الكسندر دوغين فيلسوف الجيل الرابع

سبتمبر 28, 2019

ناصر قنديل

تشكل الجيل الأول للفلاسفة المعاصرين بعد الجيلين الإغريقي والإسلامي، أمثال سقراط وأرسطو وأفلاطون، وابن رشد والغزالي وابن عربي وابن خلدون، في ألمانيا وفرنسا بالتوازي مع صعود الثورة الصناعية. وظهر أمثال روسو وفولتير وكانت وهيغل وكثيرون من ورائهم يبشّرون بالفلسفة كخلفية للعلم والسياسة والاقتصاد والعلوم الإنسانية. وجاء الجيل الثاني مع كارل ماركس وفريدريك أنغلز وفلاديمير لينين وروزا لوكسمبورغ وليون تروتسكي يتوزّعون بين ألمانيا وروسيا، ليتشكل الجيل الثالث من فرنسا مجدداً في محاولات لرد الروح للفلسفة كمرجعية للسياسة والاستراتيجية، بمفهوم النظرية الكاملة، القادرة على تشكيل معادلات تصلح في العلوم الإنسانية والتطبيقية وفي قراءة التاريخ وصناعة السياسة وإدارة الاقتصاد، فكان جون بول ساتر ولويس التوسير.

بقيت الليبرالية التي شكلت عنوان صعود الثورة الصناعية بلا فلسفة، تصرّ على اعتماد البراغماتية التي تأسست على معادلات الواقعية والتجريبية والبحث عن المصلحة، وعند انهيار الاتحاد السوفياتي، وسيادة نظرية نهاية الفلسفة، دخلت الليبرالية على عالم الفلسفة، فكان صموئيل هنتنغتون ونظرية صدام الحضارات، وفرانسو فوكوياما ونهاية التاريخ، لتعلن الليبرالية اكتمال مهمتها بالتزامن بين السيطرة على العالم الواقعي والسيطرة على الفلسفة أو الانتقام منها، خصوصاً أن الفلسفة الوحيدة التي قيّض لها أن تبني نموذجها السياسي والاقتصادي كانت الماركسية بنسختيها اللينينة والماوية. وقد تسنى لليبرالية أن تحسم معركتها مع واحدة وراحت تستعدّ للبطش بالثانية.

تشكل من ثلاثي قطبه الأول انتصار الثورة الإيرانية عام 1979 ونموذجها المنتمي للخلفية الإسلامية وبروح ثوريّة عالية، وقطبه الثاني انتصار المقاومة التي مثلها حزب الله على كيان الاحتلال لمرتين وهو الكيان الذي يختزن كل مصادر قوة الغرب السياسية والاقتصادية والعسكرية والثقافية ويشكل طليعته المتقدّمة في الحوض الآسيوي الأفريقي، وقطبه الثالث صمود نموذج الدولة الوطنية المستقلة القائمة على اقتصاد وطني ونظام خدمات صحي وتعليمي شبه مجاني، الذي قدّمته سورية بوجه مشاريع العولمة المتوحشة وجوهرها الخصخصة، مصادر لرسم استراتيجية نهوض روسيا على يد فلاديمير بوتين، لينتكس مشروع نهاية التاريخ ونهاية الفلسفة. وفي منتصف الطريق مع الحرب التي شنت على سورية في قلب السعي للتقرب من موسكو وبكين، والسعي لإطلاق رصاصة الرحمة عليهما كقوتين عالميتين، بعد الفوز باسترداد أوروبا من بوابة حرب اليوغوسلافيا، وتطويعها في حرب العراق، كان اللقاء الروسي مع قوى المثلث الجديد الصاعد الذي يثبت قدرته وأهليته على تحدي زعامة القرن الحادي والعشرين التي بشّر بها المحافظون الجدد، كعنوان للهيمنة الأميركية الكاملة على العالم، وعبر النهوض الروسي كان الاستشعار الصيني لضرورة مواجهة الخطر، لكن السياسة بقيت دون فلسفة، تفسّر التاريخ وترسم مستقبل الصراع بأدوات غير سياسية، وغير براغماتية. يحاول الفيلسوف وأستاذ التاريخ الروسي إطلاق موجة جديدة في الثقافة والفكر داعياً لفلسفة جديدة، لا يدّعي امتلاك مفاتيحها بتواضع الأساتذة الكبار، لكنه يعتبرها حاجة ملحة لمنح معنى حقيقي لمشروع مواجهة الهيمنة، والاستعداد لمنازلة الليبرالية التي يراها تحتضر كمدرسة فلسفية، تعجز عن الإجابة على تساؤلات قامت هي بوضع أسسها، حتى باتت سمتها الأصلية هي اللاليبرالية، وتحوّلت إلى ما يشبه فرق التبشير الديني والعنصري التي شهدتها القرون الوسطى، ويُعيد دوغين الاعتبار للجغرافيا السياسية في حديثه عن البعد الأوراسي، وينبش تاريخ الأعراق والأديان، لتفسير تلاقي الكتلة التاريخية للأوروآسيوية، متطلعاً لنظام متعدّد الأقطاب يُعيد لكتابته عنه والتنظير له الدور في جعله منتجاً سياسياً روسياً في التداول، لكنه يراه ضبابياً يحتاج لمزيد من التوضيح، والتحديد، وأسس التشكيل.

