“‘Traditions’ which appear or claim to be old are often quite recent in origin and sometimes invented. …

‘Invented tradition’ is taken to mean a set of practices, normally governed by overtly or tacitly accepted rules and of ritual or symbolic nature, which seek to inculcate certain values and norms of behaviour by repetition, which automatically implies continuity with the past. In fact, where possible, they normally attempt to establish continuity with a suitable historic past. …

‘Tradition’ … must be distinguished clearly from ‘custom’ which dominates so-called ‘traditional’ societies. The object and characteristic of ‘traditions’, including invented ones, is invariance. The past, real or invented, to which they refer imposes fixed (normally formalized) practices, such as repetition. … ‘Custom’ cannot afford to be invariant, because even in ‘traditional’ societies life is not so. Customary or common law still shows this combination of flexibility in substance and formal adherence to precedent. …

Convention and routine are not ‘invented traditions’ since their functions, and therefore their justifications, are technical rather than ideological. …

Sometimes new traditions could be grafted on old ones, sometimes they could be devised by borrowing from the well-supplied warehouses of official ritual, symbolism and moral exhortation – religion and princely pomp, folklore and freemasonry (itself an earlier invented tradition of great symbolic force) …

It is clear that plenty of political institutions, ideological movements and groups – not least in nationalism – were so unprecedented that even historic continuity had to be invented, for example by creating an ancient past beyond effective historical continuity. … It is also clear that entirely new symbols and devices came into existence as part of national movements and states, such as the national anthem (of which the British in 1740 seems to be the earliest), the national flag (still largely a variation of the French revolutionary tricolour, evolved 1790-4) or the personification of ‘the nation‘ in symbol or image …” ¹

“Tartan – that is cloth woven in a geometrical pattern of colours – was known in Scotland in the sixteenth century (it seems to have come from Flanders …), the kilt … – unknown in 1726, … suddenly appeared two years later … its inventor was an English Quaker from Lancashire, Thomas Rawlinson … [there was] no differentiation of clans, no continuity of setts … in October 1745 … the Caledonian Mercury advertised a ‘great choice of tartans, the newest patterns’ …” ²

“[During most of the nineteenth century, British] royal ceremonies were … remote, inaccessible group rites, performed for the benefit of the few rather than the edification of the many. … For the majority of the great royal pageants staged during the first three-quarters of the nineteenth century oscillated between farce and fiasco. … Slowly … [then, a] coherent syntax and language of symbols and meanings emerged. In 1887, after fifty years on the throne, the Widow of Windsor was persuaded – although only with the greatest reluctance – to participate in a grand state pageant in London. It was, indeed, a risk, for her unpopularity made it impossible to predict what sort of reception she would receive. … Nevertheless, the resulting Golden Jubilee … was a great success. … Meticulous planning, popular enthusiasm, widespread reporting and unprecedented splendour were successfully allied. … Three people … were of major significance: … [While] Reginald Brett, Viscount Esher … provided the expertise and organizing flair, and Edward [VII] himself supplied the enthusiasm and support, it was Elgar, whose compositions raised ceremonial music … to mere works of art of their own right. …” ³

1) aus: Eric Hobsbawm: Introduction. Inventing Traditions. In: Eric Hobsbawm / Terence Ranger: The Invention of Tradition, Cambridge University Press, 2020 (Orig.-Ausgabe 1982), S.2-7.

2) aus: Hugh Trevor-Roper: The invention of Tradition: The Highland Tradition of Scotland, im selben Band, S. 18.23.

3) aus: David Cannadine: The Context, Performance and Meaning of Ritual: The British Monarchy and the ‘Invention of Tradition”, c.1820-1977, im selben Band, S.111-136

06/21

“In 2002 … we were dragged down by the swamp of the Hungarian left. … But, Dear Friends, in 2002 we … did not adopt a defensive attitude, … we played to win and proclaimed the Reconquista. …

The plan succeeded. In 2010 we came back. … Hungary is the laboratory in which we tested the antidote to dominance by progressives. … This spring Hungary has received its fourth dose, … the patient has been completely cured. The medication is open-source, free of charge, and comprises twelve points …

[1] … Play by our own rules. The only way to win is to refuse to accept the solutions and the paths offered by others. … Those who play by their opponents’ rules are certain to lose.

[2] … National conservatism in domestic politics. The cause of the nation is not a matter of ideology, nor even of tradition. The reason that churches and families must be supported is that they are the building blocks of the nation. … The Achilles heel of progressives is precisely that they want to impose their dreams on society. But for us that danger is also an opportunity, … one must find the issues on which the Left is completely out of touch with reality and highlight them …

[3] … The national interest in foreign policy. Progressives always think that foreign policy is a battle of ideologies: a battle between good and bad … Something is wrong with that concept. Our response should be …: the Nation First! Hungary First! America First! … We know that Ukraine is not defending Hungary. That is a nonsensical idea! … Our aim is to restore peace, not to continue the war, because that is what is in our national interest. Hungary First!

