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.

mercredi, 24 novembre 2010

The Tyrant who is Obama's Role Model

 

discours-de-lincoln.jpg

The Tyrant who is Obama's Role Model

Jan von FLOCKEN

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

Translated by Greg Johnson

When Barack Obama was officially inaugurated as President of the United States, the ceremony was charged with symbolism. The figure of Abraham Lincoln, assassinated in 1865, seemed omnipresent. Remember that 2009 is the 200th anniversary of the birth of Lincoln, who has become a kind of patron saint of Western democracy. Obama was not merely content to retrace Lincoln’s route, in the spring of 1861, departing from Philadelphia, passing through Baltimore, to arrive at the White House in Washinghton D.C. When he took the oath of office, Obama also insisted on placing his hand on the 156 year old velvet-covered Bible that “Old Abe” had used, swearing “to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

No one, though, has violated the Constitution more than Lincoln . . .

These attempts to draw parallels between the legendary statesman and the young president who is now America’s new hope, inadvertently stirred up all sorts of uncomfortable memories. Indeed, no President of the United States in the last 220 years has violated the Constitution and suppressed the basic rights of citizens more than Lincoln. His mandate was deployed under the bloody banner of a civil war between the Northern and Southern states. The latter left the Union in 1860–61 and founded their own state, the Confederacy. The American Constitution by no means prohibited secession of this type since it was only in 1868 that the Supreme Court ruled to the contrary. Initially, the two parties accepted the secession of the South. Thus it was that Horace Greeley, the influential editor of the New York Tribune and political friend of Lincoln, wrote in his newspaper, on November 9th, 1860: “I hope we will never have to live in a Republic maintained by bayonets.”

But it was these very bayonets that Lincoln used shortly after taking office. He seized the first excuse he found: in fact, an exchange of fire around Fort Sumter, which actually belonged to the Confederacy. This incident, which caused only some slight injuries, was used as pretext for a de facto declaration of war against the South, namely an appeal for 75,000 volunteers on April 15th, 1861. Lincoln then ordered an economic embargo against the Confederacy. The appeal and embargo were two serious political errors because they prompted the immediate secession of four hitherto neutral states: Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee.

In Maryland—which, by tradition, leaned toward the Confederacy, but which was to remain in the Union because of its proximity to Washington, D.C.—the population protested en masse against Lincoln’s warmongering. Lincoln immediately suspended the Constitutional principle of “Habeas Corpus” which protects the citizen from arbitrary arrest and guarantees his right to be heard by a judge within a short time. Annapolis, the capital of Maryland, and Baltimore, where Barack Obama went to follow Lincoln’s footsteps, were placed under martial law. On May 13th, 1861, the mayor of Baltimore, the chief of police, and all the members of the city council, were arrested, without any legal pretext, and were imprisoned until the end of the war in 1865. Ironically, among these political prisoners was the grandson of Francis Scott Key, who had composed the American national anthem, which sings the praises of “the land of the free and the home of the brave.”

When the Maryland legislature condemned these illegal and tyrannical actions, Lincoln immediately arrested 31 legislators, who were imprisoned from three to six months without trial. This forceful action clearly violated the sixth amendment to the Constitution, according to which any defendant is entitled to an immediate public trial by an independent jury. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Roger B. Taney, the man before whom Lincoln had officially sworn his oath on the Bible, ordered the President make null and void these arrests because they too obviously violated the principles of the Constitution. The President had arrogated powers that are the sole prerogative of Congress. Following the admonitions of Roger B. Taney, Lincoln issued an order encouraging all public authorities to purely and simply ignore the judgment of the Supreme Court, which itself constitutes, obviously, a manifest violation of the Constitution. One observer, otherwise favorable to Lincoln, the German democrat Otto von Corvin, correspondent of the Times, noted at the time that Lincoln’s antics reminded him of a “village schoolmaster.”

In the course of the war, there were other infringements of the Constitution. The most notable of these occurred in June 1863, when Virginia was partially occupied by Northern soldiers, and a new state, West Virginia, was proclaimed, in violation of the Constitution’s stipulation that no new state can be created or established out of the territory of another.

All these assaults on the Constitution are excused today under pretext that Lincoln liberated the slaves. However, in the summer of 1862, a half year before the official proclamation of their emancipation, the President still held that: “If I could save the Union, without having to free even one slave, I would do it.”

Maintaining the Union eventually cost the lives of 600,000 people.

Americans should hope that in the future, Obama will be satisfied to imitate Lincoln only on festive occasions. For let us not forget that shortly after taking office in January, Obama said: “My politics consists in not having politics.”

Originally published in German in Junge Freiheit, no. 16, 2009

00:15 Publié dans Histoire | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : etats-unis, obama, histoire, abraham lincoln, démocratie, tyrannie | |  del.icio.us | | Digg! Digg |  Facebook

lundi, 22 novembre 2010

Obama e le strategie di dominio mondiale

obamappPPP.jpg

Obama e le strategie di dominio mondiale

Più i preparativi di guerra si faranno febbrili, più l’economia a stelle e strisce spiccherà il volo

Angelo Spaziano

Ex: http://www.rinascita.eu/

Barack Obama ha subito una clamorosa débàcle alla Camera, dove il partito democratico è andato in minoranza. E anche al Senato “l’asinello” è collassato, pur mantenendo per un pelo la leadership. Il primo presidente nero nella storia americana è stato trombato perfino nel suo collegio senatoriale dell’Illinois e nella roccaforte dell’Ohio. Tuttavia, andrebbero fatte alcune importanti considerazioni al riguardo. Prima di tutto, va tenuto conto che per tradizione l’affluenza alle urne in occasione del rinnovo del Parlamento Usa è alquanto più contenuta rispetto alle presidenziali. E’ chiaro infatti che i primi a precipitarsi ai seggi nel mid term siano soprattutto gli scontenti della conduzione governativa nei due anni appena trascorsi. In secondo luogo c’è da calcolare che Barack Obama, pur generosissimo con i grandi trust bancari nazionali, saziati a profusione con vertiginosi benefit, è andato incautamente a falcidiare gli interessi delle lobby delle assicurazioni sanitarie e degli speculatori di borsa.


Era logico che alla prima occasione questi signori gli avrebbero presentato il conto. La riforma del welfare infatti ha esteso lo scudo del sistema sanitario di Stato a un 43 per cento di cittadini che non potevano permettersi la copertura assicurativa a pagamento. Aver sottratto tutta quella enorme massa di manovra alle fameliche mascelle delle “mutue” private era un gesto che non poteva non provocare feroci rappresaglie nei confronti dell’audace presidente. Peggio che mai è andata in materia finanziaria. Qui Obama, pur cedendo alle pressioni esercitate dai grandi trust bancari salvandoli dal tracollo, memore degli errori compiuti in passato da questi epigoni di Shylock, ha varato una riforma che, di fatto, ha posto sotto tutela le operazioni di scambio dei derivati e il capitale investibile a disposizione dagli istituti. Come se non bastasse, c’è stato pure il ritiro da Baghdad e quello ventilato, possibile entro il prossimo anno, da Kabul. Il che, pur giustificando il premio Nobel in bianco concessogli il giorno successivo l’elezione, significa essersi messo in rotta di collisione con la potente corporazione dei fabbricanti di cannoni. Anche la sfortuna ha rivestito un ruolo molto rilevante in questa prima parte di mandato obamiano. Non va dimenticato infatti il catastrofico impatto mediatico esercitato sugli americani dalla goffa gestione dell’emergenza inquinamento da idrocarburi sulle coste della Louisiana. Uno stillicidio di tre mesi durante i quali l’incessante fuoriuscita di greggio dal pozzo in avaria sul fondo del Golfo del Messico ha funzionato da doccia scozzese sulle istanze ecologiste degli statunitensi della costa sud, illusi e delusi a fasi alterne. Questa logorante guerra dei nervi ha scavato un fossato intorno all’immagine di Obama, che ha fatto la stessa figura che fece Bush con l’uragano Katryna, allorché mezza New Orleans rimase sommersa dal Mississippi. Da queste consultazioni quindi Obama è uscito con le ossa rotte, e c’era da aspettarselo. Il primo a rendersene conto è stato proprio lui, che all’improvviso si è dichiarato pronto a scendere a compromessi proprio con quegli avversari politici che ha sempre tenacemente combattuto con tutte le sue forze. Molto probabilmente, perciò, assisteremo a una marcata correzione della rotta fin qui seguita dall’inquilino della Sala Ovale, un fuoriclasse sfortunatamente azzoppato dalla congiuntura socioeconomica assai sfavorevole. Alla Casa Bianca potrebbero anche cadere delle teste. I democratici infatti spingono affinchè ci siano dei cambiamenti radicali. In primo luogo vogliono che Obama riveda l’incarico di diversi suoi collaboratori, fino a licenziarne alcuni. Il primo candidato a rischiare il posto potrebbe essere il segretario al Tesoro Tim Geithner. L’economia statunitense infatti, malgrado la forte svalutazione del dollaro non accenna a riprendere la marcia, e risulta troppo debole per garantire nuova occupazione. E Geithner, secondo gli elettori, è uno dei principali responsabili della situazione.


Ma, a ben pensarci, un modo per uscire dal tunnel della recessione ci sarebbe pure, anche se il rimedio rischia di essere peggiore dello stesso male. La storia patria, Franklin Delano Roosevelt e la Grande Depressione lo hanno insegnato. Del resto sta scritto sui libri di scuola e sulla manualistica di tutte le università del mondo. Come si concluse, alla fine, la crisi economica scaturita dal venerdì nero di Wall Street del 1929? Con la Seconda Guerra Mondiale, puntualmente scoppiata dieci anni dopo il crac. E’ qui che Obama potrebbe trovare la quadra per ribaltare completamente i pronostici e farsi rieleggere per un secondo mandato. Col beneplacito repubblicano e l’appoggio popolare, infatti, il presidente nero sarebbe in grado di mettere una volta per tutte una croce sopra le velleità iraniane di accedere nell’esclusivo club dell’atomo. Ciò gli gioverebbe assai politicamente, perché lo squadrone repubblicano marcerebbe compatto al suo fianco. E più i preparativi di guerra si faranno febbrili, più l’economia stellestrisce spiccherà il volo. Spendere in guerre, infatti, crea sempre posti di lavoro e stimola l’economia. Il secondo conflitto mondiale fece uscire gli Usa dalla depressione perché lo sforzo bellico comportò una massiccia mobilitazione d’interi settori produttivi della società civile. Non sarebbe la prima volta che dalle parti dello zio Sam ci si lanciasse in simili avventure pur di risolvere gravi turbative di natura economica. Infatti, malgrado il Pentagono stia cercando di tagliare miliardi di sovvenzionamenti per affrontare con l’adeguato rigore l’austerità di bilancio, gli yankee sembrano avere tutta l’intenzione di “spezzare le reni” all’Iran. Anche se scatenare un simile pandemonio per un vantaggio politico di così corto respiro sarebbe da folli e irresponsabili. Il programmato ritiro dai fronti di guerra iracheno e afgano, che sembra fatto apposta per concentrare tutte le forze disponibili in un altro teatro, i pacchi postali al tritolo provenienti dalla Grecia e dallo Yemen e diretti verso occidente, l’allarme su probabili attacchi di Al Qaeda, le misure di controllo sempre più ferree nei porti e aeroporti forse sono i primi inquietanti annunci di una perversa strategia geopolitica di dominio mondiale. Se così sarà, si salvi chi può.


18 Novembre 2010 12:00:00 - http://www.rinascita.eu/index.php?action=news&id=4992

Maschke: "Die Deutschen werden zu Vasallen der USA ohne Lohn"

Archives: 1999 - Ex: http://www.platzdasch.homepage.t-online.de/

"Die Deutschen werden zu Vasallen der USA ohne Lohn"

N-KFOR-Kosovo-1.jpgHerr Maschke, hat Gregor Gysi recht, wenn er davon spricht, daß Deutschland einen Angriffskrieg gegen Serbien führt?

Maschke: Ja – unbedingt. Die Frage eines Angriffskrieges zwischen zwei Staaten ist ja kaum zu klären. Jedoch hat in diesem Fall ein Angriff auf deutsches Territorium nicht stattgefunden, und so müßte der Paragraph 26 des Grundgesetzes greifen, wonach ein Angriffskrieg eben verboten ist. Es gibt aber auch andere juristische Probleme. Es ist durch das Eingreifen eindeutig die Charta der Vereinten Nationen verletzt. Im Artikel 2 Absatz 4 ist allen Mitgliedern die Anwendung von und Drohung mit Gewalt untersagt. Dies bezieht sich auf zwischenstaatliche Gewaltanwendung, nicht auf innerstaatliche Gewalt oder Bürgerkriegslagen. Dann ist auch wichtig, daß hier ein Bruch des Nordatlantikvertrages stattfindet. Er erlaubt nur Verteidigung für den Fall, daß ein Mitglied angegriffen worden ist. Es ist jedoch kein Nato-Mitglied angegriffen worden. Auch hinsichtlich des Gelöbnisses des deutschen Soldaten ist dieser Krieg ein Problem, da er nur dafür einstehen soll, die Bundesrepublik Deutschland zu verteidigen. Einsätze außerhalb des Bundesgebietes dürfen nicht der Kriegsführung dienen. Selbst bei einer Legalisierung des Eingriffs der Nato durch die UNO bestünde das Problem, daß der Nordatlantikpakt eben keine regionale Organisation ist wie zum Beispiel die OSZE. Die Nato darf im Auftrag der UNO eigentlich gar nicht handeln, sondern die OSZE müßte selbst ihre Truppen zusammenstellen.

Nun werden Ihnen Kritiker entgegenhalten, Sie führten eine reine Formeldiskussion. Warum kann man Rechtsfragen nicht so lässig behandeln, wie es hier geschieht?

Maschke: Man kann ja gerne den Sinn des modernen Völkerrechts bezweifeln. Das tue ich übrigens auch.

Warum?

Maschke: Weil das moderne Völkerrecht militärische Interventionen erleichtert. Es geht relativ leger mit der Einmischung um. Der momentane Bruch des Völkerrechtes durch die Nato zerstört dieses Völkerrecht jedoch, basiert aber auf einer Art radikalisierten Fortschreibung dieses Rechtes. Wenn jetzt überhaupt keine Barrieren für eine Intervention bestehen, dann ist eine völlig willkürliche Lage da, die sich einer internationalen Anarchie nähern kann. Dann kann künftig überall beliebig interveniert werden, mit Hinweis auf die äußerst deutbaren Menschenrechte. Die dienen dann als Tarnung für imperialistische Interessen.

Wenn ich die Interpretationsmacht habe und auch die notwendige militärische Interventionskraft, dann kann ich überall auf der Welt meinen politischen Willen durchsetzen. Dies wird zu einem recht merkwürdigen Rechtsnihilismus führen. Zwar ist das Völkerrecht nicht der wichtigste Faktor in einer Theorie der internationalen Beziehungen. Die langfristigen Folgen für die zwischenstaatlichen Beziehungen sind aber nicht absehbar. Man muß Gysi in diesem Punkte uneingeschränkt recht geben.

Warum legen die Politiker überhaupt so viel Wert darauf, den Begriff "Krieg" zu vermeiden, und warum sprechen sie in bestem Orwell-Deutsch von "Friedensmaßnahmen", Interventionen etc.?

Maschke: Weil nach der UN-Charta ein Krieg verboten ist! Wenn ich den Kriegszustand anerkenne, hat das auch alle möglichen wirtschaftsrechtlichen, völkerrechtlichen und auch versicherungsrechtlichen Folgen. Die Tabuisierung hat ihren Sinn, weil das Völkerrecht aufbaut auf dem Gewaltverbot, auf dem Kriegsverbot. Man will nicht wahrhaben, daß man den Krieg wieder verrechtlichen muß und daß Krieg und Frieden korrelative Begriffe sind.

Wir müssen also jetzt vom Kosovo-Krieg sprechen.

Maschke: Natürlich! Krieg ist die bewaffnete Auseinandersetzung zwischen zwei kämpfenden Parteiungen. Es gibt auch Theorien, daß der Wille des einen genügt,um Krieg zu konstituieren. Natürlich ist der Konflikt auf dem Balkan ein Krieg. Wir wissen aus der Kriegsgeschichte, daß der Krieg alle möglichen Formen annehmen kann. "Der Krieg ist ein Chamäleon", sagt Clausewitz. Es ist interessant, daß sich der common sense durchsetzt und die Menschen immer wieder ganz unbefangen von Krieg sprechen.

Sie haben Anfang der 90er Jahre die deutsche Beteiligung am Golfkrieg der Amerikaner schärfstens kritisiert. Worin unterscheidet sich der Krieg gegen Serbien wesentlich vom Krieg gegen den Irak?

Maschke: Zunächst ist es ein europäischer Krieg. Der Golfkrieg diente dazu, eine antiamerikanische, arabische Großraumbildung zu verhindern. Dies natürlich auch im Hinblick auf und im Interesse Israels. Hier geht es im Prinzip darum, daß Europa unfähig ist, amerikanische Interventionen in Europa zu verhindern. Nicht nur das – Europa macht diese Interventionen mit, jedoch eher als Juniorpartner, als Vasall. Die amerikanischen Interessen sind ganz offensichtlich: Aufbau eines Groß-Albaniens und die Produktion von Flüchtlingen. Diese sind für Europa – auch wegen ihres kriminellen Potentials – bedenklich und spielen politisch immer die fünfte Kolonne der USA. Wir, Deutschland, unterstützen diesen Prozeß, was ich für eine ganz fantastische Leistung halte.

Die Idee der Strafaktionen aus der Luft ist so alt wie der Völkerbund.

Maschke:: Die Idee entwickelte sich als sogenannte Luftpolizei im Rahmen des Völkerbundes. Als Beispiel mag da England gelten, dem es gelang, mit einer "Imperial Police" solche Strafaktionen durchzuführen. Eine französische Idee war es, eine internationale Luftpolizei zu gründen. Auch der italienische Luftkriegstheoretiker Douhet glaubte, daß man mit wenigen Schlägen aus der Luft auf die Hauptstadt den Feind in die Knie zwingen könnte. Die Idee des Luftkrieges nach den großen Schlachten des Ersten Weltkrieges war es, Kriege zu begrenzen und kontrollierbar zu machen.

Dies hat auch eine Rolle bei der Gründung der UNO gespielt. Auch hier war die Rede von integrierten Luftstreitkräften, die allerdings nicht zustande kamen. Dies ist im Prinzip die Weiterentwicklung der Idee von großen Blockade-Flotten aus dem 19. Jahrhundert. Es hängt aber auch zusammen mit der Überschätzung der Möglichkeiten der Luftwaffe. Es stellt sich schließlich jedesmal die Frage, welche Ordnung man am Boden herstellt.

In Deutschland spricht man von einer humanitären Katastrophe, die sicherlich nicht wegzudiskutieren ist und die beschämen muß. Das alleine hat aber noch selten internationale Streitkräfte auf den Plan gerufen. Um welche großräumigen Interessen geht es in diesem Konflikt?

Maschke: Ich denke, es geht einfach um die Beherrschung und Kontrolle Europas durch die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika. Wenn dort jemand hätte intervenieren müssen, dann die Europäer – die sich bekanntlich nicht einig sind. Unter anderem, weil London und Paris der Auffassung zu sein scheinen, daß ihnen ein schwaches Deutschland bekommt. So setzen diese auch auf die amerikanische Karte. Sie glauben, auch innerhalb der Europäischen Union vorwiegend nationale Interessen verfolgen zu können. Wenn wir, die Deutschen, europäische Interessen verfolgen wollen, müßten wir jedoch alles daran setzen, die Amerikaner aus diesem Konflikt herauszuhalten. In Wirklichkeit sind wir eher die weiche Eintrittsstelle für amerikanische Intervention und Penetration aller Art in Europa. Vor diesem Hintergrund kann man auch nur die Nato-Osterweiterung sehen. Deutschland ist hier der amerikanische Lieblingsvasall, der von der Intervention gar nichts hat.

Kehren nun die Konflikte wieder zurück, die zum Ausbruch des Ersten Weltkrieges geführt haben?

Maschke: Der Balkan war stets nur in Ruhe zu halten durch einen Hegemon, und dieser mußte die Füße auch irgendwie auf dem Boden haben. Dies war Rußland, Österreich-Ungarn oder das Deutsche Reich. Auch dieser Konflikt wurzelt jedoch im Prinzip im Diktat von Versailles. Wir können nach Irak schauen und wir können nach Jugoslawien schauen: Wir finden ständig die Folgen des Diktates von Versailles und des Ersten Weltkrieges – nicht die des Zweiten. Damals hat man eben auf einem Völkerrecht aufgebaut, das dem jetzigen gleicht. Dessen jetziger Bruch ist – seine Fortsetzung! Je weiter wir gehen, um so mehr entfernen wir uns vom richtigen Standpunkt.

Gibt es Parallelen zwischen dem Ausbruch des Ersten Weltkrieges und der jetzigen Mächtekonstellation?

Maschke: Es fehlt hier der Gegenpart und die internationale Konfrontation. Es könnte eine gewisse lokale Ausweitung geben, es enthält aber keinen Zündstoff für einen Weltkrieg.

Haben die USA mit dem Nato-Einsatz nicht auch das Ziel, Rußland endgültig aus Europa herauszudrängen?

Maschke: Sicher. Das paßt auch zur Nato- und EU-Osterweiterung. Wir haben uns jetzt selbst eingekreist und können nicht mehr die russische Karte spielen – Rußland wird wieder erstarken ...! Das ist wirklich keine große Meisterleistung.

Wäre eine deutsch-russische Initiative zur Befriedung des Kosovo und Disziplinierung der Serben nicht erfolgversprechend gewesen?

Maschke: Das wirkt etwas science-fiction-haft. Hier muß man die Potenz der Regierung in Deutschland und der deutschen Politiker bedenken.Wir reden zwar davon, wir müßten Verantwortung übernehmen und erwachsen werden. Dies bedeutet jedoch nur, daß wir von der bisherigen Abstinenz Abschied nehmen. Es läuft lediglich darauf hinaus, daß wir zu Mitläufern und Vasallen geworden sind. Dies haben wir schon im Golfkrieg gesehen. Erwachsen werden heißt nun Eingliederung in uns widerstrebende fremde Interessen. Das kann ja wohl nicht Sinn der Übung sein.

Welche Auswirkungen wird dieser erste wirkliche Krieg in Europa seit 1945 auf die Kräfteverhältnisse haben?

Maschke: Dies bedeutet zunächst die ständige Präsenz der Vereinigten Staaten in Europa. Sie werden den Einigungprozeß Europas vorantreiben – und Europa wird so eine riesige, durch Grenzen nicht mehr geteilte Penetrationssphäre der USA. Dies wird bedeuten, daß sich Rußland andere Partner suchen muß, sei es China oder Indien. Man kann Rußland natürlich durch Kreditpolitik kujonieren, aber das wird Grenzen haben.

Europa ist mit der Einführung des Euro kurz davor, wirtschaftlich zum bedrohlichsten Konkurrenten der USA zu werden. Soll es da politisch ausgeschaltet wird?

Maschke: Die EU ist kein Konkurrent für die USA, denn Amerika ist auf allen Ebenen, sei es militärisch, ökonomisch und vor allem massenkulturell, in Europa präsent. Die europäische Einigung hätte Sinn, wenn man die USA ausschlösse oder zurückdrängen würde. So ist es praktisch nur ein riesiges Lateinamerika de luxe für die USA. Es ist die alte Diskussion: Wollen wir eine europäische Einigung Europas oder eine amerikanische Einigung Europas?

Warum beteiligen sich Frankreich und Großbritannien an diesem Vorgehen der USA?

Maschke: Weil beide den deutschen Einfluß auf dem Balkan fürchten.

Sie schädigen sich doch aber selbst.

Maschke: Ja, weil jede Aktion, die Amerika nach Europa hineinbringt, im Prinzip alle Europäer und eine europäische Einigung Europas schädigt.

Der Angriff der Nato mußte die UNO brüskieren. Bedeutet dies jetzt auch das Ende dieser Organisation?

Maschke: Die UNO ist in den letzten Jahren zunehmend von den Vereinigten Staaten instrumentalisiert worden. Als das nicht mehr ging, hat man versucht, sie zu umgehen. Dies kann beliebig wiederholt werden. Die UNO hat heute gar keine Vermittlungsmacht mehr. Man kann sich heute fragen, ob man nicht zum Naturzustand zurückkehrt. Man kann sagen, daß das Ganze eine größere Simplizität und Ehrlichkeit in die internationalen Beziehungen bringt. Diese nähert sich sozialdarwinistischen Vorstellungen – was nicht beruhigend sein kann.

Das Recht des Stärkeren wird also im Prinzip als Recht der Weltpolizei USA verkauft?

Maschke: Wenn ich jetzt hingehe und argumentiere, es gebe etwas jenseits des Völkerrechts, dann habe ich natürlich Probleme, anderen den Bruch des Völkerrechtes vorzuwerfen. Wenn heute eine westliche Macht den Chinesen Vorhaltungen macht wegen Tibet, dann können die nur mit einem Fragezeichen antworten – nach Kosovo.

Gäbe es überhaupt eine andere Lösung für das Problem des Kosovo, Massenvertreibungen und Massaker zu verhindern?

Maschke: Wenn man interessiert ist an einer Ordnung auf dem Balkan, müßte man mit Bodentruppen eingreifen und eine Art Protektorat errichten. Wichtig ist, welche Folgen die jetzige Handlung hat. Das jetzige Handeln verschärft das Flüchtlingsproblem – und ich vermute, daß dies den USA aus den geschilderten Gründen sehr gut zupaß kommt, aber nicht uns. Die Luftschläge werden keine Lösung bringen, und es wird auch weiter Terror geben, selbst wenn die jugoslawische Armee im Kosovo auf Null gebracht ist. Man kann nicht immer so tun, als hätten alle Konflikte eine eindeutige Lösung. Der Konflikt Israels mit seiner Umgebung hat auch keine Lösung – solche Konflikte haben allenfalls eine Geschichte.

Es gab Ideen, die Albaner – ähnlich wie die Kroaten – massiv zu bewaffnen.

Maschke: Das bedeutet natürlich, daß trotz einer massiven Bewaffnung der Albaner das Verhältnis sehr ungleichgewichtig geblieben wäre. Das zweite wäre, man hätte sich aus dem Konflikt gleichsam verabschieden müssen. Das ist etwa bei dem Konflikt in Süd-Vietnam so gewesen. Dann wäre immer noch die Frage, ob sich die Albaner aus ihren Schwierigkeiten hätten befreien können. Sie hätten immer versucht, jemanden mit in diesen Konflikt hineinzuziehen.

Sie kennen Joschka Fischer als Frankfurter Sponti und haben sich oft mit ihm gestritten. Ist die Wandlung des Friedenskämpfers und Pazifisten zum Außenminister und Angriffskrieger konsequent?

Maschke: Ja. Das ist nicht inkonsequent, denn wenn die Feindschaft der Pazifisten zu den Nicht-Pazifisten groß genug ist, müssen sie – frei nach Carl Schmitt – auch zum Krieg schreiten. Das ist hier der Fall, nur nennen sie es anders. Wir kennen auch die Formeln bereits zur Genüge, sie sind bekannt seit Wilson – wir führen keinen Krieg gegen das deutsche Volk, wir führen keinen Krieg gegen das serbische Volk etc. Im Ernstfall spaltet sich der Pazifismus: der eine Teil sagt, Gewalt kann man nur mit Gewalt begegnen, die andern reagieren wie Ströbele – und sagen, wir wollen es generell nicht. Es gab nach dem Ersten Weltkrieg die Formel "Krieg gegen den Krieg". Jetzt heißt es Aktion gegen den Krieg oder friedenserzwingende Maßnahmen gegen den Krieg. Selbst der "Krieg gegen den Krieg" ist den Pazifisten jetzt zu kriegerisch – terminologisch! Das ist nicht überraschend. Aber in der Kriegsgeschichte des Jahrhunderts war immer festzustellen, daß sich die Pazifisten in solch einer Situation spalten – und die größere Fraktion wird "kriegerisch".

Glauben Sie, daß die Grünen an dieser Frage zerbrechen werden?

Maschke: Es kommt vor allem darauf an, wie lange das dauert. Welche Folgen das für Deutschland hat, wenn es bedeutende Verluste für Deutschland gibt. Wenn es nur kurz ist, wird man dies vergessen – und es werden sich nur sehr kleine Gruppen abspalten.

Ist es nicht seltsam, daß während des Golfkrieges Anfang der neunziger Jahre massenhaft Leute gegen die USA und den Krieg auf die Straße gegangen sind und jetzt kaum jemand zu sehen ist?

Maschke: Es ist sicherlich ganz wesentlich, wer an der Regierung ist. Obwohl man versucht hat, zum Beispiel Hussein zu satanisieren, scheint das nicht so erfolgreich gewesen zu sein wie bei den Serben.Gegen die Serben existiert ein parmanenter Groll, zumal sie erklärte Deutschlandfeinde sind. Der serbische Haß auf Deutschland ist unbezweifelbar, und es gibt einen antiserbischen Affekt in den Medien und einen Affekt für Kroatien. Hinzu kommt, daß ein Entsetzen entsteht, daß die Greuel durch die Serben mitten in Europa geschehen. Wenn das bei den Irakis geschieht, ist das nicht so verwunderlich. Der Europäer ist in seinem Selbstverständnis aufgeklärt und pazifiziert. Das gilt auch für die Serben. Die haben Telefone, Autos, sprechen Deutsch oder Englisch und scheinen zivilisiert, tragen Schlipse. Dann ist man ganz erstaunt, wenn die sich irgendwelche Körperteile abschneiden. Das paßt zu einem Gelben, Braunen, Schwarzen, aber nicht zu einem Europäer. Hier ist die Empörung dann plötzlich größer.

Inwieweit ist überhaupt die Bundesregierung Herr der Lage, wer gibt den Takt vor? Von wem und wie wird über den möglichen Bodenkrieg entschieden?

Maschke: Über den Bodenkrieg werden die entscheiden, die ihn auch durchsetzen wollen – auf parlamentarischem Wege. Da sehe ich Schwierigkeiten. Entscheiden wird es der Hegemon des Bündnisses – die USA. Und dieser kann das auch alleine machen. Doch werden wir das wahrscheinlich wieder mitmachen, weil wir unfähig sind, uns gegen die Vereinigten Staaten zu stellen. Die Grundregel scheint da ganz einfach: Wir tun das, was die USA für richtig halten.

Können sich die Deutschen überhaupt noch aus dem Einsatz zurückziehen? Es heißt ja, wer sich einmischt, übernimmt Verantwortung.

Maschke: Interessant ist ja die Erklärung von Johannes Rau. Er hatte den Einsatz gebilligt und gesagt, er hoffe, daß unsere Soldaten in Zukunft nicht öfters bei solchen und ähnlichen Aktionen mitmachen müssen.Wenn man sich die Konfliktlage in der Welt ansieht und die amerikanische Forderung nach Lastenteilung betrachet, kann man sich vorstellen, daß es eine Multiplizierung ähnlicher Konflikte gibt, bei denen wir des öfteren die Gefährten der USA sein werden. Insgesamt ist dies eine Salamitaktik. Wir machen erst auf dem Niveau mit, dann auf dem Niveau u.s.w. Das bedeutet am Schluß: "Germans to the front" – ohne daß wir wirklich Einfluß nehmen können. Wir haben auch keine eigene Taktik, dies mit einer allmählichen Einflußsteigerung zu verbinden. Wir sind Vasallen ohne Lohn. Das ist unsere Form der Fellachisierung bzw. Selbst-Fellachisierung.


