mardi, 24 septembre 2013


00:09 Publié dans Evénement | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : événement, prague, république tchèque, kosovo | | | | Digg! Digg |  Facebook

mercredi, 28 décembre 2011

Václav Havel: The “Inner Enemy”

Václav Havel: The “Inner Enemy”

By Kerry Bolton


An inner enemy is more dangerous than an outer one, because while he seems to belong, he is actually a kind of alien. An inner enemy is dangerous in two respects: first because of his own activity, and second, because of his usefulness to the outer enemy. . . . After the War, the American occupation of Europe and the despoliation of Europe were made possible only by the Michel-stratum,[1] which hired itself out to the enemy to establish vassal-governments, churchill-regimes, in every province of Europe. During this period between the Second and Third World Wars,[2] the Michel as an American agent is more dangerous than he would otherwise be himself. The reason for this is the advance of History since the 19th century has rendered his whole world-outlook completely useless to him, even for purposes of sabotage, while to the Americans it is still useful as a means of control over Europe. Thus the Culture-diseases of Culture-retardation remains in the body of Europe only because of the American occupation.Francis Parker Yockey[3]

havel3.jpgVáclav Havel, the last president of Czechoslovakia and first president of the Czech Republic, died on December 18, 2011. His eulogies reveal him to be an excellent specimen for the study of the role of the “inner enemy” in the process of cultural pathology. In Havel we have a particularly devolved example of the Michel element that worked for the spiritual, political, cultural, and economic subjugation of the Western Cultural organism by the forces of cultural parasitism, distortion, and retardation. Indeed, the cultural pathologist can place him in the genus michelus along with such contemporaries such as Boris Yeltsin, Lech Wałęsa, and Mikhail Gorbachev.

The most apparent symptoms in identifying an apparently normal human as a member of genus michelus are the accolades received from media pundits and political and plutocratic luminaries, and in particular those directly from the organs of the Culture-Distorter. In this instance, like the much-lauded Gorbachev,[4] Havel receives his acclaim for the role he played in dismantling the Soviet bloc.

That the collapse of the Warsaw Pact was greeted with such acclaim and is remembered as “inspirational” by the Right, from nazis to conservatives, is an indication of the banality of much of the “Right,” which remains oblivious to the Soviet bloc having been the only major force of conservatism in the world, and to the USA being the global harbinger of decay.[5] This American role was recognized not only by Yockey, but also — approvingly — by Trotskyites, many of whom became avid Cold Warriors,[6] and by necon strategists such as Ralph Peters.[7]

Given that the Warsaw Pact was the only geopolitical entity that constrained American global hegemony, Havel’s contribution to its demise is lauded as a great victory for “democracy” and “freedom.” However, those are words that are used by many regimes and systems, no matter what their character, and have been euphemisms since the time of Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points for post-war international reconstruction in the image desired by the US for the subordination of all nations, peoples, and cultures to everything that is conjured by the word “America.”

Havel is said to have been an idealistic opponent of the consumerist ethic, yet what is one to think of an individual who allowed himself to be mentored and patronized by the likes of George Soros and flitted about among the luminaries of plutocracy? Solzhenitsyn did not allow himself to be used in such a manner by the forces of Culture Distortion nor did he succumb to their blandishments. Solzhenitsyn was a mystic, Havel, as will be shown, a seedy Zionist purveyor of cultural syphilis.

Havel’s critique of “The West,” like Solzhenitsyn’s was perceptive, stating: “There is no need at all for different people, religions and cultures to adapt or conform to one another. . . . I think we help one another best if we make no pretenses, remain ourselves, and simply respect and honor one another, just as we are.”[8]

Here was a cultural icon who obviously knew the processes of leveling that were taking place in the world, but who was nonetheless willing to let himself be used in their service, for the sake of nebulous sales pitches like “democracy” and “human rights.” Like the much lauded Gorbachev, Havel became an icon of manufactured dissent in the interests of international capital that pulls the strings behind the façade of “democracy,” and, as will be seen, of the Culture Distorters who had long been fearful of the directions being taken by the descendants of the Black Hundreds, and worried that the Warsaw Pact constituted a new Axis of the type predicted by Yockey in his final essay “The World In Flames.”

The “velvet revolutions” that were instigated, funded, and planned by the Soros network, National Endowment for Democracy, Freedom House, and dozens of others, were a prelude to the same types of revolt that continue to be inflicted upon the former Soviet bloc states and that are taking place under the mantle of the “Arab Spring.”[9]

“Rootless Cosmopolitanism”

The collapse of Czechoslovakia as part of the implosion of the Soviet bloc provides a special example of the role of Culture-Distortion. Other than Culture pathologists such as Yockey, the Soviet leadership following the ouster of Trotsky and the Old Bolsheviks, were fully aware of the destructive nature of cultural nihilism. Ironically, the Soviet bloc stood as the only significant bulwark against what Hitler had termed “cultural bolshevism.” While Yockey’s theory of Culture Pathology[10] shows that the presence of a foreign body in the cultural organism spontaneously creates the phenomena of Culture-distortion, Culture-retardation, and Culture-parasitism; these symptoms can also be consciously pressed into the service of politics.

Kulturkampf is a major part of the world offensives of both plutocracy and Zionism to the extent that at the very beginnings of the Cold War the CIA recruited sundry disaffected anti-Soviet socialists, and in particular Trotskyites, into the Congress for Cultural Freedom to try and subvert the Soviet bloc and impose “American” values over the world in the name of “freedom of artistic expression.” Their favored mediums were Abstract Expressionism and jazz.[11] The Congress was established under the figurehead of Professor Sidney Hook, a “lifelong Menshevik” who had organized a committee for the defense of Leon Trotsky at the time of the Moscow Trials, and a recipient of the Congressional Medal of Freedom from Ronald Reagan. Other Congress luminaries included Bertrand Russell, the pacifist CND guru who had sought a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the USSR in the interests of “peace.” The Congress promoted the type of art that had been exposed as subversive “rootless cosmopolitanism” by Stalin, et al., who correctly perceived it as part of a political offensive.[12]

The program of Kulturkampf against the Soviet bloc can be traced to Trotsky, always a very handy tool for international finance. In 1938 André Breton,[13] Mexican communist muralist Diego Rivera,[14] and Leon Trotsky issued a manifesto entitled: Towards a Free Revolutionary Art.[15] The manifesto was published in the Autumn 1938 issue of The Partisan Review, a magazine that was of significance in the Cold War-Trotskyite offensive. Trotsky, according to Breton, had actually written the Manifesto, which states:

Insofar as it originates with an individual, insofar as it brings into play subjective talents to create something which brings about an objective enriching of culture, any philosophical, sociological, scientific, or artistic discovery seems to be the fruit of a precious chance, that is to say, the manifestation, more or less spontaneous, of necessity. . . . Specifically, we cannot remain indifferent to the intellectual conditions under which creative activity takes place, nor should we fail to pay all respect to those particular laws that govern intellectual creation.

In the contemporary world we must recognize the ever more widespread destruction of those conditions under which intellectual creation is possible. . . . The regime of Hitler, now that it has rid Germany of all those artists whose work expressed the slightest sympathy for liberty, however superficial, has reduced those who still consent to take up pen or brush to the status of domestic servants of the regime. . . . If reports may be believed, it is the same in the Soviet Union. . . . True art, which is not content to play variations on ready-made models but rather insists on expressing the inner needs of man and of mankind in its time — true art is unable not to be revolutionary, not to aspire to a complete and radical reconstruction of society. . . . We recognize that only the social revolution can sweep clean the path for a new culture. If, however, we reject all solidarity with the bureaucracy now in control of the Soviet Union it is precisely because, in our eyes, it represents, not communism, but its most treacherous and dangerous enemy. . . .

The criterion for art given here by Trotsky seems more of the nature of the anarchism of Breton and of the future New Left than of the collectivist nature of Marxism. F. Chernov, whose important statement on the arts from a Stalinist viewpoint will be considered below, was to refer to such art as “nihilism.”

Given that the manifesto was published in The Partisan Review, which was later to receive subsidies from the CIA and the Tax-exempt Foundations as party to what became the “Cultural Cold War,” this Trotskyist art manifesto served as the basis for the art policy that was adopted after World War II by the CIA and the globalists as part of the Cold War offensive.[16] Trotsky wrote Towards a Free Revolutionary Art as a call for mobilization by artists throughout the world, to oppose on the cultural front Fascism and Stalinism, which to many Leftists and communists were synonymous:

We know very well that thousands on thousands of isolated thinkers and artists are today scattered throughout the world, their voices drowned out by the loud choruses of well-disciplined liars. Hundreds of small local magazines are trying to gather youthful forces about them, seeking new paths and not subsidies. Every progressive tendency in art is destroyed by fascism as “degenerate.” Every free creation is called “fascist” by the Stalinists. Independent revolutionary art must now gather its forces for the struggle against reactionary persecution.[17]

While the Congress for Cultural Freedom was established in 1949, and on a more formal basis in 1951, its origins go back to the defender of Trotsky, Professor Sidney Hook, who had established an embryonic movement of similar name in 1938, and who served as the figurehead for the Congress knowingly under the auspices of the CIA.

The Stalinists responded with a vigorous call not only to “Soviet patriotism” but also to the cultural legacy of the Russian people. If one were looking for a Marxist articulation of cultural theory, it would more likely be found coming from the official and semi-official agencies of the USA, rather than those of the Soviet bloc.

In 1949 a major article in the organ of the Central Committee of the Bolshevik party, Chernov condemned the infiltration of cosmopolitanism in Soviet arts, sciences, and history.[18] The article stands as a counter-manifesto not only to the Trotskyites and the “cultural cold war” of the time, but also as an enduring repudiation of modernism and rootless cosmopolitanism as it continues to manifest in the present age of chaos.

