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.

mardi, 24 juillet 2018

The Movement – the gravedigger of globalism or The mission of American Steve Bannon in Europe


The Movement – the gravedigger of globalism or The mission of American Steve Bannon in Europe

Ex: http://flux.md

Paraphrasing the famous quote of Marx, we can state without any exaggeration: ”A specter is haunting Europe – the specter of populism”.

After a series of promising signs for the European populists or nationalists such as Brexit, the election of Trump, the results of the latest parliamentary elections in Austria, Hungary, Italy, the political solidarity of the Visegrád Group countries, the constant disagreements between Poland and the bureaucracy of Brussels etc., the international press is giving hopeful news once again. Steve Bannon, ex Chief Strategist of the American president and the mind behind the Trump victory, has announced the creation of a new foundation in Europe, which will be called The Movement. This organization has the ambition of being an alternative to the ”Soros network”, known as The Open Society Foundation, the one that has had and still has a major impact on the politics of our continent – in the ex-communist countries, Western Europe and the United States.

And if the anti-system political events of recent years have shaken the dominant elite for the first time since World War Two, the phenomenon rightly called the ”European spring” or the ”populist revolution of Europe”  has a great chance of growing even more due to Steve Bannon’s initiative. The ambition of this American thought leader is to unite all European identitarian and pro-sovereignty parties in a common front against globalism, which is neoliberal and antinational and gravely affects not only the interests of smaller countries, but those of the US as well.

In his book „The populist Moment. Right-left: it’s over”, the French philosopher Alain de Benoist brilliantly synthesizes the new mindset of European peoples. The new coalition government in Italy that has united the populist groups, „Lega Nord”, the party of Matteo Salvini and Luigi di Maio’s „Five Star Movement”, confirms Benoist’s ideas. Another philosopher that subscribes to this line of thinking is Aleksandr Dugin, who wrote a series of important texts on the new wave spreading over European politics. Finally, with the election of Trump and with the intentions of Bannon, us Europeans can give up on the cliche idea that globalism is purely an American product. The French essayist and economist Hervé Juvin stresses on a very important thesis that helps understand the phenomenons that have taken place in the last decades: just how the Russian people were the first victims of Communism, so the American people are the first victims of globalism, also called extraterritorial, imperialistic and devastating capitalism. It is worth adding that the majority of the globalist oligarchy is based in the USA, but act against the state and the American people.

Therefore, the non-profit that is about to be launched declares that its first immediate task is the fortification of anti-system populist parties in time for the European Parliamentary elections in May 2019, as well as helping them in some local elections. The expertise and consultancy services offered by the foundation can have a crucial role in the upcoming electoral confrontations. And if Steve Bannon openly declares that he wants his organization to be a rival of the „Davos group”, meaning the global plutocratic establishment, my friend from France, Emmanuel Leroy, preceding the idea of the American strategist, proposed a formula that goes extremely well both with the initiative launched last year in the Moldovan capital, as well as with that of Bannon. On the occasion of the two international conferences in Chișinău held in 2017 that brought together intellectuals from the ex-communist countries and Western Europe, he said that the Chișinău Forum must become a true anti-Davos. Created by three organizations, the Popular University of Moldova, the Eurasianist Movement of Russia, lead by Aleksandr Dugin and the Jean Parvulesco Committee of France, The Chișinău Forum has become a true international think-tank that will meet at least once a year to elaborate alternative strategies of geopolitical, ideological and economic nature. After more than two years, our network has extended all the way to Iran and Africa, has managed to develop a strong media cooperation and participate in important international events. In this context, as the main organizer of the Chișinău Forum, I am almost certain that I will have the support of my colleagues from abroad when coming with the proposition of initiating a strong collaboration with Steve Bannon’s new organization.

Our media resources, www.flux.md and www.altermedia.md (Moldova), www.geopolitica.ru (Russia), www.tvlibertes.com, www.lesakerfrancophone.fr, www.egaliteetreconciliation.fr (France), www.zuerst.de (Germany), www.gandeste.org, www.estica.eu (Romania), www.geopolitika.rs (Serbia), as well as a series of other press structures that we collaborate with represent an excellent opportunity for promoting our ideas and for mutual support.

The capital of Moldova, Chișinău, is an excellent place for our international meetings due to its geographical position and to the fact that citizens from the EU, the US, Canada, Russia and the other ex-Soviet states do not need visas. Our team has acquired great experience in organizing succesful events and in maintaining strong contact with our partners. This experience must be used to bring substantial contributions to the demolition of the current dominant system of the global plutocracy, to the rebuilding of nation-states and the rebalancing of international affairs that favor the interest of every people.

We, the peoples from the ex-Communist region, have gained valuable experience from our participation in the dismantling of the former totalitarian regime. Three decades ago, none of us knew that the time will come when we will have to create a new „triumph of nations”, to achieve a new decolonization of captive peoples that became victims of the global corporatocracy, which de-sovereignized all countries, producing great economic and social unbalances. And the same way that the end of the USSR was possible, so is the end of the new totalitarian mini-empire of the EU urgently needed, which the Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orban rightly called the most corrupt in the world, massively penetrated by the tentacles of George Soros. After the election of Donald Trump, a sort of duality of power has been installed in the US: on one hand, a populist president that guides himself by the „America First!” principle, and on the other hand the „deep state”, which sacrifices national interests for the accumulation of huge profits. Steve Bannon is coming with a message that is embraced by any partiot. Every people, every authentic political elite should follow exactly this principle: „My country first before anything!”.

We have a common war for the preservation of our traditions, cultures and religions, for the protection of national economies in the face of the globalist capitalist aggression, for the refusal of our countries to be invaded by the waves of illegal migrants and to flood their countries with the sharks of speculative capitalism. The denouement of this major historical confruntation depends on our solidarity.

I invite all friends from our international network to give their opinion on the idea of the active participation of the Chișinău Forum members in supporting and extending Steve Bannon’s organization – The Movement. Your reactions will be published on our media resources in different languages.

I would like to end with another well-known paraphrase of marxist inspiration:

Populists of all countries, unite!

Iurie Roșca, ex anti-Soviet dissident, currently an anti-globalist dissident

July 23, 2018,


Republic of Moldova

dimanche, 22 juillet 2018

Steve Bannon veut créer une fondation en Europe : est-ce une aubaine ou un danger ?


Steve Bannon veut créer une fondation en Europe : est-ce une aubaine ou un danger ?

Avec des fonds provenant des conservateurs de droite américains, les mouvements et partis de droite au sein de l’Union Européenne seraient dans un premier temps consolidés afin de former une fraction plus importante au Parlement européen. Désormais, l’ancien conseiller de Trump se concentre sur l’Europe.

Par Michael Steiner

Steve Bannon, on le sait, est un publiciste de la droite conservatrice américaine, un producteur de films, un conseiller politique qui a dirigé la page web « Breitbart News Network » et a été naguère le principal conseiller du Président américain Donald Trump. Bannon a décidé de concentrer tous ses efforts sur l’Europe et souhaite, avec l’appui d’une fondation, soutenir les partis conservateurs et populistes de droite pour qu’une solide faction conservatrice et droitière s’installe sur les strapontins du Parlement Européen qui sera élu l’année prochaine.

