President Putin and UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres: Meeting

April 27, 2022

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/68287

April 26, 2022

President of Russia Vladimir Putin:

Mr Secretary-General,

I am very happy to see you.

As one of the founders of the United Nations and a permanent member of the UN Security Council, Russia has always supported this universal organisation. We believe the UN is not simply universal but it is unique in a way – the international community does not have another organisation like it. We are doing all we can to support the principles on which it rests, and we intend to continue doing this in the future.

We find the expression of some of our colleagues about a world based on rules somewhat strange. We believe the main rule is the UN Charter and other documents adopted by this organisation rather than some papers written by their authors as they see fit or aimed at ensuring their own interests.

We are also surprised to hear statements by our colleagues that imply that some in the world have exceptional status or can claim exclusive rights because the Charter of the United Nations reads that all participants in international communication are equal regardless of their strength, size or geographical location. I think this is similar to what the Bible reads about all people being equal. I am sure we will find the same idea in both the Quran and the Torah. All people are equal before God. So, the idea that someone can claim a kind of exceptional status is very strange to us.

We are living in a complicated world, and, therefore, we proceed from reality and are willing to work with everyone.

No doubt, at one time the United Nations was established to resolve acute crises and went through different periods in its development. Quite recently, just several years ago, we heard it had become obsolete, and there was no need for it anymore. This happened whenever it prevented someone from reaching their goals in the international arena.

We have always said that there is no other universal organisation like the United Nations, and it is necessary to cherish the institutions that were created after WWII for the express purpose of settling disputes.

I know about your concern over Russia’s military operation in Donbass, in Ukraine. I think this will be the focus of our conversation today. I would just like to note in this context that the entire problem emerged after a coup d’état staged in Ukraine in 2014. This is an obvious fact. You can call it whatever name you like and have whatever bias in favour of those who did it, but this was really an anti-constitutional coup.

This was followed by the situation with the expression of their will by the residents of Crimea and Sevastopol. They acted in practically the same way as the people living in Kosovo – they made a decision on independence and then turned to us with a request to join the Russian Federation. The only difference between the two cases was that in Kosovo this decision on sovereignty was adopted by Parliament whereas Crimea and Sevastopol made it at a nationwide referendum.

A similar problem emerged in south-eastern Ukraine, where the residents of several territories, at least, two Ukrainian regions, did not accept the coup d’état and its results. But they were subjected to very strong pressure, in part, with the use of combat aviation and heavy military equipment. This is how the crisis in Donbass, in south-eastern Ukraine, emerged.

As you know, after another failed attempt by the Kiev authorities to resolve this problem by force, we arrived at the signing of agreements in the city of Minsk. This is what they were called – the Minsk Agreements. It was an attempt to settle the situation in Donbass peacefully.

To our regret, during the past eight years the people that lived there found themselves under a siege. The Kiev authorities announced in public that they were organising a siege of these territories. They were not embarrassed to call it a siege although initially they had renounced this idea and continued military pressure.

Under the circumstances, after the authorities in Kiev actually went on record as saying – I would like to emphasise that the top state officials announced this in public – that they did not intend to fulfil the Minsk Agreements, we were compelled to recognise these regions as independent and sovereign states to prevent the genocide of the people living there. I would like to reiterate: this was a forced measure to stop the suffering of the people living in those territories.

Unfortunately, our colleagues in the West preferred to ignore all this. After we recognised the independence of these states, they asked us to render them military aid because they were subjected to military actions, an armed aggression. In accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter, Chapter VII, we were forced to do this by launching a special military operation.

I would like to inform you that although the military operation is underway, we are still hoping to reach an agreement on the diplomatic track. We are conducting talks. We have not abandoned them.

Moreover, at the talks in Istanbul, and I know that you have just been there since I spoke with President Erdogan today, we managed to make an impressive breakthrough. Our Ukrainian colleagues did not link the requirements for Ukraine’s international security with such a notion as Ukraine’s internationally recognised borders, leaving aside Crimea, Sevastopol and the newly Russia-recognised Donbass republics, albeit with certain reservations.

But, unfortunately, after reaching these agreements and after we had, in my opinion, clearly demonstrated our intentions to create the conditions for continuing the talks, we faced a provocation in the town of Bucha, which the Russian Army had nothing to do with. We know who was responsible, who prepared this provocation, using what means, and we know who the people involved were.

After this, the position of our negotiators from Ukraine on a further settlement underwent a drastic change. They simply renounced their previous intentions to leave aside issues of security guarantees for the territories of Crimea, Sevastopol and the Donbass republics. They simply renounced this. In the relevant draft agreement presented to us, they simply stated in two articles that these issues must be resolved at a meeting of the heads of state.

It is clear to us that if we take these issues to the heads of state level without even resolving them in a preliminary draft agreement, they will never be resolved. In this case, we simply cannot sign a document on security guarantees without settling the territorial issues of Crimea, Sevastopol and the Donbass republics.

Nevertheless, the talks are going on. They are now being conducted online. I am still hoping that this will lead us to some positive result.

This is all I wanted to say in the beginning. I am sure we will have many questions linked with this situation. Maybe there will be other questions as well. We will talk.

I am very happy to see you. Welcome to Moscow.

(In his remarks, the UN Secretary General expressed concern over the situation in Ukraine, while emphasising the need for a multilateral world order based on the UN Charter and international law. Antonio Guterres also presented the two proposals he had put forward the same day during his meeting with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. These proposals concern humanitarian matters, including humanitarian corridors, in particular, for Mariupol residents, as well as setting up a humanitarian contact group in which the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN OCHA), the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Russia, and Ukraine would work together to discuss the situation in order to make these corridors truly safe and effective.)

Vladimir Putin: Mr Secretary General,

Regarding the invasion, I am well-versed in the documents of the International Court on the situation in Kosovo. In fact, I have read them myself. I remember very well the decision by the International Court, which states that when fulfilling its right to self-determination a territory within any state does not have to seek permission from the country’s central government in order to proclaim its sovereignty. This was the ruling on Kosovo, and this is what the International Court decided, and everyone supported it. I personally read all the comments issued by the judicial, administrative and political bodies in the United States and Europe – everyone supported this decision.

If so, the Donbass republics, the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Lugansk People’s Republic, can enjoy the same right without seeking permission from Ukraine’s central government and declare their sovereignty, since the precedent has been created.

Is this so? Do you agree with this?

(Antonio Guterres noted that the United Nations did not recognise Kosovo).

Vladimir Putin: Yes, of course, but the court did. Let me finish what I was saying.

If there is a precedent, the Donbass republics can do the same. This is what they did, while we, in turn, had the right to recognise them as independent states.

Many countries around the world did this, including our Western opponents, with Kosovo. Many states recognised Kosovo. It is a fact that many Western countries recognised Kosovo as an independent state. We did the same with the Donbass republics. After that, they asked us to provide them with military assistance to deal with the state that launched military operations against them. We had the right to do so in full compliance with Chapter VII, Article 51 of the UN Charter.

Just a second, we will talk about this in a minute. But first I would like to address the second part of your question, Mariupol. The situation is difficult and possibly even tragic there. But in fact, it is very simple.

I had a conversation with President Erdogan today. He spoke about the ongoing fighting there. No, there is no fighting there; it is over. There is no fighting in Mariupol; it has stopped.

Part of the Ukrainian armed forces that were deployed in other industrial districts have surrendered. Nearly 1,300 of them have surrendered, but the actual figure is larger. Some of them were injured or wounded; they are being kept in absolutely normal conditions. The wounded have received medical assistance from our doctors, skilled and comprehensive assistance.

The Azovstal plant has been fully isolated. I have issued instructions, an order to stop the assault. There is no direct fighting there now. Yes, the Ukrainian authorities say that there are civilians at the plant. In this case, the Ukrainian military must release them, or otherwise they will be doing what terrorists in many countries have done, what ISIS did in Syria when they used civilians as human shields. The simplest thing they can do is release these people; it is as simple as that.

You say that Russia’s humanitarian corridors are ineffective. Mr Secretary-General, you have been misled: these corridors are effective. Over 100,000 people, 130,000–140,000, if I remember correctly, have left Mariupol with our assistance, and they are free to go where they want, to Russia or Ukraine. They can go anywhere they want; we are not detaining them, but we are providing assistance and support to them.

The civilians in Azovstal, if there are any, can do this as well. They can come out, just like that. This is an example of a civilised attitude to people, an obvious example. And anyone can see this; you only need to talk with the people who have left the city. The simplest thing for military personnel or members of the nationalist battalions is to release the civilians. It is a crime to keep civilians, if there are any there, as human shields.

