Bannon: un guénonien à Washington D.C.?

Bannon: un guénonien à Washington D.C.?

Ex: http://www.dedefensa.org

On a déjà beaucoup parlé de Stephen Bannon, ce “conseiller stratégique” du président Trump et, semble-t-il, le conseiller le plus écouté jusqu’à être considéré, – selon certains points de vue, – comme l’éminence grise et l’inspirateur de Trump. L’on sait également que Bannon a déjà beaucoup suscité de commentaires avec certaines de ses conceptions, notamment et précisément son idée selon laquelle il faut “détruire tout le Système” (cette expression étant une interprétation de certaines déclarations et écrits, qui s’éclaireront plus loin). (... Et nous laissons bien entendu de côté les sornettes insupportables de médiocrité, issues des complexes et obsessions postmodernismes, sur son prétendu “suprémacisme blanc” et le reste. Ce faisant, nous laissons les esprits forts et flics de la postmodernité jouer avec leurs poussières.) Or, voici un texte particulièrement intéressant à cet égard, que nous comptons utiliser comme une des références pour un prochain F&C consacré à la question que soulève le cas Bannon, du point de vue de notre civilisation et de son destin dans l’arrangement cosmique du monde... Pas moins, chers lecteurs.

Le texte est d’Alastair Crooke, dans Consortium News, le 10 mars. Nous connaissons Crooke que nous avons souvent cité, et qu’il nous est arrivé de rencontrer pour mieux apprécier ses qualités. Nous ferons deux remarques à son propos, qui situeront parfaitement l’appréciation que nous en avons, et par conséquent une façon de voir ce qu'on peut accorder de crédit au texte que nous examinons.

• Cet ancien officier du MI6 devenu conseiller du Haut Représentant de l’UE Solana au début des années 2000, a choisi ensuite la voie très difficile de l’indépendance en créant son institut dit Conflict Forum. Basé au Liban puis replié sur l’Italie, Crooke poursuit un chemin ardu, sans soutien institutionnalisé, caractérisé par une rupture avec la pensée dominante, ditto le Système. Ses positions sont évidemment elles-mêmes en rupture complète avec la doxa-Système et sa carrière nous garantit que ses jugements sont nourris de la rigueur et de l’expérience professionnelles qui lui sont naturelles.

• Crooke est un homme affable et doux, au jugement rationnel et d’une très grande culture, qui a l’habitude d’observer les divers problèmes soulevés par la Grande Crise générale du point de vue d’un érudit particulièrement versé dans les conceptions liées à la pensée de la Tradition. Il est un de ces esprits qui commentent les événements en ayant comme référence les grands courants philosophiques qui l’intéressent. Très grand connaisseur des questions de l’Islam, hors des analyses hystériquement artificielles sur l’“islamisme” extrémisme-terroriste et l’“islamophobie” qui lui répond, – caricature postmoderniste contre caricature postmoderniste, – on peut très bien lors d’une discussion avec lui se trouver entraînés dans une réflexion commune sur le néoplatonisme sans avoir le sentiment de se trouver hors-sujet.

Ce qui passionne Crooke dans la personne de Bannon, et par conséquent dans la sorte d’influence qu’il exercerait sur un Trump qui apparaîtrait lui-même intellectuellement bien plus conséquent qu’on ne croit, c’est la conscience qu’a le personnage de la profondeur vertigineuse de la Grande Crise. L’intérêt que présentent la personnalité et l’expérience de Bannon est qu’il a lui aussi, de son côté, à côté de positions théoriques très marquées, une expérience professionnelle également très marquée des instruments fondamentaux, déstructurants et dissolvants, de la postmodernité et du Système, ; il a en effet travaillé à Hollywood comme scénariste et réalisateur (son film Generation Zero) et à Wall Street, chez Goldman-Sachs, avant de passer à Breitbart.News.

(C’est une démarche courante aujourd’hui, qui demande une grande attention de la psychologie, une grande souplesse de l’esprit et de son jugement. Ce qui peut être d’abord perçu comme des signes de compromission avec le Système du point de vue des antiSystème, peut également, par éventuelle inversion vertueuse et suivant une enquête éclairée, être vu au contraire comme des instruments d’une connaissance éventuellement décisive de l’adversaire, “de l’intérieur”.)

Bannon est extrêmement influencé par les travaux de deux commentateurs de la sorte que nous nommerions “crisologues” tant le concept de crise (crisologie) est au centre de toutes nos réflexions, Neil Howe et William Strauss, auteurs de An American Prophecy, en 1997. Les deux auteurs adoptent une approche de l’actuelle situation,  – la grande Crise se faisant déjà sentir dès la fin du communisme avec la mise en cause radicale de la notion de Progrès, – qui se réfère aux théories cycliques de la Tradition. « [Leur] analyse rejette les promesses des historiens occidentaux modernes de développement social et économie linéaire (progrès continuel et déclin) ou chaotique (trop de complexité pour révéler n’importe quelle direction). Au lieu de cela, ils adoptent la vision d’à peu près toutes les sociétés traditionnelles : que le temps social est un temps cyclique dans lequel les événements sont significatifs seulement dans la mesure où ils sont caractérisés par ce que le philosophe Mircea Eliade nommait “reconstitution”. Dans l’espace cyclique, une fois que vous avez écarté les accidents accessoires et sans signification, ainsi que la technologie, il vous reste un nombre limité de conceptions sociales, qui tendent à se répéter selon un ordre bien fixé... »

Les deux auteurs identifient quatre phases (quatre Turnings) dans le cycle, High, Awakening, Unravelling et Crisis, – étant entendu et étant évident que nous nous trouvons dans une quatrième phase du cycle donné qui voit évoluer notre civilisation et notre destin. Bien entendu, cette schématisation est irrésistiblement identifiable comme étant de type guénonien, c’est-à-dire selon la référence classique, et considérée par Guénon lui-même comme “universelle” du Manvatara hindouiste des quatre âges (Or, Argent, Airain et Fer), et référence effectivement de la Tradition et de toutes les doctrines qui s’y rapportent. Bien entendu encore, cette sorte de conception s’oppose d’une façon fondamentale et universelle à toutes les idées et conceptions de type moderniste. On a là, bien entendu toujours, une clef solide et fort bien ciselée pour expliquer la haine absolument diabolique, – le qualificatif sonne bien et juste, – qui accompagne Trump, son administration, et bien sûr son conseiller Bannon identifié comme le Diable en personne. (Ce qui est somme toute inacceptable comme on le comprend aisément, car il doit être admis que le Diable ne peut supporte ni admettre d’être plagié ni imité de quelque façon que ce soit...)

Dans les conceptions de Bannon, et puisque nous nous trouvons comme toutes les traditions s’accordent à le penser dans une fin de cycle, à la fois crisique et catastrophique, il y a comme une pressante et impérative nécessité d’aller jusqu’au bout de la catastrophe. Il se trouve, observe Crooke, que cette conception rencontre, ou se rapproche en la croisant, de certaines conceptions de Trump lui-même, exprimées dès 2000, selon l’extrême probabilité d’une catastrophe économique, financière et sociale, avec l’idée implicite de la nécessité de cette catastrophe pour parvenir à une sorte de “renaissance”.

(On pourrait penser qu’il y a là une idée qui pourrait aussi bien trouver sa symbolisation triviale dans l’expression que Trump employait pour indiquer qu’il allait attaquer la corruption, le clientélisme, etc., de l’establishment. “Drainer le cloaque” pourrait aussi bien s’appliquer à la nécessité de porter la Grande crise à son extrême catastrophique.)

On comprend l’intérêt de cette analyse, surtout dans le climat actuel qui ne cesse d’évoluer vers un catastrophisme quasiment opérationnel, laissant loin derrière lui les seules craintes de crises parcellaires, n’affectant qu’un seul domaine, et qui sont finalement des crises “rassurantes” pour le Système as a whole (comme celle de l’automne 2008, par exemple). Il y a maintenant plusieurs années qu’on ne mesure plus les possibilités de crise aux seuls chiffres du chômage, de la Bourse ou de la croissance, mais que le sentiment général est celui d’une crise de civilisation en train de se préparer ou déjà en train de se dérouler, affectant par définition tous les domaines, un bouleversement à la fois métahistorique et eschatologique.

La question que soulèvent ces réflexions concerne bien entendu la signification réelle de la politique Trump, ou de ce qu’on perçoit comme étant une antipolitique, sinon une non-politique, – ce qui est un objet de très nombreuses interrogations et supputations depuis deux mois. (Trump est-il prisonnier du Système ? Trump a-t-il capitulé devant le Système ? Trump est-il un faux-nez du Système ? Trump est-il un comploteur ? Trump est-il un crétin? Trump est-il fou ? Etc.) Dans le chef de cette “politique“ qui a les allures d’une non-politique, peut-on concevoir que la politique de Trump soit une démarche volontaire à la finalité aussi vertigineuse, et peut-on concevoir qu’on puisse définir et accomplir une politique qui soit le contraire du concept de politique, accompagnant un processus de destruction-reconstruction, de chaos-renaissance, etc. ? Bien entendu, on voit combien cette sorte d’hypothèse s’accorde avec l’observation que nous faisons souvent du processus de surpuissance-autodestruction caractérisant le Système. Il y a là un courant d’hypothèses qui tend à s’orienter vers les attentes intellectuelles, sinon spirituelles, qu’a fait naître le développement des événements depuis quelques années (depuis 9/11, depuis l’automne 2008, depuis le “printemps arabe” de 2010, et singulièrement depuis le “coup de Kiev” de février 2014 et jusqu’au Brexit et USA-2016 avec Trump).

dedefensa.org

 

Steve Bannon’s Apocalyptic ‘Unravelling’

by Alastair Crooke

Steve Bannon is accustomed to start many of his talks to activists and Tea Party gatherings in the following way: “At 11 o’clock on 18 September 2008, Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke told the U.S. President that they had already stove-piped $500 billions of liquidity into the financial system during the previous 24 hours – but needed a further one Trillion dollars, that same day.

“The pair said that if they did not get it immediately, the U.S. financial system would implode within 72 hours; the world’s financial system, within three weeks; and that social unrest and political chaos could ensue within the month.” (In the end, Bannon notes, it was more like $5 trillion that was required, though no one really knows how much, as there has been no accounting for all these trillions).

“We (the U.S.) have”, he continues, “in the wake of the bailouts that ensued, liabilities of $200 trillions, but net assets – including everything – of some $50-60 trillion.” (Recall that Bannon is himself a former Goldman Sachs banker).

“We are upside down; the industrial democracies today have a problem we have never had before; we are over-leveraged (we have to go through a massive de-leveraging); and we have built a welfare state which is completely and totally unsupportable.

“And why this is a crisis … the problem … is that the numbers have become so esoteric that even the guys on Wall Street, at Goldman Sachs, the guys I work with, and the Treasury guys … It’s so tough to get this together … Trillion dollar deficits … etcetera.”

But, Bannon says — in spite of all these esoteric, unimaginable numbers wafting about — the Tea Party women (and it is mainly led by women, he points out) get it. They know a different reality: they know what groceries now cost, they know their kids have $50,000 in college debt, are still living at home, and see no jobs in prospect: “The reason I called the film Generation Zero is because this generation, the guys in their 20s and 30s: We’ve wiped them out.”

And it’s not just Bannon. A decade earlier, in 2000, Donald Trump was writing in a very similar vein in a pamphlet that marked his first toying with the prospect of becoming a Presidential candidate: “My third reason for wanting to speak out is that I see not only incredible prosperity … but also the possibility of economic and social upheaval … Look towards the future, and if you are like me, you will see storm clouds brewing. Big Trouble. I hope I am wrong, but I think we may be facing an economic crash like we’ve never seen before.”

And before the recent presidential election, Donald Trump kept to this same narrative: the stock market was dangerously inflated. In an interview on CNBC, he said, “I hope I’m wrong, but I think we’re in a big, fat, juicy bubble,” adding that conditions were so perilous that the country was headed for a “very massive recession” and that “if you raise interest rates even a little bit, (everything’s) going to come crashing down.”

The Paradox

And here, precisely, is the paradox: Why — if Trump and Bannon view the economy as already over-leveraged, excess-bubbled, and far too fragile to accommodate even a small interest rate rise — has Trump (in Mike Whitney’s words) “promised  … more treats and less rules for Wall Street … tax cuts, massive government spending, and fewer regulations … $1 trillion in fiscal stimulus to rev up consumer spending and beef up corporate profits … to slash corporate tax rates and fatten the bottom line for America’s biggest businesses. And he’s going to gut Dodd-Frank, the ‘onerous’ regulations that were put in place following the 2008 financial implosion, to prevent another economy-decimating cataclysm.”

Does President Trump see the world differently, now that he is President? Or has he parted company with Bannon’s vision?

Though Bannon is often credited – though most often, by a hostile press, aiming to present Trump (falsely) as the “accidental President” who never really expected to win – as the intellectual force behind President Trump. In fact, Trump’s current main domestic and foreign policies were all presaged, and entirely present, in Trump’s 2000 pamphlet.

In 2000, Bannon was less political, screenwriter Julia Jones, a long-time Bannon collaborator, notes. “But the Sept. 11 attacks,” Ms. Jones says, “changed him” and their Hollywood collaboration did not survive his growing engagement with politics.

Bannon himself pins his political radicalization to his experience of the 2008 Great Financial Crisis. He detested how his Goldman colleagues mocked the Tea Party’s “forgotten” ones. As Ms. Jones sees it, a more reliable key to Bannon’s worldview lies in his military service.

“He has a respect for duty,” she said in early February. “The word he has used a lot is ‘dharma.’” Mr. Bannon found the concept of dharma in the Bhagavad Gita, she recalls. It can describe one’s path in life or one’s place in the universe.

There is no evidence, however, that President Trump either has changed his economic views or that he has diverged in his understanding of the nature of the crisis facing America (and Europe).

Tests Ahead

Both men are very smart. Trump understands business, and Bannon finance. They surely know the headwinds they face: the looming prospect of a wrangle to increase the American $20 trillion “debt ceiling” (which begins to bite on March 15), amid a factious Republican Party, the improbability of the President’s tax or fiscal proposals being enacted quickly, and the likelihood that the Federal Reserve will hike interest rates, “until something breaks.” If they are so smart, what then is going on?

What Bannon has brought to the partnership however, is a clear articulation of the nature of this “crisis” in his Generation Zero film, which explicitly is built around the framework of a book called The Fourth Turning: An American Prophecy, written in 1997 by Neil Howe and William Strauss.

In the words of one of the co-authors, the analysis “rejects the deep premise of modern Western historians that social time is either linear (continuous progress or decline) or chaotic (too complex to reveal any direction). Instead we adopt the insight of nearly all traditional societies: that social time is a recurring cycle in which events become meaningful only to the extent that they are what philosopher Mircea Eliade calls ‘reenactments.’ In cyclical space, once you strip away the extraneous accidents and technology, you are left with only a limited number of social moods, which tend to recur in a fixed order.”

Howe and Strauss write: “The cycle begins with the First Turning, a ‘High’ which comes after a crisis era. In a High, institutions are strong and individualism is weak. Society is confident about where it wants to go collectively, even if many feel stifled by the prevailing conformity.

“The Second Turning is an ‘Awakening,’ when institutions are attacked in the name of higher principles and deeper values. Just when society is hitting its high tide of public progress, people suddenly tire of all the social discipline and want to recapture a sense of personal authenticity.

“The Third Turning is an ‘Unravelling,’ in many ways the opposite of the High. Institutions are weak and distrusted, while individualism is strong and flourishing.

“Finally, the Fourth Turning is a ‘Crisis’ period. This is when our institutional life is reconstructed from the ground up, always in response to a perceived threat to the nation’s very survival. If history does not produce such an urgent threat, Fourth Turning leaders will invariably find one — and may even fabricate one — to mobilize collective action. Civic authority revives, and people and groups begin to pitch in as participants in a larger community. As these Promethean bursts of civic effort reach their resolution, Fourth Turnings refresh and redefine our national identity.” (Emphasis added).

Woodstock Generation

Bannon’s film focuses principally on the causes of the 2008 financial crisis, and on the “ideas” that arose amongst the “Woodstock generation” (the Woodstock musical festival occurred in 1969), that permeated, in one way or another, throughout American and European society.

The narrator calls the Woodstock generation the “Children of Plenty.” It was a point of inflection: a second turning “Awakening”; a discontinuity in culture and values. The older generation (that is, anyone over 30) was viewed as having nothing to say, nor any experience to contribute. It was the elevation of the “pleasure principle” (as a “new” phenomenon, as “their” discovery), over the puritan ethic; It celebrated doing one’s own thing; it was about “Self” and narcissism.

The “Unravelling” followed in the form of government and institutional weakness: the “system” lacked the courage to take difficult decisions. The easy choices invariably were taken: the élites absorbed the self-centered, spoilt-child, ethos of the “me” generation. The 1980s and 1990s become the era of “casino capitalism” and the “Davos man.”

The lavish taxpayer bailouts of the U.S. banks after the Mexican, Russian, Asian and Argentinian defaults and crises washed away the bankers’ costly mistakes. The 2004 Bear Stearns exemption which allowed the big five banks to leverage their lending above 12:1 – and, which quickly extended to become 25:1, 30:1 and even 40:1 – permitted the irresponsible risk-taking and the billions in profit-making. The “Dot Com” bubble was accommodated by monetary policy – and then the massive 2008 bailouts accommodated the banks, yet again.

The “Unravelling” was essentially a cultural failure: a failure of responsibility, of courage to face hard choices – it was, in short, the film suggests, an era of spoilt institutions, compromised politicians and irresponsible Wall Streeters – the incumbent class – indulging themselves, and “abdicating responsibility.”

Now we have entered the “Fourth Turning”: “All the easy choices are back of us.” The “system” still lacks courage. Bannon says this period will be the “nastiest, ugliest in history.” It will be brutal, and “we” (by which he means the Trump Tea Party activists) will be “vilified.” This phase may last 15 – 20 years, he predicts.

Greek Tragedy

The key to this Fourth Turning is “character.” It is about values. What Bannon means by “our crisis” is perhaps best expressed when the narrator says: “the essence of Greek tragedy is that it is not like a traffic accident, where somebody dies [i.e. the great financial crises didn’t just arise by mischance].

The Greek sense is that tragedy is where something happens because it has to happen, because of the nature of the participants. Because the people involved, make it happen. And they have no choice to make it happen, because that’s their nature.”

This is the deeper implication of what transpired from Woodstock: the nature of people changed. The “pleasure principle,” the narcissism, had displaced the “higher” values that had made America what it was. The generation that believed that there was “no risk, no mountain they could not climb” brought this crisis upon themselves. They wiped out 200 years of financial responsibility in about 20 years. This, it appears, captures the essence of Bannon’s thinking.

That is where we are, Bannon asserts: Stark winter inevitably follows, after a warm, lazy summer. It becomes a time of testing, of adversity. Each season in nature has its vital function. Fourth turnings are necessary: they a part of the cycle of renewal.

Bannon’s film concludes with author Howe declaring: “history is seasonal and winter is coming,”

And, what is the immediate political message? It is simple, the narrator of Bannon’s film says: “STOP”: stop doing what you were doing. Stop spending like before. Stop taking on spending commitments that cannot be afforded. Stop mortgaging your children’s future with debt. Stop trying to manipulate the banking system. It is a time for tough thinking, for saying “no” to bailouts, for changing the culture, and re-constructing institutional life.

Cultural Legacy

And how do you re-construct civic life? You look to those who still possess a sense of duty and responsibility – who have retained a cultural legacy of values. It is noticeable that when Bannon addresses the activists, almost the first thing he does is to salute the veterans and serving officers, and praise their qualities, their sense of duty.

It is no surprise then that President Trump wants to increase both the veterans’ and the military’s budget. It is not so much a portent of U.S. military belligerence, but more that he sees them as warriors for the coming “winter” of testing and adversity. Then, and only then does Bannon speak to the “thin blue line” of activists who still have strength of character, a sense of responsibility, of duty. He tells them that the future rests in their hands, alone.

Does this sound like men – Bannon and Trump – who want to ramp up a fresh financial bubble, to indulge the Wall Street casino (in their words)? No? So, what is going on?

They know “the crisis” is coming. Let us recall what Neil Howe wrote in the Washington Post concerning the “Fourth Turning”:

“This is when our institutional life is reconstructed from the ground up, always in response to a perceived threat to the nation’s very survival. If history does not produce such an urgent threat, Fourth Turning leaders will invariably find one — and may even fabricate one — to mobilize collective action. Civic authority revives, and people and groups begin to pitch in as participants in a larger community. As these Promethean bursts of civic effort reach their resolution, Fourth Turnings refresh and redefine our national identity.”

Trump has no need to “fabricate” a financial crisis. It will happen “because it has to happen, because of the nature of the participants (in the current ‘system’). Because the people involved, make it happen. And they have no choice to make it happen, because that’s their nature.”

It is not even President Obama’s or Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson’s fault, per se. They are just who they are.

Trump and Bannon therefore are not likely trying to ignite the “animal spirits” of the players in the financial “casino” (as many in the financial sphere seem to assume). If Bannon’s film and Trump’s articulation of crisis mean anything, it is that their aim is to ignite the “animal spirits” of “the working-class casualties and those forgotten Americans” of the Midwest, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

At that point, they hope that the “thin blue line” of activists will “pitch in” with a Promethean burst of civic effort which will reconstruct America’s institutional and economic life.

If this is so, the Trump/Bannon vision both is audacious – and quite an extraordinary gamble …

Alastair Crooke

L’antirussisme à la lumière de George Orwell

L’antirussisme à la lumière de George Orwell

par Nicolas Bonnal

Ex: http://www.dedefensa.org

Le général de Gaulle disait à Alain Peyrefitte sur cette rivalité russo-américaine qui l’énervait quelque peu : « les deux super-grands s’entendent comme larrons en foire. »

C’est l’historien Charles Beard qui a parlé au moment de la lugubre présidence Truman d’une guerre perpétuelle pour une paix perpétuelle. La guerre perpétuelle est celle que mène à tout moment l’Amérique dans telle ou telle partie du monde. Les Etats-Unis ont mené dans le monde 200 conflits comme l’a montré Oliver Stone dans son angoissant documentaire. Sept conflits ont été menés sous le prix Nobel de la paix Obama qui cherche à retourner au pouvoir ; son successeur intérimaire Donald Trump fait déjà la guerre au Yémen et menace l’Iran. Ensuite on verra. Pour prouver qu’il n’est pas un agent russe, Trump déclarera la guerre à la Russie !

La paix perpétuelle consiste à faire de ce monde libre un monde sûr pour la démocratie - dixit Woodrow Wilson qui laissa bolchévisme et fascisme s’installer en Europe ; ses héritiers ont imposé l’islamisme aux musulmans.

Revenons en 2017, cent ans après l’entrée en guerre des USA le 2 avril 1917.

Le pentagone a eu ses 84 milliards de rallonge et c’est très bien comme ça. On aura peut-être les guerres que désire l’Etat profond US, quoique George Orwell soit d’un autre avis. Car un autre historien, Harry Elmer Barnes, a établi en 1953 un lien entre la politique US (l’Amérique a la rage disait alors Sartre, aujourd’hui tout le monde la célèbre) et 1984.
Le livre de George Orwell redevient un bestseller, il y a de quoi. Souvenez-vous des déclarations hystériques du général Mad Dog Mathis au sénat sur la menace existentielle que font peser la Chine et la Russie sur l’Océanie orwellienne, pardon sur l’Amérique et son chenil européen peu éclairé en ces temps derniers.

Orwell a basé son Océanie sur l’Oceana de John Harrington un écrivain contemporain de Cromwell (il y a Orwell dans Cromwell) et inspiré par le modèle du sanhédrin et de l’oligarchie vénitienne. Orwell voit l’Océanie se heurter à Eurasia (la Russie) et à Estasie, une Asie unifiée par la Chine. Cela donne :

« … à ce moment, on annonça qu’après tout l’Océania n’était pas en guerre contre l’Eurasia. L’Océania était en guerre contre l’Estasia. L’Eurasia était un allié.  Il n’y eut naturellement aucune déclaration d’un changement quelconque. On apprit simplement, partout à la fois, avec une extrême soudaineté, que l’ennemi c’était l’Estasia et non l’Eurasia. »

Puis Orwell explique qu’on est toujours en guerre, ou en guéguerre (la Chine et la Russie sont pour l’Océanie US ou la France socialiste de plus gros morceaux à avaler que la Libye) contre des rivaux diabolisés par la bureaucratie de la haine.

« Groupés d’une façon ou d’une autre, ces trois super-États sont en guerre d’une façon permanente depuis vingt-cinq ans. La guerre, cependant, n’est plus la lutte désespérée jusqu’à l’anéantissement qu’elle était dans les premières décennies du vingtième siècle. C’est une lutte dont les buts sont limités, entre combattants incapables de se détruire l’un l’autre, qui n’ont pas de raison matérielle de se battre et ne sont divisés par aucune différence idéologique véritable.»

Cette interminable mais parfois léthale phony war sert à maintenir quiète la masse russe ou américaine plutôt pauvre. Voyez ce qui en résulte avec 93 millions d’adultes sans emploi et 50% de la population active à moins de trente mille dollars par an, une misère avec l’exorbitant coût de la vie US.

