Tag Archives: Trump

Trump, Putin and Neocons

We publish here an article by Alistair Cook, who is always a very well informed and interesting observer.
We permit ourselves only one suggestion to anyone who entertained illusions about Mr. Trump or who wants to make a clear distinction between early and late Trump.
Probably all this supposed evolution of Trump is nothing else than the predicted and planned from the very beginning evolution of a huge Neocon conspiracy.
There are no forces inside Western Capitalism which will accept even a slightly independent Russia and China.
Only if popular movements were to appear in the West, in response to the crisis, would there really be support for such a policy.
US, Israel and Western Europe would only temporarily accept any pro Russian or pro Chinese measures and this only if they cannot do otherwise.
As for Neocon policy towards Russia, through Trump or otherwise, it seems to be inspired by a combination of past successes, like the Kissinger’s game with China and the Ribbentrop – Molotov game with Stalin.
But we are not sure it is likely to succeed. Both Presidents Xi and Putin seem quite aware as to how vitally important their alliance is for both countries and, indeed, for the whole world Continue reading Trump, Putin and Neocons

Le phénomène Trump, la course vers la guerre et la crise de l’ UE

Le phénomène Trump, la course vers la guerre et la crise de l’ UE

Dimitri Konstantakopoulos,

Conférence Internationale sur le capitalisme financier et ses alternatives, Chisinau, 15-16 décembre 2017

Lire aussi
The danger of Nuclear War and the Political Paralysis of Europe, the European Left, Russia and China

Le Pen, Trump, Corbyn and the prospect of War

by Dimitris Konstantakopoulos (*)

Let me begin by expressing my profound and sincere admiration for the political instincts of the Islamic terrorists. They seem to possess a formidable sense of political timing.

For the last three weeks no serious and knowledgeable observer (unfortunately there are not many of them these days) could be in any doubt about our being thoroughly implicated in an accelerating momentum towards war.

Ostensibly against Islam, “radical” or otherwise, and against Korea. In reality against Russia, China and the rest of the world.

But also against ourselves! Becoming an empire, Rome has ceased to be a republic.

 

War and Peace

This is not just the opinion of the author of these lines. Mr. Leon Panetta, former US Secretary of Defense, has warned that Mr. Trump is risking a nuclear war in Korea. Former  acting CIA director Mike Morell has also characterized  Trump’s policies in East Asia as “provocative”.

The Russian Prime Minister has said that the world went one step away from a direct military conflict between the two nuclear superpowers that are present in Syria. His Minister of Defense thought it appropriate to recall, on the very day that Mr. Tillerson was in conference in Moscow, that his country’s entire nuclear arsenal is in a state of “combat readiness”. According to one of the best-known “Russologists” in the US, Professor Cohen of the University of Princeton, the United States and Russia are in their most dangerous confrontation since the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Of course your newspapers and televisions are telling you that nothing very important is happening. Our politicians are either trying to hide the truth (if they understand it themselves) or are at a loss to know how to face this situation.

This race towards war in reality began much earlier but now,   with the election of Mr. Trump in the United States, which has already proven to be political history’s most egregious act of deception, it has entered a decisive phase, though the process is not linear and much further twisting and turning may still be in store.

Most people, including decision makers and those who are well-informed, are not psychologically ready or intellectually prepared to accept what we have just written. But one should bear in mind that this is exactly how things were on the eve of the First and Second World Wars, and it greatly facilitated their outbreak.

The possibility of a large-scale war, though the progress towards it is complicated by the existence of nuclear weapons, was already inscribed in the global economic crisis that made its appearance in 2008 and is still ongoing.  This crisis is profound, comparable in  its depth to the crisis of 1873-96 that led to the First World War, and the crisis of 1929 that led to the Second World War. It also explains the crisis of the European Union, clearly the most important in its history.

 

Donald Trump exposed

Over ten days in April we had the bombardment of Syria, threats against Russia, Iran and Korea, the reminder from Russia of the existence of its nuclear arsenal, the threat of nuclear war in Korea, the bombardment of Afghanistan with the most powerful bomb employed in war since the bombing of Hiroshima, and the test of a new atomic weapon in Nevada, destined to destroy the enemy leaders, even in their bunkers.

The world has never before seen this kind of thing in such a short space of time, even at the beginning of the two world wars. Not a bad harvest for just ten  days!

They are trying to tell us that everything that is happening is nothing more than business as usual, that this is not a project that has been under preparation for years but is a just a sudden inspiration from Ivanka Trump and her husband, who come into Daddy’s office every day and suggest that he should bomb this country or threaten that country, risk or not risk a nuclear war, test this or that weapon.

If this is true Ivanka and her husband seem to combine the ambition of an Alexander the Great with the strategic skill of a Napoleon,  of a Marshal Tukhachevsky and the generals of Hitler, who planned the blitzkriegs at the beginning of the Second World War, all together.

One might expect that the international press would raise some very serious issues and ask questions. But there has been nothing. The big newspapers have treated all this as banal routine. They have even hidden from their readers information of very great  significance, which would have made headlines if we were living in the sixties or the eighties of the last century. Such as for example the reminder by the Russian press agency Sputnik on 13th April (the same day that US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was having talks in Moscow) of the Russian Defence Minister’s statements that almost all of his country’s strategic nuclear arsenal is “combat readiness” and that 96% of the missile launchers in a state of “immediate launching”.

One cannot find such information in these same newspapers. Nor can one find a debate on the possibility of a nuclear war that could eliminate life on earth. But one can find numerous articles on the atrocious treatment of homosexuals in Chechnya, published simultaneously in many different publications. If Goebbels were still alive in our day, he would be green with envy.

All of the newspapers that were criticizing Mr. Trump so severely   only two weeks ago are now quite happy with him. It seems that what Mr. Trump has achieved is very much in line with the expectations of those who control global information.

 

Prepare Europe for War

On the face of it the war is against Islam and Korea. But the “real adversary”, as Monsieur Hollande would say, the enemy that is lurking behind Islam and Korea is none other than Russia, China and the rest of the world.

If one is in such a situation it makes no sense to try to understand and analyse what occurs in France, Great Britain, the United States, without taking into account the international context.

If, as just postulated, we are well entrenched in the dynamic of preparation for a war in a different category of importance from those we have seen in recent decades, then Politics is called to prepare the War (its continuation) and War has to condition political choices.

Whether she is conscious of it or not (this is not the most important aspect), this is precisely what Madame Le Pen is doing, attacking Islam every second day. It is the war for which she is preparing the French people by centering everything in her discourse on the question of security, characterizing as “totalitarianism” not the extraordinary hold of finance over all mankind, but “Islamic Jihadism”, which is the political result of our own interventions in the Middle East and the “organizational” result of the work in the Middle East of the American secret services and their allies.

That said, it is remarkable that this “radical” Islam is bending over backwards to… help Mme. Le Pen, choosing to carry out its attacks at the moments that are most opportune for her, whether on the eve of the regional elections in November 2015, or on the eve of the first round of presidential elections in France.

And in fact there has been in these last days a perceptible current, weak but perhaps sufficient, of voters moving from “radical Lepenism” to the “Mélenchon radicalism”. This little  current   could perhaps have propelled M. Mélenchon into the second round, and subsequently into the presidency. But the attacks in Paris three days before the elections may well have had the effect of checking the rise in support for Mélenchon,  securing his exclusion from the second round and so contributing to the final victory of Marine Lepen in the first round and of M. Macron in th second. We shall see.

 

Eliminate Corbyn!

If politics paves the way for war, war also conditions political choices. We cannot go into a great war with Jeremy Corbyn as the leader of the Labour Party. But all attempts to overthrow him have failed. This is most likely the reason why Theresa May decided to call early elections in Britain, hoping to inflict a defeat on Labour and thus finally enable the British establishment to get rid of this Mr. Corbyn. (It is perhaps also the reason for the violent attacks on the former mayor of London Mr. Ken Livingstone).

A few weeks ago, the British Minister of Defense made a very rare visit to Cyprus, where there are British bases of vital importance for any intervention in the Middle East. He declared that these bases “are more important now than at any moment in history.”  Given that “history” includes the creation of the state of Israel, the Israeli-Arab wars, the Suez crisis and the 1974 crisis between Greece and Turkey, there are reasons to be worried.

 

Controlling Turkey and Cyprus

Since September 2015, Russia’s military intervention has changed the strategic configuration of the Middle East as a whole.

If one wants to reverse the situation, neutralizing the Russian military force that is installed now in the center of the region,  it is necessary to impose the strictest possible control on the actions of Turkey, which finds itself between Russia and the Russian forces in Syria. This could be an explanation of the very hasty coup prepared against Erdogan in July 2016, a coup that was openly encouraged and announced before it happens by the American neocons.

To completely encircle the Russians it is also necessary to achieve total command over the island of Cyprus, which controls all the Eastern Mediterranean. This could very well help to explain the enormous pressures applied recently to “resolve” the Cyprus problem, avoiding the obligation of a referendum and imposing as a solution the transformation of the Cypriot state into a kind of post-modern Western protectorate, the second, after Greece, inside the EU.

 

“Encircle” Germany

In 2003 opposition in Paris and Berlin to the invasion of Iraq  gave Washington some problems. Now that something much more serious seems to be under preparation against Russia and/or China, it is absolutely essential to control Europe.

Words are not innocent. It has always been through words that one has prepared the way for wars. Mr. Steingart, editor of the most important German economic journal, Handelsblatt, and one of the most original minds still existing in the European press, wrote an article in August 2014. He did not take a position for or against Russia. He simply said that the German press is dealing with Russia and its leader Vladimir Putin, in reference to the Ukrainian crisis, in the same way that it dealt with Russia and the Russians in August 1914, that is to say at the outset of the First World War.

Germany already supports the US line on Ukraine and the Middle East, contrary to its own interests. But how long can it continue on such a course, for which it risks having to pay the costs?

There is no way of being sure in advance. This is why it is necessary, for a start, to control France and Great Britain. Consequently, given Berlin’s isolation from all of Europe’s periphery because of the economic war it has launched against its own partners, Berlin will find itself totally alone if it wants to oppose any project of a major war.

 

Reappearance in France of the US electoral triangle

On the eve of the first round of the presidential elections the French political landscape resembles last year’s scenario in the United States.

  • the emergence of Jean-Luc Mélenchon, totally unexpected, as was the emergence of Bernie Sanders in the United States (or of Corbyn in Great Britain), of a radical left current authentically  hostile to the wars in the Middle East and the confrontation with Russia. What is at issue here is not the chances of success of this current given the demands of the objective situation. The fact is that it constitutes a certain progressive opening and a certain impediment to the push towards war.
  • the official representative of financial capital and globalization, the ex-banker and financial advisor to the Rothschilds: Emmanuel Macron, the French equivalent of Hillary Clinton.
  • Marine Le Pen, apparently corresponding to Donald Trump in the United States.

Le Pen says that she is against the attack on Syria, but all her declarations on Islam prepare the political ground for a great offensive in the Middle East. Trump also said that he was against the policies of overthrowing Assad, but he has just started a new war against him.

Mme Le Pen says that she is a friend of Russia. Mr. Trump also let it be understood that he wanted better relations with Russia, but he has already led relations with Moscow to their most dangerous point since the Cuba crisis of the sixties!

Donald Trump also intimated that he is an enemy of Goldman Sachs, multinationals, finance, globalization. And he ended up investing Mr. Gary Cohn of Goldman Sachs (one of the architects of Greece’s economic and social ruin) with all the powers over economic subjects.

The fact that the adversary of Mme. Le Pen is M. Macron suggests to electors that she is an adversary of Finance, and that facilitates victory for her in a duel with Macron. But probably M. Rothschild realizes that as well as anyone else. If he really wanted to eliminate Le Pen and have her lose the election, why didn’t he advise his banker not to stand against her and propose a personality less well-known for his relations with the world of finance and more likely to beat Le Pen?

Is Mme Le Pen really what she makes herself out to be? Or is she too an accessory to what looks like world history’s greatest act of deception, which started with the election of Trump on a platform that is the total opposite of what he is now implementing?

It is one thing to judge ideas, another to judge people. People should be judged on the basis of their own ideas, not ours. A nationalist,  a fascist, a liberal, a socialist, a Trotskyist: they are to be judged by comparing what they do with the ideas they announce themselves as defending, with their own supposed ideology and system of ethics, not with ours.

How can one explain that Mme Le Pen, given her origins, has become a friend of Israel or of homosexuals? Could a partisan of General de Gaulle defend France’s colonial heritage in Algeria?

Is it a question of run-of-the-mill political opportunism, which is so prevalent? Or is it a question of a quasi-Faustian “historical compromise” that she has already concluded with the Devil, as each of our readers might like to understand him?

None of this means that Mme Le Pen is necessarily aware of the role she will be called upon to play.  Prior to her, Mr. Trump, Mr. Tsipras, M. Hollande, played out the role that was required of them, not because they knew it in advance but because they didn’t.

 

Trump’s Election – the coup of the millennium!

The election of Donald Trump in the United States has already proved to be world political history’s greatest feat of deception.  Elected as an opponent of Financial Globalization, an opponent of the Middle East wars, a supporter of better relations with Russia (exactly what Marine Le Pen claims in France), Donald Trump (or rather the forces that control him and set him up) has already handed over all the economic power to Goldman Sachs.

To follow up on that he utilized the Idlib provocation (as Hitler used the Reichstag fire) to recommence the well-known and well-publicized  program of the neocons in its most dangerous previsions (overthrowing of the regimes of Assad and North Korea, wars – probably nuclear –  against Iran and North Korea). A program whose most dangerous previsions had been halted  because of the strong opposition, albeit not open and political, of Obama, of an important section of the armed forces and secret services of the United States and Israel and, above all, of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s  decision to intervene militarily in Syria.

Despite certain differences, what is involved here is a repetition sui generis of the historical trajectory of German National Socialism. Nazism was propelled to power through a display of opposition to big capital and the victors of the First World War. Hitler pretened to be a friend, and even an ally, of Soviet Russia.

He then eliminated those, like Roehm and his friends, who helped him take state power (as Trump eliminated Steve Bannon), put himself at the disposal of German big capital and, finally, launched Operation Barbarossa to destroy his friend and supposed ally.

 

Published in DefendDemocracy Press

First publisjed in DefendDemocrasy on April 22nd under the title 

Mélenchon (et Corbyn) ou la Guerre

 “Translated from French by Wayne Hall

 

(*) Journalist, writer, graduate in Physics. Advisor to Greek Prime Minister Andreas Papandreou on East-West relations and Arms Control (1985-88). Greek Press Agency ANA chief correspondent in Moscow (1989-1999).  Collaborated with Michel Pablo to launch the international review for self-management  Utopie Critique. Secretary of the Movement of Independent Greek Citizens (2011-12), Member of Secretariat of SYRIZA (2012-2013).

You can also read the following articles written in March before the initiation of the United States’ new military campaign.

Détruire l’UE, aller à la guerre au Moyen Orient, abolir les droits démocratiques – Qui et pourquoi a besoin de la mi-réelle, mi-fausse extrême droite française?

The Hijacking of France (from Donald Trump to Marine Le Pen)

Détruire l’UE, aller à la guerre au Moyen Orient, abolir les droits démocratiques – Qui et pourquoi a besoin de la mi-réelle, mi-fausse extrême droite française?

Par Dimitris Konstantakopoulos (*)

On raconte que Madame Le Pen n’a pas beaucoup de chances d’être elue. Mais il faut raconter exactemenet ça, si on veut augmenter ses chances.

« Je suis le dernier Président de France, ceux qui viendront après moi seront des comptables », disait François Mitterrand. Malgré ce testament sinistre, lui-même ne pouvait imaginer les chemins sinueux et inattendus que choisirait l’Histoire, ou ceux qui ont besoin des comptables, pour arriver à leurs fins.

Mais peut-être même qu’un Machiavel n’aurait pas pu imaginer ce qui se joue aujourd’hui sur la scène politique, notamment française. En fait, il faudrait sans doute le génie pervers d’un Joseph Fouché pour entrevoir ce qui se profile…

Qui pourrait imaginer Marine Le Pen, la descendante lointaine d’un courant qui tire notamment ses origines du régime de Vichy, du déshonneur de la France, se trouver maintenant si près de devenir Présidente de ce pays? Du pays qui a été la fille de la Renaissance et des Lumières, la mère de l’Europe moderne et de sa civilisation, ou du moins de ce qu’il en reste. La France, qui est encore le pays de Voltaire et de Robespierre, de la Révolution Française et de la Commune de Paris, de Charles de Gaulle et de Jean-Paul Sartre.

Pourtant, cette France a récemment donné naissance à Marine Le Pen, laquelle se prépare à passer tôt ou tard la porte de l’Elysée. Ainsi, ce qui apparaissait à beaucoup comme l’impensable, mais qui était en préparation depuis longtemps, est sur le point d’advenir. Cet impensable qui devient à chaque scrutin français de plus en plus probable, annonce, parmi tant d’autres événements du même genre, de grandes secousses internationales à venir.

Curieusement, le fondateur du Front National, Jean-Marie Le Pen, ne semble pas se réjouir de l’ascension du mouvement politique qu’il a fondé et de la possible victoire de sa propre fille aux élections présidentielles.

Ainsi, au lieu de triompher, et d’afficher sa joie devant les caméras de télévision comme il se plait d’ordinaire à la faire, Jean-Marie Le Pen reste silencieux.

Un abysse sépare les idées de l’auteur de cet article des celles de Jean-Marie Le Pen. Mais il faut dire qu’en ce moment de l’histoire les différences entre gauche et droite, communistes et fascistes, Athées et Croyants, Chrétiens et Musulmans ne sont pas les seuls à prendre en compte. Il est aussi très important de savoir si une personne garde une forme d’identité , d’idéologie, de religion, d’éthique, de morale ou qu’il appartienne à ceux qui n’ont aucune, les Homo Œconomicus, la pâte à modeler de notre époque, les Faust qui ont vendu leur âme, si jamais ils en ont eu une.

L’information se trouve dans ce qui n’est pas commun, dans le rare, croyait le fondateur de sa Théorie, Claude  Shannon.

Est-ce que Jean-Marie Le Pen connait quelque chose que nous ignorons ou nous ne comprenons pas?