[4] … we must have our own media. We can only show up the insane ideas of the progressive Left if we have media that helps us to do this. … Naturally, the Grand Old Party, too, has allied media outlets, but they are no match for the liberals’ dominance of the media. My friend Tucker Carlson stands alone and immovable. His show has the highest audience figures. What does this mean? It means that there should be shows like his day and night – or, as you say, 24/7.

[5] … expose your opponent’s intentions. … We must not only break down today’s taboos, but also tomorrow’s taboos. … For instance, there is the issue of LGBTQ propaganda targeting children. This is still a new thing over here, but we have already destroyed it. We brought the issue out into the open and held a referendum on it. The overwhelming majority of Hungarians have rejected this form of sensitization of children. By revealing at an early stage what the Left were preparing for, we forced them on the defensive, and when they attacked our initiative they were eventually forced to admit the reality of their plan. …

[6] … economic policies that benefit the majority of voters. … In the final analysis people want jobs: people want jobs, not economic theories. … If a government of the right is unable to deliver all this, it is doomed to failure.

[7] do not get pushed to the extreme. … What is the difference between the denial of science by the extreme right and the denial of biology by LGBTQ movements? The answer is simple: there is no difference whatsoever. We must render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, unto God the things that are God’s, and unto Science the things that are Science’s. We may gain immense popularity on internet forums by promoting conspiracy theories – … but in reality we will alienate a large proportion of the electorate, find ourselves pushed to the margins, and eventually we will lose.

[8] … read every day. A book a day keeps the defeat away. … Reading … helps us to understand what our opponents think and where their thinking is flawed. If we know that, the rest is mere technique. … It is true that the spin doctor is a useful species; but understanding the problem is something that must be done by us as policymakers.

[9] … have faith. A lack of faith is dangerous. If you do not believe that there will be a final reckoning and that you will be held to account for your actions before God, you will think that you can do anything that is in your power. …

[10] … make friends. Our opponents, the progressive liberals and neo-Marxists, have unlimited unity: they have one another’s backs. By contrast, we conservatives are capable of squabbling with one another over the smallest issue. And then we wonder at how our opponents corner us. We do indeed possess intellectual sophistication, and we care about intellectual nuance. But if we want to succeed in politics, we should never look at what we disagree on, but instead look for our common ground. … Believe me, if we do not, our opponents will hunt us down one by one.

[11] … build communities. … The fewer communities there are and the lonelier people are, the more voters go to the liberals; and the more communities there are, the more votes we get. It is as simple as that. …

[12] … build institutions. For successful politics, one needs institutions and institutes. Whether they are think tanks, educational centers, talent workshops, foreign relations institutes, youth organizations or whatever, they should have a political aspect. Let us not forget: politicians come and go, but institutions stay with us for generations. They, the institutions, have the capacity to renew politics intellectually. New ideas, new thoughts and new people are needed again and again. If they run out, we will run out of ammunition, and our opponent will show no mercy in laying us low.”

… Progressives are threatening the whole of Western civilization … Progressive liberals, neo-Marxists intoxicated by the dream of wokeness, those in the pay of George Soros, the advocates of the open society. They want to abolish the Western way of life that you and we love so much: what your parents fought for during World War II and the Cold War, and what we fought for when we drove the Soviet communists out of Hungary.

My Friends,

We must take up the fight … We must take back the institutions in Washington and Brussels. … We must coordinate the movement of our troops, because we face a great challenge. … The Hungarian lesson is that we have no silver bullet. We only have work. We need to do it. Let’s go out and do it! Thanks and good luck!”

aus: Speech by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán at the opening of CPAC Hungary, Cabinet Office of the Prime Minister, Budapest, 19.5.22, im Internet

05/22

“In general, there is the sense that a country whose leaders have long had their finger on the pulse of the Kremlin has lost the count. ‘There used to be the sense: we know these people; they know us,’ the Finnish thinker and legal theorist Martti Koskenniemi told me. ‘But you can’t negotiate with a power that no longer knows where its interests lie. And if the power is more powerful than you are – and becomes in a sense crazy – then membership in Nato becomes reasonable.’ …

‘It’s not that we were very insecure yesterday, and will be very secure in Nato tomorrow,’ he says. ‘It’s that this is a negotiation with a country that can no longer negotiate, and so Nato membership helps clarify our position to them.’”

aus: Thomas Meaney: Finland and Sweden may join Nato – but even they can’t guarantee that will make them safer, Guardian Online, 18.5.22, im Internet

05/22

“L’impuissance des individus pauvres dépouillés des protections collectives contraste avec la puissance libérée des contraintes collectives des individus riches.”

aus: Hakim El Karoui: Réinventer l’Occident. Essai sur une crise économique et culturelle. Paris: Flammarion 2010, S.19

05/22

“Het is best mogelijk dat bezoekers van een andere planeet na hun landing op Terra tot de conclusie zouden komen dat de religie van de huidige mensheid bestaat uit een rampencultus waaraan de leden van de soort zich eenmaal of meermalen per dag thuis voor hun flikkerend rechthoekig huisaltaar overgeven. De mensheid verenigt zich – zo zullen de buitenaardse wezens wel denken – in een gemeenschappelijke, bezorgde extase bij het zien van de openbaringen van het erge, gewelddadige en mislukte dat de boodschappen van een allen gemeenschappelijk absolute doorgeeft.”

aus: Peter Sloterdijk: Technologie & wereldmanagement – Over de rol van de informatiemedia in de synchrone wereldmaatschappij. (geschreven 1993), hier in: Ders.: Mediatijd. Amsterdam: Boom 2012, S.45-49.

