Ok

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

dimanche, 05 avril 2015

Dimitrios Kisoudis: Goldgrund Eurasien

dim6243d81740.jpg

Dimitrios Kisoudis: Goldgrund Eurasien – eine Rezension

By Benedikt Kaiser 

Ex: http://www.sezession.de

Dimitrios-Kisoudis_Goldgrund-Eurasien.jpgEng verknüpft mit »Eurasien« [2] als ideologischem Großraumkonzept, das sich gegen die Hegemonialmacht USA stellt, ist der Name Alexander Dugin [3]. Häufig wird er als »Stichwortgeber« Wladimir Putins interpretiert. Der ehemalige Nationalbolschewist Dugin vereinigt in seinem Theoriegehäuse geopolitische, traditionale und russisch-mystische Elemente. Dimitrios Kisoudis untersucht nun diese eklektizistische Ideologie (Goldgrund Eurasien, hier bestellen [4]), stellt sie kenntnisreich in den Kontext eurasischer Visionen, ist aber spürbar weniger von René Guénon, Karl Haushofer oder russischen Mystikern beeinflußt.

Der Anthropologe argumentiert im »Krieg der Ideen« (Kisoudis) vielmehr im libertären Sinne F. A. von Hayeks und Murray Rothbards. Mit den Ahnherren eines klassischen Marktliberalismus (Hayek) bzw. »Anarchokapitalismus« (Rothbard) will Kisoudis nachweisen, daß schon im Kalten Krieg nicht nur der Sowjetkommunismus, sondern auch der westliche »Kollektivismus mit demokratischem Anstrich« von authentischen Liberalen und Libertären scharf kritisiert worden ist. Die Sowjetunion ist verblichen, die Ost-West-Frontstellung hingegen nicht. In der Ukraine, ohne die Rußland kein eurasisches Reich mehr sei (so Großrusse Alexander Dugin und US-Falke Zbigniew Brzezinski [5] übereinstimmend), werde dies besonders deutlich.

Ohnehin sei mit der Präsidentschaft Putins die Konfliktlinie wieder virulent geworden. Putin begann als Europäer, suchte Nähe und wandte sich – verärgert über EU-Arroganz und die Osterweiterung der NATO – vom Westen ab; er wurde zum Eurasier. Der russische Präsident förderte die Verquickung mit der traditionell staatstragenden orthodoxen Kirche (Moskau: das »Dritte Rom«). Während der Westen seine Traditionen auslösche, gestalte Rußland die seinigen neu. Kisoudis verhehlt nicht, daß seine Sympathie dem geopolitischen Antipoden der Vereinigten Staaten gilt, folgt aber nicht der eurasischen Feindschaft zum Liberalismus.

Die Österreichische Schule jedenfalls zähle nicht zu den postmodernen Auflösungsideologien, sondern zeige seit jeher ein Faible für Überlieferungen. Kisoudis läßt diesen Überlegungen eine idealtypische Liberalismus-Exegese folgen samt hinlänglich bekannter libertärer Kritik am Staatsgeld (»Geldsozialismus«), verknüpft mit einem Plädoyer für die Privatisierung des Währungswesens.

Derartiges hat freilich auch in Rußland keine Perspektive. Doch Kisoudis hält sich daran nicht auf, er schätzt das russische Steuersystem, ein gewisses ökonomisches Laisser-faire, allgemeiner: die russischen Freiheiten. Putins Staatskonzeption ist für ihn kein antiliberaler Entwurf, sondern »autoritärer Liberalismus«. Wirtschaft dürfe fast alles – nur nicht für den Gegner arbeiten. Das berge mehr Selbstbestimmungen für Unternehmer als der westliche Sozialdemokratismus. In dieser Lesart ist der neue Kalte Krieg der »heißkalte« Konflikt zwischen dem autoritär-liberalen Osten und dem postmodern-»geldsozialistischen« Westen. Die Vorzeichen haben sich also gewendet: Der Osten ist nicht mehr sozialistisch, der Westen nicht mehr liberal und marktwirtschaftlich.

Kisoudis ist in seinem geistreichen und sprachlich virtuosen Essay außerordentlich stark, wo er die Bereiche Politische Theologie und Geopolitik tangiert, in wirtschaftstheoretischer Sicht verliert er sich allzusehr in anarchokapitalistischer Ideologie, dabei werden die Ebenen der Betrachtung teils jäh gewechselt. Deutschland rät er zu einer Neujustierung der Außen- und Handelspolitik in Richtung China und Rußland. Dann folgt einer der gedanklichen Sprünge des Autors: Viele Probleme Deutschlands habe die »postmoderne Ideologie« amerikanischer Provenienz zu verantworten, aus der folge: »Deutschland ist bunt wie nie. Aber bunt sind auch die Zufallsgemälde des Schimpansen Congo.«

Dimitrios Kisoudis: Goldgrund Eurasien. Der neue Kalte Krieg und das Dritte Rom, Waltrop/Leipzig: Manuscriptum 2015. 120 S., 14 €, hier bestellen [4]

War. What Is It Good for?

 

MorriszncNjiTuL._SL1500_.jpg

War. What Is It Good for?

Review – The productive role of military conquest

by Ben Shephard

Ex: http://www.theguardian.com

Taking an evolutionary approach to history, Ian Morris argues that humanity has benefited from centuries of warfare

War is good for absolutely nothing; it means "destruction of innocent lives" and "tears to thousands of mothers' eyes" – so go the lyrics of the classic 1970 pop hit. Ian Morris does not agree. War is essential to history, he argues in his new book. Only through warfare has humanity been able to come together in larger societies and thus to enjoy security and riches. It is largely thanks to the wars of the past that our modern lives are 20 times safer than those of our stone age ancestors.

Morris.jpgThis proposition is not as startling or paradoxical as it might at first seem, especially as by "war" Morris means conquest or nation-building. Nor is it particularly original. Back in the 17th century, Thomas Hobbes set the ball rolling with his vision of life as nasty, brutish and short; much more recently, the Israeli historian Azar Gat has set out the evidence at length in his War in Human Civilization. Morris's book is essentially a popularisation of Gat's monumental, if forbidding work.

To prove his case, Morris reviews the history of warfare, carrying the reader confidently from bows and arrows to ballistic missiles, and sketching in the parallel development of social forms, from hunter-gatherer groups to the EU.

He is particularly good on the role of military innovation in the long process of European colonisation, which began in the 15th century and ended in 1914. His neat formula about the productive role of war works best for the classical period but falters by the time it reaches the 18th century, as ideology, high finance and diplomacy enter the equation. Morris's response is to bolt on extra elements – such as the model of global conflict produced by the geographer Sir Halford Mackinder in the 1900s – or simply to concentrate on the military narrative.

As in his Why the West Rules – for Now, Morris combines extraordinary erudition with light, manageable prose. He bestrides the oceans and continents, leaps nimbly across the disciplines, and works hard to keep the reader engaged. We learn that "if an elephant rampaged in the wrong direction, the only way to stop it from trampling friends rather than foes was for its driver to hammer a wooden wedge into the base of its skull"; that Robert Clive, after winning the Battle of Plassey in 1757, helped himself to a reward of £160,000 (about $400m in today's money); and that during the first world war, Britain and her allies spent $36,485.48 for every enemy soldier they killed, whereas Germany and her allies spent only $11,344.77 per corpse. As the success of Jared Diamond's books shows, there is now a huge public appetite for this sort of brew of history, anthropology, archaeology, evolutionary psychology and biology – particularly when served up as tastily and intelligently as it is by Morris.

What, though, does it all add up to? Big History of this kind is often more interesting for the cultural assumptions behind it than for its content: Hegel thought the function of history was to produce the Prussian state; Toynbee saw the hand of God everywhere. Morris is a typical modern academic: a materialist, but not a Marxist, with a strongly evolutionary approach. He favours geographical explanations, discounts the role of ideas and downplays the "western intellectual tradition".

So, when he gets to what he calls "probably the most important question in the whole of military history" – why did China not keep its early lead in firearms ? – he dismisses Victor Davis Hanson's argument that a longstanding western cultural stance towards rationalism, free inquiry and the dissemination of knowledge led Europe to forge ahead, and prefers the simpler answer that Europeans got good at guns because they fought a lot and that the topography of Europe encouraged its population to invest in guns.

Again, as an archaeologist, Morris takes the long view and a rigorously quantitative approach. This means that he can dismiss Hitler, the Holocaust and the second world war as minor blips in the real story of the 20th century – the quantum leap in living standards and life expectancy. So what if 50 million died? That is a tiny amount compared to the growth in the Chinese population over this period.

Which, some people might think, only goes to show that the quantitative approach is intellectually worthless. What is more, some of Morris's quantitative assertions don't bear close scrutiny; as he himself concedes, the statistical evidence for the violence of early society is based on impressionistic evidence and fraught with methodological difficulties.

In his conclusion Morris speculates on the future of warfare when the current Pax Americana runs out. I wish I shared his faith that "the computerisation of everything" will make war redundant.

00:05 Publié dans Livre, Livre | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : livre, ian morris, guerre, histoire, militaria | |  del.icio.us | | Digg! Digg |  Facebook

samedi, 28 mars 2015

L’avant-guerre civile, d’Eric Werner

L’avant-guerre civile, d’Eric Werner

Francis Richard
Resp. Ressources humaines
Ex: http://www.lesobservateurs.ch

avant-guerre-civile-werner.jpgIl y a dix-sept ans paraissait à L'Âge d'Homme, L'avant-guerre civile, d'Eric Werner. La réédition, chez Xenia, de ce livre voyant, pour reprendre l'expression de Slobodan Despot dans sa postface, fait suite à une autre réédition, en 2013, par cet éditeur, d'un livre du même auteur, De l'extermination, le thème commun aux deux livres étant la guerre étrangère et la guerre civile.

Depuis l'Antiquité jusqu'à la fin de la Deuxième Guerre mondiale, les choses étaient relativement plus simples qu'aujourd'hui. Ou bien il existait un ennemi extérieur et cet ennemi permettait de limiter le risque d'éclatement de la collectivité en renforçant sa cohésion, ou bien il n'existait plus d'ennemi extérieur et ce risque grandissait. La guerre étrangère est ce qui remédie à la guerre civile, dit Eschyle.

Depuis l'Antiquité jusqu'à la fin de Deuxième Guerre mondiale, le périmètre délimitant l'intérieur de l'extérieur des territoires a varié en dimension, mais il est resté relativement bien dessiné. Et, aux temps modernes, la création de l'Etat-nation a, selon Eric Werner, empêché le fléau de la guerre civile en s'arrogeant le monopole de la violence physique légitime, au prix, et en contrepartie, il est vrai, de guerres interétatiques.

A notre époque, ce qui a changé, c'est justement que les contours de l'extérieur et de l'intérieur sont devenus plus que flous et qu'en conséquence "la guerre civile devient, potentiellement au moins, une menace" : "personne n'est plus aujourd'hui sûr de rien: ni de sa propre identité, ni de celle des autres". Les frontières interétatiques disparaissent de plus en plus et les organisations mondialistes prospèrent. La sécurité intérieure et extérieure se confondent, de même que les tâches de ceux qui sont chargés de les assurer, c'est-à-dire la police et l'armée.

Des frontières intra-étatiques apparaissent: ethnies, langues parlées, religions etc. et conduisent à des antagonismes. Se délitant indéniablement (non pas parce que sa forme d'Etat-providence est remise en cause, mais justement parce qu'elle ne l'est pas), l'Etat est incapable d'empêcher que ces antagonismes ne dégénèrent. Les hommes de l'Etat, jouant avec le feu, les favorisent même, faisant leur l'adage divide ut impera, se disant qu'en les multipliant il y a quelque chance qu'ils se neutralisent et ne se transforment pas en guerre.

eric-werner.jpgL'Etat se délite et, dans le même temps, il se refait en menant une guerre intra-étatique, indirectement, contre ses propres citoyens. Il s'agit de les contrôler, de les espionner, de restreindre leur liberté d'opinion, d'expression et de recherche. Il s'agit de leur inoculer une pensée unique par la désinformation et la propagande. Il s'agit de les disloquer en s'en prenant à tout ce qui naturellement leur permettrait de s'opposer au  pouvoir total que l'Etat exerce de plus en plus sur eux.

La politique, telle que décrite dans ce livre, n'est rien moins qu'attractive, si tant qu'elle le soit de toute façon. Contrairement à ce qui se dit de manière générale, n'occupe-t-elle pas une place beaucoup trop importante dans la vie des hommes, alors que l'on prétend que c'est l'économie qui a tout envahi? Les tensions entre les hommes sont pourtant moins grandes dans les pays où cette dernière se porte mieux et où l'activisme de l'Etat est limité par des contrepouvoirs: je pense évidemment à la Suisse, toute imparfaite qu'elle est.

Dans la lignée de Benjamin Constant (qui pensait de son temps déjà qu'était advenue l'époque où le commerce remplaçait la guerre), après avoir rappelé qu'il existe deux manières pour un homme ou un peuple de se procurer ses moyens d'existence, les créer ou les voler (par la guerre notamment), Frédéric Bastiat concluait ainsi le chapitre XIX des Harmonies économiques:

"La Spoliation comme la Production ayant sa source dans le cœur humain, les lois du monde social ne seraient pas harmoniques, même au sens limité que j'ai dit, si celle-ci ne devait, à la longue, détrôner celle-là..."

Evidemment empêcher ainsi que le chaos social ne se produise, en satisfaisant au mieux les intérêts personnels légitimes des hommes, ne fait pas l'affaire des Etats et de ceux qui en vivent, parce que cela remet sérieusement en cause leur existence, qui ne peut être justifiée dès lors que pour la sécurité des biens et des personnes réduite au strict nécessaire...

Publication commune le blog de Francis Richard et Lesobservateurs.ch

L'avant-guerre civile, Eric Werner, 224 pages, Xenia

Livres précédents de l'auteur chez le même éditeur:

De l'extermination (2013)

Une heure avec Proust (2013)

vendredi, 27 mars 2015

« Soumission », ou la possibilité d’une Europe sans femmes

séduire.jpg

« Soumission », ou la possibilité d’une Europe sans femmes
 
L’Europe peut s’enorgueillir d’avoir favorisé l’apprivoisement réciproque entre le sexe fort et le sexe faible
 
Professeur
 Ex: http://www.bvoltaire.fr
 

Après 250.000 ventes de Soumission de Michel Houellebecq, il serait temps que l’on parle non plus de la légitimité d’un roman d’anticipation sur la prise du pouvoir par l’islam mais de ce que l’auteur nous en dit.

Si le scénario politique de la chute de l’Europe proposé est fondé sur d’intéressantes hypothèses, notamment le cheval de Troie de l’islam en Europe que constitue l’injection salutaire, anesthésiante et corruptrice de pétrodollars dans son économie malade, pour le perçant moraliste moderne qu’est Michel Houellebecq, le combat se déroule et se perd ailleurs, en chacun de nous.

Le narrateur, triste mâle pratiquant le vagabondage sexuel en milieu universitaire comme les héros de David Lodge – l’humour anglais en moins -, s’enfonce dans la solitude et la morbidité à mesure qu’il vieillit. Affectivement atrophié au point de ne même plus parler à ses parents, sans descendance, séduisant, chaque rentrée, de nouvelles étudiantes éternellement jeunes, il ne se conjugue qu’à l’irréel du présent. Ses rapports avec les femmes trahissent la déchéance de sa grammaire anthropologique. Il ne sait plus très bien par quel orifice prendre ses partenaires, ni s’il faut plus jouir d’avoir deux partenaires sexuelles ou du baiser sur la joue donné par l’une d’elles : confusions d’objet, de genre, de nombre. Alors qu’il a renoncé, par égoïsme et paresse, à toute relation interpersonnelle avec les femmes, étant progressivement passé de l’amante à la partenaire sexuelle puis à la prostituée, à la suite de ses collègues récemment convertis, il se laisse finalement séduire par le modèle de la femme musulmane, choisie sur catalogue en fonction de ses propres revenus, cloîtrée, soumise, multiple et collectionnable. Chez Michel Houellebecq, l’islam triomphe sans combat grâce à la trahison de l’homme qui se replie sur lui-même en renonçant à la femme comme alter ego.

Pourtant, depuis l’amour courtois inventé au XIIe siècle jusqu’à la mini-jupe en passant par les salons littéraires féminins des XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles et le droit de vote des femmes, l’Europe peut s’enorgueillir d’avoir favorisé l’apprivoisement réciproque entre le sexe fort et le sexe faible, qui s’est traduit par la construction progressive d’un mode de coexistence mixte harmonieuse et égalitaire, bien que différentiée, des deux sexes sur tous les plans, modèle fragile (cf. les mirages de la « libération de la femme ») mais toujours en évolution. Mais si la femme était, jusqu’à peu de temps encore, l’avenir de l’homme, l’homme pourrait bien en être le liquidateur sous peu. La balle du match islam-Occident est dans le camp des 51 % d’hommes. Qui va faire prendre conscience aux hommes occidentaux déboussolés que la charia est, par essence, la régression psychologique ultime de l’homme dans sa négation de la femme comme être libre, égal à lui, et digne de son intérêt ? Pas nos politiques ni l’Éducation nationale, plus préoccupés par la promotion du transsexualisme que par la transmission des fondements de la civilisation européenne.

jeudi, 26 mars 2015

Au-delà de Bruxelles, un État européen souverain!

bd82504207_69dd693217_h.jpg

Au-delà de Bruxelles, un État européen souverain!

par Georges FELTIN-TRACOL

C’est devenu une banalité d’affirmer que l’Union européenne va mal. La crise de sa monnaie unique, la mise en tutelle d’États membres, la multiplication de nouveaux traités supposés améliorer les précédents, leur ratification rapide hors de tout débat public, la généralisation de normes qui, comme dans l’hôtellerie, assassine les hôtels familiaux au profit de grandes chaînes hôtelières, l’ouverture imminente de négociations avec les États-Unis afin de constituer une aire transatlantique de libre-échange occidentale ruineuse pour les ultimes secteurs compétitifs européens, etc., renforcent chaque jour un peu plus la défiance légitime de populations désenchantées par une construction administrative qui aboutit au cauchemar.

 

Montrant par leur inaction coupable un comportement de nabots, les européistes officiels sont comme tétanisés par la montée en puissance dans les opinions publiques d’un très vigoureux sentiment eurosceptique quand il n’est pas carrément anti-européen. L’actuel projet européen court à son échec final. Faut-il s’en féliciter ? Certainement pas assure Gérard Dussouy, professeur émérite à l’Université de Bordeaux qui a consacré une grande partie de ses cours à traiter des relations internationales et de la géopolitique. À l’encontre de la tendance dominante, le professeur Dussouy s’oppose à la fois aux souverainistes nationaux et aux européistes officiels, car il propose que les peuples et les États d’Europe fassent un « saut décisif » et cofondent une République européenne souveraine.

 

Comme d’autres auteurs avant lui, Gérard Dussouy part du constat que le monde européen doit relever plusieurs défis vitaux. Il perçoit une « convergence des crises en Europe (p. 25) » et pense, contrairement aux optimistes béats qui estiment la crise de l’euro derrière nous, que « les prochaines décennies vont voir les crises s’accumuler; une crise pouvant cacher une autre (p. 25) ». Leur succession rapide risque de tuer l’Europe comme idée civilisationnelle.

 

Pour le professeur Dussouy, la plus inquiétante demeure l’effondrement démographique. « Avec le taux de natalité actuel, en 2050, l’Union européenne comptera entre 401 millions d’habitants et 470 millions (p. 27) ». Cette population sera généralement âgée du fait du vieillissement constaté. Or ce phénomène « sclérose l’économie du continent, et […] amoindrit l’esprit de défense des Européens (p. 26) ». Le Système veut compenser cette pénurie humaine par un « recours toujours plus grand à l’immigration extra-européenne [qui] apparaît alors comme la solution de facilité pour compenser la déflation démographique. Mais elle entraîne une forte hétérogénéisation des populations et une décohésion des peuples européens par l’inclusion inévitable de diasporas multiples qui finissent par constituer des communautés territorialisées (p. 26) ». Il en résulte une nette paupérisation des États européens et accélère leur instabilité intérieure.

 

Par ailleurs, la désindustrialisation va se poursuivre. Quant au  risque de banqueroute des États du Vieux Continent, son déclenchement provoquera à coup sûr une crise politique et sociétale de grande ampleur dont l’aboutissement logique serait une « nouvelle Guerre de Trente Ans » (expression de l’universitaire suisse Bernard Wicht). Ce bouleversement majeur signifierait la fin de l’exception historique européenne et donc son exclusion définitive. Déjà en raison du « renversement du monde » (Hervé Juvin), notre continent se retrouve en périphérie d’un nouveau monde dont le « centre de gravité […] [est] le Grand Océan, c’est-à-dire l’espace maritime formé par la réunion de l’océan Pacifique et de l’océan Indien (p. 63) ». En cours de marginalisation géographique, l’Union européenne peut rater, suite à de petits calculs politiciens, sa mutation tandis que s’affirment dans le même temps les États-continents. Or de tels ensembles sont les seuls capables d’encadrer une mondialisation déchaînée. L’auteur constate que « la marge de manœuvre de la politique économique de l’État-continent est d’autant plus grande qu’il dispose de grandes réserves de main d’œuvre, de personnels qualifiés, et d’un vaste marché intérieur. Il peut, selon le contexte, changer de politique commerciale (p. 65) ».

 

couv-bd.gif

Un « duopole américano-asiatique (p. 68) » est en train de se mettre en place, ce qui marque la fin de l’hégémonie unipolaire des États-Unis qui conservent néanmoins toute leur puissance militaro-technologique. L’auteur ne le mentionne pas, mais le déclin de l’attractivité européenne pourrait à terme les inviter à retirer leur « parapluie » militaire et nucléaire qui protègent pour l’heure leurs vassaux colonisés. Ceux-ci se retrouveraient alors désarmés face à de terribles menaces dont un islamisme à visée mondialiste et une submersion migratoire africaine.

 

Dans ces conditions – Gérard Dussouy évoque aussi la crise climatique génératrice de tensions probables et le spectre de la pénurie des ressources naturelles énergétiques (on suppose qu’il ignore les travaux des décroissantistes en faveur d’une révolution économique et sociale à rebours du mythe mortifère de la croissance) -, « les Européens, s’ils entendent être partie prenante au jeu multipolaire qui s’organise entre les États-Unis et les puissances asiatiques, n’ont d’autre choix que de se réunir dans un État continental (p. 94) ».

 

Cet État européen doit impérativement se donner des frontières précises qui nient enfin l’intention mondialiste – cosmopolite de certains chantres d’une construction européenne bâclée, néfaste et « économicocentrique ». Gérard Dussouy pense que la Turquie n’est pas destinée à rejoindre le concert européen. Ce cas réglé, « le problème des frontières de l’Europe est immédiatement résolu par la géographie. Car ses frontières sont naturelles : à l’Ouest, l’océan Atlantique; au Nord, l’océan Arctique; au Sud, la Méditerranée, la mer Noire et le Caucase. À l’Est, potentiellement l’océan Pacifique, bien que beaucoup d’Européens voient l’Europe s’arrêter à la frontière de la Russie (p. 113) ». L’auteur n’adhère pas à ce dernier point de vue. Il ne rejoint pas non plus la thèse pour laquelle la Russie serait une civilisation spécifique, eurasienne. Pour lui, « l’option eurasiste (la Russie comprise comme un entre-deux mondes et autarcique) est un leurre, destiné à faire réfléchir les Européens. Car, agrémentée d’une alliance avec le monde musulman, elle semble très hypothétique et particulièrement aventureuse (p. 116) ».

 

Considérant plutôt qu’il y a « une complémentarité géo-économique totale (p. 118) », Gérard Dussouy envisage « une alliance, puis une union, entre l’Union européenne et la Russie, […] vitales, à toutes les deux, pour peser ensemble sur la répartition des forces mondiales (p. 117) ». Mais cela suppose en amont l’existence d’un État européen viable, cohérent et puissant.

 

« Il n’existera jamais “ une Europe ”, puissance internationale garante de la survie des nations culturelles qu’elle englobe, tant que n’existera pas un État européen (p. 137). » L’auteur réclame une « révolution supranationale fédéraliste » afin de susciter une souveraineté politique propre à l’Europe. Pour y arriver, il faut garantir à cet espace continental une forte cohésion sociale et territoriale rendue effective grâce à « une grande politique de cohésion et d’aménagement du territoire européen (p. 124) ». Abandonnant le dogme libéral, cette politique ambitieuse couplée à « l’harmonisation des fiscalités, des rémunérations et des conditions de travail (p. 125) » réaliserait enfin « de grands couloirs de communication : autoroutes et TGV transeuropéens, grands axes de voies navigables (axes Rhin – Danube, Rhin – Vistule – Dniepr, avec des “ barreaux ” de liaison intermédiaires) (p. 125) ».

 

On ne doit cependant pas se méprendre. La République européenne de Gérard Dussouy n’est pas un État centralisateur. Si la présence de communautés étrangères extra-européennes doit se résorber par l’organisation de leur retour dans leurs pays d’origine, la « multiculturalité » enracinée européenne, véritable diversité polyphonique et polymorphique du continent, exige des autorités de la République continentale la promotion de « la formule du fédéralisme régional, parce qu’elle intègre et respecte cette multiculturalité, [qui] nous semble, dès lors, la plus adaptée pour faire vivre ensemble tous les peuples européens dans un même cadre politique (p. 111) ». Gérard Dussouy a bien compris que « le principal défi de l’État supranational est […] de réaliser l’intégration en fondant une culture politique partagée qui ne s’oppose pas aux cultures et aux histoires nationales, mais qui les transcende dans un même mouvement communautaire. Le ressort de celui-ci est la survivance, tout simplement (p. 142) ».

 

bdtheories_rel_inter_t2_L12.jpgHostile aux États-Unis d’Europe ou à une Europe intergouvernementale, l’auteur préconise un État européen, « fédération de régions (p. 148) ». Notons au passage qu’il méconnaît ou dévalorise le concept traditionnel d’Empire dont il fait un contresens évident. C’est regrettable, car son approche de la Res Publica europensis coïncide largement avec l’idée impériale européenne.

 

Favorable tant au plurilinguisme enraciné qu’au latin comme langue officielle de la République européenne, Gérard Dussouy soutient une fédération continentale de fédérations intermédiaires de régions qui se regroupaient suivant des affinités géographiques, culturelles, ethniques, linguistiques, voire économiques. Jugeant en outre que « l’unification complète et simultanée de toute l’Union européenne n’est pas concevable (p. 161) », il reprend les propositions de 1994 des conservateurs atlantistes allemands Karl Lammers et Wolfgang Schäuble, puis du gépolitologue Henri de Grossouvre en faveur d’« un “ noyau dur ” ou une “ Avant-garde ”, comprenant la France, l’Allemagne, la Belgique et le Luxembourg (p. 162) ». Il préférerait néanmoins que ce noyau dur se constitue à partir de la zone euro et de son fédéralisme budgétaire.

 

L’auteur observe finalement que « la France a toujours refusé les plans d’unification politique de l’Europe (p. 163) ». Afin de l’« européaniser », il entend la régionaliser grâce à une réforme administrative radicale. Il supprime les départements, réduit à quinze le nombre des régions au pourtour modifié (rattachement à la Bretagne de la Loire-Atlantique, unification de la Normandie, réunion des deux Bourgognes dont la Franche-Comté…), impose aux élus le mandat unique et limite l’hypercentralisation parisienne. Ces mesures osées permettraient à cette nouvelle France, dégagée d’un Outre-mer pesant, d’intégrer pleinement l’État souverain européen. Celui-ci développerait par conséquent non pas un soi-disant « patriotisme constitutionnel », mais plus vraisemblement un « patriotisme géographique (p. 176) ».

