Archives mensuelles : novembre 2016

Insoumission et fidélité idéologique…

De l’idéologie, le Larousse en ligne propose quatre définitions. Deux de celles-ci nous intéresseront ici au premier chef.

Ainsi, l’idéologie, c’est d’abord l’étude (rationnelle) des idées, en ce compris leur épistémologie, c’est-à-dire le discours (logique) sur les idées. Mais c’est aussi un « système d’idées générales constituant un corps de doctrine […] », c’est-à-dire un ensemble d’idées qui font discours. Il n’est pas rare que la sédimentation du langage aboutisse à conférer à un même mot des significations quasi antithétiques, propres, dans ce cas-ci, à rapprocher Aron de Staline, et obligeant par là même à décoder le contexte de leur utilisation et l’intention que leur attribue le locuteur, ou qu’est appelé, dans une démarche plus socratique dont s’est largement inspiré l’art contemporain, à leur attribuer le récepteur. Le décodage qui suit s’est fait sans trop de peine…

Dans un autre article, j’avais déjà évoqué la distinction que j’effectue entre idéologie (au sens second) et principes (1). En écoutant l’oraison funèbre, qui se voulait par moments élégiaque, qu’à l’occasion de la poussiérisation de feu le Líder Máximo cubain, l’amiral de l’Insoumission a prononcée hier soir au cours la Reine, cette distinction ne m’a paru que plus pertinente et édifiante, dût-elle çà et là être accueillie par « des regards de sidération bovine »…

A la décharge de l’amiral – chassez le naturel… – et de quelques autres, il convient de préciser que ne sont pas moins visés ici tous les amnésiques de circonstance qui, faisant l’impasse sur la dictature classique (c’est-à-dire compatible avec l’oligarchie) à laquelle son émergence mit fin, ainsi que sur l’embargo impérial qui conditionna son action, persistent, non sans ironie, à présenter le fidélisme comme une espèce de deus ex machina, autrement dit non pas comme « une chose qui est déterminée par une autre à exister et à agir d’une certaine façon déterminée », mais comme « une chose […] qui est et agit par la seule nécessité de sa nature » (2), tout en s’obstinant, au nom d’une neutralité empirique sans doute – curieux paradoxe ! – épurée de tout dogmatisme idéologique, cela va de soi, à relativiser ou à taire, manichéens, les bienfaits d’un régime désormais orphelin (3) avec autant d’énergie que n’en déploient ses thuriféraires, dans cet affligeant ballet de vestiges du monde bipolaire, à passer sous silence ou à minimiser ses méfaits.

S’agissant de ceux-ci, l’amiral n’était pas en reste hier soir, qui, sans la moindre réserve, scanda plusieurs fois sur le mode d’un cyclope devant une statue de Jeanne d’Arc le prénom du regretté camarade : « Fidel ! FIDEL ! ». Tout principe a ses humbles artisans, toute idéologie ses saints, et c’est la mémoire de l’un de ces monstres sacrés qu’a choisi d’honorer dans un discours à mi-chemin entre hommage politique appuyé et rouerie électorale mal calculée celui qui répète à l’envi qu’il n’a jamais été communiste. « Nos héros » et « les nôtres » y figuraient en bonne place, de même que « l’Union des Républiques socialistes russes » (sic !) et la révolution chinoise « victorieuse », « à quelques années près » (celles du « Grand Bond en Avant », concomitant à la Révolution cubaine ?), toutes deux citées sans plus d’explications dans le cadre d’un rappel contextuel des rapports de forces internationaux de « l’époque », dont seul « l’autre côté », avec ses discriminations raciales et sa mainmise impérialiste sur ses voisins directs, ressortait rachitique…

Ainsi va l’idéologie, monolithique, indivisible et roublarde. Carrée, sa catéchèse n’autorise pas la nuance, car comment la nuance pourrait-elle unifier ? Comment pourrait-elle souder les parties du Tout-Partie ? La nuance ne saurait être l’opium des masses. Car les masses sont idiotes, et elles doivent marcher droit !

Indéniablement, la souveraineté populaire est un principe. Mais s’affranchir de toute tutelle extérieure suffit-il pour le réaliser ? Un guide suprême, reliquat hobbesien d’une certaine rhétorique gauchiste peu connue pour son affection de l’insoumission, suffirait-il à l’incarner ? Si éclairé que puisse être son despotisme, n’en est-il pas intrinsèquement une forme de négation ? Et sur quelles bases autres que son idéologie, c’est-à-dire ce qui n’est jamais susceptible d’entraîner véritablement qu’une partie du Tout, celui qui justifie le despotisme ici mais le condamne là peut-il fonder sa cohérence intellectuelle et sa méthode ?…

La liberté d’expression est un autre principe. Ce principe, en théorie consacré pour chaque individu dans un environnement commun, et celui de la souveraineté populaire, qui s’applique au commun de cet environnement, ne sont en rien antinomiques. C’est la rigidité de la doctrine fidéliste qui a imposé en l’occurrence de l’enchaîner au nom d’un commun qu’elle a souverainement défini comme incompatible avec la dissension individuelle, dès lors qu’à son estime, cette dernière ne pouvait résulter que de tentatives de subversion extérieures. Or, toute doctrine est rigide à sa manière : il suffit, pour s’en convaincre, d’examiner le sort médiatique réservé aux anti-européistes dans des Etats réputés démocratiques, ainsi que la rigueur budgétaire et financière dogmatique qui,  indépendamment de toute idéologie, a amené certains de ceux-ci à le devenir. A l’inverse, les principes, eux, sont dynamiques. Ils interagissent, et de leur interaction peuvent émerger une très grande diversité de combinaisons, parmi lesquelles des combinaisons nouvelles, concrètes, qui ne requièrent pas de recourir aux rouleaux compresseurs des idéologies, tous constitutifs de pensée unique en puissance, c’est-à-dire tous inaltérables et voués à leur destruction réciproque.

