The top priority of international politics is to liberate Europe, politically and militarily vassalized by the US since 1945.
Liberation of Europe
By Manuel de Diéguez
Introduction by Israel Shamir
Manuel de Diéguez is a leading contemporary French philosopher and a friend of our list. We publish a talk he gave to our French friends who playfully call themselves La Plume Et L'enclume, (Anvil and Pen/Feather, punning with anvil and hammer) and his interview with the Iranians. His conclusion is: The top priority of international politics is to liberate Europe, politically and militarily vassalized by the US since 1945.
Now the Americans build a new vast “embassy” in Baghdad, rather an occupation command centre for the area; and even optimists began to understand that the US is NOT going home from the conquered Iraq, not now, not in the next year, not at all, never. They do not go away.
Indeed, over half a century passed since the defeat of Germany, but the US bases firmly remain in Europe and Japan. The playwright Anton Chekhov said that a gun hanging on a wall in the beginning of a performance will discharge at the end. The US military is the greatest danger to Europeans. While it is good that our friends demand withdrawal from Iraq, we should demand as the first step to send the US troops back home – from Iraq and from Germany, from Italy and from Afghanistan.
These goals are interconnected: the Americans justify their military presence in Europe by some imaginary threats.
(1) Iran is supposed to threaten Israel.
(2) North Korea is supposed to provide missiles to Israel’s enemies;
(3) Islamic terror threatens Israel and
Out of four threats three are directly connected with Israel and Jews, while the fourth is connected indirectly: Russia builds a nuclear power station in Iran and supplies fighter jets to Syria. Russia still has no large and central Holocaust Shrine next to – or instead of Kremlin.
These threats are imaginary: Iran and Korea live their own lives and do not interfere in the life of Europeans. Islamic terror is a sheer fantasy: out of 500 terror attacks of last year, only one (failed) had some connection to an Islamic group. Russia is traditionally pro-European; only “new Europeans”, i.e. pro-American Poles still claim otherwise.
Why, then, these countries are picked as the threat? They are the main non-occupied countries still at large on the globe. That is why we do support these free lands of Russia and Iran, and wish them to remain free. We also hope (together with de Diéguez) that Russia will help Europe to break its chains. The idea of Russia-Europe Axis is an old one; in order to avoid old mistakes, this axis should pass via Berlin and Paris and lead to its Istanbul, Teheran and Beijing extensions. We may dream of some unity of Eurasia, unity that is not forced, multipolar unity, rather than an imperial dream.
The US presence is the reason for Israel’s influence in Europe: while still colonising Europe, the Americans themselves were colonised by the Jews and now are doing their will. The US bases in Germany are the reason why Germany pays billions to Israel. Liberation of Europe is a way to the American liberation, too. Undoing of the US Empire will set the Americans free from their Jewish masters of discourse, it will exorcise its Judaic spirit (in Marxist terms); America will cease being a Golem and will find its own way.
We welcome all forces who support this idea. Isolationist America is as good for us as (or even better than) democratically inclined America. We should put no demands to America but leaving the Old World in peace. Let the Americans decide for themselves what sort of regime they need, what kind of rule and laws. Let the old American dream of 1778 become true: a totally independent America going its own way.