Chernov began by referring to articles appearing in Pravda and Kultura i Zhizn (“Culture and Life”), which “unmasked an unpatriotic group of theatre critics, of rootless cosmopolitans, who came out against Soviet patriotism, against the great cultural achievements of the Russian people and of other peoples in our country.” Chernov described this coterie as “rootless cosmopolitans” and “propagandists for decadent bourgeois culture,” while they were “defaming “Soviet culture.” The culture of the “West” is described as “emaciated and decayed,” a description with which any Spenglerian would concur. The “Soviet culture” referred to by Chernov is the classic “great culture of the Russian people” and should not be mistaken as a reference to the “communist culture” that one would have in mind when thinking of the mass and crass propaganda spectacles of Maoist China. By 1949 the highest Soviet authority, whose views Chernov must have been conveying, had perceived that the USSR was the target of broad-ranging cultural subversion: “Harmful and corrupting petty ideas of bourgeois cosmopolitanism were also carried over into the realms of Soviet literature, Soviet film, graphic arts, in the area of philosophy, history, economic and juridical law and so forth.”[19]

It seems that these “rootless cosmopolitans” were stupid enough to believe that they were in a State that was still pursuing Marxian ideas, despite the clear message that had been given during the Moscow Trials a decade previously,[20] along with the virtual extinction of the “Old Bolsheviks.” One, comrade Subotsky had, as presumably a good Marxist, sought to undermine the concept of nationality, and repudiate the idea of the heroic ethos that had become an essential ingredient of Soviet life and doctrine, especially since the “Great Patriotic War.” Hence Chernov wrote damningly of this “rootless cosmopolitan” whose views on culture seem suspiciously Trotskyite:

The rootless-cosmopolitan Subotsky tried with all his might to exterminate all nationality from Soviet literature. Foaming at the mouth this cosmopolitan propagandist hurls epithets towards those Soviet writers, who want “on the outside, in language, in details of character a positive hero to express his belonging to this or that nationality.”[21]

Chernov continued: “These cosmopolitan goals of Subotsky are directed against Soviet patriotism and against Party policy, which always has attached great significance to the national qualities and national traditions of peoples.” Chernov then described an “antipatriotic group” promoting “national nihilism” in theater criticism, this concept being, “a manifestation of the antipatriotic ideology of bourgeois cosmopolitanism, disrespect for the national pride and the national dignity of peoples.”

Chernov identified “rootless cosmopolitism” as part of a specific foreign agenda, which was certainly formalized that year – 1949 – with the founding of the Congress for Cultural Freedom:

In the calculation of our foreign enemies they should divert Soviet literature and culture and Soviet science from the service of the Socialist cause. They try to infect Soviet literature, science, and art with all kinds of putrid influences, to weaken in such a way these powerful linchpins of the political training of the people, the education of the Soviet people in the spirit of active service to the socialist fatherland, to communist construction.

Chernov warned with prescience of what is today called the “cultural cold war” as a part of the “ideological weapon” of encirclement:

The most poisonous ideological weapon of the hostile capitalist encirclement is bourgeois cosmopolitanism. Consisting in part of cringing before foreign things and servility before bourgeois culture, rootless-cosmopolitanism produces special dangers, because cosmopolitanism is the ideological banner of militant international reaction, the ideal weapon in its hands for the struggle against socialism and democracy. Therefore the struggle with the ideology of cosmopolitanism, its total and definitive unmasking and overcoming acquires in the present time particular acuity and urgency.

At the foundation of this “rootless cosmopolitanism” is the spirit of money. the worship of Mammon, and Chernov’s description is again prescient of the present nature of international capital:

The bourgeoisie preaches the principle that money does not have a homeland, and that, wherever one can “make money,” wherever one may “have a profitable business,” there is his homeland. Here is the villainy that bourgeois cosmopolitanism is called on to conceal, to disguise, “to ennoble” the antipatriotic ideology of the rootless bourgeois-businessman, the huckster and the traveling salesman.

Chernov cogently stated precisely the agenda of the “cultural cold warriors” that was about to emerge from the USA: “In the era of imperialism the ideology of cosmopolitanism is a weapon in the struggle of imperialist plunderers seeking world domination.” And so it remains, as will be outlined in the concluding paragraphs.

If any doubt remained as to what Chernov meant by nationalism as the bulwark against international capital, and that Stalinism was an explicit repudiation of Marxist notions of internationalism despite Chernov’s necessary ideological allusions to Lenin, Chernov makes it plain that it is precisely the type of nationalism condemned by Marx that was nonetheless the foundation of the Soviet State of the Great Russians:

National sovereignty, the struggle of oppressed nations for their liberation, the patriotic feelings of freedom-loving peoples, and above all the mighty patriotism of the Soviet people — these still serve as a serious obstacle for predatory imperialistic aspirations, they prevent the imperialists’ accomplishing their plans of establishing world-wide domination. Seeking to crush the peoples’ will for resistance, the imperialist bourgeoisie and their agents in the camp of Right-wing socialists preach that national sovereignty purportedly became obsolete and a thing past its time, they proclaim the fiction of the very notion of nation and state independence.[22]

Chernov showed that the USSR and the Soviet bloc considered their own historic mission not as the center for “world revolution,” the ideal of the Trotskyites, but as the bulwark against one-worldism, and condemned the USA as the homeland of internationalism:

In the guise of cosmopolitan phraseology, in false slogans about the struggle against “nationalist selfishness,” hides the brutal face of the inciters of a new war, trying to bring about the fantastic notion of American rule over the world. From the imperialist circles of the USA today issues propaganda of “world citizenship” and “universal government.”

The Role of Culture Distortion in Czechoslovakia: Charter 77, Plastic People of the Universe

This globalist Kulturkampf was directed with effect against the Soviet bloc. As can be seen from the seminal article by Chernov, the Soviet authorities knew precisely how this was being undertaken, and they remained conscious of it until overwhelmed by these forces. While the intelligentsia, the media, and their wire-pullers voiced their indignation and derision against the philistinism of the Soviet authorities, and their regressive character, and, like the Fascist aesthetic, the supposed “banality” of “socialist realism,” an examination of both the American sponsorship of cultural nihilism and the Soviet understanding of this, shows that the Soviets were correct in their suspicions.

The Czechoslovak Soviet authorities were regarded as ridiculous throwbacks for their actually rather lame efforts to keep their youth from the supposedly wonderful freedoms of their counterparts in the West. The Western liberal conception of art – which is the same as that formulated by Trotsky in his 1938 manifesto – is supposedly apolitical, harmless, a matter of individual taste and choice and other inanities typical of liberalism. However, leading strategists of American global hegemony to the present day are open in their lauding of the USA as both the leading revolutionary[23] state and the role of Culture-distortion in making a nation succumb to the blandishments of what Yockey termed the “ethical syphilis of Hollywood.”[24]

This globalist Kulturkampf in its present-day form has been described by neocon military strategist Ralph Peters, who worked at the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, and elsewhere, stating that, “We are entering a new American century, in which we will become still wealthier, culturally more lethal, and increasingly powerful.” Peters outlined a strategy for subverting nations and peoples reticent about entering the “new American century,” by way of Hollywood, pop icons, and the dazzle of technology,[25] imposing a type of soft servitude over the world of the type described in Huxley’s Brave New World.[26] As Peters and Huxley have perceived, youth in particular are unable to resist the temptation of the “soft” option, of ego-driven nihilism and what amounts s to “freedom” from responsibility, in comparison to the spartan regimentation of the Soviet bloc.

The “rootless cosmopolitanism” or Kulturkampf directed against Czechoslovakia centered around “pop” music. The Charter 77 manifesto was drafted and a movement formed after the imprisonment of fans of the rock band, “Plastic People of the Universe.” It is significant that this was catalyst for what became the “velvet revolution.”

The rot that was eating away within the Warsaw Pact was organizationally focused on groups such as Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia and Solidarity in Poland. These groups were instigated and funded by the network of currency speculator George Soros and an array of subversive, largely US-based and Government connected think tanks. When Charter 77 was co-founded by Havel in 1977, its manifesto was published by the Western media by pre-arrangement, in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Corriere della Sera, The Times of London, and Le Monde.[27]

Just how significant this Kulturkampf in the service of globalization is, and not merely as a matter of “free expression,” and individualistic “personal choice” or “taste,” etc., can be seen in the role the band Plastic People of the Universe (PPU) played in serving as a catalyst for the “velvet revolution.” The band is acknowledged as musically “unremarkable” yet its backers ensured that it became politically remarkable. Their origins go back to the Zionist-orchestrated revolt in Czechoslovakia in 1968.[28] The band obtained the assistance of Canadian music teacher Paul Wilson, then resident in Czechoslovakia. They became the “fathers of the Czech musical underground.”[29]

One commentator states that “an entire community of Czech dissidents sprung up around the band.” According to bassist and founding member Milan Hlavsa: “The Plastic People emerged just as dozens and hundreds of other bands — we just loved rock’n’roll and wanted to be famous. We were too young to have a clear artistic ambition. All we did was pure intuition: no political notions or ambitions at all.”[30]

Despite the expressions of naiveté by Hlavsa it was precisely the type of youthful nihilism that the CIA and plutocrats had been promoting in the West in the form of the “New Left” as a means of manipulating pseudo-dissent. It followed the formulae that had been prescribed by the Congress for Cultural Freedom, and which is still utilized.

Although the band’s professional license was revoked by the Government in 1970 they hedged around the regulations, and their music was released in the West. Lyrics for the “non-political” PPU were written by “Czech dissident poet Egon Bondy.”[31] What emerged around PPU was a so-called “Second Culture” or “Other Culture” which played at Music Festivals. There were arrests, but apart from a few, most were released due to “international protests.” Canadian Paul Wilson was expelled. The official indictment accused the bands of “extreme vulgarity with an anti-socialist and an anti-social impact, most of them extolling nihilism, decadence, and clericalism.”[32]

It was in support of this cultural nihilism that Charter 77 emerged as a movement, with Havel as the figurehead, Havel stating that PPU were defending “life’s intrinsic desire to express itself freely, in its own authentic and sovereign way.”[33] Havel began selecting lyrics for PPU. This supposedly “non-political,” innocent, artistic free expression has since been described by The New York Times as being “wild, angry, and incendiary,” and “darkly subversive.” The NY Times enthused that PPU “helped change the future direction of a nation,” stating:

Václav Havel, the music-loving former Czech president and dissident who championed the band’s cause when several members were imprisoned in 1976 for disturbing the peace, credits it with inspiring Charter 77, the manifesto demanding human rights that laid the groundwork for the 1989 revolution. “The case against a group of young people who simply wanted to live in their own way,” he recalled, “was an attack by the totalitarian system on life itself, on the very essence of human freedom.”[34]

It was, stated Bilefsky, “the ultimate rock ’n’ roll rebellion.”[35]

Paul Wilson reminisced that it was through music that the puerile ideals of manipulated Western youth were introduced to their Czechoslovak counterparts:

One of the things that was very marked in the 1960s was that although intellectuals found it very hard to get a hold of books it was very easy for kids to be right on top of things because records were brought in and the music was broadcast over Voice of America and other radio stations. So, there was a very current music scene here, with a lot of knock-off bands and a lot of fans of different groups just the way you’d find them in the West. The other thing, too, is that the Prague music scene, very early, attracted the attention of the western press, because for them the existence of rock bands in a communist country was a sign of change.[36]

Note that the Voice of America and other US agencies were promoting this movement.

