Ok

En poursuivant votre navigation sur ce site, vous acceptez l'utilisation de cookies. Ces derniers assurent le bon fonctionnement de nos services. En savoir plus.

vendredi, 16 janvier 2015

Le libéralisme contre les libertés

19:54 Publié dans Evénement | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : événement, paris, france, libéralisme | |  del.icio.us | | Digg! Digg |  Facebook

Abraham Lincoln a voulu exiler les Noirs des États-Unis

abraham-lincoln.jpg

Ex: http://la-vache-retournee.over-blog.com

Où l'on apprend avec stupeur que la référence suprême parmi les hommes politiques, le grand Abraham Lincoln, était favorable à la remigration.

La Maison Blanche, l'un des lieux les plus secrets de la planète, témoin de nombres de décision historique. En pleine guerre de Sécession, Abraham Lincoln a une idée folle : loin de vouloir abolir l'esclavage, il souhaite envoyer les Noirs "coloniser" un pays. Extrait de "Les secrets de la Maison Blanche" de Nicole Bacharan et Dominique Simonnet

« Pourquoi les gens d’ascendance africaine doivent-ils partir et coloniser un autre pays ? Je vais vous le dire. Vous et moi appartenons à des races différentes. Il y a entre nous plus de différence qu’entre aucune autre race. Que cela soit juste ou non, je n’ai pas à en discuter, mais cette différence physique est un grand problème pour nous tous, car je pense que votre race en souffre grandement en vivant avec nous, tandis que la nôtre souffre de votre présence. En un mot, nous souffrons des deux côtés… Si on admet cela, voilà au moins une bonne raison de nous séparer… »

Oui, c’est le président Abraham Lincoln lui-même qui tient ces propos bien peu engageants, loin, bien loin de l’image que l’on construira de lui plus tard.

Ce 14 août 1862, alors que la nation américaine se déchire, que les États, désunis, s’affrontent dans un conflit fratricide, la terrible guerre de Sécession déclenchée depuis son élection il y a deux ans, Lincoln a convoqué à la Maison Blanche une délégation de leaders noirs pour leur tenir ce discours : il faut que les Noirs quittent les États-Unis ! En guise d’introduction, à peine les cinq « personnes de couleur » sont-elles assises dans son bureau qu’il leur indique qu’une somme d’argent a été réservée par le Congrès, « tenue à sa disposition pour aider au départ des personnes d’ascendance africaine pour qu’elles colonisent un quelconque pays ». Cela fait longtemps qu’il y songe, a dit d’emblée le président, et il se fera un devoir de favoriser cette cause.

— Vous, ici, vous êtes des affranchis, je suppose ? interroge abruptement Lincoln.

— Oui, Monsieur, répond l’un des délégués.

— Peut-être l’êtes-vous depuis longtemps, ou depuis toute votre vie… D’après moi, votre race souffre de la plus grande injustice jamais infligée à un peuple… Mais, même si vous cessez d’être esclaves, vous êtes encore bien loin d’être sur un pied d’égalité avec la race blanche… Mon propos n’est pas d’en discuter, c’est de vous montrer que c’est un fait… Et puis regardez où nous en sommes, à cause de la présence des deux races sur ce continent… Regardez notre situation – le pays en guerre ! –, les hommes blancs s’entre-égorgeant, et personne ne sait quand cela s’arrêtera. Si vous n’étiez pas là, il n’y aurait pas de guerre…

Et le président de conclure :

— Il vaut donc mieux nous séparer… Je sais qu’il y a parmi vous des Noirs libres qui ne voient pas quels avantages ils pourraient en tirer… C’est, permettez-moi de le dire, un point de vue extrêmement égoïste… Si des hommes de couleur intelligents, comme ceux que j’ai devant moi, le comprennent, alors nous pourrons aller plus loin. Je pense pour vous à une colonie en Amérique centrale. C’est plus près que le Liberia… Il y a là un pays magnifique, doté de beaucoup de ressources naturelles, et, à cause de la similarité du climat avec celui de votre pays natal, il vous conviendrait parfaitement…

Un silence stupéfait accueille ces arguments qui défient l’entendement.