يفتح دوغين نظريته عن الحقيقة الرابعة كمدخل للنقاش حول الفلسفة الجديدة، حيث يقول، مقابل الليبرالية خصمان تتقن منازلتهما هما الشيوعية والفاشية، فكل ما ليس ليبرالي هو فاشي أو شيوعي، ومصدر ارتباكها اليوم أنها لا تتقاتل مع شيوعيين ولا مع فاشيين، بل مع الناس وحاجاتهم الطبيعية للكرامة والاستقلال والحق بالعيش الكريم. والناس ليست تعبيراً عابراً عند دوغين، بل هي مفردة يصر دوغين على تمييزها عن مفاهيم الوطنية والعرقية التي أسست للفاشية، أو الفرد الذي تقيم الليبرالية هندستها الفكرية على محوريّته، أو الطبقة التي تتشكل منها قاعدة النظرية الشيوعية. والحقيقة الرابعة هي حقيقة مناهضي مشروع الهيمنة، بالاستناد إلى حقائق قائمة وصارخة تجمعهم، وهم ليسوا ليبراليين ولا فاشيين ولا شيوعيين، عليهم الانطلاق من هذا التعريف السلبي لجمعهم التاريخي، باباً لصياغة تعريف إيجابي، قادر على تفسير التاريخ ويلاقي الحركات المناهضة للمشروع الليبرالي في الغرب نفسه.

في الغرب معركة ضروس ضد دوغين، مقالات في الواشنطن بوست والنيويورك تايمز، وحظر كتبه في أمازون، وتهجّمات عليه كعنصري وفاشي وشيوعي في آن واحد، ورأس بوتين الجديد، تلميحاً لقربه من الرئيس بوتين، ولدور راسبوتين كاهن العهد القيصري، ويخشى الكثيرون من المتابعين في منطقتنا من تركيز دوغين على تاريخ الإمبراطوريات كأرضيّة للعالم الجديد بنيت ركائزها في العالم القديم، بصورة قد تضعه في حال وهم حول دور تركيا أو سعي لاستنهاض حركات أصولية دينية من نوع جديد،، كركيزة لمعادلات العالم الجديد، لكن دوغين ينفي تمسكه بأي تعصب نظري، مؤكداً انفتاحه على أي أجوبة وتحديدات قابلة للفوز في تقديم التفسيرات والوصفات الأكثر غنى ودقة، معتبراً أن المهمة مطروحة على جمع فلسفي ونخبوي مناضل، يجب أن يولد من قلب هذه الجبهة المقاتلة بوجه مشروع الهيمنة.

في بعض قراءات دوغين قد تحسّ بعضاً من نبض أنطون سعاده، سواء لجهة الارتكاز على تاريخ تشكل الجماعات الإنسانية في أمم تاريخية، رغم تمسكه بالبعد الإسلامي لحضارة شعوب الشرق، أو لجهة دعوته لرفض وضع الفلسفة والدين في مواجهة يراها مفتعلة، واعتباره لمفهوم الدولة كصيغة للحكم قادراً على الجمع بين التصالح مع الديانات التي تفقد بدونها الشعوب روحها وذاكرتها، وبين الإطلالة على كل مخرجات العلم الحديث، لتجديد ماهية وكيفية إدارة شؤون الحكم بين الناس بمعزل عن دياناتهم، داعياً للتساؤل الجدي حول صلاحية الديمقراطية كأساس لشكل نظام الحكم الجديد، دون ادعاء امتلاك البديل. الفيلسوف بعرف دوغين هو صاحب أسئلة، والمناضلون أصحاب أجوبة عملية في جبهات الاشتباك، والمؤرخون يصوغون النظريات من وحي حركات الصراع كأجوبة قادرة على حمل تفسير للتاريخ ووصفة للمستقبل.

في اللقاء الذي جمعنا في زيارته لصحيفة البناء ، قدّم دوغين نموذجاً عن تواضع الفلاسفة، وشرحاً للكثير من معتقداته وقناعاته، وجذبنا إلى مشاركته التفكير بصوت عالٍ بحثاً عن أجوبة على الأسئلة الكبرى.

Related Posts

Putin’s Multipolar Offer to Saudi Arabian Exceptionalism

Image result for Putin’s Multipolar Offer to Saudi Arabian Exceptionalism
Tim Kirby
September 18, 2019

Global Islamic Terrorism is universally recognized as today’s big threat and has been the justification for all sorts of changes, especially to life in the West after 9/11. The Islamic terrorists whom we are supposed to fear on a daily basis more or less believe in some form of Wahhabism, which grew up in and is spread from Saudi Arabia. Surprisingly the US and the Saudis have been and still are staunch allies. This makes little sense on the surface but Saudi exceptionalism extends to Russia as well. Russia and former parts of its territory have been some of the biggest victims of Wahhabism and still fight it to this day and yet President Putin just vowed to protect them from air threats via Russia’s top of the line equipment. So this raises the question by what logic would Russia want work with the Saudis who prop up the ideas that murder their citizens? The short answer is Multipolarity.

