Aymeric Chauprade
This story has been carried by many websites and blogs . It first broke about 10 days ago, when it was announced that a teacher at the Collège Interarmées de Défense (CID), roughly translated as Joint Staff College, and formerly known as the School for Warfare within the more general framework of the Military Academy, had been fired by the Minister of Defense because of his views on 9/11. Here, I'm condensing material from a blog called Secret Defense, devoted exclusively to things military:
Aymeric Chauprade, instructor of geopolitics at the CID, was brutally dismissed this morning (February 5) by Defense Minister Hervé Morin following the publication of an article in Le Point. Morin accuses him of being the author of a "text from which emanate unacceptable notions" concerning the 9/11 attacks which are presented as the fruit of an Israeli-American conspiracy.
The text in question refers to a new book by Chauprade entitled Chronique du choc des civilisations (chronicle of the clash of civilizations).
Jean Guisnel of Le Point quotes Defense Minister Hervé Morin:
"I discovered a text from which emanate unacceptable notions. Over eleven pages he speaks of an Israeli-American conspiracy aiming to conquer the world. When I learned of this on Tuesday evening, I gave the order to General Desportes, Chauprade's superior, not to keep this Monsieur Chauprade on the teaching staff. He has no business being at the Military Academy." This meant dismissal.
Questioned by Secret Defense, Aymeric Chauprade, 40, said he was astounded: "They're cutting off my head. I had no contact with the Minister's cabinet. No one attempted to hear my side before making this decision following the publication of one article." A "very angry" Chauprade intends to defend himself. He has a lawyer and has promised "a fight."
He explains the basis for the reproaches: "It's true that I present the theory (of an Israeli-American conspiracy) in a favorable light, but I don't say it's my position. I wanted to show the opposition between two ways of seeing the world, aware that half of humanity thinks the 9/11 attacks were the result of a conspiracy" and not the work of al-Qaïda Islamists."
Having read the chapter in question, the first one in the book, the author of this blog (meaning Secret Defense) can attest that the conspiracy theories are presented with a great deal of acceptance and especially that the author knowingly omits the other version of the facts, that he calls the "official version," as well as the criticisms of the conspiracy theories.
This afternoon, students at the CID rose up against what they perceive as a "witch hunt" on behalf of "official thought".
The article then describes Chauprade's duties at CID and his past: an instructor since 1999, he offers a weekly course in geopolitics, as well as a course on methods of geopolitical analysis for officers 35-years of age. An officer in the naval reserves, he has a small office at the military academy. Besides his work at CID, he is the author and publisher of several works.
"He has never proselytized in his courses, has never expressed his vision of the world, but by acknowledging his work at CID in his books, he implicates the military institution with theories that we do not adhere to," explains General Vincent Desportes, director of CID. General Deportes, one of the thinking heads of the armed forces and author of numerous books, insists he is "intellectually opposed to the theories held by Chauprade, theories that are not acceptable."
In his books Chauprade defends his theory of the clash of civilizations, notably through an opposition between Europe (including Russia) on the one hand and Islam, on the other. But, contrary to American neo-conservatives, he is clearly hostile to the United States and to Israel. Chauprade has never hidden that his political convictions are those of the hard-core Right, close to Philippe de Villiers.
Note: That's an unusual statement, (and the reference to neo-conservatives only mixes things up more). Villiers is not commonly referred to as a hard-liner, at least not by the nationalist blogs. But Secret Defense may see him differently.
A page of French Wikipedia explains that Chauprade, a committed sovereigntist and a Catholic, supported Villiers in the European elections of 2004 (Le Point, linked below, points out that he was Villiers' campaign manager), but did not support his positions on the Arab world and Muslims during the 2007 presidential elections. So, in conclusion, it seems safe to say that Chauprade and Villiers agree on the issues of sovereignty and Turkey, but not on Islam.
The same Wikipedia page does not indicate where Chauprade was born, or what his ethnicity is, other than to say that he is a Frenchman, or if he is married. However it points out that he has taught in Morocco, and lists among his books a work entitled Eternal Beirut. Despite his Middle Eastern appearance, there is nothing to indciate he is anything other than a Frenchman.
Finally, it seems that CID had intended to quietly bring Aymeric Chauprade's tenure there to an end, and had absolutely nothing to do with the decision of the Defense Minister.
