Recap Part 1
Maybe Ukraine’s decision to employ Hunter Biden during the Obama administration at $10,000 a month was a good war insurance investment since President Biden has billions and billions to Ukraine in its war to keep control of that country. The President Bill Von Clinton takeover plan for Ukraine made a sow’s ear of a silk purse. As Jesus changed water into wine, Democrats since 1994 hanged wine into piss. In 1994 Democrats broke a champagne bottle on the bow of an era of forced-based system of international rules; a Liberal World Order it turned out, with the nations with dominant military power making the rules. Domestically, with Ruby Ridge and Waco, and abroad in foreign wars, military and financial power forced liberal rules. In the United States The Supreme Court of Harvard made laws to reinforce corporatism’s Liberal World Order (also known as the S.W.O.- Satanic World Order since some would define slavery liberating-for-others depending on what the meaning of ‘is’ is).
I am reposting the following seven and eight year old comments on Democrat Party belligerence towards Russia just to keep things in perspective historically. The Liberal World Order narrative is nearly entirely one-sided and reinforces revisionism about Russia’s relation to Ukraine. I prefer to enter notes for my blog so I can remember what an avalanche or tsunami of proprietary, self-interest, biased information emerged in this time of war. Failing to recognize that cutting the heart out of historical Russia and relocating it to western interests would not go unchallenged led to the present conflict. Politicians seldom can talk about select international affairs truthfully, accurately or objectively and must instead use a pejorative, one-sided, proprietary approach. In the case of Ukraine that resulted in War, Cold War, economic problems, inflation and numerous completely avoidable negative consequences. A rectification or adjustment of the Yelstin-Blair-Clinton Soviet Union termination agreement in regard to Ukraine should have occurred at some point during the Obama administration at least. The last President of the Soviet Union had a gun at his head of forced options in a manner of speaking. As he brought the saga of the red experiment in the Soviet Union to an end the gun was in the hands of imperialist opportunists instead of statesmen. Twenty-eight years later rhetoric about ‘the dictator’ and ‘the war criminal’ Putin flood the airwaves along with body bags and body counts in the real world.
I realize the U.S, administration is a locomotive racing at 290 m.p.h. on a narrative and am not trying to get on board nor in its way. I just want to point out that total economic and political war against Russia may not be without deleterious consequences for the west, neither is it doomed to success. It is entirely disingenuous for the administration to express no awareness of the conservative Russian position, and dangerous to simply throw everything they have into economic and indirect war against Russia. War is terrible and a common cause of it is that of aloof politicians chasing wealth needing or tolerating war to get what they want. Politicians owned by the rich are a sad fact of modern life. In modern war politician puppeteers live in ivory towers with a cell phone in their ear. British and Catholic imperialism drew in President Clinton and P.M. Blair who later joined the Catholic Church, to renew the historical war of the west to Eastward expansion. Ukraine was a battleground between Catholic and Orthodox faith spheres of influence in the feudalism era, and I suspect that the embers of that war have never gone out entirely. I doubt that John Paul II foresaw an expanded NATO presenting a sustainable threat to Russia.
President Putin of Russia has a very tough line-up against him including the expanded N.A.T.O. war machine and vast U.S. military weapons supplies looming like ravenous mastiffs on chains eager to go for his throat to finish off Russian and Chinese resistance to Wall Street plutocratic values; held back perhaps simply by recalcitrance to risk of nuclear war. Putin was said to be a war criminal by President Biden. That is a matter for courts I suppose. I would think the United States killed hundreds of people in hospitals in Afghanistan, even one staffed by Doctors Without Borders, and killed hundreds or thousands of civilians in collateral damage, and in fact the entire Iraq war might have been a war crime since Iraq did not invade anyone nor have weapons of mass destruction as President G.W. Bush claimed. What about the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution? Was the bogus attack on U.S. ships another excusable blunder justifying the war crime of fighting a war to kill communists?