Charter 77 & Soros

It was against this background that the Charter 77 Foundation was established in Stockholm. Soros relates that he had funded this since 1981. The movement “sprung into operation inside Czechoslovakia armed like Pallas Athena,” in 1989. Soros hastened to the country, and with Charter founder F. Janouch, set up committees in Prague, Brno, and Bratislava, and “I put $1 million at their disposal.” He then began paying the staffs of the Civic Forum party and the newspaper Lidove Noviny by currency speculation. Soros states that together with Prince Kari Schwarzenberg, a supporter of the Charter 77 Foundation, and acting President Marian Calfa, “we all agreed that it was imperative to have Vaclav Havel elected president by the current rubber-stamp parliament.”[37]

Havel, like Gorbachev, was duly recognized for services rendered. An exhibition in his honor was established at Columbia University in 2006, with support from luminaries such as Soros, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, [38] Richard Holbrooke, et al.[39] Havel served on the Board of Directors of Soros’ Drug Policy Alliance, designed to liberalize laws on narcotics, which might be viewed as part of the Soros agenda for undermining the stability of societies that are targeted for globalization, as part of a “liberal” and “progressive” agenda. One is here again reminded of the use of a narcotic, “Soma,” to keep the citizens docile in Huxley’s Brave New World; another cause that can moreover be portrayed as “radical” and “anti-Establishment,” while serving the “Establishment.” Among members on the “US Honorary Board” are such “progressives” and “humanitarians” as Former Secretary of State George P. Schultz, and former Reserve Bank Chairman Paul Volcker. The “International Honorary Board” includes, apart from Havel, Richard Branson, Sting, and Ruth Dreifuss.[40]

Havel became a member of the globalist elite, in attendance at their international conclaves for reshaping the post-Soviet world. One of these is the Club of Madrid,[41] one of many globalist think tanks that are designed to arrive at consensus on global governance among the self-chosen rulers. The Club of Madrid is a grant-making foundation set up in 2004 to raise funds for causes that promote the plutocratic version of “democracy.”[42] As one would expect, the omnipresent Soros is among the Club’s “President’s Circle of Donors.”[43] Havel was also an “Honorary Chair” of Freedom Now, a globalist organization with a cross-over of membership with the US globalist think tank, the Council on Foreign Relations.[44]

National Endowment for Democracy

Of particular interest is Havel’s association with the Congressionally-funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED), established in 1983 by Act of Congress. Havel is esteemed by NED, an organization intended to take over the role of the CIA in sponsoring “regime change.” NED was conceived by veteran Trotskyites whose hatred of the USSR turned many — including Trotsky’s widow Sedova — into rabid Cold Warriors, and from there into the present clique of neocons. NED was the brainchild of Tom Kahn, International Affairs Director of the AFL-CIO. He was a veteran of the Shachtmanite faction of American Trotskyism, which pursued an avidly anti-Soviet line. He had joined the Young Socialist League, the youth wing of Max Shachtman’s Independent Socialist League,[45] and the Young People’s Socialist League, which he continued to support until his death in 1992. Kahn was impressed by the Shachtmanite opposition to the USSR as the primary obstacle to world socialism.[46] At the outset of the Cold War Max Shachtman set his course, declaring: “In spite of all the differences that still exist among them, the capitalist world under American imperialist leadership and drive is developing an increasingly solid front against Russian imperialism.”[47]

In 2004 Havel received the American Friends of the Czech Republic (AFCR) “Civil Society Vision Award,” and was on the occasion eulogized by NED’s founding President, veteran Social Democrat Carl Gershman. AFCR appears close to globalism. Its Officers include former US Government functionaries such as Thomas Dine, of Radio Free Europe. The Treasurer and co-Director, Hana Callaghan, is a former advisor to Goldman Sachs.[48] Zbigniew Brzezinski, the rabidly anti-Soviet and Russophobic former US National Security, presently with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, is an AFCR “adviser,” as is fellow Russophobe, former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Another is Michal Novack of the neocon American Enterprise Institute.[49] Havel is listed as a sponsor of AFCR, along with George W Bush; former US Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright; James D. Wolfensohn, of the World Bank; Colin L. Powell, former U.S. Secretary of State. On the AFCR “Wall of Honor,” along with Havel are many corporates, including American International Group; Goldman, Sachs & Co.; Citigroup; J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.; David Rockefeller.[50]

In 2007 Havel received NED’s “Democracy Service Medal.” [51]

NED, like Soros, had been a major factor in the “velvet revolutions” throughout the Warsaw Pact states. This is termed by NED as “cross-border work” and had its origins “in a conference that was sponsored by the Polish-Czech-Slovak Solidarity Foundation in Wroclaw in early November of 1989.” According to Gershman:

That conference was the culmination of collaborative meetings and joint activities of Solidarity and the Workers’ Defense Committee in Poland and the Charter 77 dissidents in Czechoslovakia that began in October 1981, shortly before the declaration of Martial Law, and continued throughout the 1980s with gatherings on the “green border” of Poland and Czechoslovakia in the Karkonosze Mountains. The purpose of the Wroclaw conference was to support from the base of the new Polish democracy the dissident movement in Czechoslovakia in the hope that a similar breakthrough could be achieved there. Vaclav Havel was later to credit the conference and the cultural festival that accompanied it with helping to inspire the Velvet Revolution that occurred less than two weeks later.[52]

Gershman alludes to NED’s role in sponsoring the subversion that spread from Poland to Czechoslovakia:

It became clear to me from the many discussions I had with Polish activists in the aftermath of 1989 that they had a very firm and clearly thought through determination to support democracy in Poland’s immediate neighborhood and in the larger geopolitical sphere that once constituted the Soviet Bloc. This determination was partly based on moral considerations, since these activists had received support in their struggle from the NED, the AFL-CIO and others in the U.S. and Europe and felt an obligation to extend similar support to those still striving for democracy.[53]

Gershman states that this “cross border work” continues, and reaches today throughout the former Soviet Union in providing training.

The Zionist Factor

The offensive against the Soviet bloc was multi-faceted, and the fantasies of many “Rightists” to the contrary, the Soviet bloc was not only a bulwark against American hegemony, but also against the international ramifications of Zionism. The USSR became the principal enemy of American hegemonic interests with Stalin’s repudiation of the United National World Government and of the “Baruch Plan.” This repudiation was the catalyst of the Cold War, as noted by Yockey in his previously cited 1952 essay.

However, the message was clear to Zionism with the purging of Zionists and Jews in 1952, that the Soviet bloc, which had armed Israel at an early stage as part of a geopolitical plan for the Middle East, considered Zionism a primary enemy. The battle lines were drawn in Prague. Yockey regarded the trial of Jewish elements from the Communist party hierarchy on charges of “treason” as a symbolic gesture to World Jewry, stating that the event would have “gigantic repercussions” on the world. This was an “unmistakable turning point” as part of an historical process,[54] although I believe that it was part of a process that began as soon as Stalin assumed authority and eliminated the Trotskyites in 1928,[55] and Yockey does state in his 1952 essay that the purge was “neither the beginning nor the end.” Yockey stated that “henceforth, all must perforce reorient their policy in view of the undeniable reshaping of the world situation . . .”[56] Of course, most did not “reorient their policy,” and Hitlerites such as Arnold Leese, Colin Jordan, and Rockwell, and most old-line anti-Semites maintained the policy that “Communism is Jewish,” no matter what the “historical process,” and they claimed that the supposed Soviet opposition to Zionism was part of a Jewish hoax.[57] Nonetheless, history proceeds anyway . . . The Zionists themselves went frenetic from this point, while the Soviet bloc established Governmental departments to examine Zionism, and some of the best material on the subject came from the Soviet presses. Moscow became what Lendvai termed the “center and exporter of anti-Semitism.”[58]

Hence, in 1968 Zionists were a major factor in the first strike against the Soviet regime in Czechoslovakia. Zionists acknowledge this. The 1967 Arab-Israeli war “became the catalytic agent” for the disruption of the Czechoslovak regime. The regime had launched an anti-Zionist campaign during the war and was the first Soviet state after the USSR to sever diplomatic relations with Israel in 1967, and the first to send high-level military delegations to Egypt and Syria.[59] As with the revolt led by Havel, the liberal-infected intelligentsia were behind the effort to establish “socialism with a human face.” Letters and articles by disaffected elements protested against the regime’s anti-Zionist campaign, and these were read at the Czechoslovak Writers’ Congress of June 26–29, 1967. Ladislav Mnacko, the country’s most successful playwright, defiantly visited Israel, and condemned the Czechoslovak regime for its opposition to Zionism, with allusions to the 1952 purge.

A familiar theme emerged: supposedly “spontaneous” student protests, held on May Day, where youth carried Israeli flags and banners reading “Let Israel Live.” Students and faculty at Prague’s Charles University issued a petition calling for diplomatic relations with Israel to be resumed. This was followed by an appeal in the youth paper, Student, which announced the formation of a “Union of the Friends of Israel.” Student riots occurred in Warsaw, Poland, and the Communist party in Yugoslavia also condemned the anti- Zionist position of the Czechoslovaks.[60]

It seems difficult to imagine that all this sudden Zionist agitation arose “spontaneously,” any more than the “velvet revolutions” today occur “spontaneously” despite the same claims. TASS reported, “Israel and international Zionism had watched developments in Czechoslovakia closely since January 1968. . . . Israel as well as Zionist organizations in the United States and the West European counties have allocated huge sums to finance internal opposition in Czechoslovakia.”[61]

The pattern is the same as the actions of Soros, the NED, et al. in Poland, Czechoslovakia, and elsewhere. The attempt by Dubcek to install “socialism with a human face” was aborted by the Soviet military. The reconstructed regime was more avidly opposed to Zionism than ever. The Slovak Minister of the Interior, General Pepich, referred to “thirty-two foreign centers organizing subversive activities against Czechoslovakia,” including Zionist organizations operating from Austria.[62] Lendvai states that the Soviet invasion and its aftermath put an end to hopes by the Jews that the celebration of the Jewish millennium would be held in Prague. Few Jews were left, and only one rabbi.[63]

The subversion of Czechoslovakia had been long in the making. In 1951, shortly before the “treason trial,” William Oatis, Associated Press correspondent, was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment for espionage. In September 1968, Newsweek mentioned that he had had extremely wide connections in Czechoslovakia among Zionists. In 1957, a Secretary at the Israeli Embassy, Moshe Katz, was expelled from the country.[64] While Zionist apologists such as Lendvai insist that the pro-Zionist activism in Czechoslovakia that prompted the Russian invasion in 1968 was a spontaneous opposition to anti-Semitism, even he admits broadly to the allegations of the Soviet press and regime. Yuri Ivanov, in possibly one of the best books on World Zionism, writes:

A leading role in the Zionist activities was to be played by the inconspicuous “Main Documentary Centre” tucked away in Vienna. On the eve of the events in Czechoslovakia the Centre created a “daughter enterprise,” the Committee for Czechoslovak Refugees. It is significant that almost simultaneously a Centre for the Co-ordination of Fighters for the Freedom of Czechoslovakia was set up in Israel (which must have seemed a rather strange move, surely, to the ordinary Israeli, for whom the main thing in 1968 was the Israeli-Arab conflict).[65]

The Tel Aviv Zionist newspaper Maariv revealed the nature of the Centre’s activities in a routine report of October 6, 1968.

