Le Crieur Souverainiste introduces books and magazines which, in an independent and non-dogmatic way, aim to stimulate reflection on major geopolitical issues.
# Accords de Minsk # Capitalisme sauvage # Communisme # Culture de masse # Défaite de l'Occident # Démantèlement de la Russie # Extraterritorialité lois US # Fragmentation de la France # Fédéralisme européen # Impérialisme américain # Individualisme radical # Marchandisation du monde # Monde arabe # Média et propagande # Oligarques russes et ukrainiens # OTAN # Recyclage nazis allemands # Russophobie # Sud global # Surveillance NSA # Ukronazisme # Universalisme prosélyte # Vassalisation de l’Europe # Wokisme # Élites technocratiques
We’re walking on our heads, France, the EU and lies (2024), Ghislain Benhessa and Guillaume Bigot
The French are in low spirits. Parents used to think that their children would do better than them. Now they’re praying that the downturn doesn’t strangle them. Apart from blissful optimists, no one imagines that the good times will magically return.
The French know that the future eludes them, confiscated by a composite and elusive assemblage. Financial markets, technocracy, the Davos Forum, committees of experts, a nebula of judges: the spider’s web only feeds resentment and conspiracy theories, which are countered by the media fact-checking industry.
In the space of a few decades, France has swapped its independence for servility, and its democracy for the sacredness of human rights. Not a single Europeanist, the same ones who wave republican principles in the wind, accepts political alternation, or admits that the EU is draining democracy of its substance. The primary threat to our civil liberties is not the hold of Islamism or Putin’s invasion of our country, but the disintegration of the people’s right to govern themselves.
By denying its nations and turning its back on its cultural roots, Europe has condemned itself to being no more than a 4 million km2 duty free zone with no soul or ethos. A ‘no man’s land’ open to all, inclusive and multicultural. A kingdom of individual rights, available to locals and transient migrants alike. A place you can join without assimilating, a McDonald’s-style ‘come as you are’ hub. And what has Brussels come up with to ‘sharpen the European feeling awakened by Putin’? A campaign based on a three-word slogan: ‘You are EU’.
At a time when war is raging and imperialism is boiling over, the Union has no rallying banner, no cause to defend, no feeling that brings people together and unites them. The only horizon: the individual, again and again, the lowest common denominator.
If the phonetic game (EU=You) must have mobilised the brains of obscure advertisers, it’s not certain that it’s enough to mask the nothingness of the ‘project’.
The defeat of the West (2024), Emmanuel Todd
Europe finds itself engaged in a war that is profoundly contrary to its interests and self-destructive, even though for at least thirty years its promoters have been selling us an ever-deepening Union that, thanks to the euro, was going to become an autonomous power, a counterweight to the giants that are China and the United States. The European Union has disappeared behind NATO, now more subservient to the United States than ever before. The Berlin-Paris axis has been supplanted by a London-Warsaw-Kiev axis steered by Washington, reinforced by the Scandinavian and Baltic countries which have become direct satellites of the White House or the Pentagon.
However, Europe did not become embroiled in this war by chance, stupidity or accident, despite all the absurdities and implausibilities. Something drove it. It’s not all the fault of the United States. That something is its own implosion. The European project is dead. A sense of sociological and historical emptiness has overtaken our elites and our middle classes. In this context, the Russian attack on Ukraine was almost a godsend. The editorialists in the media made no secret of the fact: Putin’s ‘special military operation’ was giving new meaning to European integration; the EU needed an external enemy to pull itself together and move forward. This optimistic rhetoric betrayed a darker truth. The Union is a gas factory, unmanageable and literally beyond repair. Its institutions are running on empty; its single currency has led to irreversible internal imbalances; its reaction to the ‘Putin threat’ is not necessarily an effort to pull itself together, but perhaps, on the contrary, a suicidal impulse: it expresses the unavowable hope that this endless war will ultimately cause everything to explode. Having engineered a dysfunctional Maastricht machinery, our elites could then dump it on Russia; their obscure desire would be for the war to rid Europe of itself. Putin would be their saviour, a redeeming Satan.
➡️ https://lecrieursouverainiste.fr/2024/01/11/la-defaite-de-loccident-2024/
Demystifying Europe (2024), Front Populaire, article by Denis Collin: The myth of European sovereignty. For a Europe of nations
The current President of the French Republic readily claims to be a supporter of ‘European sovereignty’. We all know what this expression means: the destruction of the sovereignty of the nations that make up the EU and submission to the American order, as demonstrated by the EU’s policy in Ukraine and the growing influence of the corrupt bureaucracy headed by Mrs von der Leyen. Why does Mr Macron insist on using the term ‘sovereignty’ to refer to something that is its negation? Because sovereignty is at the heart of the political freedom to which citizens remain so attached, and sovereignty can only be fought by invoking the name of sovereignty.
