Terrorizing the Self

Selfie Culture at the Intersection of the Corporate and the Surveillance States

by HENRY GIROUX

Ex: http://www.counterpunch.org

Surveillance has become a growing feature of daily life wielded by both the state and the larger corporate sphere. This merger registers both the transformation of the political state into the corporate state as well as the transformation of a market economy into a criminal economy. One growing attribute of the merging of state and corporate surveillance apparatuses is the increasing view of privacy on the part of the American public as something to escape from rather than preserve as a precious political right. The surveillance and security-corporate state is one that not only listens, watches, and gathers massive amounts of information through data mining necessary for monitoring the American public—now considered as both potential terrorists and a vast consumer market- but also acculturates the public into accepting the intrusion of surveillance technologies and privatized commodified values into all aspects of their lives. Personal information is willingly given over to social media and other corporate based websites such as Instagram, Facebook, MySpace, and other media platforms and harvested daily as people move from one targeted website to the next across multiple screens and digital apparatuses. As Ariel Dorfman points out, “social media users gladly give up their liberty and privacy, invariably for the most benevolent of platitudes and reasons,” all the while endlessly shopping online and texting.[1] While selfies may not lend themselves directly to giving up important private information online, they do speak to the necessity to make the self into an object of public concern, if not a manifestation of how an infatuation with selfie culture now replaces any notion of the social as the only form of agency available to many people. Under such circumstances, it becomes much easier to put privacy rights at risk as they are viewed less as something to protect than to escape from in order to put the self on public display.

When the issue of surveillance takes place outside of the illegal practices performed by government intelligence agencies, critics most often point to the growing culture of inspection and monitoring that occurs in a variety of public spheres through ever present digital technologies used in the collecting of a mass of diverse information, most evident in the use video cameras that inhabit every public space from the streets, commercial establishments, and workplaces to the schools our children attend as well as in the myriad scanners placed at the entry points of airports, stores, sporting events, and the like. Rarely do critics point to the emergence of the selfie as another index of the public’s need to escape from the domain of what was once considered to be the cherished and protected realm of the private and personal. Privacy rights in this instance that were once viewed as a crucial safeguard in preventing personal and important information from being inserted into the larger public domain. In the present oversaturated information age, the right to privacy has gone the way of an historical relic and for too many Americans privacy is no longer a freedom to be cherished and by necessity to be protected. In fact, young people, in particular, cannot escape from the realm of the private fast enough. The rise of the selfie offers one index of this retreat from privacy rights and thus another form of legitimation for devaluing these once guarded rights altogether. One place to begin is with the increasing presence of the selfie, that is, the ubiquity of self-portraits being endlessly posted on various social media. One recent commentary on the selfie reports that:

A search on photo sharing app Instagram retrieves over 23 million photos uploaded with the hashtag #selfie, and a whopping 51 million with the hashtag #me. Rihanna, Justin Bieber, Lady Gaga and Madonna are all serial uploaders of selfies. Model Kelly Brook took so many she ended up “banning” herself. The Obama children were spotted posing into their mobile phones at their father’s second inauguration. Even astronaut Steve Robinson took a photo of himself during his repair of the Space Shuttle Discovery. Selfie-ism is everywhere. The word “selfie” has been bandied about so much in the past six months it’s currently being monitored for inclusion in the Oxford Dictionary Online.[2]

What this new politics of digital self-representation suggests is that the most important transgression against privacy may not only be happening through the unwarranted watching, listening, and collecting of information by the state. What is also taking place through the interface of state and corporate modes of the mass collecting of personal information is the practice of normalizing surveillance by upping the pleasure quotient and enticements for young people and older consumers. These groups are now constantly urged to use the new digital technologies and social networks as a mode of entertainment and communication. Yet, they function largely to simulate false notions of community and to socialize young people into a regime of security and commodification in which their identities, values, and desires are inextricably tied to a culture of private addictions, self-help, and consuming.

The more general critique of selfies points to their affirmation as an out of control form of vanity and narcissism in a society in which an unchecked capitalism promotes forms of rampant self-interests that both legitimize selfishness and corrode individual and moral character.[3] In this view, a market driven moral economy of increased individualism and selfishness has supplanted any larger notion of caring, social responsibility, and the public good. For example, one indication that Foucault’s notion of self-care has now moved into the realm of self-obsession can be seen in the “growing number of people who are waiting in line to see plastic surgeons to enhance images they post of themselves on smartphones and other social media sites. Patricia Reaney points out that “Plastic surgeons in the United States have seen a surge in demand for procedures ranging from eye-lid lifts to rhinoplasty, popularly known as nose job, from patients seeking to improve their image in selfies and on social media.”[4] It appears that selfies are not only an indication of the public’s descent into the narrow orbits of self-obsession and individual posturing but also good for the economy, especially plastic surgeons who generally occupy the one percent of the upper class of rich elites. The unchecked rise of selfishness is now partly driven by the search for new forms of capital, which recognize no boundaries and appear to have no ethical limitations.

In a society in which the personal is the only politics there is, there is more at stake in selfie culture than rampant narcissism or the swindle of fulfillment offered to teenagers and others whose self-obsession and insecurity takes an extreme, if not sometimes dangerous, turn. What is being sacrificed is not just the right to privacy, the willingness to give up the self to commercial interests, but the very notion of individual and political freedom. The atomization that in part promotes the popularity of selfie culture is not only nourished by neoliberal fervor for unbridled individualism, but also by the weakening of public values and the emptying out of collective and engaged politics. The political and corporate surveillance state is not just concerned about promoting the flight from privacy rights but also attempts to use that power to canvass every aspect of one’s life in order to suppress dissent, instill fear in the populace, and repress the possibilities of mass resistance against unchecked power.[5] Selfie culture is also fed by a spiritually empty consumer culture driven by a never-ending “conditions of visibility…in which a state of permanent illumination (and performance) is inseparable from the non-stop operation of global exchange and circulation.”[6] Jonathan Crary’s insistence that entrepreneurial excess now drives a 24/7 culture points rightly to a society driven by a constant state of “producing, consuming, and discarding”—a central feature of selfie culture.[7]

Once again, too many young people today seem to run from privacy by making every aspect of their lives public. Or they limit their presence in the public sphere to posting endless images of themselves. In this instance, community becomes reduced to the sharing of a nonstop production of images in which the self becomes the only source of agency worth validating. At the same time, the popularity of selfies points beyond an over indulgent narcissism, or a desire to collapse the public spheres into endless and shameless representations of the self. Selfies and the culture they produce cannot be entirely collapsed into the logic of domination. Hence, I don’t want to suggest that selfie culture is only a medium for various forms of narcissistic performance. Some commentators have suggested that selfies enable people to reach out to each other, present themselves in positive ways, and use selfies to drive social change. And there are many instances of this type of behavior.

Many young people claim that selfies offer the opportunity to invite comments by friends, raise their self-esteem, and offer a chance for those who are powerless and voiceless to represent themselves in a more favorable and instructive light.[8] For instance, Rachel Simmons makes a valiant attempt to argue that selfies are especially good for girls.[9] While this is partly true, I think Erin Gloria Ryan is right in responding to Simmons claim about selfies as a “positive-self-esteem builder” when she states: “Stop this. Selfies aren’t empowering; they’re a high tech reflection of the fucked up way society teaches women that their most important quality is their physical attractiveness.”[10] It is difficult to believe that mainstream, corporate saturated selfie culture functions to mostly build self-esteem among young girls who are a target for being reduced to salacious sexual commodities and a never-ending market that defines them largely as tidbits of a sensationalized celebrity culture. What is often missing in the marginalized use of selfies is that for the most part the practice is driven by a powerful and pervasive set of poisonous market driven values that frame this practice in ways that are often not talked about. Selfie culture is now a part of a market driven economy that encourages selfies as an act of privatization and consumption not as a practice that might support the public good.

What is missing from this often romanticized and depoliticized view of the popularity of selfies is that the mass acceptance, proliferation, and commercial appropriation of selfies suggests that the growing practice of producing representations that once filled the public space that focussed on important social problems and a sense of social responsibility are in decline among the American public, especially many young people whose identities and sense of agency is now shaped largely through the lens of a highly commodified and celebrity culture. We now live in a market-driven age defined as heroic by the conservative Ayn Rand, who argued in her book, The Virtue of Selfishness, that self-interest was the highest virtue and that altruism deserved nothing more than contempt. This retreat from the public good, compassion, care for the other, and the legitimation of a culture of cruelty and moral indifference is often registered in strange signposts and popularized in the larger culture. For instance, one expression of this new celebrity fed stupidity can be seen less in the endless prattle about the importance of selfies than in the rampant posturing inherent in selfie culture most evident in the widely marketed fanfare over Kim Kardashian’s appropriately named book, Selfish, which contains, of course, hundreds of her selfies. As Mark Fisher points out, this suggests a growing testimony to a commodified society in which “in a world of individualism everyone is trapped within their own feelings, trapped within their own imaginations…and unable to escape the tortured conditions of solipsism.”[11]

Under the surveillance state, the greatest threat one faces is not simply the violation of one’s right to privacy, but the fact that the public is subject to the dictates of arbitrary power it no longer seems interested in contesting. And it is precisely this existence of unchecked power and the wider culture of political indifference that puts at risk the broader principles of liberty and freedom, which are fundamental to democracy itself. According to Skinner:

The response of those who are worried about surveillance has so far been too much couched, it seems to me, in terms of the violation of the right to privacy. Of course it’s true that my privacy has been violated if someone is reading my emails without my knowledge. But my point is that my liberty is also being violated, and not merely by the fact that someone is reading my emails but also by the fact that someone has the power to do so should they choose. We have to insist that this in itself takes away liberty because it leaves us at the mercy of arbitrary power. It’s no use those who have possession of this power promising that they won’t necessarily use it, or will use it only for the common good. What is offensive to liberty is the very existence of such arbitrary power.[12]

The rise of selfies under the surveillance state is only one register of neoliberal inspired flight from privacy. As I have argued elsewhere, the dangers of the surveillance state far exceed the attack on privacy or warrant simply a discussion about balancing security against civil liberties.[13] The critique of the flight from privacy fails to address how the growth of the surveillance state and its appropriation of all spheres of private life are connected to the rise of the punishing state, the militarization of American society, secret prisons, state-sanctioned torture, a growing culture of violence, the criminalization of social problems, the depoliticization of public memory, and one of the largest prison systems in the world, all of which “are only the most concrete, condensed manifestations of a diffuse security regime in which we are all interned and enlisted.”[14] The authoritarian nature of the corporate-state surveillance apparatus and security system with its “urge to surveill, eavesdrop on, spy on, monitor, record, and save every communication of any sort on the planet” [15] can only be fully understood when its ubiquitous tentacles are connected to wider cultures of control and punishment, including security-patrolled corridors of public schools, the rise in super-max prisons, the hyper-militarization of local police forces, the rise of the military-industrial-academic complex, and the increasing labeling of dissent as an act of terrorism in the U.S.[16] Selfies may be more than an expression of narcissism gone wild, the promotion of privatization over preserving public and civic culture with their attendant practice of social responsibility. They may also represent the degree to which the ideological and affective spaces of neoliberalism have turned privacy into a mimicry of celebrity culture that both abets and is indifferent to the growing surveillance state and its totalitarian revolution, one that will definitely be televised in an endlessly repeating selfie that owes homage to George Orwell.

Henry A. Giroux currently holds the McMaster University Chair for Scholarship in the Public Interest in the English and Cultural Studies Department and a Distinguished Visiting Professorship at Ryerson University. His most recent books are America’s Education Deficit and the War on Youth (Monthly Review Press, 2013) and Neoliberalism’s War on Higher Education (Haymarket Press, 2014). His web site is www.henryagiroux.com.

Notes.

[1] Ariel Dorfman, “Repression by Any Other Name,” Guernica (February 3, 2014). Online: http://www.guernicamag.com/features/repression-by-any-other-name/

[2] “Self-portraits and social media: The rise of the ‘Selfie’,” BBC News Magazine(June 6, 2013)

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22511650

[3] Anita Biressi and Heather Nunn, “Selfishness in austerity times,” Soundings , Issue 56, (Spring 2014), pp. 54-66

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/soundings_a_journal_of_politics_and_culture/v056/56.biressi.pdf

[4] Patricia Reaney, “Nip, tuck, Click: Demand for U.S. plastic surgery rises in selfie era,” Reuters (November 29, 2014). Online: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/29/life-selfies-surgery-idUSL1N0SW1FI20141129

[5] Brad Evans and Henry A. Giroux, Disposable Futures (San Francisco: City Lights Books, 2015).

[6] Jonathan Crary, 24/7: Late Capitalism and the Ends of Sleep, (Verso, 2013) (Brooklyn, NY: Verso Press, 2013), p. 5.

[7] Ibid., p. 17.

[8] The kind of babble defending selfies without any critical commentary can be found in Jenna Wortham, “Self-portraits and social media: The rise of the ‘selfie’,”BBC News Magazine (June 6, 2013). Online:

Http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/20/sunday-review/my-selfie-myself.html

[9] Rachel Simmons, “Selfies Are Good for Girls,” Slate (November 20, 2013). Online: http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/11/selfies_on_instagram_and_facebook_are_tiny_bursts_of_girl_pride.html

[10] Erin Gloria Ryan, “Selfies Aren’t Empowering. They’re a Cry for Help,” Jezebel (November 21, 2013). Online: http://jezebel.com/selfies-arent-empowering-theyre-a-cry-for-help-1468965365

[11] Mark Fisher, Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative? (Winchester, UK: Zero Books, 2009), p. 74.

[12] Quentin Skinner and Richard Marshall “Liberty, Liberalism and Surveillance: a historic overview” Open Democracy (July 26, 2013). Online: http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/quentin-skinner-richard-marshall/liberty-liberalism-and-surveillance-historic-overview

[13] Henry A. Giroux, “Totalitarian Paranoia in the Post-Orwellian Surveillance State,” Truthout (February 10, 2015). Online: http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/21656-totalitarian-paranoia-in-the-post-orwellian-surveillance-state

[14] Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Declaration (Argo Navis Author Services, 2012), p. 23.

[15] Tom Engelhardt, “Tomgram: Engelhardt, A Surveillance State Scorecard,” Tom Dispath.com (November 12, 2013). Online: http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175771/

[16] I take up many of these issues in Henry A. Giroux, The Violence of Organized Forgetting (San Francisco: City Lights Publishing, 2014), Henry A. Giroux, The Twilight of the Social (Boulder: Paradigm Press, 2012), and Henry A. Giroux, Zombie Politics and Culture in the Age of Casino Capitalism (New York: Peter Lang, 2011).

Faye à Strasbourg!

Vendredi 13 février à Strasbourg - Conférence de Guillaume Faye: “La colonisation de l’Europe. Situation et solutions”

 

Chypre: bases militaires à la disposition de la Russie

Chypre, ce pays de la zone euro qui vient de mettre des bases militaires situées sur son territoire à la disposition de la Russie

Auteur : Mylène Vandecasteele

Ex: http://zejournal.mobi

Le président chypriote Nicos Anastasiades a annoncé vendredi que son pays venait de proposer à la Russie d'utiliser des bases militaires aériennes et navales situées sur son territoire, rapporte le site chinois China Gate.

Anastasiades a indiqué qu’il se rendrait à Moscou le 25 février prochain pour signer un accord qui renforcera les relations des deux pays dans le domaine de la défense. « Il y a un ancien accord (de défense) qu’il faut renouveler tel quel. En même temps, des sites additionnels seront mis à disposition, exactement comme nous le faisons avec d’autres pays, la France et l’Allemagne, par exemple », a dit le président.

L’accord porte notamment sur une base aérienne située sur la côte Sud de l’ile, à 40 km de la base militaire d’Akriotiri, qui est utilisée par l’Air Force britannique, et où l'OTAN prépare ses opérations au Moyen et Proche-Orient.

Chypre et la Russie partagent des liens historiques étroits, basés sur des traditions culturelles et religieuses communes.

La Russie a toujours été l'un des plus fidèles alliés de Chypre dans le différend qui l’oppose à la Turquie. Les Russes ont offert un soutien politique et militaire qui s’est concrétisé par des ventes d’armes.

Au cours de l’interview qu’il a donnée, Anastasiades a rappelé qu’il s’opposait à ce que l’Europe inflige de nouvelles sanctions contre la Russie, et qu’il voulait éviter toute nouvelle dégradation des relations entre la Russie et l’Europe. Il a précisé que les sanctions avaient eu un impact négatif sur certains secteurs de l’économie chypriote, et cité le tourisme, l'immobilier et les investissements dans la propriété.

Chypre a dû demander un programme d'urgence de 10 milliards d'euros en 2013 à l'Eurogroupe et le FMI.

Selon Russia Today, au cours des 20 dernières années, la Russie a investi plus de 30 milliards de dollars à Chypre. Ces derniers mois, la Grèce et Chypre ont émis des signaux qui indiquent qu'elles veulent renforcer leurs liens avec la Russie.

Chypre n’est pas membre de l'OTAN.

- Source : Mylène Vandecasteele

Bassam Tahhan: "En Syrie, Bachar Al-Assad est légitime"

 

TVL : Bassam Tahhan:

"En Syrie, Bachar Al-Assad est légitime"

http://www.tvlibertes.com/

https://www.facebook.com/tvlibertes

https://twitter.com/tvlofficiel

Pour nous soutenir :

http://www.tvlibertes.com/don/

Ou directement via Facebook :

https://www.facebook.com/tvlibertes/a...

Frankrijk en Duitsland breken met koers VS en kiezen voor Rusland

Frankrijk en Duitsland breken met koers VS en kiezen voor Rusland

 

Ex: http://xandernieuws.punt.nl

EU-lid Cyprus biedt Rusland militaire bases aan

De gewone Europeaan mag weer hoop hebben op een vreedzame afloop van de door de Amerikaanse regering gecreëerde crisis rond Oekraïne, nu zowel Duitsland als Frankrijk in scherpe bewoordingen afstand hebben genomen van het beleid van de regering Obama. De voormalige Franse president Nicolas Sarkozy, straks mogelijk opnieuw verkiesbaar, zei zelfs dat ‘wij een gemeenschappelijke beschaving met Rusland hebben. De belangen van de Amerikanen met de Russen zijn niet de belangen van Europa en Rusland.’

De Duitse minister van Buitenlandse Zaken, Frank-Walter Steinmeier was eveneens fel en zei dat de strategie van Washington ‘niet alleen riskant, maar ook contraproductief is’. Zijn woorden deden de bewering van zijn Amerikaanse collega John Kerry dat er ‘geen sprake was van een breuk tussen de VS en Duitsland’ volledig teniet.

Op de Veiligheidsconferentie in München herhaalde Steinmeier de eerdere verzekering van bondskanselier Angela Merkel dat Duitsland, en specifiek zijn partij, de SPD, nooit akkoord zal gaan met de door het Witte Huis geëiste wapenleveranties aan het regime in Kiev, dat nog altijd hoopt de pro-Russische separatisten te verslaan.

Minister van Economische Zaken Sigmar Gabriel toonde zich voorzichtig hoopvol over de gesprekken met Rusland. Hij zei dat hij van Putin verwacht dat deze de ‘uitgestoken hand van de EU beetpakt’, omdat ‘de EU na de crisis streeft naar een hernieuwing van het partnerschap met Rusland.

