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.

jeudi, 04 avril 2019

Hadrien Desuin : « Vers une nouvelle Groß Koalition au Parlement européen? »

parleur.jpg

Hadrien Desuin : « Vers une nouvelle Groß Koalition au Parlement européen? »

Une note d’analyse signée Hadrien Desuin*

Ex: http://geopragma.fr

À l’issue des élections européennes, où chaque camp est parti en ordre dispersé, une recomposition aura lieu pour former une majorité parlementaire. Face à l’essor des partis populistes et souverainistes, la majorité du parlement européen devrait resserrer ses rangs autour du groupe libéral.

C’était un vœu d’Emmanuel Macron qu’il avait prononcé à la Sorbonne dès septembre 2017 à la faveur du Brexit. A l’aide de listes transnationales, le Parlement européen devait s’ériger en Constituante en 2019 et se mettre en marche vers une Europe fédérale. Pour les Jeux Olympiques de Paris en 2024, le président français voyait déjà ses athlètes courir sous les couleurs de l’Union Européenne…

Toute l’Europe applaudit l’enthousiasme du président français. On lui remet le prix Charlemagne à Aix-la-Chapelle en compagnie d’Angela Merkel. Mais toutes ces envolées visionnaires sont progressivement archivées pour mémoire. Les Allemands refusent de partager leurs économies et se contentent de mettre à jour le traité de l’Élysée de 1963. De fait, il n’y a ni liste transnationale, ni circonscription unique et encore moins de constituante.

Le découpage électoral, laissé à la discrétion des États-membres, fait de chacune des 27 campagnes nationales des événements politiques isolés. À part quelques personnalités venues symboliser l’unité européenne lors des grandes réunions publiques, on voit bien que le PPE (Parti Populaire Européen) ou le PSE (Parti Socialiste Européen) ont des rôles réduits. Ce sont des plateformes où cohabitent des partis aussi divers que Les Républicains de Laurent Wauquiez et le Fidesz de Victor Orban et qui, sans discipline de groupe, votent en fonction de leurs intérêts propres et parfois les uns contre les autres. De même, peu d’électeurs soupçonnent l’existence de l’ENL (Europe des Nations et des Libertés) et de l’ECR (Conservateurs et réformistes européens), les groupes qui représentent respectivement les populistes de droite et les conservateurs. Si le Parlement européen est très peu connu de ses électeurs, ceci peut aisément s’expliquer. En dehors de la confiance accordée à la Commission en début de mandature, cette assemblée de 750 membres n’a pas de réels pouvoirs législatifs. L’abstention bat donc tous les records.

Bien des rédactions ont d’ailleurs renoncé à décrire les méandres de la petite politique européenne à Strasbourg et Bruxelles, alors que les péripéties parisiennes, berlinoises ou romaines couvrent quotidiennement les journaux nationaux les plus respectés. Pour une campagne strictement européenne, il faudrait des médias européens. Or le seul quotidien dont la diffusion est proprement européenne est The New-York Times… Le journal a repris le nom de sa maison mère puisque le titre International Herald Tribune peinait à faire vendre. Ses pages en anglais traitent d’ailleurs plus souvent des différentes actualités nationales plutôt que de la machine Bruxelloise. Les chaînes de télévision comme Euronews n’ont pas non plus d’énormes succès d’audience. Le multilinguisme, comme le globish, a ses limites culturelles.

Coalition « roumaine »?

A la veille de ces élections du 26 au 29 mai 2019, les 750 députés sortants sont répartis en huit groupes. La majorité est composée des 218 députés du centre-droit PPE emmené par le bavarois Manfred Weber (CSU), alliés aux 186 députés sociaux-démocrates du PSE (dont les populistes du SMER slovaque et du PSD roumain). Ces derniers ont choisit le hollandais Frans Timmermans comme candidat à la tête de la commission. Avec un total de 404 parlementaires, ils peuvent se passer de leurs alliés libéraux d’ADLE (Alliance des démocrates et des libéraux pour l’Europe). Le groupe dirigé par le belge Guy Verhofstadt a  68 députés (dont quatre de l’ANO du tchèque Andrej Babis.)

Après le 29 mai, la grosse coalition ne pourra plus se passer des libéraux pour atteindre la nouvelle majorité absolue fixée avec le Brexit à 353 députés. Ces derniers pourraient passer la barre des 100 députés avec Ciudadanos et LREM mais aussi les libéraux allemands et polonais. Le parti du président Macron voulait dynamiter les anciens partis du parlement et fédérer autour de lui un nouveau groupe central opposé aux populistes. Là encore ses ambitions se sont fracassées sur la résistance de la bipolarité allemande. Il est très probable que les successeurs et alliés idéologique

