{"id":77030,"date":"2017-01-14T16:47:55","date_gmt":"2017-01-14T16:47:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2017\/01\/14\/le-modele-stuart-patton-versus-presse-systeme\/"},"modified":"2017-01-14T16:47:55","modified_gmt":"2017-01-14T16:47:55","slug":"le-modele-stuart-patton-versus-presse-systeme","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2017\/01\/14\/le-modele-stuart-patton-versus-presse-systeme\/","title":{"rendered":"Le mod\u00e8le Stuart-Patton versus<\/em> presse-Syst\u00e8me"},"content":{"rendered":"

Le mod\u00e8le Stuart-Patton versus<\/em> presse-Syst\u00e8me<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

La conf\u00e9rence de presse<\/a> de Trump du 11 janvier, par sa forme extraordinaire d’une \u00ab\u00a0bataille de chiens\u00a0\u00bb (\u00ab\u00a0dogfight<\/em>\u00ab\u00a0) et par l’incontestable victoire par KO du pr\u00e9sident-\u00e9lu, ne cesse d’\u00eatre analys\u00e9e et diss\u00e9qu\u00e9e. La plus grande surprise dans une situation, – notre \u00e9poque invertie et catastrophique de la postmodernit\u00e9, – qui demande \u00e0 ne plus s’\u00e9tonner de rien, et surtout d’aucune surprise, c’est de lire dans The Weekly Standard<\/em> une foudroyante et admirative analyse du comportement tactique quasi-militaire de Trump vis-\u00e0-vis de la presse-Syst\u00e8me<\/strong>, le v\u00e9n\u00e9rable et semblait-il intouchable Fourth Estate<\/em> que le pr\u00e9sident-\u00e9lu ne cesse d’envoyer \u00e0 terre et de mettre r\u00e9guli\u00e8rement KO.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Pourquoi \u00ab\u00a0surprise\u00a0\u00bb ? Parce que l’analyse, remarquable, est sans nul doute admirative, alors que le Weekly Standard<\/em> est historiquement le porte-drapeau des neocons<\/em> qui n’ont cess\u00e9 d’animer et de manipuler la presse-Syst\u00e8me dans le sens d’un soutien inconditionnel \u00e0 l’interventionnisme \u00e9chevel\u00e9 de la \u00ab\u00a0politique\u00a0\u00bb ext\u00e9rieure des USA depuis 9\/11, et r\u00e9cemment contre Trump qui est identifi\u00e9 comme un adversaire de cette politique-Syst\u00e8me<\/a>. Certains y verraient-ils une connivence, une sorte d’entente objective et de complot qui ferait de Trump un imposteur ? Nous certainement pas, et nous parlerions plus simplement et candidement d’une connivence chaotique, anim\u00e9e beaucoup plus par les gestes furieux du chaos trumpiste qui agite Washington<\/strong>, où l’on ne sait plus qui fait quoi, qui est avec qui et qui est contre qui, qui parmi les membres de l’État-profond sait encore ce que fait l’État-profond et qu’est-ce que c’est que l’État profond, et ainsi de suite. Ainsi Fred Barnes fait-il l’apologie de Trump-\u00ab\u00a0le-contrepuncheur\u00a0\u00bb, l’homme qui frappe plus vite que ses poings, qui n’attend qu’une chose qui est de pouvoir frapper, c’est-\u00e0-dire d’\u00eatre constamment \u00e0 l’offensive comme d’autres sont constamment sur la d\u00e9fensive.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Barnes d\u00e9crit un Trump, notamment \u00e0 l’aide de plusieurs citations de Newt Gingrich qui le connaît bien, en des termes qui s’apparentent \u00e0 l’art de la guerre, et plus pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment \u00e0 l’art du mouvement tactique.<\/strong> Les r\u00e9f\u00e9rences viennent aussit\u00f4t \u00e0 l’esprit : George Patton bien sûr comme on l’a d\u00e9j\u00e0 dit<\/a> plusieurs fois<\/a>, gentleman<\/em> au langage de charretier (\u00ab\u00a0sonavabitch<\/em>\u00ab\u00a0, ou \u00ab\u00a0fils de pute\u00a0\u00bb dit affectueusement, notamment \u00e0 l’attention de Rommel qu’il admirait tant, \u00e9tait sa formule favorite), cavalier motoris\u00e9 sans \u00e9gal avec sa III\u00e8me Arm\u00e9e, venue d’une illustre famille virginienne avec deux anc\u00eatres qui s’illustr\u00e8rent dans les rangs sudistes ; et, autre r\u00e9f\u00e9rence, le g\u00e9n\u00e9ral Jeb Stuart<\/a>, le magicien de la cavalerie sudiste qui faisait des raids si profonds dans les États nordiste avec des d\u00e9tachements consid\u00e9rables, qui r\u00e9ussit avec ses 1.200 cavaliers \u00e0 \u00ab\u00a0encercler\u00a0\u00bb une arm\u00e9e nordiste vingt fois sup\u00e9rieure en nombre rien qu’en tournant autour d’elle comme une nu\u00e9e de feux-follets avant de s’en retourner avec 165 soldats et 250 chevaux pris \u00e0 l’ennemi. (Cela se passait en juin 1862 lors de la bataille de Williamsburg, et l’ironie tragique de la guerre civile voulut que le chef de la cavalerie de cette arm\u00e9e nordiste, que Stuart mystifia avec tant de verve et d’\u00e9l\u00e9gance, \u00e9tait le colonel Cooke, son propre beau-p\u00e8re qui avait choisi de rester dans l’arm\u00e9e de l’Union.) Ces deux hommes, Patton et Stuart, r\u00e9pondent \u00e0 la description de Barnes : l’offensive, encore l’offensive, toujours l’offensive, aujourd’hui bien plus qu’hier et bien moins que demain<\/strong>, \u00ab\u00a0un plan m\u00e9diocre aujourd’hui vaut mieux qu’un plan parfait dans une semaine\u00a0\u00bb.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

