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.

mardi, 26 mai 2015

La Chine , le Brésil et le Pérou brisent le monopole du Canal de Panama

voie-ferree-transcontinental.png

La Chine , le Brésil et le Pérou brisent le monopole du Canal de Panama

Auteur : Station Zebra
Ex: http://zejournal.mobi

En visite au Brésil le Premier-Ministre Chinois Li Keqiang a signé pour plusieurs milliards de dollars d’accords économiques dont le plus important est le financement d’une voie ferrée transcontinentale qui va relier le Brésil au Pérou c’est à dire l’Océan Atlantique à l’Océan Pacifique et à l’Asie .

S’il s’agit dans un premier temps de favoriser les exportations brésiliennes de produits agro-alimentaires comme le soja et la viande , cette voie ferrée va devenir un nouveau corridor entre les deux océans . Cette voie ferrée concernera aussi des exportations minières, des produits industriels et des dérivés pétrochimiques produits à partir des gisements off-shore de la façade Atlantique du Brésil .

Toutefois cette voie ferrée génère déjà des polémiques : le Président Bolivien , le camarada socialista – ethno socialiste – Evo Morales , s’insurge contre le choix du Pérou pour espace de transit unique vers l’Océan Pacifique et affirme qu’une voie ferrée désenclavant la Bolivie aurait été moins chère à construire et plus rentable à exploiter

Comme de bien entendu des associations indigènistes soutenues par des ONG’s occidentales sont sorties de leur silence comme les champignons ( vénéneux ) après la pluie pour manifester leur opposition au projet . Parmi les opposants au projet on retrouve les  » habituels  » comme Paulo Adario, directeur des campagnes Amazonie de Greenpeace.

Du point de vue géopolitique cet accord est une victoire de l’école Méridionaliste qui préconise le développement des relations sud-sud . Son principal penseur est le géopolitologue , professeur d’université en géographie , André Martin .


- Source : Station Zebra

Eloge de l’homme

apollo.jpg

Eloge de l’homme

Il faut haïr l’homme présent. 

Je hais l’homme moderne, celui qu’on nous montre partout, celui qui accuse réception de ses sentiments, qui s’écoute, qui est sensible avant d’être sensé. L’homme d’aujourd’hui est laid, bête et méchant. 

Il la ramène constamment. Pour dire des inepties. Si ce n’est pas pour parler de sa queue, c’est pour parler de sa vie, et quoi de pire que de l’entendre disserter sur sa morne subsistance, sans lumière, sans saveur, sans beauté. 

L’homme moderne est à l’image de cette société, creux, crépusculaire, agonisant dans des mares de vinaigre, sécrétées par sa propre morgue.

Quant à parler de son esprit, son âme est sépulcrale, sourde au saisissement. Il jacte, il ne jouit pas, il ingère et recrache. C’est une poubelle. Il en possède la fonction: servir de réceptacle momentané aux immondices.

Nous voulons des hommes beaux, qui se taisent, qui nous regardent plutôt que de se louanger.

Nous voulons des hommes sans doute. Ou bien s’il vient à douter, par pitié qu’il le fasse en silence. La lancinante complainte de son infortune, ses combines miteuses, ses disettes céphaliques, nous fatigue au plus haut point. Sa ruine atteint des abîmes étourdisants lorsqu’immanquablement, il est content de lui-même, content de la vilaine bectance qu’il se prépare, qu’il te prépare.

L’homme moderne a totalement ingéré sa part de féminité (et la tienne, et même celle de ta mère au passage) en renonçant à sa part masculine.

L’homme moderne est un hermaphrodite récessif. 

Homme, nous te désirons hautain, le port altier, élégant et sans réserve. Fier mais rogue. Licencieux, sans être lascif. Sors un peu de ta condition de victime de ton temps. Imagine toi bien que derrière toi se tiennent roides les postérités de tes ancêtres, il ne s’agirait pas de faillir maintenant, bonhomme.

Et par pitié, ne te défile point, ou alors, arrange-toi pour que l’on ne te recroise plus, nous n’avons pas besoin d’hommes qui s’expriment, qui geignent, qui manifestent ce qu’ils ont à l’intérieur, derrière le gras-double, juste après la tripaille, leur anorexie. on veut des taiseux, silencieux et taciturnes. 

