Ok

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

mercredi, 24 octobre 2012

Japans geheime Tradition

 Samurai.png

Japans geheime Tradition

von Johannes Seitz
 
 

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.

seppuku.jpg

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.

mardi, 23 octobre 2012

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.

philosophie, thibault isabel, décadence, perte,

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

 

20:43 Publié dans Philosophie | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : radio, radio libre, philosophie, thibaut isabel | |  del.icio.us | | Digg! Digg |  Facebook

Auf Kriegskurs: Europas Linke wirbt für „humanitäre Interventionen“

bombardements-sur-la-syrie_924081_460x306.jpg

Auf Kriegskurs: Europas Linke wirbt für „humanitäre Interventionen“

 
„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.

fischer_plenum.jpg

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

web_syrie_turquie.jpg

Turkey leads US-sponsored Military Encirclement of Syria

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

Dugin1.jpg

Dugin Gets in the Ring

Whither the Fourth Political Theory?

 
 
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!

dugin-fpt.jpgDespite 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.

lundi, 22 octobre 2012

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

balkanization_of_syria.jpg

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! (rriyet) [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 !

00:05 Publié dans Evénement | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : événement, paris, patrick gofman, trotskysme | |  del.icio.us | | Digg! Digg |  Facebook

L'Ecologie politique avant l'écologisme

Bernard Charbonneau

L'Ecologie politique avant l'écologisme

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

Bernard-Charbonneau.gifJacques 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.

00:05 Publié dans Biographie, Ecologie | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : écologie, bernard charbonneau | |  del.icio.us | | Digg! Digg |  Facebook

The Loss of Reality

The Loss of Reality

The Ideological Caste and its Tyranny

 
 
 
Ma-Perte-de-Poids-Mythes-Nutritionnels.jpgThere 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

 ABED-ROYALISTE-CONFERENCE-NANCY.jpg

00:05 Publié dans Evénement | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : événement, franck abed, nancy | |  del.icio.us | | Digg! Digg |  Facebook