B'rith was started officially in 1843 by some obscure Freemasons in New York, as a secret society "like Freemasonry" for Jews. B'nai B'rith was to shape and lead a particular political faction, with a particular agenda, within the Jewish community.
The agenda for this project came out in a famous speech given two years later at South Carolina College. The speaker was Edwin DeLeon, from a Jewish family in South Carolina that was already notorious for its involvement in the slave trade and in Scottish Rite Freemasonry. DeLeon was later a leader of the Confederate Secret Service.
DeLeon praised his teacher at the school, Thomas Cooper, an English atheist and Lord Shelburne's adventurer, who had first proposed that the South secede from the Union. DeLeon hailed Cooper as a tender-hearted religious heretic and "an earnest ... disciple of the school of Bentham and Malthus."
DeLeon said, "There is a 'Young Germany,' a 'Young France,' and a 'Young England'—and why not a 'Young America'?" He told the students: Any great civil convulsion comes from a source that is unexpected and obscure. In the French Revolution, the priests and nobles were only the flax with which the flame was kindled. But those who first applied the spark were the filthy, obscure savants of the Englightenment. DeLeon reminded the students that the actors in that drama were only its creatures, not its creators.
He then proposed revolutionary military action as the idea for his Young America, to spread what he called "freedom"—by force.
The "Young America" idea first bore its bitter fruit when U.S. President James Polk ordered American troops to invade Mexico. Young Congressman Abraham Lincoln exposed the President as a fraud; he denounced the Mexican war as a slaveowners' conspiracy that would wreck our country. Lincoln was driven out of politics until 12 years later.
This British project matured in the mid-1850s, and its active focus shifted to the West. There were two important partners out there: Isaac M. Wise, a B'nai B'rith Midwest leader based in Cincinnati; and Killian H. Van Rensselaer, a British military operative and Scottish Rite Mason northern leader, also based in Cincinnati. Between 1854 and 1860, they spread a pro-slavery, secessionist-terrorist group along the route extending down the Mississippi valley to Louisiana and Texas: the Knights of the Golden Circle. Wise's B'nai B'rith organization spread southward along the identical route. Their plan was to spread slavery into Latin America and the U.S. West, and break up the U.S.A. into several small countries.
In Louisiana, U.S. Sen. Judah Benjamin and Scottish Rite Southern Mason leader Albert Pike worked together on this terrorist secession project. There is a bust of Albert Pike in New Orleans, celebrating his work in that pre-war southern base for the Scottish Rite, the Knights, and B'nai B'rith. Judah Benjamin's relative (his uncle's brother Manny) had earlier written the masonic order creating the Northern Scottish Rite organization, in which Wise and Van Rensselaer were now leaders.

A trail of treason

To start the Civil War, this pre-organized anti-Union terrorist force would strike for secession in the South. Those who stayed in the North during the War would be known as "Copperheads," with headquarters in Ohio.
Before the war, Isaac Wise had two B'nai B'rith local leaders in Cleveland: Simon Wolf and Benjamin F. Peixotto. Wolf and Peixotto also worked as political agents for Democratic Party boss August Belmont, the U.S. representative of the Rothschild banks—chief moneybags of the British crown, and British puppets. Banker Belmont paid for the Knights of the Golden Circle and Young America projects, which he helped plan while he was U.S. ambassador to the Netherlands.
Benjamin Peixotto was editor of the Cleveland Plain Dealer, a violently pro-Copperhead paper which furious citizens forced to shut down during the war. Wolf and Peixotto ran a Hebrew amateur acting group, which included their non-Hebrew friend John Wilkes Booth.
The war started in 1861. Simon Wolf went to Washington as the B'nai B'rith representative in the national capital, joining Albert Pike's Southern Scottish Rite and Judah Benjamin's Confederate Secret Service operations. Wolf was almost immediately arrested by U.S. Army Counterintelligence director Lafayette Baker, who worked directly for President Abraham Lincoln and for Lincoln's Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton. The B'nai B'rith was understood to be a Confederate intelligence front. B'nai B'rith's official history says that the "cruel" and "ruthless" Colonel Baker had Simon Wolf arrested "solely because he was a member of B'nai B'rith." At the time, they say, Wolf was "defending several Southern Jews arrested in Washington and charged with being Confederate spies."
Meanwhile in Cincinnati, Isaac Wise's cohort Julius Ochs got in trouble when his wife, Bertha, was arrested for smuggling drugs to the Confederate Army in her son's baby carriage. Later, Julius and Bertha's son, the white supremacist Adolph Ochs, married Isaac Wise's daughter, and then bought the New York Times. Their daughter married Arthur Sulzberger.
The U.S. Navy won an 1862 Mississippi River battle, and the U.S. Army took Memphis, Tennessee. Isaac Wise's Memphis B'nai B'rith agent, the British-born Abraham E. Frankland, was arrested, and admitted being a Confederate spymaster. Julius Ochs sent him supplies in jail the same day, and Frankland was released on a $20,000 bond. We'll hear more of this degenerate Frankland shortly.
The next year, B'nai B'rith leader Isaac Wise was nominated at an Ohio Convention to run for state senator on the radical anti-Union Copperhead election ticket. Wise's running mate for Ohio governor was Clement Vallandigham, then in exile in Canada, whom President Lincoln had banished from the country as America's leading traitor.
The B'nai B'rith leader's candidacy caused a crisis and a newspaper scandal. The Cincinnati Jewish community was overwhelmingly pro-Union. His own synagogue issued a formal demand for him to withdraw; Wise was forced off the ticket.

The conspiracy to kill Lincoln

At the close of the war, on April 14, 1865, John Wilkes Booth shot President Abraham Lincoln while another man simultaneously attacked Secretary of State William Seward. Lincoln died the next day.
Here are some basic facts of the murder. Some months before he shot Lincoln, John Wilkes Booth deposited funds in the Montreal, Canada bank regularly used by the operatives of Confederate Secret Service head Judah Benjamin. John Surrat, a regular Judah Benjamin agent, confessed to plotting with Booth to abduct Lincoln, and admitted to using that Montreal bank for Benjamin's funds.
In the museum which they keep at the assassination site at Ford's Theatre, the National Parks Service displays a decoding sheet, found by police in John Wilkes Booth's trunk. Displayed alongside it is a matching coding device which was found in the office of Judah Benjamin.
At the time John Wilkes Booth shot Lincoln, Booth's old acquaintance Benjamin Peixotto was international president of the B'nai B'rith. Only hours before going to Ford's Theatre to shoot the President, Booth met with his old friend B'nai B'rith Washington chief Simon Wolf, for a confidential discussion over some drinks. Simon Wolf later claimed that at this meeting, Booth told him about a woman who had turned down Booth's marriage proposal. That evening, Booth murdered Abraham Lincoln, and Wolf attributed the killing to Booth's anguish over his broken heart. (So, the "lone assassin" story of John Hinckley and Jody Foster is an old story.) Simon Wolf was later a prime founder of the Anti-Defamation League.

Albert Pike's Ku Klux Klan

After the war, the Ku Klux Klan was started up in Tennessee to stop newly freed blacks from voting. With their occult-satanic rituals and costumes, the KKK burned and tortured blacks and pro-U.S.A. whites. The Klan's national headquarters was in Memphis, where KKK leaders Albert Pike and Nathan B. Forrest lived and attended lodge together.
Memphis B'nai B'rith leader Abraham Frankland was an intimate friend of Albert Pike. Frankland had been in the Pike-Benjamin spy apparatus, and wrote a blistering attack on the U.S. attempt to reconstruct the South under equal rights. Frankland now stayed on to aid Pike in his postwar task.
A notebook of Frankland's Kabbalistic Researches is kept in the American Jewish Archives, Cincinnati. It is a compendium of espionage ciphers, black magic symbols, masonic ritual, and pagan religion. In his preface, Frankland acknowledges aid to his religious research by Albert Gallatin Mackey, grand secretary of the Scottish Rite, "and the Book Lohar on the Sephiroth, kindly loaned to me by Gen'l Albert Pike."
KKK boss Pike was simultaneously working on his own satanic masterpiece, Morals and Dogma, published in 1871.
On page 38 of Kabbalistic Researches, Frankland lists assorted gods passed down by tradition from ancient times, including "Four of the thirteen great Gods of Assyria," plus the god "Bel." Mackey writes that Frankland's god Bel is a form of Baal, and was worshipped by the Babylonians as their chief deity. This is, of course, the false god which the Old Testament Jewish prophets fought to expunge from Israel. Mackey says that since 1871 the Royal Arch Masonic system has combined Bel with "Jah" for Jehova and "On" for the Egyptian sun god, into "JahBelOn," as an "explanation" of God. The Hebrew menorah blasphemously used in the Royal Arch Masonic ritual is displayed in the Alexandria, Virginia masonic temple.
Other pages of Frankland's notebook contain "Cypher" and "Private Cypher," "Philosophical and Hermetic Alphabet," "Cypher of the Rose Cross," and "Ten Cabalistic Spheres."
In his Morals and Dogma, KKK boss Albert Pike celebrates the collaboration between these two Memphis masonic chiefs, Pike and Frankland, at the height of the bloodiest assassination wave in U.S. history. Pike says, "One is filled with admiration, on penetrating into the Sanctuary of the Kabalah, at seeing a doctrine so logical, so simple, and at the same time so absolute ... a philosophy summed up by counting on one's fingers.... Ten ciphers and twenty-two letters, a triangle, a square, and a circle—these are all the elements of the Kabalah."
So, upon the triumph of their KKK, Albert Pike appointed Abraham Frankland the head of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry for the state of Tennessee, and an emeritus member of the Supreme Council. Simultaneously, Isaac Wise appointed Abraham Frankland the president of the B'nai B'rith district for Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, and Arkansas.
At the beginning of this century, Isaac Wise's grandson Adolph Ochs, the owner of the New York Times, wrote a series of editorials attacking black voting rights in those southern states. This vicious editorial campaign helped swing the North behind the new anti-black Jim Crow laws which were then being written, which finally reversed rights gained by Union blood during the civil war. The Ochs-Sulzberger family, a great power in the B'nai B'rith, has remained in control of the New York Times ever since.

Afterword

Chorus: Sometimes persons who have been used by British intelligence manage to assert their own humanity and rebel. Take the example of Simón Bolívar, the liberator of several countries in Ibero-America. After a lifetime of cooperation with Bentham and his agents, Bolívar realized his mistake and repudiated his former associate. This took the form, first of all, of an 1828 decree banning in Colombia all secret societies and fraternities, described as groups "disrupting public tranquility and the established order."
At about the same time, Bolívar issued another proclamation outlawing the teaching of Bentham in the university. Bolívar attacked Bentham and his school as "opposed to religion, to morality, and to the tranquility of the people," and as a contributing cause in conspiracies and disorders in Bogotá. Bolivar concluded that youth was being "given a deadly poison through those authors, which destroyed their religion and morals."
To replace Bentham, Bolívar mandated study of Latin, morals and natural law, constitutional law, and the foundations of the Roman Catholic faith.

Palmerston launches Young Turks to permanently control Middle East

by Joseph Brewda

Chorus: It is clear that the B'nai B'rith is an abject tool of British intelligence, run and directed to serve the interests of British imperial policy, and not the interests of Jews, nor even of B'nai B'rith members. The one peculiarity of B'nai B'rith in comparison to the other organizations launched by Palmerston and his three stooges, is that B'nai B'rith will be used for a wider variety of tasks in various countries and epochs. Therefore, the B'nai B'rith will be more permanent in its continuous organization than its Mazzinian counterparts, among which it stands out as the most specialized.
At the end of this century, one of the tasks assigned to the B'nai B'rith will be to direct, with the help of other Mazzinian agents, the dismemberment and partition of the Ottoman Empire. This is the state the British will call "the sick man of Europe." Historically, the Ottoman Empire offers surprising tolerance to its ethnic minorities. In order to blow up the empire, that will have to be changed into brutal racial oppression on the Mazzini model.
In 1862, during the time of the American Civil War, Mazzini will call on all his agents anywhere near Russia to foment revolt as a way of causing trouble for Alexander II. A bit later, with the help of Young Poland, Mazzini will start a Young Ottoman movement out of an Adam Smith translation project in Paris. In 1876, the Young Ottomans will briefly seize power in Constantinople. They will end a debt moratorium, pay off the British, declare free trade, and bring in Anglo-French bankers. They will be quickly overthrown; but the same network will soon make a comeback as the Young Turks, whose rule will finally destroy the Ottoman Empire.

In 1908, the Committee for Union and Progress, better known as the Young Turks, carried out a military coup, overthrew the sultan, and took power in the Ottoman Turkish empire. Once in power, they carried out a racist campaign of suppressing all non-Turkish minorities. Within four years, their anti-minority campaigns provoked the Balkan wars of 1912-13, among Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria, and Serbia. By 1914, these wars had triggered World War I, with Turkey becoming an ally of Germany.
Within seven years of coming into power, the Young Turks destroyed the Ottoman Empire. British intelligence had manipulated every nationalist group in the Empire, both the Young Turks, and their opponents.
When the Young Turks took power, the Ottoman Empire still included Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Palestine, and the Arabian Peninsula. The empire still included much of the Balkans: half of Greece, half of Bulgaria, half of Serbia, and all of Albania. Its land area was much bigger than present-day Turkey.
Although most of the population of the Ottoman empire were Turks, there were also large numbers of Slavs, Greeks, Arabs, Armenians, and Kurds. The Ottoman empire was a multi-ethnic empire, as were the nearby Austrian and Russian empires.
The Young Turks came to power waving the banner of democracy, but they soon picked up the banner of pan-Turkism. The idea was to form a state that included all the Turkic peoples of Asia. Since half of these people lived in Russia, this policy meant a collision with Russia.
But pan-Turkism was not created by the Young Turks or even in Turkey. It was first called for in the 1860s by a Hungarian Zionist named Arminius Vambery, who had become an adviser to the sultan, but who secretly worked for Lord Palmerston and the British Foreign Office. Vambery later tried to broker a deal between the Zionist leader Theodor Herzl and the sultan, over the creation of Israel.
The Young Turks also raised the banner of a pan-Islamic state. The idea was to bring all the Muslim peoples of the world into one empire, whether or not they were Turkish. This was another goal that meant conflict with Russia.
This idea was also not created by the Young Turks or in Turkey. It was first called for in the 1870s by an English nobleman named Wilfred Blunt, whose family had created the Bank of England. Blunt was a top British intelligence official who advocated using Islam to destroy Russia. Blunt's family later patronized the British KGB spy "Kim" Philby.
While the Young Turks were pushing the pan-Turkic and pan-Islamic movements, the British were also boosting all the anti-Turkish independence movements within the empire. They were supporting Arab nationalism, led by Lawrence of Arabia. They were supporting Serbian nationalism, led by the British agent Seton-Watson; Albanian nationalism, led by Lady Dunham; and Bulgarian nationalism, led by Noel Buxton. All of these peoples wanted to break free from the Ottoman Empire; but they also claimed the land of their neighbors.
For example, the British supported the idea of carving a "Greater Armenia" out of Turkey, Iran, and Russia. This "Greater Armenia" had no possibility of existing. None of the Great Powers, including Britain, really wanted it. The Kurds, who lived in the same area, didn't want it. But the British told the Armenians they supported their plans.
At the same time, the British were also telling the Kurds they supported the idea of "Greater Kurdistan." As the map shows, the proposed territories of "Greater Kurdistan" and "Greater Armenia" were almost identical.
In 1915, during World War I, the Kurds killed about 1 million Armenians. The Young Turks, who had been put in power by the British, used the Kurds (who thought they had the support of the British) to slaughter the Armenians (who also thought they had the support of the British). The British then used this genocide as a justification for trying to eliminate Turkey.
In fact, the next year, the British and French got together to plan the division of the Ottoman Empire between themselves. According to the plan, which only partially worked, Turkey itself would be reduced to a tiny area on the Black Sea. The rest of the empire would go to Britain and France.

B'nai B'rith and the Young Turks

But who were these "Young Turks," who so efficiently destroyed the empire?
The founder of the Young Turks was an Italian B'nai B'rith official named Emmanuel Carasso. Carasso set up the Young Turk secret society in the 1890s in Salonika, then part of Turkey, and now part of Greece. Carasso was also the grand master of an Italian masonic lodge there, called "Macedonia Resurrected." The lodge was the headquarters of the Young Turks, and all the top Young Turk leadership were members.
The Italian masonic lodges in the Ottoman Empire had been set up by a follower of Giuseppe Mazzini named Emmanuel Veneziano, who was also a leader of B'nai B'rith's European affiliate, the Universal Israelite Alliance.
During the Young Turk regime, Carasso continued to play a leading role. He met with the sultan, to tell him that he was overthrown. He was in charge of putting the sultan under house arrest. He ran the Young Turk intelligence network in the Balkans. And he was in charge of all food supplies in the empire during World War I.
Another important area was the press. While in power, the Young Turks ran several newspapers, including The Young Turk, whose editor was none other than the Russian Zionist leader Vladimir Jabotinsky. Jabotinsky had been educated as a young man in Italy. He later described Mazzini's ideas as the basis for the Zionist movement.
Jabotinsky arrived in Turkey shortly after the Young Turks seized power, to take over the paper. The paper was owned by a member of the Turkish cabinet, but it was funded by the Russian Zionist federation, and managed by B'nai B'rith. The editorial policy of the paper was overseen by a Dutch Zionist named Jacob Kann, who was the personal banker of the king and queen of the Netherlands.
Jabotinsky later created the most anti-Arab of all the Zionist organizations, the Irgun. His followers in Israel today are the ones most violently opposed to the Peres-Arafat peace accords.
Another associate of Carasso was Alexander Helphand, better known as Parvus, the financier of the 1905 and 1917 Russian revolutions. Shortly after 1905, Parvus moved to Turkey, where he became the economics editor of another Young Turk newspaper called The Turkish Homeland. Parvus became a business partner of Carasso in the grain trade, and an arms supplier to the Turkish army during the Balkan wars. He later returned to Europe, to arrange the secret train that took Lenin back to Russia, in 1917.
Of course, there were also some Turks who helped lead the Young Turk movement. For example, Talaat Pasha. Talaat was the interior minister and dictator of the regime during World War I. He had been a member of Carasso's Italian masonic lodge in Salonika. One year prior to the 1908 coup, Talaat became the grand master of the Scottish Rite Masons in the Ottoman Empire. If you go to the Scottish Rite headquarters in Washington, D.C., you can find that most of the Young Turk leaders were officials in the Scottish Rite.
But who founded the Scottish Rite in Turkey? One of the founders was the grand master of the Scottish Rite in France, Adolph Cremieux, who also happened to be the head of the B'nai B'rith's European affiliate. Cremieux had been a leader of Mazzini's Young France, and helped put the British stooge Napoleon III into power.

The British controller: Aubrey Herbert

You can find the story of the Young Turks in the B'nai B'rith and Scottish Rite archives, but you cannot find it in history books. The best public account is found in the novel Greenmantle, whose hero is a British spy who led the Young Turks. Carasso appears in the novel under the name Carusso. The author, John Buchan, who was a British intelligence official in World War I, later identified the novel's hero as Aubrey Herbert.
In real life, Herbert was from one of the most powerful noble families in England. The family held no fewer than four earldoms. His repeated contact with Carasso and other Young Turk leaders is a matter of public record. Herbert's grandfather had been a patron of Mazzini and died leading revolutionary mobs in Italy in 1848. His father was in charge of British Masonry in the 1880s and 1890s. His uncle was the British ambassador to the United States. During World War I, Herbert was the top British spymaster in the Middle East. Lawrence of Arabia later identified Herbert as having been, at one time, the head of the Young Turks.
The U.S. State Department also played a role in the conspiracy. From 1890 through World War I, there were three U.S. ambassadors to Turkey: Oscar Straus, Abraham Elkin, and Henry Morgenthau. All three were friends of Simon Wolf. And all three were officials of B'nai B'rith.

Freud and the Frankfurt School

by Michael Minnicino

Chorus: B'nai B'rith networks will have a devastating impact on the culture of the twentieth century. Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, will be a leading member of the B'nai B'rith lodge in Vienna, Austria, during the twilight of the Hapsburg Empire. Freud later will cordially thank the members of that lodge for their support during his arduous early years in psychoanalysis. Indeed, several members of the lodge will provide the initiating cadre who along with Freud will found the quackery of psychoanalysis. This Freud will be a charlatan and a cabbalist. The anti-Semitism of Freud and of B'nai B'rith as an organization of British intelligence at the expense of Jews will be perhaps most clearly documented in Freud's last major work Moses and Monotheism. His hatred for creativity and the human mind will be documented in his essay on Leonardo da Vinci, in which he will assert, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, that Leonardo was a homosexual.
Later, the Frankfurt Institute for Social Research will be founded with the program of merging Marx with Freud. One of the pillars of the Frankfurt School will be Max Horkheimer. After the Second World War, Horkheimer will be instrumental in re-founding and reorganizing B'nai B'rith in Frankfurt. The Frankfurt School will provide the matrix for the youth culture and counterculture of the postwar decades in the same way that Mazzini, the high priest of romanticism, has used his youth cults to shape the first half of the nineteenth century.

[Note to the reader: The author wishes to point out that in his conference presentation, transcribed below, he was acting out a caricature of a session with a Frankfurt School-trained psychoanalyst, and that the views he expresses are therefore by no means his own. The author also pointed out, during a later question-and-answer period, that there are many other forms of psychological aid which are of great therapeutic value.]

So, tell me: About how long have you been feeling depressed? ...
Okay, we can come back to that later. If you are going to undergo psychoanalysis with me, perhaps it might be better if I started, and told you how I go about things. I'm not really a strict Freudian psychoanalyst, you know—almost nobody is a strict Freudian these days. But, that is not to say that the old boy doesn't have his influence. It's amazing, you know: Sigmund Freud's scientific credibility was nearly destroyed, but right after World War II, his ideas became the most widely discussed topic in America. Do you know why he became so popular? Because he said that it was okay to be a pessimist; he proved that if you were unhappy, it was okay, and it wasn't your fault.
And, I can't help noticing that you, personally, don't appear very pessimistic; as a matter of fact, you look rather optimistic. Too much optimism is how a lot of people get depressed: They think they can solve the problems of the whole world; all they have to do is get people to act rationally. If you put too much faith in the power of reason, you are going to fail, and you are just going to make yourself depressed. Sigmund Freud understood that—that down deep, people aren't reasonable. That is why my old teacher Erich Fromm back in 1970 said that psychoanalysis was really "the science of human irrationality."
Anyway, this optimism stuff is 130 years out of date. Let me see if I can remember that poem:

Ah, love, let us be true
To one another! for the world, which seems
To lie before us like a land of dreams,
So various, so beautiful, so new,
Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light,
Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;
And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.

Now, that is pessimism: Matthew Arnold, "Dover Beach," 1859. And you know, people didn't generally write poetry that pessimistic before 1859. That, by the way, is the same year that Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species, the book that really got people to look at the human race realistically. Most people think that Darwin's book is devoted to evolution. Not really; as a matter of fact, Darwin didn't even use the word "evolution" in that first edition. The full title tells it all: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection; or, the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. Darwin got people to realize that life is not progress or development, but an endless struggle; you can't be optimistic, because how things turn out is not a question of morality, or a divine plan; it's a question of biology—over which you and I have very little control.
Thomas Huxley, Darwin's good friend, said it best: "I know of no study which is so utterly saddening as that of the evolution of humanity. Man emerges with the marks of his lowly origin strong upon him. He is a brute, only more intelligent than other brutes, a blind prey to impulses ... a victim to endless illusions, which make his mental existence a burden, and fill his life with barren toil and battle."
This stuff changed the world back in the 1860s and '70s; everybody had to explain the universe in terms of Darwin. Even Hermann Helmholtz, the mechanist physicist, told his colleagues that the "struggle for existence" was "the highest principle of explanation, in the face of which not even the molecules ... and the stars in heaven are safe." And Sigmund Freud said that the two most important influences on him were Charles Darwin and Hermann Helmholtz. He even tried to study with Huxley in London and with Helmholtz in Berlin.

Below-the-belt identity

You see, what Freud did, was take the blind, mechanical forces of biology described by Darwin, and show that they operated on the mind. For instance, some people get the idea that they can help the whole human race; but, Freud told everybody that this was an illusion, like religion. Freud realized that, if you get the idea that you can help all humanity survive and grow, that this idea is actually your own desire to survive and reproduce—your own individual sexual urges—channeled (what we call "sublimated") into a more socially acceptable form.
Look at Freud's case history of Leonardo da Vinci—maybe the greatest combination of artist and scientist of all time. You think Leonardo was moved by some higher purpose? No way—it's sex! It's always sex. Freud said: Sex starts even before you're born; right from the start, you are biologically impelled to explore the physical world; that's where you get your ideas, from groping around in the world of the senses.
For centuries people thought that this erotic groping around was a bad thing. Freud helped us understand that this was natural—that you have these erotic instinctual drives, these irrational little demons inside you, and you can't do that much about it. For most people, this eroticism becomes totally inhibited by religion, or by some other cultural problem; or it gets repressed by childhood experiences and transformed into various kinds of neuroses.
But Freud said that the reason why Leonardo was such a genius, was that he was one of those rare individuals whose erotic drives became perfectly sublimated; according to Freud, Leonardo effectively never grew up (somewhat like Michael Jackson); and scientific and artistic investigation became Leonardo's substitute for sexual activity. As old Sigmund said, Leonardo became a complete narcissist, "the ideal homosexual type."
Homosexual? No, psychoanalysis understands that homosexuality is not really a perversion; it is just one of the healthy ways of dealing with the irrational drives within us all. Anyway, Freud said that all human beings are naturally bisexual.
I see that you are somewhat afraid of this subject; perhaps you have never dealt with your own homosexual urges. Don't worry: We can deal with that problem later on in your therapy.
You have got to be realistic. It is absurd to worry about universal truths; the only universals are these mechanical forces in your brain and in your pants. And, each person comes up with his or her own, more or less successful way of reconciling these forces with the experiences that you receive in the course of growing up. Why, the whole history of social science—from Freud and almost every psychologist, plus almost all of sociology, and almost all of anthropology—is one great effort to prove that you can't judge a truth in terms of all mankind; truth is all relative to the individual. And what is more, you have to accept that your mind is not truly free: Biology means that you can never completely control those erotic little demons inside you. So, don't set your sights unrealistically high: The only thing you can hope to discover—with the help of professionals like me—is how to be well-adjusted.

Origins of the Frankfurt School

Well, of course, I can't prove it!
Psychoanalysis cannot clinically prove that the unconscious, the id, dream analysis, the Oedipus complex, or any important Freudian concept really exists. Freud said that psychoanalysis is like a religion: You can't prove it, but you accept it on faith. As a matter of fact, Carl Jung once wrote Freud a letter, suggesting that psychoanalysis start acting as a formal religion; Freud thought that was a bit too premature.
Actually, I think it was this religious aspect which attracted the Frankfurt School to Freud in the 1930s. I probably should tell you that, like many psychoanalysts today, I came to Freud by way of the Frankfurt School—you know: Erich Fromm, Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorno.
A Hungarian fellow named Georg Lukacs founded the Frankfurt School because he was trying to determine how to cause massive social changes. Lukacs was specifically interested in developing Bolshevism, but the technique works for any ideology. Lukacs said that you had to make people completely pessimistic; you had to make them believe that they lived in "a world abandoned by God," as he put it. At the same time, the new social movement that you were trying to create had to have certain key similarities to a religion—but, of course, without a concept of a Supreme Being. In fact, Lukacs seriously investigated the Baal Shem cult, a Jewish cabbalistic sect, as well as several medieval Christian heresies, in order to find what he called the "messianic" ideas which could be incorporated into Bolshevik organizing.
Freudian theory fit this bill precisely; it was just like going back to the Gnostic cults of the Middle Ages: The demons were back, the evil was being generated in your own mind, and you needed a new priesthood to save you. The Frankfurt School's extension of Freud was the major reason why psychoanalysis became so influential in American life after World War II. The Frankfurt School helped us all to discover how bad our mental health really was—how we had to liberate ourselves from the authoritarian constraints that made us neurotic; that we must resist the imposition of universal values, and embrace a healthy personal hedonism.

Fixing up Freud

Now, as your psychoanalyst, I hate to admit it, but, even though he had a great model for the individual mind, Freud's social psychology was a disaster. But, the Frankfurt School solved that. Freud had said that the individual human identity was based on the interaction of biology—that is, the instinctual drives embedded in man's hereditary structure—with the experiences of growing to maturity within the structure of the family. Freud thought all people were more or less the same, because the instinctual drives were the same, and the family structures were more or less the same. The Frankfurt School corrected this by emphasizing that each culture, each people, each race, have important differences in their psychologies, because their differing family structures transmit the ideas of authority, value, morality, in different ways.
So, if you want to liberate your eros and become healthy, the most important thing is to find what separates one culture, one people, one race, from the other ones. The differences don't have to be in the genes—I mean, today, very few people will admit publicly that black people are biologically different from white people. But, the Frankfurt School emphasized what Freud only hinted at: Cultural differences transmitted through the family can be as rigid and as powerful as biological differences, and thus they proved that black people are fundamentally different from white people because their cultures are different.
And a lot of people in this country supported and sponsored the Frankfurt School, because they were able to use Freud's psychoanalytic theory to demonstrate scientifically that all values must be relative. And this is why, today, everybody—everybody except for a few extremists and religious fanatics—understands that universal values are really authoritarian, and that the family structure has to be changed—maybe even destroyed—to stop imposing these obsolete values on the young.

The 'Jewish identity' project

Anyway, in the modern world, in the post-industrial society, we can no longer afford this authoritarian sense of power over nature which the patriarchal family transmits; today, the most important aspect of mental health is giving people an identity that will make them happy and erotically satisfied. This was the great original contribution of the Frankfurt School after World War II, when they worked with several Jewish organizations to create a new identity for American Jews. The Frankfurt School said that henceforth, Jewish identity would be defined, not by religious belief, not by the ideas through which Jews contributed to the rest of humanity, but by the Holocaust: Jews would be trained to see themselves primarily as victims of genocide. This has worked fantastically; even today, Jews who think that the B'nai B'rith are a bunch of crooks still give money to that organization because they have been trained to believe that they are profoundly different from everybody else, and that anti-Semites are ready to start a new Holocaust at any moment.
The Jewish identity project worked so well that we Frankfurt School Freudians asked to do the same thing for black people. In the 1960s, many black people were successfully re-trained to believe that what really defined their identity was how their African ancestors had been enslaved by white people. We did the same thing for women: The feminist movement used Frankfurt School theory and Freud to help millions of women realize that what really defined their identity was male chauvinism.
You see how successful we have been? Today, we give everybody the identity they need. We even teach it in the schools—it's called multiculturalism. Everybody gets an identity based on who raped whom: The Latin Americans understand that the most important thing is to get back at the Spanish colonialists; the Native Americans understand that the most important thing is to get back at the whites—everyone separated from everyone else. Fear? hatred? revenge? Sure! We give them that—but we also give them an identity, and they are happy.
But, we have spent too much time talking about what I think. We should be talking about what you think. But, I see that our time is about up. I think that I can fit you in next week; shall we say Tuesday? A short session is usually $75; you can pay as you leave.

Jim Crow, a cultural weapon in the hands of the Confederacy

by Dennis Speed

Chorus: Today, in 1850, Great Britain and the United States are traditional enemies moving toward their third military conflict after the American Revolution and the War of 1812. During the Civil War, the United States and Russia will together confront Lord Palmerston with a kind of League of Cambrai experience: the specter of these two great powers arrayed against the British Empire and its stooges, in a world war that London would almost certainly lose. After the Confederacy's defeat at the Battle of Gettysburg, the British will resign themselves to the continued existence of the United States for some time to come. They will rather focus their endeavors on using the United States and its power as a weapon in their own hands against Germany, Japan, Russia, and the developing countries. Cultural and financial subjugation will precede military exploitation; the Specie Resumption Act, the control of the the U.S. public debt by J.P. Morgan, and the presidencies of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, will mark the way toward the so-called "special relationship," with American muscle working for the brain in London. Under these auspices, British geopolitics will organize two world wars and 40 years of cold war.

From the years 1866-71, the United States witnessed the most revolutionary legislative and constitutional process in its history, since the founding of the nation in 1787-89. It was the revolutionary state legislatures of the South, that were the theater of that transformation.
We may gain a visual sense of the swiftness of that transformation, by viewing three illustrations. The first is of Frederick Douglass. Douglass, together with John Quincy Adams, and Lincoln, was America's most eloquent voice in defense of the Constitution. Douglass had been born a slave. Next to him are his sons, who fought against their father's former slavery, in the war of 1860-65. Finally, there is Douglass and his grandson Joseph. Joseph Douglass was an accomplished violinist, and played Schubert duets with his grandfather Frederick Douglass, who was also a violinist.
From slave, to freeman, to soldier, to artist: The evolution of the Douglass family, was, in one sense, the evolution of mankind that Schiller called for in his essay "On the Aesthetic Education of Man." Schiller said: "Every individual man carries a purely ideal man within himself. This pure man, who gives himself to be recognized more or less distinctly in every subject, is represented through the state. It is his objective form, in which the multiplicity of subjects strives to unite itself. Now, however, let two different ways be considered, how the state can maintain itself in the individual: either that the pure man suppresses the empirical, that the state abolishes the individual; or, that the individual becomes the state, that the man of time ennobles himself to the man in the idea."
Schiller had also, as an historian, written a seminal study on the legislation of the poet Solon of Athens, who abolished slavery in his famous constitution, as opposed to the laws of Lycurgus of Sparta, whose well-ordered society depended on slavery to function.
Lincoln had spoken of the tragic dimensions of the American conflict most eloquently in his Second Inaugural Address of 1864: "One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Each looks for an easier triumph and a result less fundamental and astounding. Each side reads the same Bible, each side prays to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any man should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces. But let us not judge, that we be not judged."
Indeed, between the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation, and the 1873-76 counterrevolution of the Ku Klux Klan, a great tragedy of truly classical dimensions would take place, one in which the conflict between the notion of a social order, as promulgated by Solon of Athens, briefly triumphed over the slave order of Lycurgus of Sparta that had been in existence in the United States up to that time.
Nor were the protagonists in the drama unaware of the central issue. In South Carolina, black and white debating societies had discussed the topic of Solon versus Lycurgus from the time of the 1840s. The exact topic was, "whether the laws of Lycurgus, or of Solon, are most likely to bring about a condition of happiness in the constitutional state."
But by 1865, the chief protagonist of this drama—Abraham Lincoln—lay dead, assassinated by a conspiracy run by the Scottish Rite of Freemasons on behalf of the British Empire. And though there were great men throughout America, and though there were individuals who well understood the revolution on which they were embarked, there was no individual other than the slain Lincoln, who was capable of understanding, communicating, and actualizing this revolution.
With the Hayes-Tilden Compromise of 1876, the counterrevolution led by the Scottish Rite, in the form of the Ku Klux Klan, turned the tide, in a way that they were unable to do on the battlefield of 1860-65. When the battle shifted to irregular war, the patriots lost, and the "race-patriots" won.
Our time is entirely dominated by and determined by the failure to win that irregular war with the Scottish Rite of Freemasons, and its most active deployment, the B'nai B'rith. The assassinations of John Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Robert Kennedy; the attempts against the lives of others; the harassment and extermination of other political movements; the control of the media—these things would not be possible, except for the Jim Crow cultural war won by the Scottish Rite.

The origins of 'Jim Crow'

Rather than focus on the invention of those pseudo-scientific frauds known as sociology, anthropology, psychology, and the social sciences more generally—and all degrees granted in these fields can be seen to be essentially worthless by any honest observer—we will focus on a critical cultural dynamic that to this day defines the modes of behavior of virtually the entire American population. This is called "Jim Crow."
"Jim Crow" refers to a popular form of entertainment in the United States of the period of the 1820s. It is also known as the "minstrel show." It comes from a white actor who viewed a crippled black slave doing a dance; he copied the crippled slave's dance and called it "Jumpin' Jim Crow." We see that the idea of black people as lazy, shiftless, no-good, was made central to the political propaganda of the United States in the period immediately after the Civil War.
There are the "coon songs" of the period of the 1880s and 1890s, which greeted Dvor@akák when he came to America at that time to attempt to create a National Conservatory of Music.
There were the various forms of snide, and clearly racist humor; and finally, there was the minstrel show.
Jim Crow is usually identified with the set of laws that was passed, starting about 1901, codifying segregation throughout the South. In 1868, the South Carolina legislature mandated public education for the black and white population, and gave every male over 21 the right to vote. This predominantly black legislature enfranchised the white male population, 90% of whom had not owned enough property to be eligible to vote prior to the war. Integration of schools, including colleges, became law in 1868. In Alabama, which would be the site of the 1956 Montgomery Bus Boycott, public transportation was fully desegregated in 1869! All of this, as well as the election of African-Americans to the United States Senate and Congress, or to governorships of states, would be swept away by Jim Crow.
But Jim Crow represented a cultural value which was in the ascendancy in the late nineteenth century, and whose major spokesmen were British, or Anglo-American. These were the people who believed that the northwest states of the United States should be preserved as an Anglo-Saxon estate for a Nordic-based racial stock. These were the people who would found the Immigration Restriction League, and would eventually, by 1924, severely restrict the immigration of eastern Europeans, Italians, and other "Mediterranean peoples" to this country. Ultimately, it would be because of these restrictions, in part, that when Jews would attempt to flee Europe because of the rise of fascism, they would not be admitted to the United States; and it would be the Joint Distribution Committee and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), that would oppose anti-Nazi activity by Jewish organizations in the United States.

'Race science' in America

We do not exaggerate in referring to "Palmerston's Zoo." Anthropology, otherwise properly known by its original name of race science, was introduced in America by putting "primitive races" on exhibit in St. Louis in 1904. Humanity was said to have evolved from the "most primitive"—the pygmies of the Congo—to the brown races, then to the red, then to the yellow, and then to the white. The American Museum of Natural History advocated this theory, and stuffed an Eskimo and put him on exhibit. At the Bronx Zoo, William Temple Hornaday placed the pygmy Ota Benga on exhibit as the "missing link" between the ape and man, as the exemplar of "primitive man," and that exhibit was maintained throughout 1905-06.
In the last three years, we have exposed the FBI program known as "Primitive Man" or "Frühmenschen"—a racist program to target African-American politicians, who make up a minuscule percentage of elected officials, but the preponderance of "corruption" cases in the United States.
To understand the roots of this, you must understand the racist roots of anthropology. You must also understand that it was the movie Birth of a Nation that had given this "primitive" characterization, in its attack on the South Carolina legislature, to all black political figures that would follow.
FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover's task was conceived to be like that of Ota Benga's captor and "benefactor" Samuel Phillips Verner: Put the apes in the zoo—in the "pen"—where they belong.
You had the practice going on simultaneously with this, of renewed slavery in the Congo. Leopold of Belgium exacted for his rubber trade, and for the labor required, a high penalty. When laborers were unable to meet the quota, they were dealt with harshly; frequently their hands were chopped off.
But not only the "right wingers" believed in race theory, in race science, in eugenics in America. Woodrow Wilson, former president of Princeton University and later President of the United States, was the leading promoter of the Confederate-Klan myth, which was the basis in America for the toleration of the resurgence of the Klan in 1915—for which purpose the movie Birth of a Nation was made. In 1915, however, the Klan's major deployment was not against blacks, but against German-Americans, and against those who argued that the United States should not ally with Britain in World War I.
Wilson's father had been a Confederate officer in the Civil War, and had taught Mazzini's theories of race revolution at Princeton. Mazzini had supported the Confederacy and the abolitionist causes, because, in his schema, both the Confederacy and the abolitionist secessionist movement could be used to divide the nation, so long as Lincoln and Douglass's constitutional perspective were not to prevail.
Wilson's way had been paved by the arch-racist Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt, who had been President for two terms prior to Wilson, paved the way for Wilson's election through a third-party tactic called the Bull Moose Party. Roosevelt today is immortalized in front of the race-patriot center in New York City, the Museum of Natural History, in a statue which is supposed to represent the superiority of the so-called "white race" over the "colored races." We also remind you that George Bush kept a picture of Teddy Roosevelt on his wall throughout his occupation of the Oval Office.
Henry Fairfield Osborn, president of the Museum of Natural History; his associate Madison Grant, trustee of the New York Zoological Society; and Bernard Baruch, a Jewish businessman and part of a Southern Confederate Jewish slave-holding family—these, among others, promoted the pseudo-science of eugenics, along with Averell Harriman, later to become the major mover and shaker in the Democratic Party.
During the 1930s, the Museum sponsored a conference on eugenics, and had Dr. Ernst Rudin, Hitler's top race scientist, come to that conference to receive an award.
Until his death in 1986, Averell Harriman was a major force in the Democratic Party's opposition to Lyndon LaRouche. The first "Pike campaign" that would be carried out by the LaRouche forces, was launched in 1982 against Harriman, Teddy Roosevelt, and the Museum of Natural History. It caused Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, famous for his racist attacks on the African-American family, and for his policy of "benign neglect" toward the poor of America's cities, to deploy his campaign manager, Eric Breindel—a former heroin addict and now editorial page editor of the New York Post and board member of the ADL—to denounce the LaRouche forces as "racist" and anti-Semitic." This came from the defenders of the major American institution in support of Hitler's racial policies: the Museum of Natural History. The "crime" was that the LaRouche forces had attacked the Palmerston Zoo, to whose defense, the "spalpeen" Moynihan would always hasten.
High-tech stereotyping
Why does America tolerate this? Americans tolerate this because they are, in large measure—particularly since the Kennedy and King assassinations—creatures in a multicultural zoo.
A teacher in the Washington, D.C. area recently supplied insight into the results of the several years of emphasis on multiculturalism in schools and society in America. In a survey he did of his class of 29 pupils—24 of whom are black—he found that the students held the following beliefs:
* "Blacks are poor and stay poor because they are dumber than whites."
* "Black people don't like to work hard."
* "Black people have to be bad, so they can fight and defend themselves from other blacks."
* As students, they see their badness as "natural." They don't mean any disrespect to the teacher; it's just "how they are."
* "Black men make women pregnant, and leave."
* "Black boys expect to die young and unnaturally."
* "White people are smart and have money. Asians are smart and make money. Asians don't like blacks or Hispanics."
* "Hispanics are more like blacks than whites: They can't be white, so they try to be black."
* "Hispanics are poor and don't try hard, because, like blacks, they know it doesn't matter."
The teacher was mystified; but he failed to recognize that multiculturalism is simply high-technology stereotyping.
Let us look at the problem of racial stereotyping. Let us take the case of the African-American male. The African American male falls into seven stereotypes. This is not to assert that the individuals who are represented here as examples of the stereotype, necessarily actually conform to such; but of course, no real human individual ever corresponds, since all stereotypes are mythical.
The first stereotype is "Bubba," the super-athlete:
There is "Reverend Chicken-wing."
There is "Step 'n' Fetchit."
There is "Nat Turner."
There is "Superfly."
There is "Jigaboo Jive."
There is "Dr./Prof./Gen. I.M. Halfwhite."
There is "Kuweka Iwuz Blak Befoy'all."
And there are the Jim Crow variations, such as Elvis.
Now, these individuals may have other substance as real people; they may be induced, encouraged, or forced to act out a stereotype. However, they are only socially recognizable in the guise of the cultural stereotype to which they conform. Otherwise, they are invisible, or nonexistent, or "dead."
The purpose of multiculturalism is to "suggest" to the African-American male, that these are the limitations of his identity. All of the roles do not preclude, for example, sexual promiscuity—a trait presumed by all these stereotypes to be virtually, if not actually, genetic. If you do not correspond to one of these stereotypes as an African-American male, you are, as the author Ralph Ellison termed it, an "invisible man." If you assert your existence through some act or thought, you threaten the master-slave relationship between the zookeepers and the animals. There is only one way out for you: Conform to the stereotype, or die.
Here are some images of people who did not conform to racial stereotyping.
There is the composer Harry Burleigh.
There is the great tenor Roland Hayes.
There is Marian Anderson, perhaps the greatest singer of this century.
There are the Fisk Jubilee Singers, who, following the Civil War strove to elevate the Negro spiritual to the level of a German art-song.
There are contemporary figures that also do not conform:
There is New York Congressman Adam Clayton Powell.
There is Malcolm X.
There is former Manhattan Borough President Hulan Jack, one of the founders of the National Democratic Policy Committee along with Lyndon LaRouche.
There is Martin Luther King, who, though he is said to have conformed to such stereotypes, successfully violated them, by leading an integrated movement that dared to publicly practice Christianity.
There is Minister Louis Farrakhan.
And there is Lyndon LaRouche.
These are figures whose images evoke "discomfort." Think of how they are described: "extremists." But what does that term actually mean? "Not clearly on the left or right"—what does that phrase actually mean? "A threat to our notion of the democratic process"—what does that mean? It is not the cognitive meaning that is significant here; it is the affective meaning—the sense of uneasiness, of vague upset, of "they-just-aren't-the-right-kind-of people"-ness—which is essential. That affective meaning is the generator of stereotyping. When you are caused to empathize, in so-called non-cognitive education, with how people feel about something, rather than with how they think about something, you will generate stereotyping, not discourage it.
The major weapon of the Scottish Rite of Freemasons in the destruction of the American Revolution which was successfully waged by Lincoln and others, was the assertion of Jim Crow as a cultural value-determinant. It was against this, that King uniquely, of all Americans, rallied the nation as a whole—not its African-American population solely. Today, the ADL, using "multiculturalism," seeks to wipe out the African-American intellectual—not only out of racism, but because such intelligence might become one catalyst to freeing all the other animals in the theme park.
King's message is well contained in the statement of the Apostle Paul (Galatians 3:28) that "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor slave, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." That advanced statement of Christian civilization, which became the street practice of America's citizens in the 1960s through the civil rights movement, is still the key to unlocking the chains of illusion that keep us imprisoned in the multicultural zoo.

Epilogue

Chorus: Toward the end of the twentieth century, in the storms of the breakdown crisis that will follow the end of the NATO-Warsaw Pact confrontation, human beings will be forced to choose between two conflicting definitions of themselves.
On the one hand, they will be able to choose, as human beings always are, creative reason, scientific discovery, and a true world order, a community of principle, of sovereign nations seeking progress through economic development. If the persons of those coming days are able to lift their eyes to the stars, they may be able to cease killing one another in order to possess a few square miles of mud on one small planet. If they are capable of recognizing the inherent universality of the human personality, the equality of each person as imago viva Dei, then the domain of humanity will be without limit.
But in those same days, the heirs of Mazzini and Lord Palmerston and B'nai B'rith, the servants of a dying Britain, will try to pull the world with them into the abyss. They will say that identity is that of an ethnic group, and that ethnicity controls man's destiny as it does among the animal species. They will tell Americans of the melting pot, and so many others who have no ethnic identity, that they must acquire a synthetic one. They will rewrite history around a thousand false centers in order to deny that human progress is One. Nor will the minds of little children be exempted from these torments. Others will talk of multiculturalism in a time when the human image will be lacerated and violated and immolated as never before in the face of all the nations. If these voices prevail, then an eon of darkness will surely cover the world.
When Palmerston ranted his "Civis Romanus sum" in the Parliament here in Westminster just a short time ago, he thought that the empire was made, and that there would never be a reply. But a reply will come, after the British drive will have fallen short, 13 years from now, when Abraham Lincoln will stand among the new graves and promise that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth.

Integralni tekst Denisa Kuljiša:

SAGA O LOVAŠIMA I UDBAŠIMA



Afera "Zlato za odvažne" - teoretski uvod

Prolazak Slavoja Žižeka kroz glavni grad Hrvatske, izazvao je kataklizmičke posljedice. Jedan od najvećih živućih filozofa, kojega ankete svrstavaju medju deset najznačajnijih intelektualaca u svijetu, održao je u sklopu "Eurokaza" predavanje što je sadržavalo osebujnu apologiju staljinizma i staljinističke kulturne politike. Zagreb je nadasve pomodna metropola pa je radikalizam ovdje stoga opet de riugeur. Autor pedeset knjiga, prevednih na sve kulturne jezike, o kojemu je snimljen cjelovečernji dokumentarni film "Žižek!" - moj prijatelj, gej, kaže mi da ga je kupio u piratskom izdanju u Bagkoku - samom pojavom na javnoj sceni katalizira radikalno promišljanje politike. Neformalni savjetnik slovenske vlade, on je bio ključna, no nevidljiva figura u pozadini revolucije što je malu karantanijsku državinu pretvorila u kontinentalnu silu, koja će prvog siječnja iduće godine preuzeti upravljanje Europskom unijom. Žižek nas uči da se u promišljanju ne smijemo bojati ničega osim straha samoga. Kao evangelistički pohod sv. Pavla, sam dolazak Slavoja Žižeka u Zagreb, ima gotovo mistične reperkusije. Na svoje prilike više ne gledamo kao uskogrudi moralisti, nego se ludički otvaramo prema svim njihovim fantazmagoričnim uzrocima i posljedicama...
Upravo je žižekovski beskompromisni radikalizam u promišljanju političkih fenomena nužan da se teorijski ovlada odrednicama afere "Zlato za odvažne", koja upravo potresa hrvatsko društvo. Afera je poprimila nesagledive razmjere pošto novinski i televizijski kopači svakoga dana na površinu izbacuju tone novog materijala, no, uz konvencionalni moralizam svojstven malograđanskom licemjerju, nismo sposobni pojmiti aktere afere, junake našega doba, njihove motive ni svijet u kojem se kreću. A bez identificikacije, ne možeš shvatiti priču. Prisjećam se sad naputka Ivana Salečića, šuvarovskog pražižekovskog teoretičara, koji nam je na jednom partijskom savjetovanju o etici koncem osamdesetih godina govorio: "Nije dovoljno da svijet promišljamo kao marksisiti, mi moramo ući u psihu mladog Marxa u doba kad je uređivao 'Nove rajnske novine', pa stvari sagledavati s njegova aspekta!" Treba, dakle napustiti neutralnu i moralističku poziciju novinskog komentatora, pa emulirati mentalni i intelektualni habitus glavnih junaka afere.
Junaci afere spadaju u dvije društvene skupine povezane zajedničkim interesom, a razdvojene pripadnošću apartnim profesionalnim subkulturama. Riječ je o dvije kaste, dva plemena, dvije gilde: prvu sačinjavaju Udbaši, u drugu spadaju Lovaši. Udbaši servisiraju sve opcije, sve centre moći - stranačke, financijske, lobističke - pošto jedinio oni posjeduju potrebna heuristička znanja i vladaju tehnologijama za ostvarivanja utjecaja na politički proces odlučivanja. Oni imaju pristup tajnim informacijama, tajnim kanalima komunikacije, osposobljeni su za tajno djelovanje u tajnim operacijama tajne ekonomije. Tajna ekonomija ostvaruje daleko veći promet od javne ekonomije - crno i sivo tržište nisu ništa prema onom tajnom, što najbolje potkrepljuje činjenica da većinu najbogatijih Hrvata nitko i ne pozna: najveći broj vila na Tuškancu i većina jahti u Ićićima, imaju anonimne vlasnike. Tajna ekonomija pritom nije ilegalna ekonomija - trgovina drogom bila bi posve beznačajna, da se profiti iz te slabo isplative mukotrpne djelatnosti ne plasiraju na tajno tržište nekretnina i ondje oplođuju.
Druga kritična skupina su Lovaši. Njihov novac plasira se u tajne ekonomske operacije, iz kojih onda sami izvlače najveći dio profita, pa ga dalje usmjeravaju u proširenu reprodukciju preko tajnih luksemburških fondova i privatnih švicarskih banaka. Udbaši pak rade iz profesionalnih motiva, radi profesionalne satisfakcije, osjećaja moći, zato što su "nakačeni", i zato jer u "civilnoj" sferi imaju previše neprijatelja da bi se u nju mogli vratiti pa opstati bez pomoći svojih kompića s tajne scene, uvijek, uostalom, podložni njihovim ucjenama. Poznato je temeljno pravilo - jednom Udbaš, uvijek Udbaš, s tim da ovdje treba imati na umu kako su Udbaši, stvoreni u krilu tajne policije bivšeg režima, Uprave državne bezbednosti, samo osnivači sekte, kojoj su predali metodologiju rada, dok su današnji Udbaši, zapravo novi ljudi, koji idejno mogu biti i antikomunisti. Riječ je o profesionalnoj disciplini, a ne o uvjerenju.
Druga je česta zabluda u javnosti - da su i oni koji rade za Udbaše, naime kriminalci, novinari, advokati... i sami Udbaši, pa ih neupućeni tako pogrdno nazivaju, što je, naravno, sasvim deplasirano. Pravih Udbaša jako je malo (ne više od virtuoza na violini), pošto se nauk stječe u majstorskim radionicama, gdje se, kao u hramu Sahaolin, poslije tajnih rituala inicijacije, stječe vještina dugotrajnom službom u Službi.
Za razliku od Udbaša, koji su stabilna skupina i sporo mijenjaju sastav kako zanat prelazi s oca na sina, Lovaši su elita što strahovito brzo cirkulira - u tu se grupu može lako ući i iz nje još brže ispasti... Lovaši, naime, vode ratove oko resursa, u kojima će mnogi od njih propasti ili završiti u zatvoru. Udbaši međusobno nikad ne vode bespoštedne ratove - kad se sukobe, izmjenjuju jedino udarce upućene protivničkim pokroviteljima, konkurentskim Lovašima, a pritom sami održavaju korektne profesionalne odnose. Štoviše, uvijek su spremni na trgovinu informacijama, te iskazuju određenu mjeru profesionalne solidarnosti.

Afera Zlato za odvažne - zaplet ukratko

Zaplet počinje još na suđenju šefu zagrebačkog podzemlja, Hrvoju Petraču, optuženom za organizaciju otmice Zagorčeva sina Tomislava. Svota otkupa bila je beznačajna za financijske prilike oba ta ranija partnera - no ključno je kod stavljanja u reket da žrtvu potpuno destabiliziraš, pa demonstriraš kako je izložena i ovisna o zaštitnicima. Posao je savršeno odrađen, medijska logistika također - reketarski tabloidi upućivali su stalno na krivi trag, a probušena policija, potpuno nekompetentno postupala: prilikom predaje otkupa, kurira su slijedili automobilom, pa kad je torbu predao motociklistu, novcu je zauvijek izgubljen trag. Nešto je ipak pošlo po zlu na državnom odvjetništvu - kriminalni lobi pomalo je izgubio kontrolu nad tim ključnim sektorom, iako ga je stalno držao pod političkim i medijskim pritiskom. Umiješali su se, naime, policijski agenti Haaškog tribunala, koji su tragali za suradničkom mrežom odbjeglog generala Gotovine, pa dospjeli u sukob s kartelom koji je, od samoga vrha do dolje, kontrolirao politiku, obavještajne službe, medije i podzemlje. Ta paralegalna grupacija, koju ćemo dalje u tekstu nazivati Kartel, formirali su Udbaši, a imala je fatalnu slabost - kako ne obuhvaća nijednog Lovaša, sav novac koji tu kola, dolazi iz ilegalnih izvora. Novac od droge i kriminala je, međutim, sitniš, a šverc cigareta je pukao čim je pao Milošević, dok su iznude sporadične, pa čak i kad reketiraš banke, nedovoljne da nahrane sve te ljude s ambicijom da stave pod konrolu cijelo hrvatsko društvo. Stoga je glavni financijer, ilegalni rezident ove skupine odlučio preuzeti najveću, najunosniju operaciju razvoja nekretnina u državi, i to na način svojstven podzemlju: tako da ga preotme reketom. Oteo je Zagorčeva sina, pa se spremao da ukliješti samog Zagorca, centar otuđene financijske moći, čovjeka koji je u ratu vodio i zatim preuzeo cijelu operaciju šverca oružja za MORH. Šverc je donosio golem profit, jer se oružje prodavalo Bošnjacima, koji su sjedili na arapskim milijardama, a kad je to tržište presahnulo, nastavio se transfer u afričke zemlje, gdje su trgovci plaćali drogom. Budući da je Šušak umro, a bio je ionako debil, koji ne bi bio kadar razumjeti i voditi ove poslove, sve je ostalo Zagorcu, koji je novac deponirao u austrijskim bankama, kao kreditno pokriće za potonje poslove. U Austriji lako je našao partnere - banku koja je i sama bila prisutna u Hrvatskoj, jer je tu plasirala novac deponiran prilikom sveopće pljačke države, koju su tuđmanisti pokrenuli prilikom preuzimanja vlasti. Iz svih mogućih fondova i opljačkanih portfelja, milijarde su se slile na austrijska konta, pa postala pokriće za unosne dilove kupovine zemlje i nekretnina, čim su se prilike malo stabilizirale. Zagorčev problem bio je, međutim, što ga nije pokrivala nijedna snažna politička grupcija - na desnici, gdje bi na temelju starih relacija mogao naći zaštitnike, sve je razmrvljeno poslije političke smrti Ivića Pašalića. Financijske operacije njegove hercegovačke struje naslijedilo je podzemlje, koje i samo treba zaštitu. Tako se Zagorac našao u položaju koji je, s njemu svojstvenom imoćanskom erudicijom, govoreći o sasma drugoj stvari, najbolje opisao Tonči Vrdoljak: kao govno na kiši.
Otmica i reket pošli su po zlu pošto su Carlini dečki stisli tužilaštvo, a sama Carla pritisla hrvatsku vlast. Tražite Gotovinu, razbijte njegovu suradničku mrežu, grmila je nepobjediva heroina balkanske antikriminalne epopeje..! I, rezultati su se stidljivo počeli pomaljati: nakon puno muljanja, štekanja, kilavljenja, policija i pravosuđe došli su do bjelodanog zaključka kako je otmicu mogao izvesti jedino sam šef podzemlja, capo dei tutti capi, koji uživa neograničenu podršku najviših političkih krugova i podložnih novina... No, bez ijednog Lovaša u svom sastavu Kartel nije mogao osigurati dovoljno široku potporu medija, na koje bi izvršio pritisak disponiranjem oglasnih budžeta. Izlostala je stoga popularna i politička podrška. Desnica je bila neutralna, a najveća skupina Lovaša, koje još nazivamo Vlasnici Hrvatske, ili, kraće, Klub, držali su se od ovoga na kilometar, prestravljeni saznanjem da će sami postati plijen Kartela, čim zvijer svari žrtvu koje se prvo dokopala. Ukratko, čim je Petrač identificiran kao otmičar, bilo je samo pitanje vremena kad će ga obavještajne službe, uz pomoć CIA, pronaći u Izraelu, gdje se sklonio kod svojih partnera iz vremena velikog šverca oružja, u čemu su mu asistirali penzionirani pripadnici tamošnjeg Instituta za sigurnost i specijalne zadaće. Uhićen je, a odmah zatim, pošto se raspala suradnička mreža, pao je i Gotovina.
So far, so good. Petrača izvode na sud, počinje suđenje. Umjesto da se brani tvrdeći da je nevin - što bi, s obzirom na dokaze bilo smiješno - obrana pokreće ofenzivu protiv žrtve, ujedno krunskog svjedoka, pa iznosi sasvim nepovezane činjenice o Zagorčevim pronevjerama u švercu oružja, o čemu Petrač, kao bivši partner, govori iz prve ruke. Nije bilo izgleda da optuženog oslobode, ali je njegova prvotna nakana unekoliko realizirana: iako nije opljačkan, Zagorac je uništen - uskoro je protiv njega podignuta tužba zbog pljačke prilikom kupovina oružja za Hrvatsku, a zatim su u opticaj pušteni podaci o njegovim poslovima s austrijskom bankom, iz čega se vidjelo da je raspolagao depozitom od četvrt milijarde eura. U banku dolazi inspekcija austrijske Centralne banke, i ona puca - oslobađa se cijelog hrvatskog portfelja, a država je prodaje jednoj njemačkoj financijskoj ustanovi, što je bilo utoliko lakše jer je bila povezana s ultradesnom strankom koja ugrožava bečku vladinu koaliciju umjerenog centra.
Za Zagorcem u Austriju stiže nalog za izručenje. Ima li kakvih izgleda da se on tome opre? Praktički nikakvih, osim ako ne izazove silan skandal, koji će ugroziti reputaciju tamošnjih banaka, gdje leži lova svih predatorskih elita tranzicijskog europskog Bliskog Istoka. Ako Zagorac nagrabusi, tko njima garantira sigurnost i bankovnu tajnu?
Zagorčeva obrana priprema smionu tajnu operaciju - cilj im je da kompromitiraju ne samo nalogodavce, nego i same Udbaše koji su razorili Zagorca, što je dosad neviđeno kršenje pravila lijepog ponašanja na zagrebačkom asfaltu. Ako ni Udbaši više nisu sigurni, kako će se na civiliziran način voditi tajni ratovi za prevlast u tajnoj ekonomiji?
Odvjetnik Zvonko Hodak, đavolski inteligentan desničar, koji mrzi Udbaše jer ih, pogrešno, smatra stvarnim nasljednicima Udbe, pripremio je stupicu za Sašu Perkovića, sina Josipa Perkovića, nekoć prvog čovjeka Službe - Saša je sad raspoređen na skromno mjesto savjetnika za sigurnost Predsjednika Republike. Čim je tajnim kanalom primio vijest da Zagorac ima papire velike vrijednosti, ili, što bi u ruskoj Službi rekli - kompromat (kompromitirajući materijal) neslućena dosega, sam Predsjednik koji je otputovao u Kazahstan u posjet tamošnjem diktatoru, šalje svog najpovjerljivijeg i nasposobnije čovjeka, naime Sašu Perkovića, da sa Zagorcem o tome pregovara u Beču. Na mjestu sastanka, međutim, osigurano je tajno snimanje, koje je pripremio feelancer austrijske tajne službe. Snimak će dobro poslužiti obrani, koja će na sudu u Beču, protiveći se izručenju, moći dokazivati da je u aferu umiješan hrvatski državni vrh, te da nije riječ o kriminalu nego o iznudi materijala za kompromitaciju drugih hrvatskih političara. Da se to efektivno pokaže, bilo je dovoljno da Saša Perković mirno sjedi zatvorenih usta i sluša što Zagorac nagvažda i fantazira. Devetnaest tona zlata koja bivši geometar iz Velike Gorice navodno spominje na snimku, baš je prikladan fantazijski materijal koji će do izbezumljenosti dovesti domaće tabloidne medije. Izluđena hrvatska javnost, suočena s mnoštvo simptoma korupcije, spremna je pak progutati svaku ludost, i predsjednik vlade morat će se sljediećih dana u svim medijima braniti od tih apsurdnih optužbi, pa time izazvati još veću fertutmu, koja Zagorčevoj obrani omogućuje da, sa stotinama izrezaka i snimaka, na sudu demonstrira kako s njihovim klijentom prominentno polemiziraju svi primarni politički faktori u zemlji - čak se i Stipe javio iz postojbine Borata Sagdajeva s kraćim priopćenjem kojemu je samo nedostajala glazbena špica Belinde Bedeković... Austrijskim sucima bit će nezamislivo da vodeći listovi naslovne stranice posvećuju odgovoprima na optužbe jednog običnog kriminalca - u austrijskim ozbiljnim medijima to bi sve bilo objavljeno u crnoj kronici na petnaestoj stranici, a tabloidima ozbiljni političari pak uopće ne daju izjave.
Epilog? Afera je tek na drugom stupnju razvoja igre - ako ga izruče, ni Zagorac na svom suđenju neće šutjeti, no pitanje je hoće li naći političke pokrovitelje koji bi njegova otkrića mogli operacionalizirati radi diskreditacije tuđmanovske kamarile i njihovih poslova devedesetih godina. To ukradeno vlasništvo ima danas, naime, veoma moćne titulare - pa gdje naći interesnu skupinu koja bi Zagorčeva svjedočanstva sutra mogla eksploatirati? Osim toga, bit će još teže naći sposobne Udbaše, koji će u tom asistirati, pogotovo otkad se pokazalo da to može biti opasno pošto više ne vrijede elementarna pravila uzajamne zaštite.
Evo ipak kraćeg pregleda te populacije, radi lakšeg snalaženja u budućim izdanjima aferaških otkrića, u kojima se uvijek, na margini ili u naznaci, razabire lik nekog od tih kraljeva ponoći, koji već desetljećima osiguravaju da se vrte nepodmazani zupčanici hrvatskog političkog procesa...

