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.

mardi, 13 septembre 2011

Le parachèvement de l'oléoduc de la Baltique plus rapide que prévu!

Le parachèvement de l'oléoduc de la Baltique plus rapide que prévu!


Le dernier lien vient d’être installé!


L’oléoduc de la Baltique, baptisé “Nord Stream”, est en voie d’achèvement définitif: une étape décisive vient d’être franchie dans la mesure où, à Lubmin près de Greifswald, notre oléoduc vient d’être soudé à l’oléoduc continental “Opal”. La liaison pour l’acheminement de gaz naturel de Russie vers l’Europe occidentale par la Baltique est devenue réalité. Quelque 55 milliards de m3 de gaz naturel devraient arriver à Lubmin chaque année. L’année prochaine un nouveau tronçon devrait logiquement amener le gaz de Lubmin à Brème. Mais les premières fournitures de gaz sibérien doivent arriver en Europe cette année déjà.


Tout cela indique que les travaux ont été parachevés plus rapidement que prévu. Le gaz naturel, qui arrive à Lubmin, emprunte l’oléoduc continental “Opal” de Wingas jusqu’à la frontière tchèque. Grâce à cela, 26 millions de foyers recevront ce gaz. Gazprom a déjà conclu des accords avec Dong Energy (Danemark), Eon Ruhrgas et Wingas (Allemagne), GDF-Suez (France) et Gazprom Marketing & Trading (Grande-Bretagne).


Gazprom détient 51% des actions du consortium “Nord Stream”. Les entreprises allemandes BASF Wintershall et Eon Ruhrgas détiennent chacune 15,5%, les Néerlandais de “Gasunie” et les Français de GDF-Suez détiennent tous deux 9%.


Contrairement à ce projet “Nord Stream”, le projet Nabucco, soutenu avec énormément de zèle par l’UE, ne va pas dans le sens des intérêts économiques et énergétiques allemands et européens: la politique de l’UE suit davantage les ukases politiques (et irréalistes) émis par l’eurocratie bruxelloise et par Washington. A partir de 2015, l’oléoduc Nabucco devrait faire transiter le gaz naturel en provenance de la région caspienne, via la Turquie puis la Bulgarie, la Roumanie et la Hongrie, pour aboutir à Baumgarten en Autriche.


Pour la Turquie, le projet Nabucco n’est jamais qu’un instrument pour favoriser la politique de candidature et d’adhésion à l’UE; il n’est qu’un atout de plus dans le jeu turc. Mais, dans ce cas, il n’est pas difficile de constater qu’Ankara n’est jamais autre chose qu’une pièce du jeu d’échec que jouent contre l’Europe les stratégistes américains. Ceux-ci ont grand intérêt à voir se réaliser ce projet caspien/turc, au détriment de toute liaison directe entre la Russie, d’une part, l’Allemagne et l’Europe occidentale, d’autre part. En réalité, le projet Nabucco est un pion dans la stratégie générale et globale que pratiquent les Etats-Unis sur l’échiquier eurasien.


(article paru dans “DNZ”, Munich, n°36/2011, 2 sept. 2011).


lundi, 12 septembre 2011

Racial War & the Implosion of the System



Racial War & the Implosion of the System

by Pierre Vial

Translated by Greg Johnson

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

Burning buildings, stores and shopping malls robbed and vandalized, streets strewn with debris, blackened carcasses of buses, cars, police vehicles . . . These images of London, Birmingham, Bristol, and Liverpool have been beamed around the world on television. They evoked what Labour deputy Diane Abbott called “a war zone” (a theater, said Le Monde on August 10th, of “urban guerrilla warfare”).

The French media immediately wanted to set the tone for interpreting these events: it is the fault of social tensions due to cuts in public funds for the most vulnerable; it is the fault of unemployment and thus idleness; and it is the fault, of course, of the British police force (“the blunders of the police force” according to the conservative daily Daily Mail, just as false as the French newspapers). All is explained . . . and the hooded rioters are “youths” with restless hearts. Well-organized, all the same (one is thus far from the spontaneous and superficial reactions of hooligans), with a communications system well-enough developed to sustain the assault waves for several successive days.

But what about the government? Prime Minister Cameron, the Minister of the Interior, the Minister for Finance, the mayor of London were all . . . on vacation (Cameron in Italy). The rioters were definitely ill-bred to choose such a moment. They could have awaited their return.

It is undeniable that the social climate deteriorated by unfettered liberalism has caused much discontent. But that was merely grafted on a will to racial confrontation. The death of a West-Indian delinquent during a police operation against the West-Indian gangs was the pretext of the outbreak of the riots. The first nucleus of revolt was the district of Tottenham, euphemistically described as “multiethnic,” the majority of its population being of West-Indian origin. The rioters wished to show—and they succeeded—that they could rule the streets in defiance of white power and order. Even Le Monde, in spite of its ideological presuppositions, recognized in passing (August 9th) that it was “about the most serious racial confrontation in the United Kingdom since the Oldham disorders of 2001” and that there was thus indeed a “race riot.”

The shine has come off multiculturalism, which has long been presented as the British answer to racial tensions, and which Cameron recently admitted is a failure (as did Angela Merkel of Germany). It was based on the irenic conviction that various racial communities could cohabit harmoniously in the same territory. This illusion is due to the ideological presuppositions that one finds on the right as well as on the left among intellectuals who simply deny the burden of reality. Realities so disturbing to their mental comfort that they must be stubbornly denied. Until the day they catch up with you . . .

This day has come for many Britons. As Libération (August 16th) notes, they are following the advice being reproduced on large placards posted by the police or painted on the plywood covering broken shop windows: it is necessary to locate and denounce the “rats in hoods” (in England as in France the immigrant delinquents like to hide their faces). In particular, self-defense militias are setting themselves up to ensure order and safety in the threatened districts. To mitigate the inefficiency of a police force paralyzed by politically correct taboos (as admitted by a bobby quoted in Le Monde on August 12th: “The order was to intervene with caution to avoid the charges of brutality, of racism.”)

The present System, sapped by its internal contradictions, is in the process of imploding. Racial warfare is now bubbling beneath the surface in many European countries. Now is the time to denounce without respite the devastations of liberal capitalism and to preach a realistic, that is to say, a racialist, conception of a society in order to free the minds and will to resistance and reconquest or our European brothers.

Source: http://tpprovence.wordpress.com/ [2]


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

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/08/racial-war-and-the-implosion-of-the-system/

Racial War & the Implosion of the System

By Pierre Vial

Translated by Greg Johnson

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

Burning buildings, stores and shopping malls robbed and vandalized, streets strewn with debris, blackened carcasses of buses, cars, police vehicles . . . These images of London, Birmingham, Bristol, and Liverpool have been beamed around the world on television. They evoked what Labour deputy Diane Abbott called “a war zone” (a theater, said Le Monde on August 10th, of “urban guerrilla warfare”).

The French media immediately wanted to set the tone for interpreting these events: it is the fault of social tensions due to cuts in public funds for the most vulnerable; it is the fault of unemployment and thus idleness; and it is the fault, of course, of the British police force (“the blunders of the police force” according to the conservative daily Daily Mail, just as false as the French newspapers). All is explained . . . and the hooded rioters are “youths” with restless hearts. Well-organized, all the same (one is thus far from the spontaneous and superficial reactions of hooligans), with a communications system well-enough developed to sustain the assault waves for several successive days.

But what about the government? Prime Minister Cameron, the Minister of the Interior, the Minister for Finance, the mayor of London were all . . . on vacation (Cameron in Italy). The rioters were definitely ill-bred to choose such a moment. They could have awaited their return.

It is undeniable that the social climate deteriorated by unfettered liberalism has caused much discontent. But that was merely grafted on a will to racial confrontation. The death of a West-Indian delinquent during a police operation against the West-Indian gangs was the pretext of the outbreak of the riots. The first nucleus of revolt was the district of Tottenham, euphemistically described as “multiethnic,” the majority of its population being of West-Indian origin. The rioters wished to show—and they succeeded—that they could rule the streets in defiance of white power and order. Even Le Monde, in spite of its ideological presuppositions, recognized in passing (August 9th) that it was “about the most serious racial confrontation in the United Kingdom since the Oldham disorders of 2001” and that there was thus indeed a “race riot.”

The shine has come off multiculturalism, which has long been presented as the British answer to racial tensions, and which Cameron recently admitted is a failure (as did Angela Merkel of Germany). It was based on the irenic conviction that various racial communities could cohabit harmoniously in the same territory. This illusion is due to the ideological presuppositions that one finds on the right as well as on the left among intellectuals who simply deny the burden of reality. Realities so disturbing to their mental comfort that they must be stubbornly denied. Until the day they catch up with you . . .

This day has come for many Britons. As Libération (August 16th) notes, they are following the advice being reproduced on large placards posted by the police or painted on the plywood covering broken shop windows: it is necessary to locate and denounce the “rats in hoods” (in England as in France the immigrant delinquents like to hide their faces). In particular, self-defense militias are setting themselves up to ensure order and safety in the threatened districts. To mitigate the inefficiency of a police force paralyzed by politically correct taboos (as admitted by a bobby quoted in Le Monde on August 12th: “The order was to intervene with caution to avoid the charges of brutality, of racism.”)

The present System, sapped by its internal contradictions, is in the process of imploding. Racial warfare is now bubbling beneath the surface in many European countries. Now is the time to denounce without respite the devastations of liberal capitalism and to preach a realistic, that is to say, a racialist, conception of a society in order to free the minds and will to resistance and reconquest or our European brothers.

Source: http://tpprovence.wordpress.com/ [2]


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

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/08/racial-war-and-the-implosion-of-the-system/

La distruzione della Libia, una crescente minaccia per la Russia

La distruzione della Libia, una crescente minaccia per la Russia

Guennadi Ziouganov

Ex: http://gazeta-pravda.ru/content/view/8768/34/

Pravda, 1 Settembre 2011


Secondo i media, le forze che cercano di rovesciare il governo della Libia hanno occupato la capitale, Tripoli, e diverse altre città. Ovunque siano commettono omicidi di massa e saccheggi. E’ stato anche saccheggiato l’eccezionale museo nazionale di Tripoli.


Tutto questo parla da se del tipo di persone coinvolte nella lotta contro il governo legittimo. E’ ben noto che l’”opposizione” che si sarebbe ribellata contro la “tirannia” di Gheddafi, sta ricevendo armi dall’estero. Ma ancora, non avrebbero potuto affrontare le truppe del governo libico, senza il sostegno massiccio dell’aviazione della NATO, che ha distrutto i centri di comando, depositi di munizioni e armi e le linee di comunicazione. I “ribelli” appaiono solo dopo che la tempesta di fuoco della NATO ha distrutto ogni cosa sul suo cammino.


Questo è certamente un intervento militare, accuratamente nascosto dietro lo schermo trasparente dei “ribelli”. In Libia, si sta perfezionando una nuova tattica per rovesciare i governi indesiderabili all’Occidente, con ampio uso di eserciti privati e di mercenari come ausiliari alla NATO. Tutto questa orgia si svolge sotto la copertura della risoluzione 1973 del Consiglio di Sicurezza delle Nazioni Unite e con l’attuazione del “no-fly zone”, il cui presunto obiettivo era proteggere la popolazione civile della Libia dai bombardamenti. In pratica, gli aerei della NATO ha lanciato attacchi con missili e bombe, non solo contro le posizioni dell’esercito libico, anche contro le strutture civili nelle città. Di conseguenza, essi hanno ucciso migliaia di civili, tra cui anziani e bambini. Fatti come questi sono, secondo il diritto internazionale, un crimine contro l’umanità. Ma la lingua dei Gesuiti della NATO, le vite distrutte vengono chiamate “danni collaterali”.


La Libia è l’ultima vittima dell’intervento globale della NATO, che è diventato possibile dopo la distruzione dell’Unione Sovietica. Proprio in questo momento, con la scomparsa di una forza capace di affrontare l’avventurismo dell’oligarchia mondiale, apparve al nostro attuale “partner” la sensazione dell’impunità. Imposta dall’esterno, ebbe inizio la guerra civile in Jugoslavia, che si è conclusa dopo 78 giorni di bombardamenti di città e cittadine indifese.


Poi gli Stati Uniti ed i suoi alleati hanno invaso l’Iraq, impigliandosi nel filo spinato di quel paese. Poi seguì l’Afghanistan, convertito dalle truppe di occupazione in un ritrovo per la produzione di droga. Nel frattempo, le agenzie d’intelligence dell’Alleanza avviarono le rivolte “arancione” in Georgia, Ucraina e Moldavia. Passando anni a cercare di rovesciare il Presidente bielorusso Lukashenko.


La Siria è prossimo della lista, sottoposta ad attacchi di insorti armati dall’esterno. Assistiamo alla guerra di informazione contro il governo siriano. Prova eloquente dei preparativi per l’intervento della NATO.


Oggi il mondo affronta un nuovo colonialismo, nella sua variante più disgustosa e cinica, proprio come lo era due secoli fa. L’ex potenze coloniali, USA, Regno Unito e Francia ancora rivendicano il diritto di decidere del destino di qualsiasi stato sovrano. Durante questa operazione “umanitaria” hanno calpestato la Carta delle Nazioni Unite e le norme del diritto internazionale. Come risultato, la Libia è stata sommersa nel caos, e potrebbe eventualmente svilupparsi successivamente nello scenario somalo: la divisione in innumerevoli tribù e clan che si combattono tra loro. La Russia è anch’essa responsabile della tragedia in Libia, dal momento che il governo ha dato il via libera alla risoluzione anti-Libia delle Nazioni Unite, non usando il suo potere di veto e, quindi, unendosi alle sanzioni contro la Libia. Questo ha significato non solo che abbiamo perso 20 miliardi di dollari di potenziali benefici dal commercio e della cooperazione economica con questo ricco paese africano, ma abbiamo anche perso uno degli stati amici che avevamo nella regione strategicamente importante del Mediterraneo.


Se non finisce questa orgia del neo-colonialismo, la Russia con i suoi sconfinati territori e le sue enormi riserve di materie prime, diventerà uno degli obiettivi futuri dell’esportazione atlantista della “democrazia”. Indebolito da due decenni di cosciente deindustrializzazione e decadenza, con un esercito demoralizzato e distrutto, il nostro Paese inevitabilmente diventerà un bersaglio per l’intervento.


Il PCRF condanna la pirateria mondiale dell’oligarchia coloniale ed esorta il governo della Federazione Russa a prendere coscienza delle conseguenze più pericolose che comporta la collusione con gli aggressori.


Solo un governo forte e patriottico, in grado di rilanciare l’industria, l’agricoltura, l’istruzione, la scienza e la cultura, il nostro passato di potenza e il ritorno delle nostre Forze Armate, può salvare la Russia dal ripetersi dello scenario libico delle rivoluzioni “colorate”.


Link: [1] http://josafatscomin.blogspot.com/2011/09/destruccion-de-libia-crecela-amenaza.html [2] http://gazeta-pravda.ru/content/view/8768/34/ http://tortillaconsal.com/tortilla/print/9378

Traduzione di Alessandro Lattanzio
http://www.aurora03.da.ru http://www.bollettinoaurora.da.ru http://aurorasito.wordpress.com

dimanche, 11 septembre 2011

The Meaning of European National Populism


The Meaning of European National Populism

By Francis Alexander

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

In the last decade, and especially the last few years, parties called “far-right” by the mainstream media and “national populist” by their members, have enjoyed considerable electoral successes.

This has occurred primarily in France, Scandinavia, Austria, Switzerland, Belgium, and the Netherlands. No such breakthroughs have been seen in Britain, Germany, or Spain. These parties have in several cases participated in coalition governments, but only as junior partners unable to truly dominate the political agenda.

Their growth has clearly been driven by popular anger at official attitudes towards mass immigration, national identity, and the EU (as well as certain economic issues such as bailouts, foreign aid, and globalization).

While paleoconservatives tend to embrace these parties, most racialists regard them with suspicion because of their admission of non-whites, their attitudes towards Jewry, their focus on Islam, and their appeal to liberal principles against it.

Ideologically, these parties have both liberal and New Right elements. The liberal rhetoric is quite well known, even infamous, on the right. Thus the Sweden Democrats claim their party’s principles are based upon the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (a UN document). Marine Le Pen claims to defend French state secularism against Islamification. Geert Wilders demands “no tolerance for the intolerant” and positions himself as the truest defender of liberalism, gays, women, etc.

The influence of the New Right is less well known but is present in some, if not all movements. Thus Fillip Dewinter of Vlaams Belang describes non-white immigration to Europe as colonization. Both he and Le Pen speak of European rather than Western Civilization, a distinction not often found outside the New Right. Dewinter goes so far as to speak of its superiority. This is all the sort of terminology used by Guillaume Faye. Similarly Le Pen denounces globalism and the EU as totalitarian. Denouncing liberalism, or in this case liberal institutions and practices, as totalitarian is straight out of the Alain de Benoist playbook. Similarly, the pro-Russian orientation of the Front National and other parties  can be regarded as evidence of New Right influences.

These liberal and anti-liberal themes exist in state of tension in these parties’ discourses. But the liberal element is in fact less objectionable than one might think.

Consider the fact that when whites begin to awaken in the United States, they will first do so by demanding a seat at the multicultural table. Something analogous to this has already happened in Europe, but with the appeal being to liberal nostrums other than multiculturalism, which is strongly attacked.

Europeans have already begun taking their own side.

As the demographic situation worsens and the number of Europeans enraged by it increases, the populists will grow in strength. Having established their credibility with the electorate, they will soon be able to use more explicitly ethnocentric and less liberal rhetoric without fear of marginalization.

We mentioned that they oppose multiculturalism. It is certainly a good thing that Europeans have not been reduced to demanding inclusion into multiculturalism. But what the populists propose instead, namely assimilation, is just as bad.

The only real alternative to “multiculturalism” (meaning multiracialism) is not assimilation, but mass deportation, also known as repatriation, expulsion, banishment, or even ethnic cleansing. This is a drastic measure that we know to be necessary, but it is perceived as unnecessary, not to mention cruel and unusual, by most people. In short, it is unpopular, and we are referring to populist parties, with all the drawbacks that entails.

If implemented, however, it would be popular. The economic, cultural, and even psychological benefits would be very great, not to mention addressing the existential threat our people currently faces.

Ultimately the only question that truly matters about these parties is whether or not, given the opportunity, they would expel all non-white communities from their respective nations. I think they will, regardless of what they say now. The popular demand for such measures will be orders of magnitude greater than it is now.

Furthermore, let us assume for a moment, as has been alleged, that the leaders of these parties have sold out their people to the elite and care only for gaining and retaining office. Even if this is true (and for the most part we can only guess about these politicians’ true attitudes), they would still have selfish reasons to pursue this policy.

One can take it for granted that national populists will never receive significant support from non-whites. They cannot out pander the panderers-in-chief, i.e., the center left parties, and for obvious reasons, anti-immigration nationalism is unappealing to immigrants and their descendants (although there are some bizarre exceptions). It therefore follows that eliminating this irreconcilable portion of the electorate from the voting rolls will increase nationalists’ prospects of re-election.

A similar consideration may well lead to either quiet support or only token opposition from center-right parties that face the same dilemma that US Republicans currently face. This dilemma is of course, the hostility of the large welfare-dependent colored populations towards their beloved free market economic nostrums, i.e., the only thing that truly matters to these bourgeois conservatives.

One should also bear in mind that if national populists are ever elected to real power, it is because the people are sufficiently angry to accept radical measures. They will have a mandate to eliminate the ethnic chaos. Anything other than deportation will not fulfill that mandate and will result in nothing but a slower but continuous growth in the non-white population, thus in ultimate political defeat.

Finally, we must turn to the manner in which these movements identify friends and enemies. This concerns Europe, Jewry, Islam, and other non-whites.

Their basic stance towards the EU is one of hostility, combined with a demand for withdrawal from it. While they are correct to oppose the present EU, they are incorrect to oppose the idea of Pan-European government. This, however, is a problem that can wait until they are in a position to shape foreign policy. Advocacy of a European Imperium or Euro-Siberia is something better done at diplomatic conferences than on the campaign trail, as it is simply too esoteric to be compatible with populism. If foreign policy can wait, then winning power is rightly their first priority.

As to their stance on that most controversial issue, the Jewish question, aside from the anomalous Geert Wilders, we can rule out sincere philo-Semitism as a motive for their abandoning anti-Semitic rhetoric and adopting a pro-Israel stance.

As Kevin MacDonald has pointed out, Jews have not offered any significant support to the national populist parties. The explanation for their Zionist rhetoric lies largely in providing an alibi to voters skittish of anything regarding the Third Reich.

One might add that that it also ensures that the full hysterical force of the Jewish community is not unleashed against them. Remember when Jörg Haider (known for his sympathetic references to the Third Reich), joined the Austrian government, causing a minor international crisis with Austria facing diplomatic sanctions? Nothing of this kind has happened since.

It is difficult to say for certain whether the leaders of these parties know the truth about the Jews, but I suspect that they do. After all they have personal experience of antifa attacks, demonization from the controlled media, exclusionary electoral pacts, etc. They are obviously capable of deducing who is behind these actions, not to mention who lobbies the hardest for open borders and the abolition of national identities.

One therefore has good reason to think that if non-whites were ever expelled from Europe, the Jews would be next on the list. This would only be a short step further, and has been the fate of their people since antiquity, although for it to happen on a pan-European scale would be historically unprecedented. It is therefore quite possible that the national populists will, to a certain extent, “sneak up on the Jews,” due to the latter’s generally passive and sullen reactions to attempts at “outreach,” the fact that their influence is more limited than in the US, as well as Islamic anti-Semitic sentiments. These confusions may prove paralyzing for the Jews.

More precisely, the national populists will only challenge organized Jewry when they are strong enough to do so and win. Deception is part of politics. Who would not forgive their present Zionist rhetoric, were they to actually end up expelling the Jews?

As to the Muslims, it is much more simple. They are Europe’s oldest enemy, the largest, and most cohesive and culturally alien immigrant group. Going after them is simply good politics, especially given their anti-liberal and religious rather than ethno-racial identity.

As to the other non-whites and the future problems they will pose, this is a good point to emphasize a crucial point I have been trying to make, namely the difference between electoral campaigns and policy. As things stand now, European racialists are in a bind, as Negroes and Orientals have not yet caused the same degree of popular outrage as the bellicose Muslims. When that changes as Europe becomes more like the US, i.e., with around 40 million Negroes rather than 4 to 8 and a more “market-dominant” Oriental population, then attitudes change will too. They are populists, thus their motto about the people could well be, “I am their leader, so I must follow them.”

This is fine for now, but when the time of crisis arrives, nationalist leaders must be willing to show real leadership and lead from the front. This means political courage, in addition to the obvious cunning and stoicism in the face of intimidation that they already show. If they have all this, then their chances of prevailing over the gutless pseudo-leaders of Europe are very good. One cannot look at the current European economic crisis and see anything other than desperation, cowardice, impotence, and blinkered incompetence among the so-called leaders of Europe.

Certainly, the electoral rhetoric of these parties is disagreeable to racialists in many ways. But they have not yet had the chance to truly control policy. If gaining that opportunity is possible, then a rather heretical electoral campaign does not matter. Words matter less than deeds, and the national populist parties’ willingness to act has not yet been truly tested. What the populists say about non-Muslim non-whites is less important than what they do about them.

So despite the generally negative value we can attribute to current national populist discourses, one can nonetheless take away several positives from the whole phenomenon. First of all, Europeans have begun to take their own side. Secondly, nationalists have for the first time in generations established themselves as a credible political force and a real part of European political life

This latter point is crucial, because when Europe’s demographic situation begins to worsen, there will be a plausible alternative to the system parties and an outlets for Europe’s rage. A skinhead groupsucule is simply not organizationally capable of harnessing that popular rage like these ever-so-professional and apparently bourgeois parties are.

When this happens, these parties’ stances will harden rather than soften. The anti-white ideology is already on the retreat, and system politicians such as Merkel, Cameron, and Sarkozy are only playing catch-up in denouncing multiculturalism.

Much has been gained and nothing really lost. As to the ideological heresies, they are not immutable, and campaign rhetoric costs nothing. One can only hope that because Europeans have begun taking their own side, nationalist leaders will be soon be strong enough to speak the truth more clearly, and be benefited rather than be harmed by it.