 

Promouvoir les régions autonomes d’une France libre dans une Europe indépendante et souveraine est une belle ambition. On comprend pourquoi Dominique Venner a accepté de préfacer de manière excellente ce livre.

 

Georges Feltin-Tracol

 

• Gérard Dussouy, Contre l’Europe de Bruxelles. Fonder un État européen, Tatamis, 2013, 187 p., 10 €.

Article printed from Europe Maxima: http://www.europemaxima.com

URL to article: http://www.europemaxima.com/?p=4162

Michael Torigian’s Every Factory a Fortress

Michael Torigian’s Every Factory a Fortress

By Eugène Montsalvat

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

tor1ARSVm+yTL._UY250_.jpgMichael Torigian
Every Factory a Fortress: The French Labor Movement in the Age of Ford and Hitler
Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 1999

Michael Torigian’s Every Factory a Fortress: The French Labor Movement in the Age of Ford and Hitler chronicles the rise and decline of the French Labor movement from the years surrounding the First World War to the outbreak of the Second, culminating in a storm of labor agitation from 1934-1940.

It tells the story of how the working class responded to the social changes introduced by the Fordist-Taylorist model of production that became prevalent during World War I. The rise of the labor movement in these decades lead to the establishment of the Parti Communiste Français (PCF) as a major political force. They faced a great deal of challenges that manifested as strife on the factory floor, within the unions, against the various other factions in French politics, and internationally.

Torigian focuses particularly on the most powerful and radical element of the labor movement, the metal workers, termed métallos in French. These workers were involved in the various trades of steel making, shipbuilding, re-forging, mechanical manufacturing, electrical manufacturing, airplane, automobile, and defense manufacturing, and other miscellaneous metal fabrication. They would play a pivotal role in the wave of strikes and factory occupations that occurred in the years immediately preceding the Second World War.

In addition to the labor struggle, the threat of a Fascist coup in 1934 and the impending war with Germany, made the labor movement a part of the left wing French resistance to Fascism, yet the tension between the international political concerns and economic issues facing the workers would prove to deleterious to the unions and the PCF as the nation lurched towards the Second World War.

Every Factory a Fortress begins with an overview of the transformation of the French metal industry in the years surrounding the First World War. Perhaps the most drastic of all the changes was the adoption of the Fordist-Taylorist mode of production. In the years before the First World War, the metal industry was essentially based in craft workshops, which required a certain amount of skilled labor, and some familiarity with mathematics and drafting as well as manufacturing. It was an essentially artisanal trade.

The First World War would be the beginning of the end for the small workshop. Industrial production would be concentrated in large factories, often employing thousands of workers, which would utilize mechanized, standardized mass production techniques as developed by Henry Ford and Frederick W. Taylor. These would be detrimental to the conditions of the worker. In the old workshops, the craftsman enjoyed a degree of independence and the respect of the foremen. Management rarely intervened in the day-to-day life of the worker.

The Fordist-Taylorist system would replace much of the skilled labor needed with machines, and their operators would be subjected to dehumanizing “scientific management.” Engineers and management would dictate the most effective means of production to the workers, who were reduced to performing repetitive and often dangerous industrial routines as part of an assembly line, often timed by a stopwatch. Failure to keep pace would result in the dismissal of the worker, thus making employment less secure.

This was compounded by the fact that the bosses, termed the patronat, viewed themselves as rulers of the workers, and refused to recruit higher level positions from the laborers, preferring to hire engineers and managers from outside. This lack of social mobility would compound the divide between the workers and the patronat.

The conditions of the war furthered the problems inherent in the system. The fact that many men were out at the front, and would die as a result of the war, meant that women, immigrants, and boys were brought in to fill their roles in the war years and those following. Paid less and easily replaced, this furthered the degradation of skilled labor.

The high turnover in the metal industry following the First World War would have serious social consequences as well. The lack of job security and the flux of employment that resulted from workers constantly leaving factories in search of higher wages led to a fairly nomadic existence. The rooted communities based upon the skilled workers of the workshop ceased to exist and workers crowded into hastily constructed suburbs, which lacked adequate electricity, sanitation, and other basic amenities. Tuberculosis, diphtheria, and other communicable diseases took their toll, and child mortality increased.

The decline of the traditional working communities and the rise of atomized life in the slums provided an opening for mass, consumer culture to replace the organic bonds of society. Sports, radio broadcasts, and cinema became popular diversions French culture became Americanized, Hollywoodized, as one trade unionist noted, “Today, life inside and outside the factories is similar to life in America and has no other aim than the pursuit of crass material satisfaction . . . To achieve this satisfaction people seem willing to accept any kind of servitude.” Moreover, the rise of consumerism distracted the working class from political and economic goals.

The labor movement in France was descended from the ideology of revolutionary syndicalism, which held that the workers would rise up and seize control of the workshops. In the aftermath of the First World War, it proved to be antiquated, as it focused on the concerns of skilled workers in the atmosphere of the workshops that dominated before the rise of the mass industrial system.

cgttar3_flo_001f.jpg

Represented by the Confédération Générale du Travail (CGT), they adopted an anarchist position and refused to negotiate with political parties or form their own to represent themselves, codifying their beliefs in the 1906 Charter of Amiens. Opposed to negotiation with bosses and politicians, the CGT used wildcat strikes, boycotts, and sabotage to advocate for worker control. However, membership remained low, and poor organization stifled its ability to pursue extended strikes.

Divergences between the more reformist and the revolutionary wings began to arise and were furthered by the First World War, as the working class was unequivocally patriotic in their support of the war effort. This lead the CGT to reject direct action in favor of negotiation. However, the new workers in the war industry did not take to the CGT, preferring more mass movement-oriented action over the skilled labor elite of the CGT.

In 1917 there was a round of strikes, opposed by CGT representatives, who sought to protect the interests of skilled laborers from the demands of the masses. In March 1918, another round of strikes lead by anti-reformist dissident stewards broke out. Furthermore, the Russian Revolution had piqued the interest of the more revolutionary segments of the labor movement.

In the waning months of the war, reformist elements sought to codify some of the state-directed socialist aspects of the war economy to mitigate the threat of revolution, proposing nationalization, collective management, and state resolution of contract disputes. However, the end of the war restored the full free market, and the unions lost whatever leverage they enjoyed during the war.

This strengthened the hand of revolutionary syndicalists and the new Soviet-oriented groups. In June 1919, anarchist stewards lead nearly 180,000 workers in a month long strike, where a Soviet was proclaimed in Saint-Denis. The refusal of the CGT leadership to endorse the strikes only exacerbated tensions between the revolutionaries and the reformists. This led to creation of the PCF from a split in the Socialist Party in 1920, and workers began to rally to this new “worker’s party.”

The reformist leadership began to purge the revolutionaries aligned with the PCF, who formed the Confédération Générale du Travail Unitaire (CGTU) in 1922. The CGTU experienced infighting between syndicalists, anarchists, and communists, but by 1923 had enough control to bring the CGTU into the Soviet backed Red International of Labor Unions and organize the union according to Bolshevism. The Unitaires, as CGTU members were called, in the metal industry were used as the political laboratory of the CGTU, where “every change of line, every new directive, every political imperative cooked up by the French and international communist movement would thus find its way into the union’s daily operations.”

One particular organizational change used by the CGTU was to shift the base of operations from the section locale, which represented union by neighborhood, to the section syndicale, which represented workers directly on the factory floor, thus implanting the CGTU into the daily workings of the factory. Unfortunately, the factory sections were hampered by management intimidation and logistics. Both the CGTU and the “confederal” CGT failed to achieve much progress throughout the twenties in terms of concrete gains for their members.

It was the onset of the Great Depression that would strengthen the hand of labor in France. The contraction in the labor movement would end the high turnover in the factories. Immigration, migration from the countryside, and female labor participation decreased, and skilled workers and family men were given priority. This essentially stabilized the environment on the factory floor, which would allow the labor movement to take root. Moreover, the conditions inside the factory worsened in terms of stagnating wages, production speedups, and longer hours. The stabilization of the workforce, combined with more unpleasant conditions lead to a greater need for labor activism.

The CGT tried to organize within the communist dominated suburbs, but were hampered by the union locale mode of organization where unions were represented by locals outside the factory, which led to a lack of contact between the worker and union. The unitaires were better prepared to unionize the métallos, using the section syndicale to reach workers directly on the factory floor. The PCF also utilized factory cells to recruit.

In 1930, direct orders from the Soviet Union forced the CGTU and PCF to reduce their revolutionary rhetoric and focus more on the day-to-day struggles of the workers, which helped end the marginalization they suffered in the preceding years. In 1932 the CGTU started making more concrete demands than full scale revolution like the 40 hour week, guaranteed minimum wages, collective bargaining, and health and safety guarantees. However, the revolutionary core was still present in the party, though reigned in. These radical activists would prove useful in leading future agitation. An increase in strike activity by the CGTU from 1931 to 1933 would result from the turn towards the concerns of the common worker. The CGTU took on the prominent French auto manufacturer, Renault, in November 1931 after a large wage cut was announced. The strike broke out on a shop by shop level, leading to a two month struggle with management. While the strike failed, it raised the credibility of the CGTU in the eyes of the workers. In 1933, the CGTU fomented a massive strike at the plant of Citroen after wage cut announcements were made. After a work stoppage by 300 craftsmen, CGTU agitation eventually caused Citroen to lockout 18,000 workers. Strike committees were formed as intermediaries between union leadership and the workers. Citroen eventually reopened its factories and the promised a mitigation of the wage cut, and the workers returned in blocs, who would engage in slowdowns to force the factory to keep their promises and rehire strikers. While the strike did not bring Citroen to heel completely, it solidified the role of the CGTU as the leader of labor activism in the metal industry.

The events of February 1934 France would have a major impact on the labor movement. The Stavisky Affair, which revealed that several members of the cabinet were connected to the Jewish swindler Serge Stavisky, inflamed the passions of the far right, and led to a series of demonstrations in January 1934 by organizations like Action Française and Croix de Feu of a generally an anti-democratic character.

cgt120ans.jpg

On February 3rd, Premier Daladier dismissed the right-wing prefect of the police, leading to massive demonstrations on the 6th. 100,000 rightists marched on the Chamber of Deputies, and police opened fire, killing 18 and leaving 18,000 wounded. Fearing impending civil war, the government resigned.

Maurice-Thorez.jpgThe initial response of the communists was indifferent. PCF leader Maurice Thorez stated that there was “ no difference between bourgeois democracy and fascism. They are two forms of capitalism . . . Between cholera and the plague one does not choose.” On the 7th of February, the PCF rejected a socialist overture to form a united front against what was widely perceived as a Fascist coup attempt.

Interestingly enough, it was PCF member and future Fascist Jacques Doriot that broke ranks with the party leadership to propose an alliance with the Section Française de l’Internationale Ouvrière (SFIO) against the anti-republican forces. In response, Thorez announced a demonstration on February 9th against fascism and Daladier’s cabinet. The demonstration was banned, but it went ahead anyhow, resulting in street fighting that left six dead. In response a general strike was called on February 12th, mobilizing four million workers across the country.

In this action, the strikers saw themselves not as agents of revolutionary class struggle, but as defenders of French democratic institutions derived from the French Revolution. This in turn would lead to the formation of alliances between the PCF and the less revolutionary factions of the French left. The PCF joined the SFIO to formulate a “united action pact.” With German rearmament posing a threat to Soviet Union, the PCF was forced to abandon its criticism of French democracy and seek alliances with potential allies against a future German assault within the political sphere. Steps were taken to reunify the CGT and the CGTU, but they had yet to produce any results. The new-found moderation of the PCF and CGTU and their symbolic defense of the republic proved to be quite successful in convincing workers to join, swelling the ranks in the metal union enough for them to put out a weekly paper, Le Métallo.

The Franco-Soviet Pact of Mutual Assistance in May 1935 forced further rapprochement between the PCF and the French state, which opened the way for an alliance with the Radicals, the bourgeois liberal party. The PCF increasingly appealed to French patriotism against the threat of Germany, wrapping themselves “so tightly in the French flag that the hammer and sickle would barely be visible.” The May 1935 election would also see the formation of a People’s Front observing “republican discipline,” where voters would vote for the strongest Left-wing party on the second ballot. This lead to massive gains for the PCF, moving the number of cities and towns under PCF control from 150 to 297.

In June 1935, the Comité de Rassemblement Populaire was formed to bring together the PCF, SFIO, CGT, CGTU, and Radicals to organize a pro-republican Bastille Day rally. However, it decided to maintain itself afterwards and align with the People’s Front in support of republican defense. However, the various factions were in dispute on a number of issues, and it would take until January 1936 for them to codify a program, based around international defense against fascism, suppression of the right-wing leagues, and some fairly vague promises of restoring the worker’s purchasing power harmed by the depression through a fairly Keynesian program. A GCT-CGTU merger would follow in March of 1936.

The political gains and consolidation of the left would help support and organize labor activism in the future. In 1935, the first major successes of the CGTU soon followed, the Gnome-et-Rhône aircraft works granted labor demands after the threat of a strike, and similar victories in the Panhard-Levassor auto plant, the Chausson auto works, Hispano-Souza, and the aircraft plants of Bloch, CAMS, and Loiré-Olivier soon followed.

The 1936 parliamentary elections would intensify the momentum of the French labor movement, the Communists growing from 10 to 72 seats. However, parties of the extreme right had also made significant gains. The atmosphere of polarization grew as the moderate bourgeois liberal parties were reduced in strength. 120,000 workers rose in a May Day strike. The Bréguet aviation plant fired two militants in reprisal for their role in the May Day strike, which triggered an occupation. When police arrived to evict them, they barricaded themselves into the workshop bearing the company’s prototypes. The management recalled the police and opened negotiations when they refused to leave. The striker’s demands were satisfied. Another strike broke out, possibly encouraged by the PCF’s Toulouse branch, in the Latécoère aviation plant and it was settled in the workers favor in a manner similar to the Bréguet strike. The wave of factory occupations struck the capital region, notably at the Bloch plant, where a strike aided by PCF deputies and the Communist mayor of Courbevoie succeeded in granting a new contract with a large raise to the workers.

However, the leadership of the PCF, was not entirely pleased by these actions, as they had joined the People’s Front to maintain the force of the French government against the rising power of German Fascism. PCF organ L’Humanité urged the workers to “refrain from wild revolutionary gestures.” However, the new People’s Front government had buoyed the worker’s hope for economic reform, and they would go ahead with or without Communist support.

A demonstration in memory of the Paris Commune of 1871 on May 24th drew 600,000 workers, furthering the fervor of the movement, as syndicalist Pierre Monatte remarked, “When you feel strong in the streets, you can no longer feel like a slave in the factory.” The Tuesday following the commemoration of the Commune, 4,000 workers occupied six metal plants. This strike would spread, on Thursday 33,000 Renault workers would join. Attempts to resolve the strikes on June 1st failed when the employers refused to sign a contract. On June 2nd, 60 factories were occupied, and the strike had spread to other regions of France. The union leaders who had advocated caution in order to maintain their political position were ignored as the movement gained a life of its own.

On June 7th, an agreement, dubbed the Matignon Accords, was reached, which promised recognition of the union, a 7 to 15 percent raise, and a system of shop stewards. Other demands would be resolved later. However, the employers immediately had reservations, and the most of the striking workers saw no reason to leave, believing the accords were too loose. By the 9th of June, four million workers remained on strike.

Fear of a revolution reached fever pitch as labor delegates rejected the employers’ concessions, demanding four non-negotiable things: a serious wage increase, paid vacation, payment for the days on strike, and satisfaction of the striking technicians’ demands. The government, fearing civil war, hurriedly passed a forty-hour week, paid vacation, and collective bargaining. Thorez, fearing that that the strike would break the People’s Front, called on workers to bring the strikes to an end, and on the 12th of June, the union signed a contract with the employer’s collective, the UIMM, which granted paid vacation, raises, and shop stewards, and the union was recognized as the sole bargaining agent of the workers. Further bargains between individual factories were struck on the 13th and 14th, and work resumed on the 15th. The workers viewed this as a great triumph, and the strikers evacuated the plants to great fanfare.

The employers responded to the new system with a series of indirect attacks on the Matignon Accords, firing stewards, reclassifying categories of workers, and delaying the implementation of the contract. The employers’ actions intensified the workers’ defiance, augmented by the fact that many of the new union recruits were inexperienced in dealing with the formalities of negotiation and came to unionism in the surge of labor radicalism. The union leadership was presented with problems from the confrontational attitude of the new stewards, who sought to flex their new found power at the least provocation from management. The PCF worried that further conflicts with the patronat would damage the political strength of the People’s Front. CGT leader Jouhaux urged employees to ignore “employer provocations” and wait for the government to arbitrate disputes.

The advent of the Spanish Civil War would further the rifts developing in the People’s Front further. The Blum government bowed to public pressure and refused to aid the loyalists in the conflict. For the PCF and the CGT this was akin to the endorsement of fascism. A one-hour general strike in protest of France’s non-intervention was called for on the 7th of September. While supported by the Communists, it had the effect of inflaming the tensions between them and the syndicalists and socialists opposed to further warfare in Europe, and the SFIO announced its opposition to the strike on the grounds that it would threaten the People’s Front government.

To counter the Communist influence in the factories, the SFIO formed the Amicales Socialistes d’Enterprise, a rival union. Some former confederals in the CGT also took an anti-communist, pacifist line spread through their organ Syndicats. About a third of the CGT, sympathetic to revolutionary syndicalism supported the Syndicats group. At the first meeting of the Metal Federation’s congress after CGT-CGTU reunification, attempts were made to preserve the spirit of unity, and two of six executive positions were reserved for confederals. However, following the passage of a compulsory government arbitration bill for strikes, which the CGT accepted, and Blum’s increasingly conservative policies in the midst of financial crisis, workers became increasingly disgruntled with the union’s willingness to support the government, and anarchist and Trotskyites formed the Cercle Syndicaliste “Lutte de Classes” in opposition to CGT.

tract-sfio-1936-1.jpgWorker support for the People’s Front government was further eroded in 1937 following the rise of the fascist Parti Sociale Français (PSF). Following the fatal shootings of six workers by policemen in an anti-fascist demonstration at Clichy on March 16th, which lead to a call for a half-day strike in protest of the killings, Blum threatened to resign if the strike went ahead, and then failing to do so, ordered the police to crackdown on the workers who allegedly instigated the violence at Clichy.

Worker anger at the PCF’s collaboration with Blum was unabashed; one Communist stated, “They massacre the workers, they let revolutionary Spain perish, and it’s L’Humanité and the party that makes us swallow it all.” Violent protests erupted in factories throughout the Paris metal industry. In response, employers increased their repression of the unions, locking out workers and firing militants, even refusing to abide by settled contracts in some cases.

The resignation of Blum, who was replaced by Chautemps, only diminished the workers’ faith in the People’s Front and increased the anger they felt towards the union leadership for collaborating with it. The Amicales, Cercle Syndicaliste, and Syndicats, as well as Catholic and Fascist unions attracted workers. Following the failure of the unions and the employers to agree on a new contract after the expiration on the 31st of December 1937, and the failure of the government to arbitrate new terms, the stage was set for another major wave of conflict between labor and management.

1938 saw the reinstatement of Blum as premier following Chautemps’ resignation. This in turn gave the union leadership impetus to demand an anti-fascist foreign policy in addition to their contractual demands. Blum would increase defense spending to counter Germany’s rearmament, but he demanded the unions make a concession concerning the forty-hour work week. The union was willing to abide by this, provided they received a new contract, but the proposed deal fell through. This failure strengthened the hand of the anti-CGT, anti-PCF groups like the Amicales, Cercle Syndicaliste, and Syndicats, who claimed that the union was overtaken by “war psychosis” to the extent that it ignored the economic objectives close to the workers. The metal unions attempted to convince the Blum government that the employers were sabotaging war production through their treatment of the workers. In twenty metal plants workers struck in 20- to 90-minute waves for a new contract and the opening of the Spanish border. However, this in turn lead to large scale strikes, shutting down Citroen’s seven Paris plants, which did not mention foreign policy concerns at all. The union leadership was unprepared for an intensification of the strike activity, but they had no choice but to allow them to continue if they want to maintain the respect of the laborers. However, when the sections syndicales initiated more strike activity, under orders from the central leadership, the leadership then refused to take responsibility or seize the initiative to guide them, torn between the demands of the workers and the political imperatives of maintaining the government against German rearmament. The indecision of the union leadership, combined with their failure to adequately provide strike pay, soup kitchens, or elect strike committees, left the strikers feeling abandoned, which in turn provided an opportunity for Trotskyites to demonstrate leadership of the strike and agitate for further work stoppages. The PCF response was violent and decisive, and PCF thugs beat any Trotskyite agitators approaching the factories. To compound issues, Catholic and Fascist unions were also attempting to turn the workers against the union leaders, and this resulted in several violent confrontations. In the face of mounting divides in the strikers, the employers saw no reason to soften their stance towards them and adamantly refused to entertain their demands. An offer by union leaders to end the strike following government arbitration and a token wage increase was rebuffed by the employers. This failure only spurred further strikes, by April 8th it consisted of 68,000 workers occupying 40 factories. Blum once again resigned in the face of mounting pressure after failing to obtain special powers to end the strikes.

The Daladier succeeded in gaining the special powers denied to Blum and he ordered troops to occupy Paris. A deal called the Jacomet Sentence was struck for workers in the nationalized aviation sector, providing a 45-hour week and a 7 percent wage increase. This was extended to private sector plants on April 13th, and ratified on the 14th. The entire Paris metal industry returned to work on the 19th.

However, workers began to notice how much the agreement curtailed their rights, effectively destroying many of the gains won with the Matignon Accords. Section meetings, posting of union information, and the collection of dues were restricted or prohibited. Furthermore, employers used punitive firings against labor militants, in express violation of the contract they agreed to. Membership in the metal unions declined by nearly a third. In response to criticism among the ranks, CGT leadership labeled unruly members Trotskyites, fascists, or provocateurs.

Further pressure on the unions arose when the Daladier government appointed center-right politician Paul Reynaud as Finance Minister. His decrees proved particularly intolerable, raising taxes, imposing new pro-employer mechanisms to resolve industrial strife, reestablishing the six-day work week, and giving employers the right to fire or blacklist employees for refusing overtime. These decrees would give the CGT a reason to strike against the Daladier government, with the intent of forcing its resignation. A series of strikes on November 21st to the 24th broke out and raised further pressure of a general strike, forcing police to use violence to remove the occupying strikers. They police succeeded in evicting the strikers from all the plants but Renault, whose management further inflamed tensions by announcing an increase in hours. Union leaders attempting to defuse the situation were ignored and workers prepared a last stand, barricading the doors, and gathering pieces of metal to use as projectiles in the face of a coming police onslaught. 6,000 police faced down 10,000-15,000 workers. The ensuing “Battle of Renault” saw the police deploy tear gas to clear the factory and resulted in serious injury to 46 police, 22 workers, hundreds of lesser injuries, and 500 arrests. Renault locked out 28,000 workers the next day and declared their contract null and void. Between the 25th and 30th, union leadership wavered, giving the government time to prepare further measures against future unrest. A general strike planned for the 30th of November was impeded by the government’s deployment of troops and its requisitioning of workers necessary to the basic functioning of national infrastructure. It is estimated around 75% of the Paris region metal industry participated in the strike, but the end result was total defeat. Entire factories were locked out or had their workforce dismissed, union stewards were fired, 500 strikers were sentenced to prison. Rehired workers had to deal with significantly less protections than the ones they had earned two years earlier, and the non-socialist factions of the state shunning cooperation with the unions and communists.

front-populaire-14-juillet-1936-willy-ronis.jpg

Following the March 1939 annexation of the remainder of Czechoslovakia by the Germans, repressive conditions in the factories only intensified as a result of hurried military production. However, labor leaders following the Comintern anti-German line, were loath to interrupt the militarization of France against Germany. Then the Molotov-Ribbentrop Non-Aggression Pact between the Soviet Union and Germany threw the leadership into chaos. Daladier accused the PCF of being unfaithful to France and CGT leader Johaux condemned the pact, but resisted calls to remove communists from the CGT. The PCF was thrown into even worse disarray than the CGT, as a third of its elected officials resigned in protest, and the government seized their publications. The German invasion of Poland, forced PCF leader Thorez to accept the war effort, but a direct Soviet order demanded that the PCF denounce the war and sabotage the French war effort. The CGT responded by purging the Communists from its ranks. The PCF was proscribed and forced to go underground. The Communist- dominated metal union was disbanded on the 26th of September. The government’s polices towards labor once again became more repressive, banning collective bargaining, strikes, and freezing wages. Those who objected were interned.

However, government concerns about the threat of labor unrest let to an agreement between labor and management to collaborate in the war effort, called the Majestic Agreement. Yet this collaboration failed to deliver any concrete benefits to the workers. Finally, German victory over France in May 1940 would put the factories at the disposal of the victors, thus ending the period of labor strife that had lasted for six years.

Lessons for White Nationalists

The rise and fall of the French labor movement provides many lessons for any budding political movement. Those on the right should not be afraid of learning from the successes and failures of a supposedly left-wing movement. Indeed, many of the concerns articulated by the labor movement were inherently conservative, if not reactionary, as Torigian notes in his Epilogue.

The rise of the unions had its origin in the reaction to the social dislocations caused by mass production and industrialization. Economic events tore asunder the traditional communities centered around the craft workshop; the spirit of camaraderie that craft workers enjoyed was replaced by mechanized drudgery. The strikes provided the first opportunity in years for workers — who stood shoulder-to-shoulder, bound to machines — to form bonds with one another. During the six years of labor unrest, the unions set up schools, concerts, and vacation homes for their members, giving them some semblance of a community they had lost in the preceding years. The goal of restoring the historical ties of a community severed by modernity shows the deep conservatism beneath the outward trappings of leftist unionism.

Another conservative facet of labor’s rise was the fact that it was jolted from its previous malaise by an appeal to patriotism. It was the call to defend the Republic, and the heritage of the French Revolution, that started the six years of struggle in 1934. As Alain Soral states in “Class Struggle Within Socialism: 1830-1914 [2],” “It is historically demonstrated that the people are always patriotic,” noting that even the Communards of 1871 were reacting against the defeat of Sedan and the Prussian occupation agreed to by the bourgeois government. It was the leadership’s willingness to follow the foreign dictates of Comintern, at the expense of economic and social concerns dear to the average worker, that destroyed the benefits they had achieved through the Matignon accords.

The failure of the People’s Front should also be a lesson to any radical political movement about the dangers of mainstreaming. The willingness to sacrifice the gains the union had achieved for the survival of a political party proved disastrous. The equivocation and willingness to compromise demonstrated by the CGT and PCF in the years following Matignon weakened the resolve in the ranks, diminished membership in the movement, and opened the door for more radical elements to outflank them. The concerns of the people within the movement should take priority over any desire for political expediency. The idea that some politician will be the savior of any particular extreme struggle, left or right, has been disproved time and time again. Those who fail to grasp that would greatly benefit from reading Every Factory A Fortress.

Furthermore, anyone wishes to see how a mass movement can become strong enough to challenge the entrenched interests of the political and economic elite should read Every Factory a Fortress. As the struggles of labor continue in the face of globalization, multiculturalism, unchecked immigration, and other consequences of untrammeled neo-liberalism, the need for a movement to raise its banner against this brazen exploitation grows daily. Only by assimilating the lessons of the period from 1934 to 1940 will it emerge victorious.


