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.

vendredi, 13 janvier 2012

Slavoj Zizek: De nar die de koning de waarheid zegt

Slavoj Zizek: De nar die de koning de waarheid zegt. Gesprek met de Sloveense filosoof en volksmenner

Ex: http://solidarisme.be

Van een verwaaide extremist die niet kan zwijgen over Hegel, Marx en Lacan is de Sloveense filosoof Slavoj Zizek uitgegroeid tot het boegbeeld van ieder die jong is en iets anders wil. De Occupiers dragen hem op handen, maar of hij blij is met al die eer, is een andere vraag.

MARNIX VERPLANCKE

slavojzizek.jpg'Toen ik in Wall Street het parkje naderde waar de Occupy-activisten zich verschanst hebben, kreeg ik dezelfde indruk als overal elders: hoe dichter je komt, hoe groter de teleurstelling wordt. Laten we eerlijk zijn, die mensen weten niet wat ze willen. Ze zouden een voorbeeld moeten nemen aan die Poolse overlevende van Auschwitz die ieder jaar naar het kamp trok en daar gewoon stond, in een stil protest. Maar nee, ze willen de wereld iets meedelen en dat is alleen maar bullshit zoals: 'Het geld moet de mensen dienen.' Daar zou zelfs Hitler het mee eens zijn geweest, want als het geld de mensen niet dient, dient het de Joodse bankiers. Ik hou anders wel van de term Occupy. Normaal verwijst die naar de machthebbers, die buitenlandse gebieden bezetten of kolonies stichten. Hier wordt dat omgedraaid. Dat is leuk, maar Occupy heeft geen programma en dat zal de dood zijn van die beweging."

De Sloveense filosoof Slavoj Zizek staat erom bekend zijn mening niet onder stoelen of banken te steken en daarbij steevast tegen de haren van zijn geestesverwanten in te strijken. Hij is de communist die in de jaren tachtig door het Joegoslavische communistische regime een beroepsverbod van vijf jaar opgelegd kreeg, de psychoanalyticus die met zijn constante geëmmer over Hegel en vooral Marx zijn collega's de gordijnen in jaagt en de volksmenner die op Wall Street een stel jongeren steunt en aanmoedigt en hen daarna lelijk te kakken zet. En misschien wel terecht, want wie op YouTube de beelden ziet van een orerende Zizek wiens woorden zin voor zin door de Occupiers nagescandeerd worden, kan bijna niet anders dan denken aan die scène uit Life of Brian waarin Brian zijn ongewenste volgelingen probeert weg te sturen met de boodschap dat ze voor zichzelf moeten denken en zij dit gewoon gedachteloos herhalen.

Beweren dat Zizek de John Cleese van de hedendaagse filosofie is, gaat misschien wat ver, maar grappig is hij ongetwijfeld. Hij is de nar die al schertsend de koning de waarheid zegt en zich zo verzekert van een miljoenenpubliek. Vorige week kreeg hij er een paar duizend van bij elkaar in de Brusselse Bozar, waar hij een lezing gaf over ons Europese erfgoed en het gesprek dat we nadien hadden kwam automatisch uit bij het lot van dit oude Avondland. "Wanneer je een Chinees alle kwaad van de wereld toewenst, zeg je: 'Dat je in interessante tijden moge leven.' Wel, vandaag leven we in interessante tijden. We kunnen kritiek hebben op wat er in West- Europa na de Tweede Wereldoorlog is verwezenlijkt, maar je moet de duivel uiteindelijk ook geven wat hem toekomt. Was er ooit een moment in de geschiedenis van de mensheid waarop zo veel mensen een vrij, welgesteld en veilig leven konden leiden? Het verontrustende is echter dat dit op zijn einde loopt. Neem nu het antifascistische pact dat de Europese democratische partijen vanzelfsprekend vonden, dat komt vandaag op de helling te staan. Je had vroeger ook extreemrechtse partijen, maar daar praatte je niet mee. In Oostenrijk en Nederland geldt die regel opeens niet meer en sluiten ze overeenkomsten met extreem rechts. En onze kijk op de geschiedenis wordt er ook door aangetast. Hitler is nog steeds des duivels, maar de vroege Franco of Mussolini, ho maar! Het enige wat zij deden was zich terecht verzetten tegen het communisme. Wij staan dus op het punt iets heel belangrijks overboord te gooien. En hier ga ik akkoord met Peter Sloterdijk wanneer hij zegt dat je een onderscheid moet maken tussen de sociaaldemocratie en sociaaldemocratische partijen. Na de oorlog werd de sociaaldemocratie iets vanzelfsprekends, ook voor christendemocratische en liberale partijen. Het deed er niet toe wie er aan de macht was, de sociaaldemocratie werd niet ter discussie gesteld. Ik vrees dat dit voorgoed voorbij is."

Is dit geen wereldwijd fenomeen? Uit de VS komt er ook al geen goed nieuws.

"Hoe raar het ook moge klinken, de meest linkse president die ze daar ooit hadden, was Richard Nixon. Na hem zijn onderwijs, cultuur, ziekenzorg en andere sociale programma's er alleen maar op achteruit gegaan. Zoals we in Griekenland en Italië op dit moment al kunnen zien, en misschien ook wel in Nederland, wacht Europa een pact tussen technocraten en antimigrantenrechts.

Weet je wat Lacan zei over jaloerse mannen? Dat hun jaloezie pathologisch is, ook al bedriegt hun vrouw hen aan alle kanten. Wat van belang is, is niet of de man gelijk heeft, maar waarom hij zo pathologisch gefixeerd is op dat overspel. Hetzelfde zie je vandaag met de angst voor moslims. Zelfs al zijn er inderdaad moslims die terroristische aanslagen voorbereiden, dat is het probleem niet. Dat ligt in de onmogelijkheid voor extreem rechts om een Europa op te bouwen dat zijn identiteit niet ophangt aan de oppositie tegen de islam. Vandaar mijn oproep om deze politiek van de angst achter ons te laten. Angst is vandaag de grote politieke hefboom geworden, ook voor links trouwens, die mensen bang maakt voor hervormingen. Niemand gelooft blijkbaar nog in een positieve visie op wat de toekomst zou kunnen zijn. Ik vind dat jammer."

Is dat geen teken dat onze beschaving in een crisis verkeert?

"Het enige wat politici vandaag beloven, is dat de boel zal blijven draaien. De fundamentele crisis van vandaag is dus niet economisch of politiek, maar wel spiritueel, en ik ben er mij van bewust dat dit een rare uitspraak is uit de mond van een marxist. Niet dat ik me tot het katholicisme heb bekeerd en de paus gelijk geef wanneer hij zegt dat we met een morele crisis te maken hebben geleid door hebzuchtige bankiers. Dat is gewoon dom, want wat zou een bankier anders moeten zijn dan hebzuchtig, dat is toch zijn job? Het probleem ligt bij ons systeem dat steunt op dit type bankiers. De paus bezondigt zich hier aan protofascistisch denken: het probleem ligt niet bij het systeem, maar bij die vuige bankiers, en als het een beetje meezit zijn het ook nog eens Joodse bankiers. Kijk naar de VS, waar alle schuld op de schouders van Bernie Madoff werd geschoven. Daar hebben we een corrupte Jood! Maar over de ondergang van Lehman Brothers werd gezwegen, terwijl Madoff in vergelijking maar een schooljongetje was. We moeten dus niet zitten zaniken dat het kapitalisme egoïstisch is, maar juist nog veel egoïstischer zijn. We moeten aan onszelf denken en aan onze toekomst."

De openlijke speculatie met voedsel lijkt wel het lelijkste gezicht van het kapitalisme.

"Zelfs Bill Clinton sprak zich uit tegen het economische neokolonialisme van vandaag, waarbij de vruchtbare gronden in ontwikkelingslanden verpacht worden aan firma's uit het Westen die er landbouwproducten verbouwen louter voor de export. Pas op, ik zeg niet dat we terug moeten naar een oubollige socialistische landbouwpolitiek. Dat was de grootste ramp die het socialisme ooit veroorzaakte. Zuidwestelijk Rusland en Oekraïne bezaten de vruchtbaarste landbouwgrond van heel de wereld. Oekraïne zou op zijn eentje heel Europa kunnen voeden. En toch diende de Sovjet-Unie vanaf de jaren zestig constant voedsel in te voeren. Daar moeten we dus zeker niet naar terug."

En wat met het argument dat het allemaal de schuld is van China, het land dat oneerlijk concurreert door de waarde van zijn munt kunstmatig laag te houden?

"De crisis van 2008 veroorzaakte in China op slag en stoot 13.000.000 werklozen, maar een paar maanden later waren die alweer aan de slag. Het autoritaire regime kon de banken verplichten geld te lenen met het doel de binnenlandse vraag aan te wakkeren en weg was de crisis. Voor mij is dit de donkere boodschap van de crisis: dat de democratie het op zo'n moment moet afleggen tegen om het even welk autoritair regime. We dachten altijd dat het kapitalisme enkel kon floreren onder een democratisch regime, maar dat is vandaag niet meer zo. De dictaturen fietsen ons lachend voorbij. Kijk naar het boegbeeld van de politiek autoritaire maar economisch ultraliberale praktijk, Singapore. In 2009, toen de crisis het zwaarst toesloeg, tekende dat land een economische groei van 15 procent op, een record. Ik vind dat verontrustend."

Is Chinese democratie denkbaar?

"China heeft geen nood aan meer politieke partijen, maar wel aan een vrije samenleving, met ecologische drukkingsgroepen en onafhankelijke vakbonden. In het China van vandaag kun je gerust de vloer aanvegen met Marx. Niemand geeft nog om die ouwe troep. Maar wanneer je een staking probeert op te zetten, ben je - poef - zo maar opeens verdwenen. Iedere samenleving heeft zijn heilig boek en in China is dat De geschiedenis van de Communistische Partij. In de laatste editie bleek een bepaalde paragraaf opeens weg. Het gekke is dat die paragraaf heel lovend was voor de Partij. Hij ging over de jaren dertig, net voor de Japanse invasie, toen de streek rond Shanghai een economische boom beleefde en de Communistische Partij arbeiders verenigde in vakbonden. Stel dat dit mensen op ideeën brengt, dacht men wellicht, en dus ging die paragraaf eruit. Kijk, ik ben geen catastrofist die het einde van de wereld verkondigt. Ik doe niet meer dan de crisis serieus nemen en beweren dat het tijd wordt om na te denken over een alternatief voor het kapitalisme."

En wat is dat alternatief?

"Zeker niet het oude communisme, want dat is zo dood als een pier, en de sociaaldemocratische welvaartsstaat wellicht ook. In de twintigste eeuw wisten we wat we moesten doen, maar we wisten niet hoe. Vandaag zitten we met het tegenovergestelde probleem: we zien dat we iets moeten doen, maar we weten niet wat. Iemand vroeg me ooit waarom ik alleen kritiek heb en geen oplossingen aandraag. 'Waarom gun je ons geen blik op het licht aan het einde van de tunnel?', vroeg hij. Dus gaf ik hem het perfecte Oost-Europese antwoord: 'Dat doe ik liever niet aangezien het licht aan het einde van de tunnel afkomstig is van een andere trein die aan topsnelheid op ons afkomt.' Ik vind al die oplossingen zo goedkoop dramatisch: je beschrijft een probleem en op het einde bied je de oplossing. Zo makkelijk is het, maar wat als er geen hoop is? Volgens mij is de eerste stap naar een oplossing het besef dat er geen makkelijke hoop is. In dit leven kun je alleen maar pessimistisch zijn, vind ik. Dat is de enige manier om nog af en toe ook gelukkig te zijn, want optimisten worden constant teleurgesteld".

Maar toch blijft u streven naar een nieuw soort communisme?

"Waarom doe je dat Slavoj, vragen mijn vrienden, want je weet toch dat iedereen bij het horen van de term communisme meteen aan de stalinistische goelag denkt? Precies, antwoord ik dan, ik gebruik communisme omdat alle andere termen bezwaard geraakt zijn. Neem socialisme, iedereen is tegenwoordig toch socialist? Zelfs Hitler was er een. Socialisme staat immers voor een soort gemeenschappelijke solidariteit, waardoor het niet meer is dan gegeneraliseerd kapitalisme. Wie heeft in Amerika in 2008 de banken gered? Inderdaad, links, want rechts wou ze failliet laten gaan. Zonder socialisme hadden we vandaag misschien zelfs geen kapitalisme meer. Voor mij is communisme eerder de naam van een probleem, niet van de oplossing. Met het nieuwe communisme bedoel ik een manier om zinvol om te springen met al onze gemeenschappelijke goederen."

Bron: De Morgen, 7 december 2011, pp. 33-35

00:07 Publié dans Philosophie | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : slovénie, slavoj zizek, philosophie | |  del.icio.us | | Digg! Digg |  Facebook

A Guerra como Experiência Interior

 A Guerra como Experiência Interior

Análise de uma Falsa Polêmica

 
por Laurent Schang
 
 
524467129.2.jpg"Para o soldado - escreve Philippe Masson em L'Homme en Guerre 1901-2001 - para o verdadeiro combatente, a guerra se identifica com estranhas associações, uma mescla de fascinação e horror, humor e tristeza, ternura e crueldade. No combate, o homem pode manifestar covardia ou uma loucura sanguinária. Encontra-se sujeito entre o instinto pela vida e o instinto mortal, pulsões que podem lhe conduzir à morte mais abjeta ou ao espírito de sacrifício.
 
Há alguns meses apareção a última edição francesa de A Guerra como Experiência Interior, de Ernst Jünger, com prefácio do filósofo André Glucksmann, na editora de Christian Bourgois, a qual de uns anos para cá se especializou na tradução da obra jüngeriana. Um texto verdadeiramente importante, que vem completar oportunamente os escritos bélicos já aparecidos do escritor alemão, Tempestades de Aço, O Bosque 125 e Tenente Sturm, obras de juventude que os especialistas de seu legado poliédrico consideram ao mesmo tempo os mais vindicativos, passos iniciais de suas ulteriores posições políticas e, ao mesmo tempo, anunciadoras do Jünger metafísico, explorador do Ser, confidente da intimidade cósmica.
 
Voluntário desde o primeiro dia em que se desencadearam as hostilidades em 1914, ferido catorze vezes, titular da Cruz de Ferro de Primeira Classe, Cavaleiro da Ordem dos Hohenzollern, e da Ordem "Pour le Mérite", distinção suprema e nada habitual, Ernst Jünger publica a partir de 1920, por conta própria e, como ele se jactará em mais de uma ocasião, "sem intenção literária alguma", Tempestades de Aço que o lançam subitamente, frente às memórias lacrimosas dos Barbusse, Remarque, von Unruh ou Dorgelès, como um náufrago inclassificável, um colecionador tanto de revelações ontológicas como de feridas psíquicas e morais. André Gide e Georges Bataille acreditaram no gênio.
 
Uma Teoria do Guerreiro Emancipado
 
Considerando não ter alcançado completamente seu objetivo, em 1922 publicou Der Kampf als inneres Erlebnis, A Guerra como Experiência Interior, que dedicou a seu irmão Friedrich Georg, também destacado combatente e escritor: "A meu querido irmão Fritz em memória de nosso reencontro no campo de batalha de Langemarck". Divide seu manuscrito em treze pequenos capítulos, marcados pelas memórias de sua guerra, aos quais entitula sem rodeios: Sangue, Honra, Bravura, Lansquenetes, Fogo, ou inclusive Velada de Armas. Nem uma só evasiva na pluma de Jünger, nem um só arrependimento: "Há tempo suficiente. Para toda uma camada da população e acima de tudo da juventude, a guerra surge como uma necessidade interior, como uma busca da autenticidade, da verdade, da conquista de si mesmo (...) uma luta contra as taras da burguesia, o materialismo, a banalidade, a hipocrisia, a tirania". Estas línhas de W. Deist, extraídas de seu ensaio Le moral des troupes allemandes sur le front occidental à la fin de 1916", nos revelam o essencial de Jünger recém concluída a Grande Guerra.
 
A leitura do prefácio de André Glucksmann deixa transluzir seu ceticismo em relação à legitimidade do romance. "O manifesto, novamente reeditado, é um texto louco, porém em absoluto a obra de um louco. Uma história cheia de ruído, de furor e de sangue, a nossa". Aferrando-se aos triviais clássicos do gênero, o filósofo relega o pensamento de Jünger a uma simples prefiguração do nacional-socialismo, construindo uma artificiosa comparação entre Der Kampf... e Mein Kampf. E se anota acertadamente que o lansquenete dessa obra o Trabalhador de 1932, não deixa de restringir a obra de Jünger à exaltação da radicalidade, do niilismo revolucionário (citando confusamente a Malraux, Breton e Lênin), a união do proletariado e da raça sem distinguir a distância jüngeriana da sede de sangue e do ódio que nutrirão o fascismo, o nacional-socialismo, e o bolchevismo. Ao pretender moralizar uma obra essencialmente situada mais além de toda moral, Glucksmann acaba por desnaturalizar a Jünger e passar longe em relação a sua mensagem profunda.
 
O Inimio, Espelho da Própria Miséria
 
 
Lá onde Malraux percebe o "fundamental", Jünger adverte "o elemental". O adversário, o inimigo, não é o combatente que se esconde na trincheira do fronte, senão o próprio Homem, sem bandeira, o Homem sozinho frente a seus instintos, ao irracional, despojado de todo intelecto, de toda referência religiosa. Jünger lavra ata dessa cruel realidade e a torna sua, se conforma e retrata em suas páginas aqueles valores novos que emergem, terríveis e salvíficos, na linha de um espírito muito próximo a Teilhard de Chardin quando escrevia: "A experiência inolvidável do fronte, a meu ver, é a de uma imensa liberdade". Homo metaphysicus, Jünger canta a tragédia do fronte de batalha e coloca poesia ao império da bestialidade onde séculos de civilização vacilante sucumbem diante do peso dos assaltos em onda e do fracasso dos bombardeios. "E as estrelas que nos rodeiam se escurecem em sua fogueira, as estátuas dos falsos deuses acabam em pedaços de argila, e de novo todas as formas prefiguradas se fundem em mil fornos incandescentes, para ser refundidas em forma de valores novos". E neste universo de furor planificado, o mais débil deve "perecer", sob o aplauso de um Jünger darwinista convicto que contempla como renasce o homem em sua condição primigênia de guerreiro errante. "Assim será, e para sempre". Na luta paroxística que travam os povos sob o mandato hipnotizador das leis eternas, o jovem tenente dos Stoßtruppen adverte o aparecimento de uma nova humanidade, consciente da medida de sua própria força, terrível: "uma raça nova, a energia encarnada, carregada ao máximo de força".
 
Jünger lega ao leitor algumas das mais belas páginas sobre esses homens que, como ele, sabem-se em liberdade condicional, e não deixam de se sentir vivos cada vez que amanhece: "Tudo isto imprimia ao combatente das trincheiras a marca do bestial, a incerteza, uma fatalidade elemental, uma circunstância onde pesava, como nos tempos primitivos, uma permanente ameaça (...) Em cada funil de no man's land, um grupo de gaiatos acabava sendo uma brusca carnificina, uma explosiva orgia de fogo e sangue (...) Saúde em tudo isso? Contava para todos aqueles que esperavam uma longa velhice. (...) Cada dia que respiro é um dom, divino, não merecido, do qual é necessário gozar de forma embriagadora, como se tratasse de um vinho excelente". Assim, submerso no torvelinho de uma guerra sem precedentes, total, de massas, no qual o inimigo não é tanto na medida em que defende uma pátria adversária, senão como obstáculo à realização própria - espelho da própria miséria, da própria grandeza - o jovem Jünger, de fato, questiona a herança da Aufklärung (Iluminismo), seu sentido da história, seu mito do progresso, para pressentir uma pós-guerra na qual uns poucos se baterão por um ideal, soldados nietzscheanos filhos dos hoplitas de Salamina, das legiões de Roma e das mesnadas medievais aos quais se acrescentam a ética da moderna cavalaria, "o martelo que forja os grandes impérios, o escudo sem o qual nenhuma civilização sobrevive".
 
Um sentido do Homem mais elevado que o que confere a nação
 
Jünger conhece o horror ao quotidiano, aborda sem descanso e o assenta sem concessão alguma sobre o papel - "Se reconhece entre outros o odor do homem em decomposição, pesado, enjoativo, toscamente tenaz como cola (...) ao ponto de que os mais comilões perdem o apetite" - porém, diferente dos destacamentos que conformarão as vanguardas fascistas dos anos vinte e trinta, não hasteia nem ódio nem nacionalismo exacerbado, e sonha, ao contrário, com pontes entre as nações estendidas por homens feitos com o mesmo molde de quatro anos de fogo e sangue, e que respondem às mesmas querências viris: "O país não é uma consigna: trata-se de uma pequena e modesta palavra, o punhado de terra onde a alma se enraiza. O Estado, a nação, são conceitos desbotados, porém se sabe o que querem dizer. O país é um sentimento que as plantas são capazes de sentir". Longe de toda xenofobia, vomitando a propaganda que atiça os ódios fáticos, o "gladiador" Jünger, amante da França e para o qual é tão ruim o estouro de uma granada como ser insultado de boche, se proclama próximo aos pacifistas, "soldados da idéia" que ele estima por sua grandeza de espírito, sua coragem para sofrer mais além dos campos de batalha, e seu conceito de Homem mais elevado do que aquele que se nutre da nação. Sonha, longe da calmaria, a nova união dos lansquenetes e dos pacifistas, de D'Annunzio e Roman Rolland. Efeito das bombas ou profetismo iluminado, A Guerra como Experiência Interior toma aqui uma dimensão e uma ressonância infinitamente superiores às dos outros testemunhos de pós-guerra, que prefigura em forma de filigrana o Jünger do seguinte conflito mundial, o da Paz.
 
O que torna boa a existência
 
"A guerra me mudou profundamente, como fez, estou convicto, com toda minha geração"; mais ainda, "seu espírito está entre nós, servos de sua mecânica, e da qual jamais poderemos nos desembaraçar". Toda a obra de Jünger está impregnada da seleção arbitrária do fogo que cortou aos povos europeus e deixou sequelas irreparáveis na geração das trincheiras. Não se pode compreender O Trabalhador, Heliópolis, Tratado do Rebelde, sem penetrar na formidável (no sentido original do termo) limpeza cultural, intelectual e filosófica que foi a "guerra de 14": talho radical em relação às esperanças com as quais o século XX havia nascido.
 
Aquilo que outorga força a Jünger, sua peculiaridade estranha em meio ao caos consiste em não se resignar e persistir em pensar sobre o homem livre, por cima da fatalidade - "que nessa guerra só experimenta a negação, o sofrimento e não a afirmação, o movimento superior, a aura vivida como escravidão. Ele a terá vivido desde fora e não desde o interior". Enquanto que André Glucksmann se perde em um humanismo beato e dilui seu pensamento em um moralismo fora de lugar, Jünger nos ensina o que faz boa a existência, sua qualidade de ilusória.
 
"Parece evidente - escreve o acadêmico Michel Déon - que Jünger não esteve nunca fascinado pela guerra, senão todo o contrário, pela paz (...) Sob o nome de Jünger, não observo outra divisa que esta: "Sem ódio e sem censura" (...) Se tratará em vão de encontrar uma apologia da guerra, a sombra de uma fanfarronada, o menor lugar comum sobre a resposta de uns povos expostos ao fogo e - mais ainda - a busca de responsabilidades nos três conflitos mais nomeados que, desde 1870 a 1945, colocaram a França contra a Alemanha".

Hongrie : le soleil se lèverait-il à l’Est ?

Hongrie : le soleil se lèverait-il à l’Est ?

Par Claude Bourrinet

Ex: Vox NR cliquez ici

 

StefanIHongarije.jpgAttila serait-il de retour au pays des Huns et des Onoghours (Hungari en latin) ? Le royaume du roi Istvàn, converti au christianisme sous le nom, vénéré par les Magyars, de Saint-Etienne, va-t-il semer la pagaïe dans une Europe devenue un véritable capharnaüm, et qui, pour le coup, ne sait plus à quel saint se vouer, sinon au marché international ?

A entendre tel ou tel, par exemple notre Juppé, qui, revenu des froids canadiens à la suite d’une affaire très chaude bien connue de Chirac, se montre depuis quelque temps un serviteur zélé de l’oligarchie transnationale, et s’esclaffe : « Il y a un problème en Hongrie », ou bien, de façon beaucoup moins cocasse, cette déclaration d’un diplomate américain, dont on se demande bien (naïvement) de quoi il se mêle : « L’exclusion de la Hongrie de l’Union européenne n’est plus impensable », propos qui révèlent en passant qui est le vrai maître, à constater l’hystérie de médias qui se sont fait une spécialité de déformer la réalité, de manipuler l’opinion et d’escorter les manœuvres sournoises des services d’espionnage et de déstabilisation de nations qui ont le tort d’aspirer à la maîtrise de leur destin, on se dit qu’un tremblement géopolitique est imminent, et qu’il n’est pas exclu, comme au Kossovo, en Libye etc. qu’ il soit suivi du feu du ciel. Ainsi vont les choses dans notre douce démocratie occidentale, bercée par le ronronnement rassurant de droits de l’homme souples à souhait.

La promulgation, le premier janvier 2012, de la nouvelle Constitution hongroise, a semé la panique parmi les bureaucrates de Bruxelles. Ne clame-t-elle pas : « Nous sommes fiers de nos ancêtres qui se sont battus pour la survie, la liberté et la souveraineté de notre nation » ? Voilà des accents mâles qui, en effet, risquent de faire pâlir les ouvriers de notre nouvelle Tour de Babel. On notera au passage que le préambule de cette constitution se réclame de l’Europe, mais probablement n’est-ce pas la même que celle qui, actuellement, sert d’antichambre à la dictature mondiale qu’on voudrait bien nous imposer.

La Constitution hongroise nouvelle formule change radicalement la manière de concevoir et l’Histoire, et la politique. En répudiant l’appellation « République de Hongrie » au profit de « Hongrie » tout court, le FIDESZ (Union civique hongroise) de Viktor Orban veut non seulement rendre la nation au peuple, en considérant comme secondaire la question du régime adopté, mais inscrit aussi son destin dans un passé mythifié, au sens sorélien, en se référant notamment à des emblèmes de l’Histoire hongroise, comme le roi Etienne et la doctrine de la sainte Couronne. Le christianisme est revendiqué comme le cœur de la patrie, ce que maints Tartuffes ont condamné, occultant non seulement ce que clame la Constitution américaine, qui demande à Dieu de bénir l’empire de l’Oncle Sam, mais aussi ce que postule l’Etat sioniste, à savoir qu’il est un Etat juif. Apparemment, il y aurait des « vérités » approuvées au-delà, et des « mensonges » réprouvées en-deçà.

 
Les politiques intérieure et extérieure de l’Union européenne sont depuis une décennie devenues un protocole judiciaire, criminalisant les récalcitrants, machine à broyer incarnée par le TPI. Nul doute que l’on trouvera, à terme, un prétexte pour traîner les responsables hongrois devant une justice aux ordres. Déjà, comme si ces points de détail constituaient l’alpha et l’oméga d’une existence digne d’être vécue, on met en exergue la volonté de ces voyous de s’en prendre au mariage homoparental et au droit à l’avortement, et, le comble, de « restaurer un certain ordre moral », prétention qui confine sans doute pour nos censeurs post-soixante-huitards, au crime suprême. Car l’idéologie de la grosse classe petite-bourgeoise internationale est devenue dogme, donc inquisitoriale. Au-delà, nul salut !

Une mesure qui gêne est sans doute aussi celle qui rejette toute prescription des crimes contre l’humanité commis par le nazisme, mais aussi par les anciens communistes. Il est nécessaire de ramener à la mémoire un passé assez proche, et pas seulement celui qui rappelle les événements d’octobre 56, révolte nationale contre l’empire soviétique qui, soit dit en passant, ne put être écrasée qu’avec l’assentiment des Occidentaux. La mesure vise en fait une classe politique honnie, méprisée, défaite totalement aux dernières élections, cette caste-même qui est soutenue pas l’Union européenne, ce ramassis de staliniens reconvertis en doux agneaux libéraux, en champions du mondialisme et de l’économie de marché. Nous connaissons cette espèce, nous aussi, en France, parmi une gauche bienpensante et bien conformée aux desiderata de l’oligarchie financière. Or il se trouve que ces sociaux-démocrates avaient ruiné le pays, à force d’emprunts inconsidérés. On connaît la musique, et les taux d’intérêt astronomiques, la pression des banques, les combinaisons internationales et les abdications nationales subséquentes. La Grèce et l’Italie, sans compter d’autres pays, sont là pour illustrer une manœuvre qui est trop belle pour n’avoir été calculée savamment. Or, les Hongrois ont dit non, en renationalisant par exemple la banque centrale hongroise !

L’étincelle qui a mis le feu aux poudres fut cette déclaration « off » du 14 juin 2006, intempestive, désastreuse, à vomir, de l’ancien Premier ministre Ferenc Gyunasàny, dont nous reproduisons le texte d’un cynisme qui jette une lueur significative sur ce que sont nos dirigeants (car on ne fera pas l’injure aux nôtres d’être assez mous pour ne pas partager l’amoralisme de gens qui, au demeurant, s’enorgueillissent de donner des leçons aux peuples…). Des émeutes s’en s’ont suivies, et le bouleversement politique, la révolution (car c’en est une) que nous connaissons.

Certains commentateurs remarquent qu’il ne subsiste plus de « gauche » en Hongrie. La politique menée par le « Parti Socialiste hongrois », qui a recyclé les ancien apparatchiks en hommes d’affaires, prouve suffisamment, s’il en était encore besoin, qu’il n’existe, qu’il ne peut plus exister, ni de gauche, et, partant, ni de droite, mais plutôt une caste oligarchique internationale contre des peuples dépossédés de leur identité et bafoués dans leurs intérêts. C’est justement un mouvement, une insurrection légale qui s’est produite en Hongrie, une réappropriation par le peuple hongrois de son corps et de son âme.

Quel sera l’avenir de ce sursaut ? Il semble évident que les USA et leur commis, l’Union européenne, ne resteront pas sans réagir, bien qu’il y ait péril en la demeure, et que le feu puisse se répandre. Car trop de pression risquerait de produire l’effet inverse. Des rétorsions sournoises, malhonnêtes, et des charretées de calomnies, d’injures et de propagande vont sans doute continuer à assaillir ce peuple valeureux. Pour celui-ci, un certain nombre de défis gigantesques sont à relever, dont l’endettement et l’isolement, et probablement la réinsertion identitaire de Hongrois de souche, un tiers de la population totale, dispersés, à la suite du traité inique du Trianon, en 1919,dans les pays voisins, en Slovénie, en Roumanie, en Slovaquie, en Serbie, en Ukraine, en Autriche - sans qu’éclate un conflit toujours latent en Europe centrale. Il est bien dommage que subsiste un contentieux très lourd avec la Russie. D’un point de vue intérieur, il est évident que le parti majoritaire n’a pas intérêt à agresser le pari Jobbik qui, ne cessant de grandir, apparaît comme la partie la plus active du mouvement national. Il est sûr, en tout cas, que tous les regards désabusés, écœurés par la marche des choses en Europe, vont se fixer sur l’expérience hongroise. Son succès retentira comme un gage d’espoir pour les patriotes.

Traduction des propos de M. Ferenc Gyurcsany :

« Nous n'avons pas le choix. Il n'y en a pas parce qu'on a merdé sur toute la ligne. Pas un petit peu, beaucoup. En Europe, il n'y a pas d'autre pays où on aurait commis de telles conneries Il est possible de l'expliquer... De toute évidence, nous n'avons pas arrêté de mentir sur tout et dans les grandes largeurs au cours des derniers 18 à 24 mois. Il est clair que pas un seul de nos propos n'était vrai. Nous avons dépassé les possibilités du pays de sorte que (...) nous ne pouvions imaginer plus tôt que la coalition du Parti Socialiste Hongrois et des libéraux aille jusque là. Et pendant ce temps-là, nous avons réussi à ne rien foutre du tout pendant quatre ans. Pas une rame ! Pas une seule mesure gouvernementale importante ne me vient à l'esprit dont nous pourrions être fiers, outre que nous avons au bout du compte tiré le gouvernement de la merde. Rien d'autre. Que va-t-on dire s'il faut expliquer au peuple ce que nous avons foutu. pendant quatre ans ?! »...

[....]

« Moi, je pense qu'il est possible de mettre tout ça en œuvre. Je pense qu'il y aura des conflits, oui, mes amis. Il y aura aussi des manifs. Il est bien permis de manifester devant le Parlement ; tôt ou tard, les manifestants s'en lasseront, et ils rentreront chez eux. Il n'est possible d'aboutir que si vous avez foi dans l'essentiel, et si on est d'accord sur l'essentiel en question ».

[...]

« Ce que nous pouvions faire au cours du mois écoulé, nous l'avons fait. Et ce que nous avons pu faire en secret les mois précédents pour éviter de voir sortir de nulle part les derniers jours de la campagne des papiers révélant ce que nous avions l'intention de faire, ce que nous nous préparions à faire, nous l'avons fait aussi. Nous avons gardé le secret, et nous savions, comme vous le saviez vous-même, que nous si nous gagnions les élections, il s'agirait ensuite de se relever les manches et de s'y mettre, parce que nous n'avons jamais été confrontés à des problèmes de ce genre...".

La Nouvelle Usine Renault au Maroc, symbole de notre suicide économique !

 

globalisation, économie, délocalisations, Renault, Martoc, Europe, affaires européennes, Afrique, Afrique du Nord, affaires africaines,

La Nouvelle Usine Renault au Maroc, symbole de notre suicide économique !

Par Marc Rousset

 

Chômage des travailleurs européens ou profits des multinationales dans les pays émergents fournissant des produits manufacturés à l’Europe : il va falloir choisir ! Sinon la révolte éclatera d’une façon inéluctable  lorsque le taux de chômage sera tellement insupportable que la folie libre échangiste mondialiste  apparaitra comme un nez au milieu de la figure ! Pour l’instant nous sommes seulement  à mi-chemin de la gigantesque entreprise de désindustrialisation initiée dans les années 1950 aux Etats-Unis pour favoriser les grandes entreprises américaines, et dont le flambeau a été  depuis repris par toutes les sociétés multinationales de la planète ! Pendant ces 30 dernières années, la France a perdu 3 millions d’emplois industriels, l’une des principales raisons de la crise de notre dette souveraine ! Si un protectionnisme douanier ne se met pas en place d’une façon urgente, les choses vont encore aller en s’accélérant ! L’oligarchie mondiale managériale, actionnariale et financière a des intérêts en  totale contradiction et en opposition frontale avec le désir des peuples européens de garder leur « savoir faire » et leur emploi !

 

L’usine géante  Renault de Melloussa au Maroc

 

Alors que la production automobile de Renault recule dans l’hexagone, l’usine géante de Melloussa au Maroc dans la zone franche du port de Tanger, avec une capacité de 340 000 véhicules par an, commence à produire des voitures « low-cost » sous la marque Dacia. Le site a pour vocation d’exporter à 85% vers le Vieux Continent. Cette usine marocaine vient s’ajouter au site roumain de Pitesti qui produit  813 000 voitures par an. Renault et les équipementiers de la région de Tanger pourraient créer 40 000 emplois ! Le salaire net mensuel d’un ouvrier marocain est de 250 euros par mois, contre 446 euros par mois en Roumanie. Le coût salarial horaire d’un ouvrier dans les usines Renault est de  30 euros /heure en France, 8 euros par heure en Turquie, 6 euros par heure en Roumanie et ô surprise 4,5 euros par heure au Maroc, à deux jours de bateau des côtes françaises, Algésiras en Espagne étant seulement à 14km ! C’est la raison pour laquelle le monospace « Lodgy 5 ou 7 places » (10 000 euros) fabriqué à Melloussa sera deux fois moins cher que le Renault Grand Scenic (24 300 euros) assemblé à Douai. Il ne fait donc aucun doute qu’à terme, suite au rapport qualité/ prix et en faisant abstraction de quelques gadgets Marketing et des dénégations du Groupe Renault, les consommateurs  français, s’ils ne sont pas trop bêtes, achèteront des Lodgy fabriquées au Maroc en lieu et place des Grand Scenic fabriquées à Douai ! Bref, une délocalisation élégante supplémentaire avec  les miracles et les mensonges de la Pub et du  Marketing comme paravent !

 

Alors que faire ? Qui incriminer ? Certainement pas Carlos Ghosn et les dirigeants de Renault qui font parfaitement leur travail  avec les règles du jeu actuel, car ils  rendent compte à leurs actionnaires et  doivent affronter une concurrence terrible, la survie du Groupe Renault  étant même en jeu s’ils ne délocalisent pas ! Non, les responsables, ce sont nous les citoyens, nous  les électeurs, qui acceptons cette règle économique du jeu ;les  principaux coupables, ce sont nos hommes politiques incapables, gestionnaires à la petite semaine avec un mandat de 5 ans, subissant les pressions du MEDEF et des médias à la solde des entreprises multinationales. Les dirigeants d’entreprise et les clubs de réflexion qui mentent comme ils respirent, le MEDEF, tout comme le lobby des affaires à Washington et à Bruxelles, voilà ceux qui sont à l’origine du mal et nous injectent délibérément car conforme à leurs intérêts financiers, le virus, le venin destructeur malfaisant du libre échangisme mondialiste dans nos veines ! Le mondialisme  doit laisser sa place d’une façon urgente à un libre échangisme strictement européen ! Les hommes politiques des démocraties occidentales ne sont pas des hommes d’Etat, mais des gagneurs d’élection et ne voient pas plus loin que le bout de leur nez ; ils ne s’intéressent en aucune façon aux intérêts économiques à long terme de la France et de l’Europe ! Ils attendent tout simplement la catastrophe du chômage structurel inacceptable et la révolte des citoyens pour réagir, comme cela a été le cas en Argentine et comme c’est le cas actuellement avec la crise des dettes souveraines.

 

Les idées de la préférence communautaire et du Prix Nobel Maurice Allais triompheront

 

Les  idées  de Maurice Allais triompheront car elles sont justes et correspondent aux tristes réalités que nous vivons ! On ne peut pas arrêter une idée lorsqu’elle est juste ! L’idéologie économique libre échangiste mondialiste s’écroulera totalement devant les réalités du chômage, comme le Mur de Berlin en raison de l’inefficacité du système soviétique, comme l’idéologie droit de l’hommiste devant les réalités néfastes de l’immigration extra-européenne avec à terme les perspectives d’une guerre civile ! Il est clair qu’il faut changer le Système, non pas en attendant la disparition totale de notre industrie, mais dès maintenant en mettant en place tout simplement des droits de douane au niveau européen! Même l’Allemagne ne réussira pas à terme à s’en sortir avec le libre échange mondialiste. Elle résiste encore aujourd’hui car elle n’a pas fait les mêmes bêtises que les autres pays européens, mais à terme elle sera également  laminée par la montée en puissance de l’éducation  et le trop  bas coût de la main d’œuvre dans les pays émergents. Aux Européens de savoir préserver les débouchés de leur marché  domestique suffisamment grand pour assurer un minimum d’économies d’échelle! La « théorie des débouchés » va très vite revenir à l’ordre du jour !

 

La vieille théorie des « avantages comparatifs »de Ricardo n’a plus grand-chose à voir avec la réalité. Pour la première fois dans l’histoire du monde, des Etats (la Chine, l’Inde et le Brésil) vont en effet posséder une population immense ainsi qu’une recherche et une technologie excellentes. L’égalisation par le haut des salaires, selon la théorie  de Ricardo, n’ira nullement de soi du fait de « l’armée de réserve » rien qu’en Chine  de 750  millions de ruraux, soit 58% de l’ensemble de la population, capables de mettre toute l’Europe et les Etats-Unis au chômage.  300 millions d’exclus vivent, selon la Banque asiatique du développement, dans l’Empire du milieu, avec moins d’un euro par jour. La Chine ne se classe qu’au 110e rang mondial du PIB par habitant. Ce ne  sont pas quelques succès épars européens  mis en avant par les médias, suite à des effets de mode ou de luxe, qui doivent nous faire oublier le tsunami du déclin des industries traditionnelles en Europe (quasi disparition des groupes Boussac, DMC et de l’industrie textile dans le Nord de la France, de l’industrie de la chaussure à Romans, de l’industrie navale, des espadrilles basques...). Les pays émergents  produiront inéluctablement de plus en plus, à bas coût,  des biens et des services aussi performants qu’en Europe ou aux Etats-Unis. Les délocalisations deviennent  donc  structurelles et non plus  marginales !

 

L’épouvantail contre le protectionnisme mis en avant par les lobbys du MEDEF et des multinationales comme quoi  25% des Français  travaillent pour l’exportation est un mensonge d’Etat parfaitement mis en avant par Gilles Ardinat d’une façon indiscutable dans le dernier Monde Diplomatique. Les multinationales,  le MEDEF confondent délibérément valeur ajoutée et chiffre d’affaires des produits exportés, ce qu’il fait qu’ils arrivent  au ratio fallacieux de 25%. La Vérité est qu’un salarié français sur 14 seulement vit pour l’exportation en France ! (1)

 

Dans un système de préférence communautaire, l’Europe produirait davantage  de biens industriels et ce que perdraient les consommateurs européens dans un premier temps en achetant plus cher les produits  anciennement « made in China », serait plus que compensé par les valeurs ajoutées industrielles supplémentaires créées en Europe . Ces dernières  augmenteraient le PIB et  le pouvoir d’achat, tout en créant des emplois stables et moins précaires, système que la CEE a  connu et qui fonctionnait très bien.  Alors, au lieu de s’en tenir au diktat idéologique de Bruxelles et au terrorisme intellectuel anglo-saxon du libre échange, remettons en place le système de la préférence communautaire !

 

Les investissements occidentaux  et les délocalisations

 

Il importe  de faire la distinction entre marché domestique européen  intérieur et marché d’exportation. Ce qu’il faut, c’est, grâce à une politique douanière de préférence communautaire fermer l’accès aux pays émergents qui détruisent les emplois européens  pour des produits consommés sur le marché intérieur européen.

 

 Il n’est pas réaliste d’accepter le dogme stupide que délocaliser la production physique d’un bien ne représente qu’une infime partie de sa valeur, même s’il est inéluctable que le poids relatif de l’Occident continue à décliner au profit de l’Asie. Intégristes du tout marché et théoriciens d’un libéralisme de laboratoire se délectent du déclin de la France et des Etats-Nations ; complices ou naïfs, ces inconscients nous emmènent à la guerre économique comme les officiers tsaristes poussaient à la bataille de Tannenberg des moujiks armés de bâtons. Les Européens ne peuvent se contenter d’une économie composée essentiellement de services. La seule façon de s’en sortir  pour tous les pays européens, et plus particulièrement la France, est de réduire d’une façon drastique le nombre des fonctionnaires et les dépenses publiques, diminuer la pression fiscale sur les entreprises et les particuliers, mettre en place une politique industrielle inexistante à l’échelle de l’Europe, développer la recherche et l’innovation, encourager le développement des jeunes pousses, favoriser le développement des entreprises moyennes, et enfin  restaurer la préférence communautaire avec des droits de douane plus élevés ou des quotas afin de compenser les bas salaires des pays émergents !

 

Le problème de fond du déficit commercial de la France n’est pas lié au taux de change de l’euro, mais au coût du travail. Le coût horaire moyen de la main d’œuvre dans l’industrie manufacturière est de l’ordre de vingt dollars en Occident contre 1 dollar en Chine ! Un ouvrier en Chine travaille quatorze heures par jour, sept jours sur sept. 800 millions de paysans chinois dont deux cents millions de ruraux errants forment une réserve de main d’œuvre inépuisable capable de mettre les Etats-Unis et toute l’Europe au chômage, nonobstant la main d’œuvre tout aussi nombreuse d’autres pays émergents !

 

Attirés par les bas salaires, les investissements étrangers en Chine s’élèvent à plus de 100 milliards de dollars par an, soit davantage qu’aux Etats-Unis. Le fait que les exportations chinoises soient réalisées à 65% par des entreprises détenues totalement ou partiellement par des Occidentaux n’est qu’un argument de plus pour nous endormir et une étape intermédiaire dans le déclin programmé du continent paneuropéen et de l’Occident. Les seuls investissements justifiés géopolitiquement  sont les implantations  pour s’intéresser au marché domestique chinois, des autres pays d’Asie et de tous les  pays émergents. Ce qu’il faut bien évidemment combattre, ce sont avant tout les investissements européens en Chine ou ailleurs pour alimenter le marché européen qui sont suicidaires mais justifiés pour les chefs d’entreprise,  tant que les Européens et la Commission de Bruxelles  n’auront pas rétabli la préférence communautaire et des droits de douane afin de compenser les bas coûts de main d’œuvre chinois, source première  du chômage et de la précarité en Europe. 

 

Conclusion

 

Il ne faut pas acheter français, ce qui ne veut plus rien dire, mais acheter « fabriqué en France »  en se méfiant des noms francisés et des   petits malins avec des usines tournevis  ou d’assemblage dont toute la valeur ajoutée industrielle viendrait en fait des pays émergents ! Seule une politique de droits de douane défendra l’emploi du travailleur européen et combattra efficacement d’une façon implacable le recours démesuré aux sous-traitants  étrangers ! Tout cela est si simple, si clair, si évident qu’il nous manque qu’une  seule chose, comme d’habitude, dans notre société décadente : le courage ! Le courage de changer le Système, le courage de combattre les lobbys des entreprises multinationales avec les clubs de réflexion à leur botte, le courage de mettre en place une protection tarifaire, mais sans tomber pour autant dans le Sylla du refus de l’effort, de l’innovation, du dépassement de soi, du refus de s’ouvrir au monde et de tenter d’exporter autant que possible, le Sylla de l’inefficacité et des rêveries socialistes utopistes qui refusent la concurrence et l’efficacité intra-communautaire. L’introduction de la TVA sociale est une excellente décision, mais elle est totalement incapable de compenser les bas salaires de l’usine marocaine Renault  de Mélissa et ne vaut que pour améliorer la compétitivité de la Maison France par rapport aux autres pays européens !