Whichever way you look at the EU, it is not a ‘society of nations’ but an association of oligarchs intent on destroying the nations of Europe. We might add that it is not really a European organisation, but above all an extension of the US empire. Its main inspiration, Jean Monnet, was an American agent of influence, opposed to General de Gaulle’s desire for independence. The United States wanted to build Europe as a means of securing control over Western Europe, as part of its rivalry with the Soviet Union and its strategy for world domination. The doctrines, the principles of state organisation and the accounting standards themselves are all made in America. The EU’s defence is NATO, and EU members (with the exception of France) buy most of their military equipment from the United States.
But the EU venture is a dead end that could prove tragic for the peoples of Europe. The slow decomposition of Europe’s industrial, agricultural and intellectual power, subject to the manoeuvres of the White House and the appetites of the transnational capitalist class, is becoming more apparent by the day.
What remains to be done is to open up a positive prospect, which could be called a confederation of the sovereign states of Europe, welded together by a commitment to ‘perpetual peace’ and a rejection of external adventures such as the 2003 expedition to Iraq. But nothing will be achieved without a national conception of sovereignty.
➡️ https://lecrieursouverainiste.fr/2024/03/06/leurope-demystifiee-vie-et-mort-dun-empire-2014/
War of the worlds (2024), Omerta, article by François Fillon: Avoiding the ‘all against the West’ attitude
In Europe, as in the United States, we still refuse to learn the lessons of the war in Iraq, the disaster of the military intervention in Afghanistan, the management of the civil war in Syria, the consequences of our actions in Libya and now the Manicheanism of our position in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Nothing has changed. We are the West! We embody truth, progress and democracy. This attitude, which is not unfounded, now produces a powerful rejection, reinforced by the real or supposed emergence of an alternative to Western domination.
The sniggering about the BRICS, which are nothing more than a motley collection of countries and peoples with nothing in common, does not take into account the power of the detestation of a West that multiplies economic sanctions that are as unfair as they are ineffective, that denounces violations of international law only when it suits it, that qualifies as a war crime the bombing of civilian populations, but only those it chooses.
The management of the conflict in Ukraine has only accelerated the process by throwing Russia into the arms of China, by opening up new prospects for India, but above all by demonstrating our powerlessness to impose our own solutions.
None of the Western leaders’ prophecies about the collapse of the Russian economy, the defeat of its army or the political fragility of its regime came true. These predictions, which it was forbidden to criticise, revealed a lack of understanding of history and strategic realities.
The constant reference to the international community, on whose behalf we believe we are speaking, concerns little more than the West and a few of its allies in Asia, i.e. far less than half the world’s population. It is all these mistakes that weaken our influence in the world and coagulate opposition against our interests and our values.
If we fail to understand this, we will continue down a path that will inevitably lead to dark times ahead.
➡️ https://lecrieursouverainiste.fr/2024/02/01/la-guerre-des-mondes-2024/
Ukraine, why Russia won (2024), Xavier Moreau
At the start of the special military operation, Washington’s economic war aims seemed realistic. Firstly, to cut off European, mainly German, industries from cheap Russian energy in order to encourage them to migrate to the United States. Secondly, the operation was to be used to impose sanctions on Russia that would inevitably lead to the collapse of its economy, with serious social and political consequences. Western image-makers believed that these sanctions would provoke unrest throughout Russia and spell the end of Vladimir Putin’s ‘reign’. Thirdly, the aim was to deprive the Russian military-industrial complex of the resources needed to continue the war effort. In Washington’s view, Kiev only needed to hold out against the Russian army for a few months, after which the cycle of economic collapse, civil war and the fall of Vladimir Putin would put an end to the conflict. It is impossible to believe that the North American elites could have imagined for a moment that Kiev, even with the support of NATO, could win militarily.
Of these three conjunctures, the first proved particularly judicious. The major European powers, led by Germany, immediately agreed to sabotage their own economies in order to subdue Russia. The political circumstances for Washington were ideal. From the end of 2022, major German companies began announcing their moves across the Atlantic. Chemical giant BASF led the way.
While the destruction of European industry can be seen as a historic victory for the United States over Europe, the operation against the Russian economy was a resounding failure. Western sanctions even had a beneficial effect in Russia. When Vladimir Putin announced the special operation on 22 February 2022, he knew that this decision would unleash a rain of Western sanctions against his country. He declared that these sanctions would have been imposed in any case, and that a sovereign country could not accept living permanently under this kind of threat. Sovereignty cannot be shared.
➡️ https://lecrieursouverainiste.fr/2024/02/05/ukraine-pourquoi-la-russie-a-gagne-2024/
Ukraine, a world turning point (2023), François Martin
Ukraine is the absolute martyr in this tragic affair, dragged over the precipice by cynical and mafia-like counterparts both inside and outside the country. Added to this are all the careerists in Western society, both civilian and military, as well as the ideologues who claim to be for peace and love, but who will howl with all the wolves so that, out of pure hatred for Putin and his regime, more and more weapons can be sent to a dying people.