C’est la première fois, depuis la création des États-Unis près d’un siècle plus tôt, qu’une délégation officielle de Noirs est invitée à la Maison Blanche pour une raison politique (elle a été conduite auprès du président par le révérend Joseph Mitchell, commissaire à l’Émigration), et quelle réception !

On imagine sans peine le froid glacial, même au cœur de l’été tropical de Washington, qui a saisi les cinq hommes, éminents représentants de la communauté noire dans la capitale.

Son monologue achevé, le président les congédie en laissant à peine le temps à Edward Thomas, qui mène la délégation, de bredouiller :

— Nous allons nous consulter et vous donner une réponse rapide…

— Prenez votre temps, lâche le président.

Comment Lincoln ose-t-il charger les Noirs de la responsabilité de la guerre qui ensanglante le pays ? Comment ne reconnaît-il pas que, comme ses interlocuteurs ce jour-là, la plupart des Noirs vivant alors aux États-Unis sont nés sur le sol américain et ne savent rien de l’Afrique ? Le président est indifférent à ce type de considération, ce n’est pas un idéaliste. Par ses propos coupants, il exprime ses convictions les plus profondes : s’il n’aime pas l’esclavage, c’est bien sûr pour des raisons morales, mais aussi parce que cela pourrit la vie des Blancs, et met en danger la pérennité de l’Union. Il reste convaincu que les deux races n’ont rien à faire ensemble. Et cela fait longtemps qu’il nourrit ce vieux projet, dit de « colonisation », déjà envisagé plusieurs décennies auparavant par Thomas Jefferson : renvoyer les esclaves en Afrique ou en Amérique centrale pour en finir avec cette plaie. C’est une sorte de compromis entre les deux positions extrêmes qui s’affrontent alors, celle des planteurs du Sud farouchement accrochés à l’esclavage et celle des intellectuels du Nord qui luttent pour son abolition pure et simple.


http://www.atlantico.fr/decryptage/au-coeur-maison-blanche-jour-ou-abraham-lincoln-voulu-exiler-noirs-etats-unis-1920131.html/page/0/1

What Freedom of Speech?

What Freedom of Speech?

I might be a terrorist for executing my freedom of speech.jpgThe photos of 40 of the world’s government leaders marching arm-in-arm along a Paris boulevard on Sunday with the president of the United States not among them was a provocative image that has fomented much debate. The march was, of course, in direct response to the murderous attacks on workers at the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo by a pair of brothers named Kouachi, and on shoppers at a Paris kosher supermarket by one of the brothers’ comrades.

The debate has been about whether President Obama should have been at the march. The march was billed as a defense of freedom of speech in the West; yet it hardly could have been held in a less free speech-friendly Western environment, and the debate over Obama’s absence misses the point.

In the post-World War II era, French governments have adopted a policy advanced upon them nearly 100 years ago by Woodrow Wilson. He pioneered the modern idea that countries’ constitutions don’t limit governments; they unleash them. Thus, even though the French Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, French governments treat speech as a gift from the government, not as a natural right of all persons, as our Constitution does.

The French government has prohibited speech it considers to be hateful and even made it criminal. When the predecessor magazine to Charlie Hebdo once mocked the death of Charles de Gaulle, the French government shut it down — permanently.

The theory of anti-hate speech laws is that hate speech often leads to violence, and violence demands police and thus the expenditure of public resources, and so the government can make it illegal to spout hatred in order to conserve its resources. This attitude presumes, as Wilson did when he prosecuted folks for publicly singing German songs during World War I, that the government is the origin of free speech and can lawfully limit the speech it hates and fears. It also presumes that all ideas are equal, and none is worthy of hatred.

When the massacres occurred last week in Paris, all three of the murderers knew that the police would be unarmed and so would be their victims. It was as if they were shooting fish in a barrel. Why is that? The answer lies in the same mentality that believes it can eradicate hate by regulating speech. That mentality demands that government have a monopoly on violence, even violence against evil.