 

Note

 

(1)   Gilles Ardinat, Chiffres tronqués pour idée interdite, p12, Le Monde Diplomatique, Janvier 2012.

jeudi, 12 janvier 2012

Otto Scrinzi: Ein Gründervater des Dritten Lagers ist tot

Otto Scrinzi: Ein Gründervater des Dritten Lagers ist tot 

Ex: http://freigeist-blog.blogspot.com/

130_0.jpgIn der Nacht vom 1. auf den 2. Jänner 2012 verstarb Nationalratsabgeordneter a.D. Dr. Otto Scrinzi im 93. Lebensjahr in seinem Heimatbundesland Kärnten. Mit Otto Scrinzi ist einer der letzten Gründerväter des Dritten Lagers der Zweiten Republik von uns gegangen. Unmittelbar nach der Heimkehr aus der Kriegsgefangenschaft stellte er sich neben seiner Arbeit als Facharzt in den Dienst des staatlichen Gemeinwesens. So begründete der 1918 in Osttirol geborene Scrinzi in seiner nunmehrigen Heimat Kärnten den Verband der Unabhängigen (VDU) mit, wurde dessen Landesobmann und vertrat den VDU 1949 bis 1956 im Kärntner Landtag als Abgeordneter und Klubobmann. Neben seiner landespolitischen Tätigkeit setzte er sich auch als Standesvertreter für die Belange der Kärntner Ärzteschaft ab 1949 ein.
 
Gründervater des Dritten Lagers, Demokrat und Sachpolitiker

 

 

 
.
Neben dem Aufbau seiner bürgerlichen Existenz als Arzt setzte sich Scrinzi als untadeliger Demokrat in der Nachkriegszeit vor allem für jene Bevölkerungsschichten ein, die nicht zu den Günstlingen des sich etablierenden schwarz-roten Proporzsystems gehörten: Kriegsheimkehrer, Soldatenwitwen und -waisen und die vielen Volksdeutschen, die als Altösterreicher von den kommunistischen Terrorregimen nach 1945 aus ihrer alten Heimat vertrieben worden waren. Diese Engagement führte ihn an die Wiege von VDU und FPÖ. In seinen Prinzipien als nationalliberaler Volksvertreter unterschütterlich, suchte er immer den Dialog mit den politischen Mitbewerbern und streckte die Hand aus, um als Oppositionspolitiker seine fundierten Argumente in den politischen Diskurs mit einzubringen. Dies machte ihn auch zu einem geschätzten Fachmann in gesundheits- und sozialpolitischen Sachfragen bei SPÖ und ÖVP.

 

Mitbegründer der FPÖ, Obmannstellvertreter und langjähriger Nationalrat

Ab 1956 bemühte er sich mitzuhelfen, die Kärnter Landesgruppe des VDU in die neue Freiheitliche Partei Österreich (FPÖ) zu integrieren. Ab 1966 vertrat Srinzi sein Heimatbundesland Kärnten insgesamt 13 Jahre im österreichischen Nationalrat. Dort setzte er sich in Fragen der Sozial- und Gesundheitspolitik für notwendige Reformen ein und erkannte schon damals die Systemfehler, unter denen wir bis heute zu leiden haben. Sein besonderes Engagement galt über viele Jahre hinweg als Südtirolsprecher der FPÖ dem Engagement für die deutsche und ladinische Volksgruppe in Südtirol. Als Oppositionspolitiker mahnte er bei der österreichischen Bundesregierung  rastlos den Einsatz für die Landsleute im südlichen Tirol ein, und setzte sich lebenslang für die Selbstbestimmung der Südtiroler und eine Rückkehr des südlichen Tiroler Landesteils zu Österreich ein. Als Bundesparteiobmannstellvertreter forderte er in den siebziger Jahren eine grundlegende Erneuerung der FPÖ ein, um das rot-schwarze System erfolgreich überwinden zu können.

Nicht bequem, dafür aber immer prinzipientreu

So konsequent er die Finger in die Wunden der Regierungspolitik von Rot und Schwarz legte, so konsequent mahnte er auch im eigenen politischen Lager Prinzipientreue ein. Als es in der FPÖ in Zeiten einer rot-blauen Koalition 1983 bis 1986 kurzzeitig ein Liebeugeln mit dem FDP-Modell gab, stellte er sich als Präsidentschaftskandidat der „National-Freiheitlichen Aktion“ 1986 zur Verfügung und leitete damit wiederum eine Rückkehr zu einer echten freiheitlichen Politik in der FPÖ ein. Als Funktionsträger im Freiheitlichen Akademikerverband sowie Herausgeber, Schriftleiter und Autor des Magazins Die Aula nahm er in 5 Jahrzehnten in vielfältiger Weise zu gesellschaftspolitischen Grundsatzfragen, jenseits der Tagespolitik Stellung. Mit Otto Scrinzi verliert nicht nur die freiheitliche Gesinnungsgemeinschaft einen geschätzten Repräsentanten und Weggefährten, sondern darüber hinaus Österreich einen Politiker, der stets für die Gemeinschaft, und niemals für den Eigennutz eingestanden ist.Bundesparteiobmann HC Strache würdigte den FPÖ-Gründervater: „Scrinzi war jemand, den man mit Fug und Recht als freiheitliches Urgestein bezeichnen konnte und der die Werte unserer Gesinnungsgemeinschaft immer gelebt hat."

Muere el histórico militante austriaco Otto Scrinzi (FPÖ)

scrinzi_large.5030288.jpg

Muere el histórico militante austriaco Otto Scrinzi (FPÖ)

Ex: http://www.idpress.org/


En la noche del 1 al 2 de enero de 201,1 Otto Scrinzi murió a la edad de 93 años. Neurólogo, escritor y político. Nacido en 1918 en Lienz en el Tirol (que no debe confundirse con Linz), estudió en Innsbruck, Riga, Königsberg y Praga. Fue miembro del NSDAP (número 7.897.561) y el Sturmführer SA Durante la guerra fue ayudante en el Instituto de Biología y Genética de la Universidad racial de Innsbruck. Desde 1950 ejerció como neurólogo y, desde 1955 a 1983, fue director médico del departamento de psiquiatría del hospital de Carintia en Klagenfurt. En 1973, ocupó una cátedra en la Universidad de Graz. De 1949 a 1956, Otto Scrinzi es parlamentario por el VdU (origen del FPÖ) en el Parlamento de Carintia. En 1968, es elegido vicepresidente del FPÖ. Desde marzo de1966 hasta junio de 1979, Otto Scrinzi es diputado del FPÖ en el Parlamento nacional, también es portavoz del FPÖ para el Tirol del Sur (Italia), en 1977 se convierte en vicepresidente del grupo de electos del FPÖ en el Parlamento nacional.

En 1984 funda la Nacional Freiheitliche-Aktion (NFA) como la oposición a la política encabezada por el presidente del FPÖ Norbert Steger, al que considera demasiado liberal. En 1986, se presenta por la NFA como candidato a las elecciones presidenciales y logra un 1,2% (Kurt Waldheim gana las elecciones y se convierte en Presidente de la República de Austria). Tras la llegada de Jörg Haider a la presidencia del FPÖ en 1986, Otto Scrinzi regresa al partido, convirtiéndose desde entonces en uno de los representantes del sector más radical del partido.


El presidente del FPÖ, Heinz-Christian Strache, se ha manifestado profundamente conmovido por la muerte de Otto Scrinzi y lo describió como un luchador por las ideas del FPÖ desde el primer momento, señalando que “siempre ha vivido los valores de nuestra comunidad de pensamiento. Añadiendo que su recuerdo será imborrable para el que lo que él ha hecho por el FPÖ siempre será inolvidable.


También hizo llegar sus condolencias el presidente del FPK (partido mayoritario en Caritnia y aliado del FPÖ), Uwe Scheuch, quien dijo que con su muerte la comunidad política nacionalistas ha perdido uno de los mejores compañeros de las últimas décadas.


La Schützenbund Südtiroler (Unión para la protección del Tirol del Sur) también ha rendido el merecidohomenaje a Otto Scrinzi.

Prim. Dr. Otto Scrinzi

 




In der Nacht vom 1. auf den 2. Jänner 2012 ist in Kärnten ein Mann verstorben, dem Südtirol viel zu verdanken hat. Der österreichische Primar und Nationalratsabgeordnete a.D. Dr. Otto Scrinzi ist 93 Jahre alt geworden. Er hatte ein erfülltes Leben hinter sich, welches von der Liebe zu Südtirol und von selbstlosem Einsatz für Volk und Heimat geprägt war.

Quelle: Süd-Tiroler Freiheit


Dieser traurige Anlass bringt mir jedoch die Möglichkeit euch folgende Seiten ans Herz zu legen:

http://www.suedtiroler-freiheit.com/
http://www.bund-frankenland.de/suedtirol/

Nachruf auf Primar und Nationalrat a.D. Dr. Otto Scrinzi

Ein großer Freund Südtirols ist von uns gegangen

Nachruf auf Primar und Nationalrat a.D. Dr. Otto Scrinzi

Otto-Scrinzi
 

MOOSBURG – In der Nacht vom 1. auf den 2. Jänner 2012 ist in Kärnten ein Mann verstorben, dem Südtirol viel zu verdanken hat. Der österreichische Primar und Nationalratsabgeordnete a.D. Dr. Otto Scrinzi war 93 Jahre alt geworden. Er hatte ein erfülltes Leben hinter sich, welches von der Liebe zu Südtirol und von selbstlosem Einsatz für Volk und Heimat geprägt war. Scrinzis Südtiroler Eltern hatte es 1918 nach Lienz verschlagen. Der junge Bursch verbrachte seine Schulferien zumeist bei den Großeltern in Branzoll bei Bozen und in Petersberg. Er half während der Faschistenzeit seinem Onkel, einem aus dem Schuldienst entlassenen Lehrer, bei der Durchführung des heimlichen deutschen Schulunterrichts.

Scrinzi trug zusammen mit Freunden deutsche Bücher über die Berge nach Südtirol und half bei dem Aufbau der „Katakombenschulen“ mit. Als in Österreich in der Zeit des Ständestaates die Demokratie abgeschafft wurde und die Staatsführung mit Mussolini paktierte, schloss sich der junge Innsbrucker Student Scrinzi den illegalen Nationalsozialisten an.

Wie viele seiner Landsleute erwartete auch Scrinzi, dass dem Anschluss Österreichs die Befreiung Südtirols folgen würde. Diese Hoffnung wurde durch den Pakt Hitlers mit Mussolini und durch das schreckliche Optionsabkommen bitter enttäuscht. Ein innerer Bruch mit der NS-Parteilinie war die Folge. Als Leiter des karitativen „Reichsstudentenwerkes“ in Innsbruck vergab Otto Scrinzi Förderungen an Südtiroler Studenten, verbunden mit der Auflage, nicht für Deutschland zu optieren, sondern in Südtirol zu verbleiben. Zu den derart Geförderten gehörte auch der spätere SVP-Politiker Friedl Volgger.

Durch diese und ähnliche Tätigkeiten geriet Otto Scrinzi in das Visier der Gestapo, Einvernahmen und auch einige Tage Haft waren die Folge. Seine Einrückung zur Wehrmacht nach seiner Promotion zum Doktor der gesamten Heilkunde rettete ihn vor weiterer Bespitzelung und Verfolgung.

Als Truppenarzt diente Dr. Scrinzi auf dem Balkan und an der Eismeerfront, um nach dem Krieg Primararzt in Kärnten, Landtagsabgeordneter und 1966 Nationalratsabgeordneter und Südtirolsprecher der Freiheitlichen Partei Österreichs zu werden. Weitere politische Funktionen: Mitglied in der Beratenden Versammlung des Europarates, Delegationsmitglied bei den Vereinten Nationen.

In einer großen parlamentarischen Rede wies Scrinzi im Jahre 1969 darauf hin, dass die „Paket“-Autonomielösung schwerwiegende Mängel aufwies: Von dem Fehlen einer einklagbaren Verankerung bis hin zur ungelösten Ortsnamensfrage. Die weitere Entwicklung hat der damaligen Kritik des Abgeordneten Scrinzi Recht gegeben.

Auch nach seinem Ausscheiden aus der aktiven Politik blieb Dr. Scrinzi seiner Heimat Südtirol verbunden. Als Kurator der „Laurin-Stiftung“, der nach Einstellung der „Stillen Hilfe“ größten Südtirol-Stiftung, half Dr. Scrinzi Jahrzehnte hindurch, Hunderte von Bauernhöfen und gewerblichen Betrieben durch großzügige Umschuldungen aus unverschuldeten Notlagen zu retten.

Dazu kamen kulturelle Förderungen, die Dorfgemeinden, kirchlichen Organisationen, Schützenkompanien, Musikkapellen und Vereinen zugute kamen.

Ein besonderer Schwerpunkt war die Schaffung und Dotierung von Assistentenstellen und die Vergabe von Stipendien für Südtiroler an der Innsbrucker Universität. Auch Zuschüsse an Institute und Bibliotheken wurden gewährt.

Die Stiftungstätigkeit führte Dr. Scrinzi immer wieder in die alte Heimat Südtirol und auch zu bewegenden Begegnungen mit ehemaligen Freiheitskämpfern der Sechzigerjahre.

Im Februar 2003 ehrte der Südtiroler Schützenbund Dr. Scrinzi mit dem Ehrenkranz. In seinen Lebenserinnerungen „Politiker und Arzt in bewegten Zeiten“ schrieb Scrinzi: „Für mich persönlich war diese Auszeichnung eine Art zweiter Einbürgerung in meine Heimat, aus der meine Familie nach vielhundertjähriger Ansässigkeit 1918 ausgebürgert worden war.“

Diese Ehrung hat Dr. Scrinzi mehr gefreut als die vorher erfolgte Verleihung des Großen Goldenen Ehrenzeichens für Verdienste um die Republik Österreich.

In seinem letzten Lebensabschnitt musste Dr. Scrinzi noch erleben, dass die italienischen Behörden die offenbar ungeliebte Stiftungstätigkeit zu kriminalisieren versuchten. Eine Tätigkeit, über die Dr. Scrinzi in seinen Lebenserinnerungen schrieb: „Diese meine Altersarbeit und die Möglichkeit, für meine Landsleute manch Gutes tun zu können, waren Erfüllung für mich, die Wiederbegegnung mit einer seligen Kindheits- und Jugendliebe. Und wären es nur diese Jahre …, dann hätte mein Leben einen Sinn gehabt.“

L’Ungheria, punto critico del polo egemone

hongrie royaume.JPG

L’Ungheria, punto critico del polo egemone

di Lorenzo Scala

Fonte: statopotenza

A seguito delle elezioni parlamentari del mese scorso, Russia Unita ha mantenuto la maggioranza dei seggi nella Duma di Stato, riconfermandosi come la maggior forza politica del Paese. Nonostante infatti il sensibilissimo calo dei consensi rispetto al 2007, il partito di Vladimir Putin ha totalizzato una maggioranza di un 49,5 %. Lo svolgimento delle votazioni è stato poi valutato come positivo dagli osservatori della Comunità degli Stati Indipendenti. D’altro canto però, numerosi membri dell’opposizione hanno contestato i risultati , denunciando brogli e pressioni di ogni tipo. Gli esponenti dell’Unione Europea e degli Stati Uniti d’America non si sono lasciati scappare l’occasione e, rispolverando la vecchia demagogia dei “diritti civili” (cara ad una certa subcultura oramai dominante in Occidente, certamente partorita dall’ideologia del consumismo di tipo capitalistico), hanno anch’essi attaccato il premier russo, mettendo in discussione la legittimità del risultato finale ed invitando il popolo alla protesta. Di conseguenza, numerose organizzazioni extraparlamentari sono scese in piazza con l’intento di destabilizzare lo scenario della Federazione Russa. A Mosca abbiamo quindi visto delle sparute folle inneggiare ad un’ambigua e quanto mai poco probabile “rivoluzione bianca”. Partigiani di quest’ultima erano liberali, sedicenti socialisti, ultranazionalisti, monarchici ed esponenti della “sinistra” più radicale ed anarcoide. Insomma, un miscuglio composto da schieramenti politici ed ideologici totalmente differenti, ma tutti raccolti, per quest’occasione, sotto la grande bandiera dell’anti-putinismo. Anche il Partito Comunista della Federazione Russa ha protestato contro l’oligarchia al governo, ma al contempo si è voluto dissociare dalle mire espansionistiche dell’Occidente sulla Russia, mettendo in guardia i suoi militanti dal cadere in certe “trappole”. D’altro canto, il Cremlino non ha voluto sentire ragioni: “gli Stati Uniti non vogliono alleati, ma vassalli”. Un altro tentativo di “rivoluzione colorata”, ben più ampio e propagandato, l’abbiamo potuto vedere ultimamente anche in Ungheria. E’ innegabile come la tensione fra l’asse Washington-Bruxelles e la linea neo-conservatrice del primo ministro ungherese, Viktor Orbàn, stia raggiungendo livelli che, fino a qualche mese fa, sarebbero stati inimmaginabili. L’Unione Europea si dice preoccupata per la “svolta autoritaria” di Budapest, le cui posizioni potrebbero portare alla nascita di una “nuova” Bielorussia, altre bestia nera europea della casta politica occidentale. Hilary Clinton ha personalmente indirizzato ad Orban una lettera, nella quale si dice perplessa ed indignata per i recenti cambiamenti in seno alla vita politica ed economica della Repubblica d’Ungheria. Di concerto, le nostre testate giornalistiche non hanno esitato a denunciare le misure anti-democratiche in atto nel Paese ex-comunista. Cosa potrebbe mai spingere la Casa Bianca ed il suo braccio mediatico a criticare l’amministrazione dell’Ungheria, nazione membra dell’Unione Europea e della NATO? Per capirlo è necessario andare per ordine ed analizzare i “crimini” di Viktor Orbàn, ex-dissidente del regime comunista di Budapest. Quest’ultimo è un esponente del partito populista e democristiano Fidesz che, alleatosi col Partito Popolare Cristiano (KDNP) , ha ottenuto una maggioranza di 52,73% nelle elezioni parlamentari del 2010. In questo modo ha conquistato i due terzi dei seggi del parlamento, quorum sufficiente per modificare la carta costituzionale, rimasta ancora invariata dal 1989. Nonostante questo però, il viscerale anticomunismo dei governi “neodemocratici” sorti dalle macerie della Repubblica Popolare d’Ungheria l’hanno ampliamente delegittimata nel tempo. Nell’Aprile del 2011, il parlamento ungherese ha approvato una nuova Costituzione, con 262 voti a favore e 44 contro. A votare contro sono stati gli esponenti del partito di estrema destra Jobbik, mentre si sono astenuti 79 deputati fra “socialisti” e liberali. L’opposizione si è anche rifiutata per partito preso di partecipare a qualsiasi discussione sul nuovo provvedimento, esigendo peraltro l’aumento della maggioranza richiesta per la sua attuazione (da due terzi a quattro quinti). La maggioranza ha comunque trovato il modo di coinvolgere l’opinione pubblica e gli elettori, inviando a questi ultimi un questionario di dodici domande, che comprendevano varie proposte per la nuova Costituzione. Le stime ufficiali sostengono che almeno 920.000 persone – il 10% dell’elettorato – abbiano compilato il documento. Il governo ha esaminato le risposte date, apportando diverse modifiche al progetto. In questo modo sono aumentati i diritti dei cittadini ungheresi all’estero e si è eliminato il diritto di voto plurimo per le madri con più di una gravidanza sulle spalle. La stesura definitiva della Costituzione, firmata dal Presidente della Repubblica Pal Schmitt il 25 aprile, presenta i principi morali e politici propri al Fidesz, fra i quali si nota subito l’oltranzismo religioso. All’inizio del documento si può infatti leggere “Riconosciamo il ruolo del cristianesimo nella preservazione della nazione. Rispettiamo le tradizioni religiose diverse presenti nel nostro paese”. Si fa riferimento ai valori del matrimonio, della famiglia, della maternità, dell’impegno sociale e scolastico ed affini. La svolta cattolica dell’Ungheria, nonostante già da sola rappresenti un affronto relativamente grande al fenomeno dell’omologazione culturale europea all’insegna del “sogno americano”, viene integrata da un inedito spirito nazionalistico. Probabilmente è proprio da qui che nasce l’opposizione occidentale ad Orbàn, reo di aver nazionalizzato le principali aziende strategiche, di aver aumentato il controllo statale sulla Banca Centrale d’Ungheria e di aver posto dei limiti alla stampa, in maniera tale che essa non interferisca con le riforme in atto. La Banca Centrale Europea ed il Fondo Monetario Internazionale minacciano di sospendere la cooperazione bilaterale con Budapest, cosa che andrebbe a danneggiare ancora di più la già difficile situazione economica ungherese. Ad ogni modo, molte delle forze cosmopolite ungheresi, ansiose di regalare al loro Paese un futuro simile a quello di Ucraina e Georgia, hanno risposto agli appelli delle potenze estere. Si è quindi formato ufficialmente il movimento degli “indignati” magiari, composto, oltre che dai membri dell’opposizione al parlamento, da organizzazioni quali la Federazione Ungherese delle lesbiche, degli omosessuali, dei bisessuali e transessuali, l’Unione delle lesbiche e via discorrendo. Tuttavia la sigla che salta più all’occhio è Szolidaritàs, comitato a salvaguardia dei “diritti umani” e della “democrazia”, spaventosamente simile, sia nella denominazione che nella grafia utilizzata, al suo ben più noto omologo polacco degli anni Ottanta. Ridicola appare invece la partecipazione alle manifestazioni dei “Civili contro l’estrema destra”, dato che il Fidesz non ha alcuna nostalgia per l’epoca “fascista” ungherese; tutt’al più lo si potrebbe paragonare al nostro Popolo delle Libertà, mantenendo ovviamente le dovute differenze. L’unico partito di destra radicale è il già citato Jobbik, peraltro avverso ad Orbàn e alla nuova Costituzione. Vedere levate di scudi improvvise contro il governo ungherese che, fino a poco tempo fa era un semplice Paese-costola dell’espansione atlantica verso Est, è sicuramente strano ed anacronistico. Di questo ne ha parlato il Partito dei Lavoratori d’Ungheria (Munkaspart) in una riunione del suo Comitato Centrale. Nonostante si tratti di una fazione politica molto ristretta ed ancora legata a schemi vecchi e stantii, le sue osservazioni circa i recenti accadimenti si fondano su analisi relativamente corrette. All’iniziato del comunicato troviamo questa premessa: “Il Partito Comunista dei Lavoratori Ungherese è del parere che il vero cambiamento storico non ha avuto luogo nel 2010 (anno della nuova Costituzione, nda), ma nel 1989-1990, quando fu distrutto il socialismo in Ungheria. E’ stata una controrivoluzione capitalista. Il potere della classe operaia è stato sostituito dal potere delle forze capitalistiche. Le industrie e le banche di proprietà statale, e le aziende agricole collettive furono privatizzate. L’Ungheria ha aderito alla NATO nel 1999 ed è entrata nell’UE nel 2004. Il sistema capitalista basato sull’economia privata e sulla democrazia borghese fu stabilizzato […]Fu il passaggio dal socialismo al capitalismo che portò all’impoverimento generale del popolo ungherese”. I comunisti ungheresi vedono le cause dei disagi del popolo nell’instaurazione dell’economia di libero mercato, nella subordinazione al blocco nord-atlantico e nella consequenziale soppressione delle conquiste derivate dal Socialismo Reale. Nella disputa fra Orbàn ed i “manifestanti” non vedono una contrapposizione fra una potenziale “neo-dittatura” ed una declinante “democrazia”, ma fra le due facce di una già vecchia e logora medaglia. Infatti: “Da un lato c’è il Fidesz […] che esprime gli interessi dei conservatori, la parte dalla mentalità nazionale della classe capitalista […]D’altra parte ci sono il Partito Socialista Ungherese e il Partito de “La politica può essere diversa“, che rappresentano la parte liberale e socialdemocratica della classe capitalista. Sono più vicini agli Stati Uniti e ad Israele”. Il passo dello scritto più importante e significativo è quello che segue, poiché rinuncia per un attimo a riflessioni “di classe” (che in questo contesto possono sicuramente rientrare, ma fino a un certo punto) a favore di un calcolo un po’ più geopolitico: “Gli Stati Uniti d’America hanno apertamente interferito negli affari interni di Ungheria. L’ambasciatore statunitense a Budapest critica apertamente il governo ufficiale e sostiene la posizione delle forze liberal-socialiste”. Secondo il parere di chi scrive però, manca una risoluzione chiara e decisa. L’Ungheria dovrebbe essere, almeno sulla carta, indipendente e sovrana. In caso di ulteriori pressioni estere contro Viktor Orbàn e di eventuali sanzioni economiche, il Partito Comunista dei Lavoratori d’Ungheria non dovrà esitare nel fare causa comune col proprio governo, eletto, secondo le regole “democratiche”, a suffragio universale. E’ poi innegabile come, nonostante tutte le palesi contraddizioni interne del caso, i recenti cambiamenti in seno all’amministrazione di Budapest rappresentino certamente un passo avanti, in quanto sintomo di una disperata necessità di maggior autonomia e di un recupero della propria sovranità nazionale.


Tante altre notizie su www.ariannaeditrice.it

Nouvelle livraison du magazine "Terre et Peuple"

 Une nouvelle livraison du magazine "Terre et Peuple" :

 

3821314138.jpg


Editorial

par Pierre Vial

Président de Terre et peuple

C’est un bien plaisant spectacle que celui offert par les intellos déguisés en prophètes, un Bernard-Henri Lévy en tête (plus sûr de lui et dominateur que jamais, affirmant avoir agi « en juif » en lançant la France dans l’imbroglio libyen), qui annonçaient avec des trémolos la floraison de démocraties dans le monde musulman, grâce à ces révolutions successives baptisées « printemps arabe » et devant imposer la religion des droits de l’homme dans des pays censés rêver d’importer les « valeurs occidentales ».

Patatras. Les charlots sont obligés (sauf Lévy, bien sûr) d’avouer qu’ils avaient tout faux. Ils voulaient Rousseau, Voltaire et Diderot. Ils ont la charia. Alain Frachon, dans Le Monde (9 décembre), bat sa coulpe : «Soyons honnêtes : ces lendemains électoraux de « printemps arabe » nous laissent la gueule de bois. Après le moment lyrico-révolutionnaire, retour au réel : la force dominante dans le monde arabe, ce sont les islamistes (…) Le pouvoir ne revient pas aux gentils utilisateurs de Twitter, de Facebook et autres « réseaux sociaux » ; il se prend à l’ancienne, avec des partis de militants bien organisés comme ceux des islamistes. Les élections ne se décident pas dans les cafés Internet. Quand l’hebdomadaire américain Time dresse pour 2011 sa liste des « cent personnes les plus influentes dans le monde », il installe un Egyptien en haut de classement, Wael Ghonim. Cadre chez Google, Ghonim est ce jeune homme qui organisa sur Facebook la première mobilisation contre Hosni Moubarak. Interrogé cette semaine par Gideon Rachman, du Financial Times, un diplomate américain observe, amer : « Wael Ghonim est peut-être l’une des personnes les plus influentes au monde, mais il semble qu’il n’a guère d’influence en Egypte »… Le premier tour des élections législatives égyptiennes a vu, cette semaine, l’écrasement des partis laïques, les amis de Wael Ghonim, et la victoire des partis islamistes. Ceux-ci l’ont aussi emporté en Tunisie lors d’élections à une Assemblée constituante. Au Caire comme à Tunis, les « Frères », ces tenants d’un islam politique censé avoir réponse à tout, n’ont pourtant pas été à l’origine du « printemps arabe » : ils ont pris le train en marche ». Et Frachon conclut : « Le monde arabe est entré dans une phase de turbulences qui ne fait que commencer. Les Etats-Unis et l’Europe n’ont sur ces événements qu’une capacité d’influence limitée. Mieux vaut s’y faire ».

Cette lucidité trop tardive et ce fatalisme sont typiques, chez les Occidentaux, d’une abdication mentale qui prépare une abdication physique, devant des gens venus d’ailleurs et qui occupent notre terre. « Ils » sont là, n’est-ce pas, et « ils » ne repartiront pas. Qu’y faire ? Préparons-nous donc à subir leur loi. C’est ce qui est le plus raisonnable. Et le moins risqué.

Un tel état d’esprit décadent, un tel renoncement sont proches parents de la mentalité de tant de nos compatriotes – ceux qui acceptent la loi du Système, la loi de cet argent-roi qui marque au fer rouge une société soumise au capitalisme apatride. Des esclaves qui acceptent l’esclavage comme l’accepte le bétail engraissé de façon intensive, parce qu’il est trop fatiguant et trop dangereux d’essayer de rompre les chaînes.

Mais les âmes fortes ne peuvent accepter un destin de cloportes. Elles choisissent d’être des rebelles, des révoltés ou des révolutionnaires. Le rebelle refuse le Système en place et se met en rupture d’obéissance par rapport à lui. Le révolté agit pour que sa rébellion se manifeste concrètement, se traduise dans les faits. Le révolutionnaire combat pour instaurer un ordre nouveau. Est-il nécessaire de préciser que nous avons fait ce dernier choix ?

La Révolution est un rêve, « immense et rouge », qui a animé tant de nos prédécesseurs aux XIXe et XXe siècles. Un rêve pour certains, un cauchemar pour d’autres, comme dit Merlin l’Enchanteur. Les gens « raisonnables », les modérés (comme disait Abel Bonnard), les bourgeois nous reprochent d’être des rêveurs. Laissons-les à leur platitude, à leur médiocrité. Car nous savons, nous, au plus profond de nous, qu’un jour le rêve deviendra réalité. Si les dieux le veulent. Et si nous aidons les dieux à le vouloir, selon la tradition hyperboréenne. Pour cela, il suffit de se battre.

Abonnez-vous au magazine Terre et peuple cliquez ici

Conférence de Pierre VIAL

‘‘Idées reçues sur le moyen âge’’

JEUDI 2 FEVRIER - 19 H 30

Le Local  92 rue de Javel 75015 PARIS

Métro Félix Faure

Mithra-Phanes: il dio splendente

mithra.jpg

Mithra-Phanes: il dio splendente

Alcune osservazioni sui rapporti fra mithraismo romano e orfismo greco

 

Autore:

 

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

Le iscrizioni mitriache in lingua greca

Nel 1931, alle falde dell’Aventino, in via della Marmorata, presso l’arco di S. Lazzaro, fu scoperto un gruppo d’iscrizioni in lingua greca, forse appartenenti a un mitreo da porsi in relazione col vicino Emporio che, in età imperiale romana, era frequentato da mercanti stranieri e da schiavi di lingua greca (1). Fra queste iscrizioni, ve n’è una che richiama la mia attenzione per i significati di religiosità misterica che ne emergono sulla connessione fra mithraismo romano di età imperiale e orfismo.

Dìi Elìo Mitra

Phàneti

ierèus kài patèr

benoùstos sùn tois

uperètais teoù anèteke

Da questa epigrafe si evince che il dio Mithra, in questo centro di culto in Roma, nella prima metà del II secolo d.C., è assimilato a Zeus e ad Helios, ma anche a Phanes, divinità greca legata alla religiosità orfica (2).

Tale testimonianza di un sincretismo orfico-mitriaco non è isolata; essa si colloca in un complesso di evidenze archeologiche, di rilievo storico-religioso, che vanno esaminate per l’universo di significati simbolici e mitici cui rimandano.

Il rilievo di Modena

Nel rilievo mitriaco conservato nel museo di Modena il giovane Mithra nasce da un uovo in fiamme (3). Il suo corpo è avvolto da un serpente – figura costantemente presente nella tauromachìa – mentre sul suo petto si notano, da sinistra a destra: una testa di leone, l’ariete e il capro, figure dense di significati simbolici ed anche astrologici. L’ariete è stato letto dal Merkelbach come una variante del lupo mentre il capro come una variante del cane, simboli che questo studioso collega rispettivamente al passato e del futuro.

Siamo quindi alla presenza di un’assimilazione di Mithra a Chronos, quale si evince dal rilievo di Emerita (4) e dalle figure leontocefale che compaiono in altri sculture mitriache (5).

La divinità del rilievo di Modena è alata, dal suo capo si dipartono raggi solari, dietro la sua gola si osserva la falce lunare; in una mano regge la folgore e nell’altra uno scettro, simboli universali di sovranità e regalità, ampiamente documentati nella letteratura storico-religiosa.

La divinità alata è racchiusa nello zodiaco, mentre ai quattro angoli si osservano i busti delle divinità eoliche. Lo scettro ha nel rilievo una funzione portante dello zodiaco rappresentato in forma ovale, a indicare che Mithra ha creato e sorregge il mondo, lo scettro avendo una funzione di Axis mundi, di asse portante, a rilevare la funzione cosmica e assiale del dio.

Le zampe di Mithra sono di montone per cui è chiara l’assimilazione di Mithra a Pan. Occorre qui ricordare che in greco antico, oltre al nome del dio Pan, esiste l’aggettivo pan, dalla pronuncia uguale, che significa “tutto”. I due vocaboli non hanno la stessa radice etimologica, ma la medesima sonorità indica che il nome del dio è connesso al senso dell’aggettivo. I piedi di montone stanno a indicare il carattere universale della divinità, la sua valenza di totalità cosmica.

L’aspetto simbolico più interessante, ai fini del rapporto con l’orfismo, è l’uovo in fiamme da cui il dio emerge e che ha originato e messo in moto la volta celeste rappresentata dallo zodiaco. Questo simbolo di Mithra originato dall’uovo si ritrova anche nel rilievo di Vercovicium (6), presso il Vallo di Adriano in Gran Bretagna, dove il dio emerge dall’uovo, dalla sua metà inferiore, mentre la parte superiore dell’uovo cosmico è al di sopra e intorno al dio. Anche in questo caso, dall’uovo cosmico ha origine la volta celeste, come testimonia lo zodiaco raffigurato nella parte superiore dell’uovo. I due solstizi sono raffigurati in alto e in basso, mentre i due equinozi sono ai lati, rappresentando i punti mediani in cui l’equatore celeste incrocia l’eclittica solare, secondo la visione geocentrica di quel tempo e sono i punti astronomici ed astrologici legati e consacrati a Mithra – secondo la testimonianza di Porfirio –  quale dio mediano (teòs mesìtes), secondo quanto ci riferisce Plutarco  (7).

Questo simbolismo ci conduce a quel dio greco che si è originato dall’uovo: Phanes-Eros, la divinità primordiale orfica, della quale ora vogliamo considerare le caratteristiche.

Il simbolo dell’Uovo Cosmico.

Tutta una serie di fonti greche (da Damascio a Proclo, da Ermia ad Achille commentatore di Arato fino all’Inno VI) e le raffigurazioni vascolari, menzionano l’uovo quale simbolo fondamentale dell’orfismo, un simbolo che concerne le origini della nascita del cosmo e che quindi allude ad un mito cosmogonico (8), un simbolo peraltro presente in numerose altre culture tradizionali occidentali e orientali, ma anche delle civiltà pre-colombiane, sì da poter dire che si è alla presenza di un simbolo universale. Tali fonti sono integrabili con le risultanze archeologiche relative all’antica Grecia, con particolare riferimento ai corredi funerari.

In alcune tombe della Beozia è raffigurato Dioniso che reca in mano un uovo a significare non solo l’immortalità, ma anche il valore di resurrezione che assume questo simbolo (9). In alcuni corredi funerari sono stati ritrovati oggetti che riproducono uova col probabile intento di richiamare il significato sacrale di questo simbolo. Pur non avendosi la certezza che tali corredi funerari appartengano a iniziati orfici, tuttavia questo simbolo ha un fondamento rituale connesso al post-mortem, nel senso della rinascita a una nuova vita (10).

Le fonti greche (Plutarco, Damascio, Proclo, Ieronimo, Ellanico, Atenagora, etc.) ci riferiscono che dallo scomporsi dell’uovo si originano il cielo e la terra, che sono le due diverse manifestazioni che simboleggiano, su un piano mitico, i due princìpi ontologici approfonditi dai filosofi neoplatonici nelle loro speculazioni sulle dottrine orfiche; tali princìpi sono le “forme formanti”, gli archetipi creativi del mondo e quindi, in una dimensione primordiale, l’uovo rappresenta il “germe” costitutivo dell’intera manifestazione universale ed è quindi il simbolo della totalità.

Achille, tardo commentatore di Arato (Isagoge ad Arato, Phen.4; fr.70 Kern) riferisce: “la forma che noi diamo allo sfero gli orfici dicono che è simile a quella dell’uovo. Lo stesso modo di essere che ha il guscio nell’uovo, il cielo lo ha nell’universo, e come l’ètere sta attaccato al cielo tutto intorno, così la membrana sta attaccata all’uovo”. L’uovo è visto, pertanto, come una rappresentazione in miniatura del cosmo, che nasce dal “sacrificio” dell’uovo cosmico la cui apertura in due parti, origina il cosmo inteso come ordine universale, con i movimenti dei pianeti, del sole della luna, e delle stelle nel quadro della visione geocentrica.

Il tema del sacrificio primordiale – cioè di un atto di rottura che è, al tempo stesso,  un atto trasformativo, vivificante e salvifico – quale evento cosmogonico,  presenta un carattere universale, comparendo in molteplici  tradizioni religiose orientali e occidentali. Dal “sacrificio” di un caos pre-cosmico, nasce l’ordine cosmico, i suoi movimenti regolari, le orbite dei pianeti, il passaggio del sole attraverso le costellazioni dello zodiaco, che sono, in realtà, rappresentazioni figurate che l’uomo si è formato dei vari gruppi stellari, secondo analogie e somiglianze che l’uomo proietta su di essi. La tauromachìa mitriaca rientra nello stesso ordine d’idee, dal sacrificio del toro primordiale scaturendo la vita cosmica e il suo ordine, come si può osservare dal mantello di Mithra sul quale è raffigurato il cielo stellato e i pianeti, a significare che il dio solare, nell’atto del sacrificio, dà vita e ordine all’universo.

Proclo (in Tim. 30 C-D) nel coniugare aspetti mitologici e aspetti dottrinali, tende quasi a personificare il germe da cui trae vita l’intero cosmo e ci dice che “ come l’essere vivente contiene già distinte tutte quelle caratteristiche che nell’uovo erano in germe” “…..proviene dall’uovo primigenio nel quale è in germe l’essere vivente”. L’uovo è la potenzialità germinale che contiene in nuce tutte le caratteristiche  che si svilupperanno ben distinte nell’essere in crescita, sul piano della manifestazione cosmica.

Damascio a sua volta ci dice: “Poiché Orfeo affermò poi mégas Chronos, il Gran Tempo per mezzo dell’Etere divino formò l’uovo splendente di luce ”(fr.70 Kern).

Siamo quindi in presenza di una formulazione mitica che pone all’origine della vita universale una potenza autocreatrice, un Essere Primordiale dalla cui forza generante si origina il mondo. Il Grande Tempo, Mégas Chronos, forma l’uovo splendente di luce, dalla cui separazione nascono il cielo e la terra.

Aristofane adopera l’espressione “uovo del vento”, espressione conosciuta anche da Aristotele (Hist. Anim.6,2, 559b, 20) e da Luciano (De sacrif. 6) per indicare un principio di vita costituito dalla stessa sostanza aerea che compone il vento quale “soffio di vita”. Tale locuzione serve a indicare la completezza e l’autonomia di un uovo- cioé di un’entità primordiale – che non richiede  apporti esterni per diventare feconda, ma ha già in sé tutta la potenzialità vitale. Nell’uovo, nel germe primordiale sono racchiuse tutte le possibilità di sviluppo che andranno poi a fluire nella manifestazione universale.

Nella scena della tauromachia mitriaca, il mantello di Mithra si gonfia e su di esso compaiono le stelle e i pianeti; quest’aspetto iconografico si spiega ipotizzando che il mito narrava di un “vento cosmico” che si solleva all’atto del sacrificio primordiale. Il sacrificio contiene in sé tutte le potenzialità della manifestazione universale, dalle stelle del mantello divino alla spiga di grano che sorge dalla coda taurina, anche in questo caso il cielo e la terra sono le “forme formanti” della vita universale.

Questa autonoma vitalità dell’Entità primordiale è una potenza generatrice, senza bisogno di alcun apporto esterno, che ha il suo principio vitale nello stesso “soffio” cosmico che lo permea, quel vento di cui parla Aristotele come un carattere essenziale dell’uovo orfico. Siamo quindi in presenza di un evento primordiale e pre-cosmico, nel senso di anteriore all’ordine del kosmos, aspetto questo particolarmente interessante e significativo, su cui avrò modo di ritornare fra poco, a proposito del significato dei miti.

Nella prima filosofia greca, Anassimandro ha presente, nel suo sistema speculativo, un simbolo pressoché identico. Lo ps.Plutarco (A 10 DK, r.11) ci dice che, in conseguenza di un movimento interno che ne determina il dinamismo e la stessa vitalità, dall’inespresso àpeiron (il “senza limite”, il “principio” secondo la lettura di Aristotele) per separazione si origina il gnòmon, il “seme” o “germe”,  generatore del caldo e del freddo, dell’umido e del secco, princìpi costitutivi del reale.

E’ stato giustamente evidenziato che “la somiglianza straordinaria del gnòmon con l’uovo germinato dal Chronos o dalla Nyx della cosmogonia orfica è evidente persino nella strutturazione espressiva che intende esprimere un’autogenerazione e conclude verso una dualità iniziale e creativa” (11).

Secondo la teo-cosmogonia orfica l’uovo è scaturito da un inespresso Chronos principiale, la cui potenza creativa gli Hieròi lògoi ordinano intorno ad Adrastea “colei che fissa le leggi divine”, i tesmòi, i “regolamenti” anteriori all’ordine cosmico, ossia l’elemento pre-formale da cui per oggettivazione scaturiscono i nòmoi, le leggi fissate dalla celeste Adrastea per ordinare il corso della manifestazione universale. Altri frammenti orfici ci dicono che in principio non c’era Chronos ma la Nyx Hieré, la Notte Sacra, la potenza universale inespressa che è chiamata la “Nutrice degli dèi”, “Colei che dà vita agli oracoli” poiché contiene in sé tutto l’essere del mondo. E’ la madre primordiale che Aristofane considera come la generatrice dell’ “Uovo pieno di vento” (fr.1 Kern), quel vento primordiale e pre-cosmico di cui ho parlato poc’anzi. Questa cosmogonia orfica è ampiamente utilizzata da Esiodo e risale probabilmente alle “narrazioni degli antichi mitografi” pre-omerici cui accennano Platone e Aristotele.

Chronos : il Tempo primordiale.

Il Chronos orfico è una figura mitico-divina “che non invecchia, la cui sapienza non perisce” (Proclo, fr.72 Kern). Questa concezione, che trova puntuale riscontro nelle altre fonti greche, esprime il senso di un “Tempo senza tempo”, un “tempo primordiale”, un “tempo a-cronico” simile allo Zervan akarana della tradizione zervanita dell’Iran, raffigurato come un dio androgino che l’ermeneutica filosofica successiva spiegherà come il principio generativo di ogni cosa (12).

L’avere in sé tutte le potenzialità germinative rende questa figura di Chronos un essere androginico che un Atenagora configura come un “Dragone”, sposo di Adrastea-Ananke, al tempo stesso sua “figlia” e sua “moglie”, generatrice dei prototipi da cui scaturiranno i germi costitutivi del cosmo. Non a caso nelle sculture mitriache è presente anche la figura di questo Chronos, raffigurato come un dio dalla testa di leone, un Tempo infinito, origine pre-formale dell’Uovo da cui scaturisce  Phanes, lo Splendente, che dà vita al mondo e ne regge l’ordine.

Phanes, il dio Splendente.

Come abbiamo visto, da questo Chronos che non invecchia, quindi fuori del tempo, vivente in una perenne condizione a-cronica, scaturisce l’Uovo cosmico da cui sorge Phanes, un essere di luce, l’Ekfainò, “colui che porta la luce”, che è sostanziato di luce, un sostantivo che deriva dal verbo fainò, manifestare, far brillare. Pertanto Phanes (o Eros come è chiamato in altre fonti, a indicarne la natura androginica) è non solo colui che splende, lo splendore senza misura (phaos askopon), la “luce improvvisa, tanto splendente dal corpo di Phanes immortale” (fr. 86 Kern) ma anche il “Primo che appare” (fr. 75 Kern), quindi il “Primo vivente” colui che è celebrato come “femmina e padre” (frr. 81 e 98 Kern), essere androginico che da se stesso trae i primigeni elementi creativi del cosmo (13).

La sua natura androginica rivela una capacità autogenerante per cui è posto al centro di un processo cosmogonico in cui si passa dal tempo “fuori del tempo” (Chronos o Nyx) ad una luce splendente da cui scaturisce la vita del cosmo e si originano le numerose articolazioni e differenziazioni della manifestazione universale. Per questo egli è detto anche Protogonos, il “Primo generato”, il Primigenio, il Principio vivente che trae da se stesso l’ordine universale (kosmos) su cui il mondo fonda la propria esistenza (14).

Egli è anzitutto l’archetipo di ogni cosa esistente, che sviluppa da sé tutto il mondo che la sua natura androginica contiene sul piano della potenzialità.

Il Protogonos è sorgente di vitalità e fecondità – e torniamo al simbolo dell’Uovo da cui egli nasce, simbolo che ha anche una valenza di fecondità e di generazione – ed è pure l’artefice, il demiurgo dell’ordine cosmico che ha generato, colui che ha creato la distinzione fra cielo e terra (le due metà dell’Uovo nelle sculture mitriache). Egli è anche il datore di vita, colui che ha creato lo sképtron, il sacro bastone simbolo di autorità spirituale, ma anche asse della manifestazione cosmica, come i rilievi mitriaci chiaramente illustrano (15).

La tensione trasfigurante evocata da questa raffigurazione può essere compresa adeguatamente solo se la si colloca nella prospettiva della misteriosofia orfica volta alla reintegrazione dell’adepto verso l’unità primordiale che, essendo una unità androginica, postula, evidentemente, anche una interiorizzazione dei Misteri di Afrodite, come il Simposio platonico chiaramente dimostra (16), risentendo anche dell’influenza della misteriosofia eleusina.

Mithra-Phanes

Si tratta ora di comprendere su quali basi, per il tramite di quali assonanze il dio Mithra viene assimilato a Phanes e quali implicazioni abbia tale assimilazione sotto il profilo delle mitologia e della cosmogonia mitriaca.