Who is responsible for this tragedy? All those who, since the 2014 coup against Yanukovych, have acted as if the Minsk agreements (supposed to restore peace in Donbass) did not exist, and who turned their heads away when for eight long years the Russian-speaking populations of Donbass were being bombed day and night. Neither of Ukraine’s last two presidents has sought to resolve the problem: neither Poroshenko, who had publicly announced his intention to crush these people, nor Zelensky, who was elected to implement these agreements but quickly forgot his promise. None of their foreign counterparts rose to denounce these persecutions, nor our journalists, who are so virtuous today, nor the Ukrainian people, who are martyrs today and, at the time, indifferent. Did they think that Russia would let things deteriorate indefinitely, without ever reacting? And what about the West, which deliberately organised the division of these people into Ukrainians and Russian speakers?
Under these conditions, there is no point in insisting on denouncing one or the other. Only one thing is necessary: to organise a cease-fire, to put an end to this martyrdom.
➡️ https://lecrieursouverainiste.fr/2023/04/06/lukraine-un-basculement-du-monde/
Energy war, at the heart of the new global conflict (2023), Fabien Bouglé
The big winners in the war in Ukraine are undoubtedly the United States, which, behind its political rhetoric of freedom, has purely opportunistic economic objectives.
The US sanctions are designed to restrict the sale of Russian gas to Europe via pipelines, so as to give Europe a free hand in selling its liquefied natural gas. The sabotage of the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines, which allowed Russian gas to bypass Ukraine, considerably consolidated the American strategy. With the sale of American gas, Europeans’ gas bills soared, as did the electricity bills of European households and businesses, which depend on the price of gas.
The stated aim of American nuclear strategists is, as with gas, to detach Europe from Russian energy influence. By Americanising Ukrainian nuclear power, the United States is strengthening its political control in Europe. On the Russian side, this victory was badly perceived, especially as Ukraine was ‘appropriating’ nuclear power plants designed and built by the Soviet Union at the time.
Events followed one another like a downward spiral that nothing seemed able to stop. Irrationality seems to be taking over from reason. From an initial energy crisis, we have moved on to a generalised nuclear risk. On the one hand, we have a Western discourse that plays down the Russian nuclear risk. On the other, Russia is in exactly the same position as the United States during the Cuban crisis. This escalation must be halted.
Should France leave NATO again? The question deserves to be asked.
Ukraine between war and peace (2023), Jacques Baud
We know what Ukraine’s objectives are from the interview given by Olekseï Arestovitch, a close adviser to Zelensky, on 18 March 2019: to join NATO and then join the European Union. The problem is that given the tensions with Russia, NATO cannot accept Ukraine into its fold without running the risk of activating Article 5 of the Atlantic Charter. It’s a bit like taking out an insurance policy for a risk with a 100% probability of occurrence!
Ukraine can only join NATO if Russia is unable to threaten it. It would have to suffer a crushing defeat that would destroy its economy, provoke a revolution and a change of regime, or even break up Russia into smaller entities. This is exactly what Arestovitch said on 18 March 2019: ‘Our price for joining NATO is a war against Russia and its defeat’. He even gave the probable date of that war: ‘2021 or 2022’!
But the price would be higher than expected. In March 2022, in an interview on CNN, Zelenski himself admitted that he had been manipulated and used by the Americans to join NATO. For our politicians, whatever the price, and as Republican Senator Lindsey Graham says, it’s about letting the Ukrainians fight to the last man.
➡️ https://lecrieursouverainiste.fr/2023/05/24/ukraine-entre-guerre-et-paix-2023-jacques-baud/
The first 21st century, from globalisation to the crumbling of the world (2021), Jean-Marie Guéhenno
Our greatest illusion – our first lie? -is to have seen in the collapse of the USSR and the Soviet bloc the victory of democracy. Successful revolutions more often owe their success to the leaders’ loss of confidence in themselves, rather than to the strength of their opponents. The upheavals of 1989 did not disprove this hypothesis. We largely ignored this reality and confused the collapse of the Soviet system with the victory of democracy; this confusion is at the heart of our present difficulties: it contributed to the failure of the political transformation of Russia, it prevented us from thinking about a new international order, and it dispensed us from reflecting on our own societies. The ravages caused by this lie haunt Europe today. Russia’s current situation and the inability of the West and Russia to invent a relationship based on shared democratic convictions are the direct consequence of this initial lie. Democratic disenchantment has combined with strategic defeat to produce the Russia of today and turn it into a kind of caricature of ourselves.
At the end of the day, the ‘Person of the Year’ that Time Magazine should have crowned in 1989 is the ‘individual’, not a particular individual, an exceptional individual, but the individual as such, the individual for himself, the individual that has reached its contemporary apotheosis with the selfie, the individual in pursuit of himself. The generic individual is the real hero of our time, and the exceptional people who are still celebrated at charity banquets and in magazines conceal the real winner of 1989, the individual ‘without quality’, the individual soon to be without moorings.