So, to those who embrace this dreadful theory, the great loss in Paris last week was not human life, which is a gift from God; it was free speech, which is a gift from the state. Hence the French government, which seems not to care about innocent life, instead of addressing these massacres as crimes against innocent people, proclaimed the massacres crimes against the freedom of speech. Would the French government have reacted similarly if the murderers had killed workers at an ammunition factory, instead of at a satirical magazine?

And how hypocritical was it of the French government to claim it defends free speech! In France, you can go to jail if you publicly express hatred for a group whose members may be defined generally by characteristics of birth, such as gender, age, race, place of origin or religion.

You can also go to jail for using speech to defy the government. This past weekend, millions of folks in France wore buttons and headbands that proclaimed in French: “I am Charlie Hebdo.” Those whose buttons proclaimed “I am not Charlie Hebdo” were asked by the police to remove them. Those who wore buttons that proclaimed, either satirically or hatefully, “I am Kouachi” were arrested. Arrested for speech at a march in support of free speech? Yes.

What’s going on here? What’s going on in France, and what might be the future in America, is the government defending the speech with which it agrees and punishing the speech with which it disagrees. What’s going on is the assault by some in radical Islam not on speech, but on vulnerable innocents in their everyday lives in order to intimidate their governments. What’s going on is the deployment of 90,000 French troops to catch and kill three murderers because the government does not trust the local police to use guns to keep the streets safe or private persons to use guns to defend their own lives.

Why do some in radical Islam kill innocents in the West in order to affect the policies of Western governments? Might it be because the fruitless Western invasion of Iraq killed 650,000 persons, most of whom were innocent civilians? Might it be because that invasion brought al-Qaida to the region and spawned ISIS? Might it be because Obama has killed more innocent civilians in the Middle East with his drones than were killed by the planes in the U.S. on 9/11? Might it be because our spies are listening to us, rather than to those who pose real dangers?

What does all this have to do with freedom of speech? Nothing — unless you believe the French government.

Reprinted with the author’s permission.

Japon: dénatalité suicidaire

Sexy-thong-Japa.jpg

Japon : dénatalité suicidaire dans un pays ravagé par la pornographie

Le Japon est aujourd’hui la troisième économie mondiale, mais son économie est menacée par son désastre démographique.

Une dénatalité suicidaire

Il y a 25 ans déjà, le Japon est devenu le premier pays au monde à inverser sa pyramide démographique et à entrer, par le jeu d’une dénatalité suicidaire, dans une spirale de mort toujours plus dramatique. L’inversion de la pyramide, c’est le moment où un pays compte davantage d’habitants âgés de plus de 65 ans que de moins de 25 ans.

 

sexe-Japon-pornographie-denatalite-2

L’une des raisons en est que les Japonais ne sont plus intéressés par les relations amoureuses et sexuelles, et qu’ils n’ont plus d’enfants – et surtout, ne veulent plus d’enfants. Et ils se tournent massivement vers la pornographie, ce qui aggrave le problème.

Plus de la moitié des Japonais célibataire

Les chiffres du Japan Population Center sont sans équivoque : 45% des femmes et 25% des hommes âgés de 16 à 24 ans ne sont pas intéressés par le contact sexuel.

Plus de la moitié des Japonais âgés de 18 à 34 ans sont célibataires : 49% des femmes et 61% des hommes.

Au sein de la population dans son ensemble, 23% des femmes et 27% des hommes s’affirment «pas du tout pas intéressés» par une relation amoureuse. Et sans même parler d’une relation durable, 39% des femmes et 36% des hommes à l’âge le plus propice pour procréer, les 18-34 ans, n’ont jamais eu de relation sexuelle.

sexe-Japon-pornographie-denatalite-22

Le rapport estime que 25% des femmes japonaises aujourd’hui âgées d’une vingtaine d’années ne se marieront jamais, et que 40% d’entre elles n’auront jamais d’enfant.

Les causes sont complexes mais deux se détachent clairement.