"Die Friedensbewegung und die immer noch zu ängstlichen Politiker und Militärs stehen dem [der totalen Erlösung]  immer noch im Wege, aber auch sie werden dem geheimen Wunsch aller, den alle leugnen, nicht mehr lange widerstehen können. Letzteres ist in etwa die Quintessenz des jungen Münsteraner Philosophen Ulrich Horstmann, dessen Essay in der moralparfümierten geistigen Landschaft der Bundesrepublik durch seine Radikalität und seine elegante Schnoddrigkeit auffällt. Der gelegentlich dekadent-pathetische Ton [...] mindert das bösartige Lesevergnügen ein wenig. Und ist es nötig, daß Horstmann, ganz braver Sohn der Alma Mater, all die Scharteken der Außenseiterphilosophen mitschleppt? Doch so leistet er immerhin eine Anthologie der Sehnsucht nach dem Ende. [...] Ist denn das Zuendeführen des Werkes in Horstmanns Sinn ohne solche Spekulationen denkbar? Die Ausrottung der Menschheit wird unter humanitären Parolen erfolgen oder sie wird nicht gelingen. Horstmann scheut leider den Gedanken, ob nicht die von ihm geforderte Ausbreitung des anthropofugalen Denkens - aufgrund der dann entstehenden Gleichgültigkeit - das größte aller Hindernisse für die anthropofugale Sehnsucht wäre. [...] Die Pointe ist [...], daß das anthropofugale Denken gerade keine Garantie dafür bietet, daß ‚unsere Spezies bis auf das letzte Exemplar' vertilgt wird. Wer will, daß die Qual aufhört, legt sich eher aufs Sofa, als daß er den Helmriemen festzieht. Horstmanns Programm wird nicht von seinesgleichen verwirklicht werden, sondern von den Täternaturen, die es immer noch gibt."

Günter Maschke: Daß wir besser nicht da wären. In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 16.8.1983

vendredi, 19 novembre 2010

AFRICOM nel cuore della guerra per il petrolio

africom4resized.jpg

AFRICOM nel cuore della guerra per il petrolio
 
da Amadou Fall   

 

Ex: http://www.campoantiimperialista.it/

 

Dopo aver incassato il rifiuto di quasi tutti gli stati africani, il comando degli Stati uniti per l'Africa sembrava essere destinato a rimanere a Stoccarda, in Germania. Di fatto, continua ad essere molto presente e attivo nel continente africano. AFRICOM, sotto la copertura dell'aiuto umanitario, lotta al terrorismo e mantenimento della pace, si sposta in un crescente numero di paesi dove conduce manovre militari, programmi formativi e di assistenza.

Questi movimenti vanno in parallelo alla diminuzione della presenza della Francia nella sua vecchia area d'influenza. In mancanza di una vera e propria base dove collocarsi, AFRICOM è stato ripensato come strumento che consiste in una trama di piccole installazioni intorno alla base americana di Gibuti. Dispone di una forza permanente di circa 1.800 uomini. Per le emergenze, dispone di una base navale in Kenia e altre due in Etiopia.

La rete si sta estendendo in Africa equatoriale con la presenza a Kisangani, nel cuore di Ituri, Provincia orientale, Repubblica democratica congolese (RDC). "Si tratta di formare un esercito più professionale, che rispetti l'autorità civile e garantisca la sicurezza del popolo congolese. Ciò che facciamo qui come in altri luoghi d'Africa, d'accordo con i governi sovrani, è nell'interesse dei popoli. Agli USA e alla comunità internazionale interessa che il popolo congolese viva in pace ed abbia la possibilità di un futuro migliore", diceva il generale William Ward.

Un ritornello ben noto. Tutti sanno che l'attivismo militare nordamericano non è garanzia di sicurezza. La collaborazione fra USA ed Etiopia ha raggiunto i suoi fini militari, ma ha generato una delle peggiori crisi umanitarie in Somalia. A Ituri, vittima di un conflitto interetnico dal 1999, che ha già fatto 50.000 morti e 50.000 sfollati, l'ingerenza americana ha buone probabilità di aggravare la situazione. E' questa la paura che sta dietro il rifiuto degli stati africani di ospitare la base di AFRICOM. Dovrebbe essere l'Unione africana ad assumersi l'impegno del mantenimento della pace e della lotta contro il terrorismo.

Ma la vera ragione della presenza di AFRICOM in Congo e in altri posti dell'Africa è il petrolio. Lo aveva già detto senza reticenze un ufficiale del generale Ward nel febbraio 2008: proteggere la libera circolazione delle risorse naturali dell'Africa verso il mercato globale è uno dei principi di fondo di AFRICOM. Il rifornimento petrolifero degli Stati uniti e il problema della crescente influenza cinese sono le sfide più importanti agli interessi statunitensi. Pur se la preoccupazione degli USA è condurre una guerra contro il terrorismo planetario, la creazione di un comando specifico per l'Africa spiega la natura dell'implicazione nordamericana nel gioco delle grandi potenze riguardo ai mercati africani. AFRICOM ha come finalità prioritaria quella di garantire il rifornimento petrolifero africano agli Stati uniti, per non dipendere troppo dal Medio Oriente.

La base di Gibuti permette il controllo della rotta marittima da cui transita un quarto della produzione mondiale petrolifera e il dominio della fascia petrolifera che attraversa l'Africa fino al Golfo di Guinea, dopo aver attraversato il Ciad e il Camerun. Un nuovo sito in Uganda fornisce agli Stati uniti la possibilità di controllare il Sud del Sudan. Le zone di Nigeria, Gabon, Guinea e RD Congo, ricche di petrolio e di gas sono nel mirino USA.

La Provincia orientale del Congo è in ebollizione, e tra le multinazionali desiderose di ottenere le concessioni per lo sfruttamento e lo stato congolese sono già nate della questioni. Sotto l'ombra di AFRICOM, gli americani sono lì per il petrolio e i minerali, vitali per l'industria elettronica e informatica. Dopo essersi accaparrati i minerali del Katanga, dove un consorzio sfrutta più della metà delle risorse minerarie, e dopo essersi assicurati il controllo di quelle del Kivu, Washington ora vuole il pezzo più grosso della torta, il petrolio di Ituri e per estensione, dei Grandi Laghi.

 
Fonte: http://www.fundacionsur.com/spip.php?article7422
Traduzione dallo spagnolo per www.resistenze.org a cura del Centro di Cultura e Documentazione Popolare

 

jeudi, 18 novembre 2010

Big Brother et Mickey Mouse

Big Brother et Mickey Mouse

Par François Bousquet

La gauche a toujours aimé se faire peur en se jouant des films d’horreur. Le ventre est encore fécond d’où a surgi la bête immonde, n’est-ce pas !

On connaît le refrain, il scande un demi-siècle d’antifascisme parodique. On le croyait inusable, mais il a vieilli. Il faut dire que la bête immonde a profondément mué. Elle ne porte plus des cornes, mais des Ray Ban. La chirurgie esthétique a adouci ses traits. Chemin faisant, on est passé des années 40 au CAC 40. C’est beaucoup plus fun. Il manquait un nom à cette nouvelle bête. Raffaele Simone lui en a trouvé un, c’est « le Monstre doux », titre de son dernier livre***, qui a fait pas mal de remous en Italie à sa sortie en 2009, dans un pays berluscosinistré. L’ouvrage n’est pas sans intérêt, même s’il n’apporte rien de nouveau, en tout cas rien qui n’ait déjà été dit par Tocqueville. Ce monstre doux, c’est l’Occident qui virerait à droite, selon Simone, mélange de Big Brother et de Mickey Mouse.

On a beau savoir qu’on ne prête qu’aux riches (et donc à la droite), on ne voit pas trop ce qu’elle vient faire ici, fût-elle génétiquement modifiée. Certes, la gauche a perdu la main, on le concède volontiers à l’auteur, mais elle a encore presque toutes les cartes. Ceux d’entre vous qui travaillent dans l’édition, le journalisme, l’éducation, la culture, en savent quelque chose. Elle est le pays légal figé dans une posture avant-gardiste, montrant la voie à des populations contrariées qui la désavouent dans les urnes. Ce désaveu attriste Raffaele Simone. Il ne le comprend pas. C’est pourtant bien simple : la gauche est confrontée à l’usure du pouvoir. Comme toutes les machines idéologiques longtemps dominantes, elle parle dans le vide. Pour autant, on ne sache pas que la droite l’ait remplacée, ou alors une droite aux hormones made in USA. Non, ce qui triomphe aujourd’hui, c’est la société du spectacle, le marché, l’hyperconsommation, l’obésité, le télévoyeurisme, etc. Qu’est-ce que la droite a à voir avec ça ? Raffaele Simone ne nous le dit pas.

Notre monde est résiduellement politique. Les libéraux et les libertaires, longtemps minoritaires de part et d’autre de l’échiquier politique, ont vampirisé ce qu’il restait de droite et de gauche historiques. Leurs mots d’ordre sont devenus notre quotidien. Jouissez, consommez, panurgez. L’un des maîtres à penser de la géopolitique américaine, Zbigniew Brzezinski, a appelé cela l’âge du « tittytainment », contraction d’« entertainment » (divertissement) et de « tit » (le sein, au sens d’allaitement maternel). Mais Juvénal, qui était meilleur poète que Brzezinski, a donné pour toujours la formule à succès des empires sur le déclin : panem et circenses. Des barres chocolatées et des jeux télévisés, ça a moins de gueule que les jeux du cirque, mais ça n’est guère différent.

François Bousquet

Source : Le Blog du Choc du Mois [1].

*** Raffaele Simone, « Le Monstre doux. Pourquoi l’Occident vire-t-il à droite ? », « Le Débat », Gallimard, 192 p. 17,50 €.


Article printed from :: Novopress.info France: http://fr.novopress.info

URL to article: http://fr.novopress.info/71930/big-brother-et-mickey-mouse-par-francois-bousquet/

URLs in this post:

[1] Le Blog du Choc du Mois: http://blogchocdumois.hautetfort.com/archive/2010/10/25/big-brother-et-mickey-mouse.html#more

mercredi, 17 novembre 2010

EU und China knüpfen engere Verbindungen, USA unterstützen Indien

EU und China knüpfen engere Verbindungen, USA unterstützen Indien

F. William Engdahl / ex: http://info.kopp-verlag.de/

 

In den vergangenen Wochen hat die Volksrepublik China einzelnen EU-Ländern bemerkenswerte wirtschaftliche Offerten unterbreitet. Im Lichte der offenen Kritik, die China an der amerikanischen Zentralbank Federal Reserve und am US-Finanzministerium wegen deren jüngster abenteuerlicher Geldpolitik erhebt, ist diese Öffnung ein deutliches Anzeichen dafür, dass sich China, die am schnellsten wachsende Wirtschaftsnation der Welt, von einer Orientierung, die bislang hauptsächlich auf die USA ausgerichtet war, nun in Richtung EU bewegt. Dies würde weitreichende Auswirkungen haben.

 

 

Chinas Staatspräsident Hu Jintao hat soeben dreitägige Gespräche mit dem französischen Präsidenten abgeschlossen, bei denen sich beide Seiten auf neue Wirtschafts- und Handelsverträge in einem bisher noch nie erreichten Umfang von über 20 Milliarden Euro geeinigt haben. Es geht um Kernenergie, Luftfahrt, Finanzen, Energieeffizienz und Umweltschutz. Ein wichtiger Bereich ist die Beteiligung Frankreichs an Chinas ehrgeizigem Programm zur Ausweitung der Nutzung der Kernenergie. Nach Angaben des beteiligten französischen Kraftwerkbauers Areva werden die Beziehungen zu den chinesischen Partnern auf dem größten Kernkraftmarkt der Welt durch diese Verträge auf eine neue Stufe gehoben. China wird außerdem 100 neue Airbus-Maschinen kaufen.

Frankreich rollt für Chinas Präsident Hu den roten (!) Teppich aus, während China engere Verbindungen zur EU knüpft.

Präsident Hu folgte einer Einladung des französischen Präsidenten, der Anfang dieses Jahres China besucht hatte. In Paris trafen die beiden Staatschefs innerhalb von drei Tagen fünf Mal zu Gesprächen zusammen. Frankreich hat Hu buchstäblich einen »roten Teppich« ausgerollt und ihn mit allen Ehren empfangen. Die beiden Präsidenten unterzeichneten eine umfassende Erklärung, in der sie sich zur Festigung der strategischen Partnerschaft zwischen den beiden Ländern verpflichten.

Beide Länder sind ständige Mitglieder des UN-Sicherheitsrates mit Vetorecht, was politisch von großer Bedeutung ist. China ist darauf bedacht, Verbündete zu finden, um bestimmte Initiativen der USA blockieren zu können, wie beispielsweise zusätzliche Sanktionen gegen den Iran, der ein wichtiger Erdöllieferant für China ist. Außerdem wolle man sich gemeinsam mit Frankreich der Frage des iranischen Atomprogramms, der Entnuklearisierung der koreanischen Halbinsel und des Konflikts in Afghanistan annehmen. In Washington wird man darüber sicher nicht erfreut sein.

Die jetzt getroffene Vereinbarung stellt auch für Sarkozy und Frankreich eine bedeutende Wende dar, denn noch vor den Olympischen Spielen vor zwei Jahren hatte Frankreich für die amerikanischen Destabilisierungsversuche in China Partei ergriffen und den Dalai Lama und die mit amerikanischer Hilfe angefachten Unruhen in Tibet unterstützt. Eindeutigerweise schätzt die französische Wirtschaft bessere Beziehungen zu China jedoch als wichtiger ein als solche zu den USA, denn die US-Wirtschaft rutscht immer tiefer in die Depression, während China boomt.

 

Anschließend in Portugal

Im Anschluss an den Frankreich-Besuch reiste Präsident Hu nach Lissabon, wo er mit dem portugiesischen Premierminister José Sócrates Gespräche über die Entwicklung einer umfassenden strategischen Partnerschaft beider Länder führte. Dabei wurde über die Vertiefung der bilateralen Wirtschafts- und Handelsbeziehungen gesprochen. Hu unterstrich, er betrachte Portugal als potenziellen Alliierten in der Strategie zum Ausbau einer strategischen Partnerschaft zwischen China und Europa.

Den Staatsbesuchen des chinesischen Präsidenten in Frankreich und Portugal war die beispiellose Unterstützungsaktion Chinas für den griechischen Anleihemarkt vorausgegangen. Wie ich Anfang Oktober an dieser Stelle geschrieben habe, war der chinesische Premierminister zu einem überraschenden Staatsbesuch nach Griechenland gereist, in ein Land also, das normalerweise eines so hochrangigen Besuchs nicht würdig wäre. China bot Griechenland damals seine Hilfe bei der Schuldenkrise an. Bei einer Pressekonferenz Anfang Oktober in Athen erklärte Wen Jiabao: »Wir besitzen bereits griechische Staatsanleihen und werden solche auch in Zukunft kaufen. Wir werden Anstrengungen unternehmen, den Ländern der Eurozone und Griechenland zu helfen, die Krise zu überwinden.«

Insgesamt gesehen wird nun deutlich, dass man sich in Peking entschlossen hat, eine politische Wende in Richtung auf die Europäische Union zu vollziehen und sich schrittweise aus einer zu großen Abhängigkeit von Washington zu lösen. Bezeichnenderweise hält sich US-Präsident Barack Obama, der darum kämpft, seine angeschlagene Präsidentschaft nach der vernichtenden Niederlage bei den Zwischenwahlen zum US-Kongress zusammenzuhalten, derzeit zu einem Besuch in Indien auf, wo das Pentagon ausdrücklich seine eigene Version einer »militärisch-strategischen Partnerschaft« aufbaut. Wenn die USA Indien militärisch umgarnen, so haben sie dabei ein Land im Auge, das zu einer strategischen Bedrohung werden könnte: China. Doch China antwortet jetzt mit einer Gegenstrategie, sodass man in Washington die eigenen Initiativen vielleicht schon bald bereuen wird. Bleiben Sie dran …

 

mardi, 16 novembre 2010

Washington treibt Pakistan in Allianz mit China

Washington treibt Pakistan in Allianz mit China

F. William Engdahl / http://info.kopp-verlag.de/

 

Sollte es das Ziel von Hillary Clintons State Department sein, die Bildung einer wachsenden Allianz von Staaten zu forcieren, die die US-Außenpolitik ablehnen, dann ist diesem Bemühen glänzender Erfolg beschieden. Das jüngste Beispiel ist Pakistan: Die USA machen Druck, weil Pakistan angeblich zu »sanft« mit den Taliban und al Qaida (oder was die USA so bezeichnen) umgeht. Der Effekt ist, dass Pakistan in eine engere Allianz mit China, dem einstigen Partner in der Zeit des Kalten Krieges, gedrängt wird, und zu den USA auf Abstand geht.

 

 

Im Im vergangenen Monat hat Obamas Präsidialamt dem US-Kongress einen Bericht übermittelt, in dem der pakistanischen Armee vorgeworfen wurde, sie vermeide »militärische Einsätze, die sie in direkten Konflikt mit den afghanischen Taliban oder mit al-Qaida-Kämpfern bringen würden«, dies sei eine »politische Entscheidung«. Der Druck, den die USA in den vergangenen Monaten erzeugt haben, um den Krieg in Afghanistan auf das benachbarte Kirgisistan und jetzt auch Pakistan auszuweiten, birgt die Gefahr, dass in der gesamten Region, die ohnehin zu den instabilsten und chaotischsten der ganzen Welt zählt, ein Krieg ausgelöst wird, bei dem zwei Atommächte, nämlich Indien und Pakistan, in eine direkte Konfrontation geraten könnten. Die Politiker in Washington scheinen nicht den geringsten Schimmer von der komplizierten, historisch gewachsenen Kluft zwischen den Stämmen und Ethnien in der Region zu haben. Anscheinend glauben sie, mit Bomben ließe sich alles lösen.

Wenn die Regierung in Pakistan nun verstärkt unter Druck gesetzt wird, so werden dadurch allem Anschein nach die militärischen und politischen Bindungen an Washington nicht etwa gefestigt, wie es noch unter dem Ex-Präsidenten, dem »Starken Mann« Musharraf in gewisser Weise der Fall gewesen war. Vielmehr wird Pakistans jetziger Präsident Asif Zardari China, dem geopolitischen Verbündeten aus der Zeit des Kalten Krieges, in die Arme getrieben.

Laut einem Bericht in Asian News International hat Zardari in Washington bei einem Treffen mit Zalmay Khalilzad, dem ehemaligen US-Botschafter in Pakistan und neokonservativen Kriegsfalken, die US-Regierung beschuldigt, sie »arrangiere« die Angriffe, die den Taliban in Pakistan angelastet werden, um einen Vorwand zu schaffen, unbemannte Drohnen auf pakistanisches Gebiet abzufeuern.* Angeblich habe Zardari gesagt, die CIA habe Verbindungen zu den pakistanischen Taliban, die als Tehrik-e-Taliban-e-Pakistan oder TTP bekannt sind.

Obwohl das Militär in Pakistan von der Unterstützung der USA abhängig ist, herrscht Berichten zufolge im Land eine stark anti-amerikanische Stimmung, die weiter angeheizt wird, wenn Zivilisten bei amerikanischen Drohnenangriffen verletzt oder getötet werden. Auch über die wachsenden militärischen Kontakte Washingtons zu Pakistans Rivalen Indien herrscht große Empörung.
Angesichts der stärkeren Hinwendung Washingtons zu Indien setzt die pakistanische Elite im einflussreichen Sicherheits-Establishment verstärkt auf die Beziehungen zwischen Islamabad und Peking. Pakistan und China verbindet eine, wie oft gesagt wird, »wetterfeste« Freundschaft: eine Allianz aus der Zeit des Kalten Krieges, die aus der geografischen Lage und der beiderseitigen Antipathie gegen Indien erwachsen ist.

Anfang dieses Jahres hat China angekündigt, in Pakistan zwei Atomkraftwerke bauen zu wollen, eine strategische Antwort auf das Nuklearabkommen zwischen Indien und den USA. Dem Vernehmen nach verhandelt der staatliche chinesische Atomkonzern China National Nuclear Corporation zurzeit mit den pakistanischen Behörden über den Bau eines Atomkraftwerks mit einer Leistung von einem Gigawatt.

China hat Pakistan für die Zusammenarbeit bei der Bekämpfung potenzieller muslimischer Aufstände in der Unruheprovinz Xinjiang an der Grenze zu Pakistan und Afghanistan gewonnen. Außerdem baut China Dämme und Anlagen zur Erkundung von Edelmetallen. Von größter strategischer Bedeutung ist der von China betriebene Bau eines Tiefseehafens in Gwadar am Arabischen Meer in der pakistanischen Provinz Belutschistan, von dem aus Öl aus dem Nahen Osten über eine neue Pipeline in die chinesische Provinz Xinjiang transportiert werden soll. Washington betrachtet dies beinahe als kriegerische Handlung gegen die US-Kontrolle über den strategisch lebenswichtigen Ölfluss aus dem Nahen Osten nach China. Die Unruhen ethnischer Uiguren in Xinjiang im Juli 2009 trugen eindeutig die Handschrift amerikanischer NGOs und Washingtoner Geheimdienste, anscheinend sollte damit die wirtschaftliche Tragfähigkeit der Pipeline untergraben werden.

China dringt auch in Süd- und Zentralasien weiter vor, verlegt Pipelines über das Gebiet ehemaliger Sowjetrepubliken und erschließt die Kupferfelder in Afghanistan.
Nach Aussage des pensionierten indischen Diplomaten Gajendra Singh »zeigt Hintergrundmaterial in britischen Archiven, dass London sich ein schwaches Pakistan als Verbündeten im Süden Sowjetrusslands geschaffen hat, um die westlichen Ölfelder im Nahen Osten zu schützen, denn die sind noch immer der Preis, um den der Westen im Irak, im Iran, in Saudi-Arabien und anderen Gebieten am Golf, am Kaspischen Becken und in Zentralasien kämpft«.

CIA-tactieken binnenkort ook in Europa?

CIA-tactieken binnenkort ook in Europa?
Wie pleegt de bomaanslagen in Irak?


22 juli 2010 - Ex: http://www.zonnewind.be/

Door Christopher King

voitures-piegees-explose-quasi.jpgAutobommen en andere soorten aanslagen zijn dagelijkse kost in Irak, ondanks officiële retoriek dat het geweld is afgenomen. Op 18 juli vernamen we het nieuws dat er 43 doden vielen en 40 mensen gewond raakten door een zelfmoordaanslag in het zuid-westen van Bagdad. Volgens Christopher King is het zeer waarschijnlijk dat de CIA - of Israël in opdracht van de CIA - verantwoordelijk is voor de aanslagen, om zo de bezetting van Irak te mogen voortzetten en verder uit te bouwen, net als de andere aanslagen het werk zijn van de CIA of Israël, om de militaire aanwezigheid in het Midden-Oosten en zuid-oost Azië te rechtvaardigen.

Op 10 mei waren er meer dan tien bomaanslagen en schietpartijen in Irak. Daarbij kwamen 85 mensen om het leven en raakten meer dan 300 personen gewond. Dit waren gecoördineerde aanslagen, duidelijk gepleegd door één en dezelfde organisatie.

Het antwoord van de Verenigde Staten op deze en andere aanslagen was de plannen voor een terugtrekking van zijn troepen uit Irak uit te stellen. Eén van Obama's verkiezingsbeloften was om de Amerikaanse troepen uit Irak terug te trekken tegen mei 2010. Het is inmiddels niet alleen vrij duidelijk dat dat niet gebeurd is, maar tevens kwamen we na de verkiezingen te weten wat "terugtrekking" inhield: 50.000 manschappen zullen achterblijven als 'instructeurs', naast 4.500 speciale eenheden en tienduizenden huurlingen.

Op dit moment wordt zelfs de beloofde terugtrekking heroverwogen omdat men zich zorgen maakt om de veiligheid van de Iraakse burgers. Denkend aan de meer dan 1 miljoen Iraakse burgerslachtoffers en de vier tot vijf miljoen mensen die op de vlucht zijn voor de ellende van de bezetting is het moeilijk voor te stellen dat men in Washington zo diep getroffen is door een paar honderd slachtoffers door 'binnenlandse' schermutselingen. Sommigen noemen dat een vooruitgang in de Amerikaanse benadering...

Terwijl de aanslagen van de laatste maanden de VS een excuus geven om de symbolische terugtrekking verder uit te stellen, moeten we eens nadenken over wie er achter de aanslagen kunnen zitten.

Er wordt al langer beweerd dat de CIA, met behulp van lokale groeperingen achter de aanslagen zit. Het zijn de typische smerige trucs van deze duistere organisatie, die bovendien worden gefinancierd door de Amerikaanse regering. Zolang er olie in de grond zit in Irak zullen de VS het land nooit verlaten, en mede daarom is het ongelooflijk dat de Westerse media en zelfs de vredesbewegingen nog geloven in een terugtrekking van de Amerikaanse troepen. Terugtrekken was nooit de bedoeling van de VS. Een leger dat maar tijdelijk wil blijven bouwt geen versterkte legerbases zoals de VS dat in Irak - en elders in Azië - hebben gedaan en nog steeds doen. Het is daarom zeer vervelend voor de VS dat de verkiezingen in Irak eerder dit jaar niet de gewenste trekpop aan de macht hielpen.

De recente serie aanslagen, naast een lange reeks kleinere - maar niet minder dodelijke - aanslagen is niet het werk van een klein groepje extremisten. Het gaat hier om een grote, goed georganiseerde organisatie met veel financiële middelen en uitgebreide Westerse ondersteuning.

De gebruikelijke, niet nader genoemde regeringsmedewerkers van onduidelijke nationaliteit beweren uiteraard dat 'Al-Qaeda' verantwoordelijk is voor de aanslagen. Waarom ook niet, niet waar? Maar werd generaal David Petraeus niet geëerd voor zijn succes in het volledig elimineren van die spookorganisatie in Irak? Of was dat slechts het gevolg van zijn betalingen aan de Awakening Councils zodat die het klusje klaarden? Was 'Al-Qaeda' überhaupt ooit in Irak? Aangezien de hele aanval op Irak gebaseerd was op een dik pak leugens hebben we namelijk sowieso geen enkele reden om ook maar iets te geloven van wat de Amerikaanse regering, het leger of de Westerse gevestigde media over Irak of enig ander conflict waar Westerse landen bij betrokken zijn te geloven.

Ook de mensen die actief zijn in Irak weten vaak niet wie wat doet, en de loyaliteiten veranderen dagelijks. Daarnaast is het zeer aannemelijk dat 'Al-Qaeda' helemaal niet wil dat de VS uit Irak vertrekken, omdat de aanwezigheid de Amerikanen grote schade berokkent. Er zijn zelfs Iraakse groeperingen die munt slaan uit de Amerikaanse aanwezigheid en die willen dat ze blijven. Of dergelijke groeperingen in staat of zelfs bereid zouden zijn aanslagen op een dergelijke schaal te plegen is zeer twijfelachtig.

Daarnaast is het zeer waarschijnlijk dat dat hele 'Al-Qaeda' niet bestaat. Het is de Amerikaanse boeman, gebruikt om de mensen angst aan te jagen. Maar er zit sleet op. Net als op de pauzeloze beschuldigingen aan het adres van Iran dat zij achter de vele aanslagen in Irak zouden zitten. Niet dat daar ooit enig bewijs voor geleverd wordt. Daarbij is met Irak ook een Iraanse concurrent tijdelijk of voorgoed uitgeschakeld. Het is allemaal onzinnige propaganda - net zoals Saddam's nucleaire programma, zijn massavernietigingswapens, zijn ondersteuning van 'Al-Qaeda' en zijn mobiele chemische laboratoriums dat waren. Inmiddels is uitgebreid aangetoond dat dat allemaal verzinsels waren.

Wat wel zeker is? Het feit dat de Amerikaanse invasie van Irak ongekende vernietiging heeft veroorzaakt en dat de voortdurende aanwezigheid van de Amerikanen het grootste probleem van de Iraakse bevolking is - en die van Israël uiteraard.

Ja, de Israëliërs zijn ook in Irak, en ze zijn niet zo gek op Arabieren. In 2005 hoorden we dat ze in Noord-Irak de Koerden trainen. Brigade-Generaal Janis Karpinski, aangeduid als hoofdverantwoordelijke voor de mishandeling van gevangenen in Abu Ghraib zei dat ze geschokt was toen ze zag dat er Israëlische ondervragers werkzaam waren in Irak. Er valt dus genoeg te ontkennen voor de Amerikanen en voor de CIA, wanneer er zo nu en dan vragen gesteld worden. Wanneer Amerikanen en Israëliërs ergens samenwerken is dan ook alles mogelijk. Zagen we onlangs geen Israëlische 'instructeurs' in Georgië?

De Israëliërs, de CIA, het Amerikaanse en het Britse leger vermoorden allemaal met regelmaat verdachte 'militanten' en tegelijkertijd grote aantallen onschuldige burgers - vrouwen en kinderen. Niemand is in hun ogen onschuldig. Het zijn moslims, ziet u... In scene gezette aanslagen zijn dat ook niet iets waar de Amerikaans-Israëlische broederschap zijn hand voor omdraait. We weten allemaal hoe Israël op 8 juni 1967 probeerde de USS Liberty tot zinken te brengen, en hoe het Amerikaanse ministerie van Defensie vervolgens (zoals zo vaak) samenspande met de Israëliërs om de aanslag in de doofpot te stoppen. Opvarenden van de Liberty werden bedreigd om niet over het incident te spreken. De meeste Amerikanen hebben geen weet van het incident, dat met toestemming van de Amerikanen plaatsvond om later de Syriërs of de Egyptenaren de schuld te kunnen geven. De Amerikaans-Israëlische broederschap gaat veel verder dan de meeste burgers bereid zijn te onderkennen en het is daarom belangrijk om te proberen de manier van denken die bereid is tot het offeren van de eigen soldaten te doorgronden.

Waarom zouden we geloven dat de pleger van de 'aanslag' op Times Square, Faisal Shahzad dat deed in opdracht van de Pakistaanse Taliban – ook al denkt hij dat zelf? Hebben ze hem misschien hun lidkaarten getoond? Of waren deze Taliban misschien eerder van een Pakistaanse organisatie die gesteund werd door de CIA en Israël om Amerikanen te laten denken dat er een Pakistaanse Taliban bestaat die de VS willen aanvallen - allemaal om de Westerse misdaden te rechtvaardigen en de oorlog aan de praat te houden?

Faisal Shahzad simplistische constructie explodeerde niet en dat was ook nooit de bedoeling. Het was zelfs geen bom, slechts enkele jerrycans benzine, een paar gasflessen, wat vuurwerk en de verkeerde soort kunstmest. Volledig onschadelijk, maar zeer deugdelijk om de gemiddelde burger in de VS en Europa de stuipen op het lijf te jagen.

Je kunt geen wereldrijk opbouwen zonder collaborateurs in de bezette gebieden. Ze worden echter makkelijk gevonden, en Faisal Shahzad was er zo een. Net als Mahmoud Abbas, de Sjah van Perzië, Karzai in Afghanistan, Maliki in Irak, Tony Blair en Gordon Brown in Groot-Brittannië en Jan-Peter Balkenende en Maxim Verhagen in Nederland. Naast dergelijke kopstukken is uiteraard de medewerking van het grootste deel van het politieke establishment nodig om militaire bases in de bezette gebieden te kunnen vestigen - zie waar de bijna 800 militaire bases gevestigd zijn en je kent de vazalstaten van het Amerikaanse Rijk.

We krijgen een constante stroom tegenstrijdige berichten van de Amerikanen en onze eigen medeplichtige, onderworpen oorlogsmisdadigers te verwerken: ze gaan zich terugtrekken uit Irak en Afghanistan, maar tegelijkertijd zal het een lange oorlog worden. Het doel van deze onzin is om iedereen iets te geven dat ze kunnen geloven en tegelijkertijd iets om te negeren. Het is geavanceerde psychologie.

Maar goed, het zijn barre tijden en er is zeer dringend behoefte aan eerlijke, oprechte mensen die bereid zijn op te treden om Europa te redden. Europa redden betekent eerst en vooral een terugtrekking van alle Europese troepen uit Azië en niet langer betrokken zijn bij de Amerikaanse misdaden tegen de mensheid. Maar het is niet gemakkelijk. Enkele vazalstaten hebben al mogen ondervinden hoe lastig het is van de Amerikaanse bloedzuigers af te komen. Japan wil af van de Amerikaanse bases op Okinawa, maar de Amerikanen weigeren te vertrekken. Duitsland, Nederland en België willen de Amerikaanse kernwapen van hun grondgebied verwijderd zien. Maar de VS stellen dat dat een NAVO-kwestie is en de inmiddels bekende niet nader genoemde regeringsmedewerkers zeggen dat "individuele staten geen standpunt moeten innemen over unilaterale vraagstukken". Wat moet je dan?