Russia-West, a thousand-year war. La russophobie de Charlemagne à la crise ukrainienne (2023), Guy Mettan
Only 37 countries supported sanctions against Russia, while 150 others abstained. Six and a half billion people are watching from afar, secretly hoping that Russia will win. They understand that if Russia weakens, their country could be next on the list. Similarly, they view Ursula von der Leyen with amazement, as she denounces attacks on freedom of expression in Russia but bans the Russian media RT and Sputnik in Europe. This is nothing less than a war for global supremacy, with some seeking to retain their hegemony while subjugating Europe, and others fighting for a multipolar world.
At heart, the problem is more philosophical. What has happened to us, the heirs of the Enlightenment, to make us renounce all critical thinking and the exercise of reason? What has happened to us, the children of Rousseau and Kant, to make us content with the crudest prejudices? That we should give in to the media’s near-unanimous condemnation of Russia without checking the facts or balancing the points of view? So that we repudiate great historians in favour of self-proclaimed experts paid to design a future in line with American ambitions?
There is no justification for persevering in ignorance.
The Shadow of Hitler. The American Secret Service and Nazi Criminals during the Cold War (2022), Richard Breitman and Norman J.W. Goda
Apart from the Catholic Church, the Federal Republic of the United States, founded in 1776, is the only constituted entity that dares to identify itself with universal morality. The ‘raison d’Etat’, in the classical sense ascribed to it by Richelieu or Napoleon – subordinating everything to the interests of the community for which the government is accountable – is therefore largely foreign to it. The important thing is not so much to save the American nation, whose existence has never been threatened by anyone since the War of Independence, as to enable it to impose its standards, willingly or by force, on everything that is not itself – in other words, ‘The rest of the World’, a phrase that speaks volumes in itself…
By proclaiming that ‘the cause of America is the cause of all mankind’, George Washington not only bequeathed to his successors a formidable instrument of international interference; he also established the government of the United States as a planetary judge… A universal magistrate endowed with the exorbitant power to tailor the outcome of these decisions to his interests of the moment!
This is the paradox of the Nuremberg Tribunal, created at the request of the United States to punish so-called crimes ‘against humanity’, but whose definition, far from being objective, was subject to the discretion of the victors. While the racism and anti-Semitism that led to the Shoah were rightly condemned, the British were sovereignly refrained from being called to account, even as late as 1945, when they quietly counted Australia’s aborigines among the fauna! Worse still, a secret system of jurisprudence was being put in place that allowed the Allies, and above all the Americans, to decide who was a criminal and who was not, for crimes of equal gravity. On what criteria? The ‘employability’ of the defeated, even if they were professional killers, and precisely because they were, at the service of the ‘libido dominandi’ of the victor.
Putin, master of the game ? (2022), Jacques Baud
A more honest examination of recent history requires a more nuanced and less partisan view than what Western propagandists and revisionists tell us. In reality, these right-thinking souls are not looking for peace or to help the Ukrainians, but to counter Vladimir Putin.
- By supporting Euromaidan, has the West promoted democracy and the rule of law?
As L’Obs reminds us, the Maïdan revolution of 2014 was nothing more than a coup d’état, carried out with the support of the European Union and the United States. A now-famous telephone conversation between Victoria Nuland, then Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia, and Geoffrey Pyatt, the US ambassador in Kiev, revealed by the BBC, shows that it was the Americans who selected the members of the future Ukrainian government, in defiance of the European Union, and during which Nuland launched her famous ‘Fuck the EU!
What Raphaël Glucksmann called a ‘democratic revolution’ was nothing more than a coup, carried out without any legal basis, which overthrew by force a government whose election had been described by the OSCE as ‘transparent and honest’ and which had ‘offered an impressive demonstration of democracy’. The democratically elected president was later convicted of ‘high treason’ for having defended the constitutional order.
Far from being a popular revolution, Euromaidan was the work of a minority of radical nationalists from western Ukraine (Galicia), who were not representative of Ukrainians as a whole. In fact, the first legislative act of the parliament that emerged from the coup, on 23 February 2014, was the abolition of the 2012 Kivalov-Kolesnichenko law, which established Russian as an official language on a par with Ukrainian. It was this event that prompted the Russian-speaking population to rebel against the authorities they had not elected.
The effort of the West, which supported the far-right coup in Kiev, was to give it legitimacy. Since Euromaidan, every street demonstration has seen an abundance of far-right ‘Svoboda’ flags and portraits of Stephan Bandera. In fact, in 2018, the Ukrainian parliament even instituted an official day to remember him.