De huidige Franse president Francois Hollande lijkt eveneens ‘om’, en roept inmiddels op tot grotere autonomie voor het voornamelijk Russische sprekende oosten van Oekraïne. Op een congres van de UMP, waar zijn voorganger Sarkozy de leider van is, voegde Sarkozy nog toe dat ‘wij geen herleving van de koude oorlog tussen Europa en Rusland willen. De Krim heeft Rusland gekozen, en dat kunnen wij hen niet verwijten. We moeten bekijken hoe we een vredesmacht kunnen creëren om de Russisch sprekende mensen in Oekraïne te beschermen.’

Ook de NAVO en Brussel krijgen een klap in het gezicht, en wel van EU-lid Cyprus, dat besloten heeft om een vliegveld van de luchtmacht open te stellen voor Russische militaire toestellen.

Kortom: eindelijk weer eens hoopvol nieuws, zo vroeg in de morgen van maandag 9 februari. En nu maar hopen dat de Duitsers en Fransen hun ruggen recht houden, want de regering Obama zal de politieke druk op Europa om anti-Rusland te blijven waarschijnlijk nog veel verder gaan opvoeren.

Xander

(1) Zero Hedge

Zie ook o.a.:

08-02: ‘Europa moet oorlogskoers VS en NAVO loslaten en samen met Rusland wereldvrede redden’

11 Septembre: ces 28 pages qui menacent l'axe Washington-Riyad

Par Laure Mandeville

Ex: http://www.lefigaro.fr

 

Un document classifié prouve le rôle financier des Saoudiens dans les attentats du World Trade Center, assure l'ex-sénateur Bob Graham.

De la correspondante du Figaro à Washington

Dans les sous-sols du bâtiment du Capitole, tout près de l'entrée où des flots de touristes se présentent pour la visite du Congrès, il existe une pièce sécurisée où le Comité pour le renseignement de la Chambre des représentants conserve des documents secrets hautement classifiés. L'un d'eux, long de 28 pages, et intitulé «Éléments, discussion et récit concernant certains sujets sensibles de sécurité nationale», a fait couler beaucoup d'encre depuis treize ans.

Ce texte, qui pose la question du rôle de l'Arabie saoudite dans l'organisation des attentats du World Trade Center, faisait partie du fameux rapport sur le 11 septembre 2001, supervisé par le Comité du renseignement du Sénat, et son ancien président Bob Graham. Mais au moment de sa publication en 2002, ce sénateur démocrate de Floride, qui a depuis quitté le Congrès, a découvert avec stupéfaction que les 28 pages avaient été supprimées et classifiées à la demande de l'Administration Bush. «Raisons de sécurité nationale», avait expliqué à l'époque l'équipe de George W. Depuis toutes ces années, c'est ce même argument qui a empêché la déclassification du texte, malgré les efforts de Graham, l'un des rares à avoir lu le document, même s'il peut être accessible aux élus qui en font la demande.

«C'est notre refus de regarder en face la vérité qui a créé la nouvelle vague d'extrémisme qui a frappé Paris.»

L'ancien sénateur Bob Graham

«Ce rapport montre la participation directe du gouvernement saoudien dans le financement du 11 Septembre», déclare l'ancien sénateur au Figaro. «Nous savons au moins que plusieurs des 19 kamikazes ont reçu le soutien financier de plusieurs entités saoudiennes, y compris du gouvernement. Le fait de savoir si les autres ont été soutenus aussi par l'Arabie saoudite n'est pas clair, car cette information a été cachée au peuple américain», ajoute Graham. «On nous dit que cela ne peut être fait pour des raisons de sécurité nationale, mais c'est exactement le contraire», poursuit-il.

«Publier est important précisément pour notre sécurité nationale. Les Saoudiens savent ce qu'ils ont fait, ils savent que nous savons. La vraie question est la manière dont ils interprètent notre réponse. Pour moi, nous avons montré que quoi qu'ils fassent, il y aurait impunité. Ils ont donc continué à soutenir al-Qaida, puis plus récemment dans l'appui économique et idéologique à l'État islamique. C'est notre refus de regarder en face la vérité qui a créé la nouvelle vague d'extrémisme qui a frappé Paris», martèle l'ancien sénateur. Un autre élu qui a lu le document a confié au New Yorker que «les preuves du soutien du gouvernement saoudien pour les événements du 11 Septembre étaient très dérangeantes» et que la «vraie question est de savoir si cela a été approuvé au niveau de la famille royale ou en dessous».

En 2002, Graham était bien seul dans son combat pour «la vérité». Mais à la mi-janvier, il a tenu une conférence de presse au Sénat sur ce thème en compagnie de deux représentants, le républicain Walter Jones et le démocrate Stephen Lynch, qui ont présenté une résolution HR 428 appelant à la déclassification. «Le soutien grandit mais atteindra-t-il le seuil qui permettra au Congrès de faire pression sur l'Administration Obama? Ce n'est pas clair», note l'ancien élu. Jones et Lynch ont écrit au président pour lui demander d'agir. Selon l'un des membres de l'organisation des familles victimes du 11 Septembre, Terence Schiavo, Obama aurait promis de déclassifier un jour.

«Nous affirmons que des organismes de bienfaisance établis par le gouvernement du Royaume pour propager l'idéologie radicale wahhabite ont servi de sources majeures de financement et de soutien logistique à al-Qaida, pendant toute la décennie qui a mené au 11 Septembre.»

Sean Carter, un des avocats des victimes du 11 Septembre

Les familles de victimes sont en première ligne dans ce combat. Si leurs avocats pouvaient prouver la participation de l'État saoudien aux attentats, Riyad serait forcé de leur verser des compensations. «Nous affirmons que des organismes de bienfaisance établis par le gouvernement du Royaume pour propager l'idéologie radicale wahhabite ont servi de sources majeures de financement et de soutien logistique à al-Qaida, pendant toute la décennie qui a mené au 11 Septembre», a confié l'un des avocats des familles, Sean Carter, au New Yorker. Selon l'hebdomadaire, deux des kamikazes auraient notamment été financés et hébergés à San Diego par un personnage en contact permanent avec la section du ministère des Affaires islamiques basée à Los Angeles. L'Arabie saoudite nie toutefois toute responsabilité et a appelé à la déclassification des 28 pages afin de laver sa réputation.

Bob Graham pense que derrière ces appels, le Royaume fait pression sur Washington pour que le rapport reste confidentiel. Mais certaines des personnes qui ont travaillé sur le document apportent de l'eau au moulin des Saoudiens, en soulignant que le texte n'établit pas de manière irrévocable la participation des autorités saoudiennes. C'est notamment le cas de Philip Zelikow, directeur de la commission du 11 Septembre, qui qualifie les 28 pages «d'accumulation de rapports préliminaires non confirmés». «Je ne suis pas d'accord. Si ce rapport est superficiel et peu convaincant, pourquoi en avoir empêché la publication depuis treize ans?» réagit Graham.

Le fait que Barack Obama ait écourté sa visite en Inde la semaine dernière, pour aller saluer le nouveau roi d'Arabie en compagnie de 30 hautes responsables politiques - alors qu'aucun n'avait pris la peine de se rendre à la marche de Paris après les attaques terroristes - en dit long sur les priorités de Washington.

Pour lui, «la réponse est évidente concernant les Bush, qui sont très proches des Saoudiens» qui craignaient pour leur réputation. La raison pour laquelle Obama suit la même voie semble surtout venir des énormes implications géopolitiques que pourraient avoir de telles révélations sur une relation américano-saoudienne, toujours considérée comme vitale. Le fait que le président ait écourté sa visite en Inde la semaine dernière, pour aller saluer le nouveau roi d'Arabie en compagnie de 30 hautes responsables politiques - alors qu'aucun n'avait pris la peine de se rendre à la marche de Paris après les attaques terroristes - en dit long sur les priorités de Washington.

Avec les mouvements de plaques tectoniques qui secouent le Moyen Orient - l'opposition chiites-sunnites, la question du nucléaire iranien, la guerre d'Irak et de Syrie et la déstabilisation du Yémen -, «Obama ne veut pas introduire un nouveau facteur d'instabilité», dit Graham. Même si son jeu avec l'Iran semble indiquer une volonté de se distancer de l'Arabie, le choix est clairement de maintenir plusieurs fers au feu. Faute de mieux.

De la guerre du Golfe au gros souk planétaire

De la guerre du Golfe au gros souk planétaire

 

On assiste bien à l’émergence d’un monde islamo-occidental.

 

Nicolas Bonnal

Ecrivain

Ex: http://www.bvoltaire.com

Il y a quinze ans, tout le monde prophétisait un choc des civilisations. Nous avions d’un côté le gentil Occident moderne et démocrate, de l’autre la barbarie musulmane. Les camps étaient bien définis, nous étions tous contents.

Nous oubliions seulement qu’Obama serait élu juste après l’autre ; que le pouvoir saoudien ne cesserait d’affirmer sa loi sur un Occident post-chrétien et post-nucléaire – pourvu qu’il récupérât sa dîme en dollars ; que le clan des Ben Laden avait été le seul à pouvoir quitter le sol américain le soir de l’attentat ; que les composants de cette tribu bien américanisée et descendante de Ladinos d’Espagne construiraient les nouveaux centres de pèlerinage de La Mecque en massacrant le patrimoine traditionnel ; que toute base (Al-Qaïda en arabe) américaine accélère non pas le choc mais l’osmose tératologique dont nous allons parler.

Modèle à suivre ? Principautés pirates comme les îles Caïmans des Caraïbes, paradis fiscaux recyclés dans un monde endetté, ces états élitistes incarnent au contraire le nec plus ultra de la mondialisation. Ils sont la fine fleur de la racaille émiettée des poussières d’Empire britannique. Leur civilisation repose comme la nôtre sur le centre commercial. Ces entités post-musulmanes façonnées par les souks anglais ignorent la terre, consacrant l’oasis marchande cernée de désert. Elles encensent les caravanes, nous les lignes commerciales. Elles n’aiment pas les armées nationales, elles aiment les mercenaires humanitaires. Elles ouvrent des musées d’art islamique, et leurs mosquées sont vides : c’est la civilisation des voleurs de Bagdad.

La population « farcesque » des États du Golfe annonce aussi notre triste avenir. Celle des Émirats a été multipliée par cent en cinquante ans. Il y a moins de 20 % de Qataris au Qatar. On trouve les cadres expatriés des multinationales qui aiment vivre sur ces hideuses tours et les pauvres boys venus en fraude des Philippines, et les esclaves du sous-continent. Ils représentent 80 % de la population, ces misérables venus des Indes, du Pakistan, qui n’ont aucun droit, et ne savent pas à quelle sauce ils seront mangés par leur patron. Ce modèle social et racial de Slumdog Millionaire est à l’image du modèle victorien de retour : malheur au pauvre ! C’est du Dickens à la sauce kebab.

On assiste donc bien à l’émergence d’un monde islamo-occidental que renforce l’appétit de terreur des médias, de tous leurs financiers. Les terroristes ou EGM (êtres médiatiquement générés) renforcent à propos la cohérence de cette parodie de civilisation ; s’il y a choc des civilisations, c’est – comme au Moyen Âge – sur le dos du monde orthodoxe : voyez la Grèce et la Russie, voyez les coptes en Égypte. Le nomadisme islamo-occidental a détruit, en un siècle, le Moyen-Orient chrétien et ce Moyen-Orient musulman qui, justement, n’était pas islamique. Nous ne préserverons que le pire de chaque civilisation.

Le désert croît ; malheur à qui recèle des déserts !

Nicolas Bonnal

Filmbespreking: Michiel de Ruyter

door Sjors Remmerswaal
Ex: http://rechtsactueel.com

Het is bepaald geen sinecure om de Nederlandse volkheld Michiel Adriaanszoon de Ruyter waardig te verfilmen, die een groot deel van zijn leven ten dienste van het vaderland de zeeën heeft bevaren. Op allerlei functies binnen de Nederlandse vloot heeft hij zich uitermate verdienstelijk gemaakt. Internationaal bekend is de overwinning bij Kijkduin in 1673, de Engelse en Franse vloot was in aantallen veel te sterk voor de Nederlandse vloot, maar De Ruyter wist de overwinning te behalen en te voorkomen dat de vijandige troepen aan wal gingen en Nederland bezetten.

Een dergelijke man van de daad, doorheen de eeuwen zeer geliefd onder het Nederlandse volk, ja ga dat verhaal maar eens verfilmen…. Toch is het filmregisseur zeker geslaagd, het is een knappe verfilming geworden vol met actie en romantiek en het redelijk vast aanhouden van de historische werkelijkheid. De producent is Klaas de Jong, die eerder verdienstelijk de Scheepsjongens van Bontekoe verfilmde.

De hoofdrol wordt gespeeld door Frank Lammers, die Michiel de Ruyter goed weet te spelen, als gewone Zeeuwse volksjongen die vanwege zijn grote kwaliteiten opklimt binnen de marine, sterk en krachtig, aangevuld met wat Zeeuwse humor. Ook zijn er andere rollen die alleraardigst naar voren komen, zo schittert Barry Atsma als een daadkrachtige en intelligente Johan de Witt en Sanne Langelaar als de vrouw van de Ruyter, als een ijzersterke moeder en liefdevolle vrouw.

Prins van Oranje Willem III komt er minder van af, die wordt geportretteerd als homofiele slappeling, die wordt gestuurd en gemanipuleerd door Oranjegezinde intriganten. Daarentegen wordt de Republiek opgehemeld en haar verdedigers grote kwaliteiten aangemeten. Wellicht is ook interessant daarbij te vernoemen dat de Republiek vooral ook talloze ontwortelde bureaucraten voortbracht, die zich op behoorlijke schaal gingen verrijken ten koste van de Nederlandse bevolking.

Echter dit doet nauwelijks af van de heerlijke kijk- en luisterbeleving die de film is. Vechtpartijen en romantische scènes wisselen elkaar af onder het genot van ophemelende muziekdeunen. Meerdere malen zien we ook de Ruyter knokken met de bemanning van de Engelse vloot en ook zien we de elite eenheid Korps Mariniers aan de slag op de Theems. Ja, het zijn natuurlijk ook mooie stukken Nederlandse geschiedenis.

Het zeker een film om in het filmhuis te gaan bezoeken, want met de extra effecten en dramatische muziek en de knappe beelden van op de schepen, krijgt men zo meer dan een extra kijkervaring.

Elementos nos 85, 86, 87 & 88

ELEMENTOS Nº 88. LA NUEVA DERECHA Y LA CUESTIÓN DEL FASCISMO

 

Descargar con issuu.com

Descargar con scribd.com

Descargar con google.com


SUMARIO.

Nueva Derecha, ¿extrema derecha o derecha extravagante?, por José Andrés Fernández Leost

La Nueva Derecha y la cuestión del Fascismo, por Diego Luis Sanromán

La Nueva Derecha. ¿«Software» neofascista?, por Rodrigo Agulló

Plus Ça Change!  El pedigrí fascista de la Nueva Derecha, por Roger Griffin

¿Discusión o inquisición? La Nueva Derecha y el "caso De Benoist", por Pierre-André Taguieff

El Eterno Retorno. ¿Son fascistas las ideas-fuerza de la Nueva Derecha Europea?, por Joan Antón-Mellón

¿Viejos prejuicios o nuevo paradigma político? La Nueva Derecha francesa vista por la Nueva Izquierda norteamericana, por Paul Piccone

La Nueva Derecha y la reformulación «metapolítica» de la extrema derecha, por Miguel Ángel Simón

El Frente Nacional y la Nueva Derecha, por Charles Champetier

La Nueva Derecha y el Fascismo, por Marcos Roitman Rosenmann

ELEMENTOS Nº 87. LEO STRAUSS: ¿PADRE DE LOS NEOCONS?

 

 

Descargar con issuu.com

Descargar con scribd.com

Descargar con google.com


Sumario.-

Leo Strauss: filosofía, política y valores, por Alain de Benoist

Leo Strauss, el padre secreto de los “neocon”, por Esteban Hernández

Leo Strauss y la esencia de la filosofía política, por Eduardo Hernando Nieto

Leo Strauss, los straussianos y los antistraussianos, por Demetrio Castro

Leo Strauss, ideas sin contexto, por Benigno Pendás

Leo Strauss: los abismos del pensamiento conservador, por Ernesto Milá

Leo Strauss y la política como (in)acción, por Jorge San Miguel

Leo Strauss y la recuperación de la racionalidad política clásica, por Iván Garzón-Vallejo

¿Qué es filosofía política? de Leo Strauss. Apuntes para una reflexión sobre el conocimiento político, por Jorge Orellano

Leo Strauss y su crítica al liberalismo, por Alberto Buela

Leo Strauss y la redención clásica del mundo moderno, por Sergio Danil Morresi

Leo Strauss: lenguaje, tradición e historia, por Jesús Blanco Echauri

Mentiras piadosas y guerra perpetua: Leo Strauss y el neoconservadurismo, por Danny Postel

La mano diestra del capitalismo: de Leo Strauss al movimiento neoconservador, por Francisco José Fernández-Cruz Sequera

 

ELEMENTOS Nº 86. UN DIÁLOGO CONSERVADOR: SCHMITT-STRAUSS

 

Descargar con issuu.com

Descargar con scribd.com

Descargar con google.com

Sumario.-

¿Teología Política o Filosofía Política? La amistosa conversación entre Carl Schmitt y Leo Strauss, por Eduardo Hernando Nieto

Entre Carl Schmitt y Thomas Hobbes. Un estudio del liberalismo moderno a partir del pensamiento de Leo Strauss, por José Daniel Parra

Schmitt, Strauss y lo político. Sobre un diálogo entre ausentes, por Martín González

La afirmación de lo político. Carl Schmitt, Leo Strauss y la cuestión del fundamento, por Luciano Nosetto

Modernidad y liberalismo. Hobbes entre Schmitt y Strauss, por Andrés Di Leo Razuk

Leo Strauss y los autores modernos, por Matías Sirczuk

Leo Strauss y la redención clásica del mundo moderno, por Sergio Danil Morresi

Sobre el concepto de filosofía política en Leo Strauss, por Carlos Diego Martínez Cinca

Secularización y crítica del liberalismo moderno en Leo Strauss, por Antonio Rivera García

La obra de Leo Strauss y su crítica de la Modernidad, por María Paula Londoño Sánchez

Carl Schmitt: las “malas compañías” de Leo Strauss, por Francisco José Fernández-Cruz Sequera

Carl Schmitt, Leo Strauss y Hans Blumenberg. La legitimidad de la modernidad, por Antonio Lastra

 

ELEMENTOS Nº 85 EL DINERO: DEIFICACIÓN CAPITALISTA

 

Descargar con issuu.com

 

Descargar con scribd.com 

 

Descargar con google.com

 

La religión del dinero, por Ernesto Milá

 

Dinero, dinerización y destino, por Germán Spano

 

El dinero como síntoma, por Alain de Benoist

 

El poder del ídolo-dinero, por Benjamín Forcano

 

El poder del dinero: la autodestrucción del ser humano, por Antonio Morales Berruecos y Edmundo Galindo González

 

El dinero como ideología, por Guillaume Faye

 

La ideología del dinero en la época actual, por Juan Castaingts Teillery

 

Georg Simmel: el dinero y la libertad moderna, por Andrés Bilbao

 

¿El dinero da la felicidad?, por Pedro A. Honrubia Hurtado

 

Los fundamentos onto-teológico-políticos de la mercancía y del dinero, por Fabián Ludueña Romandini

 

Mundo sin dinero: una visión más allá del capitalismo, por Juan E. Drault

 

La época de los iconoclastas, por Alain de Benoist

 

Las identidades del dinero, por Celso Sánchez Capdequí

 

La ganga y la fecundidad del dinero, por Emmanuel Mounier

 

El dinero-financiero y el poder de la globalización, por Iván Murras Mas y Maciá Blázquez Salom

Arctic Resources to Boost Russia’s Pivot to Asia

Arctic Resources to Boost Russia’s Pivot to Asia

from thearcticmonitor.org:

 

The West is not the only global player to have its eyes on Asia. Russia is looking to become a key energy supplier for the Chinese and Indian markets and will use its Arctic gas to do so.

