One must note that the Russian definition for “liberal” is exactly opposite that in current American popular discourse. In Russia (and continental Europe, in general), “liberal” denotes a position that’s committed to strictly limited government intervention in society, with a vehement insistence (basic to its ideology) of an untrammelled “Free Market”. Liberals think that the state shouldn’t intervene in the economy… they contend that the “invisible hand of the market” rules over a cruel and heartless Hobbesian economic anarchy. Educated Russians reject the Neoliberal fantasies of the Chicago School (especially the insane maunderings of Milton Friedman), for, at base, Neoliberalism believes that people are egoistic, coldly calculating, essentially inert, and atomistic (“Greed is good”). This doctrine fundamentally and essentially attacks the teachings of Christ and His Church… it’s theomachistic in the fullest sense of the term… it’s much worse than the militantly atheist communism of the early Soviet state. It’s interesting to note that many contemporary communists in Russia are believers (as is Gennady Andreyevich)… and that many pro-American lickspittles are not (as was Yegor Gaidar)… a point to ponder, no?
This is why this article appeared in an important Orthodox venue… the Church opposes Neoliberalism absolutely and without exception. That’s why JP is EVIL… his cosiness (and wish to ally the Church) with Neocon Neoliberalism is totally and unreservedly AGAINST the social teaching of the Church… His Holiness Kirill Gundyaev said that the Free Market is a massive fraud… so has Patriarch Bartholomew… Benedict the Pope of Rome agrees with them… you can be a practising Christian or you can support the “Free Market” delusions of the Republican Party… any questions?
My Orthodox readers would be interested in knowing that this article isn’t on the “English side” of Pravmir.com… that’s contaminated due to the influence of Tricky Dickey Wood… many of the translations into English are done by one Nectaria Rees, a fanatical former HOOMie… she’s a disciple of Gleb Podmoshensky… as is JP, interestingly enough. Note well that the HOOMies (and most konvertsy, in general) embrace the god-fighting ideology of Neoliberalism in toto… and wish to spread this satanic contagion throughout the Church… caveat lector, as always.
On 19 March 2011, exactly 8 years after the beginning of the US invasion of Iraq, operations in Libya began. It seems that the world isn’t greatly surprised. In the eyes of the “enlightened” international public, Gaddafi isn’t much different from Saddam Hussein, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or Kim Jong Il. These are leaders who dared to “go against the flow”, rejecting the claims of universality for Western prescriptions for development. From the perspective of a simple Euro-American “Everyman”, they appear to be crankish and pathetic freaks that don’t recognise objective and established truths. for as long as I live, I’ll remember an American professor who considered Russians barbarians, who lectured on the principles of international relations. He said smugly, “Of course, I believe in Free Market economics!” This is the catchphrase of the modern world; it’s a panacea for all ills, a formula for happiness, and an axiom of development. Besides that, they preach about “individual rights”, and the “free” movement of goods, capital, people, and technology. If you express any doubt about the universality of these principles, they give you, at best, a contemptuous smirk, they laugh at you as though you were a pitiful savage who doesn’t have any idea on how to use electricity. If you persist in your ignorant delusion, or worse, live in an area rich in natural resources, then, your fate is sealed.
This concept arose amongst Anglo-Saxons in the first era of colonial conquest. Indeed, this concept is racist, for it regards the local population of the conquered lands as animals. After all, the Spaniards saw the Indians as full human beings, albeit second-class citizens; they converted them to Christianity, thereby showing that they believed that the natives had immortal souls. On the other hand, the British simply destroyed the local population in North America, including the use of crude “biological weapons” (giving the Indians smallpox-infested blankets and selling them bad whiskey). Today, it’s somewhat different, and that form of racism seems almost entirely gone from the historical scene. There’s a black president in the USA, the idea of racial tolerance is an integral part of the Euro-American outlook. However, now, it’s a case of discrimination on the grounds of ideology. Of course, this idea isn’t new. In the 20th century, the Nazis and Communists persecuted people for their beliefs, but, today, people are free to say what they please. During the Cold War, even the USA had witch-hunts of those who held “heretical” opinions. In modern society, a person can hold any ideology, but you can’t actually apply it to society or, even more so, the state, in opposition to the currently-regnant Liberal position.
The basis of traditional international relations was the principle of national sovereignty. Back in 1555, the Protestant princes and the Holy Roman Emperor signed the Peace of Augsburg, which was based on the principle of cuius rego, ejus religio (he who rules, chooses the faith). Now, this axiom has changed; any ruler whose approach to economic, social, and interfaith relations is at odds with conventional Western Liberal notions can’t be assured of his position, regardless of whether his people support him or not. The USA and the EU have set themselves up as judges, determining how well particular countries fit their fanciful standards of democracy. They’ve determined that the armed rebellion in Libya is actually a liberation movement against a tyrannical dictator, whilst, by contrast, the peaceful protests of the Shiite majority in Bahrain are a threat to peace and stability, so, therefore, Saudi tanks should crush them under their treads. Thus, a key and a sacred factor in the new concept of international relations is that national sovereignty is indisputable only if a country’s government is an American client. The Shia majority in the Kingdom of Bahrain has no rights, as the Sunni minority government hosts the largest US naval base in the Persian Gulf. In Kosovo, the Albanians can harvest “spare parts” from the bodies of Serbs and traffic heroin throughout Europe, after all, the Americans station troops there. The people of Iran, Serbia, Syria, Libya, and North Korea can’t be sure of their future because their leaders dare to disagree with the generally accepted paradigm of Western Liberal universalism.
