sábado, 30 de septiembre de 2017

How America Is Losing the Battle for the South China Sea




Weekend Reads - September 30, 2017


Is H. R. McMaster's Worldview Compatible with the President's?

by Daniel L. Davis


Though McMaster has a wealth of knowledge of military affairs, evidence suggests his worldviews sharply diverges from Trump’s at critical points.

  
Read it here.



How America Is Losing the Battle for the South China Sea

by Bill Bray


Washington should step up its efforts to make Beijing pay a more serious price for such a flagrant disrespect for international law.

  
Read it here.



The Small-State Survival Guide to Foreign Policy Success

by Sverrir Steinsson and Baldur Thorhallsson


Small states are more likely to be perceived as neutral, trustworthy and compliant value-creators in negotiations.

  
Read it here.



Operation Unthinkable: Britain's Secret Plan to Invade Russia in 1945

by Michael Peck


Could this have really happened?

  
Read it here.


The 5 Most Powerful Aircraft Carriers in All of Naval History

by Robert Farley


Nothing can kill these carriers.

  
Read it here.

It is worth remembering more of Lord Acton than his most famous quote.


Lord Acton on the Meaning of Freedom


by Gary M. Galles



It is worth remembering more of Lord Acton than his most famous quote. After all, as his Acton Institute biography states, "he was considered one of the most learned people of his age, unmatched for the breadth, depth, and humanity of his knowledge," and "became known as one of the most articulate defenders of religious and political freedom" in the 19th century.
IT IS EASIER TO FIND PEOPLE FIT TO GOVERN THEMSELVES THAN PEOPLE TO GOVERN OTHERS

" Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Many Americans can identify the author as Lord Acton. But that is about all they know about John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton–First Baron Acton of Aldenham. That is a pity, because, according to Stephen Tonsor, Professor Emeritus of History at the University of Michigan, Acton was both "the most knowledgeable foreign observer of American affairs in the nineteenth century," and deeply concerned about "the threat to freedom from centralized governmental absolutism, the tyranny of the majority, bureaucratic administration, democracy and socialism," threats which have hardly been vanquished today.

It is worth remembering more of Lord Acton than his most famous quote. After all, as his Acton Institute biography states, "he was considered one of the most learned people of his age, unmatched for the breadth, depth, and humanity of his knowledge," and "became known as one of the most articulate defenders of religious and political freedom" in the 19th century.

.......

Read more: fee.org

Toward Patriotism: an Alternative to Nationalism

Click Here to Support The Imaginative Conservative

Essays of the Week




by Mark Malvasi
Brooding on power and revenge, tormented by suspicion, hatred, and fear, militant nationalists became ever more indifferent to truth and reality. They held to no objective standard of judgment. Actions were good or bad not according to their merits but according to who had undertaken them. Nationalists have not only failed to disapprove of the atrocities that their side commits, but they have also often minimized, ignored, or denied them. nationalism has not brought and will not bring such unity, if for no other reason than nationalism insists on uniformity and must always exclude those who do not conform. Yet, if there is a chance to achieve some measure of unity, patriotism might enable it... [MORE]



by Jacob Bruggeman
The Relentless Rationalist disregards the Kantian observation that out of the timber so crooked as that from which man is made, nothing entirely straight can be built. And that timber is so wickedly crooked. Nevertheless, the Relentless Rationalist knows of this timber and seeks to cut it out of the human constitution with today’s gadgetry. Removal is not enough, though; control is the ultimate answer. The Relentless Rationalist will twist humanity for a so-called greater good. Stability before all, even if it means forcing human faces under a boot and stamping on them forever. Totalitarianism is the only conclusion for Relentless Rationalists, but in it there remains room for the rest of us: hell for the human, paradise for the prophets-turned-gods.... [MORE]



by T. Adams Upchurch
For a long time, I wrote weekly opinion pieces for a local newspaper, mostly about the political issues in the news at that moment. Because of my educational background and academic accomplishments, and because an editor considered my opinion authoritative enough to warrant a regular column in his paper, I had a feeling of superiority to the masses. My feeling of superiority was constantly bolstered by the fact that I didn’t get much blowback from those readers, so I quite naturally assumed most of them agreed with what I wrote.  Then Facebook came along, and I could get my opinions out there daily instead of weekly, and I didn’t have to worry about an editor’s approval. It was all just so easy and convenient. Except for one thing... [MORE]



by Richard H. Bulzacchelli
In the wake of President Trump’s decision to rescind the order, prominent voices have been raised in moral indignation, painting President Trump as a nefarious actor. But is that characterization fair? Given President Trump’s stated motives for rescinding DACA, the question before us is not whether President Trump is merciful or of good will, but whether he is correct or incorrect in his understanding of what the law prescribes and forbids, and thus, what falls within his discretion as president and what does not. There are rational and coherent reasons for him to take the action that he did, not for nefarious purposes, but for the noble purpose of discharging his sworn duty to defend and preserve the system of laws that makes civil society possible in the United States... [MORE]


