Ok

En poursuivant votre navigation sur ce site, vous acceptez l'utilisation de cookies. Ces derniers assurent le bon fonctionnement de nos services. En savoir plus.

mercredi, 19 juin 2013

Rassegna Stampa (06/2013-1)

giornali.jpg

Rassegna Stampa:
articoli in primo piano

 



   Clicca qui per visitare il nostro Archivio articoli.

La fête de la Ligue du Midi

Samedi 29 et dimanche 30 juin : c'est la fête de la Ligue du Midi

AFFICHE-NDP06.jpg

La fête de la ligue du midi se tiendra le samedi 29 et le dimanche 30 juin prochain, en Cévennes.

Au programme : 


Samedi 29 juin : Veillée autour du feu, évocation de Dominique Venner, possibilité de camper sur place.


Dimanche 30 juin de 10h à 18h : Stands, allocution, livres, jeux, détente, cochon grillé, buvette.

Conférence : « les enjeux géostratégiques du conflit en Syrie » par Antoine Carceller.

Délégation de camarades italiens, provençaux, bretons …

Réservation obligatoire .
Paf : 12€
www.liguedumidi.com
BP 1 – 7114
30912 Nîmes cedex 2
04 34 40 41 29 / 06 83 25 36 10

Élection d’Hassan Rohani

cheikh-hassan-rohani1.jpg

Élection d’Hassan Rohani : vers un rééquilibrage géopolitique de l’Iran ?

 
Le résultat des élections est il une surprise ?

A l’évidence, aucun analyste n’avait prévu la victoire d’Hassan Rohani au premier tour de l’élection présidentielle [vendredi dernier]. Mais il ne faut pas oublier que l’Iran est un pays imprévisible qui puise sa créativité et son esprit d’innovation dans une culture poétique inaccessible aux prévisions mathématiques.

Les réformateurs l’ont ils emporté ?
 
Contrairement à ce que l’on pourrait penser, la distinction entre réformateurs et conservateurs s’avère peu opérante en Iran. La preuve en est que parmi les six candidats en lice, cinq étaient classés ultraconservateurs ou conservateurs pragmatiques. Il s’agit de Saïd Jalili, d’Ali-Akbar Velayati, de Mohsen Rezaï d’Hassan Rohani et de Mohammad Ghalibaf. Seul un candidat, Seyed Mohammad Gharazi, était qualifié de modéré. A ce compte, les Iraniens avaient mathématiquement 83% de chances d’élire un conservateur. C’est oublier que le monde iranien est marqué depuis des siècles par un rêve qui n’a rien de conservateur, celui de réformer le monde musulman en prenant sa tête. Mais ce rêve souterrain, qui hante la plupart des hommes d’État iraniens se heurte à deux obstacles : l’Iran n’est ni Sunnite ni Arabe. Il est par conséquent tenu à l’écart par les pays musulmans qui s’effraient de son inépuisable créativité. Devant ce rejet, les Iraniens sont tiraillés entre deux types d’évolutions : soit un basculement vers l’Occident ou à l’inverse une consolidation des liens avec l’Asie. Même si les Iraniens se perçoivent comme des Occidentaux, ils ont été contraints par les sanctions récentes à se rapprocher simultanément de la Russie et de la Chine pour former une alliance plastique que l’on pourrait qualifier de Nouvel Empire Mongol.

Il conviendrait, par conséquent, de repenser la distinction entre réformateurs et conservateurs au profit d’un nouveau gradient Occident/Orient. Or cette nouvelle distinction bouleverse les schémas établis car il n’est pas plus conservateur de se tourner vers la Chine que vers l’Europe. La véritable question est par conséquent la suivante : qui l’a emporté entre les Océanides – partisans d’un rapprochement avec la puissance maritime américaine – et les Gengiskhanides – qui souhaitaient un rapprochement avec la Russie et la Chine. Les Iraniens nous ont répondu aujourd’hui de façon totalement inattendue avec la victoire des Iranides un tiers parti qui souhaite le retour à une politique d’équilibre internationale. Aujourd’hui, le Nouvel Empire Mongol connaît un vacillement et ce n’est pas tout à fait un hasard si les chancelleries russe et chinoise ont du mal à se positionner ce soir sur le résultat de l’élection.

Quel est le profil du nouveau président ?

Parmi les six candidats, les hommes ayant exercé des fonctions diplomatiques importantes étaient surreprésentés : il s’agissait de Saïd Jalili, ancien Vice-Ministre des Affaires Étrangères, d’Akbar Velayati ancien Ministre des affaires étrangères, et d’Hassan Rohani qui a une grande expérience de la diplomatie puisqu’il a été personnellement en charge du dossier nucléaire. A l’évidence, ces diplomates l’ont emporté sur les spécialistes de l’ordre intérieur

Peut on espérer un règlement de la question nucléaire ?

Il faut s’attendre à une inflexion sur ce point. Nous avons aujourd’hui un signe fort. Même s’il est improbable qu’Hassan Rohani remette en cause la volonté de l’Iran de mettre en place une filière nucléaire, les négociations peuvent avancer. Leur échec actuel s’explique en partie par la très grande difficulté pour les Occidentaux à prendre au sérieux les spécificités culturelles et juridiques de l’Iran. A la différence de la France, l’Iran a été occupé pendant près de mille ans par des puissances étrangères. Cette occupation a marqué en profondeur ses élites qui ont mis au point des procédés de négociation extrêmement sophistiqués afin d’assurer leur survie politique. Or, depuis la découverte des hydrocarbures, l’Iran est devenu le centre géopolitique de la planète contrôlant simultanément les richesses énergétiques de la mer Caspienne et du Golfe Persique. Cela amène les négociateurs iraniens à réfléchir à chaque mouvement diplomatique. Contrairement à ce que l’on pourrait penser, l’Iran n’a pas donné le signal d’une proche normalisation. D’un point de vue intérieur, il a opéré un rééquilibrage en se repositionnant au centre. Dans ces circonstances, il ne fait guère de doute qu’Hassan Rohani n’acceptera de ralentir la nucléarisation de l’Iran qu’à condition que la communauté internationale accorde à l’Iran le statut de puissance régionale. Car au fond, par delà ses difficultés économiques, l’Iran aspire par dessus tout à une dignité retrouvée sur la scène internationale.

Thomas Flichy

Historien du droit et des institutions
Source : Realpolitik.tv.

Dichter der Tradition

eliot-howse_2443469b.jpg

Dichter der Tradition

von Prof. Paul Gottfried (Gastautor)

Ex: http://www.blauenarzisse.de/

T S. Eliot verkörpert in Europa die US-​amerikanische Spielart literarischer Moderne. Der Schriftsteller selbst sah sich im Dreiklang von „Monarchie, Klassizismus und einer anglokatholischen Einstellung”.

Der „Stockneuengländer” mit anglikanischen Vorfahren aus Boston kam 1888 in St. Louis/​Missouri zur Welt und steuerte früh auf einen europäischen Bezugspunkt zu. 1914 reiste er nach Marburg und siedelte sich schließlich in Oxford an. Als Harvard-​Absolvent mit einer schon bewährten literarischen Begabung brauchte der junge Autor des modernistischen Klassikers und Versepos The Waste Land von 1922 eine Lebens– und Mitwelt, in der er sich seelisch zuhause fühlen konnte. Der von ihm in seinem theoretischen Schrifttum hervorgehobene Dreiklang „Monarchie, Klassizismus und eine anglokatholischen Einstellung im theologischen Bereich“, bezeugt Eliots Suche nach einer allumfassenden, sinnstiftenden Identität.

Die englische Tradition

Was Thomas Stearns Eliot begrifflich und dichterisch herstellte, entsprang seiner Schöpferkraft, die unter anderem eine traumhafte, archaisierte politische und kulturelle Landschaft der Gegenwart als Folie heraufbeschwor. In seinem Gesamtwerk zeichnen sich seine immer wiederkehrenden Vergangenheitsbeschäftigung ab und – nicht weniger hervorstechend – sein Bedauern über den Verlust einer aristokratisch-​priesterlichen Pracht.

Ein scharfsinniger Deuter des angloamerikanischen Dichters, Adrian Cunningham, betont Eliott Schwepunktsetzung auf die „englische Tradition“. Formelhaft und anhand des französischen Monarchisten Charles Maurras gelangte Eliot zu einem Verständnis der Tradition als geteiltem Erbgut, das er mit seiner kunstvoll konturierten englischen Vergangenheit in Verbindung brachte. Eliot ging diese intellektuelle Übung in seiner 1992 gegründeten Literaturzeitschrift Criterion an, ohne Rücksicht auf die Besonderheiten seiner eigenen Familienvergangenheit zu nehmen. Bei Eliots Zerlegung „des gewöhnlichen Handelns“ tritt wenig Erlebtes und Prägendes aus dem eigenen Elternhaus im mittleren Westen der USA heraus. Dabei wanderten seine angesehenen Vorfahren aus England aus und siedelten sich im 17. Jahrhundert in den amerikanischen Kolonien an.

Mehr Soziologie als Theologie

elio1101500306_400.jpgWenn Eliot seine Glaubenslehre verteidigt, läuft seine Darlegung Cunningham zufolge eher „auf einen soziologischen als einen theologischen Standpunkt“ hinaus. Der Dichter verstand sie als Bestandteil der Idee einer „universalen Kirche“ im Kontext der römischen und orthodoxen Konfessionen. Nach dem strengen Katholiken Cuningham scheiterte das Verfahren in dem Maße, dass Eliot von einer selbstbezogenen Vorstellung ausging, ohne in einer wahren religiösen Tradition verankert zu sein.

Seine Schaffensfreudigkeit wurde dauernd mit einer Kritik der Moderne verknüpft und zugleich mit dem Auftrag, eine für seine Lebensmission geeignete Tradition vorzufinden oder sich auszudenken. Cunningham betont Eliots Besorgnis über den ausufernden Relativismus, der ihn in seinem aus den Fugen geratenen Zeitalter erschütterte. Umso größer blieb Eliots Bedürfnis nach einem sittlichen Rettungsanker. Er trauerte um den Verlust ästhetischer Maßstäbe, die in einer noch erkennbar aristokratischen Kultur gediehen waren. Durch sein Werk wollte der Dichter diese glühend verehrte Vergangenheit versinnlichen.

Doch Eliots angenommene Identität und sein Festhalten an einer monarchistischen, hochkirchlichen Tradition hätte dessen Vorfahren kaum angesprochen. Im Gegensatz zu seinen calvinistischen, republikanisch gesinnten Ahnherren, die in die Neue Welt einwanderten, entschied sich Eliot für den Monarchismus und für die seine Wahltradition begleitende Dogmenlehre.

Verschlossenheit und Wandel

Daraus erwuchs ihm und der englischsprachigen Literatur im Zwanzigsten Jahrhundert ein großer Gewinn. In Dramen wie Murder in the Cathedral (1935) und der umfangreichen Lyrik verbirgt sich eine schöpferische Genialität, die Eliots steife und verkrampfte Außenwirkung Lügen straft. Wie seine angenommenen, englischen Mituntertanen des Königs hat Eliot oft eine sprichwörtliche Verschlossenheit bekundet. Das kam ihm zugute, als er mit einer Menge von Schwierigkeiten zu ringen hatte. Als seine erste Gattin, Vivienne, geisteskrank wurde, litt der Dichter und fühlte sich gedrängt, sie in ein Sanatorium einzuliefern.

Modernismus und vergangene Pracht

Bis heute tobt eine stürmische Kontroverse um die Frage, ob Eliot für seine junge temperamentvolle Frau hinlänglich sorgte und ihre Einweisung berechtigt war. Außer Zweifel steht, dass Eliot bis tief in seine mittleren Jahre hinein bedürftigen Umständen gegenüberstand. In einer Bank rackerte er sich tagsüber als Kassierer ab. Seine literarische Leidenschaft konnte er sich nur nachts und daher häufig übermüdet widmen. Trotz des unerwarteten Erlöses, der ihm dank The Waste Land zufiel, versiegte sein Wohlstand rasch. Eliot fehlte das Geld, sich ganz der Dichtkunst zuzuwenden. Erst als er 1948 mit dem Literaturnobelpreis geehrt wurde, zeichnete sich langsam ein Wandel ab.

Bemerkenswert bleibt, dass Eliot gerade in seine theologisch-​politischen Schriften viel Mühe investierte. Wenn heute seine umständlichen Essays, etwa The Idea of a Christian Society (1939), nicht derart bekannt wie die Gedichte sind, dann muss beachtet werden, dass Eliot in seinen geschmacklichen und politisch-​theologischen Aufsätzen seine mit Wehmut angehauchte Weltansicht am stärksten enthüllt. In seinen Gedichten tritt dagegen eine mit dem Modernismus verwachsene Schöpferkraft zutage, die ebenso auf neue literarische Ausdrucksmöglichkeiten vorausweist, wie sie in eine vergangene Pracht zurückführt.

Schon in seinen ersten bedeutenden, satirischen Gedichten, The Love Song of Alfred J. Prufrock, die bereits 1917 herauskamen, erschlossen sich einige Zeichen des Experimentierens mit Versformen, die die schon damals hervortretenden Modernisten kennzeichnete. Sie arbeiteten vor allem mit freien Versen und eingestreuten Glossen über die Verkommenheit der Massenkultur. Als Wegbereiter galten Leitfiguren wie Ezra Pound, Gottfried Benn, und Louis-​Ferdinand Céline, die den Aufruf zur ästhetischen Mobilisierung mit konservativen oder rechten Zuneigungen verquickten.

Pietät und Märtyrerleiden

Im Gegensatz zum genialen Ezra Pound, der mit ihm die Erstfassung von The Waste Land umgearbeitet hatte, blieb Eliot aber von neuheidnischen Gedanken unberührt. Diese Zeitströmung, die im letzten Viertel des 19. Jahrhunderts einsetzte und mit Namen wie Nietzsche, D’Annunzio, und Pound in die kulturelle Tradition einzog, prallte von Eliot gänzlich ab. Aus seinen Dichtungen und Schauspielen entströmt, wie bei dem katholischen, französischen Schriftsteller Paul Claudel (18681955), ein betont christlicher Geist. In etlichen Schöpfungen wie Ash Wednesday (Aschermittwoch, 1930) und Murder in the Cathedral bleiben die Thematiken unverkennbar anglokatholisch.

Auch bei Eliots Bewunderern erschöpft sich manchmal die menschliche Geduld, wenn Eliot seine Pietät wiederholt unterstreicht. In den Schauspielen Murder in the Cathedral, das die Tötung des Erzbischofs Thomas Beckett auf Befehl des ihm entfremdeten Königs Heinrich II. schildert sowie The Cocktail Party (1948), das das Befestigen einer Missionarin an einem Ameisenhügel irgendwo in Afrika nacherzählt, zeigt sich die finstere Seite des Gläubigen. Märtyrerleiden übten auf Eliot zeitlebens eine große Faszination aus. Zweifelsohne, Eliot ging konsequent einen ganz eigenen Weg. Von anderen ließ er sich unterrichten, ohne ihnen zu verfallen.

The Dark Side of GIs in Liberated France

breitwandaufmacher-ghca.jpg

'Bandits in Uniform': The Dark Side of GIs in Liberated France

By Mathieu von Rohr

Ex: http://www/spiegel.de/

US soldiers who fought in World War II have commonly been depicted as honorable citizen warriors from the "Greatest Generation." But a new book uncovers the dark side of some GIs in liberated France, where robbing, raping and whoring were rife.

The liberators made a lot of noise and drank too much. They raced around in their jeeps, fought in the streets and stole. But the worst thing was their obsession with French women. They wanted sex -- some for free, some for money and some by force.

After four years of German occupation, the French greeted the US soldiers landing in Normandy on June 6, 1944 as liberators. The entire country was delirious with joy. But after only a few months, a shadow was cast over the new masters' image among the French.

By the late summer of 1944, large numbers of women in Normandy were complaining about rapes by US soldiers. Fear spread among the population, as did a bitter joke: "Our men had to disguise themselves under the Germans. But when the Americans came, we had to hide the women."

With the landing on Omaha Beach, "a veritable tsunami of male lust" washed over France, writes Mary Louise Roberts, a history professor at the University of Wisconsin, in her new book "What Soldiers Do: Sex and the American GI in World War II France." In it, Roberts scrapes away at the idealized picture of war heroes. Although soldiers have had a reputation for committing rape in many wars, American GIs have been largely excluded from this stereotype. Historical research has paid very little attention to this dark side of the liberation of Europe, which was long treated as a taboo subject in both the United States and France.

American propaganda did not sell the war to soldiers as a struggle for freedom, writes Roberts, but as a "sexual adventure." France was "a tremendous brothel," the magazine Life fantasized at the time, "inhabited by 40,000,000 hedonists who spend all their time eating, drinking (and) making love." The Stars and Stripes, the official newspaper of the US armed forces, taught soldiers German phrases like: "Waffen niederlegen!" ("Throw down your arms!"). But the French phrases it recommended to soldiers were different: "You have charming eyes," "I am not married" and "Are your parents at home?"

After their victory, the soldiers felt it was time for a reward. And when they enjoyed themselves with French women, they were not only validating their own masculinity, but also, in a metaphorical sense, the new status of the United States as a superpower, writes Roberts. The liberation of France was sold to the American public as a love affair between US soldiers and grateful French women.

On the other hand, following their defeat by the Germans, many French perceived the Americans' uninhibited activities in their own country as yet another humiliation. Although the French were officially among the victorious powers, the Americans were now in charge.

'Scenes Contrary to Decency'

The subject of sex played a central role in the relationship between the French and their liberators. Prostitution was the source of constant strife between US military officials and local authorities.

Some of the most dramatic reports came from the port city of Le Havre, which was overrun by soldiers headed home in the summer of 1945. In a letter to a Colonel Weed, the US regional commander, then Mayor Pierre Voisin complained that his citizens couldn't even go for a walk in the park or visit the cemetery without encountering GIs having sex in public with prostitutes.

"Scenes contrary to decency" were unfolding in his city day and night, Voisin wrote. It was "not only scandalous but intolerable" that "youthful eyes are exposed to such public spectacles." The mayor suggested that the Americans set up a brothel outside the city so that the sexual activity would be discrete and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases could be combated by medical personnel.

But the Americans could not operate brothels because they feared that stories about the soldiers' promiscuity would then make their way back to their wives at home. Besides, writes Roberts, many American military officials did not take the complaints seriously owing to their belief that it was normal for the French to have sex in public.

But the citizens of Le Havre wrote letters of protest to their mayor, and not just regarding prostitution. We are "attacked, robbed, run over both on the street and in our houses," wrote one citizen in October 1945. "This is a regime of terror, imposed by bandits in uniform."

'The Swagger of Conquerors'

There were similar accounts from all over the country, with police reports listing holdups, theft and rapes. In Brittany, drunk soldiers destroyed bars when they ran out of cognac. Sexual assaults were commonplace in Marseilles. In Rouen, a soldier forced his way into a house, held up his weapon and demanded sex.

The military authorities generally took the complaints about rape seriously. However, the soldiers who were convicted were almost exclusively African-American, some of them apparently on the basis of false accusations, because racism was also deeply entrenched in French society.

A café owner from Le Havre expressed the deep French disillusionment over the Americans' behavior when he said: "We expected friends who would not make us ashamed of our defeat. Instead, there came incomprehension, arrogance, incredibly bad manners and the swagger of conquerors."

Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan

Read also:

mardi, 18 juin 2013

D. Venner: Kein zweiter Faschismus

Kein zweiter Faschismus

Ein Interview mit Dominique Venner (2010)

Ex: http://www.sezession.de/

Dominique Venner ist Historiker, Schriftsteller und Chefredakteur der Pariser Zeitschrift Nouvelle Revue d’Histoire. Zuletzt erschien von ihm die Monographie Ernst Jünger. Un autre destin européen (Le Rocher, Monaco 2009). Zu seinen wichtigsten Buchveröffentlichungen zählen die Großessays Histoire et tradition des Européens (Le Rocher, Monaco 2002/2004) und Le Siècle de 1914 (Pygmalion, Paris 2006), in denen Venner die Grundlagen der europäischen Identität und die europäische Geschichte des 20. Jahrhunderts neu interpretiert. Zudem veröffentlichte er Le coeur rebelle (Belles Lettres, 1994), eine persönliche Reflexion über seine radikale Jugend, den Algerienkrieg, seine Haftzeit, die Bewegung »Europe Action« und die Ursprünge der »Nouvelle Droite«. Sein erstes zeitgeschichtliches Werk (Baltikum, 1974) befaßte sich mit den Freikorps. Die deutsche Ausgabe erschien unter dem Titel Söldner ohne Sold (Paul Neff Verlag, Wien 1974).

Kontakt: www.dominiquevenner.fr

dv-ej585234835.jpgSezession: Herr Venner, in Deutschland hat man nur eine recht vage Vorstellung von den Entwicklungen im Frankreich der fünfziger und sechziger Jahre. Welche Kräfte bestimmten das Schicksal Ihres Landes zwischen Dien Bien Phu und dem Ende der Algérie française?

Venner: Die »patriotische« Strömung im Denken und Handeln zur Zeit des Algerienkriegs läßt sich nicht isoliert von einer sehr viel breiteren historischen Bewegung betrachten. Um jene Epoche ebenso wie unsere eigene zu verstehen, muß man die europäische Geschichte des 20. Jahrhunderts deuten lernen. Bis 1914 vermochte eine »europäische Ordnung« Traditionen und Moderne zu versöhnen. Der Erste Weltkrieg zerstörte diese Ordnung, die von dynamischen Aristokratien errichtet worden war. Auf den Trümmern dieser Zivilisation spielten sich ab 1920 gewaltige sozialistische und nationalistische Revolutionen ab. Daß diese Revolutionen, der italienische Faschismus ebenso wie der Nationalsozialismus, scheiterten und einen neuen Weltkrieg und weitere Katastrophen auslösten, lag vor allem an ihrem aggressiven Nationalismus und der Brutalität, mit der sie gegen ihre Gegner vorgingen. Allmählich beginnt sich die Erkenntnis durchzusetzen, daß Europa zwischen 1914 und 1945 einen zweiten »Dreißigjährigen Krieg« erlebte. Er endete mit dem überwältigenden Sieg der USA und der Sowjetunion. Diese beiden Mächte teilten Europa zwischen sich auf und zwangen ihm ihre jeweilige Ideologie auf. Gebrochen von einem halben Jahrhundert erst des Gewaltwahns, dann des Schuldgefühls, ist Europa daraufhin in tiefen Schlaf gefallen. Die »patriotischen« und militärischen Bewegungen, die in Frankreich zwischen Dien Bien Phu (1954) und dem Ende des Algerienkriegs (1962) entstanden, lassen sich als instinktive Revolten gegen diese Erniedrigung Europas deuten, die in Frankreich durch die Dekolonisierung schmerzhaft spürbar wurde.

