Il y a 3 commentaires associés à cet article. Vous pouvez les consulter et réagir à votre tour.
2181Nous connaissons bien l’époque où nous nous trouvons ; la “lecture longue”, non-postmoderniste et antimoderniste, y est devenue une nécessité pour survivre dans cette époque qui ne connaît que la vitesse et l’aveuglement, ou bien du temps perdu pour d’autres occupations dont la futilité et l’inversion sont la marque de cette même époque. Au-dessus de tout cela, dans ces temps où le système de la communication domine tout pour s’imposer comme le champ de la bataille suprême avec comme arme principale la tromperie, la lecture constitue un risque majeur d’errance et de chute. Nous sommes bien conscients de tout cela lorsque nous proposons une lecture abondante, disons une “lecture longue” (sinon “difficile”) mais nous n’avons d’autres arguments que celui de notre passé, c’est-à-dire de notre expérience, pour ceux qui nous connaissent ; pour les autres, nous ne proposons que le risque de prendre son temps dans cette désolation du monde pour en faire ce que l’on décide soi-même pour le meilleur de soi-même...
Cette introduction, qui pourrait d’ailleurs servir pour nombre de nos textes et qui donc resservira, accompagne le commentaire que nous faisons de deux textes d’une certaine longueur, en anglais qui plus est, concernant l’avenir immédiat ou à très court terme, de l’administration Trump qui n’existe pas encore. Elle est là pour le constat et rien d’autre : nous travaillons comme cela, conscients des désavantages de la méthode, mais confiants dans ses vertus ; offrant le paradoxe apparent et faussaire de lutter contre le “règne de la quantité” avec ce que des esprits courts jugeraient être “de la quantité” justement... Mais nous nous comprenons, espérons-nous ; et s’il n’en reste qu’un, nous serons celui-là...
Les deux auteurs consultés trouvent dans notre jugement un certain crédit, pour diverses raisons qu’il serait inutile de rappeler, puisque ce serait à nouveau parler de “notre passé, c’est-à-dire de notre expérience”, etc., – c’est-à-dire de ce que nous sommes. Bref, nous faisons une certaine confiance à Wayne Madsen, que nous avons déjà cité à plusieurs reprises, et à l’auteur “Tyler” sur le site STT (Sic Semper Tyrannis) du colonel Lang, que nous avons rencontré épisodiquement sur ce site d’excellente qualité, et qui s’est avéré de l’aveu même de Lang qui prévoyait différemment, extrêmement avisé et clairvoyant concernant Trump et sa campagne tout au long de USA-2016.
Nous reprenons donc leurs textes d’une part pour ce que nous jugeons être les meilleures raisons du monde quant à leur qualité ; d’autre part parce qu’ils offrent deux perspectives différentes sinon opposées, mais nullement antagonistes, et d’ailleurs portant sur des périodes différentes de ce “temps court” qui figure dans notre titre. Madsen parle de la portion extrême, presque immédiate, de ce “temps court”, en évoquant les dangers effectivement immédiats qui pèsent sur Trump avant même qu’il ait fait quoi que ce soit ; “Tyler”, lui, parle des perspectives de “temps court” en temps réel, soit les six premiers mois d’une administration Trump. (Nous mettons des guillemets à “Tyler”, ignorant s’il s’agit d’un nom ou d’un pseudo, etc.).
Parlant des dangers menaçant Trump, Madsen offre nécessairement le côté pessimiste de l’observation de ce “temps court”. (Et encore ne parle-t-il pas de tous les “dangers”, dont certains ont d’ailleurs des côtés paradoxalement attrayants, – cela, si Trump ne parvient pas à être ce Patton capable de développer “très-très vite” cette « tactique [ne] créant [pas] la stratégie du point de vue conceptuel, mais du point de vue opérationnel, parce que la forme et l’orientation de la stratégie autorisée sont elles-mêmes imposées par les événements tels qu’ils ont agencé la situation générale de type métahistorique ».) Madsen distingue deux dangers principaux : l’infiltration et l’agression.