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

samedi, 10 septembre 2011

La diplomatie des mosquées


La diplomatie des mosquées

Ex: http://www.insolent.fr/

Les faits et les photos peuvent passer avant les commentaires. Ici le ministre turc des affaires étrangères M. Ahmet Davutoglou fête la fin du Ramadan à Sarajevo. On le voit entouré de Bakir Izetbegovic, membre de la présidence collégiale de Bosnie-Herzégovine et du chef religieux, le "reis ul islam" Mustafa Ceric. Cela se passe en la mosquée édifiée au XVIe siècle par Gazi Husrev-beg (1480-1541) gouverneur ottoman de la Bosnie, puis de la Syrie, à l'époque de Soliman le Magnifique.


Les jours précédents le même professeur de géopolitique, devenu maître d'œuvre de la politique extérieure d'Ankara s'était rendu dans deux autres pays des Balkans. Au Kossovo, il avait accompli ses dévotions d'abord à la mosquée impériale de Pristina. Celle-ci est également connue sous le nom de "Mehmed Fatih", en l'honneur du conquérant de Constantinople Mehmet II qui en avait ordonné la construction en 1461. Puis, dans le même territoire majoritairement albanais, il avait visité l'élégante mosquée édifiée au XVIIe siècle par Sofi Sinan Pacha et dont une légende veut qu'elle aurait été bâtie avec les matériaux du monastère des Saints-Archanges. Enfin en Roumanie, il avait accompli les mêmes gestes en un lieu édifié en 1910, aujourd'hui centre de l'implantation islamique locale, à la frontière bulgare, la mosquée "Hinkar" de style maure mais dont les guides aiment à souligner qu'elle copie son homologue de Konya, capitale des derviches tourneurs en Anatolie.

Commentant ce qu'il appelle la "diplomatie des mosquées" le journal pro gouvernemental turc Zaman Today (1)⇓ souligne que, jusqu'en 2002, les diplomates turcs visitaient traditionnellement leurs compatriotes mais que, depuis l'arrivée au pouvoir de l'AKP ils se tournent désormais au-delà des Turcs, au mépris de la laïcité, vers l'ensemble de leurs coreligionnaires.

Ne doutons pas une seconde que, pour un nombre non négligeable de Turcs, le souvenir de ce grand passé impérial représente une perspective de réimplantation dans les Balkans. Davutoglou, du reste, avait fait sensation à l'automne 2009 en y proclamant "Sarajevo est notre ville". Il s'agissait là, remarquions-nous à l'époque, du premier membre d'une phrase qu'il complétait en ajoutant, à l'attention des musulmans balkaniques : "Istanbul est votre Ville". (2)⇓

La même semaine écoulée, les journalistes français présents à Tirana pour la rencontre de podosphère entre les "bleus" et l'équipe nationale albanaise ne remarquaient guère un incident ayant justifié l'intervention de la Police. En effet, les irrédentistes locaux avaient déployé dans le stade une immense banderole de 30 mètres sur 40 figurant une carte de la Grande Albanie occupant des territoires actuellement situés dans divers pays voisins dans le sud de la Serbie, au Monténégro, ou dans l'ancienne république yougoslave de Macédoine. Le moment venu, ce genre d'étincelles, montées en épingle, pourrait justifier une intervention de l'armée turque, sans même que soit levée l'hypothèque du PKK, et avec la bénédiction du Département d'État.

Il était évidemment beaucoup plus encourageant, pour nos excellents moyens hexagonaux de désinformation, de mettre en exergue les quelques gestes, attendus depuis des années et promis désormais par le chef du gouvernement Erdogan en faveur des minorités non-musulmanes qui n'ont pas encore fui le pays. Quelques hôpitaux et écoles en bénéficieront. Un bon point, pensera-t-on. Il faut se pencher attentivement sur "Zaman" pour relever qu'au moins deux catégories de chrétiens échapperont apparemment à cette libéralisation : les Syriaques et les Turcs protestants (3)⇓. Les premiers souffrent sans doute de témoigner de l'injustifiable annexion du sandjak d'Alexandrette, les seconds indiscutablement coupables de prosélytisme.

Certes on peut se féliciter de voir normaliser certains aspects des relations entre l'État turc et les organismes de bienfaisance ou religieux arméniens, grecs ou juifs. Mais on n'omettra pas non plus de remarquer que cela aussi fait partie des traditions ottomanes et des théories islamiques : les gens du Livre ont droit à un statut spécial à la fois protégé et inférieur. Ils payent un impôt particulier et sont généreusement "dispensés" du service militaire. Beaucoup d'autres choses leur sont interdites, mais ils survivent. Les lecteurs de mon livre sur "La Question turque et l'Europe" ont compris que les crimes commis au XXe siècle ont été inspirés, dans ce pays comme ailleurs, par les adeptes d'une idéologie jacobine. Aujourd'hui le mouvement de Fethullah Gulen, qui inspire le pouvoir AKP, milite pour un retour aux principes antérieurs à la république et, donc, à une plus grande tolérance à l'égard des chrétiens. On ne doit pas l'ignorer.

L'expert géopolitique Ahmet Davutoglou a jusqu'à maintenant échoué dans son programme poudre aux yeux "pas de problèmes avec nos voisins". Les problèmes existants ne sont pas résolus. D'autres sont même apparus. Mais il ne renoncera pas à sa vision tridimensionnelle de l'expansion turque, à la fois vers le Proche Orient en posant au protecteur des Arabes, vers l'Asie centrale en rivalisant avec les Russes, et en utilisant contre l'Europe les minorités islamiques.

Ne nous méprenons pas sur les bonheurs passagers de l'économie turque actuelle. Ce triple rêve tourne évidemment le dos aux derniers lambeaux des principes légués par Mustafa Kemal. Mais il confirme encore plus la grave erreur que développent encore les négociations d'adhésion de ce pays aux institutions encore fragiles de l'Union européenne.

JG Malliarakis

  1. cf. Zaman Today du 4 août 2011 article "Ahmet Davutoğlu conducts ‘mosque diplomacy’ in Balkans".
  2. cf. L'Insolent du 4 janvier 2010 "Comment les Turcs regardent leurs alliances".
  3. cf. cf. Zaman Today du 4 août 2011 article "Non-Muslims praise law to return properties, await its implementation".

    Vous pouvez entendre l'enregistrement de nos chroniques
    sur le site de



    Lumière 101


vendredi, 09 septembre 2011

Jazeker, ons onderwijs boert achteruit


Jazeker, ons onderwijs boert achteruit

Gerard Bodifee

Ex: http://www.standaard.be/artikel/
Je moet alleen maar naar de talenkennis kijken en je weet dat het secundair onderwijs ondermaats is, schrijft GERARD BODIFEE. En, pakweg, geschiedenis en wiskunde zijn in hetzelfde bedje ziek

Minister Pascal Smet laat weten dat de kwaliteit van het onderwijs in Vlaanderen niet achteruit gaat (DS 27 augustus). Hij spreekt een groot deel van de vijfduizend leraren tegen die in een enquête te kennen gaven dat het niveau van ons onderwijs, vooral het secundair onderwijs, daalt. De leraren spreken vanuit hun ervaring op het terrein. Waarop baseert de minister zich? Geeft hij alleen maar een goed-nieuws-show weg, of presenteert hij een correct beeld van de werkelijkheid?

Uiteindelijk tellen alleen de feiten. Vergelijkingen met het onderwijs in het buitenland zijn moeilijk te maken wegens verschillende curricula, criteria en demografische gegevens. Bovendien zou bij een eventuele soortgelijke ontwikkeling in onze buurlanden een achteruitgang hier niet aan het licht komen. Waar een vergelijking met Aziatische landen wel enigszins mogelijk is (met betrekking tot wiskunde bijvoorbeeld) blijkt dat we onze eersterangspositie snel aan het verliezen zijn.

Engels dan maar?

Maar er zijn feiten die door iedereen geconstateerd kunnen worden zonder diepgravend onderzoek. Neem de kennis van de Nederlandse taal. Jongeren kunnen over het algemeen hun moedertaal niet meer correct schrijven, zoals elk bedrijf dat sollicitatiebrieven ontvangt constateert. De achteruitgang betreft niet alleen de spelling, maar ook grammatica, stijl en woordenschat. (Daartegenover staat dat men de jonge generatie graag een compliment wil geven voor inventiviteit in het taalgebruik, maar dat hebben ze niet op school geleerd.) Even dramatisch is de achteruitgang van de kennis van de Franse taal. Vlaanderen speelt daarmee in dit complexe land een van zijn belangrijkste troeven kwijt. Onze legendarische tweetaligheid is verschrompeld tot een Waals niveau. En al blijft Duitsland onze grote buur, de studie van die taal is zo goed als volledig uit het secundair onderwijs verdwenen.

Staat tegenover een vermindering van de kennis van het Nederlans, Frans en Duits, niet een meer parate kennis van het Engels, de nieuwe lingua franca? Indien men vertrouwdheid met deze taal als maatstaf neemt, kan hier van een vooruitgang gesproken worden. Maar als men het zou wagen te polsen naar bekendheid met de Engelse literatuur, of naar de vaardigheid om zich correct en genuanceerd in de Engelse taal uit te drukken, verdwijnt al snel elke reden tot optimisme.

Oud is uit

Is er dan niets dan slecht nieuws? Laten we de werkelijkheid onder ogen zien, ook als die niet beantwoordt aan het rooskleurige beeld dat de minister ervan ophangt. Neem het vak geschiedenis. Na decennia van didactische experimenten, waarbij chronologie en feitenkennis moesten wijken voor thema's en projecten, is vrijwel elk historisch besef bij de leerlingen verdwenen. Nog slechts een miniem deel van de leerlingen kan genieten van een kennismaking met antieke talen. Daardoor dreigen we voor het eerst in onze geschiedenis afgesneden te worden van de wortels van de eigen beschaving. Leerlingen zijn niet meer vertrouwd met de betekenis van oude symbolen, traditionele gebruiken of religieuze riten. Met de inhoud van teksten, zowel religieuze als profane, die onze beschaving gesticht en gevormd hebben, komen ze nauwelijks nog in aanraking.

Misschien heeft deze kritiek te veel met het verleden te maken. Dient het onderwijs niet op de toekomst gericht te zijn? Het is niet nodig hier een van de vele wijze spreuken aan te halen die leren dat er geen toekomst opgebouwd kan worden zonder kennis van het verleden. We bepalen ons hier tot de feiten. Ook met de zogenaamde exacte vakken, die volgens de algemene mening de toekomst vertegenwoordigen, gaat het niet goed. Wiskunde en fysica lijden onder de dwang om elk probleem aanschouwelijk voor te stellen, in directe aansluiting op de leefwereld van de jongeren. Maar wiskunde is per definitie een oefening in abstract denken. Het mathematische denken kwijnt weg, wanneer het vervangen wordt door anekdotiek en alledaagsheid.

Leve de romantiek

Er kan geen twijfel bestaan over de desastreuze gevolgen van dertig jaar vernieuwing en geëxperimenteer. Het is nodig de werkelijkheid onder ogen te zien. Kritiek op vernieuwing wordt vaak afgedaan als nostalgie naar een verleden 'toen alles beter was'. Maar dat is onzin. Vanzelfsprekend deugde vroeger niet alles (zo was goed onderwijs maar voor een minderheid weggelegd). Evenmin is alles wat nieuw is, goed. In plaats van de ontkenning, hebben we een remedie nodig. Het gezag van de leraar voor de klas moet hersteld worden. Laat bureaucraten en avant-garde pedagogen plaats maken voor bekwame en bezielde leerkrachten. Alleen de weg die tot herstel van de kwaliteit van het onderwijs kan leiden, is de juiste weg, ook als die terug zou voeren naar een meer traditioneel onderwijs.

Minister Smet orakelt dat onderwijs waarin een leraar voor de klas staat en de leerlingen luisteren, in geen geval kan terugkeren. Dat is romantiek uit de negentiende eeuw, sneert hij. Maar wat was er verkeerd aan de romantiek? Waarom mag wat ooit degelijk was, in geen geval terugkeren?

jeudi, 08 septembre 2011

Multikulti-Schock: Migranten wollen keine Roma-Kinder an Schulen

Multikulti-Schock: Migranten wollen keine Roma-Kinder an Schulen

Udo Ulfkotte

Die multikulturelle Schein-Idylle bricht immer schneller auseinander. Gerade erst haben wir darüber berichtet, dass amerikanische Indianer aus rein rassistischen Gründen Schwarze verjagen. Und schon kommt die nächste schockierende Nachricht: In Belgien wollen Migranten ihre Kinder nicht länger in Schulklassen mit anderen Migrantenkindern schicken. Vor allem Roma und christliche Osteuropäer lehnen sie strikt ab. Mitten in Europa bricht aus Sicht der Migranten nun auseinander, was ohnehin nicht zusammen gehört.



Die Belgier rieben sich in den vergangenen Tagen verwundert die Augen. Sie lasen Schlagzeilen in den Zeitungen wie »Ook allochtonen ontvluchten concentratiescholen«. Das bedeutet übersetzt, dass Ausländer keine Schulklassen mit vielen Ausländerkindern wollen. In solchen Artikeln heißt es dann, intelligente Migranten zögen überall ihre Kinder aus Schulklassen mit hohem Ausländeranteil ab und schickten diese lieber in »weiße Vorstädte« zum Unterricht, wo noch möglichst wenig Migrantenkinder seien. In einer Stadt wie Antwerpen findet man deshalb jetzt in der Innenstadt an den Schulen fast nur noch Ausländerkinder und in den Schulen der Vorstädte die Kinder der Einheimsichen und von intelligenteren Migranten.

Mehr: http://info.kopp-verlag.de/hintergruende/deutschland/udo-ulfkotte/multikulti-schock-migranten-wollen-keine-roma-kinder-an-schulen.html

Presseschau - September 2011 (2)


September 2011 (2)

Noch ein paar Nachträge des Monats, die in die Presseschau spezial einzuarbeiten vergessen worden waren...

Bei DGB-Diskussion in Offenbach mit OB-Kandidaten will am Kopftuch-Tabu für Erzieherinnen keiner rütteln
Geschichten aus der Fremde

(unaufgeregte Leserdiskussion)
Rechtsextremismus in der Region: Verfassungsschutz beobachtet neue Gruppe "Nationale Sozialisten"
"Bewegung in der Szene"

Cyber-Mobbing auf dem Vormarsch

Kommentar: Über Folgen aufklären

mercredi, 07 septembre 2011

Krantenkoppen - September 2011 (1)


September 2011 (1)
"De nieuwe belasting (...) is in de eerste plaats gericht op gezouten of gesuikerde koekjes, energiedrankjes en voorverpakte taarten. De regering van wil met de taks iets doen aan de voedingsgewoonten van de Hongaren, die te veel vetstoffen, suiker en zout gebruiken":
"If its secret isn’t oil, what is so unique about the state? North Dakota has one thing that no other state has: its own state-owned bank":
"The fear of losing their home is causing many anguished families to go without enough to eat in order to ensure that they have sufficient money to pay their mortgage":
"The continued resistance exposes the lie of the so-called democratic 'rebel' forces that have been set up by Britain, France and the U.S. to facilitate the imperialist invasion of the oil-rich country. Meanwhile, arms have been distributed by the Libyan government to the whole population – something a hated dictator would never do":
"Defence sources have confirmed that British special forces have been on the ground in Libya for several weeks, along with special forces from Qatar, France and some eastern European states":
"Gerd-Helmut Komossa, Generalmajor der Bundeswehr a.D., war Chef des MAD. In diesem Buch gewährt er einen erhellenden Blick hinter die Kulissen der Geheimpolitik. Hier lesen Sie, was Sie eigentlich nicht wissen sollten. (...) Dass sich jeder deutsche Bundeskanzler vor seinem Amtsantritt in den USA Anweisungen abholen und diese unterzeichnen muss (Kanzlerakte), dass die deutschen Goldreserven größtenteils in den USA und England liegen und als Pfand für die Alliierten dienen, wurde bislang immer nur als Verschwörungstheorie abgetan. Dass Deutschland bis heute kein souveräner Staat ist, haben viele bislang nur geahnt":
"Washington continues to seek new mechanisms to achieve its eternal objective of recovering control over Venezuela’s strategic resources – the largest oil reserves on the planet – and this means putting an end to Hugo Chavez":
"NAVO-militairen zijn ook op het terrein aanwezig om de rebellen te leiden of te omkaderen en om de luchtmacht op te roepen wanneer Khaddafi’s troepen tegenstand bieden":
"Wat Davignon en de 'bekeerde' superrijken eigenlijk voorstellen, is een nieuwe vorm van liefdadigheid. (...) Tijdelijke liefdadigheid om het systeem te redden dat hen superrijk heeft gemaakt":
"Nombre d’observateurs en Occident totalement intoxiqués par la propagande anti-Kadhafi ne parviennent pas à comprendre comment le dirigeant libyen conserve toujours l’appui de sa population (...). Comment les Libyens ne soutiennent-ils pas plus les 'courageux' insurgés du CNT?":
"Un accord a été signé entre Israël et le Conseil National de Transition (CNT) libyen à Benghazi, concernant l’installation d’une base militaire sioniste dans la région de Djebel Akhdar, pour une durée de 30 années":
"One of the first members of the French team in Bengazhi in March was a representative of Total, the French oil company":
"Ze stuurden een deurwaarder en een verhuiswagen naar hun bankkantoor, waar ze beslag wilden laten leggen op het gebouw en de inboedel. De zaak bleek plots in een uur tijd geregeld te kunnen worden":
"I'm not a good American, ... cause I like to form my own opinion! (...) Rule number 1: I don't believe anything the government says."
"The plan includes keeping large portions of the Gadhafian apparatus intact, on condition of loyalty to the new, pro-West regime. There will be the 'Tripoli task force', a 15,000-man force operated by the United Arab Emirates which will occupy Tripoli and conduct mass arrests of Gadhafi’s supporters":
"In 2010 werden ruim driehonderd miljard bonnen verspreid over het land. Couponing – met bonnen zo veel mogelijk korting krijgen – is een bestaand werkwoord. De politie in Arkansas hield onlangs een vrouw aan die 185 exemplaren van een lokale zondagskrant had gestolen. Het was haar om de bonnen te doen. In Alabama is de diefstal van kranten dit jaar met 30% gestegen".

Stefan Hug: Migrantengewalt


Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,
die erste Auflage unseres Buches "Migrantengewalt" von Stefan Hug (Erstauflage: Oktober 2010) war innerhalb weniger Monate vergriffen. Ab 19.9.2011 ist die Neuauflage nun wieder lieferbar.
Das Thema bleibt - leider - aktuell. Die Gewaltexzesse in London haben gezeigt, wie instabil die europäischen Gesellschaften sind. Angesichts der zunehmenden Ausländergewalt wirken sie hilflos und paralysiert.
Hug beschreibt in seinem Werk die Selbstentmachtung des deutschen Staates und wie die politische Klasse in Deutschland das Problem der Migrantengewalt schönredet, mit statistischen Tricks manipuliert oder schlicht ignoriert. Die meisten Menschen in unserem Land nehmen die Gewaltdelikte aus den Kreisen von Migranten und das oft erschreckende Zurückweichen unserer Ordnungskräfte, die milden Urteile der Justiz und  die immer stärker multikulturalistische Gesetzgebung mit großer Sorge und Angst vor der Bedrohung des inneren Friedens in Deutschland wahr.
Mit dem Werk des Politikwissenschaftlers Stefan Hug erscheint nun bereits in 2. Auflage eine sachkundige, faktenreiche und umfassende politische Analyse dieses drängenden gesellschaftlichen Problems.
Stefan Hug
Wie sich unser Staat selbst entmachtet
2. Auflage
304 Seiten, Hardcover, gebunden
ISBN 978-3-937820-13-2
Preis: 19,80 Euro
Erscheinungstermin: 19.September 2011
Migrantengewalt gehört zu den großen tabuisierten Themen in unserer Gesellschaft. Ebenso wie die aktuelle Debatte um die katastrophale demographische Entwicklung aufgrund einer fehlgesteuerten Zuwanderung in Deutschland nimmt die Bevölkerung die wachsenden Gewaltprobleme aus Kreisen muslimischer Migranten mit größter Sorge wahr, während die politische Klasse sie schönredet, statistisch manipuliert oder schlicht ignoriert.

Der Politikwissenschaftler Stefan Hug analysiert auf hohem Niveau und stets untermauert mit Beispielen aus dem polizeilichen Alltag die Ursachen und Auswirkungen der extrem hohen Gewaltkriminalität, die von Teilen der türkischen und arabischen Migranten ausgeht. Dabei findet der religiös-kulturelle Hintergrund dieser überwiegend muslimisch geprägten Zuwanderer sein besonderes Interesse. Viele von ihnen verhalten sich nicht anders als in ihren Herkunftsländern, in denen der Rechtsstaat ein Fremdwort und die eigene Sippe der einzige verläßliche Rückhalt ist; Herkunftsländer, in denen Nichtmuslime Menschen zweiter Klasse sind, gegängelt und unterdrückt werden.

Hug kommt in seiner faktenreichen Studie, die durch Detailkenntnisse aus den Bereichen der bundesdeutschen Polizeiarbeit und Verwaltung, der Rechtsprechung und der Gesetzgebung geprägt ist, zu der alarmierenden Erkenntnis: Das staatliche Gewaltmonopol in Deutschland ist extrem gefährdet. In vielen Stadtteilen, in denen sich Parallelgesellschaften mit eigenem, islamisch fundiertem Recht herausgebildet haben, existiert es eigentlich gar nicht mehr. Denn wenn die Polizei mit Moscheegemeinden kooperieren muß, um Recht durchzusetzen, wenn viele Türken und Araber Polizisten nur noch anerkennen, wenn diese selbst Türken und Araber, Muslime sind, dann hat der Staat verloren. Wenn das Gewaltmonopol geteilt wird, ist es kein Monopol mehr.

Die Arbeit Hugs erhält einen besonderen Wert auch dadurch, daß er diese für den staatlichen Zusammenhalt und die demokratische Konstitution Deutschlands so verheerende Entwicklung stets in einen geistesgeschichtlichen und politischen Zusammenhang einzuordnen versteht und die wahren Ursachen nicht bei den Migranten, sondern bei den Deutschen und ihrer unterdrückten nationalen Identität sieht. Unser Staat wird nicht von Fremden unterminiert – vielmehr entmachtet er sich systematisch selbst! Und wo der Staat keine Macht mehr hat, ist dem Bürgerkrieg der Boden bereitet!



Stefan Hug, M.A., Jahrgang 1968, studierte Politikwissenschaft und Volkskunde in Kiel und Tübingen. Tätigkeit als freier Autor und Journalist. Zahlreiche Publikationen zu kulturellen und historisch-politischen Themen in der Bundesrepublik, der Schweiz und Österreich. Letzte Buchveröffentlichung: "Hollywood greift an! Kriegsfilme machen Politik…" (Graz 2009)

Wir bitten um Vorbestellungen!

Vielen Dank!
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Bublies Verlag
Bergstr. 11
56290 Beltheim-Schnellbach
Tel. 06746 / 730046
Fax 06746 / 730048

mardi, 06 septembre 2011

Presseschau - September 2011 (1)


September 2011 (1)


Nach Norwegen-Massaker
EU sagt Rechtsextremismus den Kampf an

Krieger wider die Gleichheit

Jörges: „Vom Hass verblendete Anti-Islamisten“

Das Monster, die Mitte und die Medien

Fjordman tritt an die Öffentlichkeit

(ehrliches Völkchen)
Japaner finden Milliarden Yen unter Trümmern

(Die problematische Rolle von Juden (wohlgemerkt nicht DER Juden!) bei der Propagierung des Multikulturalismus anhand eines Beispiels ...)
"Jews will play a leading role in multicultural Europe," says Jewish researcher

Berlin, Libyen und der Westen

(und hier meldet sich mal wieder einer der Kriegshetzer zu Wort…)
Oettinger kritisiert deutsche Libyen-Politik

Ursache für Absturz in Afghanistan klar
Granate traf US-Hubschrauber

"Geheimaktion Gross-Moskau"
Megapolis: Russlands Hauptstadt soll mächtig wachsen

"Tigerstaat hineinlassen"
Daimler-Chef wirbt für Türkei-Beitritt der EU


(umfassende Kritik der „political correctness“ !)
Der lange Arm des Teufels - oder:
das Unerklärbare erklären

Die verdunkelte Aufklärung – Teil II

(Zum Zustand der CDU)
Eine Schwalbe macht noch keinen Sommer

Bürgerliche Werte
„Ich beginne zu glauben, dass die Linke recht hat“
Im bürgerlichen Lager werden die Zweifel immer größer, ob man richtig gelegen hat, ein ganzes Leben lang. Gerade zeigt sich in Echtzeit, dass die Annahmen der größten Gegner zuzutreffen scheinen.
Von Frank Schirrmacher

Konservative zweifeln an ihren Analysen
Aus Erfahrung klüger

Die linke Versuchung des Bürgers Schirrmacher
…und die bürgerliche Klarsicht des Dramatikers Strauß

Der rechte Abschied von der Politik

LobbyControl. Initiative für Transparenz und Demokratie

Magistrat erhöht Limit
Streit um Darmstadts Schulden

Der ideelle Schatten der Krise

(richtiger Kommentar…)
Wulffs Schelte an Politik
Kommentar: Präsidiale Luftnummer

"...auch wenn es uns schmerzt."
BDI-Präsident Hans-Peter Keitel nennt den Preis für die Euro-Rettung

Wowereit: Großes Verständnis für Papst-Proteste

Verquere Sprachpolitik im Ländle

Tausende West-Spione der DDR unentdeckt

Bild verkauft DDR-Nationaltrikots

Schwedische Königin Silvia
Nazi-Vergangenheit des Vaters widerlegt?

