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.

vendredi, 28 février 2014

Extension du système mondialiste

Le-Panama-entre-dans-le-pôle-de-Libre-Echange-Alliance-Pacifique-Actualité-2014-Vivre-au-panama.com-1.png

L’ALLIANCE DU PACIFIQUE

Extension du système mondialiste

Auran Derien
Ex: http://metamag.fr
 
L’Alliance du Pacifique (Chili, Pérou, Colombie, Mexique) a été le cadre, début février, d’une signature commune pour éliminer, entre eux, les droits de douane. Juan Manuel Santos, président de la République de Colombie, partisan de l’alliance avec les Etats-Unis, a immédiatement affirmé que le développement de la région en serait favorisé. Cette Alliance pèse 215 millions d’habitants et obéit à la logique des regroupements promue par les organismes financiers.

Qui a intérêt aux regroupements ?

L’intégration recherchée a rarement des bases géopolitiques ou culturelles. Dans les accords de libre-échange, les produits industriels qui sont contrôlés par les multinationales n’ont pas besoin d’être protégés par des droits de douane. Entre les normes, les brevets, le conseil, les subventions de toutes sortes, le produit rapporte suffisamment. Les pays d’Amérique Latine, ayant peu investi dans la recherche et l’éducation sont facilement convaincus d’ouvrir leurs frontières pour contribuer, modestement, à une phase non essentielle d’élaboration d’un produit (exemple : l’aviation). Un pays perd lentement et sûrement la maîtrise de son destin et se retrouve désarticulé comme un puzzle renversé. L’Organisation Mondiale du Commerce se charge d’ailleurs de détruire ce qui reste de politique de développement endogène. Elle offre aux multinationales la possibilité de vassaliser tranquillement les pays de l’Alliance du Pacifique en imposant la vente des activités économiques.
 
Un mécano sans finalités.

 
Les membres de l’Alliance du Pacifique se vantent toujours d’attirer des investissements étrangers. Pour compenser l’influence occidentale, nous avons indiqué que la Chine était en passe de devenir leur deuxième fournisseur derrière les Etats-Unis. La zone de libre-échange prévue regroupe, en plus des quatre pays de l’Alliance, l’Australie, le Canada, le Japon, la Malaisie, Singapour et le Vietnam. Qu’y-a-t-il de commun entre ces cultures, qui puisse fonder une civilisation de paix et de justice ? Rien!

Les multinationales vont et viennent, comme l’aciériste Arcelor-Mittal qui a signé un accord de cinq ans avec le groupe canadien Evrim Resources pour exploiter le minerai de fer qui pourrait encore s’exploiter au Mexique. La rédaction des accords est toujours très technique et très précise pour favoriser les procès, régulièrement gagnés par les multinationales face aux Etats. Les textes des accords de libre-échange sont systématiquement fondées sur trois négations: aucune différence entre les investisseurs (étrangers ou autochtones); aucune contrainte de transfert technologique, aucun apport obligatoire de devises, pas de consommations intermédiaires locales. Enfin, les cadres viennent du vaste monde sans aucun lien avec la culture locale. Au total, l’investissement direct ne profite pas à la communauté; les marchandises circulent sans entraves et sans vérification ; tous les autochtones sont traités avec le plus profond mépris.

La globalisation de l'économie est acceptée et votée car on  fait croire que cela aidera le reste du monde à se développer. Mais la réalité confirme que les financiers nous plongent dans la crise. Toutes les zones disparates de libre-échange créées dans le monde n’ont qu’un seul objectif : assurer des super-profits et, en passant, payer de hauts salaires à des fonctionnaires dévoués.

La génération qui vient devra en finir avec ce monde. 
 

Alianza-del-Pacifico-ProNoticias-460x230.jpg

samedi, 11 janvier 2014

Recordkou VS en Al Gore's idiootste Global Warming uitspraken

cold2.jpg

Recordkou VS en Al Gore's idiootste Global Warming uitspraken

Ironisch: Klimaat'wetenschappers' die Global Warming hoopten te bewijzen, kwamen vast te zitten in het ijs, evenals een eerste reddingsexpeditie. Uiteindelijk konden ze per helikopter worden gered.

Terwijl driekwart van de Verenigde Staten zucht onder een record koudegolf, en klimaat'wetenschappers' die met eigen ogen wilden zien hoe ver het ijs op Antarctica al gesmolten is kwamen vast te zitten in een ongekend dikke ijslaag, kijken we even terug naar het begin van deze eeuw, toen Global Warming alarmisten zoals Al Gore met hun uitspraken dat de nieuwe generatie in onze tijd geen sneeuw en ijs meer zou kennen, iedereen -inclusief bijna al 'onze' politici- de stuipen op het lijf joegen.

Global Warming wordt steeds ernstiger, zullen alle milieugroeperingen en de meeste politieke partijen u nog steeds vertellen. De historische kou in Noord Amerika is daar immers het absolute bewijs van. Dat vrijwel niet één onafhankelijke wetenschapper nog gelooft in dit inmiddels 100% ontkrachte mantra, doet niet ter zake. Immers, Global Warming is een onwrikbare peiler in de klimaatreligie, die ondanks een overweldigende lading bewijs van het tegendeel helaas ook in Nederland nog steeds veel verstokte aanhangers heeft.

Komende nacht kan het in de Amerikaanse staat Minnesota -54 graden Celcius worden, en kunnen 70 kouderecords worden gebroken. In grote delen van de VS is de gevoelstemperatuur reeds -48 graden, en wordt in een enorm gebied tussen de staten Mississippi en Ohio opnieuw sneeuwval verwacht. In Chicago hebben de autoriteiten de mensen opgeroepen thuis te blijven. Rond Indianapolis werd een uitgaansverbod ingesteld. De ijzige wind wordt zelfs in Florida en aan de Texaanse grens met Mexico gevoeld.

'Kinderen zullen geen sneeuw en ijs meer kennen'

Hoe anders had er uitgezien als de gevestigde klimaat'experts' in het jaar 2000 ook maar een béétje gelijk hadden gekregen. Zo voorspelden diverse 'wetenschappers' in dat jaar dat de Europese kinderen die toen werden geboren op hun 10e verjaardag niet meer zouden weten hoe ijs en sneeuw eruit ziet. Hoewel het nu zeer zacht is voor de tijd van het jaar - veroorzaakt door de extreme kou in Noord Amerika-, kenden we in 2012 een voorjaar dat in ruim 40 jaar niet meer zo koud was geweest.

Al Gore's idiootste uitspraken

Al Gore kan gerust dé profeet van de Global Warming kerk genoemd worden. Voor zijn inmiddels totaal ontkrachte documentaire 'An Inconvenient Truth' ontving hij zelfs de Nobelprijs. De -ijskoude- realiteit liet en laat echter zien hoe idioot zijn uitspraken waren:

1. In 2008 beweerde Gore tegen een Duits publiek dat de hele Noordpool 'over 5 jaar is gesmolten'. Wat gebeurde er echt: de ijskap groeide juist fors.

2. 'Co2 is de uitademing van onze beschaving.' Volgens Gore zou de menselijke uitstoot van Co2 snelle en ongekende opwarming veroorzaken. We lijken echter juist een periode van Global Cooling te zijn ingegaan. Bovendien is het Co2 gehalte in de atmosfeer historisch gezien erg laag, en is juist veel meer Co2 nodig om de toekomstige oogsten voor de snel groeiende wereldbevolking niet te laten mislukken.

3. 'De planeet heeft koorts.'

4. In 2006: 'Veel wetenschappers waarschuwen dat we steeds dichterbij een aantal omslagpunten komen die het binnen 10 jaar onmogelijk maken om onherstelbare schade aan de leefbaarheid van de planeet voor de menselijke beschaving te voorkomen.'

5. 'Dit is de waarheid: De Aarde is rond, Saddam Hussein viel ons niet aan op 9/11, Elvis is dood, Obama werd geboren in de VS, en de klimaatcrisis is echt.'

6. 'Het binnenste van de Aarde is zeer heet, meerdere miljoenen graden.' De hoogste temperatuur in het binnenste van de Aarde is echter 11.000 F.

7. 'Er hangt een onrealistische zweem over het praten over deze mysterieuze zaken, nu de wereld dankzij global warming voor onze eigen ogen op zo'n dramatische wijze verandert.'

8. 'Het zou een enorme opluchting zijn als de recente aanvallen op de wetenschap van global warming een teken zouden zijn dat we geen onvoorstelbare, grootschalige preventieve rampmaatregelen moeten nemen om de menselijke beschaving te beschermen.'

9. 'Het overleven van de VS zoals we het kennen loopt risico. Ja, zelfs de toekomst van de menselijke beschaving staat op het spel.'

10. 'We zouden deze uitdaging met een gevoel van diepe vreugde en dankbaarheid tegemoet moeten treden; dat wij de gevierde generatie zijn waarover orkesten, dichters en zangers over 1000 jaar zullen zeggen dat wij het in onszelf hebben gevonden deze crisis op te lossen, en de basis voor een stralende en optimistische menselijke toekomst hebben gelegd.'

50% meer ijs op de Noordpool, onbetrouwbare klimaatmodellen

Jaar na jaar komt er echter steeds meer bewijs dat er helemaal niets klopt van de Global Warming theorie. De New American schreef onlangs dat 'in tegenstelling tot de alarmistische voorspellen van Gore en zijn 'doemsdag sekte' voorspelden, de laatste satellietgegevens aantonen dat het ijs op de Noordpool sinds 2012 met 50% is gegroeid, en in oktober 2012 zelfs het snelst toenam sinds in 1979 werd begonnen met meten. Experts voorspellen dat dit de komende jaren zal doorgaan, waardoor global-warmingalarmisten koortsachtig naar verklaringen zullen moeten zoeken om hun gezicht te redden en de snel smeltende klimaathysterie nieuw leven in te blazen.'

Iedereen weet inmiddels dat de wereldwijde temperatuur al zeker 17 jaar niet meer stijgt. Deze klimaatrealiteit heeft dan ook een ruw einde gemaakt aan alle 73 door de VN gebruikte klimaatmodellen, die dus volstrekt onbetrouwbaar zijn gebleken.

Regering Rutte geeft miljarden uit aan niet-bestaand probleem

Triest genoeg baseren de Westerse overheden hun beleid nog steeds op de niet bestaande door mensen veroorzaakte opwarming. In het licht van de forse bezuinigingen op bijvoorbeeld de sociale zekerheid, gekoppeld aan enorme lastenverhogingen, zijn de tientallen miljarden euro's subsidies die alleen al het kabinet Rutte voor de global warming industrie heeft uitgetrokken, des te schrijnender.

Klimaat verandert altijd al, zonder menselijke invloed

Klimaatverandering bestaat en heeft altijd al bestaan. Toen er nog geen enkele sprake was van eventuele menselijke invloed, steeg in de middeleeuwen de gemiddelde temperatuur in het noorden van Europa naar subtropische waarden. Vervolgens kwam de bekende 'kleine ijstijd', eveneens toen door mensen veroorzaakte Co2 uitstoot geheel ontbrak. Die uitstoot is ook anno 2014 sowieso dermate gering, dat deze op wereldschaal in de atmosfeer niet eens een meetbare toename veroorzaakt, nog even los van het feit dat een relatie tussen meer Co2 en de -dus niet bestaande- opwarming nooit is bewezen.

Global Warming wetenschappers vast in het ijs

De klimaat'wetenschappers' die Global Warming wilden bewijzen en die ironisch genoeg vast kwamen te zitten in het poolijs, werden op 2 januari door een helikopter gered. Denk echter maar niet dat de reguliere media melding maakten van het doel van deze totaal mislukte missie. Dat was ongetwijfeld wel het geval geweest, als de wetenschappers 'bewijs' hadden gevonden dat het ijs wél aan het smelten is.

Wanneer komt er een einde aan dit duurste bedrog ooit?

Dat betekent dat de gevestigde orde en de globalisten zullen blijven volhouden dat het klimaat verandert door menselijke activiteiten. Op deze wijze kunnen ze hun onderdanen torenhoge milieubelastingen, veel te hoge energieprijzen en allerlei andere extreem kostbare beperkende maatregelen blijven opleggen. Het is daarom te hopen dat de gewone man wakker wordt voordat dit met afstand grootste en duurste bedrog aller tijden een definitief einde maakt aan zijn welvaart en aan de toekomst van zijn kinderen.


Xander

(1) Infowars
(2) Infowars / Washington Times
(3) KOPP
(4) Infowars / Natural News

Zie ook o.a.:

20-10: NIPCC veegt vloer aan met Global Warming theorie VN
12-09: Global Cooling bevestigd: record toename van zee-ijs
12-07: Energieakkoord NL: Duitsland laat zien dat prijzen enorm zullen stijgen
29-06: NASA: CO2 veroorzaakt geen opwarming, maar afkoeling (/ Over 7 jaar is Nederlands huishouden maandelijks € 90 kwijt aan energiebelasting)
13-05: Global dimming: Zonlicht op Aarde in halve eeuw met éénderde verminderd (/ Zon- en ruimtewetenschappers: Zonneactiviteit wijst op aanstaande nieuwe kleine ijstijd)
14-04: Pleidooi voor meer CO2 uitstoot om mensheid te redden (/ Steeds meer klimaatexperts beginnen uitblijven Global Warming toe te geven)
08-01: Bevestigd: Al 16 jaar geen Global Warming

lundi, 14 octobre 2013

Les méfaits du lobby militaro-industriel américain

L’AMERIQUE CONTRE L’EUROPE
Les méfaits du lobby militaro-industriel américain

Jean Pierinot
Ex: http://metamag.fr
La guerre économique fait rage plus que jamais. Et c'est, une fois encore l'Europe qui en fait les frais. Deux exemples récents nous en apportent la confirmation.

L’achat de 37 avions de combat américains F-35 par les Pays-Bas. Ce pays n’en est d’ailleurs pas à son coup d’essai. Il y a deux décennies déjà, un contrat passé avec l’avionneur américain Lockheed avait fait scandale. Le prince consort, Claus, avait été mêlé à cette affaire de pot-de-vin. Rebelote aujourd’hui donc. On se demande bien ce que peut faire un pays comme la Hollande avec des avions de combat si ce n’est l’épandage des tulipes !

L’autre événement tout récent, c’est le choix par les Allemands du lanceur américain Falcon 9 pour lancer trois satellites gouvernementaux. Au détriment de la très fiable fusée européenne Ariane. On est en droit de se poser des questions sur le fil à la patte qui relie Angela Merkel aux lobbies américains. Une fois de plus, démonstration est faite que l’Europe n’est qu’un leurre. Depuis le plan Marshall, les Américains ne cessent de vouloir mettre les Etats européens au pas. C’est-à-dire détruire nos industries et imposer leur camelote.

Le lobby militaro-industriel américain a ainsi tout fait pour mettre le constructeur automobile français PSA en difficulté. C’est aujourd’hui le tour de Renault. Bien sûr, ce n’est pas le seul domaine où ce lobby intervient. Preuve que le libéralisme dans sa version anglo-saxonne n’est qu’un leurre destiné à ne servir que le dieu dollar et donc la finance anonyme et vagabonde.

 
En mars 2007, Capital publiait un article sur la Logan (de Dacia, détenue par Renault) qui faisait un véritable carton en Iran. Plus de 100 000 Iraniens avaient réservé leur véhicule en dépit d'une attente de plusieurs mois. 70 % des véhicules étaient commandés avec toutes les options. Il s'agissait d'un véritable succès puisque Renault avait échoué à lancer ce véhicule en Inde. Le 10 janvier 2013, La Tribune annonçait que Renault prospérait en Iran, avec notamment 84 000 Logan (rebaptisées localement Tondar) commandées entre janvier et novembre 2012. La Tribune (26 juillet 2013) indique que « Renault avait vendu plus de 100 000 véhicules l'an dernier et 38 000 encore, au premier semestre, pour l'essentiel des Tondar. » Tout comme Peugeot, Renault travaillait avec ses partenaires locaux, Iran Khodro et Pars Khodro, à qui il livrait des pièces détachées montées ensuite surplace. 

Peugeot ayant dû cesser ses activités en février 2012 sous les pressions américaines, avec « un manque à gagner (pour Peugeot) de plus de 313 000 véhicules en 2012, et, potentiellement, de plus de 400 000 unités environ en 2013 », Renault récupérait alors la mise et voyait ses ventes augmenter. Tous les espoirs paraissaient permis en cette période de crise d'autant que le 23 juillet 2013, kan Khodro annonçait un nouvel accord pour la construction de Clio en lran.

Pourtant, trois jours après, à peine, Renault publiait ses chiffres semestriels, avec une grosse surprise à la clé. Le bénéfice net était divisé par vingt, passant de 146 millions au premier semestre 2O12 à 39 millions d'euros pour la même période 2013. Raison : la nécessité de passer une provision de 512 millions d'euros liée à l'arrêt des activités de Renault en Iran: « Le système des sanctions a été durci au mois de juin puisque l’activité automobile a été incluse dans le régime des sanctions par les États-Unis (le 3 juin, onze jours avant l'élection présidentielle en Iran, qui vit la victoire du conservateur le plus modéré, Hassan Rohani). La provision qu'on passe aujourd'hui dans nos comptes correspond à la valeur des actifs que nous avons, essentiellement de l'argent qu'on ne peut pas ( en fait « plus ») rapatrier (en raison de la rupture sans préavis.» Exactement ce qui était déjà arrivé à Peugeot).

Il y a une situation de fait d'interruption de l'activité dans ce pays. Sans que cela soit clairement dit, Renault renonçait sous les pressions du lobby militaro-industriel américain à son marché iranien . Le décret 13645 de Barack Obama du 3 juin indique la multiplication des sanctions contre toute organisation ou entreprise effectuant des transactions importantes d'achat ou de vente de rials, ou qui détiennent des comptes (bancaires) en rials, en dehors de l’iran. La vraie raison est fournie par la Tribune (26 juillet 2013): Renault et PSA « détenaient tous les deux une part très importante du marché local... contrairement aux multinationales de Détroit, General Motors ou Ford, qui en étaient absentes ! »

Quand, les Européens et leurs politiques comprendront-ils que l'ennemi est à l'Ouest, pas à l'Est ?

jeudi, 26 septembre 2013

The U.S. vs. Brazil: From Espionage to Destabilization

Obama-and-Rousseff.jpg

The U.S. vs. Brazil: From Espionage to Destabilization

Nil NIKANDROV

Ex: http://www.strategic-culture.org

 

 The espionage scandal which broke out after NSA employee Edward Snowden's disclosures and which has strained relations between Brazil and the United States is gaining momentum.  More and more new details are coming to light about routine electronic spying  by U.S. intelligence on Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff and those surrounding her, including relatives and the leadership of the foreign ministry, the ministry of defense, and intelligence agencies. Rousseff was especially indignant that the NSA and CIA tapped all her telephones in the presidential office and in her residence.  The fact that the NSA illegally infiltrated the computer databases of the Brazilian oil company Petrobras and monitored the business and personal correspondence of its personnel round the clock also came to light.
 
In order to make a well-considered decision on the espionage scandal, Rousseff sent Minister of External Relations Luiz Alberto Figueiredo to the U.S., where he held a series of meetings with Obama administration officials, including U.S. National Security Advisor Susan Rice.  This problem had been discussed previously when Rousseff met with Obama personally in St. Petersburg at the G20 forum. The U.S. president promised to see into the matter and give Brazil a thorough explanation. However, Figueiredo returned from Washington empty-handed. The Americans once again turned to their favorite scheme: stalling, procrastinating, and promising to explain everything in a day or two. Obama used the same tactics when he called Dilma Rousseff to persuade her not to cancel her state visit, again confining himself to indistinct promises. The just demands of the Brazilian president not to delay the explanation and to deliver them in written form are being ignored by the White House… Obama does not want to leave behind compromising evidence which his opponents in Congress and journalists could interpret as "weakness" in regulating a conflict with a "third world" country.

Attempts by the Obama administration to get the Brazilians to agree to discuss the conflict behind closed doors through diplomatic or other channels, as has been done many times with other countries, did not meet with success. The situation was further intensified by the approach of the date of Dilma Rousseff's visit to Washington – October 23.  The Brazilian leadership held its line to the end: Rousseff announced the cancellation of her visit to Washington and explained the reasons for this step herself.

Brazil is prepared for an uncompromising public explanation of all the circumstances related to the espionage conducted by the United States. The first results of this conflict have already appeared; after U.S. Ambassador Thomas Shannon was called twice to the Brazilian Ministry of External Affairs to provide an explanation, the State Department hastened his departure from the country. Brazil is very displeased with the fact that explanations from its North American partners remain unspecific, superficial and, in essence, mocking. The empty promises of Obama, Kerry and other high-ranking officials in the U.S. administration to "look into the matter" and "normalize" the activities of the intelligence agencies had the opposite effect this time. Dilma Rousseff quite decisively demonstrated to Washington that she is capable of standing up for the interests of her country, especially in such an area as state security…

Among the actions under consideration by the Brazilian authorities with regard to U.S. intelligence operating on the territory of Brazil is a tightening of control over identified American intelligence personnel with the aim of documenting illegal aspects of their activities and subsequently deporting them from Brazil. The Brazilian authorities are increasingly concerned about signals that the CIA, U.S. military intelligence, and DEA operatives are involved in the creation of "youth protest groups" which have already been used and could be used in the future to intensify the crisis situation in the country.

The problem of U.S. electronic espionage was discussed at the first meeting of Mercosur leaders and experts on the problem of maintaining computer and telecommunications security. Representatives of Brazil, Venezuela, Bolivia, Argentina and Uruguay suggested urgent measures for stopping "the Empire's espionage and strengthening the technological independence and sovereignty of the bloc's participant countries." Venezuelan Foreign Minister Elias Jaua supported Brazil in all items on the agenda. A decision to create a workgroup for developing a unified strategy for counteracting "imperialist interference" and "U.S. spy operations which cause damage to governments, enterprises and citizens" was approved. A meeting of the ministers of defense of Brazil and Argentina was held at which the ministers signed an agreement on the creation of a bilateral group with the aim of "attaining an optimal level of development of cyberprotection and minimizing vulnerability to cyberattacks".

In an interview with the Argentinian newspaper Pagina 12, Brazilian Minister of Defense Celso Amorim told about the increasing operative capabilities of the Center for Cybernetic Protection. The minister only touched on the topic of the electronic spying on President Rousseff and her entourage in passing, but he particularly emphasized that all the facts at their disposal indicate the necessity of developing Brazil's defensive capabilities.  Celso Amorim spoke with frankness unusual for the head of a military agency of the medium-term plans for strengthening Brazil’s armed forces. These included the construction of a nuclear submarine for patrolling in territorial waters and protecting oil fields on the shelf, the development of the aerospace industry, and starting production of the KC-390 heavy cargo aircraft, which in the future could replace the U.S.-made Hercules in the Brazilian air force.

According to data from independent sources, the scandal around the total espionage of U.S. intelligence in Brazil could result in the Brazil’s refusal to close a deal for the purchase of 36 F-18 Hornet fighter planes. "We cannot," say Brazilian analysts, "sign such large-scale contracts with a country we do not trust".

Brazil intends to follow the example of Russia and China in creating its own Internet system, which to a significant degree will guarantee the security of its users and hinder the illegal connection of NSA "specialists". Among Brazil's plans is the laying of its own communications cables to Europe and Africa. The existing communications channels, which pass through U.S. territory, are totally monitored by the NSA.