The interview was translated and edited by a few list members, and edited again by Maria Poumier, who had added this remark:
Here is a somehow corrected version of Manuel de Diéguez, as translated in English and edited by some friends. Manuel de Diéguez is very proud to be the inventor of "simianthropology", meaning that mankind is still a semi-ape delirious animal, and that it is blatant in our political behaviour. He wants to “inaugurate the reconciliation between Darwin and Freud”. He seems to remain Hegelian, and believe that there is a group of less human people, those who believe in fetishes. He writes, with harsh irony, that « if Hottentots culture is a civilization, we should be glad about the recent discovery of chimpanzees’ civilization; what a pity that our furry ancestors did not produce sorcerers, so that we would bless the masterpieces of their genius, and expose them on the Seine’s banks. See how civilizations are mortal, and how they sink down with the wreck of their cleverness, look how the descendants of Darwin and Freud are going back to fetishes and amulets of their ancestors!” As a matter of fact, what Hegel wrote about Africans and American autochthonous (in Introduction to Philosophical Lessons about Universal History) is the worst part of his writings, quite ridiculous, and only shows white arrogance and ignorance. Fortunately, Manuel de Dieguez says he prefers Kierkegaard (and his best things are always his theological asserts). I am not sure his simianthropology is such a new thing; real philosophers, as well as catholic confessors, never forgot that even the most clever white males are not completely rational; but the important thing is not about vanity or modesty in a typical neo-platonic European philosopher. Now, Shamir’s readers should know that an antizionist, fraternal, traditionalist and patriotic thought is rising with strong African contributions in Africa, America and Europe as well; and the African political thought is the continuation of the ancient Egypt’s thought, never forgotten in oral African initiatic teaching. As a matter of fact, African civilization is a defeated one, not an inferior one; Herodotus, who told about it with great respect as the origin of any Greek knowledge, was called a “philo-barbarian” by Plato’s followers. Excess of generosity was perhaps the origin of the Egyptian decadence, and the whites profited by it; now the great black worldwide defeat seems so complete and ancient that we have lost any memory of it, we feel we know enough about it by repeating as Noah the Ham's curse. But in the Dead Sea’s Manuscripts, there is no Ham’s curse mention at all, it is probably a Josias’s propaganda’s lie, as so many things we find in the Bible; Vatican I thought about abolishing that sentence of the Bible (I don’t know what happened after, why they didn’t go further). Actually, since 1923, the Vatican sends missions to Central Africa in order to learn from the Pygmies, who are the most ancient humanity still alive and full of divinatory, botanical, cosmological and theological knowledge; Pygmies were recognized by ancient Egyptian Pharaohs as the inventors of monotheism, and they are monogamist. Of course, the African thinkers take these things very seriously, and know that Darwinist evolutionism acts as a dogma, or a prejudice against them in the whole western world; they pay great attention to American creationists (treated as a foolish sect in the western media, as far as I know, which could mean that creationists are really dangerous for western hegemony?). Islamic Sufism is the white transposition of African spirituality that the Christian world respects. Manuel de Dieguez indeed admires Islamic theo-political thought, he thinks it is not so naïve as the Christian one. Well, some of your readers will understand Manuel de Dieguez, who has a strong metaphoric language, sometimes really adapted to difficult contemporary topics, sometimes more like typical intellectual coquetry, in my opinion. But interviews and internet do help him to find a more fraternal language.
Liberation of Europe
By Manuel de Diéguez
On June 4, 2007 Le Figaro published an interview of President Putin, full of common sense and measure. The demonization of Russia has now reached global proportions. But will Europe, herself made into a vassal, accept that the American anti-missile system to be installed in Poland and in the Czech Republic may function in automatic concert with the nuclear arsenal of the United States? Will Europe, even humiliated, accept that, for the first time, US-nuclear power is installed on its soil? Will Europe, even domesticated, accept that the world’s political balance will be turned around with the purpose of the definitive military subjugation of Copernicus’ Continent to a foreign empire, while we are not even being threatened by anybody? Will an ‘enslaved’ Europe now require of Vladimir Putin to help it break its chains? Now that’s the only real question.
Because this actually is about a desperate attempt by the United States to recover the theo-political world-hegemony which their crusader spirit appeared to promise them before the international shipwreck of the democratic messianism they launched in Iraq.
The US is very effectively supported in its attempts at re-conquest of European opinion by the complicity of the French press, starting with Le Figaro, which took care not to publish the essential message of Mr. Vladimir Putin to the Old World:
Question: Why do the Americans try to realize their plans with so much tenacity if they are so obviously without real object?
Mr. Putin: Perhaps we are bringing Russia and Europe closer together, and the Americans try to stop it. If this were the case, it would be one more [US] mistake.
Question: Do you plan to install a similar system [an anti-missile shield] in Cuba and Venezuela?