Rudolf Hess – ein Nachtrag

(Auweia, soviel Dummheit tut schon weh…)
Skandal bei Kanu-WM! Nazi-Hymne für deutsches Sieger-Duo

Kanu-WM: Bei Siegesfeier ertönte plötzlich Nazi-Hymne

Skandal um Nazi-Hymne bei Kanu-EM
Bei der Siegerehrung ertönte die seit der NS-Zeit in Deutschland geächtete erste Strophe des Deutschlandlieds.

(Jetzt wird der Run auf Billy-Regale erst richtig losgehen…)
Dunkle Nazi-Vergangenheit des reichsten Schweden

Der wahnsinnige Sklave – Teil I


Mathias Brodkorb
Wo der rechte Rand verläuft

(Straßenbenennung nach Kommunisten in Berlin)
Freiwillig von West nach Ost

(Zu „Antifa“-Mordaufrufen)
Quod erat demonstrandum

„Demokratische“ Gewalt
„Kampf gegen Rechts“ wird immer krimineller!

(Eine Geschmacklosigkeit jagt die andere…)
Wahlkampf in Berlin
Jörg Haider im Kampf gegen die NPD
"Die Partei" überklebt Plakate der Rechtextremisten

Jungsozialist ruft zum Massenmord auf

Wieder brennende Autos in Berlin

Berlin und die brennenden Autos: „Unsere Ehre heißt Feigheit“

Linksradikale Szene nimmt Berliner Politiker ins Visier

Linksextremist attackiert Berliner Pro Deutschland-Chef

Brutaler Angriff auf Raimund Borrmann

Linke Gewalt wird totgeschwiegen

Nazis im Briefkasten
Ungewöhnliche Post: Die Antifa outet mit Flyern rechte Aktivisten - deren Nachbarn im Nord- und Ostend sowie in Bornheim sind überrascht.

Nordrhein-Westfalen gründet Beratungsnetzwerk für Opfer rechtsextremer Gewalt

Prominente fordern Distanzierung von "Junger Welt"

Linken-Chef Ernst gibt CSU Schuld für Angriffe auf Parteibüros

Polizei durchsucht Räume von Jenaer Jugendpfarrer

Linksextreme Internetseite ruft zum Mord an Polizisten auf

Altermedia unter neuer Adresse

Prüfstelle setzt Zeitschrift „Bock“ auf den Index

Am Pranger der Islamkritiker
Die Suche nach den Machern der rechtsextremen Internet-Seite "Nürnberg 2.0"

Islam-Kritiker betreiben Internet-Pranger
Unworte und Untaten

Kult der Beliebigkeit
Teil 1: Grauzonen und rechte Lebenswelten in Punk und Oi

Kontroverse Blutachse

Linke Aggregatszustände (1): „Die Linke“ stumpf mit dem Kopf gegen die Wand der eigenen Schwächen

Linke Aggregatszustände (2): Pathologisch im Laufrad der NS-Geschichte

Linke Aggregatszustände (3): Restbestände alter Analysefähigkeit


Aufruhr in Tottenham, Nordlondon

Tottenham und die Angst der Medien

(Eines der herrlichsten Zitate zu den Ausschreitungen war in diesem vielfach gedruckten dpa-Text von Michael Donhauser zu finden: „Die Bereitschaft, die Grenzen des Gesetzes zu überschreiten, scheint in den sozialen Brennpunkten stark ausgeprägt.“…)
Banden ließen Ruinen zurück

Wer so alles krude ist …

Schluß mit dem Geplärre!

Zweite Krawallnacht in London
Randale breiten sich aus

Cameron droht mit harten Strafen
Toter bei Krawallen in London

Chaos in London

Amateuraufnahmen zeigen Krawalle in London

London ist das Fukushima der Grünen
Dramatische Warnzeichen aus der „Vielfalt“-Gesellschaft

Cameron will „moralischen Kollaps“ bekämpfen

Britische Randalierer sollen Schäden selbst reparieren

Britische Randalierer
Das System in der Gangsta-Falle

Wissenschaftler warnt vor ethnischen Unruhen in Deutschland

Deutscheopfer.de – Der Verbrechens-Report und die islamische Paralleljustiz

Ein Jahr nach Sarrazin – neue Studie des IfS

Ausstellung im MfK Frankfurt
Sarrazin im Fettnapf

Von Sarrazin bis Guttenberg: Gewinner-Karikaturen

Böhmer erneuert Kritik an Sarrazin

Die Feinde der Integration
Über die Stadtsoziologie an der Frankfurter Universität

Alte Menschen, weniger Geburten
Super, Deutschland schafft sich ab!
Kolumne von Deniz Yücel

Der lustige Yücel

Die "Deutschen" mit An- und Abführungszeichen
Grüne DeutschlandhasserInnen

Gemeine Integrationsministerin
„Je mehr Türken wir im Lande haben, desto mehr Unruhe haben wir.“

(Wenn Vielfalt zur Einfalt wird…)
Berliner Wahlkampf in Kreuzberg
„Vier türkischstämmige Kandidaten für Marzahn!“

Türkischstämmiger Grünen-Politiker in Rangelei verwickelt

Islamisten-Partei macht Stimmung gegen Schwule und Lesben

"Nein zu Sarrazin!"
Multikulturelle Partei kämpft gegen Migranten-Stigma

Zigeuner fordern preiswerten Wohnraum

Fibelkinder gestern und heute

Beschimpfungen und Gewalt
So chaotisch geht es an deutschen Schulen zu

Die Hölle im Hamsterrad oder Brandbriefe aus Berlin

(da müssen eben Vitamintabletten künftig durch HartzIV übernommen werden…)
Neue Studie
Verschleierung soll Vitamin-D-Mangel befördern

Deutsche in Wedding
Zu Hause geblieben und fremd geworden

Ein bißchen fremd im eigenen Land, ein bißchen Vorbürgerkrieg und ein „Haus Sarrazin“

No-Go-Areas in deutschen Stadtvierteln

Bad Kreuznach
Jahrmarkt nach Bombendrohung evakuiert

Südländer prügeln Familienvater krankenhausreif

Brutaler Überfall auf Rentnerin


Stadtplanung Berlin
Neumann verteidigt steigende Kosten für Stadtschloss

Wenn deutsche Häuser könnten, würden sie flüchten

Erst denken, dann dämmen
Symposium in Potsdam zur energetischen Gebäudesanierung

Lex Eigennutz
Schleswig-Holstein schafft den Denkmalschutz ab

(Deutscher Denkmalschutz mal wieder gegen historisch angepasstes Bauen…)
Papenburger will investieren
Millionenobjekt droht an Optik zu scheitern

Suburbia ohne Sub
Die meisten Menschen haben keineswegs das Bedürfnis nach Peripherie oder Suburbia. Was heißt das für die Stadt? Prognosen und Gebote für eine ­urbane Architektur

(Eine deutsche Kirche, von der orthodoxen Kirche übernommen. Die evangel. Kirche durfte sie nicht bekommen. Das Ende der Fresken ...)
Kirche Domnau, Ostpreußen

Mitten in Deutschland
Der letzte Wirt

Wie die Marburger Altstadt (beinahe) abgerissen wurde

Traditionalismus als kulturelle Prägung?

(Der Pinkelpolizistin-Jungkünstler bei seinem nächsten „Streich“…)
Grober Unfug und ganz viel Dummheit – Kunststudent demoliert Goldenen Reiter
Bekannter Künstler entzahnte Löwen

"Vom Aussteigen und Ankommen": Ideen vom alternativen Leben

Frank Ochmann
Verführt - Verwirrt - Für dumm verkauft
Wie wir Tag für Tag manipuliert werden und was wir dagegen tun können

Aufstand der Videospieler

Unser täglich Talk: Plasberg räumt Mittwochsendeplatz für Jauch
Worte satt: Die ARD sendet von Ende August an fünf Talks die Woche. Inhaltliche Bereicherung oder Einheitsbrei? Nun hat sich der ehemalige Chef des Adolf-Grimme-Instituts, Bernd Gäbler, in einer kritischen 149-Seiten-Analyse zu Wort gemeldet.

30 Jahre Chaos Computer Club
Mit dem Hacken davongekommen

Medien im digitalen Zeitalter
Journalismus extralang

Zu viele Facebook-Anmeldungen
CDU sagt Sommerfest ab

Das Symbol des Bösen
Die Bekenntnisse des Massenmörders Charles Manson triefen vor Selbstmitleid und Selbstgerechtigkeit. Mehr Licht in die Motive und Hintergründe der Untaten bringen sie jedoch nicht

Abholzung im Amazonas-Gebiet
Regenwald stirbt schneller

Anekdoten eines Vermieters

Michael Klonovsky: „Der Held. Ein Nachruf“

Die barbarische Moderne
Wie auf dem iPad der zivilisatorische Film rückwärts läuft

Stuckrad Late Night - Bushido liest Sarrazin

Helge Schneider als Karl Marx

Sonnenkind (Liedermacher)

lundi, 05 septembre 2011

Hervé Juvin sur l'immigration de peuplement

Immigration de peuplement: le sujet qui ne dit pas son nom

Communication d'Hervé Juvin

vendredi, 02 septembre 2011

Aux sources de l'islamisme allemand contemporain

Wolfgang KAUFMANN:

Aux sources de l’islamisme allemand contemporain


L’islamisme allemand contemporain trouve ses racines chez les volontaires musulmans levés contre l’URSS de Staline


Depuis un discours controversé du Président fédéral Wulff, on discute de plus en plus intensément en Allemagne pour savoir si l’islam est propre à ce pays ou non. Les débatteurs ne sont à l’unisson que sur un point: l’islam est désormais présent en terre germanique. La même remarque vaut pour l’islamisme. Ce qui conduit tout naturellement à la question: comment l’islamisme est-il arrivé en Allemagne?


Vu l’immigration de plusieurs millions de Turcs musulmans, on peut supposer que l’islamisme présent aujourd’hui en terre allemande provient de cette vague migratoire. Toutefois, on doit bien constater que l’infiltration initiale d’un islamisme en Allemagne n’est pas un effet de l’immigration, après 1945, de travailleurs de confession musulmane. Deux livres publiés récemment le démontrent:


Eine Moschee in Deutschland. Nazis, Geheimdienste und der Aufstieg des politischen Islam im Westen, Verlag C. H. Beck, München, 2011, 316 pages, 19,95 euro.





Die vierte Moschee. Nazis, CIA und der islamische Fundamentalismus, Verlag Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart, 2011, 360 pages, 22,95 euro.


Ces deux livres sont parus quasi simultanément, leurs titres se ressemblent fort et leurs couvertures également: ce qui pourrait faire penser à une action concertée. Cependant, à la lecture, on s’aperçoit quand même qu’il s’agit d’un hasard.


Les deux ouvrages décrivent le même phénomène. Stefan Meining, rédacteur du magazine politque “Report München”, dépendant de l’ARD, se concentre sur la responsabilité des services allemands dans l’émergence de l’islamisme, tandis que Ian Johnson, Prix Pulitzer, met surtout l’accent sur celle des services secrets américains. La lecture de ces deux ouvrages nous donne une belle image d’ensemble et nous permet de constater, en plus, que l’islamophilie peut prendre de multiples visages. La direction nationale-socialiste —rien moins!— fut la première a faire venir délibérément en Allemagne des représentants de la haute hiérarchie de l’islam politique, à commencer par Hadj Mohammed Amin al-Husseini, Grand Mufti de Jérusalem et chef religieux de la communauté musulmane de Palestine. Le motif de cette démarche se trouve dans la ferme résolution de Hitler lui-même, de son Ministre des affaires de l’Est Alfred Rosenberg, ainsi que des chefs de la Wehrmacht et de la Waffen-SS, d’utiliser et d’engager l’islam comme arme secrète contre l’URSS. Dans le cadre de cette politique, plusieurs centaines de milliers de musulmans du Caucase et d’Asie centrale ont été, jusqu’en 1945, enrôlés dans des unités de volontaires comme la “Division SS musulmane Nouveau Turkestan”. Ces unités avaient tout naturellement beoin d’un accompagnement politique et religieux.


La plupart de ces légionnaires musulmans, qui ont eu la chance, après la défaite de l’Allemagne, de ne pas avoir été rapatriés de force et d’avoir ainsi échapper à la mort par fusillade, se sont installés à Munich et ses environs. Parmi eux: quelques imams qui avaient auparavant servi dans les unités de la Wehrmacht ou de la Waffen-SS. Trois cents de ces “oubliés” fondèrent en 1953 la “Religiöse Gemeinschaft Islam” (“Communauté religieuse islamique”). Dès ce moment, le jeu a repris car le gouvernement fédéral allemand avait, lui aussi, l’intention d’utiliser à son profit les émigrants de confession musulmane. L’acteur principal de cette politique, côté allemand, fut le “Ministère fédéral des expulsés, réfugiés et victimes de la guerre”. A cette époque-là, ce ministère était placé sous la houlette de Theodor Oberländer (membre du parti “Gesamtdeutscher Block”/”Bund der Heimatvertriebenen und Entrechten” – “Bloc pour toute l’Allemagne”/”Ligue des Expulsés et Spoliés”). Pendant la guerre, Oberländer avait été le commandeur d’une unité spéciale de la Wehrmacht, la “Bergmann”, au sein de laquelle servaient d’assez nombreux volontaires musulmans venus du Caucase. L’objectif d’Oberländer était d’utiliser la “Religiöse Gemeinschaft Islam” pour faire éclater l’Union Soviétique en provoquant une révolte généralisée des peuples non russes, ce qui aurait entraîné, comme effet second, la réunification de l’Allemagne dans les frontières de 1937. C’est la raison pour laquelle, par l’entremise d’Oberländer, l’association musulmane de Munich a reçu le soutien financier du gouvernement fédéral allemand.


L’islam politique a été une arme pendant la Guerre Froide


Parallèlement aux tentatives ouest-allemandes d’enrôler l’association musulmane de Bavière, la CIA, et son organisation satellite, l’AMCOMLIB (“American Committee for Liberation from Bolshevism”) commencent, elles aussi, à s’intéresser aux exilés ex-soviétiques et musulmans de Munich et de sa grande banlieue. Or les Américains paient beaucoup mieux que les Allemands: les membres de la “Communauté Religieuse Musulmane”, fixés à Munich, vont progressivement se faire recruter pour agir dans le cadre de la guerre psychologique menée par les Etats-Unis. Ils vont commencer par une collaboration au micro de “Radio Liberty” où ils vitupèreront contre la politique soviétique à l’égard des nationalités et de la religion islamique. L’islam politique allemand s’est donc transformé en un instrument américain dans la Guerre Froide, chargé de “tordre le cou” au communisme athée, avec, pour corollaire, d’amener à une révision générale des conséquences de la seconde guerre mondiale.


Les ex-légionnaires anti-soviétiques, qui se laisseront embrigader dans les services allemands ou américains, ne se présenteront pas, à l’époque, comme des fondamentalistes musulmans, à l’instar de ceux que nous connaissons aujourd’hui: ces anciens soldats de la Wehrmacht ou de la Waffen-SS s’étaient assimilés au mode de vie allemand; ils aimaient boire de l’alcool et se livrer à de joyeuses libations; leurs femmes et leurs filles ignoraient délibérément les prescriptions vestimentaires islamiques; toutes les autres consignes religieuses n’étaient pas davantage prises au pied de la lettre. Chose curieuse et digne d’être rappelée: c’est justement cette liberté par rapport aux prescrits rigoureux de la religion musulmane qui va provoquer une mutation décisive de la situation. Elle a eu lieu à l’occasion de la première “conférence islamique d’Allemagne”, tenue le 26 décembre 1958 dans la salle paroissiale catholique Saint-Paul à Munich.


Lors de cette manifestation, pour la première fois, des étudiants très croyants et très rigoristes, venus des pays arabes, rencontrent les émigrés issus des régions islamisées de l’URSS. Au départ, il n’y a pas de confrontation directe entre les deux groupes: tous s’accordent pour que soit réalisé un premier objectif, celui de construire un lieu central de prière à Munich. Pour y parvenir, ils créent au début du mois de mars de l’année 1960, une “Commission pour la Construction de la Mosquée”. Le directeur de cette commission, que les participants ont élu, n’était pas un ancien légionnaire issu du Turkestan ou du Caucase mais l’Egyptien Said Ramadan, figure de proue du mouvement des “Frères musulmans” qui était aussi, à l’époque, secrétaire général du “Congrès islamique mondial”. La raison principale qui a justifié l’élection de Said Ramadan fut qu’on espérait qu’il ramènerait des subsides en provenance des pays arabes pour la construction de l’édifice religieux. C’est ce qu’il fit. Mais, simultanément, il entama une campagne de dénigrement des anciens légionnaires des armées allemandes, parce que leur mode de vie n’était plus “pur”, ce qui conduisit à leur marginalisation totale.


Au bout de ce processus d’éviction, qui se situe en mars 1962, les protagonistes arabes d’une interprétation pseudo-traditionaliste et rigide de l’islam ont pris le contrôle de la Commission, qui, quelques mois plus tard, allait se dénommer “Islamische Gemeinschaft in Süddeutschland” (“Communauté Islamique d’Allemagne du Sud”). Depuis le 4 décembre 1982, elle s’appelle, en bout de course, “Islamische Gemeinschaft in Deutschland”. Depuis lors, l’organisation établie à Munich a servi de plaque tournante à un réseau islamiste qui n’a cessé de croître à la manière d’un rhizome sur tout le territoire de la République fédérale, sans que les autorités allemandes ne s’en alarment outre mesure.


Celles-ci n’ont montré de l’intérêt pour ce réseau qu’à partir du 11 septembre 2001, lorsque le troisième président en fonction, le Syrien Ghaleb Himmat, fut soupçonné de terrorisme: d’après les renseignements fournis par le “Financial Crimes Enforcement Network”, une instance dépendant du Ministère américain des finances, il aurait fonctionné comme fournisseur de fonds pour al-Qaïda.


Wolfgang KAUFMANN.

(article paru dans “Junge Freiheit”, Berlin, n°35/2011; http://www.jungefreiheit.de ).


jeudi, 01 septembre 2011

Boreas Rising

amazone 01.jpg

Boreas Rising:
White Nationalism & the Geopolitics of the Paris-Berlin-Moscow Axis, Part 1

By Michael O'MEARA

Ex: http://www.counter-currents.com/ 

 “History is again on the move.”
—Arnold Toynbee

For a half-century, we nationalists stood with the “West” in its struggle against the Asiatic Marxism of the Soviet bloc. There was little problem then distinguishing between our friends and our foes, for all evil was situated in the collectivist East and all virtue in the liberal West.

Today, things are much less clear. Not only has the Second American War on Iraq revealed a profound geopolitical divide within the West, the social-political order associated with it now subverts our patrimony in ways no apparatchik ever imagined. Indeed, it seems hardly exaggerated to claim that Western elites (those who Samuel Huntington calls the “dead souls”)[1] have come to pose the single greatest threat to our people’s existence.

For some, this threat was discovered only after 1989. Yet as early as the late forties, a handful of white nationalists, mainly in Europe, but with the American Francis Parker Yockey at their head, realized that Washington’s postwar order, not the Soviet Union, represented the greater danger to the white biosphere.[2] Over the years, particularly since the fall of Communism, this realization has spread, so that a large part of Europe’s nationalist vanguard no longer supports the West, only Europe, and considers the West’s leader its chief enemy.[3]

For these nationalists, the United States is a kind of anti-Europe, hostile not only to its motherland, but to its own white population. The Managerial Revolution of the thirties, Jewish influence in the media and the academy, the rise of the national security state and the military-industrial complex have all had a hand in fostering this anti-Europeanism, but for our transatlantic cousins its roots reach back to the start of our national epic. America’s Calvinist settlers, they point out, saw themselves as latter-day Israelites, who fled Egypt (Europe) for the Promised Land. Their shining city on the hill, founded on Old Testament, not Old World, antecedents, was to serve as a beacon to the rest of humanity. America began—and thus became itself—by casting off its European heritage. The result was a belief that America was a virtuous land, dedicated to liberty and equality, while Europe was mired in vice, corruption, and tyranny. Then, in the eighteenth century, this anti-Europeanism took political form, as the generation of 1776 fashioned a new state based on Lockean/Enlightenment principles, which were grafted onto the earlier Calvinist ones. As these liberal modernist principles came to fruition in the twentieth century, once the Christian, Classical vestiges of the country’s “Anglo-Protestant core” were shed, they helped legitimate the missionary cosmopolitanism of its corporate, one-world elites, and, worse, those extracultural, anti-organic, and hedonistic influences hostile to the European soul of the country’s white population.[4]

This European nationalist view of our origins ought to trouble white nationalists committed to a preserving America’s European character, for, however slanted, it contains a not insignificant kernel of truth. My intent here is not to revisit this interpretation of our history, but to look at a development that puts it in a different racial perspective. So as not to wander too far afield, let me simply posit (rather than prove) that the de-Europeanizing forces assailing America’s white population are only superficially rooted in the Puritan heritage. The Low Church fanatics who abandoned their English motherland and inclined America to a biblical enterprise, despite their intent, could not escape their racial nature, which influenced virtually every facet of early American life. Indeed, the paradox of America is that it began not simply as a rejection but also as a projection of Europe. Thus, beyond their ambivalent relationship to Europe, Americans (until relatively recently) never had any doubt that their race and High Culture were European. As such, they showed all the defining characteristics of the white race, taming the North American continent with little more than rifles slung across their backs, and doing so in the European spirit of self-help, self-reliance, and fearlessness. As Francis Parker Yockey writes: “America belongs spiritually, and will always belong to the [European] civilization of which it is a colonial transplantation, and no part of the true America belongs to the primitivity of the barbarians and fellaheen outside of this civilization.”[5]

As long, then, as Americans were of Anglo-Celtic (or European) stock, with racially conscious standards, their Calvinist or liberal ideology remained of secondary importance. Our present malaise, I would argue, stems less from these ideological influences (however retarding) than from a more recent development—the Second World War—whose world-transforming effects were responsible for distorting and inverting our already tenuous relationship to Europe. For once our motherland was conquered and occupied (what the apologists of the present regime ironically refer to as its “liberation”) and once the new postwar system of transnational capital was put in place, a New Class of powers with a vested interest in de-Europeanizing America’s white population was allowed to assume command of American life. The result is the present multiracial system, whose inversion of the natural order negates the primacy of our origins and promises our extinction as a race and a culture. The only possibility of escaping its annihilating fate would seem, then, to be another revolutionary transformation of the world order—one that would throw the existing order into crisis and pose an alternative model of white existence. The “Paris-Berlin-Moscow Axis” formed during the recent Iraq war, I believe, holds out such a possibility.

Genesis of an Axis

As part of its Mobiles Géopolitique series, the Franco-Swiss publisher L’Age d’Homme announced in April 2002 the release of Paris-Berlin-Moscou: La voie de l’indépendance et de la paix (Paris-Berlin-Moscow: The Way of Peace and Independence). Authored by Henri de Grossouvre, the youngest son of a prominent Socialist party politician, and prefaced by General Pierre Marie Gallois, France’s premier geostrategic thinker, Paris-Berlin-Moscou argued that Europe would never regain its sovereignty unless it threw off American suzerainty and did so in alliance with Russia.