A sequel to the above dated February 7, also from Secret Defense, expands on the remarks by Aymeric Chauprade and his legal defense:
"I am now free to express myself. The little clan, within the Ministry of Defense, that defends foreign interests, essentially American, is going to have some worries," he threatens. (...)
Questioned by Secret Defense on the main issue, i.e., the 9/11 attacks, Aymeric Chauprade maintains his declarations which match those of the conspiracy theorists and which absolve radical Islamism, attributing responsibility to the Americans and Israelis: "You have a right not to know (who committed the attacks). I am not convinced by the official version. I have in fact presented in a credible way the alternative theories. But I give the official version - that everybody knows anyway - in a chronology. I have serious doubts, but that does not mean that I believe those responsible are members of the American or Israeli services. I draw no conclusions. I ask questions."
The opinion of Secret Defense? That the theory of Aymeric Chauprade feeds all the conspiracy fantasies, that it is absolutely unacceptable, and I told him so. His political opinions (close to the hard-line Right) were never a secret. But the method used by the Defense Ministry were nonetheless very brutal, and risk being seen unfavorably by the many officers who have taken his courses. I'm already hearing stories. This is exactly the opposite of the desired effect...
This is only a small part of the numerous articles on this story. I will try to post future updates on the entangled tale. One in particular posits the theory that the real issue is not 9/11, but the re-entry of France into NATO, opposed by Chauprade, but endorsed by Nicolas Sarkozy. French readers who visit Le Salon Beige regularly will find lively discussions among the readers, most of whom are on Chauprade's side, regarding this as a freedom-of-expression issue, or as a reflection of France's subservience to the American imperialists. In their minds Chauprade represents the "politically incorrect" point of view and is being persecuted for it. Many say they can't wait to read his book.
The same is true at Le Point where readers do not believe the twin towers collapsed from the impact of the airplanes, but from some as-yet-unexplained factor.
My opinion: The French and other Europeans can believe anything they want. In America we know we were attacked and by whom. Whether or not Chauprade should have been dismissed in this manner is another issue. He was quite young - 30 years old, when he was appointed to the Military Academy, possibly too young? He has some strange ideas - he believes we are still haunted by the "ambiguities" of Pearl Harbor and the Kennedy assassination, and that America has been deeply marked by a culture of conspiracy. But doesn't that culture apply more accurately to him than to us?
Labels: 9/11, Aymeric Chauprade, Hervé Morin, Military
posted by tiberge @ 2:32 AM
20 comments
links to this post
20 Comments:
Isn't Aymeric a Turkish name? Even with our meridional, southern types, he is like no "Frenchman" I've ever seen. P. de Villiers is definitely not "hard-right" as most understand it, except for the paranoid left of the UMPS. As to the Towers, if he does believe the conspiracy theory, he is just nuts. Pretty evil-looking too.
He doesn´t look like an Europeanlatin either.
Chauprade is a name from Poitou. Aymeric is his Christian name. It sounds to me like a cross between Aimé (=loved one) and Eric, but it is actually a name of Germanic origin, from the same family of names as Amerigo in Italian. I guess it was a traditional name during the Middle Ages. Chauprade looks stern on that picture, but I have seen a video of him where he looks and sounds like a French teenager, and there is nothing sinister about him. I guess the beard is useful to make him look more impressive.
I don't think everyone in France has heard about the 9/11 conspiracy theories. The fact that those theories exist says something about the state of public opinion, and it makes sense to mention them in a book called "Chronicle of the Clash of Civilizations". The idea that the official version of the facts is omitted by Chauprade sounds slightly absurd. How can you dwell on an absence of conspiracy? Chauprade says he has some doubts himself about the official version. He thinks a few things may have been kept hidden. But it is unlikely that he was sacked for saying so. He says he was sacked because of a deeper hostily against him, from a small group of people within the military establishment that he calls "French neoconservatives".