➡️ https://lecrieursouverainiste.fr/2022/03/16/poutine-maitre-du-jeu/
The sinking of civilisations (2020), Amin Maalouf
Fortunately, armed revenge is not the only way for peoples to overcome their defeats and regain their dignity. An eloquent example is South Korea, which is currently one of the world’s leading industrial powers. No doubt the north of the peninsula is still separate from the south, still governed by the same dynasty that continues to arm itself and make threatening speeches.
So there are different ways of dealing with defeat and the loss of territory. You can choose the military option, which has often produced convincing results throughout history; but you can also adopt other ways of emerging victorious from the ordeal. The important thing is to think calmly. Allowing yourself to be guided throughout by your intelligence, and not by your mood or the noise around you. And, above all, by asking yourself the right questions. Not: ‘Do we have the right to use force?’, to which the answer is inevitably ‘Yes’, but: ‘Is it in our interest to lead the fight militarily?’, ‘Would the consequences of using force be to our advantage today, or to the advantage of our enemies?’, which requires a calm assessment of the means at our disposal, the balance of power, and so on. This should be self-evident to anyone involved in politics, and all the more so to those who preside over the destinies of a people.
When the heirs of the greatest civilisations and the bearers of the most universal dreams metamorphose into raging, vengeful tribes, how can we not expect the worst for the continuation of the human adventure?
➡️ https://lecrieursouverainiste.fr/2020/10/28/le-naufrage-des-civilisations-2020/
Governing by Fake News (2020), Jacques Baud : Conclusions on the Skripal affair
During the ‘C dans l’air’ programme on France 5 on 16 March 2018, the ‘experts’ cast no doubt on Vladimir Putin’s direct involvement in the Skripal affair. Yet the British accusation is merely circumstantial: it is not based on facts, but on potentialities and hypotheses.
It is a pattern that follows exactly that of conspiracy theories: elements are put together on the basis of prejudices, not facts. By combining the same elements in different ways, you could just as easily accuse Britain of the same crime. Which is what some have done…
Theresa May immediately dramatised the incident and invoked the solidarity of Nato countries, even though all the details were not yet known. By treating it as a ‘chemical attack’ on Great Britain, and not just as poisoning, it was deliberately placed in the higher register of an international conflict.
But here again, Westerners are not consistent. They invoke the Chemical Weapons Convention, but do not apply its procedures for settling disputes. In the event of a ‘situation giving rise to concern as to possible non-compliance’ with the Convention, the State asked for clarification has ten days to respond. In this case, however, the UK only gave Russia 24 hours. Furthermore, it has refused to provide details of the incident, as well as the poison and blood samples requested by Russia in order to take a position. It’s as if they were afraid of a different truth.
Britain has thus applied a strategy of tension, aimed at creating national unity and international solidarity around an ‘external attack’. This does not necessarily mean that the British government poisoned the Skripals, but that it opportunely exploited the incident for political ends.
In 2016, the geostrategic context was tense: the Ukrainian crisis was dragging on, the West was losing its foothold in the Middle East, the British government was overwhelmed by Brexit, social unrest was beginning to undermine Macron’s presidency, Nato had doubts about transatlantic relations and the European spirit was cracking under the pressure of immigration.
It’s hard not to see in the haste of the Western response – when we don’t even know the exact nature of the poison – an attempt to distract public opinion from their national problems.
➡️ https://lecrieursouverainiste.fr/2020/08/27/gouverner-par-les-fake-news-2020/
Cyber, the permanent war (2018), Jean-Louis Gergorin and Léo Isaac-Dognin
- The « 21st Century Statecraft » initiative of Hillary Clinton in 2009
The ‘21st Century Statecraft’ initiative, which was announced with great fanfare by Hillary Clinton on her arrival at the State Department in early 2009, now takes on its full meaning. This programme, whose ambiguous name translates as both ‘the art of governance’ and ‘statecraft’ in the 21st century, aimed to use new technology to create a direct link between the American state and the population of foreign countries in order to promote US foreign policy without having to go through the local government. The initiative also set out to facilitate the use of these technologies to promote freedom of expression and accelerate the emergence of democratic regimes.
At a time when protest movements are spreading to the Near and Middle East, the British press has revealed that the US Pentagon has signed a contract with NTrepid, a Californian technology firm, to develop ‘a virtual personality management service’ enabling US army soldiers to control up to ten false digital identities. The contract stipulates that each false digital alias must have a credible profile and background, and that the tool must allow 50 soldiers to operate their false identities ‘without fear of detection or identification by even sophisticated adversaries’. The US army plans to use the tool to flood forums and social networks with messages in Arabic, Farsi, Pashto and Urdu legitimising the presence and foreign policy of the United States in the Middle East. The military operation for which the tool is intended is called ‘Operation Earnest Voice’ and has a budget of over 200 million dollars.
For the Russian leaders, there is no longer any doubt: the US government is exploiting the wave of the Arab Spring by promoting and facilitating the use of digital resources, with the technical and ideological support of Silicon Valley companies. Worse still, it would not hesitate to use this technology to distort public opinion and encourage citizens of foreign countries to follow the political line taken by the United States.