Le premier, l’infiltration, concerne l’investissement d’une administration Trump par des créatures diverses provenant du courant supposé contraire à celui qui a porté Trump à la présidence : Madsen parle notamment des neocons, en notant justement qu’une partie des soutiens de Trump depuis l’origine contient une fraction de ces neocons (par exemple, John Bolton, dont l’engagement est décrit comme neocon-nationaliste, au contraire des neocons-globalistes) ; il parle surtout des différents canaux par lesquels l’establishment pro-guerre peut s’infiltrer largement dans une administration Trump dont la construction s’avère très délicate du fait du désordre régnant aux USA, tant dans les rues que dans les étiquettes washingtoniennes. Madsen juge qu’il y a bien assez dans la « multitude de partisans de Trump qui ont une somme d’expérience dans les affaires extérieures et de sécurité nationale [...] et qui ne sont pas neocons », pour ne pas tomber dans le piège de l’infiltration.
L’autre danger, c’est l’agression, qu’on constate tous les jours dans les rues des villes US, et dans diverses initiatives qui contestent radicalement l’élection de Trump. Madsen cite évidemment aussitôt Soros et ses “révolutions de couleur”, et bien entendu il tape juste. Mais nous soupçonnerions aisément qu’il n’y a pas que ce parti-là, qu’il y a bien d’autres pressions, venant d’autres domaines du camp progressiste dans le sens le plus large du mot. “Tyler”, lui, tient cette agitation pour négligeable, dans le second texte que nous proposons, notamment grâce au soutien dont Trump disposerait aussi bien du côté des structures sécuritaires que de la population dans la mesure où son programme contient une plate-forme importante du type “loi et ordre”. Il note également, mais tient pour assez aisément contrôlable, le danger de l’infiltration de la dialectique neocon par le biais de certains personnages. Selon “Tyler”, Trump est assez avisé pour écarter toutes ces tendances qui ont marqué les présidences GW Bush et Obama.
“Tyler” est donc optimiste pour les six premiers mois de Trump, le “temps court” considéré dans toute sa durée. Il apporte de nombreuses précisions et une argumentation très structurée ; il est donc très utile pour accroître la connaissance que nous devons savoir des conditions et des circonstances précises d’une vision optimiste du “temps court” des débuts de Trump. Pour autant, même son texte n’écarte pas la sensation qu’on commence à avoir, et que le texte de Madsen alimente à juste titre, de la puissance du désordre qui règne aux USA et à Washington particulièrement, et qui désormais joue contre Trump... Un simple exemple montre que les étiquettes elle-même, et les jugements bien documentés, peuvent se trouver ébranlés : “Tyler“ l’optimiste place parmi les partisans d’une politique guerrière marquée des “platitudes neocons” dans l’équipe Trump, notamment vis-à-vis de la Russie, le Général Flynn que nous avons suivi avec attention, et qui nous a donné une toute autre impression, notamment dans ses rapports avec la Russie, y compris du point de vue opérationnel : « The appearance of those who espouse certain neocon platitudes (Bolton, Flynn), should be noted, but... ».
Il ne s’agit pas ici de débattre des véritables options du Général Flynn, dont on sait par ailleurs qu’il a écrit son livre (“The Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its Allies”) avec, comme co-auteur, Michael Ledeen, neocon notoire mais tout de même plus exotique et insaisissable que le courant de la bande. Il s’agit de mettre en évidence, répétons-nous, “la puissance du désordre qui règne aux USA et à Washington particulièrement, et qui désormais joue contre Trump”. C’est là un point fondamental, certes... La grande vertu de Trump, tout au long de sa campagne fut d’introduire, d’alimenter, de rendre démesuré le désordre à Washington D.C. à l’intérieur des structures de l’establishment, donc à l’intérieur du Système. En cela, il était formidablement antiSystème. Que se passe-t-il si, aujourd’hui, étant élu comme on l’a vu l’être, c’est lui qui devient la cible du désordre, et qu’il se trouve devant la tâche redoutable de lutter contre le désordre en s’appuyant tout de même, – comment faire autrement, – sur les structures qu’il a contribué à fortement endommager mais qui subsistent évidemment ?