We maintain contact with them, with those who are hiding underground at the Azovstal plant. They have an example they can follow: their comrades-in-arms have surrendered, over a thousand of them, 1,300. Nothing bad has happened to them. Moreover, Mr Secretary-General, if you wish, if representatives of the Red Cross and the UN want to inspect their detainment conditions and see for themselves where and how medical assistance is being provided to them, we are ready to organise this. It is the simplest solution to a seemingly complex issue.

Let us discuss this.

Le Monde’s circus invite: ‘France is a leftist country which votes right’

January 27, 2022

By Ramin Mazaheri

In less than three months France will have a presidential vote, and I haven’t written much about it because I’ve been too occupied with what I humbly hope will be the authoritative book on the Yellow Vest movement. The working title is France’s Yellow Vests: Western Repression of the West’s Best Values.

It will be published for free in serialised form, like my books on Chinese socialism and Iranian Islamic socialism (but buy a copy anyway!), and it should start getting published soon. As I’ve worked on it I’ve realised how interesting it is to determine the Yellow Vests place in French and global political history, and especially when the alternative is to analyse April’s elections.

In fact, the election is interesting, but not at all in the ways described by the Mainstream Media. After all, Emmanuel Macron is 100% a revolutionist – the 2016 book which laid out his campaign platform was titled (quite unironically) Revolution – but he’s the type of revolutionist only a royalist could love.

And France has many royalists, still. And with guns, money, lawyers and spin doctors the French government certainly supports many hardly-working royals worldwide. But this is mixing too many complicated matters for the Mainstream Media, so rather than using just a bit of logic – such as making actual political structures, slogans and policies the basis for which one can define a country to be “leftist” – let’s play along with their tortured illogic by looking at a new column from France’s paper of record titled, “France is a leftist country which votes right”.

It’s a self-flattering idea which explains less than it confuses, and is only useful for how we can examine it to show that “Western leftism” truly is rather rightist. Let’s look at how Le Monde defines what a “leftist country” is:

“… : a right-wing France, tempted by its extremes, which doubts democracy. We need to take a closer look. And do not confuse the sociological reality of the French with its polling, media and political representations. There is no shortage of visible signs of the progress of democratic values: LGBT tolerance, homosexual marriages, record of inter-ethnic marriages and assimilation of foreigners, feminist movements, increased sensitivity to inequalities and injustices, attachment to the republican motto, etc.”

Le ugh….

After covering the US 2020 election I can say this: For two countries which loudly insist on their exceptionalism the political lives of both nations are so very, very boringly similar. I wouldn’t doubt that the mainstream media of both nations are owned by the very same people (or investment management firms), such is the similarity between their mainstream political discussions.

I am analysing this Le Monde article because I assume you don’t speak French, but Anglophones will easily recognise that the French are describing (or their media owners compel them to describe) the exact same problems:

“democratic fatigue”, “crisis of representation”, “society of individuals”, “refusal to vote or a vote of refusal” (well-put!), “society of communication”, “the verticality of institutions” (“verticality” may be too complicated a concept for the US media), “an openly xenophobic media group”, “menace to democracy”, “climate (change)”, “how to reconcile civil society with (Western-style) representative politics”, and with the same exact Salafist answer, merely “return to our forgotten origins”, in the French case Rousseau instead of America’s Founding Prophets-Fathers.

I respond with the ultimate dagger one can thrust in French society: It’s not interesting.

Yet France’s election matters, even if it will be a lesser Cirque du Soleil to America’s 2020 election circus extravaganza, which was truly The Greatest Show on Earth.

Le Monde and the other French MSM are basically pushing quiet-yet-prideful acceptance of the fact that the four leading presidential candidates are all on not just the right but essentially the far-right on either political, economic or cultural issues (or on all three).

This is even though the country saw massive support for a Yellow Vest movement whose essential list of demands was quickly recognised to be traditional West European leftist, and remarkably similar to the platform of the leftist party La France Insoumise, led by Jean-Luc Melenchon. Now that is something which we would like to see the French MSM explain rather than confuse, for a change!

Allow me to skip to the end as quickly and painlessly as possible:

Just like with America, we’d be wrong to accuse the average Frenchman of being an intractable reactionary… even though polls show that leftist voters are outnumbered here 2 to 1 by rightists and equalled in number by independents (who to actual leftists would be called right-wing). Leftism rests upon a fundamentally positive and loving view of humanity: The People have long been denied honest education and instead have been spoon-fed elitist-supporting nonsense, and this historical fact is what leftism must methodically work to overcome.

“We too often forget that democracy is born from the recognition of the individual released from the community shackles.”

“No longer the equality of individuals through similarity and having, but a more-demanding equality through the singularity of being particular. Beyond any condition, belonging or identity, everyone feels more and more the equal of the other by their own ‘originality’.”

What we see here is the replacement of both class politics (“having”) and even mere fake-leftist identity politics (“similarity”) with the Western Liberal Democratic emphasis on hyper-individuality, adored by their self-adoring elite.

However, historically and politically the aim of both democracy and leftism was to reduce the power of the monarch, i.e. to place some shackles on the over-empowered individual, both monarch and noble. This is what produced the calls for constitutions and votes and ends seigneurial (feudal) rights, after all.

But in Western Liberal Democracy – or democracy with Western characteristics – “democracy” means protecting what we can call the “over-rights” of the elite – whether you want to call that elite the 1%, the neo-aristocracy, the bourgeois or maybe les seigneurs. Whatever you call it the point is that in a fundamentally disunited “society of individuals” the modern-day lords will always win the maintenance of the current status quo due to their superior resources. The entire point of Western Liberal Democracy’s war on Socialist Democracy has been (and will be) to keep it this way.

There isn’t much more to say than that. I need not quote you the second half of the column, which is a litany of Western grievances with “this way”, i.e. their own system, i.e. that list of societal logjams I bomb-dropped 12 paragraphs above.

They all amount to an admission that Western Liberal Democracy fundamentally rejects class-equitable representation in the halls of political power, and that this power imbalance is brutally enforced by “liberal strongmen” like Macron in “rubber bullet democracies”. Western civil society and the middle and lower classes are thus rendered apathetic, wary of cooperating and de-politicised, and even in a formerly-revolutionary culture like France.

Socialist democracy – i.e., the evolutions in politics represented by the advances from 1917 onwards – are certainly not permitted as an option for discussion in Le Monde, thus the author can only suggest France re-study Jean-Jacques Rousseau. That’s a fine idea, but not if we don’t also study the histories, lessons and ideas around Marx and Mao, Castro and Khomeini, Sankara and Sandinista.

A far more interesting article, by a journalist and not a sociologist, can be found in the current issue of the long-form monthly Le Monde Diplomatique, which has total editorial autonomy from Le Monde (and it shows): “If the working classes were listened to”. A quick recap of the surprising things their interviews with the working class found:

• They don’t care about rising salaries because the cost of goods will just rise commensurately. Who says you need to be an economist to understand how capitalist economics works, LOL? What they want is price controls on essential goods, which France ended in 1987.
• Public debate on education is centred around austerity cuts to government budgets, but what’s driving the average person crazy is the multiplying costs centered around school or outside of school: nurseries, camps, after-school programs, cafeteria food, school supplies, etc.
• The price of entertainment, or should everyone just study/work all the time? Leisure expenses are so high there’s only room in the budget to watch Netflix again. So all three are purchasing power, which has been the number one complaint of French voters since I’ve been here, but – hey – prior to corona the Eurozone’s problem was not enough inflation, right? Sure.
• The alignment of salaries between manual labor and intellectual labor, of which there is zero public discussion in this “leftist” country. It’s another case of unions and other working-class representatives pushing so-called solutions which are fundamentally right-wing. For tough jobs, one worker noted, what’s the point of union discussions of lowering the retirement to 60 – one’s body is already wrecked at 50. Try explaining that to your average French sociologist.
• Getting social welfare deposited directly into the bank accounts of those deemed to deserve it. Tortuous paperwork leads to unclaimed sums for 1 in 3 French families totalling €10 billion, or the total monetary concessions of 2018’s failed effort to buy off the Yellow Vests.

Now that’s a good article, and unlike the Le Monde column it doesn’t totally ignore the biggest development in French politics in decades – the Yellow Vests.

But to a committed Western conservative human politics are based on natural, unregulatable laws, and not on a science of history or reason. Thus your average French voter – which insisted to me prior to 2017’s round 2 that Macron was a “centrist” – gave up on me long ago! “Our top four candidates essentially on the far-right? Ramin, you misunderstand modern Western conservatism!”

Save that for the book – I promise such political explorations will be far more fruitful than this Le Monde column.