Qui est réellement sa fille? Est-ce qu’elle est une néofasciste qui essaye de persuader ses réels partisans qu’elle n’a pas changé au fond et les autres qu’elle n’a rien à voir avec le passé du Front National.

Est-ce qu’elle est devenu amie ou elle est adversaire du Finance et de son Empire? Est-ce que le Finance est vraiment ennemie de Mme Le Pen, ou il a déjà passé un accord avec elle? Et si il a passé un tel accord, pourquoi la Haute Finance pourrait avoir besoin d’une politique de la droite nationaliste et d’une femme qui s’oppose à ses propres créatures, à la mondialisation, a l’UE, à l’Euro? Son opposition est vraie ou fausse? Ou pourrait nous amener?

Est –ce que Marine Le Pen est une femme de conviction, comme son père a été un idéologue conséquent, par rapport à sa propre idéologie?

Ou elle est l’équivalent, pour la droite nationaliste européenne, de ce qu’a représenté par exemple Mr. Georges Papandreou pour la social-démocratie européenne, ou Mr. Tsipras pour la gauche radicale européenne?

Suffisamment authentiques pour tromper, suffisamment avides du pouvoir, ou incapables de résister  et par la même devenus dépendants des forces toujours dominants de nos pays.

Pourquoi pas?

L’héritière refuse l’héritage de Vichy, de Maurras, des tortures en Algérie  et charge son « bras gauche », Florian Philippot, de faire disparaître toutes les traces du passé et de faire le ménage jusque dans les rangs de leur parti.

Les anciens Grecs nous ont appris la signification de la Vérité, par la façon même qu’ils ont choisi pour construire ce mot Vérité, Alitheia en grec, c’est-à-dire pas ne pas oublier. Ne pas oublier les choses importantes, essentielles.

Un peu d’histoire s’impose donc pour comprendre d’où vient le père et ce que veut occulter la fille.

Vichy a été imposé par la botte des Nazis, lesquels n’ont d’ailleurs pas eu grand mal à trouver des collaborateurs parmi les politiques d’alors, notamment parmi les députés de l’Assemble Nationale qui, siégeant en exil au Casino de Vichy en 1940, ont à une écrasante majorité voté les pleins pouvoirs à Pétain. C’était bien avant qu’on arrive à l’« Economie-Casino » actuelle et à la « Politique-Casino » qui en découle naturellement.

De Gaulle a quant à lui immédiatement dit Non au régime de Vichy, le qualifiant de coup d’Etat. Les Français Libres qui se sont ralliés à de Gaulle et au maquis communistes se sont battus contre l’ordre nazi et le régime de Vichy. Partout en Europe, la résistance s’est organisée. L’Axis Fasciste a connu sa première défaite militaire par les Grecs, en Albanie, à l’hiver 1940-41. Les partisans Grecs et Serbes ont commencé, presque seuls, une de batailles les plus héroïques donnes en Europe contre le Nazisme, suivis par la résistance du peuple britannique.

Par la suite c’était surtout l’Armée Rouge et toute la population soviétique, au prix énorme des dizaines des millions des morts, qui ont pu arrêter le monstre aux portes de Leningrad, de Moscou et de Stalingrad, avant de le tuer et hisser leur drapeau a Reichstag de Berlin.

Tous les moyens du monde, toute la propagande de la Guerre Froide, ancienne et nouvelle version, ne pourront jamais effacer de la mémoire et de la conscience historique de l’humanité entière le souvenir de cette bataille et de sa signification. C’était cette victoire qui a permis à l’Europe occidentale et centrale, 60 ans de paix, de liberté et de prospérité réelles, bien que relatives. C’est cette époque historique qui peine de finir aujourd’hui, un quart de siècle après l’effondrement de l’Union Soviétique.

Au moment de sa Libération, la France conservait encore le souvenir de la décapitation de ses rois. De Gaulle a renvoyé les dirigeants de Vichy devant le tribunal qui a jugé le maréchal Pétain, pourtant héros de la première guerre mondiale, et le premier ministre Laval en les envoyant au peloton d’exécution. Laval a été exécuté pour que la France et sa République revivent. Grâce au Non du General à Vichy et à l’action de la Résistance, la France a gagné le droit de s’asseoir à la table des vainqueurs de la 2ème Guerre mondiale et de devenir membre permanent  du Conseil de Sécurité de l’ONU.

C’était il y a 70 ans ! Aujourd’hui, le temps passant et la mémoire s’estompant, ce qu’il reste de la droite vichyste fait son grand retour, sous le masque de la jeunesse et en semblant tant bien que mal renier son héritage. Semblant rallier enfin de Gaulle, le Front national fait maintenant déposer des couronnes sur la tombe du Général. Reste que pendant que Florian Philippot se charge de ritualiser ce rapprochement bien tardif, la plus jeune des héritières du clan Le Pen, la très belle Marion Maréchal-Le Pen, reprend à son compte des propos et les « pensées » de son grand-père afin de conserver son vieil  électorat. Elle semble admirer aussi Napoléon, mais est-ce– qu’elle l’admire pour avoir enterré l’héritage ou pour avoir étendu l’influence de la Révolution Française en Europe?

Qu’a-t-il bien pu se passer pour que ressurgissent de tels oripeaux de l’histoire ?

 

La « suicide » des Socialistes et des Gaullistes

Beaucoup d’eau a coulé sous le pont d’Alexandre III, avant que nous en arrivions là, avant que ressurgissent les figures d’un passé que nous croyions définitivement révolu. Pour comprendre cet étrange retour du même, il faut d’abord se demander ce que sont devenues les trois grandes familles politiques de la France d’après-guerre, la droite (véritablement) gaulliste, les communistes et les socialistes (pour ne pas parler des trotskistes, qui ne furent jamais une grande force politique organisée, mais qui ont cependant joué un rôle très important, en particulier sur le plan intellectuel). Si ces trois grandes forces politiques ont disparu ou sont en voie de disparaître, elles le doivent en grande partie à elles-mêmes, à leurs choix, à leurs renoncements, à l’abandon de leurs identités et de leur propre raison d’être.

Je me rappelle, tandis que j’étais jeune étudiant en France dans les années 80, avoir vu plaisanter Jean-Marie Le Pen à la télévision, accusant tout le monde sur un ton goguenard de lui « voler ses idées » ; les socialistes l’atlantisme, la droite le libéralisme économique, les communistes sa politique d’immigration (un maire communiste venait d’envoyer des bulldozers pour démolir des cabanes d’immigrants).

Avait-il complètement tort ? Ou bien se contentait-il avec jubilation de mettre en évidence leurs contradictions. En fait, les « adversaires » de Le Pen ne le « copiaient » pas, ils renonçaient à leurs « convictions » et reculaient de plus en plus devant la pression du Capital (et/ou des USA) : dès lors et pendant des décennies, les socialistes et la droite n’ont fait que ce que les USA et les Marchés leur demandaient de faire, finissant par se transformer en vagues courants politiques au service exclusif des banquiers et de la finance. En acceptant de participer pleinement à ce déjà vieux processus (“Les gouvernements sont les fondés de pouvoir du capital”, disait déjà Marx), ils ont finalement perdu leur utilité pour ceux qui votaient naïvement pour eux et perdront bientôt leur importance pour ceux qui les utilisent !

Libéralisme et Atlantisme

L’expérience de gauche de Mitterrand dans l’économie n’a à vrai dire duré que deux années, jusqu’au tournant de 1983, avant qu’il ne se précipite pour lancer et mettre dans la mise en œuvre, de façon exemplaire, une gestion économique libérale très orthodoxe, celle exigée par les « marchés », incarnés par Ronald Reagan et Margaret Thatcher.

Malgré la préservation relative du modèle social français, les socialistes ont suivi une politique pro-américaine, à l’opposé de la tradition Gaulliste, mais caractéristique de la social-démocratie européenne en la matière. Toutefois, François Mitterrand, sentant sa fin venir, nous a laissé en forme de confession que : «Nous sommes en guerre avec l’Amérique, mais les Français ne le savent pas. » Or, s’ils ne le savent pas, c’est parce que personne ne leur a dit et ne les a donc pas préparés à entrer en guerre ou à résister…

Jusqu’aux Chirac et Villepin inclus, lesquels se sont alliés à Schröder et Poutine contre la guerre en Irak, le « post-Gaullisme » a quelque peu maintenu des réflexes d’indépendance. Ainsi, en 2003, le Premier ministre de Chirac, Dominique de Villepin, s’est érigé en représentant de toute l’humanité civilisée en fustigeant, devant le Conseil de Sécurité de l’ONU, le plan d’invasion américano-britannique en Irak.

Peu de temps après, cependant, les protagonistes de ce Non à l’Amérique des néoconservateurs, peut-être effrayés rétrospectivement par leur propre bravoure, se sont rendu compte qu’ils n’avaient pas le courage d’un De Gaulle pour résister plus longtemps aux pressions et aux chantages des Etats-Unis. Ils se sont donc empressés d’enterrer eux-mêmes le plan de défense européenne réellement indépendante qu’ils avaient vigoureusement soutenu au préalable. Pendant tout le reste de son mandat, Chirac envoyait un représentant personnel, faire chaque semaine l’aller-retour Paris-Washington, pour éviter un nouveau « malentendu ».

Peu de temps avant la fin de son mandat, profondément inquiet pour la paix et peiné par la prévalence de Sarkozy dans la course pour sa succession, Chirac a convoqué quatre journalistes internationaux à l’Elysée, afin de les avertir des terribles dangers d’une guerre contre l’Iran. Mais face à ce sursaut de clairvoyance indépendante, ces journalistes l’ont presque fait apparaître comme un demi-fou…

Quant à Villepin, il n’a pas compris que Gaullisme et néolibéralisme ne peuvent pas se réconcilier. Il n’est pas tombé n’a pas perdu son poste de ministre pour ce qu’il a dit au Conseil de Sécurité, il a été limogé après avoir promulgué le CPE libéral et provoqué une révolte sociale en 2006 (et de ce dont a su profiter son « ami » Sarkozy qui a activement contribué à sa chute).

De Gaulle lui-même avait compris très tôt la contradiction entre le Capital et la Nation, entre intérêt de la Nation et intérêt du Capital. Avant même la fin de la 2ème guerre mondiale, et tandis qu’une grande partie des entreprises françaises s’enrichissait grâce à leur collaboration avec l’Allemagne nazie, de Gaulle avait opté pour la rédaction, par le Conseil National de la Résistance, d’un Programme du CNR ayant pour sous-titre Les jours heureux et qui définissait la protection sociale des français, et ce jusqu’à l’avènement du libéralisme et sa destruction « progressive » de l’Etat social. Après avoir survécu à la révolution de mai 68, de Gaulle a même tenté d’introduire des changements profonds dans l’administration des entreprises afin d’y faire participer les salariés. « Le général est devenu fou », a pensé la bourgeoisie française qui a fait tout pour le renverser.

Ce gaullisme social a disparu depuis longtemps et, aujourd’hui, l’image des « gaullistes » est réduite à celle du pathétique Fillon, fanatiquement libéral (sur un plan exclusivement économique) et empêtré, lui aussi, dans ses affaires d’enrichissement personnel et de corruption sordides.

Des hommes politiques devenus employés occultes (ou la montée mondiale de la Finance)

À ce stade, il nous semble approprié d’insérer une section concernant des développements internationaux plus larges que ceux concernant uniquement la France, car nous pensons qu’ils offriraient un cadre permettant de mieux interpréter ce qui arrive à ce pays. Les lecteurs peuvent, s’ils le préfèrent en poursuivant la lecture des sections suivantes, consacrées à la France.

Au fil du temps, la qualité est devenue quantité. Depuis les origines, les forces politiques ont toujours fait des compromis avec les puissants lorsqu’elles n’en émanaient pas. Maintenant que le capital financier est débridé, il convertit en employés le personnel politique.

Imperceptiblement, la nature des forces politiques a changé, en raison à la fois de leurs choix mais aussi à cause de l’augmentation spectaculaire de la puissance du capital financier mondial, d’ailleurs concédée par les politiques eux-mêmes. Ce capital financier mondial cesse progressivement d’être un des composants parmi d’autres (politiques, idéologiques, culturels, religieux…) du « système » dominant pour en devenir le centre !

La Finance est devenu une sorte de « superpuissance », mais sans reprendre les caractéristiques classiques des « vieux » Etats. Elle règne sur le monde et ceci non seulement avec la puissance économique qu’elle accumule sans arrêt. Elle est désormais en position d’acheter presque tout et tout le monde, y compris les élites politiques, les “intellectuels”, les médias (anciens et nouveaux) délivrant « l’information »,  la production culturelle, les découvertes de la science et de la technologie.

Aucun groupe dans l’histoire qui a accumulé un tel pouvoir et joui d’une telle liberté dans son utilisation n’a mis de limites à son utilisation. La logique même d’accumulation du pouvoir est que son accumulation continue. Quant à l’idée selon laquelle les gens les plus puissants du monde ne s’intéressent pas au pouvoir politique et géopolitique, elle est simplement devenue ridicule. Même s’ils le voulaient, ils ne pourraient pas le faire. En effet, au milieu d’une crise économique (comme celle de 2008) qu’ils ont eux-mêmes provoquée, ils n’ont d’autre alternative que de l’utiliser pour accumuler plus de pouvoir et même transformer le monde selon leurs aspirations, ou en subir les conséquences et les mesures coercitives qui devraient s’ensuivre.

La Finance n’a pas besoin d’avions ou de missiles pour intimider ses éventuels ennemis et leur intimer des ordres. Elle peut leur opposer les “Marchés”, organiser des attaques financières contre eux, leur imposer ses “Lois”. Elle peut aussi utiliser sa puissance intellectuelle fantastique (et son idéologie devenue dominante), qu’elle a également accumulée, et son influence dans les rouages clés des sociétés, son Smart Power, pour envoyer de signaux aux acteurs politiques et même les Etats et les Puissances, essayant de conditionner leur comportement et de les pousser à prendre des trajectoires dont elle comprend beaucoup mieux les conséquences stratégiques et tangibles que ceux qu’elle charge ainsi d’adopter et de suivre.

«Combien de divisions a le Vatican ?», demanda un jour Staline d’un ton sarcastique à son interlocuteur. Pourtant, le Vatican reste toujours à sa place. C’est l’état de Staline, si fort en apparence, qui a été disloqué.

Depuis l’effondrement de l’URSS, la Finance a de moins en moins besoin des états, et même des États-Unis d’Amérique, pour imposer sa loi. Elle les subordonne à sa logique, elle ne suit pas la leur. Libérée de toute restriction, abolissant la distinction entre les banques d’investissement et celles d’épargne, elle trouve de nouvelles façons de se reproduire en se  lançant dans l’industrie de « produits dérivés ». A travers la dette qu’elle est désormais seule à pouvoir financer, elle augmente encore ses profits, et ses propres demandes des individus, des sociétés ou des nations, de façon exponentielle, et leur mettant sous sa tutelle. Elle ne se contente plus  d’acquérir le produit matériel et intellectuel du travail humain, elle accapare le pouvoir. Et elle a trouvé dans le Traité de Maastricht l’outil privilégié d’institutionnalisation de sa domination.

Ce Traité représente le passage, non annoncé mais bien réel, des régimes occidentaux régis par le principe de la Souveraineté Populaire, au pouvoir du Royaume de l’Argent. Ce passage n’est pas certes exprimé comme tel, il se cache dans le labyrinthe des divers clauses du Traité, qui conduisent à permettent l’application silencieuse de ce Principe. Cette transformation discrète du régime politique accompagne la transformation du système économique, le passage du capitalisme classique à une sorte de méta-féodalité.

Pour la simple raison qu’elle peut tout acheter, la Finance acquiert, au même moment, des moyens de contrôle de l’humain sans précédent, de notre ADN à nos pensées et à nos sentiments. Des moyens produits par des armées de chercheurs de grandes universités et centres de recherche,  mobilisés chaque jour, chaque mois, chaque année, sans aucun contrôle social, et ceci depuis la Seconde guerre mondiale.

Pour la première fois dans son Histoire, l’Humanité a produit la base matérielle, scientifique et technologique, qui manquait pour réaliser les utopies noires de Ievgueni Zamiatine, de Orwell, de Huxley, de Kafka.

La plus importante des dernières révélations de Assange, ce n’est pas qu’il existe des moyens de nous suivre dans nos propres maisons. C’est la facilité avec laquelle ces moyens ont été transmis par la CIA à des intérêts privés. En Israël, par exemple, il y a eu récemment un scandale : certaines publications parlaient des millionnaires ayant « acheté » certaines fonctions du Mossad, l’un des meilleurs services secrets du monde, comme tous ceux qui ont une forte base idéologique.

A la fin, l’argent va s’acheter lui-même. Tout et tous pouvant être achetés. Mais dès qu’ils sont transformés en propriété privé, les individus et les institutions perdent leur statut et leur fonction. Les institutions cessent de jouer le rôle pour lequel elles ont été conçues et les humains arrêtent d’effectuer les fonctions qu’ils étaient censés accomplir, ils deviennent l’équivalent social de cellules cancéreuses.

Il est à noter que cette situation renversante est une cause de grande confusion parce que notre cerveau est habitué à analyser un monde où les joueurs sont des états visibles et des grandes puissances. C’est là qu’on recherche les sujets de l’histoire, et non pas dans les forces qui les utilisent. On croit encore à ce que l’on voit, les Grandes Puissances, les Nations, les Etats, alors qu’ils ne sont plus que les ombres d’eux-mêmes.

Au moment de l’effondrement de l’URSS, événement constituant de notre ère, un chroniqueur du Financial Times a suggéré que nous devrions « évoluer » en passant de la démocratie civile à la démocratie (c’est-à-dire la dictature) des entreprises. Seulement, si ces idées-là sont faciles à écrire dans le Financial Times, il reste beaucoup plus difficile de les réaliser. L’argent n’a pas de légitimité en tant que pouvoir, et là se situe une des raisons pour lesquelles il est obligé de tromper pour gouverner. Il préfère que son pouvoir reste invisible, précisément pour ne pas le compromettre.

Mais ce n’est pas la seule raison pour laquelle la Finance est obligée de tromper pour gouverner.