Afera "Zlato za odvažne" - protagonisti na obavještajnoj sceni

Prilikom preuzimanja vlasti u Hrvatskoj, Tuđman se oslanjao na dva ključna čovjeka: Josipa Manolića, legendarnog starodubaša smijenjenog 1971. godine zbog nedovoljne budnosti prilikom prodora nacionalizma i demokratskih aberacija u rukovodstvo, te na novoudbaša Josipa Perkovića, posljednjeg šefa Službe državne sigurnosti u Hrvatskoj, koji je tranziciju osigurao na takav način da Tuđman unaprijed ostvari dominantnu poziciju, koja će mu pomoći da postigne izbornu pobjedu. Perković je generacija Jovice Stanišića, srpskog šefa Službe koji je prišao Miloševiću. Na čelo Službe u Zagreb došao je 1986. iz Osijeka, gdje je šefovao u vrijeme otvaranja dossiera "Sova", što mu je priskrbilo trajno neprijateljstvo Vladimira Šeksa. Glavaš misli da je i Ivan Vekić, jedan od Tuđmanovih ministara unutrašnjih poslova, bio Perkovićev provokator. Kad se počela stvarati nova hrvatska vlast, za koju su Udbaši morali skupiti kadrove, Manolić je doveo starog karlovačkog praudbaša Josipa Boljkovca, ovaj pak svoje kumče Stjepana Mesića, te našao nekoliko matorih, još jedva upotrebljivih provokatara i suradnike, popove i emigrante koje je odranije držao na vezi. Perković je pak dao gomilu operativaca Službe, iz koje je istjerao većinu Srba, te sve one koji mu nisu odgovarali, pa ih, skupa s pravim špijunima KOS-a, proglasio neprijateljskom mrežom "Labrador". No, najvažnije, Perković je Franji doveo cijeli HDP, koji je Služba osnovala i držala u Kanadi, među njima i Gojka Šuška, koji će ovdje sad zaigrati vrlo važnu ulogu. Početkom devedesetih, pripadnici HDP-a Norac i Orešković izvršili su ratne zločine u Gospiću, a zatim se odmetnuli od Perkovića, kojega je Gojko ostavio a Franjo odbacio, pa se morao povući na rezervni položaj u obavještajno podzemlje, gdje je bio vrlo aktivan, kao i Manolić, kad ga se Tuđman riješio dvije godine kasnije. Konfidenti te dvije špijunske struje vodili su po Zagrebu godinama koreografirani informativni i medijski rat, potpomažući izgledne privremene saveznike. Koncem devedesetih, Perković se pokušao vratiti na scenu kao savjetnik dr Miroslava Tuđmana, pošto je stao na stranu "lijeve", "tehnomenađerske" struje HDZ-a (od koje će poslije nastati Klub), pa počeo prikupljati materijal protiv Ivića Pašalića, za mističnu operativnu akciju "Barakuda", kojoj se pridaje sve veća važnost kako vrijeme duže prolazi. Od te akcije nije bilo ništa, ali se Perković ipak vraća na scenu, jer njegov sin, kojega je bio plasirao u Ministarstvo vanjskih poslova, za šefa VII odjela, operetne diplomatske obavještajne službe što ju je osnovao zagrebački kazališni režiser Miro Međimorec, postaje u doba Račanove vlade - šef operative, dakle drugi čovjek Službe.
No, najveći uspon Saša Perković ostvariti će tek kad Stipe Mesić, pod pritiskom haaškog tribunala, otkači prijelaznog šefa Službe, mršavog i beznačajnog varaždinskog Udbaša Stjepana Tureka. Turek je najtješnje surađivao s predsjednikovim šefom kabineta Željkom Bagićem. Njih dvojica redovno su konferirali s Petračem u prostorijama prijateljski nastrojenih tabloida u Vlaškoj ulici. Kad je provaljeno da s odbjeglim generalom Gotovinom održavaju otvorenu vezu, pa ga stali braniti i zagovarati u novinama, Carla del Ponte izvršila je pritisak na hrvatsku vlast, koja je obojicu tih prominentnih Udbaša morala odstraniti. To se dogodilo poslije skandala s famoznom Prezentacijom, analizom koju je Turek pripremio kao dokument Službe o sigurnosnoj situaciji u zemlji. U njoj su kao strani špijuni koji ugrožavaju sigurnost domoljuba generala Gotovine optuženi ravnatelj policije i njegovi suradnici, zatim istražitelji Haaškog tribunala, te otac i sin Perković koji im daju informacije, kao i novinari koji su s njima na vezi. Potjeravši Bagića i Tureka, Stipe je uzeo k sebi mlađega Perkovića te privremeno osigurao mir na obavještajnoj sceni. Idilu će pokvariti događaji pokrenuti otmicom Zagorčeva sina te suđenjem Hrvoju Petraču... Kakve izglede ima Saša Perković da preživi aferu "Zlato za odvažne"? Kompromitiran u kompromitaciji svoga šefa i šefa države, on se na austrijskom sudu može pojaviti jedino s prefiksom nula-nula, dakle, kao bivši agent za kojim je povučena voda. Ne može se pojaviti ni u "Purgeru" u Gajevoj ulici, da mu se ondje smiju advokati, njihovi klijenti, "krimići" koji su došli vidjeti što ima novo, pa suci Trgovačkog suda, inspektori krim-policije te časnici Sedmog odjela, koji su sa Zrnjevca 7 skočili prijeko na ručak i cijela bratija iz toga miljea. Znači da se uskoro opet mora povući na rezervni položaj, možda u INA-u, gdje je i ranije, mršavih godina, radio u "sigurnosnom konzaltingu". Na njegovo mjesto uvijek može uskočiti Karamarko, ako nova vlast odluči da u POA-u instalira čovjeka koji nije toliko umočen u sve prošle kombinacije...

Antrefilet 1 - svi šefovi hrvatske službe

Organizacijska shema i nazivi hrvatskih službi, koje su u doba Tuđmana cvjetale i granale se kao brokula, bili su promjenjivi, ali, uvijek je postojala samo jedna, glavna operativa tajne policije koja je pratila i suzbijala protivnike vlasti, a zatim i sve protivnike Službe, ako zaprijete njenom opstanku i napretku.
Prvi nadšef Službe bio je Manolić, koji je na mjestu šefa Službe držao Smiljana Reljića, nominalno podređenog ministru unutarnjih poslova Ivanu Jarnjaku. Perković je dotle razvijao paralelnu, vojnu Službu (SIS) u koju je dovukao ljude iz Krim-policije. Kad su pukli Manolić i Perković, Službu preuzima mladi Turek, Pašalićev kadar, kojega je gurnuo Smiljan kao bezopasnu figuru, a kao iskusni nadzornik ostaje mu Perkovićev klasić Franjo Vugrinec. Zanimljivo, Zdravko Mustać, posljednji šef savezne Službe, Hrvat koji se vratio u Zagreb, nikad nije ulazio u ove kombinacije, nego se namjestio kao skromni šef sigurnosti jedne banke, koju su izreketirali i opelješili pripadnici Kartela. Poslije smjenjivanja Tureka zbog Prezentacije i umiješanosti u skrivanje Gotovine, na mjesto šefa Službe dolazi mladi, neusikusni bilder Janko Podbevšek. Lako su ga razvalili pošto su mu podmetnuli aferu Helene Puljiz, a zatim je na čelo Službe došao bivši Mesićev šef kabineta, kojni se s njim razišao zbog Petrača, Tomislav Karamarko.

Antrefilet 2 - Imperij Vladimir Zagorca

Priprosti geometar iz Velike Gorice, teška sirotinja koji je rat dočekao stanujući s majkom u jednosobnom stanu, Zagorac je počeo karijeru kao šofer Ivana Čermaka. Instalater centralnog grijanja, Čermak je bio prvi logističar Prve obitelji te iz prve dobio čin general-pukovnika - a dobit će ga uskoro i njegov mladi suradnik, koji će brzo diplomirati šoferstvo na zagrebačkom Prometnom fakultetu, te ondje obaniti magisterij na temu "Šoferska je tuga pregolema, puče guma a rezerve nema".
Osim klasičnog šverca oružja, u koji se upustio s ovlaštenjima direktora državne agencije "Alan", što se nalazila u sklopu Ministarstva obrane, pa stvorio mrežu slovačkih trgovaca, ruskih generala i židovske mafije, Zagorac je sve više penetrirao domaći biznis-sektor, kao pivot hercegovačke struje, kojoj je baš odgovarao netko s njegovim prezimenom. Od devedestih bio je u nadzornom odboru ACI-ja, direkciji Hrvatskih šuma, kovnici Ikom, tvornici topova "Marko Orešković", a zatim, kao pomoćnik ministra obrane, sedam godina član Nadzornog odbora Privredne banke. Tko god misli da je Zagorac bezveznjak koji se dočepao para u švercu, pa trošio samo na zlatne satove, vara se: on je bio financijska velesila, a njegov primjer pokazuje dokle možeš sići bez političke i medijske zaštite unutar neke udbaško-lovaške grupacije.

KAKO NASTAJE NOVAC

Davor Pintar




Tema koja me je oduvijek fascinirala. Kako je moguće da se nikada ne dogodi da dođete u banku i dobijete odgovor kako ne možete dobiti kredit jer trenutno nemaju dovoljno novaca. Da vam kažu kako moraju čekati da netko položi (oroči) novac kako bi mogli izdavati nove kredite. Iz teksta u nastavku vidjet ćete kako stvari zaista funkcioniraju i kako banka od vaše jedne kune može stvoriti novih 3, 5 ili 10 kuna. Naravno vrijedi i obrnuto: povlačnjem novca iz banke smanjujete mogućnost njegovog umnožavanja (G.H)

Kako od jedne kune banka može ''stvoriti'' tri? Je li posrijedi neki čarobni štapić kojim banke kreiraju novac ili se ipak krije nešto drugo?
Financijski sustav od svojih najranijih začetaka temelji se na principu ponude i potražnje, odnosno sučeljavanju viškova i manjkova financijskih sredstava. U davna vremena kad banke još nisu postojale i kada se novac, odnosno zlato čuvalo kod zlatara shvatilo se da zlatarima nije potrebno čuvati svu količinu zlata već da se dobar dio može posuditi onima kojima je trenutno potreban, a da se samo manji dio može zadržati za podmirenje tekućih obveza. Tako su sada osim naknada za pohranu zlata u svojim sefovima počeli zaračunavati i kamate na posuđene viškove. Upravo na ovom principu razvio se današnji moderan bankovni sustav.

Poslovanje današnjih banaka temelji se na prikupljenim depozitima – znači viškovima novčanih sredstava stanovništva, poduzeća i drugih subjekata. Tako prikupljeni depoziti predstavljaju obvezu banke u njezinoj pasivi. Banka na tako primljene depozite jedan dio sredstava mora izdvojiti u obliku obvezne rezerve i rezerve likvidnosti (koju propisuje Hrvatska narodna banka) kako bi mogla izvršavati svoje obveze dok ostatak sredstava može plasirati u obliku kredita svojim klijentima ili u neke druge oblike investiranja. Znači vidimo da banka ustvari transferira vlastite obveze – primljene depozite (pasiva) u vlastita potraživanja – dane kredite (aktiva).

Zabluda je da banke svoju profitabilnost temelje na razlici pasivnih (kamate na primljeni depozit) i aktivnih (kamata na dane kredite) kamatnih stopa pri tom misleći da banka na primljeni depozit od recimo 100 kuna odobrava kredit u istom ili manjem iznosu. To naravno nije ni približno točno a u nastavku ćemo vidjeti i zašto.
Ako banka prikupi 100 kuna depozita i ako izdvoji 20 kuna za obveznu rezervu i 10 kuna za rezervu likvidnosti ostaje joj 70 kuna za kreditnu aktivnost i to je njezin trenutni kreditni potencijal. Ako pretpostavimo da će banka uspjeti plasirati svih 70 kuna u obliku kredita, jedan dio tako odobrenog plasmana vratit će se ili ostati u banci na računu (stopa zadržavanja sredstava u banci). Ako pretpostavimo da se od prvotno odobrenog kredita 30 kuna vrati u banku, tih 30 kuna predstavlja novi depozit i novu bazu za sljedeći kredit. Banka tako na osnovu jednog depozita multiplicira njegovu vrijednost i vrši kreditnu ekspanziju. Ne zaboravimo da je ovo bio primjer modela jedne banke (banka A) gdje je bila pretpostavka da će 30 kuna ostati i/ili vratiti se u banku. To znači da ostalih 40 kuna može doći kao depozit u drugu banku (banku B) – ta druga banka opet izdvaja sredstva za obveznu rezervu i rezervu likvidnosti i ostatak plasira u obliku kredita i tako se lanac nastavlja.

Na taj način dolazimo do tzv. makromultiplikacije odnosno ekspanzije kredita na razini svih banaka gdje banke na osnovu prvotnih 100 kuna depozita mogu odobriti mnogo veći iznos kredita i naravno na ukupni iznos zaračunati aktivnu kamatnu stopu.

Zbog toga kažemo da banke kreiraju depozitni novac (novac na računima) dok centralna banka primarnom emisijom kreira primarni odnosno efektivni novac (novčanice i kovanice). Kreditna aktivnost na osnovu koje se stvara depozitni novac predstavlja ustvari sekundarnu emisiju novca. Važno je naglasiti da na proces multiplikacije utječe i razvijenost bezgotovinskog platnog prometa. Što je bezgotovinski platni promet razvijeniji, odnosno što je manje efektivnog novca u optjecaju baza za kreditnu aktivnost će biti veća.

HNB kao regulator monetarne politike posebnu pažnju pridaje tome da se ovaj proces multiplikacije previše ne razuzda pa raznim restriktivnim mjerama utječe na proces multiplikacije depozita. Tu su osobito bitne već spomenute: stopa obvezne rezerve i rezerve likvidnosti. Što su ove stope manje kreditna ekspanzija će biti veća i obrnuto. Naravno, tu dolazi do suprotnih mišljenja između poslovnih banaka koje nastoje što više povećati svoj kreditni potencijal a tako i svoju profitabilnost, i centralne banke koja nastoji ograničiti kreditnu ekspanziju i izbjeći moguće potrese u gospodarstvu.

Science Fiction

Phaëton*

Za Villiers de l'Isle Adama



O God, I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a King of infinite space.
Hamlet, II, 2.


Rijeku Po antički su Grci zvali Eridanus. Jedna od 48 Ptolomejevih, a modernih 88 konstelacija nosi to ime, mitološki povezano s Phaëtonom.

U sazvježđu Eridanus, jugozapadno od Oriona, ove je godine otkrivena praznina promjera gotovo milijardu svjetlosnih godina. Prostor je to bez zvijezda, galaksija, čak bez crnih rupa!
Astronomi, poput Rudnicka, tvrde da praznina predstavlja nepravilnost u razvoju svemira.

Palo mi je na pamet da bi Eridanus, once upon a time, mogao biti idealan Zatvor Univerzuma. Dvije su tome pretpostavke:
- mogućnost da Alcubierre drive svemir sabije u orahovu ljusku, tj. da do središta Eridanusa možemo dospjeti in a heartbeat.
- mogućnost produljenja ljudskoga života ad infinitum.
Zamislimo taj užas: zatvorske bi se kazne izricale presudama na tisuću, deset, sto tisuća godina… života u središtu Eridanusa!
Zatvorske bi se kazne izricale osudama na život, drugim riječima!
Izračunajmo maksimalnu kaznu: osuđeni bi bio kažnjen na 499 999 999 godina 364 dana 23 sata 59 minuta i 59 sekundi do ruba života u svemiru.
Nadomak života!

Bio bi zatočen u brodu koji svemirom putuje brzinom svjetlosti.
__________________

* Heliosov sin, sin boga sunca.

Le Grand Amour

Fűr Lolla



My Prussian Blue*

Ne, ne boj se sama stajati u tami
ispod praznog neba dok me dužnost zove.
Zima nosi miris toplog ruskog hljeba,
noć je kao skaska prusko plave boje.

O kako smo lijepi bili ispod zastava,
ti i ja i Fűhrer, ustreptalih jastava!
Cijelu noć me noćas podsjećaš na nju
Meine liebe Russian, o my Prussian blue.

I ne boj se sama otvoriti pismo,
kad ti jugend javi da mi više nismo.
Ne duri se, Schatzi, shvati to k'o šalu,
Staljingradski berzoj piči za Vallhalu.

Preko Neve zima zauzima busije, u brezovoj trojci vraćam se iz Rusije.

________________

* The first modern, artificially manufactured color was Prussian blue. It was made by the colormaker Diesbach of Berlin in about 1704. Diesbach accidentally formed the blue pigment when experimenting with the oxidation of iron. The pigment was available to artists by 1724 and was extremely popular throghout the three centuries since its discovery.



Bonustrack

Spam!

Pokušao sam odgovoriti Pametnome zubu na primjedbu o nasilju i samožrtvovanju kao načelima nacizma.
Napisao sam sljedeći komentar, ali ga nisam mogao poslati: ostao sam zapanjen opaskom da je blog prijavljen administratoru zbog slanja spama! Nevjerojatno!

"Izgleda da ipak nema veze s Heideggerom. I on je, dakako daleko manje prodorno nego ti, razmišljao o razlici ontološkog i ontičkog nacizma, ma koliko to uznemirujuće zvučalo. 1935. u svojim predavanjima on će to nazvati: die innere Wahrheit und Größe dieser Bewegung: unutrašnjom istinom i veličinom toga pokreta. 1953. pojasnit će se opaskom, u "Uvodu u metafiziku", da je mislio nämlich die Begegnung der planetarisch bestimmten Technik und des neuzeitlichen Menschen, naime na suočavanje planetarne tehnologije i modernog čovječanstva.
In the lectures of 1942, published posthumously as Hölderlin's Hymn "The Ister" Heidegger makes the following remark:
Today — if one still reads such books at all — one can scarcely read a treatise or book on the Greeks without everywhere being assured that here, with the Greeks, "everything" is "politically" determined. In the majority of "research results," the Greeks appear as the pure National Socialists. This overenthusiasm on the part of academics seems not even to notice that with such "results" it does National Socialism and its historical uniqueness no service at all, not that it needs this anyhow.
After Pearl Harbor, Heidegger declared:
"The entry of America into this planetary war is not an entry into history. No, it is already the last American act of America's history-lessness and self-destruction. This act is the renunciation of the Origin. It is a decision for lack-of-Origin."
Dakle, tako Heidegger. Što se tebe tiče vidim da su ovo lekcije Deutches Requiema: On me ubiti može, nade druge nemam., kako veli Jobov epigraf toj priči: nasilje i žrtva!?
Da...Helter će shvatiti zašto tu zastajem, pri spomenu žrtve, ako se prisjetimo da sam kazao kako je ovo pjesma o čovjeku koji je izdao svoj Ideal, pa dakle i sebe.
Recimo - a part od toga što je to nacizam i postoji li ikakav ontološki - da je to naličje iste stvari: to žrtvovanje za Vaterland i izdaja tog ideala - ne samo domovine, nego ideala žrtvovanja za nju!"

JUTARNJI LIST OBJAVIO TRANSKRIPT SNIMAKA POLICIJSKE OPERACIJE KODNOG IMENA SUD!

Zagorec: Što je Mesiću? On je lud! Tužit ću ga... Tužit ću sve

Piše: Željko Petrušić
Foto: Vjekoslav Skledar/Cropix



Jutarnji list ekskluzivno donosi zanimljive dijelove razgovora snimljenih tijekom policijske operacije kodnog imena Sud.

Primjenjujući od 24. kolovoza mjere tajnog praćenja i prisluškivanja, uz odgovarajući nalog istražnog suca Županijskog suda, policija je snimila razgovore Susanne Bunjevac s Vladimirom Zagorcem i drugim osobama, iz kojih se može izvući nekoliko zaključaka: da se njih dvoje poznaju dulje, da je Bunjevac Zagorcu pomagala u očito izvansudskom rješavanju sudskih problema, da je za to dobila konja Astora, ali i da je konobarica iz Ivanić Grada ipak imala, iako nije jasno s kakvim zaleđem, određen utjecaj u poslovnom svijetu.

Nastavak teksta.

fűr Mina Murray

Interview with the Vampire

C.D.:
Ja samo želim doprijeti do srca svojih čitateljica, vjerujte,
to nije ništa osobno, Mina, to je strictly business -
moj je posao naime Romance.
Od nečega se mora živjeti, a
ja živim od tuđih emocija i to je izvor moje moći;
krvav je to posao, Mina, krvav, ali lijep:
da se opet rodim, opet bih se time bavio.

(…)

Sam se gotovo nikad ne zaljubljujem,
nisam ja od te vrste:
don't get high on your own supply!,
a ja poštujem zakone vlastite meštrije.

(Ženska su vam srca tamne spilje,
i tu se nikog ne susreće.
Na dnu kriju zastrta ogledala
i sedam godina nesreće.)

(…)

Vi ste, Mina, iz tih krajeva, oprostite ali
Have you ever danced with the devil by the pale moon light?
Što se nas tiče, ah, Transilvanija je u posljednja vremena raščarana:
Karpati su poput ženskih ramena
a woman's shoulders are the frontlines of her mystique.
And her neck...
...if she's alive...
...has all the mystery of a border town.
A no man's land...
...in that battle...
...between the mind and the body.
Tu granicu znam ponekad prijeći,
ali ja jedini poznajem obje strane.

(…)

Nitko, tko bi se ponizio do ljubavi prema meni,
nije vrijedan da mu ljubav uzvratim!

pesma meseca

Eshatološka



Nemanja je fina stvarca,
koju treba paziti,
Nemanja je strašni tigar,
ki se neda maziti.

Kad taj tigr pusti glas,
zatrepere vode,
izmakne se zbilji tlo
pa u kurac ode.

A kad zbilju lastno mrkne
zapali joj svijeću,
vaseljena ne priznaje
ne mogu i neću.

Zašto nema takvih ljudi,
mnogo, mnogo više?
Bar po jedan svakoj ženi,
da je inspiriše.

To bi bio komunizam,
to bi bio raj,
svrhovite povijesti
dosegnuti kraj.

halter skelter 18.10.2007. 21:07

trilogija

Svi naši pun(k)ti kad se zbroje

Upri u mene svoj tvrdi uskličnik
glasno
savij me u upitnik
upitaj
putem prema mom dvotočju
"jesam li tvoj kralj ?"
sve to pod navodnicima, naravno
i stani :
ustvari, nastavi iza zareza
otvorenom zagradom zagrli me sprijeda
prekrij me, obgrli me straga onom drugom koja savršeno odgovara prvoj kao dvije polovice školjke kao ti i ja odvojeni od cjelokupnog svijeta a ipak mu dajemo drugu boju sve dok smo zajedno u zagradi

Točka zarez prije nego odgovorim
bez traga navodnicima
da si kralj i dvorac i zastava
ne čekaš odgovor, znaš ga odavno
i počinješ stavljati tri točke
tri tri tri točke...
jednu
po
jednu
prvu drugu treću
na mali prst na lijevoj ruci
na mjesto gdje počinje vrat a leđa još uvijek traju na ono mjestašce s vanjske strane oka kroz koji se suze slijevaju te mi sitne tri točkice tri sjajne zvjezdice varalice oduvijek mirišu na orgazam stvaraju iluziju da nema kraja a on je tu dobro sakriven iza trećeg točkastog priviđenja

Da, tu bi mogla ići točka.


Vani doista postoji svijet

Vani doista postoji svijet!
Vani postoje ljudi i stabla, to nije izmišljotina!
Vidjela sam ih vlastitim očima!
Ponašaju se, doduše, malo nastrano,
kad viču, ne boldaju, već naprežu glasnice,
kad žele na nešto skrenuti pažnju, ne pišu «kosa slova» već se koriste gestikulacijom,
potpisuju se pravim imenima, a ne nickovima,
voze se autima i vlakom, umjesto linkovima,
bave se čistom, zdravom zajebancijom,
smiju se ustima umjesto da tipkaju dvotočje i zagradu,
na hranu i na piće, umjesto na pretplate
troše svoju mjesečnu zaradu.
Čudno.

Okupljaju se na strašnim mjestima, sjedi ih nekoliko oko jednog jedinog stola,
ispred svakog je čaša ili boca, a glazba glasno svira i sve je puno dima,
nitko nema tipkovnicu ispred sebe, drže se za ruke i sretni su, tako se bar čini,
sve im ide od ruke, ne mogu vjerovati, sve im nekako i bez neta - štima.

U dobro poznatom kutu, u našem negdašnjem kutu si ti.
Sam
i ja dobro znam:
da ću opet, ako ti dozvolim,
da ćeš me opet, ako ne pobjegnem.

I zato bježim natrag, tamo gdje sam Luce,
gdje te bez pardona mogu u kurac stjerati,
gdje me jebu veće face, gdje stalno pušim, a ne mogu popušiti,
gdje sam također na poljuljanim nogama, ali me ti ne možeš srušiti.
Zato hitam četveronoške natrag u svoj Harem;
kad bi znao, barem
koliko sam ovdje kul i kako uopće ne urlam kad me boliš,
jer ovdje se bolda umjesto urlanja,
ovdje se skrola umjesto prebiranja po uspomenama.


Nabij me na riječi

Tašta sam, progovaram o tome javno, laskaju mi pogledi bačeni na sise,
gode mi mještani koji na mene nasrću, kad se kući vraćam s jutarnje mise.
Volim biti u središtu svijeta, svi to vole, samo ja i priznajem,
mnogo mi znači poplava slina kad svima nudim, a rijetkima dajem.

Ali da sam muško, da sam jebač iz sjene, da sam heroj kvarta ili lokalna lola,
ne bi me palile ni guza ni noge, na svoje bih rečenice drkala do bola.
Jer moje me rečenice ushićuju, moje me rečenice u mene zaljubljuju,
želim ih zaprositi.
Moje me rečenice prokleto uzbuđuju,
s njima se želim spolno odnositi.

Volim ih gledati kako se mazno svlače iza zavjese od tekućih kristala,
nikad ne znam da li se šale ili me doista žele osvojiti,
čas su prostitutke, glumice, kokete, čas Pepeljuge željne bundeva i bala,
u tom i leži sva njihova draž, i punom i praznom me čašom mogu jednako dobro napojiti.

Prate kao vjerne kuje sve moje oscilacije,
ako me pukne nostalgija, oblače aorist i imperfekt,
prezentom se namirišu kad iznosim bijes,
ako me žele nasmijati, začas inverzijom simuliraju defekt.

U upravom govoru posložene, pretvaraju se u moja usta,
u sjenu ironije kad stanu, pretvaraju se u neprobojan štit,
grebu se, kolju se između sebe,
svaka bi htjela postati godišnji ili bar dnevni hit.

A ja ih sve jednako volim, i duge i kratke i izjavne i one koje viču,
zapovijedne jer su kratke, proširene jer u sebi nose priču,
zavisno složene, predikatne, šaputativne i one bez reda,
jednako volim demone od pelina i anđele s krilima od meda.

Najviše ipak volim kad se pretvore u kočijaše,
uzbuđuju me kad mi u njedra sipaju psovke i gadosti,
kad jebu mater konjima koji mi kočiju vuku,
nema mi veće od te sitne radosti.

Ako me, dakle, želiš tlačiti, taslačiti, porobiti, osvojiti, opiti,
nemoj mi hvaliti štrudle ni fashion look,
ne trudi se s pričom o mojim, kao modro jezero dubokim zjenicama -
dodvori se, utrpaj se, uvali se, nastoj se svidjeti
mojim rečenicama.

Prije nego izvadiš kurac, oralno zadovolji moje rečenice,
jer ni ja ni one ne padamo na jebački pedigre,
preskoči smoking i lizing i peting,
porječkaj se sa mnom
umjesto predigre.

Luce

zen

Ye-sen



Krckam lišće pred kućama.
Ruke ne naplaćujem.
Kažu da dobro je.

NEMANJA • 17.10.2007. u 20:51

Večan, svečan, u boji krvi

Nemanja – javor, mirisa peluda i proljeća



U vidnom mi, radnom polju, rastu dva javora.
Mlada su to stabla, par godina stara.
Žive kao dva prijatelja, ne miješajući prečesto sjene.
Jutros sam izašla poslom u neposrednu im blizinu i primijetila da je jedan odjenuo crveno lišće, dok je drugi još uvijek zelen.
Mogla bih se zakleti da je ovaj prvi još jučer također bio potpuno zelen.
Uklizio je u svoju najveću metamorfozu (u ovom slučaju jesen) elegantno, bez najave. I bez prevelikih drama oko svoje grandiozne nepogrješivosti.
Crven poput kapi krvi koja je kanula iz prsta Snjeguljičine majke kad se ubola vezući.
Nazvat ću ga Nemanja.
Kao dopuna iznimnoj vrijednosti javora, dozvolite mi da citiram nepoznatog Wikipedijanera, kao ukrasa, javori su izvor drvene građe, a najviše šećera i sirupa, posebno šećerni javor.
Javori su također važan izvor peluda i nektara za pčele u ranom proljeću.
Smije li se ikako oskvrnuti ovu divnu alegoriju?
Završit ću ovo razmišljanje, kao i uvijek, briljantnim stihovima:

Večan, svečan, u boji krvi
Nemanja – javor, mirisa peluda i proljeća
Izvor slatkih grijeha i drvene građe
Jedini, prvi.

Luce 17.10.2007. 10:36

buden: eipcp

Da li je saradnja sa neoliberalnim umetničkim institucijama moguća?



Boris Buden


Šta je “neoliberalna umetnička institucija”? Institucija neoloberalne hegemonije? Ili institucija pod neoliberalnom hegemonijom?
Kao što znamo, Hayek & Co su započeli borbu za ostvarenje svojih neoliberalnih ideja kao borbu za same te ideje, kao borbu za “duše i umove”. Zapravo, ove ideje su dovršile “dugi marš kroz institucije” pre preuzimanja političke moći: kroz univerzitete, škole, crkve, medije, profesionalne asocijacije, razne umetničke i kulturne institucije, drugim rečima kroz ono što se naziva građanskim društvom. Neoliberalna hegemonija koja je danas tako moćna krenula je kao vrlo mala, naime kao kulturna hegemonija. Ideološki uticaj je jednom osiguran na ovakav način, te je sledeći korak bio osvojiti političku sferu, infiltrirati političke partije i konačno preuzeti cele države. Najpre su ljudi uvereni da ne postoji alternativa neoliberalizmu, potom su alternative eliminisane politički (ili pučom ili vojno), i “neoliberalni” preokret je politički bio dovršen. Ovom političkom pobedom, neoliberalna hegemonija se napokon etablirala u formi epoholnog stanja.
Institucija neoliberalne hegemonije je prema tome institucija koja se identifikuje sa neoliberalnim idejama, otvoreno artikulišući i sistematično ih šireći u svojim aktivnostima. Drugačije rečeno, ona je aparat neoliberalne hegemonije.
Međutim, institucija pod neoliberalnom hegemonijom ne mora nužno da afirmiše neoliberalne ideje ni da ih eventualno primenjuje u praksi. Može ih čak prezirati ili ih otvoreno dovoditi u pitanje, ali čak i ako se bori protiv neoliberalne hegemonije, ne može je izbeći. Ta hegemonija određuje način njene reprodukcije kao institucije. U prirodi hegemonije je da se ne može jednostavno izbeći ili dobrovoljno zauzeti poziciju izvan nje. Upravo stoga što ona sama određuje svoju spoljašnjost, ona i jeste hegemonija. U tom, i samo u tom smislu, pod neoliberalnom hegemonijom sve institucije su neoliberalne, čak i one koje se opiru ovoj hegemoniji.
Shvatanje da je moguće na osnovi vlastite volje institucionisati se izvan neoliberalnog sveta u potpunosti pripada tom neoliberalnom svetu. Drugačije rečeno, oni koji veruju da je pitanje da li je neko neoliberalan ili ne a matter of free choice, ne treba ni da postavljaju to pitanje, jer su već dali odgovor na njega. Free choice je forma u kojoj je neoliberalizam hegemonisao ili – držeći se neoliberalnog žargona – privatizovao ili patentirao slobodnu volju. Kao što se danas mogu privatizovati odnosno patentirati voda, biljke ili čak genetski manipulirana bića, može privatizovati odnosno patentirati i slobodna volja. Upravo u obliku slobode izbora neoliberalizam poseduje ekskluzivno pravo na slobodnu ljudsku volju. Oni koji se danas njome koriste hteli to ili ne već polažu podaničku zakletvu neoliberalnoj hegemoniji. Ukratko: sloboda je danas postala prevod, čiji je original isključivo vlasništvo neoliberalizma.

// 2 //

Stoga je krucijalno, posebno u takozvanoj post-komunističkoj ili post-socijalističkoj situaciji, da ono što je “još uvek nije potpuno neoliberalno” ili ono što je “uništeno ili zapušteno nakon propasti socijalizma”, ne razumemo u smislu nekog prostora koji se nalazi izvan neoliberalne hegemonije. Sistematično zapuštanje bivših socijalističkih institucija ili njihovo sistematično ruiniranje je takođe efekat neoliberalne hegemonije. Stoga nije od velike pomoći praviti razliku između stare (“još uvek ne liberalne”) i nove (“već potpuno liberalne”) institucije. Na ovom mestu opet, hegemonija je ta koja samovoljno odlučuje šta je staro, što pripada prošlosti i zbog toga treba da bude zapušteno ili ruinirano, a šta je novo, ima obećavajuću budućnost ili je neizbežno odnosno neophodno. Isto važi za navodno autentično lociranje ove razlike prema kojem razvijeni kapitalistički Zapad predstavlja neku vrstu istorijskog izvorišta neoliberalne hegemonije, geografska, kulturna lokacija na kojoj se ona javlja u svojoj autentičnoj i najrazvijenijoj formi, dok na Istoku (u post-komunističkoj Istočnoj Evropi, na primer), ta hegemonija navodno još uvek pokušava da se ustoliči, da baci staro na smetlište svetske istorije i da ga zameni novim. Neoliberalna hegemonija ne deluje po starom predlošku kolonijalne sile koja osvaja divlja, nepatvoreno prirodna područja još uvek ne integrisana u istorijsko vreme. Upravo za sam taj Zapad moglo bi se reći da ne predstavlja ništa drugo do istorijsku ruševinu – ruševinu države blagostanja, ideološkog i političkog kejnezijanizma, kolektivne solidarnosti tipične za industrijski modernizam, socijalne demokratije, borbenih institucija radničke klase, njenih sindikata i političkih pokreta, itd. Nije li, upravo suprotno, Istočna Evropa danas ono mesto gde neoliberalna ideja nalazi svoje “autentično”, svoje “prirodno” političko okruženje: slični cunamiju talasi privatizacije, pri kojima ono što je bilo vlasništvo naroda bukvalno preko noći i bez značajnog otpora postaje vlasništvo nekoliko novih bogataša? U stvari, Istok je mesto gde stvarno postoji slepa vera u osnovne principe neoliberalne ideologije, u svemogućnost privatne inicijative, samo-regulišuću moć tržišta, u eliksir “deregulacije”, ukratko u nesputanu tržišnu ekonomiju kao konačno ostvarenje slobode. Upravo ovde, gde mu se njegove žrtve s oduševljenjem potčinjavaju, neoliberalizam je zaista kod kuće.
Zaključak: razlika između Zapada i (post-komunističkog) Istoka danas nije razlika između visoko razvijenog neoliberalnog kapitalizma i jednog nerazvijenog, još-ne-neoliberalnog post-socijalizma, dakle, između ostvarenog neoliberalizma i njegove spoljašnjosti. Ovo se razlikovanje u potpunosti dešava unutar neoliberalne hegemonije. Takozvani nejednaki razvoj (uneven development) pripada modus-u operandi upravo ove hegemonije.

// 3 //

Problem sa idejom autonomije odnosno sa predstavom nekog autonomnog agenta kritike, političke borbe i radikalne promene je u tome, da ona u svojoj srži, oponaša ideološki model stvaranja modernog (neo-) liberalnog demokratskog društva. To je neka vrsta kontrarobinzonijade u odnosu na bajku notornog “društvenog ugovora” u njegovim verzijama od Hobsa (Hobbes) i Rusoa ( Rousseau) pa sve do Roulsa (Rawls): subjekt radikalne promene današnjeg neoliberalnog kapitalizma pojavljuje se u obliku nezavisne i samo-organizovane grupe, čiji članovi (svi su slobodne i nezavisne individue) na početku nemaju ništa osim svoje autentične volje ka boljemu (na primer, “društvena pravda, jednakost i sloboda za sve”, itd.) – i osim možda neke nekretnine, na primer neke kućice, gde se može organizovati autarhijski život kao na Robinzonovom ostrvu usred okeana neoliberalnog kapitalizma.

// 4 //

Kao još uvek neuprljani bilo kakvim egoističnim ili – bože sačuvaj – ekonomskim interesom, ovi otmeni divljaci anti-neoliberalnog otpora tada imaju slobodu izbora, bilo da žele da komuniciraju sa spoljašnjim svetom ili ne, bilo da – kao u našem slučaju – žele da sarađuju sa neoliberalnim umetničkim institucijama ili ne. Tada se dilema pojavljuje kao čisto moralna: hoćeš li dozvoliti samoj sebi da se uprljaš neoliberalnim kapitalizmom i, ako da, do koje mere? Ili, koliko neoliberalne prljavštine može jedna autonomna umetnička institucija podneti, da sačuva svoje anti-neoliberalno jezgro i ne dopustiti da bude kooptirana od strane neoliberalne hegemonije? Takozvana samo-kritika često prati istu moralističku logiku. Umesto da postavi sebe kao subjekta kritičke refleksije u sopstvenoj istorijskoj realnosti i zasnovano na sopstvenoj praksi otpora, ona fabrikuje nove moralisičke pristupe saradnji. Život kritike i samo-kritike je prilično jednostavan u savršenom svetu anti-neoliberalizma: onde neprijatelj, neoliberalna (umetnička) institucija, ovde mi, koji smo beskompromisno i puni vere samo-organizovani i autonomni, a između nas su izdajnici, saradnici neoliberalnog kapitalizma. Delovanje kritike i samo-kritike stoga postaje moralističko potkazivanje.
Sve u svemu, ovakav moralizam je najtužnije poglavlje u borbi protiv neoliberalne hegemonije. On je nužan nusproizvod samo-proklamovane autonomije koja veruje da je sposobna da se naoruža pozitivnim sadržajem iz sopstvenih izvora i da tako izazove neoliberalni kapitalizam. Ona pretpostavlja stanje – ili prostor – iskonske nevinosti u kojem temelji afirmativni karakter svoje političke akcije. Drugačije rečeno, potreban joj je pre-istorijski i pre-politički – te stoga takođe univerzalistički – identitet da bi bila sposobna da uopšte postane politički subjekt. U suštini, oba ovde spomenuta koncepta autonomne i afirmativne političke akcije, kako onaj Badijua (Badiou) tako i onaj Žižekov, su slične kontrarobinzonijade. Oba artikulišu političku autonomiju u smislu nekog prostora koji je oktroiran refleksijom i koji treba odbraniti odnosno proširiti. Tako se u ovom kontekstu govori o “nezavisnim, kulturnim, javnim prostorima” koje treba reanimirati, jer su ih u velikoj meri uništile neoliberalne privatizacije.1 Iz ove perspektive, borba protiv neoliberalne hegemonije izgleda vrlo jednostavna: mi, javno, protiv njih, privatnog. Ipak, niti se hegemonija artikuliše isključivo kroz privatizaciju, niti se borba protiv nje može artikulisati jednostavnim antagonizmom između javnog kao dobrog i privatnog kao lošeg. Upravo suprotno. Neoliberalnu hegemoniju počinjemo da shvatamo i da se borimo protiv nje tek kad nam postane jasno da čista i normativno nedvosmislena razlika između javnog i privatnog više nije moguća, odnosno sa svešću da je stvarna moć ove hegemonije upravo u epohalnom rastakanju jasne granice između javnog i privatnog odnosno između njihovih normativnih atributa.
Politička praksa otpora ne može se daunlodovati iz gotovih filozofskih koncepta. Umesto toga, treba da steknemo uvid u našu sopstvenu istorijsku situaciju kroz kritičko promišljanje naše prakse otpora.
Hajde da pitamo otvoreno: Ko je zapravo omogućio spašavanje ili uspostavljanje prostora javnosti, kritike i otpora u Istočnoj Evropi neposredno nakon pada komunizma i odmah na početku tranzicije u kapitalizam? Zar smo već zaboravili? Bio je to Džordž Šoroš (George Soros), jedan od korifeja neoliberalizma, koji se dočepao svoje moći i svog bogatstva kao jedan od sledbenika i miljenika Margaret Tačer (Margaret Thatcher). Upravo on, Šoroš, ili pre, njegove donacije, tada su često postale jedina garancija nezavisnosti ne samo “ne-neoliberalnih” umetničkih institucija, već isto tako autonomije kritičke javnosti umalo istrebljene haotičnim raspadom i nacionalističkim autoritarizmom, kao i anti-nacionalističkog, pacifističkog, čak levičarskog političkog aktivizma. Arhipelag OSI-a (Open Society Institute) i SCCA (Soros Center for Contemporary Art), koji se protezao od Budimpešte do Omska i čak i dalje, često je ostao poslednje utočište modernizma pred post-komunističkim termidorom – koalicijom autoritarnih politika, kulturnog konzervativizma i neoliberalne privatizacije.
Šoroš je već tada postao predmetom kritike. Govorilo se da se iza njegovog navodno filantropskog angažmana u Istočnoj Evropi u stvari krije neo-kolonijalni interes; da on ideologiju otvorenog društva koja se širila uz pomoć njegovog novca u stvari koristi samo kao izgovor za osiguranje svog uticaja na post-komunističkom Istoku i uvećanje svog bogatstva. Na ovaj način, Šoroševoj nameri i njegovoj neoliberalnoj ideologija poricana je svaka autentičnost. Kritika je verovala da neoliberalizam misli na moć i novac kada kaže sloboda. Ali ovo nije samo naivna, već takođe i opasna iluzija.
Kada je u oktobru 1993. godine Šoroš špekulišući valutama u toku dve nedelje zaradio milijardu dolara i zatim ih uložio u civilna društva Istočne Evrope i njihove kulturne, intelektualne, umetničke, aktivističke, itd. aktivnosti, on je to uradio jer je verovao u moć ideja i naročito u moć ideje o slobodi. Moć nad ljudima u Istočnoj Evropi, nad njihovim rezervama nafte, industrijskim potencijalima ili bankama nije ga zanimala. Šoroš i, sa njim, neoliberalna ideologija, nemaju nameru da se dočepaju blaga postojećeg sveta, već pre onih jednog mogućeg sveta. Oni ne osvajaju ni političke ni društvene prostore, već pre jednu dimenziju, naime onu društvene i političke kreativnosti odnosno subjekta ove kreativnosti, dimenziju kritike.
Ovo je izvor kooptirajuće moći neoliberalne hegemonije. Ona ne leži u konceptu tolerancije odnosno u moralno duhovnoj sposobnosti da bezbolno apsorbuje svaku kritiku i da je tako deaktivira, već pre u činjenici da je neoliberalna hegemonija sposobna da zauzme kritiku, da je takoreći patentira odnosno privatizuje. Ko je god došao u posed društvene kritike, odnosno njegove danas aktuelne verzije kritike kulture, taj je takođe stavio pod kontrolu utopijsku dimenziju društva. Upravo je to srž neoliberalne hegemonije – osvajanje odnosno kolonizacija utopije. Utopija nije jednostavno propala 1989. godine sa realnim socijalizmom, niti je isparila u vazduh. Mi ne živimo, kako se to često kaže, u post-utopijskom svetu, već pre u svetu u kojem se utopija jedino pojavljuje samo još u svom neoliberalnom prevodu. U neoliberalnoj nadi u slobodu zanemela je sloboda nade, zajedno sa svim svojim društvenim kritičkim potencijalom.
_____________________________________

1 Konačno treba jednom da prestanemo da koncepte poput autonomije, političke borbe, afirmacije i negacije, kao i slobode razumevamo u smislu prostornih metafora. Prostor je sasušeno korito istorijskog toka vremena, fosil jednog kretanja koje je odavno zaustavljeno. Njegovo značenje je arheološko, ne političko.



What is the eipcp?

An Attempt at Interpretation

Boris Buden


eipcp: what an ugly name. Not only because the tongue suffers, trying to say it out loud. It’s also that the terms and concepts hidden behind the acronym seem not to want to say anything, either individually or configured together: European Institute for Progressive Cultural Policies. This sounds more banal than ambitious. What does it mean, this “progressive cultural policy”? That one wants to reorder today’s hegemonic cultural politics in a progressive manner, and do it on a European scale? An apparently ambitious aim for a little grouping of free-floating cultural workers who hope that the whole enterprise can be financed through the calculations of the very cultural politics they want radically to change. And a “European institute”: how should one understand this? In any case, not as two corners in a rented room that at the same time also serves as a way-station for Albanian artworks traveling through Europe!
We admit it openly: this child is ugly, doesn’t make an intelligent impression, seems to have a defective sense of reality, and shows no promise of future success... Still, it’s there and it’s ours, which is why we can hardly do otherwise than to stand by its side and help it get to its feet. Despite everything, this child, too, deserves its chance.
And therein exactly lies the challenge. Those who want to strengthen what is weak today must first of all want to put themselves in question and to radically change their own way of thinking. They must be ready to expose themselves in all ugliness and oddity and to deviate from norms camouflaged as reality. It already belongs to the logic of normality that what is weak grows weaker and what is strong, stronger. Whoever wants to defy this logic cannot remain normal.

The Activity (Tätigkeit)

What does the eipcp do? By what activity does it legitimize its existence? It’s not difficult to answer this question in a purely descriptive way. It’s first of all about a kind of networking of European cultural and art institutions with the aim of jointly realizing art projects and organizing discursive events to go with them. Secondly, the eipcp itself generates discourses; that is to say, it participates in the discourse production of others, including publishing activities. This dual activity is in no way “free of ideology” or politically neutral. Quite the opposite: the eipcp explicitly understands this activity as a form of commitment whose context is a transnational struggle against neo-liberal hegemony. So there is also an activist motivation, one that clearly refers to the concrete activism of a leftist “counter-globalization” movement, and this is a crucial element of the aforesaid activity. Expressed traditionally, it comprises three fields of activity: art, theory, and politics. Yet it claims to be more than merely their mechanical sum. What does “more” mean here? To begin with, it would be a misleading simplification, to understand this new quality as a symbolic profit, a kind of symbolic gain or increase which accrues as the product or result of the so-called interdisciplinary character of the eipcp’s activity. Any such assumption necessarily reduces the said activity to a notion of the accumulation of symbolic capital, as if it were nothing other than a symbolic investment... The eipcp clearly wants to be more than that. There’s also another way to interpret it: the eipcp’s interdisciplinary mode of production can be understood as a kind of qualitative sum of the shortcomings of each of its own component fields. For example, an art that shies away from theoretical reflection or any reference to political praxis is already for the eipcp a deficient art. This is to be understood as a “purely aesthetic” statement – and not a merely political one. An art that today would like to remain or become “pure art and nothing more” would also be no art at all. It’s precisely the absence of the political and discursive that invalidates its aesthetic status.
In other words, the activity of the eipcp is never artistic in just one of its aspects; it is an art-supplementing activity in all of its aspects – political, reflective, and cultural. It brings to art exactly what it lacks, in order to remain or become art.
It’s similar for theoretical production, for political activism, and for what we call “cultural policy.” The aim of the eipcp’s activity lies in providing what each of these fields lacks; that is, in overcoming the specific insufficiency of each that first becomes meaningful in relation to the other fields. The hybrid character of this activity consists in this, and not in some mere overlapping of different spheres of activity.
Still, one shouldn’t subsume this hybridity under spatial metaphors. The activity of the eipcp sets up no in-betweenness, no symbolic interstice, no so-called third space in which something culturally and politically “new” can take form and where its specific creativity can find expression. It is post-essentialist, but not in a spatial or topographical sense. The insufficiency or shortage in question is at the same time both the object and the product of this hybrid activity: the shortage of the political that is produced in an artistic practice; the shortage of a cultural politics that art exposes and theory conceptualizes; the shortage of reflection that reflects itself in the political, and so forth.

Formerly Known as Critique (Gewesene Kritik)

The activity of the eipcp does not aim at a symbolic gain, then, but rather at the articulation of a lack. Thus one can also understand it as critique. This has above all a genealogical meaning. We can follow the roots of this activity back historically. It derives from what one used to call, in the general modernist as well as the more narrow sense, the critique of society. Of course, this doesn’t mean that what the eipcp does is, simply and without complication, critique. It means rather that the experience of the lack that one has by means of this activity emanates from the practice of critique that first marked off all the fields of the modern. And so one can say neither that the eipcp performs a critique nor that it doesn’t. More precisely, the eipcp performs a “no-longer critique” or, better still, a formerly-known-as critique (“gewesene Kritik”) – and this is the essential point for the determination of its activity.
Moreover, one can make fun of this and perhaps say that the eipcp doesn’t even know what it’s doing but can easily show where, in the graveyard of the modern, its ancestors lie. Without doubt, the tomb of critique is by far the most important tomb there. It commemorates not only the glorious deeds of the so-called weapons of critique, but also the (criminal) deeds of the critique of weapons. The reference of course is to the famous demand of Karl Marx, that the weapons of critique must be replaced by the critique of weapons. And so it’s a matter of a critique both in the tradition of Immanuel Kant and also that of a Robespierre – that is to say, also the tradition by which radicality eventually articulated itself as revolution.
Why is this genealogical reference actually important? Because among other things it explains the meaning of at least one element in eipcp’s name. In this word “progressive,” one hears distinctly the echo of the formerly known as critique. Progress – progressive development in its originally modernist sense – is never merely the result of some symbolic accumulation; instead, it is above all the accomplishment of critique. It was by critique that the bad and old were recognized, in order to replace them with the better and new. And so if we say today that we are progressive, then we mean nothing other than that we follow the trace of this modernist critique. Still, we are not that of which we follow the tracks. We can no longer bring forth the better and new in this old way – the way of critique.
Nevertheless, it is possible to describe the activity of the eipcp in the old language of critique: the eipcp produces a political critique of art, a theoretical critique of politics, a cultural critique from the standpoint of new artistic practices, and so forth. In its entirety, however, this activity is not critique. Such a thing could only take the form of a critique of society, but historically it is too late for that.
The historically irrevocable culmination of the critique of society – in the double sense of a total social critique and a critique of society in its totality – was the idea and praxis of a communist transformation of the world: critique from the perspective of a classless society. This can no longer be repeated today. Critique today is no longer performed in the name of a classless society, but in the name of a class without society. Thus critical activity – including that of the eipcp – can no longer adopt the form of the critique of society. Even if it still retains the motivation of social critique, it lacks the needed object; namely, a society that is circumscribable and can be located clearly, engaged politically, and evaluated morally. It also lacks the traditional medium of social critique; namely, a public sphere that is normatively developed, independent, “critical,” and finally bound to a specific society.

Formerly Known as Society (Gewesene Gesellschaft)

“There is no such thing as society,” proclaimed Margaret Thatcher, “only individual men and women and their families.” Today, many still forget that the subject of this statement is not Thatcher the social scientist, but the British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher the politician, whose words had above all a performative meaning. When she said this, society perhaps still existed. But does it still exist, thirty years later?
Our historical reality appears to us today in the shape given to it by the victorious neo-liberal revolution. This has largely realized its goals, in fact to a greater degree than we want to admit. Not only have the basic forms of social solidarity been dissolved, but so has the very idea of society. And therefore the defensive strategy of social resistance is doomed to fail. Who should defend society? The subject of its own dissolution?
When Thatcher said that there is no society, she meant – speaking as a politician – that society as such is not capable of ideology. Society in its abstractness “hails” no one as a subject, “interpellates” no one, to put it in Althusser’s terms. It’s completely different for individuals and families. While as individuals we are being hailed as the first subjects of freedom, as families we are being hailed as the subjects of conservative values and a politics of restoration. The same is true for the nation and every basis of identity: ethnic, cultural, religious, gender, etc. They are all sites of ideological interpellation and political mobilization. Not so, however, for society as such. All of these identities can still become society, but precisely in the form of its ideological and political breakdown. Today it is the absence of society that hails us as the subject of critique and radical transformation. Society collapsed with the neo-liberal destruction of social solidarity. This social solidarity – the loss of which we bemoan today and ourselves feel as the loss of society – was in fact a form for articulating class consciousness. That is to say, it was an effect of class struggle. This is the solidarity that fails us today – or that we abstain from. Other forms of social solidarity – based in the family, in the nation, in identitarian communities, and so forth – are flourishing under the conditions of neo-liberal hegemony. But their effects are antisocial; they decompose that historical form of human collective life that we used to call society. In other words, society has collapsed in the very moment when we can no longer reinforce it by referring to a class relation. A society that is not comprised of class relations is not comprised at all. This loss is definitive, which is why all the strategies of resistance wanting to counteract it are wrong. History, Karl Marx once wrote, most of the time progresses by its negative aspects. And so it makes no sense to want to hinder or hold back the loss of society. It makes much more sense to make out of this loss a new class relation. The society-less class, the class of those with no society, lives neither without nor outside of society, but rather within the formerly-known-as society. It thereby articulates its solidarity, namely through its antagonism to all the socially destructive agencies (Soziophagen) of neo-liberal hegemony.

Agency (Instanz)

It is also this condition of being society-less – and not merely the plurality of critical forms and field-based critiques that correspond to them – that determines the hybrid character of the eipcp’s activity. This activity is hybrid because it is no longer socially rooted; it no longer has its origin in a concrete society (nor in a visionary and classless one).
That’s another reason for the impossibility of grasping this activity by means of spatial metaphors. It derives neither from an originary nor from a hybrid sphere, neither from a social nor a cultural one, and so on. It no longer lets itself be bordered off clearly from other forms of activity. No wonder, then, that it is so difficult to define and circumscribe in one form – which is always to say, one field, one sphere, one territory.
In the history of science, there’s a famous case in which knowledge progressed through a transcendence of spatial representation – that is, from a transgression of spatial logic. As is well known, Freud explained the functioning of the psychical apparatus by means of two representational models: a “first” and a “second” topology (Topik).
According to the first topology, formulated in the seventh chapter of The Interpretation of Dreams, psychic life is divided into three areas, which Freud also calls “systems”: the conscious, the unconscious, and the preconscious. Nearly a quarter century later – in the text The Ego and the Id, from 1923, to be exact – he developed the second topology, also known as the “three agency model”: the ego, the super-ego, and the id. This new invention was necessary because it was clear to Freud that psychic life doesn’t play itself out according to a spatial logic. In short: one can’t spatially locate the super-ego (Über-Ich), for example by positioning it above (über) the ego, because it is also unconscious and thus is to be found under the ego, in the id. And so he named these elements “agencies” (Instanzen) of the psyche, rather than spheres, systems, regions, or some similar term.
Freud described the first topology as topographical; in contrast, he described the agency model as dynamic. Agencies are powers (Kräfte); they are capable of self-subjectivation and can become antagonistic, they perform resistance and attack, they are mixed in with the others, the borders between them blur, they let themselves be anthropomorphized, one can even attribute certain character traits to them, and so forth. So for example one says that the super-ego behaves sadistically toward the ego and that this actually is its function. One can’t say that about a space.
Similarly, one can propose that the concept “European” in the eipcp’s name be understood in the sense of an agency and not of a space. This way, “European” means nothing other than to be standing in a dynamic relation to Europe, and not inside European boundaries. One is European, not because one has a European identity or lives in Europe considered as a geographical, cultural or political space, but because one cannot avoid Europe as an agency. That is, one must deal with it.
In The Interpretation of Dreams, the expression “agency” is introduced in comparison to tribunals or authorities that judge over that which seeks permission and allowance. The same holds for Europe as agency. Let’s take an example: the artistic project The List, which consisted in the list of the names of people who lost their lives trying to enter Europe illegally (approximately 6000 names). The project was unable to find financial support in Europe and was in the end financed by an American foundation. In this case, Europe, too, acts in the roll of a censoring agency, much as in Freud, who by the way also used the concept of agency in reference to the function of censorship.
And it’s not only Europe that should be understood as an agency. One can also speak of the activity of the eipcp as the activity of an agency. Agency would then be the form of subjectivation that emerges from these activities and articulates itself through the dynamic relation to other agencies – to Europe, for instance. Moreover, the concept of agency has a curious meaning in the world of computer games. In one game, agencies are separate sectors that can only be explored by one’s own group. They were introduced in order to give more groups the opportunity to successfully finish the game at the same time – to be the hero, slay the monster, rescue the princess, or win the magic sword. In any sector, the specified group is the only one active. In fact, this means that more groups never enter the same sector – the same space, same territory, same region, etc. Instead, they are themselves this territory. In other words: as an agency, the eipcp perhaps never finds itself with other agencies in Europe. It’s rather that this Europe is the eipcp’s own sector, its own Europe, its own agency. The territory is not something that exists outside, independently from us and into which we can enter. It is instead the product of its own mo(tiva)tions (Bewegens).

Jasper Morello

The Mysterious Geographic explorations

Branka Arsić

U senci Saturna



APSTRAKT: U ovom tekstu autorka pokušava da pruži odgovor na pitanje da li je ludilo isključeno iz meditiranja. Međutim, njene analize pokazuju da se ne može govoriti načelno o statusu ludila u meditiranju. Jer, sedamnaesti vek je uveliko razlikovao likove ludila, kao što su manija, melanholija, hipohondrija, delirično umno rasulo, itd. I analiza Prve meditacije može da pokaže da ni Dekart nije imao na umu ludilo kao ludilo, kada je uveo "primer iz ludila", nego da je pre svega na umu imao melanholiju. Melanholike Dekart isključuje iz svojih metafizičkih Meditacija, zato što su oni lišeni mogućnosti samoproizvodnje, zato što su nepokretni, "izvan" vremena, "uvek-već" proizvedeni. Melanholici, dakle, ne mogu da meditiraju, oni ne mogu da budu, i nisu, uostalom, meditativni subjekti. Ali, to što je melanholija isključena iz kartezijanskog meditiranja, nikako ne znači da ona ovde nije ponovo uključena. Jer, "isključujući" cogito, te postavljajući na njegovo mesto res cogitans, Dekart je iz meditiranja isključio sve ono što melanholija nije, i uveo sve ono što melanholija jeste. Drugim rečima, uvodeći res cogitans, Dekart je stvarno uveo melanholiju. Jer, poput melanholika, i res cogitans je u samo-identitetu, i ona je nepokretna, odvraćena od čulnosti, telesnosti i spoljašnjosti, "povučena iz sveta" i zaustavljena u "trenutku koji ne prolazi". I ona, kao i melanholik, nije učinak svog vlastitog rada, nije svoje vlastito delo, nego je postavljena gestom "alegoričara", gestom koji je postavlja u samoidentitetu. Ishodom analize izvedene u ovom tekstu autorka smatra da je Moderna, uvodeći res cogitans, uvela melanholični subjekt. Res cogitans je "žalobna" sudbina modernog subjekta, koji je moguć samo kao svoja večno živa smrt, kao gubitak samog sebe, kao neoznačeno, kao ništa.

Ključne reči: melanholija, subjekt, Moderna. U senci Saturna
Tako se melanholija diže iz naše nutrine i spaja sa kosmičkom prazninom; ali duh je prihvata tek onda kad se očisti od onoga čime je vezana za nepostojanost čula; reč je o degradaciji odozgo, pošto je duh, zaljubljen u čistu vrtoglavicu, protivnik žestina. Imao sam nekada jedno "ja"; sada sam tek puki predmet.

Emil M. Sioran, Kratak pregled raspadanja

1 Živeti u istom gradu sa lezbejkama

Jedina stvar koju vidim, to je praznina, jedina stvar od koje živim, to je praznina, jedina stvar u kojoj se krećem, to je praznina. Čak ne patim ni od bolova.

Seren Kjerkegor

"Lezbejka je heroina moderniteta", kaže Benjamin. Benjamin priča priču o biti moderniteta, kada lezbejku ispostavlja kao amblem moderne. U liku lezbejke moderna je slavila nadolazeći moderan svet u kome više nema žena, radovala se svetu u kome se više ništa ne bi moglo prepoznati kao žensko. Lezbejka koju modernitet uvek iznova produkuje u svojim maštarijama (i filozofskim i umetničkim) kao "ženu budućnosti",1 jeste "omuževljena žena", žena koja je poprimila "muške crte" i postala muško. Kada o sebi sneva, moderni svet sebe vidi nastanjenog muškarcima i lezbejkama, ili, sasvim prosto, samo muškarcima koji bi svi odreda bili "moderni", svi subjekti, svi heroji (iščeznuće ženskog je, dakle, uslov postojanja heroja?). To je san o homoseksualnom svetu u kome bi se isto umnožavalo kako bi samo sebe aficiralo. On je analogan drugom velikom snu moderne (koji je ova usnila na "transcendentalnoj ravni"), snu o subjektu koji se kao jedan i isti umnožava, ili bar udvaja, da bi samog sebe doticao. (Ako ništa drugo, snovi moderne su koherentni. Da li to znači da je moderna svoj san o koherentnosti i neprotivrečnosti ostvarila u onome što je držala da je sasvim nekoherentno i protivrečno - u snu?) Lezbejka kao "slika" žene budućnosti postaje heroj moderniteta jer ona svedoči o tome da je čak i onome što nikada ne može postati herojsko, što je vazda slabo, što je "najženskije" (najčulnije, najtelesnije), moguće da se oslobodi ženskosti. Ova slika obećava snažan svet u kome više nema nikakvog produkovanja telesnog i porađanja tela. Ona podstiče nadu u svet lišen čulnosti, inteligibilni svet čistog duha.

Moderna, dakle, započinje smrću ženskog. Ali, pravo govoreći, ova smrt znači život. Ona je ulog života kako modernog subjekta tako i njegovog modernog sveta. Kao što po Dekartovom uvidu nekakvo naivno, empirijsko "Ja" može da se samokonstituiše u subjekt isključivo sumnjom u telesno, posredovanjem neposrednosti (uvek ženske), bez koga bi zauvek ostalo uskraćeno za vlastitu subjektivnost, za samo sebe, bez koga se nikada ne bi rodilo (kao Ja), tako se, takođe, i moderni svet "subjektivira" samo u otporu prema "prirodnom" i telesnom.2 Svet moderniteta je svet kome je sve prirodno/neposredno postalo tuđe (kao i subjektima koji u njemu žive); to je "artificijelan” svet urbanog: "U baroknom gradu život je postao instrumentom reda... Vizuelni nered koji se tolerirao u antičkom gradu ustupio je mjesto formalnom redu... Čim se barokni red proširio, čim je postao jedini i apsolutni stil... slobodni raspored ustupio je mjesto ukalupljivanju, otvorenost praznini...".3 Da bi formalni red modernog grada, ili, formalni red misli modernog subjekta mogao da živi, neophodno je napustiti nered tela, jer "kao telo mi smo potpuno reaktivni i nediskriminativni, nesposobni da načinimo najosnovnije razlikovanje između unutrašnje pojave i spoljašnjeg događaja. U stvari, moglo bi se reći da ova distinkcija nema nikakvo značenje za telo".4 U svetu tela nema nikakvog posredovanja; oni koji su samo telo nikada nisu neko unutra nasuprot nekom spolja, oni ne znaju za spolja i unutra, svaki "spoljašnji događaj" događaj je njihove "unutrašnjosti" i obrnuto; oni koji su (samo) telo nikada nisu neko Ja nasuprot nekom Ti; oni žive u prostoru u kome ne postoji tuđost/drugost, jer ne postoji vlastitost. Telesnost je apsolutna nemogućnost postojanja Ja. Smrt onoga što generira život tela (a što je takođe telo), obećava život netelesnog (subjekta). Subjektu je od životne važnosti da usmrti život telesnog/ženskog, jer upravo živo telo jeste njegova smrt. Žensko time postaje drugo ime za smrt, "žensko postaje slika smrti",5 koju treba usmrtiti i sahraniti.

Moderna, tako, otpočinje jednim velikim pogrebom. Kao što i moderni subjekt svoj proces subjektivacije započinje gubitkom ("Svi mi slavimo nekakav pokop").6 Ovaj gubitak koji obuzima subjektivnost i oko koga se ona, kao oko svog uslova mogućnosti organizuje, u temelju je svih heroja/subjekata koji najavljuju modernu - Don Kihota koji herojski živi potpuni slom herojskog sveta, Sigizmunda koji između stvarnosti i sna gubi stvarnost i, naravno, Hamleta, koji ukočen, nesposoban da dela, "paralizovan" gubitkom majčine želje koju sam želi, postaje "mrtvo telo", grob u kome živi samo još njegovo "umno oko", njegov cogito koji razgleda učinke vlastitog rada, koji motri inteligibilni svet nastanjen senkama, utvarama i duhovima:

"Hamlet: Moj otac! Meni izgleda da vidim svog oca.

Horacije: A gde, gospodaru moj?

Hamlet: U mom umnom oku, Horacije."

Bez sumnje, Horacije je zastupnik svih ne-modernih. U svojoj potpunoj demodiranosti on još uvek bezazleno mnije da okolni svet, čiji je on tek deo, svet čulnog i telesnog kojim vlada "žena", još uvek ima nekakvo značenje, da "znači" istinu, da sam jeste istina koja se nudi pogledu. U svojoj naivnosti on, dakle, ide toliko daleko da veruje da uopšte postoji nešto poput telesnog sveta; u svojoj naivnosti on ide još dalje, on veruje da i sam ima telo koje može videti. Nesavremen, on veruje da njegovo oko vidi istinu:
"Horacije: Tako mi Gospoda, to verovati ne bih mogao bez istinite čulne svedodžbe sopstvenih svojih očiju."

