Postérité d’Obama: Le grand ennemi de la vérité (The great enemy of the truth: How Obama swindled Americans and the West caused its own self-implosion)

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQbu19dZWNCrWKb85Gg-RdHsKLkbRMWcyBbzczdhvR6qEp9ILcFTrès souvent, le grand ennemi de la vérité n’est pas le mensonge – délibéré, factice et malhonnête – mais le mythe – persistant, persuasif et irréaliste. John F. Kennedy (Yale, juin 1962)
Il est clair qu’une civilisation qui se sent coupable de tout ce qu’elle est et fait n’aura jamais l’énergie ni la conviction nécessaires pour se défendre elle-même. JF Revel
On ne peut plus continuer le prosélytisme occidental comme si rien ne s’était passé. (…) un jour on se dira peut-être que les droits-de-l’hommistes n’auront pas eu plus d’influence sur la Chine que les missionnaires catholiques. Hubert Védrine (janvier 2009)
Le monde doit être multipolaire, un monde unipolaire est inacceptable. Medvedev
The tragedy of 9/11 should no longer be allowed to haunt the world’s collective memory and define its sense of purpose and orientation. Under the pretext of wiping out the terrorists and their movements, the United States and its allies continue to spread sectarian poison and bring pain and suffering to many others. For fourteen years, the world has only seen wars, interventions, assassinations, torture, kidnappings, black sites, the growth of the American-European spying program, and the spread of terrorism. The consequences are so terrible that those running the circus of “Global War on Terror” are no longer able to justify the burial of freedom and democracy, the fierce prosecution of whistleblowers, the militarization of the police, state-sanctioned killings without trial, as well as astronomical expenses, bombing campaigns galore, repeated defeats, disasters, and failed states. After so many years of blind faith in military-first foreign policy, the bankrupt coalition of regime changers have failed to turn Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen into protectorates. They have failed to extricate themselves from the four major wars of the century. Thanks to their chest beating jingoism, millions have also become stateless throughout the region. More than 380,000 people have crossed the Mediterranean this year in search of safety in Europe. Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans, Africans, and many others walk for days and months, sleep rough on station platforms or by the side of the road, are tear-gassed and beaten at overwhelmed borders, and crammed into trains like cattle as they try to make their way north. The numbers keep on growing, as the “Global Terror on Terror” keeps on spreading. The warmongers have just begun bombing Syria to make it “theirs”. But for those on the edge of Europe struggling with their own troubles, this is wishful thinking. « Syrian refugees continue to risk their lives to reach Europe and no amount of barbed wire or steel can stop them. For “please don’t come” Europe the nightmare has only just begun. The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and destructive. The mass flight of people will go on as long as the world buys the fables of 9/11 and the “War on Terror” players show no urgency in trying to end it. Fars news
Oui, notre monde est en passe de devenir multipolaire. C’est un processus objectif et irréversible. On peut toujours essayer de le ralentir, mais personne n’est désormais en mesure de l’arrêter. De fait, dans l’ambition d’assurer leur hégémonie, de maintenir la domination unipolaire, les Etats-Unis suivent le cap de l’endiguement de nouveaux pôles d’influence – avant tout la Russie et la Chine. (..)  A l’égard de la Russie, cette politique d’endiguement prend une forme ouvertement agressive. On inflige à mon pays des sanctions chaque fois nouvelles – et ce, sans plus aucun lien avec la situation en Ukraine. Des bases militaires américaines et de l’OTAN poussent sur ses frontières tels des champignons, on y construit le bouclier antimissile américain. On lui livre une guerre médiatique, psychologique et économique. Pour la Chine, cette même politique d’endiguement revêt un caractère latent, voilé. C’était d’ailleurs pareil pour la Russie, jusqu’à ce que la crise en Ukraine ne fasse tomber les masques. La tactique utilisée est pourtant la même. Pour justifier cette politique d’endiguement, on impose à l’opinion publique toutes sortes de mythes – sur la « menace » russe ou chinoise ou sur « l’antagonisme idéologique » entre l’est et l’ouest. Mais en réalité, ni ces menaces imaginaires, ni l’antagonisme idéologique, propres à l’époque de la guerre froide, n’existent. Il n’y a que l’ambition américaine de domination universelle. De la géopolitique à l’état pur. (…)  Les États-Unis ont échoué dans le rôle de leader universel. Ils se sont comportés tel un éléphant dans un magasin de porcelaine. Ils ont piétiné le droit international – en Yougoslavie, en Irak, en Libye ou au Yémen. Ils ont poussé le Moyen Orient dans le bourbier du chaos et des guerres civiles, ils ont libéré de sa bouteille l’esprit de l’islamisme radical. Ils ont trahi la confiance de leurs alliés les plus proches, car eux-mêmes ne faisaient confiance à personne, les considérant comme des Etats satellites ou des vassaux, d’où l’espionnage et l’ingérence dans les affaires intérieures, y compris par l’application extraterritoriale des décisions de justice américaine. Pour beaucoup d’Occidentaux l’émergence d’un nouveau monde multipolaire apparaît comme chaotique, mais c’est parce que les vielles méthodes unipolaires de prise de décisions et de règlement des conflits ne fonctionnent plus. Nos partenaires occidentaux n’ont toujours pas appris, ou ne veulent tous simplement pas apprendre à travailler d’une façon nouvelle – par le compromis. Ainsi ils associent la fin de l’ordre unipolaire à la fin de l’ordre tout court, à l’arrivée du chaos universel. (…) En même temps, la Russie a des raisons de croire que l’idée de déstabiliser l’Asie Centrale selon le scénario moyen-oriental – c’est-à-dire sur le fond de discours sur les  »transformations démocratiques » et sous les drapeaux de l’islamisme radical, – peut être envisagée aux Etats-Unis comme une des « options » en vue d’affaiblir la Russie et la Chine, de créer sur leurs frontières des foyers permanents de tension, de semer la discorde entre eux. Nous devrons, ensemble, contrecarrer ces tentatives. (…) Certains préfèrent vivre dans un monde imaginaire – se croire exceptionnels; inventer des mythes sur les « menaces » russes et chinoises; alimenter en armes et en argent l’inexistante « opposition modérée » en Syrie; croire que des tribus moyenâgeuses peuvent en un jour se transformer en démocraties de type occidental; se persuader que les Criméens ont voté leur réunification avec la Russie sous la menace des armes… Mais le monde réel revient toujours et le dégrisement peut être amer. Le carrosse de Cendrillon se change en citrouille, les « opposants modérés » en djihadistes, les « démocrates ukrainiens » en nationalistes agressifs… Sauf qu’en se battant contre des moulins à vent, on risque de laisser passer les vraies menaces. Je suis persuadé que la stratégie de la communauté internationale doit consister à se mobiliser pour résoudre les vrais problèmes et faire face aux réelles menaces, dont la plus dangereuse est aujourd’hui l’islamisme radical. Alexandre Orlov (ambassadeur de la Fédération de Russie à Paris, Colloque du 28 août 2015)
Nous sommes certains que l’accord pose les bases nécessaires pour résoudre de façon permanente le conflit sur le programme nucléaire iranien. David Cameron, Angela Merkel et François Hollande
Ce vote est une victoire pour la diplomatie, pour la sécurité nationale des Etats-Unis et pour la sécurité du monde. Barack Hussein Obama
Mais il y a peut-être pire que la bonne conscience suintante: l’exploitation à mauvais escient de la mauvaise conscience. (…) Et si une fois de plus, ceux qui donnent aujourd’hui, profitant de l’effet de sidération qui interdit la réflexion, une leçon de morale humaine n’étaient pas les premiers responsables en Europe du malheur des migrants et de l’impossibilité de leur apporter toute l’aide souhaitée? Les braves gens, qui pleurent sans pudeur sur le sort des Syriens. Pendant des décennies, la presse convenue n’estimait pas convenable de critiquer, sauf à être raciste ou islamophobe, la radicalité arabo – islamique. Ni celle du nationalisme alaouite des Assad qui gazaient déjà sans problèmes les malheureux kurdes et qui bombardent à présent les quartiers rebelles à coups de barils de dynamite, ni celle plus récente d’un islamisme dont l’usage du mot même était jusqu’à peu tabou pour cause de préfixe amalgamant. Depuis le début d’une guerre qui a fait près de 300 000 morts, aucune manifestation d’ampleur n’a été organisée en France en solidarité avec les populations qui souffrent en Syrie. Le sort du peuple kurde, encore moins son destin national, n’a jamais intéressé qui que ce soit en France. Comment se fait-il qu’alors que des milliers de djihadistes français partent en Syrie, aucun jeune et généreux rebelle progressiste , aucun aventurier du macadam parisien, aucun juste de la 25e heure, n’ait seulement l’idée de former une brigade internationale qui irait combattre les premiers responsables de la mort du petit kurde, aux côtés des forces kurdes à Kobané ou ailleurs? La réponse est facile: nos donneurs de leçons de morale se moquent comme d’une guigne du sort des Syriens en Syrie. La seule chose qui les intéresse, sans qu’ils s’en rendent compte eux-mêmes, c’est de pouvoir fustiger les Européens en Europe et les Français en France qui osent, les égoïstes, les rabougris, s’inquiéter que leur pays ne devienne dans une décennie une nouvelle Syrie. (…) Se préoccuper de son pays, de sa sécurité, de sa cohésion, de son identité (et oui, le mot-dit, le mot est dit) du sort de ses enfants, et de la possibilité d’accueil et d’intégration des populations étrangères n’est pas un signe particulier d’indifférence. Il vaut peut-être mieux que les élans du coeur irréfléchis, ou le suivisme conformiste sur fond de parallèle historique hystérique. Car les Français ont payé très cher pour apprendre et ne plus croire le discours des apprentis sorciers. Les déclarations extatiques sur l’immigration «chance pour la France» ou sur l’islam, forcément , toujours et encore «religion de paix». La manière dont on moqua les «fantasmes» de bouleversements démographiques pour expliquer un beau matin qu’il était trop tard pour regarder en arrière la France des clochers, puisque la France était devenue «multiculturelle». Alors oui, les Français ne croient plus dans les paroles verbales de la gauche gauchisante. Ils savent qu’à côté de populations terriblement souffrantes-et à qui ils veulent apporter assistance-se trouvent d’autres populations qui aspirent à profiter d’une Europe aujourd’hui saturée et appauvrie. Ils savent que tous les réfugiés ne sont pas des résistants anti-islamistes, et que certains même sont des djihadistes envoyés par l’État Islamique, comme ces quatre arrêtés il y a quelques jours à la frontière bulgare, et qui pourront peut-être aussi causer des morts à immortaliser sur papier glacé. Ils savent-exactement comme les forceurs de clôtures- l’Europe faible, et ses frontières totalement battues en brèche, enfoncées, niées . Ils savent qu’en dépit ou à cause des quotas accordés (qui en eux-mêmes seraient supportables), les déboutés du droit d’asile, piétineront les frontières délibérément violées et outragées. Ils savent, que les politiciens tétanisés et les fonctionnaires émasculés, n’exécutent plus ou presque les arrêtés d’expulsion qui s’imposent pourtant, précisément pour autoriser, valider et légitimer l’arrivée légale des bénéficiaires du droit au refuge. Ainsi donc, les premiers responsables de l’impossibilité d’accueillir tous ceux qui le mériteraient sont à rechercher chez ceux qui ont fait échouer une immigration bien tempérée et une intégration nécessaire. Ils l’ont fait échouer, parce qu’au fond d’eux-mêmes, même s’ils se refusent encore à le reconnaître, ils récusent la notion éculée à leurs yeux de nation, et obscène d’État-nation disposant de frontières, et de sa corollaire légale, le droit existentiel pour un peuple souverain de réguler souverainement les flux migratoires. (…) Un dernier mot: l’ONU, à l’efficacité bien connue , voudrait imposer à l’Europe l’accueil de 200 000 migrants. Curieusement, elle ne demande aucun effort aux pays arabes du golfe. Depuis deux ans, et notamment dans ces colonnes, je m’épuise régulièrement, mais bien seul, a demander pour quelles raisons ces pays désertiques et richissimes n’accueillent pas chez eux des populations souffrantes avec lesquels les unissent des liens ethniques, linguistiques, religieux et culturels fraternels. Ils devraient être à d’autant plus enclins à le faire, que leur responsabilité dans la montée de l’islamisme est certainement plus grande que tout ce que les esprits les plus torturés en Europe pourraient reprocher aux occidentaux. Gilles-William Goldnadel
