The New Atlantis: Antisocial Media: How Facebook Disconnects Us and Undermines Democracy By Siva Vaidhyanathan-fort bien mais pourquoi relier cet article avec facebook et twitter qui ne vaut pas mieux:Messieurs les américains: »Il est important d’être sérieux »-Oscar Wilde

The New Atlantis: Antisocial Media: How Facebook Disconnects Us and Undermines Democracy By Siva Vaidhyanathan-fort bien mais pourquoi relier cet varticle avec facebook et twitter qui ne vaut pas mieux:Messieurs: »Il est important d’être sérieux-Oscar Wilde
Publié le 28 novembre 2018

The New Atlantis

BROWSE BY: TOPIC | AUTHOR
iStockPhoto

Related Articles

This article appears in the

SUMMER/FALL 2018

issue of The New Atlantis

PDF version

Printer-friendly

Buy this issue

E-mail this page

Related articles

Ian Marcus Corbin, “Time to Log Off,” Summer/Fall 2018

L.M. Sacasas, “The Tech Backlash We Really Need,” Spring 2018

Related topics

Internet
Media
Social Networking
Technology and Culture
Postman, Neil

Related Articles
Reviewed in this article

Antisocial Media: How Facebook Disconnects Us and Undermines Democracy
By Siva Vaidhyanathan
Oxford ~ 2018
276 pp. ~ $24.95 (cloth)
Email Updates

Enter your email address to receive occasional updates and previews from The New Atlantis.

Latest tweets from @TNAjournal

about 12 minutes ago — The stronger norms and institutions we need to put Facebook in its proper place will never materialize because Face… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
about 9 hours ago — RT @jeff_bilbro “One answer to the question ‘What is Facebook for?’ is that it is for the formation of a particular kind of human b… https://t.co/Jv3GzWAijZ
about 16 hours ago — Calls for stronger regulation, civic institutions, and “media literacy” will not be enough to fix Facebook. Just po… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

How Facebook Deforms Us
Strengthening our social fabric won’t be enough to fix the platform that’s fraying it

L. M. Sacasas

It was late in 2006 that I was first encouraged to join Facebook. A friend who had recently graduated from college eagerly reported that it was an amazing way to keep up with friends. I demurred at the time, but by next year I had capitulated. My relationship to Facebook then took on the quality of a bad high school romance: on again, off again. It became a steadier relationship when I became the de facto administrator for my employer’s Facebook page. From that point forward, I maintained a consistent presence on the platform. Along the way I continually fiddled with my Friends list, tinkered with privacy settings, flirted with Google+ on the side, started a Facebook page for my blog, and experimented with different strategies to engage with political and religious issues.

Since the fateful fall of 2016, I have mostly withdrawn from the platform. I deleted the page for my blog. I began deleting my old posts. I stopped wishing friends a happy birthday. Currently, I use the platform almost entirely for self-promotion among a small number of Friends, who include chiefly family and friends. In the last couple of years, even that level of involvement has come to feel like a moral compromise. Why not delete my account altogether, then? A fair question. It’s difficult, I suppose, to cut that last tenuous thread that binds me to my weak ties, a handful of childhood friends, former colleagues, and distant relatives.

I suspect my story is far from unique. Facebook itself presented us with the status option that may most adequately define our relationship to the platform: it’s complicated. That also seems to be the case for Siva Vaidhyanathan, a professor of media studies and the director of the Center for Media and Citizenship at the University of Virginia, and the author of Antisocial Media: How Facebook Disconnects Us and Undermines Democracy. The book is unsparingly critical of Facebook, and rightly so. It also offers serious and compelling suggestions for how to move forward. But these two aspects of Antisocial Media generate an intriguing tension throughout the work: As far as Vaidhyanathan is correct in his critique, his program for reform will likely fail.
Facebook as Vice

Vaidhyanathan’s work has many virtues, not the least of which is its timeliness. The publishing process is slow, and the world of digital media does not let up. But the dates of articles cited in the book show that Vaidhyanathan was working on revisions up to the last possible moment. It is not an easy thing to write a book about digital technology that does not feel outdated as soon as it is released, but Vaidhyanathan has gotten as close as can be hoped. Of course, the timeliness is also by design: In April, amidst a firestorm of controversy surrounding CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s testimony to Congress on his company’s role in the 2016 presidential election, Oxford University Press moved up the book’s publication date from its original fall release, with the book shipping just five weeks later.

Vaidhyanathan’s previous scholarly work tackled the thorny topic of copyright in the early years of the Internet era, and made him among the first to cast a skeptical eye on the social consequences of Google’s search dominance. He was also, early in his scholarly career, a close colleague of the late Neil Postman, one of our most prophetic and astute scholars of media and technology. We should thus not be surprised that Antisocial Media is a deeply informed and accessible work. The book offers clear, deeply researched, and evenhanded prose, enhanced by the author’s willingness to speak candidly about his own experience as a Facebook user, and reflecting the author’s admirable commitment to addressing his readers principally as fellow citizens.

The title of the introduction — “The Problem with Facebook Is Facebook” — gets right to the heart of the matter, and is one of the lines most frequently cited in discussions of the book. The platform “cannot be reformed at the edges,” Vaidhyanathan goes on to say. “Basically, there are two things wrong with Facebook: how it works and how people use it” — which is to say, of course, that Facebook is all wrong. In these opening pages we also read that “Facebook is feeding our worst appetites while starving the institutions that could strengthen us” and that “Facebook undermines our ability to think collectively about our problems.” Vaidhyanathan is undoubtedly correct in these judgments, each of which he goes on to substantiate throughout the book in well-researched detail.

Follow The New AtlantisIt’s thus surprising to discover that, despite his unsparing critique, Vaidhyanathan is nonetheless committed to remaining a Facebook user. Although he affirms that Facebook has been “bad for all of us collectively,” he also believes it “likely has been — on balance — good for individuals.” You must know this to be true, he continues, because “if, on balance, the positive effects of Facebook did not outweigh the negative effects, you likely would have quit it by now.” This conclusion seems at best debatable when, as Vaidhyanathan himself shows, Facebook’s engineers, like the creators of casinos and snack food, specifically designed it to be addictive. But ultimately, Vaidhyanathan wants us not to abstain but to “harness Facebook so it serves us better and harms us less.” In order to do so,

we must turn to regulation around the world. To learn to live better with Facebook, we must understand the ideologies and histories of technology. We must sharpen our critical tools so that we have better conversations about Facebook and the other inventions that seem to offer us so much for so little, but ultimately take much more than they give. We must stop and think.

All of this might sound like a reasonable program for action had we not read, three pages earlier, that “calls for ‘media literacy’” are futile and that “there are few regulatory interventions beyond better privacy protections that would make a significant difference to how Facebook operates.” These two sets of claims may not ultimately be, strictly speaking, contradictory, but they do suggest a strange incongruity that manifests at various points throughout the book. It’s particularly evident at the end of the introduction, where Vaidhyanathan offers the following “confession”: “I have lived my life through Facebook. Facebook has been the operating system of my life.” This admission, and the underlying reality, are part of what lend Antisocial Media its rhetorical force. Alongside the work’s evident logos, it also injects ethos and pathos, generating a palpable tension.

It is this tension — which there is no indication that Vaidhyanathan experiences as such — that points us toward the full meaning of his work. To be clear, this is not to suggest that Vaidhyanathan is contradicting himself or being hypocritical. Rather, we ought to press this tension in order to more fully disclose to ourselves the nature of our situation.

Vaidhyanathan recognizes that there are no easy or straightforward solutions to the problems he catalogs, certainly not in the short run. His noble hope is that, over the long run, we will strengthen the institutions that can sustain “a healthy social and political life,” and will reinforce the work of these institutions with robust norms that will better order our relationship to Facebook. The institutions Vaidhyanathan names include libraries, schools, universities, and unspecified civil society organizations. The norms he has in mind are rules that govern behavior and adjudicate conflicts. He sometimes calls them democratic norms or republican norms (small-d, small-r). They are the moral and epistemic guardrails that keep a democratic society functioning. “Norm-building is so much harder than technology development,” Vaidhyanathan acknowledges. “But it’s the only effective response we have to the problems we have invited.”

Vaidhyanathan is not wrong about the need for both renewed institutions and revived norms. But Facebook will undermine those efforts at every turn — and not only Facebook. As Vaidhyanathan acknowledges at various points throughout Antisocial Media, Facebook is just one important component of an immensely complex set of mutually reinforcing social, political, and technological trends. And the norms and institutions we need in order to put Facebook “in its proper place” will never materialize because of the actual place Facebook, and digital technology more broadly, already occupies in our society. We are thus stuck in a vicious cycle.
Pleasure and Purpose

Antisocial Media explores Facebook’s social consequences by circling the platform and considering it from a variety of perspectives, each revealing an important aspect of the whole. The first perspective is on Facebook as a site of pleasure, a sound place to begin. This chapter explores why we may find it so difficult to go without Facebook. “Despite all the problems it facilitates and all the hatred it amplifies,” Vaidhyanathan writes, “Facebook is valuable.” Facebook connects us with friends, introduces us to important causes, and provides entertainment. So we pay attention. “We don’t do that for frivolous reasons,” he tells us — we don’t merely do that for frivolous reasons, one might have better written.

Immediately, however, he also reminds us that “Facebook manipulates us.” Borrowing from Natasha Dow Schull’s exploration of casino design in her 2012 book Addiction by Design: Machine Gambling in Las Vegas, he details how Facebook is consciously and meticulously designed to generate compulsive engagement. He pays particularly close attention to the key role played by the proliferation of both images and identity performance. The net effect of these design decisions, he soundly observes, is a drift toward tribalism that undercuts civic responsibility.

We see already a tension that will develop throughout the book. On the one hand, Vaidhyanathan tells us, the problem with Facebook is Facebook. So, we might think, the platform cannot escape being the thing that it is. Yet he also seems to believe that users can become the sort of people who will remain stoically uncorrupted by their use of Facebook. At times, he even seems to believe that there is some version of Facebook, tamed by appropriate regulation and taken up by these more virtuous users, that can become a safe and inconsequential vehicle for sharing baby and puppy pictures. This tension seems to arise from an attempt to offer a tangible suggestion about how to move forward. It is, after all, unreasonable to expect that Facebook will simply go away. But this tension also leaves muddled the questions of what Facebook is, who we are when we log on to it, and whether we should actually expect either to be capable of becoming something else.

At the end of the first chapter, there is an instructive discussion about what Aristotle could have taught Mark Zuckerberg. There is surely a great deal Zuckerberg could learn from the ancient philosopher, and many of the points Vaidhyanathan offers from Aristotle about the true nature of friendship, and the political nature of human beings, are well taken.

In places, though, one wishes for a richer engagement. For example, Vaidhyanathan claims that Zuckerberg’s understanding of how Facebook has changed the world “commits the same fallacy that Aristotle did when examining the natural world.” That fallacy is teleology, “the explanation of things based on what they are intended to do, not what they actually do. Zuckerberg assumes that Facebook performs a certain type of work in the world because he intended it to do that work.” The lesson Vaidhyanathan draws for Zuckerberg is this: No matter what he intends for his platform, what really matters is how people actually use it, and people will use it for nefarious as well as benevolent purposes.

Vaidhyanathan here invokes a common but plain misunderstanding of Aristotle to offer a truism — that the consequences of technologies are often different than their creators’ intentions — that could just as well have been made on its own, yet could also have been enriched after all by engaging with what Aristotle really said about how things work. That the bad behavior of Facebook’s users is an important part of the larger picture is true enough, but it too is only part of the picture.

Aristotle’s teleology is part of his broader doctrine of the four causes, which he offers as a way of explaining the nature of a thing or an organism. Expanding on one of Aristotle’s own examples, we can look at the case of a bronze statue. Bronze is the material cause of the statue, that out of which it was made. The formal cause of the statue is the form into which the raw bronze is shaped, or, we might say, the statue’s design. The efficient cause of the statue, that which brings it into being, is the sculptor and his sculpting actions. The final cause, or telos, addresses the question of purpose, or what something is for — in this case, perhaps to commemorate a political leader. Or, to offer another example of a final cause, Aristotle says that surgical instruments are for the sake of health.

When Vaidhyanathan claims that Aristotle was mistaken in giving a teleological explanation of things, he has in mind Aristotle’s application of final causes to nature: “Aristotle explains the function and structure of plants and animals by their ends (telos), or what they are meant to do.” To Vaidhyanathan, it’s as if Aristotle thinks the function of a tree is no different from the function of a table — both are given by someone’s or something’s intention. But this is not right. Like things, organisms have something “for the sake of which” they become what they become. For Aristotle, the final purpose of a tree is not its intention or desire, or that of an outside agent; it is simply that which the tree in its earliest form will eventually become. The final cause of the acorn is the full-grown oak. Purpose in this sense is simply a way of speaking about that toward which something regularly tends.

From this fuller view of Aristotle’s causality we might suggest a richer view of Facebook. Mark Zuckerberg’s intentions for Facebook are certainly part of how we ought to grasp the nature of the platform, but Vaidhyanathan is right that they don’t get us very far. The same is true, however, about the users’ intentions. When we use Facebook, our intentions are constrained, channeled, and impelled by the structure and the digital material of the platform, its formal and material causes.

Further, although Facebook is an artifact rather than a living thing, it is a peculiar kind of artifact: Unlike a bronze statue, it is a dynamic thing that is continually changing, that in a sense grows and evolves. It has an end toward which it is tending. This end may not be clearly given, as a bronze statue’s is, or set in the way of a truly living thing, but it is nonetheless intertwined with the platform’s material, formal, and efficient causes, which are bringing it about.