s du Modem reviennent de là où ils viennent: le groupe euro-libéral ALDE. Un renfort qui comblerait la baisse de la majorité actuelle du PPE sous la barre des 200 députés et du PSE sous les 150 représentants. La CDU en Allemagne, LR en France ou le PP en Espagne prévoient une érosion de leur socle électoral. De même pour le PS, le PD italien et le SPD allemands qui anticipent des scores plus faibles qu’en 2014. On se retrouverait alors dans une grosse coalition à trois qu’on pourrait qualifier de « coalition roumaine » (aux couleurs du drapeau de la Roumanie) : centre droit en bleu; centre libéral en jaune et centre-gauche en rouge. Cet attelage pourrait encore se passer des écologistes du groupe ALE, aujourd’hui au nombre de 52 mais dont le positionnement dans l’opposition est très ambiguë, partagé qu’il est entre les factions gestionnaires et contestataires. En revanche les libéraux ne devraient pas être assez nombreux pour former à eux seuls une coalition avec le centre-droit ou le centre-gauche. De même le centre droit ne serait pas assez fort pour se coaliser avec les libéraux et les conservateurs. Leur vision de l’Europe sont de toutes les façons trop divergentes.

Big bang souverainiste?

L’opposition, quant à elle, est scindée en quatre petits groupes répartis à droite et à gauche. Le principal, ECR (Conservateurs et Réformistes Européens) compte 74 députés dont 19 polonais principalement du PiS, et 19 conservateurs britanniques. Ce groupe va souffrir du Brexit et cherche à s’élargir. Il a déjà rallié Nicolas Dupont-Aignan qui selon les sondages pourrait obtenir une poignée de députés ainsi que les démocrates suédois. La rencontre entre Salvini et Kascinsky a été très commentée puisqu’elle pourrait entamer un « big bang » chez les souverainistes de droite si les italiens de la Lega ou les autrichiens du FPO passaient chez les conservateurs. Par ailleurs, le groupe EFDD (Europe de la liberté et de la démocratie directe) dont 19 élus sur 43 viennent du UKIP britannique cherche aussi à s’élargir (il faut 7 nationalités différentes au sein de chaque groupe et les moyens procurés par la formation d’un groupe ne sont pas négligeables). La composante M5S du groupe est très volatile idéologiquement et constitue une inconnue importante de l’équation. Ses relations avec la Lega sont compliquées et ne devraient pas faciliter l’union des souverainistes de droite dans un seul groupe au lieu de trois. Le groupe ENL (Europe des Nations et des Libertés) regroupe quant à lui 15 élus du RN français, 4 du FPÖ autrichien, 4 du PVV néerlandais et 6 de la Lega italienne. Le départ du député britannique devrait être compensé par l’arrivée de Vox, un mouvement national espagnol qui a le vent en poupe.

Enfin la gauche radicale regroupée au sein du groupe GUE (Gauche Unitaire Européenne) peine à faire campagne en restant unie. Les 52 députés sortant qui regroupent des communistes et des populistes de LFI ou de Podemos repousseront au lendemain du scrutin la négociation pour la formation du groupe. Leur score ne devrait pas baisser.

Sur le papier, la grande coalition majoritaire semble assurée de se voir reconduite. Avec la bonne tenue du groupe ALDE et en dépit de l’affaiblissement annoncée du PPE et du PSE, le parlement gravitera autour de son centre libéral. Ce sera un parlement à l’image du Bundestag dont le système représentatif proportionnel est assez proche. On devrait donc avoir une nouvelle commission centriste et libérale, dont la majorité sera seule face à une opposition eurosceptique et populiste. Si Manfred Weber a peu de chance d’obtenir la présidence de la commission, l’Europe à l’allemande a encore quelques années devant elle.

*Hadrien Desuin, chercheur associé chez Geopragma 

Universalisme islamique et droit-de-l’hommiste, même combat ?

femme-partiellement-voilee-homme-devant-magasin-hijabs-2011-Paris_0_728_480.jpg

Universalisme islamique et droit-de-l’hommiste, même combat ?

Par Laurence Maugest, essayiste

La Charia pour l’Islam et l’ordre mondial pour les Droits de l’Homme. Existe-t-il des points de convergence ? Pour Laurence Maugest, contributrice régulière pour Polémia, c’est indubitable.

L’idéologie des Droits de l’Homme a en commun avec l’Islam de se vouer à la création d’un homme « sur-mesure », « construit », corseté dans des règles.

La religion musulmane est une doctrine qui s’immisce dans la vie privée des pratiquants, dans ses moindres recoins, lavage de mains, nourriture,  relations sexuelles…Tout est indiqué dans un calendrier que le bon musulman doit suivre à la lettre.

Curieusement, nous sommes dans l’obligation de noter que l’idéologie des Droits de l’Homme, notamment par les principes de précaution qu’elle sécrète, suit le même chemin.En effet, cette “religion” laïque devient de plus en plus invasive dans nos univers et s’évertue, de jour en jour, à réglementer davantage notre vie intime. Tel l’Islam, les Droits de l’Homme entrent dans nos foyers : des fessées aux enfants, maintenant interdites,au contenu de nos frigidaires, nous obligeant par exemple, à privilégier les légumes et à proscrire de plus en plus la viande.