In recommending a strategic alliance between France, Germany, and Russia for the sake of a Eurasian federation stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific, Grossouvre’s thesis seemed entirely utopian. For although the prospect of such an alliance had long animated the imagination of revolutionary nationalists, it seemed more fantasy than possibility, even when proposed by a well-connected and reputable member of the governing elites. Fantasy, however, rather unexpectedly took hold of the international arena. Within months of the book’s publication, its thesis assumed a life of its own, as the new Likudized administration in Washington started beating the drums for another war on Iraq.

The axis and the war it sought to avoid will be looked at in the following sections. Here, a few words on Grossouvre’s book are in order, for, besides being one of those novel cases where life seemed to imitate art, it stirred the European public, was extensively reviewed, led to the organization of several international conferences attended by diplomats, military leaders, and parliamentarians, and culminated in a website with over two thousand pages of documentation.[6] Its effect on the European—especially on the anti-liberal—spirit has been profound. If the axis it proposes is stabilized as an enduring feature of the international order (and much favors that), a realignment as significant as 1945 could follow.

Paris-Berlin-Moscou begins by acknowledging the common values linking America and Europe, the so-called Atlantic community, as well as the US role in guaranteeing European security during the Cold War. On both these counts, the author’s establishment ties are evident, for no anti-liberal views the Atlantic relationship in quite such uncritical terms. Nevertheless, in arguing that these two factors no longer justify Europe’s dependence on the United States, he breaks with the prevailing system (or at least what was the prevailing system) of strategic thought.

In Grossouvre’s view, Europe’s geopolitical relationship to the United States was fundamentally altered between 1989 and 1991, when Eastern Europe threw off its Soviet yoke, Germany reunified, and Russia called off the Communist experiment begun in 1917. Then, as Europe’s strategic dependence on the US came to an end, so too did its heteronomy.[7] Moreover, it is only a matter of time, Grossouvre predicts, before Russia recovers, China develops, and US power is again challenged. In the meantime, US efforts to perpetuate its supremacy, defend its neo-liberal system of global market relations, and stifle potential threats to its dominance are transforming it into a force of international instability. But even if this were not the case, Grossouvre contends that Europeans would still need to separate themselves from America’s New World Order (NWO), for their independence as a people is neither a luxury nor a vanity, but requisite to their survival.[8] For as Carl Schmitt contends, it is only in politically asserting itself that a people truly exists—conscious of its place in history, oriented to the future, and secure in its identity.[9]

Europe’s ascent—and here Grossouvre most distinguishes himself from the reigning consensus—will owe little to the European Union (EU). Although its GNP is now approaching that of the US; its share of world imports and exports is larger; its manufacturing capacity and productivity are greater; its population is larger, more skilled, and better educated; its currency, the euro, sounder; and its indebtedness qualitatively lower, the EU does not serve Europe in any civilizational sense.[10] Its huge unwieldy bureaucracy serves only Mammon, which means it lacks a meaningful political identity and hence the means to play an international role commensurate with its immense economic power. It indeed caricatures the “European idea,” representing a technocratic economism without roots and without memory, focused on market exchanges and financial orthodoxies that are closer in spirit to America’s neo-liberal model than to anything native to Europe’s own tradition. (As one French rightist argues, “Every time the technocrats in Brussels speak, they profane the idea of Europe.”)[11] The EU’s growth has, in fact, gone hand in hand with the weakening of its various member states—and the corresponding failure to replace them with a continental or federal alternative.[12] Given its current enlargement to twenty-five members, political unity has become an even more remote prospect, particularly in that many of the new East European members lack any sense of the European idea.

A strong centralized state, however, is key to Europe’s future. Since the Second World War, power is necessarily continental: Only a Großraum (large space), a geopolitically unified realm animated by a “distinct political idea,” has a role to play in today’s world.[13] Yet even with the dissolution of the East-West bloc, a continental state is not likely to emerge from the EU’s expanding market system. If earlier state-building is any guide (think of Garibaldi’s Italy, Kara-George’s Serbia, Pearse’s Ireland, or Washington’s America), political unification requires a vision, a mobilizing project, emanating from a history of blood and struggle. As Jean Thiriart writes: “One does not create a nation with speeches, pious talk, and banquets. One creates a nation with rifles, martyrs, jointly lived dangers.”[14] For Grossouvre, this mobilizing vision is De Gaulle’s Grande Europe: a political-civilizational Großraum pivoted on a Franco-German confederation (encompassing Charlemagne’s Francs de l’Ouest et Francs de l’Est), allied with Russia, and forged in opposition to the modern Carthage.

The three great continental peoples, he believes, constitute the potential “core” around which a politically federated Europe will coalesce. Like De Gaulle, who refused to accept his country’s defeat in 1940 and who fought all the rest of his life against the conquerors of 1945, Grossouvre views the entwined cultures of the French, Germans, and Russians as fundamentally different from les Anglo-Saxons (the English and the Americans), whose thalassocratic, Low Church, and market-based order favors a rootless, economic definition of national life. Accordingly, for most of her history, with the tragic exception of the 1870–1940 period, France’s great enemy was “perfidious Albion,” not Germany.[15] Then, after 1945, this larger historical relationship was resumed, as numerous cooperative ventures succeeded in blunting nationalist antagonisms—to the point that war between them is now inconceivable.[16] Finally, in 1963, when De Gaulle and Konrad Adenauer signed the Treaty of Elysée, their reconciliation was formalized on the basis of an institutionalized system of social, economic, and political collaborations. Their supranational commitment to Europe has since had a powerful synergetic effect, influencing virtually every significant measure undertaken in the name of continental unity. The complementary nature of these closely related peoples has, in fact, triumphed over the political disunity that came with the Treaty of Verdun (843).[17] While a confederation between France and Germany is probably still on the distant horizon, the history of the last 60 years suggests that their national projects are converging.[18] Until then, they are likely to continue to speak with a single voice, for France and Germany are more than two states among the EU’s twenty-five. In addition to being the crucible of European civilization, their combined populations (142 million), their economic power (41 per cent of the EU), and, above all, their capacity to transcend national interests make them special—the nucleus, the motor, the vanguard of a potentially united Europe. Whatever political organization the EU eventually achieves will undoubtedly be one of their doing.

A somewhat different convergence is also under way in the East. The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and Germany’s ensuing reunification shifted Europe’s center of gravity eastward. The EU’s enlargement to Eastern Europe this year moved it even farther in this direction. The consolidation of Europe’s eastward expansion hinges, though, on Russia, whose white, Christian people, as the historian Dieter Groh argues, represents one of the great primeval stirrings of the European conscience.[19] (It was the Roman Catholic Church, in its schism with Orthodox Christianity in 1054, not Russia’s history, culture, or racial disposition that kept it from being recognized as a European nation.) France has ancient ties with Russia and today shares many of the same geopolitical interests. But it is Germany that is now most involved in Russian life. She is Russia’s chief trading partner, her banks are the chief source of Russian investment capital, and her 1800 implanted entrepreneurs the leading edge of Russian economic development.[20] Thanks to these ties, along with bimonthly meetings between Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Germany’s Gerhard Schröder, Russia is presently engaged in numerous joint ventures with the EU. Together, they have put seven communications satellites into orbit, developed a global positioning system (Galileo) to rival the American one (GPS), signed numerous agreements in the field of aerospace research, given one another consultative voice in the other’s military operations, upgraded and expanded the roads, canals, and railways linking them, brokered a series of deals related to gas and energy, and established an elaborate system of cultural exchanges. Visa-free travel between Russia and the EU is expected by 2007. And though Russia is too big to be integrated into the EU, she is nevertheless developing relations with it that portend ones of even greater strategic significance.

Russia also sees its future in Europe. Since the collapse of Communism and the imposition of what critical observers characterize as a “Second Treaty of Versailles,” it has been on life-support.[21] The economy is in shambles, the state discredited, society afflicted with various pathologies, and its former empire shattered. The appointment of Vladimir Putin in 1999 and his subsequent election as president in 2000 and again in 2004 represent a potential turnaround (even if he is not the ideal person to lead Russia). Full recovery is probably still far off, but it has begun and Europe—its capital, markets, and expertise—is necessary to it. Putin also believes Europe’s growing estrangement from America’s unilateral model of hegemony will eventually lead it into a collective security pact with Russia.[22] Having distanced himself from the pro-American regime of the corrupt Yeltsin, whose liberal market policies were an excuse to plunder the accumulated wealth of the Russian people, and having had his various efforts at rapprochement rebuffed by the Bush administration (which continues to encroach on Russia’s historical spheres of interest), this Deutsche im Kreml now looks to exploit his German connections to gain a wedge in European affairs.[23]

His Eurocentric policies are already assuming strategic form, for Russia’s vast oil reserves have the potential of satisfying all of Europe’s energy needs. (As russophobes say, Russia will build her hegemony in Europe with pipelines.) To consolidate these emerging East-West exchanges, Russia has recently received a €400 million grant to modernize its institutional, legal, and administration apparatus to accord with the EU’s. At the same time, tariffs on Russian imports have been slashed (50 percent of Russian exports now go to the EU) and the EU is sponsoring Russia’s admission to the World Trade Organization. Putin’s arrest of the oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky, one of the principal proponents of US-style “casino capitalism,” and the seizure of his massive Yukos oil concern, the resignation of the last Yeltsin holdovers, especially Alexander Voloshin; and an ongoing series of internal reforms, however incomplete, represent further steps toward a restoration of Russian state power.[24] Finally, Russia possesses the military capacity, even in its debilitated state, to guarantee Europe’s security, for in a period when America’s “new liberal imperialism” runs roughshod over European concerns, threatening endless conflicts detrimental to their interests, Russia suddenly becomes a credible defense alternative.[25]

Grossouvre concludes that an axis based on France’s political leadership, Germany’s world class economy, and Russia’s military might represent the potential nucleus of a future Eurasian state. Five distinct advantages, he argues, would follow from such a rapprochement: It would guarantee Europe’s independence from America, correct certain imbalances in the globalization process, enhance the EU’s security, solve its energy needs, and complement the different qualities of its allied members. If such an axis draws the chief continental powers into a more enduring alliance, it will inevitably reshape the international order, making the white men of the North—the Boreans—the single most formidable force in the world.[26] It should come as no surprise, then, that Grossouvre’s most strident critics are to be found in those former left-wing Jewish ranks (as represented by Bernard-Henri Lévy, André Gluckmann, Alain Finkielkraut, etc.), who, like our home-grown neocons, champion the raceless, deculturated policies of Washington’s New World Order.


1. Samuel P. Huntington, Who Are We? The Challenge to America’s National Identity (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2004), pp. 264ff.

2. Francis Parker Yockey, The Enemy of Europe (Reedy, W.V,: Liberty Bell Publications, 1981). In this same period, a related argument can be found in the works of Maurice Bardèche, Julius Evola, Otto Strasser, and, later, Jean Thiriart.

3. For example: Claudio Finzi, “‘Europe’ et ‘Occident’: Deux concepts antagonistes,” Vouloir (May 1994); Guillaume Faye, Le système à tuer les peuples (Paris: Copernic, 1981).

4. For example, Robert de Herte (Alain de Benoist) et Hans-Jürgen Nigra (Giorgio Locchi), “Il était une fois l’Amérique,” Nouvelle Ecole 27–28 (Fall 1975); Robert Steuckers, “La menace culturelle américaine” (January 16, 1990), http://foster.20megsfree.com [2]; Reinhard Oberlercher, “Wesen und Verfall Amerikas” (n.d.), http://www.deutsches-kolleg.org [3]

5. Francis Parker Yockey, “The Destiny of America” (1955), http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/06/the-destiny-of-america/ [4]

7. Emmanuel Todd, Après l’empire: Essai sur la décomposition du système américain (Paris: Gallimard, 2002); Charles A. Kupchan, The End of the American Era: U.S. Foreign Policy and the Geopolitics of the 21st Century (New York: Knopf, 2002).

8 Henri de Grossouvre, Paris-Berlin-Moscou: La voie de l’indépendence et de la paix (Lausanne: L’Age d’Homme, 2002), p. 47.

9 Carl Schmitt, The Concept of the Political, tr. by G. Schwab (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), p. 53.

10 Robert Went, “Globalization: Can Europe Make a Difference?,” EAEPE 2003 conference paper, http://eaepe.infomics.nl/papers/Went.pdf [6]

11. Louis Vinteuil, “Discours sur l’Europe” (July 20, 2004), http://www.voxnr.com

12. Pierre-Marie Gallois, Le consentement fatal: L’Europe face aux Etats-Unis (Paris: Seuil, 2001).

13. In 1943, at the height of the Second World War, Pierre Drieu La Rochelle wrote: “The national era has come to an end and an age of [continental] empires is dawning.” See Révolution Nationale: Articles 1943–44 (Paris: L’Homme Libre, 2004), p. 7. Theoretically, the notion of a European Großraum was worked out in Carl Schmitt, Der Nomos der Erde im Völkerrecht des Jus Publicum Europaeum (Cologne: Greven Verlag, 1950); its most impressive programmatic formulation is Jean Thiriart, Un empire de 400 millions d’hommes: L’Europe (Brussels, 1964).

14. Jean Thiriart, For the European Nation-State (Paraparaumu, NZ: Renaissance Press Pamphlet,  n.d.).

15. Pauline Schnapper, La Grande Bretagne et l’Europe: Le grand malentendu (Paris: Eds. Presses de Sciences Po, 2000); Christian Schubert, Grossbritannien: Insel zwischen den Welten (Munich: Olzog, 2004).

16. Brigitte Sauzay, “L’Allemagne et la France: Quel avenir pour la coopération?” (n.d.), http://geogate.geographie.uni-marburg.de [7]

17. This treaty divided Charlemagne’s empire, separating the Germanic tribes of the West from those of the East. In one respect, the fratricidal history of nineteenth and twentieth century nationalism was a history of this separation.

18. Blanine Milcent, “La ‘Françallemagne’ attendra,” L’Express, December 11, 2003.

19. Dieter Groh, Russland und das Selbstverständis Europas (Neuwied: Luchterhand Verlag, 1961). Also see Georges Nivat, Russie-Europe: La fin du schisme (Lausanne: L’Age d’Homme, 1993); Andreas-Renatus Hartmann, “Die neue Nachbarschaftspolitik der Europäischen Union” (April 16, 2004), http://www.boschlektoren.de [8]

20. Klaus Thörner, “Das deutsche Spiel mit Russland” (February 2003), http://www.diploweb.com

21. Nikolai von Kreitor, “Russia and the New World Order” (1996). Published years before the Iraq war, Kreitor’s article is perhaps the single most important analysis to have been made of the international situation leading up to the war. My views here are much indebted to it.

22. Wladimir Putin, “Russland glaubt an die große Zukunft der Partnerschaft mit Deutschland,” Die Zeit (April 10, 2002).

23. Alexander Rahr, “Ist Putin der ‘Deutsche’ im Kreml?” (September 2002), http://www.weltpolitik.com [9]

24. Jacques Sapir, “Russia, Yukos, and the Elections” (February 2004), worldoil.com ; “Poutine restaure l’Etat: Un entretien avec Jacques Sapir,” Politis 774 (November 6, 2002); Wolfgang Strauss, “Putin oder Chodorkowski: 14. März, eine Niederlage Amerikas” (March 29, 2004), http://staatsbriefe.de [10]

25. One sign of this capacity is the fact that in 2003, Russia became the world’s number one arms exporter. See P. Schleiter, “Defense, securité, relations internationales” (April 25, 2004), http://www.polemia.com [11]; also Yevgeny Bendersky, “Keep a Watchful Eye on Russia’s Military Technology” (July 21, 2004), http://www.pinr.com [12]

26. The notion of a possible northern imperium of white men is taken from Guillaume Faye, Le coup d’Etat mondial: Essai sur le Nouvel Impérialisme Américain (Paris: L’Æncre, 2004), pp. 183ff. On the myth of the Boreans (or Hyperboreans), see Jean Mabire, Thulé: Le soleil retrouvé des hyperboréens (Lyon: Irminsul, n.d.).

Boreas Rising:
White Nationalism & the Geopolitics of the Paris-Berlin-Moscow Axis, Part 2

A Defensive Alignment

The Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis arose in reaction to the Second American War on Iraq. It needs thus to be understood in the context of that war, which the Bush administration treated as the second phase of its war on terror, the first being the invasion of Afghanistan and the assault on the Taliban regime harboring bin Laden’s al-Qa’ida (both of which, incidentally, were, via the CIA and Pakistan’s ISI, made in the USA).[1] However much it resembled the Anglo-Afghan and Russo-Afghan wars of the nineteenth century, the American assault on Afghanistan did not provoke the kind of opposition that Iraq would, for there was still enormous sympathy for the US after “9/11.” “Victory,” moreover, came quickly, as it had for all former conquerors. The Taliban were chased from Kabul and the warring tribes associated with the US-supported Northern Alliance, which did most of the fighting on the ground, soon gained control of the countryside. While Afghanistan has since reverted to a pre-state form of regional, tribal rule (ideal for narco-terrorists) and most al-Qa’ida fighters succeeded in dispersing, the Bush administration was nevertheless able to broadcast publicly satisfying TV images of swift, forceful action.[2]

Buoyed up by the nearly effortless rout of the medieval Taliban, Bush adopted the policies recommended by his neoconservative advisers,[3] whose neo-Jacobin assertion of American power not only has nothing to do with fighting Islamic terrorism, but cloaks a Judeo-liberal vision of global domination which threatens to turn the entire Middle East into something akin to Israel’s occupation of the West Bank. Key to their vision is Iraq, whose threat to Israel has been repackaged by such Jewish propaganda mills as the Project for the New American Century as a threat to US security. Besides promoting a peculiar blend of liberal statist and Zionist strategic concerns that represents a turn (not a break) in US foreign policy, the Krauthammers, Wolfowitzes, and other sickly neocon types advising the administration seek to “Sharonize” Washington’s strategic culture. To this end, military force is designated the option of choice, and a moralistic Manichaeanism which pits the US and Israel against the world’s alleged evils is used to legitimate the most dishonorable policies.[4] As the former wastrel of the Bush dynasty signed on to this Likud-inspired agenda, he began making a case for extending his antiterror crusade to Mesopotamia. Iraq’s “Hitler-like tyrant,” he claimed, had links with al-Qa’ida and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) capable of reaching the United States.

While America’s TV-besotted masses had little difficulty swallowing his unsubstantiated argument, the rest of the world balked.[5] At this point in early 2002, the two shores of the Atlantic began pulling apart. German chancellor Gerhard Schröder was the first major European figure to oppose Bush’s war plans. He was soon joined by French president Jacques Chirac. In July 2002 they issued a joint declaration formally rejecting the US proposal, stating that the UN’s embargo and its inspectors were doing their job and that the proposed attack would only distract from the “real war on terror.” By September, Russia (whose economic situation required the good graces of Washington) hinted that it too would veto a UN resolution sanctioning war. Then, on February 10, 2003, Putin joined Chirac and Schröder in issuing a declaration condemning what one senior US intelligence officer later called “an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat.”[6]

The Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis thus originated as a temporary coalition organized around a single point of agreement. Convinced that Bush had failed to make his case for war, the French, Germans, and Russians thought the evidence for al-Qa’ida links and WMD was unconvincing (we know now, by the government’s own admissions, that it was a tissue of lies, distortions, and manipulations).[7] Their coalition was nevertheless more than a response to a momentary disturbance in the world system. As one high-level Russian analyst characterized it, the coalition was a “rebellion against a unilateral America unwilling to accommodate European interests.”[8] As such, it announced a possible geopolitical power shift from the Atlantic to Eurasia.

Globalism at Gunpoint

Since the Cold War’s end, international relations have undergone changes as fundamental as those following the world-historical realignment of 1945.[9] The neoconservatives influencing Bush, in their preemptive crusade for what is tendentiously labeled “global democracy,” have been anxious to take advantage of these “shifting tectonic plates in international politics . . . before they harden again.”[10] As Robert Kagan and William Kristol, two of the chief neocon publicists, argue: There is a danger today that an unassertive US will lose control of the world order it created in 1945. Beginning with the fall of the Soviet Union, when the field was cleared of possible rivals, they believe the US should have consolidated its “benevolent hegemony,” turning the unipolar moment into the unipolar era. Instead, George I and Clinton allegedly failed to exploit the moment, further ensnaring the US in multilateral relations that compromised its power and interests.[11]

Against this trend, the Bush administration has carried out what some characterize as a “revolution in foreign policy.” Without abandoning Washington’s objective of developing a global market system based on American-style liberal-democratic principles, it now employs hegemonist methods, codified in the new Bush Doctrine, that change the way the US asserts its power abroad.[12] In this vein, the administration dismisses international laws and institutions, as it asseverates America’s unilateral right to alter the world system however it wishes, including attacking and overthrowing states deemed a threat to its security. Traditional strategies of deterrence and containment have consequently been supplanted by a proactive policy of prevention and preemption, just as ad hoc coalitions are given precedence over established alliances and collective security arrangements, regime change over negotiations with “failed” states, and ideological goals over previous notions of the national interest.[13]

The entire tenor of American power has thus altered, but against those who claim Bush has abandoned the core assumptions of the liberal internationalist tradition, the conservative Andrew J. Bacevich points out that his foreign policy innovations are largely methodological in character. For the past half century, no matter which party occupied the White House, US policy has pursued a single overarching goal: “global openness”—as in Hay’s “Open Door” imperialism—which promotes the movement of goods, peoples, and fashions into and out of world markets for the sake of US capitalist concerns.[14] Moreover, in assuming responsibility for this integrated international trading system—this “empire”—the US wins the right not only “to sell Big Macs and Disney products round the world,” but to govern the system itself.

While Bacevich’s argument is an excellent foil to those seeking to portray Bush as a revolutionary—somehow different from the Democrats who have manipulated the United States into most of the 20th century wars and played a leading role in semantically transforming “democracy” and “human rights” into the totalitarian double-speak of the NWO—Bacevich nevertheless ignores the different ways in which the two parties implement their liberal internationalist principles. Republicans, especially since Reagan, are inclined to see the growth of US national power as the precondition for sustaining their imperial system, while Democrats look to the universalization and institutionalization of their liberal principles. This disposes Republicans to a unipolar model of liberal internationalism based on military supremacy, unlike Democrats, who favor a world-government model emphasizing the economic facets of globalization and the need for international regulation. (Lately, though, the Democratic world-government types, if such influential liberal internationalists as those associated with Richard Haas of the Council on Foreign Relations and Helmut Sonnenfeldt of the Brookings Institution are any guide, seem increasingly disposed to the unipolar model; John Kerry’s neocon cloning of Bush’s foreign policy also suggests a shift toward the Republican vision.) But whether pursued by Republicans or Democrats, this liberal internationalist agenda, with its emphasis on the antitraditional and anti-Aryan forces of free trade, free markets, and open societies, has been a bane to white people everywhere—for it wars against “the fundamental value of blood and race as creators of true civilization.”[15]

In pressing into areas which were off-limits during the Cold War, Washington’s imperial market system has become increasingly aggressive. Under Clinton, the Weinberger/Powell Doctrine of avoiding military engagements unless absolutely necessary was discarded, as the “unipolar moment” ushered in by the Soviet collapse was treated as a blank check for “intervening practically wherever and whenever it chose.” In this spirit, Clinton’s Secretary of State contemplated invading Iraq and disparaged the principle of national sovereignty. Her distinction between war and the use of military force has since reoriented US policy, as military interventions overseas cease being labeled wars and become armed forms of “humanitarianism.”[16] Finally, the Clinton Doctrine of Enlargement, in championing the worldwide spread of US-style democracy and free markets (that is, the globalist assault on national identity and national institutions), privileged unilateralism (rechristened “assertive multilateralism”) over containment and disarmament.[17]

Although he avoided Bush’s swaggering brand of leadership, Clinton was only slightly less coercive in promoting the totalitarian ideology of openness.[18] It is hardly irrelevant that Iraq was bombed nearly every day of his administration, that Bosnia was turned into a US military protectorate, and that unilateral military action, in one of the great “war crimes” of the 20th century, was taken against Serbia. Though smaller in scale than Operation Iraqi Freedom, the terrorist air assault on this proud little country (whose historical role was the defense of the white borderlands) aimed at “spreading democracy” for the sake of openness. Symptomatic of the “openness” Washington favors, the Albanian Liberation Front (UCK), an Islamic, drug-smuggling, terrorist mafia with links to al-Qa’ida, was armed and trained by Clinton’s government and a quarter million Christian Serbs, whose nationalist aspirations represented an affront to the New World Order, were ethnically cleansed from Kosovo.[19] These interventions by the Clintonistas also played a leading role in destabilizing the international state system, giving rise to new stateless groups whose megaterrorism is historically unprecedented. The horror of 9/11 and the unfathomable massacre of Russian children at Beslan, not to mention numerous lesser affronts to our humanity, have roots in Clinton’s Yugoslavian intervention. Bush has simply accelerated this process, which is nourishing new, more nihilistic forms of terrorism.[20]

Although he came into office complaining of Clinton’s immodest foreign policy, Bush II has actually gone further, introducing methods which removed the existing restraints on Washington’s use of military force and whatever reservation it might have in violating national sovereignty.[21] Like Clinton, he is a man beholden to alien and dishonorable interests, and inspired by a juvenile notion of power. His “faith-based foreign policy,” like the alley-cat policies of his predecessor, privileges the liberalization of global trade relations, imposes the cosmopolitan imperatives of his corporate supporters on virtually every issue pertinent to the nation’s biocultural welfare, rejects the American tradition of “isolationism,” and runs roughshod over whoever resists an order hostile to ethnocultural particularisms (unless they take innocuous folkloric forms). He might differ with Clinton in favoring a missile defense system, a different approach to China, and a Likudnik rather than a Laborite Zionism, but he is no less committed to a global system of market democracies “open to trade and investment, and policed by the United States.” As one Marxist puts it: “Playboy Clinton, Cowboy Bush, same policy.”[22] With his “Judeo-Protestant” rhetoric of American exceptionalism and his willingness to remove the velvet glove from America’s mailed fist, Bush’s “jackbooted Wilsonianism” differs from that of his predecessor mainly in linking economic globalization to “military modernization.”