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

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/03/michael-torigian-every-factory-a-fortress/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: https://secure.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/EveryFactoryaFortress.jpg

[2] Class Struggle Within Socialism: 1830-1914: http://openrevolt.info/2012/03/23/alain-soral-class-stuggle-within-socialism-1830-1914/

mardi, 24 mars 2015

Knut Hamsun : Pan

Knut Hamsun: Pan

Ex: http://www.legoutdeslettres.com

 
livre-hamsun.pngLu Pan, de Knut Hamsun. Livre assez extraordinaire, qui reflète la personnalité hors-norme de son auteur. J’ai rarement vu une telle liberté d'esprit, liberté qui touche parfois à la folie, comme dans La Faim, son roman le plus connu. Il m’est toujours un peu difficile de parler de cet écrivain, et je constate à quel point, malheureusement, il est plus aisé de dénigrer que de louer. C’est que les romans d’Hamsun (ceux que j’ai lus du moins) ne ressemblent à rien de connu. Les mécanismes psychologiques s’y montrent à nu, dans leur instantanéité, sans le moindre commentaire, sans le moindre filtre d'un rôle social à jouer. Mais loin de tomber dans le monologue profus et un peu indigeste à la Joyce ou à la Céline, Hamsun, qui appartient à la génération précédente, conserve la forme épurée, presque elliptique, du récit classique. On a donc à la fois le plaisir d'un style classique et la surprise d’une psychologie tout à fait atypique. Et ce qui est admirable, c’est que, contrairement à Dostoïevski qui fouillait les côtés louches de l’âme humaine, Hamsun, doté d’une grande et noble personnalité, se maintient toujours à cette hauteur pour observer le monde. Il voit parfaitement les ridicules des hommes, mais il ne s’attarde pas, son regard reste distant et détaché. Il n’est pas étonnant que Bukowski, après Gide et Henry Miller, le cite parmi ses romanciers préférés. Après l’avoir lu, on se sent plus libre, et on lui a de la gratitude d’éprouver un tel sentiment.

Un livre collectif: «Maurice Bardèche l’insoumis»

bardèche.jpg

POUR CONNAÎTRE MAURICE BARDÈCHE

Un livre collectif: «Maurice Bardèche l’insoumis»

Pierre Le Vigan
Ex: http://metamag.fr
 
bardeche-l-insoumis.jpgPolémiste, écrivain politique, critique littéraire, Maurice Bardèche (1907-1998) a été tout cela. Son image reste sulfureuse. Elle l’est même beaucoup plus que dans les années 1950, preuve que nous avons fait un grand pas vers le schématisme, l’intolérance et l’inculture. Philippe Junod, aidé de sa femme, a voulu mieux faire connaître celui qui fut le beau-frère et l’ami de Robert Brasillach mais qui avait, bien entendu, son tempérament, ses goûts et son histoire propres. Le pari de mieux connaître Bardèche est tenu dans le cadre des Cahiers des amis de Robert Brasillach

Officiellement apolitique jusqu’en 1945, ses activités hors enseignement n’allèrent guère au-delà, sous l’Occupation, d’essayer de sauver Jean Cavaillès. Plus handicapé qu’aidé par ses liens familiaux trop voyants, il passe de maître de conférence à la Sorbonne à professeur à l’Université de Lille où il n’avait aucune attache.
 
Ce qu’il ressort des études consacrées à Bardèche, est l’unité de sa vision des choses, du politique au littéraire. Cela ne veut évidemment pas dire que l’on soit obligé d’être « fasciste » pour, en même temps, lui reconnaître d’avoir beaucoup apporté à la connaissance de Balzac ou de Proust.  Mais il faut reconnaître que ce qu’il appelle « fascisme » est en fait quelque chose qui va au-delà d’un épisode historique, aussi important qu’il ait été (et sachant qu’il fut définitivement clos en 1945). Au-delà : c’est-à-dire une critique de la domination de l’économie sur nos vies, et une critique de la domestication de l’homme par le monde moderne.

bardeche3.jpgBardèche était non pas un homme de concepts mais un homme de principes. Il  été pionnier en maints domaines dans une large mouvance intellectuelle : la critique de la « conscience universelle », c’est-à-dire l’appareil idéologique du nouvel ordre mondial américain, le refus de l’uniformisation planétaire par le règne des marchands, le souci de la liberté des peuples et de la continuité de ceux-ci qui doivent rester fidèles à leurs instincts (thèse assez rousseauiste), l’appel à l’indépendance de l’Europe. Pour des raisons parfaitement évidentes, il était conscient de ne pouvoir être à la bonne distance pour juger de l’action du général de Gaulle. Aussi demandait-il des avis autour de lui. Il faisait partie de ceux qui, à tort ou à raison (je m’interroge moi-même), ne prenait pas au sérieux la troisième voie gaullienne.
 
De la création du modeste Mouvement Social Européen, qui n’était certes pas un mouvement de masse, à novembre 1982, date de la parution du dernier numéro de sa revue Défense de l’Occident (elle accueillit quelques uns de mes premiers articles), fondée trente ans plus tôt, Bardèche a été le principal « doctrinaire » (mais on hésite à employer ce terme un peu trop sec et désincarné)  mais plus encore le principal écrivain du nationalisme européen.  Il a permis à beaucoup de ceux qui l’ont lu d’aller au-delà, ou ailleurs, preuve que c’était avant tout un homme libre, un rebelle non aligné. 

Les témoignages regroupés dans le cahier des ARB, souvent chaleureux, mais aussi bien sûr parfois critiques, aident à mieux connaître celui que l’on veut réduire à des caricatures, tant notre époque aime les idées simples, et fausses de préférence. Ce sont les idées les plus confortables, et notre époque aime son petit confort. Un excellent libraire, bibliophile de province, juif, et parfaitement (sic) de gauche me disait, à propos de la biographie de Balzac par Bardèche (Julliard, 1980) : « Il faut reconnaître que c’est quand même la meilleure des études parue sur Balzac ». 

Cahiers des amis de Robert Brasillach, 51/52,« Maurice Bardèche l’insoumis », courriel : brasillach@europe.ch

lundi, 23 mars 2015

Anissimov’s Critique of Democracy

architect_210_Sun.png

Anissimov’s Critique of Democracy

By Claus Brinker 

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

anissimov.jpegMichael Anissimov
A Critique of Democracy: A Guide for Neoreactionaries [2]
Zenit Books, 2015

Neoreaction is a philosophical movement, which emerged from social media in the past few years, seemingly in response to the hordes of social justice warriors that haunt the realms of message boards, blogs, and Twitter. Being a new movement, it is difficult to define, with every prominent neoreactionary on the internet writing his own definitive blog post (or Kindle book) on the subject. But there are certain commonalities they share. Neoreaction is inegalitarian, against democracy, and in favor of monarchy. The stereotype of neoreactionaries is that they are computer geeks who are interested in serious (but geeky) ethical issues surrounding technological innovation, as well as more banal and boyish pastimes like video games and Japanese animation.

Some of the names most often associated with the movement include Mencius Moldbug (who is considered to be its founder), Nick Land, Bryce Laliberte, and Michael Anissimov, who published a book in February 2015 entitled A Critique of Democracy: A Guide for Neoreactionaries. Anissimov is a noted futurist and has participated in a number of intellectual ventures concerning the ethics of transhumanism, artificial intelligence, and nanotechnology. As a neoreactionary, he is known for his writing contributions at the blog More Right (http://www.moreright.net/ [3]). He is also prolific Twitter user.

Anissimov’s A Critique of Democracy is short and simple, drawing primarily from a few scholarly sources to make the point that democracy ruins civilization. His chosen alternative to democracy is monarchy, which he advocates for to a small degree in this book, but he has stated that his next book will be entitled Monarchy: A Political Study. His arguments against democracy are largely materialistic, utilizing concepts associated with human biodiversity and basic economic principles. Some of his criticisms are reminiscent of Alain de Benoist’s The Problem of Democracy [4], but Anissimov arrives at them from a different path.

After a brief introduction summarizing democracy’s flaws in nine key points, the book begins by examining the science of leadership. Anissimov traces the inevitability of hierarchy in society to evolutionary strategies, which can be deduced from observations of non-human primate behavior as well as archeological evidence. The implication is that there will always be leaders and followers and some are better suited for leadership. When this reality is accepted, society can move beyond the inhibiting belief that every individual deserves a vote.

Anissimov examines the roots of civilization in Mesopotamia and notes that the ability to lead increasingly large numbers of people coincided with other major advances in civilization. Citing Ricardo Duchesne’s The Uniqueness of Western Civilization, he makes the assertion that the founders of Western civilization were not Greek but Aryan:

There are three reasons why the Greeks are often referred to as the foundation of Western Civilization rather than Myceneans or Indo-Europeans. The first is that archaeological and paleogenetic studies of Indo-Europeans are more of a challenge than classical Greek studies and have only begun to bear fruit and consensus during the early 90s. The second is that focus on the Athenian Greeks is more politically amenable to educators in present-day liberal democracies. The third is the association of Indo-Europeans with the Aryan racial theories of Nazi Germany. We do not consider any of these good reasons for why study of Indo-Europeans should be neglected, as they are the true forebears of Western Civilization.

Pointing out that liberal democracies prefer to focus on the Greeks rather than Indo-Europeans highlights a pervading theme in the book, that the bias toward democracy has led to lazy thinking and out-of-hand refusal to consider the merits of a more authoritarian style of government such as was found among the Indo-Europeans.

The book continues by addressing the polarizing effect of democratic government on political factions, which results in the fracturing of cultural solidarity and the alienation of the individual. According to Anissimov, a study of European history reveals “that de facto nation states form along ethnic and cultural lines and that the United States is in fact composed of several such states.” However, to demonstrate the reality of these de facto states, he focuses on political differences (the “red state” versus “blue state” phenomenon), rather than the increasingly multi-racial composition of the United States. In reality, any nation, be it democratic or not, can include a spectrum of political variation while maintaining its ethnic cohesion. But it might be conjectured that democracy exacerbates political differences, polarizing parties to a greater degree than would occur under the type of government Anissimov is proposing.

The critique moves on to discuss the incentives resulting from a democratic form of government versus those created by a monarchy. Anissimov’s primary source for this discussion is Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s Democracy: The God That Failed, and largely consists of contrasting the low time preference incentives of monarchy with the high time preference incentives of democracy. In a democracy policymakers tend toward a higher time preference decisions due to the lack of accountability. Democracy makes it possible for opportunists to bribe the foolish masses into giving them power with short-term benefits. The negative effects of short-sighted policies advanced by these devious politicians are usually not seen until years after they leave office. And if not, the only consequence they face is a failure to get re-elected, in which case they can find themselves a prestigious job on the basis of the supposed leadership they have demonstrated. Whereas, in what Anissimov calls the private government, the failure of a monarch to think in the long-term results in the loss of his personal property or that of his descendants.

ma.jpg

In a chapter on economics, Anissimov challenges the idea that democracies are necessary for economic growth. He concedes that democracies have a more consistent record for economic growth while authoritarian governments have a wider range of success and failure. However, other factors are involved in the disparity between the worst and the best of authoritarian governments, the most prominent correlation being the average IQ of the citizenry. Additionally, there is a wider degree of variance between leadership styles in different countries:

For instance, the economic and social outcome of the absolute authority of the average African military dictator might be systematically different than the economic and social outcome of the average historical Mongolian despot, which is in turn different from the modern Muslim autocrat, who is in turn different than the Enlightenment-era European monarch, and so on. Not all kings were created equal. Being products of the cultures around them, they inherit certain strengths and weaknesses common to all members of that culture.

He also addresses the assumption made by many that unequal distribution of wealth is inherently unjust. In reality, a healthy nation must have some form of wealth inequality. He cautions that pointing to inequality as if it is a problem that must be solved is a tactic frequently used by politicians who seek to exploit the populace in a democracy by appealing to their most debased instinct—jealousy.

Anissimov argues that the Enlightenment is often viewed as a package of ideas that most people believe must be accepted in their entirety or not at all, even though certain of these ideas contradict one another. One example is liberty and equality. Both are considered Enlightenment values, but true liberty will never result in equality, and any attempt to achieve equality requires the suspension of liberties. Some Enlightenment values should be accepted over others when they contradict one another. Furthermore, the development of the scientific method was also a part of the Enlightenment, and the idea that this could not have occurred without democracy is absurd. The underlying point is that a return of monarchies would not necessarily mean a step back for Western civilization. If anything, a post-democratic world would be a step forward.

In the final chapter, Anissimov discusses alternatives to democracy.  He identifies five possible non-democratic alternatives: fascism, monarchy, techno-commercial city states (like Singapore), sea-steading city states, and aristocratic republics with limited voting rights. He makes it clear that monarchies are not fascistic.

There are many differences between monarchy and fascism. The first is that fascism implies a totalitarian state, monarchy does not. Fascism implies no clear separation between the governing party and the governed, monarchy does. Fascism is socialist, monarchy is not. Fascism aggressively presents an overall vision of what society should be, imposed from the top down, monarchy does not. Fascism forbids “unearned income” on paper, meaning any revenue from investment whatsoever, monarchy does not. Fascism has a preoccupation with militarism and “society as barracks,” monarchy does not. Fascism has a leader that represents himself as carrying out the people’s will, monarchy does not. Fascism is about meritocracy independent of social background, monarchy is about heredity and ancestry. Fascism implies a government in control of much of the economy, monarchy implies a government that spends less than 20 percent of the GDP.

Anissimov is clearly coming from a quasi-libertarian perspective and sees capitalism as a good system for society. He sees monarchy as a solution to the degenerative aspects of capitalism by giving a private government the authority to keep non-governmental businesses in check and prevent them from engaging in practices contrary to the national interest. In a democracy this doesn’t happen because people with greater capital have more influence over whether or not policies such as free trade and mass immigration are implemented, which may be detrimental to the nation but are good for those who prefer profit over cultural values. In fact, whenever cultural values get in the way of profit, they can be subverted in a democracy. But a monarch operates as a protector of culture because it is in his best interest to do so.

A Critique of Democracy: A Guide for Neoreactionaries is a useful little book for learning the basic arguments against democracy as well as some of the reasons why neoreactionaries take the idea of monarchy seriously. This book need not be just for reactionaries, but it would be interesting to see how a liberal, particularly a voting rights protester, would respond to the book. The critiques of democracy are sound, but the discussion of alternatives to democracy seems a bit lacking with very one-dimensional perspectives given to all alternatives besides monarchy. However, a more detailed discussion is not really the focus of the book. A spiritual critique of democracy is completely lacking here.

To describe this book as a guide is a bit of a misnomer. While it is fairly easy to navigate because of its brevity, it would be more useful as a guide if the chapters were broken down into subsections with bold headings and if an index were provided. The only chapter with subsections is the final one, and it could have been broken down further. But this criticism of the book’s form is a trifling detail. The book is meant to be read in an electronic format, which would include search functionality that is partially equivalent to an index. When the book was first released, it was only available in electronic formats. Soon afterward, a hard copy became available from the on-demand printing company, Lulu.com, which is where I obtained my copy.

For White Nationalists it is encouraging to see a movement like neoreaction sprouting up among intelligent young men. But neoreaction conflicts with White Nationalism in a way similar to other race realists (see American Renaissance) in that neoreactionaries refuse to give the Jewish question serious consideration. In some ways, Michael Anissimov may serve as an intermediary between these two movements. There is evidence that he is aware the problems posed by Jewish power and influence and takes it seriously. I haven’t seen a definitive statement of his position on the issue, but have noticed his occasional tongue in cheek comments on Twitter regarding Jews. Furthermore, there is an amusing web site attempting to smear his name by describing him as an anti-Semitic, gay, neo-Nazi, Scientologist. It seems that he is known for not backing away from the Jewish question or giving the typical knee-jerk response to silence those who bring it up.

There may be hope that other neoreactionaries will come around as well. For now, we can be thankful that neoreaction has opened yet another path for truth-seekers who may one day find their home in a nice white country.

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

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/03/anissimovs-critique-of-democracy/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/manissimov-1695202688.png

[2] A Critique of Democracy: A Guide for Neoreactionaries: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00TA70R3Y/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00TA70R3Y&linkCode=as2&tag=countecurrenp-20&linkId=D7MZZFVQTI32FTWE

[3] http://www.moreright.net/: http://www.moreright.net/

[4] The Problem of Democracy: http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/10/rethinking-democracy-alain-de-benoists-the-problem-of-democracy/

 

dimanche, 22 mars 2015

Le nouveau capitalisme criminel

Gayraud.png

LE NOUVEAU CAPITALISME CRIMINEL: un regard lucide par Jean-François GAYRAUD* (Ed O.Jacob)

Auran Derien
Ex: http://metamag.fr
 
L’analyse de l’occidentisme, appuyée sur l’observation de la réalité, ce n’est pas du tout fréquent. On voit, dans cet ouvrage, que des hommes d’affaires sont laissés sans surveillance, que la finance est abandonnée à des groupes mondiaux, qu’il n’y a pas d’autres règles que celles dont ils décident eux-mêmes. Le résultat ? Une gigantesque potentialité criminelle, avec passage à l’acte. Les preuves sont présentées en détail. 

La finance globalitaire présente cinq caractéristiques

1. Il n’existe aucun lien entre les activités productives qui nécessitent des échanges monétaires et les volumes de monnaie de singe et de titres ronflants que l’on trafique dans cette sphère.

2. Tout est fait pour que personne - sauf les initiés - ne puisse savoir ce qui se trame. Comme dans les sociétés primitives, la divinité doit rester mystérieuse et les miracles de la multiplication des gains demeurer opaques.

3. Il est impossible de surveiller les canailleries des financiers et personne n’est en mesure de les réguler correctement. A l’image d’une caste sacerdotale - dont ils n’ont toutefois pas les devoirs - ils ne rendent de compte à personne. 

4. La structure globalitaire de la finance s’appuie sur de multiples centres. Les lieux de culte sont diversifiés afin de ne jamais être détrônés collectivement. Il est toujours possible qu’un pays se rebelle, mais la fragmentation de l’extorsion de fonds entre places différentes signifie que le centre récalcitrant sera vite soumis à des sanctions en représailles à une telle impudence. Pour l’heure tout va bien : chacun se prosterne devant la race supérieure des financiers transcendantaux. 

5. Puisque émettre de la monnaie et s’approprier les richesses de tout un chacun est désormais un jeu d’enfant, les financiers ont acheté le monde politique. Leurs affidés siègent dans les centres de décision, d’autres cornaquent les politiciens qui ne sauraient être abandonnés à leur libre-arbitre au cas où la nostalgie du service public n’en ramènent quelques-uns à ces époques où les intérêts des peuples étaient primordiaux. 

Jean-François Gayraud propose de regarder ce monde là avec des outils différents de ceux de la banque mondiale, du FMI et autres centres de la finance mondialiste. 

jean-francois-gayraud-FGA1r.jpgIl se moque de concepts creux comme les effets asymétriques, car il parle en criminologue et nomme les fraudes et autres tromperies. Il rappelle que des historiens, notamment Fernand Braudel, ont insisté sur le rôle des voyous dans le basculement, à la fin du XVIème siècle, des centres de pouvoir économique vers le Nord. Si les brigands eurent tant d’importance, ils n’ont certainement pas disparu et agissent sous d’autres vocables.
 
L’auteur redonne vigueur au vocabulaire créé par Gabriel Tarde : le crime organisé et le crime en col blanc. Le crime organisé est défini aujourd’hui par l’origine sociale modeste de ceux qui s’y adonnent, la capacité d’organisation en bandes plus ou moins étendues, la nature violente et visible des crimes perpétrés. Par contraste, le crime en col blanc est commis par des cadres ou des entrepreneurs et il est peu visible aux yeux de la société et des magistrats puisque les actes délictueux se déroulent dans l’exercice de la profession. La thèse fondamentale qui prend corps au fur et à mesure des chapitres réside dans l’affirmation que les deux types de criminalité ont fusionné à l’occasion des crises financières - depuis l’époque Reagan - en raison d’une convergence d’intérêts entre les deux catégories. La globalisation est désormais le fait d’une bourgeoisie criminelle. Une oligarchie  est en possession de l’occident.

Crise financière et criminalité

La société globalitaire du crime organisé en col blanc est évidente dans le cas japonais, lorsqu’éclate la bulle spéculative des années 1990. Les pyramides de Ponzi albanaises mélangeaient politiques et crapules. Le processus se répète de manière régulière, quoique chaque fois quelques spécificités locales donnent plus d’importance à un crime qu’à un autre. Au Mexique, entre 1990 et 2000, l’essentiel était le recyclage de l’argent de la drogue. En Espagne intervinrent la corruption par le biais des caisses d’épargne et des fonds structurels européens.
 
Les critères des criminels sont au nombre de trois : chercher de bonnes opportunités ; dissimuler les forfaits et agir à la manière des avions furtifs. Donc, le blanchiment d’argent sale pousse à déplacer les activités financières vers la spéculation. Reprenant une excellente citation de Galbraith, il est affirmé qu’il n’existe aucune voie de développement qu’un marché des capitaux libre, libéré, sans entrave ne puisse ravager. Ainsi, avoir convaincu de la nécessité de déréguler la finance est une parfaite escroquerie dont le monde entier souffre aujourd’hui.

Les Banques : une planque pour les narco-traficants

Se plaindre de l’impossibilité de contrôler le crime n’a pas beaucoup de sens quand on affirme, comme les escrocs intellects d’aujourd’hui, qu’il convient d’éradiquer toutes les mauvaises pensées, source de tous les maux. Dans une société qui cherche à améliorer les conditions de développement de tout un chacun, le vice et le crime s’endiguent en s’organisant et en restant sous contrôle. 

L’objectif n’est jamais atteint lorsqu’il s’agit d’argent sale, pour trois raisons: on ne lui accorde pas d’importance car il est alors proclamé que d’autres problèmes sont plus importants que cette lutte. Les Etats-Unis ont réussi ce tour de magie grâce au 11 septembre 2001, lorsque le « voyou » Bush déclara que tout devait être concentré sur le terrorisme, de sorte que les tenants de la finance furent libres de laver leurs saletés. 

Mais l’impuissance s’organise aussi de manière volontaire. Rien de tel que de créer des paradis fiscaux, comme le fit l’oligarchie anglaise, pour que disparaissent des sommes difficiles à mesurer à travers des sociétés écrans et des instruments juridico-financiers spécifiques. Enfin, troisième explication, les politiciens n’ont jamais envie de savoir ce qui se passe. 

Par nature, l’oligarchie anglo-saxonne veut contrôler l’argent. Le blanchiment massif d’argent sale par les gangsters de la finance leur permet de vivre agréablement, de contrôler des territoires sans la présence polluante des politiques au service du bien commun, sans oublier les quantités de publications niaises par lesquelles ces voyous se font désigner classes supérieures en raison de leur argent si mal gagné. L’obsession de perpétuer la corruption, le meurtre et le trafic transforme avec le temps l’argent de l’horreur en richesse bourgeoise. Dans le monde globalitaire, les cabinets - anglo-saxons - d’avocats, de conseillers fiscaux, d’agents immobiliers sont devenus des acteurs à plein temps de l’activité criminelle puisqu’ils acceptent à la fois des clients louches, de la corruption systématique à travers pots de vin, prêts de complaisance et avantages en nature. Il leur arrive aussi de piller les fonds qu’on leur a confiés en utilisant le principe des rémunérations extravagantes pour conseils ou services rendus, aussi ridicules soient-ils. 

La nouvelle crapulerie : le trading à haute fréquence

Le trading à haute fréquence (THF) est du vol organisé, de la déviance institutionnalisée. Les algorithmes qui servent de modèle donnent de fausses idées du risque sur les produits financiers et permettent le pillage légal, sans intervention humaine. Le THF repose sur l’idée qu’il convient de détecter les ordres sur les “marchés” avant leur exécution pour pouvoir spéculer sans risque et voler en toute quiétude. Les banques qui le pratiquent ont mis en place diverses tactiques de vol dont la saturation (quote stuffing), le brouillage, tout cela pour banaliser le délit d’initié car il n’existe pas d’historique des transactions.
 
Avec l’honnêteté intellectuelle d’un savant européen traditionnel, Jean-François Gayraud rappelle que l’absence de preuve de fraude dans le cas du THF ne signifie pas la preuve de l’absence de fraude. Il est simplement impossible de vérifier quoi que ce soit, donc de réprimer. Les manipulations sont quotidiennes, depuis les taux d’intérêt jusqu’aux types de contrats, en passant par les ventes privilégiées d’informations. 

Il semble qu’en occident il soit impossible de se demander si le THF est ou non une vaste fraude, alors que Gayraud montre clairement que, dès son origine, ce système de Trading a été organisé par des criminels en col blanc. Il en résulte un découragement de l’esprit d’entreprise, car peu à peu il devient stupide d’entrer sur les marchés financiers où la cotation d’une action n’a rien à voir avec les activités de l’entreprise. Puis, avec le THF se développe les produits liés, comme le système des Dark Pool, opérations financières de gré à gré, où les clients, des investisseurs institutionnels, sont anonymes, preuve que le concept de marché et celui de concurrence sont les ennemis de l’oligarchie actuelle qui n’a de cesse de s’émanciper de tout contrôle et de réaliser le rêve d’Al Capone : mettre en accusation les Etats qui voudraient surveiller ses activités.
 
Le XXIème siècle s’annonce comme le temps des criminels 

C’est le siècle du crime économique, du crime du bien en soi, lorsque tout est permis. Les pauvres sont pillés au profit des riches, les Etats au profit des soviets de la finance. Au niveau des sociétés, chacun prend conscience de deux classes de personnes: les humbles qui vont en prison avec, chaque année, de nouvelles législations obscurantistes ; l’oligarchie crapuleuse qui n’y va jamais malgré ses crimes. 
L’oligarchie s’est constituée. Elle est intouchable malgré son ignominie et cherche à faire entrer dans son cercle d’horreur les nouvelles puissances asiatiques. En cas de succès, l’absence de régulation, de répression, de problèmes de réputation assurera le monopole du parti des trafiquants pour mille ans. Sauf si le monde asiatique refuse le strapontin…

Jean-François GAYRAUD, Le nouveau capitalisme criminel, Editions O.Jacob, 2014, 360p. , 24,90€.

vendredi, 20 mars 2015

Une mélancolie à consommer sans modération

zemmour_sipa_1200_0.jpg

Une mélancolie à consommer sans modération

par Patrick JANSEN

 

9782213654508.jpgLes plus attentifs d’entre nous avaient remarqué Éric Zemmour dès ses débuts au Quotidien de Paris puis surtout à Infomatin, vers 1994. Dans ce journal hélas éphémère et qui se voulait de gauche, il était surprenant et agréable de voir un journaliste encore jeune chercher à comprendre pourquoi le Front national atteignait alors son apogée, au lieu de se livrer à l’obligatoire exercice de diabolisation imposé par la profession.

 

Zemmour a fait du chemin depuis. Son entrée au Figaro, ce temple du conformisme bourgeois et de la trahison institutionnalisée du peuple français, nous laissa, bien sûr, craindre le pire. Mais dans le même temps il nous donnait des biographies sans complaisance des frères ennemis de la Droite institutionnelle, un Balladur dont le titre valérien soulignait l’immobilisme louis-philippard et surtout un, ou plutôt deux, Chirac, puisque L’Autre révélait sous forme de roman à clés tout ce qu’une narration officielle, L’Homme qui ne s’aimait pas, comportait de nécessairement lacunaire.