Les idéologies s’affrontent et vacillent en bloc, souvent au détriment des principes qu’elles prétendent porter, tandis que les principes en tant que tels peuvent certes s’opposer, mais aussi s’influencer et subsister, créant des formes bâtardes qui ne renient pas ce qui les fonde. La devise républicaine française, prise dans son intégralité, repose sur une telle bâtardise, dont l’idéologie prédominante actuelle, celle qui, aux bœufs ne déplaise, parce qu’elle croit avoir écarté toutes les autres par la raison du pognon, postule et cherche à convaincre qu’elle n’en est pas une, met à mal chacune des composantes, chacun des principes, et ce au sein même d’une République dont la Constitution, pareillement à la Déclaration universelle des Droits de l’Homme, par exemple, se compose bien plus d’une énumération organisée de principes qu’elle n’impose un chapelet doctrinal.

Les doctrines, les idéologies, sont aux principes ce que les corsets d’antan sont aux seins nus : l’imposition sélective d’une restriction de mouvement de nature à entraver l’accès au lait de la vie. Elles sont révolutionnaires pourtant, en ce qu’elles ne cessent désespérément, depuis deux siècles au moins, de tourner en rond, se répondant l’une l’autre dans un circuit fermé qui se voudrait perpétuel, leur rigidité étant telle qu’elles ne peuvent manquer de susciter leur opposé. Les idéologies sont des farces simplificatrices, des fixations obsessionnelles, qui ne servent que ceux qui les élaborent et qu’elles font vivre. Si elle ne s’écrit pas au moyen de principes désormais, l’Histoire se condamnerait donc à demeurer le trou béant de l’absurdité, du fond duquel une voix malicieuse murmurerait en boucle de manière lancinante : « point n’est besoin de réussir pour persévérer »…

Ogre oppressif, libérateur passionné : que ta momie aille en paix, Fidel ! …

 

__________________

(1) Lire : https://yannickbaele.wordpress.com/2016/04/27/the-forbidden-peace-of-mind-2/

(2) Spinoza, Lettre LVIII, à G.H. Schuller, 1674 (trad. E. Saisset)

(3) Lire : http://www.lalibre.be/debats/opinions/l-insupportable-hommage-de-jean-claude-juncker-a-fidel-castro-un-crachat-a-la-face-de-ses-victimes-5839ec05cd70a4454c05c546

Catégories : Philo de comptoir, Politique / Société | Étiquettes : , , | Poster un commentaire

En vérité, je vous le dis…

« L’idée [de Platon était] que la vérité est accessible à tout un chacun sans qu’il ait à renoncer à sa singularité. La singularité de l’individu, sa subjectivation, ne la détruit pas; elle l’installe dans une coexistence nouvelle avec les autres subjectivations. […] Cela veut dire qu’une vérité unifie, mais qu’elle unifie sans exiger l’abandon des différences. Et c’est pourquoi nous évitons le piège du dogmatisme : on peut appeler dogmatique la position qui consiste à dire : s’il y a des vérités, alors ces vérités ne vont pas accepter les différences. Tout le processus que je vous décris […] tend à créer une théorie à l’intérieur de laquelle il y a des vérités universelles, et l’expérience de ces vérités universelles peut être partagée sans avoir à renoncer aux différences de la subjectivation et aux différences individuées, ce qui veut dire qu’il peut exister une théorie non dogmatique des vérités universelles. Et, ça, c’est un point très important parce que, pour le moment, la conception dominante, qui est une conception relativiste, et en réalité largement sceptique, est qu’en définitive, à chacun sa vérité. Puisque les subjectivations sont différentes, en définitive il n’y a pas vraiment de vérité commune et, au fond, il n’y a que des opinions. [Comment trancher] entre des opinions ? Comme il n’y a pas de vérité, […] c’est très difficile, [donc] finalement on considère que la moins mauvaise, c’est celle qui est majoritaire. Or, ça, ça n’est pas sûr […] : rien ne le démontre. Ce que je propose à la place de cette vision, c’est de dire : il y a des vérités universelles, les subjectivations peuvent être différentes, les expériences de ces vérités peuvent être différentes, mais cette différence ne crée pas la nécessité d’une scission, la nécessité d’une opposition. Autrement dit, ce qui est universel, ce qui est égalitaire, travaille non pas contre les différences, mais à travers les différences. »

A. Badiou, Institut français de Prague, 30 octobre 2014

***

  • Comment justifier le fait de vouloir […] donner de la puissance à une idée à laquelle on croit, à une forme d’idéologie, [auprès] d’autres personnes ? Comment imposer ou tenir pour vrai ce qui, en toute logique spinoziste, ne peut être vrai que pour moi ? N’est-ce pas incompatible avec l’exercice de la politique ?
  • Mais l’exercice de la politique dans son déroulement concret, finalement, se moque des choses de la logique, car, en effet, on pourrait tout à fait lui opposer l’argument que vous venez de faire. Et il est certain que, en tout cas à un certain niveau – parce que la question de la normativité chez Spinoza est en fait très complexe et s’étale sur des plans différents –, […] disons dans le registre de ce que Spinoza appelle la servitude passionnelle, règne un relativisme axiologique total. Spinoza dit : chacun juge du Bien et du Mal selon son affect. Ce qui n’exclut pas que se forment d’ailleurs des affects communs, c’est-à-dire des manières partagées de juger identiquement d’un certain bien et d’un certain mal, mais à la fin des fins, rien ne pourra le rapporter à un fondement objectif. La politique, finalement, ce sera le champ agonistique de ces affirmations axiologiques qui s’affrontent selon des rapports de puissances déterminés par les effets affectifs, l’extension des effets affectifs qu’elles ont pu chacune produire, et l’Histoire ramassera les copies, et dira quels seront les gagnants. Et [qu’est-ce que] l’Histoire ? C’est l’histoire des événements racontés du point de vue des vainqueurs, la plupart du temps.
  • Oui, mais arriver à assumer cette vérité qu’il n’y a pas de vérité en soi, que ce discours dont nous pouvons être porteurs n’est jamais vrai que pour nous paraît quand même incompatible avec toute forme d’engagement politique, ou même idéologique, puisque finalement nous avons besoin de rassembler d’autres personnes pour pouvoir agir au nom de cette idée que nous tenons pour vraie. Il y a un problème pragmatique ici…
  • Bien sûr, mais qui est aisément vaincu dans la pratique, puisque dans le concret de l’activité politique, le défaut d’ancrage objectif dans une espèce de réalité absolue, […] qui fonderait absolument l’engagement axiologique et idéologique, est suppléé par la force d’adhésion affective même, et en quelque sorte la politique est régie par un décisionnisme des affects : bien sûr, si on va jusqu’au bout du raisonnement, à la fin des fins, je suis incapable de fonder en raison absolument ma position, mais voilà, c’est ça que je pense quand même.
  • A partir de là, il faut déployer des trésors de rhétorique pour convaincre les autres de m’accompagner dans ce mouvement ?
  • Absolument, [bien que ça n’implique pas] que l’exercice soit un pur chaos agonistique d’affirmations pures et sans suite : chacun s’efforce d’argumenter en généralités, mais en réalité, si on creusait [la question], aucune des positions ne pourrait se revendiquer de l’ancrage objectif. Ce qu’on pourrait dire, c’est que l’effort d’argumenter en toute généralité est un hommage que les positions particulières rendent au groupe, puisque la généralité même, c’est un appel qui est fait au groupe, c’est un appel au dépassement de la particularité du point de vue depuis lequel la position idéologique, intellectuelle ou politique est émise. Il s’agit de revendiquer tout de même, envers et contre tout, la position de la généralité, même si elle est inatteignable jusqu’au bout.

