Can New Nazism be Fought and Defeated by an "Impossibly Bourgeois" (and Hence Corrupt) System and Leaders?

Michael Green made two important points, one of which at least (the latter) is self-evidently true (both the West and Russia are "impossibly bourgeois"): "There is no enduring meaning in a Russian victory at this point, IMO, other than to thwart an American victory. But they're both playing for the same team, actually. IMO, that kind of victory is Pyrrhic. It is also stupid, petty and, as Marx would put it - though I am not a Marxist - impossibly bourgeois ...."

The recognition of the oligarchic nature of today's Russia is a basic, fundamental political fact which any honest and truthful analyst and analysis has to recognize and even to begin with. The Western left or most of what identifies itself with the "left" in the West is also admittedly bourgeois.

The essential political nature of today's Russia also greatly explains why official Moscow was never happy about or  supportive of anti-oligarchic demands and the anti-oligarchic aspirations of the Novorossiya revolution and why, instead, one could see in any of its "peace" initiatives to be reintroducing either some oligarchs or oligarchic interests back into the game and back into Novoroosiya.

Colonel Cassad said already twice at least (again just yesterday) that Putin represents the interests of Russia's big capital. A good number of people on the left did not like to hear it, but a personal dislike for something does not necessarily count against the truth.

The US demands and demands very severely that Russian oligarchs stop playing and fussing around and that, instead, they do what the highest priests of the system demand from them--either total subordination or suicide.

To this effect, the US is also trying to frame and set up the game so as to leave to Russian oligarchs and the Russian leadership only these two "options."

In all this, tragically and sadly, for the Russian leaders it has been more about Kerry this or Kerry that, about Poroshenko, the "good cop" of the Nazi junta in Kiev, whom they laud as a very good person to talk to (as if they never bothered to listen to what he is actually saying about Russia), and about calling the anti-Russian oligarchs and the Nazis in power in Kiev "partners" ...

At the same time, Putin, Lavrov, and Medvedev have been audibly numb and loudly deaf when it comes to listening to the political will and voice of the people of Novorossiya themselves. Instead, the Russian leadership struck a deal with the US (and Kiev) behind the scenes (the Minsk "accords") and called it "the beginning of an all-Ukrainian dialogue."

As Michael says, "at this point" (emphasis on "at this point"), there is no clear, enduring or solid meaning or stance formulated or expressed by the Russian elite tied very tightly to the interest of Russia's big capital and Russian oligarchy.

Recently, Lavrov argued that the US did not make a socio-political analysis of the situation in Ukraine. I think the US policymakers did that. For not only the New Left was successfully infiltrated from the level of its leading thinkers, but the first generations of neo-conservatives started first by posing as leftist intellectuals as well, and Marxism and Trotskyism were plundered for clues and ideas of how to defeat one's enemy with his own ideological and political weapons turned against him. At the same time, the US establishment tried to learn from its enemy as much as it could, while much of the left replaced genuine political know-how and education with a load of post-modern (self)deconstruction--its own neo-colonization. So when it comes to knowing oneself, it is not given that, between the Russian and American elites, it is the latter that needs to be worse off.

Thus, ironically and paradoxically, but understandably, it is the US establishment that has a very realistic and, if you want, even a class based (of sorts) view of the Russian oligarchs who shared and share with their class brothers in the West more than ventures, accounts, tastes, vices or beds. But this, of course, does not mean that the US capital does feel a great urge and desire to treat Russian oligarchs similarly to how Cain handled his brother Abel.

As to the original question asked whether "Nazism can be fought and defeated by an 'impossibly bourgeois' (and hence corrupt) system and leaders," we can say that this question has already been answered in World War II. Nazism cannot be defeated "half-as" or by half-as men ... Nazism cannot be defeated by men and women who are corrupt or "impossibly bourgeois."

While Nazism is not merely the darkest of the Western civilization's shadows, but also an extreme prejudice to life, the spirit of money is and remains the spirit of Judas. Imperialism is not the last stage of capitalism. Imperialism was the first stage of capitalism and its continuous character. Its last stage is Nazism and its morbid desires, sadism, and will.

