del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Con “Insubordinación fundante”, Marcelo Gullo alcanza plena y brillante realización de su propósito de estudiar, histórica y analíticamente, desde la periferia, las relaciones internacionales. El concepto de periferia, para Gullo, adquiere un doble significado: se trata, por un lado, de una perspectiva y, por otro, de un contenido.
La industrialización británica, incipiente desde el renacimiento isabelino y fuertemente desarrollada desde fines del siglo XVIII con la Revolución Industrial, tuvo, como condición fundamental, el estricto proteccionismo del mercado doméstico y el conveniente auxilio del Estado al proceso de industrialización. Obteniendo para sí buenos resultados de esa política, Gran Bretaña se esmerará en sostener, para los otros, los principios del libre cambio y de la libre actuación del mercado y condenará, como contraproducente, cualquier intervención del Estado. Imprimiendo a esa ideología de preservación de su hegemonía las apariencias de un principio científico universal de economía, logró con éxito persuadir de su procedencia, por un largo tiempo (de hecho, pero teniendo como centro Estados Unidos, hasta nuestros días), a los demás pueblos que, así, se constituyeron, pasivamente, en mercado para los productos industriales británicos y después para los norteamericanos, y permanecieron como simples productores de materias primas.
Contact opnemen met de auteur van de petitie
Voilà, nous y sommes ! En cette année où est célébré le centenaire de la catastrophe de 1914, début d’une nouvelle guerre de trente ans qui s’est achevée avec la fin du règne du concert des nations, voici que résonnent à nouveau les tambours de bronze. Et quels tambours ! Encore une fois, un conflit fratricide menace entre des peuples européens. Ce conflit résulte pour une grande part d’une guerre idéologique entre une vision politique traditionnelle défendue par la Fédération de Russie, et des valeurs idéalistes, partagées et pratiquées par la seule Union européenne (les Etats-Unis d’Amérique les partagent, mais les pratiquent moins).
Bien entendu, aucun des médias français de grande diffusion n’a jugé utile d’en informer les Français, alors qu’ils sont si prompts, dans le sens inverse, à faire constamment état de la situation des droits de l’Homme en Chine.C’est à mon avis une raison supplémentaire pour porter attention à ce document.
Karl Marx said of religion:
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
When Karl Marx wrote this, organized religion was very much the solace of so many people -people who might have otherwise sought more effective means of alleviating their daily suffering had this opiate not been available. Overtime, that solace was slowly eroded and replaced by an entire medicine cabinet full of “opiates.” From sports to TV, to video games and social media, there is a vast multitude of illusions we cling to today that provide a “soul to soulless conditions.”
Among them, it can easily be argued, is modern Western-style “democracy” which is perhaps one of the most insidious. Perpetually offering the promise of a better tomorrow, never actually delivered but always just one elections away from being realized – it is the strongest of all the opiates we sedate our anger, dissatisfaction, and will to effect change ourselves with.
US 2012 Elections
US elections in 2012 pitted “conservative Republican” Mitt Romney against “liberal Democrat,” Barack Obama. To so many millions of people, it was a pivotal moment in American history, with the fate of the nation, and in many ways the world, at the mercy of the electorate. In reality, the same corporate-funded policy think tanks were authoring the agendas of both men, who, while holding the position of “commander in chief,” would ultimately be at the mercy of an unelected “board of directors” consisting of corporate-financier interests that hide behind the facade of “democracy.”
Indeed, the wars, geopolitical maneuvering, and extraterritorial economic pursuits of the United States unfolding for 8 years under US President George Bush, continued or were expanded in earnest under President Obama. Wars engineered years ago under Bush were rebranded and sold under Obama. Instead of being a component of the unending “War on Terror,” they took on a more suitable “liberal,” “humanitarian” theme, however, these conflicts were nonetheless part of a predetermined, decades-spanning geopolitical campaign to maintain and expand US hegemony across the planet.
