A Mulher Nacional-Socialista!

German Women

by Joseph Goebbels
German women, German men !

It is a happy accident that my first speech since taking charge of the Ministry for Propaganda and People's Enlightenment is to German women. Although I agree with Treitschke that men make history, I do not forget that women raise boys to manhood. You know that the National Socialist movement is the only party that keeps women out of daily politics. This arouses bitter criticism and hostility, all of it very unjustified. We have kept women out of the parliamentary-democratic intrigues of the past fourteen years in Germany not because we do not respect them, but because we respect them too much. We do not see the woman as inferior, but rather as having a different mission, a different value, than that of the man. Therefore we believed that the German woman, who more than any other in the world is a woman in the best sense of the word, should use her strength and abilities in other areas than the man.

The woman has always been not only the man's sexual companion, but also his fellow worker. Long ago, she did heavy labor with the man in the field. She moved with him into the cities, entering the offices and factories, doing her share of the work for which she was best suited. She did this with all her abilities, her loyalty, her selfless devotion, her readiness to sacrifice.

The woman in public life today is no different than the women of the past. No one who understands the modern age would have the crazy idea of driving women from public life, from work, profession, and bread winning. But it must also be said that those things that belong to the man must remain his. That includes politics and the military. That is not to disparage women, only a recognition of how she can best use her talents and abilities.
Looking back over the past years of Germany's decline, we come to the frightening, nearly terrifying, conclusion that the less German men were willing to act as men in public life, the more women succumbed to the temptation to fill the role of the man. The feminization of men always leads to the masculinization of women. An age in which all great idea of virtue, of steadfastness, of hardness, and determination have been forgotten should not be surprised that the man gradually loses his leading role in life and politics and government to the woman.
It may be unpopular to say this to an audience of women, but it must be said, because it is true and because it will help make clear our attitude toward women.

The modern age, with all its vast revolutionary transformations in government, politics, economics, and social relations has not left women and their role in public life untouched. Things we thought impossible several years or decades ago are now everyday reality. Some good, noble, and commendable things have happened. But also things that are contemptible and humiliating. These revolutionary transformations have largely taken from women their proper tasks. Their eyes were set in directions that were not appropriate for them. The result was a distorted public view of German womanhood that had nothing to do with former ideals.

A fundamental change is necessary. At the risk of sounding reactionary and outdated, let me say this clearly: The first, best, and most suitable place for the women is in the family, and her most glorious duty is to give children to her people and nation, children who can continue the line of generations and who guarantee the immortality of the nation. The woman is the teacher of the youth, and therefore the builder of the foundation of the future. If the family is the nation's source of strength, the woman is its core and center. The best place for the woman to serve her people is in her marriage, in the family, in motherhood. This is her highest mission. That does not mean that those women who are employed or who have no children have no role in the motherhood of the German people. They use their strength, their abilities, their sense of responsibility for the nation, in other ways. We are convinced, however, that the first task of a socially reformed nation must be to again give the woman the possibility to fulfill her real task, her mission in the family and as a mother.

The national revolutionary government is everything but reactionary. It does not want to stop the pace of our rapidly moving age. It has no intention of lagging behind the times. It wants to be the flag bearer and pathfinder of the future. We know the demands of the modern age. But that does not stop us from seeing that every age has its roots in motherhood, that there is nothing of greater importance than the living mother of a family who gives the state children.

German women have been transformed in recent years. They are beginning to see that they are not happier as a result of being given more rights but fewer duties. They now realize that the right to be elected to public office at the expense of the right to life, motherhood, and her daily bread is not a good trade.

A characteristic of the modern era is a rapidly declining birthrate in our big cities. In 1900, two million babies were born in Germany. Now the number has fallen to one million. This drastic decline is most evident in the nation's capital. In the last fourteen years, Berlin's birthrate has become the lowest of any European city. By 1955, without emigration, it will have only about three million inhabitants. The government is determined to halt this decline of the family and the resulting impoverishment of our blood. There must be a fundamental change. The liberal attitude toward the family and the child is responsible for Germany's rapid decline. We today must begin worrying about an aging population. In 1900 there were seven children for each elderly person, today it is only four. If current trends continue, by 1988 the ratio will be 1 : 1. These statistics say it all. They are the best proof that if Germany continues along its current path, it will end in an abyss with breathtaking speed. We can almost determine the decade when Germany collapses because of depopulation.

We are not willing to stand aside and watch the collapse of our national life and the destruction of the blood we have inherited. The national revolutionary government has the duty to rebuilt the nation on its original foundations, to transform the life and work of the woman so that it once again best serves the national good. It intends to eliminate the social inequalities so that once again the life of our people and the future of our people and the immortality of our blood is assured.

I welcome this exhibition, whose goal is to explain and teach, and to reduce or eliminate harm to the individual and the whole people. This serves the nation and popular enlightenment, and to support it is one of the happiest duties of the new government.

Perhaps this exhibition titled "The Woman" will represent a turning point. If the goal of the exhibition is to give an impression of women in contemporary society, it does so at a time when German society is undergoing the greatest changes in generations. I am aware of how difficult this is. I know the obstacles that had to be overcome to give this exhibition a clear theme and a firm structure. It should show the significance of the woman for the family, the people, and the whole nation. Displays will give an impression of the actual life of women today, and will provide the knowledge necessary to resolve today's conflicting opinions, which were not primarily the result of the contemporary women's movement.

But that is not all. The main purpose of the exhibition "The Woman" is not only to show the way things are, but to make proposals for improvement. It aims to show new ways and new opportunities. Clear and often drastic examples will give thousands of German women reason to think and consider. It is particularly pleasing to us men in the new government that families with many children are given particular attention, since we want to rescue the nation from decline. The importance of the family cannot be overestimated, especially in families without fathers that depend entirely upon the mother. In these families the woman has sole responsibility for the children, and she must realize the responsibility she has to her people and nation.

We do not believe that the German people is destined by fate to decline. We have blind confidence that Germany still has a great mission in the world. We have faith that we are not at the end of our history, but rather that a new, great and honorable period of our history is now beginning. This faith give us the strength to work and not despair. It enabled us to make great sacrifices over the past fourteen years. It gave millions of German women the strength to hope in Germany and its future, and to let their sons join in the reawakening of the nation. This faith was with the brave women who lost their husbands and breadwinners in the war, with those who gave their sons in the battle to renew their people. This faith kept us standing during the need and desperation of the past fourteen years. And this faith today fills us with new hope that Germany will again find its place in the sun.
Nothing makes one harder and more determined than struggle. Nothing gives more courage than to face resistance. During the years when Germany seemed destined to decline, a new kind of womanhood developed under the confused veneer of modern civilization. It is hard, determined, courageous, willing to sacrifice. During the four years of the great war and the fourteen years of German collapse that followed, German women and mothers proved themselves worthy companions of their men. They have borne all the bitterness, all the privation and danger, and did not fail when hit by misfortune, worry and trouble. As long as a nation has such a proud and noble womanhood, it cannot perish. These women are the foundation of our race, of its blood and of its future.
This is the beginning of a new German womanhood. If the nation once again has mothers who proudly and freely choose motherhood, it cannot perish. If the woman is healthy, the people will be healthy. Woe to the nation that neglects its women and mothers. It condemns itself.

We hope that the concept of the German woman will again earn the honor and respect of the entire world. The German woman will then take her pride in her land and her people, in thinking German and feeling German. The honor of her nation and her race will be most important to her. Only a nation that does not forget its honor will be able to guarantee its daily bread.

The German woman should never forget that.

I declare this exhibition open. May it reveal all the former errors and show the way to the future.
Then the world will once again respect us, and we will be able to affirm the words of Walther von der Vogelweide, who had this to say about the German woman in his famous poem:

He who seeks
Virtue and proper love,
Should come to our land.
There is much joy.
Long may I live there.