Aujourd’hui âgé de 64 ans, Bannon, après les élections dites du « mid-term », début novembre aux Etats-Unis, veut passer la moitié de son temps en Europe, apprend-on en lisant le portail américaine « The Daily Beast ». Bannon veut faire contrepoids à la Fondation gérée par le milliardaire globalitaire George Soros qui appuie les mouvements et groupes de gauche et d’extrême-gauche. Bannon a déjà trouvé un nom pour la Fondation qu’il envisage de créer : elle s’appellera « The Movement ».

D’après l’article de « The Daily Beast », Bannon veut installer son quartier général à Bruxelles et tout coordonner au départ de ce siège. Lors de la visite de Trump à Londres, il y a une semaine, il a rencontré quelques représentants de mouvements de droite dans la capitale britannique, contacts qui, selon lui, se sont avérés très prometteurs. Si bien qu’il peut se mettre à recruter du personnel. Cependant, nous pouvons nous poser quelques questions avec tout le scepticisme requis : Bannon pourra-t-il, en l’espace de quelques petits mois, consolider suffisamment les partis et mouvements de droite disséminés dans toute l’Europe ?

Question supplémentaire : sera-t-il capable d’aligner tous ces partis et mouvements, qui sont souvent très critiques à l’endroit de la politique américaine, sur un « courant unique » puis de les brancher sur le réseau des « néocons » de Washington ? Telles sont les questions que tout bon Européen doit poser. Si Bannon finit par disposer de suffisamment de moyens financiers dans les temps voulus, ne cherchera-t-il pas à faire émerger un changement de cap en politique internationale au sein des partis de droite en Europe qui, du moins partiellement, sont plutôt russophiles et hostiles à l’hégémonisme américain ?

Ex : https://www.contra-magazin.com

dimanche, 14 janvier 2018

Bannon en chute libre : il a été chassé de « Breitbart News »


Bannon en chute libre: il a été chassé de « Breitbart News »

Washington. L’étoile du « faiseur de roi », de celui qui avait été décrit comme l’homme à avoir promu Trump, a encore pâli. Steve Bannon,en effet,  perd encore des plumes. Il était tombé en disgrâce à la Maison Blanche, pour avoir participé à un ouvrage qui critiquait vertement Trump : cet ouvrage s’intitule « Fire and Fury » et est signé par le publiciste Michael Wolff. Pire : il vient d’être démis de ses fonctions au portail en ligne « Breitbart News ».


« Breitbart News » avait la réputation d’être le site porte-paroles de la droite américaine et avait véritablement mobilisé l’opinion pour faire entrer Trump à la Maison Blanche. Dans une déclaration qu’il vient de publier, Bannon lui-même se dit fier que l’équipe du site est parvenue à créer, au cours des dernières années, « une plateforme d’information de niveau mondial ». Bannon ne dit rien à propos des motifs de son départ dans la déclaration qu’il vient de formuler. Le directeur actuel du portail, Larry Solov, a toutefois expliqué que l’entreprise sera « toujours reconnaissante » à Bannon pour avoir atteint le niveau qu’elle a effectievement atteint grâce à l’aide de Bannon.

Mais les « sources bien informées » de Washington en savent davantage, bien évidemment. D’après elles, le départ de Bannon est dû à la pression exercée par la famille Mercer, des milliardaires conservateurs qui possèdent la plupart des actions de « Breitbart ». Rebekah Mercer, femme entrepreneur et généreuse mécène de l’affaire, aurait été outrée après la parution du livre révélateur « Fire and Fury » ; elle se serait alors désolidarisée de Bannon pour réaffirmer son soutien à Donald Trump.

(Source : http://www.zuerst.de ).

mercredi, 19 avril 2017

If Trump Loses Bannon, Trump Loses the Presidency


If Trump Loses Bannon, Trump Loses the Presidency

Ex: http://www.americanthinker.com 

I bet big on Donald Trump in the 2016 elections, rather famously.  Now I will be shorting Trump stock for the foreseeable future until Bannon, and Bannon-ism, returns to policy dominance in the White House.

Should Trump ever lose Bannon entirely, Trump is a lame duck.  Some media suggest that Trump could replace Bannon with Jared Kushner.  Jared Kushner is to Steve Bannon what Dan Quayle was to JFK. 


Bannon – uniquely among the Trump team – threads together the policy weaves of the Trump electoral majority, a majority dependent upon newfound GOP support from the working class, especially in the northern half of the country, but also the southern upcountry and Appalachia.

Three issues allowed Trump to distinguish himself, both in the GOP primaries and in the general election, to appeal to these GOP skeptic voting constituencies: 

  1. No preachy politics.  These voters want neither Southern Baptists nor Hollywood celebrities lecturing them about morality nonstop.  They generally take a more libertine approach on marijuana, especially amongst the younger cohorts in this constituency.  (Many of these communities were moonshine communities back in the day, especially the Appalachian communities.  You will find a not too surprising overlap between marijuana and moonshine communities historically.)  The Appalachian communities and their kindred constituencies cast decisive votes in more places than West Virginia, Tennessee, Indiana, and Kentucky.  Appalachia dips into Pennsylvania and Ohio, helped make Virginia competitive, tipped the balance in North Carolina, and shares a lot in common in political mindset with places like the Minnesotan Iron Range, the northern woods of Wisconsin, the peninsula of Michigan, and the countryside of Iowa.  They are often Christian but more likely to be Saturday party-goers than Sunday church-goers.
  1. No more dumb war.  Voters from the ancestral regions of the Union draftees after the Civil War – from northern Maine to the Minnesota Iron Range – have, ever since, instinctively viewed war with suspicion.  Study the voting patterns of this kind of county, and you will find that sudden surges turn out to oppose various wars.  The heart of "isolationism" was a Midwestern phenomenon in the same regions that tilted so heavily toward Trump in the election.  It is not a coincidence that areas with historic antiwar tendencies – from east Tennessee to western Wisconsin, from rural Iowa to northern Maine – were some of the biggest pro-Trump trending areas in the country, nor that two states that formed the heart of antiwar politicians in the past (like Ohio's Taft) bolted so heavily toward Trump.  Trump used his war-skeptical views to outflank the war-loving Hillary on both the working-class left and right, giving him the keys to his electoral majority, heisting Bernie primary voters along the way.  Betray this group with another Mideast war, and Trump endangers his electoral majority permanently.  That is where Bannon's inclusion in national security decisions remained critical for Trump's own political future. 
  1. No more job-killing deals.  The global-focused economy of finance and real estate enriched the urban port cities at the expense of the rural- and middle-America small-town heartland, who make our food and make our products.  Trump, despite profiting from that largely coastal port-city world, promised to reverse that economic bargain.  Trade, immigration, and infrastructure all allowed him to carve out distinguishing traits, while also promising a protective government that does not over-rely on regulatory bureaucracy in areas of health, education, and energy.  Tax reform took its role, as did Obamacare reversal, but it all fit into a different fabric of policy ideals from traditional Republican economics, meant to appeal to a GOP-skeptic northern working class rightly skeptical of Ryan economics and McCain foreign policy.

Bannon understands, intricately, each of these issues and, as important, the intimate way each of these issues connects the new constituencies of the Trump electoral majority.  Bannon also understands the adversary – an alliance of Deep-State, administrative-regulatory-state, professional-class career bureaucrats and their media lapdogs and allies.  Bannon also enjoys another unique attribute: actually overcoming them, in the public area of persuasion (the extraordinary rise of Breitbart against a media blackout of the site) and the electoral arena of actual elections (feeding the Tea Party, then fueling Trumpism).