I think it is an outrage that Middle Easterners were allowed to take lessons in piloting Boeings in the United States. But I don't believe that Americans or Israelis were involved in the Al Qaeda conspiracy against the Twin Towers. I guess part of the reason why alternative conspiracy theories have become popular is defiance against the White House over the Iraq war, and I share that sentiment. I had nothing against bombing the Talibans and toppling Saddam Hussein. But keeping a huge army in Iraq is crazy. Many American soldiers have been killed for nothing. Thanks to Sarkozy, a few French soldiers have now been killed in Afghanistan too, and more of them will get killed in the future, all for nothing. At the same time, Sarkozy supports the replacement of the French by Arab immigrants. Immigration is now at a record level. Chauprade is one of the very very rare men with the courage to denounce the policy of race replacement, and he mentions the question in the same book where he was blamed for mentioning the 9/11 conspiracy theories: "European population is about to be replaced", he says. That makes him "hard-core right" according to your sources.
a short excerpt
a two-minute interview
So, I don't care what he says about 9/11. I just wish he would criticize the White House, not the USA. But I think any man who takes position against population replacement, whether he is French or American, is a friend of the West. If I was American, I would consider Chauprade as an ally against the likes of George Bush. By the way, one reason why Chauprade often takes shots at the USA and their ideology is probably because he understands that criticizing Jewish activism within the French military institutions is not allowed. Well, he's lost his job anyway.
Tiberge: «The French and other Europeans can believe anything they want. In America we know we were attacked and by whom.»
You should not put too much meaning into the 9/11 attacks. We know the islamists are crazy. The important thing is to stop Muslim immigration to the West.
Some Dubious Blog: «Chauprade has never hidden that his political convictions are those of the hard-core Right, close to Philippe de Villiers.»
Tiberge: «That's an unusual statement. Villiers is not commonly referred to as a hard-liner, at least not by the nationalist blogs.»
Me: It looks like the person you are quoting will simply smear anyone who stands against race replacement. Some people want to trick us into thinking the choice is between Islam and Neoconism. That is why they publish a picture of Chauprade where he looks like an Arab. Instead, the USA should listen to him: bring their army home and stop muslim immigration.
Ni keffiehs, Ni kippas !
Looks Muslim to me. Could be a sleeper. Anyone who goes on about this ridiculous govt inside job theory obviously is an idiot. Anyone who just watched the porkulus spectaculous circus act, entry fee $800,000,000,000, knows these clowns cannot fight their way out of a paperbag. Although you may say that the Democrats did conspire to dramatically increase the gov's share of the GDP forever.
I like Villiers but I did not know he shared in this cuckoo 'the US gov is smart enough to make 911 work' theory.
What is it that the loser composer Saliere says as he is wheeled away in the insane asylum? ..'mediocrity everywhere, mediocrity everywhere".
"European population is about to be replaced"
It's obvious. But... Why? Why the replacement?
@ golvan
Yes, of course Chauprade is French, but had not heard Aymeric before, which after research I see goes back to 12 century Brittany, Aymeri de Rougé, or earlier, so I stand corrected there. The black beard and intense eyes in the photo do make him look middle-eastern. Anyway, looks are not as important as actions or words. And by these he should be judged. If he is against population replacement, that is good.
Maybe because I spent time as a member of the French community of NY, saw the towers every day, visited them, saw the people who worked there, then saw them fall en direct (watch Fitna!) that the destruction is more real to me as with all New Yorkers. I read someone in Alaska at the time who said it was not real to them because they were so far away. Perhaps this is the same feeling of disconnect as with many Europeans. So to say "don't make a big deal about 9/11" is to completely miss its magnitude. Yes population replacement is odious and a huge threat, but we are also in a shooting war with the Islamists. One could say that they have won the first round by inflicting so many casualties in Iraq, that it got Obama elected.
You say you have no problem with toppling Hussein, but then what? It takes boots on the ground to stabilize things after toppling a government, just like in any other war with Germany, Japan, etc. Just let the provisory governments fall, let Al Qaeda move in and have free reign? And leave Taliban in Afghanistan? Then when they have nukes, what is our option? To pre-emptively nuke them?
As to Bush, he is gone in any case. What will people do now without him to hate? They will have to look at French and other European leaders and their own lives, and they should look at the media too who manipulate their sentiment.
As to ni keffiehs, ni kippas, are they really the same?? I don't understand what this is supposed to mean.