At the same time, Russian analysts, like many others, see the risk that the instability and power vacuum will benefit extremist forces, particularly radical Islamist groups, more than the establishment of real democracy.
- The 2001 American Patriot Act:
Preventing the recurrence of an attack on national soil after 11 September 2001 became an absolute national priority for the United States. It was against this backdrop that the Patriot Act was passed, giving the executive all the means necessary to achieve this priority objective, in particular by improving the quantity and quality of anti-terrorist intelligence, which had been unable to foresee the attack. As far as intelligence is concerned, the Patriot Act considerably extended the capacity for electronic and physical surveillance, not only of all nationals, but also of US citizens.
Logically, the decade 2000 saw an extraordinary growth in the NSA’s resources and technical tools, and hence its operations, a growth which influenced the cyber strategy in the making. Edward Snowden’s revelations from June 2013 provide a remarkable overview of the capabilities made available to Cyber Command by the NSA and the framework for US cyber offensive operations.
The two most significant revelations in these documents are the GENIE programme of continuous insertion by the NSA of implants into tens of thousands of computer systems and Directive PPD 20 defining the procedures for approval of cyber offensive operations by the US President.
The installation of implants in an ever-increasing number of computer systems (computers, servers, routers) on a global scale was the central vector of the American strategy of total domination of cyberspace pursued continuously by the administrations of George Bush and Barack Obama. The aim of this strategy was to monitor and analyse everything in order to know everything.
➡️ https://lecrieursouverainiste.fr/2018/11/09/cyber-la-guerre-permanente-2018-jean-louis-gergorin/
NATO’s illegal wars (2017), Daniel Ganser
The historical facts of the last 70 years clearly show that NATO member countries have repeatedly attacked other countries and violated the prohibition on the use of force enshrined in the United Nations Charter. NATO is not a force for security and stability, but a danger to world peace.
Without a UN mandate, these countries attacked: Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, Egypt in 1956, Cuba in 1961, Vietnam in 1964, Nicaragua in 1981, Libya in 1986, Serbia in 1999, Afghanistan in 2001, Iraq in 2003, Libya again in 2011, and Syria at present.
Repeatedly, NATO has plunged countries into chaos, killed countless civilians and created floods of refugees. Some NATO countries have waged repeated wars, selling them to the public using lies, war propaganda and the NATO-owned media. The current so-called ‘war on terror’ is also full of lies. It is in reality a conflict over raw materials and global supremacy, an old ambition in new clothes.
The destructive policy of military intervention and illegal regime overthrow, led and encouraged by the American Empire, NATO members and their media, is fuelling the spiral of violence. This is not a sensible development for our children and grandchildren. NATO has been transformed from a defensive war alliance into an offensive one. The time has come to set limits on both NATO and the American Empire.
➡️ https://lecrieursouverainiste.fr/2017/11/07/les-guerres-illegales-de-lotan-2017/
The fate of Europe. Is Europe doomed to disintegrate? (2017), Ivan Krastev
What people fear is that meritocrats, when faced with major difficulties, will choose to leave rather than stay and face the consequences of certain choices.
In this sense, the meritocratic elites are different from the communist elites, who were not allowed to leave. Under Communism, it was much easier for ordinary people to emigrate. So the Communist elites were ‘no exit’ elites, for whom leaving the country was out of the question, whereas the meritocratic elites of our time, in this era of globalisation and European integration, are ‘no loyalty’ elites, for whom the idea of national allegiance has no meaning.
Similarly, the traditional aristocratic elites had duties and responsibilities, and their education prepared them to live up to them. Their forebears had themselves fulfilled these same duties for generations, and this fact alone meant that they had to be taken seriously. In England, for example, more young men from the upper classes fought in the First World War than young men from the lower classes. In comparison, the new elites were trained to govern but were anything but prepared to sacrifice. Their children did not die at the front, nor will they serve on any front.
The nature and convertibility of the skills of the new elites free them from their own nation in a very real sense. They are not dependent on national public education systems (their children go to public schools) or national welfare systems (they can afford the best hospitals). They have lost the ability to share the passions and emotions of their community. And people experience this emancipation of the elites as a loss of their power as citizens.
Unlike a century ago, today’s insurgent leaders are not concerned with nationalising the industrial sector. What they want is to nationalise their elites. They do not promise to save the people, but to stand by them. They say they will reinstate the national and ideological constraints that globalisation has swept away. They congratulate those who speak no foreign language and never travel abroad.
The crisis of the European project is not so much the result of a democratic deficit as a demand for reinvention, for reinventing the meritocratic vision of society. Unfortunately for Europe, the confrontation between the meritocratic elites and the populists has taken the form of a political struggle between the party of departure, of flight, and the party of loyalty. And it is no coincidence that generals are fashionable not only in Russia but also in the West – and more fashionable than they have been for fifty years.
