del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Aanvankelijk was de in Trinidad geboren Naipaul als eregast uitgenodigd voor
Terwijl de meerderheid van onze werkende mensen tussen de 80 en 120 euro bruto per dag verdienen. Terwijl uitkeringstrekkers 50 euro of minder per werkdag ontvangen, zijn er in dit land toch gelukkige zielen die zonder uitkering of zonder zelfs maar te werken kunnen genieten van Club Med-faciliteiten. De plaats van gebeuren: Brussel.
« Devenir immortel… et puis mourir ». C’était la grande ambition que lui confiait Jean-Luc Godard dans À bout de souffle, qui lui prêtait les traits de Jean-Pierre Melville. L’écrivain d’origine roumaine, Jean Parvulesco s’est éteint le 21 novembre à l’âge de 81 ans. Entre littérature, cinéma, et engagement politique, sa trajectoire artistique se distingue par sa singularité. Il n’a pas 20 ans lorsqu’il fuit le régime communiste de son pays et réussit à rejoindre Paris. Il y fréquente différents milieux artistiques, dont celui de la Nouvelle Vague. Son personnage apparaît dans À bout de souffle, et il a un petit rôle dans un film d’Éric Rohmer. En politique, Parvulesco est proche de la Nouvelle Droite, lié à certains gaullistes, ainsi qu’à l’Organisation de l’Armée secrète (OAS). Il commence à écrire dans les années 1960 et entame une carrière de journaliste. De nombreux articles sont publiés notamment dans le quotidien Combat. Son entrée en littérature ne s’effectue qu’à la fin des années 1970. Le recueils de poèmes, Traité de la chasse au faucon (L'Herne, 1978), est très remarqué. Une dizaine d’essais et une trentaine de romans, dont La servante portugaise (éd. L’âge d’homme), suivront. Un retour en Colchide, son dernier roman, est paru en 2010 chez Guy Trédaniel.
In 1993, upon my return from the USA, I became a diplomat in charge of cultural promotion in the early Tudjman government. I gave hundreds of speeches all over America and Europe regarding Croatia’s place in the world, the fallacy of multiculturalism, the fraud of modern historiography, etc. Disillusion and feelings of betrayal s00n followed. I had seriously thought that the legacy of communism was going to be removed, along with is former architects. Instead, the war in ex-Yugoslavia turned into an ugly war between similar ethnic groups. One thing I learned though: never get carried away too much even with your own political or philosophical ideas—they can backfire. Now, 15 years later, it seems to me that the whole Balkan chaos was cooked up by former Yugoslav communist elites—who in a twinkle of an eye decided to become either good liberals or petty nationalist rabble-rousers.
The following address was delivered to the Whether the American civil rights movement and its later implications for feminists, gays, transvestites, and illegals, the ascent of antifascism and tiers-mondialisme in France, Italy, Spain and the Lowlands, or the morbid preoccupation of Germans with their undemocratic past and troubling Sonderweg, the post-Communist Left has had a constant task. It seeks to right the wrongs of the past, and specifically those wrongs that are blamed on White Christian, Indo-European civilization.
It may be superfluous to go over here the characteristics of this Left, since most of you are aware of what is being described. I might also recommend my book The Strange Death of European Marxism, which shows how the present Left differs from both Marxism in theory and Communism in practice. This movement is conventionally referred to as cultural Marxism, and it is now at war with anything that is not sufficiently radical in the social sphere. It adherents blame bourgeois society for such evils as “racism,” “sexism,” “homophobia,” and the horrors of Hitler’s Third Reich. This post-Marxist Left appeals to the guilty conscience of the West for having held down everyone else and for not having fought with enough determination against “fascism.”
Though in Europe this Left defends Communist regimes and typically plays down the crimes of Stalin’s Russia, it is not primarily interested in socialism. It is interested above all in reconstructing society, in integrating Western nation states into global organizations and in opening Western countries to Third World immigration and to popularizing non-Christian or non-Judeo-Christian religions. For those who may have noticed, the EU has become a major instrument for this desired social experiment in Europe.
