Hamas-Qatar: un’alleanza da 400 milioni di dollari

Palestina. Hamas-Qatar: un’alleanza da 400 milioni di dollari

Critiche per l’arrivo del sovrano nella Striscia da Anp e Israele. Per Tel Aviv ora la pace è più lontana

Matteo Bernabei

L’emiro del Qatar, Hamad bin Khalifa al Thani (in foto con Ismail Haniyeh), si è recato ieri nella Striscia di Gaza per una prima storica visita che segna definitivamente la virata politica di Hamas: dall’alleanza con la Siria e l’Iran, a quella con le ricche monarchie sunnite del Golfo. Un cambio di rotta iniziato già alcuni mesi fa con l’inaspettato trasferimento dell’ufficio politico del movimento islamico, guidato dal leader in esilio Khaled Meshaal, da Damasco a Doha. Una rottura che, secondo quanto affermato dal governo di Gaza, sarebbe dovuta allo scoppio della crisi siriana e alla presunta repressione dell’esecutivo di Bashar al Assad nei confronti della propria...

24 Ottobre 2012 : http://rinascita.eu/index.php?action=news&id=17365/  

The Pakistan-Russia Relationship: Geopolitical Shift in South and Central Asia?

The Pakistan-Russia Relationship: Geopolitical Shift in South and Central Asia?

By Stop NATO

Global Research, October 22, 2012

by Dr Rashid Ahmad Khan

The two countries have quietly been building a mutual relationship for the last few years through bilateral as well as multilateral contacts at the highest levels. Pakistan’s status as an observer state in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) has provided it with an important opportunity to have interaction with the top Russian leadership.

In June 2009, President Asif Ali Zardari participated in the SCO Summit in Yaketerinburg and met the then Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. The Russian leader was reported to have expressed a strong desire to develop closer relations with Pakistan in all important areas, including defence, investment and energy.

The establishment of close contacts between the top leadership of Pakistan and Russia and the two sides readiness to open a new chapter in their relationship is not only in the interests of the two countries, it will also serve the interests of peace, security and regional integration in two of the world’  s important regions of Central Asia and South Asia.

* *

Despite being geographically contiguous, Pakistan and Russia had remained politically distant from each other during the last six decades. The framework of the Cold War and the East-West confrontation defined the relations between the two countries during that period.

Another factor that obstructed the development of close and friendly relations between Pakistan and Russia was the latter’s insistence on looking at South Asia only through Indian eyes, ignoring Pakistan’s vital national security concerns. But the post-Cold War transformation of global politics and fast changing geo-political situation in the region following 9/11 have created new and strong imperatives for the two to come closer and enter into productive bilateral cooperation in the political, economic and security areas.

This reality was manifestly recognised in the statements by Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar and visiting Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov at a joint press talk in Islamabad earlier this month. “We are longing for better ties with Pakistan,” said Mr Lavrov; while Ms Khar termed the current millennium as “the millennium of (Pakistan’s) relations with Russia.” The visit of the Russian foreign minister has brought the relationship of the two countries to a new and historic threshold.

Pakistan has achieved significant diplomatic success by securing the Russian endorsement of its position on the peace and reconciliation process in Afghanistan. The Russian foreign minister, while talking to the media in Islamabad, had categorically said that his country was against any solution of the Afghanistan problem that is imposed from outside and is not Afghan-owned and Afghan-driven. Instead, Russia would back an indigenous peace and reconciliation process owned and led by the people of Afghanistan. Similarly, the Russian condemnation of drone attacks has strengthened Pakistan’s hands in ensuring the country’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. The Russian position on Afghanistan as articulated by Foreign Minister Lavrov during his recent visit to Pakistan is clear evidence of the greater geo-strategic convergence between Pakistan and Russia on regional issues.

The two countries have quietly been building a mutual relationship for the last few years through bilateral as well as multilateral contacts at the highest levels. Pakistan’s status as an observer state in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) has provided it with an important opportunity to have interaction with the top Russian leadership.

With the induction of a democratic government in Pakistan following the 2008 elections, the process gained momentum and the two sides took important initiatives to promote bilateral trade, economic cooperation and regional connectivity through multilateral frameworks. In June 2009, President Asif Ali Zardari participated in the SCO Summit in Yaketerinburg and met the then Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. The Russian leader was reported to have expressed a strong desire to develop closer relations with Pakistan in all important areas, including defence, investment and energy. According to some sources, Pakistan and Russia were contemplating entering into a commercial defence agreement enabling Pakistan to purchase Russian arms and weapons.

There is vast potential for the growth of bilateral cooperation between Pakistan and Russia in a wide range of areas. Since the two sides have shown a keen desire to explore new areas and strengthen already existing cooperation in multiple fields, the coming years if not months are certain to witness an expansion of cooperation between the two countries. The areas of energy, regional connectivity, infrastructure and trade are going to be the focus of these endeavours.

However, while discussing the future prospects of Pakistan-Russia cooperation in economic and other non-political areas, the political and strategic fallout of the newly-found Russia-Pakistan friendship should also be taken into consideration, particularly by Pakistan, which has to date followed a foreign policy based on a narrow regional and global perspective.

Russia, which is a successor state to a former superpower, has its own worldview. For example, despite the establishment of a strategic partnership between India and the United States symbolised by their deal on civil nuclear cooperation, and robust Sino-India trade and economic relations, Moscow still values New Delhi as a close friend and Russian relations with Pakistan will not be at the cost of the former’s relations with India. As a big stakeholder in peace and tranquillity in South Asia, the growth of the Pakistan-Russia relationship will be a further incentive for Pakistan to pursue peace and normalisation with its eastern neighbour.

The Russians have their own perspective on issues relating to militancy, terrorism and regional peace and security. They are concerned about the prospects of Afghanistan again coming under the rule of the Taliban. Although, as the statement of the Russian foreign minister in Islamabad indicated, the Russians are opposed to the permanent military presence of the United States in Afghanistan; they are frightened on the prospects of NATO failure in Afghanistan as that would lead to serious anarchy and chaos in the country. This is why they are helping ISAF in Afghanistan by allowing their supplies through Russian territory. The Russians are also very worried about the security and law and order situation in Pakistan, particularly, the presence of a large number of foreign militants from Central Asia and Chechnya. During the meeting on the sidelines of the SCO summit at Yaketerinburg in June 2009 between President Zardari and President Medvedev, the latter was reported to have called for the elimination of safe havens of terrorists in Pakistan’s tribal areas.

The establishment of close contacts between the top leadership of Pakistan and Russia and the two sides’ readiness to open a new chapter in their relationship is not only in the interests of the two countries, it will also serve the interests of peace, security and regional integration in two of the world’s important regions of Central Asia and South Asia.

The writer is a professor of International Relations at Sargodha University

Al Jazeera, la fin d’une légende

Par Réné Naba

Ex: http://mediabenews.wordpress.com/  

 

Omniprésent sur terre et sur air, l’Emir de Qatar aura été incontestablement l’homme de l’année 2011, plus fort que Mohamad Bouazizi, dont l’immolation a déclenché le soulèvement salvateur du printemps arabe, réussissant le tour de force de retourner en sa faveur le cours de la révolution arabe.

 

Mais le nouvel Air and Field Marshall du Monde arabe, dans un mouvement de balancier, aura dans le même temps, sinistré l’une des principales réalisations de son régime, la chaîne transfrontière Al Jazira, passant du rôle envié de prescripteur de l’opinion arabe, à celui moins glorieux de lanceur d‘alerte des menées anti arabes de l’Otan, faisant voler en éclat, en six mois, une crédibilité patiemment construite en quinze ans.
«On the air» d’Al Jazira, l’autocrate intronisera l’égyptien Youssef Al Qaradawi en prédicateur électronique de la mouvance islamiste panarabe et maintiendra en couveuse, en réserve de la République, le tunisien Rached Ghannouchi, les deux flotteurs des Frères musulmans en exil, qu’il fera réhabiliter par les chancelleries occidentales, en les plaçant en orbite dans la foulée du renversement du président Hosni Moubarak (Egypte) et de Zine El Abidine Ben Ali (Tunisie).

A coups de pétrodollars et d’esbroufe, amplifiée par la force cathodique d’Al Jazira, à l’époque à l’apogée de sa crédibilité, il cautionnera une intervention occidentale en Libye, réintroduisant le loup dans la bergerie, en la personne d’Abdel Hakim Belhadj, l’ancien chef des brigades islamiques de Libye et nouveau gouverneur militaire de Tripoli.

En tandem avec le roman-enquêteur français Bernard Henri Lévy, qui lui dispute la palme pour 2011, les duettistes se vivront alternativement, successivement et cumulativement comme le nouveau Rommel du désert de la Cyrénaïque et le Von Paulus de la Tripolitaine, vivant quotidiennement les épopées conjuguées de la première armée d’Afrique et de l’Afrika Korps.

Depuis la mise à mort publique du Colonel Kadhafi, en octobre 2011, l’Emir du Qatar dont l’armée compte cinq mille soldats et autant de mercenaires, commande une coalition de treize pays comprenant trois puissances atomiques alignant plusieurs centaines d’ogives nucléaires, nouveau tour de force qui le propulse au titre très envié de commandant en chef d’une mythique Africa Korps nucléaire atlantiste. Avec les encouragements et les acclamations d’une cohorte de commentateurs politiques, dont le plus en vue n’est autre que l’universitaire franco-tunisien, l’Islamologue toulousain Mathieu Guidère, nouveau venu sur la scène médiatique, de son vrai nom Moaz Goueider, par ailleurs, précepteur du propre fils du souverain à l’Ecole Saint Cyr, l’académie française chargée de former les officiers de commandement.

En 1990, le Monde arabe avait offert au Monde un Field Marshall en la personne de Khaled Ben Sultan, l’interface saoudien du général Arnold Schwarzkopf, le maitre d’œuvre de la tempête du désert contre l’Irak. Bel exploit d’un pays qui bat tous les records en matière de dépenses d’armement sans jamais livrer de guerre directe. Le propre fils du ministre saoudien se distinguera, non sur le champ de bataille, mais sur le terrain de l’intendance, prélevant une respectable commission de l’ordre de trois milliards de dollars sur les transactions visant le ravitaillement des 500.000 soldats du corps expéditionnaire occidental venus protéger le pétrole saoudien des convoitises irakiennes. .

Bel exploit d’une principauté, le Qatar, dont le quart du territoire abrite la plus importante base américaine hors Otan, celle du commandement central, le maillon intermédiaire qui assure la jonction entre l’Otan (Atlantique Nord) et l’OTASE (Asie du Sud Ouest).

Parricide, le Field Marshall pétro monarchique s’emparera du pouvoir à Doha, à la faveur d’un coup de force des paras commandos jordaniens, en 1995, accourus au Qatar pour restaurer les intérêts pétroliers lésés des compagnies britanniques. Brutus n’est pas le monopole de Rome, il en pousse à l’ombre des derricks. Prédateur à l’instar de son prédécesseur, sa réconciliation avec le principal opposant à la dynastie, Nasser al Misnad, exilé au Koweït depuis 1950, sera scellée, périnéalement, par les épousailles de l’Emir avec la propre fille de son ancien ennemi, Mozza, la ci-devant Banana princess.
Rébus de luxe pour recyclage haut de gamme, béquille financière de la France, caution arabe du plus pro israélien des dirigeants français, son plus bel exploit demeure toutefois d’avoir retourné en sa faveur le slogan révolutionnaire lancé à l’aube du printemps arabe dont la pleine saveur se retrouve dans sa formulation en arabe par inversion du mot Kadar (Destin) par Qatar:
Si le peuple veut la vie, Il importe au destin (Kadar) d’y faire droit
Si le peuple veut la vie, Il importe au Qatar d’y faire droit

Le plus zélé disciple des Etats-Unis dans la mise à l’index des Républiques arabes, la Libye puis la Syrie, se tient bien car bien tenu. Prescripteur de l’information pendant deux décennies sur le plan arabe, Al Jazira, l’alibi stratégique suprême du Qatar face à sa sujétion à l’ordre occidental, parait devoir vivre la fin de son monopole médiatique en raison des dérives dont la chaîne qatariote s’est rendu coupable, lors de la couverture des révoltes arabes de l’an 2011, particulièrement en Libye et en Syrie.
Al-Jazira, dont le nom a été forgé par référence à «Al-Jazira Al-Arabia» la verdoyante péninsule arabique, l’espace géographique regroupant les principautés pétrolières du Golfe, l’Arabie saoudite et le Yémen, l’ancienne «Arabia Felix» (l’Arabie Heureuse) des premiers temps de l’Islam, est bel et bien en effet une excroissance rebelle de l’ordre médiatique saoudien, tout comme d’ailleurs sur le plan politique Oussama Ben Laden, une excroissance rebelle de l’hégémonie saoudienne sur l’ordre domestique arabe.

La mise en place d’Al Jazira a constitué un bel exemple d’équilibrisme diplomatique du petit émirat du Qatar, face aux ambitions des protagonistes du jeu régional et la tentative de domestication de la chaîne transfrontière arabe constitue à cet égard un cas d’école.
Son lancement en 1996, l’année qui a suivi la crise d’hémiplégie qui a frappé le Roi Fahd, le grand frère saoudien dont l’Emir parricide du Qatar en prenait ombrage, répondait à trois objectifs:
-Dédouaner aux yeux de l’opinion arabe l’Emir de Qatar de la lourde tutelle occidentale qui a parrainé son parricide politique.

-Doter la principauté d’une force de frappe médiatique dissuasive en vue de marquer son territoire sur le plan énergétique au sein de la constellation des pétromonarchies du Golfe
-battre en brèche l’hégémonie saoudienne sur la sphère arabe, en prenant partiellement appui sur une équipe journalistique formée hors orbite de la censure arabe, -le service arabe de la BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation)-, victime de l’arbitraire saoudien (1).

En moins d’une décennie, Al-Jazira a rempli ses objectifs, brisant le monopole du récit médiatique détenu par les médias occidentaux depuis l’avènement de l’information de masses, il y a un demi siècle, se propulsant au rang de grand rival des grands vecteurs occidentaux, le prescripteur de l’opinion publique arabe, l’artisan du débat pluraliste au sein du monde arabe. Une promotion qui a conduit les Américains à entreprendre méthodiquement sa domestication, particulièrement depuis la guerre d’Afghanistan.
Alors que les Etats-Unis mobilisaient l’opinion internationale pour l’invasion de l’Irak et cherchaient une base de repli à leur QG saoudien, un média saoudien laisse opportunément filtrer ce jour là, sur son site Internet «Arabic news.com», une information apparemment puisée aux meilleurs sources américaines et saoudiennes annonçant «une tentative de coup d’état» contre l’Emir de Qatar Cheikh Hamad Ben Issa al-Khalifa «déjouée par les Etats-Unis». L’information laconique ne mentionnait ni les auteurs de la tentative, ni la date à laquelle elle a été déjouée. Fomentée par qui? Déjouée comment? Tentative fomentée et simultanément déjouée par le même opérateur? Coup d’état par simulation virtuelle?

Quiconque connaît le fonctionnement de la presse saoudienne, particulièrement la censure en temps de guerre, pareille information bienvenue pour la diplomatie américaine et saoudienne n’aurait jamais pu filtrer sans l’assentiment des autorités de tutelle tant saoudiennes qu’américaines. Le message sera entendu par le Qatar qui dans un geste de bonne volonté signera le lendemain un accord de coopération avec le Paraguay, une prestation de service qui serait en fait une opération de couverture pour les services américains en Amérique latine.

La pression est de nouveau mise lors de la phase finale de l’offensive américaine en Irak: le 8 avril 2003, jour de la chute de Bagdad, l’hebdomadaire américain «Newsweek» annonce à grands renforts de publicité une information sans véritable lien avec la conduite de la guerre: le lancement d’une enquête pour corruption contre le ministre des Affaires étrangères du Qatar, Hamad Ben Jassem Ben Jaber Al Thani (alias HBJ), qui aurait été impliqué dans le courtage d’une affaire d’assurances et le blanchissement subséquent de cent cinquante millions de dollars sur un compte dans les Iles Jersey (Royaume Uni). Le choix de la cible n’est pas le fruit du hasard.

Un des vieux routiers de la vie politique du Golfe, Jassem est l’inamovible ministre des Affaires étrangères du Qatar depuis 1992, c’est-à-dire lorsque l’accusation est portée, depuis 11 ans, soit un homme qui a servi les deux derniers gouverneurs, le père et le fils. Fils aîné de Cheikh Jaber Ben Hamad, ancien Emir de Qatar, Jassem a d’ailleurs joué un rôle important dans le coup d’état pro anglo saxon qui a porté au pouvoir le nouvel Emir et passe pour être un homme sensible aux intérêts des firmes pétrolières anglaises et américaines.
A la tête d’une immense fortune, qui lui vaut le titre de l’homme le plus riche du richissime Qatar, situé à un niveau très élevé du hit parade des fortunes du Golfe, Cheikh Jassem est actionnaire de la compagnie aérienne qatariote «Qatar Airways» et du fond d’investissement «Qatari Diar», dont le fils du souverain le prince Tammim, en est le président.

Membre reconnu de l’Establishment américain, Cheikh Jassem est membre associé de la prestigieuse «Brooking Institution», spécialisée dans les études géostratégiques sur le Moyen orient, à ce titre un interlocuteur régulier des dirigeants israéliens, notamment de Mme Tzipi Livni, ancien agent du Mossad et ancien ministre israélien de affaires étrangères, et à ce titre futur coordonnateur des guerres destructrices israéliennes contre le Liban (2006) et contre l’enclave palestinienne de Gaza (2008).

Effet du hasard ? Cheikh Jassem assumera un rôle de pointe dans la mise à l’index de la Syrie, à l’automne 2011, dans une opération de déroutement de la révolution arabe des rives du golfe pétro monarchique vers la frange méditerranéenne du Monde arabe.

Le choix de la cible n’était nullement anodin. Il paraissait destiné à démonter la détermination des Etats-Unis à «caraméliser» quiconque se dresserait contre leur projet, jusques y compris leurs meilleurs amis, visant à faire taire toute critique à l’égard de l’invasion de l’Irak.

 

La neutralisation d’Al Jazira, dont ils caressaient le projet de bombarder son siège central, figurait alors comme leur cible prioritaire. Curieuse information qui apparaît rétrospectivement comme un contre feux alors que le bureau d’Al-Jazira dans la capitale irakienne était de nouveau la cible de dommages collatéraux de la part de l’artillerie américaine et que des informations persistantes faisaient état de l’implication de la firme Halliburton dont Dick Cheney en était le patron avant sa nomination au poste de vice président américain, tant dans des versements de pots de vin au Nigeria et que dans la surfacturation de prestations pétrolières en Irak.

L’affaire tournera court mais le message sera entendu. Le ministre qatariote des Affaires étrangères sera blanchi, promu même premier ministre, et, dans la foulée, l’Emir de Qatar annoncera l’éviction pour des liens présumés avec le régime de Saddam Hussein du Directeur Général d’Al-Jazira, celui là même qui avait été félicité par l’ambassadrice américaine lors du repas du Ramadan. Simultanément, le correspondant d’Al Jazira à Kaboul et Bagdad, Tayssir Allouni, était traduit en justice en Espagne pour ses présumés liens avec «Al-Qaîda et un des photographes de la chaîne, Sami al Hajj, était incarcéré pendant huit ans à Guantanamo, avant de se voir confier la direction d’un centre pour la défense de la liberté de la presse.

Du travail d’orfèvrerie: Le Qatar est dédouané au regard de l’opinion arabe, Al-Jazira confortée dans sa crédibilité alors que les américains obtenaient la mise sur place d’un PC opérationnel à Doha, au grand mécontentement de l’Arabie saoudite, courroucée de l’irruption soudaine de cette petite principauté dans la «Cour des grands». Un privilège obtenu aux prix d’une lourde servitude à l’égard de son grand tuteur américain, dont l’installation sur le sol de la principauté du siège du CENT COM, le commandement opérationnel des guerres américaines en terre d’Islam (Afghanistan, Irak, Yémen, Afrique orientale), porte garantie de la pérennité du régime, de la survie de la dynastie et du maintien sous souveraineté qatariote du gigantesque gisement gazier of shore North Dome, contigu de l’Iran.

Libye, Syrie: Un coup fatal à la crédibilité d’Al Jazira et du Qatar

Dans sa stratégie d’influence, ce micro-état a jeté son dévolu sur la France, se payant biens et personnes, un lot de son personnel politique. L’amitié avec Nicolas Sarkozy a d’ailleurs permis au président français d’éradiquer toute sensibilité pro arabe au sein de l’administration préfectorale et du dispositif audiovisuel français et la promotion concomitante de personnalités notoirement pro israéliennes. Il en est de même sur le plan international.

La révolte libyenne donnera l’occasion aux deux partenaires de se livrer à un duo diplomatique à projection militaire, qui permettra à Nicolas Sarkozy de se refaire une virginité politique après le calamiteux printemps arabe, et à l’Emir de Qatar de se donner l‘illusion de jouer dans la cour des grands.

La participation conjointe de la France et du Qatar à l’instauration d’une zone d’exclusion aérienne au dessus de la Libye, le 19 mars, 2011, a permis au plus pro israélien des dirigeants français de se dédouaner aux yeux de l’opinion arabe de son soutien aux anciens dictateurs déchus, l’Egyptien Hosni Moubarak et le Tunisien Zine el Abidine Ben Ali.

Le Qatar, lui, a payé le prix fort sa participation au châtiment de la Libye. En cautionnant le dirigeant français de la Vème République le plus honni du monde arabe, son crédit en a été affecté. Son association à ces manœuvres était en fait destinée à lui donner satisfaction, en lui offrant l’occasion de venger le directeur du service photo de la chaine transfrontière Al Jazira tué lors d’une embuscade tendue par le clan Kadhafi à Benghazi.

Tout au long de cette séquence, Al-Jazira a observé une retenue à l’égard du pays hôte, qu’elle n’a jamais interrogé ni sur les implications diplomatiques et mercantiles du duo aérien franco qatariote au dessus de la Libye, quand bien même le Qatar a confirmé ainsi sa vocation de base régionale de l’armée américaine et de banque de réserve occidentale, quand bien même il a apporté sa caution à une opération occidentale, soutenant partiellement son effort de guerre en s’engageant indirectement à trouver des ressources financières à l’effort de guerre inter libyen.

Saluée comme un levier de la révolution arabe, Al Jazira a suscité la suspicion dans sa couverture de la suite des événements, focalisant quasi exclusivement sur les régimes séculiers, les Républiques arabes, particulièrement la Syrie, occultant le Bahreïn.

Le syndrome Ahmad Chalabi

Réédition d’un scénario éculé, le dispositif en vigueur à l’encontre de la Syrie a été identique à celui mis en place à propos de l’Irak, justifiant une fois de plus le constat de Pierre Bourdieu sur «la circulation circulaire de l’information», tant au Qatar, à travers Al Jazira, qu’en France, via le quotidien Libération.

Ainsi Ahmad Ibrahim Hilal, responsable de l’information sur la chaîne transfrontière qatariote, a agi depuis les combats de Syrie, il y a un an, en couple et en boucle avec son propre frère Anas Al Abda, proche du courant islamiste syrien et membre du CNT, au diapason du tandem parisien formé par Basma Kodmani, porte-parole du CNT et sa sœur Hala Kodmani, animatrice du cellule oppositionnelle syrienne à Paris et chargée de la chronique Syrie au quotidien français Libération dans une fâcheuse confusion des genres.

Ce dispositif, amplifié en France au niveau arabophone par Radio Orient, la radio du chef de l’opposition libanaise, Saad Hariri, qui plus est partie prenante du conflit de Syrie – du jamais vu dans les annales de la communication internationale- a frappé de caducité le discours médiatique occidental au même titre que le discours officiel syrien, en ce qu’il est obéré par «le syndrome Ahmad Chalabi» du nom de ce transfuge irakien qui avait alimenté la presse américaine des informations fallacieuses sur l’arsenal irakien, via sa nièce journaliste en poste dans l’une des principautés du golfe, implosant la crédibilité de l’employeur de la journaliste vedette du New York Times, Judith Miller, passée à la postérité comme étant «l’arme de destruction massive de la crédibilité du New York Times dans la guerre d’Irak».

Sous l’apparence de l’indépendance et du professionnalisme, Al Jazira a épousé les oscillations de la diplomatie qatariote, d’abord enthousiaste à l’égard de l’élan populaire arabe, plus réservée lorsque les flammes de la contestation ont atteint les rivages pétro monarchiques.

Al Jazira s’est ainsi révélée fidèle à la discrétion qu’elle avait observée auparavant à propos de la présence sur son sol de la mission commerciale israélienne. Pis, elle occultera complètement le fait significatif de la duplicité du Qatar, le manège diplomatique de Nicolas Sarkozy, le 5 Mai 2011, d’une rencontre secrète à l’Elysée entre le premier ministre israélien Benyamin Netanyahou et son homologue du Qatar, dans la foulée d’un entretien direct de Nicolas Sarkozy avec son ami israélien. L’honneur est sauf, pensait-elle, au prix de quelques aménagements avec la liberté d’expression.