Congress is finally having its say on the Iran deal. It will be an elaborate charade, however, because, having first gone to the U.N., President Obama has largely drained congressional action of relevance. At the Security Council, he pushed through a resolution ratifying the deal, thus officially committing the United States as a nation to its implementation — in advance of any congressional action. The resolution abolishes the entire legal framework, built over a decade, underlying the international sanctions against Iran. A few months from now, they will be gone. The script is already written: The International Atomic Energy Agency, relying on Iran’s self-inspection (!) of its most sensitive nuclear facility, will declare Iran in compliance. The agreement then goes into effect and Iran’s nuclear program is officially deemed peaceful. Sanctions are lifted. The mullahs receive $100 billion of frozen assets as a signing bonus. Iran begins reaping the economic bonanza, tripling its oil exports and welcoming a stampede of foreign companies back into the country. It is all precooked. Last month, Britain’s foreign secretary traveled to Tehran with an impressive delegation of British companies ready to deal. He was late, however. The Italian and French foreign ministers had already been there, accompanied by their own hungry businessmen and oil companies. Iran is back in business. As a matter of constitutional decency, the president should have submitted the deal to Congress first. And submitted it as a treaty. Which it obviously is. No international agreement in a generation matches this one in strategic significance and geopolitical gravity. Obama did not submit it as a treaty because he knew he could never get the constitutionally required votes for ratification. He’s not close to getting two-thirds of the Senate. He’s not close to getting a simple majority. No wonder: In the latest Pew Research Center poll, the American people oppose the deal by a staggering 28-point margin. To get around the Constitution, Obama negotiated a swindle that requires him to garner a mere one-third of one house of Congress. To get around the Constitution, Obama negotiated a swindle that requires him to garner a mere one-third of one house of Congress. Indeed, on Thursday, with just 42 Senate supporters — remember, a treaty requires 67 — the Democrats filibustered and prevented, at least for now, the Senate from voting on the deal at all. But Obama two months ago enshrined the deal as international law at the U.N. Why should we care about the congressional vote? In order to highlight the illegitimacy of Obama’s constitutional runaround and thus make it easier for a future president to overturn the deal, especially if Iran is found to be cheating. As of now, however, it is done. Iran will be both unleashed — sanctions lifted, economy booming, with no treaty provisions regarding its growing regional aggression and support for terrorists — and welcomed as a good international citizen possessing a peaceful nuclear program. An astonishing trick. Iran’s legitimation will not have to wait a decade, after which, as the Iranian foreign minister boasts, the U.N. file on the Iranian nuclear program will be closed, all restrictions will be dropped and, as Obama himself has admitted, the breakout time to an Iranian bomb will become essentially zero. On the contrary. The legitimation happens now. Early next year, Iran will be officially recognized as a peaceful nuclear nation. This is a revolution in Iran’s international standing, yet its consequences have been largely overlooked. The deal goes beyond merely leaving Iran’s nuclear infrastructure intact. Because the deal legitimizes that nuclear program as peaceful (unless proven otherwise — don’t hold your breath), it is entitled to international assistance. Hence the astonishing provision buried in Annex III, Section 10 committing Western experts to offering the Iranian program our nuclear expertise. Specifically “training courses and workshops.” On what? Among other things, on how to protect against “sabotage.” The House’s Better Alternative to Corker-Cardin Boehner Reportedly Caves to House Republican Rebellion on Iran Deal Imagine: We are now to protect Iran against, say, the very Stuxnet virus, developed by the NSA and Israel’s Unit 8200, that for years disrupted and delayed an Iranian bomb. Secretary of State John Kerry has darkly warned Israel to not even think about a military strike on the nuclear facilities of a regime whose leader said just Wednesday that Israel will be wiped out within 25 years. The Israelis are now being told additionally — Annex III, Section 10 — that if they attempt just a defensive, nonmilitary cyberattack (a Stuxnet II), the West will help Iran foil it. Ask those 42 senators if they even know about this provision. And how they can sign on to such a deal without shame and revulsion. Charles Krauthammer
Europe’s openness rests on America’s strength. You can’t have one without the other. This was supposed to be the Era of No Fences. No walls between blocs. No borders between countries. No barriers to trade. Visa-free tourism. The single market. A global Internet. Frictionless transactions and seamless exchanges. In short, a flat world. Whatever happened to that? (…) We mistook a holiday from history for the end of it. We built a fenceless world on the wrong set of assumptions about the future. We wanted a new liberal order—one with a lot of liberalism and not a lot of order. We wanted to be a generous civilization without doing the things required to be a prosperous one. In 2003 the political theorist Robert Kagan wrote a thoughtful book, “Of Paradise and Power,” in which he took stock of the philosophical divide between Americans and Europeans. Americans, he wrote, inhabited the world of Thomas Hobbes, in which “true security and the defense and promotion of a liberal order still depend on the possession and use of military might.” Europeans, by contrast, lived in the world of Immanuel Kant, in which “perpetual peace” was guaranteed by a set of cultural conventions, consensually agreed rules and a belief in the virtues of social solidarity overseen by a redistributive state. These differences didn’t matter much as long as they were confined to panel discussions at Davos. Then came the presidency of Barack Obama, which has adopted the Kantian view. For seven years, the U.S. and Europe have largely been on the same side—the European side—of most of the big issues, especially in the Mideast: getting out of Iraq, drawing down in Afghanistan, lightly intervening in Libya, staying out of Syria, making up with Iran. The result is our metastasizing global disorder. It’s only going to get worse. The graciousness that Germans have shown the first wave of refugees is a tribute to the country’s sense of humanity and history. But just as the warm welcome is destined to create an irresistible magnet for future migrants, it is also bound to lead to a backlash among Germans. This year, some 800,000 newcomers are expected in Germany—about 1% of the country’s population. (…) If Germany had robust economic and demographic growth, it could absorb and assimilate the influx. It doesn’t, so it can’t. Growth has averaged 0.31% a year since 1991. The country has the world’s lowest birthrate. Tolerant modern Germany now looks with justified disdain toward the petty nationalism, burden-shifting and fence-building of the populist Hungarian government of Viktor Orbán. But it would be foolish to think of Hungary as a political throwback rather than as a harbinger. There is no such thing as a lesson from the past that people won’t ignore for the sake of the convenience of the present. Is there a way out? Suddenly, there’s talk in Europe about using military power to establish safe zones in Syria to contain the exodus of refugees. If U.S. administrations decide on adopting Kant, Europe, even Germany, may have no choice but to reacquaint itself with Hobbes by rebuilding its military and using hard power against unraveling neighbors. Europeans will not easily embrace that option. The alternative is to hasten the return to the era of fences. Openness is a virtue purchased through strength. Bret Stephens
In Europe and the West, the crisis is quieter but no less profound. Europe today often doesn’t seem to know where it is going, what Western civilization is for, or even whether or how it can or should be defended. Increasingly, the contemporary version of Enlightenment liberalism sees itself as fundamentally opposed to the religious, political and economic foundations of Western society. Liberal values such as free expression, individual self-determination and a broad array of human rights have become detached in the minds of many from the institutional and civilizational context that shaped them. Capitalism, the social engine without which neither Europe nor the U.S. would have the wealth or strength to embrace liberal values with any hope of success, is often seen as a cruel, anti-human system that is leading the world to a Malthusian climate catastrophe. Military strength, without which the liberal states would be overwhelmed, is regarded with suspicion in the U.S. and with abhorrence in much of Europe. Too many people in the West interpret pluralism and tolerance in ways that forbid or unrealistically constrain the active defense of these values against illiberal states like Russia or illiberal movements like radical Islam. Europe’s approach to the migration crisis brings these failures into sharp relief. The European Union bureaucracy in Brussels has erected a set of legal doctrines stated in terms of absolute right and has tried to build policy on this basis. Taking its cue from the U.N.’s 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other ambitious declarations and treaties, the EU holds that qualified applicants have an absolute human right to asylum. European bureaucrats tend to see asylum as a legal question, not a political one, and they expect political authorities to implement the legal mandate, not quibble with it or constrain it. This is, in many ways, a commendable and honorable approach. Europeans are rightly haunted by what happened in the 1930s when refugees from Hitler’s Germany could often find no place to go. But solemn declarations to “do the right thing” do not always lead to sound policy. Under normal circumstances, the rights-based, legalistic approach can work reasonably well. When refugee flows are slack, the political fallout from accommodating them is manageable. But when the flow of desperate people passes a certain threshold, receiving countries no longer have the will (and, in some cases, the ability) to follow through. Ten thousand refugees is one thing; 10 million is another. Somewhere between those extremes is a breaking point at which the political system will no longer carry out the legal mandate. To pretend that this isn’t true is to invite trouble, and Europe is already much closer to a breaking point than Brussels or Berlin would like to admit. In eastern and central Europe, the social and economic conditions for absorbing mass migration from the Middle East simply don’t exist. The relatively homogenous ethnic nation states that now comprise the region were created through generations of warfare, often accompanied by episodes of ethnic cleansing and genocide. Most of these states enjoyed a brief period of independence between the two world wars and