\tL’Am\u00e9rique est toujours et sans rel\u00e2che le seul<\/strong> sujet de r\u00e9flexion et d’analyse qui vaille aujourd’hui. L’Am\u00e9rique est per\u00e7ue<\/strong> (importance de ce mot comme ph\u00e9nom\u00e8ne psychologique) comme dominant le monde; dans cet ordre d’id\u00e9e, l’Am\u00e9rique est<\/strong> le monde dans notre imaginaire et notre inconscient, et, pour certains, dans leur conscience m\u00eame, c’est-\u00e0-dire apr\u00e8s avoir examin\u00e9 cette proposition avec la raison. Voil\u00e0 la perception<\/strong> qui domine d’une fa\u00e7on qu’on croirait parfois absolue, c’est-\u00e0-dire dans la psychologie collective, m\u00eame chez ceux qui font profession de critiquer et d’attaquer l’am\u00e9ricanisme. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t(Nous-m\u00eames \u00e0 dedefensa.org<\/em>, avec notre position critique de l’Am\u00e9rique et si souvent inclin\u00e9s \u00e0 mettre en \u00e9vidence les \u00e9normes faiblesses de l’Am\u00e9rique, sommes en partie victime de ce ph\u00e9nom\u00e8ne. C’est dire que nous consid\u00e9rons que la crise actuelle est aussi exprim\u00e9e dans une pathologie de la psychologie collective, \u00e0 laquelle nous-m\u00eames sommes li\u00e9s. Cette fa\u00e7on de voir suit l’enseignement m\u00e9thodologique de Nietzsche, qui est de loin son principal apport \u00e0 notre sens, qui est de recommander de faire la critique de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 moderne en psychologue et en m\u00e9decin de l’\u00e2me.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tIl importe, sans rel\u00e2che, d’expliquer et de tenter de comprendre ce ph\u00e9nom\u00e8ne am\u00e9ricaniste qui est naturellement unique et sans pr\u00e9c\u00e9dent historique. Notre hypoth\u00e8se est d’ailleurs qu’il est si absolument unique et sans pr\u00e9c\u00e9dent dans l’Histoire, qu’il s’agit en r\u00e9alit\u00e9 d’un ph\u00e9nom\u00e8ne a-historique. D’o\u00f9 cette hypoth\u00e8se, souvent retrouv\u00e9e dans nos \u00e9crits, que la situation de rupture pr\u00e9sente est caract\u00e9ris\u00e9e par une bataille titanesque entre l’Histoire et la force qui veut d\u00e9truire l’Histoire; nous caract\u00e9risons cela \u00e9galement comme la bataille entre les forces structurants (auxquelles l’Histoire donne le mat\u00e9riel pour se constituer) et les forces d\u00e9structurantes (dont le premier objectif est l’Histoire parce qu’elle est m\u00e9moire et dur\u00e9e, y compris m\u00e9moire et dur\u00e9e d’avant l’Am\u00e9rique).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tEn cons\u00e9quence de cette situation o\u00f9 cette unicit\u00e9 de l’Am\u00e9rique est impos\u00e9e ou accept\u00e9e comme un fait auquel aucun de nous ne peut pr\u00e9tendre \u00e9chapper compl\u00e8tement, il existe une grille qui est soi-disant d’information et qui rend compte en v\u00e9rit\u00e9 du mythe, qui tend \u00e0 accorder par r\u00e9flexe la place de n\u00b01 en Am\u00e9rique, n\u00b01 per se<\/em>, par cons\u00e9quent n\u00b01 en toutes choses. Cette comptabilit\u00e9 est impos\u00e9e par l’aspect le plus pervers du caract\u00e8re op\u00e9rationnel de l’am\u00e9ricanisme, qui est la perception du monde en termes de concurrence, d’affrontements, de comparaison agressive voire mortif\u00e8re, etc. L’Am\u00e9rique de l’am\u00e9ricanisme pr\u00e9sente ce cas ph\u00e9nom\u00e9nologique extraordinaire de se percevoir \u00e0 la fois comme diff\u00e9rente du reste du monde, hors du monde si l’on veut, et en m\u00eame temps de ne justifier sa propre existence que comme n\u00b01 en toute chose, c’est-\u00e0-dire par comparaison concurrentielle syst\u00e9matique avec le reste du monde. Comment \u00eatre \u00e0 la fois hors du monde et en comp\u00e9tition victorieuse avec le reste du monde? (Comment s’\u00e9tonner de ce que le m\u00e9decin psychiatre qui identifia la n\u00e9vrose, le docteur Beard, l’ait surnomm\u00e9e le mal am\u00e9ricain<\/a>?)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tL’information, par le biais de la communication joue bien entendu un r\u00f4le fondamental dans cette situation. C’est m\u00eame la principale vertu am\u00e9ricaniste, et l’on peut conclure \u00e0 mesure que l’on poursuit une fr\u00e9quentation lucide de ce ph\u00e9nom\u00e8ne de l’am\u00e9ricanisme: c’est la seule vertu de l’am\u00e9ricanisme.