A l’intention de la direction d’Al Jazira sur la visite secrète de l’Emir du Qatar en Israël pour un complément d‘information de ses téléspectateurs : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nleBzEyzoV8/

 

Signe d’un désaveu, sa couverture parcellaire du soulèvement arabe provoquera une cascade de démission au sein de sa chaîne, du jamais vu dans les annales de la communication internationale, dont certaines des figures emblématiques d’ Al Jazira, notamment Ghassane Ben Jeddo, le populaire directeur du bureau de Beyrouth, la syrienne Lona Al Chebl, le libanais Sami Kleib, auparavant, quatre présentatrices vedettes de la station dont Joummana Nammour, et dernier et non le moindre, la présentatrice vedette de la chaîne, Imane Ayyad, qui claquera la porte dénonçant le rôle trouble de sa chaine «fauteur de troubles et de désordre» dans le Monde arabe (2).

En service commandé, le directeur de l’Information, Waddah Khanfar, un islamiste gendre par alliance de l’ancien premier ministre jordanien Wasfi Tall, le bourreau des Palestiniens lors du septembre noir d’Amman en 1970, sera remercié, fusible d’un «sale» boulot (3). Et le prédicateur Youssef Qaradawi, la caution jurisprudentielle des équipées atlantistes en terre arabe, interdit de séjour en France, dommage collatéral de l’affaire Mohamad Merah, le tueur fou de Toulouse et de Montauban, en mars 2012, en pleine campagne présidentielle française.

Dans la brèche ouverte de sa crédibilité se sont engouffrés trois nouveaux vecteurs aux ambitions redoutables: «Sky Arabia», dont le lancement est prévue, en mars 2012 , à Abou Dhabi, avec la collaboration de la chaine britannique Sky GB du magnat australien Ruppert Murdoch, «Al Arab» du prince Walid Ben Talal, depuis Manama en collaboration avec la firme Bloomberg, ainsi que la chaîne «Al Mayadine» de Ghassane Ben Jeddo, l’ancien d’Al Jazira.

Au vu de ce déferlement, le golfe pétrolier paraît devrait être le théâtre tant d’une guerre médiatique que psychologique. Mais, si dans les pays occidentaux, les grands groupes de communication sont adossés à des conglomérats dépendant, dans une large mesure des commandes de l’Etat, les vecteurs transnationaux arabes sont, eux, carrément adossés à des bases militaires occidentales.

A l’exception d’ «Al Mayadine», la chaîne du dissident d’Al Jazira, Ghassane Ben Jeddo, qui «se refuse à être le porte voix de sinistres dirigeants corrompus, partisans d’intervention étrangère contre leur propre pays, ni le soufflet de l’incitation à la haine confessionnelle», toutes les chaînes transfrontières du Golfe sont, en effet, adossées à des bases occidentales: Al Jazira du Qatar au Centcom, le commandement central américain, Sky Arabyia d’Abou Dhabi, à la base aéronavale française, «Al Arab» du prince saoudien Walid à la base navale de Manama, quartier général de la V me flotte américaine de l’Océan indien…….. une singularité des pétromonarchies… sans doute la marque de leur indépendance.

«Islam des lumières versus Islam des ténèbres» dans ses diverses variantes est la ritournelle favorite du Qatar pour masquer son engagement. «La culture de la vie versus la culture de la mort», «l’axe de la modération contre l’axe de l’intolérance», dans la même veine, se révéleront, en fin de compte, comme autant de déclinaisons d’une même face, celle qui exalte la logique de la vassalité à l’ordre israélo américain, face à la contestation de la logique de la soumission.

Un enfumage conceptuel en ce que «l’Islam des lumières» cautionnait le vicieux protocole de validation d’un islam domestiqué à l’ordre israélo américain.
Arbre qui cache la forêt de la sujétion à l’ordre occidental, Al-Jazira apparaît quinze ans ans après son lancement comme l’alibi stratégique suprême de la dynastie Al Thani face à la mainmise américaine sur la souveraineté du Qatar et sur les sources de ses revenus, deux éléments qui hypothèquent lourdement et durablement l’Indépendance d’un pays faussement présenté comme non-conformiste, mais qui remplit toutefois pleinement sa mission de soupape de sûreté au bellicisme américain à l’encontre du monde arabe et musulman.
Promu désormais à la fonction de «lanceur d’alerte» de la stratégie anti arabe des pays occidentaux, Al Jazira a ainsi sinistré, en l’espace d’un semestre, sa propre réputation patiemment bâtie pendant quinze ans, et, sabordé, du même coup, son monopole des ondes panarabes. Par «le fait du prince» et le fait de son maître.

René Naba

Références

1-Le noyau originel de l’équipe d’Al-Jazira a été constitué par des vétérans du service arabe de la BBC TV réduit au chômage du fait d’une rupture de contrat saoudien avec la chaîne saoudienne orbit partenaire de la chaîne arabophone anglaise. Faisant une sérieuse entorse à sa politique générale d’information, BBC a cédé à une cour assidue de M. Khaled Ben Mohamad Ben Abdel Rahman, patron du Holding al-Mawarid. Elle s’est associée avec ce proche parent du Roi Fahd pour lancer la première chaîne de télévision d’information continue en langue arabe avec le label de la chaîne britannique et les moyens de diffusion de la firme saoudienne «Orbit». L’idylle, de courte durée, 18 mois, se brisera sur le fracas des récriminations réciproques entre deux conceptions monarchiques apparemment inconciliables.

Les Saoudiens ont d’abord imposé un prix prohibitif du décodeur de l’ordre du dix mille dollars, instaurant une sorte de censure par l’argent, puis prenant ombrage de l’hospitalité accordée par BBC TV à l’opposant saoudien en exil à Londres, Mohamad al-Massari, un physicien très populaire dans sa région d’origine, la région pétrolière de Dammam, ont abrogé le contrat, mettant sur le tapis près de deux cents employés arabophones.
En guise d’épilogue à ce psychodrame d’une alliance contre nature, l’opposant saoudien sera finalement exilé vers les Bahamas, le Royaume Uni perdra dans la foulée un contrat militaire de plusieurs milliards de livres sterling et la firme Orbit conduite à payer une pénalité de l’ordre de cent millions de dollars pour rupture abusive du contrat.

2- Pour le lecteur arabophone, ci-joint le lien sur les manipulations d’Al Jazira à propos de la couverture des évènements de Syrie. http://www.al-akhbar.com/node/44875
Ainsi que la protestation du correspondant de la chaîne au Japon, le syrien Fadi Salameh, déplorant le recours quasi systématique aux correspondances de l’opposition syrienne dans la couverture des événements dont les approximations et les intoxications ont entrainé de graves erreurs d’appréciation et surtout l’assassinat de plusieurs membres de de son village http://www.al-akhbar.com/node/61099

3- Waddah Khanfar, Natif de Djénine a épouse la nièce de Wasfi Tall, l’ancien premier ministre jordanien surnommé le «boucher d’Amman» pour sa répression des Palestiniens lors du septembre noir jordanien (1970).

Deux reproches ont pesé sur gestion de huit ans à la tête d’Al Jazira (2003-2011): sa volonté d’imposer un code vestimentaire ultra strict aux présentatrices de la chaine, en conformité avec l’orthodoxie musulmane la plus rigoureuse (ce qui a entrainé la démission de quatre journalistes femmes), ainsi que sa publication des documents confidentiels sur les pourparlers israélo palestiniens «The Palestine Paper», discréditant les négociateurs palestiniens ; ce qui a conduit le chef des négociateurs palestiniens, Saeb Oureikate, à réclamer sa démission ; de même que l’Arabie saoudite effrayée par la crainte que la large couverture des soulèvements arabes par la chaîne du Qatar n’ait des répercussions sur la stabilité des petro monarchies.

Ancien journaliste de la chaine gouvernementale américaine «Voice of America» a été propulsé à la direction de la chaîne Al Jazira par son ami libyen, Mohammad Jibril, qui appartenait au même courant islamiste que le palestinien. Propriétaire de JTrack, entreprise de média training chargée de former les dirigeants du Monde arabe et d’Asie du sud à la maitrise du langage médiatique, Mohamad Jibril a exercé des responsabilités gouvernementales au sein du Conseil National de transition libyen, lors de l’intervention atlantiste ayant entrainé la chute de Kadhafi.

Leonidas & the Spartan Ethos

Leonidas & the Spartan Ethos

By Theodore J. O'Keefe

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

The Persian rider edged his horse cautiously forward. Just ahead the coastal plain dwindled to a narrow passage between the mountains and the sea, scarcely wider than a carriage track. Somewhere within the pass, the Greeks had massed to deny the Persians entry. It was the duty of the horseman to determine the size and disposition of their forces. Xerxes, his lord, the emperor of the Persians, knew that if his troops could force the pass, which the Greeks called Thermopylae, his armies could then stream unchecked into the heart of Greece.

The scout caught his breath as he sighted the Greeks in the western end of the pass. His trepidation gave way to surprise as he looked more closely. There were only about 300 of them, arrayed before a wall which blocked further access to the pass, and they were behaving most oddly. Some, stripped naked, performed exercises, like athletes before a contest. Others combed their long, fair hair. They gave their observer no notice.

Were these the vaunted Spartans? The Persian turned his horse and rode back to the imperial camp.

Xerxes received the scout’s report with undisguised amazement. The behavior of the Greeks seemed impossible to account for. Until now his advance down the northern coast of Greece had resembled a triumphal procession. City after city had submitted with the symbolic offering of earth and water. When at last the Greeks seemed disposed to stand and fight, their most gallant soldiers, the Spartans, were conducting themselves more like madmen than warriors.

The emperor summoned Demaratus, who had been a king of the Spartans until his involvement in political intrigues had forced him to flee to the Persian court. While Xerxes listened from his golden throne, Demaratus spoke of the Spartans:

“Once before, when we began our march against Greece, you heard me speak of these men. I told you then how this enterprise would work out, and you laughed at me. I strive for nothing, my lord, more earnestly than to observe the truth in your presence; so hear me once more. These men have come to fight us for possession of the pass, and for that struggle they are preparing. It is the common practice for the Spartans to pay careful attention to their hair when they are about to risk their lives. But I assure you that if you can defeat these men and the rest of the Spartans who are still at home, there is no other people in the world who will dare to stand firm or lift a hand against you. You have now to deal with the finest kingdom in Greece, and with the bravest men.”

The year was 480 B.C. During the previous three years Xerxes had assembled what promised to be the mightiest military force the world had ever seen, drawn from every corner of his far-flung realms. Modern historians are properly skeptical of the millions of soldiers and sailors meticulously enumerated by the great historian Herodotus, and of his endless catalogs of camel-riding Arabs, trousered Scythians, and frizzy-haired Ethiopians. Nevertheless, Herodotus’ account gives dramatic expression to the feeling of the Greeks that all the numberless, swarthy hordes of Africa and Asia were advancing on them.

Ten years before, the Athenians, who had aroused the wrath of Xerxes’ father and predecessor, Darius, by aiding their Ionian Greek cousins of Asia Minor in an unsuccessful revolt against their Persian overlords, had all but annihilated a Persian punitive expedition at Marathon, a few miles from Athens. It was Xerxes’ purpose to avenge that defeat and to crush the power of the impudent Hellenes, as the Greeks called themselves, once and for all.

There was more to it than that. Xerxes was a Persian, an Aryan, of the noble Achaemenid line, descended ultimately from the same race as the Hellenes. His ancestors had ranged the mountains and steppes of Iran and Central Asia, proud and free.

But as the Persians had increased their power and then wrested the great empire of the Near East from the Babylonians, their kings had fallen prey to the power and the regalia and the idea of empire. Once the Iranian leaders had regarded themselves, and been regarded, as first among Aryan equals. Now his fellow Persians, like all his other subjects, abased themselves at Xerxes’ feet. And like his imperial predecessors, Xerxes intended to make the remainder of the known world do the same.

As the Persian army moved ponderously across the great bridges with which the emperor had joined Europe and Asia at the Dardanelles, the Hellenes hesitated. Xerxes had accompanied the exertions of his engineers with a diplomatic campaign. While his engineers built the Dardanelles bridges and dug a canal across the Acte peninsula in Thrace by which his fleet could circumvent the stormy cape, his diplomats worked to promote defeatism in Greece. Argos and Crete promised to stay neutral, and the priestess of Delphi muttered gloomy oracles of Persian conquest.

The delegates from the Hellenic city-states who gathered at the Corinthian Isthmus in the spring of 480 were at first divided as to their course of action. The Peloponnesians were for guarding only their southern peninsula, while the Athenians and their allies on the neighboring island of Euboea pressed for an expedition to the north of Greece. Eventually the congress of diplomatic representatives agreed to dispatch a joint force of Athenians and Peloponnesians to the Vale of Tempe, in northern Thessaly, which seemed a fit place to bar the Persians’ way from Macedonia into Greece.

At Tempe, to their dismay, the Hellenes found that other passes afforded the invader entry into Hellas from the north. As the Greek contingent retreated to the south, the northern Greeks abandoned their determination to resist and submitted to the Persian emperor.

As Xerxes’ forces began to advance south from Macedonia into Greece, the Greeks were thrown into something of a panic. Following their first contact with the numerically superior Persian fleet, the Greek navy fled down the straits between Euboea and the Greek mainland. Only the loss of a considerable number of the Persian ships in a storm off the Artemisian cape at the northern tip of Euboea emboldened the Hellenic fleet to sail northward to face the enemy once more. In the meantime the Athenians made plans to evacuate their population to the islands of Salamis and Aegina to the southwest.

One force remained in the field to confront the Persians with determined opposition: Leonidas, king of the Spartans, had occupied the crucial pass at Thermopylae.

The gateway from northern to central Greece, Thermopylae stretched more than four miles between the towering wall of Mt. Oeta and the waves of the Malian Gulf. At both its eastern and western extremities, the pass contracted to a narrow, easily defended pathway. For much of the intervening distance, the pass billowed out into a broader expanse. Here there were a number of thermal springs, both salt and sulfur, from which Thermopylae derived its name, which means “hot gates.”

The garrison which held Thermopylae was at first considerably larger than the 300 Spartans whom the Persian scout had glimpsed at the western entrance to the pass. Behind the wall, which the Greeks had hastily rebuilt after occupying the pass, and along the ridge of Mt. Oeta, Leonidas had stationed nearly 7000 troops. About half of them were men from Sparta’s neighbor cities in the Peloponnesus. The rest were Boeotians from Thebes and Thespiae in central Greece, or hailed from nearby Phocis and Locris.

Although their Greek allies were many times more numerous, Leonidas and his Spartan guard formed the backbone of the Hellenic defense force. In recognition of the peril attending their mission, the 300 consisted exclusively of men with living male heirs, so that names and bloodlines would be carried on if they fell. Leonidas and his men were the elite of an elite, and on their example would depend the conduct of the other Greeks at Thermopylae.

What manner of men were the Spartans, that Xerxes hesitated to pit his myriads against their hundreds?

The origins of Sparta are shrouded in the mists of Greek antiquity, but it is certain that Sparta was founded by the Dorians. The last wave of Hellenic migrants from the north, the Dorians swept their Greek predecessors, the Achaeans, westward into Attica and Asia Minor. From the time of the Dorian migrations, the traditional division of the Hellenes into Dorians, Ionians, and Aeolians begins to take shape.

The Dorians were probably more Nordic in type than the other Greek tribes. As the great classicist Werner Jaeger wrote, “The Dorian race gave Pindar [the great poet of Thebes] his ideal of the fair-haired warrior of proud descent.” As Jaeger implies, the Dorians—above all those in Sparta—placed a premium on the preservation and improvement of their native stock.

One branch of the Dorians invaded the district of Laconia in the southeastern Peloponnesus. In the words of the great historian J. B. Bury, “The Dorians took possession of the rich vale of the Eurotas, and keeping their own Dorian stock pure from the admixture of alien blood reduced all the inhabitants to the condition of subjects. . . . The eminent quality which distinguished the Dorians from the other branches of the Greek race was that which we call ‘character’; and it was in Laconia that this quality most fully displayed and developed itself, for here the Dorian seems to have remained more purely Dorian.”

The city of Sparta arose from the amalgamation of several neighboring villages along the Eurotas. The Spartans gradually came to wield political power over the other Dorians in Laconia, the so-called perioeci, who nevertheless retained some degree of self-government and ranked as Laconian, or Lacedaimonian, citizens.

Not so the racially alien helots, the pre-Dorian inhabitants of Laconia, whom the Spartans reduced to serfdom and denied all political rights. The helots bore their servitude grudgingly and threatened constantly to revolt and overthrow their masters. To contain the helots’ revolutionary inclinations, the Spartans organized periodic campaigns, containing something of the spirit of both the fox hunt and the pogrom, in which their young men were given free rein to wreak havoc and eliminate the more truculent and dangerous of their serfs.

During the eighth century, the Dorians conquered the Messenians, who had occupied the remainder of the southern Peloponnesus. A century later, they suppressed a Messenian uprising only after a long and difficult war. From that time on, constrained to manage their own helots and the unruly Messenians as well, the Spartans evolved a unique ethos involving both the preservation of their racial integrity and a comprehensive system of military education and organization.

To a greater extent than any state before or since, the Spartans safeguarded and improved their biological heritage with an uncompromising eugenics program. Marriage outside the Spartan racial community was forbidden, nor was immigration tolerated. There were penalties for celibacy and late marriage, while men who fathered several children could be exempted from standing watch at night, and even from paying taxes.

The Spartans required that the newborn be presented for inspection by officers of the state. Sickly or deformed offspring were left to die.

According to the ancient biographer Plutarch, Lycurgus, the legendary lawgiver of Sparta, made even further provisions for healthy progeny, which continued to be adhered to in classical times. After describing the chaste upbringing of young Spartans of both sexes, Plutarch continues:

After guarding marriage with this modesty and reserve, he [Lycurgus] was equally careful to banish empty and womanish jealousy. For this object, excluding all licentious disorders, he made it, nevertheless, honorable for men to give the use of their wives to those whom they should think fit, so that they might have children by them. . . . Lycurgus allowed a man who was advanced in years and had a young wife to recommend some virtuous and approved young man, that she might have a child by him, who might inherit the good qualities of the father, and be a son to himself. On the other side, an honest man who had love for a married woman upon account of her modesty and the well-favoredness of her children, might, without formality, beg her company of her husband, that he might raise, as it were, from this plot of good ground, worthy and well-allied children for himself. And indeed, Lycurgus was of a persuasion that children were not so much the property of their parents as of the whole commonwealth, and, therefore, would not have his citizens begot by the first-comers, but by the best men that could be found; the laws of other nations seemed to him very absurd and inconsistent, where people would be so solicitous for their dogs and horses as to exert interest and to pay money to procure fine breeding, and yet kept their wives shut up, to be made mothers only by themselves, who might be foolish, infirm, or diseased; as if it were not apparent that children of a bad breed would prove their bad qualities first upon those who kept and were rearing them, and well-born children, in like manner, their good qualities.

As might be gathered, the women of Sparta were regarded, first of all, as the mothers of Spartan children. The young women were educated for childbearing. They engaged in vigorous gymnastic exercises and dances, often while nude, to the scandal of the other Greeks, although the Spartan women were proverbial for their chastity. Doubtless in consequence of heredity as well as a carefully cultivated physical fitness, the women of Sparta were accounted the most beautiful in Hellas.

Despite the emphasis on their role as mothers, Sparta’s women were the freest in Greece. Indeed, they were accused of dominating the Spartan men. When Gorgo, the wife of Leonidas, was so taunted, she summed up the situation of the Spartan women succinctly: “We rule men with good reason, for we are the only women who bring forth men.”

The men of Sparta were raised to be soldiers. They left the management of commercial affairs and the trades to the perioeci and devoted themselves exclusively to the business of government and war. Each Spartan citizen supported himself from a hereditary plot of land, farmed by the helots, which could not be alienated by sale or division.

Between the ages of seven and twenty the Spartans received their soldierly training. They acquired far more than a mechanical mastery of military skills. Their instructors strove to inculcate in their cadets an absolute devotion to Sparta, the ability to endure any hardship, and an unwavering courage on the battlefield.

To keep the young men on their mettle, the Spartan training system played off the exigencies of discipline against the defiant and adventurous spirit of youth. Young Spartans were compelled to steal their food, yet subjected to severe punishment if they were caught, a seeming paradox epitomized in the story of the Spartan boy who let the fox he concealed under his cloak tear at his vitals rather than give himself away. The Spartan school was a cruel but effective one, for it caught its students up in the enthusiasm of constant challenge and danger.

When he reached the age of 20 the young Spartan became a full-fledged soldier. For the next ten years he lived the barracks life with his comrades. Allowed to take a wife, he saw her only during brief and furtive visits. In times of peace, the young men were instructors to the Spartan boys.

On his thirtieth birthday the Spartan was invested with the remainder of his civic rights and duties. Thenceforth he attended the apella, the assembly of the people, and could vote on measures proposed by the two kings or by the ephoroi, Sparta’s five-man judiciary. The Spartan could at last establish his own household, although still bound to dine in common with his peers.

The principal fare at these communal messes was a black broth much favored by the Spartans, although the other Hellenes found it hard to stomach. (After sampling it a visitor from opulent Sybarisis supposed to have exclaimed, “Now I know why Spartans have no fear of death!”)

The Spartans spiced their meals with a dry and pithy wit renowned through Hellas as much for its substance as for its sting. As Plutarch tells it, Lycurgus replied to a Spartan who had advocated democracy, “Begin, friend, and set it up in your family.” Or, as the Spartan women are supposed to have said when handing their sons their shields before they marched to battle, “With it or on it.”

Spartan law reinforced its citizens’ contempt for luxury by banning private ownership of gold and silver. The result, according to Plutarch, was that “merchants sent no shiploads into Laconian ports; no rhetoric-master, no itinerant fortune-teller, no harlot-monger, or gold- or silver-smith, engraver, or jeweler, set foot in a country that had no money; so that luxury, deprived little by little of that which fed and fomented it, wasted to nothing and died away of itself.” Like the Spartans’ wills, their coins were made of iron.

Sparta’s military life did not stifle the minds and spirits of its citizens. Early in its history Sparta was a leading center of poetry and music. Terpander and Alcman brought the lyre and lyric from Asia Minor to the banks of the Eurotas. Lame Tyrtaeus, Lacedaimon’s native son, shaped his country’s ethos with his martial songs. Choral songs and dances carried on, in which the Spartan men melodically affirmed their patriotism, and the Spartan maidens urged them on to future deeds of valor. Rightly Pindar sang of Sparta:

“Councils of wise elders here, /And the young men’s conquering spear, / And dance, and song, and joy appear.”

It was not so much the Spartans’ works of art as the Spartan ideal which won the admiration of great Hellenic thinkers such as Plato. There was something noble in the stem simplicity of the Spartan way of life. Sparta’s fundamental laws, the rhetroi, which Lycurgus was said to have received direct from “golden-haired Apollo,” were few, unwritten, and to the point. Their purpose, to mold men of character in the service of the common good, struck a responsive chord through allHellas.

It is not difficult to detect in the wistful praise the Hellenes paid to Sparta a longing for the values and uses of their Indo-European forebears. Outside of Sparta these had all too often been forgotten amid the lures of Oriental luxury, or lost forever due to mixing of Hellenic blood. The Spartans, just as they transformed the rough-hewn, wooden longhouses of their northern ancestors into gleaming Doric temples, developed from their innate, racial outlook a guide and bulwark for their state.

And, of course, it was on the battlefield that the Spartan arete, or manly excellence, found its chief expression. The Spartans asked not how many the enemy were, but only where they were. They were ignorant of surrender, but knew well how to die.

But let Plutarch speak once more: “It was at once a magnificent and a terrible sight to see them march on to the tune of their flutes, without any disorder in their ranks, any discomposure in their minds, or change in their countenances, calmly and cheerfully moving with the music to the deadly fight. Men in this temper were not likely to be possessed by fear or any transport of fury, but with the deliberate valor of hope and assurance, as if some divinity were attending and conducting them.”

Such were the men who faced Xerxes and his host atThermopylae.

Xerxes waited for four days, in the hope that the Greeks would abandon their position, as they had in Thessaly. His attempt at psychological warfare was lost on the Spartans. When a fearful Greek from the surrounding countryside informed the Spartan Dieneces that “so many are the Persian archers their arrows blot out the sun,” Dieneces was unperturbed: “If the Persians hide the sun, we shall have our battle in the shade.”

On the fifth day, seething with anger at the Greeks’ impertinence, Xerxes sent forth an assault force of Medes and Cissians, Iranian kindred to his own Persians.