Sve što vidi oko, i samo ono što vidi oko, zato što je vidljivo, jeste i istinito je. Bivstvuje samo viđeno, a videti znači biti. Ne postoji nijedan razuman razlog da se posumnja u vidljivo (bilo bi zaista ludo sumnjati u istinu); nerazborito je zamisliti se nad istinitošću viđenog, kao što bi bilo nerazborito ne zamisliti se nad istinitošću ne-viđenog. A pošto uvek gleda, ovaj Nemoderni je uvek u istini. Horacije uopšte nikada nije zamišljen. On viđeno nikada ne stavlja na probu, nikada ne zastaje da "razmišlja" o onome što vidi (uostalom, kakva bi to bila istina ukoliko bi se još moglo razmišljati o njenoj istinitosti). Čulnost je za njega istinito svedočanstvo, osvedočavanje istine same. Njegov pogled vidi spoljašnjost i predstavlja je kao neiscrpiv rezervoar smisla. Svet postoji i pun je značenja.

Svakako, Horacije (koji je tek jedno ime za sve ne-moderne) mora verovati, takva vera je razumna za onog koji je pun poverenja u vlastiti pogled, da je Hamlet lud. Kakav i može biti, onaj čije su oči zatvorene, čije je telo zamrznuto, čija je želja paralisana, onaj za koga je svet prazan, pročišćen od svakog značenja i smisla, onaj koji je sav svet usisao u tamu groba vlastitog sopstva? Kakav, ako ne potpuno lud, može biti onaj koji svojim umnim okom vidi stvarnost čulima nedostupnu, u kojoj borave utvare, sene i duhovi? Zato što vlastitim očima ne može da se osvedoči u postojanje nevidljivog sveta u kome Hamlet "živi" i koji zatvorenih očiju gleda, Horaciju je ovaj "novi" lik, ovaj "razmišljač" koji je hrabro/ludo spreman da sumnja u najočiglednije, u svedočanstvo čula, potpuno nerazumljiv, nerazumljiv bar onoliko koliko je ludilo uvek nerazumljivo razumu. Ne-modernom je ovaj moderni subjekt utoliko nerazumljiviji, utoliko luđi, što njega, odanog čulima/razumu/istini, uverava da je u zabludi, što njemu koji tako pažljivo gleda verujući u sve što vidi, verujući da nešto vidi, saopštava da je njegovo traženje istine u čulnosti ravno suludom naporu da se nešto čvrsto, večno, nepromenljivo (kao što je to istina), sagradi u onome što je trošno i propadljivo, na primer u pesku: "Jer, slična plašljivost je najviše smetala učenim ljudima da steknu doktrinu koja bi bila dovoljno čvrsta i pouzdana da bi zaslužila ime nauke kad su, uobrazivši da iza čulnih stvari nema ničeg čvršćeg na šta bi oslonili svoje verovanje, gradili na tom pesku, umesto da kopaju dalje da bi našli stenu ili glinu".7

Kao što Hamlet ima Horacija, kao što Sigizmund ima Klotalda, tako i Dekart ima Burmana. Nekog ko ne može da sumnja u izveštaje vlastitih čula, ko ne može da sumnja u to da ima telo; onoga za koga je zahtev modernog subjekta, koji nalaže da se sve što je "primljeno od čula ili čulima" proglasi za nepouzdano, ravan jasnom očitovanju bezumnosti, očiglednom, "vidljivom" ispoljavanju ludila. Šta bi to uopšte moglo da znači povući se od svega "primljenog od čula ili čulima", postavlja Burman jedno de-modirano pitanje. I dobija izravan, moderan odgovor - to znači zatvoriti oči i uši, onemogućiti svaki dodir; biti slep i gluv, paralisati telo tako da više ništa ne može da (ga) dodirne: "Od čula: to jest, od pogleda kojim opažam boje, oblike i slično. Ostavljajući pogled po strani ja sam, međutim, sve drugo primio čulima, tj. sluhom; jer, tako ja dolazim do onoga što znam, od mojih roditelja, učitelja i drugih".8 To znači povući se iz sveta boja i oblika, zvukova i mirisa i uvući se u bezbojan, bezobličan svet, svet apsolutne svetlosti ili, što je isto, potpune tame, svet u kome se više ništa ne prima od drugih niti se drugima daje, jer u tom svetu više nema drugih, u njemu više niko ne govori, u njemu se ništa ne čuje, u njemu bubnja apsolutna tišina. Zatvorivši oči i uši, zakrčivši sve puteve kojim ga spoljašnji svet dodiruje ("nemam nikakvih osetila", kaže Dekart), subjekt (ili onaj koji će to tek postati ovom "amputacijom" osetila) je zatvorio svaku mogućnost da u ovom bezformnom, monohromnom i tihom svetu bude uznemiren. Kada su oči i uši zatvorene, kada je telo zamrznuto, kada je odustalo od toga da dodiruje i bude dodirnuto, nema više nikakvih afekcija. Tamo gde više nema nikakvih afekcija, nema ni afekata. Tamo gde više nema afekata, nema ni života, jer život boravi u afektima. Subjekt, ili onaj koji to neće da bude, mora, dakle, sebe da umrtvi ukoliko hoće da živi kao subjekt. Subjekt se rađa iz samoubistva; "moderna mora stajati u znaku samoubistva... to samoubistvo nije odustajanje nego herojska patnja. Ono je baš to što je moderna osvojila u području strasti".9 Subjekt je onaj koji je izvojevao pobedu nad strastima i osigurao njihovu smrt.

Stupiti u svet Druge meditacije u kome meditativni subjekt više nema nikakvih osetila, u kome je umrtvio sve svoje afekte, podrazumeva distanciranje od spoljašnjeg (sveta) koje je toliko radikalno da ovom koji meditira čak i ono što mu je u spoljašnjem najbliže, njegovo vlastito telo, može iščeznuti u nepostojanje ("nemam nikakvo telo"/Dekart/), ili u nešto što mu je potpuno tuđe: "Umrtvljavanje afekata, zbog kojeg malaksavaju oni valovi života koji su izvor afekata u telu, može da poveća distancu od okolnog sveta sve do otuđivanja od vlastitog tela".10 Ali, ima li ičeg nerazumnijeg od zatvaranja očiju pred vlastitim telom, ima li ičeg maloumnijeg od sumnje da nešto poput "vlastitog" tela uopšte postoji. Ako je i bilo razborito sumnjati u izveštaje čula "o stvarima što su veoma sićušne i daleke", sumnja u vlastito telo je, ipak, previše: ona je dovoljna da sumnjičavog označi kao ludog. Zaista, "ako se i događa te nas osetila pokatkad varaju o stvarima što su veoma sićušne ili daleke, postoje mnoge druge stvari o kojima se ne može sumnjati (to bi svakako bilo ludo), iako se iz osetila crpe: kao da ja sad ovde sedim uz ognjište, ogrnut toplim ogrtačem s papirom pod rukama i slično. Da su ove iste ruke moje, a i cijelo ovo tijelo, kojim bi se razlogom moglo nijekati?"11 Samo ludilo može da poriče da su ove iste ruke moje, to je jedini razuman odgovor. Onaj koji bi sumnjao da je celo ovo telo njegovo bio bi skroz-naskroz lud, morao bi biti upoređen, to je jedino lucidno rešenje, "s ne znam kojim luđacima kojima je mozgove toliko oštetila opaka para crne žuči te neprestance tvrde, ili da su kraljevi, iako su najubogiji, ili da su grimizom zagrnuti, iako su goli golcati, ili da im je glava glinena, ili da su tikve, ili da su od napuhanog stakla, ali takvi su bezumni...".12 Za one koji veruju da je bezumlje sumnjati u vlastito telo, da je ludo zatvoriti oči pred spoljašnjošću i odreći se čulnosti, sumnja u čulno uistinu može biti opasna. Ona ih navodi na ono za šta oni drže da je bezumno, ona ih navodi na ludilo, na gubitak lucidnosti koju ovi nalaze u čulnosti. Ona od njih zahteva jedno poluđivanje. Stoga, ne treba previše nastojati oko toga da se svi navedu na ovaj put sumnje. Neki bi na tom putu uistinu poludeli. One koji veruju da je bezumlje sumnjati u vlastito telo, da je ludilo sumnjati u istinu onog "ovde" i "sada" ("... kao da sad ovde sedim uz ognjište"), koji se boje, bojeći se za vlastiti razum, da se otvore za ovu sumnju i da je po svaku cenu, ne znajući unapred njen ishod, izdrže, treba umiriti. Dati im dobar, razuman savet koji će raspršiti njihovu sumnju i u njihovim vlastitim očima (kojima jedino veruju) učiniti ih razumnim: "Ali u nameri da ne odbijete da pređete preko sa više hrabrosti, ja vas uveravam da su te sumnje koje su vas u početku plašile, kao utvare i lažne slike i prazne slike, koje se pojavljuju noću pri nesigurnom svetlucanju slabog svetla; ukoliko ih se klonite pratiće vas vaš strah, ali ukoliko pokušate da ih dodirnete nećete tu naći ništa osim vazduha i senke, i sledeći put kada se tako nešto pojavi bićete mnogo sigurniji".13 Onima kojima je pogled oka, dodir prsta isto što i gledanje istine ili dodirivanje smisla, treba dati savet koji će ih ostaviti u njihovoj veri, koji će očuvati koherentnost njihovog čulnog sveta - nemojte se uznemiravati, sumnja koju sam vam predložio tek je vazduh; ničeg čvrstog, ničeg od zemlje u koju gledate u njoj nema, i ona vam svakako ne nudi ništa što biste mogli dodirnuti. Misao vašeg "duha" koja vas je tako uplašila tek je fantom, ona zaista ništa ne odslikava, ona je slika na kojoj ništa nije naslikano. Nemojte se pokolebati, na misli duha gledajte kao na utvare. Budite sasvim spokojni, meditiranje je samo poziv na noćnu moru koja se javlja pri nesigurnom svetlucanju slabog svetla. One koji se boje za vlastitu glavu treba ostaviti u sigurnosti u kojoj se, kako veruju, nalaze i iz koje mniju da samo oni kojima je mozak oštetila para crne žuči, koji su melanholični mogu da se povedu za ovim fantomima, za praznim slikama nastanjenim u njihovom pometenom duhu. I zatim, uprkos dijagnozi ovih nesklonih sumnji, produžiti dalje sam, istrajati u sumnji, izložiti se, herojski naravno, jednom radikalnom uznemirenju. "... Nemam ništa sa onima koji ne žele da mi se priključe u meditiranju."



2 Živeti u melanholiji, obezvrediti svet

Većina u ljubavi traži večni zavičaj. Ali drugi, malobrojniji, večno putovanje. Ovi potonji su melanholičari koji se moraju bojati dodira sa materinskom zemljom.

Valter Benjamin

Bez sumnje, uopšte nije slučajno što se sumnja u vlastiti pogled povezuje sa radom crne žuči, što se ludost sumnje u vlastito telo naziva melanholijom. Melanholici su oni koji borave u svetu bez "objekata", u svetu u kome nema nikakvih tela. Zato što su zatvorili oči za svet telesnog, zato što pogled melanholičnog "ne vidi ni trećinu onoga što je pred njim", kako kaže Benjamin, melanholici ne vide svet pa otuda ne vide ni svoje vlastito telo. Melanholični su oni koji su izgubili telo,14 koji su razumno uvideli kako ga nikada nisu ni imali. Razumni ili melanholični, za melanholika to izlazi na isto, moraju doći do istog razumnog/melanholičnog uvida; iz perspektive melanholičnog svako ko sebe drži razumnim morao je pokopati telo. Ponajpre stoga, o tome nas naknadno i iscrpno obaveštava kartezijanska fiziologija, što se putem koji kreće od telesnog ne može stići ni do čega što bi se moglo uračunati u razumno/istinito, (dakle, u večno, univerzalno, nepromenljivo). To, međutim, ne znači da nam kretanje ovim putem neće dati nikakve učinke; ali, ovi su uvek promenljivi, nikada isti, i zato su, za razumnog koji hoće istinu, oni na koje ne treba računati, oni koji su neuračunljivi u potrazi za istinom. A neuračunljivi su, naravno, i oni koji tim putem idu. U telesnom, što znači i u čulno opažljivom i u čulima koja opažaju, vlada nerazumna, ne-istinita, promenljiva "logika" fluida: "Dekart je više voleo da protumači oset kao rezultat vuče koja dejstvuje na osetljivo vlakno, i proizvodi posledice u ravni mozga i, konačno, u ravni sensorium commune. Osetljivi nerv je žica; motorni nerv je cev. Nema sumnje da kod Dekarta, i pored jednoobraznog mehaničkog karaktera procesa koji se odvijaju u životinjskoj mašini, izbor metafora o šupljoj cevi i koturači odgovara kvalitativnoj hijerarhiji; kretanje je plemenitije od oseta. Osetilna vuča nas samo opominje; duša, međutim, dela posredstvom animalnih duhova koji se raspoređuju duž motornih nerava i napinju mišiće. Na ceni nije cev, nego protok u njoj jedne materije ujedno tanušne i prenadražene uzastopnim 'destilacijama'".15 Ono što je na ceni u fiziologiji uopšte, na ceni je, naravno, i u fiziologiji oka i pogleda. Sve što oko vidi nastalo je kao učinak ove materije koja se ceni, koja je tanušna i prenadražena, i koja je uvek protočna. Viđenje je učinak ove fluidne "materije", tačnije, fluida samog. A kako ove protočne materije, ovih providnih tela ima i u vidljivom i u onome što gleda, u samom oku, naime, to je onda viđenje ili, pre, pogled, efekat pokretljivosti i strujanja vidljivog, ali i pokretljivosti samog oka. Dve struje se ukrštaju, protoci dve tanušne materije se presecaju u nekoj tački, koja je, usled pokretljivosti ove materije i sama promenljiva, i koja obrazuje pogled: "Objasnio sam u 'Dioptrici', da nam se svi predmeti iskustva saopštavaju jedino tako, što posredstvom providnih tela, koja se nalaze između njih i nas, pokreću na određeno mesto sitna vlakna optičkih nerava, u dnu očiju, a potom i ona mesta u mozgu, odakle ti nervi izlaze. Pokreću ih, kažem, na onoliko različitih načina, kolika je sama pojavna mnoštvenost stvari...".16 Pogled nastaje opštom pokretljivošću, ustreptalošću i treperenjem kako onoga što gleda (oka, optičkih nerava očiju, izlaznih mesta tih nerava u mozgu), tako i vidnog polja, koje je, takođe, sa svoje strane, nastanjeno providnim pokretljivim telašcima. Ima onoliko različitih načina ove pokretljivosti/gledanja koliko ima i stvari. A stvari, dakako, ima beskonačno mnogo. I svaka od ovog beskonačnog mnoštva stvari hoće za sebe jedan pogled.

Međutim, i stvari i oko (koje je tek jedna od stvari/tela u telesnom svetu), uskraćuju ovaj, jedan, pogled. Stvari su, usled toga što su kompozicija protočne, fluidne materije, uvek promenljive, uvek podložne uzastopnim "destilacijama", uvek novim kompozicijama i dekompozicijama.17 Stvari nikada nisu iste. Zato, nema pogleda koji bi dva puta mogao videti jednu i istu stvar/telo. Promenljivo stanje stvari koje važi za svet telesnog, važi i za oko. I duhovi (animalni), koji daju život pogledu, različiti su, po svom intenzitetu, kvalitetu, kvantitetu: "Drugi razlog, koji čini da animalni duhovi na različite načine dolaze u mišiće, jeste nejednaka pokretljivost ovih duhova i različitost njihovih čestica... Ova nejednakost duhova može poticati od različite materije koja ih sačinjava".18 Usled promenljivosti, različitosti i pokretljivosti ovih duhova, koja može varirati od trenutka do trenutka, (a ova varijacija zavisi od trenutnog stanja optičkih, nervnih i ostalih vlakana), i stanje oka je varijabilno. Promenljivo oko uvek obrazuje promenljivi pogled. Dve ose promenljivosti seku se, tako, u promenljivoj tački pogleda. Varijabilno oko gleda u varijabilnu stvar i obrazuje varijabilni pogled. Ali, i pod pretpostavkom da je jedna osa "zamrznuta", da je vidno polje nepromenljivo, da su tela u vidnom polju nepokretna (pretpostavka, uostalom, nemoguća, jer bi se, ukoliko bi ona važila, i prozirna telašca koja pokreću animalne duhove i tako iniciraju pogled, i sama učinila nepokretnim, pa stoga uopšte ne bi bilo nikakvog pogleda), oko bi, usled svoje fiziologije koja ga čini promenljivim, uvek proizvodilo mnoštvo različitih pogleda na "jednu istu" stvar. Povrh toga, i da stvar za oko bude još tužnija, ima beskrajno mnogo očiju koje će, sve gledajući "istu" stvar uvek videti mnoštvo različitih stvari; a zatim, ima i beskrajno mnogo stvari... U svetu čulnog, svako oko - a ima ih beskrajno mnogo - ima beskrajno mnogo pogleda na beskrajno mnogo različitih stvari, od kojih je svaka, "po sebi" beskrajno različita. Zato u svetu čulnog nema nikakve Istine, ukoliko je ona za sve jedna i ista, zauvek nepromenljiva. Ono što je u fiziologiji "najplemenitije" kretanje, u traganju za istinom postaje najveća pretnja. To je osveta čulnosti nad onima koji hoće Istinu i koji ne vide da je nepostojanje Istine, o kojoj čulnost čulno svedoči, jedina Istina. To je osveta fiziologije nad logikom, odmazda tela nad razumom. Telo je razumu "ukralo" istinu. Jedini način osvete razuma za ovu osvetu čulnosti, jeste da usmrti i čulnost/telesnost, da zatvori oči, da prestane da gleda; da obezvredi sve što je čulno i sve što je telesno; da obezvredi svet, da postane melanholičan.

Po ovom nečuvenom napuštanju i obezvređivanju telesnog, čulnog sveta, melanholija se, na jedan temeljan način, razlikuje od svih ostalih likova ludila, od manije, histerije ili pak od totalnog, deliričnog umnog rasula. Manijak stoji na suprotnom polu od melanholika. Ne samo da ne sumnja u čulnost, manija je do ekstrema dovedeno poverenje u svedočanstvo čula. Ukoliko bismo se poslužili Lajbnicovom ekonomijom maksimuma i minimuma i preuzeli njenu terminologiju, mogli bismo da kažemo da bi "maksimalno pojačan" Horacije ili Burman, bio manijak. Manijak je prekomerno utonuo u čulnost, u telesnost, u uvek telesnu imaginaciju. U izvesnom smislu, upravo je manijak ostvaren Lajbnicov san; za manijaka u njegovom manijačkom svetu ne postoje gole percepcije, nema malih percepcija, nema percepcija koje bi prošle neopaženo. Svaka percepcija vredna je percipiranja, a manijak je manijak upravo zato što svaku i percipira. Manijak "maksimalno" treperi na svaki, čak i "minimalan" podsticaj iz čulnosti, pa je otuda "njegovo bunilo sveopšte; nadražaji se ne gube...; kada njegov organizam uzvrati na njih, oni će biti uvišestručeni kao da su manijaci u napetosti svojih vlakana nakupili neku dodatnu snagu".19 Usled prenadraženosti svojih telesnih vlakana, koja kao da uvišestručuje njihovu snagu i u njemu izaziva bes, manijak je uvek u bunilu koje se sastoji od "neprekinutog treperenja osetljivosti". Manijak je lud zato što sveopšte treperenje čulnog/telesnog sveta dovodi do maksimuma, što ga manijački pojačava. Za razliku od meditativnog subjekta, ili, melanholika koji se distancira od osetljivosti, ograđuje od čulnosti, "ludim" otuđenjem čak i od vlastitog tela, kako bi utonuo u stanje potpune ne-aficiranosti čulnim, spoljašnjim, drugim, kako bi postigao apsolutno odsustvo svakog "treperenja" osetljivosti, kako bi zadobio stanje u kome se svi nadražaji gube i koje jedino jemči ničim ometanu koncentraciju duha na samog sebe, manijak je "preaficiran", i upravo ga ova preterana aficiranost, ova preosetljivost, njegovo bunilo kojim "jarost" fantazije i čula podrivaju i napadaju svaku mogućnost njegove razumne usredsređenosti, zauvek odvode od istine. Zato što su prenadraženost čula i "jarost" fantazije napale razum, manijačko bunilo je sveopšte, ono "pogađa sveukupnost misli u njenom suštinskom odnosu prema istini"; u manijačkom svetu postoje samo preterano jaki oseti, suviše snažna fantazija, u njemu nema ničega što ne bi bilo čulno, pa zato nema nikakvih pojmova, nikakvih misli, ničega što bi se dugovalo samo duhu. U njemu, zato više nema nikakvog duha. Manija je razbila "povezanost pojmova"20 u našem duhu. Manija napada misao. Za misao manijaka nema više nikakve nade. Misao, ili bolje, ono što je bilo misao, sada je utonulo u čulnost i njenu nepovezanost. Misao je postala tek jedan prenadraženi treptaj osetljivosti.

Sa meditativnim subjektom stvar, jasno, stoji sasvim drugačije. On je neosetljiv. Njega, koji se zatvorio za sve spoljašnje, sve do zatvorenosti za vlastito telo, više ništa ne može (do)dirnuti. On je, dakle, nedodirljiv. Ali, daleko od toga da je ovim udaljavanjem i zatvaranjem meditativni subjekt ispostavljen kao nerazuman; (onaj koji bi stavio ovakav prigovor morao bi biti ili sasvim de-modiran, poput Horacija, ili manijački lud). Stvar sa meditativnim subjektom koji obavlja ovu operaciju zatvaranja, stoji sasvim obrnuto, smatra Dekart, koji je moderan i koji uopšte nije manijak. Zatvaranjem za sve ono što je primio od čula ili čulima, zatvaranjem za svet čulnosti, onaj koji meditira se otvorio za čitav jedan drugi svet (nepristupačan onima kojima je pristupačno čulno), a koji nečulan prebiva "iza" ili "iznad" čulnosti. Napustivši svet u kome videti znači biti (u istini), koji se meditirajućem isporučuje kao svet zablude, on je zašao u svet same istine. Upravo u tački najveće moguće udaljenosti od onoga što mu je u spoljašnjem najbliže, od vlastitog tela, postaje mu blisko ono što mu je, dok je oko bilo otvoreno za vlastito telo i njegove preobražaje, bilo najudaljenije. Postaje mu blisko njegovo vlastito Ja (koje, zapravo, tek ovim radom udaljavanja od spoljašnjeg postaje "vlastito"). Ja koje sa istinom, koja je u njemu, boravi iza vela čulnosti, iza njenog "pojavnog mnoštva2. I uopšte nije tačno da smo napuštajući čulnost napustili i istinu. Sasvim je pogrešna vaša primedba, kaže Dekart Burmanu, da ovo napuštanje čulnosti "isključuje opšte principe, ideju Boga i nas samih, koje nikada nisu bile u čulima".21 Vera da napuštanjem čulnosti napuštamo istinu (Boga, ili nas same), obmana je. Nas samih nikada nema u "našem" telu, mi nikada nismo u čulnom, ničega od našeg Ja nema u spoljašnjosti. A bilo bi zaista ludo da se tražimo tamo gde nismo.

Doduše, za nekoga ko ima potpuno poverenje u svedočanstvo čula, za nekoga ko tek počinje da filozofira (a Dekart "ovde ima u vidu čoveka koji upravo počinje da filozofira"22), ovaj uvid o "ludilu2/zabludi čula ravan je jasnoj obznani ludila, pouzdanom znaku poluđivanja razuma. Naivnom u stvari filozofije ovaj moderni subjekt koji nema nikakvog poverenja u čulno, koji se odvraća od čulnosti, koji se premešta u svet na koga spoljašnje stvari ne ostavljaju nikakav utisak, mora "izgledati" bolesno. Zato bi on modernog subjekta opisao kao melanholika, a njegov svet kao melanholičan, "raskvašeni, bezmalo diluvijalni svet u kojem čovek ostaje gluv, slep i uspavan... svet do krajnosti pojednostavljen i prekomerno uvećan u jednoj jedinoj svojoj pojedinosti".23 On bi, kao što se to lepo može pročitati iz ove Fukoove dijagnoze, melanholika opisao kao meditativnog subjekta, i obrnuto. Meditativni subjekt, kao i melanholik, "živi" u svetu na koga "spoljnji predmeti jedva da ostavljaju ikakav utisak", jer on je slep i gluv u svetu u kome samo on sam ostavlja utisak na samog sebe, zato što "smera samo na ono što iskušava u sebi"; meditativni subjekt, kao i melanholik, smera samo na vlastitu unutrašnjost u kojoj, i kojom promatra tu istu unutrašnjost proste prirode, "kao da predstavljaju istinske predmete", i "poremećenim stanjem svoga mozga" veruje da su jedino one izvesne i apsolutno nesumnjive, pa u skladu s tom "poremećenom" verom i rasuđuje. Za pogled "zdravog", ne-modernog čoveka, ovaj koji se povlači u meditiranje i usmerava isključivo na ono što nalazi u sebi, ozbiljno je oboleo, postao je melanholičan. Njega je, kao i svakog melanholika, zaposelo "bunilo čula", ono što nam jedino može dati istinu; njegova su čula, ili njihovi izveštaji (koji na njega ostavljaju slab utisak), usled toga što ih je "napustio" i što u njih sumnja, sasvim izopačena; on nema, kao što i ne može imati onaj koji je svoje oči zatvorio i odlučio da im ni najmanje ne veruje, "istinit" pogled na svoje telo, pa otuda, jer ga ni ne gleda, njegovo telo može biti svakakvo, stakleno ili ne, njegova glava može biti glinena, kao što može biti i tikva. On, takođe, nema ni "istinit" pogled na spoljašnjost i mesto svoga tela u njoj, pa stoga, bezumno tvrdi da je kralj kada je najubogiji, da je ogrnut grimizom iako je go golcat.

Ali uopšte se ne treba uzrujavati oko dijagnoze ne-modernog, na nju ne treba obraćati pažnju. A to zato što je on, kaže Dekart, jedno skroz-naskroz "čulno biće, kao što smo to svi na pre-filozofskom nivou", kao što smo to svi kad smo tamo gde istine nema. I pošto je "tamo", s one strane istine, u zabludi, ovaj koji još nije u filozofiji, koji je ispred njenih vrata, ne zna za ono što je iza njih, za opšta načela, Boga i samog sebe, za svoje vlastito Ja; on "ne misli i ne poklanja pažnju" svemu onome što je istina. Utonuo u čulnost on ne može da zahvati samog sebe, uvek inteligibilnog. U čulnosti ničeg nadčulnog nema; stoga čulno biće mora da zanemari ideju o sebi (o Bogu, o opštim načelima), da o "njoj misli zbrkano, ali nikako... nezavisno od materijalnih stvari".24 Ono ideju o sebi/sebe uopšte i ne misli, jer je ne misli na jedini način na koji ju je moguće (istinito) misliti - nezavisno od materijalnog. Vezano za mater(ijalno) ono je samom sebi uvek zbrkano, nejasno, nerazgovetno, uvek u tami. "Imajući" čulnost ono nema sebe. Tako, ovaj koji još nije počeo da filozofira i za koga je meditativni subjekt melanholičan, lud zato što ne vidi vlastito telo, zato što je pogođen "bunilom čula", u svojoj zdravoj čulnosti ne vidi da je sam, stoga što je biće čula, pogođeno "bunilom misli"; svojim zdravim čulima on ne vidi da su mu misli "zanemarene", zbrkane, nejasne i nerazgovetne. On, poput svakog ludaka, ne zna da ne misli sebe, da sebe nema.

Ova dva lika, čoveka čula i čoveka odvraćenog od čulnosti, deli, međutim, čitava jedna epoha u kojoj se pogled na ludilo izmenio, pa oni, otuda, jedan drugom izgledaju ludi. Čoveku čulnosti, tom posve čulnom biću (renesanse), lik (modernog) filozofa/subjekta, koji je odvraćen od materijalnog sveta i vraćen u svet koji iskušava u samom sebi, u svet koji je sav jedno ogledalo u kome se filozof ogleda, i za koga je njegov vlastiti odraz u ogledalu sva i jedina istina, lik je samog ludila: "Nema drugog ludila (za renesansu), sem onoga koje je u svakom čoveku, jer čovek je taj koji ga stvara u odanosti prema samome sebi i putem zabluda u koje se uljuljkuje... privrženost sebi prvi je znak ludila... Simbol ludila biće od sada ono ogledalo koje, ne odražavajući ništa stvarno, odražava potajno, onome ko se u njemu ogleda, snevanje sopstvene naduvenosti".25 Ali, upravo je ovaj prvi znak ludila za renesansu, prvi znak razumnosti za barok. Vezati istinu za samog sebe, ispostaviti je kao nečuvenu odanost samom sebi, kao apsolutnu privrženost sebi za one koji su moderni, prvi je znak razumnosti. Štaviše, zagledanje u ogledalo, kako bi se snevala vlastita naduvenost, razumnost je sama. Za moderan subjekt (subjekt moderne), svako vezivanje istine za svet, za ono što on ne vidi u ogledalu (koje je on sam), svako vezivanje istine za "stvarno" ili, kako Dekart kaže, za "materijalno", prvi je znak ludila. Pre moderne filozofije, međutim, ovaj preokret izvršilo je moderno/barokno slikarstvo. Prvi moderni subjekt (u Dekartovom smislu), dakle, nije Dekart, nego barokni slikar i njegov pogled; već on koji "otvor oka izobražava do sheme koja je sasvim nezavisna od situacije uslovljene u trenutačnom subjektu, izdaje i obezvrijeđuje svijet".26 Svet je i za baroknog slikara, koji je, kao i barokni filozof, melanholičan, izdan i obezvređen zato što nikakav smisao u njemu ne boravi. On je napušten u ime istine, ruiniran u ime smisla koji je u onome koji izdaje i obezvređuje.

Otuda, za modernog pogled melanholičnog više nije pogled ludaka, ma šta o tome mislio onaj koji tek počinje da filozofira i koji je zgranut onim što mu ova filozofija prelaže - da poludi. Obrnuto, melanholični pogled je pogled razumnog, jer ovaj pogled koncentrisano gleda samo u ono što u sebi iskušava, on "meditira" o vlastitom duhu, on pažljivo misli vlastitu misao, a nikada spoljašnji svet, koga je razumno ne gledati pošto u njemu ničega nema; tek ruine. Za melanholični kao i za meditativni subjekt u "materijalnom" borave samo obmane, varke i zablude; ono je besmisao i neistina, u njega nipošto ne treba gledati. Zato pogled melanholičnog koji nikada ne gleda u vlastito telo i može da mu "kaže" da ima telo od stakla, ili da mu je glava tikva. Melanholik, međutim, zna ono što naivni početnik u filozofiranju ne zna, naime, da svaki čulni opažaj vredi koliko i bilo koji drugi - nimalo. Melanholik zna, znajući da je svaki čulni opažaj lažljiv, da pogled koji opaža vlastito telo kao stakleno nije ništa luđi od onoga koji ga opaža kao telo od krvi i mesa. Svaki čulni opažaj za melanholičnog je podjednako lud, svaki podjednako, u to je razborito/melanholično verovati, navodi na zabludu, na to da se laž uzme za istinu. Čulni opažaj može da opaža samo ono što je i samo čulno, što je "materijalno", nestalno i promenljivo, pa zato nijedan čulni opažaj ne opaža istinu. Opažajući neistinu kao istinu, opažajući, dakle, ono što opaža onakvim kakvo ono nije, svaki čulni opažaj je halucinantan. Svaki pogled halucinira. A bilo bi zaista bezumno halucinirati. Stoga je, nasuprot onome koji je još uvek ispred filozofije i za koga je melanholično zatvaranje pogleda pred telom ravno sumanutosti, za koga je melanholik tek ludak opsednut bunilom čula, za modernog filozofa/subjekta melanholik najrazumniji od svih razumnih. Melanholija je, možda, razumnost sama. Samo je melanholik potpuno oslobođen svih afekata, svega čulnog, svakog nereda tela. Samo je, dakle, on oslobođen zablude i besmisla, i nastanjen u prostor istine i smisla - melanholik boravi u svetu čiste razumnosti, koji je, kako je to Dekart objasnio Burmanu, iza svake čulnosti i njom ne dodirnut, u kome se melanholičan nalazi licem u lice sa istinom - sa Bogom i sa samim sobom. Samo se melanholik samome sebi pojavljuje potpuno jasno i razgovetno, njegova melanholija ga čuva od tame i nejasnosti. Bunilo melanholika, o kome govori medicinski pogled, pogađa samo njegova čula (ali, čula su iz perspektive razumnog/melanholičnog/modernog upravo samo bunilo), i nikada ne dovodi u pitanje ono što je iznad čulnosti, nikada ne napada mesto na koje se smestila istina. U melanholiji "teme bunila ostaju izdvojene i ne dovode u pitanje razum kao celinu". Ostavljajući čula u stanju u kome i inače jesu, u bunilu, duh melanholika ima još samo sebe samog i na sebi "radi"; "duh melanholika je potpuno obuzet razmišljanjem".27 Melanholik postaje "razmišljač", on postaje "povesno određen tip mislioca", koji je apsolutno (ludo?), rasterećen od svega izvanjskog, oslobođen mraka i tame. Melanholik je utonuo u regiju čistog smisla, u kojoj je svetlost (duha) toliko "svetla" da uvek jasno obasjava ono što je najistinitije - duh.

Porinut u svetlost, oslobođen materije, zemlje, materinskog, svega mračnog i teškog, melanholični duh se koncentriše na istinu/sebe. Melanholični su potpuno samousredsređeni. Pošto je sebi jedino što mu je preostalo, pošto je sebi sve (to sve istovremeno), u melanholičnom duhu više nema nikakve "periferije" koja bi njegovu pažnju odvukla od centra, od mesta istine, od njega samog. Sva periferija usisana je u centar za koji se melanholični duh fiksira. Melanholik je, tako, usredsređen na jedno jedino mesto sa koga misli i koga misli: "Ali, izgleda da je prirodni princip da sledeći posebno teške obrasce istraživanja, um mora biti vođen iz vanjskog u unutarnje, iz perifernog u centralno i da bi dok sledi svoje spekulacije trebalo da ostane čvrsto ustanovljen u centru individue, da tako kažemo. Ali, mentalna aktivnost odvlačenja od periferije i fiksiranja u centar je posebna karakteristika onog područja uma s kojim je srodna melanholija. Melanholija otuda stalno izaziva um da se koncentriše i smiri na jednom mestu, te da se preda kontemplaciji. A pošto je melanholija u sebi poput centra sveta, čak i tako ona iznuđuje jedno istraživanje koje seže do centra svakog individualnog objekta ispitivanja i vodi do razumevanja najdubljih istina."28 Melanholija je poziv na povlačenje u sebe, poziv da se vlastito sopstvo učini centrom sveta, poziv na koncentraciju na ovaj centar. Melanholik koji je posvećen ovoj samoinspekcijskoj opsesiji, toliko je koncentrisan i smiren na jednom mestu (koje je on sam), da između kontemplirajućeg i onoga o čemu kontemplira (njega samog), ne nastaje nikakva, čak ni infinitenzimalna razlika. Melanholija štiti od svakog parcelisanja i cepanja na Ja i drugo/spolja, kao i od binarnog cepanja na Ja i njegovo vlastito drugo. Sopstvo melanholika, dakle, nije podeljeno, nije isparcelisano, nije udvojeno. Ono je sa sobom apsolutno jedno. Uostalom, melanholija i nije ništa drugo do odbrana od parcelisanja sopstva, ostvarena težnja ka njegovoj potpunoj koheziji. Melanholično raspoloženje "konstituiše se kao narcistička podrška, zasigurno negativna, ali ipak kao ona koja očuvava integritet sopstva".29 Sopstvo melanholika je nalik božjem, ono je, kao i božje, apsolutno integrisano, apsolutno pribrano, potpuno sebi identično. Melanholik je, kao i bog, "u sebi poput centra svet", centra koji ne poznaje periferiju jer je sva periferija usisana u njega, pa se, kao i bog, "uvek ceo nalazi u bilo kom delu samog sebe", sebi uvek potpuno prisutan. Melanholik je, kao i bog, (a zato se melanholija i određivala kao "divinatorsko ludilo"30), apsolutno jedno sa samim sobom. Zato su samo melanholični, naravno, ne računajući boga, subjekti u strogom smislu reči, jedino su oni sa sobom apsolutno isti. Prosto rečeno, melanholik je subjekt svih subjekata; ako ovako mišljen subjekt nastaje sa Dekartom, onda je "zapadni subjekt melanholično biće",31 a melanholično raspoloženje uslov mogućnosti (zapadnog) subjekta. Kao onaj koji je potpuno samoidentičan, melanholik je od svih lucidnih najlucidniji, od svih razumnih najrazumniji. On je razuman onoliko koliko nijedan drugi, nemelanholičan razum to ne može biti. On je apsolutno razuman; on je nenormalno razuman. Otuda je melanholično raspoloženje upravo cilj meditacija. Ako je meditiranje, po Dekartovim rečima, "koncentrisanost duha na samog sebe", samousredsređenost koja treba da produkuje i jemči potpunu sa sobom istost usredsređenog, onda bi melanholija mogla biti ostvareni san meditiranja.



3 Živeti u trenutku koji ne prolazi

Prisutnost duha, to je duša svih muževnih dela.

Baron Minhauzen

Pa ipak, uprkos tome što je "melanholija... najuverljiviji izraz kontemplacije", uprkos tome što melanholija "oblikuje jedan u sebi centriran misaoni svet", svet kome meditiranje teži, u kome se odvija i o kome meditira, Dekart iz Meditacija sasvim nedvosmisleno isključuje melanholike kao one koji su bezumni.32 Dekart, dakle, odbija da se uporedi sa melanholičnima, on odbija da uzme primere koje bi posudio iz sveta u kome melanholik živi odbacujući život, držeći oči zatvorene za svet u kome živi život. Neću da se poredim sa onima koji su melanholični, kaže Dekart, jer "takvi su bezumni i sam ne bih ispao ništa manje bezuman ako bih primio na sebe kakav primer uzet od njih".33 Na prvi pogled, Dekart nam ovde nudi jedno obrazloženje svog odbijanja svakog upoređenja sa melanholičnima, svog gesta njihovog isljučenja, koje ni samo nije ništa manje bezumno od bezumnosti prihvatanja poređanja sa melanholičnima, od bezumnosti njihovog uključenja u postupak meditiranja. Subjekt je, ukoliko jeste subjekt, melanholično biće; njegovo sopstvo je apsolutno pribrano i sebi prisutno, a tu sebi prisutnost jemči mu upravo njegovo melanholično raspoloženje. Nema nijednog melanholika koji ne bi bio subjekt, zato što nema nijednog melanholika koji sa sobom ne bi bio u potpunom jedinstvu. Ako je ova potpuna sebi prisutnost uslov mogućnosti lucidnosti i razumnosti, onda, takođe, ne postoji nijedan melanholik koji ne bi bio razuman. Svaki melanholik je potpuno razuman. Ali, kaže sada Dekart, bilo bi zaista potpuno bezumno da se uporedimo sa ovima koji su tako potpuno razumni, zato što su oni potpuno bezumni. Ni sami ne bi ispali ništa manje sumanuti ako bismo uzeli primere od onih koji su savršeno lucidni, zato što su oni savršeno sumanuti. Dekart, dakle, odbija da se uporedi sa onima koji su sa sobom apsolutno jedno i isto. On odbija da posuđuje primere od onih koji su upravo onakvi kakvim bi on sebe hteo. On se jasno ograđuje od onoga što bi želeo/trebalo da postane u procesu samopostajanja ili, u postupku meditiranja - od razumnog subjekta.

Ovo ograđivanje od melanholije, u ovoj tački meditiranja, ne bismo, međutim, ma koliko to paradoksalno zvučalo, mogli da protumačimo kao ograđivanje od ludila, uprkos tome što se Dekart od melanholika ograđuje kao od onih koji su bezumni. Ako je "ludilo mišljeno samo kao jedan slučaj čulne pogreške, kao jedan između ostalih i to ne najteži",34 onda isključenje melanholije ne pada ujedno sa isključenjem ludila; ako je "ludilo samo jedna pogreška čula i tela", onda melanholija nije ludilo. Tačno je, doduše, da je za Dekartov razum, ludilo tek greška tela, da je ludilo "samo perverzija čula - ili mašte, da je ono nešto telesno, da je ono na strani tela".35 Ali, upravo zato što su čula uvek već perverzna, zato što je telo tek drugo ime za nered ludila, melanholik koji odbacuje svu čulnost i sve što je telesno nije lud; on je s druge strane ludila, na istom mestu na kome je razum. Melanholija zato ne može biti tretirana kao ludilo razuma nego upravo kao njegova razumnost, kao razumnost u svom čistom stanju. Otuda, kada Dekart iz meditativnog postupka isključuje melanholične, on ovaj gest isključenja ne sprovodi zato što su melanholični ludi, zato što su melanholici insani: "kada se radi o tome da ih karakteriše po neverodostojnosti njihove imaginacije, ludaci su nazvani insani: reč koja se primenjuje i u tekućem rečniku i u medicinskoj terminologiji. Biti insanus... to je verovati u himere. To znači biti žrtva iluzija".36 Ali vera u imaginaciju i vera u njene izveštaje nikada i ne znači ništa drugo do veru u himere, veru u istinitost zabluda, veru u razumnost ludila. A to stoga što se već sa Dekartom dogodilo ono što Viko imenuje kao "varvarizam refleksivnog mišljenja" - odvajanje imaginacije od razuma. Imaginacija i razum više ne nastanjuju isti prostor, ne dele iste funkcije, nemaju iste zadatke. Imaginacija i razum kod Dekarta nisu na istom poslu, oni rade jedno protiv drugoga; jedno je mesto smrti drugog. Imaginacija je nered tela, razum je red mišljenja; imaginacija je tvoriteljka zabluda, razum je tvorac istine; imaginacija je odsustvo izvesnosti, razum je njeno prisustvo; imaginacija zato podriva razum, razum zato podriva imaginaciju. "Za imaginaciju se pretpostavlja da produkuje iluzije snova i ludila koje prete da raskinu jedinstvo duha i podriju suverenitet razuma... da bi imaginaciju učinio bezopasnom, Dekart je progoni u telo i isključuje iz unutrašnjosti mišljenja."37 Budući da je uvek neverodostojna (a razborito je pretpostaviti da je ona uvek takva, pošto nam nedostaje kriterijum na osnovu koga bismo mogli dokučiti kada nam, možda, imaginacija daje istinu), imaginacija je uvek obmanljiva, uvek navodi na zabludu. Imaginacija je uvek već luda. Vera u izveštaje imaginacije od svakog ko u njih ima poverenja, čini ludaka/insana. Ako je (ne)verodostojnost imaginacije kriterijum ludila, njegova specifična oznaka, onda melanholični ne bi bili insani ništa više od bilo kojih drugih nemelanholičnih, jer imaginacija je upravo mesto proizvodnje ludila. Zato Dekart melanholike ne isključuje kao ludake/insane, on se od njih ograđuje kao od onih koji su bezumni: "... ali, takvi su bezumni (sed amentes sunt isti), i sam ne bih ispao ništa manje bezumnim (demens) ako bih primio na sebe kakav primer uzet od njih". Promena termina kojim Dekart ovde označava melanholične, one koji su pod uticajem crne žuči, jasno nam sugeriše razlog isključenja melanholičnih iz meditativne "procedure". Na melanholične se ne treba ugledati, od njih ne treba preuzimati nikakve primere zato što su oni dementni, a ne zato što su oni insani. " Demens... izraz koji je najpre juridički pre nego što je medicinski i koji označava čitavu jednu kategoriju ljudi koji su nesposobni za određene religiozne, građanske i juridičke činove; oni koji su dementes ne raspolažu ukupnošću svojih prava kada se radi o tome da govore, da obećavaju, da se angažuju, da označavaju, da preduzimaju neku akciju, itd."38 Melanholični, dakle, nisu diskvalifikovani iz (juridičke) procedure meditiranja na temelju određene medicinske dijagnoze, nego zato što su nesposobni za čin meditiranja, zato što su nesposobni da "preduzmu akciju" meditiranja. Melanholik nije isključen zato što je lud/insan, on nije isključen zato što nema sopstvo, što je u "duhovnom rasulu", ili zato što nije subjekt; melanholik je isključen zato što je on, usled same naravi svog melanholičnog raspoloženja, subjekt koji ne može da postane subjekt, on je subjekt koji sebe ne može da u-čini subjektom. Melanholik je nesposoban da se kretanjem i delanjem vlastitog mišljenja samoprodukuje i samoutemelji kao subjekt. On nikada nije vlastita aktualizacija, učinak vlastitog čina. Melanholik nikada ništa ne čini, on je nedelatan. Melanholija je odsustvo čina, ona je odsustvo dela.39 Melanholik je, dakle, subjekt koji nije bio i koji nikada ne može biti meditativni subjekt, naravno, ukoliko meditativni subjekt nije ništa drugo do kretanje kojim se on sam razvija, umnogostručava, menja i grana; tj., ukoliko on nije drugo do proces samoposredovanja i samotranscendiranja. Onaj koji meditira razvija samog sebe do u beskraj. Ovaj rad samorazvijanja, samostvaranja, sebe-činjenja, jasno, za svoj efekat treba da ima samoukidanje, svoje vlastito dovršenje, svoj vlastiti kraj, ili, što znači isto, proizvodnju meditirajućeg kao onoga koji je uvek (najmanje) dvoje, u jedno, u subjekt koji više ne poznaje samotranscendiranje zato što se proizveo kao sebi istost i koji više ne meditira. Subjekt, otuda, nužno mora biti onaj koji se samoutemeljuje kao subjekt, koji je sebe postigao kretanjem rada vlastitog mišljenja; kretanjem koje je uvek u vremenu, ako već nije i njegova mera.

To znači da meditiranja/samoproizvođenja nema bez vremena; da ono stoji pod uslovom vremena. Ali, vreme koje je uslov mogućnosti meditiranja/meditativnog subjekta, upravo je uslov nemogućnosti subjekta, sebi istosti onoga koji meditira. Jer, vreme je tek drugo ime za odlaganje, pa otuda, i drugo ime za odlaganje samopribiranja u sebi istosti. Kao onaj koji je u vremenu, meditativni subjekt stalno odlaže svoju postalost "subjektom", pošto "vreme ne dozvoljava potpunu sintezu momenata ili pozicija kroz koje duh prolazi približavajući se oblaku misli...".40 Vreme je ono što od misli, da se poslužimo Liotarovom metaforom, stvara oblake, ukoliko se "ovom metaforom ne opisuje ništa drugo do uslov mišljenja koji pretpostavlja načelo relativnosti kojim je aficirano".41 Vreme i mišljenje, dakle, pretpostavljaju isto načelo, štaviše oni su drugo ime za isto načelo, i to stoga što mišljenje stoji pod uslovom vremena koje "oduvava svaki oblak upravo pošto smo poverovali da je ispravno spoznat. Vreme primorava misao da počne iznova sa novim istraživanjem, ono uključuje anamnezu prethodnih razjašnjenja". Vreme na taj način, po svojoj vlastitoj naravi koju mišljenje mora da shvati kao izazov kome se ne sme izmaći, onemogućava svaku (samo)spoznaju, otkrivajući svaku istinu, upravo u trenutku u kom smo poverovali da je istinita, kao laž; vreme otkriva istinu da je svaka istina neistinita, prisiljavajući mišljenje na večito otpočinjanje, večito kretanje. Zato što od misli stvara oblake koji se raspršuju čim se dodirnu, ne padajući nikada ujedno, vreme ne dopušta samo-sintetisanost mišljenja, zaprečava njegovu sebi bliskost, uvek iznova ustanovljava njegovo samo-udaljavanje. Tako je vreme "čuvar" meditativnog subjekta, ono ga brani od identiteta sa samim sobom, darujući mu večni život (u ne-identitetu) osiguravajući mu proces beskonačnog samoproizvođenja, anamnezom svakog proizvoda. Ali, cena ove "besmrtnosti" meditativnog subjekta jeste eluzivnost subjekta (ukoliko je on drugo ime za samoidentitet), njegovo stalno izmicanje, stalno odgađanje. Stoga što vreme čini da se onaj koji meditira beskrajno/večno samouspostavlja, a da se nikada ne uspostavi, subjekt/samoidentitet se nikada ne događa. Samo-identitet je drugo ime za nemoguće.

Samo-identitet mišljenja, međutim, drugo je ime za nemoguće samo pod uslovom da mišljenje nije melanholično. Jer, melanholija uopšte ne zna za proces, pa otuda ni za proces (samo)uspostavljanja. U melanholiji je sve umireno, sve nepomično, ništa se ne menja, ništa se ne događa. Zato što je nepomičan, zato što je nedelatan, melanholik je izvan postupka samopostajanja.42 To, strogo govoreći, ne znači ništa drugo nego da, uprkos tome što celovitost njihovog razuma nije napadnuta, melanholici ne misle. Naravno, u onom smislu u kome misao je misao samo ukoliko se događa kao učinak paradoksalnog stanja "pažnje" kojom se usmerava na samu sebe, a koja istovremeno mora biti koncentrisana (nepomična, mirna, "izvan vremena"), i plutajuća (pokretna, u vremenu u kome se kreće različitim brzinama). Ovaj paradoksalni stav o naravi mišljenja određuje misao kao ono što je takođe paradoksalno (u samoj svojoj "biti"), što u sebi obuhvata (ili samo jeste) paradoksalna priroda događaja koji se događa samo ukoliko samog sebe ne može predvideti. Ali, da bi se preuzela ovakva odredba mišljenja, potrebno je isprazniti svoj duh, očistiti ga što je više moguće, tako da postaje nemoguće anticipirati značenje "šta" onoga "se događa".43 Misao tada za sebe postaje nešto što je nemoguće anticipirati, jedno nepredvidivo zbivanje, zgoda koja ne zna da će se samoj sebi zgoditi. Misao je, dakle, misao samo ako je "događaj bez barikada", samo ako je otvorena za "događa se da" (se dogodi misao), umesto za "šta se događa" (sa događajem ove misli). Samo je tada misao "licem u lice" sa samom sobom, otvorena za samu sebe ma šta da sa sobom donosi, spremna da rizikuje svoje vlastito događanje, iako je ovo stalno-sebi događanje uvek stalno-sebe-menjanje. A budući da misao/mišljenje melanholičnih ne poznaje događaje, da je ona nepomičnost, mirna/nepokretna koncentrisanost, to onda ono i nije mišljenje. Dekart, međutim, nije sasvim sklon ovakvom zaključku. (Ta Dekartova nespremnost da nepokretnom melanholičnom duhu odrekne mišljenje, mogla bi da znači da on nije sasvim sklon ni odredbi mišljenja za koju smo upravo pledirali, a koju je on sam belodano "demonstrirao" postupkom meditiranja. Pa ipak, možda baš način na koji je Dekart/meditativni subjekt mislio, možda baš to što je meditirao, što je bio otvoren za događanje misli, potvrđuje ovo određenje mišljenja na koje Dekart nije pristajao. Hoćemo da kažemo da je razmak koji postoji između načina na koji je Dekart shvatao misao (kao sa sobom identičnost) i načina na koji je mislio, a koji je uvek produkovao ne-identičnost mišljenja, potvrda uvida da je on mislio na način protivan njegovoj vlastitoj odredbi mišljenja, da je njegovo mišljenje bilo otvoreno za "događa se da" se neka, bilo koja misao dogodi, ali da je upravo zato moralo biti zatvoreno za ono "šta" se događa te misli. Ovaj raskorak, dakle, potvrđuje da onaj koji misli, ukoliko misli, mora da pusti misao da misli, a da istovremeno ne mora biti i u posedu misli koja misli "šta" onoga što misao misli. To bi, drugim rečima, mogla biti potvrda stava da misao misli na svoj vlastiti način koji se ne može anticipirati, te da zato "misli nikada nisu naše vlastite", "mi samo pokušavamo da stupimo u njih i da im pripadnemo".44

Melanholici takođe misle, kaže Dekart,45 njihova misao je, kao i misao onoga koji meditira odvojena od tela, (percepcije i imaginacije), ali je, za razliku od misli meditativnog subjekta, njihova misao "preprečena", "zabarikadirana" jednom jedinom mišlju koju stalno misle i od koje nikada ne odustaju; od koje ne mogu odustati, koju ne mogu transcendirati upravo zato što su melanholični, što znači upravo zato što su nedelatni, "utrnuli", "zamrznuti". Takvo je, uostalom, i osnovno svojstvo melanholičnog stanja: "... duševno se melanholija odlikuje duboko bolnim neraspoloženjem, prekidom zanimanja za spoljašnji svet, gubitkom sposobnosti za ljubav, sputanošću svakog delanja".46 Melanholici su potpuno nepokretni, sasvim nedelatni. Njihova misao je spora, ako se uopšte ikada pokrene onda je taj pokret trom; ona, dakle, nije, poput misli meditativnog subjekta, "laka" i pokretna, ona nije oblak koji se raspršuje ili oduvava (vremenom); ona je "teška", a zato što se uvek radi samo o jednoj misli u koju melanholični duh uranja toliko duboko da iz nje, u svojoj totalnoj koncentraciji, više nikada ne može da izroni, melanholija ne poznaje "smenu" i igru misli koje zamenjuju mesta krećući se različitim brzinama. Melanholična misao je nemobilna poput zemlje od koje se melanholik odvojio; umesto da kao nadčulna bude "laka"/"vazdušasta", melanholična misao postaje teža od svega teškog; nemoguće ju je pomeriti i pokrenuti. Tako, misao koja je napustila zemlju i sve materijalno da bi dosegla do istine, uvek inteligibilne, sama postaje "zemlja", neka vrsta teške, nepomične, "materijalne" misli.

Zato što su nepokretni, melanholični su izvan vremena, ili bar žive, (ukoliko ono što je izvan vremena uopšte može biti živo), "u iskrivljenom osećaju za vreme" (Kristeva). Opsesivno fiksirani samo za jednu misao pred kojom se zaustavljaju, u koju uranjaju, u kojoj ostaju ne napuštajući je, melanholici su zaustavili pokretnost misli, pa su tako, obustavljajući njihovo kretanje, obustavljajući vreme, "zauvek" ostali u jednoj misli, ili, što izlazi na isto, u jednom trenutku koji nikada neće proći. Zauvek zastali pred jednom mišlju koja se ne "pomera", koja se nikada ne menja, zauvek vezani za trenutak koji ne prolazi, melanholični nisu samo zakovani za prošlost, nego od te prošlosti, zato što ona ne prolazi, čine i svu sadašnjost i svu budućnost koje, tako, padaju ujedno; od te prošlosti/sadašnjosti/budućnosti koje su isto i koje su, otuda, "ispale" iz vremena oni čine večnost. Oni su apsolutno verni trenutku kome ne daju da iščezne u neko "prošlo" koje bi bilo prisutno samo u sećanju, samo kao sadašnjost uspomene. Život uspomene je smrt onoga što ona pominje. Uspomena na neku misao znači da je ona iščezla, nepovratno (čak je i sećanje iskrivljuje, nudeći neku novu misao), da je sa njom zauvek izgubljeno ono Ja koje ju je mislilo i čija je misao ona bila. A melanholični duh se buni protiv ovog večitog samo-iščezavanja, on hoće sebe celog i nepromenljivog. Zato mora da zaustavi trenutak, da od trenutka načini sve. U melanholiji je sve sačuvano, ništa nije iščezlo u uspomenu, zato što je trenutak, koji je mogao preći u prošlost, zadržan. U melanholičnom svetu "iskrivljenog vremena", trenutak je predimenzioniran do džinovskih razmera, on je progutao sve vreme, postao je neprolazan, preobražen je u večnost. Melanholija ovekovečuje trenutak. Tako trenutak, koji iscrpljuje sve vreme, "blokira horizont melanholične temporalnosti, ili pre, uklanja svaki horizont, svaku perspektivu". 47 Temporalnost melanholika, koja je sva "stala" u jedan trenutak, lišava ih svakog horizonta, oduzima im mogućnost promene, novog, dolazećeg, sprečava svaki događaj. Melanholični su beznadežno osuđeni na uvek isti svet u kome se ništa ne "događa", u kome nema nikakve perspektive; zato su potpuno apatični. Oni su, kao i Prust, izgubili vreme pa je, otuda, misao koju misle (a pošto su odbacili svet, svu čulnost i imaginaciju, oni uvek "misle" sebe), misao koju će zauvek misliti u "trenutku" u kome se javila, jer taj trenutak nikada neće proći. Zato što trenutak traje čitav "život", čitav život melanholičnog duha je trenutak. Melanholična misao smestila se u bezvremenost raja.

Budući da je izvan vremena, da je nepokretna i nedelatna, nepromenljiva i uvek ista, melanholična misao "ostvaruje" nemoguće - premošćava jaz koji, za pokretnu, "živu", meditirajuću misao, uvek postoji između misli i njenog objekta. Melanholična misao, dakle, ostvaruje paranoidan pokušaj Moderne da identifikuje misao i ono što ona misli. Kako joj ništa osim nje same nije preostalo, to onda ona "sa svih strana povlači prema sebi energije posedovanja", i postaje svoj posed koga u potpunosti poseduje, postaje misao koja je sva u svom vlasništvu, koja je uvek i potpuno pri-sebi, zato što nije u vremenu koje bi je uvek i iznova lišavalo nje same. Ovako, izvan vremena, između posednika i poseda više nema nikakve, čak ni infinitezimalne razlike ili udaljenosti, pa je misao koja sebe misli u melanholičnom raspoloženju, premostila sve razmake, povezala sve rascepe, sa samom sobom pala ujedno. Ali, daleko od toga da su ovim sa sobom jedinstvom melanholični postali subjekti. Oni nisu subjekti upravo zato što su sa sobom identični (a to je tužna i neizbežna posledica svake ideje o subjektu kao sa sobom identičnim). Upravo nam narav melanholije donosi vest da je samo-identitet tek drugo ime za smrt subjekta: "... tek nas analiza melanholije uči da Ja može sebe da ubije samo kad je kadro da se okretanjem posedstva objekta, prema sebi ponaša kao prema nekom objektu", i to zato što ja (melanholično) želi da "taj objekt /sebe/ potpuno priključi sebi", da sa njim /sobom/ padne ujedno, da osigura da taj objekt "padne" u Ja, a to može učiniti samo "tako što će ga, u skladu s oralnom ili kanibalističkom fazom razvoja progutati".48 Proždirući sebe kao objekt, melanholik je proždrao i usmrtio sebe kao subjekt i tako samog sebe ubio (u tome Frojd vidi sadističku tendenciju melanholije). Za razliku od meditativnog subjekta koji takođe "guta" samog sebe, ali koji se, zato što je u vremenu, uvek i iznova rađa, melanholik je sebe zauvek usmrtio. Sebi samom melanholik je kanibal, a kao ona koja je bez ikakve promene, bez ikakvog pokreta, melanholična misao je mrtva. Melanholici, dakle, nisu živi. Sahranjen u zauvek istu misao o samom sebi, melanholik u toj nepromenljivoj, večnoj misli živi kao u grobnici, iz koje nikada neće izaći pa, otuda, u tome se razlikuje od Prusta, nikada neće moći da se pokrene na traganje za izgubljenim vremenom, niti da ga, naposletku, pronađe. Njegovo vreme, stoga, nije izgubljeno, ono je iščezlo. To, međutim, što je melanholična "misao" u paranoidnom samoidentitetu, što se sebe čvrsto i nepromenljivo drži, što je sebe usmrtila skamenivši se u večnosti; ili, najprostije, to što ova "mrtva" misao, kao i sve što je mrtvo, ne zna za vreme, za preobražaje koje ono nosi, ne znači ništa drugo do da ona ne zna za postupak meditiranja. Izvedena iz vremena, ona je izvedena iz meditiranja ili, još tačnije, iz same mogućnosti meditiranja, ukoliko je ono uslovljeno vremenom. U svojoj "apsol utnoj", božanskoj samo-usredsređenosti koja čini, kao i kod svakog boga, uostalom, da usredsređeni bude identičan sa onim na šta se usredsredio, da sa njim postane apsolutno jedno i isto, melanholici su, poput boga, toliko "prisebni", toliko ludo/prekomerno pri-brani, toliko jednom i zauvek zakovani za sebe, da ne mogu, u odnosu na sebe, da učine makar i najmanju, infinitezimalnu razliku i tako se pokrenu na samo-proizvođenje. Šokantnost njihove uvek budne pažnje koja na sebe pazi, njihove apsolutne samokoncentracije, upravo je u tome što oni uopšte ne mogu da se dekoncentrišu, od sebe otklone i tako o sebi meditiraju. Melanholici nisu isključeni iz meditiranja zato što "odbijaju" čulnost ili zato što odbacuju telo. Odbaciti čulnost jedan je sasvim "razborit" gest, to nije postupak onih koji su poludeli; čula nas varaju, obmanjuju, navode na haluciniranje, ona od nas, ukoliko se odlučimo da im verujemo, čine ludake, a odbiti poverenje zabludi, spasiti se od ludila potpuno je razumno. Melanholici su isključeni iz meditiranja zato što oni ne mogu ono što meditativni subjekt "mora da može", naime da sumnjaju u ono u šta je nerazborito sumnjati, što jedino, "nakon" otklona od nerazumnosti/čulnosti preostaje kao razumno - vlastito (razumno) Ja. Zaista, takav zahtev je nerazuman, i "nijedna razumna osoba nikada ozbiljno ne može sumnjati u takve stvari", pa ipak, i u tome je ludilo zahteva meditacija, (nije li u taj zahtev upisano temeljno ludilo filozofije, nije li tu upisana filozofija kao ludilo?), u to moramo sasvim ozbiljno sumnjati, sasvim ozbiljno se mora biti nerazuman, ukoliko se hoće vlastita razumnost: "Pretvarate se da igram neku igru, onda kada sam sasvim ozbiljan..., a ja sam bio sasvim ozbiljan; u stvari, taj trenutak /ozbiljnosti/ je neophodan za razumevanje mojih Meditacija".49 U ovom (ne)razumnom zahtevu koji traži nerazumnost i poziva na ludilo samodistanciranja, nema nikakve "igre", nikakve "neozbiljnosti", nikakvog "pretvaranja", on zahteva "smrtnu ozbiljnost", kao i uvek kada je ulog vlastita glava. Melanholici, međutim, a za razliku od meditativnog subjekta, ne mogu da se prepuste i sasvim ozbiljno otvore za poluđivanje, za istinski preteću, nečuveno opasnu, krajnje incidentnu poziciju rizikovanja vlastite uračunljivosti; oni ne mogu da se, dakako bez ikakvog "pretvaranja", otvore za jedno ludilo, jednu nerazumnost koja se, zahtevom meditiranja (koji, paradoksalno govori da je razumno sumnjati u ono u šta je nerazumno sumnjati), ispostavlja kao sam uslov mogućnosti razumnosti. Oni su, dakle, toliko ludo razumni, toliko ludo sa sobom isti, toliko sumanuto pribrani, da više ne mogu da "polude" i ovim ludilom osiguraju vlastitu razumnost. A kako ne mogu da odgovore na ovaj zahtev čije im ispunjenje jedino može jemčiti da su razumni, krajnje bezumni; i zato bi bilo sasvim bezumno da oni koji su razumni zato što sumnjaju u ono u šta niko razuman ne bi sumnjao, preuzmu na sebe kakav primer od njih, da se uporede sa onima koji su toliko bezumni da ne mogu da se prepuste bezumnosti.



4 Živeti u grobnici alegorije

- Zacelo nećete i dalje tvrditi - rekoh smešeći se - da cela vaša pustolovina nije bila samo san? Nameravate li tvrditi da ste mrtvi? Kad sam izgovorio te reči, očekivao sam da će mi Bedloe u ime odgovora dobaciti neku uspelu dosetku. Ali, na svoje veliko čuđenje, on se skanjivao, drhtao, strahovito bledeo i ćutao.

- Nastavite - rekoh najposle Bedlou.

- Nekoliko minuta - nastavi on - jedino što sam osećao - moj jedini oset bio je doživljaj noći i nepostojanja praćen svešću o smrti. U jednom mi se trenutku učinilo da se dižem sa zemlje, ali nisam osetio svoje telesno, vidno, slušno ili opipno prisustvo. Iznad mene lebdelo je moje telo, dok mi je cela glava bila jako natečena i izobličena. Ali, sve sam to osećao - nisam video. Ništa me nije zanimalo. Čak mi se i leš činio nekim predmetom s kojim nemam ništa zajedničkog.

