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

lundi, 29 août 2016

Washington’s Sunni Myth and the Middle East Undone


Washington’s Sunni Myth and the Middle East Undone

Ex: http://warontherocks.com

A Westerner with extensive on-the-ground experience in Syria and Iraq tackles conventional Western views of the civil wars in Iraq and Syria and proposes a dramatic rethinking of the region.

Editor’s Note: This is the second of two articles on this topic, the first of which was published last week. There has been some controversy over my decision to allow this author to write under a pen name. I know the author’s identity and while his arguments are surely controversial, I am confident in his sourcing and subject matter expertise. I carefully considered his request to use a pen name. I decided that this case reasonably meets the standards for such protection published on our site. The author, in my view, can reasonably and seriously fear for his professional employment and safety publishing under his real name. -RE / Update: The author’s pen name has been changed to protect someone with the same name who has nothing to do with the article.

I was not surprised to see my first article greeted with so much outrage by those who adhere to the conventional Western narrative of the civil wars in Iraq and Syria as well as the larger tumult of the Middle East. In truth, these conflicts are not so easily defined by the easy sectarian narrative offered in the Western press.  I argued that Western elites were surrendering to and even embracing the Saudi definition of what Sunni identity should mean. And I provided accounts of the conflicts in Syria and Iraq that do not comport with what you likely have been reading in the newspapers.

But there is far more to the story. It is worth recounting how we got to this point. In the aftermath of the toppling of Saddam and his regime, Iraq’s Sunnis were betrayed by many of their own religious, political, and tribal leaders who demanded that they boycott the post-2003 political order by waging an insurgency against the world’s most powerful military and the government it sought to stand up and support. Of course, it did not help that the U.S.-led occupation and the security forces it empowered victimized Sunni Iraqis disproportionately. The American military’s posture was more aggressive in Sunni-majority areas, and Iraqi security forces collaborated with Shia death squads in pursuit of a vicious counterinsurgency strategy that saw bodies piled up and neighborhoods cleansed. Iraqis en masse suffered from a collective trauma that will take decades to recover from. But hardline Sunni rejectionists and their Western backers have claimed that if Sunnis are not “empowered” then there is no alternative available to them but the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). When adopted by Westerners, this argument seems to support Sunnis but actually represents a very low opinion of them because it holds that Sunnis require disproportionate political power to avoid becoming terrorists. Since 2003, Sunni rejectionists have pushed this narrative to hold Iraq hostage, blackmailing Baghdad and its allies like gangsters in a protection racket.

If Sunni leaders did not receive the government position or the business contract they wanted, they would then claim persecution on account of their Sunni identity, switch sides, gather their relatives, and use violence. Examples of this phenomenon from early 2013 include:

Still, the West has pressured the Iraqi government to allow into its ranks Sunni representatives like the above, who oppose the very legitimacy of the government and the notion of a Shia ruler. There were no Shias in the Anbar or Ninawa provinces to threaten Sunnis.  At best, they were politically disgruntled, which is an insufficient reason to embrace the world’s most vicious terrorist organization.

The Jihad Returns to Haunt Syria

The interplay between the conflict in Iraq and the Syrian civil war created a perfect storm. The U.S.-led occupation of Iraq and the sectarian war it ignited influenced how Syrian Sunnis thought of themselves. The Syrian government was warned that it was next in line for regime change, and it took preemptive measures to scuttle the American project in Iraq. By supporting or tolerating insurgents (including al-Qaeda) for the first three years of the occupation, Damascus sought to bog the Americans down. But by then, the Syrian government had lost control of its eastern border. After 2006, at least one million mostly Sunni Iraqis fled into Syria, including some with ties to the insurgency who either came to Syria to facilitate insurgent operations in Iraq, to find a safe place for them and their families, or both. Many former al-Qaeda in Iraq members had fled to Damascus and were living normal lives as family men and laborers before the Syrian crisis erupted in 2011. In my own interviews with detained members of Jabhat al-Nusra, I learned that when the Syrian insurgency started, these men were contacted by old friends who told them, in effect, “We’re putting the band back together.” Many of these Iraqis formed the early core of al-Nusra, which until recently was al-Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate.

By 2010 or 2011, Iraq appeared to be stable. When the uprising started in Syria and the country became unstable, many of the Iraqi Sunni rejectionists returned to Iraq from their Syrian exile. Insurgents in Syria had created failed state zones, power vacuums full of militias, and a conservative Islamist Sunni population mobilized on sectarian slogans. The Turks were letting anyone cross into Syria, which was exploited most successfully by jihadists. By the summer of 2012, many local Syrians saw the arrival of foreign fighters in a positive light, as if they were members of the Lincoln Battalion of foreign volunteers in the Spanish Civil War. As I myself witnessed, they were welcomed and housed by Syrians, who facilitated their presence and cooperated with them.

These thousands of foreign fighters in Syria eventually sided in large numbers with ISIL, seizing parts of Syria. From there, the group was able to launch its offensive into Iraq in the summer of 2014 (although the ground in Mosul had been prepared by the jihadists for quite some time). The prospect of a Sunni sectarian movement seizing Damascus evoked their dreams of expelling the Shia from Baghdad (although the difference, of course, is that Baghdad is a Shia-majority city, unlike Damascus). The Syrian uprising mobilized public and private Gulf money for a larger Sunni cause in Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere in the region. A lot of this support went to the Sunni rejectionists of Iraq, who staged sit-ins and demonstrations in majority-Sunni cities in Iraq. Meanwhile, Al Jazeera had transformed from the voice of Arab nationalism into the voice of sectarian Sunnis, virtually promoting al-Qaeda in Syria and celebrating the initial ISIL “revolutionaries” in Iraq.


From Syria, Back to Iraq

In 2012, as jihadists gathered in centers of rebellion around Syria, Sunni rejectionists in Iraq allowed jihadists to re-infiltrate their ranks as they launched this campaign of demonstrations, thinking they could use the presence of these men as leverage against the government. At the time, al-Qaeda and ISIL forerunner Islamic State of Iraq were still united. They had systematically assassinated key leaders of the “Awakening” movement, neutralizing those that could have blocked the jihadist rapprochement with Sunni leaders in Iraq. From 2006 to 2009, they also assassinated many rival insurgent commanders to weaken alternative armed movements. Former insurgents described to me how just before the Americans withdrew from Iraq in 2011, insurgent leaders from factions as politically diverse as the Naqshbandis, the Islamic Army, the Army of the Mujahedin, and the 1920 Revolutions Brigades all met in Syria to plan to take the Green Zone in Baghdad (an ambition that was, ironically, accomplished this year by Shia rather than Sunni masses). While these groups initially lacked the ability to take the Green Zone, they made their move when the demonstrations started with the help of the Islamic State, which saw utility in cooperating with these groups, for the time being.

When Sunni protestors in 2012 and 2013 filled squares in Ramadi, Mosul, Hawija, Falluja, and elsewhere chanting “qadimun ya Baghdad (“we are coming, Baghdad”), it was hard for the government and average citizens in Baghdad not to interpret this as a threat from various Sunni-majority cities. These were not pro-democracy demonstrations. They were rejecting the new order — an elected government — and calling for overthrow of the Shia.

Sunni rejectionist leaders rode this wave of support and became a key factor in how easily ISIL later seized much of the country. According to Iraqi insurgents I spoke to, ISIL’s leaders initially thought that they would have to depend on former insurgents, including Baathists, as a cover to gain support. While ISIL’s jihadists did initially cooperate with some of these groups, it was not long until ISIL discovered it did not need them and purged them from its newly seized territories. Many Sunni rejectionist leaders, now understanding the horror of what they helped to unleash, then fled, leaving their populations displaced, destroyed, and divided. Likewise in Syria, Sunni rejectionists and their Western supporters argued that the only way to defeat ISIL is to topple Assad, and thus placate their sectarian demands. And the West somehow believes that they are representative of Syria’s Sunnis writ large. The secular or progressive opposition activists amenable to pluralism unfortunately have no influence because they have no militias of their own.

The Evolution of Sectarian Identity in the Modern Middle East

There is a major crisis within Sunni identity. Sunni and Shia are not stable, easily separable categories. Twenty years ago, these terms meant something else. The 2003 invasion of Iraq was the geopolitical equivalent of the asteroid that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs. Just as species were killed off or arose thanks to that cataclysm, so too in the Muslim world, old identities were destroyed while new ones were created, as discussed by Fanar Haddad at the Hudson Institute. One of these new identities was the post-Saddam “Sunni Arab,” treated by their Western taxonomists as if they were an ethnic group rather than a fluid, fuzzy, and diverse religious sect. For centuries, Sunni identity was conflated with “Muslim” and the identity of “Muslim” was distinct from members of heterodox or heretical sects. Generally speaking, Shias living in areas dominated by Sunnis were subordinate to them juridically and by custom. The war in Iraq helped create a sense of “Sunni-ness” among otherwise un-self-conscious Sunni Muslims,  and it also overturned an order many took for granted. To make matters worse, not only were Shia Islamist parties (such as Dawa and the Supreme Council) brought to power (as well as Sunni Islamist parties such as the Islamic Party), but Sunnis bore the brunt of the occupation’s brutality (while Shias bore the brunt of the insurgency’s brutality).

The result is that we now see Sunni identity in the way that the Saudis have been trying to define it since they began throwing around their oil wealth in the 1960s to reshape Islam globally in the image of Wahhabism. Haddad explains:

[T]he anti-Shia vocabulary of Salafism has clearly made some headway in Iraq and indeed beyond. This is only to be expected given that Salafism offers one of the few explicitly Sunni and unabashedly anti-Shia options for Sunnis resentful of Shia power or of Sunni marginalization.

In other words, we now see a Sunni identity in Iraq that dovetails with Saudi Wahhabism. And the response in the West is to reinforce this!

Ironically, we do something similar with Shia identity. Westerners (and sectarian Sunnis) believe Shia are all the same and all an extension of Iranian (Persian) theocratic power — but they are not, and assuming this is the case has negative effects in the region. It is true that there is far more political coherence to Shia religious identity in the Middle East compared to the Sunni, but placing the center of Shia identity in Iran dramatically misconceives the center of power in the Shia Arab world. To be a sect, you need to have a sense of coherence with centers of power through which someone speaks on your behalf. Shias know what they are and who their leaders are. In Iraq and even beyond its borders, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani looms larger than others for Shia, especially but not exclusively in the Arab world.  The Sunnis have no equivalent leader.


We tend to view Hizballah or the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps solely as threats to the West or Israel, but they are also mature local actors with influence on other Shias. Before 2011, the Shia axis was merely an idea. Compared to the Shia of Lebanon, Syria, and Iran, Iraqi Shias were relatively isolated from neighboring countries and struggles. They were insular, and their aspirations were more mundane, as they were discovering middle-class life. Just as Sunni rejectionists playing ISIL’s game in radicalizing their populations, this process also radicalized many Iraqi Shia, mobilizing them in self-defense and even launching some of them into Syria to support Assad. Now Shias from Iraq, Lebanon, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, and elsewhere are cooperating on the battlefield. From 2003 until the present day, Shia civilians have been targeted in Iraq nearly every day, not to mention in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen.

Despite this virtual war on Shias supported and condoned by major Sunni religious leaders, Shias have remained much more restrained than their Sunni counterparts. What is keeping Lebanese, Iraqi, and Syrian Shias from committing massacres and displacing all Sunnis in their path? By and large, it is a more responsible religious leadership guiding them from Qom or Najaf, organizing Shias and offering structure and discipline. According to interviews I have conducted in the region, Hizballah leaders privately complain to Iraqi Shia leaders about their behavior, condemning them for alienating and failing to absorb Sunnis. They scold these leaders for their violations, reminding them that when Hizballah expelled the Israeli occupation, it did not blow up the houses of the many Christian and Shia collaborators or violently punish them.

When we say Sunni, what do we mean? There are many kinds in too many countries: Sunni Kurds, Uighurs, Senegalese, tribal Arabs, urbanites in Cairo, Damascus, Baghdad, Bedouins, and villagers. You cannot make Sunnism into a politically coherent notion unless you are willing to concede to the narrative of al-Qaeda, ISIL, or the Muslim Brotherhood. The latter has historically avoided the explicit, toxic sectarianism of the jihadi groups, but it is also a broken and spent force as its projects in the Arab world having largely failed.

Before the rise of the modern Arab nation-state, cities possessed a state-sponsored moderate Islam that was involved in the law. Urban Sunnis were largely part of the moderate Hanafi school of Sunni jurisprudence. This school, one of four mainstream Sunni schools, is the most tolerant and flexible. The countryside historically practiced folk Islam or considered itself Shia, Sufi, or Alawi. Hanafization took place because it was the religion of elites, the religion of empire, the religion of Ottomans. Today, there is no state Hanafi Islam and other moderate institutions. traditional Sunni Islam of the state has crumbled.

It is therefore impossible to find a genuine center of Sunni power. It is not yet Saudi Arabia, but unless the West changes the way it sees the Middle East, that will become a self-fulfilling prophecy with cataclysmic results.

Saudi Arabia is the dominant state supporting Sunni Islam today via mosques, foundations, and Islamic education. As a result, Salafism — a movement that holds Islam should be practiced as it was by the Prophet Mohammad and his companions — is the new religion of empire and its rejectionist tendencies are a danger to all countries with a Sunni population, from Mali to Indonesia. One reason why Syrian Sunnis became so radicalized is that many of them spent years working in the Gulf, returning with different customs and beliefs. When a Gulf state supports the opening of a mosque or Islamic center in France or Tanzania, it sends its Salafi missionaries and their literature along with it. Competing traditions, such as Sufism, are politically weak by comparison. Muslim communities from Africa to Europe to Asia that lived alongside for centuries alongside Christians, Buddhists, and Hindus are now threatened as Sufis and syncretic forms of Islam are pushed out by the Salafi trend.


I have come to understand that in its subconscious, the institutional culture of the Syrian regime views this transnational Sunni identity as a threat and it is one reason why Alawites are overrepresented in the Syrian security forces. This is partly for socioeconomic reasons, but it is also seen by the regime as key to preserving the secular and independent nature of the state. Their rationale is that Alawites as a sect have no relations or connections or loyalties outside of Syria. As a result, they cannot betray the country by allying with the Saudis, Qataris, or the Muslim Brotherhood, nor can they suddenly decide to undo the safeguards of secularism or pluralism inherent in the system.