Par trop souvent, de nos jours, l’homme moderne est un anti-homme.

Louise Demory.

De l'histoire (R. Millet)

Clio, Muse of History 1798 by Charles Meynier.png

De l’histoire

par Richard Millet

Ex: http://richardmillet.wix.com

Le vacarme qu’on entend à propos de la réforme du collège fait oublier qu’il ne dépend pas de son application que les élèves soient moins instruits : il y a longtemps qu’ils ne savent plus grand-chose, que ce savoir obéit au principe d’incertitude et de flottement qui caractérise l’enseignement public, dans son ensemble, et particulièrement un de ses produits que sont les écrivains postlittéraires, dont le moins qu’on puisse dire est qu’ils n’ont aucun sentiment de leur langue ni de l’histoire de France. Ceux qui braillent contre la réforme oublient trop volontiers qu’ils ont accepté, voire promu les précédentes, qui n’étaient pas moins désastreuses.

       Dans ces réformes, la langue a été sacrifiée sur l’autel de la bienveillance psychologique qui a aboli la tolérance zéro en matière d’orthographe. « Vous ne savez pas écrire ? Supprimons la correction orthographique, et exprimez-vous librement… » prônent les Lyssenko de la recherche pédagogique.

            Comment est-il, en effet, possible d’inculquer rien de solide et de vertical à de jeunes esprits dépourvus d’armature syntaxique, et par ailleurs soumis, ces esprits, à l’intense propagande du Bien ? Pourquoi enseigner le latin, le grec, alors qu’on n’enseigne plus qu’un état laxiste (« tolérant ») du français qui a dès lors la valeur d’une dent branlante dans une bouche impropre à mastiquer ?

            Il en va de même pour l’histoire. Pourquoi s’indigner de ce que la Propaganda Staffel du Conseil national des programmes veuille en finir avec le « roman national », décrété « réactionnaire » (lisez : incompatible avec les musulmans), en un pays qui n’a plus rien d’une nation ? Il y a belle lurette que ce roman-là n’est plus qu’un objet de dépit historique, et le peuple français en proie à une schizophrénie post-républicaine qui tente de faire coexister une population qui ne cessera jamais d’immigrer en elle-même et des indigènes dépossédés de soi par ceux qui prônent un « vivre ensemble » à valeur d’apartheid communautariste.

            La schizophrénie est le nom clinique du grand déni qui ronge la gauche française, et une manière de gouverner cap au pire, comme le montre le voyage du chef de l’Etat  dans les Caraïbes : un grand moment de political correctness, donc d’insignifiance politique, dont la rencontre d’une heure avec Fidel Castro a été le clou. Il semble que ce voyage n’ait eu d’autre but que la rencontre entre un mort-vivant vêtu d’un infâme survêtement et d’un président au teint vermeil, qui a cherché son quart d’heure de gloire historique, oubliant ce qu’a été le régime castriste, les mises à mort, la chasse aux intellectuels, aux homosexuels, aux déviants… La vice-présidente Royal a beau clamer que Castro est « un mythe », que « c’est plus fort que la politique », et le locataire de l’Elysée qu’il voulait « avoir ce moment d’histoire », comme un petit garçon qui joue avec le pistolet de son père, arguant, en un solécisme tout à fait digne de l’école selon Mme Belkacem, que « Quel que soit ce qu’il a fait, il est dans l’histoire » (sic), cette visite au caudillo de La Havane permet de comprendre pourquoi le roman national est impossible : la laideur de Hollande l’interdit, son inculture aussi, et bien sûr la révélation de son goût pour les dictateurs, ceux de gauche, évidemment, qui lui permet de passer une heure avec Castro tout en travaillant à chasser Assad du pouvoir et de faire la leçon à Poutine.

            Le moment d’histoire de Hollande n’est qu’une manière d’entériner la sortie de l’histoire, rendant donc inutile l’enseignement de cette matière. 

The Shock of History

The Shock of History

Originally published at Alternative-Right October 23, 2011. Republished to honor the memory of Dominique Venner, who took his life in the service of our people two years ago this week.

A propos:

Dominique Venner.

Le choc de l’Histoire. Religion, mémoire, identité.

Versailles: Via Romana, September 2011.