F. Lordon @ France Culture, Les nouveaux chemins de la connaissance, 21 octobre 2016

 ***

« Il va falloir essayer de redécouvrir ce que c’est que la vérité […]. Parce que beaucoup de gens disent […] que la vérité, ça n’existe pas. Ce n’est pas vrai du tout. Ce qui n’existe pas, c’est qu’il y ait une vérité, mais qu’il y ait des moments de vérité, qu’il y ait de la vérité – il y en a beaucoup –, [personne ne peut le contester]. [Toutefois, la vérité,] ça a beaucoup disparu : on a des présidents de la république qui sont des menteurs éhontés, on a des personnages qui sont censés représenter le savoir, le pouvoir, qui sont des bandits. »

B. Stiegler, Interview par Galileo Concept Alsace, 25 juin 2015

Catégories : Philo de comptoir, Politique / Société | Étiquettes : , , , , , , | Poster un commentaire

@ Ruth’s :

Glucksmann : 9/10

Belle performance, homme de bonheur, mais un bémol quand même : penser, c’est, sans pour autant le renier, s’affranchir de ce dans quoi on a été élevé.

institutrice-reglee

Zemmour : 3,5/10

Monsieur Zemmour, combien de fois ne vous l’a-t-on dit ?! Le peuple anglo-saxon n’est pas le peuple indigène des Etats-Unis. Le peuple indigène des Etats-Unis est celui qui a subi « le grand remplacement ». Dans les bulletins précédents, nous vous avions invité à suivre l’actualité avec davantage d’application. L’eussiez-vous fait, la problématique du Dakota Access Pipeline n’eût pas manqué de retenir votre attention. Mais Monsieur Zemmour prend le cours d’histoire pour un salon où l’on affabule, où l’on cause, où l’on rit… Mercredi prochain sera jour de retenue, Monsieur Zemmour !

dap-investors

19 h – Ruth Elkrief, Le face à face, BFMTV, 10/11/16

Catégories : Expérimentations diverses non catégorisées | Poster un commentaire

Feminism as a lifebelt for corporate ‘democrats’…

In countries like France and Belgium, one of the main reasons for denying women their right to vote was the preconceived idea that, while the most militant among them were obviously progressive, all the others would be political vehicles for clergy propaganda : women were simply not rational enough to partake in the affairs of the City (polis). As a result, they had to wait until after WW II to be able to insert their ballot papers into the box and/or run for office. And only at the beginning of this new millennium did most freemasonic lodges welcome and acknowledge female sections.

The late Democratic candidate to the US presidency was not a bigot. She was conservative nonetheless. For instance, it took her many, many years to get used to the idea of gay marriage. But the economy is the field in which her conservatism was most flamboyant.

Last Tuesday, she lost. And she is going to need help. Sadness, delusion, despair, rage, hysteria, desire for revenge : believing she intends to leave it at that would be underestimating the political beast in her. That’s why she is going to need help… quitting.

She needs to understand no means no : the people do not want her ! She is history. She needs to be.

She is going to hold on to the party as if it were her own, which for quite some time it was. She is going to allege the way she has been treated was unfair. And, once more, she is going to try to move her pawns across the chessboard. She is going to want to see a woman ™ at the head of the DNC or as minority leader, because the woman card played out so well during this campaign. She will argue no other angle can ensure a clearer opposition to what has been elected. Otherwise, why would the mass media keep looking for external scapegoats for her – her ! – defeat ?…

She will persist. She will try to maintain. She is wrong.

Once it was clear she would not be the first female US president, her fervent devotee Michael Moore suggested five ways to react to this debacle : leave incredulity behind, take over the party, fire the pundits and pollsters, obstruct Republicans in Congress, and repeat she won the popular vote. She did indeed, but the opposite could have been true, and each candidate knew the rules of engagement. If some of them are antidemocratic, they had the power to do something about it : they could, for instance, have allowed ranked voting in swing states. Repeating she won the popular vote would not only empower those who are picturing her as a sore loser; it would also complicate the party takeover, since she would remain a reference.

For months, no one outside the old lady’s circle of vassals, intriguers and silly supporters has been allowed to voice this simple truth : it is profoundly anti-feminist to consider a woman solely through the prism of her being a woman, regardless of what she thinks and what she does or does not stand for. Saying that meant you were either a pig-supporter or a Bernie-bro. But it’s not the woman who was rejected a few days ago : as such, the woman was an empty shell. It is the politics she holds dear, and her persistent refusal to uphold any code of ethics.

