Vandalisme: Il est inadmissible que l’art subisse l’obscurantisme de quelques-uns (How about a giant penis on Washington’s Mall shooting semen right across the Lincoln Memorial ?)

16 septembre, 2015
Anish-Kapoor-“Dirty-Corner”

Indian-born British artist Anish Kapoor's "Shooting into the Corner" creation is seen in the Jeu de Paume at the Chateau de Versailles, in Versailles, France, June 5, 2015. The "Kapoor Versailles" exhibition of the artist's work runs from June 9 to November 1. REUTERS/Charles Platiau

VersaillesVagin-de-la-reine-2
Depuis que l’ordre religieux est ébranlé – comme le christianisme le fut sous la Réforme – les vices ne sont pas seuls à se trouver libérés. Certes les vices sont libérés et ils errent à l’aventure et ils font des ravages. Mais les vertus aussi sont libérées et elles errent, plus farouches encore, et elles font des ravages plus terribles encore. Le monde moderne est envahi des veilles vertus chrétiennes devenues folles. Les vertus sont devenues folles pour avoir été isolées les unes des autres, contraintes à errer chacune en sa solitude. Chesterton
L’inauguration majestueuse de l’ère « post-chrétienne » est une plaisanterie. Nous sommes dans un ultra-christianisme caricatural qui essaie d’échapper à l’orbite judéo-chrétienne en « radicalisant » le souci des victimes dans un sens antichrétien. (…) Jusqu’au nazisme, le judaïsme était la victime préférentielle de ce système de bouc émissaire. Le christianisme ne venait qu’en second lieu. Depuis l’Holocauste , en revanche, on n’ose plus s’en prendre au judaïsme, et le christianisme est promu au rang de bouc émissaire numéro un. (…) Le mouvement antichrétien le plus puissant est celui qui réassume et « radicalise » le souci des victimes pour le paganiser. (…) Comme les Eglises chrétiennes ont pris conscience tardivement de leurs manquements à la charité, de leur connivence avec l’ordre établi, dans le monde d’hier et d’aujourd’hui, elles sont particulièrement vulnérables au chantage permanent auquel le néopaganisme contemporain les soumet. René Girard
La société du spectacle, [selon] Roger Caillois qui analyse la dimension ludique dans la culture (…), c’est la dimension inoffensive de la cérémonie primitive. Autrement dit lorsqu’on est privé du mythe, les paroles sacrées qui donnent aux œuvres pouvoir sur la réalité, le rite se réduit à un ensemble réglés d’actes désormais inefficaces qui aboutissent finalement à un pur jeu, loedos. Il donne un exemple qui est extraordinaire, il dit qu’au fond les gens qui jouent au football aujourd’hui, qui lancent un ballon en l’air ne font que répéter sur un mode ludique, jocus, ou loedos, société du spectacle, les grands mythes anciens de la naissance du soleil dans les sociétés où le sacré avait encore une valeur. (…) Nous vivons sur l’idée de Malraux – l’art, c’est ce qui reste quand la religion a disparu. Jean Clair
Pourquoi l’avant-garde a-t-elle été fascinée par le meurtre et a fait des criminels ses héros , de Sade aux sœurs Papin, et de l’horreur ses délices, du supplice des Cent morceaux en Chine à l’apologie du crime rituel chez Bataille, alors que dans l’Ancien Monde, ces choses là étaient tenues en horreur? (…) Il en résulte que la fascination des surréalistes ne s’est jamais éteinte dans le petit milieu de l’ intelligentsia parisienne de mai 1968 au maoïsme des années 1970. De l’admiration de Michel Foucault pour ‘l’ermite de Neauphle-le-Château’ et pour la ‘révolution’ iranienne à… Jean Baudrillard et à son trouble devant les talibans, trois générations d’intellectuels ont été élevées au lait surréaliste. De là notre silence et notre embarras. Jean Clair
Tout est parti d’une plaisanterie : à l’origine, je trouvais que le plug anal avait une forme similaire aux sculptures de Brancusi. Après, je me suis rendu compte que cela ressemblait à un arbre de Noël. Mais c’est une œuvre abstraite. Les gens peuvent être offensés s’ils veulent se référer au plug, mais pour moi, c’est plus proche d’une abstraction. Paul McCarthy 
Bien sûr que cette œuvre est polémique, qu’elle joue sur l’ambiguïté entre un arbre de Noël et un plug : ce n’est ni une surprise, ni un secret. Mais il n’y a aucune offense au public, et suffisamment d’ambiguïté pour ne pas choquer les enfants. Cette œuvre a d’ailleurs reçu toutes les autorisations nécessaires : de la Préfecture de police, de la mairie de Paris, et du ministère de la Culture, en lien avec le Comité Vendôme qui regroupe les commerçants de la place. A quoi sert l’art si ce n’est de troubler, de poser des questions, de révéler des failles de la société ?  Jennifer Flay (directrice artistique de la Fiac)
La France sera toujours aux côtés des artistes comme je le suis aux côtés de Paul McCarthy, qui a été finalement souillé dans son oeuvre, quel que soit le regard que l’on pouvait porter sur elle. Nous devons toujours respecter le travail des artistes. François Hollande
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
Les romans et le cinéma ont déjà tendance à «coller à l’actu» d’une façon qui rend leur propos poisseux de ces sentiments qu’on appelle vendeurs, mais le clip composé par le chanteur Lalanne sous le titre ultra-original «plus jamais ça» (on se demande pourquoi il n’a pas ajouté «Madame Michu») mérite d’être considéré comme le symptôme d’une décadence artistique liée à la tyrannie de l’information. (…) C’est du «sampling» affectif. L’auteur «mixe». Il s’agit de prolonger une émotion déjà éprouvée au lieu de la fabriquer de toutes pièces en utilisant les plus petites briques du grand Lego de la création.Normalement la mission de l’artiste est justement de bâtir un palais inconnu à partir de presque rien, pas d’assembler la maison de Barbie, pas de commenter ce qu’a dit le journal, pas de colorier un album imprimé. Dans le cas qui nous occupe, l’auteur de la chanson plante son drapeau sur une construction déjà prête, fournie par les médias trois jours avant, et dont on a lieu de penser qu’elle a rendu le public réceptif au thème choisi. En termes de marketing on dit que c’est «chaud», ou «chaud-bouillant». Profiter de la noyade d’un enfant syrien, et de l’émotion qu’elle suscite, pour ajouter son filet de voix à la clameur générale, c’est à la fois facile et navrant. Il y a, dans cette hâte, dans cette tentation permanente du scoop émotionnel , quelque chose d’obscène au sens propre . C’est impudique, les intentions cachées dépassent de partout, on voit toutes les coutures, on imagine le producteur téléphonant «c’est bon ça, c’est porteur, mais il faut faire vite, tu vas te faire piquer le sujet». On a beau ménager la part de sincérité de l’artiste, sincérité reconnue même si elle est assez lourdaude, on se dit que le système quant à lui n’en a aucune et qu’il fait feu de tout bois. En tout cas la vigueur des commentaires que suscite ce détournement émotionnel témoigne que les gens n’ont plus aucune patience à l’égard des apitoiements sur ordonnance. Christian Combaz
Les élus socialistes du conseil municipal de Versailles sont profondément indignés par les dégradations commises sur l’œuvre d’Anish Kapoor. Il est inadmissible que l’art, vecteur d’émancipation, subisse l’obscurantisme de quelques-uns. La liberté d’expression est une valeur fondamentale de notre République et toute atteinte qui lui est portée doit être condamnée avec la plus grande fermeté. Isabelle Saint-Jean
Mes racines sont multiples. Je suis Irakien et juif par ma mère, hindou par mon père, Britannique par ma culture, ma vie, ma pratique. Et soudain, on me ramène à une catégorie; Je suis convaincu qu’il ne faut rien retirer de ces insultes, de ces mots propres à l’antisémitisme que l’on voudrait aussitôt oublier. Désormais, ces mots infamants font partie de mon oeuvre, la dépassent, la stigmatisent au nom de nos principes universels (…) « Dirty Corner » restera donc ainsi, de notre décision commune, et se montrera ainsi aux visiteurs et aux touristes de Versailles. Voilà ce qui conduit à l’exclusion de nos frères et soeurs syriens. Honte sur la France du seul fait d’une minorité pleine de haine!  Anish Kapoor
Les œuvres d’art sont parfois des catalyseurs pour de plus grands malaises de la société. Mon Dirty Corner de Versailles a subi ce destin. Il a été rabaissé dans la presse en «Vagin de la Reine» ou «Vagin sur le Gazon» et a, semble-il, offensé une frange de l’extrême droite française. En art, ce que vous voyez n’est pas ce que pensez voir. La ressemblance exacte de l’objet d’art nous trompe; Ceci n’est pas une pipe de René Magritte nous rappelle qu’une bonne œuvre d’art a quantité d’interprétations et pas une seule. La voix malveillante de quelques-uns a trop dominé le débat et même attiré dans leur camp des gens de bonne volonté. Cela a résulté en un acte de vandalisme. J’hérite d’un débat personnel: comment dois-je réagir? Doit-on retirer la peinture qui a été jetée sur l’ensemble de l’œuvre? Ou doit-elle rester et devenir une part de l’œuvre? Est-ce que cette violence politique qui s’exprime à travers le vandalisme rend plus sale mon Dirty Corner (Coin sale, en anglais)? Est-ce que ce sale acte politique reflète les sales politiques d’exclusion, de marginalisation, d’élitisme, de racisme, d’islamophobie, etc … La question que je me pose est la suivante: Est-ce que moi, artiste, je peux transformer un vil acte de vandalisme politique en acte créatif, esthétique et public? Ne serait-ce pas la meilleure vengeance? En posant cette question, je suis conscient du pouvoir de l’art et de toutes les capacités qu’il offre. Dirty Corner est par certains aspects un acte de violence artistique. Il tente de mettre à nu la surface ordonnée du Versailles de Le Nôtre. Il engage un dialogue qui bouscule la géométrie rigide de Versailles. Il regarde sous le tapis de Le Nôtre, sous son Tapis Vert, et nous permet de voir ce qui y est d’inconfortable, de sexuel. La violence politique n’est pas la même que la violence artistique. Ce vandalisme politique se sert d’un «matériel artistique» (la peinture) pour en faire une violence bien réelle. Cela aurait pu être une bombe ou une cagoule jetée sur la tête de quelqu’on kidnappe. La violence artistique entend générer quelque chose , la violence politique détruit. la violence artistique peut heurter de ses cris la tradition des générations antérieures. Cela peut retourner violemment ce qui existait au préalable , mais en ce faisant, suit une longue tradition de régénération. Toujours, elle fait avancer le langage de l’art. La violence politique cherche à effacer. Son argument est d’effacer une idée offensante, une personne offensante, une pratique offensante ou une chose offensante. Les visions politiques simplistes sont offensées par le désordre de l’art. Dans ce contexte, l’art est vu comme obscène et doit être détruit. Anish Kapoor
 It is as if an unmade bed by Tracey Emin had been installed in this anniversary year at Runnymede with an angled phallus pointing in the presumed direction of Magna Carta’s mediating Archbishop, the thoughtful Stephen Langton, and ejaculating shaving foam every twenty minutes to symbolise pressure from each of the obstreperous barons. (…) I do not accept Kapoor’s argument that Le Nôtre’s master design was itself intrusive on the landscape and so he, Kapoor, is forcing us to recognise Le Nôtre’s art by being monumentally intrusive into Le Nôtre’s own creation. Unlike Le Nôtre, Kapoor is working within a master-design, flanked by classicising white statues of Artemis and the personified figure of Revelry. That design was brilliantly conceived as a unity by Le Nôtre. “VQ” is an execrable intruder, not a forcible wake-up call. Robin Lane Fox
Cette fois, l’Art dit contemporain, l’AC, celui qui est officiel et financier, est pris à son propre piège. Car l’artiste affirme refuser qu’on enlève ces graffitis qui font désormais partie de l’œuvre. Le ministère entend respecter la liberté de création de l’artiste. Voilà donc un artiste qui crée par vandalisme interposé, ce qui est courant dans l‘AC où tout peut devenir art, du moment qu’un artiste le proclame et qu’une autorité ratifie. Nombre de ses confrères, habiles au jeu de la provocation institutionnalisée, ont pris l’habitude de considérer que l’œuvre du vandale complète la leur. Kapoor, star de l’AC, est ici logique: ayant déclaré vouloir semer le chaos à Versailles, il a récolté deux tempêtes peinturlurées. Une agression bien gérée rapporte des dividendes: un acte de vandalisme brandi comme un trophée attire les médias, donc donne de la notoriété qui renforce la cote… Christine Sourgins

Attention: un vandalisme peut en cacher un autre !

A l’heure où, en une Europe submergée par une véritable invasion de migrants irréguliers criant Allah akbar …

Ou en un Etat dont on propose de financer l’annihilation, au nom du même Allah,  par l’un de ses voisins …

Il est désormais considéré raciste et malséant, pour le cobayes forcés que nous sommes, de s’inquiéter des conséquences de plus en plus désastreuses des expériences de sociologie à ciel ouvert de nos apprentis-sorciers de dirigeants …

Comment ne pas voir avec la sociologue Christine Sourgins et la critique d’art du Financial Times Robin Lane Fox …

Le véritable vandalisme d’un art contemporain …

Qui jouant les victimes et la carte de la provocation institutionnalisée pour faire accessoirement monter sa cote …

« Réveille non seulement les vieux démons pour le plaisir de les exhiber » …

Mais profane en fait, à travers le saccage certes temporaire des oeuvres d’un le Nôtre ou d’un Jules Hardouin-Mansart face à la salle du Serment du jeu de paume ou au Ministère de la Justice

(Imagine-t-on la réaction de nos amis anglais ou américains si un pénis géant venait à cracher son sperme sur Buckingham palace ou le Lincoln Memorial ? )

Le passé et les valeurs partagées de tout un peuple  ?

Kapoor à Versailles : le jackpot du scandale
Christine Sourgins
Le Figaro

11/09/2015

Christine Sourgins estime que les inscriptions qui ont défiguré l’installation d’Anish Kapoor à Versailles permettent de faire grimper la cote d’un artiste à qui le scandale bénéficie.
Christine Sourgins est historienne de l’art et médiéviste.

A nouveau la sculpture monumentale d’Anish Kapoor à Versailles «Dirty corner» a été vandalisée. Dans la nuit du 5 septembre, des inscriptions «à caractère antisémite» ont maculé cette trompe d’acier, s’en prenant aussi aux «tradis», tandis que les capitales de «Sacrifice Sanglant» exhibent le sigle SS de sinistre mémoire… Mais cette fois, l’Art dit contemporain, l’AC, celui qui est officiel et financier, est pris à son propre piège.

Car l’artiste affirme refuser qu’on enlève ces graffitis qui font désormais partie de l’œuvre. Le ministère entend respecter la liberté de création de l’artiste. Voilà donc un artiste qui crée par vandalisme interposé, ce qui est courant dans l‘AC où tout peut devenir art, du moment qu’un artiste le proclame et qu’une autorité ratifie. Nombre de ses confrères, habiles au jeu de la provocation institutionnalisée, ont pris l’habitude de considérer que l’œuvre du vandale complète la leur. Kapoor, star de l’AC, est ici logique: ayant déclaré vouloir semer le chaos à Versailles, il a récolté deux tempêtes peinturlurées. Une agression bien gérée rapporte des dividendes: un acte de vandalisme brandi comme un trophée attire les médias, donc donne de la notoriété qui renforce la cote…

Tout cela ne se déroule pas dans le parc d’un milliardaire capricieux et cynique: dans un espace privé on pourrait, à la rigueur, tolérer des entorses à la loi commune (et encore, la jurisprudence ne l’entend pas ainsi). Mais à Versailles, nous sommes dans un monument national, géré par des fonctionnaires au nom du peuple français, lui-même régi par des lois. Dont la loi Gayssot qui réprime fortement toute incitation à la haine raciale ou antisémite: il est donc inimaginable qu’un Etat de droit laisse à la vue de tous des inscriptions qu’il déclare infamantes. Et ce ne sont pas les «panneaux explicatifs», promis par le ministère, qui transmuteront, par la magie du nominalisme, l’offense en pédagogie.

Par conséquent, si on reconnait à l’artiste le droit de continuer à compléter son œuvre en y incorporant des propos punis par la loi, «Dirty corner» doit être immédiatement démontée car elle offense et les citoyens et la loi: elle doit quitter Versailles. Ou bien une palissade pourrait dissimuler le délit, et donc cacher l’œuvre de Kapoor qui s’en fait le support. On voit dans quelle pétaudière juridique se sont mis les organisateurs de ce supposé dialogue entre un certain art contemporain, l’AC, et le patrimoine.

Mais allons plus loin. Quand on nous dit que des actes de vandalismes prouvent qu’une œuvre est réussie car elle fait réagir et donne à penser. «Dirty corner» démontre le contraire: elle réveille les vieux démons pour le plaisir de les exhiber. L’AC sécrète des réactions idiotes, viscérales, chez certains détracteurs mais tout autant chez certains partisans: cet art contemporain-là hystérise la vie sociale. On peine à rapporter qu’un des admirateurs de Kapoor ait osé comparer des injures verbales avec le saccage de Palmyre! Rappelons que Kapoor a encore la tête sur les épaules, tandis que le malheureux archéologue qui défendait le patrimoine antique contre Daech l’a payé de sa vie. Ce genre de comparaison outrancière montre que l’AC est un incitateur à l’exaltation extrémiste. L’artiste lui-même, en déclarant «honte sur la France», sombre dans ce qu’il est convenu d’appeler l’amalgame, jugeant des millions de personnes d’après l’acte d’un seul ou d’une poignée. L’AC nous emporte vers un gouffre de bêtise, grondant comme le vortex que l’artiste a installé dans les jardins du Roi.

Finalement, une profanation fonctionne comme un bon plan média, Kapoor, vandalisé le 5 septembre, démarre une nouvelle exposition le 10 au couvent de la Tourette dans la cadre de la Biennale d’art contemporain de Lyon. Lors de la Fiac 2014, le Plug de McCarthy avait été vandalisé place Vendôme et le brouhaha médiatique avait judicieusement lancé son exposition à la Monnaie…où McCarthy avait, lui aussi, transformé l’attaque en oeuvre.

Invectives et indignations sur-jouées serviraient-elles à cacher les vraies questions? Après le premier acte de vandalisme, l’Etat avait renforcé la surveillance. Il est bizarre qu’un vandale ait pu écrire autant d’inscriptions, car il y en a beaucoup, sans être inquiété dans un pays qui est en alerte rouge avec le plan vigipirate. Cela pose un sérieux problème de sécurité.

Autre question gênante, qu’un artiste désormais martyr de l’AC s’empressera de trouver indécente: celle des conditions de réalisation de l’exposition versaillaise qui semble avoir été ouverte sans autorisation. Kapoor a imposé d’amples travaux de terrassements: une plainte pour dégradation de monument historique a été déposée, une enquête préliminaire est en cours…Vraiment ce second acte de vandalisme tombe à pic. Comment demander des comptes à un malheureux artiste «agressé»? Il serait temps aussi que toutes ces expositions d’AC, dans lesquelles l’argent du contribuable est engagé puisqu’on touche à un monument national, soient accomplies en toute transparence financière…historiens de l’art et sociologues le réclament en vain depuis des années.

Voir aussi:

Le Nôtre’s masterpiece vs Anish Kapoor’s ‘Dirty Corner’
Robin Lane Fox

The Financial Times
July 10, 2015

The artist’s Versailles exhibition caps a bad year for the greatest of landscape gardeners

Ihereby found a Society for the Protection of André Le Nôtre. It has been an awful year for the greatest of landscape designers. He has just been slandered in film. An item crucial to one of his masterpieces is at risk of disfigurement by a car-park. Another has been inaccurately restored in “honour” of the tri-centenary of his death. His most famous vista is being wrecked by misplaced contemporary art. Le Nôtre’s great gardens include many V-words, words such as Versailles or Vaux le Vicomte. Not until this summer’s cultural patronage have they been disfigured by another, an intruder which politely, for reasons explained below, I will abbreviate as VQ.

First, the ordeal by film. In English cinemas it was entitled A Little Chaos, but in French, tellingly, Les Jardins du Roi. Maybe you would smile if you too were represented at the age of 40 when you were actually over 65 and then shown as seducing Kate Winslet at the height of her acting powers. You would, however, sue if you were at the summit of your talent, recently returned from Italy, about to design two brilliant royal bosquets at Versailles but were presented to millions of film-goers as if you needed the inspiration of a pushy young lady designer whose only achievement, a little back garden, intrigued you by resembling a yard in Los Angeles three hundred years after your death.

Patricia Dechin is the celebrated expert on Le Nôtre’s life. She confirms to me that female gardeners did indeed have important official roles in parts of Versailles’s garden, but Le Nôtre would never have delegated to them the right to design for the King. “A missed opportunity,” she magnanimously concludes, while observing that bits of the film were shot at Blenheim Park but not in its formal parterre garden. “Dommage,” she remarks, as the parterre at Blenheim was modelled on designs at Versailles.

At Sceaux, near Paris, the “anniversary restoration” of a Le Nôtre design in 2013 has been much publicised, but it is based on its architect’s reworking of an 18th-century melange and is not the master’s design at all. At Chantilly, the commune has just floated a plan of consummate philistinism, a parking-lot in the remains of Le Nôtre’s original reservoir, an integral part of the original water systems that enabled his beautiful landscape. Above all, consider, but this year, avoid, Versailles.

©Fabrice Seixas‘C-Curve’ (2007), by Anish Kapoor
I fear artworks by Sir Anish Kapoor will be in situ here until November. On the way up to the château, the former Tennis Court, the Jeu de Paume, is one of the holy spaces in all political experience. There, on June 20, 1789, more than six hundred French deputies of the “Third Estate” swore their oath that as a new National Assembly they would continue to reassemble “until the constitution of the Kingdom is established”. Like Magna Carta, this oath was a check on royal power. Like that Charter, its fame increased far beyond the participants’ aims. Push open the Tennis Court door in homage this year, however, and you will find a sort of gun which Kapoor has himself called “phallic”. It is shooting red wax across the floor to symbolise human blood and entrails. It is as if an unmade bed by Tracey Emin had been installed in this anniversary year at Runnymede with an angled phallus pointing in the presumed direction of Magna Carta’s mediating Archbishop, the thoughtful Stephen Langton, and ejaculating shaving foam every twenty minutes to symbolise pressure from each of the obstreperous barons.

The Tennis Court is not the garden. However, on the garden’s main terrace, blocking the view of the greatest royal façade in the world, Kapoor has installed “C-Curve”, a semicircular strip of shining mirror, one side of which makes spectators look as if they are upside down, the other as if they are taller. In my youth, we paid 6d to look into “fat” and “thin” mirrors, never on the terrace of Windsor Castle but at the merry old English circus. Seen from the garden, Kapoor’s gleaming “C-Curve” looks as if GCHQ has installed a dish to monitor rumours that the King’s former mistress, Mme de Pompadour, has been tweeting an Ottoman Turk.

©Fabrice Seixas/Kapoor Studio‘Descension’ (2014), by Anish Kapoor
On Versailles’s main axial view Kapoor is concerned not to detract but to jolt us by ugliness and incongruity so that we think and see differently. Until November 1, his now-infamous installation, “Dirty Corner” will be ruining the line and perspective of this sublime landscape. In an interview, Kapoor is reported as referring to this artwork as “vagina of the Queen”, or “VQ”. Perhaps queens’ v-words were differently shaped before the shock of 1792, but this monstrous metal trumpet is backed by a rusty-coloured drainpipe and flanked by huge heaps of earth and rocks and red plastic blocks to signify yet more entrails. Its fluted entry-point looks like the gramophone-trumpet by which that white dog used to sit in the adverts for old HMV. I doubt if un fox-terrier blanc ever sat by the French queen’s V with an ear cocked, even on a chilly night beneath the blankets while the King was busied elsewhere in Versailles. I do not accept Kapoor’s argument that Le Nôtre’s master design was itself intrusive on the landscape and so he, Kapoor, is forcing us to recognise Le Nôtre’s art by being monumentally intrusive into Le Nôtre’s own creation. Unlike Le Nôtre, Kapoor is working within a master-design, flanked by classicising white statues of Artemis and the personified figure of Revelry. That design was brilliantly conceived as a unity by Le Nôtre. “VQ” is an execrable intruder, not a forcible wake-up call.

Two days after my visit vandals threw paint all over the trumpet. I swear, with a Tennis-court oath, that I did not do it. Vandalism is not the right response to the rape of a defenceless genius. Beyond Kapoor’s dirty tunnel stretches Le Nôtre’s superb pond with a fountain of Apollo in his chariot. In the distance shines his formal sheet of water, but as never before this holy place is thunderously noisy. The rumpus is all Kapoor’s, with his “Descension”, an insolently placed pool of water, swirled around by power as if it is gurgling down a bath plug. The worst of the noise comes from the nearby generator that has to power it. Join my new society and you can ballot for the chance after November 1 to feed bits of the Queen’s V down the bath plug and block it into silence. Meanwhile, give Versailles a miss until 2016.

Read Jackie Wullschlager’s review of Anish Kapoor at Versailles at ft.com/kapoor

Voir également:

Anish Kapoor vandalisé à Versailles: sa «profession de foi»
Valérie Duponchelle
Le Figaro
19/06/2015
INFO LE FIGARO – Alors que l’artiste anglo-indien est venu aujourd’hui de Londres à Versailles pour constater les dégâts causés par les vandales sur son oeuvre Dirty Corner, il fait part au Figaro de son «Statement», une lettre ouverte et une réflexion sur l’art, ses polémiques et leur symbolique.

Anish Kapoor était aujourd’hui à Versailles, comme Le Figaro l’a annoncé hier en exclusivité sur son site. L’artiste anglo-indien dont l’oeuvre polémique Dirty Corner a été vandalisée, vraisemblablement très tôt mercredi matin, est venu constater lui-même les dégâts.

D’après les premières photos prises sur le vif, ces dégâts semblent importants et induisent une quantité non négligeable de peinture jaune qui a maculé une sculpture pourtant gigantesque. Comment est-elle entrée dans le Domaine royal? Sous quelle forme? Par quelles mains et par combien de personnes? L’enquête qui découlera de la plainte déposée par Catherine Pégard, présidente de l’établissement public du château, du musée et du domaine national de Versailles, devra établir ces faits.

L’artiste, qui nous avait répondu dès mercredi soir, dans un entretien spontané, mesuré quoique sous le choc de la nouvelle, a décidé d’écrire plus au calme ce que lui inspire ce fait français devenu un fait divers qui interroge le monde de l’art et fait le tour des capitales, du New York Times à The Guardian. Voici donc, en avant-première, ce «Statement» d’un artiste britannique passionné de politique, une expression sacro-sainte chère à l’art contemporain et à ses codes. Une profession de foi, en somme . La voici, in extenso:

«Les œuvres d’art sont parfois des catalyseurs pour de plus grands malaises de la société. Mon Dirty Corner de Versailles a subi ce destin. Il a été rabaissé dans la presse en «Vagin de la Reine» ou «Vagin sur le Gazon» et a, semble-il, offensé une frange de l’extrême droite française.

En art, ce que vous voyez n’est pas ce que pensez voir («What you see is not What you get», littéralement en anglais, NDLR). La ressemblance exacte de l’objet d’art nous trompe; Ceci n’est pas une pipe de René Magritte nous rappelle qu’une bonne œuvre d’art a quantité d’interprétations et pas une seule.

«Est-ce que moi, artiste, je peux transformer un vil acte de vandalisme politique en acte créatif, esthétique et public ? Ne serait-ce pas la meilleure vengeance ?»

Anish Kapoor
La voix malveillante de quelques-uns a trop dominé le débat et même attiré dans leur camp des gens de bonne volonté. Cela a résulté en un acte de vandalisme. J’hérite d’un débat personnel: comment dois-je réagir? Doit-on retirer la peinture qui a été jetée sur l’ensemble de l’œuvre? Ou doit-elle rester et devenir une part de l’œuvre? Est-ce que cette violence politique qui s’exprime à travers le vandalisme rend plus sale mon Dirty Corner (Coin sale, en anglais)? Est-ce que ce sale acte politique reflète les sales politiques d’exclusion, de marginalisation, d’élitisme, de racisme, d’islamophobie, etc …

La question que je me pose est la suivante: Est-ce que moi, artiste, je peux transformer un vil acte de vandalisme politique en acte créatif, esthétique et public? Ne serait-ce pas la meilleure vengeance?

En posant cette question, je suis conscient du pouvoir de l’art et de toutes les capacités qu’il offre. Dirty Corner est par certains aspects un acte de violence artistique. Il tente de mettre à nu la surface ordonnée du Versailles de Le Nôtre. Il engage un dialogue qui bouscule la géométrie rigide de Versailles. Il regarde sous le tapis de Le Nôtre, sous son Tapis Vert, et nous permet de voir ce qui y est d’inconfortable, de sexuel.

La violence politique n’est pas la même que la violence artistique. Ce vandalisme politique se sert d’un «matériel artistique» (la peinture) pour en faire une violence bien réelle. Cela aurait pu être une bombe ou une cagoule jetée sur la tête de quelqu’on kidnappe.

La violence artistique entend générer quelque chose , la violence politique détruit. la violence artistique peut heurter de ses cris la tradition des générations antérieures. Cela peut retourner violemment ce qui existait au préalable , mais en ce faisant, suit une longue tradition de régénération. Toujours, elle fait avancer le langage de l’art.

La violence politique cherche à effacer. Son argument est d’effacer une idée offensante, une personne offensante, une pratique offensante ou une chose offensante. Les visions politiques simplistes sont offensées par le désordre de l’art. Dans ce contexte, l’art est vu comme obscène et doit être détruit».

