segunda-feira, 4 de junho de 2018

Italy, France, U.K., The U.S. Descent into “Cartoon Democracy”

The elections in Italy have pulled the veil back from the face of capitalist democracy and shown it to be a sham, a con game run by capital, with the stronger capitalists ever plotting the demise of the smaller ones and all of them plotting to stab the working majority in the back while fleecing their pockets to make, through systemised theft, something called profit.
Except in the socialist nations, working people have no say whatsoever in the control of the economy and their well-being. They are forced instead to play an insulting game in which various parties of capital offer them candidates to choose from, in what are called “elections,” but which in fact are selections, that is, a system of appointing, through the illusion of the popular will, pre-selected candidates of capital to carry out capital’s agenda while candidates that represent the interests of the majority who have to work for a living are not permitted to be heard or are marginalised and ridiculed.
In Italy the real socialist left, the Italian Communist Party, has been reformed and performed well relatively speaking in the elections but its recent reappearance in the swamp of populist, liberal and right wing parties was too late to prevent the sad charade that is taking place with the 5 Star Movement making a coalition deal with the right wing Northern League party to form a government only to have their nominee of finance minister blocked by the intervention of Germany, resulting in a fracturing of the coalition, and cries of Berlin tyranny when it is the tyranny if German and Italian capital working together that has produced this mess. The Italian press are pretending to be shocked by this German intervention, made so directly and openly in thwarting the so-called democratic will of the people while the Germans complain about the irresponsible Italians threatening the euro, the EU and German capital’s control of Europe.
Meanwhile in France President Macron, the messenger boy for French and German capital, and selected by them against the will of the working people, is trying to force through what are termed politely “reforms,’ a euphemism for all out class war against working people by capital to make their lives poorer, more difficult, more miserable in order to enrich themselves. When one person steals something from a citizen it is called robbery but when the entire citizenry is robbed by a few, the word used is not robbery but “labour flexibility.” And it is always the working men and women who have to be more “flexible,” never the capitalists. Again, in France, the series of strikes by unions to try to protect themselves from this robbery are hobbled by still weak political support from the French left. To defeat the “reforms” a general strike is necessary to bring down the Macron government as some labour leaders have called for, a revolutionary development if it took place but there is no strong organised political organisation to effectively organise and maintain such an action. The French Communist Party has joined in marches and adds its support to the struggle but it is not the powerful force it once was since it discredited itself by joining government of capital in the past with the good intentions of having a say at the table, but only succeeded in giving ground to capital to carry out “austerity” the word they use all the time for the deliberate impoverishment of the people.
In Britain, whose working class has been devastated for 40 years by the combined austerity assault of the Tories and so-called Labour Party, the majority vote to leave the European Union is being thwarted at every step by the very people that arranged the vote under pressure from British and foreign capital that benefits from Britain remaining in the EU while free speech is trampled on. Canada, whose working class, usually mislabelled a “middle class,” has suffered increasing cuts to services and a degradation of living standards since the fall of the USSR, is embroiled in the scandal of the government decision to use tax payers money to build a pipeline for an American oil company that takes Canadian oil out of the ground for next to nothing and wants it shipped to ports on the west coast to sell to China. Canadians will not benefit from this project whatsoever and oppose it but the party in power sees their role as agents for American oil instead of the people they were elected by.
The American political system, always a spectacle, has descended into a cartoon democracy in which there is no real choice for the people and when they participate in that charade and choose one of the two candidates forced on them, each as corrupt and criminal as the other, are told their “choice” was arranged by Russia and are insulted as 45 % of them according the United Way live in real poverty in a country where you have to pay for everything.
We can go on like this with all the capitalist democracies but the point is that all these games are designed to enrich one class at the expense of the other. And what is the response in the former socialist states in Europe and the USSR, in the former social democratic countries turned into neo-liberal cesspools, as people wallow in the mess the capitalists have brought them in the wake of their false promises and illusions but to move towards fascism, or its bedfellow, monarchy.
But where is the Left to re-establish the socialist movement in the face of universal repression and carry on the struggle for social, economic and political justice that can only exist under socialism. Jose Saramago, winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature, author most famously of Blindness, and member of the Portuguese Communist Party, stated around 2004 or so that “The left has no fucking idea of the world it’s living in.”
The statement was a deliberate challenge to all the workers parties the world over including his own that went unanswered and remains unanswered. The question is not of ideology or good intentions, or correct analysis of the situation for the good intentions are there among many, and the analysis, and Marx has never been more right than today. It is more a matter of daring to take action, to take steps to enter into the situation in a serious way. I don’t have the answers to this, but it has to be asked, again, where is the left? What are we doing in the face of the sustained war on working people that has become a war of scorched earth? In Cuba we are present, commandante; in China, North Korea, in Venezuela, in Vietnam. Yes, but where are the rest of us?
And we are told, “We are weak?” But why are we weak? Or, “We are growing.” Very good, but why aren’t we growing more quickly? “They control the media.” Yes, they do. So where is ours? “They are jailing and murdering us.” Why do we let them? In other words, dear reader why are we sitting here doing nothing when work needs to be done?
*