 

Global energy markets in deep transition

 

Russia is looking at diversifying its oil and gas exports which have so far mostly targeted the European market. Additionally, the recent tensions with the West, followed by economic sanctions, and the slow-down of Europe’s economy have made it necessary for the Kremlin to find new recipients for its oil and gas exports.

 

According to recent estimates, by 2050, emerging markets will account for 70 percent of the world trade. The Pacific pivot of the world’s main economies is quietly taking shape, and the Kremlin is jumping on the bandwagon.

 

Russia and India together in the Arctic

 

Last month, Gazprom Marketing & Trading Singapore (GM&T) and Yamal Trade entered a long-term contract for liquefied natural gas (LNG) supply. And most of the gas will be delivered to India. According to Gazprom’s website, the contract will be effective for over 20 years and provide an annual supply of 2.9 million tons of LNG. Although the price of the contract has not been announced yet, it will be determined using the formula with oil indexation, the news report says.

 

What is interesting in this deal is that Russia will be using its Arctic resources to supply a client for over 20 years. Beyond being another solid evidence of the «Indo-Pacific» pivot, this move teaches us two important things. First, that discussions about dropping Arctic oil and gas projects are somewhat moot and second, that long-term economic development of the Arctic is underway.

Analysis

First, some context. Let’s look at the actors involved in Russia’s energetic pivot to Asia. GM&T is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Gazprom group. It has five offices around the world, including one in Singapore established in 2010, focusing mainly on trading LNG.

 

Yamal Trade, a subsidiary of Yamal LNG founded in 2006 and headquartered in Moscow, offers LNG exploration and production services, such as the engineering and designing of the Sabetta onshore LNG facility. The construction of the Sabetta port in the Yamal peninsula started in 2012, and it comes as no surprise that the port is designed to facilitate shipments of LNG to the Asia-Pacific region.

 

The contract signed last month did not happen overnight. The deal is the result of lengthy talks and it took years for the Russian-Indian partnership to develop and mature.

 

In October 2013, Indian state-owned oil company Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) expressed its interest in partnering with Russia to explore for oil and gas in Russia’s Arctic waters. Officials from the two countries met and discussed the possibilities for exporting Russian gas to India via pipeline.

 

A few months later, in January 2014, Russia’s Energy Ministry unveiled a draft plan to at least double its oil and gas flows to Asia over the next 20 years. In 2013, only 16% of the total Russian oil and gas exports was sent to Asia. But by 2035, the Kremlin’s goal is to raise gas exports to Asia from 6% to 31%.

 

Then, in May 2014, it became public that GM&T and Yamal Trade signed an agreement to supply up to 3 million tons of LNG, and already, India was to be the main recipient. The press release stressed that LNG would be delivered under «FOB» terms. FOB stands for «free on board», meaning that «the individual or organization buying the goods is responsible for freight costs/liability». The LNG would transit from Western Europe to Asia.

 

By the end of 2014, during the 20th Offshore South East Asia Conference and Exhibition (OSEA) in Singapore in December, Moscow’s top oil and gas officials announced that Russia would take Asia-Pacific countries as main partners in the oil and gas sector and highlighted the benefits of mutual cooperation. OSEA is «Asia’s leading business technology event for the oil and gas industry», explains the official website.

 

Russia’s economic policy statement represents a landmark in its energy policy history and will have consequences that stretch far beyond the simple business relationship established between the two countries.

 

A few days later the same month, during Putin’s visit to India, Putin declared he was ready to export LNG to India with the involvement of the ONGC in Arctic projects. According to the company’s website, ONGC is ranked as the top energy company in India, fifth in Asia and has a market value of 46.4 billion US dollars – against 99.9 billion US dollars for Gazprom in 2013.

 

Putin also specified that using a cross-country pipeline to export natural gas would be much more expensive than relying on shipping to sell it in its liquid form, LNG. In the end, it comes down to a “question of commercial feasibility”, Putin said.

 

With a booming economy and population, India was the fourth-largest energy consumer in the world in 2011, the EIA notes. And although coal is still its main source of energy, New Delhi is actively trying to reform its energy sector.

 

India is expected to start receiving LNG shipments as early as in 2017, Putin indicated during his state visit.

 

Years of negotiations between Moscow and New Delhi paved the way for the contract signed on January 23rd by GM&T and Yamal Trade. According to the terms of the contract, an annual supply of 2.9 million tons of LNG will be shipped to Asia, most of which will end up fuelling India’s fast-growing energy needs.

 

Implications for the future

 

Although some pushed for a halt in Arctic drilling, Russian Natural Resources Minister Sergey Donskoy’s statement this week is not shocking in any way. « No one has suggested that the oil production forecast [in the Arctic] should be reduced », the minister said.

 

The « Russindian » deal evidently illustrates the major ongoing transformations that are happening in the energy sector: the exploitation of resources in new areas, and the need for the world’s main energy suppliers to broaden their horizons in amending their export policies. To draw a parallel, one could argue that, to some extent, Russia is in a situation similar to the one of Canada. A situation where the traditional recipients for energy exports (the U.S and the E.U) no longer reflect stability and predictability, but rather waning economic partners.

SOURCE: The Arctic Monitor

Missing-in-Action in the Expanding War on ISIS

Where’s the Anti-War Movement When You Really Need It?

by SARAH LAZARE

Ex: http://www.counterpunch.org

The expanding U.S.-led war on the so-called Islamic State, or ISIS, has largely fallen off the radar of U.S. social movements.

Many (but not all) who were active in anti-war organizing over the past decade have turned away from this conflict. The dearth of public debate is conspicuous, even as the U.S. government sinks the country deeper into yet another open-ended and ill-defined military operation. The refrain “it will take years” has become such a common utterance by the Obama administration that it slips by barely noticed.

There are many reasons for the relative silence in the face of this latest military escalation. I would venture that one of them is the sheer complexity of the situation on the ground in Iraq and Syria — as well as the real humanitarian crisis posed by the rise of ISIS, the many-layered power struggles across the wider Middle East, and the difficulty of building connections with grassroots movements in countries bearing the brunt of the violence.

But the answer to complexity is not to do nothing. In fact, great crimes and historic blunders — from Palestine to South Africa to Afghanistan — have been tacitly enabled by people who chose not to take action, perhaps because the situation seemed too complex to engage. When millions of lives are on the line, inaction is unacceptable.

The task is to figure out what to do.

The most important question to ask is this: Do we really think that the U.S. military operation against ISIS will bring about a good outcome for the people of Iraq and Syria, or for U.S. society? Is there any evidence from the more than 13 years of the so-called “War on Terror” that U.S. military intervention in the Middle East brings anything but death, displacement, destabilization, and poverty to the people whose homes have been transformed into battlefields?

The answer to these questions must be a resounding “No.”

But there are also many things to say “Yes” to. A better path forward can only be forged by peoples’ movements on the ground in Iraq and Syria — movements that still exist, still matter, and continue to organize for workers’ rights, gender justice, war reparations, and people power, even amid the death and displacement that has swallowed up all the headlines.

Now is a critical time to seek to understand and build solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian civil societies. Heeding their call, we should strengthen awareness here at home of the tremendous political and ethical debt the United States owes all people harmed by the now-discredited war on Iraq and the crises it set in motion.

“U.S. Military Action Leads to Chaos”

“A rational observer of United States intervention in the swath of land that runs from Libya to Afghanistan would come to a simple conclusion: U.S. military action leads to chaos,” wrote scholar and activist Vijay Prashad a month after the bombings began.

More than 13 years on, there is no evidence that the “War on Terror” has accomplished its stated, if amorphous, goal: to weed out terrorism (defined to exclude atrocities committed by the U.S. and allied states, of course). According to the Global Terrorism Index released by the Institute for Economics and Peace, global terrorist incidents have climbed dramatically since the onset of the War on Terror. In 2000, there were 1,500 terrorist incidents. By 2013, this number had climbed to 10,000. People in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria, and Syria suffer the most, the index notes.

The so-called “good war” in Afghanistan, which is now entering its 14^th year and has not ended, illustrates this failed policy (President Obama’s recent claim that the combat mission is “over” notwithstanding).

In contradiction of the Obama administration’s “mission accomplished” spin, Afghanistan is suffering a spike in civilian deaths, displacement, poverty, and starvation, with 2014 proving an especially deadly year for Afghan non-combatants. The Taliban, furthermore, appears to be growing in strength, as the U.S. forces Afghanistan into long-term political and military dependency with the Bilateral Security Agreement signed last September by Afghan President Ashraf Ghani.

The Revolutionary Association of Women in Afghanistan is one of numerous civil society groups in Afghanistan that have no illusions about the U.S. track record so far. “In the past thirteen years, the U.S. and its allies have wasted tens of billions of [dollars], and turned this country into the center of global surveillance and mafia gangs; and left it poor, corrupt, insecure, hungry, and crippled with tribal, linguistic, and sectarian divisions,” the organization declared in a statement released last October.

The current crisis in Iraq and Syria is another piece of this puzzle. It is now well-documented that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 played a critical role in fueling al-Qaeda in Iraq, which would eventually become ISIS. Emerging as part of the insurgency against the United States — and now thriving off opposition to the sectarian Shiite government propped up by Washington — ISIS did not even exist before the United States invaded Iraq. Its ranks were initially filled with Sunnis who were spat out by the brutal, U.S.-imposed de-Baathification process, and later by those disaffected by a decade of negligence and repression from Shiite authorities in Baghdad.

In neighboring Syria, the United States and Saudi Arabia backed anti-Assad fighters that were, as journalist Patrick Cockburn put it, “ideologically close to al-Qaeda” yet “relabeled as moderate.” It was in Syria that ISIS developed the power to push back into Iraq after being driven out in 2007.

Ordinary people across the region are paying a staggering price for these policies.

2014 was the deadliest year for civilians in Iraq since the height of the U.S. war in 2006 and 2007, according to Iraq Body Count. The watchdog found that 17,049 civilians were recorded killed in Iraq last year alone — approximately double the number recorded killed in 2013, which in turn was roughly double the tally from 2012. And more than 76,000 people — over 3,500 of them children — died last year in Syria, according to figures from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. António Guterres, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, recently warned, “The Syria and Iraq mega-crises, the multiplication of new crises, and the old crises that seem never to die have created the worst displacement situation in the world since World War II,” with at least 13.6 million people displaced from both countries.

But instead of reckoning with these legacies, the U.S. government has taken a giant leap backward — towards another open-ended, ill-defined military operation in Iraq and now Syria.

President Obama vowed in his recent State of the Union address to double down in the fight against ISIS, declaring yet again, “this effort will take time.” His remarks came just days after the United States and Britain announced a renewed joint military effort, and the Pentagon deployed 1,000 troops to Middle Eastern states to train “moderate” Syrian fighters. That comes in addition to the 3,000 soldiers ordered to deploy to Iraq, with more likely to follow. Meanwhile, the rise of Islamophobia in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attacks is feeding war fervor abroad and at home.

And so the Obama administration — which falls into the political realist camp and has, at times, pressed for a moderate retrenchment of U.S. war in the Middle East (in part to enable a disastrous pivot to Asia) — is now leading a military response to a crisis that the president himself has acknowledged cannot be solved by the U.S. military. To do so, Obama has repeatedly sidestepped congressional debate by claiming authority from the post-9/11 war authorization against the perpetrators of the attacks — the same legislation he once denounced for “keeping America on a perpetual wartime footing.” (He vowed in his State of the Union address to seek out explicit authorization from Congress for the war on ISIS, but has claimed in the past not to need it.)

“As If Further Militarization Ever Brought Peace to Iraq”

As the U.S. government makes unverified claims that U.S. lives are under threat from ISIS, it is Muslims, Arabs, Kurds, Yazidis, and Christians in the Middle East who are being killed, raped, and displaced. “The occupation of the city of Mosul started a new chapter of women’s suffering in Iraq,” wrote the Organization of Women’s Freedom in Iraq in a statement published last December. “Daesh (ISIS) reawakened the ancient tribal habits of claiming women as spoils of war.”

Meanwhile, Kurds are fighting and dying to beat back ISIS in both Iraq and Syria but are not even offered a seat at the international table. This was highlighted in the recent exclusion of Kurdish groups from an anti-ISIS conference in London of representatives from 21 nations.

At this conference, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry claimed that the coalition had “halted the momentum” of ISIS fighters, while other U.S. officials insisted that half of the “top command” of ISIS had been killed. While global media outlets ran with this “news,” Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel publicly expressed serious doubt about such claims, describing the body count as “unverified.”

Furthermore, the ability of the U.S. military — the most powerful in the world — to blow up and kill is not in question. But in a complex geopolitical arena, that’s simply not a valid measure of “success.” The histories of the Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan wars are tragic examples of the vast difference between killing a lot of people and “winning” a war.

Over five months in, U.S. military operations in Iraq and Syria are neither alleviating the humanitarian crisis nor meeting any of the shifting goals of U.S. officials (containing ISIS, destroying them, etc.). The perception that ISIS is primarily at war with the United States is, in fact, critical to their growth. The CIA estimated in September — just a month after U.S.-led bombings began — that ISIS had tripled its ranks, from 10,000 to over 30,000. As Patrick Cockburn reported in early January, “The territories [ISIS] conquered in a series of lightning campaigns last summer remain almost entirely under its control, even though it has lost some towns to the Kurds and Shia militias in recent weeks.”

So while the expansion of ISIS’ frontiers may have slowed, the intervention has failed to prevent the group from consolidating its control in Iraq and Syria. “Extremism thrives during foreign interventions and military actions,” said Raed Jarrar of the American Friends Service Committee in an interview for this article. “Bombing different groups who live in the same areas as ISIS has helped unite ISIS with more moderate groups, more reasonable groups, who could have been persuaded to rejoin the political process. In Syria, bombing ISIS and other extremist groups, including al-Qaeda, has helped them unite, although they have been killing each other for the past two years.”

In addition to the crimes perpetrated by ISIS, U.S.-backed and armed Iraqi forces, sectarian Iraqi militias, and “moderate rebels” in Syria are also committing brutal war crimes.

In July, for example, Human Rights Watch condemned the Iraqi government for repeatedly bombing densely populated residential neighborhoods, including numerous strikes on Fallujah’s main hospital with mortars and other munitions. And in October, Amnesty International warned that Iraqi Shiite militias, many of them funded and armed by the Iraqi government, are committing war crimes that include abductions, executions, and disappearances of Sunni civilians. In Iraq, Patrick Cockburn writes, “The war has become a sectarian bloodbath. Where Iraqi army, Shia militia, or Kurdish peshmerga have driven ISIS fighters out of Sunni villages and towns from which civilians have not already fled, any remaining Sunni have been expelled, killed, or detained.”

In other words, U.S. military intervention is not advancing the side with a clear moral high-ground, but militarizing what Raed Jarrar calls a “bloody civil conflict with criminal forces on all sides.”

And now, of course, Iraqis must contend with the return of a far more powerful fighting force guilty of numerous atrocities and war crimes across the globe, including torture, massacres, use of chemical weapons, and cluster bombing of civilians in Iraq: the U.S. military.

In a recent statement, the Organization of Women’s Freedom in Iraq slammed the U.S.-led military campaign for, in the midst of this humanitarian crisis, “providing further military arms and bombing only, as if further militarization ever brought peace to Iraq.” Neither the international coalition nor the Iraqi government, the statement continues, is concerned “with the enslavement of more than five thousand women who are being bought and sold in broad day-light in Mosul, Raqqa, and other ‘Islamic State’ cities.”

None of this is to overstate the coherence of the U.S. strategy in Iraq and Syria, nor to even confirm the existence of one.

Since the bombings began in August, the U.S. has waffled and balked, going from support for “moderate rebels” in Syria to the announcement that it would create its own proxy force. The United States initially hesitated to militarily back Kurdish forces holding out against ISIS in the Syrian town of Kobani, and many people bearing the brunt of ISIS’ repression on the ground seem to doubt that the U.S. is seriously trying to stem the group’s advance. The U.S. government has trumpeted its broad military coalition, yet seemingly turns a blind eye as its allies go on directly and indirectly supporting ISIS.

In truth, the U.S. and global publics are kept in the dark about what the U.S.-led military coalition is doing, how long this war will last, where its boundaries lie, and what “victory” means. Obama and Kerry have both indicated that the war on ISIS will take years, but Pentagon officials repeatedly refuse to reveal basic information, like what specific duties troops on the ground in Iraq are tasked with and who is dying under U.S. bombs in Iraq and Syria. Just last December, a U.S. coalition bomb struck an ISIS-operated jail in the town of al-Bab, Syria, killing at least 50 civilians detained inside, according to multiple witnesses. Yet while the Pentagon has demurred that civilians “may have died” during its operations, it’s refused to actually acknowledge a single civilian death under its bombs.

Alternatives to U.S.-Led War

Some people in the United States have thrown their support behind the military operations, or at least not opposed them, out of a genuine concern for the well being of people in Iraq and Syria. However good these intentions, though, all evidence available suggests that military intervention won’t make anyone safer.

“The first level is stopping the U.S. from causing more harm,” Jarrar told me. “That is really essential.” According to Jarrar, a U.S. push to stop the bombings is solidaristic in itself. In fact, he said, we can’t talk about solidarity, reparations, or redress for all the harm the U.S. has done in the now-discredited 2003 war “while we are bombing Iraq and Syria. It doesn’t make any sense to reach out to people, ask them to attend conferences for reconciliation, while we are bombing their neighborhood.”

However, stopping the U.S. from further harming Iraq and Syria requires far more than simply halting the bombings and ground deployments. The U.S. government must withdraw and demilitarize its failed war on terror, not only by pulling its own forces from the Middle East, but by putting out the fires it started with proxy battles and hypocritical foreign policies — including its alliances with governments that directly and indirectly support ISIS, from Saudi Arabia to Turkey.

In a recent article in Jacobin about the courageous struggle of the people of Kobani against ISIS, Errol Babacan and Murat Çakır argue that the United States, and the West more broadly, should start with Turkey. “Western governments must be pressured to force their NATO partner Turkey to end both its proxy war in Syria as well as its repression of political protest,” they write. “Western leftists could also work for goals such as the removal of foreign soldiers (as well as Patriot missiles) stationed in Turkey and demand sanctions against Turkey if it continues to support” the Islamic State.