Ces « avancées » se font toujours sous les coups de butoir de la culpabilité et nous mènent systématiquement à un résultat identique : notre déresponsabilisation « d’être libre ».

Le point de convergence, presque troublant, entre l’intrusion de l’Islam et celle des Droits de l’homme trouve son acmé dans ce qu’il y a de plus intime dans la vie des individus et de plus fondateur dans une société : la relation entre les hommes et les femmes.

Des chemins différents, voire opposés, aboutissent à un résultat identique

La mise à mal de la relation hommes – femmes :

  • Dans le monde masculin musulman, la femme doit se résoudre à « ne pas être », à « se dissoudre », à se dissimuler sous un voile, en dehors du regard de son père, de ses frères et de son mari.
  • L’homme occidental, lui est maintenu par l’épée des Droits de la Femme dans les reins, etne doit plus exprimer son désir.Il sera perçu, de plus en plus souvent, comme un prédateur, à surveiller de près et à maintenir à distance.

Faut-il rappeler qu’aux Etats Unis, les hommes rechignent parfois à monter dans un ascenseur seul avec une femme de peur de se retrouver devant le Juge et de payer un avocat?

Faut-il rappeler que, depuis que les européens rejettent leur histoire qui les a construits, leur avenir est lisible dans le présent des Etats Unis ? Ce qui, évidemment, n’est pas pour nous réjouir sous réserve que l’on ne soit pas avocat.

Trois autres points communs :

  • L’hyper sexualisation des relations hommes – femmes qui se révèle dans une forme d’obsession pathologique qui gomme, au passage, toutes possibilités de rencontresautreset de sympathie en dehors du sexe. Ce qui, avouons-le, est particulièrement réducteur en ce qui concerne la richesse des échanges entre les êtres en général.Ceci relève d’une limitation au corps et réduit à l’animalité notre gent humaine pourvue, pourtant, d’un cortex cérébral qui a fait ses preuves.
  • L’apartheid sexuel qui n’est pas sans rappeler la prophétie d’Alfred de Vigny (*) :

« Bientôt, se retirant dans un hideux royaume,
La Femme aura Gomorrhe et l’Homme aura Sodome,
Et, se jetant, de loin, un regard irrité,
Les deux sexes mourront chacun de son côté. »

  • La judiciarisation progressive des relations entre les hommes et les femmes

Ce dernier point commun entre l’Islam et les Droits de l’Homme « la judiciarisation exponentielle» concerne l’ensemble de la société. En effet, la mode actuelle privilégie, après la délation dans les hashtags en tous genres, les plaintes et les appels à la justice au moindre « dérapage ».  Rappelons-nous avec Rémi Brague que si  « le christianisme est la religion de l’absolu (Hegel),…l’Islam est un système politique  et juridique ». (*)

En cela nous pouvons conclure que l’Islam s’apparente davantage au Droits de l’Homme qu’au christianisme.

Dis-moi ce que tu veux, je te dirai qui tu es

Le christianisme porte en lui une visée universelle certes, mais qui concerne l’au-delà : « Mon royaume n’est pas de ce monde ».

Ce qui est loin d’être le cas de l’Islam et de son point d’orgue : la Charia qui vise à l’élargissement de la « oumma » (« Communauté mondiale des croyants »).

Les « droits-de-l’hommistes », eux, déploient une énergie considérable à détruire les frontières. Ceci, sous le prétexte que seul « un ordre mondial » assurera l’équilibre politique,  la santé écologique de la planète, la démographie et la sécurité de la population, notamment des femmes.

L’Islam et les Droits de l’Homme poursuivent donc un but similaire, l’universalisme sur Terre pour l’Islam, le cosmopolitisme mondial en ce qui concerne les Droits de l’Homme.

Un problème de taille

Le Monde est vaste et demeure, pour notre bonheur, pétris de diversités et de cultures variées.

Olivier Rey montre que tout ce qui est grand ou plus précisément grandit trop est source d’accidents. Ces aléas concernent le domaine biologique et aussi le champ géopolitique. (**)

Pensons à la superficie de la Russie qui impose à ce pays, depuis des siècles, un régime fort pour éviter le chaos susceptible de naître dans la confrontation des peuples si différents qui la composent.

Si les musulmans peuvent espérer que leurs règles de vie contrôlent la communauté des croyants, les mondialistes, eux, n’ont pas de Coran ou de petit livre rouge pour jouer le rôle de partition sévère et raide  dans un monde disparate qu’ils rêvent d’unifier.

C’est pourquoi, les Droits de l’Homme trouvent ici leur place naturelle et leur rôle de « régulateur des soucis de taille et de disparité ». Ainsi, plus l’empire mondialiste s’étendra, plus les commandements des Droits de l’Homme deviendront rigides, toujours plus répressifs, toujours plus liberticides.

