Ok

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

dimanche, 13 mai 2018

La société ouverte contre l’Europe et la Moldavie

moldova_trans-map.gif

La société ouverte contre l’Europe et la Moldavie

par Pierre-Antoine Plaquevent

Ex: http://www.les-non-alignes.fr

Voici la version écrite d’une conférence donnée au cours du colloque : « L’Europe, une civilisation politique ? La politique pour éviter la guerre ». Colloque organisé par les éditions « BIOS » en partenariat avec les éditions « Le retour aux sources ». J’y intervenais aux côtés de Robert Steuckers, Tomislav Sunic, Alessandro Sansoni et Laurent Hocq. ERTV couvrait l’événement. 

Au cours de cette conférence j’ai rappelé l’importance (déjà évoquée début 2018) des rencontres non-alignées de Chișinău ainsi que la place de la Moldavie dans le contexte géopolitique actuel. J’ai ensuite développé les différentes technologies politiques employées afin de déstabiliser puis de recomposer les équilibres des régions convoitées par le globalisme. En fin de conférence j’ai évoqué quelques pistes qui pourraient nous permettre de concevoir nos propres outils de cyberpolitique ; ceci afin de contrer l’ingénierie métapolitique qui est employée contre les populations par les forces de la société ouverte. 

Je profite de l’occasion pour signaler à nos lecteurs, la parution prochaine d’un livre sur ces thématiques aux éditions du Retour aux sources. Il s’agit d’une étude approfondie que j’ai réalisée durant les derniers mois sur la méthodologie et l’idéologie des réseaux Soros et plus largement sur la notion de « société ouverte ». La société ouverte comme projet métapolitique de transformation et d’ingénierie social furtif ; un projet qui se rattache à un courant d’idées et de pratiques politiques qui modèlent et traversent toute l’histoire contemporaine. Ce premier livre politique se veut à la fois un travail d’investigation autant qu’un exposé de la philosophie politique du globalisme. A suivre prochainement …

Pierre-Antoine Plaquevent

Forum de Chișinău, une plateforme non-alignée contre le globalisme

L’événement métapolitique le plus important de la fin de l’année 2017 fût sans conteste le second forum eurasiste de Chișinău. Un colloque qui fera date, tant par l’appui que lui a apporté l’exécutif moldave que par la qualité de ses participants et de leurs interventions. De par la variété des intervenants et du public présent, on peut dire que populistes et conservateurs se sont retrouvées à Chisinau en décembre dernier afin de penser et de projeter l’alternative possible à la marche en cours vers le globalitarisme. L’ensemble des conférences et travaux du colloque sont disponibles sur le site moldave flux.md/fr dont Iurie Rosca est le rédacteur en chef ainsi que sur le site du saker : lesakerfrancophone.fr ou encore sur geopolitica.ru.

Igor Dodon, un président illibéral et continentaliste sous pression

Cet événement qui a reçu l’appui de l’exécutif moldave se tenait dans un contexte géopolitique difficile : la Moldavie s’efforçant de maintenir une position d’équilibre entre Est et Ouest, entre Union-Européenne et Union Eurasiatique malgré les tensions entre Occident et Russie. Le Président de la République de Moldavie, Igor Dodon, a ainsi évoqué le rôle stratégique que peut jouer la Moldavie en se positionnant comme interface géoéconomique et géostratégique entre l’Union Européenne et l’Union Eurasiatique.

Ainsi, après s’être défini comme « résolument souverainiste », Igor Dodon a rappelé lors de son discours inaugural la nécessité de revenir à la vision gaullienne d’une Europe-puissance et à l’axe stratégique Paris-Berlin-Moscou comme alternative à la construction européenne actuelle. Pour le président Dodon, la voie de l’indépendance pour une nation de la taille de la Moldavie passe par le multilatéralisme et le non alignement plutôt que par l’unipolarité et l’adhésion univoque à l’agenda occidental.

Le président Dodon a aussi évoqué la situation économique critique de la Moldavie qui se trouve face à une grave hémorragie de ses forces vives en direction de l’Union-Européenne. Une hémorragie qui ne pourra être freinée que par une relocalisation partielle de l’économie moldave.

moldavie-geopo.jpg

Dans cette perspective, Igor Dodon s’était prononcé en 2017 en faveur d’une annulation par son parlement de l’accord commercial signé avec l’Union européenne en 2014, espérant ainsi rétablir des relations économiques normalisées avec la Russie. Une position qui lui vaut d’être mis en difficulté par le parlement moldave où les élus pro-UE sont majoritaires.

La République de Moldavie se caractérisant par un régime parlementaire, le Président Dodon n’a qu’une  marge de manœuvre réduite mais il s’efforce par tous les moyens à sa disposition de maintenir la Moldavie dans une position d’équilibre entre Russie et UE.

Pour le Président  Dodon seul un patriotisme économique stratégique est en mesure de transcender les différences culturelles internes de la Moldavie et les tensions identitaires que pourraient être tenté d’attiser les forces de la Société Ouverte.

Peuplée d’une population russophone nombreuse et d’une grande minorité russe, la Moldavie peut connaître un scénario de type ukrainien : à savoir une agitation politique envers un président jugé trop proche de la Russie, agitation qui pourrait être suivi de provocations inter-ethniques attisées depuis l’étranger. L’équilibre politique moldave étant fragilisé par la question de la Transnistrie.

plahotniucerdogan.jpg

Vlad Plahotniuc en compagnie d'Erdogan

Le rôle de l’oligarque Vlad Plahotniuc

Évoquons ici le rôle de l’oligarque Vlad Plahotniuc dans les manœuvres qui visent à destituer l’exécutif moldave. Un article du centre de presse de Donetsk résumait dans les grandes lignes la situation politique moldave :

« Récemment, la Cour constitutionnelle a décidé de suspendre les pouvoirs de l’actuel président de la Moldavie, Igor Dodon (NDA : le 5 janvier 2018). (…) La tension dans la république est liée à l’opposition entre le président pro-russe Igor Dodon, l’opposant Renato Usatii et le bloc politique pro-européen dirigé par Vlad Plahotniuc. L’oligarque Plahotniuc est, depuis décembre 2016 , le chef du Parti Démocrate. Il est intéressant de noter qu’en même temps, officiellement, il n’est pas membre du parti. Aujourd’hui, Vlad Plahotniuc n’occupe aucun poste au gouvernement, mais reste un homme qui contrôle pleinement l’économie, le pouvoir législatif et exécutif dans un petit État, sans aucune responsabilité en tant que fonctionnaire. »

Dans cette perspective les prochaines élections législatives qui devraient se tenir en novembre 2018 constitueront un test. D’après le centre de presse de Donetsk :