Sappiamo che nell’Avesta Mithra é qualificato come “la prima luce che indora le cime dei monti” (17) e che nel tempio ellenistico di Nemrut-Dagh, in Commagene (Turchia orientale) egli venga assimilato ad Apollo (18). Pur non essendo il sole, egli è una divinità solare nel senso che rappresenta la luce quale manifestazione del sole.

Nel mitraismo romano e nella scena della tauromachìa egli, pur distinto dal sole, ne è un alleato, che compie il sacrificio primordiale per ordine del dio Sole. Nei dipinti e nei rilievi mitriaci che rappresentano il rituale del pasto sacro, Mithra banchetta col sole dopo il compimento del sacrificio e ciò conferma la distinzione e la complementarietà delle due figure divine (19).

La sua natura di divinità solare, luminosa e l’essere protagonista di un sacrificio primordiale dalle valenze cosmogoniche e salvifiche, sono gli elementi che consentono di accomunarlo a Phanes, il dio splendente  che, sorgendo dall’uovo cosmico in fiamme (quindi un uovo in combustione, “sacrificato”) e separando le due metà dell’uovo, crea il cielo e la terra e regge il “mondo” in senso cosmico, così come Mithra, uccidendo il toro primordiale, dà vita e ordine all’universo.

In entrambi i fenomeni religiosi, abbiamo l’affermazione trionfale di una divinità luminosa vivificante, cosmogonica e salvifica, com’è dimostrato sia dall’iscrizione del mitreo di S. Prisca (“et tu servasti eternali sanguine fuso” e tu salvasti anche noi con l’effusione del  sangue eterno” con riferimento alla tauromachìa) sia dall’iconografia di Phanes il cui scettro è l’Axis mundi (20).

In entrambe le spiritualità misteriche abbiamo l’idea – per la verità comune a molte altre tradizioni – di un sacrificio, di un processo di dolorosa trasformazione, di “morte” da cui scaturiscono la vita cosmica e l’ordine cosmico.

Peraltro nei rilievi mitriaci, come già si è visto, compare la figura di Chronos leontocefalo, raffigurazione che rimanda alla cosmogonia orfica, in cui dal Chronos che non invecchia e la cui sapienza non si spegne, da questo “Tempo eterno” scaturisce il germe, l’uovo, che contiene in sé tutte le potenzialità della manifestazione universale e nel quale avviene la combustione (l’uovo in  fiamme) da cui sorge il dio splendente.

Comune al mithraismo e all’orfismo è, in definitiva, l’impronta apollinea, non solo sotto l’aspetto mitologico ed iconografico della luminosità che sostanzia la divinità ma anche sotto l’aspetto sostanziale di una spiritualità nel segno della misura, dell’equilibrio e della compostezza.

Sotto il primo aspetto Mithra è assimilato esplicitamente ad Apollo il cui culto è celebrato da Orfeo sul monte Pangaios secondo un frammento della Bassaridi di Eschilo (21).

Quanto al secondo profilo, Mithra è mesìtes, dio mediano sia nel senso di dio intermediario fra divino e umano (con una funzione analoga, per certi aspetti, a quella di Hermes nella religione greca ufficiale quindi anche psicopompo, guida delle anime nel post-mortem) sia in quello di archetipo della Via Mediana, la via del “giusto mezzo” che riconduce al contatto col proprio centro interiore (non a caso gli sono sacri gli Equinozi in cui il giorno e la notte sono uguali come durata, evocando l’idea di ciò che è equilibrato, misurato), una tipologia spirituale che lo accosta, in parte, alle caratteristiche dell’orfismo, tutto centrato sulla catarsi, sulle discipline di purificazione e non sull’estasi dionisiaca.

Permangono, tuttavia, anche alcune caratteristiche nettamente distinte fra i due fenomeni spirituali; il mitriaco sacrificio del toro non si concilia col rifiuto dei sacrifici cruenti tipico dell’orfismo, così come il consumo della carne nel pasto rituale fra l’Heliodromos e il Pater (rispettivamente 6° e 7° grado mitriaco) quale si evince dai rilievi mitriaci, non si concilia con il vegetarianesimo orfico.

Qui si coglie tutta la peculiarità del mithraismo romano; siamo alla presenza di una formazione religiosa nuova – rispetto al Mithra indoiranico – in cui la teologia e la cosmogonia persiana sono reinterpretate alla luce della religiosità misterica greca e, in particolare, di quella orfica, ben distinta dalla religione olimpica ufficiale. Su questo complesso sincretistico s’innesta il processo di romanizzazione, quale si desume da molteplici elementi (il vino quale bevanda rituale, l’uva, la mela e il pane quali cibi del pasto sacro, il titolo di Pater del massimo grado d’iniziazione); questa religiosità misterica, a differenza dell’orfismo, si struttura in una ben definita organizzazione a sé stante, che si può individuare in molteplici aspetti (i gradi iniziatici, i templi ipogei, i collegia cultorum, le cariche sacerdotali).

Essa ha, sul piano storico-religioso, una sua fisionomia differenziata, nella quale confluiscono elementi vari di altre correnti misteriche (quella orfica, ma anche quella pitagorico-platonica con la dottrina della metempsicosi che sembra fosse insegnata nei sodalizi mitriaci e sulla quale avrò modo di soffermarmi in un successivo intervento), elementi inseriti in una nuova trama di rapporti, in cui ciascuna componente del materiale religioso preesistente si colloca in una nuova trama di rapporti ove assume nuovi significati e nuove funzioni.

L’archetipo orfico del “dio splendente” contribuiva a fecondare – insieme con altri elementi – una nuova e originale creazione di religiosità misterica.

* * *

NOTE
1) L. Moretti, IGUR, 108; CIMRM, I, 479. Cfr. , inoltre, i numerosi contributi sul tema in Mysteria Mithrae (Atti del Seminario Internazionale di Studi Mitriaci,Roma-Ostia 28-31 marzo 1978, Ed. J.Brill, Leiden, 1979, a cura di U.Bianchi).
2) Per le fonti sull’orfismo v. O.Kern, Orphicorum fragmenta, Berolini, 1922; P.Scarpi (a cura di), Le religioni dei Misteri, I, Fondazione Lorenzo Valla-Mondadori, Milano, 2002, pp.349-437 e commento ivi, pp. 627 ss. Sull’orfismo esiste una vasta letteratura. Cfr., in particolare, M. Eliade, Storia delle credenze e delle idee religiose, II, Sansoni, Firenze, 1979, pp.189-210 e bibl. critica ivi, pp.465-466; D. Sabbatucci, Saggi sul misticismo greco, Edizioni dell’Ateeno, Roma, 2^ ed., 1991, pp.85-126, caratterizzato da una prospettiva storicistica volta a cogliere la specificità religiosa dell’orfismo greco. Di particolare interesse – e con una prospettiva ermeneutica molto diversa da quella del Sabbatucci nel senso di una valorizzazione del contenuto “tradizionale” dell’orfismo e quindi della sua comunanza mitologica e cosmogonica con altre tradizioni spirituali orientali e occidentali – è l’ultimo studio di Nuccio D’Anna, Da Orfeo a Pitagora. Dalle estasi arcaiche alle armonie cosmiche, Simmetrìa, Roma, 2011, pp.17-76, ove coglie il rapporto di alterità/complementarietà dell’orfismo con la religione olimpica ufficiale (comparabile col fenomeno dei numerosi yoghi itineranti che circolavano nell’India al tempo della religione vedica ufficiale) nonché i nessi dell’orfismo col pitagorismo. D’Anna definisce l’orfismo come la confluenza e il coronamento delle molteplici correnti della religiosità dell’Ellade dell’età arcaica, richiamandosi all’analisi di Martin Personn Nilsson su cui v., in particolare, pp.17-19, ove l’orfismo si configura come un fenomeno religioso ben definito nei suoi elementi mitologici e rituali, pur non essendo un organismo strutturato su basi rigidamente gerarchiche ma presentandosi come una sorta di organismo fluido. Sui rapporti fra orfismo e pitagorismo e le comuni ascendenze apollinee, cfr. ID., op.cit., pp.148-166.
3) Sul rilievo mitriaco di Modena v. R. Merkelbach, Mitra, Ecig, Genova, 1988, pp.267-368; 391-392.
4) I rilievi mitriaci di Chronos leontocefalo sono numerosi. Cfr. R. Merkelbach, op.cit., pp.264-267; S. Arcella, I Misteri del Sole. Il culto di Mithra nell’Italia antica, Controcorrente, Napoli, 2002, pp.155-158.
5) Sul rilievo di Emerita cfr. R. Merkelbach, op.cit., Fig.77, p. 395, con relativa e analitica didascalia.
6) Sul rilievo di Vercovicium, cfr. ID., op.cit., p.406.
7) Plut., De Iside et Osiride, 46,47; Porph., De antro nymph., 18.
8) Sul significato e le valenze di questo simbolo cfr.N. D’Anna, op.cit., p.57 ss. La letteratura su questo simbolo è limitata. Cfr. fra gli altri, R.Turcan, L’oeuf orphique et les quatre éléments, in Revue de l’Histoire des Religions, 1961, pp.11-23; M.L. West, The Orphic Poems, p.103, ss. che, oltre all’uovo, analizza il significato cosmogonico dei simboli dell’acqua e del tempo di cui si parla nel papiro di Derveni; P.G.Guzzo, Il corvo e l’uovo. Un’ipotesi sciamanica, in Bollettino d’Arte, 67, 1997, pp.123-128.
9) Su queste risultanze archeologiche cfr. A. Bottini, Archeologia della salvezza. L’escatologia greca nelle testimonianze archeologiche, Milano, Longanesi, 1992, pp.64-85.
10) Cfr. N. D’Anna, op.cit., p.58.
11) ID., op. cit., p.60; sulla Nyx ed il suo rapporto “dialettico” con Gea, cfr. D.Sababtucci, op. cit., pp. 95-101.
12) ID., op.cit., p.62 ove analizza l’aspetto dell’androgino. Per le fonti greche sul Chronos orfico, v. Platone, Timeo, 37-d (ove Chronos è considerato come una riproduzione di Aion, il tempo Eterno); Damascio (fr. 54 e fr. 60 Kern); Proclo (fr.72 Kern); Atenagora, Legat. pro Christ. 294 C.
13) Cfr. W.K.C. Guthrie, Orphéé et la religion grecque, Paris, Payot, 1956, 113-120; R. Turcan, Phanes. Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, Zurich, 1981-98, VII, 1, 1994, pp.363-364.
14) Cfr. N.D’Anna, op.cit., p.64.
15) Sul rilievo di Phanes conservato nel museo di Modena cfr. R. Merkelbach, op. cit., p. 392. Su Phanes Protogonos cfr. U. Bianchi, Aspetti dell’idea di Dio nelle religioni esoteriche dell’antichità, in SMSR, 28, 1957, pp. 115-133; G.Scalera-McClintock, La teogonia di Protogonos nel papiro di Derveni. Un’interpretazione dell’orfismo, in Teologia e Filosofia, II, 1988, pp.139-149.
16) Platone, Simposio, 189d- 192d (Adelphi, Milano, 1992).
17) Avesta, Mithra-Yasht, X, 3-16. Su Mithra quale dio della luce nascente (“natus prima luce”) cfr. S. Arcella, op.cit., 140-143.
18) Sui rilievi e il complesso iconografico di Nemrut-Dagh, cfr. R. Merkelbach, op.cit., pp.69-90.
19) Sul pasto sacro cfr. i rilievi mitriaci e le relative analisi in R. Merkelbach, op.cit., pp. 157-159; S. Arcella, op.cit., pp. 100-103.
20) Sui rinvenimenti epigrafici nel mitreo di S. Prisca in Roma, cfr. A. Epigr., 1941, nn.73-77; 1946, nn. 83-84, 1960, n. 211.
21) Sugli stretti rapporti fra orfismo e apollinismo cfr. N. D’Anna, op.cit. pp.31-56; 148-166 e bibl.ivi.

00:05 Publié dans Traditions | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : tradition, traditions, mithra, mithraïsme, antiquité, histoire | |  del.icio.us | | Digg! Digg |  Facebook

Débat sur le post-nationalisme

Débat sur le post-nationalisme

par Georges FELTIN-TRACOL

 

À l’origine, en parallèle au trimestriel ID Magazine, les Identitaires voulaient se doter d’opuscules à périodicité irrégulière destinés à mieux former cadres et militants : les Cahiers Identitaires. L’arrêt d’ID Magazine, dirigé par Pierre Chatov, et la transformation du Bloc identitaire en une formation politique effective ont fait avorter ce projet. Il n’en demeurait pas moins la volonté de participer par ces temps troublés aux discussions sur la question européenne. Ainsi est parue en décembre 2011 la brochure Orientations identitaires qui, malgré la présence d’un numéro 1 sur la couverture, ne devrait pas connaître de suite.

 

Avant de détailler le dossier central, regardons un peu sa partie « Chroniques ». Outre un éloge bienvenu de la frontière sous la signature de Zentropa, on y découvre une analyse rapide et chaleureuse du romancier « mécontemporain et enchanteur » Olivier Maulin. Deux articles dénoncent les méfaits en France et dans l’« école de la République » du racisme anti-blanc, ce seul racisme dénié par les autorités. On lit enfin une sévère et vigoureuse dénonciation de la lubie encore en vogue chez les ecclésiastiques catholiques du « dialogue interreligieux » avec l’islam. L’auteur de cette philippique condamne l’incroyable soumission de la hiérarchie catholique envers les mahométans. Rongée par le modernisme et le progressisme, l’Église de France ne tient plus depuis longtemps son rang !

 

La partie centrale reste cependant un dossier de six entretiens. Pour son maître d’œuvre, Xavier Eman, « l’aboulie suicidaire des peuples d’Europe et leur progressif remplacement par les populations déracinées du tiers-monde, les menaces écologiques, la folie matérialiste et spéculative du capitalisme financier composent une situation dramatiquement inédite dans notre histoire ». Outre deux membres du Bureau exécutif du Bloc identitaire, Philippe Millau et Jacques Cordonnier, par ailleurs responsable du mouvement régionaliste Alsace d’abord, sont interrogés Frédéric Pichon, le journaliste du Choc du Mois Pierre-Paul Bartoli et deux amis d’Europe Maxima, Arnaud Guyot-Jeannin et Pierre Le Vigan dont l’entretien sera mis en ligne la semaine prochaine et qui ne sera donc pas commenté ici.

 

Le concept de « post-nationalisme » est-il viable ? Difficilement ! Déjà que le nationalisme « est un terme diffus », estime Philippe Millau. Arnaud Guyot-Jeannin rappelle, pour sa part, que « le nationalisme est une idéologie moderne »; c’est un individualisme de masse « ontologiquement centralisateur ». Il est bien de déblayer le terrain des idées et d’écarter sans hésitation des notions porteuses de la mort de millions d’Européens. C’est la raison pour laquelle Philippe Millau soutient que « le terme d’identitaire, lui, évite les funestes “ ismes ”, et définit une conception actuelle, dynamique et ouverte à la fois ».

 

Ouvertement régionaliste, Jacques Cordonnier insiste sur le fait que « les régionalistes ne sont ni séparatistes ni indépendantistes ». Favorable à la fusion en une seule collectivité territoriale des conseils généraux du Haut- et Bas-Rhin et du conseil régional alsacien, il juge que l’État central parisien et la partitocratie U.M.P.S. nuisent gravement à l’identité substantielle de l’Alsace. Le centralisme parisien est aussi mis en accusation par Arnaud Guyot-Jeannin. « L’État-nation centralisé et administratif français ne représente plus le cadre approprié à la mise en forme d’une identité collective. […] Il a dépossédé la France de sa diversité régionale, nationale et populaire ». Bref, « la République une et indivisible ne correspond pas à la res publica (chose publique), en uniformisant et réifiant le corps social ». Pour Frédéric Pichon, « la nation, qui ne se réduit pas à l’État, reste un point de jonction entre le particulier et l’universel, entre les régions et l’Europe », mais l’Europe est-elle l’universel ou, si elle ne l’est pas, est-elle une généralité plus étendue que les autres ? En affirmant que « l’identité est un concept dynamique et non statique », Frédéric Pichon rejoint sur ce point Philippe Millau.

 

Le sujet témoigne d’une divergence flagrante entre cinq des intervenants et le sixième, Pierre-Paul Bartoli, qu’on range parmi les souverainistes sans qu’il se reconnaisse lui-même dans cette expression galvaudée. Selon lui, « le propre du génie de l’Europe réside dans la pluralité des nations en quoi elle s’incarne ». Il assène même que l’esprit européen a seulement inventé l’État-nation et la grande musique orchestrale, lyrique et symphonique !

 

Si tous s’accordent sur la médiocrité profonde de l’actuelle Union européenne, les condamnations demeurent personnelles. Ainsi, Bartoli vomit « l’Union européenne de Bruxelles, les gnomes qui la dirigent et les hommes politiques qui la servent, mais [il] n’éprouve aucune nostalgie adolescente envers une mythique unité carolingienne [sic !] disparue qu’il faudrait à tout prix ressusciter ». Au contraire, Millau considère que « l’Europe des Six (le noyau carolingien : France, Allemagne, Italie, Bénélux) était plus forte, plus indépendante, et plus respectueuse des nations que l’Europe marchande et diluée d’aujourd’hui ».

 

Soucieux de « sortir […] de cette dialectique stérile contre les partisans d’une Europe mondialiste et technocratique et les souverainistes germanophobes et jacobins », Frédéric Pichon dissocie clairement l’Europe, son Alter Europa, de l’Occident moderne « sécularisé [qui] correspond à l’avènement de l’idéologie des droits de l’homme, de l’économie de marché et de la standardisation des modes de vie ». La distinction s’impose en cette époque floue. L’Europe est un impératif : « nous sommes au XXIe siècle, lance Philippe Millau. La confrontation est à l’échelle des continents. Pour autant un fort attachement à sa nation, s’il n’est pas jaloux et exclusif, reste un grand atout et un important point de repère. En particulier en France, du fait de sa longue histoire ».

 

L’attachement aux patries charnelles, aux nations et à l’Europe est revendiqué par Arnaud Guyot-Jeannin, ardent défenseur de la subsidiarité et d’un fédéralisme qui « se construit par le bas » – sans nécessité par conséquent de fédérateur hégémonique ! Il prône « une Europe de l’identité et de la puissance reconnaissant les origines du christianisme et en y intégrant le meilleur de l’Antiquité païenne, tout en se dotant d’un statut des minorités ». Ainsi, ce serait « une Europe confédérale basée sur la démocratie subsidiaire et les peuples » alliée avec la Russie.

 

En permettant un débat de toute première importance qui mériterait en cette période de pré-campagne électorale d’être discuté par les candidats (ne rêvons quand même pas !), cette brochure, Orientations identitaires, a le mérite de témoigner du changement de paradigme en cours. « Le nationalisme […] est la loi qui domine l’organisation des peuples modernes », assurait Maurice Barrès dans le Journal en 1897. Aujourd’hui, les peuples post-modernes s’organisent autour des identités et des communautés.

 

Georges Feltin-Tracol

 

Orientations identitaires, n° 1, décembre 2011, « Vers un post-nationalisme ? Entretiens sur la question européenne », 50 p., 5 € (+ 1,5 € pour le port), à commander sur le site <http://orientationsidentitaires.over-blog.com/> ou à l’adresse <orientationsidentitaires@gmail.com>.

 


 

Article printed from Europe Maxima: http://www.europemaxima.com

 

URL to article: http://www.europemaxima.com/?p=2357

 

mercredi, 11 janvier 2012

Les USA « tournent la page » vers de nouvelles guerres

Les USA « tournent la page » vers de nouvelles guerres

Ex: http://mediabenews.wordpress.com/

La récente annonce du ralentissement de la hausse des dépenses consacrées à l’armement aux États-Unis et de la limitation de l’engagement de ses armées à un seul conflit direct a été accueillie avec un certain soulagement par beaucoup. Cependant, observe Manlio Dinucci, il s’agit en réalité d’un trompe l’œil : la sous-traitance de plus en plus courante des conflits par les pays vassaux, les budgets cachés des services secrets et le recours accru à la guerre technologique ne présagent en rien d’une réduction du nombre de théâtres d’opérations impliquant le Pentagone.

« Après une décennie de guerre les États-Unis sont en train de tourner la page » : c’est ce qu’a dit hier le président Obama dans la conférence de presse au Pentagone, en présentant la nouvelle stratégie, avec le secrétaire à la défense Leon Panetta. Les forces armées deviendront « plus minces », rendant possibles des coupes dans le budget militaire pour un montant de 450 milliards de dollars en dix ans. Le message propagandiste est clair : en temps de crise, même les forces armées doivent serrer la ceinture. Le Pentagone est-il donc en train de désarmer ? Pas du tout : il rationalise l’utilisation des ressources pour rendre sa machine de guerre encore plus efficace.

La dépense militaire étasunienne, qui a presque doublé cette dernière décennie, se monte selon le Sipri à 43 % de la dépense militaire mondiale. Mais, en incluant d’autres dépenses de caractère militaire, elle dépasse les 50 % de la dépense mondiale. Pour 2012, le Pentagone reçoit 553 milliards de dollars, 23 milliards de plus qu’en 2010. S’y ajoutent 118 milliards pour la guerre en Afghanistan et pour les « activités de transition en Irak » et 17 pour les armes nucléaires, que gère le Département de l’énergie. En y incluant d’autres dépenses à caractère militaire, parmi lesquelles 124 milliards pour les militaires à la retraite et 47 pour le Département de la sécurité de la patrie, la dépense militaire étasunienne dépasse les 900 milliards de dollars, un quart environ du budget fédéral.

C’est dans ce contexte qu’intervient la coupe annoncée de 45 milliards annuels dans la prochaine décennie. Les économies devraient être réalisées surtout en réduisant les forces terrestres, de 570 mille à 520 mille effectifs, et en réduisant les allocations (y compris l’assistance médicale) des anciens combattants. La réduction des forces terrestres s’inscrit dans la nouvelle stratégie, testée avec la guerre contre la Libye : c’est la nouvelle façon de faire la guerre -soutient-on à Washington- qui a montré comment des puissances de grandeur moyenne peuvent être battues et leurs dirigeants renversés, en utilisant l’écrasante supériorité aérienne et navale É.-U./OTAN et en en faisant porter le plus gros poids aux alliés. Les guerres n’en coûtent pas moins pour cela : les fonds nécessaires, comme cela s’est passé pour la Libye, sont autorisés par le Congrès d’une fois sur l’autre, en les ajoutant au budget du Pentagone.

Les forces étasuniennes, a souligné Panetta, deviendront plus agiles, plus flexibles et prêtes à être déployées rapidement. Avec elles, les É.-U. seront en mesure d’affronter et de vaincre simultanément plus d’un adversaire. Cela sera rendu possible par le fait que, tandis qu’ils réduiront leurs forces terrestres, les É.-U. acquerront de nouvelles capacités militaires, en privilégiant des systèmes d’arme à haute technologie et le contrôle de l’espace. La nouvelle stratégie prévoit, en même temps, un recours de plus en plus important aux services secrets et aux forces spéciales.

Quand il était directeur de la Cia (l’une des 17 organisations fédérales de la « communauté du renseignement ») Panetta a accéléré la transformation de l’agence en une véritable organisation militaire : elle a utilisé de façon croissante des drones armés dans les attaques en Afghanistan et constitué des bases secrètes pour les opérations de commandos au Yémen et dans plusieurs autres pays. Comme il est ressorti d’une enquête du Washington Post, les forces pour les opérations spéciales sont aujourd’hui déployées dans 75 pays, au lieu de 60 il y a deux ans, et sont de plus en plus flanquées de mercenaires de sociétés privées, qui agissent elles aussi dans l’ombre. La guerre est ainsi menée sous des formes moins visibles, mais non moins coûteuses de ce fait. Le budget des services secrets est en effet « classé », c’est-à-dire secret. Personne ne peut ainsi savoir à combien se monte réellement la dépense militaire étasunienne.

Les États-Unis, prévoit la nouvelle stratégie, devront être en mesure d’assumer et de remporter un conflit de grandes proportions, en conservant simultanément la capacité de bloquer un autre adversaire majeur dans une autre région et de conduire en outre des opérations de « contre-terrorisme » et d’imposition de « no-fly zones » (zones d’exclusion aérienne). Ils auront besoin pour cela des systèmes d’armes les plus avancés, comme le chasseur F-35, dont la réalisation, avec quelque ajustement, va continuer (du fait, aussi, qu’il sert à renforcer le leadership étasunien sur ses alliés). Les É.-U. auront en même temps besoin de forces nucléaires toujours prêtes à l’attaque : à cette fin, annonce le Pentagone, « l’Administration modernisera l’arsenal nucléaire et le complexe qui le soutient ». La dépense n’est pas quantifiée, mais sera certainement énorme.

Ce qu’a annoncé Washington n’est donc pas un ralentissement de la course aux armements, mais un ajustement prélude à une nouvelle escalade guerrière et, donc, une augmentation ultérieure de la dépense militaire mondiale, qui dépasse déjà les 3 millions de dollars par minute. Panetta a expliqué que la nouvelle stratégie a comme centre focal le Moyen-Orient et la région Asie/Pacifique, faisant comprendre que les Usa gardent dans leur collimateur l’Iran et la Syrie, et entendent s’opposer militairement à la Chine et à la Russie. Le président Obama a annoncé que « même si nos troupes continuent à se battre en Afghanistan, la marée de la guerre se retire », mais il a bien stipulé que « les États-Unis garderont leur supériorité militaire ». Son but est déclaré dans le titre du rapport par lequel le Pentagone énonce la nouvelle stratégie : « Soutenir le leadership mondial des É.-U. ». Qui « sont en train de tourner la page » en faisant marche arrière dans l’histoire, à l’âge d’or de l’impérialisme.

Traduction
Marie-Ange Patrizio

Former Soviet States: Battleground For Global Domination

forces_russes_en_cei.jpg

Former Soviet States: Battleground For Global Domination

A Europe united under the EU and especially NATO is to be strong enough to contain, isolate and increasingly confront Russia as the central component of U.S. plans for control of Eurasia and the world, but cannot be allowed to conduct an independent foreign policy, particularly in regard to Russia and the Middle East. European NATO allies are to assist Washington in preventing the emergence of "the most dangerous scenario...a grand coalition of China, Russia, and perhaps Iran" such as has been adumbrated since in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

 

Four years after the publication of The Grand Chessboard, Brzezinski's recommended chess move was made: The U.S. and NATO invaded Afghanistan and expanded into Central Asia where Russian, Chinese and Iranian interests converge and where the basis for their regional cooperation existed, and Western military bases were established in the former Soviet republics of Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, where they remain for the indefinite future.

 

As the United States escalates its joint war with NATO in Afghanistan and across the Pakistani border, expands military deployments and exercises throughout Africa under the new AFRICOM, and prepares to dispatch troops to newly acquired bases in Colombia as the spearhead for further penetration of that continent, it is simultaneously targeting Eurasia and the heart of that vast land mass, the countries of the former Soviet Union.

 

Within months of the formal breakup of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in December of 2001, leading American policy advisers and government officials went to work devising a strategy to insure that the fragmentation was final and irreversible. And to guarantee that the fifteen new nations emerging from the ruins of the Soviet Union would not be allied in even a loose association such as the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) founded in the month of the Soviet Union's dissolution.

 

Three of the former Soviet republics, the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, never joined the CIS and in 2004 became full members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, in all three cases placing the U.S.-led military bloc on Russian borders.

 

That left eleven other former republics to be weaned from economic, political, infrastructural, transportation and defense sector integration with Russia, integration that was extensively and comprehensively developed for the seventy four years of the USSR's existence and in many cases for centuries before during the Czarist period.

 

A change of its socio-economic system and the splintering of the nation with the world's largest territory only affected U.S. policy toward former Soviet space insofar as it led to Washington and its allies coveting and moving on a vast expanse of Europe and Asia hitherto off limits to it.

 

Two months after the end of the Soviet Union then U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Paul Wolfowitz and his deputy in the Pentagon, Lewis Libby, authored what became known as the Defense Planning Guidance document for the years 1994–99. Some accounts attribute the authorship to Libby and Zalmay Khalilzad under Wolfowitz's tutelage.

 

Afghan-born Khalilzad is a fellow alumnus of Wolfowitz at the University of Chicago and worked under him in the Ronald Reagan State Department starting in 1984. From 1985-1989 he was the Reagan administration's special adviser on the proxy war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and on the Iran-Iraq war. In the first capacity he coordinated the Mujahideen war against the government of Afghanistan waged from Pakistan along with Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency Robert Gates, now U.S. Secretary of Defense. (Gates has a doctorate degree in Russian and Soviet Studies, as does his former colleague the previous U.S. secretary of state Condoleezza Rice.)

 

The main recipient of U.S. arms and training within the Mujahideen coalition during those years was Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, whose still extant armed group Hezb-e-Islami assisted in driving American troops out of Camp Keating in Afghanistan's Nuristan province this October. Hekmatyar remains in Afghanistan heading the Hezb-e-Islami and top U.S. and NATO military commander General Stanley McChrystal in his Commander's Initial Assessment of September - which called for a massive increase in American troops for the war - identified the party as one of three main insurgent forces that as many as 85,000 U.S. and thousands of NATO reinforcements will be required to fight.

 

The Wolfowitz-Libby-Khalilzad Defense Planning Guidance prototype appeared in the New York Times on March 7, 1992 and to demonstrate that the end of the Soviet Union and the imminent fall of the Afghan government (Hekmatyar and his allies would march into Kabul two months later) affected U.S. policy toward Russia not one jot contained these passages:

 

"Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to general global power."

 

"We continue to recognize that collectively the conventional forces of the states formerly comprising the Soviet Union retain the most military potential in all of Eurasia; and we do not dismiss the risks to stability in Europe from a nationalist backlash in Russia or efforts to reincorporate into Russia the newly independent republics of Ukraine, Belarus, and possibly others....We must, however, be mindful that democratic change in Russia is not irreversible, and that despite its current travails, Russia will remain the strongest military power in Eurasia and the only power in the world with the capability of destroying the United States."

 

In its original and revised versions the 46-page Defense Planning Guidance document laid the foundation for what would informally become known as the Wolfowitz Doctrine and later the Bush Doctrine, indistinguishable in any essential manner from the Blair, alternately known as Clinton, Doctrine enunciated in 1999: That the U.S. (with its NATO allies) reserves the unquestioned right to employ military force anywhere in the world at any time for whichever purpose it sees fit and to effect "regime change" overthrows of any governments viewed as being insufficiently subservient to Washington and its regional and global designs.

 

Five years later former Carter administration National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, who launched the Afghan Mujahideen support project in 1978 and worked with Khalilzad at Colombia when the latter was Assistant Professor of Political Science at the university's School of International and Public Affairs from 1979 to 1989 and Brzezinski headed the Institute on Communist Affairs, wrote an article called "A Geostrategy for Eurasia."

 

It was in essence a precis of his book of the same year, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And It's Geostrategic Imperatives, and was published in Foreign Affairs, the journal of the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations.

 

The framework for the piece is contained in this paragraph:

 

"America's status as the world's premier power is unlikely to be contested by any single challenger for more than a generation. No state is likely to match the United States in the four key dimensions of power - military, economic, technological, and cultural - that confer global political clout. Short of American abdication, the only real alternative to American leadership is international anarchy. President Clinton is correct when he says America has become the world's 'indispensable nation.'"

 

Brzezinski identified the subjugation of Eurasia as Washington's chief global geopolitical objective, with the former Soviet Union as the center of that policy and NATO as the main mechanism to accomplish the strategy.

 

"Europe is America's essential geopolitical bridgehead in Eurasia. America's stake in democratic Europe is enormous. Unlike America's links with Japan, NATO entrenches American political influence and military power on the Eurasian mainland. With the allied European nations still highly dependent on U.S. protection, any expansion of Europe's political scope is automatically an expansion of U.S. influence. Conversely, the United States' ability to project influence and power in Eurasia relies on close transatlantic ties.

 

"A wider Europe and an enlarged NATO will serve the short-term and longer-term interests of U.S. policy. A larger Europe will expand the range of American influence without simultaneously creating a Europe so politically integrated that it could challenge the United States on matters of geopolitical importance, particularly in the Middle East...."

 

The double emigre - first from Poland, then from Canada - advocated a diminished role for nation states, including the U.S., and Washington's collaboration in building a stronger Europe in furtherance of general Western domination of Eurasia, the Middle East, Africa and the world as a whole.

 

"In practical terms, all this will eventually require America's accommodation to a shared leadership in NATO, greater acceptance of France's concerns over a European role in Africa and the Middle East, and continued support for the European Union's eastward expansion even as the EU becomes politically and economically more assertive....A new Europe is still taking shape, and if that Europe is to remain part of the 'Euro-Atlantic' space, the expansion of NATO is essential."

 

While giving lip service to the role of the European Union, he left no doubt as to which organization - the world's only military bloc - is to lead the charge in the conquest of the former Soviet Union as well as the world's "periphery." It is NATO.

 

Already stating in 1997, two years before his native Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary would become full members of the Alliance, that "Ukraine, provided it has made significant domestic reforms and has become identified as a Central European country, should also be ready for initial negotiations with the EU and NATO," he added:

 

"Failure to widen NATO, now that the commitment has been made, would shatter the concept of an expanding Europe and demoralize the Central Europeans. Worse, it could reignite dormant Russian political aspirations in Central Europe. Moreover, it is far from evident that the Russian political elite shares the European desire for a strong American political and military presence in Europe....If a choice must be made between a larger Europe-Atlantic system and a better relationship with Russia, the former must rank higher."

 

That a former U.S. foreign policy official and citizen of the country would so blithely determine years before the event which nations would join the European Union went without comment on both sides of the Atlantic. That the nominal geographic location of a nation - placing Ukraine in Central Europe - would be assigned by an American was similarly assumed to be Washington's prerogative evidently.

 

Despite vapid maunderings about desiring to free post-Soviet Russia from its "imperial past" and "integrating [it] into a cooperative transcontinental system," Brzezinski presented a blueprint for surrounding the nation with a NATO cordon sanitaire, in truth a wall of military fortifications.

 

"Russia is more likely to make a break with its imperial past if the newly independent post-Soviet states are vital and stable. Their vitality will temper any residual Russian imperial temptations. Political and economic support for the new states must be an integral part of a broader strategy....Ukraine is a critically important component of such a policy, as is support for such strategically pivotal states as Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan."

 

Adding Georgia and Moldova, the three states he singles out became the nucleus of the GUUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Moldova) bloc originally created in the same year as Brzezinski's article and book appeared. (Uzbekistan joined in 1999 and left in 2005.)

 

GUAM was promoted by the Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright administration as a vehicle for planned Trans-Eurasian energy projects and to tear apart the Commonwealth of Independent States by luring members apart from Russia toward the European Union, the so-called soft power preliminary stage, and NATO, the hard power culmination of the process.

 

In the above-quoted article Brzezinski also wrote, in addressing Turkey, that "Regular consultations with Ankara regarding the future of the Caspian Sea basin and Central Asia would foster Turkey's sense of strategic partnership with the United States. America should also support Turkish aspirations to have a pipeline from Baku, Azerbaijan, to Ceyhan on its own Mediterranean coast serve as a major outlet for the Caspian sea basin energy reserves."

 

Eight years later, in 2005, the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline transporting Caspian Sea oil to Europe came online, followed by the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum natural gas pipeline and the Kars-Akhalkalaki-Tbilisi-Baku railway, with the Nabucco natural gas pipeline next to be activated. The last-named is already slated to include, in addition to Caspian supplies, gas from Iraq and North Africa.

 

The book whose foreword Brzezinski's "A Geostrategy for Eurasia" in a way was, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And It's Geostrategic Imperatives, laid out in greater detail plans that have been expanded upon in the interim.

 

The volume's preface states, "It is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book....Potentially, the most dangerous scenario would be a grand coalition of China, Russia, and perhaps Iran....Averting this contingency, however remote it may be, will require a display of US geostrategic skill on the western, eastern, and southern perimeters of Eurasia simultaneously.”

 

In pursuance of "America's role as the first, only, and last truly global superpower," Brzezinski noted that "the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia. For half a millennium, world affairs were dominated by Eurasian powers and peoples who fought with one another for regional domination and reached out for global power. Now a non-Eurasian power is preeminent in Eurasia - and America's global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained."

 

The military fist inside the diplomatic glove is and will remain NATO.

 

"The emergence of a truly united Europe - especially if that should occur with constructive American support - will require significant changes in the structure and processes of the NATO alliance, the principal link between America and Europe. NATO provides not only the main mechanism for the exercise of US influence regarding European matters but the basis for the politically critical American military presence in Western Europe....Eurasia is thus the chessboard on which the struggle for global primacy continues to be played."

 

In a section with the heading "The NATO Imperative," the author reiterated earlier policy demands: "It follows that a wider Europe and an enlarged NATO will serve well both the short-term and the longer-term goals of US policy. A larger Europe will expand the range of American influence — and, through the admission of new Central European members, also increase in the European councils the number of states with a pro-American proclivity — without simultaneously creating a Europe politically so integrated that it could soon challenge the United States on geopolitical matters of high importance to America elsewhere, particularly in the Middle East."

 

A Europe united under the EU and especially NATO is to be strong enough to contain, isolate and increasingly confront Russia as the central component of U.S. plans for control of Eurasia and the world, but cannot be allowed to conduct an independent foreign policy, particularly in regard to Russia and the Middle East. European NATO allies are to assist Washington in preventing the emergence of "the most dangerous scenario...a grand coalition of China, Russia, and perhaps Iran" such as has been adumbrated since in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

 

Four years after the publication of The Grand Chessboard, Brzezinski's recommended chess move was made: The U.S. and NATO invaded Afghanistan and expanded into Central Asia where Russian, Chinese and Iranian interests converge and where the basis for their regional cooperation existed, and Western military bases were established in the former Soviet republics of Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, where they remain for the indefinite future.

 

Western-controlled pipelines traverse the South Caucasus - Azerbaijan and Georgia - to drive Russia and Iran out of the European and ultimately world energy markets, with a concomitant U.S. and NATO takeover of the armed forces of both nations. The two countries have also been tapped for increased troop deployments and transport routes for the war in South Asia.

 

The West is completing the process described by Brzezinski in his 1997 book in which he stated "In effect, by the mid-1990s a bloc, quietly led by Ukraine and comprising Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan and sometimes also Kazakhstan, Georgia and Moldova, had informally emerged to obstruct Russian efforts to use the CIS as the tool for political integration."

 

Note, not to obstruct a new "imperial" Russia from exploiting the Commonwealth of Independent States to dominate much less absorb former parts not only of the Soviet Union but of historical Russia, but to integrate - or rather maintain the integration of - nations which were within one state until eighteen years ago. At that time, 1991, the Soviet Union precipitately disintegrated into fifteen new nations and four independent "frozen conflict" zones - Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia and Transdniester - and Russia made a 180 degree turn in its political structure and orientation, both domestically and in its foreign policy.

 

The response to those developments by the U.S. and its NATO cohorts was to scent blood and move in for the kill.

 

Starting in 1994 NATO recruited all fifteen former Soviet republics into its Partnership for Peace program, which has subsequently prepared ten nations - all in Eastern Europe, three of them former Soviet republics - for full membership.

 

As noted above, in 1997 the West absorbed four and for a period five former Soviet states - Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Moldova and Uzbekistan - into the GUAM, now Organization for Democracy and Economic Development, format, which has recently been expanded to include Armenia and Belarus with the European Union's Eastern Partnership initiative. The latter includes half (six of twelve) of the CIS and former CIS nations, all except for Russia and the five Central Asian countries. [1]

 

Armenian, Azerbaijani, Georgian and Ukrainian troops have been enlisted by the U.S. and NATO for the war in Afghanistan, with Moldova to be the next supplier of soldiers. All five nations also provided forces for the war and occupation in Iraq.

 

The five Central Asian former Soviet republics - Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan - have provided the Pentagon and NATO with bases and transit rights for the war in South Asia and as such are being daily dragged deeper into the Western military nexus. Kazakhstan, for example, sent troops to Iraq and may soon deploy them to Afghanistan.

 

In recent days the West has stepped up its offensive in several former Soviet states.

 

GUAM held a meeting of its Parliamentary Assembly in the Georgian capital of Tbilisi on November 9 and the leader of the host nation's parliamentary majority, David Darchiashvili, said "GUAM has significant potential, as its member states have common interests while the CIS is a union of conflicting interests" and "It is important for GUAM members to have a specific attitude to the EU. GUAM has a potential to develop a common direction with the EU under the policy of the Eastern Partnership." [2]

 

Georgian Foreign Minister Grigol Vashadze said at the event that "Our relations are extending, new partners appear. The US, the Czech Republic, Japan and the Baltic states will become GUAM partners soon. They will participate in economic projects with us." [3]

 

The Secretary General of the Council of Europe Torbjorn Jagland met with GUAM member states' permanent representatives to the Council of Europe and during the meeting "the Azerbaijani side emphasized the need to intensify the Council of Europe's efforts in the settlement of 'frozen conflicts' in the GUAM area." [4] The allusion is again to Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia and Transdniester where several thousand lives were lost in fighting after the breakup of the Soviet Union and, in the case of South Ossetia, where a Georgian invasion of last year triggered a five-day war with Russia.

 

Later at the NATO Parliamentary Assembly meeting in Edinburgh, Scotland from November 13-17, Azerbaijani member of parliament Zahid Oruj said that "the territories of both Georgia and Azerbaijan were occupied and the Collective Security Treaty Organization’s policy in the region proved that" and he "characterized these steps as an action against NATO." [5] The Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) is a post-Soviet security bloc consisting of Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Belarus (initially) and Uzbekistan both boycotted the creation of the new CSTO rapid reaction force last month and the Eastern Partnership is designed in part to pull Armenia and Belarus out of the organization. Comparable initiatives are underway in regards to the four Central Asian members states, with the Afghan war the chief mechanism for reorienting them toward NATO.

 

During the NATO Parliamentary Assembly session, for example, a Turkish parliamentarian said "Armenia’s releasing the occupied Azerbaijani territories [Nagorno Karabakh] will create a security zone in the South Caucasus and pave the way for NATO’s cooperation with this region."

 

An Azerbaijani counterpart was even more blunt in stating "NATO should defend Azerbaijan” and stressing "that otherwise, security will not be firm in the region, stability can be violated anytime [and a] new military conflict will be inevitable." [6]

 

The day after the NATO session ended the president of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, revealed the context for NATO "defending Azerbaijan" when he announced that "There is strong support for building the national army. Our army grows stronger. We are holding negotiations but we should be ready to liberate our territories any time from the invaders by military means." [7]

 

The same day Daniel Stein, senior assistant to the U.S. Special Envoy for Eurasian Energy, was in Azerbaijan where he confirmed strategic ties with the nation's government and said that as "global energy security is one of the priorities of US foreign policy, his country supports diversification of energy resources while delivering them to world markets." [8]

 

Also on November 18 Stein's superior, U.S. Special Envoy for Eurasian Energy Richard Morningstar, addressed the European Policy Center, a Brussels-based think-tank, and said "Turkey will become a very strong transit country in transporting the gas of the Caucasus and Central Asia to Europe” - via Azerbaijan and Georgia - and "Turkmenistan and Iraq could join in as other suppliers besides Azerbaijan...." [9]

 

The following day, November 19, a conference on NATO's New Strategic Concept: Contribution to the Debate from Partners was held in Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan. The host country's deputy foreign minister, Araz Azimov, stated at the meeting:

 

"I offer the signing of bilateral agreements between NATO and partner countries to cover security guarantees for partner countries along with the responsibility and commitments of the parties.

 

"Yes, we (partner countries) are important for NATO in general for the security architecture of the Euro-Atlantic area. Today Azerbaijan's borders are the borders of Europe." [10]

 

On November Azerbaijan hosted an international conference titled Impediments to Security in the South Caucasus: Current Realities and Future Prospects for Regional Development, co-sponsored by Britain's International Institute for Strategic Studies. Speakers included Ariel Cohen, Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, and the Washington, D.C.-based Jamestown Foundation's President Glenn Howard and Senior Fellow Vladimir Socor.

 

Socor, a Romanian emigre and former Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty employee, in addressing the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno Karabakh, "stressed the necessity of an undertaking by NATO of analogous steps in this conflict taken for the settlement of the conflicts in the Balkans and former Yugoslavia." [11]

 

Novruz Mammadov, head of the Foreign Relations Department of Azerbaijan's presidential administration, said that "Azerbaijan is the only country in the post-Soviet space usefully and really cooperating with the West," and Elnur Aslanov, head of the Political Analysis and Information Department for the President of Azerbaijan, said:

 

"The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan, Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum and Baku-Tbilisi-Kars
projects...stimulate the development of regional cooperation, and also are important from the security standpoint....Azerbaijan is a reliable partner of the European security architecture...the country plays an important role in ensuring European energy security." [12]

 

Jamestown Foundation chief Glenn Howard added "that Azerbaijan is an important partner for NATO in terms of energy security," and backed the nation's deputy foreign minister's demand the previous day that NATO must offer Yugoslav war-style support to its Caucasus partners "especially after the war in Georgia last year."

 

Howard added:

 

"NATO can give security guarantees to a country in case of an attack, which is what happened in 1979 in the Persian Gulf - after the fall of the Shah of Iran the US gave security guarantees to countries through bilateral agreements with those countries....If Azerbaijani troops are going to help in one area, that will lessen the need for NATO troops in this particular area, so that they can be involved in some other area, for example, that helps put more troops in fighting the Taliban...." [13]

 

Azerbaijan is not the only former Soviet republic the U.S. intends to use to penetrate the Caspian Sea Basin. After leaving Baku the State Department's Daniel Stein arrived in Turkmenistan where he stated that "The United States offers its mediating mission in Turkmen-Azerbaijan disputes over the Caspian status," in relation to a border demarcation conflict in a sea that the two nations share with Russia and Iran. He added, "The U.S. and EU member countries try to assure Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan that they should reach an agreement on the division of the Caspian to create real opportunities for Nabucco and other projects." [14]

 

The same day U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia George Krol was also in the Turkmen capital to deliver an address at the the annual Oil and Gas Conference there and said, "The U.S. considers energy security as a priority issue, and Central Asia is an important region in the global energy map." [15]

 

In Azerbaijan's fellow GUAM member state Moldova, the new government of acting president Mihai Ghimpu, which came to power after April's so-called Twitter Revolution, announced that it was establishing a national committee to implement an Individual Partnership Action Plan for NATO membership. To indicate the importance the new administration attaches to integration with the bloc, "Minister of Foreign Affairs and European Integration Iurie Leanca has been appointed committee chairman." [16]

 

Earlier this month it was reported that the government's Prosecutor General's Office had "dropped criminal proceedings against the people accused of masterminding riots in the republic's capital in April, following the Opposition's protest against the results of the parliamentary election....After the early parliamentary election on July 29 when the Opposition came to power, most cases were closed" and instead "When the new prosecutor general was appointed, criminal cases were opened against police who took part in driving the protesters from the city center and their arrests." [17]

 

On the same day that the Jamestown Foundation's Glenn Howard and Vladimir Socor were in Azerbaijan advocating NATO intervention in the South Caucasus, U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden held a phone conversation with Georgian president and former U.S. resident Mikheil Saakashvili in which the first "reiterated the United States' 'strong support' for Georgia´s sovereignty and territorial integrity" and "underscored the importance of sustaining the commitment to democratic reform to fulfill the promise of the Rose Revolution." [18]

 

Also on November 20 a major Russian news source reported that Washington had shipped nearly $80 million in weapons to Georgia in 2008 and plans to supply more in the future.

