Le culte solaire chez les peuples germaniques

 

Frithjof HALLMAN:

Le culte solaire chez les peuples germaniques

 

Contrairement aux Grecs et aux Romains, qui adoraient des divinités solaires, les Germains considéraient que la puissance du soleil, qui donnait vie à tous les êtres, était, pour eux, une des puissances les plus sacrées. Les innombrables symboles solaires que l’on découvre sur les parois rupestres du Nord de l’Europe depuis l’âge du bronze, souvent sous la forme de roues solaires, en témoignent de manière fort éloquente. Certains d’entre ces symboles ont plus de 3500 ans. Jusqu’ici, il a été quasiment impossible d’interpréter avec précision ces signes gravés dans les rochers. Par ailleurs, le déchiffrement des signes trouvés, au nombre d’environ 7500, sur un rocher canadien, à Petersborough dans la province d’Ontario, nous donne l’espoir d’un jour pouvoir déchiffrer les milliers de grafittis de l’Ultima Thulé scandinave. C’est un professeur britannique, Barry Fell, qui nous a donné la clef d’un tel déchiffrement. Les deux alphabets de runes primitives, qu’il est parvenu à déchiffrer, il les a appelés “Tifinag” et “Ogham”. Son oeuvre peut se comparer au dévoilement du mystère des hiéroglyphes égyptiens par le Français Champollion et à la découverte du sens des anciens alphabets grecs du “Linéaire A” et du “Linéaire B” par Michael Ventris. Grâce à Champollion et à Ventris des pans entiers de la culture antique et protohistorique nous sont désormais accessibles.

 

Les spécialistes allemands des religions et des mythologies, le Dr. Wolfram Goegginger et le Prof. Gustav Mensching ont, dans un ouvrage reproduit récemment en facsimilé, Volksreligion und Weltreligion im deutschen Brauchtum (= Religion populaire et religion universelle dans les coutumes allemandes; Faksimile-Verlag, Brème, 266 pages, 1996) ont surtout mis en exergue les cultes solaires germaniques et souligné leur grande importance. Le livre, dans sa première édition, date de 1944 et avait été publié auprès d’une maison d’édition de Riga en Lettonie. L’ensemble du stock avait été détruit lors d’un bombardement allié, alors qu’on le transportait vers l’Allemagne. La nouvelle édition fait donc oeuvre utile. On considère désormais ce travail comme un ouvrage standard dans la littérature sur l’histoire des religions.

 

Thèse initiale du travail: au départ de la religion populaire germanique primitive, on peut évoquer diverses fêtes du printemps, du soleil et de l’hiver, assorties de traditions précises, tant et si bien que la pratique de cette religion populaire peut être considérée comme une création purement germanique. On ne s’étonnera pas, dès lors, que l’Eglise, au moment où le christianisme pénétrait dans l’espace germanique et scandinave, ait tout mis en oeuvre pour détruire ces traditions mythiques bien ancrées depuis la nuit des temps, comme d’ailleurs toutes les autres coutumes et monuments “païens” de nos lointains ancêtres.

 

On comprendra aisément que des populations contraintes de vivre dans de sombres forêts pendant près d’une demie année d’obscurité vont adorer l’astre solaire avec une vénération plus forte que les peuples du Sud.

 

En partant d’une présentation de l’essence de la religion chrétienne, pour laquelle, comme pour l’islam et le bouddhisme, l’individu est central, nos deux auteurs montrent, dans leur ouvrage, que la religiosité des anciens Germains est affirmatrice de la vie au contraire de la religion chrétienne qui méprise le monde et s’affirme anti-vitaliste.

 

Nous n’avons pas la place ici d’énumérer, même sommairement, toutes les coutumes principales de la liturgie annuelle pratiquée par nos ancêtres, raison pour laquelle il conviendrait d’acheter et de lire ce livre remarquable, qui comble une formidable lacune dans l’histoire des pratiques religieuses en Europe.

 

Nos auteurs évoquent notamment les combats printaniers contre les dragons, représentant les puissances hivernales et mortifères, des fêtes de la fertilité et des rites liés aux plus anciennes divinités (Odin, Thor, Frigga, etc.), ainsi que les fêtes de l’Ostara et du Huld, qui, elles, évoquent la reprise de parole de Dieu. Parmi les cultes commentés, signalons le “labourage sacré”, au moment où commence le printemps; ces cultes indiquent que ces peuples avaient acquis un degré élevé de culture comme le montrent aussi les nombreux dessins rupestres où figurent des chariots et des nefs à haute étrave ou haut étambot. Ces populations n’étaient donc pas des nomades primitifs en état d’errance perpétuelle, comme le prétendaient les missionnaires chrétiens, en pensant qu’ils leur apportaient les premiers éléments de religion.