We support Chauprade : http://soutien-chauprade.hautetfort.com/
in reply to dauphin_b612 :
"Maybe because I spent time as a member of the French community of NY, saw the towers every day, visited them, saw the people who worked there, then saw them fall en direct (watch Fitna!) that the destruction is more real to me as with all New Yorkers."
I don't believe in alternative theories about 9/11. I don't know much about the kind of people who believe (or say they believe) in those theories. But I wouldn't be surprised if some of them, in the USA, have lost friends in that terrorist attack. Believing in 9/11 theories is a sign of bitterness. It means that you didn't like or trust the Bush administration and its neocon policies. It isn't necessarily a proof of disrespect for the victims.
"So to say "don't make a big deal about 9/11" is to completely miss its magnitude. Yes population replacement is odious and a huge threat, but we are also in a shooting war with the Islamists."
Three thousand people died in the 9/11 attacks. How many people are killed every year by Mexican illegals? Maybe as many (murders + drunk driving accidents). And it would be easy to stop that.
There will be more Muslim terrorist attacks in the future, and they will be made possible by the crazy immigration policy, which probably made 9/11 possible in the first place. Muslims also need pretexts for causing mayhem, and the American military presence in Muslim countries gives them that. More than 4000 Americans have already been killed in Iraq. How is that a consolation for relatives of the 9/11 victims? Besides, the 9/11 terrorists did not even come from Iraq! I think they came from Saudi Arabia.
"You say you have no problem with toppling Hussein, but then what? It takes boots on the ground to stabilize things after toppling a government"
Iraq was stable at the time of Saddam Hussein. There were two main problems: his brutality towards his own people, and the risk of Iraq developping nuclear weapons. I can accept the idea of toppling the Iraqi government. And in fact, few Americans died during the war, although it must have cost a fortune. But it has become obvious that the idea to impose democracy in Iraq and cure the Muslims from their fanaticism is crazy. It has cost too much money and too many American lives. The White House should simply back a strong government that will be less murderous than Saddam Hussein's regime. Muslims like to blow up each other because they are morons, not because of anything the USA did wrong. The solution is to pull out American troops.
"Just let the provisory governments fall, let Al Qaeda move in and have free reign? And leave Taliban in Afghanistan? Then when they have nukes, what is our option? To pre-emptively nuke them?"
The Taliban are not about to have nuclear weapons. To ensure that it won't happen in the future, the West should stop building schools and developing the infrastructure in Afghanistan. Western countries should even discourage any trade with Afghanistan. The poorer the country, the safer the West.
"As to ni keffiehs, ni kippas, are they really the same?? I don't understand what this is supposed to mean."
keffieh = Islam + leftist western demonstrators who support the Palestinians
kippa = Jewish = neocons = immigration to the West + War against Islam (in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran...)
Chauprade said that his political adversaries were a French version of the American neoconservatives. Because of that attitude, he gets to be described as a friend of Islam, and a French magazine published a picture of him with a black beard, next to a picture of the Twin Towers being hit by a plane. The truth is that Chauprade stands against Muslim immigration, whereas the neocons support Muslim immigration to the West (but not to Israel). My view is that we do not have to support the neoconservative crusade against islam, and we should repatriate Muslims who are already living in the West.
Hello
I am Aymeric Chauprade
I was born in 1969 in La Ferté Bernard (La Sarthe). My roots from Brittany (my mother) and Perigord (my father) which is a famous french province. I'm hundred per cent french and I wrote a book about Lebanon because I was in Beirut for my military service. I'm sorry if I have dark hair but it's just like fifty per cents of french people
Aymeric is a common name in Brittany... Like Loic.
But isn it just crazy to judge people on their appearance? his beard? This so close to Morpho-psychology used to by Germans in the WWII, I find it pathetic and dangerous.
Also, if you ignore what keffiehs, or kippas are, stick to your NBA and baseball results instead of insulting a teacher. You need at least a little education to have a judgement.
I want to intervene here, first to thank Monsieur Chauprade for his clarification. Please note carefully that I never said he was not French. In fact, I said almost the opposite - that I had no reason to believe he was ANYTHING BUT FRENCH.
There was never any question about his nationality. But since anyone can hold a French passport, it was legitimate to wonder about his origins, in view of the image of him, which may have been misleading.
This was all clearly speculation, and there is some room for speculation on almost any topic, while proof is still pending.
