Let me begin by a little disclaimer and say that while I am ethnically and culturally Russian, I was born in the heart of Western Europe from in a family of refugees. I spent most of my life in Europe, and I have become especially close to what I call my "2nd homeland" - the northern Mediterranean from Spain to Greece (which I consider as one coherent - if diverse - cultural zone). So for all my criticisms of Europe, part of me is most definitely European. Furthermore, and regular readers of this blog know that, I have spent a good part of my life in an absolute opposition to the Soviet regime and then the AngloZionist colonial regime of Eltsin which followed it. So while I am ethnically and culturally Russian, I am hardly an automatic supporter of everything "Russian". In fact, I repeatedly have to pinch myself to check if I am dreaming every time I say something positive about the Kremlin or Putin (who is, after all, an ex-KGB officer). I am so used to be disgusted, outraged and even ashamed by everything which comes out of the Kremlin that, if anything, I have to struggle with my kneejerk suspicion, if not hostility, towards anything "Kremlin". And yet, here I am, in 2014, a longtime Cold War participant (on many levels - private, corporate and even professional) catching myself in the undeniable fact that I am becoming a "Putin groupie". I can hardly convey how weird this still feels to me.
I wanted to begin by clarifying all this because what I will write next I do not write as "a Russian bashing Europe" but as a European disgusted with his own birthplace. So here we go:
First, for all its rights and wrongs, and even though we have been more or less a US colony since 1945, I still believe that Western Europe was the "good guy" during the Cold War. Yes, I know, Churchill and the rest of the Anglosphere created that Cold War much more than the Soviets and, yes, the Soviets were not nearly as bad as our propaganda said, nor were we nearly as good as we fancied ourselves to be. And yet, Europe, Western Europe was a continent, a society, which was free, especially compared to Eastern Europe. Anyone doubting this today should watch the beautiful German movie "Das Leben der Anderen" ("The lives of the others") of director Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck (preferable in the original German language - with subtitles if needed). Here are a few links to this remarkable movie:
SORRY - I HAD TO REMOVE THESE LINKS AS I DID NOT WANT TROUBLE WITH BLOGGER. YOU WILL HAVE TO LOOK FOR THIS MOVIE BY YOURSELF
THE SAKER
This movie shows, without any exaggerations, what life was like in the last years of the former GDR and I think that for those who might be tempted to forget what daily life was under Soviet rule, this is a very good refresher.
I feel that I want to mention this because I then felt - and still do today - that in those years one could be if not proud, then maybe at least grateful to live in a society which was comparatively wealthy and comparatively free.
This being said, anybody with a little bit of political maturity understood that if Eastern Europe was occupied and controlled by the Soviets, Western Europe was occupied and controlled by the USA. So most of us, at least as I recall, were dreaming for the day when the Cold War would finally be over (it was not pleasant at all to live with a bullseye painted on your head) and when both the USSR and the USA would pack and finally go home. For simple and basic reasons of geography, we all understood that we could built a "fortress Europe" which would be basically immune from any outside military attack, probably for the first time in European history. If NATO and the WTO (yes, it was called the "Warsaw Treaty Organization" and not the Warsaw "Pact" - that is a US propaganda term) would dissolve and the USA and the USSR would leave a united Europe would be simply unconquerable from the outside. As for notion of another internal European war - my generation (I am 50 now) found it utterly ridiculous and basically unthinkable: would the Netherlands invade Belgium? Or France invade Spain? As for the East Europeans, we simply assumed (mistakenly as it turned out) that after decades of rather heavy Soviet occupation they would yearn for peace and freedom as much as we did.