Cela signifie, en définitive, que le démantèlement des frontières, nationales, culturelles, individuelles (en ce qui relève de la singularité des êtres qui est de moins en moins respectée au profit de leur nivellement), nous amène, peu ou prou, à un système politique tyrannique, seul, capable de faire obéir tout ce monde-là !

Nous sommes en train de perdre notre « responsabilité » d’être humain et la grande liberté qui s’y attache. Ce « Libre arbitre » qui nous fut offert par notre histoire gréco-latine et chrétienne sensible au développement personnel qui ne peut s’épanouir que dans une culture enracinée dans l’espace et le temps.

Il y a une membrane fondamentale que les règles islamiques comme les doctrines tyranniques des Droits de l’Homme ne détruisent pas mais, obstruent, bien au contraire,  pour notre malheur, il s’agit de notre relation au monde. Cette membrane osmotique qui, depuis la nuit des temps, ouvre l’homme comme sujet identifié, responsable, curieux et questionnant à l’univers qui l’entoure et aux mystères de la vie. Cet homme debout ne pourra plus être dans un système qui épingle « hors la loi » toutes singularités, judiciarise à tour de bras et surtout, est convaincu de son savoir ce qui inhibe, inévitablement, tout questionnement.

Laurence Maugest
5/12/2018

(*)  Libérons-nous du féminisme !, Bérénice Levet, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJ6GUtAoqDM

(**) Une question de taille, Olivier Rey, https://miscellanees01.wordpress.com/2015/07/27/olivier-r... (Vidéo)

Source : Correspondance Polémia

How Brzezinski's Chessboard Degenerated Into Brennan's Russophobia

brzchessboard.jpg

How Brzezinski's Chessboard Degenerated Into Brennan's Russophobia
 
 

“Russia is an inalienable and organic part of Greater Europe and European civilization. Our citizens think of themselves as European. That’s why Russia proposes moving towards the creation of a common economic space from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean, a community referred to by Russian experts as ‘the Union of Europe’ which will strengthen Russia’s potential in its economic pivot toward the ‘New Asia.’” Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation, February 2012

The allegations of ‘Russian meddling’ only make sense if they’re put into a broader geopolitical context. Once we realize that Washington is implementing an aggressive “containment” strategy to militarily encircle Russia and China in order to spread its tentacles across Central Asian, then we begin to understand that Russia is not the perpetrator of the hostilities and propaganda, but the victim. The Russia hacking allegations are part of a larger asymmetrical-information war that has been joined by the entire Washington political establishment. The objective is to methodically weaken an emerging rival while reinforcing US global hegemony.

Try to imagine for a minute, that the hacking claims were not part of a sinister plan by Vladimir Putin “to sow discord and division” in the United States, but were conjured up to create an external threat that would justify an aggressive response from Washington. That’s what Russiagate is really all about.

US policymakers and their allies in the military and Intelligence agencies, know that relations with Russia are bound to get increasingly confrontational, mainly because Washington is determined to pursue its ambitious “pivot” to Asia plan. This new regional strategy focuses on “strengthening bilateral security alliances, expanding trade and investment, and forging a broad-based military presence.” In short, the US is determined to maintain its global supremacy by establishing military outposts across Eurasia, continuing to tighten the noose around Russia and China, and reinforcing its position as the dominant player in the most populous and prosperous region in the world. The plan was first presented in its skeletal form by the architect of Washington’s plan to rule the world, Zbigniew Brzezinski. Here’s how Jimmy Carter’s former national security advisor summed it up in his 1997 magnum opus, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives:

“For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia… (p.30)….. Eurasia is the globe’s largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world’s three most advanced and economically productive regions. …. About 75 per cent of the world’s people live in Eurasia, and most of the world’s physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 per cent of the world’s GNP and about three-fourths of the world’s known energy resources.” (“The Grand Chessboard:American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives”, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Basic Books, page 31, 1997)

14 years after those words were written, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took up the banner of imperial expansion and demanded a dramatic shift in US foreign policy that would focus primarily on increasing America’s military footprint in Asia. It was Clinton who first coined the term “pivot” in a speech she delivered in 2010 titled “America’s Pacific Century”. Here’s an excerpt from the speech:

“As the war in Iraq winds down and America begins to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan, the United States stands at a pivot point. Over the last 10 years, we have allocated immense resources to those two theaters. In the next 10 years, we need to be smart and systematic about where we invest time and energy, so that we put ourselves in the best position to sustain our leadership, secure our interests, and advance our values. One of the most important tasks of American statecraft over the next decade will therefore be to lock in a substantially increased investment — diplomatic, economic, strategic, and otherwise — in the Asia-Pacific region…

Open markets in Asia provide the United States with unprecedented opportunities for investment, trade, and access to cutting-edge technology…..American firms (need) to tap into the vast and growing consumer base of Asia…The region already generates more than half of global output and nearly half of global trade. As we strive to meet President Obama’s goal of doubling exports by 2015, we are looking for opportunities to do even more business in Asia…and our investment opportunities in Asia’s dynamic markets.”