Xerxes’ troops stormed the western gate to Thermopylae with a valor exceeding their skill in combat. The Spartans met and overwhelmed them in the narrow space between the rocks and the water. Well armored, wielding their long spears expertly, the Spartan heavy infantry was more than a match for the Iranians with their short swords and wicker shields. The Spartans cut them down by the hundreds at close quarters.

From a neighboring hill, seated on his throne of gold, Xerxes watched the fighting, fuming at what he deemed his soldiers’ incompetence. To bring the matter to a quick end, he ordered his elite guard, the King’s Immortals, forward to the deadly pass. Again the Spartans outfought the emperor’s men.

All at once the Spartans turned and fled, seemingly in panicky confusion. With a shout, the Immortals rushed forward in disarray. But the Spartans were all around them in an instant, and they cut the emperor’s picked troops to pieces. According to Herodotus, Xerxes, watching from his hill, “leapt to his feet three times, in terror for his army.”

The next day’s fighting went no better for the Persians. The Greek allies took turns spelling the Spartans at the western approach, and once again the Hellenes reaped a bloody harvest. As the sun set over the western mountains, the waters of the gulf lapped crimson at the heaps of Persians on the shore.

That night, as Xerxes puzzled bitterly how to break the death grip of the Greeks on Thermopylae, a traitor came forth from a local district, looking for a rich reward. The information he gave the emperor was the doom of the men of Thermopylae.

Ephialtes the Malian revealed to Xerxes the existence of a path over the hills and along the crest of Mt. Oetato the rear of Thermopylae. The path was not unknown to Thermopylae’s defenders, and Leonidas had stationed the Phocian troops along Mt.Oela’s ridge to ward off enemy attempts to flank his forces in the pass.

At dawn the next morning, the Phocians heard the sound of marching feet advancing through the fallen leaves which carpeted the floor of the oak forest below the summit of Mt. Oeta. As the Greeks sprang to arm themselves, the Immortals, their ranks reinforced, rushed up the mountainside. The Phocians retreated to the highest point on Mt. Oetaunder a hail of Persian arrows, but the emperor’s picked troops disdained to close with them. Swerving to the left, they made their way down the mountain to a point east of Thermopylae’s rear approach. The Hellenes in the pass were trapped between two Persian forces.

Leonidas learned of the threat from his lookouts along Mt. Oeta and stragglers from the Phocian contingent. He quickly took stock of the changed circumstances. It was evident to the Spartan king that the pass could not be held much longer. The Greeks to the south had need of the troops engaged in Thermopylae’s defense.

But there were other considerations. Leonidas and his 300 men were first of all Spartans. The laws and customs of their native city bade them to conquer or die at the posts assigned them, whatever the superiority of the enemy’s numbers. And there was an oracle, made known at the outset of the Persian invasion, which prophesied that Sparta or a Spartan king must fall in the coming conflict.

Leonidas dismissed the allied troops, all but the men of Thebes and Thespiae. The remainder of the Peloponnesians, as well as the Phocians and Locrians, made their way across the hills between the Persian armies, to fight again another day.

The next morning, after Xerxes had poured a libation to the rising sun, his men stormed Thermopylae from both sides. Scornful of their own lives, Leonidas and his men surged out to meet the Persians on the open ground before the narrow entrance to the pass. Godlike the Spartans swept forward, cutting a swath through the enemies’ ranks. Again they exacted a fearful toll, as the Persian officers drove their men on from the rear, making liberal use of their whips.

The Hellenes fought with reckless courage and with grim determination. When their spears splintered and broke, they fought on with their swords. Leonidas fell, and a fierce struggle raged over the body of the Spartan king. Four times the Persians were repulsed, and many of their leaders, including two of Xerxes’ brothers, were slain.

Gradually the remaining Spartans, bearing the fallen Leonidas, fell back to a small elevation within the pass. There they made a last stand. Beside them fought the brave citizens of Thespiae. The Thebans covered themselves with disgrace by throwing down their arms and submitting abjectly to Xerxes.

After a short but furious resistance, the Spartans and the Thespians were annihilated by the swarming Persian infantry. When all was still, and Xerxes walked among the dead on the battleground he had until then avoided, the Persian emperor was stricken with anger at the tenacity which Leonidas had displayed in thwarting his imperious will. He ordered the Spartan king beheaded, and his head fixed on a stake.

Once more Xerxes summoned Demaratus.

“Demaratus,” he began, “you are a good man. All you said has turned out true. Now tell me, how many men of Lacedaimon remain, and are they all such warriors as these fallen men?”

“Sire,” Demaratus replied, “there are many men and towns in Lacedaimon. But I will tell you what you really want to know: Sparta alone boasts eight thousand men. All of them are the equals of the men who fought here.”

When Xerxes heard this he paled. The memory of Demaratus’s words must have been much with him during the next few months, until Leonidas’ Spartan comrades avenged him at the climactic battle of Plataea and drove the Persian horde forever from Hellenic soil.

The Greeks erected several monuments at Thermopylae, bearing suitable inscriptions. A lion marked the spot where Leonidas perished. But it was the marker the Spartans raised to the memory of their 300 countrymen which best evokes the spirit of their people. With laconic brevity it read:

“Wanderer, if you come to Sparta, tell them there / You have seen us lying here, obedient to their laws.”

Source: Kevin Alfred Strom, ed., The Best of Attack! and National Vanguard Tabloid (Arlington, Va.: National Vanguard Books, 1984), pp. 127-130.

 

---

Article printed from Counter-Currents Publishing: http://www.counter-currents.com

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/10/leonidas-and-the-spartan-ethos/

Un testo inedito di Mariantoni

Un testo inedito di Mariantoni: il perché delle continue sconfitte dei cosiddetti movimenti “Antagonisti”

 

Ex: http://www.fascinazione.info:

 

Il testo che pubblico questa mattina è un breve saggio pedagogico, "esclusivamente scritto per B. e F", con l'invito esplicito dell'autore "a non mettere in circolazione, per nessun motivo" e la avvertenza, "serve soltanto per la vostra preparazione personale". In morte del maestro, uno dei destinatari della "lezione privata" si è sentito svincolato dalle istruzioni d'uso e me l'ha trasmesso con la preghiera di divulgarlo, in memoria dell'autore. 

 

di Alberto B. Mariantoni

 

Il principale dramma societario del nostro tempo, è che – di fronte ad un sistema politico, economico, sociale e culturale, ormai completamente antiquato, fatiscente ed inoperante (un sistema, cioè, che - non solo, non è più in grado di modificarsi o di rinnovarsi per tentare, in qualche modo, di sopravvivere, ma - non è nemmeno in condizione di scomparire autonomamente… ) – le innumerevoli e variegate forze antagoniste che ufficialmente esistono all’interno delle nostre società e pretendono combattere il sistema che le opprime, non rappresentano, in definitiva, nessuna possibile o probabile alternativa.

Non la rappresentano, in quanto sono assolutamente incapaci di abbozzare una qualsiasi intesa strategica o un qualunque modus operandi tra di loro, per facilitare o favorire l’indispensabile trapasso del vecchio sistemae tentare di collaborare (oppure – dopo averlo spazzato via – competere o rivaleggiare tra di loro, per contribuire) all’urgente, imprescindibile e doverosa edificazione o realizzazione del nuovo.

Il perché di quella loro congenita incapacità, è da ricercarsi – in massima parte – nell’assurdo ed anacronisticoancoraggio ideologico, dottrinario e politico che queste ultime continuano a volere necessariamente mantenere con le mitologie, le tradizioni, gli schemi e la prassi dei secoli precedenti.

Basti pensare, ad esempio, che le suddette forze (come d’altronde quelle che, direttamente o indirettamente, contribuiscono a mantenere artificialmente in vita l’attuale sistema) – per essere politicamente in condizione di distinguersi, definirsi e/o rivaleggiare tra di loro – utilizzano, ancora oggi, dei parametri di identificazione, catalogazione e classificazione che risalgono al 28 Agosto del 1789: il giorno in cui, cioè, nella sala dellaPalla Corda della reggia di Versailles, i deputati dell’allora Assemblea Costituente francese, per meglio facilitare il conteggio dei loro voti (a favore o contro del diritto di veto che Luigi XVIº avrebbe voluto mantenere nel contesto di quel consesso), decisero rispettivamente di schierarsi alla sinistra ed alla destra del tavolo della Presidenza!

Non parliamo, poi, della “palla al piede” ideologica (anacronistico e condizionante retaggio di all’incirca 1700 anni di colonizzazione culturale) che ognuna di quelle forze continua illogicamente e penosamente a trascinarsi dietro… nella speranza – chissà? – di giungere più facilmente e speditamente al traguardo!

Non mi riferisco, naturalmente, all’Ideologia in senso tradizionale (quel corpus culturale, cioè, che tenta di giustificare post eventum quanto una qualsiasi Societas è già stata in grado di edificare o di realizzare), ma piuttosto a quelle “Ideologie” che – a partire da soggettive ed arbitrarie “costruzioni intellettuali” e/o daschemi (religiosi, politici, economici, sociali, culturali, ecc.) preconcetti, dogmatici e statici – non solo ribaltano diametralmente i termini dell’equazione umana e dell’assetto naturale del mondo, ma pretendono intervenire ed agire sulla realtà, suggerendo e/o imponendo una visione delle cose che lascia direttamente o indirettamente credere all’uomo della strada che il reale delle sue naturali percezioni, è sempre e comunqueirreale, e che l’irreale o l’immaginario di quelle soggettive ed arbitrarie descrizioni o costruzioni intellettuali, è la vera realtà.

Conosciamo il limite di quel genere di “Ideologie”…

Le costruzioni intellettuali e/o le rappresentazioni della realtà - che per natura sono sempre riduttive e limitative del reale - pretendono sistematicamente “descrivere”, “imbrigliare”, oppure “determinare”, “modificare”, “sconvolgere” e, qualche volta, perfino “predire”, “prevedere” o “precorrere” la realtà.

Nonostante gli sforzi, però, la realtà, come sappiamo, non si lascia mai interamente descrivere, né tanto menoimbrigliare; meno ancora determinare, sconvolgere o prevedere! E se anche qualcuno di noi, per pura ipotesi, riuscisse davvero a farlo, un miliardesimo di secondo dopo, ci accorgeremmo che la realtà che abbiamo preteso individuare, focalizzare e circoscrivere non corrisponde più alla descrizione o alla rappresentazione che avevamo creduto di avere realizzato.

Panta rei… (tutto scorre) e, “mai lo stesso uomo - ammoniva Eraclito di Efeso –(544/-484) - può bagnarsi nella stessa acqua”…

Una semplice foglia che cade da un albero; un uccello che sfreccia nel cielo; un bruco che ingurgita un briciolo di gelso; un essere che nasce o uno che muore... E la realtà che ci circonda, non corrisponde più alla “realtà” che un attimo prima abbiamo avuto la pretesa di fissare o di immortalare all’interno della nostra costruzione o della nostra rappresentazione.

Una volta espressa e formulata, inoltre, anche la più allettante, fascinosa, razionale, plausibile e credibile dellecostruzioni intellettuali, non può essere nient’altro che un’ingannevole e statica “istantanea” di un esclusivo e particolare momento della realtà: una “foto polaroid”, insomma, all’interno della quale, quel nostro particolare scorcio del presente, già invecchiato dal trascorrere dei secondi, tenta invano di dare delle risposte alle eventuali problematiche dell’avvenire, utilizzando delle chiavi di lettura che, in pratica, sono già svilite o superate dalla Storia e, di conseguenza, completamente illusorie ed inefficienti, sia dal punto di vista del loro possibile impatto sulla realtà che da quello della loro effettiva e concreta capacità di intervento.

Non dimentichiamo, oltre a ciò, che in qualunque costruzione intellettuale, il reale o l’irreale della nostra percezione di ieri, resta cristallizzato, per sempre, all’interno di quella nostra descrizione.

Sarebbe, quindi, un vano esercizio ed una fallace presunzione accademica pretendere di poterlo trasporre o proiettare nel tempo e nello spazio, per farlo, in qualche modo, intervenire dinamicamente e positivamente sugli avvenimenti o sulle circostanze dell’oggi o del domani.

Come è facile dedurlo, in fine, per una visione strettamente “ideologica” della realtà, il domani è sempre e comunque ieri. Dopodomani, è ancora ieri. E dopodomani l’altro, immutabilmente ed inalterabilmente ieri: unoieri virtuale, cioè, che non solo contribuisce a deformare costantemente la nostra percezione dell’oggi e del domani, ed a falsarne sistematicamente le basi di analisi e di giudizio, ma tende soprattutto a suscitare e ad intrattenere, nella nostra psiche, ogni sorta di inutili speranze d’avvenire (ogni volta, vanamente attese ed inutilmente rincorse…), in quanto queste ultime sono incessantemente agognate o concupite con l’occhio immobile ed inespressivo di un passato, mummificato ed inoperante, che in tutti i casi non “macina” più, né potrebbe, d’altronde, essere più in grado di “macinare”…

Per individuare e capire l’altro motivo di fondo, a causa del quale le suddette forze antagoniste non riescono ad unirsi ed a concentrare i loro sforzi su un obbiettivo comune, è sufficiente analizzare la principale conseguenza che deriva dall’adozione, per per i dirigenti ed i loro militanti, di qualsivoglia tipo di costruzione intellettuale e/o di rappresentazione della realtà.

Come sappiamo, infatti, qualsiasi costruzione intellettuale e/o rappresentazione della realtà essendo, allo stesso tempo, un input ed uno stimulus (quindi, una spinta/molla/motivazione ideale ed uno stimolo pratico), ha tendenza a sollecitare l’immaginario e/o la riflessione intellettuale e/o la sensibilità spirituale e/o la ricettività/reattività emotiva di ciascuno ed a suscitare – in coloro che vi si sentono attratti e/o sedotti – l’ambizione, il desiderio e/o il bisogno/necessità di aggregarsi e di riunirsi (ipoteticamente e/o concretamente) all’interno o nel contesto di una factio, factionis, un pars, partis o una secta, ae (cioè, una fazione, un partito o una setta): quel particolare “modello associativo extra-tradizionale” che Friedrich Georg Jünger (1898–1977), nel suo Der Aufmarsch des Nationalismus (1926), designa e qualifica con il nome di Geistgemeinschaft o “Comunità della mente”.

Una Geistgemeinschaft, infatti, è semplicemente una “Comunità ideologica”.

Che cos’è una “Comunità ideologica”?

E’ un modello di società che non ha nulla a che fare o a che vedere con quello di Blutgemeinschaft (Comunità del sangue), ugualmente evocato da Jünger, né con quelli, similmente tradizionali, di Volksgemeinschaft (Comunità di popolo) e/o di Schicksalsgemeinschaft (Comunità di destino).

Inoltre, come il nome stesso lo indica, una “Comunità ideologica” è un modello di ordine/assetto societario che – indipendentemente dalla lingua, la cultura, l’origine etnico-storica, i costumi e le tradizioni particolari dei suoi possibili o probabili affiliati – tende preminentemente a scaturire ed a realizzarsi/concretizzarsi, prendendo direttamente o indirettamente spunto, ispirazione, impulso e/o giustificazione dai contenuti ideologici e/o dallematrici concettuali che emergono o si sprigionano da una costruzione intellettuale.

Una “Comunità ideologica”, in fine – in aperta rottura, opposizione e contraddizione con i vari modelli di Innata Societas esistenti o esistiti – tende caratteristicamente ad organizzarsi e ad operare sotto forma di Simulata Societas.

Che cos’è una Innata Societas?

E’ un ‘modello di società’ che – con tutte le sue possibili ed immaginabili varianti politiche, economiche, sociali e culturali interne – tende naturalmente e spontaneamente a costituirsi e ad organizzarsi, senza l’ausilio di nessun artificio o, se si preferisce, di nessuna costruzione o elaborazione intellettuale, né di nessuna finzione ideologica, politica, giuridica o amministrativa.

Che cos’è una Simulata Societas?

E’ un’imitazione o un succedaneo di Societas naturale: un “sodalizio”, cioè, che cerca di riprodurre o di mimare (oppure, di riformare, migliorare, oltrepassare o sopravanzare) la “società naturale” o “tradizionale”. Un genere di società, insomma, che – per capire il senso che io gli sto dando – può senz’altro essere paragonato ad un “gruppo umano supra-nationale” o ad un “Partito” o ad una “Setta” o ad una “Congregazione” o ad una “Confraternita”.

Quella che io chiamo Simulata Societas, infatti – per potersi realmente costituire ed organizzare; essere in condizione di esistere, di agire o di operare; e, quindi, di durare nel tempo – ha necessariamente bisogno di tutta una serie di costruzioni o di elaborazioni intellettuali, di finzioni ideologiche e di artifizi politici,sociali e culturali che non hanno (anche quando, esteriormente e apparentemente, riescono ad imitare leSocietà tradizionali…) nessuna correlazione, né attinenza, con i motivi naturali e spontanei di aggregazione umana e di coesione civile e politica che invece caratterizzano le autentiche ‘società naturali’ o, se si preferisce, quelli che io chiamo gli originari ed inossidabili modelli di Innata Societas.

Come si forma o si costituisce una Simulata Societas?

Si forma o si costituisce, a partire dall’immagine soggettiva ed arbitraria che ogni singolo affiliato riesce personalmente a costruirsi, forgiarsi o elaborarsi nella sua psiche e/o nel suo animo, a proposito di un certo numero di punti fermi o di principi conduttori che ordinariamente costituiscono la base logica e/o il fondamento ideale dell’iniziale costruzione intellettuale e/o rappresentazione della realtà a cui si fa riferimento.

Per quale ragione, dunque, non c’è, né può mai esserci unità d’intenti, né all’interno, né all’esterno, di una qualsiasi “Comunità ideologica”? Tanto meno, tra “Comunità ideologiche” contrapposte? Meno ancora, tra “Comunità ideologiche” affini?

Per la semplice ragione che i fautori o i propugnatori di Geistgemeinschaft o “Comunità della mente” hanno solitamente tendenza a credere che l’intera umanità possa essere riconducibile ad un unico “modello ideale” di uomo e/o di società: quello stesso “modello”, cioè, che ognuno di loro – senza volerlo e senza saperlo (e probabilmente, senza nemmeno accorgersene!) – si è individualmente ed autonomamente costruito o strutturato nel suo cervello e/o nel suo cuore, a partire (come abbiamo visto…) dalla frazione di immagine, soggettiva ed arbitraria, che è riuscito a focalizzare, estrapolare ed assimilare dal “modello ideale” che è ordinariamente espresso o riassunto dai termini (ugualmente soggettivi ed arbitrari) della costruzione intellettuale che lo descrive, lo presenta o lo lascia intuire.

Quel “modello”, se vogliamo, può al massimo corrispondere alle tendenze, preferenze e/o predisposizioni di chi se lo è soggettivamente costruito o strutturato, e trovare esclusivamente riscontro presso coloro che sono stati illusoriamente persuasi o si sono intellettualmente e/o spiritualmente e/o emotivamente auto-convinti di potervi in qualche modo coincidere, collimare o concordare.

Essendo, però, ottenebrati e fuorviati da quella loro paradossale convinzione (Il fatto, cioè, di essere persuasi che l’intera umanità possa essere riconducibile ad un unico “modello ideale” di uomo e/o di società…), i suddetti fautori o propugnatori sono costantemente ed erroneamente portati a credere che sia più facile, opportuno e/o fecondo – per tentare di “salvare il mondo” o, semplicemente, per cercare di poterlo “cambiare” o “modificare”… – di associarsi unicamente (ciò che, in definitiva, è soltanto una grossolana e flagrante contraddizione in termini!) con i loro “uguali” o con delle persone che ufficialmente affermano di avere le loro “stesse convinzioni” o formalmente pretendono “pensarla allo stesso modo”.

Ora, siccome ogni essere umano è, e resta, unico, originale ed irripetibile – e per giunta quot homines, tot sententiae (tanti uomini, altrettante opinioni) – diventa praticamente inevitabile che all’interno di quelle particolari Comunitas – anche sforzandosi o facendo finta di credere che i possibili o prevedibili adepti della medesima concezione/ interpretazione/ rappresentazione possano realmente pensarla allo stesso modo – un’effettiva e concreta concordanza di opinioni, è quasi sempre improbabile o, quanto meno, estremamente difficile da ottenere o da realizzare.

Non tenendo in considerazione il fatto che ogni uomo è unico, originale ed irripetibile – quindi, potenzialmente complementare – i responsabili delle diverse e variegate forze antagoniste che esistono all’interno delle nostre società, pretendono puerilmente omologare il pensiero e l’azione dell’insieme dei loro adepti, forzandoli ad identificarsi al “modello” personale che essi stessi si sono soggettivamente ed arbitrariamente forgiato o strutturato.

Risultato: chi non la pensa ed agisce esattamente come il “Capo” e/o i suoi “tirapiedi”, è il nemico da avversare e da combattere. Quindi, in definitiva, da marginalizzare o da espellere. Insomma: da eliminare.

Inoltre, tenuto conto del fatto che nessuno al mondo, a causa dell’anzidetta peculiarità umana (il fatto, cioè, che ogni uomo è unico, originale ed irripetibile), può realmente ergersi a modello ideologico per altri suoi simili, né tanto meno riuscire effettivamente a coincidere, collimare o concordare con nessun tipo di “modello ideologico”, meno ancora arrivare intellettualmente e/o spiritualmente e/o emotivamente a corrispondere o a rassomigliare ad altri essere umani, il rapporto quotidiano tra correligionari di una medesima “Comunità ideologica” si riduce quasi sempre ad essere un’ipocrita e/o psico-drammatica relazione di illusoria o simulata collaborazione o cooperazione. E nel migliore dei casi: una continua, costante e snervante guerra di logoramento o un “muro contro muro” di rapporti di forza tra membri maggioritari e minoritari di una medesima, invivibile ed insostenibile conventio ad excludendum.

Che cos’è una conventio ad excludendum?

Letteralmente: è un’assemblea, un’adunanza o un raduno per escludere.

E’ un concetto di società, cioè, che è diametralmente antitetico e contrapposto a quello espresso o manifestato da qualsiasi genere di società tradizionale o Innata Societas, dove la tendenza è piuttosto alla conventio ad consociandum (assemblea, adunanza o raduno per consociare o riunire) o addirittura alla coniunctio oppositorum o alla coincidentia oppositorum (convergenza degli opposti o unione dei contrari; qualcosa, cioè, che mette in risalto la complementarità di ognuno). Qualcosa, cioè, che, per estensione, tende al “superamento degli opposti”, così come aveva fatto notare Nicolas de Cues o Nikolaus Krebs (1401-1464) e largamente approfondito e dimostrato, in seguito, Mircea Éliade (principalmente in: Méphistophélès et l'androgyne, Collection "Idées", No. 435, Gallimard, Paris, 1962).

E’ la ragione per la quale, i responsabili di “Comunità ideologiche” (nel nostro caso: i vari “capi” e “capetti”, “duci” e “ducetti” delle innumerevoli e variegate forze antagoniste che ufficialmente esistono all’interno delle nostre società) – per cercare di evitare, attenuare o contenere il continuo e costante frazionamento e/o l’ineluttabile atomizzazione/scomposizione centrifuga dei loro ranghi – tendono prioritariamente a concentrare l’attenzione dei loro affiliati sugli eventuali nemici interni o esterni (reali o immaginari) che potrebbero minacciare o rimettere in discussione le presupposte credenze comuni e/o la congetturata unità del gruppo.Ed invece di facilitare o di favorire un franco e spassionato dibattito sulle reali problematiche che affliggono le nostre società e trovare tutti insieme le più consone o adeguate soluzioni, preferiscono essenzialmente mettere l’accento su una serie di standard di identificazione esterna (un certo tipo di camicia, un certo tipo di saluto, di distintivo, di bandiera, ecc.) che – resi indispensabili ed imprescindibili – tendono a sostituire o a rimpiazzare quei legami naturali che, in linea di massima, gli ordinari adepti o membri di Geistgemeinschaft o “Comunità della mente” non posseggono, né sono o saranno mai in grado di auto-costituirsi o di auto-strutturarsi.

 

CIAO, ALBERTO

CIAO, ALBERTO

Oggi, una mattina come tante, iniziata non bene e non male, nella normalità, mentre stavo iniziando a dedicarmi alle mie occupazioni quotidiane, squilla il telefono, è un mio / nostro sodale che mi da la triste notizia che Alberto B. Mariantoni è andato oltre.

Mi scorrono nella mente ricordi, immagini, idee, le interminabili discussioni fatte in altrettante interminabili nottate, la voglia di combattere contro questo mondo ingiusto ed inumano. Vado a prendere una sua lettera autografa – e già anche nei tempi di internet c’è ancora chi scrive a mano – scritta in bella calligrafia – perché per Alberto, come per la Tradizione estremo orientale, scrivere bene significava pensare bene, scritta con la penna stilografica, come si faceva una volta, anche se si lamentava che l’inchiostro non era più buono come quello di un tempo, la giro e rigiro tra le mani: non riesco a concentrarmi.

