{"id":75383,"date":"2014-07-02T08:28:21","date_gmt":"2014-07-02T08:28:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2014\/07\/02\/liberastia-anatomie-de-notre-supremacisme\/"},"modified":"2014-07-02T08:28:21","modified_gmt":"2014-07-02T08:28:21","slug":"liberastia-anatomie-de-notre-supremacisme","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2014\/07\/02\/liberastia-anatomie-de-notre-supremacisme\/","title":{"rendered":"L<\/em>iberastia<\/em> : anatomie de notre supr\u00e9macisme"},"content":{"rendered":"

Liberastia<\/em> : anatomie de notre supr\u00e9macisme<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

Nous insistons autant que faire se peut, \u00e0 chaque occasion que nous donnent les \u00e9v\u00e9nements ou la fortune de nos commentaires, sur l’id\u00e9e que le fonctionnement pseudo-politique du \u00ab\u00a0bloc BAO\u00a0\u00bb, – UE et USA essentiellement, – s’appuie sur un jugement implicite et cat\u00e9gorique, sinon un trait psychologique inconscient qui irait jusqu’au m\u00e9canisme pavlovien, que nous d\u00e9signons comme du supr\u00e9matisme. (Voir notamment le 15 octobre 2013<\/a>, le 4 juin 2014<\/a>, le 28 juin 2014<\/a>.) Il s’agit d’une variante perverse, pr\u00e9datrice et dissolvante du racisme, bas\u00e9e non pas sur le constat de la diff\u00e9rence d’avec \u00ab\u00a0l’autre\u00a0\u00bb, mais sur l’affirmation de sa propre et indiscutable sup\u00e9riorit\u00e9 sur n’importe quel \u00ab\u00a0autre\u00a0\u00bb. Une r\u00e9f\u00e9rence \u00e9vidente dans l’esprit est le nazisme, mais le supr\u00e9macisme d’origine anglo-saxonne (avec sa variante am\u00e9ricaniste), tel qu’il s’est d\u00e9velopp\u00e9 \u00e0 notre \u00e9poque puisque c’est de lui dont il s’agit ici, \u00e9carte \u00e9videmment l’explication biologique au profit d’une explication \u00e0 la fois communicationnelle et psychologique. Ce qu’on pourrait nommer s’il n’y avait la censure et l’autocensure la \u00ab\u00a0race\u00a0\u00bb anglo-saxonne \u00e9largie \u00e0 l’occidentalisme, tout cela bien identifi\u00e9 historiquement et g\u00e9ographiquement, est op\u00e9rationnalis\u00e9e par les canaux de la communication (\u00e9metteur) et de la psychologie (r\u00e9cepteur). Ses arguments sont les \u00ab\u00a0valeurs\u00a0\u00bb qu’on connaît bien (d\u00e9mocratie, droitdel’hommisme, etc.), dont l’universalit\u00e9 selon notre interpr\u00e9tation \u00e0 nous, – et \u00e0 nous seuls, hein, – est un caract\u00e8re absolu et non n\u00e9gociable. Au bout du compte, nous dit la logique, cela implique la liquidation des \u00ab\u00a0autres\u00a0\u00bb d’une fa\u00e7on ou d’une autre, par assimilation ou par… liquidation.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Nous nous retournons sur un article du 7 juin 2014<\/a>, de Alexander Loukine, dans Russia in Global Affairs<\/em>, sous le titre de «Chauvinism or Chaos?<\/em>». (Loukine est directeur du Center for East Asian and Shanghai Cooperation Organization Studies<\/em> \u00e0 l’Institut des Relations Internationales du minist\u00e8re des affaires \u00e9trang\u00e8res de la F\u00e9d\u00e9ration de Russie [MGIMO]). Le th\u00e8me central de l’article de Loukine est de d\u00e9terminer quelle devrait \u00eatre la politique ext\u00e9rieure de la Russie, mais pour cela il doit d’abord d\u00e9finir le comportement de l’Ouest (notre bloc BAO). Fort justement, Loukine d\u00e9finit le bloc BAO comme totalement id\u00e9ologis\u00e9 et il propose les termes de \u00ab\u00a0d\u00e9mocratisme\u00a0\u00bb, ou liberastia<\/em> pour d\u00e9finir le contenu \u00ab\u00a0de communication\u00a0\u00bb de cette id\u00e9ologie, – dont le fondement est effectivement pour nous le supr\u00e9matisme. Seul le dernier paragraphe de cette citation peut \u00eatre contest\u00e9 , parce qu’il n’est pas assez radicalis\u00e9 et accorde trop d’importance \u00e0 la g\u00e9opolitique selon notre appr\u00e9ciation. (Nous reviendrons prochainement sur cette question.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

«The post-Soviet consensus was based on the mutual understanding with the West that both sides would move towards closer cooperation, respect each other’s interests and make mutual compromises. However, these conditions were met only by Russia. While not having fully given up its national interests, Russia was showing readiness to give up some of them for the sake of cooperation with the \u00ab\u00a0civilized world\u00a0\u00bb in order to become its part. However, despite numerous encouragements, the \u00ab\u00a0civilized world\u00a0\u00bb was thinking in Cold War terms and sincerely considering itself the winner. Having forgotten all of its promises (for example, not to enlarge NATO eastward), the West was trying to do what it had failed to do during the Cold War because of the Soviet resistance – it was incorporating more and more countries and territories and moving its military infrastructure closer to the Russian border, often doing so on the territory of Moscow’s historical allies.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