by Joseph Pearce
What do The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings show us about ourselves and the world in which we find ourselves? They show us that we live in dark and dangerous times. They show us that the power of darkness appears to be winning. They show us that history is a “long defeat.” They reveal that the devil, or Satan, or Sauron, or whatever other name we care to give him, is the Prince of this world and holds it in his sway. And yet Tolkien’s epics show us that we are not the absurd creatures that the Dark Lord’s servants would have us believe that we are. On the contrary, we are those who look beyond ourselves to the goodness, truth, and beauty of objective reality; and we are those who see our lives as a journey, a quest, an adventure, the purpose of which is to get to the heaven-haven of the reward... [MORE]


by Bradley J. Birzer
When I finished The Conservative Mind for the first time in that fateful year of 1989, I was both intrigued and repulsed by it. I remember thinking quite clearly that Russell Kirk had gotten so close to truth, but, then, just when he had had the chance, he had failed to promote freedom—the proper answer to every single thing. At least I thought so then. I ended up writing a lengthy response to Kirk on three of four sheets of yellow legal-pad paper, explaining exactly where I thought he was wrong and what he could do to fix the eighth edition of the book. How utterly sophomoric, presumptuous, and stupid! To this day, I both regret and don’t regret having not sent that letter. What would Kirk have said to this stupid but interested undergraduate libertarian who knew exactly how to fix the world?... [MORE]


by Gleaves Whitney
“You are dealing with a tangle of myth, memory, and the politics of nostalgia," Professor Stephen Tonsor told me flatly. "Because the Civil War is the American Iliad, it is constantly being refought in the public memory. Much is at stake, for myths make meaning, meaning makes politics, and politics make myths. It will take time, but you will find a way to come to terms with your Southern legacy.” He added, in a softer register: “Maybe it’s harder for Texans because of the pride Texans have in the Lone Star State. But with time and perspective, you will sort it out. I understand your attachment to place, as well as your very complicated relationship to Texas and the South. The irrational attachment to place is one of the things that makes us human"... [MORE]
















jueves, 28 de septiembre de 2017

Le déclin contemporain du christianisme dans le monde occidental peut être comparé à la situation dans l’empire russe avant 1917.


Une Europe qui a renoncé au Christ ne sera pas capable de préserver son identité

Le 22 septembre se tenait à la résidence de l’ambassadeur de Russie en Grande-Bretagne, un symposium international sur l’avenir chrétien de l’Europe. 

Le métropolite Hillarion, directeur du département des relations extérieures du patriarcat de Moscou de l’Église orthodoxe russe, y prononça le discours d’ouverture. 

Extrait trouvé dans Christianophobie Hebdo :

"Le déclin contemporain du christianisme dans le monde occidental peut être comparé à la situation dans l’empire russe avant 1917. La révolution et les événements dramatiques qui l’ont suivie avaient des causes profondément spirituelles autant que sociales et politiques. Depuis de longues années, l’aristocratie et l’intelligentsia avaient abandonné la foi, et le peuple ordinaire suivit [cet exemple].

[...] Dans les années de l’immédiat après-­guerre, le christianisme joua un rôle considérable dans le processus d’intégration européenne qui, dans le contexte de la Guerre froide, fut considéré comme l’un des moy­ens de contenir l’expansion de la propagande athée et de l’idéologie communiste. Dans sa propagande anticom­muniste, le Vatican s’appuya sur l’unification européenne, sur les partis démocrates chrétiens de l’Europe occidentale. Ces derniers croyaient fermement que la civilisation occidentale était intimement liée aux valeurs chré­tiennes, et ils avaient à se défendre contre la menace communiste. Pie XII soutint la création d’une communauté européenne comme étant une « mission historique de l’Europe chrétienne ».

[...] Et lorsque, un demi-­siècle après la création de l’Union européenne, on rédigea sa Consti­tution, il eût été naturel pour les Églises chrétiennes de s’attendre à ce que le rôle du christianisme en tant qu’une des valeurs europée­nnes, soit inclus dans le document sans empiéter sur la nature sécu­lière des autorités d’une Europe unifiée. Mais, comme nous le savons, il n’en fut rien. L’Union européenne, en rédigeant sa Constitution, refusa de men­tionner son héritage chrétien, pas même dans le préambule de ce document. Je crois fermement qu’une Europe qui a renoncé au Christ ne sera pas capable de préserver son identité culturelle et spirituelle. [...]

Un monopole du principe séculier a pris le dessus en Europe. Il se manifeste par l’expulsion de la vision du monde religieuse de l’espace public [...]