Yesterday the Co-ordination Centre sent a group of young Czech intellectuals resident in Israel to various European countries. The group’s task is to establish contact with Czechoslovak citizens outside the country. They are also to investigate the possibility of establishing contact with various groups inside Czechoslovakia. Part of the group is to go to Prague.

“The Co-ordination Centre in Israel,” the paper went on to say, “is becoming a world center of fighters for the freedom of Czechoslovakia. . . . Those who meet material difficulties and have insufficient means for activities in or outside Czechoslovakia are given material support . . . The Co-ordination Centre has prepared a program for organizing the publication of Literarni Listy, a paper which is the voice of democracy in Czechoslovakia. Contributions for this purpose may be sent to: Discount Bank, account No. 450055, Tel Aviv.”[66]

Zionist apologists do not explain the Soviet documentation on Zionism but broadly refer to Soviet contentions as being without merit and lacking credible evidence. The reader is invited to read the entire Ivanov book, which has been put online by Australian Nationalists.[67]

Havel Feted by Zionists

Hence, given the history of relations between Zionism and the Soviet bloc, and in particular Czechoslovakia, Havel readily endeared himself to the Zionists, as did Gorbachev.[68] As can be seen by comparing the modus operandi between the recent and present “velvet revolutions” in the Warsaw Pact states and the machinations of Zionism in Czechoslovakia in 1967–1968, there are many parallels. Eulogies quickly appeared for Havel throughout the world Zionist press.

Jewish World reported that the European Jewish Congress, “mourning the death” of Havel, issued a statement that, “Havel was known as a great friend of the Jews and did much to confront anti-Semitism and teach the lessons of the dark chapter of the Holocaust during his two terms in office.”

EJC President Dr. Moshe Kantor, who was a colleague of Havel’s on the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation, said that he would be sadly missed. “He was a figure for a new and modern Europe to emulate. President Havel lived through communism and led the Czech Republic to a new era helping move his countrymen through a troubled past to a more open, free and tolerant future. “President Havel was a true and steadfast friend of the Jewish people and will be missed by European Jewry.”[69]

Israeli President Shimon Peres described Havel’s death as “a loss for the entire world.” “Peres said that Havel was both his personal friend and a friend of Israel.”[70] The Jewish newspaper Forward relates the occasion that Havel attended the 1990 Salzburg Music Festival where he delivered a speech pointedly aimed at former UN Secretary General Kurt Waldheim (albeit without naming him) who was being pilloried for having fought with Germany during World War II, like most Austrians. As related by Forward, World Jewry found Havel’s moralizing humbuggery as the finest of sentiments, Havel ending with “confession liberates.” It is perhaps indicative of how low Havel would stoop to curry favor with those of wealth and power, and one might ask how much moral fortitude it takes to merely join the clamor of a global lynch party? Forward comments: “It was a quintessentially Havel-esque performance: deeply moral and slightly mischievous at the same time.”[71] Kirchick in the Forward article alludes to Czechoslovakia’s special role in opposing World Zionism, and Havel’s having pledged on New Year’s Day 1990 to re-establish diplomatic relations with Israel, which was done the following month. Kirchick continues:

In April of that year, Havel became the first leader of a free former Soviet bloc country to visit Israel. It was his second foreign trip as president of Czechoslovakia. . . . As president, Havel opposed the sale of weapons to regimes hostile to Israel, like Syria, a controversial move considering that communist-era Czechoslovakia (and Slovakia in particular) was a major exporter of arms to Soviet clients. Today, according to Israeli Ambassador Yaakov Levy, “the Czech Republic is considered by Israel to be its best friend in Europe and the European Union.”

In the early years of Czechoslovak independence, when many in the West worried about a resurgence of nationalism across the newly independent nations of the Eastern Bloc, Havel spoke out forcefully against anti-Semitism. Because of this, he became an enduring enemy of the nationalist right. In 1993, following the “Velvet Divorce” from Slovakia, a far-right party tried to block Havel’s election as president of the Czech Republic with a parliamentary filibuster, accusing Havel of being paid off in “shekels” by outside forces.

Havel continued to speak out for Israel and against anti-Semitism well after his retirement, in 2003. Last year, he co-founded the Friends of Israel Initiative, aimed at combating delegitimization of Israel in the realm of international institutions. Earlier this year, he criticized a Czech education ministry official revealed to have ties with far right organizations and Holocaust denial. When the man’s defenders said that his views should not have any bearing on his ability to hold a government job, Havel replied that he was “struck . . . that quasi-fascist or quasi-anti-Semitic or similar opinions should be expressed in one’s spare time, or during vacation, but not at the office. Yes, that’s it exactly: After all, a certain house painter also founded his party in a pub in Munich, not at the workplace.”

The above shows just how far Havel believed in “freedom.” Like all such “liberals” his liberality only extended to those who agree with liberal views. Havel was apparently happy to see a Government official purged from his job on the basis that he did not share Havel’s sycophantic attitude towards Zionism and plutocracy.

The author of the Forward eulogy, Kirchick, is a Fellow with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, yet another neocon Cold War II think tank founded after 9/11 to help ensure that “the new American century” comes to fruition. Funded by the likes of the Bronfmans, its “leadership council” includes a scabrous crew of neocon identities such as former CIA director James Woolsey, Steve Forbes of Forbes Magazine, Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, et al.[72] Its advisers include such familiar names as Charles Krauthammer and Richard Perle.[73] A founding Chair was Jean Kirkpatrick, veteran post-Trot neocon.[74]

According to FDD “Freedom Scholar,” neocon strategist Michael Ledeen,[75] he can’t watch a video of Havel’s funeral without “tearing up.” One might wonder whether he has the same reaction to footage of Palestinian children being shot by Israeli soldiers, of wars of destruction meted out by the USA on the civilians of Serbia, Iraq, and Libya? Tellingly Ledeen brings us back to a major theme of this article, writing of Havel:

Did I mention that he loved music? Both rock and jazz, because he recognized their subversive power. He loved Frank Zappa, and made him the Czech “cultural ambassador.” When Bill Clinton visited Prague in the mid-nineties, Havel took him to a seedy nightclub, where the American president played sax with the locals (and his wife, Dagmar, visited the club on a walking tour of the city shortly after Havel’s death) . . . Havel loved to write “absurdist” plays and poems. He was a true heir to Kafka. Like Kafka, he had an uncanny grasp of the dynamics and resulting horrors of bureaucracy. And, like Kafka, he was a Zionist.[76]

Havel, as the pundits enthuse, was a lackey of international capital and globalization. By Ledeen’s own account, Havel was a seedy Zionist. The neo-Trotskyite-Zionist-plutocratic network has “unfinished business,” ensuring that there is no resurgence of a Europe of the spirit, but only an edifice founded on Mammon, a Europe subordinated to NATO, of which Havel was an enthusiast, and the continuation of the policy of surrounding Russia, until that land also succumbs to the same forces that shaped and cultivated Havel.


[1] For a definition of the Michel element see Yockey, Imperium (Sausalito, Ca.: The Noontide Press, 1969), pp. 405–406.

[2] Ironically, in seeing an inevitable world conflict between the USA and the Soviet bloc, might Yockey not have been underestimating the power of the Culture-distorter to cause the implosion of the Soviets?

[3] F. P. Yockey, The Enemy of Europe (Reedy, W.Va.: Liberty Bell Publications, 1981), “The Inner Enemy of Europe,” p. 48.

[4] K. R. Bolton, “Mikhail Gorbachev: Globalist Super-Star,” Foreign Policy Journal, April 3, 2011, [2]

[5] K. R. Bolton, “Origins of the Cold War and how Stalin Foiled a New World Order,” Foreign Policy Journal, May 31, 2010, [3]

[6] K. R. Bolton, “America’s ‘World Revolution’: Neo-Trotskyist Foundations of U.S. Foreign Policy,” Foreign Policy Journal, May 3, 2010, [4]

[7] R. Peters, “Constant Conflict,” Parameters, Summer 1997, pp. 4–14. [5]

[8] Philip K. Howard, “Vaclav Havel’s Critique of the West,” The Atlantic, December 20, 2011, [6]

[9] K. R. Bolton, “Egypt and Tunisia: Plutocracy Won,” Foreign Policy Journal, June 28, 2011, [7]

[10] F. P. Yockey, Imperium, “Cultural Vitalism (B) Culture Pathology.”

[11] Frances Stonor Saunders, The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters (New York: The New Press, 1999).

Also see the CIA website: “Cultural Cold War: Origins of the Congress for Cultural Freedom, 1949-50”; [8]

[12] F. Chernov, “Bourgeois Cosmopolitanism and its Reactionary Role,” Bolshevik: Theoretical and Political Magazine of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) ACP(B), Issue #5, March 15, 1949, pp. 30–41.

[13] Breton was the founding father of Surrealism. Joining the Communist Party in 1927, he was expelled in 1933 because of his association with Trotsky. Breton wrote of Surrealism in 1952: “It was in the black mirror of anarchism that surrealism first recognised itself.”

[14] In Mexico Trotsky lived with Diego Rivera and then with Diego’s wife, the artist Frida Kahlo, having reached Mexico in 1937, where he had his brain splattered by a Stalinist assassin in 1940.

[15] Leon Trotsky, André Breton, Diego Rivera, Towards a Free Revolutionary Art, July 25, 1938.

[16] The Cold War was precipitated by Stalin’s rejection of the United Nations as the basis for a world government. Stalin insisted that authority be vested in the Security Council with members’ power to veto, rather than the American proposal of authority being with the General Assembly where the Soviets would always be outvoted. Secondly, the Soviets perceived that the Baruch Plan for the “internationalization of atomic energy,” would mean US control. K. R. Bolton, “Origins of the Cold War: How Stalin Foiled a New World Order,” Foreign Policy Journal, May 31, 2010, [3]

Yockey recognized the significance of this rejectionism by Stalin, writing of it in his 1952 essay “What is Behind the Hanging of the Eleven Jews in Prague?”

[17] Trotsky, Breton, Rivera, Towards a Free Revolutionary Art.

[18] Chernov, “Bourgeois Cosmopolitanism and its Reactionary Role.”

[19] Chernov, “Bourgeois Cosmopolitanism and its Reactionary Role.”

