L'UE doit raffermir ses relations avec les pays d'Asie

L’UE doit raffermir ses relations avec les pays d’Asie

L’Asie est une région clef dans le monde qui peut permettre l’émancipation européenne !

Lors du sommet UE/Asie, il n’aurait pas fallu faire silence sur le problème des importations à bon marché en provenance d’Asie !

La rencontre entre pays asiatiques et pays de l’UE (ASEM), qui s’est terminée le 5 octobre à Bruxelles, aurait dû être mise à profit pour constituer des partenariats stratégiques, a affirmé le député européen de la FPÖ autrichienne, Andreas Mölzer. « L’Asie, et surtout la Chine, est une région du monde qui connaît une ascension économique remarquable et dont le poids géopolitique ne cesse de croître. Pour cette raison, il est indispensable d’avoir de bonnes relations, les plus étroites possibles, avec cette Asie en marche, surtout si l’UE cherche à s’émanciper de la tutelle américaine ». , explique Mölzer, membre de la Commission « affaires étrangères » du Parlement Européen.

Mölzer a également souligné que l’UE devait se présenter à ses éventuels partenaires asiatiques en étant pleinement consciente d’elle-même : « Au lieu de bidouiller des déclarations d’intention fumeuses, qui finiront inévitablement au tiroir des dossiers oubliés, il faut aborder les problèmes réels et y apporter des solutions ».

Pour Mölzer, il faut surtout résoudre le problème des importations à bon marché en provenance des pays asiatiques. « Si les relations étroites que nous envisageons avec les pays asiatiques valent la peine que l’on se mobilise pour elles, Bruxelles ne peut pas oublier les intérêts légitimes de l’Europe. Et parmi ces intérêts à ne pas escamoter, il y a la protection des emplois européens face aux salaires extrêmement bas pratiqués en Asie et qui équivalent à du dumping », a conclu Mölzer dans sa déclaration.

 

(source : http://www.andreas-mölzer.at/ ).

 

Europe: problèmes prioritaires

M.  I.  N.  E.  R.  V.  E.

7, Rempart St. Thiébault –F 57000 METZ

 

Mouvement pour l' Impérium, la Nature, l'Ethique, les Régions et pour la Vitalité de l'Europe.

 

Objectif: 

Institutionnalisation de l'indépendance, de la communauté, de la puissance, de l'identité, de la justice, de la générosité, de l'éthique et de la spiritualité dans une Europe unie.

 

Note d’information                                                                                   

Octobre 2010

PROBLEMES PRIORITAIRES

 

◊ I. ASSAUT ETHNIQUE ET MONETAIRE CONTRE L’EUROPE.

(Voir études approfondies et sérieusement documentées, avec preuves à l’appui,   notamment reproduction de textes dans différents Etats).

 

Deux aspects :

1 - Attaque ethnique :

 

◊ A.

Danger d’islamisation

(Bourka et voile islamique couvrant le visage, imposé aux femmes en vertu d’une discrimination contraire à la Charte des Droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne).

(Terrorisme islamique)

 

Le péril est réel et suscite de plus en plus des réactions, parfois violentes, dans la population européenne d’origine, dans la plupart des Etats membres de l’UE.

 

En ce qui concerne la bourka et les autres types de voile couvrant le visage des femmes, la loi française adoptée par la Chambre et devant encore être approuvée par le Sénat est une réaction conforme à la Charte des Droits fondamentaux de l’UE.

 

Des lois analogues sont en cours de concrétisation aux Pays-Bas.

 

◊ B.

Intégration de l’Islam dans la société européenne, au niveau des différents Etats  de  l’UE, par des lois de naturalisations sans conditions d’adoption du mode de vie européen. De telles conditions doivent être imposées afin d’éviter la formation de ghettos islamiques. Le point de vue de Simone Veil, ex Présidente du Parlement européen était : « L’intégration passe par l’assimilation ». C’était une façon lapidaire de s’exprimer, mais il est certain que la société multiethnique telle que la Grande Bretagne ou l’Allemagne fédérale, etc. ont tenté de la réaliser aves des ethnies non européennes a été un échec complet, et qu’un certain nombre de personnalités de ces pays la remettent aujourd’hui sérieusement en question.

 

En ce qui concerne plus particulièrement la France, où un grand nombre de personnes originaires de territoires français ou ex-français d’outre-mer (Algérie, etc.) de religion islamique sont citoyens de plein droit, par la naissance ou par services rendus à la France, le problème se pose en termes spécifiques . Mais il est douteux qu’il puisse être considéré comme définitivement réglé. A notre sens, beaucoup de ces citoyens français de plein droit qui, comme les autochtones algériens, se sont exilés dans l’ex métropole et étaient de toute façon considérés comme traîtres passibles de la peine de mort par l’Etat algérien nouvellement indépendant, ont été profondément déçus par la France, qui agissait à leur égard de manière discriminatoire, se sont repliés sur eux-mêmes et sur les valeurs de la religion islamique, en opposition aux valeurs prétendues et non appliquées dans leur cas,   de la République française, et sont devenus, surtout en ce qui concerne leurs enfants et petits-enfants, facilement la proie d’imans fanatiques, au point de pratiquer un Islam intégriste contraire aux valeurs mêmes de la République française et de sa Constitution, et de la Charte des Droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne , ainsi que, pour certains, de se laisser embrigader dans des organisations terroristes islamiques.

 

2- Attaque monétaire.

 

◊ A.

Spéculation sur les Titres d’Etat émis dans le but d’investissements destinés à :

-         relancer l’économie en récession ;

-         réaliser de manière planifiée une économie « verte », conformément aux décisions du Conseil européen de la fin de 2009 et de juin 2010, visant à la mise en œuvre d’une « économie verte » d’ici 2015, avec des objectifs allant jusqu’à 2020.

 

Dans ce contexte, il convient d’appuyer sans réserve la proposition française visant à une politique économique commune (à l’instar de la politique agricole commune) qui se heurte malheureusement à l’opposition de divers Etats membres de l’UE jaloux de leur compétence exclusive en matière de politique économique, préservée par le Traité de Lisbonne.

 

En fait la compétence exclusive de chaque Etat membre dans le domaine de la politique économique a pratiquement pour effet que les Etats membres se font concurrence entre eux sur le marché européen théoriquement unique, alors que cette concurrence devrait jouer entre les entreprises de tous les pays de l’UE. Il convient toutefois de préciser qu’une politique économique commune implique pour le moins une harmonisation fiscale, sinon une fiscalité commune, telle que MINERVE l’a proposée et qui a rencontré un réel intérêt de la part de divers hauts fonctionnaires français et d’autres pays de l’UE, mais plutôt une certaine hostilité de la part des hommes politiques de certains pays (encore que le Luxembourg se soit toujours exprimé en faveur d’une harmonisation fiscale au niveau européen).

 

S’agissant de contrer la spéculation sur les titre d’Etat, dont la Grèce a été particulièrement victime, mais qui tente d’atteindre aussi d’autres Etats, sans aucune justification objective, tous les Etats de l’UE ont fait preuve d’une solidarité réelle, mais en même temps ils ont décidé individuellement des mesures qui risquent de paralyser la mise en œuvre de passage effectif à une économie « verte » (bénéfique en soi pour une relance vigoureuse de l’économie sur des bases nouvelles) et de remettre en question l’Etat social , ainsi que le principe même de l’économie sociale, de marché sanctionné par le traité de Lisbonne, de même que les principes de base de la Charte des Droits fondamentaux de l’UE.

 

◊ B.

Attaque monétaire généralisée contre les monnaies européennes, notamment l’Euro, et incitation à la sortie de certains Etats membres, y compris ceux qui font partie du G8, de l’Union européenne ce qui reviendrait à conduire à la dissolution de cette dernière et à provoquer une nouvelle crise généralisée du type de celle de 1929 et à coup sûr pire encore. Une telle crise a heureusement déjà été évitée par le G8-G20 sous présidence britannique (à l’époque : Gouvernement Brown) mais malheureusement les populations n’en ont généralement pas eu conscience.

 

 

Correspondant  MINERVE-France :      

KEIL Robert,      

2, rue Paul Ferry     

F- 57 000   METZ.

 

Noodregering hersenschim?

 

 

 

Noodregering hersenschim?

Bart Maddens
- Is politicoloog aan de KULeuven.
- Stelt vast dat we een weinig originele remake beleven van de slechte
politieke cinema uit 2007.
- Meent dat de Franstalige partijen geen enkele reden hebben om grote
toegevingen te doen de komende weken.

Noodregering hersenschim?

Wie zegt dat 2010 steeds meer lijkt op 2007 en we gaan uitkomen bij een
noodregering zonder de N-VA, wordt haast als paranoïde beschouwd. En toch
kan men zich niet ontdoen van een hoog déjà-vugevoel.

Had CD&V in 2007 geen dure eden gezworen dat het nooit tot een regering zou
toetreden zonder een grote staatshervorming?

De geschiedenis herhaalt zich nooit. Maar wat nu gebeurt, begint toch wel
griezelig veel te lijken op wat we in 2007 al hebben meegemaakt. Zowel toen
als nu spelen Vlamingen en Franstaligen een ongemeen spannend chicken game:
twee chauffeurs rijden op een smalle weg in volle vaart naar elkaar toe en
wie het eerst uitwijkt, is verloren.

Begin november 2007 kon niemand zich voorstellen dat het uiteindelijk de
Vlamingen zouden zijn die finaal het stuur zouden omslaan en het spel zouden
verliezen. Begin november 2007 kwam het ook bij niemand op dat er wel eens
een andere regering gevormd zou kunnen worden dan een oranje-blauwe. Er is
gewoonweg geen alternatief, luidde het unisono bij de politici en de
analisten. Maar anderhalve maand later was het ondenkbare een feit: een
regering mét de PS, mét CD&V-N-VA, maar zonder staatshervorming.

Ook vandaag is iedereen gefixeerd op één welbepaalde formule: een regering
van zeven partijen, met een grote staatshervorming. Wie erop gokt dat het
wel eens heel anders zou kunnen uitdraaien, bijvoorbeeld op een noodregering
zonder de N-VA, die wordt haast als paranoïde beschouwd. Want beweert CD&V
niet bij hoog en bij laag nooit in zo'n noodregering te zullen stappen?

Juist, maar even goed had CD&V in 2007 dure eden gezworen dat het nooit tot
een regering zou toetreden zonder een grote staatshervorming. Maandenlang
kreeg de partij daarvoor luid applaus in de media en de publieke opinie.
'Goed dat de Vlamingen eindelijk eens het been stijf houden', was toen de
teneur. Maar vanaf de tweede helft van november begon het sentiment op de
markt te keren. De stemming sloeg vrij plots om naar 'de speeltijd is
voorbij': de politici moesten nu maar eens een einde maken aan dat
communautaire gehakketak en zich met de 'echte' problemen gaan bezighouden.

LUC COENE

Het was vooral economische stemmingmakerij die aan de basis lag van die
kentering. De vakbonden roerden zich eerst. Op 26 september lanceerden ze
een uitgesproken Belgicistische campagne onder het motto 'Red de
solidariteit'. Vlak voor de ontknoping, op 15 december, was er dan die
groots opgezette nationale vakbondsbetoging. Zogezegd voor het behoud van de
koopkracht, in werkelijkheid tegen een verregaande staatshervorming.

Tien dagen eerder, op 5 december, was Luc Coene (vicegouverneur van de
Nationale Bank) in de Kamercommissie voor Begroting en Financiën komen
vertellen dat de politieke crisis langzaam negatieve gevolgen begon te
hebben op de economische prestaties van België. Nadien heeft hij (in De Tijd
van 12 januari 2008) toegegeven dat het enkel zijn bedoeling was een signaal
te geven en dat het hooguit ging om een 'potentieel gevaar'. Het was met
andere woorden enkel een overdrijving, bedoeld om de politici aan te zetten
tot Belgische 'redelijkheid'.

Het resultaat was dat de Vlaamsgezinde krachten in CD&V beetje bij beetje in
het defensief werden gedrongen. De ACW-vleugel voerde geleidelijk de druk
op. Dat leidde dan uiteindelijk tot die halsbrekende bocht op 18 december:
CD&V besliste toch toe te treden tot een regering zonder enige garantie op
een staatshervorming. De Vlamingen waren hun hefboom kwijt, en we waren
vertrokken voor drie jaar politieke stilstand en communautaire ellende. Maar
de solidariteit was wel gered.

CRISISGEVOEL

Vandaag beleven we een weinig originele remake van die slechte cinema. De
vakbonden zijn al in gang geschoten. En het is een gemakkelijke voorspelling
dat ook de economische onheilsprofeten binnenkort een tandje zullen
bijsteken. De bedoeling is duidelijk: het economischecrisisgevoel in de
publieke opinie aanscherpen, zodat de burgers zich finaal tegen de
communautaire 'scherpslijpers' zullen keren.

In de Franstalige pers wordt daar al maanden op gespeculeerd. Joëlle Milquet
(cdH) was vorig weekend in Le Soir bijzonder openhartig over dat
uitrookscenario: 'Car l'opinion peut s'inquiéter, réclamer un gouvernement.
Il n'y a pas encore de sentiment d'urgence. Le temps est un partenaire.'
Maar ook bij CD&V rekenen sommigen er blijkbaar op dat de politieke
uitputtingsslag tot een kentering zal leiden in de publieke opinie. Een
regering zonder de N-VA? 'On pourra en reparler dans deux ou trois mois',
zei een CD&V-verkozene aan Le Vif-L'Express (18 oktober).

Voor de Franstaligen komt het er dus vooral op aan tijd te winnen. Dat is de
les die ze in 2007 hebben geleerd. De recente beslissing van CD&V, Open VLD
en sp.a om niet langer mee te werken aan een 'eenzijdige' splitsing van
Brussel-Halle-Vilvoorde (BHV) heeft hen gesterkt in de overtuiging dat de
wind in Vlaanderen aan het draaien is. Vooral het feit dat CD&V zich inzake
BHV heeft losgehaakt van de N-VA wordt gezien als een hoopvol teken.

Weliswaar maakt één zwaluw de lente nog niet, aldus journalist Francis Van
de Woestyne in La Libre (26 oktober), maar toch is het duidelijk dat de
traditionele partijen zich langzaam maar zeker van de N-VA distantiëren.
Waarom zouden de Franstaligen dan grote toegevingen doen de komende weken?

Dat is de paradox van wat de jongste dagen is gebeurd. De traditionele
partijen hebben de parlementaire BHV-weg verlaten met de bedoeling het
koninklijk bemiddelaar Johan Vande Lanotte (sp.a) wat gemakkelijker te
maken. Maar het resultaat zou wel eens precies het tegenovergestelde kunnen
zijn.
© 2010 Mediafin
Publicatie:     De Tijd
Publicatiedatum:     vrijdag 29 oktober 2010
Auteur:     Van Hamme Franky;
Pagina:     16
Aantal woorden:     977

Neo-Ottoman Turkey: A Hostile Islamic Power

Neo-Ottoman Turkey: A Hostile Islamic Power

By Srdja Trifkovic

Ex: http://www.hellenesonline.com/

Map: Turkish sphere of influence 2050?

The fact that Turkey is no longer a U.S. “ally” is still strenuously denied in Washington; but we were reminded of the true score on March 9, when Saudi King Abdullah presented Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan (shown above with wife and friends) with the Wahhabist kingdom’s most prestigious prize for his “services to Islam” (from AltRight). Erdogan earned the King Faisal Prize for having “rendered outstanding service to Islam by defending the causes of the Islamic nation.”

Services to the Ummah – Turkey under Erdogan’s neo-Islamist AKP has rendered a host of other services to “the Islamic nation.” In August 2008 Ankara welcomed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for a formal state visit, and last year it announced that it would not join any sanctions aimed at preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. In the same spirit the AKP government repeatedly played host to Sudan’s President Omer Hassan al-Bashir — a nasty piece of jihadist work if there ever was one — who stands accused of genocide against non-Muslims. Erdogan has barred Israel from annual military exercises on Turkey’s soil, but his government signed a military pact with Syria last October and has been conducting joint military exercises with the regime of Bashir al-Assad. Turkey’s strident apologia of Hamas is more vehement than anything coming out of Cairo or Amman. (Talking of terrorists, Erdogan has stated, repeatedly, “I do not want to see the word ‘Islam’ or ‘Islamist’ in connection with the word ‘terrorism’!”) simultaneous pressure to conform to Islam at home has gathered pace over the past seven years, and is now relentless. Turkish businessmen will tell you privately that sipping a glass of raki in public may hurt their chances of landing government contracts; but it helps if their wives and daughters wear the hijab.

Ankara’s continuing bid to join the European Union is running parallel with its openly neo-Ottoman policy of re-establishing an autonomous sphere of influence in the Balkans and in the former Soviet Central Asian republics. Turkey’s EU candidacy is still on the agenda, but the character of the issue has evolved since Erdogan’s AKP came to power in 2002.

When the government in Ankara started the process by signing an Association agreement with the EEC (as it was then) in 1963, its goal was to make Turkey more “European.” This had been the objective of subsequent attempts at Euro-integration by other neo-Kemalist governments prior to Erdogan’s election victory eight years ago, notably those of Turgut Ozal and Tansu Ciller in the 1990s. The secularists hoped to present Turkey’s “European vocation” as an attractive domestic alternative to the growing influence of political Islam, and at the same time to use the threat of Islamism as a means of obtaining political and economic concessions and specific timetables from Brussels. Erdogan and his personal friend and political ally Abdullah Gul, Turkey’s president, still want the membership, but their motives are vastly different. Far from seeking to make Turkey more European, they want to make Europe more Turkish — many German cities are well on the way — and more Islamic, thus reversing the setback of 1683 without firing a shot.

The neo-Ottoman strategy was clearly indicated by the appointment of Ahmet Davutoglu as foreign minister almost a year ago. As Erdogan’s long-term foreign policy advisor, he advocated diversifying Turkey’s geopolitical options by creating exclusively Turkish zones of influence in the Balkans, the Caucasus, Central Asia, and the Middle East… including links with Khaled al-Mashal of Hamas. On the day of his appointment in May Davutoglu asserted that Turkey’s influence in “its region” will continue to grow: Turkey had an “order-instituting role” in the Middle East, the Balkans and the Caucasus, he declared, quite apart from its links with the West. In his words, Turkish foreign policy has evolved from being “crisis-oriented” to being based on “vision”: “Turkey is no longer a country which only reacts to crises, but notices the crises before their emergence and intervenes in the crises effectively, and gives shape to the order of its surrounding region.” He openly asserted that Turkey had a “responsibility to help stability towards the countries and peoples of the regions which once had links with Turkey” — thus explicitly referring to the Ottoman era, in a manner unimaginable only a decade ago: “Beyond representing the 70 million people of Turkey, we have a historic debt to those lands where there are Turks or which was related to our land in the past. We have to repay this debt in the best way.”
This strategy is based on the assumption that growing Turkish clout in the old Ottoman lands — a region in which the EU has vital energy and political interests — may prompt President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkel to drop their objections to Turkey’s EU membership. If on the other hand the EU insists on Turkey’s fulfillment of all 35 chapters of the acquis communautaire — which Turkey cannot and does not want to complete — then its huge autonomous sphere of influence in the old Ottoman domain can be developed into a major and potentially hostile counter-bloc to Brussels. Obama approved this strategy when he visited Ankara in April of last year, shortly after that notorious address to the Muslim world in Cairo.
Erdogan is no longer eager to minimize or deny his Islamic roots, but his old assurances to the contrary — long belied by his actions — are still being recycled in Washington, and treated as reality. This reflects the propensity of this ddministration, just like its predecessors, to cherish illusions about the nature and ambitions of our regional “allies,” such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
The implicit assumption in Washington — that Turkey would remain “secular” and “pro-Western,” come what may — should have been reassessed already after the Army intervened to remove the previous pro-Islamic government in 1997. Since then the Army has been neutered, confirming the top brass old warning that “democratization” would mean Islamization. Dozens of generals and other senior ranks — traditionally the guardians of Ataturk’s legacy — are being called one by one for questioning in a government-instigated political trial. To the dismay of its small Westernized secular elite, Turkey has reasserted its Asian and Muslim character with a vengeance.
Neo-Ottomanism – Washington’s stubborn denial of Turkey’s political, cultural and social reality goes hand in hand with an ongoing Western attempt to rehabilitate the Ottoman Empire, and to present it as almost a precursor of Europe’s contemporary multiethnic, multicultural tolerance, diversity, etc, etc.
In reality, four salient features of the Ottoman state were institutionalized discrimination against non-Muslims, total personal insecurity of all its subjects, an unfriendly coexistence of its many races and creeds, and the absence of unifying state ideology. It was a sordid Hobbesian borderland with mosques.
An “Ottoman culture,” defined by Constantinople and largely limited to its walls, did eventually emerge through the reluctant mixing of Turkish, Greek, Slavic, Jewish and other Levantine lifestyles and practices, each at its worst. The mix was impermanent, unattractive, and unable to forge identities or to command loyalties.
The Roman Empire could survive a string of cruel, inept or insane emperors because its bureaucratic and military machines were well developed and capable of functioning even when there was confusion at the core. The Ottoman state lacked such mechanisms. Devoid of administrative flair, the Turks used the services of educated Greeks and Jews and awarded them certain privileges. Their safety and long-term status were nevertheless not guaranteed, as witnessed by the hanging of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch on Easter Day 1822.
The Ottoman Empire gave up the ghost right after World War I, but long before that it had little interesting to say, or do, at least measured against the enormous cultural melting pot it had inherited and the splendid opportunities of sitting between the East and West. Not even a prime location at the crossroads of the world could prompt creativity. The degeneracy of the ruling class, blended with Islam’s inherent tendency to the closing of the mind, proved insurmountable.
A century later the Turkish Republic is a populous, self-assertive nation-state of over 70 million. Ataturk hoped to impose a strictly secular concept of nationhood, but political Islam has reasserted itself. In any event the Kemalist dream of secularism had never penetrated beyond the military and a narrow stratum of the urban elite.
The near-impossible task facing Turkey’s Westernized intelligentsia before Erdogan had been to break away from the lure of irredentism abroad, and at home to reform Islam into a matter of personal choice separated from the State and distinct from the society. Now we know that it could not be done. The Kemalist edifice, uneasily perched atop the simmering Islamic volcano, is by now an empty shell.
A new “Turkish” policy is long overdue in Washington. Turkey is not an “indispensable ally,” as Paul Wolfowitz called her shortly before the war in Iraq, and as Obama repeated last April. It is no longer an ally at all. It may have been an ally in the darkest Cold War days, when it accommodated U.S. missiles aimed at Russia’s heartland. Today it is just another Islamic country, a regional power of considerable importance to be sure, with interests and aspirations that no longer coincide with those of the United States.
Both Turkey and the rest of the Middle East matter far less to American interests than we are led to believe, and it is high time to demythologize America’s special relationships throughout the region. Accepting that Mustafa Kemal’s legacy is undone is the long-overdue first step.

By Srdja Trifkovic
Saturday, 13 Mar 2010

 

Archère par Dragos Kalajic

En souvenir de nos universités d'été communes, cher Dragos, et de notre intervention à Milan en 1999 contre l'intervention de l'OTAN en Serbie!

Que vive notre amitié au-delà de la mort !

Il mito antartico di Miguel Serrano

Il mito antartico di Miguel Serrano

Autore: Francesco Lamendola

Ex: http://www.centrostudila runa.it/

Qualcosa o qualcuno si agita nelle bianche distese del continente antartico; una presenza non umana, prigioniera di sogni indicibili. Ciò che scrivevano Edgar Allan Poe nel Gordon Pym e Howard Phillips Lovecraft ne Le Montagne della Follia non era semplice creazione letteraria; i Grandi Antichi vissero davvero nell’Antartide. Né sono fantasia i racconti degli indigeni Ona della Terra Fuoco sugli straordinari poteri dei loro stregoni o “kon”, capaci di ibernarsi nei ghiacci, e sfidare – praticamente – l’immortalità.

Ne è convinto lo scrittore ed esoterista cileno Miguel Serrano (nato nel 1917), improbabile figura di fanatico nazista eppure poeta affascinante, convinto che Hitler sia stato l’ultimo avatar o incarnazione del dio Vishnu, e che abbia lasciato il suo corpo fisico per trasfigurarsi in un corpo immateriale, rifugiandosi – appunto – tra i ghiacci del Polo Sud…

Nato nel 1917, diplomatico in pensione, il novantenne Miguel Serrano è senza dubbio una figura tra le più discusse della cultura del suo paese, il Cile, e dell’intera letteratura mondiale. Personaggio politicamente scorretto quant’altri mai (basti dire che è, ed è sempre stato, un fanatico sostenitore di Hitler e del nazismo), ha subìto una sorta di censura da parte dell’editoria europea, tanto che vi è tuttora pochissimo conosciuto, nonostante il suo valore artistico non sia di molto inferiore a quello del celebratissimo Pablo Neruda e senz’altro non da meno di quello di un altro scrittore cileno contemporaneo, molto tradotto all’estero negli ultimi anni, Francisco Coloane. Tuttavia le sue posizioni ideologiche sono difficilmente separabili dalla sua opera puramente letteraria e ciò spiega in parte l’ostracismo di cui è stato vittima. Per la stessa ragione, ossia l’estrema difficoltà di separare la dimensione politico-filosofica da quella artistico-letteraria, non è senza imbarazzo che ci accostiamo alla figura e all’opera controversa e discutibile di questo autore, imbarazzo dovuto al fatto che si potrebbe leggere il nostro interesse per lui, impropriamente, in chiave di riabilitazione ideologica. Al contrario, riteniamo doveroso confrontarci con la sua opera letteraria per il semplice fatto che, tra quanti scrittori si sono occupati dei Poli nella letteratura occidentale, egli occupa un posto in sommo grado eminente; vorremmo anzi dire che occupa, in un certo senso, il posto più notevole, poiché lui solo non ha visto nei Poli (anzi, nel Polo Sud: poiché solo di esso si è occupato) un mero pretesto scenografico per sviluppare una trama narrativa o una creazione poetica, bensì il centro e la ragione stessa della sua arte e della sua concezione poetica.

