del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Avec “la France Big Brother”, Laurent Obertone nous livre un réquisitoire contre le conditionnement imposé aux Français. Dans cet entretien accordé au journal Valeurs actuelles, l’auteur explique notamment que “le système retourne les faits à l’avantage de son utopie”.
Following the Charlie Hebdo massacre, Prime Minister Manuel Valls said that France “is at war with terrorism, jihadism and radical Islamism.” This tells us what France is fighting against.
But what is France fighting for in this war on terror? For terrorism is simply a tactic, and arguably the most effective tactic of the national liberation movements of the 20th century.
Terrorism was used by the Irgun to drive the British out of Palestine and by the Mau Mau to run them out of Kenya. Terrorism, blowing up movie theaters and cafes, was the tactic the FLN used to drive the French out of Algeria.
The FALN tried to assassinate Harry Truman in 1950 at Blair House, shot up the House of Representatives in 1954, and, in 1975, blew up Fraunces Tavern in New York where Washington had bid his officers farewell. The FALN goal: Independence from a United States that had annexed Puerto Rico as the spoils of war in its victory over Spain.
What did the FLN, FALN, Mau Mau, Irgun and Mandela’s ANC have in common? All sought the expulsion of alien rule. All sought nations of their own. All used terrorism for the same ends as Uighurs do in China and Chechens do in the Caucasus.
Osama bin Laden, in his declaration of war upon us, listed as his casus belli the presence on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia of U.S. troops and their “temple prostitutes.” He wanted us out of his country.
What are Valls’ terrorists, jihadists and radical Islamists fighting for? What are the goals of ISIS and al-Qaida, Boko Haram and Ansar al-Sharia, the Taliban and al-Shabab?
All want our troops, our alien culture and our infidel faith out of their lands. All seek the overthrow of regimes that collaborate with us. And all wish to establish regimes that comport with the commands of the Prophet.
This is what they are recruiting for, killing for, dying for. We abhor their terror tactics and deplore their aims, but they know what they are fighting for. What are we fighting for?
What is our vision that will inspire Muslim masses to rise up, battle alongside us, and die fighting Islamists? What future do we envision for the Middle East? And are we willing to pay the price to achieve it?
Comes the reply: America is fighting, as always, for democracy, freedom and the right of peoples to rule themselves.
But are we? If democracy is our goal, why did we not recognize the election of Hamas in the Palestinian territories, or of Hezbollah in Lebanon? Why did we condone the overthrow of the elected regime of Mohammad Morsi in Egypt? Why do we not demand democracy in Saudi Arabia?
But hypocrisy is the least of our problems.
The real problem is that hundreds of millions of Muslims reject our values. They do not believe all religions are equal. They do not believe in freedom of speech or the press to blaspheme the Prophet. Majorities in many Islamic countries believe adulterers, apostates, and converts to Christianity should be lashed, stoned and beheaded.
In surveys, the Muslim world not only rejects our presence and puppets, but also our culture and beliefs. In a free referendum they would vote to throw us out of the region and throw the Israelis into the sea.
For many in the Mideast collaboration with America is a betrayal. And our presence spawns more terrorists than our drones can kill.
This week Valls conceded there are “two Frances,” adding, “A territorial, social, ethnic apartheid has spread across our country.”
Have her five million Muslims become an indigestible minority that imperils the survival of France? Have France and Europe embraced a diversity more malignant than benign, possibly leading to a future like the recent past in Palestine, Cyprus, Lebanon, Sri Lanka and Ukraine?
T. S. Eliot said, to defeat a religion, you need a religion.
We have no religion; we have an ideology — secular democracy. But the Muslim world rejects secularism and will use democracy to free itself of us and establish regimes that please Allah.
In the struggle between democracy and Allah, we are children of a lesser God. “The term ‘democracy,'” wrote Eliot, “does not contain enough positive content to stand alone against the forces that you dislike — it can easily be transformed by them. If you will not have God … you should pay your respects to Hitler or Stalin.”