Bannon politically is to Trump what Carville was to Clinton, Atwater was to Poppy Bush, and Kevin Phillips was to Nixon, but he also enjoys a consigliere-type skill set for actual policy that gives strategic substance to Trump's gut-driven, emotive decision-making.  Trump's instinctive ingenuity and persuasive mastery cannot substitute for Bannon's integration of policies and constituencies in actually governing.

Kushner's apparent deference to the war-mongering elements of the national-security establishment and the bank-adoring financiers of Wall Street reveals that he suffers from the same delusional understanding of politics and policy that got the GOP so hated by its own base over the last half-decade.  Kushner looks to the approval of Goldman Sachs; Bannon looks to the approval of those who hate Goldman Sachs.

Lose Bannon, lose the country.  Lose Bannon, lose the presidency.  Trump needs to bet on Bannon, or it will be time to no longer bet on Trump. 

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/04/if_trump_...
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

mardi, 21 mars 2017

Bannon: un guénonien à Washington D.C.?


Bannon: un guénonien à Washington D.C.?

Ex: http://www.dedefensa.org

On a déjà beaucoup parlé de Stephen Bannon, ce “conseiller stratégique” du président Trump et, semble-t-il, le conseiller le plus écouté jusqu’à être considéré, – selon certains points de vue, – comme l’éminence grise et l’inspirateur de Trump. L’on sait également que Bannon a déjà beaucoup suscité de commentaires avec certaines de ses conceptions, notamment et précisément son idée selon laquelle il faut “détruire tout le Système” (cette expression étant une interprétation de certaines déclarations et écrits, qui s’éclaireront plus loin). (... Et nous laissons bien entendu de côté les sornettes insupportables de médiocrité, issues des complexes et obsessions postmodernismes, sur son prétendu “suprémacisme blanc” et le reste. Ce faisant, nous laissons les esprits forts et flics de la postmodernité jouer avec leurs poussières.) Or, voici un texte particulièrement intéressant à cet égard, que nous comptons utiliser comme une des références pour un prochain F&C consacré à la question que soulève le cas Bannon, du point de vue de notre civilisation et de son destin dans l’arrangement cosmique du monde... Pas moins, chers lecteurs.

Le texte est d’Alastair Crooke, dans Consortium News, le 10 mars. Nous connaissons Crooke que nous avons souvent cité, et qu’il nous est arrivé de rencontrer pour mieux apprécier ses qualités. Nous ferons deux remarques à son propos, qui situeront parfaitement l’appréciation que nous en avons, et par conséquent une façon de voir ce qu'on peut accorder de crédit au texte que nous examinons.

• Cet ancien officier du MI6 devenu conseiller du Haut Représentant de l’UE Solana au début des années 2000, a choisi ensuite la voie très difficile de l’indépendance en créant son institut dit Conflict Forum. Basé au Liban puis replié sur l’Italie, Crooke poursuit un chemin ardu, sans soutien institutionnalisé, caractérisé par une rupture avec la pensée dominante, ditto le Système. Ses positions sont évidemment elles-mêmes en rupture complète avec la doxa-Système et sa carrière nous garantit que ses jugements sont nourris de la rigueur et de l’expérience professionnelles qui lui sont naturelles.

• Crooke est un homme affable et doux, au jugement rationnel et d’une très grande culture, qui a l’habitude d’observer les divers problèmes soulevés par la Grande Crise générale du point de vue d’un érudit particulièrement versé dans les conceptions liées à la pensée de la Tradition. Il est un de ces esprits qui commentent les événements en ayant comme référence les grands courants philosophiques qui l’intéressent. Très grand connaisseur des questions de l’Islam, hors des analyses hystériquement artificielles sur l’“islamisme” extrémisme-terroriste et l’“islamophobie” qui lui répond, – caricature postmoderniste contre caricature postmoderniste, – on peut très bien lors d’une discussion avec lui se trouver entraînés dans une réflexion commune sur le néoplatonisme sans avoir le sentiment de se trouver hors-sujet.

Ce qui passionne Crooke dans la personne de Bannon, et par conséquent dans la sorte d’influence qu’il exercerait sur un Trump qui apparaîtrait lui-même intellectuellement bien plus conséquent qu’on ne croit, c’est la conscience qu’a le personnage de la profondeur vertigineuse de la Grande Crise. L’intérêt que présentent la personnalité et l’expérience de Bannon est qu’il a lui aussi, de son côté, à côté de positions théoriques très marquées, une expérience professionnelle également très marquée des instruments fondamentaux, déstructurants et dissolvants, de la postmodernité et du Système, ; il a en effet travaillé à Hollywood comme scénariste et réalisateur (son film Generation Zero) et à Wall Street, chez Goldman-Sachs, avant de passer à Breitbart.News.

(C’est une démarche courante aujourd’hui, qui demande une grande attention de la psychologie, une grande souplesse de l’esprit et de son jugement. Ce qui peut être d’abord perçu comme des signes de compromission avec le Système du point de vue des antiSystème, peut également, par éventuelle inversion vertueuse et suivant une enquête éclairée, être vu au contraire comme des instruments d’une connaissance éventuellement décisive de l’adversaire, “de l’intérieur”.)

Neil-Prophecy.jpgBannon est extrêmement influencé par les travaux de deux commentateurs de la sorte que nous nommerions “crisologues” tant le concept de crise (crisologie) est au centre de toutes nos réflexions, Neil Howe et William Strauss, auteurs de An American Prophecy, en 1997. Les deux auteurs adoptent une approche de l’actuelle situation,  – la grande Crise se faisant déjà sentir dès la fin du communisme avec la mise en cause radicale de la notion de Progrès, – qui se réfère aux théories cycliques de la Tradition. « [Leur] analyse rejette les promesses des historiens occidentaux modernes de développement social et économie linéaire (progrès continuel et déclin) ou chaotique (trop de complexité pour révéler n’importe quelle direction). Au lieu de cela, ils adoptent la vision d’à peu près toutes les sociétés traditionnelles : que le temps social est un temps cyclique dans lequel les événements sont significatifs seulement dans la mesure où ils sont caractérisés par ce que le philosophe Mircea Eliade nommait “reconstitution”. Dans l’espace cyclique, une fois que vous avez écarté les accidents accessoires et sans signification, ainsi que la technologie, il vous reste un nombre limité de conceptions sociales, qui tendent à se répéter selon un ordre bien fixé... »

Les deux auteurs identifient quatre phases (quatre Turnings) dans le cycle, High, Awakening, Unravelling et Crisis, – étant entendu et étant évident que nous nous trouvons dans une quatrième phase du cycle donné qui voit évoluer notre civilisation et notre destin. Bien entendu, cette schématisation est irrésistiblement identifiable comme étant de type guénonien, c’est-à-dire selon la référence classique, et considérée par Guénon lui-même comme “universelle” du Manvatara hindouiste des quatre âges (Or, Argent, Airain et Fer), et référence effectivement de la Tradition et de toutes les doctrines qui s’y rapportent. Bien entendu encore, cette sorte de conception s’oppose d’une façon fondamentale et universelle à toutes les idées et conceptions de type moderniste. On a là, bien entendu toujours, une clef solide et fort bien ciselée pour expliquer la haine absolument diabolique, – le qualificatif sonne bien et juste, – qui accompagne Trump, son administration, et bien sûr son conseiller Bannon identifié comme le Diable en personne. (Ce qui est somme toute inacceptable comme on le comprend aisément, car il doit être admis que le Diable ne peut supporte ni admettre d’être plagié ni imité de quelque façon que ce soit...)