The vision propagated by the Islamic State is consistent with the Salafi interpretation of Islamic law, which is why Egypt’s al-Azhar or other institutions of “moderate Islam” cannot be counted upon to stem the tide of Salafism. Al-Azhar, traditionally the preeminent center of Sunni Islamic learning, failed to reject ISIL as un-Islamic. Leading Sunni theologians in the Arab world have condemned ISIL on the grounds that the group is excessive, applying the rules wrong, or pretending to have an authority it does not legally possess, but they do not cast the movement as un-Islamic and contrary to Sharia. Only technical differences separate the ideology of Jabhat al-Nusra from that of ISIL or Ahrar al-Sham or even Saudi Arabia. The leadership of al-Nusra also holds takfiri views, and their separation from al-Qaeda did not involve a renunciation of any aspect of its toxic ideology. Ahrar al-Sham likewise appeals to the same tendencies.

Curiously, U.S. political leaders seem more dedicated than anyone in the world to explaining that ISIL is not true to the tenets of Sunni Islam. The problem is that Muslims do not look to non-Muslim Western political leaders as authoritative sources on Islam.

The irony, of course, is that the main victims of Salafization are Sunnis themselves. Sunni elites are being killed, and the potential to create Sunni civil society or a liberal political class is being made impossible. ISIL seized majority-Sunni areas. Main Sunni cities in Iraq and Syria are in ruins and their populations scattered, and, obviously, the Syrian Arab Army’s brutal campaign has also contributed to this. Millions of Sunnis from Syria and Iraq are displaced, which will likely lead to a generation of aggrieved Sunni children who will receive education that is extreme, sectarian, and revolutionary or militant in its outlook — if they get any education at all. Already, many live in exile communities that resemble the Palestinian refugee camps, where a separate “revolutionary” identity is preserved.

The Sunni public has been left with no framework. Sunnis represent the majority of the Middle East population, and yet having in the past embraced the state and been the state, they now have nothing to cohere around to form any robust and coherent movement or intellectual discourse. A movement built around the idea of Sunnism, such as the foreign-backed Syrian opposition and some Iraqi Sunni leaders, will create an inherently radical region that will eventually be taken over by the real representatives of such a notion — al-Qaeda, ISIL, or Saudi Arabia.

State Collapse and Militias Fighting for Assad

Five years of bleeding has weakened the Syrian army and forced it to rely upon an assortment of paramilitary allies, nowhere more so than in Aleppo. On July 28, the Russians and Syrians offered insurgents in east Aleppo amnesty if they left, and they invited all civilians to come to the government-held west Aleppo. This offer was explicitly modeled on the 2004 evacuation of Falluja’s residents, which came at a high price, in order to retake the city from al Qaeda in Iraq. In response, Sunni extremists called for an “epic” battle in Aleppo. The jihadist offensive was named after Ibrahim al Yusuf, a jihadist who killed dozens of Alawite officer candidates at the Aleppo military academy in 1979 while sparing Sunni cadets. It is led by Abdullah Muheisni, a shrill Saudi cleric who called upon all Sunnis to join the battle and who marched into the city triumphantly. Up to two million people in west Aleppo are threatened by the jihadist advance, protected by an army hollowed out after five years of attrition.

This has forced the Syrian regime to rely on Shia reinforcements from Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Iran. There is a big difference between these Shia reinforcements and their jihadist opponents. The Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) and others have come to Syria to help the Syrian army prevent further state collapse. They would not be there had a foreign-backed insurgency not weakened the army. The foreign Shia militias do not interact with Syrian civilians and are only on the frontlines. They are not attempting to impose control. Even the worst of the Iraqi Shia militias avoid overt sectarianism and work hard to stress that the enemy is not all Sunnis but rather those who advocate for a violent Wahhabi ideology. Moreover, I learned in interviews that the regime has arrested and even executed unruly Shia militiamen.

Meanwhile, Muheisni and his hordes represent an explicitly totalitarian and genocidal ideology that endangers all people of the region who are not Salafi men. The Shia PMF units in Aleppo such as Kataeb Hizballah and Nujaba have plenty of Sunnis in Baghdad that they could massacre if they had an anti-Sunni agenda, and yet they leave them alone just as they do the Sunni civilians of government-held portions of Aleppo.

Finally, Iran and its non-Syrian Shia partners cannot establish roots in Syria or change its society as easily as some seem to think. As much as the Alawite sect is called Shia, this is not entirely accurate and they do not think of themselves as Shia. They are a heterodox and socially liberal sect that bears little resemblance in terms of religious practice or culture to the “Twelver Shias,” such as those of Iran, Iraq, or Lebanon. There is only a very tiny Twelver Shia population in Syria.

Many of the soldiers fighting in the Syrian army to protect Aleppo are Sunnis from that city, and most of the militiamen fighting alongside the army in various paramilitary units are Sunni, such as the mixed Syrian and Palestinian Liwa Quds and the local Sunni clan-based units. In Aleppo, it is very much Sunni versus Sunni. The difference is that the Sunnis on the government side are not fighting for Sunnism.  Their Sunni identity is incidental. By contrast, the insurgents are fighting for a Sunni cause and embrace that as their primary identity, precluding coexistence. This does not, of course, mean the government should drop barrel bombs on their children, however.

The presence of Iraqi Shia militiamen is no doubt provocative and helps confirm the worst fears of some Sunnis, but the fact that these foreign Shia are supporting their Syrian allies does not negate the fact that there are many more thousands of Sunnis on the side of the government. Those foreign Shia militias believe, according to my interviews, that if they do not stop the genocidal takfiri threat in Syria, then Iraq and Lebanon will be threatened. Alawites and other minorities believe this too of course. But in Syria there is still a state and it is doing most of the killing, though not for sectarian reasons but for the normal reasons states use brutality against perceived threats to their hegemony. There have been exceptions such as the 2012 Hula or 2013 Baniyas massacres in which ill-disciplined local Alawite militiamen exacted revenge on Sunni communities housing insurgents, targeting civilians as well.


What is Washington to Do?

U.S. policy in the Middle East, especially in conflict zones and conflict-affected states, should be focused on (1) doing no harm and (2) making every effort to stop Saudi Arabia from becoming the accepted center of the Sunni Arab world or the Sunni world writ large, while (3) building and reinforcing non-sectarian national institutions and national forces.

America’s Troublesome Saudi Partners

As regards Saudi Arabia, many American thought leaders and policymakers have long understood the fundamental problems presented by this longstanding U.S. partner but the policy never changes. Indeed, U.S. policy has in many ways accepted and even reinforced the longstanding Saudi aim to define Sunni identity in the Arab world and beyond. It is dangerous to accept the Saudi narrative that they are the natural leaders of the Sunni world given the dangerous culture they propagate. Promoting a sectarian fundamentalist state as the leader of Arab Sunnis is hardly a cure for ISIL, which only takes those ideas a bit further to their logical conclusions.

Washington may not have the stomach to take a public position against the form of Islam aggressively propagated by its Saudi “partners,” but there must be an understanding that Wahhabism is a dangerous ideology and that its associated clerical institutions represent a threat to stability in Islamic countries around the world. The United States could seek to sanction media outlets, including satellite channels and websites, that promote this form of Islam. Think this is unprecedented? Washington has targeted Lebanese Hizballah’s al-Manar station with some success.

Syrian and Iraqi Sunnis are not holding their breath waiting to hear what Gulf monarchs will say. They wait only to see how much money might be in the envelopes they receive for collaboration. For leadership, Iraqi and especially Syrian Sunnis should be encouraged to look closer to home — to their own local communities and the state. The state should be strengthened as a non-sectarian body.

The Need for Non-Sectarian Institutions in the Middle East

In Washington’s policy circles, we often hear calls for Sunni armies and militias to “solve” Iraq and Syria. Yet Sunni armies already exist in these countries in the form of ISIL, al-Qaeda, and Ahrar al-Sham. The answer is not more Sunni armed groups.

If the goal is to excise jihadism, do not try to coexist with Sunni rejectionists advancing Saudi notions of Sunni identity. If Assad were fed to the jihadists as a sacrifice, then the next Alawite, Christian, Shia, secular, or “apostate” leader would become the new rallying cry for jihadists. Their goal is not merely the removal of one leader, but the extermination of all secularists, Shias, Alawites, Christians, and Jews, and others who are different — including fellow Sunnis. The Syrian government is often criticized for making little distinction between ISIL, Jabhat al-Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham, and the “moderates” who cooperate with them, but this misconceives how the Syrian state forces see the conflict. To them, any insurgent force with Islamist slogans is a slippery slope leading to the same result. Critics may complain that at various points in the war Syrian state forces spent more resources fighting the American-backed insurgents than ISIL, but this is because ISIL emerged largely in areas where the Syrian government had already been driven out. Meanwhile, the so-called moderates were the main day-to-day threat to government-held population centers such as Aleppo, Hama, Homs, Damascus, and Daraa.

It is irrational for the West to expect the Syrian government to focus on the enemies the West wants to see defeated while Western powers, along with Gulf countries and Turkey, are supporting insurgents that attack government forces which secure cities. The Syrian security forces have a finite amount of men, ammunition, fuel, and other resources, and they need to protect a great deal of military infrastructure, terrain, population centers, and supply lines. This naturally forces the regime to make choices. When foreign-backed insurgents attack state-held areas, the state’s security forces are less able to conduct operations elsewhere. For example, when American-backed insurgents cooperated with al-Qaeda and foreign fighters to seize cities in Idlib province last year, the Syrian Arab Army sent reinforcements from the east to Idlib. This left Palmyra wide open for ISIL to attack, which they did, seizing the ancient city. In February of this year, with the Cessation of Hostilities in place, the Syrian state was able to focus more resources on ISIL and retake Palmyra with Russian backing. ISIL and al-Qaeda thrive in stateless zones throughout the Muslim world. Supporting insurgents to create more such zones will only give such groups more space to occupy.

Every proposal to further weaken regime security forces leads to a greater role for Shia militias and the ill-disciplined militias the regime relies upon for support. Escalation by supporting proxies does not pressure the regime to negotiate. It only pressures the regime to use even more repressive and abhorrent tactics. The only compromises it makes are about which actors it will rely upon to defeat its enemies. As law and order breaks down, even Alawite militias have lost respect for the security forces. What is left of the Syrian state is failing, and the West bears some responsibility for that.


As jarring as this may sound to many Western readers, the Syrian government offered a model of secular coexistence based on the idea of a nation-state rather than a sect. This is a model wherein Sunnis, Alawis, Christians, Druze, Kurds, Shias, and atheists are all citizens in a deeply flawed, corrupt, and — yes — repressive system in need of improvement but not in need of destruction. The Syrian state has clearly become progressively more brutal as the civil war has dragged on. Still, the regime is not sectarian in the way most in the West seem to think. It is also not purely secular in that it encourages religion (a bit too much) and allows religion to influence the personal status laws of its various sects.

The regime has always felt insecure vis-à-vis its conservative Sunni population, and it has gone out of its way to placate this group over the years by building mosques and Quranic memorization institutes across the country. But denying that the regime is sectarian is not a defense of the regime’s moral choices. Rather, it just shows that it commits mass murder and torture for other reasons, such as the protection and holding together of what is left of the state. This is not an apology for the massive and well-documented human rights violations committed by the Syrian government throughout the course of this war. But until 2011, it offered a society where different religious groups and ethnicities lived together, not in perfect harmony, but at peace. If you do not believe me, look at the millions who have fled from insurgent-held areas to government-held areas and have been received and treated just like any other citizens.

This is far preferable to the sectarian model advanced by much of the Syrian armed opposition, which seeks to create something that will lead ultimately to, at worst, a jihadist caliphate and, at best, a toxic and repressive state in the mold of Saudi Arabia. As I noted in my previous article, the Syrian government has unleashed desperate levels of brutality, using collective punishment, indiscriminate attacks on insurgent-held areas, and harsh siege tactics. Many thousands have died in the regime’s prisons, including the innocent. Likewise, the insurgency has slaughtered many thousands of innocents and participated in the destruction of Syria. This legacy of crimes committed by all will hopefully be dealt with, but all responsible parties should view ending this conflict as the first priority.

In Iraq, there exists a state that should be supported over the claims of Sunni rejectionists who still think they can reestablish Sunni dominance in Iraq. The West should have learned from Iraq, Libya, Egypt, and now Yemen how disastrous regime change is. Better instead to promote a gradual evolution into something better by abandoning the disastrous (and failed) regime change policy and supporting decentralization, as called for by Phil Gordon.

What Drives Disorder?

It is wrong to listen to those who say that insurgents will not stop fighting as long as Assad is in power. Many have stopped already, many cooperate tacitly or overtly, and there are many discussions about ceasefires taking place inside and outside Syria.

It is often claimed that Assad “is a greater magnet for global jihad than U.S. forces were in Iraq at the height of the insurgency.” Assad inherited the same enemy the United States faced in Iraq. The primary recruiter for extremists is the war, the power vacuum created by war, the chaos and despair resulting from it, and the opportunity jihadists see to kill Shias, Alawites, secular apostate Sunnis, Christians, and Western armies gathering for what they view as the final battle before judgment day. Assad is barely mentioned in ISIL propaganda. He is too small for them. They want something much larger, as do the other Salafi jihadi groups operating in the region. It is naive to think that if Assad is simply replaced with somebody else the West finds suitable that the jihadis will be satisfied. Moreover, Assad (just like Maliki) is not in Yemen, Libya, the Sinai, or Afghanistan, and, yet, the Islamic State is growing in all those places.

Many Sunni majority countries in the Middle East and elsewhere are also skeptical of regime change in Syria. Even Turkey, which has allowed jihadists to freely use its territory for much of the war, is slowly changing its policy on regime change in Syria. So those who worry about alienating the so-called Sunni world are really only talking about alienating the Saudis — they just won’t admit it. Saudi Arabia is a more mature version of ISIL, so why should they be placated to defeat anyone?

Regime change or further weakening the Syrian army creates more space for ISIL and similar groups. It grants a victory to the Sunni sectarian forces in the region and leads to state collapse in the remaining stable areas of Syria where most people live.

By pitting moderate Sunnis against extremist Sunnis, the United States merely encourages the sectarian approach. The answer to sectarianism is non-sectarianism, not better sectarianism. If you are looking for a Sunni narrative, you are always playing into the hands of the Sunni hardliners. This does not mean the answer is the Syrian regime in its past or current forms. Opposing sectarian movements does not necessarily mean supporting authoritarian secular states. But functioning states, even imperfect and repressive ones, are preferable to collapsed states or jihadist proto-states.


Westerners are outsiders to this civil war, even if they helped sustain it. For the West, this is not an existential threat, but it is for many of those who live in the Middle East. Those in the region who are threatened by ISIL feel as though beyond the walls of their safe havens there is a horde of zombies waiting to eat their women and children. They might feel that if there is not a cost, in a social sense, paid by those communities who embraced ISIL, then those communities will not have been defeated or learned their lesson. Then, they worry another generation of Sunni extremists will just wait for another chance to take the knives out again. There is an anthropological logic to violence. This is a civil war, inherently between and within communities. It is not merely two armies confronting each other on a battlefield and adhering to the Laws of War. In the eyes of the Syrian and Iraqi states, it is a war on those who welcomed al-Qaeda and then ISIL into their midst.