« Le rejet de Plahotniuc et de son gouvernement atteint 80 % selon les sondages. Dans de telles circonstances, la dernière chance pour Vlad Plahotniuc de rester au pouvoir sera de provoquer l’escalade du conflit en Transnistrie et de lancer un appel à l’UE et aux États-Unis pour qu’ils exigent une protection contre l’agression russe. »

Et l’article du centre de presse de Donetsk d’expliquer : « Il y a un an, la Moldavie était au bord d’une guerre civile entre citoyens pro-russes et pro-européens. Compte tenu de l’augmentation significative des sentiments pro-russes dans le pays ces dernières années, nous ne pouvons pas exclure le scénario ukrainien en Moldavie. »

Fractures géopolitiques et enjeux énergétiques

La Moldavie se trouve aujourd’hui sur l’une des lignes de fracture de la tectonique géopolitique contemporaine qui voit se confronter unipolarité et multipolarité. Petit État d’environ 4 millions d’habitants, la Moldavie est enclavée entre : la Roumanie à l’Est (Roumanie qui est une pièce majeure du « containement » de la Russie par l’Otan) ;  l’Ukraine occidentale au nord et l’Ukraine proche de la Russie sur ses frontières de l’Est. Une situation qui place d’emblée la Moldavie comme pivot stratégique des enjeux géopolitiques de la région.

Un autre facteur qui éclaire les enjeux régionaux se trouve être la présence massive de réserves de gaz dans le sous-sol moldave. Sur ce sujet, le Président Igor Dodon s’est à nouveau confronté à son gouvernement : en mars 2017, il a ainsi demandé de rendre public les dessous de la concession qu’aurait accordé le gouvernement moldave à la société américaine Frontera Resources International LLC. D’après cet accord, le gouvernement moldave céderait  une grande partie de son territoire (principalement dans la région autonome de Gagaouzie) pendant 50 années extensibles ; ceci afin de permettre à la société américaine d’effectuer des prospections visant à identifier les sources de pétrole et de gaz de schiste présentes dans le sous-sol moldave.

Lorsque l’on connaît les risques liés à l’extraction du gaz de schiste, les inquiétudes du président Dodon sont plus que légitimes à l’échelle d’un pays de la taille de la Moldavie. Dans ce domaine le ministère de l’écologie moldave, aurait par ailleurs évité de publier précisément la partie de l’accord relatif à la méthodologie d’exploration des sols. Une concession qui aurait de plus été accordée à la société Frontera, sans que les organes de la région autonome de Gagaouzie en aient été informés.

dodonpoutine.jpg

Le Président Dodon et Poutine.

Il est important de noter que le fondateur de la société de prospection Frontera, Steve Nicandros, est l’un des membres importants de l’Atlantic Council, l’un des think-tanks atlantistes les plus influents. Un think-tank qui coopère régulièrement avec l’Open Society de George Soros sur ce qui touche aux affaires Est-européennes. Ce même Steve Nicandros est aussi à l’origine de la rencontre aux États-Unis entre l’oligarque Vladimir Plahotniuc qui contrôle l’opposition au président Dodon et Victoria Nuland, sous-secrétaire d’État des USA pour l’Europe et l’Eurasie jusqu’en 2017. Épouse du théoricien néo-conservateur Robert Kagan, Victoria Nuland est l’une des figures de proue et architecte du changement de régime advenu en Ukraine en 2014.

Moldavie / OTAN / Fédéralisme identitaire / Shismogenèse

C’est dans ce contexte que de très fortes pressions sont exercées sur la Moldavie afin de la faire adhérer à l’Otan. Là encore, Igor Dodon est en opposition avec son gouvernement : le ministre de la défense Eugen Sturza étant favorable à une intégration progressive de la Moldavie dans l’Otan là où Igor Dodon est – selon ses termes – opposé à « l’entrée de la Moldavie dans l’OTAN et d’autres alliances militaires, et à la participation de nos soldats et officiers à des opérations militaires à l’étranger ».

Sur cette question, un article de 2017 de Iurie Rosca nous offre une mise en perspective historique éclairante :

« Après avoir convaincu Saakachvili de mesurer son potentiel militaire avec celui de la Russie en 2008, l’aventure s’est conclue par la perte de deux parties du territoire national géorgien, territoires devenues des sujets de droit international et des protectorats de Moscou. Après avoir incité le nouveau régime de Kiev à des actions imprudentes en 2014, qui ont entraîné des hostilités militaires massives, des pertes humaines considérables, la prise de la péninsule de Crimée par la Russie et la sécession de facto des régions orientales du pays aspirant à Séparés de l’Ukraine, les stratèges américains ont atteint leur objectif : la Géorgie et l’Ukraine ont été amenés à détériorer leurs relations avec la Russie (au détriment de leurs propres intérêts nationaux) ce qui les a conduit au besoin de demander la protection américaine face au « danger russe ». »

Une manœuvre habile, qui s’insère dans un ensemble de procédés plus large comme le rappelle encore Iurie Rosca : « L’histoire montre que les stratèges anglo-saxons sont les maîtres les plus fins, les plus pervers et les plus expérimentés dans l’art de stimuler le nationalisme partout dans le monde, selon leur avantage impérial et au grand malheur des peuples aveugles, utilisés dans ces jeux géopolitiques sales et sanglants. »

S’appuyer sur des nationalismes « proxy » afin de miner l’homéostasie d’un État-nation ou d’un groupe constitué évoque aussi ce que le politologue Andrew Korybhko dénomme le fédéralisme identitaire.

Dans un article intitulé : « Fédéralisme identitaire : de l’unité à la scission » , il décrit la manière dont cette division et cette parcellisation organisée des Etats-nations constitue une caractéristique centrale de l’impérialisme contemporain. Il explique ainsi, qu’à l’opposé du mot d’ordre inscrit sur le grand sceau des Etats-Unis « E Pluribus Unum » (Un à partir de beaucoup), le mode d’exercice du pouvoir par le globalisme consiste en fait à éclater l’unité en multiplicité ; ce qui est très précisément l’idéal de la gouvernance globale et de la société ouverte.

On notera au passage que cette idée d’une division des grands ensemble jusqu’en leurs éléments constitutifs les plus minimes, constitue une tendance profonde de l’esprit post-moderne ; idée que l’on retrouve aussi dans la physique contemporaine et qui conduit à vouloir dissoudre le réel dans son ontologie même.

sorospubl.jpg

La société ouverte contre les peuples natifs-européens

Ce fédéralisme identitaire évoque aussi la notion de shismogenèse. Un concept utilisé en ethnologie et qui fût théorisé par l’anthropologue Grégory Bateson, un auteur qui, tout comme Karl Popper, inspire les vues sociologiques de George Soros. Dans le livre « Underwriting democracy » – au sous-titre explicite « encouraging free enterprise and democratic reform among the Soviets In Eastern Europe » – George Soros explique l’influence qu’ont eu sur sa pensée les travaux de anthropologue Gregory Bateson.