[20] K. R. Bolton, “The Moscow Trials in Historical Context,” Foreign Policy Journal, April 22, 2011, [9]

[21] Bolton, “The Moscow Trials in Historical Context.”

[22] Chernov, “Bourgeois Cosmopolitanism and its Reactionary Role.”

[23] In a nihilistic sense, insofar as America does not represent any high Idea, but was founded as an anti-Traditional revolt against Europe and on the basis of the political and ideological excrescences of Europe at its most decadent.

[24] F. P. Yockey, “Program of the European Liberation Front,” London, 1949, Point 5.

[25] Ralph Peters, “Constant Conflict,” Parameters, Summer 1997, 4–14. [5]

[26] K. R. Bolton, Revolution from Above: Manufacturing “Dissent” in the New World Order (London: Arktos, 2011), pp. 48–54.

[27] “Charter 77 After 30 Years,” The National Security Archive, The George Washington University,



[30] R. Unterberger, “The Plastic People of the Universe,”

[31] Unterberger, “The Plastic People of the Universe.”

[32] Unterberger, “The Plastic People of the Universe.”

[33] Unterberger, “The Plastic People of the Universe.”

[34] D. Bilefsky, “Czech’s Velvet Revolution Paved by Plastic People,” New York Times, November 15, 2009,

[35] Bilefsky, “Czech’s Velvet Revolution Paved by Plastic People.”

[36] J. Velinger, “The Impact of the Plastic People on a Communist Universe,” Radio Praha, May 31, 2005,

[37] G. Soros, Underwriting Democracy: Encouraging Free Enterprise & Democratic Reform Among the Soviets & in Eastern Europe (Jackson, Tenn.: Public Affairs, 2004), pp. 26–27.

[38] “Havel at Columbia,”


[40] Drug Policy Alliance, Dreifuss is a Swiss Social Democrat.

[41] Club of Madrid, Members,


[43] “Partners & collaborators,”

[44] Freedom Now, Honorary co-Chairs,

[45] Rachelle Horowitz, “Tom Kahn and the Fight for Democracy: A Political Portrait and Personal Recollection,” Dissent Magazine, pp. 238–39.

[46] Horowitz, “Tom Kahn and the Fight for Democracy,” p. 211.

[47] Max Shachtman, “Stalinism on the Decline: Tito versus Stalin, The Beginning of the End of the Russian Empire,” New International, vol. 14, no.6, August 1948, 172–78.

[48] AFCR, “Officers,”

[49] AFCR “Advisers,”



[52] C. Gershman, “Giving Solidarity to the World,” symposium on Solidarity and the Future of Democratization, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C., May 19, 2009,

[53] Gershman, “Giving Solidarity to the World.”

[54] F. P. Yockey, “What is behind the Hanging of Eleven Jews in Prague?”

[55] K. R. Bolton, “The Moscow Trials in Historical Context.” The canard that Stalin’s birth-name Dzhugashvili means “son of a Jew” in Georgian seems to be as etymologically sound as the British Israelite/Identity claim that Saxon means “Isaac’s Sons,” or the claim that Judah P. Benjamin was a “Rothschild relative.” A. Vaksberg, Stalin Against the Jews (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1994).

[56] F. P. Yockey, “What is behind the Hanging of Eleven Jews in Prague?”

[57] King Faisal of Saudi Arabia was a proponent of this theory, for example.

[58] P. Lendvai, Anti-Semitism in Eastern Europe (London: Macdonald & Co., 1971), p. 10.

[59] Lendvai, Anti-Semitism in Eastern Europe, pp. 260–61.

[60] Lendvai, Anti-Semitism in Eastern Europe, pp. 260–69.

[61] Lendvai, Anti-Semitism in Eastern Europe, pp. 290–91.

[62] Lendvai, Anti-Semitism in Eastern Europe, p. 294.

[63] Lendvai, Anti-Semitism in Eastern Europe, p. 296.

[64] Y. Ivanov, Caution, Zionism: Essays on the Ideology, Organization, and Practice of Zionism (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1970), chapter 5,

[65] Ivanov, Caution, Zionism, chapter 5.

[66] Ivanov, Caution, Zionism, chapter 5.

[67] Ivanov, Caution, Zionism, chapter 5.

[68] K. R. Bolton, “Mikhail Gorbachev: Globalist Superstar.”

[69] “EJC mourns death of Havel,” Jewish World,, December 19, 2011,,7340,L-4163744,00.html

[70] N. Mozgovaya, “Israel President: Vaclav Havels’ death loss for entire world,”, December 18, 2011,

[71] J. Kirchick, “Havel was friend of Israel and Jews: Czech Playwright-Turned-President Led Region to Right Path, The Jewish Daily Forward, December 20, 2011,

[72] FDD Team, Leadership Council,

[73] FDD Team, Board of Advisers,


[75] Former consultant to the National Security Department, Defense Dept., and State Dept., media pundit.

[76] M. Ledeen, “Havel, Kafka and Us,” FDD, December 21, 2011,

Article printed from Counter-Currents Publishing:

URL to article:

jeudi, 07 octobre 2010

Deutsch im Elsass und in der Tschechei

Deutsch im Elsaß und in der Tschechei

Von Thomas Paulwitz


Strasbourg15.jpgIn der Regel hat es die deutsche Sprache im Osten leichter als im Westen. Die Zahl derjenigen, die Deutsch als Fremdsprache lernen, sinkt in den westlichen Ländern schneller als in den östlichen. Eine Ausnahme bilden offenbar Frankreich und die Tschechische Republik. Im Elsaß zum Beispiel gibt es kräftige sprachpolitische Maßnahmen, das Deutsche zu fördern, während die tschechische Regierung den Einfluß der deutschen Sprache zugunsten von Englisch systematisch eindämmt.

Bemerkenswert ist in beiden Fällen, daß die Frage der Identität eine entscheidende Rolle spielt. Ausgerechnet der fortgeschrittene Verlust des Bewußtseins, daß das Elsaß historisch zum deutschen Sprach- und Kulturraum gehört, ermöglicht eine Wiederbesinnung auf die deutsche Sprache. Denn die wirtschaftliche Anziehungskraft der Bundesrepublik wird nunmehr wichtiger genommen als die kulturelle Absetzbewegung nach Frankreich. In elsässischen Tageszeitungen enthalten siebzig Prozent der Stellenangebote den Hinweis, daß der Arbeitgeber Deutschkenntnisse voraussetzt.

Elsässischer Werbefeldzug für Deutsch

Folglich erklärt Philippe Richert, der Präsident des elsässischen Regionalrats: „Das Beherrschen der deutschen Sprache ist für unsere Region längst nicht mehr nur eine Identitätsfrage. Deutschkenntnisse sind ein ausschlaggebender wirtschaftlicher Trumpf.“ Zwei Drittel der elsässischen Schüler und fast alle Grundschüler der 3. bis 5. Klasse lernen Deutsch. Zehn Prozent der Grundschüler werden sogar in zweisprachigen Klassen unterrichtet. Doch das erscheint vielen noch nicht als genug. Daher werben mittlerweile die Behörden für das Lernen der deutschen Sprache. Die Mittel für den Werbefeldzug wurden von 2009 auf 2010 auf 190.000 Euro verdreifacht. Das Werben für Deutsch wird von den wichtigsten politischen Instanzen gemeinsam mit der Straßburger Schulbehörde getragen.

Ganz anders sieht es in der Tschechischen Republik aus. Die dortige Regierung will sich in ihren sprachpolitischen Entscheidungen offenbar noch weiter von Deutschland entfernen. Anfang August beschloß das Parlament auf Vorschlag des rechtskonservativen Ministerpräsidenten Petr Nečas, daß Deutsch künftig nicht mehr als erste, sondern frühestens als zweite Fremdsprache gelehrt werden darf. Der Koalitionsvertrag legt außerdem fest, daß ab 2012 Englischunterricht ab der dritten Klasse verpflichtend ist. Bereits jetzt lernen schon 618.000 Schüler Englisch, aber nur noch 111.000 Deutsch.

Deutsch als erste Fremdsprache in der Tschechei verboten

Wirtschaftliche Gesichtspunkte haben bei der Entscheidung der Prager Regierung offenbar keine Rolle gespielt, denn Deutschland ist der größte ausländische Investor. Der Handel mit der Bundesrepublik macht fast ein Drittel des gesamten Außenhandels der Tschechischen Republik aus. Die Leiterin der Spracharbeit des Prager Goethe-Instituts befürchtet, daß die tschechischen Schüler im späteren Berufsleben ohne Deutschkenntnisse Schwierigkeiten haben werden. Da erscheint es als wirtschaftlich wenig sinnvoll, die Bürger vom Deutschunterricht abzuhalten.

Es scheint also so zu sein, daß man sich in Prag lieber der Amerikanisierung an den Hals wirft, als die Standortvorteile zu nutzen, zu denen die derzeit noch verbreitete Kenntnis der deutschen Sprache gehört. Ein Leser tadelt auf der Facebook-Seite der Deutschen Sprachwelt die Prager Entscheidung: „Meines Erachtens sollte man überall in Europa Englisch als 1. Fremdsprache verbieten. Wer diese erste Fremdsprache lernt, lernt keine zweite. Es handelt sich nicht um ein Bildungsprogramm, sondern um ein Kulturassimilierungsprogramm.“

jeudi, 08 juillet 2010

Pour Vaclav Klaus, le projet européen a échoué...



Pour Vaclav Klaus, le projet européen a échoué...

Le Président tchèque Vaclav Klaus a demandé aux pays d’Europe centrale et orientale de se méfier de toute adhésion à la zone euro. “L’Union monétaire européenne a échoué”, a écrit l’homme politique tchèque, que l’on classera comme un “libéral de droite”; il vient de s’exprimer dans les colonnes de la revue économique allemande “Wirtschaftswoche”. La zone euro, a-t-il ajouté, n’est pas un “espace monétaire optimal” car sa constitution procède en première instance d’une décision politique. Raison pour laquelle le projet de l’euro sera poursuivi en dépit de ses déboires économiques. “On a tant investi de capital politique dans la monnaie commune, destinée à devenir l’élément cimentant d’une Union Européenne orientée vers les idées de supranationalité, que l’on n’y renoncera pas, du moins, me semble-t-il, dans un avenir prévisible”, prognostiquait Klaus. Le prix à payer pour cet entêtement, selon l’homme politique tchèque, est le suivant: “Moins de croissance économique et davantage de transferts financiers pour les pays qui font face à de plus grands problèmes économiques et financiers”. De ce fait, Klaus estime que “nous, les Thcèques, n’avons pas commis l’erreur d’avoir adhéré à la zone euro”.

(source: “Junge Freiheit”, Berlin, n°26/2010).


