jeudi 24 février 2011

Big Brother: The Orwellian Nightmare Come True

Big Brother: The Orwellian Nightmare Come True
  •   The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Infowars.com Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store

Mark Dice
Infowars.com
Februarty 24, 2011

When George Orwell (pen name of Eric Blair) first published his famous novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, it was the year 1949, and it told a dark story of what he envisioned life may be like in the future-in the year 1984. His book, as well as his name, have become synonymous with privacy concerns involving technology and also an all-powerful, oppressive ruling elite that strictly governs the activities of the population with an iron fist.

Orwell’s book is where we get the term Big Brother from, such as when people say “Big Brother is watching you.” When people say this, they’re referring to the omniscient surveillance system described in the novel that continuously watched and listened to people-even in their own homes. When we call something Orwellian to describe the invasiveness of certain technology or government policies, we are also referring to George Orwell’s nightmarish vision he described in his novel. There are several other terms that Orwell himself coined in Nineteen Eighty-Four, such as doublethink, thoughtcrime, and memory hole, which have also become part of our vernacular.

Even if you have not read the book or seen the film, you are still undoubtedly familiar with the issues that make up the storyline, such as the high-tech surveillance system watching and listening to everyone in order to keep them in line with the government (called the Party in the novel). You are probably also familiar with the concept of a small elite ruling class (what Orwell calls the Inner Party) living in luxury and wielding unimaginable power over lower level citizens. In the novel, people have lost their freedom, their critical thinking skills, and even the ability to love due to the cultural depths society has sunk to as a result of Big Brother’s control. The reason Nineteen Eighty-Four remains so popular, and the reason society has adopted vocabulary from the book, is because it serves as more than merely a fictional novel for the reader’s entertainment. The novel served (and continues to serve) as a stark warning of what the future may hold if we don’t resist invasive technology and oppressive government policies, or if the population at large becomes so lost in a world of pop culture, sports entertainment, or our own selfish desires, that we simply don’t care. My new non-fiction book, Big Brother: The Orwellian Nightmare Come True, looks at technology that now exists or is under development and will exist in the near future, that threatens to make our world just as horrific or even worse than the world George Orwell described. I have assembled information from mainstream news sources, industry experts, and even patent numbers of the most invasive and sinister Orwellian devices anyone could dream of. We will also look at actual government programs and policies that seem as if they came right out of Orwell’s dark imagination, such as the government secretly paying mainstream media reporters to act as gate-keepers and propagandists for the establishment, and the FBI illegally spying on and smearing peaceful political activists who were seen as problematic.

I am certainly not anti-technology. Technology is a fantastic tool which can benefit those who use it, or harm them, depending on the intentions of the person designing it or using it. Technology has brought us amazing inventions that would seem supernatural to civilizations that lived just a few hundred years ago. Arthur C. Clark, the author of 2001 a Space Odyssey, was correct when he said, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” While this magical technology has brought us the convenience of calling our friends or family on our cell phones, allowing us to talk with them from virtually anywhere in the world, and given us the ability to watch events on the other side of the earth unfold live on television, and other wonders such as the Internet, DVR recorders, YouTube, Excel spread sheets, word processors, e-mail, Facebook, and more; it has also brought us identity theft, illegal wiretaps, Peeping Toms using hidden video cameras, cyber stalkers, and worse. If you have ever left your cell phone at home when you’ve left the house for the day, you’ve realized how much we depend on technology for what have become common and necessary activities. If you’ve ever been at home when the electricity unexpectedly goes out, you have also realized how much we take for granted in our modern world.

Unfortunately, with tremendous advances in technology often come unforeseen consequences. Nobody could have envisioned young teenage girls taking nude photos of themselves with their cell phone cameras and sending them to their boyfriends, and then having the boyfriends forward them to others, eventually ending up on the cell phone of someone over the age of eighteen, resulting in what is essentially child pornography in their possession. The music and film industries certainly didn’t anticipate millions of Internet users downloading music and movies for free, sometimes before the products are even officially released. And when Albert Einstein was searching for the laws of physics to learn how our Universe functioned, he could have never imagined that his work would be used to design weapons capable of destroying the entire earth. It seems that the dark minds of men in power always strive to build sinister devices designed to enable them to hold onto their power, no matter how disastrous the consequences.

In my book I will show you some of the sinister inventions currently in operation, as well as the ones on the drawing boards, and the ones mad scientists are hoping to one day create. Facial recognition video cameras that can pick you out of a crowd of tens of thousands of people in a split second, machines that can read your mind, high-tech killer-robots, psychotronic weapons that can literally put voices in people’s heads, and more. You will see beyond a doubt that George Orwell’s description of Big Brother was chillingly accurate, and perhaps not as horrific as the reality we may one day face. Like a Pandora’s Box, once much of this technology is created, there will be little hope of stopping it or even regulating it.