Mi sostiene solamente la consapevolezza che continueremo a stare insieme, anche se non materialmente, perché, ad un certo grado di affinità, gli spiriti si pensano.

Economista, saggista, storico, solo pochissime altre personalità possono vantare di essere state autenticamente ribelli ed eretiche. La sua attenzione si è da sempre focalizzata sulla indispensabilità di uscire dall’apparente insolubile dualismo capitalismo-marxismo. Lo studio dei meccanismi dell’economia e, di conseguenza monetari, attraverso l’analisi delle ricorrenti ed inspiegabili crisi inflazionistiche ed economiche formano, negli ultimi tempi, il nucleo centrale del suo interesse extra-storico e politico.

I suoi articoli e saggi di economia, purtroppo, conoscono una lunga notte. Le sue tesi sconvolgono le classiche coordinate di analisi economico-politica. Come pensare che economia libera ed economia statizzata in realtà abbiamo le medesime matrici e producano i medesimi risultati? Come pensare che esse congiuntamente decidano dei destini delle monete ? Come pensare che esse siano organizzativamente e finalisticamente simili ?

Alberto ancora una volta colpirà nel segno.

Testimone e protagonista del suo tempo non indietreggiò, mai, davanti al suo destino, anche quando questo gli fu avverso. Forse proprio per questa sua coerenza, tutto un “ certo “ ambiente lo ha isolato, contribuendo, tuttavia, a farne un uomo troppo alto per essere intaccato da critiche meschine.

Tante volte varcò la porta della stima personale e del successo, a differenza di altri che a quella porta bussarono, con il cappello in mano, senza mai varcarla.

E questo è, forse, il peccato che questo nostro tempo di nani non gli perdona.

“ A mio giudizio, abbiamo quella illudente e fuorviante percezione della nostra esistenza, in quanto continuiamo testardamente ed incosapevolmente a volere assolutamente “ leggere” o interpretare la realtà che ci contorna, attraverso le lenti deformanti e snaturanti della “visione ideologica” della vita e della storia”, così ci diceva e scriveva.

Ciao Alberto.

Claudio Marconi  

ALBERTO B. MARIANTONI È “ANDATO AVANTI”

ALBERTO B. MARIANTONI È “ANDATO AVANTI”

Ex: http://www.eurasia-rivista.org/  

 

La redazione di “Eurasia” dà l’estremo saluto ad Alberto Bernardino Mariantoni, politologo, saggista storico, esperto di questioni del Vicino Oriente e studioso delle religioni.

Lo ricordiamo come collaboratore della rivista, in particolare col suo storico saggio Dal “Mare Nostrum” al “Gallinarium Americanum”. Basi USA in Europa, Mediterraneo e Vicino Oriente (“Eurasia” 3/2005), il quale ha avuto l’inestimabile merito di sollevare definitivamente la questione dell’occupazione della nostra terra da parte di eserciti stranieri. Dopo tale illuminante articolo, anche i media collaborazionisti cosiddetti “autorevoli” dovettero “correre ai ripari” per tamponare la falla, ovvero la “fuga di notizie”, che rischiava di trasformarsi in un’alluvione; così avvenne che in una trasmissione di una rete televisiva nazionale, citando il saggio di Mariantoni, venne imbastita una ridicola messinscena tra “esperti” i quali, arrampicandosi sugli specchi, cercavano di minimizzare l’inaudita gravità di un apparato tentacolare che, per la sua sola presenza, rende nulla ogni pretesa di indipendenza e sovranità delle nazioni sottoposte a pluridecennale imposizione.

Lo ricordiamo anche come uomo, generoso, tollerante, sempre disponibile e mai “in cattedra”, sebbene, grazie alla sua esperienza diretta delle cose di cui trattava, si sarebbe potuto atteggiare a “professore” più di tanti altri che, per molto meno, fanno sfoggio di conoscenze puramente libresche, imparate dai “bignamini”.

Mariantoni era un “interventista della cultura”, nel più aureo filone dei grandi Italiani che, del loro sapere, non han fatto una base per guadagnare onori e prebende vivendo sempre da “struzzi”, ma lo hanno costantemente messo a disposizione di una “battaglia” sentita come improrogabile: quella per la libertà, l’indipendenza, l’autodeterminazione e la sovranità politica, economica, culturale e militare di tutti i popoli del mondo.

Per chi intendesse saperne di più su questa grande figura di italiano, mediterraneo ed europeo, consigliamo la lettura dei testi contenuti nel suo sito personale: http://www.abmariantoni.altervista.org/

Addio Alberto, che la morte ti sia lieve. Come tu stesso dicevi sempre, è solo la vita che va verso la vita. 

Enrico Galoppini, a nome della Redazione di “Eurasia”

Who was Alberto B. Mariantoni?

Alberto Bernardino Mariantoni è nato a Rieti ( I ), il 7 Febbraio del 1947.

E’ laureato in Scienze Politiche e specializzato in Economia Politica, Islamologia e Religioni del Vicino Oriente. E’ Master in Vicino e Medio Oriente.

Politologo, scrittore e giornalista, è stato per più di vent’anni Corrispondente permanente presso le Nazioni Unite di Ginevra e per circa quindici anni sul tamburino di «Panorama». Ha collaborato con le più prestigiose testate nazionali ed internazionali, come «Le Journal de Genève», «Radio Vaticana», «Avvenire», «Le Point», «Le Figaro», «Cambio 16», «Diario de Lisboa», «Caderno do Terceiro Mundo», «Evénements», «Der Spiegel», «Stern», «Die Zeit», «Berner Zeitung», «Il Giornale del Popolo», «Gazzetta Ticinese», «24Heures», «Le Matin», «Al-Sha’ab», Al-Mukhif Al-Arabi», nonché «Antenne2», «Télévision Suisse Romande», «Televisione Svizzera Italiana», ecc.

E’ esperto di politica estera e di relazioni internazionali, con particolare riferimento ai paesi arabi e musulmani e dell’Africa centrale ed occidentale. Ha al suo attivo decine e decine di inchieste e di reportages in zone di guerra e di conflitti politici. E’ autore di oltre trecento interviste ai protagonisti politici ed istituzionali dei paesi del Terzo Mondo e della vita politica internazionale.

Ha insegnato presso la Scuola di Formazione continua dei giornalisti di Losanna. E’ stato Professore invitato presso numerose Università Europee e Vicino-Orientali.

Ha scritto: «Gli occhi bendati sul Golfo» (Jaca Book, Milano 1991); «Le non-dit du conflit israélo-arabe» (Pygmalion, Paris, 1992); «Le storture del male assoluto» (Herald Editore, Roma, 2011); con AA.VV., «Una Patria, una Nazione, un Popolo» (Herald Editore, Roma 2011); con AA.VV., «Nuova Oggettività – Popolo, Partecipazione, Destino» (Heliopolis Edizioni, Pesaro, 2011).

Dal 1994 al 2004, è stato Presidente della Camera di Commercio Italo-Palestinese.

Nel 2009-2010 ha collaborato, come docente, con lo I.E.M.A.S.V.O - Istituto 'Enrico Mattei' di Alti Studi sul Vicino e Medio Oriente di Roma.

English:

Alberto Bernardino Mariantoni was born in Rieti (Italy), on February 7th, 1947.

He graduated in Political Sciences and specialized in Political Economy, and Islamic studies and Religions of the Middle-East. He is also a post-graduate Master in the Near and Middle East.

As a political commentator, writer and journalist he was – for more than twenty years – permanent correspondent at the United Nations in Geneva (Switzerland). For approximately fifteen years he was included in the list of front-page editorialists of “Panorama” (a major, nationally distributed Italian news magazine). He has collaborated with top-ranking, prestigious national and international media organs, such as “Le Journal de Genève”, “Radio Vaticana”, “Avvenire”, “Le Point”, “Le Figaro”, “Cambio 16”, “Diario de Lisboa”, “Caderno do Terceiro Mundo”, “Evénements”, “Der Spiegel”, “Stern”, “Die Zeit”, “Berner Zeitung”, “Il Giornale del Popolo”, “Gazzetta Ticinese”, “24Heures”, “Le Matin”, “Al-Sha’ab”, and “Al-Mukhif Al-Arabi”, plus “Antenne2”, “Télévision Suisse Romande”, “Televisione Svizzera Italiana”, etc.

He is an expert on foreign politics and international relations, with particular reference to Arabic and Muslim countries, and the countries of Central and West Africa. He has authored many dozens of inquiries into, and reports from, war zones/regions struck by political conflicts. He has also authored more than 300 interviews with political and institutional personages of Third World countries and the international political scene.

He has taught for the continuing professional development school for journalists in Lausanne (Switzerland). He has been ‘guest professor’ at various European and Near-East Universities.

He has written: «Gli occhi bendati sul Golfo» (blindfolded on the Gulf) (published by Jaca Book, Milan, 1991) and «Le non-dit du conflit israélo-arabe» (the unsaid on the Israel-Arab conflict) (published by Pygmalion, Paris, 1992);«Le storture del male assoluto» (Herald Editore, Roma, 2011); con AA.VV., «Una Patria, una Nazione, un Popolo» (Herald Editore, Roma 2011); con AA.VV., «Nuova Oggettività – Popolo, Partecipazione, Destino» (Heliopolis Edizioni, Pesaro, 2011).

From 1994 to 2004, he was Chairman of the Italian-Palestinian Chamber of Commerce.

In 2009-2010, he collaborated as professor with I.E.M.A.S.V.O – ‘Enrico Mattei’ Advanced Studies Institute on the Near and Middle East, Rome (Italy).

 

Number 2 U.S. Military Commander In Turkey

Number 2 U.S. Military Commander In Turkey

Ex: http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

Hürriyet Daily News
October 23, 2012

US admiral in Turkey to discuss closer cooperation in anti-PKK fight

Sevil Küçükkoşum

ANKARA: A top U.S. admiral is visiting Turkey today amid increasing military cooperation between Washington and Ankara on the fight against the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and mounting tension on the Turkish-Syrian border to Syria’s crisis.

Adm. James Winnefeld, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is in Turkey as part of a previously scheduled counterpart visit with Deputy Chief of the Turkish General Staff Gen. Hulusi Akar, an official from the U.S Embassy to Turkey said.

“Admiral Winnefeld will participate in a series of discussions on military-to-military cooperation and mutual defense issues impacting both Turkey and the United States,” U.S. embassy spokesman in Ankara, T.J. Grubisha, told the Hürriyet Daily News today.

The fight against the PKK will top the agenda of the talks, while the Syrian crisis will also be discussed, a Turkish official told Daily News prior to the talks with the U.S. admiral. The Turkish side is also set to brief Winnefeld about problems related to intelligence-sharing between the U.S. and Turkey, the official said.

Francis Ricciardone, the U.S. ambassador to Ankara, told the Turkish media last week that a U.S. official would visit Turkey in the upcoming days to discuss cooperation between the two countries on the issue of fight against the PKK.

Ricciardone expressed his disappointment with frequent references to Washington’s unwillingness in the fight against the PKK and said he felt sorry and angered by such suspicions. “This makes our enemy successful in placing suspicion between allies. This might give hope to our enemies,” he said.

Ricciardone also said Washington had suggested that Turkey implement “tactics, techniques and procedures” (TTP), a multidisciplinary military maneuver that paved the way for the killing of Osama bin Laden, the architect of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.

Maurras, soixante ans après

 

Rébellion 55 !

 Rébellion 55 !

SOMMAIRE

 

ÉDITORIAL

Hollande trouve son chemin de Damas.

ACTUALITES

La gauche contre le peuple.

Charles Robin démonte l'idéologie libérale.

DOSSIER

BALKANS. L'EUROPE MEURTRIE

La guerre contre la Serbie.

Laboratoire des "guerres humanitaires".

En première ligne au kosovo.

Entretien avec Slobodan Despot.

Balkans. L'éclatement programmé de

Alexis-Gilles Troude.

IDEES

L'encaillement des Clercs. Réflexion sur les

travaux de François de Négroni.

Jacob Burckhardt et la communauté locale des citoyens.

CULTURE

Child of the black Sun.

Entretien avec Boyd Rice.

Chronique

Le début de la fin & Autres

Causeries crépusculaires. Eric Werner.

Vogelsang ou la mélancolie du vampire

Christopher Gérard.

 

Le numéro est disponible contre 4 euros ( port compris)

à notre adresse :

Rébellion - RSE BP 62124 31020 TOULOUSE cedex 02

[e-mail]

http://rebellion.hautetfort.com/

 

Qatar : un soutien indéfectible aux extrémistes

par Ali El Hadj Tahar

Ex: http://mediabenews.wordpress.com/   

En février 2010, le Qatar signe un pacte de défense avec la Syrie et l’Iran. Mais pendant que Hamad serrait la main de Bachar El-Assad, il conspirait activement contre lui. Quelques mois plus tard, le pacte de défense devient un pacte d’ingérence avec le financement des terroristes islamistes pour renverser le dernier raïs arabe.

L’opposition qui réside à l’étranger, précisément celle du Conseil national syrien (CNS), avait eu comme premier président le nommé Burhan Ghalioun, celui-là même qui a été le conseiller politique d’Abassi Madani, le chef du FIS dissous ! Désigné par l’Occident comme l’unique représentant de l’opposition syrienne, au mépris des autres formations politiques activant en Syrie ou à l’étranger, le CNS refuse tous les appels d’El-Assad au dialogue et veut un renversement du pouvoir, comme le CNT l’a fait en Libye.

Ce n’est ni l’opposant Haytham Manaa, ni le Comité national de coordination pour le changement démocratique (CNCD), ni les partis de l’opposition présents en Syrie (et activant légalement dans le cadre de la Constitution de février 2012) qui sont reconnus par l’Occident, mais ce CNS dominé par les islamistes et demandant l’ingérence militaire dans leur propre pays. Sur conseil de stratèges militaires, le bras armé du CNS, l’Armée syrienne libre (ASL) — qui écrit sur son Facebook «de trancher la gorge aux soldats du régime» ! — cherche à adopter la même stratégie que celle adoptée en Libye : prendre des villes et en faire des forteresses imprenables, des «zones d’exclusion» en termes militaires ou des «Etats islamiques» en jargon wahhabite. Outre le soutien logistique et politique occidental, les rebelles de l’ASL jouissent aussi de la complicité turque, jordanienne et de certaines factions politiques libanaises affichée sans crainte de choquer qu’Israël soit aussi de la partie contre ce pays arabe qui cesserait aussitôt d’être attaqué s’il disait oui à une «paix des braves» avec Tel-Aviv au détriment du peuple palestinien.

Comme le CNT libyen parachuté par l’OTAN, le CNS se compose d’islamistes notoires et d’opposants vivants à l’étranger, sans aucune légitimité ni assise nationale. Outre le massacre de milliers de civils et de militaires et la destruction des infrastructures du pays par l’entremise de terroristes ramassés aux quatre coins du monde, le complot contre la Syrie ne vise pas que ce pays : sa réussite aura des effets désastreux sur le Liban, la Jordanie et sur la question palestinienne tout en rendant l’Iran très fragile et maintiendra les Etats-Unis comme puissance hégémonique mondiale. C’est pour la résurgence d’un monde bipolaire et équilibré où l’OTAN n’imposerait pas sa loi que la Chine et la Russie ont plusieurs fois opposé leur veto à l’intervention en Syrie. En outre, il y a la volonté de briser la création de l’axe énergétique Iran-Irak-Syrie-Liban. La Jordanie et la Turquie se sont exclues de cet axe, préférant jouer les cartes de l’axe pro-américain, tout comme Doha. En tant qu’allié d’Israël, Erdogan a préféré jouer les couleurs de son parti religieux plutôt que les intérêts stratégiques de son pays. Être du côté des «parias» (Syrie, Irak, Iran) lui a semblé désavantageux mais le rapport des forces actuel donne raison aux faibles, pas à Doha, Riyad ou à Istanbul, sans parler de la Jordanie qui a mal misé toutes ses cartes.

La Syrie est visée car il y a aussi la volonté occidentale de mettre le grappin sur les réserves gazières de la Méditerranée. Selon le Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP, le think-tank de l’AIPAC), le bassin méditerranéen renferme d’immenses réserves de gaz et les plus importantes seraient en territoire syrien ! «La révélation du secret du gaz syrien fait prendre conscience de l’énormité de l’enjeu à son sujet. Qui contrôle la Syrie pourrait contrôler le Proche-Orient», écrit Imad Fawzi Shueibi.

Les sponsors du djihad

Selon l’International Herald Tribune des 4-5 août, «les 2,3 millions de chrétiens, qui constituent environ 10% de la population du pays, connaissaient sous la dynastie Assad une situation encore plus privilégiée que la secte chiite alaouite à laquelle appartient le président». Le journal ajoute que l’Armée syrienne libre aurait chassé 80 000 chrétiens de leurs foyers dans la province de Homs. Pour leur plan, les Occidentaux et leurs supplétifs ont fait venir près de 40 000 mercenaires islamistes de Libye, Jordanie, Égypte, Tunisie, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Irak, Tchétchénie… Même un Palestinien a été arrêté lorsqu’il était sur le point de se faire exploser dans le pays qui a perdu son Golan à cause de la Palestine !

Beaucoup d’autres sont venus du monde dit libre, de France, d’Australie, d’Espagne, de Grande- Bretagne, Hollande, Canada… Selon le Daily Mail du 3 septembre 2012, le MI6 a répertorié près de cent terroristes résidant en Angleterre et qui combattent en Syrie. Ils les appellent «combattants de la liberté» quand ils tuent en Orient, et terroristes s’ils tuent en Occident. Quand ils rentreront en Angleterre, ils ne seront pas inquiétés. Le crime légalisé ! L’un de ces terroristes a même avoué qu’il exerçait comme docteur dans un hôpital anglais ! Un congé sabbatique pour un djihadiste anglais.

L’afghanisation de la Syrie a commencé mais cela ne se fait pas sans la pakistanisation de la Jordanie, du Liban et de la Turquie. Toutes sortes d’armes se déversent en Syrie actuellement. Si les autorités libanaises ont découvert un bateau d’armements et interpellé son équipage, huit ou neuf autres seraient déjà passés. Dernièrement, l’ASL a menacé d’abattre des avions civils syriens, ce qui a fait dire au vice-ministre des Affaires étrangères Guennadi Gatilov : «Les menaces de l’opposition syrienne d’abattre des avions civils est le résultat de livraison irresponsable des Manpads (les systèmes portatifs de défense aérienne).»

Certains médias ont révélé, début août, que l’ASL a obtenu environ 20 Manpads de la Turquie. Selon les experts russes, l’Arabie Saoudite et le Qatar sont derrière ces livraisons. D’ailleurs, fin août dernier, CNN et NBC ont annoncé qu’Obama avait autorisé la livraison d’armements lourds aux rebelles anti-Bachar. Puis comme pour les Stinger livrés aux talibans, on voudra «récupérer» ces Manpads et autres SAM 7 puis on fera semblant d’avoir échoué de les récupérer. Prolifération d’armes = prolifération de terroristes : stratégie idéale pour promouvoir Al-Qaïda. La douane turque, celle d’un pays membre de l’OTAN, a récemment donné l’autorisation de débarquer des dizaines de tonnes d’armes destinées aux terroristes syriens, selon le Times !

Au Moyen-Orient et au Maghreb, le Qatar est depuis longtemps connu comme le principal sponsor de l’islamisme. Et Hamad s’est fait beaucoup d’amis parmi les opposants arabes, même s’ils ne sont pas islamistes comme ce fut le cas au Yémen où il a financé à la fois le parti islamiste Islah (opposé à l’ancien président Ali Abdullah Saleh) et les rebelles Houthis du nord. Cela n’a pas plu à l’Arabie Saoudite, qui veut éradiquer ces opposants chiites qu’elle accuse de vouloir instaurer un khalifat chiite.

En Égypte, Doha a financé les Frères musulmans alors que Riyad a subventionné les salafistes. Si Riyad avait soutenu les Frères musulmans, Doha aurait soutenu les salafistes ! Avoir des vassaux, c’est ce qui compte pour Doha ! Au Caire, la place Tahrir était occupée par une minorité cairote mais Al Jazeera focalisait dessus quotidiennement, gonflant les rumeurs et amplifiant les dérapages pour susciter un surplus d’adrénaline au sein des foules arabes assoiffées de miracles. Alors le prédicateur islamiste, l’Égyptien Youssef Al-Qardaoui, exilé à Doha depuis cinq décennies, animateur de l’émission «La Charia et la Vie» a encore clamé le djihad et ordonné au «Pharaon» de démissionner… En langue qatarie, la contre-révolution se dit révolution ! Un «pharaon» est un impie à massacrer.

10 000 missiles perdus sans blanc-seing étatsunien ?

Les Occidentaux qui tirent les ficelles ont trouvé un argument costaud pour leurrer ou faire taire les masses arabes : l’islamisme politique, disent-ils, s’est assagi et il peut accepter les règles démocratiques. C’est aussi ce qu’a ressassé l’émir du Qatar sur sa chaîne de propagande, Al Jazeera, pour qui le «péril vert» n’existe pas. «Les islamistes radicaux, dont les vues ont été forgées sous des gouvernements tyranniques, peuvent évoluer en participant au pouvoir si les révolutions tiennent leurs promesses de démocratie et de justice», disait en septembre 2011 un Hamad converti en agent de pub pour Abdel Jalil, Ghannouchi, Morsi et consorts. Les milliers de terroristes qu’ils ont envoyés en Libye, en Syrie et au Mali sont bien sages, eux aussi.

L’impérialisme occidental sait désormais qu’il ne peut se passer de l’aide ou plutôt de la joint-venture avec les pays du Golfe ; et la première opération de cette union est probablement la destruction spectaculaire du World Trade Center le 11 septembre, opération transformée en attaque terroriste pour les naïfs. Aujourd’hui, plus de la moitié des habitants de la planète ne croient pas la thèse officielle américaine, dont 90% des Allemands, 58% des Français et 15% des Américains. Le Qatar semble avoir les mains libres partout. Or, accueillir des terroristes, perdre 10 000 missiles en Libye, lancer des attaques contre la Libye, la Tunisie, l’Égypte et la Syrie, sans un blanc-seing américain est impossible !

On ne peut pas remettre en question ou chambouler un ordre géopolitique existant sans la volonté et l’accord des grandes puissances ! Vibrionner ainsi en Afrique du Nord et au Moyen-Orient, dans le terrain de jeu américain et français, est impossible, à moins d’être le fou du roi en personne. Soutenir le terrorisme islamiste ouvertement, en Afrique, en Asie, sans se faire taper sur les doigts, ou au moins récolter l’étiquette «d’Etat voyou» est inacceptable pour l’entendement : c’est ce que disent plusieurs analystes, journalistes, officiels et anciens agents de renseignement occidentaux dont Michel Chossudovsky, et l’ancien officier du MI6, Alistair Crooke. On ne peut pas non plus avoir des velléités de changer la carte géopolitique de l’Afrique, en tout cas ses gouvernements, sans accord ou instruction de l’Oncle Sam : c’est ce que disent plusieurs analystes dont Eric Denécé, le spécialiste des renseignements, et même le frère musulman Tarik Ramadhan.

L’implication du Qatar, donc des Etats-Unis, devient de plus en plus évidente avec le recul et avec le raz-de-marée, prévisible, des islamistes et surtout avec la volonté de casser le dernier bastion républicain et moderniste, la Syrie comme le fut la Libye. Il se peut que l’Arabie Saoudite, trop fragile, n’ait pas été informée de toutes les parties du plan mais a posteriori elle a adhéré à tout, et ne pouvait rien pour sauver Ben Ali et Moubarak, comme elle a accueilli avec bonheur la mort de Kadhafi qui a osé insulter le roi Abdallah. Les ennemis d’Al-Qaïda sont alors éliminés (Ben Ali, Moubarak, Kadhafi) ou visés (Syrie, Mauritanie, Algérie).

Cerise sur le gâteau, le «printemps arabe» donne même lieu à des gouvernements islamistes, proches du Qatar et de l’Arabie Saoudite, qui ont fourni argent, pub et même armes et contingents. L’Occident se devait de récompenser ses amis pour tous les efforts qu’ils ont déployés à leur profit (guerre entre l’Iran et l’Irak, deux guerres contre l’Irak, octroi de bases militaires, approvisionnement en pétrole au prix désiré).

Désormais, ils sont impliqués dans la redéfinition de la carte du monde, d’autant qu’ils sont devenus nécessaires pour toute action en terre arabe ; et ils sont rétribués par la possibilité d’installer leurs copains salafistes, islamistes ou fréristes aux commandes des pays conquis. Les valets deviennent des supplétifs.