Plus il se soustrait des ses dernières fonctions productives, plus il se convertit à l’équivalent social, économique et écologique d’un cancer. Il transforme le néo-libéralisme en « capitalisme de catastrophe » et “économie d’esclavage” (cf. « l’exemple » de Grèce), l’impérialisme traditionnel, celui de la conquête, du contrôle, se change en impérialisme de  « démolition » des peuples et des pays (autre « exemple », celui du monde arabo-musulman).

Le Capitalisme lui-même semble s’abolir en se transformant en Meta-Féodalisme…

La conséquence du cancer, son vrai but et “programme”, est la mort, mais la mort (sociale) ne peut pas (encore) devenir un programme politique. Ce programme ne peut pas être annoncé comme tel et doit rester caché. Pour arriver à ses fins, il lui faut tromper les cellules chargées de défendre l’organisme (le sociétés ou les états, en l’occurrence) et les utiliser contre lui de la même façon qu’opèrent les maladies auto-immunes. On ne peut que les tromper pour obliger les peuples à avancer vers ce sinistre but, parce que les hommes veulent vivre et non mourir, et quand bien même ils savent qu’ils vont un jour cesser de vivre, ils sont en quête d’espoir et ont besoin de donner du sens à leurs vies.

Là se situe aussi une raison fondamentale pour laquelle la déception, l’inversion des significations et de la réalité s’imposent comme méthodes de domination et sont devenues indispensables à la politique actuelle. C’est pourquoi, pour comprendre et anticiper ce que nos politiques vont faire, parfois contre leur propre volonté, il serait judicieux de commencer par inverser leur message. Par exemple, Donald Trump accuse Hillary Clinton d’être à la solde de Goldman Sachs. Mais que doit-on comprendre ? Exactement l’inverse, car une fois élu, Donald Trump va mettre la banque Goldman Sachs dans son gouvernement pour diriger l’Amérique, sans passer par l’intermédiaire d’une classe politique elle-même corrompue. De même, « America First » veux dire « America second », c’est-à-dire l’Amérique et les américains après le Finance. Il faut utiliser de Socialistes pour détruire de sociétés, de nationalistes pour détruire de nations. Au moins jusqu’au moment qu’on va arriver à la situation, décrite par Kafka dans son Procès, où nous allons chercher notre salut dans la mort.

Inverser les termes pour comprendre les discours ! L’information n’est plus dans la présence, elle se situe dans l’absence, parce que les choses vraiment significatives, essentielles et importantes ne peuvent pas se dire. On a absolument besoin de les taire. Le vrai Pouvoir ne peut pas se manifester, ni afficher ses objectifs.

Un jour Mr. Barroso a dit : Nous savons tous que les prochaines générations vivront plus mal que les actuelles. Barroso a peut-être dit cela par excès de stupidité ou lors d’un éclair de sincérité. En tous cas, il l’a dit parce qu’il est depuis longtemps à l’abri du suffrage universel, car l’on ne peut pas encore faire ce type de déclaration si l’on veut gagner des élections (quoique, il semble bien que ce soit le pari d’un Fillon en France!)

De leur côté, les néoconservateurs ont invoqué le réalisme de Hobbes pour contredire les objectifs des philosophes, y compris ceux de Hobbes lui-même. Mais, au vrai, ce n’est pas la « naïveté » de la vision de la Paix éternelle d’Emmanuel Kant qui dérange les néoconservateurs, mais son contenu paisible et surtout non rentable. Quant à George Soros, il ne pourra jamais réaliser son rêve d’être reconnu comme un intellectuel, non pas parce qu’il lui manque les capacités neuronales d’un Karl Popper, mais parce que ses préoccupations financières n’ont absolument rien à voir avec les motivations de l’apôtre de la Société ouverte.

Toutes les théories développées dans les milieux dirigeants du monde après, mais aussi avant la fin présumée de la Guerre Froide, ne semblent avoir été conçues que pour aggraver les problèmes dramatiques de l’humanité, menaçant jusqu’à son existence. Aussi, même si ces théories prétendent généralement s’inspirer des “lois de la nature” et prennent des apparences intellectuelles (bien que d’une qualité intellectuelle absolument médiocre), elles ne visent qu’à légitimer et accroître leur domination mondiale et leur emprise sans précédent sur l’Etre Humain. Derrière leurs arguments fallacieux, ils dissimulent leurs choix, leurs actions et leurs intérêts amoraux. Ils optent pour l’Argent contre la Générosité, ils préfèrent Mars à Venus, la guerre à la paix, bref la mort à la vie.

Le «Choc des civilisations» prophétise (ou plutôt prépare) Huntington. Il  prophétise (prépare) même des affrontements des Hispaniques avec des Blancs en Amérique (bien avant l’annonce de la construction d’un mur avec le Mexique par Trump). Huntington pense aussi qu’il n’y a pas d’avenir pour la démocratie, en raison des limites physiques de la croissance. Bien sûr, il ne lui vient pas à l’esprit la possibilité de distribuer plus justement les richesses accumulées et produites par l’humanité qui, pour la première fois de son histoire, est devenue capable de satisfaire l’ensemble de ses besoins “raisonnables”, à condition toutefois de vouloir changer radicalement le système social qui prédomine et la culture qui l’accompagne.

Qu’est-ce que Huntington et des autres penseurs ou acteurs allant dans la même direction nous proposent alors ? L’augmentation spectaculaire des inégalités. La réhabilitation des formes « modernes » d’esclavage (y compris dans un pays membre de l’UE comme la Grèce) ? La transformation des hommes en animaux nomades comme les réfugiés en provenance d’Afghanistan, de Syrie, d’Afrique (ou les réfugiés scientifiques diplômés de l’Europe du Sud fuyant, eux, par voie aérienne). De son côté, l’Exxon de M. Tilerson rêve de fondre la glace de l’Arctique, assenant ainsi un coup peut-être fatal à la vie, et pas seulement la vie humaine.

C’est à cette dramatique et multiforme négation de la vie que mène la logique du Chaos, celle qui s’exerce déjà dans les guerres du Moyen Orient, provoquées par les interventions occidentales. Mais cela va aussi de la destruction consciente et sans état d’âme du berceau de la civilisation et de la démocratie (la Grèce), jusqu’à la destruction probable de l’humanité entière, ne serait-ce que par la hausse rapide de la température terrestre et autres catastrophes écologiques “naturelles” ou industrielles, type Fukushima, qui semblent annoncer toutes ensemble un “Siècle de Catastrophes”, pour paraphraser Hobsbawn.

Le Chaos favorise aussi le projet d’une dictature mondiale, planétaire. Ceux qui forment ce projet et dominent déjà le monde veulent que nous venions nous-mêmes leur demander, à eux qui ont déjà provoqué tant de désastres, de s’ériger ouvertement en Dictateurs, afin de sauver temporairement notre existence, fut-ce au prix d’une vie d’esclaves.

Le programme de l’Empire émergeant n’est pas, comme dans la guerre froide, l’attaque contre le socialisme. Il est l’attaque contre l’humanisme, l’Humanité et contre la vie elle-même. Voilà pourquoi le capitalisme contemporain qui a commencé sa trajectoire historique par des gens de la qualité des Médicis se dirige de plus en plus par une bourgeoisie financière, ou même le sadomasochisme et le satanisme deviennent de plus en plus populaires, comme les pressent le génie de Kubrick qui s’exprime dans ses films, en particulier dans le dernier. Le culte du noir s’assorti très bien à la nouvelle Religion de la Mort. Quel genre de civilisation est celle dans laquelle 47% des « business executives », supposés être les individus les mieux réussis, ont souffert d’une maladie psychique identifiable à un moment de leur vie, selon une recherche publiée par le Financial Times ?

La fraude, la création de confusion, les complots ont toujours été au menu de l’histoire. Désormais, ils sont devenus le plat principal ! Le terrorisme intellectuel contre toute hypothèse d’un complot ne sert qu’à empêcher les gens de mettre en question les motivations des forces qui essayent de dominer leur vie. Or, ce terrorisme “intellectuel” engendre à son tour une multitude d’hypothèses de complot qui envahissent les réseaux sociaux.

On fabrique des théories folles de complots, qui sont crus par des fous, des résignés, des impuissants, voire des adolescents, mais qui servent aussi à convaincre les autres qu’il n’y a aucun complot ! Lentement, ils veulent nous convaincre que seuls les mensonges sont des vérités, mais aussi, finalement, qu’il n’y a pas de vérité, ou que, s’il y en a une, il n’y a aucun avantage à la trouver. Là se situe la signification du mot Post-Vérité, soudainement et récemment apparu.

Il faut dire que nous avons parfois intérêt à les croire, d’une part parce que nous ne voulons pas reconnaître que nous étions jusque-là trompés. D’autre part, parce que lorsque la réalité se révèle être un cauchemar, on préfère souvent s’endormir.

Voilà pourquoi le monde ressemble aujourd’hui, et de plus en plus, à un univers virtuel multidimensionnel, sorte de techno-grotte, comme celle décrite par Platon dans sa République. L’humanité voit les ombres, les fantômes des êtres et de leurs mouvements derrière elle. Pour mieux l’entrevoir, ce n’est pas seulement une source de lumière qu’il faudrait apporter, comme dans la République, mais une multitude d’éclairages révélant les zones d’ombre.

L’effondrement du “socialisme” soviétique en 1989-1991 a marqué non seulement la défaite du projet « socialiste » face au projet « capitaliste » (les deux se présentant comme progressistes), mais il a permis aussi au projet victorieux de se débarrasser de tout élément progressiste qui subsisterait encore, transformant ainsi sa victoire en une défaite de la notion même de Progrès Humain, religion laïque et idée constituante du monde moderne, y compris du modèle dominant occidental.

Trois exemples pour clarifier ceci (perestroïka, Moyen Orient, Grèce)

On a parlé de la capacité du pouvoir à concentrer les moyens et développer une capacité d’exercer une influence considérable sur les êtres humains et sur le monde. On a surtout parlé d’une capacité d’analyse stratégique supérieure à ses rivaux, celle d’envoyer des signaux imperceptibles à des acteurs pour les conduire à suivre le chemin souhaité, tout en croyant qu’ils agissent de leur propre volonté. Voilà trois exemples de ce que nous voulons dire :

L’Union Soviétique ne s’est pas effondrée à cause des interventions étrangères de 1921, des armées d’Hitler ou de l’OTAN, de la “puissance dure” (hard power) de ses ennemis. Ni même à cause seulement de la “puissance douce” (soft power) de ses rivaux, de l’attraction de l’exemple des pays capitalistes avancés. Elle affrontait bien sûr de graves problèmes, sans lesquels elle ne se serait pas effondrée. Ces problèmes étaient la condition nécessaire mais pas suffisante pour provoquer à eux seuls une telle catastrophe, l’anéantissement d’un pays et d’un système. L ‘URSS ne pourrait pas s’effondrer sans la “puissance intellectuelle” (smart power) de ses rivaux, qui ont su introduire, dans le logiciel même du Kremlin, le programme qui a provoqué l’autodestruction du système.

Ce sont eux, les rivaux intelligents, qui ont persuadé les dirigeants Soviétiques qu’ils étaient leurs amis et pas leurs ennemis. Ils ont conçu les idées fondamentales de la Perestroïka à la Michigan State University. Les analystes les mieux informés attribuent à Soros l’architecture de la politique de Glasnost. Les Occidentaux, probablement en coopération avec une partie de l’appareil soviétique, ont envoyé Matthias Rust atterrir sans problème avec son avion sur la Place Rouge pour fournir à Gorbatchev les arguments nécessaires pour la liquidation des leaders de l’armée soviétique (comme les nazis allemands avaient fourni à Staline les “preuves” pour décapiter l’Armée Rouge). A la fin, le régime, ayant perdu le désir même de survivre, est tombée de lui-même à cause de sa propre télévision, toujours étroitement contrôlé par le Département Idéologique du PCUS !

Pour éviter à tout prix de compromettre ce processus de suicide (assisté) de l’Union Soviétique, le Président Bush lui-même a laissé entendre, face aux événements en Ukraine de l’automne 1991, qu’il était plutôt favorable au maintien de l’URSS.

Quand il faisait cette déclaration, le Président Américain savait probablement déjà qu’il allait recevoir, quelques semaines plus tard, un coup de fil du Président Russe, Boris Eltsine, lui annonçant qu’il avait pris l’initiative de dissoudre l’Union Soviétique.

Autre exemple : Quelques années après la parution du livre de Huntington sur les Conflits de Civilisations, une série de guerres a commencé au Moyen-Orient. Les Etats-Unis sont justement accusés de les avoir provoqués, mais est-ce que ces guerres étaient vraiment dans l’intérêt national des USA ? La décision stratégique de commencer cette série de guerres semble ne pas avoir été prise au niveau de l’état américain, mais par les forces qui ont créé un réseau de lobbies neocons, qui ont pris le contrôle de l’état américain, en court-circuitant ses propres formes institutionnelles d’analyse et de prise de décision.

Il n’est pas non plus difficile de discerner l’influence de l’“Empire de la Finance” sur les décisions stratégiques officiellement prises par les gouvernements ou l’UE. En particulier sur les décisions des gouvernements Allemand et Grec de 2010 qui ont déterminé à la fois la « réponse » de l’Europe à la crise financière de 2008, mais aussi toutes les directions prises par la suite par l’Union européenne.

Un des architectes de l’Euro, Otmar Issing, est la plus grande autorité Allemande en matière de politique monétaire. Au printemps 2010, il était l’un des protagonistes les plus enragés de la ligne « Pas un euro pour les Grecs », comme il l’écrivait dans un article publié dans le Financial Times Deutschland (10.3.2010). Il mentionnait, dans cet article, plusieurs qualités qu’il s’accordait à lui-même, sauf une : être un conseiller rétribué par Golmnan Sachs Europe. Or, c’est précisément cette banque qui a le plus contribué à la création de la bulle spéculative mondiale qui s’est transformée en bulle de dette souveraine, mais aussi de la bulle particulière de la dette Grecque, déjà en 2000-01. Plus tard, cette banque a organisé, en alliance avec l’Allemagne, l’attaque des “Marchés” contre la Grèce, un pays de l’UE, qui payait en même temps cette banque pour lui donner les « conseils avisés » qui conduisaient le pays à la ruine.

Etait-ce un projet Allemand ou le projet de la Finance Internationale que Mr. Schäuble a appliqué contre la Grèce, en portant ainsi un coup très grave au crédit politique allemand et à l’UE tout entière ?

Peut-être qu’il est grand temps d’entendre le conseil de Platon dans sa République et de trouver la force de regarder et d’affronter la réalité vraie de notre monde.

De Sarkozy à Hollande

Les chauffeurs de taxi sont la meilleure « source » d’un journaliste essayant de comprendre ce qui se passe dans un pays donné. A Paris en 2007, à la veille des élections présidentielles, l’un d’entre eux m’a dit :

« Monsieur, ce n’est pas sérieux. Nous avons voté Non au référendum (sur le traité constitutionnel européen). Maintenant, six candidats du Oui se sont présentés aux élections. Il semble qu’ils veulent que le Oui l’emporte quand même ».

Sarkozy a triomphé. Le traité rejeté à l’occasion du référendum a été ratifié comme Traité de Lisbonne par l’Assemblée nationale française, évidemment sans un nouveau référendum.

Pourtant, mais c’était avant son élection, Sarkozy déposait des couronnes de fleurs sur la tombe du général de Gaulle, l’inventeur du référendum à la française, craignant peut-être que ce dernier se réveille et le chasse. Autre sacrilège, Sarkozy a ensuite remis la France dans l’OTAN. Il a fait tout ce qu’il pouvait pour détruire les derniers vestiges du « compromis historique » social-démocrate issu de l’union de la résistance communiste et gaulliste à la Libération. Sarkozy a également inversé toute la politique moyenne-orientale de la France, endossant le premier rôle dans la destruction de la Libye et agissant pour le compte de ceux qui ont utilisé des néo-conservateurs pour détruire l’Irak.

Hollande a remporté l’élection suivante, déclarant que « son véritable adversaire était le Finance » (même un Robespierre n’avait pas utilisé des slogans aussi radicaux…). Une fois élu, Hollande a pris pour conseiller un banquier de chez Rothschild qu’il a rapidement nommé Ministre de l’économie. Ces deux-là ont appliqué à la lettre la politique d’austérité que leurs Maîtres leur ont demandé d’appliquer, en sachant parfaitement que cette politique économique équivalait au suicide du Parti Socialiste Français.

Depuis, Macron a trahi Hollande et l’a envoyé à la retraite afin de se présenter lui-même à l’élection présidentielle. Selon tous les sondages publiés jusqu’à présent, et sauf surprise de dernière minute, il devrait finir par se battre en duel avec Marine Le Pen.

En l’absence d’alternative crédible, Socialistes et « Gaullistes » ont ainsi ouvert toute grande la voie au couple Macron-Le Pen. Mais en réalité c’est surtout à Marine Le Pen que la porte a été grande ouverte par « la gauche » de gouvernement qui lui a permis de s’approprier les aspirations sociales populaires et de les repeindre aux couleurs françaises. En effet, Marine Le Pen doit son succès présent à la soumission des « socialistes » français aux « lois du Marché » ainsi qu’aux dogmes économiques qui dominent l’UE. Dès lors, Marine Le Pen n’a pas besoin de formuler des propositions sérieuses et crédibles, notamment pour ce qui concerne l’avenir de l’Europe. Elle n’a pas besoin non plus de déguiser ses intentions guerrières en matière de relations avec les Musulmans et avec les pays du Moyen Orient.

Néanmoins, tout cela ne suffirait pas encore à offrir la présidence de la République à Marine Le Pen.

 

Les armes de Marine

Marine a réalisé une adhésion décisive, celle de Florian Philippot.  Autrefois soutien de Jean-Pierre Chevènement, ancien dirigeant de l’aile gauche des socialistes et chef de file des « souverainistes », Florian Philippot est devenu le « général » de Mme Le Pen, l’équivalent de ce qu’est  Steve Bannon pour Donald Trump. Selon les rumeurs, Le Pen ne prend pratiquement aucune décision sans demander l’avis de Philippot.