Sezession: Sie haben damals die Herausforderung gesucht. Mit zwanzig kämpften Sie in Algerien, um die französische Herrschaft dort zu verteidigen. Zu Zeiten des Budapester Volksaufstands kämpften Sie gegen die Kommunisten. Sie waren am Putsch der Generäle vom April 1961 beteiligt, dem Versuch, Staatspräsident Charles de Gaulle zu stürzen. Für Ihre Beteiligung am Kampf der Untergrundbewegung Organisation de l’ Armée Secrète (OAS) verbüßten Sie eine Gefängnisstrafe. Was war der Anstoß, daß Sie zu einem »rebellischen Herzen« wurden?


Venner: Ich hatte damals ein sehr ausgeprägtes Lebensgefühl. Gemeinsam mit einer Handvoll Kameraden bekämpfte ich das politische und intellektuelle Hundepack, das wir für unseren Niedergang verantwortlich machten. Unsere Ideen waren kurzlebig, unsere Instinkte aber tief. In tollkühnen Aktionen riskierten wir Kopf und Kragen. Dieses Engagement hatte wenig mit dem gemein, was man landläufig als »politisch« bezeichnet. Wir träumten weniger davon, eine »Partei« zu gründen als vielmehr einen mystisch-militärischen Orden. Unsere Vorbilder waren die spanischen Falangisten von 1936 oder ein Mann wie Oberst Nasser 1952.

Sezession: Wenn Sie von der damaligen Zeit sprechen, bezeichnen Sie sich selber als einen »Nationalisten«. Warum?


Venner: Wir nannten uns damals »nationalistisch «, um zuvorderst unsere Radikalität zu betonen und uns von der bürgerlichen Rechten abzugrenzen, die sich als »national« bezeichnete. Scherzeshalber pflegten wir zu sagen: »Der Nationale verhält sich zum Nationalisten wie das Rindfleisch zum Stier.« Zudem verstanden wir uns als europäische Nationalisten. Wir waren unserer Zeit voraus.

Sezession: Später verfaßten Sie eine »positive Kritik « des Nationalismus. Was hat sich verändert?


Venner: Das Manifest Pour une critique positive habe ich im Gefängnis geschrieben, Ende 1962, nachdem der Kampf für die französische Kolonialherrschaft in Algerien gescheitert war. Es entstand als Antwort auf die Herausforderung einer historischen Niederlage und wollte neue Denkansätze und Stoßrichtungen für den Kampf formulieren. Die Situation, in der wir uns heute befinden, ist eine radikal andere. Damals mußte alles wiederaufgebaut werden, ohne daß irgendeine Grundlage vorhanden gewesen wäre. Der kraftvolle Gestaltungswille der zwei Jahrzehnte zwischen 1920 und 1940 war durch den Sieg des Kommunismus und des amerikanischen Demokratismus gebrochen, zu schweigen von den antifaschistischen »Säuberungen«. Der Algerienkrieg bewirkte zwar eine patriotische Erneuerung, die jedoch, statt Impulse für ein neues Denken zu geben, große Verwirrung stiftete. Nach 1962 war unsere Ideenwelt dementsprechend verödet. Der Veröffentlichung von Pour une critique positive folgte 1963 die Gründung der Zeitschrift Europe Action, die sich in vielerlei Hinsicht spürbar auswirkte. Wenngleich Europe Action nicht alle in sie gesetzten Erwartungen erfüllen konnte, gelang es doch, Grundlagen zu schaffen. Dazu zählt die Öffnung des Nationalismus für die europäische Dimension, die Befreiung vom Christentum, die Fruchtbarmachung sämtlicher Forschungsergebnisse aus der Philosophie und Geschichtswissenschaft. Dies bildete die Vorlage für das spätere intellektuelle Wirken der Nouvelle Droite.

Sezession: Im Januar 2010 sind seit dem »Barrikadenputsch « in Algier genau fünfzig Jahre vergangen. Wie denken Sie heute über Ihren damaligen Hauptfeind: General de Gaulle?


Venner: Ich habe ein Buch über diese komplexe Figur geschrieben: De Gaulle. La grandeur ou le néant? (Le Rocher, Monaco 2004). Der Titel »De Gaulle. Die Größe oder das Nichts« unterstreicht die Ambivalenz seiner Persönlichkeit. De Gaulle verfügte über große politische Fähigkeiten. Er hätte sie zugunsten der europäischen Einigung und unserer Loslösung von den USA einsetzen können. Leider blieb er zeitlebens der Logik des antifaschistischen Bürgerkriegs verhaftet, auf die er in zwei Schicksalskämpfen gesetzt hatte: 1940/45 und erneut 1958/62. Das Ergebnis ist bekannt. Im Mai 1958 kam de Gaulle an die Macht zurück, getragen von einer breiten Bewegung der nationalen Erneuerung. Zehn Jahre später hatte er dieser Bewegung so sehr das Rückgrat gebrochen, daß ihr politisches Gegenteil triumphierte: der Geist vom Mai ’68, der heute noch dominant ist.

Sezession: Armin Mohler, der von 1953 bis 1960 als Korrespondent für Schweizer und deutsche Zeitungen in Paris arbeitete, schrieb 1958 in der Zeit, Frankreich sei das einzige Land, in dem der Faschismus eine »zweite Chance« hatte. Warum, glauben Sie, entwickelte sich aus dem Nationalismus, der OAS und den Bewegungen der pieds-noirs, der Algerienfranzosen, nie eine neue Form des Faschismus?


Venner: Aus soziologischer Sicht läßt sich die Existenz eines allgemeinen Phänomens namens »Faschismus« feststellen, einschließlich des freilich sehr anders gearteten deutschen Nationalsozialismus. Dabei handelt es sich um eine einmalige historische Erscheinungsform, die nur in einer bestimmten Epoche auftrat. Entgegen den Vorstellungen der Antifaschisten ist der Faschismus weder räumlich noch zeitlich übertragbar. Ohne den Ersten Weltkrieg, ohne den Tod der vormaligen europäischen Ordnung hätte es keinen Faschismus gegeben. Seine Entstehung verdankt er den verzweifelten Umständen sowie dem Aufkommen einer Ersatz-Elite innerhalb der Kriegsgeneration. Er ist im übrigen nur eine Reaktion auf die bolschewistische Bedrohung. Hinzu kommen die Auswirkungen eines verwundeten Nationalismus. Nach 1945 und der historischen Niederlage einer neuen, aus den »Stahlgewittern« hervorgegangenen Elite bestand niemals irgendeine Chance für einen anderen »Faschismus«. Eine Wiederkehr des Faschismus wird es genausowenig geben wie eine neue Reformation. Die Geschichte der großen Bewegungen wiederholt sich nicht. Wir leben längst in einer anderen Zeit, nämlich jener des Zusammenpralls der Zivilisationen und ihres Wiederauflebens – und nicht zu vergessen: Europas.

Sezession: Herr Venner, wir bedanken uns für das Gespräch.

Das Interview führte Karlheinz Weißmann

 


 

Article printed from Sezession im Netz: http://www.sezession.de

 

URL to article: http://www.sezession.de/18118/kein-zweiter-faschismus.html

 

URLs in this post:

[1] pdf der Druckfassung: http://par5.sezession.de/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Venner_Kein-zweiter-Faschismus.pdf

[2] Image: http://www.sezession.de/heftseiten/heft-34-februar-2010

JAPON 2013: l’Empire du soleil déclinant

japs.jpg

JAPON 2013: l’Empire du soleil déclinant

Auran Derien
Ex: http://metamag.fr/
Le Japon sera-t-il le modèle de la décadence occidentale? La conversion de ses dirigeants aux tripotages financiers anglo-saxons, qu’elle soit volontaire, par aliénation, ou obligée, sous l’influence de chantages divers, est étonnante: le saut dans la création monétaire débridée imitant l’escroquerie de la réserve fédérale aura des effets pervers. Pourtant, dans les années 80 tout se présentait bien
 
Le grand ingénieur OHNO et sa révolution organisationnelle.
 
On se souvient que la méthode OHNO eut tant de succès qu’elle transforma toutes les entreprises dans le monde. Elle reposait sur deux piliers : la production juste à temps et l’activation automatique de celle-ci. Dans un pays totalement détruit après la guerre, les entreprises devaient offrir des produits très différents en petites quantités et dans des variétés multiples. 
 

Taiichi Ohno
 
Aussi, l’ingénieur Ohno utilisa-t-il l’expression : penser à l’envers (de l’occident) quand il chercha et trouva comment augmenter la productivité lorsque les quantités produites sont stables. La révolution dans l’organisation se concentra sur la chasse aux excédents, tant de matière que de personnes, ce qui obligea à repenser toute la structure des entreprises pour faire apparaître ces derniers où qu’ils soient, et les éliminer par des adaptations. Bien sûr, le succès japonais d’alors possédait quelques traits spécifiques, en particulier la pratique du marché du travail interne aux organisations, des syndicats d'entreprises avec une éthique coopérative, l’emploi à vie car le Japon manquait alors de main d’œuvre adulte, et un salaire croissant avec l’ancienneté. Ainsi, le Japon transforma le monde. Jusqu’à ce que les voyous de la finance bloquent son développement.
 
La crise asiatique des années 90.
 
Le fondement du pillage de la finance repose sur la création puis la dévalorisation de créances. Ce processus donne vie aux assassins financiers, leur fournit l’oxygène nécessaire à leurs entreprises. Ils gonflent les créances (les croyances en l’avenir radieux d’un secteur, d’un pays, d’une technique) puis les dégonflent en leur faisant perdre toute valeur. Alors ils volent, désarticulent et tuent. Cela permet d’empêcher le développement de zones car celles-ci sont ruinées au moment où les créances sont dégonflées.
 
Le Japon a subi une agression similaire dans les années 90. La finance anglo-saxone voulait déstructurer son économie, l’émietter, la vider de sa substance comme ils le font avec l’Europe moribonde. Le Japon a cependant préféré l’austérité. La déflation s’est effectuée en interne, sans démembrement. Pendant des années, les gains ont servi à compenser la bulle antérieure. Le dégonflement a signifié stagnation. Pendant ce temps, la commission européenne était corrompue pour un prix modique, les frontières détruites par Lord Brittan, l’homme de Rothschild, et la Chine pouvait décoller, écoulant en Europe ses produits puis acquérant peu à peu une technologie que les Européens sont désormais incapables de renouveler car tout le tissu humain, culturel, socio-politique, éducatif s’effrite sous l’œil torve de dégénérés béats placés là par la supra classe financière. Malheureusement, il semble que le Japon ne veuille plus résister.

Un présent qui ne prépare pas l’avenir.
 
D’abord, la population japonaise vieillit. On sait que le nombre de retraités va augmenter et que le système de retraite a placé son épargne dans les titres publics. Le niveau de vie des anciens est donc conditionné par la politique monétaire. On ne sait pas si le désastre de Fukushima, qui va marquer génétiquement la zone pour une assez longue période, résulte d’un phénomène naturel ou si le système HAARP en est la cause. Toujours est-il que le pouvoir politique a voulu tout secouer et s’est lancé dans la production monétaire avec l’allégresse de l’enfant découvrant la machine à fabriquer des bulles de savon. On s’attendra donc à deux phénomènes, au moins: les folies monétaires font croître à court terme les valeurs des actifs, car il faut bien utiliser ces yens. 
 
 
La bourse va donc monter. La rapidité de l’inondation monétaire, sans investissements nouveaux - et rentables - suffisants provoque l’achat d’autres devises, à titre de placements. Le yen baisse. Le premier ministre, nouveau converti aux béatitudes monétaristes, espère que cela maintiendra un écart constant entre le yen et les autres monnaies soumises au même phénomène de production inflationniste. Aucun effet sur les exportations et importations n’en est attendu. Il est probable qu’une partie des yens émis sera convertie en devises d’autres zones, et que ces capitaux entreront dans des fonds souverains, peut-être pour acheter, eux-aussi, des terres, immeubles, etc. puisque tout est à vendre, surtout en Europe où les gagistes des ministères bradent tout pour se remplir les poches. 
 
L'Humain avant tout
 
La production de yens répond à la production de dollars, livres, etc. dans un monde dominé par les faux-monnayeurs. Il est regrettable que l’élite japonaise n’ait pas plus d’idées que Bernanke. Les modèles de développement sont à réinventer. La grande innovation japonaise d’après-guerre a porté ses fruits. Mais les pillards veillent et gardent le même cap: étouffer tout ce qui est humain car ils s’éduquent à cela.  Aucune réforme pertinente, tant dans la finance que dans l’éducation, dans les retraites comme dans l’écologie n’a jamais été décidée au Japon ou en Europe depuis la victoire de la finance mondialiste. Il faut repenser le développement car ni le FMI, ni l’OMC et ses démolisseurs, ni les tueurs en série des associations de financiers n’amélioreront le sort de quelque humain que ce soit. Ces institutions ont été pensées par des trafiquants pour assurer leur domination. Il ne faut jamais cesser de regarder du côté de la Grèce antique, seul moment où l’homme a été considéré comme la mesure de toute chose. Et non le dollar, le yen ou l’euro.

La spiritualità di Marinetti

Marinetti_Futurismo_Manifesto.jpg

La spiritualità di Marinetti: fra anticlericalismo, spiritismo e cristianesimo

Giovanni Balducci

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

È noto come il Programma sansepolcrista del 1919 fosse fortemente anticlericale e presentasse addirittura un piano di “svaticanizzazione” dell’Italia mediante il sequestro di beni e l’abolizione dei privilegi ecclesiastici. All’adunata di piazza San Sepolcro del 23 marzo 1919 a Milano partecipa anche Filippo Tommaso Marinetti in qualità di leader del Partito Politico Futurista.

L’anticlericalismo di Marinetti ben si sposa con quello del movimento fascista, anzi è ancor più radicale di quest’ultimo, come si evince dal manifesto “Contro il Papato e la mentalità cattolica, serbatoi di ogni passatismo”, sempre del 1919, in cui il poeta propone di: «Sostituire all’attuale anticlericalismo retorico e quietista un anticlericalismo d’azione, violento e reciso, per sgomberare l’Italia e Roma dal suo medioevo teocratico che potrà scegliere una terra adatta ove morire lentamente».

aeroplano-del-papaTali dichiarazioni non fanno altro che confermare quanto già espresso da Marinetti ne L’aeroplano del Papa, pubblicato nel 1912, in cui il padre del Futurismo predicava la necessità di «svaticanare l’Italia» e – in tempi non sospetti – di muovere guerra alla bigotta Austria.

Ma il violento anticlericalismo marinettiano è ben visibile in nuce già nel celebre Manifesto futurista del 1909, così pregno di quel dinamismo anarchico ed antitradizionale che sarà la cifra essenziale del movimento futurista, dal quale prenderà il via una nuova e rivoluzionaria stagione culturale, e che rappresentò, ça va sans dire, l’antecedente storico non solo di tutta l’arte a venire, ma anche di un nuovo modo di intendere la vita veloce e disinvolto.

Coevo al Manifesto del Futurismo è il “Manifesto politico per le elezioni del 1909” in cui Marinetti faceva professione di nazionalismo, anti-pacifismo, anti-socialismo ed anti-clericalismo. Dello stesso anno è anche l’incendiario romanzo Mafarka, il futurista, che gli valse un processo per oltraggio al pudore. Pervaso da suggestioni nietzscheane ed anti-romantiche, il romanzo culmina con la generazione da parte del protagonista di un essere dalle fattezze di uccello meccanico, stante a simboleggiare la volontà di potenza ed il genio creativo dell’artista, temi cari al filosofo della “morte di Dio”.

mafarkaA proposito delle concezioni antimetafisiche di Marinetti, Julius Evola – che di metafisica, invece, campava – ricorderà nella sua autobiografia di quando il poeta, dopo aver letto un suo scritto, gli disse chiaro e tondo che le proprie idee erano lontane dalle sue più di quelle di un esquimese. Ma si sa, quando non si crede più nella trascendenza, si finisce spesso col credere a tutto: così fu anche per Marinetti, che come molti altri positivisti della sua epoca – pensiamo a Cesare Lombroso, e alla sua passione per i tavolini traballanti – prese a frequentare medium e spiritisti, stringendo amicizia, tra l’altro, con la sensitiva e poetessa triestina Nella Doria Cambon, confidente, per altro, anche di Svevo e di D’Annunzio.

Ma il vitalismo di cui è pervasa l’intera opera marinettiana non è esente da influenze misticheggianti: quella di Marinetti è però una “mistica della materia”, infatti, il movimento, l’azione, il dinamismo, per Marinetti, non sono che espressioni di quell’energia bergsonianamente intesa come frutto di uno slancio vitale che spinge la materia ad evolversi. Egli stesso affermava che ogni sera era solito inginocchiarsi e pregare di fronte alla lampadina del proprio comodino, perché in essa circolava la “divina velocità”.

venezianellaCon l’avanzar degli anni, nondimeno, farà ritorno alla fede cattolica. Negli anni ’30 promuove addirittura il movimento dell’“arte sacra futurista”, sostenendo che: «Solo gli artisti futuristi, che da vent’anni impongono nell’arte l’arduo problema della simultaneità, possono esprimere simultaneamente i dogmi simultanei del culto cattolico, come la Santa Trinità, l’Immacolata Concezione e il Calvario di Dio».

I suoi ultimi scritti, del 1944, sono “L’aeropoema di Gesù”, dove canta con enfasi palinodica «l’illusione di essere di metallo, mentre si è solo povera carne piangente», ed il “Quarto d’ora di poesia per la X Mas” – scritto poche ore prima di morire – in cui pare destreggiarsi tra il ritrovato amore per Dio e la passione per l’azione che l’accompagnò per tutta la vita: «Non vi grido arrivederci in Paradiso – dirà ai combattenti della X – ché lassù vi toccherebbe ubbidire all’infinito amore purissimo di Dio mentre voi ora smaniate dal desiderio di comandare un esercito di ragionamenti dunque autocarri avanti».

00:05 Publié dans art | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : art, avant-gardes, marinetti, futurisme, italie | |  del.icio.us | | Digg! Digg |  Facebook

lundi, 17 juin 2013

AMERIQUE LATINE: l’Empire du néant s’accroche

AMERIQUE LATINE: l’Empire du néant s’accroche

Auran Derien
Ex: http://metamag.fr/

En 2011, les étatsuniens ont monté une Alliance du Pacifique, avec le Mexique, la Colombie, le Chili et le Pérou. Ce conglomérat est motivé par les sempiternelles justifications mensongères : stimuler le commerce entre tous, construire une zone de libre circulation  des personnes, biens, services et capitaux. Cette association aurait la capacité de négocier avec le monde asiatique. Elle vient de se réunir à Santiago de Cali.
 
 
En réalité, il s’agit d’attirer tous les pays qui se laisseraient duper par les éternels mensonges  sur le paradis sur terre qui devient possible grâce aux banquiers. Le totalitarisme qui guide cette mafia nordiste continue la stratégie de Monroe : réserver tout le continent aux élus auto-proclamés. L’année de création de l’Alliance du Pacifique, 2011, est bien la preuve d’une volonté d’éradiquer les élites non conformes, celles qui ont fondé l’UNASUR ou l’ALBA (Alianza Bolivariana para las Américas)(L’ALBA regroupe :  Bolivie,  Cuba,  République Dominicaine,  Equateur,  Nicaragua, Venezuela, plus Saint Vincent, La Grenade et les îlots Antigua et Barbuda). Dans un futur proche, sauf si l’Empire de la servitude s’écroule dans une gigantesque hyperinflation que le soviet de la réserve fédérale s’ingénie à déclencher, l’Amérique Latine devrait voir refleurir les méthodes infâmes des étatsuniens, appliquées à tous les pays qui ne se prosternent pas devant leur si sublime élection. 
 
La corruption permanente et systématique 
 
Le mécanisme est simple : offrir une vie de médiocrité satisfaite à ceux qui, détenant un pouvoir, obéissent aux ordres. Des politiciens français visitent par exemple les pays d’Amérique Latine qui se soumettent, comme eux, aux ordres venus des supérieurs inconnus. Un pays important reste incertain aujourd’hui, le Brésil, où une élite veut maintenir une politique spécifique. La tentative de corruption passe par l’octroi de postes dans la bureaucratie, comme la nomination d’un brésilien à la tête de l’OMC pour remplacer François Lamy. Une autre carotte agitée sous le nez des brésiliens est la possibilité d’entrer au Conseil de sécurité permanent de l’ONU. Mais, de même que les voyous globalitaires pratiquent la double morale, les élites bien éduquées de ces pays savent qu’il ne fait surtout pas les prendre au sérieux. D’ailleurs, il paraît que Leon Panetta est venu clairement exposer les termes du chantage traditionnel : l’appui pour le siège au Conseil de Sécurité de l’ONU si le Brésil achète des avions F-18 et coopère militairement avec les assassins moraux de Washington.
 
La Bolivie aussi donne le bon exemple
 
Depuis 2005, les Etats-Unis ne cessent de mentir sur l’Amérique du Sud. Ils cherchent à éveiller des phantasme sur l’axe Cuba-Vénézuela-Bolivie, parlant de populisme pour donner à la préoccupation pour son peuple une connotation négative alors que ces populations sont finalement sorties des despotismes militaires qu’avaient organisés, armés et soutenus les USA. Ce processus latino-américain de réappropriation porte aussi la volonté de jouir d’un peu de bien-être plutôt que de laisser des bandes de pillards, sous la forme d’une industrie bancaire et des multinationales exploitant les ressources, s’acoquiner avec une oligarchie locale kleptocratique, comme ce fut le cas au XX ème siècle. 
 
Car le problème brutal dans lequel a macéré l’Amérique Latine, depuis les ajustements structurels du FMI, est l’absence de croissance. Entre 1980 et 2000, le revenu par tête réel n’a augmenté que de 9%. ( Mark  Weisbrot:  Latin America : The End of an Era. Post-autistic economics review. Issue no. 39,  1 Oct 2006, p.18). On ne comprend pas la stagnation de ces régions si on oublie les destructions massives opérées par les régimes soutenus par le cartel de Washington. En particulier, les USA ont été coupables de crimes contre l’humanité au Guatemala, au Salvador et au Nicaragua. Il faudra bien que ses chefs passent en jugement, un jour ou l’autre, et qu’ils paient pour les souffrances  infligées là-bas et ailleurs, depuis plus d’un siècle, à toute forme d’humanité.
 
