ÉTATS-UNIS : ROGER STONE ARRÊTÉ

Ouvert aux commentaires. Nous pourrons comparer nos lectures de l’acte d’accusation. Il y a de la matière !

Comme on (lui y compris) s’y attendait depuis de nombreux mois, Roger Stone a été arrêté.

Je vous en dis plus dès qu’on en sait plus.

[J’ai déjà parlé de lui assez souvent, en particulier en profondeur ici].

P.S. Si vous voulez lire l’acte d’accusation en même temps que moi, c’est ici.

« Person 1 » est Jerome Corsi (il l’a confirmé personnelement).

« Person 2 » est Randy Credico. Je mentionnais déjà son rôle d’intermédiaire dans la vidéo le 12 août 2018 où je parlais longuement de Stone.

13Shares

23 réflexions sur « ÉTATS-UNIS : ROGER STONE ARRÊTÉ »

  1. Outre le démasquage final (points 9, 10, 11 et suivants) du héros sacro-saint de certaines parties de la gauche dans la célèbre ambassade de Londres, j’ai trouvé surtout le chic français caché au point 37 (sub f) bien élégant :

    quote
    STONE responded, “If you testify you’re a fool. Because of tromp I could never get away with a certain
    [sic] my Fifth Amendment rights but you can. I guarantee you you are the one who
    gets indicted for perjury if you’re stupid enough to testify.”
    unquote

    ¨Because of tromp¨ …

    ¨À cause de la tromp[erie]¨…

    Heureusement, M. Mueller n’a pas perdu son sens de l’humour.

  2. c’est plus addictif qu’une serie tv, les pièces du puzzle se mettent en place, on va voir les têtes tombées avec un denouement probablement digne d’un film d’Hollywood justement. Je regarde avec stupefaction les patriotes les plus acharnés sur des videos youtube telles que x22report c’est hallucinant de voir autant de personnes naives qui defendent Trump avec autant d’acharnement. J’avoue que j’attends le verdict de tout celà avec impatience ça va être une bombe si comme vous le pensez depuis longtemps Trump est un agent Russe volontaire ou par chantage. Comment vont réagir toutes ces personnes qui attendaient un sauveur vont decouvrir un traitre ça va être un carnage. J’en vois dejà qui pensent à un complot des démocrates, j’espère que l’on va voir des preuves aussi en videos qui prouvera sans aucun doute de la culpabilité de Trump.
    Merci de nous tenir au courant de ce qu’il se passe en temps reel, j’avoue que je ne sais pas si c’est malsain mais j’attends de voir vraiment la suite et le final. Esperons que tout ça ne déclenche pas de guerre civile là bas.

  3. Trump avait, a encore ?, des affaires en Russie. Il a continué à s’en occuper alors qu’il faisait campagne pour la Maison Blanche. Il a beaucoup de choses à cacher et ses proches, qui l’ont aidé à les cacher, ont, les uns après les autres, des ennuis avec la justice. Il n’est pas sûr non plus que Trump sache faire passer l’intérêt de son pays avant ses propres intérêts, notamment russes. Etc. Ça ne fait pas de lui pour autant un « agent russe ». Cette hypothèse continue à me sembler farfelue. Pour tout dire cette accusation est si « belle », si « délectable », si « absolue » que je la crois même forcément fausse.

      1. « C’est ce qu’on appelle la pensée dogmatique »

        C’est le contraire. Je refuse le dogme de la Russie et de Poutine assimilés au diable, capables de tout, anges du mal, contaminant tout ce qu’ils touchent.

      2. Vous vous donnez un cadre rigide comme point de départ et vous vous efforcez ensuite de tout pousser à l’intérieur. Ce qui dépasse, vous le mettez à la poubelle.

      3. @DM-B & PJ
         » pensée dogmatique  » vs  » prophétie auto-réalisatrice  » …. »and the winner is…. » (^!^)

      4. Pourra-t-on écrire , en parodiant Pascal ( qui écrivait « nature » et « raison » plutôt qu’ IA ) :

         » l’IA confond les pyrrhoniens , et l’IA confond les dogmatiques  » ?