A delegation of Brazilian parliament members is preparing a trip to Russia to meet with Edward Snowden and obtain additional information on the true scale of U.S. electronic espionage in Brazil, including the use of spy satellites. A modernized audio interception base, which was not closed down in 2002, as the media assured everyone, is functioning at full capacity at the U.S. embassy. It is now obvious to the Brazilian leadership that the argument used by the U.S. administration about the war on terrorism is only a cover for conducting operations of another kind altogether. In the Western hemisphere, this is the infiltration of databases and computer networks of Latin American countries, first of all those which are trying to conduct independent policy and focusing on integration through Unasur, ALBA, Petrocaribe, etc.

It is believed that the acquisition of advance information about the trips, routes, and places of residence of Latin American leaders "unfriendly" to Washington - Nestor Kirchner, Inacio Lula da Silva, Hugo Chavez and others - helped in conducting special operations against them, some of which, as is well known, were fatal.

This year the celebration of Independence Day on September 7 in the Brazilian capital, as well as in Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paolo and Porto Alegre, were accompanied by well-organized mass disturbances. The instigators pronounced anti-government slogans and shouted accusations against Dilma Rousseff, calling her a "traitor to national interests". Several dozen people were injured, and over 300 protesters were detained. The police are investigating the hidden relations between the detainees and "non-profit organizations" funded from the U.S. Some Brazilian bloggers have interpreted these disturbances as U.S. intelligence's "warning shot" at Dilma Rousseff.

U.S. intelligence personnel in Brazil may have to operate in much more complex conditions in the foreseeable future. The Brazilian intelligence agency (Abin) is now trying to rehabilitate itself in the eyes of the president and the public. The leaders of Abin, who were unable to detect a leak of strategically important information to the U.S. in time, causing huge political and material losses for the country, have received new instructions on the parameters for further collaboration with partners from the U.S. As they say, one good turn deserves another.
 

vendredi, 17 mai 2013

Evo Morales zet USAID aan de deur

evo_morales_abril2011.jpg

Evo Morales zet USAID aan de deur

door Walter Lotens

Ex: http://www.uitpers.be/

 

Ter gelegenheid van de 1 mei-viering pakt de Boliviaanse president Evo Morales nu al enkele jaren uit met een verrassende mededeling. Meestal ging het om de renationalisatie van een bedrijf dat in de jaren 1990 was geprivatiseerd. Dit jaar ging het om een bericht van een heel andere orde. Morales deelde mee dat zijn regering beslist had om de USAID (United States Agency for International Development) het land uit te wijzen. Wat gaat er schuil achter deze beslissing?

In zijn uiteenzetting zei Evo Morales dat er “geen gebrek was aan Amerikaanse instellingen die blijven samenspannen tegen ons volk en vooral de nationale overheid. Daarom gaan we deze dag aangrijpen om aan te kondigen dat we hebben besloten om USAID eruit te gooien.” Hij richtte zich vervolgens tot zijn minister van Buitenlandse Zaken, David Choquehuanca, en vroeg hem om de Amerikaanse ambassade in kennis te stellen van zijn besluit. Het Boliviaanse staatshoofd koppelde de uitzetting aan een recente opmerking van de Amerikaanse minister van Buitenlandse Zaken, John Kerry, die Latijns-Amerika 'de achtertuin' van de VSA had genoemd. Kerry maakte de opmerking toen hij probeerde Amerikaanse Congresleden te overtuigen van het belang van de regio, en te vertellen dat: “Het westelijk halfrond is onze achtertuin. Het is van cruciaal belang voor ons.”

In het verleden heeft Morales al eerder gedreigd de USAID uit het land te zetten. Hij zei dat de programma’s van de organisatie “meer politiek dan sociaal” zijn. Het Boliviaanse staatshoofd beschuldigde de organisatie ook van het “manipuleren” en “gebruik maken” van vakbondsleiders. Het aan de deur zetten van de USAID moet, aldus Morales, begrepen worden in het kader van “het nationaliseren van de waardigheid van de Boliviaanse bevolking. ”
USAID zegt de beslissing van Morales diep te betreuren. “Degenen die het meest zullen worden gekwetst door de beslissing van de Boliviaanse regering zijn de Boliviaanse burgers die hebben geprofiteerd van onze samenwerking in het onderwijs, de landbouw, de gezondheid, alternatieve ontwikkeling, en het milieu,” zei de organisatie in een recente verklaring.

USAID, hulp of controle?

Wie en wat zit er achter die United States Agency for International Development? De geschiedenis van de USAID gaat terug naar het Marshallplan onder president Truman voor de heropbouw van Europa na de Tweede Wereldoorlog en voor hulpprogramma’s aan ‘arme landen’. “Vanaf 1961,” zo schrijft Rubén Ramos in het linkse Rebelión, “is de USAID het belangrijkste US-agentschap voor inmenging in onze landen”. Sindsdien heeft USAID meer dan 200.000 miljoen dollar militaire en economische ‘hulp’ verstrekt aan landen van Latijns-Amerika om de eigen belangen te verdedigen. Die ‘hulp’ werd verstrekt onder de vorm van leningen, technische bijstand, noodfondsen en, vooral, militaire en politieke steun onder de vorm van spionage, destabilisering en waar nodig gewapende interventies. Rubén Ramos: “Programma’s en projecten rond democratie, landbouw, handel, economische ontwikkeling, onderwijs en milieu werden ontwikkeld in landen van de Sub-Sahara, Azië, Latijns-Amerika en de Cariben, Eurazië en het Oosten om, onder het mom van humanitaire bijstand, de kapitalistische ordening te vrijwaren.” Daarvoor werd en wordt nauw samengewerkt met ngo’s, inheemse organisaties, universiteiten, Amerikaanse ondernemingen - meer dan 3500 - , internationale organisaties, maar ook Noord-Amerikaanse en Europese ambassades.
De USAID heeft haar hoofdzetel in Washington-DC maar beschikt zowat overal ter wereld over haar eigen werkarmen. Zo heeft de USAID in Peru een eigen vertegenwoordiging en een eigen website om de wereld in te lichten over de steun van de VS aan Peru.

De USAID-projecten bieden volgens hun woordvoerders alternatieven aan voor de illegale cocateelt, zij trachten een constructieve dialoog op gang te brengen tussen lokale gemeenschappen, de regering, burgercomités en de private sector. USAID ondersteunt ook privaat-publieke samenwerkingsverbanden. Rubén Ramos: “Wat niet gezegd wordt is dat deze interventies in de eerste plaats bedoeld zijn om de neokoloniale dominantie te continueren en om de sociale vrede voor buitenlandse ondernemers te garanderen.” Van bij haar ontstaan heeft de USAID nauw samengewerkt met de US-regering en met de grote internationale organisaties. Een kwart van de organisaties die door de USAID worden gesteund zijn van christelijke origine en vertonen soms een sekte-achtig karakter. Ook ngo’s en coöperaties, belangrijke delen van het maaatschappelijk middenveld, worden door de USAID ondersteund. Volgens Ramos kwam in 1970 nog 70 procent van de buitenlandse hulp van de regering, maar vandaag is dat nog slechts 20 procent en komt het leeuwenaandeel van de bedrijfswereld. Het kan zeer instructief zijn om eens een kritisch oog te werpen op hun officiële website www.usaid.gov.   

Bolivia versus USAID

Al jaren gonst het in Bolivia van de geruchten dat de Verenigde Staten op een stiekeme manier proberen de regering-Morales te stabiliseren. In de zeven jaar dat Evo Morales nu aan het bewind is, kwam het geregeld tot aanvaringen met de VS. In 2008 werden de Amerikaanse ambassadeur Philip Goldberg en andere diplomaten uit het land gezet en werd als reactie daarop de Boliviaanse ambassadeur Gustavo Guzman uit Washington terug geroepen. Intussen werden de diplomatieke contacten tussen beide landen hersteld, maar er is nog geen nieuwe uitwisseling van diplomaten tot stand gekomen.

Jake Johnson, een onderzoeker verbonden aan het Centre for Economic and Policy Research, heeft een aantal documenten kunnen inkijken waaruit blijkt dat ook al vóór Morales aan de macht kwam, pogingen ondernomen werden om de MAS-politiek te ondergraven. In 2008  publiceerde ABC News enkele uitspraken van een Amerikaanse onderzoeker die benaderd was door de Amerikaanse ambassade in Bolivia om informatie door te spelen over Venezolanen en Cubanen die in Bolivia verbleven. Peace Corps volunteers hadden ook dergelijke vragen gekregen, maar die aantijgingen werden tegengesproken door Amerikaanse woordvoerders. Wikileaks heeft in 2009 berichten onderschept die bedoeld waren om de nieuwe grondwet, opgesteld onder Morales, in een ongunstig daglicht te stellen en ook om de MAS in diskrediet te brengen voor de presidentsverkiezingen van einde 2009. Uit een ander bericht uit 2006, net na de verkiezing van Evo Morales, blijkt dat ambassadeur David Greenlee kennis had van het feit dat vele USAID-economische programma’s tegen de politieke richting ingingen die de regering wilde inslaan. Volgens Jake Johnson was er ook een compleet gebrek aan transparantie voor wat betreft de bestemming van de hulpgelden.

Het is voornamelijk vice-president Alvaro García Linera die herhaaldelijk heeft gewezen op de kwalijke invloeden van USAID en andere ngo’s voor het huidige Bolivia. Hij beschuldigde de USAID ervan steun te hebben verleend aan ngo’s die de inheemse volkeren en natuurorganisaties einde 2011 hebben gesteund in hun verzet tegen het aanleggen van een weg door het TIPNIS-gebied. (zie Uitpers nr.134 en 136) Dat heeft in die periode geleid tot een dieptepunt in de populariteit van Evo Morales die zich verplicht zag een aantal toegevingen te doen en enkele ministerwissels door te voeren. In 2012 wees Linera nogmaals met de vinger naar de USAID die hij ervan beschuldigde geld uit te geven om de regering-Morales te beletten de TIPNIS-weg aan te leggen. 

Het maatschappelijk middenveld

Het is dus vooral Álvaro García Linera, een linkse socioloog, die in Bolivia het wantrouwen ten aanzien van het maatschappelijk middenveld vertolkt. Hij schreef er onlangs een boek over met als titel Geopolítica de la Amazonia, Poder Hacendal-Patrimonial y Acumulación Capitalista.

Enige nuancering rond dit standpunt is hier toch zeker op zijn plaats. Bolivia moet op eigen (staats)benen staan en zich niet laten beïnvloeden door Noord-Amerikaanse mollen die via ngo’s aan stemmingmakerij in Bolivia doen. Dat is de houding van de regering-Morales, maar daarnaast is er ook middenveld actief dat een belangrijke rol speelt in de Boliviaanse politiek. Het is trouwens door de nieuwe sociale bewegingen dat Evo Morales zelf aan de macht is kunnen komen. 

Wat is de motor van het maatschappelijk leven? De vrije markt of de staat? Dat was de vraag die zich tussen 1985 en 2006 in Bolivia stelde. Er is intussen nog een belangrijke derde speler opgedoken die niet zo goed past in dat schema en dat zijn precies die nieuwe sociale bewegingen, die, naast oudere spelers als de vakbonden, mee het maatschappelijk middenveld gaan bevolken. Die bewegingen van onderuit zijn een nieuwe, krachtige, maar soms onberekenbare factor. Hoe verhouden die nieuwe sociale bewegingen waaruit de MAS, de nieuwe partij van Evo Morales, is gegroeid zich tot de huidige Boliviaanse staat? Schakelen zij zich in het proceso de cambio in, zoals het in Bolivia wordt genoemd? Is er sprake van onderlinge samenwerking of eerder van een spanningsveld tussen de verzuchtingen van onderuit en de leidinggevenden van een nieuwe plurinationale staat in opbouw? Anders gesteld: geeft Evo Morales invulling aan de regeringsslogan gobernar obediciendo (gehoorzamend (aan het volk) regeren)?

Dat zijn ook de vragen die de Antwerpse econoom Johan Bastiaensen bezig houden. Samen met enkele medewerkers onderzocht hij hoe nieuw linkse regeringen in Latijns-Amerika - Bolivia, Ecuador en Nicaragua - omspringen met initiatieven van microkredieten die ontstaan in het maatschappelijk middenveld. (1) De onderzoekers constateren dat microfinanciering, hoewel het macro economisch niet zoveel voorstelt, toch ontzettend veel mensen bereikt. Voor 2008 gaat het in het totaal om ongeveer 13 miljoen leningen voor een totaal bedrag van 13,9 miljard dollar en 13,4 miljoen spaarrekeningen met een spaarvolume van 9 miljard dollar.
Bolivia is een pionier in microfinanciering. Bijna een derde van het geldverkeer gaat via microfinanciering die bijna zeventig procent van de Bolivianen bereikt.
Toch bestaat er volgens de onderzoekers een eerder ambigue verhouding tussen die sector en de MAS-regering. Ogenschijnlijk zou er geen vuiltje aan de lucht mogen zijn, want de reden van bestaan van een linkse regering en van microfinanciering is dezelfde: de levensvoorwaarden van de armsten en uitgeslotenen verbeteren. Ten dele kan die ambiguïteit te maken hebben met wantrouwen ten aanzien van buitenlandse ngo’s, zoals de USAID, maar ook ten aanzien van internationale organisaties als het IMF en de Wereldbank die eerder een neoliberale politiek promootten, maar nu ook microfinanciering zijn beginnen ondersteunen. In 2011 zag ik in de grote steden van het land de ene protestbetoging na de andere. Bolivianen hebben een strijdtraditie en eisen gemakkelijk de straat op. Wil Morales de kritische ondersteuning van de nieuwe sociale bewegingen behouden dan zal hij inhoud moeten geven aan gobernar obediciendo.

“De hoop voor Bolivia is dat de echte brandstof voor verandering niet het gas is of de regering, maar het Boliviaanse volk zelf. In de woorden van Néstor Salinas die zijn broer verloor in de gasoorlog van 2003: “Regeringen komen en gaan, maar de herinnering van het volk blijft.” Dat schrijft de Amerikaanse activist Jim ‘Jaime’ Shultz, die jarenlang in Cochabamba woonde en het proceso de cambio van nabij heeft gevolgd.(2)
Nieuw links in Latijns-Amerika heeft afstand genomen van het verticale en centralistische voorhoedemodel, maar is nu op zoek naar een nieuwe grammatica van links waarin de realisering van een meer participatieve democratie moet voorop staan. In die nieuwe politieke grammatica zal Evo Morales ruim rekening moeten houden met de nieuwe sociale bewegingen.

Bolivia en Ecuador

rafcorrea

Niet alles wat op dit ogenblik in het Boliviaans maatschappelijk middenveld beweegt, is geïnspireerd vanuit de Verenigde Staten. Laat dat duidelijk zijn. Er zijn ook kritische krachten van onderuit aanwezig die niet op een hoopje met het ‘yankee-imperialisme’ mogen worden gegooid. Dat refrein klinkt soms wat te simplistisch en kan zelfs politiek geïnspireerd zijn om de MAS-positie te versterken. Schouder aan schouder tegen een gemeenschappelijke vijand ageren om de eigen innerlijke tegenstellingen te kunnen overbruggen is een beproefde strategie. Toch mogen we zeker niet blind zijn voor de slagschaduw van de Verenigde Staten die weliswaar minder dan enkele decennia geleden, toch nog steeds aanwezig blijft in Latijns-Amerika en dan zeker in die landen die een totaal andere koers beginnen varen. Het zal dus wel niet toevallig  zijn dat zowel het Bolivia onder Morales als het Ecuador onder Rafael Correa in botsing komen met de Verenigde Staten.

Ook tussen Ecuador en de Verenigde Staten is de spanning om te snijden. In april 2011 volgde Correa het voorbeeld van Evo Morales en zette de Amerikaanse ambassadeur Heather Hodges aan de deur. De reactie kwam prompt: de Ecuadoraanse ambassadeur Luis Gallegos werd door Washington persona non grata verklaard. Aan de basis lagen alweer berichten van Wikileaks die op 10 juli 2009 werden overgenomen door de Spaanse krant El País. Wikileaks maakte een rapport van Heather Hodges bekend over zogenaamde corruptie binnen het nationaal politiecorps onder leiding van generaal Jaime Hurtado die door Rafael Correa werd aangesteld, wetende dat Hurtado corruptieve handelingen stelde. Dat was een nummertje vuilspuiterij eerste klas. Wikileaks berichtte ook dat de VS over informatie beschikte die alleen van binnen het politiecorps kon komen. De VS beschikten binnen de UIES (Unidad de Investigaciones Especiales) en binnen de antinarcoticabrigade al geruime tijd vóór Correa over haar mannetjes. Het is wel duidelijk dat de VS boter op het hoofd hadden, want de Amerikaanse ambassadrice verwaardigde zich niet te antwoorden op de grond van de zaak omdat het ‘over gestolen documenten’ ging. In een persmededeling deelde de Amerikaanse ambassade in 2011 mee dat Ecuador in 2010 nog 70 miljoen dollar ontving waarvan 18 miljoen naar antinarcotica activiteiten ging, ongeveer 4 miljoen naar ‘democratie’ en good governance, ongeveer 10 miljoen voor economische groei en 450.000 dollar voor de bestrijding van terrorisme. En dat zou allemaal wegvallen.

Op eigen benen

Een zelfde chantagetactiek werd ook gevolgd door USAID bij de uitwijzing uit Bolivia. De financiële steun van de Verenigde Staten zou kunnen wegvallen en dat zou pijn gaan doen voor de kleine man, zo beweert de organisatie. In 2008, voor de uitwijzing van de Amerikaanse ambassadeur, bedroeg de USAID-steun nog 131 miljoen dollar voor Bolivia. In 2011 was dat nog maar 96 miljoen dollar en na de regeringsbeslissing van Morales zal dat bedrag nog wel verder afnemen.

Zal dit een erge aderlating betekenen voor Bolivia? Als we naar de macro economische gegevens van dat land in de laatste jaren kijken dat moet men dat kunnen opvangen. Verlies van USAID-gelden zou jammer zijn, maar niet onoverkomelijk. Zeven jaar op rij, de regeringsperiode van Morales, scoort Bolivia  goed. Er wordt ook een groei van 5,5 procent verwacht voor 2013. Volgens Boliviaanse gegevens heeft Bolivia sinds het nationaliseren van de energiesector in 2006 meer dan 16 miljard dollar geïncasseerd.

“Zeven jaar voor de nationalisatie, van 1999 tot 2005, bedroeg dat totale bedrag slechts een twee miljard dollar,” zei minister Juan José Sosa. Investeringen in de energiesector verdrievoudigde tussen 2006 en 2012 van 1,8 miljard tot 5,2 miljard dollar. Dat maakte het staatsbedrijf YPFB onlangs bekend.

Hoewel er nog een lange weg af te leggen valt, zijn die cijfers toch bemoedigend. Ze maken dat Bolivia minder afhankelijk wordt van USAID’s en andere organisaties die niet alleen geld, maar vooral stokken in de wielen komen steken van een staat die zich probeert los te maken van de neoliberale dictaten waaraan het tot vóór Morales onderworpen was.

Noten:

(1) Florent Bédécarrats, Johan Bastiaensen en François Doligez, Coo-optation, cooperation or competition ? Microfinance and the new left in Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 33, No 1, pp. 143-161

(2) Jim Shultz en Melissa Crane Draper, Dignity and defiance, stories from Bolivia’s challence
to globalization, Berkeley, 2009, p. 114.

mercredi, 24 avril 2013

Le culte de l’Amérique en Europe

Emrah Kaynak:

Le culte de l’Amérique en Europe

Ex: http://aucoeurdunationalisme.blogspot.com/

 

Le culte de l’Amérique en Europe
Le rapport que l’Europe entretient avec les États-Unis ressemble à s’y méprendre au rapport traditionnel métropole-colonie à ceci près que la colonie d’antan s’est muée en modèle-type universel. Le moindre événement qui a lieu aux États-Unis a une projection hors norme dans le Vieux Continent. Un attentat engendre trois morts outre-Atlantique et aussitôt le plan Vigipirate est renforcé en France ; un cyclone s’apprête à toucher la côte est des Etats-Unis, après avoir dévasté les Caraïbes, et c’est toute l’Europe qui retient son souffle.

La double explosion qui a frappé le marathon de Boston a joui d’une exposition médiatique extraordinaire : éditions spéciales dans les journaux télévisés et dans la presse écrite. Un événement similaire dans un pays périphérique n’aurait très certainement pas joui du même écho. A l’inverse, les États-Unis sont recroquevillés sur leur société et font très peu cas de ce qui se passe au-delà de leurs frontières, hormis lorsque leurs intérêts directs sont en cause.

Ce qui est nommé fâcheusement « mondialisation » n’est en réalité que la propagation virale de la culture consumériste étasunienne et de son corrélat moral dans le reste du monde. Ce qui se déroule aux états-Unis préfigure très souvent ce qui se passera d’ici peu en Europe : combat entre le moderne (néo-libéralisme anglo-américain) contre l’ancien, le dépassé (modèle social européen). Sarkozy, qui faisait du jogging à New-York affublé d’un T-shirt NYPD, incarne à merveille cette dévotion infantile pour l’Oncle Sam. En son temps, il déclarait au Journal Le Monde : « J’aime l’énergie et la fluidité de l’Amérique. Ce sentiment que tout est possible. Cette impression - peut être artificielle - que des sagas sont possibles, qu’on peut partir du bas de l’échelle et monter très haut, ou bien le contraire ». (1)

La sujétion européenne est non seulement politique mais aussi économique et intellectuelle. La politique étrangère européenne est déjà sous tutelle, alors que le marché européen n’est déjà plus qu’un comptoir de marchandises étasuniennes. L’UE est la terre d’accueil la plus importante du monde pour les marchandises, les services et les capitaux en provenance des États-Unis.

L’Angleterre, la France, l’Allemagne qui étaient les incubateurs des courants de pensée avant-gardistes, se contentent de plus en plus de décalquer les concepts et idées marqués du sceau étasunien . Tout ce qui est estampillé États-Unis, par rapport à n’importe lequel de ses équivalents, représente per se une valeur ajoutée. Que ce soit en nouvelles technologies (Apple, Microsoft, Google, Facebook…), en vêtements (Nike), en productions culturelles de masse (cinéma, série TV, musique,…), en boissons et en produits alimentaires (Coca-cola, Mc Donald,…), le Made in USA bénéficie d’une attractivité sans égal (2).

« Le théâtre, les jeux, les farces, les spectacles, les gladiateurs, les bêtes curieuses, les médailles, les tableaux et autres drogues de cette espèce étaient pour les peuples anciens les appâts de la servitude, le prix de leur liberté ravie, les outils de la tyrannie. Ce moyen, cette pratique, ces allèchements étaient ceux qu’employaient les anciens tyrans pour endormir leurs sujets sous leur joug. Ainsi les peuples abrutis, trouvant beaux tout ces passe-temps, amusés d’un vain plaisir qui les éblouissait, s’habituaient à servir aussi niaisement mais plus mal que les enfants n’apprennent à lire avec des images brillantes » avisait déjà Étienne de La Boétie. (3)

Cette acculturation psychologique s’exprime de la manière la plus éclatante par l’anglomanie butée qui sévit autant dans les couches populaires qu’au sein des élites dirigeantes (4). Publicitaires, journalistes, scientifiques, hommes politiques recourent abusivement à l’anglais qui est censé conférer un surcroît de sérieux à leurs propos. L’anglais est en passe de devenir une véritable « supralangue » qui relègue toutes autres langues au rang de dialecte régional. La langue n’est pas simplement un vecteur de communication ; il s’agit en outre d’un objet idéologique qui traduit une certaine « cosmovision » c’est-à-dire une appréhension générale de l’existence.