During the Cold War we saw two great powers with massive spheres of influence dividing the planet between themselves. This Bipolar (in the literal sense) structure forced everyone on America’s side to be Capitalist / Western-style Democratic and everyone on the USSR’s side to be Communist. So for every Communist revolution that succeeded Moscow’s sphere of influence grew while Washington’s shrank.

Now in the 21st century this dynamic is much different as the sole Hyperpower is fighting against any upstarts who challenge its status, which means that every nation that succumbs to the Washington status quo is a victory for Monopolarity, while any nation that begins to act on its own or under the influence of anyone besides the US/NATO/The West is a victory for Multipolarity.

This is why today, unlike during the Cold War Russia has a policy of being open to working with anyone who is willing to work with them regardless of ideology. Of course during the Cold War the US and the Soviet Union would work with countries outside their political theory of preference to some degree, but now Russia is free from the burdens of Communist ideology and is thus free to associate with anyone and Moscow is willing to work with anyone because any nation that rises up to a high level of sovereignty creates another crack in the monolith of Monopolarity.

This is why Moscow has been cooperating with Turkey who at times has been very aggressive towards them, shooting down a Russian planeforcing their way into Syria and working against Assad’s and Russia’s interests in the region, and opening Turkish Universities across parts of the Former USSR challenging Russian cultural influence. These all sound bad, but Moscow has a bigger fish to fry and the upstart Turks, despite being in NATO are beginning to push for a more powerful sovereign pro-Turkish foreign policy, which is bad for Russia in doses, but on the whole is a huge stride towards a Multipolar World that Russia so desperately needs.

And this is the logic that applies to the Saudis. True the Saudi Wahhabism and loud inaction in terms of containing Wahhabism have lead to the deaths of many Russian-speaking people the world over, but the Multipolar mission takes precedence, thus Putin offered the Saudis to buy Russian S-400 systems because “Our (Russian) air defenses can protect you, like they do Turkey and Iran” and that “These kinds of systems are capable of defending any kind of infrastructure in Saudi Arabia from any kind of attack.”

Syria and Turkey are both major Multipolar victories so perhaps in Putin’s words there is a hint that Saudi Arabia could jump on the Other World Order’s boat by buying these defense systems. The S-400s in question could be used to defend against a local neighbor, but we could suppose that a massive surface-to-air set up would best be used to defend against NATO, who is the only serious missile launching threat.

To an extent it is very possible that this offer by President Putin to the parties indirectly responsible for a great deal of suffering in Russia could actually be an invitation to the Multipolar World.

Saudi Arabia has been very much the exceptional Arab nation in the Middle East when it comes to NATO’s actions, but nothing lasts forever. The Saudis have oil and little means to defend it, while at the same time maintaining an ideology that has been demonized by the Mainstream Media for almost 20 years, prepping the West with a casus belli when the time comes. The fear of Monopolar aggression could force the Saudis to buy into team Multipolarity.

See Also

Kidnapping as a tool of imperial statecraft?

Kidnapping as a tool of imperial statecraft?

September 06, 2019

[This column was written for the Unz Review]

There is nothing new about empires taking hostages and using them to put pressure on whatever rebel group needs to reminded “who is boss”. The recent arrest in Italy of Alexander Korshunov, the director for business development at Russia’s United Engine Corporation (UEC), is really nothing new but just the latest in a long string of kidnappings. And, as I already mentioned in distant 2017, that kind of thuggery is not a sign of strength but, in fact, a sign of weakness. Remember Michael Ledeen’s immortal words about how “”Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business“? Well, you could say that this latest spat of kidnappings is indicative of the same mindset and goal, just on a much smaller, individual, scale. And, finally, it ain’t just Russia, we all know about the kidnapping of Huawei’s CFO Meng Wanzhou by the Canadian authorities.

By the way, you might wonder how can I speak of “kidnapping” when, in reality, these were legal arrests made by the legitimate authorities of the countries in which these arrests were made? Simple! As I mentioned last weekwords matter and to speak of an “arrest” in this case wrongly suggest that 1) some crime was committed (when in reality there is ZERO evidence of that, hence the talk of “conspiracy” to do something illegal) 2) that this crime was investigated and that the authorities have gathered enough evidence to justify an arrest and 3) that the accused will have a fair trial. None of that applies to the cases of Viktor BoutKonstantin IaroshenkoMarina Butina or, for that matter, Meng Wanzhou or Wang Weijing. The truth is that these so-called “arrests” are simple kidnappings, the goal is hostage taking with the goal to either 1) try to force Russia (and China) to yield to US demands or 2) try to “get back” at Russia (and China) following some humiliating climb down by the US Administration (this was also the real reason behind the uncivilized seizure of Russian diplomatic buildings in the USA).

This is not unlike what the Gestapo and the SS liked to do during WWII and their kidnapping of hostages was also called “arrest” by the then state propaganda machine. By the way, the Bolsheviks also did a lot of that during the civil war, but on a much larger scale. In reality, both in the case of the Nazi authorities and in the case of the imperial USA, as soon as a person is arrested he/she is subjected to solitary confinement and other forms of psychological torture (Manning or Assange anybody?!) in order to either make them break or to at least show Russia and China that the US, being the World Hegemon gets to seize anybody worldwide, be it by a CIA kidnapping team or by using local colonial law enforcement authorities (aka local police forces).