Phyllis Bennis, senior fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, argues that U.S. power to pressure allies to stop supporting ISIS extends beyond Turkey. “A real coalition is needed not for military strikes but for powerful diplomacy,” she writes. “That means pressuring U.S. ally Saudi Arabia to stop arming and financing ISIS and other extremist fighters; pressuring U.S. ally Turkey to stop allowing ISIS and other fighters to cross into Syria over the Turkish border; pressuring U.S. allies Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and others to stop financing and arming everyone and anyone in Syria who says they’re against Assad.”

Meanwhile, it’s critical for the U.S. left to step up its opposition to further escalation of the military intervention, including the upcoming White House bid to win bipartisan authorization. It will also be important to fight back against congressional efforts to sabotage diplomatic talks between the United States and Iran, which could embolden hard-line forces in both countries and open the door to further escalation in Iraq, Syria, and beyond.

Towards a Politics of Solidarity

A long-term alternative to war, ultimately, can only be built by popular movements in Iraq and Syria. While we in the United States are inundated with images of death and victimization, surviving grassroots efforts on the ground in both countries tell a different story. These countries are not mere geopolitical battlefields — they’re hotbeds of human agency and resistance.

Iraq saw a blossoming of nonviolent, Sunni-led movements against repression and discrimination by the U.S.-backed government of Iraq in 2013. But the Iraqi military brutally crushed their protest encampments. This included the Hawija massacre in April 2013, discussed by scholar Zaineb Saleh in an interview last summer, in which at least 50 protesters were killed and over 100 were wounded. In a climate of repression and escalating violence, civil society organizations from across Iraq held the country’s first social forum in September 2013, under the banner “Another Iraq is Possible with Peace, Human Rights, and Social Justice.”

Amid siege from ISIS, repression from the Iraqi government, and bombing from the United States and its allies, popular movements survive on the ground in Iraq. Groups like the Organization of Women’s Freedom in Iraq are organizing emergency aid for women and families fleeing ISIS — while at the same time demanding U.S. withdrawal, and end to Iraqi government oppression, and reparations for the U.S.-led war.

The Federation of Workers Councils and Trade Unions in Iraq, meanwhile, continues to organize workers against Saddam Hussein-era anti-labor laws that were carried over into the new government and backed by the United States. Right now, the Federation — alongside OWFI — is mobilizing within the country’s state-owned industries, which are undergoing rapid privatization and imposing lay-offs, firings, and forced retirement on hundreds of thousands of workers.

Falah Alwan, president of the Federation, explained in a recent statement that the gutting of the public sector is the result of austerity measures driven, in part, by the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. “We are in daily confrontations with the government, by demonstrations, sit-ins, seminars, [and] agitating the other sectors to take part,” Alwan told me over email. “At the same time we are preparing for a wide conference next March, for all the companies across Iraq, that will need support from our comrades in the U.S. and worldwide.”

Both of these organizations are collaborating with U.S. groups — including the War Resisters League, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Iraq Veterans Against the War, and Madre — under the banner of the Right to Heal Initiative to press for reparations for the harm from U.S. policies in Iraq dating back to 1991. Along with damages from the last war and the sanctions regime that preceded it, their grievances include environmental poisoning in Iraq from the U.S. military’s use of depleted uranium, white phosphorous, burn pits, and more.

Likewise, “There are still people and groups in [Syria] who are working through nonviolent means,” said Mohja Kahf, a Damascus-born author and poet, in a recent interview. “And they matter. They are quietly working for the kind of Syria they want to see, whether the regime falls now or in years.” As Kahf argued in a piece penned in 2013, it is critical for the U.S. peace movement to connect with movements on the ground in Syria, not only when they are threatened by bombings, and not only when they are used to win arguments against U.S.-led military intervention.

We in the U.S. left must take a critical — if painful — look at the harm U.S. policies have done to the Middle East, press for a long-term shift in course, and seek to understand and build links with progressive forces in Iraq and Syria. The United States has a moral obligation to provide reparations to Iraq for its invasion and occupation. But these things must be demanded now, before the U.S. spends one day more waging a new armed conflict based on the same failed policies.

Grassroots movements did offer an alternative to endless war following the 2003 invasion, and that needs to happen again. This dark time is all the proof we need that the U.S. must get out of the Middle East once and for all, and the pressure to do so is only going to come from the grassroots.

Next Steps

Building international solidarity takes time, but you can get started today. Here are a few suggestions for productive next steps anyone can take.

Direct Support. Donate to relief efforts on the ground in Iraq and Syria that are orchestrated by grassroots organizations seeking to help their communities survive in the face of ISIS. The Organization of Women’s Freedom in Iraq has been working to provide food and winter survival gear to people fleeing ISIS and maintains shelters in Baghdad and Karbala. Furthermore, they have created a “Women’s Peace Farm” outside of Karbala, which provides “a safe and peaceful community” for refugees, according to a recent OWFI statement. Direct donations to this work can be made at OWFI’s PayPal account.

Learn. Now is a critical time for U.S.-based movements to educate ourselves about both the histories and current realities of struggle and resistance in Iraq and Syria, as well as Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, and beyond. A forthcoming book by Ali Issa, field organizer for the War Resisters League, will be important reading for anyone interested in learning more about Iraqi social movements. Entitled Against All Odds: Voices of Popular Struggle in Iraq, the book is based on interviews and reports highlighting environmental, feminist, labor, and protest movement organizers in Iraq.

In the process of learning about civil societies in Iraq and Syria, it is important to avoid simplistic equations that reduce all opponents of Assad to agents of the U.S. government, and likewise regarding opponents of ISIS. As Kahf emphasized in her interview, “It is racist to think that Syrians do not have agency to resist an oppressive regime unless a clever white man whispers in their ear. … Syrians can hold two critiques in their minds at the same time: a critique of U.S. imperialism and a critique of their brutal regime.”

There is also a great deal to learn from U.S. civil society, including the powerful movement for black liberation that continues to grow nationwide. From Oakland to Ferguson to New York, people are showing by example that justice and accountability for racism and police killings will not be handed from above, but rather must be forced from the grassroots. This moment is full of potential to build strong and intersectional movements with racial justice at their core — a principle that is vital for challenging U.S. militarism.

Make this live. Talk to your families, friends, and loved ones about the war on ISIS. Encourage conversations in your organizations, union halls, and community centers. Raise questions like, “How does U.S. policy in the Middle East relate to our struggles for social, racial, and economic justice here at home?”

The Stop Urban Shield coalition — comprised of groups including Critical Resistance, the Arab Organizing and Resource Center, the War Resisters League, and the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement — powerfully demonstrated the connection between domestic and international militarization when they kicked a global SWAT team, police force, and mercenary expo out of Oakland last September.

Ultimately, solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian people will require more than a push to end the U.S. bombings, but long-term pressure to steer away from U.S. policies of endless war and militarism, in the Middle East and beyond. Building consciousness across U.S. movements is critical to this goal.

Pressure the U.S. government. Grassroots mobilization in the United States can play a vital role in preventing lawmakers from charging into war. This was recently demonstrated when people power — including overwhelming calls to congressional representatives and local protests — had a hand in stopping U.S. strikes on the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in 2013. Mass call-ins, as well as scattered street protests, also had a hand in preventing war hawks from passing new sanctions in the midst of talks with Iran last year. It will be important to closely track any Obama administration attempt to pass explicit authorization for the war on ISIS, as well as congressional efforts to sabotage diplomacy with Iran.

OWFI wrote in a December 11 post, “With the help of the freedom-lovers around the world, we continue to survive the ongoing attacks on our society, and we will strive to be the model of a humane and egalitarian future.”

We must strive alongside them.

Sarah Lazare is a staff writer for Common Dreams and an independent journalist whose work has been featured in The Nation, Al Jazeera, TomDispatch, Yes! Magazine, and more. She is also an anti-militarist organizer interested in building people-powered global movements for justice and dignity. You can follow her on Twitter at @sarahlazare.

This article originally appeared on Foreign Policy in Focus.

Esquilino in maschera!

The Real Reason Washington Feels Threatened by Moscow

The Fallujah Option for East Ukraine

by MIKE WHITNEY

Ex: http://www.counterpunch.org

“I want to appeal to the Ukrainian people, to the mothers, the fathers, the sisters and the grandparents. Stop sending your sons and brothers to this pointless, merciless slaughter. The interests of the Ukrainian government are not your interests. I beg of you: Come to your senses. You do not have to water Donbass fields with Ukrainian blood. It’s not worth it.”

— Alexander Zakharchenko,  Prime Minister of the Donetsk People’s Republic

Washington needs a war in Ukraine to achieve its strategic objectives. This point cannot be overstated.

The US wants to push NATO to Russia’s western border. It wants a land-bridge to Asia to spread US military bases across the continent.  It wants to control the pipeline corridors from Russia to Europe to monitor Moscow’s revenues and to  ensure that gas continues to be denominated in dollars. And it wants a weaker, unstable Russia that is more prone to regime change, fragmentation and, ultimately, foreign control. These objectives cannot be achieved peacefully, indeed, if the fighting stopped tomorrow,  the sanctions would be lifted shortly after, and the Russian economy would begin to recover. How would that benefit Washington?

It wouldn’t. It would undermine Washington’s broader plan to integrate China and Russia into the prevailing economic system, the dollar system. Powerbrokers in the US realize that the present system must either expand or collapse. Either China and Russia are brought to heel and persuaded to accept a subordinate role in the US-led global order or Washington’s tenure as global hegemon will come to an end.

This is why hostilities in East Ukraine have escalated and will continue to escalate. This is why the U.S. Congress  approved a bill for tougher sanctions on Russia’s energy sector and lethal aid for Ukraine’s military. This is why Washington has sent military trainers to Ukraine and is preparing to provide  $3 billion in  “anti-armor missiles, reconnaissance drones, armored Humvees, and radars that can determine the location of enemy rocket and artillery fire.” All of Washington’s actions are designed with one purpose in mind, to intensify the fighting and escalate the conflict. The heavy losses sustained by Ukraine’s inexperienced army and the terrible suffering of the civilians in Lugansk and Donetsk  are of no interest to US war-planners. Their job is to make sure that peace is avoided at all cost because peace would derail US plans to pivot to Asia and remain the world’s only superpower. Here’s an except from an article in the WSWS:

“The ultimate aim of the US and its allies is to reduce Russia to an impoverished and semi-colonial status. Such a strategy, historically associated with Carter administration National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, is again being openly promoted.

In a speech last year at the Wilson Center, Brzezinski called on Washington to provide Kiev with “weapons designed particularly to permit the Ukrainians to engage in effective urban warfare of resistance.” In line with the policies now recommended in the report by the Brookings Institution and other think tanks calling for US arms to the Kiev regime, Brzezinski called for providing “anti-tank weapons…weapons capable for use in urban short-range fighting.”

While the strategy outlined by Brzezinski is politically criminal—trapping Russia in an ethnic urban war in Ukraine that would threaten the deaths of millions, if not billions of people—it is fully aligned with the policies he has promoted against Russia for decades.” (“The US arming of Ukraine and the danger of World War III“, World Socialist Web Site)

Non-lethal military aid will inevitably lead to lethal military aid, sophisticated weaponry, no-fly zones, covert assistance, foreign contractors, Special ops, and boots on the ground. We’ve seen it all before. There is no popular opposition to the war in the US, no thriving antiwar movement that can shut down cities, order a general strike or disrupt the status quo. So there’s no way to stop the persistent drive to war. The media and the political class have given Obama carte blanche, the authority to prosecute the conflict as he sees fit. That increases the probability of a broader war by this summer following the spring thaw.

While the possibility of a nuclear conflagration cannot be excluded, it won’t effect US plans for the near future. No one thinks that Putin will launch a nuclear war to protect the Donbass, so the deterrent value of the weapons is lost.

And Washington isn’t worried about the costs either.   Despite botched military interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and half a dozen other countries around the world; US stocks are still soaring, foreign investment in US Treasuries is at record levels,, the US economy is growing at a faster pace than any of its global competitors, and the dollar has risen an eye-watering 13 percent against a basket of foreign currencies since last June. America has paid nothing for decimating vast swathes of the planet and killing more than a million people. Why would they stop now?

They won’t, which is why the fighting in Ukraine is going to escalate. Check this out from the WSWS:

“On Monday, the New York Times announced that the Obama administration is moving to directly arm the Ukrainian army and the fascistic militias supporting the NATO-backed regime in Kiev, after its recent setbacks in the offensive against pro-Russian separatist forces in east Ukraine.

The article cites a joint report issued Monday by the Brookings Institution, the Atlantic Council, and the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and delivered to President Obama, advising the White House and NATO on the best way to escalate the war in Ukraine….

According to the Times, US officials are rapidly shifting to support the report’s proposals. NATO military commander in Europe General Philip M. Breedlove, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, US Secretary of State John Kerry, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey all supported discussions on directly arming Kiev. National Security Advisor Susan Rice is reconsidering her opposition to arming Kiev, paving the way for Obama’s approval.” (“Washington moves toward arming Ukrainian regime“, World Socialist Web Site)

 

 

See what’s going on? The die is already cast. There will be a war with Russia because that’s what the political establishment wants. It’s that simple. And while previous provocations failed to lure Putin into the Ukrainian cauldron, this new surge of violence–a spring offensive– is bound to do the trick. Putin is not going to sit on his hands while proxies armed with US weapons and US logistical support pound the Donbass to Fallujah-type rubble.  He’ll do what any responsible leader would do. He’ll protect his people. That means war. (See the vast damage that Obama’s proxy war has done to E. Ukraine here: “An overview of the socio – humanitarian situation on the territory of Donetsk People’s Republic as a consequence of military action from 17 to 23 January 2015“)

Asymmetrical Warfare: Falling Oil Prices

Keep in mind, that the Russian economy has already been battered by economic sanctions, oil price manipulation, and a vicious attack of the ruble. Until this week, the mainstream media dismissed the idea that the Saudis were deliberately pushing down oil prices to hurt Russia. They said the Saudis were merely trying to retain “market share” by maintaining current production levels and letting prices fall naturally. But it was all bunkum as the New York Times finally admitted on Tuesday in an article titled: “Saudi Oil Is Seen as Lever to Pry Russian Support From Syria’s Assad”. Here’s a clip from the article:

“Saudi Arabia has been trying to pressure President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia to abandon his support for President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, using its dominance of the global oil markets at a time when the Russian government is reeling from the effects of plummeting oil prices…

Saudi officials say — and they have told the United States — that they think they have some leverage over Mr. Putin because of their ability to reduce the supply of oil and possibly drive up prices….Any weakening of Russian support for Mr. Assad could be one of the first signs that the recent tumult in the oil market is having an impact on global statecraft…..

Saudi Arabia’s leverage depends on how seriously Moscow views its declining oil revenue. “If they are hurting so bad that they need the oil deal right away, the Saudis are in a good position to make them pay a geopolitical price as well,” said F. Gregory Gause III, a Middle East specialist at Texas A&M’s Bush School of Government and Public Service (“Saudi Oil Is Seen as Lever to Pry Russian Support From Syria’s Assad“, New York Times)

The Saudis “think they have some leverage over Mr. Putin because of their ability” to manipulate prices?

That says it all, doesn’t it?

What’s interesting about this article is the way it conflicts with previous pieces in the Times. For example, just two weeks ago, in an article titled “Who Will Rule the Oil Market?”  the author failed to see any political motive behind the Saudi’s action.  According to the narrative, the Saudis were just afraid that “they would lose market share permanently” if they cut production and kept prices high. Now the Times has done a 180 and joined the so called conspiracy nuts who said that prices were manipulated for political reasons.  In fact, the  sudden price plunge had nothing to do with deflationary pressures, supply-demand dynamics, or any other mumbo-jumbo market forces. It was 100 percent politics.

The attack on the ruble was also politically motivated, although the details are much more sketchy. There’s an interesting interview with Alistair Crooke that’s worth a read for those who are curious about how the Pentagon’s “full spectrum dominance” applies to financial warfare. According to Crooke:

“…with Ukraine, we have entered a new era: We have a substantial, geostrategic conflict taking place, but it’s effectively a geo-financial war between the US and Russia. We have the collapse in the oil prices; we have the currency wars; we have the contrived “shorting” — selling short — of the ruble. We have a geo-financial war, and what we are seeing as a consequence of this geo-financial war is that first of all, it has brought about a close alliance between Russia and China.

China understands that Russia constitutes the first domino; if Russia is to fall, China will be next. These two states are together moving to create a parallel financial system, disentangled from the Western financial system. ……

For some time, the international order was structured around the United Nations and the corpus of international law, but more and more the West has tended to bypass the UN as an institution designed to maintain the international order, and instead relies on economic sanctions to pressure some countries. We have a dollar-based financial system, and through instrumentalizing America’s position as controller of all dollar transactions, the US has been able to bypass the old tools of diplomacy and the UN — in order to further its aims.

But increasingly, this monopoly over the reserve currency has become the unilateral tool of the United States — displacing multilateral action at the UN. The US claims jurisdiction over any dollar-denominated transaction that takes place anywhere in the world. And most business and trading transactions in the world are denominated in dollars. This essentially constitutes the financialization of the global order: The International Order depends more on control by the US Treasury and Federal Reserve than on the UN as before.” (“Turkey might become hostage to ISIL just like Pakistan did“,  Today’s Zaman)

Financial warfare, asymmetrical warfare, Forth Generation warfare, space warfare, information warfare, nuclear warfare, laser, chemical, and biological warfare. The US has expanded its arsenal well beyond the  traditional range of conventional weaponry. The goal, of course, is to preserve the post-1991 world order (The dissolution up of the Soviet Union) and maintain full spectrum dominance. The emergence of a multi-polar world order spearheaded by Moscow poses the greatest single threat to Washington’s plans for continued domination.  The first significant clash between these two competing world views will likely take place sometime this summer in East Ukraine. God help us.

NOTE:  The Novorussia Armed Forces (NAF) currently have 8,000 Ukrainian regulars surrounded in Debaltsevo, East Ukraine.  This is a very big deal although the media has been (predictably) keeping the story out of the headlines.

Evacuation corridors have been opened to allow civilians to leave the area.  Fighting could break out at anytime.  At present, it looks like a good part of the Kiev’s Nazi army could be destroyed in one fell swoop.  This is why Merkel and Hollande have taken an emergency flight to Moscow to talk with Putin.  They are not interested in peace. They merely want to save their proxy army from annihilation.

I expect Putin may intervene on behalf of the Ukrainian soldiers, but I think commander Zakharchenko will resist.   If he lets these troops go now, what assurance does he have that they won’t be back in a month or so with high-powered weaponry provided by our war-mongering congress and White House?

Tell me; what choice does Zakharchenko really have? If his comrades are killed in future combat because he let Kiev’s army escape, who can he blame but himself?

There are no good choices.

Check here for updates:  Ukraine SITREP: *Extremely* dangerous situation in Debaltsevo

MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at [e-mail].

Jordanie contre État islamique… le « grand jeu » des États-Unis

Jordanie contre État islamique… le « grand jeu » des États-Unis

 

Il ne fait que peu de doutes que Washington instrumentalise le terrorisme islamique.

 

Aristide Leucate

Docteur en droit, journaliste et essayiste

Ex: http://www.bvoltaire.fr

 

En réplique à l’assassinat d’un pilote jordanien brûlé vif, Amman avait aussitôt ordonné l’exécution de deux terroristes croupissant dans les geôles du régime. Les récents propos du roi Abdallah II de Jordanie de vouloir prendre, lui-même, la tête des attaques aériennes menées par son armée contre l’organisation de l’État Islamique, avec l’onction de Barack Obama, ne doivent, cependant, pas être surestimés.