Dans les conceptions de Bannon, et puisque nous nous trouvons comme toutes les traditions s’accordent à le penser dans une fin de cycle, à la fois crisique et catastrophique, il y a comme une pressante et impérative nécessité d’aller jusqu’au bout de la catastrophe. Il se trouve, observe Crooke, que cette conception rencontre, ou se rapproche en la croisant, de certaines conceptions de Trump lui-même, exprimées dès 2000, selon l’extrême probabilité d’une catastrophe économique, financière et sociale, avec l’idée implicite de la nécessité de cette catastrophe pour parvenir à une sorte de “renaissance”.

(On pourrait penser qu’il y a là une idée qui pourrait aussi bien trouver sa symbolisation triviale dans l’expression que Trump employait pour indiquer qu’il allait attaquer la corruption, le clientélisme, etc., de l’establishment. “Drainer le cloaque” pourrait aussi bien s’appliquer à la nécessité de porter la Grande crise à son extrême catastrophique.)

On comprend l’intérêt de cette analyse, surtout dans le climat actuel qui ne cesse d’évoluer vers un catastrophisme quasiment opérationnel, laissant loin derrière lui les seules craintes de crises parcellaires, n’affectant qu’un seul domaine, et qui sont finalement des crises “rassurantes” pour le Système as a whole (comme celle de l’automne 2008, par exemple). Il y a maintenant plusieurs années qu’on ne mesure plus les possibilités de crise aux seuls chiffres du chômage, de la Bourse ou de la croissance, mais que le sentiment général est celui d’une crise de civilisation en train de se préparer ou déjà en train de se dérouler, affectant par définition tous les domaines, un bouleversement à la fois métahistorique et eschatologique.


La question que soulèvent ces réflexions concerne bien entendu la signification réelle de la politique Trump, ou de ce qu’on perçoit comme étant une antipolitique, sinon une non-politique, – ce qui est un objet de très nombreuses interrogations et supputations depuis deux mois. (Trump est-il prisonnier du Système ? Trump a-t-il capitulé devant le Système ? Trump est-il un faux-nez du Système ? Trump est-il un comploteur ? Trump est-il un crétin? Trump est-il fou ? Etc.) Dans le chef de cette “politique“ qui a les allures d’une non-politique, peut-on concevoir que la politique de Trump soit une démarche volontaire à la finalité aussi vertigineuse, et peut-on concevoir qu’on puisse définir et accomplir une politique qui soit le contraire du concept de politique, accompagnant un processus de destruction-reconstruction, de chaos-renaissance, etc. ? Bien entendu, on voit combien cette sorte d’hypothèse s’accorde avec l’observation que nous faisons souvent du processus de surpuissance-autodestruction caractérisant le Système. Il y a là un courant d’hypothèses qui tend à s’orienter vers les attentes intellectuelles, sinon spirituelles, qu’a fait naître le développement des événements depuis quelques années (depuis 9/11, depuis l’automne 2008, depuis le “printemps arabe” de 2010, et singulièrement depuis le “coup de Kiev” de février 2014 et jusqu’au Brexit et USA-2016 avec Trump).




Steve Bannon’s Apocalyptic ‘Unravelling’

by Alastair Crooke

Steve Bannon is accustomed to start many of his talks to activists and Tea Party gatherings in the following way: “At 11 o’clock on 18 September 2008, Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke told the U.S. President that they had already stove-piped $500 billions of liquidity into the financial system during the previous 24 hours – but needed a further one Trillion dollars, that same day.

“The pair said that if they did not get it immediately, the U.S. financial system would implode within 72 hours; the world’s financial system, within three weeks; and that social unrest and political chaos could ensue within the month.” (In the end, Bannon notes, it was more like $5 trillion that was required, though no one really knows how much, as there has been no accounting for all these trillions).

“We (the U.S.) have”, he continues, “in the wake of the bailouts that ensued, liabilities of $200 trillions, but net assets – including everything – of some $50-60 trillion.” (Recall that Bannon is himself a former Goldman Sachs banker).

“We are upside down; the industrial democracies today have a problem we have never had before; we are over-leveraged (we have to go through a massive de-leveraging); and we have built a welfare state which is completely and totally unsupportable.

“And why this is a crisis … the problem … is that the numbers have become so esoteric that even the guys on Wall Street, at Goldman Sachs, the guys I work with, and the Treasury guys … It’s so tough to get this together … Trillion dollar deficits … etcetera.”

But, Bannon says — in spite of all these esoteric, unimaginable numbers wafting about — the Tea Party women (and it is mainly led by women, he points out) get it. They know a different reality: they know what groceries now cost, they know their kids have $50,000 in college debt, are still living at home, and see no jobs in prospect: “The reason I called the film Generation Zero is because this generation, the guys in their 20s and 30s: We’ve wiped them out.”

And it’s not just Bannon. A decade earlier, in 2000, Donald Trump was writing in a very similar vein in a pamphlet that marked his first toying with the prospect of becoming a Presidential candidate: “My third reason for wanting to speak out is that I see not only incredible prosperity … but also the possibility of economic and social upheaval … Look towards the future, and if you are like me, you will see storm clouds brewing. Big Trouble. I hope I am wrong, but I think we may be facing an economic crash like we’ve never seen before.”

And before the recent presidential election, Donald Trump kept to this same narrative: the stock market was dangerously inflated. In an interview on CNBC, he said, “I hope I’m wrong, but I think we’re in a big, fat, juicy bubble,” adding that conditions were so perilous that the country was headed for a “very massive recession” and that “if you raise interest rates even a little bit, (everything’s) going to come crashing down.”

The Paradox

And here, precisely, is the paradox: Why — if Trump and Bannon view the economy as already over-leveraged, excess-bubbled, and far too fragile to accommodate even a small interest rate rise — has Trump (in Mike Whitney’s words) “promised  … more treats and less rules for Wall Street … tax cuts, massive government spending, and fewer regulations … $1 trillion in fiscal stimulus to rev up consumer spending and beef up corporate profits … to slash corporate tax rates and fatten the bottom line for America’s biggest businesses. And he’s going to gut Dodd-Frank, the ‘onerous’ regulations that were put in place following the 2008 financial implosion, to prevent another economy-decimating cataclysm.”

Does President Trump see the world differently, now that he is President? Or has he parted company with Bannon’s vision?

Though Bannon is often credited – though most often, by a hostile press, aiming to present Trump (falsely) as the “accidental President” who never really expected to win – as the intellectual force behind President Trump. In fact, Trump’s current main domestic and foreign policies were all presaged, and entirely present, in Trump’s 2000 pamphlet.

In 2000, Bannon was less political, screenwriter Julia Jones, a long-time Bannon collaborator, notes. “But the Sept. 11 attacks,” Ms. Jones says, “changed him” and their Hollywood collaboration did not survive his growing engagement with politics.

Bannon himself pins his political radicalization to his experience of the 2008 Great Financial Crisis. He detested how his Goldman colleagues mocked the Tea Party’s “forgotten” ones. As Ms. Jones sees it, a more reliable key to Bannon’s worldview lies in his military service.