********************************************************

List of articles covering the 2022 French elections

Catastrophe since 2017: How to cover France’s presidential election? – November 22, 2021

Ramin Mazaheri is the chief correspondent in Paris for PressTV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. He is the author of ‘Socialism’s Ignored Success: Iranian Islamic Socialism’ as well as ‘I’ll Ruin Everything You Are: Ending Western Propaganda on Red China’, which is also available in simplified and traditional Chinese.

Protests And A Prognosis

 Posted by Lawrence Davidson

Part I—A Dangerous Dichotomy

If we go with the United States’ own picture of itself as a constitutional democracy that aims to guarantee citizens equal rights under law, how are we to interpret President Donald Trump’s reported desire to use ten thousand active duty troops to “dominate the streets” and quell largely peaceful protests against racist police behavior? A reasonable interpretation of President Trump’s attitude, and that of his supporters as well, is that they seek to prioritize the political and cultural desires of a largely racist subgroup of whites over the constitutional rights of citizens in general. This sets up a very dangerous dichotomy that constitutes a danger to the country’s democracy—at least as defined above.  

It should be kept in mind that the right-wing side of this dichotomy, and its challenge to a democracy based on a liberal interpretation of the Constitution has always been with us. Considering just the 20th and 21st centuries, figures such as Woodrow Wilson and his consistently racist use of power both prior to and during World War I; J. Edgar Hoover and his rights-defying use of the FBI; Joseph McCarthy and his pernicious use of anti-Communism; George W. Bush and his initiation of war on false premises; and now the clearly autocratic aspirations of Donald Trump. Such “leaders” have ruined countless lives while eroding the constitutional basis of equal rights.

Part II—The Bureaucratic Factor 

Why has the Constitution proven so fragile in this regard? One reason is the autocratic nature of bureaucracies. All these men wielded power through bureaucracies, and their power was magnified by such institutions. Bureaucracies are top-down affairs, and so those operating within them are expected to, and almost always do, follow the orders of their superiors. For instance, the President of the United States is also “Commander-in-Chief” of the armed forces—which in turn are themselves top-down bureaucracies. When, in early June, Commander-in-Chief Donald Trump demanded ten thousand active duty soldiers for deployment onto the streets of America, none of them could be expected to pull out a copy of the U.S. Constitution and fact-check the legitimacy of the orders issued. Nor were they expected to take seriously their induction oaths to “defend” the integrity of that same document. They were expected to readily follow their orders regardless of constitutional limits. Thus, all things being equal, President Trump should have gotten what he asked for. We are very fortunate that at that moment all things were not equal—a factor is to be considered below. 

If the regular army had hit the streets in June of 2020, they would have done so in order to suppress largely peaceful protests over the lack of equal rights and lack of legal treatment under the law. Indeed, in Washington, D.C.—the only place Trump’s order was partially followed—active-duty military police and the D.C. National Guard did act side-by-side against peacefully demonstrating citizens. Elsewhere, the National Guard called up by governors abetted the police in “riot control,” during which almost no distinction was made between looters and peaceful demonstrators. A few National Guard troops have subsequently expressed regrets over their participation.

The typical police force is also a bureaucracy with its own institutional culture that in many ways mimics the military. Most (there often proves to be a small number of exceptions) of those in the ranks are going to follow the orders of whomever they recognize as having authority. Quite frankly, there is a strong tendency over time for the police, particularly those assigned to minority neighborhoods, to forget all about the U.S. Constitution, its Bill of Rights, and other niceties of law, and slip into a fraternal (often white supremacist) culture which sets them apart from those they are “policing.” They are then easily used as an arm of establishment power. That certainly was the expectation of President Trump and many of the nation’s chiefs of police.  

Part III—All Was Not Equal

At this point we can ask, What were the demonstrators protesting? Specifically, thousands of citizens across the country were protesting the behavior of the police, who had long been brutalizing African American and other minority group citizens in the name of law enforcement. Most of the demonstrators understood their cause within the context of both human and U.S. Constitutional rights of citizens to live in a community where the law serves the cause of equitable justice. “No justice, no peace.”

The nation was fortunate that most of the protesters understood rights in this way. That understanding allowed them, in their great numbers (less a relatively small number of both black and white looters), to quite literally save American democracy. They did so by demanding that those who had authority confront one of the autocratic threats of our day—racist police forces, the brutality of which was captured repeatedly on video. The demonstrators used that evidence to force the issue, and this, in turn, caused the bureaucrats to eventually stop acting in a knee-jerk fashion. Thus, city councils, mayors, governors and even military officials had to choose between oppression (which included, in this case, following Trump’s order that they “dominate the streets) and the Constitution. Choosing oppression would have resulted in two things: erosion of the constitutionally sanctioned rule of law and the burning of cities across the land. No one, except perhaps Donald Trump and his white racist base, wanted either of those two consequences. So the notion that “without the right to protest, there can be no [liberal] democracy” was upheld, and that made the protesters “the nation’s true patriots.”

Part IV—Will the Changes Last?

According to a recent piece in the HuffPost, the demands of the protesters for a just and safe America are being heeded. As proof, the article notes the following:

—Police officers are being held accountable for brutal behavior.

—Some police departments are reforming police practices.

—Monuments to racist and hardline historical figures are coming down.

—Technology companies are halting cooperation with police departments when it comes to facial recognition techniques. 

—Finally, there has been a shift in public opinion: Americans “support the anti-racism protests by a 2 to 1 margin.”

 All this is for the better, but will it last? Barack Obama has compared the present protests to those of the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. He believes that they have brought about a similar “sea change” or profound transformation. Is that actually the case?

It should be recalled that the earlier civil rights protests led to a series of changes in law and, ultimately, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that banned discrimination in the public realm. These changes smoothed the way for other legislation expanding rights to people with disabilities, to homosexuals, lesbians and transgender folks, and to others. However, and quite significantly, these events triggered a culture war that focused white resentment and resistance within conservative political and fundamentalist religious movements. Among their unofficial institutional allies were and are some of the nation’s police forces. The racism, now exhibited by today’s Republican Party and its leader, President Donald Trump, as well as modern episodes of police brutality toward African Americans, should be understood within the context of that on-going culture war.

Looking at things this way, we can ask if the progressive response to today’s protests is best described as a “sea change” or a continuing, albeit important, chapter in what is still a very long-term struggle? As one activist and organizer, Sajari Simmons, realizes this is certainly not the end of the struggle for justice. Referring to the protests, she noted that “This is not just it. This is just one component,” she said. “There’s a lot more that we can do to help impact and educate and support.”

Part V—Conclusion

The American political system is lobby based. If the average citizen is important, it is only to be rallied at election time. However, if they are organized into politically potent interest groups, those citizens can have a long-term impact. To ultimately win the culture war, today’s protesters must be somehow united into a standing movement capable of “educating and supporting” their cause at local, state and national levels over the long run. 

Lest we forget, the enemies of a liberal, non-discriminatory interpretation of the Constitution are still out there and they have power. President Trump and his minions are still in place, as are millions of racist voters. Their political power must be broken at the polls, in the courts, and through a multigenerational process of reeducation. In working toward these goals, demonstrations are necessary, but not sufficient. Without a competently led and lasting movement, police brutality will come back, and “ten thousand soldiers” might, someday, really “dominate the streets.”

About Lawrence Davidson

Lawrence Davidson is professor of history emeritus at West Chester University in Pennsylvania. He has been publishing his analyses of topics in U.S. domestic and foreign policy, international and humanitarian law and Israel/Zionist practices and policies since 2010.

The Empire takes a knee. Let it. But we don’t have to!

THE SAKER • JUNE 10, 2020

It is quite interesting to observe how many commentators are completely misreading the current race riots or compare them with previous race riots in the history of the US. I suppose that by telling themselves that these latest riots are “just like” or “not nearly as bad” as past US race riots they try to reassure themselves by maintaining the illusion that what is taking place now is of limited and/or temporary magnitude. It is not.

No, it is not “just like” the past

Oh sure, there is plenty of racial violence (by all sides) in US history, from the very inception of the US as a slave-owning society, to the immense number of lynchings (which took place in the North as much as in the South, those interested ought to read “At the Hands of Persons Unknown: The Lynching of Black America” by Philip Dray) to the murderous “Tulsa Massacre” which even saw Black neighborhoods bombed from the air! And while those who point out that there have been many race riots in the past are correct, they are fundamentally missing the key fact that the current “race riots” are not “just” race riots, but the result of many more complex and multi-layered phenomena. The best proof of this qualitatively new nature of the riots is that they have not only spread across the US like wildfire, but that they also spread to Europe and in Asia and Oceania (see here and here). Even some Japanese joined this decidedly gaijin phenomenon!