D’abord la vision traditionnelle de la société : les femmes mariées doivent cesser de travailler et partir vivre sous l’autorité de leur belle-mère. Les mères qui travaillent sont perçues comme des « femmes diablesses ». Elles sont nombreuses à privilégier leur carrière au détriment de leur une vie amoureuse ou familiale.

Le Japon, un pays ravagé par la pornographie

Mais un autre problème tout aussi inquiétant ravage la société japonaise : la pornographie qui se répand de manière alarmante.

Le docteur Susan Yoshihara, vice-présidente du centre de recherche pour la Famille et les Droits de l’Homme basé à New York, qualifié le phénomène d’« effrayant ». C’en est au point, dit-elle, que des images pornographiques se glissent jusque dans les magazines économiques.

Un univers de sexe virtuel

Les jeunes hommes, dans ce monde de sexe virtuel et détaché de sa finalité, en arrivent à ne plus s’intéresser au sexe opposé, et n’envisagent que rarement le mariage.

En revanche, l’étrange société japonaise ne conçoit pas qu’une femme puisse avoir un enfant sans être mariée. Comme le célibat n’entraîne pas, malgré tout, une abstinence généralisée, il en résulte un nombre d’avortements considérable.

Un parlementaire japonais avait suggéré d’interdire l’avortement pour mettre fin à cette spirale de mort, mais sa proposition est restée sans effet.

On comprend le scepticisme du Dr Yaoshihara par rapport à ce projet : il n’existe au Japon aucun mouvement de défense de la vie.

Source : Reinformation.tv

Usa Vs Russia? Il punto è il controllo dell'Europa

eng13558368091.jpg

Usa Vs Russia? Il punto è il controllo dell'Europa

L’ostilità americana verso la Russia post-sovietica è astiosa quanto quella che fu riservata all’URSS. La cosa può stupire, visto il desiderio dei dirigenti della nuova Russia di essere accolti a pieno titolo nel sistema occidentale.

Il fatto si spiega se consideriamo che l’ideologia è solo un pretesto per coprire le vere motivazioni profonde dei comportamenti nei rapporti politici e fra gli Stati. In realtà quello che l’Impero anglo-americano temeva non era il cosiddetto comunismo. Banchieri, monopolisti, vertici dei servizi segreti, cioè quelli che sanno e che contano, sapevano bene che un’economia rigidamente e burocraticamente pianificata non avrebbe retto il confronto con le dinamiche del Mercato occidentale. Il problema non era l’URSS comunista, il problema era il controllo dell’Europa e pertanto il timore che la Russia, sovietica o “democratica” che fosse, ne diventasse egemone nonostante l’inadeguatezza economica.

Impedire che una potenza unificasse l’Europa o comunque ne diventasse la forza-guida, è sempre stata la massima preoccupazione dell’Impero britannico. L’Europa, con le sue centinaia di milioni di abitanti, col suo alto reddito, col suo potenziale industriale e culturale, diventerebbe automaticamente la prima potenza mondiale se una delle nazioni che la costituiscono si ponesse alla testa di un moto rivoluzionario di unificazione continentale.

La Gran Bretagna durante il XVIII e XIX secolo ha combattuto tenacemente per mantenere l’Europa continentale divisa e in particolare per contrapporsi a una potenza che fosse in grado di prevalere sulle altre del continente. Così si spiegano le guerre del Settecento e quelle napoleoniche, in cui la Gran Bretagna ha condotto una lotta vincente contro le pretese egemoniche della Francia. Nell’Ottocento, quando anche la Russia zarista assunse un volto minaccioso per gli interessi inglesi, la Gran Bretagna non esitò, insieme alla Francia, ad unirsi all’Impero musulmano turco per impedire ai russi di penetrare nel Mediterraneo, e fu la guerra di Crimea (precedente inquietante alla luce dei fatti odierni). L’Inghilterra favorì anche il processo di unificazione d’Italia, mentre la Francia avrebbe voluto una penisola politicamente divisa in tre Stati, perché un’Italia unita e indipendente poteva fare da contrappeso alla Francia sul fianco meridionale del continente. 