Any woman who renounces the former and sincerely swears to abide by the latter would be enthusiastically welcomed, even at the highest level. Any other would merely be a marketing product. And, whether male or female, whether in the US or elsewhere, we’ve had those for far too long…

true-feminism

Catégories : Politique / Société | Étiquettes : , , | Poster un commentaire

Salamé fait sa pute, sous le regard complaisant d’Ernotte…

Tandis que plusieurs bonnes âmes feignent de s’émouvoir qu’un misogyne accusé de viol par plusieurs femmes qui auraient été menacées en coulisses de rétorsion si elles exposaient leur vérité ait pu être élu président des USA, la présentatrice de Stupéfiant, une émission produite par Bangumi ™, l’entreprise de Bon et Barthès (budget de Quotidien ©, leur émission-phare sur TF1 © : un milliard de francs belges par an), et diffusée par Le Service Public ™, une émission consacrée à l’art dont les premiers épisodes avaient pourtant retenu mon attention par leur caractère atypique et léché, mais dont les audiences laissaient malheureusement à désirer, Salamé, toute de latex figuré, cette matière souple, lisse et glissante qui caractérise les interviews les plus scrupuleuses, s’en est allée interroger Zob 1er, le King du porno trash, ce salopard rendu célèbre notamment par des scènes lors desquelles, après leur avoir joui à la face, il plonge le visage de ses proies dans les chiottes avant d’actionner la chasse, proposant ainsi une fine allégorie de la condition humaine à l’époque matricielle, en comparaison à laquelle le « pussy grabbing » d’un loser vantard au pinacle de la gloire paraît bien anodin : « la pornographie, elle est devenue très extrême. Mais nous, on fait autre chose : on travaille pour l’imagination, la fantaisie des gens adultes. […] Par rapport à ça, je suis très, très, fier ».

Et il y a de quoi. Quel talent : http://www.myvidster.com/video/77886513/Evil_Angel_Taissia_Shanti_Lullu_Gun_Chris_Diamond_Jordi_El_Nino_Polla_Roccos_Psycho_Teens_09_28062016_Pornohub_free_porn

« Donald Trump étrillé par son propre camp après la révélation de nouveaux propos sexistes

Une vidéo de 2005 révélée vendredi montre le candidat républicain tenir des propos dégradants. Ses excuses rapides n’ont pas calmé les ténors du parti. »

http://www.lemonde.fr/elections-americaines/article/2016/10/08/donald-trump-etrille-par-le-camp-republicain-apres-la-revelation-de-nouveaux-propos-sexistes_5010261_829254.html

« Rocco Siffredi en érection en Une d’un supplément du Monde »

http://www.dhnet.be/buzz/sexy/rocco-siffredi-en-erection-en-une-d-un-supplement-du-monde-5774d6d335705701fd928f23

Quoi de plus logique, dès lors, que la même émission, diffusée cette semaine, continue d’alimenter la fascination morbide de ses quelques téléspectateurs pour le trash (littéralement : l’ordurier) si prisé par « le clergé » d’une société décadente, en consacrant un autre reportage au Front National, cet objet que l’on aime haïr mais qui, lui aussi, à n’en pas douter, relève assurément de l’art : la boucle des pulsions thanatiques est bouclée…

C’est ainsi que la télé, ce médium du temps jadis, dans son inlassable quête de sujets racoleurs et putassiers, dévoile son vrai visage et s’effeuille sous nos yeux… avec les deniers publics, faisant au passage, en chœur avec le gros morceau de la presse subventionnée dite respectable, la promotion d’un prédateur sexuel qui réduit les femmes et leurs corps en bouillie (Allez donc demander à des « stars du X » retraitées comme Julia Chanel ce qu’elles en pensent, de l’idole des gourdes Salamé et Ernotte…) sous l’œil concupiscent de la caméra, pour le plus grand bonheur des petits et des grands…

Bouuuuh, Trump, bouuuuh !!!

delphine-ernotte-pedegere-de-france-televisions

Catégories : Catégorie 0 | Étiquettes : , , , , , | Poster un commentaire

True colors : the elephant in the room !

If there ever was a time to read The Protocols of The Elders of Zion, now is that time…

When a wise man points at the moon, the imbecile looks at the finger” : ideally, it should be possible for a blogger or anyone else of good will to reproduce fragments of said Protocols without having to lay out the reasons behind their clearly provocative editorial choice : every reader should be mature and educated enough to make sense of it, in the current context.

Alas, it is not, because the ignorance and stupidity of the general public, whether uneducated or formatted, have never been so consistently fueled as they have for the past decade and a half, to the extent they seem to have become the new standards of our civilization.

Yet, that’s exactly what I am going to do. Because aside from pointing at today’s political reality as it unfolds, I am also pointing at my readers’ brains.

Therefore, I am not going to remind them that, according to (disputed) heuristic research, the original version of this manuscript – there are several – was written in Paris in 1901 and published in Russia as of 1903, that it seeked its inspiration in various anti-Semitic writings throughout history, as well as in distorted satires, filling in the blanks with aristocracy-leaning gibberish coupled with schmaltzy Marxism, that it initially purported to report on the minutes of a series of meetings held by some secret Jewish society in the late nineteenth century, before being presented as those very minutes, that its author seems to have been an Okhrana-agent who wanted to dissuade the czar from allowing Russian Jews to obtain the liberal reforms that would finally entitle them to full citizenship, that, although it is hard to determine whether it played a decisive part in the second wave of pogroms starting in 1903, it being used as a key propaganda tool by nazi Germany as of 1933 is an established fact, in other words that it appears to have been part of a plot denouncing… a (fake) conspiracy.

Neither will I have the courtesy to draw their attention to the fact that, although that may be the case, nothing is preventing a modern-day demagogue with the right entourage from picking and choosing from it, let alone turning it into his own political agenda, with a few minor adjustments. The same is true for people/social classes who wouldn’t mind using such a demagogue to further their own ends.

He is a cynical, self-serving egomaniac, but Drumpf is not a stupid man (well, not that stupid). And the stock exchange is doing just fine, thank you…

As far as I’m concerned, my positions are clear and public. People who are happy with their ignorance are not my targeted audience. Because after the finger, they will be looking at the nail. Neither are those who purposefully feed their ignorance.

I’m not a loser who has to tell his beads every time he farts. I know where I stand. Do you ?

***

« It must be noted that men with bad instincts are more in number than the good, and therefore the best results in governing them are attained by violence and terrorization, and not by academic discussions. Every man aims at power, everyone would like to become a dictator if only he could, and rare indeed are the men who would not be willing to sacrifice the welfare of all for the sake of securing their own welfare.

***

What has restrained the beasts of prey who are called men? What has served for their guidance hitherto ? In the beginnings of the structure of society, they were subjected to brutal and blind force; after words – to Law, which is the same force, only disguised. I draw the conclusion that by the law of nature right lies in force.