 

"Despite the economic crisis, Georgia is increasing expenditure on arms purchases in the U.S.," although "Independent sources say[ing] Georgia´s unemployment stands at about one-third of its able-bodied population." [19]

 

On the same day a delegation from the Pentagon was in the Georgian capital to meet with Temur Iakobashvili, the nation's State Reintegration Minister - for "reintegration" read forcible incorporation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia - and the Georgian official announced "We introduced to the guests our plan to ensure security in the occupied territories. We also talked about the role the U.S. will play in assisting the ensuring of regional security." [20]

 

The U.S. Defense Department representatives, including Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia/Ukraine/Eurasia Celeste Wallander, met with Georgian Defense Minister Bacho Akhalaia "to hold consultations on defence cooperation issues concerning the two countries," and "Wallander personally inspected ongoing military trainings aimed at the preparation of the 31st Battalion of the GAF [Georgian Armed Forces] for participation in the ISAF operation in Afghanistan. The sides evaluated the US assistance provided during 2009 and considered in detail future cooperation prospects for 2010/2011.

 

"Under the visit's agenda the high-ranking US official met with the Security Council Secretary, Eka Tkeshelashvili, State Minister for Reintegration Temur Iakobashvili and Defence and Security Committee members of parliament." [21] The inspection mentioned above was of training following that conducted by U.S. Marines. The first contingent of new Georgian troops thus prepared was sent to Afghanistan four days before.

 

Two days earlier NATO spokesman James Appathurai announced that the Alliance was forging ahead with plans for both Georgia's and Ukraine's full membership and that "assessments would be made at a meeting of the NATO-Ukraine and NATO-Georgia Commissions to be held in Brussels in early December at the level of NATO foreign ministers." [22]

 

Also on November 18 Georgian Vice Premier and State Minister for Euro-Atlantic Integration Giorgi Baramidze met with NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen in Brussels. "The Georgian delegation also included Deputy Foreign Minister Giga Bokeria and Deputy Defense Minister Nikoloz Vashakidze. A meeting of the NATO-Georgia Commission at the ambassadorial level was also held in Brussels." [23]

 

The day preceding the meeting, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Tina Kaidanow were in Georgia to convene "working meetings with Georgian authorities within the Strategic Partnership Charter.

 

"The delegation will monitor the implementation of the U.S.-Georgia Strategic Partnership Plan" inaugurated in January of this year, less than four months after the war with Russia. [24]

 

The prior week Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov accused Western and allied nations of continuing to arm Georgia, stating “I hope many take lessons from last year’s August events. But I have to say that according to the reports of various sources, some countries are sending arms and ammunition demanded by the Georgian leadership via different complicated schemes.” [25]

 

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin warned on the same day that "[Georgian] military drones have started flying over South Ossetia and Abkhazia" [26} and the day before Nikolay Makarov, Chief of the General Staff, said "Georgia is getting large amounts of weapons supplied from abroad" and "Georgian military potential is currently higher than last August." [27]

 

Makarov's contention was confirmed by Georgian Defense Minister Bacho Akhalaia on November 14 when he said "the country’s defense capabilities are now better than they were a year ago and they are further improving."

 

The defense chief added, “a strong army will be one of our key priorities until the last occupant leaves our territories.” [28] The "occupants" in question are Russian troops in Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

 

Azerbaijan is not the only South Caucasus NATO partner preparing for war.

 

Regarding the recently concluded two-week Immediate Response 2009 exercises run by the U.S. Marine Corps in Georgia, a leading Russian news site wrote "Perhaps, the exercises were aimed at issuing a warning to Russia." [29]

 

On November 13 the Russian General Staff revealed that "Russian secret services have declassified information about Georgia’s plans to start forming its special forces in a move that will be implemented in close cooperation with Turkey," and "voiced concern about Georgia’s ongoing push for muscle-flexing amid efforts by Israel, Ukraine and NATO countries to re-arm the Saakashvili regime." [30]

 

In Ukraine, on November 19 Deputy Foreign Minister Kostiantyn Yeliseyev said of American ambassador to Georgia and ambassador designate to Ukraine John Tefft that "The U.S. Senate [Foreign Relations] Committee has approved his candidacy and we are expecting him to arrive soon." [31] In time for January's presidential election. Incumbent president and U.S. client Viktor Yushchenko is running dead last among serious candidates and his poll ratings are never higher than 3.5%. Tefft's task is to engineer some variant of the 2004 "Orange Revolution."

 

Yushchenko is a die-hard, intractable, unrelenting advocate of forcing his nation into NATO despite overwhelming popular opposition and for evicting the Russian Black Sea Fleet from the Crimea.

 

On November 16 NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen addressed High-Level NATO-Ukraine Consultations at the Alliance's headquarters in Brussels and said:

 

"In 2008 at the Bucharest Summit NATO Heads of State and Government welcomed Ukraine’s aspirations for membership in NATO and agreed that Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance. To reflect this spirit of deepening cooperation, Ukraine has developed its first Annual National Programme which outlines the steps it intends to take to accelerate internal reform and alignment with Euro-Atlantic standards." [32]

 

The same day Reuters revealed that "Poland and Lithuania want to forge military cooperation with Ukraine to try to bring the former Soviet republic closer to NATO." Poland's Deputy Defense Minister Stanislaw Komorowski was quoted as saying of the initiative, "This reflects our support for Ukraine. We want to tie Ukraine closer to Western structures, including military ones." [33]

 

The agreement was reached at talks in Brussels attended by Ukraine's acting Defense Minister Valery Ivashchenko, Lithuania's Minister of National Defense Rasa Jukneviciene and Poland's Komorowski.

 

The combined military unit will be stationed in Poland and include as many as 5,000 troops. The joint buildup on Russia's western and northwestern borders "may have a political objective. It is meant to set up an alternative center of military consolidation for West European projects, a center which could embrace former Soviet republics (above all Ukraine), now outside NATO. There is no doubt who will control this process, considering U.S. influence in Poland and the Baltics." [34]

 

On the same day that the Polish, Lithuanian and Ukrainian defense chiefs reached the agreement, Poland hosted multinational military exercises codenamed Common Challenge 09 with "2,500 troops from Germany, Slovakia, Lithuania, Latvia and Poland - forming the so-called EU Combat Group....Common Challenge is being held for the first time in Poland. Exercises are conducted simultaneously in Poznan, western Poland, and the nearby military range in Wedrzyn." [35]

 

In a complementary development, The Times of London published an interview with Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini on November 15 in which he "said Italy would push for the creation of a European Army after the 'new Europe' takes shape at this week's crucial November 19 EU summit following the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty." [36] A commentary from Russia, which of course will not be included in the plans, mentioned that "NATO has been actively discussing the possibility of establishing a joint European army for a long time" and that Frattini had "reiterated the need for deploying a joint naval fleet or air force in the Mediterranean or other areas crucial to European security." [37]

 

In a Wall Street Journal report titled "Central Europe Ready To Send More Soldiers To Afghanistan," Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski, again emphasizing the connection between war zone training in Afghanistan and preparation for action much closer to home, was quoted as saying "The credibility of NATO will be decided in Afghanistan. If NATO can be successful with what was a success in the Balkans and Iraq, its deterrent potential will rise, and it is in Poland’s national interest.” [38]

 

On November 18 the ambassadors from all 28 NATO member states gathered in Brussels commented on Belarusian-Russian military exercises conducted months earlier, Operation West, and "expressed concerns about the large scale of the exercises and a scenario that envisioned an attack from the West...." [39]

 

Sikorski's allusion to so-called NATO deterrent potential is, then, clearly in reference to Russia.

 

On November 17 the European Union's Special Representative for the South Caucasus Peter Semneby announced that the first foreign ministers meeting of the Eastern Partnership program will be held next month. He said that "The Eastern Partnership will be under the jurisdiction of a new representative for foreign affairs and security. The appointment will come after the Lisbon summit,” [40] as will the creation of the new European Army Italian Foreign Minister Frattini spoke of earlier.

 

Participants will include the foreign ministers of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine, half - six of twelve - of the members or former members of the Commonwealth of Independent States and all those in Europe and the Caucasus except for Russia, which is not invited.

 

Comparable efforts to pull the five Central Asian CIS members - Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan - away from cooperation with Russia through a combination of an analogous EU partnership, energy project agreements and involvement in the Afghan war are also proceeding apace.

 

The eighteen-year-old project of Paul Wolfowitz, Zbigniew Brzezinski et al. to destroy the post-Soviet Commonwealth of Independent States and effect a cordon sanitaire around Russia, enclosing it with NATO member states and partners, has continued uninterruptedly since 1991.

 

Washington will not tolerate rivals and will ruthlessly attempt to eliminate even the potential of any nation to challenge it globally or regionally. In any region of the world. Russia, because of what it was, what it is, where it is and what it has - massive reserves of oil and natural gas, a developed nuclear industry and the world's only effective strategic triad outside the U.S. - is and will remain the main focus of efforts by the United States and NATO to rid themselves of impediments to achieving uncontested global domination.

 

Carthage must be destroyed is the West's policy toward the former Soviet Union.

NOTES

 

1) Eastern Partnership: The West’s Final Assault On the Former Soviet Union, Stop NATO, February 13, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/eastern-partnership-the-wests-final-assault-on-the-former-soviet-union
2) Georgia Online, November 9, 2009
3) Azeri Press Agency, November 10, 2009
4) Azeri Press Agency, November 12, 2009
5) Azeri Press Agency, November 17, 2009
6) Azeri Press Agency, November 16, 2009
7) Azertag, November 18, 2009
8) Azeri Press Agency, November 18, 2009
9) Azeri Press Agency, November 18, 2009
10) Azerbaijan Business Center, November 19, 2009
11) Azertag, November 20, 2009
12) Ibid
13) Ibid
14) Azeri Press Agency, November 18, 2009
15) Trend News Agency, November 18, 2009
16) Focus News Agency, November 11, 2009
17) Itar-Tass, November 12, 2009
18) Civil Georgia, November 20, 2009
19) Voice of Russia, November 20, 2009
20) Trend News Agency, November 20, 2009
21) Georgia Ministry of Defence, November 20, 2009
22) Rustavi2, November 19, 2009
23) Civil Georgia, November 18, 2009
24) Rustavi2, November 17, 2009
25) Azeri Press Agency, November 11, 2009
26) Russian Information Agency Novosti, November 11, 2009
27) Voice of Russia, November 10, 2009
28) Civil Georgia, November 14, 2009
29) Voice of Russia, November 9, 2009
30) Voice of Russia, November 13, 2009
31) Interfax-Ukraine, November 19, 2009
32) NATO, November 16, 2009
33) Reuters, November 16, 2009
34) Russian Information Agency Novosti, November 18, 2009
35) Polish Radio, November 16, 2009
36) Russian Information Agency Novosti, November 17, 2009
37) Ibid
38) Wall Street Journal, November 12, 2009
39) Reuters, November 18, 2009
40) Azertag, November 17, 2009

La crise iranienne de plus en plus intégrée dans la crise générale

La crise iranienne de plus en plus intégrée dans la crise générale

Les pays non alignés au bloc occidental entrent dans une phase active de la guerre des devises en commerçant avec l'Iran en monnaie locale

Ex: http://mbm.hautetfort.com/

Parallèlement à sa posture militaire affirmée dans le Golfe au nom de l’esprit de la souveraineté régionale, l’Iran travaille beaucoup en ce moment à rassembler le plus possible de réaffirmations de liens amicaux avec d’autres pays, d’une façon directe ou indirecte. Il s’agit d’une offensive diplomatique ou autre, mais qui se situe essentiellement au sein du système de la communication qui est sans aucun doute le champ privilégié de l’“action”, aujourd’hui dans la crise iranienne. Il est évident que les interventions des uns et des autres dans cette période de grande tension constituent des actes politiques, toujours dans le champ du système de la communication.

• Il nous semble que la position de la Turquie est à nouveau un point important, avec une réaffirmation sans ambigüité des liens entre ce pays et l’Iran. La semaine dernière, le ministre des affaires étrangères Ahmet Davutoglu, l’homme le plus important du cabinet turc après Erdogan, était à Téhéran où il a eu diverses conversations pour réaffirmer les liens entre les deux pays. Samedi, Davutoglu a réaffirmé cette atmosphère amicale au cours d’une interview télévisée, en trouvant une formule-choc qui porte tout le crédit venu de ses conceptions d’universitaire et d’intellectuel du monde musulman : «Les liens entre l’Iran et la Turquie sont à leurs meilleurs niveaux depuis 400 ans». (Ci-dessous, selon PressTV.com, le 8 janvier 2012.)

«Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu has emphasized that Iran-Turkey ties are at the highest level in the past 400 years. Davutoglu made the remarks in an interview with a Turkish TV network on Saturday. He hailed the maintenance of warm relations between Tehran and Ankara and called for further expansion of interactions between the two neighboring nations…»

• La Chine a officiellement une prise de position qui, selon la prudence coutumière de sa diplomatie, constitue un soutien officiel indirect à l’Iran. La Chine signale notamment qu’elle poursuivra normalement ses liens commerciaux avec l’Iran, notamment concernant la livraison du pétrole. (Sur PresTV.com, le 7 janvier 2012.)

«China has dismissed the new US sanction against Iran's oil sector, saying that the commercial ties with Iran are totally legitimate and should not be subject to any punishment. “China maintains normal and transparent energy and economic cooperation with Iran which does not violate UN Security Council resolutions and these interactions should not be affected,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei told a daily news briefing on Thursday. “China opposes the placing of one's domestic law above international law and imposing unilateral sanctions on other countries,” he added.

»Hong went on to say that sanctions are not the correct approach to easing what the US calls tensions over Iran's nuclear program, adding that, “Dialogue and negotiation is the right way out.”»

• La Russie n’est indirectement pas en reste sur cette ligne, au travers d’une déclaration de l’ambassadeur d’Iran en Russie (PressTV.com, le 8 janvier 2012), annonçant que la Russie et l’Iran s’étaient mis d’accord, depuis un projet lancé dans ce sens en marge du sommet de l’Organisation de Coopération de Shanghai, en juin 2011, pour négocier et régler leurs échanges commerciaux dans leurs deux monnaies nationales (rial et rouble), au lieu du dollar. Cette annonce est clairement inscrite, par les Iraniens, comme une mesure commune du même esprit que les déclarations russes hostiles aux nouvelles sanctions décidées par les USA et les pays du bloc BAO (les Européens ayant enchaîné sur l’embargo pétrolier décidé par les USA, selon une ligne politique dont personne, dans les milieux européens, n’est capable d’en définir ni le sens profond, ni le but, ni la justification opérationnelle, – tout cela conformément aux normes de la politique européenne, – sans surprise, tout cela).

«Iranian Ambassador to Moscow Seyyed Reza Sajjadi […] said Tehran and Moscow switched to their national currencies in preference after the meeting between their presidents. Sajjadi also pointed to Russia' strong opposition to sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program, saying Russians have clearly announced that they will not accept fresh anti-Iran bids that target the country's Central Bank and financial institutions.»

• De son côté, l’Inde travaille activement, actuellement, pour mettre en place un dispositif financier qui lui permettra de payer ses importations de pétrole iranien en roupies plutôt qu’en dollar. (L’Iran est le deuxième fournisseur de pétrole de l’Inde après l’Arabie et reçoit chaque mois pour ce commerce l’équivalent d’un milliard de dollars.) Là encore, il s’agit d’une mesure qui, dans l’esprit autant que dans les actes, s’oppose aux sanctions contre l’Iran décidées par le bloc BAO. Le caractère technique de la décision a cette dimension politique, en plus, comme dans le cas russe, d’une décision commerciale et monétaire qui contribue à affaiblir le rôle du dollar et à rejeter son statut de monnaie internationale d’échange. (Dans PressTV.com, le 8 janvier 2011.)

«In the wake of the US decision to impose fresh sanctions against the Islamic Republic that would target its oil exports, India announces plans to pay for the Iranian crude it imports in rupees. A senior Indian government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the issue will be addressed when a multi- disciplinary team visits Tehran on January 16 to discuss uninterrupted supply from the major oil producer, the Press Trust of India reported on Sunday…»

• Il y a également le voyage d’Ahmadinejad en Amérique du Sud, auprès d’amis sûrs, évidemment vilipendés par les USA. Dans la même dépêche Russia Today du 8 janvier 2012, qui présente ce voyage, il y a des détails sur l’intention affichée de l’Iran de faire commerce de combustible nucléaire.

«Meanwhile, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has left for a five-day Latin America trip. It will take in Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador and Nicaragua, countries which, “resist the oppression” of the United States and share “an anti-colonialist view,” he said just before flying out on Sunday, according to the country’s Fars news agency.

»Commenting on Ahmadinejad’s trip, the US State Department said that “as the regime feels increasing pressure, it is desperate for friends – and is flailing around in interesting places to find,” them.»

• Ce voyage d’Ahmadinejad est donc considéré par les USA, comme on le voit ci-dessus, avec une ironie méprisante. Il y a aussi une certaine générosité et un libéralisme d’esprit remarquables dans l’observation américaniste de la chose, puisque, comme le rapporte le Washington Times le 8 janvier 2011, les USA semblent autoriser le reste du monde à avoir des contacts diplomatiques avec l’Iran sans nécessairement provoquer une attaque de destruction massive et de punition des USA dans les 24 heures : «[O]ne State Department official telling The Washington Times that “merely hosting Iran in a diplomatic visit does not violate the sanctions regime.”»… Nous sommes rassurés de ce côté, mais la philosophique psychologie américaniste, montrant une charmante manifestation de sa maniaco-dépression courante, passe de la dérision et de la générosité à l’angoisse pure et simple lorsqu’il s’agit du Guatemala, où le président élu Otto Perez Molina doit recevoir le 14 janvier les invités internationaux pour son inauguration. Ahmadinejad, qui est donc dans la région, en sera-t-il ? Le Guatemala examine la question et n’a pas catégoriquement rejeté l’idée, ce qui plonge Washington dans cette angoisse signalée plus haut, d’autant que ce même Washington considère que Molina, ancien officier de l’armée sans doute formé par les instructeurs US de Fort Bragg, est l’“un des siens” («one of the region's few emerging U.S. allies», précise obligeamment le Washington Times).

Mises à part les billevesées américanistes (sauf pour l’étude de la pathologie de la psycvhologie), ce tableau général est intéressant. Il montre comment s’organise la riposte face aux embargos divers et draconiens imposés par le bloc BAO, sous la direction de Washington. D’une certaine façon, il s’agit d’une illustration supplémentaire de la situation particulière de la crise iranienne et de la nouvelle forme qu’elle a prise. Nous ne sommes pas dans un état de guerre, ni même de volonté de guerre affichée (comme dans les six années précédente où le but affirmé implicitement mais violemment était une attaque contre l’Iran), mais dans un état de tension extrême avec des risques divers (dans le Golfe et alentour), avec comme facteur fondamental de cette tension ces mesures d’embargo. Même si l’embargo à ce degré peut légitimement être considéré comme “un acte de guerre”, il n’empêche qu’il ne s’agit pas d’une guerre ou d’une menace précise de guerre dans sa brutalité et dans les regroupements forcés et urgents auxquels cela contraint. Il reste bien assez de place pour les manœuvres diplomatiques, directes ou indirectes, et il semble qu’on ne s’en prive pas, et que l’Iran, contrairement aux affirmations sarcastiques d’une porte-parole énervée du département d’État, est loin d’être isolé. (Cela serait sans doute différent, justement, s’il y avait une marche assurée vers la guerre, justement à cause du facteur de brutalité qui invite à la prudence, voire à la couardise, et contrecarre cette sorte de manœuvres.)

Un autre facteur intéressant, qui montre également l’évolution de la situation, est que ce “regroupement”, plutôt en faveur de l’Iran puisque les adversaires de l’Iran sont en mode automatique de regroupement-Système depuis longtemps, s’effectue sous la forme indirecte d’actes commerciaux et d’échange ; l’intérêt de la chose est alors que cette forme d’évolution signifie non seulement un refus de l’embargo mais conduit à une situation plus générale et plus importante de l’abandon de la devise US pour les échanges. Cela donne une dimension générale qui dépasse la seule crise iranienne et met en cause la politique générale des USA, en intégrant d’une façon intéressante la crise iranienne dans la crise générale. Cela rejoint d’une façon également intéressante et, en plus, révélatrice, cette remarque du général israélien Dan Halutz, cité ce 9 janvier 2012 dans un autre contexte, et sans aucun doute dans un autre sens : «…but Iran is a global problem – not just Israel's problem.» Certes, Halutz parle du “problème iranien”, et l’on comprend pourquoi, mais l’intérêt de sa remarque est le fait de l’“internationalisation” du “problème”, c’est-à-dire de son intégration dans les problèmes généraux, ce qui revient effectivement et objectivement, quoi qu’on en veuille, à l’intégration de la crise iranienne dans la crise générale. Un tel processus est une défaite fondamentale pour le bloc BAO qui a toujours joué sur la spécificité iranienne pour soutenir sa politique extrémiste et maniaque ; si la crise iranienne s’intègre dans la crise générale, on est aussitôt conduit à observer cette évidence qu’il n’y a plus de spécificité iranienne, donc plus de responsabilité exclusive de l’Iran (selon la thèse du bloc BAO), donc un élargissement de la crise du nucléaire au reste et ainsi de suite… Nous entrons alors dans le vaste territoire de la crise générale où les responsabilités sont plus que partagées et où l’on sait bien que la cause première revient évidemment au Système lui-même. Le processus déjà identifié au niveau stratégique se poursuit donc et s’élargit à tous les domaines.

Le Bulletin célinien n°337 - janvier 2012

Le Bulletin célinien n°337 - janvier 2012

 
Vient de paraître : Le Bulletin célinien n°337. Au sommaire :

- Marc Laudelout : Bloc-notes
- Pierre Assouline : Céline et Hergé
- *** : Anticélinisme primaire
- M. L. : Dans les revues et les livres
- M. L. : Céline dans la presse clandestine
- Noël Arnaud : Boris Vian, le style et Céline
- M. L. : Francis Puyalte, le journalisme et Céline
- M. L. : Le cas François Chalais
- François Chalais : Notes sur Guignol’s band [1944]
- Jean-Pierre Doche : Théâtre (Stanislas de la Tousche)
- Charles-Louis Roseau : Céline ou le génie de l’écriture « à la manière de »

Un numéro de 24 pages, 6 € frais de port inclus.
Abonnement pour l’année 2012 (11 numéros) : 50 €


Le Bulletin célinien
B.P. 70
Gare centrale
BE 1000 Bruxelles

Le Bulletin célinien n°337 - Bloc-notes

 
On sait que les titres des brûlots céliniens font l’objet de contresens. Lors du colloque de février, à Beaubourg, un vétéran du célinisme voulut spécifier leur signification véritable. Tentative d’explication rejetée avec fracas. Feu mon ami Pierre Monnier, mobilisable en 1939, rappelait volontiers la bande de Bagatelles – « Pour bien rire dans les tranchées » –, afin d’indiquer de quel massacre il s’agissait dans l’esprit de Céline (1). Précision toujours d’actualité : pour beaucoup, dès lors qu’il s’agit de massacre sous la plume de Céline, cela ne peut être que celui des juifs.

Lors de la rentrée solennelle de la Conférence du stage, un jeune avocat, Fabrice Epstein, a prononcé un Plaidoyer pour la publication des pamphlets de Louis-Ferdinand Céline. Quant aux contresens, jugez plutôt : « [Céline] publie — 1937, Bagatelles pour un massacre. Devinez le massacre de qui !? ; 1939, L’École des cadavres. Devinez quels cadavres !? ; 1941, Les Beaux draps. Devinez pour qui il prépare un linceul... ». Avant de rédiger le texte de cette conférence, Me Epstein s’est documenté auprès de son confrère François Gibault et d’Émile Brami. Que ne leur a-t-il demandé la signification de ces titres ! Cela nous aurait épargné ces commentaires tendancieux (2). Je note que c’est aussi grâce à François Gibault qu’il a pu rencontrer Lucette Destouches. Pour la remercier de son accueil, lui a-t-il annoncé que, dans son allocution, il se proposait de gratifier son mari d’épithètes aussi tempérées que « abominable », « génocidaire » ou « répugnant » ? Étrange démarche enfin que celle consistant à plaider pour la réédition des pamphlets et à poursuivre une maison d’édition qui les publie à l’étranger. Motif invoqué ? L’illégalité de cette vente, lesdites rééditions étant faites sans l’aval de la veuve de Céline (3).

Notre robin se révèle ainsi plus catholique que le pape de la Célinie, François Gibault, défenseur des intérêts de Lucette. Le souci des prérogatives de l’ayant droit inspire donc Me Epstein. Encore eût-il pu questionner le manque de cohérence qui consiste à interdire la réédition de trois pamphlets mais à permettre celle de Mea culpa, des lettres aux journaux de l’occupation et de la préface de L’École des cadavres. Paraphrasant le proverbe yiddish placé en exergue de sa plaidoirie, je conclurai en affirmant que si la justice s’attache à poursuivre les écrits d’un auteur mort il y a cinquante ans, elle pourrait aussi mettre en accusation la société – critiques et public – qui les a, pour une grande part, favorablement accueillis à l’époque. Mais n’est-ce pas précisément ce qu’implique ce plaidoyer ? L’originalité de la démarche étant de faire condamner pénalement ces écrits et, dans le même élan, de plaider pour qu’ils soient réédités (4).

Marc LAUDELOUT
Le Bulletin célinien n°337, janvier 2012.


1. Rappelons que la défaite de 1940 fit 60.000 soldats français morts en six semaines de combats.
2. Il serait aussi bien inspiré de réviser ses connaissances historiques. Ainsi il écrit que Céline « est pressenti pour diriger l’Institut des Questions juives… mais, pas de chance, ce sera Darquier de Pellepoix » ? Soit deux erreurs en une phrase. Pour la première affirmation, Epstein aurait dû consulter le tome 2 de la biographie de son confrère Gibault (p. 257) ; quant à la seconde, tous ceux qui s’intéressent à cette période ne confondent évidemment pas IEQJ (Institut d’Étude des Questions juives) et CGQJ (Commissariat général aux questions juives). Lorsqu’on veut traiter d’un sujet, il importe de bien le connaître. Coïncidence amusante (qu’ignore sans doute Me Epstein) à propos de cette époque : son cabinet, rue des Pyramides, est voisin de l’immeuble qui fut le siège du PPF (!).
3. Réédition d’autant plus scandaleuse que, horresco referens, elle s’accompagne, pour l’un de ces textes, d’un « commentaire critique de Robert Brasillach », comme le souligne le conférencier. Si l’on ajoute que ces livres sont édités au Paraguay, ancien refuge de nazis en fuite, cette initiative devient, on le comprend, intolérable.
4. Considérant cette allocution comme « la plus importante de cette année célinienne surchargée », Henri Thyssens, lui, a tenu à « saluer ce jeune avocat qui a eu le courage de briser le silence (…) qui entoure l’œuvre de Céline ». La teneur de ce discours est-elle de nature à compromettre sa carrière naissante ? Chacun jugera…
(texte disponible sur www.lepetitcelinien.com)

Julius Evola e la metafisica del sesso. Alcune osservazioni per una lettura attualizzata del pensiero del filosofo romano

Julius Evola e la metafisica del sesso. Alcune osservazioni per una lettura attualizzata del pensiero del filosofo romano

Autore:

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

La mia intenzione non è quella di scrivere una recensione della Metafisica del Sesso di Julius Evola (peraltro ampiamente commentato e recensito nel susseguirsi delle varie edizioni), quanto piuttosto di mettere a fuoco alcuni aspetti salienti del suo pensiero in tema di sessualità e confrontarli con le esigenze ed i problemi dell’uomo del XXI secolo. Tale approccio si inserisce in un disegno più ampio, volto a confrontare il pensiero evoliano con la contemporaneità, per verificarne l’attualità.

Un primo aspetto da analizzare riguarda quella che il pensatore chiama la “Pandemìa del sesso” nell’epoca moderna. Evola evidenzia come – anche attraverso la pubblicità, l’influenza dei media e della televisione – il sesso sia divenuto una vera manìa, un’ossessione pervasiva, nel mentre se ne è perduto il significato profondo, realizzativo nel senso dell’“uomo integrale” nel quadro di quello che egli chiama il “mondo della Tradizione”. Tale fenomeno può leggersi come una reazione smodata al clima moralistico di estrazione cattolico-borghese, alla sessuofobia tipica di una certa educazione di matrice cattolica ma anche in opposizione al puritanesimo tipico di una certa cultura protestante. Dallo squilibrio di una educazione sessuofoba si passa all’eccesso di una manìa, entrambi i fenomeni avendo però in comune lo smarrimento del senso profondo del sesso e dell’amore, come superamento del senso dell’ego, integrazione delle complementarietà e riaccostamento a quel senso dell’unità primordiale adombrata nel mito dell’androgine riportato da Platone nel Simposio ed ampiamente citato da Evola nella sua opera. Peraltro tale ossessione banalizza il sesso ed attenua l’attrazione, poiché la fisicità femminile ed il nudo femminile divengono qualcosa di così ordinario ed abituale da perdere quella carica sottile di magnetismo, di fascinazione che sono fondamentali nell’attrazione fra i sessi.

Orbene, se confrontiamo questa analisi evoliana con la realtà contemporanea (ricordiamo che Metafisica del Sesso fu pubblicato, per la prima volta, nel 1957), notiamo che il fenomeno dell’ossessione del sesso si sia accentuato, anche per effetto della diffusione della telematica, della estrema libertà di pubblicazione che esiste su Internet e quindi della possibilità agevole per gli utenti di accedervi.

Peraltro si osserva nei rapporti fra i sessi una superficialità diffusa, una incapacità di comunicare su temi di fondo, una banalizzazione dei rapporti che coinvolge lo stesso momento sessuale, visto come una pratica scissa da qualsiasi aspetto profondo, di autentica comunione animica fra i sessi.

In ciò può cogliersi una vera e propria paura di fondo, la paura dell’uomo di entrare in contatto reale con se stesso e con gli altri, di doversi guardare dentro, di doversi magari mettere in discussione. L’uomo contemporaneo – come tendenza prevalente – rifugge dall’autoosservazione ed ha sempre più bisogno di “droghe” in senso lato, di evasioni, dal caos della metropoli a certe forme di musica che abbiano un effetto di stordimento, dal “rito”degli esodi di massa nei periodi di vacanza e nei fine-settimana alla dimensione di massa che hanno anche le villeggiature balneari, in una trasposizione automatica della dimensione della metropoli che risponde ad un bisogno di stordirsi e di perdersi comunque.

L’analisi evoliana, sotto questo aspetto, è pienamente attuale, presentandosi dunque come lungimirante nel momento in cui, oltre 50 anni orsono, veniva elaborata. La crisi dei rapporti fra i sessi e del senso stesso del sesso si inquadra così nel contesto generale della crisi del mondo moderno, del suo essere, rispetto ai significati ed ai valori della Tradizione, un processo involutivo, una vera e propria anomalìa. E qui veniamo ad un ulteriore aspetto fondamentale da considerare.

La metafisica del sesso evoliana può essere adeguatamente compresa solo nel quadro della morfologia delle civiltà e della filosofia complessiva della storia che il pensatore romano elaborò e sistematizzò nella sua opera principale, Rivolta contro il mondo moderno, peraltro preceduta e preparata con vari saggi di morfologia delle civiltà pubblicati, in età giovanile, su varie riviste, come, ad esempio, il famoso saggio Americanismo e bolscevismo, pubblicato sulla rivista Nuova Antologia nel 1929. Senza questo riferimento generale e complessivo, senza questa visione d’insieme, non si comprende il punto di vista evoliano nell’approccio alla tematica della sessualità, approccio lontano sia da impostazioni di tipo moralistico-borghese, sia da forme esasperate di “pandemìa del sesso”.

Centrale è quindi il significato che Evola conferisce a quello che chiama “mondo della Tradizione”, intendendo con questo termine un insieme di civiltà orientate “dall’alto e verso l’alto”, per citare una tipica espressione evoliana; si tratta di tutte quelle civiltà che, pur nella varietà delle loro forme non solo religiose ma soprattutto misteriche (cioé iniziatiche), hanno in comune una orientazione sacrale, nel senso che esse sono ispirate dal sacro e tendono verso il sacro, inteso e vissuto come dimensione trascendente e, al tempo stesso, immanente, ossia una sacralità che entra nella storia e nell’umano, che permea di sé i vari aspetti della vita individuale e sociale di una determinata civiltà. Ogni aspetto della vita, dall’amore al sesso alle arti ed ai mestieri, diviene, in questo particolare “tono” una occasione, una possibilità di aprire la comunicazione con il Divino, quindi una opportunità di elevazione e miglioramento personale.

In questo senso il mondo moderno, come mondo desacralizzato e materialistico, rappresenta un’anomalìa, peraltro denunciata da René Guénon ancor prima di Evola (illuminanti sono, al riguardo, le pagine di apertura del libro Simboli della Scienza Sacra, ripubblicato da Adelphi) , come anche da altri Maestri della Tradizione, come Arturo Reghini in Italia e da Rudolf Steiner nella Mitteleuropa del primo Novecento.

Il concetto di un tipo di società orientata dal terreno e verso il terreno, relegante alla fede privata individuale tutto ciò che possa avere il vago sentore di un anelito spirituale, è qualcosa che appartiene esclusivamente all’epoca moderna più recente, pressappoco da Cartesio in poi e soprattutto dall’illuminismo e dalla rivoluzione francese in avanti. Fino al Medio Evo l’orientazione sacrale della vita e della società era un dato centrale e normale, mentre ora prevale la secolarizzazione, l’essere immersi in modo esclusivo nel terreno e nella storia.

Sotto questo aspetto il conflitto fra mondo islamico e mondo occidentale, al di là di certe forme esasperate e terroristiche di antagonismo culminate con l’attacco dell’11 settembre 2001– che sono soltanto un aspetto del mondo islamico – è emblematico di un diverso modo di concepire la vita e il mondo e rappresenta la piena conferma del carattere anomalo del mondo moderno laico e secolarizzato.

In questo contesto “tradizionale” si colloca la concezione evoliana del sesso e dell’amore. Centrale è il riferimento al Simposio di Platone, quindi alla visione della polarità fra i sessi – maschile e femminile – come anelito, spesso inconsapevole, alla reintegrazione dell’unità primordiale dell’androgino, poi scissa nella dualità dei sessi. In origine, secondo il mito, esisteva una specie di essere che riassumeva in sé i due sessi, che poi si scinde nelle due sessualità che noi conosciamo come distinte e separate. L’amore e l’incontro sessuale è visto quindi come superamento dei limiti individuali, come completamento e superamento del senso dell’ego, come capacità di dono di sé, di apertura all’altro, di integrazione con l’altro e nell’altro.

Fondamentale è anche il riferimento all’archetipo di Afrodite, vista nei suoi vari aspetti e nei suoi vari gradi; L’Afrodite Celeste e l’Afrodite Pandémia simboleggiano due stati e gradi dell’amore, quello spirituale e quello sensuale, quest’ultimo essendo visto come un primo grado di approssimazione esperienziale all’amore in senso alto, come Amore per il divino, come slancio fervido e raccolto verso la nostra origine spirituale. E’ importante notare come, nella visione evoliana, non vi sia scissione fra i due piani, ma come essi rappresentino, in realtà, due fasi di un unico iter ascensionale, poiché il divino non è un quid lontano dal mondo, ma si manifesta nel mondo, pur non riducendosi ad esso. A tale riguardo, si può ricordare la concezione indiana della Shakti, ossia l’aspetto “potenza” e manifestazione del divino, cioé il suo aspetto femminile, dinamico che, non a caso, è definito nei test tantrici la “splendente veste di potenza del divino” su cui l’orientalista Filippani-Ronconi ha scritto pagine illuminanti nella sua opera Le Vie del Buddhismo. Non è marginale osservare che nello shivaismo del Kashmir, ossia nelle forme del culto di Shiva tipiche di quella regione dell’India nord-occidentale, la considerazione dell’aspetto shaktico del divino si riflette nella valorizzazione sociale della donna concepita come l’incarnazione terrena di quest’aspetto shaktico e, come tale, degna di rispetto e dotata di una sua dignità spirituale secondo le vedute delle scuole shivaite kashmire. Su questo punto si rinvia il lettore alle pagine molto illuminanti di Filippani Ronconi nel suo libro VAK. La parola primordiale dove l’Autore illustra un aspetto poco noto di alcune civiltà tradizionali, che Evola descrive sempre in chiave virile-solare e patriarcale.

Altro mito platonico cui il filosofo romano si richiama è quello di Poros e Penia, che spiega l’amore come perenne insufficienza, come continua privazione. E’ l’amore inteso come “sete inesausta”, come desiderio mai del tutto soddisfatto, come continuo anelito verso un completamento di sé mai del tutto realizzato e quindi fonte di perenne e nuovo desiderio. Qui si può cogliere il nesso fra lo stato esistenziale cui questo mito allude e l’amore sensuale, come tale sempre bramoso e sempre insoddisfatto.

L’insegnamento che la sacerdotessa Diotima (iniziata ai Misteri di Eleusi) tramanda a Socrate nel Simposio, in alcune pagine che sono fra le più belle del testo – l’essere cioé l’amore sensuale solo un primo grado per poi ascendere a forme più alte di amore secondo una scala ascensionale che ha una sua continuità di gradi di perfezionamento – ci offre la cognizione di un mondo che non demonizza il sesso ma lo valorizza nel quadro di una visione ascendente della vita umana in cui la sensualità ha una sua funzione ed un suo valore, perché è il primo momento di accostamento al bello, colto nelle sue manifestazioni fisiche più agevolmente percepibili per poi ascendere, gradualmente, al bello ideale e spirituale, all’idea del bello in sé secondo la filosofia platonica che, in realtà, riprende e sistematizza, sul piano speculativo, più antichi insegnamenti misterici, com’è dimostrato dalla connotazione sacerdotale e misterica di Diotima, non a caso introdotta ai Misteri di Demetra e Persefone-Kore, che sono i misteri della femminilità e della terra, della fecondità fisica e spirituale insieme.

Possono allora comprendersi certe forme cultuali del mondo antico inconcepibili secondo la visuale cristiana, quali, ad esempio, la prostituzione sacra, presente nel culto di Venus Erycina ed in quello di Venere Cupria. La sacerdotessa, quale incarnazione di una potenza sacra, si univa sessualmente con l’uomo devoto a quel culto, perché così il fedele entrava in contatto con la sacralità della dea Venus. L’atto sessuale era quindi un veicolo di comunicazione con il divino, un sentiero di contatto e di unione con la trascendenza. Si comprende allora anche la sacralizzazione del fallo, testimoniato dall’iconografia e dal culto del dio Priapo e dalle processioni in onore di Dioniso (le falloforie), dove si portavano in mostra le rappresentazioni falliche quali epifanie del dio, presenti del resto nella religione egizia, quali ierofanie di Osiride, nel quadro dei Misteri egizi isiaci ed osiridei. Ancora oggi, in Giappone, si celebra annualmente una ricorrenza religiosa in cui le rappresentazioni falliche come oggetti sacri sono portate in processione.

La sessualità era quindi vista come una manifestazione della potenza del divino, una irruzione della trascendenza nell’immanenza della vita terrena, un segno delle possibilità più alte presenti nell’uomo. Non è certo un caso che il neoplatonismo rinascimentale e, in particolare, Marsilio Ficino (nel suo Commento al Simposio di Platone), si sia richiamato a questa visione sacrale dell’amore, sebbene rimarcando un più netto iato fra materia e spirito, per effetto dell’influenza cristiana, ma comunque accogliendo l’idea generale di un accostamento per gradi al Bello, da quello fisico a quello spirituale.

Particolare attenzione è data dal pensatore romano alla sessualità nei Misteri antichi e, in particolare, in quelli di Eleusi, alle forme rituali di ierogamìa, di unione sessuale sacra fra un uomo e una donna nel quadro sacerdotale misterico così come molta attenzione è data alle forme ed alle procedure della magia sesssuale, soprattutto con riferimento alle scuole tantriche induiste e buddhiste, nelle quali la sessualità viene utilizzata, con diversità di metodiche fra una scuola e l’altra, per attivare una superiore integrazione della coscienza e quindi uno stato di illuminazione interiore che si desta nel momento in cui si ha il contatto reale con il Sacro. Evola avverte anche sui pericoli insiti in alcune metodiche tantriche e mette in guardia il lettore da certi atteggiamenti superficiali di imitazione di pratiche che si collocavano in un contesto ambientale e culturale molto diverso, anche sotto il profilo della carica energetica presente in certe confraternite antiche.

Il problema di fondo che si pone è se e come tale visione sacrale del sesso possa essere praticata e realizzata nel quadro del mondo moderno e post-moderno, nell’era della rivoluzione tecnologica, informatica e telematica, in un ambiente desacralizzato e laicizzato. Certe forme cultuali e rituali (ierogamie, procedure tantriche) presupponevano l’esistenza dei Misteri, dei collegi misterici, dei sacerdoti e dei maestri spirituali, che sono del tutto assenti nell’età oscura, nel kali-yuga dei testi indù.

Si ripropone quindi, in tema di sessualità, lo stesso problema che si presenta in linea generale per le possibilità di realizzazione spirituale che sono offerte nel mondo moderno ed in quello contemporaneo (distinguiamo i due termini perché il post-moderno si presenta come un’epoca con caratteri già diversi da quelli della modernità industriale dell’800 e del ’900), alla luce del processo di solidificazione materialistica che si è svolto , con ritmi sempre più accelerati, nell’uomo e nel mondo e di cui Guénon ci ha parlato nella sua opera Il regno della quantità ed i segni dei tempi.

Credo che occorra partire da un dato: venuti meno i supporti rituali e misterici delle civiltà antiche, con l’affermazione del cristianesimo in una chiave di esclusivismo fideistico, e con lo sviluppo scientifico e tecnico che parte da una visione materialistica del mondo, si sono avute tre conseguenze che così possiamo brevemente schematizzare:

  1. l’uomo è rimesso a sé stesso perché non ha più supporti per la sua realizzazione in senso esoterico;
  2. l’uomo percepisce se stesso come coscienza individuale e non più come parte di un tutto. L’uomo di una gens antica, per intenderci, o il giurista del diritto romano ancora in età imperiale, percepiva se stesso come parte integrante di una gens o di una tradizione religiosa e culturale; la sua percezione di sé era allargata ad un insieme sovraindividuale. Oggi prevale invece una autopercezione atomistica dell’uomo;
  3. il “mentale” dell’uomo moderno è molto più forte rispetto a quello dell’uomo delle civiltà tradizionali, in cui prevaleva uno stile di pensiero sintetico-intuitivo che si rifletteva anche nella maggiore concisione linguistica, come è il caso del latino, lingua celebre per la sua efficace capacità di sintesi. Ciò vuol dire che l’uomo tradizionale, col suo “astrale”, cioé col mondo delle emozioni, entrava in contatto col dominio spirituale senza la mediazione del mentale, o almeno tale mediazione era molto più attenuata, essendo la mente una mente immaginativa, cioé sintetico-intutiva.

In questo contesto e con tali condizioni, l’iniziazione, oggi, può essere solo una iniziazione moderna, ossia praticabile in forme adatte alle condizioni dell’epoca.

Una realizzazione spirituale può essere attualmente solo un percorso di consapevolezza, una via dell’anima cosciente, imperniata sulla disciplina e la semplificazione della mente e sull’armonia mente-cuore.

Un approccio di tipo ritualistico non sembra adatto alle condizioni del nostro tempo, o quantomeno quell’approccio può avere un senso solo se preceduto e seguito da un continuum di operatività interiore consapevole, di azione modificatrice su se stessi e in se stessi.

Il campo della sessualità si colloca nel medesimo ordine di idee. Al sesso banalizzato e brutalizzato o alla sessuofobia di certe tendenze religiose va posta come alternativa la sessualità vissuta come consapevolezza del suo senso pieno e profondo, quindi preparata, propiziata e integrata da determinate pratiche meditative di cui ci parla ampiamente l’esoterista Massimo Scaligero nella sua opera Manuale pratico di meditazione e che risentono chiaramente dell’influenza di certe forme meditative indiane e yogiche adattate alla mentalità occidentale, sulla base degli insegnamenti della “scienza dello spirito” tramandata e rielaborata da Rudolf Steiner.

La lezione evoliana apre orizzonti profondi sulla sessualità nel mondo della Tradizione e consente di prendere coscienza delle regressioni e dei limiti che, anche in questo campo, si sono verificati nel mondo moderno. Crediamo, però, che tale lezione vada affiancata e integrata dagli interventi di altri Maestri, per maturare in sé la prospettiva pragmatica e concreta di una via dell’anima cosciente.

* * *

Tratto, col gentile consenso dell’Autore, dal mensile Fenix, n°38, dicembre 2011, pagg. 86-90.