 
Dans cette ambiance où de nouvelles élites latines ont compris quel type de sauvages  contrôlent l’occident, le Président de la Bolivie, Morales, a expulsé début mai les agitateurs professionnels d’un organisme appelé USAID dont les conseils ont toujours été destructeurs. D’ailleurs la Russie a aussi fermé cette source de putréfaction en septembre 2012, car ses agents intriguaient en faveur des ennemis de la Russie. 
 
Tant va la cruche à l’eau qu’à la fin elle se casse
 
Il devient plus difficile, en Amérique Latine, de se faire passer pour l’Empire du bien. L’époque où cette escroquerie intellectuelle dominait est en voie de se terminer. Certes, la corruption et le crime, armes habituelles des soviets qui contrôlent l’Amérique ne cesseront pas. Et, comme le prouve l’exemple européen, chaque jour se lève un salaud qui accepte de trahir en échange d’un plat de lentilles. Mais la dure lutte pour la survie, dans un monde de plus de sept milliards de personnes, rend plus sensible l’humanité aux infamies occidentales. Il sera intéressant de vivre, en Amérique Latine, la dégradation du pouvoir de nuisance de l’Empire du néant. 

The “Gender Industry” — Controlling the Periphery

The “Gender Industry” — Controlling the Periphery

Bruno De Cordier

Ex: http://www.fairobserver.com/

 
FORUM_Lila_symbol1.jpgMore than contributing to just and humane societies, the international gender industry, feminism’s institutionalized offshoot, has undeniably become part of multi-faceted attempts at periphery control.

 

Just like threats and enemies often don’t turn out to be who we are told or believe them to be, measures and movements with an apparently noble and humanist purpose do not always serve it. Draconic laws against “hate speech” and “extremism,” for instance, are perhaps not as much about promoting tolerance or stopping evil white supremacists and evil Salafists as the public is told. The latter groups rather serve as mediagenic scarecrows, the threat of which serves to legitimize a set of laws, policies and control organs that are set up for the purpose of intimidating or silencing all forms of effective dissent against the neoliberal order in the future. Likewise, tightened gun-control laws are not in place for the protection of ordinary citizens, but rather represent attempts by the power elites to curb the circulation of firearms that could, one day, be turned against them as the cropped-up frustration, bitterness and despair that ferment at the grassroots level, explode. 

 

Orwellian doublethink and newspeak have never been as lavishly used as under the neoliberal hegemony that arose after the demise of the Cold War and the bipolar world order. Now, the same paradox applies to feminism and its more comprehensive and slick spin-off and alibi, gender. Much can be traced back to so-called “second-wave feminism,” a movement that originated among upper-middle class and elite women in northwestern Europe and in the US between 1965-75. Its major aims were the financial independence for women through their full integration into the labor market, and the so-called “sexual liberation.” There is no doubt that the movement initially addressed real inequalities, abuses and hypocrisies. Yet, it lost part of its moral superiority once it became an instrument of ingraining a neoliberal world order – a dehumanizing system in which all aspects of life have to become marketable, with everyone and everything as merchandise, subordinate to oligarchic and cosmopolitan financial elites — in the deepest fabric of society. How did this happen?  

 

Is Freedom Slavery?

 

Let us look at its actual legacy in the countries' societies where it started: that is the OECD sphere, and northwestern Europe and the US in particular. If one makes abstraction of the rhetoric about emancipation, progress, equal opportunity and freedom of choice, which have been truly or allegedly obtained, one sees that over the last decades men and women in the OECD sphere’s core societies have reached almost complete equality — that is, in the first place, as consumers and taxable subjects. It’s important to emphasize this; for the upgrading of women to fully-fledged laborers, consumers and taxpayers was the actual purpose of the establishment’s recuperation of feminism, or at least a number of its issues. In terms of marketization of society, the so-called sexual liberation also came into practice as the full incorporation of the sexual mores of the left-libertarian protest subcultures from the 1965-75 period, into marketing and mass consumerism. But perhaps the most important is this: the steered vilification and destruction of the core family and the clan as the cornerstones of a natural societal order, and the power struggle and hostility between the sexes that is being constantly incited by lifestyle magazines, reality TV, women’s organizations, social workers and lawyers, has proven to be an ultimate divide-and-rule tactic.

 

Perhaps it's somewhat bluntly put. But let’s stick to the essentials. The fragmentation and mutation of the social fabric also came to serve a major purpose of ensuring ideological continuity, in the sense that corporate media, subsidized pedagogues and all sorts of therapists became major players in the education and acculturation of children and young adults instead of the family. At a loss because of the breakup of the family structure and degradation of the father figure, they become much easier to indoctrinate with the systemic values and norms through the said channels. Finally, in terms of society control, the promotion of feminization and metro-sexuality among boys and men through media and commercials is to dilute the physical and psychological capacity for effective rebellion and revolution against the order of things. The oligarchy has understood all too well that the physical input on the streets during turmoil and revolutions have always primarily been carried out by men.

 

So, one starts to wonder whether it’s really about creating a more soft and gentle society, or, rather, a submissive one that lives an illusion of freedom and equality. More recently, the gender sector went further with the promotion of gay rights, which after a while have become rights of “sexual minorities” in international policy discourse. On the whole it looks like in some way, feminism and the gender sector eventually came to serve the oppression that they pretend to fight. Is it this that the thousands of well-intended feminists and gender activists wanted? Most probably not. The thing is, that their movements, and real and perceived achievements, were recuperated by a system, the nature of which they failed to understand — at least in time. But on the other hand, feminism’s recuperation into a tool for the neoliberal oligarchy was only possible because part of the feminist elites understood that they could make careers on this, especially once the baby boomers and soixante-huitards, who propagated second-wave feminism, found their way into the upper echelons of national politics and international institutions.

 

The Wrath of the Peripheries

 

For sober minds, it had been clear for a long time now that resistance against, and alternatives to, neo-liberalism would not come from the secular Lefts. As Oswald Spengler rightly said at the time – and as the former Socialist sphere in the 1990s as well as the devolution of European social-democrats illustrate – every “outbreak” of Socialism creates new paths for capitalism. Neither can much be expected from established democratic structures and actors, because these have been largely reduced to entertainment and periodic political rituals that do not affect the real powers that be. Instead, the resistance and alternatives come and will continue to come from the internal and global peripheries and from emerging powers. They will be grafted in existing or re-composed solidarity groups, existing or born-again forms of traditionalism, and religion. Depending on the society and the geographic sphere, the latter particularly includes Islam, Christianity, and perhaps neo-paganism.

 

Even within the OECD sphere itself, remnants of traditional structures and religion might one day prove vital for the survival of individuals and for the recomposing of societies once the current order implodes, as it sooner or later will. Therefore, these have to be discredited and discarded so that no alternatives can form, or that they can be marginalized where they exist. What the protagonists and agents of global neoliberal hegemony especially fear is that emerging powers and traditionalist and non-secular resistance movements will somehow find a common cause. Furthermore, similar to what took place in the OECD sphere, the global consumers’ base has to be expanded so that the economic system can extend its survival. This means that collective identities, norms and values that form an impediment to the transformation of the peripheries’ societies into fully-fledged consumer bases, have to be dealt with. And this is where the gender industry, amongst others, comes in. So, what it essentially comes to, is that the process of social fragmentation of feminism’s original turf has to be propagated and grafted in the internal periphery – that is, the non-Western and in particular Muslim immigrants in the OECD sphere – as well as in the global periphery and, here again, with particular attention to its Islamic sectors. This also includes the exportation of the sexual minorities agenda.  

 

A major channel of what is definitely becoming gender imperialism is international development aid. The use of aid to transform peripheral societies and gain some control over them in the process has been conceptualized by authors like Mark Duffield, amongst others. The following figure offers a concrete look at what aid for the promotion of gender equality and women’s empowerment as a principal or significant goal, represent in the overall aid volume from the OECD sphere, and how it evolved over time. These figures only reflect reported official aid. If one adds the activities where gender equality is an implicit and not a major goal, as well as the contributions from private donors, the portion of such aid is likely to be higher. Nonetheless, if we look at the timeline, we see that aid related to gender systematically increased after 1999, and especially from 2002 onwards. This is no coincidence. For a start, gender equality was streamlined and integrated as a priority development goal at a number of global summits under UN aegis between 1995 and 2000. More importantly, there was the shifting geopolitical paradigm. Earlier, the “opening” of the former Socialist societies in Eastern Europe, the Balkans and Eurasia had already created a real or hoped-for space for “social reconstruction” along neoliberal lines. The rapid impoverishment and the social and moral dislocation that these societies went through in the early 1990s created opportunities for the international gender industry too. Officially there to save women from degradation and exploitation, its task, in fact, was to help prevent any return or rehabilitation of traditionalist and non-secular alternatives to defunct Socialism. 

 

 

Aid as “Social Software”

 

Things gained momentum, however, with the official start of what we know as the “Global War on Terror” in late 2001 and early 2002. Of course, this multi-dimensional war did not start out of the blue. It was rather the outcome of an older security focus shift towards the Islamic sphere that was already clear during the First Gulf War in 1990-91 — the one following Saddam Hussein’s occupation of Kuwait. After the overt start of the current phase of the war on terror in 2001-02, however, one observes a strong and systematic increase of gender aid. So now, on average, we are talking about $17.6 billion of official gender aid per annum since 2002. Contrary to what some may think, the bulk of this, about three quarters in the 2008-11 period for instance, did not come from the US but from EU institutions — especially from the major EU member states. This suggests some sort of task division in which the US provides the bulk of the military muscle for neo-imperial intervention, while the more effeminate EU brings the social software to transform societies. Country-wise, much of the gender-related aid, both proportional or in absolute terms, is destined for, hardly surprising, majority Muslim societies that are the frontlines in the war on terror (flagship context being of course Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq, Pakistan and, more recently, Mali and Indonesia).

 

There’s also India and China, and a number of African countries that are categorized as fragile states or where assertive Christian movements exist. Interestingly, the top recipients also include Vietnam, a nominally socialist country and onetime anti-imperialist bulwark, but that has now apparently become a champion of sexual minority rights. It is, of course, wrong to look at the whole gender industry as a centralized, uniform sector bound by global sisterhood and solidarity. It is rather a realm of numerous specialized international institutions, international as well as local non-governmental organizations, consulting firms, platforms and egos that are permanently in competition with each other for a piece of the donor funding pie, career opportunities and their own continuity, and in which “oppressed women” eventually serve as a backdrop. This competition and divisions, which is one of the reasons why the sector will eventually fail in its objectives, will most likely increase when funding shrinks if the economic crisis in the OECD sphere lasts or worsens. In the field, however, common traits and ways of operating can be observed. First, the whole effort is largely elite-driven. Just like the West-African slave trade and early European colonialism in India, for instance, could never have been organized without the active and interested support of native notability and merchant princes, neo-liberal hegemony, and the gender industry that has to help anchor it in the social fabric, have to rely on local elite groups and, of course, their interests.

 

These elite groups form much of the gender industry’s local staff and the leadership of local women’s movements. Being composed of members of more cosmopolitan, westernized segments of society, secularists, yuppies, artistic milieus and more opportunistic officials, they understand very well the profitability of acting as subcontractors in donor agendas. Most often, however, they do not reflect what lives and moves in wider society, which they often fear and despise for its perceived “backwardness.” The twisted and socially prejudiced assessment of the gender situation that this often brings, reflects a deep social divide between the elites, the grassroots and the socially mobile. What was striking to me, for example, during the whole outrage around the Delhi rape case earlier this year, when elite feminists – of the kind that treat their domestic servants like rubbish after coming home from the umpteenth human rights seminar – skipped no opportunity to blame “the backward traditionalism of the masses” for the increase in rape cases. Typically, hardly anyone in those circles even suggested that the rapid spread of the liberal virtue of pornography could, maybe, be a far more important cause.

 

Stop Pretending

 

Second, one can observe a clear tendency of focusing on extreme, if not marginal, situations and incidents of which women fall victim, in order to almost demonize, in cooperation with system pundits craving for sensation, the male and traditionalist sections of society — if not entire countries. Of course, with some martyr babes and a tearjerker or two thrown in, it gives the international visibility and legitimacy that is needed for funding. But, more essentially, it feeds a latent narrative in which men are uniformly depicted as oppressive, violent, lazy and irresponsible. And this has to serve, indeed, the same divide-and-rule tactic, which is to set the sexes up against each other. In reality, however, between the elite feminists and the libertine jet set women on one hand, and the women who are victim of spectacular, brutal abuses on the other, there exists a wide and diverse societal middle ground in which men and women, as good and as bad as it gets for everyone, do have a mature modus vivendi in a daily environment that is defined both by tradition and globalization. But hardly anyone seems interested in this. For one, there’s much less spectacular misery to see and sell.

 

But the existence of this silent, yet living, majority underlines something much more important. Just like the left-wing students with upper-middle class backgrounds in the Western Europe of 1965-75 — who went to the factories to spread the gospel of proletarian revolution and encountered indifference, if not outright hostility, from the very workers that they wanted to “emancipate” — privileged feminists and gender professionals are as baffled when they finally realize that the bulk of, say, Arab, Afghan and African women that they want to “save” and “enlighten” are maybe all but waiting for that. And that is at once the other reason why the gender strategy could eventually fail.

 

Before anyone thinks this is outrageous or preposterous, lay assured that I understand such criticisms. There used to be a time, quite some years ago already, that yours truly bought into all this as well: after all, who could be against protecting and liberating women from abuse, exploitation and discrimination? The thing is, when you work in different spheres and societies long enough and when you have eyes and ears, you realize at a certain moment that one has to be either malevolent or a stubborn idealist not to grasp that the beautiful discourse and slick slogans do not entirely reflect reality. And that reality is when one comes to see where the roads paved with good intentions can at times lead to.

00:05 Publié dans Sociologie | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : sociologie, sexualité, gender studies, gender | |  del.icio.us | | Digg! Digg |  Facebook

Любо, братцы, любо - Кубанский казачий хор

Любо, братцы, любо - Кубанский казачий хор

dimanche, 16 juin 2013

Roland Dumas : les Anglais préparaient la guerre en Syrie deux ans avant les manifestations en 2011

 

Roland Dumas : les Anglais préparaient la guerre en Syrie deux ans avant les manifestations en 2011

Une conférence de Bernard Lugan

Bernard Lugan

conférence

mars 2013

00:05 Publié dans Actualité | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : bernard lugan, politique internationale | |  del.icio.us | | Digg! Digg |  Facebook

Romain Lecap: Manipulations médiatiques

Romain Lecap:

Manipulations médiatiques

samedi, 15 juin 2013

La indefensión de Europa vista desde América

europe-374.png

La indefensión de Europa vista desde América               

Alberto Buela (*)

Nosotros como dijo el Papa Francisco vivimos en “el fin del mundo” y por lo tanto no nos afectan los problemas de los países centrales. Y si nos afectan es colateralmente.  Si lo miramos bien, es en el hemisferio norte (USA, Europa. Rusia, China, Japón) donde ocurren los grandes acontecimientos que conmueven al mundo. En el hemisferio sur casi no pasa nada que tenga sentido para los mass media que son todos del norte. Así hoy nos venden a Mandela, cerca de la Parca, como campeón de la humanidad, cuando este antiguo PC y agente de Stalin practicó un racismo a la inversa con los blancos de Sudáfrica y con los zulúes, originarios habitantes del país. Y ayer nos vendían a Menem como paladín del libre mercado y terminó hundiendo la Argentina.

De modo que cada vez que nos hablan de Occidente nosotros, que vivimos en el extremo Occidente, decimos como el poeta Anzoátegui: Qué Occidente no nos venga con el cuento de Occidente.  Pero más allá del reparo notamos que Europa, en tanto que corazón de Occidente ofrece falsas respuestas a las agresiones que sufre y a los vejámenes y asesinatos de sus hijos que padece.

Así, acaban dos musulmanes de asesinar en plena calle de Londres a un soldado inglés, Lee Rigby, y el primer ministro inglés en lugar de declarar que fue el fundamentalismo musulmán el causante del asesinato y castigarlo, declaró muy suelto de cuerpo: el crimen es una traición al Islam.

Pero acaso, ¿le importa al algún musulmán que estos dos árabes hayan traicionado al Islam? No. Pues todo lo que sea en contra de Occidente es bienvenido para el mundo musulmán. Y esto desde su fundación ha sido, es y será así. Y el que no lo quiera ver no sabe sobre el tema o es “un entendimiento torcido”.

Ahora bien, si desde Inglaterra, que es como decir el meollo conservador y militar más concentrado de Occidente, puede su primer ministro cometer semejante desatino, qué nos está permitido esperar del resto de los dirigentes occidentales. Nada. En el 2012 fueron asesinados 105.000 cristianos en el ámbito del mundo musulmán, y salvo la investigadora  inglesa que lleva la cuenta y algún obispo en alguna comisión perdida de las Naciones Unidas, ningún dirigente político occidental dijo nada. Occidente ha sido entregado “con pito y cadena” a los designios del Islam.[1]

Y esto mismo lo afirma un interesante filósofo alemán Peter Sloterdijk en una reciente entrevista: Europa  no será capaz de una política suficientemente defensiva porque no puede practicar una política tan fea. Además estaría obligada a desmentir sus ideales liberales y democráticos.

Los más lúcidos de los pensadores europeos (de Benoist, Cacciari, Bueno) nos hablan de una especie de feminización de la cultura de Occidente: el uso abusivo del teléfono celular, la vestimenta, la pérdida del imperativo, el cambio de usos y costumbres, el avance exponencial del mundo gay, la alimentación light con cigarrillos sin nicotina y café sin cafeína, etc. etc.

Ayer nomás, el Papa Francisco declaró públicamente que: en la Curia vaticana hay un looby gay que provocó la filtración de informaciones que obligó a renunciar a Benedicto XVI: hay que ver lo que podemos hacer.  No es necesaria gran perspicacia para observar los modales y la cara de maricón que tiene el secretario de Estado del Vaticano.

Es decir, que los dirigentes de Occidente se niegan a ver lo que se cae de maduro, lo que es evidente, aquello que se muestra en forma descarada y manifiesta y dejan a los pueblos de matriz occidental librados a la voluntad de sus enemigos.[2] Lo mismo que hizo Venecia ante la caída inminente de Constantinopla. Si alguno de los que lee este breve comentario nuestro se quiere amargar,  puede leer el libro de Steven Runciman de la vieja editorial Espasa Calpe[3].

Nosotros desde el fin del mundo asistimos con pena a la destrucción de una tradición de la cual nos nutrimos y de la que somos deudores, pero como no es la única tradición cultural que nos conforma, que nos da forma, también le podemos rezar a la Pachamama. Sin embargo, tenemos la esperanza de que, islamizada Europa, el cristianismo pueda renacer en Iberoamérica.

Lo que barruntamos es que no va a ser una restauración genuina del cristianismo porque nuestros dirigentes políticos, culturales y religiosos, que no son mejores que los europeos, son en su mayoría pro sionistas y eso es una ventaja relativa, habida cuenta que el sionismo es la única oposición frontal al totalitarismo musulmán. Entonces el cristianismo que se impondrá será de sesgo hebreo, donde se van a licuar todas las relaciones y distinciones  teológicas conflictivas del cristianismo respecto de los llamados, anfibológicamente,“ hermanos mayores”. En el mejor de los casos se nos impondrá un cristianismo sin aristas donde desaparecerá todo lo heroico.

Esto es lo que vemos sine ira et studio,  sucintamente, desde América.

 

(*) buela.alberto@gmail.com



[1] El sociólogo Massimo Introvigne, coordinador del Observatorio sobre la libertad religiosa afirmó que “se estima que en 2012 murieron por su fe 105 mil cristianos, es decir, uno cada cinco minutos. Son proporciones espantosas”. Y monseñor Silvano Tomasi afirmó: “Cada año más de 100.000 cristianos son asesinados violentamente por alguna causa relacionada con su fe».

[2] Hace unos días nomás, se suicidó delante del altar de Notre Dame en París, el excelente historiador Dominique Venner en protesta por esta situación

[3] La caída de Constantinopla, Espasa-Calpe, Bs.As.-Madrid, 1973

Le Bulletin célinien n°353

Le Bulletin célinien n°353 - Juin 2013

 
 
Vient de paraître : Le Bulletin célinien n°353. Au sommaire : 

Marc Laudelout : Bloc-notes.
Pierre Assouline : Un roman peut-il servir de sources aux historiens ? Le cas Céline.
Jean-Pierre Dauphin : L’œuvre exige des soins scrupuleux [1967]
M. L. : Le Livre de Poche a 60 ans.
Éric Mazet : Gen Paul et Céline. La Bataille du Styx.
Frédéric Saenen : Céline « mi-Diogène mi-Roi Lear ».
Pierre Lalanne : Un colloque sur les pamphlets.
M. L. : Les lectures de Christopher Gérard et de Philippe d’Hugues. 


Le Bulletin célinien, Bureau Saint-Lambert, B. P. 77, 1200 Bruxelles.
Courriel : celinebc@skynet.be.

Abonnement 1 an, 11 numéros : 55 €

Consulter le sommaire des anciens numéros ici.


Bloc-notes

Il est temps de passer aux aveux : cela fait une quarantaine d’années que Céline me fascine. Au point de lui consacrer depuis quasi autant de temps le bulletin que vous avez entre les mains ¹.
 
J’apprends que la revue Études céliniennes a été créée parce que ses animateurs refusent précisément de « céder à la fascination que peuvent susciter Céline et son œuvre ». Et de revendiquer « une approche ouvertement critique, au sens étymologique et philosophique du terme ² ». Oserais-je l’écrire ? Le rôle que s’était assigné la Société des études céliniennes en 1976 me paraît davantage empreint de sérénité : « Réunir, en dehors de toutes passions politiques ou partisanes, tous ceux, lecteurs, chercheurs ou collectionneurs, qui s’intéressent à l’œuvre de Louis-Ferdinand Céline, et favoriser par tous moyens la connaissance de celle-ci. ».
 