Monarchie constitutionnelle, la Jordanie, État d’Asie occidentale du Moyen-Orient, est encerclée par l’Égypte, la Cisjordanie, Israël, la Syrie, l’Irak et l’Arabie saoudite. Autant dire, eu égard aux conflictualités de très haute intensité qui secouent la région, que ce pays majoritairement sunnite (92 %) est, en permanence, à la merci de toute entreprise de déstabilisation. Le royaume est objectivement menacé par le wahhabisme saoudien, l’arc irano-syrien chiite, sans oublier les tensions au sein d’Israël (la bande de Gaza et l’irrédentisme du Hamas et le Sud-Liban avec un Hezbollah intransigeant).

Activement soutenu par les États-Unis et par l’Union européenne, le royaume hachémite n’échappe pas aux forces centrifuges de ce que le démographe Gérard-François Dumont dénomme le « paradigme religieux », lequel s’est progressivement substitué au « paradigme panarabe » dont l’acmé fut la création, en 1945, de la Ligue des pays arabes (comprenant originellement l’Arabie saoudite, l’Égypte, l’Irak, la Syrie, le Liban, la Jordanie et le Yémen du Nord). Cette dernière coalition, ayant en commun une certaine conception de l’arabité, a rapidement fait long feu. Le développement économique, grâce à l’exploitation de la manne pétrolière, comme un règlement durable de la question palestinienne ont été les pierres d’achoppement d’une organisation politique incapable de surmonter les tropismes nationalistes et autoritaires de ses membres.

Aujourd’hui, la promesse de frappe aérienne de la Jordanie ne doit pas être l’arbre arabo-occidental devant servir à cacher la forêt islamo-terroriste. Il ne fait que peu de doutes que Washington instrumentalise le terrorisme islamique. Pourquoi, aux dires des milieux islamistes « autorisés », l’un des doctrinaires les plus virulents de l’État islamique, l’ex-lieutenant de Ben Laden, Abou Moussab al-Souri (auteur, en 2004, du monumental Appel à la résistance islamique mondiale, dans lequel il exhorte à la domination mondiale de l’islam), a été libéré, en 2011, par la Syrie, après que les services secrets pakistanais l’eurent livré à la CIA qui le remit ensuite aux autorités syriennes ?

La Jordanie demeure le jouet docile du Pentagone, au service de ses intérêts géostratégiques. Dans ce nouveau « Grand Jeu », la duplicité diplomatique des États-Unis ne vise rien moins qu’à accompagner les desseins de dislocation/balkanisation du monde arabo-musulman suivi de sa réorganisation selon des critères religieux (sunnites, chiites, druzes, alaouites) et ethno-fédéralistes.

Or, la redistribution des cartes prévoit tout simplement l’effacement de la Jordanie.

Aristide Leucate

Le «Light footprint», la nouvelle stratégie de domination américaine

Le «Light footprint», la nouvelle stratégie de domination américaine

Samer Zougheib Ex: http://www.voxnr.com

 

Les Etats-Unis ont mis au point une nouvelle stratégie de domination du monde, appelée «Light footprint». Mais de nombreux pays continuent de résister aux visées hégémoniques américaines.

Le président de la Fédération de Russie, Vladimir Poutine, a dénoncé, lors de sa conférence de presse annuelle, jeudi, les visées impérialistes de l'Occident et ses pratiques hégémoniques. «Nos partenaires ont décidé qu'ils étaient les vainqueurs, qu'ils étaient désormais un empire et que les autres étaient des vassaux qu'il faut faire marcher au pas», a-t-il fustigé. Il a accusé les Occidentaux, Etats-Unis en tête, de vouloir «arracher les crocs et les griffes de l'ours russe». 25 ans après la chute du mur de Berlin, ils dressent, selon lui, un nouveau mur entre la Russie et l'Europe. «Il s'agit d'un mur virtuel, mais il commence déjà à être construit», a déclaré le chef de l'État, rappelant l'élargissement de l'Otan jusqu'aux portes de la Russie (pays baltes) et le bouclier antimissile en Europe orientale.

La volonté des Etats-Unis de vouloir dominer le monde n'est pas un secret, mais la nouvelle méthode de Washington pour arriver à ses desseins est moins connue. Il s'agit de la stratégie du «Light footprint» -ou l'empreinte légère-, qui s'articlue autour d'une panoplie d'outils militaires, politiques et économiques, qui ont commencé à être mis en œuvre ces derniers mois à l'échelle planétaire. Cette stratégie se base sur le concept de l'intervention dans l'ombre, moins coûteuse en ressources humaines et financières mais non moins pernicieuse.

Le «commandement par l'arrière»

Cette nouvelle stratégie est le résultat de l'échec du concept du président George W. Bush de la «guerre globale contre la terreur» (global war on terror ou GWOT), qui s'est terminée par des échecs militaires en Irak et en Afghanistan, qui ont fait des dizaines de milliers de morts et de blessés dans les rangs de l'armée américaine, un désastre économique avec la crise financière de 2008, et un déclin moral, illustré par la violation des valeurs prétendument défendues par l'Amérique. La décennie de l'an 2000 a en effet été marquée par les mensonges américains, la torture dans les prisons, les détentions extra-judiciaires de milliers de personnes à Guantanamo ou dans des prisons secrètes de la CIA (pratiques toujours en cours aujourd'hui) etc...

Fini donc les «boots on the ground» (forces au sol), les interventions massives et classiques, et place au «Light footprint». Caroline Galactéros, docteur en sciences politiques, explique à merveille les tenants et les aboutissants de cette nouvelle stratégie, orientée vers l'Asie (the shift towards Asia), et dont l'objectif prioritaire est l'endiguement de la Chine, perçue comme le principal rival des Etats-Unis à moyen terme.

Le «Light footprint» repose sur «le commandement depuis l'arrière» (the leadership from behind), c'est-à-dire confier à des auxiliaires les tâches les plus visibles -et souvent les plus ingrates-, en les dirigeant de derrière la scène. Et Washington réussit à trouver des Etats supplétifs qui acceptent de faire à sa place le sale boulot. «Le commandement par l'arrière» est apparu lors de l'intervention de l'Otan en Libye et s'illustre parfaitement dans la crise ukrainienne, où l'Union européenne est aux premières lignes dans la bataille engagée contre la Russie pour l'affaiblir et l'empêcher de constituer, avec la Chine et ses autres alliés, une nouvelle force montante sur la scène internationale.

Ce principe s'illustre également, quoiqu'avec moins de succès, dans la prétendue guerre contre les terroristes du soi-disant «Etat islamique». Bien qu'ayant rassemblé une coalition d'une quarantaine de pays, c'est l'aviation américaine qui fait le gros du travail en Irak et en Syrie.

Forces spéciales, drones, cyberguerre

La «Light footprint» repose sur une mutation de la stratgégie militaire américaine, qui s'articule désormais sur l'emploi de forces spéciales, l'usage massif de drones et la cyberguerre. On l'a constaté lors de la cyberattaque contre le programme nucléaire iranien, des opérations spéciales menées en Somalie et au Yémen contre Al-Qaïda, et le déploiement de drones au Yémen et au Pakistan. Il s'agit surtout, comme l'a résumé David Sanger, correspondant en chef du Washington Post à la Maison-Blanche, d'instaurer en silence un «hard power secret», de substituer aux guerres conventionnelles militairement aléatoires, médiatiquement envahissantes et politiquement coûteuses, des guerres de l'ombre, dont seuls quelques faits d'armes spectaculaires seront rendus publics, bon gré, mal gré, explique Caralonie Galactéros.

Selon le sénateur républicain de Caroline du Sud, Lindsay Graham, qui a malencontreusement brisé en 2013 la loi du silence, ce mode d'action aurait fait près de 5000 victimes depuis 2004, souligne-t-elle.

Le «Leadership from behind» fonctionne assez bien en Afrique, où Washington a laissé la France et la Grande-Bretagne diriger les opérations en Libye et soutient aujourd'hui Paris dans son intervention militaire directe au Mali et en République centrafricaine, via sa base du Niger. Mais cela ne signifie aucunement que les Etats-Unis ont laissé le continent noir à leurs allies européens. Africom, le nouveau commandement régional américain mis en place en 2008, compte déjà 5000 soldats américains. Essentiellement dédié à la «lute contre le terrorisme» dans la Corne de l'Afrique et au Sahel, «il sert aussi de tête de pont aux intérêts économiques américains dans la région notamment face à la présence commerciale massive de la Chine», écrit Caroline Galactéros.

Le rôle subalterne de l'Europe

Le fait marquant est que l'Europe a abandonné ses rêves de grandeur et a accepté le rôle subalterne de sous-traitant pour le compte des Etats-Unis. Mais le plus frappant et que ce rôle se fait parfois au dépens de ses intérêts stratégiques, comme on l'a bien vu dans la crise ukrainienne. La France, l'Allemagne et d'autres pays européens ont cédé aux exigences américaines d'isoler la Russie et de l'affaiblir économiquement, tout en sachant que cela aurait de graves répercussions sur leurs propres économies.

Pire encore, les Etats-Unis ont décidé de faire partager le fardeau financier -«burden sharing»-, en faisant payer à ses «alliés» le prix des interventions militaries ici et là dans le monde.

C'est contre cette nouvelle forme d'impérialisme moins visible mais tout aussi nuisible que la Russie, l'Iran et la Syrie luttent depuis des années pour préserver leur droit d'exister en tant que nations libres et indépendantes.

 

source

Alahednews.com :: lien

Whose Job Is It to Kill ISIS?

Whose Job Is It to Kill ISIS?

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Ex: http://www.lewrockwell.com

Seeing clips of that 22-minute video of the immolation of the Jordanian pilot, one wonders: Who would be drawn to the cause of these barbarians who perpetrated such an atrocity?

While the video might firm up the faith of fanatics, would it not evoke rage and revulsion across the Islamic world? After all, this was a Sunni Muslim, in a cage, being burned alive.

As of now, this cruel killing seems to have backfired. Jordan is uniting behind King Abdullah’s determination to exact “earth-shattering” retribution.

Which raises again the questions: Why did ISIS do it? What did they hope to gain? Evil though they may be, they are not stupid.

Surely, they knew the reaction they would get?

Several explanations come to mind.

First, ISIS is hurting. It lost the battle for Kobane on the Turkish border to the Kurds; it is bleeding under U.S. air attacks; and it is stymied in Iraq. It wanted to lash out in the most dramatic and horrific way.

Second, ISIS wants to retain the title of the most resolute and ruthless of the Islamist radicals, a title temporarily lost to al-Qaida, which carried out the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris. This horror has put ISIS back in the headlines and on global television.

Third, ISIS wants to pay back King Abdullah, a Sunni and descendant of the Prophet, for joining America in bombing them.

Fourth, this may have been a provocation to cause the king to put his monarchy on the line and plunge Jordan into all out war against the Islamic State.

For history teaches that wars often prove fatal to monarchies. In the Great War of 1914-1918, the Hapsburgs and Hohenzollerns, the Romanovs and Ottomans, all went down.

The terrorists of ISIS may believe that stampeding Abdullah into fighting on the side of the “Crusaders” may prove destabilizing to his country and imperil the Hashemite throne.

For, though Jordanians may be united today, will they support sending their sons into battle as allies of the Americans and de facto allies of Bashar Assad, Hezbollah, and Iran?

There are reasons why Sunni nations like Turkey and Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states have not committed more openly and decisively to the war on ISIS, and instead prod the Americans to send their troops to eradicate the Islamic State.

To many Sunni nations, Assad and the Shia Crescent of Tehran, Baghdad, Damascus and Beirut are the greater threat.

Indeed, until recently, as Joe Biden pointed out last October, the Turks, Saudis and United Arab Emirates were providing clandestine aid to ISIS.

Biden was forced to apologize, but he had told the truth.

Which bring us back to the crucial issue here. While King Abdullah is a trusted friend, Jordan has been best able to serve its own and America’s interests by staying out of wars.

Lest we forget, Abdullah’s father, King Hussein, refused to join the coalition of Desert Storm that drove the Iraqi army out of Kuwait.

In February 1991, President Bush charged that King Hussein seems “to have moved over, way over, into the Saddam Hussein camp.” In March of 1991, the Senate voted to end all military and economic aid to Jordan. But the king was looking out for his own survival, and rightly so.

Hence, is it wise for Jordan to become a front-line fighting state in a war, which, if it prevails, will mean a new lease on life for the Assad regime and a victory for Iran, the Shia militias in Iraq, and Hezbollah?

Critics argue that after making his commitment to “degrade and defeat” the Islamic State, President Obama has provided neither a war strategy nor the military resources to carry it out. And they are right.

But this is just another case of the president drawing a red line he should never have drawn. While U.S. air power can hold back the advance of ISIS and “degrade,” i.e., contain, ISIS, the destruction of ISIS is going to require scores of thousands of troops.

Though the Iraqi army, Shia militias and Kurds may be able to provide those troops to retake Mosul, neither the Turks nor any other Arab nation has volunteered the troops to defeat ISIS in Syria.

And if the Turks and Sunni Arabs are unwilling to put boots on the ground in Syria, why should we? Why should America, half a world away, have to provide those troops rather than nations that are more immediately threatened and have armies near at hand?

Why is defeating 30,000 ISIS jihadists our job, and not theirs?

With this outrage, ISIS has thrown down the gauntlet to the Sunni Arabs. The new Saudi king calls the burning of Lt. Muath al-Kasasbeh an “odious crime” that is “inhuman and contrary to Islam.” The UAE foreign minister calls it a “brutal escalation by the terrorist group.”

Let us see if action follows outrage.

The Best of Patrick J. Buchanan

Patrick J. Buchanan [send him mail] is co-founder and editor of The American Conservative. He is also the author of seven books, including Where the Right Went Wrong, and Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War. His latest book is Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? See his website.

Copyright © 2015 Creators.com

Previous article by Patrick J. Buchanan: US-Russia War?

Du Golan au Sinaï, les takfiristes sont des alliés d’Israël

 

Par Samer R. Zoughaib

Ex: http://lesmoutonsenrages.fr

Dans son discours charnière du vendredi 30 janvier, le secrétaire général du Hezbollah, sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, a démontré, par un raisonnement logique, la collusion entre Israël et les takfiristes actifs sur le terrain en Syrie, notamment le Front al-Nosra, la branche syrienne d’Al-Qaïda. Ainsi, explique-t-il, l’entité sioniste s’est-elle sentie menacée par six membres de la Résistance, en tournée d’inspection dans la province de Quneitra, mais ne semble nullement préoccupée par la présence, le long du Golan occupé, de plusieurs milliers de combattants d’al-Nosra, armés jusqu’aux dents.

«Le Front al-Nosra a déployé près du Golan des milliers de combattants dotés de chars, de roquettes, de missiles antichars, de casernes, de positions et de fortifications militaires», a déclaré sayyed Nasrallah, en rappelant que cette organisation est inscrite sur les listes internationales des organisations terroristes.

Malgré cela, souligne-t-il, «Israël» ne semble pas inquiet ou inquiété le moins du monde par cette présence massive d’hommes armés prétendant combattre sous un étendard islamique.
Depuis plus de deux ans, nous publions sur ce même site un grand nombre d’articles, basés sur des informations sûres et fiables, faisant la lumière sur les relations étroites qui existent entre «Tel-Aviv» et les groupes les plus extrémistes en Syrie. C’est ainsi que plus d’un millier de combattants extrémistes ont été soignés dans les hôpitaux de Safad, Haïfa et Tibériade, après avoir été transférés des champs de bataille du sud syrien avec l’aide directe des «Israéliens». Mais le soutien va au-delà de ce qui est présenté par la propagande israélienne comme un «geste humanitaire». La couverture aérienne et les barrages d’artillerie fournis par l’armée «israélienne» ont joué un rôle crucial dans l’avancée -toute relative- des groupes extrémistes dans le Golan, dans le but d’instaurer une ceinture de sécurité large de 5 à 7 kilomètres, le long du Golan occupé.

Pour éloigner les témoins gênants, les groupes terroristes ont enlevé, l’été dernier, 45 Casques bleus de la force internationale d’interposition déployée depuis 1974, la Fnuod, qui a décidé, après cet incident, d’évacuer de nombreuses positions, laissant le terrain libre à Al-Qaïda.

Transfert de matériel et 59 réunions

Aujourd’hui, même les médias occidentaux ne peuvent plus passer sous silence le soutien multiforme apporté par «Israël» aux extrémistes. Dans un article publié le 7 décembre 2014, le quotidien français «Libération», pourtant proche d’«Israël», fait état d’un grand nombre de rapports des Nations unies évoquant «un dialogue et des transferts de matériel aux rebelles syriens». Ces documents, basés sur des observations directes faites par des Casques bleus présents dans le Golan révèlent des «contacts suivis» entre des officiers sionistes et «certains groupes rebelles (…) parmi lesquels des islamistes du Front al-Nosra, la branche syrienne d’Al-Qaïda».

«Libération» ajoute que les rapports de la Fnuod adressés aux quinze membres du Conseil de sécurité révèlent que les rencontres entre militaires israéliens et rebelles syriens sont quasi-quotidiennes depuis au moins dix-huit mois. Ces notes d’observation démontrent qu’un dialogue s’est instauré entre les deux parties le long de la ligne de séparation entre la Syrie et la partie du Golan occupée par «Israël». Du 1er mars au 31 mai 2014, les Casques bleus ont ainsi comptabilisé 59 réunions, précise le journal français.

Et ce n’est pas tout. Les observateurs de la Fnuod ont constaté qu’en certaines occasions, l’armée israélienne transfère des caisses aux rebelles, comme ce fut le cas le 10 juin. «A deux occasions la Fnuod a aussi observé que des officiers israéliens faisaient pénétrer des rebelles en bon état de santé sur le territoire de l’Etat hébreu. Où se rendaient-ils? Pour discuter avec qui? Dans ce cas également, il n’y a pas de réponse», poursuit «Libération», qui ajoute que la majorité des contacts observés se sont déroulés à proximité d’un poste de la Fnuod surnommé «Point 85», qui a depuis été évacué après l’enlèvement des 45 Casques bleus.
La date de ces transferts de caisses et de ces contacts suivis coïncident avec la vaste offensive lancée par les extrémistes et qui leur a permis d’occuper un certain nombre de positions de l’armée syrienne dans la province de Quneitra. A cette même époque, le ministre «israélien» de la Guerre, Moshé Yaalon, qualifiait le Front al-Nosra de «branche la plus modérée d’Al-Qaïda» tandis que le ministre Français des Affaires étrangères, Laurent Fabius, estimait qu’«Al-Nosra fait du bon boulot en Syrie».

Dans le Sinaï aussi

La collusion entre l’entité sioniste et les extrémistes prétendant se battre sous l’étendard de l’islam ne se limite pas au Golan mais englobe également le Sinaï, où «Ansar Beit al-Maqdess», qui a prêté allégeance à l’organisation terroriste de «Daech» a mené un série d’attaques meurtrières sans précédent contre l’armée égyptienne, qui ont fait, la semaine dernière, des dizaines de morts.