US politicians love to “send messages” and this metaphor is used on a daily basis by US officials in all sorts of circumstances. Here the message is simple: we can do whatever the hell we want, and there ain’t nothing you can do about it!

But is that last statement really true?

Well, in order to reply to this we should look at the basic options available to Russia (this also applies to China, but here I want to focus on the Russian side of the issue). I guess the basic list of options is pretty straightforward:

Frankly, in the case of the USA, options one and two are useless: the AngloZionist leaders have long given up any hope of not being hated and despised by 99% of mankind and they have long dropped any pretense of legality, nevermind morality: they don’t give a damn what anybody thinks. Their main concern is to conceal their immense weakness, but they fail to do so time and time again. Truly, when wannabe “empires” can’t even bring an extremely weakened country such as Venezuela to heel, there ain’t much they can do to boot their credibility. If anything, this thuggery is nothing more than the evidence of a mind-blowing weakness of the Empire.

But that weakness in no way implies that Russia and China have good options. Sadly, they don’t.

Russia can engage in various types of sanctions, ranging from the petty bureaucratic harassment of US representations, diplomats, businessmen and the like to economic and political retaliations. But let’s not kid ourselves, there is very little Russia can do to seriously hurt the USA with such retaliations. Many would advocate retaliation in kind, but that poses a double problem for the Kremlin:

  • Once a country has gone down the road of illegal brute force, there is no way back. The examples of the US, Israel or, for that matter, the Ukraine show that once primitive thuggery becomes part of your political arsenal you will forever remain a thug and everybody will see this (whether everybody will have the courage to openly state this is a different issue altogether).
  • The reality is that double and triple standards have long become the essential key feature of all western ideological systems, from the Papacy to modern capitalism. The Kremlin fully understands that in the AngloZionist Empire “some are more equal than others” and that that which is “allowed” to the World Hegemon is categorically forbidden to everybody else. Thus if Russia retaliates in kind, there will be an explosion of hysterical protests not only by the western legacy corporate and state ziomedia, but also from the 5th columnist in the Russian “liberal” press.

And yes, unlike the USA, Russia does have a vibrant, diverse and pluralistic media and each time when Putin agrees to a press conference (especially one several hours long) he knows that he will be asked the tough, unpleasant, questions. But since he, unlike most western leaders, can intelligently answer them he does not fear them. As for Dmitrii Peskov and Maria Zakharova, they have heard it all a gazillion during the past years, including often the most ridiculously biased, mis-informed and outright ridiculous “questions” (accusations, really) from the western presstitute corps in Russia.

So yes, Russia could, in theory, retaliate by arresting US citizens in Russia (or by staging Cold War type provocations) or by kidnapping them abroad (Russia does have special forces trained for this kind of operation). But this is most unlikely to yield any meaningful results and it would create a PR nightmare for the Kremlin.

The truth is that in most of these cases we always come down to the fundamental dichotomy: on one hand we have a rogue state gone bonkers with imperial hubris, arrogance and crass ignorance (say, the USA and/or Israel) while on the other we have states which try to uphold a civilized international order (Russia, China, Iran, etc.). This is by logical necessity a lop-sided struggle in which the thugs will almost always have the advantage.

[Sidebar: here I want to address a logical fallacy which I regularly hear in the West: when one political system proves stronger, or more capable of survival, than another one, this supposedly proves that the stronger state is also somehow “superior”. This is the argument used by those who claim that the Soviet Union “lost the Cold War” and that “Capitalism has proven much more sustainable/efficient than Communism”. This is utter nonsense for at least two reasons: first, the USSR did not “lose” the Cold War – the CPSU and the Soviet ruling Nomenklatura decided to break-up the USSR (against the will of the people!) and, second, the fact is that the Soviet Union was squandering its wealth all over the planet while the USA was robbing the entire planet blind. How can we compare the two? Finally, allow me this metaphor to make my point: if we would lock up a human being and a hyena in a small empty cell to see who will survive we can be pretty darn sure that the hyena will immediately and very “effectively” kill the human and eat him. Does that “victory” somehow prove the hyena’s “superiority”? Of course not! For one thing, capitalism implies infinite growth in a finite environment, which is exactly what a malignant tumor does for a living and which is self-evidently non-sustainable. So are we going to compare one political system – Communism – which does not rely on growth and which is therefore sustainable, and which spread its wealth all over the planet with one based on (international) “highway robbery” (don’t take my word for it, take it from Paul Craig Roberts himself who unambiguously stated recently that “American Capitalism is Based on Plunder”). Yes, the Soviet system was fundamentally rotten, profoundly dysfunctional and ineffective (only imbeciles or ignoramuses would deny that!), but it was not in any way “defeated” by the West nor is Capitalism any “better” or “superior” (whatever you want that to mean) than Communism (more on this here if you are interested).]