When the night comes, man kindles his fire and if he and others truly care, then the fire--the fire of human spirit--endures,

Lavrov Explains the Mechanism and Nature of "Partnership" of Russia's Big Capital with the West and Global Capitalism

On September 27, Sergey Lavrov with eyes fixed to the floor gave an interview to RT at the UN in New York.

In this connection, Lavrov explained Russia's and Russian big capital's concept of "partnership" with the West and global capitalism:

Russia is seeking compromise and accommodation.

Thus, for example, at the beginning of the war in Syria (the West's attempt at overthrowing the Syrian government by force, by al Qaeda-led armies, to establish a dictatorship of the latter in the name of "democracy," "freedom" and "moderation"), Russia and China put together a resolution that called on the Syrian government to negotiate with al-Qaeda "revolutionaries" the new character of Syria.

For the West, this effectively pro-Western proposal was still not good enough. [Too little. Too little short of the complete regime change, overthrow of the Syrian government and an opportunity to see a repeat of Qaddafi's final moments.]

So, instead of presenting this resolution for voting in the Security Council and making the US to veto it in public, that is, in the face of the US clear Nyet (No) to Russia's attempt to be helpful and forthcoming, Russia decided to withdraw its resolution. In the name of "partnership" with the West.

Russia decided that the US does not need to be put through what the US does not want to go--in this case, having to use a veto.

According to Lavrov, this is how Russia's "partnership" ought to work. As Lavrov explains, such "partnership," thus exemplified by Russia, is "more correct and more ethical, if you want," than "partnership" practiced by the West--by the West that, mind you, does not even bother to recognize any presence or existence of such partnership. See and listen here at 4:00-6:00

As this helpful explanation of the nature of Russia's partnership with the West indicates (and only Russia is using this formidably sounding term in its relationship with the West), one may start realizing that what we have at hand is yet one of the numerous cases of "relationship" in which one side is holding desperately to its abuser and where the other side displays numerous symptoms of a successful and self-confident sociopath.

Whether the concept of "partnership," as displayed here by the abused, is actually "more correct and also more ethical, if you want," however, remains a question the answer to which is not hard to verify.

One thing, however, appears to be self-evident. In this abusive relationship, which can be described as "partnership" with a good deal of self-denial or delusion, even the abused is not allowed to have much of his principles left.

"You turned out to be such a fool, America! All you had to do was wait twenty years — and we would have been forever yours" (Lament of a Betrayed, Morally Superior America's Former Best Friend)

A very interesting "confession" by a post-Soviet Russian was published by a great pro-Novorossiya site slavyangrad.org. This confession written by a worldly middle-aged Russian inadvertently maps several important blind spots on the part of post-1991 Russia and its new generation.

It is framed in the style of a letter penned a betrayed, bitter boyfriend who was taken advantage of. While the piece is conceived as a condemnation of the US as a "dying" empire, it could also be read as a self-indictment of sorts, which this confession was not meant to be:

"When we were teens, growing up in the early 90s; most of my friends the same age did not even question their attitude toward Western civilization. It was great, how could it be otherwise?
Finally, we would quench our sensory deprivation. ... It’s hard to believe now, but even the Orthodox Church coming out from under communist supervision was for us the same thing as the triumph of Western liberal values. The celebration of the 1000th anniversary of the Baptism of Russia and the first concert of the Scorpions in Moscow with their “Winds of Change” — was, for us, all part of the same thing.
The war in Iraq and even the breakup of Yugoslavia mostly escaped our attention, somehow. And it was not just that we were young and carefree. I, for one, was already trained in the “Komsomolskaya Pravda”, in the International Department. I was monitoring the English Reuters feed that was full of Izetbegovic, Karadzic and Mladic, but somehow did not take all these events seriously. It was somewhere far away, and not in our area. And, of course, the war in the Balkans did not fit within any kind of anti-Western storyline for me. ... [a case when "of course" may be read apologetically, but also as a case where assumed self-evidence stands in the place of numbed self-reflection, which abounds here]
In 1990 we voted for “Yabloko” democrats, went to the White House barricades on the side of democratic forces, watched the newborn CHANNEL and listened to the echo of Moscow radio. Our first journalistic articles always mentioned the “civilized world” and we firmly believed that it was really civilized. ...
The smart liberal hosts on NTV kept explaining that dropping bombs on [Belgrade in 1999], a large European city is a bit much, of course, but Milosevic is the greatest bastard in recent history, so he deserves it, no big deal. Their “Dolls” satirical show portrayed the events as a good quarrel in a communal apartment, where a drunken neighbor torments “Miss Kosovo” and no one in the house can help, except for her lover with a powerful torso and the face of Bill Clinton. We looked ...  [but it] was no longer funny. ...
The parade of “color revolutions” seemed to be petty mischief until the last. ....
We see the blood and war crimes, the bodies of women and children, an an entire country sliding back into the 1940s – and the Western world, which we loved so much, assures us that none of this is happening. The culture which brought us Jim Morrison, Mark Knopfler, and the Beatles, does not see it. The descendants of Woodstock, and the participants themselves; the aged hippies who sang, “All you need is love” so many times, do not see it. .... For me and for many thousands of middle-aged Russians, who came into the world with the American dream in our heads, the myth of the “civilized world” collapsed completely. The horror is deafening. There is no more “civilized world.” And it’s not just the shattering of youthful ideals, but a very serious danger. Mankind has lost its values, turned into a mob of predators, and a huge war is simply a question of time.
Twenty years ago, we were not defeated. We surrendered. We did not lose militarily, but culturally. We really just wanted to be like them. Rock-n-roll did more than all the nuclear warheads. Hollywood was stronger .... America, you are such a fool! All you had to do was wait twenty years — and we would have been forever yours. [just to wait till these post-Soviet middle-aged men reach safely their retirement age?] Twenty years of vegetarianism — and our politicians themselves would have handed over our nuclear weapons; even shaking your hands in gratitude for taking them away. What a blessing that you turned out to be such a fool, America!
You do not even know us! We shouted these words, among others, toward the Kremlin just two years ago. Since then, thanks to you, America, the numbers of those who want to go out into squares have fallen dramatically. .... You were a cool country once, America. Your moral superiority rose over Europe after WWI and was reinforced after WWII. Yes, you had Hiroshima, Vietnam, KKK and a closet full of other skeletons, like any [like any?] empire. But for a time all that crap [that crap??] did not reach the critical mass that turns wine into vinegar. ... It’s been a while since you wrote any songs sung round the world [Cathy Perry? Lady Gaga anyone?]. You’re squandering your main asset – moral superiority [was this the main asset? Self-praise? Not $?]. ... We, the people who have been through the sunset of our empire, could even explain what you are doing wrong. But we will not."

PS: "America, we did not care about the Southern Slavs in Yugoslavia, we only cared about you and ourselves. We wanted to hold hands and screw the world together with you. It did not occur to us that you would want to screw us too like all those others. We thought that you would make us a new Germany or a Singapore. Now we are getting screwed and that's so unfair. It was never supposed to be this way for we were so good and so morally superior--together--over all the others, even over all the other Slavs--and we were buying the myth of your moral superiority. We were truly buying it! You were such a fool!"

The article is entitled "The Russia They [= the US] Lost." Perhaps it should read instead: "The Russia Which these Russians Have Been Losing ... For Whom "All [This Was] Part of the Same Thing and It Is No Longer Funny."

What Can Dostoevsky Teach the Russian Leadership about New Russia (Novorossiya)?

What follows was inspired by Alexander Prokhanov, a Russian writer, who, on a Rossiya 1 TV panel, made a very insightful comment. The so-called March of Peace (Orwellian Peace, in fact) organized by friends of NATO and the Kiev junta in Moscow on September 21 was, as he put it, really a march of the Besy, which Dostoevsky described so well in his novel under the very same title. Besy is usually rendered as demons or the possessed. But none of these terms quite fit. I would perhaps define these besy, as Dostoevsky sees them, as nihilistic forces or as Poison Ivy implants that would like to take over Russian civilization in order to destroy it.