 

Au fil des ans et des livres, les prises de position véhémentes d’Éric Zemmour contre la judiciarisation de notre société, certains abus journalistiques, le féminisme imbécile (pardon pour le pléonasme) ou encore le ridicule odieux du militantisme homosexuel achevaient de nous le rendre fort sympathique, d’autant que l’homme ne manquait pas de courage en donnant à Réfléchir & Agir un long entretien.

 

Nous sommes donc sans doute assez nombreux à voir dans sa montée en puissance médiatique un signe d’espérance, à écouter sa chronique journalière sur R.T.L. à 7 h 15, à attendre avec impatience « Ça se dispute » en fin de semaine sur I-Télé ou encore, chaque samedi soir, « On n’est pas couchés », sur France 2.

 

Mais on attendait de sa plume un ouvrage d’envergure. Avec Mélancolie française, le moins qu’on puisse dire, c’est que le pari est pleinement réussi. Rien ou presque, n’est inutile ni même superficiel dans les 250 pages de cet essai qui se veut autant une méditation sur l’histoire de France qu’une interrogation sur l’identité française et qu’une réflexion prospective angoissée sur l’avenir de notre pays.

 

Contrairement à ce que voudraient nous faire croire les gardiens autoproclamés de telle ou telle « Mémoire », l’histoire n’est pas le lieu d’une distribution de bons points ni celui des repentances. Elle est, dans sa dimension essentiellement tragique, le lieu d’accomplissement du destin des peuples. Mélancolie française est au premier chef une déclaration d’amour au peuple français auquel Zemmour appartient.

 

Le livre entier montre que Zemmour a fait sienne la phrase admirable de Napoléon, son personnage historique français à juste titre préféré : « J’assume tout de l’histoire de France, de Clovis au Comité de Salut Public ». Les constantes de l’histoire de France, Zemmour les analyse dans une perspective géopolitique de long terme : l’hostilité à l’Angleterre (et, pour les mêmes raisons aux États-Unis) ne repose pas sur le désir de venger Jeanne d’Arc, Napoléon ou Fachoda mais sur l’antagonisme structurel qui oppose nécessairement et pour toujours une puissance thalassocratique comme l’Angleterre aux puissances du continent. Si Zemmour cite nommément Ratzel, il a manifestement tout aussi bien lu les géopoliticiens anglo-saxons, les amiraux Mahan et Mackinder ou encore Spykman dont le cauchemar fut précisément l’unification du continent, cet « axe » Paris – Berlin – Moscou, seul salut potentiel de notre civilisation européenne, un court moment esquissé par Jacques Chirac en 2003 et que l’arrivée au pouvoir d’Angela Merkel a hélas remis à plus tard.

 

Rien de « passéiste » donc dans l’approche de Zemmour, quel que soit son goût pour le passé. On aimerait tout citer de ses analyses, par exemple le caractère fondamentalement mortifère du capitalisme libre-échangiste (« le libre-échange, c’est la guerre (p. 76) ») ou encore la dénonciation de la religion des « Droits de l’Homme », celle qui a remplacé le christianisme pour le plus grand malheur des peuples dans un néo-colonialisme d’une abjection et d’une hypocrisie totales.

 

Parmi les pages les plus originales, figurent celles que Zemmour consacre au Maréchal Pétain (chapitre 5, pp. 109 à 138). « Question sacrilège », avoue-t-il lui-même ! Loin d’en vouloir au Pétain de 1940, c’est à celui de 1917 que notre auteur réserve ses flèches pour avoir admis et même espéré l’arrivée de l’Amérique et de ses « boys » comme arbitre d’une guerre jusque-là européenne. En un mot, Pétain fut traître à l’Europe en 17 et non à la France en 40. Bravo ! Il fallait oser l’écrire.

 

Je ne sais comment un jeune Français de moins de 20 ans découvrant la politique ou la métapolitique peut réagir devant un tel livre. Éric Zemmour a aujourd’hui légèrement dépassé la cinquantaine. Ceux qui appartiennent à sa classe d’âge et qui, comme lui, réfléchissent avec amour sur notre passé français et européen ne peuvent, eux, que partager l’intense mélancolie que diffuse son livre. C’est sans doute la seule critique de fond qu’on puisse lui adresser : il faut réfléchir pour agir et non pour s’attrister.

 

Le spectacle qui nous entoure est pourtant souvent angoissant, coincés que nous sommes entre des « élites mondialisées parlant, [et] pensant en anglais et [un] lumpenprolétariat islamisé (p. 246) ». Contrairement à Éric Zemmour qui semble mettre ces menaces sur un pied d’égalité, on peut toutefois penser que la première est infiniment plus dangereuse que la seconde.

 

Patrick Jansen

 

• Éric Zemmour, Mélancolie française, Paris, Fayard – Denoël, 2010,  17 €.

 

• D’abord paru dans Réfléchir & Agir, n° 35, été 2010, p. 57.

 


 

Article printed from Europe Maxima: http://www.europemaxima.com

 

URL to article: http://www.europemaxima.com/?p=4166

00:05 Publié dans Actualité, Livre, Livre | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : eric zemmour, livre, france, europe, affaires européennes | |  del.icio.us | | Digg! Digg |  Facebook

mercredi, 18 mars 2015

Il ’68 lo ha inventato D’Annunzio a Fiume

annDAnnunzio-soldato.jpg

Il ’68 lo ha inventato D’Annunzio a Fiume

È un tale anticipatore che ha rinnovato la letteratura italiana dell’800 quando pubblicò Il Piacere, subito diffuso in tutto il mondo, quando all’estero nessuno conosceva Manzoni. Ha rinnovato la poesia italiana, i rapporti con la borghesia, con la politica, con la vita militare. Soprattutto ci lascia oggi un messaggio molto importante, “Conservare intera la libertà fin nell’ebbrezza” e “Non chi più soffre ma chi più gode conosce”. E qui non si tratta di edonismo, ma di godimento come vita intellettuale libera e gioiosa. Questi sono i suoi messaggi, oltre a quello di guardare sempre avanti, progettare e imporre il proprio futuro, saper far sognare agli altri uomini i propri sogni.
 
di Giordano Bruno Guerri
 
Ex: http://www.lintellettualedissidente.it 

ann12445931.jpgCi racconti un episodio OFF dell’inizio della tua carriera?
Un giorno ho pubblicato il mio libro su Bottai, che era la mia tesi di Laurea, da Feltrinelli. Ebbe un immenso successo soprattutto di discussioni sollevate, perché per la prima volta si sosteneva e si dimostrava che non solo era esistita una cultura fascista, ma che erano esistiti anche dei fascisti onesti e in gamba come Bottai. Il fatto poi che l’avesse pubblicato Feltrinelli… puoi immaginare l’emozione e il disorientamento che provocò. Un giorno ricevetti una chiamata da un ragazzo a me ignoto, mi disse che aveva letto il libro e avrebbe avuto piacere di incontrarmi con alcuni amici. Andai volentieri a quel pranzo in Corso Sempione, dove trovai e conobbi le menti migliori della Nuova Destra di allora, che erano Solinas, Cabona, Tarchi, e non so quanti altri. La cosa buffissima, che mi fece molto ridere, era che il ristorante – tutt’altro che ‘Nuova Destra’ – era tenuto da un signore in camicia nera che ci salutò con il saluto romano e che aveva l’intero ristorante tappezzato di ritratti di Mussolini. Fu un curioso incontro, abbastanza OFF, mi sembra!

Sei uno scrittore, un giornalista, uno degli storici più apprezzati d’Italia e in questo momento sei il Presidente del Vittoriale degli Italiani, la casa museo di Gabriele D’Annunzio. Quest’anno si chiudono le celebrazioni del 150° anniversario della sua nascita, che cosa ha lasciato D’Annunzio all’arte e alla cultura italiana?
D’Annunzio non solo ha lasciato, ma dona ancora. È un tale anticipatore che ha rinnovato la letteratura italiana dell’800 quando pubblicò Il Piacere, subito diffuso in tutto il mondo, quando all’estero nessuno conosceva – e tuttora nessuno conosce – Manzoni. Ha rinnovato la poesia italiana, i rapporti con la borghesia, con la politica, con la vita militare. Soprattutto ci lascia oggi un messaggio molto importante, “Conservare intera la libertà fin nell’ebbrezza” e “Non chi più soffre ma chi più gode conosce”. E qui non si tratta di edonismo, ma di godimento come vita intellettuale libera e gioiosa. Questi sono i suoi messaggi, oltre a quello di guardare sempre avanti, progettare e imporre il proprio futuro, saper far sognare agli altri uomini i propri sogni.

Le battaglie politiche di D’Annunzio oggi sono ancora attuali?
Sono sempre attuali. Contrariamente a quello che si pensa, con questa etichetta di ‘filofascista’ che gli è stata attribuita – lo era anche, perché era un superuomo e quindi aveva adottato il superomismo che poi combaciava in qualche modo con il fascismo –, era sostanzialmente un libertario e la difesa della libertà dell’individuo deve essere un nostro compito, dovrebbe essere una delle missioni della Destra, peraltro…

D’Annunzio fa di Fiume “città di vita, città di arte”, quella è una pagina molto importante…
È una pagina straordinaria, qualsiasi Paese disponesse di un episodio simile nella propria storia lo avrebbe mitizzato con film, romanzi e quant’altro, invece sembra quasi che ce ne vergogniamo. Fiume fu un’anticipazione del ’68 da destra, perché nello spirito libertario di Fiume e di d’Annunzio c’era anche questa componente superomista, per cui il ‘capo’ era gran parte della cosa, ma Fiume fu un’avventura indimenticabile che insieme al futuro ripercorre il passato dell’Italia, il Rinascimento. D’Annunzio conquistò Fiume come un condottiero rinascimentale e la mantenne come un pirata di oggi.

La musica è un elemento centrale nella Carta del Carnaro…
Sì, nella costituzione c’è la musica come strumento di vita e di elevazione del popolo, che deve essere quasi distribuita, donata nelle scuole e a tutti quanti, così come la bellezza delle città; l’arredo urbano, così chiamato oggi con una definizione tremenda, non è stato inventato dagli assessori dei vari Comuni, ma è stato inventato da d’Annunzio.

Nell’ultima biografia “La mia vita carnale” racconti un D’Annunzio privato, quotidiano, amante: come corteggiava le donne il Vate?
Lui aveva il grande vantaggio di essere corteggiato, arrivava in un salotto e le donne erano tutte lì a pendere da un suo sorriso – sdentato, peraltro – perché il suo carisma, la sua fama, la sua eleganza, soprattutto il suo eloquio erano tali da incantare tutte quante. Credo che le seducesse con la parola straordinaria di cui disponeva; a trent’anni disse di aver usato, e gli si può credere, 15.000 parole, mentre noi ne usiamo mediamente da 2.000 a 3.000. Faceva sentire le donne regine della propria vita – questo era un dono magnifico – e secondo il suo motto riceveva quel che donava, una dedizione assoluta.

annDannunzio_Giornale.jpgUn aspetto poco conosciuto di D’Annunzio è l’esoterismo, il suo rapporto con l’aldilà. È vero che ti è capitato di metterti in contatto con il fantasma di D’Annunzio al Vittoriale?
Vivo nella casa dell’Architetto Maroni – come tutti i Presidenti quando sono al Vittoriale – dove Maroni, D’Annunzio e Luisa Baccara facevano delle sedute spiritiche e si mettevano in contatto con l’aldilà. Ogni tanto mi passano accanto dei venti, sento dei soffi, però credo fermamente che sia dovuto alle finestre, che sono ancora quelle degli anni Venti!

Un’altra biografia molto importante che hai affrontato è quella di un grande uomo e artista italiano del Novecento, Filippo Tommaso Marinetti…
Marinetti fu l’ultimo uomo importante che vide D’Annunzio vivo; venti giorni prima della morte andò a trovarlo con tutta la famiglia e gli portò un dono magnifico: una scultura che era il doppio comando di un bimotore Caproni con una dedica che diceva: “Noi siamo i motori della nuova Italia”. Ho scritto questi due libri insieme, prima è uscito D’Annunzio e poi Marinetti, perché fanno parte di uno stesso magnifico progetto culturale inconscio della cultura italiana e mondiale. Due innovatori, uno che parte dal passato (D’Annunzio), uno che guarda direttamente al futuro, ma entrambi vogliono cambiare tutto, due rivoluzionari.

All’inizio tra i due correva buon sangue, poi ci fu uno scontro di personalità. Tu citi sempre una battuta bellissima di D’Annunzio nei confronti di Marinetti…
Marinetti lo stuzzicava dandogli del passatista, del vecchio trombone, e D’Annunzio, da grande creatore della lingua, lo fulminò con un epiteto straordinario: ‘cretino fosforescente’. È futurista al massimo!

Secondo te la vita di D’Annunzio è stata più futurista dei Futuristi? Lui veniva nominato ‘passatista’, in realtà la biografia del Vate affronta tutte le tematiche dell’uomo futurista…
Non tutti i Futuristi sono riusciti a vivere una vita futurista, D’Annunzio sì. Basti pensare a quello che ha fatto con il Vittoriale. Si dice che i Futuristi volessero distruggere i musei, non è vero, era una provocazione. D’Annunzio, al rovescio, creò il museo della propria vita che in realtà non è un museo, è il tempo che si è fermato al momento della sua morte per perpetuare la sua vita. Ha progettato il proprio futuro nel mondo dopo la propria morte ed è riuscito a realizzarlo straordinariamente. Il Vittoriale oggi gode di una salute pienissima, ti voglio dire con orgoglio in anteprima per OFF (perché i dati ufficiali verranno comunicati soltanto a fine anno) che a fine novembre avevamo già avuto 16.000 visitatori in più, ovvero l’8% in più del 2012, e che gli incassi sono di conseguenza aumentati. Il Vittoriale non produce solo cultura e bellezza, ma anche ricchezza. Credo che D’Annunzio, a 75 anni dalla morte, possa essere contento.

Qui su OFF abbiamo intervistato Mimmo Paladino e Velasco, che hanno collaborato con te…
Sono due donatori del Vittoriale, hanno dato al Vittoriale delle opere straordinarie, Mimmo Paladino il suo cavallo blu, che è diventato quasi un simbolo del nuovo Vittoriale, così dominante sul lago, e Velasco la sua muta di cani che accompagnano D’Annunzio e i suoi dieci compagni seppelliti nel Mausoleo, quindi mi fa piacere questa comunione.

Oggi che cosa farebbe D’Annunzio nella situazione politica italiana?
Verrebbe d’istinto dire che cercherebbe di prendere in pugno la situazione. Purtroppo sono smentito dal fatto che non lo fece nel 1921 quando avrebbe potuto, ma era tale la disillusione di Fiume – ricordiamoci che fu costretto ad abbandonare Fiume a cannonate dal governo in carica di Giolitti – che si disgustò profondamente e si ritirò al Vittoriale. Chissà, oggi magari non lo farebbe, certo non passerebbe per il Parlamento!

Le similitudini che qualcuno ha fatto, secondo me azzardando un po’, tra Grillo e D’Annunzio, secondo te sono giuste?
Ma per carità, prima di tutto c’è una differenza culturale pari alla Fossa delle Marianne di 11 km. Certo, i grandi eversori sono sempre accostabili, non a caso Grillo tempo fa mise nel suo mitico blog una frase che sembrava totalmente sua ed era di D’Annunzio. Era una frase che incitava alla necessità di rovesciare l’attuale mondo politico per rinnovare tutto, per riprenderci la gioia di vivere, l’economia, la libertà. Erano parole di d’Annunzio che Grillo ha fatto proprie. Dubito che D’Annunzio avrebbe fatto proprie delle parole di Grillo…

Fonte:
Il Giornale

OJIM: entretien avec Laurent Obertone

Entretien avec Laurent Obertone: "La France Big Brother"

Après le très grand succès de "La France Orange mécanique" (Ring éd.) en 2013 - plus de 100.000 exemplaires vendus - Laurent Obertone récidive avec "La France Big Brother" (Ring éd.), un ouvrage décapant sur les pseudo-élites qui dominent le paysage médiatique français. Reprenant le genre épistolaire de courriers adressés à "Monsieur Moyen" (vous, moi, nous tous), il décrypte les mécanismes de domestication, de sidération, de manipulation des médias dominants et de leurs serviteurs. Une vidéo exclusive Ojim.

00:05 Publié dans Entretiens, Livre, Livre | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : actualité, france, laurent obertone, ojim, livre | |  del.icio.us | | Digg! Digg |  Facebook

mardi, 17 mars 2015

Lugan aux Ronchons!

Vendredi 27 mars:

Bernard Lugan aux Ronchons

image001.jpg

jeudi, 12 mars 2015

The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable

phvest3720052-3x2-940x627.jpg

The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable

By

Ex: http://www.lewrockwell.com

Review: The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkableby George Victor

phgv.jpgIn this book, George Victor addresses the several questions regarding Pearl Harbor: did U.S. Intelligence know beforehand? Did Roosevelt know? If so, why weren’t commanders in Hawaii notified? It is a well-researched and documented volume, complete with hundreds of end-notes and references.

Twelve days before the attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin Roosevelt surprised his advisors by saying that war with Japan was about to begin. Secretary of War Stimson noted in his diary:

The question was what we should do. The question was how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.

Mr. Victor admits he is an admirer of Roosevelt. While he is clear that Roosevelt manipulated the country into war, he does not condemn him for it:

History has recorded many, many rulers’ manipulations of their people into war without their subordinates blowing the whistle. Presidents James Polk, Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley, and Woodrow Wilson did it before [Roosevelt], and others have done it after him.

This is difficult for many to accept, especially the idea that honorable and upright military leaders would allow such a thing to occur. General George Marshall, in testimony to various tribunals after Pearl Harbor was clear, however:

He testified to a congressional committee that withholding vital information from commanders was routine practice.

Roosevelt had warnings of the coming attack. It was fortunate for Roosevelt that his political enemies did not know

…that [intelligence officers] had been reading the most confidential Japanese ciphers even before the attack, and that the Japanese war plans were no secret to American intelligence.

Despite the documented warnings received by administration intelligence (eventually turned over to various committees), the administration took the stand that no warning had come in. Further it seems clear that no warnings were sent to Pearl Harbor on the eve of the attack.

Victor goes into some background of the U.S. involvement in the war well before December 7. He outlines the aid to the allies in Europe. He goes into detail regarding attempts to get Germany to shoot first. When this failed, the U.S. changed its focus to Japan. These actions have been well-documented elsewhere – termination of trade treaties, embargoes of material and the like. The big blow was the oil embargo.

His military advisors were strongly against the embargo, rightly anticipating that this would lead to war with Japan. Yet Roosevelt went ahead with the embargo in the summer of 1941 – abruptly reversing his prior position. At the same time, he took other measures within days of the embargo decision: freezing Japan’s U.S. assets, breaking off diplomatic talks with Japan, and arming the Philippines.

Something happened at this time to get Roosevelt to change so abruptly and go against his military advisors. Victor cites historian Waldo Heinrichs with a “unique idea.”

Roosevelt changed his attitude about pressuring Japan in order to save the Soviet Union. Germany had just invaded Russia, and Japan was contemplating when and how to support its German ally. Roosevelt was aware of these Japanese deliberations and preparations – Japan would make war plans for both the Soviet Union and the United States, but would only fight one of them. Victor believes it is quite credible that Roosevelt abruptly changed his approach and became more provocative with Japan for the purpose of reducing the risk that Japan attacks the Soviets.

Even in the last days of November and early December, Japan is still seen as making overtures for peace. These were rejected by Washington, in fact Japan notes Washington’s provocative tone (from an intercepted message from Tokyo to Berlin):

The conversations…between Tokyo and Washington now stand broken…lately England and the United States have taken a provocative attitude…war may suddenly break out.

In late November, Roosevelt had knowledge that the Japanese fleet was sailing east toward Hawaii, as supported by William Casey of U.S. intelligence. “The British had sent word that a Japanese fleet was steaming east toward Hawaii.” That this information was sent to Washington is confirmed by various British intelligence officers as well.

The U.S. commanders in Hawaii, Kimmel and Short, were not forwarded relevant and important intelligence about the situation. This is confirmed by the intelligence officers both in Washington and in Hawaii. For example,

[I – [Bratton]] never received a definite prohibition on [sending warnings] but every time that I tried to send a message of this sort, and the Navy found out about it, the Chief of Naval operations would call up the Chief of Staff on the telephone and object most vociferously and emphatically. He in turn would call [Miles] and object strenuously, and by the time it got to me…it was disapproval expressed in no uncertain terms…And I in each case would be instructed not to do it again.

Finally, Victor outlines the messages from Tokyo to its Ambassadors in Washington known as #901 and #902. These were sent on December 6. Message #901 is known as the pilot message, outlining the upcoming message #902 (in fourteen parts) and steps to be taken by the diplomats when received. Importantly, message #902 was to be sent in English to ensure there were no delays by Washington to translate the message.

Based on this, a member of the army’s Signal Intelligence Service later wrote, “Shortly after midday on Saturday, December 6, 1941… [we] knew that war was as certain as death” and “it was known in our agency that Japan would surely attack us in the early afternoon the following day…Not an iota of doubt.” Early afternoon in Washington was early morning in Hawaii.

Administration officials claimed message #901 was not delivered to key officers until the next day. Bratton, however, testified that the messages were delivered that evening to most people on their list.

To Victor, there is no doubt that the administration took steps to provoke Japan and knew when and where Japan would attack. As noted, he makes no judgment on this beyond noting that this is what political leaders do.

Events are poorly explained by making assumptions that crucial acts by competent, conscientious leaders were capricious, careless, or negligent. And U.S. leaders who figured in the Pearl Harbor disaster were highly competent and conscientious.

After Roosevelt stationed the fleet at Pearl Harbor, Commander McCollum wrote a memo for him, recommending its use as a lure. Roosevelt implemented the recommendation. Admiral Richardson concluded the administration use of the fleet endangered it gravely, and he argued the point over and over with his superiors. When he took measures to protect his fleet, Roosevelt relieved him. Stark then kept Kimmel uninformed of Japan’s plans to attack it at Pearl Harbor. And Marshall kept Short uninformed.

To most Americans, manipulating one’s nation into war is something done by foreign tyrants – not our own leaders. Since 1942 U.S. history has been distorted by the idea that presidents simply do not do what Roosevelt’s enemies said he did.

These few paragraphs found in the afterword of the book best sum up George Victor’s views regarding the Pearl Harbor myth.

Reprinted with permission from Bionic Mosquito.

mercredi, 11 mars 2015

Lire Houellebecq pour entrevoir une France islamisée

Mon-livre-n-est-pas-is.jpg

Lire Houellebecq pour entrevoir une France islamisée

Par Charles Terrade

Ex: http://www.lesobservateurs.ch

Une piqûre de rappel pour les retardataires: il faut absolument, lire «Soumission» de Michel Houellebecq. Dans ce livre plein d’ironie philosophique, l’auteur se penche sur le rôle que pourrait assumer l’islam dans le renouveau moral d’une France accablée par 50 ans de déconstruction nihiliste. Incontournable.

France, 2022. François, le narrateur, est professeur d’université à la Sorbonne. Sa spécialité
la littérature du XIXe siècle, et tout particulièrement Huysmans, écrivain tourmenté et converti sur le tard au catholicisme. François a la quarantaine mais vit seul. Il n’a plus de contacts depuis longtemps avec ses parents divorcés qu’il déteste. Les créatures féminines passent dans sa vie comme les plats tout prêts dans son micro-onde. Une relation amoureuse durable lui est impossible. Il fornique de préférence avec des prostituées. Il ne fréquente que des relations de travail dont il se lasse vite. Cet antihéros relativiste, néo-Meursault universitaire, ne croit en rien et est indifférent à tout : autrui, la société, la politique, l’histoire. Mais son nihilisme n’est pas radieux. François s’ennuie et ressent la vacuité de son être avec une angoisse croissante. Il se méprise lui-même. La dépression le guette.

Les élites de la société française dans laquelle François traîne sa lamentable existence sont atteintes de la même fatigue de vivre et rongées par la même haine de soi. Dans le sillage des idéologues soixante-huitards, elles ont pourtant parachevé avec jubilation la destruction des anciens repères religieux, moraux, familiaux, identitaires. Mais la société libérale-libertaire, que ces apprentis sorciers ont contribué à engendrer, n’a pas produit la nouvelle humanité épanouie qu’ils attendaient. La disparition des valeurs traditionnelles a conduit à un vide existentiel qui sape la cohésion sociale. La volonté de vivre ensemble s’est réduite à tel point que l’intégrité même de l’Etat est menacée. En réaction, l’exigence de sens de la population déboussolée revient en force, comme un boomerang, à la figure des élites désemparées. C’est toute la société qui réclame ardemment la fin du chaos ontologique. La nombreuse communauté musulmane est la plus active en termes de revendications d’un retour à un ordre moral, lequel devrait selon elle s’aligner sur ses dogmes religieux.

L’incapable François Hollande a réussi à se faire réélire en 2017 grâce à ses manipulations de
l’opinion publique. Le début du roman coïncide avec les dernières semaines de son deuxième quinquennat, encore plus désastreux que le premier, et les élections présidentielles de 2022.

Le contexte est extrêmement tendu: économie en déroute, mécontentement social au paroxysme. Les attentats islamistes le disputent aux affrontements entre musulmans et identitaires. Le PS et l’UMP n’ayant pas réussi à se qualifier pour le deuxième tour de l’élection présidentielle, les Français devront choisir entre Marine Le Pen, infatigable présidente du Front National, et Mohammed Ben Abbes, habile et retors président de la Fraternité Musulmane qui se présente comme un islamiste modéré et démocrate.
Afin de faire barrage au FN qui en 2022 incarne toujours pour l’oligarchie politico-médiatique
le Mal absolu, tous les autres partis ont appelé à voter pour Ben Abbes au deuxième tour. Ce
ralliement leur a permis d’obtenir des promesses de ministères clés. Le candidat islamiste est facilement élu, une majorité d’électeurs ayant été séduits par son boniment d’un islam
fédérateur à visage humain comme solution au mal-être français.

Ben Abbes islamise alors doucement mais sûrement la France, avec le soutien de la plupart
des élites masculines. L’islamisation ne déclenche pas de protestation d’envergure. Avant tout
marquée par un retour à un ordre moral rigoureux, elle se calque sur les règles de vie des
sociétés musulmanes. Seuls les juifs se montrent ouvertement inquiets en quittant le pays pour Israël.

Pour commencer, les femmes voient leur place dans la société radicalement modifiée. Le
nouveau pouvoir les incite à quitter le marché du travail, notamment au moyen d’allocations
familiales très fortement revalorisées. Grâce à leur retour à la maison, la famille traditionnelle
gagne en stabilité. Elle redevient la cellule centrale et respectée de la société. Les femmes cédant leur place aux hommes inactifs, le chômage disparait. Le retour au plein emploi, ainsi que l’activisme social des imams salafistes des banlieues, massivement soutenus par l’Etat, font disparaître la violence et les trafics illicites des nombreux territoires auparavant considérés comme perdus par la République.


L’enseignement public voit ses missions drastiquement revues à la baisse. Il se concentre
principalement sur le premier degré. Le nouveau ministre – musulman –  de l’éducation prend des mesures qui découragent fortement les filles de poursuivre leurs études au-delà du
primaire. Ces dernières sont orientées vers l’apprentissage pratique de leurs futurs rôles de
mère et de ménagère. Suite à la privatisation des enseignements secondaires et supérieurs, les établissements musulmans poussent comme des champignons et deviennent les plus prisés grâce aux très généreux dons des pétromonarchies du Golfe. Leurs cours y sont compatibles avec le Coran. L’Arabie saoudite finance et gère la Sorbonne qui n’accueille dorénavant que des professeurs musulmans de sexe masculin. La baisse drastique du budget de l’Education Nationale permet aux comptes de l’Etat de retrouver l’équilibre. L’augmentation inexorable et incontrôlée de la dette publique française s’arrête enfin.