Philippot a mis les armes et la puissance rhétorique de la gauche française au service de l’extrême droite française, imitant même sa méthodologie cartésienne. Il n’est certainement pas Jaurès, mais il n’a pas besoin de l’être, lorsqu’il joue sans adversaire devant des écrans. Les impressions sont en écrasante majorité en sa faveur, puisqu’il s’oppose à la télévision avec les plus récents « mutants modifiés » de la métapolitique, qui prononcent l’un après l’autre des mots dépourvus de sens et semblent incapables d’opposer plus de résistance qu’un morceau de beurre au couteau.

Philippot est aussi arrivé à faire une autre chose. Homosexuel lui-même, il a réussi à réconcilier les ennemis de l’« inhibition morale » avec la puissante « communauté LGBT ». La stratégie politique de Marine Le Pen est un chef-d’œuvre. Elle a réussi à l’avoir comme conseiller principal, au moment même où d’anciens communistes incitaient leurs enfants ou petits-enfants à aller militer au Front National, fuyant ainsi les « pédés » de la gauche !

De cette manière, Marine combine maintenant l’image d’une femme très dynamique et ouverte, ami des homosexuels mais dotée d’une force politique implacable, par définition macho. Pas mal, pour une seule personne !

Le Pen a également réussi, tout en étant la représentante du dernier courant antisémite de France, à devenir l’amie des Juifs et d’Israël, comme la grande majorité des mouvements de l’extrême droite en Europe. Ceci est bien sûr quelque chose d’incroyable qui nécessite sûrement une sérieuse réflexion, d’abord de la part des Juifs eux-mêmes.

Inutile de dire que tout cela serait impossible si la pensée critique n’avait pas depuis longtemps disparu, ainsi que la liberté effective de parole, à savoir la capacité propre à la pensée critique de se déployer et de se faire entendre par la société, dans le pays européen où elle a été exercé par excellence et constituait sa fierté. En France, le président de Gaulle lui-même, alors que la guerre faisait rage en Algérie et que ses conseillers le poussaient à faire arrêter Jean-Paul Sartre, il leur a répondu « On n’arrête pas Voltaire ! » Pourtant, le philosophe communiste nommé soutenait les « rebelles » algériens (des « rebelles » que le père Le Pen torturait à cette époque).

Actuellement, bien sûr, on n’a plus de censure et le “délit d’opinion” ne mène plus en prison. Les forces dominantes sont sûrs qu’ils peuvent noyer tout porteur d’analyse et de contestation de leur pouvoir dans les rafales des nouvelles et des analyses virtuelles, tout ce qui est digne d’être entendu. Pour ne pas parler d’une situation générale où bientôt seulement des fous seront incités à dire la vérité.

Jadis, pour diffuser la propagande anti-soviétique, Le Monde publiait les textes d’un Soljenitsyne. Maintenant, se parodiant lui-même, ce journal publie en première page les articles d’un Khodorkovski, oligarque russe visant à dénigrer et à discréditer Poutine!

Pour en revenir à Marine Le Pen, il faut dire que les mutations qu’elle impose provoquent des réactions au sein du Front national, lequel conserve ses « purs idéologues ». A plusieurs reprises, ces derniers lui ont fait part de leur désaccord. Elle les écoute, essaye de les rassurer, en leur disant que « nous opérons ainsi pour obtenir le pouvoir, après nous allons voir comment mettre en œuvre nos idées. » Cependant, cela ne semble pas suffire à les rassurer. Mais la perspective du pouvoir et la posture présidentielle du Front national, comme celle de presque de tous les partis actuels qui n’ont plus que très peu à voir avec ce qu’ils étaient dans le passé, a pratiquement fait taire toute opposition interne.

La France est le pays de la Révolution par excellence. En réussissant le « lavage » de son image des « stigmates » du passé, autant qu’il lui était possible, puis en soulevant la bannière de la lutte contre la mondialisation, l’euro et l’Union Européenne, Mme Le Pen a pu exprimer le ressentiment populaire que la Gauche n’a pas pu ou voulu entendre.

Elle a ainsi synthétisé les deux identités fondamentales de la France, la Nation et la Révolution. Et elle s’est rapprochée, avec un talent indéniable et à l’aide de M. Philippot, du courant profond et de la culture socialiste traversant les couches populaires de la France, courant qui vient de très loin et reste ancré dans les esprits d’un pays qui a engendrée près de dix révolutionnaire dans son histoire.

En essayant d’unifier la puissance des concepts de Nation, de Révolution et de Peuple, la fille de Jean-Marie Le Pen est maintenant prête pour le dernier assaut, afin d’acquérir les pouvoirs quasi-monarchiques du Président de la République Française.

Mais tout cela pourrait s’avérer encore insuffisant. En effet, malgré tous ces renforts, objectifs et subjectifs, Mme Le Pen est reste la candidate de l’extrême droite qui a traumatisé les plus anciens.

Le cadeau royal du banquier

C’est Mr.Macron lui-même, le banquier de Rothschild, qui a offert à Mme Le Pen l’arme la plus précieuse pour vaincre ses concurrents, en se présentant comme son seul adversaire crédible aux élections. Et cela parce que Marine Le Pen ne peut gagner qu’en se battant en duel contre le symbole détesté des banques, de l’UE et de la mondialisation.

En se présentant contre elle, Macron lui délivre, par simple effet de contraste, le certificat d’authenticité d’une “amie du Peuple”, la “preuve”, dont elle a encore besoin pour parvenir au pouvoir.

Et le contraire est aussi valable. Seulement, en ayant comme rivale une politicienne de l’extrême droite, Macron a davantage de chance de devenir le prochain Président.

Aux Casinos de Vichy et de Trump, à l ‘« économie-casino », comme à la « politique-casino », une loi fondamentale est toujours respectée : Quel que soit le joueur qui gagne, le propriétaire du casino sera toujours gagnant en définitive.

Si le Le Pen gagne, le Capital cherchera à travers elle à  remplacer, ou tout au moins à modifier sérieusement le modèle « globaliste » de domination actuel par un autre modèle de domination. A défaut, l’extrême droite va re-stabiliser, a contrario, la domination de la mondialisation.

Mais le jeu est truqué car les joueurs ont fait un clin d’œil au croupier : Le Pen peut s’adresser plus aisément à la France populaire, tandis que Macron s’appuie d’abord sur une base beaucoup plus restreinte, celle des « bobos », des bourgeois bohèmes, des couches moyennes urbaines, politico-idéologiquement et socialement de plus en plus isolées.

Rien ne doit être laissé au hasard. Un jour, Fillon a critiqué les banquiers qui se réunissent en Suisse et y prennent des décisions qui, dit-il, sont nuisibles aux banques françaises et allemandes. Le lendemain, il est allé en Allemagne et a affirmé que les sanctions contre la Russie devraient être levées et qu’il faut créer un axe entre la France, l’Allemagne et la Russie !

Immédiatement après, Le Canard Enchaîné révèle les irrégularités dans les rémunérations de sa femme. Ce n’était pas un grand scandale, impressionnant et terrible. Mais il l’est devenu en raison de la sur-médiatisation par les médias appartenant à l’oligarchie « pro-Macron ».

Sauf surprise, cette affaire conduira à l’exclusion de Fillon dès le premier tour, ce qui amènera Macron au second, en favorisant finalement l’élection de Le Pen. Au second tour, une minorité des électeurs de Fillon va voter Macron, pour que Le Pen ne soit pas élue. La majorité va voter avec encore plus de fureur Marine, pour se venger des « mondialistes » et de l’oligarchie qui a évincé Fillon. Mais en réalité ce n’est pas du tout certain que leur vote supposée anti-oligarchique n’était pas prévue et voulue par les plus hautes sphères de l’oligarchie financière!

Il est d’ailleurs manifeste que, depuis plus d’un an, les grands médias de France ont aidé démesurément Marine Le Pen, sans le dire, évidemment et peut-etre sans même que tous qui ont participé à ca le sachant. Qu’ont-ils fait? Ils n’ont certes pas dit que Le Pen est la meilleure, cela aurait été naïf. Mais ils n’ont cessé de parler des élections présidentielles en mettant au centre de la discussion de savoir qui sera son meilleur adversaire au second tour. Bien avant que Marine réussisse à passer au second tour, ils ont anticipé sa victoire au premier, ouvrant ainsi la voie à sa victoire au second !

Nous ne pouvons évidemment pas exclure l’effet de la déesse du Hasard, nous n’avons aucune preuve formelle que tout ça fait partie d’un plan. Mais si c’est ainsi que cette déesse agit, alors, malgré son nom, elle ne laisse rien à la chance et elle se distingue par une grande systématisation dans ses méthodes et ses objectifs. Elle semble beaucoup plus raisonnable et efficace que les banquiers de notre monde.

Huntington contre Fukuyama

Marine Le Pen est peut être une version plus récente de Jeanne d’Arc. Mais, dans le cas contraire, on ne doit pas attribuer à ses diatribes contre la mondialisation beaucoup plus de valeur qu’aux manifestes anti-Finance du Président sortant Francois Hollande-Robespierre (ou même Babeuf. En réalité, c’est Fouché lui-même qui a initié la dernière campagne de Babeuf et l’a utilisé, avant de l’envoyer, lui aussi, à la guillotine).

On ne peut pas exclure que les diatribes “contestataires”, “anti-mondialisation”, “anti-UE”, ne sont que la mi-réele, mi-fausse masque dont le Finance, ou plutôt un de ses partis, parmi ces qui s’affrontent maintenant à l’Olympe du Pouvoir, a besoin de porter pour essayer d’offrir lui-meme la médecine pour la maladie (UE, mondialisation) que lui-même a provoqué. C’est logique de leur part, comme c’est logique pour un industriel qui voit la demande pour ses produits diminuer fortement de concevoir de nouveaux produits, pour satisfaire les nouveaux besoins apparus.

La France continue à être le « laboratoire politique » de toute l’Europe, selon l’expression de Karl Marx. Ce qui se passe dans ce pays est d’une importance fondamentale pour comprendre où et comment les choses vont  sur tout le Continent.

Il est maintenant tout à fait possible que les Français, pensant qu’on les invite à choisir entre la  Nation et la Mondialisation, vont choisir entre deux formes de domination de l’argent, probablement entre deux partis dans les vrais Versailles de notre monde.

L’un est inspiré par les idées de Fukuyama, rêve fané « de mondialisation heureuse », de la « bouillie » transnationale des nations, fondues dans le mixeur du néo-libéralisme et de la culture Ipad.

L’autre semble être inspirée par les idées de Huntington, par le choc des civilisations, de la gouvernance mondiale, non par la « fusion » des nations, mais par l’organisation des conflits entre elles, par l’utilisation de l’une contre l’autre, suivant le principe romain Divide et Impera, de la démolition violente des Nations, de la guerre continue, du Chaos à l’échelle mondiale.

La différence entre le premier et le second est aussi une différence dans l’évaluation de la situation mondiale et du vrai rapport de forces.

La crise de la «mondialisation»

Avec leur vote de mai 2005 contre le Traité constitutionnel européen, les Français ont porté un coup, fatal a la longue, à l’hégémonie idéologique de l’“Euro-libéralisme”, forme particulière qui a appliqué à l’Europe le projet mondial néolibéral, en noyant ses principes économiques et sociaux dans le besoin d’une intégration européenne.

Par son effondrement en 2008, Lehman Brothers a aussi démontré l’impasse du néo-libéralisme. Cette faillite financière de 2008 a enclenché la troisième des énormes crises financières qui ont marqué l’histoire du capitalisme, après celles de 1873-96 et de 1939. Or, la crise de 2008 n’est pas résolue et, il semble même qu’elle est encore loin d’avoir produit tous ses effets les plus graves.

N’oublions pas que la crise de 1873-96 a conduit finalement à la Première Guerre mondiale et à la Révolution d’Octobre. La crise de 1929 a, quant à elle, mené à la réorganisation de l’Amérique par Roosevelt, à l’arrivée d’Hitler au pouvoir, à la Seconde Guerre mondiale et aux révolutions chinoise et anticolonialistes. Nous parlons donc de phénomènes d’une telle échelle et d’une telle profondeur que l’on doit s’attendre au pire.

Face à cela, la gauche européenne ne fait plus figure d’espoir car elle n’a pas réussi à répondre aux défis de 2005 et de 2008. Elle ne dispose pas d’un plan satisfaisant pour la réorganisation de l’Europe, ni la détermination pour le mettre en œuvre. Elle est conservatrice et pas radicale. Elle fait constamment des erreurs au sujet de l’identité nationale, tout en restant attachée de manière étouffante au cadre national dans lequel ses partis opèrent, sans un véritable projet pour l’Europe. L’expérience grecque de SYRIZA s’est avérée être une catastrophe pour toute la gauche internationale. Quant au peuple américain, il a tenté avec Sanders de répondre aux défis posés par la crise de 2008, mais il n’y a pas encore réussi. C’est Mr Trump et les forces qui les contrôlent qui ont encore réussi à détourner une partie considérable de la “contestation” produite dans et par la société américaine.

C’est la faillite de la Gauche Grecque et Européenne, son incapacité à formuler même une alternative cohérente et à créer les conditions d’une lutte sérieuse pour imposer une autre Europe, qui a ouvert pleinement la voie à l’extrême Droite et à un nationalisme qui semble radical, quand il s’oppose à la “dictature de Bruxelles”. Mais il est aisément imaginable qu’il s’avère très réactionnaire, quand il n’aura plus autre chose à opposer au principe du “Chacun pour Soi” libéral.

La “dictature de Bruxelles”, c’est-à-dire le monstre institutionnel de l’UE. n’est pas une entité autonome. C’est l’outil du capital financier international (et partiellement de l’OTAN, c’est-à-dire, des Etats-Unis). On peut être formellement un état indépendant, mais en réalité ce qui importe n’est pas seulement indépendance formelle, mais la capacité réelle d’utiliser la souveraineté nationale et populaire contre les acteurs de la Finance Internationale, à l’intérieur comme à l’extérieur de l’UE ou de l’Eurozone.

La nature a horreur du vide. C’est pourquoi la réponse à la crise vient maintenant de forces qui l’ont elles-mêmes provoquée mais qui ne peuvent apparaître en tant que telles, ou présenter ouvertement leur buts, il leur faut passer des accords avec des personnalités et des courants, de gauche hier, de la droite nationaliste aujourd’hui, prêts à jouer le rôle de Faust pour accéder au pouvoir.

Ils pensent que les promesses brisées de la mondialisation ne seront pas suffisantes pour sauvegarder leur pouvoir sur le long terme.  Tôt ou tard un vrai SYRIZA, ou même de vrais Gaullistes, peuvent réapparaître, les mettant en grandes difficultés.

Etant donnée aussi l’impasse économique et politique, c’est-à-dire la Haute Finance Internationale, a probablement besoin de la guerre, d’une guerre civile entre les couches populaires d’origine européenne et islamique, guerre économique et politique entre les nations européennes, guerres internationales contre l’Islam pour commencer, contre d’autres cibles par la suite.

Ils ont besoin de ces guerres de types différents, pour justifier la négation des droits politiques, faciliter la régression sociale et la justifier.

Ils ne veulent pas augmenter la puissance des peuples et des nations européens contre le Finance, ils veulent la diminuer.

Ils utilisent de slogans “révolutionnaires” pour accomplir de taches et des objectifs “contre-révolutionnaires”. La méthode n’est pas originale. Elle a été utilisée par le National Socialisme Allemand et le Fascisme Italien. Bien que, sur d’autres points, ces courants semblent avoir des différences considérables avec l’extrême droite européenne contemporaine.

Pourquoi Le Pen et Bannon ont besoin de l’Islam ?

Nous ne sommes pas en mesure de savoir ce que les leaders de l’ISIS pensent de la situation politique en Europe et aux Etats-Unis. Par contre, il est indéniable qu’ils ont déjà fait un grand cadeau à Mme Le Pen, avec les attaques au Bataclan en 2015, juste avant les élections régionales françaises.

Il faut aussi noter que la crise européenne n’est pas seulement économique, sociale, politique. Chaque projet économique, social, politique est aussi un projet géopolitique. C’est pourquoi les conflits de ce type font de plus en plus souvent leur apparition dans le contexte européen, à commencer par la crise des réfugiés, en passant par le couple terrorisme-antiterrorisme, atteignant maintenant jusqu’au niveau des menaces de guerre entre pays d’Europe (Grande Bretagne et Espagne par rapport à Gibraltar).

Nous devons faire face à un nouveau totalitarisme, proclame Mme Le Pen. Mais ne croyez pas qu’elle a à l’esprit les banques, comme elle le suggère parfois à ses électeurs. Elle pense aux djihadistes et le dit, comme M. Trump, qui, après avoir accusé Clinton d’être à la solde de Goldman Sachs et de vouloir de nouvelles guerres au Moyen Orient, a nommé les représentants de cette banque dans son gouvernement, afin d’administrer directement l’Amérique, tout en décrétant l’interdiction faite aux musulmans de certains pays à entrer en Amérique. Toutefois, nous savons que les pays désignés ainsi par Trump ne sont pas ceux d’où viennent les terroristes, mais ceux qui sont sur la liste des pays voués à la destruction, liste constituée par les néo-conservateurs au début de cette aventure.

Si l’on entend ce qui est actuellement raconté sur l’Islam, on croirait revivre la chute de Constantinople, le siège de Vienne ou la bataille de Poitiers. On va croire à la fin que ce n’est pas l’Occident qui a non seulement conquis, mais aplati récemment avec ses missiles, des bombardiers et des mercenaires, plusieurs pays arabo-musulmans. A croire que les Arabes bombardent l’Europe et envoient des nouveaux croisés, sous la forme de réfugiés qui se noient dans la mer avec leurs enfants, apparemment parce qu’ils aiment les sports dangereux, et non pas parce que leurs maisons sont bombardées et détruites.

C’est encore un chef-d’œuvre de désinformation. Les mondialistes proposent comme solution au problème créé par les politiques militaires occidentales et par le FMI sur le reste de la planète, d’accueillir aujourd’hui dans les pays occidentaux le plus grand nombre possible d’habitants exilés des leurs.