Ali El Hadj Tahar

Japans geheime Tradition

 

Japans geheime Tradition

von Johannes Seitz

 

Ex: http://www.blauenarzisse.de/

 

Ehre bleibt in Japan ein großes Wort. Zu den grausamsten, radikalsten und zugleich faszinierendsten Beispielen gehört die rituelle Selbsttötung der Samurai, das Seppuku.

Denn im Gegensatz zu Europa hat der Zeitgeist die alten Werte und den damit verbundenen Ehrbegriff noch nicht gänzlich aus Japans Gesellschaft tilgen können. Um das Seppuku zu verstehen, ist ein Blick in die jüngere Geschichte des Landes notwendig.

Rasanter Weg zum ersten Industriestaat Asiens

Vor rund 150 Jahren öffnete sich das wirtschaftlich und kulturell bisher isolierte Land den Handelsnationen aus dem Westen. Damals wurde Japan durch das Feudalsystem der Samurai beherrscht. Schnell stellte sich heraus, dass die alte Ordnung nicht mit dem Reformeifer unter Tenno Mutsuhito mithalten konnte. Der Tenno, dessen Titel mit dem europäischen Kaiser vergleichbar ist, führte unter anderem 1889 eine konstitutionelle Verfassung ein und setzte die allgemeine Schulpflicht durch. 1872 wurde die erste Eisenbahnstrecke zwischen Tokio und Yokokama eröffnet.

Innerhalb von 50 Jahren entwickelte sich Japan so von einer Agrarnation zum ersten Industriestaat Asiens. Mutsuhito reformierte unter dem Einfluss westlicher Berater Verwaltung und Militär umfassend. Die feudale Kriegerkaste der Samurai gehörten zu den ersten Opfer der Meiji-​Ara, die 1868 begann. Sie konnten für die moderne Armee nicht mehr eingesetzt werden. Geschulte Beamte ersetzten die mittelalterliche Kriegerkaste in der Verwaltung. So löste sich der Samurai-​Stand auf und verschwand schrittweise aus der japanischen Gesellschaft. Mit dem Ende der feudalen Lebensweise veränderten sich bestimmte Werte und auch Rituale. Im Bushido, der Lebensphilosophie der Samurai, findet sich zum Beispiel noch eine Anleitung dafür, wie sich ein ehrenwerter Krieger zu jener Zeit verhalten sollte. Der Ehrenkodex der Kriegerkaste ermöglicht einen lebendigen Einblick in die Geburt des modernen Japans.

Symbol des Wertewandels: Das Seppuku

Doch die Rituale und der Ehrenkodex der Samurai verschwanden nicht von heute auf morgen. Sie lösten sich eher mit der Zeit auf oder existierten noch bis ins moderne Japan in ihrer Form verändert fort. Vor allem am Beispiel des Seppuku zeigt sich der Wertewandel der japanischen Gesellschaft innerhalb der letzten 150 Jahre.

Unter Seppuku, dass in Europa und Nordamerika auch fälschlicherweise als Harakiri bekannt ist, versteht man eine rituelle Form der Selbsttötung. Dieses Ritual wurde von Samurai oder Adeligen mit der Hilfe eines Assistenten durchgeführt, wenn deren Ehre durch eigene Schuld als verwirkt galt. Auch der Herr des Entehrten konnte den Seppuku des Untergebenen fordern, wenn dieser seinen Vorgesetzten entehrt hatte. Dabei handelte es sich keineswegs um ein juristisch vollstrecktes Urteil wie die Todesstrafe. Der Entehrte sollte durch diese Handlung seinen Ruf wiederherstellen und seinem Herrn die eigene Loyalität beweisen. Er übernahm somit die volle Verantwortung für sein Fehlverhalten.

Streng ritualisierter Ablauf

Dabei blieb das Seppuku nur den Samurai und Adeligen selbst vorbehalten, während die einfachen Leute durch Henker hingerichtet wurden. Da die Henker aus der untersten Schicht der japanischen Gesellschaft kamen, durften diese nicht Hand an einen Adeligen oder Krieger anlegen. So entwickelte sich das Recht der Selbsttötung für die traditionelle Elite.

Sowohl Assistent als auch Verurteilter mussten sehr strenge Regeln beachten. Nur der kleinste Fehler konnte schon das Ritual und die wiederherzustellende Ehre des Verurteilten gefährden. Es genügte schon, dass der Platz nicht ordnungsgemäß vorbereitet wurde, der erste Sekundant nicht in einem Zug den Kopf abtrennte oder der Verurteilte Schmerzensschreie von sich gab. Es mussten also ein würdiger Platz bestimmt und Sekundanten ausgesucht werden, die bei der Durchführung halfen. Der zum Seppuku Verurteilte durfte dabei unter Umständen seinen Sekundanten und das Schwert, durch welches er enthauptet wurde, selbst wählen. Er musste sich, vor den Anwesenden sitzend, mit einer dolchähnlichen Klinge namens Wakizashi den Bauch aufschneiden. Sobald er die Klinge aus den Körper zog, enthauptete ihn der erste Sekundant.

Bis heute lebt Seppuku im Geheimen fort

Im Zuge der Meiji-​Ära wurde die rituelle Selbsttötung in Japan verboten. Auch das allmähliche Verschwinden der Samurai aus der japanischen Gesellschaft trug dazu bei, dass die Zahl der Seppuku immer mehr zurückging. Nur hohe Beamte des Tenno oder Shogune, die obersten militärischen Befehlshaber des Kriegeradels, Augenzeugen sowie der Herr, auf dessen Grundstück das Seppuku stattfand, verfolgten und ahndeten es zumeist auch. Bis zum Ende des Zweiten Weltkrieges gab es immer wieder Einzelfälle von Seppuku bei hohen Armeeangehörigen, die allesamt dem japanischen Adel entstammten. Gerade nach dem verlorenen Weltkrieg erwartete die japanische Bevölkerung, dass der Kaiser, trotz des Verbotes, die hohen Generäle zum Selbstmord auffordern würde. Doch Tenno Hirohito schwieg und nur einige wenige hochrangige Mitglieder des Militärs, darunter der Kriegsminister Anami Korechika, begingen freiwillig Selbstmord. Durch dieses kaiserliche Schweigen wurde das Ritual in der japanischen Öffentlichkeit als Relikt der Vergangenheit wahrgenommen.

Obwohl das letzte offizielle Seppuku am 25. November 1970 durch den Autor Yukio Mishima ausgeführt wurde, bleibt der Grundgedanke hinter dieser Zeremonie noch immer in Japan lebendig. Bis heute wird es noch in der Kunst der japanischen Gesellschaft thematisiert und auch gewürdigt. Samurai, die diesen Schritt wagten, gilt bis heute Bewunderung. Gerade unter den größten Helden der japanischen Geschichte finden sich viele, die diesen radikalen Weg wählten. Ihre Gräber bleiben bis heute Pilgerstätten, an denen alljährlich Feiern stattfinden. Auch die nach wie vor sehr hohe Selbstmordrate in Japan zeigt, wie sehr sich traditionelle Werte behaupten konnten. Für viele Japaner bleiben selbst mehr oder minder zur modernen Arbeitswelt gehörende Erlebnisse wie eine Kündigung oder Prüfungsversagen eine große Schande. So barbarisch und grausam das Seppuku westlichen Menschen erscheinen mag, spiegelt es doch die im Geheimen fortlebende Kontinuität traditioneller japanische Werte.

Ce dimanche Méridien Zéro reçoit Thibault Isabel

Méridien Zéro a reçu Thibault Isabel, philosophe, pour évoquer avec lui ses travaux et réflexions sur les maux humains qui traversent les sociétés occidentales.

DIFFUSION DE L'EMISSION

LE DIMANCHE 21 OCTOBRE

http://www.meridien-zero.com/

Pour écouter:

http://www.meridien-zero.com/archive/2012/10/19/emission-n-115-un-monde-a-bout-de-souffle.html

 

Auf Kriegskurs: Europas Linke wirbt für „humanitäre Interventionen“

Auf Kriegskurs: Europas Linke wirbt für „humanitäre Interventionen“

By Benjamin Schett

 

Ex: http://www.globalresarch.ca/

 

„Ich glaube an zwei Prinzipien: Nie wieder Krieg und nie wieder Auschwitz.“ (1)

Diese Worte wurden auf dem Parteitag der Grünen im Mai 1999 gesprochen, der während des NATO-Bombardements auf Jugoslawien, an dem sich auch Deutschland beteiligte, stattfand. Sie kamen aus dem Mund des Grünen-Politikers und damaligen Außenministers Joschka Fischer. Sein Kommentar sollte den Krieg gegen das serbische Volk rechtfertigen. Dasselbe Volk, das bereits in zwei Weltkriegen unter dem deutschen Imperialismus zu leiden hatte.

In den 1970er Jahren war Fischer ein linksradikaler Aktivist und in den 1980er Jahren gehörte er zu den Mitbegründern der Grünen. Das Anliegen hinter der Parteigründung war es, den verschiedenen Umwelt- und Antikriegsgruppen eine parlamentarische Repräsentation zu verschaffen. Hätte in der damaligen Zeit jemand über die Möglichkeit gesprochen, dass diese Partei gegen Ende des Jahrtausends eine aktive Rolle in einem Aggressionskrieg gegen Jugoslawien spielen würde, es wäre als absurd abgestempelt worden. Eine direkte Beteiligung Deutschlands an einem Krieg war ein völliges Tabu, und niemand auf Seiten der Linken oder der Rechten hätte es gewagt, eine solche Option in Erwägung zu ziehen. Nach 1945 war es allgemeiner Konsens, dass von Deutschland nie wieder ein Krieg ausgehen sollte.

Der politische Übergang in Deutschland, der sich in großen Teilen Westeuropas widerspiegelte, ist wichtig für das Verständnis, wie es dazu kam, dass viele Mainstream-Linke zu modernen Kriegstreibern wurden, oftmals sogar in einem größeren Maße als ihre konservativen Widersacher.

Mit ihrem Eintreten für das Konzept des „Humanitären Interventionismus“ und ihrer moralischen Autorität erscheinen die „progressiven“ politischen Entscheidungsträger viel glaubwürdiger als die  lärmenden neokonservativen Hassprediger, wenn es darum geht, eine militärische Intervention vor der Bevölkerung zu rechtfertigen.

In Westeuropa sind die meisten Befürworter der Militarisierung innerhalb der Mainstream-Linken mit den grünen oder den sozialdemokratischen Parteien verbunden. Einer der ersten Verfechter militärischer „humanitärer Interventionen“ war Daniel Cohn-Bendit, Mitglied der Grünen in Frankreich. Er war auch einer der Vordenker der Abschaffung der europäischen Nationalstaaten zugunsten einer stärkeren Europäischen Union. Während des Bürgerkriegs in der ehemaligen jugoslawischen Republik Bosnien verlangte Cohn-Bendit die Bombardierung der Serben. Jeder, der damit nicht einverstanden sei, würde dieselbe Schuld auf sich laden wie diejenigen, die während des faschistischen Massenmords im Zweiten Weltkrieg tatenlos zuschauten:

„Schande über uns! Wir, die Generation, die unsere Eltern so sehr für ihre politische Feigheit missachtet hat, schauen jetzt selber scheinbar hilf- und machtlos und doch selbstgefällig dabei zu, wie die bosnischen Muslime Opfer einer ethnischen Säuberung werden.“  (2)

Während des Bosnien-Krieges wurde die Masche perfektioniert, mittels der Zeichnung von Parallelen zu den Verbrechen der Nazis jene zu dämonisieren, die den geostrategischen Interessen des Westens im Wege stehen. Exemplarisch dafür steht die Geschichte von den sogenannten Todescamps in Bosnien: Als Beweis für die angebliche Existenz von Konzentrationslagern, die von den Serben in Nazi-Manier betrieben würden, veröffentlichte eine britische Zeitung im August 1992 ein Foto, das einen abgemagerten Mann hinter einem Stacheldrahtzaun zeigt. Wie später jedoch der deutsche Journalist Thomas Deichmann herausfand, stand der Mann außerhalb des Zaunes und war  nicht hinter Stacheldraht gefangen. (3)

Natürlich gab es Gefangenenlager auf allen Seiten und die Bedingungen dort waren zweifellos oftmals schrecklich. Die Sache ist jedoch die, dass die westliche Propaganda versuchte, die Seite der Kroaten und Muslime reinzuwaschen, indem sie ganz und gar als Opfer dargestellt, während gleichzeitig die bosnischen Serben als Barbaren und Nazis präsentiert wurden.

Kontrahenten oder auch ganze Bevölkerungsgruppen mit einem Etikett zu versehen, um diese zu dämonisieren, ist kein neues Konzept in der Kriegspropaganda. Ein entpolitisiertes Verständnis von Faschismus, als lediglich eine Form des Nationalismus, ermöglicht es der postmodernen Linken, Aggressionskriege als „humanitäre Interventionen“ und somit „antifaschistische“ Aktionen zu präsentieren. Die traditionelle linke Sichtweise sieht im Faschismus hingegen nicht nur eine chauvinistische, rassistische Ideologie, sondern berücksichtigt auch dessen wirtschaftlichen Hintergrund und dessen Bündnis mit der Hochfinanz, der Rüstungsindustrie und den politischen Eliten.

Als der UN-Sicherheitsrat im März 2011 die Resolution 1973 zur Errichtung einer Flugverbotszone über Libyen verabschiedete, die als Vorwand für einen Angriff auf das Land diente, enthielt sich Deutschland zusammen mit Russland, China, Indien und Brasilien der Stimme. Die schwarz-gelbe Regierungskoalition erntete für diese Haltung heftige Kritik aus den Reihen der Sozialdemokraten und vor allem aus den Reihen der Grünen, die der Bundesregierung vorwarfen, nicht stärker eine Pro-Kriegs-Position bezogen zu haben. Der ehemalige Außenminister Joschka Fischer attackierte seinen Amtsnachfolger Guido Westerwelle dafür, die Resolution der Kriegstreiber nicht unterstützt zu haben und merkte an, dass der Anspruch Deutschlands auf einen ständigen Sitz im UN-Sicherheitsrat damit „in die Tonne getreten“ wurde. (4)

Es ist daher nicht überraschend, dass sich im gegenwärtigen Konflikt in Syrien – welcher erheblich vom Westen orchestriert und finanziert wird, wie auch die Bürgerkriege in Jugoslawien und Libyen – grüne und linksliberale Politiker in Westeuropa als die stärksten Befürworter einer Strategie der Eskalation gebärden. In einer Fernsehdebatte verwehrte sich die Grünen-Vorsitzende Claudia Roth gegenüber jeder Stimme der Vernunft, die für Verhandlungen mit der Assad-Regierung plädiert. (5) Zu diesen zählt auch der Autor und ehemalige Politiker Jürgen Todenhöfer, der eine ausgewogene Position vertritt und jüngst für ein Interview mit Bashar Al-Assad nach Damaskus reiste, damit die Welt auch die „andere Seite“ hören könne. (6) Die Tatsache, dass überhaupt jemand Al-Assad seine Meinung sagen lässt, war für Claudia Roth zu viel. Sie drückte ihre Verärgerung über Todenhöfers Reise in unmissverständlichen Worten aus.

Zur selben Zeit war es der frisch gewählte „sozialistische“ Präsident François Hollande, der als erstes westliches Staatsoberhaupt die Option eines Angriffs auf Syrien öffentlich in Erwägung zog. In seiner Erklärung ließ er die Welt wissen, dass er eine „internationale militärische Intervention in Syrien“ nicht ausschließe. (7)

Hollandes Wahl zum Präsidenten war Ausdruck der Hoffnung vieler Menschen, Nicolas Sarkozys reaktionärer, neoliberaler und korrupten Politik ein Ende zu bereiten und sie durch eine humanere Form zu ersetzen. Was die Außenpolitik angeht, setzt Hollande bedauerlicherweise die neokoloniale Agenda seines Vorgängers fort. (8)

Sowohl im Fall Libyens als auch Syriens forderte Bernard-Henri Levy, ein französischer Philosoph, professioneller Selbst-Promoter und häufig Objekt des Gespötts der Medien, seine Regierung zur Intervention auf, um das „Töten unschuldiger Zivilisten“ zu verhindern. (9) Sein Ruf nach Krieg wurde natürlich als humanistischer Graswurzel-Aktivismus verkauft. In einem offenen Brief an den Präsidenten, veröffentlicht unter anderem von der Huffington Post, zog er das Massaker in Hula als Rechtfertigung für eine Intervention heran. (10) Die Tatsache, dass die Fakten darauf hindeuten, dass es sich bei den Opfern um Anhänger des Assad-Regierung gehandelt hat und diese von Aufständischen getötet worden sind (11), konnte der Schwarz-Weiß-Malerei des virtuosen philanthropischen Aktivisten nichts anhaben.

Von „Auschwitz“ in Bosnien und im Kosovo hin zum „syrischen Diktator“, der Frauen und Kinder abschlachtet, die Strategie, mit der der Widerstand der Bevölkerung gegen einen Aggressionskrieg überwunden werden soll, bleibt dieselbe: Es wird an ihr Schuldbewusstsein und an ihr schlechtes Gewissen appelliert – die „schaut-nicht-tatenlos-zu“-Taktik. Und niemand beherrscht diese Taktik besser als die heutigen „progressiven“ falschen Samariter.

Eingedenk dessen wenden wir uns wieder dem Beispiel Deutschland zu. Bisher hat sich die deutsche Regierung aktiv daran beteiligt, antisyrische Propaganda zu verbreiten. Sie legt aber nicht dieselbe Begeisterung für eine Intervention an den Tag, wie sie sich in den Reihen der „Progressiven“ ausmachen lässt. Auch wenn sich nicht viel Positives über die neoliberale, US-freundliche Regierung Angela Merkels sagen lässt, so ist sie nicht in demselben Ausmaß wie die rot-grüne Opposition dazu bereit, das Risiko eines militärischen Abenteuers einzugehen und spricht sich dementsprechend weiterhin für eine „diplomatische Lösung“ aus. (12) Auch wenn die Vita der schwarz-gelben Regierung zeigt, dass sie weit davon entfernt ist, in Sachen Interventionismus unschuldig zu sein (13),  könnte es noch schlimmer kommen, falls sich nach den Bundestags-Wahlen im Jahr 2013 erneut eine rot-grüne Regierung konstituiert, wie es zwischen 1998 und 2005 der Fall war. Schließlich hat sie seinerzeit die historische Leistung vollbracht, zum ersten mal seit 1945 Kriege in der deutschen Öffentlichkeit salonfähig zu machen.

---

Der Artikel erschien im Original am 21. September bei Global Research unter dem Titel Europe’s Pro-War Leftists: Selling “Humanitarian Intervention.  Übersetzung: Hintergrund

---

Anmerkungen

(1) http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/docpage.cfm?docpage_id=4440.
(2) http://web.archive.org/web/20101122200452/http://esiweb.org/index.php?lang=en&id=281&story_ID=19&slide_ID=3.
(3) http://web.archive.org/web/19991110185707/www.informinc.co.uk/LM/LM97/LM97_Bosnia.html.
(4) http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/streitfall-libyen-einsatz-deutsche-aussenpolitik-eine-farce-1.1075362.
(5) http://www.ardmediathek.de/das-erste/hart-aber-fair/21-00-besser-wegschauen-und-stillhalten-darf-uns-syrien?documentId=11083714.
(6) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBJlpY1qX28.
(7) http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/french-president-leaves-open-possibility-of-military-intervention-in-syria-a-835906.html.
(8) Während seiner Präsidentschaft war Sarkozy verantwortlich für die militärischen Interventionen in Libyen und der Elfenbeinküste.
(9) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/25/levy-libya-film-screening-cannes-festival.
(10) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bernardhenri-levy/syria-massacre-houla_b_1552380.html.
(11) Siehe beispielsweise: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=31455.
(12) http://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/syrien1576.html.
(13) So lässt Deutschland den Aufständischen über den Bundesnachrichtendienstes militärische Unterstützung zukommen. Siehe: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/aug2012/syri-a21.shtml.

Turkey leads US-sponsored Military Encirclement of Syria

Turkey leads US-sponsored Military Encirclement of Syria

By Chris Marsden

 

Ex: http://www.globalresearch.ca/  

Despite widely reported concerns of blowback in Syria due to the arming of jihadist groups, a military build-up on Syria’s borders is proceeding apace.

Racep Tayyip Erdogan’s Islamist government in Turkey is leading the way, using the pretext of stray mortar fire from Syria that killed five civilians to legitimise the deployment of 250 tanks, jets, helicopter gunships, troops, artillery emplacements and antiaircraft batteries on the border.

The Turkish Parliament recently granted war powers to Erdogan to send troops into Syria. Daily targeting of Syrian facilities was followed last week by the use of F16s to force down a civilian Syrian Airlines Airbus en route to Damascus from Moscow, with claims that it was carrying Russian weaponry.

Erdogan used the United Nations Security Council as a platform to attack Russia and China—“one or two members of the permanent five”—for vetoing anti-Syrian resolutions and demand an overhaul of the Security Council.

Turkey, along with the Gulf States led by Qatar, is also behind a push to unite Syria’s divided opposition forces, with the explicit aim of overcoming the qualms of the Western powers over arming the opposition and backing it militarily. There is an agreement to announce a joint leadership on November 4 at a conference in Qatar, just two days before the US presidential elections.

Foreign supporters “are telling us: ‘Sort yourselves out and unite, we need a clear and credible side to provide it with quality weapons,’” a source said.

Ensuring an effective command structure under the nominal discipline of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and the actual control of Turkey and its allies requires the inclusion of rival military leaders Riad al-Asaad, Mustafa Sheikh and Mohammad Haj Ali (all defectors from the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad), as well as various leaders of provincial military councils inside Syria. Funds are also being funneled into the Local Coordinating Committees—hitherto held up by various ex-left groups around the world as being independent of the imperialist powers.

UN Arab League mediator Lakhdar Brahimi is making great play of urging Iran to arrange a four-day cease-fire beginning October 25 to mark the Muslim religious holiday of Eid al-Adha. He is saying less about a proposal, more indicative of the UN’s role, to dispatch a 3,000-strong troop force to Syria.

The Daily Telegraph reported that Brahimi “has spent recent weeks quietly sounding out which countries would be willing to contribute soldiers” to such a force, ostensibly to be made operable following a future truce.

The direct involvement of US and British forces would be “unlikely”, given their role in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, so Brahimi “is thought to be looking at more nations that currently contribute to Unifil, the 15,000-strong mission set up to police Israel’s borders with Lebanon.”

These include Germany, France, Italy, Spain and Ireland—“one of which would be expected to play a leading role in the Syria peacekeeping force.”

The proposal was leaked by the Syrian National Council (SNC), with whom Brahami met in Turkey at the weekend. On Monday, the SNC was meeting for a two-day summit in the Qatari capital, Doha. Qatar’s prime minister, Sheikh Hamad bin Jassem al-Thani, took the occasion to push for military intervention in Syria. He told reporters, “Any mission that is not well armed will not fulfil its aim. For this, it must have enough members and equipment to carry out its duty.”

The SNC’s 35-member general secretariat was meeting in Doha to discuss “the establishment of mechanisms to administer the areas which have been liberated” in Syria, according to sources.

Discussions of the direct involvement of European troops in Syria are in line with confirmed reports that the US and Britain have despatched military forces to Jordan, for the purported purpose of policing its border and preventing a spill-over of the conflict.

US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta acknowledged the move at an October 10 meeting of NATO defence ministers in Brussels. The US has repeatedly issued denials of a growing military presence in Turkey located at the Incirlik airbase, but Panetta confirmed that Washington had “worked with” Turkey on “humanitarian, as well as chemical and biological weapons issues.”

The next day, the Times of London and the New York Times reported that Britain too has upward of 150 soldiers and military advisors in Jordan. Jordanian military sources said France may also be involved.

Anonymous senior US defence officials told Reuters that most of those sent to Jordan were Army Special Operations forces, deployed at a military centre near Amman and moving “back and forth to the Syrian border” to gather intelligence and “plan joint Jordanian-US military manoeuvres.”

There is “talk of contingency plans for a quick pre-emptive strike if al Assad loses control over his stock of chemical weapons in the civil war,” Reuters added.

Turkey’s bellicose stand has produced widespread media reports that the US and other NATO powers risk being “dragged into” a wider regional war. This in part reflects real concerns and divisions within imperialist ruling circles and in part an effort to conceal the Western powers’ instrumental role in encouraging military conflict.

Attention has been drawn to the refusal of NATO to heed appeals by Turkey for it to invoke Article 5 of its charter authorising the military defence of a member nation. But despite this, NATO has publicly gone a long way towards endorsing Turkey’s actions.