were then engulfed, first by the Nazis and later by the Soviet empire. Their independence and security still feel fragile, and most of their citizens still believe that the role of the state is to protect the well-being of their own ethnic group and express its cultural values. Larger, more self-confident and richer societies in Europe’s west and north are better prepared to cope with immigration. But rules that work for Germany and Sweden can produce uncontrollable backlashes in other parts of Europe. Add to this picture the continuing budgetary and welfare crises and the mass youth unemployment in many Eurozone economies, and it is easy to envision a point at which Europe’s capacity to absorb refugees reaches a ceiling. And the flow of refugees to Europe could easily grow. The Turkish war against the Kurdistan Workers’ Party could escalate. Social breakdown or the victory of radical Islamist forces in Egypt could provoke a mass flight of the Copts, the last remaining large Christian population in a region that has seen one Christian community after another exterminated or forced into exile over the last 150 years. The sectarian war in Syria could intensify and spread into Lebanon. The intensifying religious conflict across the Sahel and northern sub-Saharan Africa could create the kind of political and economic insecurity that would produce vast flows of desperate migrants and asylum seekers. The breaking point may be reached sooner rather than later. In the short term, Europe’s attempts to welcome and resettle refugees will accelerate the flow. The news that rich countries like Germany are welcoming migrants will stimulate many more people to hit the road. (…) The EU has failed to see that refugee and asylum policy must have three distinct components: the compassionate embrace of those in great need, a tough-minded effort to reduce the flow at the source by correcting or preventing the problems that give rise to it, and an effective border-control regime that limits the number of refugees and migrants who reach EU soil. The humanitarian question of refugees and asylum seekers cannot be separated from the bankruptcy of Western security policy in Syria and Libya, and the bankruptcy of Western policy cannot be separated from the long-standing difficulties that many European states have in taking a responsible attitude toward questions of military security. The utter failure of Western policy in both Libya and Syria has to be seen for what it is: not just a political blunder but a humanitarian crime. The feckless mix of intervention and indifference in Libya and the equally feckless failure to intervene in Syria have helped to trigger the flows of migrants that are overwhelming Europe’s institutions. It is impossible to have a humane and sustainable asylum policy without an active and engaged foreign policy that from time to time involves military action. The West’s current stance on human rights and asylum is reminiscent of the liberal approach to questions of peace and war in the early 1930s. On the one hand, the West adopted a high-minded, legalistic stand that declared war illegal (the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928); on the other, we adhered to a blind commitment to disarmament. A noble ideal was separated from any serious effort to create the conditions that would make it achievable. The dream of a liberal, humanitarian peace that both the Obama administration and the EU share may not be achievable in the wicked and complicated world in which we live. It certainly cannot be achieved with the kinds of policies now in favor in capitals on both sides of the Atlantic. Walter Russell Mead
Immigration is a one-way Western street. Those who, in the abstract, damn the West — as much as elite Westerners themselves do — want very much to live inside it. The loudest anti-Western voices in the Middle East are usually housed in Western universities, not in Gaza. (…) Elites who are exempt by virtue of their money and influence from the consequences of living among millions of displaced Africans, Arabs, or Latin Americans berate ad nauseam their less-well-connected, supposedly illiberal fellow citizens. But note that no elite Westerner wants to face the cause of the malady: namely, that the failure in the Third World to adopt Western ideas of consensual government, equality between the sexes, free-market capitalism, individual liberty, and transparent meritocracy logically leads to mayhem and poverty. Westerners are afraid to explain why the non-West suffers and what it might do to end its own miseries. To do that would be imperialistic and neo-colonial. But it is worse than that: Western elites deny their own exceptionalism, and deny any reason for their own privilege other than the easy private guilt of citing the Holy Trinity of “race/class/gender.” They dare not associate Islam with the self-professed Islamists of ISIS who wreck the world’s archaeological treasures and who behead, burn alive, drown, and dismember Christians and supposed heretics. Indeed, Western op-ed writers go so far as to offer heated advisories that we must not confuse the source of this nihilist furor with radical Islam. So we tire of a New York Times columnist or an EU apparatchik who will never give up his own 1 percent lifestyle, but will castigate the values that ensure its continuation — on the understanding that such invective will assuage his guilt and never be taken too seriously. Surely 100 Hondurans will not be sleeping in the halls of the former’s Upper West Side co-op, and 500 Somalis will not camp out on the veranda of the latter’s Portofino estate. Could not Harvard and Stanford invite Central American illegal-alien youth to spend their summers in the shelter of their empty dorms and unused basketball arenas? Latino students at UC Irvine allege that flying the American flag is an act of micro-aggression, even as they decry the American unwillingness to open the borders to another 10 percent of Mexicans, who apparently would not mind the micro-aggressions. Go figure the hypocrisies, and all one can come up with is either ignorance, or a vague notion that such on-campus play-acting will lead to some career advantage to be harvested from bored elites. The Black Lives Matter movement in the last few months has often marched chanting for the death of “pigs,” while intellectuals contextualized their anger — and while police were shot at and sometimes killed. No one dares to make the argument that an absence of parity is due not to Bull Connor Redux, but rather to self-inflicted pathologies of the post–Great Society age that have annihilated the black two-parent family and led to inordinate crime, illegitimacy, illiteracy, drug use, social dependency, and, of course, furor at the system for allowing that disparity to happen. It is much easier to blame an old white cop than a bureaucrat at social services or the careerist Al Sharpton, whose racialist perks are predicated on their permanent absence in others. (…) The future of the European Union is bleak. It cannot define what a European is, so why should its borders not become porous? Who is to say that a German should not retire at 67 so a Greek can at 55? The sin of debt lies on the richer nations, who had the money to lend and profit, not the poorer, who imprudently borrowed. Thus default is little more than overdue redistribution. Europe is shrinking because child-raising is seen as a drag and the state ensures old-age care without the need for family support — until the money runs out. It no longer believes in its own defense, and it brilliantly contextualizes the aggression of Vladimir Putin, sort of like Athenian rhetoricians circa 340 b.c. assuring their fellow citizens that Philip II was merely into a macho schtick. America is Europeanizing itself, an odd thing, given that Europeans always feared that their Hellenism would be buried under crass American Romanism. It turns out that once liberty and freedom have ensured prosperity — the underclass of today has access to better communications, transportation, and computer-driven knowledge than the 1 percent of 30 years ago — then that achievement can be consumed by “fairness” and “equality.” What the West worries about is not poverty, but disparity: No one argues that the rioters at Ferguson did not have smartphones, expensive sneakers, hot water in their homes, air conditioning, and plenty to eat — it’s just that they did not have as many or as sophisticated appurtenances as someone else. Michael Brown was not undernourished or in need of the cigars he lifted. Is this decline just circular, as a Chamberlain leads to a Churchill, who leads to an Attlee, and eventually back to Thatcher, or as Carter begets Reagan, who begets Obama, who loses the Congress and the nation’s support? Certainly, equality and fairness are parasitical luxuries that depend first upon Western productivity, which is the harvest of personal freedom and economic liberty. Before you can have Cornel West, Sandra Fluke, Barack Obama, and Bernie Sanders, you first have to have grimy frackers and horizontal drillers, pajama-boy techies, the loggers of reality TV, long-haul truckers — and, yes, conniving capitalists at Goldman Sachs and showmen like Donald Trump. So far, the West has been lucky. The present generations of nihilistic redistributionists are no Sullas, Robespierres, or Lenins. They do damage, but for now not enough to endanger the architecture of their own privilege. Al Gore still jets around the world to hector about climate change. Barack Obama won’t retire to an iffy neighborhood in Chicago. Al Sharpton won’t order the police away from his doorstep. Warren Buffett and Bill Gates believe in property rights. Mark Zuckerberg assumes that he has the right to buy up his neighbors’ property to create a moat defense against those who he insists must be allowed into the United States without following legal immigration procedures. Even George Soros adheres to international finance laws, most of the time. At least for now, we are in a cycle of Western decline, waiting either for another Churchill, Thatcher, or Reagan to scold us out of it — or for an existential enemy, foreign or domestic, of such power and danger that all our progressive pieties will dissipate in the face of danger. (…) Bounty to boredom to decadence to panic to reawakening to ascendance has always been the cyclical way of the West. Its curse has been that the cycles of nihilism are as long as they are unnecessary. Victor Davis Hanson
Attention: un mythe peut en cacher un autre !
.
Alors qu’en ce 14e anniversaire des attentats islamistes du 11 septembre …
Où le prétendu Chef du Monde libre se félicite qu’à deux voix près la minorité démocrate du Congrès ait réussi à empêcher même pour la forme un vote sur un traité nucléaire iranien déjà préalablement entériné par le Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU (en transformant de fait tout rejet en violation du droit international) et réduit à un simple accord pour lui éviter un vote à la majorité aux deux tiers …
Et que le reste dudit Monde libre se réjouit d’un texte qui accorde à un pays qui prône depuis des décennies l’annihilation d’un de ses voisins le droit au « nucléaire pacifique » …
Pendant que, citation plagiée de Kennedy à l’appui et sur fond d’invasion musulmane de l’Europe via l’immigration forcée, les faux passeorts, les fausses conversions et les vrais djihadistes, nos nouveaux amis iraniens nous rappellent …
Que l’origine de tous nos maux n’est autre que les fables du 11/9 …
Et  qu’avec le défaussement du prétendu Leader du Monde libre que l’on sait, nos amis russes et chinois célèbrent le nouveau monde multipolaire que nous avions si longtemps appelé de nos voeux …
 .
Comment ne pas voir, avec l’historien militaire américain Victor Davis Hanson, la double hypocrisie …
D’élites non-occidentales qui n’ont de cesse de condamner un Occident qu’elles cherchent par tous les moyens à rejoindre ..
Comme d’élites occidentales qui n’ont pas de mots assez durs pour dénoncer un système dont elles profitent si largement ?
.
Is the West Dead Yet?
The West is paradoxically dominant on the global stage and eroding from within.
Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online
September 9, 2015