So what is going on here?

Unless we assume that Danes, Belgians or New Zealanders have been personally victimized by racist US cops, we have to admit that what triggered this worldwide rash of protests is not a first-hand personal trauma, but only second-hand exposure to a very specific narrative spread with quasi total uniformity by the legacy corporate ziomedia. I call this narrative “Black is Beautiful“.

The pernicious “Black if Beautiful” ideological dogma

Black is beautiful began in the US in the 1960 and it has since become an integral part of the western doxa, an ideological dogma which cannot be challenged without immediately resulting in an accusation of “racism”. Simultaneously, another ideological dogma was developed, the one which claims that “all races are equal”, but without ever really defining the terms “race” or the term “equal”. Interestingly, the notions that Black is beautiful or races are all equal are never demonstrated, only proclaimed, and any insistence that these notions be factually substantiated also results in an immediate accusation of “racism”.

It is not my purpose today to assess the merits (or lack thereof) of this narrative. But what I want to point out is this: any narrative which cannot be challenged or questioned without immediately being branded “racist” is an extremely intolerant one. It is also obviously a narrative which fears any scrutiny for empirical evidence. Yet, those who otherwise denounce the “lying media” or say things like “I don’t believe it unless the government denies it” or “how do you know when a politician is lying? when his lips are moving” seem to be more than willing to uncritically accept these ideological dogmas.

Furthermore, one key tenet of any honest quest for true moral values is that it be equally applied to all (if it ain’t – then it is, by definition, hypocrisy). Yet just try to mention something like “White is Beautiful” or, say, support the idea of a “National Association for the Advancement of White People” or wear a Tshirt with “White Lives Matter” on it and you will will be instantly branded a racist. Why? Because far from promoting real “equality” the modern liberal ideology really preaches Black superiority – a special status for Blacks which cannot be symmetrically granted to White (or any other) people. Furthermore, since most people agree “that beauty is in the eye of the beholder“, we can immediately conclude that the thesis “Black is Beautiful” is really an opinion, not an established fact. Presumably, it would imply the right to the opinion that “Black is not beautiful”, right? LOL, good luck with that! Again, this is a clear case of bias/hypocrisy and, most crucially, the categorical rejection of any dissenting opinion. Finally, what does the term “Black” even mean here? Does it only apply to US and Sub-Saharan Blacks (apparently so), or does it also include, say, Ethiopians, Somalis, Tamils or even Australian Aborigines? Does it also apply to dark skinned Greeks or Sicilians? Yet again, we see that the category “Black” is entirely meaningless (as it the category “White” or “Yellow” – by the way!).

Those who have read me in the past know that I don’t even accept the notion of “race” which, in my opinion, is wholly non-scientific. I also loathe the so-called “White nationalism” of the Alt-Rights & Co. which I consider as a rather primitive form of racism (which I defined under #4 here) and even a whitewashing of the Nazi ideology which is “pushed” by the deep-state (for details, please see my article here on this topic). Yet, following my previous article on this topic, I still had a few knuckleheads accusing me of, what else, “racism”. I think of these people as “pachinko brains”(“payazzo brains” would also work): they take each idea they come across as an “ideological ball” and they immediately assume that it absolutely *must* fall within one of a very limited set of categories. For them the simply fact of saying, for example, “the thesis about racial equality has never been properly defined, never mind proven” can only mean one thing: the person saying so is a racist. Period. No other options possible. What they obviously miss is that a person which does not even accept the notion of “race” cannot be a “racist”, but who cares about these logical niceties, right? Virtue-signaling is much, much more important than facts or logic, at least for pachinko-brains.

I strongly believe that the western media, especially the US media (Hollywood/Amazon/Neflix/etc) have literally brainwashed much of the poorly educated youth (and that is an understatement!) into a weird form of Black-anything worship, a cult-like certitude that everything Black deserves a grateful standing ovation. Hence the sudden appearance of Black cowboys, Black Celts and Vikings and even of the Black Knights of the Round Table who, apparently, were also Black. There is even a new term created for this kind of “creative re-writing of history”: color-blind casting. I am awaiting the first appearance of Black “Snow-Black” (as opposed to Snow-White) with impatience…

The Empire is universally hated, and not just for its (very real) racism

This would all be rather harmless and even comical if it weren’t for the “other side of the ideological coin”: the AngloZionist Empire has totally and comprehensively lost any kind of moral or political authority, both in the US and in the EU (as well as in the 5 Eyes nations and other US colonies like Germany or Japan). In the past, the AngloZionist Empire was just as evil as it is today, but at least it had the means to provide a high degree of material welfare to its citizens, but now that the Empire is falling apart and in a major economic crisis, more and more people are turning their rage against their own government or, maybe even more accurately, against the obscenely wealthy ruling classes which have a total control of the US and/or EU political scene.

Remember how George Orwell wrote in his masterpiece 1984 “If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever“? I believe that a lot of people, Black and White, felt something similar when they saw the appalling footage of the slow murder of George Floyd by a gang of clearly stupid White cops. Yes, the image itself did not show Orwell’s boot, but the way that cop was crushing his knee into the neck of Floyd sent the same message “resistance is futile, we will crush you“. And many alienated and disenfranchised people (Black and White) felt a profound sense of outrage and even rage, hence the explosion of riots worldwide.

So where do we go from here?

Simply put, things are not going to get better. Neither the US (as the host of the Empire) nor the Empire itself (which is a parasite living off the US) are in any condition to reform themselves. This train has left a very long time ago (and it appears that 80% of US Americans agree with that). As long as the Empire (thought of as “The West”) still had some credibility left, it could at least pretend to be willing to right many undeniable wrongs without subverting itself in the process. After all, the best way to control a potentially dangerous opposition is to infiltrate it and then redirect it in a safe direction (that is basically the main role given to the Left wing of the Democratic Party and its pretend-revolutionaries leaders like Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard: a glorified safety valve). Furthermore, the entire BLM movement – being both racist and violent – has exactly zero potential, even partially, to reform the Western society (abolishing police departments does not qualify). This does not mean, however, that it cannot greatly contribute to the final collapse of the Empire. After all, what we see today is that all the symbols of power of this society (politicians, cops, corporations, religious leaders, etc.) are “taking a knee” when faced with what any mentally sane society would immediately recognize as a textbook case of criminal rioting. And when one politician dares to appeal for a full restoration of law and order, he gets vilified along with the editor who dared to post it. In other words,

The Empire is taking a knee

This is not unlike what happened to the Soviet Union in the late 1980s when basically the entire ruling elite felt that it had lost any will to stand up against the opposition and when it became trendy to bash everything Soviet (much of which very much deserved such bashing, but not everything!). That state of affairs led to, first, the collapse of the soviet society Soviet Union in 1991 and, second, the collapse of the Russian society in 1993. The Soviet Union, just like the United States, was born from a bloodbath and for decades the Soviet leaders could use their police/security forces, and even the military, to crush any dissent, as in what happened in Novocherkassk massacre in 1962. Yet by 1991 and 1993 even the KGB special forces refused to take any action against the demonstrators. Why? Because by 1990 the Soviet Empire had also completely “taken a knee” before (a completely imagined and non-existing) the West just as the West today is “taking a knee” before (a completely imagined and non-existing Wakanda-like) Africa. Considering the evils which the West has wrought upon the African continent in general, and Sub-Saharan Africa especially, there is some karmic justice at work here, but this will be of very little consolation for all the people (irrespective of race) who are now suffering from the criminal mayhem of the BLM-inspired mobs (or from the violence of the police forces for that matter!).

So what can decent people do next?

Well, for one thing we don’t have to chose between White and Black racism. In fact, the only logical (and moral) stance today is to reject any and all forms of racism, very much including the Hollywood-promoted anti-White (and, I would add, anti-family, anti-male and anti-Christian) and pro-Black racism. And, crucially, we need to reject anti-White racism not because there is such a thing as a “White race” out there, but because the current anti-racist ideology is every bit as oppressive and intolerant as the racist anti-Black (and not only!) ideology of the heydays of the western Empire. The enemy of my enemy is NOT always my friend and between White-supremacists and Black-supremacists, the only morally correct choice is to categorically reject any and all forms of supremacism, even and especially the one which happens to be promoted by those who oppress us all: the (multi-ethnic) oppressive ruling classes of the Empire.

So let the Empire’s leaders take a knee if they want to: let them show their cowardice and hypocrisy.

We don’t have to. Yes, it takes much more courage to speak against the prevailing ideological dogmas than to meekly parrot the official narrative. That is the price to be paid for true, inner, freedom.