« Le but primordial de la guerre moderne, ajoute George Orwell dans son long chapitre IX de la deuxième partie, est de consommer entièrement les produits de la machine sans élever le niveau général de la vie. Le problème était de faire tourner les roues de l’industrie sans accroître la richesse réelle du monde. Des marchandises devaient être produites, mais non distribuées. En pratique, le seul moyen d’y arriver était de faire continuellement la guerre (…). L’acte essentiel de la guerre est la destruction, pas nécessairement de vies humaines, mais des produits du travail humain. »

La guerre aussi permet à l’oligarchie de s’enrichir (Silicon Valley, Lockheed, Booz Allen, Boeing, CIA, NSA, Goldman Sachs, Fed, Hollywood, Marvel). Orwell encore :

« En même temps, la conscience d’être en guerre, et par conséquent en danger, fait que la possession de tout le pouvoir par une petite caste semble être la condition naturelle et inévitable de survie. »

La guerre permet surtout de contrôler la population ; voyez Henry IV de Shakespeare et ces querelles à l’étranger (foreign quarrels) pour occuper les esprits agités (to keep busy giddy minds).

Comme vu chez Thucydide, le public se soumet au pouvoir en se soumettant à la guerre :

« Fanatique, crédule, ignorant… En d’autres mots, il est nécessaire qu’il ait la mentalité appropriée à l’état de guerre. Peu importe que la guerre soit réellement déclarée et, puisque aucune victoire décisive n’est possible, peu importe qu’elle soit victorieuse ou non. Tout ce qui est nécessaire, c’est que l’état de guerre existe. »

La folie de Mad Dog Mathis est aussi expliquée par Orwell. On sait dans le Deep State que ni la Russie ni la Chine ne sont dangereuses. On n’en est donc que plus hystérique. Orwell:

« C’est précisément dans le Parti intérieur que l’hystérie de guerre et la haine de l’ennemi sont les plus fortes. Il est souvent nécessaire à un membre du Parti intérieur de savoir qu’un paragraphe ou un autre des nouvelles de la guerre est faux et il lui arrive souvent de savoir que la guerre entière est apocryphe, soit qu’elle n’existe pas, soit que les motifs pour lesquels elle est déclarée soient tout à fait différents de ceux que l’on fait connaître. Mais une telle connaissance est neutralisée par la technique de la doublepensée. »

Mathis doit en rajouter.

Orwell établit :

« Aucun des trois super-États ne tente jamais un mouvement qui impliquerait le risque d’une défaite sérieuse. Quand une opération d’envergure est entreprise, c’est généralement une attaque par surprise contre un allié. »

Orwell rassure sur ces tontons flingueurs. On ne défouraille plus. La guerre ne serait plus dangereuse.

« Tant que les guerres pouvaient se gagner ou se perdre, aucune classe dirigeante ne pouvait être entièrement irresponsable. Mais quand la guerre devient continuelle, elle cesse aussi d’être dangereuse. Il n’y a plus de nécessité militaire quand la guerre est permanente. Le progrès peut s’arrêter et les faits les plus patents peuvent être niés ou négligés. »

Et on jouerait à la guéguerre avec 666 milliards par an alors ? Ces bases militaires sont des parcs d’attraction ? Et Philippe Grasset qui nous parle d’incapacité opérationnelle US systémique !

Par contre Orwell évoque la police de la pensée ; un coup de Decodex ici, un impeachment pour le candidat sibérien là, une omniprésence des bandeaux info dictés par la CIA partout.

« L’efficience, même l’efficience militaire, n’est plus nécessaire. En Océanie, sauf la Police de la Pensée, rien n’est efficient. »

L’inefficacité militaire US fut évoquée ici : on ne voit pas les USA et la valetaille croisée défier de vraies puissances. Orwell :

« La guerre donc, si nous la jugeons sur le modèle des guerres antérieures, est une simple imposture. Elle ressemble aux batailles entre certains ruminants dont les cornes sont plantées à un angle tel qu’ils sont incapables de se blesser l’un l’autre. Mais, bien qu’irréelle, elle n’est pas sans signification. Elle dévore le surplus des produits de consommation et elle aide à préserver l’atmosphère mentale spéciale dont a besoin une société hiérarchisée. »

L’antirussisme a un seul but clair : le renforcement de cette oligarchie et de son emprise sur son monde.

Sources

Guerre du Péloponnèse, I

1984, deuxième partie, chapitre IX

Perpetual war for perpetual peace; the costs of war (Mises.org)

Harrington, Oceana (Gutenberg.org)

Peyrefitte – c’était de Gaulle

Shakespeare, Henry IV, part 2, act 4, sc. 5

Therefore, my Harry,

Be it thy course to busy giddy minds

With foreign quarrels, that action, hence borne out,

May waste the memory of the former days

José Javier Esparza "De la nueva Derecha a la "alt-right"

José Javier Esparza

"De la nueva Derecha a la "alt-right"

seminario metapolítica

Ponencia de José Javier Esparza en el Seminario de metapolítica 2017:
"De la nueva Derecha a la "alt-right"
www.seminariometapolitica.wordpress.com

Saudi Arabia and the US are Spreading Anti-Iranian Hysteria for a Reason

Viktor Mikhin

 

Saudi Arabia and the US are Spreading Anti-Iranian Hysteria for a Reason

 

Ex: http://journal-neo.org 

Not a day goes by without Washington voicing new threats against Iran. Apparently, while not having enough power to “punish” Russia, Europe or Israel, the new administration decided to go after Iran by making a boogeyman out of it. It’s been noted that the tensions between the US and Iran have been purposefully mounted. Moreover, the initiator and the driving force behind this recent crisis, as political observers unanimously agree, is the United States.

For example, Republican senators have already announced their plans to pass a bill that will introduce new sanctions against Iran, while accusing it of violating a number of UN Security Council resolutions by launching ballistic missiles and allegedly attempting to seek the destabilization of the Middle East. This was stated by Senator Lindsey Graham, a member of the Armed Services Committee, at the Munich Security Conference. The Senator added that he was convinced that it was time for the Congress to examine Iran’s steps outside of its nuclear program, while taking tough measures for Tehran’s steps that did not go in tune with Washington’s policies. The West is also going to introduce sanctions against those individuals that are assisting Iran in developing ballistic missiles, and those who are engaged in the sectors of the Iranian economy that directly or indirectly support this area.

Last month, the Pentagon announced that the US military forces in the Persian Gulf were brought “to the highest state of readiness”, while explaining this step by the deteriorating relations with Iran. This was yet another anti-Iranian step made by the Trump administration. A few days before that, the United States expanded sanctions against Tehran, adding 13 individuals and 12 companies to their blacklist. It went so far that Washington has declared Iran a terrorist state without any explanation provided. At the same time, the state of Saudi Arabia, where women are often stoned in the streets women and convicts being publicly beheaded, which funds a wide range of terrorist organizations hasn’t been labeled as a terrorist state.

Interestingly enough, many experts believe that Washington in the pursuit of its anti-Iranian policies would seek ways to strike a deal with Russia, by using the deployment of its missile defence systems in Europe as a bargain chip. It may also try to propose its recognition of Russia’s interests in the Caucasus, Ukraine and the Balkans in exchange for Moscow’s non-interference in the future conflict with Iran. As for Beijing it’s going to be promised cheap oil imports and the opportunity to invest in the future pro-Western Iran’s economy in exchange for its non-intervention in a hypothetical war with Iran.

At the same time Washington is seeking ways to draw Saudi Arabia in its anti-Iranian plans, since it has always been Tehran’s main competitor in the region. This won’t be a hard task since Saudi Arabia is always willing to oppose Iran whenever it’s possible. Should Iran be taken down, Saudi Arabia will have the option of levering influence in the oil markets along with the situation in Syria. Saudi Arabia has also been undermining Iran’s interests in Yemen, where the so-called coalition, led by Saudi Arabia destroys villages and cities, while killing elder, women and children. Saudi Arabia would strongly prefer that Iran ceases to exist as an independent state. It’s clear that such fascist policies must be condemned by the world.

From this perspective, the Saudis follow the principle invented by Goebbels – the greater the lie, the more loudly you support it, hoping the international community will believe anything. For example, none other than the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Saudi Arabia, Adel al-Jubeir accused Iran of organizing the illegal supply of the opposition forces in Yemen and the financial support of international terrorism. We are facing here with the state support of terrorism, the high-profile Iranian diplomat said, noting that Iran is the only country in the region where ISIS hasn’t committed terrorist acts. But one must ask why the Saudi Arabia, that is being accused by of betraying the interests of Islam, for some reason, hasn’t witnessed any terrorist attacks in its territory. While it’s considerably harder to organize those in Iran than in Saudi Arabia. As of now Riyadh is financing and supplying with weapons all sorts of terrorist organizations. But sooner or later, those terrorist will come to Saudi soil and then Riyadh will have little to no time for questions.

Adel al-Jubeir has also recently urged Tehran to change its behavior and principles, pointing out that otherwise, it will be difficult for other states to deal with such a country. The top Saudi dimplomat is convinced that we can not ignore the fact that their constitution calls for the export of revolution , adding that Iran violates the principle of noninterference in the affairs of other states and refuses to comply with international law. In other words, Saudi is trying to dictate to other countries how to run their own affairs.. Apparently, after accumulating an enormous wealth, which no longer exists today, some politicians cannot think straight.

As for Iran it is conducting peaceful policies and tries to establish good relations with its neighbors in the Gulf region. It is in this light that the recent visit of Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani to Oman and Kuwait can be regarded. It is a key objective for the Iranian president was to restore diplomatic relations with Kuwait and monarchies of the region, including Saudi Arabia. A number of the Persian Gulf monarchies have withdrawn their ambassadors from Tehran last January, after an angry mob assaulted the Saudi Embassy in Tehran. The riots that led to this assault were cause by the execution of a well-known Shia cleric in Saudi Arabia.

If we take into account that Kuwait is like the north of the Persian Gulf and Oman – in the south, it becomes clear that Iranians tries to outmaneuver Saudi Arabia diplomatically. In addition, Qatar, though an Arab country, but its leaders have always been competing with its powerful neighbor. In addition, moreover Qatar and Saudi Arabia have territorial disputes.

In addition, the northern neighbor of Saudi Arabia- Syria has been bled dry by its furious opposition to terrorists and radical gangsters that have been infiltrating its territory for years. Any terrorist organization, which is not today, then tomorrow will be pushed out from the Syrian territory, may, and probably will land in the Saudi territory.

At the same time, Tehran has been clearly showing that any attempts to intimidate it will not bring any desired results to the aggressors. According to Iran’s foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, the positive results can only be achieved through dialogue and mutual respect. M. Zarif said on behalf of his government that his country is not seeking the possession of nuclear weapons, since it doesn’t increase the security of a state.

Tehran, finding itself in such a difficult position, has been trying to establish strategic relations with Russia, which is being perceived in Iran as the guarantor of peace and tranquility in the region. In this connection it may be recalled, that along with Iran, Russia and Turkey are the guarantor of the truce in Syria, where the armed struggle has been raging for six years. Should peace be finally achieved in Syria, it will result in the greater stability of the Middle Eastern region.

Viktor Mikhin, a member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.“

http://journal-neo.org/2017/03/05/saudi-arabia-and-the-us...

Discussion with Keith Preston on Pan-Secession

AllNationsParty

From Attackthesystem:
http://attackthesystem.com/2013/05/05...

ANP Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/AllNationsParty

ANP Twitter:
https://twitter.com/AllNationsParty

 

Green in Pacific Northwest: New Europe (White Nationalist)
Black in Mississippi Delta: New Africa (Black Nationalist)
Brown along the southwest: Aztlan (Mestizo Nationalist)
Rose red in north center: Lakota (Native American)
Rose red in eastern Oklahoma: Eastern Oklahoma (Native American)

Light blue in north center: Dakota (Northern Christian State)
Light grey in south center: Kiowa (Southern Christian State)
Beige around Utah: Deseret (Mormon State)

Purple around New Hampshire: Libertarian Republic of New Hampshire
Green around Vermont: Vermont
Beige around Hawaii: Hawaii
Green around Alaska: Alaska
Orange around New York City: New York City
Hot purple around Texas: Texas

Purple around Colorado and Wyoming: Libertarian Republic
Dark Red around great lakes: Democratic States of America
Bright Red in northeast: Progressive States of America
Dark blue in southeast: Republican States of America
Yellow around west coast: Pacific Commonwealth

Light Blue along southeast coast: United States of America (rump state)

The names "Kiowa" and "Dakota" are based on native american tribes that used to live in those areas.

Deseret is the name of a state actually proposed by the Mormon Church in 1849, not something I just made up.

Though the names themselves aren't terribly important. They're more placeholders than anything else.

I made this map after hours of looking up religious, racial, and political statistics in maps and states. It also takes into account contiguity. I look at the size of general political nations, where they are most concentrated, and treat those areas as national regions.

I understand that libertarians (real libertarians, not people who say they are "socially liberal and fiscally conservative", but people who ACTUALLY ARE socially liberal and fiscally conservative), for example, while perhaps 7-8% of the US population, don't have a national region, or any area in which they are a majority. So we take the area where they are closest to a majority that is not best served in some other country, center their new nation on that area, and expand out from there based on the number of libertarians across the entire US.

If your brain is not subtle or nuanced enough to understand that, please just go away. Your input is NOT appreciated.

And I am NOT interested in some map your just pulled out of your ass in a single hour or so, or some pop-crap partition based on ecology or what you think people believe as opposed to what they actually believe.

A Review of The Great Purge: The Deformation of the Conservative Movement

Where Conservatism Went Wrong:
A Review of The Great Purge: The Deformation of the Conservative Movement

By Spencer Quinn

Ex: http://www.counter-currents.com 

Review:

Paul E. Gottfried & Richard B. Spencer (eds.)
The Great Purge: The Deformation of the Conservative Movement ^[2]
Arlington, Va.: Washington Summit Publishers, 2015

All political movements need a history, and such histories, if well-constructed, almost always coalesce into myth. Once mythologized, a movement’s past can inform its present members about its reason for being, its need for continuing, and its plans for the future. And this can be accomplished quickly – and without the need for study or research – in the form of what Edmund Burke called “prejudice.” “Prejudice,” Burke says ^[3], “is of ready application in the emergency; it previously engages the mind in a steady course of wisdom and virtue, and does not leave the man hesitating in the moment of decision, skeptical, puzzled, and unresolved.”

Prejudice is a time-saver, in other words, and it puts everyone on the same page. These are two invaluable things for any movement which aims to effect political change. For those who wish to participate in any of the various factions of the Alt Right and learn its history and myth, they do not need to go much farther than The Great Purge: The Deformation of the Conservative Movement.

Edited by Paul Gottfried of the H. L. Menken Club and Richard Spencer of Radix Journal, The Great Purge discusses the march of the once-mighty American conservative movement towards the abject irrelevance it faces today. This took about fifty years, but the villains of this inquisition managed to purge conservatism of its conservatives and replace them with a globalist elite which kowtows to political correctness. The villains, of course, are National Review founder and publisher William F. Buckley (an unflattering photo of whom graces the book’s cover) and a cabal of refugees from the Left known as “neoconservatives.” The Great Purge, as Spencer tells us, is less a “full chronicling of these purges,” and more a “phenomenological history of conservatism. It seeks to understand how its ideology . . . functioned within its historic context and how it responded to power, shifting conceptions of authority, and societal changes.”

The book presents seven essays, with a foreword by Spencer and an afterward by VDARE.com founder and former National Review writer Peter Brimelow. In between, we have essays from established Dissident Right luminaries such as Gottfried, William Regnery, and John Derbyshire. Sam Francis, perhaps one of the godfathers of the Alt Right, who passed away in 2005, contributes a comprehensive and quite useful philosophical treatise on how mainstream conservatism devolved into the toothless friend of the Left it has become today. Rounding out the remainder is American Revolutionary Vanguard founder Keith Preston, professor and writer Lee Congdon, and independent author and scholar James Kalb.

So, according to myth, William F. Buckley founded his conservative magazine National Review in the mid-1950s and revitalized a flagging conservative ideology. At the time, liberalism in its various forms enjoyed near-complete hegemony in academia, enough to prompt scholar Lionel Trilling by mid-century to announce that conservatism, at least as it had been embodied by what we now call the Old Right, was dead. Buckley, along with other conservative thinkers such as Russell Kirk and popular authors like Ayn Rand, proved that reports of conservatism’s death were a tad overstated. Thanks to Buckley, conservatism now had the intellectual heft to resist the Left, both foreign and domestic. As Spencer describes it, this entailed promoting free-market capitalism over Soviet Communism, erecting the Christian West as a bulwark against Soviet atheism, and pushing for an aggressive foreign policy both to thwart Soviet militarism and promote the interests of Israel. The New Right was born.

Enter the neocons. Disenchanted by the manifest failures of Communism, these former Leftists, led by Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz, began testing the waters in conservative circles by the 1970s. The neocons shared much of the New Right’s anti-Soviet belligerence and loyalty towards Israel. Having given up on the New Deal and other big-government initiatives, the neocons were equally uncomfortable with free-market capitalism. Sam Francis quotes Irving Kristol at length, describing how the welfare state should not be eradicated, but altered to create a “social insurance state.”

Most importantly, the neocons promoted a Wilsonian “global and cosmopolitan world order” which sought to greatly increase America’s role in foreign affairs, often through military interventionism. In particular, democracy was the great talisman which could civilize the world – whether the world wanted to be civilized or not. Bolstered by their faith in the Democratic Peace Theory, which posits that democracies do not wage war upon each other, the neocons transferred the messianic fervor of Communism to democratization and never looked back. Lee Congdon’s entire essay. “Wars to End War,” rails against such “morality-driven foreign policy” and how it co-opted conservatism almost completely. “Pluralism, (human) rights, and democracy,” as stated by Charles Krauthammer, became something of a rallying cry for the neocons. Against such high-minded egalitarianism, which opened the door for feminism, gay rights, race-mixing, and other by-products of democratic freedom, the traditional conservative arguments began to crumble.

Congdon quotes Pat Buchanan as defending true conservatism when he wrote in 2006 that America is bound together by “the bonds of history and memory, tradition and custom, language and literature, birth and faith, blood and soil.” This is an outright rejection of the neocon claim of America being a “proposition nation” in which citizens are “bound by ideals that move us beyond our backgrounds,” to quote George W. Bush from his first inaugural address. Essentially, if you believed in putting America first, or had no interest in foreign wars, or took the libertarian ideal of limited government seriously, or (most importantly) professed a tribal or familial fealty to the white race, then you had no place among the neocons or in the New Right.

And there to police you and expunge you into the wilderness, if need be, was none other than Mr. Buckley himself.

Both Paul Gottfried and William Regnery provide first-hand accounts of the purges, as well as some historical perspective on them. For example, according to Gottfried, Buckley banished the John Birch Society from respectable conservatism in the 1960s not because of anti-Semitism, but because the Birchers expressed insufficient hawkishness against the North Vietnamese and in the Cold War in general. This point is echoed later in the volume by Keith Preston. It seems that any anti-Semitic aspect in the early victims of the purge was purely incidental.

That didn’t remain the case, of course. What I find most striking and ironic about The Great Purge is that the “racist” infractions of many of the purge victims were so slight, so indirect, and so buried in one’s past that to summarily expurgate a person on those grounds required almost Soviet levels of behind-the-scenes machinations and ruthlessness. Gottfried explains that his offense was to merely assume a leadership role in the H.L. Menken Club, which gives a platform to people “who stress hereditary cognitive differences.” For this, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) severed all ties with him. Another example is Joe Sobran, who was labeled an anti-Semite by Buckley and banished from the National Review in the late 1980s because, as Gottfried explains, Sobran “noticed the shifting meaning of ‘anti-Semite,’ from someone who hates Jews to someone who certain Jews in high places don’t like.”

William Regnery relates how he had been banished from the ISI as well, an organization to which his grandfather, father, and uncles had very close ties for many years. Regnery’s offense? He spoke at an American Renaissance study group in 2005 and promoted “building a sense of racial unity.” For this, he faced an anonymous charge from ISI and was tried among his peers, only one of whom voted to keep him on. Seventeen voted to expel him, and expelled he was.

Another person who pops up a lot in The Great Purge is Jason Richwine, a junior researcher who lost his job at the Heritage Foundation in 2013. It was discovered that his approved doctoral thesis from years earlier contained a fully supported statistic which pointed to the lower than average IQ of many immigrant groups. For this, and for fear of causing too much consternation among Leftist elites, the Heritage Foundation determined that Richwine had to go, his permanently sullied reputation notwithstanding. Certainly, mainstream conservatives know how and when to eat their own – unlike the Left, of course. As Regnery aptly points out, “Media Matters would never have cashiered a researcher on the strength of conservative ire.”

This only cracks the surface of the damage the Bill Buckley mentality has done to the Right over the years. John Derbyshire and Peter Brimelow relate how their more deliberate infractions got them evicted from the movement. Keith Preston describes how, despite the New Right’s professed desire to limit government, it did absolutely nothing to stop its near-exponential growth. In The Great Purge, Buckley and his epigones are called nearly every name in the book, from cowardly to cannibalistic, yet Regnery attributes much of this betrayal to something a little more mundane: complacency. Buckley and his people were simply unwilling to give up their cushy lifestyles in order to combat the Left in any meaningful way. As a result, they put tight leashes on anyone who did.

Perhaps the biggest surprise in this volume is the thirty-five page essay from Sam Francis, which was written back in 1986. Francis, who suffered his own purge from The Washington Times in the 1990s thanks to Dinesh D’Souza, provides a philosophical vocabulary to explain the fall of conservatism in America. It was the slow usurpation of the Old Right, in other words “traditionalist and bourgeois ideologies, centering on the individual as moral agent, citizen, and economic actor” by a “managerial elite” which did in conservatism. This “managerial humanism,” according to Francis, espoused

a collectivist view of the state and economy and advocated a highly centralized regime largely unrestrained by traditional legal, constitutional, and political barriers. It rejected or regarded as backward, repressive, or obsolete the institutions and values of traditional and bourgeois society – its loyalties to the local community, traditional religion and moral beliefs, the family and social and political differentiation based on class, status, and property – and it articulated an ideal of man “liberated” from such constraints and re-educated or redesigned into a cosmopolitan participant in the mass state economy of the managerial system.

This certainly is an apt description of the Left, and as more and more neocons joined the conservative movement, the more apparent it became that they were bringing this managerial humanism along with them. This cultural shift, of course, had deleterious effects across the board for the Right, not least of which was separating it from its stated purpose and weakening its resolve to combat change. In characteristic form, Francis ends his essay with a prediction, this one quite dire:

If neoconservative co-optation and the dynamics of the continuing managerial revolution deflect the American Right from [its] goal, the result will not be the renaissance of America and the West but the continuation and eventual fulfillment of the goals of their most ancient enemies.

If The Great Purge has any flaws, it’s of omission, which isn’t really a flaw since Spencer copped to it in his Foreword. This book is not a history, but rather a collection of reminiscences and musings on the state of the Right. So, it’s not surprising that many things are left out. Still, I wish more detail had been provided in places. It is possible, for example, that there was more to the Sobran affair than what Gottfried and others provide. Sobran’s split with Buckley may have spoken as much to Buckley’s sincere philo-Semitism and his desire not to appear anti-Semitic as it did to Sobran’s desire (or need) to speak out against Israel. The whole thorny issue of whether or not this constitutes anti-Semitism was covered thoroughly (and perhaps ad nauseum) in In Search of Anti-Semitism ^[4], Buckley’s 1992 recounting of the affair. But it would have been nice to hear a different perspective from one who was around back then.

Further, The Great Purge seems to let Buckley off the hook for not banishing the John Birch Society because of anti-Semitism, yet fails to mention (at least in my reading) any mention of Buckley’s early purge of writers from The American Mercury, which was, in Buckley’s words, “anti-Semitic.” Therefore, Buckley showed his philo-Semitic stripes early on, and that may have informed some of his attitude vis-a-vis the John Birch Society.

The Jewish Question in general is also never explored. While not absolutely necessary to the subject, I’m sure it would have been interesting at the very least, given how eighty to ninety percent of the neoconservatives named in the book are obviously Jewish. Really, it’s impossible not to notice the nigh-homogeneous ethnic makeup of the neocons who appear over and over in The Great Purge like a gang of irrepressible supervillains. Such a list renders parenthesis-echoing utterly superfluous: Irving Kristol, Norman Podheretz, Charles Krauthammer, David Frum, Daniel Bell, Nathan Glazer, Seymour Lipset, Ben Wattenberg, Elliott Abrams, Michael Ledeen, Max Boot, David Gerlenter, Allen Weinstein, William Kristol, Robert Kagan, and Paul Wolfowitz.

You could practically host a baseball game with such a lineup. And is it all a huge coincidence? Well, I guess we’ll just have to wait for the sequel to find out.

In the meantime, however, The Great Purge does a magnificent job of myth-making for the Alt Right. It spells out our origins and purpose, and describes the challenges and betrayals the older generation of conservatives had to face while remaining true to the nationalist, traditionalist, and racialist ideals which made Western civilization great to begin with. Most importantly, The Great Purge shows what happens when you give up on winning and instead compromise with the enemy. You eventually become him. And at no point will your pettiness and spite become more apparent than when you turn on your own.

Related 

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

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2017/02/where-conservatism-went-wrong/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: https://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/2-20-17-1.jpg

[2] The Great Purge: The Deformation of the Conservative Movement: http://amzn.to/2meCuPd

[3] says: https://books.google.co.in/books?id=92AIAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA130&lpg=PA130&dq=%22and+does+not+leave+the+man+hesitating+in+the+moment+of+decision%22&source=bl&ots=OGHbkM9vXL&sig=Ghby2bcwjX2pVS70u5d-hm4ouMc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjU6p2Y5p7SAhXG1RQKHVPkD0MQ6AEIMTAG#v=onepage&q=%22and%20does%20not%20leave%20the%20man%20hesitating%20in%20the%20moment%20of%20decision%22&f=false

[4] In Search of Anti-Semitism: http://amzn.to/2kEivgE

Conférence annuelle de Sécurité: Trump fait arrière toute

par Jean-Paul Baquiast

Ex: http://www.europesolidaire.eu 

Cette conférence se tient à Munich du 17 au 19 Février. Même si le compte-rendu complet des débats n'est pas encore disponible à la date où cet article est écrit, les participants ont enregistré un recul radical de la diplomatie américaine concernant le désir précédemment annoncé de Donald Trump de se rapprocher de Moscou et de prendre ses distances vis-à-vis de l'Otan.