Anish Kapoor, 19 juin 2015

Voir encore:

Versailles : cinq choses à savoir sur Anish Kapoor
Valérie Duponchelle
Le Figaro

08/06/2015

Portrait en cinq indices de l’artiste star dont l’œuvre Dirty Corner a déclenché le scandale à Versailles en osant mettre au jour le souterrain de l’inconscient au cœur du domaine royal.
De notre envoyée spéciale à Londres

1. Un melting pot à lui tout seul

Anish Kapoor est né à Bombay (aujourd’hui Mumbaï) en 1954 d’un père hindou et d’une mère juive dont la famille a quitté Bagdad, en Irak, lorsqu’elle n’avait que quelques mois. Son grand-père maternel, cantor de la synagogue à Pune (Maharashtra), chantait la liturgie. Le jeune Anish a voyagé en Israël au début des années 1970 avec l’un de ses deux frères et fait l’expérience du kibboutz.

Après avoir commencé des études d’ingénieur, il s’est réorienté vers une vie d’artiste. Il a été recalé aux Beaux-Arts en Israël, d’où son départ pour Londres en 1973 où il a suivi les cours du Hornsey College of Art et de la Chelsea School of Art and Design. Sa rencontre avec l’artiste d’origine roumaine, Paul Neagu, a été déterminante. Il vit à Londres depuis lors et, parfait gentleman, parle d’une belle voix profonde avec un accent «upper class». En 2013, il a été anobli par SM la Reine et est devenu sir Anish Kapoor.

2. Un homme tenace que rien n’arrête

«Ce qui m’étonne quand je vais dans l’atelier d’Anish Kapoor, c’est qu’il y a presque toujours des oeuvres nouvelles, parfois extrêmement désarmantes et mauvaises, comme en 2008, ces petits tas infects de ciment qui me laissaient perplexe. Je lui disais: «c’est raté!». Il me répondait: «oui, ce n’est pas du tout réussi». Et ces petits tas informes sont devenus des sculptures incroyables, des concrétions qui avaient l’air extraites de la nature même. Anish Kapoor, c’est cela, chercher, chercher encore, jusqu’à ce que son idée prenne forme», nous raconte son grand ami Jean de Loisy, PDG du Palais de Tokyo, commissaire de sa rétrospective à la Royal Academy of Arts de Londres en 2009 et de son «Kapoor Monumenta» au Grand Palais en 2011. «Aujourd’hui, il est dans une phase intense de peinture d’une intensité bouleversante, presque charnelle. Au début, c’étaient juste des amas de pâtes rouges. Aujourd’hui, ce sont des toiles admirables, une expression nouvelle qui n’est pas de l’ordre de la peinture ou de la sculpture, mais vraiment de la chair».

3 – Un artiste à double face

Tout artiste, surtout s’il a une vision et l’envergure dévorante qui l’accompagne, est un personnage complexe. Anish Kapoor fait partie de ces Janus surprenants et, soudain, presque inquiétants. Il passe ainsi de la séduction millimétrée d’un disque concave scintillant comme une illusion… au plus organique, au plus souterrain, au plus chaotique des mondes. On le vérifie à Versailles! Son exposition commence par un C-Curve, 2007, un mur miroir posé sur la terrasse du château, et un Sky Mirror, 2013, campé sur le Parterre d’eau, qui reflètent l’architecture et les jardins, le ciel et la terre, les milliers de touristes et leurs selfies. Elle devient plus agressive avec son Dirty Cornerqui «écorche le Tapis Vert» par son savant gigantisme, avec son canon à cire Shooting in the Corner qui met le fracas des armes dans la Salle du Jeu de Paume, avec son Sectional Body Preparing for Monadic Singularity, 2015, dans le Bosquet de l’Etoile, labyrinthe vertical et petit frère cubique du Leviathan monumental au Grand Palais en 2011.

4 – Un infatigable conquistador

Anish Kapoor a représenté la Grande-Bretagne à la Biennale de Venise en 1990. Il a remporté le prestigieux Turner Prize en 1991. Son Cloud Gate monumental a marqué la ville de Chicago et son Leviathan au Grand Palais a décroché un succès record pour «Monumenta» en 2011 (500 000 visiteurs!). Le marché de l’art se l’arrache. Au dîner de gala dimanche soir à l’Orangerie de Versailles, quatre galeries pour le représenter et le revendiquer: Kamel Mennour, son allié français qui l’a soutenu, jour après jour pendant un montage digne des Travaux d’Hercule, mais aussi la galerie Continua qui va fêter ses 25 ans en septembre, la Lisson Gallery, référence de Londres, et la galerie Barbara Gladstone, référence de New York. «Anish dit toujours: «I want to go for it!», et il le fait, il ne recule jamais devant l’obstacle. Il est gai, courtois, drôle, séduisant, gourmet… et, soudain, terrible!», nous raconte Jean de Loisy. «J’aime son insistance et son sourire de coquin lorsqu’il a gagné». Les remerciements insistants qu’il a faits dans ses deux discours, lors de la conférence de presse puis lors du dîner de gala, tendent à faire croire que les équipes de Versailles, comme celles de son studio londonien ,ont éprouvé tous les scenario d’un ogre d’artiste. Le syndrome Picasso?

5 – Gloire aux héros de l’art

Outre l’artiste Paul Neagu, guide spirituel du jeune artiste (1938-2004) , Anish Kapoor réitère son admiration pour l’artiste américain de l’Expressionnisme abstrait, Barnett Newman (1905-1970), pour le grand visionnaire italien, Lucio Fontana (1899-1968), et pour le plasticien et théoricien américain du minimalisme, Donald Judd (1928-1994). La rencontre de ce passionné d’architecture et de philosophie avec la philologue, psychanalyste, féministe, et écrivaine française, Julia Kristeva, a débouché sur un entretien sans tabous dans le catalogue «Kapoor Versailles», petite bombe toujours à paraître. Une nouvelle polémique en vue?

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.

Voir par ailleurs:

Le clip de Francis Lalanne pour les réfugiés ou le naufrage du Charity-business
Christian Combaz
Le Figaro

16/09/2015

FIGAROVOX/HUMEUR – Christian Combaz voit dans le tollé suscité par le clip opportuniste de Francis Lalanne à propos de l’enfant syrien noyé, un symptôme de la dérive de l’art qui «colle à l’actu».

Christian Combaz est écrivain et essayiste, auteur des Gens de Campagnol (Flammarion). Son dernier livre, Les Ames douces, paraît ces jours-ci aux éditions Télémaque. Lire également ses chroniques sur son blog.

Les romans et le cinéma ont déjà tendance à «coller à l’actu» d’une façon qui rend leur propos poisseux de ces sentiments qu’on appelle vendeurs, mais le clip composé par le chanteur Lalanne sous le titre ultra-original «plus jamais ça» (on se demande pourquoi il n’a pas ajouté «Madame Michu») mérite d’être considéré comme le symptôme d’une décadence artistique liée à la tyrannie de l’information. Les amateurs de littérature se sont déjà aperçus depuis longtemps que l’art du roman devient de moins en moins abstrait, de moins en moins imaginaire, et qu’il inclut des éléments entiers de la réalité la plus immédiate pêchés à l’épuisette, voire au chalut, avec leur lot de drames récents, d’affaires connues, de commentaires tombés du journal télévisé comme chez Houellebecq. C’est du «sampling» affectif. L’auteur «mixe». Il s’agit de prolonger une émotion déjà éprouvée au lieu de la fabriquer de toutes pièces en utilisant les plus petites briques du grand Lego de la création.

Normalement la mission de l’artiste est justement de bâtir un palais inconnu à partir de presque rien, pas d’assembler la maison de Barbie, pas de commenter ce qu’a dit le journal, pas de colorier un album imprimé. Dans le cas qui nous occupe, l’auteur de la chanson plante son drapeau sur une construction déjà prête, fournie par les médias trois jours avant, et dont on a lieu de penser qu’elle a rendu le public réceptif au thème choisi. En termes de marketing on dit que c’est «chaud», ou «chaud-bouillant». Profiter de la noyade d’un enfant syrien, et de l’émotion qu’elle suscite, pour ajouter son filet de voix à la clameur générale, c’est à la fois facile et navrant. Il y a, dans cette hâte, dans cette tentation permanente du scoop émotionnel , quelque chose d’obscène au sens propre . C’est impudique, les intentions cachées dépassent de partout, on voit toutes les coutures, on imagine le producteur téléphonant «c’est bon ça, c’est porteur, mais il faut faire vite, tu vas te faire piquer le sujet». On a beau ménager la part de sincérité de l’artiste, sincérité reconnue même si elle est assez lourdaude, on se dit que le système quant à lui n’en a aucune et qu’il fait feu de tout bois. En tout cas la vigueur des commentaires que suscite ce détournement émotionnel témoigne que les gens n’ont plus aucune patience à l’égard des apitoiements sur ordonnance.

Publicités

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)

11 septembre, 2015
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.


Accord nucléaire iranien: Si rien ne marche, envoyez les anciens du mossad (When all else fails, roll out the Israeli ex-security chiefs)

10 septembre, 2015

Ce qui se passe en Alaska nous touche tous. C’est un signal d’alarme. Et tant que je serai président, l’Amérique jouera un rôle central pour répondre à la menace du changement climatique avant qu’il ne soit trop tard. (…) C’est un défi qui définira les contours de ce siècle de manière plus spectaculaire que tout autre (…) Ce n’est plus l’heure de plaider l’ignorance. Ceux qui veulent ignorer la science sont de plus en plus seuls, ils sont sur une île qui est en train de disparaître. Barack Hussein Obama
I’m here today to say that climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate threat to our national security. It will impact how our military defends our country. We need to act and we need to act now. Denying it or refusing to deal with it endangers our national security. It undermines the readiness of our forces. I know there are some folks back in Washington who refuse to admit that climate change is real. Politicians who say they care about military readiness need to care about this as well. I understand climate change did not cause the conflicts we see around the world, yet what we also know is that severe drought helped to create the instability in Nigeria that was exploited by the terrorist group Boko Haram. It’s now believed that drought and crop failures and high food prices helped fuel the early unrest in Syria, which descended into civil war in the heart of the Middle East. Barack Hussein Obama
The extremism that we see, the radical exploitation of religion which is translated into violence, has no basis in any of the real religions. There’s nothing Islamic about what ISIL/Daesh stands for, or is doing to people. (…) We’re living at a point in time where there are just more young people demanding what they see the rest of the world having than at any time in modern history. (…) And that brings us to something like climate change, which is profoundly having an impact in various parts of the world, where droughts are occurring not at a 100-year level but at a 500-year level in places that they haven’t occurred, floods of massive proportions, diminishment of water for crops and agriculture at a time where we need to be talking about sustainable food. (…) In many places we see the desert increasingly creeping into East Africa. We’re seeing herders and farmers pushed into deadly conflict as a result. We’re seeing the Himalayan glaciers receding, which will affect the water that is critical to rice and to other agriculture on both sides of the Himalayas. These are our challenges. (…) As I went around and met with people in the course of our discussions about the ISIL coalition, the truth is we – there wasn’t a leader I met with in the region who didn’t raise with me spontaneously the need to try to get peace between Israel and the Palestinians, because it was a cause of recruitment and of street anger and agitation that they felt – and I see a lot of heads nodding – they had to respond to. And people need to understand the connection of that. It has something to do with humiliation and denial and absence of dignity … John Kerry
L’Irak (…) pourrait être l’un des grands succès de cette administration. Joe Biden (10.02.10)
We think a successful, democratic Iraq can be a model for the entire region. Obama (2011)
What I just find interesting is the degree to which this issue keeps on coming up, as if this was my decision. Barack Hussein Obama (2014)
It also reminds us of the tragedy of Obama’s diplomacy, that he really did have something to contribute to U.S. foreign policy and really intended to contribute it but botched it through a peculiar, Carteresque feckless arrogance. When he took office the U.S. was overextended abroad, militarily and in the American public’s willingness to expend blood and treasure trying to bail ungrateful foreigners out of self-inflicted messes. Like many voters, Obama believed a prudent reduction in commitments and ambitions would be healthy for his nation and the world. Humility is good in one’s personal life and has its place in diplomacy. For America to elect a black president willing to be frank about the nation’s shortcomings was a powerful vindication of an open society’s capacity for honest, constructive self-examination. But inability to tell humility from feebleness not only created short-term danger for America and the world, it risks discrediting the option he so passionately championed. In his remarkable Special Providence, Walter Russell Mead identifies four principal schools in American foreign policy. “Hamiltonians” concerned about world order and “Wilsonians” crusading to impose American ideals abroad are the two familiar ones, generally described as “realists” or “idealists” (and prone to squabble over whether idealism is realistic in the long run or vice versa). But Mead adds two others of enormous and often overlooked importance. One is “Jacksonians, »often ignorant and scornful of foreigners but robust supporters of American sovereignty and decisive action when their country is challenged or insulted. And while it might seem petty to resent insults, in foreign policy in particular willingness to tolerate serious insults signals weakness that invites challenges, to such an extent that insults themselves become challenges. Their tendency to swing between scorning the world and kicking its equator imparts a certain volatility to America’s foreign relations. But Jacksonians also give it great supple strength, because they support vigorous action without tolerating hyperactivity. That brings me to the final school, smallest and least influential but still significant and useful, Mead’s “Jeffersonians.” These are idealists, like the Wilsonians. But instead of seeking to impose America’s special virtues on the world, they fear constant engagement in ugly foreign entanglements will tarnish American ideals and undermine domestic liberty. They are present in both parties, on the Democratic “left” and among Republican libertarians. And Mead argues they are another underappreciated source of supple American strength because when the U.S. gets overextended, as under the Wilsonian George W. Bush, they stand ready with an analysis and prescription for retrenchment. Obama is a “Jeffersonian,” despite his drone strikes and excessive surveillance at home and abroad. But, like Carter before him, he seems to have abdicated rather than reduced America’s positive role abroad and, indeed, to doubt it can play one. Mistaking the resulting upheaval for “tranquility” tarnishes not just his presidency but the whole notion of prudent, cautious global engagement. There lies the tragedy of his diplomacy. John Robson
The president’s demeanor is worrying a lot of people. From the immigration crisis on the Mexican border to the Islamic State rising in Mesopotamia, Barack Obama seems totally detached from the world’s convulsions. When he does interrupt his endless rounds of golf, fundraising and photo ops, it’s for some affectless, mechanical, almost forced public statement.  Regarding Ukraine, his detachment — the rote, impassive voice — borders on dissociation. His U.N. ambassador, Samantha Power, delivers an impassioned denunciation of Russia. Obama cautions that we not “get out ahead of the facts,” as if the facts of this case — Vladimir Putin’s proxies shooting down a civilian airliner — are in doubt. (…) Obama’s passivity stems from an idea. When Obama says Putin has placed himself on the wrong side of history in Ukraine, he actually believes it. He disdains realpolitik because he believes that, in the end, such primitive 19th-century notions as conquest are self-defeating. History sees to their defeat. “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice,” said Obama in June 2009 (and many times since) regarding the Green Revolution in Iran. Ultimately, injustice and aggression don’t pay. The Soviets saw their 20th-century empire dissolve. More proximally, U.S. gains in Iraq and Afghanistan were, in time, liquidated. Ozymandias lies forever buried and forgotten in desert sands. Remember when, at the beginning of the Ukraine crisis, Obama tried to construct for Putin “an offramp” from Crimea? Absurd as this idea was, I think Obama was sincere. He actually imagined that he’d be saving Putin from himself, that Crimea could only redound against Russia in the long run. If you really believe this, then there is no need for forceful, potentially risky U.S. counteractions. Which explains everything since: Obama’s pinprick sanctions; his failure to rally a craven Europe; his refusal to supply Ukraine with the weapons it has been begging for. A real U.S. president would give Kiev the weapons it needs, impose devastating sectoral sanctions on Moscow, reinstate our Central European missile-defense system and make a Reaganesque speech explaining why. Obama has done none of these things. Why should he? He’s on the right side of history. Of course, in the long run nothing lasts. But history is lived in the here and now. The Soviets had only 70 years, Hitler a mere 12. Yet it was enough to murder millions and rain ruin on entire continents. Bashar al-Assad, too, will one day go. But not before having killed at least 100,000 people. All domination must end. But after how much devastation? And if you leave it to the forces of history to repel aggression and redeem injustice, what’s the point of politics, of leadership, in the first place? The world is aflame and our leader is on the 14th green. The arc of history may indeed bend toward justice, Mr. President. But, as you say, the arc is long. The job of a leader is to shorten it, to intervene on behalf of “the fierce urgency of now.” Otherwise, why do we need a president? And why did you seek to become ours? Charles Krauthammer
De l’Irak à l’Ukraine, de la Syrie à la Libye et à l’Afghanistan en passant par Gaza, les conflits sanglants se multiplient. «Le monde est devenu un foutoir», s’est même exclamée Madeleine Albright, ancienne secrétaire d’Etat de Bill Clinton qui utilise d’habitude un langage plus châtié. Cela n’a pas de sens de faire porter toute la responsabilité de ce «foutoir» à Barack Obama et à la diplomatie américaine. Pourtant, dans chacun des points chauds du globe –Irak, Ukraine, Syrie, Libye, Afghanistan et Gaza–, la Maison Blanche a commis de grossières erreurs: en se désengageant trop vite, en ne mesurant pas suffisamment les enjeux et les risques, en menaçant sans jamais agir et en étant incapable de se donner une stratégie. Barack Obama et les Etats-Unis sont ainsi devenus aujourd’hui presque transparents sur la scène internationale, incapables de forcer un cessez-le-feu à Gaza, de faire condamner la Russie de Vladimir Poutine après la destruction en vol d’un avion civil au-dessus de l’est de l’Ukraine ou d’empêcher l’effondrement de l’Irak, de l’Afghanistan, de la Syrie et de la Libye. La diplomatie américaine a perdu au fil des mois sa crédibilité et son autorité.Il faut dire que la politique étrangère américaine cumule les désastres. (…)  Le retrait de l’ensemble des troupes américaines d’Irak a débouché sur la partition de fait du pays. Sans les 15.000 soldats américains, que les généraux voulaient maintenir sur place, les Etats-Unis n’ont eu aucun moyen de soutenir l’armée irakienne et de l’empêcher de s’effondrer face aux djihadistes. La Maison Blanche a beau se justifier en expliquant que c’était sur l’insistance du Premier ministre irakien Nouri al-Maliki, c’était surtout Barack Obama qui ne voulait plus un seul soldat américain sur le sol irakien. L’erreur a encore été plus grande en Syrie. Obama a d’abord refusé de soutenir les rebelles modérés et prédisait alors la chute de Bachar el-Assad. Quand ce dernier a gazé à mort 1.400 civils, franchissant la ligne rouge fixée par Barack Obama, ce dernier a demandé l’autorisation au Congrès d’apporter une réponse militaire… et s’en est remis à Vladimir Poutine pour obtenir du dictateur syrien qu’il renonce à son arsenal chimique. Bachar el-Assad n’est pas tombé. Les rebelles démocrates ont été balayés. Le nombre de morts dépasse les 200.000 et les djihadistes qui mènent la lutte contre le dictateur ont les mêmes méthodes sanguinaires que lui. Il y a eu aussi l’épisode libyen. Sollicité par la France et le Royaume-Uni, Barack Obama a participé à l’intervention aérienne pour renverser Mouammar Khadafi. Mais il a refusé de soutenir le nouveau gouvernement libyen et d’entraîner son armée. En conséquence de quoi, la Libye sombre dans le chaos. La réponse américaine aux printemps arabes a été désastreuse. Quand des citoyens ordinaires sont descendus dans les rues pour réclamer la démocratie, les occidentaux, à commencer par les Etats-Unis, leur ont tourné le dos. «La réponse aurait dû être du même type que le plan Marshall après la Seconde Guerre mondiale…», explique Fred Hiatt toujours dans le Washington Post. Personne ne peut savoir si les Etats-Unis avaient eu un «grand» Président, si les occidentaux auraient pu soutenir activement les démocrates arabes, auraient pu empêcher l’Irak de s’effondrer, Bachar el-Assad de garder le pouvoir et auraient fait reculer Vladimir Poutine. Mais en manifestant une telle incompétence, indécision et même indifférence face aux affaires du monde, Barack Obama l’a indéniablement rendu bien plus dangereux au cours des cinq dernières années. Eric Leser
This may be the most surprising of President Obama’s foreign-policy legacies: not just that he presided over a humanitarian and cultural disaster of epochal proportions, but that he soothed the American people into feeling no responsibility for the tragedy. Starvation in Biafra a generation ago sparked a movement. Synagogues and churches a decade ago mobilized to relieve misery in Darfur. When the Taliban in 2001 destroyed ancient statues of Buddha at Bamiyan, the world was appalled at the lost heritage. Today the Islamic State is blowing up precious cultural monuments in Palmyra, and half of all Syrians have been displaced — as if, on a proportional basis, 160 million Americans had been made homeless. More than a quarter-million have been killed. Yet the “Save Darfur” signs have not given way to “Save Syria.” One reason is that Obama — who ran for president on the promise of restoring the United States’ moral stature — has constantly reassured Americans that doing nothing is the smart and moral policy. He has argued, at times, that there was nothing the United States could do, belittling the Syrian opposition as “former doctors, farmers, pharmacists and so forth.” He has argued that we would only make things worse — “I am more mindful probably than most,” he told the New Republic in 2013, “of not only our incredible strengths and capabilities, but also our limitations.” He has implied that because we can’t solve every problem, maybe we shouldn’t solve any. “How do I weigh tens of thousands who’ve been killed in Syria versus the tens of thousands who are currently being killed in the Congo?” he asked (though at the time thousands were not being killed in Congo). (…) Perversely, the worse Syria became, the more justified the president seemed for staying aloof; steps that might have helped in 2012 seemed ineffectual by 2013, and actions that could have saved lives in 2013 would not have been up to the challenge presented by 2014. The fact that the woman who wrote the book on genocide, Samantha Power, and the woman who campaigned to bomb Sudan to save the people of Darfur, Susan Rice, could apparently in good conscience stay on as U.N. ambassador and national security adviser, respectively, lent further moral credibility to U.S. abdication. Most critically, inaction was sold not as a necessary evil but as a notable achievement: The United States at last was leading with the head, not the heart, and with modesty, not arrogance. “ (…) When Obama pulled all U.S. troops out of Iraq, critics worried there would be instability; none envisioned the emergence of a full-blown terrorist state. When he announced in August 2011 that “the time has come for President Assad to step aside,” critics worried the words might prove empty — but few imagined the extent of the catastrophe: not just the savagery of chemical weapons and “barrel bombs,” but also the Islamic State’s recruitment of thousands of foreign fighters, its spread from Libya to Afghanistan, the danger to the U.S. homeland that has alarmed U.S. intelligence officials, the refugees destabilizing Europe. Fred Hiatt
That’s always been this President’s problem: his complete inability to deal with the world at hand, as it exists right in front of his face. When the world forces Barack Obama off his script, he simply retreats to a golf course, ESPN, or most recently the remote wilds of Alaska. Nowhere was this more evident than when his habit of diplomatic detachment inconveniently washed up on the shores of the Greek island of Kos last week when a boat carrying Syrian refugees capsized. While President Jor-El embarked on a magical mystery end-of-summer climate cruise to call attention to Alaskan glacier-melt in summer, the world was suddenly captivated by the lifeless body of Aylan Kurdi lying face down in front of rescue workers.It’s fitting in a way: it is the photograph of a young boy washed up on a Turkish beach that encapsulates the consequences of what happens when a coddled President, content to do as little as possible before turning over a world spinning off its axis to his successor, is allowed to distract himself with selfies in Alaska. As thousands sought asylum in Germany, Austria, Denmark and elsewhere, the leader of the free world sought it in the most remote part of the country for another stop on his ongoing Retirepallooza Tour of Meaningless Firsts. While Obama was posing for glorious-leader-make-wonderful-country photos in front of mountains, John Kerry, in one of many ongoing reminders of just how right this country got it in 2004, used the occasion not to address this very real catastrophe splashed all over social media and newspapers, but to hedge it against an imaginary possible future migrant crisis due to global warming. Addressing the world as it exists now means confronting more photos of his dinner-date with Bashar al-Assad (“a real reformer” – Hillary Clinton, 2011) and excusing away the faulty campaign promises of a President content to give Iraq up to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. It wasn’t climate change that caused refugees, including Aylan Kurdi and several others, to wash up on a Turkish beach. The message is clear — Obama and his State Department are not going to be shaken off their climate paranoia narrative. When Obama vehemently denied he ever called for a red line of action in Syria, he blamed “The world” and he’s content to let “the world” handle it now in any attempt to repudiate any further responsibility. What do 300,000 refugees and the whole of Europe matter when there is a glacier in the Arctic that needs staring at. As Obama occupies himself with uncertain visions of the how the world will be in the distant future, he ignores it as it exists in the present day at our peril for the conflicts we face now. There will be a price to pay for this and it has nothing to do with sea levels rising 75 years from now. ISIS (that is, Obama’s JV Squad) is threatening to use the crisis of thousands of faceless and unnamed refugees as a gateway to European and western countries. There are very real security questions about who many of these refugees are as well as their intentions for fleeing. According to reports in the Daily Mail & others there has been for some time. Barack Obama maintains that the United States cannot intervene in every crisis in every part of the world and has the record of complete disengagement to prove he means it. But this is a conflict that has a very real chance of infiltrating our cities. This is a part of the world that, no matter how much we pull away from it, will one way or another find a way to pull us back in.(..) Our media collectively demands accountability for these conflicts from every single person…except the one person who has any real power to stop or mitigate it. This has always been the anecdote in Obama’s foreign policy: 1) show up 2) demand the world follow him 3) world leaders balk at his demands 4) he shrugs his shoulders and goes and plays with his selfie stick somewhere. If Obama really feels like going “all-out,” sometimes there will be an additional step 5 involving Twitter pictures of the State Department’s junior-hipster mall brigade flashing grins, thumbs-up, and razor-edged hashtags (fashioned by America’s sharpest military scientists working in the depths of DARPA to help win The Bloody War Of Memes). (…) The media demands we not ignore those fleeing from radical Islamic tyranny,  yet refuses to hold this administration accountable for turning its eyes away from comments made by the mullahs of Iran, so desperate are they to write a narrative about how an unenforceable deal would, in the cosmically perfect words of Rep. Patrick Murphy, “bring peace in our time.”  Americans have been abandoned overseas in Iran, their captivity used as a leverage against a reluctant U.S. Congress. The fight for democracy and the fight to redeem captive Americans or defend refugees in Syria and Iraq isn’t as easy as (in the words of the AP) staring down a melting glacier. The name of Scott Darden, currently being held captive by Houthi rebels in Yemen, takes a backseat to the name of a mountain in Alaska. The beautiful narrative of Obama’s presidency is so much more interesting, and so much easier to romanticize, than the world he’s going to leave behind. (…) And the results of that indifference have just washed up on shore. Steven Miller
When Steven Cohen, a professor at the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, conducted a poll of American Jews, including those who, like myself, are not religious, he found that an astounding 63% approved of the nuclear deal, a figure impressively higher right now than American opinion on the subject generally. In other words, with the single exception of J Street, all the major Jewish organizations that are lobbying against the deal and claiming to represent American Jews and Jewish opinion don’t.  (…) But what about Israel, where support among key figures for deep-sixing the nuclear deal is self-evident? Again, just one small problem: almost any major Israeli figure with a military or intelligence background who is retired or out of government and can speak freely on the matter seems to have come out in favor of the agreement. (The same can be said, by the way, for similar figures in this country, as well as Gary Samore, a former Obama administration White House Coordinator for Arms Control and Weapons of Mass Destruction and until recently head of United Against Nuclear Iran, a Sheldon Adelson-funded group whose job is to knee-cap such an agreement. He stepped down from that post recently to support the nuclear deal.) In Israel, a list as long as your arm of retired intelligence chiefs, generals and admirals, officials of all sorts, even nuclear scientists, have publicly stepped forward to support the agreement, written an open letter to Netanyahu on the subject, and otherwise spoken out, including one ex-head of the Mossad, Israel’s intelligence service, appointed to his position by none other than Netanyahu. In other words, the well-financed fast and furious campaign here against the nuclear deal (which has left just about every Republican senator, representative, and presidential candidate in full froth) and the near hysteria churned up on the subject has created a reality that bears remarkably little relationship to actual reality. David Bromwich
There’s a deep crack emerging in the veneer of wall-to-wall support offered by Israel’s political leadership to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in his war against the Iran nuclear agreement. The crack has a name you might recognize: the Israeli security establishment. (…) As unanimous as the politicians are in backing the prime minister, the generals and spymasters are nearly as unanimous in questioning him. Generals publicly backing Netanyahu can be counted on — well — one finger. Many of the security insiders say the deal signed in Vienna on July 14 isn’t as bad as Netanyahu claims. Some call it good for Israel. Others say it’s bad, but it’s a done deal and Israel should make the best of it. Either way, they agree that Israel should work with the Obama administration to plot implementation, rather than mobilize Congress against the White House. All agree that undermining Israel’s alliance with America is a far greater existential threat than anything Iran does.(…)  They include a former chief of military intelligence, Amos Yadlin , who now heads Israel’s main defense think tank; a former chief of arms technology, Yitzhak Ben-Yisrael , who now chairs both The Israel Space Agency and the science ministry’s research and development council; a former chief of military operations, Israel Ziv ; a near-legendary architect of Israeli military intelligence, Dov Tamari ; a former director of the Shin Bet domestic security service, Ami Ayalon , and a former director of the Mossad intelligence agency, Efraim Halevy . And there are others. The list would be longer if we included security figures who spoke in favor of the Lausanne framework agreement in April, which was the basis for this deal, but haven’t addressed the new agreement. And we’re not including anyone who retired with a rank below brigadier general. We’re just discussing the architects of Israeli defense. The roster should also include a onetime chief of military intelligence, Israel Defense Forces chief of staff and prime minister named Ehud Barak. (…) Barak called the nuclear deal a “bad deal” that legitimizes Iran as a nuclear threshold state. He predicted that Iran would have a nuclear weapon within a decade. But, he said, Israel “can live with whatever happens there. We are the strongest state in the Middle East, militarily, strategically, economically — and diplomatically, if we’re not foolish.” Again contradicting Netanyahu, Barak said: “The most important thing we need to do right now is restore working relations with the White House. That’s the only place where we can formulate what constitutes a violation, what’s a smoking gun and how to respond.” (…)  That’s the generals’ central theme: Don’t panic. “We need to be calm,” said Yadlin, the former military intelligence chief, in a Ynet online interview . “The agreement isn’t good, but Israel can deal with it.” Instead of “blowing off steam,” he said, Israel should be talking with the United States to prepare responses to violations. By contrast, Ben-Yisrael, who has twice won the Israel Prize for contributions to Israel’s weapons technology, told Walla! News that the Vienna agreement is “not bad at all, perhaps even good for Israel.” True, Iran still calls for Israel’s destruction. But, he said, from the nuclear perspective — which is what the negotiations were about — “it prevents a nuclear bomb for 15 years, which is not bad at all.” Halevy, the former Mossad director, elaborated on Ben-Yisrael’s point in a scathing Ynet op-ed. From the start, Israel “maintained that the Iranian threat is a unique, existential threat.” It wanted the international community to address the threat, and it did. “That was the only goal of the biting sanctions against Iran,” he wrote. Now, he stated, the government tries “to change the rules of the game and include additional demands from Iran in the agreement, like recognizing Israel and halting support for terror.” By threatening to block an agreement that addresses Israel’s “existential-cardinal” goal because it doesn’t address other, nonexistential issues, Halevy wrote, Netanyahu raises the suspicion that he doesn’t want a deal at all. (…) Last January, the Mossad’s director, Tamir Pardo, told a group of senators that imposing new sanctions on Iran, something Netanyahu favored, would undermine the nuclear talks. J.J. Goldberg
Are the quoted members of this community all experts on the Iranian nuclear negotiations, or on nuclear issues more generally speaking? The answer is no. Some are and some are not. And are there not other comparable figures making a very different case, indeed strongly arguing against the Iran deal? Of course there are. And finally, are ex-security establishment figures as a group necessarily the most authoritative voices on this particular topic in the Israeli domestic debate? Again, the answer is no. There are Iran experts, nuclear experts, and Iran nuclear experts, who have been following every detail for years – these individuals have vastly more relevant credentials to discuss the ins and outs and implications of the Iran deal than the ex-head of the Shin Bet. (…) Some of the figures – those that are authoritative – have been quoted as opposing the government’s position on the deal when they are actually trying to convey a more nuanced message than the one being framed by the media. Their message seems tailored primarily for internal consumption – to say to the Israeli public: yes, this deal is bad, but it is not a disaster. We are strong and will be able to deal with the adverse implications. Moreover, they say, Israel’s strategic ties with the US are of paramount importance and cannot be jeopardized by trying to influence an internal American debate. These arguments are quite valid, but they are not arguments in favor of the deal. They are arguments saying that we in Israel have no choice but to try to make the best of a bad situation over which we have no direct control. Some say that they favor the deal because it keeps Iran from nuclear weapons for 10 or 15 years. But does it? That’s exactly the essence of the very serious debate going on these days in Congress! The holes in the deal make that statement precarious at best. Moreover, what happens after 15 years? Unfortunately, Israeli ex-security establishment figures are no less prone than some Americans to focusing on short-term rather than long-term solutions. The current deal was always meant to be comprehensive and final, and yet it is nothing of the sort. This is an issue with serious ramifications for global security down the line, and a simplistic “well we’ve delayed the disaster…maybe”, especially when dealing with nuclear capabilities, is the height of recklessness.(…) what is at stake is not whether and how Israel makes the best of a bad situation, but rather the merits of the deal – most importantly, whether it will stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. (…) Unfortunately, the US administration is trying to advance two messages simultaneously: that this is a good deal, and that it is better than the alternative. But it is either one or the other. If it is a good deal, focus on that. And if the debate is actually over alternatives, then explain why the administration has, from the start, cut off any discussion of alternatives by placing all critics who suggested them (regardless of where they live) in the impossible situation of not being allowed to say anything before the deal is revealed, nor after. But of course, it is with regard to the question of alternatives that the Israeli voices now being quoted are most useful to proponents of the deal. Israel Ziv, one of the retired generals mentioned in the Forward, demonstrates how that works when he argues that the deal is better than the alternatives, like a military strike. But he also notes that “there is no one in Israel who thinks the nuclear agreement is a good agreement,” even if he thinks that that should not be the focus of discussion. Go figure. The recent attempt to say to Americans that they should listen to one set of Israelis rather than another is one more attempt to divert attention from what should be the only focus of attention in the current debate over the nuclear deal: the serious flaws in this deal that will legitimize Iran’s dangerous nuclear threshold status, and that could ultimately pave the way to Iran becoming a nuclear state. That scenario would be irreversible, and the Iranians know it. And when looking at this through Iranian eyes, 15 years is no time at all. Emily Landau
J.J. Goldberg at the Forward has been running a campaign to persuade Americans that Israel’s intelligence community is at odds with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over the Iran deal. Not only the preponderance of retired professionals but also currently serving ones, dissent from Netanyahu’s read of the deal. Netanyahu can’t silence the former, but he’s given a “gag order” to the latter — to no avail. Military intelligence has even produced a “surprising,” “game-changing” assessment that undermines him completely, according to which the “upsides [of the deal] aren’t perfect,” but “the downsides aren’t unmanageable… The disadvantages are not too calamitous for anyone to cope with them.” Military intelligence sees “an imperfect but real opening in Iran. It believes that opportunities are being lost.” Netanyahu’s own “diagnosis doesn’t match his own intelligence.” It’s all polemical and politicized nonsense. A real expert, Emily Landau (at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv) (…) points out that Iranian politics and nuclear issues are well beyond the expertise of most of them. (…). And most of those who think that Israel should back off a fight over the deal still think it’s a bad one. They just argue that it’s inevitable anyway, so why provoke Barack Obama? This isn’t support for the deal, it’s resigned acquiescence. (…)  Yes, the intelligence assessment is that Iran won’t be able to build a bomb under the terms of the agreement. (That is, if Iran doesn’t cheat—the assessment says the mechanisms for inspection are flawed.) Iran might even show short-term restraint over support for terror, to consolidate its gains from sanctions relief. But the estimate also holds that when the agreement expires, Iran will be only weeks away from a nuclear breakout. In the meantime, Iran gains undeserved legitimacy from the deal, which provokes Arab states to stock up on conventional weapons and accelerate their own nuclear programs. Some of these programs could be militarized over time. The bottom line of the assessment, as reported in the press, is that the risks of the deal outweigh the opportunities. (This formula appears in more than one press report. Goldberg omits it.) (…)  Debates in Israel’s intel community not only occur; they’re encouraged (there’s even an officer in military intelligence who’s a designated “devil’s advocate”). Likewise, it’s vital for Israeli planners to think about the day after a done deal on Iran, and how Israel can make the most of it. But that’s all it is. Goldberg’s latest job is a conspiracy theory for the gullible. You don’t have to be an intel officer to know that it’s a red herring. Martin Kremer