Germany used democracy to bring Hitler to power. Given free elections from Morocco to Mindanao, what kind of regimes would rise to power? Would not the Quran become the basis of law?
If Charlie Hebdo were a man, not a magazine, he would be torn to pieces in any Middle East nation into which he ventured. And what does a mindless West offer as the apotheosis of democracy?
Four million French marching under the banner “Je Suis Charlie.”
Whom the gods would destroy …
This lie is manifestly not sustainable for French literature, where engagement in politics was as common on the right as on the left. The names of Maurice Barrès and Charles Maurras will certainly live for so long as there is a French nation. Both attained the highest levels of literary aesthetic, though neither is nor should be immune from criticism. Maurice Barrès’s desire to see his native Lorraine returned to France led him to impassioned public support of the bloodshed of the First World War that won him the terrible sobriquet of le rossignol des carnages (the nightingale of carnage), and was not an advert for nationalism, while Maurras wished to see an end to the Republic, but failed to provide decisive leadership at a crucial moment in February 1934, when the conjunction of political circumstances was favourable to his wishes, so demonstrating that he was not the man of destiny that his followers thought him. 
While undoubtedly the Republican side in the Spanish Civil War attracted more writers and artists than did the cause of national Spain, there were some notable supporters of the Francoist cause. Unsurprisingly Ezra Pound was parti pris on the right side. Pound merits a whole talk of his own and I will not attempt the hopeless task of precising his life and work in the time available to me this afternoon. I will however mention Roy Campbell. 
Henry Williamson was another author who was deeply politically engaged in the most controversial way, but whose reputation has been somewhat sanitised by excessive focus on his nature writing, especially his great success, Tarka the Otter, rather than his deeply political and semi-autobiographical cycle of novels A Chronicle of Ancient Sunlight. It tells the story of his South London boyhood, his experiences at the front in the First World War veteran, and his progressive evolution into that apparent contradiction in terms, a pacifiist and a fascist, and his complex relationship with Sir Oswald Mosley, an idealised version of whom appears as Sir Hereward Birkin, the leader of the Imperial Socialist Party, based on the British Union of Fascists.
By so altering the course of history, Wilson’s war bankrupted Europe and midwifed 20th century totalitarianism in Russia and Germany.
Now, owing to Wilson’s fetid patrimony, we have the opposite: A world of the Warfare State, the Welfare State, Central Bank omnipotence and a crushing burden of private and public debts. That is, a thoroughgoing statist regime that is fundamentally inimical to capitalist prosperity, free market governance of economic life and the flourishing of private liberty and constitutional safeguards against the encroachments of the state.
The next four years witnessed an undulating line of trenches, barbed wire entanglements, tunnels, artillery emplacements and shell-pocked scorched earth that rarely moved more than a few miles in either direction, and which ultimately claimed more than 4 million casualties on the Allied side and 3.5 million on the German side.
This, too, was a crucial historical hinge point because Carter Glass’ 1913 act forbid the new Reserve banks to even own government bonds; empowered them only to passively discount for cash good commercial credits and receivables brought to the rediscount window by member banks; and contemplated no open market interventions in debt markets or any remit with respect to GDP growth, jobs, inflation, housing or all the rest of modern day monetary central planning targets.
Yet under this “gold lite” contraption, France, Holland, Sweden and other surplus countries accumulated huge amounts of sterling liabilities in lieu of settling their accounts in bullion—–that is, they loaned billions to the British. They did this on the promise and the confidence that the pound sterling would remain at $4.87 per dollar come hell or high water—-just as it had for 200 years of peacetime before.