Where this Left overlaps Christian theology is in its stress on guilt and the need for atonement. But the Christian attitudes have been recycled into a replacement theology, one that develops a cult of revolutionary saints and victims, and one that produces a liturgical calendar centered on politically correct remembrance. In this replacement theology victimizing groups are expected to exhibit unconditional atonement toward those considered historical victims.
This post-Marxist Left began to supplant Communism as the major leftist ideology in the West before the fall of the Soviet Empire. Already in the 1960s, a youth culture rejecting bourgeois standards of conduct and in close alliance with anti-colonial Third World revolutionaries, had taken root in Europe. Energy began to flow in the large Communist parties in France and Italy away from traditional party cadres toward young radicals. This rising elite were concerned with combating discrimination against women and immigrants and the marginalization of gays more than they were with the nationalization of productive forces. Although the emerging order became more apparent after the violent demonstrations of the soixante-huitards in Paris in May 1968 and the organization of Red Brigades in Germany and Italy, signs of a changing guard were present before.
In a perceptive work, Sognando la rivoluzione: La sinstra italiana e le origini dei sessantottanti, the Milanese political historian Danilo Breschi shows how Communist youth organizations and workers’ strikes fell into the hands of what the old cadre called “decadent bourgeois adolescents.” While those who showed up for strikes in the 1960s in Turin, Genoa, Milan, Bologna and other cities in the northern industrial belt were self-proclaimed anti-capitalist radicals, recruited from Catholic Action, Trotskyist factions, and ethnic minorities, for the under-30 demonstrators, the real agenda was more ambitious -- but also more feasible. It was a social-cultural transformation to be engineered from above. Longtime advocates of Marxism, like film-maker P.P. Pasolini and Marx-scholar Lucio Colletti, raged against these usurpers, and they called for ousting them from respectable leftist gatherings. Colletti went so far as to call the police to eject these “decadents” from his office; and Pasolini saw their agitation on the Italian Left with growing apprehension and referred to their statements as a “verbal disease.”
This post-Marxist, anti-bourgeois Left had less sympathy for Communist parties than they do for other socialist groups, and they have gotten on particularly well with the Greens. As the Greens shifted their focus from environmentalism to filling Western countries with the Third World poor and with promoting alternative lifestyles, they became indistinguishable from the post-Marxist Left. By the end of the Cold War, Communism in the West had become obsolete because the cultural Marxist Left had taken its place and because this replacement Left was shaping the left side of the political spectrum in western Europe.
The Communist parties in France, Italy, and Germany continued to function as one of several bastions of Cultural Marxism but not usually as its vital center. A similar process unfolded in the Soviet empire more slowly. Under the noses of Communist officials in East Germany, cultural radicals, and most prominently Stasi informant and now head of the German Party of the Democratic Left, Gregor Gysi, were coming into their own. The DDR’s collapse allowed these radicals to join those in the West who were pushing the same antibourgeois projects, namely, gay and feminist rights, harping on fascist dangers, and turning nation states into branches of a global managerial regime.
One might try to challenge the eventual direction of my argument by insisting this has nothing to do with FOX or Glenn Beck. The conservative movement proclaims itself to be anti-leftist. It mocks the glorification of Islam and upholds Western democratic and feminist ideas; and it defends the sovereignty of the American state against international organizations. A well-paid GOP satirist, Mark Steyn, actually derides Europeans and Canadians nonstop for catering to anti-Western fanatics. I could not therefore be suggesting that our official conservatives represent cultural Marxist or liberal Christian quirks.
In fact I am suggesting precisely this view.
And I would make the further point that what separates our authorized right-center from the post-Marxist Left, in Europe and on the American and Canadian Left, is mostly quantitative. While the Left pushes Political Correctness without buts or ifs, the conservative movement expresses it in a less extreme form. But both groups reflect in varying degrees the same general cultural movement. Like our Left and like the dominant ideology in Western Europe, our 30- and 40-some conservative publicists are immersed in a leftist culture. And the result is something that all of them believe things that adults in the 1950s, including Communist sympathizers, would barely have understood.