Facebook’s movement toward its end is partially the consequence of the ongoing work of its designers and engineers, but it also plays out within the parameters of a particular trajectory from which the platform cannot altogether deviate. To some degree independently of the intentions of either Mark Zuckerberg or any of its two billion users, Facebook will be the sort of thing that Facebook has been becoming.
The Moral Formation Machine

Each chapter of Antisocial Media frames Facebook as a machine: “The Pleasure Machine,” “The Attention Machine,” “The Politics Machine,” “The Disinformation Machine,” and so on. The final point that we might draw from Aristotle, which the book implies but does not spell out, is that Facebook is also a moral formation machine. One answer to the question “What is Facebook for?” is that it is for the formation of a particular kind of human being. Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics even helps us to understand how this process unfolds: Repeated action becomes habit, habit becomes inclination, inclination becomes virtue or vice, and these virtues and vices define our character. The habits generated by our use of Facebook shape our character. While we consciously or half-consciously perform our aspirational identity, as an inevitable consequence of Facebook’s formal and material qualities our identity is being shaped in a more profound though often unnoticed manner. There is no opting out of this dynamic.

If reading with and against the grain of Vaidhyanathan’s discussion of Facebook as a pleasure machine accents the formative powers of media technology, his discussion of surveillance draws our attention to the moral and cultural vacuum in which Facebook’s consequences unfold. In combination with ubiquitous recording devices that we each carry around with us at all times, Vaidhyanathan explains how Facebook has enabled and encouraged three distinct but related modes of surveillance: peer surveillance, corporate surveillance, and state surveillance. He is correct to note that our understanding of privacy is wholly inadequate to the challenges raised by digital tools of surveillance. He also correctly observes that Facebook’s own framing of privacy, as an engineering problem or a matter of consumer choice, does not help the situation. Indeed, it fosters an inability to conceive of privacy as a social, political, and, above all, moral reality. The hollowing out of our lived understanding of privacy was underway long before Facebook arrived on the scene, and Vaidhyanathan helpfully points to existing American legal traditions that have contributed to our shallow understanding.

But I return to the question of moral formation. How is it that we became the sort of people who cared so little about privacy? Marshall McLuhan, Neil Postman, and other media ecologists had their own ideas about the matter, often linking the evolution of our understanding of privacy to the rise and fall of print as the dominant medium of communication.

But it is also the case that embracing Facebook, and social media more broadly, has accustomed us to expect and crave a certain degree of publicness. The social and moral context that undergirded a fuller and more robust understanding of privacy is gone. It is important to understand that very few people have ever been able to articulate a detailed and well-constructed theory of privacy. One did not have to; it was part of the social fabric, a tacit moral sense. It was, in other words, a matter of norms and institutions.

That fabric has been torn to shreds, in no small measure owing to the capabilities that electronic and digital media have created. As I understand him, Vaidhyanathan wants a renewal of these norms guarding not only how we handle our own privacy but also how we handle the frightening power each of us now has to compromise the privacy of others. Yet so long as we are the sort of people shaped by the practices that characterize social media, we are unlikely to experience such a renewal. We lack the moral infrastructure to sustain such a project.

4 issues ~ $24Subscribe to The New Atlantis.
Could It Be Otherwise?

One of the most enjoyable features of Antisocial Media is Vaidhyanathan’s vignettes about his friendship with Neil Postman. He is clearly fond of Postman, and he gives Postman a great deal of credit for shaping how he has come to think about technology. “Neil inspired my lines of questioning and broadened my vision,” Vaidhyanathan writes. “But he did not convert me to the faith.” The faith in question is an “orthodox” media ecology in the vein of Marshall McLuhan. The chief problem with this school of thought, in Vaidhyanathan’s view, is its technological determinism: “The technologies come first; the mental and social features come from the technologies. It’s a strong, simple line of causation.”

I am, admittedly, inclined toward an orthodox variety of media ecology, although I don’t expect to succeed where Postman failed. I simply note that the charge of technological determinism requires a much longer discussion. It was McLuhan, after all, who affirmed, “There is absolutely no inevitability as long as there is a willingness to contemplate what is happening.” And it is, of course, important to take economic and political factors into consideration when one contemplates what is happening.

But by whatever combination of factors, Facebook has, for now, achieved an unprecedented level of influence in societies across the globe, as Vaidhyanathan documents so well. Could it have been otherwise? Certainly. But that is irrelevant. If we live our lives through Facebook, our lives will be shaped by Facebook. If Facebook mediates our public discourse, then that discourse will be shaped by the formal properties of the platform. The critical point to register is that we will be worked over by the medium, as McLuhan has put it. We will conform to its image. And this will happen regardless of how judiciously and responsibly we post.

Although Vaidhyanathan was not converted to the faith by Postman, he writes very nearly like a full convert in the concluding chapter of Antisocial Media, where he deploys Postman’s 1992 book Technopoly to describe our cultural surrender to an ideology of technology. It was in Technopoly that Postman wrote,

Surrounding every technology are institutions whose organization — not to mention their reason for being — reflects the world-view promoted by the technology. Therefore, when an old technology is assaulted by a new one, institutions are threatened. When institutions are threatened, a culture finds itself in crisis.

This is as apt a characterization of our situation as we are likely to find. Curiously, Vaidhyanathan speaks of the need for “reinvestment in institutions that promote deep thought conducted at analog speed.” But this is the point at which Postman and McLuhan might help us to see more clearly than Vaidhyanathan. We want desperately to believe that the old institutions can be reinvigorated, renewed, revived. But the age of analog speed, barring some great catastrophe, is behind us, whether we like it or not. Facebook is just one of the facets of the emerging digital order that is assaulting the very institutions Vaidhyanathan wants to reinvigorate, tearing up the ground they require to survive, and undermining the cultivation of traditional citizenly virtues.
Quitting

At one point in Antisocial Media, Vaidhyanathan, channeling Postman, makes the following legitimate complaint: “It’s hard to participate in a republic, let alone face global challenges, when hit network programs such as The Voice have our eyes darting from television to iPad to phone, tweeting and cheering and chatting and shopping along.” Channeling Seinfeld, he immediately adds, “Not that there is anything wrong with that.” He goes on to say that the problem is the “unrelenting ubiquity of these draws on our attention.” I suspect, however, that Vaidhyanathan was too quick to diffuse the moral outrage. At some point, it seems to me, we must examine our practices and count the moral costs.

Vaidhyanathan is adamant about his refusal to abandon the platform. Discussing media theorist Douglas Rushkoff’s 2013 opinion piece explaining his decision to quit Facebook, Vaidhyanathan argues that such decisions make no difference at all to Facebook. “I’m still a Facebook user,” he adds. “And I have no plans to resign.” There is, he concedes, little to be done about Facebook’s influence except for the slow, deliberate work, to which he returns throughout the book, of renewing norms and rebuilding institutions. As I have suggested, renewal and rebuilding may not be the best way of framing the work, undoubtedly slow and deliberate, that must now be undertaken. Perhaps it is more like the work of reimagining than renewal. We cannot return to what is passing away, but we can work toward what has not yet come into being. And I cannot help but think that the cause could only be helped if more of us were willing to walk away from Facebook.

In Living into Focus (2012), Arthur Boers writes that he once heard the Amish farmer and writer David Kline tell a story about a bus full of Protestant tourists visiting Amish country. An Amish man is also on the bus, and so the tourists ask him about how his people are different from other Christians. The man first mentions some obvious similarities, such as wearing clothes and liking good food.

Then the Amish man asks: “How many of you have a television?”

All passengers raise their hands.

“How many of you believe your children would be better off without TV?”

Most, if not all, passengers raise their hands.

“How many of you, knowing this, will get rid of your television when you go home?”

No hands are raised.

“That’s the difference between the Amish and others,” he concluded.

The difference, in other words, is that the Amish maintained their robust deliberative institutions and norms precisely because they have been willing to pay the price of subjecting their use of technology to the greater good of sustaining the health of their community. The rest of us have inverted the priority, and we have paid our own price.

L. M. Sacasas is a fellow of the Greystone Theological Institute and the director of its Center for the Study of Ethics and Technology, and a teacher in Winter Park, Florida. He writes about technology at The Frailest Thing.

L. M. Sacasas, « How Facebook Deforms Us, » The New Atlantis, Number 56, Summer/Fall 2018, pp. 82-91.
Follow
Our
Work
Updates daily

A few times
per week
2-3 emails
per month
Subscription
4 issues ~ $24
Back issues
$7 each
eResources

HOME SUBSCRIBE CONTACT BOOKS
CURRENT ISSUE BUY BACK ISSUES SUBMISSIONS BLOGS
ABOUT ADVERTISE DONATE
PRIVACY POLICY PERMISSIONS WEBMASTER

Published by the Center for the Study of Technology and Society

BLOGS | BOOKS | CONTACT | SUBSCRIBE | DONATE | [The New Atlantis on Facebook] [Follow The New Atlantis by email] [The New Atlantis on Twitter]
The New Atlantis

BROWSE BY: TOPIC | AUTHOR
iStockPhoto

Related Articles

This article appears in the

SUMMER/FALL 2018

issue of The New Atlantis

PDF version

Printer-friendly

Buy this issue

E-mail this page

Related articles

Ian Marcus Corbin, “Time to Log Off,” Summer/Fall 2018

L.M. Sacasas, “The Tech Backlash We Really Need,” Spring 2018

Related topics

Internet
Media
Social Networking
Technology and Culture
Postman, Neil

Related Articles
Reviewed in this article

Antisocial Media: How Facebook Disconnects Us and Undermines Democracy
By Siva Vaidhyanathan
Oxford ~ 2018
276 pp. ~ $24.95 (cloth)
Email Updates

Enter your email address to receive occasional updates and previews from The New Atlantis.