Edgar Alan Po

Bez sumnje, cilj meditacija je uvek već neostvariv; dakako, usled same naravi meditativnog subjekta koji se održava u životu samo ukoliko ostaje veran svojoj naravi, što znači, samo ukoliko uvek ponovo produkuje temeljno otuđenje od produkovanog, nesvodivu razliku između produkovanog i produkujućeg, koja se nikada neće razrešiti u njihovom identitetu. Zato što, u procesu samoproizvodnje, sebi stalno izmiče, što je tek "obična tačka nestajanja" (Lakan), cogito nikada neće biti paranoično, nikada neće upoznati samoidentitet (osuđujući time zahtev za samokonstitucijom subjekta znanja, u kome i prepoznajemo cilj meditiranja, na neuspeh). Rad meditiranja ili, što je isto, rad cogita, otuda, nije drugo do proizvodnja razlike, razlika koja proizvodi razlike, život ne-istosti. Ako, međutim, ova ne-istost jeste nemogućnost traženog sa sobom istog subjekta znanja, onda je uslov njegovog života smrt ne-istosti, ili, prosto, smrt života. Ali, i u tome je glavni zaplet. Život sebe nikada neće dovršiti u smrti. Zato što hoće sebi vlastito dobro, koje je njegovo stalno, večito življenje, život će samog sebe osigurati kao večno živog, beskonačnim postupkom samooživljavanja. Da bi sebi osigurao besmrtnost život je spreman na sve, čak i na to da "gazi" preko leševa; da bi se održao u životu, život ubija. On uvek iznova usmrćuje samog sebe, jedan svoj živi lik, i porađa se iz leša usmrćenog, u život novog/drugačijeg lika. Život, dakle, zahteva da život stalno žrtvuje životu. On svoju vlastitu večnost, koja je večnost promene, neprolaznost vremena, duguje do u beskraj izvršavanom samoubistvu. Život i živi stalno proslavljajući vlastiti pogreb. Uslov mogućnosti života tako postaje propadanje, ruiniranje i usmrćivanje svega onoga što u životu živi.

"Ubitačna" logika života, logika je cogita. Cogito i nije drugo do proces beskrajnog ruiniranja svake cogitationes kojim osigurava vlastito obnavljanje, vlastiti život, u kome obnovljeno nikada neće biti istovetno sa ruiniranim. Ono što je umrlo kako bi život živeo, zauvek će ostati mrtvo. Ne postoji oživljavanje prošle cogitationes, zato što rad posredovanja čini da svako ponovno javljanje misli bude javljanje neke druge, nove misli. Ne postoji misao koju bismo mogli misliti dva puta. Svaka misao je premijerna. Stoga jer je neponovljiva, prošlost ne postoji, nikada se ne može dozvati onakvom kakva je bila kada je prošla. Povest života (cogita) tako je povest njegovog stalnog propadanja. Nijedna cogitationes nije iskupiva, nijedna se ne može spasiti. Postupak meditiranja, postupak je "izgradnje" ogromne nekropole u koju se sahranjuju sve usmrćene cogitationes koje su ruinirane i pokopane zarad života cogita. Samo cogito, zato što je život i zato što je život besmrtan, nikada se neće smiriti/usmrtiti u ne živoj sebi istosti. Život cogita je, dakle, smrt smrti, smrt "procedure" zamrzavanja živog u leš stvari.

Ono što misao sedamnaestog veka čini baroknom, ono što Dekartovu misao čini baroknom, jeste otpor životu, pobuna protiv povesti koja je povest smrti, propadanja, (samo)promašivanja i patnje. Ova misao nije toliko ohrabrena osiguranom večnošću života, koliko je obeshrabrena prolaznošću svih njegovih likova, koliko je zgranuta i uplašena uvidom da "povest u tom obliku ne izražava toliko proces večnog života, koliko proces nezadržive propasti".50 Baroknu misao, otuda, određuje napor (uvek već besmislen?), da se zadrži nezadrživo, da se život u svom kretanju zaustavi. Umesto večnog umiranja života, ona traži večni život smrti. Jedini način da se usmrti život koji usmrćuje, kako bi se od propadanja bar nešto spasilo, jedini način da se doskoči ruinirajućem radu povesti, jeste ruiniranje povesti same, usmrćivanje povesti/života/vremena; "oživotvorenje" nepovesenog/mrtvog/prostora. Da bi se izmaklo destruktivnom karakteru vremena, vreme se "oprostoruje", a povest koja tako postaje nedostupna promeni, iščezava; ili, još tačnije, povest postaje "panoramična", "izraz 'panoramičan' odlično je smišljen da označi shvatanje povijesti 17. stoljeća. 'Sveshvatanje povijesti u ovom slikovitom vremenu određeno je takvim sakupljanjem svega spomena vrijednog'. Ako je povijest bila sekularizirana u mjesto zbivanja onda je to izraz iste metafizičke tendencije koja je istovremeno u egzaktnoj znanosti vodila ka infinitezimalnom metodu. U oba slučaja se proces kretanja vremena hvata u jednoj prostornoj slici i analizira. Slika mjesta radnje... postaje ključ za historijsko razumijevanje".51 Barok izumeva tehniku kojom dovršava i ruši nedovršivo i rušilačko kretanje vremena - tehniku segmentacije. Segmentacijom se jedan trenutak vremena, jedan lik živog, jedno od mesta kroz koja se kretanje kreće, izvodi iz kretanja, "osamostaljuje", postaje "sve", i kao ono što više nije pokretno, promenljivo, živo, kao ono što više nije u vremenu nego je, naprotiv, nepomično i otuda, skamenjeno, neživo, mrtvo postaje večno; zauvek mrtvo, večno živa smrt. Zato je barokni svet mrtav svet, nastanjen mrtvim, leševima i stvarima; barokni svet je, dakle, melanholičan, ili, tačnije, to je svet kakvim ga vidi melanholik. Sve je u tom svetu, u kome, kao i u melanholiji, vreme ne prolazi, nepokretno i mirno; sve je zaustavljeno, sve je izumrlo. Čitav prirodni svet je izgubljen, lišen svakog značenja i smisla, upravo kao i u melanholiji. Ali, to što više nema "prirodnog" značenja, ili, to što prirodno više ništa ne znači, nije istovremeno i gubitak svakog značenja, i svakog smisla. Značenje će se spasiti jednim postupkom koji nastaje kao učinak oplakivanja gubitka (prirodnog), koji će pokušati da pronađe izgubljeno obuhvatajući mrtve objekte prirodnog sveta, izvlačeći iz ovog "fiksiranog" referenta, iz okamenjenog sveta, značenje koje će, međutim, i samo, zato što je sve prirodno umrlo, biti konvencionalno. Prosto rečeno, značenje će se spasiti postupkom alegorizacije. Pošto mrtvi svet, ili predmet u kome više nema nikakvog života, sam ne može da isijava neko značenje (za to bi morao biti živ), to onda on "na značenju dobija onoliko koliko mu daje alegoričar", koji ga predstavlja kao alegoriju, što znači kao "okamenjeni pra-predeo".

Naravno, i cogito će dopasti ruku alegoričara. Kao i povest uopšte, i povest cogita, to nezadrživo propadanje svake cogitationes, prekida se. I cogito je zahvaćeno postupcima alegorizacije, i ono biva skamenjeno i zadržano na jednom mestu. I ono će biti usmrćeno, da bi se omogućio večni život smrti. I ono će biti predočeno kao alegorija, kao okamenjeni prapredeo (mišljenja), kao res cogitans. Res cogitans, pravo govoreći, i nije drugo do zadržan, ovekovečen, skamenjen krajolik (živog) mišljenja, koje nezadrživo "propada". Ona je, naime, tek jedan "fragment" cogita, jedan segment/trenutak zadobijene sa sobom istosti mišljenja, kojoj je, kao i svemu živom, pretila smrt, i koja je, da bi se spasila i osigurala, zamrznuta; res cogitans je misao koja je nekoć bila živa, i koja je izvedena iz kretanja/vremena/meditiranja, i na taj način ovekovečena, ali, ovekovečena onako kako je to jedino i mogla biti, kao nepromenljiva, neprolazna, uvek sa sobom ista - kao mrtva, kao stvar. Tek ovako nepomična i nepromenljiva, poput nekog spomenika, res cogitans može da traje večno, da, kao i svaki spomenik, zauvek sa sobom bude identična. I ako "barokno umetničko delo ne želi ništa drugo osim da traje, pa se celim svojim organizmom okreće večnom", onda barokna umetnost ispunjenje svoje najvažnije želje, koja želi večnost, zadovoljava u res cogitans, u mišljenju koje je zaustavljeno, koje je zapalo u neživu sebi istost, i koje je tako, kao nepromenljivo, postalo stvar, kameni spomenik koji se podiže na jednom mestu sa koga će zauvek, večno trajući, spominjati na usmrćeni život mišljenja. Barokna umetnost, a poglavito barokna skulptura, vrhuni u res cogitans: ona je njeno remek delo.

To što se ovaj spomenik/stvar personifikuje, što se izražava ili predočava u jednom, tačnije, prvom licu ("ja sam stvar koja misli"), ne samo da ne znači oživotvoravanje leša, unošenje života/povesti/vremena u neživo i nepovesno, ne samo da ne znači proces "dealegorizacije", kojim bi se život udahnuo u neživu stvar, nego, sasvim obrnuto, potvrđuje da na delu i nije ništa drugo do postupak alegorizovanja, definitivnog usmrćivanja cogita. Kad to kažemo imamo na umu da alegorija i poznaje samo jedno (prvo) lice kojim izražava smrt njegovog života, da je ona, dakle, način na koji mrtvo lice izražava vlastitu smrt; život i povest se u alegoriji uvek "izražavaju u jednom licu - čak u jednoj mrtvačkoj glavi", ili, da to kažemo drugačije, život i povest se u alegoriji izražavaju u jednom licu koje je već mrtvačka glava. Neživo, stvarsko nije skriveno iza "alegorijskog" Ja, ono je njime otkriveno, njime naglašeno, zato što Ja za kojim poseže alegorija, obznanjuje da je ono lice lišeno svake ličnosti, da je ono bezlično lice, lice "lica" koje nije Ja, lice stvari. Lice smrti. Jer, alegorija i "radi" upravo tako što primat daje predmetskom nad personalnim, i to "personifikacijom" predmetskog: "... uvek je alegorijska personifikacija skrivala činjenicu da njen zadatak nije da personificira stvari već samo da impozantnije oblikuje ono stvarsko, time što ga udešava kao personu".52 Tek time što je res cogitans "udešena kao persona", što je određena kao Ja, sa sobom identično i otuda mrtvo Ja, ona je uistinu postavljena i osigurana kao stvar, impozantno oblikovana stvar, stvar svih stvari, ono stvarsko svake stvari. Tek određivanje Ja kao misleće stvari, misleći stvari kao Ja, objavljuje "postvarenje" živog Ja, njegovo usmrćivanje u stvar, obznanjuje da je definitivno dovršen proces pervertovanja cogita u stvar u kojoj će ono, kao u svojoj grobnici, zauvek živeti vlastitu smrt. Ja koje "personifikuje" stvar, u skladu sa logikom barokne alegorije, otuda, samo treba da naglasi da je reč o lešu jednog Ja, koje je, zarad večnosti njegove smrti, lišeno života, lišeno samoproizvodnje, samoobnavljanja, večnog samo-porađanja. Res cogitans je mrtvačka glava cogita.

Ovako određena kao barokna alegorija, a to znači određena kao leš (cogita), res cogitans se istovremeno, samim ovim određenjem, ispostavlja kao melanholična. Dekart, kao i Moderna, uostalom, sanja san o melanholičnom subjektu, ili, sanja subjekt koji, ukoliko se san ostvari, mora biti melanholičan. On sanja san o sebi istom subjektu. A cogito je ono što zaprečava ostvarenje želje ovog sna, što podriva samu mogućnost ovako sanjanog subjekta. Usled beskrajnosti procesa meditiranja, usled nedovršivosti samoproizvodnje, koja ne može da se zaustavi u proizvodu i koja, stoga, ne daje ono što se želi i za čim se traga, nego stalno i uvek iznova produkuje produkciju (Dekart ovde previđa da je produkcija produkt produkcije), i time umesto istosti nudi razliku, na sebe nesvodivost meditativnog subjekta. Dekart, ovde u ulozi alegoričara/usmrtitelja, obustavlja meditativni tok, pozivanjem na očiglednost postojanja Ja kao uvek-već proizvedenog, kao onoga što je uvek/već proizvod, uvek već stvar, a ne učinak vlastite samoprodukcije: "Jer da ja, taj koji sumnjam, koji razumevam, koji hoću - toliko je očito da nema drugog čime bi se belodanije objasnilo".53 Ne radi se, dakle, više o tome da se (samo)očiglednost Ja zadobije samoposredovanjem, nego se, obrnuto, radi o pozivanju na uvek već očigledno Ja, koje, pošto je očiglednije i belodanije od svega očiglednoga i belog ko dan, ne mora da zadobija i osigurava ono što već, uvek već ima - samog sebe. Bilo bi zaista nerazumno, bio bi to jalov rad "u prazno", da se proizvodi ono što je već, to je bar očito, proizvedeno, što je već proizvod, što je već stvar. Ovako svedena na "proizvod", res cogitans, kao i svaka stvar, kao i svaki predmet ili leš, postaje nesposobna da "zastupa" samu sebe, svoje vlastito značenje (za to bi bilo neophodno produkovati produkciju), nego "na značenju dobija onoliko koliko joj daje alegoričar. On ga stavlja u nju i on ga zastupa: i to ne psihološki, već ontološki".54 A alegoričar - res cogitans - daje značenje subjekta znanja. Tako ona "postaje ključ za carstvo skrivenog znanja", amblem toga carstva, ako već ne i samo carstvo. Traženi subjekt znanja, traženi samoidentitet koji otključava vrata carstva znanja, i koji je, štaviše, uslov mogućnosti ne samo znanja nego i mudrosti, dakle, ukupnosti svih istina/znanja, apsolutnog znanja, može se pronaći samo poricanjem cogita, ili, što izlazi na isto, poricanjem beskrajnog rada negacije negacije. A to i ne znači drugo do da traženi subjekt znanja mora biti melanholičan. I to stoga što je upravo ovo "poricanje negacije" i zaustavljanje produkcije, (koja jedina uistinu ispunjava zahtev za samo-identitetom, utoliko što samo-identitet isporučuje kao samo-ne-identitet, par excellence odredba melanholije; melanholične osobe i jesu melanholične zato što "poriču negaciju: one je suspenduju i nostalgično ponovo padaju u realni objekt /stvar/ njihovog gubitka".55 A to, drugim rečima, znači da je upravo ovo melanholično poricanje negacije negacije (koja je narav cogita), kojim se pokušava (us)postaviti subjekt, gubitak subjekta, pad u ono što je meditativni subjekt odbio da bude - stvar. U apsolutnoj bliskosti sa sobom, u melanholičnoj potpunoj istosti sa sobom, objekt mišljenja toliko je srastao za mišljenje da se mišljenje od svoga objekta, od sebe samog više ne može "distancirati" pa, otuda, sebe samog više ne može ni misliti. Slika se više ne može razlikovati od posmatrača jer je ona postala posmatrač, kao što je posmatrač postao slika koju posmatra; slika i posmatrač pali su ujedno, posmatrač više ne može da posmatra sebe. Subjekt gubi mogućnost da sebe vidi i tako, naravno, gubi sebe. Poput svega onoga što je sebe lišeno, on postaje stvar. Zato je sudbina onih koji su postali žalosni/melanholični kako bi postali subjekti i sama žalosna. Onome koji je za volju znanja izdao i napustio svet stvari, tačnije, onome koji je za volju istine, pokretni, živi svet čulnosti/ženskog učinio svetom stvari, svetom ruina u kome ničeg za posmatranje nema, stvari odgovaraju protivudarom, kojim "izdajnik" postaje ono što je izdao - stvar: ili, što je isto, melanholik. Melanholici naime, i jesu oni koji su izvršili taj čin izdaje, koji su "porekli objekte i označitelje u onoj meri u kojoj su ovi identifikovani sa životom",56 koji su umrtvili sam život, zarad večnosti nepromenljive Istine. I oni koji su dobili šta su tražili. Jer njima koji su hteli ključ za carstvo znanja, po svaku cenu, po cenu (vlastitog) života, oduzet je život; njima koji su želeli sa sobom identitet, želja je ispunjena, postali su sebi isti leš/stvar, osigurali su večni život smrti. Melanholija i pridaje "ogromnu, ekstravagantnu vrednost stvari, Ničemu - neoznačivom i smrti", upravo zato što melanholici, kao oni koji su bez objekta budući da su "slepljeni uz stvar (res)" i nisu drugo do stvar; ili smrt: "... ta stvar koja oni jesu je puko ništa, njihovo ništa, smrt".57 Melanholija je narcisoidna, ona pridaje ekstravagantnu vrednost samo onome što i sama jeste - smrti.

Res cogitans, tako, svedoči o ovoj "žalosnoj" sudbini modernog subjekta, o tome da je on moguć samo kao svoja večno živa smrt, kao gubitak samog sebe, dakle, kao neoznačeno, kao ništa. Ona svedoči o tome da je on nemoguć. Ona, takođe, pripoveda o tužnoj sudbini meditativnog subjekta koji završava u onome što je, “isprva” rešen da meditira, odbacio kao bezumlje, koji skončava u melanholiji, sa sobom istosti stvari koja, kao i svaki melanholik, ne može da se prepusti nerazumnosti nemelanholičnog zahteva da bude nerazumna, kako bi sebe osigurala kao razumnu. Ona objavljuje da je meditiranje bilo prekinuto zarad bezumnosti/ludila melanholične sa sobom istosti, da je ono obustavljeno zato što je na sebe, naposletku, ipak preuzelo primer pozajmljen od bezumnih.



5 Živeti u tišini

Melanholici iskazuju rečenice koje su... dovedene do mirovanja.

Julija Kristeva

Zato što je melanholična, res cogitans ćuti. To ne znači da ova tužna stvar ne može da govori, da je obolela od teškog oblika afazije; to znači da ona neće da govori, da odbija "običaj" govorenja, da odbija da se smesti u svet koji je regulisan jezikom. Ovo njeno povlačenje iz jezika ne događa se, međutim, samo stoga što usled potpune uronjenosti u sebe, usled "mimeze smrti" koju živi res cogitans, dolazi, kao uostalom, i u svakoj melanholiji, do "otkazivanja veza, prekida odnosa"; res cogitans nije ćutljiva samo zato, mada je ćutljiva i zato, što kaže "ne... vaša društva, vaše aktivnosti, vaši govori: to me ne zanima, ja sam drugde, ja nisam, ja sam mrtva";58 res cogitans nije tiha samo zato što u njenom svetu više nema nikakvog drugog koji bi bio klopka za njen pogled, koga bi mogla videti i kome bi nešto mogla reći. Res cogitans ćuti zato što je sa sobom identična, što je subjekt, što je subjekt znanja i što, otuda, zna da će biti znalac samo ukoliko ćuti. Ona zna da ne treba da govori pošto govor stoji na ulazu u obmanu, pošto je govor najkraći put od znanja do zablude. Znalci treba, kako to čine svi melanholični, da "obezvrede" jezik, da izraze radikalnu sumnju u govor ili da čak prestanu da veruju u njega. Oni moraju da se drže izvan jezika. Držati se izvan jezika znači biti u mišljenju. Ćutati znači biti u posedu istine. Onaj ko ima istinu, nema više razloga da govori; on više nema šta da čuje, i više nema šta da kaže.

Biti izvan jezika, za one koji su danas "subjekti znalci" znači upravo suprotno; biti izvan jezika za njih znači biti izvan mišljenja, uopšte ne misliti, biti na najvećoj mogućoj udaljenosti od istine ili, bar, smisla. Tvrdnja da je mišljenje ekstra-lingvističko danas nije samo "demodirana", ona je danas nemisliva, ili, što znači isto, nemoguća. Tvrdnja da mišljenje može da misli izvan jezika danas je besmislena. Ako je istina "savremenosti" da je jezik mišljenje, da jezik strukturira i konstituiše misao, da je on uslov mogućnosti mišljenja, te da je jezik sav smisao i smisao sam, onda biti izvan jezika znači upravo biti izvan svakog smisla, biti u besmislu, biti u nepristupačnim, nedokučivim, neshvatljivim prostranstvima ludila. Biti slobodan od stega jezika znači biti slobodan od razuma. Ludilo ćuti. Bez sumnje, to je teza koju bi Dekart držao vrlo ludom, ili, u najboljem slučaju, uveliko načetu ludilom.

Pre svega zato što biti lud uopšte ne znači biti izvan jezika. Ludaci govore; nema tog ludila, ma koliko ludo bilo, koje ćuti: "Vrlo je značajna ta stvar da uopšte nema tako tupih i glupih ljudi ne izuzimajući tu čak ni neuračunljive, koji ne bi bili u stanju da razne reči povežu u celinu i od njih slože svoj govor... pomoću kojeg bi svoje misli izrazili; dok naprotiv, uopšte ne postoji kakva druga životinja, ma koliko ona bila savršena i srećno rođena, koja bi se slično ponašala. Ovo se ne događa usled toga što bi im nedostajali organi, jer vidimo kako gavrani i papagaji mogu izgovarati reči kao i mi, a ipak ne mogu da govore kao mi, tj. posvedočivši da misle ono što govore... A ovo ne svedoči o tome da životinje imaju manje uma nego ljudi, već da ga uopšte nemaju".59 Ludak je srećniji i savršeniji od najsrećnije i najsavršenije životinje, ne zato što može da izgovara reči, (to mogu i gavrani), zato što moć izgovora zavisi od dobre konstitucije organa, nego zato što, makar bio i najluđi od svih ludaka, svoje reči može da poveže u celinu, i od njih složi svoj govor; ludak, dakle, takođe ima diskurs; (iz perspektive savremenog mišljenja o mišljenju, subjektu i jeziku, to bi značilo da Dekartov ludak ima moć subjektivacije, da se on subjektivira, da se proizvodnjom svog vlastitog smislenog govora, proizvodi i potvrđuje kao subjekt). Ludakov ludački diskurs nikada nije dovoljno lud, on je uvek jedna "ulančana", smislena celina kojom ludak izražava svoje misli, čak iako su ove lude; a povezanost njegovog diskursa svedoči o tome da on misli, i da su te misli njegove; za takvo svedočanstvo, za smisleni govor potrebno mu je, uostalom, "sasvim malo uma", ali ipak neuporedivo više no što ga ima životinja, pošto ga ova nema nimalo. Ludilo, dakle, nikada neće skliznuti u animalnost. Nijedan ludak nije životinja, nijedna životinja, ma koliko srećna bila, nikada neće moći da dosegne do ludila. Između ludaka i životinje zjapi nepremostiva provalija koja odgovara nepremostivoj provaliji koja deli čoveka od životinje. Tako Dekart osporava tezu svog tumača Fukoa, koji tumači da "u doba klasicizma", kod Dekarta ponajviše, ludak više nije, kao što je bio u renesansi, "čudovište u dnu sebe samog, već životinja čudnovatih mehanizama, bestijalnost u kojoj je čovek još odavno poništen";60 Dekartu bi ovo tumačenje, "u dnu samog sebe moralo biti veoma čudovišno, budući da ludilo, zato što govori, nikada nije potpuno ludo, nikada nije apsolutno bezumno, nikada, ma koliko bestijalno bilo, nije životinjski bestijalno, nikada, dakle, nije "poništenje čoveka". U ludilu uvek ima "sasvim malo uma". Takođe, zato što govori, ludilo nikada nije odsustvo dela, kako ludilo inače određuje Fuko.61 Jer, delo upravo i "započinje najjednostavnijim diskursom, prvom artikulacijom smisla, rečenicom, prvim sintaktičkim delom jednog 'kao takvo', pošto sačiniti rečenicu znači manifestovati jedan mogući smisao. Rečenica je po svojoj suštini normalna. Ona nosi normalnost u sebi, što znači smisao u svakom smislu te reči, Dekartovom pogotovo. Ona nosi normalnost i smisao kakvo god bilo uostalom zdravlje ili ludilo onog koji je izgovara, kroz kojeg i preko kojeg prolazi i u kojem se artikuliše".62 To je osnovni smisao Dekartovog shvatanja ludila, shvatanja koje je i samo "ludo", koje je uveliko "rascepljeno". I najluđi ludak govori, a njegov govor je uvek smislen, nikada nije bezumno izgovaranje nepovezanih reči. I zdravi i ludi uvek govore "povezano", uvek govore "normalno". Pa ipak, onaj koji govori normalno istovremeno može biti sasvim nenormalan. To zato što iza njegovog normalnog govora prebivaju njegove misli koje mogu biti uračunljive, ali i sasvim neuračunljive, potpuno lude, a koje on, izgovarajući ih, povezuje u celinu i "čini" normalnim.

To da su misli "iza" ili "izvan" govora razumne ili lude, nezavisno od toga što je govor "normalan" daje nam tek pravi odgovor na pitanje zašto bi Dekartu (savremena) teza da je nemoguće misliti izvan jezika, morala biti sasvim luda. Ona je luda, rekao bi Dekart, zato što ona podrazumeva jedan, homogen, jedinstven svet, svet jedne supstancije, dakle, jedan potpuno neistiniti, nerazuman, ludački svet, u kome bi se govor i mišljenje, usled identiteta uzroka i supstancijalne istosti, strukturirali po istim zakonima, u kome bi pali ujedno i bili "istovremeni". Ona je luda zato što ne podrazumeva istinit, "normalan", shizofreničarski svet rascepljen na dve supstancije, u kome misliti ne znači misliti u jeziku, premda "biti u jeziku" znači misliti (bar "sasvim malo"). Biti izvan jezika uopšte ne znači biti izvan smisla, zato što izvorno mesto, mesto rođenja smisla nije jezik, nego smisao sam, zato što uslov mogućnosti mišljenja nije jezik nego mišljenje koje je uslov mogućnosti jezika. Da bi se govorilo mora se misliti, izvan jezika i pre jezika. Jezik i mišljenje otuda stoje ne samo u odnosu spoljašnjosti, nego takođe i u odnosu sukcesivnosti. Jezik, "izražajni" jezik dolazi tek pošto je misao "mislila", tek pošto se "smislila", da bi ovu misao izrazio. Sa svoje strane misao je samu sebe porobila bez ikakve pomoći jezika. Na pitanje da li ideje mogu da postoje drugačije nego kao znaci/reči, na pitanje koje postavlja Hobs, nije li ono što Dekart naziva mišljenjem "samo združivanje i povezivanje imena i naziva pomoću glagola 'jeste'”, usled čega "zaključci našeg razuma ne govore ništa o prirodi stvari već samo... o imenima pripisanim stvarima"; na pitanje nije li naše mišljenje tek "sastavljanje imena stvari u skladu sa konvencijama"63 Dekart, sasvim zgranut pitanjem, odgovara odrečno. Kako neko uopšte može govoriti (Dekart ovde već ne bi koristio reč "misliti") o tome da misao misli samo konvencije, a da se pri tome ne šali? Kako se može govoriti o filozofiji koja bi "filozofirala"/mislila tek imena i nazive iscrpljujući se u njihovim beskrajno mnogim kombinacijama? Onaj koji tako govori ne vidi da "filozof pobija samog sebe govoreći o konvencijama (conventions)";64 on ne vidi da time pobija i poriče mišljenje samo, a to znači istinu. Ako "važi" Hobsova teza onda uopšte nema mišljenja i uopšte nema nikakve filozofije. Jer, konvencijalno je uvek arbitrarno, a arbitrarno je ono što je proizašlo iz slobodne volje onoga koji ga ustanovljava; arbitrarno je kontingentno, uvek potčinjeno samovolji arbitra. Misao koja bi mislila ono što je arbitrarno, "mislila" bi ono što može biti i ovakvo i onakvo, čega uopšte ne mora biti, dakle, ne bi mislila istinu. Nema te istine koje može biti i ne biti, koja je učinak dogovora, a ne nužnosti. Nema istine koja nije univerzalna i supstancijalna. Nikakvog pogađanja oko istine nema. Sve što zavisi od "uloga" i od "konsenzusa" pregovarača, laž je. Zato misao nikada ne misli imena i znakove, ona nema nikakvog posla sa znakovima. Misao "operiše" samo sa onim oko čega nema cenjkanja, dakle, sa mišljenjem samim, sa smislom samim, a ne sa imenom koje se misli. Drugačije rečeno, misao je izvan jezika. Mišljenje i jezik nalaze se u različitim polovinama sveta rascepljenog na dvoje, podeljenog na svet misli i svet stvari. Oni ne borave u istoj supstanciji. Oni su nesvodivo, to znači supstancijalno različiti. Jezik/govor je uvek verbalan, on živi isključivo u glasu (gest ne spada u govor65), pa je stoga uvek već materijalizovan, otelovljen u supstancijalnosti res extense. Strogo govoreći, uvek je telo to koje govori. Telo treba da izrazi smisao koji je misao mislila. Jezik je, kao ono što pripada rasprostrtom i što se samo rasprostire, u svojoj izražajnoj formi shvaćen kao "propratni događaj pridodat izvornom i pred-izražajnom sloju smisla. Sam izražajni jezik bi naknadno pridolazio apsolutnoj ćutnji samoodnošenja".66

Ali, upravo ova supstancijalna različitost između mišljenja i jezika, koja odgovara zevu koji zjapi između mišljenja i tela, čini da jezik, uvek izražajan, zapravo nikada "uistinu" ne može da izrazi ili da prenese misao; "uistinu" to znači u onom obliku u kome je mišljena. Jezik, doduše, prenosi misao, ali uvek netačno, uvek pogrešno. Misao biva izobličena prelaskom u drugu supstanciju, ponekad do neprepoznatljivosti; (jezik "izražava" misao, dakle, misao biva prenesena do tela; ali, ako za Dekarta zajednica između "duše i tela ostaje neshvatljiva tajna", kako kaže Hegel, to onda i način ovog prelaska mora ostati obavijen velom tajne, osim ukoliko se ne pribegne argumentu "iz rada žlezda"). Oblikovati ideju u reč znači preoblikovati je, izmestiti je iz unutrašnjosti mišljenja, izmestiti jeiz nje same i preneti je u izvanjskost tela, u ono što ona nije, naime, u jezik. Izrečena misao podređena je zakonima telesnosti, zakonima rasprostrte supstancije i tako preobražena. Otuda izrečena ideja samo podseća na ideju oblikovanu u tišini mišljenja, reč samo liči na ideju koju izriče. To što govorimo svedoči o tome da mislimo, ali nam nikada tačno ne govori i šta je uistinu mišljeno. Pošto nam nikada ne govori istinu, govor zavodi na zabludu. Bez sumnje, on to čini zato što je uvek izgovoren, što je smešten u glas, što "glas za barok jeste i ostaje nešto čulno", a što čulno jeste i ostaje obmanljivo. "Sam govorni običaj me obmanjuje", kaže Dekart,67 izobličava misao koju izražava. Za razliku od Montenja koji je držao da "reći da su stvari dobro rečene znači reći da su dobro mišljene", za Dekarta stvari, ma koliko dobro mišljene bile, nikada nisu dobro rečene. Mi nikada ne govorimo ono što mislimo, nikada ne mislimo ono što govorimo. Zato što je mesto iskrivljenja smisla i istine, razborito je ispoljiti krajnje nepoverenje prema govoru; kako svom tako i tuđem. Reči preobražavaju istinu, a pošto se istina ne može preobraziti, jer onda ne bi ni bila istina, to onda reči preobražavaju ono što je istinito u ono što je neistinito. Reči napuštaju istinu. A ono što je neistinito, što je nejasno i nerazgovetno, ne može u našem duhu oblikovati istinu; "reči ne oblikuju nikakvu razgovetnu ideju u nešem duhu".68 Telo govori i uvek laže. Govor je, dakle, nepresušni izvor zabluda, a to, strogo govoreći, znači ludila. Pozicija govora je, tako, dvostruka, rascepljena, hamletovski, suštinski udvojena. Govor je poslednja odbrana razumnosti, poslednje svedočanstvo koje imamo o razumnosti razuma, jer, za govor je potrebno "sasvim malo razuma". Govor, otuda, nije samo delo razuma, on je razum na delu. Ali, istovremeno, jer produkuje zabludu, govor je i prvi "napad ludila", on nije samo delo ludila, on je i ludilo na delu. Govor je to ludo mesto na kome se ukrštaju razum i ludilo. Zato što govore, ludaci nikada nisu potpuno ludi, ali zato što govore, razumni nikada nisu potpuno razumni. Zato res cogitans napušta govorni običaj. Ona sebe hoće kao razumnost samu.

Odlazeći od jezika, res cogitans se udaljila od tog nestabilnog mesta sa koga razum lako može da sklizne u ludilo, a smisao u besmisao. U svojoj nepokretnoj sebi identičnosti, ona se kao Subjekt smestila u prostor Istine i Smisla, verujući da tako ludilo ostavlja daleko iza sebe, previđajući da upravo "Ja-subjekt istinskog smisla, smisla Celine, jeste ludi - ili mrtvi subjekt".69 Kao i sve što je nepomično, kao i sve što je stvar, res cogitans je svakako mrtva. Ali, i ovako "mrtva" ona je u protivrečnosti, uprkos tome što je mrtva, uprkos tome što je u apsolutnom samoidentitetu, ili zahvaljujući tome. Jer, ona poseduje Mudrost, u Dekartovom značenju reči, ona poseduje Istinu, tj. smisao totaliteta, kao posebni “mrtvi” subjekt znanja. A "subjekt se na taj način nalazi u protivuriječju svojeg u svojoj svijesti sistematiziranog totaliteta i posebnoj, u tom totalitetu netekućoj i neuvrštenoj i podređenoj određenosti - ludilo".70 Iskliznućem iz jezika u smisao, res cogitans je natrčala na ludilo. Res cogitans je ludi leš.

Branka Arsić
Filozofski fakultet, Beograd
Juli 1995.

NAPOMENE

1. W. Benjamin, Pariz Drugog Carstva u Baudelairea, Estetički ogledi, Školska knjiga, Zagreb 1986, str. 90-91.
2. Umesto Dekarta ili Hegela, navodimo Bodlera: "Dragi moj Denoaje, Vi tražite stihove za svoju knjižicu, stihove o Priordi, zar ne? O šumama, velikim hrastovima, o zelenilu, insektima, o suncu svakako? Ali, znate vrlo dobro da sam nesposoban da se raznežim nad biljem i da mi se duša opire toj čudnoj novoj religiji koja će uvek, čini mi se, imati nečeg shocking za svako biće s duhom. Nikada neću verovati da duša Bogova boravi u biljkama, a čak i kad bi boravila, ne bi me bašmnogo to zanimalo, i za svoju dušu držim da joj je cena mnogo viša no cena duše u tom posvećenom povrću. Štaviše, uvek sam mislio, kako u Prirodi, rascvetaloj i podmlađenoj, ima nečeg bestidnog i što žalosti". Šarl Bodler, Izabrana pisma, Bratstvo-Jedinstvo, Novi Sad 1987, str. 56.
3. L. Mumford, Grad u historiji, Naprijed, Zagreb 1988, str. 355. Ova promena u organizaciji života grada, kao i u oblikovanju samog grada odgovara promeni prema prirodnom i čulnom, kao što i sama jača i učvršćuje ovu promenu. U gradu sedamnaestog veka, u modernom gradu, koji je sam organizovan oko onemogućavanja svakog dodira sa prirodnim, i samu "ljubav prepoznajemo kao stigmatiziranu velegradom". U životu gradskog čoveka dodir je zamenjen "geometrizovanim" pogledom: "Daleko od toga da erotičaru pojava koja ga fascinira samo nestaje u mnoštvu, većmu je mnoštvo tek pruža. Ushit gradskog čoveka nije ljubav na prvi pogled, nego ljubav na poslednji pogled. Nikad, vrhunac je susreta...". W. Benjamin, Pariz Drugog Carstva u Baudelairea, nav. izd., str. 52. Prema Gliksmanovim uvidima ovakva promena omogućena je upravo Dekartovom filozofijom: "Dekart oslobađa individuu. Od čega? Od končića ljubavi... Kartezijanski čas je zazvonio u trenutku kad se kosmološka funkcija ljubavi menja... Božanska veza je raskinuta. Pobuđen je odnos koji jedna usamljena svest održava sa samom sobom... Vladavina ljubavne veze bila je sveopšta, kartezijanski individualizam to neće biti manje, jer on inauguriše režim ne-ljubavi". A. Glucksmann, Descartes c'est la France, Flammarion, Paris 1987, str. 56-57.
4. S. Bordo, The Cartesian Masculinization of Thought, Signes, 1986, vol. 11, no. 3, str. 448.
5. J. Kristeva, Black Sun, Depression and Melancholia, Columbia University Press, New York 1989, str. 28.
6. W. Benjamin, Pariz Drugog Carstva u Baudelairea, nav. izd., str. 79. Upor. takođe i C. B. Glucksmann, Melanholični Cogito suvremenosti, Quorum, 4/1988, str. 245: "Sa svojim scenografijama, svojim pričama i promišljanjima beznađa, svojim alegorijama; svijet poput kaosa, propasti ili kazališta, knjiga poput zbirke i biblioteke, napisano poput palimpsesta i izgubljena smisla. Sve je većstvoreno, mišljeno, napisano; sve dolazi prekasno... Na početku je uvek određeni gubitak, neki neuhvatljivi objekt, koji obuzima subjektivnost..."
7. R. Descartes, Recherche de la Vérité, AT, X, str. 513.
8. R. Descartes, Entretien avec Burman, ur. C. Adam, Paris 1937, str. 7.
9. W. Benjamin, Pariz Drugog Carstva..., nav. izd., str. 77.
10. W. Benjamin, Porijeklo njemačke žalobne igre, Veselin Masleša, Sarajevo 1989, str. 107.
11. R. Descartes, Meditacije o prvoj filozofiji, Zagreb 1975, str. 199-200.
12. Ibid., str. 200.
13. R. Descartes, Recherche de la Vérité, AT, X, str. 513.
14. To što Dekart u ovom trenutku meditiranja isključuje melanholike, svedoči da su žene većisključene iz postupka meditiranja. Jer, melanholija je "muška bolest": ona nije bolest tela, ludilo tela, nego duha, pa zato žene nikada ne poboljevaju od melanholije, one nikada nisu tužne i zamišljenje; kao i svi oni koji su bez duha, žene su uvek vesele. Zato je žensko ludilo histerija. Histerija je "opažena kao posledica unutrašnje toplote koja po celom telu rasprostire izvesnu uzavrelost, ključanje koje se neprestano ispoljava u grčevima i trzajima. Zar ta toplota nije srodna ljubavnom žaru s kojim je histerija u devojaka koje traže muža i udovica koje su svog izgubile tako često povezana? Histerija je po prirodi vatrena..." Žene oboljevaju uvek i samo od toplote tela, njihovo ludilo je ludilo izazvano "lošim uticajem materice". Upor. M. Fuko, Istorija ludila u doba klasicizma, Nolit, Beograd 1980, str. 116. Upor. takođe i Ilza Veith, Hysteria, The History of a Disease, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1965, str. 155-195.
15. Ž. Starobinski, O povesti zamišljenih fluida, u Kritički odnos, Sremski Karlovci 1990, str. 100.
16. R. Dekart, Strasti duše, Beograd 1989, str. 14.
17. Ž. Starobinski, O povesti zamišljenih fluida, nav. izd., str. 101.
18. R. Dekart, Strasti duše, nav. izd., str. 15.
19. M. Fuko, Istorija ludila u doba klasicizma, nav. izd., str. 103–104.
20. Ibid., str. 102.
21. R. Descartes, Entretien avec Burman, nav. izd., str. 7.
22. Ibid., str. 8.
23. M. Fuko, Istorija ludila u doba klasicizma, nav. izd., str. 106.
24. R. Descartes, Entretien avec Burman, nav. izd., str. 8.
25. M. Fuko, Istorija ludila..., nav. izd., str. 38.
26. W. Benjamin, Porijeklo njemačke žalobne igre, nav. izd., str. 146.
27. M. Fuko, Istorija ludila..., nav. izd., str. 102: "Duh melanholika potpuno je obuzet razmišljanjem i to tako da imaginacija ostaje dokona i uspavana".
28. Marsilius Ficinus, De vita triplici, 1482, nav. prema W. Benjamin, Porijeklo njemačke žalobne igre, nav. izd., str. 118. Sa Fićinom započinje značajna promena u shvatanju melanholije. Ona se jošuvek dovodi u vezu sa jačim delovanjem crne žuči, ali se sada shvata kao "jedinstven i božanski dar". Crna žuč "'prisiljava mišljenje, gurajući ga ka centru, da uroni u svoje predmete, zato što je sama crna žuč bliska centru zemlje. Isto se tako mišljenje uzdiže do razumevanja najvišeg, jer odgovara najvišoj među planetama'. Otuda su, takođe, i oni mislioci koji se predaju kontemplaciji i dubokoumnoj spekulaciji, najčešće dovedeni do melanholije". R. Klibansky, E. Panofsky, F. Saxl, Saturn und Melancholie, Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt am Main 1990, str. 374.
29. J. Kristeva, Black Sun, Depression and Melancholia, nav. izd., str. 19.
30. Melanholični stoje pod uticajem Saturna, planete mišljenja, a "Saturn proizvodi one izuzetne filozofe čija je čulnost sasvim odvraćena od svih spoljašnjih nadražaja i od njihovog vlastitog tela i toliko okrenuta nadčulnom da oni konačno postaju božji instrument". R. Klibansky, E. Panofsky, F. Saxl, Saturn und Melancholie, nav. izd., str. 374. Melanholici su ludi zato što više nisu "normalni" ljudi, ali njihovo ludilo nije pad u animalno, nego skok u božansko. Za uticaj Saturna na melanholiju upor. takođe, R. Burton, Anatomie der Melancholie, Artemis Verlag, Zürich und München 1988, str. 157–161.
31. J. Kristeva, Black Sun, Depression and Melancholia, nav. izd., str. 68.
32. Ovde se slažemo sa M. Fukoovom tezom da su melanholični isključeni iz meditiranja, a ne da je u pitanju samo jedan "lošprimer", koji će se "poboljšati" uvođenjem primera snevanja. Ne podržavamo, međutim, kako će se videti, njegovo stanovište da je ovaj gest isključenja radikalan, i da razum više u sebe neće primiti ludilo koje je isključivo. Uporedi Fukoovu analizu specifičnosti "primera ludila", u M. Foucault, Histoire de la folie a l’age classique. Appendices, Gallimard, Paris 1972, str. 588. i 589.
33. R. Descartes, Meditacije o prvoj filozofiji, nav. izd., str. 200.
34. J. Derrida, Cogito i istorija ludila, Dijalog, 5–6/1987, str. 26.
35. Ibid.
36. M. Foucault, Histoire de la Folie ŕ l'age classique. Appendices, nav. izd., str. 509.
37. V. M. Foti, The Cartesian Imagination, u Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, June, 1986, vol. XLVI, no. 4. Za odnos imaginacije i ludila kod Dekarta, upor. takođe i S. Felman, La Folie et la Chose Littéraire, Editions du Seuil, 1978, str. 49 i dalje, kao i D. Judoviz, Derrida and Descartes: Economizing Thought, u Derrida and Deconstruction, ed. H. J. Silverman, Routledge, New York, str. 54.
38. M. Foucault, Appendices, nav. izd., str. 590.
39. Zapravo bi trebalo reći da je melanholik uvek većdelo koje, međutim, nije svoj vlastiti učinak, koje nije samo sebe odelovilo, koje ne dela. Melanholični su ludi zato što nemaju moćsamoprodukcije, pa otuda nisu učinak svog vlastitog rada. Melanholija je "odsustvo dela", zato što melanholični nisu učinak svog čina, jer sami ništa ne čine.
40. J. F. Lyotard, Pérégrinations, Low, Form, Event, Columbia University Press, New York 1988, str. 7.
41. Ibid.
42. Renesansno učenje o melanholiji branilo je tezu da melanholici bivaju postavljeni kao melanholici delovanjem sila Saturna. "Saturn je onaj koji duh upućuje promatranju viših stvari", a sam označava "božansku kontemplaciju". R. Klibansky, E. Panofsky, F. Saxl, Saturn und Melancholie, nav. izd., str. 375.
43. J. F. Lyotard, Pérégrinations, nav. izd., str. 18.
44. Ibid., str. 6.
45. R. Descartes, Meditationes, Quatričmes Reponses, AT, IX-1, str. 177: "I konačno (...), to što je moćmišljenja kod dece uspavana a kod ludaka istina nije ugašena, ali je pomućena/poremećena/ometena (troublée)..."
46. S. Frojd, Žalost i melanholija, Delo, 8-9/1985, str. 122.
47. J. Kristeva, Black Sun. Depression and Melancholia, nav. izd., str. 60.
48. S. Frojd, Žalost i melanholija, nav. izd., str. 126.
49. R. Descartes, Méditations métaphysiques, prir. E. Thouverez, Paris 1932, str. 328.
50. W. Benjamin, Porijeklo njemačke žalobne igre, nav. izd., str. 139.
51. Ibid., str. 64.
52. Ibid., str. 148.
53. R. Descartes, Meditacije o prvoj filozofiji, nav. izd., str. 200.
54. W. Benjamin, Porijeklo njemačke žalobne igre, nav. izd., str. 145.
55. J. Kristeva, Black Sun..., nav. izd., str. 43-44.
56. Ibid., str. 51.
57. Ibid.
58. J. Kristeva, Ponori duše, Quorum, 4/1988, str. 241.
59. R. Descartes, Reč o metodi, Valjevo 1990, str. 41-42.
60. M. Fuko, Istorija ludila u doba klasicizma, nav. izd., str. 79.
61. M. Foucault, Appendices, nav. izd. Prvi odeljak "dodatka" je i naslovljen "Ludilo, odsustvo dela". "Za epohu koja dolazi posle renesanse", koju Fuko određuje kao klasicizam, "ludilo je izopšten jezik, onaj koji suprotno kodu jezika (langue) izgovara reči bez značenja...", str. 579. Za Dekarta, međutim, koji po Fukou, najavljuje tu epohu, i koji je utemeljuje, ludilo nikada ne izgovara reči bez značenja.
62. J. Derida, Cogito i istorija ludila, nav. izd., str. 28.
63. R. Descartes, Méditations, AT, IX-1, Troisičmes Objections, str. 138.
64. Ibid., str. 139.
65. "I ne treba mešati reči sa prirodnim pokretima koji izražavaju strasti, a koje mašine mogu podražavati isto tako kao i životinje.", R. Descartes, Reč o metodi, nav. izd., str. 42.
66. Ž. Derida, Glas i fenomen, Beograd 1989, str. 86.
67. R. Dekart, Meditacije o prvoj filozofiji, nav. izd., str. 207. Upor. takođe i R. Descartes, Osnovi filozofije, I deo, Matica hrvatska, Zagreb 1951, str. 97. Četvrti uzrok zablude je "što svoje pojmove povezujemo s riječima, koje ne odgovara točno stvarima... Zbog upotrebe govora povezujemo svoje pojmove s riječima, pomoću kojih ih izričemo, te ih zadržavamo u pamćenju zajedno s tim riječima. Budući da se kasnije lakše sjećamo riječi nego stvari, teško da ikada imamo tako razgovijetan pojam bilo čega..."
68. R. Descartes, Recherche de la Vérité, AT, X, str. 516.
69. J. Kristeva, Ime smrti ili života, u Filozofsko čitanje Frojda, Beograd 1988, str. 501.
70. G. W. F. Hegel, Enciklopedija filozofijskih znanosti, Veselin Masleša, Sarajevo 1987, str. 355.

BECKETT

'FILM'

1965, 21 minutes, B&W
Directed by Alan Schneider
Produced by Barney Rosset
O: Buster Keaton
Nell Harrison: Passerby
James Karen: Passerby



Synopsis

Beckett's own cinematic short, starring a somewhat reluctant Buster Keaton. Foxrock provides the following synopsis:
Samuel Beckett’s only venture into the medium of cinema, Film was written in 1963 and filmed in New York in the summer of 1964, directed by Alan Schneider and featuring Buster Keaton. For the shooting Mr. Beckett made his only trip to America. The film, which has no dialogue, takes its basis Berkeley’s theory Esse est percpii, that is “to be is to be perceived”: even after all outside perception -- be it animal, human or divine -- has been suppressed, self perception remains. Film was edited by Sydney Meyers and the cinematography was by Boris Kaufman, both of whom were preeminent in their fields. Film was produced by Barney Rosset and Evergreen Theater.







Film by Samuel Beckett

by Katherine Waugh & Fergus Daly


1995 marks the 30th anniversary of the premiere (at the New York Film Festival) of Film by Samuel Beckett. Although remade in Britain in 1979 for the B.F.I. this original version with it's remarkable assemblage of collaborators remains definitive. Few films in the history of cinema deserve renewed attention as much as this little known masterpiece. Ironically, one of the rare gestures made towards its existence within the Irish cultural scene of late was the (admittedly humorous) pastiche of the film in the video for the song 'Glen Campbell nights' by the band 'Bawl'. Despite the recent frenzy of self-satisfied pronouncements regarding the renaissance within Irish cinema, there is little sign of any serious work being created with a similar experimental quality to Beckett's project, which the philosopher and film-theorist Gilles Deleuze has called "the greatest Irish film." Indeed its importance is magnified by the very fact that it is one of the few Irish films of any note which attempts to explore a uniquely Irish intellectual tradition. The problematic which Beckett establishes in the script (which he intended to be read in conjunction with the viewing of the film) is that of the 18th Century Irish philosopher Berkeley: "Esse est percipi" ("to be is to be perceived") or to quote Berkeley in his more detailed formulation "all those bodies which compose the mighty frame of the world have not any subsistence without a mind - that their being is to be perceived or known." Beckett's cinematic venture can therefore be contrasted with the glut of 'home produced' films which, although fulfilling all the criteria necessary to receive the 'Guaranteed Irish' stamp of approval, tend to reproduce the clichéd forms of a Hollywood production rather than attempting to enquire into the history of Irish conceptual peculiarities which resonate through the various media of our present cultural life. Hence, even though it was filmed in America with an American cast and crew, Beckett's film can be seen to deserve the tribute paid to it by Deleuze which emphasises the specifically Irish aspect of its greatness. For Deleuze the entire film is "the tale of Berkeley who has had enough of being perceived and of perceiving. The role, which could only have been taken by Buster Keaton, is that of Berkeley, or rather it is the passage from one Irishman to another, from Berkeley who perceived and was perceived to Beckett who has exhausted all of the 'happinesses of the perceiver and the perceived'."
This film, shot in black and white and lasting 22 minutes, was directed by Alan Schneider under the personal supervision of Beckett whose commitment to the project was demonstrated by his decision to travel to New York and be present throughout the shooting - an effort he was never prepared to make in relation to any of his theatre works, almost all of which Schneider had premičred for him in America. Schneider later speculated as to whether the opportunity to work directly with Buster Keaton had motivated Beckett's unusual decision to travel. It has even been suggested that the inspiration for Waiting for Godot might have come from a minor Keaton film called The Loveable Cheat in which Keaton plays a man who waits endlessly for the return of his partner - whose name interestingly enough was Godot. Beckett's respect for and fascination with the rudimentary silent film and the burlesque tradition of which Keaton was a part (and which undoubtedly had a major influence on many of his dramatic works other than 'Godot') must have contributed to his decision to make his film a silent one. The sole sound present in the film is a sibilant 'ssh' which is heard early on in the work. It is fascinating that the cinematographer chosen for Film was Boris Kaufman, brother of Dziga Vertov (whose original name was Denis Kaufman), a fact which must have added to his value in Beckett's eyes given the writer's well-known preoccupation with the great Russian silent film-makers. Kaufman was the cameraman who had worked on many French silent films prior to his collaboration with Jean Vigo on L'Atalante and who later worked in America with directors such as Kazan (On the Waterfront) and Lumet. The French critic Jean-Claude Biette has stressed the influence of Vertov on Kaufman, especially in his development of a specific lighting technique which in exteriors has the effect of condensing surfaces - for example his known predilection for filming walls and buildings in an expressionistic manner - and in interiors finds its form in a narrowness and verticality which has the effect of heightening the intensities which work on the body in a confined space. Certainly, Kaufman's stylistic techniques contributed greatly to the overall look of Beckett's film. Others have commented on the influence of the Surrealist film-makers, particularly Bunuel and Dali, on Beckett's cinematic imagination and significantly Beckett sets his film in the year 1929, the year Un Chien Andalou was made (and of course the first year of the sound film). In addition the film opens and closes with close-ups of a sightless eye which would seem to refer to the notorious opening sequence of Un Chien Andalou in which a human eye is sliced open with a razor blade. In fact 'Eye' was Beckett's original title for Film.
In Film Buster Keaton plays a character who in Beckett's words is "in search of non-being, in flight from extraneous perception breaking down in the inescapability of self-perception." Beckett explains in his script that he has sundered his character in two: the character played by Keaton is called 'O' or the object who throughout the film is pursued by the subject 'E' or the 'camera-eye'. As long as the camera or 'E' stays behind Keaton (O), 'O' will avoid being perceived. The camera is designated, in Beckett's phrase, an "angle of immunity" of 45 degrees which it must not exceed at the risk of causing 'O' to experience the "anguish of perceivedness."
The film is divided into three parts moving from the street to a stairway and culminating in a room. Following the opening shot of the eye, we see Keaton rushing forward and following a horizontal path along a large wall, all the time desperately trying to avoid being seen by the camera. He jostles with passers-by who look at him in bewilderment and then at 'E' the camera with horror. 'O' then encounters an old woman in the film's first 'interior'; she collapses to the ground on seeing 'O' and again looks at 'E' in horror. The final section of the film is set in a run-down room. When 'O' enters the room he systematically expels all that is thought to represent 'extraneous perception'. After repeated attempts he manages to remove a cat and a dog from the room in a sequence reminiscent of many of the early slapstick Keaton films. (Keaton in fact wanted to heighten this slapstick element in the film by inserting an old gag of his whereby a pencil would be pared until it disappeared - Schneider rejected this idea). 'O' next closes the curtains, covers a mirror, a parrot in its cage and a fish in its bowl. He tears a print of 'God the Father' from the wall, and even appears nervous in the face of a headrest which seems to be perceiving him. Finally he settles in a rocking chair and removes photographs from a folder, inspects them (they appear to show scenes from his early childhood right through to adulthood) and proceeds to tear them into pieces. He closes his eyes and begins to rock. This enables the camera to take advantage of his lapse of consciousness and to exceed all previously limiting angles. The character 'O' is for the first time seen from the front and in a reverse-angle shot 'E' is revealed to be 'O's double: Beckett offers us a visualisation of self-perception. We see the same face, Keaton's with a patch over one eye, but with differing facial expressions - 'O's being one of anguish, 'E's one of acute intentness. 'O' closes his eyes and the rocking of the chair subsides. In Beckett's words, it is not "until the end of the film that the pursuing perceiver is not extraneous but the self." Self-perception is unavoidable.
It is important to understand that Beckett's attempt to investigate the perceptual referentiality of cinema as an art form differs quite markedly from the attempts of other film-makers to deal with problems of perception as encountered in this medium. At a time (broadly speaking the '50's and '60's) when directors such as Hitchcock with Rear Window, Michael Powell with Peeping Tom and Antonioni with Blow-Up were all incorporating explorations of the problems of spectatorship/voyeurism into the very structure of their films, and the American avant-garde (through Brakhage, Belson, Snow etc.) was drawing attention to the very materiality of the cinematic process (the frame, screen, projector, grain patterns, the pellicular essence of the medium) Beckett chose a radically different perspective. To appreciate the depth of the cinematic problematic Beckett confronts us with, it is essential to take into account the extent of his immersion in the history of philosophy and in particular in the paradoxes and impasses of 17th and 18th Century European epistemology. Various works of his emphasise the writings of some philosophers over others; Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz in Murphy, Locke in Malone Dies, Leibniz again in How It Is, Berkeley and Hume in Watt. Beckett in effect creates his own Burlesque theatre of philosophers in which the intellectual problems which they formulate are presented through his characters often playful gambits. His revival of Berkeley in Film sees him turning to the cinema for solutions to some of the problems of perception which no other medium was perhaps capable of providing him with. It is interesting to note that at roughly the same time other novelists such as Robbe-Grillet and Duras followed a similar route.
In a forthcoming study on Leibniz and Neo-baroque Literature, which is ground-breaking in many respects, Garin Dowd offers clues as to how Film forms part of a whole series of works in the Beckettian oeuvre which are similarly structured. "In Beckett projects are usually subject to an unfaltering errancy: a project is painstakingly pursued until such point as the subject, although 'going on' (as at the close of the The Unnameable) finds all teleology linking it to it's object (the project) broken down. Such fugal projects are those of waiting in Godot, fabulation in Company, rememberance in Krapps Last Tape, inventory in Malone Dies, work in Watt, and death in The Lost Ones." 'O's flight from perception which breaks down in the face of the inevitability of self-perception extends this series.
Ironically, this series might never have been initiated if one of Beckett's own personal projects hadn't also broken down. In 1936 Beckett, at an impasse in relation to his literary endeavours, became smitten with the idea of changing the direction of his life and becoming a film-maker. In that year he wrote to Eisenstein but we have conflicting versions of the contents of and desires expressed in this letter. Whereas his biographer Deirdre Bair claims that Beckett offered to work as an unpaid apprentice to Eisenstein doing whatever he wanted him to do, it is now generally accepted (through the confirmation of the leading Eisenstein scholar Jay Leyda) that Beckett in fact wrote to Eisenstein of his wish to study at the Moscow State School of Cinematography. Unfortunately for the cinema, but providentially for literature, Eisenstein never got to see the letter. It had been a bad year for Eisenstein, mostly due to the fact that the production of his film Bezhin Meadow had to be stopped due to an outbreak of smallpox. The confusion which ensued as Eisenstein, forced into quarantine, began to doubt his original script and desperately tried to rewrite it meant that during the upheaval Beckett's letter was lost.
It is extraordinary that Beckett could have reached a position whereby he actually considered such a plan. It is also interesting to speculate upon what might have influenced such a decision. Whereas Bair claims that Beckett read books by Pudovkin, Arnheim and Eisenstein whilst in Paris in the early '30's and that he in fact contacted Pudovkin when he failed to get a response from Eisenstein, the most that can be said is that, in terms of books on film-making which might have been in print, Pudovkin's book 'Film Technique' would have been widely available in Paris and more than likely would have been read by Beckett because of his passionate interest in the cinema at that time. Moreover one has the impression that traces of Pudovkin's theory and practice of film-making made their way into Beckett's own film, especially the Russian's belief that inanimate objects when related to the human character in a film and shot in a specific way could be as photogenic and resonant with meaning as human faces. Hence one might find Pudovkin's influence in those shots in Film in which 'O' perceives faces or the human gaze in inanimate objects. But of course Eisenstein echoes these ideas in his essay 'Dickens, Griffith and the Film Today' where he repeats Dicken's observation "even the kettle watches me."
But whatever sources Beckett may have drawn upon in conceiving his film - from the philosophy of Berkeley through to the Burlesque and on to those films and theorists we have mentioned - the work succeeds in creating that singularly Beckettian universe which is so recognisable from his plays and novels. For this reason, in a year in which the 100th anniversary of the cinema is being celebrated, and having just commemorated the 5th anniversary of Beckett's death, it would be fitting if his film could be re-viewed in a way which might lead to it attaining to the stature of his highly acclaimed written work.



Textual Cinema and Cinematic Text:
The Ekphrasis of Movement in Adam Thorpe and Samuel Beckett.

H. Martin Puchner


I.

The impact of the emerging cinema on the established genre of the novel has long become one of the most common topoi of literary criticism, which traces narrative techniques such as montage, sudden shifts in perspective, and close ups to the modernist cause célčbre: the emerging silent film. The evident truth behind these observations tended to disregard the fact that the nineteenth-century novel had developed some of these techniques long before the brothers Lumičre. Flaubert's Madame Bovary features the famous scene at the agricultural fair, which exploits a radical cut/counter-cut montage with voice over and cut-in pieces of dialogue, and Dickens zooms in on embarrassing, trivial, and symptomatic details as if he had spent most of his afternoons at the movies.1 Criticizing the simple history of influence from film to novel, Sergei Eisenstein, in a now famous essay, considered the nineteenth-century novel a precursor for the cinematic imagination.2 It is, therefore, difficult to specify the ways in which the emerging cinema changed narrative fiction. The nouveau roman--and in particular the oeuvre of Robbe-Gillet, which consists of film scripts, such as L'année derničre ŕ Marienbad, as well as of novels--represents one of the cases in which the medium of film reshapes literature: the narrative perspective is assimilated to the single eye of the camera, and the narrative is reduced to an external, at times geometrical, description of the field of vision. Even in Robbe-Grillet's oeuvre, however, one can trace the influence of his early literary texts on the poetic strategies of his actual staging scripts. Perhaps it would be more adequate here to speak of a mutual influence of film and novel on one another. Robbe-Grillet's oeuvre therefore continues Dickens's cinematic narrative, but also translates actual forms of the cinema into textual practice. The relation between film and the novel thus has a history of multiple crossings and translations, since both depend on a narrative as well as a visual syntax; it may therefore not come as a surprise that the textual visuality of the novel and the visual narrative of the cinema constitute a closely--at times inextricably--knit web of connections, correspondences, and exchanges.

Ulverton, the first novel of the contemporary British author Adam Thorpe, engages with this intricate media history of film and text.3 Like Robbe-Grillet's oeuvre, it participates in the tradition of the cinematic novel, however not by trying to introduce the camera and its visuality into forms of narrative representation, but by using the film's own textual apparatus as a literary form: the last chapter is written entirely as a shooting script for a film, and includes dialogue, camera angles, frames, and sound track.4 This chapter thus does not attempt to replicate the experience of watching a film, but recycles the textual surplus of the cinema, otherwise seen only as the textual means to an cinematic end, to become a proper literary form. The film script has not yet been considered as a textual genre in its own right, even though we can look back to a long publication history, and even though we are no longer surprised to find film scripts included in the collected works of authors.5 Occasionally these film scripts will not have been transformed into an actual film, for various, but usually financial, reasons. However, film scripts are rarely considered outside the process of production that leads to a film in contrast to the dramatic text, which has always been considered as a proper textual genre and thus can have a long reception history without having ever been produced in the theater. The closet drama constitutes the climax of this tradition, because it transforms the dramatic genre into a literary form, which does not even depend on the play appearing in the theater; like the novel, it transposes theatricality into acts of textual representation.6 Unlike the dramatic form, the film script has not achieved the degree of canonization that would allow for a corresponding closet screenplay, or film text. In the context of Ulverton, which consists of a number of disjointed narratives set in different historical times and written in corresponding styles of narration and diction, the film script finally acquires literary status. The fact that this last chapter, which uses the film script as a narrative form, is the only one set in modern times, may appear to be a slightly heavy-handed attempt to 'modernize' the novel. Its wit and power, however, lies in the idea to see the cinema not as a threatening agent of a visual culture that seeks to extinguish the written word, but as a cultural phenomenon that can provide the novel with a different form of textuality.7 Ulverton thus can be seen as a new kind of literary rapprochement between novel and the cinema.

Interestingly enough, Thorpe's next novel does not develop the form of the film script further, even though it constitutes a more direct attempt to engage with the history of the cinema. This next novel, Still, continues Thorpe's literary interest in the cinema, but develops an entirely different textual strategy for integrating film into literature.8 Still is a novel writing back to the cinema, without either integrating the film's textual form into the novel, as Ulverton had done, or by translating cinematic techniques into narrative strategies, like Robbe-Grillet. In a surprising gesture, the entire novel is presented as a film that is being shown at a New Year's Eve party; an iconoclastic film consisting of text only.9 In order to support the main argument of the novel--namely that the text we are reading is really a film --Still unfolds a whole network of film references (as opposed to literary references). Amongst them are those in which the director-narrator is anxious to differentiate this textual film from another iconoclastic film, Derek Jarman's Blue, a film that not only has no pictures (only the blue screen) but also no text, and instead relies exclusively on the spoken words of the voice-over. Still, in contrast, presents the text--its only medium--as a visual experience: the text of the film, supposedly, is being shown on screen in a cinema. This is a crucial difference from Blue, because the textual correspondence between film and book, on which the claim that the text of the novel is being projected onto a screen relies, is one of the driving forces behind Still's narrative and formal setup.10 Every word the reader of the novel reads is part of the film that is being watched at a party, so that the film is nothing but a string of words, arranged in single words, sentences, and paragraphs, visible on a screen. The medium of film is thus essentially reduced to a text.

The imagined identity of text and film is not only supported by the abundant film references that the narrator of the novel indulges in, but also through a set of additional gestures that enable Still to point towards its double existence as text and as textual film: the introduction, for example, is called "trailer" and it is distinguished from the main body of the film/text by the count-down that usually precedes a film, "5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1" (79-84),11 printed in mirrored numbers on consecutive pages. These moments, in which the novel tries to play at being a film, systematically confuse the difference between novel and film. One could say that Still stages a chiasmus between film and novel in which the novel becomes a film and the film becomes a novel: there is nothing in this film that could not be part of a text and that does not look like a text, while the text we are reading poses as a textual film. The common ground for this congruence between film and novel is the visuality of the text.12 Because of this fundamental identity between novel and film, I will differentiate between the two by referring to the actual novel as "Still-the-novel" and to the novel posing as film as "Still-the-text-film." In order to analyze the ways in which Still crosses over to film, it is necessary to keep apart its actual, textual form, printed in a book as a novel, and its imaginary form as a film--not a script--that consists of nothing but letters on the screen.