It would be no exaggeration to say that Sarah Palin, who is an outspoken advocate of anti-discrimination laws for women, is more radical socially than were French and Italian Communist leaders sixty years ago. While old-fashioned CP members favored a centrally controlled economy and rooted for the Soviet side in the Cold War, unlike Sarah, they were not eager to punish sexists. And they didn’t give a hoot about gays, up until the time Communist parties were under siege from the post-Marxist Left. It is inconceivable that Communists of this era would have followed Jonah Goldberg, Charles Krauthammer, John Podhoretz, the neocon New York Post and the WSJ in affirming government-enforced “gay rights.” Two historians of the post-World War Two Communist movements in France and Italy, Annie Kriegel and Andrea Ragusa, depict a party leadership that belonged, even in spite of itself, to a bourgeois age. They stress the degree to which Communist parties embodied the social attitudes of the pre-Vatican Two Church.
Acceptable critics of the Islamic invasion of Europe like Steyn and Christopher Caldwell are targeting (and this must be noted) a specifically European experiment in multiculturalism. America’s willingness to take in and naturalize just about anybody does not bother these critics; presumably our big tent can hold lots more than we already have. By declaring ourselves to be a “propositional nation” held together by human rights and the belief in universal democratic equality, we are opening our doors to the world, or at least to those in the world who affirm our universalist creed.
I’ve also learned over the last two decades thanks to movement conservative celebrities: that Martin Luther King was acting specifically as a conservative Christian theologian when he spearheaded the civil rights revolution; that gay marriage, properly understood, may be a conservative “family value;” and that we are duty-bound to convert Muslims to our current notion of women’s rights and gay rights. It is precisely these ideas that make us “Western”; and if we truly value the glories of our civilization, which came into existence during some recent phase of late modernity, we should work to spread everywhere our high ideals. Equally relevant, those who have challenged our human rights beliefs, and most outrageously 19th-century counterrevolutionaries were actually “liberals.” Otherwise these mislabeled conservatives would have embraced the American creed of democratic equality!
A striking example of how deeply leftist thought patterns have affected the Right can be discerned in William F. Buckley responses to the attacks in the liberal/neocon press against the “anti-Semites” Joe Sobran and Pat Buchanan. In National Review in December 1991 and March 1992 and in his subsequent In Search of Anti-Semitism, Buckley distinguishes between those who are anti-Semites by conviction and those who are “contextually” anti-Jewish. His key distinction goes back to the Marxist notion of being an “objective reactionary,” meaning someone who challenges the preferences of the Communist Party. Buckley’s argument from context likewise recalls the charge in Europe against those who challenge multiculturalism, as greasing the skids for neo-Nazis.
From this standpoint, it does not matter whether or not one says something that is objectively correct. What counts is not upsetting certain VIPs. In Buckley’s brief, neither the malefactors nor the victims have anything to do with the European Holocaust. The catastrophe is being placed at the doorstep of anyone who allows himself to be intimidated into accepting it. Furthermore, the blame in this instance affects American Christians, who are required to show prescribed sensitivity toward particular American Jews. There are surrogate victims and surrogate victimizers, the first being Buckley’s dinner companions and those journalists who felt outraged, and the second being those who made offending remarks but who had nothing to do with Nazi crimes. Offenders had to be driven off the pages of National Review and out of polite society. They are or were the equivalent of what the Communists used to call “social fascists” and what the European guardians of PC consider “fascistoid.” Such antisocial types are contextually dangerous and therefore must be ostracized lest they do harm.
Note that our two contextual anti-Semites were not abetting violence against Jews, any more than European critics of Muslim immigration or German scholars who question the exclusive blame of their country for every major war are trying to unleash pogroms. They have simply run afoul of certain elite groups, by reopening an inconvenient debate. The conservative movement plays this game by declaring any question it doesn’t want raised forever closed. Such questions now include, among a myriad of other things, objecting in any way to the major congressional legislation of the 1960s.
What did remain in the conservative movement from the 1950s through the 1980s was anti-Communism. American conservatives throughout this period were in favor of resistance to Communist expansion and generally viewed the Soviets as an evil empire. But the movement’s arguments against the evil empire changed over the decades, from defending Western civilization against a godless foe to standing up for global democratic values against a reactionary homophobic Russian enemy.