Le 28 décembre, au terme du concours Têtu « Mister Gay de l'année », Mathieu Chartraire, élu en mai « Mister Gay du mois » figure parmi les douze finalistes. Or ce jeune homme de 22 ans fait parler de lui. Il a affiché sur sa page Facebook sa sympathie pour le Front National car pour lui, être homo et voter FN ne sont pas incompatibles et irait même de soi. Immédiatement, dans un communiqué , la rédaction de Têtu a rappelé que ce concours « n’a jamais eu vocation à élire des porte-paroles ou des représentants de la communauté gay ». « Les propos tenus par les Mister Gay n’engageraient donc que leurs auteurs ». Sans pour autant le destituer (un peu trop gros tout de même !), le magazine Têtu a «condamné avec force les déclarations racistes ou encourageant le racisme tenues par cette personne » pour informer aussitôt : « Nous réfléchissons à faire évoluer ce concours. Ce sera chose faite dès janvier 2015 avec de nouvelles règles et une charte de déontologie pour l’affirmation de valeurs fondées sur le respect et le refus de toutes les discriminations, quelles qu’elles soient, valeurs défendues par Têtu. ». En somme, tout participant au concours doit dorénavant s'engager à ne pas voter FN ! La censure à la puissance gay ! On en rigole mais n'ayons crainte, Têtu n'est plus qu'un petit torchon éditorial sans lecteurs et devrait tôt ou tard déposer son bilan. Ce qu'on comprend moins, c'est comment son directeur de rédaction, Yannick Barbe n'ait pas senti le changement de pouls politique de ses lecteurs.
Qu'on ne s'y méprenne, l'« homonationalisme » ne désigne pas les vieilles relations plus que confuses et complexes teintées d'esthétiques viriles décadentes ou de fantasmes spartiates imaginaires entre un idéal légionnaire de vie fasciste et une sociabilité nouvelle, wandervogel. Sur un tel homoérotisme de nuit des longs couteaux, il y a là dessus des bibliothèques entières et il vient même de sortir un excellent 
Nonobstant, l'homonationalisme n'est pas seulement un concept, c'est aussi une réalité militante et politique qui traverse toute l'Europe. On pense, en particulier aux tolérants Pays-Bas où le puissant parti populiste PVV (Parti pour la Liberté) de Geert Wilders n'a cessé de brandir les droits des homosexuels comme un acquis positif de l'Occident libéral menacé aujourd'hui par la montée de l'islamiste radical et l'invasion migratoire. On pense aussi au parti suisse de l'UDC qui a d'ailleurs créé sa propre section gay au sein même du parti ou plus surprenant encore aux hooligans de la Ligue de Défense Anglaise qui ont essayé d'organiser une gay pride à l'intérieur même d'un quartier musulman de Londres.
Après l'affaire du Mister Gay front national, le directeur de la rédaction de Têtu, Yannick Barbe a précisé au quotidien Libération que la sympathie pour le FN de ''Mister Gay 2015″ « est juste le reflet de ce qui passe en ce moment: la banalisation des idées d’extrême droite ». « Il n’y a aucune raison objective que les gays soient épargnés par ce phénomène », avait-il estimé. D'autres pensent au contraire que cet engagement homonational a été beaucoup plus compliqué pour la France en raison du poids du Front National dans la vie politique depuis plus de trente ans. Contrairement aux Pays-Bas ou aux pays nordiques, l'homonationalisme français était toujours resté par la position historique considérée comme homophobe du Président du Front National une tentation tout à fait marginale. Le « Chef » Jean-Marie Le Pen aurait ainsi immunisé, dissuadé et préservé les homosexuels français de toute affinité avec ce parti.
Dans ce cas, les militants homophiles traditionnels qui constituent le fer de lance du tissu associatif gay français pourraient très vite se retrouver condamnés à une alternative infernale qui serait dans les clivages présents : soit lutter contre l'homophobie, soit lutter contre le racisme et la stigmatisation des jeunes des cités. Or ces militants ont tous été formés par la dernière idéologie socialiste du pays, l'antiracisme des années 80. Choisir alors son camp entre homophobes et xénophobes pourrait devenir pour eux l'alternative infernale, le clivage bipolaire à laquelle mènerait ce que certains nommeraient déjà un clash sexuel des civilisations à l'intérieur du pays auquel viendrait s'ajouter l'engagement féministe, les luttes pour la mixité, les ABCD de l'égalité.