Met de NATO First Act of the United States, zal het virtueel onmogelijk zijn om de Amerikaanse legerbases en de Amerikaanse kernwapens uit Europa te verwijderen, hoezeer Europese landen dat nu of in de toekomst ook zouden willen. Want hoewel de First Act zegt dat op verzoek van Europese landen bases gesloten kunnen worden en kernwapens verwijderd, blijkt in de realiteit dat de VS dat helemaal alleen beslissen. En dat is logisch. Zouden de Romeinen uit Gallië vertrokken zijn op verzoek van de lokale bevolking?

Nu denkt u misschien dat de huidige economische crisis en de situatie in het Midden-Oosten slecht zijn. Fout. Het is nog veel erger. Denk niet dat wat de VS en Israël uitspoken in het Midden-Oosten niet ook in Europa zou kunnen gebeuren. Denk niet dat er geen Europese vredesactivisten naar Guantanamo zullen verdwijnen wanneer het verzet tegen Amerikaanse bases en kernwapens in Europa groeit. Ons Europese politieke establishment collaboreert met de Amerikaanse bezetter en zal u zonder meer uitleveren wanneer Washington daarom vraagt. Uiteraard voelt het niet als een bezetting - zolang we meewerken. Met Amerika onder toenemende (zelf gecreëerde) economische en geopolitieke druk ziet de toekomst voor Europa er even somber uit als de toekomst van de andere gebieden die de VS hebben bezet.

Nu al zien we onze vrijheden ernstig aangetast als het gaat om gevoelige kwesties. Protest tegen oorlogen en kernwapens is ook in Europa nauwelijks nog mogelijk zonder te stuiten op bruut optreden van de overheden c.q. politie. Wie 'The End of America' van Naomi Wolf heeft gelezen weet dat de stap van willekeurig politiegeweld tijdens vreedzame demonstraties zoals we het nu zien, naar een stadion met 7.000 opgesloten tegenstanders van het regime (Pinochet, 1973) niet zo groot is. De bomaanslagen in Irak en Afghanistan zijn dus wellicht niet zo ver weg, en de vraag wie er werkelijk achter zit verdient wel degelijk uw aandacht.

samedi, 13 novembre 2010

How the Left Won the Cold War

How the Left Won the Cold War

 
 
fascist-leftists.jpgThe following address was delivered to the HL Mencken Club's annual meeting in Baltimore, October 22, 2010.
I’m often asked why there is need for an independent or non-aligned Right. Aren’t Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin and Rich Lowry covering all our bases? Why should we create a movement on the right when FOX and those middle-aged people marching around at Tea Parties with costume-store wigs, are doing our job? Why give ammunition to the Democrats by showing that our side is divided? We should be pulling together so we can pummel Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in next month’s referendum on Obamacare.

Engaging this question fully would require more than a ten-page exposition. Indeed there is no way to address it without being in this instance a Hegelian. It was the great German philosopher Hegel who argued that the true definitions of concepts and movements are necessarily genetic. Such definitions can not be dealt with properly, unless we go back to the origin of what is being defined. A tree is not what it first appears to be, but the history of that object, from the time it was a seedling. So too there is no way to understand where we are at the present time without noticing where we were before. The present state of any institution or movement reflects a dialectical process teeming with strife. It is only when, according to Hegel, conflicting forces can be brought together in a permanent synthesis that the inherent contradictions are resolved. Before that point is reached, the dialectic must go on, as something integral to what is being formed.

My intention is not to belabor you with Hegelian concepts. It is rather to bring up the unfinished dialectic of the right, for understanding why we do not belong to the authorized “conservative movement” and why that movement has become an echo of the Left. Allow me then to start with this generalization. In the second half of the 20th century, the other side, from our perspective, won almost everywhere in the West. But the Left that prevailed was not the gerontocracy and garrison socialism associated with Soviet rule. This Left had little to do with occupation armies in baggy pants, with inefficiently distributed goods and services, and with an arsenal of atomic missiles. The Left that triumphed was a truly radical one, and it celebrated its victories in Western countries that were straining to practice more egalitarian forms of democracy.

Whether the American civil rights movement and its later implications for feminists, gays, transvestites, and illegals, the ascent of antifascism and tiers-mondialisme in France, Italy, Spain and the Lowlands, or the morbid preoccupation of Germans with their undemocratic past and troubling Sonderweg, the post-Communist Left has had a constant task. It seeks to right the wrongs of the past, and specifically those wrongs that are blamed on White Christian, Indo-European civilization.

It may be superfluous to go over here the characteristics of this Left, since most of you are aware of what is being described. I might also recommend my book The Strange Death of European Marxism, which shows how the present Left differs from both Marxism in theory and Communism in practice. This movement is conventionally referred to as cultural Marxism, and it is now at war with anything that is not sufficiently radical in the social sphere. It adherents blame bourgeois society for such evils as “racism,” “sexism,” “homophobia,” and the horrors of Hitler’s Third Reich. This post-Marxist Left appeals to the guilty conscience of the West for having held down everyone else and for not having fought with enough determination against “fascism.”

Though in Europe this Left defends Communist regimes and typically plays down the crimes of Stalin’s Russia, it is not primarily interested in socialism. It is interested above all in reconstructing society, in integrating Western nation states into global organizations and in opening Western countries to Third World immigration and to popularizing non-Christian or non-Judeo-Christian religions. For those who may have noticed, the EU has become a major instrument for this desired social experiment in Europe.

Where this Left overlaps Christian theology is in its stress on guilt and the need for atonement. But the Christian attitudes have been recycled into a replacement theology, one that develops a cult of revolutionary saints and victims, and one that produces a liturgical calendar centered on politically correct remembrance. In this replacement theology victimizing groups are expected to exhibit unconditional atonement toward those considered historical victims.

This post-Marxist Left began to supplant Communism as the major leftist ideology in the West before the fall of the Soviet Empire. Already in the 1960s, a youth culture rejecting bourgeois standards of conduct and in close alliance with anti-colonial Third World revolutionaries, had taken root in Europe. Energy began to flow in the large Communist parties in France and Italy away from traditional party cadres toward young radicals. This rising elite were concerned with combating discrimination against women and immigrants and the marginalization of gays more than they were with the nationalization of productive forces. Although the emerging order became more apparent after the violent demonstrations of the soixante-huitards in Paris in May 1968 and the organization of Red Brigades in Germany and Italy, signs of a changing guard were present before.

In a perceptive work, Sognando la rivoluzione: La sinstra italiana e le origini dei sessantottanti, the Milanese political historian Danilo Breschi shows how Communist youth organizations and workers’ strikes fell into the hands of what the old cadre called “decadent bourgeois adolescents.” While those who showed up for strikes in the 1960s in Turin, Genoa, Milan, Bologna and other cities in the northern industrial belt were self-proclaimed anti-capitalist radicals, recruited from Catholic Action, Trotskyist factions, and ethnic minorities, for the under-30 demonstrators, the real agenda was more ambitious -- but also more feasible. It was a social-cultural transformation to be engineered from above. Longtime advocates of Marxism, like film-maker P.P. Pasolini and Marx-scholar Lucio Colletti, raged against these usurpers, and they called for ousting them from respectable leftist gatherings. Colletti went so far as to call the police to eject these “decadents” from his office; and Pasolini saw their agitation on the Italian Left with growing apprehension and referred to their statements as a “verbal disease.”

This post-Marxist, anti-bourgeois Left had less sympathy for Communist parties than they do for other socialist groups, and they have gotten on particularly well with the Greens. As the Greens shifted their focus from environmentalism to filling Western countries with the Third World poor and with promoting alternative lifestyles, they became indistinguishable from the post-Marxist Left. By the end of the Cold War, Communism in the West had become obsolete because the cultural Marxist Left had taken its place and because this replacement Left was shaping the left side of the political spectrum in western Europe.

The Communist parties in France, Italy, and Germany continued to function as one of several bastions of Cultural Marxism but not usually as its vital center. A similar process unfolded in the Soviet empire more slowly. Under the noses of Communist officials in East Germany, cultural radicals, and most prominently Stasi informant and now head of the German Party of the Democratic Left, Gregor Gysi, were coming into their own. The DDR’s collapse allowed these radicals to join those in the West who were pushing the same antibourgeois projects, namely, gay and feminist rights, harping on fascist dangers, and turning nation states into branches of a global managerial regime.

One might try to challenge the eventual direction of my argument by insisting this has nothing to do with FOX or Glenn Beck. The conservative movement proclaims itself to be anti-leftist. It mocks the glorification of Islam and upholds Western democratic and feminist ideas; and it defends the sovereignty of the American state against international organizations. A well-paid GOP satirist, Mark Steyn, actually derides Europeans and Canadians nonstop for catering to anti-Western fanatics. I could not therefore be suggesting that our official conservatives represent cultural Marxist or liberal Christian quirks.

In fact I am suggesting precisely this view.

And I would make the further point that what separates our authorized right-center from the post-Marxist Left, in Europe and on the American and Canadian Left, is mostly quantitative. While the Left pushes Political Correctness without buts or ifs, the conservative movement expresses it in a less extreme form. But both groups reflect in varying degrees the same general cultural movement. Like our Left and like the dominant ideology in Western Europe, our 30- and 40-some conservative publicists are immersed in a leftist culture. And the result is something that all of them believe things that adults in the 1950s, including Communist sympathizers, would barely have understood.

It would be no exaggeration to say that Sarah Palin, who is an outspoken advocate of anti-discrimination laws for women, is more radical socially than were French and Italian Communist leaders sixty years ago. While old-fashioned CP members favored a centrally controlled economy and rooted for the Soviet side in the Cold War, unlike Sarah, they were not eager to punish sexists. And they didn’t give a hoot about gays, up until the time Communist parties were under siege from the post-Marxist Left. It is inconceivable that Communists of this era would have followed Jonah Goldberg, Charles Krauthammer, John Podhoretz, the neocon New York Post and the WSJ in affirming government-enforced “gay rights.” Two historians of the post-World War Two Communist movements in France and Italy, Annie Kriegel and Andrea Ragusa, depict a party leadership that belonged, even in spite of itself, to a bourgeois age. They stress the degree to which Communist parties embodied the social attitudes of the pre-Vatican Two Church.

Acceptable critics of the Islamic invasion of Europe like Steyn and Christopher Caldwell are targeting (and this must be noted) a specifically European experiment in multiculturalism. America’s willingness to take in and naturalize just about anybody does not bother these critics; presumably our big tent can hold lots more than we already have. By declaring ourselves to be a “propositional nation” held together by human rights and the belief in universal democratic equality, we are opening our doors to the world, or at least to those in the world who affirm our universalist creed.

I’ve also learned over the last two decades thanks to movement conservative celebrities: that Martin Luther King was acting specifically as a conservative Christian theologian when he spearheaded the civil rights revolution; that gay marriage, properly understood, may be a conservative “family value;” and that we are duty-bound to convert Muslims to our current notion of women’s rights and gay rights. It is precisely these ideas that make us “Western”; and if we truly value the glories of our civilization, which came into existence during some recent phase of late modernity, we should work to spread everywhere our high ideals. Equally relevant, those who have challenged our human rights beliefs, and most outrageously 19th-century counterrevolutionaries were actually “liberals.” Otherwise these mislabeled conservatives would have embraced the American creed of democratic equality!

A striking example of how deeply leftist thought patterns have affected the Right can be discerned in William F. Buckley responses to the attacks in the liberal/neocon press against the “anti-Semites” Joe Sobran and Pat Buchanan. In National Review in December 1991 and March 1992 and in his subsequent In Search of Anti-Semitism, Buckley distinguishes between those who are anti-Semites by conviction and those who are “contextually” anti-Jewish. His key distinction goes back to the Marxist notion of being an “objective reactionary,” meaning someone who challenges the preferences of the Communist Party. Buckley’s argument from context likewise recalls the charge in Europe against those who challenge multiculturalism, as greasing the skids for neo-Nazis.

From this standpoint, it does not matter whether or not one says something that is objectively correct. What counts is not upsetting certain VIPs. In Buckley’s brief, neither the malefactors nor the victims have anything to do with the European Holocaust. The catastrophe is being placed at the doorstep of anyone who allows himself to be intimidated into accepting it. Furthermore, the blame in this instance affects American Christians, who are required to show prescribed sensitivity toward particular American Jews. There are surrogate victims and surrogate victimizers, the first being Buckley’s dinner companions and those journalists who felt outraged, and the second being those who made offending remarks but who had nothing to do with Nazi crimes. Offenders had to be driven off the pages of National Review and out of polite society. They are or were the equivalent of what the Communists used to call “social fascists” and what the European guardians of PC consider “fascistoid.” Such antisocial types are contextually dangerous and therefore must be ostracized lest they do harm.

Note that our two contextual anti-Semites were not abetting violence against Jews, any more than European critics of Muslim immigration or German scholars who question the exclusive blame of their country for every major war are trying to unleash pogroms. They have simply run afoul of certain elite groups, by reopening an inconvenient debate. The conservative movement plays this game by declaring any question it doesn’t want raised forever closed. Such questions now include, among a myriad of other things, objecting in any way to the major congressional legislation of the 1960s.   

 

What did remain in the conservative movement from the 1950s through the 1980s was anti-Communism. American conservatives throughout this period were in favor of resistance to Communist expansion and generally viewed the Soviets as an evil empire. But the movement’s arguments against the evil empire changed over the decades, from defending Western civilization against a godless foe to standing up for global democratic values against a reactionary homophobic Russian enemy.

And these changing reasons for an anti-Soviet stand tell much about the movement’s leftward drift. This drift became a forced march after the neoconservatives ascended to power, and its consequences help explain why there is an independent Right. We more than others have resisted the post-Marxist Left. We remain at war with the cultural and political forces that reshaped the Left in the 1960s; the conservative movement by contrast has made its peace with those forces -- while emphatically denying what has happened.

The authorized conservative movement has worked to blur this truth. The “victory of the West” in the Cold War is placed into an invented series of conservative triumphs, going from Reagan’s “conservative revolution” in the 1980s through the presidency of Bush II. In the Heritage Foundation’s embellishment, even the Clinton presidency belonged to an “ongoing conservative revolution” that began with Reagan and culminated in Dubya’s democratic crusading. Like Reagan and Bush I and II, Clinton supposedly practiced fiscal conservatism and advanced American concepts of human rights, albeit not as effectively as his Republican rivals. There have also been “good” Europeans who aided this conservative march, including an otherwise run-of-the-mill social leftist Tony Blair, who rallied to the Bush administration. Thatcher and Kohl were two other friends, who supported us during the Cold War. The German chancellor Kohl was obsequious enough, that is, “conservative” enough in the current Pickwickian sense, to make sure that his country’s unification would be a passing stage in his country’s merger with an international body. “Conservative” outside the U.S. means going along with neoconservative policies.

 

Movement conservatives have also applied the “C” label to things that have nothing to do with any genuine Right. Democratic equality and moderate feminism are two such preferred values that the conservative movement has claimed for itself. Conservative think-tanks have also reinvented self-described leftists as men and women of the Right. The reinventions of King, Joe Lieberman, and Pat Moynihan as “conservative” heroes all exemplify this practice. And such manipulations have their use. The movement can claim to be doing well, even when the Left triumphs.

Conservative publicists have also reconstructed the 1960s, by divorcing its cultural radicalism from its politics. Although nasty hippies, we are told, fouled the air by not brushing their teeth and by smoking pot, the 1960s also produced legislative reforms that would have pleased Edmund Burke. It was the Civil Rights Act that according to Jonah Goldberg bestowed on our country economic freedom -- for the first time. And the Voting Rights Act was another “conservative” landmark, because thereafter the federal government made sure that all citizens would be able to vote. In fact it kept certain parts of the country under perpetual federal surveillance, lest the Black-voting proportion fell below certain expected turnouts. After all, voting for one or both of our two institutionalized parties is a “conservative” practice. And presumably the more people of different pigmentation vote, the more “conservative” we become. And equally important, the Immigration Reform of 1965 filled the U.S. with a “conservative” Catholic electorate, the benefits (or conservatism) of which have still to be ascertained.

In the 1950s and 1960s conservatives held markedly different views. While they held no brief for those who were occupying university buildings or taking drugs, they were at least equally unhappy with that era’s political reforms. Not even in their wildest dreams could most of them have imagined that such far-reaching attempts at remaking our country attitudinally and ethnically would one day be declared conservative. And I would make the obvious point that one doesn’t have to applaud Jim Crow laws (and I for one don’t) in order to recognize that measures that were taken to end “discrimination” have created a permanent governmental straightjacket from which we’re not likely to extricate ourselves. There was nothing “conservative” about the congressional and bureaucratic measures by which that straightjacket was constructed.

But today’s conservative movement is about preserving the 1960s. It has turned that decade’s transformative legislation into the cornerstone of “conservative” politics. And then there was that other questionable triumph for the Right. Supposedly the collapse of the Soviet Empire belonged to a series of conservative victories in the West, associated with Reagan, Thatcher, and their successors. But the end of Soviet hegemony in Eastern Europe did not cause the ideological shift that is sometimes ascribed to it. The Soviets left the stage of History after a more radical Left had taken over; and this occurred preeminently in the West, which had never suffered the fate of a Soviet occupation. This replacement Left reshaped Communist organizations long before the collapse of the Soviet Empire, and in its milder form, it determined the general political culture in Western countries, including that of a transformed American Right.

One cannot complete the story of why there is an independent Right without also looking at the big picture. We are part of that picture, as much as those who now oppose us. But unlike those movement conservatives who do know the truth, we are not given to manipulating the facts. In the West, there were no conservative victors in the Cold War; such victors, if they existed, were the renascent nations of Eastern Europe. And even these deserving victors may be threatened with moral defeat, if the Left that has triumphed in the West, including this country, continues to gain ground.

Paul E. Gottfried

Paul E. Gottfried

Paul Gottfried has spent the last thirty years writing books and generating hostility among authorized media-approved conservatives. His most recent work is his autobiography Encounters; and he is currently preparing a long study of Leo Strauss and his disciples. His works sell better in Rumanian, Spanish,Russian and German translations than they do in the original English, and particularly in the Beltway. Until his retirement two years hence, he will continue to be Raffensperger Professor of Humanities at Elizabethtown College in Elizabethtown, PA.

vendredi, 12 novembre 2010

Russia Is Drying up - Is a US-Climate Weapon Involved?

wheat-field-2.jpg

Russia Is Drying up – Is a US-Climate Weapon Involved?

Ex: http://www.currentconcerns.ch/

The Russian economy is expecting enormous losses because of the immeasurable heat that is raging in the central territories of Russia.
About 20% of all crops have been destroyed. In winter this may lead to a rise in prices. Moscow is enveloped in dark smoke that has been caused by fires raging in those territories. The prognoses of experts do not make it better. Droughts, severe storms and inundations will take place more frequently and will become more extreme.
Alexei Kokorin, head of the program “Climate and Economy in the Sector of Energy”, initiated by the ecologic foundation WWF,  declared that this tendency (drought) is not an accident and will recur.”1
“The declaration of the WWF speakers shows which direction the development of the climate is going to take. Nevertheless it is not a question of “global climatic warming” which is a subject discussed in many debates, i.e. scientific debates and pseudoscientific debates.2 The theory of “global climatic warming” has still to be proved, but the exceptional heat (which has broken out in Russia and in some neighboring territories) could have reasons that are neither natural nor scientific.
As early as in the seventies, the question of weather regulation (as one form of social regulation) has been raised  by Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book “Between Two Ages”. Of course, this classic author of American geopolitics had to reflect on the probability of how not only social, but also geo-politic systems are to be influenced by the climate. Other experts, too, seized this theme, even if information on the development of climatic weapons and the tests being conducted will probably never be published.
In 2000, Michel Chossudovsky, professor of economy at the University of Ottawa (Canada), wrote that a partial climatic change could be the result of the application of a new generation of “non-lethal weapons.” For several years Americans have been searching for opportunities to regulate the climate in various regions in the world. Such a technology is being developed in the framework of the High-frequency Active Aural Research Program (HAARP)3 and might be the cause of phenomena as for example droughts, hurricanes, and floods.
From a military perspective, HAARP is a weapon of mass destruction, an instrument serving to destabilize the agriculture and ecologic systems of certain regions.4 The technical basis of that program is an electromagnetic system which is built from 360 radio transmitters and 180 antennas whereof all are 22 meters high. The system  is designed to explore processes within the ionosphere.5
The station that radiates 3600 kilowatt into the sky, is the strongest installation world-wide to influence the global ionosphere.6
The program was started in 1990 and is financed by the Office of Naval Research and by the research laboratory of the US Air Force. Moreover, several important universities are participating.
All that prepared the ground for the breeding of rumours and presumptions. You may also laugh at the President of Venezuela Hugo Chavez who attributed the earthquake in Haiti to HAARP (http://fondsk.ru/article.php?id=2755), but similar rumors were brought forward after the earthquake in the Chinese province of Sichuan in 2008. Moreover, there are several indications pointing to the  American  program  for climate changes as being systematic in some countries and even partially concerning the universe.

2902246885_small_1.jpgThus, for example, the American pilotless space machine X-37B was sent into the orbit with laser weapons on board, according to certain sources of information. The “New York Times” wrote that this news was vehemently denied by the Pentagon whose experts conceded that the machine was in fact actually designed for promoting military operations and for doing “subsidiary jobs”. 7 X-37­B had already been built in 1999 within the framework of a NASA program. Since 2006 the US Air Force has been dealing with this program, but its budget and its aims are strictly confidential.    •
Author: Dr Andrei Areschev is an expert working for the Foundation for Strategic Culture.
The opinion of the author does not need to correspond to that of Ria Novosti.
Source : RIA Novosti 30/7/2010, www. interaffairs.ru/read.php ?item=231      
1    Odnako. – 2010, No 28., p. 33.
2    For details concerning the Wildlife Foundation, see: www.globoscope.ru/content/articles/2892/
3    Program site: www.haarp.alaska.edu/. The HAARP station is located in Alaska, 250 km north-east of Ankoridge.
4    Chossudovsky M. Washington’s New World Order Weapons Can Trigger Climate Change www.mindfully.org/Air/Climate-Change-Weapons.htm
5    www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/gen.html
6    www.kp.ru/daily/24494/648410/
7    Surveillance Suspected as Spacecraft’s Main Role. By William J. Broad, www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/science/space/23secret.html?_r...
8    The Times claimed that the secret unmanned vehicle might be testing laser weapons: www.newsru.com/world/24may2010/kosmorazvedhtml
www.fondsk.ru

samedi, 06 novembre 2010

Ezra Pound and the Occult

PoundNoelStock.jpgEzra Pound and the Occult
 

Brian Ballentine

In 1907, when Ezra Pound was still teaching Romance languages at Wabash
College in Indiana, he completed the poem "In Durance":

I am homesick after mine own kind
And ordinary people touch me not.
Yea, I am homesick
After mine own kind that know, and feel
And have some breath for beauty and the arts (King 86).

Pound left America and its "ordinary people" behind for Europe shortly after. When he arrived in London in 1908, Pound wasted no time becoming a part of the community of writers which he considered his "own kind." He was quickly running among the more prestigious of London’s literary society including members from the Rhymer’s Club and W. B. Yeats’s publisher Elkin Mathews. Of course, it was Yeats’s association that Pound truly desired and successfully sought out. In Poetry 1, Pound begins his "Status Rerum" by declaring that he found "Mr. Yeats the only poet worthy of serious study" (123). Pound would eventually be content to condense his esoteric community of cutting edge writers down to two men: himself and Yeats. In 1913 he wrote Harriet Monroe proclaiming that London’s writers are divided into two groups: "Yeats and I in one class, and everybody else in the other" ("Status Rerum" 123).When Pound first met Yeats, the older poet was heavily involved and experimenting with theurgy, or magic, that is performed with the aid of beneficent spirits. This form of occult study was not at all of interest to Pound. Shortly after their introduction, it was arranged for Pound to serve as Yeats’s "secretary" at the winter retreat Stone Cottage. Not trying to hide his skepticism , Pound wrote this letter to his mother just prior to his first winter with Yeats at Stone Cottage:

My stay at Stone Cottage will not be in the least profitable. I detest
the country. Yeats will amuse me part of the time and bore me to
death with psychical research the rest. I regard the visit as a duty to
posterity (Paige 25).

The purpose of this research is to expose the various types of occultism that were prevalent during Pound's life and determine what elements of the occult he subscribed to. Although there are signs of an occult influence all the way through his later writing, Pound’s own stance on the occult is difficult to pin down. Pound’s own belief in the occult was one that was constantly being rethought and revised. There are moments when Pound was on the brink of exploration into Yeats’s world of spirits as well as moments when he was ready to abandon the occult altogether. Pound’s exploration of "retro-cognition," his revitalization
of the Greek idea of the "phantastikon," his pursuit of gnosis or what he termed a "crystal" state, and his associations with some of
London’s premiere occultists provide evidence for the former. The latter is demonstrated in his revisions on the original 1917 Three Cantos and his apparent desire to be disassociated with the "pseudo-sciences" of the occult. Much of the occult element that dominated the original publication has been edited entirely out of the final and existing copy. In any case, much of Pound’s writing is indebted to an occult influence and it will be explored in this paper.

In his essay "Ezra Pound’s Occult Education," Demetres Tryphonopoulos warns other critics not to view Pound’s skeptical letter to his mother as a rejection towards all forms of the occult. He states that "it is only theurgy and spiritualism that Pound rejects" (76). These "pseudo-sciences" are what Tryphonopoulos believes to be "the areas of human interest which many true occultists would reject as involving the degradation of humanity" ("Occult Education" 74). Yeats’s other interests in astrology and numerology, both of which were popular in the early twentieth century, are also included among the "pseudo-sciences." Occult studies such as gnosticism and theosophy are understood as legitimate pursuits by scholars like Tryphonopoulos. Gnosis, an esoteric form of knowledge that made possible the direct awareness of the Divine, was one of Pound’s major interests with the occult. James Longenbach argues that Pound labored over creating a "priest-like status" for himself and his work (92). The quest for becoming as close to God as possible led Pound on a long exploration of occult texts. According to Walter Baumann, Pound’s quest drove him to "provide further ingredients for [his] own vision of Paradise" (311). These esoteric components or "ingredients" then become the source of much difficulty in understanding Pound’s work. To date only a few scholars have made the occult element in Pound’s work more accessible and in the past only people "deeply steeped in occult literature" could successfully navigate his writing (Baumann 318). Pound never came so far around as to accept Yeats’s interests in what he considered less useful facets of the occult, but he would humor Yeats. The older poet was also interested in astrology and asked Pound for his birth date so he could determine his horoscope. In a letter to Dorothy Shakespear Pound exclaimed:

The Eagle [Yeats] is welcomed to my dashed horoscope tho’ I
think Horace was on the better track when he wrote
"Tu ne quaesaris, scire nefas, quem
mihi quem tibi
Finem dii dederunt" (Litz 113).
[Ask not, we cannot know, what ends the gods have set for me, for thee]

Despite Pound’s show of pessimism, he provided Yeats with all of the necessary information, which included writing a letter to his mother for the exact time of his birth. He told his mother that "half a million people, some of them intelligent, who still believe in the possibility of planetary influences . . . When astrology is taken hold of systematically by modern science there will be some sort of discoveries. In the meantime there is no reason why one should not indulge in private experiment and investigation (Paige 152).A subject of particular interest to both men is something that psychologists today have termed "retro-cognition." Yeats, Pound and the rest of England received their introduction to this phenomenon when Anne Moberly and Eleanor Jourdain published An Adventure in 1911. On August 10, 1901 the two women claimed to have been strolling through the Versailles gardens and found themselves transported back into the eighteenth century. Apparently, neither of them had realized what had occurred at the time but recounted the experience in a narrative:

We walked briskly forward, talking as before, but from the moment we left the lane an
extraordinary depression had come over me. . . In front of us was a wood, within which,
and overshadowed by trees, was a light garden kiosk, circular and like a small bandstand,
by which a man was sitting. There was no greensward, but the ground was covered by
rough grass and dead leaves as in a wood. The place was so shut that we could not see
beyond it. Everything suddenly looked unnatural, therefore unpleasant; even the trees
behind the building seemed to have become flat and lifeless, like a wood worked in a
tapestry (41).

Ten years of research in the French National Archives led them to believe that all the things they saw that day existed not in 1901 but in 1789. Also, they determined the person Moberly saw by the terrace, who is referred to as a "man" in the narrative, to be Marie Antoinette (Longenbach 222-23).Shortly after the publication of An Adventure, Yeats completed two essays for Lady Gregory’s Visions and Beliefs in the West of Ireland. In his essays, Yeats references An Adventure, making it highly probable that the two men had possession of the book during the Stone Cottage years if not sooner. An Adventure became an important beginning for the work of Pound and how the artist can relate to the spirit of his ancestors. The key to these relations with the past is the soul. Pound borrowed from a lot of different sources to derive his own theories on the human soul. He used Cicero’s idea of the "immortality of the soul" in De Senectute (Longenbach 222-23).He also borrowed from Plato and the Phaedrus in the Spirit of Romance: "And this is the recollection of those things which our souls saw when in company with God-when looking down from above on that which we now call being, and upward toward the true being" (140-41). Pound himself claimed to have had two experiences with retrocognition which were extremely important to him. As Longenbach writes, "Pound’s poetic goal was the cultivation of ‘adventures,’ the soul’s visionary memories of the paradise or the past it once knew" (229).Pound recounts his own experiences with retrocognition in an essay on Arnold Dolmetsch published in 1914. "So I had two sets of adventures. First, I perceived a sound which was undoubtedly derived from the Gods, and then I found myself in a reconstructed century- in a century of music, back before Mozart or Purcell, listening to clear music, to tones clear as brown amber" (Eliot 433). Pound was drawing on or participating in what he determined to be the soul’s eternal memory. His essay begins with a description of his first adventure:

I have seen the God Pan and it was in this manner: I heard a bewildering and pervasive music moving from precision to precision within itself. Then I heard a different music, hollow and laughing. Then I looked up and saw two eyes like the eyes of a wood- creature peering at me over a brown tube of wood. Then someone said: Yes, once I was playing a fiddle in the forest and I walked into a wasps’ nest. Comparing these things with what I can read of the Earliest and best authenticated appearances of Pan, I can but conclude that they relate to similar experiences. It is true that I found myself later in a room covered with pictures of what we now call ancient instruments, and that when I picked up the brown tube of wood I found that it had ivory rings upon it. And no proper reed has ivory rings on it, by nature. . . .Our only measure of truth is, however, our own perception of truth. The undeniable tradition of metamorphoses teaches us that things do not remain always the same. They become other things by swift and unanalysable process (Eliot 431).

Pound’s own understanding of truth and what he perceived to be his reality are bold advancements from what was presented in the original An Adventure. The visionary’s experience becomes the sole measure of reality and therefore Pound’s encounter with Dolmetsch as Pan becomes factual. In his essay, "Psychology and Troubadours," Pound draws a parallel between himself and early visionaries who had no way of differentiating imaginary visions from a "real" environment: "These things are for them real" (Spirit of Romance 93). Also, although Pound’s adventures and experiences cannot technically be affirmed in any way, they "stand in a long tradition of similar experiences recorded in the literature of folklore, mythology, and the occult" (Longenbach 230). In the essay on Dolmetsch, Pound works to place himself in this tradition when he writes: "When any man is able, by a pattern of notes or by an arrangement of planes or colours, to throw us back into the age of truth, everyone who has been cast back into that age of truth for one instant gives honour to the spell which has worked, to the witch-work or the art-work, or whatever you like to call it" (Eliot 432). Like Moberly and Jourdain, who had peered into the past and subsequently took ten years to write about it, Pound was wrestling with putting his visions into poetry. The "arrangement of planes or colours," the "art-work" which "throws us back into the age of truth" is what Pound wanted to create with the early Cantos. Pound began writing the first of the Cantos around 1910 but did not pursue them in earnest until 1915. It was during this time that Pound is documented in his letters as having read Robert Browning’s poem "Sordello" out loud to Yeats at Stone Cottage. Although Pound had read the poem before, it was not until he read it to Yeats that "Sordello" became a major influence. He praises the poem in a letter to his father on December 18, 1915: "It is probably the greatest poem in English. Certainly the best long poem since Chaucer. You’ll have to read it sometime as my big long endless poem that I am now struggling with starts out with a barrel full of allusions to ‘Sordello’" (Bornstein 119-20). However, the original support Pound relied on from Browning would soon be replaced with occult references. In the June, July and August 1917 edition of Poetry Magazine, Pound published his Three Cantos. These three were supposed to be the beginning of his existing long work The Cantos. Even after the highly positive review of Browning’s poem to his father, Pound would have nothing to do with Browning’s style. The original opening, which served more or less as a dialogue with Browning, is deceiving. Pound makes no effort to sustain Browning’s technique through his poem. It does not function in a lyric mode, rather it is an "apologia for the lyric mood" (Nassar 12). Pound began to question Browning’s elaborate metaphor for the stage and his character’s acting on it. Pound did not hide his "aesthetic and philosophic problems" (Nassar 13) that he had with Browning when he wrote:

. . . what were the use
Of setting figures up and breathing life upon them,
Were’t not our life, your life, my life extended?
I walk
Verona. (I am here in England.)
I see Can Grande. (Can see whom you will.)
You had one whole man?
And I have many fragments, less worth? Less worth?
Ah, had you quit my age, quit such a beastly age and
cantankerous age?
You had some basis, had some set belief (Poetry, June 1917, 115).