Project Blitz: the legislative assault by Christian nationalists to reshape America

The emboldened religious right has unleashed a wave of legislation across the United States since Donald Trump became president, as part of an organised bid to impose hardline Christian values across American society.
A playbook known as Project Blitz, developed by a collection of Christian groups, has provided state politicians with a set of off-the-shelf pro-Christian “model bills”.
Some legislation uses verbatim language from the “model bills” created by a group called the Congressional Prayer Caucus Foundation (CPCF), set up by a former Republican congressman which has a stated aim to “protect religious freedom, preserve America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and promote prayer”.
At least 75 bills have been brought forward in more than 20 states during 2017 and 2018 which appear to be modelled on or have similar objectives to the playbook, according to Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a campaign group which tracks legislation that undermines the principle of separation of church and state.
Opponents warn that the CPCF (which claims more than 600 politicians as members across state legislatures ) is using the banner of “religious freedom” to impose Christianity on American public, political and cultural life.
In Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Louisiana and Tennessee, so-called “In God We Trust” bills have become law since 2017, which will see the phrase emblazoned on public buildings, hung in schools and displayed on the side of public vehicles including police cars.
But the Project Blitz playbook sees those largely symbolic bills as just the first stage on the way to more hardline laws. They are presented as measures to preserve religious liberty, but are intended to give businesses, pastors and childcare providers the right to discriminate against LGBT people in line with their “sincerely held religious beliefs”.

A statue outside a megachurch in Tennessee that proclaims: ‘America Return to Christ.’
Pinterest
 A statue outside a megachurch in Tennessee that proclaims: ‘America Return to Christ.’ Photograph: Anadolu Agency/Getty Images