 

La conférence a rassemblé plus de 500 décideurs provenant du monde entier, 25 chefs d'Etat et de gouvernement, 80 ministres des affaires étrangères et de la défense. Si Donald Trump n'y a pas personnellement participé, les Etats-Unis y ont envoyé d''importantes délégations provenant de l'Administration et du Congrès. L'objet en a été, comme pour les précédentes, de discuter des enjeux internationaux de sécurité. Classiquement, parmi ces menaces, est évoquée celle que « fait peser la Russie sur la paix du monde ». La conférence a toujours été, en effet, d'esprit atlantiste et anti-russe. Celle de février 2017 n'a pas dérogé à la règle.

La délégation américaine était très attendue. Allait-elle faire entendre un son un peu discordant. Il n'en a rien été. Le secrétaire de la défense James “Mad Dog” Mattis a rassuré les « occidentaux », et notamment les Européens. Il a dénoncé la présence d'un « arc d'instabilité » s'étant établie à la périphérie de l'Otan et au delà, soit le Moyen-Orient et l'Afrique du Nord. Même s'il n'a pas clairement désigner les responsables de cet arc d'instabilité, chacun a compris qu'il s'agissait de la Russie et de l'Iran.

Il a ajouté que la sécurité de l'Amérique est en permanence attachée à celle de l'Europe. Par ailleurs, il a reconnu avoir un « grand respect » pour le leadership allemand en Europe. Il s'est inscrit ainsi en contradiction avec les affirmations précédentes de Trump dénonçant l'Otan comme obsolète et demandant à ses membres d'accroitre sensiblement leur contribution. Trump avait par ailleurs précédemment présenté l'Union européenne comme un « consortium » au service des intérêts allemands.

Dans la suite de la démission forcée du conseiller à la Sécurité Michael Flynn, suspecté d'intelligence avec la Russie, Mattis à Munich et parallèlement le secrétaire d'Etat Tillerson au sommet du G2 qui s'était précédemment tenu à Bonn, ont indiqué que Washington n'envisageait aucune perspective de rapprochement significatif avec Moscou. Les Etats-Unis d'ailleurs n'ont en rien ralenti le déploiement des 4.000 hommes s'ajoutant aux forces de l'Otan à la frontière de la Russie.

Concernant le Moyen Orient, Tillerson a précisé à ses homologues français, britannique, saoudien et turc qu'aucune coopération avec la Russie ne serait envisageable tant que celle-ci ne se distancierait pas de Bashar al Assad et continuait à l'aider dans sa lutte contre les prétendus « rebelles modérés » soutenus par eux. Ceci serait évidemment totalement envisageable par Moscou, pour qui l'alliance avec Damas est un incontournable géostratégique.

Parallèlement, l'ultra-néoconservateur sénateur John McCain, présent à Munich, s'est fait remarquer par une mise en cause radicale des positions précédemment affichées vis à vis de la Russie par Flynn, Mattis, John Kelly et le vice-Président Mike Pence. Il a salué leur retour à plus de raison.

Cette conférence de Munich met en lumière aux yeux du monde l'incapacité où se trouve désormais Donald Trump de définir et maintenir une position diplomatique quelque peu différente et moins catastrophique que celle jusqu'ici soutenue par Obama. Faut-il y voir le fait qu'il cède consciencieusement et par intérêt aux forces bellicistes bipartisanes qui avaient soutenu Obama et Hillary Clinton? Faut-il y voir, comme beaucoup le disent, une nouvelle preuve de son incapacité à gérer des dossiers complexes et à résister à tous ceux, y compris parmi ses ministres, qui veulent le voir rentrer dans le rang?

Références

https://www.securityconference.de/en/

https://www.securityconference.de/en/news/article/what-is...

Jean Paul Baquiast

L’allarme di Brzezinski sul risveglio sociale

L’allarme di Brzezinski sul risveglio sociale

Felice Capretta

tratto da www.clubcapretta.it

La presa di consapevolezza collettiva e i social network sono una minaccia per lo sviluppo dell’agenda globale… Durante un recente discorso in Polonia, l’ex Consigliere per la Sicurezza Nazionale Zbigniew Brzezinski e massimo guru del “Nuovo Ordine Mondiale” e della necessità di “drogare i popoli con il tittainment” (succhiare latte dalle mammelle), una versione moderna della massima imperiale romana “ludi et circenses” per soffocare le istanze dei popoli -ha avvertito i colleghi elitisti che un movimento mondiale di “resistenza” al “controllo esterno” guidata da “attivismo populista” sta minacciando di far deragliare la transizione verso un nuovo ordine mondiale.

Definendo l’idea che il 21 ° secolo è il secolo americano “una disillusione condivisa”, Brzezinski ha dichiarato che il dominio americano non è più possibile a causa dell’accelerazione del cambiamento sociale guidato da “comunicazioni di massa istantanee come la radio, la televisione e Internet”, che hanno stimolato un crescente “risveglio universale della coscienza politica di massa.”

L’ex Consigliere per la Sicurezza Nazionale degli Stati Uniti ha aggiunto che questo “aumento in tutto il mondo dell’attivismo populista sta dimostrando ostile alla dominazione esterna del tipo che ha prevalso nell’età del colonialismo e dell’imperialismo.”
Brzezinski ha concluso che “la resistenza populista persistente e fortemente motivata di coscienza politica e dei popoli risvegliati e storicamente avversi al controllo esterno ha dimostrato di essere sempre più difficile da eliminare.”

Anche se Brzezinski ha commentato in tono neutro, il contesto in cui ha parlato, unitamente alle sue precedenti dichiarazioni, indicherebbe che questa non è una celebrazione della “resistenza populista”, ma una perplessità per l’impatto che questo sta avendo sul tipo di “controllo esterno” che Brzezinski ha sostenuto più volte.
Queste considerazioni sono state effettuate a un evento per il Forum europeo per le nuove idee (EFNI), un’organizzazione che sosterrebbe la trasformazione dell’Unione europea in un anti-democratico federale superstato, il tipo stesso di “controllo esterno” a cui messa in pericolo è stata sottolineata da Brzezinski durante il suo speech.

In questo ambito, bisogna comprendere che l’argomentazione di Brzezinski sulla “resistenza populista” di notevole ostacolo per l’imposizione di un nuovo ordine mondiale è da interpretare più come un avvertimento che come riconoscimento/celebrazione.
Tieni anche in considerazione ciò che Brzezinski ha scritto nel suo libro Between Two Ages: il ruolo dell’America nell’era tecno-digitale, in cui ha sostenuto il controllo delle popolazioni da parte di una classe politica tramite la manipolazione digitale.

“L’era digitale comporta la comparsa graduale di una società più controllata. Una tale società sarebbe dominata da una élite, libera da valori tradizionali. Presto sarà possibile esercitare una sorveglianza quasi continua su tutti i cittadini e mantenere file completi ed aggiornati che contengono anche le informazioni più personali di ogni cittadino. Questi file potranno essere accessibili in realtime da parte delle autorità “, ha scritto Brzezinski.
“Nella società digitale la tendenza sembra essere verso l’aggregazione dei supporti individuali di milioni di cittadini non coordinati, facilmente alla portata di personalità magnetiche ed attraenti che sfruttano le più recenti tecniche di comunicazione per manipolare le emozioni e controllare le decisioni”, ha scritto nello stesso libro. La preoccupazione improvvisa di Brzezinski per l’impatto di una popolazione politicamente risvegliata globale non è figlia dell’idea che Brzezinski si identifichi con la stessa causa. Brzezinski è il fondatore della potente Commissione Trilaterale, un luminare del Council on Foreign Relations ed un partecipante regolare del Bilderberg. Una volta è stato descritto dal presidente Barack Obama come “uno dei nostri pensatori più importanti”. Questa non è affatto la prima volta che Brzezinski ha lamentato la crescita di una opposizione populista alla dominazione da parte di una piccola elite.

E’ stato nel corso di un meeting del CFR del 2010 che Brzezinski aveva avvertito i colleghi globalisti colleghi che un “risveglio politico globale”, in combinazione con lotte interne tra le élite, minacciava di far deragliare la transizione verso un governo mondiale.

Nota caprina: e noi, allora, ne avevamo parlato. Perchè quando Brzezinki parla, è sempre opportuno ascoltare con attenzione.

Gianfranco De Turris: “Se Evola (critico degli Usa) viene apprezzato anche alla Casa Bianca”

da Michele De Feudis

Ex: http://www.barbadillo.it 

 

Gianfranco de Turris, segretario della Fondazione Evola. Il filosofo di “Cavalcare la tigre” è negli ultimi giorni tornato d’attualità per una citazione di un consigliere del neopresidente Usa Donald Trump, Steve Bannon. In che contesto Bannon ha citato Evola?

“In realtà non è proprio così, anche se il “New York Times” ha lasciato credere questo… Il quotidiano ha tirato fuori solo ora una cosa del 2014, quando Trump non era nessuno, solo per metterlo in difficoltà con quello che è ora il suo consigliere principale. Ma la coincidenza ancora più interessante è che la dichiarazione di Bannon è uscita il 10 febbraio, guarda caso esattamente dieci giorni dopo la sua nomina nel National Security Council! Se due indizi fanno una prova… L’autore dell’articolo sul NYT, Jason Horowitz, che mi ha intervistato per mettere tre righe su mezz’ora di conversazione, è il vaticanista del giornale ed è stato volutamente generico nel riferimento a tre anni fa. Ma in Rete non si perde nulla e si è trovata la fonte primaria della notizia. Bannon in realtà non parla direttamente di Evola ma lo cita en passant, rispondendo ad una domanda, dunque uno spunto occasionale, non programmato. E citando invece esplicitamente Dugin, consigliere, si dice, di Putin. Tutto qui. Una cosa ridicola e strumentale, che comunque ha permesso a “Repubblica” un titolo epocale in prima pagina (!) da incorniciare: “Evola e il Fascismo ispirano Bannon la mente di Trump”. Il titolo dell’articolo è nel classico stile-Repubblica, allarmistico e pomposo: “Il cuore nero della destra americana”. E cioè: Sun Tsu, Spengler, D’Annunzio, Evola e Mussolini! Ah, anche Dart Fener, il cattivo di “Guerre stellari”… Insomma, una “trama nera”, che va dalla Rivoluzione Conservatrice a Star Wars…. Risun teneatis! Incredibile ma vero. A questo giunge la stampa italiana, senza senso del ridicolo. Ma questo ci fa gioco.
Insomma, all’inizio c’è una bufala strumentalizzata ad uso interno statunitense, anche se è perfettamente vero, come mi avevamo detto tempo fa amici americani, che Stephen Bannon è un conoscitore del tradizionalismo e legge e studia non solo Evola, ma anche Guénon, Dugin e de Benoist, che un vero tradizionalista certo non è, ma che comunque collabora anche al sito Breitbart News, cuore della cosiddetta Alt-Right statunitense”.

Ma che cosa interessa a Bannon del tradizionalismo?

“Se ci si deve basare sulla conferenza in Vaticano dove i riferimenti sono generici, si deve pensare che Bannon in realtà riprende piuttosto alcuni concetti della Rivoluzione Conservatrice, condivisi spesso parzialmente e con riserve (vedi il caso del principio di autodeterminazione dei popoli) dal pensiero tradizionale. È ad ogni modo la critica alla modernità che interessa a Bannon del pensiero tradizionale, le accuse al mondialismo, alla globalizzazione mercantilista, ecc. Una forma di anticapitalismo di Destra, insomma, assai diffuso anche al di fuori del pensiero tradizionale. Con risvolti ultrapopulisti che però riprendono più la tradizione americana che quella europea e che di sicuro Evola non avrebbe mai sottoscritto considerando il tipo di critiche che rivolgeva a fascismo e nazismo su questo punto”.

Evola negli Usa: è studiato dalle élite americane o nelle accademie oltreoceano?

“Macché! La cosa paradossale è proprio questa. Nonostante che tutti i suoi libri maggiori siano tradotti in inglese soprattutto dalla americana Inner Traditions, che io sappia non viene non dico letto dalle élites, ma neppure studiato nelle università, a parte alcuni singoli docenti che se ne sono occupati per aspetti particolari come Richard Drake per l’aspetto politico, Joscelyn Godwin per l’esoterismo o Jeffrey Schnapps per l’arte. Forse questo inaspettato parlarne sui grandi giornali americani potrebbe accendere un vero e serio interesse per la sua opera multiforme, al di là delle sciocchezze che sono state scritte…”.

Il barone dedicò saggi e studi agli Stati Uniti e all’americanismo. Con che orientamento?

“Evola ha scritto sugli Stati Uniti sin dagli anni Trenta con il famoso saggio “Americanismo e bolscevismo” che poi divenne la conclusione di “Rivolta contro il mondo moderno” già nella prima edizione del 1934. Sono le due facce della stessa medaglia, cioè il materialismo, che alla fine stritoleranno l’Europa, in quanto particolare tipo di civiltà. Caduta l’URSS però sono rimasti solo gli USA. Dopo quasi trent’anni adesso a capo degli USA c’è un singolare personaggio, del tutto imprevisto e imprevedibile, gli sviluppi della cui politica non è possibile immaginare, e le cui posizioni potrebbero essere influenzate da Bannon.
Certo è paradossale, una beffa se non una nemesi della Storia che un pensatore che ha visto nell’americanismo un nemico più pericoloso del comunismo in quanto subdolo, e che contro gli USA ne ha scritte di tutti i colori (basti leggere gli articoli riunti da Alberto Lombardo in “Civiltà americana”, quaderno della Fondazione Evola) abbia improvvisamente un accesso al pensiero di un consigliere di un presidente americano! Chi lo avrebbe mai potuto immaginare? La Storia non è già stata scritta e non va in un’unica direzione come pensano i progressisti oggi in grandi ambasce. Non so pensare a come andrà a finire, sempre che si consenta a Trump di arrivare a fine mandato (i casi Kennedy e Nixon insegnano). Mah!”.

L’attualità del pensiero evoliano: resta concretamente spendibile per comprendere gli scenari internazionali?

“Il pensiero di Evola non è un pensiero politico ma metapolitico, non è pratico ma si preoccupa di formare le menti e lo spirito per affrontare la politica-politicante, voleva creare “una destra spirituale” come scrisse ne “Gli uomini e le rovine” nella edizione del 1967. E ciò vale sia nella politica interna che in quella internazionale. Sono i grandi principi, i valori base che contano, il riferimento al sacro, una forma mentis antimoderna e antimaterialistica. E oggi che è tutto impregnato di materialismo, laicismo, dove tutto è secolarizzato soprattutto in USA, è difficile pensare secondo le sue indicazioni. Ma non impossibile. La classe dirigente è stata allevata in base a ben altri criteri. I riferimenti, che hanno fatto alcuni giornali italiani al “predominio della razza bianca” sono ridicoli, se non demenziali”.

Tiriamo le somme: molto rumore per nulla?

“Penso di sì. Non dimentichiamoci che, da quando è stato eletto Trump la grande stampa progressista internazionale è coalizzata contro di lui: il NYT, e qui da noi i grandi quotidiani, dedicano letteralmente un servizio al giorno per screditare lui e i suoi collaboratori. Nel nostro caso è una strumentalizzazione anti Trump di un fatto lontano e tangenziale, indiretto, ripescato nella memoria di un giornalista. Tanto per poter dire, fornendo un’immagine forzata e inventata delle idee di Evola, che gli Stati Uniti potrebbero diventare una nazione autoritaria, se non dittatoriale e fascista, e magari giustificare un golpe bianco contro Trump o il suo assassinio da parte di qualche esaltato che uccide ill tiranno in nome della democrazia. Io credo proprio che Evola se la ridirebbe di gusto… Anche se, considerando le imprevedibilità della Storia recente, non si sa proprio quel che potrebbe accadere”.

@barbadilloit

@waldganger2000

Di Michele De Feudis

Le Deep State dans tous ses états

Le Deep State dans tous ses états

Ex: http://www.dedefensa.org 

16 février 2017 – Une fois de plus, je prends la plume pour interférer dans le travail du site (dedefensa.org) et donner un aperçu personnel et néanmoins général des événements washingtoniens après la démission de Flynn, le conseiller direct de Trump pour la sécurité nationale, et l’un de ses plus anciens compagnons d’armes sur la route menant à la Maison-Blanche. Par commodité, je citerais au minimum des extraits de mes “sources”, qui sont dans tous les bons articles de la presse-antiSystème. (Vous pouvez trouver une bonne synthèse de cette affaire, donnant elle-même toutes les sources qui importent, dans le texte de Virgil, de Breitbart.News, le 16 février. Plus loin, vous aurez d’autres références-URL)

Bref, la transition est toute faite pour entrer dans le vif du sujet par un exposé préliminaire : la non-citation des sources est une habitude de la presseSystème, devenue habitude hystérique et spasmodique dans l’ère Trump. On peut donc sans véritable risque, vous pouvez m’en croire, inventer ses “sources” pour mieux accréditer les montages que passent impérativement les “non-sources” venues de l’IC (Intelligence Community) alias Deep State (État profond), ou faisant fonction. Jamais le trafic de “sources”, avec “fuites” organisées d’informations inventées pour la cause, n’a été aussi massif, sorte d’inondation diluvienne, de tsunami, etc. Plus que jamais par conséquent, il faut renoncer à la réalité qui n’existe plus, tenir apriori pour mensongères les “sources” les plus respectables selon le catéchisme-Système (NYT, WaPo, etc.), décrétées par nous coupables tant que leur innocence éventuelle n’a pas été sérieusement prouvée, etc. Dans le cas qui nous occupe, il faut admettre qu’il y a eu un simulacre de fuites massives, des informations-simulacres venant de sources-simulacres également, néanmoins implantées dans l’IC, devenant elle-même une IC-simulacre, le tout aboutissant à une liquidation de Flynn... Pourquoi ne croirait-on pas, ironiquement au sarcastiquement, qu’il s’agit d’une liquidation-simulacre ? Le plus fort c’est que certains l’affirment...

Sur cet arrière-plan plein de faux-semblant et de fausses perspectives, j’en viens à un exposé succinct de cette affaire & conséquences, en quelques points remarquables :

• La liquidation de Flynn est un montage de A jusqu’à Z, sans discussion possible. D’une façon générale, les analystes sérieux, hors-presseSystème hystérique, voient cet épisode comme un revers très important pour l’administration Trump, notamment pour compromettre sa politique de rapprochement avec la Russie. L’idée générale est qu’il s’agit du premier d’une liste significative de personnes, proches de Trump, à éliminer de la même façon (Bannon, Miller, Kellyanne Conwy, Priebus), et en final bien entendu, Trump lui-même, – par démission forcée, destitution, voire, pourquoi pas, quelque chose de plus expéditif, – See what I mean ?, dit un personnage des complots courants à Washington. L’idée est de rendre totalement inopérante l’administration Trump, jusqu’à la désintégration complète de la chose. Le moyen, comme vu ci-dessus, est celui de la guerre de la communication, menée quasiment à visage découvert par l’IC, qui a un compte à régler avec Trump.

• Cette dernière remarque ci-dessus m’entraîne irrésistiblement vers le second point, qui me frappe particulièrement et sur lequel je revient plus loin parce que c’est le pivot du drame : l’action quasiment à découvert de l’IC, applaudie par des journalistes-Système dans des tweets particulièrement parlant. (La chose a déjà été dite et répétée depuis plusieurs sorties publiques ès qualité de Brennan, directeur de la CIA jusqu’à la fin janvier, contre Trump, dans des termes croquignolets : « Plus encore que la trace d’un Silent Coup qui n’en finit pas de faire un bruit assourdissant, c’est à cette implosion que nous pensons lorsque, par exemple, l’on assiste à ces échanges surréalistes entre l’actuel directeur de la CIA Brennan [directeur-sortant] et le président-élu, où le premier estime [sur FoxNews] que le président-élu parle beaucoup trop, qu’il ferait mieux de mesurer ses paroles, “to watch what he says” [“sinon...“, pense-t-on aussitôt comme l’on pense à Dallas-JFK]... ») Tout cela justifie, une fois de plus après les innombrables occasions rencontrées depuis le 8 novembre 2016, cette question lancinante : « A coup d'Etat underway? »

• Pendant ce temps, la politique extérieure de Trump est ce qu’on sait qu’elle est, – étrange, inattendue, incertaine et improbable ; depuis l’article d’Alastair Crooke (du 10 février) auquel je fais référence, les choses ont encore empiré. Certains estiment d’ailleurs que Trump a complètement trahi ses engagements de campagne, qu’il a rallié les neocons, comme Eric Zuesse qui juge que « Trump a déclaré la guerre à la Russie » tandis que Wayne Madsen multiplie les textes où il démontre que Trump est allié à Soros, que les néo-nazis se trouvent aussi bien à la Maison-Blanche qu’à la Rada de Kiev et que comme leurs comparses de là-bas, ils ne jurent que par la destruction de la Russie (et de la Chine, et de l’Iran).

• Dans ce cas, s’interroge-t-on, pourquoi le Deep State et la presseSystème toute acquise aux neocons continuent-ils à bombarder Trump comme ils font, lui qui paraît selon certains points de vue  plus en plus ressembler à un hyperneocon? A le haïr, à en faire leur ultime objectif, y compris selon les méthodes les plus expéditives ? Pourquoi, au fait, ont-ils liquidé Flynn qui voulait manifestement mener la meute de ceux qui entendent mettre l’Iran à genoux, ou bien la bombarder comme le souhaitait joyeusement le sénateur McCain, – lui qui ne cesse aujourd’hui d’insulter Trump, – il y a quelques années, en 2007, sur un air des Beach Boys qui nous rappelait notre folle jeunesse, à nous les plus vieux, – « Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran » ? La réponse est tellement simple : parce qu’ils (Deep State, presseSystème, McCain) les haïssent, toute cette bande-à-Trump, qu’ils ne peuvent pas les souffrir, qu’ils sont rendus fous par eux, par leur seule existence, par leur usurpation de la Maison-Blanche, vous comprenez ? Ce n’est pas une question de politique, c’est une question de neuroleptiques pris en quantité insuffisante ou exagérée c’est selon...

• Par ailleurs, et ceci en passant, pour rappel si vous voulez car la source consultée ici coulait le 13 février, donc avant le départ de Flynn ; par ailleurs, dis-je, vous apprendrez que les Russes ne sont plus vraiment rassurés ni à la fête, mais pour des raisons variées, et notamment, selon Foreign Policy, parce qu’ils craignent que Trump soit politiquement abattu, ou même assassiné, et parce qu’ils se considèrent comme des “otages de la présence de Trump à la Maison-Blanche”. Le paradoxe est que l’arrivée d’un président prétendument plus ouvert à la coopération avec la Russie a un effet paralysant sur la diplomatie russe... C'est une ruse du Système, ça.

« Ce que les Russes craignent le plus aujourd’hui, c’est que Trump soit chassé ou même tué. Son départ, disent des sources internes du Kremlin, amènerait une campagne bipartisane antirusse virulente à Washington. Par conséquent et étrangement, Poutine est devenu l’otage de la survie et du succès de Trump. Cela restreint sérieusement les options géopolitiques de la Russie. Les Russes savent parfaitement que les démocrates veulent utiliser l’épouvantail-russe pour discréditer et destituer Trump alors que les républicains veulent utiliser l’épouvantail-russe pour réduire et discipliner Trump. Le gouvernement russe craint non seulement la chute de Trump, bien entendu, mais aussi la possibilité qu’il puisse par opportunisme adopter une ligne antirusse dure de façon à faire la paix avec les dirigeants républicains ultra-faucons du Congrès. » 

• Si l’on veut un autre point de vue, une autre chansonnette, sur un autre rythme endiablé, certainement plus exotique mais en vérité pas vraiment plus folle que le reste puisqu’on y est, allez voir l’interprétation de Sorcha Faal de WhatDoesItMeans, pour qui Trump est un Grand-Maître de la franc-maçonnerie engagé dans une bataille sans merci contre les globalistes. C’est dans son texte du 14 février qu’il est montré, avec un luxe de détails dont nombre se recoupent dans les faits d’ailleurs (oups), que la démission de Flynn est effectivement une démission-simulacre (ou “Fake-You’reFired”), avec l’active complicité russe, pour permettre au susdit Flynn de poursuivre dans la clandestinité sa riposte contre la CIA.

Ce qui me paraît étrange, finalement, c’est de parvenir à seulement songer un instant à sortir un jugement de tout cela, et en plus à le présenter comme s’il s’agissait de l’oracle accompli. De fait je trouve, – alors là, une fois n’est pas coutume, – que la sagesse même est sortie de la bouche charmante de Federica Mogherini, Haute Représentante de l’UE qui vient de visiter Washington D.C. et de rencontrer notamment la bande à Trump. Federica nous dit ceci qui ne met aucun côté en cause pour mesurer justement l’essence même de la situation, d’ailleurs à l’intense insatisfaction et la colère rentrée de ses collègues de la direction-UE qui ne rêvent que d’une chose, de manger du Trump à chacun de leur petit-déjeuner, ou, dans le cas de Juncker, pour arroser chacune de ses chopes ...

