Hillary riéndose de una chica violada de 12 años
¿Es usted un nacionalista francés?
...Amo mi país... Nacionalista... Si es vuelto hacia el interior, no. Soy un francés que ama su país y que no puede excluirse de ser francés. Al mismo tiempo, me gusta mirar hacia el exterior. Viajar. Ir al extranjero. No soy para nada ensimismado. Soy un francés que quiere que Francia brille hacia el exterior. El nacionalismo tiene un lado cerrado, que yo no tengo. Me gusta una Francia abierta.
Pero su discurso es un llamamiento al despertar de Francia.
Lo menos que podemos decir es que ha estado dormida.
¿Tiene esa impresión?
No es una impresión. Es una certeza. Hoy Francia no tiene liderazgo. Yo adoro España; es un gran país. Siempre he trabajado en buena armonía con sus gobiernos, de distinto signo. He ido a menudo a La Moncloa. Pero Francia tiene responsabilidades particulares. Para mí el liderazgo no es un derecho; es un deber. Cuando Francia no asume su liderazgo, no asume su deber.
Su discurso trata de frenar al Frente Nacional. ¿No cree que al hacerlo tan esencialista y a la vez tan crítico con la actual situación de Francia se legitiman las posiciones de Le Pen?
Todo lo contrario. Yo soy el dique que impide la expansión del Frente Nacional. Y es por eso que el Frente Nacional me ataca. Mire lo que pasa en Alemania, Austria, España... Si la derecha republicana no es suficientemente fuerte, los extremos se benefician. Si hace dos años yo hubiera dejado que mi partido siguiera como estaba, hoy tendríamos un Frente Nacional mucho más fuerte. Cuando la casa se quema, el que la protege no es el que se limita a gritar «¡fuego!», sino el que acude a apagar el fuego.
Hay bastantes ejemplos de partidos que acercan su discurso a fuerzas extremistas para recuperar a sus votantes y que al final acaban reforzando a los extremistas.
Yo no me acerco al Frente Nacional. Conmigo como presidente del partido no ha habido ningún acuerdo con el FN ni lo habrá jamás. ¿Qué prefiere? ¿Que no escuchemos? ¿Que hagamos como el mono de la fábula? No ver, no escuchar, no hablar. ¿Cree que se arreglan así las cosas? En una pareja, cuando un hombre y una mujer no se hablan, ¿cree que se arreglan así las cosas? ¿En una familia? Lo mismo ocurre en la sociedad. En una sociedad hay que hablar. El pueblo nos dice cosas. Debemos escucharle.
¿No cree que los referendos socavan las instituciones tradicionales? La Asamblea. La propia presidencia de la República.
Yo parto de la base de que el pueblo puede comprender. Otros parten del principio contrario.
El pueblo comprende. Pero la responsabilidad del político existe. Si usted gana y dice «voy a hacer esto» y luego lo hace, el pueblo pensará que el presidente Sarkozy cumple lo que promete. Y la institución que usted representa se verá reforzada.
Usted tiene razón para el 99% de las decisiones. Pero hay decisiones de ruptura que deben ser adoptadas por el pueblo.
Pero el pueblo adopta esa decisión al votarle. Usted se presenta con un programa.
No tiene la misma fuerza. Cuando yo le diga a mis colegas europeos, vamos a suspender la reagrupación familiar, lo haré apoyado por la fuerza del referéndum.
Entonces usted busca una legitimación añadida.
Todos buscamos legitimidad.
¿Y no es una forma de trasladar la responsabilidad, que le corresponde al dirigente político, al ciudadano? Sorprende en un hombre como usted, que no tiende a rehuir sus responsabilidades...
Es un gran elogio el que me acaba de hacer: soy capaz de sorprenderla. Formidable. Qué hay más bello en la vida.
Bueno... ¡Hay sorpresas más felices que otras!
Ja, ja. Mire: yo quiero dar respuesta a la crisis de la democracia francesa.
Hace unos días, en una entrevista en televisión, le preguntaron si había usted cambiado desde su salida del Elíseo. Contestó: «Soy menos binario». Y sin embargo hay respuestas muy binarias en su discurso: la plebiscitación de la política; el pueblo contra las élites...
No, porque un referéndum justo después de una elección presidencial, que es lo que yo propongo, es lo contrario de un plebiscito. El plebiscito se hace más adelante en un mandato para buscar una nueva legitimidad.