There is no mechanical link between showing benevolence to formerly pro-ISIL communities and to their not radicalizing in the future. Islamic culture today is globalized, courtesy Saudi funding and modern communications. Many Iraqi Sunnis previously embraced al-Qaeda, only to then embrace the even more virulent ISIL. Future generations should remember that this choice garnered consequences for atrocities, such as the Bunafer tribesmen engaging in the Speicher massacre of Shia soldiers in Iraq. There is a symbolism in a Shia PMF fighter marching into Tikrit, making it clear to Sunni chauvinists that they cannot be the masters over Shia serfs. Yet too severe a punishment, or an unjust one, can indeed leave people with nothing to resort to but violence.

There is little good Washington can do, but it can still inflict a great deal of harm, even if it is motivated by the best of intentions. In The Great Partition, the British historian Yasmin Khan asserted that the partition of India and Pakistan, which killed over one million and displaced many millions, “stands testament to the follies of empire, which ruptures community evolution, distorts historical trajectories and forces violent state formation from societies that would otherwise have taken different—and unknowable—paths.” The same lessons can be learned in Iraq, Libya, and the clumsy international intervention in Syria. It is time that the West started to mind its own business rather than address the failure of the last intervention with the same tools that caused the disaster in the first place. At most, the West can try to help manage or channel the evolution of the region or contain some of its worst side effects.

The order in modern Europe is a result of bloody processes that saw winners and losers emerging and the losers accepting the new order. ISIL’s arrival has expedited this historic process in the Middle East. It has helped organize and mobilize Iraq Shias and connect them to the rest of the world, while the disastrous decision of many Sunnis to embrace movements such as ISIL has caused many of their communities to suffer irreparable damage and dislocation.

Perhaps the Middle East is going through a similar process that will lead to a new more stable order after these terrible wars are over. This period of great flux offers creative opportunities. While some analysts have called for breaking up Syria and Iraq into smaller ethnic and sectarian entities, this would lead to more displacement and fighting, as it did in the Balkans over the course of over a century. Instead of promoting the worst fissiparous tendencies in the region, the solution might be creating greater unity

The American asteroid that hit the Middle East in 2003 shattered the old order. Those tectonic plates are still shifting. The result will not be an end to the old borders, as many have predicted or even suggested as policy. It will also not be the total collapse of states. The evolving new order will retain the formal borders, but central states will not have full control or sovereignty over all their territory. They will rely on loose and shifting alliances with local power brokers, and they will govern in a less centralized way. Accepting this and supporting looser federal arrangements may be the best path forward to reduce fears, heal wounds, and bring about stability.

Cyrus Malik is a pen name for a security consultant to the humanitarian community in the Levant and Iraq.

Réponse à l’europhobe Juncker


De l’importance des frontières pour l’Europe

Réponse à l’europhobe Juncker

par Thomas Ferrier

Ex: http://thomasferrier.hautetfort.com

Aux yeux de Jean-Claude Juncker, président de la commission dite « européenne », « les frontières sont la pire invention politique. » Un tel propos traduit, outre une inconscience politique totale à un moment où les Européens s’inquiètent d’un flux migratoire aux frontières du continent, une idéologie de nature mondialiste. Dans sa vision du monde, la seule frontière c’est celle qui sépare le globe de l’espace.

Cette phobie des frontières, cette « horophobie », n’est pas l’apanage du seul Juncker. C’est la pensée de tous ceux qui prônent l’adhésion de la Turquie à l’Union Européenne, de tous ceux soutiennent une immigration aneuropéenne sans limites, une Europe passoire où tout migrant qui franchit ses « frontières » devient automatiquement citoyen. Elle accompagne naturellement le rejet du « droit du sang » donc de la notion de droit de propriété sur un territoire donné. « Le monde appartient à tous » et autres niaiseries gauchistes, qui nous démunissent face au mal, dominent leur (non-)pensée.

A contrario, les souverainistes fétichisent la notion de « frontière nationale » sans saisir le fait qu’avec la mondialisation la frontière est surtout à l’intérieur même de la nation, entre ceux qui y ont leur place légitime et ceux dont des gouvernements laxistes ont choisi d’imposer la présence aux dits légitimes.

La question de Schengen est très significative. Le choix de supprimer les frontières internes à l’Union Européenne n’est pas scandaleux. La frontière a pour but de séparer deux entités et non de diviser une seule entité. Si on estime que les Européens ont entre eux une parenté commune et un devenir commun, alors il est même normal qu’ils aient une frontière commune.

Le problème de Schengen, c’est néanmoins celui du vase à moitié rempli, comme dans tout ce que fait l’actuelle Union Européenne qui ne va jamais au bout des choses. La suppression des frontières intérieures implique le renforcement des frontières extérieures et non leur fragilisation. En laissant aux Etats le soin de protéger leurs frontières avec l’espace hors Schengen, donc en mettant en première ligne des pays comme la Grèce, l’Espagne ou l’Italie, des pays sous-dimensionnés en moyens financiers, pour certains à peine sortis de dictatures et donc plus enclin au laxisme de type gauchiste, ou chrétien, que les autres, l’Union Européenne a commis une faute majeure.

Puisque Schengen est incapable de faire respecter les frontières communes, alors que se passe-t-il ? Chacun fait comme il peut. La Grèce construit un mur à sa frontière avec la Turquie en Thrace. La Hongrie construit un mur tout autour pour empêcher les migrants d’y pénétrer. Le Royaume-Uni vote en faveur d’un brexit, même s’il n’est pourtant pas membre de l’espace Schengen, tant l’incapacité de l’UE à maîtriser les flux migratoires est patente.

Faire l’Europe, c’est en définir précisément les frontières, les pays qui ont vocation à en faire partie et sur quelle base. Le problème n’est pas de ne pas avoir de frontières intérieures, à partir du moment où les frontières extérieures sont bien gardées, ce qui n’est malheureusement pas le cas.

Créer un corps européen de garde-frontières doté des moyens d’agir ne suffirait pas. Déterminer une politique européenne à adopter face aux migrants, et ce dans le sens de la fermeté et de la reconduite systématique aux frontières, est nécessaire. Cela veut dire harmoniser les lois en Europe, couper l’appel d’air que certains pays comme la France envoient stupidement par idéologie mondialiste ou comme l’Italie avec les déclarations inopportunes du Vatican dans le sens du laxisme.

Cela veut aussi dire verrouiller les frontières de l’Union Européenne avec la Turquie et de contrôler activement la Mer Egée afin de ne plus être les otages d’Erdogan. Il est d’ailleurs plus que temps de mettre fin au processus d’adhésion de la Turquie à l’Union Européenne. Défendons nos frontières.

Mais qui dit diplomatie européenne, politique européenne de gestion des flux migratoires, corps européen de garde-frontières, et donc implicitement armée européenne et police européenne, donc en somme qui dit frontières européennes, dit « Etat européen ». On retrouve là le concept propre au Parti des Européens, à savoir que sans Etat européen unitaire, et identitaire, nous sommes démunis. A ce moment là, les souverainistes ont raison. Sans frontières européennes, les frontières nationales s’imposent automatiquement.

Donc oui aux frontières, mais à de vraies frontières européennes, solidement gardées même si ouvertes aux Serbes, Albanais, Arméniens, Ukrainiens ou Russes par exemple, qui sont des Européens, mais fermées aux autres. Refusons de supprimer les visas pour les Turcs mais réfléchissons vraiment à les supprimer pour les Russes, un souhait de Poutine qui irait dans l’intérêt de toute l’Europe, à partir du moment où la Russie respecte des normes précises, et communes, permettant d’éviter toute falsification par des migrants. Certains dénoncent une Forteresse Europe imaginaire, alors que le laxisme règne. Au contraire, bâtissons-la.

Thomas FERRIER (Le Parti des Européens)

Faut-il interdire de se voiler la face ?


Faut-il interdire de se voiler la face ?

Dominique Baettig
Médecin, Ancien Conseiller national
Ex: http://www.lesobservateurs.ch

Eh bien non, ce débat est absurde, pire, il est  potentiellement toxique pour les valeurs identitaires, les vraies valeurs religieuses et spirituelles, la responsabilité et la liberté individuelle. Le choix de se couvrir ou de se dénuder, de cacher ou de se montrer est individuel, personnel. La seule limite est celle d’assumer le regard d’autrui si l’on choisit la provocation, si l’on choisit de ne pas respecter le bon sens commun, l’anonymat protecteur, la modestie, que l’on stimule sans réfléchir à son impact sur le désir de l’autre…Il va de soi que l’on respecte les codes vestimentaires, relationnels, culturels de l’endroit où l’on vit. Par respect, par politesse, par adhésion aux règles du vivre ensemble, par respect de la majorité qui l’emporte sur les droits individualistes, par respect des rapports de force ( ce que la gauche moraliste veut  systématiquement inverser  et discriminer positivement).

Dans une logique de terreur qui suit une escalade inéluctable de violences et de menaces, la tension monte, suite à des actes violents commis par des individus qui n’appartiennent pas à la majorité de la population indigène. Des têtes brûlées, convertis de fraîche date à l’Islam fondamentaliste wahhabite, compatible avec le néolibéralisme saoudien et qatari et des islamoracailles en rupture de ban commettent des actes violents, justifient l’état d’urgence et la restriction des libertés individuelles en Europe. Le terrorisme, il ne faut jamais l’oublier est un récit construit par ceux qui le définissent et l’instrumentalisent pour justifier le rôle idéologique du Pouvoir et de l’Etat progressiste. Il s’agit de faire peur aux indigènes qui rechignent à se faire imposer un vivre ensemble peu tolérant. Faire pression sur les musulmans pour qu’ils se laïcisent contre le repoussoir fondamentaliste. Criminaliser les opinions et attitudes critiques qui seront dénoncées selon la pratique de la gauche moraliste bisounours, comme du racisme, de la discrimination, une forme d’antisémitisme en quelque sorte. Les médias jouent ici un rôle d’amplification, d’incitation à adopter un profil de martyr,  de terroriste effrayant, sanguinaire et fou.

La psychiatrie clinique a  pourtant bien décrit cette entité d’acte de folie et de rage incontrôlable appelée « amok » en Malaisie. Péter les plombs, s’en prendre sans discernement à tout ce qui se trouve sur sa route, faire usage d’armes sanglantes, transgresser tous les tabous sociaux, en étant   un homme jeune qui a subi une humiliation. Les medias en amplifient la portée et rendent ces actes répliquables, imitables. L’épidémie contagieuse est en route et elle s’autoalimente. On retrouve un peu les entités des folies collectives d’autrefois, la  chasse aux sorcières,  la diabolisation, la recherche et exclusion des boucs émissaires Cette  mentalité  relève plus de l’ancien testament que du christianisme lumineux et de miséricorde. Pathologies archaïques psychiatriques, diabolisation, instrumentalisation de déséquilibrés qui se voient offrir une chance unique d’exister, de se sacrifier, amplification de leur impact pathologique par les medias qui en boucle, renforcent cette stratégie de la tension et du chaos et annonce de grands retours en arrière pour ce qui est de la liberté d’expression ou de penser.

L’immigration massive liée à la mondialisation et à la globalisation de l’économie, sa logique de  faire baisser les coûts de production tout en forçant à la croissance démographique et de consommation aboutit à une menace majeure. Ce n’est pas l’Islam, ni le burkini qui en sont la cause. Une immigration avec zéro burka ne changerait rien à ce problème. Bien sûr qu’il est intolérable de se faire imposer des modes culturelles, vestimentaires exotiques et peu compatibles avec le bon sens commun. Mais c’est la mentalité de la gauche moraliste anti discriminatrice  qui est responsable de ce complexe paralysant qui empêche de dire que le Roi est nu, que la burka ( mon désamour)  est laide et symboliquement oppressante. Ce qui n’était pas prévu, c’est que ces symboles provocateurs allaient être assumés aussi, affirmés de manière provocatrice par certains qui refusent l’hypocrisie des valeurs marchandes occidentales. Et que la gauche allait renier son histoire, en défendant un droit de l’homme individualiste abstrait contre le bon sens commun et les valeurs collectives chrétiennes et d’intégration respectueuse.

Si le bon sens commun n’ose plus s’exprimer, si la repentance empêche toute exigence de respect par rapport à la culture dominante, si les droits de l’Homme individualiste sont la valeur ultime (contre une Loi supérieure divine par exemple), rien ne servira de voter une Loi, qui ne sera jamais appliquée ,puisque les droits de l’Homme sont supérieurs au droit national.

La réprobation citoyenne suffirait et tant pis pour les provocateurs qui hurleront au racisme, à l’islamophobie, à la discrimination. Qu’ils assument, à la loyale, les conséquences de leur attitude.

Interdire la burka serait un piège qui se développera : interdiction d’autres signes religieux, d’autres  signes d’appartenance comme la chemise paysanne à fleurs, de la jupe pour les nouveaux sectaires du féminisme et de la théorie du genre. Il ne faut pas ouvrir cette boîte de Pandore mais affirmer sans culpabilité les valeurs chrétiennes (l’amour du Prochain comme perspective spirituelle et non pas comme obligation légale) et les traditions identitaires, l’effort vers le Bien et le Juste, véritable sens du mot Jihad. C’est la gauche qui utilise l’Islam caricatural, contrefaçon issue des guerres américaines et de leurs alliés salafistes et ultralibéraux économiquement pour imposer ses valeurs de renoncement et de destruction des valeurs conservatrices. Ne nous trompons pas d’adversaire. Ne menons pas une bataille qui n’est pas la nôtre. Je préfère une immigration clairement visible qu’une pression à la fausse intégration. La remigration (un peu comme le sionisme du départ), est une véritable voie de retour aux sources et de réenracinement identitaire. C’est là que doit se mener la bataille pour le Vrai, l’authenticité, pour les valeurs conservatrices, l’acceptation des limites, le retour à la dimension humaine.

Il serait logique et préférable, par exemple, d’augmenter de 10% les rentes AVS que de continuer à démonter  le filet social solidaire historique en laissant s’installer des migrants peu assimilables qui pompent les ressources locales directement  au bénéfice et en direction des pays et familles d’origine ( en plus d’eux-mêmes, bien sûr)…

Non au port provoquant la burka et à l’islam politique salafiste. Non au terrorisme moral de la gauche droit de l’hommiste individualiste .Non à l’immigration de masse de la mondialisation et de sa menace pour la solidarité et la démocratie de proximité, le principe de souveraineté. Ne pas oublier non plus qu’il existe une stratégie pour utiliser les « migrations artificielles forcées » pour déstabiliser ou faire pression sur les Etats. La Turquie d’Erdogan, mais aussi les monarchies familiales pétrolières, certains Etats faillis du tiers-Monde en usent à discrétion. Sans oublier les besoins de sous-enchère salariale des multinationales.