Then the Wall came down, Gorbachev betrayed his own country and Party, three Commie non-entities (Eltsin, Kravchuk and Shushkevich) destroyed the Soviet Union against the will of most of its people, and the previously demure and peace-loving West suddenly became overwhelmed with a new messianic mission: to conquer the eastern "Lebensraum" for NATO and the EU. As for the newly "freed" East Europeans, instead of finally enjoying some true freedom, they all decided that the highest they can hope for is to be colonized by the USA and NATO, lest those dangerous Russians show up again. I will come back to the West Europeans later, but let me say this about East Europeans here:
How did they forget this basic fact of history: Russia has never attacked the West. Not once. Unless, of course, you consider a counter-attack as a form of attack. The historical truth is that it is the West which attacked Russia over and over and over and over again. This is why there was a Crimean war with Russia and not, say, a "Corsican War". Yes, Russia did counter-attack each time and, yes, Russian soldiers did end up camping on the Champs Elysees or under Brandenburg Gate, but this hardly happened because of some mysterious "Russian imperialism". Sure, I will be the first to agree that 19th Russia had no business keeping western monarchs in power or chewing up Finland or Poland, but in all these instances you will see that what triggered these (nevertheless unjustifiable) interventions was a (mistaken) sense of assisting the legitimate rulers of Europe. Not saying it's right (it's not!). I am just saying that when the West invaded Russia it hardly had as a motive to assist the legitimate authorities. I would never blame the Chechens or the Persians for being fearful of Russia, but the Poles or Balts (who more than anybody tried to occupy, subjugate and partition Russia)? The Germans or French? Maybe the Brits or the Hungarians (who sure had their own little Empire going!)? This is beyond ridiculous...
And yet the East Europeans were so terrified of Russia that they decided to replace one occupation by another. Forgive me if I have no respect whatsoever for that kind of paranoia, ignorance of history or simply crass russophobia.
As for the West Europeans, probably motivated by their own inferiority complex (well, after all, Europe never freed itself from Hitler - it was freed by others!) and definitely egged on by the Anglosphere, they decided not only to turn what could have been a "Europe of fatherland" (as de Gaulle wanted) into a faceless meltingpot run by unelected EU bureaucrats but they also engaged in an "admission spree" for both the EU and NATO, sure as they were that "the more the better" which, of course, made both NATO and the EU much worse of than it was before.
So now we have the worst of "old Europe" mixed with the worst of "new Europe" and all of that ruled by the Anglosphere which, itself, has now been largely taken over by Zionists interests. I don't know about you, but to me this so-called "united Europe" inspires only disgust and contempt. Especially that this was far from inevitable.
If Europe had taken the example of its own great leaders, people like de Gaulle or even Mitterrand, it would never have accepted the subservient role it now has in the AngloZionist Empire. One does not need to be wealthy or powerful to keep his dignity and self-esteem. So I categorically reject the argument that under the AngloZionist Empire the Europeans "could do nothing about it".
Excuse me, but if Berlin could rise up in 1953, Hungary could rise up in 1956, Czechoslovakia could rise up in 1968 and Poland could rise up in 1980, I don't see how you can make the case that today this is impossible. Even inside the Soviet Union there were numerous uprisings (Temirtau 1959, Murom 1961, Aleksandrov 1961, Krasnodar 1961, Novocherkassk 1962 - heck there were even uprisings inside the GULag, as in Ekibastuz in 1952). I would even argue that the real length of the Civil War which followed the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution was from 1917 until 1946, when the country was finally and truly pacified by the Communist leaders. So there was plenty of resistance to the Soviet regime.
But maybe good old uprisings are now "passé"? Okay - fair enough. But what prevents the people from, say, Poland, Germany or Bulgaria from following the example of Alain Soral in France and create their own version of Egalité et Réconciliation or, at least, the French National Front?! Nothing, of course.
I do see some signs of a growing revolt: George Galloway and Nigel Farage in the UK or Laurent Louis in Belgium are clearly beginning to show signs of doing more than opposing this or that policy - they are opposing the system itself. In France, Marine Le Pen unfortunately clearly turned out to be a "dud", but Florian Philippot (currently in charge of strategy and communications) shows some potential. The big problem with these, shall we say, "sovereignist" parties is that they are still mostly stuck in a "conservative" or even outright reactionary position (though not Galloway!). What Europe completely lacks is a solid "sovereignist Left" similar to what the French Communists almost became in the late years of Georges Marchais.
[Sidenote: The Europeans seem to have forgotten that capitalism is not a European tradition, but an Anglo ideology. They have forgotten that while the north of Europe fell under the influence of Reformed/Protestant Christianity with its emphasis on individual predestination and work, the culture and traditions of rest of Europe were shaped by Latin Christianity, with a much deeper sense of social justice, equality and community. Alain Soral is quite correct when he speaks of an "Old Testament world" which now blends Reformed/Protestant ideology on one side and the rabbinical Phariseic Judaic ideology on the other. It is no coincidence that we live in an AngloZionist Empire and not a, say, FrancoZionist or HispanoZionist one.]