***

Political freedom is an idea but not a fact. This idea one must know how to apply whenever it appears necessary with this bait of an idea to attract the masses of the people to one’s party for the purpose of crushing another who is in authority. This task is rendered easier if the opponent has himself been infected with the idea of freedom, so-called liberalism, and, for the sake of an idea, is willing to yield some of his power. It is precisely here that the triumph of our theory appears; the slackened reins of government are immediately, by the law of life, caught up and gathered together by a new hand, because the blind might of the nation cannot for one single day exist without guidance, and the new authority merely fits into the place of the old already weakened by liberalism.

***

The idea of freedom is impossible of realization because no one knows how to use it with moderation. It is enough to hand over a people to self-government for a certain length of time for that people to be turned into a disorganized mob. From that moment on we get internecine strife which so on develops into battles between classes, in the midst of which States burn down and their importance is reduced to that of a heap of ashes.

1Whether a State exhausts itself in its own convulsions, whether its internal discord brings it under the power of external foes – in any case it can be accounted irretrievable lost: it is in our power. The despotism of Capital, which is entirely in our hands, reaches out to it a straw that the State, willy-nilly, must take hold of: if not, it goes to the bottom.

***

Should anyone of a liberal mind say that such reflections as the above are immoral, I would put the following questions: If every State has two foes and if in regard to the external foe it is allowed and not considered immoral to use every manner and art of conflict, as for example to keep the enemy in ignorance of plans of attack and defense, to attack him by night or in superior numbers, then in what way can the same means in regard to a worse foe, the destroyer of the structure of society and the commonweal, be called immoral and not permissible?

2Is it possible for any sound logical mind to hope with any success to guide crowds by the aid of reasonable counsels and arguments, when any objection or contradiction, senseless though it may be, can be made and when such objection may find more favor with the people, whose powers of reasoning are superficial ? Men in masses and the men of the masses, being guided solely by petty passions, paltry beliefs, traditions and sentimental theorems, fall a prey to party dissension, which hinders any kind of agreement even on the basis of a perfectly reasonable argument. Every resolution of a crowd depends upon a chance or packed majority, which, in its ignorance of political secrets, puts forth some ridiculous resolution that lays in the administration a seed of anarchy.

***

The political has nothing in common with the moral. The ruler who is governed by the moral is not a skilled politician, and is therefore unstable on his throne. He who wishes to rule must have recourse both to cunning and to make-believe. Great national qualities, like frankness and honesty, are vices in politics, for they bring down rulers from their thrones more effectively and more certainly than the most powerful enemy.

***

Our right lies in force. The word « right » is an abstract thought and proved by nothing. The word means no more than: Give me what I want in order that thereby I may have a proof that I am stronger than you.

***

In any State in which there is a bad organization of authority, an impersonality of laws and of the rulers who have lost their personality amid the flood of rights ever multiplying out of liberalism, I find a new right – to attack by the right of the strong, and to scatter to the winds all existing forces of order and regulation, to reconstruct all institutions and to become the sovereign lord of those who have left to us the rights of their power by laying them down voluntarily in their liberalism.

***

Our power in the present tottering condition of all forms of power will be more invincible than any other, because it will remain invisible until the moment when it has gained such strength that no cunning can any longer undermine it.

3Out of the temporary evil we are now compelled to commit will emerge the good of an unshakable rule, which will restore the regular course of the machinery of the national life, brought to naught by liberalism. The result justifies the means. Let us, however, in our plans, direct our attention not so much to what is good and moral as to what is necessary and useful.

***

In order to elaborate satisfactory forms of action it is necessary to have regard to the rascality, the slackness, the instability of the mob, its lack of capacity to understand and respect the conditions of its own life, or its own welfare. It must be understood that the might of a mob is blind, senseless and unreasoning force ever at the mercy of a suggestion from any side. The blind cannot lead the blind without bringing them into the abyss; consequently, members of the mob, upstarts from the people even though they should be as a genius for wisdom, yet having no understanding of the political, cannot come forward as leaders of the mob without bringing the whole nation to ruin.

4Only one trained from childhood for independent rule can have understanding of the words that can be made up of the political alphabet.

5It is only with a despotic ruler that plans can be elaborated extensively and clearly in such a way as to distribute the whole properly among the several parts of the machinery of the State: from this the conclusion is inevitable that a satisfactory form of government for any country is one that concentrates in the hands of one responsible person. Without an absolute despotism there can be no existence for civilization which is carried on not by the masses but by their guide, whosoever that person may be. The mob is savage, and displays its savagery at every opportunity. The moment the mob seizes freedom in its hands it quickly turns to anarchy, which in itself is the highest degree of savagery.

***

Our triumph has been rendered easier by the fact that in our relations with the men, whom we wanted, we have always worked upon the most sensitive chords of the human mind, upon the cash account, upon the cupidity, upon the insatiability for material needs of man; and each one of these human weaknesses, taken alone, is sufficient to paralyze initiative, for it hands over the will of men to the disposition of him who has bought their activities.

***

In the hands of the States of today there is a great force that creates the movement of thought in the people, and that is the Press. The part played by the Press is to keep pointing our requirements supposed to be indispensable, to give voice to the complaints of the people, to express and to create discontent. It is in the Press that the triumph of freedom of speech finds its incarnation. […] Through the Press we have gained the power to influence while remaining ourselves in the shade.

***

We have made a gulf between the far-seeing Sovereign Power and the blind force of the people so that both have lost all meaning, for like the blind man and his stick, both are powerless apart.

***

In order to incite seekers after power to a misuse of power we have set all forces in opposition one to another, breaking up their liberal tendencies towards independence. To this end we have stirred up every form of enterprise, we have armed all parties, we have set up authority as a target for every ambition. Of States we have made gladiatorial arenas where a lot of confused issues contend …. A little more, and disorders and bankruptcy will be universal ….

***

Babblers, inexhaustible, have turned into oratorical contests the sittings of Parliament and Administrative Boards. Bold journalists and unscrupulous pamphleteers daily fall upon executive officials. Abuses of power will put the final touch in preparing all institutions for their overthrow and everything will fly skyward under the blows of the maddened mob.