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen told reporters at the same Brussels summit that “obviously Turkey can rely on NATO solidarity… Taking into account the situation at our southeastern border, we have taken the steps necessary to make sure that we have all plans in place to protect and defend Turkey,” [emphasis added].

The previous day, a senior US defence official said, “We engage with Turkey to make sure that should the time come where Turkey needs help, we’re able to do what we can.”

In an indication of the type of discussions taking place in the corridors of power, several policy advisers have gone into print to outline their proposals for a proxy military intervention by Turkey to which the US could then lend overt support.

Jorge Benitez, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, urged in the October 15 Christian Science Monitor: “To preserve its credibility in Turkey and the region, NATO should offer radar aircraft and/or rapid reaction forces.”

“Too much attention has been focused on the question of invoking Article 5, the alliance’s mutual defence clause,” he added. Other options were available. Before the US-led war against Iraq in 2003, he noted, Turkey had requested a consultative meeting under Article 4 of the NATO treaty “to discuss how the alliance could help Turkey deter an attack from Iraq.”

Using this pretext, NATO approved Operation Display Deterrence, including the dispatch of four AWACS radar aircraft, five Patriot air defence batteries, equipment for chemical and biological defence, and “more than 1,000 ‘technically advanced and highly capable forces’ to support Turkey during the Iraq conflict.”

Soner Cagaptay of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy published an article in the October 11 New York Times on a three-point strategy he called “the right way for Turkey to intervene in Syria.”

He urged Turkey to “continue the current pattern of shelling across the border every time Syria targets Turkey” in order to “weaken Syrian forces” and let the FSA “fill the vacuum;” to “combine shelling with cross-border raids to target Kurdish militants in Syria;” and, if things “get worse along the border,” to stage “a limited invasion to contain the crisis as it did in Cyprus in the 1970s.”

Dugin Gets in the Ring

Whither the Fourth Political Theory?

By Colin Liddell

 

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

 

The Fourth Political Theory

 

 

 

is a book that is clearly not short on ambition. I haven’t actually read it, but I already know more or less what is in it from past writings by its author Professor Alexander Dugin, as well as the lengthy video presentation he gave of his ideas at the Identitarian Ideas conference held earlier this year in Stockholm.

 

Dugin believes there have been three great ideologies in modern history – Liberalism, Communism, and Fascism/National Socialism – and that we are now seeing the formation of the Fourth, which is still waiting to be properly christened and so is known by an ordinal. In the footsteps of Locke, Marx, and Mussolini, we now have Dugin.

I greatly respect and like Dugin. With his Tolstoyan beard and aura of an old church father, he’s a personable and reassuring presence. But I also know how the academic world works, and how it finds all sorts of clever ways to serve different masters, and Professor Dugin is certainly well-connected to a lot of people in the Russian establishment. Is it a coincidence that his ideas support the existence of the Russian Orthodox Church or the multi-ethnic imperialism that is the unavoidable basis for a strong Russian state?

But onto the Fourth Political Theory, with its Millenialist feel of being the fourth and final horseman of the ideological apocalypse. OK, the Theory straps a cushion to its forehead by claiming to be a work in progress, so that any blows landed on it will be softened, but already much of the groundwork has been clearly laid. The road isn’t finished, but we can more or less see where it is headed under the guidance of Professor Dugin.

The Theory supposedly arises from the criticism and deconstruction of the previous three theories, which history has already revealed to be full of flaws and responsible for a great deal of suffering and confusion. Dugin seems happy enough to ride along with modern Liberalism’s historical demolition of Marxism and Fascism, as this makes it a tidy knuckle-to-knuckle, winner-takes-all match between his Fourth Theory and the still undefeated champion, Liberalism.

Seconds out – Ding! Ding! Ding!

Despite past attempts by the Second and Third Theories to claim the crown of modernity, Dugin believes that Liberalism has triumphed here and has managed to irrevocably present itself as the only truly “modern” way. It has also succeeded in presenting itself as the “natural order,” rather than a mere ideology.

To destroy Liberalism, Dugin strikes as these points. But rather than trying to claim that the Fourth Theory is more modern than Liberalism, his strategy is to try to get away from the whole idea of modernity itself by appealing to pre-modern values and conceptualizing them as post-modern eternal values. There is more than a touch of his Old Believer Russian Orthodoxy here.

This is not so much a heavy punch to the ribs of Liberalism as a bit of fancy footwork to avoid Liberalism’s nasty left hook. Modernity is not so easily discarded, as Dugin seems to believe. It operates as the measure of ideological victory, without which no battle can take place. His call to discard modernity is therefore a call for a defensive ceasefire or a time out.

Another key point for Dugin to attack is the subjects or agents of the other three theories. The economic classes of Marxism are presented as outmoded; Fascism’s state as something of a bourgeois innovation; and National Socialist race as a “kind of construction” and not very useful.

Although his punches are only glancing ones here, it does not matter, as these two systems are supposedly punch-drunk losers propping up the bar, muttering “I coulda been a contender.” Where Dugin is more effective is in battering Liberalism’s all-important individual.

This is his mighty opponent’s soft spot and Dugin makes hay here and even gets into position to unleash his KO, but this is where his attack comes unstuck. While all the previous systems have strong subjects/agents that human beings can all feel passionate about – race, nation, class, and our own beloved selves – the Fourth Theory substitutes Heidegger’s flat-footed and abstruse “Dasein” concept. You couldn’t imagine the Bastille being stormed or Stalingrad being held for the sheer pleasure of “being there”!

As a philosophical phrase that says very little by saying too much, it is appropriate that it is then extrapolated into a kind of blanket multi-polarity and call for a true multiculturalism (depoliticized in the case of Russia) and even multi-chronology. Regarding this latter concept, Dugin calls for a world where societies can exist that operate on different temporal patterns, such as cyclical, linear, or more complex. He also calls for the rejection of universal values and comparisons. This is clearly heavily defensive boxing, aimed at avoiding the clever jabs and looming thump that Liberalism is aiming at Putin’s Russia.

The Ascendant Order

Dugin’s interpretation of the previous three theories has a kind of grace, regularity, and ascendant pattern to it. There is natural and elegant progression from the individual to class, and from class to the state (or race). While the other three ideologies nobly struggled in the ring of modernity, and had subjects/agents that could inspire the masses, the Fourth Political Theory has a snatch of Heidegger embroidered on its boxing shorts and seems to be climbing through the ropes with its towel flying through the air behind it.

Perhaps the problem is ideology itself. While Dugin is happy to abandon notions of modernity, he is less happy to abandon ideology. This is only to be expected from an academic who eats, sleeps, and breathes ideology. So, do we actually need it?

Ideology has a progressive nature that does not endear it to many on the Right, but progress is essential in any system that is not based on pure stagnation. Even a cyclical system needs progress to get to the point of its collapse and rebirth. Ideology creates progress through competing with the status quo, or by helping a rising system to become manifest. Therefore, in addition to each ideology having a subject or an agent, history also demonstrates that it needs some kind of enemy or rival: Liberalism’s enemy was the old order; Marxism’s was Liberalism; Fascism’s was Marxism; and Neo-Liberalism’s was Fascism and Marxism.

The problem of the Neo-Liberal world order is that there seems no longer to be any enemy, thus endless stagnation looms. Progress will only arise when Neo-Liberalism in its turn becomes the defeated enemy. On this basis, a strong case exists for the necessity of a Fourth Ideology. But after this, will we need a fifth or sixth, and so on into infinity? The chances are that our technologically enhanced world cannot handle this kind of vast, intense dialectical struggle many times more, so it is essential that the Fourth Political Theory should internalize the engine of progress that has previously come from ideological conflict.

Escaping the Dialectical

As it now stands, the Fourth Political Theory is more a reflection of Russo-centric concerns, and also seems inconsistent with the broader ideological framework that Dugin has outlined. In order for it to gain wider credibility it will have to take on board some of the following points:

Firstly, it should be entirely divorced from any agenda that reflects specific political or religious goals or interests, such as those elements of Russian political pragmatism I constantly detect in Dugin’s work.

Secondly, modernity should not be abandoned. If we are to have an ideological battle, we need winners and losers, and we need a common standard by which to judge them. Communism understood this and so did Fascism, and both were ahead of Liberalism on points for most of their bouts. “Da Sein” and multi-chronology is a form of retreatism.

Thirdly, dismissing Communism and Fascism is premature. Although both were defeated, neither was a purely ideological defeat. Fascism’s defeat was mainly military, while Communism’s was economic. To use boxing terminology one last time, you could say that both were lucky knock outs. These two contestants should be readmitted to the ideological battle until they are defeated ideologically. Neo-liberalism is not capable of doing this. Only a later political theory will be capable of this.

Fourthly, the Fourth Political Theory should be adjusted to fit more neatly into Dugin’s grand pattern of ideological evolution. Only when this is done will it be successful. History shows that Marxism opposed but also used elements of Liberalism. Fascism opposed but also used elements of Marxism and to a lesser extent Liberalism. Therefore it seems likely that the Fourth Political Theory should oppose but also include elements of Fascism and to a lesser extent Marxism.

Fifthly, the Fourth Political Theory needs to find an appropriate subject/agent, one with an existence that the masses can relate to, and one that fits into the ascendant pattern of individual, class, and state/race. The only subject that fits this bill is humanity itself.

Sixthly, to avoid the dangers of endless stagnation and further dialectical struggles resulting in Armageddon, the Fourth Political Theory will need to internalize the progressive impetus.

Siria: L’emiro, Erdogan e Hollande… combattono la stessa guerra!

Siria: L’emiro, Erdogan e Hollande… combattono la stessa guerra!

di Mouna Alno-Nakhal

Fonte: aurorasito  

Alla vigilia del quattordicesimo vertice francofono tenutosi a Kinshasa, il 12-14 ottobre 2012, il presidente francese François Hollande ha indicato i buoni e i cattivi… la Palma d’oro è andata a due paesi: Qatar e Turchia, che ha omaggiato per il loro atteggiamento e/o comportamento, in quanto campioni della democrazia e/o dell’azione umanitaria in relazione al “conflitto siriano!”

I meriti dell’emiro del Qatar fanno colare molto inchiostro nel nostro bell’esagono, lasciamo che i nostri parlamentari e funzionari democratici, come il signor Yves Bonnet, ex prefetto ed ex direttore della DST, dibattano, come ha fatto su France 5. Poi, dopo aver sentito o letto i punti chiave dell’intervento del nostro Presidente su France 24, date un’occhiata qui sotto alle “cartine”, soprattutto quella corrispondente alla famosa “zona cuscinetto”, corridoio umanitario, area protetta, o come volete, lento a materializzarsi per i nostri governi, precedente e attuale, desiderosi di porre fine allo stato siriano, alla sua geografia, al suo popolo, alla sua cultura, alla sua storia e alle sue infrastrutture che non si è finito di demolire…

Un pezzo di carta, tra le altre carte, ridisegnato per le esigenze occidentali, un secolo dopo l’altro… semplice “ri-partizione” di un Medio Oriente da sempre ambito, e che sperano materializzarsi al momento convenuto, costi quel che costi! 

I. I punti chiave dell’intervento di Yves Bonnet su France 5 [1]
[...] C’è ancora la propaganda salafita. Dobbiamo ancora chiamare le cose con il loro nome! Ci sono paesi stranieri, due in particolare: Qatar e Arabia Saudita… non si limitano solo pagare i calciatori del Paris Saint Germain! Quando vedo il Qatar preoccupato per la situazione nella nostra periferia… Di che s’immischia? É una grande democrazia il Qatar! Tutti sanno che è una democrazia… ero Prefetto, trovo assolutamente intollerabile che un certi paesi stranieri vengano a far fronte alla situazione delle nostre periferie … E l’Arabia Saudita? Qual’è la tolleranza religiosa in questo paese? Si tratta di paesi che sono la negazione stessa dell’espressione democratica. E questi sono i paesi che vengono ad occuparsi dei nostri affari… è propaganda salafita! Tutti sanno che si tratta di propaganda salafita oggi, non solo in Francia, ma anche nei paesi dell’Africa sub-sahariana è pagata da Arabia Saudita e Qatar! Credo che tutti dovremmo porci chiaramente delle domande su questi paesi che si pretendono nostri alleati, nostri amici… [...]
Quello che vorrei anche dire, se mi permettete di chiarire. Questo è quello che siamo, siamo una democrazia, cerchiamo di assimilare in qualche modo, con i vecchi processi francesi, nuove popolazioni musulmane e che in genere non pongono problemi… E siamo nella confluenza di due strategie principali. C’è la strategia americana per la demolizione di tutti i regimi arabi laici. Ciò è stato fatto in modo sistematico. Ne vediamo i risultati meravigliosi! Con, vorrei dire e lo dirò in ogni caso, il problema dei cristiani d’Oriente di cui nessuno parla… scomparsi… che stanno scomparendo dall’Iraq … che scompariranno dalla Siria! E mi dispiace, non vedo perché non prestarvi attenzione! Penso che ci sia un problema troppo grave… [...]

Quindi c’è questa strategia americana per demolire i regimi arabi laici, sospettati di aver avuto rapporti più o meno amichevoli con l’Unione Sovietica. Sono ancora gli americani che hanno creato al-Qaida… Mi dispiace, questo è un fatto che non è contestato da nessuno! Seconda cosa: è la strategia dei paesi del Golfo che accresce il salafismo, lo diffonde… Penso che siamo d’accordo. Ho detto per inciso, inoltre, che il termine antisemita non mi va bene per nulla, perché gli arabi sono semiti e si sa che i due terzi degli ebrei non sono semiti… ma alla fine, andiamo! Poi parlare di giudeo-fobia… ma no, parliamo francese! Entrambe le politiche sono confluite, perché questi due paesi del Golfo, in particolare il più potente è un fedele alleato degli Stati Uniti. E siamo presi in questo tipo di vortice in cui cerchiamo di preservare la nostra identità, la nostra democrazia, con non poche difficoltà. Ma non buttiamo via il bambino con l’acqua sporca. Credo che siamo ancora in una società che è in fase di guarigione, in termini di vita tra le comunità…
[Trascrizione parziale, ma parola per parola.]

II. I punti chiave del discorso del Presidente Holland su France 24 [2]
[...] Il Qatar sostiene l’opposizione a Bashar al-Assad, dopo, ricordo recentemente… esserne stato uno dei sostenitori. E’ con l’opposizione. Vuole aiutare l’opposizione. Anche Noi! Anche la Francia! Quindi diciamo che si deve unire l’opposizione e deve essere preparata al dopo Bashar al-Assad! E questa transizione deve essere una transizione verso la democrazia… non al caos… alla democrazia… vale a dire che il progetto deve soddisfare tutte le forze interne ed esterne, che domani vorranno un libera e democratica Siria! Il Qatar ha il suo posto. Può aiutare. E’ in grado di supportarli e noi lo facciamo con buon accordo. Ma per noi, non si tratta di fornire armi, e l’abbiamo detto ai ribelli … di cui non sapremmo nulla delle loro intenzioni. Dei “territori che sono stati liberati”, ho chiesto da chi questi territori possono essere protetti. Poi ho detto il Qatar, ma non solo il Qatar, che conduce un “lavoro umanitario” in una serie di paesi, tra cui il Mali…!

Ho detto loro: “Fate attenzione, a volte pensate di essere nel campo umanitario, ma è possibile che siate responsabili senza saperlo, e che vi ritroviate a finanziare iniziative di cui possono beneficiare i terroristi“. Hanno detto che le autorità del Qatar… e così… l’Emiro e il suo primo ministro, sono estremamente vigili in relazione a ciò, e io gli credo! Quindi… io sono in una posizione in cui non lascio passare nulla! [...] prima parte Bashar, più la transizione sarà sicura in Siria… Più a lungo dura il conflitto, più i rischi sono grandi… allora prima c’è il rischio di una guerra civile, dopo il rischio del caos… o della “partizione”. Mi rifiuto!
Quindi… la Francia, è in prima linea. E’ stata molo “osservata” negli ultimi mesi … dalla mia elezione! Guardate quello che abbiamo fatto. Siamo noi che abbiamo chiesto che l’opposizione possa riunirsi, questo è già stato fatto, a luglio, qui a Parigi… e riunirsi in un “governo provvisorio”! Siamo stati i primi a dirlo, i primi a dire che bisognava anche “proteggere le zone liberate”, i primi ad assicurare che ci potesse essere un aiuto “umanitario”… è ciò che facciamo in Giordania [3]; i primi a dire anche che dovevamo coordinarci affinché gli “sfollati e i rifugiati”  possano essere ricevuti in buone condizioni, in particolare per il prossimo inverno, i primi a dire che dobbiamo fare di tutto affinché Bashar al-Assad se ne vada e a trovare una soluzione, anche vicino a lui… ho sentito la proposta della Turchia dal suo vice presidente. [4]

Ci sono delle “personalità” in Siria che possono essere una soluzione per la transizione, ma non nessun compromesso con Bashar al-Assad! [...] La Turchia si è “trattenuta in modo particolare” e voglio elogiare l’atteggiamento dei suoi leader, perché sono stati assalti, ci sono state delle provocazioni [5]!

Quindi… La Turchia sta facendo di tutto per impedire il conflitto… che sarebbe anche nell’interesse della Siria: “la creazione di un conflitto internazionale potrebbe unire la Siria contro un aggressore che dovrebbe provenire dall’esterno!” Quindi… dobbiamo fare di tutto affinché il conflitto siriano, più esattamente, “la rivoluzione siriana” non trabocchi in Turchia, Libano, Giordania. Allora… la mia responsabilità è grande, perché la Francia vuole che il Libano mantenga la sua integrità! La mia responsabilità è grande perché condivido ciò che accade in Giordania [6]… di nuovo, un processo democratico… e i rifugiati che sono ancora molto numerosi!
[Trascrizione parziale, ma parola per parola.]

III. La mappa della “zona cuscinetto” di Erdogan che tarda a realizzarsi [7]
Il progetto di una “zona cuscinetto” in territorio siriano, che il governo turco vorrebbe stabilire con il sangue e il fuoco, ammassando e sostenendo “bande armate” che provengono da tutto il mondo e attraversano i confini nord e nord-ovest della Siria, su una regione che dovrebbe estendersi dal punto di confine siriano di al-Salama alle coste settentrionali, attraversando la regione di Idlib [8]; gli obiettivi essenziali della sua realizzazione sono i seguenti:
1. A’zaz e le piccole città a nord di Aleppo, tra cui Maaret al-Nouman, Khan Shaykhun e Jisr al-Shughour, che si trovano intorno alla città di Idlib, che l’opposizione armata vorrebbe destinare a sua capitale tramite il sostegno del vicino turco! Questa zona rappresenta il 5% della superficie della Siria, è densamente popolata [17% della popolazione] è ricco di petrolio e di zone agricole [40% dei terreni arabili]. Aprirebbe la strada verso le coste del Mediterraneo, attraversando la bellissima zona conosciuta come al-Kassatel, quindi al-Kassab e al-Hafa, e i villaggi turcomanni e curdi nella campagna circostante Latakia, senza dimenticare l’incrocio con l’atteso “Sangiaccato di Alessandretta”, usurpato con il Trattato di Losanna nel 1923. Infatti, è importante notare che questi luoghi quasi confinanti con la Turchia, sono caratterizzati da una popolazione mista araba e turcomanna, ancora influenzata da tradizioni, cultura e usanze della Turchia. Da qui l’operazione del governo turco che, prima dell’avvio delle sue ‘bande armate’, era volto a carpire la fiducia dei siriani di questa zona, facilitando il loro passaggio del confine e, strada facendo, il lucroso contrabbando di armi, poi spedite in tutto il paese come preludio per la creazione della necessaria zona cuscinetto, una volta che le operazioni armate avessero raggiunto il punto culminante ad Aleppo, nelle zone di accesso a Idlib e intorno alla città di Latakia. Così il governo Erdogan ha previsto l’isolamento di questo territorio, ricco e strategico, nel nord-ovest della Siria, prima di annetterlo alla provincia di Hatay, all’incirca corrispondente al vicino sangiaccato di Alessandretta, precedentemente già annesso. Infine, ciò avrebbe realizzato il piano del mandato francese del secolo scorso, per la partizione della Siria in tre piccoli Stati, come dimostrano le “tre stelle” della bandiera brandita dai cosiddetti valorosi rivoluzionari della libertà!
2. Jabal al-Zawiya, il cui territorio accidentato ha notevolmente aiutato le bande armate a diffondersi, cercando di controllare la regione fin dall’inizio della cosiddetta “crisi siriana”, e in cui si sono rifuggiati sottraendosi all’esercito regolare siriano quando è arrivato a Idlib.
3. Maaret al-Nouman è diventato il rifugio, l’arsenale e la base principale per la riassegnazione di queste bande, ora che Jabal al-Zawiya ha mantenuto la sua promessa. 4. la provincia di Idlib, particolarmente strategica, perché si trova alla confluenza di tre grandi città: Aleppo, Hama, Homs e financo Latakia. Questo è il piano assegnato al governo turco, che è intenzionato a creare la sua famosa zona cuscinetto sotto la copertura di un aiuto presumibilmente umanitario, per la protezione dei “profughi e dei rifugiati sul proprio territorio.” Dietro l’impegno di Ankara ad accogliere e sostenere i terroristi jihadisti, destinati alla Siria, si profila il sogno neo-ottomano di ripristinare l’egemonia sulla regione dell’impero ottomano decaduto, partendo dalla Siria!
[Traduzione completa dell'articolo originale di Salloum Abdullah per TopNews di Nasser Kandil].

IV. Mappa, tra le altre, del “Medio Oriente ridisegnato” a vantaggio dell’occidente [9]
“Quanto sarebbe migliore il Medio Oriente!“, aveva detto il colonnello Ralph Peters sull’Armed Forces Journal degli Stati Uniti [10], presentando il ridisegno del Medio Oriente come un accordo “umanitario” e “giusto”. Aveva detto: “i confini internazionali non sono mai completamente giusti. Ma il grado di ingiustizia che pesa sulle spalle di quanti sono costretti a riunirsi o separarsi, fa un enorme differenza… spesso la differenza tra la libertà e l’oppressione, la tolleranza e la barbarie, l’autorità della legge e il terrorismo, o anche la pace e la guerra.” Capisca chi vuole!

Per non parlare delle tragedie palestinese, irachena, libica… a Voi giudicare le conseguenze di tale cinismo, a quanto pare condiviso da molti leader occidentali, sui cittadini siriani consegnati e martirizzati dall’”orda terrorista” sostenuta dalle potenze civili e democratiche con il pretesto della responsabilità… di proteggere!

Mouna Alno-Nakhal 16/10/2012

Riferimenti:
[1] i punti chiave dell’intervento dell’ex prefetto ed ex direttore della DST, Yves Bonnet su France 5
[2] Altri punti chiave dell’intervento di Francois Hollande
[3] Siria: manovre militari in Giordania… semplice messaggio o segni premonitori di una operazione militare congiunta di 19 paesi [Dr. Amin Hoteit]
[4] Siria: non avete trovato nulla di meglio di Faruk al-Shara? [Al-Hayat quotidiano siriano filo-opposizione!]
[5] Nessuna guerra, niente lacrime! (Hürriyet) [Nuray da Mert]
[6] Preparazione di una escalation della guerra in Siria, il Pentagono sta dispiegando forze speciali in Giordania [Bill VanAuken]
[7] Articolo originale del 14/10/2012, di Salloum Abdullah per TopNews di Nasser Kandil [Libano]
[8] NB: Mappa completata da quella indicata nella’rticolo originale [7] per individuare i punti chiave, in mancanza di meglio.
[9] Il progetto per un ‘Nuovo Medio Oriente’ [Mahdi Darius Nazemroava]
[10] ‘Come sarebbe migliore il Medio Oriente’ [Ralph Peters]

 Mondialisation, 16 ottobre 2012
Copyright © 2012 Global Research

Traduzione di Alessandro Lattanzio - SitoAurora

Conférence de Patrick Gofman

 

Vendredi 26 octobre 2012

19:30 – 21:00

Lieu : 8 bis rue Vavin

Conférence de Patrick Gofman :

“Le trotskysme : comment la chaloupe trotskyste a coulé avec le navire stalinien.”

Venez nombreux !

L'Ecologie politique avant l'écologisme

Bernard Charbonneau

L'Ecologie politique avant l'écologisme

Michel Lhomme
Ex: http://metamag.fr/

Jacques Ellul, l’auteur du Système technicien et du Bluff technologique, disait qu’il lui devait tout. Il y a peu, on a parlé de Jacques Ellul, sur Métamag à l’occasion d’un colloque qui lui était consacré en juin dernier, à Bordeaux. Je voudrai revenir ici sur son compagnon intellectuel Bernard Charbonneau (1920-1996) qui marqua toute la génération politique de la région, sortie des années 30 car son œuvre reste encore trop méconnue.