 

Les dessins rupestres représentent souvent, dans un contexte religieux, des arbres de vie (apparemment l’Arbre du Monde, le Frêne Yggdrasil), ce qui implique un culte des arbres et de la forêt omniprésente sous ces latitudes. L’arbre de Noël en est un écho, surtout lorsqu’il est décoré d’artifices lumineux, ainsi que la fête qu’il célèbre, celle du Jul. On sait que ces coutumes ne viennent pas d’Orient mais de l’espace germanique et scandinave, à partir duquel elles se sont répandues dans le monde. Ce n’est pas un hasard si le missionnaire Boniface fit abattre le chêne dédié à Thor à Hohengeismar en Hesse dès son arrivée en Germanie en l’an 724! De même, l’Arbre de Mai, dénommé soit “Maistande” (le mât de Mai) ou “Maibaum”/”Meiboom” est le symbole de la nouvelle vie en phase de germination. Les jeux festifs du moment solsticial sont encore considérés en Scandinavie comme la plus importante des fêtes de la Lumière, placée sur le même plan que la Noël. L’Eglise a débaptisé cette fête du solstice d’été en l’appelant “feux de la Saint Jean”.

 

Dans ce livre magnifiquement relié et reproduit en facsimilé sur les cultes et les traditions, la première partie est due à la plume de W. Goegginger, tandis que la seconde, dont l’auteur est G. Mensching, traite de l’opposition qui existe naturellement entre religiosité populaire (ou naturelle) et religiosité universaliste, en assortissant cette distinction de premier ordre de réflexions fort profondes. Mensching oppose donc les religiosités purement naturelles aux religiosités qui se borne à n’exercer qu’un culte. Les religiosités naturelles représentent dès lors l’idéal de communauté, de dimensions tribales ou populaires; les religiosités universalistes, elles, reposent sur une anthropologie strictement individualiste. Dans sa conclusion, Mensching écrit: “La vie, et non pas les dieux, est ce qui est relève réellement du divin dans le domaine de la religiosité germanique... Au-dessus de nous, il y a immanquablement le Dieu éternel, le waltand got, l’incompréhensible, celui qui nous envoie notre destin, qui nous prodigue notre salut, la force originelle de toute religion et de toute force”.

 

Frithjof HALLMANN.

(recension parue dans “Mensch und Mass”, n°2/1998).

Open Society or Survival

By Mark Hackard

Ex: http://www.alternativeright.com/

Of all the idols of our age, none has demanded so much blood sacrifice and the dissipation of resources as that of democracy. From the Hindu Kush to our television screens, the liberal order betrays its totalitarian nature. We send armies and airborne robots into Asia’s wastelands to kill for the universal rights of man. Mass democracy can never be recognized for the deviant political philosophy it is, nor can it be restricted to the West alone; equality must reign everywhere unchallenged. Modern man is infallible, and in his militant faith he pursues no less than the entirety of the world subjugated to his will. How else may a New Jerusalem of pleasure and profit be realized, if not through the monumental force of a united humanity?

Eurasia remains the key to fulfilling this mad dream. Even as the United States continues its grinding and bloody counterinsurgency in Afghanistan and across Dar al-Islam, Washington has found the cash to promote “civil society” and “the rule of law” in Russia. The Obama Administration is looking to apply $50 million to NGOs and similar initiatives in Moscow and other regions throughout the country. Thus stated Ambassador Michael McFaul:

We have proposed to the US Congress to create a new civil society fund for Russia. We proposed that 50 million dollars in a neutral way, by the way, in terms of new money. That’s what I hear in Moscow that when you talk to real human rights organizations and what they really need, they need that kind of support.

 

While $50 million would be negligible in sustaining the Pax Americana’s military operations, it makes for a tidy sum when directed toward political subversion. (Among other projects, expect a new stream of nauseating parades and Pussy Riot church provocations.) Vladimir Putin’s third presidential term will begin this spring, but U.S. policy planners have been emboldened by a recent surge in opposition activism in Russia. Along with continuing pressure on Moscow’s peripheries, their strategy is still centered on creating the infrastructure for revolution, the most cost-effective way that an embattled Third Rome could fall to American power. After all, the United States seeks to destabilize Russia with an ultimate view to her dismemberment and exploitation by the lords of international usury.