Samantha Sokol, who studied the bills for the Americans United for Separation of Church and State campaign group, said: “In God We Trust bills are the most common. We had 26 of those, they really just exploded this year. .
“I think that it is due to the promotion of Project Blitz. They have sent this playbook to state legislators and told them that these In God We Trust bills are the first step.”
She added: “Some would see these bills as very trivial and unimportant, but even the most simple or trivial bills would really undermine American religious freedom and separation of church and state, and undermine the promise of our public schools that kids are welcome, whether they are religious or non-religious, whether they are evangelical Christians or not.”
Frederick Clarkson, senior research analyst at Political Research Associates, a thinktank which studies the political right, was first to write about Project Blitz, which he said had been hiding in plain sight.
“It’s very rare that you come across a major primary source document that changes the way you view everything, and this is one of those times. This is a 116-page strategy manual hidden away on a website explaining at least what a section of the religious right are doing in the United States. To me that’s astounding.”
The playbook came to wider attention in April after Clarkson was tipped off to its existence. He also highlighted recordings of conference calls where leading figures in the CPCF set out their plans to flood state legislatures with bills.
One of the steering team behind Project Blitz is David Barton, the Texas-based founder of an organisation called WallBuilders, which takes its inspiration from the Old Testament in describing a a mission of “rebuilding our nation’s foundations”.
In a recording of a call with state legislators, he describes in detail the strategy behind Project Blitz, which he said packages together about two dozen bills in separate categories based on the type of opposition they are likely to receive. There are three categories of bills in Project Blitz.
The first category of “In God We Trust” bills are likely to trigger opposition by saying the bills are a waste of time, or the sponsor of the bill “just wants to fight culture wars and divide people”.
Part of the strategy is to pave the way for later political attacks, painting an election opponent as “anti-faith”. Recent attacks on a Minnesota Democratic politician by Republican opponents followed exactly those lines.
Barton told legislators on the call: “They are gonna be things people yell at, but they help move the ball down the court, really if we can do this, get this going with all the states, it’s kind of like whack-a-mole for the other side, it’ll drive ‘em crazy that they’ll have to divide their resources out in opposing this.”
Category two include bills for a range of proclamations or resolutions – declaring a religious freedom day or Christian heritage week that can then be used to get religious teaching into schools. The playbook adds: “If any legislator opposes this, it will be helpful to get him or her on the record against this heritage and freedom.”
Category three bills will have the greatest impact but will be “the most hotly contested” the playbook says – they include resolutions in favour of “biblical values concerning marriage and sexuality”, such as “establishing public policy favoring adoption by intact heterosexual, marriage-based families” and “establishing public policy favoring intimate sexual relations only between married, heterosexual couples”.
The playbook warns that the most far-reaching model bills – designed to deny LGBT people access to adoption services or marriage services – are “more dangerous” because they will face well-organised and financed opposition.

Colorado baker Jack Phillips, who refused to serve a gay couple, argued this would violate his religious beliefs and freedoms. The supreme court will rule on the case.
Pinterest
 Colorado baker Jack Phillips, who refused to serve a gay couple, argued this would violate his religious beliefs and freedoms. The supreme court will rule on the case. Photograph: Eric Baradat/AFP/Getty Images

According to the Americans United for Separation of Church and State analysis, Oklahoma and Georgia have brought forward but not passed “adoption refusal” Child Protection bills. And six states have “wedding services refusal” measures, often framed as Pastor Protection bills, although none have become law.
A recording of the call is still on the CPCF website, dated 13 February2016, although it actually appears to have taken place in February 2017, because it refers to events of the early days of the Trump administration.
THE CPCF did not respond to request for comment on Project Blitz. Lea Carawan, director of the CPCF, said on the call that
the Trump administration was more receptive than any in over 30 years, adding: “We believe this is just the beginning. There is a powerful momentum that is happening.”
Trump - on his third marriage and mired in controversy after paying off a porn actress -
has been a useful ally for Christian evangelicals, appointing more than 20 conservative judges, including filling the supreme court vacancy with conservative justice Neil Gorsuch.


Pinterest
 Pastors from the Las Vegas area pray with Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump during the election campaign in 2016. Photograph: Evan Vucci/AP

The supreme court is due this month to give its opinion in a case where a cake shop owner refused to provide a wedding cake for a gay couple.
Andrew Whitehead, assistant professor of sociology at Clemson University, recently published a study titled Make America Christian Again which concluded that the more someone believed the United States was and should remain a Christian nation, the more likely they were to vote Trump in 2016.
Whitehead described the so-called quest for “dominion” as the aim of Christian nationalists who consider that the Christian faith and their particular interpretation should be imposed.
Clarkson, whose research first highlighted Project Blitz, said: “It’s a Christian supremacist agenda, the idea that God intended and mandates Christians to lead and control the United States for the religious vision that they hold and the policy implications that flow from it.
“If you are a more liberal Christian, a Jew, or a Muslim, or a non-believer of any sort, or whatever you happen to be, you’re a second class citizen at best.