“He has a respect for duty,” she said in early February. “The word he has used a lot is ‘dharma.’” Mr. Bannon found the concept of dharma in the Bhagavad Gita, she recalls. It can describe one’s path in life or one’s place in the universe.

There is no evidence, however, that President Trump either has changed his economic views or that he has diverged in his understanding of the nature of the crisis facing America (and Europe).

Tests Ahead

Both men are very smart. Trump understands business, and Bannon finance. They surely know the headwinds they face: the looming prospect of a wrangle to increase the American $20 trillion “debt ceiling” (which begins to bite on March 15), amid a factious Republican Party, the improbability of the President’s tax or fiscal proposals being enacted quickly, and the likelihood that the Federal Reserve will hike interest rates, “until something breaks.” If they are so smart, what then is going on?

What Bannon has brought to the partnership however, is a clear articulation of the nature of this “crisis” in his Generation Zero film, which explicitly is built around the framework of a book called The Fourth Turning: An American Prophecy, written in 1997 by Neil Howe and William Strauss.

In the words of one of the co-authors, the analysis “rejects the deep premise of modern Western historians that social time is either linear (continuous progress or decline) or chaotic (too complex to reveal any direction). Instead we adopt the insight of nearly all traditional societies: that social time is a recurring cycle in which events become meaningful only to the extent that they are what philosopher Mircea Eliade calls ‘reenactments.’ In cyclical space, once you strip away the extraneous accidents and technology, you are left with only a limited number of social moods, which tend to recur in a fixed order.”

Howe and Strauss write: “The cycle begins with the First Turning, a ‘High’ which comes after a crisis era. In a High, institutions are strong and individualism is weak. Society is confident about where it wants to go collectively, even if many feel stifled by the prevailing conformity.

“The Second Turning is an ‘Awakening,’ when institutions are attacked in the name of higher principles and deeper values. Just when society is hitting its high tide of public progress, people suddenly tire of all the social discipline and want to recapture a sense of personal authenticity.

“The Third Turning is an ‘Unravelling,’ in many ways the opposite of the High. Institutions are weak and distrusted, while individualism is strong and flourishing.

“Finally, the Fourth Turning is a ‘Crisis’ period. This is when our institutional life is reconstructed from the ground up, always in response to a perceived threat to the nation’s very survival. If history does not produce such an urgent threat, Fourth Turning leaders will invariably find one — and may even fabricate one — to mobilize collective action. Civic authority revives, and people and groups begin to pitch in as participants in a larger community. As these Promethean bursts of civic effort reach their resolution, Fourth Turnings refresh and redefine our national identity.” (Emphasis added).

Woodstock Generation

Bannon’s film focuses principally on the causes of the 2008 financial crisis, and on the “ideas” that arose amongst the “Woodstock generation” (the Woodstock musical festival occurred in 1969), that permeated, in one way or another, throughout American and European society.

The narrator calls the Woodstock generation the “Children of Plenty.” It was a point of inflection: a second turning “Awakening”; a discontinuity in culture and values. The older generation (that is, anyone over 30) was viewed as having nothing to say, nor any experience to contribute. It was the elevation of the “pleasure principle” (as a “new” phenomenon, as “their” discovery), over the puritan ethic; It celebrated doing one’s own thing; it was about “Self” and narcissism.

The “Unravelling” followed in the form of government and institutional weakness: the “system” lacked the courage to take difficult decisions. The easy choices invariably were taken: the élites absorbed the self-centered, spoilt-child, ethos of the “me” generation. The 1980s and 1990s become the era of “casino capitalism” and the “Davos man.”

The lavish taxpayer bailouts of the U.S. banks after the Mexican, Russian, Asian and Argentinian defaults and crises washed away the bankers’ costly mistakes. The 2004 Bear Stearns exemption which allowed the big five banks to leverage their lending above 12:1 – and, which quickly extended to become 25:1, 30:1 and even 40:1 – permitted the irresponsible risk-taking and the billions in profit-making. The “Dot Com” bubble was accommodated by monetary policy – and then the massive 2008 bailouts accommodated the banks, yet again.

The “Unravelling” was essentially a cultural failure: a failure of responsibility, of courage to face hard choices – it was, in short, the film suggests, an era of spoilt institutions, compromised politicians and irresponsible Wall Streeters – the incumbent class – indulging themselves, and “abdicating responsibility.”

Now we have entered the “Fourth Turning”: “All the easy choices are back of us.” The “system” still lacks courage. Bannon says this period will be the “nastiest, ugliest in history.” It will be brutal, and “we” (by which he means the Trump Tea Party activists) will be “vilified.” This phase may last 15 – 20 years, he predicts.


Greek Tragedy

The key to this Fourth Turning is “character.” It is about values. What Bannon means by “our crisis” is perhaps best expressed when the narrator says: “the essence of Greek tragedy is that it is not like a traffic accident, where somebody dies [i.e. the great financial crises didn’t just arise by mischance].

The Greek sense is that tragedy is where something happens because it has to happen, because of the nature of the participants. Because the people involved, make it happen. And they have no choice to make it happen, because that’s their nature.”

This is the deeper implication of what transpired from Woodstock: the nature of people changed. The “pleasure principle,” the narcissism, had displaced the “higher” values that had made America what it was. The generation that believed that there was “no risk, no mountain they could not climb” brought this crisis upon themselves. They wiped out 200 years of financial responsibility in about 20 years. This, it appears, captures the essence of Bannon’s thinking.

That is where we are, Bannon asserts: Stark winter inevitably follows, after a warm, lazy summer. It becomes a time of testing, of adversity. Each season in nature has its vital function. Fourth turnings are necessary: they a part of the cycle of renewal.

Bannon’s film concludes with author Howe declaring: “history is seasonal and winter is coming,”

And, what is the immediate political message? It is simple, the narrator of Bannon’s film says: “STOP”: stop doing what you were doing. Stop spending like before. Stop taking on spending commitments that cannot be afforded. Stop mortgaging your children’s future with debt. Stop trying to manipulate the banking system. It is a time for tough thinking, for saying “no” to bailouts, for changing the culture, and re-constructing institutional life.

Cultural Legacy

And how do you re-construct civic life? You look to those who still possess a sense of duty and responsibility – who have retained a cultural legacy of values. It is noticeable that when Bannon addresses the activists, almost the first thing he does is to salute the veterans and serving officers, and praise their qualities, their sense of duty.

It is no surprise then that President Trump wants to increase both the veterans’ and the military’s budget. It is not so much a portent of U.S. military belligerence, but more that he sees them as warriors for the coming “winter” of testing and adversity. Then, and only then does Bannon speak to the “thin blue line” of activists who still have strength of character, a sense of responsibility, of duty. He tells them that the future rests in their hands, alone.

Does this sound like men – Bannon and Trump – who want to ramp up a fresh financial bubble, to indulge the Wall Street casino (in their words)? No? So, what is going on?

They know “the crisis” is coming. Let us recall what Neil Howe wrote in the Washington Post concerning the “Fourth Turning”:

“This is when our institutional life is reconstructed from the ground up, always in response to a perceived threat to the nation’s very survival. If history does not produce such an urgent threat, Fourth Turning leaders will invariably find one — and may even fabricate one — to mobilize collective action. Civic authority revives, and people and groups begin to pitch in as participants in a larger community. As these Promethean bursts of civic effort reach their resolution, Fourth Turnings refresh and redefine our national identity.”