L’onde du culte de l’Amérique, l’idée que c’est le meilleur pays au monde, s’étend à l’Europe entière et au reste du monde. Après les événements du 11 septembre 2001, l’Europe avait proclamé ses affinités électives avec les États-Unis sous l’aphorisme « nous sommes tous américains ». Cette déclaration de soumission s’est concrétisée et s’est même intensifiée ces dernières années dans les faits et dans les esprits. La conversion à la culture usaméricaine, au néo-libéralisme, à l’esprit du temps, contraint malheureusement les masses à l’aliénation et à l’encerclement de l’imaginaire.

Emrah Kaynak

Notes :

(1) http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2006/09/09/nicolas-sar...

(2) Cette Amérique qu’on aime, Thierry Fiorilli, http://archives.lesoir.be/cette-amerique-qu-8217-on-aime-823....

(3) Etienne de la Boétie, Discours de la servitude volontaire, 1574.

(4) L’anglomanie en Belgique francophone,
http://correspo.ccdmd.qc.ca/Corr16-3/Anglomanie.html.

mardi, 09 avril 2013

Eté 1942, hiver 2010 : un échange

Eté 1942, hiver 2010 : un échange

Par Michael O'Meara

English original here [2]

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

medium_heidegger_index.jpgDurant l’été 1942 – alors que les Allemands étaient au sommet de leur puissance, totalement inconscients de l’approche de la tempête de feu qui allait transformer leur pays natal en enfer – le philosophe Martin Heidegger écrivit (pour un cours prévu à Freiberg) les lignes suivantes, que je prends dans la traduction anglaise connue sous le titre de Hölderlin’s Hymn “The Ister”: [1]

« Le monde anglo-saxon de l’américanisme » – notait Heidegger dans une note à son examen nationaliste/ontologique de son bien-aimé Hölderlin – « a résolu d’anéantir l’Europe, c’est-à-dire la patrie, et cela signifie : [il a résolu d’anéantir] le commencement du monde occidental. »

En anéantissant le commencement (les origines ou la naissance de l’être européen) – et ainsi en anéantissant le peuple dont le sang coulait dans les veines américaines – les Européens du Nouveau Monde, sans le savoir, détruisaient l’essence de leur propre existence – en désavouant leurs origines – en dénigrant la source de leur forme de vie, en se déniant ainsi à eux-mêmes la possibilité d’un avenir.

« Tout ce qui a un commencement est indestructible. »

Les Américains scellaient leur propre destruction en s’attaquant à leur commencement – en tranchant les racines de leur être.

Mais l’Europe – cette synergie unique de sang et d’esprit – ne peut pas être tuée, car son essence, nous dit Heidegger, est le « commencement » – l’originel – le renouvellement – la  perpétuelle refondation et réaffirmation de l’être.

Ainsi, l’Europe resurgit toujours inévitablement – assise sur son taureau, elle resurgit des  eaux, qui la recouvrent lorsqu’elle plonge avec intrépidité dans ce qui est à venir.

Sa dernière position est par conséquent toujours la première – un autre commencement – lorsqu’elle avance vers ses origines – renouvelant l’être non-corrompu de son commencement – lorsqu’elle s’authentifie dans la plénitude d’un avenir qui lui permet de commencer encore et encore.

* * *

L’opposé est vrai aussi.

L’anéantissement de son commencement par l’Amérique lui a révélé son propre manque inhérent de commencement.

Depuis le début, son projet fut de rejeter ses origines européennes – de désavouer l’être qui l’avait faite ce qu’elle était –, quand ses colons évangélistes adoptèrent la métaphore des Deux Mondes, l’Ancien et le Nouveau.

Pour Heidegger, « l’entrée [de l’Amérique] dans cette guerre planétaire n’est pas [son] entrée dans l’histoire ; au contraire, c’est déjà l’ultime acte américain d’a-historicité et d’auto-destruction ».

Pour avoir émergé, conçue de manière immaculée, des jérémiades de sa Mission Puritaine, l’Amérique s’est définie par un rejet de son passé, par un rejet de ses origines, par un rejet de son fondement le plus ontologique – comme si elle regardait vers l’ouest, vers le soleil couchant et la frontière toujours mouvante de son avenir sans racines et fuyant, mythiquement légitimé au nom d’un « Rêve américain » né de l’éthique protestante et de l’esprit du capitalisme.

Les Américains, l’homo oeconomicus rationnel, sans racines et uniforme qui domine aujourd’hui ne s’est jamais soucié de regarder devant lui parce qu’il n’a jamais regardé derrière lui. Passé et futur, racines et branches – tout cela a été déraciné et coupé.

Pas de mémoire, pas de passé, pas de sens.

Au nom du progrès – que Friedrich Engels imaginait comme un « char cruel passant sur des amas de corps brisés » –, l’être américain se dissout dans sa marche désordonnée vers le gouffre béant.

Mais bien que ce soit d’une manière indirecte, c’est à partir de la matrice européenne que les Américains entrèrent dans le monde, et c’est seulement en affirmant l’être européen de leur Patrie et de leur Lignée qu’ils pouvaient s’enraciner dans leur « Nouveau » Monde – sans succomber aux barbares et aux fellahs étrangers à la Mère-Patrie et à la Culture des Ancêtres.

Au lieu de cela, les fondateurs de l’Amérique entreprirent de rejeter leur Mère. Ils la traitèrent d’égyptienne ou de babylonienne, et prirent leur identité d’« élus », de « choisis », de « lumière des nations » chez les nomades de l’Ancien Testament, étrangers aux grandes forêts de nos terres nordiques, envieux de nos femmes aux yeux bleus et aux cheveux clairs, et révulsés par les hautes voûtes de nos cathédrales gothiques.

L’abandon de leur être originel unique fit des Américains les éternels champions de l’amélioration du monde, les champions idéologiques de l’absurdité consumériste, la première grande « nation » du nihilisme.

* * *

Pendant que Heidegger préparait son cours, des dizaines de milliers de chars, de camions et de pièces d’artillerie commençaient à faire mouvement de Detroit à Mourmansk, puis vers le front de l’Est.

Quelque temps plus tard, le feu commença à tomber du haut du ciel – le feu portant la malédiction de Cromwell et les idées de terre brûlée de Sherman –, le feu qui transforma les familles allemandes en cendres, avec leurs belles églises, leurs musées splendides, leurs quartiers ouvriers densément peuplés et d’une propreté éclatante, leurs bibliothèques anciennes et leurs laboratoires de pointe.

La forêt qui a besoin d’un millier d’années pour s’épanouir périt en une seule nuit dans le feu du phosphore.

Il faudrait longtemps – le moment n’est pas encore venu – avant que les Allemands, le Peuple du Milieu, le centre de l’être européen, se relèvent de leurs ruines, aujourd’hui plus spirituelles que matérielles.

* * *

B17G.jpg

Heidegger ne savait pas qu’une tempête apocalyptique était sur le point de détruire son Europe.

Mais suspecta-t-il du moins que le Führer avait fourvoyé l’Allemagne dans une guerre qu’elle ne pouvait pas gagner ? Que non seulement l’Allemagne, mais aussi l’Europe s’opposant aux forces anglo-américaines de Mammon serait détruite ?

* * *

« L’esprit caché du commencement en Occident n’aura même pas un regard de mépris pour cette épreuve d’autodestruction sans commencement, mais attendra que son heure stellaire surgisse de la sérénité et de la tranquillité qui appartiennent au commencement. »

Une Europe réveillée et renaissante promet donc de répudier la trahison de soi accomplie par l’Amérique – l’Amérique, cette stupide idée européenne baignant dans l’hubris des Lumières, et qui devra être oubliée (comme un squelette de famille) quand l’Europe se réaffirmera.

Mais en 1942, Heidegger ne savait pas que des Européens, et même des Allemands, trahiraient bientôt en faveur des Américains, que les Churchill, les Adenauer, les Blum – les lèche-bottes de l’Europe – monteraient au sommet de la pyramide yankee de l’après-guerre, pyramide conçue pour écraser toute idée de nation, de culture et de destin.

C’est la tragédie de l’Europe.

* * *

Dès que l’Europe se réveillera – elle le fera un jour –, elle se réaffirmera et se défendra, ne se laissera plus distraire par le brillant et le clinquant de l’Amérique, ne se laissera plus intimider par ses bombes H et ses missiles guidés, comprenant enfin clairement que toutes ces distractions hollywoodiennes dissimulent un vide immense – ses incessants exercices de consumérisme insensé.

Par conséquent, incapable d’un recommencement, s’étant dénié elle-même un commencement, la mauvaise idée que l’Amérique est devenue se désintégrera probablement, dans les temps de feu et d’acier qui approchent, en parties disparates.

A ce moment, les Américains blancs seront appelés, en tant qu’Européens du Nouveau Monde, à réaffirmer leur « droit » à une patrie en Amérique du Nord – pour qu’ici ils puissent au moins avoir un endroit pour être ce qu’ils sont.

S’ils devaient réussir dans cette entreprise apparemment irréalisable, ils fonderont la nation – ou les nations – américaine(s) pour la première fois non pas comme le simulacre universaliste que les francs-maçons et les déistes concoctèrent en 1776, mais comme la pulsation du sang du destin américain de l’Europe.

« Nous pensons seulement à moitié ce qui est historique dans l’histoire, c’est-à-dire que nous ne le pensons pas du tout, si nous calculons l’histoire et son ampleur en termes de longueur… de ce qui a été, plutôt qu’attendre ce qui vient et ce qui est dans le futur. »

Le commencement, en tant que tel, est « ce qui vient et ce qui est dans le futur », ce qui est l’« historique dans l’histoire », ce qui remonte le plus loin dans le passé et qui surgit loin dans le futur en cours de dévoilement – comme la charge d’infanterie manquée de Pickett à Gettysburg, dont Faulkner nous a dit qu’elle devait être tentée encore et encore, jusqu’à ce qu’elle réussisse.

* * *

« Nous nous trouvons au commencement de la véritable historicité, c’est-à-dire de l’action dans le domaine de l’essentiel, seulement quand nous sommes capables d’attendre ce qui nous est destiné. »

« Ce qui nous est destiné » – cette affirmation de nous-mêmes –, affirme Heidegger, ne viendra que si nous défions la conformité, les conventions, et le conditionnement artificiel pour réaliser l’être européen, dont le destin est le seul à être nôtre.

A ce moment, si nous devions réussir à rester debout, de la manière dont nos ancêtres le firent, nous atteindrons devant nous et au-delà ce qui commence par chaque affirmation futuriste de ce que nous sommes, nous Européens-Américains.

Cette affirmation, cependant, ne sera pas « sans action ni pensée, en laissant les choses venir et passer… [mais] quelque chose qui se tient devant nous, quelque chose se tenant dans ce qui est indestructible (à quoi le voisinage désolé appartient, comme une vallée à une montagne) ».

Car désolation il y aura – dans ce combat attendant notre race – dans cet avenir destiné conservant avec défi une grandeur qui ne rompt pas en pliant dans la tempête, une grandeur certaine de venir avec la fondation d’une nation européenne en Amérique du Nord, une grandeur dont je crains souvent que nous ne l’ayons plus en nous-mêmes et que nous devons donc appeler par les ardents rites guerriers qui étaient jadis dédiés aux anciens dieux célestes aryens, aussi éloignés ou fictionnels qu’ils puissent être devenus.

–Hiver 2010

  Note

1. Martin Heidegger, Hölderlin’s Hymn ‘The Ister’, trans W. McNeill and J. Davis (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1996), p. 54ff.


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

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/12/ete-1942-hiver-2010-un-echange/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/heideggerwoodpath.jpg

[2] here: http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/09/summer-1942-winter-2010-an-exchange/

lundi, 25 mars 2013

L'ENVOL D'UNE PUISSANCE

L'ENVOL D'UNE PUISSANCE

Méridien Zéro a reçu Sylvain Roussillon pour évoquer avec lui l'importance historique de la guerre anglo-américaine de 1812-1814 dans la fondation de la puissance des Etats-Unis.

guerre anglo-américaine, 1814, colonisation, empire anglais

Pour écouter:

http://www.meridien-zero.com/archive/2013/02/16/emission-n-132-l-envol-d-une-puissance.html

samedi, 23 mars 2013

Les anciens Romains connaissaient l’Amérique

Les anciens Romains connaissaient l’Amérique: de nouvelles preuves mises à jour

 

Un examen d’ADN démontre qu’il y avait des semences de tournesol dans les vestiges retrouvés dans l’épave d’un bateau coulé dans le Mer Tyrrhénéenne au II° siècle avant Jésus-Christ. Pourtant on croyait que cette fleur, vénérée par les Incas, avait été importée en Europe par les conquistadores...

 

copertina_romani_II.jpgEn somme, on peut croire désormais que bien avant les Vikings, les Romains fréquentaient le continent américain. De nouveaux indices archéologiques convaincants semblent confirmer désormais que les navires romains entretenaient des relations commerciales avec l’Amérique. Elio Cadelo, vulgarisateur scientifique, l’a annoncé lors d’une conférence tenue en marge d’une conférence de presse à Bologne portant sur la série cinématographique archéologique “Storie del Passato”. Le documentaire “Quand les Romains allaient en Amérique” dévoile des choses surprenantes sur les anciennes routes de navigation.

 

Un indice fort probant nous est fourni par une analyse ADN de résidus d’origine végétale (appartenant à une pharmacie du bord) retrouvés dans les restes d’une épave romaine, récupérés le long de la côte toscane. Le naufrage du navire a dû avoir lieu entre 140 et 120 avant JC quand Rome, après avoir détruit Carthage, était devenue la seule superpuissance de la Méditerranée. Sur ce malheureux bateau devait se trouver un médecin, dont le matériel professionnel a pu être retrouvé quasi intact dans l’épave: il y avait là des fioles, des bendelettes, des outils chirurgicaux et des petites boîtes, encore fermées, qui contenaient des pastilles magnifiquement bien conservées et qui constituent aujourd’hui des éléments très précieux pour connaître la pharmacopée de l’antiquité classique.

 

Les nouvelles analyses des fragments d’ADN provenant des végétaux contenus dans les pastilles “ont confirmé l’utilisation, déjà observée, de plusieurs plantes pharmaceutiques, mais deux d’entre elles ont plongé les archéologues dans la perplexité”, a expliqué Cadelo lors de sa communication de Bologne, organisée par “Ancient World Society”. En effet, “on y trouvait de l’ibiscus, qui ne pouvait provenir que de l’Inde ou de l’Ethiopie, et, surtout, des graines de tournesol”.

 

D’après les connaissances communément admises jusqu’ici, le tournesol n’est arrivé en Europe qu’après la conquête espagnole des Amériques. Le premier à avoir décrit la fleur de tournesol fut le conquistador du Pérou, Francisco Pizzaro, qui racontait aussi que les Incas la vénéraient comme l’image de leur divinité solaire. On sait aussi que cette fleur, de dimensions imposantes et fascinante, était cultivée dans les Amériques depuis le début du premier millénaire avant notre ère. Mais on n’en avait trouvé aucune trace dans le Vieux Monde, avant son introduction par les marchands qui furent les premiers à fréquenter les “terres à peine violées” par les conquistadores ibériques.

 

Une autre curiosité s’ajoute à de nombreuses autres, que nous explique le livre de Cadelo qui dresse l’inventaire des trafics commerciaux antiques, inconnus jusqu’ici. Ainsi, cette surprenante découverte d’un bijou raffiné en verre recouvert de feuilles d’or provenant d’ateliers romains de l’ère impériale que l’on a retrouvé dans une tombe princière japonaise, non loin de Kyoto. Il s’agit d’une pièce de verroterie rehaussée d’or que des marchands marins romains emportaient avec eux pour en faire des objets d’échange. Mais on ne doit pas nécessairement penser que ce furent des marchands romains qui l’apportèrent au Japon; ce bijou a très bien pu être échangé en d’autres lieux avant d’arriver en Extrême-Orient. Par ailleurs, on a retrouvé des monnaies romaines lors de fouilles en Corée et même en Nouvelle Zélande. D’autres preuves de la présence en Amérique de navires phéniciens ou romains avaient été décrites dans la première édition du livre de Cadelo, où, entre autres choses, l’auteur dénonce notre ignorance absolue des connaissances astronomiques de nos ancêtres: par exemple, il y a, dans la “Naturalis Historia” de Pline l’Ancien une page peu lue où le naturaliste antique explique que le mouvement de rotation de la Terre autour de son propre axe peut se démontrer par le lever et le coucher du soleil toutes les vingt-quatre heures (près d’un millénaire et demi avant Copernic...). Et Aristote disait être certain que l’on pouvait atteindre l’Inde en naviguant vers l’Ouest: si Christophe Colomb avait pu monter cette page d’Aristote aux Rois catholiques d’Espagne, il se serait épargné bien du mal à les convaincre de lui confier trois caravelles.

 

(article trouvé sur le site du quotidien italien “Il Giornale”; http://www.ilgiornale.it/ ).

jeudi, 14 mars 2013

Gli antichi Romani conoscevano l'America

Gli antichi Romani conoscevano l'America, arrivano nuove prove

L'esame del Dna dimostra che ci sono anche semi di girasole nelle pastiglie ritrovate nel relitto di una nave affondata nel Tirreno nel II secolo avanti Cristo. Ma il fiore venerato dagli inca non era stato portato in Europa dai Conquistadores?

Ex: http://www.ilgiornale.it/ 

Insomma, molto prima dei vichinghi, i romani frequentarono l'America. Emergono nuovi, convincenti indizi archeologici sulle antiche frequentazioni commerciali delle Americhe da parte di navi romane: li ha illustrati, in una conferenza a margine della rassegna bolognese di cinema archeologico «Storie dal Passato», il divulgatore scientifico Elio Cadelo, con un'ampia anteprima della nuova edizione del suo libro «Quando i Romani andavano in America», ricco di sorprendenti rivelazioni sulle antiche rotte di navigazione.
Un indizio dalla robusta forza probatoria si deve alle nuove analisi del Dna dei farmaci fitoterapici rinvenuti in un relitto romano recuperato alle coste toscane: il naufragio avvenne a causa di una tempesta fra il 140 e il 120 avanti Cristo, quando Roma, distrutta Cartagine, era ormai la sola superpotenza del Mediterraneo. Su quella sfortunata nave viaggiava anche un medico, il cui corredo professionale ci è stato restituito dal relitto: fiale, bende, ferri chirurgici e scatolette che, ancora chiuse, contenevano pastiglie molto ben conservate, preziosissime per la conoscenza della farmacopea nell'antichità classica.


Le nuove analisi dei frammenti di Dna dei vegetali contenuti in quelle pastiglie «hanno confermato l'uso, già noto, di molte piante officinali, tranne due che - ha spiegato Cadelo nella sua relazione alla Rassegna, organizzata da Ancient World Society - hanno destato forte perplessità fra gli studiosi: l'ibisco, che poteva solo provenire da India o Etiopia, e, soprattutto, i semi di girasole».


Ma il girasole, secondo le cognizioni fino a ora accettate, arrivò in Europa solo dopo la conquista spagnola delle Americhe: il primo a descriverlo fu il conquistador del Perù Francisco Pizarro, raccontando che gli Inca lo veneravano come l'immagine della loro divinità solare. Di quel fiore imponente e affascinante, poi, si seppe che era coltivato nelle Americhe fin dall'inizio del primo millennio avanti Cristo. Ma ancora non se n'era trovata alcuna traccia nel Vecchio Mondo, prima della sua introduzione a opera dei mercanti per primi frequentarono le terre appena «violate» dai conquistadores iberici.


È questo un altro tassello che si aggiunge ai moltissimi altri, spiegati nel libro di Cadelo, che documentano traffici commerciali insospettati: come il sorprendente rinvenimento - altra novità - di raffinati gioielli in vetro con foglie d'oro, provenienti da botteghe romane di età imperiale: erano in una tomba principesca giapponese, non lontano da Kyoto. Si tratta di perline che i mercanti navali romani portavano spesso con sé, come oggetto di scambio. Ma non è necessario pensare che fossero proprio romani, i mercanti che le portarono fino in Giappone: quei gioielli potrebbero essere stati scambiati anche su altri approdi, prima di arrivare in Estremo Oriente. Peraltro, monete romane sono state restituite da scavi effettuati anche in Corea e perfino in Nuova Zelanda. Altre prove delle antiche frequentazioni navali americane di Fenici e Romani sono già descritte nella prima edizione del libro di Cadelo, dove - fra l'altro - si sfatano alcune sconcertanti nostre ignoranze sulle cognizioni astronomiche dei nostri antenati: per esempio, c'è una poco frequentata pagina della «Naturalis Historia» di Plinio il Vecchio dove si spiega che il moto di rotazione della Terra attorno al proprio asse è dimostrato dal sorgere e tramontare del Sole ogni 24 ore (un millennio e mezzo prima di Copernico). E Aristotele si diceva certo che fosse possibile raggiungere l'India navigando verso ovest: se Cristoforo Colombo avesse potuto esibire quella pagina aristotelica, si sarebbe risparmiato tanta fatica durata a convincere i regnanti di Spagna a concedergli le tre caravelle.

samedi, 02 mars 2013

Die USA – ein globales Verhängnis

uss6796435013_bbce2f0599.jpg

Die USA – ein globales Verhängnis

 

Das ist einigermaßen einleuchtend. Die Führer der USA  inszenieren seit 1945 Staatsstreiche, organisieren Überfälle und führen versteckt oder offen Angriffskriege, für die sie vor sieben Jahrzehnten vor dem Nürnberger Kriegsverbrecher-Tribunal angeklagt geworden wären. Nicht ganz nebenbei auch noch beschuldigt der  versuchten und tatsächlichen Ermordung von Staatsführern.                                                                         

Zwar geht es der  politischen und ökonomischen US-Elite nicht, wie etwa den Nationalsozialisten, auch um Lebensraum, aber dafür umso mehr um die Sicherung der  ökonomischen Interessen ihres Landes, d. h. ihrer Konzerne, bei gleichzeitiger Ausschaltung von Konkurrenten oder Störenfriede. Auch wenn, in unvermeidbarer Zusammenarbeit mit Israel, dadurch zusehends der Weltfriede gefährdet wird.

Nun ist diese Art von Machtpolitik nichts Neues, auch Satrapen und tributpflichtige Länder hat es immer wieder gegeben. Daß aber die unterworfenen, vor allem europäischen Völker ihrem Los in Ketten freiwillig und scheinbar demokratisch zustimmen, ist schon eher eine Errungenschaft zumindest der  Moderne, die, zugegeben, auch so manchen und so manchem Komfort zu bieten hat. Aber es bewahrheitet sich eben, daß, nach Marie Ebner von Eschenbach, die  glücklichen Sklaven zugleich die erbittertsten Feinde der Freiheit sein können. Nun, ganz so glücklich scheinen sie aber nicht mehr zu sein.

Und auch andere hadern inzwischen mit dem einstigen Vorbild der Coca-Cola-Generation, ja selbst  in Gottes  gelobtem Land der unbeschränkten Möglichkeiten machen sich, zwar noch vereinzelt, Zweifel und Ängste  breit. Erstmals hat die hoch verschuldete Supermacht ein Desaster zu befürchten, nachdem sie, einerseits, in argen ökonomischen und finanziellen Schwierigkeiten steckt und, andererseits, China zur größten Handelsnation aufgestiegen ist. Zudem sitzt Peking auf anwachsenden Gold-  und Rohstoffreserven, während im „goldenen“ Westen laufend die Währungen entwertet, die Sparer und Leistungsträger geplündert und die Autochthonen durch massive Einwanderung um ihre Heimat gebracht werden.