        Plutôt Montaigne que la Vatican .

      5. Parce que je pense ce que je pense, ma pensée serait prisonnière d’un cadre rigide ? L’argument n’a que peu de poids.

        Je constate 1/ que l’élection de Trump est, aux yeux de beaucoup, un inadmissible scandale, 2/ que la Russie est accusée de tous les maux et 3/ que Trump est accusé de collusion avec la Russie.

        J’en conclus, cadre rigide ou conclusion logique ?, que cet angle d’attaque, pour ceux qui veulent l’abattre, est idéal, absolument idéal, trop beau pour être vrai.

        Ne pas être anti-Russie et anti-Poutine, de nos jours, c’est être quasiment un hérétique. Alors, être pro-Russie… Et l’hérésie est une accusation dont il est difficile de se relever.

        Occupons-nous de nos affaires. Au lieu de nous rassurer en accusant autrui.

      6. C’est plus clair comme ça : vous êtes poutinophile et tous vos pseudo-raisonnements tortueux découlent de cette admirable prémisse et visent à la confirmer.

        Merci de nous avoir épargné de plus longs débats.

      7. Voilà ! L’accusation-couperet est tombée (une fois de plus…) je serais poutinophile ! Et c’est moi qui serais rigide…
        Mais il ne s’agit pas de moi, il s’agit de savoir quoi penser de ce qui se passe aux USA, de savoir quoi penser du combat mené contre Trump et des arguments avancés pour le faire tomber.

        C’est vraiment faire bien peu de cas des Institutions de ce grand pays, comme des Institutions en général, que d’attacher tant de prix à l’élimination d’un homme, aussi criticable soit-il en tant que président.

      8. Oui c’est ça : le grand choix d’engagement personnel pour l’avenir de l’espèce, c’est « Suis-je un anti-américaniste primaire ou anti-russophile primaire ? »

      9. Bien d’accord, les qualificatifs et étiquettes dont nous nous affublons les uns les autres n’ont aucune pertinence ni aucune importance.

        Et je pense comme vous que, si nous changeons pas de route, nous allons à la catastrophe.

        Ce qui compte, même si ce n’est que de façon infinitésimale (au fond comme un bulletin de vote) c’est de penser juste. Et mettre la faute sur autrui ce n’est pas penser juste.

        En l’affaire mettre la faute sur Trump – dont l’élection est le symptôme inquiétant d’un mal dont il n’est pas la cause – ce n’est pas penser juste. Croire que son éjection éventuelle arrangerait les choses c’est s’abandonner à la pensée magique.

    1. Ben vi. Chacun est libre de croire ce qu’il veut. Cela dit, les faits et le réel sont têtus. La NSA pense le contraire de ce que vous énoncez et elle a du « matos », fourni gracieusement pas l’AIVD (the Dutch intelligence service) qui a hacké le network Cozy bear ( « l’ours putinien »);

      The Dutch intelligence service AIVD ‘hacked’ Russian Cozy Bear systems for years
      January 26, 2018 By Pierluigi Paganini

      Spying on spies – The hackers from the Dutch intelligence service AIVD ‘compromised’ for years the network of the Russian APT Cozy Bear.
      It’s not a mystery, technology firms that intend to work with Russia need to allow the Government experts to scan their code for backdoors and vulnerabilities.

      « The problem is that this software is often used by the US Government, this means that Russian experts could found bugs or backdoors to exploit in cyber attacks against US Agencies.
      Many tech giants already allowed their software review, including McAfee, SAP, Symantec, and HPE, the risk is that foreign Governments could exploit a bug or a backdoor to control them.
      Anyway, other firms like Trend Micro has refused to allow the Russians to conduct a source code review of their products.
      Of course, the companies defend their position clarifying that the code review s were done under controlled conditions and that not code was allowed to be copied.
      News of the day is that the Dutch intelligence service AIVD ‘hacked’ Russian state-sponsored hackers.
      The news was reported by the newspaper de Volkskrant, AIVD in 2014 monitored the activity of the Russian APT Cozy Bear (aka APT29) and its efforts to hack into systems at the US Democratic Party‘s and US government servers. »
      https://securityaffairs.co/wordpress/68241/intelligence/aivd-hacked-cozy-bear.html

  4. Our Increasingly Fascist Public Discourse
    Jan 25, 2019 JASON STANLEY
    Though “fascism” generally evokes images of jack-booted thugs and mass rallies, fascist movements first politicize language. And, judging by the arguments and vocabulary now regularly used by mainstream politicians and thinkers in the US and Europe, their strategy is bearing fruit.