Da giovane Serrano abbraccia il marxismo; poi, deluso dal comunismo, alla vigilia della seconda guerra mondiale, aderisce al Partito nazionalsocialista cileno di Jorge Gonzalez von Marées, collaborando al giornale Trabajo (Il lavoro) e poi fondando la rivista letteraria La Nueva Edad, dalle cui colonne fiancheggia la politica dell’Asse e passa in seguito a una decisa propaganda antisemita. Egli sostiene, riprendendo l’antica concezione gnostica e catara, che Yahweh incarna il principio del male, è il Demiurgo che ha creato il mondo e che regna sui pianeti caduti, sul mondo delle tenebre; e che esiste un complotto sionista il cui obiettivo ultimo è quello di instaurare il dominio mondiale del giudaismo. Fra il 1941 e il 1942 avviene la svolta più importante nell’itinerario di Serrano: l’ingresso in un circolo esoterico capeggiato da un cileno-tedesco, il quale è convinto che Hitler sia un avatar, una incarnazione del dio Vishnu la cui missione è combattere una lotta eroica – non solo sul piano fisico e materiale, ma anche e soprattutto sul piano mentale – contro le nere forze dissolvitrici del Kali-Yuga, e che è possibile mettersi telepaticamenrte in contatto con centri iniziatici dell’Himalaia e con lo stesso Hitler. A guerra finita, tra parentesi, Serrano sostiene che Hitler ha rinunciato al suo corpo fisico ma si è alchemicamente costruito un corpo di luce con il quale si è trasferito nell’Antartide, donde aspetta il momento di ritornare per riprendere la lotta contro le forze delle tenebre. In quest’ultima parte del suo pensiero, Serrano coniuga miti e leggende degli Araucani e soprattutto degli Ona, il ramo dei Tehulche stabilito nella Terra del Fuoco, circa l’esistenza di un qualcosa, di un grande spirito che ha le fattezze di un gigante (la figura biancovestita del finale di Gordon Pym?), laggiù nelle bianche soltudini del Sud, fra i ghiacci eterni e le nebbie di un mondo intatto e misterioso, con la fede in una missione divina di Hitler – posizione che lo accomuna a quella strana figura di esoterista che fu Savitri Devi.

Nel 1947-48 Serrano prende parte, come giornalista, alle spedizioni antartiche della marina da guerra cilena e ne riporta la convinzione che i nazisti, negli anni precedenti, vi abbiano costruito delle basi segerete (1) e che il corpo di Hitler – trasfigurato, come quello di Cristo dopo la resurrezione – si è portato laggiù dopo la caduta di Berlino in mano ai Sovietici.

Più tardi compie dei viaggi in Europa e stringe amicizia con lo psichiatra Carl Gustav Jung e lo scrittore Hermann Hesse; inoltre fa conoscenza con il poeta Ezra Pound e il filosofo Julius Evola, oltre che con Otto Skorzeny, l’ex paracadutista tedesco che aveva liberato Mussolini dalla prigionia sul Gran Sasso. Nel 1953 entra nel corpo diplomatico e svolge funzioni di ambasciatore in India (fino al 1962), Jugoslavia, Romania, Bulgaria, Austria. Rimosso da ogni incarico dal presidente Salvador Allende nel 1970, si ritira in esilio in Svizzera, a Montagnola nel Canton Ticino, abitando nella stessa casa che era stata di Hermann Hesse. Nel 1973, dopo il colpo di stato del generale Augusto Pinochet, Serrano rientra in Cile, dove si segnala per la clamorosa partecipazione a convegni e commemorazioni di personaggi come Rudolf Hess o come i sessantadue giovani nazisti cileni che furono uccisi, nella loro patria, nel 1938. Ha svolto inoltre un’intensa attività di conferenziere e di scrittore, dando alle stampe un numero considerevole di libri di filosofia, esoterismo, poesia, narrativa, memorie. Tra i titoli più importanti ricordiamo La Antàrtica y otros Mitos (1948), Quien llama en los Hielos (1957), Las visitas de la Reina de Saba, con prefazione di C. G. Jung (1960); El circulo hermético, de Hesse a Jung, tradotto in lingua inglese con il titolo Jung and Hesse: A Record of Two Friendships (1965); El Cordòn Dorado: Hitlerismo Esotérico (1974); Adolf Hitler, el Ultimo Avatara (1984); No Celebraremos la Muerte de los Dioses Blancos (1992), e le Memorias de El y Yo, ossia Hitler e lui stesso, in quattro volumi (1996-1999). Instancabile, il terribile vegliardo continua a scrivere e a far parlare di sé, rilasciando interviste anche su temi di attualità; come quella del gennaio 2004 in cui accusa gli Stati Uniti di volersi impadronire della Patagonia mediante il cavallo di Troia delle organizzazioni ecologiste.

Tutto ciò crediamo che basti per delineare la figura di un personaggio scomodissimo e francamente indifendibile, non solo sul piano politico ma anche su quello strettamente culturale; e tuttavia non privo, come poeta e come cultore di antichissimi miti amerindi, di un suo fascino strano, oltre che di una indubbia tenacia nel remare controcorrente, che si esita se qualificare come franchezza brutale o come sfrontatezza e autentico vaneggiamento. Comunque, in questa sede ci limiteremo ad approfondire l’interesse di Miguel Serrano per la dimensione mitica e poetica dell’Antartide, caratterizzata da potenti squarci visionari che ne fanno un legittimo continuatore, e anzi un originale rielaboratore, del Poe di Gordon Pym e del Lovecraft de Le Montagne della Follia. I due testi più notevoli, in questo senso, dello scrittore cileno sono La Antàrtica y otros Mitos, (L’Antartide e altri miti), pubblicato a Santiago nel 1948, e Quien llama en los Hielos (Chi chiama nei ghiacci), pubblicato a Santiago (e, più tardi, a Barcellona), nel 1957; nessuno dei due è stato finora tradotto in lingua italiana, né in inglese. (2) Nel secondo, Serrano racconta di un sogno nel quale una creatura misteriosa gli rivela che l’immortalità si raggiunge fra i ghiacci e si consegue a patto di ibernarsi, in vista del supremo combattimento con l’Angelo delle Ombre. Tuttavia, noi concentreremo ora la nostra attenzione sul primo di questi due libri, che ci pare più significativo nel senso della tradizione esoterica relativa al continente antartico e più “in linea”, idealmente, con quelli già esaminati di Poe e di Lovecraft.

La Antàrtica y otros Mitos è la trascrizione di una serie di conferenze tenute dall’autore nella sua patria. Fin dalla copertina, il libro tributa un omaggio esplicito al Gordon Pym e alla sua dimensione esoterica: vi campeggia la figura spaventosa di un gigante alato, bicorne, che impugnando un tridente si staglia al di sopra di un candido paesaggio ghiacciato. Del resto, come osserva Erwin Robertson, l’Antartide in se stessa è un mito (3); dunque il “mito antartico” di Serrano non è che una variante di un mito preesistente alla tradizione esoterica occidentale, già presente – secondo lui – nelle credenze del popolo che da migliaia d’anni vive più vicino a quel mistero: gli Ona della Terra del Fuoco.

Ma lasciamo la parola a Sergio Fitz Roa, uno dei più noti studiosi di Serrano nei paesi di lingua spagnola:

“Serrano riporterà numerose leggende intorno al tema che ci interessa: le cronache delle guerre degli Onas (antichi abitanti della Terra del Fuoco), la leggenda della vergine dei Ghiacci, il continente Lemuria, il gigante di Poe e, ancora, la sfacciata idea che Adolf Hitler vive nel freddo antartico. E anche se a prima vista ci sembra non esistere alcuna relazione tra ciascuna di esse, vi è, dato che tutte queste leggende fanno riferimento ai misteriosi dimoratori dell’Antartide. Vi è qui un altro punto nel quale confluisce il pensiero di questi tre autori [cioè Poe, Serrano e Lovecraft]. Serrano conosce il racconto di Poe e riguardo al Gigante Bianco annota: ‘Poe conosceva la leggenda dei Selknam sugli Jon che abitano l’Isola Bianca. O sapeva anche del Prigioniero dell’Antartide, che vive nel suo nero fondo, e che per questo stesso motivo appare bianco?

“Per capire chi sono gli Jon e a che cosa si riferisca Serrano quando parla dell’Isola Bianca, si raccomanda di leggere la pagina 25 de La antàrtica y otros Mitos, dove si spiega che gli antichi Onas (i Selknam erano solo una delle tribù Onas) credevano nell’esistenza degli Jon: uomini di una casta aristocratica dotati di facoltà sovrannaturali e possessori dei Misteri. ‘Furono gli Jon, maghi Selknam della Terra del Fuoco, coloro che conservano i segreti insegnati da Queno e che ancora si immortalizzavano imbalsamandosi entro i ghiacci del sud, per resuscitare rinnovati nel più lontano futuro. Dicono anche i Selknam che è nel Sud, lì, in quell’Isola Bianca che sta nel Cielo dove dimorano gli spiriti dei loro antenati, conducendo una vita libera da preoccupazioni’ (4).

“Saranno questi spiriti ancestrali gli Antichi menzionati da Lovecraft? Sarà l’Antartide quella Isola Bianca della quale parlano le vecchie leggende onas?

“Serrano, che fu uno dei primi cileni a visitare la regione antartica, ci parla della relazione esistente fra questo luogo e la follia e segnaliamo, da parte nostra, che il titolo dell’indimenticabile racconto di Lovecraft Alle Montagne della Follia non è dovuto a un capriccio o a una trovata ingegnosa per richiamare l’attenzione di alcuni lettori febbricitanti.

“Serrano dirà che l’unica via per comprendere questa realtà del Sud o, meglio, per salvarsi dalla follia che lì è in agguato, è il Sogno; ed il mondo dei sogni è un elemento classico nella narrativa di H. P. Lovecraft.

“L’inquietante possibilità che esista una entità non-umana nell’Antartide si registra anche nelle pagine del testo dell’autore cileno. Il sincronismo tra questi due scrittori ci lascia stupefatti, soprattutto per il fatto che Miguel Serrano non conosceva l’opera di Lovecraft, quando scrisse La Antàrtica y otros Mitos. Citiamo, allora, Serrano, che con la sua arte ci ricorda i vecchi alchimisti: ‘Senza dubbio, in quel continente del riposo e della morte vive qualcuno. Un prigioniero si agita, avendo come mezzo di sopravvivenza il fuoco ardente ed eterno. Questa idea di Serrano si plasma anche in un altro testo del medesimo autore: Quien llama en los Hielos.

“In esso vi è un paragrafo di una bellezza terribile: ‘Io ho visto questo essere, questo Angelo nero: lì, nel suo recinto del Polo Sud. È in una immensa cavità oscura che egli risiede… Spazi enormi, senza limiti, lievi e deprimenti allo stesso tempo, che si estendono, sicuramente, nell’interiorità psichica della Terra, al di sotto dei ghiacci eterni. E così si muove il Zinoc… Ascende o discende fino all’estremo di quell’apertura e, da lì, si lancia ad una velocità vertiginosa in cerca del suo altro estremo, della sua fine irraggiungibile… Tutta l’eternità l’ha trascorsa in questo sforzo, cadendo a testa in giù, cercando di raggiungere il luogo antipodico dal quale è stato proscritto dall’inizio stesso della creazione. Il nord è il suo sogno, il suo profondo anelito e la sua maggior sofferenza’. Lovecraft, da parte sua, nel suo racconto scriverà qualcosa di rivelatore: ‘Fondarono nuove città terrestri, le più importanti di esse nell’Antartico, perché quella regione, scenario del loro arrivo, era sacra. A partire da allora, l’Antartico fu come prima il centro della Civiltà degli Antichi, e tutte le città costruite lì dalla prole di Chtulhu furono distrutte’. Più innanzi il narratore del racconto di Lovecraft indicherà che le mappe incontrate nella vecchia città polare mostrano che le città degli Antichi nell’epoca pliocenica si trovavano, nella loro totalità, al di sotto del 50° parallelo di latitudine Sud. Queste referenze di entrambi gli autori sono fondamentali, perché ci indicano l’opposizione simbolica tra il Polo Nord (o la mitica Iperborea) ed il Polo Sud, sede degli Antichi. Qusta opposizione non risponde solamente a una differenza di carattere geografico ma, prima di tutto, a delle differenze spirituali. In effetti, il Polo Nord è il polo positivo – in termini cristiani, il Bene – ed il Polo Sud, secondo la stessa prospettiva, il Male. Senza dubbio, questi opposti, conformi ai princìpi della filosofia manichea, sono complementari. Entrambi i Poli mantengono l’Ordine della Terra, regolano il buon funzionamento energetico del nostro mondo. L’unica possibile differenza ha relazione col tipo di energia che irradiano detti luoghi, dacché in verità sono dei centri energetici. Questa conoscenza che si esprime attraverso la letteratura moderna (Lovecraft e Serrano), che differenzia i centri volitivi terrestri, concorda punto per punto col pensiero antico o tradizionale che insegnarono i maestri indoeuropei, per i quali le parole che danno il nome ai distinti luoghi sacri sono: Cielo, Terra o Mondo, Centro e Inferno. Il Cielo, per essi, è la dimora degli eroi, coloro che vissero la vita come si deve, e corrisponde ad Iperborea o al nostro Polo Nord; la Terra è il luogo abitato o il terreno di spedizioni e viaggi, essi la identificavano con l’Asia e l’Europa. L’Inferno , che era la casa dei dèmoni – gli Antichi e gli shoggots - sembra non essere mai stata descritta e ubicata con maggior dettaglio dagli antichi saggi indoeuropei. Questo Inferno è per noi il Polo Sud” (5).

È appena il caso di notare che, negli ultimi decenni, alcuni autori hanno incominciato a ventilare la possibilità che sia esistita effettivamente un’antica civiltà nel continente antartico, che poi l’avanzata dei ghiacci avrebbe lentamente soffocato e le cui rovine giacerebbero, quindi, a migliaia di metri sotto la calotta glaciale del Polo Sud. Il primo ad avanzare questa ipotesi, a quanto ne sappiamo, è stato proprio uno studioso italiano, Flavio Barbiero, col suo libro Una civiltà sotto il ghiaccio che, negli anni Settanta, è passato praticamente inosservato; anche se, poi, le sue tesi sono state riprese in gran parte da due scrittori canadesi di successo, Rand e Rose Flem-Ath. (6) Il libro di Barbiero recava una presentazione di Silio Zavatti, il quale confermava la sua straordinaria capacità di pensare in maniera indipendente rispetto ai dogmi dell’archeologia e della scienza accademica, mantenendo un’apertura epistemologica di trecentosessanta gradi pur essendo abituato, lui uomo di scienza, a muoversi sul solido terreno dei fatti. Il nucleo delle tesi dell’autore era che esistette un’antichissima civiltà primordiale, erede diretta di quella di Atlantide, che svolse il ruolo di centro di diffusione per le successive culture a noi note dell’antichità.

“Continuando a credere nella teoria diffusionista – scriveva Zavatti nella sua prefazione – […] bisognerebbe ammettere che nonostante millenni di lenta maturazione, popoli profondamente diversi abbiano inventato simultaneamente l’agricoltura, l’architettura, gli usi, gli ordinamenti sociali ecc. che presentano un fondo comune senza che vi fossero stati dei contatti di qualsiasi ordine.

“Sarebbe voler credere nell’impossibile e infatti nessuno più vi presta fede.

“Bisogna allora ritornare a un’origine comune della civiltà e non c’è altra strada che riprendere il creduto mito di Atlantide. Non s’inventa nulla perché in tutte le civiltà antiche se ne parla, dai Maya agli Egizi, dai Sumeri agli Indiani, pur sotto nomi diversi.

“Ecco, dunque, che il quadro si completa; le navi atlantidi superstiti della tragedia approdarono in terre diverse e i loro occupanti, in misura più o meno sensibile, influenzarono le culture delle popolazioni incontrate, quando addirittura non le formarono. Solo così si spiega il fondo comune di tutte le civiltà e la spiegazione non ha bisogno di funambolismi per apparire logica. […]

“La prova per eccellenza che la teoria del Barbiero è esatta si può avere soltanto da uno scavo sistematico da farsi in un determinato punto dell’isola Berkner ma, come si è detto, gli ostacoli che si frappongono alla realizzazione del progetto sono molteplici e di varia natura.” […]

“Al principio del 1976 l’ing. Barbiero ebbe la possibilità di aggregarsi a una spedizione alpinistica e un po’ scientifica, organizzata alla garibaldina, che per una ventina di giorni operò nell’area della Penisola Antartica, una regione, cioè, molto lontana dal Mare di Weddell e dall’isola Berkner, ma che poteva riservare pur sempre delle sorprese. Infatti fu nell’isola Seymour che il capitano norvegese C. A. Larsen trovò, nel 1893, una cinquantina di palline di sabbia e ‘cemento’ messe su colonnette dello stesso materiale. Larsen scrisse che quegli oggetti sembravano ‘fatti da una mano umana’. Un’espressione generica per dire che erano oggetti fatti molto bene? Forse, e infatti non li fece mai studiare e analizzare ed oggi, putroppo, non li possediamo più perché andarono distrutti nell’incendio della sua casa a Grytviken (Georgia Australe).

“Nel corso della spedizione del 1976 l’ing Barbiero scoprì nell’isola Re Giorgio (una del gruppo delle Shetland Australi), una grande quantità di tronchi semifossilizzati che potrebbero risalire a 10-12.000 anni fa. Purtroppo gli istituti scientifici ai quali erano stati inviati i campioni di questi tronchi per la datazione col metodo del C14 non hanno fatto conoscere ancora la loro risposta. In Antartide sono stati trovati, a più riprese, dei fossili di alberi e altre piante (Robert Falcon Scott stesso ne riportò moltissimi), ma se i tronchi semifossilizzati trovati da Barbiero risalgono veramente a un massimo di 12.000 ani fa, si ha la prova che fino a quell’epoca l’Antartide poteva essere abitata e molti fatto coinciderebbero con le affermazioni contenute nei dialoghi di Platone e, di conseguenza, con l’ipotesi avanzata da Barbiero in questo volume” (7).

Anche studiosi anglosassoni, come il professor Charles Hapgood, erano giunti a conclusioni analoghe, studiando il problema di alcune antiche carte geografiche che rivelano conoscenza “impossibili”, a meno di ammettere l’esistenza di una evoluta civiltà antidiluviana, padrona dei mari all’epoca in cui la morsa dei ghiacci con aveva ancora stretto l’Antartide, e dalla quale sarebbero derivate le conoscenze cartografiche e marittime altrimenti inspiegabili; si veda, per tutte, la celebre carta nautica dell’ammiraglio turco Piri Reis (8). Fantasie? Certo è che Miguel Serrano, così come Lovecraft e, forse, Poe, hanno dato voce poetica a una ipotesi che ora alcuni studiosi di formazione scientifica hanno ripreso con la massima serietà: che quanto oggi sappiamo sul continente antartico è solo una piccola parte della sua storia antichissima, misteriosa e affascinante; che forse vi fiorirono, prima dell’ultima glaciazione, le imponenti città di una razza evoluta; che forse qualcosa o qualcuno ancora vi si trova, in attesa di essere rivelato all’umanità.

Note

1) Cfr. ROBERT, James, La guerra segreta della Gran Bretagna in Antartide, su Nexus, nr. 61 e 62 del 2006; Temolo, Luca, I dischi volanti di Hitler, su Xché, nr. 3 del 2003; TROMBETTI, Pierluigi, Una base nazista in Antartide, su Hera Magazine; BACCARINI, Enrico, Dal nazismo occulto al fascismo esoterico, su Archeomisteri, nr. 20 e 21 del 2004.

2) Ci serviremo, pertanto, della traduzione italiana di alcuni passi dell’opera eseguita dal sito Internet Alchemica (www.alchemica.it/antartidemito.html).

3) ROBERTSON, Erwin, Por el Hombre que Vendrà, in Ciudad de los Césares, nr. 18, 1990.

4) Il missionario-esploratore De Agostini, uno dei massimi conoscitori della Terra del Fuoco, che conobbe diversi sciamani e potè osservarli da vicino nelle loro attività occulte, li chiama non Jon, ma Kon, e afferma che “il potere dei Kon si estendeva fin dopo morti e per questo i Kon venivano seppelliti con la faccia rivolta all’ingiù, affinché non potessero inviare malattie ai vivi”: DE AGOSTINI, A. M., Trent’anni nella Terra del Fuoco, Torino, S. E. I., 1955, p. 302.

5) FRITZ ROA, Sergio, La Antártica y el mito lovecraftiano, originariamente in Ciudad de los Césares, nr. 47, 1997.

6) FLEM-ATH, Rand e Rose, La fine di Atlantide, Casale Monferrato, Piemme ed., 1997.

7) BARBIERO, Flavio, Una civiltà sotto ghiaccio, Milano, Ed. Nord, Milano, 1974, pp. XII-XV.

8) HAPGOOD, Charles P., Maps of Ancient Sea King, Adventure Unilimited Press, 1996; HANCOCK, Graham, Impronte degli Dèi, Milano, Corbaccio, 1996; Id., Civiltà sommerse, Milano, TEA, 2005.

La liberté d'installation au sein de l'UE ne doit pas conduire à des abus

La liberté d’installation au sein de l’UE ne doit pas conduire à des abus

 

 

Si les citoyens de l’UE abusent de la liberté qui leur est accordée de voyager et de s’installer dans l’Union et cherchent les lieux où ils peuvent le plus facilement pratiquer certaines formes de petite criminalité, alors nous devons remettre le système en question !

 

Dans le débat qui fait rage aujourd’hui à propos de l’expulsion de Roms hors de France et vu la procédure en cours contre ce pays (qui est toutefois atténuée), le député européen de la FPÖ autrichienne Andreas Mölzer a pris la parole. Il a déclaré : « Le débat est vicié, surtout par la façon dont l’a amorcé la Commissaire européenne Viviane Reding, car le droit de s’installer partout dans les pays de l’UE ne peut en aucun cas signifier que l’on possède le droit, en tant que citoyen d’un pays de cette UE, de se chercher à la carte un lieu où exercer une forme ou une autre de petite criminalité », a déclaré le mandataire de la FPÖ au service de presse de son parti.

 

« Lorsque, par exemple, un pays comme la France a expulsé près de 8000 Roms vers les pays dont ces personnes sont originaires, soit la Roumanie et la Bulgarie, parce qu’elles avaient provoqué des problèmes inacceptables, il convient de respecter cette décision française », a poursuivi Mölzer. « Il ne faut pas en tirer la conclusion que la France doit être sanctionnée pour cette politique visant l’élimination de problèmes réels, ou d’aller dire que la France doit modifier son droit ; non, il faut que les directives européennes limitent la libre circulation des personnes possédant la citoyenneté d’un pays de l’Union, en cas d’activités criminelles ou de comportements inacceptables vis-à-vis du pays hôte, et, dans de tels cas, il convient donc de limiter aussi le droit d’installation ». Tels ont été les propos du député autrichien de la FPÖ auprès du Parlement Européen, qui s’est efforcé de ramener le débat vers la raison et l’honnêteté intellectuelle, direction qu’il n’avait nullement empruntée !

 

(Source : http://www.andreas-moelzer.at/ ).

La sucia verdad detràs de Coca-Cola

La sucia verdad detrás de Coca-Cola

Ex: http://causarevolucionaria.wordpress.com/

La compañía Coca-Cola gasta 2.8 mil millones de dólares al año en publicidad para asegurar que su refresco sea visto como la bebida más icónica de EEUU – una bebida disfrutada alrededor del mundo, constructora de la paz virtual en una botella.

La compañía ha dedicado 124 años puliendo su imágen, pero solo le tomó 300 páginas al autor Michael Balnding para empañar ese brillo. En su nuevo libro, ‘La Máquina de Coca-Cola: La Sucia Verdad Detrás de la Bebida Favorita del Mundo’, Blanding detalla la sórdida historia de la compañía, desde el patentar experimentos de medicina hasta ser una gigante multinacional.

El libro abre con una página que revuelve el estómago sobre la descripción del asesinato de Isidoro Gil, un trabajador del sindicato que estab fijo en la entrada de la planta embotelladora de Coca-Cola en Carepa, Colombia.

Como describe Blanding luego en el libro, Coca-Cola fue acusada de ser cómplice en las muertes de miembros del sindicato en Sur América, quienes fueron asesinados por paramilitares. Algunas personas pueden ver esto como algo espeluznante. Saber que la Compañía Coca-Cola sea acusada de asesinato es como saber que San Nicolás es acusado de ser un pedófilo”, escribe Blanding en la introducción.

Pero a través del libro, él detalla las acusaciones en contra de Coca-Cola en el frente de los derechos humanos, explicando por qué la Coca Cola es vilipendiada en cualquier lugar del mundo.

En India y México, la compañía esta enfrentado un retroceso por acusaciones de que sus plantas embotelladoras han agotado los acuíferos locales y han contaminado fuentes de agua. En Turquía hay más cargos de actividad anti sindical, y en EEUU y Europa, la gente esta harta de la publicidad para los niños de Coca-Cola, especialmente en las escuelas, y están preocupados por el vínculo que hay entre los refrescos y la obesidad.

Fuente

Aigle impérial par Dragos Kalajic

En souvenir de notre camarade serbe Dragos Kalajic, qui a quitté nos rangs trop tôt!

Notre souvenir ému !

Eastern Europe versus the Open Society

Eastern Europe Versus the Open Society

by Srdja Trifkovic

Ex: http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/

 

Excerpts from a speech to the H.L. Mencken Club, Baltimore, October 23, 2010

Two weeks ago the first “gay pride parade” was staged in Belgrade. Serbia’s “pro-European” government had been promoting the event as yet another proof that Serbia is fit to join the European Union, that is has overcome the legacy of its dark, intolerant past. Thousands of policemen in full riot gear had to divide their time between protecting a few hundred “LBGT” activists (about half of them imported from Western Europe for the occasion) and battling ten times as many young protesters in the side streets.

 The parade, it should be noted, was prominently attended by the U.S. Ambassador in Belgrade Mary Warlick, by the head of the European Commission Office, Vincent Degert of France, and by the head of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Mission in Serbia, Dimitris Kipreos. Needless to say, none of them had attended the enthronment of the new Serbian Patriarch a week earlier. Two days later, Hillary Clinton came to Belgrade and praised the Tadic regime for staging the parade.

Mrs. Clinton et al are enjoying the fruits of one man’s two decades of hard work in Eastern Europe. George Soros can claim, more than any other individual, that his endeavors have helped turn the lands of “Real Socialism” in central and eastern Europe away from their ancestors, their cultural and spiritual roots. The process is far from over, but his Open Society Institute and its extensive network of subsidiaries east of the Trieste-Stettin line have successfully legitimized the notions that only two decades ago would have seemed bizarre, laughable or demonic to the denizens of the eastern half of Europe.