As the neoconservatives Thomas Barnett and Henry Gaffney argue, the Bush Doctrine ought to be viewed as a necessary complement to the globalizing process. They claim that before 9/11 globalization (which much of the world identifies with Americanization) was mainly economic, thought best left to business. The collapse of the Twin Towers has since (allegedly) triggered a more serious reflection on America’s role as globalism’s “system administrator.” In their view, bin Laden’s al-Qa’ida, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, and all the “rogue states”—Bush’s “axis of evil”—act as “dangerous disconnects” from a world based on interdependence and a single framework of economic governance. (Although they refrain from taking their argument to its logical conclusion, globalization here is inadvertently revealed as the harbinger of global terror.)[23] Faced with these threats to its one-world system, the market not only needs to be policed, the US has a responsibility to maintain its harmonious functioning. Bush’s unilateralist use of force, in applying military power whenever violent “disconnects” interrupt the international flow of labor, raw materials, and energy, Barnett and Gaffney argue, aims at ensuring the security and operability of the globalizing process.[24] But what they do not mention is that once economic globalization is joined with “military globalization,” the globalizing process is not so much ensured as altered, becoming less a neutral extension of economic trends (not that it ever was simply that) and more a classic expression of imperial power. In Iraq, for instance, the American army had no sooner occupied Baghdad than its neoconservative viceroy, Paul Bremer, began to dismantle the Iraqi state, privatize the economy, open the borders to unrestricted imports (unless they came from France or Germany), and, within two weeks of his arrival, had declared that Iraq was “now open for business.”[25]

September 11, then, did not change the long-range goal of US foreign policy (global openness), only the way in which it was pursued. The restraints on military force, already compromised under Clinton, were formally thrown off and a proactive doctrine of preemption superseded the more reactive methods of containment and disarmament. At the same time, Clinton’s human rights rhetoric and “humanitarian” militarism were jettisoned for the bellicose language of “strategic vital interests” and “imperial responsibilities.” It would be misleading, however, to think the transatlantic rift was due solely to Bush’s militaristic assertion of US global interests. Long before 9/11, real policy differences had begun to emerge: over trade; agriculture; armament exports; relations with Cuba, Iran, and Korea; the Palestinian-Israeli conflict; the Echelon economic espionage system monitoring European faxes, e-mails, and phone calls; the Kyoto Protocol; globalization; the abrogation of the ABM treaty; the euro and the dollar, etc. All these differences, in one way or another, reflected Europe’s unwillingness to remain a pawn on Washington’s global chessboard.[26] In the year leading up to Iraq, as Europe sought to check Bush’s unilateralist moves, the transatlantic relationship went into crisis, forcing France and Germany to assert their autonomy sooner than they might otherwise have intended.[27]



1. Alexandre del Valle, Islamisme et Etats-Unis: Une alliance contre l’Europe (Laussanne: L’Age d’Homme, 1999).

2. Justin Raimondo, “Afghanistan: The Forgotten War” (June 21, 2004), http://antiwar.com; Elaine Sciolino, “NATO Chief Offers Bleak Analysis,” New York Times, July 3, 2004.

3. Louis R. Browning, “Bioculture: A New Perspective for the Evolution of Western Populations,” The Occidental Quarterly 4(1) (Spring 2004).

4. There is still no satisfactory treatment of neocon foreign policy. One of the better recent ones, although highly flawed, especially in ignoring its Jewish roots, is Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke, America Alone: Neo-Conservativism and the Global Order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004). On neoconservatism’s racial basis, see Kevin MacDonald, “Understanding Jewish Influence III: Neoconservatism As a Jewish Movement,” The Occidental Quarterly 4(2) (Summer 2004). The previous, and in many ways, still existing strategic basis of U.S. policy is perhaps best represented by Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (New York: Basic Books, 1997). On the larger historical contours of U.S. foreign policy, see Walter A. McDougall, Promised Land, Crusader State: The American Encounter with the World since 1776 (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1997).

5. John Le Carré, “The United States Has Gone Completely Mad,” London Times, January 15, 2003. With some irony, one Russian general, Leonid Ivashov, characterized the U.S. media coverage of the war debate (and not simply that of Fox News) as something one might expect in a “police state.” See Johannes Voswinkel, “Schmallippig im Kreml,” Die Zeit (15/2003). For one of the more interesting critiques of the controlled media’s role in mobilizing the population behind Bush’s crusade, see David Miller, “Caught in the Matrix” (April 26, 2004), http://www.scoop.co.nz [2]

6. The anonymous author of Imperial Hubris (2004), quoted in Julian Borgen, “Bush Told He Is Playing into Bin Laden’s Hands,” The Guardian, June 19, 2004.

7. Andrew Buncombe, “Carter Savages Bush and Blair,” The Independent, March 27, 2004; David Corn, The Lies of George W. Bush (New York: Three Rivers Press, 2004); F.-B. Huyghe, “Pour en finir avec les ADM” (February 2004), http://vigirak.com [3]; the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “WMD in Iraq” (January 2004), http://www.ceip.org [4]

8. Viatcheslav Dachitchev, “La Turkie doit-elle faire partie de l’Europe?” (July 8, 2004), http://www.voxnr.com [5]

9. Gabriel Kolko, “The U.S. Must Be Contained: The Coming Elections and the Future of American Global Power” (March 12, 2004), http://www.counterpunch.org [6]; Robert L. Hutchins, “The World after Iraq” (April 8, 2003), http://www.cia.gov

10. Norm Dixon, “What’s behind War on Terrorism? (September 2002), www.globalresearch.ca [7]

11. Robert Kagan and William Kristol, “The Present Danger,” The National Interest 59 (Spring 2000).

12. The Bush Doctrine was elaborated in three key documents, which can be accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov [8].  They are: “Presidential Speech of 17 September 2001,” “President Bush Delivers Graduation Speech at West Point” (June 1, 2002), “The National Security Strategy of the United States of America” (September 2002).

13. François Géré, “La nouvelle stratégie des Etats-Unis” (May 2002), http://www.diploweb.com [9]; Ivo H. Daalder and John M. Lindsay, America Unbound: The Bush Revolution in Foreign Policy (Washington: Brookings Institution Press, 2003), p. 13; Chalmers Johnson, “Sorrows of Empire” (November 2003), http://www.fpif.org [10]

14. Andrew J. Bacevich, American Empire: The Realities and Consequences of U.S. Diplomacy (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002).

15. Julius Evola, Three Aspects of the Jewish Problem (N.P.: Thomkins & Cariou, 2003), p. 36.

16. Thomas W. Lippman, Madeleine Albright and the New American Diplomacy (Boulder: Westview Press, 2004). In his treatment of the subject, James Mann suggests (correctly, in my view) that the move to military assertiveness begins, haphazardly, with George I. See Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush’s War Cabinet (New York: Viking, 2004), pp. 179–97.

17. Phillipe Grasset, “Finalement, Clinton sera-t-il réélu?” (June 25, 2004), http://www.dedefensa.org [11]

18. Nikolai von Kreitor, “American Political Theology” (n.d.), http://foster.20megsfree.com [12]; Mann, Rise of the Vulcans, pp. 214–15.

19. Michael A. Weinstein, “Containment or Concessions: The Eclipse of Regime Change” (June 28, 2004), http://www.yellowtimes.org [13]; Hunt Tooley, “The Bipartisan War Machine” (September 17, 2003), http://www.mises.org [14]; Pierre M. Gallois, La sang du pêtrole: Bosnie (Lausanne: L’Age d’Homme, 1996).

20. Brendan O’Neill, “Beslan: The Real International Connection” (8 September 2004), http://www.spiked-online.com [15]; David Halberstam, War in a Time of Peace: Bush, Clinton and the Generals (New York: Scribner, 2001).

21. Bacevich, American Empire, p. 199; Daalder and Lindsay, America Unbound, pp. 36–40.

22. Samir Amin, “Le contrôle militaire de la planète” (February 17, 2003), http://www.alternatives.ca [16]

23. “Globalization inevitably generates global terror. For if the U.S. claims the entire planet as its sphere of vital interests, then all the territory of the U.S. becomes a possible sphere of vital interests for global terrorists.” See Alexander Dugin, “Premiers signes de l’apocalypse” (October 18, 2004), http://www.voxnr.com [17]

24. Thomas Barnett and Henry Gaffney, “Operation Iraqi Freedom Could Be the First Step toward a Larger Goal: True Globalization,” Military Officer 1(5) (May 2003); also Thomas Barnett, The Pentagon’s New Map: War and Peace in the 21st Century (New York: Putnam, 2004). Cf. Alain Joxe, “Les enjeux stratégiques globaux après la guerre d’Iraq” (May 27, 2003), http:www.ehess.fr [17]

25. Naomi Klein, “Baghdad Year Zero: Pillaging Iraq in Pursuit of a Neocon Utopia,” Harper’s Bazaar (September 2004).

26. Charles A. Kupchan, “The End of the West,” The Atlantic Monthly (November 2002).

27. Europe’s growing alienation from the U.S. is thus not just about the latter’s unilateralist bullying. In addition to the above cited issues, it also touches on the drug-running, mafia, terrorist, and espionage networks that the U.S. operates in Europe. For example, see Rémi Kaufer, L’arme de la désinformation: Les multinationales américains en guerre contre l’Europe (Paris: Grasset, 1999); Xavier Rauffer, Le grand réveil des mafias (Paris: Lattés, 2003); Karl Richter, Tödliche Bedrohung USA: Waffen und Szenarien der globalen Herrschaft (Tübingen: Hohenrain Verlag, 2004); Alexander del Valle, Guerres contre l’Europe (Paris: Syrtes, 2001); Robert Steuckers, “Espionage par satellites, guerre cognitive, manipulation par les mafias” (November 2003), http://www.centrostudaruna.it; Thierry Meyssen, “Propagande états-unien” (January 2, 2003), http://www.reseauvoltaire.net [18]

Boreas Rising:
White Nationalism & the Geopolitics of the Paris-Berlin-Moscow Axis, Part 3

A Promising Rapprochement

In the last instance, the US-European rift of 2002–2003 followed from the Cold War’s end, which destroyed the rationale for the transatlantic alliance and hence the restraints on European autonomy. For without the Red Army on the Elbe, Europe was no longer obliged to take orders from the West Wing. Because NATO has outlived its usefulness and Bush’s unipolar security system made no accommodation to Europe’s post-Cold War status, the more self-confident Europeans have begun to distance themselves from Washington.

However headline-capturing, their modest assertion of autonomy has nevertheless been carried out in ways that are thoroughly inadequate to Europe’s independence, based as they are on principles of jurisprudence and ethics, rather than on more consequential forms of power. In Robert Kagan’s now famous characterization, Europeans are from Venus and Americans from Mars, with the former acting as if the world were governed by abstract Kantian principles, ignorant of or unwilling to acknowledge the violent Hobbesian reality which Americans, especially after 9/11, have been forced to confront.[1] In other words, Europeans look to negotiations, diplomacy, and international law to resolve international disputes, while Americans emphasize the importance of military force. These differing “perspectives and psychologies of power,” the anti-white Kagan suggests, explain something of what divides the two shores of the Atlantic.[2] But perhaps more debilitating than Europe’s “Kantianism” (which will not last) is the fact that its increasingly autonomous foreign policy is less an expression of its political identity (although it is that) than a symptom of its liberal evasion of what such an identity ought to entail.

In France, for instance, which is the sole continental country to have defended the European idea in the last half century, as well as maintained a nuclear arsenal and professional army worthy of a “power,” opposition to US unilateralism has been framed largely in liberal internationalist terms that draw attention away from the state’s failed domestic policies. Since De Gaulle’s death, France has been in decline. The population is aging, millions of inassimilable Muslim immigrants are colonizing its lands, and virtually all the major institutions are in need of reform. Having eyes only for the “poor immigrant,” the metastasizing state bureaucracy imposes unrealistic social laws that hamper production and serve as a force for national decline. At the same time, the historical sources of nationalism have been dissolved, the native French dispirited by the institutionalization of multiculturalism, and the country’s extraordinary military and diplomatic apparatus, the necessary basis of both French and European power, if not neglected, then underfunded.[3] The hoopla that comes with France’s resistance to Bush simply focuses attention away from these failures and toward geopolitical developments that are potentially key to Europe’s future, but whose import is limited by the state’s misconceived domestic policies. As Julius Evola puts it: “The measure of freedom is power.”[4] And because Europeans are now uncomfortable with the exercise of power, their freedom is necessarily limited.

It is worth recalling that Jacques Chirac was responsible for the totalitarian mobilization against the presidential candidacy of the nationalist Jean Marie Le Pen in 2002.[5] Like much of the European governing class, he is a product of the same plutocratic system that subordinates national interests to international finance, indifferent to everything associated with his people’s blood and soil.[6] Such a system, as our own experiences reveal, is incapable of producing anything other than mediocrities. In this spirit, Chirac’s opposition to Washington’s unipolar order orients to a multipolar model based on liberal market principles hostile to Europe’s unique bioculture. As Guillaume Faye points out, Chirac’s opposition to the Iraq war was motivated less by his Gaullist nationalism (which he routinely betrays) than by his pacifist and Third World politics.[7] With the 2007 presidential elections in view, his foreign policy seems, in fact, aimed at the new Muslim electorate, which thrives on his anti-American, Third World, and multilateralist posturing.[8]

Faye also claims that American power is ultimately a reflex of Europe’s refusal of power.[9] Like many commentators, he stresses that US power in this period is greatly exaggerated and goes unchecked mainly for want of challengers. Revealingly, Chirac has, for all his opposition to Bush, done little to rearm Europe and what he does do he does for the worst of reasons, neglecting Grande Europe in the name of a legalistic idealism that contradicts the biocultural foundations of European life. Rather than fixating on the illegalities and incivilities of American unilateralism (which has proven to be a paper tiger in Iraq), he and other establishment leaders would make a greater contribution to Europe’s destiny if they devoted more attention to its military, restored the basis of its national identity, and addressed the real dangers coming from the South. Worse, they wholeheartedly subscribe to the American model of ethnopluralism, communitarianism, and multiculturalism. Just as US leaders think nothing of sending troops halfway around the world to fight a war whose immediate beneficiary is Israel, ignoring the more serious security threat posed by the Third World’s incessant assaults on the country’s southern border, European elites (and the demonstrators massed behind them) trumpet their solidarity with the Islamic Middle East, whose immigrants are presently rending the fabric of European life. There are good reasons for opposing Bush’s war, but the liberal ones motivating Chirac cannot but come back to haunt the continent.

Germany’s relationship with the US is significantly different than France’s, but no less infused with noxious anti-identitarian influences. Germany was virtually remade by the Americans after 1945 and throughout the Cold War remained subservient to them. Yet Germany is slowly beginning to throw off her tutelage. Schröder nevertheless adheres to values and policies that qualify as examples of Kagan’s Kantianism (i.e., pure liberalism). More than Chirac, he upholds Washington’s earlier liberal internationalism, criticizing Bush for violating its principles.[10] (As one journalist for the Süddeutsche Zeitung writes: “We [Germans] owe a great debt to the US for contributing to our transformation into truly democratic citizens after World War II. . . . They [Americans] must forgive us if we have difficulty letting go some of the lessons we have learned.”)[11] It was thus his pacifism—his Social Democratic opposition to power per se—rather than any geopolitical ambition for a powerful Europe that seems to have prompted his opposition to the Iraq war.[12] And in this, alas, he resembles much of the German population, which prefers bourgeois comforts to those virtues that made earlier generations great. Finally, Schröder, like Chirac, supports Turkey’s admission to the EU and panders to the new “German Turk” electorate. He might therefore have been the first German chancellor since Hitler to frontally oppose Washington, but he has no intention of letting the old anti-liberal dream of white renaissance out of the bag.[13]

Despite the mediocre stature of these politicians, which makes them ill-suited to the great tasks at hand, I would argue that the “force of things”—the realities of power and the dictates of survival—is greater than those charged with carrying them out.[14] This seems especially evident in Europe’s rapprochement with Russia. For as France and Germany become increasingly alienated from the US, they lean eastward—even though French and German elites have much more in common with their American than their Russian counterparts.[15]

A rapprochement between the three great European peoples promises great things. As Karl Haushofer once said: “The day when Germans, Frenchmen, and Russians unite will be the last day of Anglo-Saxon [i.e., liberal] hegemony.”[16] Bush—and this is why his administration seems destined to achieve world-historical significance—has brought about what a century of US geostrategists have sought to prevent. Conversely, it is hardly coincidental that even at the Cold War’s height, a wing of the French military looked to Russia as a possible ally. In 1955, the prominent geostrategist, Admiral Raoul Castex, published an article titled “Moscou, rempart de l’Occident?” (Moscow, rampart of the West?), in which he wondered if Russia might not one day become “the vanguard of the white world’s defense.”[17] Today, in a period when Grande Europe—from Dublin to Vladivostok—is at peace, white nationalists in Europe and America again pose Castex’s question and again affirm the possibility that Russia has a leading role to play in the white race’s defense. Indeed, the question now possesses a qualitatively greater weight than it did a half century ago, before the Third World hordes, abetted by the West’s liberal elites, began their colonization of our lands. Russia, moreover, is not just the last white nation on earth, but the only one to have shown the slightest interest in defending its ethnoracial identity. (Our russophobic nationalists might be reminded that the former Soviet Union was the sole white power to define nationality racially.) Its heritage of nationalism, socialism, and anti-liberalism also lends it something of that “Prussian socialism” which Spengler and Yockey saw as the one viable antidote to Western liberalism.[18] In courting Russian support in their conflict with the US, French and German elites might think Putin will be converted to their misconceived Kantianism, but in the great racial-civilizational battles that lie ahead, it is far more likely that Russia’s ethnonationalism will prevail.[19]

America’s Future

Since the rise to world power of the United States, white America has been in decline. For most of the twentieth century, but especially since the end of the Second World War, the country’s overlords have taken one step after another to de-Europeanize its white population. To this end, white culture and identity have been socially re-engineered. White communities, schools, and businesses have been forced to integrate with races previously considered inferior and inimical. And, for the last 40 years, whites have been expected to replace themselves with Third World immigrants. As the biocultural identity of white Americans gives way to a universal, transnational, and global one (the ideological analogue of the New World Order), they are further alienated from who they are.[20] Against this de-Europeanization and the postnational, multiracial regime succeeding it, the small, isolated pockets of white resistance confront a seemingly impossible task—similar to the one King Canute faced when he tried to hold back the ocean tide. Because of this, I would argue that only a catastrophe will save white America. Only a catastrophic collapse of the political, institutional, and cultural systems associated with imperial America—call it the managerial state, liberal democracy, corporate capitalism, the NWO, or whatever label you prefer—holds out any possibility that a small, racially conscious vanguard of white Americans will succeed in defending their people’s existence.[21] With the Iraq war, Bush—”this Buster Keaton of the apocalypse”—has opened a Pandora’s box of catastrophes. He, in fact, has done more to discredit, weaken, and vilify the existing systems of liberal subversion than any previous president, inadvertently creating conditions that should give white Americans another chance to regain control of their destiny. In this spirit, his administration acts as “a lightning rod for catastrophes.”  As one foreign observer notes: “The paradox of the present situation is that the worse the crisis becomes, the more Washington reinforces the position that evokes so much resistance.”[22] Indeed, his “war on terror creates more monsters than its destroys.”[23] Lacking the cognitive and normative tools to deal with a complex area like the Mideast, the president ends up managing the Iraqi occupation “by the seat of his pants.”[24] And as he does, the real dangers threatening the country are totally ignored: the dangers posed by the mestizo and Asiatic colonization of our lands, the growth of US Muslim communities, the denationalization of the economy and the looming fiscal crisis of the state, the Zionist domination of the political and information systems, the replacement of truth with propaganda and disinformation, the deculturation and miscegenation of our people, and the unrelenting assault on everything associated with the “freedoms” he allegedly defends in Mesopotamia. Instead of inaugurating a new era of unchallenged American power and enhancing national security, Bush seems set on preparing their demise.[25] Since the murderous terror of 9/11, his administration has shattered the myth of American military omnipotence, tarnished the country’s moral authority, alienated its allies, squandered its once formidable diplomatic powers, created the basis of an anti-US realignment, and undermined America’s image not only as a force for democracy and order, but as a secure economic haven. This latter tendency is now causing overseas investors to think twice about sending their capital to the US, which, combined with the ballooning expenses of the Iraq war, is hastening the dollar’s decline and the country’s economic deterioration. But more than undermining American power and prestige, the Bush administration has discredited the liberal civilizational model associated with the United States, provoking, in the process, a worldwide revulsion against the “American way of life.”[26]

The simple-minded, dishonorable, and raceless character of Bush’s government—riddled with Israeli spies and unsavory influence peddlers and premised on the belief that truth is irrelevant to its political calculus—seems to epitomize nothing so much as the debilitated state of our governing classes and their inability to serve as a nation-bearing stratum. That for the first time in American history Europe is not the focus of US strategic thinking, but rather Israel, should say it all.[27] It would be misleading, though, to think the failures at the highest level of state are simply the result of an unusually incompetent administration or its alien controllers. For even the “opposition” party produces candidates who are but variants of the reigning mediocrity.[28] This suggests that the system itself is bankrupt. Not coincidentally, the telltale signs of blockage, symptomatic of regimes heading toward the abyss (or “staying the course,” as George II says), appear now with increased frequency. The great bard of our decline, H. Millard, likens America to a runaway train. “The Israel firsters, neurotics, low IQ PTA types, political opportunists, easily susceptible dupes, genocidal blenders, party loyalists, war profiteers, and opportunists of various stripes” who are at the controls either have no idea of what they are doing or an unwillingness to profess it publicly.[29]

Contrary to the pipedreams of both our conservatives and liberals, there will be no going back.[30] Like the Soviet Union in the 1980s, the US has become bogged down in a protracted war at the very moment its economy is in steep decline. The slash-and-burn policies Bush has introduced will also be extremely difficult to retract, no matter who captures the White House in 2008. But even if there were a desire to retract them, the means are lacking. For example, in 1956, when Dwight Eisenhower warned France and England not to retake the Suez Canal, after Egypt nationalized it, he was able to threaten the stability of their national currencies. Today, the dollar is itself threatened.[31] For all the fabled shock and awe of US power in this period, the country is qualitatively weaker than it was a generation ago, when it was able to rein in the largest European empires. This erosion of its economic, diplomatic, moral, and even military power, combined with the near universal opposition to its increasingly unilateral and militaristic foreign policy, cannot but provoke a geopolitical realignment. The prospect of the Iraq war spreading to Iran and elsewhere will simply compound these destabilizing forces.[32] Increased conflict abroad, growing dissent at home, and deep division within the government itself are also likely to foster decisional paralysis, further exacerbating the crisis.