See Prokhanov's statements here at 9:00

Following Prokhanov's revealing clue, the path then brought me to this Fyodor Dostoevsky's aphorism: "To love someone means to see him as God intended him." One thing thus led to another.

In his statement quoted above, Dostoevsky defined the meaning of love, but also the essence of great art, such as the art of the Greeks or the Egyptians. The other art, often proudly calling itself "realism," does not know much either about this love or this source, thus killing and depleting what is meant to live and unfold. Without this understanding, the best that we get are our desires, the power of Eros, which mingles and mangles death and life, apathy and love, demons and gods. Then there is also a morbid desire, which wants and desires the annihilation of God and love itself. If, in the former case, to consummate a relationship ultimately means to see and realize God's intention, the latter case sees the consummate as all-consuming horror, degradation, and (self)destruction. What does what one is. And similarly with politics.

And today Ukraine is degrading, consuming and destroying itself with the fascism, which it is practicing--on behest of the US and its Empire, which sees precisely in this its only way for its own salvation and hope. When the mind of de Sade becomes a political system and, when, unlike in liberalism, it emerges from behind the scenes and from dark corners into the open and into the streets, it becomes Nazism. Self-destruction and self-degradation that wants to last and see everything else in one's own likeness--as oneself.

Interestingly, Russian Orthodox believers know and sense this very well. Their sense of their own depth and thus also of deeper meanings has not been erased or lost on them. Interestingly, Aleksandr Dugin knows and senses this very well too, even though he is mightily drawn to the dark by the abyss. But Lavrov, the good pro-Western liberal he is, or Medvedev, who defined the game as converting trust in the Government (with a capital G as in God) into making more money, and possibly even Putin, holding on to the promise of "partnership" with the old men's club or party of de Sade, seem to safely insulated, immunized, and protected from such a sense. While, in Machiavelli, Francis Bacon, Hobbes and even Locke, modern liberalism was founded upon the Odysseus-like descent into the dark and the abyss, later liberalism and nearly all the left has become a matter of self-indulgent consuming and living on the surface (or things). As Aristophanes teaches us in his would-be anti-Socratic comedy Frogs, every Hell has its frogs who partaking as if of the best of both the worlds don't' dare or cannot go too deep.

Russian liberals are evoking great Dostoevsky in vain. He was never on their side. He looked into the face of the abyss. But, unlike Nietzsche, who looking there became a voice and prophet of the dark, Dostoevsky looked and, instead of being punished with madness as Nietzsche was, Dostoevsky's soul--much like the Russian soul--was reborn and continued to live.

Yet the fact remains that, after 1953, all or nearly all Soviet and Russian leaders remained and remain safely dead and soulless.

Both literally and symbolically, Novorossiya means New Russia. And New Russia would be Russia Reborn. Russian Renaissance. And this is what the deeper and hence more fundamental meaning of the struggle for Novorossiya is really about. In other words, after its political and spiritual near death, Russia is now fighting for her own re-birth, while the Empire tries to slice her and kill her for good--with great help in this from Nazified Slavs in Ukraine. Since the Empire's morbid, fascist desire is Russia's political and spiritual death, it also desires and demands abortion of Novorossiya.

As an amateur who is sitting at a remote desk in the school of Socrates, this expert in midwifery of the mind and the soul, it would seem to me that, during these difficult and dangerous times of posible delivery, Russia might need help of some midwives too. But, while Russia has been incredibly blessed with natural resources, true Socratic politicians might not only sound like an oxymoron, but it might also be an extinct race. In cases like this, we all do what we can do under the given circumstances--as ordained by Fate and God.

Putin's Counteroffensive against the "Fifth Column": Lenin Is Responsible for Betrayal of Russia's National Interests and for Russia's Betrayal by Today's Bourgeoisie, Oligarchs, Liberals, and the Fifth Column

After the Minsk Accords, the struggle for Russia and the New World Order, which, as Medvedev told us in his recent Sochi speech, presupposes that Russia has no national interests of her own, has evidently entered a new stage where strange things are happening and many no longer seem to be how they presented themselves just a while ago:

On September 18, Evgeniy Fyodorov gave a new interview, in which, now in a visibly upset mood, he was responding to questions of his supporters and, more importantly, he tried to provide 1) the best possible damage control for the apparent political capitulation act struck in Minsk over Ukraine (and Russia) and to demonize yet more the legacy of the Soviet Union in order to pave the way to what is coming next:

Highlights:

"The fifth column has not won--yet. ... The Minsk accords stopped Novorossiya's offensive under the pressure of the fifth column and the US. ... 