I’m not a fan of Muammar Gaddafi. This particular “Heroic Man” (he led a revolution when he was only 27) and his ideas, a synthesis of anarchism, socialism, nationalism, and pan-Arabism, may be passé, just as happened with Hosni Mubarak or Ben Ali. However, the very existence of such régimes shows the world that there are other social philosophies besides the usual Western Liberal shibboleths, which are based on a monomaniacal insistence on the “rights” of all-powerful individuals and the primacy of their material wants. An independent-minded Libya gives the peoples of the world an impetus to organise their own political space according to their own discretion and weltanschauung. For Russia, this is especially important. In Russia, as in Libya, Iran, and Venezuela, hydrocarbon resources are largely state-owned, not in the hands of private individuals. In the eyes of some, that’s a “crime”. Russia is a multiethnic country with serious inter-ethnic tensions at present; constantly, it must fight for its territorial integrity. As we saw in Libya and Kosovo, the West may support any outbreak of separatism. Of course, they wouldn’t bomb us, as they do to the Libyans, our arsenal is a deterrent to that; however, the modern world has many other forms of pressure at its disposal.
What is the real goal of these “humanitarian interventions?” In fact, in Libya, we saw how the opposition actually asked the Western countries to start the bombing campaign. Perhaps, if American soldiers occupy the country, there’ll be wealth for some (to tell the truth, under Gaddafi, no one went hungry), “democracy”, “freedom”, and “security!” In this respect, many point up the examples of Germany and Japan… they really believe that the high level of development in these countries is a direct result of the American occupation. Some of the Russian activists of the 90s held similar ideas… if the Americans hadn’t intervened, the spirit of Hitler would still be afoot in Germany. In fact, history shows otherwise. Look at the examples of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kosovo… you can readily see the results of “humanitarian intervention” at the beginning of the 21st century. Why isn’t it possible to build democracy and stability in these occupied countries, just as was done in Europe after the Second World War?
There are two main reasons. The first is the lack of an alternative focus of power that offers a paradigm for development. The enactment of the Marshall Plan, which undergirded the post-war European order with billions of dollars in investments, was precisely an effort to combat the growing popularity of communism. There was a competition in quality of life between Western and Eastern Europe, in particular, between West and East Germany, one that cost much money. Now, if there’s no such rationale underlying the situation in Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, why should one spend the money? Besides this, there’s a second point. The relative position in the world of the USA, and, in a more general sense, the entire West, is diminishing, that’s no news, and everyone knows it. Western Europe is rapidly losing its economic superiority over the East, it can’t provide for itself. China, India, Brazil, Turkey, and Korea surge ahead, they’re the new engines of the world economy. The USA is mortally afraid that its political power will diminish after it loses economic pre-eminence. The only possibility to save the present American/Western-dominated arrangement in the world is to divide the new rising powers (divide et impera) by creating chaos on all spaces potentially capable of integration. That’s why there’s disorder, economic destitution, civil war, famine, and epidemics wherever the Americans intervene. The result of armed intervention in Libya will be the same as in Iraq… disintegration, poverty, civil war, the transformation of pro-Western tribal leaders into oil tycoons, the transfer of Libya’s oil wealth into the hands of Western corporations, and thousands of refugees. That’s FAR worse than any dictatorship is.
21 March 2011
Православие и мир (Pravoslavie i Mir : Orthodoxy and the World)
Here’s a link to two more articles (by Russia Today) that you’ll find equally enlightening:
There one has it… the true reason for the “intervention” in Libya is a desire to fatten the bank accounts of the oligarchs pulling the strings in the West. However, the USA (and the EU) are short on cash… and modern warfare is hellishly expensive (a Tomahawk cruise missile costs over a million bucks a pop). In short, the operation shall have to end shortly due to a lack of money… and the rants of demented wingnuts such as Marco Rubio can’t change that. However, the intervention in Libya is GOOD news in a very important sense… it shows that the Neoliberals are desperate. Their economic ideology is bankrupt, its fraudulent basis is apparent to all (don’t forget, His Holiness has pointed that up repeatedly), and their pyramid scheme is exposed for what it is.
Don’t let propaganda blaming everything from global warming to the heartbreak of psoriasis on militant Muslims mislead you. Look at the facts. The Western media shed not a tear when Saudi tanks ran over demonstrators in Bahrain. The American mainstream media (not only such wingnut outlets as Fox News and Rush Limboob) refuses to report on the plight of the 99ers (those whose unemployment benefits have run out). It’s the behaviour of an ideology in crisis… the societies undergirded by that ideology are in a nasty fix, but the currently regnant philosophy of “positive thinking” disallows any honest reporting that could help prevent a collapse of the whole edifice.
As Mr Sotnichenko said, “That’s FAR worse than any dictatorship is”… God DO help us all.