from New Eastern Outlook:
Half a century from now historians and social scientists will wrestle with the defining questions at the dawn of the 21st-century. And unless I miss my guess, lucid researchers, philosophers, and professors will discuss what exactly it was that Russian President Vladimir Putin threatened. This should also be the most imperative question for today.
Since the time just before the Sochi Olympics of 2014, Russia and her President Vladimir Putin have been under siege. Make no mistake; the February Ukrainian Revolution was not a coincidence of timing. At that time, the legitimately elected Ukrainian government’s decision to suspend the signing of an association agreement with the European Union, and to renew closer ties with Russia and the new Eurasian Economic Union was a well-planned insurgency. Anyone who tells you differently is either a liar or too dumb to be in any geopolitical discourse.
On the threshold of emerging from a hundred years of suppression by western powers, Putin and Russia waited to welcome the world to the most elaborate Winter Olympics ever staged. I played a small part in the unfolding international political drama, so I know the Russian people were left heartbroken by the events that unfolded. What’s worse, Americans and the rest of the world were lied to as well. Back home in the U.S., my country’s “deep state,” as the liberal globalist complex is known today, launched all-out economic, political, and social warfare on three continents. The Arab Spring was not grassroots Arabic democratic uprising, and we all know this now. NSA spying and BIG Brother looking into everyone’s closet caused the edges of our frayed democracy to show. And the unending elitist media onslaught against anyone who dared defy Washington, it unwittingly created a geopolitical superhero most often referred to as simply “Putin.” You’ll excuse me here, but if you argue any of this, you’re in the collective delusion or paid off by Soros, USAID, the Israeli mob, or some Rothschild minion. There is no longer a middle ground, you see?
For the last 5 years, you’ve read how Russia and Putin are a threat to democracies worldwide. But two questions arise. First, “Are we living under true democracy?” Or, better yet, “Is democracy even possible on our world?” On the first question, the answer is a definitive “no.” First of all, we have no real choice in who we elect. This is widely accepted. More importantly, even if we did have a viable and independent representative on our behalves, that person would end up converted, minimalized, imprisoned, or dead. I could give a thousand examples, but consider Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and the name Bobby Kennedy from the distant American past. Clinton and her husband are a stinking stain on the reputation of America, and crooks of a magnitude not seen since Al Capone and Ma Barker. Trump? He’s a narcissist, big mouth billionaire made out of credit from the world’s banking elites. But Bobby Kennedy might have been America’s greatest ever president. Maybe he would have put down the CIA and the military industrial complex. He could have stopped the Vietnam War 5 years early – but he was shot to death like his brother JFK. This is ancient history, but it bears repeating since this assassination set America’s and the world’s course for half a century now.
As to the second question, it’s clear for me that democracy has failed us miserably since the Greeks first thought of a system where citizens exercise power through voting in a representative democracy. A little history lesson is in order to show where we stand on this form of government. The term “democracy” (demos or common people – with kratos or strength) first came into use as a form of ancient Greek political-philosophical thought that resulted in what is believed to be the world’s first democracy in Athens from 508-507 BC. In this early example, we find many of the problems with current forms in contrast. For those agreeing with me that we are no living truly democratic lives, or that we democracy just does not work, I think I can show why not.
Athenian democracy, you see, was a direct democracy where leaders and representation were random. All citizens were allowed to speak and/or vote in the assembly, and laws were made in a much more transparent way. Of course, the Athenians did not let women and other groups vote, but the principles of true democracy were there. It as the Spartans who muddied up the water of pure democracy by creating “range voting,” where a loud cry from your fans could get you elected. Fast forward to today, and Americans are so detached from their civic duty as to be invisible – not even part of the process anymore. Your vote or voice is nothing more than a formality, whether you like it or not. America’s democratic wonder is no real wonder at all, for the Iroquois Nation in the Americas between around 1450 and 1600 AD had their own form of democracy before the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock. In fact, many experts claim that the original 13 colonies created the U.S. Constitution based in part on this Native American confederation. Not too many years ago, the U.S. Senate passed a resolution saying that:
“The Confederation of the original 13 colonies into one republic was influenced by the political system developed by the Iroquois Confederacy, as were many of the democratic principles which were incorporated into the constitution itself.”
We needn’t launch into a political philosophy debate here. Whether we are talking about a Papal election or the appointment of tribal leaders representing the concerns of pre-Columbian America, the fact that Democracy has done nothing to balance the role of the elites and their disproportionate influence has NEVER been mitigated. Now, let’s look at Putin and Russia’s version of democracy, and what the most famous politician in modern times has threatened.