Never has Western culture seemed so all-powerful.Look at the 30 top-ranked universities in the world; they are all American, British, or European — albeit these rankings are based largely on the excellence of their science, engineering, medicine, and computer departments rather than their English and sociology departments.

The American West Coast changed the world’s daily lifestyle with Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, and Yahoo.

The worldwide reach of schlock American pop culture is frightening. Hollywood psychodramas, rap vulgarity, reality TV, crude body tattooing and piercing, and the sorry, unhinged Miley Cyrus find their way up the Nile and around Cape Horn.

The United States, even with recent defense cuts, has more conventional military power than nearly the rest of the globe combined. American oil entrepreneurs have changed the global energy calculus.

Millions flee their homes to enter Europe — not Russia, China, or India. Ten percent of Mexico lives in the United States. Polls in Mexico suggest that half the remaining Mexican population would prefer to head north into the U.S., a nation to which, polls also suggest, they of course are hostile.

Immigration is a one-way Western street. Those who, in the abstract, damn the West — as much as elite Westerners themselves do — want very much to live inside it. The loudest anti-Western voices in the Middle East are usually housed in Western universities, not in Gaza. Jorge Ramos is a fierce critic of supposed American cruelty to illegal immigrants — so much so that he fled Mexico for America, became a citizen (how is that possible, given American bias against immigrants?), landed a multimillion-dollar salary working for the non-Latino-owned Spanish-language network Univision, and then put his kids in private school to shield them from hoi polloi of the sort he champions each evening. Now that’s the power of the West.

The alternatives are uninviting. Mohammad Javad Zarif, Pervez Musharraf, and Mohamed Morsi all resided in the West for long periods of time until political power beckoned at home. Putin’s Russia is a geriatric and unhealthy kleptocracy. China will never square the circle of free-market capitalist consumerism and Communist state autocracy. India, like Brazil, is always corrupt and always said to be full of potential. Neo-Communism has all but wrecked Latin America. The African nations are still tribal societies beneath a thin statist veneer. The Middle East is now mostly pre-civilized. (The Asian Tigers have escaped these fates by becoming mostly Westernized.) And, in our wired age, the maladies of the Third World are all instantly known and contrasted with the civilized alternative in the West.

But as in mid-fifth-century Athens and late-republican Rome, there are signs that the West is eroding — and fast. The common Western malady is age-old and cyclical. It was long ago described, over some thousand years of decline, by an array of Classical scolds, from Thucydides and Aristophanes to Tacitus, Petronius, Plutarch, Suetonius, and Procopius. In the case of modern America, Britain, and Europe, the sheer material bounty spawned by free-market capitalism and legally protected private property, combined with the freedom of the individual, creates a sort of ennui. Boredom is the logical result of that lethal mix of affluence and leisure.

It is not just that Westerners forget who gave them their bounty, but they tend to damn anonymous ancestors who worked so hard, but without a modern sense of taste and politically correct deference. Of course, so far, Western civilization presses on, despite the periodic sky-is-falling warnings that echo the likes of Friedrich Nietzsche, Oswald Spengler, and H. G. Wells. But does it press on as it did before?

Take the ongoing mass exoduses from the Third World into Europe and the United States. The reaction on the part of the host countries is largely paralysis, as the contradictions of professed Western liberalism hit the hard reality that Westerners are reluctant to accept millions of poor foreigners arriving en masse. Westerners are hoist on their own petards of “fairness” and “equality” in the age of globalization and instant communications: If Sudanese or Oaxacans are deprived of free annual check-ups or are in need of climate-change instruction, then Brussels and Washington are just as culpable for their plight as if they had shorted their own Slovakians or Alabamans.

Elites who are exempt by virtue of their money and influence from the consequences of living among millions of displaced Africans, Arabs, or Latin Americans berate ad nauseam their less-well-connected, supposedly illiberal fellow citizens. But note that no elite Westerner wants to face the cause of the malady: namely, that the failure in the Third World to adopt Western ideas of consensual government, equality between the sexes, free-market capitalism, individual liberty, and transparent meritocracy logically leads to mayhem and poverty.

Westerners are afraid to explain why the non-West suffers and what it might do to end its own miseries. To do that would be imperialistic and neo-colonial.

But it is worse than that: Western elites deny their own exceptionalism, and deny any reason for their own privilege other than the easy private guilt of citing the Holy Trinity of “race/class/gender.” They dare not associate Islam with the self-professed Islamists of ISIS who wreck the world’s archaeological treasures and who behead, burn alive, drown, and dismember Christians and supposed heretics. Indeed, Western op-ed writers go so far as to offer heated advisories that we must not confuse the source of this nihilist furor with radical Islam.

So we tire of a New York Times columnist or an EU apparatchik who will never give up his own 1 percent lifestyle, but will castigate the values that ensure its continuation — on the understanding that such invective will assuage his guilt and never be taken too seriously. Surely 100 Hondurans will not be sleeping in the halls of the former’s Upper West Side co-op, and 500 Somalis will not camp out on the veranda of the latter’s Portofino estate. Could not Harvard and Stanford invite Central American illegal-alien youth to spend their summers in the shelter of their empty dorms and unused basketball arenas?

Latino students at UC Irvine allege that flying the American flag is an act of micro-aggression, even as they decry the American unwillingness to open the borders to another 10 percent of Mexicans, who apparently would not mind the micro-aggressions. Go figure the hypocrisies, and all one can come up with is either ignorance, or a vague notion that such on-campus play-acting will lead to some career advantage to be harvested from bored elites.

The Black Lives Matter movement in the last few months has often marched chanting for the death of “pigs,” while intellectuals contextualized their anger — and while police were shot at and sometimes killed. No one dares to make the argument that an absence of parity is due not to Bull Connor Redux, but rather to self-inflicted pathologies of the post–Great Society age that have annihilated the black two-parent family and led to inordinate crime, illegitimacy, illiteracy, drug use, social dependency, and, of course, furor at the system for allowing that disparity to happen. It is much easier to blame an old white cop than a bureaucrat at social services or the careerist Al Sharpton, whose racialist perks are predicated on their permanent absence in others.

The first casualty in a bored and would-be-revolutionary society is legality. And certainly in the West the law — whose sanctity built Western civilization — has become a joke. New Confederate-style nullificationists in San Francisco demand that federal immigration statutes not apply to their sanctuary city, even as they insist that a minor clerk in Kentucky be jailed for nullifying a Supreme Court edict allowing gay marriage. Kim Davis should indeed be jailed for obstructing a federal mandate, but only after the neo-Confederate nullificationist mayor, Board of Supervisors, and sheriff of San Francisco.

These activists are not the poor and ignorant, but the wealthy and educated who no longer believe in the law — at least any law that does not directly protect their quite ample property. It would be easy to say they are neo–French Revolutionaries who believe social justice, not old white men’s privilege, is the better law code. But that excuse would be too kind. Those who embrace sanctuary cities while wanting to jail any who object to the omnipotence of federal jurisprudence are mostly hedonists. Whatever they feel like doing becomes legal, and whatever they don’t feel like doing becomes felonious and deserving of incarceration.

The future of the European Union is bleak. It cannot define what a European is, so why should its borders not become porous? Who is to say that a German should not retire at 67 so a Greek can at 55? The sin of debt lies on the richer nations, who had the money to lend and profit, not the poorer, who imprudently borrowed. Thus default is little more than overdue redistribution.