Les temps ont changé. Nous sommes à l’heure de la moraline. Il s’agit de faire preuve de la plus grande vigilance à l’égard de cet écrivain mort il y a plus d’un demi-siècle. Dans le précédent BC, j’évoquais cette célinienne se demandant, anxieuse, si le plaisir éprouvé à lire Céline n’est pas compromettant. Lors d’un récent colloque, des universitaires se sont gravement interrogé sur l’opportunité qu’il y avait de rééditer les pamphlets ³. Le fait qu’il s’agisse d’une édition critique due à un céliniste irréprochable n’a manifestement pas suffi à dissiper l’inquiétude de certains. Et tout indique que beaucoup ne partagent pas le point de vue de son meilleur biographe : « Céline, mieux que tout autre, savait qu’il n’avait pas voulu l’holocauste et qu’il n’en avait pas même été l’involontaire instrument 4. »
 
Quant à la revue Études céliniennes, il n’y aurait rien à en dire si elle n’était l’organe de la Société des études céliniennes. Quand son directeur émet des propos déplaisants à l’égard d’autres spécialistes de l’écrivain, parle-t-il en son nom propre ou engage-t-il la SEC ? Lorsqu’il daube sur un éditeur célinien « friand de notes de linge », on sait qui est visé 5. Ce persiflage n’a pas été avalisé par le comité de rédaction de la revue. Vétille. Mais quand l’édition critique de la correspondance à Albert Paraz y fait l’objet d’une recension délibérément suspicieuse 6, il en va différemment. L’organe de la S.E.C. est-il dans son rôle lorsqu’il laisse libre cours à ces petits jeux personnels ? C’est la question que peuvent se poser à bon droit les (autres) adhérents de cette société d’études 7.
 
 
Marc LAUDELOUT

 
1. Faut-il pour autant me qualifier d’« inconditionnel de Céline » ? Formule assurément périlleuse utilisée par Christine Sautermeister dans sa communication sur la réception critique de LFC au colloque « Céline à l’épreuve » (j’y étais) organisé en mai 2011 par l’Université de la Sorbonne nouvelle.
 
2. Isabelle Blondiaux, « Pourquoi lire Céline ? » in Céline et l’Allemagne (Actes du Dix-neuvième colloque internationalLouis-Ferdinand Céline), Société d’études céliniennes, 2013, p. 60.
 
3. « Les pamphlets de Céline : enjeux d’une réédition etbilan de la recherche », Congrès de l’Association francophone pour le savoir, Université Laval (Québec), 7-8 mai 2013. Voir l’article de Pierre Lalanne pp. 19-22.
 
4. François Gibault, préface à Lettres de prison à Lucette Destouches et à Maître Mikkelsen, Gallimard, 1998. À comparer avec l’affirmation selon laquelle les pamphlets « préparèrent les esprits au processus d’extermination [sic] » (André Derval, L’Accueil critique de “Bagatelles pour un massacre, Éd. Écriture, 2010, p. 28).
 
5. Études céliniennes, n° 7, printemps 2012, p. 106. L’année précédente, la critique avait déjà été émise dans les mêmes termes : André Derval, « Bibliographie [L’Année Céline] », Le Magazine littéraire, n°505, février 2011, p. 83d.
 
6. Études céliniennes, n° 6, hiver 2010-2011, pp. 112-114.
 
7. Voir aussi David Alliot, « Foudres et flèches... » & Éric Mazet, « Haro sur Céline » in Spécial Céline,n° 9 (« La chasse à l’homme ! »), mai-juin-juillet 2013, pp. 9-42.

Chant des artilleurs

Chant des artilleurs

00:05 Publié dans Militaria, Musique, Musique | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : cosaques, artillerie, russie, musique | |  del.icio.us | | Digg! Digg |  Facebook

vendredi, 14 juin 2013

L'Afrique réelle nos. 41 & 42

bernard-lugan.jpg

L'Afrique Réelle N°42 - Juin 2013

 
SOMMAIRE :
 
 
Dossier : Côte d’Ivoire, tous les problèmes demeurent
 
 
- Une situation politique complexe
- Les forces du désordre
 
 
Dossier : Le Sahelistan du Nigeria
 
 
- Une situation explosive amplifiée par l’inversion des rapports de force Nord-Sud
 
 
- La question du saillant de Jos
- Boko Haram et la tentative de création d'un Etat théocratique
- Radicalisation islamique et charia
 

 Editorial de Bernard Lugan :
 
Au Mali, durant une vingtaine de jours de combats dans la région des Iforas, dont presque une semaine d’accrochages continus, les forces françaises se sont heurtées à la farouche résistance de petits groupes de combattants organisés en deux lignes de défense, sans possibilité de recul, et qui laissèrent plus de 150 des leurs sur le terrain.
Cette manœuvre de retardement permit à l’essentiel des combattants islamistes qui occupaient le nord du Mali de se réfugier en Libye. Là se trouve aujourd’hui leur base d’action d’où ils peuvent, à tout moment, lancer des opérations dans l’ensemble de la zone sahélienne.

Le président nigérien Mahamadou Issoufou fut le premier à rompre le mur du silence, déclarant que les auteurs de l’attentat meurtrier du 23 mai qui a frappé son pays venaient de Libye. Toutes les forces de déstabilisation se sont en effet regroupées dans le sud de ce pays où elles disposent d’un véritable sanctuaire puisque l’Etat libyen n’existe plus.

Comme je le disais dans un précédent communiqué, ceux qui ont lancé la France dans la guerre civile libyenne portent toute la responsabilité de la situation actuelle.
Celle du président Sarkozy est double car, après avoir renversé le colonel Kadhafi, il est demeuré passif quand, au mois de janvier 2012, au Mali, il était impératif de fixer et de traiter l’abcès islamiste afin d’éviter sa dissémination. Au lieu de cela, dans la plus totale indécision doublée d’un manque absolu de vision géostratégique, la France a camouflé sa démission derrière l’argument d’une « action » militaire de la CEDEAO.

Avec une grande continuité dans l’incompétence, le président Hollande laissa ensuite les islamistes liquider militairement les Touareg tout en affirmant que la France n’interviendrait en aucun cas, ce qui fut un encouragement donné aux jihadistes. Cependant, et heureusement, à la différence de son prédécesseur, François Hollande a fini par écouter les militaires et a ordonné l’opération Serval. Mais cette nécessaire intervention était trop tardive car la dissémination terroriste s’était produite.

Aujourd’hui, le Niger, le Tchad et le Cameroun sont menacés, mais c’est au Nigeria que la situation est la plus explosive. Dans cet Etat mastodonte et fragmenté où les antagonismes nord-sud peuvent à n’importe quel moment déboucher sur un conflit de grande envergure, les islamistes disposent en effet d’un terreau favorable ; à telle enseigne que c’est une véritable guerre que l’armée fédérale mène actuellement contre les fondamentalistes de Boko Haram qui contrôlent une partie du nord du pays.
 

L'Afrique Réelle N° 41 - Mai 2013

 
SOMMAIRE :
 
Dossier : Les guerres de Libye depuis 2011
- La première guerre de Libye (février - octobre 2011)
- Les autres guerres de Libye
 
Histoire : Une traite qu'il est bon ton de passer sous silence : l'esclavage arabo-musulman en Afrique
- Les trois pôles de la traite arabo-musulmane
- La lutte contre la traite arabo-zanzibarite
- La traite arabo-musulmane : quel bilan chiffré ?
 
Editorial de Bernard Lugan :
 
Les vrais responsables de l’anarchie libyenne

Il aura donc fallu l’attentat à la voiture piégée qui a visé l’ambassade de France à Tripoli le 23 avril dernier pour que la presse française découvre enfin que la Libye n’existe plus comme Etat.
Depuis cet attentat, et alors que, jusque là, les perroquets répétaient que le pays était en voie de stabilisation et de démocratisation, son état réel illustre chaque  jour un peu plus leur psittacisme. C’est ainsi que tout le sud du pays est devenu une zone grise dans laquelle évoluent les terroristes chassés du Mali par l’opération Serval. Ailleurs, l’incapacité de l’Etat atteint des proportions inouïes avec le siège mis devant certains ministères par des groupes de miliciens écartés du partage des dépouilles opimes enlevées au colonel Kadhafi. Sans parler de la quasi sécession de la Cyrénaïque, déchirée par une guerre civile et religieuse.

Si, comme le disait Charles Maurras « une politique se juge à ses résultats », le bilan du duo Sarkozy-BHL dans cette affaire est donc particulièrement accablant. En ayant immiscé la France dans une guerre civile alors que ses intérêts n’étaient pas en jeu, le politique et le « philosophe » ont en effet offert la victoire aux délinquants de toutes sortes et aux fondamentalistes islamistes qui se battent au grand jour pour récupérer des miettes de pouvoir.
Pour des raisons encore inconnues, le prétexte « humanitaire » étant une fable destinée aux enfants de l’école maternelle, Nicolas Sarkozy a renversé un chef d’Etat qui n’était certes pas un modèle de vertu, mais qui, dans le combat contre le fondamentalisme islamiste était devenu son allié. Un chef d’Etat fantasque et imprévisible, mais qui, après avoir agité la région sahélienne en était devenu un élément stabilisateur. Un chef d’Etat ancien soutien du terrorisme, mais qui, là encore, s’était mis à le combattre. Un chef d’Etat qui était un partenaire essentiel dans la lutte contre l’immigration clandestine et ses parrains mafieux. Un chef d’Etat qui avait fait croire que la Libye existait alors qu’il ne s’agit que d’une mosaïque tribalo-régionale.
Un chef d’Etat enfin qui ne risquera pas de faire des révélations « gênantes » lors d’un procès. Sa tête ayant été mise à prix comme celle d’un vulgaire délinquant de droit commun, il fut en effet liquidé après avoir été torturé et sodomisé par les doux démocrates de la milice de Misrata… Ces mêmes miliciens avaient été sauvés de justesse quelques mois auparavant par une audacieuse opération menée par des commandos français. La seule de ce genre et de cette importance durant toute la guerre, l’intervention française dans le djebel Nefusa ayant été de nature différente. Là encore, une autre question se pose elle aussi restée sans réponse à ce jour : pourquoi, et alors que d’autres objectifs étaient militairement plus importants, le président Sarkozy a-t-il ordonné de dégager les miliciens de Misrata ?

Bernard Lugan

Kabul, transizione sulle sabbie mobili

Karzai.jpg

Kabul, transizione sulle sabbie mobili

di Manlio Dinucci

Fonte: Il Manifesto [scheda fonte]


È rientrata dall'Afghanistan la 53ma «vittima» italiana, termine usato per definire i militari Natouccisi nelle operazioni belliche, non le migliaia di vittime civili che la guerra continua a provocare.


E mentre si spettacolarizza il dolore dei familiari e le massime autorità dello stato esprimono il solito «profondo cordoglio», il ministro della difesa Mauro declama: «La libertà, la pace e la democrazia, a cui noi contribuiamo in diversi teatri operativi nel mondo, hanno purtroppo un prezzo e questa volta a pagarlo sono i nostri soldati». Per ben altri scopi sono in Afghanistan oltre 3mila soldati italiani (il quarto maggiore contingente dopo quelli di Stati Uniti, Gran Bretagna e Germania).

Sono là, sulla scia della strategia Usa, per occupare un territorio che - situato al crocevia tra Asia centrale e meridionale, occidentale e orientale - è di primaria importanza geostrategica rispetto a Russia, Cina, Iran e Pakistan, e alle riserve energetiche del Caspio e del Golfo. Sono là sotto comando Usa da quando la Nato ha assunto nel 2003 con un colpo di mano (allora senza autorizzazione del Consiglio di sicurezza) la «leadership dell'Isaf, forza con mandato Onu». Dopo aver speso nella guerra circa 1.200 miliardi di dollari secondo il Pentagono (in realtà molti di più se si calcolano altre spese, tra cui quelle per gli oltre 18mila militari Usa feriti), gli Stati uniti hanno deciso di ridurre dal 2014 il numero delle loro truppe in Afghanistan da 68mila a circa 10mila. Riduzioni proporzionali sono state annunciate per gli altri contingenti, compreso quello italiano.

Secondo quanto prevede il piano, un crescente ruolo sul campo dovrà essere svolto dalle forze governative afghane addestrate, armate e di fatto comandate da quelle Usa/Nato, che conserveranno le principali basi in Afghanistan. La «transizione» consisterà non nella fine della guerra, ma nella sua trasformazione in guerra «coperta», condotta con forze speciali e droni.

Gli Usa hanno impegnato gli alleati a contribuire alla formazione delle «forze di sicurezza afghane», già costata oltre 60 miliardi di dollari. Le cose non vanno però tanto bene: diversi soldati afghani, una volta addestrati, rivolgono le armi contro gli addestratori. Per la «transizione» la Nato deve quindi puntare ancora di più sul governo afghano, ossia sul gruppo di potere che ha insediato a Kabul. A tal fine sarà accresciuto il «fondo per la ricostruzione», già costato oltre 20 miliardi. In tale quadro si inserisce l'Accordo di partenariato firmato da Monti e Karzai, che prevede crediti agevolati e altri investimenti italiani in Afghanistan per centinaia di milioni di euro. Questo fiume di denaro finirà in gran parte nelle tasche di Hamid Karzai e dei suoi familiari, molti dei quali hanno cittadinanza Usa. Continueranno così ad arricchirsi con i miliardi della Nato (che escono anche dalle nostre tasche), gli affari sottobanco con compagnie straniere e il traffico di droga.

Non a caso l'anno scorso l'Afghanistan ha accresciuto del 18% le proprie piantagioni di oppio, il cui traffico è gestito non solo dai taleban ma in primo luogo dalla cerchia governativa. Una inchiesta del «New York Times» conferma che, per oltre un decennio, sono arrivate nell'ufficio del presidente Karzai, tramite la Cia, «borse di denaro liquido» per l'ammontare di decine di milioni di dollari. Niente scandalo: lo stesso Karzai ha dichiarato di essere stato assicurato dalla Cia che continuerà a ricevere «denaro contante», parte del quale servirà a «pagare l'élite politica, dominata dai signori della guerra».

Tante altre notizie su www.ariannaeditrice.it

War and Water

War and Water: Hydropolitics Propel Balkanization in Africa

Ex: http://www.globalresearch.ca/

Wherever there are reports of melting glaciers and a future of diminished water resources, there is an increasing Balkanization of nation-states. Those who manipulate world events for maximum profit understand that it is much easier to control water resources if one is dealing with a multitude of warring and jealous mini-states than it is to deal with a regional power…

The Nile Basin is seeing record fragmentation of nation-states by secessionist and other rebel movements, some backed by the United States and its Western allies and others backed by Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Yet other secessionist groups are backed by regional rivals such as Ethiopia, Eritrea, Uganda, and Sudan.

Ethiopia has announced that its Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam project on the Blue Nile will begin diverting the Blue Nile at the end of 2014. Ethiopia’s decision has set off alarm bells down river in Sudan and Egypt, which are both critically dependent on the Nile for drinking water, irrigation, and in the case of Egypt’s Aswan High Dam, electric power. A 1959 agreement between Egypt and Sudan guarantees Egypt 70 percent and Sudan 30 percent of the Nile’s water flow.

Egypt’s government has warned Ethiopia, a historical rival, not to restrict the Nile water flow to the extent that it would adversely affect the Aswan Dam or Egypt’s water supply. Sudan has voiced similar warnings. Cairo and Khartoum are also aware that their mutual enemy, Israel, has close relations with Ethiopia and the Republic of South Sudan, the world’s newest nation. The independence of South Sudan would not have been possible without the backing of Israel’s leading neo-conservative allies in Washington and London.

The White Nile flows from the Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi, through Uganda and South Sudan, to Sudan. Egypt and Sudan have also been concerned about Israel’s heavy presence in South Sudan. The South Sudanese secession put tremendous pressure on the future territorial integrity of Sudan, which faces additional Western- and Israeli-backed breakaway movements in Darfur and northeastern Sudan.

Independence for South Sudan was long a goal of former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and her god-daughter, current U.S. ambassador to the UN Susan Rice. The splitting of Sudan into an Arab Muslim north and a black Christian and animist south was also long a goal of Israel, which yearned for a client state in South Sudan that would be able to squeeze the supply of the Nile’s headwaters to Egypt and north Sudan.

South Sudan’s independence was cobbled together so rapidly, its Western sponsors were not even sure, at first, what to call the country. Although South Sudan was finally agreed upon, other proposals were to call the nation the «Nile Republic» or «Nilotia,» which were rejected because of the obvious threatening meaning that such names would send to Cairo and Khartoum.

 

 

The names «Cush» or «Kush» were also rejected because of their reference to the land of Cush that appears in the Jewish Bible and the obvious meaning that such a name would have for those who accuse Israel of wanting to expand its borders beyond the borders of the Palestinian mandate. «New Sudan» was also rejected because of implied irredentist claims by South Sudan on the contested oil-rich Abyei region between Sudan and South Sudan.

Egypt has been lending quiet support to Ethiopian and Somali secessionists, which Cairo sees as a counterweight to Ethiopian neo-imperialist designs in the Horn of Africa. Although Ethiopia maintains good relations with the breakaway Republic of Somaliland, Addis Ababa does not want to see Somalia fragmented any further. But that is exactly what is desired by Cairo to keep Ethiopia’s military and revenues preoccupied with an unstable and collapsing neighbor to the east.

Two other parts of Somalia, Puntland and Jubaland, also spelled Jubbaland, have declared separatist states. Jubaland should not be confused with the capital of South Sudan, Juba, which is being relocated to Ramciel, close to the border with Sudan. However, all this confusion and map redrawing is a result of increasing hydropolitics in the region, as well as the ever-present turmoil caused by the presence of oil and natural gas reserves. The Rahanweyn Resistance Army is fighting for an independent state of Southwestern Somalia.

Somaliland has its own secessionist movement in the western part of the country, an entity called Awdalland, which is believed to get some support from neighboring Djibouti, the site of the U.S. military base at Camp Lemonier.

Ethiopian troops, supported by the African Union and the United States, are trying to prop up Somalia’s weak Federal government but Somalia’s fracturing continues unabated with Kenya supporting a semi-independent entity called «Azania» in a part of Jubaland in Somalia.

There are also a number of nascent separatist movements in Ethiopia, many being brutally suppressed by the Ethiopian government with military assistance from the United States, Britain, and Israel. Some of these movements are backed by Eritrea, which, itself, broke away from Ethiopia two decades ago. Chief among the groups are the Ogadenis, who want a Somali state declared in eastern Ethiopia and the Oromo, who dream of an independent Oromia.

Ethiopia’s ruling dictatorship has tried to placate the Oromos and Ogadenis with peace talks but these moves are seen as window dressing to placate Ethiopia’s benefactors in Washington and London.

However, separatist movements throughout the Horn of Africa took pleasure in the advent of South Sudan because they saw the «inviolability» of colonial-drawn borders, long insisted upon by the Organization of African Unity and the African Union, finally beginning to wither. In fact, that process began with Eritrea’s independence in 1993. Eritrea also faces its own secessionist movement, the Red Sea Afars. The Afars also maintain separatist movements in Ethiopia and Djibouti, the latter having once been known as the French Territory of the Afars and Issas.

In another U.S. ally, Kenya, the homeland of President Barack Obama’s father, Muslims along the coast have dusted off the Sultan of Zanzibar’s 1887 lease to the British East Africa Company of the 10-mile strip of land along the present Indian Ocean coast of Kenya. Legally, when the lease expired the strip was to revert back to control of the sultan. Since the Sultan was ousted in a 1964 coup, the coastal Kenyans argue that the coastal strip was annexed illegally by Kenya and that, therefore, the coastal strip should be the independent Republic of Pwani. The discovery of major oil and natural gas reserves in Uganda and South Sudan has resulted in plans for pipelines to be built to the port of Mombasa, the would-be capital of Pwani on the Indian Ocean. In Kenya, hydropolitics and petropolitics in the Horn of Africa has resulted in Balkanization spilling into Kenya.

In the Himalayas, glacier retreat and rapidly diminishing snow cover are also adding to hydropolitical angst and fueling separatist movements backed by the bigger powers in the region: India, China, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Snow melt is now being seen in some parts of the Himalayas in December and January. Four dams on the Teesta River, which flows from Sikkim through north Bengal to the Brahmaputra basin, have not only affected the geo-political situation in Sikkim, which has nascent independence and Nepali irredentist movements, but also helps to fuel demands for increased autonomy for Gorkhaland, Bodoland, and Assam, an independent Madhesistan in southern Nepal, an ethnic Nepali revolt in southern Bhutan, and consternation in Bangladesh, where the Brahmaputra and Ganges converge to largely support a country with a population of 161 million people. Bangladesh has also seen its share of secessionist movements, including the Bangabhumi Hindu and the Chittagong Hill Tracts movements.

Hydropolitics, petropolitics, and the status quo, like water and oil, do not mix, especially when it comes to the preservation of current borders. Northeastern Africa and South Asia are not unique in this respect.

M. Drac : Enjeux géopolitiques pour l'avenir

Entretien avec Michel Drac :

Enjeux géopolitiques pour l'avenir

Classical Liberalism’s Impossible Dream

Classical Liberalism’s Impossible Drea

By Robert Higgs

Ex: http://www.attackthesystem.com/

I can understand why someone might embrace classical liberalism. I did so myself more than forty years ago. People become classical liberals for two main reasons, which are interrelated: first, because they come to understand that free markets “work” better than government-controlled economic systems in providing prosperity and domestic peace; second, because people come to believe that they may justifiably claim (along more or less Lockean lines) rights to life, liberty, and property. These two reasons are interrelated because the Lockean rights provide the foundation required for free markets to exist and operate properly.

 

Like Locke, classical liberals recognize that some persons may violate others’ rights to life, liberty, and property and that some means of defending these rights adequately must be employed. On this basis they accept government (as we know it), but only with the proviso that the government must be limited to protecting people against force and fraud that would unjustly deprive them of life, liberty, and property. They believe that government (as we know it) can perform these functions, whereas private individuals without such government would be at the mercy of predators and hence that their lives would be, as Hobbes supposed, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Nobody wants that.

So, to repeat, I can understand why someone might become a classical liberal. However, as the years have passed, I have had increasing difficulty in understanding why someone would remain a classical liberal, rather than making the further move to embrace genuine self-government in place of the classical liberal’s objective, “limited government.” My difficulty arises not so much from a dissatisfaction with government’s being charged with protecting the citizens from force and fraud, but from a growing conviction that government (as we know it) does not, on balance, actually carry out these tasks and, worse, that it does not even try to carry them out except in a desultory and insincere way—indeed, as a ruse.