Let’s assume, for the sake of this argument, that the Russians have limited choice in leaders too. Let’s go along with the common globalist dogma that labels Putin the authoritarian antibody to western democracy. At its worst, the Russian system can be no more convoluted or feeble a system of governance than those alleged democracies attacking her from Ukraine and beyond. And from a practical standpoint, the Russian variant seems far better for the waking world than the American one. This can be seen if we view U.S. strategic and conventional security measures. Russia does not have a hundred and something military bases from Angola to Zanzibar, America does. Putin has not invaded Iraq, Afghanistan, and does not threaten to bomb the shit out of countries from Syria to North Korea, America does. Putin’s Russia does not spend a trillion dollars every year being arms dealer and police to the world, America does. The fact of the matter is, the only thing that Vladimir Putin does threaten is the globalist world order’s master plan. For surely one exists for the ultimate takeover of the whole world. Ah, you doubters out there question me here?
What is Putin threatening? That is the question we began with. Well, it’s a bit tough to condense this argument down, but here’s a big part of the answer. Some of you reading this may be familiar with something called Pax Americana, or the relative peace in the world after World War II brought about by U.S. dominance. In a way, Vladimir Putin’s revitalized Russia threatens this on many levels. However, the parts Russia threatens are not the good and peaceful parts. Bear with me.
Not usually associated with Pax Americana is an institution called LIEO, or the liberal international economic order. Not many reading here will be aware that there is actually a rules-based US-led liberal international order at work trying to expand its influence. This LIEO cabal is organized around such principles as open markets, multilateral institutions, liberal democracy (not any other kind), and world leadership by the United States and her allies. The problem with such organizations’ existence should be obvious, but let me explain further. Pax Americana is actually the latest in a long procession of relative “peace” eras brought about by nations being victorious. Other examples were Pax Romana, Pax Britannica, and Pax Mongolica, which were initially brought about by military conquests, and later mutated into political-economic empires supported by militarism. Right here is a good place to point out that none of these previous empires were democracies. To continue…
John F. Kennedy used the term Pax American in the early 1960s in a negative sense just like I am here. JFK, who was probably assassinated due to his opposition to the military industrial complex and what we know as the “deep state” today, railed against this American power for peace idea. Kennedy and his brother Bobby Kennedy tried to get America on an even keel about who the people of the Soviet Union were. Here I’ll quote what is perhaps the most important idea an American president ever expressed. You will understand what I mean soon.
“I have, therefore, chosen this time and place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth too rarely perceived. And that is the most important topic on earth: peace. What kind of peace do I mean and what kind of a peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, and the kind that enables men and nations to grow, and to hope, and build a better life for their children — not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women, not merely peace in our time but peace in all time.”
Half a century ago, when I was a little kid in America, a brilliant man “threatened” Pax Americana and the liberal international order. John Fitzgerald Kennedy was a far greater man, and president than any of us knew at the time, or since. And peace in our world died with him, right alongside the democracy we were all taught to cherish. If you need proof of this, I urge you to go to your local library, study, read newsreels, and question everything until you come up with your own answers. As for Vladimir Putin, he is a threat to this world order, a deadly one I might add. But he is decidedly not a threat to the kind of peace that J.F.K. described above. In fact, he may be the last leader on Earth who envisions such “genuine” peace. To help illustrate this, we need only observe the American position as compared to Putin’s in the last couple of decades. The now deceased, but always infamous former U.S. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski told us the truth on this in his own book, “The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives”:
“In contrast [to the earlier empires], the scope and pervasiveness of American global power today are unique. Not only does the United States control all the world’s oceans, its military legions are firmly perched on the western and eastern extremities of Eurasia … American vassals and tributaries, some yearning to be embraced by even more formal ties to Washington, dot the entire Eurasian continent … American global supremacy is … buttered by an elaborate system of alliances and coalitions that literally span the globe.”
We do not often associate the American democracy with terms like “global supremacy,” nor do we Americans covet the notion of having “vassals,” but the liberal elites gladly express their adoration, covetousness, and pride at such. Their arrogance has grown since the assassination of the Kennedys, as we can clearly see now. Our apathy and disconnect help their cause, and the fettered remains of our representative democracy are all that remains of what was a magnificent idea. The peace cannot be had, not unless the monarchs of today deem it so. And this, my friends, is what Putin threatens, not you or I.