Europe is shrinking because child-raising is seen as a drag and the state ensures old-age care without the need for family support — until the money runs out. It no longer believes in its own defense, and it brilliantly contextualizes the aggression of Vladimir Putin, sort of like Athenian rhetoricians circa 340 b.c. assuring their fellow citizens that Philip II was merely into a macho schtick.

America is Europeanizing itself, an odd thing, given that Europeans always feared that their Hellenism would be buried under crass American Romanism. It turns out that once liberty and freedom have ensured prosperity — the underclass of today has access to better communications, transportation, and computer-driven knowledge than the 1 percent of 30 years ago — then that achievement can be consumed by “fairness” and “equality.” What the West worries about is not poverty, but disparity: No one argues that the rioters at Ferguson did not have smartphones, expensive sneakers, hot water in their homes, air conditioning, and plenty to eat — it’s just that they did not have as many or as sophisticated appurtenances as someone else. Michael Brown was not undernourished or in need of the cigars he lifted.

Is this decline just circular, as a Chamberlain leads to a Churchill, who leads to an Attlee, and eventually back to Thatcher, or as Carter begets Reagan, who begets Obama, who loses the Congress and the nation’s support? Certainly, equality and fairness are parasitical luxuries that depend first upon Western productivity, which is the harvest of personal freedom and economic liberty. Before you can have Cornel West, Sandra Fluke, Barack Obama, and Bernie Sanders, you first have to have grimy frackers and horizontal drillers, pajama-boy techies, the loggers of reality TV, long-haul truckers — and, yes, conniving capitalists at Goldman Sachs and showmen like Donald Trump.

So far, the West has been lucky. The present generations of nihilistic redistributionists are no Sullas, Robespierres, or Lenins. They do damage, but for now not enough to endanger the architecture of their own privilege. Al Gore still jets around the world to hector about climate change. Barack Obama won’t retire to an iffy neighborhood in Chicago. Al Sharpton won’t order the police away from his doorstep. Warren Buffett and Bill Gates believe in property rights. Mark Zuckerberg assumes that he has the right to buy up his neighbors’ property to create a moat defense against those who he insists must be allowed into the United States without following legal immigration procedures. Even George Soros adheres to international finance laws, most of the time.

At least for now, we are in a cycle of Western decline, waiting either for another Churchill, Thatcher, or Reagan to scold us out of it — or for an existential enemy, foreign or domestic, of such power and danger that all our progressive pieties will dissipate in the face of danger.

If, God forbid, Putin moves into the Baltic states, if Iran launches a nuke into Israel, if North Korea shoots chemical shells into Seoul, if China absorbs Taiwan, if, in another 9/11, a dozen 757s take down the Sears Tower, if the interest rate on a soon-to-be-$20-trillion national debt hits 7 percent, if Social Security checks start to bounce, or if Wall Street trumps its 2008 implosion, then Miley Cyrus will go the way of Britney Spears, Barack Obama the way of Jimmy Carter, and Black Lives Matter the way of It’s a Black Thing, You Wouldn’t Understand. Then the televised presences of Caitlin Jenner and the Kardashians would vanish as the decadent indulgences of a society that could no longer afford them.

Bounty to boredom to decadence to panic to reawakening to ascendance has always been the cyclical way of the West.

Its curse has been that the cycles of nihilism are as long as they are unnecessary.

 Voir aussi:

How Obama Swindled Americans on Iran
Charles Krauthammer
The Washington Post
September 10, 2015
Congress is finally having its say on the Iran deal. It will be an elaborate charade, however, because, having first gone to the U.N., President Obama has largely drained congressional action of relevance. At the Security Council, he pushed through a resolution ratifying the deal, thus officially committing the United States as a nation to its implementation — in advance of any congressional action.
The resolution abolishes the entire legal framework, built over a decade, underlying the international sanctions against Iran. A few months from now, they will be gone. The script is already written: The International Atomic Energy Agency, relying on Iran’s self-inspection (!) of its most sensitive nuclear facility, will declare Iran in compliance. The agreement then goes into effect and Iran’s nuclear program is officially deemed peaceful.
Sanctions are lifted. The mullahs receive $100 billion of frozen assets as a signing bonus. Iran begins reaping the economic bonanza, tripling its oil exports and welcoming a stampede of foreign companies back into the country.
It is all precooked. Last month, Britain’s foreign secretary traveled to Tehran with an impressive delegation of British companies ready to deal. He was late, however. The Italian and French foreign ministers had already been there, accompanied by their own hungry businessmen and oil companies. Iran is back in business.
As a matter of constitutional decency, the president should have submitted the deal to Congress first. And submitted it as a treaty. Which it obviously is. No international agreement in a generation matches this one in strategic significance and geopolitical gravity.
Obama did not submit it as a treaty because he knew he could never get the constitutionally required votes for ratification. He’s not close to getting two-thirds of the Senate. He’s not close to getting a simple majority. No wonder: In the latest Pew Research Center poll, the American people oppose the deal by a staggering 28-point margin.
To get around the Constitution, Obama negotiated a swindle that requires him to garner a mere one-third of one house of Congress. To get around the Constitution, Obama negotiated a swindle that requires him to garner a mere one-third of one house of Congress. Indeed, on Thursday, with just 42 Senate supporters — remember, a treaty requires 67 — the Democrats filibustered and prevented, at least for now, the Senate from voting on the deal at all.
But Obama two months ago enshrined the deal as international law at the U.N. Why should we care about the congressional vote? In order to highlight the illegitimacy of Obama’s constitutional runaround and thus make it easier for a future president to overturn the deal, especially if Iran is found to be cheating.
As of now, however, it is done. Iran will be both unleashed — sanctions lifted, economy booming, with no treaty provisions regarding its growing regional aggression and support for terrorists — and welcomed as a good international citizen possessing a peaceful nuclear program. An astonishing trick. Iran’s legitimation will not have to wait a decade, after which, as the Iranian foreign minister boasts, the U.N. file on the Iranian nuclear program will be closed, all restrictions will be dropped and, as Obama himself has admitted, the breakout time to an Iranian bomb will become essentially zero. On the contrary. The legitimation happens now. Early next year, Iran will be officially recognized as a peaceful nuclear nation.
This is a revolution in Iran’s international standing, yet its consequences have been largely overlooked. The deal goes beyond merely leaving Iran’s nuclear infrastructure intact. Because the deal legitimizes that nuclear program as peaceful (unless proven otherwise — don’t hold your breath), it is entitled to international assistance. Hence the astonishing provision buried in Annex III, Section 10 committing Western experts to offering the Iranian program our nuclear expertise. Specifically “training courses and workshops.” On what? Among other things, on how to protect against “sabotage.”
The House’s Better Alternative to Corker-Cardin Boehner Reportedly Caves to House Republican Rebellion on Iran Deal Imagine: We are now to protect Iran against, say, the very Stuxnet virus, developed by the NSA and Israel’s Unit 8200, that for years disrupted and delayed an Iranian bomb. Secretary of State John Kerry has darkly warned Israel to not even think about a military strike on the nuclear facilities of a regime whose leader said just Wednesday that Israel will be wiped out within 25 years. The Israelis are now being told additionally — Annex III, Section 10 — that if they attempt just a defensive, nonmilitary cyberattack (a Stuxnet II), the West will help Iran foil it. Ask those 42 senators if they even know about this provision. And how they can sign on to such a deal without shame and revulsion.

Voir encore:
Fables of 9/11: Persistent, Persuasive, and Destructive
Fars news

Sep 10, 2015
TEHRAN (FNA)- The tragedy of 9/11 should no longer be allowed to haunt the world’s collective memory and define its sense of purpose and orientation.
Under the pretext of wiping out the terrorists and their movements, the United States and its allies continue to spread sectarian poison and bring pain and suffering to many others. For fourteen years, the world has only seen wars, interventions, assassinations, torture, kidnappings, black sites, the growth of the American-European spying program, and the spread of terrorism.

The consequences are so terrible that those running the circus of “Global War on Terror” are no longer able to justify the burial of freedom and democracy, the fierce prosecution of whistleblowers, the militarization of the police, state-sanctioned killings without trial, as well as astronomical expenses, bombing campaigns galore, repeated defeats, disasters, and failed states.

After so many years of blind faith in military-first foreign policy, the bankrupt coalition of regime changers have failed to turn Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen into protectorates. They have failed to extricate themselves from the four major wars of the century.

Thanks to their chest beating jingoism, millions have also become stateless throughout the region. More than 380,000 people have crossed the Mediterranean this year in search of safety in Europe. Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans, Africans, and many others walk for days and months, sleep rough on station platforms or by the side of the road, are tear-gassed and beaten at overwhelmed borders, and crammed into trains like cattle as they try to make their way north.

The numbers keep on growing, as the “Global Terror on Terror” keeps on spreading. The warmongers have just begun bombing Syria to make it “theirs”. But for those on the edge of Europe struggling with their own troubles, this is wishful thinking.

The useless and costly war has displaced more than 4 million people, most of them to other countries in the region, though noticeably not to Saudi Arabia, Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain. A whole society has been destroyed, and the outside world has done very little to stop this happening.

The present refugee crisis in Europe is very much the “blowback” in Syria having a real impact on the continent for the first time. Syrian refugees continue to risk their lives to reach Europe and no amount of barbed wire or steel can stop them. For “please don’t come” Europe the nightmare has only just begun.

Another large refugee problem now looms and is unlikely to leave Europe unaffected. The Saudi-led war on Yemen is getting more destructive, with the potential for putting a large proportion of its 24 million people on the road and the seas. The UN says over 100.000 have already fled abroad.

Human traffickers smell money and soon they will start setting up shops on the Yemen coast. The chaos in Libya makes it a favored launching place for refugees attempting to get to Europe, and a stream of Yemenis are getting prepared to make their way to the Mediterranean coast.