But however this crisis plays out, America and Europe seem set on a collision course.[33] Already wary of Washington, France and Germany (along with Spain, Belgium, and Italy, once Berlusconi goes) will eventually have no choice but to reposition themselves in opposition to it, for their strategic imperatives are increasingly at odds. This is certain to trigger new conflicts and new alignments, compelling Europeans to reaffirm their sovereignty—and their distinct strategic identity. As they do, their cooperation is bound to deepen and their nationalist consciousness to grow. At the same time, certain mentalities will be forced to change and certain taboos to fall, including the postmodern ones that leave Europe powerless. The collapse of the Cold War alliance system also throws open the strategic-political parameters of the international arena. The future, as a consequence, now holds out several possible alternatives. The Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis may still lack credibility, but this is probably less important than the effect it has had—and will continue to have—on the European spirit. It thus promises a possible renewal. The big question is whether or not Europeans have the will and acumen to realize it.

Fundamental to virtually all schools of geopolitical thought is the notion that the augmentation of power in one part of the world inevitably comes at the expense of another part. If the Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis continues to affect the continent and shift power out of the Atlanticist camp, this cannot but destabilize the United States, for without its omnipotent dollar and its domination of global markets, it will no longer be able to consume more than it produces, to live on credit, to afford the social-welfare measures that buy off the Africans and tame the Mexicans, to sustain the social-engineering schemes discriminating against the talents and energies of its white majority, to afford the police, the drugs, the TVs, and the computer toys that narcotize its cretinized masses. The institutionalization of such an axis is also likely to dislodge America’s dominant place in the world system, setting off economic disruptions that will make it impossible for whites to live in the old way, to lose themselves in vacuous material comforts, to accept the lies that fly in the face of reality. Once this point is reached, European-Americans will be forced to act like people elsewhere who are suddenly thrown into a do-or-die situation.[34]

Like the “American Century” Henry Luce announced in 1941, the “New American Century” of Washington’s current generation of schemers and chiselers promises an even greater holocaust of our people. The future they envisage might indeed be called the New Anti-White Century. For like the order issuing from their Second World War, the one planned for the period following Iraq will not serve white America, only the alien, plutocratic, and cosmopolitan interests aligned in the current Washington-London-Tel Aviv axis.

No one should be surprised, then, that when the inevitable collapse comes, white America’s front fighters will not mourn the eclipse of the so-called American Century, for they are nationalists not in the nineteenth century sense. They do not fight for the petty-statism of the so-called “nation-state”—which is now made up of peoples from many different nations. The American, German, and French states—none of these entities any longer represent the descendants of those who founded them. As Sam Francis puts it, “the state has become the enemy of the nation.”[35] And as a thousand years of European history demonstrate, whenever the state and the nation come into conflict, the latter inevitably proves the stronger. I think it is no exaggeration to claim that only on the ruins of the existing political order will white America be reborn—and reborn not as another constitutional “nation-state” which elevates abstract rights above biocultural imperatives, but as a northern imperium of white peoples who, as Bismarck exhorted, “think with their blood.”

Those who would dismiss the Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis as a temporary happenstance, a product of convenience, inflated with purely speculative significance, should be reminded that the 21st century will decide if white people have a future or not. From this perspective, collapse and realignment are necessities—and necessities have a way of engendering the imagination appropriate to them. For when the world’s population reaches ten billion, when China, India, and all Asia challenge the white man’s dominance, when the colored multitudes crossing our borders are magnified by ten or a hundred, when oil is depleted and raw materials are used up, when all the forests have been cut down and all the cultivable lands claimed, and—hopefully—when the Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis has established an alternative realm of white existence, the ensuing chaos cannot but sunder whatever misbegotten allegiance white Americans have had to the present system. Then, in alliance with their kinsmen in Europe and Russia, they—if they are to survive as a people—will have no choice but to accept that they are made not in the multihued images of a deracinated humanity, but in that of the luminous Boreans, whose destiny opposes the darkening forces of Bush’s America.

Let us prepare for the coming collapse.


1. Robert Kagan, Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order (New York: Knopf, 2003), p. 3. Actually, the unreferenced metaphor originates with Denis MacShane, “Europe and America Need Each Other More Than Ever,” http://www.post-gazette.com [2]

2. Kagan, Of Paradise and Power, p. 28.

3. Guillaume Faye, La colonisation de l’Europe: Discours vrai sur l’immigration et l’Islam (Paris: L’Æncre, 2000); Nicolas Baverez, La France qui tombe (Paris: Perrin, 2004).

4. Julius Evola, Imperialismo pagano: Il fascismo dinanzi al pericolo euro-cristiano (Padua: Ar, 1996), p. 45.

5. Yves Daoudal, Le tour infernal: 21 avril–5 mai (Paris: Godefroy de Bouillon, 2003).

6. Yves-Marie Laulan, Jacques Chirac et le déclin français 1974–2002 (Paris: François-Xavier de Guilbert, 2001); Emmanuel Ratier, Le vrai visage de Jacques Chirac (Paris: Facta, 1995).

7. Faye, Le coup d’Etat mondial, p. 113.

8. Omer Taspinar, “Europe’s Muslim Streets,” Foreign Policy (MarchApril 2003).

9. As Schröder says: “Es gibt nicht zu viel Amerika, es gibt zu wenig Europa.” See “Die Krise, die Europa eint: Ein Gespräch mit Gerhard Schröder,” Die Zeit (14/2003). Cf. Philippe Grasset, “Le dilemme stratégique des U.S.A: Sa faiblesse militaire” (June 15, 2004), http://www.dedefensa.org

10. Günter Maschke, “Vereinigte Staaten sind die Macht der Unordnung,” Deutsche Stimme (June 2003).

11. Quoted in Richard Lambert, “Misunderstanding Each Other,” Foreign Affairs (March–April 2003).

12. Alexander Rar, “Europa ist Zerspaltet” (December 15, 2003), http://evrazia.org [3]

13. Edouard Husson, “Crise allemande, crise européenne?” (March 2003), http://www.diploweb.com [4]

14. As Joseph de Maistre said of the revolutionaries of 1789: “Ce ne sont point les hommes qui mènent la révolution, c’est la révolution qui emploie les hommes.” See Considérations sur la France (Lyon: Vitte, 1924), p. 7.

15. Maja Heidenreich, “Europa und Russland: Eine rückblickende und analysierende Darstellung” (n.d.), http://www.boschlektoren.de/ [5]

16. Quoted in Sacha Papovic, “De la dialectique géopolitique” (August 2003), http://www.voxnr.com.

17. Cited in “Russie-France-Allemagne” ( n.d.), http://www.paris-berlin-moscou.org [6]

18. Oswald Spengler, Preussentum und Sozialismus (Munich: Beck, 1919); K. R. Bolton, ed., Varange: The Life and Thoughts of Francis Parker Yockey (Paraparaumu, NZ: Renaissance Press, 1998), pp. 36–38. Also N. N. Alexeiev, “Raisons spirituelles de la civilisation eurasiste” (1998), http://www.voxnr.com [7]

19. W. Joseph Stoupe, “The Inevitability of a Eurasian Alliance” (August 17, 2004), http://atimes.com [8]

20. James Kurth, “The War and the West,” Orbis (Spring 2002).

21. Guillaume Faye, Avant-Guerre: Chronique d’un cataclysme annoncé (Paris: L’Æncre, 2002).

22. Philippe Grasset, “Comment Rumsfeld devient le garante de l’aventure irakienne” (May 11, 2004), http://www.dedefense.org [9]

23. François-Bernard Huyghe, Quatrième guerre mondiale: Faire mourir et faire croire (Paris: Rocher, 2004), p. 9.

24. D. Priest and T. E. Ricks, “Growing Pessimism on Iraq: Doubts Increase within U.S. Security Agencies,” The Washington Post, September 29, 2004.

25. Philippe Grasset, “La destruction méthodique de la puissance américaine” (September 27, 2004), http://www.dedefensa.org [10]; Guatam Adhikari, “The End of the Unipolar Myth,” International Herald Tribune, September 27, 2004.

26. Philippe Grasset, “Comment l’américainisme est en train d’apparaître pour ce qu’il est: un problème de civilisation” (September 1, 2004), http://www.dedefensa.org [10]

27. Brent Scowcroft, George I’s national security adviser, has publicly criticized George II for being “inordinately influenced by Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. ‘Sharon just has him wrapped around his little finger’, Scowcroft said. ‘I think the president is mesmerized.’“ See “Key GOP Figure Raps Bush on Mideast,” San Francisco Chronicle, October 17, 2004.

28. Ehsan Ahari, “How Bush, Kerry Are One and the Same” (September 2, 2004), http://www.latimes.com [11]

29. H. Millard, “Ridin’ the Runaway Train Named America” (2004), http://www.newnation.org [12]

30. Françoise Vergniolle de Chantal, “Les débats américains sur la relations transatlantiques” (2004), http://robert-schuman.org [13]

31. Ian Williams, “Deterring the Empire” (May 13, 2003), http://www.alternet.org [14]

32. David Wood, “U.S. to Sell Precision-Guided Bombs to Israel” (September 23, 2004), http://www.newhousesnews.com [15]

33. Ian Black, “The Transatlantic Drift,” The Guardian, September 20, 2004; Philippe Grasset, “L’UE: Une stratégie de rupture avec l’Amérique” (September 20, 2004), http://www.dedefensa.org [10]

34. Faye, Avant-Guerre.

35. Sam Francis, “When the State Is the Enemy of the Nation” (July 19, 2004), http://www.vdare.com [16] This is not to say that the state is inherently the enemy of the nation—only that this is the case with the existing liberal state. On the difference between statism and nationalism, see Walker Connor, Ethnonationalism: The Quest for Understanding (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994).

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

mercredi, 31 août 2011

Guerre raciale et implosion du système

Guerre raciale et implosion du système

Pierre Vial

Ex: http://tpprovence.wordpress.com/

Immeubles incendiés, magasins et centres commerciaux dévalisés et vandalisés, rues jonchées de débris, de carcasses noircies de bus, de voitures, de véhicules de police… Ces images de Londres, de Birmingham, de Bristol, de Liverpool ont fait, en boucle, le tour du monde par télévisions interposées. Elles évoquaient bien ce que la députée travailliste Diane Abbott a appelé « une zone de guerre » (théâtre, reconnaît Le Monde du 10 août, d’une « guérilla urbaine »).

Les media français ont tout de suite voulu donner le ton pour interpréter ces événements : c’est la faute de tensions sociales dues à la réduction des financements publics en faveur des plus démunis, c’est la faute du chômage et donc du désoeuvrement… et c’est la faute, bien sûr, de la police britannique (« les gaffes de la police » a titré le quotidien conservateur Daily Mail, tout aussi faux cul que les journaux français). Tout s’explique… et les casseurs cagoulés sont des « jeunes » ayant du vague à l’âme. Bien organisés, tout de même (on est donc loin de la réaction spontanée, épidermique, de hooligans), avec un système de liaison bien au point pour relancer les vagues d’assaut pendant plusieurs jours.

Mais que faisait le gouvernement ? Le premier ministre Cameron, le ministre de l’intérieur, le ministre des finances, le maire de Londres étaient…en vacances (Cameron en Italie). Les casseurs sont décidément bien mal élevés de choisir un moment pareil. Ils auraient pu attendre la rentrée.

Il est incontestable que le climat social détérioré par un libéralisme débridé a de quoi susciter bien des rancoeurs.  Mais celles-ci sont venues se greffer sur une volonté d’affrontement racial. La mort d’un délinquant antillais au cours d’une opération montée par  la police contre les gangs antillais a été le prétexte du déchaînement des émeutes. Le premier foyer d’insurrection a été le quartier de Tottenham, qualifié gentiment de « multiethnique » et dont la majorité de la population est d’origine antillaise. Celle-ci a voulu montrer – et elle a réussi – qu’elle pouvait se rendre maîtresse de la rue, en défiant un pouvoir et un ordre blancs. Même Le Monde, malgré ses a priori idéologiques, a reconnu au passage (9 août) qu’il s’agissait « du plus sérieux affrontement racial au Royaume-Uni depuis les troubles d’Oldham en 2001 » et qu’il y avait donc bel et bien « émeute raciale ».

Ce qui fait voler en éclat ce multiculturalisme, présenté pendant longtemps comme le modèle britannique de réponse aux tensions raciales et dont Cameron reconnaissait récemment (tout comme Angela Merckel pour l’Allemagne) qu’il était un échec. Il était basé sur la conviction irénique que des communautés raciales diverses pouvaient cohabiter harmonieusement sur un même territoire. Illusion due à des présupposés idéologiques qu’on retrouve tant à droite qu’à gauche chez des intellectuels qui refusent tout simplement le poids des réalités. Des réalités trop dérangeantes pour leur confort mental et qu’il faut donc nier obstinément. Jusqu’au jour où elles vous rattrapent…

Ce jour est arrivé pour beaucoup de Britanniques. Comme le reconnaît Libération (16 août) ils suivent les conseils figurant sur de grandes affiches placardées par la police ou les inscriptions peintes sur les panneaux de contreplaqué remplaçant les vitrines brisées des commerces : il faut repérer et dénoncer « les rats à capuche » (en Angleterre comme en France les délinquants immigrés aiment pouvoir se dissimuler le visage pour éviter d’être identifiés).  Surtout, des milices d’autodéfense se sont mises en place pour assurer ordre et sécurité dans les quartiers menacés. Pour pallier l’inefficacité d’une police paralysée par les tabous du politiquement correct (aveu d’un bobby publié par Le Monde du 12 août : « L’ordre était d’intervenir avec circonspection pour éviter les accusations de brutalité, de racisme »).

Le Système en place, miné par ses contradictions internes, est en train d’imploser, la guerre raciale montrant qu’elle est désormais sous-jacente dans nombre de pays européens. C’est donc bien en dénonçant sans répit les ravages du capitalisme libéral et en prêchant une conception réaliste, c’est à dire racialiste, de la société que nous pourrons contribuer à la libération mentale et à la volonté de résistance et de reconquête de  nos frères européens.

Pierre Vial

mardi, 30 août 2011

Krantenkoppen - Augustus 2011 (4)


Augustus 2011 (4)
"Au moment où une intense campagne vise à préparer les esprits à une intervention, il est impératif de donner les clés du problème somalien":
"Le pluralisme de la presse et la liberté d’expression sont certainement plus grands ici a Beyrouth qu’à Paris": http://www.geostrategie.com/990/richard-labeviere-non-a-une-pensee-unique-neoconservatrice-et-pro-israelienne/
"Du 3 au 12 août dernier, j’ai séjourné en Syrie. Alors que les agences de presse occidentales présentent ce pays comme en proie à une répression féroce et à une guerre civile larvée, je n’y ai rien vu de tel":
"Als de VS hetzelfde systeem voor gezondheidszorg zou hebben als andere geïndustrialiseerde landen, dan zou er niet alleen geen deficit zijn, er zou zelfs een overschot zijn":
"Met dank aan een toezichthouder die de eigen status liet afhangen van het mondiale marktaandeel van haar kampioenen en in ruil voor groei veel door de vingers zag (...), heeft de crisis ons pakweg 27% van ons jaarinkomen gekost":
"Eigenlijk moeten we spreken van meerdere crisissen, die allemaal samen nog lang zullen doorwegen":
"Als klant heb je eigenlijk geen keuze meer. Het is voorwaarden aanvaarden of geen betaalbare lening krijgen":

lundi, 29 août 2011

Germany's sovereignty was and is restricted by US and allies


Germany's sovereignty was and is restricted by US and allies

Krantenkoppen - Augustus 2011 (3)


Augustus 2011 - 3
"Des camps de formation informatique financés par les USA accueillent des militants dits de la “société civile” – c’est-à-dire, de l’opposition – en provenance de pays dont les gouvernements ne sont pas appréciés des USA. Le but affiché en est la 'démocratique', ou plus exactement, les révolutions de couleur et le changement de régime":
"Belarus has developped gradually into a strong socially-oriented market economy with the highest growth rate in the CIS even during its current financial troubles (according to the CIS Interstate Statistical Committee, between January and... April 2011 Belarusian industry grew 12.9% year-on-year), while still maintaining its free health care, job protection, social services, retirement programs, low unemployment, state-subsidized housing and utilities, and high level of education. This is one reason why the country is naturally in the line of fire of the West, whose bankrupt governments are now obsessively telling their citizens that “there is no alternative”: we must drastically decrease or kill pensions and other social programs, fire government employees, flexibilize the work force, privatize education, health care, infrastructure and everything possible, etc. etc.

Located just next door to crisis-stricken Europe, Belarus is more than a thorn in its side; it is living proof that European and American neoliberal propaganda is only lies."
“If the UN General Assembly approves, the Basij Organization is ready to send Ashura and al-Zahra brigades to Liverpool and Birmingham as peacekeepers to monitor observation of human rights laws and deter use of force”:
"De Iraanse president Mahmud Ahmadinejad veroordeelt het brute gedrag van de Britse politie tegen de relschoppers. (...) Ahmadinejad vraagt de Veiligheidsraad van de Verenigde Naties om in te grijpen. Libië eist dan weer het ontslag van de Britse premier Cameron":
"In de tijd der subprimehypotheken werden ratingbureaus betaald door de bedrijven waarover zij hun beoordelingen gaven. Nu dat marktsegment verdwenen was, begonnen ratingbureaus obligaties van nationale staten, en daarmee ook de nationale staten zelf, te beoordelen. Interessant was dat de beoordeelde entiteiten zelf geen opdracht hadden gegeven ... ":
"Amerika is niet langer een westerse natie. Het is omgevormd tot een land waarin het overheidsapparaat onherroepelijk in handen is van de elite":
"Die Botschafter einiger EU-Staaten und der USA haben den am Samstag in Prag beginnenden Homo-Greuel „Prague Pride“ öffentlich unterstützt. Das führte beim tschechischen Präsidenten Václav Klaus und Außenminister Karel von Schwarzenberg zu Irritationen":
"Bank of America wilde het stel uit dat huis zetten tijdens alle foreclosures, maar (...) dat was raar, want het stel had 't huis indertijd zonder hypotheek gewoon met cash betaald":
GADDAFI SPEECH II (1th July 2011):
Moammar Gaddafi: "Compare your European demonstrations to the demonstrations of Libya. Your people don't carry your pictures, they are against you."
"Wilders het voortdurend heeft over massa-immigratie en de islamisering van Europa, die op geen enkele manier zijn te bewijzen. Wilders weet dit dondersgoed. Het gaat Wilders ook niet om de feiten of statistische aantallen, maar om het in stand houden van een spook dat niet bestaat":
"Een groep burgers heeft aan de IJslandse parlementsvoorzitter een blauwdruk voor een nieuwe grondwet voorgelegd. De blauwdruk werd uitgetekend met de hulp van honderden andere burgers":
"Door een gebrek aan investeringen die voor nieuwe tewerkstelling zouden kunnen zorgen, dreigen grote gebieden van de Great Plains en Appalachia, samen met regio's van Arkansas, Mississippi en het noorden van Texas met een gigantische ontvolking geconfronteerd te worden":

mardi, 23 août 2011

The German Death Wish

The German Death Wish

Frank Ellis reviews German’s huge best seller.

Ex: http://www.amren.com/

Thilo Sarrazin, Germany Consigns Itself to Oblivion: How We Are Putting Our Country at Risk, Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, München, 2010, 410 pp. (in German, with German title: Deutschland schafft sich ab: Wie wir unser Land aufs Spiel setzen) €22.99.

Like all Western nations, Germany suffers from waves of immigrants who clearly have no intention of integrating, and from a duplicitous political class that harries its citizens to accept what they instinctively know is wrong. At the same time, because of the Nazi period, the pressure on Germans to conform to the United Nations-sponsored ideology of multiculturalism has been immense. Many Germans themselves treat any assertion of national German pride as a manifestation of neo-Nazi tendencies, as something hideously offensive and shameful.

Germany Consigns Itself to Oblivion, by Thilo Sarrazin

It is this specifically German context that makes the publication of Thilo Sarrazin’s book so remarkable. It is all the more remarkable for having been written by one of Germany’s top technocrats, a person at the very heart of the administrative establishment. Clearly, Mr. Sarrazin, who was until last September 30 on the executive board of the Deutsche Bundesbank, has had enough. He instinctively grasps the truth of Solzhenitsyn’s eleventh commandment: “Thou shall not live by the Lie.” The fact that Mr. Sarrazin’s book has become a best seller in Germany and attracted enormous support may well have prompted Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, publicly to admit in October that multiculturalism has utterly failed in Germany. Indeed, it has, and not just in Germany.

The title of Mr. Sarrazin’s book has generally been translated as Germany is Abolishing Itself or Germany is Doing Away With Itself. I believe a translation of the German verb abschaffen that does justice to the implications of the book’s themes would be Germany Consigns Itself to Oblivion, or even Germany Commits Suicide or Germany’s Death Wish.

Mr. Sarrazin’s avalanche of evidence and professional analyses left me in no doubt that the suicide diagnosis is accurate. The author underlines the rather obvious but easily forgotten point that Germany is Germany “by virtue of its inhabitants and their living intellectual as well as their cultural traditions. Without the people it would merely be a geographical term.” The same, of course, is true of England, Denmark, China, or Zimbabwe. Mr. Sarrazin notes that for decades it has not been possible to talk about the preservation of Germany, since the left-wing media denounce such talk as Nazi, racist, and xenophobic. Mr. Sarrazin destroys the silence.

Like the highly trained member of the German technocracy that he is, Mr. Sarrazin presents thoroughly researched arguments. Each chapter addresses some aspect of the immigrant problem — poverty, fertility, declining mean IQ and educational standards, spiralling welfare payments, left-wing and intellectual cowardice, the relentless Islamification of Germany — providing the reader with a series of brilliantly written mini-monographs. The whole leads inexorably to his synthesis and the work’s devastating conclusions. Germany Consigns itself to Oblivion is a masterly display of erudition and logical exposition.

Thilo Sarrazin
Thilo Sarrazin discussing his book.

To begin with, Germans, especially high-IQ women, are not having enough children, and the population of indigenous Germans is dropping below replacement rate. This is not, however, a justification for immigration: “[T]he natural population decrease in one country or group of countries may not serve as the basis morally and politically to justify immigration or seizure of land. The territorial principle is an inviolable component of state sovereignty and respect for it serves to maintain peace.”

Mass immigration from the Third World, primarily Turkey, the Middle East and Africa, will not solve the problem of Germany’s aging population because the country’s economic future lies in its human and intellectual capital. Mr. Sarrazin cites studies by Richard Lynn, Tatu Vanhanen, and others that show the average intelligence of people from these areas is well below the European average. He goes on to note that “the three immigrant groups with the greatest lack of education and the highest social costs [Turks, Middle Easterners, and Africans] are also those who are reproducing themselves the most.”

Very few Turks who came to Germany as workers ever returned home. Instead, their families joined them from Turkey, and this has created a huge, hostile underclass. Mr. Sarrazin calls the entire guest worker program “a gigantic error.” He notes that some of the problems Muslims bring are: Below average employment, above average dependence on welfare and handouts, above average fertility, segregation with a tendency to create parallel societies, above average religious participation with an attraction to fundamentalist Islam, and above average criminality and participation in terrorism.

One of the classic features of the black, white, or any underclass is addiction to television. It is the international underclass’s narcotic.

Mr. Sarrazin notes that Germany’s generous, typically European welfare state is cracking under the strain of millions of jobless Third-World immigrants. He nevertheless insists that those who cannot feed themselves and their progeny “should and must be helped.” But what happens when their numbers rise to the point that the means to clothe and feed the poor can no longer be found? The honest answer is that human beings who engage in reckless personal breeding experiments should be free to suffer the consequences, but this is farther than Mr. Sarrazin is prepared to go.

In any case, immigrants who live in parallel societies, courtesy of German and European taxpayers, and who have no intention of integrating cannot be considered fellow citizens. They are aliens who, in my view, do not meet the conditions laid down by Mr. Sarrazin for taxpayer charity. Furthermore, Mr. Sarrazin’s arguments in favor of welfare for foreigners living in Germany are the moral basis for massive transfers of German and European wealth to the Third World. It is common to claim that the starving and diseased in Somalia or Haiti — or wherever the latest Third-World disaster happens to be — are fellow citizens of the world and thus entitled to our money. This is what prompts the demented do-goodery of multimillionaire celebrities and pop stars who want other people’s taxes to subsidize reckless breeding everywhere.