As if to answer his own question, and provide Browning with proper examples, Pound continued with passages in the mode of An Adventure. The only way to contain the "beastly and cantankerous age" in which one lived was to tap into the past as Moberly and Jordain had done.

Sweet lie!-Was I there truly? . . .
Let’s believe it . . .
No, take it all for lies
I have but smelt this life, a wiff of it-
. . . And shall I claim;
Confuse my own phantastikon,
Or say the filmy shell that circumscribes me
Contains the actual sun;
confuse the thing I see
With actual gods behind me?
Are they gods behind me?
How many worlds we have! If Botticelli
Brings her ashore on that great cockle-shell-
His Venus (Simonetta?),
And Spring and Aufidus fill the air
With their clear outlined blossoms?
World enough.
(Poetry, June 1917, 120-21)

 

Eugene Nassar claims that Pound demonstrated the "mind circumscribed by its diaphanous film-its limits-[which] imagines gods when in the presence of beauty . . . The mind as ‘phantastikon’ may be intuiting transcendent truths" (12). Pound wrestled with the "truth" about his occult link to the past in his revisions on Three Cantos all the way up until its republication in 1925. The once long opening addressed to Browning was reduced to the opening four lines of Canto II:

Hang it all, Robert Browning,
There can be but the one Sordello.
But Sordello and my Sordello?
Lo Sordels si fo di Mantovana" (6).

Following the address to Browning, Pound presents his vision of his characters or in this case "Ghosts" that "move about me / Patched with histories" (Poetry 116). There is no need for Pound to go "setting up figures and breathing life into them" because his characters were already part of a living past. Pound’s "fragments" are in fact not "less worth" because together they form a more complete whole than Browning’s characters. Pound sees these apparitions hovering over the water at Lake Garda. As with his Imagist poetry, these early portions of the Cantos reflect Pound’s attention to presenting the clearest possible picture of his experience:

And the place is full of spirits.
Not lemures, not dark and shadowy ghosts,
But the ancient living, wood white,
Smooth as the inner bark, and firm of aspect,
And all agleam with colors-no, not agleam,
But colored like the lake and like the olive leaves (Poetry June 1917, 116).

 

Pound used specific people and places, such as Lake Garda, to set up a desired historical backdrop. Often with Pound, the more oblique source was championed. The names are obscure and esoteric, leaving "ordinary people" in the dark just as Pound intended. Pound’s references to antiquated places, his use of foreign language, all in addition to his occult content, contribute to a higher level of difficulty in his poetry:

‘Tis the first light-not half light-Panisks
And oak-girls and the Maenads
Have all the wood. Our olive Sirmio
Lies in its burnished mirror, and the Mounts Balde and Riva
Are alive with song, and all the leaves are full of voices (Poetry June 1917,118).

 

The visionary experiences that Pound recreates in the Three Cantos are matched with these areas to "emphasize their origin in the meeting of a particular consciousness with a particular place" (Longenbach 232). This association was a technique that Pound had already begun experimenting with in some of his writing such as "Provincia Deserta." Yeats put it into his own words in a portion of his prose piece Per Amica Silentia Lunae: "Spiritism . . . will have it that we may see at certain roads and in certain houses old murders acted over again, and in certain fields dead huntsmen riding with horse and hound, or in ancient armies fighting above bones or ashes" (354). The spirits that haunt Pound’s Cantos are ones which he spent much time excavating from history during his reading at Stone Cottage. Also, Pound used specific names and places from his research to create a sense of locality. In the first Canto it was places such as Sirmio, and in the second there were others such as the Dordogne valley in France:

So the murk opens.
Dordogne! When I was there,
There came a centaur, spying the land,
And there were nymphs behind him.
Or going on the road by
Salisbury
Procession on procession-
For that road was full of peoples,
Ancient in various days, long years between them.
Ply over ply of life still wraps the earth here.
Catch at Dordoigne (Poetry July 1917, 182).

At the same time that Pound was struggling with the original Three Cantos, Yeats was preparing his own take on An Adventure. The older poet was busy formulating what he called the "doctrine of the mask" (Autobiography 102). According to Yeats, this doctrine "which has convinced [him] that every passionate man . . . is, as it were, linked with another age, historical or imaginary, where alone he finds images that rouse his energy" (Autobiography 102). Yeats’s link to the past came in a voice which he claimed to have heard for awhile but ignored. The voice even provided him with information leading to its identity. Yeats discovered that he was communicating with a Cordovan Moor named Leo Africanus. However, he did not take Leo seriously until a seance conducted on July 20, 1915. After the seance, Yeats began to consider the possibility of an anti-self existing from another period of time. Communication with this opposite personality would lead to a more complete existence as well as a better understanding of the self. Yeats began writing letters to Leo and in turn would write letters back to himself believing that Leo’s intentions could be conveyed through him. Now that Yeat’s theory had advanced to a stage where his opposite existed in another century, his idea advanced from one that was grounded in psychology to a theory that had just as much to do with history (Longenbach 190-91). There is no documented proof of Pound ever participating in one of Yeats’s seances. Despite Pound’s lack of involvement, it is impossible to overlook the parallels between the two poets work at the time. Pound was using his own ghosts and their historical associations in his early Cantos. In his final winter at Stone Cottage, Pound took interest in the seventeenth-century Neo-Platonic occult philosopher John Heydon. In 1662, Heydon published his Holy Guide. Although Pound enthusiastically read Heydon’s book, he presented a mixed image of him with Heydon’s debut in the original Three Cantos . In the final version of the original Three Cantos III, Pound introduces Heydon in a fashion that is somewhere between mockery and praise:

Another’s a half-cracked fellow-John Heydon,
Worker of miracles, dealer in levitation,
In thoughts upon pure form, in alchemy,
Seer of pretty visions (‘servant of God and secretary of nature’);
Full of a plaintive charm, like Botticelli’s,
With half-transparent forms, lacking the vigor of gods. . .
Take the old way, say I met John Heydon,
Sought out the place,
Lay on the bank, was ‘plunged deep in the swevyn;’
And saw the company-Layamon, Chaucer-
Pass each his appropriate robes; (Poetry Aug, 1917, 248)

 

Walter Bauman refers to Heydon as Pound’s "spiritual brother" (314). Despite the not-so flattering introduction of Heydon, Pound would appear to agree with Bauman. One possible explanation for Pound’s harsher opening remarks on Heydon could be that many people of Heydon’s own time did not think highly of his work. To many, Heydon was simply "a charlatan trifling with occult lore" (Bauman 306). In any case, Pound seems to make a point of acknowledging Heydon’s uncertain past before citing him as a credible source. Pound begins to spell out exactly what one could obtain by reading Heydon in a section of his prose piece Gaudier-Brzeska: A Memoir. In section 16, Pound writes positively about artists like Brzeska, Wyndham Lewis and Jacob Epstein who were on the forefront of the new movement Vorticism. Here he discusses the power a work of art can have:

A clavicord or a statue or a poem, wrought out of ages of knowledge, out of fine perception and skill, that some other man, that a hundred other men, in moments of weariness can wake beautiful sound with little effort, that they can be carried out of the realm of annoyance into the realm of truth, into the world unchanging, the world of fine animal life, the world of pure form. And John Heydon, long before our present day theorists, had written of the joys of pure form . . . inorganic, geometrical form, in his "Holy Guide" (157).

 

Pound also closes the section with a final reminder to read "John Heydon’s ‘Holy Guide’ for numerous remarks on pure form and the delights thereof" (Gaudier-Brzeska: A Memoir 167). There are several facets of the occult found in Pound’s memoir. He infers that the perfect work of art is layered with history. It is hundreds of years and hundreds of men in the making. The "realm of truth" is reached when the mind, as Nassar previously described it, has the ability to imagine "gods when in the presence of beauty." The "transcendent truths," that are a conglomeration of the past, can then be tapped as a source for the pure form Pound is describing (Nassar 12).Much of Pound’s desire for a pure truth goes hand in hand with his quest to be close to the Divine and obtain his "priest-like status." His use of Heydon becomes clearer as one reads that Heydon pondered questions such as "if God would give you leave and power to ascend to those high places, I meane to these heavenly thoughts and studies (Heydon 26). Pound borrows almost verbatim from Heydon and then cites him in "Canto 91":

to ascend those high places
wrote Heydon
stirring and changeable
‘light fighting for speed’ (76).

Heydon continues stating that people involved with studies such as his should realize that "their riches ought to be imployed in their own service, that is, to win Wisdome" (31). This "Wisdome" was something Pound wanted to make certain the masses or the "ordinary people" would not be privy to. It was exactly the divine wisdom, or gnosis, that Pound was in search of. Pound was asking the same questions and desiring the same answers that Heydon was asking hundreds of years earlier: "let us know first, that the minde of man being come from that high City of Heaven" (33). With these overt connections to Heydon, Pound’s opening remarks on him as a "half-cracked fellow" remain puzzling. Again, it is likely that Pound was initially shy about such overt references to a less-than-favorable occultist just as he was with some of Yeats’s mysticism. As it turns out, the title "Secretary of Nature" was actually Heydon’s and was printed on the title page of Holy Guide. Pound was respectful enough to include the title. Also in the Cantos, Heydon is in the company of men such as Ocellus, Erigena, Mencius and Apollonius. Pound appears to have thought much higher of Heydon than his opening remarks lead a reader to believe. In total, over half a dozen quotes are taken from Heydon’s work adding to the "crystal clear" quality of Pound’s Cantos (Davie 224).

 

From the green deep
he saw it,
in the green deep of an eye:
Crystal waves weaving together toward the gt/healing
Light compenetrans of the spirits
The Princess Ra-Set has climbed
to the great knees of stone,
She enters protection,
the great cloud is about her,
She has entered the protection of crystal . . .
Light & the flowing crystal
never gin in cut glass had such clarity
That Drake saw the splendour and wreckage
in that clarity
Gods moving in crystal
(Canto 91, 611)

 

In this selection, the "Pricess Ra-Set" has completed a journey that has allowed a metamorphosis to take place about her. The crystal which has encompassed her represents Heydon’s "pure form" that Pound was himself searching for. Inside this crystal protection "gods are manifest, whatever their ontological status outside" (Nassar 110). Pound’s metaphor shows up in several places. In "Canto 92," Pound describes "a great river" with the "ghosts dipping in crystal" (619). Also, in "Canto 91," Pound wrote:

"Ghosts dip in crystal,
adorned"
. . . A lost kind of experience?
scarcely,
Queen Cytherea,
che ‘l terzo ciel movete
[who give motion to the third heaven]

 

Pound already knew the answer to his own question about experience when he asked it. Crystal was chosen not only for its clarity to represent the pureness of form but it is hard and durable as well. The experience was not lost in the protection of this divine state that is the "crystal."

There are several individuals who were contemporaries of Pound that had a large influences on Pound and exposed him to their own ideas about the occult. People such as Yeats, A. R. Orage, Allen Upward, Dorothy Shakespear, and Olivia Shakespear all had their own occult interests. However, the largest occult influence on Pound, even greater than that of Yeats, was G. R. S. Mead. Mead became a member of Madame Blavatsky’s Theosophical Society in 1884. In 1889 he was Blavatsky’s private secretary and kept that position until her death in 1891. He served as the society’s editor for their monthly magazine but branched off and quit the society altogether in 1909. Blavatsky’s writings and practices aligned themselves more with the "pseudo-sciences" that Pound would not have approved of. Oddly enough, in Mead’s essay "‘The Quest’ - Old and New:

Retrospect and Prospect," he apparently does approve of Blavatsky’s ways either:I had never, even while a member, preached the Mahatma - gospel of H. P. B. [Blavatsky], or propagandized Neo-theosophy and its revelations. I had believed that "theosophy" proper meant the wisdom-element in the great religions and philosophies of the world (The Quest 296-97).

This passage represents thinking that was in line with Pound’s ideas on gnosis and his own pursuit of wisdom. Mead is considered by some to be "the best scholar the Theosophical Society ever produced" (Godwin 245).Pound’s assessment of what he experienced in his visionary episodes as well as his readings was heavily influenced by the writings and teachings of Mead. Pound met him at one of Yeats’s "Monday Evenings" at 18 Woburn Building in London which Mead regularly attended. On October 21, 1911, Pound wrote to his parents: "I’ve met and enjoyed Mead, who’s done so much research on primitive mysticism - that I’ve written you at least four times." [1] In another letter to his parents dated February 12, 1912, Pound praises Mead writing: "G. R. S. Mead is about as interesting - along his own line - as anyone I meet"(Beinecke 238). In a letter to his mother dated September 17, 1911, Pound relays that Mead had asked him to write a publishable lecture. Pound discusses the task with his more skeptical side of the occult: "I have spent the evening with G. R. S. Mead, edtr. of The Quest, who wants me to throw a lecture for his society which he can afterwards print. ‘Troubadour Psychology,’ whatever the dooce that is" (Beinecke 223). Pound did go on to give the lecture which gave birth to his essay "Psychology and the Troubadours." In this essay Pound wrote that "Greek myth arose when someone having passed through delightful psychic experience tried to communicate it to others" (92). Again Pound was referring to an occult "adventure" similar to that of Moberly and Jourdain. Once an individual has undergone this event "the resulting symbol is perfectly clear and intelligible" (Longenbach 91). Pound also endeavors to explain further his idea of the Greek "phantastikon." According to Pound, "the consciousness of some seems to rest, or to have its center more properly, in what the Greek psychologists called the phantastikon. Their minds are, that is, circumvolved about them like soap-bubbles reflecting sundry patches of the macrocosmos" (92). In April of 1913, Pound wrote a letter to Harriet Monroe attempting to clarify this element of his essay: "It is what Imagination really meant before the term was debased presumably by the Miltonists, tho’ probably before them. It has to do with the seeing of visions."

Pound’s phantastikon became his link to tapping into the purest form of "real symbolism." Dorothy Shakespear requested that Pound explain to her the difference between this symbolism and aesthetic or literary symbolism. He wrote her stating:

 

There’s a dictionary of symbols, but I think it immoral. I mean that I think a superficial acquaintance with the sort of shallow, conventional, or attributed meaning of a lot of symbols weakens - damnably, the power of receiving an energized symbol. I mean a symbol appearing in a vision has a certain richness and power of energizing joy - whereas if the supposed meaning of the symbol is familiar it has no more force, or interest of power of suggestion than any other word, or than a synonym in some other language (Pound/Shakespear 302).

 

Of course, the ability to perceive these symbols was not within the reach of everyone. It was only for those who have set sail in the pursuit of higher wisdom. Those in pursuit of gnosis "possess the key to the mysteries of its symbolism and establish themselves as priests - divinely inspired interpreters to whom the uninitiated public must turn for knowledge" (Longenbach 91). From here, the possibilities are endless according to Pound:

"All is within us", purgatory and hell,
Seeds full of will, the white of the inner bark
the rich and the smooth colours,
the foreknowledge of trees,
sense of the blade in seed, to each its pattern.
Germinal, active, latent, full of will,
Later to leap and soar,
willess, serene,
Oh one could change it easy enough in talk.
And no one vision will suit all of us.

Say I have sat then, the low point of the cone,
hollow and reaching out beyond the stars,
reaches and depth, the massive parapets,
Walls whereon chariots went by four abreast (Longenbach 237).

Pound made it a habit to not only read Mead’s article’s and books but he also religiously attended his lectures outside the "Monday Evenings." In another letter to his parents he wrote: "I’m going out to Mead’s lecture. And so on as usual. This being Tuesday" (Beinecke 271). From these readings and lectures, Pound most likely got his inspiration for the beginning of his revised Cantos:

the passing into the realms of the dead, while living, refers to the initiation of the soul of the candidate into the states of after- death consciousness, while his body was left in a trance. The successful passing through these states of consciousness removed the fear of death, by giving the candidate an all sufficing proof of the immortality of the soul and of its consanguinity with the gods (Taylor 319).

The "initiation" process of the soul was one that Pound decided must begin his entire Cantos. "Canto 1" starts with: "And then went down . . ." which initiates a descent that is the beginning of this journey (3). Pound made it clear in "Canto 1" that the Odysseus figure was alive during his descent just as Mead required the figure to be "living." Also, in a blatant attempt to achieve the "consanguinity with the gods," Pound’s character drank the blood of the sheep that was sacrificed to them.

The process that Pound is discussing is palingenesis, or the birth and the growth of the soul. The ultimate goal of the entire process, as Pound saw it, was "the expansion of the initiand’s consciousness into a state where he awakes to his relationship with the gods, and participates in their world" (Celestial Tradition 107). At this initial stage the initiate knows nothing except that he is on a quest for gnosis. As Pound wrote in Canto 47: "Knowledge the shade of a shade, / Yet must thou sail after knowledge / Knowing less than drugged beasts" (30).

The completion of the journey is the passage into what was previously described as "the crystal." This stage is the graduation from the ephemeral world of man to the realm of the gods. The soul has passed "from fire" of the "Kimmerian lands" of "Canto 1" "to crystal / via the body of light" (Canto 91,61). Pound put it much more bluntly when he stated that one must "bust thru" to this realm of understanding but he made his point (Celestial Tradition 107). Although he makes references to the exceptions, Tryphonopoulos contends that "Scholarly comment on Pound’s relation to the occult is virtually nonexistent" ("Occult Education" 75). The difficulty in analyzing Pound’s occult studies is that his reading and influences are so vast. From his amassed material Pound would piece together a detailed mosaic. This method provided a coherence for his presentation. In this fashion, structure begins to surface in even his most dense work The Cantos. Tryphonopoulos understands The Cantos to be a "collection of fragments gathered according to a predetermined plan for the purpose of validating the author’s original value system" (1). Pound seems to be speaking of this in the very late "Canto 110" when he writes: "From times wreckage shored / these fragments shored against ruin" (781). These elements pulled from the rubble of history and which Pound tiles together are what make the picture complete.

vendredi, 05 novembre 2010

What did Ezra Pound really say?

WHAT DID EZRA POUND REALLY SAY? 
 

by Michael Collins Piper 

ezra_pound_01.jpgFrom 1945 through 1958 America's iconoclastic poet--the flamboyant Ezra Pound, one of the most influential individuals of his   generation--was held in a Washington, D.C. mental institution, accused of  treason. Pound had merely done what he had always done--spoken his mind. Unfortunately for Pound, however, he had made the error of criticizing the American government in a series of broadcasts from Italy during World War II. For that he was made to pay the price.  Was Pound a traitor--or a prophet? Read his words and judge for yourself.

American students have been taught by scandalized educators that famed American poet and philosopher Ezra Pound delivered "treasonous" English-language radio broadcasts from Italy (directed to both Americans and to the British) during World War II. However, as noted by  Robert H. Walker, an editor for the Greenwood Press: "Thousands of people have heard about them, scores have been affected by them, yet but a handful has ever heard or read them."   This ignorance of Pound's most controversial political rhetoric is ironic, inasmuch as: "No other American--and   only a few individuals throughout the world--has left such a strong mark on so many aspects of the 20th century: from poetry to economics, from theater to philosophy, from politics to pedagogy, from Provencal to Chinese. If Pound was not always totally accepted, at least he was unavoidably there." One critic called Pound's broadcasts a "confused mixture of fascist apologetics, economic theory, anti-Semitism, literary judgment and memory" Another described them as "an unholy mixture of ambiguity, obscurity, inappropriate subject matters [and] vituperation," adding (grudgingly) there were "a few pearls of unexpected wisdom." 

Despite all the furor over Pound's broadcasts--which were heard between January of 1941 through July of 1943--it   was not until 1978 that a full-length 465-page compendium of transcriptions of   the broadcasts was assembled by Prof. Leonard Doob of Yale University in association with aforementioned Greenwood Press. Published under the title "Ezra   Pound Speaking"--Radio Speeches of World War II, the volume provides the reader a comprehensive look at Pound's philosophy as it was presented by the poet him self in what Robert Walker, who wrote the foreword to the compendium, describes as "that flair for dramatic hyperbole." 

What follows is an attempt to synthesize Pound's extensive verbal parries. Most of what is appears here has never been printed anywhere except in the compendium of Pound's wartime broadcasts. Thus, for the first time ever--for a popular audience--here is what Pound really had to say, not what his critics claim he said. When he was broadcasting from Italy during wartime, Pound evidently pondered the possibility of one day compiling   transcriptions of his broadcasts (or at least expected--quite correctly--that one day the transcripts would be compiled by someone else). He hoped the broadcasts would show a consistent thread once they were committed to print. Pound recognized relaying such a massive amount of information about so many seemingly unrelated subjects might be confusing listeners less widely read than he. However, the poet also had very firm ideas about the need of his listeners to be able to synthesize the broad range of material that appeared in his colorful lectures.   

Pound was sure his remarks on radio were   not seditious, but were strictly informational and dedicated to traditional principles of Americanism--including the Constitution, in particular. In response to media claims that he was a fascist propagandist, Pound had this to say: "If anyone takes the trouble to record and examine the series of talks I have made over this radio it will be found I have used three sorts of material: historical facts; convictions of experienced men, based on fact; and the fruits of my own experience. The facts . . . mostly antedate the fascist era and cannot be considered as improvisations trumped up to meet present requirements. Neither can the beliefs of Washington, John Adams, Jefferson, Jackson, Van Buren, and Lincoln be laughed off as mere fascist propaganda. And even my own observations date largely before the opening of the present hostilities.   "I defend the particularly American, North American, United States heritage. If anybody can find anything hostile to the Constitution of the U.S.A. in these speeches, it would greatly interest me to know what. It may be bizarre, eccentric, quaint, old-fashioned of me to refer to that document, but I wish more Americans would at least read it. It is not light and easy reading but it contains several points of interest, whereby some of our present officials could, if they but would, profit greatly."   Pound's immediate concern was the war in Europe--"this war on youth--on a generation" --which he described as the natural   result of the "age of the chief war pimps." He hated the very idea that Americans were being primed for war, and on the very day of Pearl Harbor he denounced the idea that American boys should soon be marching off to war: "I do not want my compatriots from the ages of 20 to 40 to go get slaughtered to keep up the Sassoon and other British Jew rackets in Singapore and in Shanghai. That is not my idea of American patriotism," he added. In Pound's view, the American government alliance with British finance capitalism and Soviet Bolshevism was contrary to America's tradition and heritage: "Why did you take up with those gangs?" he rhetorically asked his listeners. "Two gangs. [The] Jews' gang in London, and [the] Jew murderous gang over in Moscow? Do you like Mr. Litvinov? [Soviet ambassador to Britain Meyer Wallach, alias Litvinov, born 1876.--Ed.]   "Do the people from Delaware and Virginia   and Connecticut and Massachusetts . . . who live in painted, neat, white   houses . . . do these folks really approve [of] Mr. Litvinov and his gang, and all he stands for?" There was no reason for U.S. intervention abroad, he said: "The place to defend the American heritage is on the American   continent. And no man who had any part in helping [Franklin] Delano Roosevelt get the United States into [the war] has enough sense to win anything . . . The men who wintered at Valley Forge   did not suffer those months of intense cold and hunger in the hope that . . . the union of the colonies would one day be able to stir up wars between other countries in order to sell them munitions."   

What was the American tradition? According to Pound: "The determination of our forbears to set up and maintain in the North American continent a government better than any other. The determination to govern ourselves internally, better than any other nation on earth. The idea of Washington, Jefferson, Monroe, to keep out of foreign shindies." Of  FDR's interventionism, he declared:   "To send boys from Omaha to Singapore to die for British monopoly and brutality is not the act of an American patriot." However, Pound said: "Don't shoot the President. I dare say he deserves worse, but . . . [a]ssassination only makes more mess." Pound saw the American national tradition being buried by the aggressive new internationalism. 

According to Pound's harsh   judgment: "The American gangster did not spend his time shooting women and children. He may have been misguided, but in general he spent his time fighting superior forces at considerable risk to himself . . . not in dropping booby traps for unwary infants. I therefore object to the modus in which the American troops obey their high commander. This modus is not in the spirit of Washington or of Stephen Decatur." Pound hated war and detected a particular undercurrent in the previous wars of history. Wars, he said, were destructive to nation-states, but profitable for the special interests. Pound said international bankers--Jewish bankers, in particular--were those who were the primary beneficiaries of the profits of from war. He pulled no punches when he declared:   Sometime the Anglo-Saxon may awaken to the fact that . . . nations are shoved into wars in order to destroy themselves, to break up their structure, to destroy their social order, to destroy their   populations. And no more flaming and flagrant case appears in history than our own American Civil War, said to be an occidental record for size of armies employed and only surpassed by the more recent triumphs of [the Warburg banking   family:] the wars of 1914 and the present one. 

Although World War II itself was much on Pound's mind, the poet's primary concern, referenced repeatedly throughout his broadcasts, was the issue of usury and the control of money and economy by private special interests. "There is no freedom without economic freedom," he said. "Freedom that does not include freedom from debt is plain bunkum. It is fetid and foul logomachy to call such servitude freedom . . .Yes, freedom from all sorts of debt, including debt at usurious interest." Usury, he said, was a cause of war   throughout history. In Pound's view understanding the issue of usury was central   to understanding history: "Until you know who has lent what to whom, you know nothing whatever of politics, you know nothing whatever of history, you know nothing of international wrangles. "The usury system does no nation . . .   any good whatsoever. It is an internal peril to him who hath, and it can make no use of nations in the play of international diplomacy save to breed strife  between them and use the worst as flails against the best. It is the usurer's game to hurl the savage against the civilized opponent. The game is not pretty, it is not a very safe game. It does no one any credit." 

Pound thus traced the history of the current war: "This war did not begin in 1939. It is not a unique result of the infamous Versailles Treaty. It is impossible to understand it without knowing at least a few precedent historic events, which mark the cycle of combat. No man can understand it without knowing at least a few facts and their chronological sequence. This war is part of the age-old struggle   between the usurer and the rest of mankind: between the usurer and peasant, the usurer and producer, and finally between the usurer and the merchant, between usurocracy and the mercantilist system . . . "The present war dates at least from the founding of the Bank of England at the end of the 17th century, 1694-8. Half a century later, the London usurocracy shut down on the issue of paper money by the Pennsylvania colony, A.D. 1750. This is not usually given prominence in the   U.S. school histories. The 13 colonies rebelled, quite successfully, 26 years later, A.D. 1776. According to Pound, it was the money issue (above all) that united the Allies during the second 20th-century war against Germany: "Gold. Nothing else uniting the three governments, England,   Russia, United States of America. That is the interest--gold, usury, debt,   monopoly, class interest, and possibly gross indifference and contempt for   humanity." 

Although "gold" was central to the world's struggle, Pound still felt gold "is a coward. Gold is not the backbone of nations. It is their ruin. A coward, at the first breath of danger gold flows away, gold flows out of the country." Pound perceived Germany under Hitler as a nation that stood against the international money lenders and communist Russia under Stalin as a system that stood against humanity itself. 

He told his listeners: "Now if you know anything whatsoever of  modern Europe and Asia, you know Hitler stands for putting men over machines. If  you don't know that, you know nothing. And beyond that you either know or do not know that Stalin's regime considers humanity as nothing save raw material. Deliver so many carloads of human material at the consumption point. That is the logical result of materialism. If you assert that men are dirty, that humanity is merely material, that is where you come out. And the old Georgian train robber [Josef Stalin--ed.] is perfectly logical. If all things are merely material, man is material--and the system of anti-man treats man as matter." The real enemy, said Pound, was international capitalism. All people everywhere were victims: "They're working   day and night, picking your pockets," he said. "Every day and all day and all night picking your pockets and picking the Russian working man's pockets." Capital, however, he said, was "not international, it is not hyper-national. It is sub-national. A quicksand under the nations, destroying all nations, destroying all law and government, destroying the nations, one at a time, Russian empire and Austria, 20 years past, France yesterday, England today." 

According to Pound, Americans had no idea why they were being expected to fight in Britain's war with Germany: "Even Mr. Churchill hasn't had the grass to tell the American people why he wants them to die, to save what. He is fighting for the gold standard and monopoly. Namely the power to starve the whole of mankind, and make it pay through the nose before it can eat the fruit of its own labor." As far as the English were concerned, in Pound's broadcasts aimed at the British Isles he warned his listeners that although Russian-style communist totalitarianism was a threat to British freedom, it was not the biggest threat Britain faced: You are threatened. You are threatened by the Russian methods of administration. Those methods [are not] your sole danger. It is, in fact, so far from being your sole danger that I have, in over two years of talk over this radio, possibly never referred to it before. 

Usury has gnawed into England since the days of Elizabeth. First it was mortgages, mortgages on earls' estates; usury against the feudal nobility. Then there were attacks on the common land, filchings of village common pasture. Then there developed a usury system, an international usury system, from Cromwell's time, ever increasing." In the end, Pound suggested, it would be the big money interests who would really win the war--not any particular   nation-state--and the foundation for future wars would be set in place: "The nomadic parasites will shift out of London and into Manhattan. And this will be presented under a camouflage of national slogans. It will be represented as an American victory. It will not be an American victory. The moment is serious. The moment is also confusing. It is confusing because there are two sets of concurrent phenomena, namely, those connected with fighting this war, and those   which sow seeds for the next one." Pound believed one of the major problems of the day--which itself had contributed to war fever--was the manipulation of the press, particularly in the United States: "I naturally mistrust newspaper news from America," he declared. "I grope in the mass of lies, knowing most of the sources are wholly untrustworthy." According to Pound: "The United States has been misinformed. The United States has been led down the garden path, and may be down under the daisies. All through shutting out news.

mercredi, 03 novembre 2010

Il tramonto del Leviathan statunitense

Il tramonto del Leviathan statunitense

di ANTONIO GREGO

Ex: http://www.centroitalicum.it/

PREMESSA SULL’ESPANSIONISMO STATUNITENSE

uncle-sam-cartoon-pelosi-reid-obama.jpgNel libro Terra e Mare (1) il grande giurista e teorico dello Stato Carl Schmitt interpreta la storia del mondo alla luce della centralità dello scontro geostrategico tra l’elemento tellurico e l’elemento marino, dai quali discendono due diverse concezioni della politica, del diritto e della civiltà. Lo scontro tra questi due elementi ha origine con la storia dell’uomo, basti pensare alla rivalità tra Roma e Cartagine, ma è solo con l’avvento della modernità che l’elemento marino, fino ad allora sottomesso a quello tellurico sembra essere in grado di fronteggiarlo alla pari e anche di avere la meglio su di esso.
L’Inghilterra, conquistando le terre al di là dell’oceano ed esercitando la supremazia sui mari, si è affermata come potenza marittima mondiale: essa è il Leviathan, che si oppone alla potenza terrestre (Behemoth) rappresentata dagli Stati continentali, fondati sull’identità collettiva della nazione e sulla difesa della patria e dell’integrità territoriale.
Con il tramonto della potenza inglese sono gli Stati Uniti a prenderne il posto, rivendicando non solo l’egemonia sulle Americhe con la ‘dottrina Monroe’, ma anche la supremazia negli oceani, attraverso la forza aeronavale, e tramite quest’ultima il dominio globale. Nell’affermazione di questa egemonia marittima mondiale si nasconde, secondo Schmitt, il germe della rovina, perché conduce alla trasformazione del diritto fra gli Stati in diritto privato internazionale, cioè in diritto commerciale, e introduce una forma di moralismo universalistico, politicamente pericoloso, perché fa appello al concetto discriminatorio di guerra giusta. Sicché il forte radicamento tellurico caratteristico del Vecchio Mondo (Eurasia e Africa) si confronta con il Nuovo Mondo, il luogo dell’universalismo indistinto e delocalizzato, ricettacolo di progetti messianici e mondialisti. Di qua una visione imperiale tellurica, di là una talassocrazia che mira all’egemonia mondiale; di qua il nomos della terra, di là la ‘tirannia dei valori’, il relativismo e il nichilismo assoluto che derivano dallo sradicamento e dal primato dell’economia sulla politica. Si tratta quindi di due concezioni geopolitiche, giuridiche e spirituali radicalmente opposte. Tale percezione di uno scontro fatale tra due opposte visioni del mondo si giustifica anche con il vissuto contingente e le posizioni assunte da Schmitt, basti pensare che alla fine degli anni Trenta questi applaudì al Patto Ribbentrop-Molotov ed al contempo riconobbe nell’Occidente, Gran Bretagna e Stati Uniti, l’avversario irriducibile dell’Europa.
Gli Stati Uniti infatti, fin dalla loro fondazione, si sono basati su un costrutto ideologico che postula la loro unicità come luogo della giustizia e della pace (Occidente) in contrapposizione all’Europa (Vecchio Mondo) luogo dell’oscurantismo e della tirannia. Tale forma di ideologia con venature messianiche trova il suo fondamento nel calvinismo professato dai Padri Pellegrini fuggiti dal Vecchio Continente per approdare sulle coste dell’America con l’intento di costruire la ‘Nuova Gerusalemme’. Riassumendo gli Stati Uniti si possono definire, per dirla con Damiano, «una nazione ideocratica, ‘aiutata’, nel suo ‘tracciato’ espansionista, da una costellazione iniziale di favorevoli circostanze geostoriche, quali, l’immenso spazio a disposizione; l’isolamento geografico; l’assenza di potenti vicini; una forte immigrazione di popolamento; la conflittualità europea, specie nei primi decenni dopo l’indipendenza; il predominio inglese sui mari. A ciò va aggiunta la circostanza storica probabilmente più importante, ossia la “deriva suicidaria dell’Europa”, a partire dalla prima guerra mondiale» (2).