BLOGS | BOOKS | CONTACT | SUBSCRIBE | DONATE | [The New Atlantis on Facebook] [Follow The New Atlantis by email] [The New Atlantis on Twitter] The New Atlantis BROWSE BY: TOPIC | AUTHOR iStockPhoto Related Articles This article appears in the SUMMER/FALL 2018 issue of The New Atlantis PDF version Printer-friendly Buy this issue E-mail this page Related articles Ian Marcus Corbin, “Time to Log Off,” Summer/Fall 2018 L.M. Sacasas, “The Tech Backlash We Really Need,” Spring 2018 Related topics Internet Media Social Networking Technology and Culture Postman, Neil Related Articles Reviewed in this article Antisocial Media: How Facebook Disconnects Us and Undermines Democracy By Siva Vaidhyanathan Oxford ~ 2018 276 pp. ~ $24.95 (cloth) Email Updates Enter your email address to receive occasional updates and previews from The New Atlantis. Latest tweets from @TNAjournal about 12 minutes ago — The stronger norms and institutions we need to put Facebook in its proper place will never materialize because Face… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… about 9 hours ago — RT @jeff_bilbro “One answer to the question ‘What is Facebook for?’ is that it is for the formation of a particular kind of human b… https://t.co/Jv3GzWAijZ about 16 hours ago — Calls for stronger regulation, civic institutions, and “media literacy” will not be enough to fix Facebook. Just po… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… How Facebook Deforms Us Strengthening our social fabric won’t be enough to fix the platform that’s fraying it L. M. Sacasas It was late in 2006 that I was first encouraged to join Facebook. A friend who had recently graduated from college eagerly reported that it was an amazing way to keep up with friends. I demurred at the time, but by next year I had capitulated. My relationship to Facebook then took on the quality of a bad high school romance: on again, off again. It became a steadier relationship when I became the de facto administrator for my employer’s Facebook page. From that point forward, I maintained a consistent presence on the platform. Along the way I continually fiddled with my Friends list, tinkered with privacy settings, flirted with Google+ on the side, started a Facebook page for my blog, and experimented with different strategies to engage with political and religious issues. Since the fateful fall of 2016, I have mostly withdrawn from the platform. I deleted the page for my blog. I began deleting my old posts. I stopped wishing friends a happy birthday. Currently, I use the platform almost entirely for self-promotion among a small number of Friends, who include chiefly family and friends. In the last couple of years, even that level of involvement has come to feel like a moral compromise. Why not delete my account altogether, then? A fair question. It’s difficult, I suppose, to cut that last tenuous thread that binds me to my weak ties, a handful of childhood friends, former colleagues, and distant relatives. I suspect my story is far from unique. Facebook itself presented us with the status option that may most adequately define our relationship to the platform: it’s complicated. That also seems to be the case for Siva Vaidhyanathan, a professor of media studies and the director of the Center for Media and Citizenship at the University of Virginia, and the author of Antisocial Media: How Facebook Disconnects Us and Undermines Democracy. The book is unsparingly critical of Facebook, and rightly so. It also offers serious and compelling suggestions for how to move forward. But these two aspects of Antisocial Media generate an intriguing tension throughout the work: As far as Vaidhyanathan is correct in his critique, his program for reform will likely fail. Facebook as Vice Vaidhyanathan’s work has many virtues, not the least of which is its timeliness. The publishing process is slow, and the world of digital media does not let up. But the dates of articles cited in the book show that Vaidhyanathan was working on revisions up to the last possible moment. It is not an easy thing to write a book about digital technology that does not feel outdated as soon as it is released, but Vaidhyanathan has gotten as close as can be hoped. Of course, the timeliness is also by design: In April, amidst a firestorm of controversy surrounding CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s testimony to Congress on his company’s role in the 2016 presidential election, Oxford University Press moved up the book’s publication date from its original fall release, with the book shipping just five weeks later. Vaidhyanathan’s previous scholarly work tackled the thorny topic of copyright in the early years of the Internet era, and made him among the first to cast a skeptical eye on the social consequences of Google’s search dominance. He was also, early in his scholarly career, a close colleague of the late Neil Postman, one of our most prophetic and astute scholars of media and technology. We should thus not be surprised that Antisocial Media is a deeply informed and accessible work. The book offers clear, deeply researched, and evenhanded prose, enhanced by the author’s willingness to speak candidly about his own experience as a Facebook user, and reflecting the author’s admirable commitment to addressing his readers principally as fellow citizens. The title of the introduction — “The Problem with Facebook Is Facebook” — gets right to the heart of the matter, and is one of the lines most frequently cited in discussions of the book. The platform “cannot be reformed at the edges,” Vaidhyanathan goes on to say. “Basically, there are two things wrong with Facebook: how it works and how people use it” — which is to say, of course, that Facebook is all wrong. In these opening pages we also read that “Facebook is feeding our worst appetites while starving the institutions that could strengthen us” and that “Facebook undermines our ability to think collectively about our problems.” Vaidhyanathan is undoubtedly correct in these judgments, each of which he goes on to substantiate throughout the book in well-researched detail. Follow The New AtlantisIt’s thus surprising to discover that, despite his unsparing critique, Vaidhyanathan is nonetheless committed to remaining a Facebook user. Although he affirms that Facebook has been “bad for all of us collectively,” he also believes it “likely has been — on balance — good for individuals.” You must know this to be true, he continues, because “if, on balance, the positive effects of Facebook did not outweigh the negative effects, you likely would have quit it by now.” This conclusion seems at best debatable when, as Vaidhyanathan himself shows, Facebook’s engineers, like the creators of casinos and snack food, specifically designed it to be addictive. But ultimately, Vaidhyanathan wants us not to abstain but to “harness Facebook so it serves us better and harms us less.” In order to do so, we must turn to regulation around the world. To learn to live better with Facebook, we must understand the ideologies and histories of technology. We must sharpen our critical tools so that we have better conversations about Facebook and the other inventions that seem to offer us so much for so little, but ultimately take much more than they give. We must stop and think. All of this might sound like a reasonable program for action had we not read, three pages earlier, that “calls for ‘media literacy’” are futile and that “there are few regulatory interventions beyond better privacy protections that would make a significant difference to how Facebook operates.” These two sets of claims may not ultimately be, strictly speaking, contradictory, but they do suggest a strange incongruity that manifests at various points throughout the book. It’s particularly evident at the end of the introduction, where Vaidhyanathan offers the following “confession”: “I have lived my life through Facebook. Facebook has been the operating system of my life.” This admission, and the underlying reality, are part of what lend Antisocial Media its rhetorical force. Alongside the work’s evident logos, it also injects ethos and pathos, generating a palpable tension. It is this tension — which there is no indication that Vaidhyanathan experiences as such — that points us toward the full meaning of his work. To be clear, this is not to suggest that Vaidhyanathan is contradicting himself or being hypocritical. Rather, we ought to press this tension in order to more fully disclose to ourselves the nature of our situation. Vaidhyanathan recognizes that there are no easy or straightforward solutions to the problems he catalogs, certainly not in the short run. His noble hope is that, over the long run, we will strengthen the institutions that can sustain “a healthy social and political life,” and will reinforce the work of these institutions with robust norms that will better order our relationship to Facebook. The institutions Vaidhyanathan names include libraries, schools, universities, and unspecified civil society organizations. The norms he has in mind are rules that govern behavior and adjudicate conflicts. He sometimes calls them democratic norms or republican norms (small-d, small-r). They are the moral and epistemic guardrails that keep a democratic society functioning. “Norm-building is so much harder than technology development,” Vaidhyanathan acknowledges. “But it’s the only effective response we have to the problems we have invited.” Vaidhyanathan is not wrong about the need for both renewed institutions and revived norms. But Facebook will undermine those efforts at every turn — and not only Facebook. As Vaidhyanathan acknowledges at various points throughout Antisocial Media, Facebook is just one important component of an immensely complex set of mutually reinforcing social, political, and technological trends. And the norms and institutions we need in order to put Facebook “in its proper place” will never materialize because of the actual place Facebook, and digital technology more broadly, already occupies in our society. We are thus stuck in a vicious cycle. Pleasure and Purpose Antisocial Media explores Facebook’s social consequences by circling the platform and considering it from a variety of perspectives, each revealing an important aspect of the whole. The first perspective is on Facebook as a site of pleasure, a sound place to begin. This chapter explores why we may find it so difficult to go without Facebook. “Despite all the problems it facilitates and all the hatred it amplifies,” Vaidhyanathan writes, “Facebook is valuable.” Facebook connects us with friends, introduces us to important causes, and provides entertainment. So we pay attention. “We don’t do that for frivolous reasons,” he tells us — we don’t merely do that for frivolous reasons, one might have better written. Immediately, however, he also reminds us that “Facebook manipulates us.” Borrowing from Natasha Dow Schull’s exploration of casino design in her 2012 book Addiction by Design: Machine Gambling in Las Vegas, he details how Facebook is consciously and meticulously designed to generate compulsive engagement. He pays particularly close attention to the key role played by the proliferation of both images and identity performance. The net effect of these design decisions, he soundly observes, is a drift toward tribalism that undercuts civic responsibility. We see already a tension that will develop throughout the book. On the one hand, Vaidhyanathan tells us, the problem with Facebook is Facebook. So, we might think, the platform cannot escape being the thing that it is. Yet he also seems to believe that users can become the sort of people who will remain stoically uncorrupted by their use of Facebook. At times, he even seems to believe that there is some version of Facebook, tamed by appropriate regulation and taken up by these more virtuous users, that can become a safe and inconsequential vehicle for sharing baby and puppy pictures. This tension seems to arise from an attempt to offer a tangible suggestion about how to move forward. It is, after all, unreasonable to expect that Facebook will simply go away. But this tension also leaves muddled the questions of what Facebook is, who we are when we log on to it, and whether we should actually expect either to be capable of becoming something else. At the end of the first chapter, there is an instructive discussion about what Aristotle could have taught Mark Zuckerberg. There is surely a great deal Zuckerberg could learn from the ancient philosopher, and many of the points Vaidhyanathan offers from Aristotle about the true nature of friendship, and the political nature of human beings, are well taken. In places, though, one wishes for a richer engagement. For example, Vaidhyanathan claims that Zuckerberg’s understanding of how Facebook has changed the world “commits the same fallacy that Aristotle did when examining the natural world.” That fallacy is teleology, “the explanation of things based on what they are intended to do, not what they actually do. Zuckerberg assumes that Facebook performs a certain type of work in the world because he intended it to do that work.” The lesson Vaidhyanathan draws for Zuckerberg is this: No matter what he intends for his platform, what really matters is how people actually use it, and people will use it for nefarious as well as benevolent purposes. Vaidhyanathan here invokes a common but plain misunderstanding of Aristotle to offer a truism — that the consequences of technologies are often different than their creators’ intentions — that could just as well have been made on its own, yet could also have been enriched after all by engaging with what Aristotle really said about how things work. That the bad behavior of Facebook’s users is an important part of the larger picture is true enough, but it too is only part of the picture. Aristotle’s teleology is part of his broader doctrine of the four causes, which he offers as a way of explaining the nature of a thing or an organism. Expanding on one of Aristotle’s own examples, we can look at the case of a bronze statue. Bronze is the material cause of the statue, that out of which it was made. The formal cause of the statue is the form into which the raw bronze is shaped, or, we might say, the statue’s design. The efficient cause of the statue, that which brings it into being, is the sculptor and his sculpting actions. The final cause, or telos, addresses the question of purpose, or what something is for — in this case, perhaps to commemorate a political leader. Or, to offer another example of a final cause, Aristotle says that surgical instruments are for the sake of health. When Vaidhyanathan claims that Aristotle was mistaken in giving a teleological explanation of things, he has in mind Aristotle’s application of final causes to nature: “Aristotle explains the function and structure of plants and animals by their ends (telos), or what they are meant to do.” To Vaidhyanathan, it’s as if Aristotle thinks the function of a tree is no different from the function of a table — both are given by someone’s or something’s intention. But this is not right. Like things, organisms have something “for the sake of which” they become what they become. For Aristotle, the final purpose of a tree is not its intention or desire, or that of an outside agent; it is simply that which the tree in its earliest form will eventually become. The final cause of the acorn is the full-grown oak. Purpose in this sense is simply a way of speaking about that toward which something regularly tends. From this fuller view of Aristotle’s causality we might suggest a richer view of Facebook. Mark Zuckerberg’s intentions for Facebook are certainly part of how we ought to grasp the nature of the platform, but Vaidhyanathan is right that they don’t get us very far. The same is true, however, about the users’ intentions. When we use Facebook, our intentions are constrained, channeled, and impelled by the structure and the digital material of the platform, its formal and material causes. Further, although Facebook is an artifact rather than a living thing, it is a peculiar kind of artifact: Unlike a bronze statue, it is a dynamic thing that is continually changing, that in a sense grows and evolves. It has an end toward which it is tending. This end may not be clearly given, as a bronze statue’s is, or set in the way of a truly living thing, but it is nonetheless intertwined with the platform’s material, formal, and efficient causes, which are bringing it about. Facebook’s movement toward its end is partially the consequence of the ongoing work of its designers and engineers, but it also plays out within the parameters of a particular trajectory from which the platform cannot altogether deviate. To some degree independently of the intentions of either Mark Zuckerberg or any of its two billion users, Facebook will be the sort of thing that Facebook has been becoming. The Moral Formation Machine Each chapter of Antisocial Media frames Facebook as a machine: “The Pleasure Machine,” “The Attention Machine,” “The Politics Machine,” “The Disinformation Machine,” and so on. The final point that we might draw from Aristotle, which the book implies but does not spell out, is that Facebook is also a moral formation machine. One answer to the question “What is Facebook for?” is that it is for the formation of a particular kind of human being. Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics even helps us to understand how this process unfolds: Repeated action becomes habit, habit becomes inclination, inclination becomes virtue or vice, and these virtues and vices define our character. The habits generated by our use of Facebook shape our character. While we consciously or half-consciously perform our aspirational identity, as an inevitable consequence of Facebook’s formal and material qualities our identity is being shaped in a more profound though often unnoticed manner. There is no opting out of this dynamic. If reading with and against the grain of Vaidhyanathan’s discussion of Facebook as a pleasure machine accents the formative powers of media technology, his discussion of surveillance draws our attention to the moral and cultural vacuum in which Facebook’s consequences unfold. In combination with ubiquitous recording devices that we each carry around with us at all times, Vaidhyanathan explains how Facebook has enabled and encouraged three distinct but related modes of surveillance: peer surveillance, corporate surveillance, and state surveillance. He is correct to note that our understanding of privacy is wholly inadequate to the challenges raised by digital tools of surveillance. He also correctly observes that Facebook’s own framing of privacy, as an engineering problem or a matter of consumer choice, does not help the situation. Indeed, it fosters an inability to conceive of privacy as a social, political, and, above all, moral reality. The hollowing out of our lived understanding of privacy was underway long before Facebook arrived on the scene, and Vaidhyanathan helpfully points to existing American legal traditions that have contributed to our shallow understanding. But I return to the question of moral formation. How is it that we became the sort of people who cared so little about privacy? Marshall McLuhan, Neil Postman, and other media ecologists had their own ideas about the matter, often linking the evolution of our understanding of privacy to the rise and fall of print as the dominant medium of communication. But it is also the case that embracing Facebook, and social media more broadly, has accustomed us to expect and crave a certain degree of publicness. The social and moral context that undergirded a fuller and more robust understanding of privacy is gone. It is important to understand that very few people have ever been able to articulate a detailed and well-constructed theory of privacy. One did not have to; it was part of the social fabric, a tacit moral sense. It was, in other words, a matter of norms and institutions. That fabric has been torn to shreds, in no small measure owing to the capabilities that electronic and digital media have created. As I understand him, Vaidhyanathan wants a renewal of these norms guarding not only how we handle our own privacy but also how we handle the frightening power each of us now has to compromise the privacy of others. Yet so long as we are the sort of people shaped by the practices that characterize social media, we are unlikely to experience such a renewal. We lack the moral infrastructure to sustain such a project. 4 issues ~ $24Subscribe to The New Atlantis. Could It Be Otherwise? One of the most enjoyable features of Antisocial Media is Vaidhyanathan’s vignettes about his friendship with Neil Postman. He is clearly fond of Postman, and he gives Postman a great deal of credit for shaping how he has come to think about technology. “Neil inspired my lines of questioning and broadened my vision,” Vaidhyanathan writes. “But he did not convert me to the faith.” The faith in question is an “orthodox” media ecology in the vein of Marshall McLuhan. The chief problem with this school of thought, in Vaidhyanathan’s view, is its technological determinism: “The technologies come first; the mental and social features come from the technologies. It’s a strong, simple line of causation.” I am, admittedly, inclined toward an orthodox variety of media ecology, although I don’t expect to succeed where Postman failed. I simply note that the charge of technological determinism requires a much longer discussion. It was McLuhan, after all, who affirmed, “There is absolutely no inevitability as long as there is a willingness to contemplate what is happening.” And it is, of course, important to take economic and political factors into consideration when one contemplates what is happening. But by whatever combination of factors, Facebook has, for now, achieved an unprecedented level of influence in societies across the globe, as Vaidhyanathan documents so well. Could it have been otherwise? Certainly. But that is irrelevant. If we live our lives through Facebook, our lives will be shaped by Facebook. If Facebook mediates our public discourse, then that discourse will be shaped by the formal properties of the platform. The critical point to register is that we will be worked over by the medium, as McLuhan has put it. We will conform to its image. And this will happen regardless of how judiciously and responsibly we post. Although Vaidhyanathan was not converted to the faith by Postman, he writes very nearly like a full convert in the concluding chapter of Antisocial Media, where he deploys Postman’s 1992 book Technopoly to describe our cultural surrender to an ideology of technology. It was in Technopoly that Postman wrote, Surrounding every technology are institutions whose organization — not to mention their reason for being — reflects the world-view promoted by the technology. Therefore, when an old technology is assaulted by a new one, institutions are threatened. When institutions are threatened, a culture finds itself in crisis. This is as apt a characterization of our situation as we are likely to find. Curiously, Vaidhyanathan speaks of the need for “reinvestment in institutions that promote deep thought conducted at analog speed.” But this is the point at which Postman and McLuhan might help us to see more clearly than Vaidhyanathan. We want desperately to believe that the old institutions can be reinvigorated, renewed, revived. But the age of analog speed, barring some great catastrophe, is behind us, whether we like it or not. Facebook is just one of the facets of the emerging digital order that is assaulting the very institutions Vaidhyanathan wants to reinvigorate, tearing up the ground they require to survive, and undermining the cultivation of traditional citizenly virtues. Quitting At one point in Antisocial Media, Vaidhyanathan, channeling Postman, makes the following legitimate complaint: “It’s hard to participate in a republic, let alone face global challenges, when hit network programs such as The Voice have our eyes darting from television to iPad to phone, tweeting and cheering and chatting and shopping along.” Channeling Seinfeld, he immediately adds, “Not that there is anything wrong with that.” He goes on to say that the problem is the “unrelenting ubiquity of these draws on our attention.” I suspect, however, that Vaidhyanathan was too quick to diffuse the moral outrage. At some point, it seems to me, we must examine our practices and count the moral costs. Vaidhyanathan is adamant about his refusal to abandon the platform. Discussing media theorist Douglas Rushkoff’s 2013 opinion piece explaining his decision to quit Facebook, Vaidhyanathan argues that such decisions make no difference at all to Facebook. “I’m still a Facebook user,” he adds. “And I have no plans to resign.” There is, he concedes, little to be done about Facebook’s influence except for the slow, deliberate work, to which he returns throughout the book, of renewing norms and rebuilding institutions. As I have suggested, renewal and rebuilding may not be the best way of framing the work, undoubtedly slow and deliberate, that must now be undertaken. Perhaps it is more like the work of reimagining than renewal. We cannot return to what is passing away, but we can work toward what has not yet come into being. And I cannot help but think that the cause could only be helped if more of us were willing to walk away from Facebook. In Living into Focus (2012), Arthur Boers writes that he once heard the Amish farmer and writer David Kline tell a story about a bus full of Protestant tourists visiting Amish country. An Amish man is also on the bus, and so the tourists ask him about how his people are different from other Christians. The man first mentions some obvious similarities, such as wearing clothes and liking good food. Then the Amish man asks: “How many of you have a television?” All passengers raise their hands. “How many of you believe your children would be better off without TV?” Most, if not all, passengers raise their hands. “How many of you, knowing this, will get rid of your television when you go home?” No hands are raised. “That’s the difference between the Amish and others,” he concluded. The difference, in other words, is that the Amish maintained their robust deliberative institutions and norms precisely because they have been willing to pay the price of subjecting their use of technology to the greater good of sustaining the health of their community. The rest of us have inverted the priority, and we have paid our own price. L. M. Sacasas is a fellow of the Greystone Theological Institute and the director of its Center for the Study of Ethics and Technology, and a teacher in Winter Park, Florida. He writes about technology at The Frailest Thing. L. M. Sacasas, « How Facebook Deforms Us, » The New Atlantis, Number 56, Summer/Fall 2018, pp. 82-91. Follow Our Work Updates daily A few times per week 2-3 emails per month Subscription 4 issues ~ $24 Back issues $7 each eResources HOME SUBSCRIBE CONTACT BOOKS CURRENT ISSUE BUY BACK ISSUES SUBMISSIONS BLOGS ABOUT ADVERTISE DONATE PRIVACY POLICY PERMISSIONS WEBMASTER Published by the Center for the Study of Technology and Society BLOGS | BOOKS | CONTACT | SUBSCRIBE | DONATE | [The New Atlantis on Facebook] [Follow The New Atlantis by email] [The New Atlantis on Twitter] The New Atlantis BROWSE BY: TOPIC | AUTHOR iStockPhoto Related Articles This article appears in the SUMMER/FALL 2018 issue of The New Atlantis PDF version Printer-friendly Buy this issue E-mail this page Related articles Ian Marcus Corbin, “Time to Log Off,” Summer/Fall 2018 L.M. Sacasas, “The Tech Backlash We Really Need,” Spring 2018 Related topics Internet Media Social Networking Technology and Culture Postman, Neil Related Articles Reviewed in this article Antisocial Media: How Facebook Disconnects Us and Undermines Democracy By Siva Vaidhyanathan Oxford ~ 2018 276 pp. ~ $24.95 (cloth) Email Updates Enter your email address to receive occasional updates and previews from The New Atlantis.
Poster un commentaireModifier
Navigation des articles
medias-presse.info : La Journée contre les violences sur les femmes : l’occasion pour promouvoir l’avortement et la GPA par Francesca de Villasmundo-« Pitié pour les femmes »-Montherlant
Laisser un commentaire