Dans l’Europe contemporaine, le sécularisme militant s’est trans­formé en pouvoir autonome qui ne tolère aucune contestation. Il permet à des groupes minoritaires bien organisés d’imposer avec suc­cès leur volonté à la majorité sous prétexte de respecter les droits de l’homme. Aujourd’hui, les droits de l’homme, dans leur essence, sont devenus un instrument pour manipuler la majorité, et le combat pour les droits de l’homme une dictatu­re de la minorité sur la majori­té. Malheureusement, il nous faut constater que ce ne sont pas des incidents isolés, mais désor­mais un système normatif de valeurs soutenu par les États et par les institutions de l’Union européenne. [...]

Je crois important que les chré­tiens en Europe se tiennent coude à coude pour défendre ces valeurs sur lesquelles la vie du continent a été édifiée pendant des siècles, et qu’ils considèrent les douleurs et la détresse des chrétiens du monde entier comme les leurs propres."


Catholics would agree with much of what Metropolitan Hilarion has said, but what can we actually do?


The Russian Orthodox Church has issued a challenge to the West




Catholics would agree with much of what Metropolitan Hilarion has said, but what can we actually do?

Metropolitan Hilarion, who is the ‘foreign minister’ of the Russian Orthodox Church, has recently been in London, where he gave a speech at a conference organised by the Russian Embassy. The Russian Embassy website reproduces the speechin toto here. The Russian Orthodox Church website gives a list of participants at the symposium, which was focused on the Christian Future of Europe.

The speech given by Hilarion was certainly interesting, and revelatory of the thought of the Russian Church. He sees religion in most of Europe as in decline, about which he is undoubtedly right. One reason is increasing secularism in most countries outside Russia, and he characterises that this is a hugely negative phenomenon. There is much that Catholics will agree with here.

The Metropolitan also focuses on another factor that has led to a change in the religious landscape of Europe: large-scale immigration from outside Europe, and in particular from the Middle East and Africa. While he does not suggest that this migration should be halted or can be halted, here Metropolitan Hilarion finds himself in the opposite corner to the Pope, at least in the question of tone. For Hilarion, immigration is a challenge or even a threat, but for the Pope it is the opportunity to welcome the stranger. Indeed, more or less at the same time as Hilarion was speaking, Pope Francis was warning against the “temptation of exclusivism and cultural fortification.”

His strong words are clearly coming from a different perspective from Hilarion’s, and yet it would be a mistake to see these points of view as mutually exclusive. The truth is that Hilarion is right: if we admit large numbers of migrants from North Africa and the Middle East, then the character of Europe will change. The only question is how will it change, and whether this change will be a good or a bad thing. Again, there can be no dispute that Christians have a duty to welcome the stranger, as the Pope says, and that ethnocentrism is not the Christian way. But this does not answer the question of how we welcome the stranger, nor does it address the question whether the best way to help people and their countries is to let them enter Europe, rather than helping them at home.

Hilarion is raising a genuine concern, one that is deeply felt in Russia, which is host to numerous migrants from central Asia. The Pope is raising a theological concern, but one whose practical implications have not been worked out.

Metropolitan Hilarion also makes some observations about the Russian Revolution a hundred years ago, and rightly points out the way this damaged Russian society. His words serve as a useful rebuke to all those who have glamourised or continue to glamourise the Soviet Union.

“The historical catastrophe of 1917 embroiled Russia in a fratricidal civil war, terror, exile of the nation’s best representatives beyond the confines of their homeland, and the deliberate annihilation of whole layers of society – the nobility, the Cossacks, the clergy and affluent peasants. They were declared to be “enemies of the people,” and their relatives were subjected to discrimination and became the “disenfranchised,” which forced them to the edge of survival. All of this terror took place under the banner of a communist ideology that fought ferociously against religion. Millions of believers were subjected to the cruellest of persecution, harassment, discrimination and repression – from mockery and dismissal in the workplace to imprisonment and execution by firing squad.”

That is an eloquent statement of historical fact. But when it comes to finding historical parallels with the current situation in the West, the Metropolitan may be on less sure ground. Quoting Patriarch Kirill, Hilarion underlines the way the decline in faith among Russia’s pre-1917 elite, especially intellectuals, paved the way for the Revolution. He does not say it, but the same point is usually made about the French Revolution too. With this in mind, Hilarion then goes on to criticise the EU for its loss of the faith of its founding fathers (a useful point that is often ignored.)

“The modern-day decline of Christianity in the western world may be compared to the situation in the Russian Empire before 1917,” says Hilarion. This strikes me as dubious to say the least. Contemporary Europe has very little in common indeed with Tsarist Russia. And of course the thing that Hilarion does not mention at all is that the Church in Russia was, before the Revolution, closely aligned with the state, and indeed run by a government minister. This lack of independence may well have compromised the Church in the eyes of Russian liberals, who saw the Church as just another instrument of state oppression.