    NEW HAVEN – “Populism” is an innocuous-sounding description for the xenophobic nationalism that is now sweeping much of the world. But is there something even more sinister at work?

    « In The Language of the Third Reich, Victor Klemperer, a Jewish scholar who miraculously survived World War II in Germany, describes how Nazism “permeated the flesh and blood of the people through single words, idioms, and sentence structures which were imposed on them in a million repetitions and taken on board mechanically and unconsciously.” As a result of this inculcation, Klemperer observed, “language does not simply write and think for me, it also increasingly dictates my feelings and governs my entire spiritual being the more unquestioningly and unconsciously I abandon myself to it.”

    « A similar phenomenon exists today in countries where a far-right politics has achieved success, be it Britain in the age of Brexit, Poland under Jarosław Kaczyński, or the United States under President Donald Trump. In recent weeks, politicians with such ideologies in these countries have increasingly found themselves painted into a corner, and have resorted to ever more outlandish lies. While the Brexiteers remain insistent that crashing out of the European Union would not be devastating for the UK economy, Kaczyński has been busy trying to blame the murder of Gdańsk mayor Paweł Adamowicz on the opposition, instead of his own party’s rhetoric. Trump, for his part, has continued to manufacture a crisis on the Mexican border to justify his demands for a wall. »

    « Yet for all of the focus on these leaders’ lies and violent rhetoric, not nearly enough attention has been devoted to the subtler applications of far-right rhetoric in recent years. History shows that illiberal movements can advance their agendas not just through elections, but also by infiltrating the common parlance of political debate. And as we’ll see, the evidence today suggests that far-right “populists,” authoritarians, and, indeed, fascists have been self-consciously waging a battle of words in order to win the war of ideas. »

    « Meanwhile, contemporary European fascist movements have gone even further in articulating the goal of respectability. European far-right literature is replete with practical advice on how to make oneself look respectable by comparison to others. Friberg, for example, denounces “political violence” and “revolution” in no uncertain terms. »

    « But this is a calculated ploy. In reality, there is a mutually reinforcing relationship between fascist street violence and fascist political movements, for the simple reason that fascist parties need violence in order to make themselves look peaceful. Without some fascists engaging in violence, fascist parties lack a foil with which to differentiate themselves as the lesser of extremes, or even to position themselves as guarantors of “order.”

    « The quest for respectability is also at the heart of fascist metapolitical dictionaries, which offer language for making once-extreme ideas seem mainstream. In The Language of the Third Reich, Klemperer notes that, “Words can be like tiny doses of arsenic: they are swallowed unnoticed, appear to have no effect, and then after a little time the toxic reaction sets in after all.” Fascist metapolitical dictionaries are best understood as vials of poison, to be administered slowly into the vocabulary of the body politic. »

    US OR THEM
    Once fascists achieve a requisite level of respectability, fascism itself can start to plant roots. At its core, fascism is based on a particular understanding of social Darwinian struggle – hence the title of Hitler’s autobiography, Mein Kampf (My Struggle). And social Darwinism, in turn, is the common bond linking neoliberalism (or economic libertarianism) and fascism. This is why it is no surprise to hear Trump talk constantly of “winning” in business, regularly signaling his disdain for “losers.” Now that he is in the White House, this facile ideology is being translated into a project of national struggle against other countries.

    A similar dynamic is also playing out in Europe. In Germany, many of the original members of the neo-fascist Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) previously belonged to the center-right Free Democratic Party. The FDP, more than any other German political party, champions a neoliberal governing ideology, and has presented itself as unabashedly “globalist,” favoring lower taxes and more free trade. Understanding how fascism can emerge from economic libertarianism is essential for comprehending the danger Western democracies face today.