<\/p>\n \tCette question de la d\u00e9finition des USA comme l’empire de l’information est compl\u00e8tement essentielle. Nous avons d\u00e9j\u00e0 attir\u00e9 l’attention sur ce point<\/a>. Cette id\u00e9e se retrouve aujourd’hui, de fa\u00e7on aigu\u00eb parce que l’on est en pr\u00e9sence d’une dualit\u00e9 d’attitudes\/de situations : d’une part, les Am\u00e9ricains essuient des revers consid\u00e9rables. L’aventure irakienne, notamment, montre les piteuses limites d’une puissance d\u00e9crite comme universelle et qui fait beaucoup moins bien dans ce pays que ferait, par exemple, une force coalis\u00e9e d’Europ\u00e9ens sous commandement non-US. L’incapacit\u00e9 r\u00e9elle du Pentagone \u00e0 d\u00e9ployer de fa\u00e7on habituelle plus de 150.000 hommes en Irak, les faiblesses d’\u00e9quipements, les aberrations tactiques et strat\u00e9giques, le recours \u00e0 la violence aveugle, tout cela montre la compl\u00e8te inadaptation de la puissance am\u00e9ricaine et sa faiblesse profonde.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tD’autre part, pourtant, le comportement de la direction am\u00e9ricaine reste compl\u00e8tement triomphant, comminatoire, etc. Ce contraste entre ces deux situations s’explique par l’appr\u00e9ciation que la puissance US est dans la communication, la capacit\u00e9, comme il est dit dans un texte ci-dessous, de l’Am\u00e9rique de faire croire aux autres qu’elle est un Empire. Ce que nommons virtualisme est cette capacit\u00e9 pouss\u00e9e techniquement \u00e0 son extr\u00eame, au point o\u00f9 elle en devient une v\u00e9ritable id\u00e9ologie de fonctionnement de l’Am\u00e9rique en cr\u00e9ant un univers fictif, et de fa\u00e7on si accompli que les Am\u00e9ricains am\u00e9ricanistes y croient eux-m\u00eames sans la moindre restriction.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t(Au contraire de l’empire sovi\u00e9tique en d\u00e9cadence, au plus l’empire am\u00e9ricaniste tombe dans la d\u00e9cadence, au plus son personnel, du pr\u00e9sident au dernier des fonctionnaires, y croit dur comme fer. Dans l’URSS de la fin, la brejn\u00e9vienne par exemple, on ne psalmodiait plus le cat\u00e9chisme marxiste qu’avec un clin d’il et un sourire en coin, en sirotant un cognac ou un bourbon import\u00e9 au march\u00e9 noir. Plus personne ne croyait \u00e0 la doctrine, ce qui explique que l’URSS a pu se d\u00e9faire mollement et sans heurts, comme un fromage trop fait. Les USA, eux, dans tous les cas au niveau de leur personnel, restent compl\u00e8tement et intellectuellement comptables de la doctrine repr\u00e9sent\u00e9e aujourd’hui par le virtualisme. Tout cela se brisera dans les heurts et le fracas, disons comme un fromage trop sec pour le plaisir de la sym\u00e9trie de l’image.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tCi-dessous, nous pr\u00e9sentons deux textes qui alimentent cette th\u00e8se de l’empire de la communication:<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t Le premier, publi\u00e9 le 20 f\u00e9vrier sur le site xymphora.com<\/a>, introduit le second en l’assortissant d’un commentaire propre, tr\u00e8s int\u00e9ressant, de quelques sur le sujet consid\u00e9r\u00e9 ici.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t Le second, publi\u00e9 le 17 f\u00e9vrier sur le site CounterPunch<\/a>, nous donne une partie d’une interview du vice-pr\u00e9sident cubain Ricardo Alarcon, interview r\u00e9alis\u00e9e par Saul Landau (Landau est pr\u00e9sent\u00e9 de la sorte : \u00ab Saul Landau teaches at Cal Poly Pomona University, where he is the director of Digital Media Programs and International Outreach, and is a fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies. His new book is The Business of America’.<\/em> \u00bb L’interview qu’il a r\u00e9alis\u00e9 est en trois parties et nous reproduisons la partie qui nous int\u00e9resse. On trouvera le reste de l’interview \u00e0 partir du lien que nous avons indiqu\u00e9 ci-dessus.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \txymphora, February 20, 2005, From an interview by Saul Landau of Ricardo Alarcon Quesada, the Vice President of Cuba (my emphasis in bold):<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00abAlthough the US remains the biggest military power, it has trouble controlling a rather small country like Iraq, which it almost destroyed by bombing and an economic embargo before the war.<\/em> The reality is that US is only the most powerful entity in one area: information and communication<\/em><\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bb It was the only dominant force at end of the Second World War, the only nuclear power. Nagasaki and Hiroshima, by the way, are the only cases in which nuclear power has been used destructively. They were not employed by a terrorist state, but by the US democracy allegedly to defeat Japan. At that time and later, during the Marshall Plan, the US was at the top. Since then it has been declining. That does not mean it is a country in disarray, but it is going downward.