-          Il est vrai que l’euro connaît des problèmes, mais ces problèmes ne sont pas dus aux mauvaises analyses posées par ses créateurs européens dès le départ. Ces problèmes récents découlent de spéculations contre certains pays plus faibles de la zone euro et de l’aire méditerranéenne, des spéculations qui émanent de milieux financiers d’Outre-Atlantique.

 -          L’origine américaine de cette spéculation fragilisante doit appeler à une vigilance paneuropéenne contre les milieux financiers. La réponse doit donc être politique et judiciaire, avec, pour objectif, 1) de sanctionner avec la plus extrême sévérité le crime de spéculation et d’envisager une répression féroce dans les milieux bancaires, lie des sociétés dites “modernes” et 2) de maintenir au moins le statu quo, c’est-à-dire de maintenir le pouvoir d’achat des masses et la protection sociale qu’on leur a promise.

 -          La faiblesse de l’euro, et partant de l’Union Européenne, vient d’une incapacité à désigner l’ennemi américain, à médiatiser et vulgariser ce fait d’inimitié dans les masses, et de croire à la bonne foi des dirigeants de Washington. L’Europe  ne sera pas politique tant qu’elle ne désignera pas l’ennemi  (car il est impossible de faire de la politique de manière profonde et sérieuse si on ne le désigne pas), tant que ses médias ne le fustigeront pas de manière inlassable et tant que son personnel politique marinera dans la naïveté, qui consiste à croire que les Américains sont l’incarnation du “Bien”, les adjudants du Tout-Puissant sur la Terre et les “libérateurs” de l’Europe. 

 -          Cet ensemble de spéculations contre la zone euro, notamment en Grèce, survient au moment où les Etats du groupe BRIC (Brésil, Russie, Iran, Chine) ou du Concert de Shanghaï ont émis l’hypothèse de facturer leurs hydrocarbures ou matières premières en euro, afin de mettre un terme à l’hégémonie du dollar et à faire du monde une multipolarité de pôles économiques et politiques pour ne plus subir les diktats énoncés au sein de l’actuelle unipolarité. Il faut y penser. Et il faut le dire, le clamer sur toutes les ondes.

 -          Les lamentations de Vaclav Klaus participent de la désinformation, visent à ébranler la confiance des masses dans l’euro et dans la construction européenne. On sait aussi que le gouvernement tchèque est philo-atlantiste dans sa politique internationale, alors que chaque pays européen devrait envisager de se dégager de la cangue atlantiste pour construire à terme un système de défense euro-centré voire eurasien (dont les frontières se situeraient en Méditerranée, sur le littoral Arctique de l’Islande au Détroit de Bering et sur les côtes de l’Océan Indien). Dans les faits, Vaclav Klaus tente de créer une sorte de zone-tampon, un ventre mou ou une masse de manoeuvre gélatineuse et empêtrante, entre les vieux pays fondateurs du “Marché Commun” en 1957 et l’espace russo-eurasien, afin de freiner toute fusion eurasienne, démarche qui condamnera toute l’Europe au marasme sur le long terme. Cette zone-tampon est déclarée “Nouvelle Europe” et parée de toutes les vertus (libérales): dans les faits, elle est tributaire de l’hyperpuissance, fragmentée en petites puissances incapables d’assumer une véritable indépendance et les voix que ces petites puissances pourraient émettre dans les instances décisionnaires ou dans les hémicycles parlementaires européens empêchent l’éclosion d’un consensus paneuropéen et d’une véritable volonté d’union.

lundi, 31 août 2009

EEUU renuncia al escudo antimisiles en Polonia y Republica Checa

EEUU renuncia al escudo antimisiles en Polonia y República Checa

La administración del presidente estadounidense, Barack Obama, renunció al despliegue de elementos del escudo antimisiles en Polonia y en República Checa, afirmó este jueves el diario polaco Gazeta Wyborcza, citando varias fuentes de Washington.

“Las señales enviadas por los generales del Pentágono son absolutamente claras: el gobierno de Estados Unidos busca, en lo referente al escudo antimisiles, otras soluciones a las bases en Polonia y en República Checa”, según un miembro del lobby a favor del escudo, Riki Ellison, citado por el diario.

Durante una conferencia de expertos del departamento de defensa hace una semana, “los generales no han mencionado ni una sola vez los planes respecto a Polonia y a la República Checa”, subrayó Ellison.

“Desde hace unas semanas, el gobierno sondea la reacción del Congreso al abandono de los planes de instalación del escudo en Polonia y República Checa”, afirma Gazeta Wyborcza, citando una fuente anónima en el Congreso.

En 2008, Varsovia y Washington alcanzaron un acuerdo sobre el despliegue de aquí a 2013 en Polonia de diez interceptores de misiles balísticos de largo alcance, a lo que se añadía un potente radar en República Checa, un proyecto global al que Rusia se opuso, al considerarlo una amenaza para su seguridad.

La administración de Obama se propone reexaminar el proyecto de escudo antimisiles lanzado por su predecesor, George W. Bush, en respuesta a la amenaza de países como Irán.

Según Gazeta Wyborcza, la administración de Obama desearía instalar misiles interceptores en unos barcos y en bases en Israel y en Turquía, y “quizás en alguna parte de los balcanes”.

Extraído de AFP.

~ por LaBanderaNegra en Agosto 27, 2009.

vendredi, 24 juillet 2009

Le Canada impose le visa aux Tchèques à cause de la minorité tzigane




Le Canada impose le visa aux Tchèques à cause de la minorité tzigane



OTTAWA / PRAGUE : Le gouvernement canadien a récemment, en ce mois de juillet 2009, réintroduit l’obligation d’un visa d’entrée pour les ressortissants tchèques, alors qu’il l’avait supprimée en 2007. La raison qui explique cette mesure drastique: le flux ininterrompu de Tziganes de citoyenneté tchèque qui arrivent au Canada comme touristes et puis demandent l’asile politique. De janvier à avril, les autorités canadiennes ont signalé 1077 cas de “Roms” tchèques qui réclament l’asile politique afin d’obtenir ce qui pend à la clef: des allocations sociales substantielles. Pendant l’année 2008, ces mêmes autorités n’avaient signalé que 861 cas. Le Canada avait déjà connu une vague d’immigration tzigane en 1996/1997, ce qui l’avait amené à imposer le visa. Le ministre tchèque des affaires étrangères Jan Kohout a manifesté son mécontentement: “On n’agit pas de la sorte avec un pays dont on partage l’adhésion à l’OTAN et dont les soldats se battent côte à côte en Afghanistan”. En tant que membre de l’UE, Prague ne peut pas prendre l’initiative d’imposer le visa aux citoyens canadiens; seul Bruxelles est autorisé à le faire.


(article paru dans “Junge Freiheit”, Berlin,  n°30/2009).

samedi, 29 novembre 2008

Le Sénat tchèque approuve le déploiement d'un radar US


ABM: le Sénat tchèque approuve le déploiement d’un radar US


Le Sénat tchèque (chambre haute du parlement) a approuvé jeudi, par 49 voix sur 81, le déploiement d’un radar antimissile américain sur le territoire tchèque.

Les sociaux-démocrates et les communistes ont voté contre le projet, présenté jeudi au Sénat par le premier ministre tchèque Mirek Topolanek.

Washington envisage de déployer en Europe de l’Est des éléments de son bouclier antimissile pour parer à d’éventuelles attaques venant d’Iran ou de Corée du Nord. Les Etats-Unis comptent ainsi installer un radar en République tchèque et dix missiles intercepteurs en Pologne. Moscou, se sentant menacé, a exprimé à plusieurs reprises son hostilité envers ce projet malgré les tentatives américaines visant à rassurer la Russie.

Malgré le feu vert du Sénat, c’est toutefois à la Chambre des députés (chambre basse du parlement) qu’incombe l’essentiel du processus de ratification, qui pourrait se prolonger jusqu’au printemps prochain.

Les projets de déploiement d’une base ABM américaine en République tchèque ont divisé la classe politique en deux camps. A la Chambre des députés, la ratification est soutenue par le Parti démocrate civil au pouvoir dans le pays, mais qui ne bénéficie pas de la majorité au parlement. Une partie des Verts, membres de la coalition dirigeante, s’opposent également au déploiement du radar. Le Parti social démocrate tchèque, principale force d’opposition, votera contre l’installation du radar. Les communistes tchèques se proposent également de voter “contre” et exigent de tenir un référendum sur cette question.

Selon les résultats de sondages d’opinion, les deux tiers de la population de la République tchèque sont hostiles à l’installation du radar ABM américain dans le pays.

vendredi, 15 août 2008

La "Légion Tchèque" en Russie





La “Légion tchécoslovaque” en Russie


A la mi-août 1914, le Tsar va à l’encontre d’une demande des Tchèques vivant en Russie, qui veulent constituer des unités autonomes dans l’armée impériale russe. Sur la Place Sainte-Sophie de Kiev, les premiers éléments de cette légion tchèque prêtent bientôt serment de fidélité à l’autocrate de toutes les Russies. Il s’agit de quatre compagnies de fantassins, dont les soldats se nomment eux-mêmes “Ceska Druzina”, la “suite tchèque”; ils veulent à tout prix libérer leur patrie de la domination autrichienne. Les journaux russes considèrent cet engagement comme une curiosité, voire une bizarrerie: ils appellent cette petite troupe la “Légion Hussite”.


Dans le cadre de la 3ème Armée russe, les “Hussites”, commandés par le Lieutenant-Colonel Lokocky, réussisent leur mission: faire de l’agitation panslaviste dans le dos de l’ennemi. En octobre déjà, près de Jaroslaw en Galicie, des éléments du 36ème Régiment d’Infanterie austro-hongrois et du 30ème Régiment de la Landwehr se rendent sans avoir résisté. Mais le coup de maître des “Hussites” a eu lieu le 3 avril 1915. Au Col de Dukla dans les Carpathes, le 28ème Régiment d’Infanterie, composée essentiellement de ressortissants tchèques, et plus de 1400 hommes du Régiment de la Place de Prague passent avec armes et bagages dans le camp russe. Mais ce ne fut pas tout: lors des combats le long de la San, les 26 et 27 mai, de nombreux soldats du 18ème Régiment d’Infanterie de Königgrätz, du 21ème Régiment de Tschaslau et l’entièreté du 98ème Régiment d’Infanterie de Hohenmauth désertent. Ces régiments étaient tous composés de soldats récrutés ou mobilisés dans des régions tchèques.


