Some Stupid Thing in Balkan: Demise of Yugoslavia and the Thirst for Dissolution of History (pt.1)

You may also like...

1 Response

  1. Han Fei says:

    I have to offer a few words of criticism. Not of this issue specifically, but the entire angle that you seem to be taking here. I have voiced these objections before, but perhaps not with regards to the truth that we are trying to establish here. Keep in mind that I’m not necessarily against your position. Rather I feel my criticisms would be necessary to anticipate the charges that will be made against you by others, that you partake in the mentality of small nationhood, or that you are at the end of the day, partial to the geopolitical bloc which historically, served as benefactors and protectors of said nationhood. Now I don’t really believe that to affect the value of your arguments. Even if it were true, I simply don’t care. I too am member of a small, highly dependent nation, and this gives me a negative perspective of so called “great” power chauvinism.

    The first point of criticism to which I will latch on, is your understanding of globalism in the plural sense, by which you seem to imply some kind of categorization between them. No. There is only one globalism, just as there is one globe. The illusion of particularity stems from the different vectors that strive towards it. This distinction is not trivial, when we consider the fact that the so called Russian narrative is far too incipient to simply be the product of the Kremlin backed troll factories, as the deluded emigres that American mass media hires in droves seem to think.

    Next in terms of the alt-media, what do we mean when we talk about the Russian narrative? The Russian narrative is primarily distinguished in that it is a geopolitical narrative. It doesn’t concern itself with assuming an ethical position or orientation, but rather views the unfolding of events in terms of collective blocs of nations and their “geopolitical” interests. By doing so, it claims to be free from ideological bias to the moral superiority of the Western civilization, a crucial point of reference in mainstream media. When you remove this essential feature, it’s not hard to point out the double standards taken by the “Anglosphere” press and politicians.

    So what do I mean? Let’s take the situation in Syria. The “geopolitical” discussion, will hinge on a seemingly very convincing point. That it is essentially a proxy war between Israel/KSA and Iran over influence, oil etc. Since Saudo-Israel is in control of Congress and much of the American political elite, by definition, it is America’s war as well. Assad is trying to use every means at his disposal to secure control over the country, and because he possesses the most potent military force in the region, consequently, he holds the largest possibility of achieving an end to this conflict. The Russian intervention is justified on these grounds. This is the “Russian” narrative. It is not necessarily incorrect. But notice several things missing from it. First there is no discussion of the internal social dynamics leading up to the breakout of violence and which could play a separate role that is no less crucial than the “Great Game” between outside powers (even when there is, it’s usually reduced to, just like in Ukraine, the meddling of Western intelligence services). Not a word about the extent, the nature of the civilian suffering, nor the perpetrators responsible for it. Sure geopoliticians of either stripe may decry the violence, but they pend it entirely in terms of the realpolitik discussion held above. For example when we are a talking about ISIS/American atrocities, a mask of terrible outrage tends to be eagerly assumed, but when the discussion reaches the atrocities of the Syrian regime, the assumption holds that it was practically inconceivable for Assad to conduct the war in any other way (oh but what can you do, you can’t make an omelet without breaking some, in our case, lots and lots of eggs). This is a crucial, essential, critical, central, and I should say absolute facility of the so called geopolitical narrative. The human side, that is to say, the moral side of the event is entirely irrelevant unless it is subject to the factors involved in a great power’s decision making process. It’s as if what is unfolding is a fucking video game. But in reality, is precisely the human side that is the most important facet of the conflict. And until the nations of the world understand this, there can be no talk about a “humanitarian” resolution to such conflicts. I think we can agree on this, but this is not yet the point on which my argument hinges.

    Do you not see how this narrative, as I tried to exhaustively argue in my previous ramblings, cannot be mere propaganda of the Kremlin? Given the light of the facts presented above, the prefix “Russian” is entirely unnecessary. Because the existence of such a geopolitical power as Russia is entirely irrelevant to the existence of such a narrative. Russia in this sense only exists as a potential competitor to the vector of globalism taken by the West, as is China, as is India or Europe.

    Let’s look at globalism’s favorite little chew toy, the United Nations. If we count as to how many countries in the world adopt a position that seems to be in line with that of the Russian government, then we would be led to the conclusion that for example, Latin America is Russian. Definitely, Africa is Russian. Not to speak of China, India, a sizeable part of the Muslim world, and what seems to be in the near future highly likely as well, Japan. As for the extent of their influence, the traditional European power brokers are losing ground by the heaps. They know it, and in near future they will be forced to act according with this reality. It’s America that seems to be the solely at odds out with regards to, let’s just call it, the “narrative”. The election of Cheeto Brain only helped to solidify the external alienation of the world’s opinion from the interests, the purposes and the narratives of Washington. But to attribute this to the success to any part of the Russian political apparatus is absurd. If the globalist’s institution like the UN seems to be wholeheartedly accepting Russia’s stance at the point, then what can be said about the particularity of said narrative towards its goals in Russia? Is it not more likely that out of the possible competitors itching for the proverbial throne of the world, it seems that a hand is being reached out to (or rather, perhaps grabbing) Russia rather than the other way around?

    What is strictly speaking so different about Dugin from say, Bzezhinsky, Schwartz, or if we look further back into history, people like Mazzini, of whom you wrote and spoke at length? Their language is different but their goal is the same. If you want to “shield” yourself from any accusation of partiality, even in grace of your Latin faith, I sincerely hope that you will address what I am saying here.

Leave a Reply

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