 

Pour saisir Charbonneau, le mieux est de revenir au concept central de sa pensée, celle de la « Grande Mue ». La « Grande Mue », c’est ce phénomène historique absolument inédit dans le devenir des sociétés humaines qui, à la fin du dix-neuvième et au début du vingtième siècle, affecta les rapports de la Science, de la Technique et de l’organisation socio-politique des sociétés contemporaines. Le terme de « mue » fut bien choisi par l’auteur parce qu’il indique une métamorphose irréversible, une transformation sans retour, telle la peau d’un serpent, le changement de voix d’un adolescent. Bien loin d’être exclusivement économiques ou sociales, cette mue est une mue anthropologique et surtout métaphysique, métapolitique. 

 

Pour Charbonneau, elle marque une cassure, une inflexion décisive dans l’histoire de l’humanité. Il souligne aussi qu’elle n’est pas une simple conséquence d’un mouvement dialectique ou d’un processus à la manière hégélien mais qu’elle est incomparable, incommensurable avec tous les évènements antérieurs par lesquels l’homme s’était modifié culturellement dans son rapport à la nature. Charbonneau, l’auteur du Jardin de Babylone, a analysé  dans son œuvre les conditions de cette inflexion mais aussi chercher à nous prévenir des menaces potentielles que contient ce changement pour notre avenir.

 

Comment a-t-on pu en arriver là ? Qu’est-ce que cela annonce ? 

 

L’interrogation de Charbonneau insiste : un développement infini est impossible dans l’enveloppe finie du monde que nous habitons. Une puissance technique en expansion et démiurge ne peut que provoquer le désordre irréversible des sociétés humaines. Bien avant le thème de la décroissance (Alain de Benoist et Alain Caillé), Charbonneau tirait les sonnettes d’alarme et montrait que c’est l’espace humain, cet espace à la fois social et celui de la liberté individuelle, qui était pour la première fois menacé par l’arraisonnement technique du monde. 

 

 

 

Il mettait sur le même plan le totalitarisme politique et la dégradation de notre habitat, naturel et urbain comme le mouvement d’une même dynamique mortifère. La course à la puissance technique pour une vie meilleure engendre la matrice administrative et bureaucratique qui enferme alors l’existence dans la dépersonnalisation et la gestion du territoire. Ellul reprendra plus tard cette idée de la servitude volontaire par la mue technicienne dans ses analyses de l’autonomie du système technicien et on sent chez Charbonneau la lecture du Jünger du Travailleur et de la Mobilisation générale. 

Babylone est sous nos yeux : collectivisation douce, dépersonnalisation, consentement massif à l’administratif, optimisme médico-technique, béatitude de la surveillance généralisée et de l’impératif technocratique des experts. La ville est devenue insoutenable (l’inverse exact et ironique du sustainable development). 

 

Bernard Charbonneau, contemporain d’une droite libérale du culte de la toute croissance, du tout économique et d’une gauche socialisante, n’espérant que des lendemains productifs qui chantent ne pouvait alors du coup n’être d’aucun camp. Il le paya sans doute très cher par son isolement et ses déceptions mais il restera pour tous l’écologiste politique d’avant les écolos.

 

Un livre de Cérézuelle, paru déjà il y a quelques années, nous retrace le parcours vivant de cette pensée, son expérience vive, ses tentatives militantes pour sortir du marasme. « La résistance, nous dit l’auteur, n’est possible que si elle est nourrie par l’amour de la vie et l’attention à toutes les formes de bonheur sensible qu’elle nous apporte ». Charbonneau faisait, avec ses amis, le pari d’un homme qui assumerait ses limites, sa place et son moment, en relation avec la Nature, nature que notre civilisation est en train de saccager mais qui demeure notre seul lieu, la seule condition de notre bonheur sur terre.

 

 

La Grande Mue, c’est finalement la déresponsabilisation de l’homme contemporain par les médiations techniques au point qu’il n’a plus aucune perspective morale et se soumet sans réfléchir, délibérément, à toutes les injonctions technocratiques qu’on lui propose. Il ne construit plus sa vie mais celle-ci est ordonnée par les institutions. L’étude de Cérézuelle comportait une bibliographie complète de Charbonneau qui nous surprenait nous-même par l’abondance et la variété des titres publiés, le défaut de Charbonneau ayant été, peut-être, de n’avoir pas composé une oeuvre systématique (les luttes idéologiques féroces de l’époque ne lui en laissèrent pas le temps). 

 

Charbonneau aura éclairé un des paradoxes majeurs de notre temps, celui où l’évolution des « établissements humains » (pour parler comme Le Corbusier ), établissements qui ont entraîné la destruction de la nature réelle de l’homme. L’effacement progressif dans un monde où la population croît de manière exponentielle, de la distinction entre ville et campagne au profit de ce que les spécialistes nomment maintenant l’« urbain généralisé », la « ville-campagne », la « ville-terrritoire », le « péri-urbain », la « ville-diffuse », la « ville-satellite » et qui a pour cause première le désir des humains défigurés de déserter les villes traditionnelles pour habiter dans des maisons dites « individuelles », situées dans un cadre réputé « naturel » où la dépersonnalisation est tellement extensive que l’étalement urbain finit par faire disparaître progressivement la raison même de son extension : la nature réelle, réduit de plus en plus à un artefact fantasmé et jamais atteint, ou durement obtenu par des déplacements exorbitants, de l’énergie gaspillée, les pollutions induites du tout macadam, les pelouses synthétiques. Autant dire que le désir écologique s’est mué en grande servitude volontaire. 

 

Peut-on alors nourrir encore l’espoir ? Pouvons-nous imaginer un improbable retournement sincère des mentalités ? C’est ce à quoi en tout cas nous nous employons et ce sont des gens comme Bernard Charbonneau qui finalement nous donnent la volonté de rester un peu arcadien, de poursuivre l’entreprise.

 

 

Pour aller plus loin :
Daniel Cérézuelle, Ecologie et liberté. Bernard Charbonneau, précurseur de l’écologie politique, Ed. Parangon, Lyon, 2006 ; 

Augustin Berque, Philippe Bonnet et Ghorra-Gobin, La Ville insoutenable, Ed. Belin, Paris, 2006.

The Loss of Reality

The Ideological Caste and its Tyranny

 

http://www.alternativeright.com/

 

By David Hamilton

 

There is a distinction between natural and artificial societies. Natural societies grow organically within a group of people with a shared ancestry. This is why patriotism is natural – it grows from emotional relationships and does not need a theory or ideological underpinning. There is more to human nature than reason and the act of bonding with your people and territory is a process of feeling, instinct, intuition and other human qualities.

I live in England so I will use England as my exemplar. England has been a nation since the time of Alfred the Great, and it is an emotional, organic growth, not an intellectual agreement. Intellectual nationalism came from the Enlightenment and, like other forms of thinking derived from the Enlightenment, is theory to be applied to men and women, that is, forced on people. It is a mistake for The New Right to adopt rationalist theorising in imitation of Marxist thinkers.

Education in the liberal era emphasised ideas, with people thinking that we are in a battle of ideas, as if ideas rule the world. In actual fact the world at a Global and local level is run by rich power groups. Power groups are changing our towns and cities into something different and separating us from our culture and history. These are being made un-British. Local councillors stand for election and promise benefits to the local community. If elected they act as agents for corporations and finance. The new buildings in London are financed by money from other countries and built and designed by global corporations using imported labour while our people remain unemployed.

We are educated to be unrealistic and naïve. We are encouraged not to judge others, but the way to live safely is to assess human nature and make judgements on the suitability of others as friends or people we do business with. We are told it is prejudice to decide who to associate with, but making such decisions is essential human wisdom. To neglect this is to open oneself up to being harmed or taken advantage of.

Running a family is a practical activity, as is running a nation. The use of concrete nouns instead of abstract ones would effect how people think and would return them to reality. The abstract way of thinking was brought in by the French Revolution and has led people out of the world of reality into the realm of fantasy, because the words they think in have no substance. This is why immigrants, for instance, are thought to be the same as us, but if you believe they share the same basic human nature with us, then immigration is alarming because they are taking over our territory as earlier invasions have done.

It is their human nature to do so, as it was ours when we were in their countries. The mode of entry is not the point. The point is that, once in a country, human nature decrees that a people start claiming territory and that includes women. The widespread raping of young White girls some as young as eleven and twelve (and some Indian and Black) by the rival Muslim community is for them the taking of the spoils of war. The police and social services have been covering these child-rapes for years. They can not face the fact that their imported pets are not bringing us benefits and enriching our culture.

The use of concrete nouns instead of abstract ones would have an immense effect on how people think – it would bring them back to reality. The French Revolution and its abstract way of thinking have led people from reality into fantasy, because the words they think in have no substance.

When a world view becomes dominant it marginalises the opposing view, and that is what has happened to traditional or national conservatism. Another complication is that new Liberalism is different from Classical Liberalism. Liberalism was replaced by Cultural Marxism in the late 1960s.  They kept the name but changed the content so that there were two Liberalisms – Classical and New. New Liberals changed the nature of the ideology into what we now see as Identity Politics and Political Correctness. For example, individual rights became group rights, and that worked against us, as we are "oppressors" and the immigrants are "victims."

The Progressive way of thinking that stems from the Enlightenment marginalizes traditional systems in favour of a way of thinking that disdains the past and looks forward to a future perfection. Progressives think that we are ineluctably destined for the brotherhood of man – an obvious Utopia! This is no more than an irrational superstition, and any examination of the world around them would show that the opposite is happening. They think human nature is malleable and can be re-fashioned to fit into their ideology and future utopia.

A formal ideology is written down like a "How to" book, which tells people how to think and behave. Ideology grew out of the Enlightenment as a secular replacement for religion with a programme of correct thinking and behaving, and with intolerance for deviation. The rulers changed from an aristocratic class, based on blood and land, to a secular elite defined by their ability to think and say the right things – in other words an "Ideological Caste."

Ideological thinking starts with first principles and requires underpinnings to support or justify beliefs. Conservatism by contrast is a view of the world that grows out of our emotional bonds with our families and expands outwards through neighbourhood and community to the nation. It emanates out to Europe and the Anglosphere, though weaker. For example, we feel for the South African Boers in these days of their genocide. It is stronger at home, and a parent who wishes other children to do better than their own is perverse.

The Ideological uses of language

The elites try to change people's thinking by changing the vocabulary: the British government guidelines to the media suggest certain words about non-white crime be replaced. The words to be suppressed included immigrant, illegal immigrant, illegal asylum seeker, bogus asylum seeker, non-white, non-Christian, mixed race, half-caste, mulatto. There is the substitution of euphemistic terms for those that reflect reality, as in the official designation of Anti-Islamic activity for Muslim terrorists.

The use of Political Correctness is a way of training people to think of, and to perceive, reality in the official way. If you think differently you are a "hater," a "racist."

Ideological change of the meaning of words passes for common usage as people innocently adopt them: bigot and tolerance are prominent examples. Bigot means one who refuses to listen to the opinions of others but is misused as a connotative word that only applies to "right-wingers." A classic example of this Doublespeak was during the 2010 general election campaign when Gordon Brown described a woman who asked him about imported labour as a bigot; but he was the one being bigoted because he refused to listen to her opinions! Tolerance meant to tolerate an action or to put up with something one did not like, but is now misused to make indigenous British people passive and accept being replaced by immigrants.

We need a concrete, definite vocabulary, not vague linguistic terms like person and humanity, but terms like Englishman or Englishwoman, Welshman or Welshwoman, Scotsman or Scotswoman or Irishman or Irishwoman, boy and girl; land rather than country. They are more specific and convey a solid idea of substance; they get away from the woolly vocabulary that is a cause of our collective loss of touch with reality. This would clarify what we are referring to and make our common intercourse more realistic.

The great Welsh national anthem Land of My Fathers is a pertinent example as it makes a clear statement of debt to ancestors and suggests the piety necessary to honour what the ancestors have left us, and our obligation to hand it on to our descendants. This is embodied in the Fifth Commandment to honour thy mother and father; unless they are very cruel parents, of course.

On abstractions, the counter-revolutionary Josef de Maistre stated:  

"there is no such thing as Man in the world. In my lifetime I have seen Frenchmen, Italians, Russians, etc... I declare that I have never in my life met him; if he exists, he is unknown to me." 

Brainwashing 

A television programme Gypsy Wars contrasted a local woman with tinkers who had invaded her land, and effectively reversed the roles. The intellectual and media elites think our traditional view of the world is pathological and try to correct it for us. No young Gypsy men were shown, because they would be aggressive, and the programme makers did not want to show them as a threat; village life was not shown because that is appealing and viewers would sympathise with the woman; the woman was selected because she is not typical of rural people but was a bit eccentric and could be set up as the aggressor even though she was in fact the victim. This role-reversal was undertaken to mould the public's views and change attitudes. This was an example of how television re-structures thought in accordance with the establishment’s Progressive ideology. 

In August 2011, police closed the largest gypsy camp in Britain at Dale Farm and the biased television news reports once again left gypsy men out of their news reports. 

For years vacancies in television were only advertised in the Bourgeois-Socialist Guardian newspaper to help filter out applicants with the wrong attitudes. 

We are derided as prejudiced if we protest against the elites having us dispossessed, which is used to mean ignorant and narrow-minded, but prejudice is in fact traditional wisdom passed down by our ancestors, and is knowledge which is much broader-based than the narrow solipsism of the contemporary era. It saves us learning the hard way, and we would have been spared this dispossession if natural prejudices had been followed after the last war. 

The great Conservative satirist Michael Wharton would have recommended Prejudometers. 

We are being dehumanised and made a non-people. We must abandon this inculcated niceness, this apologetic approach and assert ourselves. We need to give our people a sense of their collective worth for the common good, and succeeding generations need to be built up to inherit the responsibility for our life and culture. The media are occupying them with trivialities like what to wear, how to get your hair done and where to have a tat! It is done to get their money, and is morally evil, as they are being debauched by temptations and distractions. 

Government from Brussels, economic control by global corporations, and Afro-Asian colonization is part of the progressives’ new dream for an ideal future, but in practice it disinherits our children of community and association with their own kind, which we are duty bound to preserve for them. 

Throughout history wars have been fought for territory, and by allowing newcomers to stake claims, our emasculated 'elite' are encouraging them to fight for yet more. Our rulers are handing our ancestral homeland to invaders and protecting their welfare over and above that of their own people. 

MPs also want children taught how to have relationships and make "informed decisions" about when to have sex. Propagandising homosexuality is another threat to our demographics.

A world view to unite us 

How do we counter the dominant ideology? The way to develop a new world view is to gather examples from the world around us, of what is really happening as a result of, say, immigration, collate it and form our version of reality. The first thing is to understand human nature and what people are capable of doing to one another. We also need to consider what gives life meaning, and this leads to the idea that nationalism is about our nation and a nation means a group of racially linked people with whom we belong by emotional attachments. I openly admit to being a racialist because I believe in racial differences between people, but do not hate other peoples and do not accept the Marxist pejorative term "racist." 

Power groups are changing our towns and cities into something different and separating us from our culture and history. We must not endlessly rehearse what has come to pass but what we are going to do. How will people cope in the social disorder the elites are plunging us into.

 We have a responsibility for our kin and a duty to them. We have a duty to pass on what we have inherited to our children, as they, in turn, will have a duty to their children. We owe a debt to our ancestors who bequeathed to us our nation and culture and we must honour that. 

The elites promote a version of progress and see the past as obsolete. But the present grows from the past as the future grows from the present, which is why we have to get things right now, in the beginning of our revival. 

The attitude of those who control public life is to transfer power away from their own people and disinherit their descendants for the benefit of rival communities. We are morally obliged to put our people first, as we do with our families, even when foreigners are more in need of help. Supporting outsiders against our own people is morally wrong. 

We have natural bonds with our families, a responsibility for them and a duty to them as we have a duty to pass on what we have inherited to our children, as they, in turn, will have a duty to their children. This extends to our fellow nationals who share the same ancestral descent. We owe a debt to our ancestors who bequeathed to us our nation and culture, and we must honour that. 

A people need the numinous things in life – religion, art, culture, a wholesome countryside. The numinous is a feeling of, and a need for, the sacred, the holy, and the transcendent; not just the material and the hedonistic. 

Simple people say, "So what? It doesn’t matter if different people take over!" This shows a failure to understand human nature. They think it will be painless, like handing the baton on in a relay race, but examples from history like the Norman Conquest, show the oppression the conquered have to endure; other countries like South Africa and Zimbabwe show what will befall our children if the evil elites are not countered. 

The ideology of multi-racialism was a righteous reaction to the opening of the camps and the watchword was, "It must never happen again." This has come full circle and now the Jews are being persecuted in France, Sweden and elsewhere by imported Muslims. Everyone must have seen Muslims brandishing placards that read: "God Bless Hitler" and chanting "Jews to the gas!"  They must know that The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is on sale in Muslim shops all over not only England but Europe. I have written elsewhere and repeat it here: if David Cameron and Ed Milliband and the other fantasists succeed in getting Turkey into the EU the number of Muslims will be so large that the EU forces will not be able to protect European Jews from, I dare say it, possible extermination. This has been imported by the elites who are not facing the reality of what they are doing. 

Unlike the rational ideologies that have been manifold since the Enlightenment, our views derive from an emotional and instinctive relationship with our people and our territory. It is more profound than rationalising an ideology to be learnt from a book because it grows from natural, human instinct and emotion. 

To give favourable treatment to aliens over our own people is morally wrong. A nation’s manners, morals, religions, political institutions, and social structures, are inherited from its ancestors and our loyalties begin with affection within families and this emanates outward to neighbourhood and nation. We belong to our kin, above strangers. 

Look at data from the Office of National Statistics (which doesn't take into account the births to mothers born here), then look at your children and ask yourselves: "Am I betraying my children? Where will they live and work?"

Recommended Reading

A conservative classic: The Quest for Community by Robert A.Nisbit 

For the New Left's takeover of Liberalism: The Politics of the Forked Tongue by Aidan Rankin 

For Ideology: Suicide of the West by James Burnham.

For the conservative interpretation of history: Anything by Keith Feiling

In Defence of the Natural Society by David Hamilton

 

Conférence de Franck Abed

Nancy, 27 octobre 2012

Conférence de Franck Abed

 

Chavez continue à défier l’Amérique

Le social-populisme toujours debout en Amérique latine

par Jean Bonnevey
Ex: http://metamag.fr/

 

Le dernier tiers mondiste, le Nasser de l’Amérique latine continue son incroyable parcours. Entre Castro et Perón, entre socialisme révolutionnaire et fascisme de gauche, Chavez devient un  phénomène politique à part. Au pouvoir depuis 1999, Hugo Chavez Frias a été réélu président du Venezuela avec 54,42% des suffrages. Récoltant plus de 7,44 millions de voix, contre 6,15 millions à son opposant Henrique Capriles, le président Chavez a rassemblé plus de suffrages que lors de sa précédente réélection, en 2006, lorsqu'il avait pourtant battu l'opposant Manuel Rosales de plus de 25 points, avec 62% des voix.

 

 

Le président  réélu du Venezuela est apparu ensuite au «balcon du peuple», surplombant les jardins du palais de Miraflores, où la foule, comme c'est désormais la tradition, s'était engouffrée peu après l'annonce de la victoire. «Le candidat de la droite vient de reconnaître la victoire bolivarienne», s'est-il réjoui sous les acclamations de ses partisans. Il a par deux fois prié Dieu de lui donner «vie et salut pour continuer à servir le peuple». On sait que très malade il affirme avoir vaincu son cancer. Il a appelé l'opposition au dialogue et affirmé qu'il essaierait de rendre son gouvernement plus efficace: «Je vous promets d'être un meilleur président que je ne l'ai été.» William Ostick, porte-parole pour l'Amérique latine du département d'État américain, a invité le président vénézuélien à prendre en compte «l'opinion des plus de six millions de personnes qui ont voté pour l'opposition». Le mythe fonctionne toujours malgré la maladie, la diabolisation et les difficultés économiques et sociales.

 

 

Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías, né le 28 juillet 1954 à Sabaneta, dans les llanos, dans le sud du Venezuela, est le 52e et actuel président de la République bolivarienne du Venezuela. Il était auparavant le chef du parti politique du Mouvement Cinquième République depuis sa fondation en 1997 jusqu'en 2007, quand il devint le chef du Parti socialiste unifié du Venezuela (PSUV). Il suit sa propre idéologie politique du bolivarianisme et « socialisme du 21e siècle », il se concentre sur l'application de réformes socialistes comme une partie d'un projet social connu comme la Révolution bolivarienne, qui a vu la mise en œuvre d'une nouvelle constitution, de la démocratie participative et de la nationalisation des industries clés.

 

Hugo Chavez bénéficie toujours du soutien massif des classes populaires mais il devra désormais composer avec une opposition. Le Venezuela présente deux visages, ceux des supporters radieux du président et ceux des partisans de l'opposition, dépités, qui pour la première fois avaient cru dans les chances de leur poulain.

 

"Nous entamons aujourd'hui un nouveau cycle de gouvernement, au cours duquel nous avons l'obligation de répondre par une plus grande efficacité et un meilleur rendement aux besoins de notre peuple", a déclaré Hugo Chavez du balcon du palais présidentiel de Miraflores devant une foule en liesse."Je vous promets d'être un meilleur président. Le Venezuela continuera au XXIe siècle sur la voie du socialisme démocratique et bolivarien", a-t-il ajouté. "Aujourd'hui, nous avons montré que la démocratie vénézuélienne était l'une des meilleures au monde et nous allons continuer à le prouver", a-t-il lancé, vêtu de sa traditionnelle chemise rouge et brandissant une réplique de l'épée de Simon Bolivar, héros de la lutte pour l'indépendance des pays de la région au XIXe siècle. Se voulant l'héritier de Simon Bolivar, Hugo Chavez a consacré les dollars du pétrole vénézuélien à des programmes de lutte contre la pauvreté, jouant habilement de ses origines modestes pour établir une relation étroite avec le peuple.

 

Depuis sa première victoire électorale en décembre 1998, cet ancien militaire s'est posé en porte-drapeau de "l'anti-impérialisme", critiquant allégrement les Etats-Unis tout en se liant à des régimes diabolisés par l'Occident comme Cuba, l'Iran ou la Biélorussie. Sa réélection se traduira vraisemblablement par une augmentation des investissements de la part des pays alliés comme la Chine, la Russie, l'Iran ou la Biélorussie.

 

Illustrant le soulagement de ses alliés en Amérique latine, la présidente argentine Cristina Fernandez a écrit sur son compte Twitter : "Ta victoire est notre victoire! Et la victoire de l'Amérique du Sud et des Antilles". Le Péronisme même dévoyé se reconnait dans le social populisme à la Chavez tout comme le castrisme même affaibli.

 

Chavez, c’est le macho de la fierté latino contre le vilain américain. Une épine dans le flanc des Usa dont l influence ne cesse de reculer dans le continent sud américain. Une bête noire des Usa qui pour le moment fait front et pas seulement grâce  à l’or noir.

 

Vita e disavventure di Limonov

Vita e disavventure di Limonov, poeta del nazional-bolscevismo

di Stenio Solinas

Fonte: il giornale [scheda fonte]

Capelli lunghi, papillon, una giacca a scacchi multicolori, le mani in tasca e lo sguardo fiero, il giovane modello fissa l'obiettivo. Ai suoi piedi, nuda e composta, la giovane modella fa lo stesso.

