google-site-verification: googlecefa9497ae54ff6a.html

Avertir le modérateur

11/01/2017

Avoir un ami...L'homme le plus intelligent doit faire place aux bons avis. C'est dans le besoin que l'on connaît ses vrais amis. FranceWebSharing-> A friend in need is a friend indeed.->Voltaire: "toutes les grandeurs de ce monde ne valent pas un bon ami"

1agld1r.gifA friend in need is a friend indeed.

Grand connaisseur de l'âme humaine et des mécanismes de domination, celui qui ne voulait pas seulement vaincre par la force mais aussi par la manière, livre là un édifiant traité de morale et de survie politique. Baltasar Gracian

Il faut aujourd’hui plus de conditions pour faire un sage, qu’il n’en fallut anciennement pour en faire sept et il faut en ce temp-ci plus d’habileté pour traiter avec un seul homme, qu’il n’en fallait autrefois pour traiter avec tout un peuple.

Cel care controlează marea, controlează comerţul mondial; cel care controlează comerţul, controlează bogăţia; cel care controlează bogăţia lumii, controlează însăşi lumea.

Sir Walter Raleigh,

 

a-friend-in-need-is-a-friend-indeed

WASHINGTON, U.S. - Even as one of the most controversial post-election weeks draws to a close - America is still engaged in heated debate on the new revelations that the nation has come face to face with over the last few days. 

Except, in this debate, half of the panel is shocked and the other half seems to be blinded.   

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump for one, is trying his best to downplay the explosive U.S. intelligence report, that could have otherwise, through the hands of the American media, managed to outrage every citizen of the country. 

On Friday, U.S. intelligence released an unclassified report on the role of Russia in the U.S. election outcome shortly after briefing president-elect Donald Trump on its conclusions.

Since then, the explosive findings of the report have received lesser attention than Trump’s reactions to it. 

In its report, the intelligence agencies laid down their case for how and why Russia sought to influence the 2016 election, specifically aimed at helping the Republican nominee and discrediting his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.

The report stated, “We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.”

It went on to add, “We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavourably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.”

“When it appeared to Moscow that Secretary Clinton was likely to win the election, the Russian influence campaign began to focus more on undermining her future presidency,” the report read.

There was also mention of the personal motivation behind Putin's working toward preventing Clinton from becoming president.

"He has publicly blamed her since 2011 for inciting mass protests against his regime in late 2011 and early 2012, and... holds a grudge for comments he almost certainly saw as disparaging him," the report stated.

According to intelligence agencies, Russian military intelligence used intermediaries such as WikiLeaks, DCLeaks.com and the Guccifer 2.0 personal to release emails that it had acquired from the Democratic National Committee and top Democrats as part of the effort.

The report said the operation went for "targets associated with both major U.S. political parties."

The report assessed with "high confidence" that the GRU, Russia's military intelligence agency, had used those intermediaries to release “U.S. victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets and relayed material to WikiLeaks."

It noted that Russia's state-sponsored news agency Russia Today (RT) "has actively collaborated with" WikiLeaks, which published the leaked documents and emails hacked from Democrats during the presidential campaign.

In addition, the report also revealed that “Moscow also saw the election of President-elect Trump as a way to achieve an international counterterrorism coalition against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).” 

According to U.S intelligence, this was another motivating factor for the meddling by Russia.

In a strategic move immediately after the release of this document’s findings and to win over the initial outcry that was sure to follow - Trump vowed to get tough on the hacking, without directly addressing the Russian involvement.

He said, "Russia, China, other countries, outside groups and people are consistently trying to break through the cyber infrastructure of our governmental institutions, businesses and organisations, including the DNC.”

Carefully adding, “There was absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election including the fact that there was no tampering whatsoever with voting machines," Trump said.

He even pledged to form a task force to address cyber threats within 90 days of taking office.

Then, as the debate was kept alive on both traditional and social media, Trump said on Saturday, “Having a good relationship with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing."

He added, “We have enough problems without yet another one.”

In a series of tweets, he even labelled those who think otherwise as “stupid people or fools.”

With the new cabinet to take charge and Trump all prepared to take office on January 20 - it remains to be seen if he will directly address the findings of the country’s intelligence agencies on Wednesday, in his first press conference since being elected as the 45th President of the United States.

 
 
« Le mépris est la forme la plus subtile de la vengeance. »

Rien ne demande plus de circonspection que la vérité, car c'est se saigner de la dire. Il faut autant d'adresse pour la savoir dire que pour la savoir taire. [...] Toutes les vérités ne se peuvent pas dire : les unes parce qu'elles m'importent, et les autres parce qu'elles importent à autrui.
 
"Il vaut mieux savoir conserver ses amis que ses biens".
 