توازن العالم في عين العاصفة أميركا بين الوجود واللا وجود

محمد صادق الحسيني

ماذا يجري في دهاليز السياسة الأميركية، على خلفية مقتل المواطن الأميركي ذي البشرة السوداء جورج فلويد خنقاً..!؟

ماذا يحضّر لمستقبل أميركا خلف الستار على عتبة استحقاق الانتخابات الرئاسية..!؟

هل يحضّر أمرٌ ما لن تظهره الشاشات الآن بسبب غبار معارك الشوارع بين الـ «انتيفا» والقوى الخفية ذات اليد العسكرية الطولى التي تخرج من بين عسكر أميركا..!؟

هل يخرج ترامب بطلاً قومياً من هذه المعارك ليعود العسكر فارضين شروطهم عليه ليتخلى عن شعاراته الانتخابية في العام 2016 أم يُطاح به ليتسلّم العسكر الحكم مباشرة وتتحوّل أميركا الى جمهورية موز، ومن ثم تبدأ رحلة تفكّك الفيدرالية والانقسام والحرب الأهلية وزوال القوة العظمى الأميركية على وقع تغريدات وخطوات «أبو ترامب البغدادي» العنصرية والمتوحشة، فيكون ترامب غورباتشوف أميركا في قرن أفولها وانقراضها..!؟

هذه الأسباب وغيرها في القراءة التالية:

اياً تكن أسباب تفجر المظاهرات الاحتجاجية، منذ ما يقارب الأسبوع، في الولايات المتحدة، وبغضّ النظر عن السبب المأساوي المباشر لذلك، أيّ مقتل الشاب الأسود جورج فلويد، وبنظرة موضوعية لا بدّ من التأكيد على ما يلي:

أولا ـ هناك قوى عميقة (ليست الدولة العميقة بالضرورة)، تحكم الولايات المتحدة، لها مصلحة في تصعيد المظاهرات وتسعير الصدامات والعمل على تحويل المواجهات الى مواجهات مسلحة.

ثانيا ـ لا يعني هذا الكلام تعارضاً مع الحقوق المشروعة، والمكفولة في الدستور الأميركي، لهؤلاء الأميركيين بالتظاهر والتعبير السلمي عن مطالبهم العادلة، لا بل الدستورية. ونعني بالدستورية هنا حق المواطن الأميركي من اصول افريقية في المساواة الكاملة والشاملة مع المواطنين البيض في البلاد.

ثالثا ـ وعليه فإن مطالب المتظاهرين الحاليّة، اي المطالبة بالعدالة، لا ترتقي الى مستوى حقوقهم الدستورية. تلك الحقوق (المساواة العملية بين الابيض والاسود) التي تجب المطالبة بتغيير أسس النظام الحاكم من أجل تحقيقها على ارض الواقع. وهذا يعني ضرورة إنهاء التقاسم الحزبي، بين الجمهوريين والديمقراطيين، للحكم في أميركا من دون إجراء اي تغييرات تذكر في مجال حقوق الانسان. اذ لا مساواة في ظل الطائفية السياسية السائدة في الولايات المتحدة والتي تشكل الضمانة الموضوعية لسيطرة العرق الأبيض على كل مفاصل الدولة وتفاصيلها.

رابعا ـ لكن مأزق القوى أو الطبقات المسحوقة في الولايات المتحدة، المواطنون من أصول افريقية وجنوب أميركية، يتمثل في عدم وجود تنظيم سياسي او حزب سياسي، يمثلهم ويقود نضالهم. وهذا يعود لما ذكرناه آنفاً، من الدكتاتورية السياسية، التي يفرضها الحزبان الجمهوري والديمقراطي، والتي هي أقرب ما تكون الى ديكتاتورية الطوائف التي نعرفها في بعض دول العالم الثالث وفي المملكة المتحدة (حكم البروتستانت ضد كاثوليك أيرلندا).

خامسا ـ خاصة انّ ما يتصدّر الاخبار والمعلومات المتداولة، حول القوى التي تحرك هذه الاحتجاجات، هو الحديث عن منظمة انتيفاAntifa ، والتي أعلنها الرئيس ترامب منظمة إرهابية، ما يثير الانطباع بأنها منظمة ثورية تحمل برنامجاً سياسياً يهدف الى إحداث تغيير جذري في الولايات المتحدة. بينما الحقيقة هي غير ذلك تماماً.

سادساـ لذا فإنّ توضيح ماهية هذا المسمّى ضروري جداً، من اجل فهم خلفياته وآفاقه وقدراته، وحتى إرادته في التغيير. فهذا المسمّى ليس حزباً سياسياً ولا منظمة سياسية عسكرية، كالجيش الجمهوري الأيرلندي مثلاً، بل انها مجموعة من التنظيمات الشبابية والطلابية الصغيرة المبعثرة على كل اتجاه سياسي، من أقصى اليسار الى أقصى اليمين، والتي لا تملك لا عقيدة موحدةً ولا برنامجاً سياسياً موحداً ولا خطط عمليات موحدة.

سايعا ـ وهي تنظيمات منتشرة في اوروبا وأميركا بشكل خاص، ومنذ بداية عشرينيات القرن العشرين، إثر استيلاء بيتينو موسوليني وحزبه الفاشي على الحكم في إيطاليا سنة 1922، وما تلا ذلك من محاولات لصعود القوى اليمينية المتطرفة في اوروبا الى الحكم، كمثل أدولف هتلر الذي حاول تدبير انقلاب عسكري للاستيلاء على الحكم في المانيا، وكذلك تحرك الجنرال فرانكو لقيادة القوى الفاشية في اسبانيا والجنرال سالازار في البرتغال…

كل ذلك دفع الى نشأة هذه الحركة، التي رفعت شعارات معاداة الفاشية والتطرف والنازية، وكانت لها فروع ونشاطات في فلسطين، الواقعة تحت الانتداب البريطاني آنذاك. ولكن ما كان يجمعها بالتنظيمات الموجودة في اوروبا هو شعار «التضامن مع إسرائيل» والتي لم تكن موجودة في تلك الحقبة.

ثامنا ـ إذن فما يطلق عليه اسم «أنتيفا» حالياً ما هو الا مظلة لمجموعات، تسمّي نفسها يسارية، تموّلها وتحركها، في حقيقة الأمر حالياً، القوى الخفية التي تحكم الولايات المتحدة الأميركية. وهي لا تزال ترفع شعار التضامن مع «إسرائيل» وتعتبرها «البقرة المقدّسة»، التي تجب رعايتها وتسمينها.

تاسعا ـ أما عن علاقة ذلك بما يدور حالياً من احتجاجات في الولايات المتحدة فتتمثل في أن القوى الخفية، التي تحكم هناك، وبرغم عدم ظهور أي دور واضح لها، الا انها تعمل على استغلال هذه التحركات الجماهيرية العادلة لمصلحة ممثله (القوى الخفية) الجالس في البيت الابيض، وذلك من خلال حملة التصعيد التي ينفذها ترامب والهادفة الى عسكرة المواجهات بهدف:

أ) إظهار نفسه كرئيس قوي، قادر على ضبط النظام والوقوف في وجه «المنظمات اليسارية» التي تعمل ضدّ مصالح الولايات المتحدة، حسب رأيه، وذلك في محاولة لإعادة تحشيد انصاره، من العنصريين البيض، بعد الأضرار التي لحقت بصورته بسبب فشله في ادارة ازمة كورونا داخلياً وفشله في ادارة التوتر مع الصين خارجياً، مما جعل جمهوره من المزارعين يتعرضون لأضرار وخسائر كبيرة، اثر قيام الصين بإلغاء العديد من صفقات المنتجات الزراعية التي كانت ستستوردها من الولايات المتحدة.

ب) تأجيج الصدام الداخلي، بشكل يوصله الى الصدام المسلح، وذلك بهدف تأجيل الانتخابات الرئاسية القادمة، اذا ما اتضح لترامب والقوى الخفية التي تدعمه انه لن يفوز في هذه الانتخابات.

وهذا يعني أن خطابه العنصري وتصرفاته الرعناء مدروسةً بعناية ومخطط لها بدقة وتهدف الى خلق الظروف المناسبة لإعادة انتخاب ترامب، وتحويله الى اداةٍ في ايدي تلك القوى الخفية، من أجل استغلاله لتنفيذ مشاريعهم العدوانية العسكرية، سواءً ضد الصين وروسيا او ضد إيران ومحور المقاومة. خاصة أنّ هذه القوى هي من المتطرفين الإنجيليين، المحافظين الجدد، الذين تربطهم مصالح عقائدية ومالية كبيرة مع الدوائر اليهودية التي تدعم نتن ياهو في الولايات المتحدة، والتي لا تتوانى عن إشعال الحروب، خدمة لمصالح تجمع الصناعات العسكرية الأميركية.