 

È il 1970 e Eduard Limonov e sua moglie Tanja, i due ragazzi della foto, sono quanto di meglio l'underground culturale dell'Urss brezneviana abbia da offrire, il vorrei ma non posso di un Oriente che scimmiotta l'Occidente, la sua caricatura involontaria e patetica e insieme la spia che qualcosa sta franando. I '70 sono gli anni dell'espulsione dei dissidenti, Siniavskij e Daniel, Solgenitsin e Brodskij, una prova di forza che sa di debolezza, così come l'intervento in Afghanistan che li chiude, un esercito che si ritiene invincibile e che conoscerà per la prima volta la sconfitta. L'Urss fa ancora paura, ma ha smesso di essere un esempio, non va più di moda: gerontocrazia al potere, regime asfittico, sistema che perde colpi. C'è chi se ne vuole andare e chi è costretto a partire. Limonov fa parte dei primi. Non è contro il regime, è a favore di sé stesso. Negli Usa e poi in Francia, contro tutto e tutti, vuole una vita esemplare che trionfi sull'anonimato. Ci riuscirà.Qualche anno prima, un'altra foto racconta un'altra storia, quella di un ventenne cekista: cappotto militare, mostrine, gradi. La miopia gli ha precluso il mestiere delle armi, ma già allora ha fiutato «che nel mondo gli intrecci fondamentali sono due, la guerra e la donna (la puttana e il soldato)». Molti anni dopo, una calibro 7,65 alla cintola, capelli a spazzola sotto la bustina, lo troveremo ritratto fra due miliziani serbi, una volto ancora infantile eppure ha cinquant'anni e ha appena fondato un partito, quello nazionalbolscevico: è il 1993. A 60, un'istantanea lo coglie dietro le sbarre, nella gabbia degli imputati: terrorismo, banda armata e istigazione all'attività sovversiva è l'accusa, falsa. Capelli lunghi ormai brizzolati, glaciali occhi azzurri dietro un paio d'occhiali dalla montatura spessa, baffi e pizzetto alla Trotskij, un altro suo modello. È già dentro da due anni, ne sconterà altri due. In carcere scrive otto libri, fra cui quello che per molti è il suo capolavoro, Il libro dell'acqua, del 2002.Eduard Limonov (pseudonimo di Eduard Sevenko: Limonov viene da limon, limone, per la sua acidità nella vita come nella scrittura, Livonka, granata, ovvero bomba a mano, sarà il titolo del giornale che poi lui fonderà) è un nome che in Italia non dice molto. È stato sì tradotto (da Alet Il libro dell'acqua, da Odradek Diario di un fallito, da Frassinelli Il poeta russo preferisce i grandi negri, da Salani Eddy-Baby ti amo), ma questa frantumazione editoriale non gli ha giovato e qualche cattiva traduzione ha fatto il resto. In Francia, dove è stato scoperto, è rimasto a lungo un autore di culto, prima che la sua scelta pro-serba al tempo della guerra dei Balcani ne facesse un «criminale di guerra», «lo scrittore con la pistola», addirittura il mitragliatore di passanti durante l'assedio di Sarajevo... Lui all'epoca rispose così: «Non sono un giornalista, sono un soldato. Un gruppo di intellettuali musulmani persegue con ferocia il sogno di instaurare qui uno Stato musulmano, e i serbi non ne vogliono sapere. Io sono un amico dei serbi e voi potete andare a fare in culo con la vostra neutralità che è sempre e soltanto vigliaccheria». Dimenticavo: in patria Limonov è uno scrittore famoso e un idolo per quei giovani che nella Russia di Putin non si riconoscono. Perché il nazionalbolscevico Limonov che disprezzava i dissidenti, ce l'aveva con Gorbaciov e Eltsin colpevoli di aver distrutto una nazione, è andato a schiantarsi anche contro Putin, l'uomo che a giudizio di molti ha ridato alla Russia l'orgoglio perduto, il campione di un nuovo nazionalismo. E anche questo è un ulteriore tassello di una vita contraddittoria quanto straordinaria.Adesso Emmanuel Carrère prova a rimetterne insieme i pezzi in questo Limonov (Adelphi, pagg. 356, euro 19) che è sì una biografia ma anche un interrogarsi sulla funzione e il ruolo degli intellettuali d'Occidente, sempre pronti ad applaudire la diversità, l'eccesso, l'anticonformismo, purché politicamente corretto, sempre attenti a non sporcarsi le mani, sempre convinti di poter dire la loro su tutto, specie su ciò che non conoscono, ma sempre legando questa convinzione alla moda politica e/o ideologica del giorno, subito dimenticata in favore di quella che il giorno dopo ne prenderà il posto. Manifesti, petizioni, dibattiti infiammati, poi si torna a casa al caldo, si cena, si fa, se si può, l'amore e si va a dormire. Domani è comunque un altro giorno.Figlio di Hélène Carrère d'Encausse, la slavista che nel suo Esplosione d'un impero aveva prefigurato per l'Urss, alla fine degli anni Settanta, quello che una dozzina d'anni dopo sarebbe successo, Emmanuel Carrère ha in teoria gli strumenti culturali giusti per entrare nel complesso mondo di Limonov, il suo cosiddetto «pensiero fascista», aggettivo che di per sé è già una condanna... Ha avuto una giovinezza intellettuale a destra, nel senso delle letture e delle predisposizioni familiari, ne conosce gli autori, in specie quelli francesi, i concetti di decadenza e di tradizione, gli elementi mitici e simbolici. Solo che Limonov non è Drieu La Rochelle o Evola, Céline o Maurras... È qualcosa di diversamente russo, panlavista e futurista, Nietzsche più Dostoevskij, Necaev più d'Annunzio, Alessandro il Grande e Che Guevara...La diversità è ancora più evidente se si esamina la sua creatura politica. I suoi «nazbol», i nazionalbolscevichi dalla testa rasata e dalla bandiera che ricorda quella nazista, con la falce e martello però al posto della croce uncinata, erano per Anna Politkovskaja, la celebre giornalista che pagò il suo coraggio investigativo con la morte, la faccia pulita della Russia anti-Putin, e lo stesso per Elena Bonner, la vedova di Sacha. Le loro armi eversive sono pomodori, uova marce e torte in faccia, le loro manifestazioni una via di mezzo fra goliardia e riproposizione delle avanguardie storiche. È gente che rischia la galera, quella russa, per appendere uno striscione vietato o per protestare contro la discriminazione della minoranza russa in Estonia... Sono militanti che si ritrovano in un credo limonoviano che suona così: «Sei giovane, non ti piace vivere in questo Paese di merda. Non vuoi diventare un anonimo compagno Popov, né un figlio di puttana che pensa soltanto al denaro, né un cekista. Sei uno spirito ribelle. I tuoi eroi sono Jim Morrison, Lenin, Mishima, Baader. Ecco: sei già un nazbol».Carrère coglie bene un punto del percorso politico-esistenziale di Limonov: «Bisogna dare atto di una cosa a questo fascista: gli piacciono e gli sono sempre piaciuti soltanto quelli che sono in posizione di inferiorità. I magri contro i grassi, i poveri contro i ricchi, le carogne dichiarate, che sono rare, contro le legioni di virtuosi, e il suo percorso, per quanto ondivago possa sembrare, ha una sua coerenza, perché Eduard si è schierato sempre, senza eccezione, dalla loro parte». È proprio questo a separarlo da Putin, che a Carrère sembra invece un Limonov che ce l'ha fatta, perché ha vinto, perché ha il potere. Limonov non vuole il potere per il potere, non sa che farsene. «Sì, ho deciso di schierarmi con il male, con i giornali da strapazzo, con i volantini ciclostilati, con i movimenti e i partiti che non hanno nessuna possibilità di farcela. Nessuna. Mi piacciono i comizi frequentati da quattro gatti, la musica cacofonica di musicisti senza talento...». La sua è un'estetica della politica, ha più a che fare con la comunità d'appartenenza, la fedeltà a uno stile, a delle amicizie, al senso dell'onore, che con una logica di conquista. Ricerca un eroismo e una purezza di comportamenti che lo allontanano mille miglia dalla Russia putiniana, troppo volgare, troppo borghesemente occidentale ai suoi occhi, troppo grassa nella sua ricerca del benessere. Resta un outsider Limonov, ma non un perdente, visto che vive la vita che ha sempre voluto vivere. Un orgoglioso re senza regno e uno scrittore che vale la pena leggere.

Tante altre notizie su www.ariannaeditrice.it

 

 

Crise : l’Europe court à la guerre civile

Ex: http://mediabenews.wordpress.com/  

Il est des sujets qui sont tellement sensibles que nous préférons tous ne pas les aborder. Ne pas en parler. C’en est presque interdit.

Ce que nous ne voulons pas voir, d’autres, qui nous regardent, le voient pour nous. Nous ferions mieux, tant qu’il en est encore temps, d’écouter ceux au-delà de nos frontières qui nous observent et ont de nous une image que nous refusons de voir. Si vous êtes une âme sensible, cet article ne sera pas pour vous. Si vous souhaitez dormir tranquillement, cet article n’est pas pour vous. Si vous souhaitez poursuivre votre rêve d’une économie saine où tout va bien, cet article n’est pas pour vous.

J’écrivais il y a quelques mois dans un article intitulé « Messieurs les Allemands, sortez les premiers » le texte suivant: « La fin du « business model » des États-providence Les Etats européens, en particulier français, sont bâtis sur l’idée d’Etat-providence. La « providence » signifie que le cours des évènements est issu de l’action bienveillante d’une puissance divine (généralement Dieu). En l’occurrence, la puissance divine qui veille sur nous de la crèche au cimetière, c’est l’État.

L’État qui, à travers les allocations familiales, les pensions de retraite, la sécurité sociale, Pôle emploi, le RSA, les aides au logement, la CMU, est là pour prendre soin de nous. À tous les niveaux, il existe des « amortisseurs sociaux ». La fin du business model de l’État-providence signifie la fin inéluctable de l’ensemble de ces aides. C’est cela la rigueur, sans la planche à billets pour l’adoucir. Or la société française, par son hétérogénéité, ne pourra en aucun cas supporter une cure d’austérité à la grecque. Nos zones sensibles vivent pour beaucoup de la solidarité nationale.

A cette problématique financière se rajoutent des problématiques communautaristes (cf. rapport officiel 2011 de l’Observatoire des Zones Urbaines Sensibles). Lorsque les tensions s’exacerbent, l’histoire humaine prouve que les modérés ne l’emportent jamais. Les fragilités de la société française ne sont pas celles de la société allemande. Pour notre pays, le coût social d’une austérité brutale risque d’être insupportable et de mener à des problèmes intercommunautaires insurmontables. »

Cet article date de décembre 2011. A cette époque, l’affaire « Merah » ne s’était pas encore produite. A cette époque, Nicolas Sarkozy était président de la République. A cette époque, nous refusions d’imaginer que la rigueur puisse devenir une réalité. Nous refusions ne serait-ce qu’un instant d’imaginer que la situation de la Grèce pouvait être un avant-goût de ce que nous pourrions connaître. Après tout les Grecs, eux, l’avaient bien cherché !

Le sociologique et l’économique sont indissociables Celui qui ne regarde dans l’économie que les chiffres, les statistiques financières, les cours de bourse ou même les niveaux d’endettement, ne pourra jamais avoir une vision pertinente d’une économie s’il ne s’intéresse pas aussi aux aspects sociologiques ou sociétaux. La situation économique syrienne était plutôt très favorable il y a encore quelques mois. Le prix de l’immobilier à Damas ou à Alep aurait surpris plus d’un Français par ses niveaux plus que comparables aux nôtres.

La guerre en Irak, qui a poussé de très nombreux Irakiens à l’exil, a fortement contribué d’ailleurs à cette augmentation des prix de l’immobilier. Aujourd’hui, la Syrie est un champ de ruines, un pays ravagé par la guerre civile. Les causes de ce chaos sont d’ordre sociologique et politique et l’économique y est pour bien peu de chose. Vous me direz sans doute « mais quel est le rapport entre la Syrie et la France ? » . Je vous répondrai: aucun, mais cela ne va pas vous rassurer longtemps.

S’il n’y a aucun strictement aucun rapport entre ces deux pays, il y a une constante historique applicable à toutes les nations du monde. Un pays est stable jusqu’à ce qu’il devienne instable et retrouve une stabilité. Il y a deux ans, Angela Merkel disait que le modèle du multiculturalisme était un échec. Exprimé par la Chancelière allemande, ces propos ne sont pas anodins. Loin de là. Ils sont mêmes porteurs d’une grande menace. L’affaire du film « L’innocence des musulmans » a remis le feu aux poudres et propulsé mondialement à la « une » de l’actualité les tensions interreligieuses qui secouent le monde.

La France a découvert pétrifiée que nous abritions sur notre sol quelques milliers de personnes qui ne partagent pas vraiment les idées et les valeurs républicaines qui sont les nôtres. Les salafistes se retrouvaient dès lors sous les projecteurs. L’affaire récente du massacre de deux jeunes gens à Echirolles près de Grenoble a montré à quel point d’ailleurs nos concitoyens d’origines étrangères sont ceux qui souffrent le plus d’un climat qui désormais devient délétère et étouffant. Certains habitants ont interpellé sans ambiguïté le président Hollande lors de sa visite éclair.

Lorsque je parle aux gens, je suis désormais sidéré par la montée des inquiétudes qui s’expriment ouvertement et transcendent l’ensemble des clivages politiques. Je suis également ahuri par la radicalisation de nos concitoyens. Cela signifie qu’il s’opère actuellement, dans notre pays, un vaste mouvement de repli communautaire. En caricaturant un peu les choses (mais à peine), les catholiques se sentent de plus en plus catholiques. De l’autre côté, les musulmans de plus en plus musulmans. Tous oublient qu’ils sont avant tout Français, enfants de la République.

Lorsqu’un Merah assassine froidement des militaires français, portant l’uniforme français, « physiquement issus de la diversité » (c’est l’expression qu’il faut utiliser pour ne pas utiliser le mot « noir » ou « maghrébin »), cela répond à la logique de « tuer du traître », tuer celui qui représente l’image de l’intégration à la République.

Par un effet de miroir, à l’autre bout de l’Europe et de l’échiquier politique, un Anders Behring Breivik qui commet la tuerie d’Oslo répond à une logique identique en tout point. Il faut tuer du socialiste, du tolérant, du gaucho-bobo. Lui aussi est le traître à la pureté du pays, puisqu’il accepte l’autre et l’étranger. Dans tout cela, seules les victimes changent. Les logiques funestes restent les mêmes.

J’étais encore jeune lorsque la guerre civile a embrasé les Balkans, quelques années après la chute du mur de Berlin. Mais je me souviens. Je me souviens des massacres, je me souviens d’expressions comme « épuration ethnique », « charnier ». Je me souviens d’un général français debout sur une Jeep disant à des femmes, des hommes et des enfants « nous ne vous abandonnerons pas ». Et je me souviens qu’ils ont été abandonnés. Nous avons même entendu « plus jamais ça, pas en plein milieu de l’Europe ». Et pourtant, cela a eu lieu. Mais nous avons voulu l’oublier.

Nous avons voulu croire que nous ne pouvions pas être « politiquement » serbes ou croates, exactement de la même façon que nous ne voulons pas croire que nous puissions être « économiquement » grecs. Seule une prise de conscience nationale nous permettra d’éviter le cauchemar. Notre avenir est de devenir économiquement grecs et politiquement serbes. Que nos amis serbes me pardonnent cette phrase. Qu’ils ne voient là aucun jugement. Je pense au contraire que nous ne sommes ni mieux ni moins bien et que l’histoire vécue là-bas est en tout point en train de se reproduire ici, chez nous, sous nos yeux inconscients et incrédules.

Alors que la crise menace d’emporter dans un trou noir l’ensemble de l’économie mondiale, qu’avant cela nous devrons passer sous les fourches caudines de la rigueur et de l’austérité, nous devons être conscients que notre avenir proche est plus similaire à celui de la Grèce qu’à un long fleuve tranquille. Nous devons être conscients des dangers qui se profilent à l’horizon et qui potentiellement peuvent faire littéralement voler en éclat la stabilité de notre pays, mais plus généralement de l’Europe.

Pour repousser ce danger, les bons sentiments ne serviront à rien. Ils sont mêmes fondamentalement contreproductifs. Il faut traiter deux aspects. Le premier est bien sur économique. Plus la richesse est présente et partagée, moins les tentations de haines peuvent se développer. Au sens politique du terme, l’austérité est un non-sens. Il faut traiter l’aspect politique et sociologique. Être français, ce n’est pas une couleur de peau. Être français, c’est l’adhésion inconditionnelle au socle de valeurs républicaines. Ces valeurs républicaines de tolérance, d’égalité et de laïcité doivent être défendues avec une force absolue. La République ne doit rien céder à quelques extrémismes que ce soit. Toute démission, tout manque de courage, nous rapprochera de l’abîme.

La réalité ? Toute démission aussi minime soit-elle peut mener à « l’épuration ». Les Suisses, eux, se préparent déjà à la guerre civile européenne. Alors ceux qui ne veulent pas voir, ceux qui pensent que tout le monde est gentil, ce qui croient que nous sommes meilleurs que tous les autres, ceux qui pensent que rien ne peut nous arriver, que la stabilité est éternelle, ne manqueront pas de me dire évidemment que je suis pessimiste. Alors qu’ils sachent qu’effectivement je partage le pessimisme de nos amis suisses.

Les Suisses, conscients de ces risques majeurs pour la stabilité politique de leurs voisins, ont lancé en septembre 2012 un exercice militaire de grande ampleur. Nom de code de ces manœuvres ? STABILO DUE. Scénario ? Suite à un effondrement économique majeur et à la montée des tensions intercommunautaires et interreligieuses, des grands voisins européens, membre de la zone euro, s’enfoncent dans la guerre civile. Des milliers de réfugiés tentent désespérément de trouver refuge en Suisse.

La Confédération Helvétique mobilise dès lors 200 000 réservistes afin de sécuriser ses frontières. Nous pouvons changer les choses Au siècle dernier, les gens de confession juive ont été pourchassés, massacrés, déportés. Nous pourrions ouvrir ce nouveau siècle par le même type d’acte. Si l’histoire se répète, ce n’est jamais de façon vraiment identique.

Mais vous l’aurez compris, et ce que je vais dire est choquant, mais le prochain « juif » pourrait être le « musulman ». Et ne me dites pas que c’est impossible. Tout concourt pour rendre plausible une telle éventualité. Ne me dites pas que c’est impossible en Europe. C’est exactement ce qui s’est passé voilà à peine 10 ans dans les Balkans.

Ne me dites pas que c’est impossible, puisque l’armée suisse se prépare à de telles hypothèses. Dites-moi comment pouvons-nous faire, ensemble, pour que cela n’arrive pas. Si vous niez le problème, si vous niez l’hypothèse, alors cela se produira. La stabilité de notre pays doit être élevée au rang de priorité stratégique absolue et l’intendance « économique » devra suivre.

Cela ne pourra se faire que dans un cadre national et d’un retour à une souveraineté totale. Lorsque nos intérêts vitaux seront en jeux, l’économie, les lobbys et les intérêts corporatistes seront balayés… comme en Syrie. Pour le moment, nous courrons tout droit à la catastrophe. Mais personne ne veut le voir.

Source : Economie Matin

The Manly Barbarian

The Manly Barbarian:
Masculinity & Exploit in Veblen’s Theory of the Leisure Class

By Jack Donovan

Thorstein Veblen’s Theory of the Leisure Class was written as a treatise on economics, but in pieces—like the work of Freud and Darwin—it reads today like an early stab at evolutionary psychology. I decided to dig into it after reading Venkatesh Rao’s brilliant essay “The Return of the Barbarian ^[2].” Rao updated some of Veblen’s basic ideas and used them as a jumping off point for an argument about conflicts between sedentary cultures (which invest everything into civilization and become completely dependent on it) and pastoral nomads (who are used to thinking on their feet). I was interested in the way that the traits Veblen assigned to Barbarians overlap with the archetypal essence of masculinity I developed in The Way of Men ^[3]. “Manliness-as-barbarianism” offers a muscular way to expand an anti-modern, extra-Christian understanding of men and masculinity.

Veblen’s opening “Introductory” essay is alive, colorfully written and packed with interesting ideas. The rest of the book, although peppered with smart and timeless observations, suffers from a middle class bookworm’s ressentiment toward both “delinquent” bullies and predatory elitists (who he thinks have a lot in common) as well as a lot of rambling, convoluted writing and thinking about classes which no longer exist in quite the same forms.

His basic theory rests on the idea that humans were once relatively peaceful savages who acquired a predatory habit. These peaceful savages—“noble savages,” you might say—shared work and resources, and could afford no class of individuals who abstained from certain kinds of work. However, as men developed the knack for preying on other living creatures, including other groups of men, divisions of labor occurred. Men are generally better suited to hunting and fighting, so hunting and fighting became man’s work, and women were left to do the work which remained. This gendered split of labor occurs at the “lower” stage of barbarism, when technology has advanced to the point where hunting and fighting are feasible, and opportunities for hunting and fighting occur with enough regularity for the action to become culturally important to the group. For instance, an isolated island with plenty of fresh fruits and vegetables, but no pigs to hunt, would be less conducive to the predatory “habit” of mind.

According to Veblen, the barbarian man’s work is characterized by exploit. He “reaps what he has not strewn.” The manly barbarian takes what he wants with a violent hand and an iron will.

More broadly, the work of men deals with animate phenomena. Veblen stresses that, to the barbarian, that which is “animate” is not merely what is “alive.” Like his contemporary Thomas Carlyle, he recognized that our forefathers inhabited a far more magical world. As Carlyle wrote in Heroes and Hero-Worship:

To the wild, deep-hearted man all was yet new, not veiled under names or formulas; it stood naked, flashing in on him there, beautiful, awful, unspeakable…

. . . The world, which is now divine only to the gifted, was then divine to whosoever would turn his eye upon it.

The angry volcano, the changeable sea, the exclamatory thunderclap and the snap of lighting—each one as animated as a bear or a snake or a herd of aurochs. Before our age of conceit, the whole world was alive in a way. The task of man was to challenge and master the world, to dare and to fight against its untamed fury. To leap a crevasse, to climb a mountain, to tramp through the white powder that falls from the sky. In Veblen’s words, the work of men was work that demanded “prowess,” not mere “diligence” and “drudgery.”

According to him, “virtually the whole range of industrial employments is an outgrowth of what is classed as women’s work in the primitive barbarian community.” Men reserved their strength for dynamic activities. Mere chores—the preparation of food, the production of clothing, the repetitive execution of menial processes—were assigned to women, to the weak and infirm, to slaves.

Masculinity must be proved, and the work that demonstrates strength, courage and mastery, bestows proof. A fresh carcass, a rack of antlers, a string of ears, your enemy’s wife. These proofs of exploit convey achievement and status. The trophy is physical evidence of honor and successful initiation into the hierarchy of men, a symbolic representation of dominance demonstrated in conflict with men or beasts. Veblen wrote:

Under this common-sense barbarian appreciation of worth or honor, the taking of life—the killing of formidable competitors, whether brute or human—is honorable in the highest degree. And this high office of slaughter, as an expression of the slayer’s prepotence, casts a glamour of worth over every act of slaughter and over all of the tools and accessories of the act. Arms are honorable, and the use of them, even in seeking the life of the meanest creatures of the fields, becomes an honorific employment. At the same time, employment in industry becomes correspondingly odious, and, in the common-sense apprehension, the handling of the tools and implements of industry falls beneath the dignity of able-bodied men. Labor becomes irksome.

The accumulation of objects of honor becomes an end in itself, and Veblen’s economic theory is based on the idea that as civilizations become more complex, symbols and the appearance of honor become more important than honorific deeds themselves. The upper classes make ostentatious and often wasteful displays of wealth as a matter of habit, and—especially in the open-caste system of American society—the lower and middle classes toil to gain honor by attaining high-end goods. Hence, the popular obsession with logos, luxury vehicles and all our sundry forms of bling and swag.

More relevant to the discussion of masculinity, however, is Veblen’s breakdown of manly and unmanly work. As the drudgery of industry among those engaged in lackluster occupations increases in efficiency, a surplus of goods allows particularly talented or well-born men to devote themselves completely to tasks which produce little of tangible value, but which deal specifically with the animate world and the application or management of exploit. These non-industrial occupations include government, warfare, religious observances, and sports. In the barbarian world, where manly exploit is righteousness, the highest status men are warriors, priests, and kings. Athletics include abstract rehearsals for war and the practice or demonstration of skills applicable to hunting, fighting or mastering nature. The rightful role of the barbarian priest—as storyteller, shaman, philosopher, scribe and artist—is to place the exploits of men in the magical, animate world. The barbarian priest provides the barbarian warrior with a compelling narrative. As Mishima might say, the priest finds the poetry in the splash of blood.

Veblen’s take on the predatory culture of barbarian thugs—and evidence of it in the aristocracy of his time—was somewhat snide. He was clearly biased in favor of the sensible, hard-working middle class, who he saw as being less concerned with violence and exploit, and more in touch with the peaceful ways of pre-barbarian savages. Today, there is every reason to believe that tribal violence has always been golden ^[4] to males, as it is even in our close ancestors, the chimpanzees. The supposedly non-violent savages studied by the scientists and explorers of Veblen’s era are more reasonably understood as culs-de-sac in human cultural development. In zero scarcity pockets of peace and plenty, men tend to lapse into softness and mother-worship. Men who are attracted to the barbarian way of life—or the idea of it—continually warn against this tendency. Settled as we are in this suburban bonobo cul-de-sac of a global empire, the majority of modern men can only daydream about an age of blood and poetry, and listen to stories about the days of high adventure ^[5].

If we put aside fantasies of noble savages and recognize the barbarian as the father of all men, his interest in exploit and preference for demonstrations of prowess over mere industry help to explain some of the conflicts between manliness and our modern industrial (and post-industrial) way of life. Anti-modern passions in men, while often couched in talk of the greatness of dying or past civilizations, are also often connected to a yearning for a return to the “barbarian values” of blood, honor, magic, poetry, adventure and exploit which are forbidden to all but a few in our “evolved” modern world.

---

Article printed from Counter-Currents Publishing: http://www.counter-currents.com

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/10/the-manly-barbarian/