En faisant ceci, les Soros et Fukuyama, ouvrent la voie à Trump, Le Pen et Huntington, en leur offrant l’ennemi nécessaire pour des raisons nationales et internationales, beaucoup plus significatifs que le combat contre l’ISIS, dont la création a d’ailleurs été facilitée par tous les moyens mobilisés par les agences américaines et leurs alliés !

Il y a trois ans au Vatican, Steve Bannon prenait la parole devant un public animé des mêmes idéaux de « droite radicale » que lui. Le « général » et «sur ministre » de Donald Trump, a alors expliqué avec une désarmante clarté son véritable ordre du jour : Unir les chrétiens et les juifs contre « l’islam radical » (**)

 

La fausse « amitié » avec les Russes

Bannon a raconté d’autres choses intéressantes. Ancien cadre de Goldman Sachs, il est apparu en tant que représentant du capitalisme sain contre le capitalisme corrompu auquel, il faut le noter, il a assimilé la Russie et la Chine. C’est-à-dire qu’il les a inclus parmi les ennemis, bien que la Russie au moins n’est pas sa première priorité, pendant que son président semble tombé amoureux de Poutine ! Pourtant, bien que collègue de Milo Yiannopoulos (il semble qu’il y a un lien profond entre certains homosexuels et les gardiens de notre morale), Bannon ne semble pas opposé à l’idée d’une alliance temporaire, tactique avec les Russes, sur la base des «valeurs conservatrices».

  1. Bannon a également prouvé qu’il considère la Russie comme son ennemie, par la présentation qu’il a fait de la 2e Guerre mondiale -victoire des Soviétiques par excellence, qui ont sacrifié plus de vingt millions de personnes pour entrer à Berlin- comme un triomphe du… capitalisme ! Lequel capitalisme aurait, selon Mr.Bannon, aidé la Russie soviétique à se sauver! Dans sa description de la Guerre, il n’y avait que des Américains, des Français, des Polonais, des Italiens et des Anglais pour combattre les nazis. Bien sûr, les deux nations qui, presque seules, surtout au début de cette Guerre, ont brillé de manière exemplaire dans la résistance contre Mussolini et Hitler, les Grecs et les Serbes, n’étaient même pas mentionnées.

Mr Bannon a frôlé le ridicule en présentant la guerre entre l’Allemagne Nazi et la Russie communiste comme étant essentiellement une guerre des Chrétiens contre les Athées. Mais s’il a dit des choses tellement ridicules, il l’a fait pour de raisons pas du tout ridicules.

En opérant une telle distorsion du passé, le stratège de Trump nous révèle de façon indirecte mais très claire le futur auquel il aspire. Car le Moyen-Orient n’est pas seulement important pour ce qu’il est ou pour son pétrole. Il est le champ d’exercice privilégié de la puissance impériale. Ce ne sont pas seulement les Arabo-musulmans qui sont combattus là-bas, c’est à toute l’humanité que la leçon s’adresse. En particulier à des pays comme la Russie, la Chine, l’Inde et l’Europe entière.

L’avenir de l’Europe

Le Pen n’a pas tort dans ses nombreuses critiques de l’Union européenne et de l’euro. Mais l’essentiel du problème n’est pas là. Le gros du problème est le suivant : quel sera le nouvel ordre pour l’Europe qui viendra remplacer l’ordre existant.

Bien sûr, on discute beaucoup aujourd’hui de la question importante de l’Euro, mais c’est en oubliant qu’une monnaie n’est, en dernière analyse, que l’expression d’un projet politique et géopolitique. Son abandon éventuel sera aussi, et objectivement, la naissance d’un nouvel outil servant un autre projet. Mais personne n’en parle!

La Gauche Européenne, pas plus que les nationalistes européens, n’a pas exprimé de projet politique qui serait servi par la dissolution de l’Eurozone. Mr Rothschild ou Mr Bannon, ont peut-être des idées intéressantes pour notre futur, mais ils ne nous exprimeront pas leur stratégie.

Une grande partie de l’opinion européenne est déjà convaincue que l’Union Européenne actuelle est une structure inacceptable. Ce qui n’est pas du tout clair, c’est quels pourraient être les alternatives possibles. Le fait que cette Union n’est pas acceptable, qu’elle doit être radicalement reformée ou remplacée, ne signifie pas automatiquement que sa destruction va nous conduire à un ordre Européen meilleur, ou du moins pas pire que l’état de choses existant.

La dissolution de l’Europe en une myriade de petits et moyens États-nations est-elle une solution ? Ces États-nations seront plus ou moins puissants ? En supposant bien sûr qu’ils existent encore et qu’ils ne soient pas seulement des résidus des vieilles nations face au pouvoir colossal de la Finance (et de l’Amérique).

Dans les conditions actuelles concrètes, dans la situation réelle que nous affrontons aujourd’hui en Europe, est-ce que la destruction de l’UE par les forces qui essaient de la détruire va-t-elle représenter un progrès ou un recul historique ? Est-ce que l’on va restaurer l’indépendance nationale de nos états, ou allons nous diminuer leur possibilité d’utiliser leur indépendance formelle ?

L’Union Européenne est une structure contradictoire. Son fonctionnement devient de plus en plus totalitaire, au service de la Finance tandis que son idéologie et ses principes fondateurs restent démocratiques, bien qu’ils évoluent aussi vers une culture plus totalitaire.

Toute la question est de savoir comment on va résoudre cette contradiction. La destruction de l’UE pourra servir un nouveau projet démocratique européen ou, à l’inverse, un plus grand asservissement des nations européennes.

Est-ce que l’on va mieux protéger les sociétés, les peuples et les nations européennes, ou, au contraire, être amenés à une situation justifiant des attaques encore plus graves contre l’état social en Europe ?

Comme dit un intellectuel russe, Sergueï Glaziev, érudit profond des cycles Kondratiev dans l’histoire économique et conseiller du Président Russe Vladimir Poutine, les deux guerres mondiales étaient aussi des guerres civiles européennes.

La division de l’Europe continentale a toujours été l’arme principale de forces extérieures au continent et qui voulaient le dominer en tirant profit de ses contradictions. Les Britanniques (et probablement la famille des Rothschild) l’ont fait pour vaincre la France de Napoléon. Les Américains sont intervenus contre l’Allemagne en 1917, mais pour soumettre tout le continent à leur pouvoir. Après la Seconde Guerre Mondiale, ils étaient pour l’unification de la partie occidentale, seulement pour consolider la division entre l’Europe de l’Est et celle de l’Ouest, et d’empêcher ainsi la réalisation de la vision de Charles De Gaulle, celle d’une Europe qui irait de l’Atlantique à l’Oural (on pourrait peut-être dire de l’Irlande à Vladivostok).

C’est cette vision qui hante surtout Washington et, plus encore, l’Empire de la Finance : une Europe unie et en coopération étroite avec la Russie. L’une des raisons les plus importantes de la guerre en Ukraine est également de détruire les relations entre l’Europe et la Russie et de recommencer une guerre froide pour détruire tout potentiel de coopération stratégique entre l’Europe et la Russie.

La réalisation d’un tel projet, semblable au projet gaullien, pourrait créer la base d’une solide coopération économique et géopolitique pour essayer de lutter contre les conséquences, tellement destructrices au niveau écologique, socio-économique, géopolitique, issues de la concentration du pouvoir financier et intellectuel dans les mains d’une minuscule minorité qui a de visées totalitaires mondiales. Même les plus puissants des états européens auront de très grandes difficultés pour affronter demain, un par un, ces défis et ces forces colossales.

Voici la grande responsabilité des forces qui persistent à s’intituler de gauche, sociales, écologiques, pacifistes. Est-ce qu’elles ont  une idée pour l’Europe et le monde, une stratégie, une volonté de faire face à un défi aussi grand que celui auquel est confrontée l’humanité? Ont-elles l’indépendance d’esprit et le courage nécessaire contre le pour s’opposer au pouvoir de l’Argent ? Ou ne sont-elles plus que la lumière d’une étoile déjà morte, ouvrant la voie à une longue nuit dans l’histoire de l’humanité, un monde qui, à la lueur de ses réalisations technologiques, reste plus préhistorique et plus barbare que jamais ?

Sera-t-il possible à d’autres lieux alternatifs, en dehors de l’Occident, conservateurs dans leur psychologie mais aussi obligés de résister, de répondre au besoin qui les presse, comme dans le passé, de produire et d’opposer au spectre de la destruction qui nous menace, des idées opportunes pour toute l’humanité ?

Pseudo-(Fake) Radicalisme

Ni Trump, ni Le Pen ne peuvent être comparés avec le totalitarisme d’avant-guerre, bien qu’ils partagent un certain nombre de points essentiels en commun. Et il y a peut-être là un piège pour ceux qui pourraient espérer quelque similitude et qui, fabriquant des sujets virtuels, risquent eux-mêmes de se laisser berner à la fin, pensant que ce sont des vrais.

Comme Günter Grass l’a écrit, les soldats d’Hitler qui ont occupé l’Acropole, avaient des poèmes de Hölderlin dans leurs bagages.

Ils n’avaient pas, comme Schauble aujourd’hui, copié (comme des étudiants gâtés) les recettes de Goldman Sachs et du FMI dans leurs cahiers, ils n’avaient pas, comme Schauble, assigné à Otmar Issing la tâche d’élaborer les normes de l’Euro.

Si les destructions infligées par Hitler et par Schauble au peuple Grec sont comparables, il reste plus difficile de traiter un adepte de Goldman Sachs et du FMI comme un réel nationaliste Allemand. Mais qu’il le comprenne lui-même ou non, il n’est à son tour qu’un fake.

Dans une interview, on a demandé à Noam Chomsky, si Trump pouvait être comparé à Hitler. Le philosophe linguiste a répondu qu’il y a une grande différence entre les deux : Hitler et ses compagnons ont vraiment cru à leurs idées, ils n’ont pas fait semblant.

Mars 2017

Notes

(*) Journaliste et Ecrivain

(**)  http://www.defenddemocracy.press/this-is-how-steve-bannon-sees-the-entire-world/

Cet article est la version plus developpee d’un article plus sestreint en anglais et, encore plus restreint en grec, publies ici

http://www.defenddemocracy.press/

http://www.konstantakopoulos.gr

Copyright, partial or full reproduction of this article is free, provided the source is mentioned

The Hijacking of France (from Donald Trump to Marine Le Pen)

By Dimitris Konstantakopoulos (*)

“I am the last President of France. All the next presidents will be accountants,” François Mitterrand once said.

But he would not have been able to imagine the unexpected, tortuous routes that History, or those in need of accountants, would have chosen  to approach their goal.

Perhaps not even a Machiavelli could have imagined them. It would have taken the perverse genius of a Joseph Fouché.

The unthinkable, which they have been preparing for so long, may now be about to happen. Foreshadowing, like so much else that is now occurring, an era of major global shocks. .

In France, the country of Voltaire and Robespierre, of the French Revolution and the Commune, of Charles De Gaulle and Jean-Paul Sartre, in France, the daughter of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, the mother of modern Europe and its culture, or whatever remains of it, Marine Le Pen, today’s – admittedly mutated but nevertheless authentic – descendant of a political current with its origins in the disgrace for France that was the regime of Vichy, is about to cross the gate of the Élysée Palace.

But the founder of the National Front, Jean-Marie Le Pen, is not laughing as he sees the movement he himself created coming so close to power. Nor even that his own offspring, for whom he paved the way, could be about to become the President of the  Fifth Republic.

Jean-Marie Le Pen is weeping bitter tears.

An abyss separates the present writer’s ideas from his. But in the day that is dawning it is not only the distinctions of Left and Right, of Communist and Fascist, of atheist and believer, of Christian and Muslim, that are significant. It is also of great importance whether an individual belongs to those who have some kind of identity, ideology, religion, ethics or those who have none: the homines oeconomici,  the creatures of putty, the contemporary Fausts who would sell their soul if they had one.

It is in the unusual, the rare, that the information is to be found, was the belief of  Shannon, inventor of the homonymous theory. What is it that Jean-Marie knows or understands that we possibly do not?

Pourquoi Pas?

The National Front has its origins, totally or partially, in the Vichy regime. This, for Marine, is one of the facts she cannot get away from, however hard her “strategist” Philippot tries to sever every link with the Front’s past, whether it be Vichy, the torture of militants, in the attempt to keep Algeria as a French colony, something that cost  hundreds of thousands of Algerian lives and brought their country to ruin.

The Ancient Greeks taught us the meaning of Truth (Alitheia) through the way they constructed the term to describe it, which in Greek means No Lethe, no oblivion. Important things are not to be forgotten.  .

The Vichy regime was imposed by the Nazi boot and was made possible by the vote of the majority of the elected members of the National Assembly, in the casino of this spa town, in 1940, long before we arrive at today’s “casino-economy” and “casino-politics”.

“No, this is a coup”, said General de Gaulle and he fought it, along with his Free French. He fought it, along with the maquis, with Greeks, Serbs, Britons, the fighters of Moscow, of Leningrad, of Stalingrad until, having paid a terrible price, the Soviets and their Red Army raised their flag over the Reichstag.

At that time France retained the memory of the decapitation of its kings. De Gaulle put on trial the leaders of Vichy, the World War I hero Marshal Petain and his prime minister Laval, whom the judges in their turn sent to the firing squad. They executed Laval to enable France and its Republic to live. France won the right to sit at the table of the victors of the Second World War and to become one of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.

Now, in a way, Vichy has made its comeback. Not praising itself, not defending itself, half-condemning itself, depositing wreaths at the grave of de Gaulle, even trying, more or less ostentatiously, to claim the legacy of Napoleon himself. This is particularly true of Marion Lepen, the family’s youngest and very beautiful political star.

How is it possible that History (or its would-be proprietors) could have made possible such an amazing turnabout?

The suicide of the Socialists and of the Gaullists.

Much water has flowed in the Seine to get us where we are now. The three major post-war political families of France, the Right, the Communists and the Socialists (not to put on the list the Trotskyists also,  who never became a large organized political force but nevertheless played a very important role) gradually, through the choices they made,  cancelled out key elements of their own identity and raison d’être.

I remember, as a young student in France in the 1980s, seeing Jean-Marie bantering on television, accusing everybody of stealing his ideas: socialists taking Atlanticism, the Right-wing liberalism, Communists his immigration policy (a Communist mayor had just sent in bulldozers to demolish immigrant shacks).

He was not entirely wrong, though the most he was really able to do was to highlight their contradictions. The reason they were appropriating some of Le Pen’s ideas was that they were increasingly retreating under the pressure of capital (and the Americans).  For decades, both Socialists and the Right did just what they were asked to do. By the end of this process, politicians had been transformed into employees. They had lost  their usefulness, both for those who voted for them and those who utilized them.

Liberalism and Atlanticism

Mitterrand’s leftist experiment with the economy lasted a year before the Socialists changed their course entirely and began to implement in exemplary fashion the most orthodox liberal management of the French economy, exactly what “the markets” wanted.

The Socialists pursued pro-American policies, in contrast to Gaullists, and very typical for European social democracy. It was not until he felt his own end approaching that François Mitterand confessed “we are at war with America, but the French do not know this.’’ They do not know because no-one has told them.

Up to the time of Jacques Chirac and Dominique de Villepin, who took sides with Schroeder and Putin against the war in Iraq, Gaullism retained at least some of its independent reflexes. In 2003 Chirac’s Prime Minister Villepin became the mouthpiece of all the civilized world, denouncing before the Security Council like a latter-day Demosthenes the proposed US-British invasion of Iraq.

But not long after this they appeared to have taken fright at their own courage, perhaps subjected to huge pressures and blackmail, which they lacked the courage of a De Gaulle to resist. They hastened to bury, with even greater alacrity than the way they had announced it, every plan of truly independent European defence. For the rest of his term Chirac dispatched a special envoy to Washington, every week, to avoid any new “misunderstanding”.

Shortly before the end of his term, deeply disillusioned by Sarkozy winning the race to succeed him, he invited representatives of four international newspapers to his presidential Palace to warn of the terrible dangers of a war against Iran. They presented him as someone who had become unhinged.

As for Villepin, by the end of Chirac’s term in office he had already fallen. Not for what he had said in the Security Council but for failing to understand that Gaullism and neoliberalism are incompatible. He provoked a real social uprising in 2006 and was helped to fall through a collegial shove from behind by Sarkozy.

De Gaulle himself understood much earlier the contradiction between Capital and the Nation. Having defeated the revolution of May ’68, he tried to introduce profound changes in the administration of enterprises. The French bourgeoisie concluded that the General had lost his marbles, and overthrew him.

Now we have the lamentable Mr. Fillon, who launched his election campaign with announcements of layoffs, shooting himself in the legs.

From politicians to employees, from employees to actors (The global rise of Finance)

At this point, before proceeding with our examination of the French situation, we deem it useful to include some more general thoughts on international developments, above and beyond events in France. The hope is that this will help us to gain better understanding of what is happening in that country. Readers can choose to continue reading this section, or else skip it.

With the passage of time quantitative change became qualitative change. At first the political forces merely compromised with the powerful, that is to say with unbridled financial  capital.  By the end of the process they had become its employees.

Their very nature underwent alteration, imperceptibly, by virtue of their choices and the dramatic increase in the global power  of financial capital,  which went from being a strong component of the system to being the system itself!

Finance has now become a kind of superpower, without acquiring the conventional characteristics of states in the older sense. It has simply bought almost everybody, including political elites, “intellectuals”, media, both mainstream and alternative, information and cultural production, the discoveries of science and technology.

It does not send planes and missiles to impose its will. It sends “the markets”, and also sends the appropriate signals to friends and rivals, to deceive them and set them on the course it wants them to take, in a world where economic power has become more important than military power, intellectual more important than economic. “How many divisions has the Vatican?” Stalin once asked sarcastically. The Vatican is still in its place whereas Stalin’s once so seemingly powerful state has disappeared.

Since the collapse of the USSR, Finance has had less need of states, even the USA. It subordinates them to its logic. It does not comply with theirs. Freed from any restrictions, having abolished the distinction between investment and savings banks, it finds now new ways to reproduce itself through the derivatives industry. Through debt it forces exponential increases in the demands it makes on people, societies and nations. In European integration it has found the instrument par excellence for institutionalization of its domination.

