Nimic nou

The Saker ne atrage atenția: Pepe Escobar, Rostislav Ishchenko, Saker Community Translations YouTube channel, Stalker Zone.

Tot TS are două articole interesante despre G7 și SCO: unul al lui RI, și unul al lui JJB.

Interesant în articolul lui JJB discuția despre Stalin și Mao, respectiv despre URSS și China comunistă:

During China’s post-Russian revolution period, 1917-1949, China’s relationship with Russia was decidedly lopsided. Vladimir Lenin did what seemed to be the impossible, overturning an imperial government into communist one, and not just in a small country, but one of the biggest and most important on the world scene.

After nearly a century of groveling humiliation at the feet of Eurangloland’s opium- and slave-fueled capitalist empire, and after being betrayed and kicked in the teeth by these same colonial powers in 1919’s post-World War I Versailles Treaty, future Chinese leaders, such as Deng Xiaoping, Zhou Enlai and Marshal Zhu De were in Europe – France mainly – being good subordinate students learning all about Marxism and Leninism.

China’s junior role as acolytes to the Soviet Union and Joseph Stalin’s urban-industrial Marxist-Leninist economy continued after Mao Zedong and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) equally shocked the world, by assuming communist power in the most populous and historically, one of the most powerful and important countries on the planet. However, Mao was a thorn in Stalin’s side from day one, as the future chairman saw what nobody else could envision – including most of his Chinese comrades – that China’s communist revolution had to swell up among the uneducated rural peasantry, and not among the industrialized urban proletariat. Thus, Maoism was born to join the socialist pantheon of Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism, and as we all now know, Mao knew what he was talking about, in spite of all the derision raining down on him from Moscow.

Thus, it was inevitable that there would be a cataclysmic divorce between the USSR and China. It came in 1960, with Soviet Nikita Khrushchev’s perfidious betrayal of Russia’s most popular leader, Stalin, in his infamous speech (https://mobile.nytimes.com/1971/01/25/archives/british-experts-doubt-authenticity-of-khrushchev-remembers.html). As Deng Xiaoping said years later, China will never do to Mao what Russia did to Stalin. That stab in the back of greatness was beyond the pale for the Communist Party of China (CPC). You don’t throw out the baby with the bath water. Real, meaningful revolutions are inherently messy, violent and often chaotic. Mistakes will be made. You don’t take tremendous wealth from a handful of elites and distribute it to the masses without blowback from within and without. Such is life.

This was Russia’s second Great Schism, the first being in 1054, with Eastern Christians and Constantinople’s Orthodox Church renouncing control of Rome’s Catholic Pope. Looking back, they both changed history for all parties concerned – and the world. Every day we wake up, we are dealing with their consequences.

US President Richard Nixon brilliantly used this Sino-Soviet mistrust to get China to join the US in destroying the Soviet Union. China and Russia working together to convincingly defeat Western empire in Korea, 1950-1953 and later in Vietnam and Southeast Asia, became a nostalgic memory. Starting in the 1970s, China became a potent anti-Soviet ally for Uncle Sam. Unlike the CPC, the Soviet Communist Party did not adapt and evolve fast enough to the rapidly changing geo-economic tides of the 20th century, and we all know what happened. Even though Soviets voted overwhelmingly in a referendum to keep the Union together (https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/2gxmng/results_of_1991_referendum_to_preserve_the_soviet/), Western capitalism did what it does best, raping and plundering the former Soviet Union, thus turning its members into failed, gangster “shock doctrine” hellholes, starting in 1990. I can assure you that what happened in post-Berlin-Wall Russia got China’s habit of tinkering being pushed into overdrive. Along with the CIA’s nearly successful color revolution in 1989’s Tiananmen Square (http://chinarising.puntopress.com/2018/06/03/tall-tiananmen-tales-and-the-little-red-pill-a-china-rising-radio-sinoland-classic-for-this-june-4th-180604/), the CPC continued to adapt and evolve within its already successful, post-liberation Marxist-Leninist-Maoist social, economic and political framework, which is continuing today, having added Xi Thought. You can expect the CPC and its dawn of the Red Dynasty to continue into the 22nd century (http://chinarising.puntopress.com/2017/05/19/the-china-trilogy/).

The world then watched in awe, and for Eurangloland, in white-knuckled dread, as Vladimir Putin repeated for post-communist Russia what Mao did for post-imperial China. They both created big, economically, technologically and geopolitically powerful countries that relish being independent and standing up to Western imperialism. In the eyes of Baba Beijing, Putin is everything that Khrushchev could have and should have been. Unfortunately for humanity, this Asian alignment did not happen for another forty years and the dawn of the 21st century. Don’t look now, but that would be Chinese President Xi Jinping and his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin. Better late than never.