Since you’re here …

… we have a small favour to ask. More people are reading the Guardian than ever but advertising revenues across the media are falling fast. And unlike many news organisations, we haven’t put up a paywall – we want to keep our journalism as open as we can. So you can see why we need to ask for your help. The Guardian’s independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our perspective matters – because it might well be your perspective, too.
I appreciate there not being a paywall: it is more democratic for the media to be available for all and not a commodity to be purchased by a few. I’m happy to make a contribution so others with less means still have access to information.Thomasine, Sweden
Thank you to the many people who have already supported us financially – your contribution is what makes stories like you’ve just read possible. We increasingly need our readers to fund our work so that we can continue holding power to account and producing fearless journalism.

For as

Sobre o deficit público italiano 2018

Le motivazioni di Mattarella

L’Italia accusa un enorme debito pubblico, il 133% di quello che produce. Sono circa 2.290 miliardi di euro. Ma chi possiede questo debito? Chi sono i creditori? Il 32% sono investitori esteri, il 27% banche, il 20% fondi e assicurazioni, il 15% la Banca d’Italia e solo il 6% è in mano a famiglie e imprese italiane. E’ ovvio che quell’80% di creditori tra estero e mondo della finanza si faccia sentire, e sono questi i “poteri forti” che allarmano la popolazione italiana. Provate a pensare di prestare dei soldi a uno che dice di averne bisogno, salvo vederlo il giorno dopo al volante di una fuoriserie: pensereste di essere presi in giro e avreste fondate preoccupazioni di non rivedere quanto prestato. Il nostro compito è quindi quello di convincere estero e finanza che le nostre politiche economiche onoreranno questo debito e che in 10 anni l’Italia riuscirà a pagare stipendi, ospedali, servizi, l’esercito. Tuttavia, loro restano creditori e noi debitori.
Purtroppo dobbiamo renderci conto che le forze che governano il mondo attuale sono finanziarie, tecnologiche e migratorie. Quindi non abbiamo molta scelta o ci rimpiccioliamo per renderci invisibili, sperando di non affogare nel mare della finanza e dei mercati mondiali o manteniamo un galleggiamento su una nave competitiva negoziando il nostro posto in plancia.
Rimanendo nell’Unione Europea abbiamo voce in capitolo: possiamo dialogare con la Banca Centrale che ci finanzia, possiamo influire su tutte le politiche, possiamo, addirittura, imporre, come abbiamo fatto, fondi speciali per salvare gli Stati in difficoltà.
Se uscissimo dalla UE dovremmo svalutare la nostra moneta, probabilmente del 20-30%, se non di più ed affronteremmo difficoltà sempre crescenti nell’acquisto di materie prime e semilavorati, senza considerare i tassi d’interesse che farebbero decollare i mutui.La Francia e, soprattutto, la Germania sarebbero pronte a farsi la loro Europa a tutta velocità. Con una moneta debole, l’Italia sarebbe assalita dalle imprese estere, pronte ad acquistare le nostre industrie migliori.
Ma non solo, il crollo dell’Italia e della UE farebbe gola ai vicini potenti e competitivi. Usa, certo, ma, in primis, Russia e Cina. Putin vuole sgretolare l’Unione Europea da sempre. Le sue ingerenze strategiche, tecnologiche e finanziarie per sostenere i partiti euroscettici non sono un mistero. La Brexit è stata anche opera sua e il tentativo di manipolare le masse verso un risultato elettorale a suo favore è continuo e presente in ogni Paese dell’Unione. Semplicemente, non vuole un vicino forte alle porte. Per “aiutarci” ad uscire dall’Europa sarebbe felicissimo di finanziare molto del nostro debito, magari proponendo energia a basso costo, la questione dei gasdotti è sempre stata una sua merce di scambio. Ma chiunque dei colossi internazionali, dalle multinazionali agli amministratori di USA e Cina, farebbe carte false per parlare solo con noi faccia a faccia, infinitamente piccoli rispetto a loro, senza Tedeschi e Francesi, senza 250 milioni di persone a spalleggiarci.