Dans ses travaux d’anthropologie, Gregory Bateson a précisément étudié la manière dont des groupes humains au départ homogènes se séparent et se différencient. C’est en partie de ce domaine de recherche que sera tirée la technologie politique qui permet aux forces de la société ouverte de fracturer et de remodeler les nations et les groupes humains selon leur agenda. L’empire avance en divisant, en fracturant, en émiettant, en pulvérisant les peuples, les États et les valeurs qui les fondent.

Rappelons qu’après avoir servi dans le renseignement militaire américain durant la seconde guerre mondiale comme anthropologue au sein de l’OSS (l’ancêtre de la CIA), Gregory Bateson deviendra l’un des pères de la cybernétique, une discipline centrale de l’ingénierie sociale. (NDA : Dans l’étude à paraître aux éditions du Retour aux Sources, j’expose les liens qui unissent la notion de société ouverte avec le domaine de l’ingénierie sociale.)  

En conclusion il convient de rappeler que l’impérialisme contemporain peut avoir recours à différentes stratégies qui couvrent le plus large champ possible : depuis l’aide humanitaire et l’appui aux groupes minoritaires jusqu’à l’agression militaire pure et simple, en passant par toutes les nuances possibles de l’ingérence.

La Moldavie est en ce sens l’un des nombreux théâtres d’opération contemporain pour les forces de la société ouverte.

Que faire ? Métapolitique et influence stratégique 

Face à cette fracturation organisée de nos populations et de nos territoires, de notre sol, de notre sang et aussi de notre esprit par les divisions inter-religieuses exacerbées de l’extérieur, que faire ?

Il nous faut créer les outils de notre émancipation et de notre emprise sur le monde contemporain à l’exemple de la méthodologie mondialiste : instituts de recherches, outils d’influence médiatique ou bien encore, pourquoi pas, des chambres de commerce non-alignées qui mettraient en place les conditions de partenariats économiques – même de petite échelle au départ – ceci dans la perspective des nouvelles possibilités économiques qu’offrent les nouvelles routes de la soie et le développement de pôles économiques eurasiatiques.

Créer du politique là où les forces de la société ouverte veulent dissoudre le politique. En ce sens, la coopération Orient et Occident contre le Moloch globaliste est un impératif catégorique de notre temps. Le soutien mutuel et stratégique des forces hostiles à la marche forcée vers la société ouverte est fondamental. L’unipolarité déclinante est un animal malade qui n’admet pas « l’esprit du temps » de notre époque ; un esprit qui est celui du changement et du renouveau dans le recours à la Tradition. Le monde unipolaire – le vieux monde et son projet cosmopolitique réactionnaire et anachronique – est un animal malade mais encore dangereux : il cherche à allumer des incendies partout où il le peut, ceci afin de pallier à sa perte de légitimité et de contrôle. Face à lui, le monde multipolaire est encore dans les douleurs de l’enfantement. C’est à nous, non-alignés contemporains, de l’aider à naître par notre maïeutique métapolitique et par nos capacités d’anticipation et de perception des changements de civilisation qui sont en cours.

Par nos capacités à saisir et à comprendre les transformations silencieuses à l’œuvre dans le monde, transformations qui s’opposent à la logique de subversion planétaire de la société ouverte et de ses réseaux tout autant qu’au choc des civilisations qui en découle. Société ouverte et choc des civilisations qui se renforcent l’un l’autre et  participent ainsi d’une même stratégie de domination indirecte et furtive des populations par les forces anonymes du globalisme apatride. Globalisme qui use tantôt de l’une, tantôt de l’autre selon les nécessités stratégiques du moment.

Pierre-Antoine Plaquevent

samedi, 10 septembre 2016

Kampfbegriff „offene Gesellschaft“

popper.jpg

Kampfbegriff „offene Gesellschaft“

von Carlos Wefers Verástegui

Ex: http://www.blauenarzisse.de

Der Begriff „offene Gesellschaft“ wird besonders oft gebraucht im Zusammenhang mit der Globalisierung, europäischen Integration, dem Multikulturalismus und der „Überwindung des Nationalstaats“.

Die ursprüngliche Bezeichnung „offene Gesellschaft“ rührt vom französischen Lebensphilosophen Henri Bergson (18591941) her. Bergson bezeichnete damit einen besonderen Gesellschaftstypus, der sich in der Seele hervorragender Menschen vorgebildet fände. Dieser Gesellschaftstypus geht, jenseits des natürlichen Rahmens von intimer Gruppensolidarität sowie eng auf die Abstammungsgruppe beschränkter Gemeinschaftsmoral – der Theologe Ernst Troeltsch sprach von „Binnenmoral“ – von einem einzigen, alle Menschen gleichermaßen befassenden Menschentum aus. Grundlage der „offenen Gesellschaft“ ist die Anerkennung des Menschen als eines Höchst– und Selbstwertes. Obwohl Bergsons Sympathie mit dieser Bestimmung eindeutig bei der „offenen Gesellschaft“ lag, erkannte er durchaus die Notwendigkeit und Berechtigung ursprünglicher, also „geschlossener“ Verbände und Gemeinwesen an.

Das liberale Ideologem der „offene Gesellschaft“

Erst Sir Karl Raimund Popper war es beschieden, Bergsons im Übrigen gut gebildete analytische Kategorie „offene Gesellschaft“ zum ideologischen Transportmittel für den Individualismus und Egoismus zu machen. „Offene Gesellschaft“ wurde, dank Popper, zum Freiheitsbekenntnis des (absoluten) Individuums, im Gegensatz zu Etatismus, Nationalismus, Protektionismus sowie jeder Art von „Kollektivismus“.

Seitdem gehört „offene Gesellschaft“ als Kampfbegriff zum Grundbestand pseudowissenschaftlicher, liberalistischer Propaganda. Diese war derart wirksam, dass sogar dieselben Liberalen, die eigentlich nur auf die Täuschung Unbedarfter aus waren, von ihrem eigenen Blendwerk geblendet worden sind. Der liberale deutsche Soziologe Ralf Dahrendorf z.B. war felsenfest davon überzeugt, dass Großbritannien von alters her eine „offene Gesellschaft“ gewesen sei. Das trifft im gleichen Sinne zu, in dem man vom alten Athen mit seiner rücksichtslosen Sklavenwirtschaft, seiner andere Gemeinwesen den Boden gleichmachenden Kriegsführung und seiner grausamst betriebenen Kolonialpolitik („Kleruchien“) sagen kann, es sei eine Demokratie gewesen.

popper-the-open-society-and-its-enemies-volumes-one-and-two1.jpg

Keine Gesellschaft, kein Pluralismus

Kritischere Liberale haben die Unhaltbarkeit der geschichtlich realisierten „offenen Gesellschaft“ schließlich bald erkannt und versucht, in der „pluralistischen Gesellschaft“ einen Ausweg zu finden. Tatsächlich aber fällt die „pluralistische Gesellschaft“ in dem Land, was ihr zum Vorbild gedient hat, den USA nämlich, mit dem zusammen, was man hier landläufig „offene Gesellschaft“ nennt.