When France had the Trente Glorieuses (30 glorious years of happiness) it was because de Gaulle knew how to balance both economic progress and social welfare rather than subjugate the entire country to Big Banks (which Pompidou did as soon as he came to power). Even the UK had a semblance of social solidarity inherited from the difficult war years.
But now, what do we see?
Most European economies are undergoing a deep crisis. I am not talking only about Greece or Cyprus here, I am talking about France, Spain, but also the Baltic States, Bulgaria and Ireland. Socially, Western Europe has simply added East European immigrants to its already massive amount of immigrants from Africa and the Balkans. It takes a blind person not to see that the EU is taking water from all sides and is basically sinking. And it is under such conditions that the EU now gets involved in the Ukrainian mess, as if it did not have enough problems without having a bona fide Nazi regime on its doorstep and yet another tsunami of economic immigrants about to join the Romanians, Latvians, Gypsies, Turks, Algerians, Kurds, Iraqis, Africans, Georgians or Albanians already sinking the European boat.
Seriously, how stupid and how blind can on become?!
As for NATO itself, it is a pathetic fighting force. This is rarely said openly, but everybody in the military knows that. And that is not a problem at all, because NATO's *true* role is to maintain the US grip on the European continent. There is nothing new here, as early as in 1949 the first NATO Secretary General, Lord Ismay, admitted that NATO's true role was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down". Now this has changed to only "the Americans in, and everybody else down". Hardly a sign of progress. NATO also has a secondary role, to be used by European bureaucrats to foster their career and their power. So really the core purpose of NATO is to be NATO. And if that means inventing a non-existing threat such as Iranian missiles or "massed Russian forces at the Ukrainian border" - then so be it.
[Does anybody remember that NATO once seriously declared that Yugoslav MiG-29s could pose a threat to London (I cannot prove that, but I remember that hilarious claim vividly - the MiG-29 is a light and short-range fighter)?]
Truly, the new Cold War with Russia in Europe has exactly the same function as the Global War on terror worldwide and the War on Drugs inside the USA: to terrify the general public and to justify lavish spending for full-spectrum aggression on everybody, from the average American (War on Drugs), Russia or even Papua New Guinea (GWOT!).
Everybody in Europe knows and understand most of the above. Many, in fact, understand it all. And yet nobody does anything about it. Nothing. It's like the entire continent is in some kind of catatonic stupor. Hence the absolutely disgraceful European vote recently at the UN when every single country in Europe (even Greece!!) voted in favor of the Banderastani regime in Kiev with the sole exception of Serbia (Bosnia-Herzegovina happened to have a Serbian president and Belarus is, for all practical purposes, not only part of Russia, but also threatened by the Ukie Nazis)! And did anybody in Europe protest against this?
How can Europeans make fun of the putative ignorance of history and geography of Americans when they themselves act in a manner so clearly in contradiction with even a basic understanding of these matters?!
Tell me, my fellow Europeans, if Americans are really so ignorant, then how is it that they are running the show in Europe? How is it that we are their colony and not the other way around? Might that have something to do with the fact that when they were our colony they rebelled and kicked us out while we seem unable to return them the favor?!
And if Europeans lack the courage of Americans, why can't they at least speak up and protest, you know, like Soviet dissidents did? Like Alain Soral does today?
To me the answer is sadly obvious: Europeans have lost any sense of self-worth or dignity. They have become what Malcolm X used to call "house Negroes". Listen to Malcolm X himself speak about this, listen carefully, and ask yourself this basic question: is there a single word spoken by X here, just one, which does not fully apply to modern Europeans? Just one?
Don't Europeans treat their AngloZionists masters *exactly* like the "house Negro" treated his masters?
So my question is this: where are the European "field Negroes"?
So yes, I am disgusted with Europe and its politicians. And I am disgusted with the deafening silence of the my fellow Europeans. I find no excuse for it. If African slaves could rise up against their masters, how is it that Europeans seem to have this special fondness for their current overlords?
There is one final question I need to address here: what about Russia? Is it part of Europe?
