's own clash of civilizations is to validate the conflict from the outside: it is the impartial observer that attests to the existence of the conflict, while conflict itself remains unknown. It is realized suddenly, in these times of popular rebellion disguised as revolution, the instrumentalization of Islam by the clan oligarchy Ben Ali in Tunisia based on any real danger Islamist (or very minor) and we could ramble on about the existence of the threat al Qaeda - and its real sponsors.
The theory behind the clash of civilizations is poor. It has value only because it is powerful interests. It cites as a reference expert theorist Huntington, but forgets to mention he was a student of Lewis, who is a typical intellectual networks of the British Empire today. The clash of civilizations enables Western imperialism (invoice dominant British) imperialism legitimize his behalf of danger as foreign illusory. Those who denounce the danger of Islamic civilization (or, more nuanced variant, the Islamist terrorists) are outsiders to the phenomena they denounce.
This disconnection between observation and observed the existence of bad faith involves observation. It is appropriate that conservative extremists that carry this imperialist rhetoric and violent. In the mouth of progressive, it would become inconsistent. One can cite the case of former Progressive returned, a number of founders of neoconservatism in the United States (including former Trotskyists).
But we can also mention the rise of the hardest right, or all those who are for some reason or another to the right of conservative liberalism. Basically, the neoconservatives, the ultraconservative oldest, libertarians, libertarians and nationalists. We are, nationalists are designated period of crisis to accept violence which liberalism claims to be lacking in good times - or rather he has the resources to go abroad for its action. In the liberal ideological schema, it is fashionable to oppose liberalism nationalism, on behalf of freedom in particular.
In times of crisis, nationalism becomes the banner behind which protects those unmentionable amoral financial markets. This was the case with the rise of fascism during the historic inter-war period. It is still the case today, where there is a rise of extreme right-wing forces since the end of Bretton Woods (1971) and their rise to power with the growing crisis (especially since 2007). The rightward shift of the West is associated with the collapse of liberalism. Libertarians were elected to the United States, a neo-Conservative business in France Britain elected a left-wing as Blair imperialist (Third Way), then a conservative shock as Cameron. In this jumble
idéologicomique , progression of the crisis since 2011 (some have tried to call soft growth ) ushers joint right-wing history. This extreme-right nationalist and opportunist valid clash of civilizations by attacking, as is customary for the 911, the Islamic civilization (and its designated representatives immigrants and ex-officio). In France, a Marine Le Pen represents and supports this thesis, deflecting significantly positions of his father (and most ultra-liberal Judeophobic it).
But the most interesting in this game of billiards in several bands (opportunistic) is that the clash of civilizations dividing the far-right itself, as if the first argument affected his most ardent supporters. The clash of civilizations is not the end of the antiphon "divide and conquer" an extreme form taken by the political philosopher Hobbes of the British Empire when he discerns in the state of nature the struggle of all against all. The far-right trying everywhere to become suitable ( so British ) and access to power going good so embodies the raw expression of crystalline clash of civilizations and the struggle of all against all.
The basis of nationalism is to excite the rise of domination - of the fittest. This clash of civilization has brought a predictable and conventional discourse majority who first attacked Muslims. Discourse of Islamophobia, then. Often those who hold and act out of pure opportunism have been in the past instead of making remarks to the contrary - more Judeophobe qu'islamophobes. Cases of Marine Le Pen, who knew she would make his last speech nationalist consensus (like a Finished in Italy) by taking Islamophobic hatred rather than Judeophobic hatred that too often slips carting his father.
postmodern nationalist position is the most common exacerbating the clash of civilizations initiated by the rightwing liberal (that of Sarkozy in France), rather neoconservative type, involving a certain social polish and especially nationalism tempered, though well present (the virulent nationalism is always). The positions of Soral indicate that there is very close to Marine Le Pen's presence nationalists such as new as a reagent , claiming under the guise of social struggle Judeophobia morning Zionism. Although supporters Soral left of the FN, they make an excellent suggestion for Marine Le Pen, who does not hesitate to take their initiatives ranging between nationalism and socialism.
's extreme right and represents an excellent mirror of what the clash of civilizations: the practical application of chaos theory even within its promoters exacerbated contradiction implies the presence of the community and opposition , Islamophobia and Judeophobia. In the end, whatever, because nationalism implies a hatred of all communities and all minorities in the name of the republic and the majority as any minority community expresses its opposition to the law of the jungle. Is not that the rhetoric of a virulent and effective Soral? Nationalism praises of the fittest and condemns the minority. Our
dissident intellectual promotes, through its think tank alternationaliste Equality and reconciliation geopolitical and strategic vision of the world where imperialism is attributed to the Zionists and Jews over American imperialism, or even Anglo-Saxon. The systematic attacks against the Zionist ideology makes it even more questionable diatribe against Jews, particularly through attacks against the sacred and historical books of the Jewish people - without knowing whether they are Jews in the generic sense as a whole or some Jews who are affected - and this confusion between the insidious Zionist Jews and Israelis.
Before attacking Jews in a simplistic manner and / or Zionist, it should dissociate the majority of this vocal minority of Jews, even Soral acts in this manner, in this case, the scam is on interpretative confusion prioritizing problems: the small minority of influential Jewish and Zionist extremists are in the service of Anglo-Saxon financial centered around the City of London - in particular through historical ties between the family Rothschild and the creation of the State of Israel.
This historical distinction is never suggested, the ideological discourse of anti-Jewish rhetoric Soral maintain and confusion between the responsibility of the Jews and some Jewish circles who are not acting on behalf of Jews as Jews or but on behalf of financial interests that are not Jewish (exactly: they are mostly British aristocratic oligarchic interests, but not only). Without out the true history of Protocols of the Elders of Zion as delight them some manipulators and their spokesmen, it seems appropriate to our time clash of civilizations begin by condemning this hateful rhetoric aimed at criminalize communities more or less religious Jews, more or less ideological Zionists, while the real problem is financial and that the connections between financial and subordinate Zionist Zionist financiers (not vice versa as argued by the alternationalistes).
Empowering Jews is odious because it is practicing the policy of attacking the scapegoat lower under the pretext that it would be harder. Soral's speech could be summed up as Jews or the Zionists rule the world through domination of the circuits financial service of Israel. We must fight against Zionism and denounce talk of manipulation and hypocrisy contained in the sacred foundations of the Jewish religion. This rhetoric is rendered acceptable by the courageous denunciation Islamophobia.
It is useless to denounce Islamophobia if it is to rehabilitate the old nationalist discourse Judeophobia (maintained by Maistre, Celine, Maurras, Morand, Rebattet, Leon Daudet, Bernanos, and others during recent times and claim). Nationalism is particularly noticeable in this hatred of the lowest paid by the fascination with the strongest (most reliable?). The discourse of alternationaliste Soral is no more courageous or as a result the neo-nationalist discourse Marine: both are nationalist rhetoric that complement their detestation of the weakest and in their adoration for domination.
Pace Soral fighting openly against the discourse of a clash of civilizations, his own discourse validates the clash of civilizations. Judeophobia joined Islamophobia: if the diagnosis is the lowest differ somewhat (provisionally), the community views as to the end (glorification of the highest) indicates the relationship vibrant and poisonous: the alternationalistes take that the enemy is a minority when nationalists believe that the enemy is more numerous and impressive. It is not clear whether the clash of civilizations denied a Soral more courageous than the clash of civilizations express a Marine.
0 comments:
Post a Comment