Truth be told, government as we know it never did and never will confine itself to protecting citizens from force and fraud. In fact, such government is itself the worst violator of people’s just rights to life, liberty, and property. For every murder or assault the government prevents, it commits a hundred. For every private property right it protects, it violates a thousand. Although it purports to suppress and punish fraud, the government itself is a fraud writ large—an enormous engine of plunder, abuse, and mayhem, all sanctified by its own “laws” that redefine its crimes as mere government activities—a racket protected from true justice by its own judges and its legions of hired killers and thugs.

Confronted with these horrors, the classical liberal takes a deep breath and resolves to seek “reforms” of government’s “misguided” and “counter-productive” actions and policies. However, the dedicated classical liberal steadfastly refuses to recognize that such government’s actions are anything but misguided; indeed, the government acts to attain its true objectives ever so directly, and it quickly discontinues anything that fails to enrich and empower its own leaders and their key cronies in the so-called private sector (which is something of a myth, given the government’s pervasive interference in it). The government’s actions and programs are not at all “counter-productive,” once we recognize that its declared objective of serving the general public interest was never meant to do anything but serve as a smokescreen for its robbing and bullying the general public. What economists and others call “government failure” is nothing of the sort, but only a failure to do what in reality the government’s movers and shakers never had the slightest intention of doing in the first place.

In sum, the classical liberal who, in the face of these realities, clings to the myth of Lockean limited government would seem to be a person irrationally devoted to sheer wishful thinking. Dreams have their place in human life, no doubt, but the dream of a government (as we know it) that confines itself to its Lockean functions and stays so confined is a dream that never was and never can be realized. At some point, people must open their eyes to this emperor’s nakedness—and, indeed, to the emperor’s viciousness, brutality, and utter, systematic injustice. Otherwise, classical liberals do little more than provide objects of amusement for the cynical men and woman who control the government and employ its powers in the service of their own aggrandizement and aggressive caprice.

 

Addendum: When I speak of “government (as we know it),” I mean government as it now exists virtually everywhere and as it has existed in many places for thousands of years—a government that claims a monopoly of legitimate force in a certain territory and does not rest on the explicit, individual, voluntary consent of every adult subject to its authority. I contrast this type of government with “genuine self-government,” which does have the explicit, individual, voluntary consent of every adult subject to its authority.

jeudi, 13 juin 2013

Europe, Globalization and Metapolitics

 

Robert Steuckers:

Europe, Globalization and Metapolitics

Questions by Leonid Savin (April/May 2013)

Ex: http://www.geopolitca.ru/

Mr. Steuckers, we would like to start our interview by describing the current situation in the EU, especially in its North-West region. What could you tell us about it?

 
The situation in the Benelux-countries is what I could call a blind alley: the Netherlands, as a multicultural state —now with a majority of Catholics since only a couple of decades, a strong minority of Protestants including the Calvinists, who gave the nation its very birth in the 16th and 17th centuries, Atheists, who currently reject all forms of religious belief, and a Muslim minority within the predominently Moroccan and Turkish immigrant communities— is trying to reject vehemently Islam, as most immigrants don’t behave properly according to the Dutch standards and don’t represent at all a dignified Islam that would fit the general tendency of the Dutch people towards decency, fair play, respectability and gentleness. The Netherlands, due to the long dominating Calvinist elite, show currently a tendency to imitate the worst British or American models, even if Catholics, now a majority, incline to be more receptive to German or other Continental models, be they left-wing or right-wing. The islamophobic bias of the current leader of the PVV-party (“Liberty Party”), Geert Wilders, induce the Dutch government to follow the British and American foreign policy, although the positions of the former islamophobic political leader of the Netherlands, Pim Fortuyn, who was a Catholic homosexual and was assassinated by a pseudo-environmentalist thug, was against all Dutch intervention in the Balkan to crush the Serbians and pleaded for a complete withdrawal of the Dutch units that had been sent to Bosnia: this may have been the real reason for his assassination and not the lack of ecological positions in his programme or the quite agressive stances against Muslims he had taken in his political speeches and pamphlets. The Netherlands, although a model state in the current EU-crisis, as its financial status in the euro-zone seems to be perfectly sound, are nevertheless at risk because, exactly like Spain, they have a speculative bubble in real estate, that could explode at any moment.
 
One thing we should not forget abroad: the Netherlands, together with Flanders in Belgium, are constantly producing a huge amount of books on all levels of human sciences, on topics we are interested in, but that are unfortunately largely ignored in non Dutch-speaking areas, never translated and never quoted in scientific works, despite the fact that Dutch and Flemish intellectuals generally understand and read at least four languages and are therefore able to make remarkable synthesis.
 
Belgium is now another multicultural state, divided by a linguistic border separating two mainly Catholic communities, the Dutch-speaking Flemings and the French-speaking Walloons (there is also a small German-speaking community in the East of the country, alongside the German border). The Flemings have nowadays a stonger tendency, like the Dutch, to imitate Anglo-Saxon models while the Walloons are deeply influenced by French ways of thinking. The Germans are of course strongly influenced by German ideas and debates. These Low Countries are an incredible patchwork of ideas: you don’t find overthere large currents of ideas widely partaken within the population; on the contrary, you’ll find everything, left-wing or right-wing, sometimes expressed in very original ways but no social coherence deduced from this wide variety of ideas. Even within the main political parties (liberal, christian-democrats, socialists), tendencies are numerous among the leaders and the militants. The main trend is of course to accept the Western views within the frame that NATO is, although all the opposite elements are historically (Harmel) or currently (Collon) available to develop a strong critique of the NATO-ideology and praxis. Besides, people are not really interested in the operations launched in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or Syria. They don’t support the army sent overthere in these NATO-invaded countries (surely because the army is not a conscription army anymore), just as Pim Fortuyn wanted to withdraw Dutch troops from ex-Yugoslavia. I think personally, and I repeat it here, that this was most probably the main reason for his assassination and not the deliberate act of a crazy environmentalist activist; later, when the filmmaker Theo Van Gogh was murdered in Amsterdam by a Muslim fanatic because he had produced a short film allegedly criticizing presumed Islamic anti-feminism, the religious creeds of the assassin contributed to justify paradoxically the pro-NATO attitudes of Fortuyn’s successor in the Dutch populist ideological area, i. e. Geert Wilders, whose father was born in the Catholic province of Limburg near the German City of Aachen and whose mother is an Indian Hindu, most probably quite hostile to Muslims. The loyalty of the son towards his mother could explain some islamophobic BJP-like attitudes...
 
In the Low Countries, you can perceive a lot of isolated reactions against the System whereby the efforts of a Chomsky-inspired politologist like the ex-Maoist activist Michel Collon in French-speaking Belgium are the most notorious abroad. Belgium is nevertheless a fragilized country, even if the three Low Countries belong to the strongest economical powers within the EU. The effects of the crisis and the recession are palpable in Belgium now, as prices for food and first necessity products are a lot higher than in France and Germany, reducing drastically the common people’s purchasing power. Belgium maintains its relative stability only because of the giant customer-neighbour that is Germany, that buys goods in Belgium to produce other goods in Germany for the Russian and Chinese markets. So Germany, and by “translation” as a math teacher would say, Belgium and the Netherlands, are main partners of the most prominent Eurasian BRICS-countries, even if the NATO-oriented thrash-elite doesn’t want to be considered as such, despite the economical and commercial facts and figures. Thus “Little Belgium” shares a part of the German pie in Eurasia: in high commercial caucuses they are well aware of it and some cleverer minds dream of recuperating the positions Belgium had before 1914 in Russia (as Russia was the main commercial partner of Belgium between 1890 and 1914) and even in China, where many commercial missions are sent regularly. 
 
To conclude these short thoughts about the Low Countries, I would suggest Russian friends to create a small caucus for Dutch and Flemish studies in order to gather useful information that no one else would in the long run be able to take profit of.
 
- Austerity policies are now implemented in Southern Europe: how do you perceive them in the North-West? And what about the idea of a Pan-European solidarity or concert of nations in a crisis context?
 
You’ll probably know in Russia that the tragedy in Europe is that Northern people don’t have high consideration for their Southern neighbours and a political thinker such as Jean Thiriart, who remains a source of inspiration for me and for Prof. Dugin, deeply regretted it. Most people in Northern Europe say that we should force Spain, Greece, Portugal and Italy to accept these austerity policies but by thinking so they refuse to take the plain fact into consideration: the speculation of Wall Street banksters against the more fragile Southern European countries are speculations against the EU as a whole and an attempt to smash the euro as an alternative currency to the dollar, that some BRICS countries could have accepted as a mean to regulate international trade. The Atlanticist blindness prevent the EU-leaders to perceive these US-based banksters speculation as an extreme lethal weapon in the new non military types of warfare, just as spying European labs or engineering bureaus through the ECHELON-satellites system, just as exciting immigrants in French suburbs to start a guerilla warfare against the police to finally eliminate Chirac (who committed two main sins: developing further a French autonomous nuclear armament in 1995, according to De Gaulle’s vision, and having supported the idea of an Alliance between Paris, Berlin and Moscow during the British-American assault on Iraq in 2003) and replace him by a wacko politician such as Nicolas Sarkozy, who would some months later reintroduce France in the NATO High Command, just as sending “femens” trying to ridicule able politicians or archbishops, just as creating ex nihilo “orange revolutions”, etc. Indeed, as you suggest it, a wide and indefectible solidarity would be preferable in Europa than the current Southerner-bashing we are experimenting these days, especially as the three main peninsulas in the Mediterranean area are of the highest strategical importance and are potential springboards to invade the Centre and the North of the European subcontinent. One key idea would simply be to support the Southern European countries in a new policy consisting of refusing to pay banks back and to restart a new area, as they successfully did in Iceland. This would of course ruin all the dogmas of neo-liberalism. But is this not the ultimate aim of our struggle? 
 
The more or less official journal of the EU, “Europe’s World”, presents in its Spring 2013 issue two positions about the crisis, the one of Hans-Olaf Henkel, President of the Federation of German Industries (BDI), once an avowed advocate of the euro: he suggests now to create a “Northern euro” making an end to the promised Pan-European solidarity. Then the head of the European Institute at the London School of Economics, Paul De Grauwe, in the same issue of “Europe’s World”, pleads in favour of a “fiscal union” as that in the United States, even if the process of establishing it would take time, in order to avoid eurozone governments issuing debt in euros without being able to control the currency, what, according to De Grauwe, “prevents governments to give a guarantee to bondholders that the cash will always be available to pay them at maturity” (p. 28). Even if we have to be quite suspicious in front of all what the mainly neo-liberal London School of Economics theorizes, this strategy, suggested by De Grauwe, would reinforce European unity and avoid speculation against weaker countries. De Grauwe calls his suggested system the “pooling of eurozone governments’ debts” in order that “the weakest are protected from destructive movements of fear and panic that arise in the financial markets, and that in theory can hit any member country” (for instance, the Netherlands if the real estate bubble would give some banksters the opportunity to speculate against this otherwise financial “sound state”). Only this way could Europe become a full actor on the multipolar chessboard and be protected against the weapon of speculation that is a permanent risk when you remain glued in the Euro-Atlanticist realm where the “allies” aren’t allies anymore since the Clinton Doctrine described them as mere “alien audiences” that can be thrashed if there is somehow a fear in Washington that these “allies” could become very soon real competitors. 
 
Northern pride or not, learned and authorized voices in Germany predict a bad future for the economical superpower in the very Middle of the European subcontinent: both Conservative Count Christian von Krockow and Socialist Thilo Sarrazin enumerate the problems Germany has now to face: dereliction of the education system, which is now unable to generate the needed amount of technical or scientific elites, demographic downfall, ideological stalemate, refusal of the immigrants to assimilate or even to integrate, non manageable crisis of the Welfare State, etc. The crisis affecting Greece or Spain are only preludes to the big crisis that will hit whole Europe, including Germany, in the next decades, if a complete and total change of mind doesn’t occur. 
 
- Are economics a fate for Europe or is there a deeper base for a union (or a separation) of all European people?
 
Europa had of course to harmonize its economy after the Second World War, as the five or six gloomy years that followed 1945 were a disaster for our countries, a tragical derelict period in our history that an American or British historian, Keith Lowe, describes in a recent book; these were years of misery just as in the former Eastern Block and in the Soviet Union. Germany was a heap of ruins and France and Italy had been harshly hit too by carpet bombings (although to a lesser extent than Germany) and destructions due to military operations dotted both countries. We cannot deny a real European patriotism among the first architects of the European unification process (as Schuman, Adenauer and De Gasperi): their obvious aim was to make of Europe —this time through economical and not through military means— what Carl Schmitt would have called a “Greater Area” (a “Grossraum”). But due to a degenerative process induced by mass consumption and “sensate” materialistic attitudes (I use here the word “sensate” as it was coined by Pitirim Sorokin), out of which the May 68 ideology was the apex, partly due to the constant but silent efforts of former OSS-agent Herbert Marcuse, the staunch vision of a United Europe (or even of a “Eurafrica”) gave way to a kind of general capitulation, leaving the leadership of the Euro-Atlantic zone to the United States, a process that is about to be definitively achieved now when the Americans are trying to control the whole African continent through the recently set up AFRICOM-Command and so to get rid there of the Chinese first, who will be followed by the French now helping the Yankees in Mali! Sic transit gloria mundi! We can agree with many observers that the “sensate” mentality and the priority given to materialistic values have been deliberately induced by American think tanks who were and are transfering into practice the ideas of Sun Tsu, according to whom you have to weaken your potential ennemies or competitors by awakening among them a Sybarite mentality. 
 
If set down as the main and only possible motor to create a social system at narrow-national or wide-continental levels, economics induces by fatality, and as a practice banking on quantities and not rightly on qualities, a materialistic worldview that emerges and eliminates quickly all other values, as Julien Freund could demonstrate it, and gets rid of all ethical or historical sense of duty. Each form of triumphant materialism prompt people not to feel linked to their fellow countrymen anymore or instigates them not to respect religious ethical duties towards others, be they partaking the same beliefs as they do or, as Christian or Tolstoian ethics lays it, be they simply human beings who should be respected as such with no other consideration. It is in this sense of abandoning all national-political or religious links that Arthur Moeller van den Bruck, who together with his wife Lucy Kerrick, translated Dostoievski into German, said that after only some decades of liberalism (i. e. The “sensate” materialistic ideology of what the Russian economist and sociologist Sergej Nikolaievich Bulgakov —1871-1944— called “bourgeoisnost”, a neologism aiming at defining the utilitarian ideology of British liberalism) a people simply dies as a genuine value-born community and become a heap of scattered individuals, as we have now in our countries. Europe should have first be unified by means of a common “culture”, by a common educational system, and, in a second step, we would have coined a common constitutional and civil law system, respecting ethnic and linguistic communities (“real communities”) throughout the subcontinent. So all the prerogatives of the Indo-European “First Function”, according to the French academician Georges Dumezil, would have been set down as a very first frame for a future unification process. Later, the “Second Function” should have been established by constituting an autonomous military system, not depending on the NATO structures (as it was fully juridically possible in each Western European country), including a European production network for modern weapons in order not to depend from abroad for military supplies. Only after having created a general culture, education, law and defence frame, we could have thought of various unification processes on economical levels. The first think you have to do is to design the frame for all non materialistic values, which would be the real backbone of the genuine “ideational” (Sorokin) civilisation you want to promote, except perhaps in the European context in the late Forties and in the beginning of the Fifties, where urgently needed attempts to unify the subcontinent on economical level were reduced to the essential and the minimum, i. e. the coal and steel industry (EGKS/CECA).
 
- After the Second World War, the United States got a very strong influence on Western Europe, that was subsequently transformed into a junior partner in a Euro-Atlantic political community with so-called “shared values”. How does “Euro-Atlanticism” works nowadays in Europe?
 
The process of linking Western Europe, and now all the former COMECON-countries, to the United States has been long and quite complicated to understand it in all its aspects (and to explain them in a short interview) but one can say without any hesitation that it has never been studied systematically till yet. Let’s say, to put it in a nutshell, that the first attempt of the United States to colonize mentally the Europeans (their most dangerous potential foes) was to submerge the European cinematographic industry in the ocean of Hollywood productions. The battle was thus “metapolitical”. Hollywood was supposed to replace entirely the European film industry. France, that had already developed a good film producing industry before 1939, was positively blackmailed by the Americans in 1948: if the French cinemas didn’t take at least 80% of Hollywood productions to be broadcast everywhere in France, the country wouldn’t benefit from the money of the Marshall Plan, at a crucial moment of postwar French history, when riots and strikes were paralysing the country, when food supplies in big cities were undergoing scarcity, so that we can now blankly ask the question: weren’t the Communists, who organized the strikes and were supposed to operate for the benefit of Moscow, not performing the job the American secret services wanted actually to be done, in order to force France to accept the American “diktat” to give money if the movies were alone productions of Hollywood? In the Fifties, the Social-Democrats were the main secret allies of the Americans, as a result that they were chosen as partners by the American Democrats around Franklin Delano Roosevelt, whose New Deal policy in the Thirties became a model for socialists throughout the European subcontinent. The metapolitical influence of socialism and social-democracy in Europe has as result that American Democrats are always prefered in Europe than Republicans: remember Kennedy, Clinton (who waged more wars than his Republican predecessors Reagan or Bush Senior), Obama (who’s continuing Bush Junior’s wars and replacing troops by drones, causing even more numerous casualties in Afghanistan and Pakistan...). I would like to take the opportunity to evoke here two important books to understand the mechanisms of Europe’s colonization by the United States: 
- Richard F. Kuisel, Seducing the French – The Dilemma of Americanization, University of California Press, Berkeley/Los Angeles, 1993;
- Reinhold Wagnleitner, Coca-Colonization and the Cold War – The Cultural Mission of the United States in Austria after the Second World War, The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, 1994.
 
But the strategies developed in the European countries didn’t work properly: France under De Gaulle left NATO and asserted an original diplomacy throughout the world, partly along the lines defined by the Non-Aligned as suggested by De Gaulle’s famous declaration in Pnonh Penh (Cambodia) in 1966. This new French diplomacy, supported by able ministers like Couve de Murville and Jobert, was also backed by the high technological development of French aeronautics industry, producing among others the famous Mirage III fighters, that gave Israel the victory in June 1967. These planes were sold everywhere in the world and were serious competitors to American equals. Germany, despite its total destruction in 1945 and the millions of men who were prisoners of war in Europe (one million alone for France!), in the Soviet Union and in America could recover completely, in particular due to the courage of the women who helped rebuild the towns, the so-called “Trummerfrauen” or “Ruins ladies”, and could start the real economical wonder at the end of the Fifties, what aroused admiration even among former anti-Fascists. Germany had and still has a weak point: it has no aeronautics industry anymore but a well-developed automobile industry, perhaps the best in the world. The United States lost a lot of parts on the car markets in Europe due to the renewal of the celebrated German car brands: even American consumers started to buy German Volkswagen, Mercedes or BMW, just as Chinese or Russian new rich do nowadays. So the United States, once favorable to the European unification process, in order to get a huge market for their own products, began to reject secretely Europe as a unified economical block and to organize a commercial war against a lot of products like Camembert or Gruyere cheese, bananas from the French islands in the Caribbean Sea etc. European high technology companies, such as a German one producing solar panels, were spied by the ECHELON-Satellites; some former COMECON-countries were invited to join the EU and the NATO, so that the Europeans would pay endlessly for the constitution of a new military block aiming at “containing” Russia. The Europeans were to pay to sustain the weak countries and the Americans were taking the strategic benefits of the new situation without giving out a single penny. The last act of war is of course the speculation against the weaker economies of Southern Europe, in order to strike the “weak Mediterranean” belly of the subcontinent officially described as an ally but actually treated as a foe. 
 
According to geopolitican Robert Strauss-Hupe, who was formerly a collaborator of General Karl Haushofer’s “Journal of Geopolitics” (“Zeitschrift fur Geopolitik”) in his native Germany but had to leave the Reich after Hitler’s arrival to power because he was partly Jewish or had a Jewish wife and had to settle in America where he became an adviser of the US war machine, Europe and Germany in its middle part will always be potentially stronger than the United States for several reasons, among which he counted the excellence of the education systems and the “racial homogeneity”. The May 68 plots, coined by former OSS-officers like Herbert Marcuse (another German emigre) and many others, managed to destroy or at least to handicap seriously the European education systems. The importation of immigrants, having not benefited from a serious level of education in their own derelict countries, aimed at paralysing the social security systems and at compelling the European States to devote incredibly huge budgets to help these new masses of jobless people to survive in everyday life instead of creating for instance a good military or aeronautics industry. Second purpose of mass immigration is to be able to manipulate these masses in order to create severe civilian disorder in countries that could, for one reason or another, loose the links that bond them to America: this was said frankly by a former US ambassador in Paris, Charles Rivkin (that we shouldn’t confuse with the economist Jeremy Rivkin), who started a policy of supporting leaders of agressive youth gangs in the Parisian suburbs and promising them American and Saoudi or Qatari support. The riots that set ablaze the Parisian suburbs in November 2005 were a revenge of the US neo-conservatives aiming at chasing “disloyal Chirac” from power and to replace him by the man who took away a maximum of votes from Chirac’s RPR/UMP and from Le Pen’s “Front National”, i. e. Nicolas Sarkozy, by promising the French to “karcherize the banlieues” and to eliminate the “racaille” (the riffraff) (a “Karcher” is a brand derived noun, as Karcher-machines are used to remove the dust or the filth from houses’ walls by using an extreme powerful water spray). Nothing of that sort was obviously ever done but Sarkozy came to power and brought France back in the NATO and waged a war against Libya, so that the Congress in Washington hadn’t to vote war credits... The 2005 Parisian riots were used to promote an obscure suburb politician, who uttered a strong agressive and hysterical language to gather votes in order to change radically the Gaullist political orientations of his country in favour of the American world strategy. Objective observers can so see what can be the useful purpose of jobless masses in “alien audiences” (Bill Clinton), that are perhaps “allies” but should sometimes be thrashed. 
 