This differentiation is necessary, because from the point of view of reception, a novel and a film can of course never be the same thing, even if they were materially identical, even if there were such a film that consisted of nothing but the text of the novel. The reader of the novel sits somewhere with a book in hand with sufficient light, typically in a secluded or quiet space, alone, in an environment necessary for a reading culture, which Philip Fisher calls the culture of engulfment. A film, on the other hand, has a group sitting in the dark, as in the Platonic cave, staring at the images that are being projected from behind onto a screen. This obvious difference between the act of reading and the act of watching a movie does not only concern the external circumstances in which each medium is being received, but it also shapes the way each medium constructs its respective works of art. Wolfgang Iser is among those who theorize the ways in which the novel thinks about its readers and develops strategies for manipulating them. The reader, which has become a function of the novel, something the novel is concerned with (and not as an empirical, actual reader), is called the implied reader.13 In a similar vein, the cinema can be said to manipulate its viewers by constructing their position within a given film: the implied film-audience.14 Still exploits exactly this difference between the implied reader and the implied viewer and thus creates a scission between the material identity of Still-the-novel and Still-the-text-film. The manipulation of the implied reader lies in the fact that Still-the-novel addresses the reader not as the reader of Still-the-novel, but as the watcher of Still-the-text-film. The readers of a novel find themselves addressed as a movie audience, sitting in chairs at a New Year's Eve party, eating popcorn, gazing upon the big screen onto which Still-the-text-film is being projected.15 The culture and practice of silent reading on which the novel depends and which it instituted, as Ian Watt and others have shown, is replaced by the culture of the movie theater.16

This substitution of the viewer for the reader is not the only way in which Still uses the assumed identity of text and film to exploit their underlying differences. Film and text cross one another yet another time, for Still includes a written account of the shooting of a film, called Haunting Mrs Halliday, which is set around 1913 and which deals with the narrator's family. This account consists of a textual description of the process of filming, the directions for the actors and the camera by the director (who is also the author/narrator/director of Still), and a textual representation of specific shots. While the description of the process of filming reads most of the time like a director's diary or an autobiography, the textual representation of the film can be seen as a particular kind of ekphrasis; not a traditional ekphrasis, in which a text represents an image--for example the paintings on Achilles' shield in book eighteenth of the Iliad--but an ekphrasis of a moving image, in other words a film-ekphrasis.17 Haunting Mrs. Halliday is a film-within-the-film and this means here, a text-film (words only) within a text-film (words only). The apparent identity between these two kinds of textual films is introduced only to exploit their differences all the more effectively. Haunting Mrs Halliday is a different kind of text-film than Still as a whole; while Still is a film that consists of nothing but text on a film screen, Haunting Mrs. Halliday is originally a "normal" film, with moving images, dialogue, and sound, which is then, in a second step, represented and translated into a text, namely a textual ekphrasis, which then in turn, as text, is projected onto the screen and joins the rest of the text of which Still is composed. Underneath the surface of a textual film, we thus find two different processes of textualization: one in which a film consists of nothing but text; and one in which a normal film is represented in a text. The latter is somewhat analogous to the narrator's style of lecturing on film at Houston University, "you know my fondness for lecturing without the moving image" (62), but again, the analogy--like most analogies in Still--is slightly off; the narrator lectures without moving images, but he uses stills, so that his mode of evoking sequences and scenes from movies proceeds through a combination of immobile image and moving narrative. Still-the-text-film, in contrast, features no images at all, not even stills, but only a moving text in lieu of the moving image.

In the course of this transposition from moving image to moving text, Still makes extensive use of film lingo for the literary purpose of reducing a film--and the process of its production--to a text: "I'm going for a long shot up at the gates. I'm the other side of the gates. I'm peeping through the wrought iron but first I am focused on the iron. It's got rust spots. . . . I'm the unseen guest, the unborn blob" (119). We do not only get a textual representation of that which the hypothetical viewer of this film would see--the gates, the rust--but also a representation of the process of filming. The "I" of the sequence is the camera eye, and we see what it sees. In this superimposition of narrative "I" and camera eye, Still for a moment comes close to Robbe-Grillet's technique of narration, which relies precisely on the identity of narrative and cinematographic perspective. This resemblance becomes even more pronounced when the references to the "I" of camera man and narrator disappears and we are confronted only with a description of what the hypothetical viewer of the film sees:

He's coming down.

He's past the second linden.

He's past his brother. (130)

The text is a moving ekphrasis of what the film is showing, careful to replicate the speed at which the figure sees his brother advancing in the text.18 This ekphrastic mode of the text-film leads to the question of what kind of strategies Still uses to represent cinematic images. In order to convincingly transpose the film-within-the-film into writing, Adam Thorpe's Still adopts not only the vocabulary of camera-angles, montage, lenses, and perspectives, but also a way of representing objects, characters, movement within a text in the form of ekphrasis.

The material from which the narrator/director builds his film comes from his grandfather's diary and from a couple of old photographs. Again, the apparent identity of photographs and stills gives way to the underlying differences, for a photograph and a still are not the same: one belongs to a string of pictures taken at a rate of 24/sec., while the other is an old family photograph. More interesting, however, is the fact that Haunting Mrs. Halliday is based on both a pictorial and a textual source, photographs and diary.19 Thus, at the origin of the film that is being described in the text of the novel (ekphrasis), we find a combination of texts (the diary) and images (photographs). The title of the novel casts a peculiar light on the various instances when stills play a role in a novel, in which everything is otherwise constantly moving. Stills, as the narrator explains, have always been his favorite parts of films--"the film was never as good as the stills" (47)--and he even fantasizes about a masterwork made, ŕ la Glenn Gould/Bach, consisting of 32 stills (37). Stills make it again and again into Still, when it presents not only an ekphrasis of the process of filming and its (hypothetical) product, but also an ekphrasis of existing "stills" (which are strictly speaking photographs) of the narrator's grandparents. Stills are thus part of the repertoire which Adam Thorpe uses against the traditional film, but they are subjected to the same mechanisms of textualization as the film. Everything that is pictorial is reduced to textual ekphrasis, and this textual ekphrasis of the novel is the, at least hypothetically, projected onto a screen as a text-film.

While the textual representation of the film-within-the-film is an inverted mise-en-abîme of Still as a whole, the other components of Still contribute to the multiple crossings of text and film even more. The major part of Still consists of digressions from the textualized film-within-the-film to long interspersed passages that tell the story of the narrator/director, who is currently teaching film at Houston University. The story of the director/narrator explains the biographical background that lead to the filming of Haunting Mrs. Halliday. While at first, the director's story is neatly separated from the film-within-the-film, the two get increasingly intertwined, often without transitions, in the same paragraph. For this reason, the narrator's/author's story and the film he is shooting blend into one another. This oscillation between life and film leads to an central uncertainty that continues throughout the novel/text-film. Is the film that is being shown and as whose audience the readers find themselves addressed as implied viewers really coextensive with the novel we are reading; or are we reading a proper novel in which the author hallucinates about showing a textual version of a film (the film-within-the-film about the narrator's grandparents), an event which is yet to happen and may very well never happen? Is the text-film only the textual version of an actual, or of an imagined film (the film-within-the-film)? Or rather, is the text as a whole a text that is not originally a film but is nevertheless projected onto a screen? Is a text-film a film that is turned into a text, or can it also be a text, diary-style, that happens to be shown on a screen? Still maintains these ambivalences systematically, which are all versions of the underlying ambivalence reigning between film and novel. Towards the end of Still, for example, a section, called "appendix," interrupts the film and is followed by a change in perspective. Now, the narrator appears to be the previous narrator's son, reporting about the aftermath of the text-film's showing at the New Year's Eve party: "Those of us present at the party given by my father on the last day of the twentieth century . . . . at the time the film projector was knocked over have all given their own versions of events" (454). When the narrator's son concludes with a remark about his father's relationship--"- but that's something else and certainly not my idea" (456)--the next lines shift the narrative perspective back to the father. It turns out that the whole passage allegedly spoken by the son, was just a ventriloquizing on the part of the father: "It certainly wasn't mine, either. / Phantom of the Opera speaking. You'll never get rid of me that easy" (345). The assumed position after the text-film, which would place the text of the appendix outside the film-showing at the New Year's Eve party, turns out to be a false lead and the narrator/director integrates the text of the appendix back into the text-film or at least back into the ambivalence between text-film and the film shown at the party.20

is characterized by such continual crossings of film and text: a film-to-be-shot is transformed into a textual ekphrasis; a kind of director's diary is transformed into a text that is shown on a screen; the ekphrasis of this film itself is based on a diary and stills; and the audience of the still is both a movie audience and a book audience. At times, parts of Still pretend to be outside the text that is shown on a New Year's Eve party and then it seems that the entire text of Still is what a hypothetical audience is watching on a screen.21 Finally, the director/narrator himself uses language to describe films is his lectures, another mode of iconoclastic cinematography. The ambivalence between textuality and visuality appears perhaps most vividly in a slip of the tongue. Thinking about his ex-girlfriend Zelda, the narrator observes: "It'd be better if Zelda were here but writing into a void is better than not writing at all and descending into alcoholic dereliction. Did I say writing? Don't I mean filming? Oi, oi--is the purity of my calling sullied already? Can't I just zip my big mouth for more than two minutes?" (312). Is the author a narrator of a book and thus writing, or is he filming a film? If he is writing, is he writing a film script, or a novel? Is the final film simply a filming of the novel, or is it a real film, which is then described in a text? Is the author writing a text-only film, or filming a text? And if he is filming a text--the text he has written--is it the text of Still, or just the textual representation of the film-within-the-film? The Freudian slip brings these questions to the forefront and lets them hover there.22 The reason for this slip, the author speculates, may be "logorrhoea," presumably the tendency to say too much. As a film, Still is indubitably the product of a "logorrhoea," the quasi-pathological attempt to speak without cessation, to say everything and to say everything in words.23 Still is a film in which there are only words and no images, a film that shows the symptoms of an iconoclastic logorrhea, or, to put it in terms, a multiple film-ekphrasis. There is nothing in this film that exists outside a text and nothing that exists outside a book. The address to the readers as movie-goers, the flirtation of the book with the count-down before a film and the notion of the introduction as a trailer do not diminish the force with which language in the form of writing is haunting the cinema. At a time when the average cultural criticism is bemoaning (or celebrating) the image-orientation of modernism, which is epitomized in the success-story of the cinema, Still is a novel, perhaps one of the few novels, that show that the power of the written word still has something to say to the moving image.

II.

One of the reasons that Still's textualization of film seems surprising and provocative may lie in the fact that in the era of the talkie, text has no essential function in cinema anymore. This was, however, different in the silent film, which projected text in the form of intertitles onto the silent film. I would like therefore to conclude by referring to a few features of Beckett's film Film, a silent film shot in 1971, which also exploits the relationship between text and image, but does so from a different perspective. Like Still, Film is interested in the translation from text onto film, and vice versa, but does so by presenting itself as a work that consists of a textual part, printed in program notes and published along with Beckett's dramatic writings, and a short film. And like Still, Film deals with the relationship between text and film through the attempt to describe images within texts. Since Beckett relates Film to the tradition of the silent film--rather than to visual culture in general--let me reconstruct for a moment the issues surrounding the relationship between the silent film and its use of textuality.

Choosing to make a film that is silent, except for a final "sshh," Beckett writes back to an aesthetic tradition that takes silent, visual gestures to be a primary guarantor of cinematic expressivity. The gestural aesthetics of the silent film led to a number of styles, such as Russian montage and mass movement, German expressionism, and the American schools around Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton. Textuality, however, is a essential part of the silent film, since it uses text in the form of subtitles and intertitles to organize its repertoire of expressive visuality; language entered the movie theaters not as the spoken word, but as writing. The written word was constantly superimposed onto the visuality of the film object, and thus became part of the technique and expressive vocabulary of the silent film and, most importantly, of the montage. Far from being a necessary embarrassment, writing was systematically integrated into the pictorial expressivity of the silent film. Sentences as intertitles were taken apart and cut with scenery, and directors selected their layout with care. The need to insert pieces of language into the succession of pictures testifies to the extent to which the visuality of the silent film needed to be inscribed by language. Especially when, as in the case of Russian film, these gestures were to be marked by specific political messages.24 With Barthes, one could speak here of a foregrounding of the social dimension of corporeal visuality and of an "anchoring" and "relaying" of the visual body, or rather its meaning, in a socially codified context through language.25 The silent film is, therefore, not simply a medium of visuality untouched by language. Although much the aesthetic debate in the teens, twenties, and thirties was invested in the distance between the silent film and the dialogue-based theater, silent visuality and silent writing constitute a complex network of expressive visuality, titles, and silent writing on the screen.26 The silent film constitutes a unique space in which visuality and language interact with and counteract one another. Adam Thorpe's Still is interested in the same tradition, when it sprinkles the hypothetical film-within-the-film with ornamental intertitles.27

Beckett alludes to these traditions not only because he features Buster Keaton in his film script, but also because he quotes several of these cinematic conventions. Most importantly, however, Film relies extensively on the written word, not in the form of subtitles or intertitles, but through a script that is part of the work of art. An introductory note, which is part of the textual script that precedes the film, places Film in relation to other silent movies: "The film is entirely silent except for the 'sssh!' in part one. Climate of film comic and unreal. O should invite laughter throughout by his way of moving" (123). The American tradition of the silent slapstick and its repertoire of gestures and poses--gestural exaggeration, imitations and pantomimic acts--was at the heart of Beckett's conception from the beginning. Alan Schneider, the director of Film, recounts Beckett's initial idea of getting Charlie Chaplin or Zero Mostel to play the part, then deciding on the comedian Jackie MacGowran, and finally, when Jackie MacGowran turned out to be unavailable, suggesting Buster Keaton (66). This parade of icons from the silent film turns Film into a nostalgic revue of a lost era, and it also evokes a certain expectation in the viewer, who is waiting for a comeback of the old Buster Keaton. Film, incidentally, was presented as part of a Keaton revival at the New York Film Festival (Schneider 90). This expectation of the well-known Buster Keaton, however, remains unfulfilled. Except for the conclusion of the film, Buster Keaton's face is kept hidden, and his body can be seen only visible from what Beckett conceives of as a limited field of visibility. Film embraces elements of the silent film, but at the same time rewrites it; Film stages Buster Keaton partially in his habitual role, but also imposes its own aesthetic conception onto that role.

One element of Film that does not relate to the tradition of the silent film is the peculiar way in which it thematizes and reflects on its own medium.28 Film, as its title suggests, is a film about film. Its reflexive nature is introduced at the beginning of the script when Beckett presents the project as a version of Berkeley's dictum, esse est percipi. The script contains Berkeley's dictum, an outline of the scenes, and notes specifying certain constellations mentioned in the outline. Because the script is clearly not intended to be an outline for the shooting of the film, introducing, as it does, philosophical principles and geometrical directions for the camera, the film's departures from the script do not make the script itself irrelevant. The script is, rather, an irreducible textual and graphic dimension of Film and should be considered part of the work of art. In this sense, it is a counterpart to the textualizations of film in Thorpe's Still.29 The double representation of the film as script and as film can be described, as Martin Schwab suggests, as a diptych (165). It does not suffice to consider the script as a technical blueprint of the film, for it must rather be considered as a textual version of the film, which relates in several ways to the sequence of pictures on celluloid. As in Still, Beckett blends together film theory and an attempt to represent moving bodies in texts. The film script can be seen as Beckett's version of a text-film.

Beckett stages Berkeley's theory of perceivedness as a drama, by organizing the film around a figure O who is pursued by the perceiving E. Both figures are dramatic representations of the act of perception, which is thematized in the script and in all three scenes of the film. The abstract principle, esse est percipi, is represented in the splitting of the main character into the act of seeing, E, and the state of being seen, O; E plays the eye, and O the object seen. In addition, perception is represented through a complicated syntax of camera angles and a field of vision defined by them. These angles and perspectives are explained in the notes to the script, and are only comprehensible for the reader of these notes; they remain obscure in the viewing of the film. What this textual appendix--or preview-- describes is the following: E and O, when they appear within a particular constellation and within a particular angle, enact the double relation of seeing and being seen; as long as they remain outside this angle of vision, O, the object, does not "feel" the perception of E, the eye. This syntax of camera-angles is one of the many instances in which what we see on the screen and what we read in the script is not congruent: it is simply impossible to understand what is going on with the camera-angle by merely watching the film; the text provides crucial information for the viewer without which the viewer would be lost.

Like the tradition silent film, Film depends on a textual apparatus to organize or frame the silent expressivity of the screen; but unlike the traditional silent film, Film uses a particular form of textuality to do so. Beckett's philosophical speculations, his geometrical syntax of camera angles, and the 'agony of perceivedness' are necessary textual complements to the silent film. While Adam Thorpe's Still stages a total collapse between film and text, Beckett's Film makes text and film completely dependent on one another, creating a work of art that consists half of text and half of film. Both works are retrospective, one could say belated, interventions in the debate about visual and textual culture. Beckett's Film is grafted onto the silent film only to rework its icons, gestures, and textuality into a different constellation; and Adam Thorpe's Still systematically mixes up film and text, visuality and textuality, under the auspices of a narrator who is a film historian. Both works present a vital meditation on the reciprocal dependencies of text and film, one in the form of a double work in text and celluloid, and the other in the form of a novel writing back to the screen. What trace their interventions will leave on either the textual or the visual culture, or their intersection, remains to be seen.

eine kleine

LEBENSPHILOSOPHIE



Današnji je tempo života takav da ljudi ne stignu biti pametni.
Zato je nužno pisati kratke postove.
Takorekuć: Uputstvo za život.

Uz više-manje razbibrižne Lynchove fantazije, donosim tri štikleca koji, uglavnom, iscrpljuju univerzum suvremenog dinamičnog čovjeka: opisuju njegov položaj u Kozmozu (poput Schellera), potom odnos spram djevojaka i knjiga (Eros i Thanatos ili, ako hoćete, Natura & Kultura), te na kraju nude ne sasvim nepraktičan razlog za život.
Što biste više od jednog posta uopće danas mogli očekivati, ah, vi, vi nezahvalni ljudi!?

Bambi, David Lynch



OPĆENITO O KNJIGAMA I DJEVOJKAMA

Bijah jednom jedan luđak

Bijah jednom jedan luđak,
na dnu ulice mi kuća.
Imao sam mali dućan.
Prodavao sam žute knjige
ružičastim djevojkama.
Ali jednog modrog dana
nesta mojega dućana,
izgori mi, rastopi se.

Mislim, pitam druge ljude,
mora tako li da bude?

Drugi ljudi pametni su,
ne brinu se za te stvari.

Ivan Slamnig

David Lynch & Kenji Siratori - TOKAGE



O MJESTU I POLOŽAJU U SVIJETU

Abroad

Tickets are expensive. So are the hotels.
Names range from Rita to Juanita.
In walks a policeman, and what he tells
you is “You are persona non grata
in terra incognita.”

Joseph Brodsky

Absurda, David Lynch



RAISON D'ETRE

Kao što u kazalištu, na sjedalu u sredini parketa,
zato da ne sazmetate svojim susjedima, i dalje prisustvujete
– iz pristojnosti, jednom riječju –
prikazivanju neke drame napisane u zamornom stilu i
sa sadržajem koji vam se ne dopada, tako sam i ja živio
iz uglađenosti.

Villiers de l’Isle-Adam

RANDOM HEARTS

RADIKALNI GUBITAK

...obje knjige povezuješ s djevojkama koje su je trebale uručiti, ali je urudžba, zbog misterioznih razloga propala - ima u tome nešto duboko, arhetipsko, jebeno.
Pametni Zub

Zingiber....možda je to od presudne važnosti, te srebne havaianas-japanke! Vidiš kako Pametni zub, u najboljoj maniri stare psihlogijske škole, odgovor nalazi u javnobilježničkoj praksi: urudžba! Jednom je izostala, drugi put se dogodila, i eto, vabec te dal, nekaj se u Uredu opet događa, i to simetrično, uredno, kako i dolikuje Nebeskoj Administraciji: tika-taka, tika-taka...mehanizam fino klapa! Kafka šljaka.
Pametni zubu, ne bih kazao da je riječ o gubitku koji to nije: upravo obratno, riječ je o radikalnom gubitku, kao što pokazuje sljedeća Peđina interpretacija:
Nemanja



Opće je mjesto razmišljanja o umjetnosti da je SVRHA umjetnosti izazvati u čovjeku osjećaj ČUĐENJA. Potrebno je izaći iz uobičajenog, automatiziranog stanja samo-razumljivosti, u kojem se nalazimo kada sebe i svijet oko sebe doživljavamo kao nešto poznato. Drugim riječima, potrebno je svijet pogledati novim očima. Međutim, ukoliko to nije tek formalna vježba, tada moramo pretpostaviti da pojavni svijet doista nije onakav kakvim nam se na prvi pogled čini. Ukoliko ovo uobičajeno gledanje na stvarnost nazovemo ideologijom, onda je zadatak umjetnosti da probije taj ideološki privid i probije se do istine koja se krije iza zavjese pojavnoga. Ono što je poznato, nije samim tim i spoznato. Osjećaj čuđenja donosi sa sobom nešto vrlo opasno i bolno: gubitak prirodnog odnošenja prema stvarima. Zato je potrebno promisliti o karakteru tog gubitka.
RADIKALNI GUBITAK, za razliku od običnog, uključuje spoznaju da ono što smo izgubili zapravo nikada nismo ni imali. U tome je paradoks, jer takav se gubitak dijelom pokazuje kao najstrašniji gubitak, a dijelom kao negacija gubitka, pa dakle uopće i nije gubitak. Čovjek ne može izgubiti ono što nikada nije imao, jedino što tako gubi je privid. Gubitak privida, međutim, mora se smatrati dobitkom. (Samoubojice ne gube život, one si ga ne oduzimaju, nego samo razgrću privid da su ga ikada imali!).
Glavi lik prvo gubi svoju ženu, koja pogiba u avionskoj nesreći. To je "običan" gubitak. Međutim, okolnosti nesreće dovode do spoznaje da ga je žena varala sa ljubavnikom. Sada je to radikalni gubitak, jer junak ne samo da je izgubio svoju ljubav, nego je ujedno i saznao da je nikada nije ni imao. Ova ponižavajuća spoznaja, koja njegov život pretvara u farsu, utoliko je bolnija, jer je protagonist policijski detektiv, čovjek čiji je posao da istražuje istinu iza privida normalnog života.
Ono što je ovdje važno primijetiti je nužnost ovoga slijeda. Radikalni gubitak slijedi za običnim. Moglo bi se naime misliti da su ova dva gubitka samo dvije različite i međusobno neovisne vrste gubitka, pa da nije neophodno da jedan sljedi za drugim. Tako bismo mogli zamisliti da protagonist saznaje za nevjeru svoje žene, a da tome nije prethodila njena smrt. Ne bi li i u tom slučaju takva spoznaja predstavljala radikalni gubitak? U tome se upravo krije suštinska poanta: da bi radikalni gubitak imao svoj radikalni učinak, mora mu prethoditi onaj obični, inače se njegov radikalni karakter gubi. Ovdje vidimo kako djeluje mehanizam dvostruke negacije: radikalni gubitak je gubitak gubitka, i u tome je njegova prava priroda.
Kaže se da čovjek ne zna cijeniti ono što ima, ili da vrijednost stvari nauči tek kada ih izgubi. U kontekstu radikalnog gubitka, međutim, čovjek trpi dvostruku krvavu lekciju: ne samo da mora naučiti vrijednost onoga što je izgubio, već također mora naučiti da je i sama ta vrijednost bez vrijednosti. Junak filma proživljava dvostruku smrt svoje žene: prvo ona umire prirodno, a drugi put simbolički. Simbolička smrt, za razliku od prirodne, ima retroaktivno djelovanje, ona otkriva nešto o prošlosti. Prva smrt donosi bol, a druga poniženje. Ako istina oslobađa, onda je cijena te slobode strašna: ne samo da je junak oslobođen od predmeta svoje ljubavi, on je također oslobođen i od samog osjećaja ljubavi, dakle od jezgre vlastitog bića. Što mu uopće ostaje? Moglo bi se reći da je na taj način junak dospio do istinske slobode, postao je subjekt. (Da stvar bude gora, on nije ponižen samo privatno, već i profesionalno: detektiv koji je previdio ono što su svi drugi znali!)
Možda je to karakter moderne tragedije: kad izgubi ženu, junak postaje tragični lik, ali kad sazna za njenu nevjeru, njegova se tragedija pretvara u farsu. Kada bi on i u tim okolnostima ustrajao na ljubavi prema svojoj mrtvoj ženi, time bi dosegnuo pravi pojam ljubavi, ali bi istovremeno izgledao kao smiješni slabić. Pitanje koje se ovdje postavlja je isto ono koje u filmu "Matrix" artikulira Cypher, lik koji očito upućuje na mitsku figuru Lucifera: "Neznanje je blaženstvo!" Cypher je sklopio dogovor sa agentima matrice, po kojem će za svoje usluge (izdaju svojih suboraca) biti nagrađen povratkom u matricu, zajedno sa potpunim zaboravom istine. Isto bi se pitanje moglo postaviti i za junaka Pollackovog filma: ne bi li bilo bolje da nikada nije saznao istinu? Freud je definirao ljubav kao "precjenjivanje objekta", i ta definicija dobiva svoj puni smisao u ovom kontekstu. Ako je ljubav doista slijepa, kako se kaže, nije li njeno slijepilo moć da se pređe preko neugodne istine? Ili je možda upravo to slabost da se čovjek suoči sa radikalnim gubitkom?



EKSKURS O KUKCIMA

Bliži mi je radikalni gubitak koji se događa neprimjetno i svakodnevno: u stilu onog Süskindovog portira kojeg je šokirao golub ili djeteta koje je, ugledavši škorpiona po prvi put u životu, posumnjalo u dobronamjernost svijeta u kojem može postojati tako odvratno stvorenje, te je, konsekventno tome, posumnjao da sva živa bića (pa tako i njemu najbliža) imaju u sebi tu istu odvratnost, stranost, monstruoznost...
pametni zub 14.10.2007. 16:40

Ma dobro, zezam se s urudžbiranjem, baš je dobrodošlo na priču o Kafki i Uredu.
Čuj, zanimljiva je ova opaska o melodramatičnosti, već i stoga jer sam ja Peđi baš jučer govorio da sam svojedobno i Apokalipsku doživljavao kao melodramu, infinitezimalno osujećenje htijenja za sjedinjenjem. Ali, ovdje se ne radi o sentimentima (nevjerojatno je koliko ti svijet doživljavaš kao predmet osjećajnog, senzualistički!), a najmanje o samosažaljenju. Ako pak i jest riječ o gubitku identiteta, onda to nije samo psihosocijalna podloga protagonista filma, nego je to odricanje bića od njegove biti, od ljubavi, od same srži. To pak nije ništa melodramatično, barem ne samo melodramatično.
Ova opaska o škorpionu mi je nejasna: kakvo bi to moralo biti nakazno dijete da škorpiona vidi kao odvratno stvorenje? Pokoljenja ovoga Svijeta škorpionov lik vide heraldično, a sada neko dijete, vidjevši ga, sumnja u dobronamjernost svijeta. Ima pravo Hegel kad govori o zlu u naivnom pogledu koji svugdje vidi samo zlo! Kakvo derište!
P.S.
Ha, ha, ha, moj Bubazuba, pa ti je ženijalnoooo! Nije škorpion nego nekakav mnogonogi rak! Ti si pravo otkriće! Kakav si ti zajebant, pa to je neviđeno. Jer, zamjeniti škorpiona za bilo što na ovom bujnom svijetu, po sebi je već nonšalantno do šlampavosti, nije li!? A onda, odmah nakon mog potihog gunđanja ovako kraljevski nehajno škorpiona zamjeniti sasvim neodređenim i dvostruko apstraktnim (nekakav + mnogonogi !) rakom, pa to mi je štos tjedna, fantastično nešto.
Samo, ova opaska o pet i više nogu postaje ne samo shvatljiva - mogu razumjeti strah djeteta pred stvorenjima s pet i više nogu! (postoji ona divna opaska Philipa K.Dicka o tome da je Bog stvorio pauka osmonogog iz estetskih razloga, jer, pauk bi sasvim dobro hodao i na četiri noge!) - nego na neki način zatvara krug: Čuj, Zubićvilo, pogleć gornju ilustraciju! Nisam puno razmišljao stavljajući je ponad priče, iako sam jasno znao da hoću baš tu Caesarovu ilustraciju: zastranit ću ako sada obrazložim zašto, jer presudno je ovo mnogonožno biće o kojem nam je, izgleda, ipak bilo suđeno govoriti.
E, sad...Kako to da ipak nismo mogli proći mali ispod zvijezda?
Kako to da smo morali o mnogonogim rakolikim bićima?
Što ti misliš?
Ili je to naprosto subliminalno?
NEMANJA 14.10.2007. 17:51

Subliminalno je, ali to se može reći za svaku (ili barem svaku drugu) stvar koja čovjeku padne na pamet. Ali ta spoznaja da nema razlike između nečeg poznatog i bliskog te stvorenja s 5 ili više nogu za mene znači radikalni gubitak. Kasnije sam našao nešto slično kod Burroughsa kod kojeg se svako malo netko pretvara u stonogu (i, naravno, u Preobražaju).
A ilustraciju sam tek sada pažljivo pogledao i vidio višak nogu. Ima, dakle, tu puno subliminalnog
A zašto škorpion? Ne znam zašto mi se on nametnuo, kao da mi je netko krivo diktirao. (Iskreno, sumnjam da je škorpion, uopće živo biće - sav je artificijelan i premaštan - kako dijete zamišlja izvanzemaljca.)
pametni zub 14.10.2007. 19:05

Kad Caesara je ta mnogonožnost konvencija: stalno imamo posla s insektoidima. Mi Karamazovi, mi smo kukci, kaže Dostojevski, mada je to nisam nikada razumio. Ne kužim ni Lynchovu fascinaciju tim motivom, općenito: to je jedno od onih mjesta koje mi je instinktivno i prima vista - strano. Jednostavno, ne razumijem, a ako mi se i objasni, s vremenom, jer me zapravo dubinski ne privlači niti zanima, zaboravim. Recimo, Marinković...kukci, kukci, brrrr...ne razumijem!
Škorpion je artificijelan i premaštan? Bravo, točno to, ali u tome i jest njegova uzvišenost: on zaista jest to što znači, sam je njegov izgled, oblik, njegov sadržaj: on uistinu jest škoripon.
Ta amblematičnost forme čini od škorpiona živući simbol. Njegov je design posljednji oblik tvari pred rastvaranje: nema niti jedne suvišne linije, ništa tu ne pretječe, nema perifrastičnosti u opisu, sve je kao kod srebnih Latina jezgrovito, izbrušeno do poslovičnosti, a opet aforistično, izrazito, enigmatično.
Konačno, a što je onda s paunom?
P.S.
Objasni, molim te: spoznaja da nema razlike imeđu nečeg bliskog i nečeg stranog (stvorenje s pet nogu, npr.) za tebe znači radikali gubitak!? Čega?
Ta tema prometnuća nečeg bliskog u ono strano, dolje je detaljno obrađena u postu o pojmu Unheimlich:"Dakle, idemo ispočetka. Unheimlich je očigledno negacija od heimlich, što isprva znači nešto domaće, prisno, poznato. Prema tome, unheimlich bi bio izraz za ono što u čovjeku izaziva strah upravo zato što mu je strano i nepoznato.
Ali, još smo daleko od rješenja. O tom problemu Sigmund Freud je 1919. napisao esej. Naslov: Das Unheimliche. Ondje naširoko raspravlja o etimološkim nedoumicama koje prate tu riječ. U Sandersovu Rječniku njemačkog jezika navodi se tako jedan slučaj koji možemo prepričati u najkraćim crtama ovako: Govoreći o nekoj obitelji jedan čovjek kaže: S njima je kao s nekim zatrpanim bunarom ili isušenom barom. Čovjek ne može preko toga prijeći, a da ga pritom ne prati osjećaj kako će se iznova pojaviti voda. Sugerira se da ta obitelj nešto taji, nešto skriveno i nedopušteno. Taj osjećaj, prema navedenom Rječniku, moguće je ravnopravno opisati pojmovima heimlich i unheimlich. Dakle, jedna riječ i istodobno njezina negacija označuju jedno te isto stanje. Problem pojašnjava Schelling za koga riječju unheimlich nazivamo sve što je trebalo ostati skriveno, tajna, ali je izišlo na svjetlo dana. Tu zagonetnu riječ u svoju teoriju preuzeo je, dakako, i Freud. Za njega ona označjuje onu nelagodu i strah čovjeka koja nastaje kada se susretne s njemu tuđim i neprijateljskim silama, čije izvore međutim duboko osjeća u sebi. Das Unheimliche je ono što je jednom bilo blisko i posve prisno, ali je potisnuto, te se sada izazvano nekim dojmom vraća iz te potisnutosti u liku tajnovitog i stranog. To je osjećaj koji nas dovodi na trag Nietzscheova vječnog vraćanja istog, a u Freuda nam razotkriva filogenetski duboko usađene strahove kao što je onaj pred mrtvacima. Riječ je o prastarim animističkim uvjerenjima da je mrtvac postao neprijatelj živog čovjeka i da ga namjerava povesti sa sobom. Premda je civilizirani čovjek napustio takva vjerovanja, neki dojmovi su u stanju ponovno ih oživjeti i naizgled čak potvrditi. Onaj svima tako dobro poznat osjećaj koji nas, naročito u našim snovima, navodi da za neko mjesto ili neki pejsaž pomislimo: to mi je poznato, tu sam već bio, poznati déja vu efekt, jednako zaslužuje da bude opisan riječju unheimlich. Naposljetku, ista riječ odgovara i onom drhtaju duše kad se suoči s istinom ljubavi tako jasno izraženoj u njemačkoj uzrečici: "Liebe ist Heimweh" (Ljubav je čežnja za zavičajem, nostalgija). Ukratko, riječ unheimlich prati čovjeka na njegovu putovanju kao zagonetna slutnja neke univerzalne Itake, i jeziva i lijepa u isti čas, kao i sve ono što na sebi nosi nerazdvojive znake Erosa i Thanatosa. Ambivalentna je, jer iznosi na vidjelo ambivalentnost stvari same. Doživjeti se možda može, ali prevesti nikada."
NEMANJA 14.10.2007. 19:42

Lynch feat. Louboutin



In one of the more imaginative collaborations we’ve seen of late, Christian Louboutin and David Lynch have locked heads and created a show, Fetish, which opens today in Paris in Pierre Passebon’s Galerie du Passage. The exhibition shows five limited edition pairs of shoes by Louboutin alongside five signed photographs of the shoes by Lynch. As if Louboutin’s day-to-day footwear weren’t fetishistic enough, the pair together has taken the theme to an entirely new level.



As with so many collaborations, things moved very quickly. The process began when Lynch commissioned Louboutin to make shoes for an exhibition he was hosting at the Cartier Foundation back in March this year. The pair quickly became friends and when Louboutin wanted to push the notion of extreme fetish in his work, by creating shoes and then playing with their creative representation in two-dimensional images, it was clear Lynch would be the man to translate his vision.



‘I tried to keep an element of my drawings, to be faithful to the drawings, with no practicality, just pleasure, thinking of extreme fetish shoes. Usually when you go to the third dimension you lose something,’ explains Louboutin of his initial concept, ‘then I wanted to photograph them - I find there’s more emotion with cinematic images. I wanted Lynch’s style and since we’d recently become friends it was natural for me to ask him.’



The designer has an atelier where the one-of-a-kind shoes are created. With practicality and comfort out the window, Louboutin has pushed the designs to their limits: think 26cms heels, spikes on the inside and sole of the shoe, and Siamese heels (two shoes fused at the heel).



The idea is that the shoe becomes a cult object, transcending the most beautiful part of the shoe and/or foot. Louboutin pinpoints ‘The Siamese shoe’ as his favourite, ‘For me the shoe and the picture together become very close to Twin Peaks.’

ALBE VIGILIJE

...vidio sam svoju praznu spavaonicu...

Sentí infinita veneración, infinita lástima.

J.L.Borges, 'Aleph'



Invokacija: Demon loci

Writers are vain, selfish, and lazy, and at the very bottom of their motives lies a mystery. Writing a book is a long, exhausting struggle, like a long bout of some painfull illness. One would never undertake such a thing if one were not driven by some demon one can neither resist nor understand.
John Irving

Ideja za priču: Peđa

Moj prijatelj Peđa ima ideju za priču: priča počinje u trenutku nekog velikog ljudskog gubitka a završava spoznajom da se to što se izgubilo ionako nikada nije imalo; priču dakle prati platonički osjećaj da smo spoznato već oduvijek znali, pa se zapravo ništa bitnog/ništa novog niti nije dogodilo!
To, da se u biti ništa nije dogodilo, poanta je priče.
Primjerice, čovjeku naprasno umre žena; doskora shvati da je posljednjih mjeseci imala ljubavnika: ono što misli da je imao (pa da je izgubio), naime ljubav, zapravo je već otprije bilo izgubljeno.
Radikalan je primjer sudbina samoubojicâ: za njih Feuerbach kaže da oni sebi ne oduzimaju život - oni samo razgrću privid da su ga ikada imali!

Pathos: sasvim neodređena tuga

Ponekad, gotovo bez ikakva nevidljivog razloga, kao pri pogledu na školske fotografije ili kroz prozor vlaka u sporom prolasku provincijskim postajama dok se u kadru prozora prostor preobražava u sliku vremena, kao za besanica uglavnom, odjednom, obuzme me neka sasvim neodređena vrst tuge – godinama bih u tim prigodama, ili ih se sjećajući, ironično citirao Heinea: Ich weiß nicht, was soll es bedeuten, das ich so traurig bin, vjerujući da znam što bi to trebalo značiti da smo Heine i ja tako tužni.
Ovo je zapis o toj tuzi.

Priča: Albe Vigilije

Slavna Rembrandtova “Noćna straža” izvorno je naslikana kao danji prizor; tijekom vremena, slika je potamnivši postala noćna straža: vrijeme je naslikalo vječnost; 90. psalam, onaj o krhkosti čovjekovoj, o noćnoj straži naime kaže:
Jer je tisuću godina u očima tvojim
ko jučerašnji dan koji je minuo,
i kao straža noćna.
Bdijenje - noćna straža - dok traje čini se beskrajnim, gotovo vječnim: nikako proći, nikako da svane; kad mine, kao da ga nikada na svijetu nije bilo, samo je tren, treptaj, zauvijek prošlost. Ta bdijenja, vigilije, taj tren koji traje cijelu jednu vječnost, naš je život.
1804. godine, pod pseudonimom Bonaventura, netko od crnih romantičara ili Brentano, Hoffmann, možda Schelling - do danas se ne zna tko - objavio je djelo Nachtwachen, Noćne straže, Vigilije. Posljednja je riječ završne vigilije: Ništa; kad zastor padne, predstava je gotova zauvijek, i sve je - konačno! - besmisleno.
Na samom početku priče 'Aleph' Borges slika savršeno preci(o)znu alegoriju ove prolaznosti:
Onoga vrućeg ljetnog jutra u našoj veljači, kad je, poslije neodgodive agonije koja se ni za časak nije srozala na plačljivost ili strah, umrla Beatriz Viterbo, zapazio sam da se po željeznim oglasnim tablama na Trgu Constitucion koče reklame nekih novih cigareta: zaboljelo me to jer sam shvatio da se neprekidni i prostrani svemir već odvaja od nje i da je ta promjena samo prva u beskonačnom nizu.
Godinama o Nachtwachen nisam znao ništa. Moj prvi pojam o Vigilijama dugujem Amiru R., uz Cipru možda najnadarenijem studentu zagrebačke katedre filozofije; devedeseti psalam i citirana metafora, vlastito je otkriće, baš kao i sjetna analiza Rembrandtova djela. Čitajući Žmegačeve Krležine evropske obzore, pronašao sam podatak o Bonaventuri i ironičnim snomoricama devetnaest vigilija. Izvjesna gospođica Tia, koju sam, tako tipično, zavolio da bih pod izgovorom intimnih pisama mogao ispisivati prve skice onoga što bi trebao biti A Book, tih je dana odlazila za Njemačku, na dogovor s Kruppom. Zamolio sam je za laku uslugu, naravno, dovoljno ekstravagantnu da je s oduševljenjem prihvati – zamolio sam je da mi nabavi primjerak Nachtwachena. Desetak dana kasnije Tia se vratila iz Bavarske, i stigavši u Zagreb dan prije svoga rođendana, uz poziv na proslavu obavijestila me da ima poklon - jasno, unatoč obvezama našla je vremena za kapric moje insomije, za mene, i pored poslova s Kruppom, pronašla je Bonaventurino djelo. Day after, Tia je otkazala rođendan. Na moje pozive odgovorila je kratkim, hladnim isprikama, i odonda ni Tiju ni Nachtwachen nikada vidio nisam. Nije nam bilo suđeno; meni i Bonaventuri, dakako.

Budući da ja ništa ne učim iz iskustva, naročito ne svoga, grešku sam ponovio: nakon tri godine nejavljanja, prije par mjeseci nazvao sam Martinu, djevojku s kojom sam desetak večeri igrao rulet; ovaj put igrao sam va banque, naručivši Voyage autour de ma chambre; neobično sam znatiželjan je li mi Xavier de Maistre skloniji. Priču o putovanju po mojoj sobi vrijedi ispričati detaljnije…

Priča u priči: Voyage autour de ma chambre

“Kao i tolike druge, i moja je soba, između ostalog, biblioteka – sa svih strana svijeta okružuju me knjige. U jednoj od tih knjiga, nažalost nepoznatog naslova, nalazi se podatak – ako se ne varam u fus-noti – o djelu Voyage autour de ma chambre*, autora čije mi ime ni u vrijeme kad sam znao u kojoj se knjizi to djelo navodi, nije značilo više no suvremenicima, uzvanicima kakve karnevalske svečanosti: samo kuriozitet, tek bizarnost. Autor je za mene bio jedno od onih Wildeovih lica koja čim vidimo odmah zaboravimo: zamišljao sam ga kao veselu lelujavu krabulju u proplamsaju raskalašenog baroka, definitivno kao nekog za koga nam se učinilo da smo ga vidjeli, prije no što je zauvijek nestao u vrevi. Drukčije nije ni moglo biti: avanturist čija se jedina pustolovina – u vremena Berry Lyndona, Zanovića i ubogog grofa Villiersa – odvijala od korica do korica nebrojenih stranica njegove osobne knjižnice, ukratko sasvim onestvaren lik, gotovo bestjelesan, možda fikcionalan, u mojoj je predodžbi pravedno zaboravljen pisac djela, čiji mu je naslov priskrbio točno odmjerenu besmrtnost: riječ je, rječju, o čovjeku čijeg se imena već godinama ne mogu sjetiti, iako ga nikako ne mogu zaboraviti. Naslovivši životno djelo: Voyage autour de ma chambre, autor je vlastito ime, kao i sadržaj djela, učinio savršeno irelevantnim – jedino važno, sve što treba zapamtiti, sam je naslov te samozatajne pustolovine: biografija kao put po beskonačnim svijetovima imaginacije! Biografija je to neznanog junaka, svakog a nikog. Nekog, tko bi mogao biti ja, picture of nobody.
Moja je soba, između ostalog, poprište noćne more – sve na ovom svijetu može postati klicom pakla, kaže Borges… pa tako i Voyage autour de ma chambre, ne uspijem li ga zaboraviti. Stalno iznova, u krugovima, vraćam se tom naslovu, progonjen furijom zaborava: nikako se ne mogu sjetiti knjige u kojoj sam na podatak o toj pustolovini nabasao! Prije šest, sedam godina za svoje sam potrebe napisao tekst istovjetnog naslova, no danas iz teksta uopće ni po čemu ne mogu rekonstruirati u kojem se djelu ta prokleta fus-nota skriva. Mislio sam isprva - štoviše bio sam sasvim uvjeren - da je riječ o Montaigneu i zbirci njegovih ogleda – dapače, kladio bih se da Montaigne mog predšasnika spominje u eseju o knjigama. Tu su negdje moje muke i započele – sa zaprepaštenjem sam shvatio da o pustolovini po mojoj sobi kod Montaignea nema ni riječi; o Terenciju još nekako, ali o mojoj sobi, rien! Ne znam zašto – vjerojatno ipak prisjećajući se Nietzscheove navike citiranja na francuskom – posegnuo sam za Osvitom. Ni tamo nisam bio bolje sreće. Uhvatila me je panika: pametan kakav jesam a nastrana uma, shvatio sam da postajem autor djela za kojim tragam, da me stiže prokletstvo zvano voyage autour de ma chambre: uhvatio sam se između druge i treće police pretraženih knjiga usred inačice Russelova paradoksa: po svojoj sam sobi poduzeo potragu za djelom koje skriva naslov: Put po mojoj sobi!
Moja noćna mora traje već mjesecima; Voyage autour de ma chambre tražim i danas, i ta se pustolovina pretvorila u privatno praznovjerje: uvrtio sam sebi u glavu da ću PLAN ROMANA - ili A Book - moći započeti pisati tek ako i kad pronađem vrtoglavu fus-notu! Da nije toga praznovjerja teško da bih iznebuha skočio usred noći i mutnih očiju prevrtao Žmegačevu Povijesnu poetiku romana (zašto to ne pišu velikim slovom?), niti bih između Rivaldova zaleta i urlika stotinjak tisuća Barcinih navijača nervozno posegnuo za anakronizmom i beskorisno listao stranice Aretinovih mudrovanja, histerično se prisjećajući izvjesnog francuskog markiza. Pred jutro, pretpostavljam, odustao bih od grozničavog stvaranja investigativnih modela koji a priori eliminiraju ogromnu većinu knjiga u kojima se zasigurno o voyageu ništa ne može naći, no koji mi nimalo nisu pomogli ustanoviti to jedno, jedino, sudbinsko djelo u kojem se podatak nalazi ( recimo, isprva sam pretraživao samo one knjige koje su mi se instinktivno činile najvjerojatnijim izvorom; potom sam listao sve one knjige koje su preostale nakon što sam isključio djela koja nikako ne bi mogla sadržavati tu informaciju…kroz vrijeme, kriterij je bio sve suludiji: recimo, listao sam samo desne stranice pogovora djela koja zahtjevaju historiografska pojašnjenja - desne, jer, mada ne biste vjerovali, no citati koje tražim redovito se nalaze na desnim stranicama knjiga!); rječju, ne bih, vjerujem, baš posve sišao s uma.
S vremenom se naime, voyage autour de ma chambre pretvorio u osobni obračun s utvarama moje snomorice! To je moja soba, i ja ću tu prokletu knjigu pronaći pa makar morao pročitati i posljednju knjigu njegove biblioteke! Ponekad mi se čini da me fantomski melankolični chevallier proganja, da prevrće po mojim bilješkama, zameće tragove. Da nema svih tih krunica, između ostaloga, po mojoj sobi, spavao bih u hodniku, besanim, rastrzanim snovima, uz psa, da me štiti od duhova.
Moja muka nije literarne naravi, ona je doslovna – pričao sam o njoj, sub rosa, prijateljima, i oni me savjetuju da bi najbolje bilo cijelu stvar zaboraviti. Savjet je dobronamjeran, ali beskorisan: svaki put kad posegnem za nekom knjigom, bilo kojom i iz bilo kojih pobuda, pomislim na nju: na Knjigu, koja skriva sada već sasvim evidentno sudbinsku zagonetku moga postojanja: odgovor na pitanje zašto ja zapravo tražim Voyage autour de ma chambre!? Odgovarao sam sebi na ovo pitanje utješnohegelijanski: put je cilj, i na kraju puta neće se dogoditi ništa spektakularno, nadam se barem ne kao na kraju Hegelova životnog puta.
Zašto sam uostalom taj naslov zapamtio? Zar samo zato da ga se godinama kasnije sjetim, da postane lozinka moje čežnje za nečim što sam imao, a što nisam prepoznavao, što sam izgubio i što nikada više neću pronaći, što je tu, nadohvat moje ruke, u mojoj sobi, a stoljećima je daleko, skriveno u beskonačnim stranicama vrtoglave borgesiane - zar samo zbog romantične nostalgije za izgubljenim vremenom?
Bojim se trenutka u kojem ću pronaći, putujući po mojoj sobi, knjigu u kojoj se nalazi fus-nota o Putovanju po mojoj sobi. Strahujem jer znam, tada će nešto neminovno skončati, nešto će se zauvijek završiti. Nešto ću izgubiti.”

Ovaj kompulzivni, pretjerani opis moje opsesije djelom Voyage autour de ma chambre, mogao je stati u jednu rečenicu: Po svojoj sam sobi bezuspješno mjesecima tražio knjigu koja skriva podatak o djelu 'Put po mojoj sobi', umislivši da ću tek po pronalasku toga djela moći početi pisati vlastitu knjigu, A Book. Nažalost, stvari nisu tako jednostavne. (Ja inače nisam praznovjeran - praznovjerje donosi nesreću!)
Potpuno izgubivši živce, nedavno sam nazvao profesora Stamaća; objasnivši mu svoju nevolju, otvoreno sam ga zamolio za pomoć. Stamać me je uputio na gospođu Ingrid Šafranek. Gospođa je Šafranek sutradan imala zakazanu večeru s francuskim kolegom, profesorom književnosti, i, konačno, između glavnoga jela i deserta, enigma je riješena: riječ je o uvaženom gospodinu Xavieru de Maistreu i njegovu djelu Voyage autour de ma chambre!
Enciklopedijska natuknica o Xavieru glasi:

Xavier, comte de Maistre (1763-1852), franc. književnik. Kao sardinijski oficir prešao je u rus. službu i bio u štabu Suvorova, dok nije pao u nemilost i iz vojske udaljen. Uzdržavao se kao slikar minijatura, kasnije postao direktor biblioteke u Petrogradu. Vraćen u armiju istakao se u borbama na Kavkazu i postigao čin generala. Glav. djela: Le Voyage autour de ma chambre; Les Prisonniers du Coucase; Le Jeune Siberienne.

Ispisujući ovu natuknicu, sastavljač je neminovno otrpio nelagodu izazvanu suhoparnošću; pročitana nakon, ili usred mojih pustolovina u potrazi za izgubljenim imenom, čini mi se najrječitijim prikazom avanture zvane život, koji je kao straža noćna.
Moja je pobjeda nesavršena: knjigu u kojoj sam izvorno pročitao ime autora fatalnog djela do dana današnjega nisam pronašao. Još uvijek je negdje tu, u mojoj sobi!
Jednoga ću dana, možda, otvoriti neku stranicu i ugledati nevjerojatno Xavierovo ime. Da, sasvim sam siguran, nešto će tada završiti, nešto ću nepovratno izgubiti.
Tada više neću osjećati ovu tugu, koja me ponekad, odjednom, obuzima.
Vjerujem da neću osjećati ništa: ni spokoj ni strah. Preci(o)znije, osjetit ću upravo ništa: sam, prvi, zadnji, jedini put.
Taj put nakanio sam prevaliti autour de ma chambre.
Put bdijenja. Vigilije.
___________

* Podatak o Voyageu i Xavieru nalazi se - naravno - na 84. strani treće knjige Sabranih djela J.L.Borgesa, u izdanju GHZ, 1985. Besmrtna igrarija potekla iz nehajna pera Savojca Xaviera de Maistrea, spomenuta je u spjevu Zemlja, Carlosa Argentina: posrijedi je opis rečenog planeta, a kitica u koju se smjestio voyage, glasi:

Razvidjeh, poput Grka, gradove sviju ljudi,
Posle i dane žurne, opake gladi ćudi,
Povijest ja ne krojim, ne dolijevam ambre,
Al voyage o kom pričam…jest autour de ma chambre.

Knjiga koju sam tražio ima samo jedan nedostatak: izmišljena je. Više no druge.

Voyage autour de ma chambre dobio sam na poklon za rođendan, u studenome 2002. godine. Zato je ova priča za M.

Zagrob, 2003.

tattoo

N. Katherine Hayles

Corporeal Anxiety in The Dictionary of the Khazars:
What Books Talk About in the Late Age of Print When They Talk About Losing Their Bodies

Na jednom od njegovih palčeva bio je prikazan hazarski napad na Kijev 862.godine, ali kako se taj palac stalno gnojio od jedne rane zadobijene u toj istoj opsadi, slika je bila zamrljana i ostala kao trajna zagonetka, jer u čas kada je poslanik bio upućen u Carigrad ta opsada još nije bila ostvarena i trebao je na nju čekati još ravno dve decenije.

'Hazarski rečnik', Milorad Pavić



All but a handful of the books produced this year will be digitized during some phase of their existence. In former days, book production took words through forms of inscription that were physically evident and visibly apparent--from manuscript to typescript, typescript to galleys, galleys to book. But now a new phase intervenes in which the words are rendered through binary digits encoded in electro-magnetic polarities that, eluding the unaided human eye, seem frighteningly vulnerable to the vagaries of computer maladies, from viruses to system crashes. What difference does it make to books (and it is books I speak of, not texts) that they go from durable inscription surfaces to inaccessible and physically precarious polarities? That, in a manner of speaking, they lose their bodies?
Behind this question looms a larger one. Will the print book, as Bruce Willis recently proclaimed, go the way of the dinosaur? Will books continue to be displaced by electronic texts, only some of which will be granted bodies when a user decides to download them into print form? Do books care that they are in danger of losing their bodies? The question could be asked of their human owners as well, for some researchers have speculated that it is only a matter of time before human consciousness can be downloaded into computers, whereupon flesh and bone will become as atavistic as paper and ink. The long tradition of representing bodies of print and human bodies in terms of each other now appears to be entering a new phase, when both are understood less as incorporations in physically durable substrates than as flows of information, weightless as sunshine and ethereal as data streams flashing through fiber optic cables.
These developments have catalyzed within some print books what I call corporeal anxiety, a fear that their bodies are in jeopardy from a multitude of threats, especially the dematerialization that comes from being translated into digital code. A case in point is Italo Calvino’s If on a winter’s night, which operates as if it knows it has a physical body imperiled by multifarious threats, from defective printing technologies to editorial brain fade. Most of all, the book fears losing its body to information. It relies on “you,” the reader, to generate books through your passion to read a good story. But this very drive to consume the book turns against it when you are foiled by the frailty of its physical corpus. You run to the bookstore to get a copy of Calvino’s new novel, If on a winter’s night a traveler, only to find that it has been defectively bound, preventing you from completing the story. Disgruntled, you hurl the book through a closed window, reducing its body to "photons, undulatory vibrations, polarized spectra" (p. 26). Not content with this pulverization, you throw it through the wall so that the text breaks up into "electrons, neutrons, neutrinos, elementary particles more and more minute" (p. 26). Still disgusted, in an act of ultimate dispersion you send it through a computer line, causing the textual body to be "reduced to electronic impulses, into the flow of information." With the book "shaken by redundancies and noises," you "let it be degraded into a swirling entropy" (p. 26).
The disruptive power of information technologies reappears when you find yourself entangled with Lotaria, a reader who believes books are best read by scanning them into computers and letting the machine analyze word frequency patterns. Seduced by Lotaria against your better judgment, you and she get tangled up with rolls of printout covering the floor. The printouts contain the story you desperately want to finish, which Lotaria has entered into the computer. Distracted by her multiple entanglements, Lotaria presses the wrong key and the story is "erased in an instant demagnetization of the circuits. The multicolored wires now grind out the dust of dissolved words: the the, of of of of, from from from from, that that that that, in columns according to their respective frequency. The book has been crumbled, dissolved, can no longer be recomposed, like a sand dune blown away by the wind" (p. 220). Now you can never achieve satiation, never reach the point of satisfied completion that comes with finishing a book. Your anxiety about reading interruptus is intensified by what might be called print interruptus, the fear of a print book that once it has been digitized the computer will garble its body, breaking it apart and reassembling it into the non-story of a data matrix rather than an entangled and entangling narrative.
This anxiety is transmitted to readers within the text who keep pursuing parts of textual bodies only to lose them, as well as to readers outside the text who must try to make sense of the radically discontinuous narrative. Only when the chapter titles are perceived to form a sentence is the literary corpus reconstituted as a unity. Significantly, the recuperation is syntactical rather than physical. It does not arise from or imply an intact physical body. Rather, it emerges from the patterns--metaphorical, grammatical, narrative, thematic and textual--that the parts together make. As the climactic scene in the library suggests, the reconstituted corpus is a body of information, emerging from the discourse community among whom information circulates. The textual body may be dismembered or ground into digital word dust, the narrative implies, but as long as there are readers who care passionately about stories and want to pursue them, narrative itself can be recuperated. Through such textual strategies, If on a winter's night testifies vividly to the impact of information technologies on bodies of books.
The Dictionary of the Khazars follows a different tactic. Finding itself a book in the late age of print, it is obsessed with the idea that surfaces of inscription may not be durable, may in fact be shockingly vulnerable to all manner of accidents and fatal inevitabilities. Among the objects it catalogues is a pitcher made of salt and inscribed with elaborate texts, an oxymoronic artifact whose first use will dissolve inscription and object alike. Other inscription surfaces emphasize the common fragility that books and human bodies share. Consider the case of the envoy who has the history of the Khazar empire tattooed upon his skin. When he is punished for an offense by having a body part amputated, the history inscribed on that part is lost. Conversely, he loses part of his body to history when a wealthy patron pays in gold for his left hand, on which is inscribed the history relating to the patron’s family. In one version of the story, the envoy finally commits suicide, whereupon the caliph in whose court he resided has his skin “tanned and bound like a big atlas” (p. 76), so that the body of the text and his body remain forever joined. Another version hints at the opposite outcome, saying that the envoy developed an unbearable itch and felt great relief when he died, “glad to be finally cleansed of history” (p. 78). Amidst these dizzying details is one even more enigmatic. The envoy has tattooed onto his thumb the Khazar attack on Kiev in 860 A.D. The text, however, cannot be read because “this thumb carried a festering wound received in the very same siege,” so that “the picture was smeared and remained an eternal mystery” (p. 76). Thus the tattoo records the event that will obliterate the tattoo. The puncture creating this reflexive loop functions like the device Jane Gallop has called the punctum, the reflexive point within a text at which the apparatus that produces the text makes an appearance within the text it produces. So in the puncture on the envoy’s thumb, the body that produces the text mysteriously becomes involved in the text it produces, like the surface of a Moebius strip that, as we trace it around, becomes the inside becomes the outside becomes the inside.
It is not a coincidence that these vertiginous convolutions emphasize the fragility and mortality of inscription. The central problem this book addresses is how to assure the power of the book in the late age of print--in an age, that is, when the body of the book, like the bodies in this book, is constantly threatened with dissolving into word dust or having its parts ripped violently asunder. The problem goes deeper than a concern with surfaces, for even when surface inscriptions remain stable, the contexts in which they are read may not. As its name implies, the Dictionary depends on alphabetic ordering for the arrangement of its parts. Every time the language changes--when, for example, the original Greek on one of its putative texts is translated into Serb-Croatian or English--the parts will appear in a new order. For such a book, translation recaptures its root sense of movement through language, or more precisely, of language that moves, a phenomenon not unlike what would happen to stories inscribed on a pitcher of salt when the pitcher is filled with water. The material substrate is still the same--sodium and chloride ions--but the matrix that bound the story and container together has dissolved. Under such conditions, how can any order at all be assured?
But I am getting ahead of my story. To understand the complex order which emerges from this most bookish of books, we first need an account of the occasion that ostensibly produced the book. Dictionary of the Khazars is organized about an event that, like a black hole, affects the space around it but itself cannot be seen. Our putative editor tells us the dictionary has its origins in a dream that the kaghan, king of the Khazars, wanted interpreted. He called to his court representatives from the three major Western religions, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, promising to convert to the religion whose representative gave the most satisfactory reading. The representatives came as summoned; they participated in the so-called Khazar polemic; the kaghan converted to one of the religions. Soon after the conversion the Khazar kingdom was destroyed and its people scattered. In the absence of a definitive history, not to mention the kingdom, each religion claimed victory in the polemic. Our editor, abstaining from judgment about whose claims are correct, presents us with a compilation of everything extant about the incident in the three traditions, organized into a Red Book for the Christian accounts, a Green Book for the Muslim, and a Yellow Book for the Jewish, with the entries in each book organized alphabetically. He recommends to us several different ways of reading: we can proceed straight through the Dictionary, reading from A to Z in each of the three books; we can read horizontally, following the same topic (for example the entries on Ateh, a Khazar princess) through all three books; or we can skip around at random. Clearly, the number of possible sequences is very large. Since reading in a different order implies reading a different story, the number of possible narratives is huge. Even this staggering number does not exhaust the possibilities, however, for also undetermined is the reading protocol. Should we read left to right and top to bottom, as we would for texts written in the Greek that the Christian writers used, or from right to left and bottom to top, as is the practice for Arabic and Jewish texts? Added to the already overwhelming number of possible narratives, these uncertainties make the narrative combinations essentially infinite.
As if this radical indeterminacy were not enough, the editor provides us with an account of how our present book came into being that obscures more than it clarifies. Piecing together fragments found in different parts of the Dictionary yields the following account. Present at the polemic argued by Cyril (for the Christians), Ibn Kora (for the Moslems) and Isaac Sangari (for the Jews) were three scribes who took down the proceedings, Methodius (brother of Cyril), Ali-Bakri (friend of Ibn Kora) and Judah Halevi. These manuscripts were scattered, but fragments survived in different places in different ways. Late in the seventeenth century, three men who styled themselves students of the Khazars began collecting what they could find, each working with the fragments from a different tradition: Avram Brankovich for the Christian, Yusef Masudi for the Moslem, and Samuel Cohen for the Jewish. Through accident or design (about which we will hear more later), each of these three collections were destroyed. Not, however, before they had been read by a Christian priest with a photographic memory, Theoctist Nikolsky, who dictated them to the printer Joseph Daubmannus. Daubmannus printed five hundred copies of Dictionary of the Khazars, including one bound in gold and printed with poisoned ink, along with a companion silver volume. The poison was so calibrated that a reader would drop dead when he came to the line, “The Word is Flesh.” During the Inquisition, all copies of the Dictionary were destroyed, except for the gold and silver copies, which were also fated to be destroyed but not before they passed to the Dorfmer family. As might be expected, the Dorfmer family experienced an unusually high mortality rate. At the death of each patriarch, the Dictionary was torn apart and divided among the heirs, with the land apportioned in the same percentage as the text. The golden copy met an ignominious end when one of the Dorfmers, an old man who disliked the greasy soup his cook served him, surreptitiously tore out a page each day and used it to skim away the fat. Amidst this welter of detail, the reader may not notice that the editor has left us with no explanation for how the present edition came into existence, for all existing copies of the Dictionary were destroyed. The oxymoron of an edition with no existing pre-texts is playfully underscored by the reproduction, complete with floral border and Latin script, of the opening page of Daubmannus’s Lexicon Corsi, to which is appended the following note: “Title page from the original (destroyed) 1691 Daubmannus edition of The Khazar Dictionary (Reconstruction).”
If the Word is Flesh, as the fatal line claims, then the Word may be as much an actor as those who have Flesh. The thought is captured in a vivid image that the editor presents--not as part of the “Preliminary Notes” he writes but as a fragment from the introduction to the destroyed Daubmannus edition--of the text as a puma captured by a rope, the ends of which are held by two men pulling in opposite directions. As soon as the men try to approach each other, the rope slackens and the puma will pounce. The two men represent author and reader, and that is “why it is so hard for him who reads and him who writes to reach each other; between them lies a mutual thought captured on ropes that they pull in opposite directions” (p. 14). The image suggests that book’s agency is not to be taken lightly. If the reader thinks she will digest this volume (or perhaps use it to skim the fat from her soup), she should be aware that the book may also eat her. For if “we were now to ask the puma--in other words, that thought--how it perceived these two men, it might answer that at the ends of the rope those to be eaten are holding someone they cannot eat. . .” (p. 14).
The puma’s fierce appetite aptly expresses the wild energy of the book’s metaphors, which (like the passage above) rarely slide smoothly from vehicle to tenor. Rather, the metaphors yoke heterogeneous elements with such violence together that they are like tightly coiled springs; as soon as the reader touches them, they are apt to spring madly apart, threatening to take a finger or arm off in the process. Far from being a passive activity sedately carried out in an armchair or bed, reading here is a dangerous activity. In this book filled with scenes of violent eating that rend and tear the Flesh, it is always an open question who will eat whom. Whereas the reader’s appetite in If on a winter’s night a traveler was the driving force that finally assured the coherence of the narrative, here the appetite to read is as likely to masticate the Flesh as the Word. So we are told in one of the books that a certain caliph, when he wished to determine the truth or falsity of a claimant appearing before him, ignored the man’s words but instead seized his arm and tore out a piece of flesh, chewing it thoughtfully to arrive at his decision.
If appetite cannot recuperate narrative coherence, what can? Gradually, as one chews on the bits of information served up by the Dictionary like a cow bringing up cuds from its second or third stomach, something like a meta-narrative emerges that gives new meaning to the axiom, “The Word is Flesh.” Central to understanding its full scope is the Khazar myth about the supernatural being called variously (by the different books) Adam Ruhani or Adam Cadmon. The Khazars believed that Adam, third oldest soul in heaven, resided on the second rung of the ladder leading to God. Created before humans, he is named Adam-the-precursor. The Khazars recount the story of how, like the Biblical Lucifer, he revolted and consequently lost his place on the ladder. Unlike Lucifer, he repented and returned to heaven, but he arrived late, in a manner of speaking, for he found that other angels had been promoted to the position he used to hold. So now the belated precursor drifts between the second and tenth rungs, his tremendously huge body fragmented by this oscillation. The narrator of the Green Book tells us “that is how time was born: time is the part of eternity that runs late” (p. 166). The dream hunters, a religious cult headed by the Princess Ateh, have taken on the quixotic task of reassembling Adam’s body. They believe that parts of his divine corpus have been dispersed into special dreams, where they manifest themselves as characters who can leap from one person’s dreams to another’s. The dream hunters enter other people’s dreams to pursue these characters, chronicling their stories in writing. Their ultimate project is to reassemble Adam’s body, or a small part of it (they have been working for several hundred years on the left thumb) by putting together the manuscripts recording these dreams. In this way, they believe, the Word will become Flesh, and the Flesh will become the Word. The books that we read in the Dictionary are this Body, and the Body is the Book. Additional light is thrown on the myth by the entry that informs us “The Khazars imagine the future in terms of space, never time” (p. 145). The spatial enormity of Adam’s body thus represents the immense expanse of time that, assembled and seen as a unity from a God’s-eye perspective, would constitute eternity. The Dictionary thus aspires to be a fragment of a mythical total Book (which is also a mythical total Body) that will span millennia and represent all combinations of all possible narratives.
But the meta-narrative does not end here. All good stories have conflicts, antagonists as well as protagonists. Opposing the dream hunters are the demons, supernatural beings who, unlike Adam-the-precursor, remain exiled from God in one or another of the three hells (one for each of the three religious traditions), except when they are incarnated in mortal bodies, where they can be recognized by certain tell-tale signs. They move through time by leaping from one mortal incarnation to another. Their project is to defeat the dream hunters and prevent the re-assembly of Adam’s body, presumably because they fear that once humans have access to even a portion of eternity, the demons will lose the edge their immortality gives them over mortal women and men.
The signs distinguishing the demons hint suggestively at the complex encoding the text uses to represent the interplay between time and space. Humans experience time asymmetrically. We know the past but not the future; time flows forward and not backward; shattered mirrors break into pieces but the pieces never magically leap together again to form a whole mirror. Space, by contrast, has no such asymmetry built into it. It is as easy to go west as east, north as south. Whereas time continues to unfold and can therefore be known only in part, space can be grasped as a totality, as when one represents a country by a map or the earth by a spinning globe. Since the Khazars represent time as space, it makes sense that they would register the distinction between past and future as a spatial difference. Thus Khazar representations are pervaded by the kind of mirror symmetry that makes a left hand different from a right. Rivers in Khazar, for example, flow in two contrary directions as if they were divided lengthwise, the right half going upstream and the left half downstream. Adam’s body exhibits a similar cycle, following either an ascending path (which brings him closer to the truth of God) or a descending path. The demons, by contrast, are marked with symmetry that allows superimposition, appropriate to their ability to live immensely longer than humans, to remember what they have lived, and therefore to assemble time as a totality. One demon (Ephrosinia Lukarevich) has two thumbs on each hand, so that the right hand can be superimposed on the left. Another’s nostrils have no dividing line (Nikon Sevast), and the still another’ face has a left half exactly like the right half (Akshany).