For all these reasons, there is really nothing much Russia (or China) can do about this situation besides publishing an official warning to the Russian people saying that if they travel abroad they should realize that “US intelligence agencies continue their current hunt for Russians around the world”. They also made public the list of countries which have extradition treaties with the USA: Australia, Austria, Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Belgium, Bulgaria, Bolivia, Brazil, United Kingdom, Hungary, Canada, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Dominica, Greece, Guyana, Haiti, Guatemala, Germany, Honduras, Greece, Israel, India, Jordan, Iraq, Ireland, Iceland, Italy, Kenya, Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Lithuania, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Micronesia, Monaco, Myanmar, Nauru, Nigeria, Netherlands, Nicaragua, new Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, El Salvador, San Marino, Swaziland, Seychelles, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saint Lucia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Suriname, Sierra Leone, Thailand, Tanzania, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Turkey, Uruguay, Philippines, Finland, France, Czech Republic, Chile, Switzerland, Sweden, Sri Lanka, Ecuador, Estonia, South Africa, South Korea, Jamaica and Japan.

The MoFA concluded by warning that “The Russian foreign Ministry strongly urges all Russian citizens planning trips abroad to carefully weigh all the risks, especially if there is reason to assume the possibility of claims against them by American law enforcement agencies”.

Some caveat emptor before buying your airline ticket, right?!

Conclusion: it will get a lot worse before it gets better

First, we need to always remember that kidnappings are just the latest manifestation of an overall pattern of thuggery by the USA. The attitude is pervasive, and US citizens are not free of this climate of thuggery. Another good example are the outright bribes offered to the ships captains of Iran, to sail their crude carriers to somewhere were the US can literally pirate the carrier. Remember the amazing confession by Pompeo himself:

We lied, we cheated, we stole…. it reminds you of the glory of the American experiment”?

You don’t?

Then here is a quick refresher:

It can almost be rewritten and expanded like this:

We lie, we cheat, we steal, we kidnap, we bribe, we extort, we pirate, then we threaten, and then we tell everyone how exceptionally morally superior we are.

Yet a certain limit has been crossed. It is as if their own belief in their own moral superiority has inverted to the extent that their own moral superiority is so big, and so certain, that any small actions of thuggery is allowed to them. This will not change any time soon and even the most innocent traveler must have awareness of this. This is why the Chinese are now openly wondering if sending Chinese students to the USA is such a good idea after all.

So the first thing we have to accept is that this pattern of thuggery will not stop, if anything – it will expand.

Second, we have to also realize that there are no good options for the Russians or the Chinese. In fact, this is normal: civilized actors often find themselves “out-gunned”, so to speak, by thugs, sociopaths and criminals. Over time, however, thuggery is always self-defeating because it is inevitably linked to a delusion of impunity. As for civilized states, while it is true that they are at a fundamental disadvantage when faced by uncivilized thugs but, again, over time they eventually prevail if only because everybody always ends up fed up and disgusted with the thugs. Finally, while thuggery can seem attractive to people with sociopathic inclinations, most human beings need a higher ideal than just unbridled consumption to inspire them. Communism had (and I would argue, still has) this ability. Capitalism does not.

For the foreseeable future, however, we can only expect more of the same. Thanks to the ceaseless efforts of Obama and Trump the Empire is collapsing even faster than it normally would and we can expect that the current sequence of humiliating defeats for the USA (and, of course, Israel which has its own humiliating wounds to lick!) will continue and that the USA (and, of course, Israel!) will have to find more small targets (be it kidnapped Russian nationals or empty buildings in Syria) to kidnap or destroy and feel powerful again.

This will be revolting, disgusting and simply plain stupid.

But there is nothing Russia (or China) can do to stop it, at least not for the foreseeable future.

The Saker

Putin and Russia: So what is it that Putin has done that doesn’t satisfy you, comrade communists?

Putin and Russia: So what is it that Putin has done that doesn’t satisfy you, comrade communists?

July 22, 2019

By Viktor Anisimov
Translated by Ollie Richardson and Angelina Siard

Source: https://cont.ws/@fybcbvjd/1392576

So what is it that Putin has done that doesn’t satisfy you, comrade communists?

Recently our resident (users of the “Cont” website) “communists” who are furiously criticising Putin again became more active. For what? Well, for anything, Putin doesn’t please our red-bellied guys, and that’s all.

Perhaps it is necessary for these faultfinders to see Putin furiously shaking his fists and threatening the whole world with an “atomic bludgeon”; to see in Putin the “double of comrade Kim”, threatening the US with his missiles? Or the “double of Trump”, who doesn’t shun to launch missiles at a sovereign and independent country?

Putin is not as they want to see him.

I would like to draw the attention of these people to the following circumstances. Let’s briefly run along Putin’s biography.

The political career of Putin started in 1990. Still being an employee of KGB, he was appointed to the position of the adviser to the chairman of the St. Petersburg city council.

Putin is often reproached for “carrying Anatoly Sobchak’s bag”. But in reality it was a developed and brilliantly performed KGB operation that aimed to introduce Putin into the security structures of Russia. It’s not known if Putin took part in the development of this operation himself. And it’s unlikely that we will learn about it one day.

Further there is the “Moscow period” of Putin’s career. The year of 1996. Pay special attention to this date.

After Putin’s move to Moscow in 1996, he was appointed as the deputy head of department of the Russian President. This position is much higher than all his previous positions. And just two years later he became the head of Federal Security Service.

In 1998 Putin is already the “head of the FSB”! A meteoric career, don’t you think?

Already at that time Putin obtained the rank of an incorruptible and experienced head with a great influence.