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bb To answer this downhill slide, in my opinion, came the neo-cons who believe that by using the United States’ comparatively limited economic and large military resources, but especially<\/em> by exploiting their advantage in terms of communication technology and near monopoly of information media<\/em><\/strong>, they can reverse the trend. That is impossible. The US cannot turn the world back to 1945 and reappear as the only power in the world. The US needs to learn to live in a diverse world with different players, different ideologies and interests and not to pretend to be the owner of the planet.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tThe American empire is the first empire not to be built on military strength the United States loses all the wars it fights or on economic strength its staggering economy is entirely dependent on the continued goodwill of its lenders but on advertising its identity as an empire in the media. Since it is only an empire because people believe it to be an empire, its fall from power will be as sudden as the world realizing what a pile of bullshit the American empire really is.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t[Notre recommandation est que ce texte doit \u00eatre lu avec la mention classique \u00e0 l’esprit, Disclaimer: In accordance with 17 U.S.C. 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only..]<\/em><\/strong> <\/p>\n \t An Interview with Cuban VP Ricardo Alarcon, By Saul Landau, CounterPunch, February 17, 2005<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tLandau<\/strong>: How do you compare Bush’s discourse with that of past presidents? And how do you compare them with his deeds? <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tAlarcon<\/strong>: Words are not his strongest quality. I think that there are discrepancies in his second inaugural address. He talked about carrying the fire of freedom throughout the world. Without sounding rude, I’d say this is, at the very least, an over-statement. He isn’t going to carry anything much further. He’s already having difficulty in maintaining this fire in Iraq. If he wants to do that around the world he will not succeed. Indeed, he’s not succeeding in Iraq. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tCuba is one of the places mentioned, not by him but by [Secretary of State Condoleezza] Rice the day before. I advise them not to try. It will cost a lot of lives if the Americans would attack us, more than those dying in Iraq, because this is not a divided country or society that has been suffering under a dictatorial regime. The opposite is true. You will find here a free society, finally emancipated from half a century of oppression and corruption imposed by the US. We attainted our independence in 1959 from US domination. That is a fact of history. From an ethnic or cultural point of view we are a unified country, an island on which a common culture and common identity has evolved. We are prepared to make life impossible for an invader.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tBut more important, what is the meaning of this policy? It is not just irrational, a product of arrogance or impulse, not just the product of a person that doesn’t read many books. That explains only his strange selection of words. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tConsider Bush’s simplistic view of the world; or better, take the more analytical and conscious way the CIA views it. A CIA document published a couple months ago and another in December 2000, forecasts based on research and analysis, consider scenarios of war, peace, turmoil and catastrophes. But there is a common denominator expressed in one sentence: \u00a0\u00bbUS influence will continue to decline.\u00a0\u00bb By the way the CIA does not call for a change of policy, but simply states as a fact that US influence is less today than 20 or 40 years ago.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tThe US is not going to rise above the rest of the world. It is the sole superpower in cold war terms. But the US cannot exercise complete power over the rest of the world. Russia continues to have nuclear weapons. Economically, for example, China has emerged as a power. Recently the Chinese president toured Latin America and discussed granting Argentina a credit line of $20 billion. 40 years ago, at time of the Alliance for Progress, Kennedy offered the entire continent $20 billion over ten year period. Cuba criticized this modest offer at the time because it was too little.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tRemember, at that time this little island had established relations with that big country China. The other countries in the Latin America followed the US line and refused to recognize the existence of China. Now, 40 years later, that once non-recognized country’s head of state travels throughout the region and offers much more than the US could when it was at its peak. And the US must accept that China plays that role in the world. The Vice President of China was doing a similar same thing in Africa. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tAlthough the US remains the biggest military power, it has trouble controlling a rather small country like Iraq, which it almost destroyed by bombing and an economic embargo before the war. The reality is that US is only the most powerful entity in one area: information and communication.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tIt was the only dominant force at end of the Second World War, the only nuclear power. Nagasaki and Hiroshima, by the way, are the only cases in which nuclear power has been used destructively. They were not employed by a terrorist state, but by the US democracy allegedly to defeat Japan. At that time and later, during the Marshall Plan, the US was at the top. Since then it has been declining. That does not mean it is a country in disarray, but it is going downward.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tTo answer this downhill slide, in my opinion, came the neo-cons who believe that by using the United States’ comparatively limited economic and large military resources, but especially by exploiting their advantage in terms of communication technology and near monopoly of information media, they can reverse the trend. That is impossible. The US cannot turn the world back to 1945 and reappear as the only power in the world. The US needs to learn to live in a diverse world with different players, different ideologies and interests and not to pretend to be the owner of the planet.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tThose times are gone forever. That is the way history moves. But the new conservative trend departs form traditional conservatism and tries to reverse the world’s movement by being interventionist, by sending troops here and there. It is an irrational approach. It’s obvious that they will not succeed but their missionary and mythological approach could lead to mistakes even more grave than Iraq.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tLandau<\/strong>: In 1945, the US wrote the Nuremburg laws prohibiting aggressive war and also drafted the UN and OAS charters that prohibit intervention. How do you explain US behavior, initiating those laws and then violating them?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tAlarcon<\/strong>: The US wrote all those important documents that became the foundation of the international order when it was the most important power in the world. Now that the world has been undergoing change those documents have become obstacles to US interests. At the same time, US officials try to manipulate these documents, like the Human Rights Covenants. If you listen to US officials, they are fulfilling a mission of spreading human rights throughout the world. The ideals of freedom and democracy are in the UN charter, but together with the principle of nonintervention, prohibition of war.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tThe only thing the UN Charter recognizes as a legitimate reason for war is self defense, a nation subjected to external aggression. Even in those circumstances you have to ask the UN to intervene. Nobody else can intervene. It’s a peaceful ideal. The Charter lacks some important points. It doesn’t mention colonialism, nor recognize the right of colonial people to self-determination and independence. But the UN was transformed because after WW II, no one could stop the emancipation of those countries. People became independent and then UN members. It was one of the factors that helped transform the world. How to explain how the US changed its mind after essentially drafting these documents?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tThose exercising power were not happy with what happened. The reality problem is a serious one. Psychiatrists help those who have trouble dealing with reality. If you do not acknowledge reality you may be suffering from a serious disturbance. I sometimes feel that some American politicians need professional help to remember that they conceived the UN and its structure. Some American politicians now refer to the UN as something to ignore or despise. Do they forget that it was a US creation? To weaken or break this organization, which is what Bush did, was a terrible thing. The UN does not exist any more because of what happened in Iraq. This is a very serious problem. It is not true that it will reconstruct itself on new bases. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tI don’t want to sound rude, but that is exactly what Hitler did. He was angry with the League of Nations, with reality, after WWI. During the period between the two world wars, Germany became the European superpower, economically, technologically, militarily.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tWhen Hitler set the goal of conquering Europe in the mid 1930s, his dream matched the reality of Europe more than who Bush seeks to conquer the entire world with the current level of US power. Hitler’s irrational dream was more rational than the discourse you hear now from American leaders. Hitler made a very big mistake, trying to conquer the USSR. Stalin committed many crimes. He was a dictator, but the Soviet people stopped Hitler. It was the same mistake that Napoleon made, to try to conquer the East. If he had remained the master of western and central Europe maybe he would have continued to hold power. But he overextended himself. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tBut fascism was rejected by most people. And resistance to Nazism arose in many places. Our Yugoslav brothers and sisters offered heroic resistance in that period. The Nazis never conquered that country. Later on it was made to explode, not by the Nazis but by western democracies.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tLandau<\/strong>: You use history as a guide.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tAlarcon<\/strong>: History is important. Those who believe they can turn history back should remember the origin of previous wars. The Germans didn’t accept Versailles and that was the origin of Fascism.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t[Notre recommandation est que ce texte doit \u00eatre lu avec la mention classique \u00e0 l’esprit, Disclaimer: In accordance with 17 U.S.C. 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only..]<\/em><\/strong> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \tPour compl\u00e9ter d’une fa\u00e7on plus pratique, plus concr\u00e8te, plus terre-\u00e0-terre et ainsi montrer que le ph\u00e9nom\u00e8ne th\u00e9orique que nous d\u00e9crivons a des effets \u00e9vidents, multiples et universels, nous compl\u00e9tons les textes ci-dessus par l’aspect dit de l’Am\u00e9rique n\u00b01. La perception que nous avons du ph\u00e9nom\u00e8ne am\u00e9ricaniste implique que l’Am\u00e9rique est n\u00e9cessairement n\u00b01 en toutes choses, comme nous l’avons d\u00e9j\u00e0 signal\u00e9. C’est une constante de l’empire de l’information de diffuser ce fait<\/strong> comme allant de soi et, en m\u00eame temps, comme \u00e9tant un fait objectif. Il est donc int\u00e9ressant de constater que la masse \u00e9norme de puissance qu’est l’Am\u00e9rique n’engendre en rien une position syst\u00e9matique de n\u00b01 par rapport aux normes admises dans les divers domaines consid\u00e9r\u00e9s. En fait, cette masse est compl\u00e8tement d\u00e9s\u00e9quilibr\u00e9e, caract\u00e9ris\u00e9e par des sup\u00e9riorit\u00e9s monstrueuses dans certains domaines, assez peu nombreux et souvent les plus contestables sinon les plus destructeurs, et des positions m\u00e9diocres dans d’autres domaines, tr\u00e8s nombreux et jug\u00e9s comme qualitativement importants.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t(La sup\u00e9riorit\u00e9 monstrueuse de l’Am\u00e9rique est dans son volume d’argent impliqu\u00e9 par son \u00e9conomie, dont pourtant fort peu lui est en propre le produit de son travail; dans ses d\u00e9penses militaires qui, lorsqu’elles sont comptabilis\u00e9es justement, autour de $750 milliards\/an, bien plus que le budget officiel du Pentagone de $420 milliards doivent sans doute d\u00e9passer toutes les autres d\u00e9penses militaires du reste du monde additionn\u00e9es; dans sa population carc\u00e9rale, \u00ab The United States has about 2.1 million people behind bars a larger proportion of the population than any other nation<\/em> \u00bb, selon le New York Times du 11 mars 2005<\/a>; dans sa capacit\u00e9 polluante de l’atmosph\u00e8re qui est comptabilis\u00e9e pour les pays d\u00e9velopp\u00e9s, selon les normes de Kyoto de 1990, \u00e0 1.348,2 millions de tonnes de carbone\/an, suivi par la Russie (647), le Japon (306,7), l’Allemagne (276,6), l’Ukraine (190,9), le Royaume-Uni (159), la Pologne (130), le Canada (125,7), l’Italie (117,9) et la France (106,6).)<\/p>\n<\/p>\nL’information par la communication, la vertu de l’Empire<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n
Interview of Ricardo Alarcon Quesada, the Vice President of Cuba<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
The US Tramples the Charters and Laws It Wrote<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
Comment l’Am\u00e9rique n’est pas n\u00b01, ou America by the numbers<\/em><\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/p>\n