C’est le réchauffement climatique, imbécile !

A l’heure où après le fiasco irakien et syrien et à présent, entre faux passeports et fausses conversions, le chaos des réfugiés en Europe …

Se font chaque jour un peu plus sentir les conséquences catastrophiques de l’inaction d’un Chef du Monde libre …

Trop occupé, obsédé qu’il est par le changement à tout prix et sa place dans l’Histoire et protégé (jusqu’à invoquer le réchauffement climatique !) par une presse aux ordres, à se faire des selfies en Alaska ou à débaptiser des montagnes …

 Devinez qui l’Administration Obama est allée chercher pour faire passer un accord nucléaire iranien qui se révèle lui aussi chaque jour un peu plus catastrophique ?

Roll out the ex-security chiefs

Emily Landau
The Times of Israel
August 3, 2015

Mal de dos : Attention, un mal peut en cacher un autre (Back pain: When your mind uses physical pain to protect you from psychic pain)

8 septembre, 2015
https://i0.wp.com/ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51yvtnNhYYL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpghttps://i0.wp.com/livingmaxwell.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/john-sarno-767x1024.jpghttps://i0.wp.com/www.macroeditions.com/data/prodotti/cop/galleria/big/g/guerir-le-mal-de-dos.jpgUn coeur joyeux est un bon remède, Mais un esprit abattu dessèche les os. Proverbes 17: 22
L’opprobre me brise le coeur et je suis malade. Psaumes 69: 21
La même force culturelle et spirituelle qui a joué un rôle si décisif dans la disparition du sacrifice humain est aujourd’hui en train de provoquer la disparition des rituels de sacrifice humain qui l’ont jadis remplacé. Tout cela semble être une bonne nouvelle, mais à condition que ceux qui comptaient sur ces ressources rituelles soient en mesure de les remplacer par des ressources religieuses durables d’un autre genre. Priver une société des ressources sacrificielles rudimentaires dont elle dépend sans lui proposer d’alternatives, c’est la plonger dans une crise qui la conduira presque certainement à la violence. Gil Bailie
Plus d’un siècle après que Charcot a démontré que les hystériques n’étaient pas des simulateurs et que Freud a découvert l’inconscient, il nous est difficile d’accepter que nos souffrances puissent être à la fois réelles et sans cause matérielle. Georges Saline (responsable du département santé environnement de l’INVS)
Chacun a bien compris que « syndrome du bâtiment malsain » est la traduction politiquement correcte d’ »hystérie collective ». Le Monde
Musculoskeletal pain is very common. A review of prevalence studies indicated that in adult populations almost one fifth reported widespread pain, one third shoulder pain, and up to
one half reported low back pain in a 1-month period
(McBeth & Jones 2007)
Les muscles sont riches en terminaisons nerveuses, et lorsque le cerveau «en situation de stress», transmet trop d’informations aux nerfs, ils se trouvent alors saturés. Le muscle va y répondre par une crispation, une contraction musculaire, qui peut être la cause d’une douleur locale ou d’une douleur projetée. Et l’état de stress chronique favorise les poussées inflammatoires sur les articulations par la libération dans le sang de substances inflammatoires. Il suffit d’avoir un peu d’arthrose et d’être stressé pour que les articulations se mettent à exprimer une souffrance. Dr Gilles Mondoloni
We have incredible healing mechanisms that have evolved over millions of years. No matter how severe, injuries heal. Continuing pain is always the signal that TMS has begun. Consider that a fracture of the largest bone in the body, the femur (thigh bone), takes only six weeks to heal and will be stronger at the fracture site than it was before the break. Strong support that whiplash is part of TMS came to my attention in the Medical Science section of the New York Times from a piece published in the May 7, 1996, issue titled « In One Country, Chronic Whiplash Is Uncompensated (and Unknown). John E. Sarno
In a survey done in 1975 it was found that 88 per cent of patients with TMS had histories of up to five common mindbody disorders, including a variety of stomach symptoms, such as, heartburn, acid indigestion, gastritis and hiatal hernia; problems lower in the intestinal tract, such as spastic colon, irritable bowel syndrome and chronic constipation; common allergic conditions, such as hay fever and asthma; a variety of skin disorders, such as ecema, acne, hives and psoriasis; tension or migraine headache; frequent urinary tract or respiratory infections; and dizziness or ringing in the ears. . . . » (…) Even when there are structural abnormalities found in the back and in arthritic joints, many with such pathology have no symptoms; others have pain symptoms disproportionate to the actual pathology of the normal aging process. Even after surgeries to correct these « abnormalities » the pain continues. (…) . . . insight oriented therapy is the choice for people with TMS or its equivalents. The therapists to whom I refer patients are trained to help them explore the unconscious and become aware of feelings that are buried there, usually because they are frightening, embarrassing or in some way unacceptable. These feelings, and the rage to which they often give rise, are responsible for the many mindbody symptoms I have described. When we become aware of these feelings, in some cases by gradually becoming able to feel them, the physical symptoms because unnecessary and go away. (…) . . . insight oriented therapy is the choice for people with TMS or its equivalents. The therapists to whom I refer patients are trained to help them explore the unconscious and become aware of feelings that are buried there, usually because they are frightening, embarrassing or in some way unacceptable. These feelings, and the rage to which they often give rise, are responsible for the many mindbody symptoms I have described. When we become aware of these feelings, in some cases by gradually becoming able to feel them, the physical symptoms because unnecessary and go away. John Sarno (…) The pain will not stop unless you are able to say, « I have a normal back; I now know that the pain is due to a basically harmless condition, initiated by my brain to serve a psychological purpose. (…) The brain tries desperately to divert our attention from rage in the unconscious. . . . So we must bring reason to the process! This is the heart of the very important concept. . . . (…) Remember, the purpose of the pain is to divert attention from what’s going on emotionally and to keep you focused on the body. (…) For some people simply shifting attention from the physical to the psychological will do the trick. Others need more information on how the strategy works, and still others require psychotherapy. John Sarno
Our results suggest that chronic symptoms were not usually caused by the car accident. Expectation of disability, a family history, and attribution of pre-existing symptoms to the trauma may be more important determinants for the evolution of the late whiplash syndrome. Dr. Harald Schrader et al
The study in Lithuania provides a healthy reminder to Western societies that a heavy price is paid when a culture of self-imposed victimhood and self-serving litigation develops. One part of that price appears in impersonal numbers: lost efficiency, soaring costs, unfair usurpation of health-care resources. But a far more tragic cost is personal: individuals shackled for years by their belief that inescapable pain rules their lives day after day. Christian Science Monitor
I’ve seen patients 25 years down the road still having problems. The condition can become chronic, he said, when people alter their posture to relieve the pain of injured tendons and muscles. « They begin to compensate. and these compensations also cause problems. Dr. Barry August (New York University Medical Center)
And then, in an instant, I started to cry. Not little tears, not sad, quiet oh-my-back-hurts-so-much tears, but the deepest, hardest tears I’ve ever cried. Out of control tears, anger, rage, desperate tears. And I heard myself saying things like, Please take care of me, I don’t ever want to have to come out from under the covers, I’m so afraid, please take care of me, don’t hurt me, I want to cut my wrists, please let me die, I have to run away, I feel sick-and on and on, I couldn’t stop and R–, bless him, just held me. And as I cried, and as I voiced these feelings, it was, literally, as if there was a channel, a pipeline, from my back and out through my eyes. I FELT the pain almost pour out as I cried. It was weird and strange and transfixing. I knew–really knew–that what I was feeling at that moment was what I felt as a child, when no one would or could take care of me, the scaredness, the grief, the loneliness, the shame, the horror. As I cried, I was that child again and I recognized the feelings I have felt all my life which I thought were crazy or at the very best, bizarre. Maybe I removed myself from my body and never even allowed myself to feel when I was young. But the feelings were there and they poured over me and out of me. TMS Patient
Dr. Sarno’s theory can be stated simply: Most muscular/ skeletal pain is usually the result of early infantile and childhood trauma which has been repressed. The emotion involved is invariably that of profound anger and rage. Our mind plays tricks and confuses us into focusing our attention on physical pain while the real problem is in our not facing and uncovering our repressed emotions, particular deep rage. Sarno’s thesis is quite different from Janov’s in that the cure to Sarno’s Tension Myositis Syndrome (TMS) is simply to come to realize that the origin of the pain is from the unconscious mind and not from any bodily abnormality. Janov’s primal theory, on the other hand, emphasizes that this insightful knowledge is not curative; that what is needed for cure is a full re-living of the original repressed trauma. The disorders which are encompassed by this syndrome include, low back and leg pain, most neck and shoulder pain, fibromyalgia, and chronic fatigue syndrome. The author believes that anxiety and depression are both TMS equivalents. (…) The author surmises that the source of the pain in TMS is mild oxygen deprivation to the involved tissues and organ systems. At a very deep unconscious level repressed rage is the cause of the pain. Sarno takes issue with the medical profession since most physicians do not accept that the primary cause of many such chronic pain syndromes are psychological problems. Most physicians recognize that emotions play a role in such problems but are quick to find an inconsequential abnormality which they believe to be the cause of the TMS symptoms. (…) Unless the patient can become convinced that his back or neck is normal, the pain will continue. They must be reassured and then really come to believe that « . . . structural abnormalities that have been found on X ray, CT scan or MRI are normal changes associated with activity and aging. »  This newly acquired belief, Dr. Sarno writes, will thwart the strategy of the brain to make one become fixated on the body and instead begin to understand that the problem is an unfelt trauma stored in one’s unconscious. It is as though the mind fears the release of the repressed rage. To make the pain go away the patient must acknowledge and accept the true basis of the pain. Think psychologically and talk to your brain! This will divert attention from the body. Insight, knowledge, and understanding are the cures for the TMS symdrome. (…) This was a patient, who at first despite knowing and accepting the source of her back pain, did not improve. Instead, the author writes, this patient’s pain became worse. He believes that her symptoms were exacerbated in a desperate attempt by the body to prevent their being released into consciousness — into her knowing their actual source. « The feelings would not be denied expression, » he wrote, « and when they exploded into consciousness the pain disappeared. It no longer had a purpose; it had failed in its mission. » (…) It is the unconscious repressed rage which is the source of the chronic pain, not the anger and rage which is consciously known by the patient. (…) There is an inexorable press by the unconscious to release and reveal its past traumas. When the patient understands the repressed presence of rage the feelings will stop trying to become conscious and « removal of that threat eliminates the need for physical distraction, and the pain stops. » John A. Speyrer
Quand un patient arrive dans une consultation d’hopital, la routine est de faire un scanner IRM. Invariablement, on observe une quelconque anormalité anatomique comme un disque déplacé, une sténose spinale, ou de l’arthrite spinale. Alors le docteur déclare quelque chose comme : « C’est à cause du disque que vous avez mal » et dirige le patient vers la thérapie physiologique destinée à traiter le disque, avec de faibles résultats à long terme. En étudiant la littérature médicale, le Dr Sarno avait remarqué que si vous prenez une centaine de patients entre 40 et 60 ans ne présentant aucune douleur du dos et que vous leur faites passer un scanner IRM, dans 65% des cas vous constatez qu’il existe un disque déplacé ou une sténose spinale SANS douleur (New England Journal of Medicine, article 1994). Alors il s’est posé la question : « Si ce n’est pas le disque qui cause la douleur, alors c’est quoi ? » Il a découvert que les gens qui souffraient avaient des tensions chroniques et des spasmes musculaires dans le cou, le dos, les épaules ou les fessiers. Il affirme que lorsqu’un muscle est tendu de façon chronique, le sang ne peut pas circuler normalement à cet endroit ; il y a un manque d’oxygène et cela cause une douleur sévère. Vous pouvez aussi imaginer un muscle tendu enserrant un nerf et provoquant les symptômes de la sciatique. L’important ici, c’est que le Dr Sarno ne dit pas à ses patients que la douleur est dans leur tête. Il leur donne une véritable explication physiologique. Et nous allons bientôt voir la connexion logique avec les émotions. Le Dr Sarno s’est demandé : « Et d’abord, pourquoi est-ce que les gens ont les muscles tendus de façon chronique ? » Il a trouvé l’explication suivante. C’est que nombre de nos concitoyens grandissent dans des familles dans lesquelles ils apprennent, à un certain niveau (inconscient), que ce n’est pas bien d’exprimer sa colère ou sa peur. C’est un problème parce qu’en grandissant nous traversons des événements spécifiques ou des traumatismes qui suscitent la colère ou la peur. Et dès que ces émotions émergent dans le corps, notre inconscient dit en substance : « Ce n’est pas bien ni sécurisant de ressentir ces choses ». Alors, selon Sarno, l’inconscient provoque la crispation et le raidissement des muscles afin que la douleur nous détourne de ce qui nous met en colère ou nous fait peur. Quelquefois, ce processus de douleur peut continuer pendant des dizaines d’années. Dr Eric Robins

Attention: un mal peut en cacher un autre !

« Dorsalgies », « lombalgies », « lumbago », « mal de reins », « tour de rein », « sciatiques » …

Alors qu’en ce meilleur des mondes où les bébés se vendent désormais sur catalogue

Et où même les bâtiments tombent malades …

Nos thérapeutes et nos médias multiplient, sur fond de victimisation devenue folle, les appellations et les spécialités médicales comme les thérapies et les formules pharmacologiques censées y remédier …

Comment ne pas s’étonner de l’étrange consensus autour de cette quasi-épidémie qu’il est devenu normal d’appeler mal du siècle ?

Et du tout autant singulier silence sur les travaux du Dr Sarno (seulement traduit en français l’an dernier) …

Qui, remarquant le fréquent décalage entre les anormalités anatomiques et les douleurs ressenties ou la tendance desdites douleurs à se déplacer à mesure qu’elles étaient « guéries » ..

A depuis longtemps montré que nombre de nos douleurs physiques chroniques …

Ne sont souvent qu’une manière pour notre cerveau de nous détourner de douleurs psychiques plus profondes ou plus anciennes ?

Book Review: The Mindbody Prescription: Healing the Body, Healing the Pain by John E. Sarno, M.D. Warner Books, 1998, pp. 210

Reviewed by John A. Speyrer

I first learned of Dr. John E. Sarno when he was a guest on Larry King’s television show a few years ago. The author is professor of Clinical Rehabilitation Medicine at the New York University School of Medicine and an attending physician at the Howard A. Rusk Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine at New York University Medical Center. His theories seemed to be related to primal therapy so I had intended to eventually read what he had to say about the cause and cure of back ailments. Then recently while surfing the internet I ran across a website with book reviews of both Sarno’s book and Janov’s The Primal Scream. I thought that perhaps Sarno’s theories were closer related to Janov’s primal theory than I had originally surmised so I decided to read his book, The Mindbody Prescription.

Dr. Sarno’s theory can be stated simply: Most muscular/ skeletel pain is usually the result of early infantile and childhood trauma which has been repressed. The emotion involved is invariably that of profound anger and rage. Our mind plays tricks and confuses us into focusing our attention on physical pain while the real problem is in our not facing and uncovering our repressed emotions, particular deep rage. Sarno’s thesis is quite different from Janov’s in that the cure to Sarno’s Tension Myositis Syndrome (TMS) is simply to come to realize that the origin of the pain is from the unconscious mind and not from any bodily abnormality. Janov’s primal theory, on the other hand, emphasizes that this insightful knowledge is not curative; that what is needed for cure is a full re-living of the original repressed trauma.

The disorders which are encompassed by this syndrome include, low back and leg pain, most neck and shoulder pain, fibromyalgia, and chronic fatigue syndrome. The author believes that anxiety and depression are both TMS equivalents.

Dr. Sarno writes:

« In a survey done in 1975 it was found that 88 per cent of patients with TMS had histories of up to five common mindbody disorders, including a variety of stomach symptoms, such as, heartburn, acid indigestion, gastritis and hiatal hernia; problems lower in the intestinal tract, such as spastic colon, irritable bowel syndrome and chronic constipation; common allergic conditions, such as hay fever and asthma; a variety of skin disorders, such as ecema, acne, hives and psoriasis; tension or migraine headache; frequent urinary tract or respiratory infections; and dizziness or ringing in the ears. . . . » p. 29
Even when there are structural abnormalities found in the back and in arthritic joints, many with such pathology have no symptoms; others have pain symptoms disproportionate to the actual pathology of the normal aging process. Even after surgeries to correct these « abnormalities » the pain continues.

The author surmises that the source of the pain in TMS is mild oxygen deprivation to the involved tissues and organ systems. At a very deep unconscious level repressed rage is the cause of the pain. Sarno takes issue with the medical profession since most physicians do not accept that the primary cause of many such chronic pain syndromes are psychological problems. Most physicians recognize that emotions play a role in such problems but are quick to find an inconsequential abnormality which they believe to be the cause of the TMS symptoms.

If the cause of the pain is oftentimes repressed rage, what is the role of psychotherapy in the elimination of the chronic pains of TMS? After giving his patient a physical exam to eliminate any gross physical abnormality from consideration, Dr. Sarno primarily uses education to explain the operation and power of repressed feelings. He believes that the pain, weakness, stiffness, burning pressure and numbness caused by a reduced a blood flow causes no permanent damage to the tissues.

Unless the patient can become convinced that his back or neck is normal, the pain will continue. They must be reassured and then really come to believe that « . . . structural abnormalities that have been found on X ray, CT scan or MRI are normal changes associated with activity and aging. »

This newly acquired belief, Dr. Sarno writes, will thwart the strategy of the brain to make one become fixated on the body and instead begin to understand that the problem is an unfelt trauma stored in one’s unconscious. It is as though the mind fears the release of the repressed rage. To make the pain go away the patient must acknowledge and accept the true basis of the pain. Think psychologically and talk to your brain! This will divert attention from the body. Insight, knowledge, and understanding are the cures for the TMS symdrome.

Psychotherapy is rarely used. Dr. Sarno explains its role:

« . . . insight oriented therapy is the choice for people with TMS or its equivalents. The therapists to whom I refer patients are trained to help them explore the unconscious and become aware of feelings that are buried there, usually because they are frightening, embarrassing or in some way unacceptable. These feelings, and the rage to which they often give rise, are responsible for the many mindbody symptoms I have described. When we become aware of these feelings, in some cases by gradually becoming able to feel them, the physical symptoms because unnecessary and go away. » p. 161
On page 13 one of his patients described what seems to have been a primal regression encouraged by her husband’s support: »And then, in an instant, I started to cry. Not little tears, not sad, quiet oh-my-back-hurts-so-much tears, but the deepest, hardest tears I’ve ever cried. Out of control tears, anger, rage, desperate tears. And I heard myself saying things like, Please take care of me, I don’t ever want to have to come out from under the covers, I’m so afraid, please take care of me, don’t hurt me, I want to cut my wrists, please let me die, I have to run away, I feel sick-and on and on, I couldn’t stop and R–, bless him, just held me. And as I cried, and as I voiced these feelings, it was, literally, as if there was a channel, a pipeline, from my back and out through my eyes. I FELT the pain almost pour out as I cried. It was weird and strange and transfixing. I knew–really knew–that what I was feeling at that moment was what I felt as a child, when no one would or could take care of me, the scaredness, the grief, the loneliness, the shame, the horror. As I cried, I was that child again and I recognized the feelings I have felt all my life which I thought were crazy or at the very best, bizarre. Maybe I removed myself from my body and never even allowed myself to feel when I was young. But the feelings were there and they poured over me and out of me. »
This was a patient, who at first despite knowing and accepting the source of her back pain, did not improve. Instead, the author writes, this patient’s pain became worse. He believes that her symptoms were exacerbated in a desperate attempt by the body to prevent their being released into consciousness — into her knowing their actual source. « The feelings would not be denied expression, » he wrote, « and when they exploded into consciousness the pain disappeared. It no longer had a purpose; it had failed in its mission. » (The author’s emphasis.) It is the unconscious repressed rage which is the source of the chronic pain, not the anger and rage which is consciously known by the patient.

There is an inexorable press by the unconscious to release and reveal its past traumas. When the patient understands the repressed presence of rage the feelings will stop trying to become conscious and « removal of that threat eliminates the need for physical distraction, and the pain stops. »

Sarno claims the rate of « cure » is between 90 and 95 per cent and yet his practice is comprised mostly of sufferers who have gone to him as a last resort — those who have been suffering for decades. He has treated over 10,000 patients and will only accept a patient who he believes can accept the psychological explanation as the cause of their distress. Being convinced and coming to believe that the pain has its origins in repressed feelings is essential for the treatment to be successful. This is a maxim of the treatment and is repeated throughout the book. It is not a form of denial of the existence of the pain but only an affirmation and acceptance of its true origin.

Dr. Sarno writes that one must accept the emotional explanation in order to get well.

« Increasingly, we discussed the pain with the patient, where it came from and why it would go away once the psychological poison was revealed. » p. 105
« He (the patient) understood and accepted the principle of psychological causation as applicable to his symptoms — and he got better. » p. 111
« In many cases merely acknowledging that a symptom may be emotional in origin is enough to stop it. » p. 113.
« I would tell patients their backaches were induced by stress and tension, and if they were open to that idea, they got better. » p. 113
« The pain will not stop unless you are able to say, « I have a normal back; I now know that the pain is due to a basically harmless condition, initiated by my brain to serve a psychological purpose. . . . » p. 142
« The brain tries desperately to divert our attention from rage in the unconscious. . . . So we must bring reason to the process! This is the heart of the very important concept. . . . » p. 144
« I tell my patients that they must consciously think about repressed rage and the reasons for it whenever they are aware of the pain. » p. 145
« Remember, the purpose of the pain is to divert attention from what’s going on emotionally and to keep you focused on the body. » p. 148
« For some people simply shifting attention from the physical to the psychological will do the trick. Others need more information on how the strategy works, and still others require psychotherapy. » p. 149
An extensive bibliography is contained in The Mindbody Prescription. Sections of the book include discussions of the the psychosomatic theories of Walter B. Canon, Heinz Kohut, Franz Alexander, Stanley Coen, Candace Pert, Sigmund Freud, Graeme Taylor, and others. A technical appendix with more indepth studies is included.