The package was first tested here in America. Through his Open Society Institute and its vast network of affiliates Soros has provided extensive financial and lobbying support here for

• Legalization of hard drugs: We should accept that “substance abuse is endemic in most societies,” he says. Thanks to his intervention the terms “medicalization” and “non-violent drug offender” have entered public discourse, and pro-drug legalization laws were passed in California and Arizona in the 90s.
• Euthanasia: In 1994 Soros—a self-professed atheist—launched his Project Death in America (PDIA) and provided $15 million in its initial funding. (It is noteworthy that his mother, a member of the pro-suicide Hemlock Society, killed herself, and that Soros mentions unsympathetically his dying father’s clinging on to life for too long.) PDIA supports physician-assisted suicide and works “to begin forming a network of doctors that will eventually reach into one-fourth of America’s hospitals” and, in a turn of phrase chillingly worthy of Orwell, lead to “the creation of innovative models of care and the development of new curricula on dying.”
• Population replacement: Soros is an enthusiastic promoter of open immigration and amnesty & special rights for immigrants. He has supported the National Council of La Raza, National Immigration Law Center, National Immigration Forum, and dozens of others. He also promotes expansion of public welfare, and in late 1996 he created the Emma Lazarus Fund that has given millions in grants to nonprofit legal services groups that undermine provisions of the welfare legislation ending immigrant entitlements.

Soros supports programs and organizations that further abortion rights and increased access to birth control devices; advocate ever more stringent gun control; and demand abolition of the death penalty. He supports radical feminists and “gay” activists, same-sex “marriage” naturally included. OSI states innocently enough that its objectives include “the strengthening of civil society; economic reform; education at all levels; human rights; legal reform and public administration; public health; and arts and culture,” but the way it goes about these tasks is not “philanthropy” but political activism in pursuit of all the familiar causes of the radical left—and some additional, distinctly creepy ones such as “Death in America.”

Soros’s “philanthropic” activities in America have been applied on a far grander scale abroad. His many foundations say that they are “dedicated to building and maintaining the infrastructure and institutions of an open society.” What this means in practice? Regarding “Women’s Health” programs in Central and South-Eastern Europe, one will look in vain for breast cancer detection programs, or for prenatal or post-natal care. No, Soros’s main goal is “to improve the quality of abortion services.” Accordingly his Public Health Program has focused on the introduction of easily available abortion all over the region, and the introduction of manual vacuum aspiration (MVA) abortion in Macedonia, Moldova, and Russia. Why is Soros so keen to promote more abortions? Overpopulation cannot be the reason: the region is experiencing a huge demographic collapse and has some of the lowest fertility rates in the world. Unavailability of abortions cannot be the answer either: only five European countries had more abortions than live births in 2000: the Russian Federation, Bulgaria, Belarus, Romania and Ukraine. The only answer is that Soros wants as few little European Orthodox Christians born into this world as possible.

Soros’s Public Health Programs additionally “support initiatives focusing on the specific health needs of several marginalized communities,” such as “gays” and AIDS sufferers, and promote “harm reduction” focusing on needle/syringe exchange and supply of methadone to adicts. His outfits lobby governments to scrap “repressive drug policies.” Over the past decade and a half the Soros network has given a kick-start to previously non-existent “gay” activism in almost all of its areas of operation. The campaign for “LGBT Rights” is directed from Budapest, publishing lesbian and gay books in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovenia and Slovakia, opening Gay and Lesbian Centers in Ukraine and Rumania. Its activists routinely attack the Orthodox Church as a key culprit for alleged discrimination of “LGBTs.”

Education is a key pillar of Soros’s activities. His Leitmotif is the dictum that “no-one has a monopoly on the truth” and that “civic education” should replace the old “authoritarian” model. Even under communism Eastern Europe has preserved very high educational standards, but the Soros Foundation seeks to replace the old system with the concept of schools as “exercise grounds” for the “unhindered expression of students’ personalities in the process of equal-footed interaction with the teaching staff, thus overcoming the obsolete concept of authority and discipline rooted in the oppressive legacy of patriarchal past.” The purpose of education is not “acquisition of knowledge”: the teacher is to become the class “designer” and his relationship with students based on “partnership.” Soros’s reformers also insist on an active role of schools in countering the allegedly unhealthy influence of the family on students, which “still carries an imprint of nationalist, sexist, racist, and homophobic prejudices rampant in the society at large.”

“Racism” is Soros’s regular obsession, but he had a problem finding it in racially non-diverse East European countries. This has been resolved by identifying a designated victim group—gypsies (“Roma”). His protégés now come up with policy demands to “protect” this group that could have been written by Rev. Jesse Jackson:

• anti-bias training of teachers and administrators;
• integration of Romani history and culture in the textbooks at all levels;
• legally mandated arffirmative action programs for Roma;
• tax incentives for employers who employ them;
• access to low-interest credit for Roma small family businesses;
• setting aside a percentage of public tenders for Roma firms;
• legislation to fight “racism and discrimination” in housing;
• adoption of “comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation”;
• creation of mechanisms “to monitor implementation of anti-discrimination legislation and assist victims of racial discrimination in seeking remedies”;
• recognition by governments of “the Roma slavery and the Holocaust through public apology along with urgent adoption of a package of reparatory measures.”

A budding race relations industry is already in place, with the self-serving agenda of finding “discrimination” in order to keep itself in place for ever.

To make his agenda appear “normal” to the targeted population, millions of East Europeans are force-fed the daily fare of OSI agitprop by “the Soros media”—the term is by now well established in over a dozen languages—such as the B-92 media conglomerate in Serbia.

The social dynamics Soros uses to penetrate the target countries is interesting. To thousands of young East Europeans to become a “Soroshite” represents today what joining the Party represented to their parents: an alluring opportunity to have a reasonably paid job, to belong to a privileged elite, for many to travel abroad. The few chosen for the future new Nomenklatura go to Soros’s own Central European University in Budapest. In all post-communist countries Soros relies overwhelmingly on the sons and daughters of the old Communist establishment who are less likely to be tainted by any atavistic vestiges of their native soil, culture and tradition. The comparison with the janissary corps of the Ottoman Army is more apt than that with the Communist Party. The new janissaries, just like the old, have to prove their credentials by being more zealous than the Master himself.

The key ideological foundation for Soros’s beliefs is the same: that all countries are basically social arrangements, artificial, temporary and potentially dangerous. A plethora of quotes from his writings will make it clear that he thinks that owing allegiance to any of them is inherently irrational, and attaching one’s personal loyalty to it is absurd. Like Marx’s proletarian, Soros knows of no loyalty to a concrete country. He could serve any—or indeed all—of them, if they can be turned into the tools of his Wille zur Macht. In 1792, it could have been France, in 1917 Russia. Today, the United States is his host organism of choice because it is so powerful, and its media scene is open to penetration by his rabidly anti-traditionalist and deeply anti-American worldview and political agenda.

Textbooks and educational curricular reforms pushed by Soros in Eastern Europe indicate that he is trying to perform crude dumbing down of the young. Within months of coming to power in October 2000 the “reformists” within Serbia and their foreign sponsors insisted that schools—all schools, from kindergarden to universities—must be reformed and turned from “authoritarian” institutions into poligons for the “unhindered expression of students’ personalities in the process of equal-footed interaction with the teaching staff, thus overcoming the obsolete concept of authority and discipline rooted in the opressive legacy of patriarchal past.” They started with primary schools, with a pilot program of “educational workshops” for 7-12 year olds. The accompanying manual, sponsored by UNICEF and financed by the Open Society, denigrades the view that the purpose of education is acquisition of knowledge and insists that the teacher has to become the class “designer” and his relationship with students based on “partnership.”

The reformers devote particular attention to the more active role of schools in countering the allegedly unhealthy influence of the family on students, which “still carries an imprint of nationalist, sexist, [anti-Roma] racist, and homophobic prejudices rampant in the society at large.” The time-honored Balkan tradition of slapping childrens’ bottoms when they exceed limits is now presented in the elementary classroom as a form of criminal abuse that should be reported and acted upon. Traditional gender roles are relativized by “special projects” that entail cross-dressing and temporary adoption of opposite gender names.

Soros’s vision is hostile even to the most benign understanding of national or ethnic coherence. His core belief—that traditional morality, faith, and community based on shared memories are all verboten—is at odds even with the classical “open society” liberalism of Popper and Hayek, by whom he swears. His hatred of religion is the key. He promotes an education system that will neutralize any lingering spiritual yearnings of the young, and promote the loss of a sense of place and history already experienced by millions of Westerners, whether they are aware of that loss or not. Estranged from their parents, ignorant of their culture, ashamed of their history, millions of Westerners are already on the path of alienation that demands every imaginable form of self-indulgence, or else leads to drugs, or suicide, or conversion to Islam or some other cult.

To understand Soros it is necessary to understand globalization as a revolutionary, radical project. In the triumph of liberal capitalism, the enemies of civilization such as Soros have found the seeds of future victory for their paradigm that seeks to eradicate all traditional structures capable of resistance. The revolutionary character of the Open Society project is revealed in its relentless adherence to the mantra of Race, Gender and Sexuality. His goal is a new global imperium based that will be truly totalitarian. But he is making a colossal miscalculation. He does not realize that the unassimilated and unassimilable multitudes do not want to be the tools of his will to power. Illegal aliens in America, Algerians in France, Turks in Germany and Pakistanis in Britain have their own, instinctive scenario, and it does not entail leaving Soros and his ilk in positions of power, or alive.

About the Author

Dr. Srdja Trifkovic, an expert on foreign affairs, is the author of The Sword of the Prophet and Defeating Jihad. His latest book is The Krajina Chronicle: A History of the Serbs in Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia.

See All Posts by This Author

Filippo Marinetti

Kerry BOLTON

 

Ex: http://www.counter-currents.com/

 

Filippo Marinetti is unlike most of the post-nineteenth Century cultural avant-garde who were rebelling against the spirit of several centuries of liberalism, rationalism, the rise of the democratic mass, industrialism, and the rule of the moneyed elite. His revolt against the leveling impact of the democratic era was not to hark back to certain perceived ‘golden ages’ such as the medieval eras upheld by Yeats and Evola, or to reject technology in favor of a return to rural life, as advocated by Henry Williamson and Knut Hamsun. To the contrary, Marinetti embraced the new facts of technology, the machine, speed, and dynamic energy, in a movement called Futurism.

The futurist response to the facts of the new age is therefore a quite unique reaction from the anti-liberal literati and artists and one that continues to influence certain aspects of industrial and post-industrial sub cultures. An example of a contemporary cultural movement paralleling Futurists is New Slovenian Art, which like futurism embodies music, graphic arts, architecture, and drama. It is a movement whose influence is felt beyond the borders of Slovenia. The best-known manifestation of this art form is the industrial music group Laibach.

Marinetti is also the inventor of free verse in poetry, and Futurist adherents have had a lasting impact on architecture, motion pictures and the theater. The Futurists were the pioneers of street theatre. They inspired both the Constructivist movement in the USSR and the English Vorticists Ezra Pound and Wyndham Lewis.

Marinetti was born in Alexandria Egypt in 1876. He graduated in law in Genoa in 1899. Although the political and philosophical aspects of the course held his interest, he traveled frequently between France and Italy and interested himself in the avant-garde arts of the later nineteenth Century promoting young poets in both countries. He was already a strong critic of the conservative and traditional approaches of Italian poets. He was at this time an enthusiast for the modern, revolutionary music of Wagner, seeing it as assailing “equilibrium and sobriety . . . meditation and silence . . . ”

By 1904, Futurist elements had manifested in his writing, particularly in his poem Destruction that he called “an erotic and anarchist poem,” a eulogy to the “avenging sea” as a symbol of revolution. After an apocalyptic destruction, the process of rebuilding begins on the ruins of the “Old World.” Here already is the praise of death as a dynamic and transformative.

With the death of Marinetti’s father in 1907, his wealth allowed him to travel widely and he became a well-known cultural figure throughout Europe. Nietzsche was at this time one of the most well-known intellectuals who desired liberation from the old order. Nietzsche was widely read among the literati of Italy, and D’Annunzio was the most prominent in promoting Nietzsche. Among the other philosophers of particular importance whom Marinetti studied was the French syndicalist theorist Georges Sorel, who inclined towards the anarchism of Proudhon. This rejected Marxism in favor of a society comprised of small productive, cooperative units or syndicates; and founded a new myth of heroic action and struggle. Rejecting much of the pacifism of the left. Sorel viewed war as a dynamic of human action. Sorel in turn was himself influenced by Nietzsche, and applying the Nietzschean Overman to socialism, states that the working class revolution requires heroic leaders. Sorel became influential not only among Left wing syndicalists but also among certain radical nationalists in both France and Italy.

Futurist Manifesto

Marinetti’s artistic ideas crystallized in the Futurist movement that originated from a meeting of artists and musicians in Milan in 1909 to draft a Futurist Manifesto. With Marinetti were Carlo Carra, Umberto Boccioni, Luigi Russolo and Gino Severini. The manifesto was first published in the Parisian paper Le Figaro, and exhorted youth to, “Sing the love of danger, the habit of energy and boldness.”

The Futurists were contemptuous of all tradition, of all that is past:

We want to exult aggressive motion . . . we affirm that the magnificence of the world has been enriched by a new beauty: the beauty of speed.

The machine was poetically eulogized. The racing car became the icon of the new epoch, “which seems to run as a machine gun.” The Futurist aesthetic was to be joy in violence and war, as “the sole hygiene of the world.” Motion, dynamic energy, action, and heroism were the foundations of “the culture of the Futurist future. The fisticuffs, the sprint and the kick were expressions of culture. The Futurist Manifesto is as much a challenge to the political and social order as it is to the status quo in the arts.

It declared:

1. We intend to sing the love of danger, the habit of energy and fearlessness.

2. Courage, audacity, and revolt will be essential elements of our poetry.

3. Up to now literature has exalted a pensive immobility, ecstasy, and sleep. We intend to exalt aggressive action, a feverish insomnia, the racer’s stride, the mortal leap, the punch and the slap.

4. We affirm that the world’s magnificence has been enriched by a new beauty: the beauty of speed A racing car whose hood is adorned with great pipes, like serpents of an explosive breath–a roaring car that seems to ride on grape shot is more beautiful than the victory of Samothrace.

5. We want to hymn the man at the wheel, who hurls the lance of his spirit across the Earth, along the circle of its orbit.

6. The poet must spend himself with ardor, splendor, and generosity, to swell the enthusiastic fervor of the primordial elements. Except in struggle, there is no more beauty. No work without an aggressive character can be a masterpiece. Poetry must be conceived as a violent attack on unknown forces, to reduce and prostrate them before man.

7. We stand on the last promontory of the centuries. Why should we look back when what we want is to break down the mysterious doors of the impossible? Time and space died yesterday. We already live in the absolute, because we have created eternal, omnipresent speed.

8. We will glorify war–the world’s only hygiene–militarism, patriotism, the destructive gesture of freedom-bringers, the beautiful ideas that kill, and scorn for women.

9. We will destroy the museums libraries academies of every kind, will fight moralism feminism, every opportunistic or utilitarian cowardice.

10. We will sing of great crowds excited by work, by pleasure, and by riot. We will sing of the multi-colored, polyphonic tides of revolution in the modem capitals, we will sing of the vibrant nightly fervor of arsenals and shipyards blazing with violent electric motors, greedy railway stations that devour smoke-plumed serpents, factories hung on clouds by the crooked lines of their smoke; bridges that stride the rivers like giant gymnasts, flashing in the sun with a glitter of knives; adventurous steamers that sniff the horizon: deep-chested locomotives whose wheels paw the tracks like the hooves of enormous steel horses bridled by tubing: and the sleek flight of planes whose propellers chatter in the wind like banners and seem to cheer like an enthusiastic crowd.

It is from Italy that we launch through the world this violently upsetting incendiary manifesto of ours. With it, today, we establish Futurism, because we want to free this land from its smelly gangrene of professors, archaeologists, ciceroni and antiquarians. For too long has Italy been a dealer in second-hand clothes. We mean to free her from the numberless museums that cover her like so many graveyards.

Museums: cemeteries! . . .  Identical, surely, in the sinister promiscuity of so many bodies unknown to one another. Museums: public dormitories where one lies forever beside hated or unknown beings. Museums: absurd abattoirs of painters and sculptors ferociously slaughtering each other with color-blows and line-blows, the length of the fought-over walls!

That one should make an annual pilgrimage, just as one goes to the graveyard on All Souls’ Day, that we grant. That once a year one should leave a floral tribute beneath the Gioconda, I grant you that . . .  but I don’t admit that our sorrows, our fragile courage, our morbid restlessness should be given a daily conducted tour through the museums. Why poison ourselves? Why rot? And what is there to see in an old picture except the laborious contortions of an artist throwing himself against the barriers that thwart his desire to express his dream completely? Admiring an old picture is the same as pouring our sensibility into a funerary urn instead of hurtling it far off in violent spasms of action and creation.

Do you then wish to waste all your best powers in this eternal and futile worship of the past, from which you emerge fatally exhausted, shrunken, beaten down?

In truth we tell you that daily visits to museums, libraries, and academies (cemeteries of empty exertion, Calvaries of crucified dreams, registries of aborted beginnings!) are, for artists, as damaging as the prolonged supervision by parents of certain young people drunk with their talent and their ambitious wills. When the future is barred to them, the admirable past may be a solace for the ills of the moribund, the sickly, the prisoner . . .  But we want no part of it, the past, we the young and strong Futurists!

So let them come, the gay incendiaries with charred fingers! Here they are! Here they are! . . .  Come on! set fire to the library shelves! Turn aside the canals to flood the museums! . . .  Oh, the joy of seeing the glorious old canvases bobbing adrift on those waters, discolored and shredded! . . .  Take up your pickaxes, your axes and hammers and wreck, wreck the venerable cities, pitilessly!

The oldest of us is thirty so we have at least a decade for finishing our work. When we are forty, other younger and stronger men will probably throw us in the wastebasket like useless manuscripts–we want it to happen!

They will come against us, our successors will come from far away, from every quarter, dancing to the winged cadence of their first songs, flexing the hooked claws of predators, sniffing dog-like at the academy doors the strong odor of our decaying minds which will have already been promised to the literary catacombs.

But we won’t be there . . .  At last they’ll find us–one winter’s night–in open country, beneath a sad roof drummed by a monotonous rain. They’ll see us crouched beside our trembling aeroplanes in the act of warming our hands at the poor little blaze that our books of today will give out when they take fire from the flight of our images.

They’ll storm around us, panting with scorn and anguish, and all of them, exasperated by our proud daring, will hurtle to kill us. Driven by a hatred the more implacable the more their hearts will be drunk with love and admiration for us.

Injustice, strong and sane, will break out radiantly in their eyes. Art, in fact, can be nothing but violence, cruelty, and injustice.

The oldest of us is thirty: even so we have already scattered treasures, a thousand treasures of force, love, courage, astuteness, and raw will-power, have thrown them impatiently away, with fury, carelessly, unhesitatingly, breathless, and unresting . . . Look at us We are still untired! Our hearts know no weariness because they are fed with fire, hatred, and speed . . .  Does that amaze you? It should, because you can never remember having lived! Erect on the summit of the world, once again, we hurl our defiance at the stars.

You have objections?–Enough! Enough! We know them . . .  We’ve understood! . . .  Our fine deceitful intelligence tells us that we are the revival and extension of our ancestors–Perhaps! . . .  If only it were so!–But who cares? We don’t want to understand! . . . Woe to anyone who says those infamous words to us again! Lift up your heads. Erect on the summit of the world, once again we hurl our defiance after stars!”

A plethora of manifestos by Marinetti and his colleagues followed, futurist cinema, painting, music (“noise”), prose, plus the political and sociological implications.

War, the World’s Only Hygiene

Marinetti’s manifesto on war shows the central place violence and conflict have in the Futurist doctrine.

We Futurists, who for over two years, scorned by the Lame and Paralyzed, have glorified the love of danger and violence, praised patriotism and war, the hygiene of the world, are happy to finally experience this great Futurist hour of Italy, while the foul tribe of pacifists huddles dying in the deep cellars of the ridiculous palace at The Hague. We have recently had the pleasure of fighting in the streets with the most fervent adversaries of the war and shouting in their faces our firm beliefs:

1. All liberties should be given to the individual and the collectivity, save that of being cowardly.

2. Let it be proclaimed that the word Italy should prevail over the word Freedom.

3. Let the tiresome memory of Roman greatness be canceled by an Italian greatness a hundred times greater.

For us today, Italy has the shape and power of a fine Dreadnought battleship with its squadron of torpedo-boat islands. Proud to feel that the martial fervor throughout the nation is equal to ours, we urge the Italian government, Futurist at last, to magnify all the national ambitions, disdaining the stupid accusations of piracy, and proclaim the birth of Pan-Italianism.

Futurist poets, painters, sculptors, and musicians of Italy! As long as the war lasts let us set aside our verse, our brushes, scapulas, and orchestras! The red holidays of genius have begun! There is nothing for us to admire today but the dreadful symphonies of the shrapnel and the mad sculptures that our inspired artillery molds among the masses of the enemy.

Artistic Storm Trooper

Marinetti brought his dynamic character into an aggressive campaign to promote Futurism. The Futurists aimed to aggravate society out of bourgeoisie complacency and the safe existence through innovative street theater, abrasive art, speeches, and manifestos. The speaking style of Marinetti was itself bombastic and thunderous. The art was aggravating to conventional society and the art establishment. If a painting was that of a man with a mustache, the whiskers would be depicted with the bristles of a shaving brush pasted onto the canvas. A train would be depicted with the words “puff, puff.”

Both the words and deeds of the Futurists matched the nature of the art in expressing contempt for the status quo with its preoccupation with “pastism” or the “passe.” Marinetti for example, described Venice as “a city of dead fish and decaying houses, inhabited by a race of waiters and touts.”

To the Futurist Boccioni, Dante, Beethoven and Michelangelo were “sickening” Whilst Carra set about painting sounds, noises and even smells. Marinetti traversed Europe giving interviews, arranging exhibitions, meetings and dinners. Vermilion posters with huge block letters spelling ‘futurism’ were plastered throughout Italy on factories, in dance halls, cafes and town squares. Futurist performances were organized to provoke riot. Glue was put onto seats. Two tickets for the same seat would be sold to provoke a fight. “Noise music” would blare while poetry or manifestos were recited and paintings shown. Fruit and rotten spaghetti would be thrown from the audience, and the performances would usually end in brawls.

Marinetti replied to jeers with humor. He ate the fruit thrown at him. He welcomed the hostility as proving that Futurism was not appealing to the mediocre.

Politics

 

The first political contacts of Marinetti and the Futurists were from the Left rather than the Right, despite Marinetti’s extreme nationalism and call for war as the “hygiene of mankind.” There were syndicalists and even some anarchists who shared Marinetti’s views on the energizing and revolutionary nature of war and gave him a reception.

In 1909, Marinetti entered the general elections and issued a “First Political Manifesto” which is anti-clerical and states that the only Futurist political program is “national pride,” calling for the elimination of pacifism and the representatives of the old order. During that year, Marinetti was heavily involved in agitating for Italian sovereignty over Austrian-ruled Trieste. The political alliance with the extreme Left began with the anarcho-syndicalist Ottavio Dinale, whose paper reprinted the Futurist manifesto. The paper, La demolizione was not especially anarcho-syndicalist, but of a general combative nature, aiming to unite into one “fascio” all those of revolutionary tendencies, to “oppose with full energy the inertia and indolence that threatens to suffocate all life.” The phrase is distinctly Futurist.

Marinetti announced that he intended to campaign politically as both a syndicalist and a nationalist, a synthesis that would eventually arise in Fascism. In 1910, he forged links with the Italian Nationalist Association, which from its birth also had a pro-labor, syndicalist aspect. In 1913 a Futurist political manifesto was issued which called for enlargement of the military, an “aggressive foreign policy,” colonial expansionism, and “pan-Italianism”; a “cult” of progress, speed, and heroism; opposition to the nostalgia for monuments, ruins, and museums; economic protectionism, anti-socialism, anti-clericalism. The movement gained wide enthusiasm among university students.

Interventionism

The chance for Italy’s “place in the sun” came with World War I. Not only the nationalists were demanding Italy’s entry into the war, but so too were certain revolutionary syndicalists and a faction of socialists led by Mussolini. From the literati came D’Annunzio and Marinetti.

In a manifesto addressed to students in 1914 Marinetti states the purpose of Futurism and calls for intervention in the war. Futurism was the “doctor” to cure Italy of “pastism,” a remedy “valid for every country.” The “ancestor cult far from cementing the race” was making Italians “anaemic and putrid.” Futurism was now “being fully realized in the great world war.”

The present war is the most beautiful Futurist poem which has so far been seen. Futurism was the militarization of innovating artists.

The war would sweep away all the proponents of the old and senile, diplomats, professors, philosophers, archaeologists, libraries, and museums.

The war will promote gymnastics, sport, practical schools of agriculture, business and industrialists. The war will rejuvenate Italy: will enrich her with men of action, will force her to live no longer off the past, off ruins and the mild climate, but off her own national forces.

The Futurists were the first to organize pro-war protests. Mussolini and Marinetti held their first joint meeting in Milan on March 31st 1915. In April, both were arrested in Rome for organizing a demonstration.

Futurists were no mere windbags. Nearly all distinguished themselves in the war, as did Mussolini and D’Annunzio. The Futurist architect Sant Elia was killed. Marinetti enlisted with the Alpini regiment and was wounded and decorated for valor.

Futurist Party

 

In 1918, Marinetti began directing his attention to a new postwar Italy. He published a manifesto announcing the Futurist Political Party, which called for “Revolutionary nationalism” for both imperialism and social revolution. “We must carry our war to total victory.”

Demands of the manifesto included the eight hour day and equal pay for women, the nationalization and redistribution of land to veterans; heavy taxes on acquired and inherited wealth and the gradual abolition of marriage through easy divorce; a strong Italy freed, from nostalgia, tourists, and priests; industrialization and modernization of “moribund cities” that live as tourist centers. A Corporatist policy called for the abolition of parliament and its replacement with a technical government of 30 or 40 young directors elected form the trade associations.

The Futurist party concentrated its propaganda on the soldiers, and recruited many war veterans of the elite Arditi (daredevils), who had been the black-shirted shock troops of the army who would charge into battle stripped to the waist, a grenade in each hand and a dagger between their teeth.