American influence is consolidated by several musical fashions and modes and through media agencies that always convey the US interpretation of world events. In France, the best exemple is furnished by the so-called “nouveaux philosophes”. This bunch of jabbering nonsense and humbug producers is determining the agenda of French politics since the end of the Seventies. The figurehead of the bunch is undoubtedly Bernard-Henry Levy (BHL), who has indirectly —with a leftist or pseudo-theological or pseudo-republican (French style) “wind language” (this expression was coined by Regis Debray)— supported all the American or Israeli moves on the international chessboard, depicting all the ennemies of America as if they all were dangerous Fascists, venomous dictators or backward populists, nationalists or paleo-communists. In France, BHL lead a systematic campaign against all possible challengers in domestic politics and not only against the nationalists around Le Pen. So the “shared values” of the so-called “Atlantic Community of Values” are now a mix of conservative Atlanticists (when some naive Catholics or Protestants believe that Washington is a kind of new protecting and benevolent Rome, as an otherwise interesting student of late Carl Schmitt, Erich Voegelin, who migrated to the United States during Hitler’s time, theorized), of Socialists of all kinds linked to the American Democrats in the Rooseveltian tradition, Manchesterian liberals who believe religiously in the credos coined by Adams Smith’s heirs, left-wing liberals a la Cohn-Bendit whose endeavours to promote the dissoluting anti-values of May 68 in order to weaken permanently Europe for the benefit of the United States, recycled Trotskites who replace the former Bolshevik notion of “permanent revolution” by the the actual practice of “permanent war” on Brzezinski” Eurasian chessboard (see the polemic books and articles of Robert Kagan), a permanent war around the territory of Afghanistan aiming at containing and destroying Russia, perceived as the heir power of the Czars and of Stalin. These are of course the “anti-values”, the values of “Non Being” as Jean Parvulesco polemically called them, against which my friends and I have struggled since the very beginning of our public activities. They are indeed “non being” values as it is impossible to build a lasting state or empire banking on them (for instance Parvulesco’s vision of an “End of time’s Eurasian Empire”). BHL endeavours have as main and only purpose to prevent the return of real political values, such as the ones Carl Schmitt and Julien Freund (among many others) illustrated in their precious works.
 
- Do you feel more “freedom” in Europe after Obama announced the emergence of a US “Pacific Axis”?
 
No. Not really. But maybe we can say that constant pressure is not needed anymore in Western Europe now because our countries are politically dead after so many decades of “liberalism” as Arthur Moeller van den Bruck would have said. It is also true that after the tragical and awful events in Libya in 2011-2012, where BHL was Sarkozy’s adviser instead of the French army’s generals (!), the figurehead of the “nouveaux philosophes” has lost a good deal of his impact on public opinion. The Lybian affair caused among other changes in French domestic politics the fall of Sarkozy who betrayed De Gaulle’s vision of international politics, in which France should have played an independant role in front of the orther superpowers. One of the last flops BHL committed in April 2012 was to describe Algeria —which is now simultaneously courted by the United States to join an informal “Southern NATO” around US main ally Morrocco and threatened like Syria is for keeping the militarized FLN in power since the independance of the country in 1962— not as an Arab and Muslim country but as a Jewish and French country! This vicious attack is emblematic in a certain way as Algeria wanted to be an Arab, Panarabian and Arab nationalist country within the community of Arab countries, despite the fact that most of the Algerians are of Berber/Capsian stock. The Arab reference of the Algerian nationalists, who spoke in the Sixties a dialect quite different from the classical Arabic language, was to take the new independant country out of isolation, to participate to a wider range of non aligned nations and to be close to the Nasserite form of the Panarabian ideal. Although a very interesting political figure as the former Algerian President Houari Boumediene remained a purely political thinker who could generate a team of very able diplomats in the Seventies and Eighties (before the terrible civil war of the “Blood Decade” from 1992 to 2003). These diplmats could for instance solve the problems between Iran and Iraq in 1975, when the circulation of oil vessels could be pacifically regulated in the Chatt-el-Arab part of the Gulf. Iran was represented by the Shah and Iraq by Saddam Hussein. Mohammed Sahnoun, adviser of President Chadli (Boumediene’s successor), was the head of a geopolitcal school in Algeria and lead the diplomatic mission to solve the problems in the Grand Lakes area in Africa. Sahnoun pleaded for an Euro-African alliance aiming at keeping the United States out of the Black Continent, especially out of the Horn of Africa, a region which is a strategic bridgehead to the Indian Ocean, described by Mackinder’s heir as the “Heart Sea” in front of Russia as the “Heart Land”. Still more interesting, Sahnoun theorized in a positive way the pacific and cooperative juxtaposition on the international chessboard of “cultures”, that would have to come back to their roots and abandon the false seductions of mean modern ideologies. Sahnoun is the real antidote to the conflict arousing perspective of late Samuel Huntington, who perceived the cultures as automatically antagonist. His ideas find an echo in the works of his Japanese alter ego, Moriyuki Motono, adviser of former Prime Minister Nakasone, who also pleaded for a pacific juxtaposition of “cultural areas” but having this time neighbouring “intersection areas” which would help neighbours to understand each other better, simply because they have in their spiritual heritage values shared by both neighbouring cultures. 
 
Boumediene had been a student of Arab literature and was surely a pious Muslim but he never used religion as an emblem of his “Algerian specific socialism”. When BHL says that Algeria is neither a Muslim country, he attacks also the Salafists of the wide range of Muslim-oriented political forces in Algeria. To say that Algeria is both Jewish and French means that Algeria is unable to help itself and needs a recolonization by the Jews and French, who were expelled in 1962. BHL added that in the short run Algeria will be undergoing an “Arab Spring” like Libya and Syria. This is of course a clear threat to an independant country which has already experimented a civil war that caused hundreds of thousands of casualities. But this has been too much: BHL isn’t taken seriously anymore. Even the Belgian daily paper “Le Soir” (25th April 2013) titled “la Syrie ne fait plus recette” (“Syria doesn’t bring cash anymore”), deploring that initiatives to raise money for the Syrian rebels in Belgium isn’t a success. So the whole ideology that BHL and his chums are trying to impose with a good dose of forcefulness loses currently all impact: people aren’t interested anymore. 
 
This attack against Algeria brings me directly back to your question: the purpose of the Atlanticists is to include Algeria in a kind of “Southern NATO” by giving the former Spanish Sahara to Morrocco and give Mauretania as a kind of newly designed colony to an officially anti-colonialist Algeria, so that Algeria could get its geopolitical dream fulfilled by being simultaneously a Mediterranean and an Atlantic power. The problem is that the distance between de Mediterranean and the first parts of the Mauretanian Atlantic shore is incredbly long: more than three thousand kilometers of sand desert, with poor communications by road or railway and so without any economical utility and permanently under the threat of the Morroccan army, which can at any time withdraw in the Atlas mountains and strike back at will. The gift suggested is not a real gift. The US goal is to control the whole former French West Africa, from Dakar in Senegal to Somalia, Djibuti included, in order to protect the exploitation of oil fields in Nigeria, Camerun and Chad and to prevent the Chinese to be the leading exploiting power in Black Africa. So your question asking if Europeans feel more “safe” or “free” since Obama decided to give priority to a Pacific Axis can be obviously answered negatively as the containment of China in the Pacific implies a US presence in Africa and the creation of a “Southern NATO” being an annex of a general AFRICOM-bolt that would encircle completely Europe on its meridional flank. If China loses its African positions, it will be considerably weakened and unable to order as many goods as nowadays in Europe. Germany would also be weakened and Belgium risks to be in the same situation as Greece or Spain, as its public debt is quite high, especially since the compelled taking over of two bankrupt banks after 2008 (Fortis and Dexia/Belfius): the planned crumbling down of the eurozone would be brought to an end and the “Northern euro” would only be a dream of paleo-nationalists in Germany and Northern Europe. One must not forget that Belgium and especially the Walloon coal-and-steel areas were hit by the Iranian Islamic revolution that prevented the consolidation of the nuclear power and steel industry cooperation that the Shah started with France, Germany and Belgium. The so-called Islamic revolution in Iran had for us all severe consequences so that, even if we refused all forms of agression against present-day Iran and if we respect the positions of President Ahmadinedjad on the Eurasian chessboard and in Latin America (when he cooperated with Chavez), we don’t share some views of yours and of former ex-Maoist journalist Michel Collon about the history of Iran before the Islamic revolution of 1978-79. We don’t forget that the same “nouveaux philosophes” and Trotskites, who preached against the Shah in the streets of Paris, Brussels and Berlin in 1977-78, are now trying to excite people against Ahmadinedjad, exactly as they did against Milosevic, Putin, Lukachenko, Khadafi and others! The purpose is to prevent all cooperation between Europe and Iran, be the regime overthere Imperial or Islamic; therefore we defend the positions of the Shah in the Seventies and we support all initiatives trying to prevent a useless and criminal war against Ahmadinedjad’s Iran.
 
Obama’s Pacific Axis has thus effects on the Southern flank of Europe. Wherever they strike, they hit us all. Hitting China in Africa means hitting Europe here and there too. 
 
-What do you think about EU-outsiders such as Turkey, Serbia and some ex-Soviet countries like Moldova, Belarus and Ukraine?
 
Turkey is a tremendously interesting country to study and it fascinates me since two memorable periods in my life: 1) the long trip our Latin and Philosophy teachers organized for us to Turkey in the Summer of 1972; 2) My subsequent reading of Arnold Toynbee’s pages on Bythinia, the Byzantine Empire and the Ottoman Byzantine strategy; according to Toynbee, who was a “byzantologist”, the power that dominates the small narrow former Roman province of Bythinia and the neighbouring Bosphorus area is able to expend in all directions, i. e. the Black Sea, the Balkan, Caucasus, Syria, Egypt and Northern Africa and even beyond if enough material and human means are available. It’s maybe therefore that the American strategist Edward Luttwak has recently written a book about the Byzantine strategy, which aimed, when the Byzantine Empire was still a powerful commonwealth, at controlling all the former areas of the first Roman Empire exactly like the Ottomans will later try to expend alongside the same geostrategical lines. The Ottomans couldn’t perform the task: their sea power was fragilized after the battle of Lepanto (1571) and the definitive blowback was a fact after they failed to take the City of Vienna in 1683. After the terrible defeat in front of Vienna’s walls, their decay period started, even if they could maintain their grip on the Balkans, Syria, Palestina, Iraq and Egypt till the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-78, the Balkan uprisings of 1912-13 and the defeat of 1918. In the eyes of their leader Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the Islamic-Ottoman option had been brought to an end and the remaining Turkish state had to follow other paths. It should first get rid of the Islamic past and find a new identity that according to Ataturk himself should be a Hittite identity (he therefore opened an archeological museum in Ankara). By choosing a Hittite identity, Ataturk intended to identify his country, reduced to the Anatolian part of the former Ottoman Empire and bereft of all the Iraqi oil fields, with an Indo-European people that came from Europe to conquer Anatolia, where it left an astonishing civilisation, and induced geostrategical lines that were taken over by the Romans and the Crusaders marching towards Syria and Mesopotamia. The Hittite rage didn’t last long in modern Turkey and was replaced in the political mythology of the anti-islamic military elite by Panturkism or Panturanism, aiming at assembling all Turkish-speaking people in one giant state from the Egean to China. This Panturkic ideology was resolutely anti-Soviet as the main Turkish-speaking area the Panturkists wanted to acquire were in Soviet hands in Central Asia. In 1942, when the Germans could have taken Stalingrad and cut in their very middle the supply routes the Americans had created in Iran by organizing the Paniranian railways and in the Northern Atlantic from New York to Murmansk by organizing huge convoys of “Liberty ships” bringing ammunitions and material to the Soviet Army, Turkish officers around Staff-Chief General Cakmak proposed in Berlin to invade the Caucasus but their scheme was so abstruse that the Germans didn’t want this suggested alliance implying the emergence of an even more dangerous super-state in the East. 
 
Erdogan has inaugurated a new era in Turkish politics as he rejects officially the non religious Hittite and Panturanic/Panturkic projects in favour of a renewed Ottoman-Islamic scheme. His aim is to crush the former military elite and to replace it by a new pious “bourgeoisie” that thrived economically in the new developing area in the South-East part of present-day Turkey. We cannot meddle in the domestic affairs of Turkey and dictate the Turks in which way they should think. So be the official ideology Kemalist or Neo-Ottoman/Islamic, we don’t care and simply hear and listen to what Turkish politicians say. But when Erdogan comes to Germany or Belgium and urges Turkish people living in our countries not to assimilate (which I can understand because Europe lives now in a dangerous and deleterious period of decay) and to form a kind of “Fifth Column” in a Europa that they will in the end control and bereave of its identity, we cannot agree. We disagree too with the Syrian policy that Erdogan followed in supporting the Western- and Qatari-backed rebels against the Baath regime of Bechar El-Assad. It would have been better if Turkey had followed its initial policy of friendly relationships with Syria before the fatidic visit of Erdogan and Gul in Damascus in August 2011, when they tried to impose ministers of the rebellious “Muslim Brotherhood” in a next hypothetical Syrian government. The links that the present-day Turkish president has in the bank world of the Gulf Emirates and most probably of Qatar are of course another problem, that can jeopardize fruitful future relations with Europe and Russia. Erdogan’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ahmet Davutoglu, nicknamed the “Hoca”, the “Professor”, in Turkey, wanted to develop a neo-Ottoman foreign policy, which we could have accepted in its first version, as it wanted “zero problems on our borders” and started the first positive policy towards Syria, Iran, Libya and other powers in the Near- and Middle-East. But this orientation has had no future, unfortunately. Of course from a European, Austrian, Panorthodox and Russian point of view, we cannot accept the expansion of a neo-Ottoman scheme in the Balkan, that would be backed by the United States, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the so-called Islamic finance, from which apparently Gul proceeds. Even if Prof. Dugin and his Italian friend Claudio Mutti were deeply influenced by Leontiev’s ideas, which prefered an Ottoman domination in the Balkan than the juxtaposition of false Orthodox mini-powers strongly influenced by modern Western ideas, things have changed in the second half of the 20th century and it is of course now better for all of us to support in the Balkan Croatian or Serbian geopolitics. 
 
This brings us to Serbia. This country is the “core area” of the Balkan. Even if Germans had a general tendency to support Croatia in the Nineties instead of Serbia, the Austrian geopolitician Baron Jordis von Lohausen supported Serbia at the end of his life and even evoked an Axis “Vienna-Belgrado” to link Danubian Europe to the Egean by the shortest river and land roads. Croatia has a different perspective on geopolitics: its geopolitical lines are Adriatic-Mediterranean and the only conflict with Serbia was about a “window” on the Danube river at Vukovar where fierce fights opposed Croatian troops to the Serbian Army. In 1995, the Croatian Army conquered the Kraina region, which was peopled by Serbian villagers but was a strategic balcony threatening Dalmatia’s harbours which were formerly Croatian-Venetian. The dramas of Vukovar and the Kraina have certainly left a huge amount of bitterness in former Yugoslavia but the core area that Serbia is has not been so dangerously threatened as it was later by the Kosovar independance movement lead by the Albanian-speaking UCK-militia. Kosovo was till the Ottoman invasion in the 14th century a pure Serbian province, in which the tragical battle of the “Blackbirds’ Field” took place and in which the oldest Orthodox monastries stood. The independance of Kosovo is certainly the oddest mutilation of Serbian territory that we have to deplore. As you perhaps know, I am and was a friend of both Tomislav Sunic, the Croatian thinker, and of late Dragos Kalajic, the Serbian painter and traditional philosopher who published the Serbian version of the magazine “Elementy”. I am also a friend of Jure Vujic, the Croatian geopolitician and political scientist who recently published a book on Atlanticism and Eurasianism, for which I wrote a foreword: you have commented this book and my introduction on one of your websites. Sunic, Vujic and Kalajic were speakers at our Euro-Synergies’ Summer Courses in France, Italy and Germany. Sunic has written a book on the American Evil in Croatian and so did Kalajic (“Amerikanski Zlo”) in Serbian. In 1999, together with Laurent Ozon in France, I opposed the NATO-intervention against Yugoslavia and I spoke with Kalajic and his Italian friend Archimede Bontempi in Milano, together with the Mayor of the City, to explain how the war against Serbia was a war against Europe, which purpose it was to block all river traffic on the Danube and to destroy for long all developments in the Adriatic Sea, where NATO-fighters dropped their extra bombs in the sea, killing Italian fishermen. We dispatched the texts of the gallant American senator of Serbian origin, Bob Djurdjevic and, on their side, the left-wing Professors Michel Collon and Jean Bricmont did the same: Collon remembers this all around dispatching of counter-information on Serbia as the first resistance action on the internet in a recent speech he held in Brussels and Bricmont was even savagely beaten up by the thugs of the Brussels police and thrown an all night in a dirty cell because he stood in front of the NATO-buildings in the Belgian capital, just as some years later the Italian member of European Parliament and former Justice Secretary of State Mario Borghezio, who had opposed the bombings of Belgrado too, got also —even if he is an elderly man— a hiding with truncheons by the same scum and thrown in a cell: the Italian Embassy had to send officers to order the Belgian government to let him immediately free. 
 
Kosovo is the central part of what Kalajic called the “Islamic chain of States” that Americans and Saudis intended to install in the Balkan in order to bolt the landway between Central Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean, leaving Greece isolated and weakening all possible allies of Russia in this area. Kosovo will shelter the hugest military base of the United States in Europe, the “Camp Bondsteele”, that was built by Halliburton and where a substantial part of the US garrisons of Germany will move to. The purpose of this policy could have been read in Sir Nigel Bagnall’s book about the “Illyrians operations” of the Romans between 229 and 227 B.C. and between 215 and 205 B.C. In these historical studies by the former Chief of the British General Staff, the importance of the central areas of the Balkan are duly stressed: the book has been written in 1990 and its German translation dates back 1995, just four years before the bombings started in Serbia (Sir Nigel Bagnall, Rome und Karthago – Der Kampf ums Mittelemeer, Siedler, Berlin, 1995). A control of this central Kosovar-Serbian part of the Balkan allows every superpower to threaten or control Italy and to benefit from a springboard towards Anatolia and further East, exactly like the Ancient Macedonians did at the time of Alexander the Great at the eve of his invasion of the Persian Empire. The Ottomans, once they could control the same areas in the 14th century, became a permanent threat for Italy, Central Europe and the Black Sea (Pontic) area. So an intact Serbia could have been the territory that would have united Central Europe (Austria’s imperial heritage) and Russia (in a Panorthodox perspective) in the struggle to repel all foreign powers out of the Balkans, the Eastern Mediterranean, the Adriatic Sea and the Pontic area. 
 
Now the EU and the United States are trying to blackmail Serbia, promising a rapid membership in the EU if Serbia recognizes Kosovo as an independant state. I hope Serbia is not going to abandon its traditional position and still will consider Kosovo as a lost province that will one day be Serbian again. 
 
If we hear almost nothing about Moldova here in Western Europe, Belarus is described in our mainstream media as a clownish dictatorship of paleo-communist bigots. Belarus is nevertheless the central part of the North-South “Baltic/Pontic” line. There are three such North-South lines in Europe: 1) the Rhine/Rhone line linking by landways the North Sea to the Mediterranean; 2) the Baltic/Adriatic line from Stettin or Gdansk/Dantzig to Trieste in Italy or Pula in Croatia; this area will in the short run be linked by a direct railway track linking Dantzig to Ravenna in Northern Italy, a City that was the capital of the Ostrogothic Kingdom in Italy, which was conquered by the Byzantine General Belisarius in 536. In the Middle Ages, King Ottokar II Przmysl (1253-1278) of Bohemia wanted to create a realm linking the Baltic Sea to the Adriatic: the future rapid railway track between Gdansk/Dantzig and Ravenna will fulfill his dream; 3) the Baltic/Pontic line has never been united except perhaps by the Goths at the eve of the Hun invasion of Central Europe and the Roman Empire; therefore this line is sometimes called the “Gothic Axis”. The Polish-Lithuanian state was an attempt to restore this Axis under the Baltic-Slavonic Jagellon dynasty but the project failed due to the Ottoman conquest of the present-day Ukrainian territories beyond Odessa and of the Crimean peninsula. In the 18th century, the Empress of Russia Catherine dreamt together with the German philosopher Johann Gottfried Herder to create in this space between Lithuania and Crimea a realm that would be a new Germanic-Baltic-Slavonic Hellas, on the model of Ancient Greece. New enlightened societies would have been created in this area separating Western and Central Europe from Russia, that is simultaneously an “intersection area” according to the Japanese “culturalist” philosopher Moriyuki Motono (cf. supra), who perceives “intersection areas” as unifying factors and not as dividing forces. The very importance of Belarus, as the central part of this potential “intersection area” and of the “Baltic/Pontic” line should prevent the European medias to bash constantly Belarus and its President Lukatshenko and find instead all possible positive approaches of the Belarussian factor. 
 
At the time of the so-called “Orange revolution” (2004-2005), we could have feared that the Ukrainian state would have joined the NATO and have isolated the Crimean Navy base of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, which was one of the purposes Zbigniew Brzezinski hoped to achieve. For Brzezinski the fall of the Ukraine would have meant the total and complete achievement of his long elaborated strategy, as it would have weakened Russia definitively and made of the Black Sea an American-Turkish lake. Due to the victory of the anti-orange party in Kiev and Kharkov, Brzezinski’s project is doomed to be a failure, what he has recognized himself by saying that his long hammered policy of destroying Russia, by supporting the Mujahiddin in Afghanistan, the secessionist forces in the Muslim Republics of the former Soviet Union and the Ukrainian nationalists couldn’t be carried out in due time and that the United States had now to change strategy and try to ally with Russia in order to create a “Northern Hemisphere” Big Alliance with Northern America, Europe, Russia and Turkey (see one of his last books “Strategic Vision”, published in the United States in March 2012). 
 
- Do you think that some of these countries could possibly join the NATO or the EU for political reasons, like Rumania and Bulgaria did at the time of the so-called NATO-enlargement? 
 