»There are different explanations for this behavior. The Russian authorities believe that the real Western foreign policy is determined solely by geopolitical goals such as subordinating more countries and territories and becoming the only dominating force in the world (in a single-polar world) and uses different values such as democracy and human rights simply as a cover-up. This perception stems from the fact that most of the incumbent Russian leaders came from law enforcement services of the late Soviet period when only a few believed in the official communist ideology, which was in fact used as a front for real policy.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

»In reality, however, the Western community is much more ideologized than Russian society. The West is virtually the only existing ideological empire in the world (in fact, communist China or Vietnam can hardly be seriously considered ideologized as ideology there is no more than just a ritual and even their leaders cannot state its communist essence). In the West, practically everyone believes in its ideology, it is imbibed from childhood in kindergarten, school, university, and then at work. This ideology of \u00ab\u00a0democratism\u00a0\u00bb (described quite well by Ilya Smirnov, who coined the term ‘liberastia’, in his book of the same name) is quite simple: Western society, albeit not ideal, is nevertheless more perfect than all the others, it is at the forefront of public progress, and the rest of the world should try to use the Western model as we know it. In principle, this is primitive cultural chauvinism which is characteristic of many nations and countries from small tribes to large civilizations which considered themselves the center of the Universe, and all the others were barbarians. What makes the modern West different from them is its size.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

»The West’s foreign policy is based on this belief. The main vector of its foreign policy is determined, paradoxical as it may seem, by pragmatic-minded ideologists who think that the best way to incorporate all \u00ab\u00a0barbaric\u00a0\u00bb nations and countries into the world of \u00ab\u00a0freedom and democracy\u00a0\u00bb is to subordinate them to political influence through economic and political alliances. To achieve that, the reins of power in these countries should be in the hands of those who understand that they themselves can benefit from doing that (i.e. West-oriented forces) and they should be helped in every possible way. Even if these forces do not quite conform to \u00ab\u00a0democratic\u00a0\u00bb standards, it’s not a big problem. Let them get subordinated economically and politically first, and then they will be pulled to the required standards under the West’s influence. This explains why Europe has been so mild in rebuking Estonia and Latvia for the fact that a considerable part of the Russian-speaking people there has no civil rights. And although the real reasons for this shortsightedness are not made public, they do come to the surface from time to time. Germany’s independent 2008 Bertelsmann Foundation’s report on Estonia is quite noteworthy in this respect: \u00ab\u00a0Estonia has never had any direct or indirect challenges to its democratization or transition to a market economy. There are no embedded social classes who might resist reform, since the communist era leveled society’s social structure. The military has also been firmly under civilian control and well integrated into NATO structures. Although Estonia’s ethnic cleavages remain serious, the restrictive citizenship policy has meant that Russians have much less political power, which otherwise might have enabled them to slow the pace of reform.\u00a0\u00bb It states very clearly that Russians in Estonia are the only obstacle to westernization and it is for this reason that their rights had to be limited.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

»This explains also why radical nationalists in Ukraine remain unnoticed: they are the ones who are acting toward progress and from the historical point of view they can be justified and some of their crimes can even be overlooked (as was the case with Kosovar nationalists and the Croatian army in Serbian Krajina, etc.). It’s worth mentioning how Catherine Ashton, the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, reacted by condemning the attempt to storm the Ukrainian parliament building by Right Sector militants after the anti-Russian opposition had come to power, even though she had basically supported their similar actions when \u00ab\u00a0the bad guys\u00a0\u00bb who were not fully committed to the EU had a majority in the Verkhovna Rada. At the same time, the crimes committed by the forces of regress must be exposed and condemned in full.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

»There are also idealists among ideologists in the West who say that it’s bad to befriend even \u00ab\u00a0progressive\u00a0\u00bb dictators and who try to criticize \u00ab\u00a0their own guys\u00a0\u00bb and the authorities for sidetracking from the ideals of \u00ab\u00a0democratism\u00a0\u00bb. But they make no political decisions, they are considered impractical office dreamers who get in the way of real business. As a result, the drive for global geopolitical control gets mixed with ideological goals, and it’s hard to say whichever comes first…<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Mis en ligne le 2 juillet 2014 \u00e0 \u00e0 08H15<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Liberastia : anatomie de notre supr\u00e9macisme Nous insistons autant que faire se peut, \u00e0 chaque occasion que nous donnent les \u00e9v\u00e9nements ou la fortune de nos commentaires, sur l’id\u00e9e que le fonctionnement pseudo-politique du \u00ab\u00a0bloc BAO\u00a0\u00bb, – UE et USA essentiellement, – s’appuie sur un jugement implicite et cat\u00e9gorique, sinon un trait psychologique inconscient qui… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[11897,15900,11898,15642,1104,3424,2730,3425],"class_list":["post-75383","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-breves-de-crise","tag-agression","tag-democratisme","tag-douce","tag-loukine","tag-neocons","tag-racisme","tag-russie","tag-supremacisme"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75383","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=75383"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75383\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=75383"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=75383"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=75383"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}