And these changing reasons for an anti-Soviet stand tell much about the movement’s leftward drift. This drift became a forced march after the neoconservatives ascended to power, and its consequences help explain why there is an independent Right. We more than others have resisted the post-Marxist Left. We remain at war with the cultural and political forces that reshaped the Left in the 1960s; the conservative movement by contrast has made its peace with those forces -- while emphatically denying what has happened.
The authorized conservative movement has worked to blur this truth. The “victory of the West” in the Cold War is placed into an invented series of conservative triumphs, going from Reagan’s “conservative revolution” in the 1980s through the presidency of Bush II. In the Heritage Foundation’s embellishment, even the Clinton presidency belonged to an “ongoing conservative revolution” that began with Reagan and culminated in Dubya’s democratic crusading. Like Reagan and Bush I and II, Clinton supposedly practiced fiscal conservatism and advanced American concepts of human rights, albeit not as effectively as his Republican rivals. There have also been “good” Europeans who aided this conservative march, including an otherwise run-of-the-mill social leftist Tony Blair, who rallied to the Bush administration. Thatcher and Kohl were two other friends, who supported us during the Cold War. The German chancellor Kohl was obsequious enough, that is, “conservative” enough in the current Pickwickian sense, to make sure that his country’s unification would be a passing stage in his country’s merger with an international body. “Conservative” outside the U.S. means going along with neoconservative policies.
Movement conservatives have also applied the “C” label to things that have nothing to do with any genuine Right. Democratic equality and moderate feminism are two such preferred values that the conservative movement has claimed for itself. Conservative think-tanks have also reinvented self-described leftists as men and women of the Right. The reinventions of King, Joe Lieberman, and Pat Moynihan as “conservative” heroes all exemplify this practice. And such manipulations have their use. The movement can claim to be doing well, even when the Left triumphs.
Conservative publicists have also reconstructed the 1960s, by divorcing its cultural radicalism from its politics. Although nasty hippies, we are told, fouled the air by not brushing their teeth and by smoking pot, the 1960s also produced legislative reforms that would have pleased Edmund Burke. It was the Civil Rights Act that according to Jonah Goldberg bestowed on our country economic freedom -- for the first time. And the Voting Rights Act was another “conservative” landmark, because thereafter the federal government made sure that all citizens would be able to vote. In fact it kept certain parts of the country under perpetual federal surveillance, lest the Black-voting proportion fell below certain expected turnouts. After all, voting for one or both of our two institutionalized parties is a “conservative” practice. And presumably the more people of different pigmentation vote, the more “conservative” we become. And equally important, the Immigration Reform of 1965 filled the U.S. with a “conservative” Catholic electorate, the benefits (or conservatism) of which have still to be ascertained.
In the 1950s and 1960s conservatives held markedly different views. While they held no brief for those who were occupying university buildings or taking drugs, they were at least equally unhappy with that era’s political reforms. Not even in their wildest dreams could most of them have imagined that such far-reaching attempts at remaking our country attitudinally and ethnically would one day be declared conservative. And I would make the obvious point that one doesn’t have to applaud Jim Crow laws (and I for one don’t) in order to recognize that measures that were taken to end “discrimination” have created a permanent governmental straightjacket from which we’re not likely to extricate ourselves. There was nothing “conservative” about the congressional and bureaucratic measures by which that straightjacket was constructed.
But today’s conservative movement is about preserving the 1960s. It has turned that decade’s transformative legislation into the cornerstone of “conservative” politics. And then there was that other questionable triumph for the Right. Supposedly the collapse of the Soviet Empire belonged to a series of conservative victories in the West, associated with Reagan, Thatcher, and their successors. But the end of Soviet hegemony in Eastern Europe did not cause the ideological shift that is sometimes ascribed to it. The Soviets left the stage of History after a more radical Left had taken over; and this occurred preeminently in the West, which had never suffered the fate of a Soviet occupation. This replacement Left reshaped Communist organizations long before the collapse of the Soviet Empire, and in its milder form, it determined the general political culture in Western countries, including that of a transformed American Right.
One cannot complete the story of why there is an independent Right without also looking at the big picture. We are part of that picture, as much as those who now oppose us. But unlike those movement conservatives who do know the truth, we are not given to manipulating the facts. In the West, there were no conservative victors in the Cold War; such victors, if they existed, were the renascent nations of Eastern Europe. And even these deserving victors may be threatened with moral defeat, if the Left that has triumphed in the West, including this country, continues to gain ground.