The U.S. government’s illegal war in Iraq, if indeed the war was illegal because there wasn’t much besides a very thin legal premise for the invasion based on Iraq’s non-compliance with sanctions presumably featuring WMDs they never had, started with the U.S. reportedly killing 100,000 hapless soldiers in trenches along the border with aerial bombardment- 100,000 souls murdered in effect, without the slightest mention of a war crime. Another trivial omission from popular history by the victors. Mass murder is a prerogative of politicians that needs only journalist apologetics and narratives to pass as water under the bridge of time.
If President Biden’s son Beau was a victim of burning chemical dumps in Iraq, weren’t thousands of Iraqi civilians too? There is no mention of war crimes for U.S. Presidents since they have consistently denied being subject to the International War Crimes courts. Why is President Putin different? The U.S. Government has no memory of its own war crimes history if just wars require more than a legal technicality to start. Was it o.k. to intentionally nuke civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki with hyper shock and awe just once for the U.S.A.’s convenience? The truism that history is written by the victors seems to be especially meaningful in the context of war crimes. Victory in the present age seems to mean those with unlimited wealth and ownership of broadcast media, corporations and weapons of war. It would be refreshing to have intelligent politicians that speak with candor and objective understanding once in a while.
Wars start and finish for more solid historical reasons of quantitative disputes and lack of alternative means of resolution . Legal technicalities are used as pretexts for war. The US and the Eurasian politics should be moving toward egalitarian, sustainable global economics. U.S. leadership is over-reliant on technological military supremacy, deficit spending, tax cuts for the rich and issuing no interest or low-interest loans to the richest banks so they can mint trillions of free e-dollars from thin air with which to buy the world’s business for its foreign and domestic policy of corporatism rather than a Republic’s principles of wise, well-balanced and historically informed statesmanship. Corporatism isn’t a democracy. War and Cold war and post cold-war enmity are not the right course except for incompetent, inefficient, lunatic politicians.
Why Compromise and Innovation are better than Confrontation for Ukraine
24 Sept. 2014
Compromise rather than conflict is the better course for Ukraine. Sanctions and bellicose Washington D.C. rhetoric about Russian aggression accompanied with sanctions dividing Russian and European trade and commerce ought to be replaced with realpolitik. It is better to integrate Russian-European economics rather than segregate. It is better to make closer security and trade ties trilaterally with Russia, Europe and the U.S.A. instead of increasing isolation and sanctions. When it is possible with intelligent leadership to innovate progress instead of regressing to primitive cold war posturing one should choose the smart way rather than the dumb.
Ukraine is unlikely to be harmed by making of itself something of a political laboratory for creative political merger accentuating positive, closer ties with Russia and the west simultaneously. Creative political thought did not need to die with the passing of Reagan-Gorbachev era.
Obama administration sycophants complain about the European economy slowing U.S. economic growth as if the sanctions hurting European and Russian economies haven’t anything to do with Europe’s stagnant recovery from the 2008 banking and mortgage crash largely developed through Wall Street and British, D.C. and London deregulation and failure to govern high-speed quantitative trading and packaging of bad debt for sale.
The Obama administration’s failure to comprehend Russia’s 1200 year patrimony of the Ukraine and the unlikely circumstance of a complete acceptance of de-Russification of Ukraine means that the economic and security stumbling block will continue indefinitely even if with a cold war level of simmering maneuver. That is quite different from warm and innovative relations between Europe, the United States and Russia-and that is bad for the economy of the three regions.
The reality of Ukraine permits far more real interaction and adjustment of political formality than the abstract ideological and partisan positions that Washington and its puppet politicians believe possible.
The confrontational Washington attitude does not save Ukraine from a return to the evil empire of the Soviet Union. It is quite possible for Ukrainian pluralism to include Russian interests and Ukrainian politicians with very close ties to Russia as well as the west. Ukrainian interests are in drawing benefits from east and west rather than just the west or the east. They have no need of an exclusive relationship to one side or the other beyond its borders, and neither need Ukrainian independence mean being free of affiliations and treaties with anyone beyond its borders.