C’est bien pour cette raison que nous avons proposé l’hypothèse-Patton. En deux jours, depuis la parution de ce texte, ce que nous jugions comme une nécessité sans trop en faire un cas vital pour lui, une sorte de “tout ou rien”, semble devenir cela justement : une nécessité vitale et un cas de “tout ou rien”, et sa seule voie de survie immédiate. Certes, nous écrivions « C’est pourquoi, au terme, qui doit s’avérer être très court, la seule chance pour Trump d’éviter l’enlisement est de faire jouer, s’il l’a réellement, l’autre aspect de ses qualités de businessman qui s’oppose à la lenteur nécessaire des qualités de négociateur et d’arrangeur, c’est-à-dire décider très vite et aller encore plus vite » ; mais aujourd’hui, deux jours plus tard, même cette exhortation pourtant si pressante nous paraît insuffisante... Nous dirions : mais il devrait déjà avoir commencé à “aller encore plus vite”, et cela devrait déjà se savoir, et déjà avoir provoqué un grand retentissement, quelque chose qui vraiment le ferait classer comme un ‘“révolutionnaire”. Trump est placé devant l’incendie du désordre qu’il a lui-même contribué à alimenter, et contre cela une seule technique est possible, celle du contre-feu, encore plus de désordre contre le désordre pour au bout du compte étouffer le désordre à son avantage et seule l’“hypothèse-Patton” (assortie de la “technique-Gorbatchev”) lui en donne l’occasion...
(Le contre-feu, c’est ceci : « ...cette occurrence où, placés dans des circonstances géographiques et climatiques particulières face à un immense incendie de forêt progressant vers eux, les pompiers décident de brûler en le contrôlant un espace de forêt devant l’incendie principal, d’éteindre cet “incendie contrôlé” après qu’un espace suffisant ait été consumé, et d’y attendre l’incendie principal qui, rencontrant une bande de terre brûlée, diminuera radicalement d’intensité et pourra être à son tour maîtrisé. »)
Écrivant tout cela, nous mesurons encore plus l’ampleur extraordinaire de la tâche et doutons un peu plus qu’elle puisse être accomplie, et cela deux jours plus tard... (du même texte Trump-Patton d’avant-hier : « C’est un programme colossal, d’une audace extrême, au point qu’on peut se demander si l’on ne décrit pas un idéal d’action politique pour temps de la Grande Crise impossible à réaliser... »). Chaque jour qui passe à Washington D.C. complique la situation, et d’ailleurs dans une mesure où l’opposition forcenée qui s’est levée contre Trump constatera très vite, elle-même, qu’elle se trouve confrontée à des contradictions et des responsabilités considérables. La saga de la crise USA-2016 qu’on peut songer déjà à étiqueter crise USA-2016/2017, – sinon Grande Crise tout court des USA, – est loin d’être close ni même en mode de croisière un peu apaisée. Ces points de vue (les nôtres) peuvent paraître varier, jusqu’à être contradictoires, presque d’un jour à l’autre ; il s’agit du simple constat d’une vérité : cette instabilité extrême est une, – non, plus encore et plus précisément, la vérité-de situation fondamentale des USA aujourd’hui.
Les deux textes que nous introduisons successivement sont donc de Wayne Madsen (le 11 novembre 2016 sur Strategic-Culture.org) et de “Tyler” (le 11 novembre 2016 sur Sic Semper Tyrannis).
__________________
Defeated Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton is not about to “go quietly into that good night”. On the morning after her surprising and unanticipated defeat at the hands of Republican Party upstart Donald Trump, Mrs. Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, entered the ball room of the art-deco New Yorker hotel in midtown Manhattan and were both adorned in purple attire. The press immediately noticed the color and asked what it represented. Clinton spokespeople claimed it was to represent the coming together of Democratic “Blue America” and Republican “Red America” into a united purple blend. This statement was a complete ruse as is known by citizens of countries targeted in the past by the vile political operations of international hedge fund tycoon George Soros.