If one reads old Popular Mechanics magazines from the 1950′s, one can realize how wrong, and even silly, the techno-utopian dreamers were in the past. Many were led to believe that by the twenty-first century we would all be living lives of luxury like the Jetsons, with large blocks of free time to enjoy ourselves as we had most manual labor and menial tasks taken care of by robots and computers. Yet more than a decade into the twenty-first century, we still need to spend time cooking and cleaning, and commuting to work and raising the kids, and fixing up the house and countless other tasks and obligations that are required of us in our daily lives. Our cars must still continuously be maintained, the oil needs to be changed, the engine serviced, the tires rotated and replaced, and the average vehicle now costs as much as a house did for people just two generations ago. The grass still needs to be cut, the bushes need to be trimmed, and things around the house continue to break and need to be fixed or replaced. People are working longer hours, having less time with their families, having to retire later in life, and are having less savings than past generations. Where is this techno-utopia that so many had promised would come in the near future?

Instead of living lives of luxury and leisure, now many people can’t escape their job even after they leave the office. Where once we left work and were outside of the reach of our boss, now he or she can call us on our cell phone at anytime, day or night, and expects a promptly returned phone call or e-mail.

People are being turned into numbers and statistics, and mathematical formulas are used by employers to determine whether an employee is being efficient enough. It’s difficult to get a person on the phone when calling a company’s customer service department, and social networking sites such as Facebook and Myspace have turned everyone into their own favorite celebrity and supplement actual friendships and interactions. People don’t need to get together for a dinner party to catch up on each other’s lives anymore; we just monitor their newsfeed on Facebook from the comfort of our own home while sitting in our favorite chair getting fatter from lack of exercise and a poor diet. Where we once discussed politics and religion with our friends and neighbors, such topics have become taboo and are replaced with the enticing entertainment of celebrity news as most people feel that it is more important to know about who our favorite celebrities are dating than it is to know what bills are being introduced and voted on in the halls of Congress or our own city council. It’s interesting that while people seem to be getting dumber, computers are getting smarter.

We are becoming a nation of morons who can’t think for themselves, and are being dehumanized into nothing more than a mentally enslaved workforce who are constantly being monitored, databased, and kept in line by the fear of the omniscient Big Brother technology that has gotten so advanced and so cheap, that the watchful eyes of surveillance cameras are mass produced, almost as if they were disposable.

At a presentation at the 2010 DICE Summit (Design, Innovate, Communicate, Entertain), an annual meeting of videogame executives, Jesse Schell, the former Creative Director of the Disney Imagineering Virtual Reality Studio, gave a speech on the future of gaming and talked about how in the future, “Before too long we’re going to get to the point where every soda can, [and] every cereal box is going to be able to have a CPU, a screen, and a camera on board it, and a Wi-Fi connecter so that it can be connected to the Internet.”

He concluded his speech by saying that our children and grandchildren will be able to know exactly what books we’ve read, what foods we ate, and practically everything we’ve done in our entire lives. He gave this speech not to warn people about these Orwellian technologies, but he was extremely excited about them, and looked forward to them.

“You have no idea what books your grandparents read, or where they went on a daily basis, but these sensors that we’re going to have on us and all around us everywhere are going to be tracking and watching what we’re doing forever,” Schell said. He concludes by saying that because we will all be constantly watched and our actions and interests databased forever, that we’ll possibly be better people and be nicer and make better decisions because of the fear of judgment from others. Is this the kind of world you want to live in? Well, it’s the kind of world that’s rapidly approaching.

Big Brother: The Orwellian Nightmare is meant to serve as a warning for what is already here, and what is soon to come. It is to encourage people to think about how to possibly prevent or minimize dramatic hazards to our lives by the very technology we have created. It is my goal to give you an accurate forecast of the coming storm so that you as an individual, and we as a society and species, may be better equipped to handle it when it hits. It is my hope that we do not lose our privacy, freedom, or our humanity in this 1984-style New World Order.

Gas Prices Set to Rise Nearly 40 Cents in Coming Days

Gas Prices Set to Rise Nearly 40 Cents in Coming Days
  •   The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Infowars.com Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store

 

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
February 24, 2011

Earlier this week, market analysts warned that the price of gas may reach $5 by the end of summer. Now they are saying we could see that price by Memorial Day as the situation in Libya deteriorates.

On the S&P 500 today, the price of Brent Crude breached $119 a barrel during a period of frantic trading. Brent Crude is used to price two thirds of the world’s internationally traded crude oil supplies. The price was below $100 yesterday afternoon.

The world’s oil benchmark jumped almost $17 this week and it appears there is no end in sight as the situation in the Middle East heats up.

Saudi Arabia is under pressure to boost output as the prospect of a Libya production cutoff looms.

Oil traders said Saudi talks with Europe signal that the oil kingdom understands that the political crisis in Libya is now an oil supply crisis.

On Thursday, the Italian oil company Eni, the most active company in Libya, said oil production from the North African country has dropped to just a quarter of normal levels.