Ukraine might sight trade agreements with Russia and the west simultaneously-even some of those free trade agreements that Washington leaped into as if they were the opulent new designer economic drug. Ukraine can be the state where synthetic development and inclusion of Russian-leaning separatist regions in their own Ukrainian community of independent state can satisfy the real desire for many to be more Russian culturally than western while west leaning interests can be confident of free trade, freedom of religion and security interests not being taken over by a Russian mafia or onerous policies repressing civil rights.
It is often said that most Ukrainians want democracy and a free economy, yet so do many Russians and Europeans. Realpolitik of history shows that tribal and cultural wars are right up there with wars and conflicts created by aristocracy and royalty over land. Keeping the ordinary citizen free of class caste systems isn’t easy-even the power of concentrated wealth and their media pets make it challenging for some to recognize their loss of earnings power and degradation of comparative social advantage.
Ukraine should seek its own balance in Fullerian social synthetic integration-syntegrity between Russia and Europe innovating new political structures to bring in closer Russian economic and cultural participation while drawing in the west as well. The major sticking point in getting the sanction repealed swiftly is the need for political change away from confrontationism and bellicosity with stark, de trop, black-white us and them paradigmata for ultimatums. Moving through a variety of Ukrainian political evolutions toward a realpolitik of mergism is not only possible, it is a necessary way to move economic progress forward, reduce European tension in the region and return the focus of Europe toward rebuilding the economic malaise that is still severe in several members of the EC.
Pyrrhic Victory in West’s Land Grab of Formerly Russian Ukraine
April 1, 2014
The late Boris Yeltsin had dubious authority to give away the historically Russian Ukraine to independents. We are reminded of the deal Vladimir Illyich Lenin cut with the Kaiser in 1918 giving up the Ukraine to Germany in return for support in taking over Russia. Yeltsin might have expected support from the west. At the time he was not yet President of the Russian Federation, he was only President of the R.S.F.R., one of just 15 Soviet Republics.
Yeltsin was elected Chairman of the Supreme Soviet in 1990 and oversaw its dissolution. It is difficult to say what kind of relationship Yeltsin had with Bill Clinton and the west. Perhaps they were soul brothers. In 1999 Yeltsin was ‘found drunk in his underpants outside the White House’. Obviously Yeltsin power as the symbolic mirror of Yekaterinburg’ termination of the Tsar/Soviet Union emerged from a stressful life in communist society trying to liberate the Russian people from Stalinism. It is worth recollecting that in a famous photo of the Bolshevik Revolutionary leaders just Stalin and Trotsky remained alive not long after Stalin took power. Trotsky of course and his family were murdered by Stalin’s political rival liquidators later.
When the Gorbachev-Yeltsin succession liberated Russia with the help of President Ronald Reagan something of an historical miracle transpired. American airhead ideologues though saw it as an opportunity to plunder the world for a corrupt high-tech derivative and resources swindling, bank frauds and hostile takeover acquisitions. Corporatism ensued to gut America’s development of democracy. Americans were left eventually holding the bag of 18 trillion dollars of public debt, high unemployment and emasculation of practical sovereignty. Investment occurred in China and Mexico and globalism replaced nationalism to the detriment of all except the top 5% of Americans.
At the end of the First World War an unwise armistice and peace placed high demands on Germany leading inevitably to the second world war. Subsequently America learned to be generous with its peace terms in war. Germany was a good example as well as Japan-each nation prospered and became allies rather than subversive malcontents. The United States seems to have forgotten that lesson in the Ukraine.
President Gorbachev freely withdrew his forces from European nations occupied by the Soviets gained rolling up the Third Reich. It was the 50th anniversary of D-Day in fact, and it was historical grace that the transition occurred peacefully. Yet some viewed the liberation of Europe from Soviet communist totalitarianism as a surrender for Russia and a victory for capitalism. They consider it right to take everything possible from formerly communist countries and perpetrate a kind of forced reparations to Wall Street from the Russian Ukraine. In the long run that may be a Pyrrhic victory. In the meantime it is very disruptive economic policy for the entire world. Regressive and unjust at best that policy has potential for developing numerous worst case scenarios.