05/22

“Wie naar de bioscoop gaat riskeert altijd een antropologische lezing, en wie van actiefilms houdt staat eo ipso dicht bij de paleoantropologie, omdat action … de lang gezochte sleutel levert tot het overgangsgebied tussen aap en mens. …

De moderne action-film is een soort experimentele geschiedschrijving van prehistorie en vroegste geschiedenis …: de losmaking der menselijke horden van de Oude Natuur. …

De beide universalia van de actiefilm – rennen en schieten – zijn in de regel verbonden door sequenties die cineasten ‘achtervolgingen’ noemen. Om nauwelijks iets anders gaat het ook bij de grote oergebeurtenis waaruit de homo sapiens voortkomt – het loopdier dat voor tweevijfde van zijn lengte uit benen bestaat en dat mens wordt omdat het achtervolging doorstaat. Daartoe was het nodig dat de vroege mens zich van vluchtdier tot tegenaanvaller transformeerde – vooral door het werpen met stenen en het slingeren van takken.

De handelingseenheid van rennen op de vlucht, zich omdraaien en werpen naar de aanvaller is het oudste actiepatroon van de mensheid – het is precies het patroon dat de menswording versnelt en het ontstaan van een specifiek menselijk groepsklimaat mogelijk maakt. Door de unieke verbinding van rennen en werpen vormt zich om de bezitters van zulke bijzondere vaardigheden een onzichtbare ring, een afstand van alle overige natuur, die van nu af menselijke wezens niet meer kan dwingen zich via louter lichamelijke aanpassing op hun omgeving in te stellen. …

Inderdaad is de mens, voor zover hij zich in de tegenaanval zelf heeft geschapen, een artilleristisch dier – werper, schutter, afstandschepper met de middelen van het projectief en de geworpen grensstenen. Als we bedenken dat de eerste ‘grenzen‘ niet getrokken of geplaatst maar geworpen werden (om daarna als niemandsland tussen de werpers leeg te blijven), dat wordt de archaïsche, suggestieve kracht van schietwapens in het algemeen en van vuurgevechten in de actiefilm in het bijzonder heel plausibel. …

Homo sapiens zou men met meer recht homo jactans, de werpende mens, kunnen heten. …”

aus: Peter Sloterdijk: Afgezanten van geweld – Over de metafysica van de actiefilm. Rede, Karlsruhe1993, hier in: Ders.: Mediatijd. Amsterdam: Boom 2012, S.45-49.

05/22

Northern Ireland and Scotland should join the Irish Republic together. That would solve all the problems at once: Protestants and Catholics would be at roughly the same numbers in the New Ireland – none of them could subdue the other. Nobody would have to start an application procedure to the European Union, as Ireland could claim similarity of its extension to Germany‘s. No additional seat needed in the Council of the European Union, only some additional MEPs. And no border in the Irish Sea! Even the Tories could be happy: Without Irish nor Scots, they keep their majority in Westminster :-)

Malte

05/22

“Wenn also … Kriegsgründe beliebig erfunden werden können, und jüdische Präsidenten als Nazis und demokratische Länder als faschistisch bezeichnet werden, wenn also die Bedrohung völlig unabhängig vom eigenen Verhalten und objektiven Realitäten existiert und weiter existieren wird, erübrigt sich die Frage, was man tun kann, um den Konflikt, der ja keiner ist, sondern eine einseitige Aggression, zu entschärfen, bzw. nicht eskalieren zu lassen. Denn die Antwort lautet: nichts.  …

Die Drohung mit Atomwaffen ist so entsetzlich, dass sie gleichzeitig irrelevant wird. … Wenn Russlands Drohung, Atomwaffen einzusetzen, einmal Wirkung zeigt, wird sie immer wieder ausgesprochen werden …

Es ist meiner Meinung nach keine Alternative, zurückzuweichen, denn das Endziel ist erklärtermaßen die Vernichtung der freien Welt. …

[Es geht hier] darum anzuerkennen, dass man einer Bedrohung gegenübersteht, die durch Verhandlungen, Appeasement oder Zugeständnisse nicht abgewendet werden kann, und aus dieser Erkenntnis heraus Verantwortung zu übernehmen. Nicht mehr und nicht weniger, egal wie beängstigend das ist, denn die Alternative ist Unterwerfung, und ob das dann das Überleben sichert, ist keinesfalls erwiesen.”

aus: Wolfgang Müller: Offener Brief in ‘Emma’: Das ist Täter-Opfer-Umkehr in Reinkultur, Spiegel Online, 1.5.22, im Internet.

05/22