The New Atlantis: Antisocial Media: How Facebook Disconnects Us and Undermines Democracy By Siva Vaidhyanathan-fort bien mais pourquoi relier cet varticle avec facebook et twitter qui ne vaut pas mieux:Messieurs: »Il est important d’être sérieux-Oscar Wilde
medias-presse.info : La Journée contre les violences sur les femmes : l’occasion pour promouvoir l’avortement et la GPA par Francesca de Villasmundo-« Pitié pour les femmes »-Montherlant
Le blog de Liliane Held-Khawam:Dépossession, les milliards envolés de France Télécoms entre 99 et 2001! Michel Bon
The Economic Collapse : General Motors And General Electric Were Both Victimized By The Same Ponzi Scheme, And They Are Both Telling Us The U.S. Economy Is In HUGE Trouble
Gaullisme.fr:Agnès Buzyn annonce que des préservatifs seront « remboursés sur prescription médicale-une obsédée de plus

Archives

novembre 2018
octobre 2018
septembre 2018
juillet 2018
juin 2018
mai 2018
avril 2018
mars 2018
février 2018
janvier 2018
décembre 2017
novembre 2017
octobre 2017
septembre 2017
août 2017
juillet 2017
juin 2017
mai 2017
avril 2017
mars 2017
février 2017
janvier 2017
décembre 2016
novembre 2016
octobre 2016
septembre 2016
août 2016
juillet 2016
juin 2016
mai 2016
avril 2016
mars 2016
février 2016
janvier 2016
décembre 2015
novembre 2015

Par défaut

medias-presse.info : La Journée contre les violences sur les femmes : l’occasion pour promouvoir l’avortement et la GPA par Francesca de Villasmundo-« Pitié pour les femmes »-Montherlant

medias-presse.info

La Journée contre les violences sur les femmes : l’occasion pour promouvoir l’avortement et la GPA
par Francesca de Villasmundo

Dimanche 25 novembre, il n’y a pas que les gilets jaunes qui ont manifesté. C’était aussi la Journée internationale pour l’élimination de la violence à l’égard des femmes 2018. Les villes européennes ont toutes eu leur petit cortège criard s’associant à cette initiative.

Qui n’est qu’un absurde gadget féministe qui n’aura aucun impact sur l’augmentation des comportements violents, leurs véritables causes en étant soigneusement occultées, politiquement correct oblige : l’islamisation de la société européenne, une laïcisation outrancière destructrice des fondements chrétiens de la famille et des cités, protectrices de la femme, la déchristianisation générant la perte du respect d’autrui et de la notion de charité, cette volonté post-moderne de détruire la complémentarité entre les sexes et le rôle maternel de la femme dans la société, sont quelques unes des raisons qui peuvent expliquer la recrudescence des violences sur les femmes. Néanmoins, et paradoxalement, c’est surtout la femme moderne elle-même qui est son premier bourreau.

C’est d’ailleurs si vrai, qu’à l’occasion de cette journée internationale, le mouvement italien lgbt dénommé Arcigay a publié une affiche dans laquelle on voit une femme enceinte et ce slogan :

« Personne ne contrôle mon corps. L’autodétermination ne se touche pas. »

Et en-dessous :

« Jackie, enceinte pour les autres (hommes ou femmes). Être mère est un libre choix, mais ne pas l’être l’est aussi. L’expression ‘utérus en location’ est une violence qui se blottit dans le langage. »

En somme, c’est une publicité pour l’avortement et la pratique de la GPA sous couvert de dénoncer les violences sur les femmes et pour cacher l’horreur de la GPA, si bien nommé en italien ‘utérus en location… De belles contradictions !

Car en acceptant l’avortement comme un droit, et aujourd’hui la gestation pour autrui, la femme contemporaine s’inflige à elle-même la pire violence qui soit tout en détruisant sa féminité et sa maternité. Et dans un enchaînement logique, en ne respectant pas l’être humain et son corps en son sein, elle se prive du respect qu’elle doit à son propre corps et à elle-même et que les autres lui doivent. Sans considération envers elle-même et l’enfant qu’elle porte mais qui est un autre être qu’elle, comment pourrait-elle prétendre au respect de la part des autres ? Et quand elle se fait ‘machine à reproduire’, ne risque-t-elle pas d’être traitée comme une ‘machine’ que l’on casse ou met au placard quand on n’en a plus besoin ?

Francesca de Villasmundo

Par défaut

le Saker Francophone: L’Angola vient-il de connaître un «nettoyage ethnique» à la birmane ? Par Andrew Korybko

L’Angola vient-il de connaître un «nettoyage ethnique» à la birmane ?

Par Andrew Korybko – Le 26 octobre 2018 – Source eurasiafuture.com

andrew-korybkoL’exode rapide et massif de 380 000 Congolais de la région Nord-Est de l’Angola ces deux dernières semaines fait immédiatement penser à la crise des Rohingyas de l’an dernier en Birmanie. Mais à y regarder de plus près, aucune des deux crises ne s’est déroulée exactement selon ce qu’en ont rapporté les médias traditionnels. En outre, chacune de ces deux crises est intervenue dans le cadre du jeu géopolitique américain, que le gouvernement local de chacun des deux pays l’ait réalisé ou non.

Carte régionale établissant les positionnements de l’Angola et de la République démocratique du Congo. (Angola colorisé par le saker francophone). Source : RFI

Ce sont surtout le projet de retrait américain du traité FNI, la crise de la Caravane 2.0, et l’assassinat de Khashoggi qui ont fait les gros titres cette semaine, mais perdue au milieu de ces occurrences, une information aurait sans doute dû faire l’objet d’une attention beaucoup plus soutenue de la part du reste du monde : l’exode rapide et massif de 380 000 Congolais de la région Nord-Est de l’Angola. Kinshasa affirme que ses ressortissants ont été forcés de quitter le havre où ils avaient trouvé refuge à l’issue de leur fuite du conflit Kasaï, au sud-ouest de leur pays d’origine, tandis que Luanda les a comparé tacitement à des « armes de migration de masse », exploitant illégalement l’un des gisements de diamants les plus considérables du monde, au Nord-Est du pays.
« Armes de migration de masse »

Considérés de manière superficielle, les événements ressemblent beaucoup à ceux de l’an dernier au Myanmar avec les Rohingyas, quand on avait vu un demi-million de membres de la minorité musulmane partiellement reconnue (considérés par Naypyidaw comme des migrants d’ethnie Bengali et leurs descendants) fuir vers le Bangladesh voisin, suite au lancement par le gouvernement d’une opération de sécurité répondant à une recrudescence d’attaques terroristes. L’Angola déclare ne pas avoir forcé les Congolais à fuir, mais une enquête récemment publiée par Reuters met ces affirmations en cause, et affirme qu’un mélange de tensions ethno-tribales et de pression gouvernementale sont à la source du plus important mouvement de population transfrontalier depuis les conflits interconnectés rwandais–congolais des années 1990, souvent appelés « Guerre mondiale africaine ».

Pour comprendre les événements dans ces deux instances, le lecteur doit accepter l’existence du concept d’« armes de migration de masse », mais ce concept ne correspond pas forcément exactement à la désignation qui en est souvent faite. Pour bien comprendre ce phénomène, le brillant ouvrage de Kelly M. Greenhill, chercheur de l’Ivy League Armes de migration de masse : les déplacements forcés utilisés comme moyen de coercition, écrit en 2010, fait référence. En très bref, Mme Greenhill dit que les flux de populations au travers des frontières peuvent servir d’armes à des fins politiques, économiques, militaires et ultimement stratégiques, en catalysant les événements qui déclenchent ce type de processus. Soyons clairs : aucune personne n’est consciente qu’elle a été manipulée à devenir un migrant, mais c’est là que réside le « génie » de cette approche.
Des États différents, un scénario unique

Les « armes de migration de masse » peuvent « plausiblement être niées », mais restent tout à fait observables comme Mme Greenhill le décrit, et ce paradigme explique parfaitement les conflits en Angola et au Myanmar. Ce dernier pays a hérité d’une minorité musulmane considérable, concentrée dans une région frontalière sensible à l’issue de l’indépendance du pays, ce qui constitue spontanément une menace à la sécurité du pays. L’armée a répondu à la vague terroriste de l’an dernier en créant les conditions qui ont forcé une grande partie de ces populations à fuir vers le Bangladesh, où elles fonctionnent également comme une « arme », en raison de l’effet déstabilisant que ces déplacements massifs ont exercé sur la sécurité aux frontières du pays, et sur sa stabilité politique. D’une certaine manière, on pourrait dire que les Rohingyas ont été exploités comme « armes de migration de masse », aussi bien contre le Myanmar que contre le Bangladesh.