Dabei ist wichtig festzustellen, dass der namengebende Grundzug des „Pluralismus“, eben wirklich pluralistisch zu sein, nirgends dort zu Hause ist, wo einstmals der monarchische Absolutismus für Ruhe und Ordnung sorgte. Also in fast ganz Kontinentaleuropa. Und gerade der monarchische Absolutismus war es, der das charakteristische, moderne Spannungsfeld von Individuum und Staat erst hervorgebracht hat. Das war das Zerstörungswerk seiner alles zentralisierenden Bürokratien, allem voran seines vereinheitlichenden Rechtswesens nach der neuzeitlichen Wiederentdeckung des römischen Rechtes: Zuerst vereinnahmte oder zerstörte der Absolutismus seinen natürlichen Widerpart, die „soziale Souveränität“ (Vázquez de Mella), d.h. die sich in Ständen, Gilden, Zünften, Kirchen sowie Familienverbänden darstellende organisch gegliederte Gesellschaft.

Nach dieser Auflösung der sozialen Autorität befand sich der absolutistische Staat bereits im Übergang zum Klassenstaat, wie Marx ihn später geschildert hat. Die „liberalen“ Revolutionen des 19. Jahrhunderts setzten dann das fort, was bereits der monarchische Absolutismus des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts begonnen hatte: die Zersetzung der Gesellschaft.

Soziale Souveränität

Inwieweit sich das auf den „Pluralismus“ auswirkt, veranschaulicht ein Aphorismus Nietzsches: „Kurz gesagt – ach, es wird lang genug noch verschwiegen werden! –: was von nun an nicht mehr gebaut wird, nicht mehr gebaut werden kann, das ist eine Gesellschaft im alten Verstande des Wortes: um diesen Bau zu bauen, fehlt alles, voran das Material. Wir alle sind kein Material mehr für eine Gesellschaft …“

In den Staaten des Alten Kontinents gibt es also keine soziale Souveränität mehr. „Soziale“ Interessenvertretungen sind einfach nur „soziale“ Parteien, deren Bestand genauso zu bedauern ist wie der der politischen Parteien. Und auch die verschiedenen „Körperschaften“, „Bünde“, „Verbände“, „Genossenschaften“ sind keine vollgültigen Nachfolger der sozialen Souveränität, sondern bloß für das mehr oder minder reibungslose Funktionieren des Lückenbüßers „Zivilgesellschaft“ gute Institutionen – allesamt von Gottvater Staats Gnaden.

Alexis de Tocqueville konnte dahingegen in den USA die den Pluralismus begründende „soziale Souveränität“ mit eigenen Augen, sozusagen „am Werk“ sehen. Die Universalität und Zukunftsfreudigkeit der jungen Nation war den Amerikanern dabei mit in die Wiege gelegt worden. In Europa gab und gibt es dazu nichts Vergleichbares. Wir haben eben Vergangenheit, Wurzeln und Sinn für Tradition.

Statt Erlösung Auflösung

Im Gegensatz zum „Kosmopolitismus“ sticht bei der „offenen Gesellschaft“ der individualistische Zug so nicht mehr ins Auge. Wir haben uns an den Terminus längst gewöhnt und machen uns kaum noch die Mühe, ihn zu durchdenken. Die „offene Gesellschaft“ ist deshalb das bevorzugte Mittel, den Leuten nichts weniger als die kosmopolitische Zersetzung ihrer Gemeinwesen schmackhaft zu machen. Dahinter steckt letztendlich eine Denkweise, die, wie Troeltsch ausführte, anfangs eine Erlösung von konfessionellem, staatlichem und unterrichtlichem Zwang versprach. Seit Popper gehört dazu auch die „Erlösung“ von der „geschlossenen Gesellschaft“, von Volk, Nation und aller durch Tradition und Autorität geprägten Gemeinwesen. Das jedoch ist dann keine Erlösung mehr, sondern eine Auflösung.

samedi, 16 février 2013

Il totalitarismo della “società aperta” antitradizionale

Nico di Ferro - Centro Studi Aurhelio:

Il totalitarismo della “società aperta” antitradizionale

 
 
Tratto da: Aurhelio
 
Ha suscitato una grande indignazione, nel settembre del 2012, l’adozione della risoluzione da parte del Consiglio ONU Per i Diritti Umani che introduceva per la prima volta in materia di diritti umani il concetto di “valori tradizionali”. La risoluzione, che ha visto il voto contrario dei paesi dell’Unione europea insieme agli Stati Uniti, è stata criticata per il fatto di voler relativizzare i diritti umani alla luce delle tradizioni locali, minando la loro presupposta universalità.
 
Tale atteggiamento non deve stupire se pensiamo che negli ultimi anni in Occidente è stata scatenata una vera e propria guerra contro i residui della “società patriarcale”, contro gli “arcaismi medievali”  che secondo l’élite democratica sono la radice di ogni male. Così, è diventata una moda combattere ogni tipo di “fobia” sociale. L’eradicazione di questi “vizi” sociali è diventata la preoccupazione principale della cosiddetta “società civile” che, alla pari dei commissari politici sovietici, i politruki, vigilano attentamente con la matita in mano sulla “correttezza politica” del “popolo affaccendato”. Questi nuovi politruki democratici sono convinti che eliminando qualsiasi tipo di “stereotipo” si raggiungerà l’uguaglianza assoluta in una società, che secondo la loro visione, dovrebbe essere costituita da persone guidate esclusivamente dalla ragione (senza emozioni, senza tradizioni, senza valori, senza pregiudizi,…) cosa che porterà più felicità e libertà per tutti. Questa è la loro definizione di “società aperta”, un modello sociale utopico che ricalca le orme del dogmatismo marxista sebbene apparentemente sembra dissociarsene.
 