The image does (or did) look like that of a person from the Middle East. Is this a "judgment"? No. It's not a moral or ethical judgment. I was just curious as to who he was and had trouble finding definitive information online. I was curious because his views about 9/11 are troubling, and it is perfectly normal to be curious about someone with those views. Those who find I rushed to judgment about him have no problem with his views on the attacks - that IS curious.
As one reader points out, the appearance is not the important thing, but the ideas he espouses. And I have never indicated that he does not have the right to his beliefs. We are all free to think and to believe what we choose.
The issue is simply the dismissal of Mr. Chauprade from the Defense Ministry, more specifically, the summary way in which he was let go. But it is also about the conspiracy theory of 9/11, and I feel perfectly justified in saying that in America the event is still raw in many people's minds and hearts. In response to one reader's notion that I should not "put too much meaning into it", would that reader say the same thing about the killing of French citizens in Oran in 1962, or the blowing up of the barracks in Lebanon in 1983 that killed French servicemen (and many more Americans - but let's not put too much meaning into THAT). Not to put meaning into the 9/11 attacks would be suicidal. However, may I point out that I am not the one who brought up the question of 9/11. It is Chauprade's theory about the attacks that triggered the discussion in the first place (a theory, I repeat, to which he is perfectly entitled).
Not to belabor a point, but if I posted a photo of myself, people might take me for an Arab, a Greek, an Italian, a Persian, even though I am none of those. It is normal to speculate, so long as a definitive judgment is not made merely on appearances. Nothing of the sort was done by me in the post.
It was not an issue of dark hair - of course many French people have dark hair, but the general look of the man in the photo.
Regarding Muslim immigration to the West, it is true that American neocons support it. But it is equally true that Israeli neocons (or liberals or socialists) also support it - that is how so many Arabs came to be living in Israel. They must be deported out of France, Europe, America AND Israel. And so more realistic politicians are needed in all countries, including Israel. Netanyahu is better than Olmert, but probably not good enough. Obama is pro-Islam. Sarkozy has bent over backwards for Muslims, following the Eurabia policies of Chirac and Mitterand Everybody has let them in.
My contention is that we are all in the same boat, that America and Europe have the same civilizational crisis, the same lack of leadership. And that we must think and act as one with regard to Islam, immigration, and race. We must as a bloc admit the dangers we have created for ourselves through cowardly politics. War is not yet inevitable, but it will be if the West does not coalesce into a determined bloc. For the French to believe that America and Israel are co-plotters to dominate the world is not very helpful, even if it does appear that the neo-cons want to equalize the entire world through the mediocrity and leveling effects of democracy, globalism and massive immigration. Neo-conservatism is NOT traditional American policy or traditional Israeli policy. It is not traditional in any way. Its roots go back to Woodrow Wilson's misbegotten attempts to spread democracy to the whole world. It is as inimical to us as it is to the rest of the world. It has proven itself to be a disguised extension of the Left, and in many ways it is worse because people are fooled into thinking it is a conservative policy when it is nothing of the sort.
Monsieur Chauprade (and other Frenchmen) must bear that in mind.
And now I shall return to my baseball statistics and the NBA.
A few more thoughts. I hope I won't interfere with your baseball game.
"It is Chauprade's theory about the attacks that triggered the discussion in the first place (a theory, I repeat, to which he is perfectly entitled)."
I don't think he offered a theory. He was blamed for giving an account of the non-islamic conspiracy theories. That was the official motive to eject him from the army school.
"in America the event is still raw in many people's minds and hearts."
What I disagree with is the frequent neocon insinuation that people who don't support an anti-islamic crusade in the Middle East are heartless about 9/11 or anti-American. It reminds me of the massive propaganda about AIDS and condoms a few years ago. Conservative critics were made to feel as criminals in favor of more infection.
"In response to one reader's notion that I should not "put too much meaning into it", would that reader say the same thing about the killing of French citizens in Oran in 1962, or the blowing up of the barracks in Lebanon in 1983 that killed French servicemen (and many more Americans - but let's not put too much meaning into THAT)."
I would say the same about the 1983 attacks in Lebanon. I think Reagan and Mitterrand had been wrong to send troops to Lebanon, and Reagan was right to bring the survivors home, to cut the losses.