Finance acquires, because it is able to buy,  unprecedented means for controlling humans, beginning from our DNA  and moving up to our thoughts and feelings, which are produced by armies of researchers at major universities and research centres, every day, every month, every year, without any social control or regulation. This has been going on since World War II and its aftermath.

In 2011 one of the rating agencies warned the US government and the Congress that they would have their credit rating downgraded if a compromise were not found on the budget. The warning was also the clearest of indications of the correlation of forces between Finance and the strongest state on earth. The assets of the world’s ten largest financial institutions is approximately equal to the total sovereign debt of all nations.

The most stunning of the latest revelations by Assange is not the way in which we are being monitored in our homes.  It is the ease with which these methods were channeled by the CIA to individuals. In Israel there are accusations that millionaires have tried to buy entire arrays of functions from Mossad, one of the best secret services in the world because it has a strong ideological core. In the end Finance will even be able to buy itself because almost everything and everyone can be bought. Turned into property they cease to perform the functions they once performed. Exactly the same as occurs with cancer cells.

It is noteworthy that the exponential increase in the indirect political and social role of Finance has become a source of great confusion (and misapprehension) in so far as our brains are accustomed to analyzing a world where they players are visible states and major powers. We are used to looking upon them, not the powers that may be using them, as the subjects of history.

At the time of the collapse of the USSR, a columnist with the Financial Times suggested that we should go from citizens’ democracy to the democracy of enterprises. Easier said than done.  Finance is not legitimized as power is.  It must mislead in order to be able to govern. Its power also must remain invisible so as not to be put at risk.

To the same extent that it is freeing itself from any restraint from state or society and losing its last productive functions, finance is turning into a kind of cancer, transforming neoliberalism into a slave economy and “disaster capitalism” (e.g. Greece), transforming the classic imperialism of conquest, control and containment into an imperialism for demolishing peoples and countries (the Arab/Muslim world), and capitalism into a variety of post-modern feudalism.

The program of cancer is death and death has not yet acquired the capacity to be a political program. In order to achieve its aims, a policy of death must hide them. It must, as happens with autoimmune diseases, turn the same cells of the organism that are responsible for its defence against the organism itself. Because we want to live and because we know we are going to die, we need hope and meaning. So, deception, inversion of truth and reality, the use of identities against their real meaning (e.g. socialists destroying societies, nationalists destroying nations) tend to become the dominant political practices and methods. At least until or unless we get to the point described by Kafka in The Trial where we seek our own death as salvation. .

This is why in our world we usually have to invert the words of a politician to discover what he is really trying to achieve. As we do with the impressions that the mainstream and alternative media and the  public opinion pollsters are seeking to create.

In this new world information is not what is said. It is what is not said. It is expressed not in the visible, in the Presence, but in the unseen, in the Absence.

Perhaps it is because it is some time since Mr. Barroso submitted to the test of an election, perhaps it was merely from stupidity, that he allowed himself to say: “We all know that the next generations will live worse lives than the present generation.” It is  not possible to win elections saying such things.

Neoconservatives invoke the realism of Hobbes to justify the wars they started in the Middle East. But in fact they are trying to use the philosopher’s “realism” to disown his own objectives. It is not the naivety in the Kantian vision of Perpetual Peace that bothers them but the vision of peace itself. As for Soros, History will deny him the title of philosopher, not because he lacks the intellectual capacity of his teacher Karl Popper but because his financial practices belie the motivations underlying the work of the Open Society’s prophet.

What all of them try to hide behind their analyses is the real moral choice behind their actions and their ideas. They prefer greed to generosity and the god of War to the god of Love. It is as simple as that. They present their choice as the only realistic one. In fact they are writing a requiem for humans and for life in general.

Clashes between civilizations were prophesized (or prepared) by Huntington, and even conflicts between Hispanics and “whites” in the US, long before Trump announced the plan for his wall. Democracy has no future, said Huntington, because of the physical limits to growth. Of course he was not able to come up with anything better than the spectacular explosion of inequalities and the virtual reintroduction of slavery, the transformation of human beings into nomadic animals like the refugees from Afghanistan, Syria, Africa (or the refugee scientists from southern Europe who leave their countries by air) to solve the problem. The Exxon of Mr. Tillerson, who dreams of melting the Arctic ice, striking a perhaps fatal blow to life, is symbolic of the logic to be found behind the chaos. They would like to induce us to come of our own accord to them, the people that have caused the problem, and ask them to establish a dictatorship, so gaining ourselves a temporary reprieve and saving our skins, albeit as slaves.

Three clarifying examples (perestroika, Middle East, Greece)

The collapse of the USSR provides us with an example of great importance for understanding how these new forces are acting. There were of course very serious problems affecting this state; otherwise it would not have collapsed. Still, this was a necessary, not sufficient, condition. The USSR was not defeated by foreign intervention in 1919 and 1941, or by the military pressure of NATO. It did not collapse because of a revolution. It collapsed through the actions of its own leadership, who committed a kind of (guided) suicide.

The USSR did not collapse beneath the “hard power”  of foreign armies, nor  even the “soft” power of advanced capitalism, but rather the “smart power” of its rivals.

It happened because the Soviet reformers had been persuaded that their enemies had become friends, and they entrusted them with the production of much of their own reform agenda, an action which by itself transformed the USSR into an object. The ideology of perestroika was developed at Michigan State University. The best informed analysts attribute the architecture of glasnost to George Soros.  The West seems to have cooperated with a faction of the Soviet leadership to send Matthias Rust to land unhindered in Red Square, thus offering Gorbachev the perfect pretext to decapitate his own army (as Stalin did in the ‘30s with the help of German Nazi secret services). In the end, the Soviet regime became the first in history to be brought down by its own television, having lost its desire to survive.

President Bush in autumn 1991 even said, commenting on events in Ukraine, that he rather favoured maintaining the USSR, so as not to interfere in the slightest with the process of Soviet suicide. He probably knew by that time that he would be receiving a phone call some weeks later from Boris Yeltsin announcing that the Russian president had taken the initiative to dissolve the Union.

Ten years after Huntington a series of wars began in the Middle East. The United States is accused of starting them but it is doubtful to say the least that these wars were really in the national interest of the USA. The strategic decision to launch them was not taken by the American state. It was taken by the forces that created a range of neocon lobbies and took control of the American state, in the process even bypassing what had been that state’s established mode of functioning.

It is not difficult to discern the influence also of the “Empire of Finance” in the strategic decisions taken by both the German and the Greek governments after 2010, shaping not only the way the EU has responded to the financial crisis of 2009-10 but also determining the very future of the European project. One of the architects of the Euro, Otmar Issing, is the main German authority on monetary policy. In the spring of 2010 he was also one of the fiercest protagonists of the line “Not one euro to the Greeks”, as he wrote in Financial Times Deutschland (10.3.2010). What he omitted to say in his article is that he was also a paid advisor to Goldman Sachs Europe, the bank that contributed heavily to creating the Greek debt bubble in 2000-01 and then organized,  in alliance with the German government, the attack by “the markets” against Greece, while being paid for its services by the government of the victim of the attack.

Is it a German project or a World Finance project that Mr. Schäuble  has implemented against  Greece, dealing a very serious blow to German political capital and the EU itself?

Perhaps it is time to heed the advice of Plato in his Republic and find the strength to see and face the real reality of our world.

From Sarkozy to Hollande

In every country taxi drivers are one of the best sources for a journalist trying to understand what is happening. In Paris in 2007 one of them told me, “But Monsieur, is it serious? We voted “No” in the referendum (on the European constitutional treaty). Now, six candidates of “No” have presented themselves for the presidential elections, to ensure a “Yes” President will win”.

Sarkozy won finally. The rejected Treaty was ratified as the Treaty of Lisbon by the National Assembly, without any new referendum.

Before the election Sarkozy had laid wreaths at the grave of de Gaulle, perhaps fearing that the General would wake up and hunt him down.  Once elected, Sarkozy got France back into NATO. He did what he could to destroy the last remnants of the social democratic historic compromise of the Communist and Gaullist resistance. He also reversed the entire Middle Eastern policy of France, spearheading the destruction of Libya, on behalf of those who had used the neocons to destroy Iraq.

Hollande won the next election, declaring that his real adversary is Finance (not even  Robespierre had said such things). Once elected, he appointed Rothschild’s banker Macron to his ministry. His economic policy was tantamount to the suicide of the Socialist Party.

Macron sent Hollande into retirement and is now the presidential candidate who, on current  indications, barring surprises, will confront Le Pen.

Both Socialists and “Gaullists”, in the absence of any other credible alternative, opened wide the gate for Le Pen to become the chief expression of popular discontent, painting them with the colours of the French tricolor, channeling it into an amorphous opposition to the EU without any serious proposal for the future of Europe and with a slightly disguised but essentially pro-war preference for the Middle East.

Marine’s weapons

Marine won an important recruit: Florian Philippot. Formerly right-hand man to Jean-Pierre Chevènement, leader of the left wing of the Socialists and of the “souverainistes”, Philippot became Marine’s chief strategist, just as Steve Bannon became chief strategist to Donald Trump. Le Pen is said to take almost no decision without asking Philippot.

Philippot has put at the service of the French extreme right the weapons and the rhetorical flair of the French left, imitating its Cartesian methodology. He is no Jaurès, but he does not need to be in so far as he is playing without an opponent. Impressions overwhelmingly favour him when he is competing on television with the modified mutants of postpolitics who string together commonplaces and appear to have no more resistance to the extra-institutional factors than butter has to a knife.

Philippot has another achievement to his name. A homosexual himself, he has solemnly reconciled the enemies of “permissiveness” with the mighty “LGBT community”. The political strategy of Le Pen is masterly. She has managed to have a homosexual as her chief advisor at the same as the former communist fathers and grandfathers are pushing their children and grandchildren in the direction of the National Front so as to get away from, or wage war against, the “homosexuals” of the Left! So Madame Lepen now embodies macho, tough-minded politics, friendly acceptance of homosexuals and the image of being a dynamic woman. No mean feat!

Le Pen also managed,  in spite of being the representative of France’s only notable anti-Semitic current, to become, like the vast majority of far right-wing movements in Europe, a good friend of both Jews and Israel. This is a phenomenon that requires serious analysis, not least from Jews themselves.

Needless to say, all this would be impossible if critical thinking had not long since been suppressed by various means, including control of universities, mass media, “intellectuals”, the main method being that of buying them off in one way or another. Of course formal freedom of speech still exists in France, but not the real possibility of any critical thinking, in the European country which par excellence, pioneered it and was proud of it. While war was raging in Algeria and de Gaulle’s advisors were urging him to apprehend the Communist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, supporter of the Algerian rebels (who were being tortured at that time by Marine Le Pen’s father) De Gaulle replied: “One does not arrest Voltaire”.

Of course imprisonment and censorship are part of an outdated methodology. The decision makers are confident today that through the noise of virtual news and analysis they can now drown out everything worth hearing.

During the Cold War Le Monde published the texts of Alexander Solzhenitsyn as a means of promoting anti-Soviet propaganda. Today, parodying itself, it publishes front page articles by oligarchs such as Khodorkovsky, to discredit Putin!

Marine’s tactical maneuvering provokes reactions within the National Front, which has its own purists. They have repeatedly gone to find her in order to protest. She listens to them and tries to reassure them: “we are doing this in order to win power, and then we will see how our ideas might be implemented”. The reassurance apparently fails to convince but the prospect of power and the amorphous character of the National Front – indeed of all modern parties now that one mentions it, which in many ways no longer resemble the political parties of the past – are enough to reduce the opposition to silence.

France is the country of Revolution. Through whitewashing its image, as much as possible, and expunging both her own personal past and that of the National Front, raising the banner of struggle against globalization, Madame Lepen has succeeded to a significant extent in harnessing the popular resentment that the Left has been unable or unwilling to express.

She has brought together two fundamental identities of France: the Nation and the Revolution. She has even been able to co-opt, through her own undeniable talent and the Leftist contributions of M. Philippot, the old and strong underlying currents of France’s socialist popular culture.

With her claim to represent the Nation, the Revolution and the People, Marine Le Pen is now entering the final straight.

The golden gift of the Banker to Mme Lepen

The armoury of weapons listed above may or may not be sufficient for the purpose. Who can tell?

There is another weapon, so far unmentioned, and that is her opponent.

Through his decision to stand for election,  M.  Emmanuel Macron, a Rothschild banker, provides the ultimate proof, if the French still need proof, that Lepen, as the opposite of Macron, is the candidate to support.

It is only against the hated symbol of the bank of the banks (and also of the EU and globalization) that Marine Le Pen stands some chance of prevailing.

And Macron too can win only against a Far Right candidate!

In all casinos, including the casino of Vichy, the casinos of Trump, the economy casino and the politics casino, there is a fundamental law. The casino wins in every game.

In the case of the French presidential elections, it seems that the French people are invited to choose between Globalization and the Nation.

But their real choice appears to be between two alternative models of financial domination of French state power.

If Le Pen wins, Capital will seek through her to replace the now prevalent model of domination with another one, or least modify the “globalist” model that is now  dominant. If it fails to accomplish that, the extreme right will relegitimize the existing globalist model.

But the cards are marked and Le Pen can collude with the dealer. It is much easier for her to address France’s popular strata, whereas M. Macron’s constituency is confined to the politico-ideologically limited and socially depressed base of “bobos”, the bourgeois bohemian urban middle classes.

Nothing is left to chance.  One day Fillon criticized the bankers gathering in Switzerland for decisions to the detriment of French and German banks and the next day went to Germany and said that the sanctions against Russia should be lifted, proposing what amounted to a political axis between France, Germany and Russia!

Immediately the Canard Enchaîné discovered problems between him and his wife. It was nothing to write home about, but it became a grand and terrible scandal from the way it was presented by the oligarchic pro-Macron media.

All things being equal, this will mean exclusion of Fillon in the first round, taking Macron into the second and conceivably ensuring Le Pen’s victory. In the second round a minority of Fillon voters will vote Macron in order to defeat Le Pen, but the temptation will be great to vote for Le Pen as punishment for the forces that excluded Fillon.

For over a year now the big French media have been helping Marine, without directly supporting her, which it would be naïve to do. They do it by framing discussion of the presidential elections as a discussion about who will be in best position to confront Le Pen in the second round. They thus appear to take it for granted that she will be among the winners of the first round. And by leading people to believe that she is more or less unacceptable to them, they encourage the French popular classes to believe she is their friend.

The possibility cannot of course be excluded that all the above represent the workings of chance. We have no proof that what is involved is implementation of a project. .

But if it is indeed God that is behind this scenario, He is evidently keeping all options covered. He also seems to be less than a reliable friend to the bankers, who may have been foolish to stand one of their own against the radical Madame.

Huntington against Fukuyama

Could it be that Marine Le Pen is a reincarnation of Joan of Arc? In any case her slogans against globalization seem to be more or less of the same calibre as those of the outgoing president Hollande-Robespierre (or perhaps Hollande-Babeuf), against Finance. By the way, it was Fouché who promoted Babeuf in his campaign, and made use of it, before  sending him to the guillotine.

She is most probably the mask Finance believes it must wear, at least in the case of the most radical of its parties, which, perceiving that the survival of globalization is in no way guaranteed, have devised the medicine for the disease they themselves provoked. They resemble the industrialist who, seeing demand for his old products shrinking, decides to launch new ones.

It is now quite possible that the French, thinking they must choose between Nation and Globalization, will choose one of two forms of domination of Finance.

One of these forms draws inspiration from the ideas of Fukuyama, the faded dream of benign globalization, the mixing together of nations in the cauldron of neoliberal politics and Ipad culture.

The other is inspired by the ideas of Huntington and the clash of civilizations. Not the merging of traditions but organization of the division and conflict between nations, using one against the other as in the old Roman custom of Divide et Impera, through violent demolition of entire countries and nations in continuous war and chaos. .

The difference between the first and the second reflects differing assessments of the balance of power between the parties.

On the way to becoming an empire, Rome lost its own republic. The repercussions of its civil wars were felt all over the known world of that time.

The same is occurring today with the two wings struggling for predominance in the very centre of Imperial Power. That is the meaning of the ferocious struggles between Obama and Merkel for instance, on one side, and Netanyahu and Trump on the other. And who can know what is happening on the Olympus of finance, between the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds?

The Crisis of Globalisation

With their vote against the European Constitutional Treaty in the 2005 referendum  French citizens overthrew the ideological domination of “Euroliberalism” in their country, delegitimizing the Maastricht Europe, symbol of the new globalized world run by Finance.

The collapse of Lehman Brothers in  2008 exposed the economic impasse of neoliberalism, inaugurating the third similarly profound crisis in the history of capitalism, following those of 1873-96 and 1929. We are still very much within the environment of the 2008 crisis.

The crisis of 1873-96 led to the First World War and the October Revolution. The crisis of 1929 led to the reorganization of America by Roosevelt, to Hitler, to the Second World War, to the Chinese and anti-colonial revolutions. This is the scale and intensity of the events we can expect and which, in reality, have begun to unfold.

The European Left failed miserably to respond to the challenges of 2005 and 2008. It does not have a satisfactory plan for the reorganization of Europe, nor the determination to implement any such plan.  It is conservative, not radical. It is permanently in error in the way it engages the question of the nation. It remains committed to the national framework in which its parties operate, incapable of constituting even a rudimentary European political subject.

US society tried with Sanders to give a first answer to the 2008 crisis, but it has not succeeded for the time being.

Nature abhors a vacuum. The solutions that societies cannot provide are now being proposed by a part of the Establishment itself, employing revolutionary slogans to implement domestic and international counter-revolutionary tasks. There is nothing original in the method. It was used by German National Socialists and Italian Fascists before the war, for all the important differences between them and contemporary far right radicals of the Le Pen or Trump type.  .

Why Le Pen and Bannon need Islam

A few days before the regional elections in France in 2015, ISIS with its Bataclan attack, performed Le Pen a great service.