Trump has no need to “fabricate” a financial crisis. It will happen “because it has to happen, because of the nature of the participants (in the current ‘system’). Because the people involved, make it happen. And they have no choice to make it happen, because that’s their nature.”

It is not even President Obama’s or Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson’s fault, per se. They are just who they are.

Trump and Bannon therefore are not likely trying to ignite the “animal spirits” of the players in the financial “casino” (as many in the financial sphere seem to assume). If Bannon’s film and Trump’s articulation of crisis mean anything, it is that their aim is to ignite the “animal spirits” of “the working-class casualties and those forgotten Americans” of the Midwest, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

At that point, they hope that the “thin blue line” of activists will “pitch in” with a Promethean burst of civic effort which will reconstruct America’s institutional and economic life.

If this is so, the Trump/Bannon vision both is audacious – and quite an extraordinary gamble …

Alastair Crooke

samedi, 18 février 2017

Gianfranco De Turris: “Se Evola (critico degli Usa) viene apprezzato anche alla Casa Bianca”


Gianfranco De Turris: “Se Evola (critico degli Usa) viene apprezzato anche alla Casa Bianca”

da Michele De Feudis
Ex: http://www.barbadillo.it 

Gianfranco de Turris, segretario della Fondazione Evola. Il filosofo di “Cavalcare la tigre” è negli ultimi giorni tornato d’attualità per una citazione di un consigliere del neopresidente Usa Donald Trump, Steve Bannon. In che contesto Bannon ha citato Evola?

“In realtà non è proprio così, anche se il “New York Times” ha lasciato credere questo… Il quotidiano ha tirato fuori solo ora una cosa del 2014, quando Trump non era nessuno, solo per metterlo in difficoltà con quello che è ora il suo consigliere principale. Ma la coincidenza ancora più interessante è che la dichiarazione di Bannon è uscita il 10 febbraio, guarda caso esattamente dieci giorni dopo la sua nomina nel National Security Council! Se due indizi fanno una prova… L’autore dell’articolo sul NYT, Jason Horowitz, che mi ha intervistato per mettere tre righe su mezz’ora di conversazione, è il vaticanista del giornale ed è stato volutamente generico nel riferimento a tre anni fa. Ma in Rete non si perde nulla e si è trovata la fonte primaria della notizia. Bannon in realtà non parla direttamente di Evola ma lo cita en passant, rispondendo ad una domanda, dunque uno spunto occasionale, non programmato. E citando invece esplicitamente Dugin, consigliere, si dice, di Putin. Tutto qui. Una cosa ridicola e strumentale, che comunque ha permesso a “Repubblica” un titolo epocale in prima pagina (!) da incorniciare: “Evola e il Fascismo ispirano Bannon la mente di Trump”. Il titolo dell’articolo è nel classico stile-Repubblica, allarmistico e pomposo: “Il cuore nero della destra americana”. E cioè: Sun Tsu, Spengler, D’Annunzio, Evola e Mussolini! Ah, anche Dart Fener, il cattivo di “Guerre stellari”… Insomma, una “trama nera”, che va dalla Rivoluzione Conservatrice a Star Wars…. Risun teneatis! Incredibile ma vero. A questo giunge la stampa italiana, senza senso del ridicolo. Ma questo ci fa gioco.
Insomma, all’inizio c’è una bufala strumentalizzata ad uso interno statunitense, anche se è perfettamente vero, come mi avevamo detto tempo fa amici americani, che Stephen Bannon è un conoscitore del tradizionalismo e legge e studia non solo Evola, ma anche Guénon, Dugin e de Benoist, che un vero tradizionalista certo non è, ma che comunque collabora anche al sito Breitbart News, cuore della cosiddetta Alt-Right statunitense”.

Ma che cosa interessa a Bannon del tradizionalismo?

“Se ci si deve basare sulla conferenza in Vaticano dove i riferimenti sono generici, si deve pensare che Bannon in realtà riprende piuttosto alcuni concetti della Rivoluzione Conservatrice, condivisi spesso parzialmente e con riserve (vedi il caso del principio di autodeterminazione dei popoli) dal pensiero tradizionale. È ad ogni modo la critica alla modernità che interessa a Bannon del pensiero tradizionale, le accuse al mondialismo, alla globalizzazione mercantilista, ecc. Una forma di anticapitalismo di Destra, insomma, assai diffuso anche al di fuori del pensiero tradizionale. Con risvolti ultrapopulisti che però riprendono più la tradizione americana che quella europea e che di sicuro Evola non avrebbe mai sottoscritto considerando il tipo di critiche che rivolgeva a fascismo e nazismo su questo punto”.


Evola negli Usa: è studiato dalle élite americane o nelle accademie oltreoceano?

“Macché! La cosa paradossale è proprio questa. Nonostante che tutti i suoi libri maggiori siano tradotti in inglese soprattutto dalla americana Inner Traditions, che io sappia non viene non dico letto dalle élites, ma neppure studiato nelle università, a parte alcuni singoli docenti che se ne sono occupati per aspetti particolari come Richard Drake per l’aspetto politico, Joscelyn Godwin per l’esoterismo o Jeffrey Schnapps per l’arte. Forse questo inaspettato parlarne sui grandi giornali americani potrebbe accendere un vero e serio interesse per la sua opera multiforme, al di là delle sciocchezze che sono state scritte…”.

Il barone dedicò saggi e studi agli Stati Uniti e all’americanismo. Con che orientamento?

“Evola ha scritto sugli Stati Uniti sin dagli anni Trenta con il famoso saggio “Americanismo e bolscevismo” che poi divenne la conclusione di “Rivolta contro il mondo moderno” già nella prima edizione del 1934. Sono le due facce della stessa medaglia, cioè il materialismo, che alla fine stritoleranno l’Europa, in quanto particolare tipo di civiltà. Caduta l’URSS però sono rimasti solo gli USA. Dopo quasi trent’anni adesso a capo degli USA c’è un singolare personaggio, del tutto imprevisto e imprevedibile, gli sviluppi della cui politica non è possibile immaginare, e le cui posizioni potrebbero essere influenzate da Bannon.
Certo è paradossale, una beffa se non una nemesi della Storia che un pensatore che ha visto nell’americanismo un nemico più pericoloso del comunismo in quanto subdolo, e che contro gli USA ne ha scritte di tutti i colori (basti leggere gli articoli riunti da Alberto Lombardo in “Civiltà americana”, quaderno della Fondazione Evola) abbia improvvisamente un accesso al pensiero di un consigliere di un presidente americano! Chi lo avrebbe mai potuto immaginare? La Storia non è già stata scritta e non va in un’unica direzione come pensano i progressisti oggi in grandi ambasce. Non so pensare a come andrà a finire, sempre che si consenta a Trump di arrivare a fine mandato (i casi Kennedy e Nixon insegnano). Mah!”.

L’attualità del pensiero evoliano: resta concretamente spendibile per comprendere gli scenari internazionali?