“The future belongs to those with the longest memory.” –Nietzsche

Venner_3.jpgConservative thinking, Karl Mannheim notes, is essentially historical thinking—in that it orients to the concrete, to ‘what is’ and ‘what has been’, instead of to ‘what ought to be’ or ‘what can be’. ‘Properly understood’, historical thinking (as créatrice de sens) reveals the ‘Providential’ design evident in the course and test of time.

Some anti-liberals are wont thus to situate their ‘conservative’ project within the frame of Europe’s historical destiny and the higher design informing it.

The most renowned of such historical thinkers (representing what Carolina Armenteros calls the ‘the French idea of history’) was the father of European anti-liberalism, Joseph de Maistre—though he is not our subject.  Rather, it is the foremost contemporary avatar of anti-liberal historical thought: Dominique Venner.

The 75-year-old, French-speaking European of Celt and German descent, father of five, Venner is a historical scholar, a writer of popular histories and of various works on firearms and hunting, as well as the editor of two successful, artfully illustrated historical journals.

But whatever his genre, Venner bears the knightly (or legionnaire) standard of Europe’s multi-millennial heritage—the heritage, he claims, that took form with the blind poet, who is the father of us all—the heritage whose Homeric spirit knows to honor the brave, bare-foot soldiers of the Confederacy and the social banditry of Jesse James—and, most insistently, the heritage that expects a future commensurate with Europe’s incomparable past.

Venner is not your average academic historians; indeed, he’s not an academic at all. His life has been lived out on the last of France’s imperial battlefields; in Parisian street politics, in the outlawed OAS, in prison, and in laying the conceptual foundations of the European New Right; and finally, since his early thirties, in the various libraries, archives, and communal memories he’s searched to produce the 50 books he’s written on the key historical upheavals of the last century or so.

Unsurprisingly, his historical sense is ‘over-determined’—not solely by an  intelligence steeped in the life of the mind, but also by disciplines acquired in those schools of initiands known only to the political soldier.

His latest book—Le Choc de l’Histoire—is not a work of history per se, but a series of meditations, in the form of a book-long interview (conducted by the historian Pauline Lecomte) on the historical situation presently facing Europeans. These meditations approach their subject in parallel but opposite ways: 1) one approach surveys the contours of Europe’slongue durée—those centuries of growth that made the great oak so venerable—and, in the spirit of the Annales School, reveals her ‘secret permanences’, and, 2) a very different but complementary approach that silhouettes the heroic individuals and individual events (Achilles and the Iliad foremost) exemplifying the Homeric spirit of European man—disclosing his possibilities, and offering him thus an alternative to his programmed extinction.

Venner’s thesis is that: Europeans, after having been militarily, politically, and morally crushed by events largely of their own making, have been lost in sleep (‘in dormition’) for the last half-century and are now—however slowly—beginning to experience a ‘shock of history’ that promises to wake them, as they are forced to defend an identity of which they had previously been almost unconscious.

Like the effect of cascading catastrophes (the accelerating decomposition of America’s world empire, Europe’s Islamic colonization, the chaos-creating nihilism of global capitalism, etc.), the shock of history today is becoming more violent and destructive, making it harder for Europeans to stay lulled in the deep, oblivious sleep that follows a grievous wound to the soul itself—the deep curative sleep prescribed by their horrendous civil wars (1914-1918 and 1939-1945), by the ensuing impositions of the Soviet/American occupation and of the occupation’s collaborationist regimes, and, finally, today, by a demographic tsunami promising to sweep away their kind.

The Sleep

venner-dominique-choc-de-l-histoire.jpgThe Second European Civil War of 1939-1945, however it is interpreted, resulted in a cataclysmic defeat not just for Hitler’s Germany, but for Europe, much of which, quite literally, was reduced to mounds of smoldering rumble. Then, at Yalta, adding insult to injury, the two extra-European super-powers partitioned the Continent, deprived her states of sovereignty, and proceeded to Americanize or Sovietize the ‘systems’ organizing and managing the new postwar European order.

As Europe’s lands and institutions were assumed by alien interests, her ancient roots severed, and her destiny forgotten, Europeans fell into dormition, losing consciousness of who they were as a people and a civilization—believing, as they were encouraged, that they were simply one people, equal among the world’s many peoples.