“You can only expect the price to go up. It is fear of the unknown. The risks are all to the upside,” a senior oil trader told the Financial Times. “Saudi Arabia needs to respond.”

  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t

Popular uprisings spanning the Middle East have yet to seriously affect Saudi Arabia. In an effort to stave off rebellion, earlier in the week Saudi Arabia’s ailing King Abdullah promised to lavish around $37 billion on his subjects. The money will go for housing, education, social security, and other benefits.

In neighboring Bahrain, a similar pay-out scheme failed to stem protests that turned violent. King Hamad had offered to pay $2,650 to every Bahraini family. The protests calling for political change have seriously damaged the small nation’s economy and tourism industry. Standard and Poor’s lowered its credit rating this week and Bahraini authorities canceled next month’s Bahrain Grand Prix Formula One race, the pride of the royal family.

According to Saudi rights activist Hassan al-Mustafa, Abdullah’s spending won’t solve anything. The Saudi people want “real change,” such as an elected parliament and more rights for women. That sort of evolution “will be the only guarantee of security of the kingdom,” explained al-Mustafa.

Hundreds of people have backed a Facebook campaign for a Saudi “day of rage” in March in response to the lack of political change in the kingdom and it solidarity with other popular rebellions sweeping the region.

In response to the unprecedented rise in oil prices, analysts are predicting the price of gasoline will shoot up ten to fifteen cents per gallon over the next few days.

Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (Ad)

Analytics economist Chris Lafakis put the number even higher. Oil prices have already jumped $12 this week, which means that drivers can “expect gas prices to be 37 cents higher” in the coming days, he told CNN.

The national average price of a gallon of gasoline rose 3.4 cents overnight to $3.228, according to AAA.

mardi 22 février 2011

Comment la CIA prépare les révolutions colorées

The New World Order Plan for the Middle East

Alex Jones: The “Justin Biebler” Rant

Alex Jones: The “Justin Biebler” Rant

  •   The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Infowars.com Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store

 

Infowars.com
February 22, 2011

lundi 21 février 2011

La Révolte Gronde en France

Notre Poison Quotidien

Wisconsin’s economic protests will spread as health care costs bankrupt states

Wisconsin’s economic protests will spread as health care costs bankrupt states
  •   The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Infowars.com Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store

 

Mike Adams
Natural News
February 21, 2011

What we’re really seeing today with the union worker protests in Madison, Wisconsin is the collision of money desires with fiscal reality. Everywhere across the country, union workers want to take home more money. Across the board, from teachers and firemen to law enforcement officers and government office workers, everybody wants a bigger paycheck. But the states are going broke. And the economic realities we’re now facing are making everybody nervous.

The voters, you see, don’t really want balanced budgets. Voters, as a rule, are rather short-sighted. They want the higher government wages, benefits and social programs today but they’d rather not think about the financial cost of it all tomorrow.

That works fine for a while… until tomorrow actually arrives. And then suddenly your state (or your nation) is facing a debt burden crisis that forces it to make extremely difficult financial decisions.

That’s when the protests begin. And before long, the protests lead to riots.

If only money grew on trees

Nobody is happy about making less money… even when they’re already making a lot. The average compensation for teachers in the Milwaukee Public School system, when you add up the salaries and benefits, is over $100,000 a year. (http://maciverinstitute.com/2010/03…) The salary portion alone is over $56,000.

That’s pretty good money for being a teacher in a public school system. But it’s never enough, you see. Nearly everyone spends to the limit of their salary — and then they spend a little more, too, driving them into debt and desperation. The debt spending of a typical wage-earner in America is now so severe that the average annual savings rate is a negative number. And it drives people to a sense of desperation.

Yet economic reality says the public salaries must be cut. Either that, or jobs must be cut. One way or another, states are going to have to cut spending to remain solvent, and that means either cutting benefits, cutting jobs or cutting salaries. Of course, states could always just try to raise taxes on individuals and businesses, but that merely has the longer-term effect of driving businesses out of the state, causing a long-term job loss that ends up denying the state income tax dollars from working people, further worsening the state’s economic problems.

Why states can’t solve their financial problems by raising corporate taxes

That’s why raising taxes may seem like a short-term solution, but it’s really a long-term job killer. Texas is learning this lesson the hard way. When it recently went after Amazon.com, claiming the company owed the state several hundred million dollars because Amazon maintained a distribution center in Texas, the company responded by simply closing down the distribution center (http://www.reuters.com/article/2010…).

That’s the thing about raising taxes: When you squeeze companies too hard, they just shift their operations to a more tax-friendly state. The same thing goes for individuals: Raise the state income tax too much, and people leave the state to look for work somewhere else where they can keep more of the dollars they work so hard to earn.

This leaves states trying to come up with other desperate solutions to cutting expenditures or raising revenues. Several states are toying with the idea of legalizing gambling — as if somehow having a new crisis of gambling addicts and casino zones is a net plus rather than a net loss to any given society.