In 1999 “certain comrades”, perhaps also led by Putin, made an offer to Yeltsin that the lover of power couldn’t refuse. Yeltsin had to delegate power to Putin in exchange for lifelong guarantees. During this same year Yeltsin appointed Putin to the position of the Russian Prime Minister.

The year 2000, Putin becomes the President of Russia.

In only four years, Putin, from an unknown “colonel of the KGB”, reached the top of power. He became president and Supreme Commander. He stood at a wheel of the country, which was nearly breaking up into “appanage principalities”. He stood and prevented the disintegration of Russia quickly and ruthlessly. The regional elites were tamed or jailed “for corruption”.

Back then something similar to what is depicted on this map was prepared for us.

Ollie's MacBook:Users:O-RICH:Downloads:maxresdefault (168).jpg

But, Putin came………

And our Motherland, our Russia, was saved from disintegration and collapse.

Now about the “indecision and sluggishness of Putin” that he is criticized for by both the “right”, and the “left”! By both communists and liberals. I ask to consider one thing: Putin is always guided by expedience and what is beneficial for Russia. Always. And takes the necessary actions at the precisely calculated time, with precisely calculated effort.

Let’s remember, in 90’s the so-called ” Semibankirshchina” – the seven richest and influential people in Russia – ruled Russia. They ruled and impudently plundered Russia. They literally “kicked open the door of the president’s office”, they were the real rulers of Russia. Everything was in their power.

Putin considered it expedient to destroy “semibankirshchina”. It was destroyed, quickly, effectively, and ruthlessly. Where now are these people who at the time were the most powerful in Russia? Their fate was sad, some have already passed on, and some are still alive and have been deprived of all their assets and billions, leading a miserable existence. Some were left a little bit of money “for life”, as an example for others.

Khodorkovsky – the person who imagined himself almost as a god; the person who wanted to rule Putin; the person who decided that he is allowed to hand over Russia to the West! Putin decided that it would be expedient to boot Khodorkovsky. Khodorkovsky was jailed – qualitatively and for a long time. His billions and assets were nationalised.

Putin is a pragmatist, and in some measure a ruthless person obsessed with one idea. This idea is Russia! Everything that goes for the good, and for the benefit of Russia, should be done. And it is being done!

Thus practically all mineral deposits, oil, and gas handed over to the West in the 90’s by this same “semibankirshchina” were returned in Russian jurisdiction.

From the 260 Production Sharing Agreements concluded in the 90’s, in accordance with which the US and other countries of the West got bagels, Putin quietly and noiselessly, without waving red flags, without menacingly shaking fists, without shouting out trenchant slogans, cancelled 258 of them, and for the two that remained the conditions were revised in favour of Russia. Now the “bagels”, sorry, money, goes to the budget of Russia, and the US, and those like them, receive the holes from the bagels.

This, of course, can’t please either the US or the other countries of the West. And of course, they don’t like Putin very much. And in exactly same way, Putin is not liked either by our communists or our liberals. A strange and interesting coincidence of interests.

Now a little about the “indecisiveness and cowardice of Putin” in terms of foreign policy.

I will not speak in a circumlocutory manner, I will just mention his “Munich speech” in 2007, in which Putin, on behalf of Russia, imperiously declared Russia’s claims for “a piece of the world pie”.

In 2014 Putin decided that it would be reasonable and useful for Russia to attach Crimea. The operation was performed resolutely, accurately, and without glancing back at the “world’s opinion”! Do you think Putin did not count all the consequences of this step? You simply do not know Putin. Putin calculates all of his moves way in front. Like the grand master – nine moves ahead.

I am often told that in 2014 Putin could have easily taken all of Ukraine for himself too. He could have – back then in the military sphere the UAF was simply not able to show at lease some resistance to the army of Russia. In 2015 Putin considered it expedient to destroy ISIS on the territory of Syria, and ISIS was thus destroyed.

Putin considered it expedient and useful for Russia to support the president of Venezuela, and Guaido’s putsch failed, and the US silently sulked.

We know little, only what is shown to us by our and foreign media, which also doesn’t know any more than we do. And so we, with our “knowledge” scraped from the media, undertake to criticise Putin, who possesses considerably more knowledge than we do, saying that he “was mistaken”, that he “did not venture”, that he “was afraid”, and so on.

In our faultfinding we resemble these “internet experts”, I only ask that offense isn’t taken if someone recognizes himself or herself in this description.

As I already said, Putin is pragmatic and ruthless. Putin was criticised also for the fact that he didn’t give the order to the Russian Air Force in Syria to down the missiles of the western coalition and to destroy the carriers of these missiles. You simply do not know Putin – if he did not give the order, then it means that he considers it to still be inexpedient.

If this step will be expedient, if Putin will consider it to be useful for Russia, then he will give this order without hesitation, with his quiet and inexpressive voice. If Putin will consider the destruction of all NATO countries, with the US at the head, to be expedient and useful for Russia, then he will give such an order – the NATO countries will disappear.

If Putin will consider liquidating the “fifth column” in Russia, as well as all liberal and communist movements, to be useful and reasonable, then it will be done – quickly, accurately, and ruthlessly.