Mr. Putin: Not only it is not our intention, on the contrary, we even dismantled our bases in Cuba. The Americans, however, build some of theirs in Europe. After the fall of the Soviet Union, our policy assumed a very different character. We want neither confrontation, nor bases under our nose. The current Russian system relies mainly on political decisions [instead of military options].
The censure by Le Figaro is not innocent: it is linked obviously to the article of the new President of CRIF, Mr. Richard Prasquier, in Le Monde, May 31, 2007: “Iran, the proliferating nuclear power”, which tries to divide Europeans by emphasising that the imaginary threat by Iran would relate to Europe.
The Old World is thus under an absolute moral obligation to find again its sovereignty, which will require forming a sufficiently dissuasive Euro-Russian axis to stop the planetary expansion of a military empire, whose close cooperation with Israel constitutes for the moment the central thrust.
Admittedly, the degree of vassalisation under the sword of "Freedom" to which the Old World is currently resigned will make it difficult to French diplomacy to assume leadership of a reinvigorating Europe. How to dissuade Germany from again wearing the leader’s helmet amongst the nations who are extremely satisfied with their attire?
But, fortunately, it is more than 40 years since our country expelled the troops of the new occupants of Europe from our territory. (De Gaulle expelled the US troops and bases from France, a feat that was not repeated by any European state – ISH). If we don’t play -- even if we are alone, the card of refusal of submission, we would betray not only our history, but the spirit of Europe. It is a matter of resurrection, or death of a civilization.
On March 17, 2007, the Iranian television recorded an interview with me whose content thus does not present anything secret. Following recent resumption of a dialogue, suspended for 27 years, between the United States and Iran, I consider the time proper to publish this interview, because this debate places from now on the simi-anthropology [implying ape origin of man] at the heart of rational reflection on international politics. Since an American anti-missile shield is being built in Poland for the purpose of in-flight destruction of Iranian thermonuclear bombs as ghost-like as that available to the current owners of artificial apocalypse, it will become increasingly difficult not to realize that 3 monotheist theologies are built on the model of mythological dissuasion, illustrated by the thermonuclear weapon. The psychoanalysis of the biblical idol unloads to historical science, so that the sacred genocide by the Flood and the eternity of infernal tortures appear finally as documents awaiting their anthropological interpretation.
Iranians: You have published a twenty-odd works with the largest publishers, numerous articles in the columns of Le Monde and some 80 essays in magazines. At the day following the attack of 11 September 2001, you decided to express yourself on the Internet, convinced that this mode of communication will forge an alliance of a new type between the basic reflection of the philosopher and the hot political news. You gave it an intellectual passion, which illustrates, in your eyes, the opportunities that only the Internet will be able to disclose to anthropological reflection on the policy of tomorrow. You argue that, given that the brain of our species is divided between reality and the dream world, it is a matter of learning how to interpret, in the anthropological sense, that fundamental dichotomy of the sacred. You are also cofounder of Encyclopaedia Universalis, in which you have steered the philosophy of sciences in a direction now shared by analysts of the unconsciously theological foundations of traditional physics. Your critical anthropology throws light on the psychological foundations of the concept of "theory of nature". Can you explain that to us in a way accessible to the general public?
MdD: Of course. Everyone understands that politics is history in action. If you look further into the notion "politic", you discover that physics is like applied politics to the behaviour of matter. Fortunately this can be shown clearly to be sufficiently constant and regular to be foreseeable and therefore exploitable. But then, a more thorough knowledge of man appears the key to the science of the cosmos. To learn how to decipher the current human-primate species, it is necessary to observe the functioning of its skull by reading the great writers and philosophers. But Shakespeare, Cervantes or Swift are, actually, contemplative of our species and its brain and therefore truly philosophical. In this way, they initiate us to politics and a true reading of history.
Iranians: No reflective policy is possible without a thorough knowledge of history. But you invoke the "political insanity" of America.