In December 1919, the Futurists revived the “Fasci” or “groups.” which had been organized in 1914 and 1915 to campaign for war intervention, and from which was to emerge the Fascists.

Futurists and Fascists

The first joint post-war action between Mussolini and Marinetti took place in 1919 when a Socialist Party rally was disrupted in Milan.

That year Mussolini founded his own Fasci di Combattimento in Milan with the support of Marinetti and the poet Ungasetti. The futurists and the Arditi comprised the core of the Fascist leadership. The first Fascist manifesto was based on that of Marinetti’s Futurist party.

In April, against the wishes of Mussolini who thought the action premature, Marinetti led Fascists and Futurists and Arditi against a mass Socialist Party demonstration. Marinetti waded in with fists, but intervened to save a socialist from being severely beaten by Arditi. (To place the post-war situation in perspective, the Socialists had regularly beaten, abused, and even killed returning war veterans). The Fascists and futurists then proceeded to the offices of the Socialist Party paper Avanti, which they sacked and burned.

Marinetti stood as a Fascist candidate in the 1919 elections and persuaded Toscanini to do so. Whilst the Fascists held back, the Futurists threw their support behind the poet-soldier D’Annunzio’s takeover of Fiume. Marinetti arrived and was warmly welcomed by D’Annunzio.

When the Fascist Congress of 1920 refused to support the Futurist demand to exile the King and the Pope, Marinetti and other Futurists resigned from the Fascist party. Marinetti considered that the Fascist party was compromising with conservatism and the bourgeoisie. He was also critical of the Fascist concentration on anti-socialist agitation and on opposition to strikes. Certain futurist factions realigned themselves specifically with the extreme Left. In 1922, there were several Futurist exhibitions and performances organized by the Communist cultural association, Pro-letkul, which also arranged a lecture by Marinetti to explain the doctrine of Futurism.

Futurism and the Fascist Regime

 

When the Fascists assumed power in 1922 Marinetti, like D’Annunzio, was critically supportive of the regime. Marinetti considered: “The coming to power of the Fascists constitutes the realization of the minimum futurist program.”

Of Mussolini the statesman, Marinetti wrote: “Prophets and forerunners of the great Italy of today, we Futurists are happy to salute in our not yet 40-year-old Prime Minister of marvelous futurist temperament.”

In 1923, Marinetti began a rapprochement with the Fascists and presented to Mussolini his manifesto “The Artistic Rights Promoted by Italian Futurists.” Here he rejected the Bolshevik alignment of Futurists in the USSR. He pointed to the Futurist sentiments that had been expressed by Mussolini in speeches, alluding to Fascism being a “government of speed, curtailing everything that represents stagnation in the national life.”

Under Mussolini’s leadership, writes Marinetti:

Fascism has rejuvenated Italy. It is now his duty to help us overhaul the artistic establishment . . . . The political revolution must sustain the artistic revolutions Marinetti was among the Congress of Fascist Intellectuals who in 1923 approved the measures taken by the regime to restore order by curtailing certain constitutional liberties amidst increasing chaos caused by both out-of-control radical Fascist squadisti and anti-Fascists.

At the 1924 Futurist Congress, the delegates upheld Marinetti’s declaration:

The Italian Futurists, more than ever devoted to ideas and art, far removed from politics, say to their old comrade Benito Mussolini, free yourself from parliament with one necessary and violent stroke. Restore to Fascism and Italy the marvelous, disinterested, bold, anti-socialist, anti-clerical, anti-monarchical spirit . . .  Refuse to let monarchy suffocate the greatest, most brilliant and just Italy of tomorrow . . .  Quell the clerical opposition . . . . With a steely and dynamic aristocracy of thought.

In 1929, Marinetti accepted election to the Italian Academy, considering it important that “Futurism be represented” He was also elected secretary of the Fascist Writer’s Union and as such was the official representative for fascist culture. Futurism became a part of fascist cultural exhibitions and was utilized in the propaganda art of the regime. During the 1930s, in particular the Fascist cultural expression was undergoing a drift away from tradition and towards futurism, with the fascist emphasis on technology and modernization. Mussolini had already in 1926 defined the creation of a “fascist art” that would be based on a synthesis culturally as it was politically: “traditionalistic and at the same time modern.”

In 1943, with the Allies invading Italy, the Fascist Grand Council deposed Mussolini and surrendered to the occupation forces. The fascist faithful established a last stand, in the north, named the Italian Social Republic.

With a new idealism, even former Communist and liberal leaders were drawn to the Republic. The Manifesto of Verona was drafted, restoring various liberties, and championing labor against plutocracy within the vision of a united Europe. Marinetti continued to be honored by the Social Republic. He died in 1944.

Salvate la vita a Tareq Aziz !

Salvate la vita a Tareq Aziz

di Felicity Arbuthnot e Tony Benn

Fonte: Come Don Chisciotte [scheda fonte]


Tante altre notizie su www.ariannaeditrice.it

LETTERA A SUA SANTITA' PAPA BENEDETTO XVI

"E' STATO VERSATO COSI' TANTO SANGUE". SALVATE LA VITA A TAREQ AZIZ



"...Saddam, Tariq, tutti loro avrebbero potuto darsi alla fuga, ce n'erano di paesi che li avrebbero accolti. Sono rimasti perchè era inimmaginabile per loro non stare dovevano stava la loro gente. E nemmeno avrebbero potuto immaginare che democratici liberatori di una superiore civiltà potessero a tal punto strafottersi del diritto, della giustizia, dell'umanità. Non c'è stato nessun Vittorio Emanuele. Sono rimasti perchè erano e sono iracheni. Che il corpo di Tariq Aziz possa restare ai vostri piedi e farvi inciampare per il resto della vostra vita nel mattatoio che chiamate civiltà."
Fulvio Grimaldi

Lettera aperta :

A sua Santità Papa Benedetto XVI,

A Sua Grazia l’Arcivescovo di Canterbury,
A Sua Grazia l’Arcivescovo di Westminster,

Al Primo Ministro On. David Cameron,
Al Vice Primo Ministro On. Nick Clegg,
Al Ministro degli Esteri, On. William Hague.

Sua Santità, Vostre Grazie, Primo Ministro, Vice Primo Ministro, Ministro degli Esteri,

Mi scuso per questa missiva a destinatari multipli , ma è questione assoluta di tempo. È stato versato così tanto sangue nell’invasione illegale dell’Iraq, che è difficile da comprendere, con una cifra superiore dei caduti dal 2003 stimata a 1,4 milioni di persone. Quasi cinque milioni (4,7) di persone sono profughi, internamente ed esternamente, secondo l’UNHCR, sono stati creati un milione di vedove e cinque milioni di orfani, secondo le agenzie delle Nazioni Unite.



Adesso, dopo il disgustoso linciaggio del legittimo presidente del paese, e dei suoi stretti colleghi, un paese la cui: “sovranità ed integrità territoriale”, era garantita dall’ONU, è stato oggi annunciato che il suo sostituto, Tareq Aziz, un cristiano caldeo, sta per essere giustiziato. Questo in aggiunta al sangue versato per l’invasione, su scala biblica – e alla luce delle terribili rivelazioni delle realtà della “liberazione”, nei giorni scorsi, su Wikileaks.

Certo Wikileaks ha anche rivelato che il terrorismo si riversava sul popolo dell’Iraq per mano delle forze governative imposte di “Vichy”, “ guidate” dalle truppe USA e Britanniche.

L’accusa contro l’ex Vice Primo Ministro nonché Ministro degli Affari Esteri dell’Iraq, è una discriminazione religiosa. Ironicamente, mezzo milione di Cristiani iracheni, sono fuggiti, a causa della persecuzione, dal momento dell’invasione. Innumerevoli sono stati assassinati. Avevano vissuto fianco a fianco della maggioranza musulmana a quanto pare dall’anno 33 D.C., quando si crede che San Tommaso abbia fondato la Cristianità in Mesopotamia.

L’accusa si riferisce ad un tentato assassinio contro Aziz e Saddam Hussein a Dujail, in Iraq, nel 1982 da parte di affiliati del partito Dawa appoggiato dall’Iran. Lo stesso partito Dawa a cui aderisce Nuri al Maliki. (Non ho detto il “Primo Ministro”, poiché non lo è più, in un Iraq senza direzione). La vendetta a Dujail è stata certamente deplorevole, ma è stata una decisione presa dal Presidente. E comunque vista nel contesto, pare lieve in confronto al massacro riservato alla popolazione di Fallujah nel 2004 dalle forze americane, per vendicarsi dell’uccisione di quattro mercenari, e della reazione contro gli USA, le truppe che avevano ucciso inspiegabilmente uomini, donne e bambini dal momento dell’invasione.

Il massacro in Iraq è stato per mano di tutti i cittadini degli Stati Uniti e del Regno Unito.

Ci dobbiamo convivere ovunque viaggiamo, con la vergogna e il vituperio delle azioni dei loro governi. Inoltre, non c’ è stata l’immunità presidenziale per il governo illegalmente rovesciato dell’Iraq, una consueta norma legale, e tuttavia le forze dell’occupazione avrebbero potuto interrompere i loro massacri. Come forza occupante dominante e rimanente, l’America adesso è responsabile di ogni violazione dei diritti umani.

Aziz è stato parte di un governo che lungi dal discriminare religiosamente, sosteneva annualmente, proporzionatamente, equamente tutte le religioni per la manutenzione dei loro luoghi culto e dei loro uffici affiliati. Le punizioni sono state date non sulla base della religione, ma per i crimini commessi. Senza discussione sono state dure, ma ci fa vergognare riflettere come siano lievi, al confronto con quello che è accaduto, e continua ad accadere, sotto i poteri occupanti, dal giorno dell’invasione.

Tariq Aziz si è consegnato alle autorità degli Stati Uniti, in buona fede.

Tale buona fede non era fondata ed è stata sfruttata. È un uomo anziano ed era in cattive condizioni di salute molto prima dell’invasione.

I suoi giorni comunque, sono sicuramente contati. Vi scongiuro di prendere almeno questa chance di salvare anche solo una vita. Aziz è un nazionalista, come tutto il suo governo, avrebbero potuto fuggire. Hanno scelto di rimanere in Iraq perché si sentono profondamente iracheni - contrariamente all’attuale governo, con le sue fedeltà e i suoi passaporti stranieri, in gran parte.

Tareq Aziz si è recato in Vaticano, prima dell’invasione, per incontrare il Capo della Chiesa in cui aveva riposto tutta la sua fede, tutta la sua vita, per implorare che venisse bloccata la distruzione del suo popolo e della terra dell’ Ur della Caldea, menzionata certo tre volte nel libro della Genesi: 11:28, 11:31, 15:7. La sua preghiera non è stata ascoltata.

Vostra Santità, Vostre Grazie, Primo Ministro, Ministro degli Esteri, vi prego non deludetelo ancora una volta. La Gran Bretagna e l’America non potranno mai, comunque, lavare il sangue dalle loro mani. “Salvare una vita, è come salvare l’intera umanità” è un convincimento comune a tutte le fedi.

Vi prego di agire subito.

Sta per finire il tempo. Se così dovesse essere e non aveste fatto nulla, nonostante la vostra influenza e i vostri contatti collettivi, il suo corpo giacerà ai vostri piedi, per tutta la vostra vita. Per lo più il non agire, che porta ad un altro linciaggio, imporrà quell’orrore a ogni cittadino con una coscienza, dato che siamo, così ci viene detto, una democrazia. Vi imploriamo di agire.

Oggi siamo stati avvisati circa un reale pericolo di un attentato terroristico; abbiamo già commesso innumerevoli atti di terrorismo – per favore non fatecene essere parte di un altro, che volendolo, è del tutto prevenibile.

Distinti saluti.

FELICITY ARBUTHNOT (giornalista, corrispondente per i diritti umani, Global Research) E TONY BENN ( veterano di guerra, ex parlamentare britannico, autore, fondatore del CND)

Fonte: www.globalresearch.ca
Link: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21628


Traduzione per www.comedonchisciotte,org a cura di MICAELA MARRI

 

An Ambiguous Victory for Wilders

by Srdja Trifkovic

Ex: http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/

The news just in that Dutch prosecutors have changed their mind about prosecuting Geert Wilders for the Orwellian crime of “discriminating against Muslims” and “inciting hatred” is prima facie a victory for free speech and all that. In fact it is not nearly as good as it may seem.

The establishment is scared of continuing to hound the leader of the third-largest political party in the land. The fact that their legal minions are forced to eat humble pie is gratifying, but the trouble is that they are dropping this particular case while keeping all the pernicious laws used against him. They have come up with the ridiculous argument that the politician’s comments about banning the Kuran can be discriminatory, but because Wilders wants to pursue a ban “on democratic lines,” there is no incitement to discrimination “as laid down in law.” As for his comparison of the Kuran with Mein Kampf, the prosecutors now say that the metaphor was “crude, but that did not make it punishable.” While some of his comments could incite hatred against Muslims if taken out of context, they concluded, on the whole Wilders seems to be opposed to the growing influence of Islam and not hostile to Muslims as such.

A clear victory would have been for the Dutch state to declare that it was mistaken in pursuing a case of any kind against Wilders; but that would have meant the end of the Dutch state as we have known it for the past forty years.

In the event the oppressive laws are there to stay. Ordinary Dutch citizens, less visible than Wilders, can be maliciously prosecuted – and convicted – for saying the same things he has said, but with far less fuss. In the same manner some well known East European dissidents were relatively protected from the Comrades’ fury in the 1970s, but arbitrary and oppressive laws were then applied with an even greater ferocity against the anonymous multitudes.

For as long as Holland’s and other European countries’ ridiculous “hate” laws remain on the statute books, the threat of prosecution hangs above everyone’s head – and no conviction is required to make people think twice about expressing themselves frankly and meaningfully about “prophet” Muhammad’s ideology of war and hatred.

I suspect that Wilders himself would have preferred a highly publicized trial and conviction, followed by an appeal that would test the constitutionality of the laws used against him. That is the kind of battle that requires courage, money, and media attention. He is the ideal man to give it one more try.

Der Sarrazin-Impuls

Von Andreas Mölzer

Ex: http://www.zurzeit.at/

Es war gewiß nicht in erster Linie Thilo Sarrazins Buch „Deutschland schafft sich ab“, das nunmehr dafür verantwortlich ist, wenn in Deutschland eine Ausländer- und Integrationsdebatte hochkocht. Nein, es sind einfach die Probleme, die diese Debatte geradezu erzwingen. Diese waren einerseits der Anlaß für das Sarrazin-Buch und sind andererseits nunmehr die Ursache für den politischen Disput, der die Bundesrepublik in diesen Tagen erschüttert. Es war ja nur die Politik der etablierten Parteien, welche die Augen vor den Problemen verschlossen hat. Die Bürger selbst waren längst damit konfrontiert, daß Deutschland in den letzten Jahren und Jahrzehnten Ziel einer Massenzuwanderung, insbesondere von Türken, geworden war. Und die Bürger waren natürlich auch damit konfrontiert, daß aus den Parallelgesellschaften das Konfliktpotential der einst so hochgelobten multikulturellen Gesellschaft geradezu explosiv über die gesamte deutsche Gesellschaft hereingebrochen ist. Wie hat Angela Merkel dieser Tage so schön gesagt: „Der Multi-Kulti-Ansatz ist absolut gescheitert“. Wie wahr.

Dennoch muß man anerkennen, daß seit dem Streit um die Person Thilo Sarrazins und um sein Buch auch die Strategen der etablierten bundesdeutschen Parteien aufgewacht sind. Das ist Sarrazins Verdienst. Wenn nunmehr CSU-Boß Horst Seehofer vorprescht und einen Zuwanderungsstopp für Türken und Muslime fordert, glaubt er begriffen zu haben, wo der Hase im Pfeffer liegt. Zwar haben radikale Imame vorläufig noch kein Alkoholverbot für das Münchner Oktoberfest gefordert, der Ober-Bayer weiß aber, wie er politisch bei den Menschen – wohl nicht nur in Bayern – punktet. Und Kanzlerin Merkel muß nolens volens nachziehen. Auch wenn ihr Parteifreund, der nunmehrige Bundespräsident Wulff, erst jüngst fromm erklärt hatte: „Der Islam gehört auch zu Deutschland“.

Gutmenschen und Schön-Redner wie Herr Wulff sind es indessen, die an der Explosivität des Zuwanderungs- und Islamisierungsproblems mit schuld tragen. Sie haben mit ihrer Schönfärberei dafür gesorgt, daß es nicht rechtzeitig zu entsprechenden Bremsvorgängen im Bereich der Zuwanderung kam, daß man die deutsche Leitkultur nicht entsprechend schützte und das Vordringen des immer offensiver werdenden Islams duldete. Diesen Gutmenschen stehen die simplen Populisten à la Seehofer gegenüber, deren Protest wahrscheinlich auch zu spät kommt. Und daß just Ministerin Ursula von der Leyen nun im Gegensatz zu Angela Merkel demonstrativ die weitere Zuwanderung von Facharbeitern fordert, weil deren Mangel das Wirtschaftswachstum bremse, ist mehr als bedenklich. Die Mutter eines halben Dutzends Kinder sollte es besser wissen. Facharbeiter kann man in drei Jahren mittels entsprechender Lehre ausbilden. Akademisches Fachpersonal bedarf zwar eines längeren Studiums, aber auch das kann man bei entsprechender Förderung in Deutschland selbst heranziehen.

Die Forderung, solche Fachkräfte aus dem Ausland zu importieren – so nach dem Motto „Inder statt Kinder“ – ist schlicht einfältig. Sie zeitigt zwar Zuwanderung, aber nicht jene des gewünschten Fachpotentials, sondern weiter die eines ungebildeten Subproletariats. Dieses wandert nur ins deutsche Sozialsystem ein und nicht in den Arbeitsmarkt.

Eins zu eins vergleichbar mit der bundesdeutschen Lage ist jene bei uns in Österreich. Auch hier fordern Lobbyisten der Industrie den Zuzug von Fachkräften und meinen doch in Wahrheit weitere billige Arbeitskräfte, die der Gewinnmaximierung dienlich sein sollen. Auch hier verkrampft sich das politische Establishment in einer Integrationsdebatte und zeigt dabei nur das eigene Unvermögen, die eigene Hilflosigkeit. Brutalo-Abschiebungen von Kindern auf der einen Seite, auf der anderen Seite kein Mut, um die wirkliche Massenzuwanderung und die Islamisierung zu stoppen. Offiziell haben in Österreich von 8,4 Millionen Einwohnern 1,7 Millionen Menschen einen sogenannten Migrationshintergrund. In Wahrheit werden es wohl über zwei Millionen Menschen sein, wenn man die Illegalen und die schöngeredeten Bereiche mitzählt. Nahezu ein Viertel der Wohnbevölkerung also entstammt nicht der autochthonen Bevölkerung. Das darf man getrost „Überfremdung“ oder auch „Umvolkung“ nennen. Jene, die sich über derartige angeblich ach so böse Begriffe politisch korrekt erregen, sind mit schuld an den Problemen, die damit bezeichnet werden.

Allerdings gibt es diese Probleme längst nicht nur in Deutschland und Österreich, sie sind indessen zu einem gesamteuropäischen Phänomen geworden. Nicht zufällig schwelt die Debatte um Zuwanderung, Islamisierung, Integration oder Assimilation auch quer durch Europa. In Frankreich gibt es den Streit um die von Sarkozy abgeschobenen Roma, in Holland will Wilders die Zuwanderung von Muslimen verhindern, in Italien punktet die Lega Nord mit ihrem Kampf gegen die Islamisierung und selbst im diesbezüglich bislang allzu liberalen Spanien diskutiert man nunmehr über das Problem der Integration.

Und überall zeigt sich so wie gegenwärtig in Deutschland, daß die etablierte Politik den Problemen nur hinterher hechelt, sie zwar mitverursacht, aber kaum Lösungskompetenz aufweist.

Serbia Surrenders Kosovo to the EU

Serbia Surrenders Kosovo to the EU

Ex: http://www.slobodanjovanocvic.org/

Probably, the Tadic government had expected something better, and had planned to follow up a favorable ICJ opinion with an appeal to the General Assembly to endorse renewed negotiations over the status of Kosovo, perhaps enabling Serbia to recover at least the northern part of Kosovo whose population is solidly Serb. 

Diana Johnstone: In its dealings with the Western powers, recent Serbian diplomacy has displayed all the perspicacity of a rabbit cornered by a rattlesnake. After some helpless spasms of movement, the poor creature lets itself be eaten.

(September 20, Paris, Sri Lanka Guardian) On September 10, at the UN General Assembly, Serbia abruptly surrendered its claim to the breakaway province of Kosovo to the European Union. Serbian leaders described this surrender as a “compromise”. But for Serbia, it was all give and no take.

In its dealings with the Western powers, recent Serbian diplomacy has displayed all the perspicacity of a rabbit cornered by a rattlesnake. After some helpless spasms of movement, the poor creature lets itself be eaten.

The surrender has been implicit all along in President Boris Tadic’s two proclaimed foreign policy goals: deny Kosovo’s independence and join the European Union. These two were always mutually incompatible. Recognition of Kosovo’s independence is clearly one of the many conditions – and the most crucial – set by the Euroclub for Serbia to be considered for membership. Sacrificing Kosovo for “Europe” has always been the obvious outcome of this contradictory policy.

However, his government, and notably his foreign minister Vuk Jeremic, have tried to conceal this reality from the Serbian public by gestures meant to make it seem that they were doing everything possible to retain Kosovo.

Thus in October 2008, six months after U.S.-backed Kosovo leaders unilaterally declared that the province was an independent State, Serbia persuaded the UN General Assembly to submit the following question to the International Court of Justice for an (unbinding) advisory opinion: “Is the unilateral declaration of independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo in accordance with international law?’”

The surrender has been implicit all along in President Boris Tadic’s two proclaimed foreign policy goals: deny Kosovo’s independence and join the European Union.

This was risky at best, because Serbia had more to lose by an unfavorable opinion than it had to gain by a favorable one. After all, most of the UN member states were already refusing to recognize Kosovo’s independence, for perfectly solid reasons of legality and self-interest. At best, a favorable ICJ opinion would merely confirm this, but would not in itself lead to any positive action. Serbia could only hope to use such a favorable opinion to ask to open genuine negotiations on the status of the province, but the Kosovo Albanian separatists and their United States backers could not be forced to do so.

One must stop here to point out that there are two major issues involved in all this: one is the status and future of Kosovo, and the other is the larger issue of national sovereignty and self-determination within the context of international law. If so many UN member states supported Serbia, it was certainly not because of Kosovo itself but because of the larger implications. Nobody objected to the splitting of Czechoslovakia, because the Czechs and the Slovaks negotiated the terms of separation. The issue is the method. There are literally hundreds, perhaps thousands, of potential ethnic secessionist movements within existing countries around the world. Kosovo sets an ominous precedent. An armed separatist movement, with heavy support from the United States, where an ethnic Albanian lobby had secured important political backing, notably from former Senator and Republican Presidential candidate Bob Dole, carried out a campaign of assassinations in 1998 in order to trigger a repression which it could then describe as “ethnic cleansing” and “genocide” as a pretext for NATO intervention.

This worked, because US leaders saw “saving the Kosovars” as the easy way to save NATO from obsolescence by transforming it into a “humanitarian” global intervention force.

Bombing Serbia for two and a half months to “stop genocide” was a spectacle for public opinion.

The only people killed were Yugoslav citizens out of sight on the ground.

It was the lovely little war designed to rehabilitate military aggression as the proper way to settle conflicts.

This worked, because US leaders saw “saving the Kosovars” as the easy way to save NATO from obsolescence by transforming it into a “humanitarian” global intervention force. Bombing Serbia for two and a half months to “stop genocide” was a spectacle for public opinion. The only people killed were Yugoslav citizens out of sight on the ground. It was the lovely little war designed to rehabilitate military aggression as the proper way to settle conflicts.

The reality of this cynical manipulation has been assiduously hidden from Americans and most Europeans, but elsewhere, and in certain European countries such as Spain, Greece, Cyprus and Slovakia, the point has not been missed. Separatist movements are dangerous, and whenever the United States wants to subvert an unfriendly government, it has only to incite mass media to portray the internal problems of the targeted government as potential “genocide” and all hell may break loose.

So Serbia did not really have to work very hard to convince other countries to support its position on Kosovo. They had their own motivations – which were perhaps stronger than those of the Serbian government itself.

What did Serb leaders want?

The question put to the ICJ did not spell out what Serb leaders wanted. But it had implications. If the Kosovo declaration of independence was illegal, what was challenged was not so much independence itself as the procedure, the unilateral declaration. And indeed, there is no reason to suppose that Serb leaders thought they could reintegrate the whole of Kosovo into Serbia. It is even unlikely that they wanted to do so.

What did Serb leaders want?

The question put to the ICJ did not spell out what Serb leaders wanted. But it had implications. If the Kosovo declaration of independence was illegal, what was challenged was not so much independence itself as the procedure, the unilateral declaration. And indeed, there is no reason to suppose that Serb leaders thought they could reintegrate the whole of Kosovo into Serbia. It is even unlikely that they wanted to do so.

There are very mixed feelings about Kosovo within the Serb population. It is hard to know how widespread is the sense of concern, or guilt, regarding the beleaguered Serb population still living there, vulnerable to attacks from racist Albanians eager to drive them out. The sentimental attachment to “the cradle of the Serb nation” is very strong, but few Serbs would choose to go live there, even if the province were returned to them. In former Yugoslavia, the province was a black hole that absorbed huge sums of development aid, and would certainly be a heavy economic burden to impoverished Serbia today. Economically, Serbia is probably better off without Kosovo. Nearly twenty years ago, the leading Serb author and patriot Dobrica Cosic was arguing in favor of dividing Kosovo along ethnic and historic lines with Albania. Otherwise, he foresaw that the attempt to live with a hostile Albanian population would destroy Serbia itself.

Few would admit this, but the proposals of Cosic, echoed by some others, at least suggest that in a world with benevolent mediators, a compromise might have been worked out acceptable to most of the people directly involved. But what made such a compromise impossible was precisely the US and NATO intervention on behalf of armed Albanian rebels. Once the Albanian nationalists knew they had such support, they had no reason to agree to any compromise. And for the Serbs, the brutal method by which Kosovo was stolen by NATO was adding insult to injury – a humiliation that could not be accepted.

By taking the question to the UN General Assembly and the ICJ, Serbia sought endorsement of a reopening of negotiations that could lead to the sort of compromise that might have settled the issue had it been taken up in a world with benevolent mediators.