P.C. and RACISM

P.C. and RACISM
by W.P. RAYBURN
http://www.newsnet14.com/?p=4429#more-4429
May 14th, 2007
Political correctness is racism. That’s right. Political correctness: The idea that a white European must not dare utter a word that would hurt the feelings of a different racial group is absolute, unequivocal, albeit insidious, racism. For our purposes we will use the term racism in the conventional sense, the idea that one racial group is “better” in some sense, than another racial group. In reality, the term means nothing other than a belief in the existence of human racial groups, but for now let’s pretend.
To illustrate the point that political correctness is racism, we must delve into our own subjective inner world. It is simple to demonstrate quantitatively that political correctness is a form of racism (double standards, etc.) Yet the question still lingers in our minds: How did political correctness come to place such a straightjacket on our everyday discourse? This question can only be answered qualitatively. We must peer into the inner workings of the mind of Western man to understand why we are so politically correct, and why some of our best characteristics as a people are being used so effectively against us.
When I was in my late teens I got a job at the zoo. I had determined that my life’s calling was to be an animal behaviorist, and I planned to get as much practical experience as possible before heading off to college to pursue a degree in Zoology (I later decided on Anthropology as my area of interest narrowed to primate behavioral studies.) Although my duties at the zoo were confined mostly to the drudgery of preparing meals and cleaning feces, I was able to obtain some up close interactions with a variety of wild animals, interactions not readily available to the general public. One of my most indelible memories from this brief period was strangely analogous to our current politically correct paradigm.
Every morning I was charged with hosing out the indoor enclosure of the African elephants. Sometimes one of the more senior zookeepers would bring her Australian Shepherd dog to work with her. On these occasions her dog would accompany her to some of the early morning cleaning duties. When the dog would come near the elephants, he would bark and snarl and do everything in his power to herd the elephants. The amazing part of this was the effect of this tiny little herding dog on these truly giant creatures. The mighty elephants would go into a complete panic when this dog started yipping at them. I would sit there in a state of utter dissonance that these Herculean beasts would give a flip about some yipping animal perhaps 1/500th of their size. Still, every time this little shepherd dog would start to bark at them they would go into frenzy. If these elephants could talk I have to assume that they would say, “ I know there is no logical explanation for me to be so perturbed by a creature so diminutive in stature, yet whenever he starts yipping and yapping, all I want to do is get away from him. I would give or do anything just to have him aim his vitriol elsewhere. I am a generally peaceful creature and will concede to him if he will only leave me in peace.” You see where I am going with this? How much are we, white Europeans like the mighty elephant? How many times have we, with all of our latent power, made concession after concession to those less powerful than we, those who have learned to intimidate us by endlessly haranguing us with demands and forever plying their evocations of guilt. I use this illustration simply to prepare the ground for a deeper understanding of what makes the Western mind tick. I will digress no further.
The question surfaces: Why are we so cowed by angry minorities? We know scientifically, that radical differences exist between racial groups. From intelligence to altruism, to the ability to build and maintain a civilization, the races are advantaged or disadvantaged by factors outside of the individual’s control, namely genetics. Why then, when we know beyond a doubt that the misery some groups create for themselves is not our fault, do we allow ourselves to be cowed into compliance with their every demand? We must come to the realization that there is only one solution to the problems faced by non-whites that will be acceptable to them. That solution is for us, white Westerners, to simply disappear. For only when we are gone will other racial groups not have to look at us and our success. Only when we are gone (or completely enslaved) will the non-white races cease to look upon us and feel the nagging jealousy and resentment born not of our success, but of their abject failure. After some 40 plus years of trying to accommodate the “huddled masses” of the non-white world we are finally getting some clarity as to the real nature of the conflict between whites and non-whites. They clamor not for equality, but for domination. Domination of the abundance we create, our resources, our lands and eventually our very persons. Racial conflict is a zero sum game friends. Nature doesn’t recognize equality, only victory.
So if political correctness is a form of racism, let’s look at how. First and foremost, political correctness is a function of guilt. Guilt at the daily evidence of some racial group’s inability to thrive in the first world societies we create, or in the dysfunctional societies they create. How could any of us look at the endless daily sufferings of Darfur or Haiti and really think we are “all the same under the skin.” How can we see the filth and squalor in the overpopulated sub-continent of India and really believe race is a “social construct.” If racial differences were non existent or negligible, other racial groups would be able to manage their own affairs, with some modicum of success, instead of relying on Western nations for emigration of their miserable citizens and billions of dollars annually in aid from primarily white Western nations, and we all know it. In essence, regardless of the platitudes we may spit out, we have a deep understanding of the failures of other people, and it wrongfully makes us feel guilty for our own success. Gratitude would be the appropriate response on our part, but our enemies have figured out our one weakness: Our high levels of altruism (the same altruism that enables us to build and maintain stable, productive societies) can be twisted effectively into guilt. Indeed, altruism is one of our greatest evolutionary behavioral advantages, and now it is being used by alien races to blackmail us emotionally and financially. As you can see, those of our people who are politically correct, weather they know it or not, are tacitly acknowledging what they perceive as the inferiority of the non-white races. Why else would they be so concerned about the feelings of angry non whites? If non-whites truly perceived themselves as equal, they would have no need to blackmail good natured white nations. And if guilt ridden, politically correct whites truly perceived non-whites as equals, they would feel no guilt at all towards the non-white races when they continued to fail.
An important qualification of political correctness among whites in our relations with non-whites would be our relations with East Asians. As I majored in anthropology in college, I came in contact with as many people as I could from different cultures. The one racial group with whom I came in contact who didn’t need white guilt to thrive was the East Asians. Koreans, Japanese, and Chinese are generally highly productive, highly intelligent, and highly ethnocentric. But instead of feeling guilty about what they perceived as their own cultural superiority, they viewed their feelings of ethnic pride as natural and healthy. The East Asians I have known are the only racial group of people with whom I could honestly discuss race, without fear of their feelings getting bent out of shape. Oh yeah, and they think our political correctness is completely insane.
Why does this dichotomy exist? It’s quite simple really. East Asians don’t feel inferior to white Europeans. If I were to claim that Europeans were superior to them they would laugh and tell me why it is they who are superior. You see, it doesn’t really matter who is superior or if there is such a thing. What matters is that Europeans and East Asians are both confident in the accomplishments of their people. Our respective peoples would simply laugh if a claim were made that we were inferior. The reason that most non-whites become so enraged when reminded of white cultural dominance is not because we are an arrogant people. It is because THEY, the non-whites feel inferior to us. And when we exhibit politically correct speech and attitudes it is WE who are acknowledging the inferiority they feel. It is as if we are saying: “You know, you people really are an incompetent lot, and we know that you know that. This makes us feel guilty because we ARE smarter and more competent than you, so we will allow you to kick and scream and we will keep giving money to your organizations and writing laws that are in complete opposition to our own people’s interests. And while we are at it, bring your families from all over the world, and because of our superiority, we will be benevolent and let all of you suck from the teat of our largesse.” The irony here folks is, that the more we give the more angry the non-whites become, because weather they know it or not, our own political correctness, like I said earlier, is a tacit acknowledgement of a non-white’s utter incompetence, and it drives them even more into a rage, thus the cycle continues.
This same phenomenon of guilt to the point of sublimating our group needs for those of other groups is not only limited to our speech and our racially suicidal policies. It is also an issue with how we organize ourselves as a people. The idea of becoming actively pro European, or pro-white is embarrassing to most people. It is not that most people think that supporting other white people is inherently wrong. Even the most liberal among us self segregate at every opportunity (every dollar that Susie Q. Liberal gives to that exorbitantly priced private school belies any politically correct nonsense she may spout.) Even the most politically correct of us still prefers to work, live, play and marry among our own race. It is that the concept of white solidarity seems unnecessary and unfair because many politically correct whites DO feel superior intellectually, culturally and economically to non-whites and this triggers their guilt (as if they can help how they were born.) In our culture the concept of fairness, justice, benevolence and altruism are pronounced features. You could say these features are an integral facet of our ethos as a people and a major reason, aside from high intelligence, that we continue to prosper. Well, why would politically correct whites display such generosity to the point of eschewing open racial solidarity? It is, once again, because our politically correct brethren, deep down, believe that to identify as openly pro-white would be an injustice to those who are NOT their equals. It would be like kicking a man (or an entire racial group) while they are down. After all, if we were to organize racially, it would be unfair because of our vast resources, or so the argument goes. This notion of fair play has been invaluable in helping maintain our societies, but in the face of parasitic aliens, it can be deadly.
Once again, political correctness in the form of spurning group identity is, shall I say it again….Racist. Even so called conservatives buy into this line of thinking. We oppose “illegal” immigration because it’s……. “illegal.” HOGWASH ! ! We oppose almost all immigration because we do not want to change the ethnic balance of our country! ! We do not want to be a minority in the lands our fathers built…..for US, not for people from Pakistan or Mexico or Bangladesh or Guatemala, for us, period. We do not want to change the ethnic balance of our country because most non-whites HATE us and envy us. If the truth hurts so be it. We have learned this lesson from the 40 some odd years of intolerance shown us by the beneficiaries of the “civil rights” movement, and we certainly don’t want to repeat it. We are now wise enough to know that non-whites who come into our lands do not want to become a part of our national family. They want to live as parasites off of the bounty we have created in every niche of the globe upon which we have set our feet, end of story. Is that so damn hard to say? What the hell is wrong with just being honest? The truth is that we would rather die than hurt the feelings of those who we think are lesser than we. It’s just the way we are. Isn’t that what we are saying by our aversion to speaking the whole truth. Once again, such political correctness, even by so called conservatives, is racist. For if they honestly thought that Mexicans were capable of reforming their own dilapidated society, wouldn’t they just say, “ Hey, you all are a proud, intelligent people, you need to take care of your own country and let us take care of ours.” The fact that they try to cover for these peoples perceived dysfunction by saying it is about legality and not race, is evidence of what they really think about them. Racism belied once again.
Now here’s what I think about minorities who are hostile to white Europeans. Nothing, that’s right, nothing. I believe we have a duty to counter the lies sold to us by the media and academia, but that’s about it. You see, I don’t blame other racial groups for exploiting our weaknesses. Any racial group that allows themselves to be pushed around to the perverse extent we allow ourselves to be pushed around, well, deserve it. It is for this reason that I don’t really waste much time being angry with those that hate me. I do however look upon many of my own racial group with utter incredulity. How are we so easily cowed when for over 2500 years now we have led the world in science, literature, technology, agriculture, architecture, the arts, military prowess, and dare I say it……logic (although that could be argued these days.) I am more concerned that we get our own collective house in order. Upon this occurrence nothing can stop us. No angry minority, no New World Order, not even terrestrial limitations can hold us back. Yes, it is we who hold our destiny, not anyone else.
How is it that we are so easily bewitched by our own evolutionarily adaptive goodness? Goodness is the very reason why we believe we are bad when we offend some pitiable minority. Goodness is why we donate billions to every conceivable charitable cause on a private basis. Goodness is why we bring home stray dogs on a rainy night and try to find them a home. Goodness is why we hold doors open for old ladies and try not to cuss when we are coaching our kids little league teams. Yes folks, this is goodness, made manifest by countless generations of teaching our ethics to each generation, who in turn lives our ethics and passes them on. The fact that we are even having this discussion now is because of our goodness and our heartfelt desire to help others and do no harm. Our people and our people alone are so good in contrast to other races that we bend over backwards to help them, even when they demonstrate utter contempt for us, our history, our heroes and culture, even our lives. You see, our goodness simply doesn’t translate in other cultures. It is only seen as weakness. And as opposed to whites, the non-whites have a particular contempt for what they perceive as weakness. In other words we are damned no matter what we do. Even if what we do is, as I have shown, politically correct. Either way, we will be perceived by non-whites as “thinking we are better than they are.” And another point, there will never be any reciprocity for the goodness we display towards other racial groups. There will be no thank you’s or mutual love, understanding or brotherhood. We cannot continue to project our cultural values onto other cultures as we have done for decades now. If we do, we will continue to get burned.
It is time to put political correctness, in all its forms to rest. True equality demands it. Does the rich father benefit the son whom he neglected, by spoiling him because of his guilt? Of course he doesn’t. The son only becomes more miserable and demanding. Guilt doesn’t help us and it doesn’t help non-whites. Guilt and the tacit acknowledgement of group shortcomings is the root of our politically correct Western worldview. It is time for open discourse in this country. It is time for open discourse in all white Western countries. It is time to get over the fact that God or nature or whatever you wish to call it, has blessed us. It is time to get over guilt for natural evolutionary processes that we had no control over. It is time to end self flagellation. It is time for a healthy understanding of our goodness and our destiny as a people, and it is time to stop being afraid. In other words, it is time……for truth.