Paul E. Gottfried
Paul Gottfried has spent the last thirty years writing books and generating hostility among authorized media-approved conservatives. His most recent work is his autobiography Encounters; and he is currently preparing a long study of Leo Strauss and his disciples. His works sell better in Rumanian, Spanish,Russian and German translations than they do in the original English, and particularly in the Beltway. Until his retirement two years hence, he will continue to be Raffensperger Professor of Humanities at Elizabethtown College in Elizabethtown, PA.
Poutine, c’est l’homme que les Américains n’attendaient pas et qui a non seulement redressé la Russie, mais l’a sauvée du dépeçage en trois tronçons envisagé par Zbignew Brzezinski, de l’exploitation de ses ressources naturelles par les groupes étrangers, de l’encerclement par l’O.T.A.N. ! Intronisé par Eltsine, il a su très habilement s’imposer progressivement en changeant l’orientation politique du pays, après quelques hésitations vis-à-vis des États-Unis, tout en se débarrassant des encombrants oligarques. Par son action, Poutine a dores et déjà sauvé la Russie, mais il va aussi probablement sauver l’Europe occidentale en lui proposant une aide et un autre modèle que le droit de l’hommisme décadent de façon à ce qu’elle puisse se libérer du protectorat militaire américain !
En 2009, 47 000 personnes – record européen – ont demandé (très souvent abusivement) l’asile politique en France. La situation est la suivante : un Africain ou un Turc ou un Tchétchène arrivant, le dimanche, en France, avec sa famille (avec un visa de tourisme), peut déposer une demande du statut de réfugié politique en touchant le territoire français ; dès le lundi, il pourra solliciter un hébergement de la part de la préfecture la plus proche ; et s’il ne l’obtient pas immédiatement, il pourra engager un référé administratif le mardi ; au final, il sera logé dès le jeudi. Derrière ces règles qui coûtent 500 millions d’euros par an aux contribuables français, il y a beaucoup de bénéficiaires : les associations qui touchent les subventions pour l’aide qu’elles apportent aux demandeurs d’asile, les avocats qui trouvent des causes à défendre et les hôtels qui reçoivent des clients solvables…puisque c’est l’État qui paie.
Deux aspects :
The 
Les quartiers sensibles se définissent ainsi comme des territoires désertés par les classes moyennes. L’image de ces « no-middle-class-land » s’est construite en creux, en comparaison d’une classe moyenne majoritaire et intégrée vivant sur d’autres territoires, notamment périurbains.
Le « paysage médiatique » est devenu le « paysage social de référence » et le reflet de l’idéologie des élites. L’analyse de la genèse de cette représentation permet d’éclairer cette dimension idéologique.
Cette affirmation ne correspond pas à la réalité. Si la permanence des difficultés sociales révèle une forme d’impuissance des pouvoirs publics, elle ne signifie pas pour autant que l’État s’est désengagé. D’ailleurs, ces territoires bénéficient le plus souvent d’une densité d’équipements publics supérieure à celle des territoires périurbains et ruraux.
Ex: 
Le gouvernement de droite, actuellement en selle aux Pays-Bas, avec l’appui de Geert Wilders, a très clairement provoqué une mutation de fond dans la politique européenne. Même en Allemagne, où, généralement, les réactions face à tout « extrémisme de droite », réel ou imaginaire, sont plus peureuses et hystériques que partout ailleurs dans le monde, pour des raisons historiques évidentes. Or il semble que désormais ce tabou-là, lui aussi, soit mis au rencart. D’abord, avant l’accession de Wilders au gouvernement néerlandais, nous avons eu l’affaire déclenchée par le social-démocrate Sarrazin qui a profondément ébranlé le monde politique allemand. Immédiatement dans la foulée du tollé soulevé par le livre de Thilo Sarrazin, la CSU bavaroise est entrée dans le jeu : elle s’est mise à critiquer la politique allemande de l’immigration, menée jusqu’ici. Et voilà maintenant que la Chancelière Angela Merkel s’y met à son tour en déclarant publiquement que la société multiculturelle, que l’on avait envisagée pour le futur de l’Allemagne, s’est soldée par un échec. Elle a déclaré cette vérité en termes clairs lors d’un rassemblement des jeunes de son parti, la CDU démocrate-chrétienne à Potsdam. 