International Court of No Justice

On July 22, the ICJ issued its advisory opinion, concluding that Kosovo’s “declaration of independence was not illegal”. In some 21,600 words it evaded the main issues, refusing to state that the declaration meant that Kosovo was in fact properly independent. The gist was simply that, well, anybody can declare anything, can’t they?

On July 22, the ICJ issued its advisory opinion, concluding that Kosovo’s “declaration of independence was not illegal”. In some 21,600 words it evaded the main issues, refusing to state that the declaration meant that Kosovo was in fact properly independent. The gist was simply that, well, anybody can declare anything, can’t they?

Of course, this was widely interpreted by Western governments and media, and most of all by the Kosovo Albanians, as endorsement of Kosovo’s independence, which it was not.

Nevertheless, it was a shameful cop-out on the part of the ICJ, which marked further deterioration of the post-World War II efforts to establish some sort of international legal order. Perhaps the most flagrant bit of sophistry in the lengthy opinion was the argument (in paragraphs 80 and 81) that the declaration was not a violation of the “territorial integrity” of Serbia, because “the illegality attached to [certain past] declarations of independence … stemmed not from the unilateral character of these declarations as such, but from the fact that they were, or would have been, connected with the unlawful use of force or other egregious violations of norms of general international law…”

In short, the ICJ pretended to believe that there has been no illegal international military force used to detach Kosovo from Serbia, although this is precisely what happened as a result of the totally illegal NATO bombing campaign against Serbia. Since then, the province has been occupied by foreign military forces, under NATO command, which both violated the international agreement under which they entered Kosovo and looked the other way as Albanian fanatics terrorized and drove out Serbs and Roma, occasionally murdering rival Albanians.

The ICJ judges who endorsed this scandalous opinion came from Japan, Jordan, the United States, Germany, France, New Zealand, Mexico, Brazil, Somalia and the United Kingdom. The dissenters came from Slovakia, Sierra Leone, Morocco and Russia. The lineup shows that the cards were stacked against Serbia from the start, unless one actually believes that the judges leave behind their national mind-set when they join the international court.

Digging Itself Deeper Into a Hole

Probably, the Tadic government had expected something better, and had planned to follow up a favorable ICJ opinion with an appeal to the General Assembly to endorse renewed negotiations over the status of Kosovo, perhaps enabling Serbia to recover at least the northern part of Kosovo whose population is solidly Serb.

Oddly, despite the bad omen of the ICJ opinion, the Tadic government went right ahead with plans to introduce a resolution before the UN General Assembly. The draft resolution asked the General Assembly to state the following:

Aware that an agreement has not been reached between the sides on the consequences of the unilaterally proclaimed independence of Kosovo from Serbia,

Taking into account the fact that one-sided secession cannot be an accepted way for resolving territorial issues,

1. Acknowledges the Advisory opinion of the ICJ passed on 22 July 2010 on whether the unilaterally proclaimed independence of Kosovo is in line with international law,

2. Calls on the sides to find a mutually acceptable solution for all disputed issues through peaceful dialogue, with the aim of achieving peace, security and cooperation in the region.

3. Decides to include in the interim agenda of the 66th session an item namely: “Further activities following the passing of the advisory opinion of the ICJ on whether the unilaterally proclaimed independence of Kosovo is in line with international law.”

The resolution dictated by the EU made no mention of Kosovo other than to “take note” of the ICJ advisory opinion, and concluded by welcoming “the readiness of the EU to facilitate the process of dialogue between the parties.”

According to this text of the resolution, which UN General Assembly adopted by consensus; “The process of dialogue by itself would be a factor of peace, security and stability in the region. This dialogue would be aimed to promote cooperation, make progress on the path towards the EU and improve people’s lives.”

By accepting this text, the Serbian government abandoned all effort to gain international support from the many nations hostile to unilateral secession, and threw itself on the mercy of the European Union.

The key statement here was “the fact that one-sided secession cannot be an accepted way for resolving territorial issues”. This was the point on which the greatest agreement could be attained. The United States made it known that it was totally unacceptable for the General Assembly to hold a debate on such a resolution. The main Belgrade daily Politika published an interview with Ted Carpenter of the Cato Institute in Washington saying that the Serbian draft resolution on Kosovo was “irritating America and the EU’s leading countries”. American diplomats were “working overtime” to thwart the resolution, he said. Carpenter said that the Serbian resolution was seen in Washington as an unfriendly act that would lead to a further deterioration in relations, and that as a result of its Kosovo policy, Serbia’s EU ambition could suffer setbacks that would have negative consequences for the Serbian government “and the Serb people”.

Carpenter conceded that this time around, the country would not be threatened militarily, but noted that the United States was influential enough to “make life very difficult” for any country that stood up against its policies. He concluded that Serbia would “have to accept the reality of an independent Kosovo”, and that Washington would thereupon leave it to Brussels to deal with the remaining problems.

The American stick was accompanied by a dangling EU carrot. Carpenter expressed his hope that the EU would consider various measures, “including adjustment of borders, regarding Kosovo, and the rest of Serbia”, but also, he noted, Bosnia-Herzegovina, suggesting that Serbs could be satisfied if a loss of Kosovo were compensated by a unification with Bosnia’s Serb entity, the Republika Srpska. Giving his own opinion, Carpenter said such a solution would at least be much better than the current U.S. and EU policy, “which seems to be that everyone in the region of the former Yugoslavia, except Serbs, has a right to secede”.

Carpenter, who was a sharp critic of the 1999 NATO bombing of Serbia, and who warned that secessionist movements around the world could use the Kosovo precedent for their own purposes, said that such a solution was possible “in the coming decades”… a fairly distant prospect.

The decisive arm twisting was perhaps administered by German foreign minister Guido Westerwelle on a visit to Belgrade. Whatever threats or promises he made were not disclosed, but on the eve of the scheduled UN General Assembly debate, the Tadic government caved in entirely and allowed the EU to rewrite the resolution.

The resolution dictated by the EU made no mention of Kosovo other than to “take note” of the ICJ advisory opinion, and concluded by welcoming “the readiness of the EU to facilitate the process of dialogue between the parties.”

According to this text of the resolution, which UN General Assembly adopted by consensus; “The process of dialogue by itself would be a factor of peace, security and stability in the region. This dialogue would be aimed to promote cooperation, make progress on the path towards the EU and improve people’s lives.”

By accepting this text, the Serbian government abandoned all effort to gain international support from the many nations hostile to unilateral secession, and threw itself on the mercy of the European Union.

Still More to Lose

In a TV interview, I was asked by Russia Today, “What does Serbia stand to gain?” My immediate answer was, “nothing”. Serbia implicitly abandoned its claim to Kosovo in return for nothing but vague suggestions of “dialogue”.

In a TV interview, I was asked by Russia Today, “What does Serbia stand to gain?” My immediate answer was, “nothing”. Serbia implicitly abandoned its claim to Kosovo in return for nothing but vague suggestions of “dialogue”.

A usual aim of all policy is to keep options open, but Serbia has now put all its eggs in the EU basket, in effect rebuffing all the member states of the UN General Assembly which were ready to support Belgrade as a matter of principle on the issue of unnegotiated unilateral secession.

Rather than gain anything, the Tadic government has apparently chosen to try to avoid losing still more than it has lost already. After the violent breakup of Yugoslavia along ethnic lines, Serbia remains the most multiethnic state in the region, which means that it includes minorities which can be incited to demand further secessions. There is a secession movement in the ethnically very mixed northern province of Voivodina, which could be more or less covertly encouraged by neighboring Hungary, an increasingly nationalist EU member attentive to the Hungarian minority in Voivodina. There is another, more rabid separatist movement in the southwestern region of Raska/Sanjak led by Muslims with links to Bosnian Islamists. Surrounded by NATO members and wide open to NATO agents, Serbia risks being destabilized by the rise of such secession movements, which Western media, firmly attached to the stereotypes established in the 1990s, could easily present as persecuted victims of potential Serb genocide.

Moreover, no matter how the Serbs vote, the US and UK embassies dictate the policies. This has been demonstrated several times. Little Serbia is actually in a position very like the Pétain government in 1940 to 1942, when it governed a part of France not yet occupied but totally surrounded by the conquering Nazis.

Moreover, no matter how the Serbs vote, the US and UK embassies dictate the policies. This has been demonstrated several times. Little Serbia is actually in a position very like the Pétain government in 1940 to 1942, when it governed a part of France not yet occupied but totally surrounded by the conquering Nazis.

It would take political genius to steer little Serbia through this geopolitical swamp, infested with snakes and crocodiles, and political genius is rare these days, in Serbia as elsewhere.

EU to the rescue?

Under these grim circumstances, the Tadic government has in effect abandoned all attempt at independence and entrusted the future of Serbia to the European Union.

Under these grim circumstances, the Tadic government has in effect abandoned all attempt at independence and entrusted the future of Serbia to the European Union. Serb patriots quite naturally decry this as a sell-out. Indeed it is, but Russia and China are far away, and could not be counted on to do anything for Serbia that would seriously annoy Washington. The fact is that much of the younger generation of Serbs is alienated from the past and dreams only of being in the EU, which means being treated as “normal”.

How will the EU reward these expectations?

Up to now, the EU has responded to each new Serb concession by asking for more and giving very little in return. At a time when many in the core EU countries feel that accepting Rumania and Bulgaria has brought more trouble than it was worth, enlargement to include Serbia, with its unfairly bad reputation, looks remote indeed.

In reality, the most Belgrade can hope for from the EU is that it will muster the courage to take its own policy line on the Balkans, separate from that of the United States.

Given the subservience of current EU leaders to Washington, this is a long shot. But it has a certain basis in reality.

United States policy toward the region has been heavily influenced by ethnic lobbies that have pledged allegiance to Washington in return for unconditional support of their nationalist aims. This is particularly the case of the rag-tag Albanian lobby in the United States, an odd mixture of dull-witted politicians and gun-running pizza parlor owners who flattered the Clinton administration into promising them their own statelet carved out of historic Serbia. The result has been “independent” Kosovo, in reality occupied by a major US military base, Camp Bondsteel, NATO-commanded pacifiers and an EU mission theoretically trying to introduce a modicum of legal order into what amounts to a failing state run by clans and living off various criminal activities. Since Camp Bondsteel is untouchable, and the grateful hoodlums have erected a giant statue to their hero, Bill Clinton, in their capital, Pristina, Washington is content with this situation.

But many in Europe are not. It is Europe, not the United States, that has to deal with violent Kosovo gangsters peddling dope and women in its cities. It is Europe, not the United States, that has this mess on its doorstep.

The media continue to peddle the 1999 fairy tale in which heroic NATO rescued the defenseless “Kosovars” from a hypothetical “genocide” (which never took place and never would have taken place), but European governments are in a position to know better.

As evidence of this is a letter written to German Chancellor Angela Merkel on October 26, 2007 by Dietmar Hartwig, who had been head of the EU (then EC) mission in Kosovo just prior to the NATO bombing in March 1999, when the mission was withdrawn. In describing the situation in Kosovo at a time when the NATO aggression was being prepared on the pretext of “saving the Kosovars”, Hartwig wrote:

“Not a single report submitted in the period from late November 1998 up to the evacuation on the eve of the war mentioned that Serbs had committed any major or systematic crimes against Albanians, nor there was a single case referring to genocide or genocide-like incidents or crimes. Quite the opposite, in my reports I have repeatedly informed that, considering the increasingly more frequent KLA attacks against the Serbian executive, their law enforcement demonstrated remarkable restraint and discipline. The clear and often cited goal of the Serbian administration was to observe the Milosevic-Holbrooke Agreement to the letter so not to provide any excuse to the international community to intervene. … There were huge ‘discrepancies in perception’ between what the missions in Kosovo have been reporting to their respective governments and capitals, and what the latter thereafter released to the media and the public. This discrepancy can only be viewed as input to long-term preparation for war against Yugoslavia. Until the time I left Kosovo, there never happened what the media and, with no less intensity the politicians, were relentlessly claiming. Accordingly, until 20 March 1999 there was no reason for military intervention, which renders illegitimate measures undertaken thereafter by the international community. The collective behavior of EU Member States prior to, and after the war broke out, gives rise to serious concerns, because the truth was killed, and the EU lost reliability.”

EU governments lied then, for the sake of NATO solidarity, and have been lying ever since.

Other official European observers said the same at the time, and in 2000, retired German general Heinz Loquai wrote a whole book, based especially on OSCE documents, showing that accusations against Serbia were false propaganda. While the public was fooled, government leaders have access to the truth.

In short, EU governments lied then, for the sake of NATO solidarity, and have been lying ever since.

Now as then, there are insiders who complain that the situation in reality is very different from the official version. Voices are raised pointing out that Republika Srpska is the only part of Bosnia that is succeeding, while the Muslim leadership in Sarajevo continues to count on largesse due to its proclaimed victim status. There seems to be a growing feeling in some leadership circles that in demonizing the Serbs, the EU has bet on the wrong horse. But that does not mean they will have the courage to confront the United States. In Kosovo itself, the most radical Albanian nationalists are ready to oppose the EU presence, by arms if necessary, while feeling confident of eternal support from their U.S. sponsors.

The Betrayal of Serbia

Pro-Western politicians in Belgrade labored under the illusion that throwing Milosevic to the ICTY wolves would be enough to ensure the good graces of the “International Community”. But in reality, the prosecution of Milosevic was used to publicize the trumped up “joint criminal enterprise” theory which blamed every aspect of the breakup of Yugoslavia on an imaginary Serbian conspiracy.

If the latest self-defeat at the UN General Assembly can be denounced as a betrayal, the betrayal began nearly ten years ago. On October 5, 2000, the regular presidential election process in Yugoslavia was boisterously interrupted by what the West described as a “democratic revolution” against the “dictator”, president Slobodan Milosevic. In reality, the “dictator” was about to enter the run-off round of the Yugoslav presidential election in which he seemed likely to lose to the main opposition candidate, Vojislav Kostunica. But the United States trained and incited the athletically inclined youth organization, Otpor (“resistance”), to take to the streets and set fire to the parliament in front of international television, to give the impression of a popular uprising. Probably, the scenarists modeled this show on the equally stage-managed overthrow of the Ceaucescu couple in Rumania at Christmas 1989, which ended in their murder following one of the shortest kangaroo court trials in history. For the generally ignorant world at large, being overthrown would be proof that Milosevic was really a “dictator” like Ceaucescu, whereas being defeated in an election would have tended to prove the opposite.

Proclaimed president, Kostunica intervened to save Milosevic, but not having been allowed to actually win the election, his position was undermined from the start, and all power was given to the Serbian prime minister, Zoran Djindjic, a favorite of the West who was too unpopular to have won an election in Serbia. Shortly thereafter, Djindjic violated the Serbian constitution by turning Milosevic over to the International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague – for one of the longest kangaroo court trials in history.

Having abandoned all attempt to assert its moral advantage, Serbia is counting solely on the kindness of strangers.

Pro-Western politicians in Belgrade labored under the illusion that throwing Milosevic to the ICTY wolves would be enough to ensure the good graces of the “International Community”. But in reality, the prosecution of Milosevic was used to publicize the trumped up “joint criminal enterprise” theory which blamed every aspect of the breakup of Yugoslavia on an imaginary Serbian conspiracy. The scapegoat turned out to be not just Milosevic, but Serbia itself. Serbia’s guilt for everything that went wrong in the Balkans was the essential propaganda line used to justify the 1999 NATO aggression, and by going along with it, the “democratic” Serbian leaders undermined their own moral claim to Kosovo.

In June 1999, Milosevic gave in and allowed NATO to occupy Kosovo under threat of carpet bombing that would destroy Serbia entirely. His successors fled from a less perilous battle – the battle to inform world public opinion of the complex truth of the Balkans. Having abandoned all attempt to assert its moral advantage, Serbia is counting solely on the kindness of strangers.

 

Diana Johnstone is author of Fools’ Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO and Western Delusions (Monthly Review Press). She can be reached at [e-mail]

www.srilankaguardian.org

Diana Johnstone, 22.09.2010.

News

Europees masochisme

Mia DOORNAERT:

Europees masochisme

'Wij lijken alleen nog vreemde geloven en culturen als onze naasten te
beschouwen'

Ban Ki-moon vond het vorige week nodig de landen van de Europese Unie te
kapittelen wegens onverdraagzaamheid jegens immigranten, in het bijzonder
moslims. De secretaris-generaal van de Verenigde Naties deed dit dinsdag in
een toespraak tot het Europees parlement. Bij het lezen van zijn woorden
vraag je je af hoe het komt dat miljoenen moslims hun paradijzen ontvlucht
zijn naar ons ongastvrij continent. Bij mijn weten is Ban Ki-moon nooit de
Organisatie van de Islamitische Conferentie, met haar 57 aangesloten
moslimlanden, de les gaan spellen, dus zou je denken dat het daar allemaal
veel beter is.

Nochtans is de wijze waarop immigranten in een aantal moslimslanden
behandeld worden berucht. De gastarbeiders die in de luxeparadijzen aan de
Perzische Golf de schitterende nieuwe gebouwen optrekken, worden genadeloos
uitgebuit. Veel geïmporteerd huispersoneel in Saudi-Arabië en andere
olielanden leeft in een toestand die neerkomt op lijfeigenschap en seksuele
slavernij. Godsdienst en gewetensvrijheid bestaan niet in de overgrote deel
van de OIC-landen. Niet-moslims worden institutioneel gediscrimineerd. De
media staan bol van hate speech tegen de 'kruisvaarders'
(westerlingen/christenen), en de antisemitische haatpropaganda in een aantal
moslimlanden herinnert aan die van de nazi's.

Het verschil is dat Ban Ki-moon onmiddellijk de wraak van het grote
moslimblok in de VN zou voelen als hij op de balk in hun oog zou wijzen.
Terwijl Europa niets liever doet dan zichzelf kastijden en laten kastijden.
Natuurlijk is de vaststelling dat het elders veel slechter is geen argument
om blind te zijn voor de eigen tekortkomingen. Maar evenmin gaat het op
juist een continent waar immigranten uit de moslimwereld jaarlijks en masse
naartoe komen, op de vingers te komen tikken. Niet alleen is Ban Ki-moon
eenzijdig in zijn vermaningen, hij is ook slecht op de hoogte van Europese
toestanden.

Het zijn niet de Europeanen, het is de moslimwereld, het zijn de
moslimimmigranten die van religie een zo dominerend thema van identiteit
maken, die de andersgelovige als de Andere zien. Het is onder die
mosliminvloed dat er hier nu een enorme druk ligt op de vrije meningsuiting,
in de naam van 'respect' voor de religies - lees voor de islam, want het
christendom kan niet genoeg bekritiseerd en bespot worden. Geert Wilders is
een zeldzame uitzondering, niet de regel. Er is een enorme censuur en
zelfcensuur aan de gang, op alle niveaus, juist om moslims niet voor het
hoofd te stoten - of uit schrik voor moslimgeweld, waar Ban Ki-moon ook niet
over sprak.

De Nederlandse liberale voorman Frits Bolkestein wijdde daar eind vorig jaar
in de Volkskrant een opmerkelijk artikel aan. Hij gaf onder meer het
voorbeeld van het Europees waarnemingscentrum tegen racisme en
vreemdelingenhaat 'dat in 2003 een onderzoek naar antisemitisme geheim hield
omdat daaruit bleek dat het antisemitisme in Europa voornamelijk werd gevoed
door moslims en pro-Palestijnse groeperingen'. De vaststelling van dat
onderzoek klopt vandaag de dag nog altijd, maar blijft een even groot taboe.

De intellectuele goegemeente vindt pittige kritiek op de islam niet kunnen,
ook al is die gegrond, want dat werkt 'polariserend'. Alsof niet elk debat
dat is, getuige onze aanslepende preformatie. In die context wordt het
spannend te zien welk onthaal de indrukwekkende bundel De islam. Kritische
essays over een politieke religie (ASP), van Vlaamse en Nederlandse auteurs,
straks op de boekenbeurs te wachten staat.

In hetzelfde artikel stelde Bolkestein vast dat het Westen niet meer voor de
eigen cultuur durft op te komen. 'In confrontatie met de islamitische
cultuur die zichzelf verabsoluteert en uitsluitend kritiek heeft op anderen,
neemt dit soms zelfdestructieve vormen aan', schreef hij over een Europa dat
niet eens zijn eigen erfgoed in zijn grondwet durfde benoemen. Het gevolg is
dat 'wij niet opkomen voor de onzen en alleen vreemde geloven en culturen
als onze naasten lijken te beschouwen'.

Dat masochisme levert Europa alvast weinig respect op, getuige onder meer de
selectieve verontwaardiging van Ban Ki-moon ten aanzien van een Europese
Unie die nota bene 40 procent betaalt van het budget van de VN. Zijn
toespraak was veelzeggend over het gewicht in de VN van het moslimblok, dat
zelf geen godsdienstvrijheid erkent (ook in het zogenaamd seculiere Turkije
zijn godsdiensten niet gelijkwaardig) maar onze democratische landen
constant aanvalt op hun zogenaamde islamofobie.

Mia Doornaert is onafhankelijk adviseur van de premier. Haar column
verschijnt tweewekelijks op maandag.
© 2010 Corelio
Publicatie:     De Standaard /
Publicatiedatum:     25 oktober 2010
Auteur:     avl;
Pagina:     23
Aantal woorden:     731

Interview with Guillaume Faye

Guillaume FAYE

Ex: http://www.counter-currents.com/

Question: We will begin by quoting you. In the review Études et recherches, fifteen years ago, you wrote that one can arrive at the point where “a world civilization desirous to stabilize history opposes its conservative will to the forces which it had itself released.” According to you, are we there? The Occident, longtime passive witness of the ethnic invasion, America longtime imprudent accomplice of the Islamists — do they still have the moral strength “to stop the course of history” when the clash of civilizations has passed from the stage of the “cold war” to that of the “hot war”?

Guillaume Faye: One epoch terminates, another commences. One cannot foresee what will occur: what we know is that we are at a crossroads; we live the end of an age of European civilization. This civilization has known three great epochs: the ancient, the medieval, then the modern which commenced about the 1850s. Currently we live at the end of this last epoch because Europe is invaded by the very ones it had conquered when it is in full demographic decline. On the moral, mental, psychological level, all European values have reached their conclusion, diluted in humanism and total egalitarianism. The Hegelian “enough” thesis that I defend is that this situation is provoking a world catastrophe which can in the end regenerate us. One does not regenerate oneself cold: one can metamorphose oneself only hot. The central question that one can pose in a dialectical manner is to know if this ethnic, ecological, ethical, etc., catastrophe that European civilization caused by its own decline will be the occasion of a regeneration or a disappearance.

Currently we are colonized, and this invasion is coupled with an incredible masochism on the part of Europeans themselves. Thus, only a terrifying crisis –­ that I welcome, in this respect -­- can change collective mentalities, awake Europeans. In my new book, Avant-Guerre [Before the War], I develop my thesis of “the Colonization of Europe,” while going beyond, by transcending the European context. Because for me, now that we have come right to the clash of civilizations, we go towards the third world war!

Question: The shock of September 2001 seemed to awaken the capacity of analysis of certain media. Then, quite quickly, Bush specified that he did not make war on Islam, and the big media — Le Monde or Télérama in France, Repubblica in Italy — devoted all their energy to make Islam known to us, this religion of tolerance and culture, so near and so remote. Has censorship already returned?

Guillaume Faye: This awakening was a shuddering, a flapping of wings. When Bush and Blair say that they do not make war on Islam, it is risible. Maybe we do not make war on Islam, but Islam makes war on us! It is not you who designate the enemy; it is the enemy who designates you! They knew very well that they declared the war on Islam, which besides is designated in Arabic by the same word as “Islamism”: islamiya. There was thus a small awakening, but it is not very important. The war which Islam makes on us did not begin on September 11, 2001, but in the ’60s. What is positive, it’s that the Islamists went too far, too fast: it’s the Arab mentality which wants that. They passed too quickly from the time of peace to the time of war, whereas they were underway to invade consciousness. If they had been less impatient, nobody would have seen anything. No doubt, so that the eyes really open, there a giant attack will be necessary: but I do not believe that this will take place immediately; it is not in their interest to realize too much of it in the immediate future.

It is possible that there will be a period of calm. We are faced with a terrorism which does not depend on a true terrorist organization, but deploys itself according to the logic of a transnational war, in networks, and which goes beyond the sole capacities of a group like Al-Qaeda: Islam is multinational; the war is not territorialized, nor reducible to the misdeeds of a single organization! The end of bin Laden will not solve anything at all because this last, simple sponsor of the jihad in spite of his posture of Prophet, had only applauded some acts that he undoubtedly had followed and financed, but certainly not organized directly himself!

Question: Which strategy do you recommend for citizens who would like to prepare for the future conflicts? Some have said that you want to found your own political party.

Guillaume Faye: It’s idiotic! That would limit my audience. That goes completely against my current analysis, because I recommend creating and working through a network. It is certainly necessary that there be parties to make agitprop. But the important thing is the network, on a European scale, without a guru or bigwig! To found one more petty sect is completely counterproductive. My “party” is my secretariat and the many friends with whom I collaborate in all Europe. I do not want a label!

Question: In the review Réfléchir et Agir, you recommended a “withdrawal” from associative action, following the example of that which the extreme-Left made. Could you develop this point?

Guillaume Faye: It is not a “withdrawal,” but a general-purpose strategy. One needs parties, publishers, associations, trade unions. It is necessary that our ideas be present in civil society. But all the forms of action are necessary: we should not oppose metapolitics to politics. All action, political, cultural, should be connected by the same vision of the world. It is not a strategy of withdrawal, but of spreading out, comparable that of the Trotskyists — who are today at the head of the State and of the Catholic Church! –­ from the ’60s. The French national Right is undermined by the culture of defeat, petty bosses, gossip: the different groups of Muslims and Leftists can detest one other, but they have each and all the same enemies against whom they unite. Whereas for many people of our ideas, the enemy is at first his own political friend, for simple reasons of jealousy!

I am stunned to see that associative action has so little been used. There is no association which defends Europeans! Well, there is AGRIF, but they do few things, and they belong too openly to the National Front, which undermines their credibility: S.O.S Racism knew to more or less camouflage  its connection to the Socialist Party!

At least, the Left moves: look at Act against Unemployment, ATTAC or Right to Housing, which represent 5,000 people in France! People in our circles are for order, but they are disorganized and inactive, whereas the Trotskyists, in spite of their ideology, are organized people. It is necessary to move! I am struck by the poverty of the associative activity in our camp. I repeat it, there is anti-European racism and no association really stirs itself to get it talked about!