« Je n’ai jamais vu les États-Unis aussi polarisés et divisés, et déchirés par des conflits sans nombre, qu’ils ne sont aujourd’hui., nous dit Federica (à Die Welt). Quoi qu’il en soit, celui qui entend jouer un rôle global doit être intérieurement fort, structuré et assuré de sa stabilité intérieure. [...] Quand la plus grande démocratie du monde est confrontée à des tensions d’une telle puissance, elle peut devenir un facteur de déstabilisation pour le reste du monde. »

Je ne sais pas qui est précisément ce mystérieux “État profond” (Virgil lui-même s’interroge), de même que j’ignore ce qui se trouve dans la tête de The-Donald, et s’y a seulement quelqu’un... Disons, pour faire court, bref et clair, oui disons que le bordel règne dans toute son impériale splendeur et sa sereine globalité, au cœur de Washington D.C. Pour le reste, c’est-à-dire le courant des choses qui courent si vite, entre une réflexion ou l’autre qui peut avoir quelque intérêt à être rapportée pour notre démarche générale, à nouveau je nous propose la philosophie-Alastair : « Well, peut-être est-il préférable de s’asseoir et d’observer, et de ne plus tenter de déchiffrer les runes. »

... S’il vous plaît, ne dites pas que je me répète car cela est bien assez vrai pour que j’en sois conscient sans discussion. Je ne peux ni ne veux, pour remplir mon contrat d’observateur, éviter d’écrire quelques phrases à propos de ces événements si considérables et sur la mécanique desquels nous ne pouvons rien, et d’autre part je me refuse à dire que je sais si je ne sais pas.

Guillaume Faye: First look At Donald Trump

First look At Donald Trump

Video interview of G. Faye

Esprit Vif Media

http://www.gfaye.com/

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_no...

The Zeitgeist According to Steve Bannon’s Favorite Demographer Neil Howe

Hedgeye

Time magazine’s cover story this week posed a simple question, “Is Steve Bannon the Second Most Powerful Man in the World?” In case you didn't already know, Bannon is President Trump’s controversial Chief Strategist who, among other things, co-authored the 45th President’s Inauguration Day speech.

Time recounts a story of a party guest who overheard Bannon say that he was like communist revolutionary and Soviet leader Lenin, eager to “bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today's Establishment.”

Bannon was also “captivated” by a book called The Fourth Turning written by Hedgeye Demography Sector Head Neil Howe and the late generational theorist William Strauss.

As Time writes:

“The book argues that American history can be described in a four-phase cycle, repeated again and again in which successive generations have fallen into crisis, embraced institutions, rebelled against those institutions and forgotten the lessons of the past--which invites the next crisis.… During the fourth turning of the phase, institutions are destroyed and rebuilt.”

In the exclusive video above, Neil Howe and Hedgeye CEO Keith McCullough discuss the current political climate stoked by Bannon and Trump, how that could affect markets and more.

As Howe points out, every two-term U.S. president since 1900 has come into office with a recession directly before, while or within a few quarters of taking office. Given the Bannon/Trump worldview, Howe thinks:

“Trump would glory in a bear market in his first year in office. He would have fun with it. This bear market is the feeling of corruption leaving the body. And what gains, the GOP leadership’s high and dry Tory libertarianism or Steve Bannon’s populist fury? Who wins on that exchange with every tick down in the Dow? I think it’s clear. Trump wins.”

For more, listen to the complete discussion between Howe and McCullough above.

1917: Early Moves Toward American Intervention in World War I

1917: Early Moves Toward American Intervention in World War I

By T. Hunt Tooley

Mises.org & http://www.lewrockwell.com 

This short piece continues series on some “Deeply Momentous Things” — that is, American intervention in the First World War. (See Part One.) As the first installment has shown in a general way, the background of the war among Europe and its extensions (Canada, Australia, etc.) is crucial to understanding how the United States would eventually declare war on the Central Powers. More specifics on this issue will help us understand just what the might of the United States meant to the warring powers.

European leaders on both sides hoped to change the dynamic of the war in January 1917. Certainly, from a technical military standpoint, 1916 represented a highly complicated and progressive experimentation with methods of war that would break up the stalemate. In answer to a question posed in the first installment — who was winning at the end of 1916 — if I had to choose the side that had the upper hand in December 1916, I would probably choose the Central Powers by a nose.

In December 1916, Field Marshal Haig, Commander of the British forces on the Western Front, sent in an extensive report to his government on the just completed Somme Campaign. The Somme battles had advanced the Allied line in some places but had never come close to a breakthrough. And the losses of both British and French units were appalling. Yet Haig declared the Somme campaign a victory in that it had achieved the wearing down of the Germans and the stabilization of the front.

Yet even with Haig’s report in hand, British statesmen and diplomats were not as optimistic. The Field Marshal’s optimism could not hide the fact that the Somme advance had been at best shallow, and that the Germans still held onto nearly as much of France as they had before. And significantly, the Central Powers were killing Entente troops at a faster rate than the Allies were killing the Germans and their Allies. For every two deaths on the side of the Central Powers, three Entente soldiers were dying.

And there were more concrete signs of distress. In East Central Europe, recently acquired Entente partner Romania faced an Austro-Hungarian, German, and Bulgarian force which had besieged and captured the Romanian capital, Bucharest. The great Brusilov Offensive against the German and Austro-Hungarian armies was an enormous success at its beginning, and almost certainly took pressure off the French defenders at Verdun, in France. But the offensive tailed off with counterattacks that were costly and worrisome. And there were in addition, the enormous losses to the Brusilov fighters, upwards of a million dead, wounded, and captured. In Russia, rumblings of demoralization — including the plot which would end in Rasputin’s murder in December 1916 — emerged as hunger and depletion accompanied deep winter. In retrospect, the Brusilov Offensive planted the seeds of Russia’s revolutionary collapse the following year — which would no doubt have tipped the balanced sharply in favor of the Central Powers had the United States not intervened.

Elsewhere, it is true, things were going somewhat better for the Russians and the British in fighting the Ottoman Empire by December 1916 and January 1917, but many British leaders thought they were looking at the real crisis of the war a hundred years ago. Hoping to bring every kind of weapon to bear in the midst of this depressing and murderous year, British leaders departed from their slogan of “business as usual” in a variety of ways. Great Britain had already adopted conscription a year earlier in January 1916, though not quite in time to supply replacements for the inevitable losses in the coming offensive operations on the Somme and elsewhere. On the diplomatic front, it was in 1916 that the British government began a process that would end by promising overlapping parts of the Ottoman Empire both to the future “king of the Arabs” and to Jews across the world as a future homeland. At the same time, British propaganda designed to influence the United States to enter the war heightened dramatically. Charles Masterman’s War Propaganda Bureau in London worked on the “American question” with newspaper subventions in the United States, speaking tours, increased distribution of the famous Bryce Report on German atrocities in Belgium, and in other ways.

One crucial example of non-traditional attempts to break the impasse was the starvation of German civilians resulting from the British Blockade. In place since late 1914, the Blockade kept even neutrals from delivering food and other essentials to Germany. Before the Blockade was lifted in 1919, somewhere between 500,000 and 800,000 German civilians would die from starvation and from the effects of nutritional shortages on other conditions. Adding indirect deaths influenced by nutritional privation adds many more to the total (see the excellent analysis of the Blockade by David A. Janicki, as well as Ralph Raico’s detailed review of the classic book on the subject by C. Paul Vincent).

The dynamics of the Blockade intensified among the belligerents the importance of future American decisions. In order to survive the war, Britain had to control the seas. In order to survive the war, Germany had to eat. But at the same time, Germany had to avoid bringing the world’s most powerful economy into the conflict. Unlimited submarine warfare was the most likely way to break the Blockade and eat. But German statesman expressly feared that this step would bring the United States into the war. (See the minutes of a top-level German meeting on the issue of unlimited submarine warfare from August 1916.)

Meanwhile, the one obvious solution to the war — namely, ending it — seemed out of the question. Both sides desired any help they could get, but both sides had turned down offers of mediation, truce, and negotiations, all of these attempts foundering on the acquisitive territorial aims and financial obligations of one belligerent or the other.

One important note: the weather impacted home and battle fronts. The winter of 1916/17 was one of the coldest in memory. The impact on the hungry German home front was immense — this was the terrible “turnip winter,” so-called because turnips were about the only home-grown food available to many. But the soldiers on all sides found the cold almost unbearable as well, misery in the trenches and encampments did not bode well for the future will to fight in any army.

Quite clearly, momentous American decisions were crucial to the future course of the war.

Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.

The Best of T. Hunt Tooley

Hunt Tooley teaches history at Austin College and at the Mises Academy. Send him mail.

Previous article by T. Hunt Tooley: Deeply Momentous

Anti-Trump demonstrations are far from irrational. The opposite is more likely

Leftist Rationality

Anti-Trump demonstrations are far from irrational. The opposite is more likely

By Paul Gottfried

Frontpage Mag & http://www.lewrockwell.com 

Every day I hear exasperated Trump-backers exclaim that the Left has gone crazy. And their complaint seems justified, at least up to a point. The demonstrations against Trump, which now involve such gestures as setting fires, destroying property and beating up suspected Trump backers, look utterly “irrational.” It’s as if the election and subsequent inauguration of Donald Trump released forces of madness that can no longer be contained. Wild accusations are being made against those who voted for Trump, that they yearn to exterminate blacks and gays and put Jews into concentration camps, etc. One of my close acquaintances has turned her home into “a safe space for Jewish children,” so there will be no more Anne Frank-deaths during the terrible persecutions that our “illegitimately appointed, fake head of state” will soon supposedly unleash. I myself have been called by leftist ex-friends a “Holocaust-denier” because I think Trump’s decision to stop the influx of visitors and immigrants from terrorist-laden countries is entirely justified. How this shows that I deny Hitler’s murderous activities is never explained to me, but I’m sure the Trump-haters in Hollywood, CNN and at Berkeley would understand the connection.

Note that I’m not saying that everyone out there making noise or burning property is a model of scientific rationality. Nor am I claiming that the entertainment community makes sense when they scream against the Donald, or that students who recently set fires on the Berkeley campus to protest a speech by Milo Yiannopoulos were engaging in Aristotelian reasoning. What I am asserting is that viewed from the top, this agitation and violence reveal careful thought. In fact, from the vantage point of George Soros and such protest organizers as the Democratic National Committee and the leaders of the grievance culture, noisy demonstrations are a reasonable means toward a predetermined end. Max Weber, Vilfredo Pareto, and other sociologists who understood functional rationality as working systematically toward the desired end would have pointed to these protests as illustrating the perfectly rational action, at least on the part of those who organize them.

The useful idiots are all over the place, but that’s exactly what they are, mere stage extras. They are impressionable adolescents, Hollywood airheads, middle-aged women who want to “assert themselves,” perpetually incited racial minorities, and Muslim activists. Many of them can be mobilized at the drop of a pin to “march for tolerance,” however that term is interpreted by those who organize the march and by politicians, like Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, who seek to increase their influence through well-prepared displays of “righteous indignation.” Please note that Schumer’s obstructionist tactics in the Senate, blocking or delaying cabinet nominees and threatening to shoot down Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, have been applied to the accompaniment of non-stop anti-Trump protests. Only a fool or unthinking partisan would believe these events are unrelated.

Most of what we see and hear is profoundly hypocritical. Trump is not threatening gays or blacks; he is far from being an exterminationist anti-Semite, he is surrounded by Jewish family members and Jewish advisers and is adored by the population of Israel. He is not an anti-Muslim religious bigot, and the temporary travel restriction that he established last week affects non-Muslims as well as Muslims trying to enter the USA from certain countries. Only 109 travelers were detained last weekend because of the ban; and one may easily surmise that other passengers who were jostled by the loads of screaming, gesticulating demonstrators suffered far more grievously than those who were temporarily detained. Moreover, since Obama imposed a four-month travel ban on passengers from Iraq in 2011, we may assume that even more people during the supposedly sensitive Obama years were inconvenienced. But, strange as it seems, I don’t recall mass demonstrations by our selective humanitarians against Obama’s travel restrictions. Perhaps I didn’t notice them when they were taking place.

I also hear from establishment Republicans, and even from family members who should know better, that Trump is bringing all this on himself because he is too free with his words. If only he could explain himself calmly and read more often from a teleprompter, none of this would be happening. Moreover, if Trump were a nice conciliatory guy, like, say, W, Romney or Kasich, the PC crowd would be pacified—or would stop running riot. This gives me food for thought. Does anyone really believe that the Left was nice to George W. Bush, whom they also smeared as a racist and religious bigot? And is any Republican or Never-Trumper naïve enough to believe that if it had been Ted Cruz rather than Trump naming Neil Gorsuch as his pick to the Supreme Court, there would be no demonstrations against this outstanding non-leftist jurist? Perhaps if the silver-tongued Cruz were defending Gorsuch in Ciceronian accents, Schumer, and his friends in the Senate would not be trying to block the confirmation? Come to think of it: Cruz has already endorsed Gorsuch—to no effect.

The only question that should be asked in this matter concerns the end game of those who are organizing the insurrectionary masses. What do they expect to gain from the continuing noise and escalating violence? At the very least they may hope to disempower Trump and his administration–perhaps to render them so powerless that they won’t able to do anything that the Left and the Democratic base (to make a perhaps unnecessary distinction) don’t want them to do. The Democrats are also hoping to take advantage of the chaos to which their fans and operatives have contributed by posing as the true party of order. Only the Democrats, the electorate will be impelled to assume, could end the civil unrest by bringing back the glorious days of the Obama administration.

This transfiguration of the bungling leftist Obama into the guarantor of American order may not be as strange an idea as it first seems. Last week I found myself sitting next to a sixty-year-old black woman on a train going to Philadelphia, and this traveler began telling me how nice it had been under Obama. At first, I reminded her of the growing criminality in our cities during the last few years, but then I noticed she wasn’t talking about crime. Things had been nicer under Obama because back then one didn’t witness daily and even hourly eruptions of organized anger, with the media, entertainment industry, and in varying degrees the Democratic Party egging on the mobs. The woman whom I spoke to wasn’t looking for deeper causes. All she knew was that since Trump had taken office, pandemonium was loosed on the country. And it’s not yet clear that this pandemonium will be blamed on those who are causing it, namely the organizers, the media, and the throngs of useful idiots.

Reprinted with the author’s permission.

The Best of Paul Gottfried

Paul Gottfried [send him mail] is Horace Raffensperger Professor Emeritus of Humanities at Elizabethtown College and author of Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt, The Strange Death of Marxism, and Conservatism in America: Making Sense of the American Right. His latest books are Fascism: The Career of a Concept and Encounters: My Life with Nixon, Marcuse, and Other Friends and Teachers.

Copyright © 2017 Frontpage Mag

Previous article by Paul Gottfried: Deplorable Thoughts

Trump et la guerre contre l'Iran

par Jean-Paul Baquiast

Ex: http://www.europesolidaire.eu 

Certains naïfs voient dans Donald Trump un héraut de l'anti-Système. On peut désigner par ce terme mis à toutes les sauces la domination sur le monde du 1% des plus riches, qui détiennent comme cela a été plusieurs fois analysé, 95% de la richesse du monde. Or comme nous l'avons rappelé dans un article précédent à propos de l'abrogation par Trump du Dodd-Franck Act de 2010 (Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act) censé protéger les citoyens américains contre les abus de la finance, Trump vient directement en appui de cette minorité des plus riches. Ceci est aussi illustré par le fait que parmi les ministres et conseillers de Trump se trouvent de nombreux multimilliardaires et multimillionnaires représentants de cette étroite « élite », notamment Wilbur Ross, Betsy DeVos, Carl Icahn, Stephen Mnuchin, Rex Tillerson, Andrew Puzder, Elaine Chao et Gary Cohn.

 

Trump est donc objectivement, quels que soient ses discours, un représentant du Système. Mais ceci ne se constate pas seulement en ce qui concerne la politique intérieure. C'est aussi le cas en ce qui concerne la politique internationale des Etats-Unis. Dans ce domaine, Trump reprend tous les objectifs destructeurs imposés par ses prédécesseurs au Département d'Etat et au Pentagone. Ceci notamment au Moyen-Orient et en ce qui concerne la Chine.

Au Moyen-Orient, nous l'avons plusieurs fois indiqué, il prépare une véritable guerre contre l'Iran. Ceci a trouvé sa dernière expression dans l'ultimatum prononcé le 1er février par le conseiller de sécurité nationale de Trump, le général Michael Flynn. Celui ci, lors d'une conférence de presse de la Maison Blanche, a déclaré mettre « officiellement l'Iran en garde » au sujet de son essai de missiles balistiques. Il a présenté ceci comme un des exemples « du comportement déstabilisateur de l'Iran à travers tout le Moyen-Orient », ainsi que l'échec du gouvernement Obama à « répondre adéquatement aux actes malveillants de Téhéran ».

Rappelons que l'Iran, comme tout Etat souverain, a le droit de se doter de missiles balistiques. Ceux-ci ne seront pas porteurs de têtes nucléaires puisque l'Iran s'est engagé contractuellement à ne pas développer de telles armes. De plus ces missiles n'auront qu'une portée moyenne (1.000 km) et ne seront en rien des ICBM capables d'atteindre l'Amérique. Ceci n'a pas empêché, dans le suite de la conférence de presse, le porte-parole de la Maison-Blanche, Sean Spicer, d'annoncer que Washington n'allait pas rester les bras croisés et sans réagir contre les « menaces «  de l'Iran ».

Que doit comprendre l'Iran de ces dernières déclarations extraordinaires ? Étant donné les affirmations répétées de Trump selon lesquelles on ne devrait pas parler d'une action militaire avant son lancement, l'Iran a toutes les raisons de croire que les missiles de croisière Tomahawk américains pourraient voler prochainement vers Téhéran. Le gouvernement Trump tente, par la provocation, de dénoncer le traité sur le programme nucléaire, incitant Téhéran à le reprendre et préparant ainsi la voie à une attaque israélo-américaine.

Une guerre contre l'Iran permettrait à Trump d'empêcher l'Iran d'accéder au statut de puissance régionale qu'elle est en train d'acquérir à la suite des désastres de l'intervention américaine au Moyen Orient depuis dix ans. La presse américaine s'en inquiète. Certes, elle est encore profondément hostile à Trump, mais en ce cas, celui-ci lui donne de bonnes raisons de s'indigner. Dans un article intitulé « Une nouvelle ère dans la politique étrangère» le Washington Post a constaté que Trump avance une « politique étrangère combative et iconoclaste qui semble écarter la diplomatie traditionnelle et concentrer la prise de décision au sein d'un petit groupe de collaborateurs qui avancent rapidement leur nouvelle approche dans le monde de l'Amérique d'abord ». Voir https://www.abqjournal.com/941305/a-new-era-of-foreign-po...

La forme de la politique étrangère poursuivie par Trump est de plus en plus claire chaque jour. Elle se concentre aujourd'hui sur l'Iran tout en poursuivant une politique de plus en plus conflictuelle à l'égard de la Chine. Stephen Bannon, le stratège en chef de Trump, prédisait dans une émission de radio avant l'élection de 2016 que les États-Unis partiront « en guerre dans la mer de Chine méridionale dans 5 à 10 ans ».

Dans la mesure où le gouvernement Trump a adopté une attitude conciliatrice vis-à-vis de la Russie, cette attitude n'est qu'un report tactique, destiné à faciliter la guerre ailleurs. Si Moscou ne se conforme pas aux intérêts américains, elle sera menacée puis agressée à son tour. Or Vladimir Poutine ne semble pas prêt de renoncer à sa coopération avec l'Iran, celle-ci prolongeant l'influence acquise en Syrie et constituant un utile contrepoids à l'influence dévastatrice des puissances sunnites, notamment l'Arabie Saoudite et la Qatar. Celles-ci, comme nul n'en ignore, financent directement le terrorisme dans toute la région et en Europe. Si donc des missiles américains ou israéliens, ces derniers soutenus par l'Amérique, frappaient la Syrie, il en serait fini des proclamations de Trump visant à établir de bonnes relations avec Moscou.

Une guerre régionale de grande ampleur pourrait s'en suivre, comme cela sera inévitablement le cas si Trump mettait à exécution ses menaces contre la Chine. Sous cet angle, la suggestion de Donald Tusk au sommet de Malte selon laquelle Trump pourrait devenir un risque existentiel pour l'Europe trouverait toute sa pertinence.

Jean Paul Baquiast

The Coming Clash With Iran

The Coming Clash With Iran

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Ex: http://www.lewrockwell.com 

When Gen. Michael Flynn marched into the White House Briefing Room to declare that “we are officially putting Iran on notice,” he drew a red line for President Trump. In tweeting the threat, Trump agreed.

His credibility is now on the line.

And what triggered this virtual ultimatum?

Iran-backed Houthi rebels said Flynn, attacked a Saudi warship and Tehran tested a missile, undermining “security, prosperity, and stability throughout the Middle East,” placing “American lives at risk.”

But how so?

The Saudis have been bombing the Houthi rebels and ravaging their country, Yemen, for two years. Are the Saudis entitled to immunity from retaliation in wars that they start?

Where is the evidence Iran had a role in the Red Sea attack on the Saudi ship? And why would President Trump make this war his war?

As for the Iranian missile test, a 2015 U.N. resolution “called upon” Iran not to test nuclear-capable missiles. It did not forbid Iran from testing conventional missiles, which Tehran insists this was.

Is the United States making new demands on Iran not written into the nuclear treaty or international law — to provoke a confrontation?

Did Flynn coordinate with our allies about this warning of possible military action against Iran? Is NATO obligated to join any action we might take?

Or are we going to carry out any retaliation alone, as our NATO allies observe, while the Israelis, Gulf Arabs, Saudis and the Beltway War Party, which wishes to be rid of Trump, cheer him on?

Bibi Netanyahu hailed Flynn’s statement, calling Iran’s missile test a flagrant violation of the U.N. resolution and declaring, “Iranian aggression must not go unanswered.” By whom, besides us?

The Saudi king spoke with Trump Sunday. Did he persuade the president to get America more engaged against Iran?

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker is among those delighted with the White House warning:

“No longer will Iran be given a pass for its repeated ballistic missile violations, continued support of terrorism, human rights abuses and other hostile activities that threaten international peace and security.”

The problem with making a threat public — Iran is “on notice” — is that it makes it almost impossible for Iran, or Trump, to back away.

Tehran seems almost obliged to defy it, especially the demand that it cease testing conventional missiles for its own defense.

This U.S. threat will surely strengthen those Iranians opposed to the nuclear deal and who wish to see its architects, President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, thrown out in this year’s elections.

If Rex Tillerson is not to become a wartime secretary of state like Colin Powell or Dean Rusk, he is going to have to speak to the Iranians, not with defiant declarations, but in a diplomatic dialogue.

Tillerson, of course, is on record as saying the Chinese should be blocked from visiting the half-dozen fortified islets they have built on rocks and reefs in the South China Sea.

A prediction: The Chinese will not be departing from their islands, and the Iranians will defy the U.S. threat against testing their missiles.

Wednesday’s White House statement makes a collision with Iran almost unavoidable, and a war with Iran quite possible.

Why did Trump and Flynn feel the need to do this now?

There is an awful lot already on the foreign policy plate of the new president after only two weeks, as pro-Russian rebels in Ukraine are firing artillery again, and North Korea’s nuclear missile threat, which, unlike Iran’s, is real, has yet to be addressed.

High among the reasons that many supported Trump was his understanding that George W. Bush blundered horribly in launching an unprovoked and unnecessary war in Iraq.

Along with the 15-year war in Afghanistan and our wars in Libya, Syria, and Yemen, our 21st-century U.S. Mideast wars have cost us trillions of dollars and thousands of dead. And they have produced a harvest of hatred of America that was exploited by al-Qaida and ISIS to recruit jihadists to murder and massacre Westerners.

Osama’s bin Laden’s greatest achievement was not to bring down the twin towers and kill 3,000 Americans but to goad America into plunging headlong into the Middle East, a reckless and ruinous adventure that ended her post-Cold War global primacy.

Unlike the other candidates, Trump seemed to recognize this.

It was thought he would disengage us from these wars, not rattle a saber at an Iran that is three times the size of Iraq and has as its primary weapons supplier and partner Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

When Barack Obama drew his red line against Bashar Assad’s use of chemical weapons in Syria’s civil war, and Assad appeared to cross it, Obama discovered that his countrymen wanted no part of the war that his military action might bring on.

President Obama backed down — in humiliation.

Neither the Ayatollah Khamenei nor Trump appears to be in a mood to back away, especially now that the president has made the threat public.

The Best of Patrick J. Buchanan

Patrick J. Buchanan is co-founder and editor of The American Conservative. He is also the author of seven books, including Where the Right Went Wrong, and Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War. His latest book is Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? See his website.

Copyright © 2017 Creators.com

Previous article by Patrick J. Buchanan: Wailing and Gnashing of Teeth

Etats-Unis : qu’est-ce que l’ « Alt-Right » ?

Georg Immanuel Nagel :

Etats-Unis : qu’est-ce que l’ « Alt-Right » ?

On sait que l’élection de Donald Trump à la présidence des Etats-Unis a été un séisme politique d’ampleur globale. Mais le changement serait encore plus radical et plus profond si nous assistions, dans un futur proche, à un renforcement continu du mouvement dit de « Alt-Right ». Cette dénomination recouvre un courant intellectuel de droite aux facettes multiples, dont les adhérents constituent le seul groupe perceptible sur l’échiquier politique américain à avoir soutenu ouvertement Trump et à l’avoir ovationné.

Il faut cependant préciser qu’il n’y a aucun lien organique entre cette « Alt-Right » et Donald Trump, dont la rhétorique et les exigences sont bien plus inoffensives et bien moins idéologisées que celles de cette droite alternative. Cependant, Hillary Clinton, la candidate battue de ces élections présidentielles, n’a pas pu s’empêcher d’essayer d’identifier Trump à la « Alt-Right ». Ce genre de calomnies se nomme la « culpabilisation par association » dans le langage politique anglo-saxon. Mais cette tentative a eu des effets contraires à ceux espérés. Hillary Clinton a tenu un très long discours où elle a cité longuement tous les « méchants » qui soutenaient son adversaire. Elle faisait usage, dans ce discours, des injures politiques habituelles de la gauche et de l’extrême-gauche (« raciste », « homophobe », « sexiste », etc.).