Putin has addressed the Russian people many times, but the Russian people don't listen. That's why he is not going to explain his [Novorossiya] policy to the Russian people. Instead he is forced to talk to peoples of other countries like the Brazilians, the Venezuelans or the Chinese ... And so Putin has unfortunately to rely more on the Chinese people than on the Russian people. ... 

Lenin brought to Russia in 1917 an idea of the defeat of one's own country, Bolsheviks were foreign agents; the [communists] had never national interests among their priorities. Because of this, resources [in the Soviet Union] were not used for the well-being of man and people lived ten times worse off than how they should have lived. ...

We [Putin, Fyodorov, etc.] are now trying to restore the principles of the Russian statehood, which were uprooted in 1917 [and then again in 1993] ... And Stalin tried to oppose Lenin and purge the fifth column ..."

According to Fyodorov, the fifth column are not merely people, but whole institutions--institutions of the Russian government and state, starting with the Central Bank and ending with the Parliament. Russian Customs are also included.

What to make of this? In the light of Putin's own denunciation of the Bolsheviks in August, it seems that Putin's wing in the Russian political elite started a campaign against the communists and the left .... in the name of the struggle against the liberal fifth column. 

It was, however, the anticommunism of the 1990s that created the foundation for the oligarchs and the following (neo)liberal order, including its "fifth" column and what Fyodorov calls the current "colonial status of Russia managed from the outside--by the US."

For Fyodorov, the Russian state had the right constitutional principles till 1917.

Is this a big blunder or an incredibly clever political strategy utilizing the sophism of triangulation, the negation of the negation, confusion and chaos?

Too bad that Lenin has been silenced and cannot talk back.

It Is Sad to See Russian Diplomats "Bewildered": You Have Been Nice to a Bastard and He Still Treats You as a Bastard

The Russian government, and especially Russia's Foreign Ministry, is "bewildered" that Poroshenko made so many anti-Russian statements in Washington.

It seems that Russian diplomacy and those who worked on and for the Minsk accords had no idea that this (continued) Poroshenko's attitude and practice was coming and was bound to happen (again). So RT reports:

"Moscow is bewildered by Washington’s warmongering rhetoric, which accompanied President Petro Poroshenko’s visit to the US. Russia has also noted all the Russia-unfriendly opinions voiced recently by hawkish American politicians.

“We’ll keep in mind all signals, including those unfriendly towards Russia, that were heard during the visit of the Ukrainian president to Washington,” commented Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov. “We do regret that there are quite influential circles [within the American establishment] that are unambiguously working against the emerging stabilization [in Ukraine],” Ryabkov said."

Russian diplomats and officials are especially hurt after they put so much of their principles and credibility (and whole of Novorossiya) on stake in Minsk.

Now, the Russian government appears upset in discovering that the US government is capable of hypocrisy, and Russia's Foreign Minister Deputy thus complains: “They are hypocritically advocating normalization of the situation, while actually impeding this process."

The Russian government apparently hoped and trusted the US government that the latter would spare it after Russian intervention spared the Kiev junta from the brunt of its military defeat, which could have been a political disaster for the junta and a brilliant victory for Novorossiya.

It seems that when one spares oneself of a victory that one would then win, right? For the other side would appreciate it, especially if the other side has been planning Russia's undoing for so long and asked a combination of unscrupulous oligarchs and hardcore Banderites to do the job.

But, surprisingly, Washington is treating Moscow as before.

When a common man gets cheated on, he might feel slighted and cheap. But how does it feel when this happens to diplomats? Or when the Empire cheats with Nazis on what they call "peace"?

And what happens when people begin to think that they are being cheated on?