What then did the 2012 elections accomplish? They gave people the fleeting hope that the policies they’ve held in contempt under Bush would somehow be reversed, that justice would be served, and that progress would be made. Instead of effecting real change, locally and pragmatically, the people turned to their opiate of voting booths, campaign slogans, and the promise of a quick fix and in the end simply compounded their problems further.
The Arab Spring
For many, the so-called “Arab Spring” began in 2011. In reality, it was yet another barbiturate formulated by the corporate-financier elite to leverage dissatisfaction across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), bringing in geopolitical change favorable for themselves without actually addressing any of the problems of the people they planned on using. The campaign in fact started as early as 2008 in New York City where the leaders of the Tahrir Square Egyptian protests would receive marching orders, training, and equipment from the US State Department via its inaugural Alliance of Youth Movements (AYM) summit.
For all the promises of the Arab Spring, not only in Egypt, but in other nations such as Tunisia and Libya, what clearly took place instead of a progressive revolution, was the installation of dictatorships and terror networks that have since mired each nation in varying degrees of violence, repression, and socioeconomic regression. The Western-backed Muslim Brotherhood was resurrected after the people of MENA fought decades to eradicate their fanatical, corrosive political influence. The nations of Libya and Syria in particular, have suffered the most, with their so-called “revolutions” turning into overt, violent, Western-backed proxy wars seeking regime change.
In Libya, with Western-aligned big-oil executives like Abdurrahim el-Keib literally thrust into power, the opiate-high of “democracy” rushing during the early stages of the “Arab Spring” fully crashed, leaving the people of Libya with a hangover that will last them years, if not decades.
A similar scenario has been playing out in Syria, where the narrative of “democracy” and “revolution” has also fully unraveled, leaving what is clearly a proxy war being fought by the West against the government of Syria and its allies, including Lebanon, Iran, and Russia.
With these disturbing examples illustrating the true nature of “democracy,” and the suffering, exploitation, and conflict is serves as a painkiller for, one might think the global population would be wary of its use in similar scenarios playing out elsewhere.
Ukraine
“Freedom” and “democracy” have once again been invoked in the streets of Kiev, Ukraine. Literal Neo-Nazis, with overt support from the US (with US Senator John McCain even flying to Kiev and taking to the protesters’ stage) are attempting to overrun the country and guide it into the jaws of Wall Street, London, and their EU supranational socioeconomic consolidation.
The mobs have turned violent, and carried out what is essentially a coup. Like a medieval surgeon hacking away at a doomed patient, the opium of democracy and progress are pumping through the veins of Ukraine to mask what is most likely going to be a fatal operation. In reality, nothing the protesters have demanded will lead to anything more than a geopolitical reordering of the nation. No solutions have been put forward regarding the actual socioeconomic woes the people of Ukraine face, in fact, the current trajectory of Ukraine toward the EU seems to guarantee those woes, like they have in Greece, Spain, and else where, will only be compounded.
Thailand
Western-style “democracy” has been animating the corpse of US-backed dictator Thaksin Shinawatra for nearly a decade. His regime had long lost the popularity, trust, and legitimacy it initially held back in 2001 when Thaksin first came to power in a wave of faux-populist policies. Over the years, mass murder, astronomical financial and political abuse and corruption, oppression, and violence have become the hallmarks of his regime. Starting in late 2013, protesters began filling the streets.
Protesters however, and unlike others who took to the streets during the “Arab Spring” or in Ukraine, knew simply holding “elections” would not solve the problem. They realized the system was rigged and that the term “democracy” was being abused as a facade behind which the regime carried out its multitude of crimes.
The West however, has attempted to maintain this facade, declaring the protesters “anti-democratic.” Not only is this to preserve a pro-West regime in Thailand, but to protect the reputation of “democracy” in general as the one and only solution to people’s problems.