Hillary Clinton n’a pas obtenu la réaction qu’elle escomptait. Donald Trump n’a nullement été freiné dans son élan, sans doute parce qu’il n’y avait pas moyen de prouver qu’il avait un lien quelconque avec les animateurs des cercles qualifiables de « Alt-Right ». Du coup, grâce à la maladresse d’Hillary Clinton, le mouvement de la droite alternative a été connu dans toute l’Amérique et est devenue l’objet de vastes débats. Les pages de la grande toile de ces groupes alternatifs très peu connus ont été visitées à grande échelle : elles ont battu tous leurs records de fréquentation et les médias « mainstream » se sont mis à parler des initiatives, colloques et conférences de la « Alt-Right » et ont invité leurs représentants à répondre à des entretiens. Métapolitiquement parlant, on peut parler d’un tournant historique et peut-être même décisif.

L’Alt-Right ne se borne pas à fustiger le Zeitgeist, l’esprit du temps, marqué par le gauchisme. Elle brocarde aussi l’établissement conservateur conventionnel et les vieux Républicains. Elle considère que ces derniers se soumettent trop facilement aux diktats du politiquement correct, ce qui a pour corollaire qu’ils n’osent pas aborder les vrais problèmes de la société américaine, qu’ils ne se hasardent pas à adopter un « race realism », un « réalisme racialiste ». Cette réticence fait du mouvement conservateur conventionnel un « tigre de papier », condamné à échouer à tout bout de champ, parce qu’il abandonne continuellement ses propres positions et ses propres intérêts pour ne pas devoir subir les pressions habituelles, lesquelles ont évidemment recours à l’insulte classique de « racisme ».

Le philosophe et politologue Paul Gottfried avait naguère, bien avant le buzz déclenché par le discours anti-Alt Right d’Hillary Clinton, réclamé l’avènement d’une « droite alternative », différente du « conservatism mainstream ». Son appel à une « droite alternative » a été entendu : plusieurs publicistes l’ont repris, dont Richard Spencer, le fondateur de la boîte-à-penser « National Policy Institute ». Aussitôt Spencer baptise « Alternative Right » le magazine en ligne qu’il crée dans le sillage du discours de Gottfried, lui conférant aussi le diminutif de « Alt Right ». Tout le mouvement contestataire de l’idéologie libérale-gauchiste dominante et du conservatisme timoré reçoit alors le terme générique de « Alt Right ».

La droite alternative voulue par Gottfried au départ, lancée par Spencer dans la foulée, reproche, pour l’essentiel, aux conservateurs traditionnels de ne pas se poser comme les défenseurs des Américains de souche européenne, alors que ceux-ci constituent leur unique base électorale potentielle. C’est en fait le cas dans tous les Etats européens aliénés par le multiculturalisme où les minorités ethniques étrangères votent presque toujours pour les partis de gauche.

L’Alt Right américaine est constituée d’une variété de groupes très différents les uns des autres. D’une part, nous avons des revues et des maisons d’édition qui ne se distinguent guère des nouvelles droites française ou germanophones, dans la mesure où elles entendent se poser comme des initiatives sérieuses et intellectuelles. D’autre part, nous avons des personnalités qui s’adonnent à la moquerie et à la satire. Citons, en ce domaine, le comique « RamZPaul » (photo), les séries de caricatures « Murdoch Murdoch ». L’humour que répandent ces initiatives-là est, bien sûr, politiquement incorrect, et de manière explicite ! Parfois, il est espiègle et seulement accessible aux « initiés ». Les tenants de gauche de la « religion civile » américaine y sont fustigés à qui mieux-mieux, sans la moindre pitié. Personne n’oserait un humour pareil sous nos latitudes européennes.

Cette audace est possible grâce à la constitution américaine qui interdit explicitement de punir, par le truchement de lois régissant les opinions, l’expression libre et sans entrave de celles-ci, alors qu’en Europe les législations liberticides sont acceptées sans sourciller. Ainsi, les publications scientifiques des milieux de l’Alt Right sont autorisées, même si elles abordent des sujets brûlants comme l’anthropologie biologique. Sur ce chapitre, les productions du groupe « American Renaissance » sont particulièrement intéressantes pour nous, Européens, qui ne bénéficions plus d’une liberté de recherche en ce domaine spécifique du savoir.

Georg Immanuel Nagel,

Article paru dans zur Zeit, Vienne, n°3/2017, http://www.zurzeit.at .

Zbiegniew Brzezinsky brise son échiquier et prône un rapprochement US-Russie-Chine

Zbiegniew Brzezinsky brise son échiquier et prône un rapprochement US-Russie-Chine

Ex: http://electrosphere.blogspot.com 

Dans la fureur des duels électoraux, un article publié au printemps 2016 par Zbiegniew Brzezinski est passé complètement inaperçu. Dans « Toward a Global Realignment » (The American Interest), le plus influent artisan de la politique étrangère américaine recommande vivement aux Etats-Unis d'assumer leur repli et de se réconcilier avec la Russie et la Chine afin de « redéfinir une architecture mondiale du pouvoir »... et de gérer conjointement les futurs risques et crises sécuritaires dans le monde arabo/musulman en particulier, et dans le tiers-monde en général. 

 

Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski est né en 1928 à Varsovie (Pologne). Son père diplomate était en poste au Canada lorsque le pacte germano-soviétique fut signé et ne put donc rentrer avec sa famille au bercail. Plus tard, « Zbieg Brzez » épousa  Emilie-Anne Benes, nièce de l'ancien président tchécoslovaque Edvard Benes. Ce parcours personnel expliquerait-il, parmi d'autres facteurs, son aversion profonde pour l'URSS et/ou la Russie ?

 

Après avoir consacré sa carrière académique à étudier le totalitarisme soviétique et à forger une vision géostratégique sur le rôle prépondérant de l'Amérique dans le monde, Brezinski gravit les échelons au département d'Etat et en devint le secrétaire sous l'administration Jimmy Carter (1977-1981). Il fut également membre du Council of Foreign Relations (CFR), du National Endowment for Democracy (NED), de divers think tanks et organismes spécialisés dans la défense et/ou la politique étrangère, eut l'oreille du président George Bush père au plus fort de la chute de l'URSS, et conseilla le futur président Barack Obama en affaires étrangères au cours de sa campagne électorale.

 

Son très fameux ouvrage « Le Grand Echiquier. L'Amérique et le reste du monde » figure parmi les livres de chevet des présidents américains, secrétaires d'Etat et chefs du Pentagone, et imprègne fortement la politique étrangère et de défense des Etats-Unis. 

 

Ces extraits ont été volontairement sélectionnés pour leur clarté et leur percussion mais ne sauraient résumer à eux seuls cette œuvre très dense :

 

« Il est indispensable que l’Amérique contre toute tentative de restauration impériale au centre de l’Eurasie […] Le choix européen est la seule perspective géostratégique réaliste qui permettra à la Russie de retrouver un rôle international et les ressources nécessaires pour engager sa modernisation. Par Europe, nous entendons l'ensemble géopolitique uni par le lien transatlantique et engagé dans l'élargissement de l'Union européenne et de l'OTAN [...] Telle est l'alliance qui profitera à la Russie et lui évitera de s'enfoncer dans un isolement géopolitique néfaste [...] Du point de vue américain. la Russie paraît vouée à devenir un problème : si sa faiblesse exclut de la considérer comme un partenaire, les forces qu'elle conserve ne nécessitent pas l'application de soins d'urgence. [...] Même si une alliance stratégique solide de la Russie avec la Chine ou avec l'Iran a peu de chances de se concrétiser, l'Amérique doit éviter de détourner Moscou de son meilleur choix géopolitique [...] Par ailleurs, les Chinois se montrent sensibles aux réserves doctrinales que les États-Unis émettent à l'égard de leur régime national. La Chine considère donc les Etats-Unis comme le principal obstacle à sa quête d'une prééminence mondiale, mais égaIement à l'affirmation de sa prédominance globale. Dans ces conditions, la collision entre la Chine et les Etats-Unis est-elle inévitable? [...] Quelle forme concrète et acceptable du point de vue américain doit revêtir la montée de la Chine en tant que puissance régionale dominante et quelles limites doit-on fixer à ses aspirations au statut de puissance globale? [...] En réalité, si la Chine s'oppose aux États-Unis, ce n'est pas tant à cause des actions de ces derniers qu'en raison de la position qu'ils occupent aujourd'hui. La Chine considère que les Etats-Unis exercent une hégémonie sur le monde et que leur présence même dans la région, qui repose sur la domination du Japon, contribue à restreindre l'influence chinoise [...] Aussi, en raison de ce qu'ils sont et de leur simple présence, les Etats-Unis deviennent involontairement l'adversaire de la Chine au lieu d'être leur allié naturel. »

 

Néanmoins, tout semble indiquer que l'Europe ne constitue plus le meilleur choix géopolitique pour la Russie en pleine résurgence stratégique malgré une économie stagnante... et qui se rapproche d'une Chine devenue aussi incontournable qu'ambitieuse dans la zone Asie-Pacifique et détenant désormais le premier PIB mondial.

 

L'alliance stratégique en formation accélérée de ces deux puissances, sous la pression d'une « quasi guerre froide 2.0 » les opposant aux Etats-Unis, laissent présager un condominium ou hinterland eurasien tant appréhendé par Zbieg.

 

En outre, l'annexion de velours de la Crimée - opération menée "en-dessous du niveau de la guerre" (cf. Michel Goya), le naufrage de l'Ukraine et la guerre en Syrie ont considérablement redoré le blason de la Russie, qui renforce de surcroît ses liens avec la Turquie, l'Iran et les pétromonarchies du Golfe arabe. Les visées territoriales de Pékin en Mer de Chine méridionale et le retrait des Etats-Unis du Traité Trans-Pacifique (également conçu pour un encerclement commercial du « Dragon Rouge ») offrent à la Chine d'immenses marges de manoeuvre pour consolider son influence et sa puissance dans l'espace asiatique.

 

Last but not least, les Etats-Unis ont sévèrement pâti des errements stratégiques des administrations W.Bush et Obama (Afghanistan, Irak, Libye, Ukraine, Syrie) et grandement entamé leur crédibilité sur la scène internationale.

 

Ce tableau général a certainement incité Zbieg à réviser ses fondamentaux : « l'ère de leur domination mondiale prenant fin, les Etats-Unis doivent prendre la main pour redéfinir l’architecture du pouvoir mondial. » | Vers un réalignement mondial (The American Interest)

 

Muni d'une grille de lecture américano-centrée et donc quelque peu hérétique pour l'observateur extérieur, le théoricien de 88 ans dresse ses cinq vérités essentielles :

- Les Etats-Unis resteront une superpuissance tous azimuts mais compte tenu de la complexité des évolutions géopolitiques et des équilibres régionaux, ne sont plus « une puissance impériale globale. »

 - La Russie vit la douloureuse phase finale de son empire post-soviétique mais, pour peu qu'elle fasse preuve de sagesse, deviendra probablement un état-nation européen de premier plan. 

- La Chine émerge en future rivale de l'Amérique, renforce lentement mais sûrement sa puissance technologique, militaire et navale, se garde de toute confrontation trop coûteuse et trop risquée avec l'Amérique, mais doit finement manoeuvrer sur sa scène intérieure afin de ne pas entraver son succès économique. 

- L'Europe ne comptera pas parmi les poids lourds de la scène internationale mais jouera un « rôle constructif » en faveur du bien-être commun, contre les menaces transnationales, au sein de l'OTAN, et dans la résolution de la crise Russie-Ukraine. 

- Le monde musulman demeure violemment tourmenté par un traumatisme post-colonial et mu par des motivations religieuses à la fois fédératrices et très clivantes, du fait notamment des schismes séculaires au sein de l'islam.

 

Qu'entend Zbieg par "architecture mondiale du pouvoir" ? Serait-ce plutôt une architecture trilatérale de sécurité supervisée par les Etats-Unis, la Russie et la Chine ? S'agit-il d'une future gestion conjointe des crises & risques sécuritaires dans le monde ? Impliquera-t-elle une reconnaissance implicite des zones d'influence propres à chaque grande puissance assortie d'une entente mutuelle de non-ingérence ? Que deviennent l'OTAN, l'OCS et les Nations-Unies dans ces perspectives ?

 

« Considérées ensemble comme un cadre unifié, ces cinq vérités nous disent que les États-Unis doivent prendre la tête du réalignement de l'architecture mondiale du pouvoir afin que la violence qui éclate au cœur ou au-delà du monde musulman – et, éventuellement, dans le tiers-Monde - soit contenue sans détruire l'ordre global […] Les souvenirs politiques longtemps réprimés alimentent en grande partie l'éveil soudain et explosif provoqué par les extrémistes islamiques au Moyen-Orient. Mais ce qui se passe au Moyen-Orient aujourd'hui peut être le début d'un phénomène plus vaste à venir en Afrique, en Asie... »

 

Dans ce contexte impossible, les Etats-Unis, la Russie et la Chine (qui devra être plus audible et plus active face aux futures crises) feraient mieux s'accommoder de leurs zones d'influences respectives, de développer une solide coopération triangulaire, et entreprendre la même démarche avec des puissances régionales du monde arabo/musulman, et ce, afin d'élaborer un cadre élargi de stabilité internationale.

 

Zbieg insiste sur la nécessité d'extirper l'Arabie Saoudite du wahhabisme et propose d'inclure dans ce vaste programme « les alliés européens […] qui peuvent encore être très utiles à cet égard. »

 

Pour couronner cette drastique réinvention de ses classiques, il émet une mise en garde sur l'usage obsessionnel de la force, probablement à l'intention de ses cadets et de leurs homologues russes et chinois :

 

« L’alternative à une vision constructive, et spécialement la recherche d’une issue militaire et idéologique imposée unilatéralement ne peut que prolonger inanité et autodestruction. Pour l’Amérique, la conséquence peut être un conflit durable, de la lassitude et même possiblement un retrait démoralisant sur un isolationnisme pré-XXème siècle. Pour la Russie, cela pourrait signifier une défaite majeure, augmentant la probabilité d’une subordination, d’une manière ou d’une autre, à la prédominance chinoise. Pour la Chine, cela peut annoncer une guerre, non seulement avec les Etats-Unis mais aussi, peut-être séparément, avec le Japon ou l’Inde, ou les deux. Et, dans tous les cas, une phase longue de guerres ethniques, quasi religieuses, au travers de tout le Moyen-Orient avec un fanatisme auto-justifié qui engendrerait des effusions de sang dans et hors de la région, et une cruauté croissante partout. »

 

Henry Kissinger, autre gourou de la politique étrangère américaine et ancien secrétaire d'Etat (sous les administrations Richard Nixon et Gerald Ford), avait précédé Zbiegniew Brezinski dans « Do We Achieve World Order Through Chaos or Insight? » (Der Spiegel) et remettait sérieusement en question la politique étrangère de l'administration Obama. Depuis peu, il conseille le président Trump en vue d'un rapprochement graduel avec la Russie. 

 

Quels regards portent les chancelleries européennes sur ces futurs conditionnels ? Que deviendraient le destin, l'influence et les intérêts de l'Europe si cette architecture trilatérale de sécurité (Etats-Unis, Russie, Chine) prenait forme ?

 

En savoir + :

1.    Zbiegniew Brzezinski : Toward a Global Realignment (The American Interest)

2. Zbiegniew Brzezinski : Le Grand Echiquier. L'Amérique et le reste du monde (Fayard/Pluriel)

3.    Trump signe l’acte de retrait des Etats-Unis du Partenariat transpacifique (Le Monde)

4.  Henry Kissinger : 'Do We Achieve World Order Through Chaos or Insight?' (Der Spiegel)

5.    Kissinger, a longtime Putin confidant, sidles up to Trump (Politico)

 

 

 

Trump et les prochaines élections européennes

par Jean-Paul Baquiast

Ex: http://www.europesolidaire.eu 

Cette année, d'importantes élections auront lieu en Hollande, en Allemagne et en France. En France, il s'agira de choisir le prochain président de la République. Les élections dans ces Etats seront attentivement observées par d'autres Etats importants, l'Italie et l'Espagne notamment. La place de l'Europe dans le monde, très diminuée aujourd'hui, en dépendra.

Or les campagnes électorales relatives à ces élections se dérouleront dans des conjonctures internationales inimaginables jusqu'à ce jour. Si tout se passe comme actuellement prévisibles, l'on verra le nouveau Président américain, Donald Trump, faire triompher une politique de l'America first qui ne tiendra aucun compte des politiques adoptées par les actuels gouvernements européens et par l'Union européenne. Or celles-ci ont été jusqu'à ce jour marquées par une docilité sans pareil aux injonctions de l'ancien pouvoir américain, symbolisé par Barack Obama. Celles-ci imposaient au plan diplomatique la quasi-préparation d'une guerre avec la Russie, et l'abandon de toute volonté d'indépendance et d'investissement au plan intérieur, ceci pour ne pas concurrencer la domination des intérêts financiers américains.

Trump, dès son discours d'investiture, a confirmé qu'il rechercherait une détente avec Moscou. La perspective de celle-ci obligera les gouvernements européens à faire un choix crucial: suivre à nouveau l'exemple de Washington et se rapprocher de Moscou, alors que la diabolisation de la Russie, et plus récemment de Vladimir Poutine était le fondement même de leur action internationale - ou poursuivre seuls, avec des moyens de défense quasi inexistants, une opposition à la Russie qui pourrait déboucher sur des conflits militaires locaux, notamment à la frontière euro-russe.

Dans le domaine économique, il en sera de même. Les Européens ne pourront plus compter sur l'aide des dollars américains et des multinationales basées à Wall Street, pour satisfaire à leur place et à crédit les besoins des populations. Ils devront reprendre une politique d'investissement en propre, qu'ils devront nécessairement financer par d'importants sacrifices, notamment au plan fiscal. Dans le cadre de l'America First, toutes les possibilités industrielles et financières américaines seront consacrées au développement de l'Amérique.

Mais l'opinion publique et les partis politiques européens seront-ils capables en quelques mois d'effectuer ce changement de cap radical?  Manifestement, l'exemple français n'est pas encourageant. La grande majorité des candidats dits de gouvernement n'ont rien compris à ce qui se passe. Les débats au sein des primaires socialistes ont été particulièrement scandaleux. Tous n'avaient qu'à la bouche le respect des consignes de Bruxelles en ce qui concerte la limitation de la dette et de la fiscalité. Tous par ailleurs mentionnaient la nécessité de durcir militairement le ton à l'égard de Poutine.

Dans la droite de gouvernement, il en a été à peu près de même, le candidat Fillon ayant à peine osé parler d'un rapprochement avec Poutine. En ce qui concerne l'extrême-droite du Front National, Marine Le Pen n'a toujours pas précisé de quelle façon elle tiendrait compte de la nouvelle politique américaine. On peut craindre que la peur d'être accusée de « populisme » l'empêche de prendre clairement position.

Il en sera très probablement de même en Hollande et en Allemagne. Ainsi l'Europe, face au tourbillon Trump, se prépare-t-elle plus que jamais au rôle peu glorieux de feuille morte emportée par le vent.

Jean Paul Baquiast

Come ha perso la Russia un intero continente

Come ha perso la Russia un intero continente

Ex: https://it.sott.net & it.sputniknews.com

 

Pochi sanno che circa trecento anni fa, la Russia, aveva la possibilità di diventare l'unica potenza del mondo, estendendosi su due continenti.

Diverse spedizioni lungo tutto l'Impero avevano portato a conquistare vari possedimenti in un altro continente: erano l'Alaska, le isole Aleutine, l'arcipelago Alexander, la fortezza di Elisabetta alle Hawaii ed il famoso Fort Ross della California. Perché la Russia ha perso queste ricchezze?

Nel 1648 Semen Dedznev organizzò una spedizione per l'esplorazione di nuove rotte marittime. Un gruppo di coraggiosi marinai, che presero il largo dalle coste della Siberia, dopo breve tempo, incapparono letteralmente nelle coste americane. A causa della costa rocciosa, una delle scialuppe naufragò, ma fu proprio lì che Dedznev decise di fondare il primo insediamento russo, Kingovej.

Dopo un secolo, il mercante di Irkutsk Gregorij Shelichov decise di ritentare l'impresa di Dedznev, ponendo come obiettivo finale della spedizione, la creazione di un saldo fortino, da cui sarebbe stato possibile partire per esplorare tutta la zona circostante. Il 14 agosto 1784 la flotta delle tre navi, chiamate "i Tre santi", "San Simeone" e "San Michael", raggiunse l'Alaska. Dopo quattro anni di insediamento sull'isola Kodiak, il luogo ricevette ufficialmente il nome di Porto Pavlovskij.

Nel 1799 lì fu fondata la prima città destinata a diventare la Capitale russa d'America. Il primo gruppo di coloni era costituito da 200 russi e 1000 aleuti, che dopo poco si abituarono a chiamare Novo Archangelsk casa.

Nel 1810 in California i possedimenti erano vari e ne approfittò il visionario ricercatore russo Ivan Kuskov. Comprò parte della terra formalmente spagnola dagli abitanti indiani. L'11 settembre del 1812 Kuskov pose la prima pietra della famosa fortezza di Ross, primo avamposto russo più meridionale in Nord America. I primi inquilini del suo insediamento fortificato furono 95 russi e 80 indiani. Con una convenzione anglo-russa del 1825 furono regolati i confini britannici e russi sul continente. Per comodità fu scelta la dorsale delle Montagne Rocciose, che si estendeva per vaste aree deserte. Per ragioni ancora sconosciute, i russi non hanno mai rischiato di attraversare l'altra parte delle montagne, dove per mezzo secolo le vaste pianure non furono attraversate da alcun colono.

Nel gennaio 1841 la fortezza di Ross fu acquistata da John Sutter, intelligente e lungimirante imprenditore americano, successivamente soprannominato "imperatore della California". Allora la resa è stata incondizionata e la Russia ha ufficialmente dichiarato la perdita di interesse per una zona così importante geopoliticamente. Gli storici ancora oggi dibattono strenuamente sulle cause di vendita dell'Alaska. In un modo o nell'altro, nel 1867 il Governo americano acquistò tutta l'Alaska per 7 200 000 dollari. Ed è così che è finita la storia dei russi che hanno perso la loro occasione di estendersi su due o tre continenti.

 

Donald Trump, un phénomène anthropologique

L'Intelligence Community (IC) gouverne-t-elle les Etats-Unis?

 

par Jean-Paul Baquiast

Ex: http://www.europesolidaire.eu 

On appelle Intelligence Community (IC) les quelques centaines de responsables et d'agents (secrets) en charge des services de renseignement et d'espionnage qui ont toujours fournis à la Maison Blanche, au Département d'Etat, au Pentagone, au Congrès et à une presse autorisée des informations, exactes ou fausses, leur permettant d'orienter la définir la politique américaine. L'on cite évidemment en premier la CIA, en second le FBI. Les autres, par définition, ne se découvrent pas ou seulement à l'occasion.

La réponse à la question posée en introduction, « L'Intelligence Community (IC) gouverne-t-elle les Etats-Unis? « a toujours été affirmative, tout au moins de la part de ceux qui sont, aux Etats-Unis et ailleurs, un tant soit peu informés. Jusqu'à présent, elle a toujours été affirmative mais comportait parfois quelques nuances. Autrement dit, dans une démocratie parlementaire dotée de médias relativement indépendants, comme l'est l'Amérique, les informations et consignes données par l'IC doivent franchir un certain nombre de filtres avant de se traduire en politique gouvernementale effective. Dans certains cas rares, elles sont mises en doute voire rejetées, au moins par une partie de l'opinion publique.

Or aujourd'hui, au vu des campagnes sans précédents menées par l'IC pour déconsidérer Trump, empêcher sa nomination ou le cas échéant provoquer sa destitution (impeachment), des chroniqueurs indépendants mais non systématiquement hostiles à la politique américaine en général, tel Daniel Lazare dans Consortiumnews , peuvent écrire: « Un Coup d'Etat militaire est-il en préparation ? Ou bien les agences de renseignement américaines sont-elles en train de mettre en place l'environnement politique pour forcer Trump à abandonner la présidence parce qu'elles ne peuvent accepter l'abandon de la politique de nouvelle guerre froide contre la Russie ? »

Pour notre part, comme nous l'avons écrit dans des articles précédents, nous sommes persuadés que l'IC ce faisant exprime, directement ou indirectement, la volonté de la plus grande partie du complexe militaro-industriel-diplomatique qui, en arrière plan de l'IC, décide de ce que doivent être l'Etat américain et sa politique. Or aujourd'hui, du fait que Trump commence à mettre en oeuvre un début bien timide de reprise de dialogue avec la Russie, il devient l'obstacle à abattre. S'il n'est pas assassiné d'ici là, il sera de toutes façons éliminé.

Nous devons nous demander quelles sont les raisons « systémiques », si l'on peut dire, qui ont permis l'apparition au premier plan d'un Donald Trump.

Elles sont sans doute de deux sortes. Les unes relèvent d'une analyse souvent faites, aux Etats-Unis comme ailleurs. Une grande partie du complexe militaro-industriel américain hostile à Trump est elle-même au service d'un capitalisme financier mondialisé, essentiellement américain, qui domine aujourd'hui le monde et le conduira sans doute à sa perte finale.

