The life of Diego Armando Maradona is a tale. Because Maradona always remained a child. It is therefore a tale for children and as such it is edifying. We must say to all those who say that Maradona did not show himself to be exemplary enough for a sportsman of this ilk that they are wrong. It is the greatest modern exemplar history. It must be told again and again.
Continue reading “Confession of a player (his life told by Maradona)”
Monsieur Ouine , one of the greatest French novels of the 20th century, provides many answers to the modern world as it goes. The few quotes that follow give a glimpse of the Evil insinuated everywhere.
In an acidic little book ( De la France , translated by Alain Paruit. L'Herne), Emil Cioran, gave an answer to the French malaise. He explained how attached he was to boredom, but he distinguished two kinds of boredom: that which opens "its doors to infinity", "as an extension in the spiritual of an immanent emptiness of being" and that which he thinks as one of the most important evils of France, its boredom “devoid of infinity”. He calls it "the boredom of clarity." […] the fatigue of things understood”.
She laughs at his sentence. He had a madrigal on his lips about his suspended heart; but he did not utter it, for he disliked prolonging the dialogue in this false and light tone and thus spoiling his intimate enjoyment. He was silent.
Notes from Histoire du catholicisme by Jean-Pierre Moisset (chapter 9: The shock of modernity (mid-18th century — 1870). 
Most of the quotations concerning the French Revolution given in this article come from the book “ Historically correct ” by Jean Sévillia.
—
Solzhenitsyn: “Men not being endowed with the same capacities, if they are free, they will not be equal, and if they are equal, it is because they are not free. »
—
There is a revolutionary idea of permanent invention that still persists today. It is an idea which is also contained in the idea of Progress. That everything remains to be invented. René Guénon said: “There are no new ideas on earth. “
—
Robespierre: “If Louis can be the subject of a trial, he can always be absolved; he may be innocent: what am I saying? He is presumed to be so until he is judged; but if Louis can be presumed innocent, what becomes of the Revolution? »
—
Westermann at the Convention: “There is no more Vendée: it is dead under our free sword. I crushed the children under the feet of our horses, massacred the women who will no longer give birth to brigands. I don't have a prisoner to blame me for. I wiped it all out. »
—
Carrier (after drowning 10,000 innocent people in the Loire): “We will make France a cemetery, rather than not regenerating it in our own way. »
—
“The Vendée must be annihilated because it dared to doubt the benefits of freedom. »
It is always fun and instructive to realize the contradictions of your adversaries. How, from this modern society so proud of its freedom, of its way of conceiving intimate things, this society of sensuality (when care has been taken to confuse sensuality and pornography), emerges a prudish, restrictive, voyeuristic and above all moralist (reread here the essay by Jean Marie Domenach: Une Morale sans moralisme). Where this plenipotentiary modern society tries to confuse the morality of Catholicism which it portrays as archaic, it very quickly develops anti-bodies in the form of a moralism which only feels good when judging the neighbor. This is petty-bourgeois morality. It is a French character trait. But that other European countries share with it.
To fully understand the actions of Oshio Heihachiro, it must be understood that they are dictated by an anti-revolutionary character and will. Nothing in the attitude of Oshio Heihachiro wishes to question the established order. Oshio Heichachiro knows the system can be improved, but also functional. What makes the system less efficient has more to do with people than with the system itself.
Oshio's anger is directed at men, at whatever corrupts the system.
Letting people believe that a worm in the fruit is the cause of all evil is the philosophy that has always accompanied our revolutions. Who wants to drown his dog accuses him of rabies...
There is a Western arrogance that believes man is infallible. This Western arrogance has been and continues to be the essence of its anti-traditional character; and provides ever-soft ground for the will behind the egalitarian society.
Continue reading “Oshio Heihachiro, Samurai of the Rebellion”
So Onfray read a book revealing the fabric of Ernst Jünger… Michel Vanoosthuyse: Fascisme et literature pure .
It reveals – the self-proclaimed philosopher of sensuality always tells us – that Jünger was always a fascist and that he spent years, a large part of his life, half a century, erasing the traces of those fascist years. Anyone who rubbed shoulders with Ernst Jünger, even from afar, can only smile at these declarations. Ernst Jünger fabricating his life for posterity is grotesque. Jünger has always been the antithesis of this Machiavellian character whom Onfray believed he had flushed out in the course of a book. Finally realizing that this book by M. Vanoosthuyse was published by Agone editions ended up making me smile, one could hope that M. Vanoosthuyse would spend more time learning from Jünger than carrying out a witch hunt around himself. The back cover is thus singularly lacking in inspiration since it ends with these words: “what is covered by the entry of an author with a fascist past into 'pure' literature. “Kesako? Jünger would be the only right-wing author (I summarize here the thought of these left-wing gentlemen who give the fascist a yes or a no) to enter the literature? What is pure literature? Left-wing literature? It starts badly for the Agone editions which from the back cover do not show great editorial mastery...
As for Onfray, we understand throughout the article that only one thing worries him and in this perspective we could understand it - it is freedom, the extraordinary freedom of Jünger at any age, at any time until in his last days. Michel Onfray understands nothing about Jünger's freedom. So not understanding anything, he wants to hate her. He wants to show that it is a subterfuge. And Jünger spent half a century shaping it.
Because it must still have been the effort of a lifetime for Michel Onfray to be had. That it took this book to be denialized as he admits. We can only laugh, Michel Onfray is a maker when he wants. And he takes us for pumpkins. Who will believe for a single second that he ever loved Jünger? If Onfray says he loves Jünger, it's because he's showing off. He looks good. He holds forth. He means. I am. I think. Broad-mindedness. Ecumenism. Introspection. Critical mind. Tolerance again. Tolerance always. Good conscience. Yes, it is more than that. Michel Onfray will be able to spend several lives erasing the traces, it will be easy to exhume all the times he has pretended.
It's a shame, Michel Onfray also knows how to say certain things that do not belong to his clan, his camp, his political family. He sometimes knows how to slip through the cracks and recognize honesty in his adversaries. But he always has to let himself go, he always has to curl up, mediate so that he deceives… So much mess. It is difficult to understand how Michel Onfray can find any interest in Michel Vanoosthuyse's very small book… The impression given is equivalent to that of a beautiful dog with shiny hair rolling around in the mire.
There is the beautiful Italian word "vergogna", there is the French word emptied of its meaning in modern times "shame".
Who hasn't found themselves in the middle of a dinner with dear friends wanting to flee the place, to flee so as not to have to endure stupidity, incoherence, petty-bourgeois remarks, vulgarity? The need for clean air is felt when our lungs are no longer sufficient to store the little ambient air. Very often these people that we love, who only repeat what they have read in the newspapers, on blogs, irritate us… The Internet can be a pure enemy of intelligence.
Usually at these dinners, the worst will be reached when talking about religion.
The secular and modern world has enacted a monstrous, protean, incandescent law: religion will have to be confined to “the private sphere”. I put this last media expression in quotes for reasons that we will understand, as often with media expressions, it means nothing. I am not against the idea of a certain discretion in the practice of religion, but I am against the idea of hiding from being a Christian. Especially in a country like ours! But wouldn't the problem be there and nowhere else? Doesn't this country stop hating itself?