The Freedom Agenda grants Washington carte blanche to undermine sovereign nations on whim in the name of “human rights” and a long-term mandate for global governance. Exporting to the world its model of social chaos, the United States aims for the establishment of a unified, market-driven Open Society across the earth. Should some insolent tribe refuse the imperial model, it must prepare for the inevitable assault- if not by bombardment or sanctions, then at the very least through intelligence operations and psychological warfare.

Peoples who would defy postmodern Mammonism must have a clear ideological framework for resistance. In the case of Russia, such a basis for thought and action is conspicuously absent among ruling elites. Popular legitimacy can only derive from the quantitative “will of the people”; the Kremlin carries out elections in imitation of Western stage-management and assiduously tracks approval ratings from the middle class. Putin and his assorted clans will have nothing to counteract a deadening reductive-materialist worldview if they share it with their geopolitical adversaries.

Russia spent a century enacting the social experiments of the modern West; she can afford neither lives nor time for yet another ruinous undertaking. Babel and its missionaries must be repudiated. War for the national soul begins at the visceral level of shared faith and kinship; these values form the traditional organic state, guardian of sacred heritage and culture. And there is no greater weapon in this struggle than the loyal heart.

Rendering judgment on democracy, the White émigré leader Ivan Ilyin gave us a principled and articulate rejection of the liberal dispensation and its incipient totalitarianism. It is no accident that today’s Free World is on the fast track to tyranny. The bloodless abstractions of liberty and equality bequeathed to us by Locke, Rousseau and their disciples have birthed mechanisms of control undreamt of by ancient despots. “Government by the people” has in fact served to corrupt and dissolve whole peoples according to the design of an antitheist and anti-human Money Power. Is escape from the democratic Panopticon even possible? Yes, though it demands of us a fateful choice: languishing toward oblivion in the Open Society, or our arrival at the harsh conclusions necessary to chart a future.

 

*** 

On Formal Democracy

Essay by Ivan A. Ilyin. Taken from the collection “Nashi Zadachi” and translated by Mark Hackard.

There are two different understandings of the state and politics: the mechanistic and the organic. The mechanistic asserts instinctive man and his private interests; it measures life quantitatively and formalistically. The organic derives from the human spirit and ascends to national unity and its common interests; it is qualitative, searching out spiritual roots and solutions.

We shall first examine the mechanistic view.

It sees in man first and foremost the instinctive individual with its “desires” and “needs”: every person wishes to work less, enjoy himself more and relax; procreate and accumulate; maintain his irresponsible opinions and express them without hindrance; to find the like-minded and associate with them wherever they may be; to depend upon no-one and wield as much power and influence as possible. After all, men are born “equal”, and hence each of them must be provided equal rights for the assertion of their desires and needs: these are the inalienable rights of liberty which cannot abide restriction. Therefore every person should have an equal voice in affairs of state. For so many people there will be so many equal voices. Whatever a man may fancy is to be affirmed, and let there be no interference in this. Allow like-minded men of all nations to unite freely; let the votes be counted; the majority will decide…

As to the quality of the desires, plans and enterprises of all these men of one mind, and especially the motives and intentions of voters, no-one may concern himself. All of this is protected by inviolable “freedom”, equality and the secret vote. Every citizen as such is considered already reasonable, enlightened, well-intentioned and loyal, incorruptible and honorable; each man is given the opportunity to discover his “valor” and veil all his designs and schemes with words about “the common good”.

Until he is caught, this man is not a thief; until taken red-handed, he demands complete respect. He who has not been implicated at the scene of a crime (for example, treason, foreign espionage, conspiracy, bribes, waste, fraud, call-girl rings, counterfeiting) – is considered a political “gentleman” independent of his profession and a full citizen. Most important are liberty, equality and vote-counting. The state is a mechanical equilibrium of private (personal and group) agendas; the state is built as a compromise of centrifugal forces, played out in the performances of political actors. And politics should move according to the results of mutual distrust and competing intrigues.

Unfortunately this view (as much as I know) is nowhere expressed in such a frank and precise form. It is not a doctrine; it is simply an unspoken political dogma, rooted in the world and taken as the self-evident essence of democracy. All men are formally free; all men are formally equal and contend with each other for power, for the sake of their own interests, yet under the pretense of a common benefit.