The author has also written:

Healing Back Pain: The Mind-Body Connection
Mind over Back Pain : A Radically New Approach to the Diagnosis and Treatment of Back Pain

Voir aussi:

Health
Pain Relief
When Back Pain Starts In Your Head
Is repressed anger causing your back pain?

Mike McGrath

Prevention.com

November 3, 2011
John Sarno, MD, thinks that virtually all lower back pain is caused not by structural abnormalities but by repressed rage.

He’s written three books about it, including The Mindbody Prescription. A professor of clinical rehabilitation medicine at the New York University School of Medicine in New York City, Dr. Sarno believes that to protect you from acting on—or being destroyed by—that rage, your unconscious mind distracts you from the anger by creating a socially acceptable malaise: lower back pain.

Noted integrative medicine specialist and Prevention advisor Andrew Weil, MD, is a big fan of Dr. Sarno’s theory. So are actress Anne Bancroft and ABC-TV correspondent John Stossel—three of the thousands who report that Dr. Sarno cured their back pain.

What is the cure? In a word, awareness. Accept that your brain is trying to protect you from the rage, and the pain will go away. How’s that for « instant »?

Dr. Sarno has coined the term TMS— »Tension Myositis Syndrome »—to describe this « psychophysiological » condition. The brain, he says, mildly oxygen-deprives our back muscles and certain nerves and tendons to distract us and prevent our repressed anger from lashing out.

He readily acknowledges that this diagnosis is controversial. In fact, he tells Prevention, « Most people won’t buy it. But my TMS patients who do accept it cure themselves. » John Stossel was a hard sell. « I tried chiropractic. I tried acupuncture. I tried every back chair and special pillow I could find, » he recalls. His back still hurt so much that he spent entire meetings stretched out on the floor. This went on for 15 years, until a colleague told him about Dr. Sarno.

Stossel, the kind of reporter who would normally try to debunk such a theory, says that « it sounded ridiculous » to him. « But my back really hurt, and my medical insurance paid for 80%. So I went to see him, read one of his books, and—except for some occasional twinges—got better immediately. »

But it didn’t last. « Six months later, the pain came back, and Dr. Sarno gave me a kind of ‘I told you so’ look. I hadn’t done one thing he had strongly suggested, which was to attend one of his seminars. So I went, got better again, and I’ve been virtually pain-free for 10 years. »

Are you at risk for rage-induced back pain? Dr. Sarno has found that people with certain personality traits are at higher risk for this back pain disorder, specifically intelligent, talented, compulsive perfectionists and those who tend to put the needs of others first.

Voir encore:

In One Country, Chronic Whiplash Is Uncompensated (and Unknown)
Denise Grady
The New York Times

May 7, 1996

In, Lithuania, rear-end collisions happen much as they do in the rest of the world. Cars crash, bumpers crumple and tempers flare. But drivers in cars that have been hit there do not seem to suffer the long-term complaints so common in other countries: the headaches or lingering neck pains that have come to be known as chronic whiplash, or whiplash syndrome.

Cars are no safer in Lithuania, and the average neck is not any stronger. The difference, a new study says, might be described as a matter of indemnity.

Drivers in Lithuania did not carry personal-injury insurance at the time of the study, and people there were not in the habit of suing one another. Most medical bills were paid by the government. And although some private insurance is now appearing, at the time there were no claims to be filed, no money to be won and nothing to be gained from a diagnosis of chronic whiplash. Most Lithuanians, in fact, had never heard of whiplash.

The circumstances in Lithuania are described in the current issue of The Lancet, a British medical journal, by a team of Norwegian researchers who conducted a study there. The results, they wrote, suggest that the chronic whiplash syndrome « has little validity. »

The study was prompted by « an explosion of chronic-whiplash cases in Norway, » said Dr. Harald Schrader, a neurologist at University Hospital in Trondheim. He explained: « We are topping the world list. In a country of 4.2 million, we have 70,000 people in a patients’ organization who feel they have chronic disability because of whiplash. People are claiming compensation for injuries from mechanical forces not more than you would get in daily life, from coughing, sneezing, running down the steps, plopping into a chair. And they are getting millions of kroner in compensation. It’s mass hysteria. »

Dr. Schrader said he and his colleagues had chosen Lithuania for a study of whiplash « because there is no awareness there about whiplash or potential disabling consequences, and no, or very seldom, insurance for personal injury. »

Without disclosing the purpose of the study, the researchers gave health questionnaires to 202 drivers whose cars had been struck from behind one to three years earlier. The accidents varied in severity; 11 percent of the cars had severe damage, and the rest had either mild or moderate damage.

The drivers were questioned about symptoms, and their answers were compared with the answers of a control group, made up of the same number of people, of similar ages and from the same town, who had not been in a car accident. The study found no difference between the two groups.

Thirty-five percent of the accident victims reported neck pain, but so did 33 percent of the controls. Similarly, 53 percent who had been in accidents had headaches, but so did 50 percent of the controls. The researchers concluded, « No one in the study group had disabling or persistent symptoms as a result of the car accident. »

Dr. Schrader said he and his colleagues had been astounded by the results. Even though they were skeptical about chronic whiplash, they had expected that a few genuine cases would turn up. But not one did, not even among the 16 percent of drivers who recalled having neck pain shortly after their accidents.

When the subjects were finally told the real purpose of the study, they were amazed to learn that anyone could think that an accident that had happened more than a year ago could still be causing health problems. Dr. Schrader recalled, « They said, ‘Headaches? Why don’t you ask me why after two years I still haven’t got the spare part for my bumper?’ « 

When the findings were publicized in Norway, Dr. Schrader said, the leader of the whiplash patients’ organization threatened to sue him. Questions were also raised about whether the research had been financed by the insurance industry. The answer is no, he said; the money came from his university.

Dr. Schrader said he did not doubt the existence of short-term whiplash injuries but did doubt the validity of chronic cases. His conclusions agree with those of a study, published a year ago in the journal Spine, that concluded that about 90 percent of whiplash injuries healed on their own in days or a few weeks and needed very little treatment.

But other injuries may persist, physicians say. « You can’t conclude from this small study that whiplash syndrome doesn’t exist, » said Dr. Paul McCormick, an associate professor of neurosurgery at the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons. « But the researchers are right on in questioning the prevalence. »

Dr. McCormick said that some patients sustained lasting, identifiable injuries from whiplash but that milder cases were hard to diagnose. « We don’t have objective criteria for those, » he said. « There’s no lab test. » Soft-tissue injuries do not show up clearly on X-rays or in M.R.I. scans. The diagnosis is based on symptoms reported by the patient, who may or may not be reliable. « We have to be careful as scientists and human beings not to see everyone as scheming and lying, » Dr. McCormick said.

Other specialists also say that some chronic whiplash cases are real. « I’ve seen patients 25 years down the road still having problems, » said Dr. Barry August, a dentist who is a director of the head and facial pain-management program at New York University Medical Center. The condition can become chronic, he said, when people alter their posture to relieve the pain of injured tendons and muscles. « They begin to compensate, » he said, « and these compensations also cause problems. »

Dr. August also questioned the methods in the Lancet study. Even though the people in the control group had not been in car accidents, they might have had other injuries, he said. « Falling down the stairs, slipping on the ice, can set off a whiplash injury, » he said, « and it can be longstanding. For controls, you’d need to look at people without any injuries, even in childhood. »

Whiplash is the bane of the insurance industry. From half to two-thirds of all the people who file injury claims from car accidents report back and neck sprains. Insurers say some of those claims are false, or exaggerated.

The National Insurance Crime Bureau estimates that $16 of every $100 paid out in auto injury claims is for fraudulent claims and that half of that amount is paid for « exaggerated soft-tissue claims, » which include whiplash. Phony medical claims cost the insurance industry billions of dollars; those expenses are passed on to the public and add from $100 to $130 to the price of each car-insurance policy, said Carolyn Gorman, a spokeswoman for the Insurance Information Institute in Washington.

« Whiplash is a claim that’s growing, » Ms. Gorman said. « But you can’t be glib and think everybody’s faking it. For someone who really has whiplash, it is painful and it can last a long time and cost a lot of money. But it’s hard to tell whether someone has it. You can’t prove it. »

Voir également:

Necessary Pain?
Christian ScienceMonitor

May 14, 1996

You might say personal-injury lawyers are feeling the lash of The Lancet.

In an era when a tiny slice of the American electorate – plaintiff’s lawyers – are vetoing legislation through massive political contributions and backstage lobbying, it’s of more than passing interest to see a rebuke from the scientific community.

This comes in the form of a study of whiplash published in the British medical journal, The Lancet.

A team of Norwegian researchers studied the cases of 202 Lithuanian drivers involved in rear-ended car accidents of varying seriousness. Those studied reported an incidence of neck and headache problems similar to that of a control group not involved in auto accidents. But in no case did any of the collision victims report the kind of persisting pain known in lawsuits as whiplash.

Almost no private auto insurance is available in Lithuania. And people generally haven’t heard of whiplash. So the researchers drew the undeniably logical conclusion that chronic whiplash exists only where people are mentally conditioned to expect and/or benefit financially from it. And also where the insurance and legal system provides a framework to nourish its supposed existence.

Not surprisingly, when the study results were announced, Dr. Harald Schrader, a hospital neurologist on the research team, was threatened with suit by the head of a whiplash-patients organization in Norway. (There are some 70,000 people in that organization who claim chronic disability.)

No one, of course, should suggest singling out the victims for blame. A whole system is geared to reinforce their belief in their continuing infirmity. That system includes well-intentioned lawmakers, fee-seeking lawyers, and busy (and sometimes unethical) health-care providers.

But the study in Lithuania provides a healthy reminder to Western societies that a heavy price is paid when a culture of self-imposed victimhood and self-serving litigation develops.

One part of that price appears in impersonal numbers: lost efficiency, soaring costs, unfair usurpation of health-care resources. But a far more tragic cost is personal: individuals shackled for years by their belief that inescapable pain rules their lives day after day. Instead of threatening suit, those people might spare a word of gratitude to Dr. Shrader and his colleagues. His team offers them the beginning of knowledge to set them free.

Voir enfin:EFT et le modèle de Sarno
Extrait d’un communiqué de presse présenté par le Dr Eric Robins, urologue californien.
http://www.emofree.com/Pain-management/pain-sarno-eric.htm

3 juillet 2008

Le Docteur John Sarno, professeur de médecine à l’Université de New York, voit quotidiennement des patients atteints des pires douleurs chroniques au monde. La plupart souffrent de douleurs graves (cou, dos, épaules, fessiers) depuis 10 à 30 ans, la plupart ont reçu de multiples injections épidurales, subi une ou plusieurs opérations chirurgicales et se sont soumis à des séances de kinésithérapie pendant des années. Tous ont été victimes de mécanismes d’action terribles (par exemple, passer sous un camion ou un boeing) et leurs radios ressemblent à celles d’Elephant Man : ils auraient donc de bonnes raisons de souffrir.
Avec cette cohorte de patients, Sarno obtient un pourcentage de guérison de 70% (à la fois pour la douleur et pour la fonctionnalité), ainsi qu’un taux supplémentaire de 15% de patients se sentant beaucoup mieux (avec 40 à 80% d’amélioration). Et il a eu ces résultats avec environ 12 000 patients.

Quand un patient arrive dans une consultation d’hopital, la routine est de faire un scanner IRM. Invariablement, on observe une quelconque anormalité anatomique comme un disque déplacé, une sténose spinale, ou de l’arthrite spinale. Alors le docteur déclare quelque chose comme : « C’est à cause du disque que vous avez mal » et dirige le patient vers la thérapie physiologique destinée à traiter le disque, avec de faibles résultats à long terme.

En étudiant la littérature médicale, le Dr Sarno avait remarqué que si vous prenez une centaine de patients entre 40 et 60 ans ne présentant aucune douleur du dos et que vous leur faites passer un scanner IRM, dans 65% des cas vous constatez qu’il existe un disque déplacé ou une sténose spinale SANS douleur (New England Journal of Medicine, article 1994). Alors il s’est posé la question : « Si ce n’est pas le disque qui cause la douleur, alors c’est quoi ? »
Il a découvert que les gens qui souffraient avaient des tensions chroniques et des spasmes musculaires dans le cou, le dos, les épaules ou les fessiers. Il affirme que lorsqu’un muscle est tendu de façon chronique, le sang ne peut pas circuler normalement à cet endroit ; il y a un manque d’oxygène et cela cause une douleur sévère. Vous pouvez aussi imaginer un muscle tendu enserrant un nerf et provoquant les symptômes de la sciatique.
L’important ici, c’est que le Dr Sarno ne dit pas à ses patients que la douleur est dans leur tête. Il leur donne une véritable explication physiologique. Et nous allons bientôt voir la connexion logique avec les émotions.

Le Dr Sarno s’est demandé : « Et d’abord, pourquoi est-ce que les gens ont les muscles tendus de façon chronique ? » Il a trouvé l’explication suivante. C’est que nombre de nos concitoyens grandissent dans des familles dans lesquelles ils apprennent, à un certain niveau (inconscient), que ce n’est pas bien d’exprimer sa colère ou sa peur.
C’est un problème parce qu’en grandissant nous traversons des événements spécifiques ou des traumatismes qui suscitent la colère ou la peur. Et dès que ces émotions émergent dans le corps, notre inconscient dit en substance : « Ce n’est pas bien ni sécurisant de ressentir ces choses ». Alors, selon Sarno, l’inconscient provoque la crispation et le raidissement des muscles afin que la douleur nous détourne de ce qui nous met en colère ou nous fait peur. Quelquefois, ce processus de douleur peut continuer pendant des dizaines d’années.

Alors, comment le Dr Sarno obtient-il ses merveilleux résultats ? Il amène ses patients à deux conférences. Dans la première, il dit aux gens : « Ce n’est pas le disque déplacé ni une autre anormalité anatomique qui cause votre douleur. La plupart des gens de votre âge qui vivent sans douleur ont aussi un disque déplacé ou une sténose spinale. Ce qui vous cause de la douleur, c’est l’état chronique de tension et de spasme de vos muscles. »
Dans la deuxième conférence, le Dr Sarno leur dit : « Quand vous avez mal, je veux que vous remarquiez contre quoi vous êtes en colère ou de quoi vous avez peur. » Ensuite, il leur fait tenir un journal, ou bien il les inscrit à des séances de thérapie de groupe, ou encore il leur fait suivre une psychothérapie (« behavioral therapy », psychothérapie comportementale). Il dit que 20% de ses patients n’étaient pas conscients de ce qui les mettait en colère ou les rendait anxieux ; ils avaient besoin de travailler avec un thérapeute pour entrer en contact avec leur matériel réprimé ou inconscient.

Le Dr Eric Robins commente :
« J’explique le modèle de Sarno quand je fais une conférence à cause des résultats étonnants qu’il obtient. Dans l’un de ses livres les plus récents, Sarno explique que ce modèle émotionnel ne concerne pas seulement la douleur musculo-squelettale, mais qu’il peut être utilisé pour la plupart des maladies chroniques ou fonctionnelles. Je suis certain qu’il est évident pour vous que certaines des méthodes qu’il utilisait sont archaiques comparées à la rapidité et à l’efficacité d’EFT. Nous pouvons nous attendre à des résultats meilleurs et plus rapides avec EFT puisque cette dernière technique est la meilleure et la plus rapide des techniques mental-corps utilisées cliniquement à l’heure actuelle dans le monde. »

Voir enfin:

Pour en finir avec le mal de dos
Martine Betti-Cusso

Le Figaro

27/02/2015
Le médecin ostéopathe et acupuncteur, Dr Gilles Mondoloni nous parle du mal du siècle, le mal de dos. Il prône un traitement global pour prévenir et guérir de ce mal. Les habitudes de vie, le stress ou l’alimentation sont aussi responsables.

LE FIGARO MAGAZINE – Pourquoi souffre-t-on du dos?

Dr Gilles MONDOLONI – Parce que nous sommes de plus en plus sédentaires, nous faisons peu de sport et ce déconditionnement à l’effort a pour effet d’affaiblir les muscles. Il y a aussi les postures inadéquates et une alimentation favorable à la prise de poids et nuisible aux articulations. De plus, nous vivons avec un stress répété qui participe à la survenue du mal de dos et à sa chronicisation. Enfin, il y a l’usure des disques et des articulations consécutive au vieillissement… L’état de notre dos reflète notre hygiène de vie et notre santé psychique et physique.

Toutes les tranches d’âges sont affectées, des enfants aux seniors…

Les enfants et les adolescents peuvent ressentir des douleurs dans le dos dues à une croissance rapide et à la pratique de sports intenses. Il s’agit le plus souvent de spondylolisthésis, ce qui correspond à une petite fracture de la dernière vertèbre lombaire suivie de son glissement sur celle située au-dessous. Lorsque les douleurs se situent en haut du dos, derrière les omoplates, ce peut être la maladie de Scheuermann, laquelle se caractérise par une altération des disques. Elle se traite notamment par des exercices de rééducation.

Et quels sont les problèmes les plus fréquents chez l’adulte?

Eux souffrent de discopathies. Les problèmes de disques dont font partie les lumbagos (fissure du disque intervertébral), les hernies discales (déplacement d’une partie des disques intervertébraux) et les sciatiques (compression d’un nerf) apparaissent autour de la quarantaine. Le senior, lui, sera atteint plus souvent d’arthrose, ce qui entraînera des douleurs localisées dans le dos et limitera ses mouvements. Mais il faut savoir que les maux de dos les plus fréquents sont les tensions musculaires, souvent liées à des facteurs de stress et à des mauvaises positions lesquels vont provoquer des contractions musculaires qui vont bloquer des pans entiers du rachis.

Comment diagnostiquez-vous l’origine d’un mal de dos?

Je commence par questionner mon patient sur ses antécédents, sur sa manière de vivre, sur les circonstances d’apparition de ses douleurs, sur le cheminement de son mal de dos. Ce qui me permet de connaître son hygiène de vie, ses faiblesses et les causes probables de son mal de dos. Puis je l’examine. En croisant les informations obtenues par l’interrogatoire et l’examen clinique, et sans recourir systématiquement à des radios, scanners ou IRM, j’aboutis à un diagnostic précis. Ceci est fondamental: on ne doit pas traiter un mal de dos sans en connaître précisément la cause. La plupart du temps, le mal provient d’un ensemble de facteurs où se mêlent les habitudes de vie, l’émotionnel, l’alimentation. C’est une erreur que de ne s’attacher qu’aux symptômes. On doit considérer le patient comme un tout et soigner autant la cause que la conséquence du mal.

Comment les facteurs psychologiques, le stress ou l’anxiété agissent-ils sur le dos?

Il y a différentes explications. Les muscles sont riches en terminaisons nerveuses, et lorsque le cerveau «en situation de stress», transmet trop d’informations aux nerfs, ils se trouvent alors saturés. Le muscle va y répondre par une crispation, une contraction musculaire, qui peut être la cause d’une douleur locale ou d’une douleur projetée. Et l’état de stress chronique favorise les poussées inflammatoires sur les articulations par la libération dans le sang de substances inflammatoires. Il suffit d’avoir un peu d’arthrose et d’être stressé pour que les articulations se mettent à exprimer une souffrance.
Comment soignez-vous vos patients?

Je propose toujours une prise en charge globale, avec fréquemment des manipulations lorsqu’il n’y a pas de contre-indications. Elles sont très efficaces, en particulier pour soigner les cervicalgies, dorsalgies et lombalgies communes, lesquelles sont liées à l’usure d’un disque entre les vertèbres, à l’arthrose ou à des tensions musculaires ou ligamentaires. Lorsqu’il y a une inflammation dans le dos (poussée d’arthrose, crise de sciatique…) et si la situation l’exige, je vais prescrire des anti-inflammatoires. Si l’inflammation est de faible intensité, je vais recourir aux oligoéléments, à la phytothérapie, à la micronutrition, à l’acupuncture, qui agit sur la douleur, sur la contracture musculaire mais aussi sur le stress, l’anxiété, la circulation de l’énergie. Cette approche globale, sans effet indésirable, optimise l’efficacité des soins. Pour preuve, des patients en stade préopératoire qui me sont adressés par des neurochirurgiens sont une fois sur deux suffisamment améliorés pour éviter l’opération ou la reporter à plus tard.

Dans quels cas les manipulations sont-elles recommandées et contre-indiquées?

Elles sont incontournables pour traiter les douleurs mécaniques, qu’elles soient cervicales, dorsales ou lombaires. Souvent, ces douleurs apparaissent à l’effort, lorsque la personne est en mouvement, et durent moins d’une demi-heure lorsque l’on se lève le matin. Les manipulations vont permettre de détendre les muscles coincés qui bloquent les articulations. En revanche, les manipulations sont non recommandées voire contre-indiquées en cas de douleurs inflammatoires. Celles-ci surviennent ou persistent au repos et s’installent la nuit, en exigeant plus d’une demi-heure de «dérouillage» le matin. Elles sont aussi contre-indiquées en cas d’ostéoporose, de tumeurs osseuses et d’infection des vertèbres.

Comment bien manipuler?
D’abord en restant à l’écoute des sensations et des réactions du patient. Je manipule à contre-sens de la douleur, en partant des zones les moins douloureuses et les moins raides. Les pressions doivent être mesurées, douces, progressives. Et j’ajouterai qu’il faut faire preuve d’une grande prudence au niveau des cervicales. Ce sont des articulations fragiles qui, à la faveur d’une manipulation brutale, peuvent se fissurer et entraîner de rares mais graves accidents vasculaires cérébraux. Théoriquement, les manipulations au niveau des cervicales sont du seul ressort des médecins et doivent être précédées de radios du cou. Avant toute manipulation, il faut exiger un diagnostic médical précis. On ne manipule pas à tout va. Il est indispensable de se renseigner sur la formation suivie par le praticien. Le titre de docteur en médecine est une précaution supplémentaire pour profiter au mieux des bienfaits des manipulations sans s’exposer à des risques.

Quelle différence entre l’ostéopathie et la chiropractie?

Ce sont des techniques proches et complémentaires. La chiropractie est plutôt centrée sur la colonne vertébrale et utilise des techniques généralement plus appuyées. L’ostéopathie a un champ d’action plus large. Elle va traiter l’ensemble des affections neuromusculaires mais aussi des pathologies viscérales. Les deux méthodes sont efficaces. C’est le thérapeute qui fait la différence. Or beaucoup ne sont pas suffisamment formés, ce qui jette un discrédit sur ces disciplines tout à fait nobles.

Que pensez-vous des méthodes de Mézières ou de Mc Kenzie?

La méthode Mc Kenzie consiste à faire travailler la colonne vertébrale en extension et donne des résultats intéressants. La méthode Mézières est une technique de rééducation qui opère sur l’ensemble de la musculature du corps. Chaque approche est pertinente. Elles visent à corriger les déséquilibres et à tonifier les muscles.

Quels sont les gestes et postures à privilégier?

Pour commencer, il est nécessaire d’adopter des gestes souples et d’avoir le réflexe de se tenir droit le plus souvent possible. Lorsque l’on se penche au sol pour ramasser un objet lourd, il faut utiliser la position du balancier. On prend appui en mettant une main sur un point fixe et on lève la jambe opposée en arrière pour tenir l’équilibre. Les charges lourdes doivent être portées au plus près du corps, au niveau du centre de gravité. En position debout, il s’agit de répartir le poids du corps sur les deux jambes, en gardant les pieds suffisamment écartés pour maintenir une bonne stabilité. Ces simples postures suffisent à économiser les muscles et les articulations.

Vous affirmez que l’alimentation joue un rôle dans le mal de dos. Dans quelle mesure?

Déjà, être en surpoids ne peut qu’aggraver les maux de dos ou les provoquer parce que les kilos en trop entraînent une plus forte pression du corps sur les vertèbres et les disques intervertébraux. Mais il faut savoir aussi qu’une carence en oligoéléments favorise la survenue de discopathies: le disque moins bien nourri aura tendance à se fissurer plus facilement. Par ailleurs, des composés comme les oméga 3 ou des épices comme le curcuma ont des effets anti-inflammatoires naturels qui vont participer à réduire la douleur. Je conseille de limiter les viandes grasses, les fromages, les charcuteries, les viennoiseries et tout ce qui acidifie l’organisme. Evidemment, je recommande d’arrêter le tabac: les études montrent que les personnes qui fument ont plus de douleurs dorsales et lombaires que les non-fumeurs.

Quand faut-il recourir aux médicaments et aux infiltrations?

Je recours aux anti-inflammatoires en cas de sciatique, de lumbago, de névralgie cervico-brachiale… Sinon, je prescris des antalgiques – paracétamol, codéine ou tramadol – en fonction de l’intensité de la douleur, lorsque l’approche ostéopathique et acupuncture ne suffit pas à soulager le patient. Je propose les infiltrations , qui sont efficaces quand elles sont bien utilisées, en cas de fortes poussées inflammatoires d’arthrose ou de sciatiques douloureuses ou paralysantes. Je les prescris rarement pour les lumbagos, car l’ostéopathie suffit à les traiter.
Et quand faut-il recourir à la chirurgie?

Elle est nécessaire dans le cas d’importantes hernies discales qui vont entraîner des douleurs permanentes et intolérables. Mais aussi dans le cas de certaines sciatiques paralysantes, de canal lombaire rétréci ou d’arthrose très invalidante qui étrangle véritablement le nerf… Quand les traitements médicamenteux et naturels ont été bien réalisés pendant suffisamment de temps mais sont restés inefficaces, il faut s’orienter rapidement vers une chirurgie, car un nerf trop comprimé pendant trop longtemps peut parfois ne plus cicatriser et laisser des séquelles comme des paralysies.

Le Dr Gilles Mondoloni est attaché des hôpitaux de Paris (service du Dr Jean-Yves Maigne), chargé d’enseignement en ostéopathie à la faculté de médecine et l’auteur de Stop au mal de dos, à paraître le 5 avril aux éditions Solar.
La bonne position au bureau
Passer huit heures par jour mal assis derrière un bureau est destructeur pour le dos. D’où l’importance de veiller au confort de sa chaise et à sa posture. La chaise doit être réglable, disposer d’un dossier qui maintienne fermement le dos et d’un siège pivotant pour éviter les torsions.
Il faut se tenir droit, les fesses calées au fond du siège et les pieds bien à plat. Un repose-pieds permet de diminuer les tensions. Les avant-bras doivent reposer sur la table. Evitez la position penchée pour écrire. L’écran de l’ordinateur doit être face à vous et son milieu doit se situer à la hauteur des yeux de façon à permettre de garder la tête droite. Il est déconseillé de rester assis plus de deux heures d’affilée. Alors, prenez un temps d’arrêt pour faire quelques pas ou pour vous étirer afin de détendre votre dos.
Plein le dos du stress!
Le stress chronique est responsable de bien des maux, des troubles digestifs aux problèmes de peau, des troubles cardiaques aux douleurs lombaires. Le mal de dos serait en effet un signe d’alerte, signifiant que nous avons dépassé nos limites. Le stress participe à l’apparition du mal de dos et à sa chronicisation, car il augmente les contractures musculaires et la sensibilité à la douleur. Selon le rhumatologue Jean-Yves Maigne, le stress «est capable de déclencher, d’entretenir ou d’amplifier un mal de dos. Il augmente la tension musculaire et peut être responsable de cervicalgies ou de dorsalgies de tension.
Il peut aussi dérégler le système nerveux qui commande la douleur. Un grand nombre de souffrances trouvent ainsi leur origine. Cela crée un état douloureux chronique qui se manifeste particulièrement au niveau du dos.» De plus, il participe à affaiblir les défenses immunitaires de l’organisme, ce qui pourrait contribuer à la survenue de zones d’inflammation sur des disques intervertébraux. Et cela crée un cercle vicieux, car souffrir du mal de dos constitue en soi un facteur de stress. Pour préserver son dos, il faut donc savoir se détendre: par des exercices de respiration, des massages ou en recourant à des méthodes de relaxation comme la sophrologie.

Voir pa ailleurs

Designer babies? It looks like racism and eugenics to me
Julie Bindel
The case of a lesbian couple suing a sperm bank over their black donor has laid bare the ethical minefield of the ‘gayby’ boom
Jennifer Cramblett is taking legal action against a Chicago-area sperm bank after she became pregnant with sperm donated by a black man instead of a white man as she had intended. Photograph: Mark Duncan/AP
3 October 2014

The designer baby trend has been laid bare with the case of a lesbian couple who are suing a sperm bank after one of them became pregnant with sperm donated by an African American instead of the white donor they had chosen. The birth mother, Jennifer Cramblett, was five months pregnant in 2012 when she and her partner learned that the Midwest Sperm Bank near Chicago had selected the wrong donor. Cramblett said she decided to sue to prevent the sperm bank from making the same mistake again, and is apparently seeking a minimum of $50,000 (£30,000) in damages.

I understand concerns about mixed-race babies being raised by white parents in white neighbourhoods. Suffering racism at school or in the streets and having to go home to a white family that cannot properly understand or offer informed support can make it significantly worse. But those that make use of commercial services in order to reproduce should be prepared to move house if something unexpected arises. After all, a child can be born with a disability that requires care that is unavailable locally.

I know white people who have adopted black children. They tend to ensure that the children have black peers and elders to contribute to their upbringing. At least one of these couples, when told a black child would be placed with them, quite seriously considered whether they would be doing right by the child. This is a million miles away in terms of attitude and actions from the Cramblett case.

I can only wonder what the damages, if the case is successful, will be used for. Relocation to an area more ethnically diverse, perhaps? The reality is that house prices in white areas in the US are generally more expensive than those in mixed areas, so I am unsure what the money is needed for. Hurt feelings? Whichever way this issue is approached, it smacks of racism.