Mittlerweile tobt längst ein Finanzkrieg, der durch eine andernorts eingeleitete Umgehung der Weltleitwährung Dollar weiter angeheizt wird. So breitet sich im innerasiatischen Handel der  Yuan als Abrechnungswährung aus, während die Schwellenländer der sogenannten BRICS-Gruppe, Brasilien, Russland, Indien, China und  Südafrika, angeblich bereits an einer Entwicklungsbank arbeiten, die noch zu einer Konkurrenz für den Internationalen Währungsfonds heranwachsen könnte. Konzerne aus diesen Ländern rücken US-Multis ohnehin schön langsam auf den Pelz.

Die USA treten also in dieser Situation vermehrt die Flucht nach Vorne an und  kontern nach dem Motto „Wer nicht für uns ist, ist gegen uns“ mit aggressiver Außenpolitik. Rohstoffreiche oder  militärisch-strategisch wichtige Staaten, die nicht gewillt sind, das Spiel mitzumachen, versucht man über ferngesteuerte Revolutionen und direkte wie indirekte Interventionen auf Linie zu bringen oder kreist sie ein. Vielleicht demnächst Algerien mit seinen verstaatlichten Energiereserven.                                                         

Dabei ist es für Washington kaum von Bedeutung, ob, nach einer Intervention, der  neue Verbündete dann ein islamistisches Regime wie in Saudi Arabien oder ein „demokratisches“ wie in Jordanien ist.. Oder ob dabei zehntausende über die Klinge springen müssen.

Die Geschichte lehrt aber, daß auf diese Weise der Niedergang eines in vielfacher Hinsicht überforderten und geistig-moralisch absteigenden Imperiums nicht aufgehalten, sondern nur aufgeschoben werden kann. Und sie lehrt auch, daß die ihm bis zuletzt ergebenen Protektorate in vielen Fällen, wie hier schon einmal erwähnt, das gleiche Schicksal ereilen kann.  Mitgefangen, mitgehangen, eben.                                                                                    

Für Staaten wie Deutschland oder Österreich ergäbe sich daraus normalerweise nur eine Konsequenz: Rückführung der im Ausland lagernden Goldreserven, Abnabelung vom Dollar und, auf der Basis einer neuen Wirtschaftsordnung, verstärkte ökonomische und poltische Zusammenarbeit mit aufstrebenden Ländern in Asien, Afrika und Lateinamerika. Vorher müßte aber die EU in die Wüste geschickt werden.

jeudi, 10 janvier 2013

Typologie de la sécession aux USA

confed.jpg

Typologie de la sécession aux USA

Ex: http://www.dedefensa.org/

Ce n’est pas demain la veille, ni même l’avant-veille, que vous trouverez dans la presse-Système et dans ses satellites quelque élaboration que ce soit sur le thème de “la sécession” aux USA. Sans doute le terme est-il en passe de devenir l’équivalent, sinon pire, dans le registre de la diablerie-Système, que des termes tels que “isolationnisme”, “protectionnisme”, “souverainisme”, éventuellement “poutinisme” si cela existe, – sans citer les caves interdites de l’enfer, “racisme”, “fascisme”, “antisémitisme”, etc.

Le regain d’impopularité-Système du “sécessionnisme”, – pour “anoblir” l’idée de la connotation idéologique qui achèvera sa diabolisation, – tient aux pétitions en faveur de la sécession qui ont fleuri aussitôt après la réélection d’Obama. Vu la majesté du medium (la Maison-Blanche) qui enregistra ces actes, et ce qui parut être un certain engouement populaire pour le thème, la susdite presse-Système dut se fendre de quelques articles à ce propos, le plus tard possible certes.

• L’un d’entre eux est l’article paru le 10 décembre 2012, sur BBC.News, de Jon Kelly, qui nous démontre en quelques arguments joliment troussés mais peu sensibles aux réalités courantes que jamais les Américains n’ont été aussi heureux de vivre ensemble (« Unlike almost all of their Western counterparts, however, Americans appear remarkably happy to stay together despite their differences»). D’une façon générale, l’auguste station de radio et de télévision britannique en tient évidemment pour l’explication évidente et orwellienne par excellence : ceux qui font des pétitions pour la sécession n’ont aucun goût pour la sécession, – peut-être dirait-on même qu’ils en sont adversaires ? («Neil Caren, assistant professor of sociology at the University of North Carolina, who has carried out research into the signatories… “My reading would be that even among the people who signed these petitions, probably a majority wouldn't actually want secession,” he says. “It's like saying you'll move to Canada - it's about how you express your dissatisfaction in the immediate aftermath of the election.”»)

• Sur le nombre même de signature, l’article reconnaissait qu’il y en avait eu, pour pouvoir mieux constater que cela faisait fort peu, et si peu jusqu'au ridicule, constituant presque une forme de réaffirmation de l’Union. Kelly écrivait donc, mettant en évidence combien nous, en Europe, sommes bien plus menacés de sécessions diverses et complètement significatives de notre incapacité de seulement espérer figurer à la cheville ouvrière de la vertu américaniste :

«So far Texas, South Carolina, Georgia, Louisiana, Florida, Missouri, Tennessee, North Carolina, Alabama, Oklahoma and Ohio have all attracted more than 25,000 names apiece - entitling them an official response from the administration. In the context of the US population of 312 million, however, the numbers involved are minuscule. Some 700,000 people in total are estimated to have signed so far - around 0.2% of all Americans. Even Texas's 118,000 signatures - the most of any state - represent less than 0.5% of its inhabitants. These tiny figures actually set Americans apart from their counterparts in other major Western countries.»

Cela était écrit le 10 décembre 2012. Nous-mêmes écrivions, vingt-cinq jours plus tôt, le vendredi 16 novembre 2012, et selon des appréciations chiffrées qui semblaient indiquer que, depuis cette date et compte tenu du bilan à-la-Jon-Kelly, les signatures cessèrent brutalement, voire même régressèrent, ainsi que le nombre d’États de l’Union concernés… «Le 15 novembre 2012, le site Washington’s blog publiait une longue analyse du mouvement, donnant surtout des détails chiffrés, des déclarations, des appréciations, etc., ainsi que les détails des diverses pétitions embrassant les cinquante États de l’Union. Russia Today en donnait également une appréciation le même 15 novembre 2012. Au travers de ces diverses sources, on peut apprécier l’ampleur, le rythme du mouvement, son sérieux, etc… A 18H00, mercredi [14 novembre], le cap des 675.000 signatures électroniques pour toutes les pétitions était dépassé (selon Washington.blog). A minuit, ce même mercredi on atteignait 703.326 signatures (selon Russia Today). Alex Jones, de Infowars.Com, affirmait, dans son émission du jeudi soir [15 novembre], que le million de signatures avait été dépassé. (A ce moment, la pétition du Texas atteignait 107.000 signatures.)»

• Essayons d’être sérieux… Le fait est que les sites intéressés par le mouvement (laissons la presse-Système hors de cela, dans son enclos) ont en général le rythme Internet et passent aisément d’un sujet l’autre, d’autant que les sujets nous pressent. (Dès le 14 novembre, l’attaque de Gaza, dite “Pilier Défense”, commençait à enterrer les affaires américanistes dans le swing de l’accélération de l’Histoire, – réélection de BHO, affaire Petraeus, affaire des pétitions…) Ils savaient évidemment que cette affaire de pétitions était une bonne action de communication, mais qu’elle n’irait pas jusqu’à provoquer une sécession. Donc, on était passé à autre chose et l’article de BBC.News vient à son heure, comme un retour de flamme sur une peur rétrospective du Système, sur une affaire d’ores et déjà oubliée et sur laquelle on peut désormais gloser à loisir et fort sarcastiquement, en la qualifiant de “minuscule”… Puis, tout récemment, voilà qu’Infowars.com, l’un des initiateurs des pétitions-sécession, revient sur le sujet, sous les plumes d’Alex Jones et de Joseph Watson. Les deux hommes protestent contre le sort qui serait fait à une pétition lancée par eux-mêmes pour “déporter” Piers Morgan, le Britannique du Daily Mirror passé à CNN et qui, selon Jones-Watson, a attaqué d’une façon inacceptable les droits constitutionnels des citoyens US en demandant une réglementation de fer sur la vente des armes, suite au massacre de Newtown. Mais tout le monde, à Washington où l’on sauve le sort du monde en déplaçant le bord de la “falaise fiscale” de quelques centimètres, rit de cette pétition (voir The Australian du 2 janvier 2013) ; et Jones-Watson ne se font aucun illusion et citent, ce 27 décembre 2012, le précédent des pétitions sur la sécession (manifestement, ils n'ont pas été voir l'évolution du décompte depuis la mi-novembre parce que, de toutes les façons, là n'est pas le problème)…

«Given the fact that the Obama administration has failed to respond to dozens of petitions advocating states secede from the union, it seems almost inevitable that the White House will also ignore the petition to deport Piers Morgan for his rhetorical assault on the constitutional rights of American citizens. […]

»However, a brief investigation into which petitions the Obama administration has actually responded to confirms that the White House merely cherry picks those it wishes to address and completely ignores others, violating its own rules. For example, the petition for Texas to secede from the union reached the threshold to warrant a comment from the administration on November 12 but has still not been addressed 45 days later. Dozens of similar petitions from other states also passed the threshold but have been ignored, despite the total number of signatures for all states equaling well over a million. In contrast, petitions calling on Obama to enact gun control measures in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook massacre, only three of which totaled over 25,000 signatures, were addressed within days.»

• … Et ce dernier point, certes, d’un intérêt certain. Qui peut comparer cette rigolade (Jon Kelly, de BBC.News, s’en marre encore) de la sécession-today à l’immense événement du massacre de Newtown, considéré dans le monde comme un tournant fondamental, disposant d’une couverture médiatique phénoménale et ainsi de suite ? Ainsi est-on en droit d’attendre que les citoyens US, si fortement concernés dans le fait que ce massacre réactualise le problème du contrôle des ventes d’armes à feu aux USA, et dans les deux sens d’ailleurs (pour et contre), le feraient savoir par le canal idéal des pétitions de la Maison-Blanche ; et nous ajouterions que l’on verrait bien alors, à l’importance comptable et quantitative, – qui ont l’air d’être, sans surprise, les références de Jon Kelly, – de cet événement par comparaison avec celui, ridicule, des pétitions-sécession, la différence d’importance des choses. Nous avons donc été voir le 1er janvier 2013 sur le site des pétitions de la Maison-Blanche, la page réservée à la réponse de la Maison-Blanche et aux pétitions concernant cette question du contrôle des ventes d’armes après le drame de Newtown.

On y trouve, du chef de cabinet adjoint du vice-président, une réponse circonstanciée et fort bien balancée (personne n’est vraiment mis en cause, la plupart des possesseurs d’armes à feu étant jugés comme sains d’esprit). La réponse n’est pas datée, par prudence peut-être, mais elle a du être mise en ligne après le 19 décembre puisque cette date avec une intervention du président sont mentionnées ; il y a 33 pétitions sur le sujet des armes à feu (et aussi sur celui du statut des personnes psychologiquement déséquilibrées), et des pétitions dans les deux sens (la plus importante, avec 197.073 signatures reste assez ambigüe, puisqu’elle demande que le Congrès examine la question du contrôle des armes sans indiquer dans quel sens il devrait légiférer, ce qui ressemble plus à une manœuvre qu’à une pétition : «Immediately address the issue of gun control through the introduction of legislation in Congress»). Le total des signatures de ces 33 pétitions est de 554.630, et l'on peut alors comparer avec les résultats obtenus par les pétitions-sécession dans les mêmes conditions de durée… Cela amène à la question de savoir si un tel nombre de personnes intéressées à ce problème (monsieur Kelly, de BBC/News, fera les comptes pour le pourcentage qui sera au moins d’un tiers, et sans doute de beaucoup plus inférieur à celui des pétitions sur sécession), qui fait entrer de toutes les façons le processus dans la rubrique «In the context of the US population of 312 million, however, the numbers involved are minuscule», implique que le problème soulevé à Newtown, dans l’émotion qu’on sait, intéresse encore moins les citoyens US que celui de la sécession.

• Tout cela pour introduire notre “sujet du jour”, tout cela pour avertir qu’il était improbable que la susdite presse-Système nous informe d’une façon normale sur un sondage concernant la “sympathie” ou le “sentiment positif” qu’éprouvent différents groupes sociaux aux USA à l’égard de la sécession. C’est par conséquent sur le blog de Lew Rockwell, le 31 décembre 2012, qu’on trouve relayé un commentaire d’un sécessionniste acharné, Kirkpatrick Sale du Middlebury Institute, ; lequel relaie lui-même un commentaire… Mais nous vous laissons lire la courte dépêche.

« Bill Regnery, a long-time supporter of the secessionist movement, has sent me notice of a nationwide poll on popular support for secession as measured by a poll by the well-respected Public Policy Polling outfit of Raleigh, NC, that Wikipedia has described as “Democratic-leaning and accurate.” The poll, taken among 700 people in late November and issued on December 4, 2012, has a margin of +/- 3.7 points. Here is a report he sent of the “interesting to remarkable” poll results, along with pertinent comments:

»Secession is viewed positively/sympathetically by: • 46% of Hispanics, 14 million, and 31% of whites, 49 million. We need to crank this irredentist sentiment into our calculations. • 50% of conservatives. This is by far the most support from by far the largest group, 41 million, of ideological supporters. By comparison 19% of liberals, 14 million, fall into this category. • 35% of women and only 29% of men. We should discard the notion that women cannot be recruited. • 50% of 18-29 year olds. We need to hunt where the ducks are.

»The lessons are obvious: Let’s go hunting.»

…Il est probable, sinon certain pour Lew Rockwell, que les divers personnages cités ne sont pas convenables. (Rockwell, ami intime de Ron Paul, avait été catalogué comme “raciste” et inspirateur de Paul à cet égard, lors de la polémique sur les newsletters de Ron Paul, à la fin 2011.) Peut-être ne sont-ils pas convenables, mais que dire de monsieur Jon Kelly et des milliers d’autres de son acabit, qui analysent les affaires avec cette espèce d’incroyable attitude postmoderniste et attitude-Système consistant à déployer tant de flagornerie pour plaire à l’idéologie sans laquelle leur intelligence aurait autant de colonne vertébrale qu’un éclair au chocolat («Il a autant de colonne vertébrale qu’un éclair au chocolat» disait le vice-président Teddy Roosevelt du président McKinley dont il jugeait qu’il s’inclinait beaucoup…). Les nombreux Jon Kelly n’ont d’ailleurs pas vu, lors de leurs divers mépris (question de la sécession) et épanchements (question de la tuerie de Newtown), combien ces questions de la sécession et du contrôle des armes sont liées, tant un grand nombre d’Américains considèrent la possession libre des armes comme un droit constitutionnel (2ème amendement) mais aussi, désormais de plus en plus fermement, comme un moyen de défense contre les forces coercitives (Dieu sait s’il n’en manque pas, par les temps qui courent) du gouvernement, ou du Système, dont ce même gouvernement, ou Système, voudrait les priver, – et cela ne fait-il pas une bonne cause de sécession ? (Cette dernière idée rejoignant l’absence de légitimité du gouvernement central, dès l’origine des USA, que nous jugeons être comme une des principales raisons, cachées sinon seulement comprises, du goût des citoyens américains pour les armes.)

Enfin, faisons le travail des divers Kelly qui trouvent ridicule et vraiment shockingly dépassée cette vieille lune d’idée de la sécession. Le sondage que Rockwell porte à notre connaissance, qui vaut bien en valeur, par référence à l’institut qui l’a réalisé, ceux des prestigieux instituts nationaux et internationaux couverts de fric-Système, donne quelques enseignements extrêmement intéressants. Le plus intéressant, évidemment, celui que n’a pas manqué de remarquer implicitement Rockwell si l’on en croit son titre («Viva Secession !»), c’est le sentiment de la communauté hispanique qu’il faut envisager sur l’arrière-plan de l’état d’esprit général dit de “remexicanisation”. Ce sentiment se marie aisément avec (deuxième enseignement intéressant) l’énorme penchant des conservateurs pour le même thème, conservateurs qui sont légions dans le Sud, où l’ont trouve également des légions d’Hispaniques… Imaginez la vulnérabilité des États de la zone dans ce contexte. L’intérêt de la combinaison est que l’on trouve rassemblées deux forces complémentaires, également tournées contre le centre washingtonien pour des raisons différentes et également complémentaires, la tranquille hégémonie hispanique dans les États frontaliers du Mexique et l’agressivité défensive et centrifuge des conservateurs du Sud.

Le troisième enseignement intéressant, c’est la proportion énorme des jeunes qui voient avec “sympathie” l’idée de sécession. Ce sont certainement les mêmes jeunes qui ont applaudi Ron Paul tout au long de sa campagne électorale si étrangement écourtée. Dans ce résultat somme toute étonnant se cache peut-être un hideux secret du Système. On sait que l’évolution du Système dans son mode de surpuissance est tournée vers la déstructuration et la dissolution, ce qui implique déstructuration et dissolution, également, de l’enseignement (public), de l’esprit de l’enseignement, du goût du savoir et des attitudes de respect et d’ordre qui vont avec. En favorisant cette course naturelle du Système, tous les systèmes d’enseignement son atteints, y compris ceux qui diffusent de l’enseignement favorable au Système, et, dans ce cas, au système de l’américanisme. Du point de vue de ce dernier, c’est un énorme échec et un signe de l’effondrement de lui-même que de n’avoir pas su dispenser chez ses propres jeunes gens la même considération sacrée d’un sacrilège insupportable pour les USA dans le chef de la volonté de sécession qui fut la cause de la Guerre de sécession, plutôt dite Civil War dans le langage officiel, pour dissimuler l’outrage. Si cette hypothèse est la bonne c’est alors qu’on pourra considérer avec admiration la capacité d’autodestruction se substituant à la capacité de surpuissance du Système lui-même.

Pour le reste et d’une façon générale, ces diverses considérations nous confortent dans notre idée centrale que l’éclatement, la désintégration, la sécession constituent le risque fondamental, la fragilité considérable des USA, sa vulnérabilité structurelle permanente et aujourd’hui exacerbée, et sans doute le motif de la plus grande panique possible des autorités du Système. Par conséquent, tout ce qui va dans ce sens nous rapproche d’un événement fondamental pour notre crise terminale du Système.

 

samedi, 01 décembre 2012

How the American matrix destroys every culture

 american-flag.gif

How the American matrix destroys every culture

By Nicolas BONNAL

Ex: http://english.pravda.ru/

 

 

As I already showed in these columns, Alexis de Tocqueville is the best commentator of the modern agenda of alienation, giving aristocratic critics to the American matrix which starts its nuisances at the beginning of the nineteenth century. Tocqueville foresees a bleak American future for Europe and the whole world. His analyses are as implacable as those of Edgar Poe, a violent opponent to the so-called democratic order, as writers like Hawthorne or Melville.

In his famous book about democracy, Tocqueville describes and explains the destruction of the two victim races of these times, the blacks and the Indians. We shall start by the black slaves:

The Negro of the United States has lost all remembrance of his country; the language which his forefathers spoke is never heard around him; he abjured their religion and forgot their customs when he ceased to belong to Africa, without acquiring any claim to European privileges.

The black slave is thus the prototype of the global citizen desired by the magazine the Economist and the New World Order agenda. He has no past, no family, and no nation:

The Negro has no family; woman is merely the temporary companion of his pleasures, and his children are upon equality with himself from the moment of their birth.

Half the babies born in France have no father nowadays! Today's parents are their children's pals! And who knows his babushka in America? Why do you think so many people stroll around in the shopping centres nowadays?

Like the masses of today obsessed by sex, money and fame, driven by pleasures, captivated by the rich and famous storytelling, the American slave adores his masters:

The slave scarcely feels his own calamitous situation... he admires his tyrants more than he hates them, and finds his joy and his pride in the servile imitation of those who oppress him: his understanding is degraded to the level of his soul.

This modern slave or modern man, adds Tocqueville, doesn't love freedom, for independence is often felt by him to be a heavier burden than slavery. He is just manipulated by his desires, fabricated fantasies and material needs. As if he has inspired the Prisoner of McGoohan, Tocqueville writes:

A thousand new desires beset him, and he is destitute of the knowledge and energy necessary to resist them: these are masters whom it is necessary to contend with, and he has learnt only to submit and obey. In short, he sinks to such a depth of wretchedness, that while servitude brutalizes, liberty destroys him.

The destruction of the Indians has different meanings. The Blackman symbolised the weak or the poor, the submitted proletarian, the Indian the feudal lord, the warrior, doomed to disappear during the industrial revolution, like the religious man. Marx made the same analysis in his famous manifesto. This man of elite is such sentenced to disappear by the civilization of money-lenders and businessmen:

When the North American Indians had lost the sentiment of attachment to their country; when their families were dispersed, their traditions obscured, and the chain of their recollections broken; when all their habits were changed, and their wants increased beyond measure, European tyranny rendered them more disorderly and less civilized than they were before.

A simple animal, or a mere sinner, the man is easily mind-programmed by consumption; and the brave and frugal Indians inevitably fell in front of the new needs and strange goods:

The Europeans introduced amongst the savages of North America fire-arms, ardent spirits, and iron.... Having acquired new tastes, without the arts by which they could be gratified, the Indians were obliged to have recourse to the workmanship of the whites; but in return for their productions the savage had nothing to offer except the rich furs which still abounded in his woods.

Tocqueville in every page of this marvellous and unread book sees the perils of the so-called American civilization. One of these perils is of course pollution and... noise. The noise produced by isolated colons could thus exasperate the Indians, hastening a cruel stroke. Let's understand the causes of these reactions:

Thousands of savages, wandering in the forests and destitute of any fixed dwelling, did not disturb the beasts of chase; but as soon as the continuous sounds of European labour are heard in their neighbourhood, they begin to flee away, and retire to the West...

The retirement of the game meant for the Indians discombobulated anguish, exhausting migrations and a progressive starving. The race was thus exterminated passively, the invaders needing no such massacres and slaughters as one could believe. This is the same mean Hitler, this great admirer of Anglo-Saxon America, wanted to use in Russia (I say wanted, for the people there resisted more, and so had to be slaughtered by the colonial conqueror until the defeat of the last).

Last but no least: if we contemplate the disastrous cultural balance of this civilization, couldn't we admit that she is one of the worst ever occurred? Tocqueville admits that the Spaniard conquest of the south continent was horrible; yet the Indians survived, mixed and intertwined with their masters, thus creating the beautiful Hispano-American civilization. You have tens of architectural masterworks and ancient colonial cities in southern America, and how many in the US?

Anyway, and this remark must be underlined at the hour of philanthropic and humanitarian wars anywhere (Palestine, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan... not to mention the past ones), Tocqueville thinks that the American modern way of life (or death) is more destructive than any other. And he had not in mind the McDonald's, the highways, the desperate suburbs, the shopping malls and the amusement parks!

The Spaniards were unable to exterminate the Indian race by those unparalleled atrocities which brand them with indelible shame, nor did they even succeed in wholly depriving it of its rights; but the Americans of the United States have accomplished this twofold purpose with singular felicity; tranquilly, legally, philanthropically, without shedding blood, and without violating a single great principle of morality in the eyes of the world. It is impossible to destroy men with more respect for the laws of humanity.

Tolkien writes somewhere that a monster (he refers to giant spider Ungoliant) finishes up the job devouring his own flesh. This is what happens to American civilization today. Philanthropically, she is destroying herself. But unhappily humanity who has chosen this way of death, in the East like in the South, is doomed too, since the American matrix has overcome any resistance.