Cependant une petite partie de ce capitalisme financier s'est dit qu'il y aura pour elle plus de profits à attendre d'un rapprochement avec Moscou, compensé d'ailleurs par une hostilité grandissante à l'égard de Pékin, plutôt qu'une poursuite de la guerre froide. Elle soutiendra donc Trump., tant du moins que celui-ci lui paraitra utilisable.

Mais une seconde catégories de raisons sont de type systémique. Une analyse historique élémentaire montre que les héros individuels (en France Jeanne d'Arc, Bonaparte, De Gaulle, pour ne citer qu'eux), ont été suscités et portés par des évolutions structurelles dont ils n'avaient souvent pas conscience. Ils en étaient les instruments. Encore fallait-il que de telles personnalités puissantes existassent préalablement.

Or l'anthropologie elle-même élémentaire montre que, dans les sociétés humaines comme animales, de telles personnalités apparaissent spontanément. Elles permettent à l'évolution créatrice de se produire en échappant aux déterminismes sous-jacents. Manifestement, Trump est à ranger, de par ses qualité et défauts hors du commun, parmi ces héros exceptionnels.

Concrètement, ceci veut dire que tous ceux qui, partout dans le monde, veulent lutter contre le système de domination américain actuel, doivent en fonction de leurs moyens, soutenir Trump sans s'embarrasser de nuances. Ceci aujourd'hui comme dans les prochains mois, s'il a survécu jusque-là, ou s'il n'est pas rentré dans le rang.

* Voir sur ce thème

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-14/will-cia-assassi...

 

 

Théâtre d’ombres :
le nouveau Grand Jeu en Eurasie

L’approche occidentale du « diviser pour régner » face aux rivaux mondiaux est obsolète à l’ère des Nouvelles routes de la soie

Par Pepe Escobar

Source Asia Times & http://lesakerfrancophone.fr 

Ainsi, en plein cœur de Bali, fasciné après une conversation sérieuse avec un dukun – un maître spirituel – j’étais sidéré : ce devrait être un nouveau Yalta, le cadre parfait pour un sommet Trump–Xi–Poutine fixant les paramètres à venir d’un nouveauGrand Jeu en constante évolution en Eurasie.

La culture balinaise ne fait aucune distinction entre le séculier et le surnaturel – sekala et niskala. Sekala est ce que nos sens peuvent discerner. Niskala est ce qui ne peut pas être détecté directement mais seulement suggéré, comme les mouvements géopolitiques massifs qui nous attendent.

Captif de la vitesse vertigineuse de l’ici et maintenant, l’Occident a encore beaucoup à apprendre d’une culture très évoluée qui a prospéré il y a cinq mille ans le long des rives de la rivière Sindhu – maintenant Indus – dans ce qui est actuellement le Pakistan, puis a migré de l’empire Majapahit de Java vers Bali au XIV^e siècle sous la pression de l’avancée de l’islam.

Dans la conception hindou-balinaise de la structure cosmique, l’homme est une sorte de modèle à l’échelle de l’univers. L’ordre est personnifié par les dieux, le désordre personnifié par les démons de la terre. Il s’agit du dharma et du adharma.

Adharma règne sans contrôle en Occident.

Dans la philosophie religieuse hindou-balinaise, pour chaque force positive il y a un contrepoids, une force destructrice. Les deux sont inséparables – coexistant en équilibre dynamique. Le dualisme occidental est si peu sophistiqué par rapport à cela.

Dans le Suthasoma – un grand poème épique bouddhiste Mahayana composé dans le centre de Java à l’époque où le bouddhisme se mêlait joyeusement avec l’hindouisme shivaïste – nous trouvons un vers exceptionnel : « Bhineka tunggal ika » – c’est différent, mais c’est un.

C’est aussi la devise de l’Indonésie, blasonnée dans ses armoiries, sous l’oiseau mythique doré Garuda. C’est un message d’unité, comme le « E pluribus unum »américain. Maintenant, il ressemble plus à un message anticipant l’intégration eurasienne via les Nouvelles routes de la soie ; ce n’est pas par hasard si Xi Jinping a officiellement lancé la route de la soie maritime en 2013 en Indonésie.

Avec l’ère Trump sur le point de commencer, la conjoncture géopolitique actuelle ressemble à – et se ressent comme – un immense Wayang kulit, un jeu d’ombre balinais.

L’origine historique du jeu d’ombre se trouve très probablement en Inde, bien qu’on le trouve partout en Asie. Le bien et le mal coexistent dans le jeu d’ombre, mais l’hindouisme cherche à représenter le choc comme une sorte de partenariat bizarre.

Kulit signifie peau, couvrant. Wayang est la marionnette, faite de peau de vache, peinte et munie de bâtons que le dalang – le maître de marionnettes – manipule à volonté.

Chaque performance Wayang kulit est une histoire racontée par un dalang [marionnettiste] à travers des voix qu’il doit imiter, des ombres sur un écran et de la musique d’ambiance. Le dalang – sorte de prêtre – incarne tous les personnages et doit connaître par cœur les histoires qu’il raconte.

Seuls quelques individus en Occident peuvent être qualifiés de dalangs – en particulier dans la sphère géopolitique. Les dalangs réels sont en fait totalement invisibles, enfouis profondément dans le niskala. Mais nous avons leurs émissaires, les dalangs visibles, experts médiatiques et vénérés.

Le taureau blanc et la fille asiatique

Maintenant, comparez le jeu d’ombre balinais – représentant sekala et surtout niskala – avec l’approche made-in-Occident ; le fil d’Ariane qui pourrait, peut-être, nous guider hors du labyrinthe géopolitique actuel en utilisant un concept excessivement révéré : la logique.

D’abord, un rembobinage. Revenons à la naissance de l’Occident, en Europe. La légende nous raconte qu’un beau jour Zeus a jeté son œil vagabond sur une fille aux grands yeux brillants : Europe. Un peu plus tard, sur une plage de la côte phénicienne, un taureau blanc extraordinaire s’est présenté. Europe, intriguée, se rapproche et commence à caresser le taureau ; bien sûr, c’était Zeus déguisé. Le taureau emporta alors Europe et se dirigea vers la mer.

Zeus eut trois fils avec Europe – à qui il légua une lance qui ne manquait jamais sa cible. Un de ces fils, comme nous le savons tous, était Minos, qui construisit un labyrinthe. Mais surtout, ce que la légende nous a enseigné, c’est que l’Occident est né d’une fille – Europe – venue d’Orient.

La question est maintenant de savoir qui trouvera le fil d’Ariane pour nous sortir du labyrinthe, qui, cinq siècles après l’ère de la Découverte – dirigée par l’Occident – nous a conduits au déclin, avec en tête de file son chef, les États-Unis.

L’administration Obama, leader de l’Ouest « de l’arrière », a contre-attaqué avec un pivot vers l’Asie – lire confinement de la Chine – et une guerre froide 2.0 par la diabolisation de la Russie. L’ensemble du projet de l’UE fait face à un effondrement total. Le mythe de la supériorité culturelle et politique européenne / occidentale – cultivé au cours des cinq derniers siècles – est réduit en poussière, si l’on considère « toutes les immensités de la vague asiatique », comme l’écrit Yeats dans son poème The Statues. Ce sera certainement le siècle de l’Eurasie.

Une voie cohérente aurait été ce que Poutine a proposé en 2007 – un emporium unifié du commerce continental de Lisbonne à Vladivostok. L’idée a ensuite été reprise et élargie par les Chinois via le concept de One Belt, One Road (OBOR).

Au lieu de cela, l’administration Obama, menant l’Occident « de l’arrière », a contre-attaqué avec un pivot vers l’Asie et une Guerre froide 2.0.

Écoutez les dalangs occidentaux

Et cela nous mène, à la veille d’une nouvelle ère géopolitique possible, à ce que les dalangs occidentaux les plus visibles peuvent concocter dans le niskala.

Sekala se manifeste, dans les secteurs de l’État profond des États-Unis, par une hystérie hors de contrôle 24/7, à propos des actes russes diaboliques, avec les néocons/néolibérauxcons et les vestiges de l’administration Obama poussant la guerre froide 2.0 à ses limites. Pourtant niskala, où opèrent Henry Kissinger et Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski , « Grand échiquier », est l’endroit où s’élaborent les concepts de l’action réelle. Ce n’est pas un secret que l’urbain, cérébral, et légendaire Kissinger conseille maintenant Trump. La stratégie à long terme pourrait être qualifiée, classiquement, de Diviser pour régner, mais légèrement remixée dans ce cas : une tentative de briser le partenariat stratégique Russie-Chine en s’alliant au nœud théoriquement le plus faible, la Russie, pour mieux contenir le nœud le plus fort, la Chine.

D’un « Nixon en Chine » à un « Trump à Moscou »

Il est évident que les vains sycophantes dans le style de Niall Ferguson vont auréoler le rusé Kissinger de couronnes hagiographiques, inconscients du fait que Kissinger pourrait monter dans un manège plus rentable, sous la forme d’un business en plein essor pour son cabinet d’expertise florissant Kissinger Associates Inc., qui est aussi membre de US-Russia Business Council, côte à côte avec ExxonMobil, JPMorgan Chase et le champion du Big Pharma, Pfizer.

Pour résumer : on oublie les révolutions de couleur et autres régime change, pour laisser la place à un confinement bienveillant.

Il y a près d’un an, Kissinger avait déjà prononcé un discours sur la façon dont Washington devrait traiter Moscou :

« Les intérêts à long terme des deux pays exigent un monde qui transforme les flux contemporains turbulents en un nouvel équilibre qui sera de plus en plus multipolaire et mondialisé […] La Russie doit être perçue comme un élément essentiel de tout équilibre mondial, et non pas principalement comme une menace pour les États-Unis. » 

Un Kissinger multipolaire prônant que la Russie n’est « pas une menace » – on se demande pourquoi, à l’époque, la machine Clinton n’a pas accusé le vieil homme d’être, lui aussi, un otage de la romance avec Poutine.

De plus, quelques mois avant la victoire de Trump, mais en contraste marqué avec Kissinger, Brzezinski s’est trouvé dans un profond état d’alerte rouge, alarmé par « l’érosion des avantages technico-militaires des États-Unis », comme détaillé par exemple dans ce rapport du CNAS.

Brzezinski a sombrement affirmé l’évidence que l’infériorité militaire des États-Unis « signerait la fin du rôle mondial de l’Amérique » et que le résultat serait « très probablement un chaos mondial ».

Sa solution pour les États-Unis était alors « de façonner une politique dans laquelle au moins l’un des deux États potentiellement menaçants devient un partenaire dans la quête d’une stabilité d’abord régionale et ensuite plus large, et donc de contenir le rival le moins prévisible mais potentiellement le plus susceptible de passer en tête. À l’heure actuelle c’est la Russie, mais à plus long terme, cela pourrait être la Chine. »

Alors vous avez compris, encore et toujours diviser pour régner, afin de contrer les menaces indisciplinées.

Brzezinski, après la débâcle de la machine Clinton et d’Obama , n’est plus qu’un perdant pitoyable. Il a donc été obligé de rebattre légèrement les cartes. Contrairement à Kissinger, et fidèle à sa russophobie enragée, sa devise Diviser pour régner consiste à séduire la Chine pour l’éloigner de la Russie, assurant ainsi que « l’influence américaine est maximisée ».

Dans une prévisible, et bien occidentale, contemplation de son nombril, Brzezinski suppose que la Chine ne peut pas choisir d’aller contre les États-Unis, car il est « dans son intérêt d’appartenir à l’ensemble dominant ». Pourtant, l’« ensemble dominant » n’est plus les États-Unis, c’est l’intégration eurasienne.

Les Nouvelle routes de la soie, ou OBOR, représentent le seul vaste projet d’intégration géoéconomique et géopolitique sur le marché. Alors que Kissinger peut rester, sans doute, l’ultime dalang de la realpolitik, Brzezinski, le mentor d’Obama est toujours otage de Mackinder. La direction chinoise, quant à elle, est déjà bien en avance sur Mackinder et Alfred Mahan. Les nouvelles routes de la soie visent à intégrer, par le commerce et les communications, non seulement le Heartland (One Belt), mais aussi le Rimland (One Road, la route maritime de la soie).

Un partenariat avec l’Union économique eurasienne (EEU) sera essentiel à l’ensemble du projet. Peu de gens se souviendront que lors de la crise de folie de la Guerre froide 2.0, en septembre dernier, le Forum économique de l’Est s’activait à Vladisvostok, avec Poutine proposant un « espace d’économie numérique » dans toute l’Asie-Pacifique et la Chine s’engageant à participer davantage au développement de l’Extrême-Orient russe.

Ce que nous voyons sans doute maintenant, ce sont les deux principaux dalangs occidentaux, Kissinger et Brzezinski, essayant de s’adapter à la nouvelle normalité – l’intégration eurasienne via les Nouvelles routes de la soie (OBOR) et l’Union économique eurasienne  (EEU) – en proposant des versions contradictoires et bienveillantes de la devise Diviser pour régner, alors que les services de renseignement américains continuent de s’accrocher, dans un désespoir agité, à l’ancien paradigme de la confrontation.

Comme piliers principaux – la Triple Entente ? – de l’intégration eurasienne, Moscou, Pékin et Téhéran sont très conscients de la présence d’un étranger, porteur de cadeaux, tapi dans niskala. Un étranger visant, en vrac, Moscou qui trahirait Téhéran en Syrie et sur l’accord nucléaire ; Moscou qui se séparerait de Pékin ; Pékin qui trahirait Téhéran ; et toutes sortes de permutations intermédiaires du théâtre d’ombre entre la contention et le pillage.

Ce sera l’histoire principale à suivre tout au long des Routes de la soie. Selon la parole mémorable de Yeats, « un miroir reflété dans un miroir, voilà tout le spectacle. » Pourtant, le spectacle doit continuer – avec les dalangs d’Est et d’Ouest lâchés dans le niskala profond.

Bienvenue dans le Tournoi des ombres du XXI^e siècle.

Pepe Escobar est l’auteur de Globalistan : How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007), Red Zone Blues : a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge (Nimble Books, 2007), Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009), Empire of Chaos (Nimble Books) et le petit dernier, 2030, traduit en français.

Traduit et édité par jj, relu par Catherine pour le Saker Francophone.

 

The bizarre world of Christian Zionism

F. William Engdahl:

 

‘Soldiers of Christ’

The bizarre world of Christian Zionism

 

(avec l'aimable autorisation de l'auteur)

 

Praying for Armageddon

 

It was impossible to grasp how such a drastic foreign policy shift could occur between the time of Eisenhower in the 1950’s and George W. Bush, without one little-known element: understanding the political power base the Israeli right-wing Likud Zionist lobby built up around the American Christian Born-Again right-wing.

 

The most striking and paradoxical feature of the Likud-US strategic linkup was the fanatical backing for the militant expansion of Israel from the side of various nominally Christian denominations and organizations in the United States. Behind the religious façade, was a well-organized political machine directly tied to Tel Aviv and Washington power centers.

 

The peculiar Christians, who called themselves Christian Zionists, and who formed the core activist voter machine of the Bush Presidency, preached a doctrine quite different from the traditional Christian Gospel of love for fellow men and tolerance. They preached hate and war, a militant brand of belief that had more similarity with the 12^thCentury bloody Crusades than with modern Christianity.

 

In 1977, Israeli intelligence services, under the direction of  Dr. Jonah Malachy, quietly began to conduct a detailed profile of all the many different Christian organizations in the United States, and profiled them according to how they regarded the existence of Israel, in terms of their Christian belief.

 

The Israeli researchers found the most fertile soil in the Southern US states, which traditionally had been based on cotton or tobacco slavery, and whose white elites had been shaped over generations on a belief in white superiority over blacks, or other whites such as Catholics or even Jews. These white protestants, whether Southern Baptist, Methodist or one of the growing number of Born Again charismatic sects proliferating in the South after World War II, were ripe for manipulation on the subject of Israel. All it needed was some fine adjustments of their theology.

 

Ironically, many of these Born-Again Christians were anti-semitic, anti-Jewish. Their new Israeli friends knew this well, and cynically proceeded to forge a strategic alliance in which the Israeli or pro-Israeli think-tanks they created in Washington would be supported in their Israel political agenda by the growing army of Born Again Christian voters.

 

Under ordinary conditions, the American Christian Zionists would have remained one of many tiny sects in America calling themselves Christian. The events surrounding the shocking terror attacks of September 11, 2001 and the demagogic manipulation of those events by a nominally Born-Again President George W. Bush, dramatically changed that and made Christian Zionism a far more serious political force within US politics, more so because most of its members were white, upper middle-class Republicans. They had built a highly organized national political machine and had leveraged their influence to an almost decisive factor, often deciding whether a given candidate for national office would win or lose. 

 

As Jewish scholar Barbara Tuchman documented in her famous account of British Zionism, Bible and Sword, the roots of Christian Zionism went back to the British Imperial ideology, in which certain very prominent British establishment figures including Lord Palmerston, Lord Balfour and Shaftesbury saw support for a Jewish home in Palestine as part of a manufactured or synthetic ideology in which they claimed the British people to be the ‘Chosen People’, the ‘Lost Tribe of Israel.’

 

The Roots of Christian Zionism

 

John Nelson Darby, a renegade Irish priest who died in 1881 created the idea of ‘the Rapture” as he founded a new brand of Christian Zionism, in which what he called ‘Born-Again Christians” would be taken up to Heaven before the second coming of Christ—their ‘rapture.’ Darby also put Israel at the heart of his strange new theology, claiming that an actual Jewish state of Israel would become the ‘central instrument for God to fulfil his plans for a final Battle of Armageddon.’

 

Darby travelled widely in the United States and won adherents to his bizarre sect, creating the beginnings of American Christian Zionism, including the famous US Bible interpreters Dwight L. Moody, who founded the Moody Bible Institute in Chicago and the 1930’s preacher, Billy Sunday and Cyrus Scofield. In 1909 Scofield published the Scofield Bible with footnotes interpreting Bible passages according to the Darby Christian Zionist world. That Scofield Bible was by the end of the 20^th Century the basis for all US Christian Zionist and Born Again teaching in what was the fastest growing sector of the Christian faith in the US.

 

Christian Zionists like Reverend Jerry Falwell and Rev. Pat Robertson could be traced back to a project of British Secret Intelligence services and the British establishment to use the Zion ideology to advance Empire and power in North America. American Christian Zionists in the period of American Empire in the 1950’s and later, merely adopted this ideology and gave it an American name. 

 

These American Christian Zionists, just below the surface, preached a religion quite opposite to the message of love and charity of the Jesus of the New Testament. In fact, it was a religion of hate, intolerance and fanaticism. The soil it bred in was the bitter race hatreds of the post-Civil War US South held by generations of whites against blacks and, ironically, against Catholics and Jews as ‘inferior’ races. Their religion was the religion of a coming Final Battle of Armageddon, of a Rapture in which the elect would be swept up to Heaven while the ‘infidels’ would die in mutual slaughter.

 

 

In the months following the US September 11 attacks, Rev. Pat Robertson repeatedly preached the notion that Muslims were “worse than the Nazis.” On his Christian Broadcasting Network in November 2002, Robertson declared, “Adolf Hitler was bad, but what the Muslims want to do to the Jews is worse.” Robertson, claiming to be a man of God, refused to retract the hate speech despite much public outcry. In other comments, he compared the Qu’ran to Hitler’s Mein Kampf as a blueprint for world domination, hardly constructive words to heal the wounds of a nation still in shock after September 11, or to win friends abroad.

 

In an October 2002 CBS ‘Sixty Minutes’ TV broadcast, Robertson’s Christian Zion friend, Rev. Jerry Falwell declared, “I think Muhammed was a terrorist, a violent man, a man of war…” Bush’s War on Terror was being defined by his Christian Zionist base as a holy “Crusade” against Islam, Sir Bernard Lewis’s Clash of Civilization, adapted by Harvard Professor Samuel Huntington in a famous 1993 Foreign Affairs article as the “clash of civilizations.”  It asserted that following the collapse of the Soviet Union the main conflict in the world would be between opposing cultural and religious identities.

 

In his 1993 article, Huntington had argued, “World politics is entering a new phase, in which the great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of international conflict will be cultural. Civilizations-the highest cultural groupings of people-are differentiated from each other by religion, history, language and tradition. These divisions are deep and increasing in importance. From Yugoslavia to the Middle East to Central Asia, the fault lines of civilizations are the battle lines of the future. In this emerging era of cultural conflict the United States must forge alliances with similar cultures and spread its values wherever possible. With alien civilizations the West must be accommodating if possible, but confrontational if necessary.” [1]

 

The new “enemy image” was being defined by the US establishment as early as 1993, only months after the collapse of the Soviet Union, as Islam. It was the prelude to the 2001 War on Terrorism, a thinly-disguised War on Islam.

 

Echoing the anti-Islam fervor of Falwell and Robertson, Rev. Franklin Graham, son of the famous Christian evangelist and Bush family friend, Reverend Billy Graham, declared after September 11 that Islam was “a very evil and wicked religion.” The large US Southern Baptist Convention’s former President, Jerry Vines, called the Prophet Mohammed the most vile names imaginable. It was all about stirring Americans in a time of fear into hate against the Islamic world, in order to rev up Bush’s War on Terror.

 

Graham, who controlled an organization known as the Samaritan Purse, was a close religious adviser to George W. Bush. In 2003 Graham got permission from the US occupation authorities to bring his Evangelical anti-Islam form of Christianity into Iraq to win “converts” to his fanatical brand of Christianity. [2]

 

According to author Grace Halsell, Christian Zionists believed that “every act taken by Israel is orchestrated by God, and should be condoned, supported, and even praised by the rest of us.” [3] It was all beginning to sound far too much like a new Holy Crusade against more than one billion followers of the Islamic faith.

 

The Likud’s Christian Zionists in America

 

After the Likud government of Menachim Begin realized in 1977 that President Carter was intent on human rights for Palestinians, including statehood, Likud and their neo-conservativeservative allies in the US began to look for support outside the liberal Democratic Party of Carter. The Israeli Labour Party had supported land-for-peace, but the Likud backed a Greater Israel, which would include the occupied Palestinian territories of West Bank and Gaza, which they call Judea and Samaria. The pro-Likud neo-conservatives around Irving Kristol, Richard Perle and others left the Democratic Party at that time to found what they later would call ‘Neo-conservativeservativism’ and to build their base inside the Republican Party of Ronald Reagan, a man who was very much influenced by the Christian Right himself.

 

In 1978, Prof. Yona Malachy of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, published his major research profile on American evangelical Protestant groups, titled, ‘American Fundamentalism and Israel: The Relation of Fundamentalist Churches to Zionism and the State of Israel.’

 

Malachy discovered numerous American Protestant sects, most in the rural Southern states, who linked their theology to the State of Israel, through a strange, literal interpretation of the Bible. Their ministers were typically trained at the Moody Bible Institute or, often, the ultra-conservative Dallas Theological Seminary of  John Walvoord in Texas. They diligently read the 1909 Scofield Reference Bible, whose footnotes ‘explain’ the Bible texts in their arcane prophecy terms.

 

Leaders of  the Likud and select Israeli religious leaders, went to work after 1977 to bring the most charismatic, and often most corruptible, leaders of these US Christian groups to Israel, where they developed direct links between Likud leaders and the Christian Right in the US.

 

Menachim Begin began to attend Washington ‘prayer breakfasts for Israel’ with fundamentalist ministers including Rev. Jerry Falwell, then head of Moral Majority, and Rev. Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition and the Christian Broadcasting Network. When another Jew pointed out that these Christians were anti-semitic, Begin reportedly snapped back to the effect he did not care so long as they supported Israel in the US.

 

Conservative Christian support for Israel is based largely on various prophecies about the Jewish people during the ‘end-times’ which they believe are found throughout the Bible. They are viewed as playing a major role in ‘TEOTWAWKI’ (the end of the world aswe know it).

 

Representative of some most often-cited Bible passages used by the Christian Zionists to support their end-times prophesy are the following passages taken from the King James Version of the Bible:

* Zechariah 12:3: ‘And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.’ The implication is that the Jewish people would return to Israel; this happened in 1948 with the creation of the State of Israel. Later, all the nations of the earth will gather against her. Some believe that we are near that point today. But God will make Jerusalem an immovable rock. This came to pass when the Camp David peace talks found that the future status of Jerusalem became a major stumbling block.

 

* Zechariah 12:9-10: ‘And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn."  Many conservative Christians interpret this as saying that Jews will be humbled, will accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior, and become Christians.

 

* Revelation 4:4: ‘And round about the throne were four and twenty seats: and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment; and they had on their heads crowns of gold." Conservative Christians view the 24 as being composed of the patriarchs of each of the twelve ancient tribes of Israel, along with the twelve apostles. To emphasize their unity, they are gathered in a circle around the throne of God. All are believed to be Christians at that time.

 

* Revelation 7:3-4: ‘Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads. And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.’

 

* Revelation 14:1-4: ‘And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their  foreheads....These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the first fruits unto God and to the Lamb.’

 

The passages seemed to imply that 144,000 Jewish virgins -- their gender was not mentioned -- would convert to Christianity and be ‘sealed.’ They would have God's name written on their forehead, and be followers of the Lamb -- i.e. of Christ. Some Christians interpreted these phrases as implying that 144,000 Jews will convert to Christianity and then attempt to convert the remaining Jews in Israel.[4]

 

The vast majority of American and international Christian churches were highly critical of the theological claims of the Christian Zionists. The Middle East Council of Churches, representing Oriental and Eastern Christian churches in the Middle East, charged that the Christian Zionists, ‘aggressively imposed an aberrant expression of the Christian faith, and an erroneous interpretation of the Bible which is subservient to the political agenda of the modern State of Israel.’ Christian Zionism, they said, ‘rejects the movement of Christian unity and inter-religious understanding.’