Western politicians and chattering classes in the media might say Yemen is so much farther from Europe. The fact remains that the likelihood of another mass flight has become even greater.

The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and destructive. The mass flight of people will go on as long as the world buys the fables of 9/11 and the “War on Terror” players show no urgency in trying to end it.

Voir enfin:

Cameron, Hollande and Merkel: Why we support the Iran deal
David Cameron, François Hollande and Angela Merkel

Washington Post

September 10, 2015

David Cameron, François Hollande and Angela Merkel are, respectively, the prime minister of Britain, the president of France and the chancellor of Germany.

The U.S. Congress is voting this week on whether to support the agreement that our countries, along with the United States, Russia and China, reached with Iran to curb its nuclear program. This is an important moment. It is a crucial opportunity at a time of heightened global uncertainty to show what diplomacy can achieve.

Iran’s nuclear program has been a source of concern for more than a decade. Iran claimed that its ambitions were purely civil: All countries have the right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. But as recently as two years ago, we faced an alarming expansion in Iran’s program: a growing stockpile of uranium, some of it enriched up to 20 percent; an increase in the number of centrifuges, including more powerful new-generation machines; a deeply bunkered enrichment facility at Fordow; and the near completion of a research reactor at Arak capable of producing weapons-grade plutonium. And, of course, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had limited visibility of some aspects of Iran’s program.

This posed a serious threat — not only to the security of Iran’s neighbors and for Israel, but also to our countries. A nuclear arms race in the Middle East would have added a disastrous new element to an already unstable region.

We had a shared responsibility to deal with this threat. The long history of fruitless nuclear talks with Iran did not give strong grounds for optimism. Nevertheless, two years of tough, detailed negotiation have produced an agreement that closes off all possible routes to an Iranian nuclear weapon in return for phased relief from nuclear-related sanctions.

We fully support this agreement because it achieves the goals we had set ourselves. It deals with the uranium enrichment route to a bomb by requiring Iran to reduce by 98 percent its stockpile of enriched uranium; to lower by two-thirds the number of its centrifuges; to limit uranium enrichment levels; and to stop using the deep Fordow site for enrichment. It closes the plutonium route through changes to the Arak reactor so that it does not produce weapons-grade plutonium. And it ensures the IAEA enhanced access not only to Iran’s nuclear facilities and the entire nuclear fuel cycle but also, where needed, to any undeclared site.

In return, Iran will get phased relief from nuclear-related sanctions — but only as it meets its own commitments in concrete ways, verified by the IAEA. And we have all agreed on provisions for the return of sanctions if Iran were to substantially breach the agreement.

This is not an agreement based on trust or on any assumption about how Iran may look in 10 or 15 years. It is based on detailed, tightly written controls that are verifiable and long-lasting. Iran will have strong incentives not to cheat: The near certainty of getting caught and the consequences that would follow would make this a losing option.

We condemn in no uncertain terms that Iran does not recognize the existence of the state of Israel and the unacceptable language that Iran’s leaders use about Israel. Israel’s security matters are, and will remain, our key interests, too. We would not have reached the nuclear deal with Iran if we did not think that it removed a threat to the region and the non-proliferation regime as a whole.

We did not reach the nuclear deal in the expectation that Iran’s external policy would change any time soon. But it does address the threat from Iran’s nuclear program and may open the way to recognition by Iran that collaboration with its neighbors is better than confrontation: Although we may not have the same interests as Iran, we do face some common challenges, including the threat from ISIL.

We are confident that the agreement provides the foundation for resolving the conflict on Iran’s nuclear program permanently. This is why we now want to embark on the full implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, once all national procedures are complete.

Voir par ailleurs:

Farewell to the Era of No Fences

Europe’s openness rests on America’s strength. You can’t have one without the other

Bret Stephens

This was supposed to be the Era of No Fences. No walls between blocs. No borders between countries. No barriers to trade. Visa-free tourism. The single market. A global Internet. Frictionless transactions and seamless exchanges.

In short, a flat world. Whatever happened to that?

In the early 1990s, Israel’s then-Foreign Minister Shimon Peres published a book called “The New Middle East,” in which he predicted what was soon to be in store for his neighborhood. “Regional common markets reflect the new Zeitgeist,” he gushed. It was only a matter of time before it would become true in his part of the world, too.

I read the book in college, and while it struck me as far-fetched it didn’t seem altogether crazy. The decade from 1989 to 1999 was an age of political, economic, social and technological miracles. The Berlin Wall fell. The Soviet Union dissolved. Apartheid ended. The euro and Nafta were born. The first Internet browser was introduced. Oil dropped below $10 a barrel, the Dow topped 10,000, Times Square became safe again. America won a war in Kosovo without losing a single man in combat.

Would Israeli businessmen soon be selling hummus and pita to quality-conscious consumers in Damascus? Well, why not?

Contrast this promised utopia with the mind-boggling scenes of tens of thousands of Middle East migrants, marching up the roads and railways of Europe, headed for their German promised land. The images seem like a 21st-century version of the Völkerwanderung, the migration of nations in the late Roman and early Medieval periods. Desperate people, needing a place to go, sweeping a broad landscape like an unchanneled flood.

How did this happen? We mistook a holiday from history for the end of it. We built a fenceless world on the wrong set of assumptions about the future. We wanted a new liberal order—one with a lot of liberalism and not a lot of order. We wanted to be a generous civilization without doing the things required to be a prosperous one.

In 2003 the political theorist Robert Kagan wrote a thoughtful book, “Of Paradise and Power,” in which he took stock of the philosophical divide between Americans and Europeans. Americans, he wrote, inhabited the world of Thomas Hobbes, in which “true security and the defense and promotion of a liberal order still depend on the possession and use of military might.”

Europeans, by contrast, lived in the world of Immanuel Kant, in which “perpetual peace” was guaranteed by a set of cultural conventions, consensually agreed rules and a belief in the virtues of social solidarity overseen by a redistributive state.

These differences didn’t matter much as long as they were confined to panel discussions at Davos. Then came the presidency of Barack Obama, which has adopted the Kantian view. For seven years, the U.S. and Europe have largely been on the same side—the European side—of most of the big issues, especially in the Mideast: getting out of Iraq, drawing down in Afghanistan, lightly intervening in Libya, staying out of Syria, making up with Iran.

The result is our metastasizing global disorder. It’s only going to get worse. The graciousness that Germans have shown the first wave of refugees is a tribute to the country’s sense of humanity and history. But just as the warm welcome is destined to create an irresistible magnet for future migrants, it is also bound to lead to a backlash among Germans.

This year, some 800,000 newcomers are expected in Germany—about 1% of the country’s population. Berlin wants an EU-wide quota system to divvy up the influx, but once the migrants are in Europe they are free to go wherever the jobs and opportunities may be. Germany (with 4.7% unemployment) is going to be a bigger draw than France (10.4%), to say nothing of Italy (12%) or Spain (22%).

If Germany had robust economic and demographic growth, it could absorb and assimilate the influx. It doesn’t, so it can’t. Growth has averaged 0.31% a year since 1991. The country has the world’s lowest birthrate. Tolerant modern Germany now looks with justified disdain toward the petty nationalism, burden-shifting and fence-building of the populist Hungarian government of Viktor Orbán. But it would be foolish to think of Hungary as a political throwback rather than as a harbinger. There is no such thing as a lesson from the past that people won’t ignore for the sake of the convenience of the present.

Is there a way out? Suddenly, there’s talk in Europe about using military power to establish safe zones in Syria to contain the exodus of refugees. If U.S. administrations decide on adopting Kant, Europe, even Germany, may have no choice but to reacquaint itself with Hobbes by rebuilding its military and using hard power against unraveling neighbors.

Europeans will not easily embrace that option. The alternative is to hasten the return to the era of fences. Openness is a virtue purchased through strength.

Voir de plus:

The Roots of the Migration Crisis
The Syrian refugee disaster is a result of the Middle East’s failure to grapple with modernity and Europe’s failure to defend its ideals
Walter Russell Mead
The Wall Street Journal

Sept. 11, 2015
The migration crisis enveloping Europe and much of the Middle East today is one of the worst humanitarian disasters since the 1940s. Millions of desperate people are on the march: Sunni refugees driven out by the barbarity of the Assad regime in Syria, Christians and Yazidis fleeing the pornographic violence of Islamic State, millions more of all faiths and no faith fleeing poverty and oppression without end. Parents are entrusting their lives and the lives of their young children to rickety boats and unscrupulous criminal syndicates along the Mediterranean coast, professionals and business people are giving up their livelihoods and investments, farmers are abandoning their land, and from North Africa to Syria, the sick and the old are on the road, carrying a few treasured belongings on a new trail of tears.
It is the first migration crisis of the 21st century, but it is unlikely to be the last. The rise of identity politics across the Middle East and much of sub-Saharan Africa is setting off waves of violence like those that tore apart the Balkans and the Ottoman Empire in the 19th and 20th centuries. The hatreds and rivalries driving endangered communities to exile and destruction have a long history. They probably have a long future as well.

What we are witnessing today is a crisis of two civilizations: The Middle East and Europe are both facing deep cultural and political problems that they cannot solve. The intersection of their failures and shortcomings has made this crisis much more destructive and dangerous than it needed to be—and carries with it the risk of more instability and more war in a widening spiral.

The crisis in the Middle East has to do with much more than the breakdown of order in Syria and Libya. It runs deeper than the poisonous sectarian and ethnic hatreds behind the series of wars stretching from Pakistan to North Africa. At bottom, we are witnessing the consequences of a civilization’s failure either to overcome or to accommodate the forces of modernity. One hundred years after the fall of the Ottoman Empire and 50 years after the French left Algeria, the Middle East has failed to build economies that allow ordinary people to live with dignity, has failed to build modern political institutions and has failed to carve out the place of honor and respect in world affairs that its peoples seek.