***

All people are chained down to heavy toil by poverty more firmly than ever. They were chained by slavery and serfdom; from these, one way and another, they might free themselves. These could be settled with, but from want they will never get away. We have included in the constitution such rights as to the masses appear fictitious and not actual rights. All these so-called « People’s Rights » can exist only in idea, an idea which can never be realized in practical life. What is it to the proletariat laborer, bowed double over his heavy toil, crushed by his lot in life, if talkers get the right to babble, if journalists get the right to scribble any nonsense side by side with good stuff, once the proletariat has no other profit out of the constitution save only those pitiful crumbs which we fling them from our table in return for their voting in favor of what we dictate, in favor of the men we place in power, [our] servants… Republican rights for a poor man are no more than a bitter piece of irony, for the necessity he is under of toiling almost all day gives him no present use of them […].

broken-chainsWe appear on the scene as alleged saviors of the worker from this oppression when we propose to him to enter the ranks of our fighting forces […] to whom we always give support in accordance with an alleged brotherly rule […]. The aristocracy, which enjoyed by law the labor of the workers, was interested in seeing that the workers were well fed, healthy, and strong [Was it now ?]. We are interested in just the opposite. Our power is in the chronic shortness of food and physical weakness of the worker because by all that this implies he is made the slave of our will, and he will not find in his own authorities either strength or energy to set against our will. Hunger creates the right of capital to rule the worker more surely than it was given to the aristocracy by the legal authority of kings.

7By want and the envy and hatred which it engenders we shall move the mobs and with their hands we shall wipe out all those who hinder us on our way. […] This hatred will be still further magnified by the effects of an economic crisis, which will stop dealing on the exchanges and bring industry to a standstill. We shall create by all the secret subterranean methods open to us and with the aid of gold, which is all in our hands, a universal economic crisis whereby we shall throw upon the streets whole mobs of workers […]. These mobs will rush delightedly to shed the blood of those whom, in the simplicity of their ignorance, they have envied from their cradles, and whose property they will then be able to loot. Ours they will not touch, because the moment of attack will be known to us and we shall take measures to protect our own.

***

It is the bottomless rascality of [common people], who crawl on their bellies to force, but are merciless towards weakness, unsparing to  faults and indulgent to crimes, unwilling to  bear the contradictions of a free social system but patient unto martyrdom under the violence of a bold despotism – it is those qualities which are aiding us to independence.

***

The word « freedom » brings out the communities of men to fight against every kind of force, against every kind of authority, even against God and the laws of nature. For this reason we, when we come into our kingdom, shall have to erase this word from the lexicon of life as implying a principle of brute force which turns mobs into bloodthirsty beasts. These beasts, it is true, fall asleep again every time when they have drunk their fill of blood, and at such time can easily be riveted into their chains. But if they be not given blood they will not sleep and continue to struggle.

***

Every republic passes through several stages. The first of these is comprised in the early days of mad raging by the blind mob, tossed hither and thither, right and left: the second is demagogy from which is born anarchy, and that leads inevitably to despotism – not any longer legal and overt, and therefore responsible despotism, but to unseen and secretly hidden, yet nevertheless sensibly felt despotism in the hands of some secret organization or other, whose acts are the more unscrupulous inasmuch as it works behind a screen […].

***

It is indispensable for us to undermine all faith, to tear out of the mind of the [common people] the  spirit, and to put in its place arithmetical calculations and material needs. In order to give [them] no time to think and take note, their minds must be diverted towards industry and trade. Thus, all the nations will be swallowed up in the pursuit of gain and in the race for it will not take note of their common foe. But again, in order that freedom may once for all disintegrate and ruin [their] communities […], we must put industry on a speculative basis : the result of this will be that what is withdrawn from the land by industry will slip through the hands and pass into speculation, that is, to our classes.”

8And on the Protocols go, only confirming to those who can read that a character like Drumpf doesn’t represent a break with the current regime, but rather one of its possible extensions. If anything else, they also show that the honey used to catch the disenfranchised flies in the early 20th century was not very different from what it is today. For those interested in how fascism (literally : ‘beamism’) came about, there are lessons to be learned from that, well-hidden lessons, deep-state lessons…

Yet, Drumpf is not a nazi : nazis protected their workers (when they were not on the battlefield). Take a famous nazi-sympathizer like Henry Ford for instance, who circulated hundreds of thousands of copies of the Protocols throughout the US in the twenties : he had a vision for the middle class, whereas Drumpf is best known for abusing his employees before resoundingly firing them. He is a hybrid…

Divide et impera” : during his campaign, we saw the Great Divider. Now that the election is over, is the unifying tyrant up next ?…

If Drumpf wants to satisfy his electorate, he will keep on dividing. If he sets forth the feed-the-rich policies he so sincerely vowed to bring to an end, he will unite all voters against him and his neo-rep clique. Doing a bit of both would prove very hazardous in the long run. And what else can he do ?

He might bombard the ever mounting pressure from the street with reactionary measures at such a pace it would leave leftists and independents apathic for a while, but n°45 would then merely follow in Hollande’s footsteps… in every respect, thereby losing both his Senate and House majority come the midterms, and be left with a four-percent approval rating that would make him eligible for some World-Statesman-of-the-Year award, with a country on the brink of civil war.

And since no one seems to be willing (read : lucid or maverick enough) to say out loud what everybody is thinking, I suppose said task is left to me : whether it is to save the unifier or the country (“For the country, Martha…”), some kind of event (in the US itself ? In Israel ?) would be of great use to what can only be the unsteady presidency of an unstable president…

Should that happen, it would be funny to hear the recriminations of all the non-revisionists who walked in line fifteen years ago and have ever since, but have been pillorying the “racist, misogynistic” (et al.) careerist who will be leading The Free World ™ for a year…

To cut a long story short, if Drumpf chooses to maintain an optimal H.S.-apparatus, he will be shooting himself in the foot. That’s the kind of thing one ought to think about during one’s campaign before snorting Protocol verses as if they were pure cocaine…

Catégories : Politique / Société | Étiquettes : , , , | Poster un commentaire

Servants and masters : two parallel scripts, one doom scenario

∼∼∼

Reynders compare l’élection de Trump au non « wallon » au CETA: « du simplisme »

Le repli sur soi est une tendance lourde, a observé M. Reynders, évoquant la situation aux Etats-Unis mais également en Europe, avec le Brexit, et en Belgique où on a vu « la Région wallonne ne pas vouloir s’ouvrir au commerce international« .

http://www.7sur7.be/7s7/fr/1502/Belgique/article/detail/2969830/2016/11/09/Reynders-compare-l-election-de-Trump-au-non-wallon-au-CETA-Du-simplisme.dhtml

3-monkeysDemocrats, Trump, and the Ongoing, Dangerous Refusal to Learn the Lesson of Brexit

Glenn Greenwald

November 9 2016, 4:43 p.m.