L’integrazione nell’Unione Europea e l’adozione dell’Euro è una scelta quindi fondamentale per l’Italia che va confermata, con un ruolo sempre crescente per determinare politiche economiche espansive, politiche sociali improntate ad uno stato sociale sempre più inclusivo e solidale, a responsabilità condivise più accentuate sulle politiche migratorie.
Si, non abbiamo ancora considerato il cavallo di battaglia della campagna elettorale di partiti come la Lega: l’invasione dell’Italia da parte di orde di migranti. Uscendo dall’Unione Europea, i migranti continuerebbero ad arrivare, ma non potrebbero proseguire nei vari stati dell’Unione Europea che adesso scelgono prevalentemente, si fermerebbero in Italia e non potremmo intavolare trattative per risolvere il problema. Già ora Austria e Francia chiudono le frontiere. Figuriamoci se non sedessimo neppure allo stesso tavolo.
Forse per tutto questo il Presidente Mattarella ha posto il veto a Paolo Savona, “il professore anti-euro”, quale Ministro delle Finanze. E’ nota la sua posizione nei confronti della moneta unica e, in generale, dell’Unione Europea. Tra i critici più radicali dell’architettura delle attuali regole europee aveva esposto il cosiddetto “piano B” che riguardava la pianificazione dell’uscita del nostro Paese dall’eurozona, con abbandono in segretezza e in pochi giorni della moneta unica.
Forse il Presidente Mattarella ha potuto farlo grazie al mandato che la Costituzione italiana gli concede. Ma visto che tutti sui Social-Network parlano di Costituzione, sarebbe bene sottolineare alcuni passi che sfuggono ai molti. La “sovranità appartiene al popolo che la esercita nelle forme e nei limiti previsti dalla Costituzione” (art.1). La stessa prevede che i Governi non siano eletti dal popolo ma in seno a maggioranze create in Parlamento sulla base all’incarico di costruire una squadra di Governo su cui il Presidente della Repubblica ha l’ultima parola.
Il Presidente Mattarella ha inoltre esercitato l’art. 92 della Costituzione, che definisce i ruoli del Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri (che propone la lista dei Ministri) e del Presidente della Repubblica (che li nomina), delineando un concorso fra le due figure istituzionali in cui nessuno è il notaio dell’altro: nella distinzione dei ruoli, due volontà libere e autonome concorrono a costituire il Governo.
Questo sistema è stato realizzato dai padri costituenti per impedire derive dittatoriali, come avvenuto con il fascismo. Tutte le istituzioni hanno il dovere di garantire l’applicazione della legge costituente. Partiti, sindacati, associazioni, cittadini dovrebbero prendere posizione a favore della nostra Costituzione uscendo da un mortificante silenzio. La Costituzione deve essere salvaguardata. Sempre.
Mattarella ha detto no a Savona. Prima di lui, Pertini disse no a Cossiga su Darida alla Difesa (1979), Scalfaro a Berlusconi su Previti alla Giustizia (1994), Ciampi a Berlusconi su Maroni alla Giustizia (2001), Napolitano a Renzi 

Como Soros manipula instituições europeias?