    « Economic libertarianism – which should not be conflated with democracy – is a philosophy in which individual struggle is valorized, and success is the determinant of individual worth. Fascism, by contrast, is based on group worth as the product of group struggle. Fascism thus replaces individuals with groups as the subject and object of analysis. It is a clearly distinct position from libertarianism. But recent history shows there are problematic assumptions that allow one to slip from one view into the other, without noticing. For example, those who believe they belong to a group with superior work habits and a greater capacity for struggle can derive individual worth through mere membership in, and solidarity with, that group. »

    People who think in this way tend to regard the international market as a battlefield where individual “nations” are locked in combat; when they look beyond the nation, they see a “world of enemies.” But for fascist politics to take root, it is sufficient merely to think that there is a battle between national groups within a country. Either way, the myth of in-group superiority is a valuable weapon. As Faye writes in Why We Fight (emphasis his):

    “Whether it’s ‘objectively’ true or false doesn’t matter: ethnocentrism is the psychological condition necessary for a people’s (or nation’s) survival. History is not a field in which intellectually objective principles are worked out, but one conditioned by the will to power, competition, and selection. Scholastic disputes about a people’s superiority or inferiority are beside the point. In the struggle for survival, the feeling of being superior and right is indispensable to acting and succeeding.”

    « In urging the need for a myth of national superiority, it is characteristic of fascists to accentuate impending catastrophes, which will always be sufficiently extreme to require not just individual grit and remorselessness, but groups of individuals aligned as nations. The disasters of the future will wreak so much havoc and require so much competition for scarce resources that there will be no place whatsoever for compassion. Fascist ideology thus catastrophizes the future as a means of asserting its own necessity in the present. »

    ESCHATOLOGIES, REAL AND IMAGINED
    It is nice to think that Western democracies are less vulnerable to the temptations of fascist thinking than they were in the past. And yet, unlike in the past, today’s fascist movements are responding to eminently plausible catastrophic threats. That means there can be no room for complacency.

    For Hitler, the motivating catastrophe was an impending global food shortage, which never did make much sense. But when Faye writes about a looming environmental catastrophe, it is not so easy to dismiss him out of hand. As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change made clear in a special report this past October, catastrophic global warming could well define humanity’s future in the next few decades.

    « Moreover, as Black reminds us, the US has a long history of ethno-nationalist and fascist thinking. Benjamin Rush, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, believed that the struggle between nations made it necessary to instill in US citizens a myth of American nationhood. And, judging by a recent profile in The Atlantic, Gingrich today espouses an ideology that is more or less the same as that found in Faye’s and Friberg’s books. »

    « Indeed, Gingrich is fixated on evolutionary biology, and seems to believe that humankind’s evolutionary heritage is best represented by the brutality and ugliness of human politics. According to The Atlantic, he thinks we should “see the animal kingdom from which we evolved for what it really is: ‘A very competitive, challenging world, at every level.’” In other words, what some might see as “viciousness,” Gingrich sees as a “natural” life-or-death struggle. »

    “The latest innovation [of the far left] is the ridiculous pseudoscience of ‘gender studies’…which, under the cover of ‘justice’ and ‘equality’ aims to create an atrophied human being … dependent upon … academics for his or her value system.”

    “Anti-racism supports ethnic self-assertion by minorities, as long as the minority in question is not European. This is justified by reference to largely imaginary, reified concepts such as ‘White Privilege.’”

    To take a final example, attacks against so-called cultural Marxism seem to have become mainstream within academia. But, as Yale University’s Samuel Moyn recently pointed out, the term itself is a recycled anti-Semitic trope that has been bouncing around on fascist message boards for years.

    In reading Faye and Friberg and seeing the many overlaps with contemporary political discourse, it is difficult to avoid the thought that the fascists are winning the semantic war. To be sure, many of the American and European liberals wringing their hands about the “far left” and gender studies would reject Nietzsche and be called, by the far right, “globalists.” These are not fascists. And yet, we should not forget how easy it has been for some thinkers and politicians – Germany’s FDP is our era’s Exhibit A – to drift there from neoliberalism.