La plupart de ces soldats, qui venaient de rompre leur serment, n’a pas envie de poursuivre la guerre; seuls peu de transfuges s’engagent dans la Légion, dont les 1673 hommes (fin 1915) demeurent majoritairement des Tchèques de Russie. En décembre 1916, la Légion compte 2500 soldats; ce nombre est vraiment réduit, si on tient compte que 50.000 à 60.000 soldats tchèques de l’armée impériale autrichienne sont prisonniers des Russes; leurs sentiments sont toutefois peu loyaux à l’endroit de Vienne, comme l’atteste le témoignage de nombreux codétenus allemands ou hongrois, auxquels, ostensiblement, ils ne manifestent aucun esprit de camaraderie. Certains essaient d’amadouer les gardiens russes en leur disant qu’ils sont “leurs frères slaves”, ce qui ne leur rapporte que des coups.


Sur pression de leurs alliés occidentaux, courtisés par Masaryk et Benes, le Ministère des Affaires Etrangères du Tsar accepte en février 1917 la constitution d’une armée tchèque autonome en Russie. Les “Hussites” de la première heure inondent alors les camps de prisonniers de tracts appelant à l’engagement dans cette nouvelle armée mais les résultats sont maigres. Le nouveau gouvernement Kerenski à Saint-Pétersbourg regarde cette agitation avec méfiance mais ne souhaite pas contrarier Paris et Londres.


Dans la foulée de l’offensive Broussilov, les trois régiments de la Légion Tchèque (désormais forte de 3530 hommes) se retrouvent le 2 juillet 1917 près de Zborov, une localité de Galicie, située entre Lvov et Tarnopol, face au 35ème régiment d’Infanterie de Pilzen (61% des hommes sont tchèques), au 75ème Régiment d’Infanterie de Neuhaus, autre ville de Bohème (le Régiment compte plus de quatre cinquièmes de Tchèques) et à une unité croate. A la suite du travail de sape et d’agitation des “Hussites”, ce corps de troupes impériales et royales austro-hongroises, se rend après un bref combat; en tout, 62 officiers et 3150 hommes. Seules quelques unités, essentiellement allemandes et croates, résistent avec acharnement malgré le risque de prendre une balle dans le dos, meilleur moyen pour les déserteurs de se frayer un passage vers l’ennemi.


Plus tard, la République tchécoslovaque célèbrera le combat de Zborov comme le jour de la naissance de l’armée nationale; les “Hussites” ont effectivement gonflé cette victoire sans combat pour en faire un mythe héroïque. Même les alliés occidentaux tombent dans le panneau et soutiennent la Légion. A la fin de l’année 1917, la Légion Tchécoslovaque, qui se donne désormais ce nom alors qu’il n’y a que 3% de Slovaques parmi ses effectifs, compte désormais 35.000 hommes car bon nombre de prisonniers accordent foi aux promesses qui leur sont faites ou fléchissent devant les pressions. Mais les belles promesses ne se concrétisent pas: à l’automne de 1917, plus aucun approvisionnement ne parvient de Russie, les Tchèques sont obligés de réquisitionner des stocks; d’autres marchandises sont saisies sans autre forme de procès, comme l’admit Masaryk lui-même. La Paix de Brest-Litovsk met la Légion tchèque dans  une sale position: elle risque d’être livrée à l’Autriche-Hongrie. Les Bolcheviks accordent le 15 mars 1918 un laisser-passer à la Légion, à la condition toutefois qu’elle n’intervient pas dans les conflits internes de la Russie. Masaryk décide d’évacuer ses hommes vers le Pacifique en empruntant le Transsibérien; ensuite, ces soldats embarqueront à Vladivostok pour parcourir la moitié du globe et aller garnir le front français. Le 25 avril, effectivement, les premiers légionnaires tchèques atteignent le port sibérien d’Extrême-Orient; en mai, 14.000 autres soldats les rejoignent, en une douzaine de tenues différentes, sans armes, car les partis de la guerre civile russe les leur ont prises, en guise de péage pour les laisser passer.




Au printemps de 1918, l’état-major britannique conçoit un plan: faire passer une partie de la Légion par Arkhangelsk et l’amener sur le front occidental. Ce plan déclenche une grosse agitation dans les rangs des “Hussites”; un grand nombre d’entre eux cultivaient sans nul doute des arrière-pensées; il valait mieux, pensaient-ils, effectuer un très long voyage par le Transsibérien, attendre un navire sur les côtes du Pacifique, traverser le plus grand océan du monde et faire ainsi le tour du globe. A ce moment-là, spéculaient-ils sans doute, la guerre serait finie et ils échapperaient tous au front de France, auquel aspiraient prétendument les forts en gueule et les Svejks de la nouvelle Légion.


La ville de Tchéliabinsk dans l’Oural fut alors le théâtre de querelles et de bagarres, où l’abus de vodka ne fut certes pas étranger, entre Tchèques et Bolcheviks. Pour cette raison, Trotski ordonne le 25 mai, dans une circulaire télégraphiée, de désarmer immédiatement les légionnaires tchèques. Cet ordre fut vain car le long du Transsibérien les soldats de l’Armée Rouge sont trop peu nombreux et rassemblés dans des bandes désordonnées; ils ne feront pas le poid devant les légionnaires tchèques armés jusqu’aux dents. Très rapidement, les principales gares de la voie de chemin de fer entre la Volga et Vladivostok tombent aux mains des légionnaires tchèques.


Le 18 juin 1918, ils prennent la ville de Troïk et y commettent une hécatombe; parmi les victimes, beaucoup de prisonniers austro-hongrois de langues allemande ou hongroise. Le 10 août, Kazan tombe à son tour aux mains de la Légion Tchèque. Dans la ville prise, ils s’emparent des réserves de devises de la Banque Impériale Russe de Saint-Pétersbourg, qui y avaient été entreposées. En tout, 651 millions de roubles-or.


Ennivrés par leurs succès, dû à la faiblesse des effectifs de l’Armée Rouge et à l’inexpérience de ses combattants, et excités par les Alliés occidentaux, qui répandant la légende de la coopération étroite entre les puissances centrales et Lénine, la Légion se pose alors en dominatrice de la Sibérie. Le comportement des légionnaires à l’endroit de la population est épouvantable.


Mais le sort des armes, d’abord favorable aux légionnaires tchèques, n’a pas duré. En septembre, les Rouges attaquent et leurs succès sont fulgurants. Mais les Tchèques ont suffisamment de temps pour faire partir 250 trains de marchandises pillées, de munitions et d’armes. La Légion démoralisée quitte alors les rives de la Volga et se replie vers l’Est, en même temps que l’Amiral Koltchak, ancien commandant en chef de la flotte de la Mer Noire et désormais chef des armées blanches. Koltchak et les Tchèques ont désormais partie liée.


En dépit des défaites, le nombre de légionnaires ne cesse de croître car, à Prague, le 28 octobre 1918, naît officiellement la République tchécoslovaque indépendante; beaucoup de prisonniers avaient attendu ce moment pour se joindre à la Légion et pour rentrer le plus vite possible en leurs foyers, en toute légalité. A la fin mai 1919, l’ensemble de la Légion se trouve en Sibérie occidentale, entre l’Oural et le Lac Baïkal. En Europe, la guerre est finie. Les Tchèques ne veulent plus qu’une chose: partir.




Lorsque les Rouges prennent Irkhoutsk et barrent aux légionnaires la route de l’Est, les Tchèques sacrifient l’Amiral Koltchak et livrent le 15 janvier 1919 leur ami et allié aux Bolcheviks, afin de pouvoir fuir librement vers l’Est, vers Vladivostok. Quelques jours plus tard, le malheureux amiral blanc fit face au peloton d’exécution. Plus tard, les Tchèques, la mort dans l’âme, doivent abandonner le trésor russe pris à Kazan. Mais pas entièrement. Sur le dernier tronçon du Transsibérien, le long du fleuve Amour, les troupes japonaises font face aux Rouges et permettent aux Tchèques de passer. Beaucoup de Tchèques utilisent l’or et l’argent de Kazan pour faire des transactions importantes. Ils achètent, à des prix très nettement inférieurs à ceux du marché, du cuivre (quelque 740.000 tonnes), du coton (5600 tonnes), du caoutchouc (5000 tonnes) et du salpètre (2500 tonnes). Plus de vastes quantités de cuir, de peaux et de machines. A Vladivostok, la Légion réquisitionne vingt-huit wagons transportant des pneus de camion, pour une valeur de 38 millions de roubles. En plus, les légionnaires, pillent la résidence du consul du Danemark, dont les objets d’art précieux se sont retrouvés en 1922 dans le Musée National de Prague.


Gerburg Thunig-Nittner écrit dans son ouvrage de référence sur la Légion Tchèque, paru en 1970: “On n’expliquera jamais complètement comment les légionnaires, à titre individuel, ont acquis cette immense fortune, qu’ils ont rapporté dans leur pays. On ne pourra jamais prouver, non plus, quelles sont les parties de cette fortune qu’ils ont acquises en toute régularité et quelles sont celles qu’ils se sont appropriées de manière illégale. Mais qu’en ce domaine, ce soit seule la loi du plus fort qui ait primé, voilà qui est hors de doute”.


Le retour au pays, via le Grand Océan, commença le 9 décembre 1919. Les “Svejks” peinaient sous le poid de leur butin. Immanquablement, cette situation nous amène à méditer le “Ring des Polykrates” de Schiller, où l’on trouve les vers suivants: “De trésors étrangers richement chargée/ revient dans les eaux de la patrie/ la forêt des bateaux aux nombreux mâts” (“Mit fremden Schätzen reich beladen/  Kehrt zu den heimischen Gestaden/ Der Schiffe mastenreicher Wald”).



(article paru dans “zur Zeit”, Vienne, n°35/2006; trad. franç. : Robert Steuckers).

mardi, 22 juillet 2008

The Czech project "Delian Diver"


The Czech project “Delian diver”

(as explained at the Euro-Rus conference having taken place in Flanders on June 28th, 2008).

The introducing of “Delian Diver”

We regard our project as an unique attempt in the central European area, especially in the territory we are joint with- in concrete the countries of former Czechoslovakia, nowaday`s Czech and Slovak Republic. Our impulse for establishing such platform was the well founded perception of lasting informational vacuum in Czech Republic, a sort of artifically maintained status quo of “the death caused by silence”, which puts the bar on spreading the ideas of various thinkers of European Resistance Movement and information about varied identitary movements and organizations which operate all over Europe or are led by people of European descend overseas. Unfortunately this kind of informational vacuum includes the scope of  “nonconformist identitary underground” penetrated only by incomplete information and fragmentary news.

More than 40 years of darkness, informational and linguistic embargo has logically resulted in the impossibility of keeping the pace with actual European trends and ideas in the domains of no support by the oppresive communist regime and official massmedia.

We respect the freedom of speech regarding it as one of the most important values of  functional society, therefore we are not going to resort to newspeak bringing back the orwellian world, also we don’t respect any kind of either legal or non-written norms of political correctness and worshipping the liberal democracy as a “golden calf” in terms of  the evangel of its own kind within the rule of New World Order.