Question: What do you think of this pro-Islamist drift that one observes in the French national Right, a drift often aroused by an anti-Americanism fed on ill-digested antisemitism?

Guillaume Faye: This drift is recognized. They confound the enemy and the adversary: the adversary is that which weakens us, that is to say the United States, the enemy is that which invades us concretely: Islam and the Third World. The funniest thing is that it is I, among others, who, in the ’70s, convinced this circle that one did not have to be deeply pro-American. All the obsessional anti-Americans of today were then pro-Americans! Giorgio Locchi and I, notably with my book Le Système à tuer les peuples [The System Against the Peoples], made Alain de Benoist topple over into anti-Americanism, who was an Americanophile before; to realize it, it is enough to re-read the numbers from before 1975 of the review Nouvelle École! Some suffer from an obsessional antisemitism, coupled with a kind of Stockholm Syndrome which makes them love the true enemy. The Muslims will not hold any liking of them for it: the French “identitarians” who perhaps admired the actions attributed to bin Laden will have their throats cut like the others! Islam is a religion of force which leads certain nationalist militants to prostrate in front of the conquering religion with the fascination of a colonized people. But even if they convert, which is already the case for some, they are always, as Occidentals, only second-class Muslims. Pro-Islamism in the nationalist Right is common enough. Plus these people are “nazis” in the most primary sense of the word, anti-Americans in the most idiotic sense of the term, and plus they are pro-Muslims, without knowing either America or Islam besides. They are fascinated by the neo-romantic illusions which they have of Islam. In circles which claim to be radical, there is an infantile reaction: these people are perhaps extremists, but not radical, because the radicals are those who go to the root of things. It is easy to tag “US go home” or “Long live bin Laden” in the subway; they risk less than if they were going to write “Islam out” in the projects.

Question: As a journalist, which judgment do you give to the sociology of the current media? Does the “politically correct” find its roots in the Third-Worldism of the ’50s and ’60s, in communist engagement, or rather in May ‘68 and the years which followed?

Guillaume Faye: It is a sequence; but I believe that it is the post-’68 period which weighed the most. Those who hold the media are people 50 years old, of my generation, who grew up in a neo-Marxist atmosphere. But one needs to know that there reigns among journalists a true Stalinist single thought: Marxism has ceded in this respect its place to Third-Worldism, then to immigrationism. To succeed socially, it is necessary to have a position which goes in the direction of the anti-[White] racist, immigrationist, and egalitarian software-ideology (as at the time of the USSR, where it was necessary to be pro-Soviet). Knowing that even people disapproving of it participate in this vulgar affair.

Everyone sees the truth in the street, everyone except the current elites, who play ostrich. Some great journalists, totally [in spite] of my ideas, signed the petitions for the “undocumented:” they explained to me that if they had refused, their career was screwed. It does not suffice not to speak of it: one must claim to be anti-[White] racist, as it was necessary to be Stalinophile in the ’50s. Charlie-Hebdo attacked Gérard Depardieu because he refused to sign! That did him no harm, because he is at the top. But a young actor would have seen his career cut short. One must know that many do not speak by conviction, but from fear: they want to be on the side of the whip hand. One must proclaim oneself anti-[white] racist, for immigration, etc. as in the nineteenth century one must go to Mass every Sunday! That means Charlie-Hebdo, directed by “old schmucks,” is the classic example of the “Stalinist rag and informer,” a “media of thought-police and collaborators,” the “freezing point of journalism.” For Europeans to have a true awakening from the conformism and ethno-masochistic blindness of our self-styled “opinion leaders,” we have need of a terrible crisis, which alone can give us the energy to defend ourselves.

From the Guillaume Faye Archive, interviewer and translator not credited.

Drehen an der Rohstoffschraube

Michael WIESBERG

Ex: http://www.jungefreiheit.de/

Manches spricht dafür, daß China derzeit auf dem Weg ist, die bisher weitgehend von den Spielregeln der USA dominierte Globalisierung auszuhebeln, um selbst die Rolle des internationalen Taktgebers für ein eigenes Modell des Kapitalismus zu übernehmen.

Jüngste Beispiele hierfür sind der Streit um das Währungsdumping der Chinesen und jetzt die Politik Verknappung des Exportes von Metallen der Seltenen Erden, die insbesondere für die westliche Hightech-Industrie von lebenswichtiger Bedeutung sind. Hier hat China eine marktdominierende Stellung inne, weil es 95 Prozent dieser Seltenen Erden abbaut. Allerdings betreibt China seit rund drei Jahren eine Drosselung des Exports, die mittlerweile auch in Deutschland zu spürbaren Engpässen führt. Laut Spiegel-Online bekommen nun erste deutsche Firmen keine Metalle für die Produktion von Hochtechnologie mehr geliefert.

China möchte mit dieser Politik der Verknappung offensichtlich erreichen, so mutmaßte zum Beispiel die New York Times-Online (NYT), daß die Produktion von Schlüsseltechnologien im eigenen Land durchgeführt wird. 

Aufbau einer „strategischen Reserve“

Gegen diese These spricht nach Ansicht mancher Beobachter, daß westliche Unternehmen darüber klagten, in China gegenüber einheimischen benachteiligt zu werden, was freilich nur ein schwaches Argument gegen die NYT-These ist. Wie dem aber auch sei: Im Kern dürfte es um den Aufbau einer „strategischen Reserve“ gehen, die es China ermöglicht, den Markt für die so umkämpften und strategisch wichtigen Metalle der Seltenen Erden zu kontrollieren. 

Dafür sprechen auch die chinesischen Aktivitäten in Afrika, insbesondere in der Krisenregion Kongo, wo Magnesium, diverse Erze, Kalisalze und Phosphate abgebaut werden. Während die EU hier noch über „humanitäre Aspekte“ sinniert, haben sich die Chinesen längst Förderrechte gesichert. Kein Zweifel: China hat den Engpaß Seltene Erden als (eine weitere) Achillesferse der westlichen Industriestaaten entdeckt und spielt jetzt gezielt seine Machtposition aus.

„Es drohen brisante Engpässe“

Ändert sich an der chinesischen Politik nichts, dann könnten die Folgen für die westlichen Industriestaaten und damit auch für Deutschland schon bald unangenehm werden. „Es drohen brisante Engpässe“, erklärte zum Beispiel der Geologe Peter Buchholz von der Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe (BGR) gegenüber Spiegel-Online. Die Produktion zahlreicher Elektroprodukte, darunter Computer- und Computermonitore, Akkus, Mobiltelefone, Rüstungsgüter, Halbleiter etc., könnte ins Stocken geraten, wenn in absehbarer Zeit keine neuen Lieferanten Seltener Erden bereitstehen.

Nun langsam sieht auch die Bundesregierung Handlungsbedarf, für die sonst der „Einsatz für Menschenrechte und die Würde jedes einzelnen Menschen“ den „Kern des Regierungshandelns der Bundesrepublik“ darstellt; so nachzulesen zum Beispiel in einem Folder von Günter Nooke, bis März 2010 Beauftragter für Menschenrechtspolitik und humanitäre Hilfe der Bundesregierung. 

Fast hundertprozentige Abhängigkeit von China

Helfen soll jetzt Rußland; aber auch mit entsprechenden Aktivitäten in den USA, Australien oder Südafrika wird die Hoffnung auf eine Verbesserung der Lage verbunden. Die größte Hoffnung aber wird auf ein Areal im grönländischen Kvanefjeld gesetzt, wo bis zu 100.000 Tonnen Seltene Erden pro Jahr abgebaut werden könnten, wie es in verheißungsvollen Prognosen heißt. Der Abbau dürfte jedoch frühestens im Jahre 2015 einsetzen.

Was bis dahin passiert und ob die Erwartungen, die mit Grönland verbunden werden, so Realität werden, steht indes dahin. Bis Ende 2011, so erklärte der bereits oben zitierte Peter Buchholz, bleibt Deutschland im Hinblick auf die Seltenen Erden bis Ende 2011 „zu fast 100 Prozent“ auf das Wohlwollen Chinas angewiesen. Daß die Bundesregierung erst jetzt auf die sich seit längerem absehbare Entwicklung reagiert, wird man ihr nachsehen müssen. Der „Einsatz für die Würde des einzelnen“ nimmt unsere Politiker eben „zu fast 100 Prozent“ in Anspruch.

Les banlieues masquent les vraies fractures françaises

Ex: http://fortune.fdesouche.com/

Quinze ans après le fameux slogan de campagne de Jacques Chirac sur la « fracture sociale », où en sont les inégalités ? Le constat du géographe Christophe Guilluy dénonce l’incapacité de nos dirigeants à pallier les inégalités territoriales.

Il y a 15 ans maintenant, Jacques Chirac emportait l’élection présidentielle grâce à une intuition que résumait non pas son indigeste premier slogan « manger des pommes » mais le second, ô combien plus politique, dénonçant la « fracture sociale ».

Pour Christophe Guilluy, rien n’a vraiment changé en 15 ans. Au contraire, d’évitement en évitement, les cassures se sont approfondies, diffusées, multipliées, comme un cancer mal soigné se métastase.

Avec « Fractures françaises », son dernier essai, dont on peut lire quelques extraits ci-dessous, le géographe dresse un constat alarmiste sur la situation des couches populaires après 20 ans de mondialisation à marche forcée. Cette fois-ci, ce sera sans cartes, mais avec en appui un sérieux paquet de statistiques.

Car il s’agit ni plus ni moins pour ce chercheur que de dénoncer l’incroyable cécité des politiques publiques, à comprendre, apprécier, mesurer les inégalités territoriales qui se sont maintenant enkystées dans ce «vieux pays». Derrière ces territoires, ce sont évidemment des populations.

Alors que les dynamiques de mondialisation, de « métropolisation », et d’émergence du multiculturalisme à l’œuvre depuis deux voire trois décennies ont ébranlé le « principe d’égalité sociale ». Les réponses apportées ont à chaque fois tapé à coté de l’objectif, mainte fois répété, rarement atteint, de maintien des principes républicains.

La banlieue occulte tous les autres territoires

 

Cet aveuglement, les politiques l’ont en partage avec nombre d’acteurs de la sphère publique. Et d’abord les médias, comme on l’a encore vu récemment avec ces journalistes du Point abusés par leur « fixeur » de Montfermeil dans leur « enquête » sur la polygamie en banlieue.

S’il est vrai que se posent dans ces espaces des questions aussi sensibles que le « vivre-ensemble », comme viennent le confirmer les travaux du sociologue Hugues Lagrange sur la sur-délinquance, cette banlieue est, selon l’auteur, désignée à tort comme une terra incognita. Guilluy rappelle l’importance des travaux académiques qui lui sont consacrés comme des milliards d’argent public qui y sont dispensés.

Le problème est que la banlieue finit par occulter tous les autres territoires. Et par ricochet, la question sociale, pour le plus grand profit d’une droite sarkozyste qui a fait de l’insécurité son fonds de commerce, avec les (non-) résultats que mesurent parfaitement les statistiques.

Pour lui, un consensus « caricatural » s’est imposé : les banlieues concentrent tous les problèmes, sous-entendu il n’y en a pas ailleurs. Dit autrement : « l’idée d’une société française divisée entre les exclus, essentiellement les minorités qui vivent en banlieue, et la classe moyenne ».

A la faveur de ce discours, qualifié de dominant, disparaît donc la question de la relégation culturelle et spatiale (les grands espaces périurbains, au-delà des banlieues) des classes moyennes et populaires. A cette montée des inégalités monétaires, et surtout d’opportunité d’ascension, tant pour les français dits de souche que pour les immigrés, répond une politique centrée sur une analyse essentiellement communautariste.

La promotion de la diversité qui en découle aboutit aux rustines de la discrimination positive, déjà en place à l’ENA ou à Sciences-Po. Pourtant, comme le note l’auteur, « si les élites sont prêtes à s’ouvrir à la diversité ethnique, peu considèrent la diversité sociale, que remettrait en cause un système dont elles bénéficient, comme une priorité ».

Ces fractures françaises dessinent un territoire en recomposition, où seuls s’imposent les problèmes de la banlieue, que résoudraient à bon compte l’émergence d’une société dite multiculturelle. De leur déni nait le mythe d’une société apaisée au sein de laquelle s’épanouirait une classe moyenne majoritaire et bénéficiaire de la mondialisation.

En fait, le chômage de masse qui s’incruste depuis 30 ans, l’abstention massive, les inégalités de revenus qui s’accroissent, ou encore le fait que les masses populaires disparaissent des écrans radar des médias, invalident totalement cette analyse.

L’ouverture massive des frontières aux biens et aux personnes, qui élargissent ces « fractures françaises » demeure un invariant, dont l’élite profite indéniablement, quitte à faire voler en éclats le modèle républicain.

———————–

Extraits du livre « Fractures Françaises », du géographe Christophe Guilluy, chez François Bourin Editeur, 19 € :

Certaines thématiques structurent plus que d’autres le discours dominant. Depuis 1990, la banlieue, les minorités et la classe moyenne occupent ainsi l’essentiel du discours des prescripteurs d’opinions et, singulièrement, de la classe politique.

À aucun moment, la question de la pertinence de ces représentations sociales et territoriales n’a été posée ; celles-ci traduisent pourtant une interprétation très idéologique des oppositions sociales.

La remise en cause des représentations sociales de la société française n’est pas un exercice «technique», ni même un débat sociologique. Cette critique des représentations courantes permet d’interroger la pertinence des discours politiques, médiatiques et culturels, et d’identifier ainsi l’une des causes majeures de la fracture entre le peuple et ses élites.

La montée de l’abstention et du « populisme » est présentée comme un rejet du politique ou des partis. Elle est en réalité l’illustration d’un décalage croissant entre la réalité et les représentations qui influencent le discours des partis politiques.

On comprend, dans ce contexte, que 67% des Français ne fassent plus confiance ni à la gauche ni à la droite et que seulement une minorité d’entre eux arrivent encore à se situer sur l’échelle gauche/droite. Comment se sentir impliqué par un débat politique essentiellement centré sur des représentations erronées de la société française ?

La crise démocratique est d’abord celle d’une grille de lecture dépassée. La question des banlieues occupe une place de choix dans cette grille. Il s’agit certainement de la thématique la plus médiatisée et certainement la plus erronée. Elle s’articule avec celle des classes moyennes.

Ces deux thèmes ne sont pourtant jamais mis en relation. La littérature consacrée aux deux sujets est abondante, mais ne montre pas comment ces questions se nourrissent l’une de l’autre. Pourtant, l’une n’existe pas sans l’autre.

Les quartiers sensibles se définissent ainsi comme des territoires désertés par les classes moyennes. L’image de ces « no-middle-class-land » s’est construite en creux, en comparaison d’une classe moyenne majoritaire et intégrée vivant sur d’autres territoires, notamment périurbains.

Cette analyse caricaturale d’une société divisée entre les « exclus » et les « petits bourgeois », entre les cités et les pavillons, a été confortée par l’émergence de la thématique des minorités. Les exclus, ceux qui se concentrent dans les quartiers sensibles, font partie des minorités visibles, les classes moyennes appartenant mécaniquement à la majorité invisible.

L’opposition d’une France des ghettos ethnicisés à une France des pavillons permet de valider l’idée d’une société structurée par un apartheid urbain et ethnique. Peu importe que les banlieues ne soient pas les ghettos américains, que la France pavillonnaire ne soit plus celle de l’ascension sociale des classes moyennes, et que, au final, cette géographie sociale n’existe pas.

Cette construction sociologique et urbaine est désormais gravée dans le marbre politique et médiatique : des territoires et des populations qui ne seront jamais des classes moyennes, face à des territoires qui, au contraire, y sont fermement arrimés.

Cette doxa « sociospatiale » n’est pas seulement une posture médiatique, elle a des conséquences idéologiques profondes. Elle permet, nous le verrons, d’accompagner en douceur l’intégration à la mondialisation libérale en rendant obsolète la question sociale et ainsi, de remplacer peu à peu l’égalitarisme républicain par un «égalitarisme multiculturel», beaucoup moins exigeant socialement.

La déconstruction du discours sur la banlieue, les minorités et les classes moyennes, vise à remettre en cause une représentation idéologique de la société française, afin de discerner les véritables dynamiques à l’œuvre dans la société et sur les territoires.

En effet, « la banlieue » n’existe pas. Il ne s’agit évidemment pas là de remettre en cause l’existence de territoires urbains où vivent les trois quarts de la population urbaine. Il ne s’agit pas non plus de nier l’évidence d’une concentration des difficultés sur certains territoires où les taux de chômage et de pauvreté sont effectivement très élevés.

Il s’agit, en revanche, de nous interroger sur la signification du surgissement dans le discours politique du « ghetto à la française ». Stigmatisée et victimisée, la « banlieue-ghetto » participe à la construction d’une représentation erronée de la société française.

Hormis le fait qu’elle empêche de poser le véritable diagnostic des quartiers sensibles, elle masque l’importance des nouvelles dynamiques urbaines et sociales. La situation des banlieues est d’abord la conséquence de l’émergence d’une nouvelle géographie sociale insuffisamment prise en compte.

Une géographie médiatique

Ainsi, pour y voir plus clair, une petite leçon de géographie sociale s’impose. La transformation des villes, les évolutions économiques, la démographie modèlent insensiblement le paysage social.

La géographie sociale est aussi le fruit d’un héritage. Les représentations des territoires sont pour partie héritées de deux périodes : celle de la révolution industrielle et celle, plus récente, des Trente Glorieuses.

La vision dix-neuvièmiste des territoires oppose les quartiers ouvriers et les régions industrielles aux quartiers bourgeois et aux régions tertiairisées. Née de la révolution industrielle, cette géographie structure encore socialement le territoire.

Une autre est venue compléter ce dispositif, celle forgée durant les Trente Glorieuses (1945-1975). Cette géographie de la « moyennisation » est celle de la France pavillonnaire. Cette France périurbaine se confond avec la France des classes moyennes en voie d’ascension sociale.

Ces géographies sociales « héritées » s’effacent peu à peu dans les années 1980, pour laisser la place à une autre représentation sociale des territoires, celle des banlieues.

Contrairement aux autres, cette géographie-là est d’abord une « géographie médiatique » : « vu à la télé », modelé au fil des ans par la puissance médiatique des images, le paysage des quartiers sensibles s’est imposé à l’ensemble des prescripteurs d’opinions, avant même d’avoir fait l’objet d’une analyse sociale et scientifique sérieuse.

L’étude des dynamiques sociales pèse en effet peu, face aux images d’émeutiers armés de Villiers-le-Bel ou du quartier de la Villeneuve à Grenoble.

Ainsi, et pour la première fois, ce ne sont plus les seuls acteurs sociaux qui modèlent et écrivent l’histoire sociale, mais les médias et plus largement les prescripteurs d’opinions. Le traitement médiatique de la question des banlieues n’aura pas seulement contribué à créer de nouvelles représentations sociologiques, il est aussi à l’origine d’une géographie sociale qui structure désormais les discours politiques.

Il est ainsi frappant de constater la rapidité avec laquelle la géographie sociale traditionnelle s’est effacée. Les territoires de la France ouvrière, industrielle, l’histoire bicentenaire des quartiers populaires des grandes villes, sans parler de la France rurale… tout cela s’est évanoui peu à peu dans les années 1980-1990, au fur et à mesure qu’émergeait l’obsession des banlieues.

Cette disparition n’est pas seulement la conséquence du passage de la société industrielle à la société postindustrielle, mais participe à un mouvement idéologique qui vise notamment à substituer la question sociale à des questions sociétales. Ce qui est vraiment en cause ici n’est pas le traitement de la crise des banlieues par les médias, mais l’utilisation politique de ce traitement.

Le « paysage médiatique » est devenu le « paysage social de référence » et le reflet de l’idéologie des élites. L’analyse de la genèse de cette représentation permet d’éclairer cette dimension idéologique.

Les urbanistes et sociologues ont l’habitude de faire démarrer la crise des banlieues et la politique de la ville en 1973. Les pouvoirs publics créent alors le premier groupe de réflexion sur les quartiers de grands ensembles de logements sociaux. Cette année de naissance est techniquement pertinente puisque l’attention portée aux grands ensembles va précéder les émeutes urbaines.

Cet acte de naissance marque une volonté, dès les années 1980, de « techniciser » et d’«urbaniser» une question qui est d’abord démographique, culturelle et idéologique. La banlieue comme « objet politique et médiatique » est née en septembre 1979, précisément dans la banlieue lyonnaise, à Vaulx-en-Velin.

Pour la première fois, des émeutes urbaines, que l’on croyait réservées aux pays anglosaxons ou à ceux du tiers-monde, venaient frapper le territoire français. Pendant plusieurs jours, les jeunes du quartier de la Grappinière multiplient les « rodéos », affrontent la police et incendient des voitures.

Pire, ces échauffourées sporadiques se multiplient et touchent d’autres communes et quartiers de la banlieue lyonnaise. Villeurbanne, notamment la cité Olivier-de-Serres, est touchée en 1980.

Un an plus tard, c’est au tour de Vénissieux et du quartier des Minguettes de subir des violences urbaines d’une rare intensité. Les politiques sont sous le choc, comme paralysés par des violences qui concernent une France qu’on ne connaît pas, celle des jeunes Français issus de l’immigration maghrébine. La banlieue, c’est d’abord une image, celle de ces jeunes Français qui défient la police.

Le choc est d’abord culturel, et non pas urbain. Ces événements seront d’ailleurs le point de départ en 1983 de la « Marche civique pour l’égalité et contre le racisme », baptisée « Marche des Beurs » par les médias, dont les revendications sont sociales et culturelles ; la question urbaine et celle des violences n’apparaissent qu’en second plan.

Le traitement médiatique et politique de ces événements modèle assez rapidement l’image-type d’un paysage angoissant, celui de grands ensembles de logements sociaux, souvent dégradés et où les violences sont récurrentes. Le discours sur l’« urbanisme criminogène » prend le pas sur la question sociale et culturelle.

La loi d’orientation pour l’aménagement et le développement du territoire définira, en 1995, ces quartiers difficiles comme des « zones sensibles se caractérisant par la présence de grands ensembles ou de quartiers d’habitat dégradés ».

Plus tard, sur un même registre, on évoquera la question de la « concentration des difficultés », l’idée étant toujours d’aborder le sujet à travers un prisme urbanistique, qui suggère qu’il existe une volonté politique de concentrer les populations issues de l’immigration maghrébine dans des ghettos.

La sur-représentation, depuis trente ans, des banlieues difficiles, non seulement dans les médias mais aussi dans le monde de la recherche, impose alors le ghetto comme le paysage emblématique de la crise de la société française. La thématique banlieusarde est désormais omniprésente.

Sur le sujet, la littérature, notamment sociologique, est prolifique. Il n’y a désormais plus un seul quartier sensible qui n’ait échappé à sa thèse, à sa recherche urbaine, plus un seul îlot qui ne vive en permanence sous l’œil d’un observatoire local ou national. On connaît tout, absolument tout de ces territoires les plus étudiés de France ; de l’immeuble à l’îlot, rien n’échappe à l’analyse.

Paradoxalement, cette attention extrême ne semble pas remettre en cause l’idée selon laquelle la banlieue resterait une « terra incognita » ; une idée très répandue, qui permet au passage de faire perdurer la production de reportages, sous prétexte d’investigations inédites ou de nouvelles recherches.

Cette attention générale impose de fait les quartiers difficiles dans l’agenda des politiques. Pour l’année 2008, le journal Le Monde avait relevé que le seul département difficile de la Seine-Saint-Denis avait ainsi enregistré 174 déplacements ministériels.

Il n’y a pas que des jeunes en banlieue, et il y a aussi des jeunes ailleurs !

On pourrait expliquer cette exploration en continu des quartiers difficiles, par l’intérêt pernicieux de médias pour des territoires qui font vendre. L’explication est un peu courte.

En réalité, cette attention médiatique est provoquée par le fantasme d’une classe dirigeante persuadée d’être face à l’apparition en France du « ghetto black américain » et d’une jeunesse rebelle issue des minorités ethniques : la France est désormais face aux jeunes du ghetto.

Problème, la banlieue française n’est pas le « ghetto black ». La jeunesse agitée et en décrochage des quartiers ne représente qu’une faible minorité des habitants.

La question de la médiatisation de cette jeunesse des banlieues pose plusieurs questions. La première tient à la réduction de la population des quartiers sensibles aux seuls jeunes, alors que la majorité de la population est composée d’adultes et de personnes âgées. Bref, les banlieues vieillissent aussi.

Les quartiers classés « sensibles » ne sont pas en effet des « fontaines de jouvence ». Sur ces territoires, le vieillissement des populations n’est jamais évoqué. Si les adultes sont invisibles, les retraités n’existent pas. La part des plus de 60 ans progresse, en fait, rapidement dans la plupart des quartiers sensibles, avec une « tendance à un rapprochement de la pyramide des âges des ZUS à celle de la France entière ».

En banlieue, il semble malgré tout que les jeunes restent toujours jeunes. On peut pourtant raisonnablement imaginer que, biologiquement, les jeunes qui ont pris part aux émeutes de 1979 à Vaulx-en-Velin ont désormais près de 50 ans. Traînent-ils encore en bas de leurs immeubles ? Brûlent-ils encore des voitures ? Plus certainement, ils ont, a priori, fondé des familles, travaillent, et, pour beaucoup, ont quitté le quartier de la Grappinière.

L’association mentale « jeunes de banlieues » est si forte, qu’il convient de rappeler une vérité qui s’applique y compris sur ces territoires : on vieillit aussi en banlieue ! Les jeunes d’aujourd’hui ne sont pas ceux d’hier et ne seront pas ceux de demain.

Rappeler cette évidence n’est pas inutile, à un moment où le jeunisme est devenu une valeur dominante et que la fascination (entre attraction et répulsion) du monde médiatique et politique pour la « jeunesse des banlieues » semble truster toute réflexion sur les autres tranches d’âge.

Le vieillissement dans le parc social est pourtant devenu un sujet de préoccupation pour l’ensemble des bailleurs sociaux. Le « papy-boom » des banlieues est en marche et le nombre de retraités pauvres, déjà en augmentation, risque de progresser très rapidement dans les prochaines années.

La réduction de la banlieue à la jeunesse tend également à imposer l’idée d’une réduction de la jeunesse à celle des banlieues.