Un nouvel ordre moral, social et économique s’établit qui renoue avec certaines des anciennes valeurs traditionnelles de la France tout en y ajoutant, en surplomb, des préceptes spécifiquement islamiques. La plupart des gens y trouvent leur compte. La confiance en l’avenir revient. Le Produit Intérieur Brut croit à nouveau. La France islamisée renaît de la France déconstruite.


François, comme presque tous les autres professeurs d’université, choisit de se convertir à
l’islam. Par motivation pratique : la conversion est nécessaire pour garder son poste.
Egalement pour des raisons financières : son traitement est très nettement revalorisé, ce qui lui permet de vivre beaucoup plus confortablement. Par ailleurs, sa nouvelle situation enviable de professeur dans une prestigieuse université islamique lui donne droit à quatre jeunes et ravissantes épouses. Ses futures femmes l’attendent, ravies de se soumettre socialement et sexuellement au maître que l’ordre nouveau leur a désigné. Quant à lui, il est soulagé de se soumettre intellectuellement et spirituellement à l’islam car celui-ci le libère enfin de ses tourments existentiels.


Ce livre est incontournable pour qui s'intéresse à l'islamophilie de notre élitocratie politique, médiatique et intellectuelle, et à ses conséquences ultimes pour la France. Houellebecq met en outre malicieusement en évidence les avantages que pourrait apporter l'islamisation de la France à ses élites masculines ayant perdu tout repère et s'enfonçant inexorablement dans le nihilisme. Leur besoin inavoué mais désespéré de sens dans un monde anomique pourrait les
entraîner vers une soumission totale à un nouvel ordre politico-religieux viril leur apportant la
tranquillité de l’âme. La soumission à l'islam est pensée par l'auteur comme délivrance
d'une liberté radicale finalement insupportable. Allah est ironiquement pressenti comme

rédempteur divin d'une élite plongée dans la déréliction du fait de sa propre déconstruction.
Mais le Très Miséricordieux est aussi entrevu comme pourvoyeur de félicités sexuelles. Le
nouveau pouvoir islamique veillerait à la stimulation libidinale du mâle des classes
supérieures. Celle-ci serait assurée par la diversité du cheptel de femelles à disposition et son

renouvellement permis par la polygamie et la speed-répudiation.

Michel Houellebecq n’a eu qu’à observer, d’une part l’essor de l’islam en France, et d’autre
part les mœurs du monde musulman, pour inventer cette fiction cauchemardesque. Si celle-ci
se réalisait, les femmes paieraient au prix fort la régression monumentale induite par
l'islamisation de la société. Mais la dégradation des relations hommes-femmes ferait aussi des hommes les perdants du nouvel ordre. L’égalité entre les sexes n’est-elle pas au cœur de notre civilisation? Réduire la femme à ses fonctions d’objet sexuel, d’utérus et de ménagère, ne ferait pas que l’humilier et l’inférioriser. En bridant l’entendement et la créativité d’une moitié de l’humanité, l’homme provoquerait un appauvrissement intellectuel et culturel généralisé. Et il se châtrerait d’une des plus belles dimensions de sa vie : la communion avec son égale dans le sentiment amoureux.

Charles Terrade

lundi, 09 mars 2015

Die unheimliche Allianz

Die unheimliche Allianz hinter 9/11

dimanche, 08 mars 2015

Interview with Fenek Solère

PartisnbP003PB - Medium.jpg

 

Out Now: The Partisan by Fenek Solère

 

The Partisan
by Fenek Solere
(London: Iron Sky Publishing, 2014)

246 pages
ISBN 978-1-909606-06-7 (paperback only)

 

The Fifth Republic

 

Son of a mudered activist during the Algerian War, the ambitious French Minister of Justice, Said Ben Hassi, dreams of a Pan-Eurabian Caliphate.

But his is not the post-colonial revanchism of a haunted man; it is the logical end product of decades of corrupt politics and misguided utopianism.

The old European establishment, weak and morally bankrupt, is impotent. The ancient French, victims of their own selfishness and nihilism, are fading, demoralised, and increasingly disenfranchised.

The Resistance

Yet, the spirit of Charlemagne and Charles Martel is not quite dead: a young resistance movement has emerged, determined to overthrow the Eurabian conquerors.

It's come to this . . .

It's kill or be killed.

La Pétroleuse

Their most terrifying weapon is Sabine D'Orlac, La Pétroleuse, who leads a violent paramilitary cell. Utterly ruthless, she will stop at nothing.

But neither will the enemy.

At stake is the future of Europe.

You can order The Partisan from Amazon US and Amazon UK.

Interview with Fenek Solère

Alex Kurtagic

Ex: http://www.wermodandwermod.com

Almost every time I receive a communication from you, it has originated in an exotic location, and it seems you are more often in some far-flung place on the planet than Britain. Are you an adventurer, or do you have a very interesting job?

I am both an adventurer and an entrepreneur. Like an ever-increasing number of people attracted to our movement I have thrived in the modern world, in direct contradiction to the media portrayal of dissidents like ourselves as lonely bitter bachelors, sitting in their basements with no friends and no sexual outlet.

Over the course of my adult life I have lived and worked in London, France, St Petersburg, Kiev, San Francisco, Central Asia, and the Middle-East. I am not someone who can be castigated and mocked for being unsophisticated or parochial. My home is filled with art, books, and the numerous artifacts I have collected from all over the world.

Both in private and professional terms I have lived cheek by jowl with many other cultures and ethnicities and observed them up close and personal.  Life experience informs my writing. My fiction is grounded in an in-depth study of history, culture and political theory. 

The Partisan could be read as the act of a natural contrarian. Were you a willful and troublesome child who did Z when told to do A?

I was born into an aspirant working class family in a small provincial town. My father was an electrician and my mother was a cook. A typical boy, I recall playing in the woods, running in the shadow of the craggy castles that littered the landscape, living more like one of those characters from an Arthur Ransom story than a game-boy addict. Pretending to be a cowboy, never an Indian, building tree houses in the style of Robinson Crusoe, crafting bows and arrows like Robin Hood to defend our fortified encampments.

My bookshelves were crammed with Tolkien, C.S. Lewis and the Norse mythologies. There was no family pressure to ‘achieve’. Rather, an atmosphere of calm reassurance. The warm glow of security reflected in the open fire as I sat marching Napoleonic armies across the hearth-rug. I was relatively good at sport, representing my school and region at football, rugby, basketball, and cross- country.  By the time I met my first girlfriend I was already well-past reading Ayn Rand’s Anthem. I remember catching sight of her at a school disco. She was a spike haired punk in clinging pink trousers, cutting a resplendent profile in the backwash of strobe lighting, as she threw a right arm salute. Her small fist punching the air when the opening chords of the Sex Pistols’ God Save the Queen, broke out across the hall.

sex-pistols-god-save-the-queen-1977-17.jpgWithin weeks I became an activist. I recall my initiation started one balmy summer evening when a group of us torched a Trotskyite Militant newspaper stand in the centre of town. Not long after I was involved in an amateur style re-enactment of the climactic scene from The Dead Poets Society. A clear-skinned, fair-haired boy was made to stand up in front of the history class to defend his essay justifying Apartheid. He was asserting the South African Government had been right to imprison Mandela for terrorism and maintain ‘separation’ of the races. The teacher, a bespectacled 68’er, was going ballistic, screaming from behind an accusatory finger, threatening to have my friend removed from her class. ‘You can’t say that!’ she insisted, ‘What sort of person are you?


Then, when he had finished, he looked in my direction and I knew it was my turn to stand and repeat the process. When I came to a close I had the honour to defer to the next boy, who had also been called to answer for transgressing the politically correct curricula. This open act of defiance was rapidly followed by a nationalist poster campaign on school noticeboards, which coming so quickly on the heels of the pro- Afrikaaner debacle and my own and my girlfriend’s names appearing in bold graffiti under a very large symbol closely associated with a controversial German political party of the middle nineteenth century, resulted in my expulsion.

The Partisan is set in France. Why France?

I chose France for its symbolism. When I began writing The Partisan in 2009 I saw a magnificent country threatened by the machinations of a malignant cosmopolitan interloper who had hijacked the race riots breaking out in 2005 in almost every French conurbation for personal political advantage. Then, that same devious individual, insisting on the benefits of miscegenation between the French and the alien hordes swamping the very boulevards where they had set fire to cars and attacked the native people. It seemed to encapsulate the whole political and demographic catastrophe I wanted to warn against in my debut novel.  It was a country on the front-line. But also one with a very rich history of patriotic movements like the Front National and Right-wing intellectuals like Maurice Bardèche and the Nouvelle  Droite’s Alain de Benoist and Guillaume Faye. In more recent times the emergence of fledgling organizations like Generation Identitaire , who my fictional protagonists predicted two or three years prior to their brilliant ‘Declaration of War’ video and the Poitiers Mosque protest, gives me a real sense that the battle lines are being drawn and that the next twelve months will prove me right; that yes indeed, the land of Rousseau and Rabelais will be the first battle ground of the European resurgence. 

génération-identitaire-poitiers.jpg

How does The Partisan differ from the various American novels treating the same topic?

The characters in The Partisan are much more three dimensional than those I have met and admired in other so-called Rightist fiction. It is not purely ‘vengeful’ entertainment. The text is more literary and is replete with reference points to other writers and political thinkers. This is quite deliberate. I want my fiction to excite, inspire, and motivate its audience to investigate the very deep intellectual roots of what is referred to as the New Right. I want The Partisan to be an access point for our youth into that culture and to become familiar with the ideas of its main proponents.        

Almost everyone would agree that there is little to admire in many earlier incarnations of Rightist literature: it is too often badly written and its message is utterly superficial, in that it wallows in an angry revenge fantasy. Would you not agree that the biological worldview, such as the one that informs many of these novels, is necessarily an amoral worldview (which often becomes immoral), since nature is concerned only with what works in a practical sense, and doesn’t assign value to abstract principles the way humans do? Since Westerners assign such importance to such principles—indeed, Western political philosophy has always been underpinned by some system of ethics—how can anyone expect readers to feel comfortable defending the heroes in such fiction, even if they find the revolutionary fantasy privately satisfying?

It is true that such literature can sometimes lapse into simplistic comic book fantasy. Such deficiencies are to some extent why I wrote The Partisan.  One of my key objectives was to fuse the action-orientated type novel with a more poetic but pessimistic futurology like that envisaged by Jean Raspail in The Camp of the Saints.  The point being that certain types of material appeal to certain dispensations at different given points. Some of our movement’s earlier fiction may rightfully be described as amoral, but much that passes today for great classic literature was considered so in the past. Look at the homosexuality of Gide and the modernist works of Joyce. That is not to place all those writers sympathetic to our cause  in this category of artists, clearly, only a very few like Ernst Jünger, Knut Hamsun, and Ezra Pound would qualify, but to indicate that the amoral/immoral argument shifts according to the fashion of the day. The biological imperative underpinning some of these texts does remain relevant, though we have many other facets to our ever-maturing world-view. Without Western people there will be no Western sense of principles or ethics, so in that regard I have a degree of sympathy for those ground-breaking writers, in that their heroes and heroines had at least a modicum of understanding that unless those values were defended they would cease to exist and all our fine ideals would disappear—mea culpa.
      
Where does your interest in the European New Right originate?

I read Michael O’Meara’s New Culture, New Right and discovered the French Nouvelle École (New School). From that point it was a natural progression to study Oswald Spengler, Julius Evola, Pino Rauti, founder of the Ordine Nuovo, Guido Giannettini and the ideology of the Armed Revolutionary Nuclei in Italy; the writings of Carl Schmitt and the Conservative Revolutionaries of the Weimar period; Imperium by the American renegade Francis Parker Yockey; works by the Belgian Jean Thiriart; alongside contemporary thinkers and commentators like Robert Steuckers, Gilbert Sincyr, Tomislav Sunic, Franco Freda of Disintegration of the System fame, Alexander Dugin, Kevin McDonald, Greg Johnson, Jonathan Bowden, Troy Southgate, and Michael Walker, editor of The Scorpion. 

What is wrong with letting people from anywhere settle in Europe, if they are hard-working, law-abiding, tax-paying and contribute to the economy?

American-Cities-And-States-Are-Flat-Broke.jpgNothing, if that is indeed the case. I have met many Poles, Latvians, Lithuanians, and Central Europeans who fulfill such criteria. Of course a small percentage do not but most integrate perfectly well and live successfully among us. Compare that to the facts and figures behind migration from Roma communities, African or predominantly Muslim countries. Welfare dependency, anti-social behavior, criminality, isolationism and the colonization of whole communities seems to characterize the experience. Religious insularity, high prison rates, mosques filled with semi-literate imans  and would-be boy-Jihadis educated free in our schools, sexism, genital mutilation, witch-craft, TB, Typhus, Ebola, drug and people trafficking, child-sex grooming, and riots complete the picture. Ask the people of Malmö, the women of Oslo, those poor souls living in close proximity to the urban sensitive zones around Paris or certain parts of the north of England like Bradford and Rotherham what part of the ‘enrichment’ process they have enjoyed. Talk to the thousands of violated white girls who have benefited from the fast food, cheap narcotics, and Rap music industry these people generate in their slums and taxi about our green and pleasant land. 

What I witness every day are economic migrants, in transit under the false flag of asylum, seeking a better life at our expense.  It is like a plague of locusts landing on a field. Leeching all the goodness from our soil. Infesting our villages, cities and towns. This is not some kind of small minded  ‘fear of the other’ it is an objective analysis based on rational judgment. People like myself do not fear ‘the other’ we invest time and find out about the ‘other’ with a natural and friendly curiosity. I have lived for three years in Muslim countries and found good and bad much the same as I would in Europe or America. But what I find amongst the ‘invasion force’ pressing in upon Europe appalls me. I have nothing but the utmost respect for the nationalist activists who have stood tall despite state sponsored persecution and shouted until they were hoarse that the ‘emperor’ of multiculturalism has no clothes.

So is it just a question of the practical effects of multiculturalism? Is there no principle behind it except a root-and-branch or technocratic approach to problem-solving? Does this not make the liberal approach superior, then, since it is driven by an ethical system, however imperfectly executed? Not superior in a technical sense, but certainly in a moral sense.

There is indeed a very deep sense of principle embedded within my earlier response. People and communities who have over generations worked and sacrificed for their own well-being in later life and indeed their kith & kin in the present should expect that having made those long-term commitments under moral and indeed contractual commitments to and with their governments that those obligations are honoured. People originating from societies who have failed or are unable to take that long-term view have no prior right upon such investments. And I challenge any authority or political party arguing otherwise to stand openly upon a platform declaring such an intent to pillage that hard earned inheritance and let the people who have genuinely and fulsomely entered into such an arrangement decide the matter.   

Surely, diversity increases creativity, since you have more perspectives and approaches to any problem, and immigration from everywhere boosts economic growth. Are you against creativity and for a stagnant economy?

Despite the diversity you see in Hollywood films and on television, the world’s laboratories, board rooms and libraries are not filled with West Indians designing new software systems for intergalactic flight, Somalians building robots to work in arid conditions or ecologically aware Uzbeks setting up green companies to reduce carbon emissions.  This is a myth, perpetuated by the few whose individual and cosmopolitan group interests it suits, flooding productive economies with low IQ ‘hands’ to drive down wages  and increase short-term share-holder profits at the expense of the long term interests of their host community.  The media is used to manipulate and shape our moral and social expectations.  Identity is eroded by the notion of ‘global citizenship’. Water-cooler philosophy is dispensed by Kid-President you-tube videos. Economic and moral stagnation leading to inter-ethnic tension distracts us from the enemy’s goals, so openly declared by Barbara Lerner-Spectre Founding Director of the Paideia Institute in Sweden: I think there is a resurgence of anti-Semitism because at this point in time Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural and I think we are going to be part of the throes of that transformation which must take place. Europe is not going to be a monolithic society that they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be to be at the centre of that. It’s a huge transformation to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode and Jews will be resented for our leading role but without that leading role and without that transformation Europe will not survive’.

This sounds like a conspiracy theory. Is not your answer a bit of an overstatement? Certainly, Jews in the diaspora on the whole have favoured social, political, and intellectual movements tending to make the societies in which they live safer for them. No surprise here, given their history. Yet, to the degree that they have supported or even led such movements, these have merely demanded a more thorough and complete application of principles already enshrined and, indeed, central to liberal political philosophy. And liberal political philosophy is wholly North-Western European and ‘Aryan’ in origin: John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Paine, Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, David Hume, Immanuel Kant—all these are gentiles, mostly from Britain to boot.

images.mobilism.org.pngYour point is well made and I take it in the spirit it is intended, however, please indulge me for one moment. The term ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ is often used to belittle and decry non-standard theoreticians. I accept there are a lot of cranks out there and people who have the potential to cause arm to others. Clearly, that is not my intent. Indeed, the very opposite is true. I am a historian and a political theorist. My opinions are not based on phantasms, a need to gain attention or dye my hair green and stand in a turquoise track suit next to David Icke. I have quoted above (and indeed elsewhere in relation to Nicholas Sarkozy, former President of France) one of hundreds of examples where some people of that particular diaspora have acted, in my opinion, against the interests of the European majority among whom they live. At this very moment I am simultaneously reading Ilan Pappe’s The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine and Simon Schama’s The Story of the Jews: Finding the Words 1000BC - 1492 AD [Sic. It loos as if HarperCollins doesn't know that AD goes in front of the year. —Ed.]The former, a chilling account of the systematic way the founders of the early Jewish state went about their ethnic cleansing and murder of thousands upon thousands of Arabs in the late 1940’s, (activities some may argue analogous with recent events); the latter a shameless and sycophantic account of Jewish history that exonerates the Chosen from any sense of personal or group responsibility for the numerous expulsions they have suffered throughout the centuries. The media-savvy Schama, reveals himself to be less historian and more a propagandist as he explains why it is that everyone else is always to blame and his own tribe are always right, or indeed innocent, and the victims of mindless persecution. I would recommend everybody to read both texts. I found it advantageous to have also read the Talmud, Torah, and indeed the Koran, so I have a socio-economic, historical, and religious context for my opinions. I came to the work of Kevin McDonald late but recognize the behavior patterns he ascribes to his study group and I personally would prefer that the more over-zealous Zionists desisted from their activities so that your average Mr and Mrs Finkelstein could live in peace within the wider community. Unfortunately, that wider community now includes people with anti-semitic attitudes. This is regrettable but is a direct consequence of the strategy so eloquently explained by Spectre-Lerner above.

The fact that you can list the names of such great Anglo-Saxon, French, and German thinkers is a testimony to the progressive and open-hearted culture from which they originate. That the good intentions of such well-meaning people could be so perverted is in fact a measure of what Yockey describes as the culture distortion so prevalent today both in Europe and America. I have studied the American Constitution, The Framers who devised it, their backgrounds, ethnicity and intentions. Likewise, the real motivations of President Lincoln before, during, and after the American Civil War and I can assure you the abbreviated versions of history our schools and universities teach us and the voters are fed through the distorting lens of Orwellian ‘Truth Speak’ is a subject fit for serious review. I myself studied the whole historiography surrounding ‘Reconstruction’ after the American Civil War and it is most instructive on how aspects of history can and are used during different epochs to influence public opinion. From the books we read to the films we watch. Trust me, there is a pattern and it is no coincidence. From Spencer Tracy’s The Northwest Passage encouraging American entryism into the Second World War, to John Wayne’s Green Berets, trying to sustain moral during the Vietnam War, and 300, instilling anti-Islamic sentiment during the Iraq and Afghan wars. A whole book could be written on the movies bolstering anti-German sentiments and the falsehoods therein contained, but I will leave it there, my counter-point, I believe, equally well made.            

Immigration is needed because white folk no longer want to do certain jobs, whereas the newcomers are keen to contribute and willing to work hard. If we were to send them all back—which is impossible, of course—the economy and the NHS would collapse.

These shibboleths need to be exposed for the nonsense they are.  In the course of my career I have collaborated with thousands of sole-traders, SME’s, and multinational corporations.  In my opinion there would be no collapse, rather, a rejuvenation of the economy, greatly boosted I suspect by the end of massive social security payments, that could be re-directed from these imported voting blocs and unproductive elements to invest in new start-ups and training programmes for people who need to update their skill-set in line with current economic trends. I would recommend the re-nationalization of utility companies in the UK, likewise the rail and postal service, at the price set by the ‘fixers’ when they were sold off. I would also withdraw all benefits from those who had entered the country illegally and their families and dependents. Similarly, non-ethnic British who had committed serious crimes prior to their immediate deportation back to their country of origin, accompanied of course by their dependents, but not the assets that had been accumulated by fraudulent means or due to the generosity of the British taxpayer. It may sound draconian to some but it makes good business sense. I would also argue to levy taxes on the money migrant workers send back to their families, thereby reducing the outflow of capital from its source of origin and open negotiations with countries in receipt of Foreign Aid or benefits to assist us in the task of humane repatriation of their nationals or peoples of compatible ethnic origin or similar religious persuasion.  New targets need to be set for emigration, based on a wide range of criteria, but certainly with a view to returning the ethnic balance of countries like Britain to pre-1997 levels. And that would be the start not the end-point of the discussion.

total_map_overview.gifWith regard to the NHS, I have managed contracts with a wide range of people connected to this vast and worthy enterprise. Indeed, I have been involved with medical training for nurses, GPs, and surgeons. An immediate family member is a practicing junior doctor. The simple fact is that we are diverting resources to train people of non-British origin to these highly paid jobs, reinforcing cultural stereo-types among some of the high achieving Asians who think the profession is ‘theirs’ (the names Khan and Patel are currently the most common names for a medical doctor in the UK) whilst failing to act when they underperform or commit acts of negligence or perversion because we fear being branded ‘racist’. Additionally, we are providing health tourists with a first class service and denuding developing countries of their most highly skilled health professionals, which seems morally indefensible to me, especially if we are to be judged by the liberal and ethical standards we are supposed to be upholding. So, in short, I think we can materially benefit from a mass outflow of the post-’97 immigrants, up-skill the workforce with a view to advancing our technological infrastructure and preserve and improve fundamental services like the British NHS with a planned programme of awareness raising and aspiration building so that increasing numbers of whites want to move into these fields, as was the case in previous generations.

Polls recording the attitudes of indigenous Europeans towards non-European immigrants consistently show that this view is popular. But how do you justify it morally? That’s the first thing. The second is, What about the many families of non-European origin that, nevertheless, have been here for several generations and are all citizens, born and bred in Europe? Are we to start rounding them up and shipping them out? And, if so, what would determine an ‘ethnically compatible’ country? Many are of mixed origin too, which would further complicate the issue, not just practically, but morally as well.

Yes, indeed, it is a popular view and one that should have had a major impact on the results of several electoral cycles. In the UK alone, there have been orators like Enoch Powell predicting the current circumstance for decades. Many other far sighted people have followed him, in their own ways, in their own countries across the ‘developed world’. Why it has failed to mature into a vote winning electoral vehicle in the majority of those countries is a question worth asking? Where was the plebiscite agreeing to immigration in the first place? Why isn’t one held now across the EU or in its constituent states? These very facts undermine the claim we live in representative democracies. The current wave of concern in this area may bring Marine Le Pen to power in France  but I have no doubt every judicial or technical reason will be found to make that difficult. We have an unresponsive state apparatus that is ‘owned’ and with every year the new imported peoples who they pander to in order to maintain their short-term positions grow in number. These newcomers have originated from somewhere outside Europe and that is where they should return. Where is a choice for them to make but they should not remain. On the subject of people of mixed race, we have a conundrum. I believe everyone should be free to choose their life-partner without the interference of law and statute. Love is a valuable commodity and should be appreciated in all the various forms it assumes. But look carefully at the spousal abuse rates, the single parent families, the divorce rates between people of different ethnicities. The evidence is overwhelming, if uncomfortable reading for the self-loathers like FEMEN who daub their bare breasts with statements like: ‘Immigrants fuck better’. Perhaps a picture of O.J. Simpson would be more appropriate?

What do you think drives FEMEN to engage in this type of activism?

My initial response to FEMEN was positive. I thought they were protesting against the sexual exploitation of Eastern European women. My sympathies were obvious. The long and well documented white-slaving indulged in by predominantly Turkish, Albanian, and Jewish gangsters, gathers pace year on year. It is simply incredible that such appalling human trafficking exists and that no direct intervention like sanctions on the countries that operate brothel gulag systems are enforced. I note a real double standard here when you think of the recent high profile campaign by Michelle Obama to ‘Bring back our girls’. However, I soon became disconcerted when FEMEN Founders like Sasha Shevchenko began pontificating on their Sextremist ideology. I found it to be a poisonous cocktail of anti-white male bigotry, a clichéd Leftist love of ‘the other’, and a vulgar circus for self-indulgent, self-loathing women invading churches, urinating in the street, and protesting against so-called fascists who would deport the perpetrators of organized crimes victimizing their gender, limit the freedom of communities practicing female genital mutilation, and stamp out the grooming and abuse of young girls. I might be wrong, but I don’t recall seeing FEMEN actively challenging Muslim paedophiles in the UK or across Europe. Have they made a statement about Rotherham?

femen-anti-nuke_540.jpg

The antics of Pussy Riot demean the very important work of genuine female activists such as those of the first wave of feminism like Hannah More, Mary Wollstonecraft, and Frances Willard. Women whose genuine motivations were highjacked by radical feminists like the Red Stockings Brigade of the 1960’s, themselves a mere projection of the Black Civil Rights Movement stirring up trouble across the gender divide. Look at the work of Germaine Greer, Shulamith Firestone, Carol Hanisch, Ellen Levine, and Anne Koedt.  The very titles of their books—The Female Eunuch, Forbidden Discourse: The Silencing of Feminist Criticism of Gender, and The Myth of the Vaginal Orgasm—betray their narcissistic belligerence, over-bearing sense of entitlement, political lesbianism, and economic and syncretic Marxist agenda. And it did not end there. Bell Hooks in her book Killing Rage went so far as to justify her feelings about longing to murder an anonymous white male, no doubt because he represented the ‘oppressive patriarchy’ all these types despise. Dworkin, Wolf, Paglia, and Steinhem all follow in the same path as de Beauvoir whose Second Sex features on all ‘politically correct’ liberal arts college reading lists. I would highly recommend an antidote to such corrosive prejudice. Try the work and thoughts of Erin Pizzey, an early campaigner against domestic violence, who incidentally has subsequently been forced to spend long periods in hiding after bomb threats from radical feminist extremists; Karen Straughan of Girl Writes What and Dr Tara Palmatier who are working hard to re-balance the debate. There is also an extensive literature refuting the theories of the celebrated women’s champions listed above: Christina Hoff Sommers, Who Stole Feminism ? and The War against Boys; Suzanne Venker’s The Flipside of Feminism: what Conservative Women think—and men can’t say; and Ronnee Schreiber’s Righting Feminism: Conservative women and American Politics.

According to certain controversial literature on human biodiversity, South East Asians are the most intelligent population on Earth and blacks the most athletic. If we accept this as true, then, surely, it makes sense to accept immigration from anywhere, since we’ll benefit from Asian brains and West African muscle. We’d then be unbeatable both in the astrophysics laboratory and the Olympic stadium.