What can be done in the face of the decline of Christianity in Europe? The Metropolitan’s conclusion is as follows:

“In a situation where we have aggressive pressure of the groups which propagate ideas unacceptable from the perspective of traditional Christian morality, it is essential to unite the Churches’ efforts in opposing these processes, to act jointly in the media, in the sphere of legal support, as well as in propagating common Christian values at all possible levels. It is important that the Churches share their experience in this sphere, and develop cooperation between church human rights organizations and monitoring centres.”

That sort of conclusion resembles what Catholics have been saying for years, and is very welcome, though how this will work out in practice is unclear, given the fact that the Russian Church seemingly never challenges the Russian government, which is guilty of numerous human rights abuses.

Metropolitan Hilarion’s speech is certainly interesting, and in many ways challenging. On many topics, he hits the nail on the head, but in practical terms, where do we go from here? An honest discussion about Ukraine would be a good place to start.

*Alexander Lucie-Smith is a Catholic priest, doctor of moral theology and consulting editor of The Catholic Herald.



In modern-day Europe militant secularism has been transformed into an autonomous power that does not tolerate dissent.


Presentation by Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk at the Christian Future of Europe Conference



On 22 September 2017, an international symposium on the Christian Future of Europe took place at the residence of Russia’s Ambassador to Great Britain. The keynote address was delivered by Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate’s Department for External Church Relations.

Your Eminences and Your Excellencies, dear Mr. Ambassador, conference organizers and participants,

I cordially greet all of those gathered today at the Russian Embassy in London to partake in this conference dedicated to the question of the future of Christianity in Europe. This topic is not only not losing any of its relevance, but is resounding ever anew. Experts believe that today Christianity remains not only the most persecuted religious community on the planet, but is also encountering fresh challenges which touch upon the moral foundations of peoples’ lives, their faith and their values.

Recent decades have seen a transformation in the religious and ethnic landscape of Europe. Among the reasons for this is the greatest migration crisis on the continent since the end of the Second World War, caused by armed conflicts and economic problems in the countries of the Middle East and North Africa. According to figures by the European Union agency Frontex, more than 1.8 million migrants entered the EU in 2015 alone.[1] Figures from the UN International Migration Report show that the number of migrants in Europe has increased from 49.3 million people in 2000 to 76.1 million people in 2015.[2] According to research by the UN International Organization for Migration, throughout the world about 1.3 percent of the adult population, which comprises some 66 million people, in the forthcoming year intend to leave for another country in order to live permanently there. Approximately a third of this group of people – 23 million – are already making plans to move. 16.5 percent of potential migrants who were questioned responded that the countries at the top of their list are Great Britain, Germany and France.[3]

The other reason for the transformation of the religious map of Europe is the secularization of European society. Figures in a British opinion poll indicate that more than half of the country’s inhabitants – for the first time in history – do not affiliate themselves to any particular religion. 2942 people took part in an opinion poll conducted in 2016 by Britain’s National Centre for Social Research: 53 percent of those who responded to the question on religious allegiance said that they do not belong to any religious confession. Among those aged from eighteen to twenty-five, the number of non-religious is higher – 71 percent. When similar research was carried out in 1983, only 31 percent of those questioned stated that they did not belong to any confession.[4]

We can see an opposite trend in the Eastern European countries, in particular in Russia. A July opinion poll conducted in Russia by the Levada-Center showed a sharp decline in the number of atheists and non-believers from 26 percent in December 2015 to 13 percent in July 2017.[5] This, of course, does not mean that all the remaining 83 percent are practicing believers. Many defined themselves as “religious to some degree” or “not too religious”, but nevertheless affiliated themselves with one of the traditional religions. However, the number of people who define themselves as being “very religious” is growing steadily.

The contemporary state of religious life in Russian society is directly linked to the tragic events of one hundred years ago. The historical catastrophe of 1917 embroiled Russia in a fratricidal civil war, terror, exile of the nation’s best representatives beyond the confines of their homeland, and the deliberate annihilation of whole layers of society – the nobility, the Cossacks, the clergy and affluent peasants. They were declared to be “enemies of the people,” and their relatives were subjected to discrimination and became the “disenfranchised,” which forced them to the edge of survival. All of this terror took place under the banner of a communist ideology that fought ferociously against religion. Millions of believers were subjected to the cruelest of persecution, harassment, discrimination and repression – from mockery and dismissal in the workplace to imprisonment and execution by firing squad. The Church in those years produced a great multitude of martyrs and confessors for the faith who, as St. Paul said, “were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection: and others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment” (Heb 11.35-36).