(Les deux analogies militaires, Stuart et Patton, valent aussi pour le caract\u00e8re<\/strong>. Trump peut \u00e9videmment \u00eatre identifi\u00e9 comme un caract\u00e8re extraverti, ce qui est plus int\u00e9ressant \u00e0 noter que les multiples variations pseudo-psychanalytiques autour du narcissisme ; et cela correspondant parfaitement, en termes de tactique militaire comme de comportement politique et de communication, \u00e0 l’\u00e9tat d’esprit offensif. Patton est connu pour son caract\u00e8re extraverti, – \u00e9galement tendance narcissique bien entendu, – avec ses diverses extravagances et quelques solides faux-pas, ses originalit\u00e9s voyantes d’uniforme [les deux Colt six-coups aux crosses nacr\u00e9es]. Jeb Stuart \u00e9tait de la m\u00eame veine, estimant que son comportement militaire ressuscitait l’esprit de la chevalerie, portant un uniforme original, voyant, avec une plume \u00e0 son chapeau, etc. L’un des meilleurs amis d’un autre des grands g\u00e9n\u00e9raux sudistes, Stonewall <\/em>Jackson, au caract\u00e8re introverti et extr\u00eamement aust\u00e8re, il \u00e9tait r\u00e9put\u00e9, selon l’historien James I. Robertson, comme \u00ab\u00a0le seul homme de la Conf\u00e9d\u00e9ration qui pouvait faire rire Jackson, – et qui osait le faire\u00a0\u00bb [« the only man in the Confederacy<\/em> [who<\/em>] could make Jackson laugh—and who dared to do so<\/em> »].)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Dans sa tactique contre la presse-Syst\u00e8me, Trump est toujours sur l’offensive dans le mode contre-offensif : il doit attendre le premier coup, par situation m\u00eame puisqu’il s’agit de r\u00e9agir \u00e0 des \u00e9crits, ou \u00e0 des questions, venus des journalistes ; et l\u00e0, il r\u00e9agit toujours d’une fa\u00e7on inattendue, impr\u00e9vue, inhabituelle, compl\u00e8tement en-dehors des normes<\/strong>. « Il est en permanence sur le mode offensif<\/em>, dit Gingrich qui pr\u00e9cise que Trump a appris ce comportement lors de sa carri\u00e8re de businessman<\/em> \u00e0 New York. Il se r\u00e9veille chaque matin en se demandant : \u00ab\u00a0Comment est-ce que je vais m’arranger pour rester sur l’offensive aujourd’hui ?\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> » Il est d’autant plus dans cet \u00e9tat d’esprit avec la presse-Syst\u00e8me, c’est-\u00e0-dire qu’il attend avec impatience de recevoir le premier coup pour pouvoir d\u00e9ployer son offensive, qui est sa fa\u00e7on d’\u00eatre, notamment avec le tweet qui est \u00e9videmment son arme favorite. Bien entendu, comme dans les analogies Stuart-Patton, le caract\u00e8re essentiel de cet \u00e9tat d’esprit est la vitesse en toutes choses, – vitesse de d\u00e9cision, vitesse d’ex\u00e9cution, \u00e9valuation assez pauvre des cons\u00e9quences selon l’id\u00e9e que l’effet de l’offensive et de sa rapidit\u00e9 modifiera radicalement les conditions g\u00e9n\u00e9rales de l’environnement qu’on envisagerait pour en deviner les cons\u00e9quences, – offensive et vitesse cr\u00e9ant des conditions nouvelles, un \u00ab\u00a0monde nouveau\u00a0\u00bb<\/strong> qui \u00e9limine de facto <\/em>toutes les objections qu’une r\u00e9flexion pr\u00e9liminaire prolong\u00e9e peut soulever.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\n