The Clintons, who both have received millions of dollars in campaign contributions and Clinton Foundation donations from Soros, were, in fact, helping to launch Soros’s “Purple Revolution” in America. The Purple Revolution will resist all efforts by the Trump administration to push back against the globalist policies of the Clintons and soon-to-be ex-President Barack Obama. The Purple Revolution will also seek to make the Trump administration a short one through Soros-style street protests and political disruption.
It is doubtful that President Trump’s aides will advise the new president to carry out a diversionary criminal investigation of Mrs. Clinton’s private email servers and other issues related to the activities of the Clinton Foundation, especially when the nation faces so many other pressing issues, including jobs, immigration, and health care. However, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz said he will continue hearings in the Republican-controlled Congress on Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, and Mrs. Clinton’s aide Huma Abedin. President Trump should not allow himself to be distracted by these efforts. Chaffetz was not one of Trump’s most loyal supporters.
America’s globalists and interventionists are already pushing the meme that because so many establishment and entrenched national security and military “experts” opposed Trump’s candidacy, Trump is “required” to call on them to join his administration because there are not enough such “experts” among Trump’s inner circle of advisers. Discredited neo-conservatives from George W. Bush’s White House, such as Iraq war co-conspirator Stephen Hadley, are being mentioned as someone Trump should have join his National Security Council and other senior positions. George H. W. Bush’s Secretary of State James Baker, a die-hard Bush loyalist, is also being proffered as a member of Trump’s White House team. There is absolutely no reason for Trump to seek the advice from old Republican fossils like Baker, Hadley, former Secretaries of State Rice and Powell, the lunatic former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, and others. There are plenty of Trump supporters who have a wealth of experience in foreign and national security matters, including those of African, Haitian, Hispanic, and Arab descent and who are not neocons, who can fill Trump’s senior- and middle-level positions.
Trump must distance himself from sudden well-wishing neocons, adventurists, militarists, and interventionists and not permit them to infest his administration. If Mrs. Clinton had won the presidency, an article on the incoming administration would have read as follows:
“Based on the militarism and foreign adventurism of her term as Secretary of State and her husband Bill Clinton’s two terms as president, the world is in store for major American military aggression on multiple fronts around the world. President-elect Hillary Clinton has made no secret of her desire to confront Russia militarily, diplomatically, and economically in the Middle East, on Russia’s very doorstep in eastern Europe, and even within the borders of the Russian Federation. Mrs. Clinton has dusted off the long-discredited ‘containment’ policy ushered into effect by Professor George F. Kennan in the aftermath of World War. Mrs. Clinton’s administration will likely promote the most strident neo-Cold Warriors of the Barack Obama administration, including Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, a personal favorite of Clinton ”.
President-elect Trump cannot afford to permit those who are in the same web as Nuland, Hadley, Bolton, and others to join his administration where they would metastasize like an aggressive form of cancer. These individuals would not carry out Trump’s policies but seek to continue to damage America’s relations with Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, and other nations.
Not only must Trump have to deal with Republican neocons trying to worm their way into his administration, but he must deal with the attempt by Soros to disrupt his presidency and the United States with a Purple Revolution
No sooner had Trump been declared the 45th president of the United States, Soros-funded political operations launched their activities to disrupt Trump during Obama’s lame-duck period and thereafter. The swiftness of the Purple Revolution is reminiscent of the speed at which protesters hit the streets of Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, in two Orange Revolutions sponsored by Soros, one in 2004 and the other, ten years later, in 2014.
As the Clintons were embracing purple in New York, street demonstrations, some violent, all coordinated by the Soros-funded Moveon.org and “Black Lives Matter”, broke out in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Oakland, Nashville, Cleveland, Washington, Austin, Seattle, Philadelphia, Richmond, St. Paul, Kansas City, Omaha, San Francisco, and some 200 other cities across the United States.
The Soros-financed Russian singing group “Pussy Riot” released on YouTube an anti-Trump music video titled “Make America Great Again”. The video went “viral»” on the Internet. The video, which is profane and filled with violent acts, portrays a dystopian Trump presidency. Following the George Soros/Gene Sharp script to a tee, Pussy Riot member Nadya Tolokonnikova called for anti-Trump Americans to turn their anger into art, particularly music and visual art. The use of political graffiti is a popular Sharp tactic. The street protests and anti-Trump music and art were the first phase of Soros’s Purple Revolution in America.