 

The Rapture and God's ‘Chosen People’

 

Christian Zionism existed even before Hertzl founded modern Jewish Zionism in the late 1800's. Certain Protestant dissenter sects during the English Civil War in the 1600's believed themselves to be God's Chosen People, the ‘lost tribe of Israel.’ A number of prominent British Imperialists were themselves Christian Zionists, including Lord Palmerston, Lord Shaftesbury, Lloyd George and Lord Balfour, who issued the 1917 Balfour Declaration giving Jews a homeland in British-protected Palestine. For them, the ideology justified British Imperialism as a religious mission.

 

Christian Zionists argued that the Land of Israel has been given to the Jewish people by God, and that in order for the Second Coming of Christ to occur, all Jews must return to Israel, this for a Final Battle of Armageddon, between the Forces of Good and Forces of Evil.

 

They admitted it will destroy the Earth, the so-called End Times, but the ‘good news’ for Christian Zionists, was that they, the true believers, would be suddenly caught up into Heaven in a holy ‘Rapture,’ and be spared the messy aspects of a nuclear holocaust at Armageddon. Their theology was a dangerous brew of Manichean absolute black and white, good versus evil, which sees the alliance of the US (under their direction, of course) and Israel, battling the forces of ‘evil’, especially Islam and Muslims. It was reminiscent of the statements by President Bush in the wake of September 11, 2001 where he declared, ‘either you’re with America or you are against us,’ as he spoke of a ‘new Crusade.’

 

 

Ironically, behind their pro-Israel facade, Christian Zionists like Falwell and Robertson cynically used their links to Israeli Jews to push an anti-semitic agenda of their own.

 

Uri Avnery, leader of the Israeli peace group, Gush Shalom, describing the theology of these supposed Christian friends of Israel, stated, ‘According to its theological beliefs, the Jews must congregate in Palestine and establish a Jewish state on all its territory so as to make the Second Coming of Jesus Christ possible...The evangelists don't like to dwell openly on what comes next: before the coming (of the Messiah), the Jews must convert to Christianity. Those who don't will perish in a gigantic holocaust in the battle of Armageddon. This is basically an anti-semitic teaching...,’ namely that Jews who remain true to their Old Testament beliefs will all be killed. [5]

 

This organized lobby of the Christian ‘Born Again’ ultra-conservative voters was credited with securing the re-election of George W. Bush in 2004. A study undertaken of American voting blocs in 2003 found that the Christian Right comprised the largest active social movement in the United States and the largest voting bloc within George Bush’s Republican Party.[6]

 

On October 19, 2004 Dr. Daniel Akin, President of the Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary issued an Open Letter signed by 72 Evangelical leaders urging the American people to ‘use Biblical values in their selection of candidates.’ The letter cited gay marriage, stem-cell research, and Democrats’ alleged defense of ‘terrorists’ as reasons to vote Republican not Democrat. The letter was signed by the most prominent members of the Christian Zion right backing Bush and backing Sharon as, ‘fulfilment of Bible prophesy.’ 

 

The crucial new element in the emergence of the Christian Right in recent years in America was their focus on organized political influence, not merely on religious life-style and church piety.

 

In 1979, Reverend Jerry Falwell, a member of the Committee on National Policy and a Christian Zionist leading figure, launched an organisation known as the Moral Majority with the aim ‘to mobilize the Christian church on behalf of moral and social issues and to encourage participation by people of faith in the political process.’

 

The Moral Majority quickly became a household name. Through its charismatic

public leader, Falwell, the organisation mobilised thousands of churches and

millions of registered voters to form a Christian political bloc, and what came to be known as the Christian-Right.

 

Falwell was soon sought out by aspiring politicians hungry for his approval and potential votes. Falwell in turn, rated candidates on their acceptability on issues considered of priority to the Israeli Likud, with whom he had in the meantime become quite close. Falwell flew across the US in a luxurious private jet given him as a gift on a trip to Israel by Likud Prime Minister Menachim Begin.

 

It was also around this same time, in the late 1970’s that the formal Christian-Right was established and certain Israeli organisations began understanding that an alliance with the Christian Zionists in the US could bolster their image and prominence on the international level through a stronger influence in US politics.

 

The fervency of the Christian-Right towards the State of Israel coupled

with its strong American presence, captured the attention of Israeli interest

groups. Though aware of their diametric opposite social and religious views, some Israeli political organisations saw an alliance with the Christian Zionists as a crucial element in promoting a positive image of Israel in US politics and

among the American mainstream.

 

Jewish-American leaders were initially opposed to an alliance with the Christian-Right and perceived the movement as a possible adversary. However, when the formal establishment of the Christian-Right solidified this movement as an influential political bloc in the US, these feelings of trepidation were soon dissipated and various Israeli groups recognised that an alliance with this bloc would be advantageous to their political interests. [7]

 

These US religious spokesmen claimed they had been told by God such things as whether the US should go to war against Iraq. In an article, ‘Should We Go To War With Iraq?’ Roy A. Reinhold on February 5, 2003 wrote of his discussion with his God: ‘Many people wonder whether this coming showdown with Iraq, by the USA and a coalition of nations, is worthwhile and whether it is the right thing to do.

 

‘On Saturday, February 1, 2003, I lifted my hands to begin praying and the Lord spoke to me… I wanted to know whether the God the Father's direction was to go to war or not go to war. ..The Lord said, ‘I am saying to go to war with Iraq’.

 

Reinhold added, ‘I put the above on my message boards and what everyone wanted to know was, ‘what is God's reason(s) for going to war with Iraq?’ That question hadn't occurred to me, because I personally just accepted God's direction.’

 

The raw hate ideology of the US Christian Zionists, claiming personal support from God, represented a dangerous shift in US politics to the extreme right.  Some circles around Bush and his trusted political advisor, Karl Rove, sought to create out of American fears and uncertainty regarding such issues as gay marriage, a core theocratic state, just opposite what most Americans wished. Rove had been the architect of Bush’s relationship with the Christian Zionist fundamentalist Right when Bush was still Texas Governor.

 

Rebuilding the Temple of Salomon

 

The US Christian Zionists and their allies have a long-term agenda which well might trigger a new World War. Some neo-conservatives say that war began on September 11, 2001. They refer to it as World War IV, claiming that the Cold War was actually World War III.

 

These circles wanted to destroy the holy Islamic Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem and rebuild the Biblical Temple of Salomon on the site, where they would resume animal sacrifice. A close adviser to the Bush White House, and to Karl Rove, Michael Ledeen, was at the heart of the dangerous lunacy.

 

During the 1970’s the face of Christian practice in the United States was transformed by new ‘television-evangelists’ with names such as Rev. Jerry Falwell with his organization, the Moral Majority or Rev. Pat Robertson with his tax-exempt TV ‘700 Club’ broadcasts, which bring his organization hundreds of millions dollars a year, or author Hal Lindsey, with his ‘Rapture’ series of fiction novels about the end of civilization around a final Battle of Armageddon in what is today’s Israel. These Born Again Christians as they called themselves, began to dominate the US airwaves. It later emerged that many of these, including the anti-Islamic Falwell and Robertson, were intimately linked to the Israeli right-wing. Some also had ties to the CIA. 

 

Grace Halsell, who recently died, grew up on the same Texas soil where the Christian fundamentalism that captured George W. Bush, was dominant. She went on to become a White House speech writer in the 1960’s, and later a courageous journalist who devoted her last years to exposing the dangerous ties of Falwell and other so-called born-again Christians to the Israeli right-wing.

 

During the 1980’s, to understand the Born-Again phenomenon then sweeping across the United States, Halsell went to Israel with a group led by Falwell. As she described it, ‘My inquiry led me to ask why does a Christian such as Jerry Falwell pray for the end of the world? Must we totally destroy this world in order to usher in a ‘new heaven and a new earth?’  Her conclusions were alarming.

 

She found that Falwell had become a close friend of the Israeli right, when she went on their joint Bible tour of Israel and the Holy Land in 1983. Halsell noted the curious fact that, rather than concentrate the tour on Christian sites in the Holy Land, Falwell’s tour was entirely run by Israeli guides and toured only Israeli sites of interest. Moreover, Falwell was given as a gift by the Israeli government his personal Lear private jet to make his US tours.

 

Falwell and other US Christian Born Again fundamentalists said they believed that it was ‘God’s Will’ that Israel move to establish its greater domination in the Mideast, as that will bring the world that much closer to the Biblical ‘Day of Final Judgment,’ when the ‘true-believers’ will be saved in a mystical ‘rapture,’ being swept up to Heaven, as the unsaved perish in the final Battle of Armageddon. That battle, according to Falwell and his friends, will pit Jews against Muslims.

 

Halsell interviewed a number of Americans actively involved in trying to ‘speed up’ the final Armageddon. One was Terry Risenhoover, an Oklahoma oilman and Born Again Christian Zionist, who was close to the Reagan White House. Risenhoover was open about his views. He financed people in Israel and elsewhere who would rebuild the destroyed Temple of Salomon, the so-called Third Temple, on one of Islam’s most holy sites, the Al-Aqsa Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem.

 

 

In 1985 Risenhoover was chairman of the American Forum for Jewish-Christian Cooperation, along with its director, Doug Krieger and American Rabbi David Ben-Ami, a close friend of Israel’s Ariel Sharon. Risenhoover was also, chairman of the Jerusalem Temple Foundation, ‘whose sole purpose is the rebuilding of a temple on the site of the present Muslim shrine.’

 

Risenhoover selected Stanley Goldfoot as his International Secretary of Temple Mount Foundation. Goldfoot was a former member of the terrorist Stern Gang, denounced by Ben-Gurion as Nazis. Goldfoot was the person, according to Israeli newspaper, Davar, who placed the bomb in Jerusalem’s King David Hotel in July 1946 which killed some 100 British citizens.

 

Risenhoover boasted to Halsell in an interview on Goldfoot that, ‘He’s a very solid, legitimate terrorist. He has the qualifications for clearing a site for the Temple.’ A Goldfoot deputy, Yisrael Meida, told Halsell, ‘He who controls the Temple Mount, controls Jerusalem.

 

Who controls Jerusalem, controls the Land of Israel,’ a new twist on the famous dictum of geopolitics of Sir Halford MacKinder: “Who controls Central Europe controls the Heartland; who controls the Heartland (Russia etc) controls the World Island; who controls the World Island controls the world…”

 

In 1998, an Israeli newsletter posted on the Voice of Temple Mount website, announced that its goal is the ‘liberation’ of the Muslim shrines around Al Aqsa, and the building of a Jewish Temple on the site. ‘Now the time is ripe for the Temple to be rebuilt,’ they announced. They then called on the Israeli government to ‘end the pagan (sic) Islamic occupation’ of lands where the mosque stands. ‘The building of the Third Temple is near,’ they proclaimed in 1998.

 

In September 2000, Israel’s Ariel Sharon led a large group of Israeli police onto the Al Aqsa holy site in a deliberate religious provocation, which triggered the renewal of the Intifada. Sharon’s friends had been secretly digging an underground tunnel to the Al Aqsa site which allegedly would be used to dynamite the Islam holy site at the proper moment. The Third Temple project was not fantasy for some, even though it was lunatic.

 

The late Dr. Issa Nakhleh, former Senior Advisor to the UN Palestinian Delegation warned of a ‘criminal conspiracy’ between Christian Evangelists and Zionist terrorists to destroy Al Aqsa Mosque. He confirmed that members of American Christian evangelists and Jewish terrorists had formed The Jerusalem Temple Foundation. Nakhleh added that the contemplated projects of this foundation as they appear in a brochure printed by it, included, ‘Preparations for the construction of the Third Temple in Jerusalem…’

 

He confirmed that among the Temple Mount conspirators was a man who later became one of George W. Bush’s most important neo-conservatives, Washington insider, Michael Ledeen, who was close to Bush political adviser Karl Rove. Nakhleh stated, ‘Barbara and Michael Ledeen published an article in The New Republic of June 18, 1984, under the title, ‘What do Christian and Jewish fundamentalists have in common? The Temple Mount Plot.’

 

Nakhleh stated, ‘...Goldfoot sees the Christians as logical allies, for he believes that ‘Christian fundamentalists are the real modern day Zionists.’ In Goldfoot's view, it was the Christians above all who realize that ‘we are coming to a crucial period in earth's history, and they want to help fulfil prophecy and thus hasten the coming of the Messiah’ ... As one Jewish leader put it to us last summer in Jerusalem, ‘They believe that once the Temple is built, Jesus will come again. We expect the Messiah to come for the first time. Let's build the Temple, and see what he looks like.’

 

Nakhleh continued, ‘...This ardent messianism appears to have been part of the motivation for the group of twenty-five radical Jewish nationalists arrested recently in Jerusalem on charges that included murder, attempted murder, possession of weapons and explosives stolen from the Israeli Army, and membership in a terrorist organization.’

 

‘...It is also known that one of the arrested men is a reserve pilot in the Israeli Army. The pilot, who had returned to religion, suggested to his co-conspirators that he steal an F-16 the next time he was called up, and that he bombard the two Muslim shrines on the Temple Mount. The group vetoed his plan because the Western Wall might be damaged, and the pilot would be unable to land his plane anywhere in Israel. Instead, the plotters decided to use explosive devices on the Temple Mount.’

 

 

Michael Ledeen, who was based at the neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute think-tank in Washington with Richard Perle and other leading neo-conservatives, also served as consultant to White House political strategist, Karl Rove. Ledeen was one of the central figures in the Bush agenda of the Project for the New American Century blueprint for world domination.

 

Grace Halsell, joined another trip of the evangelist Jerry Falwell to the Holy Land in 1986. She wrote about the plans to destroy Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock. ‘The plan to take over Haram al-Sharif is more institutionalized, and becoming better organized, better financed, gaining more supporters in Jerusalem and in the US,’ she reported.

 

‘They are ‘actively and peacefully buying property in the area nearest the Temple Mount,’ and they deem this task ‘important and monumental. They have an Institute for the Research of the Temple, to ascertain exact plans and measurements of the Temple.’

 

Halsell added, ‘At least seven rabbis, among them the foremost spiritual leaders of the Gush Emunim settlement movement, were consulted, informed and aware of various stages of the activities and plans of the Jewish terror organization. Livni, charged with the preparing of a bomb to be placed in the Dome of the Rock and Al Aqsa, said Rabbi Ovadia Yosef in particular had spoken approvingly of the idea. Neither of the chief Israeli rabbis condemned the attempts to destroy the mosque.

 

Halsell added, ‘Israeli leaders seem definitely connected with the American Jewish evangelist Mike Evans, who on an hour-long TV Special was photographed underneath the mosque, in Jewish skullcap with an Israeli ‘expert’ on relics and the expert opens a door and proclaims, ‘Right there we keep the Holy of Holies’ [8]

 

The financial support system among US Evangelicals for destruction of the mosque has gone underground since an article in 1984 named specific persons, such as Terry Risenhoover, who was raising big money for the defense of Jewish terrorists who attempted to destroy the Muslim shrine.

 

‘In Jerusalem, guides for Falwell's 850 touring Christians told us at the Western Wall that we are viewing the former site of the Temple as well as the site where a new temple will be built,’ Halsell noted.

 

Halsell interviewed Dr. John Walvoord who headed Dallas Theological Seminary, a speaker during Falwell's 1985 ‘Prophecy Conference’ in Jerusalem. He interprets the Bible as saying God wants Christians to help the Jews build a Jewish temple. He and other Born Again Christians are aware of the Dome of the Rock and Al Aqsa but as Hal Lindsey puts it, ‘Obstacle or no obstacle, it is certain the temple will be rebuilt, prophecy demands it.’

 

Jerry Falwell and all major US TV evangelists preached that the Jewish temple ‘must’ be built.

 

They accepted that as part of their theology, a theology generally known as dispensationalism, which calls for seven ‘dispensations’ or time periods, beginning with all the ingathering of Jews into Palestine, and including the building of the temple. Hal Lindsey, in The Late Great Planet Earth, wrote that ‘there remains but one more event to completely set the stage for Israel's part in the last great act of her historical drama. This is to rebuild the ancient Temple of worship upon its old site. There is only one place that this Temple can be built, according to the Law of Moses. This is upon Mt. Moriah. It is there that the two previous Temples were built.’ [9]

 

Thus, there was a great support system in the US for whatever action Jewish terrorists might take to destroy Al Aqsa. Should they destroy the shrine, all of the major TV Evangelists would simply call it an ‘act of God.’

 

Grace Halsell added, ‘Fanatics who belong to what the vast majority of Christians and Jews might term a crazy minority - and numbering no more than five percent of the total Israeli population - are nevertheless capable of destroying Islam's most holy shrine in Jerusalem, an act that could easily trigger a worldwide war involving Russia and the United States.’

 

This fanatical Pre-millennial Dispensationalism had come to dominate American Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism, especially through the influence of Dallas Theological Seminary and the Moody Bible Institute. The movement had grown in popularity within evangelical circles, particularly in America and especially since 1967, coinciding with the Arab-Israel Six Day War and a few years later in 1970 with the publication of Hal Lindsey's 'The Late Great Planet Earth.'

 

Crucial to their reading of biblical prophecy, drawn principally from Daniel, Zechariah and the Book of Revelation, was the assertion that the Jewish Temple will be rebuilt on the Temple Mount as a precursor to the Lord returning to restore the Kingdom of Israel centred on Jerusalem. This pivotal event was also seen as the trigger for the start of the War of Armageddon.

 

These beliefs soured relations between Moslem Arabs and Christian Arabs perpetuating fears of a revived Western military adventurism dating back to the Crusades.

 

 

The 1967 watershed war

 

The 1967 Six Day War and its aftermath marked a watershed in Evangelical Christian interest in Israel and Zionism. Jerry Falwell did not begin to speak about modern-day Israel until after Israel's 1967 military victory.

 

Falwell then changed completely. He entered into politics and became an avid supporter of the Zionist State. In 1967, the United States was mired in the Vietnam war. Many felt a sense of defeat, helplessness and discouragement. Many Americans, including Falwell, turned worshipful glances toward Israel, which they viewed as militarily strong and invincible.

 

The combination of the founding of the state of Israel in 1948, the capture of Jerusalem and the West Bank in 1967, and the defeat on both occasions of the combined Arab armies, increasingly came to be seen as significant fulfilment of biblical prophesy by a new generation of American and European dispensational pre-millennialists.

 

Billy Graham's father-in-law, Nelson Bell, editor of the authoritative mouthpiece of conservative Evangelicalism, Christianity Today, wrote in an editorial in 1967, ‘That for the first time in more than 2,000 years Jerusalem is now completely in the hands of the Jews gives a student of the Bible a thrill and a renewed faith in the accuracy and validity of the Bible.’

 

Christian Zion grabs George W.

 

The bizarre brand of right-wing US Christianity took on an influence as never before when George W. Bush occupied the White House in January 2001. The man who advised George Bush, when Bush was Governor of Texas, on his so-called ‘compassionate conservatism” agenda that confused many voters, was an influential Texas neo-conservative Professor at the University of Texas, Marvin Olasky, editor ofWorld magazine.

 

Marvin Olasky is the domestic equivalent of a Doug Feith or Michael Ledeen. Olasky was a trusted Bush advisor whose book, The Tragedy of American Compassion, was the only text that Bush ever cited as an inspiration for his domestic agenda.

 

To Olasky, the ‘tragedy’ of American compassion was the existence of compassion at all. The trouble began, he argued, not with the Great Society or the New Deal, but with Jane Addams. Before Addams, a deeply religious woman, brought her sentimental ideas about ‘compassion’ to Hull House, religious groups handed out prayer pamphlets, not food, and forced poor people to attend church rather than giving them shelter. Since only God could save the poor, anything other than spiritual salvation causes more harm than good.

 

 

Karl Rove, Bush’s election mastermind and political dirty tricks strategist, introduced Olasky to Bush, which led to the ‘compassionate conservatism’ of the 2000 campaign and the Bush ‘faith-based initiative.’

 

In the 1970’s, Olasky was a member of the Communist Party-USA. He also repudiated his Jewish religion and converted to radical Christianity. Referring to himself and Bush, in contrast to Democrat rival John Kerry, Olasky wrote: ‘The other thing both of us can and do say is that we did not save ourselves: God alone saves sinners (and I can surely add, of whom I was the worst). Being born again, we don't have to justify ourselves. Being saved, we don't have to be saviours.’ [10]

 

There was an echo there of a shocking Bush comment to journalist, Bob Woodward: ‘I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being president…I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation. ‘

 

Bush, who claimed to have had a personal salvation as an alcoholic and alleged cocaine user in the early 1980’s, surrounded himself with people like Olasky and Rove. Rove built a political machine around Bush which centered on the fanatical active support of Christian Evangelicals and the seven million Christian Zionists who regarded Sharon and Israeli aggressions as Bible prophesy for the Final Battle of Armageddon. This group gave the rationale for Bush’s war on Islam, disguised as a war on ‘terror.’

 

Little-noticed in major US media, Ariel Sharon gave a boost to the Bush re-election. On October 17, two weeks before the 2004 election, Sharon’s personal liaison to the US Christian Evangelicals, Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein, held the Third Annual Day of Prayer and Solidarity with Israel. He was standing beside Ralph Reed, a Born Again protégé of Pat Robertson. Reed was the Bush Southeastern regional campaign coordinator. Eckstein and Reed summoned 21 of Israel's diplomatic representatives in the US to the pulpits of some of America's leading conservative churches.

 

Evangelical support for Israel has increased dramatically in the last several years, American writer Max Blumenthal reported. To most evangelicals, Israel was ‘covenant land,’ a place granted to the Jews in God's covenant with Abraham; to many, Israel also represented the eventual landing pad for the Second Coming of the Messiah. While this scenario was not exactly friendly to Jews -- according to pre-millennial theology, once biblical Israel is fully resettled and Christ returns, Jews must accept him or perish -- evangelicals' theological interest in Israel rendered them fervently opposed to any territorial concessions to the Palestinians and, thus, the natural allies of Sharon and his rightist Likud Party.

 

Rabbi Eckstein had built his International Fellowship for Christians and Jews into a philanthropic powerhouse that donated tens of millions of dollars to Israel annually. He forged close relationships with popular right-wing evangelical leaders such as Pat Robertson and Gary Bauer, as well as White House neoconservatives like Elliott Abrams, who was in charge of Middle East policy on the National Security Council of Condi Rice. Eckstein and his allies played an instrumental role in pressuring the Bush administration to abandon the so-called Road Map to peace and defend Sharon's and later Olmert’s brutal handling of the occupation.

 

Eckstein declared, “Since 9/11 and since the Intifada, the Jewish community has become much more pragmatic; they feel Israel's survival is at stake, and they've recognized the one group that stands with us boldly and proudly is this evangelical group.”

 

In 1988, Eckstein was in New York helping Republican presidential candidate Pat Robertson ‘mitigate Jewish opposition’ to his campaign -- and cultivating him and his legion of followers as supporters of Israel. In 1986, Robertson had compared non-Christians to termites, deserving of ‘godly fumigation’; he later asserted, in the book ‘The New World Order,’ that communism was ‘the brainchild of German-Jewish intellectuals.’ But while Robertson may not be particularly fond of secular Jewish liberals, he has always been an ardent Christian Zionist who, in his preaching and prophecy books, refers to the Jewish presence in Jerusalem and Israel's victory in the 1967 war as miracles presaging the Second Coming. Strange bed-fellows politics makes.

 

In 1996, Eckstein formed the Center for Christian and Jewish Values in Washington. Co-chaired by Orthodox Jewish Sen. Joe Lieberman, now an Independent Senator from Connecticut, and evangelical Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., his now-defunct Center, according to Eckstein, ‘brought together disparate groups to find common ground on issues of shared concern.’

 

The Center for Christian and Jewish Values was made up almost entirely of right-wing evangelicals like Family Research Council director Bauer, Southern Baptist Convention executive director Richard Land, and the dean of Robertson's Regent University's school of government, Kay James. James is now director of the Office of Personnel Management under Bush. Also involved were neo-conservatives such as Elliott Abrams, William Kristol and William Bennett, Reagan’s education czar. The center was essentially a command post for the neo-conservative Evangelical culture war.

 

Eckstein shifted his focus to finding money for the International Fellowship for Christians and Jews (IFCJ), which he had founded. By 1999, he had settled in Israel and was cruising the Holy Land in a van with his own film crew to produce fundraising videos for US evangelicals.

 

Moderate Israelis were uneasy with the flow of US Evangelical money into Israel. In an interview with the Israeli daily Ha'aretz, one critic accused Eckstein's IFCJ of trying to “create a situation of dependency [of Israel on evangelical funding], so that they can control us. They pour money galore into welfare, absorption, aliyah [Jewish immigration to Israel], and education and find our weak points.”

 

Eckstein's fundraising videos enjoy widespread viewership on Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network and through paid spots on local networks across America's heartland. With nearly 350,000 donors, the IFCJ was able to dole out $20 million to 250 projects in Israel last year, including an armored, mobile dental clinic that provides services to Jewish settlers in the occupied territories. Today, the IFCJ is the second largest nongovernmental donor to Israel, next only to the quasi-governmental Jewish Agency for Israel.

 

When Sharon and Bush both came to power in 2000, they began a cozy relationship. With Eckstein as his advisor, Sharon courted the support of evangelicals more aggressively than most of his predecessors. In the fall of 2002 Sharon told a crowd of 3,000 evangelical tourists in Jerusalem, ‘I tell you now, we love you. We love all of you!’

 

That same year, Sharon invited Bush adviser, Gary Bauer, to Jerusalem for a private meeting with his Cabinet. ‘I was given a great deal of access and a number of briefings on the various issues they're facing,’ Bauer later stated. ‘In my meeting...I attempted to explain that they had a much broader base of support in the US than perhaps they realized, and they should be sensitive to the fact that more Americans than they think regard Israel as a natural ally.’ To help make his point, Bauer gave Sharon a letter of support signed by leading evangelicals like Charles Colson, CNP members Jerry Falwell and Focus on the Family president, James Dobson.