Why the health care system is destroying America’s economy

This all leads me to the real issue that’s destroying state budgets. That is, of course, sick care (state Medicaid). States, you see, cover the health care benefits of both active and retired state employees. This means the states are paying for the monopoly-priced pharmaceuticals, heart bypass surgeries, toxic chemotherapy treatments and other conventional medical treatments that are collectively known as “health care.”

Texas, for example, spends roughly one-third of its state budget on health care costs (http://sunshinereview.org/index.php…). That’s nearly $60 billion a year in so-called “health care” spending. This is money that’s largely just flushed down the toilet, especially given that conventional medicine does virtually nothing to help people prevent disease and avoid becoming costly medical patients down the road.

Remember: Every dollar that goes into a pharmaceutical is a dollar the state cannot afford to pay out in worker salaries or benefits.

And yet every state in the United States continues to operate a state medical board that maintains precisely the very same state-enforced medical monopoly that’s causing that state to go broke! It’s the medical board that makes sure doctors don’t recommend nutritional prevention of disease, for example. Any doctor that dares to tell patients that vitamin D can prevent cancer could be stripped of their license and booted out of the state medical system. This is true in Texas, California, Illinois and nearly everywhere else in America.

  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t

It is the state medical boards, you see, that are ultimately driving these states to bankruptcy through the protectionist, monopolistic practices that censor or outlaw anything that competes with the drugs-and-surgery approach to health care. Any therapy that prevents disease is a financial threat to Big Pharma, hospitals, doctors and clinics. And yes, the sick care corporations and non-profits really are so greedy that they would compromise the health of the public in order to maintain their cash flows.

Case in point? Komen for the Cure raising money for cancer through the sale of buckets of fried chicken. (http://www.naturalnews.com/028631_K…)

The cancer industry, in particular, has willfully pursued a policy of discrediting cancer prevention strategies while increasing the recruitment of “false positive” cancer patients through mammography and other efforts. The cancer industry makes more money when people are diagnosed with cancer, of course — not when people remain cancer-free by being informed about anti-cancer foods, supplements and activities that could save their lives.

The result of all this is that the conventional medical system is sucking the states dry, resulting in the very financial crises that are now leading to these economic collisions between state lawmakers and state workers.

When the health care system takes away one-third of a state’s money, there’s not much left to go around in the form of salaries and benefits, you see. The real problem isn’t the unions. The problem is that states are paying their money into a broken, fraudulent sick-care racket known as “conventional medicine.”

So what’s the solution? Glad you asked.

The solution: End the monopoly on conventional medicine

If you want to save your state from bankruptcy, you need to dissolve the state medical board. Dismantle it completely. Allow doctors, naturopaths and herbalists to teach nutrition to patients. Allow health freedom in your state by inviting the naturopathic physicians to set up shop and practice real medicine without being harassed by state officials.

End the censorship of nutritional supplements by legalizing scientifically-validated free speech on nutritional products. This would allow companies who sell helpful products (such as vitamin D) to make valid health claims such as “Vitamin D can help prevent cancer.” Essentially states need to adopt Ron Paul’s “Health Freedom Protection Act.”

Outlaw the dangerous chemicals used in the food supply in your state: Aspartame, sodium nitrite, MSG and artificial colors. Ban the advertising of junk foods, fast foods and pharmaceuticals. Crack down on the price fixing fraud in which drug companies engage on a regular basis.

Through these actions and more, states could revolutionize their health care systems and ultimately see health care expenditures drop by 50 percent or more. This could save states like Texas $30 billion a year!

After all, taking care of sick people is hugely expensive. Preventing disease, on the other hand, is remarkably affordable. Disease prevention is money well spent. Vitamin D, which prevents nearly 4 out of 5 cancers, is ridiculously cheap to hand out to people, even if the state bought the vitamins for its citizens!

No state can survive the cost of caring for a diseased population

Presently, no state in America truly supports disease prevention or even basic nutrition for its people. Every state is currently supporting the very same fraudulent medical racket that’s driving them bankrupt. It’s like a snake swallowing its own tail to survive… sooner or later, you only end up consuming yourself.

I’ve said this so many times here on NaturalNews, but it’s worth repeating: No state (or nation) has any real future if it cannot encourage its people to be healthy. The sick-care costs will bankrupt you every time. There isn’t enough money in the world to pay for ongoing sickness and disease — even if that is Big Pharma’s profit model.

If the states wish to save themselves from bankruptcy, they are going to have to ditch the costly, ineffective and highly fraudulent conventional medical system that dominates health care today. This means taking aggressive action such as dismantling the FDA, opting out of Obamacare mandates and stripping drug companies of their drug patents (many of which are based on molecules stolen from nature in the first place).

It also means getting rid of the toxic chemicals that are poisoning people and causing the very diseases that lead to skyrocketing health care costs: Aspartame, fluoride (in the water), MSG, sodium nitrite (in processed meats), psychiatric drugs, antidepressant drugs, statin drugs and all the other pharmaceuticals that are abusively prescribed to patients as part of Big Pharma’s profit push.