Pour en revenir à l’Angola, les frontières arbitraires imposées à l’époque coloniale, et héritées par la suite, ont séparé des tribus qui avant cela avait interagi pendant des siècles, ce qui a fini par aboutir en la création partielle d’identités composites dans ce pays et au Congo voisin (précédemment connu sous le nom de Zaïre). Les divisions artificielles qui ont été imposées à la région avaient été renforcées par l’intervention militaire zaïroise aux côtés des « rebelles » pro-américains, immédiatement après l’indépendance de l’Angola ; cela n’avait fait qu’augmenter l’animosité de cette nation victimisée envers son grand voisin. Les flux migratoires récents en provenance du Kasaï ont déstabilisé le Nord-Est de l’Angola, mais le retour de ces gens forcé par les autorités juste avant les élections prévues en décembre empire la situation, faisant de ces gens des « armes de migration de masse » dans les deux pays.
La connexion chinoise

Que ces « armes de migration de masse » aient été activées à ce moment précis ne constitue sans doute pas un hasard : chacune des crises a généré des réponses répondant aux intérêts américains. Au Myanmar, la controverse mondiale qui s’est fait jour à l’issue de la crise des Rohingyas s’était muée en problème international, et avait tenu lieu de pression – sans grand succès – sur Suu Kyi pour qu’elle serre la vis à l’armée ; cela aurait fait monter d’un niveau la guerre de l’« État profond » du Myanmar, qui semblait juste résolue, mais le pays avait subi ces déstabilisations comme « punition » pour le « rééquilibrage » inattendu décidé par le gouvernement civil, qui venait d’entamer un rapprochement avec la Chine. Pour ce qui concerne l’Angola, l’opération de sécurité organisée par les autorités du pays déstabilisent le Congo deux mois avant la toute première transition de pouvoir pacifique de l’histoire du pays ; les événements qui en découlent pourraient réduire les chances de voir le successeur désigné par le pouvoir en place, favorable aux chinois, prendre les rênes du pays.

Il serait crédible de plaider une thèse selon laquelle les deux pays ont cherché délibérément à faire quitter leur territoire à un groupe identitaire, ce qui techniquement s’apparenterait à une opération de « nettoyage ethnique », mais la thèse opposée tient également la route : chacun des pays exploite des prétextes qui relèvent de la loi et l’ordre, ce qui s’apparente au droit souverain de tout pays de sécuriser ses frontières de ce qu’il considère (à raison ou à tort) comme des menaces étrangères contre ses ressortissants. Selon cette seconde thèse, les flux migratoires qui en résultent constituent des « dégâts collatéraux » involontaires. Mais quel que soit le bout de la lunette par lequel on regarde le problème, le fait est que ces États ont pris des décisions de leur propre chef (qu’ils aient été incités à le faire ou pas), décisions qui profitent à l’agenda américain d’entretenir des cycles de déstabilisation auto-alimentés (guerres hybrides).

Conclusions

Les événements qui viennent de se produire en Angola ressemblent très fortement à ceux du Myanmar l’an dernier : dans les deux cas, l’armée du pays a réalisé des opérations de sécurité, et dans les deux cas, des flux migratoires rapides et massifs d’un groupe identitaire précis en ont résulté (et dans les deux cas, le gouvernement du pays considérait ces personnes comme des immigrés illégaux) ; ces flux migratoires portaient les signes dérangeants de « nettoyage ethnique », mais sauter à des conclusions hâtives reviendrait à négliger deux facteurs importants. Tout d’abord, des problèmes de sécurité très graves pré-existaient bien, et ont forcé les autorités de chacun de ces deux pays à réagir ; et deuxièmement, leurs actions ne peuvent pas être considérées hors du contexte stratégique plus large de la géopolitique régionale. Nonobstant leur légitimité, chacune de ces opérations a travaillé, avec plus ou moins de succès, en faveur des intérêts géopolitiques américains.

Andrew Korybko est le commentateur politique américain qui travaille actuellement pour l’agence Sputnik. Il est en troisième cycle de l’Université MGIMO et auteur de la monographie Guerres hybrides : l’approche adaptative indirecte pour un changement de régime (2015). Le livre est disponible en PDF gratuitement et à télécharger ici.

Traduit par Vincent, relu par Cat pour le Saker Francophone
254

Par défaut

Le Salon Beige :La presse étrangère démonte Macron : « Les Français ont l’impression d’être pris pour des imbéciles. À juste titre »-et varia

Le Salon Beige :

Retrouvez chaque jour le plus fort de l’actualité dans notre lettre quotidienne… et encore bien plus sur LeSalonBeige.fr – Contactez-nous – Nous aider
Faire un don à la Fondation Lejeune
Retrouvez l’ensemble de nos articles.
C’est arrivé un 26 novembre…
C’est arrivé un 26 novembre…
Ces rimes qui montent au Ciel
Ces rimes qui montent au Ciel
Mgr d’Ornellas appelle à prier pour la vie
Mgr d’Ornellas appelle à prier pour la vie
Marche pour la vie à Lyon
Marche pour la vie à Lyon
Gilets Jaunes Acte 3 : appel à une nouvelle mobilisation samedi sur les Champs-Elysées
Gilets Jaunes Acte 3 : appel à une nouvelle mobilisation samedi sur les Champs-Elysées
La presse étrangère démonte Macron : « Les Français ont l’impression d’être pris pour des imbéciles. À juste titre ».
La presse étrangère démonte Macron : « Les Français ont l’impression d’être pris pour des imbéciles. À juste titre ».
Marche pour la vie : objection de conscience pour tous !
Marche pour la vie : objection de conscience pour tous !
Etre, prier et agir pour le règne du Christ
Etre, prier et agir pour le règne du Christ
La mythique bière des moines trappistes de l’abbaye d’Orval en Belgique
La mythique bière des moines trappistes de l’abbaye d’Orval en Belgique
Journée pour tous les prêtres lundi 21 janvier à Versailles : Chasteté sacerdotale ou conjugale, raison conjointe d’espérer
Journée pour tous les prêtres lundi 21 janvier à Versailles : Chasteté sacerdotale ou conjugale, raison conjointe d’espérer
Sur les pas de Saint Augustin – Monastère Mater Dei (Azille)
Sur les pas de Saint Augustin – Monastère Mater Dei (Azille)
Doctrine sociale de l’Eglise : le pape plaide pour « le risque de la liberté »
Doctrine sociale de l’Eglise : le pape plaide pour « le risque de la liberté »
Lettre à un ami prêtre
Lettre à un ami prêtre
Evangile du jour
Evangile du jour

Par défaut

The Economic Collapse: Russia And Ukraine Are On The Brink Of War – And Why That Could Lead To World War 3

The Economic Collapse:
Russia And Ukraine Are On The Brink Of War – And Why That Could Lead To World War 3

Russia And Ukraine Are On The Brink Of War – And Why That Could Lead To World War 3

Posted: 25 Nov 2018 11:03 PM PST

A respected foreign journalist living in Ukraine is warning that a war that most Americans cannot even imagine “teeters on the razor thin edge of becoming real”. When Russia opened fire on Ukrainian Navy vessels and captured three of their ships, it made headlines all over the globe. An emergency meeting of the UN Security Council was hastily arranged for Monday at 11 AM, and hopefully there will be a positive outcome from that meeting. Because right now Moscow and Kiev are on the brink of war, and once a Russian invasion happens there will be no turning back. At that point the U.S. would have a major decision to make, and if we chose to defend Ukraine that could mean that we would suddenly find ourselves fighting World War 3.

Most people don’t realize that this crisis has been simmering for over a week. The following is from a U.S. News & World Report article that was posted on November 19th…

A dispute over shipping lanes is threatening to reignite the 4-year-old simmering war between Ukraine and Russia following confrontations sparked by both sides in recent days.

Russian border guards on Monday detained Ukrainian fishing vessels in the Sea of Azov, a strategically important body of water contained to the north by Ukraine, to the west by the Crimean Peninsula and to the east and south by Russia. Monday’s incident came days after Russian President Vladimir Putin slammed Kiev for detaining Russian commercial ships also in the Azov in what he described as “a totally illegal move” and which Kremlin officials have warned may prompt retaliation.

When you realize what has already taken place, it puts the most recent events in an entirely different context.

The Russians blocked the Kerch Strait in retaliation for having had their own commercial vessels detained by the Ukrainian government.

And when the Ukrainians decided to test the Russians by sailing Ukrainian Navy vessels into the Kerch Strait, the Russians decided not to back down. The following comes from Sky News…

Russia has opened fire on Ukrainian ships and captured three vessels in a major escalation of tensions off the coast of Crimea.

Three sailors have been wounded after the Ukrainian navy said two artillery boats were hit by the strikes in the Black Sea.

Ukraine’s President Petro Poroshenko called an emergency session of his war cabinet and said he will propose that parliament declare martial law.

So the truth is that neither side is exactly “innocent” in this situation.

The Kerch Strait is absolutely critical, because it is the only way into and out of the Azov Sea…

The strait connects the Azov Sea with the Black Sea and runs between the Crimean Peninsula and Russia. It’s a shallow, narrow stretch of water just two to three miles (3.2 to 4.8 kilometers) wide at one point near the Chuska landspit.

The strait is an important economic lifeline for Ukraine, as it allows ships leaving the port city of Mariupol to access the Black Sea.

It’s also the the closest point of access for Russia to Crimea, a peninsula Moscow annexed in 2014. The international community has largely not recognized Russia’s annexation of Crimea, but that did not stop Russia from building a bridge over the Kerch Strait connecting Crimea to mainland Russia. The Kerch Strait bridge was opened in May.

In addition to asking for a declaration of martial law, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko has also been gathering with his top military leaders. Poroshenko is pledging that Ukraine will not take any “offensive” military actions, but he also says that they are ready to defend against any attacks from Russia.

The Russians are accusing Poroshenko of manipulating this crisis in order to pump up his flagging approval ratings for the upcoming presidential elections. There is a very real possibility that Poroshenko could lose, and he is desperate to stay in office.

Of course the Ukrainians are blaming Russia for everything, and Poroshenko says that what happened on Sunday “was an act of war”…

Finally, Ukraine has called for an urgent UN Security Council meeting over ‘Russian aggression’ while Ukraine’s secretary for national security, Oleksander Turchynov, accused Russia of engaging in an act of war: “We heard reports on incident and have concluded that it was an act of war by Russian Federation against Ukraine”.

At this point, it is unclear what the Russians will do next.

Hopefully they will see that a full-blown invasion of Ukraine would not be wise.

But if they decide that such a war is inevitable, they will move with lightning speed as we have seen in other conflicts. For example, Russia had already annexed Crimea before the rest of the world even started talking about it. And we all remember what happened in Georgia.

If and when Russia finally pulls the trigger, their forces will be halfway to Kiev before the mainstream media in the western world even realizes what is happening.

And if Russia does invade, the Trump administration will be under tremendous pressure from Republicans, Democrats and other NATO members to intervene. Already, there has been some very tough talk from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo…

It’s yet unclear how far the U.S. is willing to go in support for Ukraine. In a joint statement after Klimkin’s meeting with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo last week, both sides “condemned Russia’s aggressive actions against international shipping transiting the Black Sea, the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait to Ukrainian ports” and agreed that “Russia’s aggressive activities in the Sea of Azov have brought new security, economic, social, and environmental threats to the entire Azov-Black Sea region.”

But if we directly intervene in a military conflict between Russia and Ukraine, that could very easily trigger World War 3.

Most Americans are not concerned that a conflict between Russia and Ukraine could potentially affect the United States, but the threat is very real. In fact, according to foreign correspondent Nolan Peterson such a war “teeters on the razor thin edge of becoming real”…

This is the most dangerous moment I’ve seen in Ukraine in years. Tonight, a war that many people in America can only imagine thanks to Hollywood movies, teeters on the razor thin edge of becoming real. Tonight in Ukraine we go to sleep not knowing what tomorrow will bring.

Let us hope for peace, because right now the world is becoming a more chaotic place with each passing day…

About the author: Michael Snyder is a nationally syndicated writer, media personality and political activist. He is publisher of The Most Important News and the author of four books including The Beginning Of The End and Living A Life That Really Matters.

The post Russia And Ukraine Are On The Brink Of War – And Why That Could Lead To World War 3 appeared first on The Economic Collapse.