Discussion on the future of Christianity in Europe is impossible without understanding the prospects for the survival of religiosity among its inhabitants. Research carried out by the Center for the Study of Global Christianity at Gordon-Cornwell Theological College, USA, indicates that the number of Christians in Europe will be consistently falling: from 560 million people in 2015 to 501 million by 2050.[6] The calculations of the Pew Research Center are more pessimistic and foretell a reduction in Christians in Europe from 553 million people in 2015 to 454 million people by 2050.[7]

These are alarming prognoses, but they reflect the current trends in the transformation of the religious picture of Europe, and they cannot be ignored. Some are suggesting that, unless special force is applied, Europe cannot simply cease to be Christian on the grounds that Europe has for many centuries been Christian. I would like to remind you all that in Russia before 1917 nobody ever proposed that the collapse of a centuries-old Christian empire would happen and that it would be replaced by an atheistic totalitarian regime. And even when that did happen, few believed that it was serious and for long.

The modern-day decline of Christianity in the western world may be compared to the situation in the Russian Empire before 1917. The revolution and the dramatic events which followed it have deep spiritual, as well as social and political, reasons. Over many years the aristocracy and intelligentsia had abandoned the faith, and were then followed by common people. His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia spoke of this in January 2017: “The fundamental rupture in the traditional way of life – and I am now speaking… of the spiritual and cultural self-consciousness of the people – was possible only for the reason that something very important had disappeared from peoples’ lives, in the first instance those people who belonged to the elite. In spite of an outward prosperity and appearance, the scientific and cultural achievements, less and less place was left in peoples’ lives for a living and sincere belief in God, an understanding of the exceptional importance of values belonging to a spiritual and moral tradition.”[8]

In the immediate post-war years Christianity played a huge role in the process of European integration, which was viewed in the context of the Cold War as one of the means of containing the expansion of atheist propaganda and communist ideology. The Vatican relied in its anti-communist propaganda upon European unity, upon the Christian democratic parties of Western Europe. The latter firmly believed that Western civilization is closely tied to Christian values, and had to be defended from the communist threat. Pope Pius XII supported the creation of a European community as “Christian Europe’s historical mission.”

The first president of the Federal Republic of Germany Theodor Heuss said that Europe was built on three hills: the Acropolis, which gave her the values of freedom, philosophy and democracy; the Capitol, which represented Roman legal concepts and social order; and Golgotha, i.e. Christianity.[9] It must be noted too that the founding fathers of the European Union were deeply religious men – for example, the French foreign minister Robert Schuman, the chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany Konrad Adenauer and the Italian foreign minister Alcide De Gasperi.

And when half a century after the creation of the European Union its constitution was being written, it would have been natural for the Christian Churches to expect that the role of Christianity as one of the European values to have been included in this document, without encroaching upon the secular nature of the authorities in a unified Europe. But, as we know, this did not happen. The European Union, when writing its constitution, declined to mention its Christian heritage even in the preamble of the document.

I firmly believe that a Europe which has renounced Christ will not be able to preserve its cultural and spiritual identity. For many centuries Europe was the home where various religious traditions lived side by side, but at the same time in which Christianity played a dominant role. This role is reflected, particularly, in the architecture of European cities which are hard to imagine without their magnificent cathedrals and numerous, though more modest in size, churches.

A monopoly of the secular idea has taken hold in Europe. Its manifestation is the expulsion of the religious worldview from the public expanse. Article 4 of the UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination based on Religion and Belief, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1981, affirms that “All States shall take effective measures to prevent and eliminate discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief in the recognition, exercise and enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms in all fields of civil, economic, political, social and cultural life.”[10]

The architects of the secular society have seen to the legal aspect of the issue: formally one can confess any religion, but if one attempts to motivate one’s actions through religious belief and freedom of conscience and encourage others to act in accordance with their faith, then at best one will be subjected to censure, or at worst to criminal prosecution.

For example, if one is a doctor and refuses to perform an abortion,[11] or euthanasia,[12] by referring to one’s religious principles, then one is breaking the law. If you are a Protestant pastor and live in a country in which same sex unions are legal, then you have little chance of refusing this couple the right to a church wedding while remaining unpunished by the state. Thus, for example, the Swedish prime minister Stefan Löfven recently stated that all pastors of the Church of Sweden ought to be obliged to perform church weddings for same-sex couples, adding that “I see parallels to the midwife who refuses to perform abortions. If you work as a midwife you must be able to perform abortions, otherwise you have to do something else… It is the same for priests.”[13]

Such political figures are the complete opposite to those who were at the foundations of the European Union, and this type of rhetoric, in my view, is suicidal for the continent of Europe. The legalization of abortion, the encouragement of sexual promiscuity, and the systematic attempts to undermine family values have led to a profound demographic crisis in many European countries. This crisis, accompanied by an identity crisis, will lead to a situation whereby in time other peoples will inhabit Europe with a different religion, a different culture and different paradigms of values.

Often the language of hatred in relation to Christians is used when Christians insist on their right to participate in public affairs. They enjoy the same right as much as it is enjoyed by adherents of any other religion or by atheists. However, in practice it is not like this: dozens of instances of discrimination against Christians on the grounds of their beliefs are registered every year. These instances are highlighted by the media and become a topic for public discussion, but the situation as a whole does not change as a result.