It means legalizing healing and ending the censorship of dietary supplements and nutritional products that can actually reverse disease and prevent illness.

It means, in essence, ending conventional medicine’s deadly stranglehold on the U.S. economy.

Because make no mistake: Today’s pharma-centric medical system would rather kill the patient than lose its monopoly. It will squeeze cities, states and nations until they are dead and buried and there’s not a dollar left to suck out of them. The greed of pharmaceutical companies and disease industry institutions knows no bounds, no morals and no ethics. They would rather see America fall than their own profits. And they will do anything — absolutely anything — to prevent America from embracing health freedom, natural healing or disease prevention, because that would spell the beginning of the end of that dark, destructive chapter in world history known as the “Dark Ages of medicine.”

Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (Ad)

We are living through the final days of the Dark Ages of medicine right now. Big Pharma, the vaccine industry, the cancer industry… these are all on the verge of collapse. As states and nations fall under the financial bankruptcy of a failed, broken sick-care system, when they rise from the ashes to start anew, they will abandon conventional medicine in favor of a medical system that actually works: Holistic natural medicine based on patient empowerment and disease prevention rather than chasing symptoms with patented chemicals.

Globalists Seek To Hijack Middle East Revolution To Topple Iran

Globalists Seek To Hijack Middle East Revolution To Topple Iran
  •   The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Infowars.com Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store

 

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
February 21, 2011

Globalists Seek To Hijack Middle East Revolution To Topple Iran 210211top
Image: Wikimedia Commons

While the current global revolt sweeping across the Middle East and North Africa is born out of a universal human cry for freedom, food security and a decent standard of living, it is important to understand that the global elite are waiting in the wings to exploit the chaos as an opportunity to re-order the geopolitical landscape in their image, particularly by exploiting the demonstrations as a vehicle through which to weaken and topple the Iranian government.

The primary reason why the US military-industrial complex and other western nations appear to be supporting revolutions which directly threaten the tenures of dictators loyal to them, Hosni Mubarak being a prime example, is that such consequences are a price worth paying if the number one target of the globalists – Iran – gets toppled in the process.

Prominent neo-con David Frum made this point clear in an article entitled America Can’t Afford to Ignore the Chaos in Bahrain, writing, “Always and ever: Iran is the big play in the Middle East…Every regional decision has to be measured against the test: Is this moving us closer to—or further from—a positive change in the Iranian political system? That test should guide decisions about Bahrain, and about a lot more than Bahrain.”

Similarly, the The New York Times’ David Sanger highlighted the fact that it’s in the interests of the US military-industrial complex to allow the revolutions to spread in order to weaken the stability of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

In an interview with National Public Radio, Sanger noted that the Obama administration was looking to exploit the protests to create, “an alternative narrative to Iran that the United States ought to make use of.”

“It is in this context that we should understand why the Obama Administration, literally seven hours after Omar Soliman announced that Hosni Mubarak would step down as Egypt’s President after all, called the White House press corps back in and, as Sanger put it, “all but urged the protestors” in Iran, such as they were, “to get out and do more”. The Administration has clearly decided, as America’s strategic position in the Middle East erodes before our eyes, to “push back” against the Islamic Republic, in multiple ways,” write Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett.

Indeed, several top ranking former U.S. military officials have now called on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to “rescind the 14-year-old designation of the Mujahedeen-e Khalq Organization, or MEK, as a terrorist group.”

As prominent New Yorker investigative reporter Seymour Hersh has documented, the US government has already been providing hundreds of millions of dollars to MEK as a means of fomenting instability inside Iran.

  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t

“The strategic thinking behind this covert operation is to provoke enough trouble and chaos so that the Iranian government makes the mistake of taking aggressive action which will give the impression of a country in acute turmoil”, said Hersh. “Then you have what the White House calls the ‘casus belli’, a reason to attack the country. That is the thinking and it is very crazy.”

As former CIA Director Michael Hayden notes, governments in the Middle East “are not dominoes, these are very different regimes,” with the Iranian regime undoubtedly being the most immune to the wave of revolutions currently spreading like wildfire across the region.

That’s why the US military-industrial complex is relying on MEK to become the vanguard of the Iranian opposition movement, because as Retired Gen. Hugh Shelton, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Bill Clinton, notes, “Iran’s current regime is currently a government that needs to change,” that is, it needs to change from the perspective of the US military-industrial complex, and they will resort to any means, including bankrolling terrorist organizations while framing them as an “opposition movement,” to make it happen.

The true scale and number of revolts now sweeping the Middle East and North Africa preclude any simple explanation that they were all kick-started as a result of US geopolitical manipulation. However, that’s not to say that such revolutions were not actively forseen and prepared for by the same forces now trying to exploit the fallout.

For example, we know that as far back as December 2008, the US Embassy was aware of plans to overthrow Mubarak in 2011 and had begun secretly funding rebel leaders to spearhead the campaign.