So who you are, “comrade Putin”? And who sent you to Russia, literally at the “last moment”? When it already seemed that Russia died and disappears from the world map! So who you are, the saviour of Russia? Will we have answers one day?

Who knows? Perhaps in 20 years it will be declassified.

China’s Economic Record Vs US

By professor Richard Wolf

“For most of the last 20 years the rate of growth in China has been 2, 3 or 4 times that of the Unitedd States”

“In the United States real wages (The average wage of the U.S. worker) has stagnated. It has gone nowhere. In 1973 the average wage of an American, was able to buy more thing than it was in 2018. The real wage in the United States is less today than it was then.” – In the last 40 to 45 years American real income wages, their real wages have not gone up. The real hourly wage in the united states is lower today than it was in 1973.

Posted July 08, 2019

Richard D. Wolff is Professor of Economics Emeritus, University of Massachusetts, Amherst where he taught economics from 1973 to 2008. He is currently a Visiting Professor in the Graduate Program in International Affairs of the New School University, New York City.

Earlier he taught economics at Yale University (1967-1969) and at the City College of the City University of New York (1969-1973). In 1994, he was a Visiting Professor of Economics at the University of Paris (France), I (Sorbonne). Wolff was also regular lecturer at the Brecht Forum in New York City.

Do you agree or disagree? Post your comment here==See Also==

Note To ICH Community

We ask that you assist us in dissemination of the article published by ICH to your social media accounts and post links to the article from other websites.

Thank you for your support.

Peace and joy

 

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.

Written in History: The Death of America’s Hyper-Power Fantasy

Written in History: The Death of America’s Hyper-Power Fantasy

07.11.2018

Written in History: The Death of America’s Hyper-Power Fantasy

In 1987, Paul Kennedy, a British professor of history at Yale University, unleashed a political and intellectual firestorm with the publication of his great (677-page) book, “The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers.” Kennedy produced a magisterial overview of the competition for global power over the past 500 years from 1500 AD to the present.

Kennedy proposed the thesis that any power that achieved, imagined it had achieved or sought to achieve and maintain a dominant hyper-power role of global dominance was doomed to lose it and then rapidly decline in overall power, wealth, prosperity and influence.

Kennedy argued – with a wealth of detail drawn from different nations over his vast period of half a millennium – that the very attempt to achieve and maintain such power forced every nation that attempted it into a ruinous pattern of strategic overstretch.

This demanded every major global empire in their turn to devote ruinously far too many economic resources to unproductive military power and ever more costly global commitments and conflicts.

The more ambitious the commitments, the quicker came military defeat, economic ruin and national collapse, Kennedy documented.

Kennedy published his book however at exactly the wrong moment for its abundantly documented conclusions and arguments to be taken seriously in the United States. The Cold War was just ending. The heroic actions of the Russian people in rejecting communism and leading in the dismantling of the Soviet Union were being misinterpreted as an eternal and lasting victory for the United States and for the forces of free market capitalism and minimum government regulation.

Kennedy was therefore subjected to a furious firestorm of abuse, especially from the emerging neoconservatives who under President George W Bush succeeded in imposing their reckless policies on nations across the Middle East and Eurasia. Kennedy, unlike his enraged critics was a gracious and tolerant gentleman as well as great scholar and took the firestorm in his stride.

Now more than 30 years after Kennedy published his great work, we can see how prescient, wise and visionary it truly was.

In 2016 President Donald Trump was elected on a platform of dealing with domestic crises raging from economic ruin and impoverishment to an out of control drug and opioid abuse epidemic and the collapse of law and order across the long US land border with Mexico.

That outcome provided telling testimony to the previous US policies of wasting at least $2 trillion on entirely unsuccessful nation-building and government-toppling projects ranging from Iraq to Afghanistan and since extended into such nations as Ukraine, Syria, and Libya

All the national pathologies of bankruptcy, exhaustion, decline and ever spreading human misery that Kennedy in his book traced in previous empires can now be clearly delineated in the policies of the post-Cold War United States.

The bottom line lesson to be drawn from Kennedy’s great book that so outraged neoconservatives at the time was a simple and stunning clear one: Unipolar Moments are just that and nothing more. They last for moments not ages.

Instead, the very attempt to maintain a unipolar moment of apparent global supremacy by any power automatically instead will raise up a host of challenges to that power that will rapidly exhaust and then doom it.

Kennedy traced this process of inexorable over – commitment and decline in 17th century Habsburg Spain. He followed it again in 18th century Bourbon France. He documented it once more in the rise, pride and inevitable fall of the British Empire and in the rash German attempts to create dominant global empires in both world wars of the 20th century.

A generation before Kennedy published his great work, British historian Correlli Barnett, focusing only on the British Empire, published in 1972 his own classic “The Collapse of British Power.” Barnett focused on a one, single unipolar moment – the 1920s and 1930s when the British ruling class, like their American successors today imagined that they were the divinely-appointed global policeman charged by Providence with maintaining their own conceptions of right and wrong over the whole world.

The British at least were reluctantly forced to cede independence to their vast global territories. It is doubtful whether the American people will be so lucky: The US Deep State establishment and their tame, unthinking media puppets remain blindly committed to inflexible expansion, conflict and strategic gambling with the peace and even survival of the world.