(“America’s Pacific Century”, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton”, Foreign Policy Magazine, 2011)

The pivot strategy is not some trifling rehash of the 19th century “Great Game” promoted by think-tank fantasists and conspiracy theorists. It is Washington’s premier foreign policy doctrine, a ‘rebalancing’ theory that focuses on increasing US military and diplomatic presence across the Asian landmass. Naturally, NATO’s ominous troop movements on Russia’s western flank and Washington’s provocative naval operations in the South China Sea have sent up red flags in Moscow and Beijing. Former Chinese President Hu Jintao summed it up like this:

“The United States has strengthened its military deployments in the Asia-Pacific region, strengthened the US-Japan military alliance, strengthened strategic cooperation with India, improved relations with Vietnam, inveigled Pakistan, established a pro-American government in Afghanistan, increased arms sales to Taiwan, and so on. They have extended outposts and placed pressure points on us from the east, south, and west.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin has been equally critical of Washington’s erratic behavior. NATO’s eastward expansion has convinced Putin that the US will continue to be a disruptive force on the continent for the foreseeable future. Both leaders worry that Washington’s relentless provocations will lead to an unexpected clash that will end in war.

Even so, the political class has fully embraced the pivot strategy as a last-gasp attempt to roll back the clock to the post war era when the world’s industrial centers were in ruins and America was the only game in town. Now the center of gravity has shifted from west to east, leaving Washington with just two options: Allow the emerging giants in Asia to connect their high-speed rail and gas pipelines to Europe creating the world’s biggest free trade zone, or try to overturn the applecart by bullying allies and threatening rivals, by implementing sanctions that slow growth and send currencies plunging, and by arming jihadist proxies to fuel ethnic hatred and foment political unrest. Clearly, the choice has already been made. Uncle Sam has decided to fight til the bitter end.

Washington has many ways of dealing with its enemies, but none of these strategies have dampened the growth of its competitors in the east. China is poised to overtake the US as the world’s biggest economy sometime in the next 2 decades while Russia’s intervention in Syria has rolled back Washington’s plan to topple Bashar al Assad and consolidate its grip on the resource-rich Middle East. That plan has now collapsed forcing US policymakers to scrap the War on Terror altogether and switch to a “great power competition” which acknowledges that the US can no longer unilaterally impose its will wherever it goes. Challenges to America’s dominance are emerging everywhere particularly in the region where the US hopes to reign supreme, Asia.

This is why the entire national security state now stands foursquare behind the improbable pivot plan. It’s a desperate “Hail Mary” attempt to preserve the decaying unipolar world order.

What does that mean in practical terms?

It means that the White House (the National Security Strategy) the Pentagon (National Defense Strategy) and the Intelligence Community (The Worldwide Threat Assessment) have all drawn up their own respective analyses of the biggest threats the US currently faces. Naturally, Russia is at the very top of those lists. Russia has derailed Washington’s proxy war in Syria, frustrated US attempts to establish itself across Central Asia, and strengthened ties with the EU hoping to “create a harmonious community of economies from Lisbon to Vladivostok.” (Putin)

Keep in mind, the US does not feel threatened by the possibility of a Russian attack, but by Russia’s ability to thwart Washington’s grandiose imperial ambitions in Asia.

As we noted, the National Security Strategy (NSS) is a statutorily mandated document produced by the White House that explains how the President intends to implement his national security vision. Not surprisingly, the document’s main focus is Russia and China. Here’s an excerpt:

“China and Russia challenge American power, influence, and interests, attempting to erode American security and prosperity. They are determined to make economies less free and less fair, to grow their militaries, and to control information and data to repress their societies and expand their influence.” (Neither Russia nor China are attempting to erode American security and prosperity.” They are merely growing their economies and expanding their markets. If US corporations reinvested their capital into factories, employee training and R and D instead of stock buybacks and executive compensation, then they would be better able to complete globally.)

Here’s more: “Through modernized forms of subversive tactics, Russia interferes in the domestic political affairs of countries around the world.” (This is a case of the ‘pot calling the kettle black.’)

“Today, actors such as Russia are using information tools in an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of democracies. Adversaries target media, political processes, financial networks, and personal data.” (The western media behemoth is the biggest disinformation bullhorn the world has ever seen. RT and Sputnik don’t hold a candle to the ginormous MSM ‘Wurlitzer’ that controls the cable news stations, the newspapers and most of the print media. The Mueller Report proves beyond a doubt that the politically-motivated nonsense one reads in the media is neither reliably sourced nor trustworthy.)

The Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community is even more explicit in its attacks on Russia. Check it out:

“Threats to US national security will expand and diversify in the coming year, driven in part by China and Russia as they respectively compete more intensely with the United States and its traditional allies and partners…. We assess that Moscow will continue pursuing a range of objectives to expand its reach, including undermining the US-led liberal international order, dividing Western political and security institutions, demonstrating Russia’s ability to shape global issues, and bolstering Putin’s domestic legitimacy.