 

 

Eckstein and his evangelical allies waged a fierce lobbying blitz to pressure Bush against participating in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process that every American president since Jimmy Carter has engaged in.

 

Their campaign gained momentum at the National Rally in Solidarity with Israel in April 2002 on Washington's Mall, which was attended by over 100,000. Author Elie Wiesel and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani issued fiery denunciations of Palestinian terror. Evangelical radio host Janet Parshall, shouted, ‘We will never give up the Golan. We will never divide Jerusalem.’ The rally coincided with the initiation of Reed and Eckstein's Day of Prayer and Solidarity with Israel, which mobilized 17,000 evangelical churches to pray for Israel that October.

 

With a number of close associates now working in the White House, Eckstein  leveraged his grass-roots power. In July 2003, Eckstein brought 20 leading fundamentalist evangelicals to the White House for ‘a quiet meeting’ with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, and her Middle East advisor, neo-conservative Elliott Abrams. They stated their fervent opposition to the Israeli-Palestinian Road Map, while Rice explained the Bush administration's sympathy for their position. Eckstein recalled. ‘She explained, it's Bush's faith that prompts him to take some of his major positions. I think that's what's so attractive about Bush to people,’ Eckstein added.

 

Bush’s faith, however, was a bit alarming to some. The Israeli newspaper, Ha’aretz in June 2003 reported the comments of Bush reportedly to Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Abu Mazen during a meeting in Aqaba in which Bush tried to enlist Palestinian support for a truce with Israel. Abu Mazen recalled that Bush told him, “God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam [Hussein], which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them.” [11]

 

In September 2006, speaking to a friendly group of conservative US journalists during the run up campaign for the November Congressional elections, George Bush declared, referring to the war in Iraq, “A lot of people in America see this as a confrontation between good and evil, including me.” [12] The President of the United States was either an extremely good actor playing to win the crucial votes of the Christian Right or he was demonstrably psychologically unstable. Both possibilities were alarming.

 

Early in March, 2003, National Security Council advisor on the Middle East, Elliott Abrams, met with leaders of a self-identified ‘theocratical’ lobbying group, the Apostolic Congress, to allay their concerns about Bush's pending endorsement of Sharon's Gaza pullout plan. And evangelical leaders like late Religious Roundtable director Ed McAteer have reportedly held numerous off-the-record meetings on policy toward Israel with White House public liaison Tim Goeglein, who was spokesman for Bauer's 2000 presidential campaign.

 

When the Bush administration criticized Israel's botched assassination of Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi in June 2003, Gary Bauer e-mailed an alert to 100,000 followers calling for pro-Israel pressure on the White House. ‘We inundated the White House with e-mails and faxes arguing that Israel had the same right to defend itself as we did,” Bauer said. And when Israel did kill Rantisi, the White House issued a statement of support for Israel's ‘right to defend herself.’

 

Bauer's influence earned him the keynote address at the 2003 annual convention of pro-Israel lobbying powerhouse AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), where he was interrupted by standing ovations. Bauer has also played a leading role in lobbying on behalf of Israeli settler groups against both the Road Map and Sharon's Gaza pullout plan.

 

Through his political action committee, the Campaign for Working Families, Bauer was aggressively soliciting donations from conservative Christians for the Bush campaign.

 

Although Eckstein says he's a registered Democrat, he has converted to Bush's side and is urging other Jews to join him. ‘I personally think the Jewish community and America should vote for Bush because I think he will be stronger on terrorism. And anything less than a full confrontation [with terrorists] has the potential, God forbid, to spell the end of Western civilization as we know it,’ Eckstein said.[13] 

 

Bush, Christian Zion and Freemasonry

 

A most difficult area to illuminate regarding American relations to right-wing Israeli Zionists and the ties between Israel and Christian Zionists such as Jerry Falwell, Rev. Franklin Graham, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Gary Bauer and other US backers of the Right-wing Israeli Likud policies, was the role of international esoteric freemasonry.

 

Freemasonry has been defined as a secret or occult society which conceals its goals even from most of its own members, members who often are recruited naively as lower level members, unaware they are being steered from behind the curtains. The most powerful Freemasonic Order in the United States is believed to be the Supreme Council of the Scottish Rite, or the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, with its world headquarters now in Washington, DC.

 

Key Bush family adviser, James Baker III, of the Texas law firm Baker & Botts and of the Carlyle Group, was a Scottish Rite high ranking mason. George Bush was known to be a high ranking mason as was his father, George Herbert Walker Bush.

 

Freemasonry was the secret network which allows manipulation of much behind the scenes. Were people openly known as masons, their power would vanish as others would see through their blatant schemes such as assassinations, wars, blackmail, fraud and above all, what seems to be a project to destroy real religious belief among ordinary people.

 

There was a special role played by one of the two major branches of Anglo-Saxon Freemasonry, that of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite. Its history goes back far, but in the late 1800’s its leader was a Confederate General, Albert Pike. Pike founded the racist Ku Klux Klan as a secret Scottish Rite project to control the South through race hate and fear, after the American Civil War.[14]

 

The Scottish Rite enjoyed an active branch in Israel, even though it was nominally a Christian society. It spoke of its tradition going back to ‘the early masons who built King Salomon’s Temple.’ The fact that American Christian Zionists typically were concentrated in the South and came from the similar white racist strata as the Scottish Rite, and that they actively backed the Israeli fanatics who seek to rebuild the Third Temple of Salomon at the site of the sacred Al Aqsa Mosque and thereby ignite the Final Battle of Armageddon cannot be coincidence. All evidence suggested that the Jewish advocates of destroying Al Aqsa and rebuilding the Temple of Salomon there were being supported by the Scottish Rite masons in the United States and Britain.

 

Indeed, there was circumstantial evidence that much of the organized American Christian Right that backs Israeli right-wing policies was secretly backed by Scottish Rite masonry. The Southern Baptist Convention recently had a heated debate over allegations that some 500,000 of their members were also masons, reportedly most Scottish Rite. The Southern Baptist organization is well-known for its racial hatred of blacks. Cecil Rhodes, the man who was backed by Rothschild to create the mining empire of South Africa was a Scottish Rite member as was Lord Palmerston, also himself a British Israelite.

 

A ‘Bad Moon Arising’

 

The rise of the Unification Church of the Korean Reverend Sun Jung Moon, a fanatic who calls himself the new Messiah, was tied to a deal between the CIA and the South Korean KCIA organization. George Bush, when he was head of the CIA in the 1970’s, worked to build the role of the Unification Church in the US by the evidence available.

 

Many of the leading figures of the Christian Right today were closely tied to the Moon Unification Church, including Rev. James Dobson, Gary Bauer, former head of the Family Research Council, Ralph Reed, who founded the Christian Coalition and numerous other prominent friends of Likud in the US. This added weight to the suspicion that the alliance of the Christian Right with Israel had very strong taint of Scottish Rite freemason involvement.

 

Another secretive organization with significant hidden influence with the Bush White House was the Apostolic Congress.

 

In May 2004, at a high-profile appearance aimed at galvanizing support from Jewish voters, President George W. Bush told the more than 4,000 delegates gathered at the annual conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the pro-Israel lobbying organization, that ‘By defending the freedom and prosperity and security of Israel, you're also serving the cause of America.’

 

In late March, at a less publicized gathering, the National Security Council's Near East and North African Affairs director, Elliott Abrams, and other Bush administration officials met for two hours with members of  The Apostolic Congress, a politically powerful group of Christian fundamentalists, to reassure them that the administration's support for Israel was unwavering.

 

While AIPAC and The Apostolic Congress may appear to have little in common, one overarching concern binds the two groups -- the safety and security of Israel.

 

According to the Los Angeles Times, Bush's 39-minute AIPAC address ‘was interrupted repeatedly with cheering and applause [and] on two occasions, at least a third of the audience burst into chants of 'Four more years!'

 

While it was no longer news that Bush Administration officials meet regularly with Christian fundamentalists, it was surprising to hear about this particular meeting because it was clearly meant to be kept out of the headlines. It came to light only afterVillage Voice reporter Rick Perlstein received ‘details’ about it from ‘a confidential memo signed by Presbyterian minister Robert G. Upton.’

 

When Perlstein asked Pastor Upton about the email and the meeting, the minister told him that ‘Everything that you're discussing is information you're not supposed to have,’ Not that Pastor Upton, the executive director of The Apostolic Congress, wasn't proud of his easy access to the White House: ‘We're in constant contact with the White House,’ he told Perlstein. ‘I'm briefed at least once a week via telephone briefings... I was there about two weeks ago... At that time we met with the president.’

 

While the conversation between administration officials and the fundamentalists touched on an array of culture war subjects, including the perils of gay marriage, the major issue of concern for the ‘apocalyptic Christians’ was the administration's policy on Israel and Palestine.

 

The Apostolic Congress claimed to be ‘a Spirit-filled, purpose driven movement representing the heartbeat of the Apostolic Community on a national front.’ According to Perlstein, the organization ‘vociferously oppose[s] the idea of a Palestinian state.’

 

He noted, ‘They fear an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza might enable just that, and they object on the grounds that all of Old Testament Israel belongs to the Jews. Until Israel is intact and David's temple rebuilt, they believe, Christ won't come back to earth.’ [15]

 

One of the most influential right-wing American Evangelicals linked intimately to the Bush White House, until a scandal forced his retirement just before the November 2006 US Congressional elections was Pastor Ted Haggard, founder of the 11,000 member New Life Church near Colorado Springs, Colorado, home of the US Air Force Academy.

 

Pastor Ted, as he liked to be known, boasted that he talked to President George W. Bush or his advisers every Monday. A handsome forty-eight-year-old native of  Indiana, Pastor Ted also presided over the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), whose 45,000 churches and 30 million believers made up the nation's most powerful religious lobbying group. Haggard developed his own mix of ‘free market’ economics with his hybrid brand of Born-Again Christianity which apparently the White House found useful.[16]

 

Pastor Ted’s wonderful world of Born Again bliss and political influence came to an abrupt halt in November 2006 just days before the US elections, where Republicans faced disastrous losses over a series of sex and pederasty scandals involving Republican Congressmen. In November 2006, days before the election, Pastor Ted resigned or was removed from all of his leadership positions after allegations of homosexual sex and drug abuse were made by Mike Jones, a former male prostitute. Initially Haggard denied even knowing Jones, but as a media investigation proceeded he acknowledged that some allegations, such as his purchase of methamphetamine, were true. He later added ‘sexual immorality’ to his list of confessions. [17]

 

When this entire spectrum of Evangelical right-wing networks, Israeli Likud and Temple Mount fanatics was viewed as a whole, it became clearer why US policy towards the Middle East, including Iraq regime change, Lebanese regime change, Syria and Iran was such as to treat Israel as an integral part of the United States. Washington was also quietly supporting the admission of Israel into NATO according to Washington reports.

 

---

[1] Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations?, Foreign Affairs, New York Council on Foreign Relations, Summer 1993.

[2] For background see Grace Halsell, Forcing God’s Hand: Why millions pray for a quick rapture—and destruction of Planet Earth, Crossroads International Publishing, Washington D.C., 1999. Dr. Daniel Akin, , ‘Christian Leaders Urge ‘Biblical’ vote for Bush,’ October 10, 2004. www.annointed.net. Barbara Tuchman,  Bible and Sword, New York, 1956. Prof. Donald Wagner, Christian Zionists, Israel and the ‘Second Coming,The Daily Star, October 9, 2003.   

[3] Grace Halsell, op. Cit. Grace Halsell, herself from a conservative evangelical Christian family, documented the nature of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and the U.S. Christian Zionists in relation to the Likud in her book, "Forcing God's Hand.” She traveled with Rev. Jerry Falwell to Israel to study the movement's leading political figures first hand, and documented such things as the gift to Falwell of a private jet in 1978 by the Begin government to help him build support in the U.S.

[4] Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, CHRISTIAN ZIONISM: CHRISTIAN SUPPORT FOR THE STATE OF ISRAEL: THE POLITICS AND THEOLOGY OF ARMAGEDDON, in www.religioustolerance.org/chr_isra.htm.

[5] Uri Avnery, Two Souls, Ma'ariv, June 8, 2002.

[6] Chip Berlet and Jean Hardisty, Drifting Right and Going Wrong, NCJW Journal, Winter 2002, pp.8-11.

[7] Rammy M. Haija , THE ARMAGEDDON LOBBY: DISPENSATIONALIST CHRISTIAN ZIONISM AND THE SHAPING OF US POLICY TOWARDS ISRAEL-PALESTINE, [HLS 5.1 (2006) 75–95], ISSN 1474-9475, Project MUSE, Doctoral Candidate in Sociology, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Dr. Issa Nakhleh . “The Criminal Conspiracy between Christian Evangelists and Zionist Terrorists to Destroy the Al Aqsa Mosque.” In  www.palestine-encyclopedia.com. 

[10] Mark Schmitt, On Marvin Olasky, The Decembrist, August 28, 2004, in markschmitt.typepad.com.

[11] Al Kamen, Road Map in the Back Seat?, Washington Post, June 27, 2003.

[12] The Buffalo News, September 13, 2006.

[13] Max Blumenthal, Born-Agains for Sharon, October 30, 2004 in www.salon.com.Prophecy and the Millennium, The Dorking Readers, 26 June, 1997.

[14] General Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma of the Ancient & Accepted Scottish Rite, 1871, Charleston, South Carolina.

[15] Bill Berkowitz, Christian Zionists, Jews & Bush’s Re-election Strategy, in Working for Change, June 3, 2004.

[16]Jeff Sharlet, Soldiers of Christ: Inside America's most powerful megachurch with Pastor Ted Haggard, Harpers Magazine, May, 2005.

[17] Collen Slevin, Ousted Evangelist Confesses to Followers, ABC News, 2006-11-05, pp. 1.

 

Trump ne pourra pas compromettre l'alliance russo-chinoise

par Jean-Paul Baquiast

Ex: http://www.europesolidaire.eu 

Dès ses premières déclarations d'intention, Donald Trump avait indiqué qu'il se donnait deux buts en politique internationale: se rapprocher de Moscou après deux tiers de siècle de guerre froide, refuser une prétendue volonté de domination chinoise dans les domaines économiques et géo-stratégiques. Ce refus pourrait aller jusqu'à des affrontements militaires avec la Chine, sinon une véritable guerre. De fait Trump a programmé un renforcement sensible des moyens navals et nucléaires américains. Ceci n'aurait de sens que dans cette perspective, à supposer exclue dorénavant une guerre avec la Russie.

Les chroniqueurs se sont évidemment tous demandé comment ces deux buts pourraient être compatibles, compte tenu des liens plus qu'étroits qui associent Moscou et Pékin depuis l'arrivée au pouvoir de Vladimir Poutine. Même si en Russie certains craignent que ne s'établisse une compétition avec la Chine, bientôt seconde puissance économique mondiale, où la Russie serait perdante, la supériorité militaire et spatiale russe rétablirait l'équilibre.

Les liens et les échanges Moscou/Pékin sont nombreux et portent sur des domaines de première importance géopolitique. Nous y avons souvent fait allusion. Ils ont été développés notamment dans le cadre du Brics et de l'Organisation de coopération de Shanghai. Concrètement, ceci s'est traduit par le concept d'Eurasie, nouvel ensemble multinational pouvant rivaliser avec les pays de la zone dollar sous contrôle de Washington et bien évidemment avec l'Europe sous sa forme actuelle.

On peut d'ailleurs penser que la partie de l'establishment américain qui a poussé Trump au pouvoir et qui le soutiendra dorénavant vise, par le rapprochement promis avec Poutine, à ne pas être exclue des perspectives futures offertes par l'Eurasie. Ceci compte tenu de la plus grande résilience probable de celle-ci face aux crises mondiales prévisibles résultant du réchauffement climatique et de la disparition d'une partie des espèces vivantes. Les autres parties du monde, notamment l'Amérique du Nord à l'exception notable du Canada, l'Afrique et malheureusement pour elle l'Europe, n'y échapperont pas pour leur part.

Dans la perspective de ces crises, la Chine attachera une grande valeur à ses relations avec la Russie, sa partenaire essentielle dans le développement de l'Eurasie. La Chine est déjà en surnombre démographique et en voie d'asphyxie compte tenu d'un développement industriel concentré dans ses parties côtières. A tous égards l'Eurasie sera pour elle un poumon indispensable.

En ce qui concerne la Russie, celle-ci perçoit bien que malgré ses nombreuses supériorités notamment dans les domaines scientifiques et militaires, elle ne pourra pas seule faire vivre l'Eurasie, ceci bien que l'essentiel du territoire de celle-ci soit russe. C'est seulement dans le cadre d'une coopération compétitive avec la Chine que les deux pays y arriveront.

Trump s'illusionnerait donc s'il pensait pouvoir séparer Moscou et Pékin, dans tous les domaines essentiels tout au moins. L'Amérique, à laquelle il espère rendre toute sa force, n'y arriverait pas.

Dans le cadre de sa longue conférence de presse de fin d'année 2016, Vladimir Poutine a remarqué que « ce que nous avons entre la Russie et la Chine est bien plus qu'un simple partenariat stratégique » “What we have between Russia and China is more than just a strategic partnership.”

Si Trump ne l'a pas compris, et espère recourir à la vieille politique américaine du Diviser pour régner  afin de séparer la Russie et la Chine, il irait à de graves déconvenues. Au plan militaire, on ajoutera que la Russie, la Chine et leur troisième partenaire important dans l'ensemble eurasiatique, l'Iran, se sont déjà mis d'accord sur une politique de défense commune.

Ceci veut dire que Trump, qui outre la Chine a décidé de s'opposer à l'Iran, irait là encore à l'échec Comme l'on peut penser qu'il est pragmatique, il s'adaptera très vite à cette réalité, dans les faits sinon dans les discours.

Jean Paul Baquiast

Le grand retour du protectionnisme

Stéphane Montabert

Suisse naturalisé, Conseiller communal UDC, Renens

Ex: http://www.lesobservateurs.ch 

"Un vent glacial souffle sur le libre-échange", s'inquiète la RTS. Bigre! Le commerce mondial s'est-il effondré? Les marchandises pourrissent-elles au soleil face à des douaniers intraitables? Les commandes par Internet ne passent plus? Les gens sont-ils cloisonnés dans des frontières nationales devenues hermétiques à toute circulation de personnes?

Nous n'en sommes pas là. Un rapide souvenir de la douane de Bardonnex - guère plus qu'un dos d'âne à l'heure actuelle - permet de dissiper le cauchemar. Mais le libre-échange affronte bel et bien des vents contraires, comme s'en émeut ensuite Charles Wyplosz dans une longue interview consécutive au sujet.

L'accélération du monde

Mais le débat est piégé. Même le terme de libre-échange est galvaudé. Initialement, il représentait la libre circulation des marchandises, c'est-à-dire le commerce transfrontalier. Sur cette base historique légitime et paisible du commerce entre sociétés humaines, les apôtres de la disparition des états-nations l'ont étendu à celle des capitaux, des services, des personnes. À une échelle quasiment atomique, tout est devenu équivalent à tout et réciproquement. La rentabilité horaire de l'ouvrier qualifié, qu'il s'éreinte en Inde ou au Brésil. Le prix livré de la tonne d'acier, coulée en France ou en Chine. Le rendement d'un placement dans une compagnie américaine ou japonaise.

Certains se savent hors-course et en conçoivent de l'amertume. D'autres se réjouissent d'être les vainqueurs d'aujourd'hui tout en s'inquiétant de le rester demain. La migration des affaires est source d'incertitude. Entre deux crises financières la turbine économique tourne en surrégime, créant autant de vagues de protestation dans son sillage. Les médias s'attardent avec complaisance sur les groupuscules de casseurs communistes en maraude dans les centres-villes, mais les perdants de la mondialisation sont ailleurs, et bien réels. Les paysans au mode de vie ancestral, les salariés sans qualification, les entrepreneurs prisonniers de législations absurdes ou de la corruption des autorités, les working poors écrasés par l'effet des taxes sur le coût de la vie. Ils ne font pas la une des journaux. Les rares fois où ils sont évoqués, c'est pour donner la parole aux politiciens responsables de leur malheur.

Au capitalisme apatride et fier de l'être s'oppose un courant conservateur rejetant la réduction de l'homme à un agent économique. L'homme n'est pas aussi volage que le capital qui l'emploie ni les produits qu'il conçoit. Il s'inscrit dans une culture, une famille, un héritage, des valeurs. Il ne les sacrifie que rarement au nom de sa prospérité matérielle.

Les libéraux désarmés

Cet aspect du débat sème le trouble au sein des libéraux. Ils ratent le sujet en ne se concentrant trop souvent que sur sa seule dimension économique. Or, chacun n'a pas les ressources, la volonté ou même l'ouverture d'esprit pour se conformer à la nouvelle donne - et encore moins celles de changer son propre pays ou de le quitter. Comme le dit un sage, "Si vous vous affairez à calmer les plaintes d'un affamé en lui expliquant le recul de la faim dans le monde, vous réussirez juste à le rendre furieux."

Les théoriciens libéraux du passé ont apporté des solutions économiques à un monde dans lequel ces problèmes ne se posaient pas. Les délocalisations brutales, les revendications communautaristes, l'assaut migratoire sur les systèmes sociaux n'existaient pas à l'époque de Frédéric Bastiat. Ils sont absents de ses raisonnements élégants mais bien présents de nos jours.

Les libéraux se retrouvent privés d'arguments, ne sachant souvent articuler que des réponses économiques à des problèmes sociaux. Les postulats de base de l'humain libéral doué de raison sont battus en brèche par l'obscurantisme, le prosélytisme, le communautarisme. Face à ces comportements, les libéraux se contentent souvent de prôner la tolérance la plus absolue en fermant les yeux sur l'usage qui en est fait pour détruire la société hôte. Comment s'étonner que le libéralisme perde en influence?

Le protectionnisme, ce vieux compagnon de route

L'inanité économique du protectionnisme a été maintes fois démontrée, il faut le répéter. L'explication est fort simple: les taxes ne sont jamais payées par les producteurs mais in fine par les consommateurs locaux. Les prix surfaits dont ils s'acquittent les prive d'argent pour d'autres activités, d'autres consommations. Les habitants "protégés" par le protectionnisme s'appauvrissent.

En revanche, et c'est aussi avéré, le protectionnisme permet la survie d'entreprises locales qui ne seraient pas économiquement rentables sinon, et avec elles les emplois et les impôts que payent leurs salariés au lieu de les faire pointer au chômage.

Le score entre libre-échange et protectionnisme n'est donc pas si net qu'il y paraît. De nombreux pays comme la Suisse ou le Japon ont d'ailleurs atteint de hauts niveaux de prospérité tout en étant très protectionnistes sur de nombreuses catégories de marchandises, comme les produits alimentaires.

Bien qu'on annonce aujourd'hui son retour, le protectionnisme n'est jamais vraiment parti de nos contrées ; sous les assauts de l'OMC, il s'est déguisé en "normes de qualité" et autres certifications nécessaires à l'importation, l'objectif étant toujours de barrer la route aux produits fabriqués à l'étranger. Dans les mœurs, il est resté fortement ancré sous le prétexte de "consommer local" et "de saison", peu importe la compétitivité des denrées étrangères sur les étals. Même des gouvernements modernes se sont lancés sans vergogne dans le "patriotisme économique".

Les autres aspects du libre-échange moderne ne sont pas en reste: les populations sont violemment hostiles à la concurrence transfrontalière des services. Diverses affaires d'imposition impliquant de grandes entreprises ont éclairé sous un jour négatif l'optimisation fiscale, pour légale soit-elle. Enfin, la crise migratoire européenne a détruit pour de bon toute illusion d'une prospérité basée sur une immigration incontrôlée, au point que plus personne de sérieux n'ose la plaider. Il y a effectivement un mouvement de balancier.

Retour sous les projecteurs

Aujourd'hui, l'élection d'un candidat ouvertement protectionniste comme Donald Trump à la tête d'un pays comme les États-Unis libère aussi la parole sur cet aspect: le bon vieux protectionnisme ressort du bois. Est-ce une mauvaise chose? "Oui", crieront en chœur tous les libéraux. Mais la réponse ne jaillit-elle pas un peu trop vite?

Posons le problème. On le sait, à niveau de prélèvement égal, certains impôts sont plus destructeurs que d'autres, plus nuisibles à l'activité économique en quelque sorte. Qu'en est-il du protectionnisme? Après tout, en quoi un milliard soutiré aux consommateurs à travers des taxes douanières serait pire, ou meilleur, qu'un milliard soutiré aux consommateurs à travers la TVA? L'impôt sur le revenu? Les droits de succession?

Si on élimine le sophisme de base qui a tant servi le protectionnisme en acceptant de l'appeler pour ce qu'il est - un impôt - en quoi ce prélèvement serait-il plus grave que n'importe laquelle des myriades de taxes directes et indirectes que les consommateurs sont appelés à payer dès qu'ils achètent quelque chose? Voilà un thème de recherche passionnant, et bien peu défriché.

Aux États-Unis, Donald Trump promet de baisser les impôts des personnes physiques et morales mais aussi sans doute d'instaurer des taxes d'importation. La combinaison de ces deux changements pourrait durablement changer la physionomie de l'économie américaine sans modifier fondamentalement le niveau des recettes de l'État. L'expérience revêt donc un intérêt colossal pour le monde entier. Son slogan de campagne Make America Great Again dépendra largement de la réussite ou de l'échec de cette réforme fiscale.

Stéphane Montabert - Sur le Web et sur Lesobservateurs.ch, le 10 janvier 2017