del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Enfin, de nouvelles opportunités de domination apparaissent au fur et à mesure de la montée des enjeux environnementaux. Les terres rares essentielles aux technologies propres du futur, situées dans des pays émergents, mais également les besoins d’aides après les catastrophes qui se multiplient, sont autant d’occasions de coopération et d’intervention dans les pays. Il est désormais prouvé que le réchauffement climatique accentue la puissance des catastrophes naturelles, ainsi que la pénurie de ressources nécessaires à la vie. La mauvaise gestion de l’eau ou de la chaine alimentaire crée l’opportunité de dépendre de solutions américaines et d’ainsi étendre la puissance américaine. C’est sur ce dernier plan que selon Jean-Michel Valantin, la pensée stratégique prend un tournant inédit. Elle cesse ici d’être uniquement fondée sur la supériorité militaire, mais intègre la capacité à répondre technologiquement à la déstabilisation socio-environnementale planétaire. Le leadership en climate resiliency devient un atout stratégique. Le besoin croissant de se sortir rapidement et efficacement d’une catastrophe naturelle ou industrielle fera appel à un savoir-faire dont les meilleurs experts auront un avantage majeur.
Avatar montre le changement de camp d’un ancien marine, passant du champ de la puissance militaire à la puissance naturelle. Il défend ce changement de camp, le présentant comme légitime et nécessaire à l’heure où l’humanité détruit le vivant. Là encore, la dimension sacrée est du côté de la vie et de ce qui mérite que l’on se batte et que l’on renonce au monde militaro-industriel qui la menace. Dans un autre ordre, le dernier James Bond Quantum of Solace montre que les nouveaux trésors sont naturels, comme l’eau, et qu’ils seront les enjeux des luttes de demain. Leur raréfaction va multiplier les conflits. Enfin, les grands films sur les pandémies révèlent le potentiel viral et global de destruction d’un acte au départ isolé, montrant bien les jeux d’interdépendances entre les différents risques systémiques et globaux. L’imaginaire du nucléaire continue : l’enjeu derrière la dégradation environnementale, est la destruction de l’humanité.
Depuis deux décennies, les États-Unis mènent des guerres pour Israël au Moyen-Orient. Ce fait prouve le pouvoir et l’influence des déments néoconservateurs. Il ne fait aucun doute que des gens aussi fous que les néoconservateurs lanceraient une attaque nucléaire contre la Russie et la Chine. Les gouvernements russe et chinois semblent ignorer totalement la menace que les néoconservateurs font peser sur eux. Je n’ai jamais connu, dans mes entretiens avec les Russes et les Chinois, la moindre conscience de l’idéologie néoconservatrice. Cela leur parait peut-être trop insensé pour le comprendre.
Pendant un demi siècle, relayée par l’USIS (United State Information Service), la diplomatie publique avait ainsi produit ou exporté des milliers d’heures d’émission, de films, de livres,…, mais aussi établi des contacts avec des milliers de gens pour «raconter au monde l’histoire vue d’Amérique». 
Parallèlement l'Amérique affiche sa volonté de soutenir les cyberdissidences et de lutter pour que s'épanouisse en ligne une société civile sans frontières. Hillary Cliton, en particulier, présente le droit de se connecter comme un droit de l'homme et milite pour des "technologies de libération" : l'extension d'Internet, échappant au contrôle des régimes étatiques est sensée apporter à la fois des bénéfices économiques, politiques (favoriser la démocratie pluraliste) aussi favoriser l'épanouissement d'une indispensable société civile. Du coup la cause universelle du Net se confond avec les intérêts des USA, première société de l'information de la planète (comme pendant la Guerre froide, ils se confondaint avec la défense universelle des libertés politiques).
2. Trumpisme et « sharp power »
The eminent sociologist Daniel Bell (1919-2011) accomplished many things in his long and active life. He was a prominent editor at Fortune magazine, a Columbia and Harvard University sociologist, and, with Irving Kristol, founder and editor of The Public Interest, a public policy quarterly that redefined conservative thought during the 1970s and 1980s. Bell’s predictive powers were dazzling, especially in his forecasts of an emerging, post-industrial, information-based economy. His analysis and speculations still provide an invaluable schematic of the nation’s social dynamics over the past half-century.