Par défaut

Russia Insider: Hillary Clinton Urges Europe to Halt Refugee Flow She Helped Create by Tyler Durden Zero Hedge The Context to Understand the Russian-Ukrainian Naval Clash at Kerch Strait by Rostislav Ishchenko Ukraina.ru Forget Nordstream 2, Turkstream Is the Prize by Tom Luongo Gold Goats ‘n Guns BBC Would Make Soviet Propagandists Cringe by Rob Slane TheBlogMire Venezuela’s Debt Payments to Russia Have Collapsed by RI Staff How Russia’s Air Defenses Evolved From Early S-300 Systems to Present-Day S-400 by Military Watch US Envoy: US, Russian Forces Have Clashed a Dozen Times in Syria by Jason Ditz Antiwar.com In Video: Russian Ship Rams Ukraine Navy Tugboat off Crimea Coast by RI Staff Russia-Ukraine Naval Clash in Kerch Strait: How It Developed by RT Russian Ships Fired on Ukraine Navy Sailors in Crimea Waters, Poroshenko to Declare Martial Law Ahead of Election by RT

Russia Insider:

Today’s headlines

Hillary Clinton Urges Europe to Halt Refugee Flow She Helped Create by Tyler Durden Zero Hedge[field_author_has_account_] (555 views)
The Context to Understand the Russian-Ukrainian Naval Clash at Kerch Strait by Rostislav Ishchenko Ukraina.ru[field_author_has_account_] (1,867 views)
Forget Nordstream 2, Turkstream Is the Prize by Tom Luongo Gold Goats ‘n Guns[field_author_has_account_] (992 views)
BBC Would Make Soviet Propagandists Cringe by Rob Slane TheBlogMire[field_author_has_account_] (947 views)
Venezuela’s Debt Payments to Russia Have Collapsed by RI Staff[field_author_has_account_] (1,842 views)
How Russia’s Air Defenses Evolved From Early S-300 Systems to Present-Day S-400 by Military Watch[field_author_has_account_] (1,343 views)
US Envoy: US, Russian Forces Have Clashed a Dozen Times in Syria by Jason Ditz Antiwar.com[field_author_has_account_] (2,250 views)
In Video: Russian Ship Rams Ukraine Navy Tugboat off Crimea Coast by RI Staff[field_author_has_account_] (2,099 views)
Russia-Ukraine Naval Clash in Kerch Strait: How It Developed by RT[field_author_has_account_] (1,364 views)
Russian Ships Fired on Ukraine Navy Sailors in Crimea Waters, Poroshenko to Declare Martial Law Ahead of Election by RT[field_author_has_account_] (1,482 views)

Hillary Clinton Urges Europe to Halt Refugee Flow She Helped Create
by Tyler Durden Zero Hedge[field_author_has_account_] (555 views) on Mon, Nov 26, 2018
After blaming everyone but herself for her embarrassing upset loss to Donald Trump in the 2016 US presidential election, Hillary Clinton has finally admitted what millions of Americans have known for years now: Maybe Trump made some good points.
Read more »
share on Twitter Like Hillary Clinton Urges Europe to Halt Refugee Flow She Helped Create on Facebook
Back to table of content

The Context to Understand the Russian-Ukrainian Naval Clash at Kerch Strait
by Rostislav Ishchenko Ukraina.ru[field_author_has_account_] (1,867 views) on Mon, Nov 26, 2018
Translated by Ollie Richardson and Angelina Siard at Stalker Zone. This article was written even before the crisis reached its crescendo and the Russian navy and border guards used force.
Read more »
share on Twitter Like The Context to Understand the Russian-Ukrainian Naval Clash at Kerch Strait on Facebook
Back to table of content

Forget Nordstream 2, Turkstream Is the Prize
by Tom Luongo Gold Goats ‘n Guns[field_author_has_account_] (992 views) on Mon, Nov 26, 2018
While the Trump Administration still thinks it can play enough games to derail the Nordstream 2 pipeline via sanctions and threats, the impotence of its position geopolitically was on display the other day as the final pipe of the first train of the Turkstream pipeline entered the waters of the Black Sea. The pipe was sanctioned by Russian President Vladimir Putin and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan who shared a public stage and held bilateral talks afterwards. I think it is important for everyone to watch the response to Putin’s speech in its entirety. Because it highlights just how far Russian/Turkish relations have come since the November 24th, 2015 incident where Turkey shot down a Russian SU-24 over Syria.
Read more »
share on Twitter Like Forget Nordstream 2, Turkstream Is the Prize on Facebook
Back to table of content

BBC Would Make Soviet Propagandists Cringe
by Rob Slane TheBlogMire[field_author_has_account_] (947 views) on Mon, Nov 26, 2018
I mentioned in a couple of comments yesterday that I don’t own a television. In fact, I haven’t had one since 2001. To begin with it’s hard, but if you stick with it you very soon come to see it as remarkably odd that you’ve spent a significant amount of your time sitting in front of a box, wondering if there’s anything on, and still watching it even if there isn’t, and letting other people drip their agenda and propaganda into your head night after night, through perhaps the most powerful medium ever created.
Read more »
share on Twitter Like BBC Would Make Soviet Propagandists Cringe on Facebook
Back to table of content

Venezuela’s Debt Payments to Russia Have Collapsed
by RI Staff[field_author_has_account_] (1,842 views) on Mon, Nov 26, 2018
Reuters reports that Venezuela’s debt repayment to Russia has slowed down to a trickle: The head of Russian oil company Rosneft (ROSN.MM), Igor Sechin, flew to Caracas this week to meet Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and complain over delayed oil shipments designed to repay loans, two sources briefed on the conversation said on Saturday. The visit, which was not publicly disclosed, is one of the clearest signs of strain between crisis-stricken Venezuela and its key financier Russia.
Read more »
share on Twitter Like Venezuela’s Debt Payments to Russia Have Collapsed on Facebook
Back to table of content

How Russia’s Air Defenses Evolved From Early S-300 Systems to Present-Day S-400
by Military Watch[field_author_has_account_] (1,343 views) on Mon, Nov 26, 2018
The S-300 long range surface to air missile system first entered service in the Soviet Air Defence Force in 1978, and has since been extensively modernised to continue to provide Russia with cutting edge air defence capabilities. In service with almost 20 countries today, with several more showing interest in or having placed orders for the platform, the S-300 remains in full production in Russia 40 years later. While the original platform, the highly specialised S-300P anti cruise missile system, was hardly remarkable in its capabilities compared to other systems of its time such as the S-200, the design retained considerable room for modernisation which allowed for the development of ten major variants, some as recently as the 2010s, which are today among the world’s very finest surface to air missile platforms.
Read more »
share on Twitter Like How Russia’s Air Defenses Evolved From Early S-300 Systems to Present-Day S-400 on Facebook
Back to table of content

US Envoy: US, Russian Forces Have Clashed a Dozen Times in Syria
by Jason Ditz Antiwar.com[field_author_has_account_] (2,250 views) on Mon, Nov 26, 2018
Speaking to Russian reporters, US Ambassador James Jeffrey, the special representative for the Syrian War, was asked to comment on incidents in which US troops killed large numbers of Russian military contractors working for the Syrian government. Jeffrey refused to offer details of that incident, but revealed that US and Russian forces have gotten into around a dozen clashes inside Syria over the course of the war, sometimes with direct exchanges of gunfire. Jeffrey further insisted that all the US troops in Syria are “legitimately” there to fight against ISIS, and that all the fighting against Russia was in keeping with the US “right of self-defense.” Russia has not commented on the engagements.
Read more »
share on Twitter Like US Envoy: US, Russian Forces Have Clashed a Dozen Times in Syria on Facebook
Back to table of content

In Video: Russian Ship Rams Ukraine Navy Tugboat off Crimea Coast
by RI Staff[field_author_has_account_] (2,099 views) on Mon, Nov 26, 2018
Inexplicably the video of the incident used by RT cuts off the last few seconds when the ramming occurs and is described as the Russian ship merely « pursuing » the Ukrainian vessel, but the report for the domestic audience sanitizes nothing: The RT version:
Read more »
share on Twitter Like In Video: Russian Ship Rams Ukraine Navy Tugboat off Crimea Coast on Facebook
Back to table of content

Russia-Ukraine Naval Clash in Kerch Strait: How It Developed
by RT[field_author_has_account_] (1,364 views) on Mon, Nov 26, 2018
The waters near the Crimean peninsula were the site of an intense standoff between Russian and Ukrainian ships that involved a chase, some firing and fighter jets, followed by strong statements from Moscow and Kiev.
Read more »
share on Twitter Like Russia-Ukraine Naval Clash in Kerch Strait: How It Developed on Facebook
Back to table of content

Russian Ships Fired on Ukraine Navy Sailors in Crimea Waters, Poroshenko to Declare Martial Law Ahead of Election
by RT[field_author_has_account_] (1,482 views) on Mon, Nov 26, 2018
Russia has confirmed its vessels have used weapons to stop Ukrainian ships that had entered Russian waters in the Black Sea illegally. Three Ukrainian sailors were wounded and have been given medical assistance. Russia has fired at a group of three Ukrainian vessels that entered its territorial waters near Crimea, the Russian Security Service (FSB) has confirmed. The ships were then seized and will be towed to the Crimean port of Kerch. Three Ukrainian sailors, injured in the altercation, were given medical assistance by Russian servicemen. Their lives are out of danger.
Read more »
share on Twitter Like Russian Ships Fired on Ukraine Navy Sailors in Crimea Waters, Poroshenko to Declare Martial Law Ahead of Election on Facebook
Back to table of content

Par défaut

Gaullisme.fr.Barbara Lefebvre : «Christophe Castaner et le 6 février 1934: la double faute du ministre»-un digne cancre de « l’école de la République »

Gaullisme.fr

Accueil
Charles de Gaulle
Hommes de l’Histoire
Textes constitutionnels
Dossiers
Documents
Mes ouvrages
Archives (ancien site)

Libre propos
Charles de Gaulle
Gouvernement
A la une
Politique
Économie
Europe/International
Billet du jour
Sur la toile
Réseau France
Conférences

Accueil » Actu-politique » Barbara Lefebvre : «Christophe Castaner et le 6 février 1934: la double faute du ministre»
Barbara Lefebvre : «Christophe Castaner et le 6 février 1934: la double faute du ministre»
par Barbara Lefebvre

Publié le 26 novembre 2018 par administrateur dans Actu-politique, Sur la toile // 0 commentaire
30 Mai 68 – sur les Champs Élysée

Barbara Lefebvre
Le ministre de l’Intérieur affiche fièrement son ignorance de l’histoire et multiplie les amalgames grossiers, voire odieux, pour «fasciser» les «gilets jaunes», déplore le professeur d’histoire-géographie et essayiste.

Christophe Castaner, comme tant d’autres politiciens aux connaissances historiques superficielles, devrait cesser les références au passé pour argumenter au sujet de faits politiques présents. S’il avait la culture littéraire et historique de De Gaulle, Mitterrand, Séguin ou Chevènement, pour ne citer qu’eux, on serait ravis d’être éclairés par la parole du ministre. Las. La fragilité de M. Castaner en termes de culture générale est par trop criante.

Désormais, nos «grands hommes» s’appuient sur des conseillers qui rédigent leurs discours truffés de références historiques passées au tamis du politiquement correct pour donner de l’épaisseur à la communication ou à la vile stratégie politicienne.

Déjà, le 16 avril dernier, M. Castaner interrogé sur RTL au sujet de la dimension sexiste du hijab bottait en touche avec cette comparaison extravagante: «Il y a quelques années, quand en France, y compris nos mamans portaient un voile, portaient le voile catholique, on ne se posait pas la question.» «Nos mamans» signifie qu’il situait ce fait social dans un passé relativement proche puisque l’intéressé est né en 1966 ; il évoquait donc les années 1950. Malgré les railleries survenues après cette calamiteuse interview, Christophe Castaner n’est jamais revenu sur ses propos pour nous éclairer sur ce fait historique largement méconnu. J’invite toute personne ayant vu dans sa tendre enfance des «mamans avec leur voile catholique» se promener dans les rues, à porter témoignage de ce fait social si peu, voire pas du tout, étudié par les historiens.

Devenu ministre des Cultes, on espère qu’il a révisé ses fiches. Sommes-nous néanmoins fondés à ressentir quelque inquiétude en l’imaginant comme interlocuteur avec les représentants de l’islam au vu de sa connaissance du «fait religieux» en France?

Le désormais ministre de l’Intérieur continue de nous abreuver de références historiques douteuses, et le silence des journalistes présents lors de la conférence de presse de samedi soir en dit long sur leur propre culture historique. Interrogé sur la responsabilité de Mme Le Pen dans le choix des Champs-Élysées pour la mobilisation des «gilets jaunes», M. Castaner commence par répondre en faisant appel au passé. Pas n’importe lequel. «Depuis 1934, il n’y a jamais eu de manifestations politiques sur les Champs-Élysées, uniquement des rassemblements festifs», déclare-t-il d’un air grave. Février 1934 d’un côté, un tweet de Marine Le Pen en novembre 2018 de l’autre. Plus c’est gros, plus ça passe.

Rappelons donc les faits. Le 6 février 1934, différentes ligues d’extrême droite (Camelots du roi, Jeunesses patriotes, Solidarité française) ou de droite traditionaliste (Croix-de-Feu), mais aussi des anciens combattants dont certains proches du Parti communiste et des groupes de droite manifestent en face de la Chambre des députés, place de la Concorde, et non pas sur les Champs-Élysées, première erreur historique. Plusieurs dizaines de morts parmi les manifestants, chute du gouvernement Daladier, formation d’un gouvernement dit d’union nationale dirigé par Gaston Doumergue. On connaît la suite: la gauche du futur Front populaire soutient l’idée d’une tentative de prise du pouvoir par les fascistes le 6 février 1934, ce qu’aujourd’hui la majorité des historiens récuse. C’est un autre sujet.

Tout est bon pour que le «nouveau monde» se maintienne au pouvoir

Deuxième erreur historique et non des moindres: M. Castaner a oublié qu’après 1934 (où il ne se passa rien sur les Champs-Élysées), trois grands moments politiques se sont déroulés sur les Champs-Élysées.

D’abord le 11 novembre 1940, quelques semaines après l’entrevue de Montoire officialisant la collaboration entre le régime de Vichy et l’occupant, près de 3000 jeunes hommes, étudiants et lycéens bravent l’interdiction allemande de célébrer publiquement l’armistice et la victoire française de novembre 1918. Durant les jours précédents, des tracts se diffusaient, se recopiaient, passaient de main en main pour mobiliser. Pas besoin de Twitter ou de Facebook pour bâtir une résistance, on l’oublie un peu vite de nos jours. Les voici, ces jeunes patriotes, en fin d’après-midi, qui chantent La Marseillaise, crient «Vive de Gaulle» sur la place de l’Étoile, non loin de la tombe du Soldat inconnu. Deux cents seront arrêtés par l’armée allemande, plus de la moitié incarcérés un mois durant.

Autre oubli de notre ministre, le 26 août 1944. Rien moins que le défilé de la victoire des troupes de Leclerc en présence du général de Gaulle qui descendent l’avenue, là où quatre ans plus tôt les troupes de l’occupant nazi avaient marché triomphantes. À moins que notre actuel ministre-historien ne voie dans le défilé du 26 août 1944 qu’un «rassemblement festif» sans connotation politique…

Enfin le 30 mai 1968, une immense manifestation populaire en faveur du président de Gaulle, après les heurts estudiantins des semaines précédentes, se déroule sur l’avenue parisienne noire de monde. Quelques heures auparavant, de Gaulle avait annoncé la dissolution de l’Assemblée nationale. La France gaulliste se rassemblait massivement pour lui témoigner son soutien.