MdD: Don Quixote is insane, Lady Macbeth sinks in madness, Gulliver observes the madness and the folly of the Yahoos, Molière goes into psychoanalysis of the obsessive madness of L’Avare. It is enough to say that the highest literature and philosophical anthropology have joined to observe the madness of mankind, but also the magnitude of spiritual madness, which makes of Zarathoustra a brother of Jean of the Cross. Unamuno associates the genius of Don Quichotte’s madness with the sacrifice of Christ. The Spanish soul is a large initiator of the spiritual resources of Madness, and France is a Don Quixote of freedom to the eyes of the whole world.
It is a question of bringing to the Occident some of Cervantes’ or Shakespeare’s thoughts on madness and on Madness. To do so, it should be demonstrated that we cannot stop the progress of the history of human dignity. It is for this reason that Iran also has the right to have the nuclear weapon just like the eight big insane countries now in possession of that unusable bomb. The war is not a mutual suicide pact. It is absurd to prohibit gesticulation about the nuclear weapon to the remaining part of the universe. All this show sends us back to the madness of the simian-anthropos worthy of the pen of Kafka, that other brilliant visionary of madness.
Iranians: The Iranian atomic bomb is thus the occasion, in your eyes, to illustrate the capacity of the philosopher-anthropologist of today to initiate the general involvement (of mankind) in the secrets of international politics.
MdD: Yes, with the proviso of looking further into the concept of politics so that the eye of historical science may metamorphose politics into a formidable scanner of the anthropological secrets of mankind.
Iranians: So, Mr. Nicolas Sarkozy, known to fear the Iranian bomb as it would threaten Israel, is a case of political naivety?
MdD: Not at all, that relates to political ‘tartuffism’ [calculated sanctimony for profit, from Molière’s Tartuffe character], a highly calculated hypocrisy. Mr. Sarkozy is no ‘simple of spirit’.
Iranians: Under these conditions, how would you define the top priority of international politics?
MdD: To liberate Europe, politically and militarily turned into a vassal by the US since 1945, that’s what appears to me the essential imperative of today, that of the real France, i.e. that of Don Quixote. But the Italian people also start to open one eye and the German people are very close to opening both. Even the Parliaments of the Länder begin to question the duration of the American occupation. It is a slope of politics on which one stops with difficulty. Admittedly, it has been 60 years that the people of Europe have blindfolded themselves. But there will be a German de Gaulle, a Spanish de Gaulle, an Italian de Gaulle. You see that the political spirit is a big folly: it’ll go to the point of teaching true history at the school of madness of the prophets. Nevertheless, politics are initially a business of common sense. In face of the warlike expansion of an empire, there remain only 2 possible logics: that of submission and that of combat. Even the existence of the yoke of NATO strikes European civilization by disinheritance
Iranians: What about, from the viewpoint of the anthropologist of politics, the alliance between the United States and Israel?
MdD: There is an obvious contradiction between the public law of democracies which recognizes to all people on Earth the right to dispose for themselves and the precipitated and bellicose return to Judea of the Jewish Diaspora scattered on all the continents since the destruction of Jerusalem on 70 AD. This exceptional occurrence raises an anthropological problem, entirely unknown to political science and world-historical science, namely that of how does work the brain of a species divided between realities and theologised terrestrial worlds. Is it legitimate to drive off its soil a population, which has been occupying this soil for several centuries before Moses? Moreover, starting from the 7th century, the original population started to adore a third God, whose doctrines are bi-phased on as all gods known as unique, and therefore necessarily incompatible with the "revelation" which forms the basis of the orthodoxy of its 2 predecessors. Only decades of suffering will inform us about the outcome of this incredible experimental illustration of theo-politics, of which I have tried to postulate the anthropological foundations for more than 30 years.
It happens that this problem is from now on narrowly connected to that of Europe occupied by NATO. Plato explains in The Republic that a defeated generation generates necessarily 2 generations of blind men, but that the third generation will no less necessarily awake. It is thus inevitable that one day Europe will drive out the American garrisons from its territory. Under these conditions, how should it be successful to implant a theological brain over another in the Middle-East - that of Jahve over that of Allah? Modern historical science and geopolitics still miss the anthropological science of the relations which descendants of a furry ape maintain with the imaginary characters who wander in their brains and whom Isaiah called idols. Do you believe that if the United States did not present itself as back-up troops of the god of liberty, whose genes are those of the Gospels to 99%, a giant aircraft carrier of the US Navy would be anchored in, the middle of the Mediterranean since 60 years? This anchor place is still called Italy, but only for the form, since only the Italians born between 1920 and 1930 still have their eyes sufficiently open to be surprised about this state of affairs. But the Italians born around 1970 will relearn to open them wide again. The future belongs to them.