Pero, precisamente, si usted gana las elecciones y es electo presidente, ¿qué necesidad tiene de ser legitimado?Lea la entrrevista completa, aquí
Los referendos que propongo son sobre dos asuntos concretos, que requieren un cambio constitucional y de los Tratados europeos. Solo sobre ellos solicito el apoyo del pueblo.
¿No será que hace estas propuestas simplemente para agitar su campaña, para que hablen de su proyecto?
Si así fuera, no sería ilegítimo. Sin embargo, yo desde hace ya varios años considero que la participación directa del pueblo será clave para la regeneración de la democracia. Cuando el político va al encuentro del pueblo devuelve la legitimidad a las instituciones.
Busca usted la cobertura de De Gaulle para estos referendos, diciendo que él también los convocó.
De Gaulle sigue siendo un ejemplo.
Pero hay otros: Santos, Cameron, Orban.
¿Pero cuál es mi relación con todo eso? Cameron hizo un referéndum sobre Europa, que yo rechacé. Santos hace un referéndum sobre la paz y la guerra; creo que tenía razón. En cuanto a Orban, ¿cómo se puede decir que no es un demócrata? Convoca un referéndum, la participación no alcanza el 50% y él acepta que es un fracaso.
VOX.- Part of the explanation is ideological: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has consistently expressed a kind of leftist-sounding critique of the United States that would lead him to despise Clinton’s foreign policy. That likely explains the seemingly personal antipathy that you see on, say, the group’s Twitter feed.Más...
But it doesn’t explain why WikiLeaks keeps getting information on Clinton and not Trump. Trump has his secrets — like, say, his tax returns — yet WikiLeaks isn’t publishing those.
So where is WikiLeaks’ information coming from? Is it from Russia, which seems to have been responsible for the DNC hack? And if it is, what’s the nature of the Russia-WikiLeaks connection?
These questions are, in a certain sense, unanswerable: Proving a Russian connection would be very, very hard. But the fact that they even have to be asked at all raises troubling questions about the role WikiLeaks is playing in the US election.
WikiLeaks’ overriding ideology, at least publicly, is one of “radical transparency”: a deep belief that modern politics is undemocratic, with the important decisions made behind closed doors by elites and bureaucrats, and that the public deserves to know what’s actually going on.
But there’s always been another consistent element of the group’s thinking: suspicion of the United States and its role in global politics. This stems from the thinking of its founder and leader, Assange — which helps explain why the group seems to despise Clinton.
The organization’s 2015 book The WikiLeaks Files: The World According to US Empire contains the most in-depth catalog of Assange’s thoughts on the United States. They’re not positive: Assange sees the United States as a malign empire, one that has spent the decades since World War II unjustly interfering in other countries and killing their citizens. He sees the work of WikiLeaks, particularly publishing classified US documents, as a way to expose the inner workings of imperialism.
ZEIT ONLINE.- Ultimately, the debate about Merkel's refugee policies centers on the following question: Would the chancellor have been able to slow down or stop the refugee wave if she had done things differently? The answer has to be no. The trigger for people to leave their homes was much more powerful than a few tweets, selfies or photos of cheering Munich residents. The flight of millions of people had four essential causes:Leer el artículo completo, aquí
In summer 2015, the war in Syria worsened
Many Syrians realized in spring and summer of 2015 that there was little chance the situation in their country was going to improve in the near future. In the first half of the year, the regime of President Bashar Assad found its military under increasing pressure and significantly expanded its bombing campaign in response. July and August saw some of the worst attacks on Aleppo, Ghouta and other rebel held areas that had been seen to that point. At the same time, the American air campaign had not yet been able to slow Islamic State expansion. That summer, many Syrians lost all hope, particularly Palestinians in Syria. Their refugee camp in the capital of Damascus, called Yarmouk, had been the target of vicious attacks since 2014 and the exodus of civilians from the camp had been going on for a long time.
Aid groups cut food rations
In December 2014, the United Nations World Food Program no longer had sufficient funding available to supply Syrians in refugee camps in Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey. Although many countries pledged assistance in the months that followed, little actually arrived. On June 27, 2015, the UN Refugee Agency warned that it had received only just over $1 billion of the $4.5 billion it needed and said it couldn't guarantee adequate assistance for the coming winter. The Refugee Agency warned in June 2015 that many Syrians saw fleeing to Europe as their only option.