We assess that Moscow has heightened confidence, based on its success in helping restore the Asad regime’s territorial control in Syria,… Russia seeks to boost its military presence and political influence in the Mediterranean and Red Seas… mediate conflicts, including engaging in the Middle East Peace Process and Afghanistan reconciliation….

Russia will continue pressing Central Asia’s leaders to support Russian-led economic and security initiatives and reduce engagement with Washington. …Russia and China are likely to intensify efforts to build influence in Europe at the expense of US interests…” (“The Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community”, USG)

Notice how the Intelligence Community summary does not suggest that Russia poses an imminent military threat to the US, only that Russia has restored order in Syria, strengthened ties with China, emerged as an “honest broker” among countries in the Middle East, and used the free market system to improve relations with its trading partners and grow its economy. The IC appears to find fault with Russia because it is using the system the US created to better advantage than the US. This is entirely understandable given Putin’s determination to draw Europe and Asia closer together through a region-wide economic integration plan. Here’s Putin:

“We must consider more extensive cooperation in the energy sphere, up to and including the formation of a common European energy complex. The Nord Stream gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea and the South Stream pipeline under the Black Sea are important steps in that direction. These projects have the support of many governments and involve major European energy companies. Once the pipelines start operating at full capacity, Europe will have a reliable and flexible gas-supply system that does not depend on the political whims of any nation. This will strengthen the continent’s energy security not only in form but in substance. This is particularly relevant in the light of the decision of some European states to reduce or renounce nuclear energy.”

The gas pipelines and high-speed rail are the arteries that will bind the continents together and strengthen the new EU-Asia superstate. This is Washington’s greatest nightmare, a massive, thriving free trade zone beyond its reach and not subject to its rules. In 2012, Hillary Clinton acknowledged this new threat and promised to do everything in her power to destroy it. Check out this excerpt:

“U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described efforts to promote greater economic integration in Eurasia as “a move to re-Sovietize the region.”…. “We know what the goal is and we are trying to figure out effective ways to slow down or prevent it,” she said at an international conference in Dublin on December 6, 2012, Radio Free Europe.”

“Slow down or prevent it”?

Why? Because EU-Asia growth and prosperity will put pressure on US debt markets, US corporate interests, US (ballooning) national debt, and the US Dollar? Is that why Hillary is so committed to sabotaging Putin’s economic integration plan?

Indeed, it is. Washington wants to block progress and prosperity in the east in order to extend the lifespan of a doddering and thoroughly-bankrupt state that is presently $22 trillion in the red but continues to write checks on an overdrawn account.

But Russia shouldn’t be blamed for Washington’s profligate behavior, that’s not Putin’s fault. Moscow is merely using the free market system more effectively that the US.

Now consider the Pentagon’s 2018 National Defense Strategy (NDS) which reiterates many of the same themes as the other two documents.

“Today, we are emerging from a period of strategic atrophy, aware that our competitive military advantage has been eroding. We are facing increased global disorder, characterized by decline in the long-standing rules-based international order—creating a security environment more complex and volatile than any we have experienced in recent memory. Inter-state strategic competition, not terrorism, is now the primary concern in U.S. national security.”

(Naturally, the “security environment” is going to be more challenging when ‘regime change’ is the cornerstone of one’s foreign policy. Of course, the NDS glosses over that sad fact. Here’s more:)

“Russia has violated the borders of nearby nations and pursues veto power over the economic, diplomatic, and security decisions of its neighbors…..(Baloney. Russia has been a force for stability in Syria and Ukraine. If Obama had his way, Syria would have wound up like Iraq, a hellish wastelands occupied by foreign mercenaries. Is that how the Pentagon measures success?) Here’s more:

“China and Russia want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model…

“China and Russia are now undermining the international order from within the system…….

“China and Russia are the principal priorities for the Department… because of the magnitude of the threats they pose to U.S. security.” (National Defense Strategy of the United States of America)

Get the picture? China and Russia, China and Russia, China and Russia. Bad, bad, bad.

Why? Because they are successfully implementing their own development model which is NOT programed to favor US financial institutions and corporations. That’s the whole thing in a nutshell. The only reason Russia and China are a threat to the “rules-based system”, is because Washington insists on being the only one who makes the rules. That’s why foreign leaders are no longer falling in line, because it’s not a fair system.

These assessments represent the prevailing opinion of senior-level policymakers across the spectrum. (The White House, the Pentagon and the Intelligence Community) The USG is unanimous in its judgement that a harsher more combative approach is needed to deal with Russia and China. Foreign policy elites want to put the nation on the path to more confrontation, more conflict and more war. At the same time, none of these three documents suggest that Russia has any intention of launching an attack on the United States. The greatest concern is the effect that emerging competitors will have on Washington’s provocative plan for military and economic expansion, the threat that Russia and China pose to America’s tenuous grip on global power. It is that fear that drives US foreign policy.