Iranians: You have terrible formulas on the "European servitude", like this one: "Our mirror reflects to us our effigy of tartuffic [sanctimonious] torturers".
MdD: How can a torturer appear tartuffic? The psychoanalysis of the torturer has remained in infancy. It was only one black hole in great literature, despite Kafka’s The Penal Colony. But with Jonathan Littell’s Benevolent Ones, with the Balzacs, Stendhals and Prousts of tomorrow, if they are born, they will open the psychoanalysis of the torturer. You see, with a little psychology, one can open peoples’ eyes to the secrets of chancelleries. Definitely, literary genius is the engine of knowledge of mankind. The genius of Littell is to paint us a torturer as the banal and universal character of Mr. Homais, because the real tartuffism is visceral and unconscious. But this topic would take us too far.
Iranians: How would you define the ideology?
MdD: The ideology is the hypocritical bulwark, which prevents us from going down into the anthropological depths of the Creator and his satanic dose of good conscience. Take the account of the Flood. The first exploit of this idol is nothing other than genocide on the planetary scale. But see how this torturer puts himself into embarrassment, and that at the school of his own tartuffism, which does not fail to trap him neatly in return; because he needs to save from drowning samples of his creation, as failing that, how would he go on writing his own history? He believed to be avenged once and for all, and there he is, captive once more, just as a thermonuclear giant, who has become hostage to his own devices. Then this awkward-one gives himself a son in flesh and bone. But how to make him a god armed with a skeleton, some muscles, a liver and internal organs, like Mars or Poseidon? How to supplant his rivals while having a digestive tract? What a fool, this first Sanctimonious hypocrite of torture! Islam took care not to give birth to Mahomet from the entrails of a woman fertilized by a divinity, like Leda or Proserpine. By refusing incarnation of the signs, and thus of symbolism, Islam gained 15 centuries advance over Christianity. Also, since nearly 3 centuries, the Occident of science and reason endeavours to see Jesus as a great prophet. That is taught by the Quran.
Iranians: What do you mean by what you call the theopolitical science? Is the flag a theopolitical object?
MdD: Even the catholic Church teaches that a ciborium is not a sacred object, because the spiritual does not play hide-and-seek with atoms of silver or iron. France does not play at who loses wins with the fabric of a flag, because it is pagan to think that the spiritual would substantify itself.
That means that candidates for the presidential election should know that one asks them to symbolize the true France and true France doesn’t incarnate itself, because it is a marching sign, like prophet Jesus or prophet Mahomet are marching signs. Theopolicy returns to the knowledge of unconscious "spiritual" of politics and history; the "spiritual" adjective applies to the signs and symbols, not to the material things.
Iranians: Does the Vatican still have a role to play?
MdD: Institutionalised theology is dead. The future of God is "poetic", provided one rediscovers that poetry is a spiritual demiurge. I treated this subject in my Essay on the poetic future of God, Plon 1965. I show there that Bossuet, Pascal, Chateaubriand and Claudel share the same doctrinal theology, but that they are recognisable to their "true God", that of their voice, which are 4 different gods.
Iranians: Is the weight of Judaism excessive in the West?
MdD: Ex-president Carter published a political text, which caused great noise and in which he denounces the policy of apartheid that Israel practises on a large scale by parking the Palestinians in gigantic concentration camps, which are called Gaza and the West Bank. Jimmy Carter has for a long time based himself on the theology of Kierkegaard, this Protestant priest and philosopher of the individual who studied the question of the relations of the "grace of God" with the fate of evil - which brings us to asking America how it can be that it believes herself to be God’s Chosen, whereas it does behave as "Satan of the world". You’ll notice that the UN, however subjected to America’s "redemptiveness" and "evangelising", has condemned the Israeli wall of apartheid. So you see that politics are, actually, théopolitics in the sense that it is more and more obliged to study the theological unconscious of politics.
