De la communauté au communautarisme il n'y a qu'un pas que l'on franchit souvent de manière naturelle sans s'en rendre compte. Aujourd'hui, contrairement à ce que l'on pourrait croire, l'esprit communautaire est très fort et on définit les gens non par les caractéristiques qui les unissent mais par celles qui les différencient des autres. Origines ethniques, orientations sexuelles, catégories socio-professionelles... autant de marqueurs identitaires qui expriment ce que l'on est par rapport à l'autre.
Alors quand un attentat islamiste vise une boite de nuit gay à Orlando et fait cinquante victimes, c'est toute la communauté LGBT à travers le monde qui s'indigne. Un reflexe communautaire naturel que l'on peut difficilement blâmer. Mais quand une personne n'appartenant pas à cette communauté et, qui plus est, un opposant au lobby LGBT, s'indigne également de cette attaque terroriste à Orlando, celle-ci est jugée comme déplacée voir hypocrite. C'est ce qui est arrivé à Christine Boutin. Il est de notoriété publique que la présidente d'honneur du Parti Chrétien Démocrate et les LGBT entretiennent des relations plus qu’exécrables. Aussi quand Christine Boutin exprime sur Twitter sa compassion avec les victimes d'Orlando, la communauté LGBT crie au scandale.
Pourtant, ceux qui considèrent les propos de Christine Boutin comme étant une « honte » oublient une chose. Que l'on soit Christine Boutin ou un militant LGBT, l'espérance de vie face aux tueurs de l’État Islamique est des plus limité. Les terroristes islamistes ne font, eux, aucune distinction entre un chrétien pratiquant et un homosexuel, si ce n'est peut être dans la façon de les massacrer. De même qu'ils ne font pas de distinction entre des jeunes bobos qui vont à un concert au Bataclan et des prolos qui vont voir un match de football au Stade de France.
La guerre que mène l’État Islamique dépasse très largement notre perception du monde actuel. La démarche de cette organisation terroriste s'inscrit dans une guerre qui est à l'échelle des civilisations. Ce qu'ils veulent c'est, au mieux, nous convertir de force à l'Islam, au pire, nous exterminer. C'est donc un véritable défi que nous impose l’État Islamique. Un défi qui est, non pas technique ou militaire, mais quasi-philosophique pour nos sociétés occidentales. Nous qui rejetons par universalisme la réalité même des civilisations, comment pouvons nous être armés moralement face à cet ennemi ?
Aussi il est nécessaire de revoir notre copie et ne plus penser le monde comme un vaste ensemble indéfini. Notre civilisation occidentale marquée par un fort esprit de liberté et donc forcément diverse, n'est pas universel. Le monde entier ne rêve pas de vivre selon notre mode de vie. A l'inverse, à l'intérieur même de notre civilisation, il est, plus que jamais, nécessaire de faire abstraction de nos mésententes. Face à un islamisme conquérant, nous ne pouvons faire preuve de faiblesse. Evidemment nous pouvons nous quereller entre nous sur des sujets loin d'être insignifiants mais lorsque notre civilisation est attaquée, notre riposte se doit de ne souffrir d'aucune division. Alors les militants LGBT et Christine Boutin n'ont pas le choix, s'ils veulent pouvoir continuer à se taper dessus demain, ils doivent, aujourd'hui, s'unir pour continuer à exister.
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
It is not enough to view intellectuals as the makers of political change through their transmutation of culture. It is also necessary to consider the state and the elite who will rule it. Politics becomes impossible to conduct without the type of hardworking, ruthless, and ambitious people who generally make up the political class.
His books of greatst interest are The Machiavellians and The Managerial Revolution. The first one is mainly about the political theories of a number of thinkers who Burnham considered to be a part of what he called the Machiavellian tradition. The main argument of the book is that politics, defined as a struggle for power, can never be removed from human existence. In every society, there must be one group of people who rule, and one group who is the subject of that rule. In the second book, Burnham makes the case that a revolution is well under way, but not the type of revolution which is often advocated by the Left. The managerial revolution is taking place within the bureaucracy of the modern state, and is the revolution of the managers, at the expense of other forms of leadership.