Stefano Arcella

mardi, 10 janvier 2012

La voix pertinente de la Hongrie

La voix pertinente de la Hongrie

Ex: http://synthesenationale.hautetfort.com/

orban.jpgLe gouvernement conservateur hongrois de Viktor Orbàn vient d’adopter une nouvelle  Constitution qui vise à réduire considérablement l’influence des partis politiques, à maîtriser sa monnaie par sa mainmise sur sa banque centrale et en rappelant quelques principes identitaires fondamentaux. Pour Viktor Obàn, la démocratie n’est pas une panacée sans pour autant tomber dans les travers du bon vieux  stalinisme d’hier, mais vu de droite. Evidemment le Système regimbe face à cet acte d’indépendance et Bruxelles, temple du politiquement correct, ne sait trop comment réagir. Mais la finance internationale et apatride veille au grain. Pourtant, Viktor Orbàn semble montrer une voie originale à ce que pourrait être une Europe enfin décidée à défendre ses intérêts et surtout son identité.

Les principaux changements dans la Constitution :

 - La «République de Hongrie» devient la «Hongrie».

 - Les dirigeants de l’actuel Parti socialiste sont tenus rétroactivement responsables des «crimes communistes» commis jusqu’en 1989.

- «Dieu» fait son entrée dans la Constitution, tout comme le nombre de communautés religieuses, limité à 14.

- Le nouveau mode de scrutin fait la part belle au parti arrivant en tête.

- Les Hongrois de souche à l’étranger (minorités dans les pays voisins) bénéficient du droit de vote.

- Le mandat des titulaires de postes importants de l’appareil d’Etat (économie, justice, police et armée) est porté à neuf ou douze ans.

- L’impôt sur le revenu à taux unique de 16% et le niveau des retraites est fixé dans la Constitution.

- L’influence du gouvernement est renforcée dans la Banque centrale. Le président de cette institution ne peut plus choisir ses trois adjoints, nommés par le gouvernement. De plus, le Conseil monétaire passe de 7 à 9 membres. Ces deux membres supplémentaires sont choisis par le gouvernement.

- Le forint devient constitutionnellement la monnaie hongroise, bloquant pratiquement le passage à l’euro.

- La Constitution fait de l’embryon un être humain dès la conception.

- Le mariage n’unit qu’un homme et une femme.

- Les sans-abri peuvent être punis de peines de prison.

- La radio-télévision publique et l’agence de presse MTI sont chapeautées par un Conseil des médias, dirigé par le Premier ministre.

- L’unique radio d’opposition, Klubradio, perd sa fréquence.

- Le Parlement a par ailleurs adopté une modification de ses règles de fonctionnement, qui donne à la majorité la possibilité de modifier l’ordre du jour et faire passer ses lois sans débat.

Le Qatar achète nos banlieues ou La diversité, cheval de Troie de l’islamisme

Le Qatar achète nos banlieues ou La diversité, cheval de Troie de l’islamisme

Ex: http://mediabenews.wordpress.com/

L’imprudence de nos dirigeants n’a décidément pas de limite; elle frôle, parfois, l’irresponsabilité. En plein débat sur le vote des étrangers aux élections locales, l’annonce de financements du Qatar dans certaines banlieues aurait du soulever bien des interrogations.

Le Qatar est, en effet, un émirat rigoriste qui achète tout: le sport, la culture. Pour améliorer son image. Mais il est aussi derrière tous les mouvements islamistes dans le monde arabe. Du Maroc à Damas, notre collègue algérien, Chems Eddine Chitour, l’a récemment rappelé dans nos pages. Il a été l’un des éléments moteurs de la guerre en Libye, derrière la France ou la poussant, selon les versions. Il finance tous les mouvements islamistes: au Maroc, en Tunisie ou en Egypte.


Le Qatar et la France : de l’amitié ?

Au Maroc, les islamistes ont remporté les élections, comme en Egypte et en Tunisie. La Syrie va connaître une guerre civile qui profitera aux religieux extrémistes. Il n’y a plus de Libye (BHL s’en félicite), mais des territoires soumis à l’autorité de chefs de guerre plus ou moins islamistes. Si un califat se constitue c’est, pour le moment, celui de Doha.

Le Qatar a pris la relève du wahhabisme saoudien dans l’exportation d’un Islam fondamentalisme qu’il fait coexister avec une économie dynamique et ultra moderniste, fondée sur l’or noir. Voilà les sauveurs des banlieues. Tout de même, cela ne choque-t-il personne ?

A quand les élus « qatari» de nationalité française?

“Le Qatar a créé un fonds d’investissement de 50 M€ pour financer des projets économiques portés par les habitants des banlieues de France”, a annoncé jeudi soir son ambassadeur à Paris, Mohamed Jahan Al-Kuwari.


L’Association nationale des élus locaux pour la diversité reçue par l’Emir du Qatar

Mais le financement des associations, l’aide aux élus de “la diversité” aura sans doute une contrepartie: la ré-islamisation, dans l’obédience, de nos banlieues. Nous aurons donc des élus « qatari» de nationalité française et des associations d’étrangers « qataris » qui pourront exiger des piscines non-mixtes et des repas halal partout, ainsi que le respect du port du voile…. Surtout, en cas d’obtention du droit de vote. Ce serait la coutume étrangère qui ferait la loi, dans les mairies par l’élection ou par pression.

Accepter le financement de nos banlieues à population immigrée, forte ou majoritaire, par le Qatar est absolument irresponsable. Que fait-on du principe de précaution ? Qui s’inquiète ou dénonce ce véritable danger d’ingérence religieuse par le canal économique ?

Ni les pouvoirs publics, qui étaient déjà restés étrangement silencieux lorsque, au printemps dernier, des membres de l’administration américaine avaient procédé avec une totale impudence à des manoeuvres d’instrumentalisation des “jeunes de banlieues” d’ascendance africaine.   Ni la presse. Tétanisée par ses complexes anti-racistes, elle ne voie que l’encouragement à “la diversité”, se contente de retranscrire la communication quatari. « Des élus de banlieue rentrent du Qatar. Leur but : promouvoir les talents des quartiers dans un pays en plein essor, où la culture franco-arabe n’est plus un handicap. Un voyage qui fait suite à deux séjours aux Etats-Unis.”

Qu’en pensent les intéressés ? « Alors que l’Europe est en crise, le Qatar explose”, répond Fouad Sari, élu écologiste et professeur à Vigneux-sur-Seine (Essonne). “Dans nos quartiers, le nouveau propriétaire du PSG et organisateur de la Coupe du monde de football 2022 fait rêver les jeunes.» « Au Qatar, les compétences comptent plus que la couleur de la peau », ajoute Houaria Hadj-Chikh, adjointe (apparentée PC) à Marseille.

Derrière les talents de la diversité, l’uniformité de l’islamisme?

Le Qatar ce n’est pas que des paroles. Il faut agir.” La bourse grande ouverte et ne cachant pas que les 50ME de l’émir n’était qu’un plancher, l’ambassadeur a été clair, devant la dizaine d’élus locaux des quartiers, tous originaires du Maghreb, en présence d’un journaliste de l’AFP “J’espère que ce partenariat sera noué très vite pour servir la relation entre le Qatar et la France“,  pays “stratégique” et “très important pour nous“, a poursuivi l’ambassadeur.  ”Les Français d’origine arabe peuvent nous aider dans notre partenariat avec la France“.

La France: objectif Qatari. Personne ne peut en douter. Attention, derrière les talents de la diversité, il peut se cacher l’uniformité de l’islamisme Qatari.

Jean Bonnevey

Krantenkoppen - Januari 2012 (1)

Krantenkoppen

Januari 2012 (1)

HET UITVERKOREN VOLK MOET PERFECT ZIJN:
"Zwanger zijn in Israël is welhaast een militaire operatie. Talloze echo's en bloedonderzoeken moeten de perfecte baby opleveren, niets mag aan het toeval worden overgelaten. De staat eist gezonde baby's, en veel ook. (...) 'Wat is dat hier in dit land?', verzuchtte ik. 'Het Joodse volk is het uitverkoren volk', antwoordde ze. 'En dat moet perfect zijn'.":
http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/4720/Jodendom/article/detail/3104916/2012/01/04/Het-uitverkoren-volk-moet-perfect-zijn.dhtml#.TwTWZjm78lg.facebook
 
 
WOULD THE US BE DEFEATED IN THE PERSIAN GULF IN A WAR WITH IRAN?
"US naval forces in the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf are very vulnerable to Iran. Despite its might and shear strength, geography literally works against US naval power in the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf. The relative narrowness of the Persian Gulf makes it like a channel, at least in a strategic and military context. (...) The aircraft carriers and warships of the US are confi...ned to narrow waters or are closed in within the coastal waters of the Persian Gulf. This is where the Iranian military’s advanced missile capabilities come into play. The Iranian missile and torpedo arsenal would make short work of US naval assets in the waters of the Persian Gulf where US vessels are constricted. This is why the US has been busily erecting a missile shield system in the Persian Gulf (...) in the last few years":
http://www.voltairenet.org/Would-the-US-be-defeated-in-the
 
 
IRANIAN MISSILE SPIN FORCES HORMUZ CLOSURE FOR 5 HOURS:
"By a media trick, Tehran proved its claim that closing the Strait of Hormuz is as 'easy as drinking water'. (...) Saturday morning, Dec. 31, Iran’s state agencies 'reported' long-range and other missiles had been test-fired as part of its ongoing naval drill around the Strait of Hormuz. Ahead of the test, Tehran closed its territorial waters.
For 5 hours Saturday, not a single warship, merchant... vessel or oil tanker ventured into the 30-mile wide Hormuz strait, waiting to hear from Tehran’ that the test was over. Instead, around 0900 local time, a senior Iranian navy commander Mahmoud Moussavi informed Iran’s English language Press TV that no missiles had been fired after all. (...) For 5 hours therefore, world shipping obeyed Tehran’s warning (...)."
http://www.voltairenet.org/Iranian-missile-spin-forces-Hormuz
 
 
THE US-IRANIAN COLD WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND THE THREAT OF BROADER WAR:
‎'The Obama Administration has used 2011 to unleash Washington’s 'Coalition of the Moderate' against the Resistance Bloc, which pins together all the countries and forces united by their opposition to US and Israeli hegemony in the Middle East-North Africa region":
http://www.voltairenet.org/The-US-Iranian-cold-war-in-the
 
 
THOUSANDS OF US TROOPS DEPLOYING TO ISRAEL:
"The Israeli military will together with America host the largest-ever joint missile drill by the 2 countries. (...) Additionally, new command posts will be established by American forces in Israel and Israel’s own IDF army will begin working from a base in Germany. (...) The US will now have added forces on the ready in Israel and Germany under what Tehran fears is a guise being merely perpetrated as a test-run": 
https://rt.com/usa/news/us-troops-israel-iran-257/
 
 
WORDT GRIEKENLAND EEN NIEUWE OLIESTAAT?
"Er is al heel wat internationale aandacht voor de mogelijke aardgas- en oliereserves van Griekenland (...). Voorlopige berekeningen hebben aangegeven dat er ongeveer 250 tot 300 miljoen vaten zouden kunnen worden bovengehaald uit de Ionische Zee":
http://www.dewereldmorgen.be/artikels/2012/01/04/wordt-griekenland-een-nieuwe-oliestaat
 
 
SCHALIEGAS VERANDERT MACHTSVERHOUDINGEN IN DE WERELD:
"Van schaliegas, een gas dat gewonnen kan worden uit gesteente, zouden wel eens veel grotere voorraden op onze planeet kunnen bestaan dan van het conventionele aardgas, zegt de Amerikaanse Energy Information Administration. De EIA stelt ook dat schaliegas rijkelijk aanwezig is op plaatsen die voorheen afhankelijk waren van import. China, de VS en Argentinië voeren de lijst aan, gevolgd door Zuid-Afrika, Australië, Polen, Frankrijk, Chili, Zweden, Paraguay, Pakistan en India":
http://www.dewereldmorgen.be/artikels/2012/01/04/schaliegas-verandert-machtsverhoudingen-in-de-wereld
 
 
SYRIE: APPEL A L'AIDE DE MERE AGNES-MARYAM DE LA CROIX ET DU MONASTERE DE SAINT JACQUES L'INTERCIS:
"J’ai été remuée au plus profond de ma conscience par la tragédie que vit la population civile, notamment les chrétiens. Ces derniers sont surtout concentrés dans les quartiers centraux de la ville qui sont devenus le repaire de bandes armées que personne jusqu’à présent n’a réussi à identifier. (...) Les résultats (...) sont des plus terribles: chaque jours des innocents son...t égorgés ou kidnappé...s. Des familles perdent ainsi le père, le fils ou le frère. Les veuves et les orphelins sont dans la nécessité. Ceux qui n’ont pas affronté le spectre de la mort doivent faire face à la séquestration forcée dans leurs domiciles où ils cherchent à survivre sans travail":
http://www.legrandsoir.info/+syrie-appel-a-l-aide-de-mere-agnes-maryam-de-la-croix-et-du-monastere-de-saint-jacques-l-intercis+.html
 
 
THE DECISION TO ATTACK SYRIA WAS MADE AT A MEETING AT CAMP DAVID ON 15 SEPTEMBER 2001:
"When the Western powers want to invade a state, their media mouthpieces claim that it is a barbaric dictatorship, that their armies can protect civilians and that they should overthrow the regime and bring democracy. We witnessed the truth in Iraq and Libya: the colonial powers couldn’t be less interested in the fate of the populations; they go in to devastate and plunder the country":
http://www.voltairenet.org/The-decision-to-attack-Syria-was
 
 
OVER HET MISBRUIK VAN DE TERM ANTISEMITISME:

Het zionisme, de basisideologie van Israël, is om volgende redenen een te bestrijden politieke stroming:

1. Het geeft een foute oplossing voor de problemen van de joden in Europa.
2. Het zionisme creëerde een menselijk drama voor het Palestijnse volk.
3. Het vernietigde grotendeels de eigen identiteit van grote groepen niet-Europese joden.
4. Een laatste, kwalijk gevolg was de gelijkschakeling 'Israël' met 'jood'.
http://www.dewereldmorgen.be/artikels/2011/12/29/over-het-misbruik-van-de-term-antisemitisme

 

 
 
DAS HEILIGES LAND UNSERES HERRN IST IM BESITZ SEINER KREUZIGER:
"Gegenwärtig läuft eine fieberhafte Kampagne, die großen Druck ausübt und Propaganda verbreitet (...) um die Welt davon zu überzeugen, daß der jüdische Mißbrauch des Heiligen Landes die netteste Sache sei, die diesem Gebiet passieren konnte. (...)
Das Heilige Land unseres Herrn ist im Besitz seiner Kreuziger":
http://www.kreuz.net/article.14417.html
 
 
US ARMY REVEALS HELICOPTER DRONE:
"The army said the technology promised an unprecedented capability to track and monitor activity on the ground":
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16358851
 
 
THE DEFEAT OF THE AMERICAN EMPIRE:
"Iran and Hezbollah’s superiority in the electronic war with the US and Israel (...) constitutes a serious threat due to the accomplishments secured by both sides in exposing spy networks, obstructing sophisticated devices and dismantling their systems. This (...) constitutes the most prominent challenge facing Israel and the US in the region":
http://www.voltairenet.org/The-defeat-of-the-American-empire
 
 
JFK AND RFK: THE PLOTS THAT KILLED THEM, THE PATSIES THAT DIDN'T:
"The assassinations of RFK and JFK were both conspiracies. Both involved the destruction of evidence. Both involved the fabrication of evidence. Both involved framing their patsies. Both involved complicity by local officials. Both involved planning by the CIA. Both were used to deny the American people of the right to be governed by leaders of their own choosing":
http://www.voltairenet.org/JFK-and-RFK-The-Plots-that-Killed
 
 
FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHES ÜBERRASCHENDE NÄHE ZUR THEOLOGIE:
"Nietzsches Text macht auf äußerst einprägsame Weise deutlich, welche tiefe geistesgeschichtliche Revolution sich seit dem siebzehnten Jahrhundert in Europa vollzogen hatte. Indem man die Existenz Gottes in Frage stellte, wurden zugleich auch die Grundfesten der staatlichen Ordnung, von Recht und Moral, aber auch das ganze Weltbild, eben Oben und Unten, in Frage gestellt. Die explizite Leugnung d...er Existenz Gottes war eben nicht nur irgendeine beliebige philosophische Aussage, sondern führte zunächst einmal dazu, dass vieles, was zuvor religiös legitimiert war, fundamental unklar und unsicher werden mußte – insbesondere Lebensordnungen wie Ehe und Familie oder die Staatsordnung einer Monarchie von Gottes Gnaden."
 
 
L'UNION EURASIATIQUE, PROJECTIONS ET POTENTIALITE D'UN NOUVEAU POLE GEOPOLITIQUE:
"Une étroite intégration sur des bases économiques et de nouvelles valeurs est un impératif des temps; c’est ainsi (...) que Vladimir Poutine aborde le sujet de l’Union Eurasiatique, un des piliers de sa campagne électorale et de son prochain mandat présidentiel. L’intention (...) semble toujours davantage celle de bâtir un grand projet, au travers duquel la (...) Russie puisse retrouver son rôle dans les relations internationales, conforme à l’esprit qui depuis toujours distingue les leaders et l’histoire russes":
http://www.geopolintel.fr/article438.html
 
 
CIA'S DAILY MENU: 5 MLN FOREIGN TWEETS!
"The CIA (...) monitors everything available regardless of its significance and language. This also includes TV news channels, internet chat rooms, local radio stations and newspapers":
https://rt.com/news/twitter-facebook-cia-watches-743/
 
 
CHINA EN JAPAN STIMULEREN GRENSOVERSCHRIJDENDE HANDEL IN EIGEN MUNTEN:
"China en Japan werken een plan uit om voor hun wederzijdse handelsrelaties en financiële transacties het gebruik van de Japanse yen en de Chinese yuan te bevorderen. De 2 landen willen zo hun sterke economische banden ondersteunen en hun afhankelijkheid van de dollar afbouwen": 
http://www.standaard.be/artikel/detail.aspx?artikelid=DMF20111226_053
 
 
IRAK: HET MINST LEEFBARE LAND VAN DE PLANEET:
"Bagdad is de minst leefbare stad op de planeet. Dit is te wijten aan de volledige vernietiging van rioleringen, waterzuiveringsinstallaties, fabrieken, scholen, ziekenhuizen, musea en energiecentrales door het Amerikaanse leger":
http://www.dewereldmorgen.be/artikels/2011/12/21/irak-het-minst-leefbare-land-van-de-planeet
 
 
IRAK: TOTALE VERNIETIGING DOOR INVASIE EN BEZETTING:
"Het oorlogsgeld van de Amerikaanse belastingbetaler heeft niet alleen de Amerikaanse economie geruïneerd en de rest van de wereld in een economische crisis gestort, het heeft ook een soevereine natie verwoest die geen deel wenste te worden van de 'New World Order'. De dramatische situatie in Irak staat in schril contrast met de positieve echo's over 'vooruitgang in Irak' in de massamedia":
http://www.dewereldmorgen.be/artikels/2011/12/20/irak-totale-vernietiging-door-invasie-en-bezetting
 
 
NOAM CHOMSKY: TOP 10 MEDIA MANIPULATIONS:

 

‎1 - THE STRATEGY OF DISTRACTION
2 - CREATE PROBLEMS, THEN OFFER SOLUTIONS
3 - THE GRADUAL STRATEGY
4 - THE STRATEGY OF DEFERRING
5 - GO TO THE PUBLIC AS A LITTLE CHILD
6 - USE THE EMOTIONAL SIDE MORE THAN THE REFLECTION
7 - KEEP THE PUBLIC IN IGNORANCE AND MEDIOCRITY
8 - TO ENCOURAGE THE PUBLIC TO BE COMPLACENT WITH MEDIOCRITY
9 - SELF-BLAME STRENGTHEN
10 - GETTING TO KNOW THE INDIVIDUALS BETTER THAN THEY KNOW THEMSELVES

 

 
 
UN VENT D'ESPOIR SE LEVE!
"Luis de Guindos, ancien président de la banque Lehman Brothers pour l’Espagne et le Portugal, a été nommé mercredi ministre espagnol de l’Economie":
http://www.pauljorion.com/blog/?p=32179%3Fp%3D%3Cb%3EUN+VENT+D%E2%80%99ESPOIR+SE+L%C3%88VE+%21%3C%2Fb%3E
 
 
GRIEKS-MELKITISCHE PATRIARCH ROEPT OP TOT DIALOOG:
De Syrische patriarch Gregorios III Laham van Antiochië (...) roept het westen op om de huidige Syrische regering te steunen (...): "Het westen weet enkel dat de troepen van Assad bloed vergoten. Maar wij hebben contacten in het hele land. Er bevinden zich ook katholieke gemeenten in het centrum van de opstand. Die melden ons gevallen waarbij betogers wapens tegen burgers en militairen gebruiken. De staat heeft dan de plicht om burgers en soldaten te beschermen":
http://www.rorate.com/nieuws/nws.php?id=69315
 
 
THE GREATER EUROPE PROJECT:
"The inertia of political thinking and the lack of historic imagination among the political elites of the victorious West has led to a simplistic option: the conceptual basis of western liberal democracy, a market-economy society, and the ...strategic domination of the USA on the world scale became the only solution to all kinds of emerging challenges and the universal model that should be imperatively accepted by all of humanity. (...)
In such a uni-polar vision, Europe is considered the outskirts of America, the world capital, and as a bridgehead of the American West on the large Eurasian continent. Europe is seen as a part of the rich North, not a decision maker, but a junior partner without proper interests and specific characteristics of its own. (...) Being geographically a neighbour to regions with diverse non-European civilisations and with its own identity weakened or directly negated by the approach of the Global American Empire, Europe can easily lose its own cultural and political shape. (...)
The identity of Europe is much wider and deeper than some simplistic American ideological fast-food of the global Empire complex – with its caricaturist mixture of ultra-liberalism, free market ideology and quantitative democracy. (...)
The positive basis for a united West in the future is almost totally lacking. The social choice of European countries and states is in stark contrast of Anglo-Saxon (today American) option towards ultra-liberalism. Present-day Europe has its own strategic interests that differ substantially with American interests or with the approach of the Global West project. (...)
The only feasible alternative in present circumstances is to found in the context of a multi-polar world. Multi-polarity can grant to any country and civilisation on the planet the right and the freedom to develop its own potential, to organise its own internal reality in accordance with the specific identity of its culture and people, to propose a reliable basis of just and balanced international relations amongst the world’s nations. (...) Differences between civilisations do not have to necessarily culminate in an inevitable clash between them – in contrast to the simplistic logic of some American writers. 
Concerning Europe directly, (..) we suggest, as a concretisation of the multi-polar approach, a balanced and open vision of a Greater Europe as a new concept for the future development of our civilisation in strategic, social, cultural, economic and geopolitical dimensions. (...) No country – except the USA – as things stand today, can afford and defend its true sovereignty, relying solely on its own inner resources. No one of them could be considered as an autonomous pole capable of counterbalancing the Atlantist power. So multi-polarity demands a large-scale integration process. (...) 
We imagine this Greater Europe as a sovereign geopolitical power, with its own strong cultural identity, with its own social and political options – based on the principles of the European democratic tradition – with its own defence system, including nuclear weapons, with its own strategic access to energy and mineral resources, making its own independent choices on peace or war with other countries or civilisations – with all of the above depending on a common European will and democratic procedure for making decisions.
In order to promote our project of a Greater Europe and the multi-polarity concept, we appeal to the different forces in European countries, and to the Russians, the Americans, the Asians, to reach beyond their political options, cultural differences and religious choices to support actively our initiative, to create in any place or region Committees for a Greater Europe or other kinds of organisations sharing the multi-polar approach, rejecting uni-polarity, the growing danger of American imperialism and elaborating a similar concept for other civilisations. If we work together, strongly affirming our different identities, we will be able to found a balanced, just and better world, a Greater World where any worthy culture, society, faith, tradition and human creativity will find its proper and granted place."
 
 
US MILITARY PERSONNEL AROUND THE WORLD:
 

The Moscow Trials in Historical Context

The Moscow Trials in Historical Context

Kerry Bolton

Ex: http://www.wermodandwermod.com/

Abstract

There is a subject that generally seems to be “no go” among academe: a critical attitude towards Trotsky and a less than slanderous attitude towards his nemesis, Stalin. Submission of papers on the subject is more likely to elicit responses of the type one would expect from outraged Trotskyite diehards than those of a scholarly critique. However, the battle between Trotsky and Stalin is not just one of theoretical interest, as it laid the foundations for outlooks on Russia and strategies in regard to the Cold War. The legacy continues to shape the present era, even after the implosion of the USSR. The following paper is intended to consider the Stalinist allegations against Trotsky et al in the context of history, and how that history continues to unfold.

Introduction

Trotsky had received comparatively good press in the West, especially since World War II, when the wartime alliance with Stalin turned sour. Trotsky has been published by major corporations,[1] and is generally considered the grandfatherly figure of Bolshevism.[2] “Uncle Joe,” on the other hand, was quickly demonized as a tyrant, and the “gallant Soviet Army” that stopped the Germans at Stalingrad was turned into a threat to world freedom, when in the aftermath of World War II the USSR did not prove compliant in regard to US plans for a post-war world order.[3] However, even before the rift, basically from the beginning of the Moscow Trials, Western academics such as Professor John Dewey condemned the proceedings as a brutal travesty. The Moscow Trials are here reconsidered within the context of the historical circumstances and of the judicial system that Trotsky and other defendants had themselves played prominent roles in establishing.

A reconsideration of the Moscow Trials of the defendants Trotsky et al is important for more reasons than the purely academic. Since the scuttling of the USSR and of the Warsaw Pact by a combination of internal betrayal and of subversion undertaken by a myriad of US-based “civil societies” and NGOs backed by the likes of the George Soros network, Freedom House, National Endowment for Democracy, and dozens of other such entities,[4] Russia – after the Yeltsin interregnum of subservience to globalisation –has sought to recreate herself as a power that offers a multipolar rather than a unipolar world. A reborn Russia and the reshaping of a new geopolitical bloc which responds to Russian leadership, is therefore of importance to all those throughout the world who are cynical about the prospect of a “new world order” dominated by “American ideals.” US foreign policy analysts, “statesmen” (sic), opinion moulders, and lobbyists still have nightmares about Stalin and the possibility of a Stalin-type figure arising who will re-establish Russia’s position in the world. For example, Putin, a “strongman” type in Western-liberal eyes at least, has been ambivalent about the role of Stalin in history, such ambivalence, rather than unequivocal rejection, being sufficient to make oligarchs in the USA and Russia herself, nervous. Hence, The Sunday Times, commenting on the Putin phenomena being dangerously reminiscent of Stalinism, stated recently:

Joseph Stalin sent millions to their deaths during his reign of terror, and his name was taboo for decades, but the dictator is a step closer to rehabilitation after Vladimir Putin openly praised his achievements.

The Prime Minister and former KGB agent used an appearance on national television to give credit to Stalin for making the Soviet Union an industrial superpower, and for defeating Hitler in the Second World War.

In a verdict that will be obediently absorbed by a state bureaucracy long used to taking its cue from above, Mr Putin declared that it was “impossible to make a judgment in general” about the man who presided over the Gulag slave camps. His view contrasted sharply with that of President Medvedev, Russia’s nominal leader, who has said that there is no excuse for the terror unleashed by Stalin.

Mr Putin said that he had deliberately included the issue of Stalin’s legacy in a marathon annual question-and-answer programme on live television, because it was being “actively discussed” by Russians.[5]

While The Times’ Halpin commented that Putin nonetheless gave the obligatory comments about the brutality of Stalin’s regime, following a forceful condemnation of Stalin by Medvedev on October 9, 2009, it is worrying nonetheless that Putin could state that positive aspects “undoubtedly existed.” Such comments are the same as if a leading German political figure had stated that some positive aspects of Hitler “undoubtedly existed.” The guilt complex of Stalinist tyranny, having its origins in Trotskyite Stalinophobia, which has been carried over into the present “Cold War II” era of a bastardous mixture of “neo-cons” (i.e., post-Trotskyites) and Soros type globalists, often working in tandem despite their supposed differences,[6] is supposed to keep Russian down in perpetuity. Should Russia rise again, however, the spectre of Stalin is there to frighten the world into adherence to US policy in the same way that the “war on terrorism” is designed to dragoon the world behind the USA. Just as importantly, The Times article commented on Putin’s opposition to the Russian oligarchy, which has been presented by the Western news media as a “human rights issue”:

During the television programme, Mr Putin demonstrated his populist instincts by lashing out at Russia’s billionaire class for their vulgar displays of wealth. His comments came after a scandal in Geneva, when an elderly man was critically injured in an accident after an alleged road race involving the children of wealthy Russians in a Lamborghini and three other sports cars. “The nouveaux riches all of a sudden got rich very quickly, but they cannot manage their wealth without showing it off all the time. Yes, this is our problem,” Mr Putin said.[7]

This all seems lamentably (for the plutocrats) like a replay of what happened after the Bolshevik Revolution when Stalin kicked out Trotsky et al. Under Trotsky, the Bolshevik regime would have eagerly sought foreign capital.[8] It is after all why plutocrats would have had such an interest in ensuring Trotsky’s safe passage back to Russia in time for the Bolshevik coup, after having had a pleasant stay with his family in the USA as a guest of Julius Hammer, and having been comfortably ensconced in an upmarket flat, with a chauffeur at the family’s disposal.[9] In 1923 the omnipresent globalist think tank the Council on Foreign Relations, was warning investors to hurry up and get into Soviet Russia before something went wrong,[10] which it did a few years later. Under Stalin, even Western technicians were not trusted.[11]

Of particular note, however, is that well-placed Russian politicians and academics are still very aware of the globalist apparatus that is working for what is frequently identified in Russia as a “new world order,” and the responsibility Russia has in reasserting herself to lead in reshaping a “multipolar” world contra American hegemony. This influences Russia’s foreign policy, perhaps the most significant manifestation being the BRIC alliance,[12] despite what this writer regards as the very dangerous liaison with China.[13]

What is dismissed as “fringe conspiracy theory” by the superficial and generally “kept” Western news media and academia, is reported and discussed, among the highest echelons of Russian media, politics, military, and intelligentsia, with an analytical methodology that is all but gone from Western journalism and research. For example the Russian geopolitical theorist Alexander Dugin is a well-respected academic who lectures at Moscow State University under the auspices of the Center for Conservative Studies, which is part of the Department of Sociology (International Relations)[14] The subjects discussed by Professor Dugin and his colleagues and students feature the menace of world government and the challenges of globalism to Russian statehood. The movement he inspired, Eurasianism, has many prominent people in Russia and elsewhere.[15]

Perhaps the best indication of Russia’s persistence in remaining resistant to globalist and hegemonic schemes for world re-organization is the information that is published by the Ministry of International Affairs. Despite the disclaimer, the articles and analyses are a far cry from the shallowness of the mainstream news media of the Western world. Articles posted by the Ministry as this paper is written include a cynical consideration of the North African revolutions and the role of “social media;”[16] and an article pointing to the immense socio-economic benefits wrought by the Qaddafi regime, which is now being targeted by revolts “backed by Western intelligence services.”[17] Political analyst Sergei Shashkov theorizes that:

Recent events perfectly fit into the US-invented concept of “manageable chaos” (also known as “controlled instability” theory). Among its authors are: Zbigniew Brzezinski, a Polish American political scientist, Gene Sharp, who wrote From Dictatorship to Democracy, and Steven Mann, whose Chaos Theory and Strategic Thought was published in Washington in 1992, and who was involved in plotting “color revolutions” in some former Soviet republics.[18]

The only place one is going to get that type of analyses in the West is in alternative media sources such as The Foreign Policy Journal or Global Research. What Western government Ministry would have the independence of mind to circulate analyses of this type? Russians have the opportunity to be the most well-informed people in the world in matters that are of real importance. Westerners, on the other hand, do have that essential freedom – to watch US sitcoms and keep abreast of the tittle-tattle of movie stars and pop singers. Clearly, Russia is not readily succumbing to the type of post-Cold War world as envisaged by plutocrats and US hegemonists, expressed by George H W Bush in his hopes for a “new world order” after the demise of the Soviet bloc.[19] Beginning with Putin, Russia has refused to co-operate in the establishment of the “new world order” just as Stalin did not go along with similar schemes intended for the post-World War II era.

The purging of the USSR of Trotskyites and others by Stalin constituted the first significant move against plutocratic aspirations for Russia. The subsequent Russophobia that continues among American foreign policy and other influential circles has an ideological and historical framework arising to a significant extent therefore. The Moscow Trials, and the reaction symbolized by the Dewey Commission, gave primary impetus to a movement that was to metamorphose from Trotskyism to post-Trotskyism and ultimately to the oddly named “neo- conservatism,” and to leading NGOs such as the National Endowment for Democracy. The foundation for the present historical phenomena in regard to Russia was being embryonically shaped even within the Dewey Commission, certain of whose members ended up becoming Cold Warriors.

In the spirit of this legacy, the oligarchs, who were to be unleashed on Russia after the destruction of the USSR, are being upheld by their champions in the West as victims of neo-Stalinism, and their trials are being compared to those of Stalin’s “Moscow Show Trials.” Hence, American Professor Paul Gregory, a Fellow of the Hoover Institution, co-editor of the “Yale-Hoover Series on Stalin, Stalinism, and Cold War,” etc., writes of the trial of oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky:

When the history of Russian justice is written fifty years from now, two landmark court cases will stand out: The death sentence of Nikolai Bukharin in his Moscow show trial of March 1938 and the second prison sentence of Mikhail Khodorkovsky expected December 27, 2010. Both processes teach the same object lesson: anyone who crosses the Kremlin will be punished without mercy. There will be no protection in the courts for the innocent, and the guilty verdict and sentence will be already predetermined behind the Kremlin walls. It also does not matter how preposterous or ludicrous the charges. Vladimir Putin was born in 1952, only one year before Stalin’s death. But Stalin’s system of justice was institutionalized and survived Stalin and the collapse of the Soviet Union, for use by apt pupils such as Putin . . . [20]

If Russia continues to take a “wrong turn” (sic) as it is termed by the US foreign policy Establishment,[21] then we can expect the regime to be increasingly demonized by being compared to that of Stalin, just as other regimes ripe for “change,” (such as Milosovic’s Serbia, Saddam’s Iraq and Qaddafi’s Libya) according to the agenda of the globalists, are demonized. John McCain, stated on the Floor of the Senate, speaking of the “New START Treaty” with Russia, that the Khodorkovsky trial indicated that flawed nature of Russia, although McCain admitted that he was “under no illusions” that some of the gains of the oligarch might have been “ill-gotten.”[22] However, to those who do not like the prospect of a renewal of Russia influence, Khodorkovsky is a symbol of the type of Russia they hoped would emerge after the demise of the USSR, and the oligarchs are portrayed as victims of Stalin-like injustice. Old Trot Carl Gershman, the founding president of the Congressionally-funded National Endowment for Democracy, used the Khodorkovsky sentencing as the primary point of condemnation of Russia in his summing up of the world situation frordemocracy in 2010, when stating that:

As 2010 drew to a close, the backsliding accelerated with a flurry of new setbacks—notably the rigged re-sentencing of dissident entrepreneur Mikhail Khodorkovsky in Russia, the brutal repression of the political opposition in Belarus following the December 19 presidential election, and the passage of a spate of repressive new laws in Venezuela, where President Hugo Chavez assumed decree powers.[23]

One can expect “velvet revolutions” to break out in Belarus and Venezuela at any time now, although Russia will obviously take longer to deal with. Hence the vitriol will take on increasingly Cold War proportions, with the accusation of a Stalinist revival being used as prime propaganda material. It is against this background that the legacy of Stalin, including the Moscow Trials for which he is particularly condemned, should be examined.

Background of the Trials

The Moscow Trials comprised three events: The first trial, held in August 1936, involved 16 members of the “Trotskyite-Kamenevite-Zinovievite-Leftist-Counter-Revolutionary Bloc.” The two main defendants were Grigory Zinoviev and Lev Kamenev. The primary accusations against the defendants were that they had, in alliance with Trotsky, been involved in the assassination of Sergey Kirov in 1934, and of plotting to kill Stalin.[24] After confessing to the charges, all were sentenced to death and executed.

The second trial in January 1937 of the “anti-Soviet Trotskyite-Centre” comprised 17 defendants, including Karl Radek, Yuri Piatakov and Grigory Sokolnikov, who were accused of plotting with Trotsky, who was said to be in league with Nazi Germany. Thirteen of the defendants were executed, and the remainder died in labor camps.

The third trial was held in 1938 against the “Bloc of Rights and Trotskyists,” with Bukharin as the chief defendant. They were accused of having planned to assassinate Lenin and Stalin in 1918, and of having plotted to dismember the USSR for the benefit of foreign powers.

These trials have been condemned as “show trials” yet the very openness to foreign journalists and diplomats, as distinct from secret tribunals, is surely an approach that is to be commended rather than condemned. It also indicates the confidence the Soviet authorities had in their charges against the accused, allowing the processes to be subjected to foreign scrutiny and comment.

The world generally has come to know the Moscow Trials as a collective travesty based on torture, threats to families and forced confessions, with the defendants in confused states, declaring their confessions of guilt by rote, as if hypnotised. The trials are considered in every sense modern-day “witch trials.” For example, Prof. Sidney Hook, co-founder of the “Dewey Commission,” cogently expressed the widely held view of the trials many years later that, “The confessions, exacted by threats and torture, physical and psychological, whose precise nature has never been disclosed, consisted largely of alleged ‘conversations about conversations.’”[25] However the opinions of first-hand observers are not unanimous in condemning the methodology of the trials. The US Ambassador to the USSR, himself a lawyer, Joseph E Davies, was to write of the trials in his memoirs published in 1945 (that is, about seven years after the Dewey Commission had supposedly proven the trials to have been a travesty):

At 12 o’clock noon accompanied by Counselor Henderson I went to this trial. Special arrangements were made for tickets for the Diplomatic Corps to have seats. . . . [26] . . . On both sides of the central aisle were rows of seats occupied entirely by different groups of “workers” at each session, with the exception of a few rows in the centre of the hall reserved for correspondents, local and foreign, and for the Diplomatic Corps. The different groups of “workers,” I am advised, were charged with the duty of taking back reports of the trials to their various organizations.[27]

Davies stated that among the foreign press corps were the following representatives: Walter Duranty and Harold Denny from The New York Times, Joe Barnew and Joe Phillips from The New York Herald Tribune, Charlie Nutter or Nick Massock from Associated Press, Norman Deuel and Henry Schapiro from United Press, Jim Brown from International News, and Spencer Williams from The Manchester Guardian. The London Observer, hardly pro-Soviet, opined that: “It is futile to think the trial was staged and the charges trumped up. The Government’s case against the defendants is genuine.”[28] Duranty from The New York Times stated of the 1936 trial of Kamenev, Zinoviev, et al that:

. . . The writer knows beyond doubt that the assassin [of Kirov] was used as an instrument for the needs of political terrorism… No one acquainted with present European politics can fail to realize that, whereas the Soviet government is doing it utmost to maintain peace, there are certain so-called Trotskyist organizations that are trying to cause trouble…[29]

Of Soviet prosecutor Andrei Vyshinsky, Davies opined that: “the prosecutor … conducted the case calmly and generally with admirable moderation.” Especially notable, given the subsequent claims that were made about the allegedly confused, brainwashed appearance and tone of the defendants, Davies observed: “There was nothing unusual in the appearance of the accused. They all appeared well nourished and normal physically.”[30] A delegation of the International Association of Lawyers stated:

We consider the claim that the proceedings were summary and unlawful to be totally unfounded. The accused were given the opportunity of taking counsels.... We hereby categorically declare that the accused were sentenced quite lawfully.[31]

In 1936 the British Labour Member of Parliament, D N Pritt KC, wrote extensively of his observations on the first Moscow Trial. In the lengthy article published in Russia Today, Pritt, after alluding to the apparently good condition of the defendants who, in accord with the observations of Davies, did not appear to have suffered under Soviet detention, wrote:

The first thing that struck me, as an English lawyer, was the almost free-and-easy demeanour of the prisoners. They all looked well; they all got up and spoke, even at length, whenever they wanted to do so (for the matter of that, they strolled out, with a guard, when they wanted to).

The one or two witnesses who were called by the prosecution were cross-examined by the prisoners who were affected by their evidence, with the same freedom as would have been the case in England.

The prisoners voluntarily renounced counsel; they could have had counsel without fee had they wished, but they preferred to dispense with them. And having regard to their pleas of guilty and to their own ability to speak, amounting in most cases to real eloquence, they probably did not suffer by their decision, able as some of my Moscow colleagues are.[32]

Pritt was struck by the informality of the proceedings, and commented on how the defendants could interrupt at will, in what seems to have been a freewheeling debate:

The most striking novelty, perhaps, to an English lawyer, was the easy way in which first one and then another prisoner would intervene in the course of the examination of one of their co-defendants, without any objection from the Court or from the prosecutor, so that one got the impression of a quick and vivid debate between four people, the prosecutor and three prisoners, all talking together, if not actually at the same moment—a method which, whilst impossible with a jury, is certainly conducive to clearing up disputes of fact with some rapidity. [33]

Pritt’s view of Vyshinsky is in accord with that of Davies, stating of the prosecutor: “He spoke with vigour and clarity. He seldom raised his voice. He never ranted, or shouted, or thumped the table. He rarely looked at the public or played for effect.”[34] Pritt stated that the fifteen defendants[35] “spoke without any embarrassment or hindrance.” Such was Pritt’s view of the proceedings that his concluding remark states: “But it is equally clear that the judicature and the prosecuting attorney of USSR have taken at least as great a step towards establishing their reputation among the legal systems of the modern world.”[36]

Although Pritt was a Labour Member of Parliament, and was not a communist party member, he was pro-Soviet. Was he, then, capable of forming an objective, professional opinion? Anecdotal evidence suggests he was. Jeremy Murray-Brown, biographer of the Kenyan leader Jomo Kenyatta, writing to the editor of Commentary in connection with the Moscow Trials, relates that he had had discussions with Pritt in 1970, in the course of which he asked Pritt about the trials:

His reply astonished me. “I thought they were all guilty,” he said, referring to Bukharin and his co-defendants. It was as simple as that; Pritt made no attempt at political justification, but reaffirmed what was for him a matter of clear professional judgment. …In terms of the Soviet Union’s own judicial system, Pritt said, he firmly believed the defendants in the Moscow trials were guilty as charged. It was an argument which came oddly from the man who defended Kenyatta.[37]

Kenyatta, whom Pritt went to Kenya to defend before a British colonial court, had been “evasive” under cross-examination, Pritt stated.[38] Pritt, despite his support for Kenyatta was able to judge the veracity of proceedings regardless of political bias, and had maintained his view of the Moscow trials even in 1970, when it would have been opportune, even among Soviet sympathizers, to conform to the accepted view, including the declarations of Khrushchev. Indeed, Sidney Hook, long since having become a Cold Warrior in the service of the USA, retorted:

In reply to Jeremy Murray-Brown: the significance of D N Pritt’s infamous defense of the infamous Moscow frame-up trials must be appraised in the light of Khrushchev’s revelations of Stalin’s crimes available to the public (outside the Soviet Union) long before Pritt’s avowals to Mr Murray-Brown. Pritt cannot have been unaware of them.[39]

Of course Pritt was not unaware of Khrushchev’s so-called “revelations.” Unlike many former admirers of Stalin, he was simply not impressed by their veracity, and it must be assumed that his scepticism was based on both his eminent judicial experience and his first-hand observations. Certainly, Sidney Hook’s leading role in the formation of the “Dewey Commission” for the exoneration of Trotsky on the pretext of “impartial” hearings, was itself a cynical travesty, as will be considered in this paper.

If there was a general consensus that the proceedings were legitimate, and a quite sceptical attitude towards the findings of the Dewey Commission, despite the eminence of its front man, Prof. John Dewey, what changed to result in such a dramatic and almost universal reversal of opinion? It was a change of perception in regard to Stalin in the aftermath of World War II, and not due to any sudden revelations about the Moscow Trials or about Stalin’s tyranny. The wartime alliance, which, it was assumed, would endure during the post-war era, instead gave way to the Cold War.[40] Such was the hatred of the Trotskyites for the USSR that they were willing to enlist in the ranks of the anti-Soviet crusade even to the extent of working for the CIA[41], and supporting the US in Korea and Vietnam to counter Soviet influence.[42] Their services, as experienced anti-Soviet propagandists, were eagerly sought. Hence the findings of the Dewey Commission, largely ignored in their own time, are now heralded as definitive. The nature of this “Dewey Commission” will now be considered.

“Preliminary Commission of Inquiry into the Charges Made Against Leon Trotsky in the Moscow Trials”

The so-called Dewey Commission, the full title of which was the “Preliminary Commission of Inquiry into the Charges Made Against Leon Trotsky in the Moscow Trials,” having a legalistic and even official sound to it, was convened in March 1937 on the initiative of the American Committee for the Defense of Leon Trotsky as a supposedly “impartial body.”[43] The purpose was said to be, “to ascertain all the available facts about the Moscow Trial proceedings in which Trotsky and his son, Leon Sedov, were the principal accused and to render a judgment based upon those facts.”[44] However, the composition of the Commission indicates that it was set up as a counter-show trial with the preconceived intention of exonerating Trotsky, and was created at the instigation of Trotsky himself.

The stage was set with the founding of the American Committee for the Defense of Leon Trotsky by Prof. Sidney Hook, who persuaded his mentor, Prof. John Dewey, to front for it. Just how “impartial” the Dewey Commission was might be deduced not only from its having been initiated by those sympathetic towards Trotsky, but also by a comment in a Time report at the occasion of Trotsky’s deportation from Norway en route to Mexico: “The American Committee for the Defense of Leon Trotsky spat accusations at the Norwegian Government last week for its ‘indecent and filthy’ behavior in placing the Great Exile & Mme Trotsky on the Norwegian tanker Ruth…”[45]

The mock “trial” organised by the Dewey Commission was prompted by a “demand” from Trotsky from his new abode in Mexico, who “publicly demanded the formation of an international commission of inquiry, since he had been deprived of any opportunity to reply to the accusations before a legally constituted court.”[46] A sub-commission was formed to travel to Mexico and to allow Trotsky to give testimony in his defense under what was supposed to include “cross-examination.” The sub-commission comprised:

  • John Dewey as chairman, described by Novack as America’s foremost liberal and philosopher;
  • Otto Ruehle, a German Marxist and former Reichstag Deputy;
  • Alfred Rosmer, former member of the Executive Committee of the Communist International (1920-21);
  • Wendelin Thomas, leader of the sailor’s revolt in Germany in 1918 and a former Communist Deputy in the Reichstag; and
  • Carlo Tresca, Italian-American anarchist.[47]

Other members, whose political orientations are not mentioned by Novack, were:

  • ·        Benjamin Stolberg, American journalist;
  • ·        Suzanne La Follette, American journalist;
  • ·         Carleton Beals, authority on Latin-American affairs;
  • ·        Edward A Ross, Professor of Sociology at the University of Wisconsin;
  • ·         John Chamberlain, former literary critic of the New York Times; and
  • ·         Francisco Zamora, Mexican journalist.