“Il pensiero di Evola non è un pensiero politico ma metapolitico, non è pratico ma si preoccupa di formare le menti e lo spirito per affrontare la politica-politicante, voleva creare “una destra spirituale” come scrisse ne “Gli uomini e le rovine” nella edizione del 1967. E ciò vale sia nella politica interna che in quella internazionale. Sono i grandi principi, i valori base che contano, il riferimento al sacro, una forma mentis antimoderna e antimaterialistica. E oggi che è tutto impregnato di materialismo, laicismo, dove tutto è secolarizzato soprattutto in USA, è difficile pensare secondo le sue indicazioni. Ma non impossibile. La classe dirigente è stata allevata in base a ben altri criteri. I riferimenti, che hanno fatto alcuni giornali italiani al “predominio della razza bianca” sono ridicoli, se non demenziali”.

Tiriamo le somme: molto rumore per nulla?

“Penso di sì. Non dimentichiamoci che, da quando è stato eletto Trump la grande stampa progressista internazionale è coalizzata contro di lui: il NYT, e qui da noi i grandi quotidiani, dedicano letteralmente un servizio al giorno per screditare lui e i suoi collaboratori. Nel nostro caso è una strumentalizzazione anti Trump di un fatto lontano e tangenziale, indiretto, ripescato nella memoria di un giornalista. Tanto per poter dire, fornendo un’immagine forzata e inventata delle idee di Evola, che gli Stati Uniti potrebbero diventare una nazione autoritaria, se non dittatoriale e fascista, e magari giustificare un golpe bianco contro Trump o il suo assassinio da parte di qualche esaltato che uccide ill tiranno in nome della democrazia. Io credo proprio che Evola se la ridirebbe di gusto… Anche se, considerando le imprevedibilità della Storia recente, non si sa proprio quel che potrebbe accadere”.



Di Michele De Feudis

dimanche, 27 novembre 2016

»Breitbart« und Trumps Stratege Stephen Bannon


»Breitbart« und Trumps Stratege Stephen Bannon

»Stephen Bannon zum ›chief of staff‹ zu ernennen, wäre wie Götz Kubitschek oder Jürgen Elsässer zum Kanzleramtsminister zu machen #Trump«, tweetete [1] der Spiegel-Deutschlandredakteur Wolf Wiedmann-Schmidt am 12. November, pünktlich zu Beginn des Ringens um die Besetzung des neuen US-Kabinetts unter dem designierten Präsidenten Donald J. Trump.

Woher aber kommt dieser Stephen Bannon, der tags darauf zum Counselor to the President und damit Chefstrategen und obersten Berater im Weißen Haus ernannt wurde; dieser Stephen Bannon, über dessen Einfluß auf die neue Regierung seit seiner Berufung zum Leiter von Trumps Wahlkampfkampagne die etablierten US-Medien (die jetzt über Twitters Enthauptungsschlag [2] gegen die »AltRight« von vorgestern nacht jubilieren) und inzwischen auch ihre deutschen Gegenstücke in heillose Aufregung geraten sind – und was macht Wiedmann-Schmidt so nervös?

Wenn überhaupt etwas, dann ist der Mann eine schillernde Persönlichkeit: Bannon ist Jahrgang 1953, ein Baby boomer also, und Sohn einer irischstämmigen Norfolker Arbeiterfamilie, in der John F. Kennedy und die Gewerkschaftsbewegung idolisiert und ganz selbstverständlich die Demokraten gewählt wurden. Nach seinem politikwissenschaftlichen Abschluß mit Schwerpunkt auf Nationaler Sicherheit an der elitären, von Jesuiten geführten Washingtoner Privatuniversität Georgetown 1976 ging »Steve« zur Marine und diente sieben Jahre lang zuerst als Offizier für Überwasserkampfführung auf dem Eskortzerstörer »USS Paul F. Foster« sowie anschließend als Assistent des Admiralstabschefs im Pentagon.

Parallel erwarb er einen postgradualen cum-laude-Abschluß als Master of Business Administration in Harvard und wechselte nach Ausscheiden aus dem Militär zuerst zu Goldman Sachs, um sich 1990 gemeinsam mit einigen Kollegen als »Bannon & Co.« im Investmentbereich selbständig zu machen. 1993 wurde er zusätzlich für zwei Jahre geschäftsführender Direktor des (inzwischen gescheiterten) Ökologieprojekts »Biosphere 2«, dessen Fokus er von Möglichkeiten der Weltraumkolonisation hin zu Umweltverschmutzung und Klimafragen verschob.

1998 wurde »Bannon & Co.« von der französischen Société Générale aufgekauft, und Bannon begann mit dem Erlös eine neue Karriere als Hollywoodproduzent. Während der Arbeit an einem Dokumentarfilm zu Ronald Reagans Rolle im Kalten Krieg (In the Face of Evil, 2004) begegnete er einem 16 Jahre jüngeren Mann, der – postum – entscheidend für die US-Präsidentschaftswahl 2016 werden sollte: Andrew Breitbart.

Der 2012 unerwartet verstorbene, ursprünglich von links kommende jüdische Publizist Breitbart hatte sein politisches Damaskuserlebnis infolge der Auseinandersetzungen um die Nominierung Clarence Thomas‘ für den Obersten Gerichtshof 1991 und orientierte sich unter maßgeblichem Einfluß konservativer Medienmacher wie Rush Limbaugh um zu einer dezidiert rechten Medien- und Kulturkritik.


Vom US-Mainstream enttäuscht, wurde er selbst aktiv: Bereits Mitte der neunziger Jahre Redakteur des Prototyps konservativer Online-Nachrichtendienste, The Drudge Report [3], beteiligte sich der streitbare Vollblutaktivist (Motto: »Schlag immer doppelt so hart zurück!«) 2005 an der Gründung der ursprünglich konservativen Huffington Post und schuf zeitgleich seine eigene Präsenz breitbart.com, die dank Unterstützung durch Drudge Report umgehend immense Zugriffszahlen erreichte. 2010 unterzog Breitbart seinen Nachrichtendienst einer Generalüberholung und ging mit etlichen Unterseiten und nunmehr selbst recherchierten Geschichten zum Angriff über – der Associated Press sagte er, er sehe sich »der Zerstörung der alten Mediengarde verpflichtet«.

Seither führten Breitbart-Enthüllungen unter anderem zu Bankrott und Liquidation der linken Nichtregierungsorganisation ACORN wegen scheinbarer Unterstützung von Menschenhandel und Kinderprostitution (2009), zum – vorschnell – erzwungenen Rücktritt der Direktorin für landwirtschaftliche Entwicklung des Bundesstaats Georgia wegen »antiweißen Rassismus‘« (2010) sowie zum Sturz des New Yorker Kongreßabgeordneten Anthony Weiner über einen Sexting-Skandal (2011, »Weinergate«).

Nach Breitbarts Tod wurde Bannon neuer Vorstandsvorsitzender des Breitbart News Network, formte es endgültig zu einer boulevardzeitungsartigen Netzpräsenz um und vertiefte seinen aggressiven Kurs gegenüber US-Politik und -Medien – »Wir sehen uns selbst als sehr scharf gegen das Establishment gerichtet, insbesondere gegen die beständige politische Klasse.« – durch eine Annäherung an die wildwüchsigen rechten Internetzirkel der »AltRight« (vgl. Sezession 69 [4]).