With the designer “gayby” boom looking set to expand even further, there are some important questions to ask about the ethics of commercialised reproduction. In London alone there are a number of clinics offering sperm for sale; brokers that arrange wombs-to-rent, often in countries where women are desperately poor and sometimes coerced into being surrogates; and egg donation that can cause significant pain and health risks to the donors. There is also the “mix and match” temptation that comes with choosing eggs and sperm from a catalogue. There is even an introduction agency for those who wish to meet the sperm while it is encased in a body.

In the 1970s and 80s, before commercialisation, lesbians who wanted a baby of their own would often ask male friends to donate sperm, but – like anything where money can be made – the product began to be sold. I recall more than one white lesbian couple opting for sperm from a black or Asian donor because they thought mixed-race babies more attractive than white ones. I have interviewed gay men, who opted for IVF with an egg donor, who flicked through catalogues of Ivy league, blonde, posh young women trying to decide what type of nose they would prefer their baby to have. This smacks of eugenics to me.

And if something unexpectedly happens in such circumstances, just remember: if the child you end up with does not exactly fit your ideal requirements, you can’t give it back – and nor should you even suggest that something bad has happened to you.

Voir enfin:

Une femme lesbienne porte plainte pour avoir accouché d’une enfant métis
Valeurs actuelles

07 Septembre 2015

Faits divers. Une lesbienne de l’Ohio aux Etats-Unis a porté plainte après avoir accouché d’une petite-fille métis, qui ne correspondait pas au sperme commandé.
Un enfant à la carte ? C’est que réclamait Jennifer Cramblett déçue par le « service après-vente » de la clinique dans laquelle elle s’est rendue pour une GPA dans l’Ohio.

Une erreur dans le numéro du donneur

La femme de 37 ans, homosexuelle et en couple avec Amanda Zinkon, voulait un enfant et A eu recours à une banque de sperme de l’Illinois en 2011. Auprès de celle-ci, Jennifer avait « commandé » le numéro 380, c’est-à-dire le sperme d’un donneur de race blanche, blond aux yeux bleus. Mais le numéro, écrit à la main par l’employé, a été mal écrit et pris pour le numéro 330, celui d’un donneur afro-américain. La blonde Jennifer a alors accouché d’une petite-fille métis, Payton.

« Tout le soin qu’elles avaient mis à sélectionner la bonne parenté du donneur était réduit à néant »

Apprendre que l’enfant commandé n’allait pas être le bon a dévasté la jeune femme lors de sa grossesse. Selon son avocat, « Tout le soin qu’elles avaient mis à sélectionner la bonne parenté du donneur était réduit à néant. En un instant. L’excitation qu’elle avait ressentie pendant sa grossesse, ses projections, s’étaient muées en colère, en déception et en peur. »

Une peur de l’exclusion

Parmi ses motifs de craintes, emmener sa fille… chez le coiffeur : « pour Jennifer, ce n’est pas quelque chose d’anodin, parce que Payton a les cheveux crépus d’une petite Africaine », « pour que sa fille ait une coupe de cheveu décente, Jennifer doit se rendre dans un quartier noir où son apparence diffère des autres et où elle n’est pas la bienvenue » explique son avocat.

En outre, les deux femmes habitent dans une communauté très peu mélangée et craignent que leur fille soit l’une des seuls enfants métis et soit exclue en raison de sa couleur de peau, notamment au sein de sa famille.

Des dommages et intérêts exigés pour avoir accouché du mauvais donneur

La banque de sperme avait envoyé un mot d’excuses et remboursé tous les frais. Mais ce n’est pas suffisant pour Jennifer qui a décidé de poursuivre en justice la banque de sperme pour obtenir des dommages et intérêts supplémentaires. Si sa demande a été rejetée par un juge la semaine dernière, les jeunes femmes sont décidées à resoumettre l’affaire à la cour pour négligences au mois de décembre.


Antiterrorisme: Attention, un débaptême peut en cacher un autre ! (Before denaming US tallest peak, Obama had already denamed America’s enemies)

1 septembre, 2015
Mt._McKinley obama-bows-saudi future-must-not-belong-to-those-who-slander-prophet-islam-mohammad-barack-hussein-obama-muslimhttp://www.theyeshivaworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/dn.jpgIn my language we called it anowara ko’wah which literally means the great turtle or more commonly translated turtle island. viewed from above, north america is roughly shaped like a turtle and it also refers back to our creation story. Kanien:kaha’ka-[]-[]-^-[]-[]
These extremists distort the idea of jihad into a call for terrorist murder against Christians and Hindus and Jews — and against Muslims, themselves, who do not share their radical vision. George Bush (November 11, 2005)
Personne ne souffre davantage de tout ça  que le peuple palestinien. Barack Hussein Obama (Iowa, 27 avril 2007)
Nous cherchons à ouvrir un nouveau chemin en direction du monde musulman, fondé sur l’intérêt mutuel et le respect mutuel. (…) Nous sommes une nation de chrétiens, de musulmans, de juifs, d’hindous et de non croyants. Barack Hussein Obama (discours d’investiture, le 20 janvier 2009)
… une nation de musulmans, de chrétiens et de juifs … Barack Hussein Obama (Entretien à la télévision saoudienne Al-Arabiya, 27 janvier, 2009)
Nous exprimerons notre appréciation profonde de la foi musulmane qui a tant fait au long des siècles pour améliorer le monde, y compris mon propre pays. Barack Hussein Obama (Ankara, avril 2009)
Les Etats-Unis et le monde occidental doivent apprendre à mieux connaître l’islam. D’ailleurs, si l’on compte le nombre d’Américains musulmans, on voit que les Etats-Unis sont l’un des plus grands pays musulmans de la planète. Barack Hussein Obama (entretien pour Canal +, le 2 juin 2009)
Salamm aleïkoum (…) Comme le dit le Saint Coran, « Crains Dieu et dis toujours la vérité ». (…) Je suis chrétien, mais mon père était issu d’une famille kényane qui compte des générations de musulmans. Enfant, j’ai passé plusieurs années en Indonésie où j’ai entendu l’appel à la prière (azan) à l’aube et au crépuscule. Jeune homme, j’ai travaillé dans des quartiers de Chicago où j’ai côtoyé beaucoup de gens qui trouvaient la dignité et la paix dans leur foi musulmane. Barack Hussein Obama (Prêche du Caire)
L’avenir ne doit pas appartenir à ceux qui calomnient le prophète de l’Islam. Barack Obama (siège de l’ONU, New York, 26.09.12)
Nous montons sur nos grands chevaux mais souvenons-nous que pendant les croisades et l’inquisition, des actes terribles ont été commis au nom du Christ. Dans notre pays, nous avons eu l’esclavage, trop souvent justifié par le Christ. Barack Hussein Obama
Il est tout à fait légitime pour le peuple américain d’être profondément préoccupé quand vous avez un tas de fanatiques vicieux et violents qui décapitent les gens ou qui tirent au hasard dans un tas de gens dans une épicerie à Paris. Barack Hussein Obama
Obama demande pardon pour les faits et gestes de l’Amérique, son passé, son présent et le reste, il s’excuse de tout. Les relations dégradées avec la Russie, le manque de respect pour l’Islam, les mauvais rapports avec l’Iran, les bisbilles avec l’Europe, le manque d’adulation pour Fidel Castro, tout lui est bon pour battre la coulpe de l’Amérique. Plus encore, il célèbre la contribution (totalement inexistante) de l’Islam à l’essor de l’Amérique, et il se fend d’une révérence au sanglant et sectaire roi d’Arabie, l’Abdullah de la haine. Il annule la ceinture anti-missiles sise en Alaska et propose un désarmement nucléaire inutile. (…) Plus encore, cette déplorable Amérique a semé le désordre et le mal partout dans le monde. Au lieu de collaborer multilatéralement avec tous, d’œuvrer au bien commun avec Poutine, Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Saddam Hussein, Bachir al-Assad, et Cie, l’insupportable Bush en a fait des ennemis. (…) Il n’y a pas d’ennemis, il n’y a que des malentendus. Il ne peut y avoir d’affrontements, seulement des clarifications. Laurent Murawiec
Obama se croit apte, en raison de son profil, à engager un dialogue avec l’islam, que c’est la véritable raison pour laquelle il a placé les musulmans avant les juifs dans son discours inaugural, puis avant les chrétiens dans son interview du 27 janvier, et que c’est le sens de ses propos quand il dit que “l’Amérique n’est pas l’ennemie de l’islam” : il sous-entend que l’Amérique, sous l’administration d’un musulman de cœur, ou du moins d’un “vrai croyant”, ce qui selon la théologie islamique revient au même, appartenait désormais au Dar al-Sulh, à la “Maison de la Conciliation”, cette zone grise, ouverte à la prédication musulmane, qui sépare le Dar al-Islam, “Maison de la Soumission”, autrement dit le monde musulman, du Dar al-Harb, “Maison de la Guerre”, autrement dit le monde non-musulman. Michel Gurfinkiel
On a beaucoup écrit sur l’absence de Poutine à la cérémonie d’Auschwitz. Mais les médias ont peu parlé de la décision du président américain Barack Obama d’envoyer un relatif inconnu, le secrétaire au Trésor Jack Lew, pour représenter Washington, alors que Obama et de hauts dirigeants militaires américains se rendaient en Arabie Saoudite pour discuter des plans de guerre au Moyen-Orient avec le régime monarchique après la mort du roi saoudien Abdullah. World Socialist Website
As Obama stated in Dreams From My Father, he spent his college years discussing “neocolonialism, Franz Fanon, Eurocentrism.” And President Obama has obviously attempted to undo many of McKinley’s accomplishments. In kowtowing to the Castros in Cuba, Obama has ensured that America’s Spanish-American War victory ends with perpetual communism in a country America once granted its freedom; in 2014, the Obama Department of the Interior sought to give Hawaiians the same status as Native Americans, forcing separate governance for them based on ethnicity. The only question now: when will President Obama change the name of the American Southwest to Aztlan? Breitbart
Clare Lopez (…) said the global war on terror had been an effort to “stay free of Shariah,” or repressive Islamic law, until the Obama administration began siding with such jihadist groups as the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates. (…) when the so-called Arab Spring appeared in late 2010, “It was time to bring down the secular Muslim rulers who did not enforce Islamic law. And America helped.” (…) She also came to the conclusion Obama had essentially the same goals in the Mideast as the late Osama bin Laden: “to remove American power and influence, including military forces, from Islamic lands.” Why would Obama order the killing of bin Laden? Because the president “couldn’t delay any longer,” once the opportunity was presented, Lopez told WND. There were “no more excuses” available to avoid it and he “thought it might look good,” she mused. (…) “Some in the administration genuinely appear to believe the Muslim Brotherhood can act as a foil or counterweight to al-Qaida, although with what’s going on in Syria, it’s hard to understand how they would still think that,” she observed. Lopez felt it was impossible to understand why the president and some of his top appointees, such as CIA Director John Brennan, “consistently seem to apologize for Islam, even in the face of such atrocities as the Foley beheading,” adding, they “take pains to assure the world they don’t think IS, (or the Islamic State, also called ISIS) or whichever perpetrator it was, has anything to do with Islam. How can they possibly believe that genuinely when everything these jihadis do tracks directly to the literal text of Quran, hadiths and Shariah?” “In any case, and for whatever motivations, there is no doubt this administration switched sides in what used to be called the Global War on Terror,” she said. “Even though President George W. Bush was obviously confused and mistaken when he called Islam a ‘religion of peace’ the day after 9/11, he wasn’t deliberately exonerating the perpetrators. Surrounded by Muslim Brotherhood agents of influence, he simply didn’t understand.” She said Obama and his administration “have no excuse” for not knowing better, given the extensive investigation, research and studies done since Sept. 11. Instead, Lopez maintained, it was the Obama administration “that actively purged truthful curriculum about the inspirational relationship between Islamic doctrine, law, and scripture and Islamic terrorism.” In fact, she said, they were told what to purge by groups affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, and even allowed some of those same groups to supervise the purge. All of that, she observed, “would seem to indicate certain knowledge about the Islamic threat, and a determined effort to ignore that threat.” Lopez chastised the Obama administration for what she called beating a hasty retreat, under fire, out of Afghanistan and Iraq, knowing full well they would both fall to Islam, the Taliban and Iran, respectively. “But we’d already written their Shariah constitutions, so the actual ultimate physical domination was already prepared with the legal precedent and foundation,” she observed. By 2014, she maintained, U.S. leadership had purged all its training curriculum and official discourse of any terminology that would accurately identify the Islamic enemy, “and the time was right. Al-Qaida receded and [ISIS] arose. The U.S. couldn’t tell the difference between jihadist militias to save its life anyway, quite literally.” The former CIA operative said, “as Israel fought enemies on all sides to remain free, secure and Jewish, America began to move away from Israel and toward its Muslim enemies. And, as Iran moved inexorably toward a deliverable nuclear weapons capability, America helped.” (…) She said the Obama administration “consistently has engaged with this Iranian regime, pleaded with it to engage, and continue to engage, in obviously fruitless negotiations over their nuclear weapons program. The administration extended deadlines repeatedly, refused to hold Iran to account meaningfully for its terror support, including involvement in Sept. 11, lethal support to Iraqi militias in the 2000s and continuing harboring al-Qaida operations cell on its soil.” Furthermore, Lopez insisted the administration refused to even broach certain key topics in negotiations (such as Iran’s intercontinental ballistic missile program) and failed to insist that earlier U.N. Security Council resolutions demanding Iran halt all nuclear enrichment be implemented before any further talks. Instead, she said the administration explicitly signaled, in the November 2013 Joint Plan of Action agreement, it would allow Iran to continue enrichment permanently. (…) Like Lopez, Obama said a broader strategy for the region was needed, but notably, he did not state what the goal should be. The goal of the global war on terror, or GWOT, launched after Sept. 11, was understood to be the defeat of jihadism both in the Mideast and globally. Obama articulated no such goal, and has, in fact, declared there no longer is a global war on terror. (…) She names the enemy as jihadis and states the goal should be their destruction. “Above all, we must acknowledge that the enemy is supremacist forces of Islamic jihad,” Lopez told WND. “We must name, acknowledge, confront the enemy as he is – not as we wish him to be.” (…) Lopez explained what she thought was Obama’s real goal: Far from seeking the defeat of jihadism in the Mideast or globally, Obama preferred to let Sunni and Shiite jihadists each have their own spheres of influence in the Muslim world and America should withdraw its troops and influence from the region. (…) But unless ISIS further threatens the interests of the U.S. or its allies, Lopez believes the U.S. should proceed only with extreme caution. “I don’t think the USA should act as cats’ paw for either side of an intra-Islamic sectarian squabble, which has at least a 50-50 chance of winding up a pan-Islamic alliance against us, even as Iran and al-Qaida remain joined in an operational terrorist alliance that began in 1990, brought us Sept. 11, and continues to this day. No one is talking about Iran and its role, whatever it is, regarding [ISIS]. That concerns me.” (…) “I remain concerned that we not tip the balance in favor of either side in this essentially intra-Islamic sectarian fight between Shiites and Sunnis. Both sides are jihadist enemies of the U.S., our friends, allies and security interests,” said the former CIA operative. (…) while countries such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey may have initially instigated and bankrolled ISIS, those regimes and others, such as Iran and Qatar, “play all sides of the jihadi game” and have “enabled a monster in ISIS” they can no longer control, and “they should be allowed to reap what they’ve sown.” (…) “Right now, I think the most serious threat to the homeland comes from individual or small groups of individual jihadis carrying U.S. or other Western passports, who return home or can easily cross borders, including our own collapsed southern border, and mount attacks in the West, including America.”(…) “In many ways, al-Qaida prepared the ground for the Islamic State. Al-Qaida, which means, ‘the base,’ did its job, which was to awaken the Muslim masses, to prod the ummah to action against the infidel after a long hiatus. It spawned off-shoot franchises across the globe, not to mention in the virtual spaces of the Internet. It did its job and may now be superseded by [ISIS]. We shall see about that.” She described how Sept. 11 accomplished its mission of drawing the leader of the free world, “the greatest obstacle to establishment of a universal Caliphate,” into devastating and costly wars in Muslim lands. (…) “Everybody waits for the U.S. to stumble into the scene once again like some deus ex machine, so the whole charade can begin all over again. American blood and treasure spent, amidst clamor for infidels to exit Muslim lands, boiling Muslim rage about the imperative to strike ‘the far enemy’ again, hit the kuffar (non-Muslim) in his homeland, even while the Caliphate consolidates its rule, begins to govern as the Islamic State it claims to be, and, all the while, the wealthy-beyond-imagination sheikhdoms supposedly most threatened by this ‘un-Islamic’ horde – and the emerging Shi’ite hegemon of the Persian Gulf – respond lackadaisically, if at all. What is wrong with this picture?” (…) “From my perspective, I’m seeing American national security interests steadily eroded, almost everywhere we look, and the forces of adversaries and enemies advancing. But, of course, to see this, it’s necessary first to know who we are as a people, what are our ‘first things’?” She wondered whether Americans were still willing to fight and die for such principles as independence, individual liberty, Bill of Rights freedoms, consent of the governed under rule of man-made law, noting, “At the very least, we are badly off the track envisioned by our Founding Fathers.” (…) “Our current national policy doesn’t even seem to consider ‘first things,’ or know what they are, when formulating and implementing recent foreign policy.” She cited such examples as providing guns to al-Qaida in Libya, backing jihadist rebels in Syria, and what she described as enabling the mullahs’ nuclear ambitions while ignoring the Iranian people’s desperate struggle for liberty. Lopez argued, before U.S. leaders could deduce the right course of action on the other side of the world, first they must figure out the right things to do at home. She asked, “When do we go back to fighting for ‘first things’ again?” WND

Attention: un débaptême peut en cacher un autre !

Alors que le Flagellant-en-chef qui après l’abandon de l’Irak et bientôt de l’Afghanistan et peut-être demain de la Corée  …

A séché l’an dernier à la fois la marche de Paris contre le terrorisme et le 70e anniversaire de la libération d’Auschwitz que le centenaire du génocide des chrétiens turcs …

S’apprête, entre le don de la bombe atomique aux mollahs, la bénédiction à la prison à ciel ouvert cubaine et la porte ouverte à la polygamie, à débaptiser le Mont Blanc américain pour lui redonner son nom indigène …

Avant peut-être de redonner à la Grande Tortue son patronyme d’origine ?

Retour, avec une ancienne agente de la CIA, sur un autre, moins connu, débaptême …

Celui de la fameuse guerre contre le terrorisme du président précédent

Où l’on découvre qu’avec le premier président américain d’origine musulmane et entre deux assassinats ciblés, les Etats-Unis ont largement repris les objectifs de feu Ben Laden  …

Et tout simplement changé de bord !

Mideast expert: Obama switched sides in war on terror
‘America has moved toward its Muslim enemies’
08/28/2014

WASHINGTON – It’s an explosive charge, one that puts the president’s motives into question.

A former CIA officer bluntly told WND, America has switched sides in the war on terror under President Obama.

Clare Lopez was willing to say what a few members of Congress have confided to WND in private, but declined to say on-the-record.

She said the global war on terror had been an effort to “stay free of Shariah,” or repressive Islamic law, until the Obama administration began siding with such jihadist groups as the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates.

Why the switch?

Lopez explained, when the so-called Arab Spring appeared in late 2010, “It was time to bring down the secular Muslim rulers who did not enforce Islamic law. And America helped.”

And why would Obama want to do that?

As she told WND earlier this month, Lopez believed the Muslim Brotherhood has thoroughly infiltrated the Obama administration and other branches of the federal government.

She also came to the conclusion Obama had essentially the same goals in the Mideast as the late Osama bin Laden: “to remove American power and influence, including military forces, from Islamic lands.”

Why would Obama order the killing of bin Laden?

Because the president “couldn’t delay any longer,” once the opportunity was presented, Lopez told WND.

There were “no more excuses” available to avoid it and he “thought it might look good,” she mused.

The former CIA operative’s perspective affects her prescription for what the U.S. should do about the terror army ISIS, as she called for caution and restraint.

While there has been a sudden chorus of politicians and military experts calling for the immediate elimination of the terrorist army after it beheaded American journalist James Foley last week, Lopez believes the U.S. should have an overall strategy in place before fully re-engaging in the Mideast militarily.

Any military action would be further complicated, she told WND, if it were not clear which side the U.S. is on, either in the short term or in the overall war on terror.

Lopez’s insights are backed by an impressive array of credentials.

She spent two decades in the field as a CIA operations officer; was an instructor for military intelligence and special forces students; has been a consultant, intelligence analyst and researcher within the defense sector; and has published two books on Iran. Lopez currently manages the counter-jihad and Shariah programs at the Center for Security Policy, run by Frank Gaffney, former assistant secretary of defense for international security policy during the Reagan administration.

What do YOU think? What should be done about ISIS? Sound off in today’s WND poll.

In a previous interview with WND, Lopez described the stunning extent of infiltration of the administration and other branches of the federal government by the jihadist group the Muslim Brotherhood.

She said the infiltration began under former President Bill Clinton but really took hold under the Obama administration, which, she said, “includes various levels of understanding and misunderstanding of Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood.”

“Some in the administration genuinely appear to believe the Muslim Brotherhood can act as a foil or counterweight to al-Qaida, although with what’s going on in Syria, it’s hard to understand how they would still think that,” she observed.

Lopez felt it was impossible to understand why the president and some of his top appointees, such as CIA Director John Brennan, “consistently seem to apologize for Islam, even in the face of such atrocities as the Foley beheading,” adding, they “take pains to assure the world they don’t think IS, (or the Islamic State, also called ISIS) or whichever perpetrator it was, has anything to do with Islam. How can they possibly believe that genuinely when everything these jihadis do tracks directly to the literal text of Quran, hadiths and Shariah?”

“In any case, and for whatever motivations, there is no doubt this administration switched sides in what used to be called the Global War on Terror,” she said. “Even though President George W. Bush was obviously confused and mistaken when he called Islam a ‘religion of peace’ the day after 9/11, he wasn’t deliberately exonerating the perpetrators. Surrounded by Muslim Brotherhood agents of influence, he simply didn’t understand.”
She said Obama and his administration “have no excuse” for not knowing better, given the extensive investigation, research and studies done since Sept. 11.

Instead, Lopez maintained, it was the Obama administration “that actively purged truthful curriculum about the inspirational relationship between Islamic doctrine, law, and scripture and Islamic terrorism.”

In fact, she said, they were told what to purge by groups affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, and even allowed some of those same groups to supervise the purge. All of that, she observed, “would seem to indicate certain knowledge about the Islamic threat, and a determined effort to ignore that threat.”

Lopez chastised the Obama administration for what she called beating a hasty retreat, under fire, out of Afghanistan and Iraq, knowing full well they would both fall to Islam, the Taliban and Iran, respectively.

“But we’d already written their Shariah constitutions, so the actual ultimate physical domination was already prepared with the legal precedent and foundation,” she observed.

By 2014, she maintained, U.S. leadership had purged all its training curriculum and official discourse of any terminology that would accurately identify the Islamic enemy, “and the time was right. Al-Qaida receded and [ISIS] arose. The U.S. couldn’t tell the difference between jihadist militias to save its life anyway, quite literally.”

The former CIA operative said, “as Israel fought enemies on all sides to remain free, secure and Jewish, America began to move away from Israel and toward its Muslim enemies. And, as Iran moved inexorably toward a deliverable nuclear weapons capability, America helped.”

WND asked Lopez: How did America help Iran, the leading state sponsor of terrorism worldwide?

She said the Obama administration “consistently has engaged with this Iranian regime, pleaded with it to engage, and continue to engage, in obviously fruitless negotiations over their nuclear weapons program. The administration extended deadlines repeatedly, refused to hold Iran to account meaningfully for its terror support, including involvement in Sept. 11, lethal support to Iraqi militias in the 2000s and continuing harboring al-Qaida operations cell on its soil.”

Furthermore, Lopez insisted the administration refused to even broach certain key topics in negotiations (such as Iran’s intercontinental ballistic missile program) and failed to insist that earlier U.N. Security Council resolutions demanding Iran halt all nuclear enrichment be implemented before any further talks. Instead, she said the administration explicitly signaled, in the November 2013 Joint Plan of Action agreement, it would allow Iran to continue enrichment permanently.

After the ISIS threat first burst into public view, as the terrorist army sprang from Syria and shockingly began capturing great swaths of Iraqi territory with a savagery evidenced by its many massacres and beheadings, Lopez urged caution before the U.S. re-engaged in the area militarily.

She told WND the U.S. should protect its interests and those minorities facing genocide, but otherwise, let the warring parties sort it out, for the time being.

Obama briefly spoke to reporters Thursday about his options in dealing with ISIS, and sounded, at least on the surface, very much like he is doing as just Lopez has recommended, but with one big difference.

The president resisted calls to escalate airstrikes and destroy ISIS, emphasizing the U.S. is currently engaged in only limited efforts to protect American personnel and consulates, as well as providing humanitarian relief and protection of minorities where possible.

In fact, the president even admitted, “We don’t have a strategy yet. … We need to make sure that we’ve got clear plans. As our strategy develops, we will consult with Congress.”

Like Lopez, Obama said a broader strategy for the region was needed, but notably, he did not state what the goal should be.

The goal of the global war on terror, or GWOT, launched after Sept. 11, was understood to be the defeat of jihadism both in the Mideast and globally.

Obama articulated no such goal, and has, in fact, declared there no longer is a global war on terror.

That is where Lopez and Obama veer in entirely different directions.

She names the enemy as jihadis and states the goal should be their destruction.

“Above all, we must acknowledge that the enemy is supremacist forces of Islamic jihad,” Lopez told WND. “We must name, acknowledge, confront the enemy as he is – not as we wish him to be.”

She scoffed at the notion that what others call radical Islam was a “defeated ideology.”

“Oh? What ideology is that? The 1,400-year-old one that’s already made mincemeat out of six or seven major world empires? That one?”

In her previous interview with WND, Lopez explained what she thought was Obama’s real goal: Far from seeking the defeat of jihadism in the Mideast or globally, Obama preferred to let Sunni and Shiite jihadists each have their own spheres of influence in the Muslim world and America should withdraw its troops and influence from the region.

However, the ISIS crisis has caused Obama to re-engage militarily in Iraq, ordering airstrikes even while many commentators clamor for much more.

Ever since the video of the ISIS beheading of American journalist James Foley appeared last week, numerous military experts and political commentators have called upon the administration to wipe out ISIS before it makes good on its threat to attack the U.S. homeland.

Even Obama seemed to take the ISIS threat much more seriously than he did in January when he referred to jihadi factions in Syria as “jayvee teams.”

And, suddenly, an apparent ISIS emergency had set in, with these headlines appearing just over the weekend:

After that barrage, WND asked Lopez if she still believed the U.S. should protect just its interests and endangered minorities, or whether it should try to destroy ISIS (which she referred to as IS).

Lopez held firm, declaring, “It’s remarkable to me how unanimous our intelligence, media, military and political leadership all are about the need to ‘destroy [ISIS].’ It’s like they all were touched at the same moment by some magic wand, woke up to this threat, and fell into lock-step about the solution, without another thought. The epitome of groupthink, in my opinion.”

She did maintain Foley should be avenged, and other captives freed, if at all possible. In fact, she said the captors should be obliterated.

Furthermore, she recommended arming the Kurds and declaring them U.S. partners in the region, who should be supported in their national aspirations.

As for the terrorist army, “If [ISIS] makes one move against our regional partners – Israel, Jordan, the Kurds – we clobber them, then leave. If we determine that [ISIS] is plotting by itself or in conjunction with a nation-state, or other sub-national terror organization like Hezbollah, again – like Iran did with al-Qaida and Hezbollah – we clobber both of them, all of them, then leave. No nation building. They pick up the pieces, not us.”

But unless ISIS further threatens the interests of the U.S. or its allies, Lopez believes the U.S. should proceed only with extreme caution.

“I don’t think the USA should act as cats’ paw for either side of an intra-Islamic sectarian squabble, which has at least a 50-50 chance of winding up a pan-Islamic alliance against us, even as Iran and al-Qaida remain joined in an operational terrorist alliance that began in 1990, brought us Sept. 11, and continues to this day. No one is talking about Iran and its role, whatever it is, regarding [ISIS]. That concerns me.”

Other than protecting American interests and minorities, she recommended something Obama said on Thursday he would look into, inviting regional powers that feel threatened by ISIS to form a plan and deal with it. Lopez dryly noted, “We’ve already sold them enough advanced weaponry to take over the entire galaxy.”

One former Pentagon analyst, who wished to remain anonymous, appeared to speak for an emerging consensus in the defense community, when he told WND the ISIS threat needed to be addressed more vigorously, decisively and immediately, “considering that ISIS is now a full-blown army encompassing territory the size of Great Britain.”

“We, along with the regional powers, need to come up with a strategy to defeat them,” the analyst advised, echoing Lopez.

However, the analyst added, “In effect, we will have to go into full-blown warfare mode to do so, because they’re coming and nothing seems to be stopping them.”

The former Pentagon analyst then went a step further than many other commentators in suggesting, “the U.S. and allies may have to begin working with Syria and Iran to defeat a common threat. It isn’t the Shiites of Iran launching these jihadist groups. It’s the Sunnis under the control and financing of Saudi Arabia and a number of the other Gulf Arab states.”

Lopez disagreed on two fronts. She cited the danger in partnering with Iran, and she urged caution in implementing a short-term plan of confronting ISIS before developing a coherent long-term strategy for the Mideast and to defeat jihadism.

“I remain concerned that we not tip the balance in favor of either side in this essentially intra-Islamic sectarian fight between Shiites and Sunnis. Both sides are jihadist enemies of the U.S., our friends, allies and security interests,” said the former CIA operative.