“We must confront the new totalitarianism,” Le Pen proclaims. But do not imagine that the reference is to the banks.  No, “totalitarianism” means the jihadists. The same is taking place in the USA. Prior to his election Trump was accusing Clinton of being in the service of Goldman Sachs and of starting, or wanting to start, wars. After his election what did he do? He appointed Goldman Sachs to rule the United States directly, without being obliged to enlist the services of its corrupt political class. Then he issued a decree banning the citizens of a number of Muslim states from entering the USA. Those states were not the states from which the terrorists originated. They were the states included in the list of states to be demolished, drawn up by the Neocons in 2000.

Listening to what many politicians and media say about Islam nowadays, one could get the impression of living at the time of the fall of Constantinople, the battle of Poitiers or the siege of Vienna. One could end up believing that it was not the West that flattened with missiles, bombers and mercenaries, around a dozen countries of the Arab and Muslim world. What is happening is that the Arabs are bombing Europe, and sending new Crusaders in the form of refugees, who drown, along with their children, apparently because they like taking risks, not because their homes are being bombed and destroyed.

Once again, it is masterly. The globalists propose, as a solution to the problem created by Western military policies and IMF world-wide practices, that we should welcome in our countries as many of the displaced populations as possible.

The adepts of Soros and Fukuyama who abet these scenarios are paving the way for Trump, Le Pen and Huntington, offering them the needed enemy, to be exploited both domestically and internationally.

They are preparing the ground for wars inside Western countries, a considerable proportion of whose population is of Muslim descent, and at the same time a new war or wars in the Middle East. They are using the situation not so much to fight against ISIS, which is first and foremost  the creature of the secret services of the USA and its allies, but to curtail political rights and freedoms of the popular classes in the West, making it easier to attack their social gains and employing the Islamic threat to fuel its aggressive agenda in the Middle East.

Speaking three years ago to his “radical right” friends in the Vatican, Trump’s chief of staff Steve Bannon outlined with disarming clarity his international agenda of uniting Christians and Jews against “radical Islam” (**)

A fake friendship with Russia

Bannon also said some other very interesting things. A former employee of Goldman Sachs, he  appeared to want to represent healthy against corrupted capitalism, in which Russia and China were also included, thus indirectly but clearly treated as enemies. Russia may not be first priority for the list of enemies, because Bannon’s own President at times styles himself a friend of Putin. Τhough a colleague of Milo Giannopoulos, Bannon does not seem opposed to the idea of a temporary alliance with the Russians on the basis of “conservative values”.
Mr. Bannon also proved in another way, indirectly but very clearly, in the same speech, that he considers Russia to be an enemy. He presents the 2nd World War as primarily a victory of capitalism, which, as he says, helped the Soviets to survive, completely ignoring the fact that this victory was achieved by the sacrifice of more than twenty million Soviet people. In his description there were only Poles, Italians and Englishmen among the Europeans fighting Nazis. No mention is made of the two nations that put up by far the fiercest resistance to Hitler and Mussolini: the Greeks and the Serbs.

Bannon is courting ridicule when he claims that the 2nd World War, a war to a large extent between Nazi Germany and Communist Russia, was a war between Christians and atheists! But the reasons he has for courting the ridicule are not ridiculous.

Distorting the past, he also revealed the future he wants. The Middle East is important not only for what it is, or for its oil, but because it is a privileged space for the exercise of Imperial Power. The defeat of Arabs and Muslims sends a powerful signal to the whole planet, and in particular countries such as Russia, China and India, and even to Europe.

The future of Europe

Le Pen is not wrong in her many criticisms of the European Union and the Euro. The problem is not the criticism but the answers to the question of what might replace the existing European order.

It is already clear to a large percentage of the European population that the existing European Union is an unacceptable structure. What is not clear is what the possible alternatives might be. The fact that it is unacceptable and in urgent need of reform does not mean that by destroying it one will be left with a better and not a worse European order.

Is the dissolution of Europe into a galaxy of small and medium states, competing among themselves to acquire a part of a shrinking global demand, the best way to ameliorate the situation in the continent?

Is it a way to achieve national independence or a way to justify even bigger attacks against the social welfare state, or what it remains of it, in Europe?

Will European societies, states and nations  be stronger or weaker as a result, as they face the colossal power that has been accumulated by international Finance? Will they be more or less dependent?

An important Russian intellectual and advisor to President Vladimir Putin, Sergey Glazyev, rightly explains that the two World Wars were in their way European civil wars.

The division of continental Europe has always been the prime weapon of outside forces that sought to dominate the continent by taking advantage of its contradictions. The aims of the British were to defeat France. The aims of the Americans were to subjugate the continent. They supported European integration only in so far as it sealed the division between the East and West of the continent and the domination of its western part by the USA.

Their absolute headache would have been the realization of De Gaulle’s dream of a Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals, or from Ireland to Vladivostok, if you prefer.

Only the creation of such a Europe can provide a basis for resisting the catastrophic ecological, socio-economic and geopolitical trends dominating our world.

This is the great responsibility of the forces that insist on being called leftist, social, ecological, or pacifist. Do they have a vision for Europe and the world? Do they have a strategy and the determination to face a challenge as great as the one that is objectively placed before mankind? Do they have the necessary independence and the courage to fight against the power of Finance? Or do they represent the light of a star that died, ushering in a long night in the history of mankind, a world that, in the glow of its technological achievements, nevertheless remains more prehistoric and barbaric than ever?

Will other alternative centres besides the West, usually conservative in their psychology but obliged to resist, be able to develop the radicalism that is required of them by such a radical objective situation?  Will they be able to solve their own internal problems by proposing ideas of a more general nature for the solution of humanity’s problems?

We cannot answer this question for the time being.

Fake Radicalism

Both Trump and Le Pen are similar in many ways to pre-war totalitarian movements. But there are also significant differences. .

In his poem about Greece and Europe, Günter  Grass noticed that Hitler’s soldiers sent to occupy the Acropolis of Athens had the poems of Hölderlin in their haversacks.

Schäuble cannot be compared to Hitler, whatever the catastrophes both have inflicted on the Greek people.  Nobody can imagine Hitler implementing the prescriptions of Goldman Sachs and Otmar Issing, while pretending to be a German nationalist.

When Noam Chomsky was asked in an interview whether Trump can be compared with Hitler, he answered that there is a big difference. Hitler and his companions really believed in their ideas, they did not just pretend to believe them.

Those who are using their enormous power and influence to create fake subjects risk discovering in the end that they cannot use them the way they might use real ones.

Published in Defenddemocracy.press

 

Notes

(*) Journalist and writer

(**) http://www.defenddemocracy.press/this-is-how-steve-bannon-sees-the-entire-world/

For a more developped presentation of the above ideas, you make look to the following article in French

A more dangerous world is probably coming after the US election!

By Dimitris Konstantakopoulos

The level of irrationality, confusion and negative energy is the most astonishing signal emanating out of the US presidential election.  It is a strong indication that, whatever the result, we should be prepared for an escalation in the already serious tensions dominating our world.

It is probably the first time, since the crisis of Weimar Germany, that such phenomena have appeared in the centre of the world, in its strongest country.

80% of the population of the USA do not trust and do not appreciate either of the two candidates. The strongest argument for voting Trump is not so much what he says as opposition to Clinton being elected. And the main argument for voting Clinton is not to have Trump elected!

The other day, as I was struggling to finish this article, I sent mails to some good friends in the USA, very critical, experienced and serious observers, telling them that I am a little confused by what I am reading about their elections and asking them for their opinion on the foreign policy Trump will really follow if elected.

From the answers I received, I realized that they too are not at all sure about what is at stake here and what the future course of the United States will be. One of them, a well-known economist with quite radical ideas, answered in this way: “YOU’RE confused? Ha ha ha. Nobody has a clue! Trump is such a narcissist that he may easily be manipulated. His intuitive policy is to pull BACK from war. At least a blind choice is better than Hillary’s push for war, definitely. But who knows?” Really, who knows?

Another one, also a leftist and a seasoned student of international realities, who had written an angry article last summer, protesting, in very strong terms about the kinds of attacks the US mainstream media have launched against the Republican nominee, was more sober than in his article: “Νothing is worse than Clinton. Trump will rely on the Republicans in Congress for foreign policy, which makes him very dangerous. If he breaks with the party elites he will mend ties with Russia and Syria, but it is a big if. If he sticks to a protectionist trade policy he will face problems with China and the West coast. Nothing positive will result from these elections”.

The simile of a political life

In his Republic Plato describes a cave inside which a group of prisoners is able to see only the shadows of beings and of their movements. But nowadays, to follow world politics, including US elections, one sometimes has the impression of looking merely at the shadows of the shadows! The real game is very far away from the scene of the drama between Clinton and Trump, and we are kept in the dark concerning the real object of the competition. Are different strategic lines really behind it, and if so which ones? At one level they seem to exist. At another, some conspiracy theorists would argue that, at a deeper strategic level, all this is about the same “establishment of the establishment” proposing different products to different sections of its clientele. Who knows? as my friend put it.

During the previous eight years the strategic image was quite clear, at least for those who wanted to see it. On the one hand we had President Obama and people like Brzezinski. Obama was elected on the basis of opposition to imperial overextension and a crazy program of wars in the Middle East which many people inside the US and international establishment, large sections of public opinion, the US Armed Forces, etc. believed to be extremist, dangerous and not corresponding to any US interest.

On the other hand we had Clinton and the neocons (strongly supported by Netanyahu, who was also opposed by forces inside his own establishment). This camp pushed for escalation in the Middle East (and Ukraine), in order to complete the program announced long ago by the most extremist forces of the international establishment, around the project for a “new American century”. Obama resisted these plans, albeit in a not always consistent and often unspoken way. He was reluctant to stop the wars in Libya and probably did not understand, until it was too late, what was at stake in Ukraine. His political alternative to the “extremely extremist”, but nevertheless more coherent, project of the forces behind neocons, such as “political Islam” or Erdogan, proved to be very weak. And you cannot have a very serious policy when Clinton and Nuland are following other  agendas than the President, nobody in the Administration is really sure what the CIA is doing, and senior military people rely on  Seymour Hersh to put a brake on extremism!

Brzezinski has also very strongly and consistently resisted extremist policies in the Middle East, but he was blind to the dangers of escalation in Ukraine. The forces behind neocons used his deep, near pathological hostility to Russia to undermine his opposition to their plans.

Obama is rightly criticized for Afghanistan, Libya and other things, but we should remember that the President of the United States opposed the extremists, and he could not do it otherwise, in the general context of pursuit of American imperial politics. History will credit him (and Russian intervention) for stopping military intervention in Syria and sealing a nuclear agreement with Iran. Under his presidency, international neocons had to use mainly the services of Sarkozy in Paris and Cameron in London to launch the war which destroyed  Libya. Clinton was helpful in this connection.

The fact that the President of the United States was unable to close Guantanamo for instance, something he obviously wished to do, says a lot about the kind of forces that all but hijacked US state after the collapse of the USSR. And about their strength: a veritable state within the state.

Deception, virtual realities and conspiracies

Bear in mind that we have been living internationally, especially since the supposed end of the Cold War, in a historic era of deception and virtual realities. And it could not be otherwise. The infinitesimal minorities of power, money and knowledge ruling our world cannot announce their program and the future they are preparing for us. If they did, they would provoke a revolution. They are also unable at this time to launch head-on confrontation with societies and nations. Conspiracies have existed throughout history, but now they are tending to become the norm. There is no more effective weapon than the kind of smart (and evil) power that enables you influence your own opponent and lead him into choices that will seal his defeat. Classic political, social and geopolitical analysis is still the key to understanding social and international phenomena, but it must be supplemented by a deep and not always straightforward understanding of the real strategies in play.

Look how many incredible things have happened in a period of  30 years and are continuing to happen. The leader of the Soviet Union and “world communism” himself destroyed his own country and system, in a way the most powerful foreign army could not dream of. In Iraq Sunnis who so bravely resisted the US invasion were provided with a Wahhabi ISIS leadership arranged by the CIA and other allied services laboratories. In Greece the (verbally) most radical of the European “radical Left” parties is now following a policy most neoliberals would regard as extremist. And in the USA we are following a presidential campaign which is merely the distorted reflection, the tip of the iceberg, of huge battles going on behind the scenes, among the main centres of Imperial Power such as  Wall Street, the CIA, the army, the lobbies, etc.

Not many sensible people would disagree with some of the ideas put forward by Trump on foreign policy, especially in relation to US-Russia relations and Syria, in his latest interview with Reuters. But does he mean them? Can we believe that he will do what he says? Is he speaking the truth or he is just performing a manoeuvre that Professor James Petras predicted as early as June , when he wrote that “Trump’s electoral victory will hinge on his capacity to cover-up his neo-liberal turn and focus voters’ attention on Clinton’s militaristic, Wall Street, conspiratorial and anti-working class politics” (http://petras.lahaine.org/?p=2086)

Trump has said too many contradictory things on various subjects, from Cuba to Korea and from Islam to Ukraine (which he visited after Maidan) for it to be easy for the uninitiated to know what star he will really follow if elected. He is a very intelligent man and everything he says can be read two ways. (For instance, he said he will not automatically defend the Baltics, which is music to Russian ears, but he explained that US allies have to do more for NATO defenses if they are to count on the US. The probability of Russia invading Baltics is near zero. The second part of the equation, the increase in military spending by NATO allies is what really remains from such declarations).

Generals do not win the same battles a second time: in order to win one must change tactics, always bearing in mind that war remains to a great extent a continuation of politics by other means. Clinton appears much more than Trump the war candidate. But let us remember that Clinton will be, politically,  a very weak president, if elected. Trump will be much stronger if elected “against the Establishment”.  His rise embodies the anger of the  popular and middle strata in the USA. The million dollar question is: in which direction will he channel their anger?

Globalization and Nationalism

After all, globalization is not only, or not as much, about subjugating and destroying nations, as nationalists claim. It is doing that, and nationalists are right to protest and oppose it. But, behind its amorphous surface and ideology there also lies the domination of some nations by others and, also, the domination of the strategically coherent wing of finance over everybody. As the decade of the 30s should have taught us, domination can be effected not only by crushing nations but also by exploiting their nationalism. Some smart unorthodox generals of globalization, such as the member of the steering committee of Bildeberg Peter Thiel, are drawing up their own plans on how to use Trump and the deep protest of the American demos to the service of the forces they provoked it, the classic example how such a turn around can be achieved, remaining again German history of the 20th century (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/21/peter-thiel-republican-convention-speech)

People in the USA, but also around the globe, are so fed up with the policies of the Western establishment, especially the US and the banking establishment and, also, so discouraged at their own capacity to stop these policies, that they are ready to believe blindly and follow uncritically any politician, of the Left or of the Right, promising a radical change, taking at face value whatever they say. As the tragic European experience of the 20th Century amply proves, this can be the road to disaster.

Isolationism, Interventionism, Militarism

Many people believe for instance that the election of Mr. Trump will lead to a sort of withdrawal of America from world affairs. This would be a very positive evolution, given the role America is playing in the world. But if Trump really wants to get America back, then why he is proposing an increase in military spending and why is he saying that America must be militarily stronger than any other power? What is the meaning of his slogan “America First”? Who will be the second, the third, the fourth, or the 100th in this hierarchy? By what means and through what policies, other than intervention, he will be able to deliver this result?

In fact, no one should give much credit to what US politicians say about the role of USA in the world. It is much wiser to see what they do.

President Wilson, for instance, proclaimed in 1917 that Americans would never become involved in the European slaughter. Two months later the United States intervened military in the First World War, sealing the defeat of Germany and initiating their own domination of Europe for a century! (*)

Ask any political scientist worldwide about the US Democrats and Republicans. You will invariably get the answer that Democrats are the interventionists, Republicans the isolationists. But how is it then to be explained that it was the Republican George Bush Jr. that invaded Iraq, inaugurating a “strategy of chaos” and jeopardizing peace around the globe?

Are political scientists stupid? Of course not. They simply don’t want to face the constant reality of US imperial policy since the Monroe doctrine was proclaimed in 1902. They don’t have any desire to uncover the deep roots of this phenomenon in the economic structure of the USA, the role of its multinationals, etc. This is why they prefer to focus on important but still secondary factors such as the personalities of presidents or the ideology of the two parties. The same is true of many politicians around the globe, who prefer not to look straight into the eyes of the monster and, instead, try to accommodate its existence, one way or another.

The phenomenon of US imperialism is not the result of the particular character of one president or another. It is deeply rooted in the economic structure of the USA and in the relationship they build with the outside world.

The USA was built as an empire during the 20th century. Only a very deep social, economic and cultural transformation could change the character and the role of this country.

If one wants to make predictions about future US policies, it is better to look at the military programs of the United States than to study various declarations and ideologies. US militarism emerged in a big way in 1914, first as a means of supplying Europeans with what they needed to kill each other and, after 1917, Americans with what they needed to dominate the world. It has been developing unabated since that time, even after the post-World War II enemy, the Soviet superpower, decided to commit suicide! The United States spend on weapons as much as all other countries together. They have troops and bases in more than 50 countries around the globe. They have renounced to the ABM treaty, which was the cornerstone of the arms control system during the Cold War. (And it was the Americans who insisted on, and finally secured, the agreement of the Soviets for this treaty).

Both Clinton and Trump are in favour of increasing military spending: (http://www.defenddemocracy.press/no-matter-wins-election-military-spending-stay/).  Only Sanders, during his  campaign, proposed to lower military spending , in order to provide more money for social needs. Doing this, he confirmed that only a strong popular movement and the existence of strong outside opposition to imperialistic plans (from Europe, Russia or China, or a combination of these) can really contain US imperialism and militarism. (The same is true of Keynesian politics, proposed by some western economists. Such politics would not have become the capitalist orthodoxy of their time if there had not been strong workers movement and if the USSR had  not existed at the time. Nobody would have forgiven Germany’s debt after the War, nor would there have been any thought of the  Marshall Plan if there had not been very strong Communist parties in Western Europe after the War and a very powerful Red Army in Berlin).

Only the emergence of a big popular peace movement such as the one existing in the West in the past can stop the descent to war that is rooted in the very structure of the prevailing economic and social system. And such a movement can have a chance only if combined with efforts to defend the achievements of Western societies after 1945 and to create a better order than the existing one.

More and more forces around the globe are emerging to resist the terrible aspects: social, ecological, military-geopolitical, of an emerging “totalitarian Empire of globalization”. But they still lack an alternative vision.