“Nessuno può istituire un criterio della moralità”, dicono loro, allora, ci domandiamo noi, qual è la fonte del “bene” che loro pretendono di promuovere? Se dobbiamo proprio lottare contro la tradizione e contro gli “elementi arcaici”, che rappresentano dei criteri per la delimitazione del “bene” dal “male” in qualsiasi società, allora che cosa e chi ci può dire cosa sia ammesso e cosa sia vietato? Chi stabilisce, de facto, dove finisce la mia libertà e inizia quella di un altro individuo, la libertà di una comunità o di uno Stato? La Costituzione? La Dichiarazione Universale dei Diritti dell’Uomo o altri documenti internazionali? Non ci dimentichiamo che questi documenti appartengono pur sempre alla dimensione temporale e che possono essere sottoposti alla revisione in qualsiasi momento, oppure, in ultima analisi, essere addirittura denunciati, senza che rappresentino un’autorità di per se. Lo stesso concetto di “diritti dell’uomo” appartiene a un dato contesto storico ristretto e non è il risultato di una “evoluzione” o di un “progresso” dell’umanità. I presupposti culturali secolarizzati che stanno alla base della Dichiarazione del 1789 possono legittimamente essere assenti in altre culture. Se per esempio la concezione dell’Universo nata dalla Rivoluzione francese mette al centro l’individuo, in altre culture è la comunità che viene privilegiata.[1]
 
Antoine de Saint-Exupery nella sua opera “Cittadella” si domanda: <<Dove inizia e dove termina la schiavitù? Dove inizia e dove termina l’universale? Dove iniziano i diritti dell’uomo? Perché io conosco i diritti del tempio che dà un significato alle pietre e i diritti dell’impero che dà un significato agli uomini e i diritti del poema che dà un significato alle parole. Ma non riconosco i diritti delle pietre ai danni del tempio né i diritti delle parole ai danni del poema né i diritti dell’uomo ai danni dell’impero>> [2]

Tutto ciò dimostra come la presupposta universalità dei diritti dell’uomo è lungi dall’essere realmente universale. Al tempo stesso però nemmeno il consenso o il contratto sociale possono essere una fonte per delimitare il “bene”, perché possono essere nella stessa misura una fonte per il “male”.

Il bene e il male hanno sempre avuto radici metafisiche, non materiali. Da qui deriva l’incapacità delle ideologie moderne, nate dal materialismo e dal razionalismo illuminista, di rispondere alle domande fondamentali dell’umanità. La ragione individuale e collettiva sono troppo limitate in esperienze per poter offrire delle risposte a delle domande così complesse. La Tradizione, invece, è stata quella che ha risposto a tutte le domande fondamentali dell’umanità.
 
Per Tradizione, si intende un’eredità  la cui origine non è umana, ma essenzialmente spirituale e che ha assunto diverse forme asseconda dei popoli. Essa è qualcosa di metastorico e, in pari tempo, di dinamico, è una forza (…) che agisce lungo le generazioni in continuità di spirito e di ispirazione, attraverso istituzioni, leggi, ordinamenti che possono anche presentare una notevole varietà e diversità.[3] È la Tradizione stessa quindi che istituisce il criterio di delimitazione tra il bene e il male. La Modernità invece è stata quella che ha trasposto la Tradizione in norme giuridiche.
 
Oggi, assistiamo nella giurisprudenza al tentativo di instaurare l’assurdo e l’inimmaginabile: la purificazione della norma giuridica da ogni tradizione e da ogni “arcaismo” in modo che la legge divenga uno strumento arbitrario, un meccanismo morto, “una dichiarazione di intenti” oppure un manifesto politico-ideologico (come ad esempio la  Legge sulle “pari opportunità”) che servirebbe come strumento di repressione contro coloro che si oppongono all’ideologia “ufficiale” ed “assoluta”.[4] Insomma non sono mai le idee a doversi adattare alla realtà, è la realtà che deve piegarsi agli schemi dell’ideologia. Senza orma di dubbio, con l’eliminazione degli “arcaismi” dalle leggi, si presuppone anche l’eliminazione dalla società degli individui che si fanno promotori di questi “arcaismi” dietro la motivazione che ostacolerebbero “l’ascensione gloriosa della società aperta”.
 
Una fobia viene sostituita da un’altra fobia, una discriminazione prende il posto di un’altra discriminazione. L’equazione non cambia, sono solo i termini dell’equazione che cambiano. Ecco perché non ci si deve stupire quando si fa ricorso alla censura, alla violenza simbolica e fisica in nome della ”liberté, egalité, fraternité”.
 
Nico di Ferro

[1] “Riflessioni sulla cultura dei diritti dell’uomo”, Luigi Arnaboldi, http://www.interculture-italia.it.
[2] Antoine de Sainte-Exupery, Cittadella, ed. Borla, Roma, 1999, pg. 195-196.
[3] Il Mondo della Tradizione, centro studi Raido, Roma, pg. 23.
[4] Octavian Racu, www.octavianracu.wordpress.com.

mardi, 27 mars 2012

Open Society or Survival

Open Society or Survival


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

Of all the idols of our age, none has demanded so much blood sacrifice and the dissipation of resources as that of democracy. From the Hindu Kush to our television screens, the liberal order betrays its totalitarian nature. We send armies and airborne robots into Asia’s wastelands to kill for the universal rights of man. Mass democracy can never be recognized for the deviant political philosophy it is, nor can it be restricted to the West alone; equality must reign everywhere unchallenged. Modern man is infallible, and in his militant faith he pursues no less than the entirety of the world subjugated to his will. How else may a New Jerusalem of pleasure and profit be realized, if not through the monumental force of a united humanity?

Eurasia remains the key to fulfilling this mad dream. Even as the United States continues its grinding and bloody counterinsurgency in Afghanistan and across Dar al-Islam, Washington has found the cash to promote “civil society” and “the rule of law” in Russia. The Obama Administration is looking to apply $50 million to NGOs and similar initiatives in Moscow and other regions throughout the country. Thus stated Ambassador Michael McFaul:

We have proposed to the US Congress to create a new civil society fund for Russia. We proposed that 50 million dollars in a neutral way, by the way, in terms of new money. That’s what I hear in Moscow that when you talk to real human rights organizations and what they really need, they need that kind of support.

 

While $50 million would be negligible in sustaining the Pax Americana’s military operations, it makes for a tidy sum when directed toward political subversion. (Among other projects, expect a new stream of nauseating parades and Pussy Riot church provocations.) Vladimir Putin’s third presidential term will begin this spring, but U.S. policy planners have been emboldened by a recent surge in opposition activism in Russia. Along with continuing pressure on Moscow’s peripheries, their strategy is still centered on creating the infrastructure for revolution, the most cost-effective way that an embattled Third Rome could fall to American power. After all, the United States seeks to destabilize Russia with an ultimate view to her dismemberment and exploitation by the lords of international usury.

The Freedom Agenda grants Washington carte blanche to undermine sovereign nations on whim in the name of “human rights” and a long-term mandate for global governance. Exporting to the world its model of social chaos, the United States aims for the establishment of a unified, market-driven Open Society across the earth. Should some insolent tribe refuse the imperial model, it must prepare for the inevitable assault- if not by bombardment or sanctions, then at the very least through intelligence operations and psychological warfare.