Such a formal and quantitative conception of the state renders its fate dependent on whom, how and what shall fill a vacuum of content, as well as that indifferent-drifting quality people afford themselves through formal “liberty”. State and government are but a mirror or arithmetic sum of what is made in the soul of the human mass and its sense of justice. Something stews within this at once opaque and unassailable cauldron: any interference is forbidden as “pressure”, and any constraint or action is denounced as “an infringement upon freedom”. Every citizen is secured the right to crooked and deceptive political paths, to disloyal and treasonous designs, to the sale of his vote, to base motives for voting, to underground plots, unseen treachery and secret dual citizenship- to all those crudities which are so profitable to men and so often tempt them.

The citizen is given the unlimited right to temptation and the corruption of others, as well as the subtle transactions of self-prostitution. He is guaranteed the freedom of disingenuous, lying, and underhanded speech, and the ambiguous, calculated omission of truth; he is granted the liberty to believe liars and scoundrels or at least pretend to believe them (in self-interest simulating one political mood or its complete opposite). And for the free expression of all these spiritual seductions he is handed the ballot. Motivations for voting must be free; the formation of parties tolerates no constraint; to limit political propaganda is to exercise coercion.

To judge and condemn for “political views” is not permitted: this would signify an assault upon another’s “conscience” and persecution of his beliefs (in German, Gessinungsjustiz). Freedom of opinions should be total; government officials will not dare infringe upon this or attempt its curtailment. And the most stupid, most harmful, ruinous and foul “opinion” is sacrosanct, already by virtue of the fact that there is a destructive fool or traitor who has proclaimed it, all the while hiding behind its inviolability. Is it possible to make him only passively hold his beliefs? How are we to keep him from putting these thoughts into action, through whispers, conspiracy, secret organizations, and the covert accumulation of arms?

It is understood that all of this immediately disarms the state before enemies and subversives; at the same time it guarantees these enemies and subversives total liberty and impunity. The government is obliged to secure the people the freedom to be seduced, while revolutionaries and traitors are assured the freedom to seduce. It is natural that another election’s results will show the success of this guaranteed seduction. And so the regime will continue until the seduction undermines the very idea of voting and readiness to submit to the majority (for according to the recently stated revolutionary formula of the Belgian Spaak: “The minority is not required to submit to the majority”). Then voting is replaced by rebellion, and the organized totalitarian minority seizes power.

This means that the formalistic-quantitative concept of the state opens the doors wide open to every political adventure, coup and revolution, as we observe from year to year in South America, for example. And in truth, the scoundrels of the world would have to be complete fools if they did not notice and exploit this excellent opportunity for the seizure of power. Admittedly, American gangsters did not reach this point and kept their atrocities out of politics, and the Sicilian Mafiosi have also been satisfied with private income. But to arrive at such a conclusion is not at all difficult. Nature abhors a vacuum; as noble motives (religious, moral, patriotic, and spiritual) weakened and withered in human souls, into the empty space of formal liberty would inevitably surge ridiculous, evil, perverse and avaricious plans advanced by totalitarian demagogues of the Left and Right.

Formal liberty includes the freedom of secret treason and overt destruction. From the very beginning the mechanistic and arithmetical competition of private desires prepared within people’s hearts the possibility of blind escalation and civil war. As long as centrifugal forces agreed to moderate their demands and find a compromise, the state could maintain balance over the chasm; but the prophets of class struggle rebelled and brought upon us the moment of civil war. How can the formal-mechanistic conception of the state oppose them? By the urging of great persuaders? Cries over our perishing freedom? Or ideas of sentimental humanitarianism, forgotten conscience and trampled honor? But this would mean “interference”, thereby denouncing formal liberty and the mechanistic conception of politics! This would entail a loss of faith in political arithmetic and a fall into pure democratic heresy!

For formal democracy does not allow any doubt as to the good intentions of the free citizen. Jean-Jacques Rousseau once taught that man by his nature is rational and good, and the one thing he lacks is freedom. We need only to not hinder him in drawing from his good-natured heart the guiding “general will”, wise, unerring and salvific…Just don’t bother him, and he shall draw it forth!