War is a force that gives us meaning (2016), Chris Hedges : The Islamic State is the Frankenstein of us Americans
The game of killing, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, will only end in exhaustion, when the culture of death has broken us emotionally and physically. We use our drones, fighter jets, missiles and artillery to rip through the walls and ceilings of houses, blow out windows and kill or injure those inside. We behead far more people, including children, than our jihadist enemies.
We have orchestrated the rage of the dispossessed. The evil of terrorism has been engendered by the evil of global predatory capitalism and permanent war. Instead of understanding the roots of this rage and trying to alleviate it, we have constructed sophisticated security and surveillance mechanisms, passed laws authorising targeted assassinations and the torture of the weak, and built modern armies and industrial war machines to dominate the world by force.
This is not about justice. It is not about freedom or democracy. It is not about freedom of expression. It is about the insane determination of the privileged to survive at the expense of the poor. And the poor know it.
The Islamic State, like Al-Qaeda, is our Frankenstein. After a decade of war in Iraq, we Americans assembled its body piece by piece. Then, with a shock, we brought it to life. We plunged it into a bath of blood and trauma. And we gave it intelligence. His dark, vicious heart is our heart, and his lust for vengeance and war is our heart. He is hungry for conquest, just like us. He is building a state driven by hatred of the American occupation: the result of the death, horror and destruction we have wrought in the Middle East.
➡️ https://lecrieursouverainiste.fr/2016/10/01/la-guerre-est-une-force-qui-nous-octroie-du-sens-2016/
The terrorist West. From Hiroshima to the drone warfare (2015), Noam Chomsky
In the 1950s, American strategists were deeply concerned about the possibility of Europe becoming what they described as a third force, an area increasingly independent of the two superpowers. One of the reasons for creating NATO was to prevent such a development.
NATO was presented as a military force dedicated to protecting Europe from the Soviet hordes. I have always found this claim unconvincing, and the fate of the organisation in the wake of the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 is very revealing in this respect. What was the point of NATO now that there were no more Soviet hordes? Based on the official doctrine, we could have predicted the dismantling of the organisation; instead we witnessed its expansion.
George Bush senior and James Baker had struck a deal with Mikhail Gorbachev whereby a unified Germany could join a Western military alliance, which was no mean feat from Russia’s point of view; in return, NATO undertook not to advance ‘an inch eastwards’. But the Atlantic Alliance immediately turned eastwards. Gorbachev was upset. It was explained to him that it was only a verbal agreement and that, if he had been naive enough to take his interlocutors at their word, that was his problem. So NATO expanded eastwards.
Ukraine, why France got it wrong (2015), Xavier Moreau
- Foreword by Thierry Mariani
We are a long way from the sanctimonious lyricism that confirms that ‘good’ has triumphed over ‘evil’, that Europe is continuing its mission of peace and prosperity, that France has played a key role in this enlightened vanguard and that Ukraine, under our protection, is now moving towards a radiant future. The reality of the events, the sequence of events and the manoeuvres mean that today Europe and France, against their own interests, are unwilling accomplices in a huge manipulation designed to destabilise our continent.
- Ukraine as a state owes everything to the Soviet regime
The Soviets did their utmost to consolidate the Ukrainian state and enlarge it. After the Second World War, Stalin incorporated various Romanian- and Hungarian-populated territories in the far west into Ukraine. Stalin’s greatest gift to Ukraine was the annexation of Galicia. Stalin’s aim was not to satisfy Ukrainian nationalists, but to have common borders with Hungary, Romania and Czechoslovakia. Finally, the Soviet Union offered to annex Crimea to Ukraine in 1954. It is clear that, despite the shortcomings inherent in its status as a regional administration, Ukraine as a state owes everything to the Soviet regime. Only a totalitarian regime could have imposed the creation of an artificial state on such a large and diverse population over such a vast territory. Paradoxically, the Soviet construction of Ukraine was completed with the collapse of the USSR. In December 1991, for the first time in history, it became independent.
- The Holodomor unites Russians and Ukrainians in their misfortune
Ukrainian nationalists are trying to pass off the Holodomor (the great famines of 1932 and 1933) as a Russian crime against Ukraine. This claim is unfounded: the Holodomor affected Ukrainians, Russians and Kazakhs alike. It was in fact just another Bolshevik carnage, which, far from separating Russians and Ukrainians, united them in their misfortune. Finally, it should be added that the peasant class that was exterminated was the one that most resisted Bolshevik Ukrainisation.
➡️ https://lecrieursouverainiste.fr/2015/09/17/ukraine-pourquoi-la-france-sest-trompee/
The empire of illusion. The death of culture and the triumph of the spectacle (2012), Chris Hedges
- Impenetrable lexical enclaves, uneducated elites and a lack of debate
I recently saw a former Harvard classmate who is now a theology professor. When I asked her what she taught, she flooded me with a torrent of abstruse terms from the jargon of her speciality. Despite three years at the seminary, I understood absolutely nothing of what she told me.