In modern-day Europe militant secularism has been transformed into an autonomous power that does not tolerate dissent. It allows well-organized minority groups to successfully impose their will on the majority under the pretext of observing human rights. Today human rights have in essence been transformed into an instrument for manipulating the majority, and the struggle for human rights into the dictatorship of the minority in relation to the majority.

Unfortunately, we should note that these are not isolated incidents, but an already formed system of values supported by the state and supra-national institutions of the EU.

In a situation where we have aggressive pressure of the groups which propagate ideas unacceptable from the perspective of traditional Christian morality, it is essential to unite the Churches’ efforts in opposing these processes, to act jointly in the media, in the sphere of legal support, as well as in propagating common Christian values at all possible levels. It is important that the Churches share their experience in this sphere, and develop cooperation between church human rights organizations and monitoring centers.

I believe it important that Christians of Europe should stand shoulder to shoulder to defend those values upon which the life of the continent has been built for centuries, and that they should view the afflictions and dismay of Christians throughout the world as their own.

[1] Frontex Risk Analysis Network Quarterly Report. Q4 2015.http://frontex.europa.eu/assets/Publications/Risk_Analysis/FRAN_Q4_2015.pdf

[2] International Migration Report 2015. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs/PopulationDivision.

http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/publications/migrationreport/docs/MigrationReport2015.pdf

[3] Measuring Global Migration Potential, 2010–2015. Issue No. 9, July 2017.http://publications.iom.int/system/files/pdf/gmdac_data_briefing_series_issue_9.pdf

[4] Число неверующих в Великобритании впервые превысило 50%.http://www.bbc.com/russian/news-41154931

[5] https://www.levada.ru/2017/07/18/religioznost

[6] http://www.gordonconwell.edu/ockenga/research/documents/StatusofGlobalChristianity2017.pdf

[7] http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/

[8] Presentation by His Holiness Patriarch Kirill at the opening of the XXV Nativity Educational Readings http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/4789256.html

[9] Христианские церкви и европейская интеграция: параметры взаимодействия.http://orthodoxru.eu/ru/index.php?content=article&category=publications&id=2012-09-17-1&lang=ru

[10] http://www.un.org/ru/documents/decl_conv/declarations/relintol.shtml

[11] http://www.intoleranceagainstchristians.eu/case/medical-directors-dismissal-reversed.html

[12] Catholic care home in Belgium fined for refusing euthanasia.http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/07/04/catholic-care-home-in-belgium-fined-for refusing-euthanasia/

[13] http://www.intoleranceagainstchristians.eu/case/swedish-prime-minister-priests-should-perform-same-sex-marriages.html


Une œuvre sans équivalent dans le monde: l´histoire mondiale du communisme synthétise et complète plus d'un demi-siècle de connaissances sur le sujet


Une histoire mondiale du communisme, tome 3: Les complices 

20 septembre 2017

Après Les Bourreaux (tome 1, le communisme d’en haut, du côté du pouvoir) et Les Victimes(tome 2, le communisme d’en bas, du côté de la société), Thierry Wolton achève sa monumentale trilogie « Une histoire mondiale du communisme » par ce dernier volume : Les Complices (le communisme dans les têtes).

L’auteur s’attache, dans ce volet de son essai d’investigation historique, à tous ceux qui ont permis au communisme de prospérer avec un tel succès dans l’espace et avec une telle longévité dans le temps.
  • Les dizaines de PC dans le monde avec leurs millions d’adhérents ;
  •  l’aveuglement idéologique de la quasi-totalité des intellectuels de l’époque ; 
  • la complaisance de la plupart des responsables politiques occidentaux à l’égard des régimes marxistes-léninistes ;
  • l’aide apportée par les capitalistes cupides aux économies socialistes : autant de visages et de formes de complicité.
A l’heure du bilan, maintenant qu’il est établi que l’espoir s’est mué en tragédie, les responsabilités apparaissent multiples et planétaires, ce qui rend ce passé si douloureux et la volonté de l’oublier impérieuse. 

Regarder ces vérités en face, sans honte mais sans concession, est pourtant une nécessité si l’on veut comprendre notre époque, héritage direct de ce siècle communiste achevé.

Fidèle à sa méthode, Thierry Wolton brosse ici un grand récit ponctué de témoignages, d’anecdotes, d’analyses qui viennent compléter sa réflexion. Il montre aussi combien cette aventure humaine a façonné le visage de notre nouveau siècle, faisant de cette Histoire mondiale du communisme un livre au présent. 