Dominique Baettig,  ancien conseiller national, militant souverainiste

18 août 2016

00:05 Publié dans Actualité | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : actualité, burkini | |  del.icio.us | | Digg! Digg |  Facebook

vendredi, 05 août 2016

Tweets: documentation exceptionnelle!


Chaque jour un flot de tweets vous attendent sur :


Documentation exceptionnelle !

lundi, 25 juillet 2016

Robert Steuckers: tweets à profusion!


Chaque jour un flot de tweets vous attendent sur :


Documentation exceptionnelle !

A Short History of Modern Iraq's Ethnic Minorities

lundi, 18 juillet 2016

Jean-Louis Harouel - Les droits de l'homme contre le peuple

Jean-Louis Harouel

Les droits de l'homme contre le peuple

Conférence de Jean-Louis Harouel au Cercle Aristote le 20 juin 2016 : "Les droits de l'homme contre le peuple"

Rejoignez-nous sur Facebook !

dimanche, 17 juillet 2016

Laurent Henninger Vers la fluidification du monde

Laurent Henninger

Vers la fluidification du monde

Cercle Aristote

Conférence de Laurent Henninger au Cercle Aristote le 27 juin 2016 : "Vers la fluidification du monde"

Rejoignez-nous sur Facebook !

vendredi, 15 juillet 2016

A Primer: USAID & US Hegemony


A Primer: USAID & US Hegemony

Tony Cartalucci

Ex: https://landdestroyer.blogspot.com

July 8, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - A nation is its institutions. If those institutions are overrun and no longer exist, so too does the nation itself cease to exist. Institutions range from the offices of government, to education, to agricultural and economic development, to the management of natural resources, national infrastructure including energy and transportation, and security. These are the things we think about when we think about the concept of a modern nation-state.

Contrary to popular belief, the invasion and occupation of any particular nation is not a mere exercise of military might. It also, by necessity, involves the destruction or overrunning and eventual replacement of all the above mentioned institutions.

The most extreme modern-day example of this was the US invasion of Iraq, where Iraqi institutions from top to bottom were either entirely destroyed and replaced, or taken over by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). The CPA was literally headed by an American, Paul Bremer, who, far from being a military man, was instead drawn from the US State Department and a background of chairing corporate-financier boards of directors.

The CPA assumed responsibility for all aspects of life in Iraq, from the privatization of Iraq's economy, to "reconstruction," to reorganizing the nation socially, politically, and economically.

The average onlooker will remember US President George Bush's "shock and awe," and may remember several of the more notorious battles of the invasion and subsequent occupation. What they rarely recall is the all encompassing dominion the US assumed over the nation through the CPA which was merely underpinned by US military forces. Yet despite the relatively dull nature of the CPA's work versus security operations carried out by American forces, the CPA is what essentially "occupied" and ultimately conquered Iraq.

USAID & Co. - Low Intensity Invasion and Occupation 

Iraq and Afghanistan are extreme examples of the US exercising global hegemony, which included spectacular, full-scale military invasions, lengthy occupations, and nationwide "nation-building" carried out by various organizations utilized by the US to project power abroad.

One of these organizations is USAID. It should be, but rarely is, troubling to the world's nations that USAID played an integral part in the invasion, occupation, and conquest of  Iraq and Afghanistan, while it also maintains an extensive presence everywhere else US interests have directed their attention.

USAID and a virtual army of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and front-companies it supports worldwide, are engaged in activities in other nations ranging from education, energy, natural resources, economic development, transportation, and security - or in other words everything foreign nations should already be attending to themselves.


USAID does not seek to genuinely partner with foreign governments, but instead, create networks that operate independently of and parallel to existing, indigenous institutions and networks. USAID and its expanding network of facilitators extends into any given nation, slowly assuming responsibility over all areas a sovereign government should be managing, leaving existing governments irrelevant, empty shells. When parallel networks gain critical mass, they can then be used as a means of removing existing governments from power, and installing a client regime in its place - one that answers to the special interests that sponsored and directed USAID's activities to begin with.

USAID actively seeks to co-opt local talent - both individually and small groups of talented individuals. They generally target start-ups and independent NGOs which is why USAID and other US government-funded NGOs are increasingly engaged in co-working spaces - even sponsoring the creation and management of new spaces across the developing world to create a convenient poaching ground for local talent.

A Global Game of Go 

USAID does not exist to "aid" anyone. It functions solely to overrun a targeted nation by building their networks over existing indigenous ones, turning a nation's people against itself, and making preexisting networks irrelevant.

They are essentially filling up the sociopolitical, geostrategic, technological, and information space with their own influence, displacing all else.

Unlike the Western game of chess, where players seek to eliminate their opponent's pieces from the board in a game of strategic attrition, USAID and other organizations like it and the strategy they are pursuing is more comparable to the Eastern game of go. In go, players seek to place as many pieces as possible onto the board, assuming control over the most territory.

In this context, any nation could represent a board, with its own pieces scattered across it in areas like energy, education, healthcare, and security. USAID seeks to place its own pieces on this board, generally under the guise of charity or foreign aid. It continues placing its pieces on the board, backed with inexhaustible resources and the benefit of its true intentions often being poorly understood by the governments and the people of the nations it is operating in.

The US through USAID is essentially playing a game of go against an unskilled player who doesn't even know the game has begun. USAID is then able to quickly and easily overwhelm the board with its "pieces" - NGOs it funds, organizations and talent it has co-opted, and entirely parallel institutions running various aspects of a targeted nation right under the nose of that nation's government.

In coordination with other US State Department-funded political fronts and NGOs, the business of then eliminating indigenous institutions and overthrowing established governments in favor of proxy institutions run by Western interests and client regimes bent to the will of the US, can begin in earnest.

Targeted nations often realize too late that the "space" on the board has been dominated by these foreign interests with whatever remains of indigenous institutions and networks so badly neglected and atrophied, they stand little chance of putting up any resistance.

Counterinsurgency Manuals are USAID's "Rule Book"

USAID's version of "go" has its own rule book of sorts, found easily online as free downloads from any number of US government websites in the form of counterinsurgency manuals. In these manuals, it is described how gaining control over any given population requires controlling the basic essentials that population depends on - everything from energy production to education, to garbage collection and job creation.

By controlling these aspects in any given population, one then controls that population itself. It is the key to not only defeating an "insurgency," it is also the key to running a successful insurgency oneself. USAID projecting its influence into any given nation is in fact a sort of insurgency - a literal attempt to take control of a government - however incremental and patient the nature of that insurgency might be.

Areas included in US counterinsurgency manuals as essential to control include (but are not limited to):
  • police and fire services, 
  • water, 
  • electricity 
  • education and training, 
  • transportation, 
  • medical, 
  • sanitation, 
  • banking, 
  • agriculture, 
  • labor relations, 
  • manufacturing and, 
  • construction
When inquiring into how many of these are regularly included in USAID programs, the answer is virtually all of them.

USAID Cuba Leak.jpg

Beating USAID's Game 

For any given nation, USAID should be listed as a foreign agency and its activities heavily restricted. Every penny they administer, if allowed to operate at all, should go straight into government programs. USAID programs should be made subordinate to government institutions, carried out by government institutions, and its role in such programs credited subordinately to government institutions. USAID should be strictly forbidden to operate independent networks, programs, workshops, contests, and meetings anywhere beyond America's borders.

But more importantly, nations must understand the "go" board their territory and populations represent. They must create and place their own superior pieces upon this board in such numbers and of such quality that there is no room for USAID's pieces to begin with. By doing so, a nation is not just countering USAID and the conspiracy it represents, it is defeating it at the most fundamental level this "game" is being played.

A nation creating strong institutions and networks within their own borders to manage and move forward those areas essential to the progress of modern civilization precludes the need for "foreign aid" in the first place. It is not just a matter of pride that a nation need not rely on "foreign aid," but a matter of its survival, as "aid" is not given freely, and as in the case of USAID, serves as a vector for hegemony's projection into the very heart of one's nation.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine New Eastern Outlook”.   

Christian Harbulot : "Fabricants d'intox, la guerre mondialisée des propagandes"


Christian Harbulot : "Fabricants d'intox, la guerre mondialisée des propagandes"

Le directeur de l’Ecole de guerre économique, Christian Harbulot, nous présente son ouvrage intitulé “Fabricants d’intox”. Dans un récit édifiant, l’auteur dévoile la manière dont les Etats, les militaires, la société civile et les acteurs économiques se servent de la propagande pour arriver à leurs fins.




Pour nous soutenir :


Ou directement via Facebook :


jeudi, 14 juillet 2016

Thilo Sarrazin stellt sein aktuelles Buch Wunschdenken vor

Thilo Sarrazin mit Buchcover 'Wunschdenken'.jpg

Thilo Sarrazin stellt sein aktuelles Buch Wunschdenken vor

Thilo Sarrazin stellte sein Buch "Wunschdenken" im Juni 2016 in den Clubräumen der Hayek Gesellschaft einem an sachlichen Argumenten interessiertem Publikum vor.
Ein Auszug eines Kommentars der Süddeutschen Zeitung zu dem vorgestelltem Buch

"Sarrazin flüchtet nicht in abgedroschene Metaphern, mit denen mittelmäßige Autoren gerne übertünchen, dass sie eine Materie nicht durchdrungen haben. Es schreibt hier auch kein Wutbürger, der sich den Klischees über Politik sowie Verschwörungstheorien ergibt; im Gegenteil. Hier vertritt ein Autor legitime Positionen, die für seine Gegner schon deshalb von Wert sind, weil sie daran ihr eigenes Urteil schärfen können."

mardi, 12 juillet 2016

Sid Lukkassen interviewt Ismail Selvi; "DENK is een club protofascisten"

Sid Lukkassen interviewt Ismail Selvi; "DENK is een club protofascisten"

Ismail Selvi over DENK, Erdogan en de AKP in Turkije

“DENK is een club protofascisten,” stelt Ismail: “want in Turkije stemmen ze voor rechtse, monoculturele partijen en in Nederland profileren ze zich als links. De pogroms in Turkije bagatelliseren ze, en hier voelen ze zich gediscrimineerd.” Ismail behoort tot de Alevitische liberale minderheid en kent de bijbehorende retoriek. Hij schiet met scherp op de Turks- Nederlandse collumnist Özcan Akyol, op de linkse partijen en op de gefeminiseerde mannen van het Westen. Ismail wijst op de Yavuz Sultan Selimbrug – de bouw en vooral de naamkeuze van de brug ziet hij als voortekenen dat de vlag van Ottomaanse Rijk spoedig weer zal wapperen.

DENK bestaat uit twee afgesplitste Turkse PvdA 'ers die zich afsplitsten toen Lodewijk Asscher de remmende invloed aankaartte van Turkse lobbygroepen op integratie. Een Marokkaanse activist en de anti-Zwarte Piet demonstrant Sylvana Simons sloten zich bij hen aan. Zij geven het signaal af dat allochtonen op een eigen partij moeten stemmen en zo werken zij segregatie in de hand. Alsof allochtonen per definitie bij één partij horen en niet net als Nederlanders van mening kunnen verschillen over eigen conservatieve, liberale of socialistische denkbeelden.

Ondersteun Café Weltschmerz! NL23 TRIO 0390 4379 13
(Disclaimer: Wij betalen over uw gift in Nederland belasting)



Chaque jour un flot de tweets vous attendent sur :


Documentation exceptionnelle !

Will the West Survive the Century?


Will the West Survive the Century?

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Ex: http://www.lewrockwell.com

“Nativism … xenophobia or worse” is behind the triumph of Brexit and the support for Donald Trump, railed President Barack Obama in Ottawa.

Obama believes that resistance to transformational change in the character and identity of countries of the West, from immigration, can only be the product of sick minds or sick hearts.

According to The New York Times, he will spend the last months of his presidency battling “the nativism and nationalism” of Trump and “Britain’s Brexiteers.”

Prediction: Obama will fail. For rising ethnonationalism and militarization of frontiers is baked in the cake, if the West wishes to remain the West.

Behind that prediction lie the startling figures of the U.N.’s “World Population 2015″ chart, which just arrived.

Consider but a few of those figures.

Between now and 2050, Europe will lose 32 million people. Not one European nation has a fertility rate — 2.1 children per woman — sufficient to keep it alive. A quarter of all Europeans are 60 or older.

The tribes that created the West are passing away.

Contrast Europe with Africa, just across the Mediterranean.


Between now and 2050, Africa will add 1.3 billion people, to reach 2.4 billion in 2050. Then its population will double again, to 4.4 billion, by 2100.

Only 5 percent of Africans are 60 or older, while 41 percent of Africans are 15 or younger.

Given the tyranny, destitution and disease that afflict Africa, what — other than barriers, border guards and warships — is there to stop tens of millions of young African men from crossing over in coming decades to fill the empty spaces left by dying Europeans?

The Arab-Muslim population of North Africa alone, from the western Sahara and Morocco to Egypt and Sudan, will add 130 million people in 35 years. Egypt will add 60 million, to reach a population of 151 million by 2050.

Yet Egypt will still have only the fifth-highest population of Muslims, behind Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh and India.

While impossible to find a Western country with a fertility rate that will prevent its native-born people from dying off, it is difficult to find a Muslim country that does not boast a rising or exploding population.

If the future belongs to the young, it belongs to Asians, Africans and Latin Americans, and it belongs to Islam.

Eastern Europe presents the grimmest picture in Europe.

Between now and 2050, Poland will lose 5 million people; Ukraine almost 10 million; and Russia 15 million. Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia will see one-sixth of their combined population disappear.

Such losses are comparable to those of World War II.

In percentage terms, Ukraine will suffer most. By midcentury, its population will have shrunk by 21 percent, to 35 million. Is this not a graver matter than whose flag flies over Crimea?

The bleakest prospects belong to Japan, home to some of the most capable, industrious and advanced people on earth.

Between now and 2050, Japan will lose 19 million people and see its population fall to 107 million. A third of the nation is already 60 or older. Only 1 in 7 Japanese are under 16.

Japanese are the oldest people on earth. In coming decades, a large slice of Japan’s population will be working to support healthcare, pensions and welfare for the aged, infirm and dying.

And the United States?

With Mexico and Central America adding 56 million people in 35 years, either the U.S. secures its southern border or the 11-12 million immigrants here illegally will have millions of new compatriots.

America is already evolving into another country.

Though the U.S. is projected to grow by 67 million people in 35 years, this growth will be wholly among Hispanics, Asians and African-Americans. In each of the past four years, non-Hispanic white Americans have registered more deaths than births.