When it comes to Dante, Burnham goes on to place his seemingly independent normative principles in their proper context. He shows that Dante had been involved in an extensive and lengthy conflict between the Ghibelline and the Guelph factions. Dante and the faction to which he belonged lost to their rivals, and he went to the Holy Roman Emperor to ask for his support. When these facts were presented, it became quite clear that Dante had put forward his principles with the hope of winning the good graces of the Emperor, and thus attempted to justify his rule. That is the true meaning of De Monarchia, as Burnham sees it.
It is important not to overlook the importance of the managerial state, and the importance of the state in general. It is not enough to merely philosophise; there needs to be a political elite and a physical structure which underpins this elite. We can take Sweden as an example. Sweden took a turn toward the Left during the 1960s and never really recuperated. This was not achieved solely through the work of intellectuals and Leftist philosophical theories. What happened in addition to this was that a large number of people were recruited to work as functionaries and civil servants in the ever-growing state machinery. Social workers, teachers, and administrators were recruited and formed a bureaucracy the like of which Sweden had never experienced before. They became the new class of managers. Regardless of what kind of government gets elected, this establishment stays more or less the same.
Ces manœuvres visent leur ennemi principal, l’homme pensant. La masculinité est devenue un gros mot, selon un sondage qui révèle que seuls 2% des garçons anglais se considèrent comme « complètement mâles ». L’incarnation de la juste colère contre l’Occident, Poutine le Téméraire, est décrit comme un « macho », raison suffisante pour pousser au changement de régime en Russie. Dans un remake de Ghostbusters, les courageux guerriers contre les esprits du mal sont tout-féminin (une femme noire corpulente: voilà la formule encore plus politiquement correcte) tandis que l’homme blanc aspire à un poste de secrétaire pour la troupe. Dans un un univers culturel plus large, écrit Isabel Hardman, les hommes figurent dans les publicités comme des gens sans espoir, des bouffons gras tenant une bière dans une main et une paire de pinces pour barbecue dans l’autre, alors que les femmes vous font les yeux doux, et ont la main mise sur toutes choses, la maison, la voiture, la famille. Dans ce monde de masculinité en déroute, la victoire de Mrs. Clinton et la guerre qui s’en suivra sont inévitables.
Flynn’s still highly readable 
While New Deal critics tried to understand fascism in their time, today’s GOP propagandists do not try to understand anything about this interwar movement. They make their living by labeling the Democrats “fascists” and then identifying fascism and the Democrats with the Left. Jonah Goldberg’s best-selling 
As war erupted in Europe in September 1939 with Hitler’s and Stalin’s dismemberment of Poland, European gold was flooding into the United States. In 1935 US official gold reserves had been valued at just over $9 billion. By 1940 after the onset of war in Europe, they had risen to $20 billion. As desperate European countries sought to finance their war effort, their gold went to the United States to purchase essential goods. By the time of the June 1944 convening of the international monetary conference at Bretton Woods, the United States controlled fully 70% of the world’s monetary gold, an impressive advantage. That 70% did not even include calculating the captured gold of the defeated Axis powers of Germany or Japan, where exact facts and data were buried in layers of deception and rumor.
French President Charles de Gaulle, acting on advice of his conservative financial adviser, Jacques Rueff, ordered the Bank of France to begin to redeem its rapidly accumulating trade surplus dollars for gold, something then legal under the rules of Bretton Woods. The conservative German Bundesbank followed in demanding US gold for dollars. In 1968 in one of the first crude versions of their Color Revolutions, the CIA and US State Department toppled President de Gaulle in the events known as the May 1968 student revolt. Despite the replacement of de Gaulle by former Rothschild banker, Georges Pompidou, the foreign demand for Federal Reserve gold redemptions increased as Washington budget deficits to finance the ill-conceived Vietnam War exploded.