She noted, at the moment, IS is occupied with taking and holding territory in what used to be Iraq and Syria, while establishing administration and governance (including enforcement of Shariah) in that territory.

Lopez pointed out how ISIS is also fighting at least six adversaries on multiple fronts at the same time: against the Iraqi and Syrian governments; al-Qaida militias in Syria, non-al-Qaida militias in Syria; the U.S. and U.K. airstrikes; the Kurds; and maybe the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps or Qods Force, too.

And, she previously told WND, while countries such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey may have initially instigated and bankrolled ISIS, those regimes and others, such as Iran and Qatar, “play all sides of the jihadi game” and have “enabled a monster in ISIS” they can no longer control, and “they should be allowed to reap what they’ve sown.”

Furthermore, she maintained, U.S. leadership has proven incapable of sorting out who’s who or who’s backing whom.

“Right now, I think the most serious threat to the homeland comes from individual or small groups of individual jihadis carrying U.S. or other Western passports, who return home or can easily cross borders, including our own collapsed southern border, and mount attacks in the West, including America.”

Lopez said she would like to see more consideration given to exactly who and what ISIS is, where it came from and what it represents. She wants to know if it is the leading edge, “the current violent vanguard,” of what she called the 1,400-year-old supremacist forces of Islamic jihad.

“In many ways, al-Qaida prepared the ground for the Islamic State. Al-Qaida, which means, ‘the base,’ did its job, which was to awaken the Muslim masses, to prod the ummah to action against the infidel after a long hiatus. It spawned off-shoot franchises across the globe, not to mention in the virtual spaces of the Internet. It did its job and may now be superseded by [ISIS]. We shall see about that.”

She described how Sept. 11 accomplished its mission of drawing the leader of the free world, “the greatest obstacle to establishment of a universal Caliphate,” into devastating and costly wars in Muslim lands.

Lopez said the steady infiltration of the Muslim Brotherhood into positions of advice and appointment at top levels of U.S. national security ensured maximum confusion about whom Americans were fighting, why, “and even whether we Americans have anything worth defending in the first place.”

Now, she sees the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, or OIC, a 57-member head of state organization of all Muslim states in the world plus Palestinians, as “sitting by idly as [ISIS] gobbles up its member states’ territory and threatens the borders of others.”

Lopez said Shiite Iran responded to some verbal threats and barbs by sends some Qods Force advisers to “prop up” what she called its Baghdad proxy, and to protect the Shiite shrines from ISIS attack, but not much else.

“Everybody waits for the U.S. to stumble into the scene once again like some deus ex machine, so the whole charade can begin all over again. American blood and treasure spent, amidst clamor for infidels to exit Muslim lands, boiling Muslim rage about the imperative to strike ‘the far enemy’ again, hit the kuffar (non-Muslim) in his homeland, even while the Caliphate consolidates its rule, begins to govern as the Islamic State it claims to be, and, all the while, the wealthy-beyond-imagination sheikhdoms supposedly most threatened by this ‘un-Islamic’ horde – and the emerging Shi’ite hegemon of the Persian Gulf – respond lackadaisically, if at all. What is wrong with this picture?”

Lopez told WND she was concerned that nobody in American leadership really sees or understands the big picture, and the U.S. seems to be manipulated to fulfill objectives not in its best interests.

“From my perspective, I’m seeing American national security interests steadily eroded, almost everywhere we look, and the forces of adversaries and enemies advancing. But, of course, to see this, it’s necessary first to know who we are as a people, what are our ‘first things’?”

She wondered whether Americans were still willing to fight and die for such principles as independence, individual liberty, Bill of Rights freedoms, consent of the governed under rule of man-made law, noting, “At the very least, we are badly off the track envisioned by our Founding Fathers.”

“Our current national policy doesn’t even seem to consider ‘first things,’ or know what they are, when formulating and implementing recent foreign policy.”

She cited such examples as providing guns to al-Qaida in Libya, backing jihadist rebels in Syria, and what she described as enabling the mullahs’ nuclear ambitions while ignoring the Iranian people’s desperate struggle for liberty.

Lopez argued, before U.S. leaders could deduce the right course of action on the other side of the world, first they must figure out the right things to do at home.

She asked, “When do we go back to fighting for ‘first things’ again?”

Voir aussi:

Obama Renames Mount McKinley ‘Denali’
Breitbart
Ben Shapiro

31 Aug 2015

On Sunday, President Obama’s administration announced that he would, by executive order, change the name of Mount McKinley to Mount Denali.
He did not explain the decision, which frustrated Ohio legislators upset at the slap at President William McKinley’s legacy; he is expected to speak on the topic today in Anchorage.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) thanked Obama, however, stating, “For centuries, Alaskans have known this majestic mountain as the ‘Great One.’ Today we are honored to be able to officially recognize the mountain as Denali.”

Why did Obama choose to change the name now? Presumably because Obama has now solved all the world’s problems, and decided against his second choice, Mt. Trayvon. But more seriously, Obama likely opposes the legacy of President McKinley, given that McKinley led America to victory in the Spanish-American War and rejected inflation by sticking with the gold standard. By the end of McKinley’s tenure, the United States had taken military control of Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Philippines, and annexed Hawaii.

Assassinated in 1901, McKinley, who presided over an economic boom and massive growth in American power, once stated, “We need Hawaii just as much and a good deal more than we did California. It is manifest destiny.” Regarding the Spanish-American War, McKinley explained that Cuba “ought to be free and independent.” Obama would have opposed both moves.

As Obama stated in Dreams From My Father, he spent his college years discussing “neocolonialism, Franz Fanon, Eurocentrism.” And President Obama has obviously attempted to undo many of McKinley’s accomplishments. In kowtowing to the Castros in Cuba, Obama has ensured that America’s Spanish-American War victory ends with perpetual communism in a country America once granted its freedom; in 2014, the Obama Department of the Interior sought to give Hawaiians the same status as Native Americans, forcing separate governance for them based on ethnicity.

The only question now: when will President Obama change the name of the American Southwest to Aztlan?

Ben Shapiro is Senior Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News and The New York Times bestselling author, most recently, of the book, The People vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against The Obama Administration (Threshold Editions, June 10, 2014).

Voir enfin:

Obama renomme le mont McKinley, les Républicains enragent

BFM TV

31/08/2015

Alors que doit débuter une conférence sur le climat  en Alaska, le président américain Barack Obama a décidé de renommer le plus haut sommet américain. Une décision qui fait débat.
Renommer une montagne ne se fait pas sans heurts. Barack Obama, qui doit se rendre à Anchorage (Alaska) aujourd’hui devrait en profiter pour annoncer le changement de nom du plus haut sommet des Etats-Unis.

Exit le président républicain
Culminant à 6.194 mètres d’altitude, le Mont McKinley, du nom du 25è Président des Etats-Unis, devrait donc désormais s’appeler le Mont Denali. Un mot athapascan utilisés par de nombreux dialectes indigènes qui signifie « le plus grand ». Une manière pour Barack Obama de rendre hommage aux peuples natifs américains avec lesquels les relations ont toujours été tendues.

Citée par le Washington Post, Julie Kitka, présidente de la Fédérations des Natifs d’Alaska, a salué l’initiative, estimant que « c’était un symbole » et que « toutes les cartes et les livres parleraient du Denali, ce qui est une chose magnifique ».

Une décision qui ne fait pas que des heureux
Problème: cette montagne portait le nom d’un président… républicain. William McKinley (29 janvier 1848 – 14 septembre 1901) est en effet le 25è président des Etats-Unis, mort assassiné lors de son second mandat.

Courtney Art Studio – Wikicommons –
Les Républicains estiment que le président Obama mène une vendetta politique sans aucun rapport avec la culture native. Sur Twitter, le Sénateur Rob Portman s’est ainsi déclaré « déçu » de la décision d’Obama.

De son côté, le sénateur Bob Gibbs a déclaré que cette décision était « une insulte » et une « attaque contre la Constitution » appelant tous ses collègues à « faire tout ce qui en leur pouvoir pour contrer cette action ».

La nouvelle a en tout cas rapidement fait le tour du monde puisque le moteur de recherche Google a déjà intégré ce nouveau nom à ses cartes, même si pour les recherches, il faudra encore attendre un peu, ce qui cause quelques incohérences dans les résultats.


Héritage Obama: A quand le retrait des troupes américaines de Corée ? (Dennis Rodman of politics: Is there anything Obama will not do to burnish his precious legacy ?)

18 août, 2015
image

After two years of negotiations, we have achieved a detailed arrangement that permanently prohibits Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. It cuts off all of Iran’s pathways to a bomb. Barack Hussein Obama

More than a decade later, we still live with the consequences of the decision to invade Iraq . . . Today, Iraq remains gripped by sectarian conflict, and the emergence of al-Qaeda in Iraq has now evolved into ISIL. Barack Hussein Obama
« The president said many times he’s willing to step out of the rut of history.” (…) Once again Rhodes has, perhaps inadvertently, exposed the president’s premises more clearly than the president likes to do. The rut of history: It is a phrase worth pondering. It expresses a deep scorn for the past, a zeal for newness and rupture, an arrogance about old struggles and old accomplishments, a hastiness with inherited precedents and circumstances, a superstition about the magical powers of the present. It expresses also a generational view of history, which, like the view of history in terms of decades and centuries, is one of the shallowest views of all.expresses also a generational view of history, which, like the view of history in terms of decades and centuries, is one of the shallowest views of all. This is nothing other than the mentality of disruption applied to foreign policy. In the realm of technology, innovation justifies itself; but in the realm of diplomacy and security, innovation must be justified, and it cannot be justified merely by an appetite for change. Tedium does not count against a principled alliance or a grand strategy. Indeed, a continuity of policy may in some cases—the Korean peninsula, for example: a rut if ever there was one—represent a significant achievement. (…) Obama seems to believe that the United States owes Iran some sort of expiation. As he explained to Thomas Friedman the day after the nuclear agreement was reached, “we had some involvement with overthrowing a democratically elected regime in Iran” in 1953. Six years ago, when the streets of Iran exploded in a democratic rebellion and the White House stood by as it was put down by the government with savage force against ordinary citizens, memories of Mohammad Mosaddegh were in the air around the administration, as if to explain that the United States was morally disqualified by a prior sin of intervention from intervening in any way in support of the dissidents. The guilt of 1953 trumped the duty of 2009. But what is the alternative? This is the question that is supposed to silence all objections. It is, for a start, a demagogic question. This agreement was designed to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. If it does not prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons—and it seems uncontroversial to suggest that it does not guarantee such an outcome—then it does not solve the problem that it was designed to solve. And if it does not solve the problem that it was designed to solve, then it is itself not an alternative, is it? The status is still quo. Or should we prefer the sweetness of illusion to the nastiness of reality? For as long as Iran does not agree to retire its infrastructure so that the manufacture of a nuclear weapon becomes not improbable but impossible, the United States will not have transformed the reality that worries it. We will only have mitigated it and prettified it. We will have found relief from the crisis, but not a resolution of it. The administration’s apocalyptic rhetoric about the deal is absurd: The temporary diminishments of Iran’s enrichment activities are not what stand between the Islamic Republic and a bomb. The same people who assure us that Iran has admirably renounced its aspiration to a nuclear arsenal now warn direly that a failure to ratify the accord will send Iranian centrifuges spinning madly again. They ridicule the call for more stringent sanctions against Iran because the sanctions already in place are “leaky” and crumbling, and then they promise us that these same failing measures can be speedily and reliably reconstituted in a nifty mechanism called “snapback.” Leon Wieseltier
La Corée du Nord a appris au monde qu’au poker nucléaire la folie feinte vous vaut de l’aide étrangère ou l’attention planétaire — du fait que même la certitude qu’on a affaire à un bluff à 99% reste suffisante pour effrayer les opinions publiques occidentales. La Corée du nord est le proverbial envieux psychopathe du quartier qui agresse constamment ses voisins prospères d’à côté, en partant du principe que les voisins ne pourront manquer de prendre en compte ses menaces aussi sauvages qu’absurdes parce qu’il n’a rien et qu’ils ont tout à perdre. (…) L’Iran pourrait reprendre à l’infini le modèle de Kim — menaçant une semaine de rayer Israël de la carte, faisant machine arrière la semaine d’après sous prétexte de problèmes de traduction. L’objectif ne serait pas nécessairement de détruire Israël (ce qui vaudrait à l’Iran la destruction de la culture persane pour un siècle), mais d’imposer une telle atmosphère d’inquiétude et de pessimisme à l’Etat juif que son économie en serait affaiblie, son émigration en serait encouragée et sa réputation géostratégique en serait érodée. La Corée du nord est passée maître dans de telles tactiques de chantage nucléaire. A certains moments, Pyongyang a même réussi à réduire les deux géants asiatiques – Japon et Corée du Sud – à la quasi-paralysie. (…) Un Iran nucléaire n’aurait à s’inquiéter ni d’un ennemi existentiel avec une population d’un milliard d’habitants à côté tel que l’Inde ni d’un mécène tout aussi peuplé comme la Chine susceptible d’imposer des lignes rouges à ses crises de folie périodiques. Téhéran serait libre au contraire de faire et de dire ce qu’il veut. Et son statut de puissance nucléaire deviendrait un multiplicateur de force pour son énorme richesse pétrolière et son statut auto-proclamé de leader mondial des musulmans chiites. Si la Corée du Nord est un danger, alors un Iran nucléaire plus gros, plus riche et sans dissuasion serait un cauchemar. Victor Davis Hanson
The definition of appeasement is to accept demands from an aggressor and then declare that the resulting concessions were of no real importance in the first place. Victor Davis Hanson
When Obama entered office in January 2009, post-surge Iraq was quiet. By the end of his first year in office, three Americans had been killed. In 2010, fewer Americans were lost in Iraq each month than in accidents involving the U.S. military. That is why Joe Biden thought Iraq would be the administration’s “greatest achievement,” and Obama himself declared the country “stable and self-reliant.” Pulling all U.S. troops out at the end of 2011, against the advice of almost all sober military and diplomatic experts, achieved the desired talking point for the 2012 reelection campaign, but collapsed the country and birthed ISIL. Obama’s demagoguery is as if President Dwight Eisenhower had pulled all U.S. troops out of South Korea in 1955 to prep for his 1956 reelection campaign — and then blamed the ensuing North Korean victory and devastation of South Korea on Harry Truman for entering the Korean War in the first place in 1950. (…) All the contortions that Barack Obama has offered about Iraq — damning the invasion in 2003; claiming in 2004 that he had no policy differences on Iraq with the Bush administration; declaring in 2007 that the surge would fail; demanding in 2008 as a presidential candidate that all U.S. troops be brought home; assuring the world in 2011 that Iraq was “stable” and “self-reliant” as he pulled out all American peacekeepers; reassuring the world in 2014 that Iraq’s ISIS was not a real threat; and then deciding in 2015 that it was, as he ordered forces back in — have been predicated on perceived political advantage. That also explains why the deal was not presented as a treaty requiring a two-thirds vote of the Senate, as the Constitution outlines. Victor Davis Hanson

Après l’Iran et Cuba, la Corée du nord ?

A l’heure ou emporté par son obsession du changement pour le changement et sa place dans l’histoire …

Le maître-démagogue et pire président américain depuis Carter …

Confirme qu’il est bel et bien prêt de l’Irak à l’Afghanistan où à Cuba et sans oublier ses alliés les plus fidèles comme Israël …

A passer aux pertes et profits, littéralement les yeux fermés, les gains chèrement acquis et héritages combinés de l’ensemble de ses prédécesseurs depuis la Guerre froide …

Comment ne pas se poser la question suggérée en creux par la dernière tribune de l’historien américain Victor Davis Hanson …

De la Corée du nord ?

Ou, pour l’ineffable bonheur d’être le premier à le faire, notre Dennis Rodman de la politique pourrait bien retirer les troupes américaines de Corée du sud …

Et enfin serrer la paluche du dernier dictateur stalinien de la planète ?

Obama: Tougher on Congress than on Khamenei

Obama’s Unpresidential Iran Speech: The speech was mean-spirited and dishonest ─ and may have been counterproductive.

Victor Davis Hanson

National Review Online

August 11, 2015
President Obama’s speech last week advocating congressional approval of the Iran deal was mostly made-up history mixed with invective. Indeed, he talked far more roughly about his congressional partners than he did about our Iranian enemies, who have worked so hard to kill Americans over the last 35 years.
Obama assured us that in the past a “nonproliferation treaty . . . prohibited nations from acquiring nuclear weapons.” One wonders, then, how India, China, North Korea, and Pakistan ever obtained them, given they were all forbidden to do so under “new agreements” forged by Democratic and Republican presidents. Is there much logic in the assertion that the intelligence was flawed when we went to war with what proved to be a non-nuclear Iraq, but that we can trust the same intelligence agencies to apprise us precisely of the nuclear status of Iran?

“After two years of negotiations,” Obama went on, “we have achieved a detailed arrangement that permanently prohibits Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. It cuts off all of Iran’s pathways to a bomb.”

The deal does no such thing. Iran can still possess some enriched uranium. It can still operate centrifuges. It is not subject to anytime, anywhere inspections. And it will be almost impossible to restore international sanctions should Iran be caught cheating. As in the case of Obamacare, most of Obama’s pre-negotiation assurances are now either forgotten or ignored.

Obama, as is his wont, derides any who disagree with him: “Between now and the congressional vote in September, you are going to hear a lot of arguments against this deal, backed by tens of millions of dollars in advertising. And if the rhetoric in these ads and the accompanying commentary sounds familiar, it should, for many of the same people who argued for the war in Iraq are now making the case against the Iran nuclear deal.”

Yet even as Obama spoke those words, an array of Hollywood liberals was appearing in commercials drumming up support for the treaty. China and Russia are said to be lobbying senators to vote for it. When the president drones on ad nauseam about those “same people” who “argued for the war,” whom exactly does he include in the stable of Iraq War supporters — neocons like Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Fareed Zakaria, and Thomas Friedman? When Obama blasts the “tens of millions of dollars in advertising,” with suggestions of the nefarious role of the “same people” who wanted the Iraq War, I think we are meant to understand the old wink-and-nod dual-loyalty trope about American supporters of Israel.

Obama claimed that the Bush administration’s decision to go to war in Iraq was “a preference for military action over diplomacy.” Yet the Iraq War was authorized by both houses of Congress, with a majority of Democratic senators voting in favor, and the resolution contained 23 writs of action — all following up, in the post-9/11 climate, on the regime-change and liberation acts signed into law by former president Bill Clinton. The Bush administration spent months at the United Nations seeking to persuade Security Council members France and Russia (each enjoying valuable oil concessions from Saddam Hussein) to authorize military action in order to enforce U.N. sanctions. In contrast, Obama went to war in Libya without congressional approval. By bombing Moammar Qaddafi into extinction (as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton put it, “We came, we saw, he died”), Obama exceeded the U.N. authorization, which limited U.S. action to humanitarian support and no-fly zones. If Hillary wanted to quote classical Latin concerning the Libyan aftermath, she would have done better to invoke Tacitus: “Where they make a desert, they call it peace.”

The most disingenuous element of Obama’s entire speech was his assertion that “More than a decade later, we still live with the consequences of the decision to invade Iraq . . . Today, Iraq remains gripped by sectarian conflict, and the emergence of al-Qaeda in Iraq has now evolved into ISIL.”

When Obama entered office in January 2009, post-surge Iraq was quiet. By the end of his first year in office, three Americans had been killed. In 2010, fewer Americans were lost in Iraq each month than in accidents involving the U.S. military. That is why Joe Biden thought Iraq would be the administration’s “greatest achievement,” and Obama himself declared the country “stable and self-reliant.”

Pulling all U.S. troops out at the end of 2011, against the advice of almost all sober military and diplomatic experts, achieved the desired talking point for the 2012 reelection campaign, but collapsed the country and birthed ISIL. Obama’s demagoguery is as if President Dwight Eisenhower had pulled all U.S. troops out of South Korea in 1955 to prep for his 1956 reelection campaign — and then blamed the ensuing North Korean victory and devastation of South Korea on Harry Truman for entering the Korean War in the first place in 1950.

Obama, again, blames George W. Bush for most of the problems he himself has caused. For instance, he claims that the Iranians started spinning centrifuges while Bush was in office, conveniently forgetting two key points. First, as a senator, Obama voted to deny the Bush administration the ability to use military force to deter Iran, and he voted against the designation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, despite its then-recent efforts to kill Americans in Iraq. Second, far more centrifuges have come on line during the Obama administration than did during the Bush administration.

What mostly brought Iran to the negotiating table was not skillful Obama diplomacy, but the ongoing increases in global gas and oil supplies, and the resulting collapse of oil prices, which assuaged our Asian and European allies’ worries about skyrocketing oil prices should Iranian oil go off the market. The prospect of a glut persuaded them to join in sanctioning Iran. The plunge in oil prices that strengthened the Obama administration’s hand came about as a result of private exploration in the U.S. that occurred despite rather than because of Obama’s efforts.

When Obama claims that so far his diplomacy has curtailed Iranian enrichment, he has no idea whether that will prove to be an accurate assessment, given the secrecy of the Iranian project and the Iranians’ refusal to allow inspectors full and open access to their facilities. But if Obama is correct that the interim deal worked so well, and if sanctions brought Iran to the table, why in the world would he discard the status quo?

When he details all the things Iran must and will certainly do, why would he think it is any more likely that Iran will follow the letter of the treaty than that Qassem Suleimani — a high-ranking Iranian general and commander of the Quds Force, which carries out terrorist operations — would obey international travel bans? In fact, shortly after listening to Obama’s speech, Suleimani brazenly broke the ban and traveled to see Putin, apparently to negotiate Russian arms sales with his newly released $150 billion in formerly embargoed funds.

Obama says there is “daily access” to Iran’s “key” nuclear sites. But what if Iran declares a site not “key” and therefore off limits? Obama likewise assures us, “This access can be with as little as 24 hours’ notice.” Does anyone really believe that? Not Obama himself, for he immediately qualified that with, “And while the process for resolving a dispute about access can take up to 24 days, once we’ve identified a site that raises suspicion, we will be watching it continuously until inspectors get in.” If a 24-day wait is no hindrance to inspection, why then have it at all? The definition of appeasement is to accept demands from an aggressor and then declare that the resulting concessions were of no real importance in the first place.

Obama insists: “Congressional rejection of this deal leaves any U.S. administration that is absolutely committed to preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon with one option, another war in the Middle East. I say this not to be provocative, I am stating a fact.”

That is not a fact. And it is shameful to suggest that it is. Again, the alternative to the deal is not war now, but rather continued sanctions, and a continuation of the increased oil production by the U.S. and the Gulf monarchies that brought a cash-strapped Iran to the table. Both measures could be ratcheted up even further. Obama talks of a “game changer” — another regrettable selection of words when we remember the history of that phrase in the context of the Syrian pink line. Iran was getting weaker by the day even as Obama’s tenure was running out. The urgency came from both Iran and Obama. The former was fearful that it would be both poorer and weaker when a possibly very different president takes office in 2017; the latter in desperation was looking for a legacy after the detritus of reset, Libya, ISIS, Syria, and the growing estrangement from long-term allies such as Egypt and Israel.

Obama assumes Tehran will spend its impending windfall on domestic projects, and told us that such investment “improves the economy and benefits the lives of the Iranian people” — as if theocratic authoritarians are sober and judicious officials who feel that improving health care or building freeways would best serve their interests, rather than bullying neighbors and thus raising their own military and political statures. From Hitler to Saddam, there is little evidence that dictators think like the technocrats of social democracies.

Obama reassures us that Iran’s “conventional capabilities will never compare to Israel’s.” Israel is a country of 8 million people, Iran one of nearly 78 million — with appendages in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, the West Bank, and Lebanon that together perhaps already have more conventional missiles pointed at Israel than Israel has bombers that can reach them.

Obama downplays Iran’s Hitlerian rhetoric: “Just because Iranian hardliners chant ‘Death to America’ does not mean that that’s what all Iranians believe.” That is an adolescent remark — analogous to saying that just because Hitler promised a “final solution of the Jewish question” did not mean that all Germans shared his anti-Semitism. What would it matter even if such an assertion were true?

Even if a million Iranians once again hit the streets to protest the theocracy — a movement shunned in 2009 by Obama himself — they would probably not be able to sway the policies of their fascist government. Whether most Germans disagreed with the Nazis’ anti-Semitic policy in 1939 was about as relevant as whether Iranians today privately object to the theocrats’ rhetoric.

President Obama should know better. The problem is not that Iranian “hardliners” are chanting “Death to America.” Rather, to take one example, Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in good Mein Kampf fashion, has just published a book of 400-plus pages outlining the de facto end of Israel.

It is beneath a president of the United States to equate U.S. congressional representatives with theocratic fascists. But that comparison is about what Obama offered when he declared, “It’s those hardliners who are most comfortable with the status quo. It’s those hardliners chanting ‘Death to America’ who have been most opposed to the deal. They’re making common cause with the Republican caucus.”

One wonders whether Obama includes in his weird Iran/U.S. Congress “common cause” the man designated to succeed Harry Reid as the Democrats’ leader in the Senate, Chuck Schumer, who, after listening to Obama’s speech, promptly came out against the pact — to the rejoicing, no doubt, of Iranian “hardliners.” Or are the allies of the hardliners the majority of the American people, who also oppose the Obama deal? And what about the Chinese and Russian leaders who wholeheartedly support Obama’s deal, whether out of the desire for lucre, or for humiliation of the U.S. in the present and in the future — or both? Does Obama envision himself and the Iranian theocracy allied against American and Iranian “hardliners” — as if his affinities to the Khamenei clique trump those to, say, Senator Marco Rubio or Senator John McCain?

It is rich from Obama to declare that critics of the deal are playing politics and endangering U.S. credibility: this, from a man who, as senator, in the middle of the critical surge in Iraq in 2007 declared it a failure and advocated pulling out all U.S. troops in the spring of 2008. It was Obama who destroyed U.S. credibility by setting empty deadlines with Iran, empty step-over lines with Russia, and an empty red line with Syria, while promising to shepherd Libya to a stable postwar government, a policy whose natural trajectory ended in Benghazi.

All the contortions that Barack Obama has offered about Iraq — damning the invasion in 2003; claiming in 2004 that he had no policy differences on Iraq with the Bush administration; declaring in 2007 that the surge would fail; demanding in 2008 as a presidential candidate that all U.S. troops be brought home; assuring the world in 2011 that Iraq was “stable” and “self-reliant” as he pulled out all American peacekeepers; reassuring the world in 2014 that Iraq’s ISIS was not a real threat; and then deciding in 2015 that it was, as he ordered forces back in — have been predicated on perceived political advantage. That also explains why the deal was not presented as a treaty requiring a two-thirds vote of the Senate, as the Constitution outlines.

The final irony? President Obama’s rambling and mean-spirited speech may well achieve the opposite effect of its apparent intention. It may persuade some members of his own party that they could do a lot better than joining a dishonest deal and a disingenuous deal-maker.

Voir aussi:

Iran’s North Korean Future

Victor Davis Hanson

National review

April 11, 2013

The idea of a nuclear Iran — and of preventing a nuclear Iran — terrifies security analysts.

Those who argue for a preemptive strike against Iran cannot explain exactly how American planes and missiles would take out all the subterranean nuclear facilities without missing a stashed nuke or two — or whether they might as well expand their target lists to Iranian military assets in general. None can predict the fallout on world oil prices, global terrorism, and the politically fragile Persian Gulf, other than that it would be uniformly bad.

In contrast, those who favor containment of a nuclear Iran do not quite know how the theocracy could be deterred — or how either Israel or the regional Sunni Arab regimes will react to such a powerful and unpredictable neighbor.

The present crisis with North Korea offers us a glimpse of what, and what not, to expect should Iran get the bomb. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would gain the attention currently being paid to Kim Jong Un — attention not otherwise earned by his nation’s economy or cultural influence.

We should assume that the Iranian theocracy, like the seven-decade-long Kim dynasty in North Korea, would periodically sound lunatic: threatening its neighbors and promising a firestorm in the region — if not eventually in the United States and Europe as well.

An oil-rich, conventionally armed Iran has already used that playbook. When it becomes nuclear, those previously stale warnings of ending Israel or attacking U.S. facilities in the Persian Gulf will not be entirely laughed off, just as Kim Jong Un’s insane diatribes are now not so easily dismissed.

North Korea has taught the world that feigned madness in nuclear poker earns either foreign aid or worldwide attention — given that even a 99 percent surety of a bluff can still scare Western publics. North Korea is the proverbial nutty failed neighbor who constantly picks on the successful suburbanites next door, on the premise that the neighbors will heed his wild, nonsensical threats because he has nothing and they have everything to lose.

Iran could copy Kim’s model endlessly — one week threatening to wipe Israel off the map, the next backing down and complaining that problems in translation distorted the actual, less bellicose communiqué. The point would not necessarily be to actually nuke Israel (which would translate into the end of Persian culture for a century), but to create such an atmosphere of worry and gloom over the Jewish state as to weaken its economy, encourage emigration, and erode its geostrategic reputation.

North Korea is a past master of such nuclear-shakedown tactics. At times Pyongyang has reduced two Asian powerhouses — Japan and South Korea — to near paralysis. Can the nations that gave the world Toyota and Samsung really count on the American defense umbrella? Should they go nuclear themselves? Can North Korean leadership be continually bought off with foreign aid, or is it really as crazy serious as it sounds?

Iran would also be different from other nuclear rogue states. The West often fears a nuclear Pakistan, given that a large part of its tribal lands is ungovernable and overrun with Islamic radicals. Its government is friendly to the West only to the degree that American aid continues.

Yet far larger and more powerful India deters nuclear Pakistan. For all the wild talk from both the Pakistani government and tribal terrorists, there is general fear in Pakistan that India has superior conventional and nuclear forces. India is also unpredictable and not the sort of nation that can be periodically threatened and shaken down for concessions.

Iran has no comparable existential enemy of a billion people — only a tiny Israel of some seven million. The result is that there is no commensurate regional deterrent.

Nor does Iran have a tough master like nuclear China. Even Beijing finally pulls on the leash when its unpredictable North Korean client has threatened to bully neighbors and create too unprofitable a fuss.

Of course, China enjoys the angst that its subordinate causes its rivals. It also sees North Korea as a valuable impediment to a huge, unified, and Westernized Korea on its borders. But that said, China does not want a nuclear war in its backyard. That fact ultimately means North Korea is muzzled once its barking becomes too obnoxious.

A nuclear Iran would worry about neither a billion-person nuclear existential enemy nearby such as India, nor a billion-person patron such as China that would establish redlines to its periodic madness. Instead, Tehran would be free to do and say what it pleased. And its nuclear status would become a force multiplier to its enormous oil wealth and self-acclaimed world leadership of Shiite Muslims.

If North Korea has been a danger, then a bigger, richer, and undeterred nuclear Iran would be a nightmare.

Voir encore:

Obama’s Legacy and the Iran Nuclear Agreement

Gary C. Gambill
The National Post
August 18, 2015

Originally published under the title, « Obama’s Legacy-Making Agreement »

U.S. President Barack Obama’s choice of American University, where John F. Kennedy gave a famous 1963 speech calling for peace and nuclear disarmament, to deliver his most impassioned defence of the recently signed Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) earlier this month was no accident. In seeking to convince Congress and the American people that the JCPOA adequately defuses the Iranian nuclear threat, the White House and its supporters have been routinely referring to the agreement as the cornerstone of his foreign policy legacy.

This messaging is partly intended as a signal of resolve to fence-sitting Democrats, who might think twice about opposing the signature foreign policy initiative of a president from their own party. But there is a deeper message implicit in the endless repetition of this talking point — that Obama wouldn’t be foolish enough to double down on the JCPOA if what the critics are saying about it is true. « Look, 20 years from now, I’m still going to be around, God willing, » the president told The Atlantic in May. « If Iran has a nuclear weapon, it’s my name on this. »

This argument, which National Review opinion editor Patrick Brennan paraphrases as, « Settle on a deal that would ruin my foreign policy legacy? But I want to have a good legacy! » is not without logic. Obama’s a smart guy, with the entire U.S. intelligence apparatus at his disposal. If he’s willing to bet his own farm on the JCPOA, it can’t be that bad, can it?

Legacy-making and the defence of U.S. national interests are two different things.

Unfortunately, yes. If smarts, knowledge and the desire to be judged favourably by history guaranteed foreign policy success, presidents would seldom make mistakes. Obama says he has « never been more certain about a policy decision than this one, » but he also thought overthrowing Qaddafi would be a hoot and look how that turned out. Clearly he’s not omniscient.

But the larger problem with the my-name-on-it argument is that legacy-making and the defence of U.S. national interests are two different things. Good policy decisions don’t always highlight White House leadership in ways that can fill a wing of a presidential library. Whatever the merits of Obama’s handling of the Russia-Ukraine crisis, presidential historians don’t rave about preventing a bad situation from getting worse.

Moreover, a favourable legacy doesn’t always require the clear-cut advancement of U.S. national interests in the here and now. Legacy-making concerns how one’s actions will be perceived by future generations who have little sense of the context and details. Whereas elected officials ordinarily strive to be responsive to the interests and preferences of constituents, a legacy-seeking president seeks vindication in the political hereafter.

Good policy doesn’t always highlight White House leadership in ways that can fill a wing of a presidential library.

This is a slippery slope for a progressive like Obama, who surely assumes that future generations will be more sympathetic to his worldview than his contemporaries. He may therefore reason that a charitable judgment can best be ensured by staying true to himself, as it were, even if it entails serious security risks, all the more so because his administration has deviated from these presumed future norms in other areas (e.g., drone strikes).

This may have given Obama reason to prefer a deeply flawed agreement that embodies his worldview over walking away from the table with nothing at all. Failed negotiations — or a continued succession of interim agreements that hands the ball to his successor — don’t interest Steven Spielberg. At a time when prospects of an unvarnished domestic policy triumph have dimmed, and after his ambitious effort to jump-start Israeli-Palestinian talks went nowhere, the Iran negotiations were his last chance to do something big.

Whatever his reasons, Obama’s approach has been to extract as many concessions from Iran as possible before he leaves office, but not leave the table without an agreement. Unfortunately, the Iranians correctly ascertained that he could not afford to take no for an answer, and that standing firm on unreasonable demands would bring American flexibility. The end result is that an « international effort, buttressed by six UN resolutions, to deny Iran the capability to develop a military nuclear option, » former secretary of state Henry Kissinger explained in congressional testimony early this year, soon became « an essentially bilateral negotiation over the scope of that capability, » with the scope of capability acceptable to the administration widening dramatically as the negotiations wore on.

Congress and the American people should give the Obama administration a fair hearing and evaluate the JCPOA on its merits, but pay no attention to the president’s expressions of boundless confidence in the agreement. It’s a good bet even he never imagined he’d have to settle for such a crappy deal.

Gary C. Gambill is a research fellow at the Middle East Forum.


Imperialisme musulman: Attention, un colonialisme peut en cacher un autre (No imperialism or colonialism, please, we’re Muslims !)

6 août, 2015

image
L’invasion du Timor oriental commence le 7 décembre 1975 lorsque les forces armées indonésiennes envahissent ce pays nouvellement indépendant en prenant le prétexte de la lutte contre le colonialisme. Le renversement de l’éphémère mais populaire gouvernement dirigé par le Fretilin marque le point de départ d’une occupation violente de vingt-cinq années au cours de laquelle entre 60 000 et 100 000 soldats et civils est-timorais trouvent la mort. Au cours des premières années de la guerre, les militaires indonésiens font face à une forte résistance insurrectionnelle dans la région montagneuse de l’intérieur de l’île. Toutefois, à partir de 1977-1978, les militaires obtiennent de nouvelles armes plus modernes de la part des États-Unis, de l’Australie et d’autres États qui leur permettent de détruire le cadre du Freitilin. Malgré cette supériorité, les deux dernières décennies du XXe siècle sont le théâtre de combats continuels entre Indonésiens et Est-timorais autour du statut du Timor oriental jusqu’en 1999. À cette date, les Est-timorais votent pour l’indépendance lors d’un référendum organisé par les Nations unies. (…) Les facteurs politiques internes à l’Indonésie du milieu des années 1970 n’étaient cependant pas propices à de tels sentiments expansionnistes. Le scandale financier de 1974-1975 entourant la compagnie pétrolière Pertamina obligeait l’Indonésie à faire preuve de prudence pour ne pas alarmer les donneurs et les banquiers étrangers. Schwarz suggère que cette crainte a dû jouer dans la réticence du Président-Dictateur Suharto à suivre le désir des généraux d’envahir le Timor Oriental au début de l’année 1975. De telles considérations ont cependant été occultées par la crainte des Indonésiens et des Occidentaux de voir la victoire de l’aile gauche du Fretilin mener à la création d’un état communiste à la frontière de l’Indonésie. Celui-ci aurait pu être utilisé comme base par des puissances hostiles à l’Indonésie et constituer une menace pour les sous-marins de l’Ouest. On craignait également que l’exemple d’un Timor oriental indépendant ne suscite des sentiments sécessionnistes dans d’autres provinces indonésiennes. Toutes ces préoccupations ont été utilisées avec succès pour obtenir le soutien des pays occidentaux soucieux de maintenir de bonnes relations avec l’Indonésie, en particulier les États-Unis qui, à cette époque, achevaient leur douloureux retrait d’Indochine. (…) Au début de l’année 1977, la marine indonésienne commande des patrouilleurs lance-missile aux États-Unis, à l’Australie, aux Pays-Bas, à l’Afrique du Sud et à Taïwan ainsi que des sous-marins à l’Allemagne. En février 1977, l’Indonésie reçoit 13 avions North American OV-10 Bronco de la compagnie Rockwell International avec l’aide officielle du gouvernement américain. Le Bronco est un appareil idéal dans le cadre de l’invasion du Timor oriental car il est spécifiquement conçu pour la lutte contre les mouvements insurrectionnels en terrain difficile19. Au début de l’année 1977, au moins six des 13 Broncos opèrent au Timor oriental, aidant l’armée indonésienne à localiser les positions du Fretilin. Outre ce nouvel armement, 10 000 hommes supplémentaires sont envoyés au Timor dans le cadre du lancement d’une nouvelle opération connue sous le nom de « solution finale ». Wikipedia
Whether it was the Romans in Gaul, the Arabs throughout the Mediterranean and Southern Asia, the Huns in Eastern Europe, the Mongols in China, the Turks in the Middle East and the Balkans, the Bantu in southern Africa, the Khmer in East Asia, the Aztecs in Mexico, the Iroquois in the Northeast, or the Sioux throughout the Great Plains, human history has been stained by man’s continual use of brutal violence to acquire land and resources and destroy or replace those possessing them. Scholars may find subtle nuances of evil in the European version of this ubiquitous aggression, but for the victims such fine discriminations are irrelevant. (…) Yet this ideologically loaded and historically challenged use of words like “colonial” and “colonialist” remains rife in analyses of the century-long disorder in the Middle East. Both Islamists and Arab nationalists, with sympathy from the Western left, have blamed the European “colonialists” for the lack of development, political thuggery, and endemic violence whose roots lie mainly in tribal culture, illiberal shari’a law, and sectarian conflicts … Bill Thornton
[La vie intellectuelle française] a quelque chose d’étrange. Au Collège de France, j’ai participé à un colloque savant sur  » Rationalité, vérité et démocratie « . Discuter ces concepts me semble parfaitement incongru. A la Mutualité, on m’a posé la question suivante :  » Bertrand Russell nous dit qu’il faut se concentrer sur les faits, mais les philosophes nous disent que les faits n’existent pas. Comment faire ?  » Une question de ce type laisse peu de place à un débat sérieux car, à un tel niveau d’abstraction, il n’y a rien à ajouter. (…) Comme observateur lointain, je formulerai une hypothèse. Après la Seconde Guerre mondiale, la France est passée de l’avant-garde à l’arrière-cour et elle est devenue une île. Dans les années 30, un artiste ou un écrivain américain se devait d’aller à Paris, de même qu’un scientifique ou un philosophe avait les yeux tournés vers l’Angleterre ou l’Allemagne. Après 1945, tous ces courants se sont inversés, mais la France a eu plus de mal à s’adapter à cette nouvelle hiérarchie du prestige. Cela tient en grande partie à l’histoire de la collaboration. Alors, bien sûr, il y a eu la Résistance et beaucoup de gens courageux, mais rien de comparable avec ce qui s’est passé en Grèce ou en Italie, où la résistance a donné du fil à retordre à six divisions allemandes. Et il a fallu un chercheur américain [Robert Paxton, NDLR] pour que la France soit capable d’affronter ce passé. (…) beaucoup d’intellectuels français sont restés staliniens même quand ils sont passés à l’extrême droite. Comment peut-on accepter que l’Etat définisse la vérité historique et punisse la dissidence de la pensée ? (…) Au Timor-Oriental, entre un quart et un tiers de la population a été décimée avec l’accord des Etats-Unis et de la France, et peu de gens le savent alors que tout le monde connaît les crimes de Pol Pot. Noam Chomsky
L’Arabie Saoudite n’est rien d’autre qu’un Daesh qui a réussi. Éric Zemmour
Obama demande pardon pour les faits et gestes de l’Amérique, son passé, son présent et le reste, il s’excuse de tout. Les relations dégradées avec la Russie, le manque de respect pour l’Islam, les mauvais rapports avec l’Iran, les bisbilles avec l’Europe, le manque d’adulation pour Fidel Castro, tout lui est bon pour battre la coulpe de l’Amérique. Plus encore, il célèbre la contribution (totalement inexistante) de l’Islam à l’essor de l’Amérique, et il se fend d’une révérence au sanglant et sectaire roi d’Arabie, l’Abdullah de la haine. Il annule la ceinture anti-missiles sise en Alaska et propose un désarmement nucléaire inutile. (…) Plus encore, cette déplorable Amérique a semé le désordre et le mal partout dans le monde. Au lieu de collaborer multilatéralement avec tous, d’œuvrer au bien commun avec Poutine, Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Saddam Hussein, Bachir al-Assad, et Cie, l’insupportable Bush en a fait des ennemis. (…) Il n’y a pas d’ennemis, il n’y a que des malentendus. Il ne peut y avoir d’affrontements, seulement des clarifications. Laurent Murawiec
Voilà plus de 60 ans que les gouvernements américains successifs s’opposent à la nation iranienne. En 1332 [1953] avec un coup d’Etat ils ont renversé le gouvernement national de l’Iran et l’ont remplacé par un régime dur, impopulaire et despotique. (…) Le 15 Khordad 1342 [5 juin 1963] ils ont humilié notre nation et ont tué 15 000 personnes de cette nation et ont exilé le chef de notre nation [Ajatollah Khomeini]. En 57 [1978] ils ont tué plus de 1 500 personnes sur la place des martyrs et les tueurs ont reçu le soutien du président américain. Ils ont soutenu la dictature jusqu’au dernier jour. Ils se sont opposés à la révolution de la nation iranienne en quête de liberté, indépendance et justice. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (discours de Kermanshah, le 28 janvier 2009)
En pleine Guerre froide, les États-Unis ont joué un rôle dans le renversement d’un gouvernement iranien démocratiquement élu. Barack Hussein Obama
“We know they don’t need to have an underground, fortified facility like Fordo in order to have a peaceful program.” Obama (Dec. 7, 2013)
Iran has never intended and will never wish to develop nuclear weapons. Hassan Rouhani (Apr. 9, 2015)
Head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) Ali Akbar Salehi also (…) pointed to “unfounded allegations” by some world powers over the past 10 years against Iran’s nuclear program and said it has been proved that such false claims have aimed to “exert cruel and illegal pressure [on the country] to prevent the Iranian nation and government’s march on the path of all-out development and progress.” Presstv.ir
We’re not fixated on Iran specifically accounting for what they did at one point in time or another. We know what they did. We have no doubt. We have absolute knowledge with respect to the certain military activities they were engaged in. What we’re concerned about is going forward.” Kerry (Jun. 6, 2015)
Every one in the world knows that our Supreme Leader (Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei) has placed a religious ban on the development, use or acquisition of military nuclear technology and Iran has never been after atomic bombs. » Hassan Rouhani (Jul. 14, 2015)
« I recognize that resorting to force may be tempting in the face of the rhetoric and behavior that emanates from parts of Iran. It is offensive. It is incendiary. We do take it seriously. But superpowers should not act impulsively in response to taunts, or even provocations that can be addressed short of war. Just because Iranian hard-liners chant ‘death to America’ does not mean that that’s what all Iranians believe. In fact, it’s those hard-liners who are most comfortable with the status quo. It’s those hard-liners chanting ‘death to America’ who have been most opposed to the deal. They’re making common cause with the Republican caucus.” Obama (Aug. 6, 2015)
A senior intelligence official, when asked about the satellite imagery, told us the IAEA was also familiar with what he called « sanitization efforts » since the deal was reached in Vienna, but that the U.S. government and its allies had confidence that the IAEA had the technical means to detect past nuclear work anyway. Bloomberg
What’s curious is that the deal that the Obama Administration now celebrates is based on the same principles that the White House now derides as fairy tales. Like parents putting their children to bed, the White House once sang lullabies to congress and U.S. allies to quiet their concerns about the administration’s diplomatic approach to the Iranian nuclear program. Comparing the administration’s past public statements about the deal with its current positions is a lesson in the political uses of fairy tales … Tablet
The French Revolution, he insists, was a continental attempt to imitate England’s Glorious Revolution, and as soon as it went beyond installing a constitutional monarchy and descended into Jacobinism it drowned democracy itself in blood. Jacobin democracy—populist, egalitarian, naturally inclined to see Marx as the heir of Robespierre—is European. Real democracy—an independent civil society, rule of law, constitutional checks and balances—is an invention of « Anglo-Celtic civilization. »
Britain was lucky, rather than predestined, to be free. Liberty, he argues, is a happy accident of England’s history: « Since the collapse of Rome, there has never been any significant period in Britain when the state was strong enough to enforce its will without considerable concessions to the rights and liberties of important sections of its subjects and without reliance upon consent. » In Britain—and in America—society created and controlled the state. In continental Europe, the state created and controlled both society and nation.
In Conquest’s view, South Africa, India, and democratic Nigeria share more with Canada, the US, and Britain than they do with African and Asian neighbors with political cultures of non-English origin. Common institutions—liberal constitutionalism, the rule of law, checks and balances, and common values like tolerance and individual rights—as well as a common language provide the basis for « a more fruitful unity » than, for example, common membership in the divided and generally impotent United Nations. Michael Ignatief
“The mere existence of the U.S.S.R., and its ideas, distorted the way in which many people over the whole world thought about society, the economy, human history. Many were seduced by the comfortable word ‘socialism,’ even to the extent of rejecting the Western ideas of free discussion, political compromise, plural society, piecemeal practicality, change without chaos.” Robert Conquest
« The Arab conquerors acted in a typically imperialist fashion from the start, subjugating indigenous populations, colonizing their lands, and expropriating their wealth, resources, and labor. (…) From the first Arab-Islamic empire of the mid-seventh century to the Ottomans, the last great Muslim empire, the story of Islam has been the story of the rise and fall of universal empires and, no less important, of imperialist dreams.” Ephraim Karsh
Whether it was the Romans in Gaul, the Arabs throughout the Mediterranean and Southern Asia, the Huns in Eastern Europe, the Mongols in China, the Turks in the Middle East and the Balkans, the Bantu in southern Africa, the Khmer in East Asia, the Aztecs in Mexico, the Iroquois in the Northeast, or the Sioux throughout the Great Plains, human history has been stained by man’s continual use of brutal violence to acquire land and resources and destroy or replace those possessing them. Scholars may find subtle nuances of evil in the European version of this ubiquitous aggression, but for the victims such fine discriminations are irrelevant. (…) Yet this ideologically loaded and historically challenged use of words like “colonial” and “colonialist” remains rife in analyses of the century-long disorder in the Middle East. Both Islamists and Arab nationalists, with sympathy from the Western left, have blamed the European “colonialists” for the lack of development, political thuggery, and endemic violence whose roots lie mainly in tribal culture, illiberal shari’a law, and sectarian conflicts … Bill Thornton

Cachez cet imperialisme et ce colonialisme que je ne saurai voir !

Au lendemain de la signature d’un accord historique …

Sur le programme nucleaire inexistant …

D’un pays en train d’en effacer les dernieres traces …

Par un president americain expurgeant une faute imaginaire

 Et combattant un ennemi sans nom

Quel meilleur hommage en cette disparition de celui qui fut si longtemps seul, pendant la guerre froide, a denoncer les mensonges du monde communiste …

Que ce rappel par l’islamologue Bruce Thornton et le site The Muslim issue …

Que l’imperialisme et le colonialisme occidentaux dont tant les islamistes que leurs idiots utiles nous rabattent les oreilles …

Ne sont non seulement pour rien dans la situation actuelle du Moyen-Orient …

Mais qu’ils ont historiquement peu a apprendre des quelque quinze siècles d’imperialisme musulman …

Y compris celui qui de Chypre a la Papouasie occidentale (respectivement depuis 41 et 49 ans) …

Et sans parler de la  pretendue et oxymorique Republique islamique d’Iran comme du soi-disant Etat islamique …

Continue a sevir dans la plus grande indifference, voire la complicite du pretendu Monde libre ?

MUSLIMS WORLDWIDE
West Papua: The small island where 15% of population have been killed by Muslims
The Muslim issue

August 2, 2015

Muslims are slaughtering the aboriginals of West Papua after taking occupation by force, and killing their dreams of independence granted onto them.

It’s so easy to forget that Muslim violence and oppression is an everyday reality in many small places around the world too.

The people of West Papua have been suffering under Indonesian occupation since 1962. Over 500,000 civilians have been killed, and thousands more have been raped, tortured and imprisoned by Muslims. Foreign media and human rights groups are banned from operating in West Papua, so people rarely hear about the situation there.

The Indonesian archipelago has been an important trade region since at least the 7th century, when Srivijaya and then later Majapahit traded with China and India. Local rulers gradually absorbed foreign cultural, religious and political models from the early centuries CE, and Hindu and Buddhist kingdoms flourished.

Indonesian history has been influenced by foreign powers drawn to its natural resources. Muslim traders brought the now-dominant Islam, while European powers brought Christianity and fought one another to monopolise trade in the Spice Islands of Maluku during the Age of Discovery. Following three and a half centuries of Dutch colonialism, Indonesia was granted its independence from the Dutch after World War II.The Dutch tried to avoid a Muslim takeover of the region and to prepare the natives for independence, the Dutch significantly raised development spending off its low base, began investing in Papuan education, and encouraged Papuan nationalism. But once the Dutch left freedom did not last long and the Muslims quickly moved in and took over.

Indonesia’s history has since been turbulent under its Muslim rule, with challenges posed by natural disasters, mass slaughter, corruption, separatism, a democratisation process, and periods of rapid economic change.

West Papua – The Secret War in Asia

The following short film gives a good introduction to what is happening in West Papua.

History

West Papua was colonised by the Netherlands in 1898, along with the islands that now make up Indonesia. When the Republic of Indonesia became an independent nation state in 1949, West Papua remained under Dutch control. The Dutch government began preparing West Papua for its own independence throughout the 1950s. At the end of 1961, West Papua held a Congress at which its people declared independence, and raised their new flag – the Morning Star.

But within months the dream was dead. The Indonesian Muslim military invaded West Papua and conflict broke out between the Netherlands, Indonesia and the indigenous population regarding control of the territory. The US intervened and engineered an agreement between Indonesia and the Netherlands, which in 1962 gave control of West Papua to the United Nations and one year later transferred control to Indonesia. The Papuans were never consulted. However, the agreement did promise them their right to self determination – a right which is guaranteed by the UN to all people in the world.

Act of No Choice

By 1969 there was widespread resistance to Indonesian rule. The Indonesian military had killed and imprisoned thousands of Papuans in the seven years it had occupied the country – yet it was under these conditions that the people were supposed to exercise their right to self determination. It was agreed that the UN should oversee a plebiscite of the people of West Papua, in which they would be given two choices: to remain part of Indonesia or to become an independent nation. This vote was to be called the ‘Act of Free Choice.’

Protests at Act of Free Choice

West Papuans holding placards, calling for UN assitance, after Indonesia’s invasion of West Papua in 1962

But the Act was a sham. Instead of overseeing a free and fair election, the UN stood by while Indonesia rigged the vote. Declaring that the Papuans were too ‘primitive’ to cope with democracy, the Indonesian military hand-picked just 1,026 ‘representative’ Papuans, out of a population of one million, bribed them and threatened to kill them and their families if they voted the wrong way. So strong was the intimidation that despite widespread opposition to Indonesian rule, all 1,026 voted to remain a part of Indonesia. Despite protests from the Papuans, a critical report by a UN official and condemnation of the vote in the international media, the UN shamefully sanctioned the result and West Papua has remained under control of the Indonesian state ever since. The Papuans now dub this episode ‘the Act of No Choice’.

Consigning the fate of a million people to live under the brutal occupation that ensued is one of the most shameful chapters in the history of the UN. Recently there have been a number of detailed reports that heavily criticise the actions of Indonesia, the UN, and its member states during this period. One of the aims of the Free West Papua Campaign is to persuade the UN to review its role in this event and allow the Papuans a true act of self determination.

The People and Land Under Attack

Freeport Mine

Since the first days of Indonesian occupation, the people and land of West Papua have been under relentless attack. In an attempt to control the Papuans, and to claim the land to make way for resource extraction, the Indonesian army has systematically murdered, raped and tortured people in numbers that could constitute a genocide. One of the worst examples of this is the displacement and killing of thousands of people to make way for the giant American- and British-owned Freeport mine, the largest gold mine in the world, which has reduced a sacred mountain to a crater and poisoned the local river system. In a further attempt to eradicate Papuan culture, around one million people from overcrowded shanty towns across Indonesia have been moved into ‘transmigration’ camps cut into the forests.

Resistance to Indonesian Colonialism

Resistance to the Indonesian occupation started from the first days after the invasion. An armed guerrilla group called the OPM (Free Papua Movement) was formed in 1970 to resist the colonisation of West Papua. The OPM carried out a number of guerrilla attacks on the Indonesian military and on the holdings of multinational companies who had taken Papuan land and resources – including a successful attempt to close down the Freeport gold and copper mine. Armed mostly with bows and arrows, the small, ragged but determined OPM fought an almost unknown war against the well-armed, Western-backed Indonesian military for decades.

Recent Years

Following the fall of the Indonesian military dictator, General Suharto, in 1998, a political space briefly opened up in West Papua. The Morning Star flag was flown again and a huge public congress was held in the year 2000 with hundreds of delegates from tribes all across Papua. The Congress rejected the result of the 1969 Act of Free Choice and reaffirmed West Papua as an independent nation. It also gave power to the newly formed Papuan Presidium Council (PDP) to gain world recognition for West Papua’s independence. But these hopes were soon dashed. Fearing secession, the army moved in, and hundreds of people were shot and arrested for public flag raisings and independence rallies. Then, in November 2001, the charismatic president of the PDP, Theys Eluay, was assassinated by Indonesian soldiers.

Independence aspirations continued to be publicly demonstrated and whilst on the ground the police and military continued to respond with violence and intimidation, the Indonesian state attempted to quell these hopes by passing special autonomy legislation. The legislation was supposed to devolve some power and distribute more resources to West Papua but it is widely regarded as a failure by the indigenous Papuans with corruption leading to money being hoarded or misspent.

In recent years a new independence organisation, the KNPB (National Committee for West Papua) has become prominent. Under its guidance huge independence rallies have been held across West Papua and the West Papuan’s voice is united more than ever. As a result, many of its members have been arrested, tortured and killed. In 2012, the KNPB chairman Mako Tabuni was killed by Indonesian police, whilst many others face lengthy jail sentences of up to fifteen years just for raising the West Papuan flag.

Today West Papua’s tragedy continues with ongoing reports of villages being burnt, Papuans being arrested, tortured and shot and the beautiful natural wilderness being devastated by logging, mining, agricultural and biofuel interests.

“I recognise the inalienable right of the indigenous people of West Papua to self-determination which was violated in the 1969 “Act of Free Choice”. The human rights of each of us are undermined if the human rights of others are denied.”

But there is good news too. The issue of West Papua is creeping up the international agenda as campaign groups, Papuan leaders-in-exile and concerned people all over the world alert their leaders to the injustice that is happening in West Papua.

Despite a ban on foreign journalists, media outlets are beginning to cover the story and have exposed leaked videos of West Papuans being tortured by their Muslim occupiers.

With the advent of the International Parliamentarians for West Papua (IPWP) and the International Lawyers for West Papua (ILWP) politicians and lawyers are beginning to engage with the issue. Things are moving in the right direction – but they need to move faster if more bloodshed is to be avoided, and the people of West Papua’s cry for freedom is finally to be heard.

Ahmad Zainuddin a member of the House of Representatives claims that West Papuan people voted to join Indonesia with the 1969 Act of free choice.

Ahmad Zainuddin, a member of the House of Representatives in Jakarta, Indonesia, claims that West Papuan people voted to join Indonesia with the 1969 Act of free choice.

West Papau occupied region filled with muslim violence

Herded up like cattle and led away onto Indonesian army trucks to be tortured and then murdered. This is the reality of life in occupied West Papua. A land where over 500,000 people have been murdered by the Indonesian army, and thousands more have ‘disappeared’, been raped, tortured and imprisoned.

Voir aussi:

The Truth About Western “Colonialism”

Bruce Thornton

Hoover
July 29, 2015

Language is the first casualty of wars over foreign policy. To paraphrase Thucydides, during ideological conflict, words have to change their ordinary meaning and to take that which is now given them.

One word that has been central to our foreign policy for over a century is “colonialism.” Rather than describing a historical phenomenon––with all the complexity, mixture of good and evil, and conflicting motives found on every page of history––“colonialism” is now an ideological artifact that functions as a crude epithet. As a result, our foreign policy decisions are deformed by self-loathing and guilt eagerly exploited by our adversaries.
The great scholar of Soviet terror, Robert Conquest, noted this linguistic corruption decades ago. Historical terms like “imperialism” and “colonialism,” Conquest wrote, now refer to “a malign force with no program but the subjugation and exploitation of innocent people.” As such, these terms are verbal “mind-blockers and thought-extinguishers,” which serve “mainly to confuse, and of course to replace, the complex and needed process of understanding with the simple and unneeded process of inflammation.” Particularly in the Middle East, “colonialism” has been used to obscure the factual history that accounts for that region’s chronic dysfunctions, and has legitimized policies doomed to fail because they are founded on distortions of that history.

The simplistic discrediting of colonialism and its evil twin imperialism became prominent in the early twentieth century. In 1902 J.A. Hobson’s influential Imperialism: A Study reduced colonialism to a malign economic phenomenon, the instrument of capitalism’s “economic parasites,” as Hobson called them, who sought resources, markets, and profits abroad. In 1917, Vladimir Lenin, faced with the failure of classical Marxism’s historical predictions of the proletarian revolution, in 1917 built on Hobson’s ideas in Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism. Now the indigenous colonized peoples would perform the historical role of destroying capitalism that the European proletariat had failed to fulfill.

These ideas influenced the anti-colonial movements after World War II. John-Paul Sartre, in his introduction to Franz Fanon’s anti-colonial screed The Wretched of the Earth, wrote, “Natives of the underdeveloped countries unite!” substituting the Third World for classic Marxism’s “workers of the world.” This leftist idealization of the colonial Third World and its demonization of the capitalist West have survived the collapse of the Soviet Union and the discrediting of Marxism, and have become received wisdom both in academe and popular culture. It has underwritten the reflexive guilt of the West, the idea that “every Westerner is presumed guilty until proven innocent,” as French philosopher Pascal Bruckner writes, for the West contains an “essential evil that must be atoned for,” colonialism and imperialism.

This leftist interpretation of words like colonialism and imperialism transforms them into ideologically loaded terms that ultimately distort the tragic truths of history. They imply that Europe’s explorations and conquests constituted a new order of evil. In reality, the movements of peoples in search of resources, as well as the destruction of those already in possession of them, is the perennial dynamic of history.

Whether it was the Romans in Gaul, the Arabs throughout the Mediterranean and Southern Asia, the Huns in Eastern Europe, the Mongols in China, the Turks in the Middle East and the Balkans, the Bantu in southern Africa, the Khmer in East Asia, the Aztecs in Mexico, the Iroquois in the Northeast, or the Sioux throughout the Great Plains, human history has been stained by man’s continual use of brutal violence to acquire land and resources and destroy or replace those possessing them. Scholars may find subtle nuances of evil in the European version of this ubiquitous aggression, but for the victims such fine discriminations are irrelevant.

Yet this ideologically loaded and historically challenged use of words like “colonial” and “colonialist” remains rife in analyses of the century-long disorder in the Middle East. Both Islamists and Arab nationalists, with sympathy from the Western left, have blamed the European “colonialists” for the lack of development, political thuggery, and endemic violence whose roots lie mainly in tribal culture, illiberal shari’a law, and sectarian conflicts.

Moreover, it is blatant hypocrisy for Arab Muslims to complain about imperialism and colonialism. As Middle East historian Efraim Karsh documents in Islamic Imperialism, “The Arab conquerors acted in a typically imperialist fashion from the start, subjugating indigenous populations, colonizing their lands, and expropriating their wealth, resources, and labor.” Indeed, if one wants to find a culture defined by imperialist ambitions, Islam fits the bill much better than do Europeans and Americans, latecomers to the great game of imperial domination that Muslims successfully played for a thousand years.

“From the first Arab-Islamic empire of the mid-seventh century to the Ottomans, the last great Muslim empire,” Karsh writes, “the story of Islam has been the story of the rise and fall of universal empires and, no less important, of imperialist dreams.”

A recent example of this confusion caused by careless language can be found in commentary about the on-going dissolution of Iraq caused by sectarian and ethnic conflicts. There is a growing consensus that the creation of new nations in the region after World War I sowed the seeds of the current disorder. Ignoring those ethnic and sectarian differences, the British fashioned the nation of Iraq out of three Ottoman provinces that had roughly concentrated Kurds, Sunni, and Shi’a in individual provinces.

There is much of value to be learned from this history, but even intelligent commentators obscure that value with misleading words like “colonial.” Wall Street Journal writer Jaroslav Trofimov, for example, recently writing about the creation of the Middle Eastern nations, described France and England as “colonial powers.” Similarly, columnist Charles Krauthammer on the same topic used the phrase “colonial borders.” In both instances, the adjectives are historically misleading.

France and England, of course, were “colonial powers,” but their colonies were not in the Middle East. The region had for centuries been under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire. Thus Western “colonialism” was not responsible for the region’s dysfunctions. Rather, it was the incompetent policies and imperialist fantasies of the Ottoman leadership during the century before World War I, which culminated in the disastrous decision to enter the war on the side of Germany, that bear much of the responsibility for the chaos that followed the defeat of the Central Powers.

Another important factor was the questionable desire of the British to create an Arab national homeland in the ruins of the Ottoman Empire, and to gratify the imperial pretensions of their ally the Hashemite clan, who shrewdly convinced the British that their self-serving and marginal actions during the war had been important in fighting the Turks.

Obviously, the European powers wanted to influence these new nations in order to protect their geopolitical and economic interests, but they had no desire to colonize them. Idealists may decry that interference, or see it as unjust, but it is not “colonialism” rightly understood.

No more accurate is Krauthammer’s use of “colonial borders” to describe the region’s nations. Like all combatants in a great struggle, in anticipation of the defeat of the Central Powers, the British and French began planning the settlement of the region in 1916 in a meeting that produced the Sykes-Picot agreement later that year. But there is nothing unexceptional or untoward in this. In February 1945, Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin met in Yalta to negotiate their spheres of influence in Germany and Eastern Europe after the war. It would be strange if the Entente powers had notlaid out their plans for the territories of the defeated enemy.

Thus as part of the peace treaties and conferences after World War I, the French and British were given, under the authority of negotiated treaties and the supervision of the League of Nations, the “mandates” over the former Ottoman territories lying between Egypt and Turkey. In 1924 the goal of the mandates was spelled out in Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant: “Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.”

Thus the nations created in the old Ottoman territory were sanctioned by international law as the legitimate prerogative of the victorious Entente powers. There was nothing “colonial” about the borders of the new nations.

One can legitimately challenge the true motives of the mandatory powers, doubt their sincerity in protesting their concern for the region’s peoples, or criticize their borders for serving European interests rather than those of the peoples living there. But whatever their designs, colonizing was not one of them. Indeed, by 1924 colonialism had long been coming into question for many in the West, and at the time of the post-war settlement the reigning ideal was not colonialism, but ethnic self-determination as embodied in the nation-state, as Woodrow Wilson had called for in February 1918: “National aspirations must be respected; people may now be dominated and governed only by their own consent.” The Anglo-French Declaration issued a few days before the war ended on November 11, 1918 agreed, stating that their aims in the former Ottoman territories were “the establishment of National Governments and administrations deriving their authority from the initiative and free choice of the indigenous populations.”

Again, one can question the wisdom of trying to create Western nation-states and political orders in a region still intensely tribal, with a religion in which the secular nation is an alien import. That incompatibility continues to be an ongoing problem nearly a century later, as we watch the failure of nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the hopes of the Arab Spring dashed in the violence and disorder of the Arab Winter.

But whatever the sins of the Europeans in the Middle East, colonialism is not one of them. The misuse of the term may sound trivial, but it legitimizes the jihadist narrative of Western guilt and justified Muslim payback through terrorist violence, now perfumed as “anticolonial resistance.” It reinforces what Middle East scholar J.B. Kelly called the “preemptive cringe,” the willingness of the West to blame itself for the region’s problems, as President Obama did in his 2009 Cairo speech when he condemned the “colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims.”

This apologetic stance has characterized our foreign policy and emboldened our enemies for half a century. Today the region is in more danger of collapse into widespread violence and more of a threat to our national interests than at any time in the last fifty years. Perhaps we should start crafting our foreign policy on the foundations of historical truth and precise language.

Voir également:

The Triumph of Robert Conquest
He chronicled the Soviet terror that so many in the West refused to see.

WSJ

Aug. 5, 2015

Robert Conquest was born in 1917, the year of the Russian Revolution, so it seems fitting that he outlived the Soviet Union by more than 25 years.

The indefatigable historian, and enemy, of Soviet totalitarianism died Tuesday at age 98.

Conquest’s major themes were reality and delusion. “The Great Terror” (1968) was the first and still definitive treatment of Stalin’s purges, gulags, show trials and secret police, meticulously documenting the enormity of the death toll. “Harvest of Sorrow” (1986) chronicled what he called the “terror famines” that followed agricultural collectivization.

When sources inside Russia were few and most Kremlinologists were oblivious, these classics contributed immensely to understanding the nature of the Communist project. They also helped shape the response that won the Cold War; Reagan and Thatcher were among his readers.

Still, until Moscow opened the archives post-1989, leftist intellectuals and especially academics denied the realities Conquest exposed, claiming he exaggerated Stalin’s evil. That debate is now closed beyond challenge.

Conquest dedicated his later years at Stanford’s Hoover Institution to plumbing delusion, which he defined as “massive reality denial,” or why Russia had so many apologists and sympathizers. He blamed the persistence of destructive beliefs and the bottomless human capacity for self-deception.

“The mere existence of the U.S.S.R., and its ideas, distorted the way in which many people over the whole world thought about society, the economy, human history,” Conquest wrote in these pages in 1992. “Many were seduced by the comfortable word ‘socialism,’ even to the extent of rejecting the Western ideas of free discussion, political compromise, plural society, piecemeal practicality, change without chaos.”

Conquest added that the lessons of the bloody 20th century “have not yet been learned, or not adequately so.” Many today across the world still offer solace to dictators and mass murderers, whatever their reasons, so Conquest’s insights into human deception remain and will always be relevant.

Right now the United States of America is being led by the ideological heir of Lenin and Stalin, Barack Hussein Obama. A man raised and mentored by hardcore Communists. I have not read the « Great Terror », but I have read and own « Harvest of Sorrow » and the level of abject depravity depicted is beyond description, reducing Ukraine to the cannibalization of children. A systemic war against « the peasantry and the Kulaks » so brutal that it led Stalin’s wife, Nadya, to commit suicide from guilt. This ideology, morphed and re-marketed to fit 21st Century America, is alive and well in the policies of Barack Obama, who has wrecked the greatest nation in the course of human history with his Third World Bolshevism, paraded as democratic socialism.
Let us use the work of Dr. Conquest as a catalyst and a warning of the detriment a cult of personality wedded to totalitarian ideology can have on a people and a society, so as to stop what happened in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany from happening here, or else we are going to need historian’s like Robert Conquest to document Obama’s crimes and atrocities against America. You think we would have learned.

It is human nature not to want to believe the worst. It is what makes Leftism possible. To support Leftist causes, one is required to look away, to deny reality. One can only defend their extreme position on abortion if one does not look at sonograms or the recent videos of Planned Parenthood and refuse to hear the gruesome details of partial birth abortion. And so it is with the Iran peace ‘deal’; to support it one is required to ignore the anti-Semitic, anti American pronouncements of Iran’s leaders, their history of deception, their open support for terrorism, and the violent subjugation of their people . Obama argues that his critics are wrong to take things at face value and that the price of their misjudgment will be war. But if Obama is wrong, if the Ayatollah really means what he says, if history really does teach us, what will the price of Obama’s misjudgment be? Peace? Yep, you would have to believe that too.

Voir encore:

40 Years Later
The Mass Killings in Indonesia
John Roosa and Joseph Nevins
Counterpunch
November 5-7, 2005

« One of the worst mass murders of the twentieth century. » That was how a CIA publication described the killings that began forty years ago last month in Indonesia. It was one of the few statements in the text that was correct. The 300-page text was devoted to blaming the victims of the killings — the supporters of the Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI) — for their own deaths. The PKI had supposedly attempted a coup d’état and a nationwide uprising called the September 30th Movement (which, for some unknown reason, began on October 1). The mass murder of hundreds of thousands of the party’s supporters over subsequent months was thus a natural, inevitable, and justifiable reaction on the part of those non-communists who felt threatened by the party’s violent bid for state power. The killings were part of the « backfire » referred to in the title: Indonesia ­ 1965: The Coup that Backfired. The author of this 1968 report, later revealed to be Helen Louise Hunter, acknowledged the massive scale of the killings only to dismiss the necessity for any detailed consideration of them. She concentrated on proving that the PKI was responsible for the September 30th Movement while consigning the major issue, the anti-PKI atrocities, to a brief, offhanded comment. [1]

Hunter’s CIA report accurately expressed the narrative told by the Indonesian army commanders as they organized the slaughter. That narrative rendered the September 30th Movement ­ a disorganized, small-scale affair that lasted about 48 hours and resulted in a grand total of 12 deaths, among them six army generals ­ into the greatest evil ever to befall Indonesia [2]. The commander of the army, Major General Suharto, justified his acquisition of emergency powers in late 1965 and early 1966 by insisting that the September 30th Movement was a devious conspiracy by the PKI to seize state power and murder all of its enemies. Suharto’s martial law regime detained some 1.5 million people as political prisoners (for varying lengths of time), and accused them of being « directly or indirectly involved in the September 30th Movement. » The hundreds of thousands of people shot, stabbed, bludgeoned, or starved to death were labeled perpetrators, or would-be perpetrators of atrocities, just as culpable for the murder of the army generals as the handful of people who were truly guilty.

The September 30th Movement was Suharto’s Reichstag fire: a pretext for destroying the communist party and seizing state power. As with the February 1933 fire in the German parliament that Hitler used to create a hysterical, crisis-filled atmosphere, the September 30th Movement was exaggerated by Suharto’s clique of officers until it assumed the proportions of a wild, vicious, supernatural monster. The army whipped up an anti-communist propaganda campaign from the early days of October 1965: « the PKI » had castrated and tortured the seven army officers it had abducted in Jakarta, danced naked and slit the bodies of the army officers with a hundred razor blades, drawn up hit lists, dug thousands of ditches around the country to hold countless corpses, stockpiled guns imported from China, and so on. The army banned many newspapers and put the rest under army censorship. It was precisely this work of the army’s psychological warfare specialists that created the conditions in which the mass murder of « the PKI » seemed justified.

The question as to whether or not the PKI actually organized the September 30th Movement is important only because the Suharto regime made it important. Otherwise, it is irrelevant. Even if the PKI had nothing whatsoever to do with the movement, the army generals would have blamed the party for it. As it was, they made their case against the PKI largely on the basis of the transcripts of the interrogations of those movement participants who hadn’t already been summarily executed. Given that the army used torture as standard operating procedure for interrogations, the statements of the suspects cannot be trusted. Hunter’s CIA report, primarily based on those transcripts, is as reliable as an Inquisition text on witchcraft.

The PKI as a whole was clearly not responsible for the September 30th Movement. The party’s three million members did not participate in it. If they had, it would not have been such a small-scale affair. The party chairman, D.N. Aidit, however, does seem to have played a key role. He was summarily and secretly executed in late 1965, as were two of the three other core Politburo leaders (Lukman and Njoto), before they could provide their accounts. The one among them who survived the initial terror, the general secretary of the party, Sudisman, admitted in the military’s kangaroo court in 1967 that the PKI as an institution knew nothing of the September 30th Movement but that certain leaders were involved in a personal capacity. If the movement’s leaders had been treated as the leaders of previous revolts against the postcolonial government, they would have been arrested, put on trial, and sentenced. All the members of their organizations would not have been imprisoned or massacred.

With so little public discussion and so little scholarly research about the 1965-66 mass killings, they remain poorly understood. Many people outside of Indonesia believe that the victims were primarily Indonesian Chinese. While some Indonesian Chinese were among the victims, they were by no means the majority. The violence targeted members of the PKI and the various organizations either allied to the party or sympathetic to it, whatever ethnicity they happened to be: Javanese, Balinese, Sundanese, etc. It was not a case of ethnic cleansing. Many people imagine that the killings were committed by frenzied mobs rampaging through villages and urban neighborhoods. But recent oral history research suggests that most of the killings were executions of detainees. [3] Much more research is needed before one can arrive at definitive conclusions.

President Sukarno, the target of the PKI’s alleged coup attempt, compared the army’s murderous violence against those labeled PKI to a case of someone « burning down the house to kill a rat. » He routinely protested the army’s exaggerations of the September 30th Movement. It was, he said, nothing more than « a ripple in the wide ocean. » His inability or unwillingness to muster anything more than rhetorical protests, however, ultimately doomed his rule. In March 1966, Suharto grabbed the authority to dismiss, appoint, and arrest cabinet ministers, even while maintaining Sukarno as figurehead president until March 1967. The great orator who had led the nationalist struggle against the Dutch, the cosmopolitan visionary of the Non-Aligned Movement, was outmaneuvered by a taciturn, uneducated, thuggish, corrupt army general from a Javanese village.

Suharto, a relative nobody in Indonesian politics, moved against the PKI and Sukarno with the full support of the U.S. government. Marshall Green, American ambassador to Indonesia at the time, wrote that the embassy had « made clear » to the army that Washington was « generally sympathetic with and admiring » of its actions. [4] U.S. officials went so far as to express concern in the days following the September 30th Movement that the army might not do enough to annihilate the PKI. [5] The U.S. embassy supplied radio equipment, walkie-talkies, and small arms to Suharto so that his troops could conduct the nationwide assault on civilians. [6] A diligent embassy official with a penchant for data collection did his part by handing the army a list of thousands of names of PKI members. [7] Such moral and material support was much appreciated in the Indonesian army. As an aide to the army’s chief of staff informed U.S. embassy officials in October 1965, « This was just what was needed by way of assurances that we weren’t going to be hit from all angles as we moved to straighten things out here. »[8]

This collaboration between the U.S. and the top army brass in 1965 was rooted in Washington’s longstanding wish to have privileged and enhanced access to Southeast Asia’s resource wealth. Many in Washington saw Indonesia as the region’s centerpiece. Richard Nixon characterized the country as « containing the region’s richest hoard of natural resources » and « by far the greatest prize in the South-East Asian area. » [9] Two years earlier, in a 1965 speech in Asia, Nixon had argued in favor of bombing North Vietnam to protect Indonesia’s « immense mineral potential. » [10] But obstacles to the realization of Washington’s geopolitical-economic vision arose when the Sukarno government emerged upon independence in Indonesia. Sukarno’s domestic and foreign policy was nationalist, nonaligned, and explicitly anti-imperialist. Moreover, his government had a working relationship with the powerful PKI, which Washington feared would eventually win national elections.

Eisenhower’s administration attempted to break up Indonesia and sabotage Sukarno’s presidency by supporting secessionist revolts in 1958.[11] When that criminal escapade of the Dulles brothers failed, the strategists in Washington reversed course and began backing the army officers of the central government. The new strategy was to cultivate anti-communist officers who could gradually build up the army as a shadow government capable of replacing President Sukarno and eliminating the PKI at some future date. The top army generals in Jakarta bided their time and waited for the opportune moment for what U.S. strategists called a final « showdown » with the PKI. [12] That moment came on October 1, 1965.

The destruction of the PKI and Sukarno’s ouster resulted in a dramatic shift in the regional power equation, leading Time magazine to hail Suharto’s bloody takeover as « The West’s best news for years in Asia. » [13] Several years later, the U.S. Navy League’s publication gushed over Indonesia’s new role in Southeast Asia as « that strategic area’s unaggressive, but stern, monitor, » while characterizing the country as « one of Asia’s most highly developed nations and endowed by chance with what is probably the most strategically authoritative geographic location on earth. » [14] Among other things, the euphoria reflected just how lucrative the changing of the guard in Indonesia would prove to be for Western business interests.

Suharto’s clique of army officers took power with a long-term economic strategy in mind. They expected the legitimacy of their new regime would derive from economic growth and that growth would derive from bringing in Western investment, exporting natural resources to Western markets, and begging for Western aid. Suharto’s vision for the army was not in terms of defending the nation against foreign aggression but defending foreign capital against Indonesians. He personally intervened in a meeting of cabinet ministers in December 1965 that was discussing the nationalization of the oil companies Caltex and Stanvac. Soon after the meeting began, he suddenly arrived by helicopter, entered the chamber, and declared, as the gleeful U.S. embassy account has it, that the military « would not stand for precipitous moves against oil companies. » Faced with such a threat, the cabinet indefinitely postponed the discussion. [15] At the same time, Suharto’s army was jailing and killing union leaders at the facilities of U.S. oil companies and rubber plantations. [16]

Once Suharto decisively sidelined Sukarno in March 1966, the floodgates of foreign aid opened up. The U.S. shipped large quantities of rice and cloth for the explicit political purpose of shoring up his regime. Falling prices were meant to convince Indonesians that Suharto’s rule was an improvement over Sukarno’s. The regime’s ability over the following years to sustain economic growth via integration with Western capital provided whatever legitimacy it had. Once that pattern of growth ended with the capital flight of the 1997 Asian economic crisis, the regime’s legitimacy quickly vanished. Middle class university students, the fruits of economic growth, played a particularly important role in forcing Suharto from office. The Suharto regime lived by foreign capital and died by foreign capital.

By now it is clear that the much ballyhooed economic growth of the Suharto years was severely detrimental to the national interest. The country has little to show for all the natural resources sold on the world market. Payments on the foreign and domestic debt, part of it being the odious debt from the Suharto years, swallow up much of the government’s budget. With health care spending at a minimum, epidemic and preventable diseases are rampant. There is little domestic industrial production. The forests from which military officers and Suharto cronies continue to make fortunes are being cut down and burned up at an alarming rate. The country imports huge quantities of staple commodities that could be easily produced on a larger scale in Indonesia, such as sugar, rice, and soybeans. The main products of the villages now are migrant laborers, or « the heroes of foreign exchange, » to quote from a lighted sign at the Jakarta airport.

Apart from the pillaging of Indonesia’s resource base, the Suharto regime caused an astounding level of unnecessary suffering. At his command, the Indonesian military invaded neighboring East Timor in 1975 after receiving a green light from President Gerald Ford and his secretary of state, Henry Kissinger. The result was an occupation that lasted for almost 24 years and left a death toll of tens of thousands of East Timorese. Within Indonesia proper, the TNI committed widespread atrocities during counterinsurgency campaigns in the resource-rich provinces of West Papua and Aceh, resulting in tens of thousands of additional fatalities.

With Suharto’s forced resignation in 1998, significant democratic space has opened in Indonesia. There are competitive national and local elections. Victims of the « New Order » and their families are able to organize. There is even an official effort to create a national truth commission to investigate past atrocities. Nevertheless, the military still looms large over the country’s political system. As such, there has not been a thorough investigation of any of the countless massacres that took place in 1965-66. History textbooks still focus on the September 30th Movement and make no mention of the massacres. Similarly, no military or political leaders have been held responsible for the Suharto-era crimes (or those that have taken place since), thus increasing the likelihood of future atrocities. This impunity is a source of continuing worry for Indonesia’s civil society and restless regions, as well as poverty-stricken, now-independent East Timor. It is thus not surprising that the government of the world’s newest country feels compelled to play down demands for justice by its citizenry and emphasize an empty reconciliation process with Indonesia. Meanwhile in the United States, despite political support and billions of dollars in U.S. weaponry, military training and economic assistance to Jakarta over the preceding four decades, Washington’s role in Indonesia’s killing fields of 1965-66 and subsequent brutality has been effectively buried, thus enabling the Bush administration’s current efforts to further ties with Indonesia’s military, as part of the global « war on terror. » [17] Suharto’s removal from office has not led to radical changes in Indonesia’s state and economy.

Sukarno used to indict Dutch colonialism by saying that Indonesia was « a nation of coolies and a coolie among nations. » Thanks to the Suharto years, that description remains true. The principles of economic self-sufficiency, prosperity, and international recognition for which the nationalist struggle was fought now seem as remote as ever. It is encouraging that many Indonesians are now recalling Sukarno’s fight against Western imperialism (first the Netherlands and then the U.S.) after experiencing the misery that Suharto’s strategy of collaboration has wrought. In his « year of living dangerously » speech in August 1964 ­ a phrase remembered in the West as just the title of a 1982 movie with Mel Gibson and Sigourney Weaver ­ Sukarno spoke about the Indonesian ideal of national independence struggling to stay afloat in « an ocean of subversion and intervention from the imperialists and colonialists. » Suharto’s U.S.-assisted takeover of state power forty years ago last month drowned that ideal in blood, but it might just rise again during the ongoing economic crisis that is endangering the lives of so many Indonesians.

John Roosa is an assistant professor of history at the University of British Columbia, and is the author of Pretext for Mass Murder: The September 30th Movement and Suharto’s Coup d’État in Indonesia (University of Wisconsin Press, forthcoming in 2006).

Joseph Nevins is an assistant professor of geography at Vassar College, and is the author of A Not-so-distant Horror: Mass Violence in East Timor (Cornell University Press, 2005).

They may be reached at: jonevins@pop.vassar.edu

Notes

1. A former CIA agent who worked in Southeast Asia, Ralph McGehee, noted in his memoir that the agency compiled a separate report about the events of 1965, one that reflected its agents’ honest opinions, for its own in-house readership. McGehee’s description of it was heavily censored by the agency when it vetted an account he first published in the April 11, 1981 edition of The Nation. Deadly Deceits: My 25 Years in the CIA (New York: Sheridan Square, 1983), pp. 57-58. Two articles in the agency’s internal journal Studies in Intelligence have been declassified: John T. Pizzicaro, « The 30 September Movement in Indonesia, » (Fall 1969); Richard Cabot Howland, « The Lessons of the September 30 Affair, » (Fall 1970). The latter is available online: http://www.odci.gov/csi/kent_csi/docs/v14i2a02p_0001.htm

2. In Jakarta, the movement’s troops abducted and killed six army generals and a lieutenant taken by mistake from the house of the seventh who avoided capture. In the course of these abductions, a five year-old daughter of a general, a teenaged nephew of another general, and a security guard were killed. In Central Java, two army colonels were abducted and killed.

3. John Roosa, Ayu Ratih, and Hilmar Farid, eds. Tahun yang Tak Pernah Berakhir: Memahami Pengalaman Korban 65; Esai-Esai Sejarah Lisan [The Year that Never Ended: Understanding the Experiences of the Victims of 1965; Oral History Essays] (Jakarta: Elsam, 2004). Also consider the massacre investigated in Chris Hilton’s very good documentary film Shadowplay (2002).

4. Telegram from the Embassy in Indonesia to Department of State, November 4, 1965, in United States Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964-1968, vol. 26, p. 354. This FRUS volume is available online at the National Security Archive website: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB52/#FRUS

5. Telegram from the Embassy in Jakarta to Department of State, October 14, 1965. Quoted in Geoffrey Robinson, The Dark Side of Paradise: Political Violence in Bali (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1995), p. 283.

6. Frederick Bunnell, « American ‘Low Posture’ Policy Toward Indonesia in the Months Leading up to the 1965 ‘Coup’, » Indonesia, 50 (October 1990), p. 59.

7. Kathy Kadane, « Ex-agents say CIA Compiled Death Lists for Indonesians, » San Francisco Examiner, May 20, 1990, available online at http://www.pir.org/kadane.html

8. CIA Report no. 14 to the White House (from Jakarta), October 14, 1965. Cited in Robinson, The Dark Side of Paradise, p. 283.

9. Richard Nixon, « Asia After Viet Nam, » Foreign Affairs (October 1967), p. 111.

10. Quoted in Peter Dale Scott, « Exporting Military-Economic Development: America and the Overthrow of Sukarno, » in Malcolm Caldwell (ed.), Ten Years’ Military Terror in Indonesia (Nottingham (U.K.): Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation for Spokesman Books, 1975), p. 241.

11. Audrey R. Kahin and George McT. Kahin, Subversion as Foreign Policy: The Secret Eisenhower and Dulles Debacle in Indonesia (New York: The New Press, 1995), p. 1.

12. Bunnell, « American ‘Low Posture’ Policy, » pp. 34, 43, 53-54.

13. Time, July 15, 1966. Also see Noam Chomsky, Year 501: The Conquest Continues (Boston: South End Press, 1993), pp. 123-131.

14. Lawrence Griswold, « Garuda and the Emerald Archipelago: Strategic Indonesia Forges New Ties with the West, » Sea Power (Navy League of the United States), vol. 16, no. 2 (1973), pp. 20, 25.

15. Telegram 1787 from Jakarta to State Department, December 16, 1965, cited in Brad Simpson, « Modernizing Indonesia: U.S.­Indonesian Relations, 1961-1967, » (Ph.D. dissertation, Department of History, Northwestern University, 2003), p. 343.

16. Hilmar Farid, « Indonesia’s Original Sin: Mass Killings and Capitalist Expansion 1965-66, » Inter-Asia Cultural Studies, vol. 6, no. 1 (March 2005).

17. For information on U.S.-Indonesia military ties, see the website of the East Timor Indonesia Action Network at http://www.etan.org/

Laskar Jihad (LJ)
Jacques Baud

Feb 23, 2014
Autres appellations :
Laskar Jihad Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah

(Indonésie) (Armée du Djihad) Mouvement islamiste salafiste radical, créé le 30 janvier 2000, comme aile paramilitaire du Forum Komunikasi Ahlussunnah Waljamaah (FKAW), lui-même créé à Jogjakarta au début 1998. Le Laskar Jihad est apparu à Ambon, dans l’archipel des Moluques, à la suite des violences interconfessionnelles survenues dans l’île de Maluku.

Il est dirigé par Jaffar Umar Thalib, un ex- ► Afghan, qui aurait rencontré Oussama Ben Laden au Pakistan en 1987, mais réfute l’affirmation selon laquelle il aurait des liens avec ► Al-Qaïda.(1)Sa philosophie, une combinaison d’islamisme et de nationalisme, prône un Etat indonésien basé sur l’islam, l’armée et un gouvernement fort (et non un émirat islamique).

En 2000, le Laskar Jihad a envoyé plus de 2 000 combattants dans l’archipel des Moluques, afin de participer au conflit entre chrétiens moluquois et musulmans(2), (pour la plupart issus des Célèbes du Sud et Java) et écraser le mouvement sécessionniste des Moluques du Sud, Republik Maluku Selatan (RMS).

Après les Moluques, le LJ a entrepris de prendre pied en Papouasie, où il a envoyé 2 000 combattants en mai 2002 et a rapidement installé des offices régionaux à Sorong, Fakfak, Timika, Nabire, Manokwari, et Merauke. Son quartier-général est à Yogyakarta, sur l’île de Java. Il disposerait de camps d’entraînement dans la région de Manokwari, où vit une importante communauté de musulmans javanais.

Le LJ revendique une mission qui comprend trois volets : le travail social, l’éducation islamique et la sécurité.


%d blogueurs aiment cette page :