Kierkegaard fought all his life against Hegelian dialectics, which substitutes the epics of the concept of "freedom" instead of the becoming of the real individual, therefore a crusade of a warlike ideology against a theology of the breath, therefore a messianism of the ideals of 1789 with the listening of the "spirit". Carter wrote this book because he is the only president of the United States who learned politics by listening to a philosophical culture, which enabled him to understand that messianised American democracy is the expression of the fall of the modern world into Hegelianism with the help of the myths of "freedom" and "justice". These abstractions substitute the sword of the "democratic verb" for absolute individualism of "grace". The anthropological intelligence of history and politics go down into the entrails of the philosophical thought of the West.
Iranians: And what if Mr. Sarkozy gains the election?
MdD: The Congress of Versailles of February 23, 2007 introduced into the French Constitution 2 new articles. These are about reform of the fundamental law, which allows France, by a vote of the French National Assembly and the Senate, constituting for the circumstance a high Court of Justice, to solemnly relieve of his post a president who would sell off the sovereignty of France. I studied the legitimacy of these articles in constitutional law. Their political reach seems to me revolutionary in a democracy.
- See: “La constitution du 23 février 2007 et la défense de la souveraineté nationale, 15 mars 2007” ( The Constitution of February 23, 2007 and the defence of national sovereignty, March 15, 2007) on www.dieguez-philosophe.com .
All that answers the possibility according to which Sarkozy, if he were elected president of the Republic, would turn France into a vassal of the United States of America. But the real France is from now on its guard.
Iranians: What is your point of view on immigration and the place this question takes in the presidential campaign?
MdD: Immigration is a cultural question. It is a question of knowing whether the intellectual elite of the West is still fertilising and whether, on its side, Islam is able to give birth to a philosophy and thought, which would inspire Europe in return. We are far from it. For the moment, the overwhelming un-culture of an exhausted secularity prevents formation of a French philosophical elite able to demonstrate that Islam has, actually, taken a great advance on Christianity, because Mohamed’s religion is not founded on the pagan myth of the incarnation of a symbolic system. If the France of Cartesius would not awaken herself in the true heritage of Darwin and Freud, it would also not be able to give birth to a philosophical elite within French Islam; and the country would not know a second renaissance, which would deepen our humanism, which has become superficial. Will Islam become the detonator of a new dash of European reason and thinking? Were the tired God of Christian theologians to become the symbolic support of the true poetry of humanity, we would listen to the voices of the signified people whom we call prophets. One of them, called Isaiah, said to God, in whom he had disguised his own genius: "I abhor your sacrifices and your hands full of blood on my forecourts." Again politics, again history!
Iranians: You always rejected Marxism, but how to manage social injustice?
MdD: As soon as the Berlin Wall had fallen Jean-Paul II disturbed the happy choir of those who praised the newfound capitalism, because at its origin Christianity is a religion of the poor and that it has failed each time that it made itself the prey of the oriental capitalism, that of the throne and gilded glitter of the Vatican. What Jean-Paul II condemned, was not the struggle of Marxism against poverty, but the myth of the advent of a proletarian "kingdom of God", because the Church itself had had to give it up it after less than one century of learning about the laws which govern the real politics and history. Since then, the simian-anthropos is torn between the paradisiacal Utopia and warlike brutality.
Iranians: You evoke the simian ascent of man. Are you the creator of the concept of simianthropology?