Worse, for their unpardonable sins—for what Europeans did to Jews in the war, to Blacks in the slave trade, to non-White peoples in general over the course of the last 500 years—for all the terrible sins Europeans have committed, they are henceforth denied the ‘right’ to be a ‘people’. In the Messianic spirit of Communism and Americanism, the Orwellian occupiers and collaborators have since refused them a common origin (roots), a shared history, a tradition, a destiny. This reduces them to a faceless economic-administrative collectivity, which is expected, in the end, to negate the organic basis of its own existence.

The postwar assault on European identity entailed, however, more than a zombifying campaign of guilt-inducement—though this campaign was massive in scale. Europe after Jahre Null was re-organized according to extra-European models and then overwhelmed with imported forms of mass consumerism and entertainment. At the same time and with perhaps greater severity, she was subject to an unprecedented ‘brain-washing’ (in schools, media, the so-called arts, public institutions, and private corporations)—as all Europe’s family of nations, not just the defeated Germans, were collectively made to bear a crushing guilt—under the pretext of the Shoah or the legacy of colonialism/imperialism/slavery—for sins requiring the most extreme penance. Thus tainted, her memory and identity are now publicly stigmatized,

Venner’s Europe is not, of course, the Soviet/New Class-inspired EU, just as she is not the geographical entity labeled ‘Europe’. Rather than a market, a political/administrative structure, a geographic category—rather even than a race (though in a certain sense it is all about race in the end)—Europe for him is a multi-millennial community of closely-related national families made up of Germans, Celts, Slavs, and others, having the same ancient (Indo-European, Borean, Cro-Magnon) roots of blood and spirit: that is, having the same Thirty-thousand Years of European History and Identity.

This makes his Europe a community with a common civilizational heritage that stretches back to the depths of prehistoric time. Historically, the tradition and identity of this heritage has informed Europe’s representations and values in ways distinguishing/identifying her and her peoples from other civilizations and peoples.

Tradition, though, is not  for Venner the metaphysical abstraction of the perennialists or the historical repository of the Burkeans: it is not something outside history nor is it something forged once and for all in the night of time.

Tradition for him is precisely that which does not pass.  It is the perpetual spirit that makes Europeans who they are and lends meaning to their existence, as they change and grow yet remain always the same. It is the source thus of the ‘secret permanences’ upon which their history is worked out.

Tradition may originate in Prehistory, but Venner claims it is preeminently contemporary—just as every origin represents a novel outburst of being. It serves thus as a people’s inner compass. It directs them to what and whom they are. It renders what was formed and inspired in the past into a continually informed present. It is always new and youthful, something very much before rather than behind them. It embodies the longest memory, integral to their identity, and it anticipates a future true to its origin. Life lived in reference to tradition, Venner insists, is life lived in accordance with the ideal it embodies—the ideal of ‘who we are’.

In one sense, Venner’s Europe is the opposite of the America that has distorted Europe’s fate for the last half-century. But he is no knee-jerk anti-American (though the French, in my view, have good cause to be anti-US). He’s also written several books on the US War of Secession, in which much of America’s Cavalier heritage is admired. Knowing something of the opposed tendencies shaping American ‘national’ life, he’s well aware of the moral abyss separating, say, Jesse James from Jay Gould—and what makes one an exemplar of the European spirit and the other its opposite.

Modeled on the Old Testament, not the Old World, Venner claims America’s New World (both as a prolongation and rejection of Europe) was born of New England Calvinism and secularized in John O’Sullivan’s ‘Manifest Destiny’.

Emboldened by the vast, virgin land of their wilderness enterprise and the absence of traditional authority, America’s Seventeenth-century Anglo-Puritan settlers set out, in the spirit of their radical-democratic Low Church crusade, to disown the colony’s Anglo-European parents—which meant disowning the idea (old as Herodotus) that Europe is ‘the home of liberty and true government’.

Believing herself God’s favorite, this New Zion aspired—as a Promised Land of liberty, equality, fraternity—to jettison Europe’s aesthetic and aristocratic standards for the sake of its religiously-inspired materialism. Hence, the bustling, wealth-accumulating, tradition-opposing character of the American project, which offends every former conception of the Cosmos.

New England, to be sure, is not the whole of America, for the South, among another sections, has a quite different narrative, but it was the Yankee version of the ‘American epic’ that became dominant, and it is thus the Yankee version that everywhere wars on Americans of European descent.