Of these, Stolberg was a supporter of the Socialist Party, described by fellow commissioner Carleton Beals as being, along with other commissioners, thoroughly under Trotsky’s spell.[48] Suzanne La Follette was described by Beals as having a “worshipful” attitude towards Trotsky.[49] Edward A Ross, who had gone to Soviet Russia in 1917 had come back with a pro-Bolshevik sentiment, writing The Russian Bolshevik Revolution (1921) and The Russian Soviet Republic (1923). John Chamberlain, a Left-leaning liberal by his own description[50], was among those who became so obsessively anti-Soviet that they ended up as avid Cold Warriors in the US camp.[51] In 1946 Chamberlain and Suzanne La Follette, along with free market guru Henry Hazlitt, founded the libertarian journal The Freeman.[52] Both can therefore be regarded as among the many Trotsky-sympathizers who became apologists for American foreign policy,[53] and laid the foundation for the so-called “neo-conservative” movement. Chamberlain and La Follette continued to pursue a vigorous anti-Soviet line at the earliest stages of the Cold War.[54]

Trotsky’s lawyer for the Mexico hearings was Albert Goldman, who had joined the Communist Party of America on its founding in 1920. He was expelled from the party in 1933 for Trotskyism. Goldman was another Trotskyite who became a pro-US Cold Warrior.[55] The Dewey Commission’s “court reporter” (sic) was Albert M Glotzer, who had been expelled from the Communist Party USA in 1928 and with prominent American Trotskyite Max Shachtman, had founded the Communist League and subsequent factions, including the Social Democrats USA,[56] whose executive Secretary had been Carl Gershman, founding president of the National Endowment for Democracy. Glotzer had also served as Trotsky’s secretary in Turkey in 1931, and had met him on other occasions.[57] The Social Democrats USA provided particular support for the Cold War hawk, Sen. Henry Jackson, and has produced other foreign policy hawks such as Elliott Abrams.

Under the façade of an “impartial enquiry” and with a convoluted title that suggests a bona fide judicial basis, the Dewey Commission proceeded to Mexico to “interrogate” (sic) Trotsky on the pretence of objectivity;[58] an image that was to be quickly exposed by the resignation of one of the Commissioners, Carleton Beals.

"Trotsky's Pink Tea Party": The Beals Resignation

Although one would hardly suspect it now, at the time the Dewey Commission was perceived by many as lacking credibility. Time reported that when Dewey returned from Mexico the “kindly, grizzled professor” told a crowd of 3,500 in Manhattan that the preliminary results of the sub-commission justified the continuation of the Commission’s enquiries in the USA and elsewhere. Time offered the view that, “by last week the committee had proved nothing at all,” despite Dewey’s positive spin.[59] Time in referring to the resignation of Carleton Beals cited him as stating that the hearings had been “unduly influenced in Trotsky’s favor,” Beals having “resigned in disgust.”[60] The Dewey report appended a statement attempting to deal with Beals.[61] In a reply to Dewey, Beals wrote in The Saturday Evening Post that despite the publicly stated intention of the enquiry to determine the innocence or guilt of Trotsky the attitudes of the sub-commission members towards Trotsky were those of reverence:

“I want to weep,” remarks one commissioner as we pass out into the frowzy street, “to think of him being here.” All, including Doctor Dewey, chairman of the investigatory commission, join in the chorus of sorrow over Trotsky’s fallen star - except one commissioner, who sees the pathos of human change in less personal terms.[62]

Beals observing Trotsky in action considered that,

above all, his mental faculties are blurred by a consuming lust of hate for Stalin, a furious uncontrollable venom which has its counterpart in something bordering on a persecution complex - all who disagree with him are bunched in the simple formula of GPU agents, people “corrupted by the gold of Stalin.”[63]

It is evident from Beals’ comments - and Beals had no particular axe to grind - that the persona of Trotsky was far from the rational demeanour of a wronged victim. From Beals’ comments Trotsky seems to have presented himself in a manner that is suggestive of the descriptions often levelled against the Stalinist judiciary, making wild accusations about the supposed Stalinist affiliations of any detractors. Beals questioned Trotsky concerning his archives, since Trotsky was making numerous references to them to prove his innocence, but Trotsky “hems and haws.” While Trotsky denied that his archives had been purged of anything incriminating, important documents had been taken out. A primary insistence of Trotsky’s defense was his denial of having any communication with the accused after 1929. However Dr J Arch Getty comments:

Yet it is now clear that in 1932 he sent secret personal letters to former leading oppositionists Karl Radek, G. Sokol’nikov, E. Preobrazhensky, and others. While the contents of these letters are unknown, it seems reasonable to believe that they involved an attempt to persuade the addressees to return to opposition.[64]

Unlike virtually all Trotsky’s other letters (including even the most sensitive) no copies of these remain in the Trotsky Papers. It seems likely that they have been removed from the Papers at some time. Only the certified mail receipts remain. At his 1937 trial, Karl Radek testified that he had received a letter from Trotsky containing “terrorist instructions,” but we do not know whether this was the letter in question.[65]

It can be noted here that, as will be related below, Russian scholar Prof. Rogovin, in seeking to show that the Opposition bloc maintained an effective resistance to Stalin, also stated that a “united anti-Stalin bloc” did form in 1932, despite Trotsky’s claim at the Dewey hearings that there had been no significant contact with any of the Moscow defendants since 1929. Beals found it difficult to believe Trotsky’s insistence that his contacts inside the USSR had since 1930 consisted of no more than a half dozen letters to individuals. If it was the case that Trotsky no longer had a network within the USSR then he and the Fourth International, and Trotskyism generally, must have been nothing other than bluster.[66]

Beals’ less than deferential line of questioning created antagonism with the rest of the Commission. They began to change the rules of questioning without consulting him. Beals concluded by stating that either Finerty, whom he regarded as acting like Trotsky’s lawyer instead of that of the commission’s counsel, resign, or he would. Suzanne LaFollette “burst into tears” and implored Beals to apologise to Finerty, otherwise the “great historical occasion” would be “marred.” Beals left the room of the Mexican villa with the Commissioners chasing after him. Dewey was left to try and rationalize the situation with the press, while Beals countered that “the commission’s investigations were a fraud.”[67] In the concluding remarks of his article, with the subheading “The Trial that Proved Nothing,” Beals stated that:

  • There had been no adequate cross-examination.
  • The Trotsky archives had not been examined.
  • The cross-examination was a “scant day and a half,” mostly taken up with questions about the Russian Revolution, relations with Lenin, and questions about dialectical theory.
  • Most of the evidence submitted was in the form of Trotsky’s articles and books, which could have been consulted at a library.

The commission then resumed in New York, about which Beals predicted, “no amount of fumbling over documents in New York can correct the omissions and errors of its Mexican expedition,” adding:

From the press I learned that seven other commissions were at work in Europe, and that these would send representatives to form part of the larger commission. I was unable to find out how these European commissions had been created, who were members of them. I suspected them of being small cliques of Trotsky’s own followers. I was unable to put my seal of approval on the work of our commission in Mexico. I did not wish my name used merely as a sounding board for the doctrines of Trotsky and his followers. Nor did I care to participate in the work of the larger organization, whose methods were not revealed to me, the personnel of which was still a mystery to me.

Doubtless, considerable information will be scraped together. But if the commission in Mexico is an example, the selection of the facts will be biased, and their interpretation will mean nothing if trusted to a purely pro-Trotsky clique. As for me, a sadder and wiser man, I say, a plague on both their houses.[68]

As can be seen from the last sentence of the above, Beals was not aligned to either Trotsky or Stalin. He had accepted a position with the Dewey Commission in the belief that it sought to get to the matter of the accusations against the Moscow defendants, and specifically Trotsky, in a professional manner. What Beals found was a set-up that was predetermined to exonerate Trotsky and give the “Old Man” a podium upon which to vent his spleen against his nemesis, Stalin. It is also apparent that Trotsky attempted to detract accusations by alleging that anyone who doubted his word was in the pay of Stalin. Yet today the consensus among scholars is that Stalin contrived false allegations about Trotsky et al, and any suggestion to the contrary is met with vehemence rather than with scholarly rebuttal.[69]

The third session of the Mexico hearings largely proceeded on the question of the relations between Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev, and the formation of the Stalin-Kamenev-Zinoviev troika that ran the Soviet state when Lenin became incapacitated. The primary point was that Kamenev and Zinoviev were historically rivals of Trotsky and allies of Stalin in the jockeying for leadership. However, the Moscow testimony also deals with the split of the troika, when alliances changed and Zinoviev and Kamenev became allied with Trotsky. Trotsky in reply to a question from Goldman as to the time of the split, replied: “It was during the preparation, the secret preparation of the split. It was in the second half of 1925. It appeared openly at the Fourteenth Congress of the Party. That was the beginning of 1926.”

Trotsky was asked to explain the origins of the Zinoviev split with Stalin and the duration of the alliance with Trotsky. This, it should be noted, was at the time of an all-out offensive against Stalin, during which, Trotsky explains in his memoirs, “In the Autumn the Opposition even made an open sortie at the meeting of Party locals.”[70] At the time the “New Opposition” group led by Zinoviev and Kamenev aligned with Trotsky to form the “United Opposition.” Trotsky also stated in his memoirs that Zinoviev and Kamenev, despite being ideologically at odds with Stalin, tried to retain their influence within the party, Trotsky having been outvoted by the Bolshevik Party membership which had in a general referendum voted 740,000 to 4,000 to repudiate him:

Zinoviev and Kamenev soon found themselves in hostile opposition to Stalin; when they tried to transfer the dispute from the trio to the Central Committee, they discovered that Stalin had a solid majority there. They accepted the basic principles of our platform. In such circumstances, it was impossible not to form a bloc with them, especially since thousands of revolutionary Leningrad workers were behind them.[71]

It seems disingenuous that Trotsky could subsequently claim that there could not have been a further alliance with Zinoviev and Kamenev, given that alliances were constantly changing, and that these old Bolshevik idealists seem to have been thoroughgoing careerists and opportunists willing to embrace any alliance that would further their positions. Trotsky cited the report of the party Central Committee of the July 1926 meeting at which Zinoviev confessed his “two most important mistakes;” that of having opposed the October 1917 Revolution, and that of aligning with Stalin in forming the “bureaucratic-apparatus of oppression.” Zinoviev added that Trotsky had “warned with justice of the dangers of the deviation from the proletarian line and of the menacing growth of the apparatus regime. Yes, in the question of the bureaucratic-apparatus oppression, Trotsky was right against us.”[72]

During 1927 the alliance between Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev had fallen apart as Zinoviev and Kamenev again sought to flow with the tide. The break with Trotsky came just a few weeks before Trotsky’s expulsion from the Party, as the “Zinoviev group” wanted to avoid expulsion. However all the oppositionists were expelled from the party at the next Congress. Six months after their expulsion and exile to Siberia, Kamenev and Zinoviev reversed their position again, and they were readmitted to the party.

During 1927 Trotsky states that many young revolutionaries came to him eager to oppose Stalin for his having betrayed the Chinese Communists by insisting they subordinate themselves to Chiang Kai-shek. Trotsky claimed: “Hundreds and thousands of revolutionaries of the new generation were grouped about us… at present there are thousands of such young revolutionaries who are augmenting their political experience by studying theory in the prisons and the exile of the Stalin regime.”[73] With this backing the opposition launched its offensive against the Party:

The leading group of the opposition faced this finale with its eyes wide open. We realized only too clearly that we could make our ideas the common property of the new generation not by diplomacy and evasions but only by an open struggle which shirked none of the practical consequences. We went to meet the inevitable debacle, confident, however, that we were paving the way for the triumph of our ideas in a more distant future.[74]

Trotsky then referred to “illegal means” as the only method by which to force the opposition onto the Party at the Fifteenth Congress at the end of 1927. From Trotsky’s description of the tumultuous events during 1927 it seems clear that this was a revolutionary situation that the opposition was trying to create that would overthrow the regime just as the October 1917 coup had overthrown Kerensky:

Secret meetings were held in various parts of Moscow and Leningrad, attended by workers and students of both sexes…. In all, about 20,000 people attended such meetings in Moscow and Leningrad. The number was growing. The opposition cleverly prepared a huge meeting in the hall of the High Technical School, which had been occupied from within. The hall was crammed with two thousand people, while a huge crowd remained outside in the street. The attempts of the administration to stop the meeting proved ineffectual. Kamenev and I spoke for about two hours. Finally the Central Committee issued an appeal to the workers to break up the meetings of the opposition by force. This appeal was merely a screen for carefully prepared attacks on the opposition by military units under the guidance of the GPU. Stalin wanted a bloody settlement of the conflict. We gave the signal for a temporary discontinuance of the large meetings. But this was not until after the demonstration of November 7.[75]

In October 1927, the Central Executive Committee held its session in Leningrad, and a mass official demonstration was staged in honour of the event. Trotsky recorded that the demonstration was taken over by Zinoviev and himself and their followers by the thousands, with support from sections of the military and police. This was shortly followed by a similar event in Moscow commemorating the October 1917 Revolution, during which the opposition infiltrated the parades. A similar attempt at a parade in Leningrad resulted in the detention of Zinoviev and Radek, but Zinoviev wrote optimistically to Trotsky that this would play into their hands. However, at the last moment, the Zinoviev group backed down in order to try and avoid expulsion from the party at the Fifteenth Congress.[76] However Trotsky admitted to having conversations with Zinoviev and Kamenev at a joint meeting at the end of 1927. Trotsky then stated that he had a final communication from Zinoviev on November 7 1927 in which Zinoviev closes: “I admit entirely that Stalin will tomorrow circulate the most venomous “versions.” We are taking steps to inform the public. Do the same. Warm greetings, Yours, G. ZINOVIEV.”[77]

As stated by Goldman, Trotsky’s counsel at Mexico, the letter was addressed to Kamenev, Trotsky, and Y P Smilga. Trotsky explained that, “Smilga is an old member of the Party, a member of the Central Committee of the Party and a member of the Opposition, of the center of the Opposition at that time.” The following questioning then took place:

Stolberg: What do you mean by the center of the Opposition? The executive committee?

Trotsky: It was an executive committee, yes, the same as a central committee.

Goldman: Of the leading comrades of the Left Opposition?

Trotsky: Yes.’[78]

Trotsky stated that thereafter he had “absolute hostility and total contempt” for those who “capitulated,” and that he wrote many articles denouncing Zinoviev and Kamenev. Goldman read from a statement by prosecutor Vyshinsky at the January 28 session of the 1937 Moscow trial:

The Trotskyites went underground, they donned the mask of repentance and pretended that they had disarmed. Obeying the instruction of Trotsky. Pyatakov and the other leaders of this gang of criminals, pursuing a policy of duplicity, camouflaging themselves, they again penetrated into the Party, again penetrated into Soviet offices, here and there they even managed to creep into responsible positions of the state, concealing for a time, as has now been established beyond a shadow of doubt, their old Trotskyite, anti-Soviet wares in their secret apartments, together with arms, codes, passwords, connections and cadres.[79]

Trotsky in reply to a question from Goldman denied any further connection with Kamenev, Zinoviev or any of the other defendants at Moscow. However, as will be considered below, Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev had formed an “anti-Stalinist bloc in June 1932,”[80] a matter only discovered after the investigations in 1935 and 1936 into the Kirov murder.

One of the features of both the first Moscow Trial of 1936 and the Dewey Commission was the allegation that defendant Holtzman, when an official for the Soviet Commissariat for Foreign Trade, had met Trotsky and his son Leon Sedov, at the Hotel Britsol in Copenhagen in 1932. It is a matter that remains the focus of critique and ridicule of the Moscow Trials. For example one Trotskyite article triumphantly declares: “Unbeknown to the prosecutors, the Hotel Bristol had been demolished in 1917! The Stalinist investigators had not done their homework.”[81] Prominent historians continue to cite the supposed non-existence of the Hotel Bristol when Trotsky and his son were supposed to be conspiring with Holtzman, as a primary example of the crass nature of the Stalinist allegations. While Trotsky confirmed that he was in Copenhagen at the time of the alleged meeting, the Dewey Commission accepted statements that the Hotel Bristol had burned down in 1917 and had never reopened. The claim had first been made by the Danish newspaper Social-Demokraten shortly after the death sentences of the 1936 trial had been carried out.[82] In response Arbejderbladet, the organ of the Danish Communist Party, pointed out that in 1932 the Grand Hotel was connected by an interior doorway to the café Konditori Bristol. Moreover both the hotel and the café were owned by a husband and wife team. Arbejderbladet editor Martin Nielsen contended that a foreigner not familiar with the area would assume that he was at the Hotel Bristol.

However these factors were ignored by the Dewey Commission, and still are ingored. Instead the Commission accepted a falsely sworn affidavit by Esther and B J Field, Trotskyites, who claimed that the Bistol café was two doors away from the Grand Hotel and that there was a clear distinction between the two enterprises. Goldman, Trotsky’s lawyer, had stated at the fifth session of the hearings in Mexico that despite the statements that Holtzman was forced to make at the 1936 Moscow trial that he had met Trotsky at the Hotel Bristol, and was “put up” there, “…immediately after the trial and during the trial, when the statement, which the Commissioners can check up on, was made by him, a report came from the Social-Democratic press in Denmark that there was no such hotel as the Hotel Bristol in Copenhagen; that there was at one time a hotel by the name of Hotel Bristol, but that was burned down in 1917…”

Goldman sought to repudiate a claim by the publication Soviet Russia Today that stated that the Bristol café is not next to the Grand Hotel, and used the Field affidavit for the purpose, and that there was no entrance connecting the two, the Fields stating,

As a matter of fact, we bought some candy once at the Konditori Bristol, and we can state definitely that it had no vestibule, lobby, or lounge in common with the Grand Hotel or any hotel, and it could not have been mistaken for a hotel in any way, and entrance to the hotel could not be obtained through it.[83]

The question of the Bristol Hotel was again raised the following day, at the 6th session of the Dewey hearings. Such was – and is – the importance attached to this in repudiating the Stalinist allegations as clumsy. In 2008 Sven-Eric Holström undertook some rudimentary enquiries into the matter. Consulting the 1933 street and telephone directories for Copenhagen he found that – the Field’s affidavit notwithstanding - the Grand Hotel and the Bristol café were located at the same address.[84] Furthermore, photographs of the period show that the street entrance to the hotel and the café were the same and the only signage from the outside states “Bristol.”[85] Again, contrary to the Field affidavit, diagrams of the building show that there was a lobby and internal entrance connecting the hotel and the café. Anyone walking off the street into the hotel would assume, on the basis of the signage and the common entrance that he had walked into a hotel called “Hotel Bristol.” Getty states that Trotsky’s papers archived at Harvard show that Holtzman, a “former” Trotskyite, had met Sedov in Berlin in 1932 “and gave him a proposal from veteran Trotskyist Ivan Smirnov and other left oppositionists in the USSR for the formation of a united opposition bloc,”[86] although Trotsky stated at the Dewey hearings on questioning by Goldman that he had never had any “direct or indirect communication” with Holtzman.

If the statements of Trotsky at to the Dewey Commission and his statements in My Life are considered in the context of the allegations presented by Vyshinsky at Moscow, a number of conclusions might be suggested:

    1. From 1925 there was a Trotsky-Zinoviev-Kamenev bloc, or an “Opposition center,” which Trotsky states had an “executive committee; which functioned as an alternative party ‘central committee.’”
    2. Although Zinoviev and Kamenev were aligned for a time with Stalin in a troika, they repudiated this in favour of a counter-revolutionary alliance with Trotsky, and spoke at mass demonstrations, along with others such as Radek.
    3. Trotsky subsequently condemned Kamenev, Zinoviev et al as “contemptible” for “capitulating,” but Zinoviev, on Trotsky’s own account, was writing to him in November 1928 and warning of what he expected to be Stalin’s attacks.
    4. Was the vehemence with which Trotsky attacked Kamenev, Zinoviev and other Moscow defendants a mere ruse to throw off suspicion in regard to a united Opposition bloc, which, according to Rogovin,[87] had been formalized as an “anti-Stalinist bloc” in 1932?
    5. On Trotsky’s own account he and Zinoviev, Kamenev, Radek, et al had been at the forefront of a vast counter-revolutionary organization that was of sufficient strength to organize mass disruptions of official events in Moscow and Leningrad, which also had support among military and police personnel.

From his exile in Siberia in 1928, Trotsky on his own account, despite the ever-watchful eye of the GPU, made his home the center of opposition activities.[88] Trotsky had been treated leniently in Siberian exile, and was asked to refrain from opposition activities, but responded with a defiant letter to the All-Union Communist Party and to the Executive Committee of the Communist International, in which he referred to Stalin’s “narrow faction.” He refused to renounce what he called, “the struggle for the interests of the international proletariat...” In the letter to the Politburo dated 15 March 1933, Trotsky warned in grandiose manner:

I consider it my duty to make one more attempt to appeal to the sense of responsibility of those who presently lead the Soviet state. You know conditions better than I. If the internal development proceeds further on its present course, catastrophe is inevitable.[89]

As a means of saving the Soviet Union from self-destruction Trotsky advocated that the Left Opposition be accepted back into the Bolshevik party as an independent political tendency that would co-exist with all other factions, while not repudiating its own programme:[90]

Only from open and honest cooperation between the historically produced fractions, fully transforming them into tendencies in the party and eventually dissolving into it, can concrete conditions restore confidence in the leadership and resurrect the party.[91]

With the failure of the Politburo to reply to Trotsky’s ultimatum, he published both the letter and a statement entitled “An Explanation.”[92] Trotsky then cited his “declaration” in reply to the “ultimatum” he had received to forego oppositionist activities, to the Sixth Party Congress from his remote exile in Alma Ata. In this “declaration” he stated what could also be interpreted as revolutionary opposition to the regime, insofar as he considered that the USSR under Stalin had become a bureaucratic state composed of a “depraved officialdom” that was working for “class interests hostile to the proletariat”:

To demand from a revolutionary such a renunciation (of political activity, i.e., in the service of the party and the international revolution) would be possible only for a completely depraved officialdom. Only contemptible renegades would be capable of giving such a promise. I cannot alter anything in these words ... To everyone, his due. You wish to continue carrying out policies inspired by class forces hostile to the proletariat. We know our duty and we will do it to the end.[93]

The lack of reply from the Politburo in regard to Trotsky’s ultimatum to accept him back into the Government resulted in Trotsky’s final break with the Third International and the creation of the Fourth International in rivalry with the Stalinist parties throughout the world. Trotsky declared that the Bolshevik party and those parties following the Stalinist line, as well as the Comintern now only served an “uncontrolled bureaucracy.”[94] That his aims were something other than mass education and the acceptance of a “tendency” within the Bolshevik party became clearer in 1933 when he wrote that, “No normal ‘constitutional’ ways remain to remove the ruling clique. The bureaucracy can be compelled to yield power into the hands of the proletariat only by force.”[95] What he was advocating was a palace coup that would remove Stalin with minimal disruption. This meant not “an armed insurrection against the dictatorship of the proletariat but the removal of a malignant growth upon it…” These would not be “measures of a civil war but rather the measures of a police character.”[96] The intent was unequivocal, and it appears disingenuous for Trotsky and his apologists to the present day to insist that nothing was meant other than for Trotskyism to be accepted as a “tendency” within the Bolshevik party that could debate the issues in parliamentary fashion.

If Trotsky was less than honest with the fawning Dewey Commission, the farcical “cross examination” by the Commission’s counsel was not going to expose it. Heaven forbid that Trotsky could lie to serve his own cause, and that he could be anything but a saintly figure. Certainly a less than deferential attitude toward Trotsky by Beals was sufficient to set the one objective commissioner at loggerhead with the others. Of the lie as a political weapon, Trotsky was explicit. Trotsky had written in 1938, the very year of the third Moscow Trial, an article chastising a grouplet of German Marxists for adhering to “bourgeoisie” notions of morality such as truthfulness. He stated, “that morality is a product of social development; that there is nothing invariable about it; that it serves social interests; that these interests are contradictory; that morality more than any other form of ideology has a class character.”[97]

Norms “obligatory upon all” become the less forceful the sharper the character assumed by the class struggle. The highest pitch of the class struggle is civil war which explodes into mid-air all moral ties between the hostile classes. … This vacuity in the norms obligatory upon all arises from the fact that in all decisive questions people feel their class membership considerably more profoundly and more directly than their membership in “society”. The norms of “obligatory” morality are in reality charged with class, that is, antagonistic content. … Nevertheless, lying and violence “in themselves” warrant condemnation? Of course, even as does the class society which generates them. A society without social contradictions will naturally be a society without lies and violence. However there is no way of building a bridge to that society save by revolutionary, that is, violent means. The revolution itself is a product of class society and of necessity bears its traits. From the point of view of “eternal truths’ revolution is of course “anti-moral.” … It remains to be added that the very conception of truth and lie was born of social contradictions.[98]

Given the lengthy ideological discourse on the value of the lie and the relativity of morality, it is absurd to rely on any statement Trotsky and his followers make about anything. He lied and obfuscated to the Dewey Commission in the knowledge that he was among friends.

Kirov's Murder

The year after Trotsky’s ultimatum to the Politburo (1934) the popular functionary Kirov was murdered. Trotsky’s view of Kirov was not sympathetic, calling him a “rude satrap [whose killing] does not call forth any sympathy.”[99] The consensus now seems to be that Stalin arranged for the murder of Kirov to blame the opposition as justification for launching a murderous purge against his rivals. For example Robert Conquest states that Kirov was a moderate and a popular rival to Stalin, whose murder was both a means of eliminating a rival and of launching a purge.[100] Not only Trotskyites and eminent historians such as Conquest share this view, but also it was implied by Khrushchev during his 1956 “secret address” to the 20th Congress of the Communist Party.[101] After Stalin’s death several Soviet administrations undertook investigations to try and uncover definitive evidence against him.

The original source for the accusations against Stalin regarding Kirov seems to have been an anonymous “Letter of an Old Bolshevik” published in 1937.[102] It transpired that the “Old Bolshevik” was a Menshevik, Boris Nicolaevsky, who claimed that his information came from Bukharin when the latter was in Paris in 1936. In 1988 Bukharin’s widow published a book on her late husband in which she denied that any such discussions had taken place between Bukharin and Nicolaevsky, and considered the “Letter” to be a “spurious document.”[103]

In 1955 the Presidium of the Central Committee of the Communist Party commissioned P N Pospelov, the Secretary of the Central Committee, to investigate Stalinist repression. It had been the opinion of the party by this time that Stalin had been behind the murder of Kirov. Another commission of enquiry was undertaken in 1956. Neither found evidence that Stalin had a hand in the Kirov killing but the findings were not released by Khrushchev, former foreign minister Molotov remarking of the 1956 enquiry: “The commission concluded that Stalin was not implicated in Kirov’s assassination. Khrushchev refused to have the findings published since they didn’t serve his purpose.”[104] As recently as 1989 the USSR was still making efforts to implicate Stalin, and a Politburo Commission headed by A  Yakovlev was set up. The two year enquiry concluded that: “In this affair no materials objectively support Stalin’s participation or NKVD participation in the organisation and carrying out of Kirov’s murder.”[105] The findings of this enquiry were not released either.

J Arch Getty writes of the circumstances of the Kirov murder that the OGPU and the NKVD had infiltrated opposition groups and there had been sufficient evidence obtained to consider that the so-called Zinovievites were engaged in dangerous underground activity. Stalin consequently regarded this group as being behind the assassin, Nikolayev. Although their former followers were being rounded up, Pravda announced on December 23, 1934 that there was “insufficient evidence to try Zinoviev and Kamenev for the crime.”[106] When the trial against this bloc did occur two years later it was after many interrogations, and was therefore no hasty process. From the interrogations relative to the Kirov assassination Stalin found out about the continued existence of the Opposition bloc that focused partly around Zinoviev. Vadim Rogovin, a Professor at the Russian Academy of Sciences, wrote that Kamenev and Zinoviev had rejoined Trotsky and formed “the anti-Stalinist bloc in June 1932,” although Trotsky had maintained to the Dewey Commission and subsequently, that no such alliance existed and that he had nothing but contempt for Zinoviev and Kamenev. Rogovin, a Trotskyite academic having researched the Russian archives, stated:

Only after a new wave of arrests following Kirov’s assassination, after interrogations and reinterrogations of dozens of Oppositionists, did Stalin receive information about the 1932 bloc, which served as one of the main reasons for organizing the Great Purge.[107]

In 1934 Yakov Agranov, temporary head of the NKVD in Leningrad, had found connections between the assassin Nikolayev and leaders of the Leningrad Komsomol at the time of Zinoviev’s authority over the city. The most prominent was I I Kotolynov, whom Robert Conquest states “had, in fact, been a real oppositionist.”[108] Kotolynov, a “Zinovievite,” was among those of the so-called “Leningrad terrorist center” found guilty in 1934 of the death of Kirov. The investigation had been of long duration and the influence of Zinoviev’s followers had been established. However, there was considered to be insufficient evidence to charge Zinoviev and Kamenev.[109]

In 1935 other evidence came to light showing that Zinoviev and Kamenev were aware of the “terrorist sentiments” in Leningrad, which they had “inflamed.”[110] While several trials associated with the Kirov killing took place in 1935, in 1936 sufficient evidence had accrued to begin the first of the so-called “Moscow Trials,” of the “Trotsky -Zinoviev Terrorist Center,” including Trotsky and his son Sedov, who were tried in absentia. The defendant Sergei Mrachovsky testified that at the end of 1932 that a terrorist bloc was formed between the Trotskyites and the Zinovievites, stating:

That in the second half of 1932 the question was raised of the necessity of uniting the Trotskyite terrorist group with the Zinovievites. The question of this unification was raised by I N Smirnov… In the autumn of 1932 a letter was received from Trotsky in which he approved the decision to unite with the Zinovievites… Union must take place on the basis of terrorism, and Trotsky once again emphasised the necessity of killing Stalin, Voroshiloy and Kirov... The terrorist bloc of the Trotskyites and the Zinovievites was formed at the end of 1932.[111]

Despite the condemnation that such testimony has received from academia and media, this at least precisely accords with the relatively recent findings of the Trotskyite academic Prof. Rogovin, and the letter from Trotsky sent to Radek et al, in 1932, referred to by J Arch Getty. The Kirov investigations, which were a prelude to the Moscow Trials, were carefully undertaken. When there was still insufficient evidence against Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev et al, this was conceded by the party press. When testimony was obtained implicating the leaders of an opposition bloc, this testimony has transpired to have conformed to what has come to light quite recently in both the Kremlin archives and the Trotsky papers at Harvard.

Rogovin’s Findings

The reality of the Opposition bloc in relation to the Moscow Trials was the theme of a lecture by Prof. Rogovin at Melbourne University in 1996. The motive of Rogovin was to present Trotskyism as having been an effective opposition within Stalinist Russia, and therefore he departs from the usual Trotskyite attitude of denial, stating:

. . . This myth says that virtually the entire population of the Soviet Union was reduced to a stunned silence by the terror, and either said nothing about the repression, or blindly believed in and supported the terror. This myth also claims that the victims of the repression were completely innocent of any crimes, including opposition to Stalin. They were, instead, victims of Stalin’s excessive paranoia. Since there was no serious opposition to the regime of Stalin, according to this myth, the victims were not guilty of such opposition.[112]

Rogovin alludes to anti-Stalinist leaflets that were being widely distributed in the USSR as late as 1938, calling for a “struggle against Stalin and his clique.” Rogovin also however states that there was much more to the opposition than isolated incidents of leaflet distribution:

Of course these are isolated incidents, but prior to the unleashing of the Great Terror there was a much more widespread, more serious, and well-organised opposition to Stalinism as a regime which had veered ever more widely away from the ideals of socialism.

This battle against Stalin began back in 1923 with the formation of the Left Opposition. The inner party struggle unfolded in ever sharper form throughout the 20s.

Thousands and thousands of communists took part in this opposition, openly in the early days and then, after opposition groups were banned, in illegal underground forms against the abolition of party democracy by the Stalinist party clique.

In 1932 the Opposition coalesced, “the old opposition groups” became more active, and “were joined by layers of newly-formed opposition groups.” Many representatives of the opposition groups that year began to discuss ways of uniting into an “anti-Stalinist bloc.” Rogovin states that the year previously Ivan Smirnov, one of the former leaders of the Left Opposition who had capitulated then returned to the opposition, went on an official trip to Berlin where he established contact with Trotsky’s son, Leon Sedov and discussed the need to “coordinate efforts between Trotsky and his son . . . .” What Rogovin states is in agreement with the supposedly forced confessions of the defendants at the Moscow Trials. J Arch Getty had also found similar material in the Trotsky Papers at Harvard, as previously referred to.

Rogovin states that it was only in 1935 and 1936, having assessed the information garnered from the Kirov investigation in 1934, that the secret police were able to find conclusive evidence on the existence of an anti-Stalinist bloc since 1932. “This was one of the main factors which drove Stalin to unleash the Great Terror,” states Rogovin, who also affirms the basis of the Stalinist accusations that “they did try to establish contact among themselves and fight for the overthrow of Stalin’s clique.”

Rogovin’s statements cannot be lightly dismissed. He was speaking as a sympathiser of Trotskyism, who had access to the Soviet archives in the writing of a six volume series on the political conflicts within the Communist Party SU and the Communist International between 1922 and 1940, of which Stalin’s Great Terror is volume four. On his sixtieth birthday in 1997, Rogovin received tribute from Trotskyite luminaries from Germany, Britain and the USA.[113]

Moscow Trials and the Comintern Pact

These events occurred at a time when the USSR was being encircled by hostile powers. War seemed inevitable, and the opposition bloc was of a type that any state in times of conflict could not afford to tolerate. The Anti-Comintern Pact was signed in 1936 between imperial Japan and Nazi Germany, forming an alliance of aggressive intent specifically aimed at the Soviet Union. While German expansion was ideologically based on annexing Russian territories,[114] the Moscow Trials and accusations against the Opposition bloc of complicity with foreign powers were taking place at a time when there was a likelihood of Japan also directing her expansion towards the USSR. The Japanese attacked the USSR in July 1938 and were halted at the Battle of Lake Khasan,[115] and although defeated, then moved in May 1939 into Mongolia up to the Khalkin Gol River.[116] The decisive victory of Russia here was enough to persuade the Japanese only then to re-direct their expansion into China and the Pacific.

From 1936, with the possibility of a two front war from expansionist powers which had joined in an overtly aggressive alliance, a more tolerant attitude by the Soviet regime against those who were advocating defeatism and discord, albeit couched in dialectical semantics about “defence of the degenerated workers’ state,” seems unrealistic, and was not even expected from the Western democracies in wartime, which went as far as classifying segments of their own populations as “enemy aliens” and interning them.[117]

Trotsky hoped that war would undermine the Stalinist regime and lead to a coup, just as World War I had produced a revolutionary situation. It is therefore disingenuous for Trotsky to insist that he was leading a “loyal opposition” that would defend a “degenerated workers’ state.” Trotsky had adopted a similar position in regard to World War I, contrary to the line insisted upon by Lenin,[118] in stating that he would support Russia’s continuation of the war against Germany, which made him the focus of British efforts via R H Bruce Lockhart, special agent to the British War Cabinet, to secure his support.[119] As Trotsky’s duplicity during World War I, and his close association with British Intelligence via R H Bruce Lockhart shows, Stalinist accusations of Trotskyite association with “foreign powers” was at least based on hard experience. Trotsky had shown himself willing to work with British intelligence during World War I in order to secure his own position to the point of defying Lenin.

Another important Moscow defendant, Karl Radek, had previously been an avid promoter of dialogue with the German extreme Right. Given that he was the living stereotype of an anti-Semitic caricature of what a “Jewish Bolshevik” was portrayed as being, there is nothing outlandish about the Stalinist allegation of oppositionists seeking alliances with Japan and Germany. Trotsky had been openly stating that a fascist war against the USSR would provide the revolutionary situation that would enable a coup against the Stalinist regime. Radek had eulogised before the Executive Committee of the Comintern in 1923, the “German Fascist” Schlageter, who had been executed by the French because of his resistance to the Ruhr occupation. Radek’s Bolshevik pitch was for an alliance with German “Fascism”: “We shall do all in our power to make men like Schlageter, who are prepared to go to their deaths for a common cause, not wanderers into the void, but wanderers into a better future for the whole of mankind…”[120] Given the situation confronting the Soviet Russia, form Japan and Germany, Stalin could not be complacent given the past actions of Radek, Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, and the intrigues of Smirnov and Holtzman et al.

While Trotsky claimed that in the event of war he was advocating the “defence of the degenerated workers’ state” on account of its nationalized economy, from the viewpoint of the Soviet regime, the Soviet Union could ill afford dissent and anti-state propaganda in the midst of war. Trotsky, despite his outrage at the allegation that he could play any part in assisting fascist or capitalist powers to invade the Soviet Union, nonetheless advocated a strategy that was to take advantage of the war to propagandise and subvert the Soviet Union to foment a revolutionary situation even among the armed forces, as the Bolsheviks had done during World War I:

We do not change our orientation. But suppose that Hitler turns his weapons to the East and invades the territories occupied by the Red Army ...? The Bolshevik-Leninists will combat Hitler, weapons in hand, but at the same time they will undertake a revolutionary propaganda against Stalin in order to prepare his overthrow at the next stage...[121]

With an attitude of the character openly stated by Trotsky, how tolerant was Stalin expected to be, in the face of extreme provocation at the time of immense internal and external problems? As will be shown below, when Trotsky was in authority, he did not possess any degree of toleration towards rivals and threats, both real and imagined, and did not flinch from having someone killed if it served his own agenda. Trotsky continued to call for a “revolutionary uprising” that implies something more than ‘educating the masses,” using class struggle phraseology to identify Stalin’s bureaucracy as a “class enemy”:

The Fourth International long ago recognized the necessity of overthrowing the bureaucracy by means of a revolutionary uprising of the toilers. Nothing else is proposed or can be proposed by those who proclaim the bureaucracy to be an exploiting “class.” The goal to be attained by the overthrow of the bureaucracy is the reestablishment of the rule of the Soviets, expelling from them the present bureaucracy . . . [122]

This was the nature of Trotsky’s continual call for the overthrow of the Soviet state as it was then constituted. Trotsky explained his position unequivocally in stating what he meant by ‘defending the Soviet state”:

This kind of “defense of the USSR” will naturally differ, as heaven does from earth, from the official defense which is now being conducted under the slogan: “For the Fatherland! For Stalin!” Our defense of the USSR is carried on under the slogan: “For Socialism! For the world revolution! Against Stalin!”[123]

How far could it be expected that Stalin should tolerate subversion and calls for the overthrow of his regime in the event of war with Japan and/or Germany? It is not a matter that was extended even to pacifists by the Western democracies during World War II, even in countries such as New Zealand who were relatively far form the war theatres. Additionally, the Western democracies did not even grant those confined for their pacifism the benefit of any legal proceedings; in contrast to the Moscow defendants, who were given full and public legal procedures according to the system of justice they had helped to create.

Moscow Trials in Accord with Soviet System

If the Trotskyites and their liberal and social democratic allies, as well as historians generally, regard the Moscow Trials as a modern-day “witch hunt,” it was one that proceeded in accordance with the system that Trotsky and the other defendants had fought to implement. The real source of the outrage comes from Stalin having outmanoeuvred his rivals, many such as Zinoviev and Kamenev having been opportunists who became the victims of their own system. Trotsky when in authority was as vehement about the need to eliminate saboteurs, plotters and conspirators as Stalin. Trotsky had stated in 1918: “By suppressing the Constituent Assembly the Soviets first and foremost broke politically the backbone of the intelligentsia’s sabotage. . . .We have broken the old sabotage and cleared out most of the old officials . . . .[124]

At this early period of the Bolshevik regime Trotsky was already alluding to “counter-revolutionary” plots within his own Red Army, yet when the same situation was suggested twenty years later in regard to Trotsky et al at the Moscow Trials, Trotsky fumed that any such suggestion was a lie. When Trotsky had the power he spoke and acted in ways that he and others – including mainstream historians – would describe as “Stalinism.” Trotsky wrote of these “plots”:

Running on ahead somewhat, I must mention that certain of our own Party comrades are afraid that the Army may become an instrument or a focus for counter-revolutionary plots. This danger, in so far as there is some justification for it, must compel us as a whole to direct our attention to the lower levels, to the rank-and-file soldiers of the Red Army. Here we can and must create a foundation such that any attempt to transform the Red Army into an instrument of counter-revolution will prove fruitless . . . . [125]

Yet it was precisely a strategy of Trotsky to try and form cadres within the Red Army, in particular during the course of war with Germany, which would enable him to reassume authority through a “police action” or coup that would replace the Stalinist apparatus.

Trotsky when in a position of authority was full of dark forebodings about sabotage and counter-revolution. One of the more shameful episodes was Trotsky’s falsifying evidence and fabricating charges against the commander of the Baltic Fleet, Aleksei Shchatsny. With impending capture of Helsingfors by German and Finnish White forces, and the order from the Commissariat of Naval Affairs under Trotsky to comply with the terms of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty, Shchatsny managed to get the Fleet to Kronstadt, a colossal achievement celebrated as the “Ice March of the Baltic Fleet.” Rabinowitch remarks of this: “Following this feat … He was now a popular hero, revered by the rank-and-file sailors as much as by his officers.”[126] However, the German threat to Kronstadt, Petrograd and the Baltic Fleet remained.[127] As German forces approached, there was a widespread belief that the Soviet authorities were complying with German demands and that Petrograd would be occupied. For the Soviet authorities in Moscow under Lenin and Trotsky the defence of Petrograd and of the Baltic Fleet were of secondary concern. [128]

Trotsky and Shchatsny were in conflict over Trotsky’s orders to scuttle the Baltic Fleet and demolish Fort Ino, “should the situation appear hopeless.” Shchatsny circulated Trotsky’s secret orders regarding the scuttling of the Fleet,[129] which put Trotsky in a poor light publicly. Trotsky protested indignantly at Shchatny’s trial, which he had instigated as a show trial against the acclaimed hero:

When, soon afterward, I received from Shchastny, who was at Kronstadt, a report that Fort Ino was, allegedly, threatened by a suddenly approaching German fleet, I replied, in conformity with my general directive, that, if the situation thus created became hopeless, the fort must be blown up. What did Shchastny do? He passed on this conditional directive in the form of a direct order from me for blowing up the fort, although there was no need for this to be done.[130]

Rabinowitch writes:

Information in Cheka and Naval archives indicates that Shchatsny was largely or wholly blameless in these matters, most importantly that he himself had prepared the fleet for demolition in the event of necessity and that his dissemination of Trotsky’s orders was less an effort to undermine Trotsky than a reflection of his close collaboration with the Baltic Fleet officer and sailor committees.[131]

Shchatsny submitted his resignation, but Trotsky refused it, ordered him to Moscow and,

set him up for arrest, and single-handedly organized an investigation, sham trial and death sentence on the spurious charge of attempting to overthrow the Petrograd Commune with the longer-term goal of overthrowing the Soviet republic.[132]

Trotsky condemned Shchatsny with allegations of “sowing panic,” “conspiracy,” having a “saviour” complex, and seeking power for himself:

Shchastny persistently and steadily deepened the gulf between the fleet and the Soviet power. Sowing panic, he steadily promoted his candidature for the role of savior. The vanguard of the conspiracy – the officers of the destroyer division – openly raised the slogan of a “dictatorship of the Baltic fleet.”

This was a definite political game – a great game, the goal of which was the seizure of power. When Messrs. Admirals and Generals start, during a revolution, to play their own personal political game, they must always be prepared to take responsibility for this game, if it should miscarry. Admiral Shchastny’s game has miscarried.[133]

Given the nature of Trotsky’s own agitation against the Stalinist regime, which includes a time when aggressive anti-Soviet powers were on the rise, a less deferential Dewey Commission might have asked of Trotsky, should he not “take responsibility for this game, if it should miscarry?” Trotsky in his own words had stated that his aim was the “seizure of power” through a palace coup, by infiltrating the police and armed forces. He had devoted years to agitating for the overthrow of the Soviet regime and creating a revolutionary organization for that purpose. Yet when faced with charges of the type that he had once trumped up against Shchastny in order to save have own position, Trotsky feigned great moral outage on the world stage, an outrage which extended beyond his own life and has had a permanent influence on the way much of the world perceives Russia, not only after the death of Stalin, but even after the demise of the USSR. Additionally, it appears that Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Radek, Bukharin, and the others had a fairer and more judicial hearing than that received by Shchastny; or the many summarily executed during the years when Trotsky had authority in the Soviet state.