Sa trilogie, saluée par la critique et les meilleurs spécialistes, fait déjà date dans l’historiographie du communisme


https://www.amazon.fr/Une-histoire-mondiale-communisme-complices/dp/224681149X

Thierry Wolton: «Communisme et nazisme sont deux variantes du totalitarisme»


Les complices des systèmes communistes


FIGAROVOX/GRAND ENTRETIEN - Jean-Luc Mélenchon a affirmé, «c'est la rue qui a abattu les nazis», sans évoquer les crimes soviétiques. Le leader de la France insoumise devrait lire, Les Complices, de Thierry Wolton. L'essayiste y décrit la complaisance de l'intelligentsia notamment française pour le totalitarisme communiste.



Thierry Wolton, essayiste, est l'auteur d'une vingtaine d'ouvrages, consacrés pour la majeure partie à divers aspects du communisme. Fruit de plus de dix années de travail acharné, Une histoire mondiale du communisme synthétise et complète plus d'un demi-siècle de connaissances sur le sujet. C'est une œuvre sans équivalent dans le monde.


FIGAROVOX.- Dans votre livre Les Complices, tome III de votre Histoire mondiale du communisme, vous vous penchez sur l'attrait qu'a exercé l'idéologie communiste sur les intellectuels occidentaux. D'où vient selon vous cette fascination?

Thierry WOLTON.- Les intellectuels et le communisme étaient faits pour se rencontrer depuis que Lénine a compris que le prolétariat n'allait pas briser ses chaînes d'exploité, comme le croyait Marx, et qu'il fallait un parti de révolutionnaires professionnels pour prendre le pouvoir, comme il l'écrit dans Que faire? en 1902. La révolution, devenait du coup une affaire d'intellectuels éclairés, chargés de faire le bonheur du peuple malgré lui. Être au centre du pouvoir, en tant que conseiller ou comme acteur, est un vieux rêve de l'élite pensante depuis Platon. De plus, le déterminisme historique qui caractérise la théorie marxiste, avec la lutte des classes comme moteur de l'histoire et l'inéluctable avènement du communisme, stade suprême de l'humanité, offrait aux intellectuels la feuille de route dont ils rêvaient. Les voilà au cœur de l'action avec la boussole pour les diriger. Le communisme une fois instauré, tous les régimes en question ont éliminé les intellectuels qui n'étaient pas dans la ligne, mais tant qu'il s'est agi du sang des autres là-bas, au loin, de ceux qui subissaient, la plupart des intellectuels occidentaux sympathisants ont continué à croire en l'avenir radieux.

À vous lire, il semble que la France ait fourni les plus beaux contingents de ces «complices». Pourquoi selon vous «l'opium des intellectuels» a-t-il eu autant d'emprise dans notre pays?


Le terme de « révolution communiste » est un oxymore que nos intellectuels ont vénéré.

L'expression «opium des intellectuels» est de Raymond Aron, l'un de nos rares intellectuels à avoir échappé à l'attraction communiste. L'appétence particulière de nos «penseurs» pour cette idéologie tient à plusieurs facteurs. Pour l'essentiel, disons que le rapport de l'intellectuel français au pouvoir est singulier, au phénomène de cour mis en place sous la royauté: être proche, avoir l'oreille du prince a toujours été une marque de reconnaissance. En France le pouvoir attire, jusqu'à aveugler souvent. D'autre part, la philosophie des Lumières qui a annoncé la Révolution française a démontré comment la pensée pouvait préparer les esprits aux bouleversements politiques et sociaux, ce que le communisme systématise avec le parti de Lénine justement. Le facteur révolution joue aussi son rôle, toute la culture post 1789 a magnifié ce moment, c'est seulement récemment que nous avons pris conscience que l'instrumentalisation idéologique pouvait conduire à la Terreur, comme en 1793. L'expression populaire «on ne fait pas d'omelette sans casser d'œufs» présente les excès révolutionnaires comme nécessaires, donc acceptables. En réalité, il n'y a jamais eu de révolution communiste, c'est l'une des impostures de cette histoire. Dans les faits, le pouvoir n'a jamais été conquis à la suite d'une révolte populaire: le coup d'État de Lénine en octobre 1917, la guerre civile gagnée par Mao en 1949, la guerre de libération nationale conduite par Ho Chi Minh au Vietnam en sont quelques exemples. Le terme de «révolution communiste» est un oxymore que nos intellectuels ont vénéré.

Vous évoquez notamment le concept de «compagnon de route». Que signifie-t-il? Quels ont été les plus célèbres d'entre eux?

L'expression est due à Trotski, en 1922. Elle désigne l'intellectuel qui est prêt à faire un bout de chemin avec les communistes sans pour autant adhérer au parti. «Pour un compagnon de route, la question se pose toujours de savoir jusqu'où il ira», dit Trotski, idéologue du communisme parmi les idéologues. Le terme s'est décliné en plusieurs langues: papoucki en russe, fellow traveller en anglais, Mitlaufer en allemand,compagno di strada en italien, etc. Dans à peu près tous les pays du monde il y a eu des compagnons de route: GB Shaw en Grande Bretagne, Dashiell Hammett aux Etats Unis, Bertolt Brecht en Allemagne, Alberto Moravia en Italie, etc. Il serait plus court de citer les intellectuels restés lucides.