Quel meilleur service peut-on rendre à «Israël» sinon d’attaquer et d’affaiblir les armées syrienne, égyptienne et libanaise, les forces armées des pays dit de «l’étau». Il est intéressant de noter, dans ce cadre, la réaction iranienne aux attaques du Sinaï. Le chef d’état-major interarmes iranien, le général Hassan Feyrouz, a estimé que «ceux qui attaquent l’armée égyptienne servent les intérêts d’Israël». La même position a été exprimée par la porte-parole du ministère iranien des Affaires étrangères, Marzieh Afkham, qui a affirmé que «l’objectif des attaques du Sinaï est d’éloigner le monde musulman de son but qui est de défendre le peuple palestinien».

 

Source : French.alahednews

Arthur Moeller van den Bruck an uns!

Arthur Moeller van den Bruck an uns!

von Martin Sellner

Ex: http://www.identitaere-generation.info

Moeller van den Bruck gilt heute als einer der maßgeblichen Köpfe der Konservativen Revolution. Viele Identitäre berufen sich, neben der Neuen Rechte, auch auf diese Strömung, was Moeller ins Zentrum des Interesses rücken sollte. Einem breiteren Publikum ist er heute nur durch seine Schrift „Das dritte Reich“ bekannt, die (mit und über Dietrich Eckhart) titelgebend für das NS-Reich werden sollte. Doch damit tut man ihm Unrecht! Moeller war und ist viel mehr als nur „Stichwortgeber“ für den NS. In ihm, seinem Denken und Werdegang zeichnet sich hingegen die große Tragödie um die konservativ-revolutionären „Denker“ und die national-sozialistischen „Macher“ so deutlich ab, das wir auch heute noch viel daraus lernen können.

Dandy und Dissident

Um Moeller als Person nebelt heute die Aura des Erhabenen und Geheimnisvollen. Seine Zitate, seine Bilder, seine Begriffe ließen ihn für meine Phantasie immer zu einer Gestalt werden, die wie George über dem Getöse der Weimarer Dekadenz schwebte. Mitnichten! Ich war durchaus überrascht, als ich erfuhr, dass er sich mittendrin befunden hatte. Moeller war ein Dandy, chronisch pleite und Dauergast in diversen Bohemien-Kreisen. Überhastete Reisen, oft auf der Flucht von Gläubigern prägten sein zerfahrenes Leben, dem er auch mit 49 Jahren ein Ende setzte. Nichts von all dem deutet auf einen Charakter hin, der in der Lage war, gegen die Dekadenz der Weimarer Zeit anzuschreiben, und gegen Nihilismus und Beliebigkeit die Ideen von Stil, Einheit, Genesung und Stärke zu predigen. Doch van den Bruck war mit der Zeitschrift „Das Gewissen“ und seinen Buchveröffentlichungen einer der maßgeblichsten Denker der Konservativen Revolution.

Konservative Revolte gegen den Liberalismus

Heute ist Moeller van den Bruck vor allem über das Zitat: „Am Liberalismus gehen die Völker zugrunde“, bekannt. Das ist kein schlechter Umstand, da in diesem Satz vieles von seinem Denken zusammengefasst ist. Moeller sah in der Tat den herrschenden bürgerlichen Geist, den saturierten Pazifismus, die Gleichgültigkeit gegenüber jedem höheren Wert, den kaufmännischen Mensch und sein Projekt vom befriedeten Weltmarkt als schlimmsten Gegner, den er mit „Liberalismus“ als „Ausdruck einer egoistischen und individualistischen Lebensauffassung benannte. Er zersetzt alle gewachsenen Gemeinschaften und untergräbt jedes Ideal, das über den eigenen Körper und „das Lüstchen für den Tag und sein Lüstchen für die Nacht“ (Nietzsche).Und: „Er schaltet das Volk aus und setzt ein Ich an die Stelle“

Mehr noch als den Marxismus, den er teilweise als berechtigten Aufschrei gegen die Herrschaft des Geldes betrachtete, kämpfte er gegen das System. Die Kommunisten nannte er „querköpfige toll gewordene“ Deutsche. Prophetisch erkannte er, vor den nationalbolschewistischen Zersplitterungen aller „Internationalen“, dass „jedes Volk seinen eigenen Sozialismus“ hat. Zeitlebens hoffte er auf eine Vereinigung des ganzen Volkes gegen jede Klassenspaltung. Eine Vereinigung, die den Hauptfeind bekämpfen sollte. Es war die neue Gattung an „letzten Menschen“, Blooms, die heute so stark wuchern wie nie zuvor:

„Sie fühlen sich als Einzelwesen, die Niemandem verpflichtet sind, und am wenigsten dem Volke. An seiner Geschichte sind sie völlig unbeteiligt. Sie teilen nicht seine Überlieferung. Sie haben kein Miterlebnis seiner Vergangenheit. Sie haben auch nicht den Ehrgeiz seiner Zukunft. Sie suchen nur die Vorteile ihrer eigenen Gegenwart. Ihr letzter Gedanke ist auf die große Internationale gerichtet.“

Diese Internationale bedeutete damals wie heute das Ende aller Völker und Kulturen, aller Vielfalt und Freiheit – kurz: all dessen, was den Menschen ausmacht. (Es macht ihn eben aus, dass es ihn „an sich“ nicht gibt.) Gegen diesen Liberalismus kämpfte Moeller van den Bruck mit revolutionärer Kraft. Er verlachte impotente, alte Konservative, die sich zaghaft an tote Hüllen klammerten und mit arrogantem Elitismus die Arbeiter den Marxisten zutrieben. Der „Altkonservativismus“ hatte sich „auf seine Klitsche zurückgezogen und den Sinn für die Probleme der Zeit verloren.“

Zwar war er klar für Elite und den hierarchischen Staat, doch dieser sollte organisch sein und über die „Kraft in Gegensätzen zu leben“ verfügen. Anders als viele liberal gesinnte Konservative sah er die revolutionären Unruhen nicht nur als Gefahr und Bedrohung, sondern vielmehr als Fieber, dem eine Gesundung folgen könnte. Als klassischer Vertreter eines dritten Weges (Ursprünglich wollte er sein opus magnum „Die dritte Partei“ nennen) lehnte er sowohl Marxismus als auch Liberalismus ab und wollte mit der Neuerweckung ewiger Werte, eine große Einheit wiederherstellen.

Van den Bruck und die 3PT

Als 3.PT (3. politische Theorie) bezeichnen wir Identitäre in der Regel die Gesamtheit der nationalistischen, antiliberalen und antimarxistischen Strömungen des 20. Jahrhunderts, die häufig (und vereinfachend) als „Faschismus“ pauschalisiert werden. Insbesondere meinen wir damit den deutschen National-Sozialismus und den konkreten italienischen Faschismus.

Vieles von dem Gesagten und zitierten deutet daraufhin, dass Moeller ein Denker und Wegbereiter dieser 3.PT gewesen ist. Doch er stand dem italienischen Faschismus, den er noch miterlebte, durchaus kritisch gegenüber (obwohl er in ihm einen vielversprechenden Aufbruch für Italien und NUR Italien sah). Vor allem dessen Etatismus (Verabsolutierung des Staates), auf den er Mussolinis Südtirolpolitik zurückführte, erregte seine Ablehnung. Sein Tod 1925 verhinderte jede zeitgenössische Betrachtung des Nazi-Reichs, doch persönliche Kommentare über die Frühphase der Bewegung zeigen eher Ablehnung.

In Hitler sah er einen Menschen „ganz ohne Abstand und Augenmaß“. einen „Fanatiker“ und „Eiferer“. Auch im NS gab es abgesehen von dem erfolgreichen Versuch, den bekannten Autor für das eigene Reich zu reklamieren, wenige bis gar keine Bezüge auf sein Werk. 1939 erschien dann eine Dissertation eines Helmut Rödels, der, stellvertretend für die NSDAP, eine klare Distanzierung zu van den Bruck aussprach. Er sei „kein Seher und Künder des dritten Reichs im Sinne des NS.“

Er wurde als konservativer, esoterischer Traumtänzer abgelehnt, der im Gegensatz zum rein wissenschaftlichen, pragmatischen NS stehe, der nur die Naturgesetze vollziehe. Vor allem Moellers klares Bekenntnis, wonach „die Rassenanschauung (…) sich in unlösbare Widersprüche verstrickt, wenn sie Rasse nur in dem biologischen Sinne begreift“, war für die „naturwissenschaftliche“ Rassenlehre und -züchtung des NS ein Affront.

Moeller und der NS

Insgesamt war Moeller ein erklärter Gegner jedes Totalitarismus und jeder reinen Machtpragmatik. Ihm ging es um das große Erbe der deutschen und europäischen Traditionen und um den entschiedenen Kampf gegen die Entzauberung, Vermassung, Vereinheitlichung und Verflachung der Welt. Die oberflächliche Demagogie war ihm, ebenso wie rein pragmatische Machtpolitik, verhasst. Dennoch war er aber kein abgehobener „Schöngeist“, sondern stand mehr als andere für das „Revolutionäre“ in der Konservativen Revolution. Er wollte das Volk begeistern und mitreißen, wollte das Fieber sogar steigern, um zu einer Gesundung zu führen. Er wollte aktiv Einfluss auf die Politik nehmen und kritisierte die Konservativen scharf für ihr apolitisches, verspieltes Sektierertum. Seine Ablehnung am NS war also, anders als bei vielen anderen Denkern nicht einem letztlich verächtlichen Standesdünkel gegen „den Pöbel“ geschuldet. Er wollte ja gerade die revolutionären Kräfte aus der Arbeiterschaft in den Dienst einer großen spontanen Regeneration stellen! Er lehnte den NS aufgrund seiner Ideologie ab, die für Moellers stilvolle und erhabene Gedankenwelt, als plumper materialistischer Rassenkult erscheinen musste. Vor allem aber sah Moeller im kommenden Erwachen des „jungen“ deutschen Volkes eine Revolte gegen den Westen, und die liberale, atlantische Welt. Er sah Russland damals schon als Teil Europas und hoffte auf eine Überwindung und „Russifizierung“ des dortigen Marxismus zu einem ethnischen und kulturell entschärften Sozialismus (was ja nach dem 2. Weltkrieg auch peu à peu geschah)

Moellers Denken, das er mit anderen Gleichgesinnten wie vor allem Niekisch und Hielscher teilte, richtete sich also scharf gegen den Zivilisationschauvinismus des NS. Dieser war stark auf England und Amerika fixiert. Adolf Hitler selbst bewunderte das englische Kolonialreich und wollte es sogar im Sinne einer universalistischen Ideologie vom Arier als „Prometheus der Menschheit“ für die weiße Rasse „retten“. In diesem Lichte erscheint die NS-Idee als Auffassung von Herkunft und Rasse einmal mehr als Fortführung des Chauvinismus und Rassismus aus der englischen Kolonialzeit, indem am westlich-fortschrittlichen Wesen, „die Welt genesen“ sollte.

Moellers Idee von Kultur und Ethnos war eine andere, die ganz klar pluralistisch gerichtet war. Konservativ bedeutete für ihn vor allem „ die Fähigkeit, immer mehr von dem, was in uns ewig ist, freizulegen.“ Die Konservative Revolution ist daher keine universalistische Ideologie, sondern der Aufruf die eigeen Identität zu finden, zu vertiefen und weiterzuführen!

Wie im Faschismus eine italienische, so sah Moeller in der KR eine spezifisch deutsche Sache, die andere Völker nicht in gleichem Maße betraf. Der „deutsche Sonderweg“ war für ihn kein Schimpfwort, sondern eine erklärte Losung, die sowohl stolzes Pathos der Distanz und Eigentlichkeit, aber auch das Sein-lassen und die Akzeptanz der Anderen bedeutet. Etwas ganz anderes bedeutete dagegen Hitlers Aussage, der NS sei „kein Exportprodukt“. (Er und andere meinten damit, dass man das vom NS erkannte „Lebensgesetz“, wonach man im Kampf ums Überleben, als brutalen „Rassenkampf“ das eigene Volk, als statische, reine Rassengemeinschaft vergöttlichen und alle anderen als Barbaren entmenschlichen müsse. Diesen „Schlüssel zur Weltgeschichte“ solle man anderen Völkern nicht in die Hände spielen. Es sei dumm genug, dass ihn schon die Juden besäßen, die aber als dunkle Antimenschen im Gegensatz zum göttlichen Arier kein Recht auf dieses Wissen und den damit verbundenen Weltherrschaftsanspruch hätten.)

Diese Aussage steht gerade nicht gegen einen totalen Imperialismus, sondern entschieden dafür. Exportiert solle die arisch-germanische Herrschaft werden (vor allem in die Länder der slawischen Fellachen und Untermenschen) – nicht aber die dahinterstehende Triebkraft. Moellers außenpolitische Ideen sehen dagegen ganz anders aus, weil ihnen eine echt identitäre Haltung zum Eigenen – ohne Chauvinismus – zugrunde liegt. Er sah Deutschland vor allem als eigenständige Nation, die weder ganz im westlichen Liberalismus der Angelsachsen, noch im Slawentum oder Romanisch-Südlichen aufgehen könne und damit als mitteleuropäisches Reich eine Brücke zwischen Osten und Westen sei.

Moeller van den Bruck an uns

Ich sage, wenn ich wie so oft auf die KR angesprochen werde, dass ich auch eine Aufgabe der Identitären Bewegung darin sehe, ihre Traditionslinien, die mit dem Aufkommen des NS abgeschnitten und mit der Umerziehung nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg ausgebrannt und ausgetrocknet wurden, neu anzuzapfen. Dabei müssen und sollen wir vielleicht am besten ganz an den Anfang gehen und in der Ur-Stimmung ansetzen, aus der die KR mit ihren Denkern hervorging, statt uns allzu akademisch und wissenschaftlich nur mit ihren Werken und Strömungen zu beschäftigen. Van den Bruck steht als Bohemien, als zeitloser gedankenschwerer Traditionalist und radikaler, leichtherziger Revolutionär, wie vielleicht nur Ernst Jünger, für diesen fruchtbaren Zeitgeist.

Vor allem seine tiefsinnige Bewertung des Ethnokulturellen, sein reichsbestimmtes Denken der Politik, seine Ablehnung von Liberalismus und Marxismus, sowie plumpen Chauvinismus und Demagogie, machen ihn für uns Identitäre sehr interessant. Unsere Sicht, die unter klarer Abgrenzung zur 3.PT einen eigenen, neuen Weg für die Jugend erspäht, wird ihn selbstverständlich nicht immer beim Wort nehmen. Vor allem seine Bewertung des „Sozialismus“-Begriffs ist für uns heute hinfällig geworden, da der Marxismus längst im siegreichen Liberalismus aufgegangen ist und keine revolutionäre Idee mehr darstellt. Doch seine pluralistische Weltsicht, seine Verbindung 1. von ewigen Werten über der Zeit und 2. dem revolutionären Kampf in der Zeit, mit ihren Mitteln gegen 3. den herrschenden Zeitgeist, ist eine Formel, die heute mehr den je gültig ist.

Leute, die Identitären ihre „modernen Mittel“, ihr unkonventionelles Auftreten und ihre Verweigerung jedes Schablonendenkens und aller herkömmlichen Spalt-Begriffe vorwerfen, wären wohl auch damals von Moeller verlacht worden. Wie er strebt unsere Bewegung die Vereinigung aller guten Kräfte im Volk, die noch über gesunden Menschenverstand und ein klares Wir-Bewusstsein verfügen, in einer Front der Patrioten an. Dass wir uns dabei den alten Klüngeln und Fronten widersetzen, sich bei uns alle Konfessionen, Subkulturen und Spielarten des Patriotismus und Konservativismus befinden, spricht dafür, dass wir etwas richtig machen.

Nie wieder – vom Scheitern der KR lernen

Vor allem versuchen wir, in der bewussten Anknüpfung an das Erbe der KR, ihre Tragödie kein zweites Mal geschehen zu lassen. Während sie sich trotz aller Bemühungen im literarisch-akademischen Isolat verlor und allenfalls die metapolitische Hoheit über das Bürgertum wahrte (was Gramsci später neidvoll eingestehen musste), war es nur der NS, in dessen Führungselite so gut wie keiner von der KR sozialisiert worden war, der es schaffte das Volk auf seine Seite zu ziehen und die Denker, die seinen Weg geebnet hatten, auszubooten. Es liegt an uns, heute anders zu handeln;  uns niemals in akademischen Debatten zu verlieren, immer strategisch und politisch zu denken, was vor allem heißt: intensiv den Kontakt zum Volk zu suchen, auf die Straße zu gehen, treffsicher die brennenden Fragen zu beantworten und dem schwelenden Zorn der Leute ein Ziel und ein Zeichen zu geben. (Niemals hätte Moeller van den Bruck beispielsweise vorgeschlagen, seine theoretischen Konzepte und seine Kritik der Dekadenz zu Kernthemen politischer Arbeit zu machen. Ihm war bewusst, dass es darum ging, Themenführer in Thema „Versailles“ und der sozialen Frage zu werden.)

Heute droht ein plumper, chauvinistischer Neoconservativismus, der nichts anderes als der Krisenmodus des liberalen Westens ist, die „Ernte“ des patriotischen Aufbruchs einzufahren. (Die Neonazi-Szene und der sterbende NW sind in unserem Land als revolutionäre Kraft nicht ernstzunehmen und dienen nur als spitzelgetränktes „Fliegenpapier“ und Falle des Systems für die patriotische Jugend.) Wie damals der NS, so ist diese Bewegung in ungebildeten, rein von Hass und Chauvinismus geprägten Kreisen ohne jede Beeinflussung neurechter, konservativer Denkzirkel entstanden. Ein Armutszeugnis für deren Verbindung zum Volk! Die gehässige Hetze, die sich in diesem Ressentiment-Biotop wie ein Pilz bildet, spottet jeder Idee eines Ethnopluralismus und gesunden Patriotismus. Und wieder ist sie, wie damals der NS, nichts anderes als das Erbe des kolonialistisch-westlichen Rassismus und damit die bloße Schattenseite des humanistisch-universalistischen Egalitarismus.

Es ist die Aufgabe der Identitären, Konservativen, Traditionalisten und Neurechten, die heute ein noch klareres Bild und Bewusstsein (auch der Entartung des Nationalismus) haben als es die KR je haben konnte, ihre Erkenntnisse und Ideen ins Volk zu tragen. Sie müssen einschlagen wie ein Blitz dem gerechten Zorn die Sprache und der schwelenden Angst eine Hoffnung geben! Wie ein guter Arzt müssen wir die Mischung finden, die es schafft, den Brocken Selbsthass und die Auslandsliebe zu lösen, um eine gesunde, stolze Liebe zum Eigenen aufbrechen zu lassen. Nur damit können wir es am Ende zusammen mit der heilen Kraft einer fiebrigen Krisis schaffen auch die verblendeten, Multikulti-Schwarmköpfe unseres Volkes auf unsere Seite zu ziehen. Es ist die „große Absolution“, nach der sie sich noch im größten, grünen Selbsthass sehnen. Sie wollen wieder die Guten sein – und wir sind die Guten. Das muss ihnen bewusst werden, damit aus uns wieder ein Volk werden kann.