عاشرا ـ وفِي اطار التصعيد الكلامي والعملي، من قبل ترامب، والمُشار إليه أعلاه، فإنّ مرافقة رئيس هيئة الاركان العامة للجيوش الأميركية، الجنرال مارك اليكساندر ميللي للرئيس الأميركي، في زيارته البائسة لكنيسة يوحنا بولص الثاني، في واشنطن، وإن لم يظهر الجنرال ميللي في الصور إلا انّ آلاف الأميركيين قد شاهدوه هناك بالعين المجردة. وبالتالي فإنّ وجود الجنرال ميللي مع ترامب قد أجّجَ موجة الغضب العارمة، التي اجتاحت الاوساط الأميركية، رفضاً واستنكاراً لاستغلال ترامب للدين والمشاعر الدينية الإنسانية للمواطنين الأميركيين، لما لذلك من معانٍ، لا يمكن التستر عليها.

ومن بين أهمّ معاني حضور هذا الجنرال، الرفيع المنصب، ما يلي:

ـ تهديد رئاسي مباشر للمواطنين، الذين تمّ اجلاؤهم بالقوة من محيط الكنيسة، باستخدام القوة العسكرية للجيش الأميركي لقمعهم بإحباط تحركاتهم ومنعهم من ممارسة حقهم الدستوري في التعبير عن الرأي، ما يعتبر تعدياً على الدستور وحقوق الانسان يستوجب محاسبة مرتكب هذه الجريمة ومن تواطأ معه في ارتكابها (الجنرال ميللي) وتقديمهم للمحاكمة، حسب ما تنص عليه القوانين الأميركية.

ـ تحريض الرئيس ترامب، من قبل القوى الخفية الحاكمة في واشنطن، على اتخاذ المزيد من خطوات التصعيد ضد المتظاهرين، وذلك عبر الإيحاء له وللرأي العام الأميركي، بان الجيش يساند ترامب، في ما يتخذه من اجراءات قادت البلاد الى حالة غير مسبوقة من الانقسام والحقت أضراراً كبيرة بمصالح الولايات المتحدة وسمعتها الدولية وأظهرتها كدولة دكتاتورية تمارس أقسى درجات العنف ضد مواطنيها من دون أي مبرر لذلك.

وهو الأمر الذي يظهر نفاق الإدارة الأميركية الصارخ، اذ انها تتهم كل دول العالم تقريباً، بعدم احترام حقوق التعبير عن الرأي وتطالبها باحترام تلك الحقوق. ولكن شرطة ترامب «التي تحترم حقوق الإنسان»، قد داست رقبة المواطن الأميركي حتى قتلته خنقاً، مع ما يرافق ذلك من ألم وتعذيب لا يمكن تخيّل شدته. وهذه جريمة إضافية يجب ان يحاكم الرئيس الأميركي على ارتكابها، ليس فقط بصفته رأس الدولة، وانما بصفته مقصّراً في اتخاذ الإجراءات الإدارية والقانونية اللازمة، التي كان يجب ان تحول دون وقوع جريمةً مروعة كهذه.

من الآن حتى عشية الانتخابات الأميركية المرتقبة في تشرين الثاني/ نوفمبر المقبل، ستظلّ عيون العالم شاخصة الى واشنطن عاصمة الدولة الأعظم في العالم سابقاً والقوى الخفية التي تحاول الانتقام لهزيمة أميركا على أبواب بلاد الشام وبلاد الرافدين وأسوار صنعاء وتخوم إيران الثورة والاسلام ورجال الله في فلسطين ولبنان من معالوت الى إيلات ومن الجولان الى الجليل الى غزة وكل شبر من الضفة الغربية التي ساهم أهلها الصابرون والمحتسبون إلى جانب بحر أهلهم العرب والمسلمين في تهشيم وتقزيم جسم الإمبريالية الأميركية وتحويلها الى نمر من ورق..!

حتى ذلك اليوم نقول:

‏من كان يعبد أميركا وجبروتها فإنّ أميركا في حالة احتضار

‏ومن كان مخزّناً دولارات عليه أن يستبدلها بالتومان ‏أو الروبل أو اليوان…

‏هو الله الحيّ الذي لا يموت.

‏ويبقى وجه ربك ذو الجلال والإكرام.

‏بعدنا طيّبين قولوا الله…

Coronavirus has taught us all humans are equal: Branko Ivankovic

By Farrokh Hessabi

May 26, 2020 – 14:34

TEHRAN – Former Persepolis coach Branko Ivankovic says that all humans regardless of color, race, gender, national origin, religion, and political beliefs must join hands to fight Covid-19.

Ivankovic’s Persepolis stood on an unprecedented position, winning seven trophies in three successive years.

The Croatian coach won Persian Gulf Pro League in 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19, Hazfi Cup in 2018-19, and Iranian Super Cup in 2017, 2018, and 2019.

Now the head coach of Oman national team, the 66-year-old trainer, spends time in Croatia because of the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic. In recent months, Branko and his assistants’ complaints against Persepolis to FIFA for receiving their unpaid salaries has been widely discussed in the Iranian media.

In an exclusive interview with Tehran Times, the man known as “the Professor”, talked about the life post coronavirus, what he has done during the lockdown and about Persepolis and their fans, special thanks to Reza Chelengar, for making this exclusive interview possible.

Question: Your photos with a completely white beard that was shared on social media, caught the attention of many people in Iran. Is it for handsomeness or just a sign of aging?

Answer: Since the whole world, including my country Croatia and my hometown Varazdin, were quarantined during the pandemic coronavirus outbreak, I also decided to take a break and stay at home as much as possible, except for emergency matters. So, I didn’t go to a barbershop and even didn’t shave my bread off. That’s the only reason.

Q: How do you see football after coronavirus?

A: For more than two months there were no matches and no group training for any football player around the world. All the competitions including international, continental, and domestic matches were suspended. Because there is no training, problems appear for footballers and they may lose some of their qualities for a short-time period. If I don’t want to say chaos, I have to say it will create a kind of disorder in the football world. All the athletes, including football players and coaches, try to find the best way to get rid of this situation. This, of course, is possible when this pandemic disappears or diminishes. Unfortunately, people in all countries are affected by this pandemic now and they feel it in their life.

Q: What was the main lesson you learned from the coronavirus crisis?

A: Generally speaking, everyone understood that the global community, regardless of color, race, gender, national origin, religion, and political beliefs should join hands in fighting Covid-19, not only verbally, but also practically, and even emotionally, to help each other. All humans are equal. People must still practice social distancing and protect vulnerable groups. The death toll rate must decrease. The coronavirus crisis showed that we need solidarity, and this global solidarity was finally created. Therefore, the most important lesson was that this solidarity must always be maintained and continued.

Q: As a professor of football, what’s your solution for the resumption of football in a way that avoids endangering players’ and staff’s health and at the same time to keep football as beautiful and exciting as before?

A: From my point of view, during the outbreak of the virus, the most affected people in sports and football are the spectators and football fans. This is a reality. So, when we want to hold the competitions, our number one priority must be the health and safety of the fans and to remove the danger from them. Football is played to delight supporters and they are the first and foremost motivation of holding football matches around the world.  With their joys, encouragement, and sometimes their anger and unhappiness, they build momentum in the stadiums. But it must be accepted that in the upcoming days and months, the football matches will be held without spectators, in the empty stadiums. This can create a sad situation for the whole football family. Regarding the players and technical staff, they must follow the necessary health guidelines as much as possible to avoid creating danger for themselves or for other players on the field.

Q: What have you done personally during lockdown days?

A: I had the chance to launch a sports medicine center in my hometown a few years ago. This center had reached its peak before the coronavirus outbreak suspending all the sports activities. So, we were forced to close it for a while. But I took the opportunity to repair and complete this center along with my son. At the same time, we used the facilities there to strengthen our physical condition and keep our body and our morale strong through sports. I also spent the rest of my time studying the latest development in modern football, in terms of sports medicine, coaching, and structure. I tried to make the most of this time.

Q: And finally, if you would like, please talk about the problem with Persepolis regarding your unpaid money.