I did write about the history of Russia in past posts (see here, here and here) and I cannot repeat it all here. I will say that the only part of the Russian society which has had a deep attraction for western Europe has always been either the reactionary nobility or the liberal elites. For the vast majority of Russian people, even today, the people of the Caucasus or Central Asia are far closer culturally than western Europeans and their central European friends. The only exception to this are the Serbian people who have always been close to Russians (the Russian Tsar Alexander III once said to the Montenegrin Prince Nicholas he was "the only true, faithful and sincere ally Russia had in Europe". Little has changed since). But for the rest of Europe? Forget it.
Are there still "wannabe Europeans" in Russia? Sure! First, the group which I call "Atlantic Integrationists". Then the eternal bane of Russia: its liberals. Then most oligarchs (they love capitalism). Finally, the same kind of folks as we see in the Ukraine today: those who associate Europe with a high standard of living and halfway decent cops. Toss in a hodgepodge of homosexuals dreaming of living in Holland, potheads (also dreaming of Amsterdam), the many admirers of European architecture, entrepreneurs who are fed up with the dysfunctional and corrupt Russian legal system, members of West European branches of Christianity and a few others groups and you definitely get a pro-European constituency in Russia. But ask yourself - what do most of these groups and people have in common? What did reactionary aristocrats and liberal revolutionaries also have in common? The answer is simple: they simply don't like Russia. Oh sure, they will deny that, but if you dig just a tad deeper you will see that they like "a Russia" which never existed and which they aspire to bring about. But they never liked the real Russia, the only one which really exists. This simple truth - that these liberal "reformers" actually always hate the real Russia - is one truism with many Russian intellectuals and leaders have repeated many times, from Dostoevsky, to Solzhenitsyn to Putin today. And over and over again, people like Dostoevsky, Solzhenitsyn and Putin are the type of people which inspired the Russian masses to support them, because these masses always felt, almost instinctively, that pro-Western folks are always deeply alienated from them while leaders like Putin are true Russians who love Russia for what it is, not what it should be.
This being said, history and geography have linked Russia to Europe and in that sense, Russia will always be part of Europe. This is what Putin - and others - mean when they say that Russia will always be part of Europe: they mean that because Europe has had a huge, and sometimes even positive, impact on Russia and because it is simply impossible to build a real "Iron Curtain" which would exclude Russia from the future of Europe. There are many in central Europe - Poles in particular - who would deny their own eastern and Slavic roots and who would love to see a huge wall cutting Poland forever off its eastern neighbors. I suppose that if these folks had magical scissors they would simply cut out Poland and move it to, say, southern France (there is a myth that France and Poland are particularly close whereas in reality the only thing binding these two countries together are their Masonic loges). Ditto for the Balts who would gladly move to somewhere along the Norwegian border. So when Putin says that "Russia will always be a part of Europe" he is trying to remind these folks that magic scissors do not exist and that no matter what, Russia will have influence and say in the future of Europe. I am sure that Dostoevsky and Solzhenitsyn would agree.
But it is one thing to be aware of history and geography and quite another to make fundamental civilizational and development decisions. The "Eurasian Sovereignists" are not dreaming of magic scissors to relocate Russia to the South Pacific or the Indian subcontinent, they simply believe that Russia has to invest its energy and efforts towards developing the immense human and natural resources of the Russian East and North and that for historical, cultural and religious reasons Russia can find much better friends and allies in Asia than in Europe. I have to say that I completely agree with this vision.
Europe has become a continent whose leaders can openly votes in support of a vicious and openly neo-Nazi regime in Kiev without any backlash at all. The EU will send the Banderists in Kiev money which it denies to the Greeks, and these same Greeks then vote in support of the Banderists. Judging by the amount of laws passed in EU countries to ban racism, revisionism, negationism and even Fascism or National-Socialism one could get the mistaken impression that racism is frowned upon in the EU. This is not so. That only applies to anti-Jewish racism. But anti-Russian racism is actually the official order of the day, and it enjoys a consensus support from the European elites.
So I sincerely ask you all, my friends and readers, what shall Russia do in response to that? Pretend like this is not happening? Try to shame Europeans into realizing what they have done (like Lavrov has been trying so many times)? Does it not make sense for Russia to follow a simple course: try to avoid as best can be any wars or confrontations with the West (and that will be decided by the USA anyway) and turn towards the South, East and North for its future?
Honestly, what is the very bust Russia can hope for on its western borders?
The Saker