Between July 2014 and July 2015, the Asian-American population grew by 3.4 percent, and the Hispanic population grew 2.2 percent. The black population was up 1.3 percent. But the white population grew by only 0.1 percent.

White America has begun to die.

Can Obama really believe that amnesty for undocumented immigrants is still in the cards with a Republican Congress scorched by the forces behind Trump?

Can he believe that the right-wing parties proliferating across Europe, which see their nation’s imperiled by a rising tide of Muslim immigrants and refugees, will pack it in and support the EU’s march to a transnational superstate that controls immigration and borders?

What has been tabled for discussion this year, in Europe and America, is the future of the West as an identifiable civilization to be cherished and defended by the peoples whose ancestors created it.

And Obama’s reverence for Islam notwithstanding, the West remains the greatest civilization of them all.

Belatedly, Western Man appears to have decided to defend the shire, pull up the drawbridge, and man the parapets on the castle walls.

As for Trumpism and the Brexiteers, Mr. President, in the words of Jimmy Durante, “you ain’t seen nothing yet.”

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 © 2016 Creators.com

Previous article by Patrick J. Buchanan: Why Trump Will Win

lundi, 11 juillet 2016

L’effondrement US en mode turbo


L’effondrement US en mode turbo

Ex: http://www.entrefilets.com

08/07/2016 Nous avons toujours pensé que l’implosion des USA marquerait le coup d’envoi de l’effondrement final du Système néolibéral atlantiste. Or aujourd’hui, il n’y a plus que les pixels de la narrative hollywoodienne qui permettent encore de masquer la réalité d’un Empire en plein naufrage. Et les choses s’accélèrent à une vitesse phénoménale. Devant la perspective d’une probable victoire de Trump face à une Clinton politiquement déjà morte, la pègre washingtonienne panique et tente maintenant d’allumer des contre-feux partout où elle le peut, à l’intérieur en cherchant à provoquer une guerre civile raciale dans le pays et, à l’extérieur, en accélérant la mécanique de confrontation directe avec la Russie (1). Avec des résultats tellement incertains que plusieurs Etats, comme le Texas et la Californie, préparent déjà leur version locale d’un «brexit» pour échapper à l’incendie qui menace de tout emporter de ce pays faussaire (2).

De Kiev à Dallas

La pègre dirigeante de l’Etat profond US semble avoir définitivement tranché la question de la présidentielle US. Hillary, c'est fini. Même si elle échappe, pour l’instant, à une inculpation dans l’affaire dite de l’emailgate, Clinton n'est plus qu'un cadavre politique qui s’auto-pratique la respiration artificielle et plus personne ne semble vouloir parier sur elle. Rien ne la sauvera et, quand bien même devrait-elle arriver au pouvoir par la répétition des tricheries qui conduisirent Doobleyou par deux fois à la Présidence, elle ne pourra pas gouverner. Trop de casseroles, trop de cadavres dans les placards. Elle est même désormais soupçonnée d’avoir profité de son passage à la Maison-Blanche pour engranger des sommes faramineuses pour sa fondation en échange de contrats d’armements (3).

C’est à notre avis à la lumière de ce constat qu’il faut regarder les évènements de Dallas où les projets de guerre civile raciale initiée en 2014 (4) à Fergusson viennent de subir un fameux coup d’accélérateur. Des images de RT montrent ainsi l’un des tireurs en action et il est absolument évident qu’il s’agit d'un professionnel parfaitement aguerri, type ancien marine "déséquilibré" éventuellement téléguidé et/ou contractant de la CIA (5). Rappelons qu'en 2015, les forces de polices US ont tués plus de 1100 civils, dont la moitié "non blancs". 40% des personnes assassinées étaient des Noirs non armés. A ce stade il ne s'agit plus de bavures, mais d'une stratégie. Des troubles sociaux importants pourraient en effet, le cas échéant, servir d'écran de fumée à toutes sortes d'opérations allant de la supension du processus électoral pour cause d'état d'urgence, à l'assassinat pur et simple de Trump allez savoir.

Quant au front ouvert contre la Russie en Europe grâce au coup d’Etat de Maïdan (6), inutile d’y revenir tant nous avons déjà largement exposé ici les manœuvres US qui visent à faire du Vieux-Continent (désormais transformé en caserne de l’Otan) le théâtre de la guerre éventuelle à venir (7).

Mais à l'heure où l'Otan a choisi à dessein de tenir son nouveau sommet aux portes de la Russie pour irriter toujours un peu plus Moscou, nous enfoncerons tout de même le clou pour dénoncer une fois encore le degré de soumission absolument scandaleux des merdias occidentaux qui continuent à relayer la narrative américaine de la menace russe. Ce faisant, ils se font les "collaborateurs" zélés des forces bellicistes qui menacent de faire sombrer le monde dans une nouvelle boucherie, et, tôt ou tard, chacun devra répondre de ses actes.


Un pays faussaire profondément divisé

Mais comme on dit, le pire n'est jamais garanti.
Et pour revenir à notre propos, tout porte désormais à croire que l'année 2016 pourrait donc bien être l’année de la dernière ligne droite vers l’effondrement US.
La perspective est certes vertigineuse, voire incroyable. Pour en mesurer la probabilité, il faut donc s’arracher, c’est le mot, de la narrative hollywoodienne pour comprendre que les Etats-Unis ne disposent en réalité d’aucun ciment véritable qui pourrait leur permettre de surmonter l’immensité de la crise terminale qui les ronge depuis près d’une décennie.

Evoquant cette possible dislocation des Etats-Unis en mars 2009 déjà (8), nous citions ainsi un texte de Philippe Grasset, sublime rédacteur du site de defensa.org qui résume très bien la fragilité intrinsèque de ce pays faussaire que sont les Etats-Unis: «Les USA ne sont pas, selon notre appréciation, une nation avec ce que le terme a de nécessairement héroïque (d’historique), mais un système utilitaire. (...) Qu’il soit habile, bien réparti dans la gestion de ses intérêts, avec des vertus de boutiquier extrêmement remarquables, à l’origine dans tous les cas, aucun doute. Mais il n’a aucun lien avec l’Histoire, il n’a pas cette transcendance qui est notamment établie par la vertu de l’héroïsme (ou «sacrifice de l’intérêt particulier au bien général»). L’intérêt particulier a trouvé un bon placement dans une association et une organisation générales, justement nommées «bien général»; ce qui n'est nullement un «bien public» au sens classique impliquant une mise à la disposition de tous d’une manière générale, comme à une collectivité historique, renvoyant ainsi à la notion de transcendance. Les citoyens US sont les actionnaires de ce «bien général» et lui demandent régulièrement des comptes, avec bien sûr les plus malins qui remportent la mise. Tout cela marche bien, comme une entreprise bien gérée, où la rentabilité pour les actionnaires est la référence suprême. En résulte un assemblage artificiel profondément divisé [avec] des tensions permanentes entre les diverses régions et communautés.» Et de rappeler que ce système a été assemblé par la violence des armes lors de la Guerre de Sécession et que «Lincoln et Grant savaient ce qu’ils faisaient lorsqu’ils ordonnaient à Sherman de tout détruire de la culture sudiste, de la «nation sudiste», dans sa fameuse «marche de Géorgie» de 1864, parce qu’ils savaient que le système ne peut accepter une véritable diversité.»

Nous avions alors ajouté à ce tableau que «les circonstances mêmes de la création de ce pays le prive de tout lien naturel avec la terre qu'il occupe puisqu'il a été bâti sur un territoire volé au terme du génocide des Nations indiennes. La légitimité du lien à la terre, qui constitue la référence première, le socle organique de la constitution d'une véritable nation, fait encore ici défaut. En cela, les Etats-Unis ne sont donc [qu'un système utilitaire] «flottant» à la surface d'une terre volée».

Partant, les mouvements sécessionnistes qui montent en puissance en Californie (41% des Californiens pensent que leur Etat devrait être indépendant selon un sondage opérés sur près de 9000 personnes) et au Texas sont donc à considérer on ne peut plus sérieusement.

La panique grandissante par laquelle la pègre washingtonnienne procède aujourd'hui dans sa gestion de la crise est un symptôme tout aussi révélateur de la fragilité de cet Etat faussaire. Et si ses manoeuvres échouent, son effondrement pourrait donc être bien plus rapide qu'attendu, laissant alors une Europe probablement groggie pour un certain temps, mais enfin libérée.

Mis en ligne par entrefilets.com le 8 juillet 2016

1 Hacked Emails Confirm NATO Push To Provoke, Escalate Conflict With Russia

2 California dreaming: 'Movement to secede from US continues'

3 Satanés e-mails !

4 Why the Obama administration is so determined to start a race war

5 Fusillade à Dallas : un homme tire à bout portant sur un policier (VIDEO CHOC)

6 Ukraine-Russie: quand l’Empire tombe le masque

7 L’UE transformée en caserne de l’Otan

8 L'hypothèse d'une dislocation des Etats-Unis

Sid Lukkassen interviewt Yernaz Ramautarsing; "Alles aan links is hypocriet!"

Sid Lukkassen interviewt Yernaz Ramautarsing; "Alles aan links is hypocriet!"

Yernaz Ramautarsing verklaart: “Ik was bereid om te vechten voor radicale idealen en ik was atheïst. Toen las ik de werken van Ayn Rand.” Inmiddels stelt hij dat er “niets aan links is dat niet hypocriet is: Karl Marx heeft nog geen dag in zijn leven gewerkt.” Yernaz is een
Nederlander met Surinaamse wortels en het is zijn doel om een verdediging van het kapitalisme te geven als moreel systeem.

Sid Lukkassen haalt Avondland en Identiteit (Aspekt 2015) erbij en geeft tegenvoorbeelden. Zijn cultuur, geschiedenis en bevolkingsopbouw niet minstens zo belangrijk voor de voorspoed van een beschaving als kapitalisme? Ze filosoferen over geld en principes, over de kracht van idealen, over hiphop als laatste verdedigingslinie van het kapitalisme.

Uiteindelijk komt hun gesprek op de black lives matter beweging en hun activisten die nu een leerstoel eisen op de universiteit over diversiteit en dekolonisatie. Yernaz antwoordt dat juist het progressieve overheidsbeleid enorme schade toebracht aan de black nuclear family.

“Donald Trump zal als een sloopkogel door de linkse kerk gaan.”

Ondersteun ook Café Weltschmerz! NL23 TRIO 0390 4379 13
(Disclaimer: Wij betalen over uw gift in Nederland belasting)

U.S. War on Russia and China Will Mean Ruin for the Whole of Europe and Asia.


As US Controlled NATO Meets.

U.S. War on Russia and China Will Mean Ruin for the Whole of Europe and Asia.


Ex: http://www.lewrockwell.com

What we shouldn’t do now is inflame the situation further through saber-rattling and warmongering…
Whoever believes that a symbolic tank parade on the alliance’s eastern border will bring security is mistaken. ..
We are well-advised to not create pretexts to renew an old confrontation…
(It would be) fatal to search only for military solutions and a policy of deterrence.

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, commenting on NATO’s recent military exercises in Poland and the Baltics.

Frank-Walter Steinmeier’s cry of distress is that of a man watching a tidal wave of destruction gathering force, similar to ones that have engulfed his country twice in the 20th Century.  His dread is not to be dismissed since it comes from a man who is in a position to know what the U.S. is up to.  His words reflect the fears of ever more people across all of the Eurasia from France in the West to Japan in the East.

Under the euphemism of “containment,” the U.S. is relentlessly advancing its new Cold War on Russia and China.  Its instrument in the West is NATO and in the East, Japan and whatever other worthies can be sharked up.

It is a Cold War that grows increasingly hotter, with proxy wars now raging in Eastern Ukraine and Syria and with confrontations in the South China Sea. There is an ever-growing likelihood that these points of tension will flare up into an all-out military conflict.

In the West, this conflict will begin in Eastern Europe and Russia, but it will not stop there.   All the European NATO countries would be on the front lines.  In the East, the conflict will take place in the Western Pacific in the region of China’s coast and in the peninsulas and island countries in the region, including Japan, the Philippines, and Indochina.

In each case, the US will be an ocean away, “leading from behind,” as Barack Obama would put it, or engaged in “offshore balancing” as some foreign policy “experts” might term it.

No matter the “victors,” all of the Eurasia, from France in the West to Japan in the East would be devastated.  No matter the outcome, the US could escape unscathed and “win” in this sense.  And all Eurasian nations would lose.  It would be World War II redux.

One can get a sense of what this means in the case of economic conflict by looking at the minimal economic warfare now being waged on Russia in the form of sanctions.   Those sanctions are hurting both Russia and the rest of Europe.  The US is untouched.

The same is also true for military conflict.  Want to know what it would look like?   Look at Eastern Ukraine.  All of the Eurasia could come to resemble that sorry nation in the event of a military conflict pitting the US and its allies against Russia and China.   Eurasia, be forewarned!

The goal of the US foreign policy elite would clearly be for Russia and China to “lose,” but even if they “won,” they would be brought low, leaving the US as the world’s greatest economic and military power as it was in 1945.

Europe is beginning to awaken to this.  We have Steinmeier’s plea above. But it is not only Germany that is worried.  The French Senate wants an end to the sanctions imposed on Russia.  Business people in many Western European countries, most notably in Germany and Italy, European farmers who export to Russia and tourist entrepreneurs like those in Turkey and Bulgaria also want an end to sanctions and military exercises.  Parties of the Right want an end to domination by NATO and Brussels, both controlled by the US.  The Brexit is just one rumbling of such discontent.

All these nations are growing increasingly aware of the fate that awaits them if overt conflict erupts with Russia.  The people of Germany want none of it.  Likewise, the people of Japan are stirring against the US effort to goad Japan into fighting China.  All remember the devastation of WWII.

Let’s recall the casualty figures, i.e., deaths, among the principal combatants of WWII:

  • Soviet Union- 27,000,000 (14% of the population);
  • China- 17,000,000 (3.5%);
  • Germany- 7,000,000 (8.5%);
  • Japan- 2,800,000 (4%).

By comparison, for the US, safely far offshore, the number was 419,000 (0.32%)!

And for a few other countries which “got in the way” of the major adversaries:

  • Yugoslavia- 1,500,000 (9%)
  • Poland- 6,000,000 (17%)
  • French Indochina- 1,600,000 (6.11%)
  • Philippines- 527,000 (3.29%)

One wonders what the leaders of Poland or the Philippines or some elements in Vietnam are thinking when they take a belligerent attitude to Russia or China in order to please the US.

The problem with this US strategy is that it could easily spill over into a nuclear conflict as nearly happened in the Cuban Missile Crisis.  Then the US too would be reduced to radioactive rubble.  The bet of the Western policy elite must be that Russia and China would not respond to a conventional war with a nuclear response.