Die liberalistische, rein anti-islamische Ideologie, die nichts anderes als ein Wiedergänger der ekligsten kolonialen, religiösen und rassistischen Ressentiments der westlichen Ideologie ist, wird niemals das Volk einen können. Sie droht, wie damals der NS, mit dem Mittel der plumpesten Hetze eine Scheinlösung für die Masse zu werden, die unsere ethno-kulturelle Identität nicht rettet, sondern, wie Manfred Kleine-Hartlage sagte, statt in der „Säure“ des Islams im „Wasser“ des Liberalismus aufzulösen. Statt der identitären Regeneration soll eine „law-order“-Reform den welkenden Westen zusammenflicken und den Universalismus in der Tradition der drei modernen Ideologien weitertragen.

Im Geiste Moeller van der Brucks müssen wir dagegen auf einer klaren und reinen Erkenntnis der Gegner und der Gifte beharren, diese aber zu pragmatischen und politischen Taten werden lassen. In seinem Geiste müssen wir heute das schaffen, woran die KR damals scheiterte. Das heißt für Identitäre hier und heute themenführend in den brennenden Fragen zu werden und theoretisch-geistige Gebiete (Dekadenz, Technik, Geopolitik, usw.) im Bereich des Theoretisch-Geistigen wachsen und wirken zu lassen. In Kaffeehauskreisen, Denkerzirkeln oder Blogs wie diesem hier. (Nicht zuletzt um keine sinnlosen Fronten zu erzeugen). Dass diese beiden Bereiche sogar in Persönlichkeiten selbst harmonisch vereint werden können, erlebe ich nicht zuletzt bei mir in Wien, wo immer mehr junge Aktivisten nahtlos vom philosophischen Colloqium zum aktivistischen Parolenrufen übergehen und fließend zwischen Kapus und Anzug, Boxhandschuhen und Füllfeder wechseln. Nicht umsonst haben Cargohosen weite Taschen, in die sowohl ein Reclam-Bändchen als auch eine Spraydose oder ein Schlagstock passen (zur Selbstverteidigung versteht sich).

Über Martin Sellner

Studiert in Wien Rechtswissenschaften und Philosophie. Leiter der IBÖ Landesgruppe Wien.

Evola? Né eccentrico, né "guru"

Evola? Né eccentrico, né "guru": de Turris racconta gli incontri col filosofo

Ex: http://www.secoloditalia.it

«Julius Evola aveva una personalità multiforme, o almeno un carattere variabile, umorale, o era addirittura lunatico come anche è stato detto? E’ quel che si potrebbe pensare ascoltando le testimonianze di quanti hanno avuto la possibilità di conoscerlo e frequentarlo, dato che ne offrono rappresentazioni diverse, spesso assai diverse e quasi contrastanti fra loro al punto di sembrare o invenzioni o descrizioni di persone differenti. E’ quel che mi è venuto di pensare – scrive Gianfranco de Turris sul Barbadillo.it – ascoltando amici o estranei che mi hanno raccontato i loro incontri con il filosofo e chiedendomi sempre quale fosse invece la mia personale impressione: pur facendo la tara sul tempo trascorso, erano immagini troppo distanti per non cercare una spiegazione. Come ripeto a tutti coloro che mi interpellano a questo proposito, soprattutto chi per l’età non ha potuto conoscere di persona Evola, io l’ho sempre trovato una persona “normale”, senza eccentricità, bizzarrie, a parte il vezzo di prendere dal cassetto della scrivania il monocolo e inforcarlo alla presenza di signore e signorine; nessun atteggiamento di superiorità o da “maestro”, nessuna saccenteria, e questo sin da quando andai a trovarlo per la prima volta accompagnato da Adriano Romualdi, come avveniva per chi era giovane tra la fine degli anni Sessanta e l’inizio degli anni Settanta del Novecento. Di  certo avvenne dopo il 1968 quando avevo parlato di lui sul mensile L’Italiano fondato e diretto da Pino Romualdi e sul quale Adriano mi aveva invitato a collaborare (ed ero anche retribuito!). Con lui si parlava pacatamente di tutto, purtroppo non di alcune questioni cruciali di cui soltanto dopo, approfondendone vita e pensiero, avrei voluto parlare col senno di poi. Questioni un po’ più “profonde” si affrontarono solo verso la fine della sua vita, a dicembre 1973, quando andai a trovarlo con Sebastiano Fusco ed avemmo una lunga conversazione registrata che pubblicai però postuma, dodici anni dopo, in appendice alla seconda edizione di Testimonianze su Evola (Mediterranee, 1985)».

La “scandalosa” intervista concessa a Playmen

«Evidentemente si fece di me una opinione positiva – continua de Turris – anche se non mi disse mai nulla in proposito, ma sta di fatto che acconsentì a rispondere alle mie domande per una serie di interviste (almeno quattro) su vari giornali e riviste, preso ormai dalla mia mania “giornalistica” di divulgarne le opinioni rimaste sempre in ambiti ristretti,  più di quante sino a quel momento gli erano state fatte da altri, e ora raccolte in Omaggio a Julius Evola (Volpe, 1973) pubblicato per i suoi 75 anni. E, sempre per quella mia mania, ne propiziai diverse tra cui quella, clamorosa, che apparve su Playmen (con grande scandalo dei bacchettoni di destra e di sinistra) effettuata nel 1970 da Enrico de Boccard che soltanto molto dopo appresi essere stato uno dei “giovani” vicini a lui negli anni Cinquanta. Opinione positiva sua e di Adriano che ho conosciuto soltanto abbastanza di recente quando furono pubblicati una parte del suo epistolario italiano (Lettere di Julius Evola, a cura di Renato Del Ponte, Arktos, 2005) e le lettere di Adriano al comune e sfortunato amico Emilio Carbone (Lettere ad un amico, a cura di Renato Del Ponte, Arya, 2013), tanto che il filosofo mi propose come collaboratore della rivista che voleva pubblicare il compianto Gaspare Cannizzo nonostante lui lo avesse sconsigliato e che uscì nel 1971 come Vie della Tradizione, e al Cahier de l’Herne dedicato a Gustav Meyrink uscito dopo la sua morte».

 

Appassionato di Tex

 

 

 

«Una persona che parlava di tutto e di tutti, sino al limite del pettegolezzo e raccontando barzellette, come un vecchio amico, senza prosopopea e saccenteria o atteggiamenti da ”guru”. Almeno con me non aveva alcuna cadenza o inflessione “alla romana”, pur essendo nato e cresciuto  nella capitale con qualche viaggio da ragazzino a Cinisi, il paese di origine dei suoi dove ancora esiste la casa avita. Al massimo arrotava “alla siciliana”  la “r” iniziale delle parole essendo vissuto in una famiglia di quelle origini. Insomma, tutt’altro che  il personaggio che emerge da altri ricordi. Ad esempio, un amico, che “evoliano” non è, mi ha raccontato che andando a trovarlo insieme ad un devoto del suo pensiero, questi, entrato nella sua stanza, si prosternò al suolo e quindi assorbì in silenzio i precetti un po’ assurdi e fuori del tempo che Evola gli dettava! Non posso pensare che questo amico si sia inventato tutto. Viceversa, una volta ad altri che erano recati da lui con spirito troppo superficiale, alla fine li congedò, come ha ricordato Renato Del Ponte, regalando oro una copia di Tex, il fumetto western allora (e oggi) il più longevo e diffuso, come dire, secondo me: siete più adatti a questo genere di  letture. A buon intenditor…».

La “Metafisica del sesso”

«Tutto ciò però  si collega a quanto lo stesso Adriano Romualdi mi raccontava allora. Ad esempio, che di fronte a certi che gli si erano presentati dicendo: “Maestro, noi il lunedì ci riuniamo per leggere Cavalcare la tigre, martedì Gli uomini e le rovine, mercoledì Rivolta contro il mondo moderno….”, Evola li interruppe e chiese: “E quando vi decidete a leggere Metafisica del sesso?”. Ad altri infervorati consigliò, per far soldi, di darsi al traffico di armi o, meglio, alla “tratta delle bianche”, come allora si diceva. In una delle sue ultime interviste, mi sembra a Panorama o in quella pubblicata postuma da Il Messaggero, disse che “il popolo bisogna trattarlo con la frusta”…. Cosa vogliano dire queste singolari affermazioni rispetto alla personalità “normale” che io ho conosciuto, ed hanno conosciuto anche altri? Dopo tanto tempo ho tratto alcune conclusioni».

Incontrava tutti, amici e nemici

«Il filosofo accettava di vedere, di parlare con tutti, senza preclusioni pur non conoscendo i suoi interlocutori, magari giovani e meno giovani di altre città che venivano appositamente a Roma per conoscerlo dopo aver letto i suoi libri. Prendevano un appuntamento e si recavano da lui, e quando non era in casa la domestica/governante altoatesina con cui parlava in tedesco, questa andandosene lasciava la chiave dell’ingresso sotto lo stuoino e chi arrivava, preavvertito, la prendeva e apriva la porta (e in teoria avrebbe potuto farlo anche qualche malintenzionato). Nel suo studio Evola accoglieva i visitatori o a letto o seduto alla sua sedia di fronte alla macchina da scrivere. Qui, io penso, si faceva una idea dei nuovi venuti grazie al suo acume psicologico ma soprattutto al suo intuito “sottile”, e si comportava di conseguenza, e quindi usava atteggiamenti, argomenti e soprattutto parole adatte alla bisogna. Oppure non ne usava affatto: come racconta Gaspare Cannizzo in un articolo,  certi suoi incontri consistevano in lunghi silenzi. Ecco il motivo per cui appariva “diverso” o singolare a chi lo andava a trovare, magari soltanto per una volta. Si comportava come un maestro zen o sufi,  un po’ come faceva anche Pio Filippani-Ronconi: diceva cose assurde, usava espressioni paradossali, provocatorie, estreme, quasi, così provocando, voler sondare le reazioni di chi aveva davanti, come a a volerlo saggiare, sondare, osservare le reazioni esteriori, ma anche interiori. I devoti, gli “evolomani” come lui stesso li aveva definiti, prendevano magari alla lettera quanto diceva e se ne facevano una impressione sbagliata. Lo stesso vale per chi andava da lui con atteggiamento troppo superficiale, o per i  facinorosi, che pensavano di essere “uomini di azione” e avevano dopo l’incontro impressioni pessime definendolo addirittura un “frocio”, come si può leggere nel libro-intervista ad un ergastolano “fascista” (Io, l’uomo nero, Marsilio, 2008). Il guaio, se così si può dire, è che il filosofo faceva lo stesso anche con chi non lo conosceva affatto oppure era già prevenuto nei suoi confronti, ad esempio con giornalisti per  nulla amichevoli i quali, anch’essi prendendo le sue parole ed espressioni alla lettera le riportavano pari pari e ne tratteggiavano un profilo oscuro e “maledetto”, quello del “barone nero” appunto, a conferma dei loro teoremi mentali (ricordiamoci che si era in piena “contestazione” e violenza, anche se il vero terrorismo non era ancora nato). Non era, dunque, una personalità multiforme, un carattere variabile, ma il suo essere così aveva un senso perché faceva da riscontro alla personalità e all’animo dei suoi interlocutori, seri o meno seri, preparati o meno preparati, colti o meno colti, ingenui o meno, amici o nemici. Il suo atteggiamento e linguaggio – conclude de Turris – servivano per capire chi fossero quei tanti che volevano vederlo, incontrarlo, parlargli, magari anche per prenderli sottilmente in giro per le loro esagerazioni, pur se non se rendevano conto. Da qui, ma a lui ovviamente non importava, la nascita di alcune leggende metropolitane nei suoi confronti che non sempre gli hanno giovato».

Le sanzioni contro la Russia, una storia che si ripete

Le sanzioni contro la Russia, una storia che si ripete

di Armando Ambrosio, Dario Citati
Fonte: Geopolitica & http://www.ariannaeditrice.it

In che misura le sanzioni adottate contro la Federazione Russa sono legate alla crisi ucraina? Se sul piano della cronologia dei fatti il legame tra questi due ordini di avvenimenti sembra non lasciare adito a dubbi, gli ostacoli politici nei rapporti commerciali tra Occidente e Russia hanno in realtà una lunga storia, che risale ai tempi della Guerra Fredda e rivela significative assonanze con il contesto odierno.

Il CoCom (Coordination Committe for Multilateral Export Control) fu un organismo informale e semi-segreto, costituito nel 1949 sotto l’egida degli Stati Uniti allo scopo di limitare le esportazioni dei Paesi dell’Alleanza Atlantica verso il blocco socialista e formalmente sciolto solo nel 1994. I Paesi aderenti al Comitato erano tutti i membri NATO eccetto l’Islanda, con l’aggiunta del Giappone e successivamente della Spagna. I beni e i prodotti colpiti dalle limitazioni sancite dal CoCom erano suddivisi in tre gruppi: prodotti industriali di ambito militare (International Munition List); prodotti legati allo sviluppo dell’energia nucleare, compresi i materiali fissili, i reattori nucleari e i loro componenti (International Atomic Energy List); infine i beni a duplice uso, che potevano cioè ricadere tanto nell’ambito civile che militare (International Industrial List).

Se le prime due categorie erano legate in modo sostanzialmente diretto alla rivalità geostrategica della Guerra Fredda e rispondevano alla necessità di impedire l’eventuale sorpasso di tecnologia bellica del campo avversario, la terza risultava maggiormente discrezionale e meglio si prestava al perseguimento di quella «strategia dell’arretratezza controllata» del blocco socialista che secondo gli analisti d’oltrecortina costituiva lo scopo stesso del CoCom.

Una definizione assai calzante di ciò che rappresentava il CoCom è d’altronde quella fornita da un diplomatico occidentale dell’epoca, secondo cui tale organismo andava inteso come una sorta di «corollario del Piano Marshall». Ed è proprio qui che risulta possibile individuare la principale assonanza con lo scenario contemporaneo. Le attuali sanzioni contro la Federazione Russa, formalmente proclamate in risposta all’interventismo di Mosca nell’Ucraina orientale, sono state infatti adottate in parallelo all’energica ripresa dei negoziati per il TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership), cioè l’accordo che intende rinsaldare i legami commerciali Europa-Stati Uniti attraverso la costituzione di un’area di libero scambio e la standardizzazione delle rispettive normative.

Non è pertanto azzardato parlare del riproporsi di una politica geoeconomica di matrice statunitense che si sostanzia essenzialmente in due aspetti: l’uno di carattere «difensivo», teso ad escludere l’Unione Sovietica ieri e la Russia oggi da rapporti commerciali troppo stretti con gli alleati europei degli USA; l’altro propositivo e inclusivo, incarnato allora dal Piano Marshall e oggi dal TTIP, che mira a inserire l’Europa occidentale in un sistema economico integrato avente il suo centro negli Stati Uniti d’America. Il paragone diretto tra il regime di sanzioni attualmente in vigore contro la Russia e le misure intraprese dal CoCom contro il blocco socialista a partire dal 1949 è stato d’altronde esplicitamente richiamato dal Vice-Ministro degli Esteri della Federazione Russa Sergej Rjabkov, che ha condannato l’uso politico delle misure economiche e l’evidente anacronismo delle medesime.

A ben vedere, le sanzioni introdotte di recente contro la Federazione Russia non sono altro che una riedizione delle misure restrittive adottate a suo tempo dal CoCom, sia pure con qualche aggiustamento. Esse prendono di mira gli stessi settori strategici, e cioè quello militare, le tecnologie orientate al ramo energia e i prodotti a duplice uso. L’unica discrepanza rispetto allo schema del passato è rappresentata dalle sanzioni nei confronti di persone fisiche e giuridiche che non trovano riscontro nel periodo della Guerra Fredda.

Pur essendo mutato il contesto e cambiate almeno in apparenza le finalità, le analogie tra il regime sanzionatorio del passato e quello attuale sono sorprendenti ed impongono un esame più attento per cercare di decifrare il dato storico e, se possibile, trarne qualche insegnamento. Dall’analisi dell’impianto sanzionatorio CoCom, e delle sue conseguenze sugli assetti politico-economici dei paesi coinvolti, emergono spunti molto interessanti.

Innanzitutto, occorre segnalare che le misure restrittive imposte dal CoCom hanno avuto un impatto, tutto sommato, abbastanza modesto sull’economia dell’URSS, che ha potuto comunque procurarsi da altre fonti i beni vietati. Le sanzioni hanno invece penalizzato principalmente le economie dei paesi occidentali (specialmente in termini di perdite di accordi commerciali) e creato attriti nei rapporti tra gli Stati Uniti ed Europa Occidentale, nonché tra i paesi dell’Europa Occidentale.

Inoltre, nonostante la stretta sorveglianza degli USA, negli anni della Guerra Fredda si sono registrate innumerevoli violazioni delle regole CoCom da parte degli stessi stati membri con l’appoggio di paesi terzi, cosicché, in definitiva, sembrerebbe che gli unici a trarre beneficio dal regime delle sanzioni CoCom siano stati i paesi terzi che hanno così potuto incrementare il volume dei propri traffici con l’URSS.

Infine, l’ultimo importante monito che viene dal passato riguarda la cancellazione delle sanzioni. L’impianto delle misure restrittive CoCom è durato per veri decenni ed è stato definitivamente smantellato solo alcuni anni dopo la caduta del Muro di Berlino. Ciò a riprova del fatto che se è facile imporre le sanzioni, più difficile è rimuoverle.

NOTE:

Armando Ambrosio è resident partner della sede di Mosca e responsabile del Desk Russia e Paesi CSI dello studio legale De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani.
Dario Citati è Direttore del Programma di ricerca «Eurasia» presso l'Istituto di Alti Studi in Geopolitica e Scienze Ausiliarie (IsAG), Roma.

Tante altre notizie su www.ariannaeditrice.it

Yémen : le grand imbroglio…

Yémen : le grand imbroglio…

 

Il y a des événements qui, à eux seuls, ne veulent pas dire grand-chose. Mais qui, mis bout à bout et replacés dans un contexte plus global, nous disent aussi quelque chose.

 

Nicolas Gauthier

Journaliste, écrivain

Ex: http://www.bvoltaire.fr

 

Il y a des événements qui, à eux seuls, ne veulent pas dire grand-chose. Mais qui, mis bout à bout et replacés dans un contexte plus global, nous disent aussi quelque chose.

Ainsi, Hareth al-Nadhari, l’un des chefs d’AQPA (Al-Qaïda dans la péninsule Arabique), vient-il d’être réduit en chaleur et lumière par un drone américain, en même temps que trois de ses coreligionnaires. Hareth al-Nadhari, c’est lui qui a le premier réagi contre la tuerie de Charlie Hebdo, avant qu’un de ses affidés n’assure que la France était devenue « ennemi numéro un », devant les USA…

Plus sérieusement, et au-delà du très folklorique lyrisme oriental – quoique parfois mortifère –, cette nouvelle problématique dépasse de loin les gribouillis et élucubrations de quelques gauchistes hirsutes, n’ayant de la géopolitique qu’une vision devant plus au professeur Choron qu’à Jacques Bainville. Ainsi qu’à nombre de zigomars pour lesquels « tout cela n’est que bougnoules et compagnie… »

Dans une précédente chronique, signée de la plume de votre servant, étaient mises en exergue les clauses discrètes du « deal » récemment passé au sultanat d’Oman entre Iran et USA.

Résumons, dans l’ordre : réintégration de Téhéran dans le jeu international, fin de l’embargo sur l’Iran, résolution définitive du conflit israélo-palestinien et lutte conjointe contre Daech, quitte à un peu tordre le bras à l’Arabie saoudite.