There is no point in rehearsing the multiple failures since Britain’s defeat of the Ottoman Empire liberated the Arabs from hundreds of years of Turkish rule. But it is worth noting that the Arab world has tried a succession of ideologies and forms of government, and that none of them has worked. The liberal nationalism of the early 20th century failed, and so did the socialist nationalism of Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser and his contemporaries. Authoritarianism failed the Arabs too: Compare what Lee Kwan Yew created in resource-free Singapore with the legacy of the Assads in Syria or of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

Today we are watching the failure of Islamism. From the Muslim Brotherhood to Islamic State, Islamist movements have had no more success in curing the ills of Arab civilization than any of the secular movements of the past. Worse, the brutal fanaticism and nihilistic violence of groups like Islamic State undercuts respect for more moderate versions of Islamic spirituality and thought.

The Turks and the Iranians have had more economic and institutional success than the Arabs, but in both Turkey and Iran today, the outlook is bleak. Iran is ruled by a revolutionary alliance of reactionary clerics and hungry thugs, and it is committed to a regional policy of confrontation and sectarian war. Like the Soviet Union, Iran is an uneasy conglomeration of national and cultural groups held together by a radical but increasingly stale ideology. Turkey, too, is cursed by blind Islamist enthusiasm and unresolved ethnic and ideological chasms. Neither country is immune to the violence sweeping the region, and neither country has been able to develop policies that would calm rather than roil their turbulent surroundings.

At the same time, foreign values are challenging traditional beliefs and practices across the region. Women throughout the Islamic world are seeking to shape theological and social ideas to better reflect their own experience. Modern science and historical and textual criticism pose many of the questions for traditional Islamic piety that 19th-century science and biblical criticism posed for Christianity. Young people continue to be exposed to information, narratives and images that are difficult to reconcile with traditions they were raised to take for granted.

As hundreds of thousands of refugees stumble from the chaos of an imploding Arab world toward Europe, and as millions more seek refuge closer to home, we see a crisis of confidence in the very structures of Middle Eastern civilization, including religion. Reports that hundreds of Iranian and other refugees from the Islamic world are seeking Christian baptism in Europe can be seen as one aspect of this crisis. If people feel that the religion they were raised in and the civilization of which they are a part cannot master the problems of daily life, they will seek alternatives.

For other Muslims, this means the embrace of radical fundamentalism. Such fanaticism is a sign of crisis and not of health in religious life, and the very violence of radical Islam today points to the depth of the failure of traditional religious ideas and institutions across the Middle East.

In Europe and the West, the crisis is quieter but no less profound. Europe today often doesn’t seem to know where it is going, what Western civilization is for, or even whether or how it can or should be defended. Increasingly, the contemporary version of Enlightenment liberalism sees itself as fundamentally opposed to the religious, political and economic foundations of Western society. Liberal values such as free expression, individual self-determination and a broad array of human rights have become detached in the minds of many from the institutional and civilizational context that shaped them.

Capitalism, the social engine without which neither Europe nor the U.S. would have the wealth or strength to embrace liberal values with any hope of success, is often seen as a cruel, anti-human system that is leading the world to a Malthusian climate catastrophe. Military strength, without which the liberal states would be overwhelmed, is regarded with suspicion in the U.S. and with abhorrence in much of Europe. Too many people in the West interpret pluralism and tolerance in ways that forbid or unrealistically constrain the active defense of these values against illiberal states like Russia or illiberal movements like radical Islam.

Europe’s approach to the migration crisis brings these failures into sharp relief. The European Union bureaucracy in Brussels has erected a set of legal doctrines stated in terms of absolute right and has tried to build policy on this basis. Taking its cue from the U.N.’s 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other ambitious declarations and treaties, the EU holds that qualified applicants have an absolute human right to asylum. European bureaucrats tend to see asylum as a legal question, not a political one, and they expect political authorities to implement the legal mandate, not quibble with it or constrain it.

This is, in many ways, a commendable and honorable approach. Europeans are rightly haunted by what happened in the 1930s when refugees from Hitler’s Germany could often find no place to go. But solemn declarations to “do the right thing” do not always lead to sound policy.

Under normal circumstances, the rights-based, legalistic approach can work reasonably well. When refugee flows are slack, the political fallout from accommodating them is manageable. But when the flow of desperate people passes a certain threshold, receiving countries no longer have the will (and, in some cases, the ability) to follow through. Ten thousand refugees is one thing; 10 million is another. Somewhere between those extremes is a breaking point at which the political system will no longer carry out the legal mandate. To pretend that this isn’t true is to invite trouble, and Europe is already much closer to a breaking point than Brussels or Berlin would like to admit.

In eastern and central Europe, the social and economic conditions for absorbing mass migration from the Middle East simply don’t exist. The relatively homogenous ethnic nation states that now comprise the region were created through generations of warfare, often accompanied by episodes of ethnic cleansing and genocide. Most of these states enjoyed a brief period of independence between the two world wars and were then engulfed, first by the Nazis and later by the Soviet empire. Their independence and security still feel fragile, and most of their citizens still believe that the role of the state is to protect the well-being of their own ethnic group and express its cultural values.

Larger, more self-confident and richer societies in Europe’s west and north are better prepared to cope with immigration. But rules that work for Germany and Sweden can produce uncontrollable backlashes in other parts of Europe. Add to this picture the continuing budgetary and welfare crises and the mass youth unemployment in many Eurozone economies, and it is easy to envision a point at which Europe’s capacity to absorb refugees reaches a ceiling.

And the flow of refugees to Europe could easily grow. The Turkish war against the Kurdistan Workers’ Party could escalate. Social breakdown or the victory of radical Islamist forces in Egypt could provoke a mass flight of the Copts, the last remaining large Christian population in a region that has seen one Christian community after another exterminated or forced into exile over the last 150 years. The sectarian war in Syria could intensify and spread into Lebanon. The intensifying religious conflict across the Sahel and northern sub-Saharan Africa could create the kind of political and economic insecurity that would produce vast flows of desperate migrants and asylum seekers.

The breaking point may be reached sooner rather than later. In the short term, Europe’s attempts to welcome and resettle refugees will accelerate the flow. The news that rich countries like Germany are welcoming migrants will stimulate many more people to hit the road. Jean-Claude Juncker, the president of the European Commission, is calling on member states to accept 160,000 migrants through a quota system. What will be the response when the number of migrants shoots well past that number?

The EU has failed to see that refugee and asylum policy must have three distinct components: the compassionate embrace of those in great need, a tough-minded effort to reduce the flow at the source by correcting or preventing the problems that give rise to it, and an effective border-control regime that limits the number of refugees and migrants who reach EU soil.

When it comes to reducing the number of migrants at their source, the Europeans have gotten it partly right. The EU has been relatively generous with economic-development aid to North Africa and the Middle East. That aid often falls short of the hoped-for results, but at least the Europeans are trying.

There is a second dimension to this policy that runs into a buzz saw of European assumptions and beliefs: the security question. Poverty is one driver of migration to Europe, but what has turned a policy problem into an international crisis is the intersection of poverty and insecurity. It is the brutal war in Syria that has displaced millions of people from their homes and sent them streaming into refugee encampments from Amman to Budapest. It was the breakdown of order in post-intervention Libya that made the Libyan coast a point of embarkation for desperate refugees from Libya and farther south.

The humanitarian question of refugees and asylum seekers cannot be separated from the bankruptcy of Western security policy in Syria and Libya, and the bankruptcy of Western policy cannot be separated from the long-standing difficulties that many European states have in taking a responsible attitude toward questions of military security.

The utter failure of Western policy in both Libya and Syria has to be seen for what it is: not just a political blunder but a humanitarian crime. The feckless mix of intervention and indifference in Libya and the equally feckless failure to intervene in Syria have helped to trigger the flows of migrants that are overwhelming Europe’s institutions.

It is impossible to have a humane and sustainable asylum policy without an active and engaged foreign policy that from time to time involves military action. The West’s current stance on human rights and asylum is reminiscent of the liberal approach to questions of peace and war in the early 1930s. On the one hand, the West adopted a high-minded, legalistic stand that declared war illegal (the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928); on the other, we adhered to a blind commitment to disarmament. A noble ideal was separated from any serious effort to create the conditions that would make it achievable.

The dream of a liberal, humanitarian peace that both the Obama administration and the EU share may not be achievable in the wicked and complicated world in which we live. It certainly cannot be achieved with the kinds of policies now in favor in capitals on both sides of the Atlantic.

Mr. Mead is a professor of foreign affairs and humanities at Bard College, a distinguished scholar in American strategy and statesmanship at the Hudson Institute and editor at large of the American Interest. Follow him on Twitter @wrmead.

Voir enfin:

Les réfugiés premières victimes du fiasco de notre politique d’immigration
Gilles William Goldnadel
Le Figaro
08/09/2015

FIGAROVOX/CHRONIQUE – Pour Gilles-William Goldnadel, l’échec de notre politique d’immigration et d’intégration explique que beaucoup de Français soient opposés à l’accueil de nouvelles populations.

Gilles-William Goldnadel est avocat et écrivain. Toutes les semaines, il décrypte l’actualité pour FigaroVox.

En principe, la gauche interdit formellement de réagir à chaud au plus dramatique des événements. C’est ainsi, qu’elle fustige ordinairement toute tentative de durcir les lois pénales à la défaveur d’un assassinat atroce. Elle hurle immédiatement à «l’instrumentalisation politicienne», au cynisme et au populisme primaire.

Mais la gauche, on le sait, piétine allègrement ses propres principes lorsque cela l’arrange.

Ainsi en a aura- t-il été de l’exploitation politique de la photographie du petit corps inerte et solitaire d’un malheureux petit kurde échoué sur une plage turque et dont la vue soulève le coeur et l’âme d’une pitié infinie.