The Crashing U.S. Economy Held Hostage

The Crashing U.S. Economy Held Hostage
Our Economy is on an Artificial Life-support System
by Richard C. Cook
Global Research, July 7, 2007
Remember when the U.S. was the world’s greatest industrial democracy? Barely thirty years ago the output of our producing economy and the skills of our workforce led the world.
What happened? It’s hard to believe that in the space of a generation our character and capabilities just collapsed as, for example, did our steel and automobile industries and our family farming. What then are the causes of the decline?
Here’s how I would put it today: our economy is on an artificial life-support system, a barely-breathing hostage in a lunatic asylum. That asylum is the U.S. and world financial systems which are on the verge of collapse.
The inmates are the world’s central bankers, along with most of the financial magnates big and small. The fact is that the economy of much of the world is in a decisive downward slide which the financiers cannot stop because the systems they operate are the primary cause. As often happens, the inmates rule the asylum.
The problems aren’t confined to the U.S. Unemployment worldwide is increasing, debt is rampant, infrastructures are crumbling, and commodity prices are rising.
In such an environment, crime, warfare, terrorism, and other forms of violence are endemic. Only the most naïve, self-centered, and deluded jingoist could describe such a scenario in terms of the freedom-loving Western democracies being besieged by the “bad guys.”
Rather what is happening highlights the growing failures of Western globalist finance whose impact on political stability has been so corrosive. As many responsible commentators are warning, we are likely to see major financial shocks within the next few months. The warnings are even coming from high-flying institutional players like the Bank of International Settlements and the International Monetary Fund.
We may even be seeing the end of an era when the financiers ruled the world. At a certain point, governments or their military and bureaucratic establishments are likely to stop being passive spectators to the onrushing disorder. It is already happening in Russia and elsewhere.
The countries that will be least able to master their own destiny are those like the U.S. where governments have been most passive to economic decomposition from actions of their financial sectors. The financiers are the ones who for the last generation have benefited most from economies marked by privatization, deregulation, and speculation, but that may be about to change. Whether the change will be constructive or catastrophic is yet to be seen.
THE HOUSING BUBBLE SETS THE STAGE FOR THE U.S. COLLAPSE
Within the U.S., foreign investors, above all Communist China, have been propping up our massive trade and fiscal deficits with their capital. To keep them happy, interest rates—after six years of “cheap credit”—must now be kept relatively high. Otherwise the Chinese, et.al., might bail-out, leaving us to fend for ourselves with our hollowed-out shell of an economy.
Even so, these investors are increasingly uneasy with their dollar holdings and are bailing out anyway. Foreign purchase of U.S. securities has plummeted. And our debt-laden economy, where our manufacturing base has been largely outsourced, is no longer capable of providing our own population with a living by utilizing our own productive resources.
For a while we were floating on the housing bubble, but those days are now history when, according to a Merrill-Lynch study, the artificially pumped-up housing industry, as late as 2005, accounted for fifty percent of U.S. economic growth.
As everyone knows, the Federal Reserve under Chairman Alan Greenspan used the housing bubble, like a steroid drug, to pump liquidity into the economy. This worked, at least for a while, because consumers could borrow huge amounts of money at relatively low interest rates for the purchase of homes or for taking out home equity loans to pay off their credit cards, finance college education for their children, buy new cars, etc.
When the final history of the housing bubble is written, its beginnings will be dated as early as 1989-90, when credit restrictions on the purchase of real estate first began to be eased. According to mortgage industry insiders interviewed for this article, they began to be taught the methods for getting around consumers’ weak credit reports and selling them homes anyway in the mid to late 1990s.
The Fed started inflating the housing bubble in earnest around 2001, after the collapse of the dot.com bubble, which failed with the stock market decline of 2000-2002. Then, over a trillion dollars of wealth, including working peoples’ retirement savings, simply vanished.
Also according to mortgage specialists, it was in March 2001, two months after George W. Bush became president, that a “wave of intoxicated fraud” started. Mortgage companies began to be instructed, by the creditors/lenders, on how to package loan applications as "master strokes of forgery," so that completely unqualified buyers could purchase homes.
There could not have been a sudden onset of industry-wide illegal activity without direction from higher-up in the money chain. It could not have continued without reports being filed by whistleblowers with regulatory agencies. Today the government is prosecuting mortgage fraud, but they certainly had to know about it while it was actually going on.
The bubble was coordinated from Wall Street, where brokerages “bundled” the “creatively-financed” mortgages and sold them as bonds to retirement and mutual funds and to overseas investors. Portfolio managers were directed to buy subprime bonds as other bonds matured. It’s the subprime segment of the industry that has now collapsed, triggering, for instance, the recent highly-publicized demise of two Bear Stearns hedge funds.
And it’s not just lower-income home purchasers who are affected. The Washington Post has reported that for the first time in living memory foreclosures are happening in Washington’s affluent suburban neighborhoods in places like Fairfax, Loudon, and Montgomery Counties.
The subprime bonds were known to be suspect. One reason was that they were based on adjustable rate mortgages that were actually time bombs, scheduled to detonate a couple of years later with monthly payments hundreds of dollars a month higher than when they were written. Many of these mortgages will reset to higher payments this October.
Purchasers were lied to when they were told they could re-sell their homes in time to escape the payment hikes. Now the collapse of the market has made further resale at prices high enough to escape without losses impossible.
One way the system worked was for mortgage lenders to maximize the “points” buyers were required to finance, making the mortgages more attractive to Wall Street. Of course bundling and selling the mortgages relieved the banks which originated the loans from exposure, pushing a considerable amount of the risk onto millions of small investors. This was in addition to the normal sale of mortgages to quasi-public agencies like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
Was it a scam? Of course. Did the Federal Reserve know about it? They had to. Did Congress exercise any oversight? No.
What did the White House know?
Amy Gluckman, an editor of Dollars and Sense, reported in the November/December 2006 issue: “During the Clinton administration, Greenspan was relatively ‘unembedded’—averaging only one meeting per month at the White House….
“But when George W. Bush moved into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., Greenspan’s behavior changed. During 2001, he averaged 3.3 White House visits a month, more than triple his rate under Clinton and much more often with high-level officials like Vice President Cheney. His visits rose to 4.6 a month in 2002 and 5.7 in 2003.
“Whatever White House officials were whispering in Greenspan’s ear, it worked: Greenspan abruptly changed his tune on tax cuts, lending critical support to Bush’s massive 2001 and 2003 tax giveaways, and he loosened the reins by cutting Fed-controlled interest rates repeatedly beginning in January 2001, a gift to the Republicans in power.”
Along the way, the bubble caused housing prices to inflate drastically, which officialdom touted as economic “growth.” Even today, periodicals like Barron’s naively boast that this inflation boosted American’s “wealth.”
But this source of liquidity for everyday people has been maxed out, like our credit cards, and there is nothing to replace it. There is no cash cushion anymore, because years ago people stopped earning enough money for personal or household savings.
As purchasers lose their homes to foreclosure, the real estate is being grabbed at bankruptcy prices by the banks and by any other investors with ready money. Whole neighborhoods of cities like Cleveland or Atlanta are turning into boarded-up ghost towns.
What we are seeing are the results of an economic crime on a fantastic scale that implicates the highest levels of our financial and governmental establishments. It spanned three presidential administrations—Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II—though the worst of it came with the surge of outright lending fraud after 2001.
As usual when hypocrisy is rampant only the small fry are being called to account. Commentators, including a sleepwalking Congress, have self-righteously railed at consumers who got in over their heads. The Mortgage Bankers Association is even lobbying Congress to allocate $7 million more to the FBI to go after the supposedly rogue brokers within their own industry who are being scapegoated.
THE BUBBLES ARE ONLY SYMPTOMS
But there’s much more to it than that. These bubbles are symptoms. They are created because our wage and salary earners lack purchasing power due to stagnant incomes and various structural causes. These causes include the outsourcing of our manufacturing industries to China and other cheap labor markets and the super-efficiency of the remaining U.S. industry which is able to manufacture products with ever-fewer workers.
Also, our farming, mining, and other resource-based industries are in a long-term slide. This and the decline of hard manufacturing have been going on since our oil production peaked in the 1970s, followed by the Federal Reserve-induced recession of 1979-83. Next came the deregulation of the financial industry. It was all part of the economic disintegration that led to today’s “service economy.”
Now, for the first time in modern U.S. history, there are no new economic engines at all. The last real engine was the internet which has now reached maturity with marginal players being weeded out.
Our biggest sources of new private-sector jobs today are food service, processing of financial paperwork, health care for the growing numbers of retirees, and menial low-paying jobs, like landscaping and building maintenance. These are increasingly being performed by immigrants who are also underpricing U.S. citizens in many service jobs like childcare and auto repair.
Today the rank-and-file of our population must increasingly turn to borrowing in order to survive. Only the banks and the credit card companies are the beneficiaries. The total societal debt for individuals, businesses, and government is over $45 trillion and climbing. This is happening even while the real value of wages and salaries is decreasing.
What I have just been saying is bad enough, but here’s where the real lunacy enters in.
A major factor connected to the decline in the value of employee earnings is dollar devaluation in the overarching financial economy due to the proliferation of huge quantities of bank credit being used to keep the stock market afloat and to fuel the speculative games of equity, hedge, and derivative funds.
In other words, while our factories continue to shut down, the Wall Street gambling casino—like its Las Vegas counterpart—is running full-bore, 24/7. This, along with financing of the massive federal deficit, is what critics are talking about when they speak of the Federal Reserve “printing money.”
The main growth factors for federal spending are Middle East war expenditures and interest on the national debt. But within the private sector it’s leveraged loans to businesses which The Economist recently said “mirror….interest-only and negative-amortization mortgages” in the subprime market. But here’s the big difference: in the leveraged business economy, the amount of assets at stake are even greater than with the housing bubble.
The financial world, which Dr. Michael Hudson calls the FIRE economy—Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate—has been producing millionaires and billionaires among those who know how to play the game.
The Wall Street hedge funds stand out as the most irresponsible financial scams in history. Unregulated and secretive, they account for a third of all stock trades, own $2 trillion in assets, and pay their individual managers over $1 billion a year. Think about this the next time someone you know has their job outsourced to China or when his adjustable rate mortgage resets and drives up his monthly house payment past the level of affordability.
The hedge funds borrow huge sums from the banks which generate loans under their Federal Reserve-sanctioned fractional reserve privileges. Often this money is used by the hedge funds to “short the market,” thereby earning profits when stock prices decline.
In other words, the hedge funds and their banking enablers use banking leverage to bet against the producing economy. In doing so, they may actually drive stock prices down, causing ordinary investors to lose a portion of their own wealth. Can this be called anything other than a crime?
The livelihood of much of the U.S. workforce and perhaps half of the rest of the world’s population—maybe three billion people—is being threatened by such financial lawlessness. The justification that was first used for financial deregulation and tax cuts for the rich was that the trickle-down effect of wealthy peoples’ earnings would spill over to the rank-and-file.
The Reagan administration ushered in these policies in the 1980s under the heading of “supply-side economics.” But the opposite has happened. The system has institutionalized an increasingly stratified worldwide culture of haves and have-nots.
THE ROOT CAUSE OF THE CATASTROPHE
How did today’s looming tragedy come to pass?
Looking for causes is like peeling an onion. What we are really seeing are the terminal throes of a failed financial system almost a century old. It’s happening because, since the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913—even during the period of the New Deal with its Keynesian economics aimed at full employment—our economy has been based almost entirely on fractional reserve banking.
This means that under the regime of the world’s all-powerful central banking systems, money is brought into existence only as debt-bearing loans. Interest on this lending tends to grow exponentially unless overtaken by real economic growth.
Remember that every instance of bank lending, from purchase of Treasury Bonds, to credit cards, to home mortgages, to billion-dollar loans to hedge funds for leveraged buyouts or sheer speculation, must eventually be paid back somewhere, somehow, sometime, by somebody, with interest. In the end, it all comes back to people who work for a living, whether in the U.S. or elsewhere, because that is the only way the world community ever creates real wealth.
In an anemic economy like that of the U.S., growth cannot catch up with interest in a deregulated financial marketplace where interest rates are high. Rates may not seem high compared with, say, the twenty percent-plus rates of the early 1980s, but they are high in an economy with, at best, a two percent GDP growth rate.
And they have been high on average since the 1960s, as the banking industry became increasingly deregulated. Interestingly, since 1965, the U.S. dollar has lost eighty percent of its value, which tends to validate the contention by some observers that higher interest rates not only do not reduce inflation, as the Federal Reserve contends, but actually cause it.
The situation today is worse in many respects than 1929, because the debt “overhang” vs. real economic value is much higher now than it was then. The U.S. economy was in far better shape in the 1920s, because so much of our population was gainfully employed in factories or on farms.
The question is not when will the system start to come down, because this has already begun. It’s shown most clearly by the fact that according to Federal Reserve data, M1, the part of the money supply most readily available for consumer purchases, is not only lagging behind inflation but has actually decreased in eleven of the last twelve months. This means that the producing economy is already in a recession.
The federal government is trying to figure out what to do. Their biggest concern is that foreign investors have started to pull out of dollar-denominated markets.
The government’s “plunge protection team”—known officially as the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets—is trying to engineer what they call a “soft landing.” It’s been likened to the process by which you cook a frog in a pot where you raise the temperature one degree a day. The frog doesn’t hop out because the heat goes up gradually, but before long it’s too late. The frog has been cooked.
Even if the plunge protection team succeeds, and the frog cooks slowly, there will be a massive de facto default on dollar-denominated debt and a long-term degradation of the U.S. standard of living. The inside word is that we are likely to see major monetary shocks and a possible stock market crash as early as December 2007.
The worst off will be people locked into retirement funds which have a heavy load of mortgage-related securities. Entire investment portfolios are likely to disappear overnight.
The banks, along with the bank-leveraged equity and hedge funds, are preparing for the biggest fire sale in at least a generation. Insiders are going liquid to get ready. If you think Enron was “the bomb,” you won’t want to miss this one.
WHAT CAN BE DONE?
There are so many flaws in the system that it’s time for real change.
As I have been pointing out in articles over the last several months, the key to a rational solution would be immediate monetary reform leading to a fundamental shift in how the world conducts its financial business. It would mean taking control of the world’s economy out of the hands of the private bankers and giving it back to democratically elected governments.
I spent twenty-one years working for the U.S. Treasury Department and studying U.S. monetary history. For much of our history we were a laboratory for diverse monetary systems.
During and after the Civil War (1861-5) we had five different sources of money that fueled our economy. One was the Greenbacks, an extremely successful currency which the government spent directly into circulation. Contrary to financiers’ propaganda, the Greenbacks were not inflationary.
Another was gold and silver coinage and specie-backed Treasury paper currency. The third was notes lent into circulation by the national banks. The fourth was retained earnings—individual savings and business reinvestment of profits—which was the primary source of capital for industry. The fifth was the stock and bond markets.
After the Federal Reserve Act was passed by Congress in 1913, the banks and the government inflated the currency through war debt and destroyed most of the value of the Greenbacks and coinage. The banks never entirely displaced the capital markets but eventually took them over during the present-day era of leveraged mergers, acquisitions, and buyouts, while the Federal Reserve created and deflated asset bubbles.
The banking system which rules the economy through the Federal Reserve System has produced the crushing debt pyramid of today. The system is a travesty. Banks, which can be useful in facilitating commerce, should never have this much power. Many intelligent people have called for the Federal Reserve to be abolished, including former chairmen of the House banking committee Wright Patman and Henry Gonzales and current Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul.
Some might call such a program a revolution. I prefer to call it a restoration—of national sovereignty. Central to the program would be the elimination of the Federal Reserve as a bank of issue and restoration of money-creation to the people’s representatives in Congress. This is what our Constitution says too. It’s the system we had before 1913.
THE MONETARY PRESCRIPTION
The fundamental objectives of monetary policy should be to secure a healthy producing economy and provide for sufficient individual income. The objectives should not be to produce massive profits for the banks, fodder for Wall Street swindles, and a blank check for out-of-control government expenditures.
Note I referred to income. I did not say “create jobs.” That is the Keynesian answer, because Keynes was a collectivist, and the main thing collectivists like to come up with is to give everyone more work to do, even if it’s just grabbing a shovel and digging ditches like they did with the WPA during the Depression.
It’s what President Clinton did with his welfare-to-work program that threw hundreds of thousands of mothers off the welfare rolls and into a job market where sufficient work at a living wage did not exist. It’s another reason the government is constantly borrowing more money to fuel the military-industrial complex by creating more military, bureaucratic, and contractor jobs.
Back to income. The idea of “income,” as opposed to “jobs,” is a civilized and humane idea. When are we going to realize that everyone doesn’t need a paying job in order for an industrial economy to provide all with a decent living? When are we going to realize that the productivity of the modern economy is part of the heritage of all of us, part of the social commons?
Why can’t mothers have the choice of staying home with the kids like they could a generation ago? Why can’t some people choose to do eldercare? Why can’t others comfortably go into lower-paying occupations like teaching or the arts? Why can’t some just opt to study or travel for a while or learn new skills or start a business without facing financial ruin as they often must today? Why can’t retirees enjoy their retirement instead of having to stay in the job market or worrying about Social Security going broke?
The U.S. and world economies are on the brink of collapse due to the lunacy of the financial system, not because we can’t produce enough.
Contrary to so many doomsayers, the mature world economy is capable of providing a decent living for everyone on the planet. It cannot because the monetary equivalent of its bounty is skimmed by interest-bearing debt.
These are things that monetary reformers have known about for decades. The first steps within the U.S. would be 1) a large-scale cancellation of debt; 2) a guaranteed income for all at about $10,000 a year, not connected to whether a person has a job; 3) an additional National Dividend, fluctuating with national productivity, that would provide every citizen with their rightful share in the benefits of our incredible producing economy; 4) direct spending of money by the government for infrastructure and other necessary costs without resort to taxation or borrowing; 5) creation of a new system of private lending to businesses and consumers at non-usurious rates of interest; 6) re-regulation of the financial industry, including the banning of bank-created credit for speculation, such as purchase of securities on margin and for leveraging buyouts, acquisitions, mergers, hedge funds, and derivatives; and 7) abolishment of the Federal Reserve as a bank of issue with retention of its functions as a national financial transaction clearinghouse.
While these proposals are basically simple, the overall program is so different from what we have today with our financier-controlled system that it takes careful reading and a great deal of thought to understand exactly how it would work. One way to approach it is to look at the likely effects.
These measures would immediately shift the basis of our economy from borrowing from the banks to a mixed system that would include the direct creation of credit at the public and grassroots level. The size of government would shrink, our producing economy would be reborn, debt would come down, economic democracy would become a reality, and the financial industry could be right-sized. Finally, the international situation could be stabilized because we would no longer be driven to a constant state of warfare to seize other nations’ resources as with Iraq and to prop up the dollar as a reserve currency abroad.
Such a system would work by creating indigenous sources of credit needed to mobilize the natural wealth and productivity of the nation. There are people who could implement this program. Systems to do so could be installed within the U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve within a matter of months.
Fundamental monetary reform implemented to restore economic democracy is what America’s real task should be for the twenty-first century. One thing is for certain. The out-of-control financial system that has wrecked the U.S. and world economies over the last generation cannot be allowed to continue.
How the outcome will play out may well depend on whether there is a Jefferson, Lincoln, or Roosevelt waiting in the wings. The success of each of these great leaders was due to one critical factor: their ability to implement monetary reform at a time of national emergency.
Richard C. Cook is the author of “We Hold These Truths: The Hope of Monetary Reform,” scheduled to appear by September 1, 2007. A retired federal analyst, his career included service with the U.S. Civil Service Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, the Carter White House, and NASA, followed by twenty-one years with the U.S. Treasury Department. His articles on monetary reform, economics, and space policy have appeared on Global Research, Economy in Crisis, Dissident Voice, Arizona Free Press, Atlantic Free Press, and elsewhere. He is also author of “Challenger Revealed: An Insider’s Account of How the Reagan Administration Caused the Greatest Tragedy of the Space Age.” His website is at www.richardccook.com . He appears frequently on internet radio at www.themicroeffect.com on Saturday mornings at 11 a.m. Eastern.