People came to believe this two centuries ago. The French Encyclopedists and revolutionaries believed, and after them anarchists, liberals and proponents of formal democracy around the world. They believed to such a degree that they even forgot about their faith and its dangers: it was decided that this system is the truth most undoubted, and that in politics it demands veneration before liberty, a respectful formalism and an honest count of the votes. And now two centuries of this practice have set contemporary politicians before the greatest political earthquake in world history…

What can they do? Curtail formal liberty? Reject the mechanism of private desire? Abolish the arithmetic of voting? But this would mean to doubt the sacred dogmata of modern democracy! Who shall risk such a feat? Who will disavow himself? And how will he oppose totalitarians from both the Left and the Right?

If this is a dead end, then what next? Assent to the deformations and atrocities of a totalitarian regime?! Impossible!

 

Mark Hackard

Mark Hackard has a a BA in Russian from Georgetown University and an MA in Russian, East European, and Eurasian Studies from Stanford University.

Per non dimenticare il 24 Marzo 1999

Per non dimenticare il 24 Marzo 1999, inizio dei "bombardamenti democratici" sulla Jugoslavia

di Andrea Salomoni

Fonte: Arianna Editrice [scheda fonte]

Il 24 Marzo del 1999, iniziarono i bombardamenti "democratici" sulla Jugoslavia e la criminale aggressione contro il suo popolo; mentre il 10 giugno venivano stipulati gli accordi di pace a Kumanovo, e dopo 13 anni ecco che la verità faticosamente si fa largo anche a livello ufficiale:...Altro che “genocidi e fosse comuni mai trovate”, “diritti umani negati” e “pulizie etniche” mai avvenute, se non dopo l’occupazione della NATO, e compiuta dalle bande criminali dell’UCK nei confronti dei serbi e di tutte le minoranze non albanesi, oltre che contro gli albanesi jugoslavisti. A dodici anni dalla fine dell’aggressione la verità lentamente emerge, altro che “ingerenza umanitaria”, ecco a cosa miravano i criminali bombardamenti “terapeutici” sulla Jugoslavia. Erano semplicemente mire imperialiste, soltanto che ora non lo diciamo più noi "complottisti" come facciamo dal 1999, adesso ci sono le prove e le dimostrazioni. Sotto trovate una cartina della Serbia Montenegro, con indicati gli obiettivi e gli interessi che la NATO ha richiesto al nuovo governo, docile vassallo dell’occidente, come condizione per entrare nella lista d’attesa per la Partnership per l’organizzazione atlantica e per poter aspirare ad entrare un giorno, nell'Europa dei padroni. La cartina vale forse più che tutte le analisi, ipotesi, disquisizioni teoriche fin qui fatte, nella sua fredda sinteticità è come l’esibizione dell’arma del delitto, tutte le menzogne, le falsità, gli alibi degli aggressori, crollano come un castello di carte. La cartina è su ciò che si discusse tra i vertici NATO e il nuovo governo serbo montenegrino; rappresenta gli obiettivi e gli interessi ritenuti “necessari” dall’Alleanza atlantica e dagli USA: porti, aeroporti, caserme, siti logistici per installazioni radar, zone considerate strategiche per basi, ecc. ecc. Nella regione balcanica, ora che sono state portate la libertà e la democrazia…occidentali, ovviamente, la situazione di agibilità e sovranità, per i popoli e stati è sinteticamente questa:

in Ungheria l’ex base sovietica di Tasar è ora la principale base militare americana fino alla Russia; 

in Albania sono state posizionate le basi navali più grandi, oltre all’aeroporto vicino a Tirana;  

in Macedonia sono state occupate dalle truppe Nato le due più grandi caserme del paese a Tetovo e a Kumanovo, oltre all’aeroporto di Petrovac, Skoplije e al poligono militare di Krivolak; 

la Bosnia Erzegovina è stata adibita per l’aviazione: l’aeroporto di Dubrovac, Tuzla è diventato base aerea Nato, così come a Brcko e Bratulac, sono state messe due basi terrestri; 

i maggiori porti della Croazia sono stati adibiti per le unità navali, mentre all’aeroporto vicino Pula c’è ora una base dell’Alleanza oltre al poligono di Slunj vicino Djakova.

 

Dalla Romania è stata presa la base navale di Costanza, l’aeroporto militare vicino a Bucarest, le basi terrestri vicino Timisoara, a Costanza, Kluza e Vlaskoj, ma ne sono richieste altre tre per ultimare il dislocamento delle truppe nella regione. 