Du coup, on se trouve renforc\u00e9s dans l’id\u00e9e que Trump est en train d’introduire effectivement une phase r\u00e9volutionnaire dans la bataille continuelle du syst\u00e8me de la communication qui est l’un des deux piliers du Syst\u00e8me avec le technologisme, \u00e0 l’int\u00e9rieur du syst\u00e8me de la communication, pour se saisir de la communication \u00e0 son avantage<\/strong>. Cette \u00ab\u00a0phase r\u00e9volutionnaire\u00a0\u00bb se d\u00e9finit avec l’observation que Trump n’est pas pass\u00e9 par le filtre d’une carri\u00e8re politique où l’une des injonctions les plus syst\u00e9matiques, et en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral sine qua non<\/em> pour toute carri\u00e8re politique dans le Syst\u00e8me, est le respect absolu des r\u00e8gles de r\u00e9serve et du decorum<\/em> des relations avec la presse-Syst\u00e8me ; c’est-\u00e0-dire, l’acceptation d’un double langage qui oblige l’homme politique \u00e0 un simulacre permanent face aux repr\u00e9sentants de la presse-Syst\u00e8me, pour \u00e0 la fois leur marquer un respect simul\u00e9 et manœuvrer pour tenter de les prendre sous son influence tout en respectant les diktat<\/em> du Syst\u00e8me. Cette attitude conduit \u00e0 un emprisonnement r\u00e9ciproque qui n’est concevable effectivement qu’\u00e0 l’int\u00e9rieur des diktat<\/em> du Syst\u00e8me<\/strong>, l’homme politique prisonnier de son respect pour le Fourth Estate<\/em>, le journaliste prisonnier de l’influence du politicien.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Trump ne connaît rien de tout cela et, \u00e0 son \u00e2ge, avec le caract\u00e8re form\u00e9 et l’exp\u00e9rience accumul\u00e9e, avec l’esprit offensif qui \u00e9carte toute prudence inutile pour la forme et consid\u00e8re au contraire que la forme doit \u00eatre manipul\u00e9e au profit de son offensive permanente, il est \u00e9vident qu’il ne changera pas et qu’il appuiera au contraire dans le sens qu’on lui voit faire<\/strong>. De ce point de vue, et du fait de l’importance fondamentale de sa fonction, son comportement doit effectivement faire \u00e9clater toutes les r\u00e8gles, c’est-\u00e0-dire tous les diktat <\/em>du Syst\u00e8me. C’est l\u00e0 cette \u00ab\u00a0phase r\u00e9volutionnaire\u00a0\u00bb dont nous parlons, dont on ne sait rien encore des v\u00e9ritables effets dans le champ fondamental de la communication, mais qui doit n\u00e9cessairement prendre, par le fait m\u00eame du refus des diktat <\/em>du Syst\u00e8me, un tour antiSyst\u00e8me<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Ci-dessous, l’article de Fred Barnes, \u00e0 paraître dans le num\u00e9ro du 23 janvier 2017<\/a> du Weekly Standard<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