Citing Huntington’s Who Are We?, Venner says US elites (‘cosmocrats’, he calls them) pursue a transnational/universalist vision (privileging global markets and human rights) that opposes every ‘nativist’ sense of nation or culture—a transnational/universalist vision the cosmocrats hope to impose on the whole world. For like Russian Bolsheviks and ‘the Bolsheviks of the Seventeenth century’, these money-worshipping liberal elites hate the Old World and seek a new man, Homo Oeconomicus—unencumbered by roots, nature, or culture—and motivated solely by a quantitative sense of purpose.

As a union whose ‘connections’ are essentially horizontal, contractual, self-serving, and self-centered, America’s cosmocratic system comes, as such, to oppose all resistant forms of historic or organic identity—for the sake of a totalitarian agenda intent on running roughshod over everything that might obstruct the scorch-earth economic logic of its Protestant Ethic and Capitalist Spirit. (In this sense, Europe’s resurgence implies America’s demise).

The Shock

What will awaken Europeans from their sleep? Venner says it will be the shock of history—the shock re-awakening the tradition that made them (and makes them) who they are. Such shocks have, in fact, long shaped their history. Think of the Greeks in their Persian Wars; of Charles Martel’s outnumbered knights against the Caliphate’s vanguard; or of the Christian forces under Starhemberg and Sobieski before the gates of Vienna. Whenever Europe approaches Höderlin’s ‘midnight of the world’, such shocks, it seems, serve historically to mobilize the redeeming memory and will to power inscribed in her tradition.

More than a half-century after the trauma of 1945—and the ensuing Americanization, financialization, and third-worldization of continental life—Europeans are once again experiencing another great life-changing, history-altering shock promising to shake them from dormition.

The present economic crisis and its attending catastrophes (in discrediting the collaborators managing the EU, as well as de-legitimatizing the continent’s various national political systems), combined with the unrelenting, disconcerting Islamization of European life (integral to US strategic interests) are—together—forcing Europeans to re-evaluate a system that destroys the national economy, eliminates borders, ravages the culture, makes community impossible, and programs their extinction as a people. The illusions of prosperity and progress, along with the system’s fun, sex, and money (justifying the prevailing de-Europeanization) are becoming increasingly difficult to entertain. Glimmers of a changing consciousness have, indeed, already been glimpsed on the horizon.

The various nationalist-populist parties stirring everywhere in Europe—parties which are preparing the counter-hegemony that one day will replace Europe’s present American-centric leadership—represent one conspicuous sign of this awakening. A mounting number of identitarian, Christian, secular, and political forces resisting Islam’s, America’s, and the EU’s totalitarian impositions at the local level are another sign.

Europeans, as a consequence, are increasingly posing the question: ‘Who are we?’, as they become more and more conscious—especially in the face of the dietary, vestimentary, familial, sexual, religious, and other differences separating them from Muslims—of what is distinct to their civilization and their people, and why such distinctions are worth defending. Historical revivals, Venner notes, are slow in the making, but once awakened there is usually no going back. This is the point, Venner believes, that Europe is approaching today.

The Unexpected

History is the realm of the unexpected. Venner does not subscribe to notions of historical determinism or necessity. In contrast to Marxists and economic determinists, anti-Semites and Spenglerians, he believes there are no monocausal explanations of history, and unlike liberals such as Fukuyama, he believes there’s no escape from (no ‘end’ to) history.

In history, the future is always unknown. Who would have thought in 1980 that Soviet Russia, which seemed to be overtaking the United States in the ‘70s, would collapse within a decade? Historical fatalities are the fatalities of men’s minds, not those of history.

History, moreover, is the confluence of the given, the circumstantial, and the willful. This makes it always open and hence potentially always a realm of the unexpected. And the unexpected (that instance when great possibilities are momentarily posed) is mastered, Venner councils, only in terms of who we are, which means in terms of the tradition and identity defining our project and informing our encounter with the world.

Hence, the significance now of husbanding our roots, our memory, our tradition, for from them will come our will to power and any possibility of transcendence. It’s not for nothing, Dominique Venner concludes, that we are the sons and daughters of Homer, Ulysses, and Penelope.

Hommage à Dominique Venner

dv-poster.jpg