Dopo la guerra franco-prussiana e l’unificazione della Germania, il Reich di Berlino divenne il primo nemico di Sua Maestà Britannica, e furono due guerre mondiali.

Gli USA hanno ereditato questa stessa visione strategica dai cugini inglesi. Anche per gli inquilini della Casa Bianca la carta decisiva per il dominio mondiale è il controllo dell’Europa.  Anche loro sanno che l’Europa deve restare divisa oppure gravitare attorno a una potenza comunque subordinata all’Impero anglosassone. Dopo la sconfitta della Germania nazista, l’ultima potenza che ha cercato di unire il continente con la forza delle armi e di un’ideologia che aveva trovato simpatie e collaborazioni nonostante la sua impronta etnica, il grande nemico, anch’esso fortemente armato e portatore di un’ideologia per molti attraente, diventava l’URSS. Per questo, per il timore che l’intero continente gravitasse nell’orbita sovietica e non per la minaccia comunista in sé, il confronto è stato durissimo per decenni, fino al collasso del più debole.

Da certi punti di vista, nonostante lo smembramento di quella che fu l’URSS, o forse proprio per questo, la nuova Russia è stata subito avvertita come una rinnovata minaccia. Una Russia più efficiente economicamente dopo aver adottato le regole del Mercato ed etnicamente più compatta, poteva aspirare ad attrarre nella sua orbita un’Europa dipendente dalle sue forniture energetiche. Un’Europa divisa in tanti Stati sarebbe stata debole di fronte alla Russia. Per l’Impero anglo-americano era preferibile un’Europa unita sotto l’egemonia di una Germania a sua volta sottoposta ai voleri di Washington.

Così tutto diventa assolutamente coerente: l’importanza del TTIP, il trattato che legherebbe indissolubilmente l’UE agli USA, le manovre tendenti a sganciare l’UE dalla dipendenza dalle fonti energetiche russe, il colpo di stato in Ucraina col coinvolgimento della Germania che farebbe di quel Paese una sua appendice economica, l’estensione della NATO sempre più a est.

Il comunismo non c’entrava, come non c’entra la polemica “democratica” contro “l’autoritarismo” russo. Quella è solo “ideologia come falsa coscienza”. Oggi come sempre la linea strategica dell’Impero marittimo anglo-americano è quella di tenere in pugno il continente europeo, per avere l’egemonia sul mondo intero. Il punto debole di questa strategia consiste proprio nell’essere ancorata al criterio della centralità europea. L’Europa, invasa da masse di migranti, invecchiata nella sua popolazione autoctona, presa dalla spirale di una crisi economica apparentemente senza soluzioni immediate, con una gioventù disorientata e sradicata, è in piena decadenza. Respingere la Russia verso la sua dimensione asiatica potrebbe essere controproducente, perché un blocco russo-cinese per le sue potenzialità militari, umane ed economiche rappresenterebbe un polo antagonista formidabile.

Tutto è molto chiaro, molto coerente, molto leggibile, ma anche tremendamente incerto negli esiti finali. “Tremendamente” perché proprio l’estrema vicinanza delle basi NATO ai confini russi fa balenare la tentazione del “primo colpo”, da una parte e dall’altra, e sarebbe un colpo nucleare. Questa è la scena che il teatro del mondo ci offre all’apertura del sipario sul 2015. 

Luciano Fuschini

Washington is Going to Rely on NGOs in Central Asia

BCUAAgj04.jpg

Author: Vladimir Odintsov

Washington is Going to Rely on NGOs in Central Asia

Ex: http://journal-neo.org

The United States and their satellites have been using nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) for the preparation and implementation of “color revolutions” in North Africa, the Middle East and the former Soviet countries extensively, which has made numerous headlines across international media. The consequences of such “democratic activity” carried out by Washington can be clearly seen in Libya, Iraq, Ukraine, and in several other countries, where this strategy has led to the creation of uncontrolled chaos.