«La France n’est pas pessimiste, mais elle réserve son espérance» Georges Bernanos, en 1946

On comprend bien la stratégie du ministre Castaner avec ses gros sabots pour évoquer le 6 février 1934 quand on l’interroge sur un tweet de la présidente du Rassemblement national. Il s’agit d’une part de remettre Marine Le Pen au centre de l’échiquier politique comme principale opposante au président Macron à l’orée des européennes, et d’autre part d’entretenir la figure démoniaque du «fascisme lepéniste» aux portes du pouvoir dans la perspective de 2022. Seul un nouveau face-à-face Macron-Le Pen pourrait permettre au président un second quinquennat au train où vont les choses. La manœuvre paraît grossière, mais tout est bon pour que le «nouveau monde» se maintienne au pouvoir, y compris fausser le jeu politique et construire des face-à-face sans avenir pour le peuple français.

La présidente du RN, de son côté, est complice de ce système politicien dont elle use et abuse pour exister, par des postures tantôt de victime, tantôt de résistante antisystème, de grandes déclarations tout aussi démagogiques que celles de ses adversaires. Grâce au président et au gouvernement qui l’ont remise en selle, Marine Le Pen a presque réussi à faire oublier son échec cinglant lors du débat de l’entre-deux-tours du printemps 2018, son manque de tenue et de professionnalisme, ses tergiversations politiques sur l’euro, son incompétence sur la politique économique. Elle demeure le «meilleur» adversaire possible pour le président Macron, étant entendu que M. Mélenchon se fait régulièrement hara-kiri. Quant à LR, ils ne savent toujours pas où ils habitent, et on suppose que d’ici 2022 ils resteront des SDF, des Sans Droite Fixe.

Les Français sont légitimes à désespérer de la médiocrité de cette classe politique. Et ce n’est pas en déformant l’histoire que des politiciens détourneront notre attention des enjeux actuels. Chaque jour, ils viennent nous reprocher de pas partager leur optimisme dans le progrès, dans les lendemains radieux de la mondialisation. Ils disqualifient ces «Gaulois réfractaires au changement», ces ploucs de «gilets jaunes», ces intellectuels antimodernes. Non, avertissait déjà Bernanos en février 1946, «la France n’est pas pessimiste, mais elle réserve son espérance. On nous prêche aujourd’hui l’optimisme comme on nous prêchait jadis le pacifisme, et pour les mêmes raisons. L’optimisme qu’on nous prêche, c’est le désarmement de l’esprit».

Barbara Lefebvre

Par défaut

Le blog des Chrétiens d’Orient et ceux qui les soutiennent… Soeur Irène et Soeur Catherine: Filles de Monsieur Vincent à Istanbul – Une Communauté de Servantes des Pauvres sur les Rives du Bosphore…

Le blog des Chrétiens d’Orient et ceux qui les soutiennent…

Un pont entre l’Orient et l’Occident… à la rencontre des chrétiens du Levant

Soeur Irène et Soeur Catherine: Filles de Monsieur Vincent à Istanbul – Une Communauté de Servantes des Pauvres sur les Rives du Bosphore…

Publié le 26 novembre 2018 par Patrice Sabater
Soeur Irène et Soeur Catherine: Filles de Monsieur Vincent à Istanbul – Une Communauté de Servantes des Pauvres sur les Rives du Bosphore…
Soeur Irène et Soeur Catherine: Filles de Monsieur Vincent à Istanbul – Une Communauté de Servantes des Pauvres sur les Rives du Bosphore…
Soeur Irène et Soeur Catherine: Filles de Monsieur Vincent à Istanbul – Une Communauté de Servantes des Pauvres sur les Rives du Bosphore…
Soeur Irène et Soeur Catherine: Filles de Monsieur Vincent à Istanbul – Une Communauté de Servantes des Pauvres sur les Rives du Bosphore…
Soeur Irène et Soeur Catherine: Filles de Monsieur Vincent à Istanbul – Une Communauté de Servantes des Pauvres sur les Rives du Bosphore…
Soeur Irène et Soeur Catherine: Filles de Monsieur Vincent à Istanbul – Une Communauté de Servantes des Pauvres sur les Rives du Bosphore…
PUBLICITÉ
Soeur Irène et Soeur Catherine: Filles de Monsieur Vincent à Istanbul – Une Communauté de Servantes des Pauvres sur les Rives du Bosphore…
Soeur Irène et Soeur Catherine: Filles de Monsieur Vincent à Istanbul – Une Communauté de Servantes des Pauvres sur les Rives du Bosphore…

Soeur Irène et Soeur Catherine:

Filles de Monsieur Vincent à Istanbul

Une Communauté de Servantes des Pauvres sur les Rives du Bosphore…

Le 16 septembre 2015, je publiais sur mon Blog (www.chretiensdorient.com) un petit texte présentant les Filles de la Charité d’Istanbul avec le double concours de Sr. Catherine – Supérieure de la Communauté -, et de Nathalie Ritzmann (journaliste française habitant Istanbul). Voici le lien pour retrouver facilement trace de cet article : http://chretiensdorient.over-blog.com/2015/09/des-filles-de-la-charite-a-istanbul-hopital-de-la-paix-une-histoire-de-coeur.html

A l’automne dernier Sœur Catherine est partie d’Istanbul pour une autre mission…, en France ! Elle continue de vivre sa vocation dans un lieu cher à la Famille vincentienne ; et plus particulièrement aux Filles de la Charité. Avant son départ, j’ai rencontré eux fois la Communauté. La première fois, j’y suis allé seul ; et la seconde fois j’accompagnais le Père Lazare de Gérin, cm (en ministère depuis de nombreuses années après avoir été à Jérusalem et en Iran). Ce jour-là, je présidais la Messe, et nous avions partagé le repas avec la petite communauté de l’hôpital, qui a été pendant longtemps le seul hôpital psychiatrique d’Istanbul ; et qui le demeure de nos jours.

Sœur Catherine revenait sur la période durant laquelle elle a été à Istanbul. Une grâce…, et milles grâces pour ce qui a été vécu, pour les personnes et les situations rencontrées, pour la Turquie et ses habitants. Elle n’en finissait pas de louer le Seigneur par maints sourires et des mots tous aussi doux qu’émouvants. Il y avait parmi cette « communauté française », une sœur malade : Sœur Irène. C’était la Sœur grecque de la communauté, qui compte en fait une française, une italienne, une vietnamienne, une grecque, et une Sœur slovène (retournée dans son pays).

Sœur Irène a été dans la communauté plus précisément la sacristine. Toujours avec un doux sourire, des petites histoires, de la gentillesse, et offrant un bel accueil à « la mode de Monsieur Vincent ». Avec ses Compagnes, Sœur Irène a participé à plusieurs missions à l’hôpital, dans Istanbul, mais aussi sur la proposition de Nathalie Ritzmann auprès de réfugiés. Nathalie avait trouvé là de vraies Servantes des Pauvres qui voulaient simplement malgré leur âge et leur inexpérience en la matière SERVIR ! Je reprends ci-après l’article publié en 2015, ainsi que les photos jointes. Sœur Irène était au milieu de ses Sœurs. Je l’ai revue à Istanbul cette année au mois de septembre. Elle était très fatiguée par les soins et une très méchante maladie qu’il est coutume par pudeur ou par peur de taire le nom… Cela devenait pour elle de plus en plus difficile de se tenir debout, assise… Cependant, elle essayait tant bien que mal vivre ces temps de partage, de présence au cœur de ses Sœurs. Elle gardait le sourire, la paix dans la prière et l’espérance. Au moment du départ, elle m’a demandé si elle me reverrait. Je lui ai dit que oui en sachant que ce ne serait certainement pas cela qui arriverait, et que le rendez-vous serait à remettre beaucoup plus tard dans une autre vie… Le 19 octobre de cette année, Mgr Rubén Tierrablanca Gonzalez, ofm – Vicaire apostolique des Latins d’Istanbul – célébrait les obsèques de notre chère Sœur Irène.

La vie à Istanbul continue, et la Communauté poursuit sa route même si la physionomie n’est pas à l’identique de ce qu’elle était. L’esprit de Monsieur Vincent et de Sainte Louise de Marillac est toujours présent pour servir les Pauvres, les malades, les personnes atteintes de ces pathologies psychiatriques lourdes…, que l’on met à l’écart de la vie des Hommes. Elles sont là comme des sentinelles au milieu d’un monde majoritairement musulman. Pacifiques et accueillantes à toute réalité, elles se donnent et s’abandonnent dans les bras de la Providence comme Sœur Irène.

Merci à celle qui vient de rejoindre le Père.

Merci à Sœur Catherine pour son sourire, pour son rayonnement et son élan toujours positif et curieux.

Merci aux Sœurs de l’Hôpital de la Paix de vivre comme de vraies Filles de Monsieur Vincent !

Bonne Fête de la Médaille Miraculeuse !!!

Père Patrice Sabater Pardo, cm

Par défaut

France-Irak Actualité : MEURTRE DE JAMAL KHASHOGGI: les questions de Recep Tayyip Erdogan et le communiqué de Donald Trump

France-Irak Actualité : actualités sur l’Irak, le Proche-Orient, du Golfe à l’Atlantique

Analyses, informations et revue de presse sur la situation en Irak, au Proche-Orient, du Golfe à l’Atlantique. Traduction d’articles parus dans la presse arabe ou anglo-saxonne, enquêtes et informations exclusives.

Accueil
Catégories »
Pages »
Newsletter
Contact

MEURTRE DE JAMAL KHASHOGGI: les questions de Recep Tayyip Erdogan et le communiqué de Donald Trump

Publié par Gilles Munier sur 26 Novembre 2018, 14:47pm

Catégories : #khashoggi, #erdogan, #trump

Tribune de Recep Tayyip Erdogan

dans le Washington Post*

2 novembre 2018

L’Arabie saoudite a à répondre

à encore beaucoup de questions

en ce qui concerne le meurtre de Khashoggi

L’histoire est des plus connue : Jamal Khashoggi, un journaliste saoudien et homme de famille, a pénétré dans le consulat d’Arabie saoudite le 2 octobre pour y accomplir des formalités de mariage. Personne – pas même sa fiancée qui l’attendait dehors – ne l’a jamais revu depuis. Au cours de ce dernier mois, la Turquie a remué ciel et terre pour apporter de la lumière sur tous les aspects de ce cas. C’est ainsi que tout le monde a su que Khashoggi avait été froidement assassiné par une équipe spécialisée, et que ce meurtre avait été prémédité.

Cela dit, d’autres questions non moins importantes requièrent des réponses qui nous aideront à comprendre cet acte lamentable. Où est le corps de Khashoggi ? Qui était ce « collaborateur local » à qui les Saoudiens auraient soit disant remis le corps ? Qui a donné l’ordre de tuer cette pauvre âme ? Malheureusement, les autorités saoudiennes refusent d’y répondre.

Nous savons que les auteurs de ces crimes font partie des 18 suspects détenus en Arabie saoudite. Nous savons aussi que ces personnes sont venues pour exécuter des ordres : tuer Khashoggi et repartir. Finalement, nous savons que ces ordres sont venus des strates les plus élevées du gouvernement saoudien. Certains espèrent que ce problème disparaîtra avec le temps. Mais nous continuerons à poser ces questions, qui sont cruciales pour l’enquête criminelle turque, mais aussi la famille et les proches de Khashoggi. Un mois après sa mort, nous ne savons toujours pas où est son corps. Il mérite au minimum un enterrement conforme aux coutumes musulmanes. Nous le devons à sa famille et à ses amis, y compris à ses collègues du Post, leur donner l’opportunité de faire leurs adieux et de présenter leur respect à cet homme honorable. Pour s’assurer que tout le monde continue de poser ces questions, nous avons partagé les preuves avec nos alliés et amis, y compris les Etats-Unis.

Alors que nous continuons de chercher les réponses, je voudrais souligner que la Turquie et l’Arabie Saoudite entretiennent des relations amicales. Je ne crois pas une seconde que le roi Salman, le gardien des mosquées sacrées, ait ordonné le meurtre de Khashoggi. Je n’ai donc aucune raison de penser que ce meurtre reflète la politique officielle de l’Arabie saoudite. En ce sens, nous aurions tort de concevoir le meurtre de Khashoggi comme un problème entre les deux pays. Cependant, je dois ajouter que notre amitié avec Riyad n’est pas une raison pour fermer les yeux sur le meurtre prémédité qui s’est déroulé sous nos propres yeux. L’assassinat de Khashoggi est inexplicable. Si une telle atrocité avait eu lieu aux Etats-Unis ou ailleurs, les autorités de ces pays seraient allées au fond des choses. Et il est hors de question pour nous de faire autrement. A l’avenir personne n’osera commettre un tel crime sur le sol d’un pays allié de l’OTAN. S’il quelqu’un choisit d’ignorer l’avertissement, il devra en assumer les conséquences. Le meurtre de Khashoggi était une violation claire et un abus flagrant de la Convention de Vienne sur les relations consulaires. Si un tel acte reste impuni, on risque de créer un précédent. C’est pour cette raison aussi que nous avons été choqués et attristés par les efforts de certains représentants saoudiens pour couvrir un meurtre prémédité au lieu de servir la justice, ainsi que notre amitié l’exigerait. Bien que Riyad détienne 18 suspects, il est inquiétant de voir qu’aucune mesure n’ait été prise à l’encontre du consul général saoudien, qui a menti comme un arracheur de dents aux médias s’empressant de quitter la Turquie peu de temps après. De même, le refus du procureur saoudien – qui a récemment rendu visite à son homologue turc – de coopérer à l’enquête et de répondre à de simples questions est très frustrant.

L’invitation faite aux enquêteurs turcs de se rendre en Arabie saoudite pour poursuivre les discussions ressemble à une tactique dilatoire délibérée et désespérée.