SEGNALI INEQUIVOCABILI DI DECADENZA
L’espansionismo statunitense, che ha avuto diverse fasi, arriva al suo culmine nel ventesimo secolo, quando Washington decide di superare la dottrina Monroe di egemonia continentale per passare alla fase ulteriore dell’egemonia globale imponendosi come agente di ‘sovversione’ mondiale (con, a partire dal 1948, Israele quale sub-agente di destabilizzazione regionale nel Mediterraneo e Vicino Oriente). Si badi bene che l’opera di ‘distruzione creativa’ messa in atto dagli Stati Uniti, parte essenziale del suo moto espansionistico, ha agito ed agisce ancora in tutti i campi: economico, culturale, giuridico, spirituale, ma soprattutto a livello politico e geopolitico.
A partire dal 1945, l’emisfero occidentale, coincidente fino a quel momento con le Americhe secondo l’originaria formulazione della dottrina Monroe, si espande fino ad includere prima l’Europa occidentale ed il Giappone, sconfitti ed occupati militarmente, poi, con il crollo dell’Unione Sovietica, il mondo intero. La fine del bipolarismo est-ovest ha, difatti, prodotto un vuoto nel continente eurasiatico che, data l’estrema debolezza e mancanza di obiettivi degli Stati europei, gli Stati Uniti, come unica superpotenza rimasta, hanno cercato velocemente di colmare prima che nuovi attori sorgessero a contrastarla. All’interno di questa strategia americana rientra il fenomeno della globalizzazione, esso non rappresenta altro che il tentativo estremo da parte degli Stati Uniti di estendere al mondo la propria Ordnung. Nasce, infatti, proprio in questa fase il Project for the New American Century (PNAC, Progetto per il Nuovo Secolo Americano), un think tank americano, fondato nel 1997, che delineerà la politica americana negli anni successivi. Tra i fondatori del PNAC, in prevalenza ebrei americani, ci sono personaggi che durante i due mandati presidenziali di Bush Jr. assumeranno incarichi di governo, basti pensare a Donald Rumsfeld e Paul Wolfowitz. Il PNAC non è altro che un progetto scaturito dal filone neoconservatore che, preso il sopravvento nella seconda metà degli anni ’90, fa l’esaltazione fanatica e millenarista dei predetti miti fondatori degli Stati Uniti e del ‘destino manifesto’ quale missione affidata da Dio di civilizzare il mondo, uniti alla crociata ideologica trockista per l’‘esportazione della democrazia’ e la ‘guerra permanente’. Proprio negli anni ’90 si assiste ad una politica estremamente aggressiva e unilateralista di Washington che tuttavia nel mentre continua attivamente a stimolare negli altri Paesi, specialmente in Europa, il multilateralismo e l’interconnessione finanziaria, da utilizzare come leve per indebolire ulteriormente la loro sovranità. Tuttavia la ‘fine della storia’ pronosticata da Francis Fukuyama e il trionfo definitivo del capitalismo di stampo americano che avrebbe portato la globalizzazione e l’americanizzazione del mondo, non si sono verificati.
La fase unipolare dell’espansionismo americano, iniziata approssimativamente nel 1991 e terminata approssimativamente nel 2001, rappresenta non l’inizio del “Nuovo Secolo Americano”, come auspicato dagli americanisti di tutte le risme, ma bensì la sua conclusione, il tentativo estremo da parte degli Stati Uniti di preservare l’egemonia globale e frenare la nuova fase multipolare subentrante. A ben vedere il momento di massimo unipolarismo americano ha coinciso con il culmine della globalizzazione.
Il processo della globalizzazione, le cui origini risalgono al periodo 1944-1947 (Istituzione degli accordi di Bretton Woods, creazione del Fondo Monetario Internazionale, Banca Mondiale e accordi GATT), rappresenta la proiezione mondiale del sistema statunitense in una logica unipolare egemonica. Si può delimitare la fase ascendente della globalizzazione propriamente detta nel periodo che va dai primi anni ’80 (1980: elezione di Reagan, 1982: morte di Brezhnev) al 1995, quando raggiunge il suo culmine con la creazione dell’OMC ovvero l’Organizzazione Mondiale del Commercio, attestando l’apparente trionfo dell’ideologia liberista che necessita della libera circolazione di capitali, beni e persone.
Non è un caso che proprio in questo breve periodo di trionfo statunitense avviene quella che per Vladimir Putin è stata «la peggior tragedia geopolitica del XX secolo », ovvero il crollo e lo smembramento dell’Unione Sovietica. Un’altra ‘tragedia geopolitica’ avverrà in piena Europa con la dissoluzione della Jugoslavia nel 1991, la conseguenti guerre separatiste e l’apice dell’aggressività anti-europea statunitense raggiunto nel 1999, con i bombardamenti sulla Serbia dietro il paravento della NATO. Tuttavia oggi possiamo affermare che il culmine del ‘momento unipolare’ degli Stati Uniti raggiunto negli anni ’90 piuttosto che rappresentarne il trionfo ne segna già l’inizio della discesa nel baratro.
Al volgere del Terzo Millennio gli USA erano in forte difficoltà sul piano politico-economico, entrando in una vera e propria recessione dopo circa 10 anni di crescita economica forzata e drogata, sorretta da un fortissimo indebitamento interno, da un grande passivo della bilancia dei pagamenti con forte indebitamento esterno, da una tendenza fortemente al ribasso sulla quota imputabile di commercio internazionale. Anche sul piano internazionale la loro egemonia era messa in discussione dall’emersione del potenziale polo geopolitico e geoeconomico rappresentato dall’Unione Europea. La recessione ed il declino della superpotenza USA, la fine delle forme specifiche della globalizzazione, stavano, infatti, avvenendo da diversi anni prima dell’11 settembre 2001, ed evidenti ne erano i segnali. La situazione interna degli USA, già dagli inizi degli anni ’90, presentava dei problemi: basti ricordare che nel 1992 il debito nazionale generale era di oltre 4.000 miliardi di dollari (3), l’assistenza sanitaria era carente e una gran parte della popolazione americana si ritrovava a non avere una minima protezione sociale, il livello degli investimenti e dei risparmi erano inferiori a quelli dei paesi europei, e dal punto di vista produttivo vi era una bassa competitività con minimi tassi di crescita di produttività. La distanza esistente tra ricchi e poveri negli USA è aumentata a dismisura negli ultimi 30 anni; se nel 1969 infatti, l’1% della popolazione possedeva il 25% di ricchezza nazionale, nel 1999 questa percentuale è salita a circa il 40%, mentre l’indebitamento finanziario interno è passato da 12 a 22 trilioni di dollari tra il 1995 e il 2000. Se a ciò si aggiunge l’enorme indebitamento degli USA nei confronti del resto del mondo, coperto da appena il 4% delle riserve di valuta, e il sempre più alto disavanzo commerciale, si comprende quanto diventano forti le debolezze dell’economia americana negli anni ‘90, in piena era della globalizzazione. Inoltre, l’eccedenza degli investimenti attuati da un esagerato afflusso di capitali esteri e da una politica monetaria troppo espansiva ha portato a valori artificialmente gonfiati in Borsa con la conseguente crisi che ne è seguita; i livelli di profitto sono scesi, così come i consumi, ed è evidente che gli Stati Uniti erano in una seria fase di difficoltà economica, ben nascosta dai media e dalle istituzioni internazionali compiacenti, fino a giungere alla recessione, molto prima dei tragici eventi dell’11 settembre.
Un falso grande boom americano sostenuto da un decennio in cui le famiglie e le imprese hanno speso molto di più di quanto guadagnavano e un indebitamento non più sostenibile che, con la successiva moderazione dei comportamenti economici, porta ad un forte rallentamento dell’economia, fino alla recessione. Ecco quindi che, nella seconda metà degli anni ’90, attraverso la guerra del dollaro contro l’euro, la crisi petrolifera a guida americana e la gestione della New Economy nel contesto generale della finanziarizzazione dell’economia, gli Stati Uniti hanno cercato di nascondere la loro crisi ed hanno giocato le loro carte per soffocare le mire di affermazione ed espansionistiche innanzitutto del nuovo polo dell’Unione Europea e in misura via via maggiore anche degli altri poli geopolitici mondiali emergenti. Il gioco del caro dollaro e del caro petrolio si accompagna, quindi, alla ‘bolla finanziaria’ sui titoli della “Net Economy”; questo è uno specifico aspetto del modello complessivo neoliberista imposto dalla globalizzazione americana, una speculazione finanziaria che fa sì che società con scarso fatturato, o appena quotate, nel giro di un mese triplichino, quadruplichino il loro valore. Una globalizzazione finanziaria che da una parte crea forti condizioni e aspettative di guadagno facile e dall’altra determina in continuazione paure di disastrosi crolli. Un NASDAQ, il mercato azionario dei titoli tecnologici, continuamente sbalzato fra eccessi rialzisti ed eccessi ribassisti. E questi terremoti del NASDAQ trovano i loro mandanti proprio negli Stati Uniti, capaci di attirare attraverso i titoli della Net Economy enormi capitali europei sottoposti poi al rischio di continui ed improvvisi crolli. Tuttavia nemmeno la guerra contro l’Euro, l’imposizione del neoliberismo globale e la finanziarizzazione dell’economia sono riusciti ad impedire il declino della potenza americana e l’ascesa di poli geopolitici alternativi, già percepibile all’inizio del terzo millennio. A questo punto, persa la partita per imporre ‘con le buone’, attraverso la globalizzazione dei mercati e la finanziarizzazione speculativa, il loro dominio sul mondo e la ‘fine della storia’, gli Stati Uniti sono costretti a ricorrere ‘alle maniere cattive’, alla guerra, ultima risorsa per uscire dalla crisi sistemica. Dal cilindro viene tirato fuori Bin Laden e il terrorismo islamico, diviene vitale per evitare il disastro che sarebbe anche solo il rallentarsi dei movimenti di capitale verso New York, un attacco al cuore dell’Eurasia con il pretesto della “guerra infinita contro il terrorismo”.

IL DECLINO DELLA POTENZA AMERICANA NEL MONDO
La fase finale e irreversibile del declino americano inizia nel 2001, volendo fare riferimento ad un evento spartiacque si può prendere l’attacco alle torri gemelle av- venuto l’11 settembre del 2001 come simbolo del ‘crollo’ del ‘sogno americano’ e della fine del dominio assoluto della sola superpotenza fino a quel momento.
L’estrema aggressività e l’avventurismo di Washington nel periodo 1995 – 2001 sono stati una disperata reazione alla consapevolezza della fine della fase unipolaristica che ha subito un colpo mortale grazie a due eventi fondamentali: l’adozione dell’Euro nel 1999 e l’elezione di Vladimir Putin alla presidenza russa nel 2000. Come detto in precedenza, tramontato il sogno di egemonia mondiale non restava che la guerra quale extrema ratio per impedire o ritardare l’avvento del multipolarismo. Il periodo 2001 – 2003 è il colpo di coda dell’unipolarismo morente, nel quale gli USA camuffandosi dietro una riesumata NATO si impadroniscono dell’Afghanistan e mettono piede nel Kirghisistan e dell’Uzbekistan, per poi passare all’occupazione dell’Iraq. Nel frattempo la NATO si espande all’inverosimile e attraverso le ‘rivoluzioni colorate’ finanziate da Soros in Ucraina e Georgia arriva a minacciare i confini della Russia. In questo periodo la dottrina della ‘stabilità’ politico-economica internazionale diventa elemento propagandistico prioritario nel tentativo di aggressione all’Eurasia e di dominio manu militari del mondo, dominio imposto attraverso il nuovo ruolo dell’ONU depotenziato e sostituito in pieno dalla NATO. In questo periodo la situazione interna degli USA si aggrava. La disoccupazione ha registrato un notevole aumento, dall’inizio del 2001 si sono avuti oltre 1 milione e 200.000 di disoccupati in più ed il tasso di disoccupazione nell’agosto di quell’anno è arrivato al 4,9%; si è registrata una diminuzione nei consumi di oltre lo 0,5% mentre il PIL nel secondo semestre del 2001 cresce solo dello 0,2%, e il terzo trimestre è addirittura negativo (-0,4%) segnalando, anche ufficialmente, la fase recessiva. Negli anni successivi la situazione si aggrava a causa del drammatico legame fra disoccupazione e logiche liberiste di precarizzazione del vivere sociale. Si aggiunga un mercato di capitali ‘pompato’, dove anche i rialzi e le piccole riprese sono imputabili ai giochi a sostegno dei titoli delle imprese meglio proiettate nei nuovi scenari di economia di guerra post-globale. Si decide di marciare secondo i parametri del sostenimento della domanda e della produzione attraverso una sorta di keynesismo militare come tentativo di risolvere, o almeno gestire, la crisi; per questo l’economia di guerra dell’era Bush Jr. aveva carattere strutturale, cioè ampio respiro e lunga durata sostituendo il Warfare al Welfare, con continui tagli al sistema pensionistico, alla sanità e allo Stato sociale. Dopo l’iniziale apparente successo dell’avventurismo militare americano, nel periodo 2001 – 2003, dovuto all’incertezza internazionale che caratterizzava l’alba della nuova fase multipolare e alla disorganizzazione delle nazioni emergenti, il successivo periodo 2004 – 2009 sancisce la definitiva sconfitta del modello Bush–neocon di attacco al cuore dell’Eurasia quale misura estrema per uscire dall’impasse della crisi. Nel 2006 il PNAC chiude i battenti, attestando il fallimento del progetto di egemonia mondiale.
La guerra russo-georgiana del 2008 o, meglio, la fallita aggressione alla Russia perpetrata per il tramite dell’esercito georgiano armato da Israele e Stati Uniti, ha definitivamente posto la pietra tombale sull’unipolarismo statunitense ed ha sancito e reso effettivo il sistema geopolitico multipolare.

CAUSE DEL DECLINO AMERICANO
In un saggio del 2007 il giornalista Luca Lauriola afferma che l’attuale crisi dell’egemonia americana va imputata ad una molteplicità di cause quali: il ridimensionamento geopolitico del ruolo USA dovuto alla crescita economica e tecnologica dei poli rivali russo, cinese ed indiano; la crisi economica e finanziaria degli USA dovuta a cause sistemiche e non reversibile perché connaturata alla forma del capitalismo americano; il castello di menzogne su cui si basa la strategia di dominio americana per legittimare il proprio espansionismo ha ormai oltrepassato la soglia di tollerabilità ed è sul punto di crollare; le condizioni di vita di gran parte della popolazione statunitense sono simili a quelle di molti paesi sottosviluppati; il ruolo politico sempre maggiore ricoperto dalla lobby sionista.
Per quanto riguarda l’aspetto economico e finanziario, esaminando il periodo 2001 – 2010 praticamente non c’è un solo dato che non indichi una crisi irreversibile del sistema americano. Basti dire tra il 2005 ed il 2010 il numero di disoccupati in USA è praticamente raddoppiato così come, tra questi, è più che quadruplicato il numero di quelli a lungo termine (6 mesi o più) (4). Giova ricordare che gli americani hanno già rischiato la bancarotta e la dissoluzione come entità statale nel 2008 con lo scoppio della ‘bolla immobiliare’ dalla quale si sono salvati in extremis solo grazie all’intervento di Giappone e Cina, timorosi di perdere il mercato di sbocco principale per i loro prodotti. Ma i dati che illustrano in maniera devastante la crisi americana sono quelli del debito pubblico e della bilancia commerciale. A cominciare dagli anni ‘80 (durante l’amministrazione Reagan) gli Stati Uniti hanno iniziato ad avere sia un grande debito pubblico sia un disavanzo commerciale. Il debito pubblico era intorno ai 50-75 miliardi di dollari alla fine degli anni ‘70 e crebbe a oltre 200 miliardi nel 1983. Il disavanzo della bilancia commerciale era attorno allo zero all’inizio degli anni ‘80 ma superò i 100 miliardi di dollari nel 1985. Oggi analizzando il disavanzo commerciale dei vari Paesi gli USA si situano all’ultimo posto della lista con un disavanzo che è piu’ del doppio rispetto a quello della Cina che è in surplus e si situa al primo posto.
Inoltre, il debito pubblico americano ha superato la quota record dei 12 mila miliardi di dollari e non accenna a diminuire risultando essere il più alto al mondo. Ma come mai gli Stati Uniti dopo un ventennio di apparente prosperità, nel quale hanno guidato il processo di globalizzazione, sono oggi sul punto di collassare? Come mai gli Stati Uniti non sono stati in grado di imporre la propria Ordnung al mondo intero? La risposta, più che nell’economia, va ricercata nella natura e nella geopolitica degli USA: « Gli Stati Uniti d’America – potenza talassocratica mondiale – hanno sempre perseguito, fin dalla loro espansione nel subcontinente sudamericano, una prassi geopolitica che in altra sede abbiamo definita “del caos”, vale a dire la geopolitica della “perturbazione continua” degli spazi territoriali suscettibili di essere posti sotto la propria influenza o il proprio dominio; da qui l’incapacità a realizzare un vero ed articolato ordine internazionale, quale ci si dovrebbe aspettare da chi ambisce alla leadership mondiale» (5).
La natura talassocratica degli USA e l’incapacità di governare e amministrare il territorio sono l’origine del loro declino, perciocché non è dato loro il potere di esercitare una funzione regolatrice ed equilibratrice dei vari popoli ed etnie che vivono in un territorio delimitato e di fornire quel senso di unità spirituale basato sulla coscienza di appartenere ad una medesima ecumene, quali invece sono i tratti caratteristici di un impero propriamente detto.

DOPO L’AMERICA

Ricapitolando, l’ultimo ventennio del XX secolo (1980 – 2001), ha visto la potenza degli Stati Uniti raggiungere il suo picco massimo. Quella che oggi viene definita ‘era della globalizzazione’, che ha raggiunto il suo culmine nella metà degli anni ’90, non è stata altro che il tentativo di egemonizzare il mondo, attraverso gli strumenti della finanza speculativa e del soft power (diffusione dei concetti di ‘esportazione della democrazia’, ‘diritti umani’, liberismo, utilizzando anche Hollywood, la musica pop-rock e i ‘nuovi media’, internet in testa), messo in campo dagli USA nel loro ‘momento unipolare’.
Fallito il tentativo di imporsi come soggetto egemone a livello mondiale attraverso l’esportazione dei propri ‘valori’ gli USA nel periodo 2001 – 2008 hanno deciso di puntare tutto in un attacco disperato all’Heartland con tutto il volume di fuoco di cui sono stati capaci, ma anche questa mossa dopo una iniziale serie di successi viene bloccata dalle potenze continentali emergenti. Sempre più si profila all’orizzonte il conflitto aperto, multipolare, tra la ormai ex superpotenza in declino degli USA e i nuovi poli emergenti costituiti dal BRIC (Brasile, Russia, India, Cina) con in più l’Iran in crescita strepitosa.
Non bisogna però sottovalutare l’attuale potenza degli USA ne la residua capacità di reazione al declino in corso, per due ordini di motivi: come detto all’inizio la natura dell’espansionismo talassocratico americano non si basa sulla sovranità e sul controllo del territorio, perché questo avviene sospinto da forze non-statali, finanziarie ed economiche, che ne costituiscono il vero motore. Sono forze ‘liquide’ come liquido è il mezzo che storicamente hanno prediletto per espandersi, cioè il mare. Questa ‘liquidità’ che contraddistingue l’impalcatura economica e geopolitica degli USA comporta una seria difficoltà a batterli sul loro terreno, che è quello, in senso fisico, dei mari e dei cieli, in senso lato, della finanza e del soft power. In secondo luogo gli USA sono riusciti negli anni addietro ad acquisire posizioni di predominio nel settore finanziario (attraverso il controllo di organismi quali lo SWIFT), in quello della sicurezza mondiale e nel controllo dei ‘nuovi media’, internet in testa.
Dal punto di vista militare la NATO, strumento di accerchiamento della massa eurasiatica, è ancora vitale ed in grado di esercitare la sua funzione antieuropea e antieurasiatica, inoltre restano le centinaia di basi militari e avamposti che gli statunitensi sono riusciti a installare in giro per il mondo e attraverso i quali sono in grado di esercitare ancora una capacità di deterrenza e di controllo sugli Stati ‘ospitanti’. In conclusione pur se in una fase di declino gli Stati Uniti sono ancora capaci di esercitare una residua forma di egemonia, soprattutto nelle zone sotto la loro influenza diretta (Europa e Giappone, in quanto ‘colonizzati’ a tutti gli effetti), piuttosto l’attuale fase è da ritenersi potenzialmente più pericolosa della precedente fase unipolare perché è proprio quando l’animale è ferito mortalmente che la sua reazione diventa più sconsiderata e furente, come dimostrano l’avventurismo in Georgia e le recenti esplicite minacce di attacco nucleare nei confronti di Iran e Corea del Nord.
Tali minacce saranno scongiurate solo da una decisa azione di concerto tra le potenze del blocco eurasiatico e quelle dell’america indiolatina.

NOTE
1) C. Schmitt, Land und Meer. Eine weltgeschichtliche Betrachtung, Reclam, Leipzig 1942, trad. it. Terra e mare, Adelphi, Milano 2002.
2) G. Damiano, L’espansionismo americano, un «destino manifesto»?, Edizioni di Ar, Padova 2006, pp. 14-15. Il termine ‘ideocrazia’ riferito agli Stati Uniti è stato coniato da Costanzo Preve, cfr. C. Preve, L’ideocrazia imperiale americana, Settimo Sigillo, Roma 2004.
3) Da questo punto in avanti e dove non specificato diversamente si tratta di dati ufficiali del governo americano. Cfr. http://www.whitehouse.gov/ e http://www.cbo.gov/
4) Fonte: Bureau of labor statistics, http://www.bls.gov/
5) T. Graziani, America indiolatina ed Eurasia: i pilastri del nuovo sistema multipolare, “Eurasia – Rivista di Studi Geopolitici”, XV, 3/2008, p. 7.

00:10 Publié dans Actualité | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : etats-unis, déclin, décadence, léviathan, carl schmitt | |  del.icio.us | | Digg! Digg |  Facebook

mardi, 02 novembre 2010

Soft Power: la guerre culturelle des Etats-Unis contre la Russie (1991-2010)

Soft power: la guerre culturelle des Etats-Unis contre la Russie (1991–2010)

La nouvelle stratégie et ses organismes

par Peter Bachmaier*

Au cours des deux dernières décennies, les Américains ont modifié leur stratégie: La guerre n’est plus définie purement sous l’angle militaire, elle a recours également à des méthodes informationnelles et psychologiques qu’on appelle «guerre psycholo­gique» ou «guerre culturelle». Ces méthodes ont une longue histoire. Le stratège militaire américain Liddell Hart avait développé avant la Seconde Guerre mondiale la stratégie de l’approche indirecte.1 Pendant cette guerre, les forces américaines et britanniques appliquèrent la guerre psychologique contre l’Allemagne, laquelle fut ensuite utilisée pour rééduquer le peuple allemand. A l’issue du conflit, la CIA et le ministère de la Dé­fense fondèrent, sur le modèle du Tavistock Institute of Human Relations, spécialisé dans la guerre psychologique en Angleterre, des think tanks (laboratoires d’idées) comme la Rand Corporation, l’Hudson Institute d’Herman Kahn, qui étaient dirigés avant tout contre l’Union soviétique.

Soft-power-Joseph-S-Nye.jpgLes méthodes de ces organismes ont été développées par des instituts de sciences soci­ales. Les sciences sociales empiriques améri­caines, c’est-à-dire notamment la sociologie, la psychologie, l’anthropologie, les sciences politiques et les sciences de la communication, sont nées sous leur forme actuelle à l’initia­tive et grâce au financement d’agences militaires et de renseignements dans les années 1940 et 1950.2 Une autre source sont les grandes fondations comme la Carnegie Corporation, la Ford Foundation et la Rockefeller Foundation. Les missions de recherches ont été confiées à des centres scientifiques réputés comme la New School for Social Research de New York, le Bureau of Applied Social Research de Princeton (dirigé par Paul Lazarsfeld), l’Institut für Sozialforschung (dirigé par Max Horkheimer et Theodor W. Adorno), qui était retourné à Francfort en 1949, le Center for International Studies (CENIS) du Massachusetts Institute of Technology, de même que l’Esalen Institute californien, centre de contre-culture qui participa à l’organisation du festival de Woodstock en 1968. Ce sont surtout les principaux instituts de sciences de la communication qui ont participé aux programmes de la guerre psychologique.
Ces instituts publiaient des revues comme le Public Opinion Quarterly (POQ), l’American Sociological Review, l’American Political Science Review et d’autres encore. Les gens qui y travaillaient étaient surtout des immigrants venus d’Allemagne et d’Au­triche qui, plus tard, se sont fait un nom dans leur science: Paul Lazarsfeld, Oskar Morgenstern, Leo Loewenthal, Herbert Marcuse, Walter Lippmann, Harold Lasswell, Gabriel Almond, Daniel Lerner, Daniel Bell, Robert Merton, etc. C’étaient les mêmes centres et les mêmes spécialistes qui étaient respon­sables de la rééducation du peuple allemand. Certains de ces projets concernaient également la préparation de la révolution culturelle des années 1960 avec ses effets secondaires: musique rock, culture de la drogue et révolution sexuelle.
Les «études soviétiques» dépendaient tout particulièrement du gouvernement. Le Russian Research Project de Harvard, dirigé par Raymond Bauer et Alex Inkeles, était une entreprise commune de la CIA, des Forces de l’air et de la Carnegie Corporation. L’Institut publia en 1956 une étude intitulée «How the Soviet System Works» qui devint un clas­sique des Soviet Studies.3 La guerre psychologique comprenait également des émissions de radio de la CIA à l’intention de l’Eu­rope de l’Est – selon Jean Kirkpatrick «un des instruments les meilleurs marché, les plus sûrs et les plus efficaces de la politique étran­gère des Etats-Unis» – c’est-à-dire la Voice of America, RIAS Berlin, Radio Free Europe et Radio Liberty, qui aujourd’hui encore émettent en russe et dans les autres langues de la CEI.4 Ces stations étaient placées sous l’autorité du Congress for Cultural Liberty qui fut fondé en 1950 à Paris par la CIA et qui employait 400 collaborateurs.5
La victoire sur l’Union soviétique a été réalisée avant tout à l’aide de ces méthodes non militaires. La stratégie dont l’objectif n’était pas la coexistence avec l’Union soviétique mais un «démantèlement» du système sovié­tique fut élaborée en 1982 par le gouvernement Reagan.6 Le projet comprenait 7 initiatives stratégiques dont le point 4 était: guerre psycholo-
­gique visant à pro­duire dans la nomenklatura et la population la peur, le sentiment d’insécurité et la perte de re­pères.7 Cette guerre n’était pas dirigée seulement contre le communisme mais contre la Russie, comme le prouvent les affirmations de Zbigniew Brzezinski: «Nous avons détruit l’URSS et nous détruirons la Russie.» «La Russie est un Etat superflu.» «L’orthodoxie est le principal ennemi de l’Amérique. La Russie est un Etat vaincu. On le divisera et le mettra sous tutelle.»8
En 1990, Joseph Nye, collaborateur du Council on Foreign Relations qui défend les mêmes idées que Brzezinski, a forgé pour ces méthodes la notion de «soft power» (pouvoir doux, pacifique) ou «smart power» (pouvoir intelligent) qui a la même origine que l’«ingénierie sociale».9 Il a publié en 2005 son livre intitulé «Soft Power: The Means to Success to World Politics» dans lequel il suggère que l’Amérique devienne attractive par sa culture et ses idéaux politiques. Le Center for Strategic and International Studies de Washington, think tank néoconservateur au conseil de surveillance duquel siègent Henry Kissinger et Zbigniew Brzezinski, a fondé en 2006 une Commission on Smart Power présidée par Joseph Nye et Richard Armitage, qui a déposé en 2009 un mémorandum intitulé «A Smarter, more Secure America» dont l’objectif est de renforcer l’influence des Etats-Unis dans le monde à l’aide de mé­thodes «douces».

Premier succès de la nouvelle stratégie: la perestroïka

Cette stratégie a été appliquée pour la pre­mière fois lors de la perestroïka, lorsque Mikhaïl Gorbatchev est arrivé au pouvoir. Elle a eu des aspects positifs: elle a rétabli la liberté d’opinion et de circulation mais elle a été l’effet d’une influence considérable de l’Occident.11 Au sein du Comité central du Parti communiste d’Union soviétique et de la nomenklatura, un groupe se forma qui adopta les positions occidentales et voulut introduire le système néolibéral occidental.
Le vrai architecte de la perestroïka fut Alexandre Iakovlev, secrétaire depuis 1985 du Comité central responsable de l’idéologie qui avait fait ses études à Washington dans les années 1950 et était depuis lors un partisan convaincu du néolibéralisme, d’après ce qu’il m’a dit lors d’un entretien à Vienne le 9 novembre 2004. Son réseau comprenait des gens comme Egor Gaïdar, Grigori Iavlinski, Boris Nemtsov, Victor Tchernomyrdin, German Gref et Anatoli Tchoubaïs.
Jakovlev créa avec eux une cinquième colonne de l’Occident qui, aujourd’hui encore, tire les ficelles en coulisses. Boris Eltsine fut aussi une créature des Américains. En septembre 1989, lors d’une visite à Washington à l’invitation de l’Esalen Institute, qui entretenait depuis 1979 un programme d’échanges américano-soviétiques, il fut quasiment recruté par le Congrès et put prendre le pouvoir avec l’aide des Américains en 1991.
Grâce à l’intervention de George Soros, Gorbatchev devint membre de la Commission trilatérale qui organisa à Moscou, en janvier 1989, une conférence à laquelle participèrent notamment Henry Kissinger et Valéry Giscard d’Estaing.