Yet childish technology, money obsession, humanitarian wars and amusement parks will take us nowhere. We need to replace the American way to design a new world.

Nicolas Bonnal

jeudi, 29 novembre 2012

La réélection d'Obama

carn rio.jpg

La réélection d'Obama comme symptôme de la «brésilianisation» des Etats-Unis

par le Prof. Gérard DUSSOUY

Ex: http://www.polemia.com/

Comme Samuel Huntington, dans Qui sommes-nous ?, l’avait pressenti, l’immigration a changé la nature des Etats-Unis. Reste à savoir comment les communautés de cette polyarchie ethnique vont parvenir à vivre en société ensemble ? Comment parviendra-t-elle à imposer de nouveaux impôts à ceux qui les payent alors qu’ils ont de moins en moins de choses en commun avec ceux qui en bénéficient ? Pour le professeur Gérard Dussouy les turbulences de la mondialisation atteignent désormais les Etats-Unis.

Dans une étude qui a presque vingt ans, Michaël Lind divisait l’histoire sociale, culturelle et politique des Etats-Unis en trois périodes (Lind, 1995). Aux « deux premières républiques américaines » de l’Anglo-Amérique (1788-1861) et de l’Euro-Amérique (1875-1957) avait succédé, selon lui, une « Fédération de races » de moins en moins cohésive malgré l’existence réaffirmée d’une culture américaine. Née de l’adoption des lois sur les droits civiques (années 1960-1970), puis confortée par l’Affirmative Act (à savoir la politique des quotas qui favorise l’accès des ressortissants des communautés non blanches aux emplois publics et privés, à l’enseignement secondaire et supérieur), cette « troisième république», vient, on peut l’écrire, d’être consacrée par la réélection de Barack Obama. Celle-ci donne raison à Lind, parce qu’elle est symbolique des nouveaux rapports de forces sociodémographiques qui caractérisent une société américaine de plus en plus multiculturelle, par suite d’une immigration intense. Obama a été réélu, même s’il existe d’autres causes inhérentes aux faiblesses du parti républicain et aux aspects rétrogrades de son programme, grâce à l’alliance des minorités, y compris les Blancs les plus nantis qui sont à l’abri de toute catastrophe économique, contre le vieux stock européen.

Maintenant, la question qui se pose est de savoir comment va fonctionner cette polyarchie ethnique (Blancs, Noirs, Latinos, Asiatiques, musulmans, etc.), qui signifie aussi la fin du leadership anglo-saxon, lui qui a évité, dans le passé, la transposition aux Etats-Unis des antagonismes européens et qui leur a imprimé leur style diplomatique.

Les turbulences de la mondialisation sur le sol américain ?

Après avoir voulu formater le monde à son image, en s’ouvrant démesurément à lui pour mieux le conquérir, l’Amérique ne risque-t-elle pas, faute d’y avoir perdu sa culture politique homogène, de subir toutes les turbulences de la mondialisation sur son propre sol ?

La question est d’autant plus d’actualité que le changement politique et culturel s’accompagne, comme le redoutait Lind, d’une « brésilianisation » (*) des Etats-Unis. Il faut entendre par là, outre la fin de la suprématie de la population blanche et la reconnaissance du pluralisme culturel, toute une série de phénomènes qui vont compliquer la résolution des problèmes financiers et sociaux, et qui, à terme, pourraient affaiblir la puissance américaine.

L’immense responsabilité de Bill Clinton

Le premier phénomène est celui d’un retranchement exacerbé des catégories sociales qui ne se limite pas à un séparatisme spatial, mais qui se manifeste par une privatisation systématique des services, ce qui équivaut, pour les plus nombreux, à cause de la faillite de l’Etat fédéral et de nombreuses villes, à la privation de ces derniers. Le premier mandat d’Obama a été ainsi marqué par une régression sociale inconnue aux Etats-Unis depuis les années trente. Il faut dire qu’il n’en est pas le premier responsable. Le mal vient de la mandature de William Clinton qui a commis une double faute. D’une part, il a autorisé l’adhésion de la Chine à l’OMC et a ouvert le marché américain à l’afflux des produits chinois ; il en a résulté un déficit commercial américain abyssal et la désindustrialisation des Etats-Unis. D’autre part, il a fait supprimer la séparation des banques d’affaires et des banques de dépôts, en vigueur depuis 1933. Une telle décision a relancé toutes les activités spéculatives et elle est à l’origine du grand endettement des ménages américains. Sur le moment, et c’était l’effet recherché par Clinton pour se faire réélire, le pouvoir d’achat des Américains s’en est trouvé amélioré : ils pouvaient s’endetter et acheter des produits importés à bas prix. Au final, les Etats-Unis ont connu les deux krachs de 2007 et 2008, et de nombreux quartiers des villes américaines n’ont, aujourd’hui, pas grand chose à envier aux favelas brésiliennes…

Le deuxième phénomène est l’accroissement considérable des inégalités sociales (1% de la population détiendrait 80% des richesses), de la paupérisation (26 millions de personnes au chômage ou sous-employées ; 1 personne sur 8 vit de bons alimentaires), et, toujours en rapport avec les faillites des collectivités locales et l’affaiblissement du pouvoir fédéral (contrairement au discours de la droite extrême), la dégradation accélérée des services publics. Une économiste américaine a dressé un bilan désolant de la situation (Huffington, 2007). Pourquoi et pour qui de nouveaux impôts ?

C’est à la lumière de ce contexte économique et sociétal que le débat sur la réforme fiscale, qui vient de s’ouvrir, prend tout son sens. Certes, à son origine, il y a l’intérêt général de réduire la dette, sous peine de coupes budgétaires automatiques. Mais, sachant que les classes moyennes blanches seraient les principales contributrices aux nouvelles recettes, ce débat sera un test. Il va montrer à quel niveau se situe la solidarité nationale dans une société éclatée comme celle des Etats-Unis. Le pourquoi et le pour qui de nouveaux impôts sont plus difficiles à légitimer quand les liens sociétaux et intergénérationnels se défont, quand, à l’intérieur d’une même population, des groupes humains considèrent qu’ils n’ont plus beaucoup en commun. Si aucun accord n’intervient, la fuite en avant (le relèvement du plafond de la dette) permettra, seule, de retarder les effets de l’anomie sociale…

L’élargissement de la polyarchie ethnique à de nouveaux groupes va se traduire aussi, en parallèle avec l’affaissement du leadership anglo-saxon, par une révision des choix et des préférences, lesquels relèvent souvent de l’affectivité, en matière de politique étrangère. Si le changement ethnoculturel en cours éloigne, sans aucun doute, les Etats-Unis de leurs sources et de leurs affinités européennes, il ne leur procurera pas forcément de nouveaux repères sur l’horizon mondial.

Ceci pourrait avoir l’avantage d’entraîner un désengagement américain du continent européen (en obligeant les Européens à regarder la réalité géopolitique en face et s’assumer au plan stratégique), tant il est devenu clair que pour Obama la relation avec la Chine est devenue primordiale. Néanmoins, il ne faut pas se cacher que les sollicitations intérieures multiples et divergentes rendront moins lisible qu’auparavant l’action extérieure des Etats-Unis.

Gérard Dussouy
Professeur émérite à l’Université de Bordeaux
15/11/2012

(*) Note de la rédaction : à rapprocher de la citation d'Eric Zemmour, à propos de la France, qui, selon le journaliste, encourt le même risque : « C’est la  "brésilianisation" qui nous menace : ségrégation raciale, milliardaires à foison et appauvrissement de la classe moyenne. Misère du monde aux portes des antiques cités. La Défense sera notre Brasilia. Et la Seine-Saint-Denis, nos favelas.»

Bibliographie :

Michaël Lind, The Next American Nation. The New Nationalism and the Fourth American Revolution, New York, The Free Press, 1995.
Arianna Huffington, L’Amérique qui tombe, Paris, Fayard, 2011.

Voir aussi les article Polémia :

« Les théories de la mondialité » de Gérard Dussouy : gagnants et perdants du sans-frontiérisme
Barack Hollande et François Obama : la « post-démocratie » ethnique en marche
Obama : élu des minorités ethniques et de l'oligarchie financière
Paul Gottfried, un auteur incontournable pour comprendre le conservatisme américain
« Les sept plaies de l'Amérique d'Obama » de Jean-Michel Quatrepoint
Obama régularise un million de clandestins
Les Etats-Unis se délabrent

Anatomie de l'effondrement des Etats-Unis
L'identité nationale selon Huntington

Correspondance Polémia – 21/11/2012

samedi, 03 novembre 2012

1421: The Year China Discovered America?

1421: The Year China Discovered America?

Part 1:

Part 2:

vendredi, 02 novembre 2012

Solutreans Are Indigenous Americans

Solutreans Are Indigenous Americans

 

dimanche, 22 avril 2012

Isolement de Barack Obama au Sommet des Amériques

Isolement de Barack Obama au Sommet des Amériques

 

Ex: http://www.europesolidaire.eu/
 
Ce 6e sommet (Summit of the Americas) qui a réuni les Etats-Unis et 30 chefs d'Etat d'Amérique centrale et d'Amérique du Sud à Carthagène en Colombie les 14 et 15 avril, s'est traduit par un véritable isolement de l'Amérique.

 

 

 

Celle-ci est traditionnellement considérée comme dominant son « arrière-cour » des Etats latino-américain, grâce aux opportunités commerciales et aux investissements qu'elle offrait. Or elle s'est vu refuser la signature de l'habituel communiqué final. Le prétexte officiel en a été le refus toujours opposé par Obama à la reconnaissance de Cuba comme membre à part entière.

Mais les observateurs pensent que l'isolement de l'Amérique ainsi manifesté en plein jour tient aussi au développement économique et à l'indépendance politique croissante de la plupart des Etats américains. S'impose aussi sans doute une influence grandissante de la Chine, qui cherche à ce que l' « arrière-cour » américaine devienne aussi la sienne. On a remarqué ainsi les investissements chinois importants dans les Caraïbes, au plus grand déplaisir des Etats-Unis.

Les membres du sommet ont voulu signifier à Obama que le temps de la Guerre Froide était passé et qu'ils avaient définitivement repris leur indépendance. Ils ont cependant loué le président américain de la patience avec laquelle il a écouté les remontrances à son égard, notamment en ce qui concerne la tolérance américaine aux trafics d'armes, de drogues et de prostitution dont les Etats-Unis constituent un des principal débouché.

L'Union européenne n'est pas officiellement invitée à participer à de tels sommets, malgré les liens entretenus par certains Etats européens avec leurs homologues en Amérique Latine. Cependant, le durcissement des relations commerciales entre l'Argentine et l'Espagne, de même qu'entre l'Argentine et le Royaume-Uni à propos des Malouines, a été évoqué off records. L'Europe n'y a pas été présentée sous son meilleur visage. On regrettera en fait que l'Union Européenne ne s'efforce pas d'exercer une action diplomatique suffisante dans de telles instances, au service d'un renforcement des liens avec l'Amérique latine. Elle s'imposerait d'autant plus que recule l'influence américaine.

* Voir Reuters http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/17/us-americas-summit-obama-idUSBRE83F0UD20120417


* Le sommet des Amériques (http://www.summit-americas.org/default_en.htm) est une des manifestations de l'OAS, Organization Of American States (http://www.oas.org/en/default.asp )

mercredi, 26 octobre 2011

US-Bundesbeamte versorgten auch unter Bush verdächtige Kriminelle mit Waffen

US-Bundesbeamte versorgten auch unter Bush verdächtige Kriminelle mit Waffen

Paul Joseph Watson

In der Nachrichtensendung Face the Nation des amerikanischen Fernsehsenders CBS räumte die republikanische Kongressabgeordnete Darell Issa, Vorsitzende des Ausschusses für Aufsicht und Regierungsreform, am vergangenen Sonntagnachmittag ein, unter der Regierung Bush habe bereits ein Programm existiert, dass mit der jüngst in die Schlagzeilen geratenen »Operation Fast and Furious« praktisch identisch gewesen sei. Auch damals hatten Bundesbeamte Schusswaffen direkt an verdächtige Kriminelle geliefert.

 

Das Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosivs (ATF) ließ bereits vor Operation Fast and Furious zu, dass Waffen unkontrolliert den Besitzer wechseln.

»Wir wissen, dass unter der Regierung Bush ähnliche Operationen stattfanden, aber sie waren mit Mexiko abgesprochen«, erklärte der Abgeordnete aus Kalifornien. »Sie haben alles versucht, die Waffen die ganze Zeit im Auge zu behalten. Wir sind daher nicht der Ansicht, dass dieses Verfahren, [die Weitergabewege von] Waffen zu verfolgen, grundsätzlich eine schlechte Idee ist.«

Das Programm der Regierung Bush mit Namen Operation Wide Reciever lief in der Zeit zwischen 2006 und Ende 2007 und wurde von Arizona aus koordiniert. Ähnlich wie im Falle der Operation Fast and Furious ließ das ATF (eine amerikanische Bundesbehörde mit polizeilichen Befugnissen, die dem Justizministerium untersteht) zu, dass Schusswaffen in die Hände mutmaßlicher Rauschgifthändler gerieten, ohne dass dies unterbunden wurde.

Mehr: http://info.kopp-verlag.de/hintergruende/geostrategie/paul-joseph-watson/us-bundesbeamte-versorgten-auch-unter-bush-verdaechtige-kriminelle-mit-waffen.html

mardi, 18 octobre 2011

Occupy Wall Street: Die künstliche Opposition der Neuen Weltordnung

Occupy Wall Street: Die künstliche Opposition der Neuen Weltordnung

Oliver Janich

 

»Zwei Dinge sind unendlich, das Universum und die menschliche Dummheit, aber bei dem Universum bin ich mir nicht ganz sicher«. Mein Lieblingszitat von Albert Einstein könnte über vielen Artikel stehen, aber wenn es um die Occupy-Bewegung geht, trifft es den Nagel wirklich auf den Kopf.

 

Eines vorab: Ich meine nicht, dass jeder, der dort mitmacht, ein Idiot ist. Viele haben berechtigte Zweifel am System und wollen einfach etwas tun. Man kann auch nicht von jedem, der auf die Straße geht, verlangen, dass er erstmal unzählige Bücher über das Geldsystem liest. Aber von den Rädelsführern und denen, die sich ins Fernsehen einladen lassen, darf man das schon verlangen.

Es ist immer schwer zu unterscheiden, ob etwas aus böser Absicht oder aus Dummheit geschieht. War Angela Merkel im Mai 2010 bei der ersten Griechenlandhilfe, als das Desaster begann, aus Zufall in Moskau oder hat sie sich die Befehle ihres Führungsoffiziers abgeholt? Stimmen die Abgeordneten der Ausplünderung Deutschlands zu, weil sie irgendjemand in der Hand hat oder sind sie so doof? Wer weiß das schon?

Mehr: http://info.kopp-verlag.de/hintergruende/geostrategie/oliver-janich/occupy-wall-street-die-kuenstliche-opposition-der-neuen-weltordnung.html

mercredi, 05 octobre 2011

U.S. Plan to Invade Brazil

 

U.S. Plan to Invade Brazil

Ex: http://xtremerightcorporate.blogspot.com/

Not many people know how close the United States came to invading, of all places, Brazil during World War II. Most know that Brazil did finally enter the war as one of the Allied nations and the Brazilian expeditionary force saw action in the later phase of the conflict in Italy against the forces of Nazi Germany and the Italian Social Republic. However, how Brazil came to that point is a sordid tale of diplomatic pressure and military threats against the Brazilian dictator President Getulio Vargas. Today, as with so many others, Vargas is labeled by historians as an example of a far-right dictator but actually moved from right to left and back again in terms of his policies. However, he did finally adopt elements of syndicalism and the “New State” idea first enacted in Portugal by their last great leader Prime Minister Antonio Salazar. President Vargas doubtlessly admired some of the principles of the fascist trend that was sweeping Europe but, more than that, he really had no desire to enter World War II and, as far as Brazilian national security went, was more concerned with Argentina than Germany or Italy. Vargas also had to be wary of taking sides since his army tended to favor the fascist powers while his air force and navy tended to favor the Allies.


The Roosevelt administration was very concerned about Brazil, mostly due to the wealth of natural resources available in the country. They claimed, naturally, that they were worried about Axis aggression against Brazil and South America -famously putting out a forged Axis “war plan” that, among other ludicrous lies, called for Axis forces, having conquered Africa, to jump the Atlantic gap over to Brazil. President Vargas, of course, knew that there was no more danger of Germany and Italy invading Brazil than of them invading Mars. However, he knew he had to keep on friendly terms with the United States which was a much more immediate threat and which, through the Monroe Doctrine, had long claimed all of the Americas as their exclusive sphere of influence. Vargas did such a good job at this that the State Department diplomats in Brazil reported to Washington that they really had no idea which side he was really on. FDR had his State Department strongly “suggest” that Vargas request U.S. military support to strengthen his defenses against possible German and Italian aggression.

Naturally, Vargas turned down this suggestion but later did request simply U.S. weapons and war materials, not for fear of Germany or Italy but for the real threat posed by Argentina. However, FDR’s War Department was hesitant to fulfill that request because they feared that FDR would invade Brazil and American forces would then have Brazilian troops using their own weapons against them. Still, despite the diplomatic pressure from FDR, President Vargas refused to let FDR dictate his foreign policy and he still wanted no part in FDR’s aggressive war to save the Soviet Union. Just this hesitation was deemed as being so outrageous by FDR that he had his military staff come up with the “Joint Basic Plan for the Occupation of Northeastern Brazil”. Keep in mind that this was the same President who had criticized Mussolini for invading Ethiopia (after being provoked), who had criticized Hitler for invading Scandinavia (after the British had mined Norwegian waters) and who had criticized the Japanese for occupying Manchuria even though the Republic of China did not even resist the incursion. Now, FDR was coming up with plans for an invasion of neutral Brazil which had no ties with the Axis and posed absolutely no threat to the United States simply because they refused to fall in behind him.


There is absolutely no doubt about this as, in addition to that contingency plan, an actual plan of attack was drawn up with specific military units assigned to the invasion. FDR approved “Operation Rubber Plan” on December 21, 1940 (before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and before the U.S. was even at war herself with Germany, Italy and Japan) which called for -without a declaration of war mind you- a naval bombardment of Brazilian coastal facilities to soften up shore defenses for an amphibious attack by the U.S. Marines. This would be followed by a formal invasion by the 1st and 3rd Marine Battalions from the 5th Marine Division, launched from a naval task force including the battleship USS Texas, the aircraft carrier USS Ranger, 12 troop transports and supporting vessels. The 9th Division, US Army, would then relieve the Marines and press forward the invasion to seize key Brazilian ports and airfields for American use. The 45th Army Infantry Division would be held in reserve in case unexpected resistance was met. All of these forces were in training for this operation and put on the alert to be ready to launch the attack within 10 days of President Roosevelt giving the “go” order.


President Vargas found out about this invasion plan in January of 1942 and, of course, had no choice but to immediately break off diplomatic relations with the Axis and he allowed 150 US Marines to occupy certain Brazilian airfields. Still, however, FDR was not satisfied and his plan for the invasion and occupation of Brazil was not officially set aside until May when Vargas signed the Brazilian-American Defense Agreement. Nonetheless, it was clear that Vargas was acting under extreme duress as he delayed as long as possible committing Brazilian forces to combat in a war which had nothing to do with his country at all. Nonetheless, eventually he was forced to declare war on the Axis and Brazilian troops were dispatched to the bitter fighting in northern Italy where they fought with great courage but were badly mauled by the Italian Monterosa Division. This was the victory which allowed Mussolini to return to Milan where the march to power of his Blackshirts had first begun. But, as far as Brazil was concerned, it was President Roosevelt rather than Mussolini who was the real aggressor and the real threat to their independence and national sovereignty.

dimanche, 02 octobre 2011

Il collasso delle colonie norvegesi in Groenlandia

Il collasso delle colonie norvegesi in Groenlandia

Autore:

Ex: http://www.centrostudilaruna.it/

Una pagina di storia particolarmente interessante dal punto di vista dell’equilibrio fra società umane e ambiente naturale è quella relativa alla fallita colonizzazione scandinava della Groenlandia, terminata con l’abbandono dei due insediamenti, occidentale (Vestribyggd) e orientale (Eystribyggd), posti, in realtà, entramibi sulla costa occidentale della grande isola, l’uno più a nord, l’altro più a sud, presso il Capo Farewell. A metà strada fra i due esisteva un terzo insediamento, molto più piccolo, che si può chiamare Insediamento medio.

Le fonti storiche scandinave sono incerte e confuse, per cui la fine di queste tre colonie europee, poste letteralmente all’estremità del mondo allora conosciuto, rimane a tutt’oggi avvolta nel mistero. Non sappiamo se vennero distrutte dagli Eschimesi, chiamati Skraeling dai coloni norreni, o se scomparvero per una serie di cause legate ai mutamenti climatici che, fra il 1200 e il 1600, videro in tutto l’emisfero boreale il ritorno di una ‘piccola età dei ghiacci’, come è stata chiamata da alcuni scienziati. Oltre ad impoverire ulteriormente le già magre risorse ambientali, dalle quali dipendeva la sopravvivenza dei coloni, l’espansione dei ghiacci rese assai più difficili le rotte marittime nei mari settentrionali e fece sì, che a poco a poco, cessarono di partire dalla Norvegia le navi che avrebbero dovuto assicurare i collegamenti con quell’estremo avamposto europeo.

Certo è che, abbandonati a se stessi, i coloni norvegesi scomparvero.

Le testimonianze letterarie dicono che gli abitanti dell’insediamento occidentale finirono per abbandonare la religione cristiana, probabilmente per adottare quella degli Eschimesi, con i quali, evidentemente, dovette esservi una fusione, o, quanto meno, un tentativo di convivenza pacifica, dopo una fase certamente cruenta, in cui i due popoli vennero a contatto per la prima volta. Va ricordato, infatti, che il peggioramento delle condizioni climatiche indusse gli Eschimesi a spingersi verso sud, inseguendo la loro preda preferita, la foca, dalla quale dipendevano totalmente (un po’ come gli Indiani del Nord America dipendevano dal bisonte).

Mappa della Groenlandia del XVII secolo

Mappa della Groenlandia del XVII secolo

Quanto all’insediamento orientale, che sopravvisse più a lungo – anche perché era assai più consistente -, le testimonianze archeologiche indicano che gli ultimi norvegesi vennero seppelliti secondo il rito cristiano, indossando i loro migliori abiti; per cui si sarebbe portati a credere che, in quel caso, non vi fu alcuna assimilazione da parte dell’elemento indigeno; della quale, del resto, non v’è traccia neanche dal punto di vista antropologico fra gli Eschimesi o Inuit attuali. Nulla, infatti, indica che le due stirpi si siano mescolate: nessun carattere fisico degli Scandinavi, per quanto sporadico, è osservabile negli Eschimesi odierni.

Sempre le testimonianze archeologiche attestano che l’insediamento occidentale fu occupato dagli Eschimesi a partire dal 1341, per cui la fine della colonia norvegese dovette precedere di pochissimo tale data. Nell’insediamento medio, la presenza eschimese sostituisce quella scandinava dal 1380 circa; e per quello orientale, ciò dovette avvenire nei primissimi anni del 1500. Ma, ripetiamo, non è dato sapere, allo stato attuale delle nostre conoscenze, se gli Eschimesi occuparono i fiordi già abbandonati dai norvegesi, o già spopolati dalla ‘morte bianca’; oppure se li occuparono con la forza, uccidendo gli abitanti fino all’ultimo uomo e, magari, facendo prigionieri un certo numero di ragazzi e ragazze, come è documentato che accadde in alcuni scontri di minore entità, verificatisi nei decenni che precedettero la fine della colonia occidentale.