No work, no visa
Along with Turkey, Lebanon had long been among those countries that had accepted the largest number of refugees from Syria. But in early 2015, the government in Beirut decided it was incapable of providing shelter to more people and introduced a visa requirement for Syrians. At the same time, a rumor began making the rounds in the region that Turkey was planning on doing the same. As a result, in the first half of 2015 many Syrians had the impression that it was their last chance to leave their country. At the same time, the situation of refugees in Lebanon and Turkey had become increasingly tenuous. Only a minority of refugees in the two countries had found shelter in camps and most were on their own. After four years of civil war, many people had used up their reserve funds, but in Turkey and Lebanon, they were not permitted to work. Turkey only lifted the work ban in January 2016 as part of the EU-Turkey deal.
Security situation in Afghanistan worsened significantly
Afghans are the second largest group of refugees, with most of them fleeing because of the rapidly worsening security situation in their country. According to the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA), more civilians lost their lives in the country in 2015 than in any year since 2009. The Taliban was able to take over 23 of around 400 of the country’s district headquarters either temporarily or permanently. Thomas Ruttig of the Afghanistan Analysts Network estimates that between 60 and 100 districts were either controlled or threatened by the Taliban in 2015. Pressure to flee was particularly strong among the mostly Shiite Hazara ethnic group. At the same time, the mood among the population was shifting rapidly. Prior to the 2014 presidential elections, many Afghans had still been confident about their futures. But that changed when the new president proved unable to improve the security situation. In June of 2015, the Asia Foundation carried out a survey of around 10,000 Afghans and 57 percent said they believed the country was moving in the wrong direction. Never before had the result been so pessimistic. In response to the question, "Would you leave the country if you had the chance?" 40 percent of respondents answered in the affirmative. At the same time, many Afghans who had long lived as refugees in Iran left for Europe. There are around 3 million Afghans living in Iran, where they face deep discrimination: Many of them don't have residency permits even after decades of living there, and they aren't allowed to work or, in many cases, study at universities or even attend school. Human Rights Watch also reports that the regime in Tehran forcibly recruited Afghan refugees in 2015 for pro-government militias in Syria. The refugees, the report says, were threatened with deportation back to Afghanistan. Many decided to flee to Europe in response.
All of this suggests that the movement of refugees to Europe had begun long before Angela Merkel made her much-discussed decision that night in September. Espacially from Syria many people had already opened to Germany. Some of the Syrian educated middle class used for a long time contacts here. It is possible that Merkel's actions intensified the movement, that some people took courage to leave their homes because of that. But Merkel was not responsible for triggering the wave. Even if she had acted differently, she would hardly have been able to stem the refugee influx.
But it is also true that political leaders in Germany were well aware of what was happening in Syria and Afghanistan during the first six months of 2015. They also knew about the forecasts made by the Interior Ministry from Aug. 19, 2015. The federal government, the state governments, the police and the civil administration could have done much more to prepare for the arrival of thousands of refugees.
ROBERT D. KAPLAN [THE ATLANTIC].- Europe was essentially defined by Islam. And Islam is redefining it now.Seguir leyendo...
For centuries in early and middle antiquity, Europe meant the world surrounding the Mediterranean, or Mare Nostrum (“Our Sea”), as the Romans famously called it. It included North Africa. Indeed, early in the fifth century a.d., when Saint Augustine lived in what is today Algeria, North Africa was as much a center of Christianity as Italy or Greece. But the swift advance of Islam across North Africa in the seventh and eighth centuries virtually extinguished Christianity there, thus severing the Mediterranean region into two civilizational halves, with the “Middle Sea” a hard border between them rather than a unifying force. Since then, as the Spanish philosopher José Ortega y Gasset observed, “all European history has been a great emigration toward the North.”
After the breakup of the Roman empire, that northward migration saw the Germanic peoples (the Goths, Vandals, Franks, and Lombards) forge the rudiments of Western civilization, with the classical legacy of Greece and Rome to be rediscovered only much later. It would take many more centuries for the modern European state system to develop. Slowly, though, feudalism, whose consensual give-and-take worked in the direction of individualism and away from absolutism, gave way to early modern empires and, over time, to nationalism and democracy. Along the way, new freedoms allowed the Enlightenment to take hold. In sum, “the West” emerged in northern Europe (albeit in a very slow and tortuous manner) mainly after Islam had divided the Mediterranean world.