German Turks
“German” Turks wave their flag.

In any case, as Mr. Sarrazin points out, attitudes towards poverty are driven by emotion rather than analysis. He notes that “the poverty risk threshold in Germany today is higher than the average net income of Germans at the high point of the economic miracle at the start of the sixties.” Mr. Sarrazin has even tested his theories about the largesse of the German welfare system. Before he wrote Germany Consigns Itself to Oblivion, he and his wife famously demonstrated that it is possible to live well and healthily on the money provided by the German welfare system. The publicity surrounding this experiment resulted in a television program, and a cameraman told Mr. Sarrazin he had been instructed not to film the apartments of welfare recipients because they were full of electronic gadgets.

Mr. Sarrazin identifies three reasons why any challenge to welfare provokes so much emotion. First, the recipients themselves like the system. Second, hordes of researchers and bureaucrats depend on it for their jobs. Third, if it is possible to live adequately on welfare but those on it do not, it is their own fault rather than some existential catastrophe. It is this last point that triggers the most rage and aggression.

Mr. Sarrazin describes the effects of Germany’s generous welfare, quoting one account of the chaos of life of an immigrant Turkish family that concludes with the observation, “And the flat screen television is always on, always.” It seems that one of the classic features of the black, white, or any underclass is addiction to television. It is the international underclass’s constant narcotic.

Turkish apartments in Germany
Even Turks on welfare watch Turkish
TV with their dish antennas.

Mr. Sarrazin also writes about a small German town where the population of 300 Turks is derived from just two families. One of them boasts, “We don’t need the Germans.” Mr. Sarrazin also mentions Neukölln, one of the boroughs of Berlin, which is just one of many areas where immigrants have displaced the indigenous population. “A German going through these districts would feel like a foreigner in his own country,” he notes, an experience now available to the citizens of virtually any white country.

As in other European countries, the mainstream media ignore immigrant crime or fail to name or describe the criminals, because to do so would show that the perpetrators are immigrants. “Who is actually helped when facts in the public domain are suppressed ...?” asks Mr. Sarrizin. “Certainly neither the truth nor clear analysis or integration.”

Mr. Sarrazin concludes his book with two scenarios: nightmare and salvation. In the nightmare scenario he looks ahead to the end of the 21st century. He sees a Germany that is no longer German. Rampant welfare spending and the failure to control Third-World immigration have effectively turned Germany into a Muslim state. Germany’s famous churches, including Cologne cathedral, have been converted into mosques. There are demands for a new German flag, one with a crescent and star.

Salvation, if it is still possible, comes from the populist right-wing parties all across Europe. Immigration controls are tightened, educational standards rise, and high-IQ women start having more children. The migrant quarters in the big cities shrink and far less Turkish and Arabic is heard on the streets. Germany has been brought back from the brink.

What makes Germany Consigns itself to Oblivion so valuable is Mr. Sarrazin’s fearless, rational honesty. Germans reading this book must experience something similar to that of a Russian reading a samizdat version of Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago during the Cold War: an exhilarating experience that only the honest search for truth can deliver. I salute Mr. Sarrazin for his moral courage and intellectual acumen; and God bless his great nation in the struggle to save itself from oblivion.

Editor’s note: Germany Consigns itself to Oblivion was published in Germany in August 2010. It immediately shot to the top of the sales chart at Amazon.de, and dropped to number two only in late December. At that time it had 441 reader reviews, of which 73 percent were five stars, and 13 percent were four stars. Let us hope its enormous success will be the first step back from the brink.

Frank Ellis is an expert in Russian and Slavonic studies who took early retirement from Leeds University in 2006 after publicly stating he believed there is a substantial genetic contribution to racial differences in average intelligence. AR

mardi, 16 août 2011

Grausam und unsolidarisch


Grausam und unsolidarisch

Von Thorsten Hinz

Die multikulturelle Gesellschaft ist hart, schnell, grausam und wenig solidarisch“, verkündete vor 20 Jahren der Grünen-Politiker Daniel Cohn-Bendit. Die Bürgerkriegsszenen in London und anderen britischen Städten geben ihm recht. Die Gewalt wird von überwiegend farbigen Zuwanderern aus den ehemaligen Kolonien verübt, die gegen die weißen Briten klar im Vorteil sind: Den einen gelingt es, in Minutenschnelle eine große Zahl kampfbereiter junger Menschen zu mobilisieren, die anderen verfügen über solch ein demographisches Potential überhaupt nicht mehr.

Großbritannien, das noch vor hundert Jahren über ein riesiges, heterogenes Empire herrschte, ist in den großen Städten selber zu einem ethnischen Flickenteppich geworden. Das großzügige Einwanderungsrecht gehört zu den Sonderbeziehungen, die Großbritannien zu seinen ehemaligen Kolonien pflegt; und zum politischen und ideologischen Kalkül der Linken, die ihre Herrschaft demographisch zementieren will. Loyalität zum Mutterland und Treue gegenüber seinen Gesetzen und Gebräuchen haben sich daraus nicht zwingend ergeben.

„Dieses Europa ist das Werk der Dritten Welt“

Ohne Frantz Fanon, den Theoretiker des Antikolonialismus, gelesen zu haben, handeln die Plünderer, Prügler und Brandstifter in seinem Sinne: Europa muß zahlen! „Denn dieses Europa ist buchstäblich das Werk der Dritten Welt.“

Die Medien in Deutschland weigern sich standhaft, das Offensichtliche, den Kultur- und Rassenkonflikt, zur Kenntnis zu nehmen. Sie bleiben gefangen im Sozialarbeiterjargon: Es seien Proteste von „Benachteiligten“, von Angehörigen der „Arbeiterklasse“ oder einfach von „jugendlichen Briten“, die man versäumt hat, sozialtechnisch zu integrieren. Eine Realitätsverdrängung, die an den Irak-Krieg erinnert, als Saddams Informationsminister die nahende Niederlage der US-Invasoren verkündete, während in seinem Rücken amerikanische Panzer das Bild durchquerten.

Eine harte, schnelle, grausame und wenig solidarische Zukunft

Stärker als die Verblendung treibt die bundesdeutschen Funktionseliten die Angst um. Nicht vor dem angeblich drohenden Terror von „Rechtspopulisten“, die in Wahrheit kreuzbrave Bürger sind, sondern davor, daß deren Bestehen auf Loyalität und Rechtstreue den hereingelassenen, mühsam befriedeten Tiger reizen und ein Chaos wie in Großbritannien losbrechen könnte. Deshalb die Gesinnungsgesetze, die Sprachverbote, die Gehirnwäsche durch die Medien.

Man kann die Entwicklung vorerst nur – wie ein Arzt, der es mit Delirikern zu tun hat – als Krankheit zu analysieren und zu ergründen versuchen. Zur Krankheit gehört, daß die Deliriker sich selber den weißen Kittel übergestreift haben und partout nicht von ihrer Rolle lassen wollen. Also taumeln Europa und die Bundesrepublik kopflos einer harten, schnellen, grausamen und wenig solidarischen Zukunft entgegen.

JF 33/11

lundi, 15 août 2011

De generatie van Amy Winehouse


De generatie van Amy Winehouse

Rellen in Verenigd Koninkrijk


Ex: http://www.standaard.be/artikel/detail.aspx?artikelid=JH3DRJO3 

De politici en intellectuele elite wilden het niet geweten hebben. Maar al wie ooit een wandeling maakte door de straten van Groot-Brittannië, kon de jongste rellen zien aankomen, zegt THEODORE DALRYMPLE (foto).

dalrymple.jpgDe onlusten in Londen en andere Engelse steden zijn een dubbelzinnig eerbetoon aan de apathie, de morele lafheid, de onbekwaamheid en het carrièrezuchtige opportunisme van de Britse politieke en intellectuele klassen. Op de ene of andere manier zijn zij erin geslaagd niet te zien wat evident is voor iedereen die een wandelingetje maakt in een drukke Britse straat: dat een grote proportie van de jonge bevolking van het land, lelijk, agressief, gemeen, slecht opgevoed en onbeschoft is en misdadige neigingen heeft. Die jeugd heeft geen enkel zelfrespect, wel veel eigendunk. Ze vindt dat ze recht heeft op een hoog levenspeil en op andere dingen, zonder daar ook maar de minste inspanning voor te doen.

Denk even na over het volgende: hoewel Groot-Brittannië een zeer hoge jeugdwerkloosheid kent – ongeveer 20 procent van de jongeren onder de 25 jaar heeft geen baan – moet het land al jaren jonge werkkrachten uit het buitenland importeren, zelfs voor ongeschoolde banen in de dienstensector. De verklaring van die paradox ligt voor de hand voor iedereen die de jonge Britten kent.

Geen enkele zinnige werkgever in de dienstensector zal een jonge Brit kiezen als hij een jonge Pool kan krijgen. De jonge Pool zal waarschijnlijk niet alleen hard werken en welgemanierd zijn, maar ook nog kunnen tellen. En de kans is groot – de ultieme vernedering – dat hij zelfs beter Engels zal spreken dan de Brit, als we het over de standaardvariant van de taal hebben. Zijn Engels zal misschien minder vloeiend maar wel correcter zijn, zijn accent gemakkelijker te begrijpen.

Occasioneel schoolbezoek

Ik overdrijf niet. Na verplicht onderwijs – misschien noem ik het beter occasioneel schoolbezoek – tot de leeftijd van zestien jaar, met een prijskaartje van 80.000 pond per hoofd, kan ongeveer een kwart van de Britse kinderen niet vlot lezen of eenvoudige rekensommen maken. Het maakt je trots dat je een Britse belastingbetaler bent.

Ik denk dat ik met vrij grote zekerheid kan zeggen, uit mijn ervaring als arts in een van de wijken waar net een politiekantoor afgebrand is, dat de helft van de relschoppers op de vraag ‘Ben je goed in wiskunde?' zou antwoorden ‘Wat is wiskunde?'.

De Britse jongeren voeren de westerse wereld aan in vrijwel alle aspecten van de sociale pathologie, van tienerzwangerschappen tot drugsgebruik, van dronkenschap tot geweldmisdrijven. Er bestaat geen vorm van wangedrag die onze versie van de welvaartsstaat niet heeft opgespoord en gesubsidieerd.

Televisie in slaapkamer

Britse kinderen hebben veel meer kans op een televisie in hun slaapkamer dan op een vader in huis. Een derde van onze kinderen eet nooit aan tafel met een ander lid van het huishouden – het woord ‘gezin' zou misplaatst zijn voor de sociale regelingen in de wijken waaruit de meeste relschoppers afkomstig zijn. Ze zijn dan ook radicaal ongesocialiseerd en diep egoïstisch. Hun visie op relaties met andere mensen is die van Lenin: wie doet wat met wie. Tegen hun volwassenheid zijn ze voorbestemd om niet alleen werkloos maar ook totaal ongeschikt voor de arbeidsmarkt te zijn.

Afhankelijk zijn van de overheid is voor veel Britse jonge vrouwen geen afhankelijkheid maar net het omgekeerde: onafhankelijkheid. Afhankelijkheid betekent elke vorm van vertrouwen op de mannen die hen zwanger maken en die hun uitkering van de overheid als zakgeld beschouwen, om aan te vullen met een beetje drugshandel. (Mark Duggan, wiens dood door toedoen van de waarschijnlijk incompetente politie de rellen zou hebben uitgelokt, deed volgens zijn eigen broer ‘zaakjes'; welke zaakjes dat waren, werd met de mantel der liefde bedekt).

Het deel van de maatschappij dat rellen schopt is relatief arm, maar bezit toch alle elektronische apparatuur die nodig is voor wat echt telt in het leven: het entertainment van de populaire cultuur. En wat is de Britse populaire cultuur geweldig. Misschien was Amy Winehouse haar mooiste parel en haar meest authentieke vertegenwoordiger, met haar militante, ideologische vulgariteit, haar domme smaak, haar walgelijke persoonlijke gedrag en haar absurde zelfmedelijden.

Haar vunzige leven was een lang bad in braaksel, zowel letterlijk als metaforisch, dat verontschuldigd noch verklaard kan worden door haar hoogst middelmatige talent. Maar toch liet onze intellectuele klasse niet het minste afkeurende geluidje horen toen ze na haar dood bijna heilig werd verklaard. Die klasse heeft sinds lang de ruggengraat van een weekdier.

Bespottelijke straffen

Misdaad wordt in Engeland nog nauwelijks bestraft. Een opperrechter vond inbraak een lichte overtreding die geen gevangenisstraf verdiende en de volgende opperrechter gaf hem gelijk. Tegen de tijd dat hij twaalf is, heeft een modale jongere uit een achterstandswijk geleerd dat hij niets te vrezen heeft van de wet en dat hij alleen op zijn hoede moet zijn voor mensen die sterker of gewetenlozer zijn dan hij. De straffen zijn bespottelijk. De politie gedraagt zich intimiderend maar tegelijkertijd ineffectief en incompetent en gaat steeds vaker gekleed in uitrusting die meer geschikt lijkt voor de bezetters van Afghanistan. De mensen die nu het bangst zijn voor onze politie zijn de onschuldigen.

Dat alles doet geen afbreuk aan de persoonlijke verantwoordelijkheid van de relschoppers. Maar deze onlusten zijn symptomatisch voor een maatschappij die snel uiteenvalt, voor een volk dat geen leiders en geen volgelingen telt maar enkel nog egoïsten.

White Riot: Assimilation & Cultural Death in England

White Riot:
Assimilation & Cultural Death in England

By Francis Alexander

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

London-riots.jpgAs an ethnocentric white man, well aware that the mainstream media do not report the racial character of non-white violence, I closely examined photographs of the recent riots that have occurred in England. To my dismay I saw new numerous white youths participating in the violence. Most of the rioter’s faces were concealed, making it difficult to determine their race, and though they were most probably a minority, the number of white rioters was sizable.

This is something many racialist writers have ignored, reacted on instinct, and attributed sole responsibility to the Negro colony. What I am writing is not to let the blacks of the hook but use this as a way of objectively analyzing the shortcomings of my own people, to illustrate the scale of our tasks in regenerating them. If you do not believe in my basic premise, take a look at these pictures http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2024120/London-riots-2011-suspects-Photos-released-know-looters.html [2]

How did this come to be? The sort of looting that occurred is normally something only done by Negroes. The simple answer is that a substantial proportion of English white working class youth have adopted Negro folkways in a very thorough and total manner. In the US the closest equivalent is the Wigger phenomena. This differs in that Wiggers are simply young whites who act black and do so as a youthful and foolish idiosyncracy, something they grow out of, because a grown man looks stupid with his baggy jeans round round his knees and a backward baseball cap.

We don’t have Wiggers in the UK, we have instead, chavs: alternatively known as rude boys, pikeys, townies, hoodies, or feral youths. For them, Negro speech, attitudes, dress, musical tastes, and disorganized criminality come to them completely naturally and spontaneously, and are a badge of social station and identity. They are not even conscious of imitating aliens. There is no affectation there; their negrification is deep-set. Can one imagine your typical middle-class American wigger joining a Negro riot?

I thought not, and that is the difference.

How is all this even possible? Well, one of the advantages of being primitive is that blacks have a natural and intuitive understanding of ethnocentrism. They refer to blacks who act white as “Bounties,” after the coconut-chocolate bar that is black on the outside and, white in the inside. These feral white youths on the other hand, are like a sandwich full of excrement: white on the outside and black on the inside. To put it in Evolian terms their race of the body is white, their race of the soul is Negro, and their like almost every one else in our society incoherently nihilistic.

All of this proves the point made by Guillaume Faye that assimilation is cultural death, which results not only in African and Asians being superficially Westernized but also in European culture being Africanized and Islamified.

Assimilation has done its work too well in England. Most middle-class English people have non-white friends, and I myself have met privately educated Asians with manner and outlook identical to native rahs (rah being slang for the tattered and plutocratic remnants of the English gentry). If worse is better, then better (i.e. “successful” assimilation) is also definitely worse.

One of the reasons that the British National Party has failed to enjoy the sort of breakthroughs that other national-populist parties have is that race relations in the UK are simply somewhat “better” than they are in the rest of Europe, i.e. less tense and therefore less likely to produce racial awakening. In turn, one of the reasons they emphasize Islam so much is that they are the one group to remain culturally as well as racially alien, and even many of them have been integrated into a basically bourgeois life style

There are number of reasons why this is the case.

The first of all is that the English, are still quite culturally confident in a sort of effortless way. Unlike Scandinavians or White Americans, they are not ashamed of who they are; white guilt is probably as uncommon as white pride. The English are too reserved for either to really resonate.

Despite this, they are unfortunately lacking in the aggressive ethnocentrism of the French, Italians, or Flems, which angers and humiliates the colonizing population, thereby further provoking a backlash from an already hostile population. The English are too polite.

A further factor is the strength of the class system, which results in non-whites being happy to imitate the manner of whatever class they belong to, for Blacks this is the feral underclass, whose manners they have changed in turn, for Asians either the lower or upper- middle classes depending upon whether they are Muslims or from one of the higher IQ groups.

A final factor is that much of the non-white population is dispersed in penny packets. There is no equivalent of America’s inner cities and France’s banlieus, which provide the territory needed to form strong non-white identities. Thus loyalty in the underclass is to soil rather than blood; specifically to whatever estate they live on. They refer to it as their “ends,” what Americans would call a housing project. The idea of multi-racial looters loyal to some ghastly warren of sub-Corbussian architecture may seem fantastical to Americans, but such is the poisoned fruit of our ever so successful assimilation.

In persuading the English people to put race before economic class, and blood before money; to persuade them to vote for a party willing to deport their non-white personal friends and acquaintances, in all these things English nationalists face an uphill task. Regardless, they must persevere or the English people will be dispossessed without resistance and go quietly into the night convinced that their Afro-Asian colonizers and future masters, are in fact, just like them: English.

We must therefore emphasize more than ever that a people is defined not by shared customs or legal status but by ancestry, continuous identity and a sense of a sacred presence. To appeal solely to culture or customs is to be disarmed, given that docile and intelligent non-white immigrants can absorb our culture, while stupid and surly ones can drag the lowest elements of our people down with them, to their convulsive and chthonic depths of post-modern urban ferality.

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

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/08/white-riot/

Londres dans la tempête anthropotechnique


Londres dans la tempête anthropotechnique

par Jean-Paul BAQUIAST

Ex: http://www.polemia.com/ 

Pourquoi employer, pour désigner les émeutes qui se produisent en ce moment dans certains quartiers londoniens, un terme apparemment obscur, celui de tempête anthropotechnique, plutôt que parler de simples émeutes des banlieues, semblables à celles s'étant produites en France il y a quelques années?

Pourquoi, plus banalement encore, ne pas parler de simples scènes de pillage, comme l'on en voit partout dans le monde? Parce que s'il s'agit d'un phénomène sans doute classique, la révolte de minorités non assimilées par le système de pouvoirs dominants et par conséquent marginalisées, il prend des formes nouvelles, l'émergence de modèles de destruction de l'ordre social en place particulièrement visibles et exemplaires. Ces modèles sont « virtuels », sous la forme d'images et de commentaires se réverbérant en écho. Mais ils naissent d'actions concrètes sur le terrain et donnent à ces actions une force d'exemple quasiment illimitée. De nouveaux acteurs jusque là passifs sont incités à prendre des initiatives. Les troubles semblent alors se générer et se répandre spontanément, sur le mode viral.

Inévitablement les sociétés attaquées génèrent des réactions de défense dont les modèles se répandent à leur tour à travers les réseaux. Ces réactions, constructives ou destructrices selon le point de vue des observateurs politiques, sont d'abord classiques, sur le mode de la répression policière traditionnelle. Mais devant l'échec de cette forme de défense, les pouvoirs inventent des solutions reposant le plus souvent sur le contrôle des activités à travers les outils technologiques fournis par les réseaux et l'intelligence artificielle. Ces solutions paraissent émerger elles-aussi spontanément. Ceci tient en partie à la capacité d'adaptation rapide des technologies utilisées et des humains faisant appel à elles. Il est aujourd'hui difficile de prévoir le type de société qui résultera des affrontements à prévoir entre les forces agonistes et antagonistes en présence. D'où l'intérêt d'essayer de rafraichir en permanence les outils d'analyse.

Le facteur technologique

Le premier facteur à prendre en compte est la puissance du facteur technologique aujourd'hui en action, que nous venons de résumer rapidement. La capacité des réseaux sociaux et des images virtuelles à fédérer les oppositions a été découverte à l'occasion des révoltes arabes. Aujourd'hui, il semble que le pouvoir de Bachar El Hassad, malgré ses centaines de chars, sera obligé à la longue de s'incliner devant la mobilisation en profondeur provoquée par la diffusion des images, aussi rares et réprimées que soient celles-ci. Le pouvoir chinois est lui-aussi dans l'expectative face à la naissance d'oppositions de ce type.

Ce facteur technologique est désormais bien connu. Il comporte le volet des médias, la télévision et internet, qui propagent dans le monde entier des symboles d'une grande puissance contagieuse, servant pour beaucoup de spectateurs d'exemples à suivre. La mémétique a décrit ce mode de propagation, les acteurs se copiant les uns les autres tout en diversifiant par mutation la nature de leurs initiatives. Il faut actualiser les modèles mémétiques déjà anciens pour tenir compte de la puissance des nouveaux modes de production et de diffusion des contenus propres aux sociétés urbaines. On voit se généraliser des outils de communication instantanée entre individus et petits groupes qui les rendent en cas de confrontation plus mobiles et réactifs que les forces de l'ordre n'employant que des moyens traditionnels de communication. Il s'agit pourrait-on dire alors de superorganismes en reconstitution permanente.

Un point méritera d'être précisé. La généralisation de la société en réseau a depuis les origines favorisé l'apparition apparemment spontanée et quasiment irrépressible d'agents internes de destruction d'autant plus efficaces qu'ils s'attaquent spontanément aux systèmes complexes, comme si la complexité les stimulaient. Il s'agit des virus informatiques et en associations avec eux, des humains, pirates ou hackers. Beaucoup semblent motivés, non pour des raisons politiques ou économiques, mais par le désir très puissant de se montrer supérieurs, fut-ce anonymement, aux barrières qui leur sont opposées. Dans notre terminologie, il s'agit typiquement d'agents de type anthropotechniques, associant des technologies de type proliférant et des humains (anthropos) tourmentés par un besoin de sortir de la norme. Cela peut prendre une forme ludique mais aussi déboucher sur des actions qui seront qualifiées de criminelles.

Or dans le cas des émeutes urbaines, on voit systématiquement apparaître des groupes dits de casseurs qui ne se bornent pas à piller mais, semble-t-il, à détruire pour détruire. On a parlé de jeu ou de sport. Médiatisés sur les réseaux, de tels comportements se répandent et se diversifient sur le mode mémétique viral. On peut s'interroger sur les raisons de leur succès reproductif, déploré par les responsables de l'ordre. S'agit-il d'une propension séculaire des sociétés organisées à générer des comportements destructifs externes de la part de ceux que cette organisation rejette? Faut-il alors intensifier les mesures répressives classiques? S'agit-il au contraire de formes d'auto-destruction internes qui seront de plus en plus nombreuses et agressives au fur et à mesure que les sociétés en réseau se complexifieront? Quels rapports entretiendront ces auto-destructions avec les actions de contestation plus pacifiques s'exprimant à travers des manifestations médiatisées, sur le mode des campements de la place Tahrir au Caire. Ces dernières en souffriront-elles ou en tireront-elles profit? Des analyses systémiques semblent s'imposer, si l'on ne veut pas s'enfermer dans la vieille dialectique du « surveiller et punir » illustrée par Michel Foucault.

Le facteur anthropologique

En état de co-activation avec ce facteur technologique se trouve le facteur que nous nommons ici anthropologique. Il faut pas à cet égard se cacher derrière les non-dits bien pensants, qui ne trompent plus personne aujourd'hui. Les insurgés des banlieues européennes conjuguent le refus de l'exploitation propre à tous prolétariats ou minorités exploitées ou rejetées par le secteur productif avec des composantes ethniques. La Grande Bretagne, pour ce qui la concerne, dans la suite d'une histoire coloniale et industrielle dont les hauts-faits inspirent encore l'imagination des classes dirigeantes, a cru pouvoir faire venir sur son territoire, pratiquement sans contraintes, les représentants de populations et de religions qui se livraient chez elles à des conflits incessants. Elle espérait apparemment pouvoir les réconcilier autour des bonnes moeurs de la gentry, tout en continuant à exploiter leur force de travail sans offrir de perspective d'emplois sérieux et de promotion. Des aides à l'assimilation avaient été mises en place sous les gouvernements travaillistes, mais elles viennent d'être supprimées.