What can also be said about the Moscow Trials was that the confessions of the defendants, which are generally criticized and ridiculed as being delivered by rote as if the product of intense brainwashing and even torture, were also completely in accord with Bolshevik methodology. The character of these confessions was not unique to the Stalinist regime, and was an innate part of the Bolshevik mentality. To admit guilt even in the most abject manner not only before the tribunal of the Soviets but before what many of the defendants regarded as the tribunal of history did not require torture or brainwashing. Of these abject confessions for example, during the 1936 trial Kamenev, stated:

For ten years, if not more, I waged a struggle against the Party, against the government of the land of Soviets, and against Stalin personally. In this struggle, it seems to me, I utilized every weapon in the political arsenal known to me - open political discussion, attempts to penetrate into factories and works, illegal leaflets, secret printing presses, deception of the Party, the organization of street demonstrations, conspiracy and, finally, terrorism.[134]

Zinoviev stated:

We entered into an alliance with Trotsky. We filled the place of the Mensheviks, Socialist-Revolutionaries and white guards who could not come out openly in our country. We took the place of the terrorism of the Socialist-Revolutionaries. Not the pre-revolutionary terrorism which was directed against the autocracy, but the Right Socialist Revolutionaries’ terrorism of the period of the Civil War, when the S-R’s shot at Lenin. My defective Bolshevism became transformed into anti-Bolshevism, and through Trotskyism I arrived at fascism. Trotskyism is a variety of fascism, and Zinovievism is a variety of Trotskyism.[135]

If these confessions are looked at on their own merits, there is nothing outlandish about them. Rogovin has shown that there was such an Opposition bloc, that there were illegal printing presses operative; and Trotsky himself records the extent of the opposition, in alliance with Zinoviev and Kamenev, to the extent that they were able to mobilize thousands to disrupt the official October parades. While the Bolsheviks, whether Leninists or Stalinists or Trotskyites were, and are, rather loose with the smear-word “fascism” that is levelled at their opponents, “through Trotskyism” many did arrive at what was called in the USSR “fascism,” or more accurately avid support for US foreign policy during and after the Cold War, to the present time; to the point of Trotsky’s widow, Natalya Sedova, supporting the USA in Korea; and the entire Shachtmanite movement metamorphosing into anti-Sovietism and eventually the “neo-con” movement. The Stalinist analysis was in principle correct and prescient. History shows that the Stalinists saw in Trotskyism a movement that would end up being aligned with the most anti-Soviet elements, and there is nothing bizarre about the suspicion that Trotskyites and other oppositionists would seek alliance with actual “fascist” powers at a time when those powers were looking at for lebensraum. In the historical circumstances it would have been foolish for Stalin to ignore these trends, and to given them a tolerance that was not even accorded to “Christian pacifists” during World War II by the Western democracies, including those that were not in danger of invasion.

The abject natures of the defendants’ final pleas before the Court are comprehensible if we examine the Bolshevik method of self-criticism. They are prompted by an intense sense of self-guilt or shame regarding recognition of their own invidiousness when confronted with facts. Such abjectivity is not unheard of by murderers and others in the West in the present day. This could be called “The Judas Syndrome,” in regard to the legend of Judas having hanged himself in remorse for his betrayal of Christ.[136] Since 1929 the Soviet Union had embarked on a method known as Sama Kritica (“self-criticism”), which has its equivalent in the West known by such terms as “group therapy,” “sensitivity training” or “group encounters,” that became popular since the 1960s among corporations and government departments, in the USA especially, and has been promoted as therapeutic by “humanistic psychology.”[137] In the USSR in 1929 the slogan first appeared: “through Bolshevist self-criticism we will enforce the dictatorship of the proletariat.”[138] The population was divided into “collectives” of ten to twenty, who held meetings set in a circle where participants face one another, and each would undertake self-criticism and the confession of faults. However ‘self-criticism” was part of the Soviet system which was endorsed by Trotsky himself when he was in a position of authority, when he stated: “Without any doubt we are passing through a period of internal confusion, of great difficulty, and, what is most important, of self-criticism, which, let us hope, will lead to an inner cleansing and a new upsurge of the revolutionary movement.”[139] The abject nature of the confessions and final pleas of the Moscow defendants is hence not reliant on alleged threats, promises, torture or brainwashing. Trotsky was an advocate of “Marxist self-criticism” as early as 1904, at a time when he was closer to the Mensheviks. Robert Services comments on this: “outraging many Mensheviks he called for ‘Marxist self-criticism’ instead of ‘orthodox self-satisfaction.’”[140]

Stalin addressed the matter of “self-criticism” as a key Bolshevik mechanism eight years before the Moscow Trials. Writing in Pravda Stalin stated: “…As to self-criticism in our Party, its beginnings date back to the first appearance of Bolshevism in our country, to its very inception as a specific revolutionary trend in the working-class movement.”[141] Stalin also alluded to self-criticism appearing as a mechanism in 1904 in the Social Democratic party, quoting Lenin as stating, “self-criticism and ruthless exposure of its own shortcomings”[142] was a party method.

Indeed, as previously cited herein, Zinoviev had before the party Central Committee in July 1926, indulged in self-criticism, when he confessed that he had been wrong to have opposed Lenin and the Bolshevik coup in 1917 and to have opposed Trotsky, whose critique of the regime was correct. Hence, there was nothing new about the character of Zinoviev’s abjectivity at the Moscow Trial. He was a Judas who had been publicly exposed, like other defendants. Khrushchev’s “secret speech” to the Congress of the Communist Party in 1956, was a large-ranging example of “self-criticism.”[143]

Conclusion

The Moscow “Show Trials” operated within a system that had been created by those who became its victims. Within context they were therefore perfectly legitimate. The trials were undertaken during a time when aggressive powers had formed an alliance specifically aimed at the Soviet Union, against a background of intrigue long in the making by the defendants; in particular Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev.

While it is disingenuous for Trotsky and his sympathisers to have the Moscow Trials viewed according to Western legal principles when they did not themselves subscribe to those principles, just as inadequate are the Western historians and writers who neglect to consider the historical background against which they were taking place.

There was indeed an Opposition bloc that was working to overthrow Stalin, and given the times and circumstances Stalin could ill afford to adopt a more “liberal” attitude when even the Western democracies later interned their dissidents during World War II as potential “fifth columnists,” including conscientious objectors, on the scantiest evidence at best.

With the prospect of a revived Russian super-power the spectre of Stalin is again being evoked by Western news media, politicians and academics, as are comparisons between the Moscow Trials and the present Russian trials of “dissident” oligarchs who are heralded in the West as the heirs to the like of Bukharin and as victims of a renascent Stalinism.

Notes:

[1] One of Trotsky’s publishers was Secker & Warburg, London, which published the Dewey Commission’s report, The Case of Leon Trotsky, in 1937. The proprietor, Fredric Warburg, was to become head of the British section of the CIA-sponsored, Cold War-era Congress for Cultural Freedom. (Frances Stonor Saunders, The Cultural Cold War : The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters (New York: The New Press, 2000), p. 111.

Trotsky’s Where is Britain going? was published in 1926 by George Allen & Unwin. His autobiography, My Life, was published by Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1930. Stalin: an appraisal of the man and his influence, was published posthumously in 1946 by Harpers.

[2] The most salient example being the hagiographies by Isaac Deutscher, The Prophet Armed (1954), and The Prophet Unarmed: Trotsky 1921-1929 (1959), and The Prophet Outcast (Oxford University Press, 1963).

[3] K R Bolton, “Origins of the Cold War: How Stalin Foiled a New World Order,” Foreign Policy Journal, March 31, 2010,www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/origins-of-the-cold-war-how-stalin-foild-a-new-world-order/

Russian translation: “Origins of the Cold War,” Red Star, Russian Ministry of Defense, http://www.redstar.ru/2010/09/01_09/6_01.html

[4] K R Bolton, “Mikhail Gorbachev: Globalist Super-Star,” Foreign Policy Journal, April 3, 2011, http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/04/03/
mikhail-gorbachev-globalist-super-star/

Russian translation: “Mikhail Gorbachev: Globalist Super-Star,” Perevodika, http://perevodika.ru/articles/18345.html

[5] Tony Halpin, “Vladimir Putin Praises Stalin for Creating a Super Power and Winning the War,” The Sunday Times, London, December 4, 2009, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6943477.ece

[6] K R Bolton, “The Globalist Web of Subversion,” The Foreign Policy Journal, February 7, 2011, http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/02/07/the-globalist-web-of-subversion/all/1

[7] Tony Halpin, op. cit.

[8] Armand Hammer, Witness to History (Kent: Coronet Books, 1987), p. 160. Here Hammer relates his discussion with Trotsky and how the Commissar wished to attract foreign capital. Hammer later laments that this all turned sour under Stalin.

[9] Richard B Spence, “Interrupted Journey: British intelligence and the arrest of Leon Trotsky, April 1917,” Revolutionary Russia, 13 (1), 2000, pp. 1-28.

Spence, “Hidden Agendas: Spies, Lies and Intrigue Surrounding Trotsky’s American Visit January-April 1917,” Revolutionary Russia, Vol. 21, No. 1., 2008.

 

[10] Peter Grosse, “Basic Assumptions,” Continuing The Inquiry: The Council on Foreign Relations from 1921 to 1996, (New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 2006). The entire book can be read online at: Council on Foreign Relations: http://www.cfr.org/about/history/cfr/index.html

[11] The 1933 charges against employees of Metropolitan-Vickers, including six British engineers, accused of sabotage and espionage. M Sayers and A E Kahn, The Great Conspiracy Against Russia (London: Collett’s holdings, 1946), pp. 181-186.

[12] Brazil, Russia, India, China.

[13] K R Bolton, “Russia & China: An Approaching Conflict?,” The Journal of Social, Political & Economic Studies, Washington,  Vol. 34, No. 2, Summer 2009.

[14] Center for Conservative Studies, Moscow State University, http://konservatizm.org/

[15] KR Bolton, “An ANZAC-Indo-Russian Alliance? Geopolitical Alternatives for New Zealand and Australia: Dugin’s ‘Eurasian’ Geopolitical Paradigm,” pp. 188-190, India Quarterly, Vol. 66, No. 2, 2010.

[16] Yuri Gavrilechk, “Days of anger: new era of revolutions,” International Affairs, April 1, 2011; http://en.interaffairs.ru/read.php?item=200

[17]Elena Ponomareva, “A strategy aimed at ruining Libya, International Affairs, March 21, 2011, http://en.interaffairs.ru/read.php?item=196

[18] Sergei Shashkov, “The theory of ‘manageable chaos’ put into practice,” International Affairs, March 1, 2011, http://en.interaffairs.ru/read.php?item=189

[19] George H W Bush, speech before US Congress, March 6, 1991.

[20] P Gregory, “ What Paul Gregory is writing about,” December 18, 2010, http://whatpaulgregoryisthinkingabout.blogspot.com/2010/12/stalin-putin-justice-bukharin.html

[21] Jack Kemp, et al, Russia’s Wrong Direction: What the United States Can and Should do, Independent Task Force Report no. 57(New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 2006) xi. The entire publication can be downloaded at: < http://www.cfr.org/publication/9997/>

[22] “Senator McCain on Khodorkovsky and US-Russia relations,” Free Media Online, December 18, 2010, http://www.govoritamerika.us/rus/?p=17995

[23] C Gershman, “The Fourth Wave: Where the Middle East revolts fit in the history of democratization—and how we can support them,” The New Republic, March 14, 2011. NED, http://www.ned.org/about/board/meet-our-president/archived-presentations-and-articles/the-fourth-wave

[24] “The Case of the Trotskyite-Zinovievite Terrorist Centre,” Heard Before the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R., Report of Court Proceedings, “Indictment,” Moscow, August 19-24, 1936.

[25] Sidney Hook, “Reader Letters: The Moscow Trials,” Commentary Magazine, New York, August 1984, http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/the-moscow-trials/

[26] Joseph E. Davies, Mission to Moscow (London: Gollancz, 1942), p. 26.

[27]. Ibid., p. 34.

[28] London Observer, August 23, 1936.

[29] Walter Duranty, “Proof of a Plot Expected,” New York Times, August 17, 1936, p. 2.

[30] Davies, op. cit., p. 35.

[31] Cited by A Vaksberg, Stalin’s Prosecutor: The Life of Andrei Vyshinsky (New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1991), p. 123.

[32] D N Pritt, “The Moscow Trial was Fair,” Russia Today, 1936-1937. Sloanhttp://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/
sections/britain/pamphlets/1936/moscow-trial-fair.htm

[33] Ibid.

[34] Ibid.

[35] Tomsky had committed suicide.

[36] Pritt, op. cit.

[37] Jeremy Murray-Brown, “The Moscow Trials,” Commentary, August 1984, http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/the-moscow-trials/

[38] Ibid.

[39] Sidney Hook, Commentary, ibid.

[40] K R Bolton, “Origins of the Cold War,” op. cit.

[41] Central Intelligence Agency, “Cultural Cold War: Origins of the Congress for Cultural Freedom, 1949-50,” https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/docs/v38i5a10p.htm#rft1

[42] For example, a position supported by leading US Trotskyite Max Shachtman, Shachtmanism metamorphosing into a virulent anti-Sovietism, and providing the impetus for the formation of the National Endowment for Democracy. Trotsky’s widow Natalya as early into the Cold War as 1951 wrote a letter to the Executive Committee of the Fourth International and to the US Socialist Workers Party (May 9) stating that her late husband would not have supported North Korea against the USA, and that it was Stalin who was the major obstacle to world socialism. “Out of the Shadows,” Time, June 18, 1951. “Natalya Trotsky breaks with the Fourth International,” http://www.marxists.de/trotism/sedova/english.htm

Given the many Trotskyites and Trotsky sympathizers such as Sidney Hook, who became apologists for US foreign policy against the USSR, it might be asked whether Stalin’s contention that Trotskyites would act as agents of foreign powers was prescient?

[43] George Novack, “‘Introduction,’ The Case of Leon Trotsky,” International Socialist Review, Vol. 29, No.4, July-August 1968, pp.21-26.

[44] Ibid.

[45] “Russia: Trotsky and Woe,” Time, January 11, 1937. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,757254,00.html

[46] Novack, op. cit.

[47] Descriptions by Novack.

See also: John Dewey, Jo Ann Boydston, John J McDermot, John Dewey: The Later Works, (Southern Illinois University, 2008) p. 640.

[48] Carleton Beals, “The Fewer Outsiders the Better: The Master Comes to Judgement,” Saturday Evening Post, 12 June 1937. http://www.revleft.com/vb/fewer-outsiders-better-t124508/index.html?s=37316b1a8beb93cba88ad37731a4779c&amp.

[49] Ibid.

[50] John Chamberlain, A Life with the Printed Word, (Chicago: Regnery, 1982), p. 65.

[51] Veteran British Trotskyite Tony Cliff laments of this phenomena: “The list of former Trotskyists who in their Stalinophobia turned into hard-line Cold War liberals is much longer.” Tony Cliff, “The Darker the Night the Brighter the Star, 1927-1940,” http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1993/trotsky4/15-ww2.html

[52] The Freeman, August 13, 1951, http://mises.org/journals/oldfreeman/Freeman51-8.pdf

La Follette served as “managing editor,” (p. 2).

[53] K R Bolton, “America’s ‘World Revolution’: Neo-Trotskyist Foundations of U.S. Foreign Policy,” Foreign Policy Journal, May 3, 2010,
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/
2010/05/03/americas-world-revolution-neo-trotskyist-foundations-of-u-s-foreign-policy/

[54] Ibid.

[55] In 1950 Goldman declared himself to be a “right-wing socialist.” In 1952 he admitted collaborating with the FBI, and stated, “if I were younger I would gladly offer my services in Korea, or especially in Europe where I could do some good fighting the Communists.” A M Wald, The New York Intellectuals, (New York 1987), p. 287.

[56] “British Trotskyism in 1931,” Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism Online: Revolutionary History, http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/revhist/backiss/vol1/no1/glotzer.html Glotzer was another of the Trotskyite veterans who became an ardent defender of the USA as the bulwark against Stalinism. He was prominent in the Social Democrats USA, whose honorary president was Sidney Hook.

[57] Gershman gave an eulogy at the “Albert Glotzer Memorial Service” in 1999. http://www.ned.org/about/board/meet-our-president/archived-presentations-and-articles/albert-glotzer-memorial-service

[58] John Dewey, Jo Ann Boydston, John J McDermot, op. cit., p. 641. Dewey is also shown here to have been in communication with American Trotskyite luminary Max Eastman.

[59] “Trotsky’s Trial,” Time, International Section, May 17, 1937.

[60] It would be a mistake nonetheless to see Time as an amiable pro-Soviet mouthpiece. Several months previously a lengthy Time article was scathing in its condemnation of the 1937 Moscow Trial and the confessions. “Old and New Bolsheviks,” Foreign News Section, Time, February 1, 1937. See also: “Russia: Lined With Despair,” Time, March 14, 1938.

[61] J Dewey, et al., The Case of Leon Trotsky:  Report of Hearings on the Charges Made Against Him in the Moscow Trials by the Preliminary Commission of Inquiry into the Charges Made Against Trotsky in the Moscow Trials, “Point 6: The Resignation of Carleton Beals,” 1937. http://www.marxists.org/archive/
trotsky/1937/dewey/report.htm

[62] Carleton Beals, op. cit.

[63] Ibid.

[64] J Arch Getty, “Trotsky in Exile: The Founding of the Fourth International,” Soviet Studies, Vol.38, No. 1, January 1986, pp. 24-35.

[65] Getty, ibid., Footnote 18, Trotsky Papers, 15821.

[66] As will be shown below, Prof. Rogovin, a Trotskyite who has studied the Soviet archives, quite recently sought to show that the Trotskyites were the focus of an important Opposition bloc since 1932.

[67] Beals, op. cit.

[68] Ibid.

[69] K R Bolton, personal observations and experiences with academics.

[70] Leon Trotsky, My Life (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1930), Chapter 42, “The Last Period of Struggle within the Party,” http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/mylife/ch42.htm

[71] Ibid.

[72] Verbatim Report of Central Committee, IV, p.33, cited by Trotsky at the “third session” of the Dewey Commission hearings. Trotsky alludes to this, writing: “Zinoviev and Kamenev openly avowed that the ‘Trotskyists’ had been right in the struggle against them ever since 1923.” Trotsky, ibid.

[73] Ibid.

[74] Ibid.

[75] Ibid.

[76] Ibid.

[77] The Case of Leon Trotsky, “Third Session,” April 12, 1937. http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/dewey/session03.htm

[78] Ibid.

[79] Vyshinsky, “Verbatim Report,” p. 464, quoted by Goldman, The Case of Leon Trotsky, op. cit.

[80] Vadim Rogovin, 1937: Stalin's Year of Terror ( Mehring Books, 1998), p. 63. Note: Mehring Books is a Trotskyite publishing house.

[81] R Sewell, “The Moscow Trials” (Part I), Socialist Appeal, March 2000, http://www.trotsky.net/trotsky_year/moscow_trials.html

[82] Social-Demokraten, September 1, 1936, p. 1.

[83] The Case of Leon Trotsky, “Fifth Session, April 13, 1937, http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/dewey/session05.htm

[84] Sven-Eric Holström, “New Evidence Concerning the ‘Hotel Bristol Question in the Fist Moscow Trial of 1936,” Cultural Logic, 2008, 6.2, “The Copenhagen Street Directory and Telephone Directory.”

[85] Ibid., 6.3, “Photographic evidence,” Figure 7.

[86] Getty, 1986, op. cit., p. 28.

[87] See: “Kirov Assassination” below.

[88] Trotsky, My Life, op. cit., Chapter 43.

[89] Trotsky, “A Letter to the Politburo,” March 15, 1933, Writings of Leon Trotsky (1932-33) (New York: Pathfinder Press) pp. 141-2.

[90] Ibid. “Renunciation of this programme is of course out of the question.”

[91] Ibid.

[92] “An Explanation,” May 13, 1933, Writings of Leon Trotsky (1932-33), ibid., p. 235.

[93] Trotsky, “Declaration to the Sixth Party Congress,” December 16, 1926, cited in Trotsky, My Life, op. cit., Chapter 44.

[94] Trotsky, “Nuzhno stroit' zanovo kommunistcheskie partii i International,” Bulletin of the Opposition, No. 36-37, p. 21, July 15, 1933.

[95] Trotsky, ‘Klassovaya priroda sovetskogo gosudarstava’, Bulletin of the Opposition, No. 36-37, October 1, 1933, pp. 1-12. At Moscow Vyshinsky cited this article as evidence that Trotsky advocated the violent overthrow of the Soviet state. The emphasis of the word “force” is Trotsky’s.

[96] Ibid.

[97] Trotsky, “Their Morals and Ours: In Memory of Leon Sedov,” The New International, Vol. IV, no. 6, June 1938, pp. 163-173, http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/
1938/morals/morals.htm

The New International was edited by Max Shachtman, whose post-Trotskyite line laid a basis for the “neo-con” movement and support of US foreign policy during the Cold War. It was a Shachtmanite, Tom Kahn, who established the National Endowment for Democracy, which proceeds with a US version of the “world revolution.” Another New International editor was James Burnham, who became a proto-“neo-con” luminary during the Cold War. Professor Sidney Hook, one of the instigators of the Dewey Commission, and a CIA operative who was instrumental in forming the Congress for Cultural Freedom, for which he was awarded the Congressional Medal of Freedom from President Reagan, was a contributor to The New International. (December 1934, http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/
hook/1934/12/hess-marx.htm
; April 1936, http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/hook/
1936/04/feuerbach.htm
).

Albert Goldman, Trotsky’s lawyer at the Mexico Dewey hearings, was also a contributor.

[98] Ibid.

[99] Trotsky, “Their Morals and Ours,” op. cit.

[100] R Conquest, Stalin and the Kirov Murder (London; 1989).

[101] N S Khrushchev, “Secret Address at the Twentieth Party Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union,” February 1956; Henry M Christman (ed.) Communism in Action: a documentary history (New York: Bantam Books, 1969), pp. 176-177.

[102] “Letter of an Old Bolshevik: The Key to the Moscow Trials,” New York, 1937.

[103] Anna Larina Bukharina, Nezabyvaemoe (Moscow, 1989); This I Cannot Forget (London, 1993), p. 276.

[104] A. Resis (ed.) Molotov Remembers (Chicago: Ivan R Dee, 1993), p. 353.

[105] A. Yakovlev, ‘O dekabr'skoi tragedii 1934’, Pravda, 28th January, 1991, p. 3, “The Politics of Repression Revisited,” in J. Arch Getty and Roberta T. Manning (editors), Stalinist Terror: New Perspectives (New York, 1993), p. 46.

[106] J Arch Getty, Origins of the Great Purges: The Soviet Communist Party Reconsidered: 1933-1938 (Cambridge; 1985), p. 48.

[107] Vadim Rogovin, 1937: Stalin's Year of Terror ( Mehring Books, 1988), p. 64.

[108] R Conquest, The Great Terror: Stalin’s Purge of the Thirties (London, 1973), p. 86.

[109] J Arch Getty, op. cit., p. 209.

[110] The Crime of the Zinoviev Opposition (Moscow, 1935), pp. 33-41.

[111] Report of Court Proceedings: The Case of the Trotskyite-Zinovievite Terrorist Centre (Moscow, 1936), pp. 41-42.

[112] Vadim Rogovin, “Stalin’s Great Terror: Origins and Consequences,” lecture, University of Melbourne, May 28, 1996. World Socialist Website: http://www.wsws.org/exhibits/1937/lecture1.htm

[113] http://www.wsws.org/exhibits/1937/title.htm

[114] A Hitler, Mein Kampf (London: Hurst and Blackett, 1939), Ch. 9, “Germany’s Policy in Eastern Europe,” pp. 533-541.

[115] Alvin D Coox, Nomonhan: Japan Against Russia, 1939 ( Stanford University Press, 1990), p.189.

[116] Amnon Sella, “Khalkhin-Gol: The Forgotten War,” Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 18, no.4, October 1983, pp. 651–87.

[117] For example, those of Italian and German descent, including even German-Jewish refugees fleeing Germany, were interned on Soames Island, in Wellington Harbour, New Zealand, as potential “enemy aliens.” Conscientious Objectors, none of whom were “fascists,” but mostly Christian pacifists, were harshly treated and interned in New Zealand, in “military defaulters’ camps.” See: W J Foote, Bread and Water: the escape and ordeal of two New Zealand World War II conscientious objectors (Wellington: Philip Garside Publishing, 2000). In Britain under Regulation 18B around 800 suspected potential “fifth columnists” and pacifists were interned without charge or trial, including many ex-servicemen, some on active duty, including some prominent figures such as Admiral Sir Barry Domvile, and Capt. A H M Ramsay, Member of Parliament, for having opposed war with Germany or for campaigning for a negotiated peace. See: Barry Domville, From Admiral to Cabin Boy (London: Boswell Publishing, 1947). The USA had its own “show trial” in 1944 called the “Sedition Trial” which took over seven months and ended in a mistrial of a disparate collection of individuals who had in some manner opposed US entry into the war. See: Lawrence Dennis and Maxmillian St George, A Trial on Trial (Washington: National Civil Rights Committee, 1945).

[118] “Calls people war weary. But Leo Trotsky says they do not want separate peace,” New York Times, March 16, 1917.

[119] Lockhart said of Trotsky, whom he was seeing on a daily basis that, “He considered that war was inevitable. If the Allies would send a promise of support, he informed me that he would sway the decision of the Government in favour of war. I sent several telegrams to London requesting an official message that would enable me to strengthen Trotsky’s hands. No message was sent.” R H Bruce Lockhart, British Agent (London: G P Putnam’s Sons, 1933), Book Four, “History From the Inside,” Chapter 3. http://www.gwpda.org/wwi-www/BritAgent/BA04a.htm .

[120] K Radek, “Leo Schlageter: The Wanderer into the Void,” Speech at a plenum of the Executive Committee of the Communist International, June 1923.

 

[121] Trotsky, “The USSR in the War” (September 1939), The New International, New York, November 1939, Vol. 5, No. 11, pp. 325-332.

[122] Trotsky, “The USSR in the War: Are the Differences Political or Terminological?,” ibid.

[123] Trotsky, “The USSR in the War: We Do Not Change Our Course!”, ibid.

[124] Trotsky, The Military Writings of Leon Trotsky, “How the Revolution Armed,” Volume 1, 1918, “The Internal and External Situation of the Soviet Power in the Spring of 1918, Work, Discipline, Order;” Report to Moscow City Conference of the Russian Communist Party, March 28, 1918. http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1918/military/ch05.htm 

[125] Ibid.

[126] Alexander Rabinowitch, The Bolsheviks in Power: The First Year of Soviet Rule in Petrograd (Indiana University Press, 2007), p. 238.

[127] Ibid., p. 238.

[128] Ibid., p. 242.

[129] Ibid., p. 243.

[130] Trotsky, The Military Writings of Leon Trotsky, Vol. 1, “The First Betrayal,” http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1918/military/ch16.htm

[131] Rabinowitch, op. cit., p. 243.

[132] Ibid., p. 243.

[133] Trotsky, The Military Writings of Leon Trotsky, Vol. 1, “The First Betrayal,” op. cit.

[134] The Case of the Trotskyite-Zinovievite Terrorist Centre, Heard Before the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R., “Last Pleas of Kamenev, Zinoviev, Smirnov, Olberg, Berman-Yurin, Holtzman, N. Lurye and M. Lurye,” August 23, 1936, (morning session). http://www.marxistsfr.org/history/ussr/government/law/1936/moscow-trials/index.htm

[135] Ibid.

[136] Matthew 27: 5.

[137] This “group therapy” and “sensitivity training” in the West has been described as an “institutional procedure of both coercive and informal persuasion.” Irving R Weschler and Edgar H Schein (ed.) Issues in Training, National Training Laboratories, National Education Association, Washington DC, 1962, Series 5, p. 47. The National Training Institute provided “sensitivity classes” for hundreds of State Department employees, including ambassadors, during the 1960s.

[138] William Fairburn, Russia – The Utopia in Chains, (New York: Nation Press Printing, 1931), p. 257.

[139] Trotsky, The Military Writings of Leon Trotsky, “How the Revolution Armed, op. cit.

[140] Robert Service, Trotsky: A Biography (London: Macmillan, 2009), p. 79.

[141] J V Stalin, “Against Vulgarising the Slogan of Self-Criticism,” Pravda, No. 146, June, 1928; J V Stalin Works (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1954), Vol. 11, p. 133.

[142] Ibid.

[143] N S Khrushchev, op. cit.

Source: Foreign Policy Journal

lundi, 09 janvier 2012

Syrie : une possible solution politique sous égide russe ?

Syrie : une possible solution politique sous égide russe ?

Ex: http://mediabenews.wordpress.com/

Voici un très intéressant article sur une possible « solution politique » de la crise syrienne sous égide russe. C’est notre ami et quasi-collaborateur Mohamed qui a assuré la traduction de ce texte signé du journaliste Sami Kleib et  paru dans le périodique libanais Assafir. L’article est long, mais vaut la peine d’être lu.

Sami Kleib, en effet, est un homme du sérail en matière d’analyse géopolitique sur le Proche-Orient : un temps figure d’al-Jazeera dont il fut non seulement un journaliste mais un producteur, Kleib a claqué, comme pas mal d’autres, la porte de la chaîne qatarie à l’été 2011, dénonçant sa dérive islamiste et fondamentaliste. Kleib est aussi un collaborateur émérite du quotidien libanais al-Safir, et a été rédacteur en chef du service arabe de Radio France International. Asssafir (ou As Safir) est un quotidien généraliste libanais, fondé en 1974.

Et donc Sami Kleib décortique le fameux projet – ou contre-projet – de résolution russe présenté en décembre. Il montre comment ce texte, dans ses différents articles, constitue une réfutation des thèses et mensonges du bloc occidental sur le dossier syrien, notamment en insistant sur la responsabilité des groupes d’opposition dans la violence. Et en continuant de faire de Bachar al-Assad l’arbitre du calenndrier politique syrien.

On comprend mieux alors, pourquoi ce texte russe a suscité – entre autres- la colère d’un Alain Juppé. Mais Kleib souligne que le Quai d’Orsay s’est quelque peu isolé, par son intransigeance et son rejet, du reste de ses partenaires occidentaux qui, Américains en tête, ont accepté de prendre le texte russe pour une base nouvelle de discussions. Un texte qui pourtant épouse les positions fondamentales du gouvernement syrien, tout en proclamant la nécessité d’un dialogue inter-syrien effectif.

Sami Kleib passe en revue ensuite les divers événements diplomatiques et politiques étant intervenus ces toutes dernières semaines et qui ont modifié l’atmosphère et les rapports de force dans le dossier syrien : et de fait on peut dire que l’unanimité anti-syrienne de la Ligue arabe a fait long feu, les alliés ayant tenu bon, et des « glissements » s’observant dans l’autre camp, peut-être jusque chez les Séoudiens, qui voudraient tenir la bride à l’activisme qatari. Kleib souligne d’ailleurs que la Ligue a dû finalement lâcher du lest sur les conditions d’exercice de sa mission d’observation, acceptant certaines exigences du gouvernement syrien. Un examen de la situation intérieure syrienne, marquée à la fois par la radicalisation et la marginalisation de l’opposition radicale, et une mainmise intacte du régime sur ses forces militaires et policières, ainsi que sur l’administration, complète ce panorama de l’état des forces politiques syriennes au tournant de l’année.

Kleib conclut son long examen des tenants et aboutissants en posant la question essentielle : le régime est-il sauvé ? Il se montre évidemment prudent mais insiste sur le fait que le climat est en train de changer, certains secteurs occidentaux s’inquiétant tout de même d’une montée en puissance des forces islamistes à la faveur des révolutions arabes, et la plupart des parties prenantes à la crise syrienne étant conscientes que l’opposition n’a absolument pas les moyens, militaires et politiques, de renverser le régime. Dès lors, Bachar demeure l’interlocuteur n°1 de la crise. A la condition évidente qu’il continue le mouvement de réforme, un retour au passé n’étant plus possible.

Bref, Sami Kleib fait preuve d’un optimisme mesuré – mais argumenté : ces dernières semaines, un certain nombre de faits sont venus affaiblir les positions et l’unité du front anti-syrien, et ont renforcé d’autant celle du régime. C’est aussi notre sentiment.

La crise syrienne près d’une transaction made in Russia !

Les responsables russes sont à l’aise vis-à-vis de l’action russe au Conseil de Sécurité de l’ONU. Il est presque certain que Moscou, qui a formé un solide rempart, jusqu’à maintenant, contre toute résolution onusienne contre la Syrie, continue sa défense de ce pays, au milieu des importants développements survenus, dernièrement, dans la région, les Russes étant conscients que les choses évoluent vers une transaction politique plus large dans la région, du moment que l’explosion n’est pas possible.

Pourquoi donc les Russes ont-ils présenté un projet au conseil de sécurité?

Tout pousse les autorités syriennes à l’optimisme plutôt qu’à l’inquiétude, car la Russie – qui a eu des contacts de haut niveau avec Damas – détient la présidence tournante du Conseil de Sécurité, et aspire à un règlement historique, qui consisterait, d’une part, à sauver la face de l’Occident et des Arabes, puisque le dossier syrien sera déféré au Conseil de sécurité, mais sera préservé, d’autre part, de toute action internationale contre le régime syrien, alors que les Occidentaux avec certains Etats arabes ont voulu, depuis des mois, ouvrir les portes de la Syrie à une telle intervention.

A la lecture du texte de la résolution, on peut trouver qu’il est plus favorable à l’autorité syrienne qu’aux thèses de l’Occident et de certains Arabes, car « il appelle toutes les parties, en Syrie, à mettre fin à la violence, y compris l’usage disproportionné de la force par les autorités syriennes et condamne les activités des groupes extrémistes, y compris les attaques contre les institutions de l’Etat et les fonctionnaires du maintien de l’ordre ».

Le 2ème article du projet russe signifierait, au cas où le Conseil de sécurité l’approuve, que la plus haute autorité internationale au monde, reconnaît, pour la première fois, l’existence de « groupes extrémistes » qui attaquent l’Etat. C’est un aspect que les Etats occidentaux et la Ligue des pays arabes, aussi, refusent de reconnaître, depuis le début de la crise, et font porter aux autorités syriennes la pleine responsabilité de ce qui se passe.

Le projet de résolution, dans son troisième article, appelle « les autorités syriennes » à punir tous les responsables des actes de violence, et à enquêter, rapidement, de façon indépendante et impartiale, sur « tous les cas de violation des droits de l’homme », c’est-à-dire qu’il restreint à l’Etat syrien la décision de punir, comme il ajoute, dans son troisième alinéa, l’invitation à compléter les enquêtes menées par la commission judiciaire syrienne, « dans tous les incidents dans lesquels ont été tués ou blessés des civils ou des éléments de la sécurité ».

Et, dans son quatrième article, le projet russe va encore plus loin puisqu’il exhorte tous les groupes de l’opposition syrienne de se distancer des extrémistes, et à accepter l’initiative de la Ligue arabe et d’entrer, sans conditions préalables, dans un dialogue politique avec les autorités syriennes ». Et, cette invitation a été réitérée aux membres du « conseil national » syrien, lors de leur visite à Moscou, et on dit même qu’ils ont entendu des propos encore plus durs, surtout quand ils ont dit aux Russes que le régime allait tomber et qu’il n’y avait pas de dialogue possible avec lui.

Par ailleurs, dans une claire référence à la position officielle syrienne, le projet russe exprime « sa grande préoccupation au sujet de la fourniture d’armes illégales aux groupes armés, en Syrie, et appelle les pays voisins et autres, à prendre les dispositions nécessaires pour empêcher ces opérations de fourniture », ce qui indique, pratiquement, que Moscou soutient la position syrienne, selon laquelle les armes entrent avec force à partir des pays voisins, et qu’il y a des « groupes armés et violents » en Syrie.

Et, en appuyant l’initiative de la Ligue arabe pour l’envoi d’observateurs, le projet russe assure, dans son premier alinéa, que la solution passe par «  un processus politique global, sous direction syrienne », c’est-à-dire que c’est la direction actuelle, coiffée par Bachar al-Assad, qui va diriger ce processus, et cela est important, vis-à-vis des parties arabes : de fait, la Ligue des pays arabes n’a pas mis le président Bachar al-Assad sur la liste des personnes visées par les sanctions, laissant la porte ouverte pour qu’il conduise, personnellement, le processus du compromis politique et du dialogue.

Mais les Russes sont conscients du caractère délicat de leur position au Conseil de sécurité, et ils savent que leur projet ne peut passer s’ils soutiennent, uniquement, les autorités syriennes ; c’est pourquoi nous trouvons, au paragraphe trois du projet, une « invitation aux autorités syriennes à mettre un terme à l’interdiction du droit à la liberté d’expression, par ceux qui veulent exercer leurs droits »; de même ce texte exhorte les autorités syriennes, dans son deuxième alinéa, à alléger la situation humanitaire dans les zones de crise, et à permettre un accès rapide et sans entraves à l’aide humanitaire internationale dans les zones de crise, ainsi qu’aux aux médias internationaux, et à fournir une pleine coopération avec le bureau du Haut commissariat aux droits de l’homme, et garantir la libération de tous les détenus emprisonnés pour avoir exercé leur droit à la liberté d’expression ».

Quant aux termes du projet russe sur la nécessité « d’accélérer la progression vers le multipartisme politique par l’adoption d’une nouvelle loi électorale et des réformes constitutionnelles » et autres, ce sont ceux-là même que les autorités syriennes, elles-mêmes, ont approuvés dans leur projet de réformes. Et c’est pourquoi il est frappant de constater que le projet russe n’a pas précisé de dates pour la mise en œuvre de ces réformes et a, délibérément, omis d’exercer des pressions sur Damas, dans ce cadre.

Nous pouvons dire que  les termes les plus durs, dans le projet de résolution russe, ont trait au rejet de toute intervention internationale. Le quatrième paragraphe affirme, littéralement, « la nécessité de résoudre la crise actuelle, en Syrie, paisiblement, sans aucune intervention militaire de l’étranger, et décide que rien dans la présente résolution ne peut être interprété comme une autorisation à aucune sorte d’intervention militaire en Syrie, (de la part de qui que ce soit) ». Autrement dit, même si le ministère syrien des affaires étrangères avait voulu présenter un projet de résolution équilibré, au conseil de sécurité, ils n’auraient pas fait mieux que ce qu’ont rédigé les russes, au milieu de pressions internationales, arabes et régionales énormes, actuellement, sur Damas.

Que veulent les Russes ?

De ce qui précède, il est clair que l’action russe est préventive : le projet est ancien, et a fait l’objet de consultations avec la Chine ; il est venu pour empêcher de présenter un projet de résolution occidental, surtout que ce texte russe a coïncidé avec un rapport humanitaire dur contre la Syrie, avant la réunion de la Ligue des pays arabes. Les Russes et les Chinois et certains pays amis de Damas sont conscients que le chemin sera épineux, et qu’un vif débat va avoir lieu au Conseil de sécurité avant d’atteindre une formule de compromis, qui va en prendre et en laisser du projet russe et lui ajouter des amendements occidentaux et arabes. Les Russes sont conscients de cela, il y a en face de puissantes nations avec à leur tête Washington, Paris et Londres, qui considèrent que le régime d’al-Assad « est fini », et le président Barack Obama s’est comporté, en fonction de cette analyse, il ne croyait pas, alors, que la Russie allait le défier jusqu’à ce point.

La position russe soutient avec force le régime syrien, et pour preuve, la dure déclaration présentée par le délégué russe, en réponse au rapport du commissariat aux droits de l’homme des Nations-Unies.

Dans cette déclaration, dont le journal Assafir a pu obtenir une copie originale de New York, le délégué russe s’est interrogé sur « la source des informations sur lesquelles s’est fondé le rapport, le commissariat ayant traité les plaintes comme étant des faits, alors qu’elles proviennent des militants eux-mêmes », et il s’est demandé « comment ce commissariat peut vérifier que le militant en ligne, se trouve effectivement à Homs et non pas en Nouvelle Zélande, par exemple », accusant le « rapport de partialité, parce qu’il ne fait pas référence aux actes de violence que commettent les groupes armés, en Syrie ». Le délégué est allé jusqu’à dire : « Nous avons dans notre pays (Russie) des citoyens syriens qui affirment l’inexactitude des informations sur le ciblage des manifestants par les autorités syriennes », soulignant que Moscou était au courant de l’existence de manifestations armées depuis le début des évènements en Syrie, et rappelant l’histoire de la jeune syrienne Zaïneb Al Hosni, que le Haut commissariat, lui-même, a cité comme étant violée et tuée, alors qu’il s’est avéré, deux mois plus tard, que ce n’était pas vrai, et le délégué russe s’est demandé pourquoi la commission n’a pas corrigé ce faux rapport.

Moscou a créé la confusion (chez l’adversaire)

Ces positions russes, – qui font suite à des déclarations de haut niveau – soutiennent Damas, et s’opposent à toute intervention internationale, condamnent l’usage des armes et les gens armés ; elles sont arrivées à leur « zénith » diplomatique par la présentation, par Moscou, de ce fameux projet de résolution au Conseil de Sécurité.

Il est clair que cette action a créé une grande confusion, pas seulement au conseil, mais dans les couloirs de la Ligue arabe, et dans les milieux de l’opposition.

La position américaine semble plus encline à discuter le projet : le ministre de la Défense américain, Leon Panetta, s’exprimant depuis Ankara, a décrit le projet comme étant une « étape importante », alors que les déclarations françaises ont varié entre la suggestion de l’acceptation du principe de la négociation autour du projet, et la tenue de propos stigmatisant le texte russe comme « creux et déséquilibré ». La position française a contredit l’accueil favorable des Européens, puisque Michel Mann, porte-parole du haut représentant pour la politique étrangère et la sécurité de l’Union européenne – Catherine Ashton – a dit que « le projet de résolution russe sur la Syrie est un pas dans le bon sens et que le texte, dans sa forme actuelle, est bon pour la discussion ».

Le secret de la fermeté russe et du recul arabe ?

Il faut s’arrêter sur l’ensemble des développements qu’a connus la région, dernièrement, et qui poussent à croire qu’un « règlement » ou une « transaction » commence à émerger derrière la crise, malgré la manipulation, la violence, l’oppression. Considérons plus particulièrement les éléments suivants :

- Les critiques occidentales sévères des récentes élections en Russie ont suscité un avertissement du Kremlin, dénonçant une atteinte au régime démocratique, et le chef du gouvernement russe, Vladimir Poutine (futur président russe en mars prochain, et ferme soutien de Bachar al-Assad), est allé jusqu’à adresser de sévères reproches aux Etats-Unis, disant notamment que « les gens en ont assez des diktats d’un Etat unique (…) Vous parlez de l’alliance avec les Etats-Unis, nous aussi nous voulons être des alliés avec eux, mais ce que je vois, et ce dont j’ai parlé à Munich, ce n’est pas une relation d’alliance, mais il me semble, parfois, que les Etats-Unis ne veulent pas d’alliés, mais des disciples et des serviteurs ».

- Les promesses européennes et internationales n’ont pas réussi, jusqu’à maintenant à rassurer la Russie sur le bouclier anti-missile. Le ministre russe de la défense Anatoli Serdioukov a averti, vendredi dernier, que le « déploiement du bouclier antimissile américain en Europe va bouleverser l’équilibre des forces stratégiques, et que la Russie va commencer à prendre des mesures pour répondre, après les premiers éléments de défense antimissiles, en Pologne ».

Le premier responsable militaire russe a révélé « des informations qui éclairent le plan des Etats-Unis pour déployer des missiles anti-missiles standard 3 en Pologne ». Il a averti que la Russie pourrait déployer des missiles Escanar sur le territoire de Kaliningrad. Propos importants après toutes les rencontres entre l’OTAN et la Russie.

Ces propos militaires russes « sont répétés par la bouche de la plus haute autorité politique russe, également » : le président Dimitri Medvedev a écrit, dans une correspondance adressée, le 30 novembre dernier, à l’assemblée fédérale russe : « Nous devons faire face dans la prochaine décennie à l’option suivante : soit parvenir à un accord au sujet du bouclier anti-missile et former un mécanisme conjoint de coopération ; soit commencer un nouveau cycle de course aux armements et alors nous aurons à prendre la décision de déployer de nouveaux moyens de frappe, dans le cas de notre incapacité à parvenir à un accord constructif ».

Mais celui qui lit en détail les actes du sommet euro-russe va découvrir une volonté d’arriver à une large transaction qui inclut, aussi, la Syrie. Le porte- parole de l’Union-Européenne a notamment  indiqué : « Nous avons évoqué, au sommet, la nécessité d’adresser un message fort et unifié au régime syrien », et il faisait allusion, bien sûr, à la discussion à ce sujet avec les Russes.

De son côté, Medvedev a déclaré que « son pays est prêt à aider l’Europe à faire face à la crise financière qu’elle affronte. Lorsque le monde fait face à des tempêtes et des crises et que les choses en arrivent aux menaces et aux intimidations au sujet d’armements stratégiques, c’est que, souvent, le monde cherche à parvenir à des transactions, et peut-être que la position russe qui défend l’Iran et refuse de discuter des armes nucléaires ou stratégiques sur le territoire iranien, montre la capacité de Moscou à gérer de grandes négociations internationales. Et l’on ne peut s’attendre, dans ce genre de négociations, à ce que la Russie abandonne des alliés stratégiques actuels, tels l’Iran et la Syrie. Or un pays arabe a proposé cinq milliards de dollars à Moscou pour abandonner le régime syrien.

Quid de la Ligue arabe et de la Syrie 

Dernièrement, un certain  nombre d’initiatives diplomatiques ont montré que les Arabes reviennent sur leurs décisions et leurs diktats vis-à-vis du régime syrien.

Il semble que le Premier ministre qatari, Cheikh Hamad Bin Jaber Al Thani, se sente aujourd’hui, plus que quiconque, dans une position embarrassante. Il a été le premier à utiliser le langage des avertissements, vis-à-vis de Damas, qu’il a accusé d’atermoiements, et a avisé la communauté internationale que l’initiative arabe devait être appliquée, telle quelle, sans changement, et tout de suite. Ce qui est apparu comme impossible à appliquer, tandis que que le régime syrien continuait à gérer sa crise avec beaucoup de confiance en soi, sur la base d’une puissante action sécuritaire et d’un grand soutien russe et iranien.

Rappelons que la région et la Syrie ont connu, dernièrement, les évènements suivants :

- Le retrait américain, presque calme, de l’Irak, ce qui n’aurait pas pu se passer sans une coordination avec les autorités iraniennes, mais aussi, sans un feu vert indirect de la Syrie.

- La visite du ministre de la sécurité iranienne, Heidar Moslehi, à l’Arabie Saoudite et sa rencontre avec le prince héritier et l’homme fort, actuellement, du royaume, le prince Naef ben Abdelaziz, qui a échangé avec Bachar al-Assad des messages positifs ; et l’on dit que l’Arabie Saoudite veut diminuer le rôle du Qatar dans la région.