By August 1971, President Nixon was advised by his Assistant Treasury secretary, Paul Volcker, a former executive at Rockefeller’s Chase Manhattan Bank, to essentially tear up the Bretton Woods Treaty and declare the US dollar a free-floating paper no longer redeemable in gold. The Federal Reserve’s gold reserves over the previous several years had been drained by foreign central banks fearful of the import of US dollar inflation as Washington refused pleas to devalue the dollar to re-stabilize the system. Rueff and France were calling for a 100% dollar devaluation against the Franc or Deutschmark.
For instance, 
, the 2010 Stanford University Press book on anti-globalization movements by Charles Lindholm and José Pedro Zúquete contains a quite balanced and well-informed chapter on the European New Right. (See Michael O’Meara’s review 
contains extensive chapters on the French National Front and Italy’s Northern League.
In chapter 1, Hawley argues that modern American conservatism was defined by William F. Buckley and National Review in the 1950s. The conservative movement was a coalition of free market capitalists, Christians, and foreign policy hawks. Hawley points out that based on ideology alone, there is no necessary reason why any of these groups would be Right wing or allied with each other. Indeed, the pre-World War II “Old Right” of people like Albert Jay Nock and H. L. Mencken tended to be anti-interventionist, irreligious, and economically populist and protectionist rather than free market. National Review was also philo-Semitic from the start and increasingly anti-racist, whereas the pre-War American Right had strong racialist and anti-Semitic elements. What unified the National Review coalition was not a common ideology but a common enemy: Communism.
Chapter 5, “Ready for Prime Time?” is devoted to mainstream libertarianism, including Milton Friedman, the Koch Brothers, the Cato Institute, Reason magazine, the Ron Paul movement, and libertarian youth organizations. Chapter 6, “Enemies of the State,” deals with more radical strands of libertarianism, including 19th-century American anarchists like Josiah Warren and Lysander Spooner, the Austrian School of economics, Murray Rothbard, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Lew Rockwell, the Mises Institute, and the Libertarian Party. Again, Hawley has read widely with an unfailing eye for essentials.
Paleoconservatism is defined in opposition to neoconservatism, the largely Jewish intellectual movement that largely took over mainstream conservatism by the 1980s, aided by William F. Buckley who dutifully purged their opponents. Since the neoconservatives are largely Jewish, and many of the founders were ex-Marxists or Cold War liberals, their ascendancy has meant the subordination of Christian conservatives and free marketeers to the hawkish interventionist wing of the movement. Now that the Cold War is over, the primary concern of neoconservative hawks is tricking Americans into fighting wars for Israel.
Chapter 9, “Voices of the Radical Right,” covers White Nationalism in America, with discussions of progressive era racialists like Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard; contemporary race realism; the rise and decline of such organizations as the KKK, American Nazi Party, Aryans Nations, and the National Alliance; the world of online White Nationalism; and Kevin MacDonald’s work on the Jewish question — which brings us up to where we started, namely the task of forging a North American New Right.
The question of whether Trump is elected president, and what that would portend for Europe, is one more momentous issue for these turbulent times. Let us not be blind to the magnitude of events, for surely our descendants will read about them in the history books for long centuries to come. The next decade will mark either Europe’s submission and death, or its decision to fight and survive. A two thousand year old civilization stands on the edge of a knife. And no matter what happens in the American Presidential Election, in the French one, in the Austrian one; I do not believe that politicians will decide Europe’s fate. It will be the individual members of our race that decide it. Our destiny resides in our willingness to fight; to give our time, our treasure, and perhaps our lives, for the future of our people. With this being the case, it lends clarity to the question of Trump’s — or any other candidate’s — potential victory. For we should hope for their election not for what they might do for Europe, but for how that result might aid the fight for its survival that we shall undertake.
and is the editor of 
Tout cela n’a plus rien à voir avec 
Famous American political scientist Zbigniew Brzezinski once again frightened mankind by saying that “the end of America's global role ... would most probably be global chaos”. To avoid this, the supporter of the American hegemony of the United States suggested Global Realignment. That's the name of his article in the JournalThe American Interest. So, what is the American Interest according to Brzezinski?