Peoples who would defy postmodern Mammonism must have a clear ideological framework for resistance. In the case of Russia, such a basis for thought and action is conspicuously absent among ruling elites. Popular legitimacy can only derive from the quantitative “will of the people”; the Kremlin carries out elections in imitation of Western stage-management and assiduously tracks approval ratings from the middle class. Putin and his assorted clans will have nothing to counteract a deadening reductive-materialist worldview if they share it with their geopolitical adversaries.

Russia spent a century enacting the social experiments of the modern West; she can afford neither lives nor time for yet another ruinous undertaking. Babel and its missionaries must be repudiated. War for the national soul begins at the visceral level of shared faith and kinship; these values form the traditional organic state, guardian of sacred heritage and culture. And there is no greater weapon in this struggle than the loyal heart.

Rendering judgment on democracy, the White émigré leader Ivan Ilyin gave us a principled and articulate rejection of the liberal dispensation and its incipient totalitarianism. It is no accident that today’s Free World is on the fast track to tyranny. The bloodless abstractions of liberty and equality bequeathed to us by Locke, Rousseau and their disciples have birthed mechanisms of control undreamt of by ancient despots. “Government by the people” has in fact served to corrupt and dissolve whole peoples according to the design of an antitheist and anti-human Money Power. Is escape from the democratic Panopticon even possible? Yes, though it demands of us a fateful choice: languishing toward oblivion in the Open Society, or our arrival at the harsh conclusions necessary to chart a future.

 

*** 

On Formal Democracy

Essay by Ivan A. Ilyin. Taken from the collection “Nashi Zadachi” and translated by Mark Hackard.

There are two different understandings of the state and politics: the mechanistic and the organic. The mechanistic asserts instinctive man and his private interests; it measures life quantitatively and formalistically. The organic derives from the human spirit and ascends to national unity and its common interests; it is qualitative, searching out spiritual roots and solutions.

We shall first examine the mechanistic view.

It sees in man first and foremost the instinctive individual with its “desires” and “needs”: every person wishes to work less, enjoy himself more and relax; procreate and accumulate; maintain his irresponsible opinions and express them without hindrance; to find the like-minded and associate with them wherever they may be; to depend upon no-one and wield as much power and influence as possible. After all, men are born “equal”, and hence each of them must be provided equal rights for the assertion of their desires and needs: these are the inalienable rights of liberty which cannot abide restriction. Therefore every person should have an equal voice in affairs of state. For so many people there will be so many equal voices. Whatever a man may fancy is to be affirmed, and let there be no interference in this. Allow like-minded men of all nations to unite freely; let the votes be counted; the majority will decide…

As to the quality of the desires, plans and enterprises of all these men of one mind, and especially the motives and intentions of voters, no-one may concern himself. All of this is protected by inviolable “freedom”, equality and the secret vote. Every citizen as such is considered already reasonable, enlightened, well-intentioned and loyal, incorruptible and honorable; each man is given the opportunity to discover his “valor” and veil all his designs and schemes with words about “the common good”.

Until he is caught, this man is not a thief; until taken red-handed, he demands complete respect. He who has not been implicated at the scene of a crime (for example, treason, foreign espionage, conspiracy, bribes, waste, fraud, call-girl rings, counterfeiting) – is considered a political “gentleman” independent of his profession and a full citizen. Most important are liberty, equality and vote-counting. The state is a mechanical equilibrium of private (personal and group) agendas; the state is built as a compromise of centrifugal forces, played out in the performances of political actors. And politics should move according to the results of mutual distrust and competing intrigues.

Unfortunately this view (as much as I know) is nowhere expressed in such a frank and precise form. It is not a doctrine; it is simply an unspoken political dogma, rooted in the world and taken as the self-evident essence of democracy. All men are formally free; all men are formally equal and contend with each other for power, for the sake of their own interests, yet under the pretense of a common benefit.

Such a formal and quantitative conception of the state renders its fate dependent on whom, how and what shall fill a vacuum of content, as well as that indifferent-drifting quality people afford themselves through formal “liberty”. State and government are but a mirror or arithmetic sum of what is made in the soul of the human mass and its sense of justice. Something stews within this at once opaque and unassailable cauldron: any interference is forbidden as “pressure”, and any constraint or action is denounced as “an infringement upon freedom”. Every citizen is secured the right to crooked and deceptive political paths, to disloyal and treasonous designs, to the sale of his vote, to base motives for voting, to underground plots, unseen treachery and secret dual citizenship- to all those crudities which are so profitable to men and so often tempt them.

The citizen is given the unlimited right to temptation and the corruption of others, as well as the subtle transactions of self-prostitution. He is guaranteed the freedom of disingenuous, lying, and underhanded speech, and the ambiguous, calculated omission of truth; he is granted the liberty to believe liars and scoundrels or at least pretend to believe them (in self-interest simulating one political mood or its complete opposite). And for the free expression of all these spiritual seductions he is handed the ballot. Motivations for voting must be free; the formation of parties tolerates no constraint; to limit political propaganda is to exercise coercion.

To judge and condemn for “political views” is not permitted: this would signify an assault upon another’s “conscience” and persecution of his beliefs (in German, Gessinungsjustiz). Freedom of opinions should be total; government officials will not dare infringe upon this or attempt its curtailment. And the most stupid, most harmful, ruinous and foul “opinion” is sacrosanct, already by virtue of the fact that there is a destructive fool or traitor who has proclaimed it, all the while hiding behind its inviolability. Is it possible to make him only passively hold his beliefs? How are we to keep him from putting these thoughts into action, through whispers, conspiracy, secret organizations, and the covert accumulation of arms?

It is understood that all of this immediately disarms the state before enemies and subversives; at the same time it guarantees these enemies and subversives total liberty and impunity. The government is obliged to secure the people the freedom to be seduced, while revolutionaries and traitors are assured the freedom to seduce. It is natural that another election’s results will show the success of this guaranteed seduction. And so the regime will continue until the seduction undermines the very idea of voting and readiness to submit to the majority (for according to the recently stated revolutionary formula of the Belgian Spaak: “The minority is not required to submit to the majority”). Then voting is replaced by rebellion, and the organized totalitarian minority seizes power.

This means that the formalistic-quantitative concept of the state opens the doors wide open to every political adventure, coup and revolution, as we observe from year to year in South America, for example. And in truth, the scoundrels of the world would have to be complete fools if they did not notice and exploit this excellent opportunity for the seizure of power. Admittedly, American gangsters did not reach this point and kept their atrocities out of politics, and the Sicilian Mafiosi have also been satisfied with private income. But to arrive at such a conclusion is not at all difficult. Nature abhors a vacuum; as noble motives (religious, moral, patriotic, and spiritual) weakened and withered in human souls, into the empty space of formal liberty would inevitably surge ridiculous, evil, perverse and avaricious plans advanced by totalitarian demagogues of the Left and Right.