The mirror symmetries that map time into space also operate in the reader's experience of this fragmented text, with its nearly infinite possibilities for narrative. Like time, syntax and language are asymmetric; one reads across a line and down (or up) the page. Even palindromes are marked by the right- and left-handedness of mirror symmetry rather than superimposition. This temporal dimension registers itself in reading as a slow acquisition of knowledge which accumulates page after page. For the majority of fictions, the temporal framework of reading works in tandem with the temporal framework encoded within the text, which is to say, we read with (or against) the plot. But in fictions such as Dictionary of the Khazars, the reader’s ability to grasp the plot does not correspond with the temporal experience of reading. Rather, the text works more like a random-dot painting that you can look at for a long time without seeing any overall pattern. Then, just when you have given up and are ready to leave, you shift your focal point and suddenly a mermaid or a mountainscape jumps out at you. So with Dictionary of the Khazars. Only on a third or thirteenth reading, when the text has become so familiar that its hundreds of mini-narratives can easily be called to mind, does the meta-narrative loom into view. Thus the temporal dimension of reading is suppressed, for understanding comes only when multiple readings merge into one another. This belated comprehension means that the book is experienced more like a landscape than a linear progress of reading. Although time is always recuperated in the path the reader’s gaze makes over the landscape, it is the implicit totality of the landscape’s spatiality that imparts to the gaze its full weight, not the specific line traced at that particular time of looking. In this way the book maneuvers us into the perspective of the Khazars, who imagine Adam’s body “in terms of space, never of time.” Paradoxically, the experience of totality depends upon the book’s extreme fragmentation. We are driven to assemble Adam’s impossibly huge body because it has been cut into pieces.
It would be a mistake, however, to imagine this spatial totality as a static or passive entity. The Body is imbued with violent energy through the dynamics of assembly, which happens within the stories the Dictionary tells as well as in the reader’s interaction with the books. Assemblage is most likely to occur at moments of maximum risk; the demons have a vested interest in disassembly and will use their superior powers to defeat attempts to make the pieces into a Book. The dangers as well as the complexities of the enterprise can be illustrated through the Brankovich/Masudi/Cohen triad. Avram Brankovich and Samuel Cohen are tied together through multiple mirror symmetries, the mark of those who live in the asymmetry of time but yearn for the totality of space. Each is driven to try to assemble the Book, Brankovich from his part of the world and religious tradition, Cohen from his. Each mysteriously senses the presence of the other, for each dreams the other’s life and is dreamt by him in turn. Brankovich sleeps during the day, when Cohen is awake; Cohen sleeps during the night, when Brankovich leads the life that Cohen sees in his dream. In his sleep Brankovich mumbles a language he does not know when he is awake. In his sleep Cohen can move faster than when he is awake and master sword strokes that elude him during the day. The man Brankovich sees in his dream has red eyes, a mustache half gray, and glass fingernails. The details eerily echo Brankovich's family history, for he comes from a lineage where the men always marry red-headed wives. Only males born with black hair inherit, because their coloring is taken as proof that the male line runs through them. This practice leaves aside the males with red hair, who must therefore be considered a species of hermaphrodites. Not from the entry on Brankovich in the Red Book, but from a much later one on Masudi in the Yellow Book (p. 187), do we learn that Cohen’s hair and presumably the other half of his mustache is red, thus confirming the mirror symmetry and hermaphroditism that run through him and link him to Brankovich.
Masudi is the third who hopes to interject himself between these two dreaming of each other. Beginning his life as a lute player, he acquires his second calling when he meets a dream hunter who recognizes in him the potential to be a great collector of dreams. The dream hunter tells him about Adam’s body and urges him to look for a pair who dream each other, for “two such people always constitute small parts of Adam’s body from different phases and are at different levels on the ladder of reason” (p. 167). The dream hunter entrusts the Dictionary he has compiled to Masudi’s care and charges him with the responsibility of adding to it by writing down the dreams of this mirroring pair, for they are needed as part of the Book. But before Masudi can locate either Cohen or Brankovich, he encounters Akshany, a fabulous lute player who has invented a new fingering for a notoriously difficult song that Masudi, as he listens in another room, realizes requires eleven fingers rather than ten. Akshany reveals himself as a demon when he acknowledges that he has been using his tail as the eleventh finger. Then comes the seduction: Akshany convinces Masudi that a nobler cause than dream hunting is to find out what it is like to die. Masudi can acquire such knowledge, Akshany tells him, by being present when one of the mirroring pair dies. At that instant the other cannot wake because there is no one to dream his life. He will continue to dream the other’s death, trapped in his mirror partner’s last experience. If Masudi then enters this dream, he can discover what no living person knows--what it is like to die. It is Masudi’s fate always to throw away his best opportunity. When he meets Princess Ateh, for example, he fails to recognize her and so misses the chance to complete his knowledge about dream hunting. Here too he misses his best chance, turning from the pursuit of the Body and the Book to an arguably futile knowledge of death. That is why, the narrator tells us, he ends up in hell with the demons rather than on Adam’s ladder.
The full import of Masudi's seduction becomes apparent when Cohen and Brankovich finally meet on the battlefield. At the instant the pasha’s soldier spears Brankovich, Cohen falls down as well. Masudi, also about to be skewered, preserves his life for a day by telling the pasha that Cohen is not dead, only caught in a dream. For one day longer Masudi enters Cohen’s dream and experiences along with him the many deaths that Brankovich went through (for according to the Khazars, when a man dies he experiences not his own death but those of his children). Yet at the end of this day he is also killed, making his quest a fool’s errand, for he finds out soon enough on his own accord what it is like to die. The fatal closure of Brankovich and Cohen hints that the Borgesian self-reflexivity of two mirror images reflecting each other to infinity is useless if no third eye is present to see their mutual reflection. Masudi could have been this third eye. Yet his interjection itself becomes a closed self-referential loop when he gives up his appointed quest of contributing to the Book and settles instead for an advance preview of death. The quest for knowledge, the Dictionary implies, is futile unless it is contributes to a greater whole, the Body that we are driven to complete and that will nevertheless always remain incomplete.
The intertwined stories of Brankovich, Masudi and Cohen illustrate the violent dynamics of assembly and disassembly animating the Body we read. Masudi sells the Dictionary with which he was entrusted by the dream hunter to Brankovich’s agent, as a way to flush Brankovich out. A demon in disguise as Brankovich’s scribe, Nikon Sevast, destroys this manuscript and Brankovich’s own notes by throwing them into the fire--but not before the priest with the photographic memory, Theoctist Nikolsky, has an chance to read them. When Cohen plunges into a coma he drops the notes he has collected (carried, appropriately for this Book which we yearn to consume, in a green feedbag) and they scatter on the battlefield--but not before Theoctist reads them. Theoctist tells his story in an Appendix, writing in the margins of the Book that his dictation helps to bring into being. But the introduction by our editor at once constitutes and dissolves this frame, for it both establishes Theoctist’s dictation as the source of the Dictionary and undermines its relation to the text we read. Thus the Book comes together and dissipates, coalesces and dissolves, in a cycle reminiscent of Adam’s moving up and down the ladder to God.
Given this cycle, how can the Book achieve closure? The theoretical issues raised by texts whose order is arbitrary and whose possible narratives are very large has been most fully discussed in the context of electronic hypertexts--a context where The Dictionary of the Khazars is often mentioned but rarely analyzed. Some theorists, including writer-critic Michael Joyce, have suggested that an electronic text is finished when the reader gets tired of reading (a formulation less tautological than it may appear). Others, notably Jane Yellowlee Douglas in her detailed reading of Michael Joyce’s fiction Afternoon, argue that many hypertexts are structured around a central mystery, and that the reader feels a sense of closure when this mystery has been, if not completely explained, at least understood sufficiently so the reader believes she knows its central contours and possibilities. Random access notwithstanding, Dictionary of the Khazars is unlike most electronic hypertexts in having an order dictated by the sequence of bound pages and an end defined by the last page of the narrative. It is clear (as it often is not with electronic hypertexts) when the text ends--it ends when there are no more pages to turn. Which leads to a slightly different question than most theorists want to ask of electronic hypertexts. How can the Book provide readers both with an experience appropriate to this physical sense of ending and to its radically fragmented, incomplete, and partial Body?



The strategy it follows is to intensify the dynamics of assembly and disassembly by bringing them into violent confrontation with one another. As the Dictionary draws toward its end, assembly centers around the work of three scholars in the late twentieth century who again become interested in the Dictionary of the Khazars. Significantly, by this time the three traditions have begun to lose their distinctness and blur into one another, much as the dispersed Khazars have blurred into other ethnicities. Dr. Dorothea Schultz is the child of two Jewish parents, a brother who obtained false papers for his sister and then married her, so that she could pretend to be a Polish non-Jew wedding a Jew who had converted to Christianity. When the brother is taken away by the Nazis, his sister/wife promptly divorced him and married a non-Jewish Pole, thereby saving her skin and earning the hatred of her daughter. Although this heritage might seem to indicate that Dorothea should be regarded as operating in the Jewish tradition, she is a Slavist by profession and wrote her undergraduate thesis on Cyril, the Christian participant in the Khazar polemic. Dr. Abu Kabir Muawia is an Arab interested in Hebrew history; he is deeply read in the chronicles of Halevi, the Jewish scribe for the polemic. Dr. Isailo Suk is a medieval archaeologist, fluent in Arabic, who has studied Islamic sources on the Khazars. He belongs to none of the three religions, which he describes as international cartels, but rather takes pride in being an atheist.
This mixing of traditions is further complicated by the weird convergences that surface between the three scholars and the equally weird fragmentations they experience. Dorothea leaves her native Cracow to move to Israel with her husband Isaac, but she continues to send letters addressed to herself at her old Cracow apartment, as if she had split into two. Dotty, in Cracow, continues her scientific pursuit of history and does not love Isaac; Dorothea, in Israel, grows obsessed with her increasingly strange relationship with her husband and uses Dotty as her confidant. After Isaac is wounded in an Israeli-Arab war and returns with scars, Dorothea is tormented with the thought that the scars are mouths belonging to the enemy who inscribed them on her husband’s body. Believing that this enemy now co-inhabits the body she caresses, she discovers with dismay that she cannot make love to her husband without her breast or belly falling into his alien mouth. Finally she asks her husband for the name of the man who inflicted these wounds; it is Dr. Muawia. When Dorothea discovers that Muawia will be attending a conference in Istanbul where she is presenting a paper on Cyril, she determines (although now divorced from Isaac) to kill Muawia for contaminating with his alien writing and voracious appetite the body she loved.
This mysterious connection between Dorothea and Dr. Muawia is clarified when it becomes apparent that the Istanbul conference constitutes a replay of the seventeenth century drama between Brankovich, Masudi and Cohen. The disaster of the battlefield at Constantinople is about to be repeated, for also staying at the conference hotel are the twentieth-century incarnations of the demonic antagonists. Akshany, the lute player who deflected Masudi, has come back as the cultured Mr. van der Spaaks, who plays a white tortoise-shell lute; Nicost Sevast, Brankovich’s scribe who destroyed the Khazar manuscripts and was also a fabulous painter, re-appears as Mrs. van der Spaaks, who paints gorgeously; and Ephrosinia Lukarevich, marked by two thumbs on each hand, a fondness for red, blue and yellow, and a passionate love for Samuel Cohen, returns as the Spaaks’ four-year-old son Manuil. When Manuil comes earnestly up to Dorothea and asks if she doesn’t recognize him, we realize that Dorothea is the twentieth century incarnation of Samuel Cohen. (Unlike the demons, humans cannot remember their former lives, so the question makes no sense to Dorothea). When Dorothea reports that Muawia limps, the characteristic ties him to Brankovich, who also limped. Dorothea’s obsession with the wound/mouth of Muawia is thus revealed as the twentieth-century version of the dreaming relationship that tied Brankovich and Cohen together. Since all the other players are accounted for, symmetry requires that Suk be Masudi. Like Masudi, Suk has the misfortune always to miss his best chance, as when he breaks open a magical egg that can save his life on the very day its powers expire.
As in the seventeenth century, the twentieth century plots have at their center the struggle over the Book. Muawia has discovered that fragments of Cyril’s polemic, which Dorothea believes were destroyed, have in fact been preserved by the Jewish scribe Halevi in his account of the polemic. Dr. Suk, for his part, has whimsically started ordering items from a turn-of-the-century catalogue long out of date. To his amazement the objects actually start arriving, and the reader recognizes them as artifacts described in Dictionary of the Khazars, including a copy of the Daubmannus Dictionary. When Muawia offers to give Dorothea Halevi’s description of Cyril’s polemic, she has to choose whether to shoot him or reach for the pages. She decides to take the Book over the body. Even as the dynamics of assembly reach their height, however, the forces of disassembly are already at work. At that very moment van der Spaaks/Sevast is smothering Dr. Suk in his room. When Dorothea, hearing from Muawia that Suk has a copy of the Dictionary, runs to Suk’s room, she meets van der Spaaks coming out--and the fabled Daubmannus Dictionary is nowhere to be found. In her absence, Manuil takes the gun she has hidden under her papers and shoots Dr. Muawia, defeating his collaboration with Dorothea. Thus as the Dictionary draws to an end, completing the patterns and predictions of the original Khazar polemic and its seventeenth-century reconstruction, the collected fragments are destroyed and the reassembly of the fabled total Body is once more forestalled. Through such repetitive symmetries the Dictionary achieves a satisfying closure, but this very repetition also means that the Book has been lost and the Body it incorporates has been once more dispersed.
In this self-deconstructing ending, the mirror symmetry that marks those who live in the asymmetry of time but yearn for the totality of space is expanded to include the Dictionary’s readers as well as its characters. When you buy Dictionary of the Khazars, you must choose between two different textual bodies, one marked male, the other female. The two editions are identical except for an italicized paragraph near the end relating Dorothea’s reaction when Muawia hands her the missing pages. In the female edition, their thumbs touch, and through that touch, Dorothea senses that “our past and our future were in our fingers” (p.293). This reassembly echoes the mythical moment when Adam’s left thumb touches his right, sparking his reassembled body into consciousness and giving time its meaning. Lost in her feelings, Dorothea’s eyes scan the lines. Instead of absorbing them, however, she embarks on a journey that, although it happens in seconds, gives her the perspective of centuries and, like a long sea voyage, changes her into a different person. “I gained and learned more by not reading than by reading those pages,” she says (p. 293). In the male version, she fails to touch Muawia’s thumb. Instead of embarking on a sea voyage, she likens herself to a fabulous tree, mentioned in the Dictionary, that grows so fast it rends the bodies of those who swallow its seeds. She realizes that growth upward comes at a price, for “the taller we grow through the sky, toward the wind and rain toward God, the deeper we must sink our roots through the mud and the subterranean waters toward Hell” (p. 293). Whereas the emphasis in the female version is on connection, emotion, temporality, and a horizontal journey that bestows deep insight, the emphasis in the male version is on missed connection, rational thought, spatiality, and a vertical stretching that separates even as it joins. The female and male versions can thus be understood as encoding respectively the ascending and descending cycles of Adam’s body, the symmetrical assembly and disassembly through which the Book comes together and fragments, dissolves and coalesces. Condemned to read in sequence, we must choose between the male and female editions in deciding which lines to scan. But once we have read both, we can see how they fit together, like the fabled key and lock of Princess Ateh’s bedroom.
It is this very key that Dr. Suk mysteriously discovers in his mouth one day when he wakens. As he examines it, he sees that it has a hole in the center of its shaft, evidently designed to slide into a lock hole with a shaft in its center. The gender ambiguities of these images--a masculine key with a hole in its center, a feminine lock with a shaft--indicate that the mirror symmetries of the Book work to confuse categories as well as constitute them. I like to think of this biform key as a warning against fitting the Book into any scheme that claims to have everything wrapped up tight, neat and tidy. For no matter what paths we follow into the Dictionary, its narrative multiplicity will reveal other characters following trajectories that point in different directions.
For example, also present at the battlefield in Constantinople along with Brankovich, Masudi and Cohen is Averkie Skila, the master swordsman who serves as Brankovich’s fencing partner. Like the two men pulling the puma in opposite directions, Skila and Brankovich practice their deadly craft in the dark, tied to each other by a long leather belt. While Brankovich works on assembling fragments of the Dictionary, Skila has his own project, a book entitled The Finest Signatures of the Saber. In the illustrations for this book, he draws the strokes in the form of constellations. Each star in the constellation stands for a death, for he will draw no stroke without first testing it on flesh. His masterpiece, the stroke pictured in the constellation of Aries, is “a snake-like incision that left behind a terrible sinuous, gaping slash; like a mouth it released voices from the wound sounding like the cry of liberated blood” (p. 99). For Skila, flesh and paper are media of inscription that mutually constitute each other. Without writing on flesh, there would be no writing in the book; without writing in the book, there would be no interpretation of what the mouth-wound is saying.
Within the Dictionary, Skila plays a complex role defined by his attempt to escape from the book he writes. Information about Skila’s role comes from Masudi, who in some ways mirrors Skila’s quest. Masudi tells us that “when two persons dream each other and the one’s dream builds the other’s reality, a small part of the dream is always left over” (p. 100). The “‘surplus of material’ . . cannot completely fit into the reality of the person being dreamed, but, rather, spills into and attaches onto the reality of a third person” (p. 100). This excess restricts the third person’s freedom, for he finds that many of his actions are dictated by his oscillation between one or another of the dreaming pair, leaving only the bare-bones outline of his life under his own control. Masudi believes that Skila is such a third person, caught between the dreams of Cohen and Brankovich as he leans now toward one, now toward the other. Masudi speculates that Skila writes The Finest Signatures because he is desperately searching “for the one stroke that would rescue him from the vicious circle within which he moved, waiting for his tormentors to come within reach of his saber” (p. 101). In this interpretation Skila plays the role of the puma, pinioned between Brankovich with whom he fences but does not recognize as one of the dreaming pair, and Cohen whom he does not know.
In Skila’s book, the drawings show him executing saber strokes. The strokes are illustrated by lines that make him appear to be imprisoned within a cage “so full of sweeping turns, floating domes, bridges, arches and slender towers at each corner, that Averkie Skila looked as though he were enclosed in the flight of a bumblebee whose endless signature in the air had suddenly become legible” (p. 99). The beautiful and convoluted nature of these lines does not conceal the fact that they nevertheless make a cage within which he is trapped. So, although his face is serene in these drawings, his mouth “had double lips and always looked as though someone else inside him wanted to speak in his stead” (p. 99). As he grows older, he becomes convinced that the sinuous stroke of Aries, the last stroke to be illustrated in his book, will finally release him from the cage. But he cannot draw the stroke until he has first inscribed it on living flesh. Finally he achieves his goal and pens the final lines. Then, just as he hoped, the lines cut through the cage, making an opening through which he can escape from his own virtuosity. The final illustration shows him walking through this cut, “as if through a gate, to freedom. He came out through this slit as through a wound, being born from his astral prison into the world and a new life. And inside his mute outer lips the other, inner lips laughed joyously” (p. 101).
On whose body did Skila write the stroke that would liberate him? On none other than Masudi, who like Skila, found himself trapped between the mirror images of Cohen and Brankovich. Whereas Masudi wants to find out what it is like to die, however, Skila wants to find out what it is like to live. So while Masudi sleeps in the pasha’s camp, voyeuristically participating in Cohen’s dream of Brankovich’s death, he is killed by a saber cut that “left a sinuous cut” (p. 189). The “terrible winding gash gaped open like a mouth uttering an incomprehensible word,” a grisly failure to communicate that recalls Masudi’s failure to add to the Dictionary. Those who saw the wound never forgot it, later recognizing it “in a book called The Finest Signatures of the Saber” (p. 189).
What are we to make of Masudi’s futile quest and Skila’s escape from his own mastery? Given Skila’s characterization as a writer, it is tempting to see in his story the writer’s fear that if he succeeds in writing a total Book, he must himself be inscribed within its boundaries. So he imagines a character who, writing a book within the Book, tears a hole in flesh and paper that, like a Caesarian section, creates a wound through which he can escape. The cut that allows Skila to birth himself out of the mirroring dreams is achieved by exploiting the very metaphoric connections that tie the Body to the Book and the wound to the mouth, used now not to incorporate everything into the Book’s articulations but to escape from their reflexive symmetries. If Masudi’s tale illustrates the danger of throwing one’s life away, Skila’s story shows that mastery too can be a burden from which one longs to escape. It also implies there are holes in the Book (not to mention in this reading of the Book). From which I draw the following moral for the Book’s critics. Do not think that reading a total Book means one can arrive at a total Interpretation, as the editor perhaps warns us when he ends his “Preliminary Notes” with the whimsical comment, “As for essayists and critics, they are like cuckolded husbands, always the last to find out . . .” (p. 15).
Let me conclude by noticing once again the violence that pervades the Dictionary, which I prefer to see not as a sign of bloodthirsty taste but as an indication of how much is at stake in the Body = Book equation. For this book, published in an era when all media are situated within a docuverse of information, when print is losing market share to electronic media, and when books are losing their bodies to digital displays, it matters to the Dictionary, and matters terribly, that it has a physical body of markings inscribed on a durable substrate. For all the vulnerabilities of books, for all of the traps they set and they themselves can become, this is a book which cannot imagine itself without a body, even if that body is animated by the dynamics of disassembly as well as assembly. The best way to celebrate the Book that does not merely have a body but is a Body, the Dictionary seems to say, is to tear it into pieces so that readers can have the fun of putting it back together.



Endnotes

The comment was made when reporters contacted Willis and asked him how he would defend “The Fifth Element” against charges of narrative incoherence. The fact that a film star is making pronouncements on the print book itself indicates that print now exists within a different medial ecology than it did even a few years ago.
Among them are Hans Moravec in Mind Children: The Future of Robot and Human Intelligence (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988) and Marvin Minsky, in his keynote address to the Artificial Life Conference, Nara, Japan, June 1996.
For further explication of the new medial ecologies, see Joseph Tabbi and Michael Wurtz, Reading Matters: Narrative in the New Media Ecology (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1996).
Italo Calvino, If on a winter’s night a traveler, translated by Warren Weaver (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1982).
Milorad Pavic, Dictionary of the Khazars: A Lexicon Novel in 100,000 Words, translated by Christina Pribicevic-Zoric (New York: Vintage Books, 1989). Very little has been written on this book in English; Petar Ramadanovic takes a sociological approach in “Language and Crime in Yugoslavia: Milorad Pavic´’s Dictionary of the Khazars” in Regionalism Reconsidered: New Approaches to the Field (New York: Garland, 1994), pp. 185-96. I assume that the paucity of criticism is due to a number of factors, including the limited number of scholars fluent in both Serb-Croatian and English and the inherent difficulties presented by the text itself. To help rescue the Dictionary from its current fate among American readers of being often admired but rarely discussed, I have ventured an interpretation, even though I cannot read Serb-Croatian and so am cut off not only from the text in its original language but also from the criticism on it in Serb-Croatian. I hope this essay will help to stimulate interest in this work and perhaps draw to it critics fluent in some, if not all, of its languages of inscription.
Jane Gallop, Thinking Through the Body (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988).
For historical information on the Khazars, see Arthur Koestler, The Thirteenth Tribe: The Khazar Empire and its Heritage (New York: Popular Library, 1978); Peter B. Golden, Khazar Studies on Historico-Philological Inquiry in the Origin of the Khazars (Budapest: Akademial Kiado, 1980); and D. M. Dunlop, The History of the Jewish Khazars (New York: Schochen Books, 1967, first edition 1954). Although Pavic´ makes considerable use of this history, he takes liberties with the historical record when he suggests it is completely uncertain to which religion the Khazars converted. The historical record indicates they converted to Judaism; Koestler has an interesting argument about possible motives for this otherwise puzzling event.
A note on orthography: capitals are used for the Book and Body when I intend the terms to refer to the mythical total Book and the Body it incorporates.
See Michael Joyce’s “Nonce Upon Some Times: Rereading Hypertext Fiction” in this issue, as well as Of Two Minds: Hypertext Pedagogy and Poetics (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1995).
J. Yellowlees Douglas, “‘How Do I Stop This Thing?’: Closure and Indeterminacy in Interactive Narratives,” in George P. Landow, Hyper/Text/Theory (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994), pp. 159-188.

Negative capability

Negative capability is a theory of the poet John Keats, expressed in his letter to George and Thomas Keats dated Sunday, 21 December 1817.
I had not a dispute but a disquisition with Dilke, on various subjects; several things dovetailed in my mind, & at once it struck me, what quality went to form a Man of Achievement especially in literature & which Shakespeare possessed so enormously - I mean Negative Capability, that is when man is capable of being in uncertainties, Mysteries, doubts without any irritable reaching after fact & reason.
Keats believed that great people (especially poets) have the ability to accept that not everything can be resolved. Keats was a Romantic and believed that the truths found in the imagination access holy authority. Such authority cannot otherwise be understood, and thus he writes of "uncertainties." This "being in uncertaint[y]" is a place between the mundane, ready reality and the multiple potentials of a more fully understood existence.
Keats expressed this idea in several of his poems
• La Belle Dame sans Merci: A Ballad (1819)
• Ode to a Nightingale (1819)
• The Fall of Hyperion: A Dream (1819)
Negative capability is a state of intentional openmindedness that has many parallels in other writers' literary and philosophical stances. Much has been written about this. Walter Jackson Bate, Keats's authoritative biographer, wrote an entire book from his Harvard honors thesis on the topic. The footnote to the negative capability letter in the 1958 Harvard UP edition of the Letters of John Keats references the work of Woodhouse, Bate, C. L. Finney, Barbara Hardy, G. B. Harrison, and George Watson, all prior to the edition’s printing in 1958. Additionally, Nathan Scott (author of a book entitled Negative Capability), notes that negative capability has been compared to philosopher Martin Heidegger’s concept of Gelassenheit, “the spirit of disponibilité before What-Is which permits us simply to let things be in whatever may be their uncertainty and their mystery." Even Philip Pullman excerpts from Keats's letter and prominently incorporates the concept in his children's fantasy novel The Subtle Knife.

Noach (Genesis 6:9-11:32)

Rashbi and the Rainbow

"Whoever believes in miracles is an imbecile, whoever does not is an atheist."
Reb Mendel

Moj je filosemitizam sasvim bizarnog porijekla: opčinjen sam nevjerojatnim personama dvojice nestvarnih Židova.
Često sam ih puta spominjao, češće Rashbija nego Kockerskog rabina, ali mislim da se zato Rebbe Menachem Mendel Morgensztern od Kocka ni malo na mene ne bi ljutio. Kao što ćete pročitati, on je ionako ponavljao:
"Nikoga ne želim vidjeti. Recite im da me ostave na miru."
Što se tiče Rabbi Shimeon bar Yochaia, neka onima koji ga tek upoznaju prve njegove riječi budu i povod ovom tekstu:
"Thus did Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai say: 'The world possesses not less than thirty men as righteous as Abraham. If there are thirty, my son and I are two of them; if ten, my son and I are two of them; if five, my son and I are two of them; if two, they are my son and I; if there is but one, it is I."
Mislim da ne postoji kraće objašnjenje zašto baš njih dvojica; kome to nakon ovih riječi nije jasno, taj je zalutao.

Rabbi Ari Kahn



Chacham Yitzchak Kadouri


After the deluge Noah emerges from his craft. The world had been punished by the wrath of God. And now God speaks:
And God spoke to Noah, and to his sons with him, saying, "And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you. And with every living creature that is with you, of the bird, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth. And I will establish my covenant with you; nor shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; nor shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth." And God said, "This is the sign of the covenant which I make between Me and you and every living creature that is with you, for everlasting generations. I set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a sign of a covenant between Me and the earth. And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud. And I will remember my covenant, which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth." And God said to Noah, "This is the sign of the covenant, which I have established between Me and all flesh that is upon the earth." (Genesis 9:8-17)
Man is given the rainbow, a breathtaking display of nature, as a sign that God will never again ravage the earth by water as a punishment for man's sins.

* * *

SINGLED OUT

The Midrash notes that the word dorot, "generations," is written defectively. The explanation offered is that certain generations will need this sign, while others will not. These superior generations possess righteousness, or righteous men, rendering the symbol of God controlling His wrath superfluous. Among the generations thus singled out was the generation of Rashbi (acronym of Rav Shimon Bar Yochai); in the subsequent Midrashim it becomes apparent that the righteous to whom the text refers is Rashbi himself.
Elijah of blessed memory and Rabbi Joshua ben Levi were sitting and studying together, when they came to a ruling of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai . Said one: "Here is the author of the ruling: let us go and question him about it." So Elijah of blessed memory went to him, "Who is with you?" he asked. "The greatest of his generation, Rabbi Joshua ben Levi," he answered. "Has the rainbow appeared in his days?" he inquired, "if it has, he is not worthy of being received by me."
Rabbi Hezekiah related in Rabbi Jeremiah's name: "Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai had but to say, 'O field, O field, be filled with gold dinars,' and it was filled." Rabbi Hezekiah related in Rabbi Jeremiah's name: "Thus did Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai say: 'If Abraham is willing, he can effectively intercede for [all generations] from his days until mine, while I can intercede for [all generations] from my time until the advent of Messiah. While if he is not willing, let Ahijah the Shilonite unite with me, and we can intercede for all from the days of Abraham until those of Messiah.'" Rabbi Hezekiah said in Rabbi Jeremiah's name: "Thus did Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai say: 'The world possesses not less than thirty men as righteous as Abraham. If there are thirty, my son and I are two of them; if ten, my son and I are two of them; if five, my son and I are two of them; if two, they are my son and I; if there is but one, it is I.'" (Midrash Rabbah - Genesis 35:2)
Despite the perhaps unparalleled greatness of Rashbi, we are somewhat taken aback by these declarations, of his own piety and greatness. This statement is not an isolated "slip of the tongue". We find numerous statements in the Talmud, where Rashbi makes similar statements.
Hezekiah further stated in the name of Rabbi Jeremiah who said it in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai , "I am able to exempt the whole world from judgment from the day that I was born until now, and were Eliezer, my son, to be with me [we could exempt it] from the day of the creation of the world to the present time, and were Yotam the son of Uzziah with us, [we could exempt it] from the creation of the world to its final end."
Hezekiah further stated in the name of Rabbi Jeremiah who said it in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai , "I have seen the sons of heaven and they are but few. If there be a thousand, I and my son are among them; if a hundred, I and my son are among them; and if only two, they are I and my son." (Sukkah 45b)
Again, we find supreme self-confidence, bordering on arrogance. It seems strange that the merit of such a man would obviate the appearance of the rainbow in his generation.

* * *

ANTI-ROMAN

This idiosyncratic statement may also be found in one of the most famous passages regarding Rashbi. An understanding of that passage holds a key for the entire topic.
For Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Yossi, and Rabbi Shimon were sitting, and Yehuda, a son of proselytes, was sitting near them. Rabbi Yehuda commenced [the discussion] by observing, "How fine are the works of this people! They have made streets, they have built bridges, they have erected baths." Rabbi Yossi was silent. Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai answered and said, "All that they made they made for themselves; they built market-places, to set harlots in them; baths, to rejuvenate themselves; bridges, to levy tolls for them." Now, Yehuda the son of proselytes went and related their talk, which reached the government. They decreed: "Yehuda, who exalted [us], shall be exalted, Yossi, who was silent, shall be exiled to Sepphoris, Shimon, who censured, let him be executed." (Shabbat 33b)
The passage begins with the description of the deep-seated enmity which Rashbi held for the Romans. In the wake of the Hadrianic persecutions this is certainly understandable. Though this approach would seem valid on a personal level, surely the response of Rashbi transcends personal feelings and calculations.
The Talmud recounts how the other sages had made their peace with the Roman occupation, and had even come to appreciate the Roman contribution to the physical infrastructure of Judea. Rashbi, on the other hand, refused to be seduced by the beauty of the Roman edifice.
He and his son went and hid themselves in the Bet Hamidrash,[and] his wife brought him bread and a mug of water and they dined. [But] when the decree became more severe he said to his son, "Women are of unstable temperament: she may be put to the torture and expose us." So they went and hid in a cave. A miracle occurred and a carob-tree and a water well were created for them. They would strip their garments and sit up to their necks in sand. The whole day they studied; when it was time for prayers they robed, covered themselves, prayed, and then put off their garments again, so that they should not wear out. Thus they dwelt twelve years in the cave. (Shabbat 33b)
Now, in the face of the Roman threat, Rashbi retreats to a cave, together with his son Rebbi Eliezer. The two study day and night for twelve years, in a manner which reminds us of the Garden of Eden: the tree, the stream, the nakedness all being symbols of the purity and beauty of man at his apex, prior to that first act of infamy. The two studied and ascended from level to level in knowledge and fear of God.

* * *

LEAVING THE CAVE

After some time, Elijah stands at the door of the cave and invites them to leave:
Then Elijah came and stood at the entrance to the cave and eed, "Who will inform the son of Yochai that the emperor is dead and his decree annulled?" So they emerged. Seeing a man plowing and sowing, they eed, "They forsake life eternal and engage in life temporal!" Whatever they cast their eyes upon was immediately burnt up. (Shabbat 33b)
Leaving their cave proved quite difficult for Rashbi and Rebbe Eliezer. Obviously, seeing people not completely righteous, not totally immersed in Torah, was traumatic for Rashbi and consequently, for the entire world.
Thereupon a Heavenly Echo came forth and cried out, "have you emerged to destroy My world: Return to your cave!" (Shabbat 33b)
God wished to protect the world from this great man. Upon contemplation, the decision to return them to the cave seems strange: the years in the cave are apparently what caused this distorted worldview. Perhaps it would have been more appropriate to send them anywhere but back to the cave.
However, upon leaving the cave for the second time one year later, something interesting happens: Rashbi is indeed healed, while his son Rebbi Eliezer continues hurling fire. Only at the end is the son healed as well.
So they returned and dwelt there twelve months, saying, "The punishment of the wicked in Gehenna (purgatory) is [limited to] twelve months." A Heavenly Echo then came forth and said, "Go forth from your cave!" Thus they exited: wherever Rabbi Eliezer wounded, Rabbi Shimon healed. Said he to him, "My son! You and I are sufficient for the world." On the eve of the Shabbat before sunset they saw an old man holding two bundles of myrtle and running at twilight. "What are these for?" they asked him. "They are in honor of the Shabbat," he replied. "But one should suffice you." [He responded:]"One is for Remember and one for Observe." Said [Rashbi] to his son, "See how precious are the commandments to Israel." His mind was tranquilized. (Shabbat 33b)
Obviously, returning to the cave had some type of calming affect and served as the impetus of Rashbi's "rehabilitation." In retrospect, the initial problem was not that he had spent too long in the cave, but not long enough.

* * *

STUDENTS OF HILLEL

In order to understand this idea we need to see another passage, which tells us about another set of great rabbis, the students of Hillel.
Our rabbis have taught: "Hillel the Elder had eighty disciples, thirty of whom were worthy of the Divine Spirit resting upon them, as [it did upon] Moses our Master, thirty of whom were worthy that the sun should stand still for them [as it did for] Joshua the son of Nun, [and the remaining] twenty were ordinary. The greatest of them was Yonatan ben Uzziel, the smallest of them was Yochanan ben Zakkai.
They said of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai that he did not leave [unstudied] Scripture, Mishnah, Gemara, Halachah, Aggada, details of the Torah, details of the Scribes, inferences a minori ad majus, analogies, calendrical computations gematrias, the speech of the Ministering Angels, the speech of spirits, and the speech of palm-trees, fullers' parables and fox fables, great matters or small matters ... in order to fulfill what is said, 'That I may cause those that love me to inherit substance, and that I may fill their treasuries.' And if the smallest of them was so great, how much more so was the greatest? They said of Yonatan ben Uzziel that when he used to sit and occupy himself with the study of the Torah, every bird that flew above him was immediately burnt." (Sukkah 28a)
The least of Hillel's students possessed a dazzling array of knowledge, the scope of which is difficult to imagine. After describing Rav Yochanan ben Zakkai's intellectual prowess and knowledge, we can only wonder about the exalted level of his superior colleague, Rav Yonatan ben Uzziel, the intensity of whose Torah personality caused passing birds to be consumed by fire.

* * *

CHASSIDIC TALE

This passage has an interesting postscript, told in Chassidic circles:
Once a Chassidic Rebbe was learning the above passage with his son. The son had one question: If the least of the students possesses superior knowledge, and the greatest student has combustible passion, what is the exalted level of the Master? The son was probing his father, attempting to discern the essence of being a Rebbe. The Rebbe answered that Hillel the Elder was on such an exalted level that when a bird would fly above nothing would happen; it would remain unscathed. This is the sublime secret of being a teacher. Students are often filled with passion. The secret of teaching is the ability to harness the passion, to control the fire.
When Rashbi leaves the cave the first time, he is still a student - full of passion, but still a student. The world is black and white in his eyes: either someone is directly, constantly involved in Torah, or they are wasting their lives and are unable to justify their existence. The voice from heaven effectively declares that Rashbi needs to learn more. He must undergo the metamorphosis from student to teacher, from secretive mystic to Tzaddik who will take responsibility for the world and be prepared to do all to save the world. He must learn how to harness the power. He must become like Hillel - when birds fly over his head, they will remain unharmed.

* * *

ARGUMENT WITH AN ANGEL

This metamorphosis is discernable in an amazing passage in the Zohar:
Once Rav Shimon bar Yochai went out and saw that the world was dark and cloudy and all the lights had been sealed. He said to his son Rebbe Eliezer, "Let us go and see, what God has planned for the world." They went and came to one angel that looked like a large mountain, with thirty large torches of fire in its mouth. Rav Shimon said: "What are you planning to do?" He said, "I came to destroy the world, because there are not thirty righteous people in this generation, for God had [thus] decreed to Abraham..." Rav Shimon said to him, "I order you ? go in front of God and say to Him "Bar Yochai is in the world."
The angel went in front of God and said: "Master of the universe, it is known to you what Bar Yochai said to me." God said, "Go destroy the world and ignore Bar Yochai." When he (the angel) returned, Rav Shimon saw the angel, and said, "If you do not leave I will decree on you that you will not return to heaven, rather you will be in a place of Aza and Azael (Hell). Go to God and say to Him: 'If there are not thirty righteous, then twenty should suffice ... if not twenty then ten should suffice ... if not ten then two should be enough, and there is me and my son ... and if two is not good, then one should be enough, and that is me(!) as it says A righteous man is the foundation of the world.'" At that moment a voice rang out of heaven and said, "Fortunate is your portion Rav Shimon, for God decrees above, and you rescind below. Certainly about you the verse is written The will of those who fear Him is done." (Zohar Addendum page 205 ? the proper place should be 105b)
Rashbi's response seems like the supreme arrogant statement: "I order you ? go in front of God and say to Him 'Bar Yochai is in the world.'" However, when we consider the previous passage in the Talmud, we can understand this statement, and begin to penetrate the greatness of Rashbi: When he left the cave the first time, he wanted to destroy all evil. Inconsistency would not be tolerated. After 12 years in a cave, all that he knew was learning, perfection. Anyone not learning should perish. The power of Torah raged within his essence and then poured forth with a vengeance. There was only one problem: God did not concur with the Rashbi's actions.
God would not allow the world to be destroyed. "Go back to the cave," God said to him. "Learn one more lesson." When they left the cave the second time, an old man holding myrtle provides the lesson.

* * *

LIKE A RAINBOW

The world is not "black and white," rather it is composed of many hues and shades, like the rainbow. God taught Rashbi this phenomenal lesson: The world is awaiting redemption. Instead of the tzaddik taking a stance of superiority, which manifests itself with judgmental airs, he must take responsibility for his generation, and indeed the entire world.
When Rashbi confronts the angel of destruction, he tells the angel "I order you ? go in front of God and say to Him 'Bar Yochai is in the world.'" - the same Bar Yochai whom God would not allow to destroy the world even a small piece of the world. God does not desire to see the world destroyed. God desires the righteous to take responsibility for their fellow man, and help man and the world reach its potential.
In this second passage, Rav Shimon takes responsibility for the world. Destruction is antithetical to this stance. The existence of even one tzaddik can save the world, provided the tzaddik knows how to affect the world without burning it. Rashbi apparently felt that on the day of judgement, he would be able to use this logic to exonerate the world from all guilt.
When the power of his Torah is harnessed, the true tzaddik does not burn a thing, rather achieves a beautiful harmony with all of nature. All those shades of gray can and will become lighter through the work of the tzaddik. The world is not evil, merely awaiting elevation. The tzaddik can be that catalyst, and help the world achieve its potential. Such a world will be redeemed.
Rashbi did not need a rainbow up in the heavens to remind him of God's promise and his own mission; he saw a rainbow down on earth. Noah needed a rainbow. But some generations would possess great souls with the power to redeem the world, making the appearance of the rainbow completely unnecessary. Rashbi was such a man.



Menachem Mendel of Kotzk

"It is written that God looked over His work and found that it was good. Not I. I am more particular, more demanding than He. The world such as it is, I have no use for, except to blow my nose in it."

In the shtetls ("villages") of Eastern Europe, a cerebral Jewish tradition was carried on in the face of grinding poverty and the constant threat of violence from the surrounding Christians. All the men of the shtetl studied Torah (the first five books of the Bible), and Talmud, which is commentary on the Torah, plus commentary on the commentary, and so on. The richest man in the shtetl would be glad to marry his daughter to a penniless scholar; and the scholar would be glad to have her, because "a rich man's daughter is always beautiful." While the men devoted themselves to lifelong study, their wives attended to the mundane tasks of making a living and running the household. The endlessness of study is reflected in the story of a student who complained to his rabbi ("teacher"):

"I am an apikoros ("unbeliever")!"
"And how long have you been studying Talmud?"
"Five years."
"Only five years and already you call yourself an apikoros?"

Menachem-Mendel was born in Goray, Poland, in 1787, the son of a glazier. He married when he was fourteen, with a dowry of a thousand ducats (a rich man's daughter!) He became famous for his darkly acidic teachings. "The world deserves not even a groan." At first he maintained a rabbinical court in Tomashov; but when he didn't get along with the local rabbi, he started looking for a new place to settle. Legend has it that he chose Kotzk because when he first went there the locals threw stones at him. "This is a good omen", he said, "here at least the people are not indifferent." Every day he would set out to write one perfect page summarizing all of human history: and at night he would burn it. He would allow none of his writings to be published. All that remains of the Kotzker are the stories told about him:

A disciple complained: "I come from Rizhin. There, everything is simple,
everything is clear. I prayed and I knew I was praying; I studied and I
knew I was studying. Here in Kotzk everything is mixed up, confused;
I suffer from it ... Please help me so I can pray and study as before.
Please help me to stop suffering." Menachem-Mendel replied: "And who
ever told you that God is interested in your studies and your prayers?
And what if he preferred your tears and your suffering?"

Reb ("Rabbi") Feivl said, "Mendel, you are starving! Why don't you
go and see Temerl? She will give you a job and you will earn some money."
"Money? Pfui!" Reb Mendel eed.
"I was nauseated for six weeks when the word `money' was mentioned,"
he added.

"Whoever believes in miracles is an imbecile, whoever does not is an atheist."
Reb Mendel found the constant demands of his disciples hard to bear. "What do they want from me? Why do they harass me? How am I to make them understand that it is not my task to fill their stomachs and appease their sleep?" In 1839 he suffered some kind of breakdown and withdrew from public life. He spent the next twenty years in self-imposed exile. He told a friend: "There is nobody I want to see. Tell them to leave me alone; use a cane if you must." He died in 1859.

Pristup Al-Mu’tasimu

TRAŽITELJ ZAKLONA

"Bilo je to kao da se u razgovor umiješao neki složeniji sugovornik."

In the 1934 version - which I have at hand - the novel sinks into allegory: Al-Mu'tasim is the emblem of God, and the punctual itinerary of the hero is in some manner the forward progress of the soul in its mystic ascent.



PISCI UBIJAJU (PISCE)

Ja vas jednostavno volim.
Evo, sitnim sivim slovima komentara objasnit ću zašto.
Danas sam sebi poklonio sliku: govorio sam vam o njoj, vidjet ćete je niže, u postu posvećenom Lovri Artukoviću. Potom sam posjetio majku, ručali smo, vratio sam se kući, skuhao sam čaj, sjeo uz PC, i krenuo se baviti britanskim i/ili pruskim plemstvom; put me je od kuće Wettin i Saxe-Coburg and Gotha odveo do svetice Hildegarde od Bingena i genija Johna von Neumanna; putem sam prošao kroz All Souls College (fasciniran sam fotografijom fellowa George Curzona, 1st Marquess Curzon of Kedleston!) i posjetio Der Gottesfreund vom Oberland, a kako i zašto, duga je to priča - duga cijelo jedno popodne, u ne tako razbludno vrijeme čaja u listopadu.
I, onda, vratim se na Vaseljenu, a tu, vidim - pravo slavlje!
Na trenutak sam osjetio da imam ono što me je ponukalo da satima proučavam rodoslovlja iščezlog Svetog Rimskog Carstva i elite koleđa koji jednom u stotinu godina na čelu procesije slave - patka! Očito, postoj taj Inner Temple.
To me istovremeno smiruje, ali i onespokojava.
NEMANJA 06.10.2007. 20:22

• U zbirci "Evakuacija - Izbor suvremene priče autora iz BiH" Karimu Zaimoviću objavljena je priča "Bez naslova" u kojoj opisuje vlastitu smrt kada granata ulijeće u studio Radio Zida gdje glavni junak priče, Karim Zaimović, upravo emitira fake 'humoristični' program. Priča je napisana u februaru 1994. Zaimović je poginuo izlazeći iz studija Radio Zida, nakon što je emitirao još jedan u nizu fake 'humorističnih' programa, godinu dana kasnije. Bilo mu je 24 godine. Okrutna igra taj bingo. Eto, i Tobermorey naletio na svog riđeg Big Tom from the Rectory snajperista.
A slona u Drezdenu razumijem u potpunosti.
Virtuela 06.10.2007. 23:58

• Nemanja, tvoj poslednji komentar, od 20.22h vrlo je misteriozan - govorish o buducnosti kao da je proshlost, o brnuto, i mnogo vishe uznemiravujuce - o proshlosti kao buducnosti.
dakle, odaj pojedinosti o aristrokaciji i njenim forografijama.
zao pogled u nevinom svetu 07.10.2007. 00:47

• Ako povjerujem u tezu da zbivanja u sadašnjosti utječu na prošlost, HH Munro - da ga nije ubio njemački snajperist - uopće ne bi bio HH Munro, barem ne u cjelosti.
A kako se osjećao snajperist koji ga je ubio? Svjedočanstva iz WW1 uglavnom govore o strahu, a manje o krivnji - što je i logično ako se sjetimo užasa rovovskog ratovanja i činjenice da su neprijatelji fizički bili udaljeni jedan od drugog.
Ipak, moguće je zamisliti plaćenog ubojicu koji luta europskim ratištima i ubija dobre pisce kako bi otvorio put dominaciji elektronskih medija u 20. stoljeću. Nije samo Saki ubijen. Ubio je i Ruperta Brookea. Tu je i Fran Galović. S. Sassoona pretvorio je u paničara. Apollinaire mu je pobjegao, ali ne zadugo...
pametni zub 07.10.2007. 11:58

• Da, Borges kvari ljude. Mogli smo do prvog nalaza stići i tezom o potpunosti atributa neke osobe: činjenica da će ga ubiti snajperist, Sakija jednako određuje kao i ona da je autor 'Tobermorya', ili da ni mrtav ne trpi sufražetkinje.
Kad smo već cinični, ne moramo dalje tražiti snajperista: evo nam Wittgensteina! Cijeli njegov ratni put od broda do howitzer regimente samo je cover Digitalne urote koja je nakanila premrežiti cijeli svijet! Wittgensteinova konverzija očio ipak ima manje veze s Tolstojem, a više s grizodušjem: izvješća o strahu su točna (recimo zapisi Viktora Tauska o paranoji u rovovima WWI; zanimljivo štivo, to tim više jer je Tausk našijenac, a opet iznimno značajna osoba u povijesti psihoanalize), ali ona vrijede za istraumatizirane, već prilično načete i oboljele veterane; dobronamjernik bi morao ipak pretpostaviti da rafinirana duša poput Wittensteina proživljava grozan konflikt dužnosti (višestruke: spram domovine, spram znanosti, spram čovječanstva) i nezatomljene solidarnosti s istim tim ljudima kao ljudima, kao kolegama s druge strane nišana, kao građanima svijeta kao domovine! Wittgenstein se - moramo to pretpostaviti, pobogu, emancipirajmo se od te svoje distanciranosti spram svega ljudskog, suviše ljudskog - povremeno ipak pitao o tome što radi, tjeskobio se, i odatle, in ultima linea, njegovo pozno oduševljenje Kierkegardom, za kojega je mislio da je svetac: Ludwiga je obuzeo strah i drhtanje pred logikom i grijesima!
Cijela ta tradicija od Fregea, Peana i Schrödera, preko Boolea i Russella pa do Wittgensteina, bila mi je odavno sumnjiva i moram priznati da sam sa svoje strane poduzeo sve u praćenju njihove daljnje aktivnosti. Primjetio sam da je nakon Wittgensteinove sedme, zaključne teze - svojevrsnog Prohibicijskog zakona: ...o tome valja šutjeti! - nastala živa ilegalna produkcija filozofema u intelektualnom podzemlju obje obale Atlantika!
Konačno, sve ovo već smo Vertebrata i ja jednom diskutirali:
(...) Podsjetilo me ovo na prizor iz Wittgensteinovog djetinstva. Taj je baš bio alergičan na neukus i nesrazmjer, ali doslovno, jednom je prilikom kao dječak ( na nekom domjenku što ga je njegova besramno bogata obitelj održava u svom dvorcu skromnog naziva "Das Haus" u Allegasse str.) nakon što se prenerazio izgledom tetkinog kičastog kompletića uzeo škare i abschneidirao nepotrebne gumbove nakon čega su i ostali primjetili skladniji izgled tete od malog Ludwiga! vertebrata 22.02.2007. 11:33
(...) E, Vertebrate, ne bi ga ni ja bolje uočio, da znaš!
Ovo sa škarama kasnije je odredilo malog Ludwiga kao vrtlara i strizibubu: iskušavajući krajnje konzekvence svoje prohibicijske sedme teze - u krugovima filozofijske mafije poznate kao Zakon Omerte - štucao je i aschneidirao list po list, kao kakav zen-budist!
Čudi me da nije zaklao koje groficu ili barem bedinericu.
Nije zaklao groficu - to je moja agramerska podsvijest - ali je kokao pisce!
Švajnhund!
NEMANJA 07.10.2007. 13:31

KNJIGE UBIJAJU

Htio sam vam se javiti noćas oko 1.30, u kasan sat, ćuk il' netopir, ali sam odustao, misleći da možda već spite, a onda opet, nisam htio da izjutra pomislite da ste sve to možda samo sanjali.
Idemo in medias res...
Knjige ubijaju. To je klasičan postmoderni topos: oksimoronski topos u smislu postmoderne koja je, kao već-uvijek-dogođena, klasična: hoću reći, bilo je toga i prije, i u vrijeme kad Aleksandar predbacuje Aristotelu da profanira filozofiju zapisujući je, a Klement Aleksandrijski savjetuje:"Najrazborijtije je ne pisati, nego učiti i proučavati živom riječju, jer napisano ostaje" (Stromatesis) - "Sve napisati u knjigu znači staviti mač u ruke djetetu", poentira Klement, tjerajući vodu na moj mlin. Znanje je moć, reklo bi prosvjetiteljstvo dva milenija kasnije, unatoč slutnji da će moderni cinizam tu moć vrlo brzo pervertirati: moć je znanje, ali, to više nije naša neposredna tema, barem prividno nije. Knjige dakle ubijaju, kako u predgovoru Milorada Pavića, tako i po biblioteci Umberta Eca; Pavić će još dodati: "Za druge ne znam, mene su moje knjige zaista ubile!"
Bilo je toga i prije, te svijesti o tome da knjige ubijaju, ali nije bilo svijesti o toj svijesti, rekao bi samosvjestan duh današnjice.
Knjige ubijaju, nema sumnje ni zbora: recimo "Kapital" ili "Komunistički manifest": u ime toga Slova i u tom Duhu pobijeni su milijuni ljudi, baš kao i u Ime "Moje borbe"; sve me je i strah spomenuti Knjigu koja je knjige, ili onu koja nije čak niti to, nego je i više od knjige: jedan od božjih atributa, k tome časni!
Knjige svakako ubijaju!
Marx je, kako primjećuje Žarko Puhovski, silno patio jer je znao da je njegova 11. teza neispunjen, i možda neostvariv desiderat: cijeli Marxov teoretski opus ima jednu jedinu ambiciju koja je podbacila, i zato je (moguće i zato) revolucija izostala - jer Marxov je tekst samo još jedan od i među tekstvima, iako je imao silnu i revolucionarnu ambiciju da bude pretekst revolucije, onu ezoteričnu i bitnu i osobnu Karlovu ambiciju dakle, da bude tekst koji izlazi iz teksta: da izađe u kontekst! Trebalo je ne samo protumačiti, nego revolucionarizirati stvarnost, uostalom i tako da Duh uskrsne iz Slova, da se oslobodi iz Knjige kao iz boce (Goethe Hegelu; Hajam, Jerofejev...) ili da - i tu dolazimo u srce tame! - bude prizvan (mantičkim) činom čitanja Knjige kao magijskog teksta zaziva!
Bojao sam se to kazati, ali i Borges tvrdi da knjige ubijaju, a onda je tome zaista tako: moja je dakle ideja, s kojom se kolege kao što vidite konzilijarno bespogovorno slažu, da se napiše Knjiga koju bi se čitalo sa strahom da se u aktu čitanja ne oslobode Sile, moguće neki Strašni Duh, koje bi se mogle okrenuti i protiv Čitatelja.
Jasno, nismo mi blesavi, znamo mi da je čitanje zapravo rekreacija teksta, čin suptiliniji i smireniji od pisanja, koje je - upravo zato nismo blesavi, kažem, jer to vrlo dobro kao postmoderni znamo - uvijek unaprijed uračunalo ta svoja palimpsestična čitanja/pre-pisivanja: ovdje to znači da je i Pisar (ha, da anticipiram: rezignirana, melankolična spodoba koja je tek jedan od (Infer)notara Duha, zapisničara njegova diktanda koji je Povijest Književnosti), morao za Djelo/Knjigu platiti glavom. Glava, to je valjda ono glavno, ono bitno nas samih kao bića, pa bi to mogla biti duša, naša srž, kad bi je imali i ako je imamo. Možda je ovo pad iz postmodernog u moderno ili čak predmoderno stanje, a možda je povratak srednovijekovnoj kulturi i njenim temama postmoderan motiv kat egzohen, vrag će ga znati, isti onaj Vrag koji nam upravo faustovski kuca na vrata: jedini bi spas mogao biti da smo, s Hegelom, nekako u pravu glede onakovrsno koncipirane slobode, slobode od sebe sama, kao gubitka svoje vlastitosti, navlastite biti: ljubavi, što je ipak teško ne samo za vjerovati, nego i za preživjeti!

Eto, to je moja ovonoćna ideja, možda mora, moja nokturalna hereza (nokturalna, kao bića mraka, hereza, jer je iskrena): Knjiga koju u tom mom NACRTU ROMANA autor piše, Knjiga je koja inducira pojavu nekakvoga Duha! To je moguće sada svakako shvatiti, u rasponu od revolucije pa da zazivanja duha (možda Karla Marxa), ako i Gajo i Cipra nisu i jedan i drugi u pravu i u krivu, pa filozofija (ni)je i jedno i drugo: i jakobinski klub, ali i spiritistička seansa. Da ne otežavam situaciju koja, vidimo, ionako nije nimalo laka: treba napisati tekst koji ima s jedne strane ambiciju izaći u kontekst (svjesno želi biti predmet kulta, revolucionarni manifest, knjiga gatalica itd.: burevjesnik!), dok s druge, jasno, ima i nužnu, uljuđenu i distingviranu svijest o uzaludnosti svoje ambicije - tu svijest najbolje demonstrira samim činom ispisivanja (teksta), jer, baš zato jer ništa drugo nije moguće i jer se stvari ne daju i neće promijeniti, nužno je - ili je barem još jedino moguće - cijelu tu Stvar - zapisati! Pisanje, kao jedini preostali čin civiliziranoga čovjeka! Kao da je Faraon, nakon što mu je Bog napravio sve što je Starozavjetnom dobrom i dragom Bogu bilo na rapsolaganju u svoj njegovoj zluradoj sesildemilovskoj maštovitosti, rezigniran, s pomišlju: "Ha, a kaj sam više mogel napravit', ta, napravil sam sve kaj je bilo u mojoj ljudskoj, pače faraonskoj moći!", moći faraona kao kulturnoga čovjeka sukobljena s jednim vrlo neotesanim i nekulturnim, seljačkim Bogom, kao da takav Faraon, kažem, post festum, kad su svi događajima o kojima će u toj njegovoj ispovijedi biti riječi već odavno prošlost, pa čak možda i ono prošlo (na kraju povijesti, da budemo otvoreni!), taj i takav faraon usred svoje hardboiled i vrlo noir ispovijedi počinje pisati o tome kaj se je to zapravo dogodilo, da za cijelu jednu povijest ostane zapisano - možda da s tim zapisom ta povijest i započne! - kojeg je Boga od njega, kao Vladara ljudi jedne stare, rafinirane i možda već dekadentne civilizacije, taj Bog osobno i osobito htio!

Eto, to bi ja štel!
I mislim da bum to i napravil.
Je li to bogohulno?

O POGUBNOSTI ČITANJA: DEUS ABSCONDITUS

Pomislio sam na tren da imam izvrsnu ideju: roman o kojem sam govorio varirao bi arhetipsku temu potrage jednog čovjeka za drugim, do njegove srži, do srca tame. Traženi infinitezimalno izmiče a traženje postaje aporetsko hodočašće (koje, kao aporetsko, ako smo razumni ne može ni započeti). Do središta priče, do traženoga, nemoguće je dospjeti: u tome je – u njegovoj načelnoj nedostupnosti (ne znam, ne mogu znati, nagađam) - sva njegova moć. Priča se - ipak! -paradoksalno lako može ispričati pojmovima građanskog svijeta: do traženog se pokušava doći stalnim pronalaženjem 'posrednika': da bi se stiglo od A do Z, nužno je prethodno stići u M, etc: kafkijanska aporetika Kozmosa kao Biroa barem jednom radi za nas: vrlina je Administracije da, na naš užas (i štetu), djeluje! Nevolja je samo u tome da je priča, točnije njen nacrt, već prepričan/a:

Osnovni se sadržaj već nazire: to je nezasitno traganje za jednom dušom tragom tananih odraza koje je ona ostavila u drugim dušama: odraz je isprva tanan trag smiješaka ili riječi; na kraju se promeće u raznolike i sve veće blistavosti razuma, mašte i dobra. Kako ispitanici izbližega upoznaju Almutasima, tako raste i njegova božanstvenost, ali je jasno da su posrijedi puka zrcala. Ovdje se može primijeniti matematički tehnicizam: zasićeni Bahadurov roman sve je veća progresija kojoj je krajnja međa predosjećani „čovjek kojemu je ime Almutasim“.