Bell’s masterwork, The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism, was published in 1976. This collection of six essays elucidates what he perceived to be the expansion of a culture that undermines its own moral basis. Society’s three interwoven realms—polity, economy, and culture—had grown in his word disjunctive. The requirements of the technical-economic order and mood of Western culture, prodded by mass consumer tastes, contradicted one another. One depended on merit and sobriety; the other sought self-actualization and release. “The contradiction is, in the longer run, the most fateful division in the society,” Bell said.
As Bell saw it, economic welfare and social order depended on wide allegiance to Max Weber’s Protestant work ethic, steady investment, and capital maintenance. It required logical thinking, delayed gratification, and prudence. Yet the modernist ethos, born at the end of the 19th century and conventionalized by the 1970s, encouraged pleasure, letting go, questioning authority, self-realization, and novelty. Distressing to Bell and any number of conservatives, Protestant codes of vocation and behavior were fading as dominant social authorities. Bell believed he was “witnessing the end of the bourgeois idea,” and sought to explain the “deeper cultural crises, which beset bourgeois societies,” and “devitalize a country, confuse the motivations of individuals, instill a sense of carpe diem, and undercut its civil will.”
What if modernism and luxury encourage the breakup of values that make bourgeois comfort and order possible, Bell asked. Liberalism approves reflexively of permissiveness but “cannot with any certainty define the bounds,” he noted. “And this is its dilemma.” For solutions, Americans were embracing a “revolution of rising entitlements” and suspicious therapeutic ministries. The contest would ultimately be between reason and anti-rationalism, Bell decided. Forty-two years later, it sometimes seems that the crazy train has arrived at the station.
Rage against bourgeois order and embrace of Dionysian expression, said Bell, furthers the “loss of coherence in culture, particularly in the spread of an antinomian attitude to moral norms and even to the idea of cultural judgment itself.” What Bell called a consumption ethic, grafted to a life unregulated by church, family, or school, and a fun morality, were blooming into a new zeitgeist. Bell could not perfectly foresee universal smartphones, multiculturalism, or Beyoncé, for example, but he surely glimpsed the appeal of their antecedents.
Today, social media and celebrity culture have an iron lock on the public household. Coarsened, showy self-display—Bell’s imperial self—has animated the Obama and Trump White Houses. Political and belief systems based on race, gender, disability, religion, and sexuality consciously try to discredit, minimize, or destabilize (“transform”) what is left of the established order, which is commonly perceived as inherently oppressive or unjust, and by some accounts worthy of punishment. What suasion that remains in mainline Protestant denominations is channeled mainly into social redemption and works.
Administrative officers who run public and private institutions insist that multiculturalism is “our” greatest strength, policing operations carefully to make sure no deviations occur. From Google to the Air Force Academy, such predispositions are not just expected, ingrained, advanced, and catechistic. They are essential to individual advancement and institutional practice.
In a sharply observed essay for The American Conservative, Benjamin Schwarz captured the disposition of today’s cosmopolitan idea and style manufacturers. The “anywheres,” as Schwarz called them, travel light, with few serious institutional or community loyalties. Label-conscious even in their moral judgments, with few convictions beyond material satisfaction and self-advancement, they seek above all to be on the right side of style. As Bell forewarned 42 years ago, “aesthetic disaster itself becomes an aesthetic.” These elites profess fantasies that let them feel virtuous and superior. Meanwhile, the burden of their social confections rests on unwilling, less privileged yeomen, rarely on themselves or their children.
Just what do today’s purveyors of progressive global capitalism believe in? Technology and science? Pure equality? Eradication of Western civilization? The National Football League? Anything? “The real problem of modernity is the problem of belief,” Bell wrote. “To use an unfashionable term, it is a spiritual crisis, since the new anchorages have proved illusory and the old ones have become submerged. It is a situation which brings us back to nihilism: lacking a past or a future, there is only a void.” Systems of reference and belief were very much up for grabs, Bell realized, in a nihilistic setting. Something in time will fill the void; never-ending culture wars are feuds over what might someday be scripture.
“Despite the shambles of modern culture, some religious answer surely will be forthcoming,” Bell asserted. Religion is a “constitutive part of man’s consciousness.” It grows out of the “primordial need” for “a set of meanings that will establish a transcendent response to self; and the existential need to confront the finalities of suffering and death.” What that religion might be or become going forward cannot yet be known. The grand Western traditions were Antiquity and Church, both of them now compromised and slandered. In the contemporary culture of spectacle and disbelief, entertainers and news barkers act as bishops.