    THE FASCIST SINGULARITY
    Similar slippages can occur in other areas. For example, some anti-nationalist public intellectuals are increasingly pressing for a debate about IQ differences between racial groups, if only to signal their own commitment to the truth. And others are urging us to recognize the Enlightenment as the signal achievement of civilization, as if it was the Europeans who invented reason and bestowed it on the rest of humankind. As Gingrich understood when he included terms like “debate” and “listen” on the positive side of his ledger, appeals to reason can serve almost any end. Hence, Friberg assures us that reason is on the side of limited immigration.

    Likewise, fascist ideologues constantly hold up and defend meritocracy as an ideal. But so, too, do all of the “globalists,” as well as the libertarians in Silicon Valley. In the event of an environmental catastrophe, it is not difficult to imagine free marketeers opting for ultra-nationalism as the best survival strategy, or tech billionaires deciding that society should be run by the “winners” – that is, people like them.

    In its original usage, the term “alt-right” encapsulated somewhat distinct anti-democratic ideologies, among them the philosopher Nick Land’s “Dark Enlightenment.” According to Land, democracy is inevitably corrupting, and democratic states thus should be replaced by “Gov-Corps” that are run as corporations and managed by a CEO. The guiding principle would be “No voice, free exit,” meaning that citizens would have no say in policymaking, but could leave whenever they wanted (as if self-exile – one of the harshest punishments throughout antiquity – is cost-free). According to Quartz’s Olivia Goldhill, the Dark Enlightenment has attracted a number of prominent supporters in Silicon Valley, including, apparently, the venture capitalist Peter Thiel, who has been channeling some of its tenets in his speeches.

    Scholars who write about the Dark Enlightenment have employed the term “fascism” to describe it. The danger now is that distinct far-right anti-democratic movements, from European and American ethno-nationalism to techno-corporatist strains like the Dark Enlightenment, are converging, albeit with supporters who have been drawn in for different reasons.

    IF IT TALKS LIKE A FASCIST…
    « As we have seen, the objective of fascist metapolitical dictionaries like those by Faye and Friberg is to insinuate innocent-sounding terms into public discourse in order to make once-unacceptable anti-democratic ideologies seem benign, thereby lessening public opposition to, if not licensing, anti-democratic action. When the fundamental democratic principle of equal respect is recast as “political correctness,” it is no surprise that people would become more accepting of politicians calling entire immigrant groups “rapists” and “snakes.” When politicians start calling immigrants and refugees “illegal aliens,” it is no surprise that people become more accepting of treating them like they are less than human, snatching their children and consigning them to cages and squalid camps. »

    « I am a philosopher of language and a linguist by training, as well as an epistemologist and a cognitive scientist. I know a lot about what is known about language and thought, and have a good sense of what remains unknown. As matters stand, we can see when certain ways of talking and thinking are gaining a wider purchase, but we have no obvious way of calculating the effects on individuals and society. »

    « Moreover, we do not know if it is possible to adopt the language of hysteria about leftists, unions, Marxism, gender, and immigrants without also adopting other parts of the fascist package. We do not know if fascism is a holistic language game. Here, the best guides come from our own history. Intellectuals from Klemperer to James Baldwin have warned us about the costs of defeat in the semantic war, which we lose by adopting the vocabulary of our enemies. »

    « I am deeply worried that our changing linguistic use is paving the road to anti-democratic outcomes, including modern-day versions of fascism, which will not mirror precisely the forms we have known in the past. Given this danger, it is vitally important not to shy away from labeling the danger for what it is. »
    https://www.project-syndicate.org/onpoint/our-increasingly-fascist-public-discourse-by-jason-stanley-2019-01

Laisser un commentaire

Votre adresse de messagerie ne sera pas publiée. Les champs obligatoires sont indiqués avec *

Ce site utilise Akismet pour réduire les indésirables. En savoir plus sur comment les données de vos commentaires sont utilisées.