From a wider perspective, the fact that the outcome of the financial collapse would be food riots, revolts, revolutions and even civil war was understood years in advance.

As we wrote back in February 2008, six months before the economic collapse, the UN was “Warning of a food shortage crisis and drawing up plans for food rations which will hit even middle-class suburban populations as inflation and economic uncertainty causes the prices of staple food commodities to skyrocket.” This would lead to “food riots,” we warned, simply reporting the statements of UN officials at the time.

Soaring food prices have been cited as one of the primary drivers behind the revolts in the Middle East and North Africa.

In addition, we reported on an April 2007 British Ministry of Defence document which warned of a “mass revolt on behalf of the middle classes.” which now seems to be unfolding in Wisconsin as well as “Endemic unemployment, instability and threat to the social order,” across the world.

Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (Ad)

The fact that the revolutions we now witness enveloping the Middle East and North Africa will grow and evolve is without doubt, the only question that remains is whether those revolts will simply lead to another form of tyranny, such as the military dictatorship that has taken over Egypt, whether the outcome will provide the opportunity for the global elite to accelerate their new world order, or whether people power will truly triumph and genuine freedom will prosper as a result.

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show. Watson has been interviewed by many publications and radio shows, including Vanity Fair and Coast to Coast AM, America’s most listened to late night talk show.

dimanche 20 février 2011

Le désenchantement du monde (M. Gauchet)

Notes sur oeuvres - Histoire
Gauchet

Gauchet reprend l’expression de « désenchantement du monde », utilisée par Max Weber pour décrire l’élimination du magique dans la construction du Salut, mais ce qu’il désigne par là va au-delà de l’objet désigné par Weber. Pour Marcel Gauchet, le religieux en tant que principe extérieur au social, et qui modèle le social depuis l’extérieur, c’est fini. Et l’originalité de l’Occident aura consisté, précisément, à opérer cette incorporation totale, dans le social, des fonctions traditionnellement allouées au religieux.

Le « désenchantement du monde », version Gauchet, ce n’est donc pas seulement l’élimination du magique dans le religieux, c’est bien encore la disparition du religieux en tant qu’espace collectif structurant et autonome.

Il s’agit donc ici de comprendre pourquoi le christianisme aura été, historiquement, la religion de la sortie de la religion. L’enjeu de cette histoire politique de la religion : comprendre, au-delà des naïvetés laïcardes, quelles fonctions la religion tenait dans les sociétés traditionnelles, et donc si d’autres moyens permettront de les maintenir.

 

*

Commençons par résumer « l’histoire politique de la religion », vue par Marcel Gauchet. C’est, après tout, pratiquement devenu un classique – un des très rares grands textes produits par la pensée française de la fin du XX° siècle.

Le fait est que jusqu’ici, le religieux a existé dans toutes les sociétés, à toutes les époques connues. Qu’il ait tenu une fonction dans chaque société, à chaque époque, n’est guère douteux. Une première question est de savoir si cette fonction fut constamment la même, et, dans le cas contraire, comment elle a évolué.

Pour Gauchet, il faut mettre à jour une structure anthropologique sous-jacente dont le religieux fut l’armature visible à un certain stade du développement historique. Cette structure fondamentale, c’est ce qu’il appelle : « L’homme contre lui-même ». Il entend par là la codification par l’homme d’un espace mental organisé autour du refus de la nature (celle du sujet, celle des autres hommes, celle de l’univers), afin de rendre possible un contrepoids salvateur, le « refus du refus » (qui permet d’accepter les autres hommes au nom du refus du sujet auto référant, d’accepter le sujet au nom de son refus, et finalement d’accepter la nature de l’univers au nom du refus général appliqué à la possibilité de la refuser). Le religieux a été, pour Marcel Gauchet, la forme prise, à un certain moment de l’histoire de l’humanité, par une nécessité incontournable induite par la capacité de refus propre à l’esprit humain : l’organisation du refus du refus, de la négation de la négation – bref, du ressort de la pensée même.

Gauchet renverse ici la conception classique, qui voit dans la religion un obstacle à la perspective historique. Faux, dit-il : la religion a eu pour mission de rendre possible l’entrée de l’humanité dans l’histoire, précisément en organisant une entrée « à reculons ». L’humanité ne voulait pas, n’a jamais voulu être historique. L’historicité lui enseigne une mortalité qu’elle redoute, qu’elle abhorre. La religion, en organisant le refus dans l’ordre symbolique, a été la ruse par laquelle l’humanité, tournant le dos à son avenir, pouvait aller vers lui sans le voir. Une méthode de gestion psychologique collective, en somme : en refusant dans l’ordre symbolique, on rend possible l’acceptation muette du mouvement permanent qu’on opère, par ailleurs, dans l’ordre réel, à un rythme si lent qu’on peut maintenir l’illusion d’une relative stabilité.