The Approach to al-Mu'tasim

Jorge Luis Borges

Philip Guedalla writes that the novel The Approach to Al-Mu'tasim by the Bombay lawyer Mir Bahadur Ali "is a rather uncomfortable combination of those allegorical poems of Islam which rarely fail to interest their translator and of those detective novels which inevitably surpass John H. Watson and refine the horror of human life found in the most irreproachable boarding houses of Brighton." Previously, Mr. Cecil Roberts had spoken harshly of Bahadur's book, condemning "the double, improbable, tutelage of Wilkie Collins and of Farid ud-din Attar, the illustrious twelfth-century Persian": a tranquil enough observation, which Guedalla repeats without notable emendation but in a choleric tone of voice. Essentially, both critics are in agreement: both indicate the detective story mechanism of the novel and its mystic undercurrent. This hybridization may cause us to imagine some likeness with Chesterton; we will soon see that there is no such thing.
The editio princeps of The Approach to Al-Mu'tasim appeared in Bombay toward the end of 1932. The paper used was almost the quality of newsprint; the cover proclaimed to the buyer that the book was the first detective novel written by a native of Bombay City. Within a few months the public bought up four printings of a thousand copies each. The Bombay Quarterly Review, the Bombay Gazette, the Calcutta Review, the Hindustan Review (of Allahabad), and the Calcutta Englishman distributed their eulogies. Thereupon Bahadur issued an illustrated edition of the book, which he now titled The Conversation with the Man Called Al-Mu'tasim and handsomely subtitled A Game with Shifting Mirrors. This is the edition which has just been reproduced and issued in London by Victor Gollancz, with a prologue by Dorothy L. Sayers, and the omission - perhaps merciful - of the illustrations. I have it in front of me. The first edition, which I suspect is far superior, I have never succeeded in finding. I am authorized in this last judgment by an appendix which summarizes the fundamental difference between the primitive version of 1932 and the 1934 edition. Before examining the book - and arguing its merits - it would be well for me to indicate rapidly the general course of the work.
Its visible protagonist - we never learn his name - is a law student in Bombay. He disbelieves, blasphemously so, in the Islamic faith of his fathers. But at nightfall on the tenth night of the lunar month of Muharram, he finds himself in the center of a civil tumult between Moslems and Hindus. The night is filled with drums and invocations: the great paper canopies of the Moslem procession force their way among the adverse multitude. A brick flung by a Hindu comes flying from a rooftop; someone sinks a dagger into another's belly; someone - Moslem? Hindu? - is killed and is stamped underfoot. Three thousand men battle: cane against revolver, obscenity against imprecation, God the Indivisible against the Gods. Aghast, the freethinking student joins the fray. With desperate hands he kills (or thinks he kills) a Hindu. The Sirkar police - mounted, deafening-hooved, half asleep - intervene with their impartial lashes. Almost beneath the hooves of the horses, the student takes flight; he makes for the farthest outskirts of town. He crosses two sets of railroad tracks, or the same tracks twice. He scales the wall of an entangled garden, at the back of which rises a circular tower. "A lean and evil mob of mooncolored hounds" breaks out from behind the black rosebushes. Fiercely beset, he takes refuge in the tower. He climbs an iron ladder - some of the rungs are missing - and, once on the roof, where there is a blackish well in the center, encounters a squalid man squatting by the light of the moon and urinating noisily. This man confides in him that his profession is to rob gold teeth from the whiteshrouded cadavers which the Parsees leave in this tower. He talks of other equally vile matters and mentions that fourteen nights have passed since he last purified himself with buffalo dung. He speaks with manifest hatred of certain horse thieves in Gujarat, "eaters of dogs and lizards, men as unclean as the two of us." The sky begins to grow light: the air is filled with the low flight of fat vultures. Exhausted, the student falls asleep. When he awakes, the sun is high in the sky and the robber has disappeared. Also missing are a couple of Trichinopoly cigars and some silver rupees. In the face of the menaces foreshadowed by the previous night, the student resolves to lose himself in the depths of India. He meditates on how he has shown himself capable of killing an idolater, but not of knowing for certain whether a Moslem is more justified in his beliefs than a Hindu. He can not get the name of Gujarat out of his mind, nor that of a certain malka-sansi (a woman of the robber caste) of Palanpur, the preferred target of curses and object of hatred for the despoiler of cadavers. He reasons that the rancor of a man so minutely vile is worthy of special eulogy. He resolves - with little hope - to look for the malka-sansi. After brief prayer, he sets forth on the long voyage with assured languor. Thus concludes the second chapter of the work.
It is impossible to trace the vicissitudes of the nineteen remaining chapters. There is a dizzy pullulation of dramatis personae, not to speak of a biography which seems to exhaust the movements of the human spirit (ranging from infamy to mathematical speculation) or of a peregrination which encompasses the vast geography of Hindustan. The story which begins in Bombay continues in the lowlands of Palanpur, lingers an afternoon and a night at the stone gates of Bikaner, narrates the death of a blind astrologer in a Benares sewer, conspires in the multiform palace of Katmandu, prays and fornicates - amid the pestilential stench of Calcutta - in the Machua Bazaar, watches the days be born in the sea from an office in Madras, watches the afternoons die in the sea from a balcony in the state of Travancore, hestitates and kills at Indapur and closes its orbit of leagues and years in Bombay itself, a few paces away from the garden of the mooncolored hounds.
The plot is as follows: a man, the incredulous and fugitive student whom we already know, falls among people of the vilest class and adjusts himself to them, in a kind of contest of infamy. All at once - with the miraculous consternation of Robinson Crusoe faced with the human footprint in the sand - he perceives some mitigation in this infamy: a tenderness, an exaltation, a silence in one of the abhorrent men. "It was as if a more complex interlocutor had joined the dialogue." He knows that the vile man conversing with him is incapable of this momentaneous decorum; from this fact he concludes that the other, for the moment, is the reflection of a friend, or of the friend of a friend. Rethinking the problem he arrives at a mysterious conviction: some place in the world there is a man from whom this clarity emanates; some place in the world there is a man who is this clarity. The student resolves to dedicate his life to finding him.
The general argument is thus glimpsed: the insatiable search for a soul through the subtle reflections which this soul has left in others; in the beginning, the faint trace of a smile or of a word; in the end, diverse and increasing splendors of reason, of the imagination and of good. In the measure that the men questioned have known Al-Mu'tasim more intimately, in that measure is their divine portion the greater - though it is always clear that they are mere mirrors. Mathematical technicality is applicable: Bahadur's burdened novel is an ascending progression, whose final end is the presentiment of a "man called Al-Mu'tasim." The immediate antecedent of Al-Mu'tasim is a supremely happy and courteous Persian bookseller. The predecessor of this bookseller is a saint . . .
After many years the student arrives at a gallery "at the rear of which there is a door hung with a cheap and copiously beaded mat curtain; from behind it there emanates a great radiance." The student claps his hands once, twice, and asks for Al-Mu'tasim. A man's voice - the incredible voice of Al-Mu'tasim - urges him to come in. The student draws back the curtain and steps forward. The novel ends.
Unless I am deceived, the successful execution of such an argument imposes two obligations upon the writer: one, the various invention of prophetic traits; the other, the obligation of seeing to it that the hero prefigured by these traits be no mere convention or phantom. Bahadur satisfies the former; I do not know to what degree he satisfies the second. In other words: the extraordinary and unseen Al-Mu'tasim should give us the impression of a real character, not that of a jumble of insipid superlatives. In the 1932 version, the supernatural notes are scarce: "the man named Al-Mu'tasim" is to some degree a symbol, but he does not lack idiosyncratic personal features. Unfortunately, this literary good conduct did not last long. In the 1934 version - which I have at hand - the novel sinks into allegory: Al-Mu'tasim is the emblem of God, and the punctual itinerary of the hero is in some manner the forward progress of the soul in its mystic ascent. Grievous details abound: a Negro Jew from Cochin speaking of Al-Mu'tasim says that his skin is dark; a Christian describes him standing atop a tower with his arms outspread; a Red lama remembers him seated "like that image of yak lard which I modeled and adored in the monastery at Tashilhumpo." These declarations are all meant to insinuate a unitary God who accommodates Himself to human diversities. To my mind, the idea is not very stimulating. I will not say the same of this other one: of the conjecture that the Almighty is also in search of Someone, and that Someone in search of some superior Someone (or merely indispensable or equal Someone), and thus on to the end - or better, the endlessness - of Time, or on and on in some cyclical form. Al-Mu'tasim (the name is the same as that of the eighth Abbasside, who was victor in eight battles, engendered eight male and eight female children, left behind eight thousand slaves and reigned during eight years, eight moons, and eight days) etymologically means The Seeker of Shelter. In the 1932 version, the fact that the object of the pilgrimage should be in turn a pilgrim opportunely justified the difficulty of finding him. In the 1934 version, it gives grounds to the extravagant theology I have mentioned. The points of contact between this poem and Mir Bahadur's novel are not over-numerous. In Chapter 20, certain words attributed by a Persian bookseller to Al-Mu'tasim are, perhaps, a magnification of certain others spoken by the hero. This ambiguous analogy and others like it may merely signify the identification of the searcher with the sought; they also might mean that the latter influences the former. Another chapter insinuates that Al-Mu'tasim is the "Hindu" whom the student believe he has killed. Mir Bahadur Ali is, as we have seen, incapable of evading the most vulgar of art's temptations: that of being a genius.
After rereading, I am apprehensive lest I have not sufficiently underlined the book's virtues. It contains some very civilized expressions: for example, a certain argument in the nineteenth chapter in which one feels a presentiment that one of the antagonists is a friend of Al-Mu'tasim when he will not refute the sophisms of his opponent "so as not to be right in a triumphal fashion."

* * *

That a present-day book should derive from an ancient one is clearly honorable: especially since no one (as Dr. Johnson says) likes to be indebted to his contemporaries. The repeated, but insignificant, contacts of Joyce's Ulysses with the Homeric Odyssey continue to enjoy - I shall never know why - the harebrained admiration of the critics. The coincidence in Bahadur's novel with Farid ud-din Attar's venerated Colloquy of the Birds are rewarded with the no less mysterious applause of London, and even of Allahabad and Calcutta. Other derivations for Bahadur's novel are not wanting. One inquisitor has enumerated certain analogies in the novel's first scene with elements from Kipling's story On the City Wall. Bahadur has admitted the connection, but has alleged that it would be most abnormal if two paintings depicting the tenth night of Muharram did not coincide in some way. Eliot, with greater justice, recalls the seventy cantos of the incomplete allegory The Faerie Queen, where the heroine, Gloriana, does not appear a single time - as previously pointed out in a censure by Richard William Church (Spenser, 1879). With all humility, I wish to mention a distant, and possible, predecessor: the Jerusalem Kabbalist Isaac Luria, who in the sixteenth century proclaimed that the soul of an ancestor or that of a master might enter the soul of an unfortunate to comfort or instruct him. Ibbur is the name for this type of metempsychosis.<1>
________________________________________

<1> I have referred, in the course of this note, to the Mantiq ut-Tair (Colloquy of the Birds) by the Persian mystic Farid ud-din Abu Talib Mehammed ibn-Ibrahim Attar, who was assassinated by the soldiers of Tului, Genghis Khan's son, when Nishapur was sacked. Perhaps it will not prove idle to summarize the poem. The faraway king of the birds, the Simurg, drops an exquisite feather in the middle of China; weary of their ancient anarchy, the birds determine to find it. They know that their king's name means "Thirty Birds"; they know that his royal palace stands on the Kaf, the circular mountain which surrounds the earth. They undertake the almost infinite adventure. They fly over seven valleys, or seven seas; the next-to-the-last one is called Vertigo; the last, Annihilation. Many of the pilgrims desert; others perish. Thirty of them, purified by their labors, set foot upon the Mountain of the Simurg. At last they contemplate it: they perceive that they are the Simurg, and that the Simurg is each one of them and all of them. (The Enneads of Plotinus, too, declare - V, 8, 4 - a paradisiacal extension of the principle of identity: "Everything in the intelligible heaven is everywhere. Anything is all things. The sun is all the stars, and each star is all stars and the sun.") The Mantiq ut-Tair has been translated into French by Garcin de Tassy, into English by Edward Fitzgerald. For purposes of this note I have consulted the tenth volume of Burton's The Thousand and One Nights and the monograph titled The Persian Mystics: Attar (1932) by Margaret Smith.



JORGE LUIS BORGES AND THE EUROPEAN VISITORS

by Ricardo Nirenberg


Jorge Luis Borges' first "metaphysical" fiction, "Approach to Al-Mu`tasim" (1935) names several European intellectuals for reasons which, I hope to show, can be detected.

Before long-distance air travel, back in the 1920s and 30s, London and Paris were fifteen, twenty times more distant from the Pampas than today. This made for a correspondingly higher mythic potential energy, which meant that the cultivated classes on both sides of the Atlantic, and on both sides of the Equator, believed that on the opposite side was to be found the cure for le mal du sičcle, the elixir against existential ennui. From the Argentine shore, only the wealthy could afford the trip to Europe, and the ostentatious Pampćan lord carrying a milch cow with him all the way to Paris for his dairy requirements was an often-envied laughing-stock. To him the word “rastaquoučre”, or simply “rasta”, was regularly applied. Europe, conversely, sent her intellectuals to the Far South-southwest, paid to lecture on culture by either side or by both.
The Europeans expected a beneficial dose of noble savagery from the natives; the Buenos Aires educated public expected to hear the dernier cri of civilization & refinement: whether, for example, it was fashionable to trust reason or rather intuition, to think oneself primitive or advanced, to believe in life after death or to believe in nothing. By 1931, Guillermo de Torre (the man of letters who was J. L. Borges’ brother-in-law) wrote in the journal Sur, “Buenos Aires is a great importer of lecturers.” And so it was. Take 1929 for example: in that year, Hermann Graf von Keyserling, the Estonian aristocrat, and Benjamin Fondane a.k.a. Fundoianu, the Romanian Jew, spoke at the same hall, probably facing the same bejeweled, blue-stocking ladies and the same slick-haired, tight-gartered gentlemen. Both dissertators, so different in almost every respect, edified their audience with impassioned denunciations of discursive intellect.
In the period between the two world wars, nuance was unappreciated and too often taken for betrayal. All middle ground had disappeared, sunk like Plato’s Atlantis, and had been replaced by the abyss. Philosophically, reason was either exalted as the supreme good or denigrated as the nethermost evil; politically, one had to choose, willy-nilly (so it was urged), between two opposed tyrannical loyalties, Communism and Fascism. In such a climate of unconnected isles, essentiality and authenticity became the ruling virtues: the enemies were the amphibious, the cosmopolitan, the nomad, the lukewarm, and above all, the land-less capital. Argentina was no exception: there, nationalism meant to rid the country of British economic and French cultural influences, and go back to the “essence” of Argentinity, whatever that might have meant. A pretty subjective affair in any case, often meaning simply that the patrón, issued from Spanish conquistadors, should absolutely lord over the vast, bastard peonage.
All his life Borges refused to surrender to those either/ors. He was derided by Argentine nationalists as a buffoon at the pay of foreign capital, and called by the worst insult in their vocabulary: cipayo (a word curiously derived from Anglo-Indian sepoy, through French cipaye). On the other hand the left treated him so unfairly that, six years after Borges’ death in Geneva, Édouard Roditi, in an article published in Andrei Codrescu’s Exquisite Corpse, placed the Argentine writer in a short list of fascistic Denker und Dichter, together with Heidegger, Céline, Pound, Eliade and Gertrude Stein. By almost everyone else Borges was, for a long time, pegged as a bookish writer, disconnected from life.

***

“El acercamiento a Almotásim” (The Approach to Al-Mu’tasim), of 1935, is the earliest of Borges’ metaphysical fictions, and as such it is especially remarkable. It interests us not because it is among his best—no one, I think, would rate it close to “El Aleph” or “El Zahir”—but because here we see the writer coming to terms, in a highly self-conscious way, with his new invention. I mean the invention of a new literary genre, something that happens very rarely in literary and art history, and which is roughly equivalent to the invention of a new human feeling. New genres are often conceived just like sexed creatures, by the coming together of two genres already mature, two mature genres which furthermore are traditionally perceived as opposite and incompatible, the one being “high” and the other “low.” So Plautus, to cover himself from Rome’s pedantic critics, had the highest authority on these matters, the god Mercury himself, tell the public in the Prologue of Amphitryon that the play to come, with gods as well as slaves in it—can you imagine?—would be “a mixture of both” (tragedy and comedy) and that therefore it would be called “tragi-comedy.” And so, too, with the first modern novel, Cervantes’ Don Quixote. This latter is a fusion of the chivalry romance, derived from the medieval and late-antique tales of adventure, and the peculiarly Spanish “low” genre called the picaresque. All through the first part of Don Quixote the author was so unsure of the success of his bold innovation that he intercalated stories in the Italianate and pastoral styles to keep up the readers’ interest, to keep away the critics’ ire, and to show that he, Cervantes, was able to compose a “normal” tale. Of course, I do not mean to imply that later instances of a genre will go on exhibiting for everyone to see—that is, so naked and so filled with anxiety—the mixed features characteristic of the first attempt. No, the textual anxiety accompanies the awareness of the new, and it can take many forms: endistancing or setting masks between the author and the work, as in the First Part of Don Quixote, or in Eliot’s Wasteland, for example; or a willful confusion of reality levels—the mixing of real and fictitious characters and situations, for instance; the introduction into the work of self-reference and its aporias, and so on.
Borges was no less self-conscious and no less anxious about what would come out of his Al-Mu’tasim; surely he was aware that what he had there was a first attempt at a new genre. The genetic fusion (or hybridization, as Borges himself calls it) in this case, is this: a philosophical or theological theme (in the occurrence, the theme of the hidden Imam in the Ismaelian tradition) is combined with the genre of detective fiction, murder mystery or roman policier, itself a child of newspaper crime reportage and scientific report or mathematical treatise. Borges had been thinking about these matters rigorously. In July of the same year of Al-Mu’tasim, 1935, the journal Sur published Borges’ first essay on the subject of detective fiction, “Los laberintos policiales y Chesterton” (The Detection Labyrinths and Chesterton); in it Borges gave a very strict set of rules defining the genre and declared that Poe’s “The Mystery of Marie Rogęt” (1842) was its first specimen. That in itself was a provocation, for that place of pioneering honor is usually reserved for Poe’s earlier story, “The Murders in the Rue Morgue.” But Borges was probably of the opinion (surely right) that the earlier story violates one of the genre key requirements, namely that the solution to the crime should not invoke facts or data not available to the reader beforehand. Let us note about Poe, briefly and parenthetically, that “The Mystery of Marie Rogęt”—though surprisingly not “The Murders in the Rue Morgue”—exhibits all the signs of textual anxiety attending the awareness of the new, as is most noticeable in Poe’s footnotes: here, as usual, Borges may have been right in spite of the appearances.

***
Finally I come to the original purpose of this article, which is to disclose the peculiar form textual anxiety takes in “The Approach to Al-Mu’tasim.” In the first place, Borges attributes the authorship of the novel about the search for the hidden Imam to the Bombay lawyer Mir Bahadur Ali, just as Cervantes had attributed most of the First Part of Don Quixote to Cide Hamete Benengeli. Then, before he starts narrating the plot, he has a couple of critics condemn, in implacable and summary fashion, the “hybrid” nature of the text, its being a “rather uncomfortable combination” of Islamic allegory and detective fiction, i.e., precisely the feature that gives the piece its originality. Neither of those two writerly tricks is new or in itself remarkable. What is remarkable, however, is the identity of those critics. Philip Guedalla, whose name begins Borges’ story, was a real person (b. 1889, d. 1944) who visited Argentina in at least three occasions: in August and September of 1931, in September of 1934, and lastly in November 1939. The first visit promptly resulted in a book, Argentine Tango (London, Hodder & Stoughton, 1932), glib and clever yet vulgar and clearly inessential. The second visit, apparently, won for the British writer the honor of playing a prominent role in Borges’ first metaphysical story—I say apparently because it can scarcely be doubted that Borges and Guedalla met, but I have not been able to find, so far, any account of their meeting or acquaintance.
Borges’ other self-inflicted critic is Cecil Roberts, born in 1892. Guedalla (says Borges) only repeats Roberts’ criticism of the Bombay lawyer’s novel “in a more choleric dialect.” For the rest (he adds), both critics agree entirely. This fictitious agreement is a reflection of the real agreement and mutual admiration between those two British writers. I have extracted the following information from the third volume of Cecil Roberts’ memoirs (The Bright Twenties: being the third book of an autobiography, 1920-1929, London, Hodder & Stoughton, 1970; pages 121-3). In 1921, aged 32, Philip Guedalla had been already caricatured by Max Beerbohm, which amounts to saying that he had arrived. His career
“had begun at Rugby with notable contributions to the school magazine. At Balliol College he took two Firsts and became President of the Oxford Union. His bons-mots were famous. Before he left Oxford he published two books of verse … Guedalla was a brilliant public speaker … I was captivated by his technique. He was forceful, witty and well-informed. In subsequent years it was sometimes my fate to find myself speaking at the same functions. He was always formidable, in complete command of his audience. Because of my admiration I treasured a compliment he paid me on one occasion. I liked to recall it against visitations of doubt and despondency. He came up to me after he had been overwhelmingly excellent and congratulated me on my own contribution, saying: ‘I never know whether I prefer to precede you or to follow you—you’re such a high jumper.’ It was generous coming from a master. In a few years he was well-established as a biographer. Some critics accused him of being a disciple of Lytton Strachey, who then led the field, but ‘he was more conscientious and scholarly’ as the Dictionary of National Biography observed. Wellington, his last biographical work, sets the standard of quality. His death in 1944, aged fifty-five, took from the public scene a brilliant figure.”
Besides being excellent public speakers, both members of the Liberal Party, Roberts and Guedalla were assiduous, sought-after travelers: the former interviewed President Coolidge and later President Roosevelt in the White House; the latter visited the Casa Rosada in Buenos Aires and talked about military strategy with the de facto President, General Uriburu. Such were the men Borges chose as fake critics of Mir Bahadur Ali’s bogus novel: brilliant, facile with tongue and pen, recognized importers of European culture into the New World—Guedalla concentrating on the South, Roberts on the North.
In the absence of credible documents, the question as to why did Borges choose such personalities as reprovers is completely open to conjecture. Mine follows. Once the writer had decided that his bogus novel was to belong to the realm of British letters, it naturally followed that the critics had to be British, prestigious, full of Oxonian self-assurance, and ready at reproval, since lauding critiques belong to the commercial advertisement or blurb, a genre too dismally low to mix with anything, unless it be with clear irony. But I think there is something besides, or rather behind, all that: an experience which must have been specially frustrating, given Borges personality. No one in Argentina was so conversant with European literature, and certainly no one had as firm preferences and dislikes, totally unaffected by fashion or the dictates of European visitors: for instance, Borges placed Kipling’s Kim near the top of modern novels, but thought poorly of Joyce’s Ulysses. I imagine that often his literary opinions were patronizingly dismissed by some distinguished visitor, with whom all the other guests at tea or dinner party would naturally have tended to agree, to Borges’ chagrin. Singling Guedalla as his critic, I suspect, was a way of venting felt frustrations, a kind of revenge; adding Roberts was prudent, since the two English writers were so closely related, and readers would not be able to conclude that Borges picked his critics exclusively from among his acquaintances.
All this, as I have said, is mere conjecture; a slightly later occurrence reinforces its likelihood. In April 1939, the French magazine Mesures (5th year, number 2, pages 115-122) published a translation of “El acercamiento a Almotásim”. The translation was done by Borges’ friend Néstor Ibarra and carried the title, “L’Approche du caché”; in it there is a new footnote, added by Borges no doubt, which reads as follows:
“En France, le livre [de Mir Bahadour Ali] semble ętre passé inaperçu. Toutefois, Benjamin Fondane le mentionne dans Europe, et le définit en ces termes : ‘De la diversité, du brio, un agencement ponctuel, un art précis et ingénieux qui sait décevoir autant que combler, le sens inné de l’étrange ; partout du talent, voire par moments une force qui ressemble ŕ du génie. Bref : zéro.’” (In France Mir Bahadour Ali’s book appears to have been unnoticed. Benjamin Fondane, however, mentions it in the journal Europe, and defines it thus: ‘Variety, brio, an impeccable arrangement, a precise, ingenious technique ready to fulfill as well as to disappoint, an innate feeling for what’s strange or exotic; talent everywhere, and often a force akin to genius. In short: zero.)
This footnote appears, too, in the Pléďade edition of Borges’ Complete Works (vol. I, page 1536, note 1). Benjamin Fondane, I have already recalled, gave talks in Buenos Aires in 1929: they, or part of them, can be found in the magazine Europe, 76th year, number 827, March 1998, pages 110-120, under the unlikely ambitious title, “Un nouveau visage de Dieu” (God’s New Face). Dostoyevsky and Shestov can be said to be the heroes of those talks, and no doubt the two Russian writers appeared prominently in the conversation of the Romanian/French poet and philosopher when he visited Buenos Aires for the second time in 1936, shortly before Borges penned the above-quoted footnote. In published interviews (see for example Emir Rodríguez Monegal in Revista Iberoamericana, vol. 36, number 70, 1970, pages 65-76), Borges has told of his disappointment on re-reading Dostoyevsky’s novels as an adult; he has also told of his dislike for “pathetic philosophies.” It is unlikely, therefore, that he held any sympathy for Fondane’s favorite subjects or for Fondane lui-męme. I imagine a dinner table at Victoria Ocampo’s house: someone mentions Valéry, a poet much admired among the cénacle Sur, and the irrepressible Romanian forcefully expresses his verdict: Valéry is not a poet; he’s merely a clown—or something roughly equivalent. Whence Borges’ dagger-pointed vignette, “Bref : zéro”.
Paul Bénichou has put it excellently, at the end of his article, “Le Monde et l’esprit chez Jorge Luis Borges” in Les Lettres nouvelles, November 1954: “… que l’Suvre de Borges n’est peut-ętre qu’un retournement de son éxperience, que son humour combat en secret une amertume, que sa sagesse a été conquise sur le tourment de son esprit, et qu’elle consiste, au fond, ŕ prévenir par le rire un inutile désespoir.” (… that Borges’ work is perhaps but a reversal of his experience, that his humor secretly combats some bitterness, that his wisdom has been built on spiritual torment: the wisdom to keep useless desperation at bay by means of laughter.)
What I have been trying to say about “The Approach to Al-Mu’tasim” and the European distinguished visitors is but an instance, a rather minuscule one, of Bénichou’s general principle.

The Unrest-Cure

H.H.Munro



0n the rack in the railway carriage immediately opposite Clovis was a solidly wrought travelling-bag, with a carefully written label, on which was inscribed, "J. P. Huddle, The Warren, Tilfield, near Slowborough." Immediately below the rack sit the human embodiment of the label, a solid, sedate individual, sedately dressed, sedately conversational. Even without his conversation (which was addressed to a friend seated by his side, and touched chiefly on such topics as the backwardness of Roman hyacinths and the prevalence of measles at the Rectory), one could have gauged fairly accurately the temperament and mental outlook of the travelling bag's owner. But he seemed unwilling to leave anything to the imagination of a casual observer, and his talk grew presently personal and introspective.

"I don't know how it is," he told his friend, "I'm not much over forty, but I seem to have settled down into a deep groove of elderly middle-age. My sister shows the same tendency. We like everything to be exactly in its accustomed place; we like things to happen exactly at their appointed times; we like everything to be usual, orderly, punctual, methodical, to a hair's breadth, to a minute. It distresses and upsets us if it is not so. For instance, to take a very trifling matter, a thrush has built its nest year after year in the catkin-tree on the lawn; this year, for no obvious reason, it is building in the ivy on the garden wall. We have said very little about it, but I think we both feel that the change is unnecessary, and just a little irritating."

"Perhaps," said the friend, "it is a different thrush."

"We have suspected that," said J. P. Huddle, "and I think it gives us even more cause for annoyance. We don't feel that we want a change of thrush at our time of life; and yet, as I have said, we have scarcely reached an age when these things should make themselves seriously felt."

"What you want," said the friend, "is an Unrest-cure."

"An Unrest-cure? I've never heard of such a thing."

"You've heard of Rest-cures for people who've broken down under stress of too much worry and strenuous living; well, you're suffering from overmuch repose and placidity, and you need the opposite kind of treatment."

"But where would one go for such a thing?"

"Well, you might stand as an Orange candidate for Kilkenny, or do a course of district visiting in one of the Apache quarters of Paris, or give lectures in Berlin to prove that most of Wagner's music was written by Gambetta; and there's always the interior of Morocco to travel in. But, to be really effective, the Unrest- cure ought to be tried in the home. How you would do it I haven't the faintest idea."

It was at this point in the conversation that Clovis became galvanized into alert attention. After all, his two days' visit to an elderly relative at Slowborough did not promise much excitement. Before the train had stopped he had decorated his sinister shirt-cuff with the inscription, "J. P. Huddle, The Warren, Tilfield, near Slowborough."

. . . . . . . . .

Two mornings later Mr. Huddle broke in on his sister's privacy as she sat reading Country Life in the morning room. It was her day and hour and place for reading Country Life, and the intrusion was absolutely irregular; but he bore in his hand a telegram, and in that household telegrams were recognized as happening by the hand of God. This particular telegram partook of the nature of a thunderbolt. "Bishop examining confirmation class in neighbourhood unable stay rectory on account measles invokes your hospitality sending secretary arrange."

"I scarcely know the Bishop; I've only spoken to him once," eed J. P. Huddle, with the exculpating air of one who realizes too late the indiscretion of speaking to strange Bishops. Miss Huddle was the first to rally; she disliked thunderbolts as fervently as her brother did, but the womanly instinct in her told her that thunderbolts must be fed.

"We can curry the cold duck," she said. It was not the appointed day for curry, but the little orange envelope involved a certain departure from rule and custom. Her brother said nothing, but his eyes thanked her for being brave.

"A young gentleman to see you," announced the parlour-maid.

"The secretary!" murmured the Huddles in unison; they instantly stiffened into a demeanour which proclaimed that, though they held all strangers to be guilty, they were willing to hear anything they might have to say in their defence. The young gentleman, who came into the room with a certain elegant haughtiness, was not at all Huddle's idea of a bishop's secretary; he had not supposed that the episcopal establishment could have afforded such an expensively upholstered article when there were so many other claims on its resources. The face was fleetingly familiar; if he had bestowed more attention on the fellow-traveller sitting opposite him in the railway carriage two days before he might have recognized Clovis in his present visitor.

"You are the Bishop's secretary?" asked Huddle, becoming consciously deferential.

"His confidential secretary," answered Clovis. You may call me Stanislaus; my other name doesn't matter. The Bishop and Colonel Alberti may be here to lunch. I shall be here in any case."

It sounded rather like the programme of a Royal visit.

"The Bishop is examining a confirmation class in the neighbourhood, isn't he?" asked Miss Huddle.

"Ostensibly," was the dark reply, followed by a request for a large-scale map of the locality.

Clovis was still immersed in a seemingly profound study of the map when another telegram arrived. It was addressed to "Prince Stanislaus, care of Huddle, The Warren, etc." Clovis glanced at the contents and announced: "The Bishop and Alberti won't be here till late in the afternoon." Then he returned to his scrutiny of the map.

The luncheon was not a very festive function. The princely secretary ate and drank with fair appetite, but severely discouraged conversation. At the finish of the meal he broke suddenly into a radiant smile, thanked his hostess for a charming repast, and kissed her hand with deferential rapture.



Miss Huddle was unable to decide in her mind whether the action savoured of Louis Quatorzian courtliness or the reprehensible Roman attitude towards the Sabine women. It was not her day for having a headache, but she felt that the circumstances excused her, and retired to her room to have as much headache as was possible before the Bishop's arrival. Clovis, having asked the way to the nearest telegraph office, disappeared presently down the carriage drive. Mr. Huddle met him in the hall some two hours later, and asked when the Bishop would arrive.

"He is in the library with Alberti," was the reply.

"But why wasn't I told? I never knew he had come!" eed Huddle.

"No one knows he is here," said Clovis; "the quieter we can keep matters the better. And on no account disturb him in the library. Those are his orders."

"But what is all this mystery about? And who is Alberti? And isn't the Bishop going to have tea?"

"The Bishop is out for blood, not tea."

"Blood!" gasped Huddle, who did not find that the thunderbolt improved on acquaintance.

"To-night is going to be a great night in the history of Christendom," said Clovis. "We are going to massacre every Jew in the neighbourhood."

"To massacre the Jews!" said Huddle indignantly. "Do you mean to tell me there's a general rising against them?"

"No, it's the Bishop's own idea. He's in there arranging all the details now."

"But--the Bishop is such a tolerant, humane man."

"That is precisely what will heighten the effect of his action. The sensation will be enormous."

That at least Huddle could believe.

"He will be hanged!" he eed with conviction.

"A motor is waiting to carry him to the coast, where a steam yacht is in readiness."

"But there aren't thirty Jews in the whole neighbourhood," protested Huddle, whose brain, under the repeated shocks of the day, was operating with the uncertainty of a telegraph wire during earthquake disturbances.

"We have twenty-six on our list," said Clovis, referring to a bundle of notes. "We shall be able to deal with them all the more thoroughly."

"Do you mean to tell me that you are meditating violence against a man like Sir Leon Birberry," stammered Huddle; "he's one of the most respected men in the country."

"He's down on our list," said Clovis carelessly; "after all, we've got men we can trust to do our job, so we shan't have to rely on local assistance. And we've got some Boy-scouts helping us as auxiliaries."

"Boy-scouts!"

"Yes; when they understood there was real killing to be done they were even keener than the men."

"This thing will be a blot on the Twentieth Century!"

"And your house will be the blotting-pad. Have you realized that half the papers of Europe and the United States will publish pictures of it? By the way, I've sent some photographs of you and your sister, that I found in the library, to the MATIN and DIE WOCHE; I hope you don't mind. Also a sketch of the staircase; most of the killing will probably be done on the staircase."

The emotions that were surging in J. P. Huddle's brain were almost too intense to be disclosed in speech, but he managed to gasp out: "There aren't any Jews in this house."

"Not at present," said Clovis.

"I shall go to the police," shouted Huddle with sudden energy.

"In the shrubbery," said Clovis, "are posted ten men who have orders to fire on anyone who leaves the house without my signal of permission. Another armed picquet is in ambush near the front gate. The Boy-scouts watch the back premises."

At this moment the cheerful hoot of a motor-horn was heard from the drive. Huddle rushed to the hall door with the feeling of a man half awakened from a nightmare, and beheld Sir Leon Birberry, who had driven himself over in his car. "I got your telegram," he said what's up?"

Telegram? It seemed to be a day of telegrams.

"Come here at once. Urgent. James Huddle," was the purport of the message displayed before Huddle's bewildered eyes.

"I see it all!" he eed suddenly in a voice shaken with agitation, and with a look of agony in the direction of the shrubbery he hauled the astonished Birberry into the house. Tea had just been laid in the hall, but the now thoroughly panic- stricken Huddle dragged his protesting guest upstairs, and in a few minutes' time the entire household had been summoned to that region of momentary safety. Clovis alone graced the tea-table with his presence; the fanatics in the library were evidently too immersed in their monstrous machinations to dally with the solace of teacup and hot toast. Once the youth rose, in answer to the summons of the front-door bell, and admitted Mr. Paul Isaacs, shoemaker and parish councillor, who had also received a pressing invitation to The Warren. With an atrocious assumption of courtesy, which a Borgia could hardly have outdone, the secretary escorted this new captive of his net to the head of the stairway, where his involuntary host awaited him.

And then ensued a long ghastly vigil of watching and waiting. Once or twice Clovis left the house to stroll across to the shrubbery, returning always to the library, for the purpose evidently of making a brief report. Once he took in the letters from the evening postman, and brought them to the top of the stairs with punctilious politeness. After his next absence he came half-way up the stairs to make an announcement.

"The Boy-scouts mistook my signal, and have killed the postman. I've had very little practice in this sort of thing, you see. Another time I shall do better."

The housemaid, who was engaged to be married to the evening postman, gave way to clamorous grief.

"Remember that your mistress has a headache," said J. P. Huddle. (Miss Huddle's headache was worse.)

Clovis hastened downstairs, and after a short visit to the library returned with another message:

"The Bishop is sorry to hear that Miss Huddle has a headache. He is issuing orders that as far as possible no firearms shall be used near the house; any killing that is necessary on the premises will be done with cold steel. The Bishop does not see why a man should not be a gentleman as well as a Christian."

That was the last they saw of Clovis; it was nearly seven o'clock, and his elderly relative liked him to dress for dinner. But, though he had left them for ever, the lurking suggestion of his presence haunted the lower regions of the house during the long hours of the wakeful night, and every creak of the stairway, every rustle of wind through the shrubbery, was fraught with horrible meaning. At about seven next morning the gardener's boy and the early postman finally convinced the watchers that the Twentieth Century was still unblotted.

"I don't suppose," mused Clovis, as an early train bore him townwards, "that they will be in the least grateful for the Unrest-cure."

TOBERMORY



by Saki

It was a chill, rain-washed afternoon of a late August day, that indefinite season when partridges are still in security or cold storage, and there is nothing to hunt—unless one is bounded on the north by the Bristol Channel, in which case one may lawfully gallop after fat red stags. Lady Blemley's house-party was not bounded on the north by the Bristol Channel, hence there was a full gathering of her guests round the tea-table on this particular afternoon. And, in spite of the blankness of the season and the triteness of the occasion, there was no trace in the company of that fatigued restlessness which means a dread of the pianola and a subdued hankering for auction bridge. The undisguised open-mouthed attention of the entire party was fixed on the homely negative personality of Mr. Cornelius Appin. Of all her guests, he was the one who had come to Lady Blemley with the vaguest reputation. Some one had said he was "clever," and he had got his invitation in the moderate expectation, on the part of his hostess, that some portion at least of his cleverness would be contributed to the general entertainment. Until tea-time that day she had been unable to discover in what direction, if any, his cleverness lay. He was neither a wit nor a croquet champion, a hypnotic force nor a begetter of amateur theatricals. Neither did his exterior suggest the sort of man in whom women are willing to pardon a generous measure of mental deficiency. He had subsided into mere Mr. Appin, and the Cornelius seemed a piece of transparent baptismal bluff. And now he was claiming to have launched on the world a discovery beside which the invention of gunpowder, of the printing-press, and of steam locomotion were inconsiderable trifles. Science had made bewildering strides in many directions during recent decades, but this thing seemed to belong to the domain of miracle rather than to scientific achievement.
"And do you really ask us to believe," Sir Wilfrid was saying, "that you have discovered a means for instructing animals in the art of human speech, and that dear old Tobermory has proved your first successful pupil?"
"It is a problem at which I have worked for the last seventeen years," said Mr. Appin, "but only during the last eight or nine months have I been rewarded with glimmerings of success. Of course I have experimented with thousands of animals, but latterly only with cats, those wonderful creatures which have assimilated themselves so marvellously with our civilization while retaining all their highly developed feral instincts. Here and there among cats one comes across an outstanding superior intellect, just as one does among the ruck of human beings, and when I made the acquaintance of Tobermory a week ago I saw at once that I was in contact with a "Beyond-cat" of extraordinary intelligence. I had gone far along the road to success in recent experiments; with Tobermory, as you call him, I have reached the goal."
Mr. Appin concluded his remarkable statement in a voice which he strove to divest of a triumphant inflection. No one said "Rats," though Clovis's lips moved in a monosyllabic contortion, which probably invoked those rodents of disbelief.
"And do you mean to say," asked Miss Resker, after a slight pause, "that you have taught Tobermory to say and understand easy sentences of one syllable?"
"My dear Miss Resker," said the wonder-worker patiently, "one teaches little children and savages and backward adults in that piecemeal fashion; when one has once solved the problem of making a beginning with an animal of highly developed intelligence one has no need for those halting methods. Tobermory can speak our language with perfect correctness."
This time Clovis very distinctly said, "Beyond-rats!" Sir Wilfred was more polite but equally sceptical.
"Hadn't we better have the cat in and judge for ourselves?" suggested Lady Blemley.
Sir Wilfred went in search of the animal, and the company settled themselves down to the languid expectation of witnessing some more or less adroit drawing-room ventriloquism.
In a minute Sir Wilfred was back in the room, his face white beneath its tan and his eyes dilated with excitement.
"By Gad, it's true!"
His agitation was unmistakably genuine, and his hearers started forward in a thrill of wakened interest.
Collapsing into an armchair he continued breathlessly:
"I found him dozing in the smoking-room, and called out to him to come for his tea. He blinked at me in his usual way, and I said, 'Come on, Toby; don't keep us waiting' and, by Gad! he drawled out in a most horribly natural voice that he'd come when he dashed well pleased! I nearly jumped out of my skin!"
Appin had preached to absolutely incredulous hearers; Sir Wilfred's statement carried instant conviction. A Babel-like chorus of startled exclamation arose, amid which the scientist sat mutely enjoying the first fruit of his stupendous discovery.
In the midst of the clamour Tobermory entered the room and made his way with velvet tread and studied unconcern across the group seated round the tea-table.
A sudden hush of awkwardness and constraint fell on the company. Somehow there seemed an element of embarrassment in addressing on equal terms a domestic cat of acknowledged dental ability.
"Will you have some milk, Tobermory?" asked Lady Blemley in a rather strained voice.
"I don't mind if I do," was the response, couched in a tone of even indifference. A shiver of suppressed excitement went through the listeners, and Lady Blemley might be excused for pouring out the saucerful of milk rather unsteadily.
"I'm afraid I've spilt a good deal of it," she said apologetically.
"After all, it's not my Axminster," was Tobermory's rejoinder.
Another silence fell on the group, and then Miss Resker, in her best district-visitor manner, asked if the human language had been difficult to learn. Tobermory looked squarely at her for a moment and then fixed his gaze serenely on the middle distance. It was obvious that boring questions lay outside his scheme of life.
"What do you think of human intelligence?" asked Mavis Pellington lamely.
"Of whose intelligence in particular?" asked Tobermory coldly.
"Oh, well, mine for instance," said Mavis with a feeble laugh.
"You put me in an embarrassing position," said Tobermory, whose tone and attitude certainly did not suggest a shred of embarrassment. "When your inclusion in this house-party was suggested Sir Wilfrid protested that you were the most brainless woman of his acquaintance, and that there was a wide distinction between hospitality and the care of the feeble-minded. Lady Blemley replied that your lack of brain-power was the precise quality which had earned you your invitation, as you were the only person she could think of who might be idiotic enough to buy their old car. You know, the one they call 'The Envy of Sisyphus,' because it goes quite nicely up-hill if you push it."
Lady Blemley's protestations would have had greater effect if she had not casually suggested to Mavis only that morning that the car in question would be just the thing for her down at her Devonshire home.
Major Barfield plunged in heavily to effect a diversion.
"How about your carryings-on with the tortoise-shell puss up at the stables, eh?"
The moment he had said it every one realized the blunder.
"One does not usually discuss these matters in public," said Tobermory frigidly. "From a slight observation of your ways since you've been in this house I should imagine you'd find it inconvenient if I were to shift the conversation to your own little affairs."
The panic which ensued was not confined to the Major.
"Would you like to go and see if cook has got your dinner ready?" suggested Lady Blemley hurriedly, affecting to ignore the fact that it wanted at least two hours to Tobermory's dinner-time.
"Thanks," said Tobermory, "not quite so soon after my tea. I don't want to die of indigestion."
"Cats have nine lives, you know," said Sir Wilfred heartily.
"Possibly," answered Tobermory; "but only one liver."
"Adelaide!" said Mrs. Cornett, "do you mean to encourage that cat to go out and gossip about us in the servants' hall?"
The panic had indeed become general. A narrow ornamental balustrade ran in front of most of the bedroom windows at the Towers, and it was recalled with dismay that this had formed a favourite promenade for Tobermory at all hours, whence he could watch the pigeons—and heaven knew what else besides. If he intended to become reminiscent in his present outspoken strain the effect would be something more than disconcerting. Mrs. Cornett, who spent much time at her toilet table, and whose complexion was reputed to be of a nomadic though punctual disposition, looked as ill at ease as the Major. Miss Scrawen, who wrote fiercely sensuous poetry and led a blameless life, merely displayed irritation; if you are methodical and virtuous in private you don't necessarily want everyone to know it. Bertie van Tahn, who was so depraved at 17 that he had long ago given up trying to be any worse, turned a dull shade of gardenia white, but he did not commit the error of dashing out of the room like Odo Finsberry, a young gentleman who was understood to be reading for the Church and who was possibly disturbed at the thought of scandals he might hear concerning other people. Clovis had the presence of mind to maintain a composed exterior; privately he was calculating how long it would take to procure a box of fancy mice through the agency of the Exchange and Mart as a species of hush-money.
Even in a delicate situation like the present, Agnes Resker could not endure to remain long in the background.
"Why did I ever come down here?" she asked dramatically.
Tobermory immediately accepted the opening.
"Judging by what you said to Mrs. Cornett on the croquet-lawn yesterday, you were out of food. You described the Blemleys as the dullest people to stay with that you knew, but said they were clever enough to employ a first-rate cook; otherwise they'd find it difficult to get any one to come down a second time."
"There's not a word of truth in it! I appeal to Mrs. Cornett—" eed the discomfited Agnes.
"Mrs. Cornett repeated your remark afterwards to Bertie van Tahn," continued Tobermory, "and said, 'That woman is a regular Hunger Marcher; she'd go anywhere for four square meals a day,' and Bertie van Tahn said—"
At this point the chronicle mercifully ceased. Tobermory had caught a glimpse of the big yellow tom from the Rectory working his way through the shrubbery towards the stable wing. In a flash he had vanished through the open French window.
With the disappearance of his too brilliant pupil Cornelius Appin found himself beset by a hurricane of bitter upbraiding, anxious inquiry, and frightened entreaty. The responsibility for the situation lay with him, and he must prevent matters from becoming worse. Could Tobermory impart his dangerous gift to other cats? was the first question he had to answer. It was possible, he replied, that he might have initiated his intimate friend the stable puss into his new accomplishment, but it was unlikely that his teaching could have taken a wider range as yet.
"Then," said Mrs. Cornett, "Tobermory may be a valuable cat and a great pet; but I'm sure you'll agree, Adelaide, that both he and the stable cat must be done away with without delay."
"You don't suppose I've enjoyed the last quarter of an hour, do you?" said Lady Blemley bitterly. "My husband and I are very fond of Tobermory—at least, we were before this horrible accomplishment was infused into him; but now, of course, the only thing is to have him destroyed as soon as possible."
"We can put some strychnine in the scraps he always gets at dinner-time," said Sir Wilfred, "and I will go and drown the stable cat myself. The coachman will be very sore at losing his pet, but I'll say a very catching form of mange has broken out in both cats and we're afraid of it spreading to the kennels."
"But my great discovery!" expostulated Mr. Appin; "after all my years of research and experiment—"
"You can go and experiment on the short-horns at the farm, who are under proper control," said Mrs. Cornett, "or the elephants at the Zoological Gardens. They're said to be highly intelligent, and they have this recommendation, that they don't come creeping about our bedrooms and under chairs, and so forth."



An archangel ecstatically proclaiming the Millennium, and then finding that it clashed unpardonably with Henley and would have to be indefinitely postponed, could hardly have felt more crestfallen than Cornelius Appin at the reception of his wonderful achievement. Public opinion, however, was against him—in fact, had the general voice been consulted on the subject it is probable that a strong minority vote would have been in favour of including him in the strychnine diet.
Defective train arrangements and a nervous desire to see matters brought to a finish prevented an immediate dispersal of the party, but dinner that evening was not a social success. Sir Wilfred had had rather a trying time with the stable cat and subsequently with the coachman. Agnes Resker ostentatiously limited her repast to a morsel of dry toast, which she bit as though it were a personal enemy; while Mavis Pellington maintained a vindictive silence throughout the meal. Lady Blemley kept up a flow of what she hoped was conversation, but her attention was fixed on the doorway. A plateful of carefully dosed fish scraps was in readiness on the sideboard, but the sweets and savoury and dessert went their way, and no Tobermory appeared in the dining-room or kitchen.
The sepulchral dinner was cheerful compared with the subsequent vigil in the smoking-room. Eating and drinking had at least supplied a distraction and cloak to the prevailing embarrassment. Bridge was out of the question in the general tension of nerves and tempers, and after Odo Finsberry had given a lugubrious rendering of 'Melisande in the Wood' to a frigid audience, music was tacitly avoided. At eleven the servants went to bed, announcing that the small window in the pantry had been left open as usual for Tobermory's private use. The guests read steadily through the current batch of magazines, and fell back gradually on the "Badminton Library" and bound volumes of Punch. Lady Blemley made periodic visits to the pantry, returning each time with an expression of listless depression which forestalled questioning.
At two o'clock Clovis broke the dominating silence.
"He won't turn up tonight. He's probably in the local newspaper office at the present moment, dictating the first installment of his reminiscences. Lady What's-her-name's book won't be in it. It will be the event of the day."
Having made this contribution to the general cheerfulness, Clovis went to bed. At long intervals the various members of the house-party followed his example.
The servants taking round the early tea made a uniform announcement in reply to a uniform question. Tobermory had not returned.
Breakfast was, if anything, a more unpleasant function than dinner had been, but before its conclusion the situation was relieved. Tobermory's corpse was brought in from the shrubbery, where a gardener had just discovered it. From the bites on his throat and the yellow fur which coated his claws it was evident that he had fallen in unequal combat with the big Tom from the Rectory.
By midday most of the guests had quitted the Towers, and after lunch Lady Blemley had sufficiently recovered her spirits to write an extremely nasty letter to the Rectory about the loss of her valuable pet.
Tobermory had been Appin's one successful pupil, and he was destined to have no successor. A few weeks later an elephant in the Dresden Zoological Garden, which had shown no previous signs of irritability, broke loose and killed an Englishman who had apparently been teasing it. The victim's name was variously reported in the papers as Oppin and Eppelin, but his front name was faithfully rendered Cornelius.
"If he was trying German irregular verbs on the poor beast," said Clovis, "he deserved all he got."

LUTAJUĆI U MRAKU

Darko Desnica




Bolnica «Sestara milosrdnica». «Podmornica», intenzivna njega kliničke psihijatrije. Dvije podrumske spavaonice, blagovaonica, pravokutna kancelarija za sestre. Na podu pločice, crvene rešetke na prozorima.
Spremamo se za objed: kao i svaki dan, prati nas zvuk flaute iz dvorišta.
Volio bih da znam moliti krunicu.

...

Naslonjen na klupu u parku, gledam Marijine mliječnoplave oči, nježni profil lasice.
Danas može komunicirati, premda šapatom. Za loših dana odgovara mi pismeno.
«Kako se osjećaš?» pita.
«Tako-tako,» kažem.
«Mislila sam da ćeš ostati dolje još koji tjedan...»
«I ja,» potvrđujem. «Još jučer su me vezali.»
«Zašto?»
«Nisam htio primiti infuziju.»
«O, Bože...»

...

Pitam ju gdje je tako dobro naučila svirati.
«Baka mi je bila flautistica,» kaže. «Počela sam rano, kao djevojčica. Pretpostavljala sam da me slušaš...»
«Iz perspektive «podmornice», « kažem, «to je bilo kao očitovanje nekog višeg bića s druge strane – molitva ili monolog...»
«Drago mi je,» kaže stidljivo.

...

«Što misliš o svom liječenju?» pita me.
«Mislim da svi pomalo lutamo u mraku,» odgovaram, «i liječnici i pacijenti».
«Koja ti je zapravo dijagnoza?»
«Paranoidna psihoza,» kažem. «Realno gledano, nitko ne zna što to znači.»
«Da,» potvrđuje. «Tako je i sa mnom. Tvrde da mogu hodati i govoriti normalno, a jedini je problem što ja upravo to ne mogu.»

...

Nudim joj da izađe iz kolica.
«Imaš neki osjećaj u nogama?» pitam.
«Imam,» kaže, «ali vrlo slab. Čini mi se kao da su tuđe.»
«Da probaš sjesti na klupu?» pitam. «Ako ne budeš mogla, vratit ćemo te».
«Pokušala sam više puta,» kaže, «ali jednostavno ne ide».

Nakon nekog vremena, moli me da ju odvezem na misu, u ckrvu unutar bolničkog kruga.
«Može,» kažem. «Pričekat ću te pred ulazom».
«Kako hoćeš,» odvraća.

...

Pola sata kasnije, u prolazu kraj dućana: «Sve što treba znati,» kaže, «piše u Deset zapovijedi. Ja sam religiozna osoba, ali svejedno sam prekršila sve osim Ne ubij.»
«Ja nisam siguran ni u to,» kažem. «Bio sam u ratu, pucalo se.»
«U bliskim borbama?»
«Na sreću, ne».

...

Polako guram kolica uzbrdo.
«Hoćeš da te odvezem do kafića?» pitam.
«Ne treba,» odgovara. «Ljepše nam je u parku. Ako hoćeš, možeš mi malo čitati iz Novog Zavjeta – ponijela sam knjigu.»
«Na žalost, ne mogu,» kažem.
«Zašto?»
«Izgubio sam koncentraciju,» objašnjavam. «Ali mogla bi ti čitati meni».
«Osjećam da gubim glas,» kaže. «Kako bi bilo da me odvezeš do sobe? Uzela bi flautu...»
«Dobra ideja».

...

Vraćamo se na isto mjesto, kraj klupe pod lipom.
Jedva čujno, s instrumentom u krilu, priča mi o gradu, mjestima koje bi voljela posjetiti. Obećajem da ću ju odvesti na jarunsko jezero.
Zadovoljno uzima flautu, počinje svirati.

Polako, jedni za drugima, oko nas se okupljaju sestre, liječnici, pacijenti: u bolničkom parku, u miru ljetnjog predvječerja, lutajući u mraku...

PROROČICA LOLINA:

Bit će još toga. Čekam Heinzelova 53 /10 000m2

lolina 03.10.2007. 11:28



Nije trebalo dugo čekati:

Bandić dao 10.766 m2 atraktivnog zemljišta za 840 m2 na Volovčici



ZAGREB - Zemljište na križanju Maksimirske i Mandlove, koje je Grad Zagreb spornom nagodbom koju istražuje USKOK prepustio tvrtkama Mala ulaganja i Karantena, u novom se GUP-u mijenja iz zone budućeg razvoja u zonu gradnje trgovačkih centara, zbog čega je Tomislav Jelić, bivši gradski zastupnik u prošlom sazivu Skupštine, u javnoj raspravi o GUP-u dao prijedlog da se to ne čini jer je “riječ o organiziranom kriminalu”.

Jelić je otkrio još jednu nagodbu koju je tijekom ljeta potpisao gradonačelnik Milan Bandić i koja također izaziva sumnje. Radi se o nagodbi kojom je Grad Zagreb tvrtki Grokomp Nekretnine d.o.o. prepustio atraktivno neizgrađeno zemljište od 10.766 četvornih metara na križanju Heinzelove i Vukovarske.
Zauzvrat, Grad je od Grokompa - inače tvrtke kćeri Konzuma d.d. - dobio 840 četvornih metara poslovnog prostora u ne baš atraktivnoj jednokatnici s poslovnim prostorima u Alfirevićevoj 6 na Volovčici. Usto, Grokomp Nekretnine dužne su Gradu platiti i razliku od 544.000 eura.

Sudski vještak Mirko Kožulj procijenio je da zemljište na križanju Heinzelove i Vukovarske vrijedi 230 eura po kvadratu. To je prilično niska cijena za zemljište koje je posljednja “čista” parcela na križanju dviju vrlo atraktivnih gradskih avenija.

Mogućnosti gradnje na tom zemljištu su velike. Preko puta Vukovarske, primjerice, izgrađen je poslovni kompleks s 15 katova, a sa sjeverne strane, na zemljištu Croatia Busa, planira se gradnja nebodera s 35 etaža.

Još je jedan detalj sporan kod izračuna cijene. U nekim drugim slučajevima Grad je izračunavao vrijednost zemljišta koje prodaje prema kvadraturi buduće izgradnje (prema dozvoljenom BRP-u), ali u ovom slučaju nije se vodio tom računicom.

Zanimljivo je da je jedan od suvlasnika zgrade u Volovčici bila tvrtka Rytec koja je proteklih godina bila poslovni partner Slobodana Ljubičića, najbližeg Bandićeva suradnika. Rytec je ugašen krajem prošle godine: nakon što je Jutarnji otkrio Ljubičićeve veze s tom tvrtkom, pripojio se tvrtki Potočić d.o.o. Tomislav Jelić najavljuje da će o spornim nagodbama obavijestiti i predsjednika SDP-a Zorana Milanovića.



Dva križanja - dvije politike

16.638

četvornih metara za 43 milijuna kuna: toliko je Grad Zagreb 2003. dobio za zemljište na križanju Avenije Dubrovnik i V. Holjevca, kada je cijenu izračunavao prema kvadraturi budućeg sagrađenog objekta, tj. po BRP-u

10.766

četvornih metara za 18 milijuna kuna: toliko je Grad Zagreb 2007. procijenio zemljište na križanju Vukovarske i Heinzelove, kada cijenu nije izračunavao prema BRP-u. Da je izračunavao prema BRP-u, dobio bi puno više

* Razlika u cijeni je velika, pogotovo ako se uzme u obzir da su 2003. cijene nekretnina bile puno manje nego danas
_____________________________

MILLY WONKA

MILAN AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY



Navodilo za uporabo: Spota z Willy Wonkom kliknuti! Potem si čagati in teksta lahko prebirati! Zelo se ob koncu glupo očutiti. Živili! Ali ne ob Hrvaškem.

Kaj se tiče toga kak je ob Hrvaškem, evo ilustracije:
Kaj se dogodi kad Sulio odseli iz Slovenije u Hrvatsku?
I u jednoj i u drugog državi poraste IQ.
Ahahahaha...

Ne vjerujete? Spota z Willy Wonkom kliknuti...



Već sam ovo jednom objavio, ali, repetitio est mater studiorum, ako se ne uči na vlastitim greškama:

"U subotu, 22. rujna, objavio sam post pod naslovom: I Spy With My Little Eye, POŽELEĆE DRUMOVI MILANA.
U postu je pisalo:
"Ozna sve dozna. Budući da sam ja ipak završio i trinaestu, Old School, ekskluzivno najvaljujem Sumrak bogova: kreće kampanja i kreće na Bandića."



Tijekom dana tekao je zanimljiv razgovor o nesuđenom ZNGardalandu:

Nisu li intrigantna i znakovita i sama imena tvrtki: "Mala (u)laganja" i "Karan te na..."? Hehe Nego, znači li to da će Krašograd ipak niknuti, samo u Sesvetskom Kraljevcu, ili je cijeli projekt storniran?
(Milou 02.10.2007. 23:48)

U Kraljevcu će se izgraditi Krišomgrad.
(NEMANJA 03.10.2007. 00:06)

Dete voli slatko!
Znate li taj odgovor? Ne?
Dakle, Baja Pašić, čuveni Baja Pašić je imao sina. Mrknuo taj sin 160 tona šećera. Kad je revolverblat čaršijska štampa zakerala oko tih tona i pitala čuvenog Baju Pašića šta sad ima da kaže, Baja je nonšalantno rekao: Šta ćete, dete, pa voli slatko!
Tako i naša Magda!
Šta ćete, dete, pa voli Krašuljice!
(NEMANJA 03.10.2007. 08:39)

Imam pouzdanu dojavu da će na zamijenjenom terenu biti sagrađeni vrtići.
(Herostrat 03.10.2007. 08:40)

Mislim da bi Avenue Mall deci bio zabavniji od vrtića!
Barem meni jeste, a ja sam u duši veliko dete.
(NEMANJA 03.10.2007. 09:24)

a jel' će sad mala ulaganja završiti u karanteni ;)))
(lolina 03.10.2007. 09:49)

Ma kakvi, pa Mala ulaganja jesu Karantena.
(NEMANJA 03.10.2007. 10:29)

aa neka , ljudi rade , ne ser...kvake po blogovima ko mi ;)))
bit će još toga. čekam Heinzelova 53 /10 000m2 ko će koga
(lolina 03.10.2007. 11:28)

Grad za djecu će se zvati Kradograd.
(Magda 03.10.2007. 12:19)

Ako ne želiš malo ulagat ideš u karantenu. Kaj je tu nejasno?
I ja mislim da se pretjeruje s tim insinuiranjem - čujte, a zakaj i gradski službenici, odvjetnici i čuvene familije ne bi smjele ulagat u naš beli Zagreb grad? Svi bi smjeli, samo oni ne! I osim toga zemlja koja ima ovakvu omladinu ne treba brinuti za svoju budućnost! Jer, već sad je jasno: ta zemlja nema budućnost!
(NEMANJA 03.10.2007. 12:24)

Kao što sam ti rekao, Magda, moj je prijedlog ZNGardaland!
Imaš Zengi koliko hoćeš a da nemaju posao, helikopteri ionako bolje da ne lete, osim kad odlete u zrak, vlasnici parka vični su zoljama i ostalim rekvizitama za decu i mladež, a jebo ti meni sve ako bi u parku falila ikome dlaka s glave ili kuna iz džepa!
To ću da razradim u današnjem postu.
Dosta je zajebancije: Miću za Carića Hrvatske a Rvacka da se od danas službeno zove ne Republika ili (Je)Banovina Hrvatska, nego Knežija Hrvatska. Onda možemo na čelu Hrvatske imati i Knjaza. To može da bude Kerum, jer taj je jedini u Hrvatskoj imao muda da stane iza onoga što je - srušio! Jebo ti meni sve po drugi puta ako to mene nije fasciniralo.
Došao je čovek i kazao: Ja sam kriv! Nisu moji ljudi, nego, ako ima krivice, evo, ja sam kriv!
E, jebiga, sve znam, ali kapa dolje!
Naravno da Kerum nije kriv, naravno da je Nada Dimić propala u zemlju i otišla u dimić puno prije, ali opet, dobro zvuči.
Jedino je sporno u svemu ovome zašto se laže da je Nada Dimić pod zaštitom države kao spomenik industrijske arhitekture ili koji kurac već: pa Bandić je skinuo zabranu šarafljenja i dograđivanja po toj zgradi već kad su je kupili Antoni Tony Alt-Soprano Nobilo i Mike "Mića" Carich, jer samo su je takvu, od svih zabrana dogradnje i pregradnje i razgradnje očišćenu mogli prodati Žacu Q-roomu, DJ-u iz Spljita, s tugom žuta voća. Ili sam nekaj propustio?
(NEMANJA 03.10.2007. 12:32)

Oprosti Nemanja ali kad je o knezovima riječ onda se zna tko s njima najviše iskustva ima (gle, rima?) Još kad se uzme u obzir činjenica da bi mu mandat (shodno Dubrovačkom Statutu) trajao samo mjesec dana, mislim da bi se svi mogli izredati na toj časnoj funkciji. Ili barem završiti kao u današnjem Magdinom postu?!? :)
(Herostrat 03.10.2007. 13:13)

Dolje kneževi! Živjeli markiži!
(markiz 03.10.2007. 13:28)



Dragi Nemanja! Previše se toga skupilo ovih dana i zato nabijem ih sve redom od zore do sumraka. Ja bi te zato lepo prosila daj onak lepo kak ti znaš navedi bar par razloga zakaj bi se netko veselil budit u ovom Magdalandu. Ja bum se tih razloga držala ko pijana plota i ne dvojim da bum prodisala. Do tad bu me dušilo.
(skaska 03.10.2007. 17:38)

1. Razlog prvi: Još uvijek nismo mrtvi! Ha, sa svakim buđenjem likujemo, jer, unatoč tome što nam rade, još nas nisu ubili!
2. Razlog drugi: Bez obzira na rasu, spol, vjeru, svjetonazor...redovito nas jebu! Naše je samo da se nekako opustimo i uživamo.
3. Razlog treći: Svake četiri godine ipak možemo slobodno izabrati tko će nas cijeli jedan mandat jebat i u glavu! To su u nenarodnom režimu ipak birali između sebe, bez da nas išta pitaju.
4. Razlog četvrti: Sve su ovo radili i prije, samo nismo znali. Jasno je da su medijske slobode napredovale!
5. Razlog peti: Bolje je svakoga se jutra probuditi u Magdalandu, nego se jednoga ne probuditi u Skandinaviji! (NEMANJA 03.10.2007. 17:51)

Fala ti. Odoh sad na trajnu ondulaciju. (skaska 03.10.2007. 17:59)



Glavni sam razlog čuvao za joker "zovi":
Skaska, pa zar bi propustila život u zemlji koju vodi famozni "Some Like It Hot" Klub ljubitelja talijanske opere? (NEMANJA 03.10.2007. 18:23)

AFERA Kako je grad Zagreb zemlju za 'Gardaland' u Maksimiru zamijenio za teren u Sesvetskom Kraljevcu

Misterij Ravnice: Uskok ispituje slučaj Krašograd



Još 20. travnja ove godine zagrebački je gradonačelnik Milan Bandić s Nadanom Vidoševićem, direktorom tvornice Kraš, predstavio zajednički projekt: na Ravnicama kraj tvornice koja se seli iz grada konačno bi i hrvatska djeca dobila svoj Gardaland. Bio bi to Krašograd, posvećen igri i slatkišima.

Ipak, samo nekoliko mjeseci poslije, taj je isti teren od čak 20 tisuća četvornih metara Gradsko poglavarstvo odlučilo zamijeniti za 35 tisuća kvadrata terena u – Sesvetskom Kraljevcu!

Nagodba i uknjižba

Gradsko poglavarstvo tu je odluku donijelo 18. srpnja, a zaključak o sklapanju nagodbe potpisao je gradonačelnik Bandić i istog dana Grad Zagreb uknjižen je kao vlasnik čestice u Kraljevcu. Međutim, u priči o možda najatraktivnijem zemljištu u Zagrebu u ovom trenutku ima puno toga neobičnoga, zbog čega se tom nagodbom posljednjih dana bavi USKOK na čelu s ravnateljem Dinkom Cvitanom.

Zanimljiva je, primjerice, cijena. Tako je po nagodbi kvadrat terena u Sesvetskom Kraljevcu, na mjestu gdje je nekad bila svinjogojska farma (ne ona u Sesvetama) procijenjen na čak 185 eura, dok prosječna cijena gradilišta na tom području nije veća od 60 do 70 eura, najviše do 100 eura.

S druge strane, zemljište na Ravnicama, golem teren od 20 tisuća četvornih metara gotovo u srcu grada, kraj Maksimirske, prema poslovnom duhu zagrebačkog Poglavarstva, ne vrijedi više od 321 eura! Na tom prostoru slobodnih zemljišta više i nema, no još se prodaju tereni na području Maksimira, u Jazbini, gdje cvjeta gradnja.

Tako se jedno zemljište ovih dana prodaje za 470 eura po kvadratu, a reklamira se da je samo 4 kilometra od Dinamova stadiona. Kolika bi onda bila cijena zemljišta tik uz stadion, koje je Grad procijenio na samo 321 euro? Ovih dana tereni na Žitnjaku postižu 600 eura po metru, a grad Rijeka upravo je sada prodao jedan atraktivan teren od svega 316 kvadrata za čak milijun eura.

Dar novom vlasniku

Dotle, Grad Zagreb i svi njegovi porezni obveznici pristali su na nagodbu u kojoj je teško ne vidjeti veliki poklon grada novom vlasniku terena na Ravnicama. No, tko je novi vlasnik? Gradonačelnik je potpisao nagodbe s dvije tvrtke.