Richard C. Cook is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Richard C. Cook

Wagner em Português - Libretos Originais - segundo drama (“A Valquíria”) da Tetralogia

Wagner em Português

Der Ring des Nibelungen - O Anel do Nibelungo
2 - Die Walküre - A Valquíria
Música e Libreto de Richard Wagner
Tradução Lusófona do Libreto
por L. de Lucca
Orchestervorspiel - Prelúdio Orquestral
Erster Aufzug - Primeiro Acto


Das Innere eines Wohnraumes: In der Mitte steht der Stamm einer mächtogen Esche, dessen stark erhabene Wurzeln sich weithin in den Erdboden verlieren; von seinem Wipfel ist der Baum durch ein gezimmertes Dach geschieden, welches so durchschnitten ist, daß der Stamm und die nach allen Seiten hin sich ausstreckenden Äste durch genau entsprechende Öffnungen hindurchgehen; von dem belaubten Wipfel wird angenommen, daß er sich über dieses Dach ausbreite. Um den Eschenstamm, als Mittelpunkt, ist nun ein Saal gezimmert; die Wände sind aus roh behauenem Holzwerk, hier und da mit geflochtenen und gewebten Decken behangen. Rechts im Vordergrunde steht der Herd, dessen Rauchfang seitwärts zum Dache hinausführt: hinter dem Herde befindet sich ein innerer Raum, gleich einem Vorratsspeicher, zu dem man auf einigen hölzernen Stufen hinaufsteigt: davor hängt, halb zurückgeschlagen, eine geflochtene Decke. Im Hintergrunde eine Eingangstür mit schlichtem Holzriegel. Links die Tür zu einem inneren Gemache, zu dem gleichfalls Stufen hinaufführen; weiter vornen auf derselben Seite ein Tisch mit einer breiten, an der Wand angezimmerten Bank dahinter und hölzernen Schemeln davor. Ein kurzes Orchestervorspiel von heftiger, stürmischer Bewegung leitet ein. Als der Vorhang aufgeht, öffnet Siegmund von außen hastig die Eingangstür und tritt ein: es ist gegen Abend, starkes Gewitter, im Begriff, sich zu legen. - Siegmund hält einen Augenblick den Riegel in der Hand und überblickt den Wohnraum: er scheint von übermäßiger Anstrengung erschöpft; sein Gewand und Aussehen zeigen, daß er sich auf der Flucht befinde. Da er niemand gewahrt, schließt er die Tür hinter sich dort ermattet auf eine Decke von Bärenfell.



TRADUÇÃO:

No interior de uma habitação: Ao centro está o tronco de um robusto freixo, de fortes e protuberantes raízes, que estendem-se longamente no soalho de terra; a árvore, em sua copa, é separada do interior por um teto de troncos, o qual é vazado com precisão, de modo a dar passagem ao tronco e a seus galhos, tendo cada um o seu respectivo furo no teto. Considere-se que a fronde da árvore estende sua folhagem sobre o teto. Em torno do freixeiro localizado ao centro, está a sala; as paredes, cobertas em algumas partes por mantas trançadas e tecidas, são feitas em rude trabalho de madeira talhada. No primeiro plano, à direita, está a lareira, cuja chaminé ergue-se, saindo pelo teto. Atrás da lareira há um espaço interno, semelhante a um depósito de provisões, ao qual dão acesso degraus de madeira; diante dele pende uma manta, cortada pela metade. Ao fundo da cena há uma porta de entrada, com um rústico fecho de madeira. À esquerda há a porta que dá acesso a um aposento interno, também ligado à sala por degraus. Afastada à frente, no mesmo lado, estende-se uma mesa, com um banco encostado à parede, e escabelos de madeira à sua frente. Um curto prelúdio orquestral é ouvido, caracterizado por sonoridades violentas e tempestuosas. No momento em que sobe o pano, vemos Siegmund, que entra, após ter rapidamente aberto, pelo lado externo, a porta: está anoitecendo; um forte trovão manifesta-se no exato instante. Siegmund, por um súbito momento, mantém a mão na tranca, enquanto examina a residência, com o olhar; ele parece esgotado por um esforço extremo; seus trajes e seu aspecto demonstram que ele está em fuga. Não vendo ninguém, ele fecha a porta atrás de si, caminha até a lareira e ali atira-se, sem forças, sobre uma manta de pele de urso.




Erste Szene - Cena I

Siegmund
Wes Herd dies auch sei, - Seja esta lareira de quem for,
hier muß ich rasten. - aqui devo repousar.

[Er sinkt zurück und bleibt einige Zeit regunglos ausgestreckt. - Sieglinde tritt aus der Tür des inneren Gemaches. Sie glaubte ihren Mann heimgekehrt: ihre ernste Miene zeigt sich dann verwundert, als sie einen Fremden am Herde ausgestreckt sieht.]
[Deixa-se cair e fica estendido, imóvel, por algum tempo. - Sieglinde entra pela porta de seu aposento. Ela supõe que seu marido está de volta à casa; seu rosto contraído mostra-se admirado, assim que ela vê um estranho estendido junto à lareira.]

Sieglinde
Ein fremder Mann? - Um estranho?
Ihn muß ich fragen. - Preciso interrogá-lo.
[Sie tritt ruhig einige Schritte näher] - [Lentamente, ela dá alguns passos, aproximando-se.]

Wer kam ins Haus - Quem veio à casa
und liegt dort am Herd? - e aí jaz junto à lareira?
[Da Siegmund sich nicht regt, tritt sie noch etwas näher und betrachtet ihn.] - [Como Siegmund não se move, ela se aproxima um pouco mais, e observa-o.]

Müde liegt er - Ele jaz fatigado
von Weges Mühn: - por uma árdua viagem:
schwanden die Sinne ihm? - fugiu-lhe a consciência?
Wäre er siech? - Estará doente?
[Sie neigt sich zu ihm herab und lauscht.] - [Ela inclina-se a ele, e escuta.]

Noch schwillt ihm der Atem; - Ele ainda respira;
das Auge nur schloß er. - apenas seus olhos estão fechados.
Mutig dünkt mich der Mann, - Parece-me forte este homem,
sank er müd auch hin. - mesmo aí estendido e fatigado.



Siegmund
Ein Quell! Ein Qwell! - Uma fonte! Uma fonte!
[fährt jäh mit dem Haupt in die Höhe] - [erguendo subitamente a cabeça]



Sieglinde
Erquickung schaff ich. - Preparo um refrigério.
[Sie nimmt schnell ein Trinkhorn, geht damit aus dem Hause, kommt zurück und reicht das gefülle Trinkhorn Siegmund.] - [Ela toma rapidamente um copo de chifre, com o qual retira-se da casa, depois retorna e entrega a Siegmund o copo, agora cheio.]

Labung biet ich - Eu trouxe o alívio
dem lechzenden Gaumen: - a tua boca sedenta:
Wasser, wie du gewollt! - água, conforme pediste!
[Siegmund trinkt und reicht ihr das Horn zurück. Als er ihr mit dem Haupte Dank zuwinkt, haftet sein Blick mit steigender Teilnahme an ihren Mienen.] - [Siegmund bebe e devolve-lhe o corne. Após agradecer com um gesto da cabeça, fita-lhe o olhar, observando seu rosto com crescente interesse.]




Siegmund
Kühlende Labung - Fresco alívio
gab mir der Quell, - deu-me a fonte;
des Müde Lasto - peso do cansaço
machte er leicht: - ela tornou leve:
erfrischt ist der Mut, - refeitas estão minhas forças,
das Aug’ erfreut - alegra-me os olhos
des Sehens selige Lust. - o abençoado gáudio do que vejo.
Wer ist’s, der so mir es labt? - Quem é esta que restaurou-me de tal modo?