Formal liberty includes the freedom of secret treason and overt destruction. From the very beginning the mechanistic and arithmetical competition of private desires prepared within people’s hearts the possibility of blind escalation and civil war. As long as centrifugal forces agreed to moderate their demands and find a compromise, the state could maintain balance over the chasm; but the prophets of class struggle rebelled and brought upon us the moment of civil war. How can the formal-mechanistic conception of the state oppose them? By the urging of great persuaders? Cries over our perishing freedom? Or ideas of sentimental humanitarianism, forgotten conscience and trampled honor? But this would mean “interference”, thereby denouncing formal liberty and the mechanistic conception of politics! This would entail a loss of faith in political arithmetic and a fall into pure democratic heresy!

For formal democracy does not allow any doubt as to the good intentions of the free citizen. Jean-Jacques Rousseau once taught that man by his nature is rational and good, and the one thing he lacks is freedom. We need only to not hinder him in drawing from his good-natured heart the guiding “general will”, wise, unerring and salvific…Just don’t bother him, and he shall draw it forth!

People came to believe this two centuries ago. The French Encyclopedists and revolutionaries believed, and after them anarchists, liberals and proponents of formal democracy around the world. They believed to such a degree that they even forgot about their faith and its dangers: it was decided that this system is the truth most undoubted, and that in politics it demands veneration before liberty, a respectful formalism and an honest count of the votes. And now two centuries of this practice have set contemporary politicians before the greatest political earthquake in world history…

What can they do? Curtail formal liberty? Reject the mechanism of private desire? Abolish the arithmetic of voting? But this would mean to doubt the sacred dogmata of modern democracy! Who shall risk such a feat? Who will disavow himself? And how will he oppose totalitarians from both the Left and the Right?

If this is a dead end, then what next? Assent to the deformations and atrocities of a totalitarian regime?! Impossible!

 

Mark Hackard

Mark Hackard

Mark Hackard has a a BA in Russian from Georgetown University and an MA in Russian, East European, and Eurasian Studies from Stanford University.

samedi, 30 octobre 2010

Eastern Europe versus the Open Society

by Srdja Trifkovic

Ex: http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/
 
Excerpts from a speech to the H.L. Mencken Club, Baltimore, October 23, 2010

4886122ae5131.jpgTwo weeks ago the first “gay pride parade” was staged in Belgrade. Serbia’s “pro-European” government had been promoting the event as yet another proof that Serbia is fit to join the European Union, that is has overcome the legacy of its dark, intolerant past. Thousands of policemen in full riot gear had to divide their time between protecting a few hundred “LBGT” activists (about half of them imported from Western Europe for the occasion) and battling ten times as many young protesters in the side streets.

 The parade, it should be noted, was prominently attended by the U.S. Ambassador in Belgrade Mary Warlick, by the head of the European Commission Office, Vincent Degert of France, and by the head of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Mission in Serbia, Dimitris Kipreos. Needless to say, none of them had attended the enthronment of the new Serbian Patriarch a week earlier. Two days later, Hillary Clinton came to Belgrade and praised the Tadic regime for staging the parade.

Mrs. Clinton et al are enjoying the fruits of one man’s two decades of hard work in Eastern Europe. George Soros can claim, more than any other individual, that his endeavors have helped turn the lands of “Real Socialism” in central and eastern Europe away from their ancestors, their cultural and spiritual roots. The process is far from over, but his Open Society Institute and its extensive network of subsidiaries east of the Trieste-Stettin line have successfully legitimized the notions that only two decades ago would have seemed bizarre, laughable or demonic to the denizens of the eastern half of Europe.

The package was first tested here in America. Through his Open Society Institute and its vast network of affiliates Soros has provided extensive financial and lobbying support here for

  • Legalization of hard drugs: We should accept that “substance abuse is endemic in most societies,” he says. Thanks to his intervention the terms “medicalization” and “non-violent drug offender” have entered public discourse, and pro-drug legalization laws were passed in California and Arizona in the 90s.
  • Euthanasia: In 1994 Soros—a self-professed atheist—launched his Project Death in America (PDIA) and provided $15 million in its initial funding. (It is noteworthy that his mother, a member of the pro-suicide Hemlock Society, killed herself, and that Soros mentions unsympathetically his dying father’s clinging on to life for too long.) PDIA supports physician-assisted suicide and works “to begin forming a network of doctors that will eventually reach into one-fourth of America’s hospitals” and, in a turn of phrase chillingly worthy of Orwell, lead to “the creation of innovative models of care and the development of new curricula on dying.”
  • Population replacement: Soros is an enthusiastic promoter of open immigration and amnesty & special rights for immigrants. He has supported the National Council of La Raza, National Immigration Law Center, National Immigration Forum, and dozens of others. He also promotes expansion of public welfare, and in late 1996 he created the Emma Lazarus Fund that has given millions in grants to nonprofit legal services groups that undermine provisions of the welfare legislation ending immigrant entitlements.

Soros supports programs and organizations that further abortion rights and increased access to birth control devices; advocate ever more stringent gun control; and demand abolition of the death penalty. He supports radical feminists and “gay” activists, same-sex “marriage” naturally included. OSI states innocently enough that its objectives include “the strengthening of civil society; economic reform; education at all levels; human rights; legal reform and public administration; public health; and arts and culture,” but the way it goes about these tasks is not “philanthropy” but political activism in pursuit of all the familiar causes of the radical left—and some additional, distinctly creepy ones such as “Death in America.”

Soros’s “philanthropic” activities in America have been applied on a far grander scale abroad. His many foundations say that they are “dedicated to building and maintaining the infrastructure and institutions of an open society.” What this means in practice? Regarding “Women’s Health” programs in Central and South-Eastern Europe, one will look in vain for breast cancer detection programs, or for prenatal or post-natal care. No, Soros’s main goal is “to improve the quality of abortion services.” Accordingly his Public Health Program has focused on the introduction of easily available abortion all over the region, and the introduction of manual vacuum aspiration (MVA) abortion in Macedonia, Moldova, and Russia. Why is Soros so keen to promote more abortions? Overpopulation cannot be the reason: the region is experiencing a huge demographic collapse and has some of the lowest fertility rates in the world. Unavailability of abortions cannot be the answer either: only five European countries had more abortions than live births in 2000: the Russian Federation, Bulgaria, Belarus, Romania and Ukraine. The only answer is that Soros wants as few little European Orthodox Christians born into this world as possible.