The tactics of Washington’s NGOs can be summed out by a famous quote of retired US Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Peters: “Hollywood is “preparing the battlefield,” and burgers precede bullets. The flag follows trade.”

As a rule, the target of these “cover activities” carried out by NGOs is the struggle for energy markets, or the fight against political opponents, among which the White House highlights Russia, China and Iran. This much explains the latest developments in Hong Kong. Washington has effectively created a network of NGOs there that promote American interests under the pretext of promoting “democracy”, which operate by using social networks for spreading their agenda. This same pattern has been duplicated numerous times across the globe to attempt regime change in countries that the White House perceives as a threat to US dominance.

To sponsor these activities Washington has been allocating billions of dollars annually through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) – the organization responsible for countless coups around the world along with the CIA, on par with numerous private foundations. It’s no coincidence then that in Russia alone there were a total of 650 foreign NGOs back in 2012, that were receiving up to one billion dollars a year, with 20 million handed out by Western diplomatic missions directly.

So, if we are to focus on the post-Soviet region, in recent years Western NGOs have been particularly active in the states of Central Asia, desperate in their strive to trigger “color revolutions” wherever possible. The avid interest of Washington towards this particular region is caused by a number of factors, including considerable deposits of natural resources along with the possibility to control the flow of those by taking a firm footing in the region, such as in destabilized Afghanistan. But the “key” factor behind Washington’s thinking is the ability to influence the geopolitical future and stability of the entire Asian continent and Russia. That is why the territory of the Central Asian region is considered by US think tanks an area of choice for projecting political influence on Russia and China, launching military campaigns against Afghanistan and potentially Iran. In this case, the United States seeks to break the Central Asian states away from Russian influence, by extensive use of international organizations and NGOs.

After failing to achieve the redrawing of the political landscape in Central Asia after the so-called “Tulip Revolution” in Kyrgyzstan in 2005 and the consequent shift of focus of the White House to “democratic political reforms” in Ukraine and in Hong Kong, the US State Department and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in 2011 have sharply reduced the funding of their ongoing “projects” in Central Asia, by dropping it to 126 million dollars from and initial 436 million. In 2013 the funding was cut even further to 118 million dollars (a 12% decrease of in comparison to 2012).

However, due to the increasing political and economic strength of Russia along with the active participation of the Central Asian states in the Customs Union project implemented by the Russian Federation and a number of other integration initiatives, the White House has made significant adjustments to its policies in the countries of Central Asia. Therefore, to “promote access to free unbiased” media, USAID has allocated an additional 3.8 million dollars to NGOs in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan in 2014.

At the same time George Soros has spent a whooping total of 80 million dollars on “democratic reforms” in Kyrgyzstan over the past 11 years . A November 2014 trip by the 84-year-old investor and philanthropist to Kyrgyzstan has attracted a lot of media attention, along with the “considerable” financial assistance he has provided to non-governmental organizations to the “revolution” in Ukraine. George Soros has clearly expressed his anti-Russian position at a press conference of the International Crisis Group in Brussels, where he urged Europe to, “wake up.” That is why his visit to Kyrgyzstan was regarded by most foreign observers as an attempt to disrupt the entry of Kyrgyzstan into the Customs Union and its rapprochement with Russia. It’s no coincidence that all through his visit the US Embassy in Kyrgyzstan witnessed numerous demonstrations, where protesters urged local NGOs to abstain from taking the “blood money”.

It is obvious that Washington will carry on its attempts to actively pursue its own interests in Central Asia through non-governmental organizations, by making sure to take every possible opportunity to increase its influence over the internal affairs of the former Soviet territories. Moreover, bringing loyal leaders to power in those states is believed to be a top priority.

It’s obvious that the White House will also attempt to exploit religious factors as a means of destabilization, especially since it has already tested the “Islamic State” scenario along with its satellites in the Gulf elsewhere, proving to be quite effective in spreading chaos not only in a specific region, but also worldwide.

Vladimir Odintsov is a political commentator, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
First appeared:
http://journal-neo.org/2015/01/08/rus-npo-ssha-i-tsentral-naya-aziya/