The parallels between the U.K.’s shocking approval of the Brexit referendum in June and the U.S.’ even more shocking election of Donald Trump as president last night are overwhelming. Elites (outside of populist right-wing circles) aggressively unified across ideological lines in opposition to both. Supporters of Brexit and Trump were continually maligned by the dominant media narrative (validly or otherwise) as primitive, stupid, racist, xenophobic, and irrational. In each case, journalists who spend all day chatting with one another on Twitter and congregating in exclusive social circles in national capitals — constantly re-affirming their own wisdom in an endless feedback loop — were certain of victory. Afterward, the elites whose entitlement to prevail was crushed devoted their energies to blaming everyone they could find except for themselves, while doubling down on their unbridled contempt for those who defied them, steadfastly refusing to examine what drove their insubordination.

The indisputable fact is that prevailing institutions of authority in the West, for decades, have relentlessly and with complete indifference stomped on the economic welfare and social security of hundreds of millions of people. While elite circles gorged themselves on globalism, free trade, Wall Street casino gambling, and endless wars (wars that enriched the perpetrators and sent the poorest and most marginalized to bear all their burdens), they completely ignored the victims of their gluttony, except when those victims piped up a bit too much — when they caused a ruckus — and were then scornfully condemned as troglodytes who were the deserved losers in the glorious, global game of meritocracy.

That message was heard loud and clear. The institutions and elite factions that have spent years mocking, maligning, and pillaging large portions of the population — all while compiling their own long record of failure and corruption and destruction — are now shocked that their dictates and decrees go unheeded. But human beings are not going to follow and obey the exact people they most blame for their suffering. They’re going to do exactly the opposite: purposely defy them and try to impose punishment in retaliation. Their instruments for retaliation are Brexit and Trump. Those are their agents, dispatched on a mission of destruction: aimed at a system and culture they regard — not without reason — as rife with corruption and, above all else, contempt for them and their welfare.

After the Brexit vote, I wrote an article comprehensively detailing these dynamics, which I won’t repeat here but hope those interested will read. The title conveys the crux: “Brexit Is Only the Latest Proof of the Insularity and Failure of Western Establishment Institutions.” That analysis was inspired by a short, incredibly insightful, and now more relevant than ever post-Brexit Facebook note by the Los Angeles Times’s Vincent Bevins, who wrote that “both Brexit and Trumpism are the very, very wrong answers to legitimate questions that urban elites have refused to ask for 30 years.” Bevins went on: “Since the 1980s the elites in rich countries have overplayed their hand, taking all the gains for themselves and just covering their ears when anyone else talks, and now they are watching in horror as voters revolt.”

For those who tried to remove themselves from the self-affirming, vehemently pro-Clinton elite echo chamber of 2016, the warning signs that Brexit screechingly announced were not hard to see. Two short passages from a Slate interview I gave in July summarized those grave dangers: that opinion-making elites were so clustered, so incestuous, so far removed from the people who would decide this election — so contemptuous of them — that they were not only incapable of seeing the trends toward Trump but were unwittingly accelerating those trends with their own condescending, self-glorifying behavior.

Like most everyone else who saw the polling data and predictive models of the media’s self-proclaimed data experts, I long believed Clinton would win, but the reasons why she very well could lose were not hard to see. The warning lights were flashing in neon for a long time, but they were in seedy places that elites studiously avoid. The few people who purposely went to those places and listened, such as Chris Arnade, saw and heard them loud and clear. The ongoing failure to take heed of this intense but invisible resentment and suffering guarantees that it will fester and strengthen. This was the last paragraph of my July article on the Brexit fallout:

Instead of acknowledging and addressing the fundamental flaws within themselves, [elites] are devoting their energies to demonizing the victims of their corruption, all in order to delegitimize those grievances and thus relieve themselves of responsibility to meaningfully address them. That reaction only serves to bolster, if not vindicate, the animating perceptions that these elite institutions are hopelessly self-interested, toxic, and destructive and thus cannot be reformed but rather must be destroyed. That, in turn, only ensures there will be many more Brexits, and Trumps, in our collective future.

Beyond the Brexit analysis, there are three new points from last night’s results that I want to emphasize, as they are unique to the 2016 U.S. election and, more importantly, illustrate the elite pathologies that led to all of this:

  1. Democrats have already begun flailing around trying to blame anyone and everyone they can find — everyone except themselves — for last night’s crushing defeat of their party.

You know the drearily predictable list of their scapegoats: Russia, WikiLeaks, James Comey, Jill Stein, Bernie Bros, The Media, news outlets (including, perhaps especially, The Intercept) that sinned by reporting negatively on Hillary Clinton. Anyone who thinks that what happened last night in places like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, and Michigan can be blamed on any of that is drowning in self-protective ignorance so deep that it’s impossible to express in words.

When a political party is demolished, the principle responsibility belongs to one entity: the party that got crushed. It’s the job of the party and the candidate, and nobody else, to persuade the citizenry to support them and find ways to do that. Last night, the Democrats failed, resoundingly, to do that, and any autopsy or liberal think piece or pro-Clinton pundit commentary that does not start and finish with their own behavior is one that is inherently worthless.

Put simply, Democrats knowingly chose to nominate a deeply unpopular, extremely vulnerable, scandal-plagued candidate, who — for very good reason — was widely perceived to be a protector and beneficiary of all the worst components of status quo elite corruption. It’s astonishing that those of us who tried frantically to warn Democrats that nominating Hillary Clinton was a huge and scary gamble — that all empirical evidence showed that she could lose to anyone and Bernie Sanders would be a much stronger candidate, especially in this climate — are now the ones being blamed: by the very same people who insisted on ignoring all that data and nominating her anyway.