Als 2014 die sogenannte »Gamergate«-Affäre um die Einflußnahme von Feminismusaktivistinnen auf die Computerspielbranche und den Widerstand dagegen losbrach, bewies Bannon (von 2007 bis 2011 selbst Geschäftsführer des Onlinespiele-Unternehmens Affinity Media) strategisches Geschick: Er engagierte einen jungen Briten für die neue »Meinungsfreiheitszentrale« Breitbart Tech, der sich im »Gamergate«-Verlauf zur tabu- und respektlosen journalistischen Stimme der politisch Inkorrekten aufgeschwungen hatte – Milo Yiannopoulos.

Gegenüber Yiannopoulos [5], Sohn eines Griechen und Enkel einer Jüdin sowie offen Homosexueller mit Vorliebe für grelle Kostümierungen und muskulöse schwarze Männer, liefen liberale Feindmarkierungen ins Leere, so daß sich seine Lust an größtmöglicher Provokation und das Bannonsche Selbstverständnis als Dampframme rechter Dissidenz ergänzten.


Yiannopoulos machte insbesondere als rabiater Kritiker von Feminismus und »Black-Lives-Matter«-Bewegung von sich reden. Es waren Überschriften wie »Wovon würden Sie Ihr Kind lieber befallen sehen, Feminismus oder Krebs?«, die zu seiner namentlichen Erwähnung in Hillary Clintons bereits legendär gewordener öffentlichen Klage [6] über die »AltRight« am 25. August 2016 führten und die amerikanische Gegenöffentlichkeit so in jeden Haushalt hineintrugen. Eine Woche vor Clintons Rede war Bannon vom Vorstandsvorsitz zurückgetreten, um Trumps Kampagne zu leiten.

Was also läßt sich vom Modell Breitbart News lernen und von der politischen Eskalationsspirale, die seinen ehemaligen CEO innerhalb von knapp 13 Wochen auf eine weltgeschichtlich bedeutsame Position katapultiert hat? Die Erfolgsgeschichte ist auf drei zentrale Faktoren zurückzuführen:

  1. Aktualität: Das Breitbart-Netzwerk verfügt seit 2014 neben der Zentrale in Los Angeles über Regionalbüros für Texas, Florida, Kalifornien, London/Europa, Kairo/Nahost sowie Jerusalem, die rund um die Uhr jeweils bedeutsame tagesaktuelle Themen aufgreifen und besetzen. Eine weitere europäische Ausdehnung ist geplant; Süddeutsche, Welt, Spiegel etc. warnten bereits panisch vor einem möglichen Breitbart News Germany, das den massenmedialen Meinungskonsens aufbrechen könnte.
  2. Zeitgemäßheit: Die Mitarbeiter von Breitbart News bedienen sich virtuos der sozialen Medien, um einerseits im Trend liegende Themen und Geschichten aufzuspüren, andererseits ihre eigenen Inhalte viral zu verbreiten. Zu dieser Netzkompetenz, die die etablierten Nachrichtendienste und Zeitungen fast ausnahmslos missen lassen, trägt massiv bei, daß der Altersdurchschnitt der Redaktionsmitarbeiter verhältnismäßig niedrig ist und anstelle jahrzehntelang geschulter Berufsjournalisten bevorzugt Fachleute gerade aus Medienbereichen angeworben werden.
  3. Intransigenz: Bei Breitbart News wird sich nicht entschuldigt, und es werden keine Konzessionen gemacht. Das gilt insbesondere für die Conditio sine qua non der Anti-Establishment-Haltung: Das Netzwerk macht die übliche Liebedienerei der Leitmedien gegenüber der Politik nicht mit (wiewohl die News-Konkurrenz dies während des US-Wahlkampfs behauptete), sondern hat vielmehr den Anspruch, die Politik vor sich herzutreiben. Das galt für Bannon zu seiner Zeit als Vorstandsvorsitzender genauso wie zuletzt für Raheem Kassam [7], Chefredakteur von Breitbart News London, der Nigel Farage bis zu dessen Rückzug vom UKIP-Parteivorsitz als oberster Berater diente und im Anschluß vorübergehend selbst für das Amt kandidierte.

Die deutsche Medienlandschaft fürchtet das Modell Breitbart News, weil es ihre Abwehrmechanismen unterläuft. Das US-Portal hat alle Anfeindungen überstanden; Bannons neuer Posten bezeugt die Wirksamkeit der Strategie. Die ratlosen Reaktionen auf erste deutsche Spin doctors außerhalb des politisch-medialen Komplexes, wie Michael Klonovsky und Günther Lachmann, zeugt von dem revolutionären Potential eines deutschen Breitbart-Ablegers: Der erstarrte Konsens der veröffentlichten Meinung würde zertrümmert, die politischen Karten neu gemischt. Es gibt keinen Anlaß, dem nicht gespannt entgegenzusehen.

Beitrag gedruckt von Sezession im Netz: http://www.sezession.de

URL zum Beitrag: http://www.sezession.de/56582/breitbart-und-trumps-stratege-stephen-bannon.html

URLs in diesem Beitrag:

[1] tweetete: https://twitter.com/schmidtwolf/status/797538611952500736

[2] Twitters Enthauptungsschlag: http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/15/twitter-initiates-mass-purge-of-alt-right-accounts-following-trump-victory/#ixzz4Q8VmmvDL

[3] The Drudge Report: http://www.drudgereport.com/

[4] Sezession 69: http://www.sezession.de/heftseiten/heft-69-dezember-2015

[5] Yiannopoulos: http://www.breitbart.com/author/milo-yiannopoulos/

[6] öffentlichen Klage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYyZX3UW8Qc

[7] Raheem Kassam: https://twitter.com/raheemkassam

[8] : http://www.alternet.org/story/154463/what_really_killed_andrew_breitbart_the_likely_cause_of_death_the_mainstream_media_ignored

[9] : http://www.bild.de/politik/ausland/demokraten-usa/trump-gegen-soros-48779640.bild.html

[10] : http://

[11] : https://kurier.at/politik/ausland/wer-die-alternativen-rechten-sind-und-was-sie-wollen/231.193.948

[12] : http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/steve-bannon-trump-tower-interview-trumps-strategist-plots-new-political-movement-948747

[13] : http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/us-praesident-donald-trump-chefstratege-steva-bannon-im-interview-ueber-macht-a-1122114.html

[14] : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QrHoMDDWq4

[15] : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7DULIwAN5E

[16] : https://hintermbusch.wordpress.com/2016/11/19/rassismus-bei-den-us-wahlen/

[17] : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-17VdcA036I

[18] : http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/angela-merkel-die-anfuehrerin-der-freien-welt-und-ihr-programm-1.3257286

[19] : http://derfunke.info/?p=277

[20] : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOYoou3genk

[21] : https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forsthaus_Moditten

[22] : https://de.sputniknews.com/panorama/20160802311917639-kaliningrad-kant-haus-restauration/

[23] : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqFG6fTJQw4

[24] : http://www.radixjournal.com/blog/2016/11/5/make-germany-drumpf-again

[25] : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rh4UjtgG200

[26] : http://www.superillu.de/erotik/gabi-0

[27] : https://russische-botschaft.ru/de/2016/06/29/wertvolles-zusammenwirken-putin-bei-deutsch-russischem-schuleraustausch-in-moskau/

[28] : http://www.zeit.de/2016/45/suezkrise-syrien-krieg-naher-osten-zeitgeist

[29] : http://www.freiheit-wahrheit-verantwortung.de/deutschland/sri-aurobindo-ueber-deutschland/