However, Vladimir Putin has made it clear that in any war with the West, the US will feel the impact at once.  The neocons and the rest of the US foreign policy elite must be betting that Putin can do nothing because he would not use nuclear weapons.  So the destruction will be confined to Europe and Asia.

But that assumption is a dangerous one.  Nuclear weapons might not be used. Russia and China might respond with a conventional weapons attack on US cities.  In WWII Germany was able to wreak considerable devastation using conventional bombs on England delivered by airplanes and V2 rockets.  Similarly, the US was able to do enormous damage to Germany and to Japan with conventional weapons, especially fire bombing as in Tokyo and Dresden. Today technology has advanced greatly, and US cities have nuclear power plants nearby.

What is the likely outcome of a conventional war waged against US cities?  Do we wish to find out?  And once it begins where is the firewall against an all-out nuclear exchange?  Where are the neocons and the rest of the US foreign policy elite taking us?  Certainly, the damage will begin with Eurasia, but Americans would do well to worry that great swarms of chickens might come home to roost in New York, Chicago and Los Angeles.  This is not the 20th Century.

For some, the scenarios above might seem unduly alarmist.  They might doubt that the US elite would be capable of consciously unleashing such a vast bloodletting.  For those, it is useful to recall the words of President Harry S. Truman, who said in 1941, when he was still a Senator and before the US had entered WWII:

“If we see that Germany is winning the war, we ought to help Russia; and if that Russia is winning, we ought to help Germany, and in that way let them kill as many as possible. . . .”

Is that not what happened?

People of Eurasia, beware.

A version of this article originally appeared on RT here.

dimanche, 10 juillet 2016

L’Europe de Barroso : de Mao à Goldman Sachs


L’Europe de Barroso : de Mao à Goldman Sachs

Ex: http://www.dedefensa.org

Dans l’émission L’Histoire immédiate (chaîne Histoire) du 6 juillet, Régis Debray observe que les évènements de mai 68 qu’il n’a pas vécus puisqu’il était en prison en Bolivie (de 1967 à 1971), marquent l’accélération décisive de l’américanisation de la France et de sa plongée dans le consumérisme. L’américanisation de la France grâce à Mao (les gauchistes maoïstes étaient en pointe dans le mouvement) : « Amusant... Ou bien non, pas amusant du tout », commente Debray avec une ironie un peu lasse. Trois jours plus tard, cette analyse aujourd’hui unanimement acceptée par les esprits hors-Système/antiSystème, trouve une confirmation opérationnelle en étendant la vertu de l’américanisation de 1968 à l’Europe.

Il est sans la moindre vergogne, mot inconnu chez lui puisqu’il a dirigé la Commission européenne pendant dix ans, ni la moindre conscience de sa condition de gredin, l’exceptionnellement insignifiant Barroso, Portugais gaucho-maoïste en 1968. En toute impudence parce que “pour le mérite”, il a donc reçu le 8 juillet son bâton de maréchal pour un travail si bien fait : une nomination à la direction internationale de Goldman-Sachs comme directeur honoraire et conseiller. Le montant du salaire annuel n’est pas communiqué : sans doute approche-t-on les sept chiffres, comme le bâton de maréchal que recevait (le passé est de rigueur) un général vainqueur d’une guerre compte en France sept étoiles. (Sept étoiles sur les champs de bataille d’antan : beaucoup moins que l’Europe d’aujourd’hui, et alors comment peut-on dire que le progrès est une idée dépassée ? L’UE de Goldman Sachs bien plus qu’un maréchal, et alors comment peut-on avancer que l’héroïsme n’existe plus ?)

... Brève présentation de l’événement par Thomas P. Carney, du Washington Examiner, le 8 juillet (même aux USA, on s’aperçoit de la chose qui nous garantit la pureté des adversaires du Brexit) : « Jose Manuel Barroso was president of the European Commission (the central governing apparatus of the European Union) for a decade. His central mission was expansion and centralization of the EU. “More integration is simply indispensable for our economy,” Barroso said. He doubled the membership size. Barroso saw Britain's exit from the EU, the “Brexit,” as a horrible idea. “It will not be wise for Britain to now make a jump in the dark,” Barroso said. “It is quite obvious from my point of view that we are stronger if we are together.”

» Today Goldman Sachs, the New York-based global investment bank, announced: “the appointment of José Manuel Barroso as non-executive chairman of Goldman Sachs International (GSI). He will also be an advisor to Goldman Sachs.” It's not a mystery, is it, why the fishermen of Hastings or Wales may not have believed that Barroso's interests were aligned with theirs? »

Fransen en Italianen komen massaal in opstand tegen politieke elite


Fransen en Italianen komen massaal in opstand tegen politieke elite

Italiaanse Anti-EU partij al maanden nr. 1 in peilingen

Impliciet dreigement premier Renzi: Omvallen Italiaanse banken zal Deutsche Bank meesleuren en Europees financiële systeem doen instorten

Franse politie ‘nu al machteloos’ tegen massale volksprotesten

Van de meeste van onze apathische landgenoten hoeven we helaas niets te verwachten, dus moet onze redding van de in de maak zijnde Europese Superstaatdictatuur uit het flamboyante zuiden komen. De voortekenen dat de gewone man eindelijk in opstand gaat komen tegen de Europese politieke- en bankenelite, zijn het sterkst zichtbaar in Frankrijk en Italië. Massale protesten en stakingen ontregelen al wekenlang het openbare leven in Frankrijk, en in Italië is de eurokritische Vijf Sterren Beweging van Beppe Grillo in vier peilingen naar de eerste plaats gesneld. Grillo wil een referendum over het Italiaanse lidmaatschap van de eurozone organiseren.


Anti-EU partij M5S nr.1 in de peilingen

Dat de Vijf Sterren Beweging een serieuze bedreiging voor de gevestigde orde vormt, bleek twee weken geleden al, toen de burgemeestersverkiezingen in de hoofdstad Rome werden gewonnen door de kandidaat van de nieuwe volkspartij.  Ook in Turijn, Napels en Triëst is de partij aan de macht gekomen. Inmiddels laat M5S de centrum-linkse Democratische Partij (PD) van premier Matteo Renzi met 30,6% tegen 29,8% achter zich. In andere peilingen is het verschil zelfs al 6%.

De premier lijkt behoorlijk in de war van de ontwikkelingen, want hij verklaarde zich te zullen inzetten voor een referendum over onder andere de beperking van de Italiaanse senaat, ‘niet omdat dit cruciaal is voor het lot van een individu (dus de burger), maar voor de toekomstige geloofwaardigheid van de Italiaanse politieke klasse.’ Mish Shedlock van het bekende MishTalk reageert: ‘Wow! Die verklaring is zo belachelijk, dat je je moet afvragen of Renzi niet stiekem wil dat het referendum mislukt.’

Dat referendum stelt tevens voor om iedere politieke partij die 40% van de stemmen krijgt, automatisch een meerderheid in het parlement te geven. Als geen enkele partij dat lukt, dan volgt er een tweestrijd, en zal de winnaar daarvan alsnog die meerderheid krijgen.

Honderden miljarden nodig om Italiaanse banken te ‘redden’

Renzi is ondertussen verwikkeld in een heftig politiek gevecht met de ECB en de Duitse bondskanselier Merkel, die zijn eis om honderden miljarden euro’s Europees belastinggeld in te zetten om de Italiaanse banken te redden, vooralsnog afwijzen. Als dat zo blijft, betekent dat waarschijnlijk een herhaling van het drama met de kleine Banca Ertruria, waar behalve grootaandeel- en obligatiehouders ook kleinere spaarders een groot deel of zelfs al hun geld kwijtraakten in een ‘bail-in’ om de bank overeind te houden.

Zoals we al eerder schreven leidde dat tot de zelfmoord van een Italiaanse gepensioneerde, die zijn in tientallen jaren opgebouwde spaargeld van iets meer dan een ton kwijtraakte, en feitelijk naar de bankmanagers zag gaan.

Shedlock vroeg zich eerder deze week al af of de EU gezien alle plannen en maatregelen van Brussel kan ‘overleven als een gevangenis voor zijn onderdanen... Het korte antwoord is dat de kiezers dit beslissen, en ze zijn nu al woedend. Als er bail-ins komen, betekent dat zonder twijfel het einde van de regering Renzi.’

Renzi dreigt impliciet met omvallen Deutsche Bank

Overigens wijst de Italiaanse premier terecht op de enorme risico’s die de EU loopt met de Deutsche Bank, die voor tientallen biljoenen euro’s zeer risicovolle speculaties (derivaten) op de balansen heeft staan. De verhouding is volgens Renzi zelfs 1 op de 100, waarbij 1 de slechte leningen van de Italiaanse banken zijn, en 100 de derivatenzeepbel van DB.

Renzi lijkt er dan ook impliciet mee te dreigen dat als de honderden miljarden voor de Italiaanse banken er niet komen, deze zullen omvallen, en Deutsche Bank in hun val zullen meesleuren. En daarmee zal het hele financiële systeem in Europa instorten, met ernstige wereldwijde consequenties.

‘Deze mate van krankzinnigheid is precies waarom de euro verdoemd is,’ concludeert Shedlock. ‘Stap er nu uit! Ik herhaal mijn waarschuwing van december: Haal nu je geld weg van de Italiaanse banken!’ (1)


Miljoenen demonstranten leggen Frankrijk lam

Hoewel Frankrijk deze weken vooral op TV komt vanwege het EK voetbal, vinden er buiten de stadions almaar massaler wordende volksprotesten plaats, waar de media nauwelijks over willen berichten. Het aantal demonstranten tegen het beleid van de socialistische president en regering is gegroeid van tienduizenden naar miljoenen.

Op het alternatieve nieuwsportaal ‘YourNewsWire.com’ is te lezen dat op de straten van veel steden anarchie heerst. Duizenden gemaskerde demonstranten voeren felle straatgevechten met de politie, die onder andere waterkanonnen inzet. De demonstranten zouden echter al gesteund worden door miljoenen Fransen, die de uitbuiting en verwurging van de arbeidersklasse door de elite spuugzat zijn.

EU krijgt de schuld van ellende

Veel Fransen geven de EU er de schuld van dat hun land er financieel en economisch zo slecht voorstaat. ‘Alle landen nemen de EU richtlijnen over, die enkel de belangen van de kapitalisten dienen,’ legde een demonstrant tegen Russia Today uit. Naast de hervormingen op de arbeidsmarkt en de EU is ook het TTIP vrijhandelsverdrag met de VS een belangrijk thema.

Toeristen ondervinden veel overlast van de stakingen en demonstraties. Zo werd de toegang tot de Eiffeltoren onlangs opnieuw geblokkeerd omdat een deel van het personeel het werk had neergelegd.

Regering Valls grijpt naar ondemocratische machtsmiddelen

De regering van premier Valls probeert de massa demonstraties te verbieden, maar mede omdat die worden gesteund door de vakbonden, zorgt dat alleen maar voor nog meer woede onder het volk. Desondanks probeert de regering nu via allerlei wettelijke trucjes het parlement buitenspel te zetten, zodat de protesten hard kunnen worden bestreden. Uit een opiniepeiling bleek dat 73% van de bevolking ‘geschokt’ is dat de politici steeds vaker naar dit soort ondemocratische machtsmiddelen grijpen om hun zin door te drijven (2).

Volksopstand, revolutie, burgeroorlog?

Conclusie: onze berichten van enige weken geleden dat er een nieuwe revolutie in Frankrijk broeit, zijn beslist niet overdreven. En vlak ook de Italianen niet uit; wij verwachten dat de grote volksopstand tegen de elite als eerste in deze twee landen zal losbarsten. Als de politiek dan nog steeds weigert naar het volk te luisteren, dan zouden die opstanden wel eens op burgeroorlogen kunnen uitlopen.


(1) Zero Hedge
(2) Epoch Times

Zie ook o.a.:

06-07: Bankensysteem EU opnieuw op rand van instorting
02-07: Italiaanse oppositie eist dat euro verdwijnt en EU-bankenunie wordt geblokkeerd (/ Duitsland en Nederland straks honderden miljarden per jaar aan transferbetalingen kwijt)
01-07: Italiaans bankensysteem op omvallen: EU pompt € 150 miljard ‘om paniek te voorkomen’
26-06: Soros: Wanordelijke desintegratie EU onomkeerbaar, leiders zijn burgers vergeten

Pierre Jovanovic: «On vit les derniers soubresauts avant l’explosion finale de l’économie»

Pierre Jovanovic: «On vit les derniers soubresauts avant l’explosion finale de l’économie»

President Hillary – Be Afraid, Very Afraid

By examining Hillary Clinton's foreign policy record, Pat Harrington concludes that she is a warmonger who favours more US intervention across the globe.

We know quite a bit about Clinton and her foreign policy. What we know indicates that she is a warmonger and interventionist – as bad as any Republican ‘hawk’. I believe that her record on foreign policy should concern not just Americans but the world. A Clinton presidency is likely to lead to confrontations around the globe.

During her period in the Senate (2001-2008), she sat on the Armed Services Committee. The Village Voice dubbed her ‘Mama Warbucks’ in 2005. Clinton voted for war against Iraq and peddled the same lies as Tony Blair and his dodgy dossier. In a speech to the Senate in 2002 she said:

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members…

It was not until December 2006, as she began her first presidential campaign, that she changed her position by blaming her original viewpoint on bad intelligence during a spot on NBC’s Today programme. ‘If we knew then what we know now, I certainly wouldn’t have voted that way’, she said in reference to her initial support for the Iraq War.

When Clinton was US Secretary of State between 2009 and 2013, she showed the same eagerness for threatening or for the actual use of force. Anne-Marie Slaughter, Clinton’s Director of Policy Planning at the State Department, said of her, ‘When the choice is between action and inaction, and you’ve got risks in either direction, which you often do, she’d rather be caught trying.’  She is therefore an interventionist by nature.

To give you an understanding of what this interventionist instinct brings about, I want to look at some of the countries she has directed it toward and its consequences.


In 2009, the State Department supported the CIA-backed coup against Honduras’ democratically elected President, Manuel Zelaya.

E-mails subsequently released from Clinton’s time as Secretary of State show that some of her top aides urged her to dub the putsch a military coup and to cut off US aid. She refused to do so. Instead, the US pushed for the world to recognise the coup’s new government.

In her memoir, Hard Choices, she described the events in Honduras as a ‘victory for democracy’.

The coup was followed by a wave of political violence which targeted a range of activists. Statistics from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) show that the murder rate increased from 60.8 per 100,000 in 2008 to 81.8 in 2010 following the coup, continuing to increase to 91.4 in 2011 and remaining high at 90.4 in 2012. Honduras is now a corrupt narco-state.