Sieglinde
Dies Haus und dies Weib - Esta casa e esta mulher
sind Hundings Eigen; - são propriedades de Hunding.
gastlich gönn’ er dir Rast: - ele te concederá pouso e hospedagem:
harre, bis heim er kehrt! - espera, até que ele esteja de volta.



Siegmund
Waffenlos bin ich: - Estou desarmado:
dem wundem Gast wird dein Gatte nicht wehren. - teu esposo não há de temer um hóspede ferido.



Sieglinde
Die Wundenweise mir schnell! - Mostra-me já os ferimentos!

[mit besorgter Hast] - [com uma ansiosa pressa]
Siegmund[springt lebhaftvom Lager zum Sitz auf] - [Ergue-se subitamente,pondo-se sentado sobre a manta.]



Gering sind sie, - São pequenos,
der Rede nicht wert: - não vale à pena este assunto:
noch fügen des LeibesGlieder sich fest. - os membros do corpo ainda estão bem articulados.
Hätten halb so stark wie mein Arm - Com apenas a metade da força de meu braço,
Schild und Speer mir belhalten, - se me valessen escudo e lança,
nimmer floh ich dem Feind; - jamais eu teria fugido do inimigo;
doch zerschellten mir Speer und Schild. - mas quebraram-me a lança e o escudo.
Der Feinde Meute - O bando dos inimigos
hetzte mich müd, -perseguiu-me e cansou-me,
Gewitterbrunsta - tempestade trovejante
brach meinen Leib; - maltratou-me o corpo;
doch schneller, als ich der Meute, - mas o bando era mais rápido que eu,
schwand die Müdigkeit mir: - e fugiu-me o vigor:
sank auf die Lider mir Nacht, - caiu-se a noite sobre minhas pálpebras,
die Sonne lacht mir nun neu. - e agora o sol me sorri novamente.



Sieglinde [geht nach dem Speicher, füllt ein Horn mit Met und reucht es Siegmund mit freundlicher Bewegtheit] - [Dirige-se ao depósito, enche um corne de hidromele oferece-o a Siegmund, com amigável solicitude]

Des seimigen Metes - O cremoso hidromel,
süßen Trank - doce bebida,
mögst du mir nicht verschmähn. - não hás de recusar.



Siegmund
Schmecktest du mir ihn zu? - Queres provar primeiro?
[Sieglinde nippt am Horne und reicht es ihm wieder. Siegmund tut einen langen Zug, indem er den Blick mit wachsender Wärme auf sie heftet. Er setzt so das Horn ab und läßt es langsam sinken, während der Ausdruck seiner Miene in Starke Ergriffenheit übergeht. Er seufzt tief auf und senkt den Blick düster zu Boden. Mit bebender Stime.] - [Sieglinde toma um gole do corne, e devolve-o a Siegmund. Ele toma um longo trago, mantendo o olhar fixo nela, com crescente ardor. A seguir, depõe lentamente o corne, enquanto a expressão de seu rosto adquire um aspecto de forte comoção. Ele emite um fundo suspiro e dirige, sombriamente, o olhar ao solo. Fala, a seguir, com voz trêmula:]

Einen Unseligen labtest du: - Deste conforto a um desafortunado:
Unheil wendeder Wunsch von dir! - Quero afastar de ti esta desgraça!
[Er bricht schnell auf, um fortzugehen.] - [Levanta-se rapidamente, a fim de ir-se embora.]

Gerastet hab ich - Descansei,
und süß geruht: - e doce foi-me o repouso;
[Er geht nach hinten.] - [Dirige-se a dentro da cena.]

weiter wend ich den Schritt. - retomo, pois, adiante, meu caminho.



Sieglinde
Wer verfolgt dich,daß du schon fliehst? - Quem te persegue,para que já te vás?

Siegmund

[lebhaft sich umwendend] - [voltando-se, vivazmente]
Siegmund[von ihrem Rufe gefessselt,langsam und düster] - [Arrebatado por seu clamor,responde, lenta e sombriamente.]

Mißwende folgt mir, - Persegue-me o infortúnio

wohin ich fliehe; - onde quer que eu vá;

Mißwende naht mich, - O infortúnio vem a mimwo

ich mich zeige. - onde quer que eu surja.

Dir, Frau, doch bleibe sie fern! - Mas de ti, mulher, longe esteja ele!

Fort wend ich Fuß und Blick. - Levo daqui meus pés e meu olhar.

[Er schreitet schnell bis zur Tür und hebt den Riegel.] - [Caminha apressado até à porta e ergue a tranca.]

Sieglinde

[im heftigen Selbstvergessenihm nachrufend] - [Indo-lhe ao encontro, a chamá-lo,num arrebatado alheamento de si.]

So bleibe hier! - Então fica!

Nicht bringst du Unheil dahin, - Não podes levar a infelicidade embora

wo Unheil im Hause wohnt! - de uma casa onde ela própria mora!

[Siegmund bleibt tief erschüttert stehen und forscht in Sieglindes Mienen; diese schlägt verschämt und traurig die Augen nieder. Langes Schweigen.][Siegmund fica profundamente perturbado e examina o rosto de Sieglinde, que baixa os olhos, tristes e constrangidos. Faz-se um longo silêncio.]

Siegmund

[kehrt zurück] - [retrocedendo]
Wehwalt heiß ich mich selbst: - Eu próprio me denomino “Doloroso”:

Hunding will ich erwarten. - esperarei por Hunding.

[Er lehnt sich an den Herd; sein Blick haftet mit ruhiger und entschlossener Teilnahme an Sieglinde: diese hebt langsam das Auge wieder zu ihm auf. Beide blicken sich in langem Schweigen mit dem Ausdruck tiefster Ergriffenheit in die Augen.] - [Ele se apóia à lareira; seu olhar fixa-se, com tranqüilo e resoluto interesse, sobre Sieglinde; esta volta-lhe lentamente, outra vez, os olhos. Ambos fitam-se num prolongado silêncio, com expressão de profunda emoção nos olhos.]

Continuação da tradução

O ANEL DO NIBELUNGO
2 - A VALQUÍRIA

Die Walküre (A Valquíria) - Acto 1 - Cena 1. Acesse aqui a tradução.
Resumo: Vemos o interior da sala de uma rude habitação, ao centro da qual há uma robusta árvore (um freixo), cujos galhos superiores passam ao ar livre por diversos orifícios do teto. Está ocorrendo uma torrencial tempestade. Abrindo a porta de entrada, um forasteiro, exaurido após muito andar sob a tormenta, invade a sala, manifestando sua inevitável necessidade de repouso: “Pertença a quem pertencer esta lareira, aqui preciso descansar.” Caminha até a lareira e cai, desmaiado, sobre uma pele de urso. Sieglinde, a dona da casa, saindo de seus aposentos, surpreende-se com a presença do estranho, a quem observa interrogativa, supondo-o doente, ou muito fatigado. O estranho, despertando, pede água. Ela vai buscar, e lha traz, num copo. O homem exprime seu agradecimento, e pergunta quem lhe prestou aquele auxílio. Sieglinde apresenta a casa e ela própria como “propriedades de Hunding” (seu marido), cuja chegada ela pede ao estranho que aguarde, pois lhe “concederá pouso e hospedagem”. O forasteiro faz um ligeiro comentário sobre seus ferimentos, o que desperta o zelo de Sieglinde, que pede ao estranho que os mostre. Ele, porém, diz que os ferimentos não são graves, e que sente-se forte, apesar da fuga a que lhe haviam obrigado certos inimigos, que, após terem danificado suas armas, ficaram em vantagem, não lhe deixando outra alternativa senão a fuga, pela qual lá estava ele, agora novamente revigorado. Sieglinde lhe oferece hidromel, e o estranho, mais uma vez agradecido, manifesta sua intenção de partir, pois ele “leva sempre a desgraça a todo lugar onde chegue”. Sieglinde pergunta-lhe, sempre zelosa, “quem o está perseguindo, para que ele tenha tanta pressa de ir-se embora”; o homem responde: “A má sorte me segue onde quer que eu vá; a má sorte me procura onde quer que eu apareça. Para que a má sorte não te alcance, mulher, devo levar meus pés e meus olhos daqui.” Ela insiste em que permaneça, manifestando um argumento decisivo: “Pois então fica: não podes levar embora a infelicidade de uma casa onde a própria já reside.” O forasteiro fica, e após um longo silêncio, diz que se chama Wehwalt (“Doloroso”, “Desafortunado”), nome escolhido por ele mesmo, e declara que “esperará por Hunding”. Apoia-se à lareira, numa atitude de espera. Ambos ficam calados, observando-se mutuamente.
Aceda a Tradução.

Die Walküre (A Valquíria) - Acto 1 - Cena 2. Acesse aqui a tradução.
Resumo: A orquestra nos faz ouvir curtos e sinistros compassos que prenunciam a chegada e entrada de Hunding. (Este tema, associado ao personagem, predominará durante toda esta cena. Ernest Newman, em “HISTÓRIA DAS GRANDES ÓPERAS E DE SEUS COMPOSITORES” - Volume I, chama-nos a atenção para este detalhe, como “um dos maiores triunfos wagnerianos de caracterização. Em dois ou três compassos apenas, fica pintada tôda a natureza sombria, intratável e despótica do homem.” Ouçamos.) Hunding - indivíduo grande, corpulento e carrancudo - entra, e, ante a presença do hóspede, olha interrogativamente para a mulher, que explica-lhe como o forasteiro surgira na casa. À pergunta de Hunding “se foram prestadas ao estranho as devidas atenções”, ela diz que sim, “tratara-o como a um hóspede”. O forasteiro, provavelmente preocupado, confirma as palavras da mulher. Hunding, sempre duro e intrinsecamente agressivo, manifesta sua rude hospitalidade: “Sagrada é minha lareira: sagrada seja-te a minha casa.” E ordena a Sieglinde que sirva a refeição a ambos os homens. Ao observar o forasteiro, Hunding surpreende-se com a extrema semelhança entre este e Sieglinde. Puxa conversa com o hóspede, fazendo-lhe perguntas sobre as causas de sua aparição no ambiente e os infortúnios que provavelmente tivera. O forasteiro responde, mencionando as dificuldades de sua viagem, dizendo, por fim, que não faz idéia de onde esteja. O anfitrião explica-lhe onde está: na casa de Hunding, e “se seu hóspede o respeita, revele, também ele, o seu nome”. O estranho hesita, e Hunding diz-lhe que, se receia revelá-lo a ele próprio, revele, pois, à mulher, cujo olhar, diz ele, demonstra viva curiosidade. Sieglinde confirma o desejo de saber quem é o forasteiro. Este começa uma narrativa meio turva, que demonstra a pouca noção que aquele peculiar visitante tem de si mesmo, ou de suas origens: “Não posso denominar-me ‘Pacífico’ (‘Friedmund’), nem ‘Jubiloso’ (‘Frohwalt’), como bem gostaria; mas ‘Doloroso’ (‘Wehwalt’) devo chamar-me. Sou filho de Wolfe (‘Lobo’), e tive uma irmã gêmea. Certa vez, caçava com meu pai, e, na volta, encontramos a casa incendiada; minha mãe jazia morta, e da irmã não ficaram vestígios. Quem fez aquilo foi o cruel povo Neindinge (‘Invejoso’). Então, eu e meu pai passamos a viver na floresta, onde éramos freqüentemente atacados por inimigos, aos quais sempre vencíamos.” A uma pausa que faz o hóspede, Hunding comenta que já ouvira rumores sobre aquela corajosa dupla de “lobos”, embora não os conhecesse. Sieglinde pede ao estranho que continue sua história. Ele prossegue: Os Neidinge prepararam uma grande perseguição a ele e o pai. “Dispersamos o inimigo, mas perdemo-nos um do outro; procurei por meu pai, mas tudo o que achei foi um couro de lobo, vazio.” (Neste momento a orquestra entoa, passageiramente, o majestoso tema do Walhalla. Mais adiante, saberemos por que.) Dando seqüência ao seu caso, o forasteiro diz que, a partir de então, deixara a floresta, passando a uma vida desafortunada e sem rumo, sendo sempre mal recebido onde quer que surgisse, e sempre contestado quando opinava: “O que para mim era certo, para os outros era errado; o que me parecia mau, os outros apoiavam.” (“Was Rechtes je ich riet, andern dünkte es arg, was schlimm immer mir schien, andere geben ihm Gunst.”) Enfim, ele dá a conclusão do por que chamar-se a si mesmo “Doloroso”: “Só discórdia causei, só despertei sofrimento.” Hunding faz um grosseiro comentário sobre a má sorte do hóspede, pela qual deduz que “as Nornas, que determinam os destinos, não gostam de ti, e, certamente, não és um hóspede desejável”. Sieglinde pede, mais uma vez, o prosseguimento da narrativa, perguntando ao forasteiro como acabara ele perdendo as armas. Ele explica que correra em auxílio de “uma pobre jovem” cuja família “obrigara a casar com um homem a quem ela não amava”; ele vencera seus despóticos irmãos, matando-os a todos, o que, por fim, causara os remorsos da donzela, que passou a lamentar seus mortos, em pranto convulsivo. Os parentes correram a seu encalço, por vingança. A chorosa jovem, em meio à luta, não se movia, e ele a defendia de todo modo; até que os inimigos partiram-lhe o escudo e a lança, deixando-o inerme e ferido. A donzela morrera. Sua narrativa para aí, quando ele reitera os motivos de seu nome não ser “Pacífico”, mas deduzimos que, ao ver-se desarmado, e morta a sua protegida, ele começara a fuga que dera, por fim, em sua chegada àquela residência. Após a conclusão da história do forasteiro, Hunding assume um ar sombrio, levanta-se e, num breve e duro discurso, manifesta sua dedução: “Há uma estirpe vergonhosa, odiada por mim e por todos, que não honra o que honram as outras estirpes. Fui convocado à vingança, e cheguei tarde; mas acabo de achar, dentro de casa, o inimigo. Por esta noite, és meu hóspede; mas amanhã iremos à luta: pagar-me-ás o preço das mortes.” (Ou seja, Hunding é um dos membros da família da tal jovem a quem o forasteiro prestara ajuda.) Brutalmente, Hunding ordena à mulher que deixe a sala, que lhe prepare a bebida da noite e o espere até que ele se vá deitar. Depois que ela sai, volta-se novamente ao hóspede inimigo e exorta-o a guarnecer-se de boas armas, para enfrentá-lo, no dia seguinte. Entra no quarto, tranca a porta; o forasteiro fica a sós, na sala.
Aceda a Tradução.