Bell was nominally and cerebrally a socialist, but by no means an egalitarian. “Tradition becomes essential to the vitality of a culture, for it provides the continuity of memory that teaches how one’s forebears met the same existential predicaments,” he wrote. Far removed emotionally from the Bronx ghetto of his youth while also sentimentally attached to it, the mature Bell was an outspoken anti-Marxist, staunch guardian of bourgeois propriety, Cambridge mandarin, and Bildungsbürger.
The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism is not an easy read, and sometimes that’s Bell’s own fault. Long, florid passages weary the reader as do lapidary pronouncements and diction. Hey, slow down, come back to earth, the reader finally begs, and to his credit Bell—the journalist and phrasemaker—usually complies, making his point crisply and clearly in summation.
How long America and the West’s fantasia can endure—a bit of Disney here, a little Nero there—is an unanswerable question. Many exogenous forces—let’s begin with East Asia, Africa, and the Mideast—enter the picture. But the nation’s root social problems are domestic, longstanding, and misconstrued. The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism explains why this is so, and why Americans live, think, and behave as they do, decades after Bell first outlined their predicament.
Gilbert T. Sewall is co-author of After Hiroshima: The United States Since 1945 and editor of The Eighties: A Reader.
» La HUAC avait été mise en place à la Chambre des Représentants en 1934 
» Ce n'était que la plus visible des mesures répressives qui furent prises lors de la “Brown Scare” et qui furent ensuite réutilisées lors de la “Red Scare”. Il s’agissait d’un simple ajustement suivant le tournant de la politique étrangère américaine et un changement ultérieur de l'opinion publique américaine. Le FBI avait infiltré des groupes comme le Comité America First qui s'opposait à l'entrée des Etats-Unis dans la Seconde Guerre mondiale, il avait mis sur écoutes des dirigeants conservateurs tel que le directeur du Chicago Tribune Robert McCormick ; il suffisait alors de réorienter toutes ces procédures vers les cibles de gauche. Mais rappelez-vous l’essentiel : c’est la gauche qui lança tout cela et fit mettre en place la répression dans toute son ampleur, alors qu’elle tenait le fouet.
(D’un autre côté, Roosevelt, qui était d’abord un politicien roué assez éloigné de l’image idéalisée qu’on en fit et qui persiste, s’opposait aux tentatives légales d’avancement trop affirmé de la gauche radicale, comme par exemple lorsqu’il sabota indirectement la campagne de l’écrivain 
The Alt-Right broadly defined would be anything on the Right that is in opposition to the neocon-led Republican alliance. This could include everything from many Donald Trump voters in the mainstream, to various tendencies that have been given such labels as the “alt-lite,” the new right, the radical right, the populist right, the dark enlightenment, the identitarians, the neo-reactionaries, the manosphere (or “men’s right advocates”), civic nationalists, economic nationalists, Southern nationalists, white nationalists, paleoconservatives, right-wing anarchists, right-leaning libertarians (or “paleolibertarians”), right-wing socialists, neo-monarchists, tendencies among Catholic or Eastern Orthodox traditionalists, neo-pagans, Satanists, adherents of the European New Right, Duginists, Eurasianists, National-Bolsheviks, conspiracy theorists, and, of course, actually self-identified Fascists and National Socialists. I have encountered all of these perspectives and others in Alt-Right circles.
These comments are fairly representative of the rhetoric used by mainstream conservatives who attempt to either portray the Alt-Right as leftists, or label the Alt-Right as fascists and then claim fascism is really on the Left. The general argument that is made by mainstream conservatives in response to the Alt-Right is that “true” conservatism or the “true” Right is actually veneration for the Enlightenment-influenced ideas found in the Declaration of Independence, veneration of the Founding Fathers, and reverence for the Constitution as a kind of secular Bible. Parallel to these claims is the idea of America as a “propositional nation” that has no roots in any kind of history, culture, or tradition other than just a very vaguely defined “Judeo-Christianity.” This idea of what “conservatism” supposedly is basically amounts to being for so-called “limited government,” so-called “free enterprise,” “individualism,” and various other vaguely defined abstractions, plus policy preferences like a so-called “strong national defense” (which is often just a euphemism for the neoconservatives’ foreign policy agenda), and various center-right policy prescriptions like tax cuts, opposing Obamacare, opposing affirmative action, opposing gun control, opposing abortion, opposing gay marriage, supporting school vouchers, and other ideas we are all familiar with.