Sappiamo soltanto che sono stati identificati i resti di numerose fattorie norrene nonché di alcune chiese, a testimonianza del fatto che, ai loro tempi d’oro (se mai ve ne furono), i colonizzatori avevano spiegato notevoli mezzi per creare condizioni di vita che fossero quanto più simili possibile a quelle che avevano lasciato nella loro lontana madrepatria, in Norvegia – e, in minor misura, in Islanda.

Scrive il saggista e scrittore gallese Gwyn Jones, nel suo importante studio Antichi viaggi di scoperta in Islanda, Groenlandia e America, ripubblicato alcuni anni fa dalla Casa editrice Newton Compton (titolo originale: The Norse Atlantic saga. Being the Norse Voyages of Discovery and Settlement to Iceland, Greenland, America, 1964, Oxford University Press; traduzione italiana Giorgio Romano, Milano, Bompiani Editore, 1966, pp. 82-110):

“La colonia di Groenlandia, che va tenuta distinta dallo stato o nazione di Groenlandia, sopravvisse fino all’inizio del secolo XVI, e il modo in cui avvenne la sua fine ha interessato a lungo gli studiosi. La Colonia di Groenlandia era il più remoto avamposto della civiltà europea e la sua fine – su un lontano lido, in un paese quasi dimenticato, in condizioni climatiche che peggioravano e in circostanze assai tetre – è stata considerata da molti la più impressionante tragedia vissuta da un popolo nordico. Essa rimane uno dei problemi insoluti della storia.

“Vediamo oggi, col senno di poi, come tutto, nella colonizzazione norrena in Groenlandia, fosse giocato al suo limite. I colonizzatori sarebbero potuti sopravvivere soltanto se non fosse intervenuto nessun mutamento in peggio. In Islanda l’Europeo del Medioevo aveva rischiato le sue ultime possibilità per vivere al nord, e aveva potuto osar questo senza rinunziare a un sistema di vita scandinavo. L’Islanda si trova all’estremo limite del mondo abitabile; la Groenlandia oltre quel limite. Papa Alessandro VI scriveva nel 1492: «La Chiesa di Gardar è situata alla fine del mondo» e la strada per raggiungerla era infaustamente nota: per mare non minus tempestosissimum quam longissimum. Era pertanto un prerequisito per i groenlandesi – se volevano dominare il destino – possedere un naviglio loro capace di solcare i mari. Ben presto invece non ebbero non ebbero a disposizione né i capitali né il materiale per costruirlo; dopo essersi sottomessi alla Norvegia fu loro esplicitamente vietato di usare navi proprie: e, da allora in poi, le condizioni per la sopravvivenza non dipesero più dalla loro volontà. I cambiamenti politici ed economici all’estero, senza loro colpa né offesa, potevano ormai distruggerli, e la loro negligenza doveva mostrarsi altrettanto letale di un attacco. Secondariamente il loro numero era pericolosamente esiguo: probabilmente non raggiunsero mai le tremila anime. La popolazione dell’Islanda dell’anno 1100 era pressappoco di 80.000 persone. Il fuoco, i ghiacci, le pestilenze e l’abbandono da parte dei norvegesi ridussero questo numero a 47.000 nel 1800: uno sciupio omicida per una razza molto prolifica. La Groenlandia non possedeva una siffatta riserva di umani sacrifici. In terzo luogo: di tutte le comunità europee essa era la più vulnerabile ai cambiamenti climatici. Per gli altri uomini dell’Europa una serie di inverni freddi e di cattive estati è una seccatura e un fastidio; per i groenlandesi rappresentava il suono di una campana a morte. (…)

“Con tutta probabilità il freddo crescente e la maggior aridità dopo il 1200 contribuirono gli eschimesi a recarsi verso sud. Man mano che il ghiaccio andava estendendosi lungo le coste ovest della Groenlandia, anche le foche si diffusero; a loro volta gli Skraeling seguirono le foche, perché ogni aspetto della loro vita dipendeva da questi animali. Trichechi e balene, caribù e orsi, pernici bianche e piccoli pesci erano tutti bene accolti dagli eschimesi, ma alle foche essi erano legati in modo particolare. I norreni si spingevano a nord, alla ricerca di territori di caccia e di legname trasportato dalle correnti; gli eschimesi scendevano a sud inseguendo le foche: il loro incontro era inevitabile. Non sappiamo quanti di questi incontri abbiano lasciato tracce di sangue sulla neve, poiché tanto per i norreni quanto per gli eschimesi la posta era alta, ed essi dovevano ben saperlo. Il futuro sarebbe stato favorevole a quel popolo che sarebbe riuscito ad adattarsi meglio al mutamento del clima. Gli eschimesi, resi autosufficienti dalle foche, ben impellicciati e protetti contro il freddo, con le loro tende per l’estate, le case per l’inverno e i velocissimi caicchi, erano invero mirabilmente attrezzati. I norreni, legati alle abitudini europee sino alla fine, della colonizzazione, attaccati ai greggi, alle mandrie e ai pascoli che andavano scomparendo, non potevano sopravvivere al loro fimbulvetr, a quel lungo, spietato, terribile inverno, il cui avvicinarsi annunciava la fine del loro mondo. (…)

“L’insediamento occidentale ebbe termine nel 1342. Abbiamo scarse prove di come ciò sia avvenuto, e sono inoltre prove discutibili. Gli Annali del vescovo Gisli Oddsson precisano sotto la data di quell’anno che: «Gli abitanti della Groenlandia, di loro spontanea volontà, abbandonarono la vera fede e la religione cristiana, avendo abbandonato il retto sentiero e le virtù fondamentali, e si unirono coi popoli dell’America (ad Americae populos se converterunt). Alcuni considerano anche che la Groenlandia si trova molto vicina alle regioni occidentali del mondo. E da questo derivò che i cristiani rinunciassero ai loro viaggi in Groenlandia». Per il vescovo i ‘popoli dell’America’ erano quasi certamente gli eschimesi, cioè quegli stessi Skraeling che i groenlandesi avevano incontrato molto tempo prima in Marclandia e in Vinlandia; e la sua asserzione dev’essere interpretata come un’indicazione che già nel 1342 si riteneva che i groenlandesi fossero divenuti indigeni per costume e religione. Fu probabilmente per esaminare il carattere e l’estensione di quest’apostasia che un anno prima, nel 1341, il vescovo Hakon di Bergen aveva inviato il prete Ivar Bardarson in una spedizione divenuta poi famosa. (…)

“Si sparse la voce che i norreni stavano ‘convertendosi’ alla fede egli eschimesi e abbandonavano la religione cristiana; si disse che bisognava fare qualcosa a questo proposito. Ma allorché Ivar Bardarson arrivò in Groenlandia, una di queste due cose doveva essere accaduta: o gli ultimi sopravvissuti dell’insediamento occidentale si erano ritirati verso il sud per cercare scampo, o erano stati vinti e sterminati dagli Skraeling. Comunque, la spedizione di Ivar non servì che a confermare questo fatto: «attualmente gli Skraeling occupano tutta la Colonia occidentale». La cultura tipicamente scandinava scomparve ovunque al di là della latitudine 62° nord. Dopo il 1350 circa l’esistenza di colonie norrene in Groenlandia era limitata a Eystridyggd.

“I documenti storici e archeologici dimostrano che l’insediamento orientale combatté tenacemente per la propria esistenza. Lì viveva gran parte della popolazione norrena, e lì si trovavano anche le terre migliori. Ciononostante la perdita dell’Insediamento occidentale rappresentò per quello orientale un’irreparabile calamità. Da un lato portò alla perdita del Nordseta, il miglior terreno di caccia della Groenlandia, che si trovava più a nord dell’insediamento perduto e, sebbene la richiesta di prodotti del Norseta fosse in declino, ciò costituì una drastica riduzione delle risorse dei coloni. Ma ancora più grave fu la sensazione che un destino analogo minacciasse anche l’insediamento rimasto. Certamente gli eschimesi stavano reagendo duramente alla presenza dei bianchi nel sud; e noi apprendiamo dagli Annali islandesi (Gottskalksannal) che intorno al 1379 «gli Skaraeling attaccarono i groenlandesi, ne uccisero diciotto e rapirono due ragazzi che fecero schiavi». (…)

“Le testimonianze relative alle comunicazioni tra la Groenlandia e il mondo esterno, dopo la metà del secolo XIV, si possono così sintetizzare: nei primi decenni una nave, protetta dal monopolio regale, compì, a intervalli frequenti se non proprio ogni anno, il tragitto Norvegia Groenlandia. Era questo il Groenlands knörr, il Corriere della Groenlandia; ma non sembra che sia stato sostituito dopo che andò perduto nel 1367 o ’69. In seguito le comunicazioni furono scarse. Tutte le prove che possediamo di viaggi in Groenlandia riguardano una strana serie di uomini: Bjorn Einarsson Jorsalafari, detto il Pellegrino di Gerusalemme, fece naufragio in Groenlandia e vi rimase per due anni; un gruppo d’islandesi, smarrita la rotta, vi arrivò nel 1406 e vi rimase quattro anni; una coppia alquanto misteriosa, Pining e Pothorst, fece un viaggio piuttosto chimerico in Groenlandia, e pare anche oltre, nell’oceano occidentale, forse anche fino al Labrador, poco dopo il 1470, aggiungendo così nuove sfumature fantastiche alla cartografia del Rinascimento e qualche luce, ma anche molte ombre, alle vaghe conoscenze che il XVI secolo ebbe del più remoto settentrione. (…)

“Quando e come si sia estinto l’Insediamento orientale non sapremo mai. Con ogni probabilità il fenomeno si verificò subito dopo la fine del 1500. Deve esserci stato un progressivo indebolimento della Colonia. A Herjolfsnes, e ancor più probabilmente a Unartoq, ci sono prove di sepolture collettive che possono far pensare a una morte per epidemia, forse per peste, sebbene non se ne trovi conferma nelle fonti storiche. Come per Vestribyggd, dobbiamo immaginare che la Colonia si sia andata ritirando sotto la pressione eschimese, mentre le famiglie che vivevano ai confini indietreggiavano verso le zone centrali, e alcuni (non necessariamente gli spiriti più deboli) coglievano l’occasione per far ritorno in Islanda o in Norvegia. Altri furono rapiti da violenti predoni europei, tra i quali par che predominassero gli inglesi; ed è logico ritenere che l’isolamento, profondamente sentito, unito alle altre sciagure, abbia alimentato una debolezza fisica e morale che ridusse la volontà di sopravvivenza. Nel complesso la vecchia teoria che la Colonia groenlandese sia andata morendo tra l’indifferenza del resto del mondo rimane sostanzialmente valida. (…)

“Quando nel 1586 l’inglese John Davis riuscì a sfuggire all’atroce desolazione delle coste sud-orientali della Groenlandia e contemplò con sollievo «semplice paesaggio campestre con terra ed erba», all’interno dei fiordi occidentali, non trovò nessuna traccia di bianchi, «né vide alcuna cosa a eccezione di avvoltoi, corvi e piccoli uccelli, come allodole e fanelli». Questi erano i fiordi dell’antico Insediamento occidentale, ma la stessa cosa era di quello orientale. La terra, l’acqua e tutto ciò che esse potevano offrire appartenevano ormai agli esuberanti e tenaci eschimesi. La vicenda norrena in Groenlandia era giunta alla fine”.

La Groenlandia era stata visitata da arditi navigatori vichinghi già al principio del X secolo e colonizzata a partire dal 982 per opera di Erik il Rosso, che la chiamò “Terra Verde” perché tale, in estate, è l’aspetto di alcuni fiordi riparati, ove fioriscono alcuni verdi prati e si concentra buona parte della fauna dell’isola.

Grazie alla presenza di correnti marine calde, era la costa più lontana dall’Europa, ossia quella occidentale, a presentare le condizioni più favorevoli per un insediamento; e fu lì che si concentrarono gli sforzi di quei primi coloni, provenienti tutti dall’Islanda. Il loro numero si stabilizzò intorno alle tremila unità; la loro economia, oltre che su di una limitata attività silvo-pastorale, era basata essenzialmente sul commercio delle pelli di foca e sulle ossa di balena (cfr. Enzo Collotti, La storia della Groenlandia, in Enciclopedia Geografica Il Milione, Novara, De Agostini, 1970, vol. X, p. 135).

Anche il cristianesimo si organizzò presso quelle comunità scandinave, tanto che nel 1126 fu insediato in Groenlandia, per la prima volta, un vescovo norvegese.

Scrive il Collotti (loc. cit.):

“Seppure per breve tempo, i legami con la Norvegia erano destinati a divenire ancora più stretti ed istituzionali, allorché nel 1261 fu riconosciuta sull’isola la sovranità del re di Norvegia. Successivamente, il progressivo allentamento dei rapporti con la penisola scandinava fu conseguenza della creazione di un nuovo equilibrio di forze politiche e di nuove correnti di traffico, che dirottarono il commercio norvegese verso gli interessi dei mercanti tedeschi, che avevano finito con l’assumere di fatto il controllo dei traffici della Norvegia”.

Anche se si tratta di una pagina di storia generalmente poco conosciuta, il collasso della colonizzazione norvegese in Groenlandia offre un esempio, che si potrebbe definire paradigmatico, di come una società umana non possa reggersi indefinitamente in un ambiente in cui essa non è in grado di adattarsi in maniera adeguata.

Non vi sono prove del fatto che i Norvegesi abusarono delle risorse locali offerte dalla magra vegetazione e dalla fauna artica; è certo, invece, che non furono in grado di fronteggiare il peggioramento climatico con gli scarsi mezzi di cui disponevano. Il colpo di grazia venne poi da una serie di circostanze concomitanti: il disinteresse del re di Norvegia, che di fatto li abbandonò al loro destino, dopo averli obbligati a rinunciare, per legge, all’esercizio di una propria marineria; le migrazioni verso sud di gruppi, relativamente numerosi, di Eschimesi, assai meglio adattati alla sopravvivenza in quell’ambiente ostile; alcune probabili pestilenze, testimoniate da un certo numero di sepolture comuni; e, infine, le incursioni di alcuni pirati europei, specialmente inglesi, che rapirono gli abitanti e devastarono le loro fattorie.

Ad ogni modo, la lezione che possiamo trarre da quella lontana vicenda è chiara: un gruppo umano non può mantenersi su un determinato territorio, a meno che sappia integrarsi con l’ambiente, usufruire adeguatamente delle sue risorse, adattarsi ai cambiamenti climatici ed ecologici e introdurre quelle innovazioni, nei suoi metodi di lavoro e nella sua psicologia, che gli consentano di attenuare l’impatto dovuto ai mutamenti stessi.

Il risultato della incapacità dei coloni norvegesi in Groenlandia di adattarsi a condizioni di vita sensibilmente diverse da quelle esistenti in Scandinavia fu la decadenza della loro società, il suo progressivo restringimento, che dovette essere anche morale e spirituale oltre che materiale, e infine la loro scomparsa totale e irreversibile.

Il loro principale errore, se così possiamo chiamarlo, fu, in altre parole, quello di aver cercato di colonizzare la Groenlandia come se fosse stata la Norvegia o magari l’Islanda: non si resero conto che le condizioni del clima e del suolo erano sostanzialmente diverse e che solo sforzandosi di elaborare nuove forme di caccia, di pesca, di architettura e di riscaldamento, avrebbero potuto sopravvivere e, forse, prosperare. Il loro fu un vero e proprio collasso tecnico e morale: ed è impressionante pensare che dei coraggiosi e valentissimi marinai, quali essi erano stati, alla fine, quando ciò sarebbe stato questione di vita o di morte, non seppero mettere in mare neppure una nave per ristabilire il collegamento con l’Europa o, almeno, per evacuare ordinatamente i loro sfortunati insediamenti.

Per trovare un esempio altrettanto drammatico di come la decadenza dell’arte della navigazione possa segnare il destino di una importante società umana, bisogna spostarsi di molte decine di migliaia di chilometri, fino nel cuore dell’Oceano Pacifico meridionale, sull’isola di Pasqua (Rapa-Nui in polinesiano). Gli studi più recenti hanno ormai ampiamente dimostrato che la civiltà che aveva saputo costruire gli sbalorditivi monumenti di pietra, i Moai, che tanto colpirono i primi coloni europei, dopo la scoperta dell’isola da parte di Roggeveen nel 1722, subì un collasso irreversibile a causa del dissennato disboscamento praticato dagli indigeni. L’isola di Pasqua, allorché vi giunsero i colonizzatori polinesiani provenienti da occidente – probabilmente da Tahiti – era ammantata da una straordinaria, lussureggiante foresta primigenia. Ma, nel corso di alcuni secoli, essa venne ridotta a una landa sassosa battuta dai venti, a causa della deforestazione incontrollata, il cui scopo era mettere a coltura nuovi terreni fertili, procurare legname per le imbarcazioni da pesca, per le abitazioni, e per il riscaldamento, nonché la stessa tecnica di trasporto delle statue colossali, dalle pendici del vulcano centrale fino alle coste dell’isola, che richiedeva l’uso dei tronchi degli alberi in funzione di rulli.

Allorché l’ultimo albero venne abbattuto, la pratica della navigazione d’alto mare andò irrimediabilmente perduta e quei fieri navigatori, regrediti a coltivatori sedentari del tutto isolati dal resto del mondo, precipitarono in una serie di guerre intestine che cancellarono perfino il ricordo della passata grandezza.

Al giorno d’oggi, gli uomini fanno totalmente affidamento sui continui progressi della tecnica per imporre un controllo sempre più forte sull’ambiente in cui vivono; sono convinti, infatti, di poter padroneggiare qualsiasi ambiente naturale, tanto è vero che sono allo studio persino dei progetti di colonizzazione spaziale.

Ma, in questo modo, ci sembra che la lezione della fallita colonizzazione norvegese in Groenlandia (e del collasso della civiltà dell’isola di Pasqua, di cui ci occuperemo in un prossimo lavoro), sia andata interamente perduta. Non bisognerebbe puntare, infatti, su una radicale trasformazione dell’ambiente ai fini delle esigenze umane, bensì puntare al raggiungimento dell’equilibrio fra le esigenze della società umana – economiche, culturali e spirituali – e l’ambiente medesimo. In altre parole, l’uomo dovrebbe cercare di vivere in armonia con la natura, e non di imporre ad essa, in tutto e per tutto, le sue necessità, cercando di creare quasi una seconda natura “artificiale”. Procedendo in quest’ultima direzione, infatti, egli crea con le sue stesse mani le premesse per una degenerazione degli equilibri ambientali, che prima o poi gli si ritorcerà contro; senza contare che la tecnologia, quanto più è sofisticata, tanto più è settoriale e non adeguata a fronteggiare situazioni impreviste, quali un rapido cambiamento climatico.

I piccoli Eschimesi, ben coperti nelle loro calde pellicce e ben attrezzati per la caccia alla foca, sia per mare che a terra, sopravvissero all’avvento della ‘piccola età glaciale’, che si abbatté sulla Groenlandia a partire dal XIII secolo; mentre gli alti e forti Norvegesi si estinsero miseramente, senza lasciar di sé alcuna traccia, tranne alcune fattorie in rovina e poche chiese abbandonate, con i loro malinconici cimiteri.

La lezione, ripetiamo, è piuttosto chiara.

Qualora le circostanze climatiche e ambientali dovessero mutare, anche a livello globale, non sarebbe una tecnologia sempre più invasiva a salvarci, ma, al contrario, la capacità di elaborare una tecnologia a misura di ambiente, ossia la capacità di creare condizioni di adattamento eco-compatibili che, rispettando le altre specie viventi animali e vegetali, offrirebbero anche a noi maggiori possibilità di sopravvivenza.

È evidente che, in una simile prospettiva, dovremmo rinunciare alla funesta ideologia dello sviluppo illimitato e al delirio di onnipotenza che le filosofie scientiste hanno veicolato, dal 1600 ad oggi; per ritrovare, invece, le ragioni di una presenza umana sul pianeta Terra che non sia più vista in termini di ‘crescita’ e di sfruttamento indiscriminato delle risorse, ma di armonioso inserimento nell’ambiente naturale.

lundi, 15 août 2011

Europe's Enemy: Islam or America?

Europe’s Enemy: Islam or America?
Guillaume Faye’s Le coup d’Etat mondial

Michael O'MEARA

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

Guillaume Faye
Le coup d’Etat mondial:
Essai sur le Nouvel Impérialisme Américain
(Global Coup d’Etat: An Essay on the New American Imperialism)
Paris: L’Æncre, 2004

 Fas est ab hoste doceri. (It is permitted to learn from the enemy.) — Ovid

This past spring, for the sixth time in six years, Guillaume Faye has published a book that redefines the political contours of European nationalism (“nationalism” here referring not to the defense of the nineteenth-century “nation-state,” but of Magna Europa). Like each of his previous works, Coup d’Etat mondial speaks to the exigencies of the moment, as well as to the perennial concerns of the European ethnos. In this spirit, it offers a scathing critique of the “new American imperialism” and the European anti-Americanism opposing it, while simultaneously contributing to a larger nationalist debate over Europe’s destiny. Framed in terms of Carl Schmitt’s Freund/Feind designation, this debate revolves around the question: Who is Europe’s enemy? For Schmitt, this question is tantamount to asking who threatens Europe’s state system and, by implication, who threatens its unique bioculture.

During the Cold War, the more advanced nationalists rejected the conventional view that Soviet Communism was the principal enemy and instead designated the United States. This is evident in the works of Francis Parker Yockey, Jean Thiriart, Adriano Romualdi, Otto Strasser, Alain de Benoist, and in the politics of the sole European statesman to have defended Europe’s independence in the postwar period: Charles de Gaulle.

It was not, however, America’s occupation of postwar Europe that alone aligned these nationalists against the U.S.—though this was perhaps cause enough. Rather, it was the liberal democratic basis of America’s postwar order, whose deculturating materialism was seen as corrupting the biocultural foundations of European life. The Soviets’ brutal occupation of Eastern Europe may therefore have broken the bodies of those opposing them, but America, for nationalists, threatened their souls.

Today, this anti-American opposition persists, but has come to signify something quite different. What has changed, and this starts to be evident in the late 1980s and even more so in the ’90s, is Third World immigration, which puts the American threat in an entirely altered perspective. In nationalist ranks, Faye stands out as the principal proponent of the view that Islam and its nonwhite immigrants now constitute Europe’s enemy and that America, though still an adversary, has become a less threatening menace.

For Faye, the New American Imperialism (NAI) associated with the Bush administration supplants the earlier, more implicit imperialism of the Cold War era. This imperialism, though, is not specifically Bush’s creation, for it arose in the Cold War’s wake and took form in subsequent aggressions on Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and now Iraq.

The older imperialism had a Wilsonian facade, legitimated with moral pronouncements and a naive, but occasionally sincere, effort to regulate the world according to its liberal principles. By contrast, the NAI rejects this “softer” (and actually more effective) variant of American power for a policy that aggressively asserts U.S. military might irrespective of “world opinion.” It ceases thus to pursue its interests through international organizations embodying its liberal world view and instead embraces a militaristic unilateralism that defies international convention in the name of America’s “vital interests.”