But that’s just basic blame shifting and self-preservation. Far more significant is what this shows about the mentality of the Democratic Party. Just think about who they nominated: someone who — when she wasn’t dining with Saudi monarchs and being feted in Davos by tyrants who gave million-dollar checks — spent the last several years piggishly running around to Wall Street banks and major corporations cashing in with $250,000 fees for 45-minute secret speeches even though she had already become unimaginably rich with book advances while her husband already made tens of millions playing these same games. She did all that without the slightest apparent concern for how that would feed into all the perceptions and resentments of her and the Democratic Party as corrupt, status quo-protecting, aristocratic tools of the rich and powerful: exactly the worst possible behavior for this post-2008-economic-crisis era of globalism and destroyed industries.

It goes without saying that Trump is a sociopathic con artist obsessed with personal enrichment: the opposite of a genuine warrior for the downtrodden. That’s too obvious to debate. But, just as Obama did so powerfully in 2008, he could credibly run as an enemy of the D.C. and Wall Street system that has steamrolled over so many people, while Hillary Clinton is its loyal guardian, its consummate beneficiary.

Trump vowed to destroy the system that elites love (for good reason) and the masses hate (for equally good reason), while Clinton vowed to manage it more efficiently. That, as Matt Stoller’s indispensable article in The Atlantic three weeks ago documented, is the conniving choice the Democratic Party made decades ago: to abandon populism and become the party of technocratically proficient, mildly benevolent managers of elite power. Those are the cynical, self-interested seeds they planted, and now the crop has sprouted.

Of course there are fundamental differences between Obama’s version of “change” and Trump’s. But at a high level of generality — which is where these messages are often ingested — both were perceived as outside forces on a mission to tear down corrupt elite structures, while Clinton was perceived as devoted to their fortification. That is the choice made by Democrats — largely happy with status quo authorities, believing in their basic goodness — and any honest attempt by Democrats to find the prime author of last night’s debacle will begin with a large mirror.

  1. That racism, misogyny, and xenophobia are pervasive in all sectors of America is indisputable from even a casual glance at its history, both distant and recent.

There are reasons why all presidents until 2008 were white and all 45 elected presidents have been men. There can be no doubt that those pathologies played a substantial role in last night’s outcome. But that fact answers very few questions and begs many critical ones.

To begin with, one must confront the fact that not only was Barack Obama elected twice, but he is poised to leave office as a highly popular president: now viewed more positively than Reagan. America wasn’t any less racist and xenophobic in 2008 and 2012 than it is now. Even stalwart Democrats fond of casually branding their opponents as bigots are acknowledging that a far more complicated analysis is required to understand last night’s results. As the New York Times’s Nate Cohn put it: “Clinton suffered her biggest losses in the places where Obama was strongest among white voters. It’s not a simple racism story.” Matt Yglesias acknowledged that Obama’s high approval rating is inconsistent with depictions of the U.S. as a country “besotted with racism.”

People often talk about “racism/sexism/xenophobia” vs. “economic suffering” as if they are totally distinct dichotomies. Of course there are substantial elements of both in Trump’s voting base, but the two categories are inextricably linked: The more economic suffering people endure, the angrier and more bitter they get, the easier it is to direct their anger to scapegoats. Economic suffering often fuels ugly bigotry. It is true that many Trump voters are relatively well-off and many of the nation’s poorest voted for Clinton, but, as Michael Moore quite presciently warned, those portions of the country that have been most ravaged by free trade orgies and globalism — Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa — were filled with rage and “see [Trump] as a chance to be the human Molotov cocktail that they’d like to throw into the system to blow it up.” Those are the places that were decisive in Trump’s victory. As the Washington Examiner’s Tim Carney put it:

Low-income rural white voters in Pa. voted for Obama in 2008 and then Trump in 2016, and your explanation is white supremacy? Interesting.

— Tim Carney (@TPCarney) November 9, 2016

It has long been, and still is, a central American challenge to rid society of these structural inequalities. But one way to ensure those scapegoating dynamics fester rather than erode is to continue to embrace a system that excludes and ignores a large portion of the population. Hillary Clinton was viewed, reasonably, as a stalwart devotee, beloved agent, and prime beneficiary of that system, and thus could not possibly be viewed as a credible actor against it.

  1. Over the last six decades, and particularly over the last 15 years of the endless war on terror, both political parties have joined to construct a frightening and unprecedentedly invasive and destructive system of authoritarian power, accompanied by the unbridled authority vested in the executive branch to use it.

As a result, the president of the United States commands a vast nuclear arsenal that can destroy the planet many times over; the deadliest and most expensive military ever developed in human history; legal authorities that allow him to prosecute numerous secret wars at the same time, imprison people with no due process, and target people (including U.S. citizens) for assassination with no oversight; domestic law enforcement agencies that are constructed to appear and act as standing, para-militarized armies; a sprawling penal state that allows imprisonment far more easily than most Western countries; and a system of electronic surveillance purposely designed to be ubiquitous and limitless, including on U.S. soil.

Those who have been warning of the grave dangers these powers pose have often been dismissed on the ground that the leaders who control this system are benevolent and well-intentioned. They have thus often resorted to the tactic of urging people to imagine what might happen if a president they regarded as less than benevolent one day gained control of it. That day has arrived. One hopes this will at least provide the impetus to unite across ideological and partisan lines to finally impose meaningful limits on these powers that should never have been vested in the first place. That commitment should start now.

* * * * *

For many years, the U.S. — like the U.K. and other Western nations — has embarked on a course that virtually guaranteed a collapse of elite authority and internal implosion. From the invasion of Iraq to the 2008 financial crisis to the all-consuming framework of prisons and endless wars, societal benefits have been directed almost exclusively to the very elite institutions most responsible for failure at the expense of everyone else.

It was only a matter of time before instability, backlash, and disruption resulted. Both Brexit and Trump unmistakably signal its arrival. The only question is whether those two cataclysmic events will be the peak of this process, or just the beginning. And that, in turn, will be determined by whether their crucial lessons are learned — truly internalized — or ignored in favor of self-exonerating campaigns to blame everyone else.

https://theintercept.com/2016/11/09/democrats-trump-and-the-ongoing-dangerous-refusal-to-learn-the-lesson-of-brexit/

Catégories : Politique / Société | Étiquettes : , , , , | Poster un commentaire

Un résumé / a summary / een samenvatting :

they-live-john-carpenter

they-live-john-carpenter

Catégories : Expérimentations diverses non catégorisées | Poster un commentaire

2 novembre 2016

jordy-brouillard

Catégories : Uncategorized | Poster un commentaire

Propulsé par WordPress.com.