Quelles différences faites vous entre le «compagnon de route» et «l'idiot utile» dont vous parlez aussi?

Lénine désignait par ce terme l'homme politique, l'homme d'affaires qui pouvaient être utilisés pour promouvoir tel ou tel aspect du communisme, par orgueil (se rendre intéressant), par ignorance, par cupidité, bref en usant de tous les ressorts humains. Le plus connu des «idiots utiles» est l'ancien président du Conseil français, sous la IIIe République, Edouard Herriot, invité en Ukraine au début des années 1930 alors que la famine, instrumentalisée par Staline pour liquider les paysans récalcitrants à la collectivisation, battait son plein. Il en a nié la réalité, soit plusieurs millions de morts. Plus près de nous, François Mitterrand s'est prêté à la même opération pour le compte de Mao. Reçu par le Grand Timonier alors que la famine décimait le pays à cause du Grand bond en avant, il en a contesté l'ampleur comme Mao lui avait dit. De 30 à 50 millions de Chinois sont morts à cette époque. On ne compte pas les hommes d'affaires capitalistes qui ont aidé les régimes communistes à survivre par des crédits ou en livrant du matériel, de la technologie jusque et y compris à l'usage des travailleurs forcés des camps de concentration. Tout ce passé est douloureux pour nos consciences, voilà pourquoi aussi il est tentant de l'oublier, voire de l'escamoter................

................

Lire l´article ici: www.lefigaro.fr



Lire aussi:

Les Complices, de Thierry Wolton : heureux comme un stalinien en France

Par Paul-François Paoli

Dans Les Complices, tome III de son Histoire mondiale du communisme, Thierry Wolton évoque l'impunité intellectuelle dont ont joui les compagnons de route de l'URSS.

Qui se souvient de l'affaire Soljenitsyne, qui défraya la chronique en France? Vu d'aujourd'hui, tout paraît évident. Soljenitsyne est l'auteur d'un livre monumental, L'Archipel du Goulag, qui, à travers plusieurs milliers de pages, décrivait la vie des zeks, ces Soviétiques transformés en esclaves pour des raisons arbitraires jusqu'à ce que mort s'ensuive. Mais à l'époque? Soljenitsyne? Un traître à son pays, un nostalgique du nazisme, un moujik pouilleux chantre obscur de la vieille Russie tsariste, un antisémite sournois… On en passe et des pires! Voilà, à peu de chose près, ce qui s'écrivait non seulement dans L'Humanité, mais aussi dans la presse de gauche, du Monde à Témoignage chrétien. Ce qu'il y a de bien, avec le livre de Wolton, c'est ...

Cet article est réservé aux abonnés. 85% reste à lire





Thierry Wolton 




Né en 1951, le journaliste et essayiste français Thierry Wolton a publié une vingtaine d’ouvrages pour la plupart consacrés aux relations politiques internationales, dont Le grand recrutement (1993), Rouge-brun. Le mal du siècle (1999), Quatrième guerre mondiale (2005), Le KGB au pouvoir, le système Poutine (2008).

Dix ans de recherche lui ont été nécessaires pour concevoir Une histoire mondiale du communisme, dont les deux premiers tomes intitulés Les bourreaux et Les victimes sont parus fin 2015. Les complices, à paraître en 2017, constituera le troisième et dernier tome du projet. Thierry Wolton livre ici une somme de plus de deux mille pages, minutieusement documentée, avec l’ambition de faire le récit complet d’une idéologie qui a considérablement marqué l’Histoire par son emprise, son expansion et sa durée. À travers de nombreux témoignages, extraits d’ouvrages et études approfondies, sont ainsi analysés les rouages et les acteurs d’un système de domination d’une puissance rare, une mécanique totalitaire implacable qui a concerné au XXe siècle un tiers de l’humanité, dans une trentaine de pays, sur tous les continents. Comment à partir des grandes espérances des origines théoriques ont pu être engendrées autant de catastrophes humaines – répressions, violences, famines, purges, déportations, goulags… ? Comment et pourquoi l’utopie a-t-elle été exploitée dans une logique de terreur généralisée, folle et meurtrière ? L’auteur fournit une riche et éclairante matière pour comprendre les régimes communistes dans une perspective globale et, au-delà du panorama historique, dessine une possible leçon de politique d’avenir. Car « le danger d’une idéologie qui façonne ses propres instruments de domination reste d’actualité » écrit-il.
(  http://www.fondation-janmichalski.com/agenda/rencontre-avec-thierry-wolton-autour-d-une-histoire-mondiale-du-communisme/
 )