Die Walküre (A Valquíria) - Acto 1 - Cena 3. Acesse aqui a tradução.
Resumo: Fecha-se a noite, e na lareira agora resta uma fraca luminosidade, que pouco alumia a sala. O forasteiro fica a cismar por alguns instantes, após os quais rememora uma promessa feita por seu pai de fornecer-lhe uma espada, quando esta lhe fosse extremamente necessária. (Esta passagem, uma das mais expressivas e célebres da Tetralogia, é conhecida como “O Monólogo de Siegmund”, pois o forasteiro, que desconhece o próprio nome, é Siegmund.) Ele sente que é esta justamente a hora em que a promessa deve cumprir-se, pois acha-se desprotegido em casa inimiga, apesar de lá ter conhecido “uma mulher adorável e sublime”. Brada chamando por “Wälse” (nome cujo significado entenderemos adiante): “Wälse! Wälse! Onde está a poderosa espada que devo usar na hora da aflição?” Neste momento, as achas da lareira rompem-se, emitindo um clarão que faz foco num ponto específico da árvore central da sala, onde brilha algo. Ele se interroga que brilho será aquele. “Será isto o olhar da radiosa mulher, que ali o fitou e gravou-se, ao sair da sala?” (“Ist es der Blick der Glühende Frau, den dort haftend sie hinter sich ließ, als aus dem Saal sie schied?)”; pois Sieglinde, antes de deixar a sala, pela ordem brutal de Hunding, mirara àquele ponto, como a indicar-lhe alguma coisa. O forasteiro, em musica de muito lirismo, manifesta o efeito daquele olhar sobre seu espírito: “A escuridão da noite cobriu-me os olhos; a luz do seu olhar de lá me alcançou, e recebi o calor do dia.” (“Nächtiges Dunkel deckte mein Aug’; ihres Blickes Strahl streifte mich da: Wärme gewann ich und Tag.”) Seu devaneio segue por pensamentos e poéticas observações, até que ele ouve a voz de Sieglinde: “Dormes, hóspede?” Volta-se, surpreso; ela explica que produziu em Hunding um sono profundo, pelo engenho de aduzir à sua bebida uma erva narcótica. O forasteiro rejubila-se com a aproximação e o apreço que lhe vota a mulher, a qual diz-lhe que tem uma arma a mostrar-lhe. Conta-lhe a história de seu casamento com Hunding, a que fôra coagida, após ter sido, segundo ela narra, “raptada por ladrões”. Durante os festejos nupciais, enquanto os homens bebiam, irrompera na sala “um estranho ancião com um traje azulado, e um chapéu meio baixado, de modo a encobrir-lhe um dos olhos; mas o brilho do outro olho intimidava a todos, a não ser a mim, a quem mirava com doçura e tristeza.” O velho brandia uma espada, a qual cravara no tronco do freixo, e desafiara todos a tentar sacá-la, pelo prêmio da posse da arma. Nenhum dos presentes o conseguira, e assim sucedera, daquele dia em diante, com todos que visitavam a casa: ninguém fôra capaz extrair do tronco a espada. “Então” - declara Sieglinde - “fiquei sabendo quem era aquele que me saudara em pleno pesar, e sei também a quem se destina a espada.” Ela deduz que é ele, o forasteiro, o merecedor e destinatário da preciosa arma. É ele que a livrará da desonra a que fôra submetida. Ele exulta, num arrebatamento de paixão: “Mulher afortunada, agora tens o esperado amigo, a quem a arma e a mulher são destinadas!” Ele desterrado, ela desonrada, ambos encontrariam felicidade, e o ultraje seria vingado. Neste ponto, a porta se abre de súbito; Sieglinde assusta-se: “Quem saiu? Quem entrou?” “Ninguém saiu, mas algo entrou” - tranqüiliza-a o forasteiro - “é a Primavera que adentra à sala” (Parece mais um traço de Wagner esta veneração à Primavera. No “Parsifal” é no começo da Primavera que ocorre o regresso da Sagrada Lança a seu lugar de direito, o que acarreta na remissão de Amfortas e dos Cavaleiros do Graal. Aliás, o amor pela Estação das Flores é uma característica dos povos que vivem em clima frio, que aguardam com ansiedade o fim de um Inverno rigoroso, cujas agruras a Primavera vem aliviar, trazendo de volta a luz e o calor do sol, o colorido das flores e o canto dos pássaros.) Unido agora por laços amorosos a Sieglinde, o forasteiro entoa a conhecida “ária” (considerada por alguns a mais bela passagem da “Valquíria”) que discorre poeticamente sobre os encantos primaveris: “Vão-se, em Maio, as tormentas do Inverno; em meiga luz fulgura a Primavera” (“Winterstürme wichen dem Wonnemond, in mildem Lichte leuchtet der Lenz”); “suavizam-se os ares, os pássaros gorjeiam, emanam-se as fragrâncias, brotam as flores, as rudes armas do Inverno curvam-se e dão passagem; a Primavera e o Amor são namorados que se unem!” Sieglinde completa seu poema: “Tu és a Primavera, por quem ansiei no frio do Inverno.” Ela, que sempre vivera entre estranhos, encontra agora aquele que é realmente seu. Por longo tempo, os dois continuam a trocar amorosas frases, até que o diálogo leva Sieglinde à lembrança do “ancião do manto azulado” que mencionara momentos antes; ela diz que o brilho dos olhos de seu amado é o mesmo do olhar daquele velho homem, que - ela sabe - era seu pai, a quem desejou chamar pelo nome. Neste momento, ela tem uma súbita inspiração, e pergunta ao forasteiro: “Teu nome é mesmo ‘Doloroso?’” Ele diz que agora, pois ela o ama, é dono “da mais sublime alegria”. Pergunta-lhe ela se seu nome poderia ser “Pacífico”. Ele pede que ela lhe dê o nome que queira. “Mas disseste que teu pai é chamado ‘Lobo’ (‘Wolfe’)?”, pergunta ela. Ele explica que esse é o nome por que o conhecem as “raposas covardes”, mas “para aqueles, como ela, cujos olhos brilham altivos, seu nome é Wälse” (eis aí o entendimento do seu clamor, no começo desta cena). Sieglinde, num sobressalto, pois não lhe restam dúvidas, exclama: “Se Wälse era teu pai, e tu és um ‘Wälsung’, é para ti que ele cravou sua espada no tronco”; e, por fim, chama-o de “Siegmund”. Então, de posse do nome que não conhecia, Siegmund entoa um triunfal “grito de guerra”, enquanto agarra nas mãos o cabo da espada inserida no caule, à qual chama “Notung” (que significa “Necessária”, “Indispensável”): “Notung! Notung! Assim te chamo, espada. Cobiçada lâmina! Mostra a cortante extremidade do teu fio; sai da reclusão e vem-te a mim!” Ele extrai do freixo a arma, e glorioso, manifesta a união consumada entre ele e Sieglinde, determinando a imediata saída de ambos daquele ambiente. Sieglinde conclui: “Ganhaste a irmã e a espada!” (pois são, realmente, irmãos e amantes), e Siegmund brada, exultante: “floresça a estirpe dos Wälsungen!” Abraçam-se, e cai o pano, encerrando o Primeiro Ato. (Observando o fato de Siegmund, até a poucos momentos, desconhecer o próprio nome, encontramos outra provável característica wagneriana, que podemos notar, mais uma vez, no “Parsifal”. Em ambos os casos, vemos o indivíduo que não pertence a si próprio, enquanto “não tem nome”. Parsifal “encontra-se a si mesmo” pouco depois de ser nomeado por Kundry; Siegmund, de modo mais ou menos análogo, reencontra a irmã, que toma como noiva, e torna-se senhor de si ao ganhar dela um nome. E note-se que em ambos os casos o nome é dado por uma mulher. É comum em Wagner a figura ou arquétipo da “mulher redentora”, perceptível até mesmo em Kundry, pois esta, embora empenhada em causar a ruína de Parsifal, acaba tornando-se o veículo de sua ascensão.)
Aceda a Tradução.