Let us for a minute accept such stereotyping. Should we not also insist that those self-same people accept their proven statistical predilection for corruption, rape, and violence? Would South East Asians not be able to construct free and stable societies, dominate academia, and the patent lists of inventions? Why are our West African brothers not able to master the rudiments of more complex sports like gymnastics that require the synchronization of mind and body? I have studied alongside South East Asians and their tendency is to regurgitate what they learn uncritically. I have myself beaten black athlete’s on the school running track. Take a look at the Olympic medal tables and you will see white people outperform all other races proportionally, when you consider that we represent less than 16% of the world’s population.

Surely, with better immigration criteria and controls we can keep out the criminals and attract the best talent from all over the world. And, surely, there is a role even for rote memorisation and brute force in our societies. These things are needed, and it’s down to employers to find the right individuals for the right jobs. Let’s assume for a moment that this is just a technical issue that can be cracked with excessive costs and within a reasonable timeframe. Would you still oppose immigration? And, if so, why?

I would oppose immigration instinctively not just on the scale currently being undertaken, but because I think Europe, America, and the Slavic countries neither require it or substantially benefit from it. The criminal aspect is merely a ‘touchstone’ issue. Out of control diversity is a millstone not an asset. Especially when the benefits of diversity are all pretty much one-way. We in the West are uniquely blessed, unlike other peoples with most of the requisite capabilities to meet the majority of our societal needs. There is no obligation to feed the world until our own needy and poor are brought up to a proper level of subsistence. There is an old adage that charity begins at home. Let us start there. I do not however believe in isolationism, which is counter-productive and prevents a genuine and worthwhile exchange between cultures on an equal and beneficial footing. That is not what we have now.

The Western world can point to a history of brute force and rote memorisation. I do not hold such skills in high regard unless the former is absolutely necessary and the latter is applicable and beneficial to those who have no other course of betterment. I have liaised with large numbers of Chambers of Commerce in the UK and France and employers have plenty of opportunities to create viable and profitable businesses. What is becoming increasingly apparent is the drive towards excessive profit and greed. Such materialism above and beyond physical and spiritual satiation is I believe a serious sign of moral decay. The numbers of culturally bereft nouveau-riche people swilling second-rate champagne in kidney-shaped jacuzzis sickens me. And believe me, I have met many of that sort from Dublin to Tomsk.

Isn’t nationalism just hate and fear? Most decent people think it is very narrow-minded and backward world-view. We are no longer in the 19th century, after all; this is the 21st century and we live in a globalized world. You, in fact benefit from this every day.

I see the New Right as an alternative modernist movement, building on the homogenous organic roots of traditionalism, rejecting the liberal and socialist platitudes of a utopian future populated by a coffee-coloured people. I participate, contribute and benefit from the technical effects of modernity. Indeed, it is people like myself that drive those technical knowledge based economies. But I utterly reject the racial and cultural side-effects as an unnecessary impediment. I long for a political framework which abolishes multiculturalism and privileging the ‘ethnic’ over the ‘indigenous’ not because the European needs ‘protection’ and cannot compete but because current governmental statutes deliberately discriminates in favour of ‘ethnics’ over the whites and the fact that these global parasites are a drain on our core business, the advancement of our nations and the European continent.  A national community functions best when, as Italian, Sergio Salvi, in his book Patria e Matria  (Fatherland and Motherland) wrote : ‘It can be tentatively defined as a human group living in a definitive territory, which differs from other groups in a number of characteristics. These can be linguistic, cultural, historical and socio-economic. It is such shared characteristics that makes the members of a group aware of their particular identity. Even when the differences are not so tangible, they still give rise to the group’s desire to organize autonomously in the fields of administration (i.e., the State), politics and culture’. For me positive not ‘petty’ nationalism is the instinctive outcome of love for family, community and place. It is a healthy and over-riding human emotion.  It is limitless and according to the Nietzschean theory of eternal return, its time will inevitably come again.  

But nationalism is an idea associated with the nation-state, a fairly recent creation, which is becoming increasingly irrelevant, is it not? And its adoption necessitated the suppression of regional identities to begin with. At the time of the French Revolution, for example, only 1 in 8 people living in France spoke fairly good French; only half spoke any; and even in Oïl language zones, it was usually only used in cities. The ‘national identity’, the ‘national religion’, the ‘national curriculum’—all of these are concepts associated with the nation-state. The tendency in world history has been to go from lower levels of organisation to higher. Surely, you do not envision a return to the polis, or to the city-state (à la Geneva, as in Rousseau’s time), do you? What about the argument that hugely expensive undertakings, such as a space programme, would be far more difficult with a 1000 small regions with small economies, with 1000 currencies and 1000 languages, as opposed to with a large block like the EU, using one currency and adopting a lingua franca?

It is true that the nationalism of the last two hundred years is generally associated with the nation-state and if you are force-fed Ernest Gellner and  Eric Hobsbawn like I was at university you are getting that diaspora interpretation once again. Even a more conservative view like that of Elie Kedourie comes from the same gene pool. Historians of this type are pre-determined to view such communitarian societies as essentially reactionary in character.  Thinkers from the Anglo-conservative sphere like Edmund Burke, Thomas Carlyle, Maurice Cowling, Michael Oakeshott, T.S. Eliot, Roger Scruton, and Phillip Blond are given scant attention. Likewise, John Calhoun, the Southern Agrarian School, Russell Kirk, Paul Gottfried, and even Gregory Wolfe in America. De Benoist and Faye, whom I referenced earlier were largely ignored and remained only partially translated into English until Arktos Media redressed this unforgivable oversight in recent years.  Consideration of the German Conservative Revolutionaries is basically forbidden unless it is to criticize them. People like Fichte, Herder, Schopenhauer, Stefan George, Ludwig Klages, Gottfried Benn, Ernst Niekisch, Arthur Moeller van den Bruck, Othmar Spann, Edgar Julius Jung, and the great Martin Heidegger, despite the latitude of their thought must be viewed through the politically correct lens. Even Carl Jung suffers in this regard, but then again, he did split from Freud and so according to their narrative can never be forgiven.

br4emepapier.jpg

The significance and relevance of regionalism is in fact an issue I hint at in the text of The Partisan, where I try to balance the importance I attach to Breton, Provencal and other regional cultures to the unified fight-back against a common-enemy. I do envisage a Europe of a thousand flags under a federal entity. But you will appreciate my vision of such a European confederation would be unrecognizable from today’s EU. It would not be without dissension and dispute but it would be a debate between similar peoples of a generally shared milieu, informed and framed by some of the disprivileged thinkers I listed above. A discussion of this type is far more likely to advance in a positive direction than disputes between peoples of completely different cultures, races or susceptibilities.

In The Partisan, you seem to see the problems afflicting our societies cannot be solved through the mainstream political process. Yet, people—not only in France and in Britain, but in all the Western democracies—are given a chance to vote every four or five years , so the political establishment and the policies pursued by democratic governments simply reflect the will of the people. From this it seems obvious that your view is that of a disgruntled minority.

My first Masters degree is in Government & Politics. I fully understand the various forms of local, regional, national, and international governance structures that bind our hands. I have studied all aspects of representation, party funding and the ideologies and platforms of the supposedly competing mainstream parties. The charade of the democratic process and the pantomime of elections do not fool me or I think increasing numbers of other people. Our governments are bought and paid for by people running multi-national corporations and ‘banksters’ who do not have our best interests at heart. We may still be a disgruntled minority but a committed vanguard can lead a revolution. Did you see the street scenes on Maidan? I was there. All over Europe the Right is on the rise: in France, Austria, the Baltic States, Italy, Poland, and Hungary. Look at Casa Pound fighting the Reds on the streets of Rome, Blocco Studentesco and of course Golden Dawn in Greece. I was touched by the dignified way The Immortals conducted themselves during a torch lit parade through a small German town. Our creed is a vital and living force, not a passive celebration of former glories, or for that matter a family that lives in a lifeless, sterile museum.  I have a certain respect for the sentiments expressed in the dedication to the preface of Derek Holland’s The Political Soldier II, Thoughts on Sacrifice & Struggle: ‘To the prayers of the Saints and the Blood of the Martyrs who redeemed the European Motherland in the Past. May we, the last loyal Sons of Tradition and Order, be worthy of their Example as the Final Conflict approaches.

blocco.jpg

This narrative, about a race-based revolution, would strike many as wishful thinking by a fringe minority. Most would find it impossible to justify morally, because it is ultimately selfish. The Randian view of selfishness as a virtue has had the most fertile soil grow on in a context of Classical liberalism favouring individual liberty and therefore laissez-faire capitalism, and yet, it remains a marginal view; it cannot stand the moral attacks from the egalitarians, who can present themselves as virtuous because egalitarianism is selfless, at least as they understand it, which is what counts in this realm. Moreover, the events in Ukraine are of an entirely different order, since fits the liberal narrative, which can temporarily justify Ukrainian nationalism as a struggle for freedom—freedom from another, larger, richer, more powerful nation; a well-defined opponent. There is no well-defined opponent in Europe, even within the narrative you reproduce—no one likes the bankers and politicians, but responsibility for even the worst trends is diffuse. Even Tony Blair, a proven liar and war criminal, is making a killing economically. GQ even named him philanthropist of the year, eliciting only the most supine and feeblest of complaints!

This is the exact opposite of wishful thinking. Who would want to deal with a civil war on their own soil ? Yugoslavia was a test-case. I am not advocating violence but warning against it. The Partisan is not wish fulfillment, rather a shrill cry of concern about what will occur unless positive steps are taken now. Merkel and Cameron bemoaning the failure of multiculturalism will not stave off internecine violence. Randian idealism remains a cult because it does not link the supposed virtue of selfishness with the natural philanthropism that people have felt and acted upon historically because they are inclined to support people of like character and type. It is true the banksters are an easy target but you are looking through a post 2007 perspective. Distributists like Chesterton and Belloc were saying this over 70 years ago. And they were right!

In relation to Ukraine. I first starting wearing Stepan Bandera t-shirts  and drinking vodka with Ukrainian nationalist veterans in the cellars of Lviv 7 years ago. I am fully aware of how that genuine uprising was manipulated. I was holding a birthday party 200 meters from the spot where the secret police were shooting protestors in Kiev last March. I have two further manuscripts dealing directly with Russia and Ukraine completed and ready for publication.

I personally refused to meet Tony Blair despite being part of a British trade delegation  set to greet the former Prime Minister to a certain Muslim country two years ago. GQ embarrasses itself and insults our intelligence with their phony polls and propaganda. Everyone knows what Blair and his type represent and advocate. Will he produce GQ’s analysis as part of his defense when he is finally brought before a court? I don’t know about you, but I would anticipate a cacophony of contemptuous laughter.

You seem to reject egalitarianism. But isn’t equality a good thing? And if you don’t, are you not saying that certain people are inferior and should be deprived of rights that everyone—and certainly the United Nations—regard as universal? How can you possibly defend that? Is it your view that women are inferior to men, that blacks are inferior to whites, and that you’d rather institutionalise privilege for some, and oppression for others, based on the qualities they are born with and therefore cannot do anything about?

Egalitarianism is a façade used by the liberals and socialists to push their proposition nation agenda. In pursuit of the Holy Grail of Equality they are more than willing to sacrifice any sense of human differentation, erasing the realities of race, gender intelligence and cultural competencies. It is not a matter of supremacy and inferiority, it is a matter of reality. I do not believe in a universal ‘lowest common denominator’. People and cultures are different and we should celebrate that very real diversity not hold it to a single standard. Cultures are at different points of development and are on different trajectories. I agree with Spengler when he said, ‘Each culture has its own new possibilities of self-expression which arise, ripen decay and never return. There is not one sculpture, one painting, one mathematics, one physics, but many, each in its deepest essence different from the others . . . ’  Does that sound like someone who wishes to impose his will on others or a person hell-bent on depriving other cultures of their right to sovereignty or self- determination? I think not. Look around the world, the caste system you allude to in your question and the slave/worker relationships it implies are far more prevalent and embedded in non-white cultures. I am reminded of an axiom quoted in the short lived Rising journal: ‘A Nationalism that seeks to subdue or extirpate another culture is, in fact, not a Nationalism but an Imperialism, which threatens not only its intended victim but also its own well-being, for its distorted view of itself, and of its relations with others, can only invite disaster’.

I would not have selected a woman to be the central character in my novel if I was even remotely sexist or believed the female gender was in any way inferior. Sabine, the heroine of the book, is the very personification of a modern, intelligent, powerful woman who makes her own decisions and lives with the consequences.  It is my view that we need to be far more strategic in appealing to women in order to grow our movement. They offer us the chance of a real multi-skilling asset which would greatly enhance our operations and further refine our perspective, ideals and objectives.

The issue is also not about colour but character and capability. History informs us that large numbers of diverse people find it difficult to live in close proximity without conflict. In general, the under-achievement of many non-whites living in a white community leads to demoralization, dependency and frustration. These result in violent outpourings like: in the USA—Watts 65, Newark 67, Rodney King/LA  92, Cincinnati 2001, Ferguson 2014; in the UK—Bristol 1980, Toxteth 1981, Brixton 1981, Bradford, Burnley and Oldham 2001, London 2011; in France—Clichy-Sous-Bois, Seine-Saint-Denis, Dijon, Belfort 2005; in Italy—Rosarno in Calabria 2010; in Spain - Roquetas in Almeria 2008; in Sweden—Stockholm 2013.

riots-england-2011.jpg

I see no benefit in perpetuating such catastrophes when it is clear that peaceful co-existence and co-location is simply not possible. A race realist like myself would recommend a natural separation based on mutually agreed terms.

This argument has been made for decades, with a great deal of hard science to support it. And yet, that hasn’t made any difference. It is still rejected wholesale. We go back to the ethics of this idea: egalitarians may argue that even if equality does not exist, it is nevertheless a noble ideal, and that alone makes it worth pursuing, even if the ideal could never be achieved entirely. In short, the facts don’t really matter, because this is an ethical question, not an empirical one.

If the Convergence of Catastrophes Faye anticipates in his book is correct, and the money, food and power begins to run out, I predict it will not be noble ideals and ethics that characterize our behavior. When the tipping point is reached the fracturing of society will move rapidly on ethnic, religious and tribal lines. Like you yourself argued in one of your celebrated speaking engagements, The Collapse may not be instant, it may have already began and its ramifications may go unnoticed at first. I think it was Ezra Pound who claimed it is the artist’s antenna that first picks up the vibrations of such events. The Partisan is in some ways a literal confirmation of what my more sensitive predecessors already knew awaited us. It is the realization of the dark nightmare to come.

In that speech you refer to I also said that a collapse could well take so long that by the time it is recognised as such the consequences would have long ceased to be relevant, because those affected or warning about them would have already disappeared or were no longer powerful. I also mentioned that there is no guarantee that any collapse would have the desired outcome. The scenario you describe assumes that in a social breakdown scenario, everybody falls into line along ethnic or tribal lines. That seems likely with the non-European demographic in our part of the world, but simple everyday observation suggests Europeans, and particularly North-Western Europeans, will remain as divided as they are now, fractured along moral or morally justified ideological lines. Even the Far Right is notoriously fractuous, not only due to conflicting personalities, but also due to disagreements over ideology. The same has always been the case with the Far Left. Kevin MacDonald has pointed out that Western Europeans are low in ethnocentricity and tend to form moral communities. If that is true, then ancestry is an insufficient condition. So the question must be asked—if egalitarianism is the irritant and the stumbling block, should identitarians not be focusing on a moral critique of egalitarianism?

I would contend the collapse started around 1913 and is now well advanced. The collapse takes many forms and proceeds at a different pace along many separate fault lines. It can be identified and estimated by different social, economic, demograhic, and political indices. We recognize it at the point it affects us as individuals, or as citizens of a particular nation. Those who govern the western world are managing the decline rather than arresting it. Some I suspect are complicit in it, or are directly benefiting from the decline in some way, transferring assets and investments at favourable rates to BRIC countries, much like maggots feeding off dying flesh. There is simply no way of guaranteeing that the moral poison of egalitarianism will not have so retarded the European population that they are inhibited from protecting their own or acting in a way to promote their group’s interest. I suspect however, that when non-Europeans band together, set up exclusive organizational structures, possibly based on religious lines, commit outrageous crimes and begin ethnic-cleansing, the mantra of ‘One World, One People’ will ring very hollow. There is nothing like watching your mother, sister and daughter being raped, or your father, brother and son being eviscerated by machete wielding savages to focus the mind. A moral critique of egalitarianism is long overdue. But we should pull the mask off this expression egalitarianism and call it what it is today, the Frankfurt School strategy to undermine all aspects of the Western Superstructure.

So what if people with non-European ancestry eventually become majorities in Europe? Aren’t they just people, no better or worse than anyone else? Are we to judge them by the colour of their skin, rather than the contents of their character?

The character and nature of the future population of Europe most certainly does matter. Demographics is destiny and the central question of our age, is whether or not the civilized and educated nations of the world will continue to allow themselves to be overwhelmed by those incapable of self-improvement, other than by squatting in close proximity to the techno-industrial or welfare systems of more developed cultures with their begging bowls in hand, or will they close their borders. The behavior, values, and capabilities of a large percentage of the people of non-European ancestry who are coming to Europe at this time, like many of the Latinos fording the Rio Grande, do not stack up meritoriously under any serious degree of scrutiny. They stand condemned by any scientific or moral measurement by which you would chose to evaluate them.  They threaten a new dark age, taking us back centuries. Forget customs and folkways for one moment, just look at the graphs on intelligence. IQ averages in the countries benefiting from immigration are plummeting. In what way can this be described as evolution? It represents the dilution of excellence and the low level ground war already underway throughout North America and Europe is a sure sign that things will get worse rather than better. Is Leicester or Birmingham to be the next Detroit?

Like Spengler I believe that the human species is divided into a variety of widely differing and contradictory cultures. My interpretation of nationalism carries with it the insistence of reciprocal respect. It is in essence Identitarian. What we strive for is national self- determination; sufficient living space for the preservation and development of our race, heritage and culture; a socio-economic and legal system that reflects the values of its creators; the nurturing of our art; and the continuance of our life-force into future millennia. I will not stoop to plea for this on the grounds of the Charter of Human Rights or because it can be argued that what is being done to the white indigenous populations of European nations is a form of genocide by stealth. Though you can make plausible arguments for both those scenarios. I do not ask permission to live or to survive in my own homeland. A territory that people of my lineage have inhabited for 10,000 years. I demand it and will join others in reaching for the rope to hang the traitors who opened the floodgates to the sewers of the third world and lock and load the guns when words prove insufficient to defend our homes.          

What was your aim with The Partisan?

seachanges.jpgContinuing my earlier point about fiction providing a gateway to theory, I want to contribute to a vibrant cadre of New Right novelists. My desire is to re-enchant the present generation with the ideals that made Europe great in the past. We are all descendants of a great cultural and intellectual inheritance and we have to make that case time and time again. Standing on the shoulders of giants like Ernst Jünger, Ezra Pound, and Louis Ferdinand Céline, I believe there now exists the potential to develop a genre that both entertains and informs. Several recent works like your own Mister, Tito’s Perdue’s  oeuvre, and Derek Turner’s Sea Changes provides the basis for a new school of storytellers, poets and singer-song-writers.     

They say that those who forget the past are bound to repeat it. You have an advanced degree in history from an American university—in fact, with a major component in Black Studies. Could it be not be argued, therefore, that you of all people, should know better than to write novels like The Partisan?

On the contrary. My original Masters in Politics included a dissertation which was a critique of the Soviet system. The Black Studies component of my MA in History featured such luminaries as: Nat Turner, Frederick Douglas, W.E. Dubois, Marcus Garvey, Elijah Muhammad, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Angela Davis, Kathleen Cleaver, Bobby Seale, George Jackson, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan and Black Panthers like Stokely Carmichael and Huey P. Newton and their ilk.
I probably know more about Communism and so-called Black Civil Rights activists than those on the left. It is an advantage to know your opponents better than they know themselves. My studies helped me identify the linkages like that between the Zionist Kivie Kaplan, who was Martin Luther King’s ‘handler’ and the communist Party of America. It was a formula that was repeated in the former Weather Underground leaders Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers involvement with the Obama Presidential candidacy. Similarly, the association between Joe Slovo and his slow-witted tool Mandela in the dismemberment of South Africa.  
These simple key quotes define the reasons why I wrote The Partisan:

‘During the last Open Convention the debate was, was it or was it not the duty of any good revolutionary to kill all new born white babies. At the time it seemed like a relevant framing of an issue. The logic being that through no fault of their own these white kids are going to grow up to be a part of an oppressive racial establishment internationally, so really your duty is to kill new born white babies. And I remember one guy tentatively and apologetically suggesting that this was in contradiction to the humanitarian aims of the movement and he was booed down’ - Doug McAdam (Weather Underground)

Kill all white men, white women and their babies’ - New Black Panther Party activist Malik Zulu Shabbaz (picture hereunder), infamous for accusations of attempting to intimidate voters at a Philadelphia polling booth in 2008.

Malik-Zulu-Shabazz.jpg

Do you plan on getting another degree?

To quote Solzhehnitsyn : ‘without any censorship, in the West fashionable trends of thought and ideas are carefully separated from those which are not fashionable; nothing is forbidden, but what is not fashionable will hardly find its way into periodicals or books or be heard in colleges. Legally your researchers are free, but they are conditioned by the fashions of the day . . .’   

One single anecdote illustrates this perfectly.  Having graduated on a bright summer day under a warm Californian sun, I returned to a slate grey London, intending to commence a PhD on the historiography of the so-called European New Right. I was interviewed by an American Professor with a Jewish surname. He was wearing a tweed jacket and smiling suspiciously over an oversize bowtie. As I tried to explain my hypothesis, the would-be don twirled his pen, looking distractedly out the window.

‘Why are you interested in these people?’ he asked contemptuously, ‘they have no intellectual capital. Have you thought of an evaluation of the impact of his theological upbringing on Martin Luther King’s later Civil Rights activities?’ The door closed. So I pushed on another. Sitting down in front of my laptop, sometimes overlooking a village green in Kent, where my every key stroke echoed to the rhythm of leather on wood; and at other times walking around the Zenkov Cathedral in Almaty, staring up through the cloud formations gathering around the rim of the Zailiysky Alatau mountains, I began typing the opening lines of The Partisan. That is my PhD thesis and it is written from the heart, free of the shackles of political correctness.

I notice that, though The Partisan draws from the anti-liberal ideas of the European New Right, it also has references to the French Revolution, which represented a triumph of liberal political theory. You even have the revolutionaries sing certain verses from La Marseillaise. Is this not a somewhat idiosyncratic interpretation of history?

It is the paradox we live with. French identity and pride is inextricably linked with a familiar anthem like La Marseillaise. If fiction is to be grounded and credible it must reflect reality. I would argue that we should accept that the vast numbers required to make a movement will fix on certain icons, flags and songs as they come together. It is to be expected and it is expedient. It is the passion and emotive qualities of unifying symbolism that is important. The deconstruction of deeper ideological underpinnings can be dealt with once we have won back the streets.

The Partisan makes a clear case against the Islamisation of France, and, presumably by extension, of Europe. What is wrong is Islam having a presence in Europe? There are Muslims in Bosnia who are fully European and don’t behave at all like Abu Hamza and fellow Jihadists from Asia and North Africa or the Pakistani paedophile rings in the United Kingdom. Indeed, even the SS had a division of Bosnian Muslims.

A presence is one thing. An overwhelming presence is quite another. Whilst minarets  overshadow rooftops from Barcelona to Geneva and Frankfurt to Bolton, Christian churches are being firebombed across the Muslim world and the followers of Jesus are given an option, convert or die. How long before the phony war of protest by Muslims in Paris, Amsterdam and Brussels turns into a full scale insurgency by ISIS trained zealots? There is much to admire in all faiths, cultures and identities. But we must acknowledge, they flourish best when they are rooted in their home soil and watered by the winds from their own mountain tops. Over the last half century the seeds of destruction have been scattered across our fields. It is time to take the scythe to the weeds strangling our crop. 

minare11.jpg

What about David Cameron’s proposal of ‘muscular Britishness’?

There is so much one could say on this matter but I will try to keep my reply concise and free from vitriol. My recollection is that this expression was first used in a Daily Mail article on the Trojan Horse scandal, where Tory party policies relating to the freeing up of school governing bodies and head-teachers from so-called local authority  bureaucracy and allowing more school independence had resulted in a myriad of predominantly Muslim schools imposing a sharia curricula, removing white governors and treating indigenous students, already a numerical minority as second class pupils. Well, I cannot say I am surprised, it reinforces what I alluded to earlier in relation to the mindset of certain burgeoning non-British communities. I contend such autonomy will be abused by these people time and time again. They simply cannot be constrained by the normal European or British notions of fair play, decency and appropriate behavior. These apologists for paedophilia and honour killings are animated by the dream of  a jihadist take-over not assimilation. The fact that Cameron, along with his collaborators in the Liberal-democrats have actually overseen a growth in immigration, despite all their public statements and manifesto pledges to the contrary, calls into question both the British Prime Minister’s integrity and capability.

His fetid description of Britishness as being all about democracy, equality, and tolerance reveals a complete disengagement with the martial qualities that built an Empire from Scotland to the Falklands and Novia Scotia to Singapore. Listening to a rendition of Elgar’s Pomp and Circumstance, would suffice in correcting such confusion. These modernist ideals also fly in the face of historic reality like the Chartist March on Monmouth, where men were shot and killed for demanding political representation; the fact that for centuries only male property owners had the right to vote and a suffragette had to throw herself under the King’s horse to raise awareness that women wanted the same opportunity; and that the everyday experience of anyone expressing concern over the behavior of non-whites is immediately shouted down with the cat-call of that much over-used word ‘racist!’ The latter apparently being a case of blatant ‘intolerance’ regardless of the merit of their argument. Double standards abound. No tolerance for the intolerant. No platform for fascists ! Government ministers signing up as members of Unite Against Fascism. So it seems, equality and tolerance are in reality in short supply in David’s Little Britain.

As for democracy, equality and tolerance are as British as the Union Flag, football and fish and chips ? Well let us deconstruct David’s assertions in true Marxist dialectical terms, shall we? It strikes me that the very existence of the Union flag is called into question by the Scottish referendum. Something Mr Cameron agreed to but did not feel he could extend to the discussion on immigration? With regards to football, it was clear from the lethargic display by the English team at the last World Cup, that the game ‘the British’ invented has now developed well beyond their current competency levels. Football is most certainly not coming home to paraphrase the line from the Three Lions Song. And the clichéd reference to fish and chips, so typical of Oxbridge champagne swilling Tories trying to appear ‘down with the boys’,  can be dismissed by the simple observation that the  most popular meal in the UK is now curry.

Like John Major before him speaking of the English matron pedaling through the morning mist or Mrs Thatcher hinting about the people’s concern about being ‘swamped’ by immigrants in the 79 election, Cameron has no intention of enacting muscular Britishness, whatever that means? Look who funds the party he leads. Peel back the names to reveal his own family origins and those of his advisors. Indeed, those of his predecessors.  Leon Brittan, Nigel Lawson, Keith Joseph, Malcolm Rifkind, Alex Carlisle, Michael Howard, Edwina Currie, John Bercow and Keith Joseph. Check the following list of Conservative, Liberal Democrat, and Labour MP’s, Ministers and Peers of the realm (the following is only indicative, not comprehensive) : Sam Gyimah, Kwasi Kwarteng, Reham Chisti, Baroness Warsi, Priti Patel, Alok Sharma, Nadhim Zahami, Kishwer Falkner, Sandip Verma, Mohamed Sheikh, Nat Wei, Maurice Saatchi, Satyendra Prasanno Sinha, Lord Taylor of Warwick, Patricia Scotland, Navnit Dhozlakia, Herman Ouseley, Floella Benjamin, Meral Hussein-Ece, Zahida Manzour, Rumji Vergee, Doreen Lawrence, Paul Boateng, Lord Darzi, Bill Morris, Baron Bhattacharrya, Baron Chan, Amir  Bhatia, Baron Adebowale, Baron Parekh, Baron Patel, Baroness Pashar, Nazir Ahmed, Baroness Uddin, Baron Ali, Keith Vaz, Valerie Vaz, Chuka Umunna, Yasmin Qureshi, Ed Milliband, and George Galloway.  Now ask yourself are such people likely to enact muscular Britishness?