Organisations occidentales destinées à influencer culturellement la Russie

A l’époque de la perestroïka, les loges maçonniques et leurs organisations satellites furent à nouveau autorisées.13 A la demande de Kissinger, Gorbatchev autorisa en mai 1989 la fondation de la B’nai Brith Loge à Moscou. Depuis, 500 Loges ont été créées en Russie par les Grandes Loges de Grande-Bretagne, de France, d’Amérique, notamment. En même temps, à l’intention des politiques, des chefs d’entreprise et des membres des professions libérales qui ignoraient les rituels mais partageaient les principes de Loges, on créa des organisations, clubs, comités et fondations plus ouverts. Il y a actuellement plusieurs milliers de membres de Loges en Russie qui participent aux rituels mais dix fois plus de personnes qui appartiennent à la «maçonnerie blanche» et n’observent pas les rituels mais acceptent les principes et sont guidés par les Frères des Loges. Ces organisations sont le Club Magisterium, le Rotary Club, le Lions Club et la Fondation Soros. Leurs membres se consi­dèrent comme une élite qui a des droits particuliers pour gouverner.14
Pour contrôler les écrivains, on a fondé le Centre P.E.N. russe, autre organisation satellite. En ont fait partie des écrivains et des po­ètes connus comme Bella Achmadulina, Anatoli Pristavkin, Ievgueni Ievtouchenko, Vassili Aksionov et Victor Erofeev.
L’Institut pour la société ouverte de George Soros, fondé à Moscou en 1988 déjà, fut dans les années 1990 le principal instrument de déstabilisation et de destruction entre les mains des puissances instigatrices. Soros a orienté ses activités vers le changement d’idéologie des hommes dans l’esprit du néolibéralisme, l’imposition de l’american way of life et la formation de jeunes Russes aux Etats-Unis. La Fondation Soros a financé les plus importantes revues russes et attribué des prix spéciaux afin de soutenir la littérature.15
Dans le cadre de son programme, la Fondation a publié des manuels dans lesquels l’histoire russe est présentée sous l’angle néolibéral et cosmopolite. En septembre 1993, alors que le Parlement subissait des tirs, j’ai eu l’occasion de participe à une remise de prix au ministère russe de l’Education. George Soros a attribué des prix aux auteurs de manuels russes d’histoire et de littérature et le mi­nistre russe de l’Education Evgueni Tcatchenko a déclaré que l’objectif des nouveaux manuels était de «détruire la mentalité russe».
Les programmes de Soros dans le do­maine culturel étaient si variés que pratiquement tout le secteur privé dépendait du financement par la «Société ouverte». L’Institut für die Wissenschaften vom Menschen (IWM), fondé à Vienne en 1983 et également soutenu par Soros a promu la réforme du sys­tème scolaire et universitaire en Russie et dans les pays postsocialistes. Au cours des seules années 1997 à 2000, la Fondation a attribué 22 000 bourses pour un total de 125 millions de dollars.16
Un autre think tank américain est le National Endowment for Democracy (NED) fondé en 1982 par Reagan. Cette institution finance les instituts des partis républicain et démocrate et leurs bureaux de Moscou. Elle soutient avant tout les médias privés et les partis et mouvements politiques pro-occidentaux. Le budget du NED est voté par le Congrès américain au titre de soutien du Département d’Etat. Des politiques éminents font partie de son Comité directeur: John Negroponte, Otto Reich, Alliot Abrams. La NED est la continuation des opérations de la CIA par d’autres moyens. En 2005, elle finançait 45 organisations russes dont les suivantes: la société Memorial pour la formation historique et la protection des droits de l’homme, le Groupe d’Helsinki de Moscou, le Musée Sakharov, les Mères de Tchétchénie pour la paix, la Société pour l’amitié russo-tchétchène, le Comité tchétchène de salut national. 17
Le Centre Carnegie de Moscou a été fondé en 1993 en tant que section de la Fondation Carnegie pour la paix internationale fondée en 1910 par Andrew Carnegie en tant que centre indépendant de recherches pour les relations internationales. Les spécialistes du centre de Moscou étudient les questions les plus importantes de la politique intéri­eure et extérieure de la Russie. Il rassemble des informations sur les problèmes du développement du pays et publie des livres (recueil d’articles, monographies, ouvrages de référence), des périodiques, une revue trimestrielle, «Pro et contra», et la série «Working papers». Il organise régulièrement des conférences. La Fondation est financée par des firmes importantes comme BP, General Motors, Ford, Mott, de même que par Soros, Rockefeller, le Pentagone, le Département d’Etat et le ministère des Affaires étrangères britannique.
La directrice en était jusqu’ici Rose Goettemoeller, ancienne collaboratrice de la RAND Corporation et actuelle ministre américaine adjointe des Affaires étrangères.
Les représentants du monde russe des affaires au conseil de surveillance sont Piotr Aven, Sergueï Karaganov, Boris Nemtsov, Grigori Javlinski et Evgueni Jasine, président de l’Université économique de Moscou. Les collaborateurs de premier plan sont Dmitri Trenine, qui travaille également pour Radio Free Europe et Radio Liberty, et Lilia Chevtsova, tous les deux étant régulièrement invités à l’Ouest pour expliquer que la Russie restreint les libertés démocratiques. Les recherches du Centre de Moscou sont beaucoup utilisées par les classes politiques russe et occidentale. Le travail du Centre est soutenu par la centrale de Washington grâce à un «Programme Russie et Eurasie».18
La fondation Freedom House, créée en 1941 à l’initiative d’Eleanor Roosevelt, est née de la lutte contre l’isolationnisme aux Etats-Unis. Son objectif officiel était de lutter contre le national-socialisme et le communisme. Aujourd’hui, elle est financée par Soros et le gouvernement. Dans les années 1990, Freedom House a créé des bureaux dans presque tous les pays de la CEI et le Comité américain pour la paix en Tchétchénie (membres: Brzezinski, Alexander Haig, James Woolsey, ancien patron de la CIA). Son projet le plus connu est aujourd’hui «Liberté dans le monde» qui, depuis 1972, analyse chaque année tous les pays du monde et les classe en trois catégories: pays «libres», «partiellement libres» et «non-libres» selon le degré de libertés civiles et de droits politiques.19
En 1992, la filiale russe de la fondation Rockefeller Planned Parenthood Federation a été créée à Moscou et dans 52 autres villes russes. Elle a essayé de faire introduire dans toutes les écoles russes la matière «éducation sexuelle» qui a en réalité pour objectif de dissoudre la famille et de créer un homme nouveau, mais ce fut un échec car les fonctionnaires du ministère de l’Education, les enseignants, les parents et l’Eglise ortho­doxe s’y sont opposés, si bien que le projet a été refusé en 1997 lors d’une conférence de l’Académie russe pour l’école. 20
En Occident, les organisations non-gouvernementales (ONG) sont considérées comme des piliers de la société civile. En Russie, elles n’ont rien à voir avec l’édification d’une démocratie directe: ce sont des agences financées et dirigées par l’Occident.

Influence occidentale sur l’école et les médias

Un important objectif de l’influence occidentale est le système scolaire et universitaire. Tout d’abord, après le tournant de 1991, le centralisme et l’idéologie marxiste ont été liquidés avec l’aide de conseillers occidentaux. La loi sur l’école de 1992 et la Constitution de la Fédération de Russie de 1993 ont codifié une profonde réorientation de l’école sous le signe du paradigme démocratique et néolibéral occidental. Elle comprenait l’introduction d’éléments d’économie de marché dans le système scolaire et la création d’une société civile.21
L’octroi de crédits occidentaux à l’école était lié à l’application de certaines directives. C’est ainsi que le système scolaire a été transformé dans le sens du néolibéralisme. Un secteur d’écoles privées onéreuses a été créé. Les écoles secondaires et les universités se sont orientées vers le profit et ont exigé des frais de scolarité. Grâce aux enquêtes PISA de l’OCDE, le système scolaire a été orienté vers l’économie. De nombreuses écoles des zones rurales qui n’étaient plus «rentables» ont été fermées. Beaucoup d’enfants ne sont plus allés à l’école ou l’ont quittée sans diplôme. En 2000, selon un rapport de l’UNESCO, 1,5 million d’enfants russes n’allaient pas à l’école. On a vu se développer la toxicomanie chez les élèves, phénomène inconnu jusque-là.22
La plus importante réforme est celle des universités qui ont été évaluées tout de suite après le tournant de 1991 par la Banque mondiale et le Fonds monétaire international qui ont ensuite élaboré un programme de restructuration sur le modèle anglo-saxon. En 2004 a été adoptée la Déclaration de Bologne qui prévoit le passage à un bachelor (licence) de quatre ans suivi d’un master de deux ans ainsi qu’une présidence avec des conseils d’université où siègent des représentants de l’économie. De nombreux spécialistes de l’éducation y voient une destruction de la tradition de l’université russe car l’enseignement se limite à la transmission d’informations. Aujourd’hui, parmi les quelque 1000 universités et autres établissements supérieur russes, 40% sont privés. Beaucoup d’entre eux ont été créés par l’Occident et l’on y forme une nouvelle élite.23
Un autre secteur suivi avec beaucoup d’attention par l’Occident sont les médias qui, après 1991, ont vécu leur plus grande transformation. Ils ont été privatisés par les réformes néolibérales d’après 1991 et repris par des oligarques ou l’étranger. De nombreuses stations de radio, des journaux et des magazines ont passé aux mains de propriétaires étrangers comme la News Corporation de Rupert Murdoch qui publie, en collaboration avec le Financial Times, le quotidien Vedomosti, le plus important journal financier de Russie et le News Outdoor Group, qui possède la plus grande agence de publicité, présente dans quelque 100 villes russes. Bertelsmann AG, qui possède la plus grande chaîne de télévision européenne, RTL, exploite en Russie la chaîne Ren TV qui diffuse dans tout le pays.24 La Fondation Bertelsmann, créée en 1977 par Reinhard Mohn, un des think tanks les plus puissants de l‘UE, travaille en collaboration avec la Fondation Gorbatchev dont le siège est à Moscou mais qui entretient également des succursales en Allemagne et aux Etats-Unis.
Sous Eltsine, les médias étaient presque tous entre les mains de la nouvelle oligarchie, qui était liée aux centres financiers occidentaux. Vladimir Gousinski possédait la plus grande chaîne de télévision, NTV, et Boris Berezovski contrôlait les journaux. Lorsque Poutine commença à stabiliser le pays, sa tâche la plus urgente fut de contrôler les médias, car sinon, le gouvernement aurait été renversé.
L’américanisation concerne, last but not least, la culture quotidienne qui, sous la forme de concerts rock, d’Internet, de chaînes de télévision privées, de cinémas géants, de discothèques, de CD musicaux, de bandes dessinées, de publicité et de mode, est presque la même qu’en Occident.
L’objectif de la stratégie américaine est d’introduire le système de valeurs occidental dans la société russe. Il s’agit de désidéologiser l’Etat. Dans la Constitution de 1993, l’idéologie étatique a été condamnée en tant que manifestation du totalitarisme et interdite à l’article 13.25
L’idéologie soviétique officielle reposait sur une philosophie matérialiste mais comportait des éléments de nationalisme qui constituaient le ciment maintenant l’Etat. Cette interdiction a privé l’Etat des valeurs nationalistes. Le vide spirituel est rempli aujourd’hui par la culture populaire occidentale.
L’offensive culturelle américaine a pour but de créer en Russie une société multiculturelle, c’est-à-dire cosmopolite, pluraliste et laïque qui dissout la culture nationale russe commune. Le peuple, qui a une histoire et une culture communes, doit être transformé en une population multinationale.

Résistance de l’Etat et de l’intelligentsia russes

Le concept d’Etat imposé depuis 2000 par le président Vladimir Poutine, en particulier le concept d’Etat fort, impliquait une recentralisation partielle, le passage de l’idée d’un Etat multinational à un Etat nationaliste russe et la tendance à réserver une place spéciale à l’Eglise et à la religion orthodoxes.
En avril 2001, le groupe énergétique public Gazprom a pris le contrôle de la chaîne NTV. Le quotidien Sevodnia (Aujourd’hui) a dû cesser de paraître et le rédacteur en chef du magazine a été mis à pied. La chaîne de télévision de Boris Berezovski TV-6 a été fermée en janvier 2002 et Berezovski a émigré en Angleterre.
En septembre 2003, le magnat du pé­trole Mikhaïl Khodorkovski voulait racheter l’hebdomadaire libéral Moscovskie Novosti afin de soutenir les partis de l’opposition libé­rale Union des forces de droite et Iabloco dans la prochaine campagne électorale. Son engagement politique a été une raison impor­tante de son arrestation en octobre 2003. Cette mesure était nécessaire car sinon l’oligarchie aurait réussi, avec l’aide des médias, à prendre le contrôle du gouvernement lui-même. Les trois plus importantes chaînes de télévision, ORT, Russia et NTV et une partie importante de la presse écrite sont contrôlées aujourd’hui par des grands groupes publics (Gazprom et Vnechtorbank) ou directement par l’Etat (RTR).
L’oligarque Vladimir Potanin continue de contrôler les quotidiens Izvestia et Komsomolskaïa Pravda. Actuellement, Novaïa Gazeta (sous le contrôle de l’oligarque Ale­xandre Lebedev et de Gorbatchev) et le quotidien Vedomosti, créé à l’initiative du Wall Street Journal et du Financial Times, sont considérés comme des organes de presse indépendants du gouvernement.26 Depuis 1993, selon une statistique, 214 journalistes ont été assassinés dont 201 sous l’ère Eltsine et 13 depuis l’accession au pouvoir de Poutine (10 pendant son premier mandat et 3 pendant le second).27
La Doctrine nationale pour l’éducation de 1999 et le Concept de 2001 ont réintroduit dans le domaine idéologique les idées patriotiques et nationalistes. Le retour aux valeurs de l’époque tsariste s’est ajouté à la volonté de conserver les avantages du système éducatif de l’Union soviétique. Les écoles privées et les académies soutenues par l’Eglise orthodoxe russe, reconnues par l’Etat depuis 2007, occupent une place particulière. De nou­velles matières ont été introduites dans les pro­grammes des écoles, comme la préparation obligatoire au service militaire, depuis 1999, et les «fondements de la culture orthodoxe», depuis 2007.28
Fait également partie de la guerre psychologique la campagne des médias contre la Russie, menée depuis 10 ans mais surtout depuis l’arrestation de Khodorkovski en 2003 sous la devise «La Russie est en passe de revenir au système soviétique». Un exemple en est la «persécution» des artistes progres­sistes qui consisterait dans le fait de retirer des expositions publiques les œuvres blasphématoires ou pornographiques. Il s’agirait en général de provocations d’ONG financées par l’Occident. Le Centre Sakharov, qui s’est fixé pour but d’imposer une société ou­verte, a organisé en 2003 une exposition intitulée «Attention religion!» où étaient exposées entre autres des œuvres antichrétiennes blasphématoires. La Douma a demandé au Minis­tère public d’engager des poursuites contre le Centre. Les organisateurs ont été condamnés à une amende en 2005.
En 2005, le gouvernement a introduit un nouveau jour de fête nationale: le 4 novembre, date proche de l’ancienne Fête de la Révolution d’Octobre le 7 novembre. Cette fois, il s’agissait de commémorer la victoire sur les troupes d’invasion polonaises en 1612. En 2006, une nouvelle Loi sur les organisations non gouvernementales a été adoptée en vertu de laquelle elles doivent toutes se faire réenregistrer. Leur financement par l’étranger devra être contrôlé plus strictement. Au début de 2008, tous les bureaux régionaux du British Council, à l’exception de celui de Moscou, ont été fermés parce qu’on leur reprochait des activités antirusses.29
Contrairement à l’époque de la perestro­ïka et à l’ère Eltsine, l’intelligentsia russe, depuis l’attaque de la Yougoslavie par l’OTAN en 1999, n’est plus libérale mais nationa­liste. Les écrivains, artistes, réalisateurs et metteurs en scène sont aujourd’hui des patriotes nationalistes et sont soutenus par le Kremlin. Le gouvernement contrôle également les informations politiques des médias, avant tout celles de la télévision, un peu moins celles des journaux.
Auparavant, le représentant principal des traditionnalistes était Alexandre Soljenitsyne à qui on a cependant reproché de ne pas être assez critique à l’égard de l’Occident. Aujourd’hui, le groupe leader est constitué par les po venniki (enracinés dans le terroir). Ils sont chrétiens-orthodoxes, mais envi­sagent la période soviétique dans la tradition de l’histoire russe. Leurs idéologues sont des écrivains ruralistes: Valentin Raspoutine, Vassily Belov et Victor Astafiev. C’est dans les revues Nas Sovremennik, Moskva et Molodaïa gvardia que, dès les années 1970–80, l’idéologie patriotique a été élaborée.
La Fondation pour la perspective historique, dirigée par l’ancienne députée à la Douma Natalia Narotchniskaïa, défend un programme patriotique et chrétien, pos­sède la série éditoriale Svenia, la revue Internet Stoletie et organise des conférences et des congrès. L’intelligentsia patriote nationa­liste débat à propos d’une modification fondamentale du système prévoyant un renforcement de l’Etat et la fermeture des frontières. Les associations d’écrivains, d’artistes et de cinéastes possèdent des maisons de la culture, des galeries d’art, des cinémas et des revues et organisent de nombreuses manifestations. Il y a à Moscou 150 théâtres, opéras et salles de concerts qui jouent essentiellement des œuvres classiques. Le théâtre de metteur en scène, l’art abstrait et la musique atonale occupent une place secondaire.30
L’Autriche et l’Allemagne jouissent d’une image positive, mais c’est surtout la culture alle­mande et l’histoire du passé que l’on connaît. On ne sait pas vraiment ce qui se passe actuellement en Allemagne. Soljenitsyne a toujours espéré que l’Allemagne deviendrait une sorte de pont entre la Russie et le reste du monde parce que les deux pays se sentaient attirés mutuellement.31 Mais les médias allemands transmettent une image déformée de la Russie: selon eux, la Russie serait en passe de revenir au système soviétique et les intellectuels néolibéraux mèneraient un combat dés­espéré. On cite en exemple l’écrivain pornographique Victor Erofeïev qui a été invité en Allemagne par l’hebdomadaire hambourgeois Die Zeit.32 Aujourd’hui, en Russie, la question déterminante n’est pas de savoir si le pays est en train de redevenir une dictature communiste mais une «dictature du relativisme» sur le modèle occidental ou une société chrétienne.33

Le renouveau religieux

La véritable résistance contre l’occidentalisation vient aujourd’hui de l’Eglise ortho­doxe qui est traditionnaliste. Elle défend des valeurs traditionnelles comme le mariage, la famille, la maternité et s’oppose à l’homosexualité. Les églises sont pleines, surtout de jeunes gens. La majorité des jeunes se disent orthodoxes, c’est-à-dire chrétiens et se marient à l’église. Il y a de nouveau 100 millions de croyants, 30 000 prêtres et 600 couvents. L’Académie spirituelle de Serguiev Possad est pleine, elle reçoit 4 candidatures pour une place. Il existe une station de radio ortho­doxe, une maison d’édition, une série de revues, des aumôniers dans l’Armée, les hôpitaux et les prisons et on a réintroduit de facto la disci­pline religion dans les écoles, pour la premi­ère fois depuis 1917. Selon des sondages, 70% des Russes se disent croyants.34
En 2007, l’Eglise orthodoxe russe et le Vatican ont décidé d’engager des pourparlers pour aplanir leurs différends. L’archevêque Ilarion, directeur du département des Af­faires ecclésiastiques étrangères du Patriarcat, ancien évêque russe-orthodoxe de Vienne, a déclaré à ce sujet: «Nous sommes des alliés et nous nous trouvons face au même défi: un laïcisme agressif».35
En Russie, le christianisme ortho­doxe est qualifié de «religion majoritaire». Un 4 novembre, Jour de l’unité nationale en Russie, j’ai eu l’occasion d’assister à une procession extraordinaire sur la place Rouge: le Patriarche marchait au premier rang, puis venaient les dignitaires de l’islam, de la communauté juive et des bouddhistes. C’était un symbolisme intentionnel: «Le Patriarche est le chef de la religion majoritaire, il rassemble les croyants et encourage la collaboration des différentes communautés religieuses. Il est le chef spirituel du peuple tout entier, et pas seulement des croyants orthodoxes.»36

Conclusions

Aujourd’hui, la Russie traverse une crise qui se traduit tout d’abord dans les systèmes financier et monétaire, mais concerne égale­ment le domaine culturel. C’est d’ailleurs là qu’elle a son origine la plus profonde qui consiste en ce que la société laïque pluraliste n’apporte aux hommes ni véritable communauté, ni conception du monde ni sens.
La Russie n’a pas besoin de la «culture matérialiste et égoïste» de la société occidentale actuelle mais d’une idéologie nationale universelle qui comprenne tous les aspects de la vie, développe le pays et rejette tout ce qui menace l’existence du peuple.37
La reprise des relations russo-américaines depuis deux ans ne change cependant rien à l’orientation antirusse à long terme de la politique américaine et n’empêche pas la CIA de redoubler d’activités en Russie. Après la visite d’Obama à Moscou, Hillary Clinton elle-même a insisté sur l’attachement des Etats-Unis à leur concept de leadership mondial absolu. Tôt ou tard, la Russie va devoir choisir entre créer un Etat souverain qui ferme ses frontières et empêche la destruction de sa culture ou capituler et devenir une province de l’Occident.    •
(Traduction Horizons et débats)

1    Basil Liddell Hart, Strategy: The Indirect Approach, 1re éd. 1929, 2e éd. 1954
2    Christopher Simpson, Science of Coercion: Communication Research and Psychological Warfare, 1945–1960, New York, Oxford U.P,. 1994, p. 4
3    Simpson, Science of Coercion, p. 87
4    A. Ross Johnson, R. Eugene Parta, Cold War Broad­casting: Impact on the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, Woodrow Wilson International Center, Washington, 2010
5    Frances Stonor Saunders, Who Paid the Piper? The CIA and the Cultural Cold War, London 1999
6    Peter Schweizer, Victory: The Reagan Administration’s Secret Strategy That Hastened the Collapse of the Soviet Union, New York, 1994
7    S.G. Kara-Murza, A.A. Aleksandrov, M.A. Muraškin, S.A. Telegin, Revolucii na eksport, Moskva, 2006
8    Cité d’après: V.I. Jakunin, V. Bagdasarjan, S.S. Sulakšin, Novye technologii bor’by s rossijskoj gosudarstvennost’ju, Moskva, 2009, str. 50
9    Joseph Nye, Bound to Lead: the Changing Nature of American Power, Basic Books, 1990 ; Joseph Nye, Transformational Leadership and U.S. Grand Strategy, Foreign Affairs, vol. 85, No 4, July/August 2006, pp. 139–148
10    Richard Armitage, Joseph S. Nye, A Smarter, More Secure America, CSIS Commission on Smart Power, 2009
11    Peter Schweizer, Victory: The Reagan Administrations’s Secret Strategy That Hastened the Collapse oft he Soviet Union, New York, 1994
12    Cela figure dans la biographie officielle d’Eltsine de Vladimir Solovyov et Elena Klepikova, Boris Yeltsin. A political Biography. Après l’audition d’Eltsine devant le Congrès, David Rockefeller a déclaré: «C’est notre homme!»
13    O. A. Platonov, Rossija pod vlast’ju masonov , Moskva 2000, p. 35
14    Platonov, Rossija, p. 3
15    Platonov, Rossija, p. 15
16    Jakunin, Novye techologii, p. 81
17    Jakunin, Novye technologii, p. 90
18    Jakunin, Novye technologii, p. 94 sqq.
19    Jakunin, Novye technologii, p. 92
20    www.pravda.ru 03/19/2008
21    Gerlind Schmidt, Russische Föderation, in: Hans Döbert, Wolfgang Hörner, Botho von Kopp, Lutz R. Reuter (Hrsg.), Die Bildungssysteme Europas, Hohengehren 2010 (= Grundlagen der Schulpädagogik, Bd. 46, 3. Aufl.), p. 619
22    Schmidt, Russische Föderation, p. 635
23    Schmidt, Russische Föderation, p. 632
24    Pierre Hillard, Bertelsmann – un empire des médias et une fondation au service du mondialisme, Paris, 2009, p. 27
25    «1. Le pluralisme idéologique est reconnu dans la Fédération de Russie. 2. Aucune idéologie ne peut s’instaurer en qualité d’idéologie d’Etat ou obligatoire.» Art. 13 de la Constitution de la Fédération de Russie de décembre 1993
26    A. Cernych, Mir sovremennych media, Moskva, 2007
27    Roland Haug, Die Kreml AG, Hohenheim, 2007
28    Schmidt, Russische Föderation, p. 639
29    Das Feindbild Westen im heutigen Russland, Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, Berlin, 2008
30    Vladimir Malachov, Sovremennyj russkij nacionalizm in: Vitalij Kurennoj, Mysljaškaja Rossija: Kartografija sovremennych intellektual’nych napravlenij, Moskva 2006, pp. 141 sqq.
31    Interview d’Alexandre Sojénitsyne, Der Spiegel
no 30, 23/07/07; Marc Stegherr, Alexander
Solschenizyn, Kirchliche Umschau, no 10,
Octobre 2008
32    Nikolaj Plotnikov, Russkie intellektualy v Germanii, in: Kurennoj, Mysljaškaja Rossija, p. 328
33    Westen ohne Werte? Interview de Natalia Narotchniskaïa, directrice de l’Institut russe pour la démocratie et la coopération de Paris, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, no 51, 29/02/08
34    Jakunin, Novye technologii, pp. 196 sqq.
35    Interview du Spiegel
36    Der Spiegel, no 51, 14/12/09
37    Pape Benoît XVI, Encyclique «Spe salvi», Rome, 2007, dans laquelle il parle d’une «dictature du relativisme».

*    Né en 1940 à Vienne, Peter Bachmaier a fait ses études à Graz, Belgrade et Moscou. De 1972 à 2005, il a été collaborateur de l’Österreichisches Ost- und Südeuropa-Institut. Depuis 2006, il est secrétaire du Bulgarisches Forschungsinstitut en Autriche. En 2009, il a effectué un séjour de recherches à Moscou. Le présent texte est l’exposé
qu’il a présenté au Congrès «Mut zur Ethik» à Feldkirch, le 3 septembre 2010.

«Ateliers du futur» en Russie

En juillet 2010 a eu lieu, à Ekaterinbourg, le 21e atelier du futur organisé dans le cadre du Dialogue de Pétersbourg entre l’Allemagne et la Russie et qui a réuni 40 participants. Ces séminaires, auxquels sont invités des jeunes managers russes, ont été fondés en 2004 par la Société allemande pour la politique étrangère qui a organisé, dans les locaux de l’éditeur Gruner & Jahr, qui fait partie du groupe Bertelsmann, le premier «atelier du futur» sur le thème «L’Allemagne et la Russie dans le monde globalisé». L’objectif des séminaires, qui sont soutenus aujourd’hui par la Fondation Körber, est d’analyser le passé communiste et de répandre l’idée d’une société civile démocratique. Les intervenants allemands expliquent aux jeunes Russes qu’un partenariat stratégique avec la Russie n’est possible que sur la base des valeurs occidentales. Ils leur conseillent de rejeter l’héritage impérial russe et de se soumettre aux règles du jeu de la globalisation.
Les Allemands disent aux Russes que depuis les années 1960, ils se sont confrontés à la guerre et au national-socialisme et qu’ils ont assumé leur passé. Ils reprochent aux Russes de rester at­tachés à l’identité soviétique dans le souvenir de la victoire de la Se­conde Guerre mondiale et de ne pas être prêts à surmonter entièrement le totalita­risme, ce qui les empêche de continuer à démocratiser la société. Les participants russes répondent que 1991 a repré­senté une rupture dans leur conscience historique qui a entraîné la dissolution des valeurs fondamentales de la société. Jusqu’ici, les Russes n’ont pas été disposés à «se détacher complètement du passé» et à accepter les «valeurs universelles».

Source: Newsletter, DGAP, 20/7/10

(Traduction Horizons et débats)

lundi, 01 novembre 2010

De ironie van de geschiedenis: Rusland "terug" naar Afghanistan

ywcn5p2h.jpg

De ironie van de geschiedenis: Rusland “terug” naar Afghanistan

Ex: http://yvespernet.wordpress.com

De geschiedenis heeft zo haar ironische verrassingen. Toen socialistisch Rusland, toen nog de Sovjetunie, Afghanistan binnenviel om daar het socialistische regime te ondersteunen, steunde de VSA de moedjahedien die de Russen bevochten. De CIA leverde wapens (de beruchte Stinger-raketten die Russische helikopters konden neerschieten), geld en training aan deze Afghaanse strijders en legde zo, nogmaals ironisch genoeg, de basis voor de Taliban en Al-Qaida vandaag de dag. Dit was de zogenaamde Operatie Cyclone. Deze oorlog zou uiteindelijk ook een grote rol spelen in het instorten van de Sovjetunie wegens de grote verliezen en de onuitzichtbare situatie. In Afghanistan wordt de terugtocht van de Sovjetunie uit hun land ook nog steeds jaarlijks gevierd. Nu dat de NAVO-aanvoerroutes steeds meer blootgesteld worden aan steeds effectievere aanvallen en de Pakistanen de belangrijke Khyber-pas sinds eind september hebben gesloten, zoeken de Amerikanen naar mogelijkheden om dit te compenseren.

De ironie van dit alles? De VSA gaan deze hulp zoeken bij de Russen. Rusland verkoopt militair materiaal aan de NAVO-leden in Afghanistan en aan het Afghaanse leger zelf. Tevens zouden zij piloten opleiden en het Russische grondgebied en luchtruim openzetten voor de bevoorrading van NAVO-troepen. Momenteel zou Rusland al vijf Mi-17 helikopters aan Polen verkocht hebben. Russisch onderminister van Buitenlandse Zaken, Aleksander Grushko, deelde ook al mee dat Afghaanse officieren momenteel in Rusland opgeleid worden. Anatoly Serdyukov, de Russische Minister van Defensie, melde ook dat de NAVO meerdere dozijnen Mi-17′s zou kopen of huren van Rusland. Zelf zouden er geen Russische troepen Afghanistan binnentrekken.

In ruil bouwt de VSA hun “anti-rakettenschild” (ARK), in de praktijk een radar-”afluister”systeem om Rusland te bespioneren, steeds verder af. Zo is dit ARK reeds geschrapt in Polen en Tsjechië. Ook zal Rusland geconsulteerd worden bij de opbouw van een eventueel alternatief voor dit ARK. Verder zou Rusland eisen van de NAVO dat zij de situatie in Georgië, waar o.a. Zuid-Ossetië nog steeds de facto onafhankelijk is onder Russische voogdij, officieel erkennen.

Ook is deze geopolitieke keuze van Rusland geen verrassing. Tegenover islamistisch fundamentalisme voert Rusland een containment-politiek, waar de VSA eerder een roll-back-politiek wensen te volgen. Voor Rusland is het het belangrijkste om het islamitisch fundamentalisme in Afghanistan en Pakistan te houden en ervoor te zorgen dat het zich niet meer naar het noorden, naar de onderbuik van Rusland, verplaatst. Dat daarbij de NAVO zich druk bezig houdt en grote materiële inspanningen moet leveren in Afghanistan, ten koste van hun aandacht naar Rusland toe, is nog eens goed meegenomen. Rusland heeft er dan ook alle belang bij om zowel de islamistische fundamentalisten als de NAVO-troepen met elkaar bezig te laten zijn in Afghanistan.

Volgende maand is er een NAVO-top in Lissabon waar deze gesprekken en besluiten officieel zouden meegedeeld worden. De Russische president, Dmitry Medvedev zou hier ook bij aanwezig zijn.

To Cleanse America: Some Practical Proposals

To Cleanse America:
Some Practical Proposals

Greg Johnson

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

Author’s Note:

The following short piece from 2002 or 2003 has the same major flaw as “Separatism vs. Supremacism,” namely, it deals with the issue in the abstract. Racial separation is not likely to happen this way. Nonetheless, it has the virtue of broadening the reader’s sense of what is morally and practically possible.

50s.jpgI hear a lot of defeatist talk among White Nationalists. A recurring theme is that there are too many non-whites in America to even consider an all-white nation. The most optimistic solution is to partition the country into ethnically pure nations.

The answer to this kind of talk is simple: If it was not too much trouble for all these people to come here, then it will not be too much trouble for them to go back. If whites could conquer and settle this country once, then we can do it again. The only thing stopping us from doing it again is lack of nerve, not lack of ability. But an awakened white nation could quickly set things right.

Part of the problem may be that people are trying to envision a government program that could remove tens of millions of non-whites. It seems impossible, so they give up in dismay. But as a matter of fact, there have already been such programs. From 1929 to 1939, more than one million Mexicans — more than half of them US citizens — were forced to return to Mexico. In the 1950s, more than one million Mexicans were again repatriated by Operation Wetback. Surely with modern computers and law enforcement techniques, it would be relatively easy to scale such programs up to deal with more than 20 million Mexicans plus other non-whites.

But does one really need a massive government operation to cleanse America? After all, most non-whites did not come here through government programs, but through private initiative. They came because there were economic incentives to come. They will leave when there are economic incentives to leave.