 ex-presidente da Assembleia Parlamentar do Conselho da Europa, Pedro Agramunt, realizou uma investigação, cujos resultados indicam que os grupos de pressão existentes dentro dessa organização operam a favor dos interesses do multimilionário George Soros. A Sputnik França revelou os detalhes desse escândalo que sacode a Europa.
Acusado de estar envolvido em casos de corrupção e afastado do seu cargo de presidente da Assembleia Parlamentar do Conselho da Europa, Pedro Agramunt realizou uma investigação tentando salvar sua reputação.
Ele descobriu uma rede de influências clandestina que opera a favor dos interesses de Soros na entidade que anteriormente tenha encabeçado. Em particular, Agramunt acusa o bilionário americano de origem húngara de manter controle sobre a organização com o objetivo de preservar sua influência no Conselho da Europa.
Esquema de funcionamento dos grupos de pressão de George Soros, presentes no Conselho da Europa, apresentados por Pedro Agramunt
© SPUTNIK /
Esquema de funcionamento dos grupos de pressão de George Soros, presentes no Conselho da Europa, apresentados por Pedro Agramunt
Os jornalistas da Sputnik que estudaram os resultados da pesquisa de Agramunt se interessaram pelo esquema que poderia ter sido usado por Soros para pressionar o Conselho da Europa com ajuda de associações e organizações não governamentais financiadas por ele.
A Assembleia do Conselho da Europa encomendou uma investigação independente sobre os supostos atos de corrupção cometidos por Agramunt depois de em março de 2017 o político se ter reunido com o presidente sírio Bashar Assad.
Entre as provas apresentadas contra Agramunt por parte de uma comissão independente do Conselho da Europa figurava o relatório preparado pela organização Iniciativa Europeia de Estabilidade (European Stability Initiative, ESI). Os jornalistas da Sputnik e Agramunt concentraram sua atenção no fato de a ESI, considerada uma organização sem fins lucrativos, não ser o que parece.
Os advogados de Agramunt informaram a agência que esta é uma organização de "lobby" que figura no ficheiro da Assembleia Parlamentar do Conselho da Europa e do Parlamento Europeu. Ou seja, um grupo de pressão registrado no Conselho da Europa como uma organização não governamental apresentou acusações de corrupção contra o representante do Partido Popular que queria obrigar os lobistas a sair da sombra. É evidente que essa transparência poderia dificultar as atividades realizadas por esses grupos de pressão.
Além disso, Agramunt descobriu que o diretor da ESI, Gerald Knaus, tem laços estreitos com Nicholas Whyte, diretor da organização sem fins lucrativos Independent Diplomacy. Os interesses políticos promovidos por esta contrariam os de Agramunt sobre o problema do separatismo catalão como membro do Partido Popular e defensor da Constituição espanhola.
Os resultados de sua investigação revelam que tanto a ESI como a Independent Diplomacy são financiadas pela Fundação para a Promoção de uma Sociedade Aberta (Foundation to Promote an Open Society) de George Soros.
É interessante que Knaus acusou Agramunt de corrupção depois de o ex-presidente da Assembleia Parlamentar do Conselho da Europa ter proposto pressionar os grupos para realizarem reformas.
Além dessas acusações, dois russos, Yuri Dzhibladze e Olga Zakharova, fundadores da organização Civic Solidarity Platform (CSP), também testemunharam contra Agramunt.
Segundo Dzhibladze e Zakharova, o ex-presidente da Assembleia Parlamentar do Conselho da Europa ofereceu propinas para ocupar o cargo. Agramunt, por sua parte, desmentiu essas acusações e explicou que ele era o único candidato e, portanto, não precisava subornar para vencer. Ele descobriu, durante sua investigação, que existe uma ligação entre a Civic Solidarity Platform e os recursos financeiros de Soros.
Resulta que a CSP operou na Catalunha em outubro de 2017 no momento em que foi realizado o referendo sobre a independência, qualificado como ilegal pelas autoridades espanholas. Naquele tempo, Dzhibladze e Olga Zakharova foram convidados a Barcelona pela Organização Mundial Contra a Tortura, que também conta com o apoio de Soros.
Em Barcelona, eles conheceram David Bondia, um defensor da independência da Catalunha e chefe do Instituto de Direitos Humanos da Catalunha, ligado à terceira organização não governamental de Soros, a Sociedade Aberta da Europa (Open Society of Europe).
As provas que Agramunt coletou para manter sua reputação indicam que as acusações contra eles foram apresentadas porque Agramunt tentou obrigar o grupo de pressão a se registrar no Conselho da Europa como "lobby" e não como uma organização não governamental. Além disso, os argumentos de Agramunt indicam que ele havia sido afastado de seu cargo porque suas abordagens políticas diferiam daquelas que são promovidas por Soros através de suas numerosas organizações não governamentais e lobistas.
Não foi por esse comportamento que Soros e suas organizações sem fins lucrativos foram expulsos da Hungria e de Israel? Não foi esta a razão pela qual os líderes europeus que mostraram sua oposição aberta a Soros – como o ex-primeiro-ministro da Eslováquia, Robert Fico, e seu colega da Eslovênia, Miro Cerar – perderam suas posições? Estas são as questões que a Sputnik levantou depois de estudar os resultados da investigação.