Thirty years after his magnum opus was published, Paul Kennedy’s message of warning remains unheeded. America’s Unipolar Moment is long since dead and gone. America’s pretensions to rule supreme as the world’s unchallenged hyper-power have become a dangerous and unsustainable fantasy.

A wakening to sanity is long overdue and the hour is late: National catastrophe can be the only other outcome.

Jeremy Corbyn, Jewish Assimilation and the Lobby

August 21, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

reed corbyn.jpg

By Gilad Atzmon

Although the following quotation is from an old text that refers to an earlier era and different geo-political conditions, it provides an impeccable analysis of the current Zionist campaign against Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour Party and the false alarm of antisemitsm.

“The ghettoized Ashkenazim (both in their Communist and their Zionist organizations) were inspired to obstruct emancipation by every possible device (including assassination in the last resort) while the story of their persecution was hammered, as an intimidatory warning, into the consciousness of the Western Jews and, as a rightful claim for succour, into that of the Christian West.

The Gentile politicians of the West presented these fictions to their peoples as truth, for they had found that powerful Jews, in all countries, were able to assist parties favoured by them with money, press support and votes; the return they required was support for the cause of the “persecuted” Jews in Russia and for the ‘return’ to Palestine. In effect this meant that politicians who sought these favours had to subordinate national interest to two causes ultimately destructive of all nation-states: the revolution (communism) and the ambition to acquire territory for the dominant race (Zionism).”* Douglas Reed 1955.

According to Douglas Reed the threat of antisemitism is designed primarily as a means to prevent Jewish assimilation. In The Wandering Who? I show that the fear of assimilation is not exclusive to Zionism, the Jewish political left and Jewish anti Zionism serve the same objective. By giving a place in the Jewish world to ethically inclined Jews they prevent such Jews from integrating with humanity as equals. The mechanism is straight forward: ‘You do not have to become a Goy in order to oppose Israeli criminality, you can just join JVP and oppose Israel ‘as a Jew.’ Similarly, you don’t have to oppose Corbyn’s detractors as an ordinary Labour member, you are better off celebrating your Jewish privilege and support Corbyn as a member of Jews for Jeremy or Jewish Voice for Labour (JVL).

Exclusively Jewish ‘dissenting’ bodies serve another crucial purpose: they operate to exclude gentiles from sensitive Jew-related discourse. Palestine solidarity has been dominated by Jewish ‘anti’ Zionist political bodies for more than a decade. These bodies have never been interested in solving the Palestinian plight; they have never echoed the Palestinian core demand for the right of return. Instead they have called for the ‘end of the occupation (practically legitimizing the Jewish State within pre 67 lines),’ the ‘Two States Solution,’ and BDS measures against Israel. Instead of fighting for the Palestinians’ right to return to their land, they have produced a noisy exchange between Zionists and the so-called ‘anti’s’ over Jews’ right to BDS. Thanks to the Jewish solidarity groups the discourse of the oppressed has been shaped by the sensitivities of the oppressor.

The same dynamic has been affecting Corbyn’s support campaign. Britain’s NO 1 anti racist doesn’t need a ‘kosher certificate’; from a supportive Jewish lobby. He doesn’t need the ‘as a Jew, I believe in Jeremy’ declarations. The same dynamic that obliterated the Palestinian Solidarity movement has so far had a disastrous effect on Corbyn’s supporters. They foolishly positioned  the ‘good Jews’ at the forefront of their campaign and let the campaign for the leader of the largest British national party be reduced to an internal Jewish spat in a greater Judeo-centric battle against assimilation.

Reed continues, “The Gentile politicians of the West presented these fictions (of Jewish persecution)  to their peoples as truth.” This is an unfortunately apt description of Home Secretary Sajid Javid’s call for Corbyn’s resignation over the ‘antisemitism’ crisis. Our PM, Therea May, also accused Jeremy Corbyn of allowing anti-Semitism to ‘run rife’ in Labour.  But why do they openly act this way? Do they really believe that antisemitism is ‘rife’ in the UK?

Back in 1955, decades before AIPAC was formed and the Conservative Friends of Israel was exposed as Israel’s long arm, Reed provided a possible explanation of current British political maneuvering.  They do it because they “found that powerful Jews, in all countries, were able to assist parties favoured by them with money, press support and votes.” Reed argues that Western politicians who accept the lobby’s favours scarify their national interests. This observation from 1955 explains why Britain and the USA have been fighting Zio-con wars and the prospect of world peace is progressively fading away.

When Douglas Reed died in 1976 his entire prolific career as a journalist and a commentator was dismissed. The Times‘ obituary condemned him as a ‘virulent anti-Semite.’  During my intellectual career I have learned that too often it is the so called ‘bigots,’ ‘anti-Semites’ and ‘racists’ who understand the world and its meaning better and ahead of anyone else. I guess that the take home message is: when they attempt to burn a book, make sure that this text is at the top of the pile next to your bed. If they attempt to silence a voice, attend to this voice before you do anything else. Because Jewish power is the power to obliterate the discussion on Jewish power.

* The Controversy of Zion – Douglas Reed pg. 177 to upload pdf of Reed’s book click here

To support Gilad’s legal cost

 

 

%d bloggers like this: