Texts

An interview with Alessandro Lattanzio

 
GRA: Western media confidently say that the fall of the current Syrian regime is inevitable. In your opinion, how well founded this prediction is, and is there some political power that can bring order to this situation?
 
A.L.: The Baath Party is not giving up, the West, more and more alienated, turns his defeats in the reality, into victories in his virtual dreams. Today the Baath Party is the only force capable of imposing an order in Syria.
 

«Трёхполярный мир»?

Советник по геополитическим вопросам командования спецопераций США, глава проекта «Глобальное управление» вашингтонского фонда «Новая Америка», влиятельный политолог Параг Ханна даёт новое определение термина «второй мир». Констатируя появление своего рода анти-идеологической ментальности, ко «второму миру» он относит страны, находящиеся на полпути между «первым миром» и «третьим». Эти страны наделены характеристиками обоих, их цель Параг Ханна определяет как улучшение взаимовыгодных отношений с такими сильными политическими игроками, как Европейский Союз, США и Китай. По мнению политолога, это «три империи», которые борются за мировое господство. Что касается России, то Ханна не считает её супердержавой, но, безусловно, признаёт одним из самых сильных государств. Он ставит Россию на один уровень с Японией и Индией. «Супердержава, - считает Ханна, - имеет всемирный охват, всемирное влияние и глобальные амбиции. Статус супердержавы означает, что она влияет на принятие решений одновременно и по всему миру». Ханна относит Россию к странам «второго мира». Вслед за Бжезинским, он видит нашу страну как приз, но ни как главного игрока и, разделяя мнение ряда западных политологов, утверждает, что Россия будет либо подчинена, либо интегрирована. Такого мнения придерживаются многие специалисты по китайско-российским отношениям. Взгляд на Россию со стороны Запада неутешителен: на следующие 50-60 лет политологи прогнозируют доминирование Китая над Россией.

Какова же роль стран «второго мира» в неотвратимо надвигающемся многополярном мире? Параг Ханна считает, что человечество действительно движется к многополярной модели, и для США это означает фундаментальную потерю влияния, поскольку в этой модели Штаты оказываются лишь одним из полюсов силы, а значит, они неизбежно будут сталкиваться с влиянием таких полюсов, как Япония, Индия, Россия, Китай или Европа. Для того чтобы быть подлинными политическими акторами, ни одной из этих стран-полюсов, не нужно одобрения США. «Второй мир превращается в самодостаточный антиимпериалистический пояс, внутри которого крепнут межрегиональные связи. Россия предложила построить ядерные реакторы в Иране и Ливии, Казахстан и Малайзия проводят конференции по развитию взаимных торговых связей, а между Ираном, Индонезией и Венесуэлой складывается нефтяной картель. Китайцы напрямую летают в Бразилию, бразильцы – в Африку; индийцы вкладывают деньги повсюду от Сирии до Вьетнама, а инвестиционный фонд Абу-Даби вкладывает сокровища эмирата и на Уолл-стрит, и на Нанкинской улице Шанхая – символе китайского экономического чуда».

Alain de Benoist Critique of Liberal Ideology

From time immemorial, to be human meant to be affirmed both as a person and as a social being: the individual dimension and the collective dimension are not identical, but are inseparable. In the holist view, man develops himself on the basis of what he inherits and in reference to his social-historical context. It is to this model, which is the most common model in history, that individualism, which one must regard as a peculiarity of Western history, directly comes to be opposed.

In the modern sense of the term, individualism is the philosophy that regards the individual as the only reality and takes him as the principle of every evaluation. The individual is considered in himself, in abstraction from his social or cultural context. While holism expresses or justifies existing society in reference to values that are inherited, passed on, and shared—i.e., in the last analysis, in reference to society itself—individualism establishes its values independently of society as it finds it. This is why it does not recognize the autonomous status of communities, peoples, cultures, or nations. For it sees these entities as nothing but sums of individual atoms, which alone have value.

Michael Brander The Baroque Order, the First Modernity

Critics of contemporary society are often labeled “anti-modern”. They could be said to have contributed to this by locating at the Renaissance the beginning of a civilizational decline, as that time is considered to be the birth of the “modern” world. There is certainly an argument between worldviews here, but the dichotomy traditionalist-modern is the wrong way to define it, though when I began this study it seemed convincing.

This definition allows two assumptions to go unanswered. One is the conviction of the current bourgeois worldview that it is necessarily the ideology of these times; that it is, by its very nature, modern. The other is that any critique of this worldview that appeals to tradition is demanding a return to the past and is by definition anti-modern. These assumptions can be rejected by a study of the ideas in question.

Another way of seeing the falsity of such assumptions is to examine what can fairly be termed the “other modernity” of the Baroque period Hispanic world.

The world brought into being by the expansion of the Iberian kingdoms from the late 15th. century till the 18th. century was not a reaction to modernity, or even an alternate modernity; it was the first modern and globalized society. Serge Gruzinski, in his book The Four Quarters of the World. History of a Globalisation documents the way in which peoples from Europe, America, Asia and Africa were bound together by common interests in this Hispanic world. There was large-scale movement of people and multiple forms of contact, and a global elite of sorts drawn from a variety of peoples. But the worldview of this society was vastly different to the one attacked by Solzhenitsyn at Harvard. Gruzinsky points out that the very vastness and global nature of a society without any geographical unity whatsoever has made it difficult for historians to embrace its totality in their studies, which often dissect it in ways that do not correspond to and tend to obscure its reality.

A.Latsa Multipolarity as challenge

The collapse of the Soviet Union has indeed led directly to an American domination of the world affairs. When Bush father proclaimed the new world order in the sands of Iraq, many (in the Western world) even thought that it would be so forever, that the history of ideas had stopped and that the world would from now on forever be under American domination. 

We can see today that those who thought so were wrong, and it only took a decade for History to take back its rights, leading America into wars that will accelerate its decline, while paradoxically, they were supposed to establish its domination. 

During the same decade, Russia was reborn from its ashes and has once again become a strong regional power, a power that has visions of domination of Eurasia, as Vladimir Putin hammered during his first speech as the elected president on May 7, 2012. 

We hear a lot more about the Russia / America confrontation than at the beginning of this century but these countries will probably never be anymore the main key players in the world of tomorrow, unlike America and the USSR in the world of yesterday. 

Logically, China is today targeted by the American strategists as being a main adversary as it is most likely to become the leading world power during this century, on an economical, financial and demographic level - perhaps even a military one. China should therefore become the biggest competitor of an America in decline, and if nothing is done, the world of tomorrow will be punctuated by the China/America opposition.

 

“Socialism or Barbarism, we have to choose. Now !” Interview with Jean-Claude Michéa

One usually transcends the Rubicon only in the hope of becoming the first in Rome. A goal which, you must admit, is not so exciting to whomever still has a modicum of anarchist taste left. But to answer your question a tad more seriously, I would say that “my complete works” — to use your wording — come up precisely as an endeavor to reclaim the spirit of original socialism. That is, that which the first theoreticians (beyond their many discrepancies) nevertheless agreed upon in order to establish the agenda of the worker’s liberation based on a twofold political rebuff. On the one hand, of the caste privileges peculiar to the Old Regime (whose restoration was back then desired by the clerical and monarchist “right” — that is to say by the “Reaction” and the “Parti de l’Ordre ”). And on the other hand, of the class privileges of the new liberal bourgeoisie (a class, unlike an order or caste, has no formal legal existence; it relies foremost on a de facto authority) that were beginning to proliferate sheltered by this new ideology of “progress” and of “liberty” that the “left”, or “Parti du Mouvement ” if one prefers, concurrently lauded. Socialism was therefore originally neither to the left nor to the right (even though one must not forget that it always shared with liberalism and republicanism the revolutionary rejection of a “feudal” world and of inequalities bestowed by birth). And that, whether the word “right” applies — as it did during the 19th century — to the proponents of the restoration of the Old Regime or, like nowadays, to those of the progressive and liberal right which is heir to Bastiat and Hayek. Must one be reminded that Marx himself (no more than Proudhon and Bakunin for that matter) would never have had the idea of defining himself as a “left-winger”? He rather always presented himself as a socialist — or a communist — a proponent, as such, of the radical autonomy of the proletarian movement and it’s allies. From this point of view, the political wallop of the Dreyfus affair (even though the worker parties were obviously right in condemning, in the name of morality and justice, the diabolical plot to which Dreyfus had fallen victim) will thus have been in the end very negative for the socialist movement. This affair, indeed, gradually lead the socialist movement (by it’s will to ally itself to the “Parti du Mouvement” — in the beginning on purely defensive grounds — solely against the anti-republican “Reaction”) to substitute to the original struggle of the workers against the bourgeois and capitalist domination the struggle which would soon oppose — in the name of “progress” and of “modernism” — a « people of the left » to a « people of the right » (and, in this new perspective, it went without saying, that a “left-wing” worker would always be immensely closer to a left-wing banker or a left-wing leader of the IMF than to a worker, peasant or employee that votes for the right).

Ted Galen Carpenter. Estrangement: The United States and Turkey in a Multipolar Era

Privately,  some US officials considered the joint effort to be little more than obstructionism. They were annoyed at Brazil’s behavior, but they were even more concerned that this episode seemed to be the merely the latest in a series of Turkish actions that undermined Washington’s policies in the Middle East. There is a bitter irony in the emergence of an increasingly hostile relationship between Washington and Ankara, for several generations of US policy makers sought the closest possible ties with Turkey. Since the late 1940s, American officials had regarded Turkey as an important, loyal US ally. Throughout the Cold War, a succession of US administrations viewed that country as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s indispensable southeastern anchor. That belief even caused American leaders to ignore or excuse Ankara’s sometimes troubling behavior in the international arena, most notably its aggressive territorial claims regarding Greek islands in the Aegean and the 1974 invasion and ongoing occupation of northern Cyprus. In the immediate post – Cold War period, many members of the American foreign policy community insisted that Turkey was a more important US security partner than ever before. Paul Wolfowitz, who would become deputy secretary of defense under President George W. Bush, was one of several prominent experts who argued that there were a handful of “keystone” or “pivotal” powers in the international system, and that Turkey was high on that list. Pro- Turkish analysts insisted that in a post – Cold War environment, Turkey not only remained NATO’s southeastern anchor, it was now also a crucial bridge between Europe and the Middle East and a valuable conduit for Western, secular influence in much of the Muslim world, especially the Central Asian republics that emerged from the wreckage of the Soviet Union. A Lengthening List of Quarrels Despite such high expectations (at least on the American side) for a close security partnership, trouble in the relationship has been building steadily for many years. 

Thierry Meyssan. Operation Sarkozy

One should judge Nicolas Sarkozy according to his actions, and not according to his personality. Yet when his doings surprise even his own constituents, it is legitimate to take a detailed look at his biography and question the bonds that brought him to power. Thierry Meyssan has decided to write the truth about the French Republic’s president background. All the information included in this article is provable, except for two assertions signalled by the author who alone takes full responsibility.
Tired of the overextended presidencies of François Mitterrand and Jacques Chirac, the French elected Nicolas Sarkozy counting on his energy to revitalize their country. They were hoping for a break with years of no-change and ideologies of the past. What they got instead was a break with the very principles which founded the French nation, and have been shocked by this “hyper-president”, seizing every day a new dossier, attracting towards him the right and the left wing, and tearing apart all points of reference to the point of creating a total confusion.The success of Nicolas had impact on his half brother, Pierre Olivier. Under the American name of Oliver, he was named by Frank Carlucci (formerly N°2 of the CIA after having been recruited by Frank Wisner, Sr.) Director of the new investment fund of the Carlyle Group (the common investment firm of the Bush family and Ben Laden). Having become the 5th largest business dealer in the world, he handles the main assets of the sovereign funds of Kuwait and Singapore.

Mohebat Ahdiyyih. Ahmadinejad and the Mahdi

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad surprised not only many Westerners but also many Iranians when, during his first speech at the United Nations, he prayed for the hasty return of the Hidden Imam, the Mahdi, Shi‘i Islam's messianic figure. Demonstrating his priorities, he repeated the prayer in December 2007 when addressing Arab leaders at the Gulf Cooperation Council meeting in Doha but did not object when they described the Persian Gulf as Arab, a diplomatic swipe at Iran's place in the region. Ahmadinejad's messianism is no ploy; it is very serious indeed. Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, chairman of the Guardian Council, credits Ahmadinejad with "being inspired by God."