The Abstract Form of Monarchy, Corporatism, Hierarchy and Sectarian Conflict
7 May 2014
This is a starter (like Windows 7 starter I suppose) on the abstract form of hierarchical power precipitating social conflict inclusive of sectarian war. Perhaps I will write more on the issue later. One finds the U.S. Government bureaucracy stimulating wars in Syria, conflict in Egypt and strife in Ukraine with sectarianism being an issue in each instance. There are other parties involved of course, and the assignment of blame isn’t plain and simple or evens my intention here. The purpose of this post is to not the action of social hierarchy as the causative agent for religious conflict.
The philosopher Thomas Hobbes’ wrote a brilliant conservative thesis named The Leviathan describing the right of the absolute monarch to be in effect the only real individual around whom every citizen receives light. That is an extreme representation of the nature of hierarchy manifesting in imperial, corporate and ecclesiastic power. As power and wealth are concentrated dissent is increasingly eliminated. Absolute power tolerates no dissent. Free expression and political independence dies. In the Orwellian state thought is for-itself usurped by hierarchical programming of citizens. The nature of bloody religious wars is inextricably linked to hierarchical government and church structures. Especially in Erastian or government rule of religion, yet also in established hierarchical bureaucracy doctrine is all-important. Free thought and reform are verboten. Absolute hierarchies are intolerant of doctrinal differences and any sort of pluralism politically or ecclesiastically. Thus Martin Luther’s world-changing concept of justification by faith rather than doled out by bishops.
Luther, a monk, learned of the problems of monastic life and the corruption of Rome and the papacy after visiting Rome himself. He found the sale of indulgences and more church practices that weren’t justified by Biblical guidance. Various Popes had become too powerful believing that had a right to rule not only Christians but government too. This isn’t then place for a critique of the troubles of the papal form of church government with a more equal than other bishops primate-they were at war with themselves too now and then even with as many as three rival popes at once. The issue is the hierarchical structure of the church. Pope Hildebrand thought it best for priests to be celibate in order that they would be more like an international collection of soldiers (of a spiritual sort). A Pope would be something like an Eisenhower. Pope John Paul II-just canonized, was a Polish Catholic, and Polish catholic historical efforts to take over Ukraine for Poland resulted in the formation of a half-catholic, half-orthodox Uniate Church as well as an Orthodox Church in Ukraine. Today there are Protestants in Ukraine too.
‘Bloody’ Mary Queen of Scots and England executed nearly 300 Protestants and other Catholic persecutions of Protestants occurred. She died in 1578 and with her the brief Catholic restoration. In 1572 Catholics massacred Protestants across France and Ireland in the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre. The back and forth 16th and 17th century reprisals against the reformation of the Christian Church probably was a probably reason that the Puritan Cromwell invaded Ireland and treated them so badly in 1649. John Milton-the author of Paradise Lost was a member of Cromwell’s government. Puritans were founders of the U.S.A. too.
The Bishop’s war of 1639
It is said to have been a prelude to the English civil war. Charles I wanted an Episcopal church form (with Bishops) instead of that of a Presbyterian (elders) structure. There are innumerable historical examples of church hierarchies ruled by government as well as of governments ruled by religious hierarchy. The problem is not religion-at least not Christian religion-as a source for conflict, but the sociological structure of hierarchies exerting the taught controlling power over citizens.
Hierarchy cannot tolerate doctrinal dissent and political free thought. The Inquisition and other government and church executions of individuals killed far more people of faith than scientifically inclined people, yet of course moderns would almost have one think that the church was a great repressor of science generally rather than its sponsor. The church with the benefit of modern science and technology ought easily move toward a priesthood of believers egalitarian structure with three ranks-beginner, intermediate and elder reading standardized with room for improve liturgies in role sharing groups. That might help the ecumenical movement, support real rather than corporate democracy and reduce international conflict