Codicille glissé en coulisses par de très attentifs officiels de l’ambassade iranienne à Paris : « Tout cela est vrai. Mais il s’agit là de l’option “optimiste”. Les Saoudiens n’ont pas leur mot à dire, c’est vrai. Que l’Iran veuille pacifier ses relations avec l’Occident l’est aussi. Mais à Téhéran, d’autres se demandent aussi s’il ne serait pas plus judicieux de les resserrer plus que jamais avec cet allié historique qu’est la Russie, tout en les nouant au plus près avec la Chine. Car c’est aussi un triangle Moscou-Téhéran-Pékin qui pourrait se mettre en place, seul axe capable de faire pièce à l’hégémonie d’un Occident finissant. »

Et puis, Washington et Tel Aviv.

Là, dans ces deux capitales, ce n’est pas non plus l’enthousiasme.

« Dans la première, les lobbies sionistes, juifs comme chrétiens, ne veulent pas entendre parler d’une telle issue », confie notre interlocuteur.

Dans la seconde, toujours la même volonté d’aller droit dans le mur : « Certains faucons israéliens estiment que la surenchère guerrière demeure leur dernière issue. Pour eux, gagner la guerre est aisé ; mais en faire de même de la paix est une tout autre histoire. La preuve par Gaza, qu’ils n’arrivent pas à abattre, malgré des tombereaux de bombes », conclut ce dernier.

Mais revenons-en à notre drone américain, ayant envoyé Hareth al-Nadhari plus tôt que prévu au paradis yéménite. Soit la confirmation de la confusion régnant en cette partie de la région où se livre une guerre avant tout interne aux musulmans – sunnites contre chiites, mais également entre diverses factions sunnites.

On a longtemps dit, non sans raison, qu’Arabie saoudite et Émirats finançaient ces mouvements. Mais entre financement plus ou moins libre et racket plus ou moins consenti, la frontière est parfois mince… Et il ne faut jamais oublier que l’Arabie saoudite qui vient de fêter l’avènement de son « jeune » roi n’a jamais été aussi proche de la ligne de mire de ces musulmans de combat, puisque saoudienne dynastie tenue, à juste titre, pour puritaine et débauchée, gardienne des Lieux saints tout en étant vendue à la puissante Amérique.

Tout cela est, bien entendu, fort complexe, et il est à craindre que ce ne soit pas « l’esprit de janvier » qui puisse venir le résoudre.

Nicolas Gauthier

The Death of King Abdullah and the Future of Oil Geopolitics

The Death of King Abdullah and the Future of Oil Geopolitics
by James Corbett
corbettreport.com

In the early hours of Friday, January 23rd, Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz died of complications from pneumonia. He was 90 years old, and was just shy of reaching the 10th anniversary of his accession to the Saudi throne in August of 2005.

From the perspective of global oil geopolitics, the death of the leader of one of the world’s top oil exporters could hardly have come at a more sensitive time. Oil prices have plummeted by half in the past six months, with some predicting prices will plunge even lower and remain there for some time. Many have fingered the Saudis as the culprit for the fall in prices, but even the infamously spendthrift oiligarchs of the House of Saud are feeling the pinch as low oil prices start to eat into their reserves. Now a large question mark hangs over not just the future of Saudi Arabia, or even the global oil market, but the current monetary order itself.

Those adept at reading between the lines will have noticed few of the threads of this potentially world-changing narrative in the decidedly reserved establishment media coverage of the event. The casual reader will be told that King Abdullah was a “cautious reformer” of a nation that still has “issues” with its treatment of its own population. They will learn that he was the 10th (or maybe the 13th) of 45 sons of Abdulaziz ibn Saud, the patriarch of the House of Saud, and that he himself had “about” 30 wives and “about” 35 children. They will learn that his half-brother, Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, has succeeded his brother as the new king.

But in order to get beyond the fluff one has to do a bit of digging. And to do that digging, one needs to know something about the history of the US-Saudi relationship and how it forms the backbone of the world’s economy.

The US-Saudi Relationship

That relationship was cemented in a meeting between President Roosevelt and Saudi Arabia’s founder, King Abdulaziz, in February of 1945. The meeting took place on the USS Quincy on Egypt’s Great Bitter Lake, and the many comical elements of that meeting have become the stuff of lore. The Saudis insisted on bringing a contingent of 48 men even though the Americans had said they could accommodate only 10. They insisted on sleeping in tents pitched on the ship’s deck rather than in the cabins provided. They insisted on bringing their own goats so they could dine on freshly-slaughtered meat, and insisted that the ship’s crew partake with them (until they learned that the crew was prohibited from eating anything but military rations by Navy regulations).

More importantly, the meeting was the culmination of a series of events that made the countries’ mutual interdependence increasingly apparent. The American owned-and-operated “California Arabian Standard Oil Corporation” (which later became ARAMCO) had begun exploration in the country in 1933 and had struck oil near Dhahran. While still quite small as a contribution to America’s overall oil supply, the value of the country’s potential oil reserves (not to mention its geostrategic location on the Arabian Peninsula) had led Roosevelt to declare in 1943 that “the defense of Saudi Arabia is vital to the defense of the United States.”

The Saudis, meanwhile, recognized the security value of having the US as an ally in a highly unstable and unfriendly region. As a result, the Roosevelt-Abdulaziz meeting begat an arrangement that allowed for US airfields and flyover routes across Saudi Arabia, and an ongoing presence in Dharhan where the first American consulate had been opened the year before. The Saudis, meanwhile, enjoyed an implicit promise of American military protection and an explicit promise that on the sticky question of Palestine and Jewish immigration to the region, Roosevelt would “do nothing to assist the Jews against the Arabs and would make no move hostile to the Arab people.”

That promise was reneged on just three years later when the US supported the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, just one of many times in which the relationship would be tested by directly competing interests and broken promises. Nevertheless, the dawn of the cold war saw the relationship deepen as Truman promised to defend Saudi Arabia from Soviet influence. As a result, more US military installations were constructed in the country and a US Military Training Mission was established to provide weapons and combat training to Saudi security forces.

The relationship persisted despite ups and downs and widespread dissatisfaction with American military presence amongst the Saudi population. However, in October of 1973 relations reached a nadir as Saudi Arabia joined the OPEC oil embargo of the US due to its support of Israel in the Yom Kippur war. The crisis was double for the US; not only were Americans made painfully aware that they were no longer an energy independent nation, but Nixon’s closing of the gold window and ending of the Bretton Woods system had set off its own crisis in which Washington found itself unable to rely on a limitless demand for dollars for the first time since the end of the second world war.

In all of this turmoil, Nixon’s National Security Advisor and Secretary of State (and Rockefeller stooge) Henry Kissinger found a way to kill two crises with one stone. After some threatening talk from the United States about viewing its access to OPEC oil as a national security concern, Kissinger was able to convince the Saudis to accept a deal whereby they would sell oil exclusively in US dollars, and those dollars would be recycled back through US banks for the purchase of US treasuries and US arms. In return, America would continue to extend its security guarantee over the Kingdom. And with that one diplomatic stroke, the petrodollar system was born. This system ensures continuing demand for the completely fiat US federal reserve note and has allowed the dollar to retain its world reserve currency status (and allowed Washington to continue issuing as much debt as it wants with relative inflationary impunity).

The US-Saudi Rift

In recent years, however, there have been numerous signs of a growing rift between Washington and Riyadh. The rift has formed over a number of fault lines. The Saudis have been angered by America’s seeming unwillingness to force the issue with arch-rival Iran over their nuclear program. They have been angered by America’s reticence in launching an all-out assault on regional rival Syria. They have been angered by America’s abandonment of regional partner Hosni Mubarak during the Arab Spring, which has continually threatened to spread to Saudi Arabia’s predominantly Shia (and oil-producing) regions.

The Saudis have signaled their displeasure in some subtle and some blatant ways in recent years. Perhaps most spectacularly, the Saudis turned down a coveted seat on the UN Security Council at the end of 2013 out of anger over the US’ inaction on Syria and Iran. More subtly, the Saudis have shown signs that they are edging toward a closer relationship with China, from the adoption of a “look east” approach under the reign of King Abdullah that saw the majority of Saudi oil heading to Asia, to a nuclear energy cooperation pact in 2012, to the recent revelation of China’s sale of advanced ballistic missiles to Saudi Arabia.

The Americans, meanwhile, have responded by subtly reminding the Saudis that they have numerous Swords of Damocles hanging over the Kingdom, any one of which could be dropped at any time to sever Washington’s “special relationship” with Riyadh. It is no secret to anyone that the “classified 28 pages” in the Congressional report on 9/11 pertains to Saudi involvement in the attack; that much has been known and talked about ever since the report was released. But interestingly the issue has suddenly re-surfaced in the news in recent years, spearheaded by the likes of former Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Bob Graham. And just last year, the US Supreme Court ruled that 9/11 victims’ families can sue Saudi Arabia for their complicity in the attack. The implication is clear: if you sever the petrodollar relationship, we can always release the 28 pages and turn the American public against you. Just ask Saddam Hussein what that feels like.

There are less dramatic angles that the US can take to apply pressure on the House of Saud, as well. No one with any sense at all believes America’s endless lecturing of certain nations on their human rights abuses to be sincere, but that insincerity is perhaps best exposed by the fact that Washington has happily overlooked Saudi Arabia’s abysmal treatment of women and political dissidents (not to mention their Shia minority population) throughout the two countries’ 70 year relationship. Although human rights organizations have (unsurprisingly) more or less followed Washington’s lead in ignoring the Saudi abuses, there are signs that the kid gloves are being removed and greater awareness of the plight of oppressed peoples in the Saudi kingdom is being allowed from on high. Michelle Obama’s decision not to wear a headscarf at the funeral of King Abdullah was perhaps the most glaring recent example of this phenomenon, generating plenty of column inches in the press, but that is by no means the only example of this increasing scrutiny of the Saudis track record on human rights.

The Future of the Petrodollar

Given all of this, it should be apparent that what is at stake with every royal succession is not just the domestic politics of Saudi Arabia, but the course of geopolitics and, ultimately, the global economy. No one needs reminding of the importance of oil on the world stage at the best of times, but in uncertain times like this a change of leadership in the House of Saud is particularly nerve-wracking.

The early consensus was that the accession of King Salman was going to be a non-event, or at least as close to a non-event as is possible in these circumstances. Indeed, the new king used his first public address to stress that there would be no change in direction for the country under his reign. “We will remain with God’s strength attached to the straight path that this state has walked since its establishment by King Abdul Aziz bin Saud, and by his sons after him,” Salman said in televised remarks.

Recent developments, however, suggest that promise may have been mere lip service to keep markets calm during the transition. Earlier this week King Salman fired Prince Mishaal, governor of the Mecca region, and Prince Turki, who governed the capital Riyadh. Both princes were sons of King Abdullah. Salman also made a sweeping cabinet reshuffle that saw new faces in the intelligence, social affairs, civil service, communications and information, culture and information and other chairs. What’s more, early predictions that Prince Mohammed bin Nayef might become the next Crown Prince and the first of the Saudi royal family’s third generation to hold that position were dashed when Deputy Crown Prince Moqren was elevated to the position instead.

What these shakeups mean precisely is yet to be determined. There are persistent reports that King Salman, now 79 years old, is himself in ill health and it may not be long before Moqren, the youngest son of the country’s founder, succeeds him. These uncertainties can’t help but contribute to unease in markets that are already concerned by global growth slowdown and slumping commodity prices. But the real action is going to happen in the US-Saudi relationship. A lot will hinge on whether King Salman will continue King Abdullah’s uneasy relationship with Obama, or whether a fresh start will be made. What hinges on this alliance is not just the future of a bilateral security relationship, but the foundation of the current monetary order.

Hoe ‘ Laurence of Arabia’ de Islam op de kaart zette

Saudi-Arabië, of hoe ‘ Laurence of Arabia’ de Islam op de kaart zette

Ex: vrijetribune.nl& http://www.alfredvierling.com

In een recente column zet de Iraanse balling Afshin Elian uiteen waar volgens hem de politieke Islam vandaan komt, namelijk uit Iran. Dit gaat echter volledig heen langs de rol die Saudi-Arabië speelde als voedingsbodem voor de radicale Islam. Het overlijden van ‘koning’ Abdullah van het Huis van Saud is een goede aanleiding om eens in de geschiedenis van deze familie te graven. In Engeland werd er namelijk een opmerkelijke hulde gebracht aan Abdullah door de vlag op Westminister halfstok te hangen. Dat brengt ons bij de oorsprong van het huidige Arabische Koninkrijk, te weten Groot-Britannië.

Vanaf 1888 begon Duitsland aan de bouw van de Berlijn-Baghdad spoorweg, waar we eerder reeds over schreven. Deze strategische spoorweg omzeilde het Suez-kanaal en was een uitgelezen kans voor de Turken om hun greep op het Arabische schiereiland te versterken. De spoorlijn had namelijk ook een tak die naar Mekka en Medina ging, de heiligste plaatsen in de Islamitische wereld. De Britten schaduwden om die reden de bouw van de spoorweg al voor de Eerste Wereldoorlog met een spionage-eenheid dat zich voordeed als een archeologie-team. In dat team zat T.E. Lawrence:

Na het uitbreken van de Eerste Wereldoorlog werd Lawrence, die Arabisch sprak, ingezet bij het organiseren van sabotage-acties tegen de bovengenoemde spoorweg. Het doel was om het Arabische schiereiland los te weken van het Ottomaanse Rijk. Om die reden was ook voorzien in een Arabische opstand. Daarvoor werd de meest agressieve en martiale stam uitgekozen, de Sauds. De Sauds waren aanhangers van het Wahabisme, een back-to-basics vorm van Islam, die zeer sober en orthodox was en beter pastte bij de woestijn dan bij het grootstedelijke leven in het Ottomaanse Rijk.

De Arabische opstand slaagde onder leiding van de homosexuele Lawrence en leidde er toe dat Mekka en Medina in handen kwamen van het Huis van Saud, en wel onder Abdoel Aziz Al-Saud (1876-1953). Hiermee kwamen de meest heilige plaatsen van Islam onder de meest militante vorm van Islam. Na de Eerste Wereldoorlog steunde de Britten Abdoel Aziz verder in de uitbreiding van zijn macht over het Arabische schiereiland. De invloed van Abdoel Aziz reikt tot op de dag van vandaag, want tot op heden werd hij opgevolgd door een directe afstammeling. Fahd, Abdullah en de huidige koning Salman zijn zijn zonen.

In 1932 erkende Groot-Britannië het koninkrijk Saudi-Arabië, dat een absolute monarchie was op basis van de Wahabisme en met het prestige van ‘beschermer van de heilige plaatsen’. De vlag liet niets aan de verbeelding over: het was groen, de kleur van de Islam, en bevatte de Islamitische geloofsbelijdenis. Op dat ogenblik was de Islam helemaal geen politieke kracht van betekenis. De Arabische wereld keek naar het machtige Europa en zag het seculiere nationalisme als het middel om het koloniale juk van zich af te werpen. Dit nationalisme vatte post onder Arabische officieren in Egypte, Syrië en Irak, zoals het Turkse nationalisme ook als eerst aansloeg binnen de Turkse strijdkrachten. Islam werd zowel in het Arabische en Turkse nationalisme gezien als een obstakel voor sociale en economische ontwikkeling.

In 1938 gebeurde er iets wat het Saudi-Arabische koninkrijk volledig transformeerde van een economische, sociale en politieke zandbak tot een fabelachtig rijke regionale macht – de vondst van olie. Saudi-Arabië kreeg zodoende de middelen om haar model te exporteren: de wahabitische Islam. Tot de jaren 1970 had het Arabische nationalisme echter de wind in de zeilen. De Saudi’s slaagden er echter in de gunst te verwerven van een nieuwe wereldmacht, de Verenigde Staten.

De Verenigde Staten namen het koninkrijk onder hun hoede vanwege de olie-belangen (Aramco – Arabian American Oil Company). Door deze samenwerking slaagden de Amerikanen er in de petro-dollar te lanceren. In ruil voor bescherming steunde Saudi-Arabië het Amerikaanse plan om alle olie-transacties te verrichten in US Dollars. Saudi-Arabië werd zodoende belangrijker dan het ooit zou zijn geweest zonder olie en de bescherming van Amerika.

Saudi-Arabië slaagde er met de hulp van Amerika in de afgelopen decennia de machtige seculiere Arabische republieken een voor een uit te schakelen. In 1991 werd Irak aangevallen omdat Saudi-Arabië zich bedreigd voelde door de Iraakse invasie van Koeweit. Later volgde de definitieve afrekening met Saddam in 2003, Libië in 2011 en Syrië in 2012. Dit ging ten koste van het Arabische nationalisme en ten gunste van de radicale Islam, die met geld vanuit Saudi-Arabië werd gesteund, ook in West-Europa.

Het is niet Iran die tientallen miljoenen stopt in de bouw van moskeeën en koranscholen in het buiteland. Iran is niet ook het land dat duizenden jihadisten uitspuwt die overal ter wereld dood en verderf zaaien. Saudi-Arabië is het epi-centrum van een radicale vorm van Islam die aanvankelijk gedoemd was in de woestijn te verblijven maar als politieke kracht tot leven werd gewekt door Groot-Britannië en vervolgens de Verenigde Staten.

Entretien avec le survivaliste Piero San Giorgio

TVL : Entretien avec le survivaliste Piero San Giorgio

http://www.tvlibertes.com/

https://www.facebook.com/tvlibertes

https://twitter.com/tvlofficiel

Pour nous soutenir :

http://www.tvlibertes.com/don/

Ou directement via Facebook :

https://www.facebook.com/tvlibertes/a...

Ukraine: la guerre sert à faciliter la vente de terres arables et les cultures OGM

Ukraine: la guerre sert à faciliter la vente de terres arables et les cultures OGM

Auteur : sputniknews

Ex: http://zejournal.mobi

Les députés allemands se préoccupent d'une éventuelle vente de terres arables en Ukraine pour la culture des OGM.

Le confit en Ukraine est utilisé pour faciliter la vente de terres arables, impliquant des sociétés et consortiums étrangers, soutenus par la Banque mondiale (BM), la Banque européenne pour la reconstruction et le développement (BERD) et le groupe allemand Bankengruppe KfW.

C'est ce qu'a déclaré jeudi au correspondant de l'agence Rossiya Segodnya Mme Birgit Bock-Luna, chef du bureau de Niema Movassat, député du Bundestag allemand.

"Le conflit en Ukraine est utilisé pour vendre des terres au profit de grands consortiums", a-t-elle dit, ajoutant que les députés, ayant signé la requête de Niema Movassat, collectaient et analysaient à présent l'information sur ce dossier pour la rendre publique.

Selon Mme Bock-Luna, dans sa requête au gouvernement fédéral, M.Movassat suppose que la terre en Ukraine puisse servir à cultiver des OGM, cultures interdites au sein de l’Union européenne.

Dès le début des années 1990, l'Union européenne a mis en place un cadre réglementaire pour les OGM, qui est toujours en cours d'évolution. L'objectif de cette réglementation communautaire est de rendre compatible la création d'un marché unique des biotechnologies avec la protection de la santé publique et le respect de l'environnement.

- Source : sputniknews