Sous cet angle, la « progression du religieux » peut être vue comme son oblitération progressive, au fur et à mesure que l’humanité accepte de regarder en face son inscription dans l’histoire, et d’assumer, donc, son refus de la nature. Des religions primitives au christianisme, on assiste ainsi à une lente réappropriation du fondement du religieux par l’homme, jusqu’à ce que « Dieu se fasse homme ».

C’est un long trajet car, au départ, dans la religion primitive, les Dieux sont radicalement étrangers à l’homme. Leur puissance le surpasse infiniment. Les succès humains ne peuvent être dus qu’à la faveur divine, les échecs à la colère (forcément juste) des divinités offensées. Voilà toute la religion primitive. Elle est étroitement associée à un système politique de chefferie, où l’opposition pouvoir-société est neutralisée par l’insignifiance (réelle) du premier, rendue possible par l’insignifiance (volontairement exagérée) de la seconde. La création d’une instance symbolique de régulation au-delà de la compétence humaine a d’abord été, pendant des millénaires, une manière de limiter la compétence des régulateurs humains. Le holisme fondamental des sociétés religieuses, nous dit Gauchet, ne doit pas être vu comme le contraire de notre individualisme, mais comme une autre manière de penser le social : un social qui n’était pas, et n’avait pas besoin d’être, un « social-historique ». C’était un social « non historique », où la Règle était immuable, étrangère au monde humain, impossible à contester.

Cette altérité du fondement de la règle, propre aux religions des sociétés primitives, est, pour Gauchet, « le religieux à l’état pur ». En ce sens, l’émergence progressive des « grandes religions » ne doit pas être pensée comme un approfondissement, un enrichissement du religieux, mais au contraire comme sa déconstruction : plus la religion va entrer dans l’histoire, moins elle sera extérieure au social-historique, et moins, au fond, elle sera religieuse.

Cette remise en cause du religieux s’est faite par étapes.

D’abord, il y eut l’émergence de l’Etat. En créant une instance de régulation mondaine susceptible de se réformer, elle a rendu possible le questionnement de la régulation. Il a donc fallu codifier un processus de mise en mouvement de « l’avant » créateur de règles. Les dieux se sont mis à bouger ; jusque là, ils vivaient hors du temps, et soudain, ils ont été inscrits dans une succession d’évènements. L’intemporel s’est doté de sa temporalité propre. Enjeu : définir, par la mythologie, une grille de cautionnement de la domination politique, ancrée dans un récit fondateur. La hiérarchie des dieux impose la hiérarchie des hommes à travers la subordination des hommes aux dieux, subordination rendue possible par le début de l’effacement de la magie (où le magicien maîtrise les forces surnaturelles) et l’affirmation du cultuel (où le prêtre sert des forces qui le dépassent). Le processus de domination mentale (des prêtres par les dieux, des hommes par les prêtres) devient ainsi l’auxiliaire du processus d’assimilation/englobement par l’Etat, donc de la conquête. Ce processus s’est accompli progressivement, en gros entre -800 et -200, dans toute l’Eurasie.

Le contrecoup de ce mécanisme, inéluctablement, fut le tout début de l’émergence de l’individu. Le pôle étatique définit un universel ; dès lors, le particulier devient pensable non par opposition aux autres particuliers, mais par opposition à l’universel. L’individu commence alors  à être perçu comme une intériorité. Et du coup, l’Autre lui-même est perçu dans son intériorité.

D’où, encore, l’invention de  l’Outre-Monde. Pour un primitif, le surnaturel fait partie du monde. Il n’existe pas de rupture entre le naturel et le surnaturel, entre l’immanent et le transcendant. Au fond, il n’existe pas d’opposition esprit/matière : tout est esprit, ou tout est matière, ou plutôt tout est esprit-matière, « souffle ».

Et d’où, enfin, le mouvement interne du christianisme occidental.

*

Progressivement, dans le christianisme, la dynamique religieuse se déplace pour s’installer à l’intérieur de l’individu. Le temps collectif étant historique, le temps religieux devient le temps individuel. Ce déplacement de la dynamique religieuse est, pour Gauchet, le mouvement interne spécifique du christianisme occidental.

Les autres mondes sont restés longtemps bloqués au niveau de la religion-Etat, du temps historique religieux ; seul le monde chrétien, surtout occidental, a totalement abandonné le temps collectif à l’Histoire, pour offrir à la religion un terrain de compensation, le temps individuel. Gauchet écrit : « Avec le même substrat théologique qui a porté l’avènement de l’univers capitaliste-rationnel-démocratique, la civilisation chrétienne eût pu rejoindre la torpeur et les lenteurs de l’Orient. Il eût suffi centralement d’une chose pour laquelle toutes les conditions étaient réunies : la re-hiérarchisation du principe dé-hiérarchisant inscrit dans la division christique du divin et de l’humain. »

Il n’en est pas allé ainsi. L’Occident est devenu une exception, et sa dynamique religieuse est allée jusqu’à son terme.

Il en est découlé, dans notre civilisation et au départ seulement dans notre civilisation, un accroissement des ambitions et de l’Histoire, et de la religion.