And this is broader context into which we must fit the Russia investigation. The reason the Russia hacking furor has been allowed to flourish and spread despite the obvious lack of any supporting evidence, is because the vilifying of Russia segues perfectly with the geopolitical interests of elites in the government. The USG now works collaboratively with the media to influence public attitudes on issues that are important to the powerful foreign policy establishment. The ostensible goal of these psychological operations (PSYOP) is to selectively use information on “audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of… organizations, groups, and individuals.”

The USG now sees the minds of ordinary Americans as a legitimate target for their influence campaigns. They regard attitudes and perceptions as “the cognitive domain of the battlespace” which they must exploit in order to build public support for their vastly unpopular wars and interventions. The relentless Russiagate narrative (which was first referred to the FBI by the chief architect of the Syrian War, former-CIA Director John Brennan) represents the disinformation component of the broader campaign against Russia. Foreign policy elites are determined to persuade the American people that Russia constitutes a material threat to their security that must be countered by tighter sanctions, more sabre-rattling, and eventually war.

Pierre Manent on Machiavelli, Luther, and the Eclipse of the Natural Law

Pierre-Manent-web.jpg

Pierre Manent on Machiavelli, Luther, and the Eclipse of the Natural Law

For most participants in modern political discourse, human rights are real and natural law is not.

More than that, the limits of natural law—not just particular natural law arguments made about human nature and its institutions—are seen as oppressive and mere constructs. Human rights, by contrast, are real freedoms that must be respected and benefits that must be granted to all human beings.

The French political philosopher Pierre Manent’s most recent book, Natural Law and the Rights of Man, is developed from his 2017 lectures for the Etienne Gilson Chair at the Institut Catholique in Paris and will be published in English later this year. (The final lecture is already available in translation.) In it, Manent offers a diagnosis of the way in which human rights have come to eclipse the natural law. He also advances an argument about the nature of political action and command in light of that law’s rationality and outlines the consequences of obscuring action. This shift from natural law to human rights was supposed to free us, Manent concludes, but has left us paralyzed.

pm-lex.jpgThe Double Standard that Relativism Creates

The perfect example arose last month. On February 19, the Trump administration announced a new campaign to fight laws in 72 countries that criminalize same-sex sexual acts. Why did Out magazine condemn it as racist and colonialist, instead of supporting it as a way to keep gays from being killed and imprisoned? Because rights claims are the moral trump card in our public debates, but not when it comes to cultures other than our own. As Manent notes, in our own countries, the bien pensant constantly make judgments about right and wrong in order to reform society. It is inexcusable to maintain the status quo, they claim, since nothing is more urgent or just than for men and women like us to recognize, declare, and vindicate our fundamental rights. But regarding other countries, they are more likely to suspend judgment: We would not want to suggest that our way of life is superior to those of other cultures, especially in a post-colonial era. As a result, we regard the “other” with cultured non-judgment, while furiously judging ourselves.

In effect, Manent argues, we posit that human rights are a rigorously universal principle, which have value for all cultures without exception. At the same time, we posit that all cultures and forms of life are equal, and that all appraisal that would presume to judge them is discriminatory. On the one hand, all human beings are equal, and we must fight vigorously for the equality of men and women in our society; on the other hand all cultures have the right to an equal respect, even those that violate the equality of human beings, and we should refrain from condemning cultures that, for example, keep women in a subordinate state.

This contradiction captures the paralysis Manent sees in our contemporary framework of rights. If we want to condemn barbarism without using scare quotes, he writes, there must be a human nature with which our actions can accord or that we are capable of violating. That nature operates according to a logic that we did not create ourselves. As he put it in a recent interview with the conservative French weekly Valeurs Actuelles, the natural law is the group of rules that necessarily order human life, and that human beings have not made. These laws fix the limits of our liberty, but also give it its orientation.

The Pleasant, the Useful, and the Honest

As Manent sees it, the natural law is not an ideal but a set of practical principles for action that helps agents act toward a happy life. All true action is a collaboration and balancing between the three principal motives of human action: the pleasant, the useful, and the honest. Without objective, transcendent principles, there is nothing to guide human freedom—nothing to determine what is pleasant, useful, or honest. “Natural law,” he concludes, “is the only serious defense against nihilism.”

Our problem today is that such thinking no longer makes sense to us. Manent traces this incomprehension to the reduction of our understanding of human nature to the separated individual and examines how it manifests itself in Niccolo Machiavelli and Martin Luther. Like other early moderns, Machiavelli claimed that he would not analyze humanity from inductive, Aristotelian principles, but would consider it “as it actually is.” Manent argues that Machiavelli fails to do this, because he substitutes a theoretical action for action “as it actually is.”