Unlike the “Arab Spring” or in Kiev where “democracy” and “freedom” are the rallying calls, Thai protesters have a long, enumerated, and very specific list of demands. They seek to reform Thailand so that “democracy” can no longer serve as a carte blanche for a regime to hide behind. They also seek to reverse the many sovereignty-infringing policies enacted by the Thaksin regime – so unlike Ukraine that is seeking to further hand itself over to foreign interests, Thailand is attempting to do quite the opposite.
To see just how acute awareness is in Thailand regarding the non-solution that is Western-style “democracy,” recent general elections held on February 2, 2014 were boycotted by more than half the population. In some provinces, elections were not even held. Of those that did cast ballots, many elected to deface them or fill in “no vote” as a form of protest. Thais understand that “voting” is not going to fix their problems.
Understanding That Democracy is Not the Solution is the First Step of Finding Real Solutions
For Thais, and for that matter, anyone who can see through the theater of campaigns, elections, and “democracy” in general, it becomes obvious that this opiate, this attempt for us to mask our problems with quick, ineffectual solutions, is untenable. Understanding this may leave us apparently rudderless, our ills entirely unaddressed. However, understanding this, as Marx suggested, is the first step toward finding real solutions.
In Thailand, the various ministries charged with administering the country are incapable of doing so. Without a functioning government, it is up to the people themselves to get organized locally and begin solving problems themselves. For the protest itself, rice farmers that have gone unpaid for now over half a year, are being helped through charity of various kinds. Ideas on how to pragmatically restore the agricultural industry in Thailand are being explored, and individuals are taking the initiative to empower farmers with knowledge and skills that will serve them a lifetime, rather than temporary and tenuous handouts that may or may not be there for them tomorrow.
Similarly in Ukraine, those with genuinely good intentions, falling into the Western trap of “democracy promotion,” would serve themselves better to enumerate their real problems and real solutions to them. Certainly a poor economy and a lack of opportunities cannot be cured by stuffing a piece of paper into a ballot box, empowering others to do what is both our own right and duty to perform.
Economies can be lifted up by education, institutions, organization, collaboration, and innovation – none of which requires a corrupt politician or a treaty with the EU to acquire. Around the world, people are organizing themselves locally to pursue new models of economic prosperity, innovation, education, and real pragmatic progress, independently of traditional political paradigms.
With the “Arab Spring” in ruinous flames in hindsight, we can see the damaging effects our addiction to the opiate of Western-style “democracy” has wrought. It is to numb us to our situation so that we never desire to truly rectify it with lasting, real solutions. Had the Arabs enumerated their real, daily grievances and formulated constructive, pragmatic solutions to solve them, they could have avoided a cycle of struggle, violence, and conflict that have left them demonstrably worse off today than when their “revolution” started in 2011. The “Arab Spring” was a failure because those that engineered it never intended for it to be a success – at least not in terms of lifting people up and moving their nations forward.
Before we expend any more energy debating politics, discussing candidates, and rushing off to the voting booth to “fix” our problems, we must realize that by doing this, we have never actually “fixed” anything. We have simply granted the corrupt special interests that dominate and drive our destiny more time to continue enriching themselves at our expense, but always behind a carefully orchestrated facade of “democracy.” When next protesters take to the streets, or a dictatorship attempts to hide behind this facade of “democracy,” let us try to unravel what the real issues are and what real solutions there might be to sort them out before the blood begins to flow, the smoke begins to billow, and the cycle of political struggle continues to turn perpetually beyond the benefit of the people.
Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”
Notre position ne peut être ni propagandiste ni militante car nous ne sommes ni juifs ni arabes, car nous ne pouvons raisonnablement nous identifier aux uns ou aux autres, tout en étant désireux de ne pas voir l’ensemble du Levant et du Moyen Orient plongé dans une guerre sans fin, qui, dans tous les cas de figure, serait contraire à nos intérêts. Le sionisme, c’est-à-dire la volonté de transplanter tous les juifs d’Europe dans l’ancienne Palestine romaine ou ottomane, n’a pourtant pas, au départ, des origines juives. Le tout premier à avoir émis l’hypothèse d’une telle transplantation est mon compatriote, le Feldmarschall impérial Charles-Joseph de Ligne, envoyé comme attaché militaire autrichien auprès de Catherine II la Grande en guerre contre l’Empire ottoman, auquel elle arrachera la Crimée, sanctionnant ainsi la prépondérance russe en Mer Noire. A cette époque qui a immédiatement précédé les délires criminels de la révolution française, Russes et Autrichiens envisageaient de porter un coup final à cet empire moribond qui avait assiégé l’Europe du Sud-Est pendant plusieurs siècles. Pour y parvenir, le Prince de Ligne a suggéré d’envoyer toute la population des ghettos d’Europe centrale et orientale dans la partie médiane de l’Empire ottoman, de façon à ce qu’un foyer de dissidence se crée, au bénéfice des Russes et des Autrichiens, entre l’Egypte, province de la Sublime Porte, et l’Anatolie proprement turque. L’objectif de ce “sionisme” ante litteram, non idéologique et non religieux mais essentiellement tactique, était donc de séparer l’Egypte de la masse territoriale anatolienne, sur un territoire, qui, dans l’histoire antique, avait déjà été âprement disputé entre les Pharaons et les souverains hittites (bataille de Qadesh) voire, aux temps des Croisades européennes, entre Fatimides d’Egypte, alliés occasionnels des rois croisés, et Seldjouks. 
Jusqu’à la parution du petit livre de Théodore Herzl en février 1896, intitulé L’Etat juif, le sionisme est une idéologie vague et confuse, affirmée puis critiquée, acceptée puis reniée. Le livre de Herzl n’était pas moins confus car il ne disait rien de précis sur le site géographique de ce futur et très hypothétique “Etat juif”. Il pourrait se situer en Palestine mais aussi ailleurs dans le monde. Son manifeste, bien que confus, attire quelques personnalités influentes (Nordau, Kahn, Lazare, Goldschmidt, Montagu, etc.) et recueille les signatures de milliers d’étudiants juifs d’Europe centrale. Mais les assimilationistes et les quelques colons de Palestine (issus du mouvement ‘Hovevei Zion) ne le soutiennent pas, parce qu’ils craignent d’éveiller un nouvel antisémitisme ou de voir les frontières des vilayets ottomans du Levant se fermer à tous nouveaux arrivants par crainte d’une submersion. Herzl développe alors une véritable “diplomatie sioniste” tous azimuts pour tenter, vaille que vaille, d’arriver à ses fins, avec l’appui, non pas d’une bourgeoisie juive assimilationiste, mais de dizaines de milliers de petites gens qui n’ont guère d’espoir d’avancer socialement, surtout en Pologne, en Russie et en Roumanie. Cette agitation autour de Herzl va, suite au “Congrès de Bâle” d’août 1897, donner naissance au sionisme moderne, autonome, capable, théoriquement, de faire avancer ses idées sans le soutien d’une puissance impériale. Guillaume II d’Allemagne, qui n’est certainement pas antisémite, décourage cette volonté romantique de faire l’alya (le retour à la Terre de Sion) pour ne pas heurter son nouvel allié turc. Les Russes, qui auraient pu pratiquer à leur profit la politique jadis préconisée par le Prince de Ligne ou Napoléon, répugnent à le faire. Le rêve sioniste de Herzl ne pourra cependant pas se concrétiser sans la “Déclaration Balfour” de 1917 qui donnera le coup d’envoi à la colonisation massive des terres de Palestine par des colons juifs venus d’Europe après la première guerre mondiale, surtout de Russie (ceux qui refusaient la bolchevisation de l’Empire des Tsars comme Jabotinsky) et d’Europe centrale, après les réactions hongroises et roumaines contre le régime “judéo-bolchevique” de Belà Kun à Budapest. 