A: For four and a half years, I had a very beautiful and memorable time with the Persepolis fans. They gave passion and excitement to me and my staff, and we tried to respond to their kindness with our efforts and the trophies we won. This cooperation was so beautiful that it brought almost all the good things to Persepolis and their unique fans. But at the same time, we were four and a half years away from our families, and that created a lot of hardship for us. We gave up many of our personal activities in our country, Croatia, so that with all our focus and energy on Persepolis, we could achieve such successes in Iran. We hoped that what was signed in the contract between us and the managers of Persepolis would be observed, as it happens all over the world. But unfortunately, we noticed that the club was suffering from financial indiscipline, and the officials could not implement the things they had promised on paper. Unfortunately, they did not provide any conditions for paying their financial obligations. They either didn’t want to or couldn’t pay, and we had to file a complaint at FIFA to receive our wages. I had to do that. I love Persepolis and always wish them success in domestic and international competitions.

C19 as a Metaphysical Insight and The Betrayal of the Left Over

MAY 26, 2020 BY GILAD ATZMON

Gilad Atzmon on Jason Liosatos Outside The Box:How is it possible that despite the challenge humanity is facing at the moment not one philosopher, comedian or artist has attempted to delve into the current attack on the meaning of being human and humane? In this discussion with Jason Liosatos I attempt to fill this metaphysical hole with some meaningful ideas and content.

The end of globalisation won’t be televised, despite the hopes of the Western 99% (2/2)

Monday, 27 April 2020 5:46 AM  

By Ramin Mazaheri

Part 1 discussed how the West’s coronavirus response totally ignored the needs of their lower classes, and also how Iran’s “Resistance Economy” rejects Western economic liberalism (and neoliberalism) which has always sought to relegate non-Westerners to second-class economic partners.

As I have written previously, the West’s corona response is not just murderously mediocre but middle-class – it assumes everyone has a comfortable home, savings and a stable job. The West is employing quarantining, control methods and collective-over-individualist concepts used by Asian nations, but without having similar cultures of government economic intervention nor widespread trust in their governments. It is not hysteria to suggest that this could prove fatal to their bubble-filled, high-finance dominated economies.

There is a lot of foolish talk from Westerners, who are effectively forbidden to learn about and discuss how capitalism-imperialism truly operates, regarding how corona will cause supply chains to move back home. This has produced a lot of soon-to-be-forgotten agreement from their politicians, who are desperate to show that – all of a sudden – they care about their lower classes. Recall that the “end of irony” was proclaimed after 9/11 – will we see the “end of globalisation” because of coronavirus?

That’s funny.

The state of Delaware is where most US corporations are located and buy their charters – if it is not the world’s biggest corporate tax haven, according to The New York Times and The Japan Times, the state is certainly among the world’s top five. (Indeed, it should now be no surprise why Delaware senator Joe Biden was chosen to be Barack Obama’s running mate amid the 2008 economic crisis.) It could not be more crystal clear, even though neoliberals in the US often try to sow confusion about this fact: “Delaware corporate law requires corporate directors to manage firms for the benefit of shareholders, and not for any other constituency.” So anyone thinking corporations will sacrifice a mere fraction of their stock price in order to move supply chains back home are absolutely deluded about the possibility of patriotism, much less humanity, in “Capitalism with American characteristics”: their laws explicitly forbid it.

The post-corona persistence of neoliberalism – an ideology predicated on reducing government programs and expenditures for the 99% with ruthless efficiency – means that Western governments both national and local will be so strapped for cash in a post-Lockdown climate that they will be forced to try and save every nickel they can to maximise ever-more inadequate tax revenues and income. They will forced to buy from China, Haiti or whoever can save them pennies, because this is exactly what neoliberalism demands – it fundamentally neuters economic patriotism.

Urban hipsters who perhaps previously would pay premiums to “eat local” (because it is tastier) will soon find that unemployment (or a worsening of the seemingly never-ending underemployment for the West’s youth class) drastically alters one’s menu options. They would like to “eat local”, but many will be forced to forego the local farmers’ market to buy their food as cheaply as possible, and regardless of provenance.

So such talk from Esquire magazine bout how corona will usher in a new economy based around “resilience preparedness” is totally absurd: the very basis of globalisation is hyper-specialisation (Adam Smith) and turning every nation into a single cash crop/cow (David Ricardo’s comparative advantage) writ large, and these two concepts are the very opposite pole of resilience. Hyper-specialisation is hyper-resistant… but in one single area; if classic liberalism or modern neoliberalism or the “free market” selected your country to produce hygienic masks, congratulations! According to them you should jack up the price and the rest of us should not try to domestically produce our own.

Contrarily, we can say that Iran has tried to create “specialisation” in the normal way – within a single national economy’s different regions instead of all over the world, messianically and arrogantly. This is why they have employed a “resistance economy” (with many egalitarian principles held over from the “command/war economy” era), which is based around self-sufficiency, protectionism, government intervention to stimulate innovation in vital sectors, and government ownership in essentially every sector with medium or large importance. This, even more than the insistence that Islam is compatible with democracy, is why the West wages war on Iran.

The good news for Iranians: these economic principles are what promote resilience and preparedness, they curtail the indebtedness/poverty of the lower classes, and they will make Iran far more capable of weathering the economic turmoil of the coming months.

It is amusing that some in the West are now clamouring for sensible, humane, patriotic, efficient measures which Iran has employed for decades. Is Iran’s economic idea more exportable to Esquire if we call it a “resilience economy”, perhaps?

The Iranian economy in opposition to the West’s seemingly certain post-Great Lockdown economic chaos

At the root of this economic program is not anti-capitalism but anti-the-type-of-capitalism which today’s Iranians are violently confronted by: neoliberalism and globalisation. This form of capitalism is the most-geared towards maximising the profits and market concentration of the 1%, whereas a “resistance economy” is fundamentally-geared towards satisfying the needs of the Iranian 99%. The Koran sanctions capitalism, after all, but it bans usury and has clear exhortations to equality and the economic redistribution of massively-ordered charity. (If the West would simply follow the ban on usury – exorbitant interest and debilitating compound interest – they would be so much better off….)

If the Iranian Revolution did not satisfy the needs of their 99%… how can we possibly explain its endurance amid all the growth-sabotaging Cold War from the West? The question never was growth, after all, but re-distribution. The same logical argument stands for anti-imperialist Cuba and North Korea – caricaturing these nations as totalitarian oligarchies will continue to lose its false power for as long as these countries continue to not just endure but thrive (considering Western blockades), and for as long as the West’s post-1980 inequality entrenchment continues. Despite the looming economic crisis, does anyone really believe the West is culturally capable of reversing these inequality trends?

Undoubtedly, the West’s corona overreaction will make their economies – which were already in a Great Recession – even weaker.

Yes, this will force more Western domestic criticism of neoliberalism and globalisation, but will it really? How can it when France’s Muslims, US so-called “White Trash” and their lower-class counterparts across the “West + client” world cannot even be seen on their televisions? We are logical to believe that open criticism of the ideology of globalisation will be muted very shortly, because all these nations have airwaves which are dominated by a handful of corporations; contrarily, the Iranian government owns all the radio and TV waves – to get the outlook of not-always-selfless private media one can turn to Iran’s extremely critical, thriving print press.

Yes, the West’s reduced economies will necessarily reduce the influence and local reach of governments, but this reduced reach can easily be counter-balanced by the drastic quasi-martial laws which have already been employed. France almost certainly has the most over-policed corona lockdown (800,000 citations already), mais bien sûr: they just had an Islamophobia-based two-year state of emergency, which President Emmanuel Macron legalised into normal police practice.

Yes, the gut-wrenching reduction in wealth for the West’s lower classes may provoke “Western-style populism”, but this ideology is intrinsically reformist and not revolutionary. Look at the Five-Star Movement in Italy – it took them eight years to win significant power, but they have not been able to make significant changes. In their last national election the superb Yellow Vests gained merely half the votes of the (ugh) Animal Rights Party.

Yes, Westerners can see that all the evidence points to the necessity that they must change, but we must recall how very culturally chauvinistic they are: The West is hysterically convinced that their system is supreme – even among their “dissidents”, who are usually just “semi-dissidents” at best – despite all the evidence of failure and their perennial disregard of their own lower classes.

So combine this inherent conservativeness (liberal reformism), with neoliberal cultural saturation, with laws that forbid leavening neoliberalism, with “it’s not totalitarian when the West does it”, and it’s hard to compute a conclusion where the Great Lockdown produces a drastic reform of the Western economy, no? They have to overcome all of these trends, laws and false beliefs simultaneously and in great measure.

That would be a revolution. The West, the great thwarter of progressive revolutions, is supposedly now on the cusp of having one?

The only thing more idiotic than such talk are the commentators who accuse Iranian Reformists of being “neoliberals”, which is as stupid as calling Biden-backing Bernie Sanders or the French “socialists”. The Iranians most associated with the “resistance economy” are indeed Ayatollah Khamenei, ex-president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Principlist Party, but the idea that Reformists aren’t hugely, hugely on board with countless resistance economy principles is just eye-rollingly wrong.