Instead of practical action, Machiavelli examines action as it can be seen by the theoreticians, without the point of view of the agent. For Machiavelli, human beings are prisoners of a fear of death and a fear of natural or divine law—a law that protects, but locks us in fear. To overcome this, he calls for a new kind of human agent who no longer fears the law and can therefore act according to what the situation authorizes and demands. We must escape our conscience (and the practical judgments it makes) and turn to the science of history for theoretical guidance for our action.

Manent sees a similar repudiation of practical reasoning and action in Luther: The acting Christian is replaced by the believer. For Luther, the Law produces a guilt and despair that can only be cured by faith, not action. The certitude of faith, not actions or conduct or conscience, determine salvation. As we saw with Machiavelli, the man who acts according to his conscience formed by the principles of the law is unable to accomplish his necessary end. Lutheran faith and Machiavellian virtu are different, but they both claim to allow us to escape the shame of the practical life and make the necessary break between ourselves and the law.

The Loss of the Law

In their own ways, therefore, Machiavelli and Luther illustrate the modern loss of the law as “rule and measure of action.” In a 2014 essay—which will serve as an appendix to the forthcoming translation of La loi naturelle et les droits de l’homme—Manent diagnoses our illness as a loss of the intelligence of law. This loss was not accidental, he writes:

We have lost it because we wanted to lose it.  More precisely, we have fled from law. We are still fleeing from it. We have been fleeing from law since we took up the project—let us call it “the modern project”—to organize common life, the human world, on a basis other than law. . . . Rights and self-interest are the two principles that allow for the ordering of the human world without recourse to law as the rule and measure of action. Of course we still have laws, indeed more laws than ever, but their raison d’être is no longer directly to regulate our actions but rather to guarantee our rights and equip us to seek our interests in a way that is useful or at least not harmful to the common interest.

pm-hommecite.jpgOur flight from the law in the name of more freedom to act has paradoxically undermined the principles for practical action. It turns out that we could not make our own meaning and give ourselves our own laws and ends.

This is the heart of the problem that Manent identifies with the modern state. In ancient political thought, only the body politic as a whole could be autonomous or give itself the law. In the modern conception of the state—especially for French conceptions of the state rooted in Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s thought—the citizen authorizes the state’s commands that he must obey. How then can he be said truly to obey? Manent argues that the idea of obeying my own commands or commanding myself simply does not work. It requires that I imagine myself as two, a commanding self and an obeying self that is distinct but also me; I cannot imagine myself to be autonomous without producing a heteronomy in myself. In this way, our society confuses command and obedience and obscures them. This in turn damages our ability to perform true political actions, given that command is “the core and essence of action.”

The greatest contrast Manent identifies between the ancient and the modern world is the difference between the free agent and the free individual. The free agent is concerned more about the intrinsic quality of his action than the objects exterior to his action, while the free individual is more concerned with exterior obstacles to his action than its intrinsic quality. For example, free agents and free individuals view death differently. For the individual, death is an obstacle to be removed. For the agent, death becomes part of the logic of action. Death is not the chief obstacle to be overcome or conquered, and therefore the great menace, but one of the many rules and motifs governing action. The individualistic view of death as an extrinsic act of life is most fully captured in euthanasia, the arbitrary but authorized killing of innocents.

How Modernity Crowded Out the Possibility of Action

In the Greek city, a well-constituted democracy, each citizen commands and obeys alternately. No one would dream of pretending that he obeys himself or commands himself. At the beginning of the modern epoch, we deliberately abandoned the law that commands and gives a rule of action. In its place, the modern state organizes the condition of action—an action now judged not according to its rule or end, but according to its effects. By abandoning ourselves to the inertia of laissez-faire, laissez-passer, however, we have lost sight of the central role of command in practical life, especially the commanding role of the law as rule of common action. Instead, we place our faith in the idea that a certain inaction, or a certain abstention from action, is the origin of the greatest goods.

We have a greater flux of goods and services, but we abstain from actions that would be likely to moderate and direct the movement of men and things. Between two modes of passivity— suffering and enjoying—that hold all our attention and provide the matter of all our new rights, we have no more place for acting.

For all of this bracing diagnosis, Manent offers little in the way of prescription. How does his analysis cash out in terms of practical political action? Perhaps it helps to uncover the roots of the powerlessness that many feel in the face of larger political forces, and to explain how the possibility of real political action came to be so circumscribed.

If so, what is the alternative? What could help us recover our sense of the intelligence of law? Neither the absolutism of radical Islam in France’s present, nor the absolutism of throne and altar in her past, receive the philosopher’s endorsement; he gestures, rather, toward ancient Greece. There he finds representative self-government in accord with the natural law and without the conceits of the modern state. At the end of his Valeurs Actuelles interview, he also gestured toward France’s rich literary and spiritual traditions and history of rational discussion. These should, said Manent, “allow us to find an alternative to virulent and blind rights claims and the irony, shoulder-shrugging, or sterile sarcasm of the politically incorrect.”

Nathaniel Peters

Nathaniel Peters is the executive director of the Morningside Institute and a lecturer at Columbia University.

About the Author