alliés soit aux libéraux (qui ont plus d’une fois adopté la tactique de la girouette), soit à « Die Linke », la formation socialo-communiste de Lafontaine et de Gysi, soit aux Verts. Ce serait alors l’instabilité durable, due aux blocages de coalitions trop hétérogènes. L’Allemagne deviendrait aussi ingouvernable que la Belgique : impossible d’envisager cette perspective car les défis sont trop importants à l’heure actuelle. On ne va pas sacrifier la boutique pour quelques centaines de milliers d’immigrés considérés, à tort ou à raison, comme non intégrés, non intégrables et improductifs, selon les thèses du socialiste Sarrazin.
multiculturelle, on a vu intervenir une mégère qui a empêché toutes ses coreligionnaires de croquer à belles dents cette sympathique spécialité du Brabant wallon. Et voilà qu’est décrétée « haram » (et non « halal ») la tarte au sucre de Chaumont-Gistoux ! Le même ostracisme est appliqué au cramique (pain au beurre et aux raisins, pour nos amis hexagonaux) : nos pensionnés qui vivent dans certains quartiers en sont définitivement privés ! Et si un militant wallon refusait de déguster un biscuit marocain, gentiment offert, sous prétexte qu’il n’est pas fait avec du bon beurre, donc fade, insipide et immangeable ? Commettrait-il un acte « raciste », donc délictueux, en refusant la convivialité ambiante ? Les enfants et les jeunes adorent les bonbons : rien de nouveau sous le soleil. La Belgique, nous disaient maints Français qui, enfants, avaient séjourné à Bruxelles dans les années 50 et 60, était le paradis des amateurs de bonbons : petites barres sûres acidulées car toutes trempées d’acide citrique, lards en guimauve, lacets en réglisse, et j’en passe. Tout cela est encore disponible. Et les jeunes issus de l’immigration en raffolent. Or voilà que certains fondamentalistes viennent leur dire que ce n’est pas « halal », que cela contient des résidus de porc, de « halouf ». Finis les bonbons. Et les enfants non musulmans de le répéter pour ne pas partager le paquet de « nounours qui piquent » avec leurs condisciples musulmans. Où va la convivialité souhaitée par tous ? Vous voulez offrir un bonbon à un sympathique petit galopin venu d’Afrique du Nord et vous risquez de vous faire lapider par un illuminé ou de subir les foudres de la justice inspirée par la Loi Moureaux, si vous lui répondez de travers ou si vous lui collez une claque parce qu’il vous a adressé l’une de ses sympathiques injures, devenues courantes à Bruxelles comme « fils de p. » ou « enc.. de ta mère » ; elles remplacent les truculents
revendiquaient cet héritage par leur méconduite. Qu’on le veuille ou non, elle faisait partie du répertoire des injures bruxelloises, répertoire rabelaisien et baroque que nous devons à une culture vaguement hispanisée au 17ème siècle, où la tendance était au langage cru, contrairement à la France, qui se cherchait, sous Louis XIV, des formes policées, destinées à dompter la noblesse et le peuple, prompts aux frondes ou aux jacqueries. Aucune législation ou directive n’a cependant interdit l’emploi de cette injure haute en couleurs, contrairement aux termes habituels de « macaque » et de « bougnoul » que la police bruxelloise a reçu l’ordre de bannir définitivement de son vocabulaire quand elle s’adresse aux migrants. Le « mettekou » à Bruxelles, ou le « marticot » à Gand, sont ces petits singes à queue longue qui accompagnaient les joueurs d’orgue de Barbarie dans les rues et quémandaient des piécettes aux passants, armés d’une tirelire et affublés d’oripeaux comiques. Dans sa série « Jo, Zette et Jocko », Hergé a croqué une de ces scènes en fourrant le singe Jocko dans un uniforme rouge grotesque, lorsqu’il est recueilli par un joueur d’orgue de Barbarie après avoir perdu ses jeunes maîtres.