Against the arguments of its apologists, Faye claims the NAI is not the hard-headed, morally clear assertion of American power that they make it out to be, but rather a puerile, utopian, and unrealistic one based on the notion that tout est permis!— anything goes. The United States may be the world’s dominant power, but it lacks what Aristotle and the conservative tradition of statecraft understood as the enduring basis of power: prudence. For in confusing dominance with omnipotence, the NAI’s neoconservative executors, like all who draw the wages of hubris, inadvertently earn themselves—and America—the likelihood of a tragic fall.

In this vein, U.S. vital interests (what the present administration defines in Zionist, militarist, and globalist terms) are treated as the sole permissible basis of national sovereignty. A state—”rogue” or otherwise—that exercises its autonomy, fabricates weapons of mass destruction (i.e., weapons capable of ensuring its sovereignty), or resists Washington’s dictates is deemed an enemy and risks reprisal. Implicit in this redefinition of America’s world role is the assumption that the United States is the world’s gendarme, its lone sovereign power, obliged to uphold a law which is synonymous with its own strategic interests.

Moreover, the NAI’s assumption that the United States has the capacity to dominate the planet is, if nothing else, simpleminded. Its proponents might think they are breaking with the legalistic or Kantian postulates of liberal internationalism by pursuing hegemonist objectives with military methods (which, in itself, would be unobjectionable), but this readiness to substitute raw power for other forms of power (that is, for power exercised in the “thieves’ den” of the United Nations or through international regulatory agencies the United States created after 1945) is informed by the Judeo-Protestant illusion that America does God’s work in the world. This cannot but disconnect them from all they seek to dominate, for in applying their illusory principles to an intractable reality, they cannot but lurch from disaster to disaster.

The NAI’s peculiar mix of political Machiavellianism and millennial Calvinism has been especially prominent in Iraq, the conquest of which was to be a cakewalk. Not only did Bush and his advisers have no idea of what they were getting into, they completely misread the capacities of American power. If the U.S. Air Force possesses unparalleled firepower, the modern American soldier cannot fight on the ground. With half its army occupying a country with no military capacity and its helicopter gunships, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, and body-armored ground troops arrayed against lightly-armed and untrained insurgents, it is stretched to the breaking-point.

Despite its imperialist ambitions, America is not Rome. Faye argues that it is more like a house of cards—an ephemeral economic-political enterprise—lacking those ethnic, religious, and cultural traits that go into making a great people and a great power.

As any white Californian will attest, there is, in fact, no longer anything particularly American about America, only people like the turbaned Sikh who drives the local cab, the Mexican illegal who mows our neighbors’ lawn, the Indian programmer who replaces his higher-paid white counterpart, the Chinese grocer who sells us beer and cigarettes late at night, the African who empties the bedpans in our nursing homes, the Africans of American birth who run our cities and public agencies, and the white zombies insulated in distant, manicured suburbs, where the voices of children are rarely heard. For Faye, this disparate hodgepodge is not a nation in any historical sense, only an artificial social system, whose members, as Lewis Lapham has written, are “united by little else except the possession of a credit card and password to the internet.” Why, it seems almost unnecessary to ask, would an American Gurkha risk his life for such an entity?

The military technology of Imperial America undoubtedly lacks an equal, but its centrality to U.S. power, Faye claims, testifies to nothing so much as the enfeebled cognitive abilities of its elites, who think their computerized gadgetry is a substitute for those primordial human qualities that go into making a people or a nation—qualities such as those that steeled not just Rome’s republican legions, but the Celtic-Saxon ranks of the Confederacy, the gunmen of the IRA, the indomitable battalions of the Wehrmacht, and the Red Army of the Great Patriotic War. In the absence of these qualities forged by blood and history, the NAI’s space-age military (whose recruiters now slip beneath the border to find the “volunteers” for its imperial missions) is a paper tiger, no match for a nation in arms—not even a pathetic, misbegotten nation like Iraq.

The hubris-ridden neoconservatives leading America into this costly adventure from which it is unlikely to recover did so without the slightest consideration of the toll it would take on the country’s already stressed and overtaxed institutions. Fighting for objectives that are everywhere challenged and with troops that are not only afraid to die, but have no idea of what they are dying for, the only thing they have actually accomplished is what they set out to combat: For they have inflamed the Middle East, enhanced Islam’s prestige, augmented bin Laden’s ranks, accelerated the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and turned the whole world against them.

Finally, Faye depicts the NAI as America’s last bloom. Both domestically and internationally, the signs of American decline, he observes, are more and more evident. For all that once distinguished America is now tarnished. Its melting pot no longer assimilates, its mixed-race population is inextricably Balkanized, its state is increasingly maniacal in its anti-white, anti-family, anti-community policies, and its market, the one remaining basis of social integration, is in serious difficulty, burdened by massive trade imbalances, unable to generate industrial jobs, hampered by astronomical debts and deficits, and increasingly dependent on the rest of the world. Even the country’s fabled democracy has ceased to work, with elections decided by the courts, fraudulent polling practices, and a pervasive system of spin and simulacrum. The virtuality of the political process seems, actually, to reflect nothing so much as the increasingly illusory authority of its reigning elites, whose oligarchic disposition and incompetent management necessitates a system of smoke and mirrors.

Internationally, America faces a no less bleak situation. Faye points out that the almighty dollar, for sixty years the world’s reserve currency, is now threatened by the euro (which means the country will soon no longer be able to live on credit); the European Union and Asia’s rising economic colossus are undermining its primacy in world markets; it faces the wrath of a billion Muslims worldwide and does nothing to stem the Muslim immigration to the United States; its occupation of Iraq is causing it to hemorrhage monetarily, morally, and militarily; and, not least, its image and integrity have been so damaged that raw power alone sustains its fragile hegemony.

Unlike the implicit imperialism of the Cold War era, the NAI is openly anti-European. In this vein, it opposes the continent’s political unification; treats its allies, even its British poodle, with contempt; practices a divide and conquer tactic which pits the so-called New Europe against the Old; and pursues a strategic orientation aimed at containing Europe and keeping it dependent on the U.S. security system.

In parallel with this anti-Europeanism, there has developed in Europe what Faye calls an “obsessional and hysterical anti-Americanism” (OHAA). He sees this development as so destructive of Europe’s self-interest that he factitiously suggests that it is probably subsidized by the CIA. For this anti-Americanism bears little relation to earlier forms of French anti-Americanism, which sought to defend France’s High Culture from the subversions of America’s culture industry. Nor are its right-wing proponents firmly in the pale of the “new revolutionary nationalism,” which designates liberalism’s cosmopolitan plutocracy as the chief enemy and resists its denationalization of capital, population, and territory. Instead, this OHAA not only does nothing to advance the European project, its fixation on the NAI inadvertently contributes to the Islamization and Third Worldization of the continent, hastening, in effect, its demise as a civilizational entity.

Touching the government and numerous nationalist tendencies, in addition to the perennially anti-identitarian Left, this OHAA is informed by a simpleminded Manichaeanism, which assumes that America’s enemy (Islam) is Europe’s friend. By this logic, America is depicted as a source of evil and Islam as a possible savior. In effect, these anti-Americans adopt not just Islam’s Manichaean world view, but that of the Judeo-Protestants who make up Bush’s political base. For like the neoconservative publicists and propagandists advising the administration and like the mullahs shepherding their submissive, but fanatical flocks, they too paint the world in black and white terms, the axis of good versus the axis of evil, with the enemy (America or Islam) seen as the source of all evil and our side (America or Islam) as the seat of all virtue.

And just as the liberal/neocon image of America is Hebraic, not Greco-European, these European anti-Americans carry in their demonstrations the flags of Iraq, Palestine, Algeria, and Morocco, shout Allah Akbar, and affirm their solidarity with Islam—all without the slightest affirmation of their own people and culture. This simple-minded Manichaeanism influences not only left-wing immigrationists bent on subverting Europe’s bioculture, but French New Rightists around Alain de Benoist, revolutionary nationalists around Christian Bouchet, traditionalists around the Austrian Martin Schwartz and the Italian Claudio Mutti, and various Eurasianists, as well as many lesser known tendencies. Worse, the politicians catering to this anti-Americanism oppose the NAI less for the sake of Europe’s autonomy than for that of its large Muslim minority. They thus refuse to be an American protectorate, but at the same time display the greatest indifference to the fact that they are rapidly becoming an Islamic-Arabic colony: Eurabia.

The economic and cultural war the United States wages on Europe, Faye stresses, ought to warrant the firmest of European ripostes, but to feel the slightest solidarity with Islam, even when “unjustly” attacked, is simply masochistic—for, if the last 1400 years is any guide, it seeks nothing so much as to conquer and destroy Europe. American plutocratic liberalism may be responsible for fostering transnational labor markets that import millions of Third World immigrants into the white Lebensraum, but if the latter are ignored for the sake of resisting the former, the end result may soon be that there will no Europeans left to defend. (Medically, this would be equivalent to fighting typhoid by ignoring the infectious bacillus assaulting the sufferer and instead concentrating exclusively on eliminating the contaminated food and water that transmit it —in which case the disease would be eradicated, but the patient not live to appreciate it).

The OHAA’s simpleminded politics, Faye argues, ends up not just misconceiving Europe’s enemy, but sanctioning its colonization, including the colonization of its mind. Like the “poor African” who is routinely portrayed as the victim of white colonialism, this sort of anti-Americanism makes the European the victim of U.S. imperialism. As we know from experiences on our side of the Atlantic, such a mentality takes responsibility for nothing and attributes everything it finds objectionable to the white man, in this case the American.

More pathetically still, in designating the United States as an irreconcilable enemy and Islam as a friend, these anti-Americans inadvertently dance to Washington’s own tune. Based on his La colonisation de l’Europe: Discours vrai sur l’immigration et l’Islam (2000) and in reference to Alexander del Valle’s Islamisme et Etats-Unis: Une alliance contre l’Europe (1999), Faye contends that since the early 1980s U.S. policy has aggressively promoted Europe’s Third Worldization—through its ideology of human rights, multiculturalism, and multiracialism, through its unrelenting effort to force the European Union to admit Turkey, but above all through its intervention on behalf of Islam in the Yugoslavian civil war. In all these ways fostering social, religious, cultural, and ethnic divisions that neutralize Europe’s potential threat to its own hegemony, it seeks to subvert European unity.

Looking to the Arab world to counter U.S. imperialism can only lead to national suicide. Those who advocate Europe’s alliance with the Third World are thus for Faye not simply naive, but neurotic. America may be a competitor, an adversary, a culturally distorting force, it may even be the principal international force for liberal cosmopolitanism, but in relation to the ethnocidal threat posed by Islam it is almost entirely innocuous. Europeans can always recover from the deculturation that comes from American domination, but not from the destruction of their genetic heritage, which Islam promises. Faye suggests that this anti-American neurosis, like the classic textbook pathology, designates America as its enemy for fear of acknowledging the danger looming under its very nose. As such, the anti-American Islamophiles refuse to see what’s happening in Europe, whose soft, dispirited white population is increasingly cowed by Islam’s conquering life-force. For however much American policy assaults Europe, it does not constitute the life-and-death danger which the invading Islamic colonizers do. To think otherwise is possible only by ignoring the primacy of race and culture. Instead, then, of pursuing chimerical relations with people whose underlying motive is the destruction of Europe as we know it, it would be wiser, Faye claims, for Europeans to view what’s happening in Iraq as the Chinese and Indians do: with cynical detachment and an eye to their own self-interest.

The greatest danger to Europe, and this idea is the axis around which Faye’s argument revolves, comes from the Islamic lands to the “South,” whose nonwhite immigrants are presently colonizing the continent, assuming control of its biosphere, and altering the foundations of European life. For European nationalists and governments to treat America, with its shallow, provisional power, as the enemy and Islam, with its nonwhite multitudes pressing on Europe’s borders, as its friend is the height of folly.

Not coincidentally, such an anti-Americanism is first cousin to the anti-white sensibility one finds in American liberal and neoconservative ranks. For just as those who try to convince us that America is a “creed,” not a white nation, these anti-Americans allying with Islam to fight the ricains betray their patrie—treating it as an abstraction and not a people. If Americans would be better off using their troops to defend their porous border instead of playing cowboy in Mesopotamia, as we white nationalists believe, Europeans loyal to their heritage would do better, Faye advises, to resist rather than to make common cause with those who are presently invading their lands.

To Faye, there can never be a total rupture between Europe and white America, given the blood bonds linking them. They might pursue divergent interests, over which dispute is inevitable, but the racial and cultural differences separating Europe from the Islamic world are insurmountable. In this spirit, he predicts that “the great clashes of the 21st century will not pit the United States against the rest of the world, but rather the Whitemen of the North against all the other racial-civilizational blocs.”

The culturally noxious effects of the liberal-democratic order of money imposed on Europe after 1945 caused European nationalists to define themselves in opposition not just to American-style liberalism, but to America as a nation. For those nationalists who continue to uphold this line, Third World immigration (which they do not favor) is viewed as an offshoot of a techno-economic system that dismisses biocultural qualities for the quantifying ones of the liberal market.

Only in fighting this system, and its chief sponsor, the United States, will Europe, they believe, be able to defend its heritage and its destiny. The Third World immigrants experiencing the deracination that comes with transnational labor markets cannot, then, be Europe’s enemy, for they too are its victim. Besides, their traditionalist, premodern culture makes them prospective allies in what is seen as a common struggle against America’s “cultureless civilization.”

But even in granting that there is a certain logic—even a certain justice—to this position, it rests upon two false premises, which Guillaume Faye has been almost alone in Europe in polemicizing: 1) that culture trumps race and 2) that race is unrelated, if not irrelevant, to culture.

His Coup d’Etat mondial offers, then, a powerful antidote to this false and potentially fatal reasoning. It demystifies the new American imperialism, revealing its tenuous character. It exposes the self-destructive character of an opposition refusing to recognize Europe’s real enemy. And, most important, in designating this enemy—the nonwhite colonizers who hope to turn Europe into a dar-al-Islam—it designates what is the single, most unavoidable, and absolutely necessary duty of white people everywhere: the defense of their homelands.

Source: TOQ, vol. 5, no. 3 (Summer 2005)


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

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/08/europes-enemy-islam-or-americaguillaume-fayes-le-coup-detat-mondial/

mardi, 26 juillet 2011

Atlantis & the Death of the American Myth

atlantis.jpg

Atlantis & the Death of the American Myth

John MORGAN

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

On Friday, July 8, 2011, the 135th and last-ever space shuttle mission, carried out by the shuttle Atlantis, is being launched. What many Americans don’t seem to realize yet is that this effectively marks the end of a half-century of America’s adventure into space which began with John F. Kennedy’s call for America to land men on the Moon in his famous 1961 speech.

Since that time NASA carried out the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs, the last of which successfully completed 6 astronaut landings on the Moon. This was followed closely by the shuttle program, which began in 1981 and lasted for 30 years. So after this illustrious record, what’s next?

The answer is: nothing. NASA had a Constellation program in development which was intended to replace the shuttle, and which it was hoped would eventually return men to the Moon and perhaps eventually go on to Mars. But last year President Obama declared that the program was hopelessly behind schedule and over-budget, and killed it, over the protests of many of the Apollo astronaut veterans. After all, when you’re engaged in two wars (four these days, counting Libya and Yemen) and trying to create and fund a lot of ambitious social programs while being trillions of dollars in debt, space travel seems a bit extravagant.

This means that from now on, if America ever wants or needs to send astronauts into space, such as to the international space station, it will have to hitch a ride with its former competitors, the Russians. (If there is any greater indicator of declining American power and wealth than that, I don’t know what it is.) And the Russians are still using the same old Soyuz rockets that they’ve been building since the 1960s. It makes you think that maybe the U.S. should have kept around a few of its Saturn V rockets from the Apollo days.

Not that manned American spaceflight is completely dead. After killing the Constellation project, Obama’s people came up with a plan by which NASA may eventually build some sort of capsule that can be attached to existing commercial satellite launchers, rockets that are built and owned by private companies rather than by NASA itself. So the dream of space travel has officially been privatized. How far off can “Planet Starbucks” be, to quote Fight Club?

I can’t get too worked up about the fate of the shuttle itself. Its technology is antiquated by today’s standards. And it was never really inspiring, since all it ever did, and all it was ever capable of doing, was to make short excursions into low-earth orbit and then come home. As an American kid growing up in the 1980s, I remember the shuttle was kind of a bummer after the previous generation had been able to experience the thrill of landing men on the Moon.

But still, the shuttle was cool. It could land like a plane rather than splashing down in the ocean as the old space capsules had done. It could be re-used many times, unlike all previous rockets. And it at least showed that we were doing something in space.

In the ’80s many of us were convinced that the shuttle was just part of a larger plan to bring the world of 2001: A Space Odyssey into reality, with routine flights to the Moon, manned missions to other planets, and Hiltons in orbit, all within our lifetimes.

Looking back after 30 years and 135 missions, it now seems that NASA was just marking time. Atlantis is the end of an era, and an indicator of the dangerous new era that America is entering.

Like any healthy civilization, America, since its birth, has always had a motivating myth to inspire its people, westward expansion being the most prominent one. In the 1960s, when American confidence was flagging in the face of apparently unstoppable Soviet expansionism and the ongoing humiliation of the Vietnam War, the goal of landing a man on the Moon helped to inspire Americans.

Yes, I’m well aware that the Apollo program was not really about the grandeur of space exploration or the desire to go there “in peace for all mankind,” but was just intended to pay the Soviet Union back for Sputnik. And I think most Americans must have known that at the time.

But still, it was exciting, and it was a good reason to do well in school or read a book or care about your country. And as a myth, it continues to be effective — “landing a man on the Moon” has been a rallying cry for defenders of America and Western civilization ever since.

While space travel was inspiring to me as a boy, in my adult years other things inspire me now. A great book or a great piece of music, or a spiritually advanced individual, or someone dedicated wholeheartedly to a good cause, mean a lot more to me these days than do astronauts or space flights.

I’ve also grown quite negative in my view of America’s role in the world, as well as of science’s ability to solve humanity’s genuine problems (and still more about scientism, or science’s elevation to the same status that rightfully belongs to religion). But in spite of all that, if America landed astronauts on the Moon or Mars, I haven’t grown so cold that it wouldn’t warm my heart.

Every great civilization has a motivating myth that gives its citizens a sense of purpose and meaning. And the United States did have that once, even when those myths were occasionally bad ones, such as “making the world safe for democracy.” But what myth can America offer today? The only myths that we have are not those which spark the imagination, one’s enthusiasm and the will, but only those by which America is trying desperately not to lose what it already has, such as the “war on terror,” which is really just a clumsy attempt to reverse America’s declining geopolitical power and grab the last of the cheap oil resources.

I really don’t know what inspires young minds today. At the risk of sounding like a young fogey (I’m only 37), perhaps that’s why the younger generation seem so materialistic and self-centered, since there’s never been much in terms of social idealism to capture their imaginations. What can America offer as something to inspire its young people? National health care? Multiculturalism? Imposing democracy by force of arms upon people who don’t want it? Bringing down the deficit? No wonder the young are more interested in worrying about their careers and their bank accounts.

I think the most frightening aspect of the end of American manned spaceflight has been the apparent lack of public outcry about it. Either people are ignorant of what’s afoot, or they are simply too jaded or worried about more immediate problems to care. Whatever the case may be, the end of the shuttle program marks the end of the last vestiges of the American myth.

I generally tend to shy away from apocalyptic collapse scenarios. Still, it cannot be denied that the United States, while it may continue to coast in some form for decades to come, has already seen its best days. The task now is not to mourn but to construct an alternative which can inspire our people for the age that will come after the American age. And I think we can do better.


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

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/07/atlantis-and-the-death-of-the-american-myth/

jeudi, 24 février 2011

Klansmen, Irishmen, & Nativists

Klansmen, Irishmen, & Nativists:
The Origins of Racial Nationalism in America

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

The heterogeneity of America’s European population has always posed a challenge to its national identity. Only late in the nineteenth century was this identity extended to European immigrants assimilated in its Anglo-Protestant values and, in the twentieth century, to Catholics, whose Church (the “Whore of Babylon”) had learned to accommodate the Protestant contours of American life (or what John Murray Cuddihy called its “civil religion”). From this ethnogenesis, the original Anglo-Protestant identity of the American people gradually evolved into a more inclusive European Christian identity, though one closely tied to its Anglo-Protestant antecedents.

Based on this heritage, racial nationalists today define America as a European nation and designate its anti-white elites as their principal enemy.

It was, though, but in fits and starts that American whites acquired an ethnonational identity. What’s often referred to as American nationalism—the expansionist slogans of Manifest Destiny, the ideology of Anglo-Saxonism, the gunboat diplomacy of the Progressives (McKinley, T. Roosevelt, Wilson)—was more a chauvinist statism legitimating territorial expansionism and land speculation than an ideological offshoot of the country’s racial-historical life forms. The primordial concerns of the American nation were thus only tangentially represented in these imperialist movements associated with the state’s expansion.

The first genuinely post-revolutionary expression of American ethnonationalism (i.e., “nationalism in its pristine sense”) began, accordingly, with the first wave of mass immigration, in the late 1830s and “the hungry Forties,” as Irish and South German Catholics reached American shores, affronting “Anglo-Americans” with their “otherness.” The “nativists” (native born, White, Protestant Americans) opposing the new immigrants rejected the crime, public drunkenness, pauperism the Irish brought, but above all the Catholicism of both groups, for “the Church of Rome” was an anathema to a liberal nation born of the Reformation and of the struggles against the Catholic empires of Spain and France.

The nativist response was nevertheless a nuanced one recognizing the distinctions that culturally separated Irishmen from Germans. The latter, who began to outnumber the Irish only in the late 1850s, tended to be farmers and artisans. That they settled inland, away from the older coastal settlements, and engaged in respectable occupations also mitigated nativist opposition, though nativists opposed the formation of German-speaking communities, beer-drinking forms of sociability, and the Germans’ political radicalism.

The Germans nevertheless seemed assimilable, which was not the case with the Irish. The first expression of American nativism was thus largely an anti-Irish movement, for the tribal solidarity of this unbourgeois people, their aggressive rejection of Protestant culture, their whiskey drinking and pre-modern behavior, and their anti-liberal sympathy with the slave states (which nativists resented because these states closed off land to white settlement) were an offense to the country’s Anglo-Protestant culture.

This anti-Irish sentiment became especially prominent once the famine ships, with their destitute cargoes, began arriving.

The Irish, though, offended not simply the Yankees’ religious and behavioral standards, their quick exploitation of the political system offended their republican convictions. Though one of the most afflicted of Europe’s nations, Erin’s exiles were also one of the most politically “advanced.” Not only had they a long history of secret societies (such as the Defenders, Whiteboys, Ribbonmen, etc.), which had waged an underground war against English landlords and Orangemen, in the 1820s, Daniel O’Connell’s Catholic Association, “the first mass political party in history,” taught the Irish how to exploit the new electoral forms of liberal parliamentary politics in order to throw off England’s Protestant ascendancy and its genocidal Penal Laws.

In America, the politically savvy Irish (led by their priests, saloon keepers, and eloquent rebels) challenged not just Yankee folkways, but the individualistic tenor of republican governance.

The terrible age of American ethnic politics begins with the Irish.

From the 1830s through to the late 1850s, nativist opposition to Catholic, specifically Irish, immigration took the form of intercommunal strife, the proliferation of anti-immigrant associations, and, then in 1854, the establishment of a national political party—the American Party (known as the “Know-Nothings”)—which, for a time, became a refuge for abolitionist and free-soil opponents of Southern slavery who had broken with the Whig party but not yet affiliated with the newly formed Republican party. (That is, this nativist party was partly the creation of those who now seek our destruction as a people.)