Il n'y a rien d'étonnant à ce que, la crise économique et politique actuelle aidant, ce soit dans le pot-pourri de nationalités provenant principalement de l'ancien Empire, que se recrutent - fussent-ils naturalisés depuis plusieurs générations, les individus les plus activistes. Certes, les affrontements de la décenie précédente opposants protestants et catholiques en Irlande avaient rappelé que les Européens peuvent à tout moment prendre les armes les uns contre les autres, comme ils l'ont fait tout au long du 20e siècle. Reste qu'aujourd'hui les images des combats de rue véhiculent l'image détestable de conflits ethniques, même si comme d'habitude les premières victimes des destructions sont des famlles fraichement immigrées. Il peut s'agir d'une véritable dynamite. Parler comme le fait aujourd'hui le gouvernement Cameron de comportements relevant du banditisme classique ne suffit donc pas à prendre la mesure anthropologique du problème.

En France ou dans les autres pays européens, il paraît évident que des facteurs voisins sont à l'oeuvre qui nourriront si rien n'est fait des révoltes également destructrices. Mais pour le moment il nous semble que le maillon faible face à de telles révoltes risque bien d'être le Royaume Uni. Pourquoi? La société britannique, bien qu'indéniablement profondément démocratique en termes politiques, est aussi profondément inégalitaire en termes sociaux. De plus elle a depuis des décennies perdu la capacité de faire appel au secteur public et à de véritables mesures économiques où l'Etat et les organisations syndicales pourraient faire un contrepoids aux oligarchies financières. C'est ainsi que la majorité libérale conservatrice a embouché sans aucunes précautions les trompettes du FMI et de Wall Street en démantelant la police, les universités et les services sociaux, entre autres barrages possibles aux revendications de la rue. S'est ajoutée à cela la corruption profonde générée par le système médiatique, où même l'austère Scotland Yard a perdu sa respectabilité.

Face aux mouvements de rue, le gouvernement se trouve un peu dans la situation de Bachar El Assad: devoir durcir encore la répression ou démissionner. Certains parlent de faire appel à l'armée. Cela fera peut-être taire un moment les manifestants. Mais ne fera qu'aggraver les difficultés à terme. Il faudrait pensons-nous proposer aux minorités ethniques en réseau des perspectives à plus long terme qui réinséreraient les manifestants les plus désireux de s'intégrer au sein d'autres réseaux offrant des perspectives d'activités technologiques motivantes. C'est la question évoquée dans notre éditorial du 27 juillet, « L'avenir de la Grèce est aussi le nôtre ». Mais cette perspective supposerait un véritable changement de système politique et économique. Rien ne prouve pour le moment que la peur générée par les émeutes fasse progresser, en Grande Bretagne comme ailleurs en Europe, la prise au sérieux du besoin d'un tel changement.

Jean-Paul Baquiast
Europe solidaire

Correspondance Polémia – 12/08/2011

dimanche, 14 août 2011

In der Geiselhaft des Norwegers

In der Geiselhaft des Norwegers

von Andreas MÖLZER


Der „Norweger“ hält die Europäer in Geiselhaft. All jene, für die Erhaltung des christlichen Abendlandes eintreten und für die Erhaltung ihrer national-kulturellen Identität als Europäer, sie stehen nun im Verdacht, Gesinnungsgenossen des Herrn Breivik zu sein. 

Gastkommentar von Andreas Mölzer („Wiener Zeitung“, 3. August 2011) 






Da setzt ein Psychopath, beheimatet in einem der liberalsten Länder Europas, eine 1.500 seitige Kompilation aus den verschiedensten im Internet erhältlichen Texten ins Netz, um wenige Tage später das Regierungsviertel seines Landes in die Luft zu jagen und die Massenhinrichtung von fast 100 wehrlosen Jugendlichen zu inszenieren. So wie er seine Tat durchführte, nämlich kalt, gnadenlos und triumphierend, wahnsinnig eben, so hat er auch die pseudo-ideologische Pseudo-Legitimation seines Mordens via Internet organisiert: Da bringt er gezielt junge Menschen um ihr Leben, dort nimmt er gezielt Millionen andere in politische Geiselhaft.

Ja Geiselhaft ist es, in der sich nunmehr all jene Europäer befinden, welche die Massenzuwanderung in soziokultureller Hinsicht für bedrohlich halten und den nach Europa strömenden radikalen Islam für gefährlich. All jene, die bewusst für die Erhaltung des christlichen Abendlandes eintreten und für die Erhaltung ihrer national-kulturellen Identität als Europäer, sie stehen nun im Verdacht, Gesinnungsgenossen des Herrn Breivik zu sein. An ihrer Spitze die Ikonen der europäischen rechtsdemokratischen Bewegungen wie der Holländer Geert Wilders, die Französin Marine Le Pen, der Österreicher Heinz Christian Strache, der Finne Timo Soini oder eben die Vorsitzende der norwegischen Fortschrittspartei Siv Jensen selbst.

Wer den Fehler begeht, sich angesichts dieser Geiselhaft offensiv in jene Richtung hin wehren zu wollen, die da lautet, alles das was der Norweger in seiner Kompilation zum Besten gibt, sei ja nicht falsch, die Bezugnahme auf Winston Churchill, auf Thomas Jefferson, auf Otto von Bismarck, wäre ja nicht grundsätzlich abzulehnen. Eine Kritik des extremistischen Islamismus, der ja etwa die Anschläge von 9/11 zu verantworten hat, müsse ja erlaubt sein. Und die sozialen, kulturellen und politischen Probleme, die die ungebremste Migration nach Europa gebracht hat, seien ja evident! Eine solche Verteidigung führt gegenwärtig offenbar unmittelbar auf das politisch-mediale Schafott. Vertreter der Lega Nord und des Front National können gegenwärtig ein Lied davon singen. Und selbst die strikte und hoch emotionale Distanzierung, wie sie etwa der Niederländer Wilders praktiziert, ändert nichts daran, dass er der geistigen Komplizenschaft mit dem norwegischen Massenmörder bezichtigt wird. Was Wunder, dass Österreichs Freiheitliche sich da gegenwärtig den erhobenen Zeigefinger ihrer politischen Mitbewerber gefallen lassen müssen und sich die Schelte vom Bundespräsident abwärts über die gesamte Gutmenschen-Gemeinschaft bis hin zu selbsternannten Rechtsextremismus-Experten, wie dem unter falschen Namen segelnden Heribert Schiedel aus dem Dokumentationsarchiv des Österreichischen Widerstands, anhören müssen.

Die Situation erinnert an die Tage des Briefbombenterrors Mitte der 90-er Jahre, als die Haider-FPÖ in ähnlicher Geiselhaft des Briefbombenattentäters Franz Fuchs bzw. seiner nach wie vor nicht völlig auszuschließenden Hintermänner stand. Die indessen längst vergessenen Bekennerschreiben der obskuren Bajuwarischen Befreiungsarmee zitierten ja seitenweise freiheitliche Elaborate, um hier eine zumindest geistige Urheberschaft zu konstruieren. Aus welcher Hexenküche diese Bekennerschreiben wirklich kamen, wurde letztlich nie wirklich geklärt. Nach dem Prinzip „cui bono“ kann jedenfalls gesagt werden, dass sie nur den Gegnern der Freiheitlichen nützten.

Ähnlich ist es mit dem 1.500-seitigen Wirrsinns-Elaborat des norwegischen Psychopathen. Nützen tut dieses primär den Gegnern der rechtspopulistischen Bewegungen Europas. Und diese Gegner zeigen bislang auch kaum Hemmung diesen taktischen Nutzen voll als Wasser auf ihre Mühlen zu leiten.

Was hilft es da, wenn man darauf hinweist, dass Habermas und Marcuse keineswegs für den blutigen Terror der Roten Armeefraktion der 70-er Jahre verantwortlich gemacht werden können? Was nützt es – um weiter in der Geschichte zurück zu gehen – wenn man darauf hinweist, dass der heilige Augustinus und die anderen Kirchenväter wohl kaum für die Hexenverbrennungen oder den jahrhundertelangen blutigen Terror der Inquisition verantwortlich seien? Was ändert es da – um wieder in die jüngere Geschichte zurück zu kehren – wenn man erklärt, dass Friedrich Nietzsche nicht für den Holocaust und Karl Marx nicht für den Archipel Gulag haftbar gemacht werden können?

Das Geschäft des politischen Kleingeldwechselns blüht in diesen Tagen. Und jene eher kleinkarierten Spindoktoren im etablierten Politbereich, die nunmehr eine günstige Gelegenheit für ihren „Kampf gegen Rechts“ sehen, haben eben keine moralische Hemmung, die ideologische Geiselnahme des Norwegers für sich zu nutzen. Es liegt nunmehr an den potentiellen politisch-ideologischen Geiseln, sich moralisch einwandfrei und politisch taktisch klug aus dieser Falle zu befreien. Dies wird sicher nicht gelingen, wenn man radikal-cholerisch auf die Attacken reagiert. Und es wird auch nicht gelingen, wenn man sich kleinmütig von bisherigen politischen Haltungen distanziert. Jene Probleme im Bereich der Massenmigration und der Islamisierung, die man bislang mit großem Beifall des Wählerpublikums thematisierte, sie bleiben bestehen – auch trotz der norwegischen Tragödie. Ob man in der politischen Kommunikation, im Tonfall, eben in der Sprache, beim Aufzeigen dieser Problemfelder nicht maßvoller werden sollte, muss diskutiert werden. Dasselbe betrifft aber auch die Gegner der ach so bösen Rechtspopulisten quer durch Europa. Diese werden ihre Terminologie der Ausgrenzung ebenso mäßigen müssen.



samedi, 13 août 2011

Dit kapitalisme isgedoemd om te mislukken (Paul Jorion)

Dit kapitalisme is gedoemd om te mislukken - Paul Jorion

Volgens de Belgische antropoloog Paul Jorion bewijst de Europese schuldencrisis dat het kapitalisme op zijn laatste benen loopt. "Iedereen is de ander geld schuldig, iedereen is kwetsbaar. Daarom loopt het systeem vast.' 'In ons kapitalistische systeem zit een weeffout: alle rijkdom komt in handen van een relatief klein groepje mensen terecht. Dat groepje, dat steeds meer land, bedrijven en grondstoffen bezit, is erbij gebaat dat de anderen consumeren. In plaats van die anderen meer salaris te geven om die consumptie te betalen, lenen zij hen geld uit - tegen rente. Zo vergroten zij hun eigen rijkdom, terwijl de rest meer schulden opbouwt. Dat systeem explodeert nu."
Paul Jorion is een Belgische antropoloog die jaren in de Amerikaanse financiële sector heeft gewerkt. Volgens hem is de Europese schuldencrisis een teken dat het kapitalisme op zijn laatste benen loopt. In zijn jongste boek, Le Capitalisme à l'Agonie ('Doodsstrijd van het Kapitalisme'), - er zijn in Frankrijk sinds eind maart 6.000 exemplaren van verkocht - legt hij uit waarom Marx' voorspelling nu uitkomt. En waarom dat in zijn ogen onontkoombaar is.
In het boek, op zijn blog en in zijn columns voor de economiebijlage van Le Monde koppelt Jorion allerlei disciplines aan elkaar, waaronder filosofie, antropologie en economie. Niet alleen Marx - die volgens Jorion ook kardinale fouten maakte - komt aan bod, ook Schopenhauer, Robespierre, Locke en Hegel passeren de revue. Daarom, denkt hij, lezen ook politici en bankiers hem nu: vroeger vonden ze hem ietwat bizar, nu levert hij onorthodoxe inzichten in een crisis waarmee niemand raad weet.
Jorion (geboren in Brussel in 1946) woont tegenwoordig in Bretagne. Bij een glas Belgisch bier in een Parijse brasserie, naast het gebouw van de publieke radio waar hij een programma op de cultuurzender France Culture presenteert, legt hij uit waar het volgens hem is misgegaan. 'Ons kapitalistische systeem kent ruwweg vier actoren: geldschieters, producenten, handelaars en arbeiders. Zolang wij het communisme als vijand hadden, waren de financiële spelregels redelijk strikt, om te voorkomen dat alle rijkdom in handen kwam van de geldschieters. Als er sociale uitbuiting zou zijn, zouden de arbeiders kunnen 'overlopen' naar de vijand."
"Maar na de val van de Muur in 1989 was het communisme verslagen en was dat risico verdwenen. Onder Ronald Reagan en Margaret Thatcher waren de eerste restricties op financiële transacties die er sinds de crisis in de jaren 1930 waren, al opgeheven. In de jaren 1990 werden de overige beperkingen gesloopt of versoepeld. Daardoor is onze economie zwaar afhankelijk geworden van de financiële sector. De geldschieters, vooral de handelaren die met andermans geld gokten, zijn daar ongelooflijk veel rijker van geworden. In 2007 werd de helft van de winst in de Verenigde Staten uit de financiële sector gehaald. Dat is gigantisch."

jorionlivre.jpgHebben we daar niet allemaal baat bij gehad?
"Neen. Het hart van ons financiële systeem is intussen weggesmolten en de maatschappij betaalt daar een enorme prijs voor. De kern van dit systeem was de laatste tijd de derivatenhandel, het opknippen en doorverkopen van schuld zonder dat er hoegenaamd risico aan kleeft. Die handel voedde bubbles. Nu de zeepbellen uiteengespat zijn, functioneert die derivatenhandel niet meer zoals vroeger. De handelaren hebben daarmee in korte tijd veel geld verdiend. Maar ze kunnen er niet mee doorgaan: de meeste Amerikanen en Europeanen hebben te veel schulden gemaakt. Die doen dus niet meer mee. Dus het systeem bestaat nog, maar daarbinnen gebeurt weinig meer. Als een schelp waaruit het visje verdwenen is. De business verplaatst zich daarom naar het Verre Oosten, China en India, waar veel geld wordt rondgepompt en het procedé zich pijlsnel herhaalt. Geldschieters lenen aan producenten, handelaren en consumenten. Zij verdienen daaraan: ze krijgen het geld met rente terug. De rest waant zich ook even rijk, door het overvloedige krediet waarmee ze alles kunnen kopen.
"Maar de handelaars maken echt sociale promotie. Vroeger waren zij intermediairs tussen geldschieters en consumenten, nu verdienen ze krankzinnig veel met gokken op beurskoersen en dergelijke. Zij belanden in het kamp van de geldschieters. Maar de meeste mensen blijven met schulden zitten. Iedereen is de ander geld schuldig, iedereen is kwetsbaar. Daarom draait het systeem zichzelf uiteindelijk vast."

Proberen handelaren en geldschieters er zoveel mogelijk uit te halen?
"Ja, dit is een soort oorlog. Financieel en sociaal. Vroeger bereikte je sociale en maatschappelijke omwentelingen met geweld. De ene klasse werd afgezet, de andere greep de macht en het bezit. De laatste decennia gebeurde in onze wereld exact hetzelfde. Maar geld heeft de plaats van geweld in onze maatschappij ingenomen. Vreemd genoeg gebeurde dat op de ruïnes van een maatschappij die werd verwoest door excessief geweld, na de Tweede Wereldoorlog. Weinigen zien de parallel, maar de strijd is natuurlijk dezelfde: je verovert de wereld, maar nu op een 'pacifistische' manier, met geld. De heersende klasse van nu is een andere dan die van dertig jaar geleden: de nieuwe aristocratie, dat zijn financiers die de wereld rond vliegen met hun jets, met merken pronken, in gated communities wonen."

Is de globalisering een kapitalistische samenzwering?
"Zover wil ik niet gaan. Warren Buffett heeft het door. Die zei eens: 'There is a class struggle, but the fact is, we are winning.' Maar de meeste mensen, of ze nu arbeiders of geldschieters zijn, handelen niet bewust met het oog op een hogere 'orde'. Ze hebben geen visie. Wel is het zo dat geld ruimte nodig heeft. Vroeger werd geld gestoken in grote projecten als het Suezkanaal of goudmijnen in Afrika, waarvoor overheden de middelen niet hadden. Zulke projecten zijn er nauwelijks meer. De ruimte is 'op'.
"Nu wordt geld gebruikt om bubbles te creëren. Zo verdien je er méér mee. Als de bubble er is, moet het geld naar een andere plek, waar nog geen is. Kijk naar de Amerikaanse huizenmarkt, waarin iedere idioot een hypotheek kon krijgen en de risico's werden uitgesmeerd. Op zeker moment is de boel verzadigd. Er groeit nu een bubble op de Amerikaanse pensioenmarkt. Nu de onroerendgoedmarkt is geklapt, vormen beleggingen voor veel Amerikanen de enige oudedagsvoorziening. Met allerlei techniekjes worden nu beurskoersen gemanipuleerd, door bijvoorbeeld duizend transacties per seconde te doen. Maar, je merkt, de rek is eruit. De beurs is met 1/3 gekrompen nu de derivatenhandel niet goed meer loopt. Financiers worden paniekerig. Je ziet het aan grote beursgenoteerde bedrijven in Frankrijk, die weer winst beginnen te maken. 98% van die winst gaat regelrecht naar de aandeelhouders en een paar topbestuurders - veel meer dan vroeger. Het personeel krijgt vrijwel niets. Investeringen in het bedrijf zijn ook minimaal."

Waarom gebeurt dat?
"Aandeelhouders en bestuurders grijpen wat ze grijpen kunnen. Binnenkort kan het niet meer. Ze vertrouwen het systeem niet meer."

Waarom lenen mensen geld? Dat doen ze toch liever niet?
"Omdat ze anders niet in hun onderhoud kunnen voorzien. Van hun salaris kunnen velen geen goede huisvesting betalen, laat staan levensmiddelen, tv's of smartphones die 'iedereen' moet hebben. 150 jaar geleden al werden debatten gevoerd over de vraag hoe hoog salarissen moesten zijn. Alleen voor de rauwe basisbehoeftes? Of ook om extra's te betalen? Wat het nu is geworden, is net te weinig salaris. Vandaar dat mensen moeten lenen. Je kunt zeggen: ze hebben geen smartphone nodig. Maar de dwang van de commercie is zo groot dat je in de maatschappij niet ver komt zonder zo'n ding."

Moet de staat ingrijpen?
"Ja. Maar de staat liberaliseert alleen maar. Ook in Europa, waar sociale zorg beter is dan in Amerika. Omdat regeringen van hun schuld af willen, bezuinigen ze op sociale en op openbare voorzieningen. In België is kort geleden een man tot zes maanden cel veroordeeld omdat hij eten stal uit de vuilnisbak van een supermarkt. Al zat het in de bak, het was nog altijd bezit van die supermarkt, oordeelde de rechter. In Californië zijn laatst duizenden gevangenen vrijgelaten, omdat het te duur was om ze vast te houden. In zo'n wereld leven wij."

Zei Marx niet: het kapitalisme deugt niet?
"Ja. Wie geld heeft, leent het uit. Stel, ik heb 100 en ik leen het u tegen 7%. Dan heb ik straks 107. Als ik u die weer leen, heb ik 114 of zelfs iets meer. Ten slotte heb ik alles en u niets. Je hoeft geen marxist te zijn om dat probleem te zien. Daar wordt al heel lang over nagedacht: hoe je het systeem zo vormgeeft dat die ingebouwde ongelijkheid niet alsmaar erger wordt. Logische oplossing: je compenseert de verliezers door wat meer salaris te betalen. Zo kunnen ze spullen en diensten consumeren van producenten, waarin de geldschieter geld gestoken heeft. Dan is de hele keten tevreden. Maar wat heeft men gedaan? In plaats van gewone mensen meer salaris te geven, ging men goedkoop consumentenkrediet verstrekken. Dat is het probleem in de kern. Hoe meer geld de financiers verdienen, hoe groter de schuldenberg van anderen. De schuldencrisis toont dat aan. Eerst zat schuld bij consumenten. Toen die niet meer konden afbetalen, kwam het bij de banken. Toen die omvielen, namen overheden de schuld over. Nu moeten die er vanaf, en wentelen ze het af op belastingbetalers. Er komt geen eind aan."

Werkt zelfregulering niet?
"Neen, want ethiek en bezit staan haaks op elkaar. Zij die veel hebben, zijn niet meer de baas over hun bezit. Hun bezit wordt de baas over hén, dicteert hun gedrag. Ze willen alsmaar meer en dat staat ethisch gedrag in de weg. Daarom is het kapitalisme, althans dit kapitalisme, gedoemd te mislukken. Economen hebben dat niet ingecalculeerd toen ze het systeem uitdachten."

Weten politici hoe erg het is?
(Op schampere toon) "O ja."

Hoe weet u dat?
"Omdat ze me dat vertellen. Ze bellen me."

"Ik ben in het Elysée geweest. Bij adviseurs van de president. Ook met bankiers heb ik vaak contact. Laatst moest ik een lezing houden voor hen. Ik dacht: ze gaan me levend opvreten. Maar nee: applaus. Na afloop komt de eerste naar me toe en zegt: 'Meneer, niet tegen de anderen zeggen, maar ik ben het helemaal met u eens.' De volgende zegt hetzelfde. En dat zes, zeven keer. Die mensen weten exact hoe het zit. De banken spelen een sleutelrol in de crisis. Bankiers weten precies hoeveel rotzooi er in welke banken zit."

En de politici?
"Die begrijpen het, maar weten niet wat ze moeten doen. Ze wachten af, vingers gekruist."

Wat moeten ze doen?
"Ik weet niet goed wat ik ze moet vertellen,behalve dat ze straks waarschijnlijk regeringen van nationale eenheid zullen vormen. Niemand weet wat hierna komt. Marx had een alternatief, een utopie: het communisme. Dat ging ten onder. Voorlopig zitten we met een Europa dat op maat gesneden is voor het kapitalisme. De verdragen van Maastricht en Lissabon hebben daaraan meegeholpen. Alles gaat veranderen, maar niemand weet hoe. We staan op een keerpunt in de geschiedenis van de mensheid. Interessante tijden."

Overleeft de euro de schuldencrisis?
"Neen. Als Spanje valt, of Italië, kan het snel gaan. De euro kan niet functioneren als landen hun schulden niet afbetalen. Iedereen krijgt straks zijn eigen munt terug. Een compensatiecommissie moet uitzoeken wie wat moet betalen en aan wie. Misschien moet je zelfs denken aan het parallelle monetaire systeem dat Hjalmar Schacht, Hitlers minister van Economie, opzette om de Versailles-herstelbetalingen te voldoen die Duitsland niet kon betalen: met cheques."

Hoe kunt u er zo droogjes tegenaan kijken? Het gaat toch ook om uw continent, uw munt?
"Ja, maar ik word daar niet depressief van. Antropologen als ik bestuderen illusies, structuren die mensen niet zien omdat ze er zelf in zitten. Toen ik in de high finance werkte, speelde ik dezelfde rol. Wij werkten met computermodellen die berekenden hoeveel risico er aan financiële producten zat. Op een dag klopte er een getal niet op de spreadsheet. Ik haalde de leiding erbij: jongens, pas op! Maar alles wat ze deden, was dat getal door een ander getal vervangen. Ze dachten dat het aan het model lag. Dat er een echt risico kon zijn, kwam niet in die hoofden op."

Wat leert de crisis u?
"Dat niet alles rationeel te verklaren valt of in modellen te vangen. Dat de mens dat toch altijd probeert en dus steeds op zijn bek gaat. Toen ik na mijn studie onderzoek deed in een Franse vissersgemeenschap, bleken prijsontwikkelingen niet te verklaren als je domweg naar vraag en aanbod keek. Ik zei: 'Er is iets anders.' Haha, riep iedereen, 'Jorion begrijpt zelfs de wet van vraag en aanbod niet.' Later ontdekte ik het echte systeem dat de prijzen bepaalde: sociale status. De rechter die iets verkoopt, kan meer vragen voor hetzelfde product dan de schoenmaker en de schoenmaker meer dan de metselaar. Niks bijzonders. Iedereen weet dat instinctief, behalve economen. Maar economen hebben wel de hele catechismus van het kapitalisme geschreven. Daarom loopt alles nu spaak."

Bron: Paul Jorion(De Standaard, 16 juli 2011 / NRC Handelsblad, 18 juli 2011)