dedefensa.org<\/em><\/h4>\n<\/p>\n

_________________________<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The Counterpuncher – He Always Fights Back<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

Donald Trump is in the rare position of loathing the media and dominating them—simultaneously. What more could a president-elect want as he enters the White House? Not much.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Reporters, columnists, talk radio blabbers, and even the elite media in Washington and New York think Trump is obligated to deal with them pretty much on their terms. Trump doesn’t agree. The notion of catering to them has never crossed his mind. And probably never will.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Instead we get wild events like Trump’s first press conference since winning the presidency. It was on his home turf at Trump Tower. He was in charge. The reporters were an unruly mob. As they tried to attract Trump’s attention, he coolly surveyed them before deciding who should ask him a question. He was dominant, the press pitiful.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

With Trump, rules have changed. CNN was oblivious to this. It had played up the dubious "dossier" story about Trump. Yet, after Trump denounced the story, CNN correspondent Jim Acosta thought he was entitled to ask a question. Trump refused. "You are fake news," he said, looking at Acosta.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Which leads us to the first change. And by the way, it applies across the board, not just to the media. The new rule is simple: When you attack Trump, he will hit back harder than you could have imagined. "He learned this in the New York media when he was a businessman," Newt Gingrich said in a speech in December.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

This is "Trump’s core model," says Gingrich, who understands how Trump operates better than anyone else. There’s a reason for Trump’s counter-punching. He always wants to be on offense. "He’s on permanent offense," Gingrich says. This, too, is a change. "He gets up in the morning, figuring out, how am I going to stay on offense?"<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

That he punches back was lost on Hollywood’s Meryl Streep. After she vilified him at the Golden Globe awards banquet, he unloaded on her with bruising force. He tweeted that she’s an "overrated actress" and a "Hillary flunkie." I suspect more people read his tweets than watched her speech on TV. More are also likely to remember what he said.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

But the main thing was he got on offense. That’s an imperative that sometimes puts him in an unpopular position. When Khizr Khan, the father of an Army captain killed in Iraq, delivered a stinging attack on Trump at the Democratic convention, he fired back. He insisted he had a "right to respond." He stayed on offense, though it might have been at his own expense.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Offense is so precious to Trump that he goes to great lengths to stay there. In the third debate with Hillary Clinton, he refused to say whether he would accept the outcome of the election. The media went crazy. They ignored everything else that had happened in the 90-minute debate. The New York Times said Trump "seemed to cast doubt on American democracy." At the time—mid-October—he was "under enormous pressure to halt Mrs. Clinton’s steady rise in opinion polls," the Times explained.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Trump knew what he was doing. He kept alive the question of whether he’d go along with the election’s verdict. It dominated national news for a week, then lingered for a second week. It dwarfed what Clinton was up to. That she had won the debate was overlooked. And two weeks later, Trump was on a glide path to winning the election.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The release of the Access Hollywood video was one of the few times he couldn’t go on offense. At whom could he hit back? This time he offered an excuse. His vulgar and salacious language was "locker room" talk, he said, nothing more. The result was telling. The story faded but never died.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Trump reached peak offense with what the media saw as a losing strategy. On an average day, Trump woke up and tweeted, called morning TV shows, made a brief press appearance, spoke at a rally, and did a Fox News show in the evening—$30 million of free media. This allowed Trump to "dominate by saturation," according to Gingrich.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