During the 1999 Kosovo War, in which Bill Clinton called in NATO to bomb Belgrade (resulting in 500 civilian deaths), Hillary, whilst traveling in Africa, telephoned her husband to offer him some advice. ‘I urged him to bomb’, she told reporter Lucinda Frank. As First Lady from January 1993, she encouraged her husband, and later also his Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, to attack Serbian forces in the disintegrating Yugoslavia – not just in Bosnia in 1994 but also in Serbia in 1999.

When Hillary Clinton visited Pristina as Secretary of State, her support for Kosovo was clear: “For me, my family and my fellow Americans this is more than a foreign policy issue,” she affirmed. “It is personal.”

Whilst the case for some form of intervention in Kosovo is more hotly debated than those in other areas, the events which led to the recognition of the state by President George W Bush had unintended consequences. At the time, Russian President Putin said:

The precedent of Kosovo is a terrible precedent, which will de facto blow apart the whole system of international relations, developed not over decades, but over centuries. They have not thought through the results of what they are doing. At the end of the day it is a two-ended stick and the second end will come back and hit them in the face.

The Republic of Crimea proclaimed its independence from Ukraine on 11 March 2014, citing the Kosovo precedent.


As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton supported the ‘surge’ in Afghanistan: she supported sending a further 40,000 US troops there (on top of the 70,000 which were already present).

drone-firing-400x300.jpgDespite the high level of civilian casualties, Clinton has long been a strong supporter of drone strikes in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In an interview with The Guardian in July 2014, Clinton said:

Clearly, the efforts that were made by the United States, in cooperation with our allies in Afghanistan and certainly the Afghan government, to prevent the threat that was in Pakistan from crossing the border, killing Afghans, killing Americans, Brits and others, was aimed at targets that had been identified and were considered to be threats. The numbers about potential civilian casualties I take with a somewhat big grain of salt because there has been other studies which have proven there not to have been the number of civilian casualties. But also in comparison to what? The Pakistani armed services were always saying, ‘Well, let us bomb these places.’ That would have been far more devastating in terms of casualties. But of course anyone who is an innocent bystander, especially a child, who’s caught up in any operation against terrorists, that is a cause of great concern and it is a cause of real disappointment and regret on our part.

Armed conflict in Afghanistan continues. Afghanistan now produces around 90 per cent of the world’s heroin. The Taliban had banned the production of opium in 2000.


In 2011, as Arab regimes were overthrown in the so-called ‘Arab Spring’, Hillary’s State Department decided to withdraw diplomatic recognition of Syria. The US began to help the armed opposition, secretly at first. Although there was much talk of assisting a ‘moderate opposition’, it soon became clear that the ‘allies’ Clinton wanted to use to topple the secular Syrian regime were radical Islamists aligned with the al-Nusra Front, a branch of al-Qaeda. Yet, even now, Clinton defends US intervention in Syria, speaking of a ‘failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad – there were Islamists, there were secularists, there was everything in the middle – the failure to do that left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled.’ Clinton expresses no regret over the civil war she helped start in Syria. Her only regret is that more arms and ammunition were not supplied to her favoured side. In recent debates, Clinton has advocated a no-fly zone over Syria: ‘ I am advocating the no-fly zone both because I think it would help us on the ground to protect Syrians; I’m also advocating it because it gives us some leverage in our conversations with Russia.’ The potential for conflict with Russia and Iran, both of whom are supporting the Syrian government, is both obvious and frightening.

The result of her policies toward Syria is that millions of Syrians have been displaced, and that refugees are drowning in the Mediterranean or else threatening the stability and identity of Greece, Turkey, and the European Union itself. Not to mention the fact that ISIS has a base in Syria from which to launch terrorist attacks across the world.


Clinton was an enthusiastic player in the destruction of the Libyan state by the US and NATO during 2011. Robert M Gates, the Secretary of Defense at the time, described President Obama’s decision to intervene as a ’51-49′ proposition, adding, ‘I’ve always thought that Hillary’s support for the broader mission in Libya put the president on the 51 side of the line for a more aggressive approach.’ It started with a ‘no-fly zone’, allegedly to protect civilians and dressed-up in all kinds of humanitarian language, and ended with a US-led bombing campaign which killed over 1,100 civilians. Her humanitarianism was absent in an interview with ABC’s Diane Sawyer. She was asked about the brutal murder of Col. Gadaffi by jihadists (after being sodomised with a knife on camera). Paraphrasing Julius Caesar, she said, ‘We came, we saw, he died!’ amidst much laughter and chuckling.


The result of her policies in Libya is that the country descended into civil war. Unsecured arms stashes in Libya soon spread west across the African Sahel and east to Syria. The Libyan catastrophe has led to war in Mali, made more weapons available to Boko Haram in Nigeria, and assisted ISIS in Syria and Iraq. One could also reference the persecution of Black Africans and Tuaregs within Libya and the emergence of Benghazi as a jihadist stronghold.

Clinton has continued to defend US intervention in Libya, claiming that the situation would have been worse without it: ‘We would be looking at something much more resembling Syria now.’


As Senator in 2008, Hillary co-sponsored 2008-SR439, which called to integrate Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. Whilst Clinton was Secretary of State, two more countries, Albania and Croatia, joined the US-dominated alliance. Many Russians believe they are now surrounded by an anti-Russian military alliance along their borders, stretching from the Baltic states in the north to Romania and Bulgaria. Clinton favours even further expansion.


As Secretary of State, Clinton oversaw the Obama Administration’s first attempt to broker an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal. She took a stance against Jewish settlements on land claimed by the Palestinians. However, in her memoir she noted that ‘[o]ur early hard line on settlements didn’t work.’

During her last year as Secretary of State, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz characterised her as ‘Israel’s new lawyer’ in response to her sympathetic view toward Binyamin Netanyahu’s 2014 bombardment of Gaza and his desire to maintain ‘security’ throughout the occupied West Bank.

More recently, Clinton drew applause for a speech to lobbyists for Israel when she declared,

The United States and Israel must be closer than ever, stronger than ever, and more determined than ever to overcome our common adversaries and advance our shared values. […] We will never allow Israel’s adversaries to think a wedge can be driven between us,” she said, explaining that when the U.S. and Israel have differences, she would work quickly to resolve them.

Clinton further added that America and Israel ‘must take our alliance to the next level’ through reaching a new 10-year memorandum of understanding on defence ‘as soon as possible’.


Clinton still publicly favours the Iran nuclear deal. In fact, she has claimed that it was her work to impose ‘crippling sanctions’ that forced Iran to the negotiating table. She said that the deal ‘put a lid’ on the Iranian nuclear programme by increasing Iran’s potential breakout time and creating new  verification measures. Nevertheless, she said that the approach to Iran should be ‘distrust and verify’.

Her language toward Iran is bellicose:

This deal must come with vigorous enforcement…and a broader strategy to confront Iran’s aggression across the region,” said Clinton. “We cannot forget that Tehran’s fingerprints are on almost every conflict across the Middle East….There’s a big difference between talking about holding Tehran accountable and actually doing it…. The United States will act to stop [Iranian violations of the nuclear deal] and we will do so with force if necessary.


A Clinton presidency is a concern to China.

The State Department’s traditional stance  was that ‘we take no position’ on the Sino-Japanese dispute concerning sovereignty over the Senkaku/Daioyutai islands in the East China Sea, which had been seized by Japan in 1895. As Secretary of State, Clinton departed from this by emphasising that the islands fall within the defence perimeter of the US-Japanese alliance.

In a 2011 interview, Clinton attacked China’s ‘deplorable’ human rights record, calling the government’s efforts to crack down on dissent ‘a fool’s errand’. China is wary of the way in which human rights issues are used tactically by the United States to sow dissent abroad and soften domestic public opinion for confrontation. No fools, those Chinese!

In 2010, she intervened in the South China Sea disputes at the ASEAN Regional Forum. Beginning by stating that Washington had no stake in the territorial disputes, she then laid out US interests in the South China Sea: ‘[A] national interest in freedom of navigation, open access to Asia’s maritime commons, and respect for international law in the South China Sea.’  Clinton further said that ‘legitimate claims to maritime space in the South China Sea should be derived solely from legitimate claims to land features’. China took this to mean that the US views the nine-dash line, which encircles almost all of the South China Sea, as not a ‘legitimate claim’.

China’s then-Foreign Minister, Yang Jiechi, walked out of the meeting. When he returned, he told the ASEAN members, ‘China is a big country and other countries are small countries, and that’s just a fact.’

China is deeply suspicious of Clinton and her views on rebalance which were set out in her 2011 Foreign Policy article, ‘America’s Pacific Century’. China views this as part of a strategy of containment.

The state-run China Daily commented regarding her departure as Secretary of State, ‘Clinton always spoke with a unipolar voice and never appeared interested in the answers she got.’


A brief look at the record and statements of Hillary Clinton shows how frightening the prospect of her becoming the American President is. Her confrontational instinct has led only to misery and death. We should all be very concerned about this woman gaining one of the most powerful positions in the world. My next article will explore whether Donald Trump is a better choice.

samedi, 09 juillet 2016

Moord op blanke agenten: Ontketent Obama rassenoorlog om verkiezingen te annuleren?


Moord op blanke agenten: Ontketent Obama rassenoorlog om verkiezingen te annuleren?

Zwarte sheriff Clark: Obama en Hillary moedigen ‘oorlog tegen agenten’ aan; Amerikaanse politie hoopt op Donald Trump

Facebook stelt zich pal achter racistische en gewelddadige BlackLivesMatter terreurbeweging op, die wordt aangestuurd door minister van Justitie Loretta Lynch

Anti-globalistische, anti-immigratie en anti-islam pagina’s worden door Facebook offline gehaald, maar dit soort haatzaaiende moordoproepen tegen blanke agenten mogen gewoon blijven staan, of worden zelfs gepromoot.

Vaste lezers weten dat we het al jaren geleden voor het eerst ter sprake brachten: een mogelijke rassenoorlog in de Verenigde Staten, welbewust ontketent door president Obama, met als doel de verkiezingen te annuleren als het Witte Huis in ‘verkeerde handen’ dreigt te vallen. Het behoeft geen uitleg dat Donald Trump voor ongeveer alles staat wat Obama en Hillary Clinton de afgelopen jaren hebben geprobeerd af te breken, zoals de soevereiniteit, vrijheid, vrede en welvaart in niet alleen de VS, maar het hele Westen en ver daarbuiten. De moord op 5 agenten gisteren in Dallas lijkt in tegenstelling tot de wederom valse berichten in de massamedia een goed voorbereide actie, bedoeld om een rassenoorlog van zwart tegen blank te ontketenen.

Rassenoorlog al jaren in de maak

Een klokkenluider bij het Amerikaanse ministerie van Justitie onthulde al in 2012 dat Obama uiterlijk in zijn laatste jaar een rassenoorlog zou proberen te ontketenen. Volgens Infowars voorman Alex Jones is inmiddels aangetoond dat de racistische en gewelddadige BlackLivesMatter beweging, dat herhaaldelijk openlijk oproept tot het vermoorden van zoveel mogelijk blanken, rechtstreeks wordt aangestuurd door minister van Justitie Loretta Lynch, die er afgelopen week ook voor zorgde dat Hillary Clinton niet vervolgd wordt voor het email-schandaal, een misdrijf waar andere Amerikanen zwaar voor werden en worden gestraft.

Google, Facebook, Twitter en Apple zitten allemaal in hetzelfde linkse schuitje. Facebook hing bij zijn hoofdkwartier zelfs een enorm spandoek op om BlackLivesMatter te steunen. Talloze pagina’s op Facebook waar de moord op blanke agenten en blanken in het algemeen wordt verheerlijkt, blijven gewoon online staan, terwijl het bedrijf ‘rechtse’ en ‘libertarische’ sites blokkeert, en onlangs nog de pagina van de bekende Duitse auteur Udo Ulfkotte, die waarschuwt voor de moslimmigranten invasie in Europa, offline haalde.

Zwarte sheriff: ‘Racisme en ongelijke behandeling is onzin’

Het eerste wat president Obama gisteren deed na het uitspreken van zijn afschuw was kritiek leveren op de politie in Dallas, die zich niet zou hebben ‘hervormd’. De zwarte sheriff van Milwaukee, David Clarke, zelf ook een Democraat, verklaarde op Fox News dat Obama en Hillary Clinton de ‘oorlog tegen agenten aanmoedigen, om daarmee verdeeldheid en hysterie te zaaien, en dit vervolgens voor hun eigen politieke doelstellingen te gebruiken. Obama heeft het over racisme en ongelijke behandeling van kleurlingen... dat is allemaal onzin. Maar hij gebruikt dit soort krachttermen om de woede tegen de Amerikaanse politieagent aan te wakkeren. Hij moet daarmee kappen.’ (2)


Clarke vervolgde dat de hele Amerikaanse politie erop hoopt dat Donald Trump president wordt, omdat ze iemand nodig hebben die weer achter hen gaat staan. De beruchte zwarte racistische haatzaaier Jesse Jackson gaf Trump en zijn aanhang juist de schuld van alles. BlackLivesMatter dreigde vervolgens dat er de komende tijd nog veel aanslagen op blanke agenten zullen volgen. En dat is inmiddels gebeurd: in Tennessee, Missouri en Georgia zijn inmiddels 3 blanke agenten door zwarten neergeschoten. Jones: ‘Dit is verschrikkelijk. Niemand wil toch een rassen- of zelfs een burgeroorlog?’

Staat-van-beleg om verkiezingen te annuleren

BlackLivesMatter vertegenwoordigers praten inmiddels met minister Lynch over het uitroepen van de staat-van-beleg door de regering, zodat zowel de Democratische als Republikeinse Conventies moeten worden afgezegd, en de verkiezingen in november voor onbepaalde tijd kunnen worden opgeschort. Op deze wijze probeert de elite in de VS te voorkomen dat anti-globalist Donald Trump aan de macht komt. De New York Post heeft als eerste grote krant inmiddels de gevreesde term ‘burgeroorlog’ gebruikt.

Jones: ‘Dit zijn allemaal klassieke communistische tactieken om een land omver te werpen. Het minister van Justitie heeft er al voor gepleit dat de VN de controle krijgt over de politie. Obama en (de extreemlinkse multimiljardair) George Soros zitten hierachter.’

Zwarten vermoorden alleen al in Chicago 8 x zoveel zwarten

‘Maar laat me jullie eens wat vertellen: ik heb complete boeken geschreven over het geweld van de politie! Maar ik wil de zaken hervormen, geen burgeroorlog veroorzaken. Sinds de politie 3 jaar geleden het bevel kreeg het rustiger aan te doen in zwarte wijken, is de misdaad daar meer dan verdrievoudigd. In 2015 werden in Chicago 2000 mensen neergeschoten, waarvan 92% zwarten. Meer dan 500 kwamen daarbij om het leven. En dit jaar staat de teller nu al op meer dan 2000! En de daders? Hoofdzakelijk andere zwarten. Dat zijn in één stad veel meer doden dan alle agenten in het hele land jaarlijks veroorzaken (vorig jaar 990, waarvan 258 zwarten).’