Jedna se zove “Mala ulaganja”, osnovana je tri mjeseca prije nagodbe sa zagrebačkim Poglavarstvom, nikakva prometa nema, a vlasnik i direktor joj je 23-godišnji Mislav Nakić. Druga tvrtka zove se “Karantena”, osnovana je samo mjesec dana prije nagodbe sa Zagrebom, a vlasnica joj je 25-godišnja Magda Jukica. Kako to da je Grad Zagreb odustao od plana s Krašogradom zbog nagodbe s dvoje mladih?

Ili ipak iza Magde i Mislava stoji netko malo jači? Što li će oni graditi na terenu koji po novom urbanističkom planu može biti čak 70 posto izgrađen? Moguće je tako tamo, umjesto zabavnog parka za djecu, sagraditi, primjerice, maksimirski Avenue Mall.
Bandić je nagodbe sklapao s tvrtkama koje su osnovane neposredno prije sklapanja poslova. Ljubičić tvrdi da nema veze s poslovima.



ZAGREB - USKOK već dvadesetak dana istražuje je li Milan Bandić uime Grada Zagreba sklopio štetne nagodbe kada je u srpnju ove godine mijenjao parcele u Maksimirskoj ulici za parcele u Sesvetskom Kraljevcu.

Bandić je višemilijunske nagodbe sklopio s tvrtkama koje su osnovane neposredbno prije sklapanja tih poslova i čiji su direktori, što je USKOK-u posebno sumnjivo, neiskusni studenti od dvadeset i nešto godina, povezani s odvjetnikom Damirom Galetovićem, koji je u svojoj karijeri zastupao klijente poput Hrvoja Petrača i Zorana Pripuza.

Tvrtke se zovu Mala ulaganja i Karantena, a Grad im je za njihovo zemljište u Sesvetskom Kraljevcu dao zemljište na križanju Maksimirske i Mandlove, koje će novim GUP-om postati mješovita zona za gradnju.

U nagodbi je procijenjeno da zemljište u Sesvetskom Kraljevcu vrijedi 185 eura, a u Maksimirskoj 321 euro po kvadratu. Sporno je to što je cijena u Sesvetskom Kraljevcu razmjerno visoka, a cijena u Maksimirskoj niska, pa se sumnja da je riječ o štetnom poslu za Grad. U gradskim službama tvrde da je sve čisto jer je procjenu obavio sudski vještak.

No, priča o nagodbi ima i svoju “pretpovijest” - ono što se događalo u Sesvetskom Kraljevcu prije nego su Mala ulaganja i Karantena stekle ondje zemlju. I taj dio, potvrdio nam je danas izvor iz Državnog odvjetništva, predmet je intenzivne istrage.

Tvrtke Mala ulaganja i Karantena prepustile su, naime, Gradu Zagrebu parcele u budućem naselju s 1133 stana, koji je osmislila i razvila tvrtka Dohel, čiji su osnivači bili i dvoje ljudi povezanih s gradskom upravom. Jedan je Pero Lozica, odvjetnik koji radi za Hypo grupu, a za Grad je obavio posao ustrojavanja Zagrebačkog holdinga, a drugi je Vice Gulam, nećak Slobodana Ljubičića, direktora Holdinga i člana Poglavarstva zaduženog za upravljanje imovinom.

I Gulam i Lozica izišli su iz Dohela prije nego što je sklopljena nagodba s Gradom, ali vrijednost njihovih poslovnih udjela prilikom prodaje bila je znatno veća od vrijednosti udjela u trenutku osnivanja tvrtke jer je u međuvremenu Dohel stekao i kredit Hypo banke od 435 milijuna kuna i urbanističke uvjete za gradnju naselja. Grad bi u Sesvetskom Kraljevcu trebao graditi prometnice za naselje.

S obzirom na to da je njegov nećak od travnja 2005. do siječnja 2007. bio suvlasnik tvrtke koja je osmislila projekt toga naselja, Slobodana Ljubičića pitali smo je li u sukobu interesa.

- Ja ne mogu biti ni u kakvom sukobu interesa jer se tu ne odvija ništa što ima veze sa mnom - rekao je Ljubičić i ustvrdio da uopće nije znao da je njegov nećak bio suvlasnik Dohela, a kad je saznao, naredio mu je da odmah proda svoj udio.

SENZACIONALNO! DOK ČOPORI KRVOŽEDNIH PASA LUTALICA TERORIZIRAJU PODSLJEMENSKA SELA

IZBIO TREĆI SVJETSKI RAT!

Puknuti takav naslov nije nikakav kumst - kumst je potreban da se sastavi nadnaslov, koji vijesti daje specifičan štih, odnosno "spin", posebnost koja karakterizira svaki rasni bulevarski list.

Intervju: Denis Kuljiš



Pitanja postavio: Emir Imamović


O senzacionalizmu

Kao rodonačelnik novinskog senzacionalizma "na ovim prostorima", dakle u nepopularnom i nepriznatom jugoslavenskom okviru gdje god se govori i razumije srpsko-hrvatski jezik, moram o tom fenomenu naposlijetku kazati nekoliko riječi.
Senzacionalizam nije mentalno stanje, nego prezentacijska forma tabloidnog žurnalizma - tim riječima otvorio bih "Uvod u senzacionalizam", kurs novinske morfologije s kojim bi valjalo započeti novinarsku izobrazbu, umjesto da se, kao i na svakom studiju, prvo dohvaća neko Aristotelovo djelo.
Što to znači?
Imaš vijest - uzmimo nešto jednostavno, recimo: "izbio treći svjetski rat". Kako će tome pristupiti, primjerice, sarajevski listovi?
"Dani" će objaviti moralistički uvodnik svog glavnog urednika, u kojima će on iznijeti duboku zabrinutost i tugu, te upozoriti da će i u tome ratu sigurno najgore postradati upravo narod u Bosni.
"Slobodna Bosna" izrazit će, u nadahnutom uvodniku svoga glavnog urednika, možda i određeno zadovoljstvo što je napokon kucnuo sudnji dan, pa se pruža prilika da pravi zlikovci i krivci za sve nesreće koje su zadesile narod u Bosni, budu pravedno kažnjeni.
"Oslobođenje" će, pretpostavljam, objaviti trijezan, izbalansiran komentar na četvrtoj stranici.
"Dnevni avaz" imat će krupan naslov na naslovnoj, izjavu efendije Cerića o zlu koje takav nepoželjan rat može donijeti narodu u Bosni.
To su prezentacijske strategije koje u novinarskoj praksi nazivamo "kamilica" ili "mlaka voda".
Rasni senzacionalistički tabloid, raspalit će slovima od 24 cicera, preko cijele naslovne stranice, poželjno iznad glave lista, koja se za tu priliku može spustiti tako nisko da ispod nje ostanu samo dvije-tri plaćene reklamice: IZBIO TREĆI SVJETSKI RAT!
Uskličnik je tu bitan, ali valja staviti samo jedan, a oni tabloidi koji posežu za tri, ili ne daj Bože, stavljaju i više od toga, devalviraju svoj plemeniti poziv.
Puknuti takav naslov nije nikakav kumst - kumst je potreban da se sastavi nadnaslov, koji vijesti daje specifičan štih, odnosno "spin", posebnost koja karakterizira svaki rasni bulevarski list.
Kako se uz senzacionalni naslov spravlja naročit tabloidni nadnaslov, koji cijelu kompoziciju pretvoriti u novinsku simfoniju, objasnit ću na primjeru iz vlastite prakse.
Jednoga ljeta neke od onih zlosretnih ratnih godina kad se, usprkos svemu, stvari sezonski malo usporavaju pa nema vijesti ni o ratnim operacijama ni o stradanju pučanstva na bojišnici, odnosno o akutnim pretvorbenim pljačkama u pozadini, bili smo se okupili za uredničkim stolom u starom "Globusu", pa stali konferirati...
- Događa li se ama bilo što? - upitam ja, a svi odmahnu glavama.
- Imal bilo kaka vijest? Je li itko čuo za neku nevolju, nepriliku ili senzaciju makar i lokalnog značaja?
- Ama ništa, brate, ništa. Danju, sve je potpuno mirno.
- A noću?
- Noću se ništa ne dešava, evo, svi idu u klub "Hrvatski Sokol" gdje specijalci izvode muški strip-tiz.
- Pa dobro, i to je nešto... A ima li kakih ugroza reda, mira, upadaju li vukovi u sela zagrebačke okolice pa odnose sitnu stoku, jesu li bijesne lisice napale Dugo Selo?
- Ma kakvi! Osim pasa lutalica, nema ništa ni na periferiji...
- Pasa lutalica? Ma nemoj? A formiraju li oni kakve veće grupe, čopore i to?
- Valjda formiraju, što ja znam kreću li se u grupama ili pojedinačno...
- Dobro, ali svaka takva skupina, čopor, ima svoga prirodnog vođu, zar ne?
- Da - javi se jedan mlađi novinar-ulizica, koji je sigurno poslije u karijeri daleko dogurao - čini mi se da sam čuo kako je tu primijećen jedan veliki crni pas...
- Evo ti ga na - rekoh - znači što imamo? Ajde, piši nadnaslov, idemo radno...
To "idemo radno", uveo je kao "terminus technicus" bard hrvatskog žurnalizma, legendarni urednik i jezikoslovac Marko Grčić, kojemu dugujemo i preciznu definiciju senzacionalizma - objasnio je kako je to postupak kod kojega uzmeš buhu, pa je napuhuješ u guzicu, dok ne naraste na veličinu slona...
- Dakle - nastavim - idemo radno: DOK ČOPORI KRVOŽEDNIH PASA LUTALICA PREDVOĐENI GOLEMIM CRNIM PSOM ZVANIM "CUJO" TERORIZIRAJU PODSLJEMENSKA SELA... Sad naslov: SPECIJALCI U "SOKOLU" PLEŠU MUŠKI STRIP-TIZ!
Ne treba sumnjati da je i taj broj "Globusa" otišao u pristojnoj nakladi. Nota bene, to je prikladna sličica za sociologiju ratnog društva, koja otkriva više od svih hrvatskih filmova o Domovinskom ratu zajedno...
Senzacionalizam je, dakle, forma. Sadržaj može biti različit - od onakvoga što se publicira u beogradskim tabloidima koje financira DB, do angažiranog poput onoga kojim smo isprva dizali "Globus" i "Nacional" kao nezavisne, antirežimske listove u doba Tuđmana. Čak postoji varijetet satiričnog antirežimskog senzacionalističkog tabloida - "Feral Tribune" - koji dokazuje da se bilo kakvo usmjerenje i stanje duha da iskazati pod naslovom visine 24 cicera. Uostalom, tabloid je, tehnički, naprosto poslijepodnevno ili večernje novinsko izdanje namijenjeno prodaji u kolportaži, u kojem naslov zauzima više mjesta od teksta, a slika je prezentirana jače i od te uočljive tipografije.
Cijelu formu bio je od "Globusa" preuzeo pokojni Slavko Ćuruvije, pokrećući svoj "Telegraf" - o tome je govorio u jednom intervjuu - i to s poznatim fatalnim rezultatom...

O Poletu

Polet je bio subverzivni projekt skupine mladih ljudi, omladinskih aktivista u doba komunizma, kojima je bila prilično dozlogrdila represija šuvarovske idejne forme, pa su podlegli utjecaju slovenskog antirežimskog punk-pokreta, te pokušli sličnu stvar plasirati u Zagrebu, novinama kojima smo podražavali "Andy Warhol's Interview". Nnaš grafički urednik, konceptualist Goran Trbuljak, uveo je divovske fotografije okružene crnim, autorskim okvirom autentičnog kadra filmske trake, te zabranio da tekst zauzima više od 1/12 stranice, ili da se tiska pismom većim od nonpareila, dok su svi naslovi morali biti jednaki, iz svedene Helvetice. Za promotivni koncert lista, naš muzički urednik Vladko Fras, provizorno je organizirao nekoliko bendova među dečkima iz svog razreda i "Zvečke", birtije u koju je zalazio. Bili su to "Azra", "Prljavo kazalište", "Film"...

O Đoniju Štulicu

U svim takvim subverzivnim operacijama, stvari izmaknu kontroli, pa se "Azra" rascijepila na dvije struje, a obje su odmah odstupile od ideja i ciljeva punk-revolucije. Genijalni vokal bez glasa, Đoni B. Štulić, odmetnuo se u rokere i postao legenda postdugmetovskog subkulturnog anti-mejnstrima, a ostatak grupe formirao je pop-rockabilly pogon te kao "Film" krenuo na beskonačnu ljetnu turneju s koje se neki od članova grupe još nisu vratili...

O Globusu

Globus smo poslije propasti Poleta, te priličnog uspjeha u Startu i velikog neuspjehu u Danasu, pokrenuli s istim ljudima - s desetak novinara koji su prvi put mogli osnovati novine ne kao sljedbu, nego kao komercijalno poduzeće, što se zatim pretvorilo u regionalni multinacionalni novinsko-izdavački behemot Europapress Holding, koji, s nešto manjim uspjehom, i dalje izdaje Globus, gdje kao vanjski suradnik, čak pišem jednu kolumnicu. To sadrži pouku da je uspjeh nešto čemu se ne treba uvijek veseliti.

O Nacionalu

Nacional sam pokrenuo kao konkurenciju Globusu, iz novinarskih i političkih motiva. Odatle su me zatim izbacili neki moji suradnici, koji su se spetljali s tuđmanovskim obavještajnim podzemljem, pa uzeli pare od Hercegovaca i "Dubrovačke banke" - uvijek ista, banalna balkanska priča, koja je završila njihovim udruživanjem s mafijom, za koju rade kao reketarski tabloid, pa se često okome i na mene, svoga kreatora. Najsmješnije je kad me na raznim svojim godišnjiciama pokušavaju prešutjeti uvodnicima što kreacionističku teoriju supstituira teorijom spontanog velikog praska: kad se zemlja odvojila od mora, a dinosaru izumrli, našli su se jedan fotograf i jedna postarija treba, pa su se prasnuli...

O komunizmu i radnim akcijama

Komunizam sam u mladosti proživljavao kao krajnje uzbudljivu ideju, koja me u dobi od 17 godina, odvela na radene akcije u Beograd, gdje sam kao kulturni referent zagrebačke brigade "Janko Gredelj" sam uređivao nadrealističke brigadne novine "Kleopatra Jaje". Već sam tada jasno uočio da je komunistička ideologija ultralijeve polarizacije, što je tada, prvog ljeta poslije 1968. još iskrila u jonosferi, posve ekskluzivna stvar, jer u brigadi su, osim mene i zapovjednika, mog prijatelja i karijernog omladinskog rukovodioca, svi neskriveno prezirali Savez omladine, socijalizam i radne akcije, na koje su došli kao polaznici škola učenika u privredi - prava, autentična radnička omladina - da praksu ne moraju odrađivati u tvornicama, te da polože vozački ispit. Ja sam se dotle spetljao s pripadnicima vračarske brigade koja se mahom sastojala od djece najviših beogradskih rukovodilaca, s kojima sam tada dijelio revolucionarni idealizam te fascinaciju Che Guevarom, Mao Zedongom i Bobom Dylanom.

O hedonizmu

Ja sam dosta neopušten tip, i nikad se nisam odavao porocima iz carstva čula - prilično glomazna figura dijelom je posljedica toga što imam teške kosti, a dijelom je u vezi s kompulzivnim navikama kod jela. Imam, duduše, neki interes za europsku gastronomiju - činjenica je da obožavam najbolje restorane i hotele, o čemu znam poprilično, ali to je povezano s intersom za spiritus loci, civilizaciju i kulturu - najdraži mi je, kao i Balzacu, restoran Grand Vefour u pariškom Palais Royalu. Kad je ondje prije dvadeset godina došao jedan slavni savojski kuhar, obnovio je taj gotovo najstariji pariški ugostiteljski lokal u velikom stilu. Stariji od ovog svratišta smještenog u vrtu nekadašnjeg dvorca kardinala Richellieua je dakako, "Procop", gdje u izlogu još drže Napoleonov šešir, a na katu, očuvali su separee gdje su terevenčili enciklopedisti, Još stariji i još ugledniji, prastari je Cafe Anglais, koji se sad zove Tour d'Argent, ali, u svim tim pričama i memorijama, sama jela nisu najprominentnija - iako sigurno nikad neću zaboraviti kako su mi u "Touru" servirali pačja prsa uz riblji filet... Ja ne pijem mnogo, ali moj guru za mene puni manju emisiju bijelih vina, koja pravi od sedam sorti pozne berbe pod etiketom (Banfy), što je prošle godine osvojila Grand prix na ljubljanskom sajmu vina. Hedonistički uživam, zaperavo, jedino u knjigama, i upravo sam donirao oko 500 novih izdanja Fakultetu za novinarstvo u Banja Luci, pa mi knjige na policama više ne stoje u dva reda, što mrzim...

O Playboyu

U Playboyu sam postao urednik malo prekasno - Hefner i ja bili smo najstariji urednici na njegovom partyju koji je prilikom pedesetogodišnjice časopisa priredio kod kuće, u svom zamčiću s umjetnom špiljom i osvjetljenim vodopadom na Beverly Hillsu. On i ja preživjeli smo seksualnu i žurnalističku revoluciju u kojoj smo participirali u doba dok je to zaista nešto značilo. Šezdesetih i sedamdesetih godina on je pokretao svoj časopis, najznačajniji magazin u povijesti, dok sam ja, osamdesetih, uređivao "Start" kao lokalnu i poznu komunističku inačicu iste formule... Kad je seksualna revolucija završila, pa je uspostavljen represivni režim komercijalne pornografije, a zatim stvar degenerirala u celeb-žurnalizam, pa izumljen Photoshop i egzibicionizam izašao na Internet, historijska erotika Playboya, postala je malo smiješna, kao i sam Hefner. On je, pritom, strašno pametan frajer, veliki novinski urednik - veliki - ali nije intelektualac. Kao intelektualac europskog tipa uvijek možeš poput Žižeka dekonstrukcijom uspostaviti ironičnu distancu prema svojim izvorima i inspiracijama, te ozbiljno govoriti o Lenjinu ne dolazeći u opasnost da te percipiraju kao Miru Marković... Semiološki, kratkotrajno uređivanje balkanskog Playboya bilo mi je jako zanimljivo iskustvo - vodio sam list u Hrvatskoj, a pokrenuo u Srbiji, te oba izdanja promovirao u Sarajevu, gdje smo - predlagao sam to ali nije prihvaćeno - urednik beogradskog izdanja i ja trebali rezati tortu u obliku Bosne.

O Miroslavu Radmanu

Mira Radmana upoznao sam na liniji novinarskog angažmana - on je bio naš kolumnist u "Playboyu", pa sam u "Kerempuhu" priredio večeru za zagrebačke novinske i televizijske urednike, kako bi se upoznali s njegovim jedinstvenim likom, te bili izloženi njegovu neodoljivu šarmu. Ispalo je da sam ja potpao pod najjači utjecaj, pa smo nastavili s kućnim druženjima... Kako on nema zagrebačkog doma, nego tu stanuje u državnom apartmanu, kao predsjednički savjetnik za znanost, više sam puta kod sebe priređivao večeru na koju bismo pozvali razne zanimljive ljude - najuspjelije bilo je spontano okupljanje prošloga ljeta, kad nam se pridružila moja prijateljica iz osnovne škole, oftalmologinja u Barceloni. Njen muž polujužnoamerikanac, također liječnik, uz gitaru pjeva latino i gitano, dok je Radman honorarni član grupe Cigani Ivanovići (žena mu je etnofolkloristkinja, koja je producirala Marčelov prvi album, a kći direktorica festivala ciganske kulture u Kanadi). Možeš mislit da se bacila pisma...

O psima

Moja Leeloo je pokojna i o tome ne mogu ni riječi.

O novinarima i fakultetima

Zaista sudjelujem u osnivanju studija novinarstva u Banja Luci - pozvali su me da pridonesem oko programa, a kako sam ondje, u Nezavisnime novinama, već pet godina angažiran kao konzultant - zamislio sam da se u toj redakciji provede praktična nastava. Ne vjerujem puno u teoretsku nastavu novinarstva - sam sam studirao opću lingvistiku i mislim da mi je šest semestara izučavanja drugog pjevanja Ilijade kod profesora Bulcsua Laszloa - da i ne govorim o seminaru iz avestičkog pravopisa - koristilo puno više nego tri godine provedene na zagrebačkom žurnalizmu, gdje sam se slomio pročitavši temeljni udžbenik profesora Sapunara, koji novinarstvo izrijekom definira kao znanost, pod izumljenim nazivom "novitologija".

O Senadu Avdiću

Ne vjerujem u znanost o novinarstvu, ali vjerujem u Senada Avdića. On možda nije uvijek u pravu, ali je uvijek tu. Mao Zedong proklamirao je da u pitanjima poljoprivrede treba slijediti praksu komune Tačaj, u vojnim pitanjima primjer 6. čete "Tvrda kost", a ja dodajem da u pitanjima novinarstva treba uvažavati iskustvo "Slobodne Bosne" Senada Avdića, gdje su ti ona negatrivna iskustva često korisnija i od pozitivnih. Senad Avdić? On je kombinacija Nasradin Hodže i Billa Bradleya - urednika Washington Posta u doba Watergate - uz velike primjese Huntera S. Thompsona, Oriane Fallaci i Mate Bašića. Normalno, kod takve mješavine nastaje određena konfuzija - u našim glavama, ne u njegovoj, jer je on svoj, jedan i autentičan, a mi ga vidimo kao neki monumentalni poliedar.

O vješticama iz Rija

Kao grijeh iz one treće kategorije u koju, osim djelom i mišlju, upadneš nečinjenjem, mene je ta velika nepogoda u karijeri zadesila u griješnoj odustnosti. Bio sam u Londonu, baš sam se spremao u novootvoreni Conranov restoran "Le Pont de la Tour", kad su mi iz redakcije javili da će objaviti vrlo kontroverzan tekst o ženskim aktivisticama koje imaju velike primjedbe na hrvatsku politiku, no da mogu i počekati dok se ja ne vratim - pa sam izrekao riječi koje te vrlo često znaju vrlo skupo koštati: "Ma, samo vi to objavite, na moju odgovornost!" Tekst je bio neukusan, zločest, neukusno naslovljen, pa smo bili izloženi napadu cijele liberalne fronte i nevladinih udruga, kojima je, uostalom, bilo stalo da nas odrinu na "državotvornu" stranu političke pozornice i delegitimiraju kako s nama ne bi morali dijeliti prostor opozicijskog djelovanja. U deset parnica oko slučaja "vještica", bio sam na sudu najmanje pedeset puta, svaki put izjasnio sam se krivim, kao i u svakoj narednoj instanciji, kad je o tome bilo govora - a ne sjećam se da sam ikad dao intervju u kojem o tome ne bi bilo riječi. Pa, evo, i u ovoj prilici, ponavljam - kriv sam. Nema veze što sam bio u Londonu. Ja sam bio glavni i odgovorni urednik. Pet kartica toga teksta kao da je zasjenilo pet godina antirežimskog djelovanja "Globusa", kad su nas Tuđman i njegova kamarila, smatrali najopasnijim protivnicima poretka. Prilično smo zbog toga postradali - udesili su nas, ovako ili onako, izašli su s nama na kraj... A još nedavno susreo sam na nekom javnom skupu jednu od "vještica", Vesnu Kesić. Razgovaralo se o nečem desetom, a onda je na mene povikala: "Ma što ima tu govoriti taj Kuljiš, koji je objavio tekst o Vješticama iz Rija!" U međuvremenu, ja sam u proteklih točno petnaest godina uredio i prodao na milijune primjeraka novina, napisao i objavio tisuću članaka i nekoliko knjiga, a ona, možda jedan ili dva članka, ali njen je argument zvučao uvjerljivo... Ne znam, ne znam. Ali znam da sam kriv, to znam.

O ženama u redakcijama i zenama na naslovnicama

U redakcijama, najviše volim raditi sa ženama. Žene su većinom puno pametnije i sposobnije, hrabrije i neusporedivo sabranije, marljivije i darovitije, te u svim svojstvima potrebnim novinaru, prosječno nadmašuju muškarce. Nedostaje im samo element mentalne stihije - previše uredne i suvisle, nisu podložne spontanim provalama divlje, neusmjerene energije, različitim iracionalnim ispadima, bez čega novine ne vrijede pola pišiva boba - uvijek moraš pri ruci imati dva-tri nekontrolirana pijanca za specijalne zadatke, neobuzdane talente, ulične genije, nebrušene dijamante i crne bisere... Što ja znam, recimo, ja sam imao Matu Bašića i, možda, Edu Popovića, dok se nije upropastio trezvenjaštvom, pa završio kao pisac. Ali ne treba ti puno takvih, a za sve ostalo, bolje je imati žene. S njima se, osim svega, bolje osjećaš i provodiš, već što ih gledaš ako su zgodne, pa dok s njima razgovaraš... Žene pak na naslovnicama, po mojem su iskustvu živa nevolja. Nedužno erotizirane stralete pridaju ti neizbježno image jeftinog lista, a one gole, rastjeruju oglašivače i neobično skupo koštaju, pogotovo ako su poznate, a najčešće izgledaju puno lošije od svoje fame, pa se moraš natezati s Photoshopom i s njihovim agentima. To se uopće ne isplati - ružnog, oznojenog političara kojega su uhvatili u nekoj pljački, lijepo objaviš džabe i odmah ti skoči naklada.

O Americi

U Americi sam živio oko godinu dana i tada sam prema njoj ima veliku rezervu, jer sam bio bez para i bez profesije s kojom bih ondje mogao nešto početi. No, neosjetno sam stao stjecati spoznaju o toj brilijantnoj civilizaciji, a sve je kulminiralo na kraju boravka, kad sam, nazad dvadeset i pet godina, prvi put putovao po Kaliforniji i Nevadi, te po bližem američkom Jugu, na putu za Kill Devil Hills, mjestance na Atlantiku koje sam po svaku cijenu htio posjetiti - odatle su prvi put uzletjela braća Wright, dva tvorničara bicikla iz Daytona. Poslije sam puno odlazio u Ameriku, Amerika je, uostalom, zemlja koja me othranila sirom iz američke pomoći, a sve moje žene obrazovale su se u Americi i s američkim stipendijama. Svojoj kćeri najozbiljnije sam htio dati ime Amerika (a sinu Geronimo, jer nisam bez ostao bez svake rezerve). Amerika je omogućila emancipaciju postkomunističkih država bivše Jugoslavije, satrla Tuđmana i Miloševića, bombardila Srbiju te Slobu otpremila u Haag, skupa s našim zlikovcima. Sve dobre stvari dolazile su cijelog mog života iz Amerike. Volim onamo odlaziti, sviđa mi se ambijent, uzdrhtim kad dođem u New York, obožavam San Francisco, pali me Los Angeles, a Washington mi je super. Jedino se u Americi osjećam kao doma dok okolo putujem. U Austriji, uvijek sam stranac. U Americi možeš susresti ljude kakvih više nema nigdje na svijetu - beskrajno civilizirane, uljudne, iskreno dobronamjerne, plemenite i naivne poput likova iz romana Henryja Jamesa. To je jedna starodrevna civilizacija, loše shvaćena na primitivnom Balkanu, koji ima kulturu od jučer.

O Esplanadi

Tu se dnevno pojavljujem, jer je prekrasno mjesto i pogled i odlična posluga, a ondje zalaze mnogi moji prijatelji. Kad sjednem u bar, žena me s balkona vidi iz kuće.

O pisanju

Pomalo pišem, uvijek.

O čitanju

Čitam stalno, uvijek, kompulzivno, više noću nego danju, dok jedem, ležim, sjedim, u fotelji i drugdje.

O nostalgiji i jugonostalgiji

Uopće nisam nostalgičan, po naravi okrenut sam sadašnjosti i najvećma budućnosti, projektima, ideaciji, pa stoga ne mogu biti ni jugonostalgičan. Uostalom, uvijek se sjetim samo kako sam kao zamjenik glavnog urednika u Startu imao plaću od 200 njemačkih maraka, pa kupio neki kromirani stolić za televizor, i bio financijski upropašten dva mjeseca. Ili, recimo, kako sam se u jednom razdoblju puno bavio fotografijom pa snimao polaroide cura koje su se rado svlačile gole na raznim partijima i zabavama - takvo je vrijeme bilo - ali, brate, nisi mogao nasmagati filmova, odnosno kartridža, jer bi te dvije-tri kutije po deset komada, unazadilo kao da si kupio dionice "Time Warnera"... Kakva frustracija!

O narodnjacima

Tu sam dosta zahvaćen, kad je riječ o pred-turbo klasicima, od Braće Bajić i Šabana Bajramovića do, ne znam, Hašima Kučuka-Hokija. Mogu ja i neke birane dizelaše poslušati, ali onda me privlače samo ove krvožedne srpske stvari, a la "Vidovdan". Cijenim kafanu i kafansku muziku, super mi je i kolce kad se povede, iako ne participiram (iako sam nedavno, na proslavi rođendana Branka Lustiga, kad je Rade Šerbedžija pjevao s nekim dobrim Ciganima, sugestivno ljuljao bokovima). Cigansku glazbu slušam oduvijek, a world-music počeo sam još dok je bio egzotični folklor. Pratio sam svu našu narodnjačku produkciju (osim hrvatske, koja mi se gadi), rado slušam čak i oberkrajnere, od čega polude moji ukućani... To su oni Slovenci, tipovi u kožnim hlačama - sviraju poput bratje Avsenika, koji su izumili taj žanr. Čujem, štoviše, da se u Sloveniji sad pojavio turbo-oberkrajner, na što me upozorio moj prijatelj, umjetnik Dragan Živadinov, koji to ne podnosi, kao ni ja ovoj domaći, hrvatski kič, jer to uzimamo previše osobno, kao napad na svoj intimni prostor.

O Zagrebu

Zagreb je jedan dosta miran, čak ugodan grad - kad stigneš iz Beograda, čini ti se, doduše, da je voz stao u Staroj Pazovi, ali, zapravo, prilično je tolerantna metropola, koja te ne sili da se asimiliraš. Ja sam, recimo, u Zagrebu član društva Splićana koje je obnavljalo portal Trogirske katedrale i želi vratiti Bajamontušu, srušenu originalnu fontanu na splitsku rivu - Trg dr. Franje Tuđmana, nazvan po tom najpoznatijem hrvatskom haškom okrivljeniku, koji se od suda spasio bijegom u pakao.

O Splitu

Tu sam se rodio, postao Splićanin i onda to i ostao, jer sam dugo u Zagrebu živio u vojnoj zgradi sa sve samim Splićanima (recimo Ćićom Senjanovićem, osnivačem "Ferala"). I otac mi je jaki Splićanin - iz geta, njegovi su, inače, iz Komiže na Visu, pa se, tako nadasve osjećam kao Dalmatinac, Splićanin, a Hrvat sam samo po defaultu.

O Sarajevu

O, ja sam Sarajevo upoznao tek nedavno - poslije rata, inače sam kroz Sarajevo samo prolazio, putem na more, i sjećam se kako smo jednom stali s našim "fićom", otišli u restoran i pojeli ćevape, koji su bili odlični, ali su nam poslije rekli da je to stoga jer se sigurno stavlja mačje meso. To je sve što sam o Sarajevu znao dok nisam upoznao Avdića i ostale dečke iz novina, pa sad kad dođem, više nikamo ne idem, osim kod "Lovca", gdje prosjedimo od jednog do drugog aviona iz Zagreba i za Zagreb, tako da i one cipele koje sam na Baš-čaršiji, na Čizmeluku poručio, ne podižem već više od pola godine, iako uvijek stanujem u obližnjoj "Europi". Ne dospije se! Kao Sarajlije, znat ćete o čemu je riječ.

O kraljičinom gajdašu

O tom krucijalnom problemu objavio sam komentar koji možete pročitati na mom sajtu www.deniskuljis.com.

Sva imaginacija moje generacije sadržana je u Velikoj knjizi šema. Ona nije napisana jer, kao i većina šema koje sadrži, nije realizirana, pošto je, kako reče Rene Bakalović - gastronaut, vlasnik izvornog recepta za hrvatsku klin-čorbu, usto jedan od koautora Velike knjige šema koja je nastala u doba Velikog praska, znači u doba Zvečke i Novog vala, dok su današnji kolumnisti još držali kolumne u obližnjem buffetu Blato prije nego su ti barski stolići za nalakćivanje izneseni i zamijenjene običnim stolovima - dakle, i sama je Velika knjiga šema naprosto jedna šema a one, u mojoj generaciji, uglavnom nisu bile ostvarene.

Šeme su letjele su na krilima od etera, prozračne, bestežinske, svojstveno dobu u kojemu je nastao i konceptualizam. Konceptualizam predmnijeva visokoparnu ideju i ironično odsustvo realizacije, za razliku od današnjeg - žižekovskog - postmodernizma gdje se ironijski koncept realizira s neumornom akribijom.

ZAGROB: SMAK SVIJETA!

TEOLOŠKO-EZOTERIČNI ASPEKTI PADA 'NADE DIMIĆ'



PROROČANSTVO

Apokalipsa, 15,16 I skupiše ih na mjesto koje se hebrejski zove Harmagedon. (17) I sedmi izli svoju čašu na zrak. Uto iz hrama, s prijestolja, iziđe jak glas i viknu: "Svršeno je!" (18) I udariše munje i glasovi i gromovi i nasta potres velik, kakva ne bijaše otkako je ljudi - tako bijaše silan potres taj. (19) I prasnu natroje grad veliki i gradovi naroda padoše. Spomenu se Bog Babilona velikoga da mu dade piti iz čaše vina gnjevne srdžbe Božje.

PREDANJE

Prema okultnoj geografiji svijeta projekcija mača Sv.Mihaela pada na 16.meridijan.
Sveti Mihael pobjednk je na Armagedonu.
Sv.Mihael je pobjednik nad Sotonom.
16. meridijan prolazi kroz Zagreb.
Zareb ima Mihaljevac, ergo, tkogod da je davao ime MIhaljevcu, a to nikako nije mogla biti nevažna osoba, morao je poznavati predanje.
Gradski su odličnici, tvrdimo, bili upoznati s okultnom geografijom svijeta.
Nestvarno je prodrlo u stvarnost.
Nightmare...
Zato je Zagreb zagrobno mjesto, Zagrob: mjesto za posljednjim grobom, mjesto iza Armagedona.

Studentski list br. 1014, 15. studeni 1989.



PREDZNACI APOKALIPSE

"JUTARNJI LIST"

Do najnovijeg preuzimanja slučaja Petrač Nobilova se karijera uspješnog odvjetnika u posljednje dvije i pol godine pretvarala u karijeru uspješnog poduzetnika nekretninama.

S poslovnim partnerom Milanom Mićom Carićem, nekada vlasnikom restorana , a kasnije casina Tiffany, omiljenoga okupljališta dečki iz Bagarićeva klana a zatim i vlasnika nekolicine kockarnica, Nobilo je 2003. preuzeo ruševne hale nekadašnje tvornice Nade Dimić u zagrebačkoj Branimirovoj ulici. U nizu novinskih intervjua Nobilo je tada najavio svoje velike poslovne planove. Carić je, usput rečeno, bio svjedok obrane u maratonskom procesu tzv. Zločinačkoj organizaciji i priča kaže da je upravo on predstavljao vezu između Nobila i dečki s Knežije.

Nada Dimić

- Moj poslovni partner Milan Carić i ja kupili smo nekretnine bivše zagrebačke tvornice Nada Dimić, bolje reći bivše ruševine. Namjeravamo tu građevinu preurediti u poslovni centar i onda rentati prostore. U sklopu toga planiramo otvoriti pravi irski pub i dobar dalmatinski restoran. Ne namjeravamo je rušiti, nego adaptirati, iako to više košta. Ali, i inače sam protivnik prakse da se stara zagrebačka jezgra ruši i na njenim temeljima gradi nešto novo, tako da ni tu neće biti iznimke - pohvalio se Nobilo u intervjuu Areni 23. siječnja 2003. godine.

Nešto više od dvije godine nakon tog intervjua Carić i Nobilo prodali su Nadu Dimić, i to u stanju gotovo identičnom onome u kojemu su je i preuzeli, splitskom trgovinskom magnatu Željku Kerumu za, navodno, otprilike 8,5 milijuna eura. Cijena je u te dvije godine porasla višestruko zbog jedne sitnice - nekretnina je "očišćena" od zabrane dogradnje jer je Nobilo isposlovao građevinsku dozvolu. Treba li reći da zagrebački gradonačelnik Milan Bandić stalni Nobilov klijent te da ga je Nobilo branio i 2004. u slučaju oglasa "Istina je" kada ga je javni napad na sudsku presudu gotovo koštao stranačke funkcije?

"NACIONAL"

NACIONAL: Kako ćete ostvariti svoja prava oko zajedničke imovine? Što vam vaš bivši suprug osporava? – Nobilo je u novinama izjavio kako mi je ostavio kuću od 500 četvornih metara, ali to nije tako. On ne živi s nama u toj kući, ali kako je to bračna stečevina ima pravo na polovicu, a te polovice se dosad nije odrekao. Kad sam mu rekla da želim najamninu za svoj idealni dio u uredu u Amruševoj, rekao je da bi mu u tom slučaju trebala platiti najam za pola kuće. Očito je pomiješao neke stvari. U toj kući stanujem zajedno s našom djecom i ona ne donosi nikakav prihod, nego naprotiv traži velika ulaganja i sredstva za održavanje. A u uredu ti odvjetnici valjda zarade toliko da bi mi mogli plaćati najam poslovnog prostora. No to su nevažne stvari u odnosu na ogroman novac koji mi duguje Nobilo. Morat ću poduzeti korake da mi vrati novac koji smo uložili u robnu kuću u Čakovcu gdje je naš partner Mićo Carić. Dužan mi je i novac koji je uložio u kupnju tvornice Nada Dimić a da me o tome nije ni pitao. Za to sam saznala iz intervjua u Nacionalu. I tu mu je partner Carić, a u pozadini toga je i njihov veliki prijatelj i poslovni suradnik Nino Pavić. Znam za njihove veze zbog obostranih poslovnih interesa. Uvjerila sam se da nemam pristupa izdanjima EPH, pa čak ni Gloriji, u kojoj su znali za moju priču ali je nisu htjeli objaviti. Nobilo je kod njih zaštićen.
NACIONAL: Hoćete li moći dokazati da je u poslove ulagao vaš zajednički novac? – U kupnju tvornice Nade Dimić išao je s našim zajedničkim novcem i to ću lako dokazati na sudu. Zamolila sam Ivanu da ga o tome izvijesti i da posreduje kako bi riješili naše odnose mirno i bez suda. Djeca su svjedoci i kad je na Božić 2002., kad je već bio van kuće gotovo osam mjeseci, donio u kuću pun kovčeg novca. Bio je to zajednički novac koji je mi je ostavio na čuvanje. Imao je puno povjerenja a vjerojatno je bio na provodu s trošačicom našega novca. Kad se vratio novac sam mu uredno dala, ne smatrajući da bi me ikad u životu prevario u materijalnom smislu. Nije nikada ni bio orijentiran prema materijalnom, ne znam kad se promijenio. Pogriješila sam što sam mu dala da odnese novac iz kuće, umjesto da uzmem svoju polovicu, jer je to uložio u Nadu Dimić. I robnu kuću Šavrić u Čakovcu smo kupili zajedno u vrijeme dok smo bili u dobrim odnosima. Takve investicije su mu se toliko svidjele da je jednom čak rekao kako će napustiti krivično pravo i baviti se samo biznisom. Čini mi se da se u tim slučajevima novac nije oplodio. To su samo nekretnine koje stoje i ne donose ništa. Uvjerila sam se da je dokumentacija za robnu kuću na Trgovačkom sudu preinačena, vjerojatno zbog mene. Ne želim ulaziti u sve to jer mi je namjera povratiti svoj novac, a robna kuća i Nada Dimić me ne zanimaju.

"FERAL TRIBUNE"

"ČOVJEK ZA SVA RAMENA" (3)

KREŠIMIR I DOBRO
9. veljače, 2006.

Premda je pomalo besmisleno Anti Nobilu objašnjavati narav njegovih privatnih poslova s gradonačelnikom Milanom Bandićem, ipak ćemo se – zbog onih koji nisu Nobilo i Bandić – poduhvatiti tog posla, pa ćemo se za tu svrhu poslužiti riječima samoga Nobila i jednim novinskim tekstom u kojemu se govorilo o poduzetničkim aktivnostima ovog zagrebačkog odvjetnika, aktivnostima koje se tiču trgovine nekretninama, ili preciznije, kupoprodajom propale tvornice "Nada Dimić" u Branimirovoj ulici: tako ćemo, kad je poznati odvjetnik već tražio, nešto iscrpnije pokazati što se krije iza formulacije ovog potpisnika o "trgovanju nekretninama ispod žita" koje prakticiraju Nobilo, Bandić i Mićo Carić, a na koju se advokat obrušio u prošlom broju Ferala.
U "Slobodnoj Dalmaciji" devetog je listopada 2005. izišao tekst koji kaže ovako: "'Željko Kerum kupuje 'Nadu Dimić' od tvrtke 'Krešimir' koja je moj klijent. Pošto je tvornica otkupljena iz stečaja, nastalo je mnogo pravnih problema oko dobivanja pravomoćne građevinske dozvole kojima smo se bavili 3,5 godine. Eto, problemi su konačno riješeni i moj klijent nekadašnju 'Nadu Dimić' prodaje splitskom biznismenu', objašnjava odvjetnik Anto Nobilo koji se nakon razvikanih krivičnih predmeta i haaške obrane Tihomira Blaškića posvetio uglavnom trgovačkom pravu. Po svemu sudeći, u Zagrebu je Željko Kerum dočekan s velikom političkom naklonošću. Prošle srijede u ranim popodnevnim satima viđen je u irskom pubu 'Hole in One' u Vlaškoj ulici u prijateljskom razgovoru s Milanom Bandićem, zagrebačkim gradonačelnikom koji je vrlo zainteresiran za Kerumova ulaganja u hrvatsku metropolu."
Nobilo je, dakle, rekao da je "Nadu Dimić" kupila tvrtka "Krešimir" kojoj je on odvjetnik, pa je onda ta tvrtka tri i pol godine čekala na izdavanje građevinske dozvole za izvođenje neimarskih zahvata na oronulim objektima u Branimirovoj ulici u Zagrebu, e da bi je konačno ishodila u ranu jesen prošle godine i potom tvornicu prodala Željku Kerumu. Što nam je Nobilo – čovjek koji i inače običava prešutjeti ili odšutjeti one činjenice koje njegov lik smještaju izvan svetačkih okvira u kojima sam sebe voli vidjeti – prešutio u vezi s tvrtkom "Krešimir"? Prešutio je da mu tvrtka "Krešimir" (čiji je puni naziv Poslovni centar "Krešimir" d.o.o.) nije samo klijent, nego je – čudnovatom igrom slučaja – njezino sjedište registrirano u Amruševoj ulici 7 u Zagrebu, gdje je sjedište i Odvjetničkog društva "Nobilo i drugi". Nobilo je, naime, prešutio da je – zajedno s Mićom Carićem – suvlasnik rečene firme čija je deklarirana djelatnost trgovina nekretninama. To, za početak, hoće reći da je Nobilo bio i osobno, a ne samo kao advokat zainteresirane tvrtke, vrlo zainteresiran da se pribavi građevinska dozvola za nekretninu koju je kupio skupa s gospodinom Carićem, jer je taj papir bio preduvjet za daljnju prodaju "Nade Dimić" i za ozbiljnu zaradu na čitavome poslu. Tko bi kupio više od deset tisuća četvornih metara ruševnih zgrada u centru Zagreba, bez mogućnosti da ih dograđuje i mijenja im izgled i namjenu? Ne bi ih kupio nitko normalan, pa bi trgovački debi Nobila & Carića završio potpunim debaklom.
Nobilo bi, međutim, građevinsku dozvolu čekao puno duže od tri i pol godine, i sva je prilika da je nikad ne bi ni dočekao zato što su pojedini objekti "Nade Dimić" zaštićeni spomenici kulture, da se u međuvremenu nije zbilo njegovo poslovno i privatno zbližavanje s Milanom Bandićem: Blaškićev je odvjetnik, između ostaloga, postao i advokatom aktualnog gradonačelnika. Nije li odviše slučajno da su Nobilo i Carić papir vrijedan nekoliko milijuna kuna uspjeli ishoditi ubrzo pošto je Bandiću počeo teći gradonačelnički mandat? Nije li malo čudno da se Bandić sastaje sa Željkom Karumom nedugo nakon što je ovaj kupio "Nadu Dimić" od Nobila i Carića i odmah skovao plan da na toj lokaciji podigne luksuzni hotel? Nije li malo nemoralno predstavljati se samo odvjetnikom tvrtke čiji ste suvlasnik, tvrtke koja je Bandićevom milošću postala bogatija za nekoliko milijuna kuna?
Na sva ova pitanja Nobilo će, najvjerojatnije, odgovoriti nastavkom inzistiranja na formi, pa će konstatirati da Milan Bandić nije zadužen za izdavanje građevinskih dozvola nego je to posao nekog tamo činovnika i da je čitava stvar legalna. Naš poduzetni advokat i inače običava biti doslovan kad takav pristup odgovara njegovim trenutnim interesima, za razliku od onih situacija kad mu je isplativo demonstrirati kreativnost u razumijevanju propisa, funkcija, dokumenata i sličnih formalnosti. Nobilo pritom misli da je pronalaženje formalnih opravdanja za svaku od njegovih brojnih nepodopština (od distribuiranja Mesićeva zaštićenog haaškog svjedočenja do fanatične i vrlo kreativne borbe za ljudska prava Miroslava Kutle, koja sama po sebi nije problematična, ali je u izvedbi bila degutantna) vrhunsko intelektualno dostignuće koje pouzdano prolazi kod maloumne i nezainteresirane hrvatske javnosti, ali ga sa žaljenjem moramo obavijestiti da bolest još uvijek nije dohvatila svaku poru ovog društva.
P.S. S obzirom da Anto Nobilo u svome reagiranju nije naveo u kojoj funkciji progovara u ime Miće Carića (je li mu odvjetnik ili staratelj, poslovni partner ili glasnogovornik, savjetnik ili sve ovo u jednoj ličnosti?), u ovoj ću se prilici suzdržati od detaljnijeg analiziranja socijalnog statusa i pogotovo "neporočnosti" rečenog gospodina, inače, kako kaže Nobilo, uglednog nositelja odijela Kiton i Brioni. Iskreno se nadam da će se Carić potruditi da do idućeg broja svojim riječima sroči reagiranje na moj tekst o Milanu Bandiću, pa ću se onda s osobitim zadovoljstvom pozabaviti tim osebujnim likom sa zagrebačke podzemne scene koji, kao i njegov odvjetnik (staratelj? poslovni partner? glasnogovornik? savjetnik?), pokušava misliti da kitoni & brioni & milioni čine ugledna čovjeka.

-- Ivica Đikić, novinar Feral Tribunea



HRVATSKI LIST: Mafijaški obračuni i pljačke na zagrebački način

Zagrebački poglavari vole slatko

Kako je Poglavarstvo Zagreba dovelo u stečaj Zagrebačko ugostiteljsko-slastičarsko poduzeće, u većinskom vlasništvu Ante i Ankice Kovčo, samo zato da bi se domoglo atraktivnih poslovnih prostora u središtu grada!


Piše: TOMISLAV JELIĆ

Ovih dana, kada je počeo 'screening' između EU-a i RH iz područja pravosuđa, jedna aktualna priča iz Zagreba potvrdila je obilje primjedaba upućenih hrvatskim pregovaračima i to izravno od pojedinih zemalja, prije svega Velike Britanije. Jedna od najozbiljnijih primjedaba je ona o tomu kako je Hrvatska premrežena mafijom i to u strukturama vlasti. To najbolje ilustrira slučaj agonije Zagrebačkog ugostiteljsko-slastičarskog poduzeća. Predstavnik EU-a Jose Fernando Duarte jasno je usmeno dao do znanja našim pregovaračima, i to na pojedinim primjerima, kako je vrlo dobro upućen u stanje hrvatskoga pravosuđa s posebnim osvrtom na rad, odnosno nerad Državnoga odvjetništva i Uskoka. Bez obzira je li među tim primjerima izrežirani stečaj i mafijaška otimačina Zagrebačkog ugostiteIjsko-slastičarskog poduzeća (ZUSP-a), taj primjer pokazuje kako su i najistaknutiji pojedinci zagrebačke vlasti, gradonačelnik Milan Bandić, direktor Holdinga Slobodan Ljubičić i drugi lutke u rukama ljudi koji se nigdje formalno ne pojavljuju, a zapravo upravljaju političarima i javnim dobrima. Takve ljude kod nas svrstavaju u podzemlje, a u normalnim državama iza rešetaka. O čemu je, zapravo, riječ?

Odlukama do ekskluzivnih poslovnih prostora

Tranzicija planskoga gospodarstva u tržišno s poznatim titularom vlasništva, a posebno rat i njegove popratne pojave, dovele su do toga da pojedini gospodarski subjekti u gradu Zagrebu sredinom devedesetih godina nisu bili u stanju podmirivati svoje komunalne obveze prema gradu. Ti su dugovi prije nekoliko godina dosegli blizu milijardu kuna. Poglavarstvo, kako bi bar nešto od toga uprihodilo u proračun, 27. veljače 2002. predlaže, a Skupština usvaja odluku kojom se dužnicima pogoduje na način da svoje dugove mogu podmiriti odmah, a da im se dug prepolovi ili značajno umanji. Nekoliko je mjeseci ta odluka uistinu dobro funkcionirala sve dok Milan Bandić nije skinuo masku i potvrdio zbog čega je ona zapravo donesena. Naime, donesena je više da bi se izbjegli javni natječaji kod najma poslovnih prostora, nego da bi se punio proračun grada. Od tada je i formirano Povjerenstvo za pristigla, a nepodmirena potraživanja, a na čelo tog povjerenstva imenovanje 'vječni' Vidoje Đulum, tajnik zagrebačkoga Poglavarstva. Zadatak toga povjerenstva je utvrditi tko će i na koji način podmiriti svoj dug, a tko će biti amnestiran. A kako to povjerenstvo radi, najbolje svjedoči slučaj kada je jednom dužniku omogućeno da, umjesto duga gradu Zagrebu, svoju bezvrijednu zemlju ustupi gradu kao vrlo 'atraktivnu'. Zagrebačko ugostiteljsko-slastičarsko poduzeće poput mnogih drugih poduzeća pokušalo s Gradom utvrditi svoj dug i način podmirenja. Međutim, baš u njihovu slučaju uvedeni su neki drugi kriteriji. Njima se na njihove dopise nije odgovaralo, njihov dug nikada im precizno nije predočen, na razgovore ih se nije primalo, naprosto htjelo ih se poslati u stečaj. A kako Hrvatski list doznaje, sve je to urađeno s ciljem da bi do tih poslovnih prostora došao poznati Milan Mićo Carić, poznat u krugovima gradskoga Poglavarstva kao gradonačelnik u sjeni. To su ekskluzivni poslovni prostori u centru grada Zagreba, u Preradovićevoj (46 kvadrata), u Petrićevoj, odmah do Trga bana Josipa Jelačića (94 kvadrata), u Maksimirskoj (61 kvadrat), u Ilici (19 kvadrata i drugi 57 kvadrata), u Pothodniku kolodvor (53 kvadrata), u Dežmanovoj (103 kvadrata), u Teslinoj (103 kvadrata), u Vukovarskoj (122 kvadrata) i u Preradovićevoj, gdje je smještena uprava poduzeća (810 kvadrata). ZUSP na tim lokacijama neprekidno posluje već 56 godina, a to je i svojevrsna zagrebačka tradicija. Poznato je kako Zagrepčani vole slatko pa se mnogi namjernici čude redovima pred gradskim slastičarnicama.

Tajanstveni visoko pozicionirani političar

Nakon što 'pošteno' povjerenstvo Vidoja Buluma nije do tada nikada razmatralo slučaj ZUSP-ova duga gradu, Poglavarstvo Zagreba pokreće ovrhu nad tom slastičarskom tvrtkom i blokira im račun. Kovčovi, koji su u 53 posto poduzeća vlasnici ZSUP-a, tada pokušavaju razgovarati s tajnikom Poglavarstva Bulumom koji ih kratkim putem šalje Milanu Bandiću «da s njim pokušaju u četiri oka riješiti problem«.

l prije nego što su došli do svemogućeg Bandića, na scenu stupa Slobodan Ljubičić, zadužen za imovinu grada, a današnji direktor Holdinga, Robnih terminala i poslovni tajnik zagrebačkoga SDP-a. On traži od bračnoga para Kovčo, vlasnika ZUSP-a, da mu zajedno s ostalim malim dioničarima (zaposlenicima) prodaju poduzeće. Njegova zamjenica Zdravka Ramljak, kako to piše u prijavi Kovčovih MUP-u, doslovno im je rekla: «Ima jedan važan i visoko pozicioniran političar u gradu, njegovo ime mora ostati tajna koji zna da imate problema u poslovanju te želi kupiti poduzeće. Ako to ne prihvatite, bojim se da ćete imati većih problema.« Kada su sve te pritiske Kovčovi odbili, igra u stilu mafijskih pljački i obračuna na zagrebački način nastavila se.

Ubrzo nakon toga, već 23. svibnja 2003. godine, Općinski sud donosi rješenje o ovrsi. Na to se rješenje uprava ZUSP-a žalila Županijskom sudu. Drugostupanjski Županijski sud žalbu je prihvatio i odbacio rješenje o ovrsi, s obrazloženjem da je Grad zaračunao lihvarske kamate. No, novi pretendent na te prostore, Milan Mićo Carić, nestrpljiv je i svojim utjecajem u gradskom Poglavarstvu putem prijatelja i imenjaka Bandića, koji je tada bio zamjenik gradonačelnice, te Srećka Ferenčaka i Slobodara Ljubičića, i prije nego stoje predmet postao pravomoćan, na Županijskom sudu koji je prihvatio žalbu ZUSP-a, uigrana četvorka pod zastavom Grada Zagreba pokreće stečaj Zagrebačkog slastičarskog poduzeća. Poslove pokretanja stečaja vodio je Vinko Knezović zamjenik županijskog državnog odvjetnika i veliki prijatelj Vidoja Buluma. Simptomatična je u ovom slastičarskom slučaju i brzina rada Trgovačkog suda. Prijedlog za stečaj pokrenut je 22. listopada 2003., a mjesec dana nakon toga, u studenom, određuje se ročište o izjašnjavanju prijedloga za otvaranje stečaja koje se treba održati 10. prosinca iste godine. Sve skupa u 48 dana, što je hrvatski rekord na Trgovačkom sudu, kako nam kaže Ante Galić, šef Odjela za stečajeve.

Dva različita rješenja u istom predmetu isti dan

U toj brzinskoj utrci za 'okupacijom' tuđega, postignut je još jedan 'raritet'. Prema izvješću Trgovačkog suda, odjela za stečajeve, Zagrebačko ugostiteljsko-slastičarsko poduzeće prva je tvrtka protiv koje je grad Zagreb pokrenuo stečaj zbog navodnog duga za poslovne prostore.

Na rješenje o otvaranju stečaja Ankica Kovčo, direktorica ZUSP-a, nakon što je uložila žalbu Visokom trgovačkom sudu, iznenađena dobiva od Ivana Gembarovskog, suca istog tog suda, u jednom danu o istom predmetu dva različita rješenja. Nakon toga započela je prava Kalvarija bračnoga para Kovčo. Stečajni upravitelj dolazi u poduzeće i nasilno sa zaštitarima izbacuje vlasnike iz poduzeća, a Antu Kovču, predsjednika Nadzornog odbora, brutalno premlaćuju da završava u bolnici s teškim ozljedama.

Nakon što je otvoren stečaj, a stečajni upravitelj Davor Peter nikada i nigdje nije objavio prikupljanje ponuda za zakup poslovnog prostora ZUSP-a, prvu i jedinu ponudu šalje famozno poduzeće 'Reddo' o kojem se zna da mu je sjedište u Tesličkoj 47, temeljni kapital 20 tisuća kuna i da mu je direktor Robert Berišić. Njihovu ponudu stečajni upravitelj odmah dostavlja Uredu za imovinsko pravne poslove Grada, a nakon toga 80-godišnji predsjednik Povjerenstva za zakup poslovnih prostora Ivan Šikić, iz 'davne' prošlosti predsjednik bivše općine Pešćenica i u nekim krugovima poznatiji kao Bandićev 'partijsko-politički otac', predlaže Gradskom poglavarstvu da zaključe ugovor s poduzećem 'Reddo' za prostore koji su bili u najmu ZUSP-a.

I upravo ovih dana čini se da mafijaški obračun i pljačka Kovčovih dobiva svoj epilog. Ured za upravljanje imovinom 25. kolovoza ove godine objavljuje da se svi poslovni prostori zagrebačkog slastičarskog poduzeća daju u najam poduzeću 'Reddo'.

'Reddo' za dvojbene kupoprodaje nekretnina

Poduzeće 'Reddo' u pravilu se pojavljuje u poslovima oko nekretnina grada Zagreba, a posebno u pravno dvojbenim predmetima kupoprodaje nekretnina, poput nedavnog pokušaja prijevare grada Zagreba za 30-ak tisuća kvadrata zemljišta na Rudešu. Iza tog poduzeća, naime, stoji kontroverzni Milan Mićo Carić. Tko je zapravo taj nevidljivi i stvarni gradonačelnik Zagreba?

U javnosti Carić se sam predstavlja kao poslovni partner pok. Zlatka Bagarića, vlasnika kockarnica, prijatelj vlasnika EPH Ninoslava Pavića i odvjetnika Ante Nobila s kojima je kupio tvornicu Nada Dimić, kao nekadašnji vlasnik dvaju kultnih klubova 'Tiffanv' i 'Romantike' te niza kockarnica u Zagrebu. Dugogodišnji je prijatelj Slobodara Ljubičića i Milana Bandića, a često se okupljaju u kafiću 'Kavalir' na Trgu bana Jelačića. Milan Mićo Carić u Poglavarstvu grada Zagreba dnevno provodi više vremena negoli ijedan pročelnik premda tamo nije formalno zaposlen. Mnogi govore da baš on određuje i na Trgovačkom sudu tko će u kojem poduzeću biti stečajni upravitelj, a oni smioniji čak tvrde da on piše i presude na tom sudu, a suci ih potpisuju. Kad se uzme sve to u obzir, nedavno podnesena kaznena prijava koju je bračni par Kovčo podnio protiv Slobodana Ljubičica i ostalih, u kojoj tvrde da ih je tajnik Poglavarstva Vidoje Bulum prije otvaranja stečaja nagovarao «da sjednu s Mićom Carićem i da se dogovore koliko komu lokala, a s time bi i Milan (Bandić, op.a) bio zadovoljan«, postaje jasan interes Milana Miće Carića u lovu na atraktivne slastičarne ZUSP-a. To sve su Kovčovi spremni i na sudu materijalno dokazati.

Otmica još jednog dobrostojećeg i perspektivnog zagrebačkog poduzeća ipak je čini se dovršena.

Prostori za Miću Carića, gradonačelnika u sjeni!

Cilj ove igre je da do poslovnih prostora dođe (a već je i došao) Milan Mićo Carić, poznat u krugovima gradskog Poglavarstva kao gradonačelnik u sjeni. To su ekskluzivni poslovni prostori u centru grada Zagreba, u Preradovićevoj(46 kvadrata), u Petrićevoj odmah do Trga bana Josipa Jelačića (94 kvadrata), u Maksimirskoj (61 kvadrat), u Ilici (19 kvadrata i drugi 57 kvadrata), u Pothodniku kolodvor (53 kvadrata), u Dežmanovoj (103 kvadrata), u Teslinoj (103 kvadrata), u Vukovarskoj (122 kvadrata) i u Preradovićevoj, gdje je smještena uprava poduzeća, (810 kvadrata). ZUSP na tim lokacijama neprekidno posluje već 56 godina, a to je, osim toga, i svojevrsna zagrebačka tradicija.

DARKO DESNICA

Fake




Mario sjedi na rubu prostranog kauča, pod žućkastosmeđim portretom Merilyn Monroe. Nudi me kavom i kolačima.
«Uzmi,» kaže. «Tebi ne treba dijeta.»
U studentskim danima bio je asketski mršav – nemirni, blijedi dečko sa Stepinčevim crtama lica. Sada se smjestio podvijenih nogu s rukama sklopljenim na izbočenom, okruglom trbuhu, poput dobroćudnog Bude.
Nazvao me nakon dugo vremena: glas ispunjen hitnjom, molbom, ostacima osjećaja koji me se nisu ticali.
«Hoćeš da popijemo čašu vina?» pita.
«Može,» kažem. «Danas više neću raditi.»
Ustaje, odlazi u kuhinju.
Otpijam gutljaj kave, palim cigaretu. Promatram crnu, skupocjenu muzičku liniju, Sonyjev srebrnosivi TV, novi Mac. Nesvjesno podižem pogled, u mislima evociram podlogu uz istančani crtež: Truman Capote: «The Beautiful Child».
«Evo ga,» najavljuje Mario, noseći otvorenu butelju Chardonnaya i dvije čaše. «Da se kucnemo,» dodaje raspoloženo.

Započinjući razgovor, ispituje me o zajedničkim znancima iz mladosti.
Pokušavam mu ocrtati obrise tuđih biografija, oponašati glasove i geste ljudi koje sam sreo; ubrzo odustajem, shvaćajući da me deprimira infantilnost vlastitog pristupa, neprimjerenost glume.
«Kao komadići slagalice,» nadovezuje se Mario, ne primjećujući moju zabunu. «Dijelovi raznih oblika razasuti unaokolo ili fragmentarno složeni jedan uz drugoga, prepoznate bliskosti.»
«Meni to više liči na paukovu mrežu,» kažem. «Samo bez pauka.»

Mijenjamo temu; započinjemo razgovor o podzemnim tradicijama, ezoteričnom naličju stvari. Mario opisuje noći provedene u surfanju, mailanju s profesorima iz Hamburga, Praga, Sjeverne Karoline.
«Htio bih napisati roman,» kaže. «Već dugo prikupljam materijal o zaboravljenim ličnostima s dvora kralja Rudolfa II. Od izvora, u posljednje vrijeme najviše me zaokuplja Parsifal, legenda o Gralu.»
Preporučujem mu neke francuske autore, opisujem dijalog iz nenapisane knjige.
«Zašto vas toliko zanima kršćanstvo, gospodine?»
«Želio bih znati što je to koplje koje krvari.»

Neko vrijeme šutimo, pijuckamo vino, slušamo muziku.
Započinjemo razgovor o muško-ženskim odnosima, promašenim vezama. Mario rezimira vlastiti slučaj.
«Te sam sezone opako zaradio,» započinje. «Dionice, privatna tvrtka, nekoliko uspjelih transakcija nekretninama. Renovirao sam stan i kupio kuću u Istri. Ukratko, išlo mi je više nego dobro.
A onda sam se jedne večeri s nekim partnerima našao na partyju u Sheratonu. U dvorani, za stolom do mojega, sjedila je plavokosa djevojka i pijuckala koktel. Odmah mi se svidjela. Imala je neku subverzivnu energiju, mačju strast.»
Vidio sam je samo jednom: kosa strogo pripijena uz tjeme, ledeno plave oči, ruke prekrivene prstenjem.
«Oženili smo se tri mjeseca kasnije,» nastavlja. «Preselili smo u njenu kuću i započeli intenzivni društveni život. Uložio sam sto tisuća maraka u namještaj i slike. Planirali smo podići kredite i pokrenuti zajednički business.»
«I što se dogodilo?» pitam.
«Shvatio sam da gospođa puno više voli novac nego mene. Ali, bilo je kasno. Poslovni papiri koje sam držao u stolu neočekivano su osvanuli u jednom političkom tjedniku; čuo sam da ih je prodala za fantastičan honorar. Zatim je otišla na more s prijateljicom, a kad se vratila, fotografirala se za žensku reviju sa psićem u krilu. Istovremeno, njezin me odvjetnik obavijestio da je podnijela zahtjev za razvod.»
Gaseći cigaretu, pitam ga kako se sad osjeća.
«Prazno,» odgovara. «Kao ispuhani balon.»

...

Pogledavam na sat. Uskoro će ponoć. Kažem da bih morao krenuti.
Ustajemo, Mario me ispraća do vrata: «Nadam se da ćemo se sad češće viđati.»
Smješkam se u neprilici, zastajem, prilazim slici nad kaučem. Vrhovima prstiju dodirujem pravilno čelo, nos, obraze glumice.
«Što misliš, da li je ovo boli?» pitam, pokazujući na deformaciju oko usana, razapeto lice.
Začuđeno me gleda, tapše me po ramenu.
«Prijatelju,» kaže umorno, «ženske su rane fake.»
Osjećajući njegov dodir, postajem svjestan distance, skrivenog jezičca zajedničke povijesti. I znam da ću budan dočekati jutro.