The inspiration for Ahmadinejad's thinking can be found in traditional Shi‘ism. As with other monotheistic religions, Shi‘i teachings promise the return of a messiah. For Twelver Shi‘a, the messiah will be Muhammad al-Mahdi, the Twelfth Imam, who went into occultation in 874 CE and is expected to return before the Day of Judgment to lead the righteous against the forces of evil. Such ideas pervade Iranian culture, even beyond the Islamic context. The idea of the Mahdi has historical precedence, for example, in ancient Zoroastrian beliefs. Persian literature and poetry are awash with the notion of a promised savior. Abol-Ghasem Ferdowsi (935-1020), the author of Shahnameh (The book of kings), Iran's national epic, wrote that a "noble man" would appear in Iran from "whom will spread the religion of God to the four corners of the world."

Alain Soral Short genealogy of the Bank

 

The banks and the Bank

Primarily, it needs to be understood that the Bank as a principle and process of domination, has nothing to do with the deposit or loan bank around the street corner, its ancestor and depraved origin. A corruption of which, we can mark the successive steps as so many somersaults, from service to mere nuisance.

First, lend the money that you have

Originally, the money lent by investment and deposit bank to some, correspond to the money deposited by others and the interest rate reimbursed  plus the capital –Or, created money supply in addition to the one already in circulation- also correspond to the real wealth creation of a company supported by productive investment.

Afterwards, lend money that you… partly have

But the money effectively present in the bank having no risk to be withdrawn all at the same time by the depositors, the temptation to lend more than the money actually in deposit becomes bigger. Then, come into existence the “multiplier”, or, a fabrication of scriptural money, but always devolved to profitable investement. Being temporarily fictitious money, but becoming real in the end through wealth creation due to this profitable investment. A mechanism of fuite en avant little dangerous under two conditions: one. That the economy finds itself in a stage of unlimited development and growth, like it was the case when this practice was invented during the Renaissance. Two. That a political authority, above the Bank, regulates and limits this practice, in relation with real economical growth and development, and not only with scriptural and speculative.

Lending money that you less and less have

A control and a moderation of the bank loan fuite en avant, incommensurable with the low level of deposit soon required, called “fractional reserve”. A fractional reserve imposed to the bank by the politics, but that, from necessity, considering the balance of power between the politics and the money, will be inclined, with the process of time, to tend towards zero.

Alexander Dugin: Civilization as political concept

Civilizational elite – is a new concept. Thus far  it does not exist. It is a combination of two qualities – deep assimilation of the particular civilizational culture (in the philosophical, religious, value levels) and the presence of a high degree “of drive,” persistently pushing people to the heights of power, prestige and influence. Modern liberalism channels passion exclusively in the area of economics and business, creating a preference for a particular social elevator and it is a particular type of personality (which is an American sociologist Yuri Slezkine called “mercurial type”) .

The Mercurial elite of globalism, “aviakochevniki” mondialist nomadism, sung by Jacques Attali, should be overthrown in favor of radically different types of elites. Each civilization can dominate, and other “worlds”, not only thievish, mercurial shopkeepers and  cosmopolitans.  Islamic elite is clearly another – an example of this we see in today’s Iran, where the policy (Mars) and economics (Mercury) are subject to  spiritual authority, of the Ayatollah (Saturn).

Portuguese intellectual F. Gonsalves on multipolarity

 

American hegemony is a fact, and it is above all a cultural dominance: while we were growing up we all watched television series and went to the movie theatres astonished with Hollywood, from Mickey Mouse to Spiderman our children and teenagers are imbibed in American culture.

And then you have all these franchises: clothing, food, even subculture and political franchises. We are all brought up dreaming with the American glamour, movie stars, pop stars, that is far more effective than all of USA Air Force’s plane carriers, bomb dropping military apparatus. 

Having some sort of American franchise in one’s country is seen as being modern and a part of the future, while military bases are still seen as intrusive and the American government usually has to pay some sort of compensation to the governments that allow them to establish barracks on their grounds, if a multinational food or clothing company wishes to open a factory and a chain of stores in any country in the world, be it Europe, Asia, Australia, South America or Africa, the local or national governments are happy to offer them all forms of tax exemptions, free land and compensations because they consider it to be good for the economy and the overall foreign view of their country. It came to a point where we gladly pay to be culturally colonized.

Pages