And before we settle back and think this is an isolated situation, please take a look at the political ‘movers and shakers’ in the United States and closer to home, in Europe itself. It is not hard to find the same egregious behaviour perpetrated in the same quarters by the same self-interested parties.   

Why did you choose a female protagonist?

I wanted to create a positive role model for those young women sympathetic to our shared traditions and thinking about becoming active in the movement.  The Left have to some extent mythologized in book and film form the likes of Ulrike Meinhof and Gudrun Ensslin. To my mind these were two emotionally bereft, politically shallow and nihilistic women. Sabine was created in direct opposition to these latter day martyrs of the German Autumn. I can foresee a time when some of our best exponents will be women. I long to stand beside them in the shadow of fluttering Spartan pennants on the field of Poitiers.    
    
Is there hope for Europe beyond liberalism?

There most certainly is. First, we must acknowledge the significance of integral traditionalism to the life and continuity of the homogenous community. Then we need the energy and vital radicalism of revolutionary conservatism to simultaneously conserve and transform those parts of our culture that are (a) worthy of preservation and (b) in vital need of evolution or eradication.     

Isn’t liberalism simply for individual liberty, freedom of expression, freedom of opportunity, and equality before the law? Are we do away with all those, and go back five hundred years—or, worse still, end up with an authoritarian police state?

The police state is already here and the prison walls are the laws imposed upon us by the equality gurus to uphold the liberal establishment. There is no real individual liberty. It is being systematically replaced by stifling conformism in both the private and public arenas. Freedom of opportunity and equality before the law increasingly only applies to non-whites. A two-tier justice system is enforced by the adoption of politically correct moral codes. Social ostracization and exclusion from the work force is practiced against dissenters. Orwell’s vision of a ruthless regime insisting on political orthodoxy is with us. We are all locked in room 101 with Winston Smith and the rats are coming. 

00:05 Publié dans Entretiens, Livre, Livre | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : entretien, fenek solère, livre, roman | |  del.icio.us | | Digg! Digg |  Facebook

samedi, 07 mars 2015

Babel and the Capitalist Babelization

Babel and the Capitalist Babelization

Tom Sunic

Review of Babel Inc.: Multiculturalism, Globalisation, and the New World Order
by Dr. Kerry Bolton

Black House Publishing Ltd, 2013

babel_cover300-500x500.jpgThe tower of Babel is rightly used as a metaphor for contemporary rootless and mongrelized masses stashed together in the towering inferno of end times. As an allegory, however, the process of “babelization” signifies a distorted reality and an inhumane political process in which standard forms of cognition and speech are subject to entirely new denominations, requiring a completely different method of conceptualization. Attempting, therefore, to draw some parallels between George Orwell’s 1984 and Bolton’s Babel Inc., cannot be valid; Orwell’s vision of the static future has become outdated.  Bolton’s Babel Inc. offers, instead, a dynamic description of the process of capitalist entropy in which Babel Inc. and its ruling class continue to grind human beings, including themselves, to dust.

Which are these ruling classes in this Babel Inc.? This is where the author masterfully steps in and rejects the wide-spread right-wing babble about the Babel Inc. being allegedly run by a conspiratorial and homogenous group of wicked people, or some extra-terrestrial golems allegedly bent on ruling the White world. Rather, the Babel Inc., or simply put,  the System, resembles a nameless, albeit grotesque polity that can in no way be reduced to just one single free-lance Orwellian big brother or some big postmenopausal feminist mama. The Babel Inc., as Bolton sees it, is a logical postmodern transposition of the myth of economism and egalitarianism, two doctrines whose genealogy can be traced from well before the period of Enlightenment in Europe.

Twin Brothers: Communism and Capitalism 

This does not mean at all that Bolton avoids elucidating the mindset and the self-perception of the main movers and shakers in the Babel Inc. In fact, Bolton’s scholarly credibility can best be spotted through the wealth of bibliographic references which indicate the intellectual depth of this effort. Bolton uses a three- pronged approach: theoretical, historical and descriptive. Such a threefold approach to this heavy subject is a prime necessity if the book is to retain a lasting educational value. Thus we learn in the first half of his book that capitalism, being a prime factor in the construction of the modern Babel Inc. and in the deconstruction of the nation-state, has always been a “modern and revolutionary” force. Its inherent dynamics aims at destroying traditional communities, regardless of their spot on the planet Earth. In fact, the much decried and alleged foe of capitalism (or rather its mirror- image), communism, fell apart in the East, in the late 20th century, because its paleo-communistic goals of egalitarianism and economism had already been better achieved in the capitalist West. Both communism and capitalism share a common ideological thread, namely a common belief in progress and common hatred of all racial, ethnic and territorial identities. The Banker and the Merchant, just like their mirror-image the Commissar, detect in any historical rootedness, in any national or racial consciousness a major hindrance on the way to the glorious future under the banner of “free market, democracy and human rights”.

Photo: Kerry Bolton

bolton.pngOn the daily political front, however, or better yet within the historical context of the development of the Babel Inc., Bolton does not spare the names of organizations and individuals promoting the borderless and globalist Babel Inc. project; knowledge of these forces can help the uninitiated reader dispel the myth of a “freedom- loving West” and its main transmission belt the United States of America. In fact, as Werner Sombart, the German sociologist of the early 20th century noted, “Holy Economy” (“heilige Wirtschaftlichkeit”) is a far more powerful revolutionary process than any anarchistic get together or a communist rabble-rousing pamphlet.

The author starts with his home turf with an examination of the early Australian working class, which under the banner of the Labor Party, as early as the 19th century, was bit by bit defrauded by the bankers and speculators who were all too eager to open Australia to Asian migrants and thus drive down the wages of white local workers.  The loudest advocates, and later on the beneficiaries of the process of the so-called decolonisation in Asia and Africa, were not just Marxist professors in Western academe, or Soviet Cold War apparatchiks, but primarily international big businessmen, “as old empires had become too restive to capitalism.” The author well illustrates this point by looking at the tragic fate of South Africa and Rhodesia, once upon a time White-ruled countries which used to be the bread basket of Africa, only to turn into violence-torn African basket cases with no future in sight. The iconic figure of the ANC, the Black activist Nelson Mandela, still hailed by starry-eyed globalists as the canonized Black Saint, once upon a time was determined to kick capitalism out of South Africa, only to declare in 1996, that is to say, after South Africa had already turned into an ungovernable entity, that “privatisation is the fundamental policy of the African Nation Congress and will remain so.”

The American government, The Trilateral Commission, along with many self-proclaimed humanitarian NGOs, such as the famed George Soros’ Open Society Institute, behind their mask of lacrimal multiculturalism and behind their culinary diplomacy, have been the main motors in turning Asia and Africa into a giant pool of cheap labor and permanent political unrest. This is the true goal of Babel Incorporated.  Hence the first conclusion one can draw after completing reading the first half of the book, and just before one starts railing and ranting against colored immigrants flooding now Europe and the USA: Massive non-White immigration, and now its reverse side, i.e. the colonisation of Europe and the USA, is just a logical outcome of political designs framed long time ago by rootless plutocrats and their leftist acolytes.

Bolton does not forget to look at the importance of “culture wars” and notes how global plutocrats use those wars in an attempt to subvert recalcitrant governments all over the word. Contrary to false presumptions, still strongly held by many right-wing intellectuals, the “uncultured” USA plutocrats have been very slick in fostering the multicultural “American dream” by resorting beforehand to the creation of a myriad of “independent” cultural outlets and think tanks in the target countries. One could enumerate a dozen post-communist countries in Eastern Europe which, in the mid- 90’s and early 2000’s, were all subjected to the Babel Inc.-inspired “velvet” and “rainbow” revolutions, as well as the so- called “Arab spring revolutions.” In an attempt to destroy a sense of national and racial pride and in an effort to impose a hybrid mishmash of new consumer species — i.e., homo consumens — the Babel Inc. decision makers do not need to send F14s to the Serbian skies or over the Iraqi desert, but instead resort first to Hollywood imagery and hip-hop political acrobatics in order to enchant the youth of the target country. The costs are negligible; the benefits are great.

The author rightly sees that before Whites start bewailing the destructive consequences of forced multiculturalism and its inevitable corollary of non-White immigration flooding their countries, they must critically re-examine the now redundant notion of their own nation-state. It is fundamentally wrong to blame all our ills on the SPLC, or the ADL, or the LICRA, or the Trilateral Commission, or some real or hypothetical Jew, or some hostile, plutocratic, culture-destroying Babel Inc. elites only.  We White Europeans and Americans must accept our full share of the blame. We must first and foremost reject the religion of progress and its underlying principle of permanent economic growth, before considering setting up our own ethnic enclaves. Whether these ethnic enclaves are in the Northwest of the U.S., or in Orania in South Africa, or somewhere in Europe, they must keep capitalism on a short leash aimed at preserving the racial/ethnic integrity of these enclaves, as occurred under the White Australia policy and the 1924 immigration restriction law in the U.S. Given the still strong and age-old squabbles among and amidst European peoples, this nearly impossible task can only be bestowed upon dispassionate White individuals capable of transcending their own narrow tribal interests — and their own egos.

Dr. Tom Sunic (www.tomsunic.com) is a writer and a board member of the American Freedom Party.

vendredi, 06 mars 2015

Book Reviews from http://www.atimes.com

   

livres, pacifisme, bellicisme, bellicisme américain, bellicisme pakistanais, postsionisme, sionisme, ilan pappe, israël, puritanisme, politique internationale, géopolitique, califat, islam, islamisme, palestine, monde arabe, monde arabo-musulman, états-unis, pakistan, asie, affaires asiatiques,

Book Reviews from http://www.atimes.com

To read full review, click on title

  Pakistan's proclivity for war
The Warrior State: Pakistan in the Contemporary World
by T V Paul

Author T V Paul adds to the numerous unflattering descriptions of Pakistan with his depiction of a "warrior state" whose security forces have outgrown all other institutions and activities and where radical Islamization and its attendant obscurantism have been the consequences of state policy. His explanation for why this continues is elaborate and thought-provoking. - Ehsan Ahrari (Jul 28, '14)

 

  The US-Pakistan ties that bind
No Exit from Pakistan: America's Tortured Relationship with Islamabad by Daniel S Markey

The author argues that even as Pakistanis grow increasingly hostile to the United States', America's interests in South Asia, Central Asia and the Middle East mean that Washington can ill-afford to disengage from Pakistan. Maneuvers by the Obama administration such as managing anti-Americanism sentiment by keeping a lower profile ring true with the policy prescriptions presented, yet the book suffers in places from simplistic reasoning. - Majid Mahmood (Jun 20, '14)

 

  US stuck between dispensability and decline
Dispensable Nation: American Foreign Policy in Retreat
by Vali Nasr


While offering a harsh critique of the President Barack Obama's policies in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and across the Arab World, the author argues that the United States is not declining. This ignores that while the United States became an "indispensable nation" by implementing its stimulating post-World War II vision, it has failed since to develop a comparable vision for the future that is both realistic and doable.
- Ehsan M Ahrari (Jun 13, '14)

 

  A struggle against Israeli soft power
The Battle for Justice in Palestine by Ali Abunimah

The author believes the Palestinian struggle will benefit from a growing awareness of Israeli actions brought about by a "boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement" similar to that which increased international isolation of apartheid-era South Africa. One of the more interesting parts of the work is its exploration of how neoliberal economic patterns have been imposed on Palestine. - Jim Miles (Jun 6, '14)

 

  Re-imagining the caliphate
The Inevitable Caliphate? A History of the Struggle for Global Islamic Union, 1924 to the Present by Reza Pankhurst

A forceful and authoritative attempt at elevating debate over the Islamic caliphate beyond Western elitist perceptions of extremism and radicalization, this book offers a clear-sighted analysis of the movements that have placed the caliphate at center of their revivalist discourse. The book's biggest flaw is arguably the author's reductionist approach toward the potential constituency of the caliphate.
- Mahan Abedin (May 23, '14)

 

  Keeping peace with total war
To Make and Keep Peace Among Ourselves and With All Nations by Angelo M Codevilla

White Anglo-Saxon Protestant interpretations of history are central to the argument this book propounds: that the US needs constant, decisive warfare to ensure its own interests and security. While the thesis suffers because the author fails to recognize that a Washington focused on maintaining control doesn't share his populist values, it offers useful insights into the thinking of the American conservative right. - Jim Miles (May 16, '14)

 

  Shaking the pillars of Israel's history
The Idea of Israel - A History of Power and Knowledge by Ilan Pappe

This exploration of how Israel shaped a historic narrative to create a sense of nationhood and political direction recounts the attacks on historians in the 1990s who challenged the traditional Zionist discourse. The takeaway from this complex book is that issues surrounding the manipulation of victimhood have the potential to erode the foundations that the modern state is built on. - Jim Miles (May 2, '14)

 
 
 

jeudi, 05 mars 2015

The Real American Exceptionalism

americans_ap_img_0.jpg

The Real American Exceptionalism

Though the U.S. was once key in establishing what we now casually call "the international community," recent decades have seen the once noble idea of American leadership fall victim to the noxious paradigm of "American exceptionalism" — complete with drone attacks on civilian populations, endless and borderless wars, and human rights abuses that are a direct affront to some of the global institutions the U.S. once fought to create. (Photo: AP/Robert F. Bukaty)

"The sovereign is he who decides on the exception,” said conservative thinker Carl Schmitt in 1922, meaning that a nation’s leader can defy the law to serve the greater good. Though Schmitt’s service as Nazi Germany’s chief jurist and his unwavering support for Hitler from the night of the long knives to Kristallnacht and beyond damaged his reputation for decades, today his ideas have achieved unimagined influence. They have, in fact, shaped the neo-conservative view of presidential power that has become broadly bipartisan since 9/11. Indeed, Schmitt has influenced American politics directly through his intellectual protégé Leo Strauss who, as an émigré professor at the University of Chicago, trained Bush administration architects of the Iraq war Paul Wolfowitz and Abram Shulsky.

9780299234140_p0_v1_s260x420.JPGAll that should be impressive enough for a discredited, long dead authoritarian thinker. But Schmitt’s dictum also became a philosophical foundation for the exercise of American global power in the quarter century that followed the end of the Cold War. Washington, more than any other power, created the modern international community of laws and treaties, yet it now reserves the right to defy those same laws with impunity. A sovereign ruler should, said Schmitt, discard laws in times of national emergency. So the United States, as the planet’s last superpower or, in Schmitt’s terms, its global sovereign, has in these years repeatedly ignored international law, following instead its own unwritten rules of the road for the exercise of world power.

Just as Schmitt’s sovereign preferred to rule in a state of endless exception without a constitution for his Reich, so Washington is now well into the second decade of an endless War on Terror that seems the sum of its exceptions to international law: endless incarceration, extrajudicial killing, pervasive surveillance, drone strikes in defiance of national boundaries, torture on demand, and immunity for all of the above on the grounds of state secrecy. Yet these many American exceptions are just surface manifestations of the ever-expanding clandestine dimension of the American state. Created at the cost of more than a trillion dollars since 9/11, the purpose of this vast apparatus is to control a covert domain that is fast becoming the main arena for geopolitical contestation in the twenty-first century.

This should be (but seldom is considered) a jarring, disconcerting path for a country that, more than any other, nurtured the idea of, and wrote the rules for, an international community of nations governed by the rule of law. At the First Hague Peace Conference in 1899, the U.S. delegate, Andrew Dickson White, the founder of Cornell University, pushed for the creation of a Permanent Court of Arbitration and persuaded Andrew Carnegie to build the monumental Peace Palace at The Hague as its home. At the Second Hague Conference in 1907, Secretary of State Elihu Root urged that future international conflicts be resolved by a court of professional jurists, an idea realized when the Permanent Court of International Justice was established in 1920.

After World War II, the U.S. used its triumph to help create the United Nations, push for the adoption of its Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and ratify the Geneva Conventions for humanitarian treatment in war. If you throw in other American-backed initiatives like the World Health Organization, the World Trade Organization, and the World Bank, you pretty much have the entire infrastructure of what we now casually call “the international community.”

Breaking the Rules

Not only did the U.S. play a crucial role in writing the new rules for that community, but it almost immediately began breaking them. After all, despite the rise of the other superpower, the Soviet Union, Washington was by then the world sovereign and so could decide which should be the exceptions to its own rules, particularly to the foundational principle for all this global governance: sovereignty. As it struggled to dominate the hundred new nations that started appearing right after the war, each one invested with an inviolable sovereignty, Washington needed a new means of projecting power beyond conventional diplomacy or military force. As a result, CIA covert operations became its way of intervening within a new world order where you couldn’t or at least shouldn’t intervene openly.

All of the exceptions that really matter spring from America’s decision to join what former spy John Le Carré called that “squalid procession of vain fools, traitors... sadists, and drunkards,” and embrace espionage in a big way after World War II. Until the creation of the CIA in 1947, the United States had been an innocent abroad in the world of intelligence. When General John J. Pershing led two million American troops to Europe during World War I, the U.S. had the only army on either side of the battle lines without an intelligence service. Even though Washington built a substantial security apparatus during that war, it was quickly scaled back by Republican conservatives during the 1920s. For decades, the impulse to cut or constrain such secret agencies remained robustly bipartisan, as when President Harry Truman abolished the CIA’s predecessor, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), right after World War II or when President Jimmy Carter fired 800 CIA covert operatives after the Vietnam War.

Yet by fits and starts, the covert domain inside the U.S. government has grown stealthily from the early twentieth century to this moment. It began with the formation of the FBI in 1908 and Military Intelligence in 1917. The Central Intelligence Agency followed after World War II along with most of the alphabet agencies that make up the present U.S. Intelligence Community, including the National Security Agency (NSA), the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), and last but hardly least, in 2004, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Make no mistake: there is a clear correlation between state secrecy and the rule of law -- as one grows, the other surely shrinks.

World Sovereign

America’s irrevocable entry into this covert netherworld came when President Truman deployed his new CIA to contain Soviet subversion in Europe. This was a continent then thick with spies of every stripe: failed fascists, aspirant communists, and everything in between. Introduced to spycraft by its British “cousins,” the CIA soon mastered it in part by establishing sub rosa ties to networks of ex-Nazi spies, Italian fascist operatives, and dozens of continental secret services.

As the world’s new sovereign, Washington used the CIA to enforce its chosen exceptions to the international rule of law, particularly to the core principle of sovereignty. During his two terms, President Dwight Eisenhower authorized 104 covert operations on four continents, focused largely on controlling the many new nations then emerging from centuries of colonialism. Eisenhower’s exceptions included blatant transgressions of national sovereignty such as turning northern Burma into an unwilling springboard for abortive invasions of China, arming regional revolts to partition Indonesia, and overthrowing elected governments in Guatemala and Iran. By the time Eisenhower left office in 1961, covert ops had acquired such a powerful mystique in Washington that President John F. Kennedy would authorize 163 of them in the three years that preceded his assassination.

As a senior CIA official posted to the Near East in the early 1950s put it, the Agency then saw every Muslim leader who was not pro-American as “a target legally authorized by statute for CIA political action.” Applied on a global scale and not just to Muslims, this policy helped produce a distinct “reverse wave” in the global trend towards democracy from 1958 to 1975, as coups -- most of them U.S.-sanctioned -- allowed military men to seize power in more than three-dozen nations, representing a quarter of the world’s sovereign states.

The White House’s “exceptions” also produced a deeply contradictory U.S. attitude toward torture from the early years of the Cold War onward. Publicly, Washington’s opposition to torture was manifest in its advocacy of the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 and the Geneva Conventions in 1949. Simultaneously and secretly, however, the CIA began developing ingenious new torture techniques in contravention of those same international conventions. After a decade of mind-control research, the CIA actually codified its new method of psychological torture in a secret instructional handbook, the "KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation" manual, which it then disseminated within the U.S. Intelligence Community and to allied security services worldwide.

Much of the torture that became synonymous with the era of authoritarian rule in Asia and Latin America during the 1960s and 1970s seems to have originated in U.S. training programs that provided sophisticated techniques, up-to-date equipment, and moral legitimacy for the practice. From 1962 to 1974, the CIA worked through the Office of Public Safety (OPS), a division of the U.S. Agency for International Development that sent American police advisers to developing nations. Established by President Kennedy in 1962, in just six years OPS grew into a global anti-communist operation with over 400 U.S. police advisers.  By 1971, it had trained more than a million policemen in 47 nations, including 85,000 in South Vietnam and 100,000 in Brazil.

exceptional.jpg

Concealed within this larger OPS effort, CIA interrogation training became synonymous with serious human rights abuses, particularly in Iran, the Philippines, South Vietnam, Brazil, and Uruguay. Amnesty International documented widespread torture, usually by local police, in 24 of the 49 nations that had hosted OPS police-training teams. In tracking torturers across the globe, Amnesty seemed to be following the trail of CIA training programs. Significantly, torture began to recede when America again turned resolutely against the practice at the end of the Cold War.

The War on Terror 

Although the CIA’s authority for assassination, covert intervention, surveillance, and torture was curtailed at the close of the Cold War, the terror attacks of September 2001 sparked an unprecedented expansion in the scale of the intelligence community and a corresponding resurgence in executive exceptions.  The War on Terror’s voracious appetite for information produced, in its first decade, what the Washington Post branded a veritable "fourth branch" of the U.S. federal government with 854,000 vetted security officials, 263 security organizations, over 3,000 private and public intelligence agencies, and 33 new security complexes -- all pumping out a total of 50,000 classified intelligence reports annually by 2010.

By that time, one of the newest members of the Intelligence Community, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, already had 16,000 employees, a $5 billion budget, and a massive nearly $2 billion headquarters at FortBelvoir, Maryland -- all aimed at coordinating the flood of surveillance data pouring in from drones, U-2 spy planes, Google Earth, and orbiting satellites.

According to documents whistleblower Edward Snowden leaked to the Washington Post, the U.S. spent $500 billion on its intelligence agencies in the dozen years after the 9/11 attacks, including annual appropriations in 2012 of $11 billion for the National Security Agency (NSA) and $15 billion for the CIA. If we add the $790 billion expended on the Department of Homeland Security to that $500 billion for overseas intelligence, then Washington had spent nearly $1.3 trillion to build a secret state-within-the-state of absolutely unprecedented size and power.

As this secret state swelled, the world’s sovereign decided that some extraordinary exceptions to civil liberties at home and sovereignty abroad were in order. The most glaring came with the CIA’s now-notorious renewed use of torture on suspected terrorists and its setting up of its own global network of private prisons, or “black sites,” beyond the reach of any court or legal authority. Along with piracy and slavery, the abolition of torture had long been a signature issue when it came to the international rule of law. So strong was this principle that the U.N. General Assembly voted unanimously in 1984 to adopt the Convention Against Torture. When it came to ratifying it, however, Washington dithered on the subject until the end of the Cold War when it finally resumed its advocacy of international justice, participating in the World Conference on Human Rights at Vienna in 1993 and, a year later, ratifying the U.N. Convention Against Torture.

Even then, the sovereign decided to reserve some exceptions for his country alone. Only a year after President Bill Clinton signed the U.N. Convention, CIA agents started snatching terror suspects in the Balkans, some of them Egyptian nationals, and sending them to Cairo, where a torture-friendly autocracy could do whatever it wanted to them in its prisons. Former CIA director George Tenet later testified that, in the years before 9/11, the CIA shipped some 70 individuals to foreign countries without formal extradition -- a process dubbed “extraordinary rendition” that had been explicitly banned under Article 3 of the U.N. Convention.

Right after his public address to a shaken nation on September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush gave his staff wide-ranging secret orders to use torture, adding (in a vernacular version of Schmitt’s dictum),“I don’t care what the international lawyers say, we are going to kick some ass.” In this spirit, the White House authorized the CIA to develop that global matrix of secret prisons, as well as an armada of planes for spiriting kidnapped terror suspects to them, and a network of allies who could help seize those suspects from sovereign states and levitate them into a supranational gulag of eight agency black sites from Thailand to Poland or into the crown jewel of the system, Guantánamo, thus eluding laws and treaties that remained grounded in territorially based concepts of sovereignty.

Once the CIA closed the black sites in 2008-2009, its collaborators in this global gulag began to feel the force of law for their crimes against humanity. Under pressure from the Council of Europe, Poland started an ongoing criminal investigation in 2008 into its security officers who had facilitated the CIA’s secret prison in the country’s northeast. In September 2012, Italy’s supreme court confirmed the convictions of 22 CIA agents for the illegal rendition of Egyptian exile Abu Omar from Milan to Cairo, and ordered a trial for Italy’s military intelligence chief on charges that sentenced him to 10 years in prison. In 2012, Scotland Yard opened a criminal investigation into MI6 agents who rendered Libyan dissidents to Colonel Gaddafi’s prisons for torture, and two years later the Court of Appeal allowed some of those Libyans to file a civil suit against MI6 for kidnapping and torture.

But not the CIA. Even after the Senate’s 2014 Torture Report documented the Agency’s abusive tortures in painstaking detail, there was no move for either criminal or civil sanctions against those who had ordered torture or those who had carried it out. In a strong editorial on December 21, 2014, the New York Times asked “whether the nation will stand by and allow the perpetrators of torture to have perpetual immunity.” The answer, of course, was yes. Immunity for hirelings is one of the sovereign’s most important exceptions.

As President Bush finished his second term in 2008, an inquiry by the International Commission of Jurists found that the CIA’s mobilization of allied security agencies worldwide had done serious damage to the international rule of law. “The executive… should under no circumstance invoke a situation of crisis to deprive victims of human rights violations… of their… access to justice,” the Commission recommended after documenting the degradation of civil liberties in some 40 countries. “State secrecy and similar restrictions must not impede the right to an effective remedy for human rights violations.”

The Bush years also brought Washington’s most blatant repudiation of the rule of law. Once the newly established International Criminal Court (ICC) convened at The Hague in 2002, the Bush White House “un-signed” or “de-signed” the U.N. agreement creating the court and then mounted a sustained diplomatic effort to immunize U.S. military operations from its writ. This was an extraordinary abdication for the nation that had breathed the concept of an international tribunal into being.

The Sovereign’s Unbounded Domains

While Presidents Eisenhower and Bush decided on exceptions that violated national boundaries and international treaties, President Obama is exercising his exceptional prerogatives in the unbounded domains of aerospace and cyberspace.

Both are new, unregulated realms of military conflict beyond the rubric of international law and Washington believes it can use them as Archimedean levers for global dominion. Just as Britain once ruled from the seas and postwar America exercised its global reach via airpower, so Washington now sees aerospace and cyberspace as special realms for domination in the twenty-first century.

Under Obama, drones have grown from a tactical Band-Aid in Afghanistan into a strategic weapon for the exercise of global power. From 2009 to 2015, the CIA and the U.S. Air Force deployed a drone armada of over 200 Predators and Reapers, launching 413 strikes in Pakistan alone, killing as many as 3,800 people. Every Tuesday inside the White House Situation Room, as the New York Times reported in 2012, President Obama reviews a CIA drone “kill list” and stares at the faces of those who are targeted for possible assassination from the air.  He then decides, without any legal procedure, who will live and who will die, even in the case of American citizens. Unlike other world leaders, this sovereign applies the ultimate exception across the Greater Middle East, parts of Africa, and elsewhere if he chooses.