Die Walküre (A Valquíria) - Acto 2 - Cena 1. Acesse aqui a tradução.
Resumo: Após uma vibrante introdução orquestral, vemos, nas alturas de uma montanha rochosa, Wotan e sua filha, a valquíria Brünnhilde, ambos animados e dispostos a propiciar um fato decisivo. Wotan ordena à filha que dê vitória a Siegmund, em sua luta com Hunding. Brünnhilde expressa sua expontânea obediência exclamando o típico Hojotoho! Heiaha!, o brado guerreiro das valquírias, após o que observa, abaixo, o interior de uma gruta, onde percebe Fricka, que se dirige ao local, num carro tracionado por carneiros, que açoita furiosamente com uma chibata de ouro. Brünnhilde adverte o pai de que “aí vem briga”, e, repetindo o grito de guerra, ela parte, disposta a cumprir sua ordem. Chega Fricka, que, com o semblante carregado, exige ao marido o cumprimento da promessa que lhe fizera, de sempre ajudá-la, quando fosse necessária a sua interferência. Wotan pede à mulher que se manifeste. “Em nome da honra do matrimônio”, Fricka, que é a deusa guardiã do casamento, vem exigir por Hunding, que viera queixar-se a ela do ultraje que aquele “impudente e injurioso par”, isto é, Siegmund e Sieglinde, lhe infligira. Segundo ela, Wotan tem o dever de revogar e inverter a ordem que dera a Brünnhilde, e que a vitória deve caber a Hunding. Wotan tenta argumentar, explicando que a união dos dois amantes não é imoral, pois que fora inspirada pelo amor e pelo encanto da Primavera. Fricka insiste na sacralidade do matrimônio, ao que Wotan argumenta que não considera sagrado um juramento feito sem amor. Fricka prossegue, em tom de extrema censura, e adverte sobre a condição incestuosa dos amantes: “Onde já se viu isto de alguém tomar por mulher a própria irmã?!” Wotan explica que tal fato inusitado finalmente aconteceu e, se assim é, cabe a Fricka abençoar o amor dos dois. Este argumento desperta a fúria de Fricka, que explode em impropérios jogando em rosto do marido uma série de censuras e acusações, sobretudo a sua própria infidelidade, por meio da qual gerara filhos aqui e ali, inclusive aquele casal, “o despudorado fruto da tua infidelidade”. Ela diz que Wotan está rebaixando a condição dos deuses, uma vez que, por causa de Siegmund (filho de Wotan com uma mulher mortal), desrespeita a exigência dela, Fricka, uma deusa. Wotan volta a insistir no advento do “fato novo”; Fricka, porque só está habituada a convenções, tem dificuldade de compreender, mas ele, Wotan, sempre foi “ao encalço daquilo que jamais se deu”, e diz que Siegmund é um “herói independente”, que dispensa a proteção dos deuses, tornado forte por suas próprias dificuldades e, portanto, livre da lei dos deuses. Fricka, dando seqüência a suas obstinadas réplicas, diz que os heróis só são heróis por causa do favor dos deuses. A discussão gira em torno dessa questão de dependência ou independência, chegando a um ponto em que Fricka dá a entender que tudo o que Siegmund tem de seu é dado por Wotan (“nele eu só vejo a ti”). Ao que Wotan, perturbado, replica que Siegmund sobreviveu por si mesmo, “em meio a atrozes penas”, Fricka diz que, se assim é, pois que Wotan não o proteja também hoje: “Retoma-lhe a espada com a qual o presenteaste!”. “A espada?”, inquire Wotan, cada vez mais transtornado; ao que Fricka persiste: “Sim, a espada ungida de força mágica que deste a teu filho.” Wotan tenta ainda evitar o pior, argumentando que o próprio Siegmund obtivera a arma, “em meio à dificuldade”. Não, diz Fricka, “tu lhe proporcionaste a dificuldade e a espada.” Após mais alguns argumentos de Fricka, Wotan percebe que suas réplicas são inúteis, e, por força de sua condição de deus, é obrigado a cumprir a exigência de Fricka. “Que exiges tu?” “Que abandones o Wälsung” (isto é, Siegmund). Wotan cede. Fricka incrementa sua exigência, acrescentando que Wotan não proteja Siegmund e que nem a valquíria (Brünnhilde) o faça, e que, se não é possível arrebatar a Siegmund a espada, pois que Wotan retire a magia da mesma. A estes últimos dois itens, Wotan ainda tenta reagir, mas acaba cedendo. Ouve-se, ao longe, o brado guerreiro de Brünnhilde, que regressa. Fricka exige de Wotan o juramento de que fará conforme ela ordena. Ele, desesperado, responde, com forte embargo na voz: “Nimm den Eid!” (literalmente, “Recebe o juramento!”, o que melhor se entenderia em português como “Tens minha palavra!”). Brünnhilde chega e Fricka, antes de partir, lhe informa que seu pai tem algo a dizer-lhe.
Aceda a Tradução.

Die Walküre (A Valquíria) - Acto 2 - Cena 2. Acesse aqui a tradução.
Resumo: Ao ver-se a sós com o pai, Brünnhilde percebe sua desolação e, aflita, pede-lhe que narre o sucedido entre ele e Fricka, que tanto o prostrara. A princípio, Wotan expressa sua dor e desesperança (“O heilige Schmach! O schmählicher Harm! Götternot!”, isto é, “Oh, desgraça da sacralidade! Oh, injuriosa agonia! Provação dos deuses!”), e, ante as ansiosas instâncias da fiel Brünnhilde, ele ainda hesita em abrir-se com a filha, receando que a revelação das causas do seu sofrimento lhe prejudiquem a autoridade (“Laß ich’s verlauten, lös ich dann nicht meines Willens haltenden Haft?”, ou seja, “Se exponho tal, eu não perderia a sustentação da minha vontade?”); Brünnhilde responde que ela própria não é nada mais que a vontade de Wotan. O pai cede, e começa a narrar-lhe como tudo sucedera, desde quando seus impulsos pelos prazeres do amor deram lugar ao desejo de poder, cujo impulso lhe induzira a fazer mau uso dos tratados, instigado, inclusive, por Loge. Explica que a busca pelo poder, longe de satisfaze-lo, lhe acirrara ainda mais o desejo do prazer do amor. Conta, então, a história daquele que, pelo poder, rejeitara o amor, o nibelungo Alberich, que se apropriara do Ouro do Reno, e, com o mesmo, adquirira poder imensurável. Narra que, por meios ardilosos, obtivera o anel que Alberich forjara do ouro, mas que, em vez de devolvê-lo às Filhas do Reno, dera o espólio aos gigantes, em pagamento pela construção do castelo. Fala da aparição de Erda, que lhe dera o sábio conselho de renunciar ao anel. Erda - personificação da Sabedoria - o fascinara, a ponto de ele ansiar por segui-la, o que não pode na ocasião, mas que depois, impelido pela ansiedade, empreendera, procurando-a nas profundezas da terra, onde ela habitava, e, conquistando-a como amante, gerara, com ela, as donzelas guerreiras (as valquírias), dentre as quais a própria Brünnhilde: “der Welt weisestes Weib gebar mir Brünnhilde, dich.” - “a mais sábia das mulheres do Mundo deu-te à luz, Brünnhilde, para mim.” (Eis aqui, provavelmente, o aspecto de uma fusão dos diversos anseios que impelem o desejo humano, incluindo o poder, o amor - ou sexo - e o conhecimento - ou sabedoria. Wotan, cativado pelo desejo de poder, não queria ceder o anel; Erda, com sabedoria, o admoestara em sentido contrário; a ânsia pela sabedoria o impelira para junto de Erda, e pelas vias do amor/sexo, Wotan concubinara-se a Erda, gerando as valquírias, virgens guerreiras, cujo elemento é, de certa forma, caracterizado por uma fusão de obediência - a ele, Wotan, o que está associado também ao poder do próprio Wotan - e, no caso especial de Brünnhilde, sabedoria, posto que ela personifica a confidente e quase conselheira do pai.) Por meio das valquírias, Wotan quisera reverter os fatos, de modo a evitar a catástrofe dos deuses, a que aludira Erda. Assim, incumbira as filhas de arrebanhar os mais valorosos heróis, mortos em combate, para formar as hostes guardiãs do Wallhalla. Brünnhilde comenta que a tropa está bem guarnecida, e Wotan explica que o problema não é este, pois, no momento, Alberich não teria poderes para desbaratar o exército arregimentado pelas valquírias. O nibelungo só poderia derrotá-lo, voltando os soldados a seu favor e contra Wotan, pelo poder do anel, caso recuperasse a jóia. Mas o anel está em poder de Fafner, um dos gigantes construtores da fortaleza, e Wotan não pode usar de poder ou valentia para arrebatá-lo a Fafner, pois um tratado acertado com o gigante o impede de afrontá-lo. (“der durch Verträge ich Herr, den Verträgen bin ich nun Knecht” - “por meio de tratados fiquei senhor; agora dos tratados sou escravo”). Diante deste impasse, só restava a Wotan confiar a missão a outro, que deveria ser totalmente livre, isento de sua influência e proteção, aquele que, por seus próprios meios poderia “realizar aquilo que Wotan só podia desejar”. Desolado, diz à filha que não conseguira conceber tal herói livre, que só pudera produzir escravos. Brünnhilde replica, mencionando Siegmund, o Wälsung: não fizera-se ele por si mesmo? Wotan explica que a tentativa fora vã. Concubinando-se a uma mulher mortal, gerara Siegmund e Sieglinde, na esperança de criar uma estirpe que redimisse o mundo, por intermédio da bravura de Siegmund, mas, porque Siegmund não é realmente independente de sua proteção, pois ele, Wotan, lhe proporcionara a espada, Fricka teve argumento contra ele, exigindo que o matrimônio de Hunding fosse “honrado”. Wotan julga-se vencido. Sabe que, embora desprovido do desejo amoroso, Alberich, por meios de sedução material, Alberich unira-se a uma mulher para gerar um filho, por intermédio do qual pretendia recuperar o anel e, por conseguinte, o poder absoluto: “Pois que triunfe o nibelungo!” (note-se que Alberich, para defender seus interesses, emprega o mesmo artifício de Wotan, isto é, gera um filho que trabalhe a seu favor). Ao que a filha lhe pergunta o que deve fazer, Wotan dá-lhe a indesejável contra-ordem de favorecer Hunding na luta. Brünnhilde tenta negar-se a obedecer a tal comando; argumenta com veemência contra a “ordem contraditória” do pai. Wotan, violento, a repreende (“Ha, Freche du! Frevelst du mir?” - “Insolente! Ousas desafiar-me?”), intimando-a a cumprir o ordenado. Sai a passo rápido, deixando a sós Brünnhilde, que, entristecida, prepara-se para consumar a determinação do pai.
Aceda a Tradução.

Die Walküre (A Valquíria) - Acto 2 - Cena 3. Acesse aqui a tradução.
Resumo: Siegmund e Sieglinde, em fuga, chegam ao cume de uma montanha. Ele tenta convencê-la a descansar, mas ela insiste em prosseguir a marcha. Siegmund torna a suplicar que ela pare, expressando-lhe sua dedicação de companheiro e protetor. Sieglinde, num assomo de desesperança e medo, pede que ele siga rumo e a deixe com sua desgraça, pois “não é digna de tão nobre homem”; que ele parta e que ela morra ali mesmo, para que “o vento pulverize seu cadáver”. Ela se considera, perante Siegmund, um estorvo, causadora de “vergonha e desdita”. Ele argumenta que a vingará, pela desonra que lhe impusera Hunding (um marido imposto e não desejado), que há de cair sob o golpe da Notung (a espada de Siegmund). Sieglinde julga escutar, ao longe, os rumores da perseguição que Hunding empreende aos dois. Num longo delírio, ela antevê a luta, descrevendo a cena conforme se lhe apresenta à mente aterrorizada: os cães de Hunding dilacerando o corpo de Siegmund com os dentes. Por fim desmaia nos braços de Siegmung, que aconchega a si a adormecida, de modo a repousá-la.
Aceda a Tradução.

Die Walküre (A Valquíria) - Acto 2 - Cena 4. Acesse aqui a tradução.
Resumo: Após longo silêncio, surge Brünnhilde, que, saindo de uma gruta, aproxima-se de Siegmund, a quem se dirige solenemente, anunciando-lhe que em breve deverá ele acompanhá-la (“Siegmund, sieh auf mich! Ich bin’s der bald du folgst.” - “Siegmund, olha para mim! Sou aquela a quem logo seguirás.”). Pergunta-lhe Siegmund quem ela é, ao que Brünnhilde se identifica como “alguém a quem só os valentes prestes a morrer vêem”, e diz que ele é agora escolhido. “E para onde conduzirás o herói que há de seguir-te?”, torna Siegmund; ao que Brünnhilde explica: “à Morada dos Deuses (Walhalla), onde passarás a integrar as hostes do Pai das Batalhas (Wotan)”. Ele faz diversas perguntas sobre a vida que levaria por lá, e Brünnhilde responde a todas. Siegmund demonstra concordância com relação às respostas de Brünnhilde, mas resta-lhe ainda uma dúvida, que o leva a formular a última pergunta: se Sieglinde irá com ele. Brünnhilde diz que não, pois ela “ainda terá de respirar o ar da Terra”; ao que Siegmund, calmo e determinado, declara que, neste caso, ele também não irá (“So grüße mir Walhall, grüße mir Wotan” . . . “zu ihnen folg ich dir nicht” - “Pois leva minha saudação ao Walhalla, a Wotan” . . . “ao encontro deles não te seguirei”). Brünnhilde tenta explicar-lhe que não há alternativa, pois ele já vira “o olhar fulminante da valquíria”. À réplica de Siegmund, que desconsidera o poder do olhar de Brünnhilde sobre si, ela responde que assim é, de fato, enquanto ele vive, mas depois de morto, não haverá como evitá-lo. Ele inquire quem seria capaz de vencê-lo. Hunding o matará em combate, explica Brünnhilde. Siegmund não crê que Hunding o possa, inclusive pelo poder de sua espada invencível (Notung). Brünnhilde continua a esclarecê-lo da situação vigente, e lhe informa sobre a atual condição de sua espada, cujo poder especial fora retirado por aquele mesmo que a ungira. Siegmund, sentindo-se traído por seu defensor (Wälse, seu pai, cuja identidade original - Wotan - ele ignora), expressa sua revolta. Não aceita nenhum argumento da valquíria, e diz que prefere ir ao inferno do que ao Walhalla sem Sieglinde. Brünnhilde continua a replicar, ele sempre a recusar; ela pede-lhe que deixe Sieglinde a seus cuidados, com o filho que ela traz no ventre. Num arroubo de extrema obstinação, Siegmund decide matar a ambos, Sieglinde e o filho que ela espera. Já pronto a golpear a mulher com a Notung, é impedido por Brünnhilde, que, no extremo da comoção, dá-se por vencida e reconsidera, prometendo-lhe a vitória sobre Hunding. Com votos de boa sorte e a garantia de retornar para ajudá-lo na hora da luta, ela sai de cena.
Aceda a Tradução.