The Know Nothings held that Protestantism was an essential component of American identity; that Catholicism’s “autocratic” Pope and Church hierarchy were incompatible with republican self-rule; that Catholics had acquired undue political advantage; and that a longer, more thorough process of naturalization (Americanization) was necessary for the acquisition of citizenship. More fundamentally, it gave expression to the deep reservation which Anglo-American Protestants had about allowing their country to be overrun by Catholic immigrants.

Like most future manifestations of American racial nationalism (though they lacked a genuinely racial dimension), the Know Nothings were moved by a populist distrust of the state and the established political parties, which were seen as indifferent to the ethnocommunal identity of native whites.

Within but a year of its founding, the American Party succeeded in electing eight state governors, more than a hundred Congressmen, the mayors of Boston, Philadelphia, and Chicago, and thousands of local officials. Its future looked bright.

But the party fell almost as rapidly as it rose, having been swept up and then forced off the political stage by powerful sectional conflicts related to slavery and the preservation of the Union.

Its struggle for an Anglo-Protestant America in the 1850s nevertheless represented the first bloom of American nationalism in its blood-and-soil stage (somewhat earlier than other European nationalisms, which were still at the liberal political stage). As such, it resisted a political system privileging economics over community, opportunity over belief, and a liberal over a biocultural understanding of American life.

Though race was not an issue, religion, culture, and an endogamous sense of community were—issues that are preeminently ethnonationalist. Nativism became, as such, the foundation upon which the future defense of European life in America would be waged—for in however rudimentary and unfocused a way, it defended the American nation as an Anglo-Protestant community of descent, not a political entity based on an abstract ideological or creedal notion of nationality opened to all the world. (We Irish, supreme irony, have, as any roll of white nationalist ranks reveals, become the foremost exponent of this view today.)

The racial component of this biocultural definition of the nation did, though, soon come into its own—in the anti-Chinese movement that dominated California politics in the half century following the Gold Rush (1848).

As European immigrants, native Americans, and the first Chinese made their way to California in this period, so too did racial conflict—though conflict here would not be between natives and immigrants, but between Occidentals and Orientals, White against Yellow.

Standing together against the first Chinese arrivals—and to the swarming millions threatening to follow in their wake—native Americans and Irish Catholics discovered their common racial identity.

Almost from the start, they recognized the joint stake they had in opposing a people which worked at half the white man’s wage, retained their alien clothes, customs, and language, practiced a “heathen” religion, and created distinct, over-crowded, dirty, and often self-contained communities associated with vice and disease.

Comprising more than a fifth of the California labor force in the 1870s, these Chinese newcomers, with their low living standards and servile conditions, were seen as threatening not just the racial definition of the nation, but the American way of life—the prevailing standard for what it meant to be a free white man—and, ultimately, white civilization.

In such a situation, white solidarity was paramount—which meant that, in face of the Yellow Hordes, religious differences dividing Protestant natives and Catholic immigrants in the antebellum period had to be superseded.

Accused of cheapening labor and introducing foreign elements in the East, the Irish were now welcomed into California nativist ranks—as whites facing a common threat—and, accordingly, they came to play a leading role—perhaps the leading role—in spearheading the trade-union, political, and communal opposition to the Chinese.

The extent of white solidarity in the popular classes was such that it spurred numerous official and unofficial measures to restrict Chinese participation in the economy and in other realms of American life.

As early as the 1850s, local and state laws were passed to limit the type of jobs the Chinese could work, the land they could own, and the schools their children could attend, while white, especially Irish, workingmen not infrequently resorted to violence to drive them from certain trades and neighborhoods. In mining, logging, and construction, the Chinese were forced out entirely and in numerous small towns throughout California and the Northwest, Chinese communities were abandoned in face of angry white mobs.

Then, in the late 1870s, in a period of economic crisis, a Workingmen’s Party, led by an Irish demagogue, Denis Kearney, was formed in San Francisco.

Its principal slogan was “The Chinese must go.”

Supported by a mass network of “anti-coolie clubs” and trade unions, the party became the chief vehicle for the cause of Chinese exclusion.

The state organization of the two established national parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, each, for the sake of appeasing the pervasive anti-Chinese sentiment the Workingmen represented, were forced to support its exclusionist policies.

But more than transcending religious and political differences between closely related whites, the Chinese exclusion movement took aim at those large-scale corporate interests (primarily the railroads) responsible for importing Chinese contract labor and using it as leverage against white workers.

In frequent sand-lot demonstrations and in broadsheets, the movement, buttressed by large crowds of male workers, warned the monied men of Judge Lynch, targeting not just alien, but native threats to the nation’s bioculture.

Its slogan—“We want no slaves or aristocrats”—was an “egalitarian” affirmation of the existing racial hierarchy, and of the right of white men to the ownership of the land their people had conquered and created.

The movement’s achievements were momentous. For the first time in modern history, national legislation (to supplant the less effective immigration law of 1790) was passed to prevent non-whites from entering the United States and preventing those already within its borders from setting down roots.

White workers, supported by their trade unions, workingmen associations, and other organized expressions of white power, succeeded in frustrating capitalist and official efforts to change the country’s demographic character. White racial solidarity, at this stage, triumphed over those differences that stemmed from the religious wars of the Reformation.

Racially consciousness, populist, and at times anti-capitalist, the anti-Chinese movement of the 1870s (whose spirit, incidentally, lived on in the national-socialist novels of Jack London) succeeded in preserving the American West as a white Lebens-raum. As I see it (and I see it from both from an Irish and American perspective), it represents the single greatest movement of White America

The third great formative influence affecting the shape of American racial nationalism—though a step back from the anti-Chinese movement—came during the First World War.

The Ku Klux Klan, which had emerged after Appomattox to defend Southern whites from Negro aggression and the Yankee military occupation, was re-organized in 1915 to address certain changes in American life.

Like the European fascist movements of the interwar period, this “Second Klan” constituted a mass populist reaction to the war’s radical cultural/social dislocations.

The war had imbued the central government with unprecedented powers, enabling it to encroach on local communities in ways previously unknown; the recently founded Federal Reserve, in charge of the money supply, and the growing influence of Wall Street and the great corporations assumed an influence in national life that seemed to come at the expense of independent entrepreneurs and “the little men.” At the same time, the war effort assaulted the existing racial, familial, and moral hierarchies.

Blacks in this period acquired a foothold in northern industries and discharged Negro soldiers, “after having seen Paris,” were no longer willing to tolerate their caste status. The year 1919 was accordingly one of unprecedented racial violence, as Negroes challenging the existing system of race relations set off bloody riots in 26 urban centers.

In the same period, the middle-class family came under attack. Suffragettes carried the day with the 19th Amendment, a “new women,” promoted by advertisers and by Hollywood, questioned conventional “gender” relations, divorce rates suddenly shot up, and children were increasingly exposed to anti-traditionalist influences.

Finally, there was the specter of Bolshevism, which appealed to the unassimilated communities of recently arrived Eastern and Southern European immigrants (only 10 percent of the CPUSA membership could speak English by the mid-1920s) and assumed a menacing form in the great industrial conflicts that swept up more than a fifth of the national workforce.

On every front, then, it seemed as if small-town, rural, and middle-class White America was in retreat.

But not before making a last—and, for a generation, successful—stand in its defense, for within a decade of its founding, the Klan had rallied 5 million members to its ranks, penetrating local and national power-structures as few other anti-liberal movements in US history.

Comprised of white, native-born, anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic, and anti-Jewish elements, particularly in the South and the Midwest, this “Second Klan” saw itself as an “army of Protestant Americans.” As such, it sought to defend “pure Americanism, old-time religion, and conventional Protestant morality”—in the process reviving those religious issues that had earlier divided whites along sectarian lines (like in the 1850s), yet at the same time attempting to preserve the hegemony of Anglo-Protestants against the forces seeking to subvert the nation’s historic ethnic core.

To the degree the Klan was more sectarian than racial, favoring the conformist, materialist, and philistine elements in American life, it was a step back from the white consciousness of the anti-Chinese movement. (A similar phenomenon occurred after the Second World War among recently assimilated, often Catholic, immigrants, whose support for Joseph McCarthy was part of a more general effort to demonstrate that the “Americanism” of the “old immigrants,” largely Irish and German, was superior to that of the established but liberal and cosmopolitan Anglo-Protestant elite).

The Klan (like McCarthyism) was nevertheless not entirely the “reactionary” movement that academic historians make of it, for like its European counterpart, it was both traditionalist and populist, favoring measures that were anti-liberal, anti-cosmopolitan, and anti-egalitarian in spirit but by no means regressive.

In this capacity, it forced the government to close the border to immigration, it beat back the black assault on white hegemony, it let the wheeler-dealers in Washington and New York know that their “progressive policies” would not go unchallenged in the Heartland, and it acted as a moral bulwark against the permissive forces of Hollywood and Madison Avenue.

Above all, it upheld a racial standard for American existence.

Only in the late 1920s, after successfully preserving many traditional areas of American life that might otherwise had succumbed to the race-mixing modernism of the postwar “Jazz Age” did the movement finally subside in face of the economic breakdown of the 1930s.

* * *

The history of American racial nationalism, as exemplified by the Second Klan, the Chinese exclusion movement, and the early nativists, is a history whose legacy has, in the last half century, been squandered and suppressed by the elites now controlling American destinies.

Yet this is the legacy that the heirs of European-America today, if they are to survive, need to reclaim.

For this history confirms them in their belief that the popular classes in America have always rejected the creedal definition of the nation; that they refused to allow their society and territory to be overrun by non-whites; and that divisive sectarian issues (between Protestants and Catholics, leftists and rightists, modernists and traditionalists, etc.) served only the interest of their enemies.

Most of all, this heritage of American ethnonationalism calls on whites today, in this era of their dispossession, to defend the racial-cultural-civilizational “nation” to which they once belonged and which, if regained, might again distinguish them from the world’s less favored races.

mercredi, 23 février 2011

What is the American Nation?

What is the American Nation?

Michael O'Meara

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

minuteman%20funky%20clouds.jpgThe following is part of a larger series of articles that was written for an audience of French “revolutionary nationalists” whose image of America is almost categorically negative. Its ostensible aim was to highlight the positive in the heritage we White Nationalists claim. But at a deeper level, it was also an effort to convince myself that America has not been a historical disaster for the white race. The negative interpretation opposed here can be found in the chapter “Anti-Europe” in my New Culture, New Right: Anti-Liberalism in Postmodern Europe.

In the United States, the closest thing to Europe’s “new revolutionary nationalism”—which designates liberalism’s cosmopolitan plutocracy as Europe’s chief enemy, resists the de-Europeanization of its capital, population, and territory, and identifies with a biocultural vision of Magna Europa rather than the 19th-century nation-state—is “White Nationalism.” Though a marginal force on the American political scene (theoretically deficient, fragmented into scores of tiny organizations, and with a greater presence in cyberspace than in the public sphere), it nevertheless wages the same fight as its European counterpart and, on the most decisive issue, race, is considerably more advanced. In this spirit, it takes its stand with the “Old America” that is the counter-part to Bush’s “Old Europe,” it considers its people part of Europe’s biosphere, and opposes not just the present Hebraicized administration in Washington, but the anti-White impetus of “the American century.”

Fundamental to White nationalism is the understanding that, historically, America was not a melting pot, but a settler nation: hence a European transplant. Its original settlers (all of whom were Protestant, but not exclusively Puritan or Calvinist) may have had an ambivalent attitude to the Europe they left behind, but they had no intention of shedding their European being for the sake of mixing with races and cultures unlike their own. Their identity as such was rooted in distinctly European life forms, which were opposed to those of the country’s aboriginals and to its imported Black slaves. Specifically, this identity was an Anglo-Protestant one adapted to the nativist environment of colonial America.

At the time of the revolution, 80 percent of the population was of Anglo-Protestant descent. Of the remaining 20 percent, most were Dutch, German, and Swedish, all of whom were Protestant and easily assimilated into the original core population. Only one percent of its people, mainly of French Canadian and Irish origin, was Catholic. The country’s institutions were accordingly reflective of the values and beliefs of its transplanted Anglo-Protestant settlers, just as the state’s republican ideology and the producerist ideology of its popular classes were in harmony with its specific ethnic disposition.

At the time of revolution, the country’s national identity was still an embryonic one. The loyalties of the revolutionary generation were more to the individual colonies that had become states, such as Virginia and Massachusetts, than to the federal republic established in 1789. But despite the absence of a strong state, informed by tradition and aristocracy, the American polity was not simply the cultureless, economic enterprise that certain Nouvelles Droitistes make it out to be and it was certainly not the “nation of nations,” “the first universal nation,” or “the proposition nation” that our virtualist-minded anti-White elites insist on.

Even in this early period there existed an American national identity, buttressed by several hundred years of history; and by the development of specifically American institutions based on instincts of racial superiority and self-reliance; by conflicts with the British crown, which caused its people to see itself as a transplanted nation of Anglo-Protestant descent (though one imbued with freedoms Englishmen had allegedly lost during the Norman Conquest); but above all by an ethnic or biocultural identity rooted in the North European, specifically British (that is, Celt, Norse, and Saxon) stocks of the country’s settlers.

America, thus, may have lacked Europe’s ancient genealogy, cultural legacy, rooted, territorial sense, and distinct ethnic consciousness, but its people spoke a European language, practiced a European religion, had a history informed by European symbols and themes, represented a fusion of European racial stocks, and felt their North European identity to be the defining part of their individual and collective identity. Until quite recently, as Jared Taylor argues, “America was a self consciously European, majority-white nation.”

Accordingly, the Americanized Englishmen who declared their political independence in the late 18th century did not simultaneously declare their autonomy from Europe’s ethnoracial identity. The liberal ideals of the revolutionary generation, in any case, were soon superseded by a Romantic emphasis on the particularisms and “special inner characteristics” of its people—a Romanticism that betrayed the new republic’s rationalist or Enlightenment premises. To these Indian-fighters, slavers, borderland Celts, and Texas revolutionaries, whose physical proximity to non-Whites had a powerful effect in enhancing their racial identity, it was obvious that the world’s peoples lacked the innate capacity to share in “the free government, power, and prosperity of the United States.”

What Tocqueville called the “Anglo-Americans” had not the slightest intention of extending their liberties to Indians or Negroes, nor even to those White men whose (Catholic) religion and (Irish clannish) temperament seemed to disqualify them for republican government. America’s founding liberal principles were, in fact, little more than the ideological gloss of the country’s Anglo-Protestant life forms.

Despite the Calvinist conceit of believing itself “chosen,” America’s political principles had universal import only in the most vacuous theoretical sense. For example, the Puritan vision of America was less a call to world reform than an affirmation of its uniqueness and superiority. And though the principles of American republicanism have since been re-interpreted to justify the present de-Europeanization, this was neither the intention of the Founders nor that of the country’s settlers, for their republic was preeminently a Herrenvolk democracy — germane not to humanity, but to the “historical humanity” that was White America.

In this vein, the US Constitution, which contemporary liberals have re-interpreted for the sake of their multiracial utopia, defended the institution of slavery and posited that a Black’s worth was only 60 percent of a White. The first Congress (1790) voted that only Whites could be naturalized as citizens. And even after the Civil War, the granting of basic civil rights to former negro slaves, as Sam Francis points out, had “nothing to do with voting, holding political office, sitting on juries, intermarriage, getting a job or being promoted . . . which is what civil rights have come to mean today.”

White immigrants were assimilated into the founding stock only after they (or their children) shed the cultural-linguistic identities that separated them from native Whites. As late as the Kennedy Administration (1960), the nationally conscious Irish, the first immigrant group, were still not fully assimilated. The so-called “melting pot” (a 20th-century concept invented by a cosmopolitan “Englishmen,” Israel Zangwill) was similarly selective, accepting only White immigrants as possible Americans (though it did mistakenly think that Jews from European countries were European).

Moreover, this racially defined identity was the legacy of both the popular classes and the country’s ruling elites. For example, Thomas Jefferson, who in a fit of Enlightenment enthusiasm included the phase “all men are created equal” in the Declaration of Independence, never — not for a moment — thought of extending equal rights to Negroes; Abraham Lincoln, the two faced Whig pioneer of the liberal leviathan, wanted to repatriate Blacks back to Africa; and the great liberal crusader, Woodrow Wilson, was an ardent segregationist who thought his cherished “democracy” inappropriate to all but Whites. Until the postwar period, White Americans of virtually every class and denomination saw themselves not as an amalgam of humanity, but as an American nativist variant of Europe’s white Christian nations. The racial vision of America which White nationalists today defend against the anti-European regimes in Washington, London, and Tel Aviv was actually the prevailing vision for most Americans for most of their history.

The racially selective character of America’s republican, and especially egalitarian, rhetoric, was indisputably evident in the country’s enslavement of Negroes, its extermination and/or ethnic cleansing of the aboriginal population, its territorial expansion at the expense of mestizo Mexico, and its effort to prevent Chinese and Japanese immigration. Its racial identity was so deeply rooted in the emerging national consciousness that it imbued Anglo-Americans with the confidence to assimilate different White ethnicities.

In the latter half of the 19th century, as European immigration and intermarriage demoted the prevalence of the British elements and the reigning spirit of American Anglo-Saxonism diminished the immigrants’ attachment to their past, American identity gradually extended beyond its original Anglo-Protestant core to become a European-American Christian identity. Race as such remained primary, for only on the basis of the immigrants’ racial compatibility with Anglo-Americans were they able to assimilate. The later advent of Black nationalism, as Walker Connor argues, testifies to the fact that American nationalism has always been a White nationalism. By the same token, the state’s new-found multicultural ideology inadvertently acknowledges that the historical forms of American identity are incompatible with non-European races and cultures.

From the time of the revolution until the beginning of the Civil Rights revolution (1956), American nationality was articulated almost exclusively in terms of three mutually reinforcing influences: an Anglo-European racial identity, Protestantism, and republicanism. The latter, it needs stressing, owed less to 18th-century liberalism than to the character of Anglo American society, whose small proprietors and farmers defined themselves in terms of self-sufficiency, relative equality, and self-rule.

Though the corporate capitalism and New Class managerialism today stifling this self-sufficiency grew out of the country’s liberal postulates, this was only one (however consequential) of its manifestations, for Anglo Protestant culture also nurtured a conservative, traditionalist, and authoritarian dimension opposed to much of what presently passes for “Americanism,” (just as the feminist, homophile, and ethnomasochistic beliefs of today’s mainstream Protestant denominations would have shocked earlier generations of Protestants). The Reformation heresies that prompted America’s Low Church settlers to accept the Bible’s inerrancy and uphold a literal interpretation of scripture also compelled them to spurn the behavioral, moral, and social principles of a purely materialist society of individualist gratification. Though this type of Protestantism engendered (or expressed) that “spirit of independence, self-reliance, and freedom” which accompanied the rise of capitalism in Northern European and today encourages the cosmopolitan nihilism of the existing order, at the same time its original impetus rejected an indifferent, massifying capitalism destructive of community and morality. In this spirit, it upheld hierarchy, authority, and tradition, opposed modern feudalism (corporate capitalism) and its verso, mob democracy (Communism), privileged the centrality of family, community, and mutuality, and cultivated behaviors and social structures supportive of a communally responsible rather than an atomized individuality.

In a conscious effort to re-engineer the character of the American people, the ruling Judeo-oligarchy has re-christened the republican component of traditional American identity the “American Creed” and made it the sole legitimate basis of American nationality — as if being an American were merely a matter of subscribing to a certain liberal beliefs. Divested of its racial-cultural grounding, and the political responsibilities it once entailed, the liberal, cosmopolitan, and globalist implications of this so-called creed is now used to legitimate the multiracial pluralism that presently assaults the nation’s European heritage. For at least the last two generations, the country’s elites have waged a merciless war on the ethnonational interests of America’s Whites, who are treated with “mingled scorn and apprehension” for hampering the country’s transformation into an economically efficient Brazil.

But if America for racial nationalists is preeminently a European country, it is — admittedly — “also something less than Europe. As a settler nation, America was founded and remains, to use Georges Dumézil’s term, a country of the “Third Function.” Lacking the warrior and priestly functions of its motherland and centered on the productive/reproductive activities of the lowest order, the American people traditionally immersed themselves in economic and mundane activities devoid of High Cultural possibility.

It would be exaggerated, though, to claim, as certain Europeans have, that this emphasis on economics (with its accompanying values of hard work, self reliance, and technical efficiency) made Americans somehow un-European. A middle-class country of the Third Function, America materialistically thrived in the technoeconomic realm. This may have left its culturally-impoverished society of self-made men something less than Europe — but hardly un-European.

While the country’s economic and materialist passions rendered its people vulnerable to the machinations of plutocrats and monopolists, bankers and corporate barons, and, above all, Jewish peddlers and illusionists, this, alas, has been the fate of White people worldwide. In America’s defense it should be emphasized that until the postwar era, when the state and the dominant institutions fell into the hands of corporate managers, social engineers, and alien interests, its popular history was very much a history of struggle against the great economic powers, as these powers endeavored to subordinate the nation to those systemic imperatives threatening the economic self-sufficiency and biocultural identity of its large middle class.

This is evident in the history of Jacksonian producerism, the nativism of the 1840s and ‘50s, the Confederate insurgency of the 1860s, the struggle against Chinese immigration in California in the 1870s, the populist revolt of Midwestern and Southern farmers in the 1880s and ‘90s, the bitter labor wars of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the rise of the Second Klan in the 1920s, Father Coughlin’s Social Justice movement in the 1930s, etc.

Though lacking an established church and an aristocracy (the First and Second Functions), even here the European racial spirit influenced the formation of the American nation. The yeoman farmers making up the ranks of the Minute Men who bloodied Britain’s imperial troops at Lexington and Concord, the gentlemen warriors like Nathanael Greene, Anthony Wayne, and George Washington who led the revolutionary armies, the Anglo-Celtic frontiersmen and colonists of the Texas Revolution who triumph over massively larger Mexican forces, the gallant Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson of the Confederacy, even George Patton of World War II fame, all these figures stand in the tradition of European arms and are tributes not just to America, but to the warrior spirit of their ancestral homeland.

Moreover, whatever High Culture Americans have known has been European. Disneyland may be the contemporary emblem of America’s Culture Industry, but its relationship to American life is as contrived as is Hollywood’s. The composers, philosophers, and great artists animating the higher reaches of American life have always been European. The few great men of literary stature they have produced— Edgar Allen Poe, T. S. Eliot, Ezra Pound, Henry James, Jack London, William Faulkner — belong to Europe’s Pantheon and are recognized as such. Only an intellectual sleight of hand can justify the argument that the American people are not an organic (however culturally hybrid) expression of Europe’s life-world.

Perhaps more to the point, the growth of the American republic ought to be seen as one of the great feats of modern history, for, from its origins as a small outpost on the outer edge of Western Civilization, it grew, in a remarkably short period, into a great power. Given the prominence of its Third Function, much of course was lost in this process, for America lacked the depths of its motherland, retained a weak grasp of history and tradition, and never developed a political class capable of sustaining its political ideals. Yet beyond the shallow, often philistine character this cultural paucity imparted to American life, the European settlement of North America represented an unprecedented manifestation of Nietzsche’s will to power — an untamed life force — that had transformed a vast wilderness into a flourishing extension of the European life world.

Against those transatlantic critics whose grand pronouncements are based on their familiarity with Los Angeles or New York (both of which have ceased to be American cities), it needs stressing that no White nationalist fails to honor Europe or to distinguish himself from its heirs. His opposition to the New Class, war-mongering, and Zionist hegemonism of the country’s deracinated elites stems, in fact, from his commitment to Europe’s biocultural heritage. This heritage, as such, informs virtually every significant facet of the country’s racial nationalism.