The reality – well-known in Iran – is that there is absolutely no room in Iranian politics for any political group which pushes ending the pro-99%, government-interventionist, fundamentally anti-neoliberal direction of the economy for this simple fact: they would never get re-elected by the 99%, and thus such a movement is necessarily finished before it could ever even could get started in Iranian democracy. Capitalism is sanctioned by the Qur’an, so it will always have a place, but neoliberal capitalism (again, all capitalism is not “neoliberalism” just as all socialism is not “violently atheistic Russian Soviet socialism”)? Not hardly.

Smith and Ricardo’s liberal ideas that each region should produce only that which it was perfectly suited to producing had one fatal flaw: such perfect harmony cannot possibly ever exist in a capitalist-imperialist system, because such a system is predicated upon competition. This is not a small flaw in their ivory-tower thinking, nor am I resorting to a mere humbug attack on “human nature” – competition, instead of cooperation, is a poor foundation for human stability and peace.

Such harmony and mutually-beneficial arrangements (and on a global scale, no less!) could only possibly ever be achieved in a world that has a basis which is definitely not neoliberal, which is very wary of capitalism’s excesses and constant exhortations to battles both big and small, and which tacitly accepts resolutely anti-imperialist and thus essentially socialist economics as the foundation.

You may not want Iran’s culture – that’s natural, they don’t want yours.

But across the West their lower classes are clamouring for an economy with many of Iran’s motivations and practices – they will be ignored, sadly.

Ramin Mazaheri is the chief correspondent in Paris for Press TV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. He is the author of the books ‘I’ll Ruin Everything You Are: Ending Western Propaganda on Red China’ and the upcoming ‘Socialism’s Ignored Success: Iranian Islamic Socialism’.

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of Press TV.

---

Press TV’s website can also be accessed at the following alternate addresses:

www.presstv.ir

www.presstv.co.uk

www.presstv.tv

How is it possible that the Right Wing Fox News asks all the right questions?

JULY 17, 2019

Video Here

The answer is devastatingly simple: truth often interferes with the Left and Progressive’s worldview. It is then suppressed so it fits with a vision of correctness.

I delved into this question at length in my latest book: Being in Time – a Post Political Manifesto:

Traditional Left Ideology sets out a vision of how the world ought to be. The ‘Left’ view can be summed up as the belief that social justice is the primary requirement for improving the world, and this better future entails the pursuit of equality in various forms. The Left ideologist believes that it is universally both ethical and moral to attempt to approach equality in terms of civil rights and material wealth.

But if the Left focuses on ‘what could be,’ the Right focuses on ‘what is.’ If the Left operates where people could be, the Right operates where people ‘are’ or at least, where they believe themselves to be. The Right does not aim to change human social reality but rather to celebrate, and to even maximize it. The Right is also concerned with rootedness that is often nostalgic and even romanticised.

The Left yearns for equality, but for the Right, the human landscape is diverse and multi-layered, with inequality not just tolerated but accepted as part of the human condition, a natural part of our social, spiritual and material world. Accordingly, Right ideology encompasses a certain degree of biological determination and even Social Darwinism. It is enthralled by the powerful, and cruel, evolutionary principle of the ‘survival of the fittest.’ For the Right ideologue, it is the ‘will to survive’ and even to attain power that makes social interactions exciting. It is that very struggle that brings humanity and humanism to life.

So, the traditional debate between Right and Left can loosely be summarized as the tension between equality and reality. The Right ideologue argues that, while the Left’s attempt to flatten the curve of human social reality in the name of equality may be ethically genuine and noble, it is nonetheless naive and erroneous.

Illusion vs Insomnia

Left ideology is like a dream. Aiming for what ‘ought to be’ rather than ‘what is’, it induces a level of utopian illusory detachment and depicts a phantasmal egalitarian world far removed from our abusive, oppressive and doomed reality. In this phantasmic future, people will just drift away from greed and gluttony, they will work less and learn to share, even to share that which they may not possess to start with.

This imaginary ‘dream’ helps explain why the (Western) Left ideology rarely appealed to the struggling classes, the masses who, consumed by the pursuit of bread and butter, were hardly going to be interested in utopian ‘dreams’ or futuristic social experiments. Bitten by the daily struggle and chased by existence, working people have never really subscribed to ‘the revolution’ usually because often they were just too busy working. This perhaps explains why so often it was the middle class agitators and bourgeois who became revolutionary icons. It was they who had access to that little bit extra to fund their revolutionary adventures.

The ‘Left dream’ is certainly appealing, perhaps a bit too appealing. Social justice, equality and even revolution may really be nothing but the addictive rush of effecting change and this is perhaps why hard-core Leftist agitators often find it impossible to wake from their social fantasy. They simply refuse to admit that reality has slipped from their grasp, preferring to remain in their cosy phantasmal universe, shielded by ghetto walls built of archaic terminology and political correctness.

In fact, the more appealing and convincing the revolutionary fantasy is, the less its supporters are willing to face reality, assuming they’re capable of doing so. This blindness helps explain why the Western ideological Left has failed on so many fronts. It was day-dreaming when the service economy was introduced, and it did not awaken when production and manufacturing were eviscerated. It yawned when it should have combatted corporate culture, big money and its worship, and it dozed when higher education became a luxury. The Left was certainly snoring noisily when, one after the other, its institutions were conquered by New Left Identitarian politics. So, rather than being a unifying force that could have made us all – workers, Black, women, Jews, gays etc. – into an unstoppable force in the battle against big capital, the Left became a divisionary factor, fighting amongst itself. But it wasn’t really the ideologues’ and activists’ fault; the failure to adapt to reality is a flaw tragically embedded in the Left’s very fantasised nature.

If I am right, it is these intrinsically idealistic and illusory characteristics that doom Left politics to failure. In short, that which makes the Left dream so appealing is also responsible for the Left being delusional and ineffectual. But how else could it be? How could such a utopian dream be sustained? I suspect that for Left politics to prevail, humanity would have to fly in the face of the human condition.

And what of the Right? If the Left appears doomed to failure, has the Right succeeded at all? As opposed to the ‘dreamy’ Left, the Right is consumed by reality and ‘concretisation.’ In the light of the globalized, brutal, hard capitalist world in which we live, traditionally conservative laissez-faire seems a naive, nostalgic, peaceful and even poetic thought.

While the Left sleeps, Right-wing insomnia has become a universal disease which has fuelled the new world order with its self-indulgence and greed. How can anyone sleep when there’s money to be made? This was well understood by Martin Scorsese who, in his The Wolf of Wall Street, depicts an abusive culture of sex, cocaine and amphetamine consumption at the very heart of the American capitalist engine. Maybe such persistent greed can be only maintained by addled, drug-induced and over-stimulated brains.

Rejection of fantasy, commitment to the concrete (or shall we say, the search for ‘being’ or ‘essence,’) positions the Right alongside German philosophy. The German idealists’ philosophical endeavour attempts to figure out the essence of things. From a German philosophical perspective, the question ‘what is (the essence of) beauty?’ is addressed by aesthetics. The question ‘what is (the essence of) being?’ is addressed by metaphysics. The questions: ‘what are people, what is their true nature, root and destiny?’ are often dealt with by Right-wing ideologists. It is possible that the deep affinity between Right ideology and German philosophy explains the spiritual and intellectual continuum between

German philosophy and German Fascism. It may also explain why Martin Heidegger, one of the most important philosophers in the last millennium, was, for a while at least, a National Socialist enthusiast.

The Right’s obsession with the true nature of things may explain its inclination towards nostalgia on one hand and Darwinist ideologies on the other. Right ideology can be used to support expansionism and imperialism at one time, and isolationism and pacifism at another. Right ideology is occasionally in favour of immigration as good for business, yet can also take the opposite position, calling for protection of its own interests by sealing the borders. The Right can provide war with logos and can give oppression a dialectical as well as ‘scientific’ foundation. Sometimes, a conflict may be justified by ‘growing demand’ and ‘expanding markets.’ Other times, one race is chosen to need living space at the expense of another.

The Right is sceptical about the prospects for social mobility. For the Right thinker, the slave* is a slave because his subservient nature is determined biologically, psychologically or culturally. In the eyes of the Left, such views are ‘anti-humanist’ and unacceptable. The Left would counter this essentialist determinism with a wide range of environmental, materialist, cultural criticism and post- colonial studies that produce evidence that slaves do liberate themselves eventually. And the Right would challenge this belief by asking ‘do they really?’ ( Being in Time – a Post Political Manifesto pg. 13-17)

* I refer here to the slave in an Hegelian metaphorical way rather than literally.