Islam did much more than geographically define Europe, however. Denys Hay, a British historian, explained in a brilliant though obscure book published in 1957, Europe: The Emergence of an Idea, that European unity began with the concept (exemplified by the Song of Roland) of a Christendom in “inevitable opposition” to Islam—a concept that culminated in the Crusades. The scholar Edward Said took this point further, writing in his book Orientalism in 1978 that Islam had defined Europe culturally, by showing Europe what it was against. Europe’s very identity, in other words, was built in significant measure on a sense of superiority to the Muslim Arab world on its periphery. Imperialism proved the ultimate expression of this evolution: Early modern Europe, starting with Napoleon, conquered the Middle East, then dispatched scholars and diplomats to study Islamic civilization, classifying it as something beautiful, fascinating, and—most crucial—inferior.
In the postcolonial era, Europe’s sense of cultural preeminence was buttressed by the new police states of North Africa and the Levant. With these dictatorships holding their peoples prisoner inside secure borders—borders artificially drawn by European colonial agents—Europeans could lecture Arabs about human rights without worrying about the possibility of messy democratic experiments that could lead to significant migration. Precisely because the Arabs lacked human rights, the Europeans felt at once superior to and secure from them.
Islam is now helping to undo what it once helped to create. A classical geography is organically reasserting itself, as the forces of terrorism and human migration reunite the Mediterranean Basin, including North Africa and the Levant, with Europe. The Continent has absorbed other groups before, of course. In fact, Europe has been dramatically affected by demographic eruptions from the east: In the medieval centuries, vast numbers of Slavs and Magyars migrated into central and eastern Europe from deeper inside Eurasia. But those peoples adopted Christianity and later formed polities, from Poland in the north to Bulgaria in the south, that were able to fit, however bloodily, inside the evolving European state system. As for the Algerian guest workers who emigrated to France and the Turkish and Kurdish guest workers who emigrated to Germany during the Cold War, they represented a more containable forerunner to the current migration.
Today, hundreds of thousands of Muslims who have no desire to be Christian are filtering into economically stagnant European states, threatening to undermine the fragile social peace. Though Europe’s elites have for decades used idealistic rhetoric to deny the forces of religion and ethnicity, those were the very forces that provided European states with their own internal cohesion.
THE NEW YORK TIMES.- Donald J. Trump lashed out at Speaker Paul D. Ryan and other critics within his party on Tuesday in a barrage of Twitter posts deriding the highest-ranking Republican as a feckless leader and warning that those who have been disloyal risked handing the election to Hillary Clinton.Más...
The early morning attack escalated the war between the Republican presidential nominee and those party establishment figures who have abandoned him since the emergence of a 2005 video that showed Mr. Trump demeaning women in lurid terms. That was the last straw for Mr. Ryan, who told Republicans in Congress that they should feel free to stop supporting Mr. Trump if they felt it would improve their own prospects on Election Day.
On Tuesday, Mr. Trump was still seething over Mr. Ryan’s refusal to stick with him.
Our very weak and ineffective leader, Paul Ryan, had a bad conference call where his members went wild at his disloyalty.— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) 11 de octubre de 2016
Mr. Trump also appeared to be laying the groundwork to blame Mr. Ryan and Republicans who opposed him should he lose the election next month, complaining that it is “hard to do well” without the support of his own party. Democrats, he said, are more loyal to their own kind.
Disloyal R's are far more difficult than Crooked Hillary. They come at you from all sides. They don’t know how to win - I will teach them!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) 11 de octubre de 2016
In a mood to settle scores, Mr. Trump also assailed Senator John McCain of Arizona for selling him out. The two men clashed last year when Mr. Trump declared that Mr. McCain, a decorated veteran who was captured and imprisoned in Vietnam, was not a war hero. They later made amends but the relationship unraveled when Mr. McCain denounced Mr. Trump for boasting about sexually assaulting women in the video.
“The very foul-mouthed Sen. John McCain begged for my support during his primary (I gave, he won), then dropped me over locker room remarks!” Mr. Trump wrote in an afternoon post on Twitter.