When History Combines Tragedy and Comedy into One, Then You Are Either Initiated at Last or Screwed (Or What Happened in Donetsk Late Night on Friday, September 19)

Report from Strelkov: "[Sad] news for Donetsk--last Saturday, in a restaurant in Moscow, sixty people were celebrating victory. They were led by Surkov. On behalf of the DPR, Boroday, Zakharchenko, and Purgin had a great time there."

23.09.14. 01:30. Сообщение от Стрелкова Игоря Ивановича.

"Сегодня весь вечер слушал "делегатов" из Донецка. Пятерых выслушал. Очень печальные впечатления. Делиться не буду, но скажу лишь, что МНЕ СТЫДНО ЗА НЕКОТОРЫХ СОРАТНИКОВ ИЗ ЧИСЛА КОМАНДИРОВ. Надеюсь, им передадут мои слова и они поймут - за кого конкретно (и почему) мне стыдно. 
Ряд командиров с сегодняшнего дня перестанут получать гуманитарку от наших тыловых подразделений. На это у меня еще "власти" хватит.
"Порадую" немного дончан - в минувшую субботу в Москве, в ресторане, "праздновали победу" 60 человек во главе с Сурковым. От ДНР "гуляли" Бородай, Захарченко и Пургин."

"Порадую" немного дончан - в минувшую субботу в Москве, в ресторане, "праздновали победу" 60 человек во главе с Сурковым. От ДНР "гуляли" Бородай, Захарченко и Пургин.

Confirmed (by Mozgovoy and others): The Supreme Soviet of the DPR initially unanimously voted down the Minsk memorandum. Then, the secession was quickly reconvened, and Kalashnikovs were added for moral support to the ambiance. Under these new convincing and appeasing arguments, a new thinking prevailed, and the Supreme Soviet changed its mind, as Moscow requested. Everything is fine, and everyone should stay calm.

On this incredible hands-off-hands-on management ("voting at gunpoint in the Supreme Soviet of the Donetsk People's Republic) in order to implement the Minsk Protocol at any cost, as Lavrov indicated, as they would, see Mozgovoy's statement (for now just in Russian):

The West has been outsmarted again, and the secret plan both confirms and refutes inscrutable Divine Providence by its own inscrutableness. The junta has been yet again defeated, and those who worried are simply not as smart as the rest of us who always think the same, thinking the same meme over and over again, once we are told to do so. And to think outside the meme means to think too much and, if we do so, then we would not be able to outsmart the West or appreciate our own intelligence.

The Minsk Protocol is essentially a different way for Putin making good on his request to postpone (upon the request of the West and Kiev) the referenda in Donetsk and Lugansk. Putin made his plea to postpone (read: cancel) the referenda just five days after the Odessa massacre. The massacre was carried out in Odessa, the city-hero, on May 2 by the very same Nazi junta. The junta's "legitimacy" was to be restored via the electoral farce that made Poroshenko president with some 54% votes right in the first round. Most previous polls were giving Poroshenko only some 20%.

Holding the deputies at gunpoint was needed, to use Lavrov's own expressions, to "implement [the Minsk Deal] without any attempts to disrupt the process," to implement it in each and every point and respect (changing Novorossiya to "special regions" of Lugansk and Donetsk, accepting the junta's law on their status, replacing the army of Novorossiya with new "local" police force, having Kiev-run local elections, recognizing the supremacy/sovereignty of the junta, "Ukraine," hence the US  and NATO). For, as Lavrov also emphasized earlier, "Russia is against all that may hinder the implementation of the Minsk accords ... [Russia] will seek [their] fulfillment."

It seems that Lavrov thinks that once the US established Ukraine as its protectorate, the US should not give them any discretion or freedom to act on their own: "It is unacceptable for the West to give Kiev the freedom act at its own discretion for months ..." And it seems that Lavrov has a similar view of Novorossiya.

As Dmitry Medvedev said the whole point of all this is to trust the government and its NWO partners and hope that this confidence will be converted soon into making more money for oneself.

Medvedev verbatim: "Today we have a unique opportunity to convert people's confidence in the Government ... [into a chance] to work and make money ... and protect them from unscrupulous officials. ... [For] everything is relative." And unscrupulously convertible.