And I am not talking about the use of government money to bribe non-whites to leave. That was the feeble proposal of the British National Party, before they abandoned the idea of repatriation altogether as unfeasible.

We need to make a distinction between government programs, in which the state takes the initiative, and government policies, which allow or encourage private initiative. The economic incentives that lead to non-white immigration work only by the government’s permission. If immigration were banned and the ban rigorously enforced, these incentives would become impotent. By the same token, the government can pass laws creating economic incentives for non-whites to go home.

Of course before we talk of incentives, we need to deal with the hundreds of thousands of non-whites, citizens and aliens, who are already incarcerated at public expense for breaking the law. These people should be immediately deported. Then we should crack down on non-white crime and automatically deport all new offenders. That would rid us of millions in short order.

As for non-whites who are here illegally, but who are not already incarcerated, we should first levy fines of $10,000 per day per alien on any business that employs them and any landlord who rents to them. That should send most of them scurrying for the border. After six months or so, the police can scour out the ones who remain and deport them. After another six months, the government can offer a bounty for those who slipped through the cracks.

As for the ones here legally: They should be immediately stripped of their citizenship and all the benefits that come from it. They should be denied any government or government subsidized benefits, e.g., education, welfare, unemployment insurance, health care. We should allow them to sell their property and take the proceeds with them. But to make a quick departure even more appealing, that option would expire after a year. Those who cannot take a hint would then be deported, with a bounty for those who remain.

Such policies, after a couple of years, would rid us of millions of non-whites. Only diplomats, tourists, and traveling businessmen would remain within our borders. Yes, these would be government policies. But the beauty of them is that they would encourage most non-whites to leave on their own initiative. The government would not have to track down, incarcerate, and deport each one, which would be an enormously expensive burden on the taxpayer and economy.

Instead, the policies I propose would stimulate economic activity, especially in travel and real estate. One appealing result is that home prices would drop, making it easier for white couples to get a start. Another result would be higher wages for white workers.

Only after the non-white population had been significantly reduced would a more active government role be necessary, but by that time the problem would be much more manageable.

“But there would be violence! There would be race war!” the defeatists will bleat. Of course there would be.

I am all for minimizing violence. But let’s be real: There already is violence. There already is race war. There already is ethnic cleansing.

Every time a white is robbed, raped, or murdered by a non-white predator, that is race war. The Cincinnati riots were race war. The Wichita Massacre was race war. “Beat up a White Kid Day” was race war. “Polar Bear Hunting” is race war. When tens of thousands of whites fled American cities and lost tens of millions in property because of desegregation, that was ethnic cleansing.

The race war and the cleansing are already upon us. It is just that we are not fighting back. And if we don’t start fighting back, we are going to be destroyed.

Yes, there would be thousands of white race traitors marching and holding candlelight vigils. That’s why we have rubber bullets and fire hoses. Yes, Blacks and Mexicans would riot and burn down their neighborhoods and Korean convenience stores. But that’s why we have police and the National Guard. In the end, non-white lawlessness would simply allow us to accelerate their expulsion.

Yes, violence would have economic costs, but they would be nothing compared to the costs in crime, chaos, ugliness, and inefficiency of keeping these people here. Yes, there would be white casualties. But the white death toll would be nothing compared to the white death toll that is inevitable if we do nothing: namely, extinction.

Pound, Jefferson, Adams e Mussolini

Pound, Jefferson, Adams e Mussolini

Autore: Giano Accame

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

 

È vero: siamo in tempo di crisi e accadono cose davvero sorprendenti. Anche nel movimento delle idee. Occupa appena una trentina di pagine il saggio di Ezra Pound su Il carteggio Jefferson-Adams come tempio e monumento ed è quindi motivo di un lieve stupore l’ampiezza dell’interesse che ha suscitato. Il 18 febbraio scorso si parte con un’intera pagina del Corriere della Sera per una recensione di Giulio Giorello, filosofo della scienza, ma anche raffinato lettore dei Cantos da un versante laico-progressista, che ha acceso la discussione a cominciare dal titolo: Elogio libertario di Ezra Pound. Scambiò Mussolini per Jefferson. Ma il suo era un Canto contro i tiranni. Di quel titolo il giorno dopo profittava Luciano Lanna per ribadire sul nostro Secolo: “Pound (come Jünger) era libertario”. Due giorni dopo (venerdì 20 febbraio) nelle pagine culturali del Corriere della Sera Dino Messina riapriva il dibattito : “Fa scandalo il “Pound libertario”, mentre il 21 febbraio il tema veniva approfondito da Raffaele Iannuzzi nel paginone centrale ancora del Secolo.

Ricordo ancora le critiche rivolte a Pound e a Giorello il 27 febbraio da Noemi Ghetti su LEFT. Avvenimenti settimanali dell’Altraitalia: era abbastanza facile indicare qualche contraddizione tra la censura fascista e lo spirito libertario, pur essendo altrettanto innegabile il durissimo prezzo pagato da Ezra Pound pacifista alla sua appassionata predicazione contro l’usura, la speculazione finanziaria internazionale e le guerre, con le settimane vissute in gabbia nella prigionia americana di Pisa e i dodici anni di manicomio criminale a Washington. Tuttavia nell’ampio dibattito di cui ho segnalato le tappe è comparso solo marginalmente il nome di Luca Gallesi (Antonio Pannullo lo ha però intervistato il 5 marzo in queste pagine sull’etica delle banche islamiche), geniale studioso di Pound cui si deve la pubblicazione del saggio su Jefferson, ma anche e soprattutto l’apertura di nuovi percorsi in una materia di crescente interesse quale è la storia delle idee.

Occorre rimediare alla disattenzione per l’importanza dei contributi che Gallesi ci sta suggerendo e per i risultati che nel campo degli studi poundiani sta raccogliendo con l’editrice Ares guidata da Cesare Cavalleri insieme alla rivista Studi cattolici, anch’essa molto attenta al pensiero economico di un poeta che sin dai primi anni ’30 aveva previsto lo spaventoso disordine della finanza globale e il dissesto con cui oggi il mondo è alle prese. Le Edizioni Ares avevano già pubblicato gli atti di due convegni internazionali curati da Luca Gallesi, prima Ezra Pound e il turismo colto a Milano, poi Ezra Pound e l’economia, e dello stesso Gallesi lo studio su le origini del fascismo di Pound ove dimostra che il più innovativo poeta di lingua inglese del secolo scorso era stato predisposto a larga parte dei programmi socio-economici mussoliniani degli anni di collaborazione a Londra con la rivista The New Age diretta da Alfred Richard Orage, espressione di una corrente gildista, cioè corporativa del laburismo. Dalla frequentazione della società inglese Pound si portò dietro anche alcuni trattati del tutto sgradevoli d’antisemitismo, che negli anni Venti salvo rare eccezioni erano ancora ignote al fascismo italiano. L’introduzione di Gallesi al breve saggio di Pound sul carteggio Jefferson-Adams punta a estendere agli Usa la ricerca già avviata in Inghilterra sulle origini anglosassoni del fascismo poundiano. Questa volta paragoni diretti tra i fondatori degli stati Uniti e il fascismo non emergono come nel più noto Jefferson e Mussolini ripubblicato nel ’95 a cura di Mary de Rachelwiltz e Luca Gallesi da Terziaria dopo che era andata dispersa la prima edizione per la Repubblica sociale del dicembre ’44. Di Jefferson e Adams da Gallesi viene ricordato l’impegno, da primi presidenti americani, nello sventare i tentativi di Hamilton di togliere al Congresso, cioè al potere politico elettivo, il controllo sull’emissione di moneta per delegarlo ai banchieri e alla speculazione attraverso la creazione di una banca centrale controllata, come nel modello inglese, da gruppi privati. Un’altra traccia innovativa per la storia delle idee è stata suggerita da Gallesi il 4 marzo sul quotidiano Avvenire segnalando il saggio dell’americano Jonah Goldberg, che stufo di sentirsi accusare di fascismo ha scalato i vertici delle classifiche librarie con Liberal Fascism, un saggio ove ha sostenuto la natura rivoluzionaria del fascismo, che durante la stagione roosveltiana del New Deal suscitò “negli Usa stima e ammirazione soprattutto negli ambienti progressisti, mentre all’estrema destra il Ku Klux Klan faceva professione di antifascismo”.

Una storia trasversale di idee al di là della destra e della sinistra che Gallesi si prepara a approfondire lungo l’Ottocento americano attraverso la secolare resistenza che da Jefferson in poi vide opporsi correnti legate allo spirito dei pionieri e delle fattorie alla creazione di una banca centrale, che avvenne solo nei primi del Novecento, alla speculazione monetaria e alla dilagante corruzione. Tutti contributi a una interpretazione di Pound, che senza indebolire le posizioni ideali a cui teniamo, risulterà più autentica, più ricca, più fuori dagli schemi, più prossima alla definizione di ”libertario” che della lettura poundiana di Jefferson ha ricavato Giorello.

E non so trattenermi dal riportare due frasi che avevo sottolineate un quindicina di anni fa leggendo la prima volta l’ancor più scandaloso confronto tra Jefferson e Mussolini. Una tesa a far somigliare i due leader nella lotta alla corruzione: “In quanto all’etica finanziaria, direi che dall’essere un pese dove tutto era in vendita Mussolini in dieci anni ha trasformato l’Italia in un paese dove sarebbe pericoloso tentare di comprare il governo”. E proprio alla fine del libro l’invenzione della settimana corta, per una gestione politica della decrescita economica che solo adesso assume aspetti marcati d’attualità: “Nel febbraio del 1933 il governo fascista precedette gi altri, sia di Europa che delle Americhe, nel sostenere che quanto minor lavoro umano è necessario nelle fabbriche, si deve ridurre la durata della giornata di lavoro piuttosto che ridurre il numero del personale impiegato. E si aumenta il personale invece di far lavorare più ore coloro che sono già impiegati”. Queste erano le soluzioni pratiche che piacevano a Pound, autore di solito complicato, ma reso a volte paradossalmente difficile per eccesso di semplicità.

* * *

Tratto da Il Secolo d’Italia del 28 aprile 2009.

samedi, 30 octobre 2010

La sucia verdad detràs de Coca-Cola

Coca-Cola%2043.jpgLa sucia verdad detrás de Coca-Cola

Ex: http://causarevolucionaria.wordpress.com/

La compañía Coca-Cola gasta 2.8 mil millones de dólares al año en publicidad para asegurar que su refresco sea visto como la bebida más icónica de EEUU – una bebida disfrutada alrededor del mundo, constructora de la paz virtual en una botella.

La compañía ha dedicado 124 años puliendo su imágen, pero solo le tomó 300 páginas al autor Michael Balnding para empañar ese brillo. En su nuevo libro, ‘La Máquina de Coca-Cola: La Sucia Verdad Detrás de la Bebida Favorita del Mundo’, Blanding detalla la sórdida historia de la compañía, desde el patentar experimentos de medicina hasta ser una gigante multinacional.


El libro abre con una página que revuelve el estómago sobre la descripción del asesinato de Isidoro Gil, un trabajador del sindicato que estab fijo en la entrada de la planta embotelladora de Coca-Cola en Carepa, Colombia.

Como describe Blanding luego en el libro, Coca-Cola fue acusada de ser cómplice en las muertes de miembros del sindicato en Sur América, quienes fueron asesinados por paramilitares. Algunas personas pueden ver esto como algo espeluznante. Saber que la Compañía Coca-Cola sea acusada de asesinato es como saber que San Nicolás es acusado de ser un pedófilo”, escribe Blanding en la introducción.

Pero a través del libro, él detalla las acusaciones en contra de Coca-Cola en el frente de los derechos humanos, explicando por qué la Coca Cola es vilipendiada en cualquier lugar del mundo.

En India y México, la compañía esta enfrentado un retroceso por acusaciones de que sus plantas embotelladoras han agotado los acuíferos locales y han contaminado fuentes de agua. En Turquía hay más cargos de actividad anti sindical, y en EEUU y Europa, la gente esta harta de la publicidad para los niños de Coca-Cola, especialmente en las escuelas, y están preocupados por el vínculo que hay entre los refrescos y la obesidad.

Fuente

jeudi, 28 octobre 2010

Red Velvet: The Neocons' New Coalition Partners

Red Velvet

The Neocons' New Coalition Partners

 
 
 
Red Velvet  
 Mary Cheney, Alex Knepper, and David Frum

Richard Spencer’s references to Alex Knepper and his erotic activities while working as David Frum’s assistant bring up what is not an isolated embarrassment. It betokens what may be a widening problem for the neoconservative camp and given the influence of the neoconservatives, for the entire authorized Right. (Fortunately our side will not be involved, since we have no more investment in the present conservative movement than we do in the Obama administration.) It is highly doubtful that Knepper’s solicitation of sexual favors, “posting many pieces on a chat site for gay teens,” began the day before yesterday. Presumably there was a cover-up going on for a while, that is, as long as Frum could keep Alex’s critics at bay. Finally despite his value as a gutter journalist, Knepper became too much of a liability to be kept any longer (pardon the double entendre), and so Frum gave him the heave ho with expressions of “regret and remorse.”

I do recall a time when those who stupidly or opportunistically tried to see the good side of their new masters assured me that the ascending neocons were “serious about family issues.” They might have sounded like a cross between Trotsky and Ariel Sharon on foreign policy; and they might have drooled incessantly over Latino immigration, the Civil Rights Act, and the memories of their anti-Stalinist Marxist favs. But when family issues came up, one could supposedly count on them. This may have been the case for a few years, but by now the old story has worn thin. On family issues, the neocons are social-cultural leftists, and it is likely they’re going to drag all their dependents and lickspittles, and particularly their Christian stooges, in the same direction.

The neoconservatives have had a cozy relation with gays for some time, a truth that can be ascertained by looking at the staff of New Criterion, the catamites of Allan Bloom, and many neocon friendships in the New York-Washington Corridor. This however is no reason to ascribe ideological positions to those who feel comfortable around gays. De gustibus non disputandum! And one can always point to the fact that truer conservatives in an earlier period showed the same erotic propensities and were often exposed by the Left for their indiscretions.

 

The difference between then and now however is that none of these earlier homosexual conservatives or their well-wishers went around legitimating alternative lifestyles. It was simply assumed that individuals, including conservatives who thought of themselves as Christians, had their failings; and it was they who would have to cope with such flaws as idiosyncratic sexual preferences. But since the early 1990s, when the Wall Street Journal began bashing Buchanan for insulting the “San Francisco Democrats,” which was taken as a coded reference to gays, the neocon camp has been keen on homosexual rights, even pushing in some well-publicized instances the institution of gay marriage.

Jonah Goldberg, David Frum, and John Podhoretz are only three of the more prominent advocates in the “conservative” communion of extending marriage to gays. And for the last ten days, we’ve been treated to one tirade after the other against New York gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino, for failing to show sufficient respect for Gay Pride parades. Paladino’s remark before a gathering of Hasidic Rabbis in Brooklyn that they should not “allow their children to be brainwashed” by those who treat homosexual relations as a norm, was perfectly appropriate. Such brainwashing goes on in our public schools incessantly; and I’m sure that Frederic Dicker of the New York Post, Charles Krauthammer on FOX, and other neocon talking heads know what Paladino said is directly related to reality.

But he is clearly not on the same page with Human Events’s “conservative of the year” in 2009, Dick Cheney. Unlike the scorned Paladino, Cheney is passionately in favor of gay marriage and showcases his lesbian daughter. While Cheney’s value as a “conservative” has more to do with his foreign policy belligerence than with his conception of marriage, indisputably his work as a gay activist has not damaged his “conservative” image. By contrast, the spunky Italian hard hat Paladino is being savaged night and day by neocons for taking the opposite position.

Earlier in the year, when every neocon celebrity came out enthusiastically for Obama’s concession to the social Left, to get rid of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays in the military, I naively assumed that the reason was the one I heard Krauthammer give: “We’re going to need the military and so why exclude anyone who wants to serve on the basis of sexual preference.” I won’t get into the arguments that could be marshaled on the other side, for example, about gay officers trying to extract favors from those with lower ranks. But presumably if I thought like a neocon, that the primary mission of the U.S. is to get repeatedly into military crusades for democracy, I might have seen Krauthammer’s point.

Unfortunately, by now the neocons, and especially the children of the founding fathers, seem to be intent on accommodating gays, that is, people they’re more likely to run into in Starbucks than their well-wishers who live in fly-over country. And I don’t blame the neocons for preferring sexually ambiguous Jewish publicists whom they meet in their own social world to the cognitively deprived goyim who hang on their every word. I might prefer the company of urbane metrosexuals to those fools who weep over Glenn Beck’s incoherent encomia to MLK.

My question is what will happen when the latest neocon move to the left becomes an authorized position in their movement. Will those who depend on neocon favors go along with the move or will there be some opposition? My prediction is as follows. The drones will fall into line, with their usual rhetorical dishonesty. Just as in the case of the transformation of the Reverend Dr. King, from a quasi-Marxist philanderer and crass plagiarizer into a conservative theologian and Augustinian Christian, gay marriage will become a new exemplification of “family values.” There is no way one could do verbal justice to the sleaziness of kowtowing movement conservatives. I still vividly recall the way The Gambler, Bill Bennett, came out for hyper-Zionist Lieberman for vice-president in 2008, after having devoted years of his life to inveighing against abortion. Supposedly Lieberman, who voted for late-term abortion, was good on “democratic values” and therefore deserved to be president. Perhaps Bennett’s sponsors threw him payola for this highly publicized endorsement.

The most breath-taking example of servility toward the neocon master class that I’ve encountered came in a book of essays by a minor art critic dealing with postmodernist academics. The book treated the violently anti-Western, anti-Christian, and anti-rational ideas of three professors at prestigious universities, all of whom, not incidentally, had conspicuously Russian Jewish names. Although the Jewish backgrounds of these postmodernists may not tell everything about their intellectual journeys, such biographical data is certainly relevant for understanding them. American Jews, like American Irish, are disproportionately on the left but the fact that the Jews go disproportionately into the academic profession may have something to do with the leftist orientation of universities. Moreover, the attraction to postmodernism, as a vehicle for deconstructing a culture that one finds oppressive to one’s ethnic group, would be understandable in a group that feels rightly or wrongly marginalized in a Christian society.

There are certainly ways of expressing this self-evident connection between leftwing postmodernism and Jewish alienation without being unduly offensive. But the author in question had no desire to bring up a taboo subject, which might have cost him a cushy post in the neocon empire. Instead he devoted the last part of his book to beating up on German straw men, which is a favorite neocon pastime, perhaps best exemplified by Alan Bloom’s rant against “the German connection” in The Closing of the American Mind. Apparently recognizably Jewish representatives of leftwing postmodernism had been reading too much Martin Heidegger and were being corrupted by the same ideas that led to the Holocaust.

Now I for one admire Heidegger’s work and, presumably unlike our art critic, I have read his Sein and Zeit several times with growing admiration. I could also never imagine myself believing any of the trash the author in question attributes to Heidegger’s philosophy of being; and I’m not sure it’s even there. And I doubt he believes his other subjects picked up their subversive thinking (or anti-thinking) from Heideggerian ontology. The neocon art critic is obviously trying to kill two birds with one stone, both aimed at pleasing his masters, savaging the goddamned Krauts, who were once ruled by Hitler, and stripping Jewish leftists of any significant Jewish association. Those who play such abject games should have no trouble recognizing gay parades and gay marriage as paradigmatic “family values.” They will be depicted as the newest stage of the Civil Rights revolution, which was a “conservative” event from Selma through Stonewall.

Paul E. Gottfried

paul2.jpgPaul Gottfried has spent the last thirty years writing books and generating hostility among authorized media-approved conservatives. His most recent work is his autobiography Encounters; and he is currently preparing a long study of Leo Strauss and his disciples. His works sell better in Rumanian, Spanish,Russian and German translations than they do in the original English, and particularly in the Beltway. Until his retirement two years hence, he will continue to be Raffensperger Professor of Humanities at Elizabethtown College in Elizabethtown, PA.

mardi, 26 octobre 2010

Macchine da guerra: Blackwater, Monsanto e Bill Gates

Macchine da guerra: Blackwater, Monsanto e Bill Gates

di Silvia Ribeiro

Fonte: megachip [scheda fonte]

Un rapporto di Jeremy Scahill su The Nation (Blackwater’s Black Ops, 15.09.10) ha rivelato che il maggiore esercito mercenario al mondo, Blackwater (ora denominato Xe Services –), ha venduto servizi d’intelligence clandestini alla multinazionale Monsanto. Blackwater è stata ribattezzata nel 2009 dopo essere divenuta famosa nel mondo per via dei numerosi resoconti sui suoi abusi in Iraq, compresi massacri di civili. Resta il maggiore appaltatore privato dei “servizi di sicurezza” del Dipartimento di Stato U.S.A, che pratica il terrorismo di stato dando al governo l’opportunità di negarlo.

blackwater.jpgMolti militari ed ex-funzionari CIA lavorano per Blackwater o società collegate create per sviare l’attenzione dalla propria cattiva reputazione e fanno alti profitti vendendo i propri vili servizi – che vanno dall’informazione e lo spionaggio all’infiltrazione, al lobbying politico fino all’addestramento paramilitare – per altri governi, banche e multinazionali.

Secondo Scahill, gli affari con le multinazionali, come Monsanto, Chevron, e giganti finanziari come Barclays e Deutsche Bank, vengono convogliati tramite due società possedute da Erik Prince, proprietario di Blackwater: Total Intelligence Solutions e Terrorism Research Center. Questi funzionari e direttori si spartiscono la Blackwater.

Uno di loro, Cofer Black, noto per la sua brutalità come uno dei direttori della CIA, è stato quello che ha stabilito il contatto con la Monsanto nel 2008 in qualità di direttore di Total Intelligence, stabilendo un contratto con la società per spiare e infiltrare organizzazioni di attivisti sui diritti animali, anti-OGM e altre attività sporche del gigante della biotecnologia.

Contattato da Scahill, il dirigente Monsanto Kevin Wilson ha rifiutato di commentare, ma ha confermato in seguito a The Nation di aver noleggiato i servizi di Total Intelligence nel 2008 e 2009, secondo la Monsanto solo per tener d’occhio le “quanto divulgato pubblicamente” da parte dei suoi oppositori. Ha aggiunto che Total Intelligence era un’«entità del tutto separata da Blackwater».

Tuttavia, Scahill ha conservato copie di e-mail di Cofer Black dopo l’incontro con Wilson per la Monsanto, dove spiega ad altri ex-agenti CIA, usando le loro e-mail presso Blackwater, che la discussione con Wilson aveva portato Total Intelligence a diventare «il braccio d’intelligence della Monsanto», per spiare attivisti e altre iniziative, compresi «i nostri impegnati a integrare legalmente questi gruppi». Per Total Intelligence Monsanto ha pagato 127mila dollari nel 2008 e 105mila nel 2009.

Non sorprende che una società impegnata nella “scienza della morte” come la Monsanto, dedita fin dall’inizio alla produzione di sostanze tossiche che spaziano dall’Agent Orange ai PCB (bifenili policlorurati), pesticidi, ormoni e semi geneticamente modificati, sia associata a un’altra società di farabutti.

monsanto1.jpgQuasi simultaneamente alla pubblicazione di quest’articolo su The Nation, la Via Campesina ha riferito l’acquisto di 500mila azioni di Monsanto, per più di 23 milioni di dollari, da parte della Fondazione Bill & Melinda Gates, che con tale azione ha finito di gettare via la sua nmaschera “filantropica”. Un’altra connessione che non sorprende.

È un matrimonio fra i due più brutali monopoli nella storia dell’industrialismo: Bill Gates controlla più del 90% della quota di mercato dei software proprietari e Monsanto circa il 90% del mercato globale delle sementi transgeniche e buona parte delle sementi commerciali globali. Non esistono in alcun altro settore industriale monopoli così vasti, la cui stessa esistenza è una negazione del vantato principio della “concorrenza di mercato” del capitalismo.

Sia Gates sia Monsanto sono molto aggressivi nel difendere i loro monopoli ottenuti in malo modo.

billgates7tm-a038d.jpgBenché Bill Gates possa tentare di dire che la Fondazione non sia collegata ai suoi affari, tutto ciò prova che è vero il contrario: la maggior parte delle loro donazioni finiscono per favorire gli investimenti commerciali del magnate, effettivamente non “donando” alcunché: anziché pagare tasse ai forzieri statali, investe i suoi profitti là dove gli frutta economicamente, compresa la propaganda sulle loro presunte buone intenzioni.

Al contrario, le loro “donazioni” finanziano progetti distruttivi come la geoengineering (geoingegneria) o la sostituzione di medicine comunitarie naturali con medicine high-tech brevettate nelle aree più povere del mondo. Quale coincidenza: l’ex-ministro della Sanità Julio Frenk e Ernesto Zedillo sono consulenti della Fondazione.

Come Monsanto, Gates è inoltre impegnato a tentare di distruggere l’agricoltura rurale contadina a livello mondiale, principalmente mediante l’ “Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa” (AGRA). che funziona come un cavallo di Troia per privare i poveri agricoltori africani delle loro sementi tradizionali, sostituendole con quelle delle proprie aziende per cominciare in seguito con quelle geneticamente modificate (GM).

A tal fine, la Fondazione ha assunto Robert Horsch nel 2006, il direttore di Monsanto. Ora Gates, nell’esporre massicci profitti, ha svelato direttamente la fonte.

Blackwater, Monsanto e Gates sono tre lati della stessa figura: la macchina da guerra al pianeta e a gran parte della gente che lo abita, che siano contadini, comunità indigene, persone che vogliono condividere informazione e conoscenza, o chiunque altro non intenda soggiacere alla cappa del profitto e alla distruttività del capitalismo.

 

* L’autrice è ricercatrice al Gruppo ETC

«La Jornada» ,14.10.10.

 

Traduzione per il Centro Studi Sereno Regis a cura di Miky Lanza, con revisioni di Megachip.

Titolo originale: Machines of War: Blackwater, Monsanto, and Bill Gates

http://www.transcend.org/tms/2010/10/machines-of-war-blac...

 


Tante altre notizie su www.ariannaeditrice.it

mardi, 19 octobre 2010

Messianismus mit verheerenden Folgen

obama_messie.jpg

Dr. Tomislav SUNIC:

 Messianismus mit verheerenden Folgen

Ex: http://www.deutsche-stimme.de/

Ein Kapitel Hintergrundpolitik: Nutznießer und Drahtzieher der US-Kriege im Irak und Afghanistan

Statt der Frage »Wem nutzt der Krieg in Afghanistan und Irak« kann man auch die Frage stellen: »Wer war der Anstifter dieser beiden Kriege?« Diese direkte Frage klingt aber nicht sachlich und stellt außerdem eine Fundgrube für Verschwörungstheoretiker dar.

Wilde Spekulationen über die wahren Motive dieser Kriege interessieren uns hier nicht, abgesehen von der Tatsache, wenngleich manche auch stimmen mögen. Was uns interessiert ist die Bilanz dieser Kriege, wie diese Kriege sprachlich und völkerrechtlich gerechtfertigt werden und wer von diesen Kriegen am meisten profitiert.

 


Übrigens sind Verschwörungstheorien keinesfalls Kennzeichen sogenannter »Rechtsradikaler« – wie liberalistische Medien oft unterstellen. Laut neuer liberaler Sprachregelung nutzt die herrschende Klasse im Westen gegen ihre politischen Feinde und Gegner auch Verschwörungsvokabeln, die auf Verteufelung und Kriminalisierung abzielen. Auch benutzen die Systempolitiker zur Rechtfertigung ihrer eigenen militärischen Aggressionen durchaus Verschwörungstheorien. Monate vor der Invasion Iraks hatten viele amerikanische Politiker und Medienleute mit vollem Ernst über die »irakischen Massenvernichtungswaffen« schwadroniert. Es stellte sich bald heraus, daß die Iraker keine derartigen Waffen hatten, wie später von denselben Politikern auch zugegeben wurde.


Ähnliche Sprachregelungen sind heute im Wortschatz der EU-Systempolitiker zu bemerken, die freilich ihre politischen Mythen und Vorstellungen nicht mit dem Wort »Propaganda«, sondern mit den Vokabeln »Kulturarbeit« und »Menschenrechte« tarnen.

Feldzugsplan aus der Schublade

Im Falle des Irak und Afghanistans ist es wichtig zu analysieren, wie die Systempolitiker und die Kriegshetzer mit der Sprache umgehen. Einerseits hört man Horrorvokabeln wie »Kampf gegen den Terror«, »Islamofaschismus«, »Al Kaida-Terroristen«, und andererseits vernimmt man sentimentale Sprüche wie »Kampf für die Menschenrechte« »Multikulti-Toleranz« oder »Freiheit für afghanische Frauen«.
Die deutsche Kanzlerin klang dabei auch nicht glaubwürdig, als sie vor kurzem in Bezug auf den deutschen Einsatz in Afghanistan erklärte: »Unsere gefallenen Soldaten haben ihr Leben für Freiheit, Rechtsstaatlichkeit und Demokratie gegeben.« Ihre Worte stellen eine typisch theatralische Metasprache nach kommunistischer Machart dar.
Außer dieser hypermoralischen Seite aus dem liberalen Lexikon sind die empirischen Belege und Beweise für die vorgenannten Angaben, Aussagen und Wunschvorstellungen der Systempolitiker bezüglich des Irak und Afghanistans spärlich, wenn nicht völlig abwesend.
Zunächst eine Bilanz: Der Krieg in Afghanistan wurde drei Wochen nach dem Terroranschlag in New York am 11. September 2001 begonnen. Eine langfristige militärische Strategie für Afghanistan kann man nicht innerhalb von drei Wochen formulieren. Der Plan zum Sturz der Regime in Afghanistan und Irak war schon lange Zeit vorher medial und akademisch in Amerika vorbereitet worden. Die ersten Hinweise auf den kommenden Krieg im Nahen Osten hatten amerikanische Medien und pro-zionistische Kulturkreise in Amerika schon Anfang neunziger Jahren gegeben, nämlich nach dem unentschiedenen ersten Golfkrieg von 1991.
Viele pro-israelische Kreise in Amerika sowie bekannte amerikanisch-jüdische Akademiker und Journalisten entwarfen damals einen langfristigen Plan für die Umorganisation des Nahen Osten und Asiens. Besonders wichtig war die Rolle einer sogenannten Denkfabrik wie dem »American Enterprise Institute« und die Aufstellung des »Projektes für das neue amerikanische Jahrhundert« (PNAC).
Sehr bedeutende Namen waren unter diesem Firmenschild beteiligt. Diese sind unter der Selbsteinschätzung »Neokonservative« bekannt und pflegten dabei ihre eigenen fixen Wahnideen zur Weltverbesserung. Der 11. September kam ihnen wie von Gott gesandt.
Ein entscheidender Kulturkampf, oder in der heutigen Sprache ausgedrückt: eine Erfolgspropaganda, muß in der Regel immer den großen politischen Umwälzungen vorangehen. Der Krieg in Afghanistan und Irak begann zuerst als akademische Auseinadersetzung, die von den neokonservativen Intellektuellen in Amerika bestimmt wurde. Aber das soll nicht heißen, daß sich die Akademiker und die Befürworter dieser Kriege nicht irren konnten. Die ganze völkerrechtliche Architektur der Irakkriege ist heute brüchig geworden.

Schwache Europäer, korrupte Kommunisten

Die US-Neokonservativen wollten seit langem die irakische und iranische Regierung beseitigen. Auch die angebliche Terrorgruppe Al Kaida war eine nebulöse Unterstellung, an der vielleicht etwas dran sein kann, die aber auch falsch sein kann. Wir haben nämlich keine genauen Beweise dafür, daß diese Terrorgruppe wirklich existiert. Aber solche Unterstellungen, ob wahr oder falsch, sind oft ein perfektes Mittel zur Rechtfertigung endloser Kriege. Schlimmer noch: Sie sind heute ein ideales Alibi für die Errichtung eines Überwachungssystems.
Nach neun Jahren Krieg in Afghanistan, nach sieben Jahren im Irak, hat sich das Sicherheitsklima im Nahen Osten und in Afghanistan sowie in der ganzen Welt nicht verbessert, sondern verschlechtert. Darin stimmen fast alle Politiker in Europa und Amerika überein. Heute gibt es einer größere Terrorismusgefahr als vor acht oder neun Jahren. Man kann sagen, daß die Terrorismusgefahr in Europa seitens radikaler Islamisten in dem Maße steigt, wie der Krieg in Irak und Afghanistan andauert.
Und was geschah mit den Europäern? Natürlich brauchten die Amerikaner 2001 die Zustimmung ihrer Verbündeten für die beiden Kriege. In Westeuropa war es dieses Mal ein bißchen schwieriger, da die meisten Systempolitiker in Europa, abgesehen von ihrer sonstigen Anbiederungspolitik gegenüber Washington, wußten, daß diese Kriege keine raschen Resultate erbringen würden. Das offizielle Deutschland war skeptisch, da es mehr muslimische Einwanderer beherbergt als die USA. Aber als europäisches NATO-Mitglied war es nicht leicht, den Amerikanern zu trotzen.