This lethal success is the cutting edge of a top-secret Pentagon project that will, by 2020, deploy a triple-canopy space “shield” from stratosphere to exosphere, patrolled by Global Hawk and X-37B drones armed with agile missiles.

As Washington seeks to police a restless globe from sky and space, the world might well ask: How high is any nation’s sovereignty? After the successive failures of the Paris flight conference of 1910, the Hague Rules of Aerial Warfare of 1923, and Geneva’s Protocol I of 1977 to establish the extent of sovereign airspace or restrain aerial warfare, some puckish Pentagon lawyer might reply: only as high as you can enforce it.

153671_600.jpg

President Obama has also adopted the NSA’s vast surveillance system as a permanent weapon for the exercise of global power. At the broadest level, such surveillance complements Obama’s overall defense strategy, announced in 2012, of cutting conventional forces while preserving U.S. global power through a capacity for “a combined arms campaign across all domains: land, air, maritime, space, and cyberspace.” In addition, it should be no surprise that, having pioneered the war-making possibilities of cyberspace, the president did not hesitate to launch the first cyberwar in history against Iran.

By the end of Obama’s first term, the NSA could sweep up billions of messages worldwide through its agile surveillance architecture. This included hundreds of access points for penetration of the Worldwide Web’s fiber optic cables; ancillary intercepts through special protocols and “backdoor” software flaws; supercomputers to crack the encryption of this digital torrent; and a massive data farm in Bluffdale, Utah, built at a cost of $2 billion to store yottabytes of purloined data.

Even after angry Silicon Valley executives protested that the NSA’s “backdoor” software surveillance threatened their multi-trillion-dollar industry, Obama called the combination of Internet information and supercomputers “a powerful tool.” He insisted that, as “the world’s only superpower,” the United States “cannot unilaterally disarm our intelligence agencies.” In other words, the sovereign cannot sanction any exceptions to his panoply of exceptions.

Revelations from Edward Snowden’s cache of leaked documents in late 2013 indicate that the NSA has conducted surveillance of leaders in some 122 nations worldwide, 35 of them closely, including Brazil’s president Dilma Rousseff, former Mexican president Felipe Calderón, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel. After her forceful protest, Obama agreed to exempt Merkel’s phone from future NSA surveillance, but reserved the right, as he put it, to continue to “gather information about the intentions of governments… around the world.” The sovereign declined to say which world leaders might be exempted from his omniscient gaze.

Can there be any question that, in the decades to come, Washington will continue to violate national sovereignty through old-style covert as well as open interventions, even as it insists on rejecting any international conventions that restrain its use of aerospace or cyberspace for unchecked force projection, anywhere, anytime? Extant laws or conventions that in any way check this power will be violated when the sovereign so decides. These are now the unwritten rules of the road for our planet.  They represent the real American exceptionalism.

Alfred W. McCoy is professor of history at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, a TomDispatch regular, and author most recently of the book, Torture and Impunity: The U.S. Doctrine of Coercive Interrogation (University of Wisconsin, 2012) which explores the American experience of torture during the past decade. Previous books include: A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation, from the Cold War to the War on Terror (American Empire Project);Policing America’s Empire: The United States, the Philippines, and the Rise of the Surveillance State, and The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade. He has also convened the “Empires in Transition” project, a global working group of 140 historians from universities on four continents. The results of their first meetings were published as Colonial Crucible: Empire in the Making of the Modern American State.

mardi, 03 mars 2015

L’horreur synallagmatique

LA GRANDE FRAUDE, CRIME, SUBPRIMES ET CRISES FINANCIÈRES*

L’horreur synallagmatique

Auran Derien
Ex: http://metamag.fr
grande_fraude.jpgLa civilisation a toujours reposé sur la parole donnée, éthique qui dispense d’une grande partie de la bureaucratie puisque les élites considèrent qu’elles s’insultent elles-mêmes si les contrats ne sont pas respectés. Dans de telles civilisations, il n’est nécessaire ni de terroriser les populations ni de les abrutir pour qu’elles participent à l’ordre du monde. Aujourd’hui, à l’inverse, règne la terreur synallagmatique, la terreur légale des contrats. 

Les dernières élections en Suède avaient vu apparaître un nouveau parti, le SD, avec 12% des voix. Un autre parti d’opposition s’est alors joint à lui pour rejeter le budget. Que faire? En France, le gouvernement sort le 49-3. En Suède, le chef du gouvernement, Stefan Löfven, a décidé que les élections prévues pour 2015 n’auront pas lieu. Ce n’est rien de plus que la mise en place de la tyrannie des temps maastrichtiens. Les promesses faites aux électeurs n’engagent pas. Pour l’Europe, la banque Morgan a même publié un document en mai 2013 réclamant des régimes autoritaires

Jean-Claude Juncker, à la tête de la Commission européenne, est le chargé de mission d’une opération de conversion des oligarques européens en collabos des intérêts américains. La méthode économique, le ficelage par des contrats léonins reste la manière privilégiée des habitués de Davos, du Bilderberg et autres lieux identiques. Représentant de l’oligarchie, Jean-Claude Juncker agit comme si les élections, comme en Grèce, n’avaient aucune importance car les traités sont irréversibles. Un fanatique a succédé à Manuel Barroso.

gayraud.jpgAristote enseigna que le contrat était une loi faite par des particuliers en vue d’une affaire déterminée. L’absolutisation du contrat est contraire aux us et coutûmes européennes. Un contrat tire sa force d’un engagement. Non pas d’un écrit ou d’un texte, mais d’un souffle de l’âme. Ce totalitarisme des accords entre boutiquiers endimanchés étalant leur rolex, c’est l’inhumanité des valets du veau d’or, toqués et visionnaires d’un paradis sur terre qui résulterait de leurs magouilles. Juncker incarne à la perfection le néant du contrat.
 
Les financiers assassins se présentent comme des victimes car rien ne laisse jamais prévoir les crises dont ils sont responsables et coupables. Mais la collusion entre la finance et la politique construit une oligarchie criminelle qui cherche à tout moment comment rendre légale la fraude. Les criminels deviennent ainsi le droit et le système social. Les contrats qui mettent les Européens en coupe réglée manifestent que les politiques sont des prédateurs au service de ploutocrates, ainsi que l’expose Jean-François Gayraud dans son ouvrage "La grande fraude"*.
 
Les politiciens soumis aux banquiers se prennent finalement pour des Christophe Colomb: ils acceptent leur bimbeloterie, leur verroterie en échange de la civilisation. Les peuples, seule donnée valable en politique, interlocuteurs de ces tristes sires, sont traités comme les indigènes, à peine des hommes. Nous affirmons qu’à ce prototype de parvenu, nul ne doit rien. Personne ne doit les respecter.

*Jean-François GAYRAUD : La grande fraude. Crime, subprimes et crises financières. O.Jacob, 2011, 23,25€

BN-​Anstoß VI: Geopolitik

BN-​Anstoß VI:

Geopolitik

Ex: http://www.blauenarzisse.de

geopolitikBN.jpgGerade erst ist mit „Die Ausländer“ der fünfte Band unserer Schriftenreihe BN-​Anstoß erschienen. Jetzt kommt schon der nächste. Gereon Breuer hat über „Geopolitik“ geschrieben.

Ein Hauptargument von Felix Menzel in seinem Bändchen über Die Ausländer. Warum es immer mehr werden (BN-​Anstoß V) lautet, daß durch eine verfehlte Außenpolitik des Westens der derzeitige Flüchtlingsansturm auf Europa erst entstehen konnte. BN-​Autor Gereon Breuer schließt genau hier an und erklärt auf beeindruckende Weise die derzeitige internationale Lage, die viele als chaotisch wahrnehmen.

Jeder Staat muß seine nationalen Interessen verteidigen dürfen

Sein Büchlein heißt Geopolitik. Das Spiel nationaler Interessen zwischen Krieg und Frieden (BN-​Anstoß VI). Es erscheint voraussichtlich Ende März und kann ab sofort vorbestellt werden. Breuer geht es darum, anhand der aktuellen Konflikte in der Ukraine und in Syrien aufzuzeigen, wie Geopolitik funktioniert. Geopolitik sterbe nämlich nicht aus, auch wenn die deutsche Presse, Politikwissenschaft und Wikipedia den Begriff nur noch als Erweiterung von Imperialismus verstehen.

Das ist komplett falsch und beweist nur, wie großflächig der Versuch unternommen wird, den Deutschen das Denken in eigenen, nationalen Interessen abzutrainieren. Breuer will hier verlorengegangenes Terrain zurückgewinnen und fängt dazu gewissermaßen beim kleinen Einmaleins an. Er erklärt, was unsere nationalen Interessen sind und wie sie verteidigt werden müßten.

Das Scheitern supranationaler Gebilde

Das Büchlein verfügt über vier Kapitel. Im ersten geht es um die Frage, warum Geopolitik nicht aussterben wird. In Kapitel zwei beschäftigt sich Breuer damit, warum der Mensch immer Krieg führen wird. Im Mittelpunkt steht dabei, daß es supranationalen Gebilden wie den Vereinten Nationen in den letzten Jahrzehnten in keinster Weise gelungen ist, den Krieg abzuschaffen, so wie sich das einige verblendete Intellektuelle gewünscht haben.

Kapitel drei thematisiert schließlich die Veränderung des Krieges in naher Zukunft. Wird dieser vielleicht durch Terrorismus ersetzt? Breuer nutzt diese Frage insbesondere, um sich zum Islamischen Staat zu äußern. Seine Ausführungen sind hier deshalb so wichtig, weil er zu der These vordringt, daß jeder Krieg auch etwas über den zivilisatorischen Stand einer Gesellschaft aussage.

Ein Buch für „Putin-​Versteher“?

Im abschließenden Kapitel skizziert Breuer das geopolitische Agieren der drei Großmächte der Welt. Zu diesen zählt er aktuell die USA, Rußland und China. Europa hingegen fehlt in der Auflistung, weil sich sowohl die einzelnen Nationalstaaten als auch die Europäische Union lieber für fremde Interessen einspannen lassen, als eine eigenständige Politik zu verfolgen.

Für einige wird der sechste Band der Reihe BN-​Anstoß das „Buch eines Putin-​Verstehers“ sein, andere werden es lesen als den Versuch, auf die drohende Islamisierung Europas mit einer außenpolitischen Kurskorrektur zu reagieren. Einige werden sich die kritischen Passagen über den Weltpolizisten USA herauspicken, andere hingegen werden in diffamierender Absicht versuchen, dem Autor vorzuwerfen, er wolle mit diesem Buch den Krieg schönreden.

Um all diese Sachen geht es Breuer jedoch nicht. Er will, daß wir endlich wieder unseren gesunden Menschenverstand benutzen, um zu erkennen, wie Staaten ihre Interessen durchsetzen müssen. Breuer betont dabei: „Nur dann, wenn Staaten sich nur dort einmischen, wo das ihren Interessen dient und sich überall sonst heraushalten, kann ihr weltpolitisches Engagement erfolgreich sein. Ironischerweise fällt es gerade denjenigen, die vehemente Verfechter der Frieden-​schaffen-​ohne-​Waffen-​Ideologie sind, besonders schwer, diesen banalen Grundsatz zu verstehen.“

Gereon Breuer: Geopolitik. Das Spiel nationaler Interessen zwischen Krieg und Frieden. BN-​Anstoß VI. 100 Seiten. 8,50 Euro. Chemnitz 2015. Erscheint Ende März.

+ Hier kann Geopolitik vorbestellt werden.
+ Hier gibt es die Bände 4 bis 6 der Reihe BN-​Anstoß im Paketpreis für 20 statt 25,50 Euro.
+ Band IV: Nazivorwurf. Ich bin stolz, ein Deutscher zu sein.
+ Band V: Die Ausländer. Warum es immer mehr werden.

dimanche, 01 mars 2015

Gender Gaga

Gender Gaga

samedi, 28 février 2015

Houellebecq, Islam, & the Jews: A Review of Michel Houellebecq’s Soumission

o-MICHEL-HOUELLEBECQ-facebook.jpg

Houellebecq, Islam, & the Jews:
A Review of Michel Houellebecq’s Soumission

By Guillaume Durocher 

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

Michel Houellebecq’s latest novel, Soumission [2], has attracted enormous attention. The book portrays the coming to power of an Islamist president in France in 2022 and has predictably been condemned as Islamophobic. The timing of the Charlie Hebdo massacres – a few disgruntled French-born Muslims murdering left-liberal cartoonists and Jews – could not have been better in terms of boosting sales. Indeed, Soumission is already that rarest of things: a succès européen (rather than our usual pan-European cultural fair of Hollywood blockbusters and degenerate Anglo pop music). Translated versions have already become instant best-sellers in Italy and Germany. Evidently, Houellebecq has struck a nerve going to the heart of contemporary European Man’s fears and aspirations.

Anglophones have however largely been left out of the fun, being stuck getting dribs and drabs of information from news and book reviews, as there is as yet no English translation. I hope this review proves useful in this respect.

One can fairly ask the question: Did we really need another existentially subjective French novel about an alienated, ineffectual, sexually accomplished bookish fellow? If Soumission is any indication, the answer is an unambiguous “yes.”

A first, not unimportant point: Soumission is an easy and highly enjoyable read. One can breeze through it in a weekend or so. You’ll chuckle away at a joke or wry observation, delivered with a certain deadpan objectivity, on almost every page. Many consider Houellebecq’s writing to be “dark,” including his trademark highly graphic sex scenes, but I tend to think it’s just matter-of-fact. It seems to me one can only be “shocked” if one is in denial about a few basic realities about oneself, but maybe I am asking too much of my fellow featherless bipeds. It is true that the points in Houellebecq’s dialectic – whether on the safety of Paris’ Chinatown in case of a race war, the emptiness of casual sex or the slow decay of the body – are made with a rare biting force.

Soumission is among other things a marketing coup. The title translates as “submission,” which of course is one of the translations of the Arabic Islām. The rise to power of the Muslim Brotherhood in France taps into deep fears in Western Europe regarding the steady growth of the Islamic population, which given enough time will eventually become majoritarian in many countries.

But the work is not an apology for Identitarianism, nor is it even Islamophobic. On the contrary, the author uses the fantasy of an Islamic regime in France as a critique of the West’s feminist, individualist, “social democratic,” liberal-egalitarian degeneracy, his usual target. One wonders if any of his readers will be disappointed by the bait-and-switch. Houellebecq is not defending the White Man, but attacking the Last Man, the effeminate, cowardly, isolated, depressed, and yet terribly comfortable consumer-slaves we have become.

Politics by no means overwhelms the novel but rather forms the background to the protagonist’s musings. But, from the little we are told, France’s joining the House of Islam proves highly salutary, and the administration of President Mohammed Ben Abbes is an enlightened one. Even if we cannot automatically assume that the protagonist’s statements necessarily reflect the author’s views or that the narrator is completely reliable, it seems fair to say that Soumission can be read as Houellebecq’s portrayal of a possible ideal polity. Which raises the question: What are the characteristics of this polity? What destiny for nationalists, Identitarians and Jews?

A Return to Tradition

The Muslim takeover, far from being a bloodthirsty or even really an authoritarian event, is achieved democratically. Ben Abbes and Front National (FN) leader Marine Le Pen make it to the second round of the presidential elections, prompting the mainstream parties to back the Muslim Brotherhood to prevent a nationalist victory. Islam achieves power through the sheer apathy of the postmodern, nihilist, and feckless Westerner.

The new regime slowly but steadily changes the society and its mores. Patriarchy is restored as women no longer teach, and girls begin spontaneously dressing modestly, curbing a male desire which had been constantly taunted by short skirts and our pornographic advertising and pop culture. Many public universities become Islamic and only allow Muslim teachers, although secular ones are allowed on the side. Non-Muslims do fine as dhimmitude, we are told, is “flexible” in its interpretation (p. 155).

Well-known French politicians and journalists are amusingly skewered. The media is inbred while the drastic budget cuts for public education (l’Éducation nationale) has highly positive effects. Evidently Houellebecq believes France’s current cultural-ideological superstructure is basically parasitic and destructive. Democracy is no more than the competition of two rival gangs and at best an impression.

Ben Abbes having gutted the education budget, schooling becomes mandatory only up to the age of 12, apprenticeships are promoted and higher education becomes an entirely private affair. State aid to giant corporates is abolished, welfare is reduced by 85%, taxes on craftsmen and small businessmen are sharply reduced, while family allowances are massively increased on the condition that the wife is not working. The result? A flowering optimism not seen since the Trentes glorieuses and a huge fall in unemployment as women drop out of the workforce. Crime nosedives as social conservatism reigns.

The family resumes its central role in the economy (family businesses) and society as the location of intergenerational transmission. G. K. Chesterton, Hillaire Belloc and their Distributist theories of an ownership society are explicitly mentioned as models. (Is Houellebecq aware of Belloc’s Judeo-criticism [3]?)

In short, Houellebecq’s Utopia is a traditional society of personal responsibility and organic hierarchy rather than a hopelessly over-bureaucratized society of hapless, coddled cogs over-determined by the double domination of mega-corporate oligopoly and an overbearing Nanny State.

part-par-par8066880-1-1-0.jpg

The Destiny of the Identitarian

Identitarians and nationalists have mixed portrayals. Marine Le Pen is a stately figure. Jean-Marie Le Pen is described by the protagonist as “an idiot, more or less completely uncultivated” (p. 103). It’s not clear whether this is Houellebecq’s view. In any case, Le Pen père took the characterization in stride, responding with reference to the writer’s wretched appearance: “Houellebecq writes that I am an idiot and uncultivated. One can get the wrong impression, I always thought he was a homeless drunk!”

The Identitarians are sometimes portrayed as a kind of mirror image of violent jihadis, the two sides being involved in occasional bloodshed and electoral shenanigans. Both the Front National and the Muslim Brotherhood take the more “responsible,” route of peaceful democratic politics. Ben Abbes scolds the impatient jihadis: Why use violence now? Simply wait, and the hollow Occident will naturally turn to Islam.

In the book, the destiny of both the militant Identitarian and the depoliticized liberal is to embrace Islam. After all, pleads one Identitarian-turned-Muslim, do they not agree on the scourges of atheism and feminism, and the need for patriarchy?

The portrayal of nationalists and Identitarians is ultimately not hostile, but has a certain understanding for those calling themselves “Indigenous Europeans.” The humble goy protagonist ruefully notes as his Jewish girlfriend leaves for Israel, fearing violence: “There is no Israel for me” (p. 112).

The Disappearance of the Jews

The Jews gradually disappear throughout the course of the book with the rise of Muslim power: first the student union in the university, then the kosher aisle in the supermarket, and so on. Houllebecq repeatedly has the 44-year-old protagonist sexually desecrating his pretty young Jewess, the main love interest. She and her parents leave for Israel with the rise of the Ben Abbes regime (though no persecutions are portrayed or really implied).

A third party describes the Muslim president’s attitude thus:

[H]e really believes that massive conversions are possible with the Christians – and nothing proves that this is impossible – he no doubt has very few illusions concerning the Jews. What he hopes deep down I believe is that they will decide themselves to leave France – to emigrate to Israel. (p. 157)

Apparently Ben Abbes does not believe Jews are compatible with his Utopia.

At the end of the novel the protagonist, happily reconciled to the new regime, worries about his former girlfriend’s future: “She would live her own life, I knew it, in much more difficult conditions than mine. I sincerely hoped her life would be happy – even though I did not believe it very much” (p. 299). Her challenges are not made explicit however.

The new regime’s foreign policy is touched upon. France creates a new “Roman Empire” by re-centering the European Union southwards, with Morocco and Turkey joining, and others still in the wings. France “retakes the ambition of De Gaulle, that of a great Arab policy,” no longer participating in the United States’ destruction of the Islamic World under Zionist influence. The Gulf petro-monarchies, having become too unpopular due to collaboration with Washington, “are starting to think that an ally like Europe, less organically linked to Israel, could be for them a much better choice . . .” (p. 158–59). Now why would one Houellebecq’s characters suggest that America is “organically linked to Israel”?

Insofar as Ben Abbes’ administration can be taken as a portrayal of Houellebecq’s ideal regime, the implications are indeed rather anti-Judaic: as the forces of disintegration at work in the West are overcome, the Jews (coincidentally or not) disappear. Is the author not implying that Jewish influence is not compatible with a regenerated, patriarchal, hierarchical France? What to make of the fact that France’s return to grandeur in the world  is achieved by leading a new foreign policy independent of Israelite influence? Nonetheless, Houellebecq leaves himself more than sufficient plausible deniability to avoid the charge of anti-Semitism.

Eugenic Themes

The novel makes several intriguing inegalitarian and eugenicist points. The protagonist explains early on:

A few private lessons I gave in the hope of increasing my standard of living had soon convinced me that the transmission of knowledge was most of the time impossible; the diversity of intelligences, extreme; and that nothing could eliminate or even attenuate this fundamental inequality. (p. 18)

Later on the alleged eugenic effect of polygamy is presented as the most prominent benefit of the practice, driving mankind’s self-realization:

In the case of mammals, given the gestation time of females, to be contrasted with the almost unlimited reproductive abilities of males, selective pressure exerts itself above all on males. Inequality between males – if some were granted the enjoyment of several females, others would necessarily be deprived of it – should not be considered as a perverse effect of polygamy, but indeed its actual goal. Thus the destiny of the species fulfilled itself. (p. 269)

Later still, this eugenic effect is described as concerning especially intelligence, which is where selective pressure among human males is most prominent (p. 292). Women, in choosing men, have this effect, while men only select for beauty in their choice of mate. Although he amusingly adds that culture plays a role: “One can even, to a certain extent, persuade them [women] of the high erotic value of university professors . . .” (p. 294).

The demographic obsession is present throughout the novel. The postmodern world is selecting for those predisposed to religion, as only they breed. The new regime assures its hegemony by focusing on education: “he who controls the children controls the future, end of story” (p. 82). Islam will conquer the world through the womb; even China and India will eventually fall, for they have “allowed themselves to be contaminated by Western values” of materialism and individualism (p. 271).

A Soralian Vision?

Now, one can be forgiven for thinking that Houellebecq is engaging in some “epic trolling” of any of his readers with nationalist or Identitarian leanings. Instead of the advertised attack on Islamic immigration, one in fact gets a critique of Western liberal degeneracy through the prism of a positive portrayal of Islam. The heights of chutzpah are reached when one character explains:

One had to admit the obvious: having reached such a repugnant degree of decomposition, Western Europe was no longer in any condition to save itself – no more than Ancient Rome had been in the fifth century of our era. The massive arrival of immigration populations imbued of a traditional culture still marked by natural hierarchies, the submission of women, and the respect due to elders constituted a historic opportunity for Europe’s moral and familial rearmament, opened the perspective of a new golden age for the old continent. (p. 276)

michel houellebecq,littérature,littérature française,lettres,lettres françaises,livreThis kind of argument, even if it is part of a dialectic, can only be very troubling for Identitarians, who incidentally are portrayed in the book as wanting “Race war now!” while we are still the overwhelming majority in mother Europa. This is not an irrational attitude if a war must occur: there is no question that we grow demographically weaker with every generation in the face of the fatal triad of sub-replacement fertility, displacement-level immigration, and miscegenation.

In any case, Houellebecq’s positively showing Islam as a force for Tradition in a book marketed to Identitarians reveals him to be a man of peace. The French nationalist and anti-Judaic activist Alain Soral warmly welcomed the book [4] and the author as “a great French writer and a guy possessed by the eternal French genius.” Soral goes so far as to argue that the narrative indicates Houellebecq has been reading from his Égalité et Réconciliation website and his Kontre Kulture bookstore. (Although Soral adds he does not want a Muslim president, but rather a Putin or a Chávez.)

Soral is against both immigration to Europe and forced remigration out. One can criticize this position, given the threat against us of irreversible genetic damage and ultimately extinction in Europe. But there is a legitimate sense in which we must be careful and not macho in fantasizing about civil war. We are much weaker today than we were in 1914 or 1933. There is clearly a tendency within Western oligarchies – among neoconservatives, Zionists, representatives of the Surveillance State and Military-Industrial Complex, etc – of actively promoting a clash of civilizations between the West and Islam in order to strengthen Liberal-Atlanticist power elites and destroy the enemies of Israel. Identitarians must not prove their useful idiots.

Houellebecq and the Right

Houellebecq is not a White Nationalist; he is a ruthless chronicler of European Man’s descent into degeneracy under Liberal hegemony. Soumission positively portrays and compellingly shows the case, on a personal, emotional and subjective level, for organic hierarchy, transcendental values and even eugenics. Clearly this is a work of the Right.

The book is completely unrealistic on numerous counts. There is no prospect of an Islamic takeover in 2022 or even decades after that, given the numbers still in our favor. Muslim political organization in France is nil, their ethnic lobbies being effectively emanations of the state and of (often Jewish-led) “antiracist” groups. This is an important point: Muslims, for the most part, do not have political agency (in contrast to Jews [5] and Liberals, who have it in spades). There is no evidence Islamic polygamy is eugenic, and a lot of evidence that their institutionalized cousin-impregnating is highly dysgenic and evidently the exogamous polygamy of Sub-Saharan Africa has not had positive results. (Although could polygamy, in the right conditions, be eugenic?) These are trivial observations however. The point of the novel is not realism but a fantasy allowing one to play with ideas and argue a morality.

More relevant would be to point out that Islam – though an amusing way of criticizing feminism and liberalism – is not our way. Nor should the Roman Empire be glorified as a model, given that it eventually ruined its Latin core through miscegenation and deracination. The case for close association with Morocco or Turkey is lost on me, given for example that the Islamic World’s scientific output since the end of its Golden Age is close to nil.

Having said all this, I would argue that Houellebecq’s novel is useful to nationalists and Identitarians. Islam, I am convinced, is not our primary enemy because Muslims for the most part have no political agency. The enemy would be those who opened the floodgates and continue to marginalize European nationalists: the Zionist and/or Liberal elites who are in varying proportions hegemonic across the West.

Recognizing this, Houellebecq’s work is an invitation to Identitarians to be creative and not misidentify their enemy, to not overlook possible alliances. We need to be forward-looking and creative in our approach, which does not mean selling out. Soumission’s protagonist is obsessed with the 19th-century French novelist Joris-Karl Huysmans, particularly of his use of rare or forgotten French words as neologisms. Perhaps this is trivial, but I was struck by the similarity between this usage and the wider notion of archeofuturism.

For having made the Right-wing diagnostic, having identified a past as less degenerate, how do we go from A to B? One cannot simply start up a time machine and undo the fall of medieval Christendom, the American Civil War, or the Great European Civil War of 1914–1945. One cannot, as some might want to, simply pick up where Jefferson or Hitler left off. We must come to terms with our defeats. If Identitarianism is purely backward-looking – wishing merely to preserve Europe like a kind of mummified museum – then it will fail. I believe Houellebecq is calling on us not to cling to the past or simply charge against the wave of destruction, but to ride it, to move forward to seize the contradictions that will in turn destroy it, so that in that mysterious dialectical process we overcome the current age and ensure our salvation.

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

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/02/michel-houellebecq-soumission/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Fu8QH0.jpg

[2] Soumission: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/2081354802/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=2081354802&linkCode=as2&tag=countecurrenp-20&linkId=LLYJKOSV4DUNKEHP

[3] Belloc’s Judeo-criticism: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2014/09/reflections-on-hilaire-bellocs-the-jews-1922-part-one-of-three/

[4] Alain Soral warmly welcomed the book: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2fu3qw

[5] Jews: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2014/05/as-happy-as-god-in-france-the-state-of-french-jewish-elites-part-1/