sábado, 2 de junho de 2018

La prochaine phase du Grand Jeu visera l’Europe de plein fouet

La guerre dans la partie centrale du monde visait la Russie à moyen terme et la Chine à long terme, mais elle ciblait également le démantèlement de l’espace européen.
La stratégie du chaos, créatif ou non, s’est révélée assez efficace pour le maintien d’une tension suffisante justifiant une certaine forme de déploiement.
La guerre en Syrie vise à détruire l’État syrien et son remplacement par un régime plus ou moins client en vue de démanteler l’alliance Damas-Téhéran-Hezbollah et préparer le terrain à un plus grand encerclement de l’Iran en vue d’y changer son régime. Une fois la Syrie et l’Iran acquis, la voie est grande ouverte devant le Grand Jihad Otanien en Asie centrale, mettant en péril l’ensemble du flanc méridional de la Russie, aux prises sur ses marches occidentales avec le rapprochement et la montée en puissance du déploiement militaire de l’OTAN en Pologne, en Ukraine, dans les pays baltes et la Roumanie.
La déstabilisation de la Russie en vue de son démantèlement géographique permettra de prendre en tenaille la Chine sur son flanc occidental avec l’outil des musulmans Ouïghours du Turkestan, au Nord avec la Mongolie, à l’Est en péninsule coréenne et au Japon, en Mer de Chine Orientale et enfin au sud avec le le Tibet et l’antagonisme vietnamien.
Ceci n’est que la partie visible de l’histoire. En réalité, l’une des cibles les plus importantes de ce plan n’est ni la Russie ni la Chine mais l’Europe. La sortie de la Grande-Bretagne de l’Union Européenne aurait du nous alerter sur un autre plan sous-jacent dont le but est la mise au pas préventif d’un bloc géostratégique à neutraliser.
La déstabilisation de l’Afrique du Nord et du Levant vise également l’affaiblissement progressif de l’Europe.
Cela nous amène à la prochaine phase qui se prépare et dont le théâtre sera le flanc sud de l’Europe occidentale. Les lignes d’approvisionnement en énergie fossile de pays comme la France, l’Espagne et l’Italie sont en ligne de mire.
L’Algérie et le Maroc sont les seuls deux pays d’Afrique du nord dont la déstabilisation pourrait porter un coup fatal à l’Union Européenne.
Quel que soit le niveau d’intégration de ces deux pays à l’ordre mondial ou quel que soit leur niveau de développement ou de coopération, ils ne sont plus à l’abri de très grosses surprises ou à des formes d’approche totalement nouvelles, audacieuses et pas du tout orthodoxes.
La déstabilisation de cette région très proche de l’Europe peut prendre diverses formes et exploiter les clivages internes et externes déjà existants mais l’objectif sera l’Europe.
Les pays de l’Union Européenne n’ont aucun moyen de faire face à un éventuel effondrement stratégique en Méditerranée occidentale.