Les gens d'esprit sont craints; les médisants sont haïs; les présomptueux sont méprisés; les railleurs sont en horreur; et les singuliers sont abandonnés de tout le monde.
Que fais-tu ? Sais-tu bien à qui tu as affaire ? Ne vois-tu pas que tu te déclares contre la Fausseté, c'est-à-dire contre tout le monde, et qu'on va te prendre pour un fou à défendre l'autre, la Vérité ? Les enfants et les fous ont déjà voulu venger cette dernière en la faisant sortir de leur bouche mais trop faibles contre tant d'adversaires si puissants, ils n'ont rien pu faire : la Vérité, toute belle qu'elle soit, est depuis restée abandonnée. Et lentement, on l'a poussée et repoussée au loin, si bien qu'aujourd'hui, elle n'ose paraître et nul ne sait où elle a pu trouver refuge.
 

Avoir un ami...L'homme le plus intelligent doit faire place aux bons avis...

La souveraineté même ne doit pas exclure la docilité..

 
Pour tolérer toutes les sottises d'autrui, mieux vaut une extrême patience.
 
 

La Russie affirme ne pas avoir de «dossiers compromettants» sur Trump

Buzzfeed a publié en intégralité le dossier de 35 pages. Le site note toutefois qu’il contient clairement des erreurs, et qu’il faut donc le lire avec le plus grand doute. Voici ce que l’on sait à ce stade.

La source est un ancien agent britannique

Le rapport provient d’un dossier « d’opposition research » sur Donald Trump compilé par un ancien agent du MI6 (renseignement britannique).

04/01/2017

PoissySmartCity,PoissyWebCitoyen,FranceWebAsoo & MyNewsCenterNavigator, Ideas make a difference, How free market ideology perverts the vocabulary of democracy, Aeon is not-for-profit and free for everyone

 

Jason Stanley

is a professor of philosophy at Yale University in Connecticut. His latest book is How Propaganda Works (2015). 

 

Published in association with
Princeton University Press
an Aeon Partner

Brought to you by curio.io, an Aeon partner

1,200 words

Edited by Marina Benjamin

 
Republish
 
 
 

Can government support of the free market dampen its love of democracy?

38Responses
At the Maryland State House. <em>Photo Danny Huizinga/Flickr</em>
At the Maryland State House. Photo Danny Huizinga/Flickr

Citizens of the United States are quite taken with the vocabulary of liberal democracy, with words such as ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’, which conjure key democratic values and distance the nation from the Old World taint of oligarchy and aristocracy. It is much less clear, however, that Americans are guided by democratic ideals. Or that ideology and propaganda play a crucial role in concealing the large gap between rhetoric and reality.

In truth, the Old World systems have proved extremely difficult to shrug off. In their 2014 paper, Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page argue that, as in an oligarchy, ordinary US citizens have no ‘substantial power over policy decisions [and] little or no independent influence on policy at all’.

Moreover, the US regularly subscribes to a form of managerial aristocracy. In Michigan, Governor Rick Snyder successfully replaced the mayors and city councils of several cities with ‘emergency managers’ supposedly able to negotiate financial emergencies better than elected officials. In the current presidential race, Hillary Clinton advertises her managerial expertise via the language of policy, while Donald Trump parades his via the language of business. Neither language is democratic. Neither invites self-governance.

Why is there no outcry about these oligarchical and aristocratic methods? Is it because plutocrats have power over the mechanisms of representation and repression? Is it, in short, about power? In my view, power can’t explain why voters are so enthusiastically voting for the very people who promise the least democratic outcomes. Nor are Americans knowingly rejecting democratic ideals. Instead, I see an anti-democratic ideology at work, inverting the meaning of democratic vocabulary and transforming it into propaganda.

Consider the example of mass incarceration in the US. Black Americans make up around 13 per cent of the population, but around 40 per cent of country’s ballooning prison population. Even if we assume, falsely, that black American crime rates justify this disparity, why is the state so punitive? Shouldn’t citizens instead be motivated to address the underlying socio-economic conditions that lead to such dramatic differences in behaviour between equals?

In The New Jim Crow (2010), Michelle Alexander argues that a national rhetoric of law and order has long justified mass incarceration. President Richard Nixon used it to crack down on black Americans under the cover of an epidemic of heroin use; this continued in the 1980s, as a merciless ‘war on drugs’ whose victims were all too often black men. In the US, the ideology of anti-black racism takes the view that blacks are violent and lazy, thereby masking the misapplication of the ideals of law and order.

Compare the ‘war on drugs’ to the current heroin crisis among middle-class white Americans, which has led to a national discussion of the socio-economic distress facing this class. Law and order doesn’t come into it. ‘The new face of heroin’ is new because, unlike the old face, it calls out for an empathetic response, rather than a punitive one. Now that heroin is ravaging white communities not black ones, the language of law and order (deemed appropriate to keep blacks in their place) has been retired. More significant still is that while the ideals of law and order preclude their unequal application, the propaganda of law and order does not: Americans were thus prevented from seeing the disguised gradient of law and order by racist ideology.

But what is the flawed ideology masking the misapplication of democratic ideals? Let’s bring it out by exploring the most cherished US democratic ideal, the ideal of freedom – popularly embodied in attacks on ‘big government’. Voters are repeatedly told that ‘big government’ is the primary source of coercion that limits freedom, which it certainly sometimes does, as the Patriot Act reminds us. But corporations also limit civic freedom in significant ways.