Mais il y a peut-être pire que la bonne conscience suintante: l’exploitation à mauvais escient de la mauvaise conscience. Conscience: le «sursaut des consciences endormies» en Europe qu’imposerait la mort du petit Aylan. Une majorité de Français s’opposeraient à l’accueil sans frein des migrants venus de Syrie et d’ailleurs. Salauds de Français indifférents. Et pendant qu’on y est, salauds de polonais, de hongrois , de tchèques , de slovaques ,de canadiens et d’australiens.

Vive l’Allemagne! Vive l’Autriche! Mme Merkel, hier encore reine des boches, bourreau du peuple grec, héroïne de la nouvelle Europe antinazie.

Heureusement, des milliers de résistants et de justes se dressent, pour que plus jamais ça!

Les braves gens, qui pleurent sans pudeur sur le sort des Syriens. Pendant des décennies, la presse convenue n’estimait pas convenable de critiquer, sauf à être raciste ou islamophobe, la radicalité arabo – islamique.
Chiche. Et si une fois de plus, ceux qui donnent aujourd’hui, profitant de l’effet de sidération qui interdit la réflexion, une leçon de morale humaine n’étaient pas les premiers responsables en Europe du malheur des migrants et de l’impossibilité de leur apporter toute l’aide souhaitée?

Les braves gens, qui pleurent sans pudeur sur le sort des Syriens. Pendant des décennies, la presse convenue n’estimait pas convenable de critiquer, sauf à être raciste ou islamophobe, la radicalité arabo – islamique. Ni celle du nationalisme alaouite des Assad qui gazaient déjà sans problèmes les malheureux kurdes et qui bombardent à présent les quartiers rebelles à coups de barils de dynamite, ni celle plus récente d’un islamisme dont l’usage du mot même était jusqu’à peu tabou pour cause de préfixe amalgamant.

Depuis le début d’une guerre qui a fait près de 300 000 morts, aucune manifestation d’ampleur n’a été organisée en France en solidarité avec les populations qui souffrent en Syrie.

Le sort du peuple kurde, encore moins son destin national, n’a jamais intéressé qui que ce soit en France. Comment se fait-il qu’alors que des milliers de djihadistes français partent en Syrie, aucun jeune et généreux rebelle progressiste , aucun aventurier du macadam parisien, aucun juste de la 25e heure, n’ait seulement l’idée de former une brigade internationale qui irait combattre les premiers responsables de la mort du petit kurde, aux côtés des forces kurdes à Kobané ou ailleurs?

La réponse est facile: nos donneurs de leçons de morale se moquent comme d’une guigne du sort des Syriens en Syrie. La seule chose qui les intéresse, sans qu’ils s’en rendent compte eux-mêmes, c’est de pouvoir fustiger les Européens en Europe et les Français en France qui osent, les égoïstes, les rabougris, s’inquiéter que leur pays ne devienne dans une décennie une nouvelle Syrie.

Se préoccuper de son pays, de sa sécurité, de sa cohésion, de son identité (et oui, le mot-dit, le mot est dit) du sort de ses enfants, et de la possibilité d’accueil et d’intégration des populations étrangères n’est pas un signe particulier d’indifférence. Il vaut peut-être mieux que les élans du coeur irréfléchis, ou le suivisme conformiste sur fond de parallèle historique hystérique.
Et c’est là aussi, que nos donneurs de leçons feraient bien de méditer les conséquences des leçons que leur bêtise inouïe, leur arrogance insondable nous donnaient au détour des années 80.

Peine perdue, je sais, car leur mémoire sélective, n’enregistre jamais les malheurs qu’ils peuvent faire.

Mais une majorité de Français, s’en souvient, raison pourquoi, et en dépit de tous les matraquages médiatiques et idéologiques, on ne leur fera plus prendre des vessies pour des lanternes, ou l’immigration forcée pour une bénédiction.

Écrivons le nettement: les Français qui manifestent leur opposition à l’accueil sans limite ni réserve de nouvelles populations ne sont certainement pas plus racistes ou égoïstes que ceux, qui de manière extatique, voudraient les accueillir sans compter.

Se préoccuper de son pays, de sa sécurité, de sa cohésion, de son identité (et oui, le mot-dit, le mot est dit) du sort de ses enfants, et de la possibilité d’accueil et d’intégration des populations étrangères n’est pas un signe particulier d’indifférence. Il vaut peut-être mieux que les élans du coeur irréfléchis, ou le suivisme conformiste sur fond de parallèle historique hystérique.

Car les Français ont payé très cher pour apprendre et ne plus croire le discours des apprentis sorciers. Les déclarations extatiques sur l’immigration «chance pour la France» ou sur l’islam, forcément , toujours et encore «religion de paix». La manière dont on moqua les «fantasmes» de bouleversements démographiques pour expliquer un beau matin qu’il était trop tard pour regarder en arrière la France des clochers, puisque la France était devenue «multiculturelle».

Les premiers responsables de l’impossibilité d’accueillir tous ceux qui le mériteraient sont à rechercher chez ceux qui ont fait échouer une immigration bien tempérée et une intégration nécessaire.
Alors oui, les Français ne croient plus dans les paroles verbales de la gauche gauchisante. Ils savent qu’à côté de populations terriblement souffrantes-et à qui ils veulent apporter assistance-se trouvent d’autres populations qui aspirent à profiter d’une Europe aujourd’hui saturée et appauvrie.

Ils savent que tous les réfugiés ne sont pas des résistants anti-islamistes, et que certains même sont des djihadistes envoyés par l’État Islamique, comme ces quatre arrêtés il y a quelques jours à la frontière bulgare, et qui pourront peut-être aussi causer des morts à immortaliser sur papier glacé.

Ils savent-exactement comme les forceurs de clôtures- l’Europe faible, et ses frontières totalement battues en brèche, enfoncées, niées . Ils savent qu’en dépit ou à cause des quotas accordés (qui en eux-mêmes seraient supportables), les déboutés du droit d’asile, piétineront les frontières délibérément violées et outragées.

Ils savent, que les politiciens tétanisés et les fonctionnaires émasculés, n’exécutent plus ou presque les arrêtés d’expulsion qui s’imposent pourtant, précisément pour autoriser, valider et légitimer l’arrivée légale des bénéficiaires du droit au refuge.

Ainsi donc, les premiers responsables de l’impossibilité d’accueillir tous ceux qui le mériteraient sont à rechercher chez ceux qui ont fait échouer une immigration bien tempérée et une intégration nécessaire.

Ils l’ont fait échouer, parce qu’au fond d’eux-mêmes, même s’ils se refusent encore à le reconnaître, ils récusent la notion éculée à leurs yeux de nation, et obscène d’État-nation disposant de frontières, et de sa corollaire légale, le droit existentiel pour un peuple souverain de réguler souverainement les flux migratoires.

Les Français qui ont conscience de voir leurs droits foulées aux pieds, sont -ils sans conscience?

Un dernier mot: l’ONU, à l’efficacité bien connue , voudrait imposer à l’Europe l’accueil de 200 000 migrants. Curieusement, elle ne demande aucun effort aux pays arabes du golfe.

Depuis deux ans, et notamment dans ces colonnes, je m’épuise régulièrement, mais bien seul, a demander pour quelles raisons ces pays désertiques et richissimes n’accueillent pas chez eux des populations souffrantes avec lesquels les unissent des liens ethniques, linguistiques, religieux et culturels fraternels. Ils devraient être à d’autant plus enclins à le faire, que leur responsabilité dans la montée de l’islamisme est certainement plus grande que tout ce que les esprits les plus torturés en Europe pourraient reprocher aux occidentaux.

« Je veux que les gouvernements arabes, pas les pays européens, voient ce qui est arrivé à mes enfants et, en leur nom, qu’ils apportent leur aide »

Le père du petit Aylan Kurdi
Mais les malheureux réfugiés ne songent pas un seul instant à frais à frapper à une porte qu’ils savent de bois massif.

On ne voit d’ailleurs pas pourquoi royaumes et émirats se feraient violence, puisque les Européens eux-mêmes préfèrent se fustiger plutôt que de les inviter à l’hospitalité.

Et ceux qui ici osent en France le faire remarquer sont durement rappelés à l’ordre et aux convenances.

C’est ainsi qu’un prénommé Bruno-Roger, que je ne nommerai pas, petit journaliste mais grand dresseur de listes, m’a maudit sur un site, précisément parce que j’avais commis, à la télévision, ce crime de lèse-majesté envers ces potentats manquant d’humanité.

Me traitant d’«avocat réactionnaire» (sans doute pour me plaire) et même de «droitard»… Rien à faire, ce garçon écrit comme un gauchon.

Sur le fond, je me contenterai de citer quelqu’un que j’estime plus qualifié que lui. Le père du petit Aylan Kurdi: «je veux que les gouvernements arabes, pas les pays européens, voient ce qui est arrivé à mes enfants et, en leur nom, qu’ils apportent leur aide» (TF1, reportage de Laurent Hauben le 4 septembre 20h , le Figaro le 5 septembre page5)

Ce vœu d’un père éploré, devant la tombe de son petit , n’accablant pas les seuls occidentaux, n’était sans doute pas suffisamment pieux pour intéresser le reste de cette presse bien-pensante et consciencieuse qui ne pratique que la religion de mortifier les consciences européennes.

Laisser un commentaire

Entrez vos coordonnées ci-dessous ou cliquez sur une icône pour vous connecter:

Logo WordPress.com

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte WordPress.com. Déconnexion / Changer )

Image Twitter

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Twitter. Déconnexion / Changer )

Photo Facebook

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Facebook. Déconnexion / Changer )

Photo Google+

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Google+. Déconnexion / Changer )

Connexion à %s

%d blogueurs aiment cette page :