(*) Another classic example of “isolationist” talk preparing an interventionist policy is Yugoslavia. In 1990, as the USSR was collapsing, nobody seemed to need the USA in the Balkans. All the peninsula was looking to Europe for its future and, at the same time, it had strong economic, cultural and military ties with Russia. When Germany, Austria and the Vatican encouraged the war in Yugoslavia, Washington kept a distance, letting the Germans do the dirty job with the Serbs and provoke a lot of dissatisfaction with their own partners, especially the French, British, Greeks. From time to time US politicians were even saying that they would leave the Balkans, that they were not interested in Europe. Of course they had no intention of leaving, otherwise they would not at the same time have built one of their greatest military bases abroad in FYROM. Every time the Americans said they were leaving a kind of panic came over  European capitals. Berlin had inaugurated the destruction of Yugoslavia, but it could not finish the job. The war in Yugolsavia was meant in Berlin as a way of reaffirming the new international role of a reunited Germany. In the end Europeans were begging Americans to come back.

When Germany was sufficiently exposed and Europe had failed miserably, the Americans stepped in with NATO airplanes and Holbrook diplomacy to finish the job in two phases (the Dayton agreement and the Kosovo War). They sealed the defeat of Serbia, the exclusion of Russia (which failed to protect its Serbian brothers) and the end of any ambition of an autonomous European foreign and defense policy for the foreseeable future. Nobody needed them in 1990, but in 2000 they were again fully dominating the strategic landscape in the Balkans,  a region of capital importance for any future war with Russia and also a possible energy transit road  (by the way, what happened inYugoslavia has many similarities with the debt war against Greece and the Germany/IMF role).

First published in www.defenddemocracy.press

 

 

LEILA KHALED ON ISIS AND ISLAMISM, SYRIA AND THE PALESTINIANS

An Interview of Leila Khaled to the Athens-Macedonian News Agency

 

By Dimitris Konstantakopoulos

 

ISIS is a criminal organization which was created, and is used, by the USA. As for Syria, it

was not only the intervention of Russia, which in any case came after a number of years of

war. It was also the ability of the Assad government to defend itself, in particular by

securing the economic viability and nutritional sufficiency of Syria but also by forging an

army capable of defending its country. This is emphasized by Leila Khaled, leading cadre

of People’s Front for the Liberation of Palestine, in an interview granted to the Athens

Press Agency.

 

The People’s Front (PFLP) is, after Fatah, the second most powerful grouping in the

Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). It has its headquarters in Damascus and is the

most important organization of the Palestinian Left, with more combative positions than

those of Fatah. We took advantage of Leila Khaled’s recent visit to Athens, where she

participated in the festival “Resistance”, organized by the newspaper “Dromos tis Aristeras” (Left Road) to obtain for the Athens Press Agency, from first hand, the judgements of one of the centres of the Palestinian movement, on the dramatic developments that are now unfolding in all of the Middle East.

 

A terrorist for the Israelis, Khaled was a symbol throughout the world for the Palestinian

armed struggle, following her participation in one of the four simultaneous hijackings of

September 1970, inspiring songs, films and works of art internationally. These hijackings

were part of the Palestinian “response” to the ignominious defeat they suffered with the

occupation of their territories by Israel in 1967 and their massacre by Jordan in the “Black

September” of 1970.

 

Because the PFLP was a Marxist organization with an internationalist ideology it was feted

by the circles both of the European “anti-imperialist” Left (such as, for example, the

International Revolutionary Marxist Tendency [TMRI], an international organization headed

by the Greek Michaelis Raptis (Pablo) ) and by the “Third Worldist” groupings such as the

Sandinistas of Nicaragua. These forces also contributed practically to the international

(outside the Arab world) armed actions of the PFLP. Conversely, their cadres were trained

in Palestinian refugee camps. They included Greek opponents of the military dictatorship

and Cypriot socialists, who wished to prepare for similar forms of action for the liberation of

their island from Turkish occupation.

 

“I’m not interested in what they say about me. I know who I am and I know my people,”

Khaled replies when reminded of the accusations of terrorism that are levelled against her.

As for the repeated defeats suffered by the Palestinian and Arab national movement

(reflected, in her view, in the rise of Islamism among the Arab masses) they do not

represent a “definitive defeat” of the Palestinians. “We have internalized a culture of

resistance” she says, adding that “the Arab national question is not a matter of a single

generation” and emphasizing that the struggles and the experiences build upon each other

until the day that they yield the desired result.”

For Leila Khaled developments in the Middle East are the outcome of implementation of a

plan aimed at destroying the strongest armies of the Arabs (the Iraqi, the Libyan and the

Syrian) but also their countries, the site of great ancient civilizations. As for the differences

between neo-conservatives and the tendency of Brzezinski or Obama with Netanyahu,

 

she believes them to be tactical, with no bearing on major strategic objectives. Khaled

believes that the plan for federalization of Syria is part of a scheme for “fragmentation” of

the states of the Middle East. She says that the Kurds “are being used” and she maintains

that Israel is evolving towards a variety of fascism.

 

This is the complete text of the discussion we had with Leila Khaled:

 

D.K. Summarizing many decades of Palestinian struggle, it would be easy to conclude that

the Palestinian movement has been defeated. It waged a heroic struggle, but it did not

achieve its aims. What would you say in response to such a remark?

 

L.K. I don’t see it that way. The struggles of the peoples are not measured in terms of a

handful of years. They are cumulative and this aggregation leads, as Marxists say, to

qualitative change. The Arab movement needs more than one generation. We succeeded

in assimilating a culture of resistance, the conviction that we cannot continue living as we

live now, under occupation, that we cannot permit the continuation of this occupation. It is

for this reason that we are obliged to continue, with all the trials and tribulations, all the

pain, all the sacrifices. And despite all this we remain devoted to the dreams of our people,

to the goal of restoration and return to our homeland, liberated from the Zionists.

 

D.K. In the course of the past decades we have seen, within the Palestinian movement,

but also more generally in the Arab world, a turn from the predominance of nationalism to

the predominance of Islamism. Probably this was something preferred by Israel, so as to

secure the support of the West, something that was harder to achieve for as long as it was

confronted by national liberation movements and secular regimes. How do you interpret

Read also:
‘Most-read’ article at Washington Post calls Israel ‘savage, unrepairable society’

this turn?

 

L.K. Our region in any case has the culture of Islam, and I don’t mean just the religious

phenomenon but the culture in a broader sense, for the last 1,400 years. Even the

Christians of the region have been imbued with that culture. Dr. Habash, the founder and

historical leader of the PFLP, was born a Christian but he too believed that the Christians

as well have the culture of Islam because that, for 1,400 years, has been the culture of all

of Arabia. In Palestine there were Islamist movements but they dissolved when we were

faced by the Zionist invasion and everyone united to confront it. In Egypt the British had

founded the Muslim Brotherhood when they colonized the country. They were active in

Egypt but they were not leaders of the people and of the masses, though they maintained

sections in various parts of the Arab world. In 1952, when Nasser, with his comrades and

the army made their revolution in Egypt, they suppressed the Brotherhood because they

regarded them as an internal threat. But this changed with the war of 1967, when all of

Palestine, the Golan Heights and Sinai was occupied by Israel and in 1973 Israel’s

agreement with Egypt was signed, removing it from the conflict. Egypt is the dominant

power in the Arab world. As for the reactionary Arab regimes, they said they were with the

Palestinians, but they stabbed us in the back, despite financing the Palestinian resistance

and the PLO.

 

When the Palestinian armed resistance made its appearance after 1967 it was hit by

Jordan, in Lebanon and by Israel of course. The Palestinian revolution was hit by the Israelis and in 1982 it was forced to leave Lebanon. And before that it had taken a beating from Jordan, under the direction of Henry Kissinger and the US administration, who planned and

directed the whole process, following a strategy of splitting the Arabs and the Palestinians,

the better to deal with them. Kissinger’s first move was at Camp David (1973), to detach

 

Egypt from the conflict. There was popular resistance to the agreement in Egypt, because

the Egyptian people supported the Palestinians and the Egyptians, who had gone to war

three times against Israel, perceived it as an enemy. This gave the Islamists the

opportunity to resurface, giving expression to this opposition.

 

D.K. By the way some people believe that even today Israel has quite an influence with the Egyptian army.

 

L.K. That’s true to some extent, but it is not so effective today. To return to the Islamists,

Hamas, which is the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, was founded in 1988,

to participate in the Palestinian popular insurrection, the Intifada. They were supported by

various countries and the international Muslim Brotherhood. But they didn’t join the united

Palestinian national resistance. They preferred to remain on their own. And of course the

Iranian revolution against the Shah played its part.

 

Look now at what happened. In 1982 we sustained a defeat. The PLO leadership was out

of the country. In 1990 the Soviet Union and the socialist countries collapsed. We lost the

support that we had had. The Arab national cause was defeated. So it was very easy for

the Islamist groups to rise up again.

 

D.K. So what is involved reflects the defeat of the Arab national cause.

 

L.K. Exactly. Seeing in our societies that everything was collapsing around them, they

went back to Islam. And they believed in the Islamists also because Hamas and El Jihad

were in fact putting up a resistance, apart from the split they were provoking.

 

D.K. Many people say that the Arabs themselves are at fault for what is happening to

them. They never unite, etc. etc.

 

L.K. That is true. It is not just our enemies. It is we ourselves. How we act against our

enemies and against our peoples. At the official level, the Arab regimes are not

democratic. They don’t do what they should do for their people. They don’t have democracy,

sustainable development. Their economies are linked to the imperialist centre. .

 

D.K. The Soviet Union played a role in the creation of the state of Israel, but later they

helped the Arabs. What was the effect of all this on the Arab Left?

 

L.K. The Soviets developed a good relationship with Egypt in Nasser’s time, with Syria

and with Iraq. They supported South Yemen in its struggle with the British. But

unfortunately all this collapsed with perestroika, glasnost, Gorbachev and Yeltsin. This

represented a great loss, at first, for theor people t5hemselves.

 

D.K. How do you see the role of Russia in the Middle East today?

 

L.K. First and foremost they want to defend their allies. They want a foothold in the region,

in accordance with their interests. Now they don’t base themselves on principles. They

base themselves on vested interests. And it is in their interest to defend their own country

in the Middle East. In reality they are defending themselves. This is why they intervened to

defend the Assad regime from ISIS and from foreign interventions. Because the Americans

are in Iraq but also in Syria, surreptitiously, employing other means.

Read also:
Kurdish Forces Bolster Assad in Aleppo

 

D.K. Do you judge the Russian intervention as positive or negative?

 

L.K. To some extent it has thwarted attempts to bring down the regime.

 

 

D.K. Recently we have seen very serious and quite unaccustomed differentiations within

the Israeli establishment, such as the declarations of the former Defense Minister and

senior officers of Mossad, against Netanyahu, using very harsh language. How do you

interpret this?

 

L.K. Israel is moving more and more towards extremism and is being transformed into an

apartheid state (of racial discrimination). But this is just one aspect of it. Another is that the

society is on the road towards fascism. All the polls indicate that this government is a

government of colonists and extremists. And a senior military man came out recently and

said it, that he was concerned about the course that both society and the army were on

and that we are seeing in society and in the army features comparable to what was seen

in the thirties in Germany. And he was denounced very vigorously by the government. But

he was telling the truth. Because more and more parties are appearing that, even in their

own name, regard Israel as a Jewish state. But when you say a Jewish state you are

saying apartheid, because 20% of the population of Israel are Palestinians.

 

D.K. Such a historic turn, if in fact confirmed, would be very impressive. Given the great

role played, at least by poor Jews, by their workers and intellectuals, a century ago, in the international socialist movement. But also the history of their persecution, particularly by the European far right. It seems as this people goes through a monumental “paradigm change”.

 

L.K. Look, they have placed the Holocaust as the founding stone for their demand to

have a country of their own in Palestine and now they are carrying out the Holocaust of the

Palestinians. But the Palestinians had no involvement in what happened in Europe with

the two world wars. We were under a mandate. We were under a colonial regime also.

 

D.K. In human psychology it is said that human beings behave as they are behaved to. I

wonder if the same applies with nations. One day, going to Ramallah with George

Papandreou where we were to meet Arafat, I saw written on a brick, next to the

checkpoint, the word “Achtung” (“attention” in German). Not even one German a year goes

through there. I thought I was entering symbolicall the Warsaw ghetto.

 

L.K. Fascists are in action there, against the Palestinians. .

 

D.K. Speaking of fascism, I have been impressed by the approach of many organizations

of the European far right to circles in Israel. Given the history of it and their ideology up to

now, it was the last thing anyone would expect.

 

L.K. It took us twenty years to educate our people that Judaism as a religion is one thing

and Zionism another. When we were kids and our mother wanted to punish us or frighten

us she would say: “I will tell the Jews.” Always the Jews were our enemy. But we changed

that. Our people does not equate the Jews with the Zionists. They understand that a Jew

is a human being. But of course with the Jews and Israel strange things happen. For example American presidential candidates usually highlight on their programs the security of Israel, not the security of the USA!

 

  1. What do you think of Trump?

 

  1. He is crazy (she laughs). But I will say this. At the beginning of his campaign he said “I

will solve the conflict with the Palestinians peacefully.” They all say that. Bush said it and

Obama said it. But they don’t do anything. There is a Lobby and they can’t get round it.

Later Trump laid emphasis on the security of Israel. I have the impression that if they elect

him it will be a disaster for the USA. He wants to have files on Muslims and stop

Muslim immigration, even though they need migrants for economic reasons. But of course

in the USA isn’t only the President that makes policy. It is a country with institutions. The

war industry and AIPAC (the most important pro-Israeli lobby in the USA) also have their

influence over the President. After Bush and the war in Iraq the USA’s image throughout

the world was ruined. So they brought Obama, the first black President in the history of the

US, an exceptional public speaker and went about examining the question that their own

media was continually presenting to them: “Why does everyone hate us?”

 

D.K. You present Obama as a simple changing of the guard. But he disagreed with

Netanyahu and stopped the plan for war with Iran. That is not insignificant.

 

L.K.. Between Israel and the USA there is a powerful bond of support from the latter to the

former: economic and military. Netanyahu wants more economic assistance and is

continually pushing for new wars. The Americans studied the case for making war in Iraq.

They went to war whose only result was to destroy Iraq. They destroyed that country and

left it in a state of civil war. They did this because they thought that this state was a threat

Read also:
Greek Summer Crisis: Geopolitical Winners and Losers

to Israel. After that came Syria, in the context of the American plan for the new greater

Middle East, with Israel as the strongest power in the region.

 

D.K. Still, there were potent differentiations inside the American establishment. What you

describe was primarily the plan of the neocons.

 

L.K. These are tactical differences, not major disagreements. The American-Zionist plan

was for destruction of the three biggest Arab armies: the Iraqi, the Syrian and the Egyptian.

All three of these countries are also countries of great civilizational significance. Look what

they did in Baghdad when they occupied  it: the looting and the destruction of the museum.

Now they’re doing the same thing again, but using ISIS.

 

D.K. You think that the Americans founded ISIS?

 

L.K. Yes. They founded it in Iraq and they are using it. Even though they say that they are

fighting terrorism. There have been many appeals for a conference to define terrorism. But

they have never done this. Because they want to use the term “terrorism” as it suits them.

 

D.K. You are a terrorist for them, though I admit you don’t look very much like one.

 

L.K. I’m not interested in what they say. I know who I am and I know my people and that’s

enough as far as I’m concerned.

 

D.K. On a Russian site, Sputnik, I recently read an article saying that Russia could

replace the USA as Israel’s strategic ally. Could something like that happen?

 

L.K. No, it’s not possible. Their interests are different.

 

D.K. Look now, they’ve destroyed Iraq and Libya and in part Syria also. Those three

states were based on a specific balance between the national components in them, which

in part reflected the colonialist strategy. Do you think that it is possible for there to be a

 

return to the previous status quo, e.g. in Syria. Or a federation, for example?

 

L.K. The aim was for them to destroy Syria.

 

D.K. The Russian intervention prevented that.

 

L.K. Not only. The regime itself resisted. The army defended the regime and the country,

against the criminals from all over the world that they brought to Syria under the flags of

ISIS, Al Qaeda, Al-Nusra.. ..

 

D.K. But at the beginning of the troubles there was social discontent with the Assad

regime…

 

L.K. Of course, but it’s not the only country where there is unrest. Look, Syria was able to

resist because it was not in debt and was economically viable. Assad took the appropriate

measures. From the time that the Americans imposed sanctions on him, Assad took the

appropriate measures for farming and stockbreeding, before the war. Syria has enough

bread to feed the population. It doesn’t need to import it. It has secured its supply of meat,

for four years. It’s true that there is no democracy, just as there wasn’t in the USSR either.

This is one of its great failures. So to some extent the regime was able to stand up to the

pressure and didn’t collapse like Libya. The Russians came later, at the end.

With Syria, if you criticize the foreign intervention, they tell you that you are with the

regime. If you criticize the regime, they say you are part of the conspiracy against it. We,

the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, made our position clear from the outset.

We are not part of this crisis. We are refugees in Syria. The people of Syria has the right to

make decisions for its country. We support the popular demands for democracy and

freedom. It is the people of Syria who have the right to change its regime. It isn’t our task.

We have our hands full with Israel.

 

Neither the opposition nor the regime were happy with that stance and they openly

disapproved of it. But we didn’t leave Syria. We are going to stay here because we have

nowhere else to go. And they give us due respect as Palestinians in Syria. 600,000

Palestinians live in Syria, though many have left because of the crisis.

 

D.K. How do you see the role of the Kurds today?

 

L.K. They are using them now. Barzani is with the Israelis and the same applies for the

Kurds of Iraq. Israeli companies are now operating in Iraqi Kurdistan.

 

D.K. What about the Kurds in Turkey and Syria?

 

L.K. They have the right to autonomy in Turkey and in Syria. .

D.K. Autonomy or a state?

 

L.K. Look, the Kurds live in four countries: Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran. If they want to

secede I don’t think it will work. These countries are not allies. But when it comes to the

Kurdish issue, all four of them ally with each other!

 

D.K. The plan for a federation in Syria?

 

L.K. I disagree with it. This plan is part of a project for fragmenting Syria into small states.