Die Walküre (A Valquíria) - Acto 2 - Cena 5. Acesse aqui a tradução.
Resumo: Por alguns instantes, Siegmund fica a contemplar Sieglinde, adormecida; por fim, acomoda-a sobre a rocha. Ouve, ao longe a trompa de Hunding e, com a espada em punho, corre ao encontro do inimigo. Sieglinde, em sono convulsivo, começa a delirar, num sonho em que revê a tragédia ocorrida outrora com sua família, quando a casa onde vivia fora tomada de assalto, sua mãe morrera e a morada fora incendiada. Desperta, aturdida, chamando poe Siegmund. Ouvem-se as vozes de Hunding e Siegmund a insultarem-se. Os dois surgem em cena; Sieglinde, aflita, observa a contenda, suplicando aos dois que parem. Aparece Brünnhilde, que exorta Siegmund a golpear Hunding. Mas, no exato momento, surge Wotan, que, com sua lança, rompe em dois pedaços a espada de Siegmund, que é mortalmente ferido por Hunding. Siegmund cai, morto; Brünnhilde chama a seu encontro Sieglinde, e, ambas montando o cavalo de Brünnhilde, fogem. Wotan dirige-se com desprezo Hunding, chamando-o de escravo e ordenando-lhe que “vá ajoelhar-se diante de Fricka, pois a lança de Wotan puniu o que lhe fazia escárnio”. O desprezo de Wotan age como uma espada sobre Hunding, que, por sua vez, também tomba, morto. Após esta manifestação de desgosto pelo cumprimento de uma missão odiosa, a cólera de Wotan volta-se à outra ofensa que sofrera: a desobediência de Brünnhilde. Irado, ele promete puni-la e, ao som de um trovão, deixa a cena. Cai o pano, encerrando o Segundo Ato.
Aceda a Tradução.

Die Walküre (A Valquíria) - Acto 3 - Cena 1. Acesse aqui a tradução.
Resumo: Abre-se o Terceiro Ato com famosa passagem conhecida como “A Cavalgada das Valquírias”, na qual vemos as irmãs de Brünnhilde, nas alturas montanhosas, em animada movimentação, algumas chegando, a trazer guerreiros mortos em combate, para o exército do Walhalla, outras as recebendo. Por fim, avistam Brünnhilde, que se aproxima, ao longe. Esta chega, atarantada, com Sieglinde, e suplica às irmãs que a ajudem na fuga e salvamento de sua companheira, desconhecida das outras, que está grávida. Todas recusam-se a ir contra Wotan, ao qual são todas fiéis. Para elas a atitude de Brünnhilde é uma loucura, e, à medida em que ela insiste, instando com as irmãs para que alguma delas empreste seu cavalo, de modo a facilitar a fuga das duas, elas mantêm-se irredutíveis: nenhuma desrespeitará Wotan. No entanto, para proteger a irmã, algumas estão de vigia num ponto alto do rochedo, prontas a avisar da aproximação do pai furioso. Sendo, enfim, avistado Wotan, que vem colérico, Brünnhilde ordena a Sieglinde que fuja sozinha, que dirija-se às cercanias da gruta onde vive Fafner, o gigante transformado em dragão, lugar evitado por Wotan, que lhe tem ojeriza. Antes de despedi-la, determina o nome que ela deverá dar ao filho que há de nascer: ele se chamará “Siegfried”. Ela, Brünnhilde, ficará e aceitará o castigo. Sieglinde agradece com emoção, e vai-se. Ouve-se, à distância, a voz iracunda de Wotan, gritando pela filha rebelde. Todas as valquírias unem-se, em círculo, em torno de Brünnhilde, a fim de escondê-la e protegê-la de Wotan.
Aceda a Tradução.

Die Walküre (A Valquíria) - Acto 3 - Cena 2. Acesse aqui a tradução.
Resumo: Wotan, por fim, chega, esbravejando e exigindo que todas lhe entreguem Brünnhilde. Elas procuram apaziguá-lo, tentando ainda ocultar a irmã. Wotan, que não se deixa vencer pelo sentimentalismo, dirige-se com violência as filhas que, segundo ele, estão protegendo uma proscrita. As valquírias, que são donzelas guerreiras, ante a ameaça que paira sobre a irmã, comportam-se como mulheres comuns, dando ênfase ao sentimento fraternal, o que mais acirra a fúria do pai, que reprova severamente tal demonstração de “sentimentalismo feminino”. “Criei-vos valentes para as batalhas” - ele esbraveja - “e agora vos desmanchais em lamúrias porque venho punir uma rebelde?” A própria Brünnhilde, então, decide aparecer e enfrentar o pai, a quem se apresenta, emergindo do círculo protetor formado pelas outras. “Cá estou eu, pai; determina o castigo”. Wotan começa a despejar sobre ela uma série de fortes imprecações. Numa passagem comovente - na qual música e palavras unem-se numa expressão nítida do estado de espírito de Wotan, que está ao mesmo tempo irado e magoado - o autoritário deus exprime tal duplicidade emotiva, causada pela atitude, para ele rebelde e infiel, de sua filha favorita. Ela fora tudo para ele: a cumpridora de suas vontades, a escudeira fiel, aquela que impelia heróis a seu favor; agora, que se voltara totalmente contra ele, estava tudo acabado: Brünnhilde não é mais nada do que significara para Wotan, está desligada da família dos deuses e não é mais uma valquíria; pois que se contente com o que restou de si. Brünnhilde, tristíssima, pergunta ao pai se ele a está renegando. Wotan fala, então, claramente: Brünnhilde está dispensada de todas as suas funções e destituída de todas as honrarias que lhe cabiam: “Estás excluída de minhas atenções”. As irmãs lamentam, e Wotan completa a extensão do duro castigo destinado à filha, declarando que Brünnhilde será posta em profundo sono, e ali ficará, dormindo, até que o primeiro homem que, de passagem, a encontre e desperte, a tome por mulher. Isto quer dizer que Brünnhilde deixa a condição de entidade imortal para passar à de mulher comum, o que significa, para uma valquíria, a maior desonra, o pior castigo. As irmãs imploram a Wotan que revogue a punição; ele, autoritário e cheio de ira, ordena a todas que saiam, e que nunca mais se aproximem da irmã proscrita, sob pena de partilharem da mesma sorte. As valquírias debandam, amedrontadas e lastimosas.
Aceda a Tradução.

Die Walküre (A Valquíria) - Acto 3 - Cena 3. Acesse aqui a tradução.
Resumo: Brünnhilde e Wotan estão a sós. Ela, devotada, apesar do medo, tenta mostrar ao pai que sua transgressão é perdoável, pois fizera o que, na verdade, Wotan queria, posto que ele cedera a contragosto à vontade de Fricka. Wotan replica, afirmando a prioridade da obediência, lembra-lhe, enfaticamente, que reformulara a ordem, realmente contra sua íntima vontade, e, malgrado a dor que tal atitude lhe impunha, ele tinha que levar a cabo, e a ela, Brünnhilde, cabia obedecê-lo. Brünnhilde ainda argumenta suavemente, lembrando ao pai o amor que ele tinha por Siegmund: “amavas o Wälsung; eu percebi o teu dilema”, ela diz, e discorre sobre a dificuldade de Wotan que ela tentara resolver por seus próprios meios: “Eu, que enxergo por ti, enquanto o conflito te impede, pude enxergar Siegmund”, e narra-lhe como fora o seu encontro com Siegmund, quando, ao apresentar-se a ele como mensageira da morte, percebera a agonia amorosa, a coragem e o infortúnio do herói, acabando por compartilhar de seus sentimentos, aos quais cedera, a ponto de desafiar o comando de Wotan. Este, num extenso lamento - que é ao mesmo tempo, o prolongamento de sua repreensão a Brünnhilde - manifesta sua dor por ter-se visto tão irreversivelmente impedido de fazer algo que desejava realizar com tanto ardor, isto é, dar vitória a Siegmund. Comentando a simplicidade que norteara a decisão de Brünnhilde, reprova, paradoxalmente, a atitude da filha, que agira em prol da vontade íntima de seu pai, mas contra a determinação adversa que o mesmo impusera a ela e a si próprio. Após ouvir do pai a declaração de que estão desfeitos definitivamente os laços que os uniam, Brünnhilde lembra que, na ocasião do dilema, ouvia somente o que o espírito lhe inspirava: “ama o que te é amado”, e argumenta que, embora tenha que afastar de si “a sua própria metade”, não poderá Wotan dar a ela um destino de absoluta vergonha (isto é, tornar-se uma mulher comum e pertencer ao primeiro homem que a encontre). Wotan mantém, ainda, sua decisão dura: “Du folgest selig der Liebe Macht: folge nun dem, den du lieben mußt!” - “Seguiste feliz o poder do amor; segue, pois, aquele a quem terás de amar!”. Brünnhilde, que já está resignada com sua transformação em pessoa comum, não pode, porém, aceitar a idéia de tornar-se mulher de um homem desprovido de valor. Subitamente inspirada, refere-se, então, ao herói que está para nascer: o filho de Sieglinde. Wotan reage com repulsa, pois Brünnhilde alude à estirpe dos Wälsungen (Siegfried, filho de Siegmund e Sieglinde), por ele próprio condenada. Ela, sempre respeitosa, mas tomada de coragem, dá prosseguimento a seu pedido, de argumento em argumento, até mencionar a espada que Sieglinde leva consigo (“Sie wahret das Schwert, das du Siegmund schufest” - “Ela tem a espada que tu produziste para Siegmund”), o que provoca mais um rompante de Wotan (“Und das ich ihm in Stücken schlug!” - “E que eu parti em pedaços!”), que prossegue, sombrio: “Nicht streb, o Maid, den Mut mir zu stören; erwarte dein Los, wie sich’s dir wirft” - “Não tentes, garota, mover-me o ânimo; aguarda teu destino conforme te venha”. Brünnhilde, por fim, pergunta-lhe que castigo lhe caberá. Wotan reitera a decisão tomada: ela dormirá profundamente, e pertencerá ao homem que venha a acordá-la. Brünnhilde suplica ao pai que minimize o castigo, determinando que seja ela, sim, possuída por um homem, mas só pelo maior dos heróis, aquele que seja capaz de atravessar uma barreira de fogo que a circunde. Wotan ainda opõe resistência, mas, ante as últimas inflamadas súplicas da filha, seu amor de pai fala mais alto, e ele cede. Despede-se da filha, na comovente passagem conhecida como “O Adeus de Wotan”. Num clamor majestoso, a princípio, e a seguir em tom de acalanto, ele expressa o amor que tem à filha da qual se aparta e a quem retira a divindade, declarando que só aquele capaz de atravessar o fogo, aquele que é mais livre que ele próprio - um deus - poderá tê-la como noiva e mulher. Por fim, invoca o nome de Loge, o Deus do Fogo, ordenando o surgimento de labaredas, que erguem-se, circundando o rochedo, onde jaz a adormecida. Cai o pano, encerrando “A Valquíria”.
Aceda a Tradução.

http://www.luiz.delucca.nom.br/wep/wagneremportugues_dw.html