President-elect Trump is facing a two-pronged attack by his opponents. One, led by entrenched neo-con bureaucrats, including former Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency director Michael Hayden, former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, and Bush family loyalists are seeking to call the shots on who Trump appoints to senior national security, intelligence, foreign policy, and defense positions in his administration. These neo-Cold Warriors are trying to convince Trump that he must maintain the Obama aggressiveness and militancy toward Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, and other countries. The second front arrayed against Trump is from Soros-funded political groups and media. This second line of attack is a propaganda war, utilizing hundreds of anti-Trump newspapers, web sites, and broadcasters, that will seek to undermine public confidence in the Trump administration from its outset.
One of Trump’s political advertisements, released just prior to Election Day, stated that George Soros, Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen, and Goldman Sachs chief executive officer Lloyd Blankfein, are all part of “a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities”. Soros and his minions immediately and ridiculously attacked the ad as “anti-Semitic”. President Trump should be on guard against those who his campaign called out in the ad and their colleagues. Soros’s son, Alexander Soros, called on Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, and her husband Jared Kushner, to publicly disavow Trump. Soros’s tactics not only seek to split apart nations but also families. Trump must be on guard against the current and future machinations of George Soros, including his Purple Revolution.
____________________
We are two days post election and already seeing people predicting what a potential Trump Administration will look like. Estimates are all over the place, with the people who confidently predicted Trump could never beat Hillary confidently predicting how his administration will be run. Obviously, they have learned nothing. If we are to understand what a Trump Administration will look like, we must consider and accept a few facts to develop a reasonable analysis.
First, Trump is unprecedented in what he has done, and the way he did it. Running a guerilla campaign, the man put to bed the two most prominent political dynasties in the US (the Bushes and the Clintons), in his first national campaign. A reminder: this is a group that contains: 3 former presidents, two governors, a senator, a secretary of state, and the director of the CIA. This is not a feat that should be underplayed or disregarded. I say this because there is a tendency to regard Trump as an “amateur”, and this is reminiscent of the “he is not really trying!” rhetoric we heard during certain parts of the campaign. Keep in mind this accomplishment when trying to figure out how he will go forward or making ridiculous claims.
We must also consider who did not support Trump, and who did. The “NeverTrump” faction was mostly neocons who were upset about his Jacksonian style engagement, and wanted a hot war with Russia over Syria, Pussy Riot, and transsexual bathrooms. The appearance of those who espouse certain neocon platitudes (Bolton, Flynn), should be noted, but it should also be taken into consideration that Trump is a deviously fast learner. The man saw the pitfalls and tar babies that the Bush II and Obama Administrations entered, won the Presidency partially on saying he’d avoid foreign entanglements, and I imagine he knows very well who these people are and what they want. In the case of Bolton, the man’s boisterous nature over certain foreign policy entanglements is offset by the fact he seems very “America First” when it comes to foreign policy. However, the hardcore neocons such as Krauthammer and Wolfowitz will not be allowed within missile distance of a Trump Administration. I wouldn’t freak out about Trump bringing in certain personages, as he seems to adopt the maxim about “friends close, enemies closer”.
The two largest ideological brakes on any neocon influence will be Senator Jeff Sessions and Stephen Miller. These two men are very much opposed to the “invade the world, invite the world” of neocons like McCain and the others, and seem to play some very vital, important role in his administration beyond what their public personage suggests. I would not be surprised to find out that they wield as much influence with the man as Ivanka, and their usage in his administration is likely going to be spectacular in some way. Remember, Sessions has been the Godfather of Immigration Enforcement hawkishness, and is a leading senior senator to boot. The man will get what he wants and can make it happen finally.