On the other side we don`t want to be “showly incorrect” just by reason of some “teenage” rebelion and negation. First of all our aim is to hold a free and open discussion involving European and global themes, bare of new prejudices of those who on the grounds of false fundamentals aim for their historical elimination. Nothwithstanding the fact that by proclaiming ourselves as “politically incorrect” we display our awareness of existence of something “politically correct”. There is just one truth and in accordance with Dr. Sunic we deem one of the main contemporary focuses is to clear the liberal lexical junk off our discursus.

We are the representatives of the nation of European civilisational sphere, which is exposed to situation being indisputably unique in the whole history of mankind- delegation of its power to the agents of  the global universalist doctrine striving for absolute uprooting of an individual from his natural structure and his effective enslavement by both open and latent covered methods. We are aware of  the succesful or unsuccesful attempts to exterminate the whole ethnic or broader civisisational entities in the course of history, but almost always it was the result of the pressure imposed on that entity by an external enemy, not of the dominating flagellatory suicidal voices from within.

Simultaneously we have been manipulated into the participation on the global conflict which doesn`t reflect our interests, moreover without the understanding of its causes and consequences. We refuse to tend blindly to the atlanticists` desire for distribution of liberal and and multicultural “worldwide hapiness key” irrespective of geographical, cultural and historical conditions, as like as we can`t bear to be the silent witnesses of spreading and enforcement of the alien authentic cultures and religions progressively gaining more and more influence at the European continent.

We would like to become a free platform of ideas whereby its objective is the rennaisance of European civilization and redefinition of its cultural essence in the environment of 21. century. In the age of new millenium the “long march” of hostile forces which had commenced centuries ago in conjunction with “fukuyamic” faith in the end of history and free thinking by reaching the longed-for absolute can bring the fatal results.

We found ourselves in the situation when we feel no shame to copy the well-proven methods of our ideological oponents in the effort to preserve our essence, for instance we are inspired by dateless analysis by Antonio Gramsci, who had highlighted the importance of seizing the cultural area of every society which implies political changes, not reversely.

First and foremost we will put our effort in self-education, cognizing of so far unrecognized and eventual transmitting of our conclusions to the territories, where the current situation is similar as in Czech Republic. Consequently some prolific discussions should happen, as well as creating of vital and reasonable ideological doctrines.

It is extremely difficult to be successful in the contest for the “reconquiste” of Europe without any intellectual groundwork widely influencing the socio-cultural sphere. We welcome any prospective political layouts getting inspiration in our activities, in that case they will be provided with our support, but as we have already suggested, Delian Diver strictly rejects to take part in real institucional politics.

Although we feel loyality to our nation and are bound with its interests, there is no way for isolationism in Europe of our age. A solitary nation hardly survives without strong bonds of common civilizational values. Therefore we would like to contribute to the process of creating strong, long-lasting and productive relations within Euro-Russian territorry, one of our main targets is to provide our help and support to the representatives of other European countries, who share our views and would like to establish a similar ideological platform. First and foremost we are focused on neighbouring Slovakia, which has been the closest country to Czech Republic in terms of culture and history in the central European area.

Situation after 1989

In 1989 the rigid Bolshevik communism had been “withdrawn from circulation” in accordance with the worldwide pattern (respectively its post 68´ model of  “real socialism“) Reigning marxism-leninism had been defeated by liberalism (its illusory ideological enemy and counterpart), this ideology was considered as an inprospective and obsolete doctrine. There a massive boom of interest in democratic political activities was regarded for the reason of people`s faith in almightiness of parliamentary democracy and its mechanisms ensuring the development of  plurality of public views without the surveillance of state censorship. The ideology of egalitarian multicultural liberalism has prevailed.

Even in the field of pro-national politics we could have traced back the exeptional growth of activities, say in two waves: the first one, straight after 1989, where an anticommunist and patriotic enthusiasm prevailed, the second one took place in 90`s as a result of social shocks (which happened due to unruly privatisation of the state assets, collapses of the big state owned companies and uncontrolled tunneling of newly founded bank institutions) and implied a mass disillusion. Unfortunately even despite this disillusion has deepened  mainly due to pompous arrogance of Czech government which recognized the puppet state of Kosovo and agreed upon the American bid to install a radar in our territory, there hasn`t been taken advantage of potential for progressive mobilization against the System which still exists from now on.

Whom to blame?

Various subjects (either political parties, movements, its coalitions or civic corporations) have been established just for their future dissolution which seemed to be inevitable after the first particular unsuccess. The reasons have been mainly the personal profiles of the involved persons, unsophisticated populist ideas or the struggle of fractions in the process of permanent splitting for the inability to settle even on the basic consensus.

Delian Diver is not going to reiterate the old mistakes of then leading subjects possesed ambitions in real politics, we are walking down the different way.

Now let`s analyse out the repetitive blunders and conclude an answer to this fundamental question – What to do?

The questions which must be asked by a person willing to be involved in European Resistance Movement are:

1.       Does it make any sense to work within the framework of the System and political structures?

Our clear answer is – NO! We are not willing to make compromises in the name of sleazy populism and our atractiveness in the eyes of masses, also our desire is not to abide party`s directives and bylaws which in fact reflect only the selfish effort of the political parties` representatives longing for the lucrative posts in the limelight of glory and personal prosperity. Their goals don`t match the ours, as their real effort is to eliminate the other competitors of similar interests.

We prefer quality over quantity and substantiality over emptied form, what means we have got no ambitions to embark on political stages just as the next prophets of the only universalist truth having the cure to salve the material needs of majority. Our focus is not the parliament, posts in the council of administrators assured by servile loyality to the real agents of “democratic” politics- the global capital or constituting the purpose-built alliances with our oponents just for temporary pragmatic reasons.

We have chosen the non-parliamentary way by creating the independent intellectual platforms  engaged in the structures of system on a minimum scale respecting just the basic legal framework (like the norms embedding the founding of civic corporations, conducting the accounting procedures, also the elimination of any violent conduct is a must by any means)

These independent and radical intellectual platforms should clearly stand up against:

-          all pro-national political parties and movements which haven`t ever brought any real effect and its former ideological clarity and drive has merged into the swamps of democratism

-          the representatives of the “old right” which have commited themselves to the excesses of nacism or longing for “good old times”

-          the neoconservative vision of an inevitable connection between defending Europe against islamisation and defending Israel and his interests proclaiming the Jewish culture is an integral part of the European civilisation

Just by this strict rejection of current System we can avoid the assured organisational decay, create the new inspiring cultural environment and lead the European Resistance Movement out of the intellectual ghetto.

2.       How should these platforms be created and operated?

The European resistance movement needs to preserve its figting power and avoid the common mistakes which can cause the final failure. The key lies in an imminent touch between its members, whose communication is based on personal bonds. The basics are:

-          intentional rejection of operating within the structures of the System- in particular at the political stage which contains all the risk factors resulting in failures- wide, vertically organised, financially demanding structure, which is open to public for it can be easily infiltrated by the agents of the System

-          the absence of large-scale organizational structure which can be controlled and influenced by the System and vulnerated by the pressure imposed on it by its ideollogical opponents

-          the absence of vertical organizational structure which obstructs the excessive personal ambitions which can be secretly used to act against the whole by the opponents

-          minimal financial demandingness of the platforms` establishing, which enables their quick forming and minimizes the possibility of “financial infiltration” by the individuals or groups acting according to System`s agents` or ideological opponents` interests

-          tactical dropping of  the old phraseology automatically branded as rasist and compared to nazists` racial theories and virulent antisemitism (reduction ad Hitlerum). The reforming of  the European resistance movement`s discursus does by no means signify we have diverged of the main objective: the contest for preserving of the European physical, cultural and spiritual heritage. The newly defined discursus primarily means assuring the mistakes of the past won`t be commited again

3.       What forms should these platforms possess?

By abandonement of the collaboration with the System`s elements in the form of political participation on the distribution of power, organizational structure and obsolete phraseology these platforms are open to various intellectual sources of ideas whose goals can match those of European resistance movement even despite possible differences between each other.

Communication, inter-personal cooperation and multilingual presentation within the scope of broader platform (geographically in Euro-Russian territory, culturally in every area where people of European descent live – USA, Canada, South Africa, Australia, etc.) can be considered as a growing necessity (and conditions sine qua non) of resultful activities.

This strategy can be implemented by these platforms in the form of student clubs, discussion groups, circles of readers, virtual blogs and any other meaningful microcommunity (hereby we would like to highlight the role of women within this movement, environmental activities, revitalization of the ancient religious systems, etc.)  These cultural patterns create the sources of maintaining and expressing the European Resistance Movement`s ideas.

4.       What is the role of an individual in this process?

It is not an imminent urgency to create just the platforms, the activities within the framework of European Resistance Movement can also acquire the shape of individual cultural protest against “spirit of the age”. The mutual cooperation and the exchange of ideas between these platforms and “forrest walkers” (or „partisans of modern age”) contribute the cells of resistance to create and maintain themselves and to infiltrate the domains, where are not expected by the System which has not been prepared for their presence and activities yet.

5.       What does “European Resistance Movement” mean?

The network of cooperating platforms creates the substrate for the brand new movement – European resistance movement. Eventually this movement will be working as an interconnection between various groups, platforms and individuals, who will share the collective identity endeavouring for the change of current social climate and restitution of the European society`s organic structures (cultural, social and mental).

It is inevitable at least for leading groups and individuals to gain the ideal identity and background which can be formed as the result of  intellectuals` debates, proclamations and essays. There is no shame for us to admit we are not afraid to copy the deconstructional tactics commonly applied by our ideolocical opponents, especially by:

-          defining and labelling the enemies of European Resistance Movement

-          recognition and description of pros and cons of our ideological opponent`s identities

-          the analysis and deconstruction of this intellectual identity

-          proposals for changes of social climate and reconstruction of an organic system

6.       How are these platforms supposed to cooperate?

As it has already been suggested the basic is a proximate contact between its members, in the international scope we can cite one of the conclusions drawn at the conference called “The White World`s Future“ held in Moscow in 2006- „the imminent contact has been made via internet, by creating the webportals, personal blogs and through the participation on the international conferences, education trainings and meetings.”  

It is simply not possible to embrace the whole matter just in one speech, therefore after setting this primary process off there are more crucial topics to be discussed at further conferences refered to creating the System`s antipodes by establishing the paralel structures and institutions (for instance home schools, other educational institutes and possibly universities, economically autarchic communities, as for internet activities the creating of self-publishing houses, holding virtual exhibitions, etc.)  

Sic semper tyrannis!

Delian diver´s team.