MdD: Yes, in Une histoire de l’intelligence (A History of Intelligenc), Fayard 1986) and before, in La Caverne (The Cave) Gallimard, bibl. of ideas, 1974. I observe that Darwin did not lead the internal logic of the concept of evolution of the species to its natural and therefore inevitable conclusion; because if we incarnate only one stage of the advent of our brain, we must acknowledge our current cerebral incompletion - what a Church that would still be alive should greet like a blessing from the sky, since, for 20 centuries, all Christian mystics have concentrated on knowing the limitations [Dutch eindigheid] of the human being. Pascal made the idol say: "The more it rises, the more I lower it; the more it lowers, the more I raise it ". Critical anthropology throws its light on the school of lowering mankind to the level of a semi-animal, but because only one eye opened on the semi-animal nature of humanity really sees the idol as it is, i.e. in its specific animal nature. Because the idol does not rest in the carved wood, but in a trans-animal look at the wooden god; and how would the wooden substance of the idol be able to give that look on it? The saints see the wooden god, which is called the Church.
Iranians: Isn't the sterility by which Western reason from now on seems to be marked a disease caused by European imperialism, and this disease isn’t it a disease "to the death ", as Kierkegaard said?
MdD: There never was great civilisation, which didn’t spread and which didn’t impose its radiation by other means than by the force of weapons. If Alexander had not launched the Greeks to attack Asia, there wouldn’t have been an universalisation of Greek civilisation, if Rome had not carried the iron and the fire beyond its borders, there wouldn’t have been a civilisation of written law and of a global heritage of the Athenian genius. The war brings to the winner economic prosperity, and after that potentially a blossoming culture. This is why it should be kept in mind that, in the eyes of the United States, 1945 isn’t the year of the liberation of Europe, but that of their own military triumph on a global scale, of which they say themselves that it carried them to a power higher than that of the Roman empire, higher than that of the reign of Charles the Fifth, higher than that of Napoleon’s empire, higher than that of the British Commonwealth, a triumph which for a long time enabled them to impose the dollar as the only reserve currency of the world. Today, it’s also by weapons that the American empire perishes under our eyes and its descent into the abyss will be sealed by its defeat in Iraq. Why has this global shipwreck become inevitable, if not because Russia & China are from now on able to prevent an American empire, which is already secretly desperate and out of breath, from defying one last time the fatality of its death by an ultimate rush on the oil of Iran and Sudan? But it is too late for going on with the military expansion of the empire on a global scale.
This is to say that occupied Europe will shake the yoke of NATO as soon as the American empire will have been overcome by a general revolt of its vassals. All the remainder is only a vain chattering, because it is quite impossible that a continent that for a certain period has been occupied by a foreign army does not one day find again one day its sovereignty. But has the America of Attila, of Tamerlane, of Genghis Khan, of democracy really been civilizator in this manner? When Jonathan Littell looks deep down until dizziness overcomes us into the notion of barbarism, when he writes that a great writer is a diver, who never stops going deeper down into the black and "blacker that the black ", he demands for French nationality. Perhaps he knows that civilisation is a poet, perhaps he knows that any poet will seek Eurydice in hell, perchance he knows that a culture is like an Eurydice transfigured by the flute of Orpheus.
This is also to say that that all civilisations aren’t equal between them. If it were prohibited to distinguish truth from forgery in the name of a brain-less multiculturalism, there would be no more civilisation, since the wizard who believes that the spirit of its ancestors hides under the bark of trees would become the equal of the poet of "Subida al monte Carmelo" (Ascent of Mount Carmel, Poem by John of the Cross). “The eyes of Ezekiel are open", it is said in the Scripture. Civilisation is a poet who does not cease opening the eyes of Ezekiel.
Iranians: In this context, do you believe that the israel-palestinian conflict is an incurable disease?
MdD: When everyone will have understood that Israel will never agree to return to the borders of 1967 and when vassalized Europe cannot pretend any more to think it will, this State will have an appointment with Kierkegaard, who will say to him: "You were sick of your false justice. Now you must decide if this disease is fatal."
Published June 5, 2007
[ 1 ] Interpreters of service this day were: Mr. Feather & Mrs. Anvil. “Between the Feather and the Anvil” (“Entre la Plume et l’Enclume”), we are always listening for the poetic miracle. The text which follows has breath and metaphors, we thus merrily mount the flying Persian carpet, which came through the window of a smoky cottage on March 17.