More on this. Finally, let us consider Trump personally. While much is made of his oversized, boisterous personality, when we consider the private man we see a different side that is thoughtful, analytical, and not prone to hasty decisions. To borrow a reference from popular culture, he is Tywin Lannister in a way, where he states that if his enemies bend the knee, it is his responsibility to help them to their feet. Look at his treatment of Ted Cruz for instance. While their relationship is tense, Trump hasn’t held Cruz at length, but instead brought him into the campaign. The same goes for Christie, Carson, and others. Each of these men is going to have a role in the new Trump Administration. I would not be surprised if Cruz gets a SCOTUS nod, depending on factors such as how hard will Cruz work for Trump in the Senate.
So, what policies will Trump bring in his first six months? Right now, it seems health care reform and tax reform are on the table, as well as infrastructure. All things we can get behind. I cannot speculate exactly on what is planned, but I will make three broad points on these issues. Health care reform will not be the usual Republican giveaway to big business, but will have a decidedly populist bent while not being socialized for everyone. People don’t want Grandma not getting her check-up, but they also don’t like seeing people get hand-outs. Look for large tax cuts to the middle class as well as corporate tax reform, and infrastructure reform will include funding the wall. Trump will get this by slicing off the Populist Wing of the Democratic Party (Warren & Sanders) and giving them trophies to wave around as showing that they are “with the people”. These overtures have already been made, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he offered one or two them positions in his Administration.
Foreign policy wise, Trump will begin rapprochements with Russia and other “nationalist/populist” governments across the world, such as those Eastern European countries that refused to heed the diktats of the EU. Trump married an Eastern European after all, and one of his ex-wives is Eastern European. Obviously, the man has a fondness for the region. Look for closer ties with these countries beyond “catspaw against Russia”.
Speaking of Russia, look for an axis to form between the two countries with respect not only for spheres of influence, but cultural considerations as well. There will be less of the attempt to impose secular hedonism on the world, but instead a respect for how each nation tends to its affairs. Ironically, it will be an actual diversity instead of the faux diversity espoused by the globalist adherents of secular hedonism. In the short term, look for the conflict in Syria to wrapped up neatly (as these things go), by the end of the year.
On the domestic front, you are already seeing the resurrection of the paid Soros mobs that exist to sow chaos and attempt to cause an overreaction by the authorities. Think of these as domestic “color revolutions” and funded Maidan Squares. Again, the Left doubles down on a failed policy. It refuses to realize that Trump ran on a law and order platform, and he knows what he owes the people who put him in power. You will see a series of short, sharp responses from an unchained law enforcement able to do its job. There will be the usual MSM propaganda showing the one bleeding baby and woman while claiming that you had a (white) police officer giving them the business with both hands on his nightstick. Rioters will inevitably be classified as “peaceful protesters” even as the vehicles are on fire around them. The MSM will further lose cachet. Some of you wonder why Trump wants to expand libel laws against the media – here is why. It is the nature of the Left, which is in permanent revolution, to overplay its hand. We are seeing it again.
On immigration, Trump does not need to pass broad sweeping laws. He only needs to enforce the ones on the books, something the Obama Administration has not been doing. Look for cries of outrage when Trump replaces many US Attorneys (like when Bush II did the same), and remember this wasn’t an issue when Obama did the same thing. Cutting off aid to sanctuary cities, enforcing immigration law, and making the process of living in the US so onerous for those here illegally will go a long way to reducing our illegal alien population.
Remember when I mentioned Senator Sessions? I would not be surprised if he has stacks of papers on what can already be done. Again, look for more staged incidents of “brutality” in order to attempt to shape a narrative. You are about to be surprised by the amount of would be doctors and rocket scientists claiming to exist in the illegal alien population. Furthermore, Trump does not need to pass a law to build a wall. He simply needs it in the budget. I imagine he will have no problem getting that and pointing towards anyone who attempts to obstruct it as putting the needs of foreign citizens before US citizens. This is powerful rhetoric.
I’ll close by saying let us remember that “everyone” said Trump couldn’t win. Trump did win. Do not make the mistake of assuming Trump won’t do what he says he’s done so you can sleep easier, forming opinions on a mirage you create in the space of your mind. Instead, my friends on the Left, worry that he will not only do what he said he would, but he’ll go above and beyond, and the people will love him for it.
Forum — Charger les commentaires
-