Și mai mult:

Stalin disdained Mao and the CPC as radishes, for being red on the outside, fake white socialists on the inside (http://chinarising.puntopress.com/2017/05/13/so-called-communist-china-by-jeff-j-brown-in-the-all-china-review/), and Khrushchev was completely outclassed by Mao’s bold and visionary leadership. Not the case with Putin and Xi. They genuinely like and respect each other. They know they are equals, they are both working tirelessly for the betterment of their countrymen, nations and the world at large.

Jimmie Moglia are un post-scriptum despre Skripali. Ne spune despre o egalitate despre care știam, dar, despre care, din prudență, preferăm să nu știm:

Quite likely, it has occurred to the observant reader that the narrative of mainstream news is anchored in a safe harbor of prejudices.

For who hates Russia, also loves Europe and the Euro, favors US intervention in Syria, is mad at Maduro’s “dictatorship,” labels as “populists” the defenders of their nation against demographic invasions from the third-world, thinks of Iran as a den of devils, calls Assad a butcher, likes his well-financed jihadist enemies, rates the coup in Ukraine a triumph of democracy and decries the reconnection of Crimea with Russia. It’s almost a compulsive conspiracy theory in reverse.

These prejudices form a clump of convictions not even attributable to a specific ideology, for convictions and prejudices live in harmonious contradiction with each other. Notably, for example, calling for peace while waging war, and extolling democracy at large, while supporting, sustaining and selling massive volumes of lethal arms to Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia, which is an updated embodiment of medieval despotism, along with the Gulf’s petro-monarchies, the heritage of Britain when she was still an empire. Pretending to amity with the Arab people and support for their unity (Lawrence of Arabia docet…), only to shamefully betray them even at Britain’s cost in blood (read Judaic anti-British terrorism in Palestine), let alone credibility.

Therefore the referred-to clump of convictions does not constitute an ideology. Rather it is a kind of self-sustaining mental family of factoids, where empirical evidence, let alone coherence, is un-necessary. For the strength of the factoids lies only in its being imposed by authority and repetition. And, recently, even in the persecution and prosecution of dissenters, thanks to the new instruments of “fake news” and “hate speech.”

“We create our own reality,” said the blood-thirsty US defense-secretary Rumsfeld, at the time of the Iraq war, when a naive journalist dared to question him about one particularly unbelievable statement of fact.

Still, even an ideological castle of rubbish, a fictitious structure, arbitrarily called ‘reality’, requires some scaffolding. Authority protects the castle from criticism, but the structure would be subject to dangerous cracks, should empirical reality expose any. Which probably explains, in the instance, the sudden veil of silence on the Scripal affair. Or, as an ingenious observer put it, the clump of invented convictions, of which the Scripal affair is one, constitutes a “wholistic approach to reality.”

For very dangerous to the castle of rubbish would be a spontaneous mobilization of more than a few heads who do not exempt themselves from thought. To prevent it, TV shows simulate a parallel reality, aimed at making less tragic the anxiety for the future and less ridiculous the perception of the present.

Și:

Which brings me to say something that may be, or is, unsavory, though uttered by an unimpeachable mouth.

Among the euphemisms of our current new-speak is the term “deep state,” of which, in the Scripal instance and others, the British government showed itself to be its unashamed purveyor and voice. In attempting to discover the details and the depth of the “deep state”, our curiosity would probably consume itself in toilsome and disappointed effort.

Still, Neo-Conservatives,” or “Neo-Cons,” are the currently accepted outward expression of the “Deep State.” Here next I quote the definition of “neo-cons”, given to the New York Times by Bill Kristol, son of Irving Kristol, a Judaic Marxist from the Soviet Union.

Și:

Irving Kristol’s son is Bill, a quintessential neo-conservative. In an interview with the New York Times, said that, in the term “Neo-Cons”, ‘neo’ means ‘new’ and ‘con’ means ‘Jews.’ A statement probably and pragmatically true, considering the ostentatious influence of the neo-cons, especially in foreign policies.

But Kristol’s frankness also shines a light onto the elephant that polite (and supposedly clever) people in the room must ignore. For if Joe Biden, VP of the United States says, as he did, for example, that Judaic influence were behind same-sex marriage, he is applauded. But if someone who disagrees with same-sex marriages says the same thing he is an anti-Semite.

It is OK to say that Iraq never had weapons of mass destruction. But a Gentile quoting the New York Times – which claims that without the neo-cons there would not have been a war in Iraq – is anti-Semitic.

Zice spre concluzie:

[..] a quotation, attributed to Voltaire and well known to many Internauts. Namely, that to determine who rules over us, we should find whom we are prompted to hate (and why), and who we are not allowed to criticize.

Între timp (și între noi), nimic nou. Președintele nu respectă Constituția, iar noi… deasemenea. Singura noastră Constituție, ca totdeauna, este parul. Văleu!

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

six + seven =

I accept the Terms and Conditions and the Privacy Policy

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.