If I was a soldier and I died fighting for my country, it would be a patriotic death. But if I am killed by a lunatic who's escaped from the asylum, my death will seem meaningless, like an accidental death. Muslim terrorists look to me as lunatics, even if their attacks are carefully planned. Blowing people up is what they do. So, I won't waste my energy hating them. I just wish we would stop muslim immigration. I don't believe in a non-islamic conspiracy. When I heard about the attacks, my instinctive reaction, like most people, was to think 'Damn Arabs!'. But for other people, seeing a hidden conspiracy behind 9/11 may be a way to give more meaning to the attacks. Saying that we are engaged in a war against islam is also an attempt to give more meaning to the attacks.
Many people thought 9/11 was so big that it could not remain without a response from the USA. I tend to agree. Something had to be done (preferably against the right target). But there must be limits. Taking on the whole muslim world is too much. The first response should have been to ban all muslim immigration in the future. It would have cost nothing at all. Toppling the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and killing a few thousand Talibans was also a correct response. I think the Taliban helped Bin Laden prepare 9/11. But the USA is no longer exerting revenge in Afghanistan. On the contrary, they are trying to improve health, education, human rights for women, and so on. All the while, they have to protect themselves against muslim (or anti-western) terrorist attacks. In Iraq, one opinion poll found that most people thought the American intervention had been a good thing, but even so they still said that terrorist attacks against Americans were justified. The Iraqis were relieved to get rid of Saddam Hussein, but they wish the Americans had suffered more casualties so the Iraqi army would have looked less ridiculous. And now, the US army is trying to engineer democracy in Iraq, as if they had any power to change Iraqi minds. I think the madness has to stop. The USA are broke anyway. They should get out of the Middle East.
"For the French to believe that America and Israel are co-plotters to dominate the world is not very helpful, even if it does appear that the neo-cons want to equalize the entire world through the mediocrity and leveling effects of democracy, globalism and massive immigration."
Now it seems that Sarkozy has joined the neoconservative club. He was not a real conservative at all !
"Isn't Aymeric a Turkish name? Even with our meridional, southern types, he is like no "Frenchman" I've ever seen." (dauphin_b612)
This would change something? Lol.
"As to the Towers, if he does believe the conspiracy theory, he is just nuts."
I concur. People believing conspiracy theories like "2001-09-11 was an inside job" or "European population is about to be replaced" are morons.
"I don't believe that Americans or Israelis were involved in the Al Qaeda conspiracy against the Twin Towers." (Golvan)
Me too.
"Looks Muslim to me. Could be a sleeper." (John Sobieski)
Lol (again).
"Anyone who goes on about this ridiculous govt inside job theory obviously is an idiot."
I concur (again), and I add it apply on european govt inside job conspiracy theories too in my opinion.
Krebs: *** People believing conspiracy theories like "2001-09-11 was an inside job" or "European population is about to be replaced" are morons.***
Europeans are being replaced NOW.
It is not a matter of believing or not believing.
You can see it in the streets, whether you are a moron or not.
I am an American and my dad's side of the family were from France, and, yes, they had dark hair and light olive skin.
By the way, many American's know that 9/11 was an inside job. If you spend the time to really look into it you will find the evidence to support that statement. Check out Richard Gage, Stephen E. Jone and Kevin Ryan's work. Also read any book by David Ray Griffin or Nafeez Ahmed on the topic. It's unmistakeable.
The enemy is within.
"Europeans are being replaced NOW." (Golvan)
Really? Do you have the fewest evidence?
"It is not a matter of believing or not believing."
It's a matter of facts.
"You can see it in the streets, whether you are a moron or not."
I can see that you are a conspiracy theorist.
Well, Professor Chauprade should have every right to mention that there are alternative theories. As in science and history, may the best theory win.
In this context one may want to read:
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=9326
9/11 was an inside job.There were no planes.Watch 911 Taboo,September Clues,South Tower Anomalies III and other great truth documentaries.Read Thierry Meyssan's great works on the Pentagon hoax.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_Z6D8yK6jM&feature=sub
Anyone who reads these words and still believes the official story of 911 -- I can tell you that most Americans, and a majority of the world, knows that the official story is a lie. This is a matter of scientific fact. We can speculate as to the real story, but the official narrative is false.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home