 In Bulgaria è stata collocata una base navale a Varna e una terrestre a Sarafovo Infine in Kosovo vi è Camp Bondstel a Urosevac e un'altra base a Gnjlane. Da questo scenario geo-militare dei Balcani una cosa salta immediatamente all’occhio, in quest’elenco manca solamente un paese, che ancora non risulta “occupato” da basi straniere, ed è la Serbia Montenegro, ex Repubblica Federale Jugoslava; ecco svelato l’arcano dei mille contorcimenti mass mediatici, inventati per giustificare l’aggressione e lo smantellamento di quell’ultmo pezzo di Jugoslavia, che aveva una gravissima colpa per questi tempi: quella di pretendere e difendere la propria indipendenza e sovranità e quella di non volere truppe straniere a casa propria. E questo nel ventunesimo secolo è una colpa gravissima, perché si diventa un ostacolo “de facto” ai piano geo-strategici dell’imperialismo americano, e non può essere ammesso. O si accetta o si viene spazzati via, certo le motivazioni pro forma vengono trovate e pianificate attraverso la disinformazione strategica, c’è sempre un buono e sacro motivo democratico per aggredire un popolo o un paese “ non asservibile” con pressioni o dollari.  Qui come in Iraq, come in Palestina, Libia, Libano, Siria, Iran, Cuba, Corea del Nord, Venezuela, Bielorussia ecc. ecc perché la lista è continuamente suscettibile di cambiamenti o aggiornamenti, a seconda degli eventi che accadono. E così si può tranquillamente capire come, nelle trattative tra un nuovo governo serbo montenegrino, creato, sponsorizzato e finanziato per arrivare al potere, scalzando un governo di unità nazionale che impediva questi scenari in terra serba, la discussione è come fosse una riunione amministrativa di riscossione di quanto dovuto. Ai “Quisling” locali il governo amministrativo, alla NATO ed agli USA il potere di decidere e comandare, a casa di altri. Il ministro della difesa, nei colloqui di Londra per poter entrare nella Partnership Nato ha ricevuto le seguenti richieste, ritenute necessarie per “armonizzare” le relazioni tra la nuova Serbia e l’occidente:

la stazione radar di Kopaonik, la più avanzata tecnologicamente dell’esercito serbo ed anche strategica per qualsiasi minima concezione difensiva del paese e quella di Pesterska;

basi aeree a Batajnica vicino Belgrado, Zlatibor, Kraljevo, Nis e Visoravan:basi terrestri a Novi Sad, Pancevo, e Nis;

le basi navali di Herceg Novi e Bar sulla costa montenegrina.

Oltre alla richiesta di una consistente riduzione degli effettivi dell’esercito federale, a cui l’ossequiente nuovo governo “libero” ha risposto con una proposta  di passare da 70.000 militari a circa 35.000. Quindi trasformare quello che era  l’esercito più forte e organizzato di tutti i Balcani, in una poco più di milizia territoriale, debole e quindi sottomessa e ubbidiente. Già, perché una delle clausole presupponeva anche la presenza di “esperti militari” statunitensi nei vertici degli Stati Maggiori serbo montenegrini. 

E qualcuno osa chiamare tutto questo…libertà?

Queste trattative e richieste sono la dimostrazione che le aggressioni ai popoli e paesi “renitenti o resistenti”, non cessano con il rumore dei bombardamenti “intelligenti”, ma proseguono con la distruzione degli stati sociali, delle condizioni di vita dei lavoratori e della popolazione, con le politiche di privatizzazioni e svendite delle ricchezze nazionali, nell’immiserimento che investe la stragrande maggioranza della società, ed infine con l’asservimento militare, ultimo passaggio per annientare completamente qualsiasi inversione di tendenza politica, essendo coscienti che il malessere e il disagio sociali, prima o poi si trasformeranno in lotte e conflittualità. 

Così saranno garanti della pace sociale e degli interessi di coloro, che nel frattempo parallelamente, si sono  formati ed arricchiti : le borghesie “compradore” locali, veri e propri pirati e banditi in doppiopetto, ma legati a doppio filo con gli interessi del capitale straniero; che sono altro da quella borghesia nazionale che perlomeno, aveva trovato un alleanza con le forze patriottiche e popolari, per resistere all’invasione e asservimento economico, politico e sociale del paese, in un ottica di interesse nazionale.

Questi gli obiettivi e le richieste fatte dalla NATO, al governo della Serbia Montenegro, per diventare uno Stato “democratico, libero ed europeo”. 

Tante altre notizie su www.ariannaeditrice.it

R. Steuckers: Spreekbeurt - Antwerpen - 2011

 

Spreekbeurt - Antwerpen - 2011