En 2006, Jean-Louis Borloo, alors ministre de l’Emploi, de la Cohésion sociale et du Logement, déclarait qu’il fallait « bien que les Français aient en tête une chose, c’est que l’avenir du pays se joue là ». Cette affirmation pose deux problèmes.

Le premier est de considérer que 8 % de la population résume l’avenir d’un pays. Par ailleurs, si la part des moins de 20 ans est effectivement plus élevée en ZUS (30%, contre 25% en moyenne en France), elle ne cesse de diminuer depuis 1990, au profit des plus de 60 ans dont le nombre a fortement augmenté dans ces quartiers depuis vingt ans.

Le deuxième est de se persuader que la jeunesse relative des banlieues et, au-delà, des populations issues de l’immigration, pourra infléchir un processus de vieillissement qui, rappelons-le, est un processus inéluctable et quasiment mondial.

Ce discours est caractéristique de l’amnésie française qui, après avoir oublié la classe ouvrière et plus généralement les catégories populaires, est dans l’impossibilité désormais de concevoir une autre jeunesse, par exemple celle des espaces périurbains et ruraux, que celle, « vue à la télé », des quartiers sensibles.

L’affirmation selon laquelle la jeunesse des quartiers sensibles serait l’avenir de la France est évidemment généreuse, mais elle pose quelques questions de fond.

La première est qu’affirmer que les quartiers sensibles, c’est-à-dire les territoires où les violences urbaines et aux personnes sont plus fréquentes, constituent l’avenir de la France, est particulièrement anxiogène pour l’ensemble de la société.

De la même manière, considérer que les jeunes des quartiers sensibles sont emblématiques de la jeunesse issue de l’immigration, alors même qu’une minorité d’entre eux vivent dans ces quartiers, participe à la construction d’une représentation négative de l’ensemble des jeunes issus des minorités.

On le voit, la démagogie sur la « jeunesse des quartiers » se révèle contre-productive, notamment au regard de l’objectif recherché, celui de favoriser l’intégration et de promouvoir une image positive des minorités.

Cette représentation négative est renforcée par une utilisation sans modération du concept de ghetto pour décrire la réalité des banlieues françaises.

A Villiers-le-Bel, 12 000 € par habitant, près de Verdun… 11 €

En l’espace de quelques décennies, l’histoire urbaine et sociale de ces territoires a laissé la place à une représentation « à l’américaine », celle qui oppose le ghetto ethnicisé au reste de la société.

La grille de lecture de la réalité banlieusarde est fondamentalement anglo-saxonne et américaine. Le modèle du ghetto américain a été d’autant plus rapidement adopté qu’il permet d’évoquer la crise des sociétés urbaines et multiculturelles.

On peut s’étonner de la rapidité avec laquelle l’intelligentsia française, pourtant critique à l’égard du modèle anglo-saxon, a adopté une telle grille de lecture pour décrire une réalité sociale. S’il existe une Amérique racialiste qui rejette la communauté noire, la France ferait émerger une « société d’apartheid », affirme la bien-pensance. Ce discours apparaît comme une critique à peine voilée du modèle républicain et égalitaire que nous connaissons.

L’idée de la ghettoïsation « à l’américaine » suggère, en effet, que l’État républicain a déserté ces territoires. Stigmatisées, reléguées, les banlieues seraient ainsi sous-équipées et l’État y serait moins présent qu’ailleurs.

Cette affirmation ne correspond pas à la réalité. Si la permanence des difficultés sociales révèle une forme d’impuissance des pouvoirs publics, elle ne signifie pas pour autant que l’État s’est désengagé. D’ailleurs, ces territoires bénéficient le plus souvent d’une densité d’équipements publics supérieure à celle des territoires périurbains et ruraux.

C’est dans cette optique que le sociologue Dominique Lorrain a réalisé une étude comparative sur les investissements publics entre le quartier des Hautes-Noues à Villiers-sur-Marne et un quartier de la périphérie de Verdun.

Dans les deux cas, les populations concernées sont modestes et/ou précaires et les taux de chômage sont élevés. La cité des Hautes-Noues est classée « sensible », tandis que le quartier de la périphérie de Verdun n’a jamais fait parler de lui.

Première surprise, le revenu moyen par habitant du quartier sensible de Villiers-sur-Marne est de 20% supérieur à celui de Verdun. L’auteur précise par ailleurs que les équipements culturels, les services publics et les facilités de transports sont moins fournis à Verdun : il faut compter trois heures pour rejoindre la métropole nancéenne, contre vingt minutes pour rallier Paris depuis le quartier des Hautes-Noues.

Enfin, et pour faire litière de l’idée d’un abandon des quartiers sensibles, le chercheur calcule le total des investissements publics par habitant. Le programme de réhabilitation dont bénéficie le quartier des Hautes-Noues prévoit une dotation de 12 450 euros par habitant, tandis que le contrat de ville mis en place dans les quartiers de Verdun n’alloue que 11,80 euros par habitant.

Les investissements publics étaient donc mille fois plus élevés dans le quartier sensible que dans les quartiers de Verdun, pourtant socialement défavorisés !

Cet exemple, extrême, n’est certainement pas représentatif de la situation qui prévaut sur l’ensemble du territoire, mais vise, a minima, à démontrer, qu’à situation sociale égale, les pouvoirs n’ont pas choisi d’abandonner les ghettos. Au contraire, ces territoires jouissent pleinement d’une forme de discrimination positive.

L’accentuation des opérations de démolitions-reconstructions, initiées depuis 2004, confirme la poursuite de ces investissements massifs : environ 40 milliards d’euros seront investis, d’ici à 2013, pour la rénovation urbaine de ces quartiers.

La banalisation de l’« émeute urbaine »

Concernant les banlieues, la réalité des faits pèse peu face au bruit médiatique. Les relances en matière de politique de la ville ne sont pas l’aboutissement d’une pression syndicale ou d’un mouvement social, mais sont toutes consécutives à des périodes de tension ou d’émeutes urbaines médiatisées.

Sans diagnostic, sans interlocuteurs représentatifs et face à des émeutes toujours plus spectaculaires, les pouvoirs publics initient des politiques qui ne sont pas des réponses à une « demande sociale », mais d’abord une réaction à une « demande médiatique ». Les émeutes de 2005 ont, par exemple, contribué à accélérer la mise en place d’une politique de discrimination positive.

Depuis les années 1980, les pouvoirs publics réagissent aux émeutes comme s’ils étaient face à un mouvement social structuré. Cette confusion entre délinquance et revendication sociale tend à légitimer la violence.

Tout se passe comme si le système considérait l’« émeute urbaine » comme un mode d’expression sociale acceptable, destiné à remplacer une médiation traditionnelle, quasi inexistante sur ces territoires. Cette légitimation des violences participe fortement à la construction du stéréotype du jeune de banlieue.

La violence d’une minorité de délinquants est ainsi associée au mode de revendication de prédilection des jeunes banlieusards et, même, d’une majorité des habitants. Pire, l’association violence et jeunes issus de l’immigration maghrébine et subsaharienne est pour partie indirectement validée par les pouvoirs publics.

Parce qu’elles se déploient comme une réponse aux violences médiatisées, les politiques publiques sont aussi des opérations de com. Les opérations de démolitions-reconstructions entrent pour partie dans cette logique.

La question sociale, pourtant déterminante comme on l’a vu, est le plus souvent délaissée pour donner la priorité à ce qui se voit. La manne de l’argent public investi dans les banlieues bénéficie ainsi plus aux entreprises de BTP et aux agences d’architecture qu’aux habitants.

Les opérations de démolitions-reconstructions, qui entretiennent l’illusion de faire disparaître les difficultés, n’ont qu’un impact social limité. Elles donnent parfois l’opportunité à certains maires de disperser quelques familles immigrées, souvent africaines, dans des communes ou quartiers mitoyens, mais ne traitent aucune question de fond.

Le comité d’évaluation et de suivi de l’Anru a confirmé que les opérations de démolitions-reconstructions n’ont fait évoluer la population qu’à la marge puisque, dans les faits, 68% des nouvelles habitations sont construites en zone urbaine sensible (ZUS) et près de la moitié dans la même commune.

Ces opérations, souvent contestées par les habitants, représentent une forme d’apogée de la réponse politico-médiatique. Il s’agit de démontrer à l’opinion (surtout celle qui vit à l’extérieur des quartiers) que « les choses bougent » par la volonté politique. Quoi de plus médiatique qu’une démolition d’immeuble qui, de plus, permet à l’État de réaffirmer une forme d’autorité largement perdue sur ces territoires ?

Les opérations policières sont à ce titre exemplaires d’une politique «sous influence médiatique». Les services de police sont ainsi régulièrement mis à contribution dans le montage d’opérations « coup de poing », dont tous les criminologues expliquent qu’elles ne servent strictement à rien sur le plan sécuritaire.

L’absence de structures représentatives des habitants, et donc de contre-pouvoirs, laisse ainsi la place à des opérations médiatiques, peu en phase avec la réalité sociale. Ce déficit n’est malheureusement pas compensé par une représentation municipale qui, le plus souvent, n’est élue que par une fraction très minoritaire d’une population qui ne prend plus guère part aux élections.

Aux municipales de 2008, le maire de La Courneuve a été élu avec 3665 voix, ce qui représente 49% des suffrages exprimés, mais 26% des inscrits et 9,6% de l’ensemble de la population totale. Ce vide démocratique favorise, au final, le développement de politiques dont l’influence sur le réel sera faible.

Le piège de la médiatisation s’est peu à peu refermé sur la banlieue et ses habitants. Un point d’orgue a été atteint en 2005, où les « experts » invités à commenter la situation étaient le plus souvent issus du monde médiatique. Le seul fait de vivre ou d’avoir vécu en banlieue suffisait alors à rendre crédible l’« analyse ». Cette « illusion biographique » permet de crédibiliser le spectacle.

Après les rappeurs, un degré supplémentaire dans le ridicule fut atteint par la presse, qui sollicita sans retenue l’expertise du comique Jamel Debbouze. On allait enfin comprendre. Cette « pipolisation » de l’expertise de la question des banlieues parachève un processus de substitution de la question sociale et démographique, au profit de l’analyse médiatique.

Un phénomène qui touche moins d’autres territoires ou populations. Malgré leurs origines populaires, on n’a jamais demandé à Gérard Depardieu ou à Jean-Marie Bigard de commenter les délocalisations industrielles ou la dégradation des conditions de travail de la classe ouvrière.

Marianne2

(Tous les liens insérés dans cet article, l’ont été par fortune.fdesouche.com)

Red Velvet: The Neocons' New Coalition Partners

Red Velvet

The Neocons' New Coalition Partners

 

By Paul E. Gottfried

 

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

 

 

 Mary Cheney, Alex Knepper, and David Frum

Richard Spencer’s references to Alex Knepper and his erotic activities while working as David Frum’s assistant bring up what is not an isolated embarrassment. It betokens what may be a widening problem for the neoconservative camp and given the influence of the neoconservatives, for the entire authorized Right. (Fortunately our side will not be involved, since we have no more investment in the present conservative movement than we do in the Obama administration.) It is highly doubtful that Knepper’s solicitation of sexual favors, “posting many pieces on a chat site for gay teens,” began the day before yesterday. Presumably there was a cover-up going on for a while, that is, as long as Frum could keep Alex’s critics at bay. Finally despite his value as a gutter journalist, Knepper became too much of a liability to be kept any longer (pardon the double entendre), and so Frum gave him the heave ho with expressions of “regret and remorse.”

I do recall a time when those who stupidly or opportunistically tried to see the good side of their new masters assured me that the ascending neocons were “serious about family issues.” They might have sounded like a cross between Trotsky and Ariel Sharon on foreign policy; and they might have drooled incessantly over Latino immigration, the Civil Rights Act, and the memories of their anti-Stalinist Marxist favs. But when family issues came up, one could supposedly count on them. This may have been the case for a few years, but by now the old story has worn thin. On family issues, the neocons are social-cultural leftists, and it is likely they’re going to drag all their dependents and lickspittles, and particularly their Christian stooges, in the same direction.

The neoconservatives have had a cozy relation with gays for some time, a truth that can be ascertained by looking at the staff of New Criterion, the catamites of Allan Bloom, and many neocon friendships in the New York-Washington Corridor. This however is no reason to ascribe ideological positions to those who feel comfortable around gays. De gustibus non disputandum! And one can always point to the fact that truer conservatives in an earlier period showed the same erotic propensities and were often exposed by the Left for their indiscretions.

 

The difference between then and now however is that none of these earlier homosexual conservatives or their well-wishers went around legitimating alternative lifestyles. It was simply assumed that individuals, including conservatives who thought of themselves as Christians, had their failings; and it was they who would have to cope with such flaws as idiosyncratic sexual preferences. But since the early 1990s, when the Wall Street Journal began bashing Buchanan for insulting the “San Francisco Democrats,” which was taken as a coded reference to gays, the neocon camp has been keen on homosexual rights, even pushing in some well-publicized instances the institution of gay marriage.

Jonah Goldberg, David Frum, and John Podhoretz are only three of the more prominent advocates in the “conservative” communion of extending marriage to gays. And for the last ten days, we’ve been treated to one tirade after the other against New York gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino, for failing to show sufficient respect for Gay Pride parades. Paladino’s remark before a gathering of Hasidic Rabbis in Brooklyn that they should not “allow their children to be brainwashed” by those who treat homosexual relations as a norm, was perfectly appropriate. Such brainwashing goes on in our public schools incessantly; and I’m sure that Frederic Dicker of the New York Post, Charles Krauthammer on FOX, and other neocon talking heads know what Paladino said is directly related to reality.

But he is clearly not on the same page with Human Events’s “conservative of the year” in 2009, Dick Cheney. Unlike the scorned Paladino, Cheney is passionately in favor of gay marriage and showcases his lesbian daughter. While Cheney’s value as a “conservative” has more to do with his foreign policy belligerence than with his conception of marriage, indisputably his work as a gay activist has not damaged his “conservative” image. By contrast, the spunky Italian hard hat Paladino is being savaged night and day by neocons for taking the opposite position.

Earlier in the year, when every neocon celebrity came out enthusiastically for Obama’s concession to the social Left, to get rid of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays in the military, I naively assumed that the reason was the one I heard Krauthammer give: “We’re going to need the military and so why exclude anyone who wants to serve on the basis of sexual preference.” I won’t get into the arguments that could be marshaled on the other side, for example, about gay officers trying to extract favors from those with lower ranks. But presumably if I thought like a neocon, that the primary mission of the U.S. is to get repeatedly into military crusades for democracy, I might have seen Krauthammer’s point.

Unfortunately, by now the neocons, and especially the children of the founding fathers, seem to be intent on accommodating gays, that is, people they’re more likely to run into in Starbucks than their well-wishers who live in fly-over country. And I don’t blame the neocons for preferring sexually ambiguous Jewish publicists whom they meet in their own social world to the cognitively deprived goyim who hang on their every word. I might prefer the company of urbane metrosexuals to those fools who weep over Glenn Beck’s incoherent encomia to MLK.

My question is what will happen when the latest neocon move to the left becomes an authorized position in their movement. Will those who depend on neocon favors go along with the move or will there be some opposition? My prediction is as follows. The drones will fall into line, with their usual rhetorical dishonesty. Just as in the case of the transformation of the Reverend Dr. King, from a quasi-Marxist philanderer and crass plagiarizer into a conservative theologian and Augustinian Christian, gay marriage will become a new exemplification of “family values.” There is no way one could do verbal justice to the sleaziness of kowtowing movement conservatives. I still vividly recall the way The Gambler, Bill Bennett, came out for hyper-Zionist Lieberman for vice-president in 2008, after having devoted years of his life to inveighing against abortion. Supposedly Lieberman, who voted for late-term abortion, was good on “democratic values” and therefore deserved to be president. Perhaps Bennett’s sponsors threw him payola for this highly publicized endorsement.

The most breath-taking example of servility toward the neocon master class that I’ve encountered came in a book of essays by a minor art critic dealing with postmodernist academics. The book treated the violently anti-Western, anti-Christian, and anti-rational ideas of three professors at prestigious universities, all of whom, not incidentally, had conspicuously Russian Jewish names. Although the Jewish backgrounds of these postmodernists may not tell everything about their intellectual journeys, such biographical data is certainly relevant for understanding them. American Jews, like American Irish, are disproportionately on the left but the fact that the Jews go disproportionately into the academic profession may have something to do with the leftist orientation of universities. Moreover, the attraction to postmodernism, as a vehicle for deconstructing a culture that one finds oppressive to one’s ethnic group, would be understandable in a group that feels rightly or wrongly marginalized in a Christian society.

There are certainly ways of expressing this self-evident connection between leftwing postmodernism and Jewish alienation without being unduly offensive. But the author in question had no desire to bring up a taboo subject, which might have cost him a cushy post in the neocon empire. Instead he devoted the last part of his book to beating up on German straw men, which is a favorite neocon pastime, perhaps best exemplified by Alan Bloom’s rant against “the German connection” in The Closing of the American Mind. Apparently recognizably Jewish representatives of leftwing postmodernism had been reading too much Martin Heidegger and were being corrupted by the same ideas that led to the Holocaust.

Now I for one admire Heidegger’s work and, presumably unlike our art critic, I have read his Sein and Zeit several times with growing admiration. I could also never imagine myself believing any of the trash the author in question attributes to Heidegger’s philosophy of being; and I’m not sure it’s even there. And I doubt he believes his other subjects picked up their subversive thinking (or anti-thinking) from Heideggerian ontology. The neocon art critic is obviously trying to kill two birds with one stone, both aimed at pleasing his masters, savaging the goddamned Krauts, who were once ruled by Hitler, and stripping Jewish leftists of any significant Jewish association. Those who play such abject games should have no trouble recognizing gay parades and gay marriage as paradigmatic “family values.” They will be depicted as the newest stage of the Civil Rights revolution, which was a “conservative” event from Selma through Stonewall.

Paul E. Gottfried

Paul Gottfried has spent the last thirty years writing books and generating hostility among authorized media-approved conservatives. His most recent work is his autobiography Encounters; and he is currently preparing a long study of Leo Strauss and his disciples. His works sell better in Rumanian, Spanish,Russian and German translations than they do in the original English, and particularly in the Beltway. Until his retirement two years hence, he will continue to be Raffensperger Professor of Humanities at Elizabethtown College in Elizabethtown, PA.

"Porte Louise", par Christopher Gérard

« Porte Louise » par Christopher Gérard

 

Ex: http://www.polemia.com/

L’auteur a publié deux romans, Le songe d’Empédocle (2003) et Maugis (2005), dont Pol Vandromme a dit qu’ils étaient écrits « à contre-mode de la platitude littéraire d’aujourd’hui », un essai, La source pérenne (2007), « défense et illustration du polythéisme » (Marcel Conche), et un récit, Aux armes de Bruxelles (2009), « délicieuse flânerie dans un haut lieu de la civilisation du Saint-Empire » (Bruno de Cessole).

C’est encore dans la capitale belge, où il existe bien une avenue et une Porte Louise, que se situe le nouveau roman de Christopher Gérard. Son personnage principal est une femme de 51 ans, professeur, justement prénommée Louise, qui, après trente-huit ans passés à Dublin, revient à Bruxelles, sa ville natale, pour essayer de comprendre pourquoi son père y a été assassiné de trois coups de feu dans la nuit du 1er novembre 1972. Irlandais installé à Bruxelles, celui-ci, selon la police, frayait avec le grand banditisme et aurait été victime d’un règlement de compte. Mais pour sa fille qui demeure inconsolable, ce meurtre reste mystérieux et c’est pour essayer de découvrir la vérité et de « voir clair dans son passé » qu’elle revient sur les lieux du crime.

Au fil des pages de ce récit joliment et subtilement mené, nous découvrons Charlie, le père de Louise, qui, pendant la Deuxième Guerre mondiale, a vécu à Berlin où il enseignait l’anglais à l’université et animait des émissions de radio en gaélique. Dans la capitale du IIIe Reich, il a fréquenté l’entourage de Von Ribbentrop et rencontré Céline qui lui a offert un exemplaire du Voyage au bout de la nuit avec cette dédicace : « A mon frère Celte, l’énigmatique Charles ». De fait, les énigmes sur sa vie au cours de cette période sont nombreuses : que faisait-il vraiment à Berlin ? Fut-il, de 1942 à 1944, le chef de la section irlandaise de l’Abwehr ? Comment a-t-il pu quitter l’Allemagne après la chute de la capitale du IIIe Reich ? S’est-il plus tard rendu en RDA et a-t-il travaillé pour la Stasi ? Autant d’interrogations qui rendent Louise encore plus perplexe lorsqu’un Français membre de la Commission européenne lui apprend que son père a organisé un trafic d’armes pour l’IRA, via la Tchécoslovaquie. L’hypothèse de son assassinat par le KGB l’effleure un moment, mais son interlocuteur penche plutôt pour les services secrets anglais, ce que dément formellement un ancien responsable de l’Intelligence Service, Lord Pakenham. Celui-ci révèle en revanche à Louise que lui et son père ont envisagé de faire signer un traité de paix entre Allemands et Alliés après la disparition du Führer. Le distingué « Lord of the Spies » lui avoue toutefois que Charlie a été un agent des services secrets de la République d’Irlande chargé de surveiller l’IRA, ses trafics d’armes et ses contacts avec le régime nazi…

Après l’effondrement du régime hitlérien, Charlie réussit à passer en Suisse, puis regagna l’Irlande, avant de se lancer dans les affaires et de s’installer à Bruxelles. Cela ne l’empêcha pas de reprendre ses activités d’agent double au service du gouvernement de Dublin et de l’IRA. Envoyé par cette dernière à Berlin pour obtenir des armes il eut pour « honorable correspondant » un ancien collaborateur de Von Ribbentrop, devenu colonel dans la Stasi et spécialiste des affaires irlandaises…

Outre les deux principaux protagonistes du livre, Charlie et Louise, un troisième personnage occupe une place importante dans le roman. C’est le mari de Louise, l’écrivain Liam O’Reilly, celui qu’elle appelle le « cher vieux druide », fidèle aux « anciens Dieux » et à « l’Ancienne Religion des feux et des purifications, des festins et des poèmes, de l’hydromel ambré dans les coupes, du saumon sacré… » Elle lui adresse régulièrement de longues missives qui sont comme le journal de bord de son enquête.

Si, grâce à ses multiples interlocuteurs, Louise a pu retracer le parcours « ondoyant et divers » de Charlie, elle n’a pas réussi à savoir par qui et pourquoi son père a été assassiné. Une dernière tentative lui permettra-t-elle de lever le mystère ? On laissera au lecteur le soin de découvrir le dénouement de cette « ténébreuse affaire ».

En toile de fond de l’enquête de Louise et de l’existence de Charlie, Bruxelles, cette « ville improbable et attachante », apparaît comme le cœur et l’âme du roman. Tout au long des cinq chapitres qui portent chacun le nom d’une rue ou d’une place bruxelloise, on passe de l’avenue de la Toison d’or à la chaussée de Charleroi, de la porte de Namur au passage du Nord, de la rue de l’Arbre-bénit à la place de Brouckère… La quête du père et de l’identité que poursuit Louise est en effet inséparable de ses déambulations dans la capitale belge. Celle-ci a beaucoup changé, certains de ses quartiers ont disparu, d’autres se sont complètement transformés, ressemblent désormais au Bronx ou sont en voie de « créolisation accélérée » ; la population de souche est parfois minoritaire et, dans le centre-ville, on croise désormais des « mahométanes en foulard ».

Porte Louise est un roman d’espionnage plus proche de ceux de John Le Carré ou de Vladimir Volkoff que de ceux de Gérard de Villiers ou de Ian Fleming. Mais en le lisant c’est surtout au film d’Éric Rohmer, Triple Agent, que nous avons songé, éprouvant le même plaisir à la lecture de l’un qu’au visionnage de l’autre. Comme l’écriture cinématographique de Rohmer, la langue de Christopher Gérard est élégante, concise et précise. Mais il écrit aussi avec gourmandise lorsqu’il évoque une dégustation de charcuterie du Sud-Ouest arrosée de « deux fillettes de Chinon frais, légèrement fumé […] doux comme du lait » ou, dans un restaurant libanais, un plateau de mezzés avec son « hachis vinaigré de persil, d’oignons et de tomates, [son] onctueuse purée de pois chiches et [son] caviar d’aubergine au goût fumé ». Ce fin gourmet lettré n’est pas non plus dénué d’humour : tel Alfred Hitchock dans ses films, l’auteur apparaît au détour d’une page de son livre et n’hésite pas à appeler Parvulesco le commissaire européen qui officie à Bruxelles… Ici encore, jeu de miroir littérature-cinéma et clin d’œil aux happy few puisque ceux-ci n’ignorent pas que le romancier et essayiste Jean Parvulesco apparaît notamment dans le film de Jean-Luc Godard A bout de souffle sous les traits de Jean- Pierre Melville, et en personne dans L'Arbre, le maire et la médiathèque d’Éric Rohmer.

Ce roman à la fois nostalgique et allègre, où des personnages captivants traversent le labyrinthe d’une ville et de l’Histoire, est un régal pour les amoureux de vraie littérature. A la manière du « Bien joué, Callaghan », expression utilisée à plusieurs reprises dans le livre et probablement empruntée à Peter Cheney, disons pour conclure « Bien joué, Gérard » !