- La visite du Premier ministre irakien, Nouri Al Maliki, aux Etats-Unis, et ce qui s’en est suivi, puisque le président Al Assad a reçu le conseiller à la sécurité nationale irakienne Falah Al Fayad, en compagnie d’une délégation gouvernementale. Ali Al Moussaoui, le conseiller médiatique d’Al Maliki, a déclaré que « l’initiative irakienne vise à instaurer un dialogue entre le gouvernement syrien et l’opposition ». Et, abstraction faite de l’existence effective ou non d’une initiative irakienne, ce qui est certain c’est que la délégation irakienne a informé les Syriens des résultats des discussions d’Al Maliki à Washington, et les a assurés du soutien de l’Irak à la Syrie, ce qui est en soi une chose très intéressante, qui contredit, dans les faits, les thèses unanimistes de la Ligue arabe. Il faut signaler, dans ce contexte, que M. Moqtada Al Sadr (leader religieux chiite irakien) a qualifié la visite d’Al Maliki à Washington de « trahison envers l’autorité religieuse et les sentiments des musulmans dans les pays de la réticence, de l’opposition et de résistance », et de « faiblesse politique et soumission ». Ce qui peut être interprété comme un avertissement déguisé à Al Maliki pour l’empêcher d’être influencé par la politique américaine dans la région.

- La visite d’Al Maliki aux Etats-Unis et la visite du Vice-Président américain Joe Biden, avant, à Bagdad, ont révélé qu’il n’y avait pas de changement dans la position irakienne vis-à-vis de la Syrie, et pas d’acceptation des demandes nuisibles à l’Iran et à la Syrie, y compris la présence militaire aérienne américaine dans le ciel irakien.

- Le financement du TSL (tribunal spécial pour le Liban), chargé du jugement de l’affaire de l’attentat contre l’ancien Premier ministre libanais défunt, Rafiq Al Harir, avec un accord tacite du Hezbollah et une couverture syrienne et russe. A relier à l’échec de Jeffrey Filtman à remonter le moral des adversaires de la Syrie au Liban.

- L’explosion du convoi des forces internationales (FINUL) opérant dans le sud du Liban, qui a ciblé les militaires français, a été interprété (en France notamment) comme une réponse syrienne au fait que la France est à la tête des pays qui veulent renverser le régime syrien ; ce qui constitue une tentative d’impliquer davantage la Syrie, certains se précipitant pour l’accuser avec Hezbollah, d’être responsable de l’attentat. C’est ce qu’a démenti le Hezbollah, arguments précis à l’appui, et d’ailleurs présentés aux Français.

- Le guide suprême iranien s’est impliqué personnellement dans le dossier syrien, et a pris la décision fondamentale de défendre la Syrie et son régime, à tout prix, coupant court ainsi à certaines hésitations iraniennes, qui considéraient qu’il fallait traiter le dossier syrien de façon ouverte sur toutes les éventualités, y compris la chute du régime.

- L’organisation par la Syrie d’exercices militaires de tirs par missiles, publiques, cette fois, sous appellation de « projet », qui a dans le langage militaire une dimension plus importante et plus vaste que la simple « manœuvre ».

- L’organisation d’élections locales, sans incidents importants, et l’échec de la grève générale à laquelle avait appelé l’opposition.

- L’information donnée par le Hamas aux dirigeants syriens, selon laquelle elle n’a pas l’intention de quitter Damas, et que le départ de familles de certains responsables du Hamas est dû uniquement à l’inquiétude quant à la situation sécuritaire et non à une raison politique. Et l’on dit que c’est Khaled Mechaal, en personne, qui a adressé plus d’un message d’amitié, dernièrement, à Bachar al-Assad ; et certains dirigeants du Hamas ont révélé que de grandes pressions ont été exercées sur eux pour abandonner la Syrie, et même certains membres du Hamas ont informé Damas de la volonté de certains frères musulmans de négocier.

- Le mouvement de la Jordanie orientale et des courants de l’opposition jordanienne contre toute ingérence dans les affaires syriennes, soutenu par la position des militaires et des services de renseignements jordaniens, et le mouvement simultané de certaines parties turques s’opposant à toute intervention et refusant les aventures d’Erdogan, dans le dossier syrien.

Qu’en est-il de la situation en Syrie ?

Les développements précités ont coïncidé avec des événements frappants en relation avec la situation intérieure syrienne, et concernant tant le régime que l’opposition, et en particulier :

- Les progrès enregistrés par des actions militaires importantes à Jabal Zaouia et autour de Homs, et la prédisposition effective pour entrer dans la troisième ville du pays, une fois la décision politique prise ; il est clair que ce qui empêche les forces de sécurité d’intervenir pour ramener la situation à Homs à la normale, ne relève pas uniquement de la forte présence de groupes armés, bien organisés, et pas d’avantage d’un manque de capacités, mais surtout la volonté des autorités syriennes de ne pas heurter les positions arabes et de ne pas embarrasser la Russie aux Nations-unies et au Conseil de sécurité. Des sources sécuritaires indiquent que la solution est possible, une fois que la décision politique sera prise, et on dit qu’un plan militaire, bien ficelé, a été élaboré pour empêcher les groupes et les terroristes de se déplacer dans une autre zone ; la décision d’en finir avec cette situation s’impose, et elle peut être prise à n’importe quel moment, mais les responsables veulent d’abord ménager l’opportunité dégagée par les efforts russes, et aussi faire réussir l’initiative arabe, malgré le peu de conviction qu’a la direction syrienne de son utilité.

- Pour la journée de protestation du vendredi placée par l’opposition sous le thème « La Ligue arabe nous tue » (31 décembre), le nombre de manifestants s’était limité à 36.000 personnes, dont 15.000 à Idleb, et 21.000 dans les différentes régions syriennes, et aucun mort n’a été à déplorer, selon un rapport sécuritaire précis, parvenu à une ambassade arabe à Damas.

- Il s’est avéré lors des rencontres des différentes parties de l’opposition au Caire, que le CNS traite  l’Instance de coordination (autre regroupement d’opposants) comme une institution de second rang, ce qui a conduit à l’échec de l’unification dans les rangs de l’opposition, malgré les pressions internationales et arabes appelant à cette unification. Et le militant des droits de l’homme et leader de l’opposition dans l’Instance de coordination, le docteur Haytham al-Manna, aurait exprimé une grande déception quant à ce qui s’est passé.

Tout cela fait que les autorités syriennes se sentent , à nouveau, dans une position de force, mais il y a aussi une tendance évidente des autorités, actuellement, à s’ouvrir davantage sur le dialogue avec certaines parties de l’opposition, et il n’est pas à écarter que le discours officiel syrien ne s’appuie dorénavant sur ces deux piliers, c’est-à-dire la discussion des points essentiels et la volonté d’ouverture et d’accélération du rythme des réformes et des élections.

Un règlement est-il possible ?

Les efforts russes actuels tendent dans ce sens. L’acceptation par la Syrie du plan arabe et la signature du protocole ne découlent pas d’une conviction effective que la Ligue arabe serait capable d’apporter une solution, mais d’une volonté de renforcer la position russe, et celui qui visite Damas, ces jours, entendra des propos durs sur la Ligue et son rôle, mais il entendra, aussi, des informations indiquant qu’au sein de la Ligue, il y a deux courants différents, et que la diplomatie qatarie, qui exerce des pressions fortes sur Damas, sent que les choses vont lui échapper, et c’est ce qui pousse certains responsables syriens à croire que la précipitation de Hamad à tenir une conférence de presse pour renouveler la menace de déférer le dossier syrien au Conseil de Sécurité, était non appropriée, parce que l’échange des correspondances entre le secrétaire général de la ligue arabe, Nabil Al Arabi, et le ministre des affaires étrangères syrien, Walid Al Moallem, était en cours, et que la Ligue a accepté, après un refus antérieur, plus de 70% des amendements syriens sur le projet du protocole. Elle a même accepté la coordination, au sujet des observateurs, avec le gouvernement syrien, et elle a pris en charge la somme d’un million de dollars, frais des observateurs, alors qu’antérieurement, elle avait voulu que Damas assume ces frais, comme elle a accepté que le protocole soit le résultat d’un accord entre les deux parties, et non plus seulement un diktat de la Ligue, l’intitulé du protocole étant « Projet du protocole du centre juridique et des missions de la délégation des observateurs de la Ligue arabe entre la République Syrienne et le Secrétaire Général  de la ligue des pays arabes au sujet du suivi des développements de la situation en Syrie ».

Et si nous apprenons que le nombre des observateurs serait limité entre 50 et 70, avec leurs gardes, et que le protocole est pour une durée d’un mois renouvelable, sur accord des deux parties, Ligue arabe et gouvernement syrien, on peut dire que la Ligue a lâché beaucoup de lest, et que cela a été une raison supplémentaire pour la signature du protocole au Caire, et non pas à Doha ou ailleurs, et que les prochaines rencontres auront lieu en Syrie.

Le régime est-il sauvé ?

Il est prématuré d’avancer cette hypothèse, car beaucoup de pays occidentaux, régionaux et arabes, continuent à travailler à renverser le régime et, probablement, ils vont accentuer leur action dans la phase suivante. Mais ce qui est certain, c’est qu’il y a à l’horizon la préparation, sur feu doux, d’une recette qui peut changer l’équation, tout particulièrement si l’année se termine et que les choses restent en leur état actuel, la crise syrienne étant entrée dans son dixième mois, et l’on commence à parler de l’inquiétude américaine, israélienne et occidentale quant à l’extension de l’intégrisme dans les pays qui ont connu des révolutions.

Devant tout cela, et à la lumière de l’entrée de la crise syrienne dans son dixième mois, sans que l’une des deux parties ne soit en mesure de conclure, la Russie, les pays occidentaux et arabes se sont mis à envisager, sérieusement, que la solution unique réside dans un dialogue, sous direction de Bachar Al Assad, qui nécessitera l’élargissement de la base de participation au pouvoir, et qui aboutira à des élections qui feront participer l’opposition au pouvoir et à la prise de décision. Le retour en arrière n’est plus possible, le régime n’a plus les moyens de perdurer dans sa forme actuelle, au milieu des tempêtes des grands changements qui secouent les pays arabes, tandis que l’opposition est incapable de renverser le régime sans intervention internationale, et cette intervention est presque impossible, tant que les Russes continuent à camper sur leurs positions, et alors que le monde est préoccupé par l’extension de l’incendie dans la meule de foin régionale.

Les Russes vont-ils réussir ?

Probablement, mais le chemin est encore long, et peut-être que la signature du protocole de la Ligue arabe est le début effectif d’une discussion politique profonde, mais les hypothèses du succès balancent encore les hypothèses de l’échec, car certains pays ne sont intéressés ni par les réformes, ni par la protection des civils, mais par la chute du pouvoir et le resserrement de l’étau sur l’Iran.

Article rédigé en arabe par Sami Kleib, publié sur les colonnes d’Assafir, en date du 19.12.2011, et traduit en français, pour Infosyrie, en date du 29.12.2011.

Lien de l’article en arabe :

http://www.champress.net/index.php?q=ar/Article/view/108537

– Résistance 71 –

17 millions de victimes de la traite musulmane

17 millions de victimes de la traite musulmane

Entretien avec le Prof. Jacques Heers

Ex: http://anti-mythes.blogspot.com/

A partir du VIIe siècle, les musulmans ont pratiqué une traite esclavagiste touchant à la fois les Européens et les Africains. Agrégé et docteur en histoire, Jacques Heers a été professeur des universités et directeur du département d'études médiévales à la Sorbonne. Il a consacré plusieurs ouvrages à l'esclavage médiéval en Méditerranée, aux Barbaresques et aux négriers en terre d'islam (1), qui viennent d'être réédités. Autant dire que nul n'est mieux placé que lui pour parler de la traite musulmane.

Le Choc du mois : Y -a-t-il une spécificité de la traite musulmane ?

Jacques Heers : Il y en a deux. Son importance quantitative, d'abord. Les conquêtes musulmanes ont été d'une ampleur et d'une brutalité inédites. Et puis le fait que les musuhnans ont ajouté une dimension religieuse à l'esclavage, en distinguant très nettement le «fidèle», de «l'infidèle». En résumé, la théorisation du djihad et l'expansion territoriale musulmane aboutissent effectivement à l'apparition d'une forme d'esclavage tout à fait spécifique.

Même si certains exégètes affirment le contraire, le Coran tolère parfaitement l'asservissement des «chiens de mécréants». Confrontés à la question cie l'esclavage, les docteurs de la loi rendaient en général le même verdict : le prisonnier infidèle doit demeurer esclave, même s'il se convertit aussitôt ; c'est la punition de sa mécréance passée. En revanche, le captif musulman, même ramené «chargé de chaînes» doit immédiatement retrouver la liberté.

Théoriquement, le Coran interdit de réduire un musulman en esclavage, mais en pratique, les exceptions abondent, pour des raisons plus ou moins légitimes : les victimes sont de « mauvais musulmans », etc.

Quand apparaît la traite musulmane ?

Dès la naissance de l'islam, au VIIe siècle! Mahomet et ses fidèles possédaient des esclaves. C'était toutefois une pratique courante, durant toute l'Antiquité. Il n'est pas étonnant que les peuples orientaux, au cours du Haut Moyen Age, la perpétuent à leur bénéfice.

Au début de l'hégire, les esclaves sont essentiellement blancs...

Comment les musulmans se procurent-ils leurs esclaves ?

Essentiellement par la guerre. Les « cavaliers d'Allah » conquièrent, asservissent ou convertissent les populations cles Balkans, d'Asie Mineure et d'Europe. Ils ramènent d'immenses cohortes de prisonniers, hommes et femmes. On a vu des Sarrasins mener des razzias jusque dans les Alpes, au IX' siècle ! En 997, le calife al-Mansur, qui régnait sur l'Espagne arabo-musulmane - al Andalous - mena une interminable razzia dans les royaumes chrétiens du nord de la péninsule. Il s'enfonça jusqu'au cœur de la Galice, laissant Saint-Jacques-de-compostelle en ruines.

Toujours en Espagne, au XII' siècle, des flottes musulmanes croisent sur les côtes de Galice et, au petit matin, lancent des attaques sur les villages de pêcheurs. En Méditerranée, sur un autre front, les musulmans, maîtres de la Sicile, lancent des chevauchées contre les grands monastères et sur les routes de pèlerinage vers Rome. Ailleurs, les pirates musulmans ravagent les côtes du Languedoc ou de Toscane avec des flottes atteignant parfois cinquante galères ! Et chaque guerre apporte son lot de captifs, qui sont aussitôt convoyés pour être vendus sur les marchés, de l'Espagne au Maghreb et jusqu'en Orient...

Il y a une réelle préférence pour les esclaves blancs...

Les musulmans ont pratiqué la traite des Noirs, mais dans les premiers temps de l'hégire, l'ère d'expansion islamique, les esclaves étaient essentiellement des Blancs. Laissez-moi vous citer le savant Ibn Haukal, qui affirmait, au temps de l'Espagne arabo-musulmane que « le plus bel article importé d'Espagne sont les esclaves, des filles et de beaux garçons qui ont été enlevés dans le pays des Francs et dans la Galice. Tous les eunuques slaves qu'on trouve sur la terre sont amenés d'Espagne et aussitôt qu'ils arrivent, on les châtre. Ce sont des marchands juifs qui font ça ». Le géographe Ibn al-Fakih, lui, racontait que « de la mer occidentale, arrivent en Orient les esclaves hommes, romains, francs, lombards et les femmes, romaines et andalouses ».

Quand la traite musulmane cesse-t'elle en direction de l'Europe ?

Elle s'est considérablement réduite lorsque les Arabes ont passé le Sahara pour aller razzier l'Afrique noire. Mais elle a très vite repris, dès les années 800, avec la piraterie. Elle s'intensifie en 1517, lorsque Alger, véritable nid de pirates, tombe aux mains des Turcs. La guerre de course fait alors partie intégrante du plan de conquête de la Méditerranée par les Ottomans. L'esclavage des chrétiens, méthodiquement mené, redouble.

Dans le même temps, les Barbaresques assiègent Rhodes en 1522 et Malte en 1565. S'ils perdent Rhodes en 1523, les chevaliers de Malte repoussent les musulmans en 1566. L'ordre de Malte devient une véritable sentinelle de la Méditerranée. Ses marins font régner la terreur chez les musulmans et pratiquent eux-mêmes l'esclavage ! Ils jouent un rôle clef dans la bataille de Lépante en 1571, qui marque le grand coup d'arrêt aux incursions musulmanes en Europe.

En 1888, à Médine, 5.000 esclaves sont vendus dans l'année

 

Mais les musulmans poursuivent la traite des chrétiens en Afrique noire...

 

Exact. Il y a trois grandes routes de traite. La première mène en Afrique de l'Ouest sahélienne, où le commerce des esclaves fait traditionnellement partie des échanges transsahariens. La deuxième passe par la mer Rouge et le Soudan. En Arabie, en 1888, sur le seul marché de Médine, l'on peut vendre 5 000 esclaves par an. La troisième traite se passe sur la côte d'Afrique de l'Est, où Zanzibar devient le plus grand marché d'esclaves au monde.

La première traite est la plus longue et occasionne de nombreuses pertes. Elle passe par l'Egypte, dont les musulmans sont devenus maîtres, et le Sahara. Elle est d'abord faite de razzias, puis, à partir du IX' siècle, repose sur la conquête de royaumes noirs et le négoce avec les marchands d'esclaves.

Quelles sont les principales cibles ?

Le royaume chrétien d'Ethiopie. Les Egyptiens l'attaquent en passant par la vallée du Nil. Les Arabes traversent la mer Rouge. A l'ouest, les Marocains osent une traversée de cent jours de marche après Marrakech, dont au moins la moitié à travers le Sahara.

Le retour est un enfer. Le Niger, le Sénégal et le Mali sont également touchés ... Des forbans musulmans lancent des razzias le long des côtes de l'océan Indien avec des boutres - de rapides voiliers. Dans les royaumes islamiques du Soudan, les chasses aux esclaves mobilisent chaque année de forts partis de cavaliers. Ils repèrent les villages les plus intéressants et partent par petits groupes. Ils montent des chameaux de race, s'approvisionnent en eau, marchent la nuit et attaquent au petit matin. Les opérations devant être rentables, ils évitent les lieux trop bien protégés et n'attaquent qu'à coup sûr. Une fois maîtres du terrain, ils massacrent les faibles et les vieillards pour n'emmener que les malheureux en état de servir.

Pour être honnête, il faut ajouter que des négociants sont aussi sur les rangs, car des rois noirs, près du Tchad par exemple, les informent du lancement des grandes chasses aux esclaves. Ils vont s'installer dans les villages, en attendant - à leurs frais - le retour de l'expédition.

Comment les esclaves sont-ils traités ?

Très mal, car ils sont gratuits et en grand nombre. Contrairement à la traite atlantique, il n'a pas fallu négocier avec des rois esclavagistes. Il a suffi de tuer ceux qui se défendaient !

Sur la route de leur captivité, les esclave vivaient un enfer. La traite occasionne des pertes terribles tant dans leurs rangs que dans ceux des convoyeurs. Les plus faibles sont abandonnés sans pitié. Les témoignages sont horribles : les hommes et les femmes meurent de soif, en sont parfois réduits à ouvrir la panse des animaux pour y trouver de l'eau. Les esclaves malades ou affaiblis sont abandonnés en route à une mort certaine. Des négociants expliquent tranquillement à leurs associés, restés en Arabie qu'il a fallu, ici où là, égorger quatre femmes «fanées» et émasculer deux enfants pour ne pas perdre de temps dans le désert et préserver la cargaison. A l'arrivée, selon la difficulté de la traversée, les survivants sont vendus avec une marge de 200 à 300 %. C'est une façon de compenser les pertes.

De quoi se compose une cargaison d'esclaves ?

Essentiellement des jeunes femmes, blanches ou noires. Des enfants et des hommes solides. Ne restent que les personnes en bonne santé. Les autres sont morts en route. En chemin, pour ècouler les «cargaisons»: plus vite, certains campements se transforment en marché, où les grossistes viennent faire un premier choix. Puis on arrive dans les grandes places, comme Zanzibar ou Bagdad. Les acheteurs peuvent examiner leur marchandise, regarder les dent, l'élasticité d'une poitrine, constater si une jeune femme est vierge ou déflorée, mesurer la vivacité intellectuelle ou la force physique d'un esclave, son adresse...

Le Caire est un gigantesque marché, où l'on trouve toute sorte de captifs. Au XIX' siècle, Gérard de Nerval, dans son voyage au Caire(2), raconte comment plusieurs marchands «basanés» l'abordent pour lui proposer «des Noires ou des Abyssiniennes»...

Que deviennent les victimes ?

Elles servent sur les chantiers publics ou au service d'un maître.

A la Bourse aux esclaves, les négriers spéculent

Il y a également les bagnes ?
 
Là, c'est l'époque des Barbaresques et des Ottomans. Alors qu'à Bagdad ou au Caire, on trouve une majorité d'esclaves noirs, les bagnes d'Alger ou de Tunis comportent surtout des Blancs. Ils maintenaient à eux seuls toute l'activité économique locale : les chantiers navals, les fabriques, les commerces ... Alors que les villes d'Egypte achetaient aux caravaniers du désert des milliers d'esclaves venus d'Afrique, les cités corsaires du Maghreb s'épargnaient ces dépenses, grâce à la guerre.

Une fois la part du sultan mise de côté, les captifs des Barbaresques passaient directement de l'entrepont du navire au marché. Des négociants les mettaient aux enchères, à la criée. Ceux visiblement inaptes aux travaux de force, mais dont on espère tirer une bonne rançon, valent jusqu'à sept fois un homme valide. Les Turcs et les Maures spéculent quotidiennement sur la valeur de leurs esclaves. Faut-il acheter ou vendre? C'est un peu une Bourse avant l'heure...

Comment vivaient ces esclaves ?

Le plus souvent en groupes, logés dans les bagnes - sept, rien qu'à Alger. A Tunis ou Tripoli, ils portaient plus de dix kilos de fers. Les esclaves en terre d'islam n'avaient pas le droit de fonder une famille et n'avaient pas ou peu d'enfants. Pour des raisons très simples : le grand nombre d'eunuques, l'interdiction faite aux femmes de se marier et une mortalité très élevée.

Les conditions de vie étaient épouvantables. Les captifs étaient battus à la moindre occasion, dormaient dans de pauvres hamacs, pendus les uns au-Dessus des autres. Ils souffraient du froid en hiver, de la chaleur en été, de l'humidité et des vermines en toute saison.

Et l'hygiène ?

Pas d'hygiène, puisqu'ils devaient payer leur eau ! Elle leur servait essentiellement à boire. Il leur était impossible de se laver régulièrement, encore moins de laver les hardes leur servant de vêtements ... Vous imaginez que, rapidement, les frottements de tissus crasseux sur les peaux sales provoquaient des irritations, des furoncles et de nombreuses maladies, qui concourraient à la mortalité.

Et le travail ?

Le matin, à peine nourris, ils partaient vers les chantiers ou les demeures de leurs maîtres, leur atelier ou leur boutique. Les mieux lotis - une minorité - étaient loués à des diplomates chrétiens : ils menaient alors l'existence d'un domestique européen.

La condition la plus difficile, d'un certain point de vue, était celle des femmes et des enfants. Les femmes avaient généralement un sort misérable, exposées à la vente comme des bêtes, forcées de servir, en butte à tous les abus, parfois prostituées pour le compte de leur maître... Contrairement aux légencles des Mille et Une Nuits, les récits des musulmans tranchent avec les textes des juifs et des chrétiens par le nombre d'histoires et de remarques salaces sur les « qualités », sexuelles des femmes.

Des esclaves chrétiens sont brûlés vifs à Alger !

Etait-il possible de fuir ?

Difficilement. Certains captifs acceptaient de servir de mouchards en échange de menus arrangements. La surveillance était assez stricte et les punitions terribles. Un texte raconte qu'à Alger, « lorsqu'un chrétien était pris à fuir, (le sultan Hassan Pacha) le faisait saisir par ses esclaves et brûler vif en leur présence; il faisait bâtonner les autres jusqu'à la mort, et leur coupait lui-méme les narines ou les oreilles, ou faisait exécuter ce supplice devant lui ». D'autres subissaient la bastonnade, les galères ou on les envoyait aux carrières de pierres, où les travaux étaient particulièrement pénibles...

Comme Cervantès...

Cervantès illustre parfaitement votre question sur les possibilités d'évasion(3). Il a été prisonnier durant cinq ans. Il a tenté une première évasion en subornant un garde. Celui-ci n'honora pas son engagement. Direction : les carrières! En 1577, il fit une deuxième et une troisième tentatives, mais fut toujours pris et passa en tout dix mois aux chaînes, dans un cul-de-basse-fosse. Ses comparses furent pendus ou empalés. Les autres eurent les oreilles tranchées. A la quatrième tentative, il échoua encore! Il ne fut libéré que contre une rançon importante, grâce à l'action des ordres mercédaires, ces chrétiens qui achetaient les esclaves ou s'y substituaient !

Quand cesse l'esclavage musulman ?

Mais il existe encore ! La colonisation de l'Afrique au XIXe siècle a mis un terme que l'on croyait définitif à l'esclavage musulman. Mais celui-ci a repris avec la décolonisation. La traite musulmane, qui a duré mille deux cents ans, perdure, au Soudan par exemple.

Connaît-on les chiffres estimés de la traite ?

Les historiens travaillant sur l'esclavage musulman se heurtent à une désespérante absence de sources. Les registres fiscaux de Zanzibar sont les seuls répertoriés de nos jours mais ils ne remontent pas au-delà de 1850.

Les estimations moyennes se situent à un minimum de 17 millions de victimes. Mais c'est ignorer les « chiffres noirs » très importants : où sont passées les victimes mortes durant le voyage, les opérations dont on ne sait rien, les caravanes perdues dans le désert ou en mer ? Sans compter les esclaves européens que l'on « oublie » de comptabiliser et les Africains tués lors des razzias : défenseurs ou « inutiles », qui étaient des bouches inutiles à nourrir. Faut-il ou non les intégrer au bilan de la traite orientale ?


Propos recueillis par Patrick Cousteau
____________
1. Les Négriers en terre d'islam. La première traite des Noirs, VIl-XVI siècle, Perrin, 2003 (rééd. Perrin, coll. Tempus, 2008).
Les Barbaresques, la course et la guerre en Méditerranée, XIV-XVI siècle, Perrin, 2001 (rééd. Perrin, coll. Tempus, 2008).
Voir aussi le livre tiré de sa thèse de doctorat; Esclaves et domestiques au Moyen Age dans le monde méditerranéen, Hachette, 1981 (rééd. 2006).
2. A lire dans le Voyage en Orient, de Gérard de Nerval, que viennent opportunément de rééditer en collection Folio les éditions Gallimard.
3. Pour en savoir plus, lire ; Le Captif. Extrait de Don Quichotte, de Cervantès, préface de Jacques Heers, éditions de Paris, 2006.

Source : le Choc du Mois - Juin 2008

When Fascism Was On the Left

When Fascism Was On the Left

by Keith Preston

Ex: http://www.alternativeright.com/

mussolini-bersagliere-2d8e07d.jpgThe conventional left/right model of the political spectrum holds Fascism and Marxism to be polar opposites of one another. Marxism is regarded as an ideology of the extreme Left while Fascism supposedly represents an outlook that is about as far to the Right as one can go. A title recently translated into English by Portugal’s Finis Mundi Press, Eric Norling’s Revolutionary Fascism, does much to call the perception of Fascism, conceived of as it was by Mussolini and his cohorts, as an ideology of the extreme Right into question.

This work was originally published in 2001 and author Norling, a historian and lawyer, is a native Swede who now resides in Spain. Norling observes that throughout the entirety of his early life, from childhood until World War One, Mussolini was every bit as much as man of the Left as contemporaries such as Eugene V. Debs. He was what would later come to be known as a “red diaper baby” (meaning the child of revolutionary socialist parents). As a young man, Mussolini himself was a Marxist, fervently anticlerical, went to Switzerland to evade compulsory military service, and was arrested and imprisoned for inciting militant strikes. Eventually, he became a leader in Italy’s Socialist Party and he was imprisoned once again in 1911 for his antiwar activities related to Italy’s invasion of Libya. Mussolini was so prominent a socialist at this point in his career that he won the praise of Lenin who considered him to be the rightful head of a future Italian socialist state.

When World War One began in 1914, Mussolini initially held to the Italian Socialist Party’s antiwar position, but in the ensuing months switched to a pro-war position which earned him an expulsion from the party. He then enlisted in the Italian army and was wounded in combat. The reasons for Mussolini’s shift to a pro-war position are essential to understanding the true origins and nature of fascism and its place within the context of twentieth century political and intellectual history. Mussolini came to see the war as an anti-imperialist struggle against the Hapsburg dynasty of Austria-Hungary. Further, he regarded the war as an anti-monarchist struggle against conservative forces such as the Hapsburgs, the Ottoman Turks, and the Hohenzollern’s of Germany and attacked these regimes as reactionary enemies who had repressed socialism. Mussolini also prophetically believed that Russia’s participation in the war would weaken that nation to the point where it was susceptible to socialist revolution (which is precisely what happened). In other words, Mussolini regarded the war as an opportunity to advance leftist revolutionary struggles in Italy and elsewhere.

When the Italian Fascist movement was founded in 1919, most of its leaders and theoreticians were, like Mussolini himself, former Marxists and other radical leftists such as proponents of the revolutionary syndicalist doctrines of Georges Sorel. The official programs issued by the Fascists, translations of which are included in Norling’s book, reflected a standard mixture of republican and socialist ideas that would have been common to any European leftist group of the era. If indeed the evidence is overwhelming that Fascism has its roots on the far Left, then from where does Fascism’s reputation as a rightist ideology originate?

The answer appears to be a combination of three primary factors: Marxist propaganda that has regrettably found its way into the mainstream historiography, the revision of leftist revolutionary doctrine itself by Fascist leaders, and the inevitable compromises and accommodations made by Fascism upon the achievement of actual state power. Regarding the first these, David Ramsay Steele described the standard Marxist interpretation of Fascism in an important article on Fascism’s history:

In the 1930s, the perception of "fascism"in the English-speaking world morphed from an exotic, even chic, Italian novelty into an all-purpose symbol of evil. Under the influence of leftist writers, a view of fascism was disseminated which has remained dominant among intellectuals until today. It goes as follows:

Fascism is capitalism with the mask off. It's a tool of Big Business, which rules through democracy until it feels mortally threatened, then unleashes fascism. Mussolini and Hitler were put into power by Big Business, because Big Business was challenged by the revolutionary working class. We naturally have to explain, then, how fascism can be a mass movement, and one that is neither led nor organized by Big Business. The explanation is that Fascism does it by fiendishly clever use of ritual and symbol. Fascism as an intellectual doctrine is empty of serious content, or alternatively, its content is an incoherent hodge-podge. Fascism's appeal is a matter of emotions rather than ideas. It relies on hymn-singing, flag-waving, and other mummery, which are nothing more than irrational devices employed by the Fascist leaders who have been paid by Big Business to manipulate the masses.

This perception continues to be the standard leftist “analysis” of Fascism even in present times, and goes a long way towards explaining why, for instance, American political movements or figures that have absolutely nothing to do with historic Fascism, such as the Tea Party or the neocon mouthpieces of FOX News or “conservative” talk radio, continue to be recipients of the “fascist” label by atavistic liberals and leftists.

The reality of Fascism’s origins was quite different. Its creators were an assortment of leftist intellectuals and political figures whose common reference point was their realization that Marxism was a failed ideology. As Steele observed:

Fascism began as a revision of Marxism by Marxists, a revision which developed in successive stages, so that these Marxists gradually stopped thinking of themselves as Marxists, and eventually stopped thinking of themselves as socialists. They never stopped thinking of themselves as anti-liberal revolutionaries.

The Crisis of Marxism occurred in the 1890s. Marxist intellectuals could claim to speak for mass socialist movements across continental Europe, yet it became clear in those years that Marxism had survived into a world which Marx had believed could not possibly exist. The workers were becoming richer, the working class was fragmented into sections with different interests, technological advance was accelerating rather than meeting a roadblock, the "rate of profit" was not falling, the number of wealthy investors ("magnates of capital") was not falling but increasing, industrial concentration was not increasing, and in all countries the workers were putting their country above their class.

The early Fascists were former Marxists who had come to doubt the revolutionary potential of class struggle, but had simultaneously come to regard revolutionary nationalism as showing considerable promise. As Mussolini remarked in a speech on December 5, 1914:

The nation has not disappeared. We used to believe that the concept was totally without substance. Instead we see the nation arise as a palpitating reality before us!...Class cannot destroy the nation. Class reveals itself as a collection of interests—but the nation is a history of sentiments, traditions, language, culture, and race. Class can become an integral part of the nation, but the one cannot eclipse the other. The class struggle is a vain formula, with effect and consequence wherever one finds a people that has not integrated itself into its proper linguistic and racial confines—where the national problem has not been definitely resolved. In such circumstances the class movement finds itself impaired by an inauspicious historic climate.

Fascism subsequently abandoned class struggle for a revolutionary nationalist outlook that stood for class collaboration under the leadership of a strong state that was capable of unifying the nation and accelerating industrial development. Indeed, Steele made an interesting observation concerning the similarities between Italian and Third World Marxist “national liberation” movements of the second half of the twentieth century:

The logic underlying their shifting position was that there was unfortunately going to be no working-class revolution, either in the advanced countries, or in less developed countries like Italy. Italy was on its own, and Italy's problem was low industrial output. Italy was an exploited proletarian nation, while the richer countries were bloated bourgeois nations. The nation was the myth which could unite the productive classes behind a drive to expand output. These ideas foreshadowed the Third World propaganda of the 1950s and 1960s, in which aspiring elites in economically backward countries represented their own less than scrupulously humane rule as "progressive" because it would accelerate Third World development. From Nkrumah to Castro, Third World dictators would walk in Mussolini's footsteps. Fascism was a full dress rehearsal for post-war Third Worldism.

During its twenty-three years in power, Mussolini’s regime certainly made considerable concessions to traditionally conservative interests such as the monarchy, big business, and the Catholic Church. These pragmatic accommodations borne of political necessity are among the evidences typically offered by leftists as indications of Fascism’s rightist nature. Yet there is abundant evidence that Mussolini essentially remained a socialist throughout the entirety of his political life. By 1935, thirteen years after Mussolini seized power in the March on Rome, seventy-five percent of Italian industry had either been nationalized outright or brought under intensive state control. Indeed, it was towards the end of both his life and the life of his regime that Mussolini’s economic policies were at their most leftist.

After briefly losing power for a couple of months during the summer of 1943, Mussolini returned as Italy’s head of state with German assistance and set up what came to be called the Italian Social Republic. The regime subsequently nationalized all companies employing more than a hundred workers, redistributed housing that was formerly privately owned to its worker occupants, engaged in land redistribution, and witnessed a number of prominent Marxists joining the Mussolini government, including Nicola Bombacci, the founder of the Italian Communist Party and a personal friend of Lenin. These events are described in considerable detail in Norling’s work.

It would appear that the historic bitter rivalry between Marxists and Fascists is less a conflict between the Left and the Right, and more of a conflict between erstwhile siblings on the Left. This should come as no particular surprise given the penchant of radical leftist groupings for sectarian blood feuds. Indeed, it might be plausibly argued that leftist ”anti-fascism” is rooted in jealously of a more successful relative as much as anything else. As Steele noted:

Mussolini believed that Fascism was an international movement. He expected that both decadent bourgeois democracy and dogmatic Marxism-Leninism would everywhere give way to Fascism, that the twentieth century would be a century of Fascism. Like his leftist contemporaries, he underestimated the resilience of both democracy and free-market liberalism. But in substance Mussolini's prediction was fulfilled: most of the world's people in the second half of the twentieth century were ruled by governments which were closer in practice to Fascism than they were either to liberalism or to Marxism-Leninism. The twentieth century was indeed the Fascist century.

00:05 Publié dans Histoire | Lien permanent | Commentaires (1) | Tags : histoire, fascisme, gauche, socialisme, italie, 20ème siècle | |  del.icio.us | | Digg! Digg |  Facebook

Interview with Leo Yankevich

Interview with Leo Yankevich

By Greg Johnson

Editor’s Note:

Recently, I interviewed leading formalist poet Leo Yankevich on poetry, politics, and his new Counter-Currents title Tikkun Olam and Other Poems [2].

What is formalist poetry? What is the new formalist movement?

Formalist poetry is essentially metrical poetry, whether it be rhymed or unrhymed. 99.99% of English-language poetry published up until 1900 was formalist. Even the early 20th century modernists, such as Ezra Pound, were highly competent formalists who, in addition to metrical poems, wrote free verse as a revolt against the stilted poetry of the 19th century Victorians. His famous motto “make it new” applies to both free and metrical verse.

The new formalist movement is a revolt against the amorphous post-modernist free verse that has been the dominant mode of poetic expression in the aftermath of World War II. It is formalism resurrected with a contemporary voice.

Which poets have inspired or influenced you the most?

W. B. Yeats, Ezra Pound, Roy Campbell, and Dylan Thomas.

Who do you think are the best living poets?

I’d place myself on the top of the list, of course, followed by Richard Wilbur, and Joseph S. Salemi.

Who are the best non-formalist poets?

Among the dead, Robinson Jeffers.

Among the living, I don’t know. There are millions of them. Besides, I don’t consider them poets. Rather, writers-of-prose chopped-up-into-lines.

Who are the best literary critics and historians? Have any critics influenced your work as a poet?

H. L. Mencken, T. S. Eliot, and Cleanth Brooks. I can’t say, though, that they have influenced my work.

What is the relationship of art and propaganda? Art and politics?

All art is propaganda whether its creator intends it to be or not. Most art today promotes decadence, homosexuality, and miscegenation. The art of the ancient Greeks and Romans, on the other hand, promoted health and a philosophy that aimed at perfection.

What is your view of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn?

I hold Solzhenitsyn in very high esteem as a writer, soldier, and man. His books tell the truth of the inhuman Gulag and his long poem Prussian Nights depicts the barbaric behavior of Soviet rabble soldiers, who, inspired by the anti-German propaganda of Ilya Ehrenburg, raped and murdered their way through Prussia in 1945. As a young captain in the Red Army he witnessed the barbarity first hand and was later brave enough to write about it. Here I quote 5 lines:

The little daughter’s on the mattress,
Dead. How many have been on it?
A platoon, a company perhaps?
A girl’s been turned into a woman,
A woman turned into a corpse.

One of the central themes of your new book Tikkun Olam is the destructiveness of Jewish power. How did you become aware of this issue?

As early as I can remember, I knew who was behind the Katyn Massacre: the Soviets. However, in 2001 I began looking into who these “Soviets” were ethnically, and I discovered an article written by the late Dr. William Pierce on the topic. This led me to listen to his broadcasts. Week by week he removed the shutters from my eyes. Later, the writings of the superb prose stylist and classicist Revilo Oliver improved my vision on the matter.

What do you think of the writings of Count Potocki of Montalk?

Certainly Potocki was a character akin in many ways to myself. I, too, am descended from nobles (Polish-Lithuanian) on my father’s side. My paternal grandfather’s surname was Jankiewicz (Yankevich is a transliteration). And my paternal grandmother’s maiden name was Jetkiewicz. However, although I am theoretically a count, I make no claim to the Polish throne!

My good friend Joseph S. Salemi acquired a handful of Potocki’s books for me. I must admit that I am disappointed by the quality of his poetry, which is about a tenth as good as the poetry of fellow right-winger Roy Campbell.

Potocki, however, was a brave man and a good European. Although in 1943 the London Polish community was well aware of who was responsible for the Katyn massacre (the Soviets) it was the Count who brought it to light in the English-speaking world with the publication of his Katyn Manifesto, for which he was placed under surveillance by Scotland Yard.

What impact do you hope that Tikkun Olam will have on readers?

I hope the book will help them understand what has been inflicted on Europid man in the last 100 years and where our race and civilization are headed if we do not stop the darkening tide imposed upon us by the eternal enemy. After they understand this, I hope the book, through repeated readings, will fortify their desire for victory in the struggle for our people’s preservation.

What do you think will be necessary for Europeans around the world to regain control of our destinies?

First, we need to have our own all-pervasive media that gets the message out on a daily basis. Second, we need 10 thousand academics like Kevin MacDonald, and a thousand filmmakers like Mel Gibson, and 50 poets like myself. Thirdly, our people must be ready to sacrifice themselves and to suffer career assassination.

Which European nations have the best chance of doing so? Which ones have the least chance?

It is my belief that the European nations who have been battling with bordering non-white hordes for centuries have the best chance for survival. They include Russia, Ukraine, Poland, Croatia, Serbia, Romania, Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain. Germany, Switzerland, and Austria are capable of regaining their destinies. Alas, I cannot say the same for the UK, France, Belgium, Holland, and the Scandinavian countries. I foresee within the next 50 years, waves of whites moving into Eastern Europe to escape the ghettoes of London, Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam, Oslo, and Stockholm.

Thank you.

 


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

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/12/interview-with-leo-yankevich/

* * *

New from Counter-Currents!
Tikkun Olam & Other Poems

Counter-Currents is proud to announce the publication of our eighth title:

Leo Yankevich
Tikkun Olam and Other Poems
Second Edition
San Francisco: Counter-Currents Publishing, 2011
104 pages

Read the title poem here 

Hardcover: $25

Paperback: $16

E-book: $5.99 (not available for pre-order)

Available January 16, 2012

Tikkun Olam and Other Poems collects 55 poems and one translation by leading formalist poet Leo Yankevich. Originally published as an E-book only, this is the first print edition.


Advance Praise for Tikkun Olam

Leo Yankevich’s Tikkun Olam is both devastating and heroic. The poems devastate with their unflinching depiction of the horror of the last one hundred years—the murders, the political lies, the cultural debasement, the degradation of European identity—and at the same time they are heroic in their open accusation of the force that ultimately lies behind it all: the insidious, self-serving impulse to “mend the world” in accordance with an anti-Western agenda. Yankevich’s book is unsparing in its vividness, but difficult to put down. He bravely directs our gaze at the infection that is killing us, and he does not allow us the comfortable option of turning away in forgetfulness.—Joseph S. Salemi, Editor, Trinacria

“Reading the powerful, ironic poems in Tikkun Olam—Hebrew for “the mending of the world”—in this new enlarged edition, visions of Goya’s Disasters of War come to mind.

“Leo Yankevich wants the truth—wants it out—and uses all his considerable power as a poet to get it out, bitter and bittersweet. “Those who do not know history are doomed to re-live it,” said, I believe, Santayana. Yankevich wants us to know history, so that we need not re-live it. Is this a futile dream? But someone must do something to halt or at least to slow our simian march to doom, and Yankevich does what he can in this dark true book.

“The murderous testosterone-drugged alpha-males portrayed in Tikkun Olam are not utter monsters. They are humans—husbands, sons, and brothers. They are us, or parts of us, and it is their residual humanity that is horrifying.

“This is especially clear when Yankevich takes on infamously unattractive personalities and manages to find in them the germ of humanity that is just alive enough to make stark and painful how much of their humanity has been cast off. His portrait of Rudolf Hess comes to mind. I think, too, of those menders of the world who begin their mending with the murders of the Czar, his wife and children.

Tikkun Olam is filled with characters—human, all too human, not quite human, alive and suffering in their various tragedies—brought painfully and beautifully to life by Leo Yankevich.”—E. M. Schorb

“Leo Yankevich’s rich formalist poetry sings while it mourns. His poems bring us face to face with powerful and provocative images from more than one of those darkest of modern times–times when a terrible inhumanity was unleashed upon a culture, a folk, a Heimat. In tones both eloquent and raw, it asks of its readers no more and no less than what is regarded as the sacred duty of all those who survive: Remember. Do not let this be forgotten. This too happened. Yankevich, like Percy Shelley and Roy Campbell before him, is a courageously outspoken poet, and one who is destined to be remembered as an important classic long after his politically-correct contemporaries have forever fallen out of popular, and poetic, favor.”—Juleigh Howard-Hobson

CONTENTS

Part One
1. Tikkun Olam [2]
2. Moscow, 1928
3. Holodomor, 1932–33
4. Red Star, 1933
5. Barcelona, 1936
6. Naftaly Aronovich Frenkel
7. Kolyma, 1937
8. Lorca’s Death

Part Two
9. Neighbors, Eastern Poland, 1940
10. December, 1942
11. Vengeance is Mine, Says the Lord, 1943
12. With Blood on his Hands . . .
13. Koniuchy, Eastern Poland, 1944
14. Saint Bartholomew’s Church
15. 1945
16. Gleiwitz, 1945
17. Somewhere over Germany, 1945
18. Veteran’s Hospital

Part Three
19. After the Explusions
20. Ezra Pound Enters the Tent [3]
21. Dissident, 1962
22. Poland, New Year’s Day, 1982
23. A Hater Learns About Love
24. The Loneliest Man
25. The Death of Communism
26. Bukovina, 1989

Part Four
27. Sarajevo Sonnet
28. Draza Bregovich
29. Butugychag
30. Gulag Burial Marker
31. The Abandoned Station
32. The Last Silesian
33. An Interview with the Oldest Man In Europe
34. The Łemko Steeple
35. Starless

Part Five
36. A Plurality of Worlds
37. Water
38. The Poet of 1912
39. Anonymous Rex
40. How to Get There

Part Six
41. Spreading Democracy
42. Jenin, 2002
43. The Terrorist
44. After the Old Masters
45. No Flowers, No Doves
46. Two Dates
47. On the Beheading of Eugene Olin Armstrong
48. The July Sun over Lebanon
49. On the Lynching of Saddam Hussein
50. Black Ops [4]

Part Seven
51. A Warning to Dissidents
52. Halloween, 2006
53. The Condemned House
54. Understanding the Holocaust
55. Vision
56. Monomatapa on the Detroit River

About the Author

Leo Yankevich was born into a family of Roman Catholic Irish-Polish immigrants on October 30, 1961. He grew up and attended high school in Farrell, Penn., a small steel town in the Rust Belt of middle America. He then studied History and Polish at Alliance College, Cambridge Springs, PA, receiving a BA in 1984. Later that year he traveled to Poland to begin graduate study at the centuries-old Jagiellonian University in Krakow. A staunch anticommunist, he played an active role in the dissident movement in that country, and was arrested and beaten badly on a few occasions by the communist security forces. After the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989, he decided to settle permanently in Poland. Since that time he has lived in Gliwice (Gleiwitz), an industrial city in Upper Silesia.

Ordering Information

Hardcover: $25

Paperback: $16

E-book: $5.99 (not available for pre-order)

Available January 16, 2012

 


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

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/12/tikkun-olam-and-other-poems/

00:05 Publié dans Entretiens, Livre | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | |  del.icio.us | | Digg! Digg |  Facebook