Orde uit chaos: zo willen de globalisten alle macht grijpen

Jones denkt dat de globalisten bewust een rassenoorlog in de VS willen ontketenen, omdat ze zien dat het gewone volk in opstand tegen de elite begint te komen, tegen de vrijhandelsverdragen, tegen het uitwissen van de grenzen, tegen politieke unies zoals de EU, tegen massale moslimimmigratie. En wat de globalisten uiteindelijk willen is duidelijk: een wereldregering, waarin zij alle macht hebben. Om dat te bereiken volgt men het beruchte ‘Ordo ab Chao’, orde uit chaos, recept. In Europa moet dat een andere variant van de rassenoorlog worden, namelijk een van de miljoenen migranten, gesteund door hun linkse kompanen, tegen de autochtone Europese volken.


(1) Infowars
(2) Infowars

Václav Klaus zur Migrationskrise: Buchvorstellung mit Thilo Sarrazin

Václav Klaus zur Migrationskrise: Buchvorstellung mit Thilo Sarrazin

Buchvorstellung am 03. Juni 2016 in Berlin: Der ehemalige Präsident Tschechiens Václav Klaus und sein Coautor Jiří Weigl stellen ihr neues Buch vor: »Völkerwanderung«, Kurze Erläuterung der aktuellen Migrationskrise

Soeben erschienen, jetzt bestellen bei http://www.manuscriptum.de

Zum Inhalt:
Allein nach Deutschland kam im Jahr 2015 über eine Million Migranten. Weitere Millionen Menschen machen sich auf den Weg nach Europa. Die Verantwortungslosigkeit der europäischen Politik mit Angela Merkel an der Spitze feuert die neue Völkerwanderung zusätzlich an. Statt die natürlichen Interessen souveräner Nationalstaaten zu wahren, predigt die deutsche Kanzlerin einen fahrlässigen Willkommenseifer. Städte und Kommunen versuchen derweil verzweifelt, das Chaos zu verwalten. Die Bürger laufen ihren politischen Vertretern davon, und die Hegemonie deutschen Gefühlsdusels zerstört den Frieden Europas. Den protestierenden mittel- und osteuropäischen Staaten droht Brüssel schon mit Sanktionen …
Dagegen ergreift einer der herausragenden Staatsmänner Europas das Wort. Der langjährige Präsident Tschechiens Václav Klaus fordert, sich von den barmherzigen Tagträumen zu verabschieden. Den europäischen Führungseliten wirft er vor, mit dem Druck der Flüchtlingsmassen die Reste europäischer Nationalstaatlichkeit zu zerstören. Klaus fürchtet um die Zukunft Europas.

Über die Autoren:
VÁCLAV KLAUS, geb. 1941, ist eine der herausragenden Persönlichkeiten der neueren tschechischen Politik. Er war Finanzminister (1989–1992), Ministerpräsident (1992– 1998), Vorsitzender des Abgeordnetenhauses (1998– 2002) und zuletzt Präsident der Tschechischen Republik (2003–2013). Als Publizist ist Klaus mit seinen deutlichen Stellungnahmen eine unverzichtbare Stimme in den europapolitischen Debatten.

JIŘÍ WEIGL, geb. 1958, ist Exekutivdirektor des Václav Klaus Instituts in Prag. Von 2003 bis 2013 war Weigl Chef der Präsidialkanzlei. Der ausgewiesene Ökonom und Arabist ist Autor mehrerer Fachbücher sowie zahlreicher Beiträge zu politischen, ökonomischen und historischen Themen.


vendredi, 08 juillet 2016

Einwanderung oder Souveränität


Karl Albrecht Schachtschneider & Jost Bauch:

Einwanderung oder Souveränität

Karl Albrecht Schachtschneider & Jost Bauch sprechen über das Thema Einwanderung oder Souveränität, bei Quer-Denken.TV

L’Inde et le Pakistan entrent dans le Groupe de Shanghai le jour du Brexit



L’Inde et le Pakistan entrent dans le Groupe de Shanghai le jour du Brexit

Pour le professeur Alfredo Jalife-Rahme, le principal géopoliticien latino-américain, la concomitance de la sortie du Royaume-Uni de l’Union européenne et de l’entrée de l’Inde et du Pakistan dans l’Organisation de coopération de Shanghai marque le basculement du monde. Désormais, la déglobalisation est en marche.

L’Organisation de coopération de Shanghai représente désormais les deux tiers de la population mondiale. Elle comprend la première économie mondiale (la Chine) et la première puissance militaire conventionnelle (la Russie).

La chute du Mur de Berlin en 1989 avait imposé l’unipolarité stratégique des États-Unis, et la globalisation financière toxique, ce qui a répandu une inégalité monstrueuse, aux niveaux local, régional et global, assortie de chômage massif et d’une austérité asphyxiante. 

Le Brexit, un demi-siècle après l’étape pernicieuse de dérégulation thatchériste, et vingt-sept ans après la chute du Mur de Berlin, ouvre le chemin à une douloureuse déglobalisation  [1] ; cela implique des changements géostratégiques, et accentue le dynamisme de la multipolarité.

Le Brexit constitue la plaque tectonique en mouvement : et cet ébranlement aura des conséquences profondes pour le nouvel ordre global que je qualifie de tripolaire : États-Unis, Russie et Chine.

À court et moyen terme, le Brexit équivaut à la chute du Mur de Berlin.

À plus long terme, à l’échelle du temps long de Fernand Braudel, c’est un anti-Waterloo : c’est un renversement de tendance par rapport à la trajectoire ascendante de la Grande-Bretagne depuis sa victoire militaire décisive, il y a 201 ans, dans l’ancienne Belgique, devenue précisément siège d’une Union Européenne en voie de dislocation.

Pour l’éditorialiste du Global Times chinois, « le futur paysage de la politique globale va probablement conduire des changements d’envergure, comparables à ceux dont on a la trace dans l’histoire géologique avec la fracture de l’ancien super-continent Gondwana il y a 180 millions d’années » [2].

Les pions dispersés de l’UE vont se partager entre la Russie et les États-Unis, la Chine restant à l’arrière-plan.

Dans la façon dont les trois super-puissances racontent la chose, se dessine peut-être le noyau du nouvel ordre global qui va naître du Brexit : les États-Unis disent que c’est la Russie qui a gagné, la Chine assure que c’est le dollar qui a gagné et l’euro qui a perdu, tandis que la Russie assure que c’est la Chine qui a gagné.

De façon prémonitoire, trois jours avant le Brexit, le diabolique méga-spéculateur George Soros —qui a sérieusement contribué au démantèlement de l’Union européenne et de l’euro, en maniant à sa guise migrants et capitaux mobiles—, entrevoyait déjà la Russie comme la puissance globale émergente, dans le mouvement même de la vaporisation de l’Union [3].

LInde-et-le-Pakistan-à-la-frontière-de-Wagah..jpgLe Premier ministre de Hongrie, Victor Orban, avait déjà souligné la responsabilité de Soros, quand il a favorisé la crise migratoire du Proche-Orient afin de faire couler l’Europe [4].

Ce n’est pas par hasard si Soros est déjà l’un des principaux bénéficiaires du tsunami financier causé par le Brexit, pour avoir misé sur l’effondrement de la Bourse et la hausse de l’or [5].

Maintenant, Soros fait le pari d’anéantir la principale banque allemande/européenne, la Deutsche Bank, de façon à avantager les banksters de Wall Street et de la City [6].

Mon article de l’année dernière aura été prémonitoire : « La Grande Bretagne quitte l’Europe pour la Chine : une alliance géofinancière avec hollandisation », tandis que la complémentarité des plus grandes réserves de devises de la Chine avec le savoir-faire financiériste de la City construit l’échafaudage multipolaire pour le nouvel ordre géofinancier du XXI° siècle [7].

Proche de ma façon d’aborder le sujet, c’est Thierry Meyssan, directeur du Réseau Voltaire, qui ajoute que le Brexit, appuyé par la reine d’Angleterre et la réorientation de la Grande-Bretagne vers le yuan chinois, équivaut à la chute du Mur de Berlin et accélère la redistribution des cartes de la géopolitique mondiale [8].

Dans mon article précédent [9], je soulignais la simultanéité géostratégique suivante : le jour même où l’UE commençait à imploser, le groupe de Shanghai (OSC) se réunissait, pour son seizième sommet, à Tachkent (Ouzbékistan), où se sont retrouvés le tsar Vladimir Poutine et le mandarin Xi, et ils approuvaient le protocole d’adhésion de deux grands poids lourds nucléaires : l’Inde et le Pakistan [10]. C’est bien la fin d’une ère [11].

En fait il y a eu deux poussées géostratégiques dans la mesure où, le lendemain du Brexit et après avoir assisté au sommet du Groupe de Shanghai à Tachkent, Poutine a réalisé une visite de deux jours en Chine, pour y approfondir les liens stratégiques avec Xi.

Et ces deux rencontres, celle de Tachkent et celle de Pékin, ont été escamotées par les médias désinformateurs de l’Occident angoissé.

Avec son sarcasme légendaire, le tsar Poutine, sept jours avant le Brexit, admettait, lors de la réunion financière de Saint-Pétersbourg, que les États-Unis « sont encore probablement la seule superpuissance mondiale », au moment où il « se prépare à travailler avec celui qui héritera de la présidence à Washington, quel qu’il soit », sans pour autant « accepter que les États-uniens lui dictent la conduite à tenir » [12].

Le jour même du Brexit, deux puissances nucléaires du sous-continent indien étaient admis dans le Groupe de Shanghai, ce qui veut dire : 110 à 120 ogives nucléaires pour l’Inde [13], et de 110 à 130 ogives pour le Pakistan [14].

Le Daily Times en déduit que l’adhésion du Pakistan est fort significatif, sur la scène géopolitique en plein bouleversement [15].

Avec moins d’enthousiasme cependant que le Pakistan, The Hindu exulte à l’idée que l’Inde et le Pakistan vont être des membres de plein droit de l’OSC ; on peut supposer que la Chine parraine le Pakistan, et la Russie l’Inde [16].


Or tout n’est pas rose dans le Groupe de Shanghai, car, selon Yang Jin, de l’Académie des Sciences sociales de Chine, la « crise financière globale, les prix en baisse des matières premières de première nécessité (staple commodities) et la détérioration des échanges qui découle des sanctions économiques appliquées à la Russie ont exercé des effets négatifs sur la stabilité (sic) et l’économie des membres de l’OCS », alors que « les grandes puissances (autrement dit les États-Unis, et plus précisément le « plan Brzezinki ») sont intervenus en profondeur dans les affaires régionales, perturbant les intérêts conjoints des membres de l’OCS », ce qui « a rendu difficile leur coopération circulaire » ; car à côté du binôme des superpuissances que sont la Chine et la Russie, quatre pays centre-asiatiques (Kazakhstan, Kirghizstan, Tadjikistan et Ouzbékistan) qui en sont membres, se disputent territoires, ressources en eau et ethnicité [17].

L’adhésion de l’Inde et du Pakistan au Groupe de Shanghai va-t-il lui donner un nouvel élan, après seize sommets décevants ?

Le problème de l’élargissement de l’OCS est qu’elle doit définir son objectif principal, la met face à un dilemme : constituer un bloc de sécurité militaire euro-asiatique pour contrecarrer l’Otan, ou intégrer sans plus un vulgaire bloc mercantiliste.

Le rapprochement entre l’ours russe et le dragon chinois, voilà l’évènement. Le People’s Daily affirme que l’association entre la Chine et la Russie sera un tournant implacable (sic) [18], tandis que Cao Siqi explique que la Chine et la Russie fortifient la stabilité globale et ont atteint un consensus contre l’hégémonie US [19].

Dans le Global Times, un éditorialiste considère que la pression des États-Unis resserre les liens entre la Chine et la Russie, alors que Washington est incapable d’abattre le dragon chinois et l’ours russe en même temps [20].

L’ancien régime est mort, vive la nouvelle ère !

Maria Poumier

La Jornada (Mexique)

[3] “Soros sees Russia emerging as global power as EU fades”, Andy Bruce & Kit Rees, Reuters, June 20th, 2016.

[4] “Hungarian Prime Minister accuses billionaire investor George Soros of trying to undermine Europe by supporting refugees travelling from the Middle East”, Jennifer Newton, Daily Mail, October 30th, 2015.

[5] “Billionaire Soros Was ‘Long’ on Pound Before Vote on Brexit”, Francine Lacqua & Sree Vidya Bhaktavatsalam, Bloomberg, June 27th, 2016.

[6] “Soros had Deutsche Bank ’short’ bet at time of Brexit fallout”, Arno Schuetze, Reuters, June 28th, 2016.

[7] « Gran Bretaña abandona a EU por China : alianza geofinanciera con "holandización" », Alfredo jalife-Rahme, La Jornada, 25 de Octobre de 2015.

[8] « Le Brexit redistribue la géopolitique mondiale », Thierry Meyssan, Réseau Voltaire, 27 juin 2016.

[9] “Brexit : ganó el nacionalismo británico/Perdió la globalización/Derrota de Obama/Triunfo de Putin”, Alfredo Jalife-Rahme, La Jornada, 26 de Junio de 2016.

[10] « Ташкентская декларация », Сеть Вольтер, 24 июня 2016.

[11] « "Un nuevo significado, un nuevo peso" : La organización que unirá casi a la mitad del planeta », Russia Today, 24 de Junio de 2016.

[12] « Presidente ruso Putin dice acepta rol de superpotencia de EEUU, diluye elogios a Trump », Grigory Dukor, Reuters, 17 de Junio de 2016.

[13] “Indian nuclear forces, 2015”, Hans M. Kristensen & Robert S. Norris, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, September 1st, 2015.

[14] “Pakistani nuclear forces, 2015”, Hans M. Kristensen & Robert S. Norris, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, September 1st, 2015.

[15] “Pakistan’s entry at SCO significant in changing geopolitical scenario”, Daily Times, June 26th, 2016.

[16] “India, Pakistan become full SCO members”, The Hindu, July 11th, 2015.

[17] “SCO needs to overcome diverse demands”, Yang Jin, Global Times, June 26th, 2016.

[18] “China, Russia pledge "unswerving" partnership”, People’s Daily, June 27th, 2016.

[19] “China, Russia to strengthen global stability”, Cao Siqi, Global Times, June 27th, 2016.

[20] “US pressure spurs closer Sino-Russian ties”, Global Times, June 27th, 2016.