Turkey is already a NATO-member and among the most important ones due to the old strategic position its territory occupies between the Black Sea, the Balkan, the Syrian area, the Eastern Mediterranean and Egypt. But there is absolutely no necessity for new countries to join the NATO as this Atlantic Alliance had been set up in the time when communism was still a quite virulent ideology that allegedly wanted to export a “world revolution” and put the rest of the world ablaze. This ideology doesn’t exist anymore, except in the form of “trotskism” now skillfully disguised in neo-conservatism as “permanent revolution” (Trotsky) has become “permanent war” (Kagan): the real “communist danger” nowadays is America as a trostskite/neo-con superpower, even more virulent than the Soviet Union ever was. And even in the last years of the “Cold War”, the American grip on Europe became tighter, after the “century’s market” which imposed American fighters in all the air forces of Western Europe instead of the French Mirage or the Swedish Viggen fighter or a new fighter having been produced by a joint Swedish-French venture. This incident proved that our political elite was rotten and corrupted and that they were not conscious of the treason they committed and, subsequently that we were not free and constantly betrayed by degenerated politicians; all that induced us to reject NATO as an enslaving organisation (slaves are not entitled to carry weapons). So since the very beginning of our activities we were hostile to NATO, as Jean Thiriart was some ten years before us. We could bank on several Belgian political traditions, that never could be implemented: when NATO was created under the impulse of the Belgian socialist minister Paul-Henri Spaak, the conservatives among the Belgian politicians were mocking the attempt to build such an Alliance and nicknamed it “Spaakistan”. They were reluctant to include Belgium and the Belgian Congo colony into such a “Spaakistanese” construct. Later the Catholic Prime Minister and future Foreign Affairs minister Pierre Harmel tried to escape the grip of America by proposing new bilateral relationships between small powers of the NATO commonwealth and small powers of the Warsaw Pact, i. e. between Belgium and, for instance, Poland or Hungary (as Catholic countries, Hungary being a State having belonged like Belgium to the Austrian Empire). These ideas, that were impossible to implement due to the total infeodation of Belgium, are nevertheless still alive in the debates run in the country: Prof. Rik Coolsaet and diplomatic TV-journalist Jan Balliauw continue this critical tradition of Belgian intellectuals and diplomatic personnel who were never tired to criticize American policies on the international chessboard. 
 
In 1984 I had the opportunity to meet at the Frankfurt Book Fair former Division General Jochen Loser of the German Army, who also was the last young officer who had been evacuated by a Ju52 plane from Stalingrad after having lost his hand. Loser had been disgusted by the colonialist behaviour of Americans and moreover by the policy of installing Pershing rackets targeting Warsaw Pact positions, risking to provoke Soviet retaliation on the German soil. Consequently Germany, East and West, could have been wiped out the map through a carpet bombing through nuclear weapons. A neutrality policy based on the models of Austria, Switzerland, Finland, Sweden and Yugoslavia was therefore the only rational possibility. The neutral central zone in Europe should, according to Loser, be enlarged to East and West Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxemburg. A Swiss-Yugoslavian bunkerized defence system should have sanctuarized the whole area. The perestroika of Gorbachev made this kind of speculations useless. One year later, General Gunther Kiessling, German delegate officer at the NATO Headquarters in Casteau (Belgium) was also disgusted by the fact that High Staf officers were always American or British despite the fact that European armies were more numerous in the forces displayed by NATO; Kiessling subsequently advocated a foreign policy based on Harmel’s ideas. Our positions, at the very beginning of the history of our magazines “Orientations” and “Vouloir”, stood in this rational, political and non ideological way of thinking and our hostility to Washington’s warmongers derives from these objective statements.
 
- In one of your articles issued in 1998 you wrote about the priority of “Volk” over abstract state. How do you think about this position now when we have a postmodern mix with the social networks, the long-distance nationalism and the immigrants flows?
 
I don’t remember exactly about which article you are talking. But nevertheless the sense of belonging, the sense of duty and, if necessary of sacrifice, is only possible when you are embedded in a blood and soil humus or if you’re “roped together” (“encordes”) like alpinists with your fellow-citizens as the present-day French philosopher Robert Redeker says in denouncing the degenerative Western fashions, focussing only on the diseased “ego” reduced to the only physical body, the “Egobody”, as he calls it, and trying to embellish it by artificial interventions or bizarre tricks like tattoos, piercings, mamal implants, etc. Modest traditional people should have a “craddle country”, have a dialect, i. e. words of their own that are a part of their intimate identity, an identity that has to be linked by a “long story” or a memory which ought to be embedded in a genuine history and in songs, poems and novels that are their own and non imported. Intellectuals of course have always had a more open mind, could always throw and catch a glimpse beyond the border of their own kinship but this is of course not a reason to reject viciously what’s carved in your own self and create artificially cosmopolitan societies and pseudo-values, believing they are the only keys to the future, i. e. cosmopolitan societies that neo-liberals a la Soros now call “open societies”. A society is dangerously “open” when all its members have lost their memories, when they are serialized like preserved meat cans or like poor battery chickens. The notion of “Volk” was first coined philosophically by Johann Gottfried Herder, who had a great influence in Russia and inspired the “Narodniki” thinkers. This enabled the Czar in the 19th century to pay linguists and grammarians to write down a first scientific Russian grammar and also, a couple of decades later, grammars of the Baltic languages. Later, even the Soviet system could better preserve the small peoples of the present-day Russian Federation like the Mordves, the Chuvashes, the Maris, etc. and give them autonomous districts or republics that kept their cultural heritage intact without even endangering Soviet Union or current Russia as supranational wholes. This also is a heritage of Herder’s thinking, which is “another Enlightenment” quite different than the Enlightenment that generated the Western ideology. You could of course say that the Soviet system of ethnical republics lead to the tragedy of Chechnya and the dangers of an Islamic rebellion in Tatarstan or Bashkirtostan. I answer this objection by remembering that other Republics, like of course Ossetia remained absolutely true to the links they have since about two centuries with Russia and that the Muslim religious authorities in Kazan develop an Islam that is original and immune in front of all the false seductions of Wahhabism. 
 
Religious values can only be kept alive in the “ethnical-ideational” frames that “Volker” objectively are, without any sanctimonious or bigot derivations. Big overcrowded Cities are a danger for the human kind not only in Europe, in Japan or in Russia but also in Africa (see the horrors of the slums in Nigeria for instance) and in Latin America (Mexico City and his criminal gangs having transformed this poor country —that once upon a time fascinated the English writer David Herbert Lawrence— in a “failed State”). Once more the idea of a variety of people on the surface of the Earth, expressed some decades ago by the Breton thinker Yann Fouere and his Irish fellows among the true leaders of Eire (De Valera, MacBride, etc.), is a true and acceptable “inter-national” idea, i. e. an idea shared “among nations” (Latin, “inter nationes”), as the people are “actually existing” and the pseudo-international, cosmopolitan ideas are mere chimaeras. You cannot sell the cosmopolitan ideas of Parisian intellectuals a la Bernard-Henri Levy in Africa. The Chinese by cleverly refusing to impose their own foreign notions to Africans could conquer markets in the most derelict states of the Black Continent because their leaders were fed up by the moralizing and intrusive interference of the West with their domectic affairs. The French-speaking poet and writer Leopold Sedar Senghor, who became President of Senegal, was an attentive reader of Count de Gobineau, described in all possible “antifa” books and essays as the “Father of Racism”. The couple of pages Gobineau devoted to the African people in is “Essay on the Inequality of Races” didn’t upset the future President of Senegal when he read them as a student involved in the “Negritude” movement in France and French-dominated Africa. Senghor stressed the necessity to keep in each possible culture, in Africa, Europe or elsewhere in the world, the figure of the “conteur”, the “storyteller”, who transmit the people’s memory to the future generations. In a developed country the collective “storyteller” could be the historians and philologists, who surely exist in the best way in our societies, but are edged out and bereft of all consideration in front of all the negative figures of modernity like bankers, economists, lawyers, technocrats, etc. who have wiped out the collective memories in our developed societies, destroying what Redeker, as an attentive reader of Heidegger, calls the “encordements”, the “roped-togetherness”, leaving behind a miserable crippled (sub?)human kind unable to react properly in front of all the challenges of postmodern age. 
 
Postmodern thoughts could have been an opportunity to get rid of the Western ideology that claims to be the only heir of the 18th Century Enlightenment and as such the only “true” acceptable way of thinking: all other forms of thoughts being dismissed as unacceptable, racist, fascist, non democratic, etc. becoming automatically a domestic outlaw, who would surely be totally ignored by the mainstream media (which is a contradiction to the “Human Rights” principles as such an edging-out is equivalent to the forbidden political crime of condemning a citizen to the “civil death”) or an international thug, whose state would be registered in the “Black List” of the contemptible “Axis of Evil States”. Armin Mohler —who wrote the most memorable book introducing us to all the aspects of the German so-called “Conservative Revolution” and asked all non-conformist Europeans in the Sixites and Seventies to show an actual solidarity towards all the States that the USA described as “Rogue States”— had hoped in 1988-89, just some months before the destruction of the Berlin Wall, that postmodern trends would have eroded the Western ideology, which in Germany had become a must in the versions coined by Sir Ralf Dahrendorf (who was a British citizen) and Jurgen Habermas. No one could think, elaborate an ideological corpus outside the only few paths indicated by Habermas, the atrabilious professor who was always rising an admonishing finger. Postmodernity signifies first of all relativism. One could have needed a relativism precisely to “relativize” the new compulsory ideology imposed not only in Germany but everywhere else in Western Europe. 
 
Unfortunately for Western Europe and for the ex-Comecon states now included in the EU, the relativism of some postmodern thinkers couldn’t perform the job that Mohler hoped that we would have achieved. The relativism of postmodern thoughts leads to a still more “sensate” world of decay, that the late and regretted French thinker Philippe Muray called the “festivism”, mocking the current trend to invent new “postmodern” festivities like Gay Prides to replace traditional and liturgical religious festivals or ceremonies. Mohler hoped that postmodernity would have restored an ironical criticism banking on the traditional irony of Ancient Greek philosophy (Diogenes), on the famous “Hammer’s philosophy” of Nietzsche aiming at generalizing a “joyful knowledge” and on some aspects of the Heideggerian will to “fluidify the concepts”, that’s to say to eliminate all the rigidities the concepts had acquired by time because of the bad habits of starchy philosophers who only could repeat stupidly what their brilliant teachers in the past had said, so that they were constantly losing the substance and rigidifying the forms. Heidegger had been ordered by Conrad Grober, his parish priest (who as an eminent theologist became later the Archbishop of Freiburg-im-Breisgau), to study the concepts of Aristoteles in order to think beyond the rigid concepts the Scholastics had clumsily fabricated out of the genuine Aristotelian materials. According to Grober, Aristoteles’ concepts were more dynamic than static: the schoolmen hadn’t understood properly the meaning of the Greek grammar tenses, that express a variety of time meanings, among which some were rather static and others frankly dynamic. The schoolmen had only kept the static meaning in their narrow brains. Grober wanted to restore the dynamic nuances and save the Catholic faith (it was his main aim!) of sclerosis due to a too static interpretation of Aristoteles’ concepts by the scholastic tradition. 
 
The worldwide adoption of the poor substanceless cosmopolitan cogitations will surely destroy ethnical and ethical values, i. e. the “Volker” and “volkisch”-determined values Herder and the Narodniki wanted to save by a constant acitvity of poets, archeologists, philologists, grammarians and historians as well as the religious traditional values eminent men like Guenon, Evola, Tucci, Schuon, Coomaraswamy, etc. wanted to restore. “Nationalism” in the positive sense of the word, that’s to say in the sense Herder had wanted to impulse in Germany, Russia and elsewhere, implies that you feel as your duty to immerge yourself in your national-ethnical-linguistic surroundings, as actual and non fictional surroundings, in your “Nahe”, your proximity, as Heidegger has taught us and as he had practiced it by drinking beers with his beloved and often forgotten brother Fritz in the pub of his native town of Messkirch in Schwabenland and by having long walks on the paths of the Black Forest near his small chalet of Todtnauberg. Heidegger also stressed the importance of the “Nahe” in a speech he held in plain language for the inhabitants of Messkirch in 1961; the speech was about television: Heidegger explained that television was a devilish device introducing “Farness” (“die Ferne”) into our “proximity” (our “Nahe”), ruining the entrenchments and real-life links we needed as stabile and not uprooted beings. Nowadays with modern devices as MP3, iPods and another useless knick-knacks every possible event or presposterous fancy spectacle is permanently irrupting in our daily lives: strident or cacophonic GSM-bells are ringing when you’re in your bath, in a tramcar, in a romantic restaurant, in your girlfriend’s bed or at a serious meeting, pupils can watch a film in the classroom without being caught by the unaware teacher, young girls and boys are emitting curious sounds in the bus because they’re listening to loud crazy music, so that they’re even conscious of making noises. This kind of subhumanity you can observe now in your daily life is maybe the humanity of the “last men twinkling their eyes” (Nietzsche) but they are surely “people without a centre” as Schuon explained it in his tremedously interesting book “Avoir un centre”, trying simultaneously to find a remedy to this anthropological disaster. Schuon opted for meditation in the Sahara desert or among the Sioux in North America. 
 
These are the very results of the lost of all form of liturgy in religious life: D. H. Lawrence warned against such a lost in his booklet “Apocalypse” and Mircea Eliade devoted almost all his life to the study of real-life faiths. Maybe as Orlando Figes explains it in “Natasha’s Dance”, his recent book about Russian intellectual life before the Bolshevik revolution, the “Old Believers” revolted against the modern world in being in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries because rituals and liturgical sacred gestures were scrapped out of Russian religious life... So you can surely create a virtual community of “nationalists” or of “traditionalists” on the net, you can get a lot of information from all parts of the world but your duty is nevertheless “hic et nunc”, here and nowhere else, now and not in the past or in a hypothetical future, here in the liturgical traditions and gestures that have given cohesion to your ancestors’ communities. If these traditions have been forgotten or mocked away, you simply have to remember them and let them remember by your fellow-countrymen, by performing the sometimes modest job of the philologist or the ethnologist or the archeologist as Herder induced us to do. Scores of people in Western Europe are now trying to revive past gentle and well-balanced traditions, despite the silence of the mainstream medias.
 
Mass immigration is a weapon to destroy societies, as former US Ambassador Charles Rivkin has acknowledged it: the present-day European societies are destroyed because the relativism —induced by modernity and forcefully imposed by devilish postmodern subversive intellectuals— renders the people unable to find a positive solution to the problem. The immigrants are also destroyed by the simple fact that their traditional family values will also be eradicated, as all will in the short run become “centerless” beings. 
 
- And how would you link your traditional “volkisch” ideas with the suggestion Prof. Dugin has formulated in his 4th Political Theory, for which the “People” as “Volk” or “Narod” remains a subject of history but not expressed as a “nation” in a land or as a “class” but as a “Dasein” according to Heidegger’s philosophy?
 
Difficult question to answer as I wasn’t sent a copy of Dugin’s “Fourth Political Theory”. The “Volker” cannot be efficient subjects of history anymore, even if there are sometimes notable exceptions as the protesting Icelandic people that could escape the choking policy of the cosmopolitan banksters or the Venezuelan people that stood behind Hugo Chavez. Carl Schmitt explained very well that now the real subjects of history are the “Grossraume” (the “Greater Areas”), a volunteer assembly of ethnical or non ethnical countries around a hegemon (super)power. Small nations cannot achieve anything now, except domestic cohesion policies, which are of course duly needed. The BRICS-countries are now all “Greater Areas” and are hegemon in their own domestic territory; they are also able to assemble around their leadership smaller powers in their neighbourhood. 
 
“Dasein” means literally in German “to be there” or the “being-there”, so that we are brought back to the previous question. I am because I am located here. I cannot “be” ubiquitously in two or three different places, so I cannot act as a genuine “zoon politikon” (Aristoteles) if I have no location or a score of locations, like the so-called modern “nomads” that a mainstream pseudo-thinker like Jacques Attali admires so much and suggests as models for future mankind. Man is linked to his “oikos” and cannot be a perfect “zoon politikon” if he lives elsewhere or if he is moving ceaselessly. That’s one aspect. But Heidegger, even if he defined himself as a native of Messkirch, was certainly not a short-sighted thinker. I suppose the aspect Dugin wants to stress in his book is the notion of “authentic man”, willing to escape the world of modern standardization, the world that his student and former girlfriend Hannah Arendt called the “world of the petty jobs”. We live in the anthropological ruins (Evola!) of modern world where mere existence is repetitive, dull, nonsensical. This cannot be “real life” according to existentialist Heidegger. Therefore “Dasein” has, let’s say for the purpose of explaining here the matter in a narrow nutshell, a second meaning in Heidegger philosophy. “Dasein” is often translated into French by the word “existence” (as Sartre did in the late Forties). In this way the “Sein” is simply the world or the universe that was given a sense yet, be it static, lifeless, material or be it vivid, growing, dynamic, vegetal or animal. For a human being, or better said for a “zoon politikon”, “Sein” without a given sense is not enough. He or she has to jump voluntarily into existence and if you jump from (“ex”) an indefinite place, as the mere “Sein” (“res stantes”) is, you arrive of course “there” where you’re born or “there” where you’ve chosen to be, you are “ex” the “res stantes”, i. e. in a dynamic, dangerous world, an “ex-istence”, where you have to struggle or to suffer to be authentic. We are not satisfied with the ruins of modern world, with the mess of the “festivistic” postmodern societies in which we cannot do anything else but rebel. Our “Dasein” is also this rebellion which is the jump out of this mess, or better said the result of the willing jump we had the audacity to perform in order not to rotten in “in-authenticity”. This rebellious jump is performed by thousands and thousands of people throughout the world, resulting in the birth or rebirth in the “real risky and revolutionary life” of the authentic men, the ones who want to remain for ever traditional “zoon politikon” or traditional “Kschatriyas” or “Brahmani”. It is in this sense that I understand your question and subsequently Dugin’s position. Dugin dreams obviously of a worldwide rallying unity of “authentic traditional men” that have set a step backward in front of the mess that modernity is, thus having opted first for what Arnold Toynbee called a “withdrawal” to meditate, to recreate metaphysical authenticity in non modern spiritual areas, like the Old Believers lived in remote villages on the shore of the White Sea or in the deepest forests of Siberia, to come back one day, the day of the “return” (Toynbee), when a new cycle will start. 
 
To think further into this Heidegger and Arendt vision of “authentic life”, I am reading now the works of the Italian theologist Vito Mancuso, who wrote precisely a book significantly titled “La Vita autentica” (= “Authentic Life”). 
 
- In this sense how might political metaphysics become actual in Europe where strong secular moods are now dominating, while you have the rise of Islam within the European societies now as well as on the other side of the Mediterranean?
 
Dugin indeed very often uses the phrase “political metaphysics”, referring mainly to the traditional corpuses of Guenon and Evola. Dozens of authors revive now, after Evola, Guenon, Schuon and many others what we can call “political metaphysics” or simply “metaphysics”, whereby “metaphysics” can eventually be politicized. Metaphysics as the traditional knowledge of things active and linked together behind the physical appearances, as a non material, intuitive and poetical ability of selected humans to perceive the divine “noumena” beyond the mere “phenomena” has been gradually rejected as a “ridiculous irrationality” in the Western thought patterns and Immanuel Kant proclaimed the end of metaphysics in the last decade of the 18th century. Many tried to save metaphysics from oblivion, others replace it by “culture philosophy” (Hamann, Herder) or by history (Hegel, the Hegelians and the Marxists). The modern and postmodern world rejects metaphysics since the 18th century as well as, since the last phases of this catastrophic shift leading towards present-day visible “Kali Yuga”, culture as cement of societies and history as a prospective move towards a better future, because both culture and history implies also duties. Kant could theorize an ethical approach of duty without metaphysics, because he was the philosopher who declared metaphysics was abolished or to be abolished: this sense of Kantian (Prussian!) duty was ruined in the long run by extreme individualism and consumption society. “Culture” as Hamann or Herder undesrtood it has also vanished and history as it had been formerly conceived by some existentialists (Sartre, Camus, Malraux) and by the Marxists is also mocked and rejected by postmodern relativists. Even the most seducing “Ersatze” of metaphysics are now rejected and mocked by postmodern relativism. Nevertheless it must be said here that the true understanding of metaphysics was only a privilege of intellectual or religious elites, having undergone a long training or initiation: for common people liturgy, religious festivities and rites were factually more important, because they were giving sense to their lifes and were rhythming their daily existence. All these old peasants’ festivities and rites have also vanished out of our everyday life to be replaced by what Philippe Muray calls “attractions”, i. e. media tricks, or “parodies” as Guenon or Evola would have said. Francesco Lamendola, a present-day Italian philosopher, whose articles you can find on high interesting sites like http://www.arianneditrice.it or http://www.centrostudilaruna.it , explained us recently that even the official Catholic Church is now unable, despite certain efforts of Pope Benedict XVI, to revive metaphysics or traditional ways as it has too long tried to ape modern media subcultures to be saved again from total decay: his article was illustrated by a photo showing priests and nuns dancing and twisting their bodies like crazy youths, hippy-style... Once you tolerate such undignified attitudes by the very guardian of your religion you cannot find easily the way back to more worthy positions. Secular bric-a-brac has invaded and neutralized everything in the religious realm of people in America and Western Europe, what induces another current Italian philosopher, Umberto Galimberti, to define christianity as “a religion of the empty heavens” (“la religione dal cielo vuoto”). 
 
What concerns Islam, you must keep in mind that we would fully accept a truely traditional Islam as it has been illustrated by high figures such as Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Henry Corbin (and his follower Christian Jambet), Michel Chodkiewicz or the Algerian thinker Meriboute. Their visions, that could be spiritual models for Iran and Central Asia, or could be connected with the Iranian medieval mystique (Sohrawardi) or the Flemish-Rhinish mystical tradition (Ruusbroec, Meister Eckhart, Sister Hadewych, Nicolaus von Cues, etc.), have of course nothing to do with present-day salafism or wahhabism or with the inadequacies preached by the Muslim Brotherhood that has set Syria aflame in 1981-82 and once again since about two years. Unfortunately the mix of salafism, wahhabism and Brotherhood’s Islam is currently seducing thousands of young immigrants in Europe today, who then reject both the modernist lunacies and the healthy remains of traditional Europe. Tariq Ramadan’s thoughts have also a real impact nowadays on Muslims in Europe but, even if this Swiss-based Muslim intellectual leader seems to suggest some interesting anti-Western ideas, we should not forget that, according to very recent historical studies performed in the United States and in Germany, his uncle Said Ramadan, another prominent Muslim Brother in the Fifties, helped actively to replace all the pro-European (and anti-Soviet) imams of Munich’s main mosque and Muslim religious centre in Germany by Muslim Brothers with the help of CIA-agents as the Muslim Brothers were at that time plotting against the Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser (nicknamed the “Pharao” by his domestic foes) for the high benefit of Israel as they are plotting now against the Syrian Baathist power elite. This kind of Islam is, despite American-made “Golems” like Al Qaeda or Bin Laden, an instrument in the hand of the United States and Saudi Arabia and aims under many other projects at recreating a strong strategic “bolt” of islamized or semi-islamized states (Greater Albania, Kosovo, a potentially islamized Macedonia, autonomous Muslim-Turkish areas in Bulgaria, etc.) in the Balkan against Serbia, Europe and Russia, as the Serbian traditionalist thinker, diplomat and artist Dragos Kalajic observed attentively before his early death some years ago. Kalajic used to call this project the “dorsale islamique dans les Balkans”. 
 