This enclosure in impenetrable lexical enclaves is the case for all faculties and university disciplines in the United States. The more the universities produce graduates with atrophied minds, the more society is invaded by these strange specialists who speak a mysterious coded language so that they don’t have to really communicate.
Blindly, the experts maintain the capitalist hierarchy that they have never been taught to question, and look down with thinly veiled contempt on those of their fellow citizens who understand nothing of their discourse and writings.
By all Western standards, these specialists are uneducated. They are incapable of grasping the essential relationship between power and morality. They have forgotten, if they ever did, that moral traditions are the product of civilisation. And they know very little about their own civilisation, so they don’t know how to keep it going.
The confidential dialects spoken by today’s elites stand in the way of communication and common sense. The financial swindlers and economists who cobbled together the American financial system persist in addressing us in the esoteric language of Wall Street specialists and business schools. By using terms like ‘securitisation’, ‘deleveraging’, ‘debt pools’ or ‘default coverage’, they exclude their fellow citizens from the debate.
- Photos of Abu Ghraid prison in Iraq from 2006
The photos of Abu Ghraid prison that were published in 2006, along with hundreds of others that remained classified, could just as easily have been taken on the set of a porn film. One shows a man kneeling in front of another as if performing fellatio; another shows a prisoner being held on a leash by an American soldier. There are also shots of naked men in chains, or a group of naked captives piled on top of each other on the floor, in a scene reminiscent of a prison gang bang.
Hundreds of other photos, which are kept secret but which members of the US Congress have been able to see behind closed doors, show Iraqi prisoners being forced to perform forced masturbation sessions and simulated sexual acts. There are also reports of images of sexual relations between guards.
All these photographs testify to the existence of a powerful current of sexual and perverse brutalisation in contemporary culture. They use the same language as pornography, professional wrestling, reality TV, music videos and corporate culture: that of absolute control, total domination, racial hatred, a fetish for bondage, submission and humiliation. In short, the language of a ruthless world.
Making the enemy, or how to kill with a clear conscience (2011), Pierre Conesa
The United States never experienced the horrors of foreign war on its territory, with cities razed to the ground, ration coupons and queues at water points. The mass of the population experienced the war in cinematic terms.
The country, which suffered 1 million military deaths and virtually no civilian deaths in the various conflicts of the twentieth century, cannot have the same relationship with war as Russia, which was bled dry by the two world wars.
The United States’ military strategies are all the more destructive for its adversaries (massive bombardment, chemical warfare, etc.) because, unlike the Europeans, they have nothing to do with the memory of the enemy’s population.
For example, the classic war waged by the Americans in 2002, after destroying all the Iraqi infrastructure, was an attempt to demonstrate to the local population, who no longer had water, electricity, police or public services, that they were ‘lucky to have democracy’.
The disruption of the world (2009), Amin Maalouf
There is no doubt that the market economy has demonstrated its superiority over the bureaucratic, command economy to which no one wants to return, especially not the former communist countries. However, by becoming the only model, capitalism has lost a useful, and probably irreplaceable, detractor, who constantly criticised it on its social record, who tickled it on workers’ rights and inequalities.
And even if these rights were less respected in the communist countries than in most capitalist countries, the mere fact of having this permanent pressure within each society and at the global level forced capitalism to show itself to be more social, less unequal, more attentive to workers and their representatives; which was a necessary corrective, ethically, politically, and even, ultimately, for the efficient and rational management of the market economy.
Deprived of this corrective, the system rapidly degenerated, like a shrub that had been left untrimmed and reverted to its wild state. Its relationship with money and the way it is earned has become obscene.
I agree that there is no shame in getting rich. I also believe that there is no shame in enjoying the fruits of one’s property; our age offers us so many beautiful and good things, it would be an insult to life to refuse to enjoy them. But for money to be completely disconnected from all production, from all physical or intellectual effort, from all socially useful activity? That our stock markets are transformed into gigantic casinos where the fate of hundreds of millions of people, rich or poor, is decided at the drop of a dice? That our most venerable financial institutions end up behaving like ochre-coloured rascals? That the savings of a lifetime’s work can be wiped out, or multiplied by thirty, in a matter of seconds, using esoteric procedures that even the bankers no longer understand?
Because we are entitled to wonder how, in such a moral environment, we can pass on knowledge, pass on ideals, how we can maintain a minimum of social fabric so that such essential and fragile things as freedom, democracy, happiness, progress and civilisation survive.
Need I add in no uncertain terms that this financial disruption is also, and perhaps above all, the symptom of a disruption in our scale of values?
➡️ https://lecrieursouverainiste.fr/2009/03/04/le-dereglement-du-monde-2009/
Le Crieur Souverainiste 
Laisser un commentaire