Didier Marc
13/10/2010

Correspondance Polémia – 21/10/2010

Carlo Michelstaedter: Far di se stesso fiamma

Carlo Michelstaedter. Far di se stesso fiamma

Fonte: fondazionecarigo.it

 

Nel centenario del suicidio apre una mostra sul giovane autore goriziano 

Il 17 ottobre 1910 un filosofo di ventitré anni muore suicida a Gorizia. Dopo pochi mesi i suoi compagni di studio pubblicano a loro spese le sue opere. Nel corso dei decenni successivi il suo nome diventa sempre più noto. Passa il secolo, passa il millennio e i testi di Carlo Michelstaedter vengono tradotti nelle principali lingue europee e pubblicati in vari continenti.
Perché le sue opere e la sua vicenda personale sono diventati materia di studi e di tesi di laurea? Perché la sua tesi di laurea, diventata poi il libro La persuasione e la rettorica, ormai è considerato uno dei contributi più originali alla filosofia del Novecento?
Credo che l’esame spietato della condizione umana di Carlo Michelstaedter riassuma in sé tutti i problemi, tutte le potenzialità di talento, creatività, immaginazione, onestà, capacità di lavoro, voglia di vivere dei giovani di questi ultimi cento anni.
Ma qual è stato il contesto, l’humus peculiare in cui si è formata la figura di Carlo Michelstaedter? Nel primo decennio del Novecento erano sorti in Europa movimenti d'avanguardia assai significativi, il cui intento di fondo era quello di contrapporsi al passato, di superarlo con nuove e rivoluzionarie visioni del mondo e della vita. Essi costruiscono il loro pensiero scoprendo e trasmettendo quella grandissima cultura europea che diagnostica e porta a effetto la crisi del sapere e della sua organizzazione. Ibsen, forse il più grande poeta di quest'intuizione nichilista del conflitto fra la vita e la rappresentazione, appare come tragico demistificatore della “megalomania della vita” – com'egli diceva – che non permette la realizzazione dell'individuo e lo rende colpevole di quest'impossibilità.
Ma che cosa sappiamo di questo giovane uomo, della sua vita, di ciò che l’ha portato al suicidio? La mostra di Gorizia, curata da Sergio Campailla, grazie anche ai molti documenti che la famiglia ha conservato, ce ne fornisce importanti testimonianze.
Suddivisa in quattro percorsi fondamentali, la mostra è composta da oltre 250 pezzi che raccontano il mistero di una vocazione esuberante e tragica attraverso una rassegna straordinaria di dipinti, schizzi, fotografie, documenti, manoscritti, edizioni, cimeli, in parte inediti.
Il percorso comincia da Gorizia, la “Nizza austriaca”, una città-giardino a misura d'uomo, circondata da dolci alture e sovrastata dal castello, sede di una comunità ebraica ristretta ma fiorente.
La seconda parte del percorso è dedicata a Firenze dove Michelstaedter frequenta l'Istituto di Studi Superiori venendo a contatto con professori famosi e colti condiscepoli. Si scoprono le prime relazioni sentimentali e amorose di Carlo, rimaste sino ad ora in ombra.
Nella terza parte il discorso ci riconduce a Gorizia dove Michlstaedter rientra definitivamente e, consegnata la tesi si laurea, il 17 ottobre 1910, si toglie la vita.
La rassegna chiude con l'esposizione dei libri provenienti dalla biblioteca di Michelstaedter e con le edizioni postume dei suoi scritti.

Carlo Michelstaedter. Far di se stesso fiamma
17 ottobre 2010 - 27 febbraio 2011
Sala Espositiva della Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Gorizia
Via Carducci, 2 - Gorizia
Orario: da martedì a venerdì 10:00 – 13:00 e 16:00 – 19:00,
sabato e domenica orario continuato 10 – 19
www.fondazionecarigo.it

 

Tante altre notizie su www.ariannaeditrice.it

Bosnie: situation figée

Bosnie : situation figée

 Bernhard TOMASCHITZ

 

Après les élections, l’immobilisme s’empare de la Bosnie.

 Les Etats-Unis et l’UE s’entêtent à vouloir imposer un Etat unitaire et multiethnique.

Le 5 octobre, la Bosnie-Herzégovine a élu un nouveau parlement et un nouveau « présidium d’Etat » mais les changements espérés par la « communauté internationale » ne se sont pas produits. Tous les partis ethniques représentant, chacun pour sa part, un des trois peuples porteurs de l’Etat bosniaque (les Bosniaques musulmans, les Serbes et les Croates) sont sortis vainqueurs incontestés des urnes. L’élection de Bakir Izetbegovic, fils du fondateur de l’actuel Etat bosniaque, Aliya Izetbegovic, au poste de représentant des Bosniaques musulmans, peut être considérée comme une surprise.

Les résultats de ces élections en Bosnie, pays qui, de facto, est un protectorat de l’UE, feront en sorte que la situation actuelle se maintiendra telle quelle. Aucun Etat « multiethnique », du type que souhaite voir advenir l’eurocratie bruxelloise, ne verra le jour dans l’immédiat et la « République serbe », qui représente une bonne moitié du pays, continuera à se défendre contre toute atteinte à ses compétences dans le cadre de la réforme constitutionnelle exigée par les Etats-Unis et l’UE. « La Bosnie-Herzégovine n’est possible que comme une fédération de républiques », a déclaré Milorad Dodik, ministre-président des Serbes de Bosnie, au quotidien « Danas » de Belgrade.  Cet homme politique serbe de Bosnie est sûr de savoir pourquoi l’Etat de Bosnie ne peut pas fonctionner. « La Bosnie-Herzégovine est une aberration née du processus de décomposition de l’ancienne Yougoslavie. Les étrangers veulent la maintenir, alors que chacun voit bien que rien n’en sortira, non pas à cause de Milorad Dodik, mais à cause de l’histoire et des circonstances que celle-ci a fait émerger et qui ont toujours existé ici ».

Mais il n’y a pas que les Serbes qui ruent dans les brancards. Au sein de la Fédération croato-bosniaque aussi, deuxième entité de l’Etat unitaire, on s’est mis à maugréer. Les hommes politiques croates réclament sans cesse la création d’une entité croate propre car ils craignent d’être minorisés par les Musulmans qui détiennent, dans la Fédération, une majorité de quatre cinquièmes. Ces craintes sont justifiées comme le montre l’élection du triumvirat constituant le Présidium d’Etat. Pour la Fédération croato-bosniaque, c’est le social-démocrate modéré Zeljko Komsic qui a été élu. Il doit son élection à une disposition technique: tous les citoyens de la Fédération croato-bosniaque peuvent élire leur membre du présidium, quelle que soit leur appartenance ethnique ; les Croates peuvent voter pour un Bosniaque musulman et vice-versa, les Bosniaques musulmans peuvent voter pour un Croate catholique. Donc Komsic doit sa réélection à des voix « prêtées » par des Musulmans. Il n’est dès lors pas étonnant que le candidat croate évincé, Dragan Covic, qui est d’inspiration nationaliste, ait déclaré qu’il allait « prendre des mesures », sans pour autant préciser quelles seraient ces mesures.

Sur le plan financier, les Croates, qui enregistrent davantage de succès sur le plan économique, subissent toutes sortes de désavantages. Avec l’argent de leurs impôts, ils doivent soutenir les Bosniaques. L’antenne locale de Mostar du parti croate HSP (Parti Croate du Droit) se plaint que les Croates, au cours des années écoulées, ont versé 4,3 milliards de « marks convertibles » (comme on appelle la devise du pays) de plus dans les caisses de la Fédération croato-bosniaque, au détriment de projets croates. « Les Croates sont plumés systématiquement et par des procédés légalement indiscutables, dans la mesure où ils sont minorisés quand il s’agit de voter », déclare l’antenne du HSP. La situation des Croates montre aux Serbes quelles seraient les conséquences d’une centralisation, avec une domination bosniaque-musulmane de l’appareil d’Etat. Au départ, pendant la guerre qui sévissait en Bosnie, l’expédient d’une Fédération avait du sens pour les Croates. « La Fédération est née au moment où les forces croates et bosniaques pouvaient espérer, ensemble, résister au défi que lançait la ‘République serbe’ en temps de guerre. Ensemble, Bosniaques et Croates formaient une masse critique suffisante pour maintenir la Bosnie-Herzégovine et empêcher toute sécession de cette ‘République serbe’ sur les plans financier, politique et même militaire », écrit un rapport récent de l’ « International Crisis Group ».

Cet « International Crisis Group » est un groupe de réflexion, financé notamment par des fondations américaines, qui sert de porte-voix à toutes les forces politiques qui veulent non seulement maintenir un Etat de Bosnie-Herzégovine, mais veulent le centraliser. Washington considère que cet Etat balkanique est un laboratoire expérimental pour un processus idéal de « Nation building », c’est-à-dire un processus qui mènera à la constitution d’un appareil d’Etat qui ne pourra fonctionner que vaille que vaille et constituera dès lors le lieu parfait pour y établir une base militaire importante afin que les Etats-Unis puissent continuer à exercer leur influence en Europe et sur l’Europe. A cela s’ajoute que tout Etat unitaire de Bosnie-Herzégovine serait automatiquement le meilleur garant imaginable dans la politique d’endiguement de la Serbie, allié important de la Russie. L’UE, pour sa part, essaie par tous les moyens d’instaurer en Bosnie son rêve de société multiethnique. La « communauté internationale », dont les seules composantes sont l’UE et les Etats-Unis, dépensent un argent fou pour parvenir à réaliser l’utopie d’une Bosnie unie. Depuis la fin de la guerre en Bosnie en 1995, plus de 14 milliards de dollars américains ont été injectés dans cet Etat balkanique qui ne compte environ que quatre millions d’habitants.

Vu les sommes énormes qui lui ont été consacrées et vu les intérêts qui sont en jeu là-bas, la Bosnie unitaire doit absolument être maintenue en vie. Par conséquent, l’ « International Crisis Group » exige une centralisation de l’Etat multiethnique de Bosnie. Car si la situation continue à empirer et que les combats politiques retardateurs de ceux qui ne veulent pas de cette centralisation se poursuivent, des « dommages irréparables dans les relations interethniques fragiles surviendraient et, ainsi, la viabilité de l’Etat serait remise en question ».

Mais la « communauté internationale », réduite à l’UE et aux Etats-Unis, et leurs caucus de réflexion omettent pourtant de prendre une alternative possible en considération : un démantèlement ordonné de la Bosnie-Herzégovine, en application du droit à l’auto-détermination des peuples, comme Washington et l’eurocratie bruxelloise l’ont accordé aux Albanais du Kosovo.

Bernhard TOMASCHITZ.

(article paru dans « zur Zeit », Vienne, n°41/2010 ; http://www.zurzeit.at/ ).  

Bernhard TOMASCHITZ:

Die AUNS will eine moderne starke Milizarmee

Der dem Verteidigungsminister aufgezwungene bundesrätliche Armeebericht 2010 tendiert auf eine neutralitäts- und verfassungswidrige Auslandkooperations-Restarmee, die sich letztlich selber abschafft.

Die AUNS will eine moderne, starke Milizarmee zur Verteidigung und zum Schutz unseres Landes

Presse-Mitteilung, 4. Oktober 2010 - Ex: http://www.asin.ch/

Der vom Bundesrat verabschiedete Armeebericht mit einer künftigen Armee von nur noch 80’000 Armeeangehörigen, wovon lediglich 22'000 Mann als Kampftruppen vorgesehen sind, erfüllt den Kernauftrag Verteidigung gemäss Bundesverfassung Artikel 58 nicht und ist damit verfassungswidrig. Die massive Aufstockung der Durchdiener und der Kontingente für Auslandeinsätze (für Afghanistan oder Schwarzafrika?) tendiert auf eine neutralitätswidrige Profi- und EU-/Nato-Kooperations-Restarmee, die im Volk keinen Rückhalt finden wird.

Die AUNS wird diesen Irrweg bekämpfen. Sie will eine moderne, starke Milizarmee auf der Grundlage einer glaubwürdigen bewaffneten Neutralität. Sie will eine Armee, die in der Lage ist, unser Land im Ernstfall zu verteidigen, unsere Freiheit und Unabhängigkeit zu wahren und unsere Bevölkerung zu schützen. Wir wollen eine einsatztaugliche Milizarmee im eigenen Land, für das eigene Land – auf den Grundpfeilern der allgemeinen Wehrpflicht und der bewaffneten Neutralität.

Beurteilung des Armeeberichts

1. Es ist richtig, dass das VBS im Sinne von Sofortmassnahmen die gravierenden Mängel, insbesondere im Bereich der Logistik, rasch behebt. Es ist untragbar, wenn für WK-Truppen oft weder genügend einsatzbereites Material (Fahrzeuge, Munition) noch genügend Betriebsstoff vorhanden ist. Für die Behebung der Mängel fordert die AUNS einen verbindlichen Zeit- und Massnahmenplan.
   
   
2. Einige Mängel des Armeeberichts 2010

• Statt vom Kernauftrag der Armee geht der Bericht von angeblichen oder tatsächlichen Bedingungen und Parametern aus (Bestandesprobleme, Finanzen, Milizverträglichkeit, Auslandeinsätze etc.). Die Palette von möglichen Aufträgen ist viel zu umfangreich und zum Teil nicht armeegerecht.
• Der Nutzen der Armee – Wahrung von Freiheit, Unabhängigkeit, direkter Demokratie, Wohlstand, Sicherheit, Stabilität (und damit auch der volkswirtschaftliche Nutzen), Schutz der Bevölkerung, Katastrophenhilfe – muss viel mehr herausgestrichen werden.
• Die Kampftauglichkeit/Verteidigungsfähigkeit wird laut dem Bericht erst nach Jahren durch „Aufwuchs“ erreicht. Dieser Aufwuchs ist eine brandgefährliche, unverantwortliche Illusion.
• Die „internationale Zusammenarbeit“ widerspricht der schweizerischen Neutralität diametral. Sogenannte Friedensförderungseinsätze im Ausland sind zu streichen. Möglich bleibt militärische Hilfeleistung über die Grenze bei Katastrophenfällen.
• Der Armeebericht 2010 ist ein Sammelsurium von unterschiedlichen Auffassungen innerhalb des Bundesrates, was unsere Armee zu leisten hat und wie sie ausgestaltet werden soll. Offenbar geistert auch in der Landesregierung immer noch die Illusion der 90er Jahre herum, wir seien „von Freunden umzingelt“ und müssten primär den Frieden im Ausland sichern oder gar erzwingen helfen. Kriege seien im Zeitalter der Globalisierung praktisch unmöglich. Mit 1000 Armeeangehörigen „dabei sein“ bei der internationalen militärischen Friedensförderungs-Euphorie ist für einige Bundesräte wichtiger als die Sicherheit und die Souveränität des eigenen Landes. Zudem ist es völlig unklar, wo diese 1000 Armeeangehörigen zum Einsatz gelangen sollen.
• Die Aufträge/“Daueraufträge“ der Armee und die dazu veranschlagten Bestände sind unrealistisch und falsch gewichtet. 80'000 Armeeangehörige insgesamt und davon 22'000 als Kampfelement (Verteidigung) sind völlig ungenügend. Wenn zudem viele zivile Objekte (Elektrizitätswerke, Kommunikationseinrichtungen, Sendeanlagen, Verkehrsinfrastrukturen, Industrieanlagen und dergleichen) gleichzeitig und allenfalls über Wochen und Monate bewacht oder überwacht werden müssen – ebenso im Fall einer Verstärkung des Grenzwachtkorps – braucht es wesentlich mehr Kampftruppen. Gut ausgebildete Kampftruppen können jeden Auftrag erfüllen. Werden die Armeebestände derart heruntergefahren, so folgt zwangsläufig der Ruf nach Militärbündnissen bzw. militärischer Auslandkooperation, was von den Internationalisten im Bundesrat auch angestrebt wird. Unsere Neutralität würde damit definitiv preisgegeben.
• Cyber War: Dringend nötige Massnahmen und Spezialisten gegen elektronische Kriegführung und zur Abwehr des Informationskrieges sind im Armeebericht nicht ersichtlich.
• Die Reformitis („die Weiterentwicklung der Armee ist ein ständiger Prozess“) muss endlich gestoppt werden. Stabilität, Konzentration auf den Kernauftrag Verteidigung sind gefragt.

Zentrale Forderungen der AUNS

1. Der Auftrag der Armee muss aufgrund der Bedrohungslage und auf der Basis von Artikel 58 der Bundesverfassung detailliert festgelegt werden. Das VBS muss hier vorangehen. Danach sind die nötigen Mittel – personell, materiell und finanziell – zu sprechen. Ein jährlicher Kostenrahmen von 4,3 Milliarden Franken (gemäss Volksabstimmung Armee XXI vom 18. Mai 2003) darf nach Ansicht der AUNS keinesfalls unterschritten werden.
   
   
2. Die AUNS will eine moderne, gut ausgerüstete, gut ausgebildete und zahlenmässig starke Milizarmee, eine Verteidigungs- und Schutzarmee, die den Verteidigungskampf im eigenen Gelände „sichtbar“ übt und beherrscht. Auch wenn wir diese Fähigkeit auf lange Sicht nicht – und hoffentlich nie – beweisen müssen, so muss der Soldat sein Handwerk dennoch beherrschen. Ein Staat, der sich der Wehrlosigkeit preisgibt und nicht willens und nicht glaubhaft in der Lage ist, sich notfalls zu verteidigen, gibt sich selbst auf, er wird erpressbar und wird früher oder später untergehen.
   
   
3. Die Hauptgefahr besteht heute eher in chaotischen Kriegen und Konflikten, die von aussen ins Land getragen werden. Denkbar und zum Teil bereits Tatsache sind moderne Bedrohungen unterhalb der Kriegsschwelle wie terroristische Aktionen, Ströme von Zuwanderern, organisierte Kriminalität, Abrechnungen unter rivalisierenden Banden, ethnische Konflikte, importierte Bürgerkriege oder Abrechnungen wegen „missliebiger“ Parteinahmen. Die Konflikte können mit Machtansprüchen, mit Öl, Wasser, Bodenschätzen, mit dem Unabhängigkeitsdrang von Minderheiten, mit religiösen und politischen Ideologien und dergleichen zusammenhängen.
   Darum braucht unser Land zusätzlich zu einer einsatzbereiten Verteidigungsarmee mit (wieder zu schaffenden) Alarmformationen einen effizienten Nachrichtendienst und eine Spezialistentruppe zur Abwehr des Informationskrieges.
   
   
4. An der allgemeinen Wehrpflicht ist ohne Wenn und Aber festzuhalten. Sie ist untrennbar mit dem Wesen unserer Miliz- und Verteidigungsarmee (und auch mit dem Prinzip „Ordonnanzwaffe zu Hause“) verbunden. Jeder Schweizer Bürger hat die Pflicht – notfalls unter Einsatz des Lebens – seine Angehörigen, unser Land, unsere Freiheit, Sicherheit und Unabhängigkeit, unsere einzigartigen Volksrechte und unsere sozialen Errungenschaften zu schützen und zu verteidigen.
   
   
5. Zur Konzentration der Kräfte auf den Kernauftrag – nach dem Grundsatz „Armee im eigenen Land – für das eigene Land“ – müssen die militärischen Auslandeinsätze gestoppt werden. Die besondere aussenpolitische Stärke der souveränen, neutralen Schweiz muss im humanitären Bereich und bei der Friedensdiplomatie zum Ausdruck kommen.

Die AUNS fordert, dass der Armeebericht 2010 in diesem Sinn überarbeitet wird. Eine EU- oder Nato-Kooperations-Restarmee, sie sich in fremde Konflikte hineinziehen lässt oder solche Einsätze zur angeblichen Rechtfertigung ihrer Existenz geradezu sucht, befindet sich auf dem Irrweg. Sie macht für den neutralen Kleinstaat Schweiz keinen Sinn und schafft sich längerfristig selber ab.

Unsere Milizarmee rechtfertigt sich nicht durch ein Sammelsurium von irgendwelchen Aufgaben im Ausland und im Inland. Sie rechtfertigt sich nur, wenn sie als letztes Mittel zur Verteidigung unserer Sicherheit und Souveränität einsatztauglich ist.

Géopolitique française

M./ "'t Pallieterke" :

Géopolitique française

Oublions un instant que la géopolitique concerne prioritairement le conflit des civilisations, le « Grand Jeu » en Asie centrale pour la maîtrise des hydrocarbures ou les ambitions de la Chine montante. L’Europe aussi peut s’avérer un théâtre aux intrigues très fines pour les amateurs de cette discipline. Et à l’intérieur de cette Europe, la France occupe une place vraiment à part.

Jetons d’abord un coup d’œil sur une carte physique de l’Europe. Oublions les frontières politiques et ne portons attention qu’aux altitudes. La première chose qui saute aux yeux, lorsqu’on examine une telle carte, c’est qu’il existe une grande plaine nord-européenne. Qui s’étend à l’est jusqu’aux steppes russes, et à l’ouest jusqu’aux Pyrénées. La caractéristique majeure de cette plaine, c’est qu’elle présente une forte concentration de rivières navigables. Et cette concentration est la plus dense au monde, nous ont calculé les spécialistes. Ce réseau fluvial et la qualité élevée des sols qu’ils irriguent ont indubitablement constitué la base première du futur niveau de vie du continent. Autre élément important à retenir : la différence entre cette réalité nord-européenne et le contexte dans lequel se trouve l’Europe du Sud. Sans aucun doute, la caractéristique la plus prégnante de la partie méridionale du continent est la présence de la Méditerranée. Au fil des siècles, depuis l’aube des temps historiques, cette mer intérieure a été des plus commodes pour transporter des marchandises de l’est vers l’ouest et vice-versa ou du nord au sud.

En fait, les deux parties du continent sont très différentes l’une de l’autre (même si on ne peut pas vraiment parler de limites fort tranchées). Les différences géographiques ont contribué à faire émerger des différences culturelles qui se repèrent en économie, en sociologie et dans la vie politique. Et que se passe-t-il lorsque l’on mêle les deux modes de vie dans un seul pays ? On obtient une nation comme la France.

Fleuves et rivières

L’Europe possède un grand nombre de fleuves et de rivières, mais celles-ci sont simultanément fort fragmentées sur leurs cours. En d’autres termes, il s’avère très difficile de les relier entre elles, même si l’on peut citer bon nombre d’exemples de canaux. Les spécialistes de la géopolitique hydrographique parlent même d’ « un modèle précis de fragmentation ». Dans cette fragmentation hydrographique et dans la difficulté à relier les cours d’eau par des canaux, les exceptions se repèrent dans certains cas, où deux rivières ne sont séparées que par une étroite bande de terre, ce qui, dans tous les cas de figure, facilite le transit. Une situation de ce type, nous la trouvons dans la zone où voisinent les vallées de la Seine, de la Loire, du Rhône et de la Garonne. Donc uniquement en France. De surcroît, le Rhône est l’un des rares fleuves européens qui se jette dans la Méditerranée tout en servant de corridor vers l’Europe du Nord.

Dans la région où coulent la Marne et la Seine, se trouve le noyau fertile de l’agriculture française. C’est notamment la région de la Beauce, que l’on appelle parfois la « grenier à blé » du pays. Au nord de cette région, nous avons Paris. Or ce nord est le talon d’Achille de la France. Partout ailleurs, le pays a des frontières naturelles : les Alpes, les Pyrénées, les mers  (Manche, Mer du Nord, Méditerranée) et l’Océan Atlantique. Le nord ne bénéficie pas d’une telle protection : c’est par là que l’on peut entrer dans le pays sans rencontrer d’obstacle. Les années 1814 et 1815, puis la guerre de 1870-71 et les deux guerres mondiales sont à ce titre des exemples historiques instructifs. La capitale, Paris, est liée à l’Océan Atlantique par la Seine. De cette façon, elle bénéficie de tous les atouts qu’offre une ouverture sur l’océan sans risquer immédiatement une invasion venue de ce côté (encore que le débarquement de Normandie de juin 1944 tend à infirmer cette règle, ndt). Le nord est donc le point faible de l’Hexagone, tant et si bien que l’on a parfois suggéré de déplacer la capitale vers le sud, pour des raisons de sécurité.

Le facteur allemand

Au fil des années, et même des siècles, les ennemis de la France ont changé, mais non pas la géopolitique française. Depuis le 19^ème siècle, Paris est obsédé par l’Allemagne (au départ par la seule Prusse). C’est bien compréhensible : chaque fois, depuis la fin de l’ère napoléonienne, le voisin de l’est semblait le plus puissant militairement et la France avait besoin d’un bon nombre d’alliés pour conjurer le danger allemand. La fin de la deuxième guerre mondiale a créé une situation intéressante. Les Britanniques ne faisaient plus le poids ; l’Espagne vivait isolée sous le régime de Franco ; les Russes se trouvaient de leur côté du Rideau de Fer et les anciennes puissances de l’Axe pouvaient désormais, sans problèmes majeurs, être incluses de force dans un projet européen. Et, de fait, l’Europe est un projet qui permet surtout à la France de « sauter plus loin que n’est longue sa perche » (comme on dit chez nous).

La fin de la Guerre Froide fut un nouveau moment charnière. Les craintes de la France ne concernaient pas vraiment l’URSS (elle n’avait pas de frontières communes avec le bloc soviétique) mais encore et toujours l’Allemagne. Or voilà que d’un coup l’Allemagne est réunifiée. Pour les élites françaises, c’est là un cauchemar : l’Allemagne va-t-elle vouloir jouer à nouveau un rôle plus indépendant ?

Malgré les très nombreux facteurs qui ont influencé l’histoire de France  —et la géographie n’en est qu’un élément parmi beaucoup d’autres—  on peut aisément déduire que le noyau de la pensée politique française est déterminé par quelques « prémisses géopolitiques ». La France est le seul pays d’Europe qui peut étendre son noyau central sans entrer en conflit avec une autre puissance. Dans la direction des Pyrénées, il existe aujourd’hui un potentiel énorme, sans qu’il ne faille outrepasser les frontières de la République. Autre prémisse géopolitique : toujours garder un œil sur l’est. La fameuse Ligne Maginot du 20^ème siècle n’a jamais été que la modernisation d’une ceinture de forteresses installées dès le 16^ème siècle. Autre prémisse : la cherche constante d’influence en dehors d’Europe. En fait, au départ, la France se suffisait à elle-même et n’avait nul besoin d’acquérir des colonies. L’aventure coloniale française n’avait pas de motivations économiques (ou très peu) mais principalement des motivations politiques. Les colonies françaises ont constitué un instrument commode contre les rivaux d’Europe occidentale. Rien ne permettait d’anticiper l’aventure coloniale : la France avait vendu la Louisiane pour pouvoir financer les guerres napoléoniennes. Plus tard, elle a laissé tomber l’Algérie, malgré qu’un million de Français ethniques y habitaient ! Dans les deux cas, l’objectif avait été de focaliser toutes les énergies sur des problèmes qui affectaient directement l’Hexagone.  Tel était l’option de base.

Pour conclure, nous évoquerons un dernier point : celui de la flexibilité pure et simple. Cette option n’est pas typiquement française : il suffit de se rappeler la manière dont Nixon s’est rapproché de la Chine. Mais seule la France a réussi à manier cette flexibilité à des hauteurs jusqu’ici inégalées. Tout au long de l’histoire, elle a scellé des accords avec l’Empire ottoman au détriment des pays européens de confession catholique. Jamais elle n’a hésité à se chercher et à se trouver des alliés parmi les entités politiques protestantes. Et cela, en des temps où la France se posait comme « fille aînée de l’Eglise ».

M. / «  ‘t Pallieterke ».

(article paru dans « ‘t Pallieterke », Anvers, 20 octobre 2010).