For example, corporations are leading direct attacks on the freedom to collectively bargain. Via outsourcing, free trade agreements allow corporations to move jobs to countries where labour is cheap; meanwhile, as a result of pressure from the conservative non-profit Citizens United, corporations can fund political candidates, thereby increasing corporate control of government. The weaker a government is, the more power corporations have over it. Across the political spectrum, there is anger that government is too influenced by industry lobbyists.

Voters concerned about government – as opposed to corporate – constraints on freedom are under the grip of what I will call a free market ideology. According to that ideology, the world of capital is by its nature free. All other substantial freedoms, including political freedom and personal freedom, are made possible by the freedom of markets.

Why do citizens who cherish freedom as an ideal vote to constrain their own freedoms by increasing the power of corporations? It’s because free market ideology masks the ways in which corporations deploy undemocratic modes of coercion. When a corporation bans employees from expressing, outside of work, opinions it disapproves of, this is seen as a legitimate protection of its economic interests. If workers have to sign non-disclosure contracts that silence them after they are employed elsewhere, it’s accepted as the cost of doing business.

The contradictions here are telling. If our most basic freedoms are self-expression and choiceful action, then corporations frequently limit our most basic freedoms. In liberal democratic theory, it is government that is regarded as the protector of such rights. But it’s precisely because government is attacked in the name of freedom that corporations have vastly greater power to constrain and shape it. 

Free market ideology uses democratic vocabulary as propaganda, obscuring a non-democratic reality. Take education. In a liberal democracy, education equips citizens with the tools and confidence to weigh in on policy decisions and play a role in their own self-governance. Hence, democratic education is at the very centre of democratic political philosophy, as the philosophies of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, W E B Du Bois, John Dewey and Elizabeth Cady Stanton attest. But the US rhetoric surrounding education is explicitly anti-democratic. Citizens prefer ‘efficient’ education systems that train children to perform vocational tasks, rather than education that fosters community, autonomy and civic participation.

The rhetoric politicians use when running for office is usually explicitly anti-democratic. Managerial culture is paradigmatically undemocratic: a CEO is like a feudal lord. But if markets are zones of freedom, then CEOs ought to be its representatives. Free market ideology also explains why, when politicians with great wealth run for office, voters are not put off by the threat of oligarchy: wealth is acquired in markets – which are the source of freedom. Finally, free market ideology explains why voters so easily give up their right to hold institutions accountable to experts who promise ‘efficiency’. Efficiency is the ideal of business, and business is the engine of the market – again the source of freedom.

Free market ideology has perverted democratic vocabulary, transforming it into propaganda that, in turn, obscures an anti-democratic reality. Yet there’s hope that voters have wised up to this and begun to challenge party elites. Such moments of awareness feel dangerous but offer great opportunities. Voters are using the proper tool – elections – to make their concerns heard. Will anyone listen?

 Ideas make a difference

If you enjoy Aeon, please show your support

23/12/2016

Europeans Consider that Terrorism and Immigration are Major Threats ,PoissySmartCity & MyNewsCenterNavigator, USA: Anti-nuclear Groups Alarmed by Message from Donald Trump

USA: Anti-nuclear Groups Alarmed by Message from Donald Trump

trump4.jpg

Washington, Dec 23 (Prensa Latina) A message published on Twitter by US President-elect Donald Trump keeps alarmed the international community and groups defending control over nuclear weapons.

 

Yesterday, the New York billionaire wrote that 'The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes.'

For Joe Cirincione, president of the nuclear non-proliferation group Ploughshares Fund, this message from Trump is a warning that 'this is the beginning of a new arms race.'

The United States currently has about 7,000 nuclear warheads, and is in the midst of a nuclear modernization process to replace aging technology, which is estimated to cost 1 trillion dollars over the next 30 years.

Shortly after Trump's controversial comment, its spokesman, Jason Miller, issued a statement trying to explain that the next president 'was referring to the threat of nuclear proliferation and the critical need to prevent it, particularly among terrorist organizations and unstable and dishonest regimes'.

For groups defending nuclear weapons control it was unclear what Trump meant by 'expanding and strengthening nuclear capability', but listed a number of possible scenarios, including building systems with more nuclear-capability than currently planned under the modernization efforts, with nuclear systems able of carrying as much warheads as possible.

According to experts, it was noticeable that Trump's statement comes a day after meeting with senior executives at Boeing and Lockheed Martin, two of the country's largest nuclear weapons contractors, currently competing with Northrop Grumman to build the next generation of intercontinental ballistic missiles for the United States Air Force, a project expected to cost at least 85 billion dollars.

At the same time, the message was spread on Twitter hours after Russian President Vladimir Putin refered to the strengthening of the his country's nuclear arsenal.

Europeans Consider that Terrorism and Immigration are Major Threats

 
Toute l'info avec 20minutes.fr, l'actualité en temps réel Toute l'info avec 20minutes.fr : l'actualité en temps réel | tout le sport : analyses, résultats et matchs en direct
high-tech | arts & stars : toute l'actu people | l'actu en images | La une des lecteurs : votre blog fait l'actu