- We see that many people are protesting in the streets of many European capitals but how resistance can occur and develop in “bourgeois societies” like these of the EU?
 
First “bourgeois” societies are going to vanish if middle classe people and workers all together will be completely ruined by inflation and economical crisis. In Spain, Portugal and Greece you’ve surely a social agitation but not a revolutionary spirit able to modify thoroughly society. In iceland the demonstrations have at least compelled the government to refuse to pay banks back and to sue the responsible ministers and throw them in jail. In Italy, the last elections, with the success of Beppe Grillo, prove that people don’t believe in the usual corrupted parties of the worn-out old partitocracy: this is a good thing, proving that the election process, presented in the media as the quintessence of true democracy, is ruined, is pure fake, as soon as non elected technocrats are taking over power in spite of people’s rejection of corruption and technocratic governance. In Belgium the conventional trade unions tried to mobilize their militants so that they refuse austerity but tell us nothing about the too high prices for energy, food in supermarkets and insurance fees, that are eroding the purchase power of all our fellow-citizens. In France, the situation is astonishing: people were tired of neo-liberal Sarkozy but reject also socialist Hollande whereby protests are focussed on homosexual marriage. France seems to reject left-wing Voltairian pan-criticism and the typical French May-68 ideology for which homosexuality, gender problems, criminality, marginality, etc. were considered as an aspect of a certain intellectual and moral superiority in front of the conventional mass of heterosexual women and men, of fathers and mothers: this previously non politicized mass seems now to be fed up to be seen by all mainstream medias as inferior (or as potential fascist thugs) and mocked by the so-called “intellectual elite”. Gender speculations and Gay Prides were also set out as expressions of the true “Republican values”, which are now rejected by a wider mass of citizens reacting in a non materialistic, non “sensate” way. This could be a way out of the bourgeois mentality which is of course “sensate” in the definition once given by Pitirim Sorokin. 
 
- In Gramsci’s words, citizens need a consensus for managemant and co-evolution but it seems now that the Euro-bureaucracy and the transnational financists have usurped all the necessary tools for decision-making...
 
Technologically speaking we don’t live in Gramsci’s time anymore so we must avoid all anachronisms. Gramsci was influenced by the Italian neo-Macchiavellian school of sociology (Mosca, Pareto, Michels) where the notions of ruling (oligarchy) and challenging elites (revolutionists) were very important. Gramsci was the main thinker of the pre-Fascist Italian communist movement, in which he saw an instrument to abolish the power of the Italian oligarchy (his beloved brother on the contrary saw Fascism as a better instrument to control the oligarchy!). In order to be efficient, the revolutionists had to start a cultural struggle mainly by using popular and classical theater as a tool. So did the Futurists around Marinetti, who became fascists, and so did Brecht in Germany, who remained a communist. In the eyes of Gramsci, modern Italian street theater would create consensus but now the heirs of the non communist but leftist (Lenin: “leftism as the infantile illness of communism”!) are creating dissensus in French society and the pussy riots or femen “happenings” in the purest Sixties’ style are mainly considered as vulgar and ridiculous. True “subversion” of the establishment’s power can only be now a kind of blowback, a return of the usual “decency” of traditional societies as George Orwell wanted also in his time to be the main option of socialist forces in Britain and elsewhere. Orwell and his heir the Slavist Anthony Burgess (who is not read anymore...) rejected deviant behaviours within the Left as it was, in their eyes, the best tools of the oligarchies to cancel the efficiency of peoples’ protest. 
 
The Eurocracy is now generally rejected in all Western European countries. The policy of austerity leads to a general contestation of the Eurocratic power so that at the end of April this year they announced officially that they would find out another solution. But it is impossible for them to change their type of governance as they would automatically and definitively be expelled from power. Europe has now to make a choice: either she takes the option for the shortsighted oligarchy’s “economical/financial reasons” or she makes the decision in favour of the “vital reasons”. The first option means political derath; the second, survival. 
 
- What do politicians and geopoliticans in Europe think about Russi and other Eurasian countries such as India and China?
 
Politicians and mainstream opinion-makers generally follows what NATO says. In France, despite the present-day revolt against the May 68-elites, the “nouveaux philosophes” still determine foreign policy. Bad things are said about Russia, of course, as Putin is described as a kind of “new Stalin” who manipulates all elections held in your country. In China the Human Rights are said to be fully neglected and Tibet is considered as crushed as well as the Uighours of Chinese Turkestan (Sin Kiang). India is perhaps better perceived, except when the BJP-Hindu nationalists are in power. The geopolitical schools in Europe on the contrary have an objective view on Russia, India and China. In Germany people as Peter Scholl-Latour or Alexander Rahr knows that the United States are constantly imposing geopolitical views that are opposite to the natural interests of Germany. Aymeric Chauprade, who published his books on geopolitics by the “Ellipses” publisher in Paris, was fired from the Military Academy as soon as Sarkozy came to power because he wanted to remain true to the Gaullist independent French position towards NATO. Geopolitical schools see the development of the BRICS-powers as positive because it allows us to escape America-centrered unipolarity on the international chessboard and, above all things, create a multipolar cohesion in the world that will be strongly linked by telluric-continental highways from the Atlantic shores till the Pacific Ocean.
 
- From the point of view of eurocentrism, what is Russia? Is there any fears of a “yellow threat”?
 
When we use the word “eurocentrism” in a positive way, we think about historical periods where a kind of Eurasian unity would have been possible without great efforts or was de facto actualized. In the 18th century, Louis XVIth, Maria Theresa of Austria and Catherine of Russia were allied against the Turks and the British (at least unofficially), and their kingdoms and empires stretched from the Atlantic to the Pacific, not to forget that Russia possessed at that time Alaska, the Hawai and a portion of the Pacific Coast of North America till Fort Ross on the former Russian-Spanish border in California! The Holy Alliance or Pentarchy (as Constantin Frantz called it) was an implict alliance from Ireland to Alaska that was deliberately destroyed by the British and the French at the time of the Crimean War. The “Drei-Kaiser-Bund” (the “Three-Emperors-Alliance”) of Germany, Austria and Russia was also an implicit alliance but not so strong as the two previous ones, as the Western Atlantic coast was lost and as the United States had become a non negligible power, that could conquer the Californian coast after a war against Mexico and buy Alaska to allow the Czar to conquer Central Asia. Arthur Moeller van den Bruck and the “National-Bolsheviks” among the German diplomats or militants wanted at least a German-Soviet tandem that would have strategically united half Europe and Sovietized Russia, from Hamburg till Vladivostok. The craze of a possible “yellow threat” is not a specific West-European or German phobia, even if Emperor Wilhelm II was maybe one of the main representative of this phobic trend before 1914. The French Slavist Georges Nivat has analyzed the fear of a “Chinese threat” in Russian literature between 1850 and 1914 as well as the ideological rejection of Asian or Buddhist fashions among some Petersburger intellectuals, whereby the “Chinese threat” shouldn’t be seen exclusively as racial but also as a rejection of a too centralized and bureaucratized state. The Imperial Chinese “Mandarinate” was seen as a threat for human freedom and free will, as genuine virtues of “Christianity” (i. e. of European and Ancient Greek culture). In principle China isn’t a danger as China is centered on itself. China proposes the world an international organization where no single power would have the right to interfere in others’ domestic affairs. In Africa, the only problem China can create is on the level of high sea fishing: if Africans cannot benefit from the fish along their own coasts, they risk an awful food dependancy that could have catastrophic consequences, especially if coupled with the already existing food shortages and the draughts in the Sahel area. 
 
- Nikolai Danilevski in his book “Russia and Europe” wrote that Europeans were afraid of Russia because of its huge landmass overhanging over Europe... But we have also differences in religion, ethos, etc.
 
We’ve stated since long that Russian patriots are swinging between a Danilevski-oriented nationalism and a Leontiev-oriented traditionalism. Danilevski was partially influenced by Darwinism like some but not all “Pangermans” and saw a coming struggle for survival and domination between “old peoples” (Britain, France) and “young peoples” (Russia, the Slavs in general). Leontiev was more traditional and ortthodox and wanted the status quo being preserved, especially in the Balkans. The Europeans feared Russia’s demographic boom in the 19th century, exactly as Europeans and Russians had also feared Chinese demography or fear the current African or Northern African population boom or as the French at the end of the 19th century were obsessed by the increase of German population, while their own population was decreasing. Russia in the 19th century was mainly a threat not for Europe, as France, Belgium, Germany invested a lot in Russia, but for British liberalism and for British India as soon as the Czar’s armies managed to control Central Asia till the Afghan borders: huge armies could have been ready to invade India, the cornerstone of the British Empire and the key to control the “Heart Sea”, which is the Indian Ocean. The Crimean War, that destroyed the strategical unity of Pentarchy, as the embodiment of European civilization, and weakened Russia only for a couple of decades, is the very source of the geopolitical and metaphysical opposition between East and West, as Dostoievsky pointed it out in his “Diary of a Writer”. The West appeared as a subversive force that was undermining the unity of “Christianity” (i. e. Europe and Russia perceived as a strategical unity). According to Constantin Frantz, the lack of interest in European unity in France and Britain was due to colonialism: both French and British empires hadn’t their centre in Europe anymore and could survive without the necessity of a unity: this lead directly to the catastrophe of World War One. The differences in religion and ethos can more easily be bridged, at the sole condition that Catholics or Protestants aren’t trying to convert others by all means, not only in Russia or in Orthodox countries but also in Muslim areas, in China or in India. Protestants US based sects should also give up their missions in Catholic Latin America. The giving up of proselytism should be one condition of world peace alongside the renouncing to interfere in domestic policies as the Chinese have asked for. 
 
This week, the French weekly magazine “Valeurs actuelles” (n°3989) publishes a world map showing the “clash between religious dynamics” where not only Islam or Muslim fundamentalism is pushing forward in Muslim countries, in Africa (Nigeria) or in India but where the mostly US based “Evangelic churches” are thriving tremendously as they are extremely active in Latin America (and in Spain due to Latino immigration!), in Catholic Black Africa (West Africa, Congo, Angola, etc.), in China, Japan and the Philippines. The map shows us also the progression of “religious diversity” in the United States, in Australia, in all European countries, in Russia and in China, Corea and Japan. “Religious diversity” means obviously a decrease in social coherence when this diversity is imported and means also, one should not forget it, a general and problematic uprooting of people when “natural” or “native” religions are disappearing, even in their christianized or islamized syncretic forms (see the recent tragical fate of Tumbuctu mosques and libraries or of the Serbian Orthodox monastries in Kosovo). Both the conquests of Wahhabism (or Salafism) and of the American “Evangelic Churches” are proofs of the victories of “unipolarity” even if the United States pretend to be the main foe of “Al Qaeda”. Both hyper-active fundamentalisms, i. e. Saudi Wahhabism and US-perverted Evangelism, aims at conquering or re-conquering lost territories or territories that had been previously immunized against Puritanical-Wahhabite subversion, for instance by intelligent and efficient civilian-military developing regimes. Latin America has reached a certain level of independance thanks to the Mercosur common market, the indigenist positions of Morales in Bolivia or the anti-imperialist actions and diplomacy of late President Chavez: the South-American continent risks in the long run to be totally subverted and reconquered by the social action of the Evangelic churches. In Africa it is obvious that the secret aim of these churches is to cut French-speaking Africa from France and the EU and to replace French or European (and Chinese!) influence by American domination in order to get the oil of this part of the world. In China the Evangelical moves have as purpose to break the cohesion of the Han Chinese society and to create confusion and dissensus, exactly like in the 19th century when a civil war lead by a curious convert to a kind of strange christianity cost China more than 20 millions dead. So this religious subversion is one of the weapons used to eliminate China as a competitor superpower in the Far East, like military containment, support of fundamentalist Uighurs in Sinkiang, Cyberwarfare, etc. are other weapons pointed against Beijing. 
 
The increase of “religious diversity” in the main countries of the EU means a lost of social and political cohesion that corresponds to the purposes of the geopolitician Robert Strauss-Hupe, who became an adviser of the US presidents Roosevelt and Truman, alongside a certain Mr. Morgenthau who wanted to transform Germany into a bucolic agrarian state in the very middle of Europe. Now, as Socialist Thilo Sarrazin fears it, Germany will be unable to produce the needed engineers to let the German industrial machine work properly. The same is true for other European countries and so Morgenthau’s dream risks to become reality: Germany as a weak industrial country animated by crazy sociologists, who would be a kind of leisure class priesthood, that would impose a “festivist” way of life (with ubiquitous sexual permissiveness and with the “femens” as new tarty nuns!) and would flay as “fascist” all those who would plead for a more rational society (see Helmut Schelsky, “Die Arbeit tun die Anderen”). 
 
- Thank you, Mr. Steuckers, for having answering these questions. Do you want to add something or to formulate some other remarks?
 
Caucuses like yours and ours should study geopolitics and history in all their aspects and know all about the forces that activate the Muslim world from the Atlantic coasts of Morrocco to the tiniest islands of Indonesia. We must create a world elite of men and women totally immune to the artificial propagandas produced by US based media agencies. Therefore we must meet as often as possible, exchange ideas by means of interviews, but at a more trepident tempo as it has been done till yet: the others are not lazy, so we may certainly not be less active, otherwise the metapolitical battle will be definitively lost for us. 

Interviewed by Leonid Savin

Anarchie et Christianisme de Jacques Ellul

"Anarchie et Christianisme" de Jacques Ellul

Ex: http://cerclenonconforme.hautetfort.com/

anarchie et christianisme.jpgAnarchie et Christianisme, deux gros mots pour certains, deux mots inconciliables pour d’autres. Jacques Ellul ne s’y trompe pas et l’écrit lui-même en introduction:

« La question ici posée est d’autant plus difficile que les certitudes à ce sujet sont établies depuis longtemps, des deux côtés, et jamais soumises à la moindre interrogation. Il va de soi que les anarchistes sont hostiles à toutes religions (et le christianisme est de toute évidence classé dans la catégorie), il va non moins de soi que les pieux chrétiens ont horreur de l’anarchie, source de désordre et négation des autorités établies. » (p.7)

Jacques Ellul aborde ici deux sujets qui lui tiennent à cœur. L’auteur est surement un des plus brillants intellectuels d’après-guerre. Spécialiste de Marx il prend pourtant parti pour la mouvance anarchiste. Protestant, il brosse une vision d’un christianisme qui se rapproche du christianisme des origines, ce « bolchevisme de l’Antiquité » qu’a tant fustigé la Nouvelle Droite. Il demeure aussi un spécialiste du droit romain et un critique de la pensée bourgeoise et de la technique. Il est l’auteur, à la suite de Léon Bloy, d’Exégèse des nouveaux lieux communs (1966).

Anarchie et Christianisme est un livre assez court, 160 pages environ dans l’édition dont je dispose. Encore une fois, il est assez appréciable de pouvoir lire des livres synthétiques, sans que cela dénature la pensée ou le propos de l’auteur. Deux grandes parties structurent cet ouvrage. Tout d’abord le Chapitre Ier : L’anarchie du point de vue d’un chrétien puis le Chapitre II : La Bible, source d’anarchie.

L’auteur commence par poser les bases de son anarchisme : « Si j’écarte l’anarchisme violent, reste l’anarchisme pacifiste, antinationaliste, anticapitaliste, moral, antidémocratique (c'est-à-dire hostile à la démocratie falsifiée des Etats bourgeois), agissant par des moyens de persuasion, par la création de petits groupes et de réseaux, dénonçant les mensonges, les oppressions, avec pour objectif le renversement réel des autorités quelles qu’elles soient, la prise de parole par l’homme de la base, et l’auto-organisation. Tout cela est très proche de Bakounine. » (p.24)

Cette partie est d’ailleurs remarquablement intéressante car Jacques Ellul plaide pour des actions de rupture avec la société. L’auteur donne un certain nombre de domaines : refus de l’enseignement obligatoire, du service militaire, des vaccinations, de la police, retour à la terre, … et donne l’exemple d’un ami à lui, persécuté par l’administration pour avoir refusé de vacciner son bétail… Lorsque nous voyons le chemin parcouru depuis, avec les normes toujours plus drastiques de l’UE, soutenu par les lobbies pharmaceutiques, chimiques, etc…, on ne peut que saluer la clairvoyance de ces quelques lignes. D’ailleurs, la profondeur de sa pensée s’exprime en ces quelques mots : « Bien attendu, ce ne sont que des petites actions, mais si on en mène beaucoup, si on est vigilant, on peut faire reculer l’omniprésence de l’Etat. Compte tenu que la « décentralisation » menée à grand bruit par Defferre a rendu la défense de la liberté beaucoup plus difficile. Car l’ennemi ce n’est pas l’Etat central aujourd’hui, mais l’omnipotence et l’omniprésence de l’administration. » (p.28). Décédé en 1994, Jacques Ellul n’aura pas eu le temps de mesurer les effets dévastateurs du traité de Maastricht soutenu par la gauche (y compris Mélenchon). Lui le pourfendeur de l’administration et des techniciens… traité qui rajoute des contraintes à celles dénoncées par Ellul dans l’action des mouvements dissidents. Par ailleurs, comme le rappelle l’auteur « qui paie, commande ! » (p.29). Une phrase qui devrait restée gravée dans les esprits, car elle est non seulement au cœur du rapport de domination capitaliste, mais également plus largement dans la plupart des rapports de domination entre les hommes.

Ces quelques pages sur l’anarchisme sont très vivifiantes pour accroître certaines réflexions quant aux façons d’agir. Jacques Ellul aura écrit avant l’avènement d’internet, qui constitue aujourd’hui un formidable moyen de contournement de l’Etat et de diffusion des idées comme le sont les radios internet (Méridien Zéro) ou les différents blogs (Novopress, Zentropa, …). La technologie peut avoir du bon…

La deuxième partie, La Bible, source d’anarchie défend la thèse selon laquelle le message du Christ, puissamment révolutionnaire, s’oppose aux différentes formes de domination de l’homme par l’homme selon le sens composé à partir du grec an-arkhé. Cette partie se présente donc comme une forme d’exégèse et s’attarde aussi sur la Bible hébraïque, problématique de ce point de vue, en raison de l’omniprésence des figures royales. Jacques Ellul fait aussi œuvre d’historien, en replaçant le message christique dans son contexte et particulièrement dans celui de l’affrontement avec le pouvoir romain et le pouvoir hérodien, dépendant des Romains. Un élément est particulièrement intéressant dans cette partie du livre, la réflexion sur le Diable, bâti sur le terme grec diabolos, qui signifie « le diviseur ». Pour Ellul, « l’Etat et la politique sont facteurs de division entre les hommes ». Cette réflexion pourrait faire écho à cet extrait de l’Epitre aux Galates de Paul de Tarse : « Il n’y a plus ni Juif, ni Grec ; il n’y a plus ni esclave, ni homme libre ; il n’y a plus l’homme et la femme ; car tous, vous n’êtes qu’un en Jésus-Christ. » Un chrétien doit donner sa priorité à la Foi et tenter de rompre les barrières qui divisent l’humanité. La sous-partie Apocalypse est d’ailleurs très claire sur ces différents points d’après l’auteur : « […] il y’a une opposition radicale entre la Majesté de Dieu et toutes les puissances et pouvoirs de la terre (d’où l’erreur considérable de ceux qui disent qu’il y’a continuité entre le pouvoir divin et les pouvoirs terrestres, ou encore, comme sous la monarchie, qu’à un Dieu unique, tout-puissant, régnant dans le ciel, doit correspondre sur Terre un Roi unique, également tout-puissant ; l’Apocalypse dit exactement le contraire !) »

Nous ne doutons pas que cette seconde partie, dont nous vous laissons découvrir l’intégralité de la réflexion, pour éviter les raccourcis, suscitera des débats autant au sein des Chrétiens, qu’au sein de tous ceux qui sont attachés à leur terre, à leur patrie.

Ce qui me frappe dans la lecture de ce petit livre, c’est qu’on y trouve une pensée qui s’oppose en bien des points à ce qui fut celle de la Nouvelle Droite et en particulier de celle de Dominique Venner qui notait dans le Choc de l’histoire ou encore dernièrement dans son testament politique que l’Europe n’avait pas de religion identitaire (à l’inverse, par exemple, de l’Inde). La ND proclame une pensée très marquée par le paganisme et l’importance de la hiérarchie (aristocraties), là où Ellul en chrétien sincère s’y oppose. Pourtant, je dois bien admettre que la pensée d’Ellul est fortement « séduisante » car elle présente un christianisme qui s’oppose dans ses bases au monde dans lequel nous vivons et qui offre l’espérance.

Que l’on s’intéresse à la pensée anarchiste, au christianisme ou qu’on cherche quelques « cartouches intellectuelles », la lecture d’Anarchie et Christianisme s’impose. C’est aussi un moyen d’entrer en contact avec la pensée de Jacques Ellul avec ce qu’elle a de plus profonde : sa foi chrétienne.

Jean

Note du C.N.C.: Toute reproduction éventuelle de ce contenu doit mentionner la source.

00:05 Publié dans Livre, Philosophie | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : anarchie, christianisme, jacques ellul, philosophie, livre | |  del.icio.us | | Digg! Digg |  Facebook

Sezession Nr. 54

Sezession 54

Artikel-Nr.: Juni 2013

Sezession, Heft 54

60 Seiten

11,00 Euro - zzgl Versand

Bestellung: http://www.antaios.de/

Editorial

Bild und Text
Französischer Frühling
Dominique Venner

Thema
»Man muß das Leben einsetzen«
Gespräch mit Dominique Venner

Begründung für einen Freitod
Dominique Venners Erklärungen

Autorenportrait Jean Raspail
Joachim Volkmann

Reaktion – ein Grundriß
Karlheinz Weißmann

Reaktion als geistiges Prinzip
Harald Seubert

Krankheit und Gesundheit
Martin Lichtmesz

Das römische Prinzip und
der deutsche Sonderweg
Siegfried Gerlich

Kein deutscher König
Erik Lehnert

Toskana-Fraktion von rechts – das Beispiel Chestertons
Johannes Ludwig

Die Reaktion auf 1789
Felix Dirsch

»Die Heilige Messe ist nicht verhandelbar«
Gespräch mit Pater Michael Weigl

Kleines Lexikon der Reaktion
Karlheinz Weißmann

Bücher
Die Herrschaft der Dinge
Ellen Kositza

Rezensionen

Vermischtes
Burschenschaftliche Blätter, Tumult, 10. Todestag Armin Mohler

Bildinnenteil
Ein Museum der Reaktion.