Jusque là, les deux termes étaient limités l’un par l’autre. De leur séparation découle la disparition de leurs limitations. L’Histoire peut théoriquement se prolonger jusqu’à sa fin. Elle a cessé d’être cyclique. La religion, de son côté, peut poursuivre la réunification de l’Etre à l’intérieur de la conscience humaine.

L’adossement de ces deux termes ouvre la porte à une conception du monde nouvelle, dans laquelle l’homme est son co-rédempteur, à travers la Foi (qui élève son esprit jusqu’à l’intelligence divine) et les œuvres (qui le font participer d’une révélation, à travers l’Histoire). Seul le christianisme, explique Gauchet, a défini cette architecture spécifique – et plus particulièrement le christianisme occidental.

Progressivement, à travers le premier millénaire, d’abord très lentement, le christianisme élabore cette architecture. Avec la réforme grégorienne et, ensuite, l’émergence des Etats français et anglais, l’Occident commence à en déduire des conclusions révolutionnaires mais logiques. Le pouvoir politique et le pouvoir spirituel se distinguent de plus en plus clairement.  La grandeur divine accessible par la conscience devient étrangère à la hiérarchie temporelle, elle lui échappe et fonde un ordre autonomisé à l’égard du politique. En retour, le politique se conçoit de plus en plus comme un produit de l’immanence. Le souverain, jadis pont entre le ciel et la terre, devient la personne symbolique d’une souveraineté collective, issue des réalités matérielles et consacrée avant tout à leur administration. Avec la Réforme, l’évolution est parachevée : l’Etat et l’Eglise sont non seulement distincts, mais progressivement séparés.

Les catégories de la « sortie de la religion », c'est-à-dire le social-historique dans le temps collectif, le libre examen dans le temps individuel, sont issues directement de cette évolution. Ici réside sans doute un des plus importants enseignements de Gauchet, une idée qui prend à revers toute la critique classique en France : notre moderne appréhension du monde en termes de nécessité objective n’est pas antagoniste de la conception chrétienne de l’absolu-divin personnel : au contraire, elle en est un pur produit.

*

La conclusion de Gauchet est que la « sortie de la religion » ouvre la porte non à une disparition du religieux, mais à sa réduction au temps individuel (une évolution particulièrement nette aux USA, où la religion est surpuissante comme force modelant les individus, mais quasi-inexistante comme puissance sociale réelle). Et d’ajouter qu’avec l’émergence puis la dissolution des idéologies, nous avons tout simplement assisté à la fin des religions collectives, qui sont d’abord retombées dans le temps historique à travers la politique, et s’y sont abîmées définitivement.

Sous-entendu : voici venir un temps où il va falloir se débrouiller sans la moindre religion collective, et faire avec, dans un cadre en quelque sorte purement structuraliste, en nous résignant à être des sujets, sans opium sacral pour atténuer la douleur de nos désirs. Car c’est à peu près là, au fond, la seule fonction du religieux qui, aux yeux de Gauchet, ne peut pas être assurée par le social radicalement exempt de la religion.

En quoi, à notre avis, Gauchet se trompe…

L’expulsion du religieux, retiré totalement du temps collectif, implique que ce temps-là, le temps collectif, ne peut plus être pensé en fonction de la moindre ligne de fuite. S’il n’y a plus du tout de religieux dans le temps collectif, alors la mort des générations en marque les bornes. Et donc, il n’y a plus de pensée collective sur le long terme, au-delà de la génération qui programme, qui dirige, qui décide (aujourd’hui : la génération du baby-boom).

Eh bien, n’en déplaise à Marcel Gauchet et sans nier que le structuralisme soit une idée à creuser, il nous semble, quant à nous, que les ennuis de l’Occident commencent là, dans cette désorientation  du temps collectif. Tant que le religieux se retirait du temps collectif, il continuait à l’imprégner d’une représentation du très long terme, et aspirait en quelque sorte le politique vers cette représentation : ce fut la formule de pensée qui assura l’expansion de l’Occident, le retrait du religieux ouvrant un espace de développement accru au politique, à l’économique, au scientifique, tous lancés secrètement à la poursuite du religieux qui s’éloignait. MAIS à partir du moment où le religieux s’est retiré, l’espace qu’il abandonne est déstructuré, et il n’y a plus de ligne de fuite pour construire une représentation à long terme.

La dynamique spirituelle de la chrétienté occidentale a suscité des forces énormes aussi longtemps qu’elle était mouvement ; dès l’instant où elle parvient à son aboutissement, elle débouche sur une anomie complète. Oserons-nous confesser que le vague « structuralisme » de Gauchet, conclusion mollassonne d’un exposé par ailleurs remarquable, nous apparaît, à la réflexion, comme une posture de fuite, et une manière pour lui de ne pas tirer les conclusions logiques de sa propre, brillante et tout à fait involontaire enquête sur la décadence occidentale ?