Soros’s Public Health Programs additionally “support initiatives focusing on the specific health needs of several marginalized communities,” such as “gays” and AIDS sufferers, and promote “harm reduction” focusing on needle/syringe exchange and supply of methadone to adicts. His outfits lobby governments to scrap “repressive drug policies.” Over the past decade and a half the Soros network has given a kick-start to previously non-existent “gay” activism in almost all of its areas of operation. The campaign for “LGBT Rights” is directed from Budapest, publishing lesbian and gay books in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovenia and Slovakia, opening Gay and Lesbian Centers in Ukraine and Rumania. Its activists routinely attack the Orthodox Church as a key culprit for alleged discrimination of “LGBTs.”

Education is a key pillar of Soros’s activities. His Leitmotif is the dictum that “no-one has a monopoly on the truth” and that “civic education” should replace the old “authoritarian” model. Even under communism Eastern Europe has preserved very high educational standards, but the Soros Foundation seeks to replace the old system with the concept of schools as “exercise grounds” for the “unhindered expression of students’ personalities in the process of equal-footed interaction with the teaching staff, thus overcoming the obsolete concept of authority and discipline rooted in the oppressive legacy of patriarchal past.” The purpose of education is not “acquisition of knowledge”: the teacher is to become the class “designer” and his relationship with students based on “partnership.” Soros’s reformers also insist on an active role of schools in countering the allegedly unhealthy influence of the family on students, which “still carries an imprint of nationalist, sexist, racist, and homophobic prejudices rampant in the society at large.”

“Racism” is Soros’s regular obsession, but he had a problem finding it in racially non-diverse East European countries. This has been resolved by identifying a designated victim group—gypsies (“Roma”). His protégés now come up with policy demands to “protect” this group that could have been written by Rev. Jesse Jackson:

  • anti-bias training of teachers and administrators;
  • integration of Romani history and culture in the textbooks at all levels;
  • legally mandated arffirmative action programs for Roma;
  • tax incentives for employers who employ them;
  • access to low-interest credit for Roma small family businesses;
  • setting aside a percentage of public tenders for Roma firms;
  • legislation to fight “racism and discrimination” in housing;
  • adoption of “comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation”;
  • creation of mechanisms “to monitor implementation of anti-discrimination legislation and assist victims of racial discrimination in seeking remedies”;
  • recognition by governments of “the Roma slavery and the Holocaust through public apology along with urgent adoption of a package of reparatory measures.”

A budding race relations industry is already in place, with the self-serving agenda of finding “discrimination” in order to keep itself in place for ever.

To make his agenda appear “normal” to the targeted population, millions of East Europeans are force-fed the daily fare of OSI agitprop by “the Soros media”—the term is by now well established in over a dozen languages—such as the B-92 media conglomerate in Serbia.

The social dynamics Soros uses to penetrate the target countries is interesting. To thousands of young East Europeans to become a “Soroshite” represents today what joining the Party represented to their parents: an alluring opportunity to have a reasonably paid job, to belong to a privileged elite, for many to travel abroad. The few chosen for the future new Nomenklatura go to Soros’s own Central European University in Budapest. In all post-communist countries Soros relies overwhelmingly on the sons and daughters of the old Communist establishment who are less likely to be tainted by any atavistic vestiges of their native soil, culture and tradition. The comparison with the janissary corps of the Ottoman Army is more apt than that with the Communist Party. The new janissaries, just like the old, have to prove their credentials by being more zealous than the Master himself.

The key ideological foundation for Soros’s beliefs is the same: that all countries are basically social arrangements, artificial, temporary and potentially dangerous. A plethora of quotes from his writings will make it clear that he thinks that owing allegiance to any of them is inherently irrational, and attaching one’s personal loyalty to it is absurd. Like Marx’s proletarian, Soros knows of no loyalty to a concrete country. He could serve any—or indeed all—of them, if they can be turned into the tools of his Wille zur Macht. In 1792, it could have been France, in 1917 Russia. Today, the United States is his host organism of choice because it is so powerful, and its media scene is open to penetration by his rabidly anti-traditionalist and deeply anti-American worldview and political agenda.

Textbooks and educational curricular reforms pushed by Soros in Eastern Europe indicate that he is trying to perform crude dumbing down of the young. Within months of coming to power in October 2000 the “reformists” within Serbia and their foreign sponsors insisted that schools—all schools, from kindergarden to universities—must be reformed and turned from “authoritarian” institutions into poligons for the “unhindered expression of students’ personalities in the process of equal-footed interaction with the teaching staff, thus overcoming the obsolete concept of authority and discipline rooted in the opressive legacy of patriarchal past.” They started with primary schools, with a pilot program of “educational workshops” for 7-12 year olds. The accompanying manual, sponsored by UNICEF and financed by the Open Society, denigrades the view that the purpose of education is acquisition of knowledge and insists that the teacher has to become the class “designer” and his relationship with students based on “partnership.”

The reformers devote particular attention to the more active role of schools in countering the allegedly unhealthy influence of the family on students, which “still carries an imprint of nationalist, sexist, [anti-Roma] racist, and homophobic prejudices rampant in the society at large.” The time-honored Balkan tradition of slapping childrens’ bottoms when they exceed limits is now presented in the elementary classroom as a form of criminal abuse that should be reported and acted upon. Traditional gender roles are relativized by “special projects” that entail cross-dressing and temporary adoption of opposite gender names.

Soros’s vision is hostile even to the most benign understanding of national or ethnic coherence. His core belief—that traditional morality, faith, and community based on shared memories are all verboten—is at odds even with the classical “open society” liberalism of Popper and Hayek, by whom he swears. His hatred of religion is the key. He promotes an education system that will neutralize any lingering spiritual yearnings of the young, and promote the loss of a sense of place and history already experienced by millions of Westerners, whether they are aware of that loss or not. Estranged from their parents, ignorant of their culture, ashamed of their history, millions of Westerners are already on the path of alienation that demands every imaginable form of self-indulgence, or else leads to drugs, or suicide, or conversion to Islam or some other cult.

To understand Soros it is necessary to understand globalization as a revolutionary, radical project. In the triumph of liberal capitalism, the enemies of civilization such as Soros have found the seeds of future victory for their paradigm that seeks to eradicate all traditional structures capable of resistance. The revolutionary character of the Open Society project is revealed in its relentless adherence to the mantra of Race, Gender and Sexuality. His goal is a new global imperium based that will be truly totalitarian. But he is making a colossal miscalculation. He does not realize that the unassimilated and unassimilable multitudes do not want to be the tools of his will to power. Illegal aliens in America, Algerians in France, Turks in Germany and Pakistanis in Britain have their own, instinctive scenario, and it does not entail leaving Soros and his ilk in positions of power, or alive.

About the Author

Dr. Srdja Trifkovic, an expert on foreign affairs, is the author of The Sword of the Prophet and Defeating Jihad. His latest book is The Krajina Chronicle: A History of the Serbs in Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia.

See All Posts by This Author