"Your opponents are being drowned and don’t even know it," Gingrich said. "The political press reports you aren’t raising enough money to be competitive." Meanwhile, Trump was chuckling.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Another rule—or precedent—Trump has set is that it’s easy to send the media off on wild goose chases. Whatever he tweets, the press chases. Gingrich calls these "rabbits." During the transition Trump met twice with Mitt Romney, creating two weeks of press speculation about whether he’d be secretary of state. Romney turned out to be a rabbit.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Still another Trump rule is that bad polls and media opposition shouldn’t dictate your decisions. Trump tweets as much as ever, though polls say he should quit now that he’s been elected president. Also, he appointed his son-in-law Jared Kushner to be a top White House adviser, knowing the press frowns on nepotism.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

It’s indisputable that Trump is canny. Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, credits him with a degree of cleverness that had escaped me. "His opponents did a great job of framing him as some kind of Hitler," Adams noted in his blog. This notion "still hangs over the country like a chorus of stale farts." And extinguishing it is tricky.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

How should Trump "deal with the second-largest case of national cognitive dissonance in our history? (Slavery was first.)" Adams says "ignoring the Hitler branding from the other side won’t work. It’s too sticky. Denying the Hitler branding won’t work either. That would just make people debate the details and harden the association by reputation." So "there’s no solution, right?"<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Wrong. "A Master Persuader" like Trump "neither ignores nor denies. He plays offense and scrambles their frame." Trump had to wait for "the right time and the right opportunity," which arrived with "an intelligence meeting leak and some fake news."<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The Master Persuader must enter the third dimension "where persuasion matters and facts do not," Adams said. Trump dispatched a tweet: "Intelligence agencies should never have allowed this fake news to ‘leak’ into the public. One last shot at me. Are we living in Nazi Germany?" This, Adams wrote, "was the only play that can work. It won’t solve the Hitler branding the other side put on him. But it’s a start."<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

I had to read the tweet twice to see its brilliance. Was it calculated or was Trump just lucky? An old baseball saying supplies the answer. You make your own luck.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Fred Barnes (The Weekly Standard<\/em>)<\/h4><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Le mod\u00e8le Stuart-Patton versus presse-Syst\u00e8me La conf\u00e9rence de presse de Trump du 11 janvier, par sa forme extraordinaire d’une \u00ab\u00a0bataille de chiens\u00a0\u00bb (\u00ab\u00a0dogfight\u00ab\u00a0) et par l’incontestable victoire par KO du pr\u00e9sident-\u00e9lu, ne cesse d’\u00eatre analys\u00e9e et diss\u00e9qu\u00e9e. La plus grande surprise dans une situation, – notre \u00e9poque invertie et catastrophique de la postmodernit\u00e9, – 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":[14],"tags":[6229,12674,12673,2631,8947,2645,6199,2892,4252,2949,3333,12639,7970,12567,7092,3332],"class_list":["post-77030","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ouverture-libre","tag-barnes","tag-contre-offensive","tag-dexecution","tag-de","tag-fred","tag-guerre","tag-jeb","tag-offensive","tag-patton","tag-secession","tag-standard","tag-stuart","tag-sudiste","tag-tweet","tag-vitesse","tag-weekly"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/77030","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=77030"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/77030\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=77030"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=77030"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=77030"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}