Le meurtre de Jamal Khashoggi implique beaucoup plus qu’un groupe de membres de la sécurité saoudienne, tout comme le Watergate était bien plus qu’une simple effraction, et que les attaques du 11 septembre ne s’arrêtaient pas aux pirates de l’air.

En tant que membre responsable de la communauté internationale ; nous nous devons de révéler les identités de ceux qui tirent les ficelles du meurtre Khashoggi et de découvrir le nom de ceux en qui les représentants saoudiens, qui cherchent toujours à couvrir le meurtre, ont placé leur confiance.

Recep Tayyip Erdogan est le président de la Turquie.

Traduction et Synthèse : Z.E pour France-Irak Actualité

*Source : Recep Tayyip Erdogan: Saudi Arabia still has many questions to answer about Jamal Khashoggi’s killing (Washington Post- 2/11/18)

______

Déclaration du Président Donald J. Trump

sur son soutien à l’Arabie Saoudite**

20 novembre 2018

L’Amérique d’abord !

Le monde est un endroit très dangereux !

L’Iran, par exemple, est responsable d’une guerre par procuration contre l’Arabie saoudite au Yémen, tentant de déstabiliser les fragiles essais démocratiques de l’Irak, soutenant le group terroriste Hezbollah au Liban, renforçant le dictateur Bachar el Assad en Syrie (qui a tué des millions de ses concitoyens) et plus encore. De la même façon les Iraniens ont tué de nombreux Américains et autres personnes innocentes au Moyen-Orient. L’Iran déclare ouvertement et avec beaucoup de vigueur : « Mort à l’Amérique » et « Mort à Israël ». L’Iran est considéré comme le plus grand sponsors du terrorisme.

De l’autre côté, l’Arabie saoudite voudrait bien se retirer du Yémen si les Iraniens acceptaient de partir. Elle offrirait immédiatement l’aide humanitaire qui fait tant défaut. De plus, elle est prête à dépenser des milliards de dollars dans la lutte contre le terrorisme islamique radical.

Après mon voyage âprement négocié en Arabie saoudite l’an dernier, le Royaume a accepté d’investir 450 milliards de dollars aux Etats-Unis. C’est une somme record. Cela va créer des milliers d’emplois, permettre un développement économique énorme, et de la richesse supplémentaire pour les Etats-Unis. Sur ces 450 milliards de dollars, 110 milliards seront alloués à l’achat d’équipement militaire à Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon et beaucoup d’autres excellents entrepreneurs dans le domaine de la défense américaine. Si nous annulons ces contrats de manière ridicule, la Chine et la Russie seraient les bénéficiaires de ces contrats et très heureux de s’approprier toutes ces nouvelles occasions de faire des affaires. Pour eux, ce serait un cadeau merveilleux de la part des Etats-Unis !

Le crime contre Jamal Khashoggi est mal, un crime que notre pays ne tolère pas. En effet, nous avons pris des mesures fortes à l’encontre de ceux qui ont participé à ce meurtre. Après une investigation indépendante, nous connaissons les détails de ce crime atroce. Nous avons pris des sanctions contre 17 ressortissants d’Arabie saoudite que nous savons impliqués dans le meurtre et la disparition de son corps.

Les représentants de l’Arabie saoudite déclarent que Jamal Khashoggi était un « ennemi de l’Etat » et un membre des Frères Musulmans, mais ma décision n’est en rien fondée sur ces faits, c’est un crime inacceptable et horrible. Nos services secrets continuent d’évaluer toutes les informations, mais il se pourrait bien que le prince héritier ait été au courant de cet évènement tragique – ou peut-être qu’il ne l’était pas !

Cela étant dit, il est possible que nous ne sachions jamais tous les faits qui entourent le meurtre de Jamal Khashoggi. De toute façon, la relation que nous avons est avec l’Arabie saoudite. Elle a été une grande alliée dans notre très importante lutte contre l’Iran. Les Etats-Unis continueront d’apporter leur soutien indéfectible à l’Arabie saoudite afin d’assurer les intérêts de notre pays, d’Israël et de tous les autres partenaires dans la région. Notre objectif primordial est l’élimination complète de la menace terroriste dans le monde !

Je sais qu’il y a des membres du Congrès qui, pour des raisons politiques, préfèrent prendre une direction différente – et ils sont libres de le faire. Je prendrai en considération toute idée qui me sera présentée mais seulement si elle est en ligne avec la sécurité et la sûreté absolue des Etats-Unis. L’Arabie saoudite est le plus gros exportateur de pétrole après les Etats-Unis. Elle a travaillé étroitement avec nous et a été réceptive à ma requête de garder les prix à un niveau raisonnable – ce qui est si important pour le monde. En tant que président des Etats-Unis, je vais m’assurer que dans ce monde si dangereux, l’Amérique poursuive ses intérêts nationaux et je m’opposerai vigoureusement à tous les pays qui veulent nous faire du mal. Ça s’appelle tout simplement l’Amérique d’abord!

**Source : whitehouse.gov

Traduction et Synthèse : Z.E pour France-Irak Actualité

Par défaut

Blondet & Friends: La Bomba a Bin Salman. Un’altra buona idea neocon.

Blondet & Friends:
La Bomba a Bin Salman. Un’altra buona idea neocon.
La Bomba a Bin Salman. Un’altra buona idea neocon.
Maurizio Blondet 26 novembre 2018

L’Arabia Saudita sta negoziando con gli Stati Uniti l’acquisto di varie centrali nucleari Westinghouse, inizialmente 16, per 80 miliardi di dollari, oggi comunque ne sono previste due. E ovviamente l’Arabia Saudita, nel negoziato, ha chiarito che rifiuterà ogni ispezione di ispettori ONU che dovrebbero controllare che il reuccio assassino e impulsivo si limiti, in queste centrali, ad arricchire l’uranio al 4% e non a 95%, onde farsi la Bomba.

Lo ha rivelato il New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/22/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-nuclear.htmlt

prima che l’impulsivo Bin Salman ordinasse l’omicidio del giornalista Kashoggi nel consolato turco, Rick Perry, il ministro dell’Energia americano (dal ministero dell’energia dipendono le produzioni atomiche anche non civili) ha intrattenuto intensi negoziati segreti con Riyad a fine 2017; interrogato dal Congresso se, almeno l’amministrazione Trump avesse insistito perché al regno oscurantista e wahabita fosse vietata la produzione interna di uranio (o regno ha giacimenti del minerale), Perry ha evitato la domanda. In realtà Khalid Al Falil, il ministro dell’energia saudita, ha dichiarato che “ il regno ha i suoi depositi di uranio e desidera svilupparli piuttosto che affidarsi a un fornitore estero”, anche se costerebbe meno. “Non è naturale”, ha detto, “per noi portare l’uranio arricchito da un paese straniero”. Questo lo disse a marzo, dopo una conferenza-stampa alla fine di un altro colloqui con Perry, minacciando che se non forniranno tecnologia e assistenza gli Stati Uniti, i wahabiti “hanno altre opzioni”, ossia possono farsi assistere (secondo gente della Cia che lo ha riferito al New York Times) “dai russi o dalla Corea”. Così se e quando si scoprirà che il reuccio ha la Bomba in violazione dei trattati i non proliferazione, sarà stato Putin.

Si sa del resto che l’Arabia Saudita ha sostanzialmente finanziato la creazione dell’arsenale atomico del Pakistan (che non aveva i mezzi) e si ritiene che Riyad possa dunque reclamare, al bisogno, un uso in condominio di questa Bomba, magari con lo spostamento degli specialisti militari pakistani sul territorio saudita. Il regno wahabita dispone anche dei vettori, missili a medio raggio equipaggiabili con testate nucleari, che ha comprato nel 1988 dalla Cina.

Da quel che si capisce, gli Usa starebbero per rendere Ryad capace di gestire l’intero processo, dal minerale all’arricchimento, in modo autonomo. Ciò supera di molto la proposta che su sostenuta dal generale Michael T. Flynn, nel breve periodo in cui è stato consigliere della sicurezza nazionale di Trump: di fornire Ryad di reattori in collaborazione con Mosca (per reciproca garanzia), ma non della capacità di produrre in proprio il combustibile atomico.

Ciò è un bello e istruttivo contrasto con il trattamento che Trump ha fatto subire all’Iran: benché Teheran abbia accettato di non produrre proprio uranio arricchito per 15 anni, e accettato di mandare all’estero il 95% della sua produzione sotto garanzia di Russia ed UE, Trump ha stracciato unilateralmente il patto e applicato più severe sanzioni – ovviamente fra gli applausi della nota lobby, che ha condotto una campagna sfrenata (anche in Europa, dove si sono profusi i radicali) contro l’Iran nucleare e i pericoli che faceva correre al mondo intero.

Invece adesso la Bomba in mano al reuccio criminosamente impulsivo, del paese che sta massacrando lo Yemen dopo aver finanziato la distruzione della Siria creando Daesh in alleanza occulta con Usa e Occidente, non rappresenta più un pericolo per nessuno.

Chiunque è in grado qui di sospettare un certo influsso del diritto talmudico nella famiglia del presidente Donald, grazie all’intima amicizia del genero Kushner (Habad Lubawitcher) sia con l’impulsivo Bin Salman sia con noti ambienti israeliani assetati di distruggere l’Iran, non meno del regno saudita.
Trump: “Israele sarebbe nei guai senza Arabia Saudita”

Del resto non occorre sospettare nulla, perché Trump l’ha detto chiarissimo in una conferenza stampa del 23 novembre spiegando perché lui non crede alla colpa del re wahabita nell’assassinio di Kashoggi: “Israele sarebbe nei guai senza Arabia Saudita…Volete che Israele vada via (sparisca)? Abbiamo un forte alleato nell’Arabia Saudita”.

https://www.trtworld.com/middle-east/israel-would-be-in-big-trouble-without-saudi-arabia-trump-21888

“Trump si lascia incidentalmente scappare la verità: il regime saudita, fulcro mondiale dell’oscurantismo islamico, serve per la sopravvivenza di Israele ed è un buon affare per gli Usa, ecco perché non lo si può boicottare”, commenta l’amico Erriu.
Bil Kristol ha un’idea: destabilizzare la Cina

La strategia per la quale Israele ha mobiltato l’America contro “il terrore globale”, non conosce ripiegamenti o stanche.

” Gli USA addestrano 30.000 combattenti curdi per “contenere l’Iran” in Siria ( L’Antidiplomatico)

“Crimea, Russia: Mosca spara contro navi ucraine che hanno sconfinato”, minaccxiando il grande ponte di nuov costruzione che unisce la Crimea alla madrepatria per via d’acqua-. Mentre Kiev ha aumentato enormemente i suoi tiri d’artiglieria sulla repubblica del Donetsk

Poroshenko ha chiesto la legge marziale e lo stato di guerra. Sono in corso misterioose attività di disturbo (jamming) delle trasmissioni radio militari in Europa.

Sputnik News: “Scontro teso tra Russia e Ucraina mentre le navi da guerra si scontrano vicino allo stretto di Kerch. Porošenko è dato nei sondaggi all’8% nelle prossime elezioni e ha chiaramente provocato un conflitto per cercare e rimanere al potere con l’appoggio di USA e Gran Bretagna

rt.com/news/444857-ru…

La rinnovata vicinanza alla Casa Bianca fa sì che si noti una vispa ripresa di attività, di fresche idee e elettrizzanti progetti di quei neocon (j) che hanno “previsto”, voluto e provocato l’11 Settembre per poter lanciare la superpotenza Usa nei seguenti 18 anni di “guerre contro il terrore”, ossia la destabilizzazione sistematica dei Paesi attorno a Israele e di tutto il Mondo Islamico. Per esempio Bill Kristol ha appena lanciato un’idea: Il cambio di regime in Cina non dovrebbe essere un importante obbiettivo della politica estera statunitense per il prossimo paio di decenni?”.
Kristol e Kagan, i due fondatori del PNAC

Un paio di decenni per il regime change in Cina, dopo due decenni di destabilizzazione di Irak, Siria, Libia Afghanistan in frenetica attesa della distruzione del regime in Iran, l’ormai unico rimasto nemico principale? Bill Kristol sa esattamente quello che dice. Celebre direttore del Weekly Standard, è stato, insieme a Robert Kagan (j) marito di Victoria Nuland (Nudelman la destabilizzatrice dell’Ucraina) il fondatore del PNAC – Project for a New American Century: quel “pensatoio” stra-affollato di J (James Rubin, Elliot Abrams (j), Robert Zoellick (j), Martin Indyk dirigente dell’ American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) che nell’anno 2000 pubblicò quel piano chiamato “Rebuilding American Defense” (Ricostruire la Difesa Americana). Era, rivolto al futuro presidente Usa che ancora non si sapeva chi sarebbe stato (fu Bush jr.) l’immenso progetto di riarmo e bellicismo americano cui dobbiamo la condizione in cui è il globo: “L’America” vi si leggeva, “deve preservare ed estendere la sua posizione di leadership globale mantenendo la superiorità delle forze armate USA”. E’ il documento in cui si auspicava “un evento catalizzatore, come una nuova Pearl Harbor” per convincere i cittadini ai sacrifici economici e sociali di questo nuovo riarmo. Allora, avevano fretta di abbattere Saddam Hussein, che da modernizzatore stava facendo dell’Irak una media potenza regionale, e aiutare i curdi a farsi uno stato, destabilizzante di Siria, Irak, Iran.

Adesso gli stessi ambienti vedono bene, in funzione anti-Iran, fornire la Bomba al criminale folle saudita, loro ormai aperto alleato. L’atomica a Bin Salman: che cosa può andare storto?

E intanto, perché no, una sovversione della Cina per vent’anni. Non vi sembrino sogni impossibili: la “guerra al terrore” di Bush jr. sta durando da quasi altrettanto. I neocon sono tornati pieni di nuove idee per il genero Kushner.

https://vdare.com/posts/regime-change-in-china-the-kristol-never-rests

Par défaut