Politische Theologie der Amerikaner

Im Gegensatz zu Deutschland und Frankreich hatten die Amerikaner keine Probleme, Befürworter für ihre Expeditionen in Afghanistan und Irak in Osteuropa zu finden. Einer der Gründe dafür war, daß fast alle Etablierten und Akademiker vom Baltikum bis zum Balkan Überreste oder der Nachwuchs ehemaliger Kommunisten sind. Um ihre eigene kriminelle Vergangenheit aus den kommunistischen Terrorzeiten zu decken, müssen sie jetzt päpstlicher als der Papst sein, also amerikanischer als die Amerikaner selbst.
Die ersten Nutznießer der beiden Kriege waren, zumindest am Anfang der Kriege, wie schon erwähnt, die Neokonservativen und Israel. Aber es ist falsch zu behaupten, daß der Krieg nur von den amerikanischen Neokonservativen gerechtfertigt wurde. Um die wirklichen Motive der amerikanischen Außenpolitik zu begreifen, muß man die amerikanische politische Theologie gut verstehen, insbesondere die Überzeugung vieler amerikanischen Politiker von einer besonderen politischen Auserwähltheit. Die Nutznießer und die Architekten der Kriege sind ein tagespolitisches Phänomen, aber der Zeitgeist, der ihnen die Kriege rechtfertigt ist ein geistesgeschichtliches Phänomen. Dies kann man nicht voneinander trennen.
Uri Avnery, ein linker israelischer Schriftsteller, hat vor kurzem gesagt, daß »Israel ein kleines Amerika und die USA ein großes Israel« seien. Seit einhundert Jahren hat Amerika seine politischen Begriffe aus dem Alten Testament. Im Zuge dessen haben viele amerikanische Politiker ihre Mentalität von den alten Hebräern übernommen. Es ist auch kein Zufall, daß sich Amerika als Gottesbote mit einer universalistischen Botschaft für die ganze Welt wahrnimmt.
Vor 150 Jahren waren es die sezessionistischen Staaten des Südens, die das Sinnbild des absolut Bösen darstellten; später, Anfang des 20. Jahrhunderts, wurde das Sinnbild des »bösen Deutschen« bzw. »der Nazis« zum allgemeinen Feindbild; dann, während des Kalten Krieges, war eine Zeitlang der böse Kommunist in der Sowjetunion das Symbol des absolut Bösen. Heute gibt es keine Kommunisten, Konföderierten oder Faschisten mehr. Deswegen mußten die amerikanischen Weltverbesserer ein Ersatzfeindbild finden: nämlich den »Islamo-Faschisten« oder den islamistischen Terroristen.
In diese Kategorie des Bösen soll man die palästinensische Hamas, die libanesische Hisbollah und manche »Schurkenstaaten« wie Irak oder Iran einstufen. Geopolitisch sind diese Staaten von keinerlei Bedeutung für Amerika. Aber Amerikas religiös-ideologische Beziehungen zu Israel verpflichten die amerikanischen Politiker, Israels Feinde als ihre eigenen Feinde zu behandeln.
Es ist völlig falsch, nur die Israelis oder die Neokonservativen für die Kriege der USA verantwortlich zu machen. Sie sind zwar eindeutig die Nutznießer, aber die wahren Architekten dieser Weltverbesserungsideologie sind die Millionen amerikanischer christlicher Zionisten, die eine außerordentliche Rolle in Amerika spielen. Es ist auch falsch, über angebliche amerikanische »Heuchelei« zu reden, wie es oft üblich ist. Aufgrund ihres alttestamentarischen Geistes glauben viele amerikanische Christzionisten tatsächlich, daß Amerikas Militäreinsätze für alle Völker gut seien.

Die Verantwortung der Messianisten

Aus dieser Positionierung entspringt auch die Ideologie der »Menschenrechte«, die wir heute als etwas Selbstverständliches und Humanes hinnehmen. Aber gerade im Namen der Menschenrechte kann man ganze Völker bzw. viele nonkonformistische Intellektuelle kurzerhand auslöschen. Wenn jemand über »Menschenrechte« spricht, sollte man ihn immer fragen, was mit jenen passieren sollte, die nicht in die Kategorie der vorgesehenen Menschen passen. Das sind dann nämlich meist Bestien und Tiere, die nicht nur umerzogen, sondern kurzerhand physisch liquidiert werden sollten.
Fragen wir uns, welche Gedanken durch die Köpfe der amerikanischen Piloten gingen, die Köln oder Hamburg im Jahr 1943 niederbrannten. Ihrem Selbstverständnis nach waren sie keine Kriminellen. Sie hatten keine Gewissensbisse, da dort unten nach ihrer Auffassung keine Menschen, sondern die Verkörperung ganz besonders gefährlicher Tiere lebten.
Die amerikanischen Christ-Zionisten und viele andere biblische Fanatiker tragen die größte Verantwortung für die meisten der amerikanischen Kriege unserer Zeit. Der Außerwähltheitsgedanke führt nicht zu mehr Völkerverständigung, sondern zu endlosen Kriegen.

Unser Autor Dr. Tomislav (Tom) Sunic ist Schriftsteller und ehemaliger US-Professor für Politikwissenschaft. (www.tomsunic.info) Er ist Kulturberater der American Third Position Party. Sein neustes Buch erschien in Frankreich: La Croatie; un pays par défaut? (Ed Avatar, Paris, 2010)

Etats-Unis: l'imposture messianique

11111112747572285r.jpgETATS-UNIS : L'IMPOSTURE MESSIANIQUE

Nicole Guétin


Cet ouvrage s'attache à analyser l'influence du religieux sur la politique américaine. Il focalise l'attention sur un principe commun que l'on qualifiera de messianisme, compte tenu de l'environnement religieux dans lequel naquit et vit encore la nation américaine. Il s'agit d'esquisser l'évolution de ce concept, une constante dans les préoccupations spirituelles, intellectuelles et sociales du peuple américain, depuis sa période coloniale jusqu'à nos jours. Cette conviction d'œuvrer selon les desseins d'une autorité divine a imprégné l'idéologie nationale et influencé sa politique étrangère.

ISBN : 2747572285

Nombre de pages : 126

Date : 11- 2004

dimanche, 17 octobre 2010

Gli incubi solitari di Edgar Allan Poe

edgar-allan-poe-1max1.jpg

Gli incubi solitari di Edgar Allan Poe

di Silvio Botto

Ex: http://robertoalfattiappetiti.blogspot.com/

Il 7 ottobre del 1849 moriva il maestro del brivido
Articolo di Silvio Botto
 
da Linea Quotidiano del 7 ottobre 2010
 
«Coloro che sognano di giorno sanno molte cose che sfuggono a chi sogna soltanto di notte», recita un famoso aforisma di Edgar Allan Poe. Un uomo che di sogni, anzi di incubi, se ne intendeva eccome. Morì appena quarantenne il 7 ottobre del 1849, ma nella sua breve carriera di giornalista e scrittore lasciò un segno indelebile nella letteratura non solo anglosassone, ma mondiale. E la sua sconfinata produzione è ancor oggi considerata il punto di partenza per chiunque si sia poi cimentato nei generi narrativi da lui inventati o in qualche modo “anticipati”: il racconto poliziesco, il giallo psicologico e il romanzo gotico e persino la fantascienza.

«Nessuno scrittore del terrore – spiega l'autore e critico Francesco Lamendola - né americano, né europeo, ha potuto evitare di fare i conti con lui, di prendere posizione rispetto alla sua figura gigantesca». Infatti non è un caso che nel corso del Novecento le opere di Edgar Allan Poe siano state letteralmente saccheggiate da altri scrittori, da autori cinematografici (la prima trasposizione sul grande schermo, La caduta della casa Usher, è del 1928, ma ne seguiranno molte altre), da musicisti (Lou Reed, Iron Maiden e Alan Parsons Project), da soggettisti di fumetti e persino dai creatori della serie I Simpson, che hanno dedicato un miniepisodio televisivo al racconto “Il corvo”.
 
Come detto, la morte lo colse a quarant'anni la domenica del 7 ottobre in un ospedale di Baltimora, dove era stato ricoverato quattro giorni prima in preda a uno stato di delirio su cui non è mai stata fatta piena luce. C'è chi dice che sia stato aggredito per strada, ma di sicuro ad accelerarne il decesso contribuirono le pessime condizioni di salute dello scrittore, che già da tempo soffriva di alcolismo. Dopo la scomparsa della giovane moglie Virginia, morta tre anni prima di tubercolosi, la disperazione di Poe era apertamente sfociata nella bottiglia, alla quale si era attaccato come un naufrago alla scialuppa. Del resto fin da ragazzo lo scrittore bostoniano manifestò una salute cagionevole e un sistema nervoso poco equilibrato. «Nella mia infanzia mostrai di avere ereditato questi caratteri di famiglia; discendo da una razza che si è sempre distinta per immaginazione e temperamento facilmente eccitabile…», scrisse di sé.
 
Nell'accrescere questa tendenza alla fantasia e all'emozione ebbe un ruolo fondamentale l'infanzia triste e dolorosa del giovane Edgar, che in tenerissima età perse entrambi i genitori e venne di fatto adottato da John Allan, un ricco mercante di Richmond. Nel 1815 il piccolo orfano si trasferì con gli Allan in Inghilterra dove frequentò le scuole fino al 1820. Anche l'adolescenza non fu particolarmente felice: Edgar prima si invaghì della madre di un compagno di studi, che morì prematuramente, poi compose rime per giovani donne delle quali si era innamorato, a quanto pare, non ricambiato. Conobbe giorni felici solo con una certa Sarah Royster, ma il loro matrimonio fu ostacolato dal padre della fanciulla per vecchi rancori con il signor Allan, padre adottivo di Poe. Edgar litigò con quest'ultimo e venne diseredato, tentò senza successo la carriera militare all'accademia di West Point e infine si dedicò al giornalismo e alla scrittura. Nel 1836 sposò la cugina Virginia Clemm, all'epoca tredicenne.
 
Edgar%20Allan%20Poe.jpgPer Edgar Allan Poe sono gli anni migliori. Ottiene buoni risultati nella sua carriera di giornalista e soprattutto comincia a pubblicare con un certo successo i romanzi e racconti che lo renderanno universalmente famoso. Fra il 1837 e 1838 scrive la “Storia di Arthur Gordon Pym”, un romanzo che secondo il critico Gianfranco De Turris prosegue e riprende un’antica tradizione narrativa (con riferimento ad autori come Coleridge, Swift, Cooper), nella quale sono presenti immagini che si ripetono varie volte: il viaggio per mare, la caduta nell’abisso, le tempeste ed i naufragi che colpiscono i protagonisti, la fame e la pratica del cannibalismo, l’esplorazione di terre sconosciute e il contatto con nuove genti indigene. Tutte queste immagini devono essere considerate anche come elementi di un duro itinerario iniziatico del protagonista che, attraversando l’esperienza del dolore, della morte e della resurrezione, assurge nel finale ad una più sublime e superiore dimensione dell’Essere.
 
Non un semplice romanzo d'avventura, quindi. Così come non sono banali racconti gotici (di horror, si direbbe oggi) quelli che gli daranno fama soprattutto in Europa. «L’inquietudine che caratterizza il mondo di Poe – sostiene ancora Lamendola - esprime il dramma del passaggio dalla società pre-moderna alla piena modernità, caratterizzata dall’eclisse del sacro, dalla mercificazione totale dei rapporti umani, dall’efficientismo e dal produttivismo esasperati, dalla perdita del senso del limite e del mistero». L'uomo ottocentesco di Poe, in questo tipicamente americano, affianca al mondo reale - tecnologico, dinamico e dominato dal progresso capitalista - un universo parallelo popolato di funebri ossessioni: «l’attrazione morbosa per la decadenza e la morte; la sepoltura da vivi e il ritorno dei non-morti; i torturanti sensi di colpa; la vendetta a lungo covata e ferocemente messa in opera; in una parola, il cupio dissolvi, il desiderio di auto-distruzione venato di sado-masochismo e di necrofilia».
 
«Mi hanno chiamato folle – scrive Edgar Allan Poe alludendo a se stesso - ma non è ancora chiaro se la follia sia o meno il grado più elevato dell'intelletto, se la maggior parte di ciò che è glorioso, se tutto ciò che è profondo non nasca da una malattia della mente, da stati di esaltazione della mente a spese dell'intelletto in generale». In uno scenario così segnato dall'inquietudine e dalla disperazione, potrebbe stupire quella che in realtà è l'altra faccia di Poe, cioè la predisposizione alla logica e al ragionamento matematico e persino una certa tendenza alla comicità e alla narrativa satirica. La passione per le sciarade, i rompicapi e l’applicazione pratica di una logica rigorosa di tipo matematico si rivela pienamente nel filone dei racconti polizieschi, particolarmente ne “I delitti della rue Morgue”, “Lo scarabeo d'oro” e “La lettera rubata”. La sua vena satirica, unita a una feroce critica di certa letteratura popolare del suo tempo, si esprime invece in racconti come “L'angelo del bizzarro”, “L'uomo d'affari”, “Come si scrive un articolo alla Blackwood”.
 
Ma la scomparsa prematura della moglie lo getta nello sconforto e cancella per sempre l'aspetto più lieve della sua complessa personalità, accentuandone invece i lati più cupi e lugubri. Come ha scritto il suo biografo Philip Lindsay, «Tormentato nell’anima, cercò non la pace ma l’infelicità, creando a se stesso situazioni disperate, solitudine e desolazione».
 
Silvio Botto

vendredi, 15 octobre 2010

Comment l'administration Bush a fait payer à Chirac le prix de sa "trahison"

Le journaliste Vincent Nouzille raconte comment l'administration Bush a fait payer à Chirac le prix de sa « trahison »

Un soldat américain couvre le visage d'une statut de Saddam Hussein à Bagdad, en avril 2003 (Goran Tomasevic/Reuters)

 

Dans un livre à paraître cette semaine, le journaliste Vincent Nouzille raconte par le menu la manière dont l'administration Bush a fait payer 5,5 milliards de dollars (4 milliard d'euros) à la France comme prix de sa « trahison » lors du déclenchement de la guerre en Irak en 2003.

Une somme lâchée sous pression par Jacques Chirac lors de la renégociation de la dette irakienne, alors qu'il l'avait initialement refusée. Un prix tenu quasiment secret et qui n'a fait aucun débat en France. Rue89 publie les bonnes feuilles du livre « Dans le secret des présidents ».

 


Ex: http://www.rue89.com/

La Maison Blanche demeure, en cette fin de 2003, très rancunière. George Bush souhaite même mettre la France à l'amende de manière sonnante et trébuchante. Car l'Irak coûte 70 milliards de dollars [50 milliards d'euros, ndlr] par an au budget américain.

Washington ne veut pas être seul à supporter le coût des opérations militaires et de la reconstruction. Paris devrait partager le fardeau, ne serait-ce que pour compenser son refus d'envoyer des troupes aux côtés des GI's.

Durant quelques mois, la Maison Blanche va mener une intense campagne de pression sur l'Elysée afin d'obtenir un chèque de Paris. Le plus surprenant, c'est que Jacques Chirac finira par y céder, piétinant ses propres principes, mais sans le crier sur les toits de peur d'être critiqué pour un geste qui coûtera plusieurs milliards d'euros à la France…

Les coulisses de cette victoire de Bush, passée inaperçue, révèlent la force du rouleau compresseur américain. Le président des Etats-Unis commence son harcèlement à l'automne 2003. […]

Les principaux créanciers de Saddam Hussein

A défaut d'obtenir une grosse rallonge financière directe, la Maison Blanche revient à la charge sur un autre dossier économique sensible : celui de la dette irakienne, accumulée depuis des années par le régime de Saddam Hussein. Le montant des impayés, qui correspond à des achats militaires ou civils de la dictature, atteint plus de 120 milliards de dollars, en tenant compte des arriérés d'intérêts. Les principaux créanciers de l'Irak sont le Japon, la Russie, la France et l'Allemagne.

Coïncidence ou non, ces trois derniers pays se sont opposés à l'offensive américaine. La Maison Blanche voit donc un double avantage à obtenir un abandon de créances en faveur de Bagdad : cela permettrait à l'Irak « nouveau » de repartir sur des bases économiques plus saines, sans ce lourd fardeau à rembourser ; et il y aurait un petit parfum de revanche à faire assumer cet effacement de dettes par des pays si peu coopératifs !

[…] Lorsque [l'émissaire américain, ancien secrétaire d'Etat, ndlr] James Baker rencontre Jacques Chirac, le mardi 16 décembre 2003, la position française est plutôt prudente. La France ne souhaite pas faire de cadeau particulier à l'Irak. […] [Baker obtient ensuite de Chirac que la réduction de la dette irakienne soit d'environ 50%, ce qui représente déjà un effort énorme, ndlr.]

George Bush ne se contente pas de la réduction de moitié de la dette irakienne. Il veut obtenir davantage. En mars 2004, à l'occasion d'un coup de téléphone à Jacques Chirac, […] le président américain demande à son homologue français d'« examiner avec la plus grande attention » la lettre qu'il va lui envoyer au sujet de la dette irakienne. La position des Etats-Unis se dévoile rapidement : ils réclament une annulation de 95% de la dette irakienne, autrement dit un effacement quasi-complet de l'ardoise !

Le coup de pouce du FMI à la Maison Blanche

[…] Au fil des semaines, les négociateurs américains gagnent du terrain. Ils obtiennent des promesses d'appui de leurs « bons » alliés, comme le Royaume-Uni, le Canada, l'Italie et le Japon. Le Fonds monétaire international (FMI) apporte un peu d'eau à leur moulin, estimant qu'une annulation de 70% à 80% serait nécessaire pour que l'Irak puisse tourner la page du passé.

Ce chiffrage du FMI suscite des doutes à Paris. Une autre étude de la Banque mondiale et de l'ONU, publiée à l'automne 2003, évoquait plutôt un besoin d'annulation à hauteur de 33%. Du coup, les exigences de la Maison Blanche sont jugées totalement excessives.

Dans une note au Président Chirac, avant le dîner qui doit avoir lieu à l'Elysée, le 5 juin 2004, en l'honneur de George Bush venu commémorer le D-Day, ses conseillers estiment que la requête américaine serait « coûteuse pour la France », qui est le troisième créancier de l'Irak, avec 6 milliards de dollars d'impayés. Surtout, selon eux, elle pose fondamentalement des « problèmes de principe » :

« Nous ne pouvons pas moralement accorder à l'Irak, un pays potentiellement riche, peu peuplé et qui dispose des deuxièmes réserves de pétrole du monde, des annulations comparables à celles dont bénéficient les pays les plus pauvres et les plus endettés de la planète (80% à 90%).

Alors qu'en termes d'effort, nous allons déjà faire en six mois [pour l'Irak] ce que nous avons mis plus de dix ans à faire [pour les 37 pays éligibles au plan d'aide exceptionnel de pays pauvres, appelé PPTE]. »

 

Bref, il n'est pas question d'aller au-delà des 50% promis à James Baker ! Ce cadeau est déjà disproportionné comparé aux autres pays.

Les conseillers recommandent à Jacques Chirac de tenir bon devant Bush. […]

La discussion s'achève sur un constat de désaccord. […] Pourtant, soumis aux charges répétées de Washington et de ses alliés, l'Elysée va craquer.

« La pression américaine était énorme »

La dernière session de négociations se déroule à Bercy durant trois journées complètes, en novembre 2004. L'ambiance est à couper au couteau. […]

« La pression américaine était énorme. Je n'ai jamais vécu une négociation aussi unilatérale que celle-là », témoigne Jean-Pierre Jouyet, qui présidait les séances.

Au bout de trois jours, le front des créanciers se fissure. Jean-Pierre Jouyet poursuit :

« J'ai appelé Maurice Gourdault-Montagne [le conseiller diplomatique de l'Elysée, ndlr], qui était avec le Président Chirac à un Conseil européen, et je lui ai décrit la situation : les Allemands venaient de lâcher subitement, sans concertation préalable, probablement pour se faire bien voir des Américains. J'ai donc expliqué que nous pouvions continuer de tenir tête, mais que nous étions seuls. Gourdault-Montagne m'a répondu qu'il allait en parler au Président Chirac.

Il m'a ensuite rappelé pour me dire que le Président avait décidé de ne plus s'opposer au consensus. J'ai donc appliqué ces instructions de l'Elysée.

Nous n'aurions sans doute pas pu récupérer grand-chose de nos créances, mais je ne suis pas sorti très content de cette négociation, c'est le moins que l'on puisse dire. »

 

Curieusement, Nicolas Sarkozy, qui s'apprête à quitter ses fonctions de ministre de l'Economie et des Finances pour la présidence de l'UMP, n'intervient pas dans cette discussion, qui concerne pourtant l'argent de l'Etat. Il laisse son directeur du Trésor, Jean-Pierre Jouyet, en prise directe avec l'Elysée.

Les consignes de Chirac conduisent à la conclusion d'un accord portant sur une annulation, par étapes, de 80% de la dette irakienne, soit un effacement total de plus de 30 milliards de dollars pour la vingtaine de pays créanciers concernés : c'est exactement ce que l'Elysée jugeait inacceptable quelques mois auparavant !

L'accord est officialisé par le Club de Paris le 21 novembre 2004, à quelques semaines des premières élections en Irak.

« Nous ne l'avons pas fait pour Bush, mais pour les Irakiens. C'était d'ailleurs le tarif à payer par tous les créanciers », plaide Jean-David Levitte, qui a suivi le dossier comme ambassadeur à Washington.

Le cadeau fait à Bush

D'autres acteurs ont une interprétation différente de ce retournement français. Alors que George Bush vient juste d'être réélu pour un second mandat, Jacques Chirac a décidé, comme le chancelier allemand Schröder, cette concession majeure afin de se rabibocher avec la Maison Blanche. […]

Devant une délégation de sénateurs américains, qu'il recevra le 31 janvier 2005 à l'Elysée, le président de la République confirmera ouvertement avoir cédé à la pression américaine : « A la demande des Etats-Unis, notamment suite à un appel téléphonique du président Bush, la France a accepté d'annuler la quasi-totalité de la dette irakienne », dira-t-il.

Pour éviter une polémique sur ce « cadeau fait à Bush », l'Elysée ne se vantera pas publiquement de son reniement et se gardera de toute communication trop visible sur cette annulation de créances, accordée sans que la France bénéficie, en retour, d'une véritable contrepartie économique.

Le ministère des Affaires étrangères se contentera, à la fin de 2005, d'un discret communiqué annonçant que la France et l'Irak ont signé un accord bilatéral relatif au traitement de la dette irakienne dans le cadre de la mise en œuvre des accords du Club de Paris. Un joli habillage pour une décision hors normes.

Les conseillers de l'Elysée reconnaissent d'ailleurs qu'il s'agit d'une largesse française particulièrement onéreuse. Préparant, au début de 2005, des entretiens de Jacques Chirac avec George Bush et sa secrétaire d'Etat Condoleezza Rice, ils listent les initiatives prises par l'Elysée pour prouver ses bonnes intentions diplomatiques à l'égard de Washington sur l'Irak. On peut y lire notamment :

« Présidente du Club de Paris, la France a fait aboutir une solution audacieuse, généreuse et exceptionnelle du problème de la dette (80% en trois étapes). Cet allègement signifie pour nous une annulation de créances de 5,5 milliards de dollars. »

 

5,5 milliards de dollars ! Il s'agit d'un chèque colossal, puisqu'il représente plus de 4 milliards d'euros, soit dix fois le coût annuel des forces françaises en Afghanistan. Ou 80 fois l'annulation de la dette consentie à Haïti après le tremblement de terre de janvier 2010…

Bush a bien réussi à faire payer Chirac.

Très cher.

► Vincent Nouzille, « Dans le secret des présidents », éd. Fayard/Les Liens qui Libèrent, parution 13 octobre 2010, 583 pages, 24,50 euros.

Photo : un soldat américain couvre le visage d'une statut de Saddam Hussein avec le drapeau américain à Bagdad, en avril 2003 (Goran Tomasevic/Reuters)

jeudi, 14 octobre 2010

Dead Right : The Infantilization of American Conservatism

Dead Right

The Infantilization of American Conservatism

 
 
 
Dead Right
 

Commentaries published on this website, most notably by Richard Spencer and Elizabeth Wright, have underlined the problems with the Tea Party movement and its most prominent representatives. These pointed observations about Glenn Beck, Rand Paul, Sarah Palin, and Christine O’ Donnell have all been true; and if I have more or less defended some of these figures in the past, I’ve done so, while conceding most of the argument made against them. I agree in particular with Elizabeth Wright’s brief against Rand Paul’s stuttering attempt to object to the public accommodations clause in the Civil Rights Act and her withering attack on Glenn Beck’s recent “carnival of repentance” in Washington.

Elizabeth concludes that such soi-disant critics of the Left cannot bring themselves to find fault with any excess in the Civil Rights movement -- and especially not with its far leftist icon Martin Luther King. “Conservatives” are so terrified of being called “racists” or for that matter, sexists or homophobes, that they devote themselves tirelessly to showing they are just as sensitive as the next PC robot. Indeed, they often go well beyond anyone on the left in genuflecting before leftist icons. This was the purpose of the Martin Luther King-adoration rally held by Beck in Washington.

And even more outrageously, such faux conservatives accuse long-dead Democratic presidents, who were well to the right of the current conservative movement, of being more radical than they actually were. It would be no exaggeration to say that Wilson and FDR were far more reactionary than any celebrity in the Tea Party movement. One could only imagine what such antediluvian Democrats would have said if they had heard last year’s “Conservative of the Year,” chosen by Human Events, Dick Cheney, weeping all over the floor about not allowing gays to marry each other. And what would that stern Presbyterian and Southern segregationist Wilson have thought about the cult of King or the attempts by Tea Party leaders Palin and McDonnell to impose feminist codes of behavior on business and educational establishments. Wilson had to be dragged even into supporting the extension of the franchise to women.

The Tea Party sounds so often like the Left because it is for the most part a product of the Left. Its people were educated in public schools, watch mass entertainment, and have absorbed most of the leftist values of the elite class, to whose rule they object only quite selectively. From the demonstrators’ perspective, that elite isn’t patriotic enough in backing America’s crusades for human rights and in looking after the marvelous welfare state we’ve already built. The Tea Party types are understandably upset that their entitlements may be imperiled, if the current administration continues to run up deficits. This is the essence of their anti-government rant. And above all they don’t want more illegals coming into the country who may benefit from the social net and who may be receiving tax-subsidized medical care.

But this, we are assured, has nothing to do with race or culture. In fact the Tea Party claims to be acting on behalf of blacks and legally resident Latinos, in the name of Martin Luther King and all the civil rights saints of the past. It just so happens that almost all these activists are white Christians. Nonetheless, they are also people, as Elizabeth perceptively notices, who would like us to think they’re acting in the name of other ethnic groups, even if those groups don’t much like them. As four “young conservatives” explained to the viewers of the Today show last week, the Right wishes to lower taxes, specifically “to make jobs available to black Americans.” Unfortunately black Americans loathe those reaching out to them, presumably as a gesture of repentance as well as in pursuit of votes.

Those “conservatives” who want a moderate but not excessive welfare state and who act in the name of blacks, Latinos and dead leftist heroes, are fully tuned in to the conservative establishment. According to polls, these folks love FOX-news and avidly read movement conservative publications. Palin, Sean Hannity and Karl Rove, all FOX contributors, are among their favored speakers; and the Tea Party’s likely candidate for president, Sarah Palin, is now surrounded by such predictable neocon advisors as Randy Scheuermann and Bill Kristol. Even with her insipid, ungrammatical phrases about reducing the size of government, Palin already looks like an updated, feminine and feminized version of what the GOP has been running for president for decades, with neocon approval.

Actually one shouldn’t expect anything else from the Tea Party. In the 1980s the conservative movement witnessed a monumental sea change, when the neoconservatives assumed full power and proceeded to kick out dissenters. This development shaped the future of the Right, and its effects are still with us. The neoconservatives not only neutralized any real Right but also managed to infantilize what they took over. An entire generation of serious conservative thinkers were bounced out and replaced by either lackeys or by those who were essentially recycled liberal Democrats. The latter had recoiled from the anti-Zionist stands of the leftwing of the Democratic Party and then were given as a consolation prize carte blanche to swallow up the conservative movement.

Afterwards the establishment Right began to move in the direction of the Left, and it did so while limiting the range of disagreement with its opponents to a few acceptable talking points. The emphasis was on Middle Eastern intervention, disciplining anti-Semitic nations, and spreading “democratic values.” Internally the neocon Herrenklasse had no real interest, except for being able to do favors for corporations that financed them and for the Religious Right, which is fervently Zionist. The notion the neocons bestowed depth on the conservative movement may be the most blatant lie ever told. What they brought was agitprop, of the kind practiced by Soviet bureaucrats, and armies of culturally illiterate adolescents to turn out their party propaganda.

In all fairness, it must be said that the master class tolerated other points of view, for example from Catholic Thomists or Evangelicals, as long as these religiously inspired positions didn’t interfere with what counted for the neocons. Those who called the shots would also occasionally demand from their dependents certain favors, in return for subsidies and publicity, e.g., stressing the compatibility of Christian theology with neocon policies. Freeloading intellectuals could only be tolerated for so long.

This hegemony had two noticeable effects on the current Right, aside from the unchanged role of the neocons as the main power-players. The rightwing activists shown on TV and those they support in elections include badly educated duds, and these are individuals who often don’t sound like anything an historian might recognize as conservative. Their yapping about human rights (supposedly there is now a human right to own a gun) and their outpouring of the politics of guilt, as noted by Elizabeth Wright, are just two of their weird characteristics. About ten years ago I gaped with astonishment when I read a commentary by Jonah Goldberg explaining that the Catholic counterrevolutionary Joseph de Maistre was really a far leftist. It seems that Maistre questioned the idea of universal human rights und dared to note that human beings were marked by different national and ethnic features. These quirks, according to Goldberg, belong exclusively to the left, like “liberal fascism.” When the intellectual Right can come up with such nonsense and then parley it into a fortune, it is hard to imagine any lower depths of cultural illiteracy to which it could sink.

The “conservative wars” of the 1980s, which involved mostly a mopping up operation, also led to a hard Right that is unrelated to any other American intellectual Right. Those associated with this Right wish to have nothing to do with the failed or decimated Old Right that was smashed decades ago. It has found its home among the thirty-some generation and even more, among younger conservatives who are not part of the DC neocon network. One finds among these militants an almost primitive counterrevolutionary mentality. It is one that has taken form as an impassioned reaction to the Left’s masquerading as the Right, which began with the neoconservatives’ ascendancy to total domination. Although I have my reservations about what I’m describing, it must be seen as a spirited response to a fraud as well as to something that is intellectually and aesthetically vulgar.

Clearly this youthful Right is in no way influenced by Russell Kirk or by other “cultural conservatives” of an earlier generation. Its advocates reject a Right that was co-opted by the neocons and by those who are thought to have failed to resist that fateful takeover. Nor would most of those in the “culturally conservative” camp (Jim Kalb may be the exception here) feel comfortable with the exuberant reactionaries of the rising generation. Many of them sound like neo-pagans because they are convinced that the Western religious tradition has given rise to what they condemn as “the pathology of egalitarianism.” The French New Right, Nietzsche, and Carl Schmitt have all shaped this still inchoate youthful American Right. In their case Europe has cast its shadow on the US, unlike the multicultural Left, which, as I have argued in several books, is our poisonous gift to the Europeans.

The emergence of this anti-egalitarian Right and the infantilization of movement conservatism indicate what can not be undone. The American Right has changed irreversibly because of what occurred during the Reagan years and in the ensuing decade. We shall continue to live with the consequences.